Bismillahirrahmanirahim

Audhobillahiminashaytaanirajim

Anti-Hanafi polemists claim Abu Hanifa has erroneously perpetrated a mistake rooted in Irja’
by virtue of his qawl, “Imaan cannot increase or decrease.” Their ignorance is only a product
of their intellectual subservity. Thus, the following has been dedicated to defend this
grandiose Imam from his slanderers.

Explaining the qawl of Abu Hanifa

Abu Hanifa acknowledged that in order to understand what Imaan is, we define it by it’s
essence, which is the belief in the 6 arkaan mentioned in the Hadith of Jibreel:

‫قال فأخبرني عن اإليمان قال أن تؤمن باهلل ومالئكته وكتبه ورسله واليوم اآلخر وتؤمن بالقدر خيره وشره قال صدقت‬

Abu Hanifa says that if the belief in these 6 arkaan goes down then an equivalent portion of
disbelief would also necessarily have to increase. This is the case from the perspective of
mantiq, where there are 6 maraatib of knowledge:

1. Yaqeen (100%)

2. Dhann (51-99%)

3. Shakk (50%)

4. Wahm (1-49%)

5. Jahl Baseet (0%, where they’re a Jaahil and they know that they’re a Jaahil, i.e. K_a(P))

6. Jahl Murakkab (less than 0%, where they’re a Jaahil but they don’t know that they’re a
Jaahil, i.e. ¬K_a(P))

Thus, there exists no middle ground between belief and disbelief; an individual either
believes with absolute certainty or necessarily harbours some degree of disbelief, which is
incongruent for a Mu’min and renders one agnostic.

This principle finds reinforcement in the Quran through the repeated analogy where belief
and hidaayah are consistently compared parallel to Nur and light, and one would know that
just like darkness is the absence of light, kufr is the absence of imaan.

Now, consider this question: Would the imaan of a disbeliever increase if they
perform most of the righteous deeds mentioned in the Quran and Sunnah? Keep this
question in mind as we proceed further.

The ‘ulama say that when Abu Hanifa took the path of saying that when the prophet ‫ﷺ‬
said:

‫( االيمان يزيد وينقص‬al imaanu yazidu wa yanqisu)

… he didn’t mean imaan as in primordial belief in 6 arkaan, because of course if belief
increases then disbelief must decrease the same portion, and Abu Hanifa reasons that how
can it be that a person in one state can have both imaan and kufr? A mu’min is purely a
mu’min and a kaafir is purely a kaafir, and there’s no doubt in a mu’min’s imaan and there is
no doubt in a kaafir’s kufr – this is on a scope of agnosticism.

His daleel is that Allah tells us regarding the believers

‫أولئك هم المؤمنون حقا‬

In absolute truth, they ARE the believers - that is, there cannot be any kufr in them

And similarly Allah says about the disbelievers:

‫أولئك هم الكافرون حقا‬

In absolute truth they ARE the disbelievers - that is, there cannot be any imaan in them.

Therefore, Abu Hanifa explains that what the prophet meant when he said that Hadith was
actually one of those 70 branches of imaan. It could be tawakkul, it could be your connection
to Allah, etc.

If you don’t do works your connection with Allah will of course decrease but your primordial
faith in him won’t necessarily decrease as we’ve just seen. Likewise, if you start complaining
“oh why doesn’t Allah help me he always tests me” that’s not necessarily reducing your faith
in him, rather it’s reducing the branches of tawakkul in him and your sabr, etc.

On the other hand, let’s say you did start doing more good works such as praying more
tahajjud, reading more Qur’an, and so-and-so, that doesn’t predicate your belief in the 6
arkaan of Imaan increasing does it?

