Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article, "Allah As An Exalted Shakhs"

 by

Bassam Zawadi

 

Shamoun's article could be located over here. One should read it first before proceeding on to read this article.

Shamoun said:

The statements of Muhammad and his followers that there is no shakhs or person that is more jealous than Allah presupposes that the Muslim deity is a shakhs himself; otherwise, it would make absolutely no sense to say that Allah is more jealous or has more honor than any othershakhs if he weren't one.

Actually, and strictly from a grammatical point of view, this is not true. The hadith could very easily mean, "There is no person (i.e., human being) more jealous than Allah (i.e., who is not a human being nor a person)."

One could say, "There is no Christian more pious than Buddha," without implying at all that Buddha is a Christian.

This is why Al-Qaadi Abu Ya'la said that there is a difference of opinion amongst our scholars as to whether the term shakhs applies to Allah:

 وأما لفظ الشخص فرأيت بعض أصحاب الحديث يذهب إلى جواز إطلاقه

And as for the expression al shakhs, I have seen some of the people of the hadeeth permit its utterance.

He goes on to say:

ويحتمل أن يمنع من إطلاق ذلك على الله، لأن لفظ الخبر ليس بصريح فيه، لأن معناه: لا أحد أغير من الله، لأنه قد روي ذلك في لفظ آخر، فاستعمل لفظ الشخص في موضع أحد، ويكون ذلك استثناء من غير جنسه ونوعه، كقوله تعالى: مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلاَّ اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ. وليس الظن من نوع العلم.

And it's possible that this term is not to be expressed when applying to Allah because the expression doesn't clearly show that. This is because it means that no one is more jealous than Allah. This is due to it being narrated that way in another narration (i.e., other versions of the hadith don't use the expression "no person," but "no one"); hence the term al shakhs was used in another instance, and that excludes (Allah) from that different essence and genus just like in Allah's saying "they have no certain knowledge thereof, but only pursue a conjecture." Conjecture is not a kind of knowledge.

Shamoun said:

As Dr. Wesley Williams, a scholar of Islamic studies, states,

Al-Bukhari and Muslim report a hadith from the Prophet on the authority of the Companion of Al-Mughira b. Shu?ba: "No shakhs is more jealous than Allah; no shakhs is more pleased to grant pardon than He; no shakhs loves praiseworthy conduct more than He."⁶⁸ Allah is thus a shakhs. The term shakhs is usually translated as ?corporeal person.' It connotes "the bodily or corporeal form or figure or substance (suwad) of a man," or "something possessing height (irtifa?) and visibility (zuhur),"⁶⁹ Ibn Manzur informs us in his Lisan al-?Arab (7, 45, 4-11). Ibn al-Jawzi, in his Kitab Akhbar al-Sifat 53-54, admits as well that the term shakhs implies existence of a body (jism) composed of parts, for one terms something a shakhs because it possesses corporeality (shukhus) and height (irtifa)." God, we are thus informed, is a person with a physical body.

And he said in his footnotes:

It is rather unfortunate for Zawadi that he didn't realize that by using this particular hadith to show that Allah is a single person, or more precisely a shakhs, he pretty much ended up proving that his god is an imperfect, limited, fallible human being!

Perhaps before lecturing me, Shamoun should be lecturing his Arab Christian brethren for also using the term shakhs about God! Suppose Shamoun really wants to insist that the term shakhs could only be used for someone corporeal in the Arabic language. Why doesn't he go ahead and rebuke Arabic Christians for constantly referring to God as a shakhs? Perhaps it's because Shamoun is inconsistent? Yeah, that's it.

The truth of the matter is that:

1) Context determines everything:

2) There are always exceptions to the general rule

3) Differences of opinion exist

Context determines everything:

People like Shamoun know that Muslims explicitly deny that Allah is a body (regardless of whether he thinks that our beliefs necessitate that Allah has a body), so why doesn't he bother trying to understand what we mean in context when we say that Allah is a shakhs?

