This chapter is taken from the book “Islamic Personality”
The Islamic ‘Aqeedah is Imaan (positive belief) in Allah (SWT), His Angels, Books, Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al-qadha’a wal-Qadar (divine fate and destiny) whether favourable or unfavourable being from Allah (SWT). The meaning of Imaan is the definite belief that conforms to reality and results from evidence. A belief deduced without evidence cannot be considered as Imaan. Without evidence, it cannot be considered and can only be considered as an item of news. Evidence is indispensable for any thing required to be part of Imaan, such that acceptance of it becomes Imaan. Therefore, the availability of evidence is a prerequisite for Imaan, irrespective of whether it is correct or incorrect.
Evidence is either rational or Naqlee (transmitted). What determines the nature of the evidence is the subject to be examined to confirm whether or not the Muslim should have Imaan in it. If the subject is accessible through the senses and can be perceived as such, the evidence is definitely rational. If the subject-matter cannot be accessed by the senses its evidence is considered Naqlee, and this evidence itself can be perceived through the senses. The categorisation of an evidence as a Naqlee proof suitable for Imaan is dependent upon proving it as an evidence using rational proofs.
Upon examination of those matters that the Islamic ‘Aqeedah demands Imaan in, one finds that Imaan in Allah (SWT) can be acquired through rational proof. This subject matter, the existence of a Creator for all tangible comprehensible beings, can be perceived through sensory perception. But imaan in angels is achieved through naqlee proof because the existence of angels is not accessible by the senses, neither the angels themselves nor anything that indicates their existence is perceived by the senses. Regarding Imaan in the Books, they are classified as follows. Imaan in the Quran is achieved through rational evidence because the Quran is comprehensible and tangible its miraculousness is comprehensible and tangible at all ages. On the other hand, Imaan in the other Books such as the Tawraah (Old Testament), the Injeel (New Testament) and the Zaboor (The Book of Psalms) is achieved through naqlee evidence. This is because the fact that such Books come from Allah (SWT) is not perceptible at all ages. They were rather perceptible during the life of the Messengers who conveyed them, through the miracles that were delivered. Those miracles terminated at the end of their time; thus they are not perceptible after the time of those who delivered them. But the information that these Books were from Allah (SWT) and that they were delivered by the Messengers is reported. So, their evidence is naqlee not rational, because of the intellect’s inability to comprehend at all ages that they were the speech of Allah (SWT), due to the inability to comprehend their miraculousness through the senses. Imaan in all of the Messengers is comparable to this. Imaan in Muhammad the Messenger is reached through rational evidence because the fact that the Quran is the speech of Allah (SWT) and that it was conveyed to us by Muhammad is accessible by the senses. Thus one’s perception of the Quran leads to his realisation that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (SWT). This is feasible at all ages and for all generations. Imaan in all other Prophets is reached through naqlee proof, because the evidence of the Prophethood of each of them is his miracle which people other than those who lived at the Prophet’s
time cannot perceive. All those who came later on until the Day of Resurrection cannot perceive those miracles. Thus no tangible proof of their Prophethood is available. The proof of their Prophethood is not reached by rational but rather by naqlee evidence. The evidence of the Prophethood of our Master, i.e. his miracle, is available and accessible by the senses; it is the Quran. Therefore, the proof here is rational. The proof of the Day of Resurrection is naqlee, because the Day of Resurrection is not accessible by the senses; nothing accessible by the senses indicates it. So no rational proof is available for it but rather a naqlee proof. Al-qadha’a wal qadar (divine fate and destiny) has a rational proof because Al-Qadha’a (fate) is man’s action that issues from him or happens to him against his will. It is accessible by the senses and is sensorially comprehensible; thus its evidence is rational. The Qadar (destiny) is the attributes activated in things by man, such as burning by fire and cutting by knife. These attributes are accessible by the senses and are sensorially comprehensible. Thus the evidence of Al-Qadar is rational.
