An Aalim accusing Rasoolullah (PBUH) of Shirk!!

[Ibn Thahir]

www.alhafilzaine.com:

Seriously im so disturbed regarding an article, which is in tamil, regarding swearing on other than Allah, The article claims that Rasoolullah (PBUH) committed shirk unknowingly, when he swore on Ka'ba. As a evidence the author (a local Moulvi called Zaine) cites two hadiths. I just copied the Arabic source provided in the article.

The first Hadith

سنن أبي داود - كتاب الأيمان والنذور
باب في كراهية الحلف بالآباء - حديث:‏2845‏

حدثنا محمد بن العلاء ، حدثنا ابن إدريس ، قال : سمعت الحسن بن عبيد الله ، عن سعد بن عبيدة ، قال : سمع ابن عمر ، رجلا يحلف : لا والكعبة ، فقال له ابن عمر : إني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : " من حلف بغير الله فقد أشرك

according to Ibn Umar (radhi) Rasoolullah (PBUH) said that swearing on other than Allah is Shirk.


The second Hadith

It is reported on the authority of Qutaylah that a Jew came to the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) and said, You commit shirk, you say, Whatever Allah willed and you willed, and you say, By the Ka`bah! So the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) ordered them to say, By the Lord of the Ka`bah! when they wished to take an oath and to say, Whatever Allah willed, then you willed. It was recorded by Nasai and he ruled it sahih.

السنن الصغرى - كتاب الأيمان والنذور
الحلف بالكعبة - حديث:‏3733‏
أخبرنا يوسف بن عيسى ، قال : حدثنا الفضل بن موسى ، قال : حدثنا مسعر ، عن معبد بن خالد ، عن عبد الله بن يسار ، عن قتيلة ، امرأة من جهينة : أن يهوديا أتى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : إنكم تنددون ، وإنكم تشركون تقولون : ما شاء الله وشئت ، وتقولون : والكعبة ، " فأمرهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا أرادوا أن يحلفوا أن يقولوا : ورب الكعبة ، ويقولون : ما شاء الله ، ثم شئت

The author of the article concluded from these hadith

• The Jew has accused Rasoolullah(PBUH) and Sahaba of Shirk
  
• Rasoolullah(PBUH) didnt object to the Jews accusation, rather he ordered the Sahaba to correct it.
  
• So Rasoolullah (PBUH) and Sahaba committed Shirk unknowingly until the Jew "corrected" them..!

How true this clam is?
Isnt accusing Rasoolullah (PBUH) with shirk itself Kufr?

[المه‍ندس]

It doesn't prove whether the beloved prophet (saw) was saying this phrase himself, rather it seems like the general Muslims could have been saying it having carried the phrase over from their pre Islamic days and he corrected them.
Many hadiths in which he (saw) swears by Allah he says "by He in whose hand my heart is" and I don't know of any reference in which he says the other phrase.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk

[Ibn Thahir]

Wasnt the jew saying إنكم تشركون ?
Sorry, i only know very little arabic. but isnt this statement include Rasoolullah?

It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: "A man came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, tell me, which of the people has most right to my companionship?’ He said: ‘Yes, BY YOUR FATHER, you will certainly be told.’ He said: ‘Your mother.’ He said, ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your mother.’ He said: ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your mother.’ He said: ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your father.’ He said: ‘Tell me, O Messenger of Allah, about my wealth – how should I give in charity?’ He said: ‘Yes, BY ALLAH, you will certainly be told

In the light of above Hadith isnt it safe to say that Rasoolullah has sworn at other than Allah, so that the statement of the jew was true?

the only way i could reconcile these conflicting hadiths is by the statement of Imam Ibn Hajar:

"... (when a person swears by other than God), if he believes in any greatness in what he swears by, in a way that this greatness is really believed for God, then the oath will be Haram and the person (by this belief) will become Kafir and this hadith (i.e. about impermissibility of swearing by anything but God) applies to him. However if some one swears by other than God to refer to the (partial) greatness that really fits with what he has sworn by, then this oath is not Kufr." (Fat'hol-Bari, Vol 11, page 531).

By this statement of Ibn Hajar, i reckon that Rasoolullah and companions just swore on Kaba without thinking it as a god. So this action is not Shirk. And Rasoolullah prohibited this act later and it became Haram.

[Abdul Malik]

Is saying... "I swear on my mothers grave" shirk ?

[Ibn al-Iskandar]

Wasnt the jew saying إنكم تشركون ?
Sorry, i only know very little arabic. but isnt this statement include Rasoolullah?