There are always exceptions to the general rule:

Yes, the word shakhs typically refers to someone who has a body. Why? It's because we human beings usually use it to refer to other human beings. We are used to this; however, there are always exceptions to the general rule. The term shakhs, when applied to Allah, does not have to imply that He has a body.

Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah said that according to the logicians, shakhs are in accordance with the nature that it is being referenced to. So when it comes to human beings (which is almost usually the case, hence why many grammarians say that it implies a body), it implies a human essence (i.e., a physical body). When talking about Allah, we take into account Allah's nature and essence. (see Ibn Taymiyyah, Bayyaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah fi Ta'sees Bid'ihim Al-Kallaamiyah, pages 348-349) Shamoun cites Dr. Wesley Williams, who cites Ibn Manzur as saying that shakhs connote something possessing height (irtifa') and visibility (zuhur)," however Ibn Manzur also goes on to say:

و (عِنْد الفلاسفة) الذَّات الواعية لكيانها المستقلة فِي إرادتها

 And according to the philosophers, the conscious essence is independent in its will. 

If we accept this meaning of the word, then it makes perfect sense to refer to Allah.

Let's give another example. Let's look at the word "anger." Many Muslims from the Ashari school of thought believe that Allah doesn't literally get angry. One scholar - Imam Ar-Raazi - states:

The fourth beneficial note is that al-għađab (anger/wrath) changes when the blood is excited in the heart due to the desire for revenge. You should know that this is impossible for Aļļaah to be attributed with.

Notice how Imam Ar-Raazi denies that Allah gets angry because Imam Ar-Raazi believes that anger "is a change that happens when the blood is excited in the heart due to the desire for revenge," and since Allah does not have blood circulating within Him, Allah does not get angry according to Imam Ar-Raazi. However, in Lissaan Al-Arab, we read:

قال ابن عرفة الغَضَبُ من المخلوقين شيءٌ يُداخِل قُلُوبَهم

Ibn 'Arafah said: Anger from creatures has something to do with what is inside their hearts.

Here, it is clarified that this only means when applied to creatures. Hence, we could still say that Allah gets angry without committing the crime of anthropomorphism. (Read more here).

This all takes me to my third point.

Differences of opinion exist:

As we have seen, scholars differ from each other. I am not bound by any opinion that Jamal Badawi or anyone else gives unless the evidence is as clear as daylight and irrefutable. However, in this case, we even see the experts differing. This means that each person has his valid perspective, and a non-Arabic-speaking neophyte like Shamoun should be the last person to start lecturing us on sophisticated topics that are way out of his league.

Are women deficient in intelligence in Islam?

 

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful

It is incorrectly claimed that women are ‘deficient in intelligence and religion’ or ‘lacking common sense’ according to Islam, and that for this reason restrictions are placed upon a women’s testimony and intellectual activity. This unfortunate misconception is based upon a misinterpretation or poor translation of the following prophetic tradition:

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

يَا مَعْشَرَ النِّسَاءِ تَصَدَّقْنَ فَإِنِّي أُرِيتُكُنَّ أَكْثَرَ أَهْلِ النَّارِ

O gathering of women! Give in charity, for I have seen you as a majority of people in Hellfire.

They said, “Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said:

تُكْثِرْنَ اللَّعْنَ وَتَكْفُرْنَ الْعَشِيرَ مَا رَأَيْتُ مِنْ نَاقِصَاتِ عَقْلٍ وَدِينٍ أَذْهَبَ لِلُبِّ الرَّجُلِ الْحَازِمِ مِنْ إِحْدَاكُنَّ

You curse others often and you are ungrateful for your livelihood. I have not seen anyone with reductions in mind and religion more capable of removing reason from a resolute man than you.

They said, “What are our reductions in mind?” The Prophet said:

أَلَيْسَ شَهَادَةُ الْمَرْأَةِ مِثْلَ نِصْفِ شَهَادَةِ الرَّجُلِ

Is not the testimony of a woman like half of a man?

