What was introduced into the doctrine but not from it

Much of our science and knowledge needs to be sifted through books (Midjerney)

Many of our sciences and knowledge need to sift through their books. Innovation in them may be through development and adding what they need in terms of addition and development, in terms of handling, or in terms of criticism and sifting. Some of our heritage books have included topics that, upon research and scrutiny, are not found in this art or science. Entering this science may lead to serious errors and pitfalls, and among these sciences are the books of belief. There are topics that were introduced into them, and upon examining them we do not find them from them. Rather, they were introduced from another science, and returning them to this science leads to protecting the general Muslim mind from falling into error. The abyss of takfir, immorality, or systematic imbalance in thinking, and it may have led to extremism on issues that do not require this degree of extremism.

Let us give examples of topics placed in the books of faith, and their correct place, perhaps in the books of jurisprudence. The basic principle is that the books of faith relate to the foundations of faith, and what a person enters or leaves the circle of faith with, and what are the actions or words that take him out of it?

But some topics have moved from sections such as Sharia politics, or subsidiary jurisprudence, to books on faith, and their transfer to them is considered an error that needs to be corrected and the topic returned to its origin.

Wiping over the socks

Among the issues that we find in some books of faith is the issue of wiping over the socks. Imam Al-Tahawi put it in his famous doctrine known as the “Tahawi Doctrine,” and a large number of the nation’s previous and contemporary scholars explained it. We find within this doctrine the talk about wiping over the socks. Al-Tahawi said: : (We see wiping over the socks when traveling and at home, as stated in the narrations), and the commentator on the Tahawiyyah doctrine justifies the inclusion of talk about wiping over the socks in the doctrine, by saying that this is intended to contradict the Shiites who reject wiping over the socks.

Al-Babarti, one of its commentators, said: (This was mentioned only in response to the opinion of the people of rejection, as they denied the permissibility of wiping over the socks. Although this was one of the rulings of jurisprudence, when the narrations about it became known, he attached it to the beliefs, in order to ward off the denial of those who deny it.)

The truth is that the subject of wiping over the socks - and other jurisprudential issues - should remain in its place in the books of jurisprudence, because in doing so it does not fall outside the circle of talking about a jurisprudential issue, so its transfer to the books of doctrine is not correct, even if the one who placed it is justified by saying that it is intended to distinguish between the two schools of thought: Sunni and Shiite, and that the Shiite doctrine does not say about wiping over the socks, and that it is a frequent ruling from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.

It is one of the issues that moved from jurisprudence to doctrine, but this time from the Shiite doctrine. They made the issue of rule and caliphate one of the issues of doctrine and its principles, which is not correct, as the issue is purely jurisprudential.

The one who contemplates the point of view of Shiite jurisprudence will find that it is based on the meaning of a Qur’anic text, based on a repeated reading in the noble verse, in the Almighty’s saying: (And wipe with your heads and your feet up to the ankles) Al-Ma’idah: So the word (and your feet) has two readings with the kasra of the lam and its opening, so according to the kasra it is It is connected to wiping, and according to fatha, it is connected to washing. Whoever sees the washing of the feet - and they are all Sunni jurists - sees that wiping over the socks is sufficient for it, for the action of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - which was narrated from him by a large number of companions, reaching the point of frequency, and he saw Followers of Shiite jurisprudence, your feet are covered with wiping, so you wipe your feet and do not wash them, and nothing is sufficient for them other than wiping, and other details are found in the books of the schools of jurisprudence.

Regardless of which of the two opinions is stronger and more likely, wiping over the socks is mentioned in the Sunnah of the Prophet, which has reached the point of frequency, as many jurists and hadith scholars say, but the meaning of the verse does not prevent the opinion that the Shiites said, even if we do not prefer it, and therefore it remains a jurisprudential opinion in the circle of disagreement. Jurisprudence based on a text tolerates both sides, no matter how strong one side is, and how weak the other side is, so it remains in the circle of jurisprudence, not doctrine.

Governance and imamate

It is one of the issues that moved from jurisprudence to doctrine, but this time from the Shiite doctrine. They made the issue of rule and caliphate one of the issues of doctrine and its principles, which is not correct. The issue is purely jurisprudential, related to political jurisprudence, and not related to doctrine. A number of books have participated with them in the matter. Doctrine among the Sunnis as well, as the topics of imamate and rule have moved to the books of doctrine, as we saw in (the Nasfiyya Doctrines) and the footnotes and explanations that were placed on them, but the difference is that the Sunnis made imamate and rule in the chapter of jurisprudential obligation, but the Shiites put them in the chapter of doctrine and principles.