In the light of above Hadith isnt it safe to say that Rasoolullah has sworn at other than Allah, so that the statement of the jew was true?

The Jew used the term 'Kum' which is a masculine plural, so it refers to an unspecified number of people more than 2. It's possible it refers to the Messenger of Allah SAWS, however there is nothing to indicate that in the particular statement.

No, it is never 'safe' to say that the Messenger of Allah SAWS took an oath by other than Allah.

the only way i could reconcile these conflicting hadiths is by the statement of Imam Ibn Hajar:

By this statement of Ibn Hajar, i reckon that Rasoolullah and companions just swore on Kaba without thinking it as a god. So this action is not Shirk. And Rasoolullah prohibited this act later and it became Haram.

First, no one would expect a person who knows very little Arabic to reconcile Hadith or statements of the scholars.

Second, what Ibn Hajar says in the quote you provided has nothing to do with the Hadith quoted in the original post.

It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: "A man came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, tell me, which of the people has most right to my companionship?’ He said: ‘Yes, BY YOUR FATHER, you will certainly be told.’ He said: ‘Your mother.’ He said, ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your mother.’ He said: ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your mother.’ He said: ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your father.’ He said: ‘Tell me, O Messenger of Allah, about my wealth – how should I give in charity?’ He said: ‘Yes, BY ALLAH, you will certainly be told

Third, the version of the Hadith mentioned above is in Sunan Ibn Majah. The authentic version is found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim and they both exclude the part that mentions the first alleged 'oath'; so it is an addition and is not authenticated. At least one scholar declared the Sanad of the version of Sunan Ibn Majah as 'weak'.

Fourth, if 'Wa Abeeka' was said by a Companion RA [as it appears so in other Ahadith], then it through the habit of the Arabs in their conversations and it was a regression without intending it as an oath since the Prophet SAWS has said "Allah has prohibited you from swearing by your parents" according to Abul-Walid al-Bajji in his Sharh of al-Muwatta 7/166.

يُحْتَمَلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ يَقُولُ وَأَبِيك عَلَى عَادَةِ الْعَرَبِ فِي تَخَاطُبِهَا وَتَرَاجُعِهَا دُونَ أَنْ يَقْصِدَ بِهِ الْقَسَمَ لِمَا رُوِيَ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - أَنَّهُ قَالَ «إنَّ اللَّهَ يَنْهَاكُمْ أَنْ تَحْلِفُوا بِآبَائِكُمْ

An-Nawawi also mentions this alleged 'oath' in his Sharh 7/124 and uses the term 'Yuqaalu' which indicates weakness associated with the statement, however he states something similar to al-Bajji and that is that the prohibition is from making oaths by other than Allah for those who intend it and this phrase that occurred in the Hadith is common in the language with understanding that [an oath] is not intended, so it is not an oath and is not prohibited.

قَدْ يُقَالُ حَلَفَ بِأَبِيهِ وَقَدْ نَهَى عَنِ الْحَلِفِ بِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ وَعَنِ الْحَلِفِ بِالْآبَاءِ وَالْجَوَابُ أَنَّ النَّهْيَ عَنِ الْيَمِينِ بِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ لِمَنْ تَعَمَّدَهُ وَهَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةُ الْوَاقِعَةُ فِي الْحَدِيثِ تَجْرِي عَلَى اللِّسَانِ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَعَمُّدٍ فَلَا تَكُونُ يَمِينًا وَلَا مَنْهِيًّا عَنْهَا

To top it off, Zayn ad-Deen al-Iraqi directly addresses the original Hadith of the incident with the Jew and this topic with the following points:

1) It is Munqati' or severed in its Sanad which makes it weak and so are other Hadith which mention this phrase as mentioned above.

Even IF it this wording is proven to be authentically attributed to the Prophet SAWS or the Companions RA, then:

2) Al-Qadhi Abu Bakr bin al-Arabi mentioned that a transmission in which it says that the Prophet SAWS would swear by his parents until he was prohibited from that. So the wording may have been used and then it was prohibited, so any Hadith wherein that wording is mentioned is abrogated [as mentioned by Ibn Abd al-Barr as well].
3) That the Prophet SAWS and any Companions RA using the phrase previously were omitting the name of Allah, such that it would actually mean 'By the Lord of my parents'.
4) That the wording is a convention in Arabic to emphasize the importance of the speech to follow without intending to aggrandize the parents, and al-Khattabi and others mention this with proofs from Arabic poetry.

