Many of our sciences and knowledge require sifting and refinement, as innovation may come through development, and the addition and enhancement they need in terms of approach or in terms of critique and purification. Some of our traditional books have had subjects introduced into them that, upon rigorous research and scrutiny, are not found to belong to that genre or field of study. The incorporation of these subjects may lead to serious errors and pitfalls. Among these disciplines are books on creed, where topics have been included that on closer examination are found not to belong; rather, they have been inserted from another discipline, and returning them to their rightful field helps protect the general Muslim intellect from falling into the abyss of excommunication, immorality, or methodological imbalance in thought, and could potentially lead to excessive stringency in issues that do not require such severity.
The Wiping Over Socks
One of the issues we find in some books on creed is the matter of wiping over the socks, which was placed by Imam al-Tahawi in his renowned creed known as “al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah”. Many past and contemporary scholars of the nation have explained it, and within this creed, there is discussion about wiping over the socks. Al-Tahawi stated: “We see wiping over the socks in travel and residence, as has come in tradition,” and the commentators of al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah justify this inclusion in the creed on the grounds that it was meant to contradict the Shia who deny its permissibility.
Al-Babarti, one of its commentators, said: “This was mentioned to refute the people of rejection, as they denied the permissibility of wiping over the socks. Although it is a ruling of jurisprudence, it has been associated with creeds due to the abundant traditions about it, to counter the deniers.”
The reality is that the subject of wiping over socks – and other jurisprudential matters – should remain in its place in books of jurisprudence because in doing so, it does not move beyond the scope of discussion on a jurisprudential issue. The shifting of these matters to books of creed is misguided, even if those who placed it there justified it as intended to distinguish between the Sunni and Shia doctrines, claiming the Shia doctrine does not endorse wiping over the boots, and that it is a ruling widely transmitted from the Prophet, peace be upon him.
Governance and Leadership
The matter of governance and leadership has also shifted from jurisprudence to creed, this time from the Shia doctrine, which made the issue of governance and succession a matter of creed and its foundations, which is incorrect because the issue is purely jurisprudential. It pertains to political jurisprudence rather than creed. Several Sunni creed books also participated in this shift, as discussions on leadership and governance were moved to books of creed, as seen in “Al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya” and the annotations and explanations placed upon it. However, the difference is that the Sunnis categorized leadership and governance in terms of jurisprudential obligation, whereas the Shia placed it within the category of creed and fundamentals.
This infiltration even reached some writings of the Sunni reformist thought, as seen in the statement by Sheikh Hassan al-Banna, who said: “(Governance is counted in our jurisprudential books among the creeds and fundamentals, not among the jurisprudential and subsidiary issues).” Sheikh al-Qaradawi attempted to interpret his words, proposing that he may have meant the branches of creed, but the statement explicitly mentions the words “creeds” and “fundamentals.”
Perhaps al-Banna was driven to say this after witnessing in his time the denial of the presence of governance and politics in Islam. However, facing the denial of Islamic duties or obligations does not mean we should shift them from their jurisprudential place to a doctrinal position. Dr. Muhammad Amara wrote about this, suggesting it seeped from Shia thought, but it seems Amara was also incorrect, as al-Banna was not knowledgeable about Shia jurisprudence at that time. His statement was in the message of the fifth conference and was dated 1939, a time when there was very little intellectual interaction between Egyptians and Shia thought.
The issue of governance has no connection to creed except concerning the intended meaning of governance, namely: legislation, who legislates for the people, as in the verses: “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed” and “Indeed, judgment belongs to Allah alone.” Here, governance refers to Sharia ruling and who owns the legislation for people’s religion. However, governance in terms of managing the people in elections and other aspects falls under the category of political Sharia, i.e., the category of jurisprudence and subsidiaries, not among the fundamentals that enter the realm of faith and disbelief.
The shifting of an issue from jurisprudence to creed has caused some thoughts to become rigid regarding the matter of governance, seeking governance, and striving for it at all levels, whether those who supported the authority and saw the prohibition of revolt against it—even a peaceful one—and those who saw striving for governance as a matter of fundamentals and creeds, believing its absence signifies the loss of an important pillar. Indeed, it is important but within its domain, which is the domain of subsidiaries and jurisprudential obligations, not doctrinal obligations, related to faith and disbelief.
Seeking Intercession Through the Righteous
Among the most mixed-up issues in this regard is the act of some who incorporate the subject of seeking intercession with Allah through the righteous deceased, as when a person prays to Allah using the honor of the Prophet, peace be upon him, or the blessing of a pious individual as an intermediary. This is a purely jurisprudential matter, where it is said to be permissible or not, lawful or unlawful, but it is not one of the matters of creed that is deemed as disbelief or faith. The confusion here is turning such a subsidiary issue into a matter of creed, labeling it as polytheism, even though it is a controversial issue among jurists with balanced arguments for both permission and prohibition, but it remains outside the realm of belief. This is because the issue does not concern praying to other than Allah, but praying to Allah while the supplicant seeks the intercession of one of His righteous servants.
Swearing by Other than Allah
Similar to the previous issue is the matter of swearing by other than Allah, as when a person swears by the Kaaba, the Prophet – peace be upon him -, or the mercy of their father or mother. It is a jurisprudential issue, where it is said to be permissible or not, but it does not fall within the category of polytheism with Allah or within the realm of belief. Those who swear do not place the entity by which they swear in the same status as Allah but intend to emphasize the veracity of their statement by swearing by something of value to earn people’s trust. If this swearing were a matter of creed, faith, and disbelief, then jurists would have ruled that the husband who swears by divorce is apostate or disbeliever, and consequently, the issue would become one of separating the couple, not about whether the divorce takes place or not. There are numerous examples on this topic.
The Second Coming of Christ and the Emergence of the False Messiah
Among the issues that Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra – may Allah have mercy on him – refused to include in his book on Islamic creed are the second coming of Christ, peace be upon him, at the end of time, and the False Messiah. He stated: “We have omitted what has only been affirmed through individual reports, such as the descent of Jesus, peace be upon him, at the end of time, and the news of the False Messiah. Although we accept these reports and do not reject them, as we determined earlier in our speech, we do not add them to the core creed for which denial would be tantamount to disbelief.”
Our aim with the article is not to exhaustively list the issues that entered the field of creed and its books without belonging, but rather to provide examples of how scientific research can be harmed by the entry of one academic discipline into another, especially if constructions are based upon these errors, leading to serious pitfalls in the nation that may culminate in excommunication, immorality, or designating others as deviants, while the matter may justifiably invite differences among scholars.