Some may say, “no it does!” and cite the following Qur’an verse:

: {‫إنما المؤمنون الذين إذا ذكر هللا وجلت قلوبهم وإذا تليت عليهم آياته زادتهم إيمانا وعلى ربهم يتوكلون‬

However, what they don’t realise is this doesn’t support them either. Reading the Tafaaseer,
you will see that it’s talking about Yaqeen, and you can see that imaan is literally linguistically
juxtaposed to tawakkul. Grammatically it’s talking about Tawakkul and Yaqeen and the
tafaseer say this as well. Thus, it’s not talking about primordial faith in Allah so this verse is
irrelevant to what is being talked about.
The definition of Imaan in 8:2 as you can see in the tafaaseer is YAQEEN and TASDEEQ
and TAWAKKUL, i.e. the branches of Imaan!

Therefore, a good analogy to consider for this and which perfectly explains the view of Abu
Hanifa, is to consider imaan as a tree, with its trunk as the primordial belief in the 6 arkaan of
imaan, and the tree’s branches being things like tawakkul and fear and kindness and
so-and-so. If the branches of that tree grow or die, does that necessitate that the trunk of the
tree gets affected? Of course not! We may say the whole tree gets affected, because this
would necessarily cause an overall increase or decrease, but once again it’s important to
know what we’re talking about here.

Thus iman as in primordial faith remains constant because the increase of that faith can
only be accompanied by the decrease of kufr, and the decrease of that faith can only be
accompanied by the increase of kufr. Yet, it is not logical for one to be able to be possessive
of both imaan and kufr (disbelief) simultaneously. If your imaan increases by 10%, that would
mean your kufr would have to decrease by 10%.

So now coming back to the question I presented above. If a kaafir did all the good deeds (as
in qawl wa amal) in the Qur’an would his overall umbrella of imaan increase? If he reads
quran, does his imaan increase? If he does tasbeeh, does his imaan increase?

Of course not! For one to possess “Imaan” they would first have to affirm all of the 6 arkaan
of imaan. Thus, a Kaafir doesn’t have Imaan because they don’t believe in the truth and
reality entailed by at least one of the Arkaan. Therefore, no matter what qawl or amal he
does, the umbrella of Imaan will not and does not increase because he definitionally does
not have imaan. This further indicates that qawl wa amal is not a prerequisite for Imaan in
and of itself, because it’s presence or absence doesn’t affect the validity of that state. One
can do no ‘amal and yet still be a Mu’min. This is also demonstrated in the following Hadith:
As long as he had an atom’s weight of belief i.e. the shahadah, then he’d be taken out
the fire (after being punished temporarily for his sins). This is referring to whether he
definitionally has imaan or not, because this includes the person who didn’t do any ‘amal.

Therefore, you can either definitionally have imaan (which means to absolutely believe in all
of the 6 arkaan) or not.

We can say the same for a Muslim, let’s call him Bob. Bob used to pray Tahajjud, he used to
do a lot of dhikr, he used to read a lot of Qur’an, he used to carry out many good deeds, but
he’s stopped all of this except for reading the Qur’an in Salah; he’s now doing the bare
minimum. Does the same entity which we have established that a Kaafir, no matter how
much they do qawl and amal, DOES NOT HAVE, decrease in that case?

Since we’re talking about the same entity the kaafir lacks here, of course it won’t. The
Muslim believes in the truth entailed by all of the 6 arkaan, and thus definitionally has
imaan. This is the case if we keep the baseline of "Muslim" as affirming the five pillars, and
the baseline of "kaafir" as the one who does not believe in at least one of the six arkaan
(thereby not affirming the first of the five pillars).

This also relates back to the tree analogy, we can say that the overall tree of imaan for the
Muslim is affected, but not the trunk itself, which is what Abu Hanifa was contextually
referring to when he said Imaan remains constant.