[See Tarh at-Tathreeb 7/143-144]

So you see, there are several issues surrounding this wording and undoubtedly it opens up the possibility for misguidance and attempted justifications for misguidance, especially when it is misunderstood and improperly explained or utilized as proof for anything.

Regardless of the confusion surrounding the issue of 'swearing by other than Allah' for those who are already misguided, there is still an even greater danger posed to the person who dares to suggest or state that the Prophet SAWS was ever capable of Shirk, wal-Iyaadhu bi-Llah.

Equally insulting and misguided is to suggest that the Prophet SAWS was ever instructed about the religion or any affair pertaining to it by a Jew.

Before attempting to 'reconcile' any Ahadith, then first learn the requisite knowledge necessary before dealing with them, and then only attempt to do so when dealing with authentic narrations.

W'Allahu Musta'an

[Ibn Thahir]

Jazakallhu khairan for your reply brother.
You seem disturbed by me using the word 'reconcile'. I accept. I should have rather put it as 'i found to be reconciled'. But as a layman, which i have declared, it goes without saying that i only say statements which are made by others. So i dont think its necessary for me to prefix every statement that i make with "I found". I only post it here expecting a clarification. Here is the original post where i got the quote of Imam Ibn Hajar from:
salafi attack on "the Burdah" , an oath by the moon ?

[Ibn al-Iskandar]

Jazakallhu khairan for your reply brother.
You seem disturbed by me using the word 'reconcile'. I accept. I should have rather put it as 'i found to be reconciled'. But as a layman, which i have declared, it goes without saying that i only say statements which are made by others. So i dont think its necessary for me to prefix every statement that i make with "I found". I only post it here expecting a clarification.

Wa iyyaka. I'm not 'disturbed' by your usage of any term. Rather I am concerned that a person who does not know Arabic refers to a website like 'Sufi'Forum for translations of the positions of scholars on such a grave matter as 'swearing by other than Allah' and considers it even possible to 'reconcile' Hadith by means of that translation.

It's not a semantic argument so this is not about your terminology or how you present yourself. I understand very well where you're coming from and quite frankly the rhetorical nature of your entire post is wrong.

Before even commenting on Hadith or asking questions in the manner you are, you should be aware of the differences between scholars on matters such as these with the most correct view being that [swearing by other than Allah] is Shirk. ملتقى أهل الحديث - عرض مشاركة واحدة - (من حلف بغير الله فقد كفر أو أشرك)ضعيف

This matter has been debated in length on this forum so it would be best for you to search the forum for the discussion if you wish to know the opinions of others with regards to the differences among the scholars.

Here is the original post where i got the quote of Imam Ibn Hajar from: sunniforum.com - a resource for the propagation of authentic Islamic teachings 'salafi attack on the Burdah, an oath by the moon'?

That's nice.

Try reading the original quote from Ibn Hajar in order to see the various views that he presents on the matter.

Notice that the last line belonging to the previous Fasl states: "al-Maawardi said: 'It is not permissible for anyone to swear by other than Allah even once, not in divorce, freeing a slave, or a vow; and if the ruler swears even once in anything of that, it is obligatory to depose him due to his ignorance'."

Here's the Arabic quote from Ibn Hajar regarding 'swearing by the parents':

قَالَ الْمَاوَرْدِيُّ لَا يَجُوزُ لِأَحَدٍ أَنْ يُحَلِّفَ أَحَدًا بِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَا بِطَلَاقٍ وَلَا عَتَاقٍ وَلَا نَذْرٍ وَإِذَا حَلَّفَ الْحَاكِمُ أَحَدًا بِشَيْءٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ وَجَبَ عَزْلُهُ لِجَهْلِهِ

