Al-‘Udhr bil-Jahl (The Excuse of Ignorance)

Al-‘Udhr bil-Jahl (The Excuse of Ignorance)

 

This section focuses on whether there is al-‘udhr bil-jahl in the shari’ah of Allah, and if so, where it can be applied. As a result, we will be able to see whether the excuse of ignorance, if it does exist, is applicable to Muslims who make shirk. The ‘ulama are split into two groups regarding this matter of the excuse of ignorance for shirk. One group says that there is the excuse of ignorance for shirk, and the other says that there is not. To do this we will be looking at the proofs they disagree over in no specific order.

 

The word jahl (ignorance) means when someone does not know something, or one has the incorrect understanding about something. The definition is very important and should be kept in mind because this subject, al-‘udhr bil-jahl, is about the shari’ evidences and rulings to do with ignorance, so we want to know if evidence exists for the excuse of ignorance, and if it does, what situations the evidence shows that the excuse of ignorance is allowed in and where it is not.

 

If a person has an incomplete understanding of a matter or subject, they can be thrown off course and lead themselves and others into all kinds of deviations in their religion. An incomplete understanding can cause a person to have an incorrect view about a belief and/or ruling in their religion. An incomplete understanding can cause doubts, confusion, and even evil. However, with a complete picture and a complete understanding there is no room for errors, any doubt or corruption.

 

People can use many ayat (verses, sing. ayah) and ahadith to substantiate their claims for if and when al-‘udhr bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance) is allowed. Everyone has the capability to take an ayah or hadith and use it to make a claim or judgement about a certain reality, ruling or subject. Anyone can bring an ayah or hadith and use it to say that something is allowed, not allowed, or that the ruling on a situation or action is this or that, but this can only be true if the evidence is correctly understood and as a result correctly matches the reality. We must make sure that we use ayat and ahadith that match the reality or subject being spoken about, looked at or dealt with. With this in mind, we must make clear that in this section we are looking at the excuse of ignorance for a Muslim. We are looking at the subject of jahl (ignorance) in relation to a Muslim who is excused from saying or doing something because of being ignorant, so we will only, and must only, use ayat and ahadith that refer to Muslims.

 

The hadith of Dhat Anwat.

 

The first evidence over which there is dispute is a hadith known as Dhat Anwat. It is in reference to a group of two thousand new Muslims who were traveling to Hunain with the messenger of Allah and ten thousand other Muslims. These two thousand new Muslims had recently accepted Islam after fath al-Makkah (the opening of Makkah). They had accepted Islam within the last eighteen days of the Dhat Anwat incident. On their way to Hunain, they saw a great green nabk tree that was called Dhat Anwat (the one with suspenders) which the pagan Arabs used to hang their weapons on, slay beasts under, and devote themselves to. It was said that the people would perform tawaf (circumambulation) around the tree once a year, like the tawaf that is performed for the hajj (pilgrimage).

 

Abu Waqid Al-Laithi narrated that when the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) went out to Hunain he passed a tree that the idolaters called Dhat Anwat upon which they hung their weapons. They (the Companions) said: “O Messenger of Allah! Make a Dhat Anwat for us as they have a Dhat Anwat.” The Prophet (s.a.w) said: “Subhan Allah! This is like what Musa’s people said: Make for us a god like their gods. By the One in Whose is my soul! You shall follow the way of those who were before you.” (Jami’ at-Tirmidhi, 2180)

 

The first point to draw attention to is that the two thousand new Muslims accompanying the prophet in battle were not mushrikeen because the prophet would not seek help from the mushrikeen (polytheists) in war.

 

It has been narrated on the authority of Aisha, wife of the Prophet, who said:

The Messenger of Allah set out for Badr. When he reached Harrat-ul-Wabara (a place four miles from Medina) a man met him who was known for his valour and courage. The Companions of the Messenger of Allah were pleased to see him. He said: I have come so that I may follow you and get a share from the booty. The Messenger of Allah said to him: Do you believe in Allah and His Messenger? He said: No. The Messenger of Allah said: Go back, I will not seek help from a Mushrik (polytheist). He went on until we reached Shajara, where the man met him again. He asked him the same question again and the prophet gave him the same answer. He said: Go back. I will not seek help from a Mushrik. The man returned and overtook him at Baida’? He asked him as he had asked previously: Do you believe in Allah and His Apostle? The man said: Yes. The Messenger of Allah said to him: Then come along with us. (Sahih Muslim, 1817)

 

It is not only the fact that the prophet would not seek help from the mushrikeen in war that makes us sure that the new Muslims who were accompanying him in the narration were not mushrikeen; it is also the fact that the first thing the prophet would call the people to was Islam. He would start the da’wah (call) to the kuffar with laa ilaha ila Allah, i.e., that they should worship Allah, alone without partners, and this is apparent from the narration above and many other evidences that can be found throughout the Qur’an and Sunnah.

 

Now, what did the new Muslims ask the prophet for in the hadith of Dhat Anwat. They said, “ij’al lanaa” (make for us), which is asking for something. They asked for a Dhat Anwat like the Dhat Anwat the mushrikeen had. The mushrikeen in the narration of Dhat Anwat would worship the tree, i.e., offer sacrifices to it, perform tawaf around it, hang their weapons from it and seek blessings from it; this is the ilah which the mushrikeen worshipped, and this is the ilah besides Allah which the new Muslims asked for. So, what is apparent from the hadith is that the new Muslims were asking for shirk, and to ask for shirk is shirk. Also, the prophet said that they asked for what the people of Musa asked for which was another ilah (object of worship). Then, the prophet swore by Allah, emphasising and making absolutely clear the likeness and similarity between what the sahabah asked for and what the people of Musa had asked for, and that this nation would most certainly follow the way of those who were before them. There was no difference between the two requests. The prophet made the two statements equal to one another. Even though the new Muslims said, “make for us a Dhat Anwat, just like their Dhat Anwat”, the prophet likened their saying to that of the children of Israel, “make for us a god just like their gods”, since what counts is the meaning, purpose and fact, not mere terms, and words.

 

1- The new Muslims asked for a Dhat Anwat the mushrikeen had.

2- Prophet Muhammad said they asked for what the people of Musa asked for, i.e. an ilah.

3- The prophet swore by Allah about the likeness of what they had asked for.

 

Based upon what the prophet said, the sahabah asked for exactly what the people of Musa had asked for; they asked for an ilah besides Allah.

 

For a complete and clear understanding of the hadith we need to go to the Qur’an and look at the situation of Musa that the prophet gave comparison to because the prophet said, “this (is) kamaa (as, just as, like) the people of Musa said”. Here, the prophet is directing us to the book of Allah for us to understand.

 

Allah says,

And We took the Children of Israel across the sea; then they came upon a people intent in devotion to [some] idols of theirs. They [the Children of Israel] said, “O Moses, make for us a god just as they have gods.” He said, “Indeed, you are a people behaving ignorantly.

 

Indeed, those [worshippers] – destroyed is that in which they are [engaged], and worthless is whatever they were doing.”

 

He said, “Is it other than Allāh I should desire for you as a god while He has preferred you over the worlds?” (7:138-140)

 

In the above ayat, the people of Musa asked Musa for an ilah like the aaliha (sing. ilah) the mushrikeen around them were worshipping. They asked for an object of worship besides Allah that they could have in front of them and see because they saw that the idol worshippers around them had physical representations of what they were worshipping, but Musa rebuked them informing them of their ignorance in the matter, and that Allah would never allow that. This is what the new Muslims in the hadith of Dhat Anwat were asking for that was shirk. They were asking for permission to take an ilah (an object of worship) besides Allah; an ilah exactly like the people of Musa asked for.

 

It is incorrect to say that the action looked or resembled something haram which was not at the level of shirk al-akbar because the prophet made clear that it was clearly a statement of shirk.

 

Up until this point, we cannot see anything else except that the new Muslims asked the prophet for what the mushrikeen had, and what the mushrikeen had is what is described in the hadith. The Muslims in the hadith of Dhat Anwat asked for a tree like the tree the mushrikeen had. In the ayat regarding the situation of Musa that the prophet likened to the new Muslims, the Muslims asked Musa for an ilah, and this is what the prophet said that the new Muslims asked for. Also, the prophet swore by Allah about the likeness between the new Muslims and the people of Musa by stating that this nation would follow the way of the people who preceded them, and this was in reference to what the people of Musa had previously said which was a request for an ilah. However, in both situations, there was clearly no takfir.