A further indication to this is the fact that Imam Abu Yusuf and Muhammad state that their
Imaan is not like the Iman of the angels and Abu Bakr ‫رضي هللا عنه‬, which proves that here
they meant howness or conviction in the belief and not the beliefs themselves. In this case
Imaan would increase and decrease as Abu Hanifa explicitly mentions too:
Whereas, when they said Imaan doesn’t increase nor decrease, they intended that the
primordial belief in the 6 arkaan of imaan do not increase and decrease, it is either present
or it isn’t, as Imam Abu Yusuf and Muhammad said: “we believe in the same thing as Jibrīl
and Mīkā’īl and Abu Bakr ‫رضي هللا عنه‬.” Abu Hanifa said something similar. And it is pure
idiocy to say that Abu Bakr’s belief in the 6 arkaan increased and decreased, as this would
entail kufr as mentioned earlier.

This is also why Imam Nawawi in his sharh of sahih muslim quotes Imam al-Baghawi as
saying: “Imaan from the point of view of the language means the (primordial) belief
(which is what Abu Hanifa was affirming!), and by this meaning it neither increases or
decreases…”
It’s also derived from Kitab al-Irshad bi Sharh al-Iqtisad fi al-I'tiqad by sheikh Abdul Aziz bin
Abdullah Al-Rajhi when he was talking about two:

1. That it is permissible to respond to the question, “Are you a Mu’min (one who is in
the state of imaan)?” with “In shaa Allah” out of humbleness, if it was in regards to
the external aspects of Imaan, e.g. the actions, because there are numerous
obligations, and one cannot be certain that they have fulfilled all of them, then one
should say “In shaa Allah.” It is also because one should not boast about fulfilling
them, thus one should humbly say: “In shaa Allah.” It would also be the case if you
mean mu’min as a higher status and rank than a Muslim which is below muhsin then
yes in shaa Allah we will reach that. This is the practice of many of the Salaf,
Tabi’een, and Companions of the Prophet ‫ﷺ‬.
2. That it is impermissible to respond with “In shaa Allah”, and that is when it is in
regards to the essence of Imaan, i.e. what imaan is definitionally. This is how
some of the Salaf understood that question, as they responded to it with the fact that
they believe in the arkaan of imaan. This is why the Sheikh continues to say that
there should be no room for doubt when it comes to the asl of imaan, i.e. your belief
in the arkaan of imaan should be at the highest level of belief, yaqeen (100%
certainty), otherwise as Ibn Uthaymeen mentioned, it constitutes kufr because belief
entails certainty and doubt negates it:

Therefore, if one’s level of belief has to remain at 100% certainty, then it cannot
increase or decrease. If it cannot increase or decrease, then it would mean it remains
constant. This is the belief of Abu Hanifa.
Ibn Taymiyyah says this too. So when you look at it closely, no one actually disagrees with
what Abu Hanifa has said, because they necessarily can’t disagree. If they disagree after
knowing what he meant, then they have perpetrated a great error, otherwise it would entail
that they necessarily believe that they fluctuate between belief and kufr.

Now that you are fully aware of the evidences and the reasoning, we can proceed to
conclusively establish that there are different definitions of Imaan — ie it’s an umbrella term.

Establishing that there are different definitions of Imaan accepted in

Ahlus sunnah wal jamaah
The “ijmaa” on the definition of imaan was baseless at Abu Hanifa’s time because the
convention was only made by a group of ahlul hadith during the time of Abu Hanifa and his
teacher, because of the fitnah being spread by the Murji’ah and khawarij. His teacher
Hammaad rejected this definition because he thought it was unnecessary and not really
clear cut, and then he was accused of Irjaa’ himself. Either way, it doesn’t matter if people
were accused of something if we can actually investigate their beliefs and come to an
opposite conclusion. At the time even Imam Malik was hesitant to say Imaan decreases:
This is also another very good definition because let’s say someone who’s unsure about the
existence of Allah, the more EVIDENCE you give them ie the verses and signs of Allah as
mentioned in 8:2, the MORE their iman increases. But when you give someone more
evidence their iman CAN’T decrease.