[6647]
أَنَّهُ أَخْبَرَهُ عَنْ عُمَرَ إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يَنْهَاكُمْ أَنْ وَأَبِيهِ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ وَاللَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْتَمَلٌ وَلَكِنَّ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ لَا يَثْبُتُ بِالِاحْتِمَالِ وَقَدْ ثَبَتَ مِثْلُ ذَلِكَ مِنْ لَفْظِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ الصِّدِّيقِ فِي قِصَّةِ السَّارِقِ الَّذِي سَرَقَ حُلِيَّ ابْنَتِهِ فَقَالَ فِي حَقِّهِ وَأَبِيكَ مَا لَيْلُكَ بِلَيْلِ سَارِقٍ أَخْرَجَهُ فِي الْمُوَطَّأِ وَغَيْرِهِ قَالَ السُّهَيْلِيُّ وَقَدْ وَرَدَ نَحْوُهُ فِي حَدِيثٍ آخَرَ مَرْفُوعٌ قَالَ لِلَّذِي سَأَلَ أَيُّ الصَّدَقَةِ أَفْضَلُ فَقَالَ وَأَبِيكَ لَتُنَبَّأَنَّ أَخْرَجَهُ مُسْلِمٌ فَإِذَا ثَبَتَ ذَلِكَ فَيُجَابُ بِأَجْوِبَةٍ الْأَوَّلُ أَنَّ هَذَا اللَّفْظَ كَانَ يَجْرِي عَلَى أَلْسِنَتِهِمْ مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يَقْصِدُوا بِهِ الْقَسَمَ وَالنَّهْيُ إِنَّمَا وَرَدَ فِي حَقِّ مَنْ قَصَدَ حَقِيقَةَ الْحَلِفِ وَإِلَى هَذَا جَنَحَ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَقَالَ النَّوَوِيُّ إِنَّهُ الْجَوَابُ الْمَرَضِيُّ الثَّانِي أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقَعُ فِي كَلَامِهِمْ عَلَى وَجْهَيْنِ أَحَدُهُمَا لِلتَّعْظِيمِ وَالْآخَرُ لِلتَّأْكِيدِ وَالنَّهْيُ إِنَّمَا وَقَعَ عَنِ الْأَوَّلِ فَمِنْ أَمْثِلَةِ مَا وَقَعَ فِي كَلَامِهِمْ لِلتَّأْكِيدِ لَا لِلتَّعْظِيمِ قَوْلُ الشَّاعِرِ لَعَمْرُ أَبِي الْوَاشِينَ إِنِّي أُحِبُّهَا وَقَوْلُ الْآخَرِ فَإِنْ تَكُ لَيْلَى اسْتَوْدَعَتْنِي أَمَانَةً فَلَا وَأَبِي أَعْدَائِهَا لَا أُذِيعُهَا فَلَا يُظَنُّ أَنَّ قَائِلَ ذَلِكَ قَصَدَ تَعْظِيمَ وَالِدِ أَعْدَائِهَا كَمَا لَمْ يَقْصِدِ الْآخَرُ تَعْظِيمَ وَالِدِ مَنْ وَشَى بِهِ فَدَلَّ عَلَى أَنَّ الْقَصْدَ بِذَلِكَ تَأْكِيدُ الْكَلَامِ لَا التَّعْظِيمُ وَقَالَ الْبَيْضَاوِيُّ هَذَا اللَّفْظُ مِنْ جُمْلَةِ مَا يُزَادُ فِي الْكَلَامِ لِمُجَرَّدِ التَّقْرِيرِ وَالتَّأْكِيدِ وَلَا يُرَادُ بِهِ الْقَسَمُ كَمَا تُزَادُ صِيغَةُ النِّدَاءِ لِمُجَرَّدِ الِاخْتِصَاصِ دُونَ الْقَصْدِ إِلَى النِّدَاءِ وَقَدْ تُعُقِّبَ الْجَوَابُ بِأَنَّ ظَاهِرَ سِيَاقِ حَدِيثِ عُمَرَ يَدُلُّ عَلَى أَنَّهُ كَانَ يُحَلِّفُهُ لِأَنَّ فِي بَعْضِ طُرُقِهِ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقُولُ لَا وَأَبِي لَا وَأَبِي فَقِيلَ لَهُ لَا تَحْلِفُوا فَلَوْلَا أَنَّهُ أَتَى بِصِيغَةِ الْحَلِفِ مَا صَادَفَ النَّهْيُ مَحَلًّا وَمِنْ ثَمَّ قَالَ بَعْضُهُمْ وَهُوَ الْجَوَابُ الثَّالِثُ إِنَّ هَذَا كَانَ جَائِزًا ثُمَّ نُسِخَ قَالَهُ الْمَاوَرْدِيُّ وَحَكَاهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَقَالَ السُّبْكِيُّ أَكثر الشُّرَّاح عَلَيْهِ حَتَّى قَالَ بن الْعَرَبِيِّ وَرُوِيَ أَنَّهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَحْلِفُ بِأَبِيهِ حَتَّى نُهِيَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ قَالَ وَتَرْجَمَةُ أَبِي دَاوُدَ تَدُلُّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ يَعْنِي قَوْلَهُ بَابُ الْحَلِفِ بِالْآبَاءِ ثُمَّ أَوْرَدَ الْحَدِيثَ الْمَرْفُوعَ الَّذِي فِيهِ أَفْلَحَ وَأَبِيهِ إِنْ صَدَقَ قَالَ السُّهَيْلِيُّ وَلَا يَصِحُّ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يُظَنُّ بِالنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَنَّهُ كَانَ يَحْلِفُ بِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ وَلَا يُقْسِمُ بِكَافِرٍ تَاللَّهِ إِنَّ ذَلِكَ لَبَعِيدٌ مِنْ شِيمَتِهِ وَقَالَ الْمُنْذِرِيّ دَعْوَى النّسخ ضَعِيفَة لَا مَكَان الْجَمْعِ وَلِعَدَمِ تَحَقُّقِ التَّارِيخِ وَالْجَوَابُ الرَّابِعُ أَنَّ فِي الْجَوَابِ حَذْفًا تَقْدِيرُهُ أَفْلَحَ وَرَبِّ أَبِيهِ قَالَهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ وَقَدْ تَقَدَّمَ الْخَامِسُ أَنَّهُ لِلتَّعَجُّبِ قَالَهُ السُّهَيْلِيُّ قَالَ وَيَدُلُّ عَلَيْهِ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَرِدْ بِلَفْظِ أَبِي وَإِنَّمَا وَرَدَ بِلَفْظِ وَأَبِيهِ أَوْ وَأَبِيكَ بِالْإِضَافَةِ إِلَى ضَمِيرِ الْمُخَاطَبِ حَاضِرًا أَوْ غَائِبًا السَّادِسُ أَنَّ ذَلِكَ خَاصٌّ بِالشَّارِعِ دُونَ غَيْرِهِ مِنْ أُمَّتِهِ وَتُعُقِّبَ بِأَنَّ الْخَصَائِصَ لَا تَثْبُتُ بِالِاحْتِمَالِ وَفِيهِ أَنَّ مَنْ حَلَفَ بِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ مُطْلَقًا لَمْ تَنْعَقِدْ يَمِينُهُ سَوَاءً كَانَ الْمَحْلُوفُ بِهِ يَسْتَحِقُّ التَّعْظِيمَ لِمَعْنًى غَيْرِ الْعِبَادَةِ كَالْأَنْبِيَاءِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالْعُلَمَاءِ وَالصُّلَحَاءِ وَالْمُلُوكِ وَالْآبَاءِ وَالْكَعْبَةِ أَوْ كَانَ لَا يَسْتَحِقُّ التَّعْظِيمَ كَالْآحَادِ أَوْ يَسْتَحِقُّ التَّحْقِيرَ وَالْإِذْلَالَ كَالشَّيَاطِينِ وَالْأَصْنَامِ وَسَائِرِ مَنْ عُبِدَ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ

You're welcome to read the above and then understand that Fat'h al-Bari is not a reference book on Aqidah for students of knowledge or scholars of guidance, rather it is a Sharh of Hadith from which statements of the author and other views presented may be accepted or rejected.

If you can't read the above, then please refrain from saying things like:

By this statement of Ibn Hajar, i reckon that Rasoolullah and companions just swore on Kaba without thinking it as a god. So this action is not Shirk. And Rasoolullah prohibited this act later and it became Haram.

The Messenger of Allah SAWS never swore by the Ka'bah, and all that is authentically reported is that a Jew said the Companions RA did so. The Prophet SAWS prohibited it. I have yet to find a Hadith in which a Companion RA is swearing an oath by the Ka'bah or anything other than Allah so the Jew saying so means nothing and the Prophet SAWS was not an argumentative person.

What you said is not stated by Ibn Hajar or anyone of knowledge about the issue [aside from the part about it being Haram], and in fact it is contrary to what is stated in another authentic Hadith:

"...so Ibn Umar said to him, indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah SAWS saying: 'whoever swears by other than Allah has committed Shirk'." [Sunan Abi Dawud #3251]

The only question that has arisen is what is intended by the term 'Shirk' and some of the scholars differed over what constitutes an oath, in terms of whether it is takes place upon a wording, a wording and an intention, or an intention. This discussion ultimately leads to a discussion on what constitutes Shirk with regards to statements involving it.

None of that discussion can ever result in turning around and making claims about the Prophet SAWS or the Companions RA in terms of Shirk as this is a very basic aspect of faith in affirming remoteness and impossibility of casting aspersions of Shirk against them.

Barak Allahu feeka.