 

The new Muslims asked to be allowed an ilah that they could hang their weapons on which would give them help, support and victory in war which is shirk. They were seeking permission to have this from Allah. They were seeking permission from Allah, “ij’al lanaa”, then the ayat were sent down rebuking them, affirming their ignorance in this matter, and prohibiting what they had asked for. The sahabah wanted a tree to hang their weapons on which could be a source of help and victory for them in war. They asked for a tree that could give them victory, but Allah is the only source of victory and success. They asked to have a tree which would be a source of something which can only come from Allah. This is the thing the sahabah were seeking permission for. They did not go to the tree that the mushrikeen had because they knew that it could not help them. They knew that it could not give them anything of support and victory. They knew that the tree did not have the ability to give success or victory. Victory, support, and success are only from and can only come from Allah.

 

Allah says,

“And victory is not but from Allāh.” (8:10)

 

It is from tawheed al-rububiyah (the oneness of Allah’s lordship) that Allah is the only one who can give victory. It is impossible for this to come from something or someone other than Allah, and it cannot be given to something or someone else because this is from Allah’s rububiyah (lordship) that only He possesses. Also, the act of asking for this type of help, success and victory that can only come from the one true ilah is from tawheed al-uluhiyah (the oneness of Allah’s worship). To ask for help, success, and victory from other than Allah is not allowed because this is from Allah’s uluhiyah (worship). Worship can never be directed to other than Allah, and requests for help, support and victory, the types which only Allah is able to provide, are acts of worship, and directing such requests to other than Allah is shirk which can never be allowed. It is prohibited to even believe that success, help, or victory come from other than Allah. We cannot understand tawheed, kufr and takfir better than a prophet. The prophet Muhammad said the statement, “you are a people who know not”, showing the ignorance in their request. Prophet Musa said, “Indeed, you are a people behaving ignorantly.”. Both the children of Israel and the new Muslims, the new Muslims who are the focus and concern in this narration, were ignorant in this matter. They were ignorant about asking for what they did. They were rebuked and told not to ask for this (an ilah) because it is something that could never ever be allowed. Musa said, “Is it other than Allāh I should desire for you as a god while He has preferred you over the worlds?”. This statement is included in prophet Muhammad’s rebuke because making an ilah besides Allah is something that could never ever be possible. It impossible to give Allah’s rububiyah to other than Him, and it is strictly prohibited to attribute any of His rububiyah or give His uluhiyah to other than him.

 

There are clear verses and unclear verses, and there are also people who are sincere and people who are insincere who have a disease in their hearts. People of bid’ah (innovation) seek to justify themselves by finding daleel (evidence/proof) which is used incorrectly to support their belief. They will hold a belief and seek out evidence to use as support. However, the people of truth are those who follow what Allah wants them to follow, which is the true meaning. These people seek out the meaning Allah intends while not wanting to distort the revelation just to justify their whims and desires. They are people who will be truthful and use the Qur’an and sunnah as the basis of the truth, i.e., making sure that opinions can be seen in the Qur’an and sunnah, or not seen in the Qur’an and sunnah. Not the other way around by bending the ayat and ahadith around their own whims and desires without recourse to whether the evidence truly supports or does not support the belief, or whether the belief is truly found within the evidence or not. The sincere people are those who make the clear verses the foundation of the book and look at what needs to be looked at and taken into consideration, i.e., other ayat and ahadith, as opposed to people of innovations who make what is unclear the foundation and who also deliberately isolate ayat and ahadith.

 

Rasulullah would never delay a hukm (a ruling), and the sahabah (companions) would not leave out any detail which is the spirit and essence of the hadith, e.g., the hukm. Rasulullah would never delay the hukm of takfir because he was eager to save people from Jahannam, and the sahabah would never leave out such important detail about such an event. The messenger of Allah would always explain things, make things clear and give rulings on situations. For example, in the hadith about the golden ring being haram for men, the prophet explained the hukm and did not delay it. Also, in the hadith about having part of the hair shaved to the scalp and leaving the rest unshaven, rasulullah explained that it is haram and did not delay the hukm. The sahabah would not narrate part of a hadith and leave out a part. Also, they were very careful when narrating ahadith (narrations), like Zubair ibn al-Awwam and Abdullah ibn al-Zubair. Some sahabah narrated many ahadith and heard many things from rasulullah. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar did not, but all the sahabah who heard things from rasulullah were very careful not to make a mistake in what they narrated from him. They knew the hadith that the one who invents a lie against rasulullah will take his seat in the hell fire. If a sahabi had doubts, it would be mentioned, but nothing would be left out. There are incidents narrated in ahadith where there are important details that were not left out, e.g., the hadith of Hatib ibn Abi Balta’ah, Ammar ibn Yasir, the people who joked about the sahabah when they came back from fighting, etc. In these cases, the hukm was given. With a situation like this, in the hadith of Dhat Anwat where there are many Muslims and big sahabah present, such detail would not be left out of the narration if takfir had been made. It is inconceivable that the narrator of the Dhat Anwat hadith would have left out the hukm of takfeer. The narrator of the Dhat Anwat hadith was among the people who had just come to Islam. If these new Muslims had become kuffaar, they would need to make tawbah (repentance) urgently, but there is nothing narrated by any of the sahabah about the prophet urging them to do tawbah. So, bearing the above facts in mind it is clear the prophet did not make takfir on the new Muslims.

 

Prophets Muhammad and Musa had the same situation where the Muslims who were with them asked for an ilah. We know that takfir was not made upon them, but there is another situation regarding Musa that Allah revealed in the Qur’an that that sheds more light on the hadith of Dhat Anwat and helps to give us an even clearer and firmer understanding.

 

Allah says,

And the people of Moses made, after [his departure], from their ornaments a calf – an image having a lowing sound. Did they not see that it could neither speak to them nor guide them to a way? They took it [for worship], and they were wrongdoers.

 

And when regret overcame them and they saw that they had gone astray, they said, “If our Lord does not have mercy upon us and forgive us, we will surely be among the losers.”

 

And when Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved, he said, “How wretched is that by which you have replaced me after [my departure]. Were you impatient over the matter of your Lord?” And he threw down the tablets and seized his brother by [the hair of] his head, pulling him toward him. [Aaron] said, “O son of my mother, indeed the people overpowered me and were about to kill me, so let not the enemies rejoice over me and do not place me among the wrongdoing people.”

 

[Moses] said, “My Lord, forgive me and my brother and admit us into Your mercy, for You are the most merciful of the merciful.”

 

Indeed, those who took the calf [for worship] will obtain anger from their Lord and humiliation in the life of this world, and thus do We recompense the inventors [of falsehood].

 

But those who committed misdeeds and then repented after them and believed – indeed your Lord, thereafter, is Forgiving and Merciful. (7:148-153)

 

In the above ayat, we see that there is an explosive situation where Musa, extremely shocked with the severest type of anger, threw down the wahi (revelation), grabbed his brother, prophet Harun, by his hair and dragged him. The Muslims who Musa had left under the charge of his brother did an act of shirk by worshipping the calf while Musa was away from them. It was an act which they had to repent from, and the tawbah in their case was for them to be killed.

 

Allah says,

And [remember] when Moses said to his people, “O my people, you have wronged yourselves by taking the calf [for worship]. So, repent to your Creator and kill yourselves [the guilty among you]; that is best for you with your Creator.” Then He accepted your repentance, for He is the Accepter of Repentance, the Most Merciful. (2:54)

 

Here we have a very different situation. What is the major difference between this situation with Musa compared to both, the situation in the hadith of Dhat Anwat and the first situation of Musa? In this situation quoted in the verse above, Bani Israeel made shirk by worshipping a cow besides Allah and had to repent for it.

 

In the narration of Dhat Anwat, the sahabah asked rasulullah for what Bani Israeel had asked Musa. The sahabah asked for a tree to hang their swords on. It is not mentioned that Bani Israeel asked Musa for a tree. However, the same thing that was asked for was an ilah. If the new Muslims in the narration of Dhat Anwat did shirk and committed ridda (apostasy), which is a type of kufr, rasulullah would have taken the necessary steps. He would never overlook aqidah (faith, belief) issues like this. Even the sahabah who heard and narrated the narration were very careful in what they said. They would never have left anything out.

