Emergence of Murjiʾat al-Fuqaha

• Murjiʾat al-Fuqaha arose in Kufa at the hands of scholars such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120 AH).
• Their position emerged as a response to the extremism of the Khawarij and the Muʿtazilah, who declared major sinners disbelievers.
• Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) stated that the Murjiʾah appeared seeking to keep all of Ahl al-Qiblah within Islam, but by doing so they opposed the Khawarij and Muʿtazilah and ended up saying actions are not part of iman (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 13/38, 17/446).

Their Innovation

• They were called Murjiʾat al-Fuqaha because they were fuqaha of Ahl al-Sunnah who fell into this limited form of irjaʾ.
• Their innovation was to exclude outward deeds from the definition of iman, regarding them instead as its fruits and requirements. Ibn Taymiyyah quoted: “The Murjiʾah, both the mutakallimun among them and the fuqaha among them, say: deeds may be called iman only metaphorically” (Kitab al-Iman, Ibn Taymiyyah)
• Unlike the Jahmiyyah, who said iman is knowledge, or the Karramiyyah, who said it is speech alone, the fuqaha Murjiʾah affirmed iman of the heart and tongue.

The Salaf’s Condemnation of Irjaʾ

• The Salaf warned against irjaʾ from its earliest appearance. Ibn Taymiyyah recorded: the Salaf condemned the Murjiʾah for removing actions from iman and for saying iman does not differ among people (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 7/555–556).
• Ibrahim al-Nakhaʾi (d. 96 AH) said: the tribulation of the Murjiʾah is more fearful for the ummah than the Azariqah.
• Al-Zuhri (d. 124 AH) said: no innovation harmed Islam more than irjaʾ.
• Al-Awzaʿi (d. 157 AH), Yahya ibn Abi Kathir (d. 129 AH), and Qatadah (d. 117 AH) all considered irjaʾ the most dangerous of deviations.

Were They Declared Disbelievers?

• Despite condemnation, none of the Salaf declared Murjiʾat al-Fuqaha disbelievers. Ibn Taymiyyah stated explicitly: “I do not know of anyone among them who openly declared them disbelievers. Rather, they were agreed that they are not declared disbelievers in this matter” (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 7/507–508).
• Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) was asked if disbelief enters the one who says iman is statement without action. He replied: “They are not declared disbelievers by that” (al-Khallal, Kitab al-Sunnah 3/574).
• Ahmad and other imams condemned their view as innovation but prayed for them, permitted praying behind them, and did not expel them from Ahl al-Sunnah.

Agreement with Ahl al-Sunnah on Core Beliefs

The fuqaha Murjiʾah agreed with Ahl al-Sunnah that:

Iman includes affirmation of the heart and speech of the tongue.

Obligatory deeds are compulsory.

Major sinners are punished in Hell but eventually removed by Allah’s mercy and intercession.

Their dispute was over wording: Whether outward deeds are included in the definition of iman or are only its necessary fruits. Ibn Taymiyyah described this as a verbal dispute (Majmuʿ al-Fatawa 7/575).

Consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah

• The consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah, affirmed by al-Shafiʿi (d. 204 AH) in al-Umm, was that iman is statement, action, and intention, and none of the three suffices without the other.
• Scholars such as Wakiʿ (d. 197 AH) and Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) clarified: Ahl al-Sunnah say iman is statement and action, Murjiʾah say iman is statement, and Jahmiyyah say iman is knowledge.
• Ibn Abi al-ʿIzz (d. 792 AH) explained that the difference between Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) and the rest of Ahl al-Sunnah was formal. Both agreed that major sinners remain believers under Allah’s will, and that iman is not nullified entirely by sin. The dispute was over definition, not over core belief.

Final Judgement

• Murjiʾat al-Fuqaha were innovators in wording by excluding actions from iman, but they upheld the main doctrines of Ahl al-Sunnah in punishment, obligation of deeds, and intercession.
• Their error was considered the lightest form of irjaʾ and was mostly verbal, though it later opened the way to more serious deviations.
• The Salaf and imams condemned their saying as bidʿah but did not expel them from Ahl al-Sunnah or declare them to be kuffar.

