بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Abu Huraira narrated Allah’s Messenger as saying:
“A man who had never done any good said to his family that if he died that they should cremate his body then spread half of it on land and the other half in the ocean. (He said) ‘I swear by Allah, if He had the ability He would punish me with a punishment that He has not inflicted upon anyone from existence.’ Thus when the man died they implemented what he ordered. Consequently Allah ordered the earth and it gathered what was within it. He ordered the sea and it gathered what was within it. Allah then said, ‘Why did you do that?’ He replied, ‘On account of fearing you O Lord and you are well aware of this.’ So Allah forgave him.”
Al-Bukhari: 7506, Muslim: 2756.
This narration found in the two authentic collections originates from Imam Malik with him being in their chains of transmission. It is also found in his work “Al-Muwatta” which was compiled prior to the two authentic collections. Likewise the chain with Malik is also found in Al-Khateeb’s work “At-Tarikh” and ibn Abdil Barr’s work “At-Tamheed.” The narration is also found, with a slight variation in wording, within Imam Ahmad’s book “Al-Musnad” and in At-Tabaraani’s “Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabeer.” It’s also found within other collections by leading specialists of hadith from scholars of the past and without doubt is authentic. A noteworthy mention, there are only two people between Imam Malik and Abu Huraira. Abu Zinad (whom Malik heard from directly) and A’araj (who heard it from Abu Huraira and narrated it to Abu Zinad) both of which are highly reliable in the science of prophetic narration (Hadith).
The selecting of this narration is motivated by the actions of some claimants to the Sunnah who act in contrary to what this prophetic narration indicates, specifically as relates to takfir (judging a Muslim to be a disbeliever) and tabdi (judging a Sunni to be an innovator). Derived from this narration and others are the very precepts, principles, and guidelines required to validate such a judgment that is either ignored or unknown to those that recklessly indulge in the subject. Hence what is desired is that all those who read this article will benefit from its contents and act accordingly in order to produce the overwhelming benefit, in situations of this nature, that the Islamic Legislation demands and Allah knows best.
The Analysis of Imam An-Nawawi on The Meaning of the Narration
The scholars differ concerning this narration as relates to its interpretation. Thus a group (of scholars) assert that it’s not correct to consider it to be that he desired the negating of Allah’s ability, as the one who doubts in Allah’s ability is a disbeliever. Undoubtedly it is stated in the last portion of the narration that he only ordered such due to fear of Allah whereas a disbeliever does not fear Him and there is no forgiveness for him. Thus these scholars say there are two interpretations for his statement (translated as “if He had the ability He would punish me”). The first being; ‘if He were to inflict upon me punishment’ i.e. impose it. The second, the word qadara – here takes the meaning straiten/limit like Allah’s statement:
“…by consequently straitening his provisions..” Al Fajr: 16
Likewise it is one of the interpretations which pertains to the Exalted’s statement:
“…and he presumed that We would never restrict/limit him..” Al Anbiya: 87
Additionally a faction (amid the scholars) state that the verbal expression is upon its apparent meaning; however, this man made the statement while not being in total control of his speech and its actual meaning he did not intend. On the contrary he said it while in a state of overwhelming bewilderment, fear, and severe anxiety insomuch that his alertness and reflection on what he said vanished. Thus he became, as relates to meaning, (of the) heedless and forgetful and this circumstance one is not taken into account for, on the contrary he is like another person who said, while overwhelmed with happiness when he found his riding beast, “you are my servant and I am your lord.” Thus he didn’t disbelieve on account of that due to bewilderment, and absentmindedness. It is reported about this narration in other than Muslim (the phrase) which means “in order for me to vanish/disappear from him;” this indicates the apparent nature of his statement “If He had the ability.”
Furthermore, a(nother) faction said that this is from allegorical speech of the Arab and its splendid usage dubbed the intermingling of doubt with certainty, like His speech:
“…and undoubtedly either us or you are rightly guided..” As-Saba: 24
So its composition illustrates doubt but its intent is certainty.
Moreover, a faction (of scholars) stated that the man was ignorant as relates to an attribute from Allah’s attributes, accordingly the scholars differed as relates to passing the ruling of disbelief upon the one ignorant to such. Al-Qadi said, “Among those that pass the ruling of disbelief on account of that is ibn Jarir At-Tabari and Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari said it initially.” Others said that the one ignorant to an attribute is not deemed a disbeliever, and is not excluded from faith due to it, in contrast to he who denies it; this is what Abul Hasan al-Ash’ari returned to and his speech was firmly established upon this, on account that he didn’t believe that (the other statement) with -unequivocal- belief declaring positively its validity and deeming it as religion and legislation. On the contrary, the only one who disbelieves is he who believes the speech to be true. Hence some said, “If you were to ask the people about the attributes (of Allah) surely you would find a scholar as relates to them being few.”