 

Now, the Messengers all have one and the same deen (religion) which is to enjoin the ma’ruf (good) and forbid the munkar (evil). In all three situations that we have looked at, we can see the messengers fulfilling their duties as commanded by Allah. However, the great difference which is highlighted by looking at all three situations together is that when Musa’s people asked him for an ilah, his firm response was not as explosive compared to when his people worshipped the calf. Also, there is the difference of the tawbah where they had to kill themselves which they had to do to return to Islam after committing shirk, and because there was the need to repent from worshipping the calf, we understand that Musa made takfir upon them. So, there was the shirk, takfir and tawbah. The Muslims in the narration of Dhat Anwat asked the prophet Muhammad for an ilah which is shirk, but there was not any takfir made upon them because of the fact that they did not actually do shirk by their statement of shirk which is exactly what happened with Musa when his people asked him for an ilah. Bani Israeel asked Musa for something, and the new Muslims asked Muhammad for something, i.e., they asked their respective prophets a question!

 

We can see that the Muslims with Musa and the Muslims with Muhammad asked them respectively for something. The new Muslims with rasulullah asked for shirk. To ask for shirk is shirk itself, but there was not any takfir. There was a request for shirk like the request Bani Israeel made to Musa, but they did not become mushrikeen. Both groups said to their respective prophets, “ij’al lanaa (make for us)”. The new Muslims, just like the Muslims with Musa, wanted another type of ‘ibadah and were asking rasulullah to make another type of ‘ibadah because they saw people in the worship of their ilah (a god) and they wanted this, a physical representation, for themselves. They were asking the one to whom the shari’ah was coming down to, just like the Muslims with Musa asked, for permission. It was later when Musa left his people that the act of shirk occurred. What we are looking at here and which is being shown to us by looking at and comparing all three situations are the steps that would be taken by a messenger when shirk has occurred, i.e., prophet Musa made takfir upon the people who worshipped the cow, and he told them to do tawbah.

 

Up to this point, we are just drawing a picture of the facts and then we will understand why there was no takfir.

 

People who use this hadith use it to give the excuse of ignorance for others who do shirk. For people who worship graves and people who do other acts of shirk, this evidence of Dhat Anwat is put forward to excuse people who are committing shirk. They are being given the excuse of ignorance for committing shirk. However, when we look at the hadith properly by considering all the related and relevant evidence and points, we see that the sahabah never even did shirk. If the new Muslims never ended up committing shirk, how can an excuse of ignorance for committing shirk be given based upon this narration?!

 

However, the question of why there was no takfir still remains and is very important to close the doors of believing someone can willingly do shirk and still be a Muslim. Let us make this clear. We know that in the second situation with Musa, the people committed shirk, takfir was made and they had to do tawbah. This was the messenger of Allah, Musa, doing the job that he been commanded to do. Based upon this, we know that the new Muslims in the hadith of Dhat Anwat and the people of Musa in the first situation did not end up committing shirk because their respective prophets, who were doing their jobs correctly as commanded by Allah, did not make takfir upon them and did not ask them to make tawbah. This should be sufficient and clear enough for a person to know that the new Muslims did not end up committing shirk, and if they did not end up committing shirk, nobody can use the hadith of Dhat Anwat to give the excuse of ignorance for shirk. The problem is that the question may still linger in the back of the mind as to why there was no takfir when the new Muslims clearly asked for something that was shirk because asking for shirk is shirk. There should be no room for the shaytan to lead people astray in believing that shirk can be excused due to ignorance because he will use what seems apparent to many people, ignorance (as the new Muslims were new in Islam) and their request for shirk, as an excuse for people to do shirk.

 

In the narration of Dhat Anwat, the sahabah asked rasulullah, “ij’al lanaa” (make for us) an ilah, i.e., a tree, which is shirk (because asking for shirk is shirk), but there was no shirk that ended up being done by them. In the first situation regarding Musa, Bani Israeel asked Musa, “ij’al lanaa” (make for us) an ilah which is shirk (because asking for shirk is shirk), but there was no shirk that ended up being done by them. In the second situation regarding Musa, Bani Israeel worshipped the cow. It was an action of shirk, they did shirk, became kuffar, takfir was made upon them, and they were asked to make tawbah.

 

In the hadith of Dhat Anwat, the new Muslims asked for something which was the same as what the people of Musa asked for. We can see from the hadith that no takfir was made. If the new Muslims from the sahabah and the Muslims from Bani Isra’eel who asked their respective prophets for an ilah had become mushrikeen by worshipping other than Allah, they would have had to have made tawbah. Rather, when we look to the second situation with Musa, we see how severe his reaction was when the calf was worshipped and the fact that tawbah was needed. This is how we understand the matter; we analyse the situations of both Muhammad and Musa by looking at the hadith and the verses, looking at the facts and studying the issue.

 

Now, about the statement that the new Muslims made, “ij’al lanaa” (make for us), explain it, and answer the question – why there was no takfir made upon the new Muslims for making such a statement about the ilah beside Allah.

 

The new Muslims said, “ij’al lanaa”, they asked the one to whom the revelation was being revealed to for something. The prophet Muhammad was no ordinary man in the sense that Allah had chosen him as a messenger and was sending the religion of Islam to him. Whatever Allah decided (of worship, commands, prohibitions, the permissible and the impermissible) was being sent down to Muhammad and the new Muslims knew this. The new sahabah knew this, so they were asking Allah’s prophet and messenger in the hope that Allah would grant their request. They were asking for permission to have something, and this is why there was no takfir made upon them. They knew what shirk was, hated it, and they had left it behind them to become people of tawheed. They did not want anything to do with shirk at all. What they did do though was ask prophet Muhammad if something which is shirk could be allowed for them. To make this clear, let us take the example of someone who knows that tahakum to the taghut is kufr, but he goes to an ‘alim to ask if he can go for tahakum to the taghut in a specific situation. The person knows tahakum to the taghut is kufr and hates it, but he asks an ‘alim to see if there is anything from the Qur’an or sunnah that allows it in a specific situation. From a distance, hearing someone ask to go for tahakum to the taghut may seem like the individual is doing something which is kufr because asking for kufr is kufr, but the reality is that when we look closely, we see that is not the case. The questioner knows that it is kufr, hates it, and stays away from it. This person is asking an ‘alim for evidence to do this action. This request is a request that is kufr, but this questioning is not kufr even though it does display the ignorance of the one making the request in the matter. When the new sahabah asked prophet Muhammad for an ilah, they were far away from shirk and detested it. They asked the one who was a prophet and messenger if Allah could make for them an ilah which could help, support, and give victory to them in war. They wanted to hang their weapons on the tree and have the tree give them help, support, and victory. The prophet did not allow this and would never allow it because no one other than Allah can give help, support, and victory. The sahabah did not believe in shirk or do it. Rather, it was a request to a messenger for permission, and this is why there was no takfir. The ignorance of these new Muslims in making such a request was the excuse they were given. They had the excuse of ignorance for their request.

 

For example, if a Muslim asks an ‘alim if it is allowed to go for tahakum to the taghut to obtain inheritance with the intention of spending the money on good things, none of the Muslims will view this person as a kafir because they know that the Muslim knows kufr (and of course he must not be ignorant of this shirk and should know that it is kufr). Is money a reason to allow worship to other than Allah? No! When the people with Musa worshipped the cow, the prophet did not excuse them saying that they were ignorant people suffering from ignorance. They did an act of shirk and had become murtadeen (apostates). If the sahabah went to ask the tree, etc., they would have been kuffar, but because they were not ignorant of shirk and they did not believe that it could help them, neither did they go it nor do the act, and their question was to a prophet, so they were still believers. They wanted something they could see in front of them because they had been worshipping stones, trees, etc., all their life. That is what they had been used to. If they went to the tree and hung their weapons on it, they would have been murtadeen (apostates) for believing that the tree was a source of help, support, and victory, but they knew that it was not, and that only Allah could do that.

 

Looking at another example, a person may lose a child. Someone may say that he can show the person someone who can contact the jinn to find out about the person’s child. The person knows that going to a kahin (soothsayer, fortune teller) and believing in him is disbelief and that no one knows the ghayb except Allah.

 

On the authority of Abu Hurairah that the prophet said, “Whoever goes to a fortune teller or soothsayer and believes in that which he said – he has disbelieved in that which was revealed upon Muhammad.” (Al-Hakim)

 

Allah says,

“None in the heavens and earth knows the unseen except Allāh.” (27:65)

 

However, this person who is new in Islam and ignorant asks an ‘alim if going to a kahin in this situation is permissible. This is where this new Muslim has the excuse of ignorance for asking to do something that is shirk. This person knows what shirk is and did not commit shirk but asked for something that they should not have asked for due to their ignorance of being new in Islam.