Imam Malik’s definition of Imaan here is belief and the level of certainty in the existence of
Allah, his angels, his books, his messengers, yawmul qiyamah, and qadr increases with the
more evidence you give a person. Then Ibn Atiyyah goes on to say those who view the
word imaan as obedience and affirmation say it increases and decreases. And then he also
says it constitutes the increase of GOOD WORKS for the people who view the word imaan
that is incumbent on obedience and affirmation, and THOSE ARE THE ONES WHO SAY it
increases and decreases.

Even Ibn Uthaymeen says:

‫ فاألقوال إذن أربعة‬:

1. ‫ يزيد وينقص‬: ‫ أن تقول‬.

2. ‫ وهذان ألهل السنة والجماعة‬، ‫ ينقص‬: ‫ يعني وال تقل‬، ‫ يزيد وال ينقص‬: ‫ أن تقول‬.

The 2nd is Imam Malik’s predominant opinion. Ibn Taymiyyah also highlights this opinion:
As for his “rujoo3” on that then it’s not thaabit, he still had the opinion of tawaqquf and it’s
through more turuq, e.g.:

‫ وتوقف في "إطالق" نقصانه‬. ‫ اإليمان يزيد‬: - ‫ أوال‬- ‫ ثبت عن اإلمام مالك بن أنس رحمه هللا أنه كان يقول‬.
‫قال عبدهللا بن وهب‪ :‬سئل مالك بن أنس عن اإليمان ؟ فقال ‪ :‬قول وعمل ‪ ،‬قلت أيزيد وينقص ؟ قال‪ :‬قد ذكر هللا سبحانه في غير آي‬
‫‪ ".‬من القرآن أن اإليمان يزيد ‪ ،‬فقلت له ‪ :‬أينقص ؟ قال‪ :‬دع الكالم في نقصانه وكف عنه‪ .‬فقلت بعضه أفضل من بعض ؟ قال ‪ :‬نعم‬

‫وقال ابن القاسم ‪ " :‬كان مالك يقول اإليمان يزيد وتوقف عن النقصان ‪ .‬وقال ‪ :‬ذكر هللا زيادته في غير موضع ‪ .‬فدع الكالم في‬
‫‪ .‬نقصانه وكف عنه " انتهى‬

‫ترتيب المدارك" (‪" – )53 / 1‬مجموع الفتاوى" (‪ ،)331 / 7‬زيادة اإليمان ونقصانه وحكم االستثناء فيه للدكتور عبد الرزاق"‬
‫البدر ‪ -‬ص ‪277‬‬

‫‪Another example is when imaan and islam are used separately without juxtaposition, imaan‬‬
‫‪is used to refer to Islam as a whole, but when imaan and islam are used together, Islam is‬‬
‫‪used for outward action and iman for inward belief. This is from the Sharh of hadith Jibreel,‬‬
‫‪and Ibn Taymiyyah also explains this:‬‬
Many other Ulama also affirm that there are different definitions of Imaan in Ahlus sunnah
wal jama’ah.

The Imaan of Iblis

Subsequent to all of this, one may inquire, doesn’t Iblis believe in all of the 6 arkaan, so why
isn’t he a Muslim?

It is true that Iblis definitionally has imaan because he believes in the 6 arkaan, alongside
the truth entailed by and the reality of each of them. However, this question presupposes
that there is only one route to kufr, which is false. There’s different types of kufr, and they all
come from rejecting something. Imam Ahmad says one type of kufr, kufr (of not judging by
shariah) is that which doesn’t make you a kafir, Abu Hanifa also mentioned this through a
narration of his. In the case of Iblis, he did the act of Ablasa which is the greatest rejection:
believing in God but rejecting his direct command even after you know the truth. That’s also
why Ibn ‘Abbas says his name is Iblis.
Action is not part of imaan
Lastly, prominent claims proclaim that Imam al-A’dham Abu Hanifa’s belief that actions are
not part of Imaan is incorrect, yet they fail to comprehend his view regarding Imaan being
inextricably and symbiotically connected with Action pertaining to faith.