Also a faction said that this man lived during a time between prophethood when only monotheism benefitted as there is no accountability prior to the appearance of the legislation according to the correct opinion. This is due to the Exalted’s statement:
“..and We did not inflict punishment until We (first) sent a messenger.” Al Israa: 15
Lastly a faction said that he was in a time in which their legislation allowed the pardoning of a disbeliever, in contrast to our legislation, as that is from the acceptability of rationale with Ahlus Sunnah and it was only deemed out of the question in our legislation by way of the legislation. The Exalted says:
“Undoubtedly Allah does not forgive whomever associates a partner in worship with Him..” An-Nisa: 48
And other similar proofs and Allah knows best. [Explanation of Sahih Muslim]
Undoubtedly the speech is understood according to the apparent meaning, as this is the foundation related to speech within the Quran and authentic Sunnah. Sheikh Salih as-Sadlan said: The meaning of the principle “The Foundation as pertains to Speech is the Apparent Meaning” is the utilization of a speaker’s speech regardless if it’s from a legislator, or a contractor, or one making an oath, etc; is that it is obligatory to (logically) affirm (i.e. predicate) its verbal expressions on their apparent meanings when free from semantic and syntactic context that makes preponderant an allegorical intent. For instance, if a man said to another “I gift this item to you” and as a result the man takes it, then the speaker alleges that he meant by gift “sell” allegorically, and consequently demands an amount for it, his statement -in this instance- is not accepted, due to the foundation with regards to speech being its apparent meaning. (القواعد الفقهية الكبرى)
Sheikh Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymin said: The apparent meaning of speech is categorized into three;
1. A linguistic related meaning.
2. An Islamic Legislative meaning.
3. A culturally related meaning.
The linguistically related meaning is the employed verbal expression as pertains to what is established of it within the language. Consequently, what is excluded from our speech, “within the language” the apparent meaning that is either Islamically Legislative related and culturally related.
The Sheikh also said: The foundation is the linguistically related meaning, there is no deviating from that except with evidence. Thus we don’t affirm that a verbal expression is upon the apparent meaning as relates to the Islamically Legislative context unless it comes by conveyance of the Legislator, nor do we affirm it to be the apparent meaning as relates to the cultural usage unless it comes by conveyance of the people of the culture (i.e. who common speak using local usages or slang). Therefore the foundation is the apparent linguistic related meaning. (شرح الأصول من علم الأصول)
And this is what I hold to be correct as relates to the interpretation of the narration, as the Quran was revealed in clear Arabic, given to a Messenger who spoke in clear Arabic, and initially conveyed to a people who understood and communicated in plain Arabic. Additionally the Prophet -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- explained, detailed, and elucidated to the people the intent of the legislation in plain Arabic, and Allah knows best.
Benefits Derived From The Narration:
Aqeedah Mistakes in Some Cases Can Be Overlooked
A mistake in aqeedah doesn’t necessarily mean the destruction of the one who made the mistake. On the contrary, based on the circumstance of the one who erred, destruction for him in the next life may not be applied. This is something the narration clearly indicates and has been elucidated by erudite scholars of past and modern times.
Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani said: So Allah forgave this person whilst he had fallen into disbelief and polytheism on account of this directive of his to which there probably isn’t anything similar to it from what I know. In terms of its oppression and wrong we are well aware, yet Allah did not hold it against him, on the contrary He forgave him because He knew that the man did not give this order except on account of fear for Him.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/263)
The Sheikh -may Allah have mercy on him- also said: Thus this man included within these instructions (the implication) that Allah is not capable of returning him back to the state he was as a man; however, Allah brought him back to life as He said “be a man” and then conversed with him. Allah, He who is All Knower of what is within the hearts, knew that this man didn’t do his action while denying resurrection, on the contrary it was only fear from the amassed punishment for him which he acknowledged and (felt) he deserved, thus he gave this oppressive order.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/151)
This narration is one of many that the Sheikh used to support the statement “Every person that falls into disbelief doesn’t necessitate that disbelief falls upon him (i.e. is applied to him in ruling)” on account of the existence of something that obstructs such a ruling from being valid. Hence the prerequisites for the validity of a ruling of disbelief -or innovation- must be gathered, and whatsoever will prevent the ruling from being valid must be removed.