 

The man and his ashes.

 

Another evidence the ‘ulama disagree over which is used to give the excuse of ignorance for people who do shirk is the following narration.

 

Narrated Abu Sa`id:

The Prophet (ﷺ) mentioned a man from the people of the past or those who preceded you. The Prophet (ﷺ) said a sentence meaning: Allah had given him wealth and children. When his death approached, he said to his sons, “What kind of father have I been to you?” They replied, “You have been a good father.” He told them that he had not presented any good deed before Allah, and if Allah should get hold of him, He would punish him.’ “So, look!” he added, “When I die, burn me, and when I turn into coal, crush me, and when there comes a windy day, scatter my ashes in the wind.” The Prophet (ﷺ) added, “Then by Allah, he took a firm promise from his children to do so, and they did so. (They burnt him after his death) and threw his ashes on a windy day. Then Allah commanded to his ashes. “Be,” and behold! He became a man standing! Allah said, “O My slave! What made you do what you did?” He replied, “For fear of You.” Nothing saved him then but Allah’s Mercy (So Allah forgave him). (Sahih al-Bukhari, 7508)

 

This hadith is another evidence that people use to give the excuse of ignorance for those who do shirk. The man who is the subject of this narration had doubt about Allah’s qudrah (omnipotence, all-encompassing unlimited power; ability), but he did not doubt the day of resurrection. It is not mentioned that he doubted the day of resurrection. What he had doubts about was Allah resurrecting him in a certain way. He thought that if he was burnt, Allah would not be able to gather his ashes, and in the end of the hadith it says that Allah forgave him. Allah forgiving him means that whatever he did was not kufr or shirk because Allah does not forgive a person who dies committing kufr or shirk (shirk being a type of kufr).

 

Regarding dying upon kufr, Allah says,

But repentance is not [accepted] of those who [continue to] do evil deeds up until, when death comes to one of them, he says, “Indeed, I have repented now,” or of those who die while they are disbelievers. For them We have prepared a painful punishment. (4:18)

 

Regarding dying upon shirk, Allah says,

Indeed, Allāh does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allāh has certainly fabricated a tremendous sin. (4:48)

 

This man was ignorant of something, but the people who use this hadith cannot use this as evidence to say the man doubted the day of resurrection because there is ijma’ that someone who doubts the day of resurrection is a kafir. This is the first mistake which is believing that this Muslim doubted the day of resurrection. Doubting the day of resurrection is something for which there is no excuse. The ayah below is one example of many that doubting the resurrection is kufr.

 

Allah says,

And within the land are neighbouring plots and gardens of grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who reason.

 

And if you are astonished, [O Muḥammad] – then astonishing is their saying, “When we are dust, will we indeed be [brought] into a new creation?” Those are the ones who have disbelieved in their Lord, and those will have shackles upon their necks, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally. (13:4-5)

 

In the verse above, those who disbelieved are disbelievers because they doubted in the resurrection which is a pillar of emaan. The man in the hadith about the ashes did not deny the day of resurrection, rather, he doubted Allah’s capability to resurrect him. He was not aware of Allah’s full capability.

 

There is a lot of knowledge to do with the names and attributes of Allah, for example, Allah smiles, has a hand, is All-Seeing, knows everything of the unseen, etc. There is a difference between denying a pillar of emaan and denying a name or attribute that is from the branches of tawheed. There is no excuse at all for denying a pillar of emaan because believing in the pillars of emaan are essential for a person to be a Muslim, but there are many of Allah’s names and attributes from the branches of tawheed which a Muslim may be ignorant of which do not necessarily make a person a kafir for not knowing. Yes, denying one of Allah’s names or attributes, just like denying anything from Islam, is kufr, but the person would only become a kafir for this if they rejected the evidence for it, and rejecting the evidence means that it had to have reached him. To be a Muslim it is not a requirement for someone to know everything about Allah or the religion of Islam, and it is impossible to know everything straight away. So, the first point is that the man in the hadith did not deny the day of resurrection. The second point is that denying one of Allah’s attributes or capabilities only makes a person a kafir after denying the evidence that reaches a person (but it is not shirk, associating partners with Allah). Take the example of someone who embraces (accepts) Islam. This person embraces Islam, direct all acts of worship to Allah and does not commit kufr. Now, there is a lot of knowledge to do with the names and attributes of Allah, but this person does not know all of Allah’s names and attributes. However, he is still a Muslim. He may not know that Allah knows everything, can see everything, can hear everything or is able to resurrect him when he is burnt to ashes (doubting Allah’s capability being a kufr belief), and this is because this information has not reached him, and denying any of these things from the branches of tawheed is kufr, not shirk, but he would only become a kafir after rejecting the evidence that reaches him. Another example is someone rejecting that Allah smiles, which is kufr, but not shirk (associating partners with Allah), and this person who makes a statement of kufr by rejecting one of Allah’s attributes can become a kafir, but only after rejecting the evidence. So, the people who use this evidence as an excuse for shirk have made a mistake from this angle, too. We can only conclude that the man did not know of Allah’s capability to resurrect him when he was burnt to ashes.

 

This brings us to the point that there are two groups of people that are excused for not knowing certain things about the names and attributes of Allah, and the shari’ah. These two groups are:

1 – those who are new to Islam, and

2 – those who are in a place where the knowledge is not available.

 

1 – Those who are new to Islam.

The excuse of ignorance for people who are new in Islam is based upon the hadith of Dhat Anwat which has passed. Allah has commanded the people to worship Him and to do that they must learn about the deen. It is impossible for the person who is new to Islam to learn everything from the branches of tawheed regarding Allah’s names and attributes, and the shari’ah as soon as they accept Islam. This person who does not know many things about Allah’s names and attributes, and the shari’ah is excused because they cannot know everything straight away whereas when someone has had time or been in Islam for twenty years or even less, i.e., had enough time to learn; there is no excuse. The person who had the time to learn was someone who had the time to learn but they did not, so they are not given the excuse of ignorance and they are held responsible for that.

 

2 – Those who are in a place where the knowledge is not available.

The excuse of ignorance for Muslims who are in a place where there is no knowledge, or the knowledge has not spread is based upon this hadith of the man and his ashes. The person who is in a place where there is no knowledge, or the knowledge has not spread cannot learn anything from the branches of tawheed regarding the names and attributes of Allah or His shari’ah if the knowledge is not available. It is impossible to learn about this knowledge of Allah’s names and attributes, and the shari’ah of Allah if there is no prophet, an ‘alim, Muslims who have this knowledge, or any other means. If the knowledge is not available or widely spread, the person cannot know it. The man in this hadith of the man and the ashes was excused for not knowing about something from Allah’s names and attributes because the knowledge was not available. There was no prophet, ‘alim, Muslim(s) who knew, or knowledge available. His children did not even know because if they knew, they would have told their father to fear Allah in this regard. None of them knew. They were all ignorant in this matter, but Allah forgave this man for the only reason that we can see is possible from the hadith. This is in comparison to the situation where knowledge is available by some means. For example, take a town where there are some Muslims who know about the qudrah of Allah and some who do not. Everyone possesses the ability to know and understand. Those who do know also possess the ability to disregard and neglect the knowledge about the qudrah of Allah, but they do not. The fact is that the others are not interested to learn and know. They have not made the effort to understand, so they are not given the excuse of ignorance and are held responsible for that.

 

It is important to highlight and take into great consideration that people must match evidence with the reality correctly. There are individuals who are not doing this and as a result they are making mistakes. What we need to do is study the evidence that is relevant to the situation we want to understand, for example, the Muslim in this hadith, and any other evidence that is linked to the topic matter. In this way, will we be able to understand the evidence, and as a result we can correctly match it to the situations it applies to and see which situations it does not apply to. This is how we will be able to come to the correct understanding and the right conclusion and see, in this case, where there is an excuse of ignorance and where there is not.