Abu Hanifa believes that imaan is:

1) Tasdeeq bil Jinaan

2) Iqraar bil Lisaan

3) Ma’rifah bil Qalb

And for those who don’t know:

1. Is truthfulness / sincerity of belief in the heart and 3 is knowing that you have that belief in
your heart - you believe in Islam internally only.

Imaan cannot only be (1) and (3) because Ahlul Kitaab would therefore also be considered
Muslims, and the Daleel is that Allah says

‎
‫ابناءهم‬ ‫الذين اتيناهم الكتاب يعرفونه كما يعرفون‬.

Those who we gave them the book they have ma’rifah of it (they know it) the same way they
know their own sons.

2. Is testification of the tongue, your tongue must wilfully move and testify that there is no
god except Allah and Muhammad ‫ ﷺ‬is his final messenger. Because Abu Hanifa says
imaan is your belief in the 6 arkaan which is expressed by your testification with the tongue
and the belief in your heart. (Action is inextricably linked to that belief because if you believe
you have to do action, and if you do action for it to be valid you have to believe, as we’ll
explicate on in a bit.)

The belief of the Murji’ah is that Imaan is only (1) and (3).

Imaan cannot be (2) only because this would include the Munaafiqeen under the umbrella of
a believer, but Allah explicitly negates this when he says:

‎
‫لكاذبون‬ ‫وهللا يشهد ان المنافقين‬

And Allah bears witness that the munaafiqeen are indeed liars

Their testimony of faith is a lie, hence their testimony is null, and they are not Muslim. Hence
Imaan can’t be (2) only.

Abu Hanifa does not include Af’aal bil arkaan, and I shall explain why. There are two camps
when it comes to this - one camp says that the Madhhab of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah is
that action is part of faith, i.e. if Imaan had 70 branches, action would be one of them, or if
Imaan was a cake, one slice of that cake would be action.
However, Abu Hanifa’s Madhhab and qawl is different. He says that Action is not part of
faith, but rather they are inextricably linked together in a Laazim-Malzoom relationship ie
they are counterfactually interdependent. This is the camp I am a part of because it makes
more sense in every way.

Abu Hanifa gives several Adillah, such as whenever faith and action is mentioned in the
quran it’s always mentioned together but separately ie ‫ امنوا وعملوا الصالحات‬- indicating the two
are from different genera. The majority of people say action falls UNDER imaan, but Abu
Haneefah prefaces his opinion that every time it’s mentioned in the quran, it’s always those
who believe AND do good works - pinning them into different genuses.

Yet, they are counter factually interdependent - laazim-malzoom: one cannot be without the
other. There is no valid action without imaan, and there is no imaan without action.

This interpretation is supported by the Uslub, Taqdeem wat Ta’kheer. What is understood
from taqdeem and ta’kheer is the following:

- Taqdeem (‫)تقديم‬: Precede

- Ta’kheer (‫)تأخير‬: To come after

Thus, Taqdeem wat ta’kheer is the study of ordered juxtaposition, that ordered juxtaposition
is an Uslub from the many Asaaleeb of the Quran.
(page 198 and onwards)

Under Taqdeem wat ta’kheer, we have Tabarruk, Ta’dheem, Sabaq (sabaq with respect to
time and sabaq bil eejad), bidh dhaat, al ghalbah wal kathrah, and finally we have bil illah
was sababiyyah. Bil illah was sababiyyah tells us that if x comes before y, then y is
predicated on x. For example, the common expression in the Qur’an, “aleem al hakeem,” the
reason it’s never “hakeem al aleem” is because hukm (ruling) is predicated on knowledge in
the first place, the one who has all the knowledge can give the best ahkaam, one cannot
give hukms without having knowledge first. Being hakeem is cultivated off you being
knowledgeable, if you give a ruling before knowledge then it’s foolishness, and that’s what it
means to speak without knowledge. Thus, when Allah gives a hukm we shall not complain
because Allah knows everything. His rulings are always in virtue in the fact that he knows
everything: what’s best for us, what’s the best cause of action, etc. That’s why he always
puts aleem before hakeem.

