Many of our sciences and knowledge require a thorough examination of their texts, as renewal may come through development, adding what is necessary from a standpoint of approach, or in terms of critique and examination. Some of our traditional books have incorporated topics that upon scrutiny do not belong to that art or science. The entry of such topics into these disciplines can lead to serious mistakes and pitfalls. Among these sciences are the books of creed (Aqidah), where topics have been introduced that, upon examination, are found not to belong; rather, they have been introduced from another field, and restoring them to their proper place protects the general Muslim intellect from falling into the abyss of excommunication (Takfir), branding people as immoral (Tafsīq), or methodological flaws in thinking, and may even lead to extremism in issues that do not require such severity.
As examples of topics that have been placed in the books of creed, though their rightful place may be in the books of jurisprudence (Fiqh), the basis of the books of creed relates to the fundamentals of faith. This includes what brings a person into the circle of faith or what takes them out of it, and what actions or statements cause such an exit. Nonetheless, some topics have shifted from chapters on Sharia politics or branch jurisprudence to the books of creed, a transfer that is an error in need of correction and redirection to its origin.
Wiping over Leather Socks
In some books of creed, the issue of wiping over leather socks is found. Imam Al-Tahawi placed this topic in his famous work known as “Al-Aqidah Al-Tahawiyyah,” and many previous and contemporary scholars have commented on it. Within this creed, there is a discussion on wiping over leather socks, where Al-Tahawi states, “We see wiping over leather socks in travel and residence, as came in the tradition.” Those who explained the Al-Aqidah Al-Tahawiyyah justified the inclusion of the topic of wiping over leather socks in the creed by saying that the intent was to oppose the Shiites who reject the act.
One such commentator, Al-Babarti, stated, “This is mentioned as a response to the position of the rejectionists, as they have denied the legitimacy of wiping over leather socks. Although it is a matter of jurisprudence, it has been linked to creed due to the authenticity of the related traditions, in order to refute those who deny.”
In truth, the subject of wiping over leather socks—and other jurisprudential issues—should remain within the scope of Fiqh because it does not stray from the discourse of a jurisprudential matter. Its transfer to books of creed is not correct, even though those who placed it there justified the inclusion as being intended for distinction between the Sunni and Shiite doctrines, asserting that the Shiite doctrine does not support wiping over socks, and considering it a practice continuously narrated from the Prophet.
The issue of ruling and caliphate, which was turned into a matter of creed and its fundamentals by the Shiite doctrine, is incorrect as the issue is purely jurisprudential. It pertains to political jurisprudence and is not related to creed. Some Sunni books of creed have also included discussions of leadership and governance, as seen in “Al-Aqaid Al-Nasafiyya” and the marginalia and commentaries on it. However, the difference is that Sunnis consider leadership and governance as a matter of jurisprudential obligation, whereas the Shiites place it in the realm of creed and fundamentals.
This has also seeped into some writings of the Sunni reformist thought. For example, Sheikh Hassan al-Banna stated, “Governance is counted in our jurisprudential books among the creeds and fundamentals, not among jurisprudence and branches.” This attempt by Sheikh Al-Qaradawi to interpret his words may imply that Al-Banna meant branches of creed, but the statement explicitly refers to “creeds and fundamentals.”
The motivation behind Al-Banna’s statement might have been what he observed in his time regarding the denial of governance and politics in Islam. Although responding to the denial of Islamic obligations should not mean that we transfer them from their jurisprudential place to a creedal position, even if the denial is strong, it remains an Islamic obligation in its rightful place: the chapter of jurisprudence.
The issue of governance has nothing to do with creed, except regarding legislation. Who legislates for the people, as stated in verses like “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed,” and “Indeed, to Allah belongs the legislation.” Here, governance refers to Sharia ruling and who owns the legislation for people in their religion. However, governance in terms of managing people’s choices is a part of Sharia politics, a chapter of jurisprudence, not of the fundamentals involving belief and disbelief.
Moving issues from jurisprudence to creed has led to some ideas becoming rigid regarding governance, aspiring to rule, and striving for it at all levels, whether supporting the authority and seeing the prohibition of rebellion against it, even if it is peaceful, or those who see the pursuit of governance as foundational and creedal, viewing the absence of governance as the absence of an important pillar, which while crucial, belongs in the chapter of obligations, not creedal obligations, which relate to faith and disbelief.
Tawassul Through Righteous Individuals
Among the most mixed-up issues in this realm is the practice of some individuals who include the topic of seeking intercession to Allah through righteous deceased saints, such as invoking God through the status of the Prophet or the blessing of a saint. This issue is distinctly jurisprudential, where it is deemed permissible or impermissible, halal or haram, but it does not belong to creedal matters where terms like disbelief or faith come into play. The confusion lies in turning such a subsidiary matter into a matter of creed, declaring it polytheism (shirk), even though it is a contentious issue among jurists with equally weighted arguments for and against its permissibility. The subject is not related to invoking anyone other than Allah; rather, it is about invoking Allah himself but seeking intercession through one of His righteous servants.
Swearing by Other than Allah
Closely related is the issue of swearing by other than Allah, such as an oath by the Kaaba, the Prophet, or the mercy of one’s parents. This matter is jurisprudential, where it is deemed permissible or impermissible, but does not enter into the realm of associating partners with Allah (shirk) or belief matters. Those who swear do not hold the entity they swear by in the same regard as Allah but rather intend to take an oath on something valuable to them to be believed by others. If this oath were a matter of creed, faith, and disbelief, jurists would have ruled that a husband who swears by divorce repudiates his faith, and consequently ruled separation instead of the occurrence of divorce or not. There are many such examples in this area.
The Second Coming of Jesus and the Emergence of the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra, may God have mercy on him, refused to include the second coming of Jesus (peace be upon him) and the Dajjal (Antichrist) in his book about Islamic creed, saying, “We have left out what has only been verified by individual reports, like the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him) at the end of times and the tales of the Antichrist, because even though we accept them and do not reject them—as we have established in the beginning—we do not add them to the foundation of creed, which if denied categorizes one as an unbeliever.”
The goal of our article is not to enumerate the issues that entered the creed and its literature and do not belong to it. Rather, the aim is to provide examples to demonstrate how the scientific discourse can be harmed when a branch of science is inserted into another, especially if this error is built upon and leads to dangerous pitfalls within the nation, culminating in excommunication, declaring people as immoral or innovators in religion, while it’s a matter subject to scholarly debate.