This has been regarding the type of evidence required for the ‘Aqeedah. The specific evidence for each element of the ‘Aqeedah is as follows. The evidence of the existence of Allah (SWT) is exhibited in everything. The fact that tangible comprehensible things exist is definite. The fact that they are dependent on other (things) is also definite. So the fact that they are created by a creator is definite because their need means that they are created, since their need indicates the pre-existence of something; so they are not eternal. It should not be said here that a thing depended on some other thing not on a “non-thing”, and so things are complementary to each other, though in their totality they are independent. This should not be said because the subject of the evidence here is any specific thing such as a pen, a jug or a piece of paper, etc. The evidence is intended to prove that this pen or jug or that piece of paper is created by a creator. It will be obvious that this or that thing in itself is dependent on another, irrespective of that “other” on which it depends. This “other” on which a thing depends is definitely other than it, as is sensorially observed. Once a thing is dependent on some “other”, it is proven as not eternal and thus it is created. It should not be said that a thing consists of matter and is dependent on matter and so dependent on itself not on an “other”, and thus independent. This should not be said because even if we concede that a thing is matter and depends on matter, this dependence is dependence on something “other” than matter and not dependence on matter itself. This is so because an entity of matter alone cannot complement the dependence of another entity of matter; something other that matter is needed for this dependence to be complemented , and thus matter is dependent on something else, not on itself. For example, water needs heat in order to transform into vapour. Even if we conceded that heat is matter and water is matter, the mere availability of heat is not adequate for water to transform; a specific proportion of heat is needed for transformation to take place. So water is dependent on this specific proportion of heat. Something other than matter itself imposes this proportion and compels matter to behave according to it. Thus matter is dependent on that who determines the proportion for it and so it is dependent on someone who is not matter. Hence the dependence of matter on non-matter is a definite fact; so it is needy and thus is created by a creator. Thus the tangible perceptible things are created by a creator.
The creator has to be eternal with no beginning, since if He was not eternal it would been a creature not a creator. Thus being a creator necessitates being eternal. The Creator is eternal by necessity. Upon examining the things that might be suspect of being the Creator, it is concluded that the only candidates are matter, nature or Allah (SWT). To say matter is the creator is false because of what has just been explained, i.e. the fact that matter is dependent on the one who determines for it the proportion in order for the transformation of things to happen; hence it is not eternal; and that which is not eternal cannot be a creator. To say that nature is the Creator is also false, because nature is the aggregate of things and the system that regulate them such that every thing in the universe behaves in accordance with this system. This regulation does not come from the system alone, because without the things to be regulated there can be no system. It does not come from the things either, because the mere existence of things does not inevitably and spontaneously produce a system; nor does their existence cause them to be regulated without a regulator. Nor does it come from the sum of things and the system, because regulation does not happen except in accordance with a specific situation that compels both the system and the things. This specific situation of the things and the system is what makes regulation possible. The specific situation is imposed on the things and the system and regulation can happen only in accordance with it.
It does not come from the things or the system or the sum of both of them; hence it comes from “something” other than them. Thus nature, which cannot function except in accordance with a situation that is imposed on it, is dependent, and thus it is not eternal; and that which is not eternal cannot be a creator. Thus we conclude that the Creator is that whose attribute is eternality by necessity. That is Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.
The existence of Allah (SWT) is a perceptible and sensorially comprehensible, because the dependence of the tangible perceptible things on an eternal “thing” indicates the existence of the Creator. When man deeply reflects on the creatures of Allah (SWT), and examines closely the universe and attempts to comprehend time and place, he will see that he is only a very tiny atom in relation to these ever-moving worlds. He will also see that these many worlds are all functioning in accordance with specific way and fixed laws. Thus he will fully realise the existence of this Creator and comprehend His oneness and see His grandeur and capability. He will realise that all what he sees of the contrast between the day and the night, and the direction of the winds and the existence of the seas and the rivers and celestial orbits are indeed rational proofs and expressive evidences of the existence of Allah (SWT) and His oneness and capability. Allah Almighty says,
“Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alteration of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah (SWT) sends down from the skies, and the life which he gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth, (here) indeed are signs for a people that are wise.” (Al-Baqarah:164). Allah (SWT) also says,
“Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay they have not firm belief.” (at-Toor: 35-36).
It is through the ration that the existence of Allah (SWT) is comprehended, and it is itself that is employed as the method of arriving at Imaan (positive belief). Hence Islam ordered the use of ration and deemed it the evidence regarding Imaan in the existence of Allah (SWT). Thus the proof of the existence of Allah (SWT) is rational.
Those who advocate the timelessness of the world, and that it is eternal with no beginning, and those who claim that matter is eternal, and that it has no beginning; they say that the world is not dependent on anything but is self-sustained, because all the things that exist in this world are different forms of matter; they are all matter. When any of these things depends on the other, this is not dependence, because when something depends on itself, this is not dependence but independence. Thus matter is eternal and has no beginning, because it is self-sustained, i.e. the world is eternal and self-sustained.