People Are Not Taken Into Account Due To Mistakes, They’re Taken Into Account Due to Being Deliberate
This is illustrated within this narration by way of undoubtable deduction, and in other authentic narrations in clear and explicit terms. Among them is the statement of Allah’s Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam-:
“Surely Allah, for me, has overlooked from my nation (their) mistakes, forgetfulness, and when they’re coerced (into doing something).” [Sunan ibn Majah: 2043]
Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali said: Mistakes are when a person intends something particular by his action, but his action unexpectedly achieves something other than what he intends. For example, a man intends to kill an enemy combatant but inadvertently kills a Muslim. Forgetfulness is to be mindful of a thing, yet forgets it at the time of implementation. Both of the two are overlooked, i.e. there is no sin against him. (جامع العلوم والحكم)
And this is the case with the man in the narration, he didn’t intend disbelief in Allah nor was he deliberate in that regard, on the contrary he made a mistake which usually stems from ignorance. Either complete ignorance of a thing or improper comprehension of a thing while unbeknownst to its true reality.
Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani said: If a Muslim desires Allah’s Face in all of what he adheres to as worship to Allah and what he believes in, yet he makes a mistake then there is no doubt that Allah will forgive him for his mistake. Additionally he is rewarded with one reward, this is what we adhere to as worship to Allah and accordingly we issue religious verdicts. So the essence of that (i.e. the claim that mistakes in the subsidiary issues are pardoned but the mistakes in the fundamental issues are not) is that it opposes the foundations and principles; that being that Allah will not take into account a person for his mistake, in contrast he will only take into account what was deliberate.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/263)
Note:
A related benefit to the subject is that all errors in creed are not deemed equal. In other words there are aspects of the creed in which a mistake therein is graver in magnitude than in another. Additionally there may even be an error in a ruling that carries graver ramifications on an individual than his error in creed.
Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani said: First; the differentiation in one aspect of creed and in another is an issue that has occurred and there is no doubt in that regard as the scholars of the Salaf made the differentiation. For instance, they passed the ruling of disbelief upon the Jahmiyyah and firmly believed in their disbelief, and issued verdicts for the killing of their leader. However, they did not pass the same ruling against the Ibaadiyyah, those who deny the gazing at Allah in the next life. They acted identically with the Mu’tazilah, those who similarly held this misguided idea. Instead they were content with declaring them as misguided as opposed to declaring them as disbelievers. Thus this is an issue that is creed related that is not befitting to debate as relates to the division of creed being “important” and (that which is) “more important.”
Take as an example the presentation we discussed yesterday, perhaps this is correct in being an example to the aforementioned speech, as I mentioned that every ruling must be coupled with creed. So what do we say about those who oppose the speech of the Messenger -sallahu alayhi wa sallam- “Every innovation is misguidance and every misguidance is in the fire”? They say that the issue is not like this, and that there are good and bad innovations like I explained yesterday concerning the narration “Whoever introduces into Islam a good sunnah.” Nonetheless they believed in contrast to this narration, so do we judge them to be disbelievers? No, we do not pass the ruling that they are disbelievers.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/146)
Sheikh al-Albani also said: Therefore the differentiation between the foundational issues (usool) and the subsidiary/branch issues (furoo) is a deviation from the Book and the Sunnah (i.e. errors in the usool are not pardoned whereas errors in the furoo are -when they emanate from one’s ijtihaad). On account of that I say that this righteous brother, if Allah wills, it is obligatory that he correct his knowledge with regards to this oppressive verdict at the very least. This is because the virtuous scholar being astray as pertains to any issue of creed e.g. the names and attributes, etc; from what some of the Ash’aris and Maaturidis fell into, then perhaps this is a result of their ijtihaad and not from evil intent. Hence it is not permissible to apply this statement except with restriction, i.e. whoever knows the truth then deviates then he is such and such.
Furthermore he doesn’t differentiate between whomever deviates in the issue of the names and attributes and what is connected to creed, and between he who deviates in an Islamic ruling. For instance a man knows that the truth is that bleeding doesn’t nullify wudhu; however, he strays and persists acting arrogantly with regards to the evidence. And how many of the subsidiary issues in which the scholars differ were some of their effect is more plentiful negatively upon the society than some affairs connected to creed? So you see he who denies, like some of the modern sects throughout the lands of the Muslims, he who denies the punishment of the grave; is his harm more plentiful or the fiqh related opinion that says the young Muslim woman who reaches the age of puberty is allowed to give herself away in marriage without permission from her guardian i.e. in contradiction to the authentic narration? Which of the two opinions is more severe upon the society in terms of corruption, the first one that denies the punishment of the grave or the one who denies the prerequisite of the guardian’s permission? There’s no doubt that the last is more severe in corruption.
(جامع تراث العلامة الألباني في المنهج والأحداث الكبرى: المجلد السادس/152)
And Allah knows best.
Written by Najeeb ibn Yusuf ibn Walter Charlot Sr; al-Anjelesi