Abu Hanifa and Murjea

The historians and authors of the books written on sects and ideologies, have counted Abu Hanifa as one with Murjea beliefs; as he believed that ‘Imaan’ is nothing but verbal agreement and inner acceptance and it is comprised of both these factors and Islam and ‘Imaan’ go hand in hand.

In the debate that took place between him and Jahm bin Safwan, which has been mentioned by Halli in the book ‘Manaqib e Abu Hanifa’, Abu Hanifa says: ‘If a person dies while he has the cognition of Allah and His attributes, and considers Him Unique and partner-less but does not verbally accept it, he died as an infidel and is the dweller of Hell. A believer will not be considered a believer unless he verbally accepts all that he believes in, and has faith in it.’

     It has been narrated from him that he divided ‘Imaan’ into three categories:

1. One who accepts from his heart and agrees verbally, will hence be counted as a believer in the eyes of God.
2. One who accepts from his heart but does not make a verbal agreement due to fear or ‘Taqayya’, he is counted as a believer in the eye of God but will not be considered a believer in the eyes of the people.
3. One who verbally agrees but does not accepts it from heart. In such a case, he will be considered a believer in the eyes of the people but an infidel in the eye of God.

Therefore, it is clear from this point that the complete ‘Imaan’ which a person should possess is one in which verbal agreement is indispensable; although acting upon the obligations is not a condition of the implication of ‘Imaan’! On the basis of this, Abu Hanifa is of the belief that ‘Imaan’ does not increase or decrease, and attributing ‘Imaan’ with both these adjectives is worthless. But the difference is made by the performance of obligations and forbading the prohibited actions, and the superiority and difference between the people is on this very basis, but no one has superiority over others on the basis of ‘Imaan’.[1]