 

The man in the hadith of the man and the ashes was a thief who would dig graves and take akfaan (sing. kafan, winding sheet, shroud) from dead bodies and resell them to make a living. This was one of the sins that he used to commit, and when he would do this, he would become scared when seeing the remains of the dead bodies. What this person did in the man and the ashes hadith was out of fear of Allah and this reason is apparent in the narration. Some ‘ulama said this reason is not evidence to excuse the man from what he did (the action of kufr which was doubting Allah’s capability). Other people said that he feared Allah so much that he did not know what he said. These people made the analogy between him and the man in the hadith of the man and his camel who said words of kufr by mistake due to extreme happiness.

 

Anas reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Allah is more delighted at the repentance of His servant than one of you who lost his riding animal on a journey in a barren land while it carries his food and drink. He loses all hope as he comes to a tree to lie down in its shade, despairing over his animal, but suddenly he finds it standing over him. He takes hold of its reins and then he greatly rejoices, saying: O Allah, You are my servant and I am your Lord! He makes a mistake due to his great joy.” (Sahih Muslim, 2747)

 

The man was so happy when finding his belongings after losing them that he accidently said the words of kufr, “You are my slave, and I am your lord”. He did not doubt the qudrah (omnipotence) of Allah, but he did say the words of kufr, “You are my slave, and I am your lord”. A man can be so happy from receiving a gift that he makes a statement of kufr, but the joy is no excuse for saying kufr. Now, we see from the hadith of the man and his camel that the person made a mistake with his tongue. He was happy (a state of joy), and happiness is not an excuse for kufr, but we have the saying of the prophet who explained that it was a slip of the tongue, i.e., he did not realise what he was saying. This is contrary to the man from the man and the ashes hadith who was in his senses; he knew exactly what he was saying and doing.

 

For those who say there is a similarity with the hadith of the man and his camel, rasulullah said that the extreme joy was the cause for the man’s slip of the tongue. This is contrary to the situation of the man in the hadith of the man and his ashes who had his senses and knew what he was doing, and there is nothing that indicates otherwise. There is nothing indicated by rasulullah in the hadith that there was a slip of the tongue, rather, the man said, “if Allah should get hold of him”, which shows that he was thinking about the possibility of Allah gathering him and bringing him back which means that he had a percentage of doubt and was using his intellect by thinking about the matter and not just saying things without any thought. We must stick to what is apparent of the hadith. The hadith shows that he ignored something. He did not know of and was unaware that inna Allaha ala kulli shayin qadeer (verily, Allah has power over all things). This leaves us with only one possibility which is that he was a Muslim who did not know one of Allah’s attributes because he lived in a time when there was no rasul (the rasul is the one by means of which the knowledge would be available and by which he would not have had an excuse) or the knowledge was not widely spread.

 

Let us remind ourselves that we are studying the evidence that people use to say that there is al-‘udhr bil-jahl for people who make shirk. To give the excuse of ignorance for shirk there needs to be evidence where a Muslim did shirk, i.e., where a Muslim is excused for an action of shirk (either a statement of the tongue or an action of the limb) due to ignorance.

 

From the hadith of the man whose ashes were spread, we know that the man was afraid; we do not need to go any deeper. He said to Allah that he was afraid, and the prophet said that he was afraid because the prophet is the one who told us about this man.

 

People who use this hadith to say that there is al-‘udhr bil-jahl agree that he was afraid. They say he was very afraid. They say that due to extreme fear, he lost his mind for a moment and thus said a statement of kufr, like the one in the man and his camel hadith who lost his mind for a moment when he found his belongings after losing them and said out of extreme happiness, “You are my slave, and I am your lord”. This is the reason why they say he was excused.

 

When studying the hadith about the man and his camel, we see that the prophet told the story and said that the man said, “You are my slave, and I am your lord”. If we stop here, we see that what he said is kufr and that is it. However, the prophet went on to explain that he lost his mind out of joy. So, the prophet explained it was a mistake which he did not become a kafir for. When studying the hadith about the man and his ashes, we do not see that the man lost his mind. We do not see anything saying that this man lost his mind. On the contrary, we see that he was aware of what he was saying and doing, and this is demonstrated by him calling his sons, asking them questions, etc. The man called his sons and gave them instructions. We can see that the man’s situation was the opposite to having lost his mind. We can see that the man had a fear of Allah that drove him to do what he did, but he was fully aware of what he was saying and doing.

 

Once again, doubting (to not have certainty about something) the resurrection is kufr.

There are a lot of ayat that show how doubt in the resurrection is kufr. If the man in the man and the ashes hadith died with this belief, Allah would not forgive him, but he did.

 

And this is the point of al-‘udhr bil-jahl. What the man said was kufr, but he was not a kafir. The man had doubt about Allah’s omnipotence which is kufr, but Allah forgave him. This is what Allah excused, and this evidence in the context of the other evidence we looked at shows us what is excusable due to ignorance.

 

The ignorance of the man who requested that his body been burnt to ashes should not be confused with the ilah that the sahabah requested. The man denied Allah’s capability which is kufr, but Allah forgave him for not knowing the full extent of His power because the knowledge had not reached him which means that it was not present or widely spread for him to know. However, the Muslims that asked Musa for an ilah were not ignorant of shirk, they knew that Allah should be worshipped alone and did not worship other than Allah. They asked for one ilah, and not multiple gods. They could have gone and worshipped the aaliha (gods) that the mushrikeen were worshipping but they did not. Did they ask to go and pray with them? They did not go by themselves to worship the ilah that the mushrikeen were worshipping. They did not ask for permission to worship those idols. They did not want to worship other than Allah. They believed in Allah, worshipped Allah, and only wanted to worship Allah. They asked for something, “ij’al lanaa”. If Musa allowed it, it would mean that it was allowed from Allah, but of course Allah would never allow for an ilah to be worshipped besides Him because that is impossible. Musa was the one talking to Allah. He was the one being given things from Allah. The truth is these Muslims were asking the specific individual who was receiving revelation from the source of legislation, i.e., Allah. They asked for an ilah like the gods the mushrikeen had, but only for one. They wanted one that was a physical representation because the mushrikeen had a representation. The same happened with the new sahabah. They did not ask to go and worship the idols the mushrikeen had. They were not ignorant of shirk. They asked the prophet for a tree to get barakah from. Something that would give them help, victory and support. If Muhammad allowed it, it would mean that it was allowed by Allah, but of course Allah would never allow for an ilah to be worshipped besides Him because that is impossible. They did not believe that there was real barakah in the tree the mushrikeen had. They asked for one to be made for them so that they could get barakah from it. They asked the one who was receiving revelation from the source of legislation who is Allah. If Allah accepted it, it would have been done for them, but the true rububiyah can never be possessed by other than Allah. Once, a man went to the prophet and asked for zina to be made permissible for him. He went to ask someone who was a prophet, not to someone who was a normal ordinary man. He believed in Muhammad as a prophet. He knew that he received revelation and laws from Allah. He was asking permission from Allah when asking the prophet. The new sahabah also knew that they were asking a prophet and not any normal man. The new sahabah were asking for permission for something from a prophet. So, the request of the new sahabah meant they were asking for permission from Allah to have a tree from which they could attain barakah from. The request was for the same thing the kuffar were worshipping, an ilah, that they could have if given permission. They asked for something to have that would be in front of them. They asked for one because they only worshipped one true ilah, Allah. It is undeniable that they were people who rejected idols and were not ignorant of the fact that idols should not be worshipped. Did they then want to worship idols? How could they have rejected the idols then want to worship them? How could they reject the worship of other than Allah then want to worship other than Allah? There is no Islam for someone who wants to worship idols. If they wanted to worship idols, who could stop them? Why did they need to come to the prophet to ask him for permission? They were asking permission from the prophet for what they believed to be a new type of ‘ibadah. Yes, what they asked for ignorantly was shirk, but they did not doubt that Allah should be worshipped alone. They were asking the one to whom the shari’ah was being revealed to for permission for what they believed to be a new type of ‘ibadah which they would direct to Allah. The point we want to draw attention to is that for the new sahabah there was no excuse of ignorance of shirk because they were not ignorant and did not have any doubt of the fact that only Allah should be worshipped. Rather, they were ignorant about making such a request for what they believed to be a new type of ‘ibadah. The situation is not like and should not be confused with the situation of the man and his ashes. In one situation, there was ignorance in a request for something which was shirk, not ignorance in shirk, whereas, in the other there was doubt/denial of Allah’s attribute from the branches of tawheed. In the hadith of the man and his ashes, the man was ignorant about something, denying Allah’s capability, which was kufr, he doubted Allah’s capability which is an act of kufr, but Allah forgave him because the knowledge had not reached him.