They said, “Of course.” The Prophet said:

فَذَلِكِ مِنْ نُقْصَانِ عَقْلِهَا أَلَيْسَ إِذَا حَاضَتْ لَمْ تُصَلِّ وَلَمْ تَصُمْ

That is the reduction in your mind. Is it not that when you menstruate you do not pray, nor fast?

They said, “Of course.” The Prophet said:

فَذَلِكِ مِنْ نُقْصَانِ دِينِهَا

That is the reduction in your religion.

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 298, Grade: Sahih

There are two important points that are misunderstood in this tradition: the reason why there is a majority of women in Hellfire, and the meaning of a ‘reduction’ in intellect and religiosity. The first misconception has been answered in a separate article.

The ‘reduction’ (nuqsan) in mind and religion is related to a woman’s legal obligations. It is not an ontological statement that women are always less intelligent or religious than men. As applied to religion, women are not obligated to pray or fast while menstruating or enduring post-natal bleeding. As applied to mind, women are not obligated to perform some functions such as testifying before a judge in a criminal case.

Some authors have mistranslated nuqsan by using derogatory terms like ‘deficient in intelligence,’ or ‘lacking common sense.’ This rendition is inappropriate because the word in this context means a ‘reduction,’ as it is used in the Quran:

أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّا نَأْتِي الْأَرْضَ نَنقُصُهَا مِنْ أَطْرَافِهَا

Have they not seen that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders?

Surat al-R’ad 13:41

And again:

أَفَلَا يَرَوْنَ أَنَّا نَأْتِي الْأَرْضَ نَنقُصُهَا مِنْ أَطْرَافِهَا

Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders?

Surat al-Anbiya 21:44

The reduction for women is a manifestation of Islam’s leniency towards women, by not burdening them with the same obligations as men while they have their own particular duties and concerns.

In the case of testimony, women in early Islam did not customarily involve themselves in business contracts, debts, and other matters. They were usually doing other important work, caring for their children and elderly parents, and so on. As a result, the verse was revealed to lessen a woman’s obligation to testify in such matters.

Allah said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا تَدَايَنتُم بِدَيْنٍ إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى فَاكْتُبُوهُ وَلْيَكْتُب بَّيْنَكُمْ كَاتِبٌ بِالْعَدْلِ … وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِن رِّجَالِكُمْ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّن تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ أَن تَضِلَّ إِحْدَاهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحْدَاهُمَا الْأُخْرَىٰ

O you who believe, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down, and let a scribe write it between you in justice… and bring two witnesses from among your men. If there are not two men available, then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses, so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her.

Surat al-Baqarah 2:282

The purpose of this rule was a practical matter to achieve justice in business by having two women support each other’s memories in matters outside of their regular duties. It is not a universal rule that women are half as intelligent as men or that their testimony is always half of a man.

By default, men and women are equal to each other in terms of honesty and piety, but because women in this context were afraid that they might forget some details of the contract, they were told to include another woman to help one another remember. In fact, the testimony of two women outweighs the testimony of one man.

Ibn al-Qayyim writes:

وَالْمَرْأَةُ الْعَدْلُ كَالرَّجُلِ فِي الصِّدْقِ وَالْأَمَانَةِ وَالدِّيَانَة إلَّا أَنَّهَا لَمَّا خِيفَ عَلَيْهَا السَّهْوُ وَالنِّسْيَانُ قَوِيَتْ بِمِثْلِهَا وَذَلِكَ قَدْ يَجْعَلُهَا أَقْوَى مِنْ الرَّجُلِ الْوَاحِدِ أَوْ مِثْلَهُ وَلَا رَيْب أَنَّ الظَّنَّ الْمُسْتَفَادَ مِنْ شَهَادَةِ مِثْلِ أُمِّ الدَّرْدَاءِ وَأُمِّ عَطِيَّةَ أَقْوَى مِنْ الظَّنِّ الْمُسْتَفَادِ مِنْ رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ دُونَهُمَا وَدُونَ أَمْثَالِهِمَا

The woman is equal to the man in truthfulness, honesty, and piety; otherwise, if it is feared that she will forget or misremember, she is strengthened with another like herself. That makes them stronger than a single man or the likes of him. There is no question that the benefit of the doubt given to the testimony of Umm Darda and Umm ‘Atiyyah is stronger than the benefit of the doubt given to a single man without them or the likes of them.

