For the study of any topic the existence of a framework is vital. Islamic aqeedah being the most vital issue of Islam a framework for establishing the Islamic aqeeda is required.

One might ask the question, what do you mean when you say the framework of Aqeedah – I will attempt to explain.

As an example I will discuss how Iman Shafi set up a framework for extracting shariah rules

Imam Shafi’i is reputed to be the one who delineated the principles of deduction (usul al-istinbat) and regulated it with general/comprehensive principles. Thus, he was the originator of the science of usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), the Fuqaha before al-Shafi’i, from the time of Sahaba, Tabi’un and those after them, did used to deal with issues of usul al-fiqh and educe and oppose (evidences). Such as the narration about ‘Ali b’ Abi Talib (r.a.) that he spoke about the mutlaq (absolute), muqayyad (restricted), khas (specific), ‘amm (general), abrogator (nasikh) and the abrogated (mansukh). However, that was not in a defined or set out manner. And those Fuqaha who dealt with certain issues of usul al-fiqh did not possess general and comprehensive principles to which they referred, in order to understand the indication of the Shari’a or to know how to oppose or outweigh them. But when al-Shafi’i came, he derived the science of usul al-fiqh. And he laid down comprehensive laws to which reference was made in knowing the levels of the Shari’a evidences. He wanted to regulate real and existing issues ie he took the Shari’a texts and stopped at the limit of the text and at the limit of the reality which the text indicated and the people themselves witnessed. Regarding the issue of abrogation (nasikh wal mansukh), he established the principles of abrogation from the issues which, for him, had been proven to contain abrogations, taken from what has been mentioned in the ayah or hadith itself, or from the indication (dilala) of abrogation, or what has been narrated about the Messenger (saw) in terms of hadith which indicate abrogation, or whatever has been reported about the Companions of the Messenger of Allah in terms of reports and judgements. Not like many who came after him, when they saw a contradiction between two verses or hadiths, they immediately moved to say that one has abrogated the other. To the point they ended up making terrible errors/blunders. When al-Sahfi’i came with a principle he did not bring it from a logical premise (muqaddima mantiqiyya), rather he showed the sources from which he took it. Either from a report about the Prophet (saw) or from legal verdicts (fatwas) of the Sahaba. His approach in deriving/extracting regulatory (qawa’d dabita) principles was a practical one, in which he relied on the reality, the evidences, and on the application of those things on tangible facts. The most prominent aspect by which Shafi’is usul is distinguished, is that it contains general principles for the deduction (istinbat) of rules.

From the above example about how Shafi set up rules for the deduction of the shariah rules I want to highlight the need to set up rules which people used to use (but weren’t formally documented) and rules people should still use in arriving at thoughts which could be considered part of the Islamic Aqeedah.

The comprehension of the thought and the belief in whether it has a reality or not is 'Aqeeda. As a result of this we can see that it is imperative to understand thought and how to think – as indefinite methods of thinking will produce indecisive thoughts which cant be taken into Aqeedah and definite methods of thinkings will produce definite thoughts which should be taken into Aqeedah.

Therefore it is imperative in this topic to set up rules that we can use when attempting to say whether or not we should take a thought into our Aqeedah or not.

Al Shafi set up rules for Usul Al Fiqh, not because people were deducing rules in an incorrect manner at his time – but because he had great forsight and realized that certain obvious/nondocumented rules which the sahaba understood due to their experience with the Rasool, them living life only for the Deen and the privilege they had to live in the era that they did, could in the future be lost if someone did not document them and make it easy for the ulema after him to proceed in the right manner to deduce shariah rules.

Hence he was the first to document what is now widely known as Usul Al Fiqh. As a result there is the saying of the scholars of Fiqh that – no scholar of usul exists without the hand of Shafi on his neck – meaning they owe Shafi a great favour for the general rules he laid down in order to make it easy for the people after him.

The difference between the topic of Fiqh and Aqeedah here is an important one – As the topic of Fiqh evolved it went through a few stages i.e.

1) Sahaba new all the rules and due to these rules being so widely known it would have considered as stating the obvious to document these rules for others who new them only too well i.e. you would tell a doctor that a human has a heart because it would be considered an unnecessary comment as it is to obvious to him

2) Al Shafi came along and documented all the general rules to deduce shariah rules i.e. he documented the science of usul which was documented in the minds of the sahaba but not on paper for generations after them to use

3) Scholars of Usul then used Al Shafi general principles (with some minor, legitimate differences in branch issues) through out the centuries when deducing shariah rules

As for Aqeedah we can summarise that it went through a few stages

1) The age of the Prophet(saw) – everybody new the general rules of how to approach the topic – these were not documented as it would have been considered unnecessary to document these rules as it would have been stating the obvious

2) Then came the age of the Khulafah Rashidoon were there was still no difference in the way people arrived at thoughts which were to be taken into the Aqeedah

3) After 100 years after the death of the Prophet saw and the muslim empire had grown emphatically they came across many different people from different nations who used to think in ways which the muslims had never come across – and therefore had to understand their ways of thinking in order to disprove them – unfortunately instead of learning the fallacy of them, certain people were in fact influenced by them and started to use these false thinking ways in relation to the Islamic Aqeedah – the most noticeable thinking method which the ummah was affected by was Greek logic – and the effects can still be seen today – and still have not been resolved across the whole ummah

4) Then many centuries later went the west had adopted the capitalistic way of life – and had been through the industrial revolution many scientific break throughs were made – to the extent that they fell in love with science and used to use this method exclusively in determining what was to be believed and what was not to be believed – and today it is obvious to see that many muslims have been effected by this as well, as you will often here classic quotes which are false from our elders such as – “Islam is correct because it agrees with modern science”.

So what is the difference then between the evolution of the topic of Usul Al Fiqh and the evolution of the topic of Aqeedah – why did it take 1000 years for the topic of usul al Fiqh to decline and why did it take only 100 years before people started making major mistakes in Aqeedah.

Answer

There was no Imam Shafi figure who came along and set up a framework for people to work within when dealing with the topic of Aqeedah – hence people were affected left right and centre and now we see the “fruits” of this – were it is now claimed by many that there are different “schools” in Aqeedah, that muslims have “legitimate” differences of “opinion” in Aqeedah

There should only be 1 “school” in Islamic Aqeedah
There should be no “opinions” – only facts
And differences are not “legitimate”

Therefore it is imperative to highlight what should have been highlighted many centuries ago, and that is document the framework to work within in the topic of Aqeedah i.e. realise the nature of different ways of thinking and their fallacy and the correct way of thinking and its correctness.

It is obvious from the very brief history of evolution of Aqeedah above that the 2 main issues which rocked the ummah were the use of logic and science.
It is obvious that there has been no one over the centuries who has come to unite the ummah on the correct way of thinking (framework) in the topic of Aqeedah

It is obvious that Greek logic and science were alien to the sahaba and the Prophet saw – and therefore are not neede in the topic of Aqeedah.

It is obvious that the ummah has to be united on their Aqeedah and can have legitimate differences of opinion in Fiqh (due to the nature of the topics).

It is obvious that the ummah suffered from not having a Shafi type figure in the topic of Aqeedah

It is obvious now that we need to discuss methods of thinking – their fallacy or correctness.

I hope people understand the analogy that I have made between the evolution between the 2 topics (Aqeedah and Fiqh) and the need for a framework in Aqeedah as our ummah so luckily had granted to us by Shafi in Fiqh

Related

Audio - Importance of Aqeedah

Archive

Series of Thoughts (Dhivehi)