Conclusion:

Murjiʾat al-Fuqaha are counted among Ahl al-Sunnah despite their innovation. They remained within the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah because they agreed on the punishment of sinners, the obligation of deeds, and the fundamentals of iman, even though they erred by excluding actions from the definition of iman. Their deviation was condemned, but they were not taken outside Ahl al-Sunnah.

It is one of the groups of the Murji’ah that appeared in Kufa at the end of the time of the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, at the hands of a group from the fuqaha of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaah, among them the faqih of Kufa Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120 AH).

The reason for the appearance of the madhhab of Irja was a reaction against the madhhab of the Khawarij and the Mu’tazilah, as Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“It was only introduced by a people whose aim was to make all of Ahl al-Qiblah believers and not disbelievers. They opposed the Khawarij and the Mu’tazilah, so they ended up on the opposite side.” (Majmu al-Fatawa 17/446)

He also said: “The Murji’ah appeared, and most of them were from the people of Kufa. The companions of Abdullah, meaning Abdullah ibn Masud (may Allah be pleased with him), were not from the Murji’ah, nor Ibrahim al-Nakha’i (d. 96 AH) and those like him. They became the opposite of the Khawarij and the Mu’tazilah and said: actions are not from iman.” (Majmu al-Fatawa 13/38)

They were called Murji’at al-Fuqaha because they were from the fuqaha of Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jamaah, and Murji’ah because they fell into a type of Irja, which was delaying actions from being included in the definition of iman. Their innovation was not major, but it was the beginning of the bidah of the Murji’ah which became one of the most serious and ugly innovations.

The shayk said: The Murjiʾah, both the mutakallimun among them and the fuqaha among them, say: deeds may be called iman only metaphorically, because action is the fruit of iman and its requirement, and because it is a proof of it

Kitab Al-Iman by Ibn Taymiyyah Page  155

The deviation of Irja developed until it reached the statement that iman is only knowledge. Irja became a wide door for abandoning the rulings of the Sharia, justifying sin and immorality, and making light of disobedience. From the fiqh of the Salaf is that they were alert to the danger of Irja from the time of its appearance, and they strongly condemned Murji’at al-Fuqaha.

Ibn Taymiyyah said: The Salaf strongly condemned the Murji’ah when they removed action from iman and said that people are equal in iman.

Without doubt, their saying that the iman of people is the same is among the ugliest of errors. People are not equal in affirmation, nor in love, nor in fear, nor in knowledge. Rather, they differ in many ways.

Also, their removing action implies that they also removed the actions of the heart, and this is absolutely false.

For whoever affirms the Messenger but hates him and opposes him with his heart and his body is certainly a disbeliever by necessity. And if they included the actions of the heart in iman, they still erred by saying that iman of the heart can exist without movement of the body.

Majmu al-Fatawa By Ibn Taymiyyah (7/555-556)

It has been established that a man is not a believer until Allah and His Messenger are more beloved to him than anything else. The believer is only the one who does not doubt and who strives with his wealth and his self in the path of Allah. So whoever does not have in his heart the necessary states of iman, he is the one from whom the Messenger negated iman, even if affirmation is with him.

Affirmation is from iman, but along with affirmation there must be something of love of Allah and fear of Allah. Otherwise affirmation that is not accompanied by any of that is not iman at all, but is like the affirmation of Pharaoh, the Jews, and Iblis. This is what the Salaf rejected upon the Jahmiyyah.

Al Humaydi (d. 219 AH) said, I heard Waki (d. 197 AH) say, Ahl al Sunnah say iman is statement and action, the Murji’ah say iman is statement, and the Jahmiyyah say iman is knowledge. In another narration from him, he said, this is kufr.

Muhammad ibn Umar al Kulabi (d. 245 AH) said, I heard Waki say, the Jahmiyyah are worse than the Qadariyyah. He said, Waki said, the Murji’ah are those who say affirmation suffices without action. Whoever says this has perished. And whoever says intention suffices without action, this is disbelief, and it is the saying of Jahm. The same was said by Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH).

For this reason, the saying that iman is statement and action, according to Ahl al Sunnah, is from the signs of the Sunnah. More than one narrated consensus upon this. We have already mentioned from al Shafi (d. 204 AH) what he mentioned of consensus on this in his book al Umm, where he said, the consensus of the Companions and the Tabiin after them and those whom we met was that they would say, iman is statement and action and intention, and none of the three suffices without the other.