This leaked into some of the writings of the Sunni movement thought, so we saw this phrase in Sheikh Hassan Al-Banna, where he said: (And the ruling is enumerated in our jurisprudential books from the beliefs and principles, not from the jurisprudence and branches), and Sheikh Al-Qaradawi tried to direct his speech, that perhaps he meant the branches of the doctrine, but The sentence includes the word “beliefs and principles.”

Perhaps the motivation for Al-Banna’s saying that was what he saw in his time as a denial of the existence of governance and politics in Islam, but confronting the denial of obligations or duties in Islam does not mean that we move them from their jurisprudential position to their doctrinal position, until Dr. Muhammad Amara wrote about that, and that it leaked. Of Shiite thought, and I believe that Amara is also on the right side, as Al-Banna was not familiar with Shiite jurisprudence at that time, so his speech was in the message of the Fifth Conference, which was in the year 1939 AD, and at that time there was no intellectual communication between the Egyptians and Shiite thought except among a very few of them.

The issue of ruling has no connection with belief, except in terms of what is meant by ruling, i.e. legislation, one who legislates for the people, as in the verses: (And whoever does not rule by what God has revealed) and (Indeed, judgment belongs only to God), so the ruling here is intended by the Sharia ruling, and from He has the right to legislate for the people in their religion, but governance, in the sense of managing the people in making choices and other matters, is in the section on Sharia politics, that is: the section on jurisprudence and branches, and not in the section on principles that fall under the section on faith and disbelief, or belief.

The departure of the issue from jurisprudence to doctrine led some ideas to become more stringent about the issue of rule, seeking rule, and striving for it, at all levels, both among those who supported authority and saw the prohibition of departing from it, and stressed it, even if it was a peaceful departure, and among those who saw striving for rule, because in Chapter on principles and beliefs, and the absence of a ruling means the absence of an important pillar, and it is indeed important, but it is in its chapter, which is the chapter on branches, and jurisprudential duties, not doctrinal duties, which relate to faith and disbelief.

Beseeching the righteous

One of the most confusing issues in this regard is what some people do by introducing the topic of supplication to God through the righteous from the dead, such as calling upon the person of God - the Almighty - imploring Him for the sake of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - or for the blessing of so-and-so righteous guardian. This is a purely jurisprudential issue. It is said that It contains: permissible or impermissible, permissible or forbidden, but it is not one of the issues of belief in which it is said: disbelief or faith, and the confusion that takes place in it is to transform such a subsidiary issue into belief, so it is said about it: polytheism, and it is a controversial issue among jurists, and it is equivalent. It contains evidence of permissibility and prohibition, but it does not fall under the heading of belief.

This is because the issue is not related to supplication to anyone other than God, but rather to supplication to God Almighty, but the supplicant supplicates to God through one of the righteous among His creation.

Swearing by other than God

Close to this issue as well, is the issue of swearing an oath by someone other than God, such as a person swearing by the Kaaba, or by the Prophet - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - or by the mercy of his father or mother. It is a jurisprudential issue, in which it is said: permissible or not permissible, but it does not fall under the heading of polytheism. God Almighty - or in the matter of belief, because whoever swears an oath here does not place the one by whom he swears in the position of God - the Almighty - but rather he wanted to swear by something that has value to him so that people would believe him. If this oath was in the matter of belief, faith and disbelief, the jurists would not have made swearing an oath of divorce valid. Or does it not happen according to the intention of the one who swore? Did he intend divorce or not?

Because if the oath at that time was blasphemy, they would have issued a fatwa declaring the swearing husband an apostate or an infidel, and thus the issue here goes to separating the spouses, and not whether the divorce occurred or not.

There are many examples in this section.

The descent of Christ, and the emergence of the Antichrist

Among the issues that Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra - may God have mercy on him - refused to include in his book on the Islamic faith: the descent of Christ, peace be upon him, at the end of time, and the Antichrist. He said: (We left what has not been proven except by single narrations, such as the descent of Jesus, peace be upon him, at the end of time, and as narrations of Antichrist, even though we accept it and do not reject it as we decided at the beginning of our speech, we do not add it to the foundation of the belief, which considers whoever denies it to be an infidel.

Our goal in the article is not to limit the issues that have entered the doctrine and its books, and are not from them, but rather the goal is to provide examples to show how scientific research can be harmed when one scientific branch is introduced into another, especially if this mistake is built on and leads to serious pitfalls in the nation, leading to... To atonement, corruption, or innovation, while it is an issue in which researchers may differ.