Source: al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmīyah 1/136

The increased possibility of error, due to customary gender roles in society, necessitated the addition of another woman’s testimony. But if there is no fear of error, the testimony of men and women return to the default position of equality, because the intention of the rule is to achieve fairness between business partners and truthful witness, not to devalue women’s intelligence.

Ibn Taymiyyah writes:

فَمَا كَانَ مِنْ الشَّهَادَاتِ لَا يُخَافُ فِيهِ الضَّلَالُ فِي الْعَادَةِ لَمْ تَكُنْ فِيهِ عَلَى نِصْفِ رَجُلٍ

Whatever there is among the testimonies of women, in which there is no fear of habitual error, they are not considered as half of a man.

Source: al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmīyah 1/128

This dynamic can be seen in the way early jurists approached women’s testimony. They mostly did not accept, or obligate, a woman to testify in criminal investigations, legal punishments, and other matters outside of their customary purview, but they accepted a woman’s testimony as equal in her ordinary duties.

Ibn Rushd writes:

وَأَمَّا شَهَادَةُ النِّسَاءِ مُفْرَدَاتٍ أَعْنِي النِّسَاءَ دُونَ الرِّجَالِ فَهِيَ مَقْبُولَةٌ عِنْدَ الْجُمْهُورِ فِي حُقُوقِ الْأَبْدَانِ الَّتِي لَا يَطَّلِعُ عَلَيْهَا الرِّجَالُ غَالِبًا مِثْلَ الْوِلَادَةِ وَالِاسْتِهْلَالِ وَعُيُوبِ النِّسَاءِ

As for the testimony of individual women, meaning women without men, it is accepted by the majority in personal rights which are usually not the purview of men, such as pregnancy, consummation, and ailments affecting women.

Source: Bidāyat al-Mujtahid 4/248

In this regard, the classical rules were largely based upon the customary gender roles of the time and were not indicative of an universal deficiency in women’s intelligence, testimony, or truthfulness.

In other cases, a woman’s testimony was accepted in important matters of family law without any men present at all.

Ibn al-Qayyim writes:

قَالَ الْإِمَامُ أَحْمَدُ فِي الرَّجُلِ يُوصِي وَلَا يَحْضُرُهُ إلَّا النِّسَاءُ قَالَ أُجِيزُ شَهَادَةَ النِّسَاءِ فَظَاهِرُ هَذَا أَنَّهُ أَثْبَتَ الْوَصِيَّةَ بِشَهَادَةِ النِّسَاءِ عَلَى الِانْفِرَادِ إذَا لَمْ يَحْضُرْهُ الرِّجَالُ

Imam Ahmad said regarding a man who writes his will and none are present except women: I permit the testimony of women. Thus, this shows that he affirmed the will by the testimony of individual women even if no men were present.

Source: al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmīyah 1/135

By analyzing the sources and appreciating their historical contexts, we find that the classical rules related to women’s testimony are not a statement about her inherent intelligence or truthfulness. Perhaps the single most important fact to contradict this claim is that women excelled in narrating the traditions of the Prophet (ṣ).

In particular, Aisha (ra) was considered to be a scholar by the righteous predecessors. Even the most senior male companions would come to her seeking religious and legal verdicts.

Abu Musa reported:

مَا أَشْكَلَ عَلَيْنَا أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثٌ قَطُّ فَسَأَلْنَا عَائِشَةَ إِلَّا وَجَدْنَا عِنْدَهَا مِنْهُ عِلْمًا

We never had a problem occur to us, the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and asked Aisha about it but that we found her knowledgeable of it.

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3883, Grade: Sahih

Masruq reported: He was asked, “Was Aisha knowledgeable of the religious obligations?” Masruq said:

وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُ مَشْيَخَةَ أَصْحَابِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْأَكَابِرَ يَسْأَلُونَهَا عَنْ الْفَرَائِضِ

By the one in whose hand is my soul, I saw the learned elders among the companions of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, ask her about the religious obligations.