Ibn Abi Hatim (d. 327 AH) mentioned in his virtues, I heard Harmala say, Hafs al Fard and Mislaq the Ibadi met with al Shafi in the house of al Jarwi and debated with him about iman. Mislaq argued for increase and decrease, and Hafs al Fard argued that iman is statement.

Hafs al Fard overcame Mislaq and overpowered him, and Mislaq weakened. So al Shafi became heated and took up the matter, affirming that iman is statement and action that increases and decreases. Then he crushed Hafs al Fard and refuted him completely.

Kitab Al Iman By Ibn Taymiyyah Page 240-241

Al Hallal (d. 311 AH) and others from the people of knowledge included those who say with jabr (compulsion) within the name Qadariyyah, even if they did not use qadar as an argument for sins. So how about the one who does use it as an argument for sins. And it is known that those whom Allah condemned from the Qadariyyah include, more severely, those who use qadar as a proof to drop obligation of command and prohibition, more than it includes those who deny qadar. For the corruption of this is greater.

For this reason the Qadariyyah were mentioned alongside the Murji’ah in the speech of more than one of the Salaf, and a hadith marfu is narrated in that regard. For each of these two innovations corrupt command and prohibition and reward and punishment. Irja weakens iman in the threat and makes light of the matter of obligations and prohibitions.

And the Qadari, if he uses it as a proof, becomes an aid to the Murji, and if he denies it, then he and the Murji are in opposition.

This one goes to excess in severity until he does not allow the servant to seek help from Allah in doing what He commanded and leaving what He forbade, and that one goes to excess in the other direction.

Majmu al-Fatawa By Ibn Taymiyyah (8/105-106)

Ibn Taymiyyah said about Murji’at al-Fuqaha:

“The Murji’ah emerged, and most of them were from the people of Kufa. The companions of Abdullah ibn Masud (d. 32 AH) were not from the Murji’ah, nor was Ibrahim al Nakha’i (d. 96 AH) and those like him. So they became the opposite of the Khawarij and the Mu’tazilah, saying that actions are not from iman.

This innovation was the lightest of innovations, because much of the dispute in it was a dispute over wording and names rather than over rulings. For the fuqaha who were connected to this saying, such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120 AH) and Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) and others, were in agreement with the rest of Ahl al Sunnah that Allah punishes whom He wills from the people of major sins with the Fire, then brings them out by intercession, as the authentic hadiths have mentioned.

And they agreed that iman requires speaking with the tongue, and that the obligatory actions are compulsory, and the one who abandons them deserves blood and punishment.

But when action is mentioned alongside iman, as in His saying, “Indeed those who believe and do righteous deeds” (al Baqara 25), it is then restricted with the conjunction. Here it may be said that actions are included in it and are mentioned separately as the specific after the general. And it may also be said that they are not included but are mentioned with it, just as with the words faqir (poor) and miskin (needy).

If either one is mentioned alone, it covers the other. But if they are mentioned together, then they are two categories, as in the verse of sadaqat, “Indeed zakat is for the poor and the needy” (al Tawba 60).

And as in the verse of expiation, “Its expiation is to feed ten needy” (al Ma’ida 89). And in His saying, “If you conceal it and give it to the poor, that is better for you” (al Baqara 271). So faqir and miskin are one when mentioned separately.

Majmu al-Fatawa (13/38-39)

Ibn Taymiyyah also said: “The major figures who were accused of irja, such as Talaq ibn Habib (d. 100 AH), Ibrahim al Taymi (d. 92 AH) and others like them, their irja was of this type.

He also said: “Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), Abu Thawr (d. 240 AH), and others from the imams had come to know the root of the saying of the Murji’ah, which is that iman does not go away in part and remain in part.

Rather, it is only one single thing, not multiple, not two or three. For if it had a number, then it would be possible that some of it goes away while some of it remains. Instead, they claimed it is only one thing. For this reason the Jahmiyyah said it is one thing in the heart, and the Karamiyyah said it is one thing on the tongue. All of this was an escape from the idea that iman can be divided and multiplied. For this reason they were debated with proofs showing that it is not one single thing, as you have said.