The answer to this is twofold: first, the things that exist in this world are incapable of creating (anything) from nothingness, whether individually or collectively. Each thing of them is incapable of creating from nothingness. If another thing complemented it in one or more aspects, it would still be, together with the other thing, incapable of creating. Its incapability to create from nothingness is tangibly conspicuous. This means that it is not eternal, because an eternal (thing) must not be characterised with incapability; it must be characterised with ability to create from nothingness, i.e. the effected things must depend on it in order for it to be deemed eternal. Consequently, the world is not eternal and not timeless because it is incapable of creating. The incapability of something to create from nothingness is definite evidence that it is not eternal.
Second, is what we have affirmed that a thing is dependent on a proportion that it cannot surpass in the process of complementing any other thing’s dependence. Here is an explanation of this. (A) is dependent on (B) and (B) is dependent on (C) and (C) is dependent on (A). Their dependence on one another is evidence that each one of them is not eternal. The fact that each complements the other or satisfies the need of the other does not happen in an unregulated manner but in accordance with a specific proportion, i.e. in accordance with a specific order. And the fact that it cannot fulfill this complementation except in accordance with this order and that it is incapable of surpassing it, this indicates that the thing which complemented (the other) did not fulfill the complementation solitarily but fulfilled it according to an order that was imposed on it by an “other” and it was compelled to conform to it. Thus the thing which complemented and that which was complemented both depended on that who determined for them the specific order in order for the complementation to happen. Both of them are incapable of surpassing this order. And the satisfying of the need cannot occur except in accordance with this order. Hence, that who imposed the order on both of them is the one to who is the need. Thus things collectively, even though each complements another, remain in need for an “other”, i.e. in need to that who compelled them to conform to the specific order. For example, in order for water to transform into ice, it needs temperature. They say that water is matter, temperature is matter and ice is matter; thus in order to transform into another form, matter needed matter, i.e. needed itself and did not need another thing. But the reality is contrary to this. In order for water to transform into ice, it needs a specific temperature not only a temperature. Temperature is one thing and the fact that it does not act except at a certain level is another thing, and this is different from temperature itself. That is, the proportion that is imposed on temperature in order to act and on water to be affected does not come from water; otherwise it would have chosen to be affected as it wanted. It does not come from temperature either; otherwise it would have chosen to act as it wanted. That is, it does not come from matter itself; otherwise it would have chosen to act or be affected as it wanted. It has to come from something other than matter. Hence, matter needs that who determines for it the specific proportion that it needs in order to act or be affected. This who determines the proportion for it is one other than them. So matter needs one other than it. Thus it is not eternal because that who is eternal and not bound by time does not need an other because it is independent of others; all things depend on it. The lack of independence of matter is definite evidence that it is not eternal and it is thus created. One single glance at the world makes any human realise that effecting things, whether they be of the type that occupies space or of the energy type, can only result from tangible perceptible things and a specific order between these tangible perceptible things in order for the effecting of things to happen. There is no creation from nothingness by this world. Nothing is effected in this world without being regulated and in conformity with this proportion. That is, nothing in this world is effected from nothingness or without proportion, i.e. without a specific order. Thus things that are effected and those that were effected in this world are not eternal or timeless. As far as things that are affected are concerned, this is
obvious in that they are effected from tangible perceptible things and it is obvious that in the process of being effected, they were submitted to a specific proportion that was imposed on them. Concerning things that were effected, this is obvious in that they are incapable of creating from nothingness and also in their submission against their will to a certain order that is imposed on them. This order does not come from them; otherwise they would be capable of departing from it and of not submitting to it; therefore it comes from other than these things. The incapability of the tangible perceptible things in the world, i.e. the incapability of the world to create from nothingness and their submission to a specific order that comes from an other is definite evidence that the world is not eternal or timeless but it is created by the eternal and timeless. Concerning those who advocate that creating is proportioning and conditioning and thus deny the existence of a creator from nothingness, their advocacy means that it is the tangible perceptible things and the specific order that is imposed on them are the ones who do the creating. This is because proportioning and conditioning cannot take place except in the presence of a tangible perceptible thing and a specific order that comes from someone other than this thing. This entails that creating comes from these two things: the tangible perceptible things and the specific order, and thus they are the creators. This is what is entailed by the advocacy that creating is proportioning and conditioning; it is definitely false. This is because the specific order does not come from the things or from itself, but it is imposed on the tangible perceptible things by another that does not belong to the perceptible tangible things.