Source: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 30387, Grade: Hasan

Many more women, not to mention wives of the Prophet (ṣ), were scholars of the prophetic traditions known for their honesty and reliability. The confirmation of many practices of the Sunnah rely on the testimony of just one woman; the scholars never rejected their testimony merely because of their gender.

Al-Shawkani writes:

فَإِنْ قُلْت إنَّ ذَلِكَ الْقَوْلَ مِنْ عُمَرَ يَتَضَمَّنُ الطَّعْنَ عَلَى رِوَايَةِ فَاطِمَةَ لِقَوْلِهِ لِقَوْلِ امْرَأَةٍ لَا نَدْرِي لَعَلَّهَا حَفِظَتْ أَوْ نَسِيَتْ قُلْت هَذَا مَطْعَنٌ بَاطِلٌ بِإِجْمَاعِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ لِلْقَطْعِ بِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يُنْقَلْ عَنْ أَحَدٍ مِنْ الْعُلَمَاءِ أَنَّهُ رَدَّ خَبَرَ الْمَرْأَةِ لِكَوْنِهَا امْرَأَةً فَكَمْ مِنْ سُنَّةٍ قَدْ تَلَقَّتْهَا الْأُمَّةُ بِالْقَبُولِ عَنْ امْرَأَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ مِنْ الصَّحَابَةِ

If you say that statement from Umar contains a flaw in Fatimah’s narration of his statement because we do not know whether a woman remembers or forgets, I say this itself is flawed and false by the absolute consensus of the Muslims. It has not been reported from any scholar that he rejected the report of a woman on the basis of her being a woman. How many prophetic traditions has the Ummah received from a single woman among the companions?

Source: Nayl al-Awṭār 6/359-360

And Al-Dhahabi writes:

وما علمت في النساء من اتهمت ولا من تركوها

I do not know among women narrators anyone accused of lying, nor anyone abandoned.

Source: Mīzān al-I’tidāl 4/604

Al-Dhahabi then lists over one hundred and twenty women who narrated prophetic traditions.

If a woman’s testimony were always half of a man or she was always less intelligent than him, that would have applied even more so to narrating prophetic traditions. After all, relating the words and actions of the Prophet (ṣ) is an awesome responsibility requiring the foremost intelligence, memory, and trustworthiness, yet many women excelled in this field just as men did.

Moreover, women have unique and complementary perspectives, in their own right, that can inform men of their blind spots. For instance, the Prophet (ṣ) once consulted his wife Umm Salamah (ra) on a serious matter, and she provided him with a key insight into his problem.

Marwan reported: After the treaty of Hudabiyyah was concluded, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said to his companions:

قُومُوا فَانْحَرُوا ثُمَّ احْلِقُوا

Get up and offer your sacrifices, then shave your hair.

None of them stood up, and the Prophet repeated his order three times. When none of them stood up, the Prophet left them and went to Umm Salamah, and he told her about their attitude. Umm Salamah said:

يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ أَتُحِبُّ ذَلِكَ اخْرُجْ ثُمَّ لاَ تُكَلِّمْ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ كَلِمَةً حَتَّى تَنْحَرَ بُدْنَكَ وَتَدْعُوَ حَالِقَكَ فَيَحْلِقَكَ

O Prophet of Allah, would you like your order to be carried out? Go out and do not speak to them until you have offered your own sacrifice and have called the barber to shave your head.

Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2731, Grade: Sahih

The Prophet (ṣ) followed the advice of his wife and made his preparations to end the pilgrimage. The companions would soon follow his lead.

In this example, it was his wife whose exceptional intelligence provided him with guidance and resolution. Intelligence is not simply a linear matter of more or less. There are varieties of intelligence, such as emotional and personal intelligence, which women can excel at and benefit men with their advice.