Abu Thawr used as proof what the fuqaha among the Murji’ah agreed upon, that iman is affirmation and action. He had not heard the sayings of their philosophers and their Jahmiyyah, or he did not consider their opposition a real opposition. Ahmad mentioned that knowledge and affirmation along with verbal confession are necessary.

He said, whoever denies knowledge and affirmation has spoken a tremendous falsehood, for the corruption of this saying is known by necessity from the religion of Islam. For this reason no one before the Karamiyyah held it.

Even though the Karamiyyah did not deny the obligation of knowledge and affirmation, they said it does not enter into the name iman, fearing the idea of division and multiplicity. For they saw that it is not possible for some of it to go away while some remains. Rather, that would mean iman and arrogance exist together in the heart, and they believed there was consensus on denying that, as al Ashari (d. 324 AH) and others mentioned.

This was the doubt that misled them, even though many of them had knowledge, worship, good Islam, and iman. For this reason, in the irja of the fuqaha entered a group whom the ummah regarded as people of knowledge and religion. For this reason none of the Salaf declared any of the Murji’ah of the fuqaha to be disbelievers.

Rather, they considered this among the innovations of sayings and actions, not from the innovations of beliefs, for much of the dispute in it was verbal. But the wording that conforms to the Book and the Sunnah is what is correct, so it is not allowed for anyone to speak with what contradicts the saying of Allah and His Messenger, especially since this became a path leading to the innovations of the philosophers of irja and others, and to the spread of sin.

So that small error in wording became a cause for a great error in aqeedah and in actions. For this reason the condemnation of irja became severe, until Ibrahim al Nakha’i (d. 96 AH) said, their tribulation, meaning the Murji’ah, is more fearful for this ummah than the tribulation of the Azariqah.

Al Zuhri (d. 124 AH) said, no innovation was introduced into Islam more harmful upon its people than irja. Al Awzai (d. 157 AH) said, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir (d. 129 AH) and Qatadah (d. 117 AH) both used to say, there is no group from the desires more fearful in their eyes upon the ummah than irja.

Sharik al Qadi (d. 177 AH), when mentioning the Murji’ah, said, they are the sisters of a people. It suffices you with the Rafidah being jinn, but in the case of the Murji’ah they lie upon Allah. Sufyan al Thawri (d. 161 AH) said, the Murji’ah have left Islam more delicate than the cloak of Sari. Qatadah (d. 117 AH) said, irja only appeared after the tribulation of the faction of Ibn al Ashath (d. 83 AH).”

Majmu al-Fatawa (7/393-395)

988 – Musa ibn Sahl said, Muhammad ibn Ahmad al Asadi narrated to us, Ibrahim ibn Yaqub narrated to us, from Ismail ibn Saeed, he said, I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), do you fear that disbelief enters upon the one who says iman is statement without action? He said, they are not declared disbelievers by that. (In its chain is Musa ibn Sahl. I say, even though the Salaf condemned the saying of the Murji’ah and declared them innovators, they did not declare them disbelievers. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) said, I do not know of anyone among them who explicitly declared them disbelievers. Rather, they are agreed that they are not declared disbelievers in this matter.

Imam Ahmad and others from the imams clearly stated that these Murji’ah are not to be declared disbelievers. Whoever transmits from Ahmad or other imams that they declared these Murji’ah disbelievers, or made them among the people of innovation over whom there is dispute about declaring them disbelievers, has erred a great error. Majmu al Fatawa 7/507.)

989 – Abu Bakr al Marwadhi (d. 275 AH) said, it was said to Abu Abdullah Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), the Murji’ah say iman is statement, so supplicate for them. He said, supplicate for their rectification. (Its chain is authentic.)

Kitab As Sunnah Al Khallal (3/574)

Ibn Taymiyyah also says: “Without belief of the heart, it is the statement of the hypocrites, and this is not called a statement except with restriction, as in the saying of Allah, “They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts” (Al Imran 167). Likewise, the action of the limbs without the actions of the heart is from the actions of the hypocrites, which Allah does not accept.

So the saying of the Salaf, that iman includes statement and action, comprises both the inward and the outward. But since some people may not understand that intention is included within that, some of them added, and intention.

Then others clarified that absolute statement, action, and intention are not accepted except with conformity to the Sunnah. And this is true as well, for those first said statement and action to show that iman includes the genus, and they did not intend by that to mention all the attributes of statements and actions. Likewise, the saying of those who said belief in the heart, statement of the tongue, and action of the limbs.