Thus it is clear that proportioning and conditioning is not creating, because it is impossible for (things) to be effected solely by that. Thus it is necessary that something/someone that is not perceptible or tangible, who imposes a specific order for the tangible perceptible things in order for effecting to take place. This shows that proportioning and conditioning is not creation and that it is impossible for creation to take place with these only.
It should be noted that if a creator did not create the tangible perceptible things from nothingness, he would not be a creator indeed. Because he would be incapable of effecting things according to his will alone; he would rather be subject to something in company with which it can effect things. He would thus be incapable and not eternal, because he was incapable of effecting (things) by himself but needed something else. The one who is incapable and who needs (something) is not eternal. In addition, as a matter-of-fact, the meaning of a creator is the one who effects (something) from nothingness. The meaning of being a creator is that things depend in their existence on him, and that he does not depend on anything. If he did not create things from nothingness, or was incapable of creating when things did not exist, he would be dependent on things in effecting (things), and things would not be dependent solely on him. This means that he is not the sole creator and thus not a creator at all. So, a creator has to create things from nothingness in order for him to be a creator and has to be characterised with capability and will, independent of things, He should not depend on anything, and things should depend on him for their existence. Hence, effecting (things) has to be effecting from nothingness in order for it to be creation. The one who effects has to effect (things) from nothingness in order for him to be a creator.
Regarding the evidence of Imaan in Angles, it is a naqlee evidence; Allah (SWT) says,
“There is no God but He: that is the witness of Allah (SWT), His Angles, and those endued with knowledge, standing firm on justice.” [TMQ Ale Imraan 3: 19]. And He says,
“.. but it is righteousness to believe in Allah (SWT) and the Last Day, and the Angles and the Book, and the Messengers;” [TMQ al-Baqarah 2: 177]. And He says,
“Each one (of them) believes in Allah (SWT), His angles, His books, and His Messengers,” [TMQ al Baqarah 2: 286] And says,
“Any who denies Allah (SWT), His angles , His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgement, has gone far, far astray.” [TMQ an-Nisaa’ 4: 136]
Regarding the evidence of Imaan in the Books, the case of Quran is different from all other revealed Books. The evidence that the Quran is (revealed) from Allah (SWT) and that it is the speech of Allah (SWT) is a rational proof. This is because the Quran is a tangible perceived reality and the intellect can comprehend the fact that is (revealed) from Allah (SWT). The Quran is an Arabic text in its words and sentences. The Arabs did produce discourse, including the various types of poetry and the various types of prose. Texts of the discourse of the Arabs is still preserved in books and had been memorised and conveyed from generation to generation. The Quran is either the same as their mode of expression, which would indicate that it was uttered by an eloquent Arab, or it is a different mode of expression, which would mean that it was uttered by someone other than the Arabs. The Arabs are either capable of producing the like of it or incapable of this despite the fact that it is an Arabic discourse. If the Arabs produced the like of it, it would be the speech of humans like themselves. If they failed to produce the like of it, despite the fact that it is an Arabic discourse and that they were the most eloquent masters of expression, it would not be the speech of humans. Upon examining the Quran and the discourse of the Arabs, one finds the Quran to be a unique mode of expression, which is unprecedented by anything the Arabs have said. They never produced anything that belonged to the category of the Quran, neither before nor after it was revealed, not even by way of imitating it or parodying its style. This proves that it was not the Arabs who produced this discourse and thus it is the discourse of someone else. It has been proved through tawaatur (authoritative chain of reporting whose reports are beyond any doubt) that bespeaks certainty and incontrovertibility that the Arabs were incapable of producing the like of the Quran although it challenged them to do so. The Quran addressed them:
“And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah (SWT), if your (doubts) are true.”