Ibn Hajar writes:

وَجَوَازُ مُشَاوَرَةِ الْمَرْأَةِ الْفَاضِلَةِ  وَفَضْلُ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ وَوُفُورُ عَقْلِهَا حَتَّى قَالَ إِمَامُ الْحَرَمَيْنِ لَا نَعْلَمُ امْرَأَةً أَشَارَتْ بِرَأْيٍ فَأَصَابَتْ إِلَّا أُمَّ سَلَمَةَ

It is permissible to consult a meritorious woman, and the merit of Umm Salamah and her abundant intelligence were such that Imam al-Haramayn said: We do not know of a woman expressing her opinion and being correct as much as Umm Salamah.

Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 5/347

In sum, the claim that women are ‘deficient in religion’ is based upon a misinterpretation or a poor translation of a prophetic statement. The ‘reduction’ in a woman’s intelligence is a reduction in her legal responsibilities related to it, not in her inherent intelligence itself. The preponderance of other evidence indicates that women can be just as intelligent as men and, therefore, they should be consulted and their perspectives respected.

Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.

By Abu Amina Elias

Explanation Of The Hadith On The Day Of Resurrection, Some Of The Muslims Will Come With Sins Like Mountains

 

Answered by: Maulana Mujahid Hussain

Question:

I wanted to know the meaning of this Hadith, it is as follows: 

“On the Day of Resurrection, some of the Muslims will come with sins like mountains, but Allaah will forgive them and will put them (the sins) onto the Jews and Christians.” Sahih Muslim 2767 

Answer

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

This Hadith is narrated with different wordings, the most correct wordings according to the scholars of Hadith is as follows;

Abu Musa' reported that Allah's Messenger Sallallahu Alahi Wasalam said:

When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your rescue from Hell-Fire.[1]

The second wording is:

On the Day of Resurrection, some of the Muslims will come with sins like mountains, but Allah will forgive them and will put them (the sins) onto the Jews and Christians.”

With regards to the meaning of the first, al-Nawawi said in his commentary:

ومعنى هذا الحديث ما جاء في حديث أبي هريرة لكل أحد منزل في الجنة ومنزل في النار فالمؤمن إذا دخل

 الجنة خلفه الكافر في النار لاستحقاقه ذلك بكفره . معنى ( فكاكك من النار ) أنك كنت معرضا لدخول النار ، وهذا فكاكك ; لأن الله تعالى قدر لها عددا يملؤها ، فإذا دخلها الكفار بكفرهم وذنوبهم صاروا في معنى الفكاك للمسلمين . 

 

“The meaning of this Hadith is the same as the Hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah: “For each person there is a place in Paradise and a place in Hell.” When the believer enters Paradise, his place in Hell is taken over by the non believer because he deserves that because of his kufr. The meaning of the phrase “Your ransom from the Fire” is that you could have entered Hell, but this is your ransom because Allah has decreed a certain number to fill it; when the non believers enter Hell because of their kufr and sins, this is like a ransom for the Muslims.”[2]

As for the Hadith you have mentioned in your question (which is Hadith number two), the scholars have two varying approaches to it; some holding the view this wording is incorrect, whilst others after accepting theses wording have interpreted it in different ways.

Amongst the Scholars who hold the view this wording is incorrect include;البخاري, البيهقي, الحافظ ابن حجر

They make the following observations;

This Hadith is narrated by eight narrators from Abu Burdah  ( رضي الله عنه ) and all of them narrate it with the wording of the first or similar wordings.

The second wording is only reported by غيلان بن جرير  from أبو بردة  who reports from his father, furthermore this chain it’s self has varying versions.

Imam Bukhari has reported it with the following chains in his التاريخ الكبير :

فمرة يقول بعضهم : عن أبي بردة ، عن أبيه ، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم .

وأخرى يقول آخر : عن أبي بردة ، عن عبد الله بن يزيد.

ويقول آخر : عن أبي بردة ، عن رجل من أصحاب ، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم .

وجاء مرة عن أبي بردة ، عن رجل من الأنصار ، عن أبيه .