They made statement and action a name for what is outward, so they needed to add belief of the heart. And it is necessary that the belief of the heart include the actions of the heart that accompany affirmation, such as love of Allah, fear of Allah, reliance upon Allah, and the like. For including the actions of the heart in iman is more deserving than including the actions of the limbs, by agreement of all the groups.

Some of the fuqaha from among the followers of the Tabiin did not agree to apply the term “decrease” to iman, because they found mention of increase in the Quran but did not find mention of decrease. This is one narration from Malik (d. 179 AH). The other narration from him, which is the well known one among his companions, and the saying of most of them, is that iman increases and decreases.

Some of them shifted from the wording of increase and decrease to the wording of tafadul (difference in levels). They said, iman differs and varies. This is narrated from Ibn al Mubarak (d. 181 AH). His intention was to turn away from wording in which there was dispute, to a meaning whose truth is beyond doubt.

Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120 AH) and those who followed him rejected the idea of tafadul of iman, and rejected the entry of actions into it, and rejected istithna in it.

These were from the Murji’ah of the fuqaha. As for Ibrahim al Nakhai (d. 96 AH), the imam of the people of Kufa and the teacher of Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, and those like him, and those before him from the companions of Ibn Masud (d. 32 AH), such as Alqamah (d. 62 AH) and al Aswad (d. 75 AH), they were among the strongest of people in opposing the Murji’ah, and they used to make istithna in iman. But Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman opposed his predecessors, and those who followed him followed this, and groups from the people of Kufa and those after them entered into this.

Then the Salaf and the imams strongly rejected these Murji’ah, declared them innovators, and spoke harshly against them. I do not know of anyone among them who openly declared them disbelievers. Rather, they were agreed that they are not declared disbelievers in this matter. Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH) and other imams clearly stated that these Murji’ah are not to be declared disbelievers.

Whoever transmits from Ahmad or other imams that they declared these Murji’ah disbelievers, or made them among the people of innovation concerning whom there is dispute about declaring them disbelievers, has made a great error. What is preserved from Ahmad and others like him among the imams is only takfir of the Jahmiyyah who made tashbih, and others like them. Ahmad did not declare the Khawarij or the Qadariyyah to be disbelievers, if they affirmed Allah’s knowledge, but denied the creation of actions and the comprehensiveness of His will. It is narrated from him regarding takfir of them two different reports.

As for the Murji’ah, there is no difference in his saying that they are not declared disbelievers. Ahmad did not even declare the individuals of the Jahmiyyah to be disbelievers, nor did he declare everyone who was called a Jahmi to be a disbeliever, nor did he declare everyone who agreed with the Jahmiyyah in some of their innovations to be a disbeliever.

Rather, he prayed behind the Jahmiyyah who called to their saying, put people through trials, and punished those who did not agree with them with severe punishments, yet Ahmad and those like him did not declare them disbelievers.

Rather, he believed in their iman and their imamate, and he supplicated for them, and he saw it permissible to pray in congregation behind them, to make hajj with them, to make jihad with them, and to forbid rebellion against them, just as he saw for others among the imams. He condemned the false saying they introduced, which is tremendous disbelief, even if they themselves did not know that it was disbelief.

He used to condemn it and strive against them to repel it according to what was possible. So he combined between obeying Allah and His Messenger in manifesting the Sunnah and the religion, and condemning the innovations of the Jahmiyyah who inclined to unbelief, with preserving the rights of the believers among the imams and the ummah, even if they were ignorant innovators, or unjust sinners.

Those well known ones, such as Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman (d. 120 AH), Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH), and others from the fuqaha of Kufa, used to consider statement of the tongue and belief of the heart to be part of iman. This was also the saying of Abu Muhammad ibn Kullab (d. 240 AH) and others like him. Their sayings did not differ in this, and it is not transmitted from them that they said iman is merely affirmation of the heart.”

Majmu al-Fatawa (7/506-508)

The dispute is verbal in the issue of iman when the opponent accepts that the iman in the heart necessitates outward actions of speech and deed, but disputes whether those outward actions are part of the iman inside or only necessary consequences of it. In this case the dispute is considered verbal.