It also said,
“Or do they say, ‘He forged it?’ Say: ‘Bring then a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone you can besides Allah (SWT), if it be you speak the truth!’” (Younus: 38). And it said,
“Or they may say, ‘He forged it.’ Say, ‘Bring you then ten Suras forged, like unto it, and call (to your aid) whomsoever ye can, other than Allah (SWT)! if you speak the truth!’” (Houd: 13). And it said,
“Say: “If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to produce the like of this Quran they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.” (Al-israa’: 88)
Despite this stark challenge, they failed to produce the like of it. If it is proved that the Quran was not produced by the Arabs and that the Arabs failed to produce the like of it, then the Quran is proved to have come form Allah (SWT) and that it is the speech of Allah (SWT). This is because it is impossible for any one other that the Arabs to have produced, and because it is an Arabic discourse, and because it rendered the Arabs incapable. It is wrong to say that it is the speech of Muhammad because Muhammad is one of the Arabs, and if the Arabs are proved incapable, then he himself is proved incapable because he is one of the Arabs. Moreover, everyone is governed by the mode of expression with words and sentences prevailing in his age or by the discourse reported from those who came before him. When he being creative in expression, he only uses words and expressions to convey novel meanings or in new figures of speech. It is impossible for him to utter (the like of) what he never sensed. It is evident in the genre of the Quran that the expression in it with words and sentences was not known by the Arabs, neither in the time of the Prophet nor before his time. As a human being , it is impossible for him to have produced the like of something that he had not sensed, because this is a rational impossibility. It is impossible for the Quranic mode of expression with respect to words and sentences to have been produced by Muhammad since he had not sensed it. Hence, the Quran is the speech of Allah (SWT) and Muhammad brought it from Allah (SWT). This was proved rationally when the Quran was revealed and it is proved rationally now because it continues to render human beings incapable of bringing the like of it. This incapability is proved sensorially and is sensorially comprehensible for all mankind.
In conclusion, the only conceivable sources of the Quran is either the Arabs or Muhammad or Allah (SWT), because the Quran is wholly Arabic and thus cannot have come from any other than these three. Yet it would be false to say that it was produced by the Arabs, because they were incapable of producing the like of it and they confessed to their incapability. They have until this day continued to be incapable of producing the like of it; this proves that it did not come from the Arabs. Thus it would be either form Muhammad or form Allah (SWT). It would also be false to say that it is from Muhammad, because Muhammad himself is an Arab, and however genius a person is he can never surpass his age. Thus if the Arabs are incapable, then Muhammad is also incapable; he is one of them. Moreover, the hadith (speech) of Muhammad was reported through tawaatur, for example his saying (SAW), “He who intentionally reports something false concerning me, let him reside in his place in hellfire”. If the speech of Muhammad is compared with the Quran, no similarity whatsoever is seen between the two types of text. This proves that the Quran is not the speech of Muhammad , and this proves that it is the speech of Allah (SWT).
It is noteworthy that all poets, writers, philosophers and thinkers of mankind commence (their writing) in a style that is characterised with some weakness; their style gradually improves until they reach the peak of their potential. Thus their style fluctuates in strength and weakness, apart from the occurrence of some frivolous thoughts and trite expressions in their texts. On the other hand, we find that style of the Quran from the day of the revelation of the first Ayah, “Read! in the name of your Lord and Cherisher, Who created,” (Al ‘Alaq: 1) until the day of the revelation of the last Ayah, “O you who believe! Fear Allah (SWT), and give up what remains of your demand for usury (riba), if you are indeed believers.” (Al-Baqarah: 278), was uniformly at its peak with respect to articulacy and rhetoric and the sublimity of the thoughts therein and the vigour of its expressions. You will never find one trite expression or one frivolous thought in it, but it is one homogeneous piece, to the smallest detail, its entirety is, in respect of style, just like one single sentence. This is proof that it is not the speech of human beings, whose speech is susceptible to divergence in expressions and meanings; but it is indeed the speech of the Lord of the Worlds.
This has been regarding the Quran as one of the revealed Books in which Islam demanded Imaan. The proof of the other revealed Books is naqlee not rational: Allah (SWT) says,
“O you who believe! Believe in Allah (SWT) and His Messenger and the scripture which He has sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him).” (Al-Nisaa’: 136). And He says,
“… but righteousness is to believe in Allah (SWT) and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers;” (Al-Baqarah: 177). He also says,
“To you We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it, and controlling over it.” (Al-Ma’idah: 48). And He says,
“And this is a Book which We have sent down, bringing blessings, and confirming (the revelations) which came before it” (Al-an’aam: 92). And He says,
“This Quran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah (SWT); on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it,” (Younus: 37).
Concerning Imaan in the Messengers, the case of our Master Muhammad is different from that of the other Messengers. The proof of his Prophethood is rational not naqlee. This is because the proof of the truth of the claim of someone claiming to be a Prophet or a Messenger is the miracles that he brought as an evidence for his Message and the Shari’ah
that he brought supported by those miracles. The miracle of our Master Muhammad that proves his Prophethood and Message-hood is the Quran. The Quran is itself also the Shari’ah that he brought. It is miraculous and continues to be so. Since it has been proved through tawaatur, which is a definite and decisive proof, that Muhammad is the one who brought the Quran, and that the Quran is the Shari’ah of Allah (SWT) and from Allah (SWT), and that none brings the Shari’ah of Allah (SWT) except Prophets and Messengers. This is thus a rational evidence that Muhammad is a Prophet and a Messenger of Allah (SWT).