ومرة عن أبي بردة ، عن رجل من الأنصار ، عن بعض أهله

Then Imam-Bukhari indicates this wording is not authentic[3]

Imam Bayhaqi  also pointed out another problem with this particular wording;

"اللفظ الذي تفرد بها شداد أبو طلحة بروايته في هذا الحديث . وهو قوله : ( ويضعها على اليهود النصارى ) مع شك الراوي فيه : لا أراه محفوظا . والكافر لا يعاقب بذنب غيره . قال الله عز وجل : ( لا تزر وازرة وزر أخرى )

وإنما لفظ الحديث على ما رواه سعيد بن أبي بردة ، وغيره ، عن أبي بردة"

The wording “the sins will be placed upon the Jews and Christians “ are only narrated by Shaddad Abu Talha, moreover he narrates the wordings saying “ I think he said this “ I (Imam Bayhaqi speaking) do not view this narration as preserved correctly and a non- believer cannot be punished for the sins of others as Allah (       سبحانه و تعالى )    tells us in the Quran no one will carry the sins of another “[4]

We learn not only is the wording Shaazشاذ )),but the narrator himself is unsure and uncertain of his narration.

Ibn Hajar said the following in Fathul-Bari

" وفي حديث الباب وما بعده – وهي أحاديث تحت باب القصاص يوم القيامة – دلالة على ضعف الحديث الذي أخرجه مسلم من رواية غيلان بن جرير … – وذكر الحديث ونقل عن البيهقي تضعيفه – "

“There are other Hadith which indicate the wording narrated by Imam Muslim from غيلان بن جرير   are weak “[5]

The scholars also mention a few possible explanations for this Hadith if it was accepted.

1. Mufi Taqi Usmani in Takmila-Fahul-Mulhim explains the Hadith as follows :

“ This Hadees tells us how Allah ( سبحانه و تعالى ) will deal with the sins of those who believe and those who disbelieve, as for the believers, Allah ( سبحانه و تعالى )  will forgive their sins whilst the sins of the disbelievers will be placed upon their backs, meaning Allah ( سبحانه و تعالى ) will take them account for their sins and not forgive them. The words “ he will put the sins on to the Jews and Christians” does not means he will put the sins of the believers on to the disbelievers, but rather he will put their own sins on their backs, thus informing us he will take them fully account for their sins”[6]

2. A possible second explanation is what Imam Nawawi has mentioned above
3. A third explanation is based on the following Ayah

لِيَحْمِلُوا أَوْزَارَهُمْ كَامِلَةً يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ۙ وَمِنْ أَوْزَارِ الَّذِينَ يُضِلُّونَهُم بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ ۗ أَلَا سَاءَ مَا يَزِرُونَ – 16:25

That they may bear their own burdens in full on the Day of Resurrection and some of the burdens of those whom they misguide without knowledge. Unquestionably, evil is that which they bear.

Meaning this Hadees refers to those Jews or Christians who would misguide others and it is well knows whoever misguides others he will get the sins of the wrong actions carried out by those who he has misguided.

Only Allah Knows best.

Written by Maulana Mujahid Hussain

Checked and approved by Mufti Mohammed Tosir Miah 

Darul Ifta Birmingham

---

[1] Saheeh muslim 6838 with commentary of Fathul-mulhim

 

[2]شرح النوويللصحيح لمسلم باب كتاب التوبة  Commentary is under Hadees 2767

 

[3]قَالَ أَبو عَبد اللهِ: والخبر عَنِ النَّبيِّ صَلى اللَّهُ عَلَيه وسَلم فِي الشَّفاعة، وأن قومًا يُعذبون، ثم يخرجون، أكثر وأَبيَنُ وأَشهَرُ

See التاريخ الكبير  volume 1 page 39 print دار المعارف

 

[4]البعث و النشور  from Hadees number 84- 90  print مركز الخدمات ببيروت

 

[5]فتح الباري  كتاب الرقاق باب القصاص يوم القيامة  under Hadees 6169

 

[6]تكملة فنح الملهمبتصرف volume 6 page 32  under Hadees 6945 print دار إحياء التراث العربي