Ibn Taymiyyah said: When this becomes clear, and it is known that the iman which is in the heart, of affirmation, love, and other matters, necessarily brings about outward matters of outward statements and outward actions, just as complete intent along with ability necessarily brings about the intended act, and that it is impossible for the obligatory iman in the heart to exist without the appearance of what it requires and entails, then the intellectual doubts in this issue are removed.

What remains is only a verbal dispute, whether the requirements of inward iman are a part of it and included within its meaning, so that the word iman indicates them by inclusion and generality, or whether they are necessary to iman, resulting from it and being its fruit, so that the indication of iman to them is by way of necessary implication.

Majmu al-Fatawa (7/575)

The Shayk also said: “It has become clear that the religion must include statement and action, and that it is impossible for a man to be a believer in Allah and His Messenger with only his heart, or with his heart and his tongue, while he does not perform any outward obligation, neither prayer, nor zakat, nor fasting, nor any of the other obligations. If he does acts like fulfilling trusts, speaking truthfully, or being just in his division and judgment, without iman in Allah and His Messenger, this does not take him out of disbelief. For the polytheists and the People of the Book also see these matters as obligatory. So a man is not a believer in Allah and His Messenger while lacking any of the obligations that were made obligatory specifically by Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.

Whoever says that the obligatory iman can exist without doing any of the obligatory actions, whether he considers those obligatory actions as necessary to it or as part of it, then this is a verbal dispute, but it is a clear error. This is the innovation of irja, about which the Salaf and the imams spoke strongly against its people, saying harsh words that are well known. And the prayer is the greatest of those obligations, the most comprehensive, the first, and the most exalted.”

Majmu al-Fatawa (7/621)

Imam Ibn Abi Al Izz Al Hanafi said: “The conclusion of all of this returns to the fact that iman is either what exists in the heart, the tongue, and the limbs altogether, as the majority of the Salaf held, including the three imams and others, may Allah have mercy on them, as has preceded. Or it is in the heart and the tongue without the limbs, as al Tahawi (d. 321 AH) mentioned from Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) and his companions, may Allah have mercy on them.

Or it is only in the tongue, as has been mentioned from the Karamiyyah. Or it is only in the heart, and that is either knowledge, as Jahm ibn Safwan (d. 128 AH) said, or affirmation as Abu Mansur al Maturidi (d. 333 AH) said, may Allah have mercy on him. The falsehood of the saying of the Karamiyyah and of Jahm ibn Safwan is clear.

The difference between Abu Hanifa and the rest of the imams of Ahl al Sunnah is a formal difference. For whether the actions of the limbs are necessary to iman of the heart, or they are part of iman, while they are agreed that the doer of a major sin does not leave iman, but is under the will of Allah, if He wills He punishes him, and if He wills He pardons him, this is a verbal dispute that does not result in corruption of creed.

Those who held that the one who abandons prayer is a disbeliever, they added to this foundation other proofs.

Otherwise the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, negated iman from the fornicator, the thief, the wine drinker, and the one who seizes property, yet this did not necessitate the complete removal of the name of iman from them by agreement. There is no disagreement among Ahl al Sunnah that Allah, exalted is He, has required from the servants both statement and action. By statement is meant affirmation of the heart and confession by the tongue.

This is what is meant when they say, iman is statement and action. But what is required from the servants, does the name of iman include all of that? Or is iman one of them only, which is statement alone, and action is something different not included in the name iman when it is mentioned alone, and if both are mentioned together then action is attached to it metaphorically? This is the place of dispute.

They are agreed that if a person affirms in his heart and confesses with his tongue, yet refuses to act with his limbs, then he is disobedient to Allah and His Messenger, deserving of threat.

But among those who say that actions are not included in the name of iman are some who went so far as to say, since iman is one thing, then my iman is like the iman of Abu Bakr al Siddiq (d. 13 AH) and Umar (d. 23 AH), may Allah be pleased with them both, rather they even said it is like the iman of the Prophets and Messengers and of Jibril and Mikail, peace be upon them.

This is extremism from them. For disbelief with iman is like blindness with sight, and there is no doubt that people who see differ in the strength and weakness of their sight. Among them is the one with weak sight, the one who sees thick lines but not thin ones except with a lens or the like, the one who sees only from very close, and another who sees only from far away.”

Sharh Aqeedah of Tahawiyya Pages 333-334