The miracles of the rest of the Prophets expired and ceased to exist. The Books we have today lack rational evidence that they come from Allah (SWT). Because the miracles that prove that they come from Allah (SWT) have expired and ceased to exist. There is no rational proof to prove the Prophethood of any of the Messengers or Prophets except our Master Muhammad (SAW). But their Prophethood is proved through naqlee evidence. Allah (SWT) says:
“The Messenger believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believes in Allah (SWT), His angels, His Books, and His Messengers. We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His Messengers.” (Al-Baqarah: 285) . And He says,
“Say you: “We believe in Allah (SWT), and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord: we make no difference between one and another of them: and we bow to Allah (SWT) (in Islam).” (Al Baqarah: 136).
The proof of Imaan in the Day of Judgement, the Day of Resurrection, is naqlee not rational. Because the Day of Judgement is not accessible by the mind. Allah (SWT) says,
“.. that you may warn the Mother of Cities and all around her. Those who believe in the Hereafter, believe in this (Book),”(Al-‘An’aam: 92). And He says,
“… as to those who believe not in the Hereafter, their hearts refuse to know, and they are arrogant” (An Nahl: 22).
And He says,
“To those who believe not in the Hereafter, applies the similitude of evil.” (An-Nahl: 60). And He says,
“And to those who believe not in the Hereafter, (it announces) that We have prepared for them a Penalty Grievous (indeed)” (Al-Israa’:10). And He says,
“Then when one blast is sounded on the Trumpet, and the earth is moved, and its mountains, and they are crushed to powder at one stroke; On that Day shall the (Great) Event come to pass. And the sky will be rent asunder, for it will that Day be flimsy: And the angels will be on its sides, and eight will, that Day, bear the Throne of your Lord above them. That Day shall you be brought to Judgement: not an act of yours that you hide will be hidden” (Al-Waaqi’ah: 13-19).
The Prophet (SAW) says, “Imaan is to is to have belief in Allah (SWT), His angles, His Books, His summoning you to account, His Messengers and to have belief in Resurrection”.
These have been the matters that one must have Imaan in; they are five matters: Imaan in Allah (SWT), His Angles, His Books, His Messengers and the Day of Judgement, and to have Imaan in al-Qadhaa’ and Qadar (fate and destiny). None is deemed to have belief (Imaan) in Islam or to be a Muslim unless he has Imaan in all of these five matters and also in al Qadha’a wal Qadar. Allah (SWT) says,
“O you who believe! Believe in Allah (SWT) and His Messenger and the scripture which He has sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denies Allah (SWT), His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day Of Judgement, has gone far, far astray” (An-Nisaa’: 136).
The Quran and the Hadith mentions these five issues explicitly, unmistakably naming each of them and meaning the referent of each name. Imaan in any other issue explicitly named and the referent of the name meant, was not mentioned in any explicit and definite text, as is the case with these issues. The texts which are definite (Qat’ii) both in their chain of reporting (Qat’ii uth-thubuut) and in their meaning (Qat’ii ud-dalaalah, i.e. unambiguous) mentioned only these five, none else.
It is true that Imaan in al-Qadar was mentioned in the Hadith of Jibreel according to some versions of it, where it says, “he said ‘and that you believe in al-Qadar, both good and bad..’”. But this hadith is Khabar Aahaad (reporting of single individuals; non-mutawaatir). Moreover, what is intended here by al-Qadar is the knowledge of Allah (SWT) not the controversial issue of al-Qadha’a wal-Qadar. The issue of Imaan in al-Qadha’a wal-Qadar by this name and with the referent that is a subject of controversy was never mentioned in a Qat’ii (definite) text. Yet the referent of the term is part of ‘Aqeedah; thus Imaan in it is obligatory. It was never known by this name and with this referent at the time of the Sahabah. No Saheeh (authentic) text mentions it by this name and with this referent. Rather it became common only at the beginning of the era of the Tabi’iin (the Followers of the Sahabah). It became known and became a subject of discussion since that time. Those who introduced it and made it a subject of discussion are the Mutakallimuun (Muslim scholastics). It never existed before the emergence of Islamic Scholasticism, and was never discussed under this name “al-Qadha’a wal-Qadar” and with the same referent except by the Mutakallimuun (Muslim Scholastics) after the end of the first Hijri century.