 

So, the man was calm and said well-thought-out words, etc. Everything that he said to his children was planned. It was not speech that would come from someone who had lost his mind. Yes, he was afraid. He was not afraid of his children but afraid of Allah. The man gave his wasiyah (will) which was detailed; his planning; gathering his children and his instructions. This could not be a mistake. Now, to reiterate the difference between the hadith about the man and his ashes and the hadith about the man and his camel. In one of the two hadith, there exists an excuse as stated by the prophet but not in the other.

 

In the Qur’an, we have the story about the two men and the garden in surat al-Kahf where one man was happy with his garden and said words of kufr, but it is not said that he had the excuse of extreme happiness for saying kufr. His kufr was,

1 – that he believed what he had would not perish,

2 – denying the hour, and

3 – doubting the day of resurrection.

 

Allah says,

Give them an example of two men: to one of them We gave two gardens of grapevines and surrounded them with palm trees and placed between them crops.

 

Each garden yielded its produce and did not fall short in the least, and We caused a stream to flow through them.

 

And he had abundant fruit. He said to his companion, as he was conversing with him, “I am greater than you in wealth and superior in followers.”

 

He entered his garden, having wronged himself, and said, “I do not think that this will ever perish,

 

nor do I think that the Hour will ever come. Even if I am brought back to my Lord, I will surely find something better than this.”

 

His companion said, while conversing with him, “Do you disbelieve in He Who created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then fashioned you into a well-proportioned man?

 

As for me: He is Allah, my Lord, and I do not associate anyone with my Lord. (18:32-36)

 

The man who disbelieved in the above verses was very happy with his wealth, but his happiness was not an excuse for his act of kufr.

 

Allah says,

One with whom was knowledge of the Scripture said: “I will bring it to you within the twinkling of an eye!” then when [Sulaimân (Solomon)] saw it placed before him, he said: “This is by the Grace of my Lord to test me whether I am grateful or ungrateful! And whoever is grateful, truly, his gratitude is for (the good of) his own self, and whoever is ungrateful, (he is ungrateful only for the loss of his own self). Certainly! My Lord is Rich (Free of all wants), Bountiful.” 27:40

 

The verse above shows that blessings are from Allah. Blessings are always things that make people happy. The verse also shows that blessings are a test, and a person can either be grateful for them or do kufr. Prophet Sulaiman was happy with what Allah gave him, he knew that it was a test and was very grateful, so Allah increased him in emaan for his gratitude. What we also see from this verse is that a person can do kufr with the blessings of Allah and that happiness and becoming overjoyed by the blessings is not an excuse.

 

Allah says,

And ˹remember˺ when your Lord proclaimed, ‘If you are grateful, I will certainly give you more. But if you are ungrateful, surely My punishment is severe.’” (14:7)

 

In the case of Qaroon, Allah gave him vast amounts of wealth, but he was someone who made kufr because he thought that it was a result of his own mind and power. He was happy with what he had, but it increased him in pride and arrogance, and his happiness with his blessings was not an excuse for his disbelief.

 

So, the man in the hadith of the man and his camel was not excused from his words of kufr because he was extremely happy. What happened was that he mixed up his words due to extreme happiness when he found his camel, food, and water after losing them and being on the verge of death, and this reason was stated by the prophet in the hadith. If we do not have the explanation of Muhammad at the end of the hadith, we do not see an excuse for his kufr. There is a genuine link between the mistake and happiness with the excuse stated by the prophet, and it is not just general happiness for which there is no excuse.

 

Regarding the man and his ashes hadith, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

This was a man who had doubts about the capability of Allah and bringing him back if he was dust. Rather he believed that Allah would not be able to resurrect him, which constitutes disbelief according to Muslim consensus. But he was ignorant and did not know that, although he was a believer who feared that Allah would punish him. Therefore, Allah forgave him for that. (Majmu’ Al-Fataawa 3/231)

 

He also said,

This man believed that Allah would not be able to gather his dust if he was scattered in this way, so he thought that he would not restore him if he became like that. In both cases, rejection of Allah’s capability and rejection of resurrecting the bodies if they are scattered, is kufr, but with his emaan in Allah; his belief in His commands; and his fear of Him, he was ignorant of that and he strayed in his belief, so Allah forgave him for that. (Al-Istiqaamah 1/164)

 

The fact is that what the man said was kufr. He doubted Allah will resurrect him. He did not doubt the day of resurrection, but he doubted Allah’s ability to resurrect him. He ignored the qudrah of Allah; (1) His capability of putting him together (gathering his ashes together) and (2) resurrecting him. This man clearly and consciously said words of kufr, but Allah forgave him, so it is impossible that he died upon kufr of which shirk is a type because Allah does not forgive anyone who dies upon kufr, and this necessarily means that he did not deny the day of resurrection because that is also kufr which Allah does not excuse. This leaves one thing which is that he was ignorant; he did not know the full capability of Allah. This man had al-‘udhr bil-jahl (the excuse of ignorance), and we see in the context of the other related evidence what Allah gave him the excuse of ignorance for, and it clearly was not for shirk. This Muslim did not know and doubted the extent of Allah’s attribute of power. Allah’s qudrah is limitless. The hadith shows that the man said a statement showing belief in Allah, the resurrection, good deeds and bad deeds, and that he did not reject that Allah is the Creator, etc. He believed that Allah could resurrect him in a normal way, but he thought that maybe Allah will not be able to gather his ashes and resurrect him if he was burnt in this way. He requested to be burnt and spread because of his bad deeds and his ignorance of Allah’s qudrah.

 

This narration cannot be used to excuse those who commit shirk because the Muslim in this narration never made shirk. So, we can see in which situations this narration can be applied and where it cannot be applied. This Muslim said words of kufr, but he was not a kafir. This hadith shows that there are cases where if someone does not know some of the knowledge of Allah’s names and attributes from the branches of tawheed, doubts the full extent of Allah’s attributes or is ignorant of the shari’ah of Allah, they can be excused. This is al-’udhr bil-jahl.

 

The statement of ‘Aishah.

 

The following hadith is another narration that the ‘ulama disagree over.

 

Muhammad b. Qais said (to the people):

Should I not narrate to you (a hadith of the Holy Prophet) on my authority and on the authority of my mother? We thought that he meant the mother who had given him birth. He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was Aishah who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps, and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O Aishah, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it, yes. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened. He (Gabriel) said: Your Lord has commanded you to go to the inhabitants of Baqi’ (to those lying in the graves) and beg pardon for them. I said: Messenger of Allah, how should I pray for them (How should I beg forgiveness for them)? He said: Say, Peace be upon the inhabitants of this city (graveyard) from among the Believers and the Muslims, and may Allah have mercy on those who have gone ahead of us, and those who come later on, and we shall, God willing, join you. (Sahih Muslim, 974b)

 

One night, ‘Aishah followed rasulullah when he went to Baqi’ graveyard. When he decided to return and make his way back home, she ran back home. When the prophet returned home, he noticed her short of breath and asked her why this was the case. He then said that Allah will inform him. ‘Aishah said, “whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it, yes”.

 

People use a version of this hadith which is in Musnad Ahmad (Musnad Ahmad, 25327) to say that rasulullah never made takfir upon ‘Aishah when, as they claim, she questioned, i.e., doubted, Allah’s knowledge of the ghayb. They say that when she said, “whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it”, the prophet replied “yes”. They say this dialogue between ‘Aishah and the prophet shows that she questioned Allah’s knowledge of hidden matters and that she did not know that He knows everything. They say this because the prophet answered “yes” when she said, “whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it” which means that she asked a question. Thus, her question, as they claim, shows that she did not know that Allah knows the ghayb.

 

The situation in this hadith (if we assume that ‘Aishah asked a question) is the same as the situation in the hadith of the man and his will (the man and his ashes). The man who set out his wasiyah (will) did not know of Allah’s capability to gather his ashes just like ‘Aishah (if we assume that it was a question) did not know Allah’s ability to know all the hidden things/matters.