Thus in the context of actions, we see that believing comes before carrying out righteous
deeds. This indicates that, as per bil illah was sababiyyah, by virtue of believing coming
before righteous deeds, it implies that you carrying out righteous deeds is predicated on
believing, i.e. you can’t perform righteous deeds if you don’t believe in the first place.
This is as we mentioned before, there is no valid action without imaan, and there is no
imaan without action. They’re inextricably linked together in a Laazim-Malzoom
relationship. Regarding the latter point, it’s already established that once you believe then
there are certain obligations one has to perform, such as prayer. If you reject any obligation,
then you no longer have Imaan as you don’t 100% believe in what Allah has sent.

Imam al-Ghazali also defends this view.

Adding onto Imam Ghazali’s point, Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah has posited the notion that
if an individual loses a finger, hand, or foot, they remain unequivocally classified as human,
but they may be called a deficient human.

In philosophical terms, a real essence signifies a property essential for an object's

existence, while any property that an object can exist without is considered accidental.
Individuals like Tom, John, Paul, and Harry are all the same in terms of their reality, differing
only in nonessential accidental attributes. For instance, Tom may have a hand while Paul
may not. The presence or absence of hands or feet does not alter the ontological essence of
a human, defined by rational and animalness. Their divergent nonessential attributes do not
alter their real essence.

This parallels to the coherence between actions and Imaan mentioned by Imam Abu Hanifa.
As Imam Ghazali said, “they are a superaddition,” exactly how the hands and feet are
superadditions to our real essences. Furthermore, the performance or absence of good
deeds does not impact the real essence of a mu’min, i.e. primordial belief in the 6 arkaan, it
only affects the Furu’. In regards to the entire tree of Imaan then regarding one who has an
absence of good deeds then it may similarly be called deficient because of the lack of
branches, there is no problem with that. Thus, Imaan as a whole would have decreased, but
not Imaan specific to the primordial belief in the 6 arkaan.
Another final example is regarding a chair. Let’s say a chair is defined as having 4 legs and a
back rest, and a table is defined as having a flat top and four legs, those are it’s real
essences, which differ from each other. In this analogy, the entirety of a chair could
represent a believer (with it’s real essence representing the essence of Imaan), whilst the
Table representing a disbeliever. Let’s further add, one chair is black, and another chair is
white. These are nonessential accidental differences which, if differ, do not affect the real
essence of that thing. In this case, it doesn’t change the fact that a chair is still a chair with
4 legs and a back rest. In the analogy, the black chair could represent a believer who has
done a diminutive quantity of good deeds, whilst the white chair would represent a believer
who has performed a great number of good deeds. If we compare the two, their real
essence have not changed and thus they both still have the equivalent, constant level
of Imaan. If, however, the believer’s essence of imaan has decreased so that the chair no
longer has a backrest and rather only 4 legs and consequently a flat top, then this would
mean that this person is no longer a believer, and the chair is no longer a chair, because
their real essences have changed!

Abu Hanifa finishes it off by saying that if action were to be assuaged and excused of a
person, this does not necessarily mean their imaan would decrease. If action is a stone that
HOLDS UP imaan, then the excusal of action would weaken faith. This is nonsensical and
abu Hanifa puts it by saying what about the menstruating and postnatal bleeding woman?
Salah is lifted from her but is it permissible to say that Imaan is also lifted from her? Does
her imaan definitionally decrease because she does not do that ‘Amal?

Similarly, he gives the example that zakaat is lifted from the poor person, but this does not
mean imaan is also lifted from him.

Thus we say, actions and sayings affect your overall umbrella of imaan, or as I specifically
declared in an analogy above, the entirety of the tree of Imaan, but they don’t affect the
essence of Imaan, which in the analogy earlier, the trunk.

Hence Af’aal bil Arkaan is less a ‘pillar’ and more a firm hand in hand with having faith
(Imaan).