 

As mentioned above, the riwaayah (report, account) collected by Ahmad was interpreted to be a question, i.e., “does Allah know everything?” because the prophet said “yes” after ‘Aishah’s statement (Musnad Ahmad, 25327). Some people thought that ‘Aishah asked a question because the prophet said “yes” after her statement. However, the riwaayah in Saheeh Muslim states that ‘Aishah said “yes” herself, “whatever the people conceal, Allah knows it, yes”, which shows her own confirmation and her understanding, and not a question. It is also a positive sentence showing confirmation and the truth of her understanding as reported in a hadith collected in Sunan an-Nasa’i. It says, “whatever the people conceal, Allah knows it.” (Sunan an-Nasa’i, 2037)

 

‘Aishah’s father was Abu Bakr, and she was brought up in his home. Abu Bakr was very close to rasulullah. He was listening to the prophet, learning from him, and conveying what he knew. Also, ‘Aishah married the prophet. Did she not learn in her father’s home that Allah knows what is in the heart? Did she not learn from rasulullah that Allah knows everything that is within the hearts of people? Did she not know that Allah knows everything? The Qur’an is full of inna Allaha ala kulli shayin qadir (verily, Allah has power over all things) which she knew. Also, what is in the heart of knowledge and belief is part of the ghayb (unseen), and in the Qur’an Allah speaks about those who believe in the ghayb. ‘Aishah knew that knowledge and belief of the heart is part of the ghayb that Allah speaks about in the Qur’an. She believed in that, and she also believed that Allah knows the ghayb. It is impossible that Abu Bakr and rasulullah did not teach ‘Aishah about this matter. Also, she was the most knowledgeable wife of Rasulullah, and one of the most knowledgeable companions! In fact, there was never a question mark in the hadith. The people put the question mark there and made the statement into a question. ‘Aishah never asked the question. When she read salatu adh-dhuhr (the midday prayer) behind rasulullah, she knew that it was read quietly, and that Allah knew she was reciting and what she was reciting. She was aware that Allah knew about her recitation, intention, heart, etc.

 

Ibn Taymiyyah said, “when someone doubts one of Allah’s attributes that people like him in knowledge usually know, he is a kafir, but if similar people like him ignore it then he is excused. This is why rasulullah did not make takfir upon the one who doubted the qudrah of Allah.”

 

Allah forgave the man in the hadith of the man and the ashes which proves that he did not do kufr, and rasulullah when narrating the story, did not make takfir upon the man. And related to this kind of excuse of not knowing something of Allah’s names and attributes from the branches of tawheed, if we assume for a moment that ‘Aishah did not know the full extent of Allah’s knowledge of the unseen, is this hadith of ‘Aishah where she said, “Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah knows it”. There is no doubt that ‘Aishah knew about Allah’s power over everything, and that the knowledge had reached her through various means, and was also widespread among the Muslims for which there could be no excuse. However, not knowing that Allah knows everything is not something that constitutes shirk. So, even if the meaning of this hadith is misinterpreted, it cannot be used as evidence to give the excuse of ignorance for committing shirk.

 

The hawaariyyun (sing. hawaari disciple, follower, supporter).

 

The verses below are another proof that the ‘ulama disagree over.

 

Allah says,

[And remember] when the disciples said, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table [spread with food] from the heaven?” [Jesus] said, “Fear Allāh, if you should be believers.”

 

They said, “We wish to eat from it and let our hearts be reassured and know that you have been truthful to us and be among its witnesses.” (5:112-113)  

 

The verses above are used by some people to give those who do shirk the excuse of ignorance.

 

There are different qira’at (sing. qira’a manner of recital, recitation) of this verse.

1 – “hal yastatee’ rabbuka an yunazzila alaina ma’idah”, and

2 – “hal tastatee’ rabbaka an yunazzila alaina ma’idah”.

The parts of the verse that produce the difference in meaning are “hal yastatee’ rabbuka” and “hal tastatee’ rabbaka”.

 

The first qira’a has the meaning of ‘if the Lord (Allah) can do something’, i.e., asking if Allah has the ability, which is doubt, and doubting Allah’s ability to be able to do something is kufr. The second qira’a has the meaning of ‘if ‘Eesa can ask Allah (requesting ‘Eesa to ask Allah)’, or ‘if you (‘Eesa) ask Allah, will He give you what you ask for?’.

 

The first form of recitation “hal yastatee’ rabbuka” is the famous recitation of the verse.

 

The first opinion regarding the meaning of the verse is explained by the primary and most important way of understanding the Qur’an which is by tafsir (explanation, interpretation) of the Qur’an by the Qur’an, and from this is one qira’a explaining another qira’a. So, “hal yastatee’ rabbuka” is explained by “hal tastatee’ rabbaka”. So, the statement, “can your Lord send down to us a table [spread with food]?” means “can you (are you able to) ask your Lord to send down to us a table [spread with food]?” or “if you ask your Lord, will He give you what you ask for?”

 

The second opinion is that the huwaariyyun were asking if Allah is capable, but this interpretation cannot be correct for the following reasons.

 

On the authority of Ibn Abi Mulaykah who said, ‘Aishah said, “the hawaariyyun did not doubt Allah’s ability to send down a table (spread of food), rather they said, ‘are you able to (meaning… could you) ask your Lord, (or if you ask your Lord, will He give it to you)?’” (Al-Tabari)

 

It was as though ‘Aishah was saying, “is it the hawaariyyun that do not know that Allah is able to do anything?!” Imagine if you asked your son whether Allah can do anything. What would he say? Could he doubt this? No! You know that he would say that Allah is able to do anything. Do you doubt whether your son knows Allah’s qudrah? No! You would never doubt that your son knows Allah’s ability to do anything. Then, how is it possible that the hawaariyyun of ‘Eesa could have any doubt about this? What was the prophet doing if the people closest to him did not understand? If the hawaariyyun (disciples/followers/supporters) of ‘Eesa are the closet people to him, and Allah is saying to be like them, it is not possible that they did not know this. It is not possible that they made this statement of kufr by doubting Allah’s capability to do something. There is no doubt that the first thing ‘Eesa would teach them is the ‘aqidah. What made the hawaariyyun who they were was their belief. They were the closest people to the prophet, believing in him and what Allah sent him with.

 

Allah says,

But when Jesus felt [persistence in] disbelief from them, he said, “Who are my supporters for [the cause of] Allāh?” The disciples said, “We are supporters for Allāh. We have believed in Allāh and testify that we are Muslims [submitting to Him].

 

Our Lord, we have believed in what You revealed and have followed the messenger [i.e., Jesus], so register us among the witnesses [to truth].” (3:52,53)

 

Is it these people, who Allah speaks about in the above verses, who were saying that they did not know Allah’s power over everything? In the Qur’an, Allah says who these people were and is showing what their level was.

 

Allah says,

And [remember] when I inspired to the disciples, “Believe in Me and in My messenger [i.e., Jesus].” They said, “We have believed, so bear witness that indeed we are Muslims [in submission to Allāh].” (5:111)

 

Allah says,

O you who have believed, be supporters of Allāh, as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, “Who are my supporters for Allāh?” The disciples said, “We are supporters of Allāh.” (61:14)

 

This was the level of the huwaariyyun. They were the closest people to ‘Eesa and the most knowledgeable of the people with him. Let us put everything aside for a moment and ask ourselves this question. Does anyone understand better than ‘Aishah? Let us imagine for a moment that we do not have the statement of ‘Aishah either. The point is also proven by the inkar (disavowel, non-acceptance) of their statement by ‘Eesa. So, did they make this request because they knew who Allah was or because they doubted Allah’s capability? If they doubted Allah’s capability, the prophet would have made his inkar with his teaching the huwaariyyun so that they do not doubt this again. If they did not know, why did ‘Eesa not teach them? The hawaariyyun became who they were because of their belief. How was Musa’s inkar when the Muslims asked for an ilah? His inkar was severe because it was about kufr and shirk. why did ‘Eesa not talk about the matter if they doubted Allah’s capability?

 

The prophet Muhammad once made a statement about Zubair being his hawari. What was the level of Zubair? Was he a normal Muslim or a Muslim whose level was very high? He was of a high level.

 

Narrated Jabir:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Every prophet used to have a Hawari (i.e. disciple), and my Hawari is Az-Zubair bin Al-`Awwam.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3719)

 

‘Eesa was not married and did not have the responsibility of a wife and children to look after, so he was always busy in da’wah, and he was being supported by the hawaariyyun who were with him all the time. Even Abu Jahl knew the da’wah. How could the hawaariyyun not know? The hawaariyyun knew Allah very well. They were fully aware of the qudrah of Allah.

 

In the very worst case, is doubting the qudrah of Allah shirk? No. So, the people cannot use this as evidence to give the excuse of ignorance for people who do shirk.

 

The hawaariyyun made their request because they wanted to increase in emaan. They believed in Allah and His messenger, but they wanted to be stronger in faith just as Ibrahim wanted to be stronger in faith when he wanted to see how Allah gives life to the dead.

 

Allah says,

And [mention] when Abraham said, “My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead.” [Allāh] said, “Have you not believed?” He said, “Yes, but [I ask] only that my heart may be satisfied.” [Allāh] said, “Take four birds and commit them to yourself. Then [after slaughtering them] put on each hill a portion of them; then call them – they will come [flying] to you in haste. And know that Allāh is Exalted in Might and Wise.” (2:260)

 

Allah says about the hawaariyyun,

They said, “We wish to eat from it and let our hearts be reassured and know that you have been truthful to us and be among its witnesses.” (5:113)

 

What is important to emphasise when dealing with such a subject where there are many ‘ulama who spoke about and differed on evidence related to this subject like the ahadith and ayat that have been quoted above about Dhat Anwat, ‘Aishah, the hawaariyyun and the man and his ashes is that they did not make takfir on one another. This is because they based their opinions on evidence that could be legitimately misunderstood, i.e., they produced an understanding that could be mistakenly derived from the evidence as opposed to an opinion that has no basis and that would be impossible to derive from the Qur’an and sunnah. So, they took the subject carefully and dealt with it in the correct manner.

 

If someone has doubt about Allah’s capability, that being kufr, it is not something that would necessarily make this person a disbeliever. There is a lot of knowledge to do with the many beautiful names and lofty attributes of Allah. This kind of doubt in Allah’s power and capability is the same as the statement of the man who requested that his body be burnt to ashes, and the statement which people claim ‘Aishah made. They are all statements which are equivocally not shirk, and a person would only become a kafir after rejecting the relative evidence or neglecting the knowledge if it is widespread.

 

The Qur’an being lifted.

 

The following narration is another evidence the people differed over.

 

It was narrated from Hudhaifah bin Yaman that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

“Islam will wear out as embroidery on a garment wears out, until no one will know what fasting, prayer, (pilgrimage) rites and charity are. The Book of Allah will be taken away at night, and not one Verse of it will be left on earth. And there will be some people left, old men and old women, who will say: “We saw our fathers saying these words: ‘La ilaha illallah’ so we say them too.” Silah said to him: “What good will (saying): La ilaha illallah do them, when they do not know what fasting, prayer, (pilgrimage) rites and charity are?” Hudhaifah turned away from him. He repeated his question three times, and Hudhaifah turned away from him each time. Then he turned to him on the third time and said: “O Silah! It will save them from Hell,” three times. (Sunan Ibn Maajah, 4049)

 

Before the hadith is explained, it should be noted that it will be dealt with as though it is saheeh (authentic) because the ‘ulama differed over its authenticity. First, an explanation of the fiqh (understanding) will be given, then the authenticity will be stated even though there is no ijma’ on whether it is sahih or da’eef.

 

In the hadith quoted above, the prophet speaks about a time when the Qur’an will be lifted. It is a time when nothing will remain from the shari’ah. The only thing they will have of the shari’ah is the tawheed. They do not know al-salat, al-zakat, al-saum, al-hajj or anything else. The shari’ah for them is the tawheed. The ‘ulama take from this hadith that there will be people who do not know about the prayer, charity, fasting, etc., but this kalimah (word, i.e., laa ilaha ila Allah) will save them from the hellfire.

 

In the Qur’an, Allah says that Muhammad did not know the shari’ah. Before the shari’ah was revealed, he was not held accountable for not following it because it was not there. The prophet did not know about al-salah (the prayer) we pray now. Neither did he know about the al-zakah (the charity) or al-sawm (the fasting). In the hadith quoted above, the book is taken away, and the people do not know the ahkam (rulings), i.e., the details of the shari’ah. The knowledge and the Qur’an are taken away.

 

Allah says,

And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command [i.e., the Qur’ān]. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, [O Muḥammad], you guide to a straight path. (42:52)

 

In the verse above, Allah is saying that the prophet did not know the details that were given to him in the Qur’an. If the details were not there, he was not obliged to follow anything other than what Allah had revealed to Him up until that point. The shari’ah was whatever was with him, and it was that which he was obliged to follow, nothing else.

 

Also, Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail lived during the life of Muhammad, but before Muhammad was sent as a prophet and messenger. He was someone who was a Muslim that rejected the different religions that the kuffar followed. During his time, there were some remains of the millat (religion) of Ibrahim, but there was nothing else. There were no other details of the religion for him to follow. He was a Muslim even though he did not know how to worship Allah.

 

Ibn Ishaq said: ‘Hisham b. Urwa told me from his father on the authority of his mother Asma daughter of Abu Bakr who said that she saw Zayd as a very old man leaning his back on the Ka’bah and saying, ‘O Quraysh, By Him in whose hand is the soul of Zayd, not one of you follows the religion of Abraham but I.’ Then he said: ‘O Allah, if I knew how you wished to be worshipped, I would so worship you; but I do not know.’ Then he prostrated himself on the palms of his hands.’ (Al-Tabari)

 

The shari’ah for Zayd was laa ilaha ila Allah. He said that he would pray if he knew how to, but he did not know how to. He worshipped Allah with whatever amount of the shari’ah had reached him. For Zayd, the shari’ah was laa ilaha ila Allah because he did not have anything else. So, whatever amount of the shari’ah reaches a person, they worship Allah with it, and that is what he did. This is Islam in every time and place even if there is nothing of al-salat, al-zakat or other details of the shari’ah. When someone says laa ilaha ila Allah, they enter Islam. It is at this point that a person must start to learn and follow the shari’ah if it is available.

 

Another example to illustrate this point is when the prophet sent Mu’adh ibn Jabal to Yemen to call the people to laa ilaha ila Allah. If they accepted, he was to tell them the details of the shari’ah that had been obliged upon them. So, it was only after accepting Islam that they were given the details of the shari’ah, that were available to follow, and not before.

 

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said to Mu`adh bin Jabal when he sent him to Yemen. “You will come to the people of Scripture, and when you reach them, invite them to testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah and that Muhammad is His Apostle. And if they obey you in that, then tell them that Allah has enjoined on them five prayers to be performed every day and night. And if they obey you in that, then tell them that Allah has enjoined on them Sadaqa (i.e. rak`at) to be taken from the rich amongst them and given to the poor amongst them. And if they obey you in that, then be cautious! Don’t take their best properties (as Zakat) and be afraid of the curse of an oppressed person as there is no screen between his invocation and Allah.” (Bukhari, 4347)

 

Hudhayfah, who narrated the hadith about the Qur’an being lifted, frequently asked about the bad times because he was more interested in knowing about these matters.

 

Some people incorrectly use this hadith narrated by Hudhayfah about the Qur’an being lifted to say that these are people saying laa ilaha ila Allah and are ignorant of its meaning, yet they will be saved from the hellfire. They say the people in the narration are ignorant of laa ilaha ila Allah, and people who commit shirk nowadays are also ignorant of laa ilaha ila Allah, so they say those who commit shirk are excused by ignorance. It is also incorrectly used to say that you cannot make takfir of someone who does not pray because of the ignorance of those people in the narration who do not have the knowledge of al-salat who do not pray.

 

Firstly, it is not mentioned in the narration that the people who say laa ilaha ila Allah are ignorant of its meaning. How can laa ilaha ila Allah be of benefit and save people from jahannam if the people are ignorant of it? How can a mushrik go to jannah? The kalimah (word), laa ilaha ila Allah, can only benefit those who say it if it is not broken, i.e., it is sound and correct, and this can only be the case if its conditions and pillars are fulfilled, and knowledge is one and the first of its several conditions. To benefit from laa ilaha ila Allah, a person must have knowledge of it, so it is not possible for these people to be ignorant of its meaning. Secondly, abandoning al-salat is proven by the kitab and sunnah to be major disbelief. Therefore, the narration cannot be used to excuse people who abandon it. Rather, the narration above is speaking about a time when the Qur’an will be lifted among a specific people and there does not exist any other details of the shari’ah for the Muslims in that time to follow, and that includes the details of al-salat. When there is no salat, zakat, etc., the shari’ah is laa ilaha ila Allah. How can a people be held accountable if there is no knowledge of al-salat available because the Qur’an is lifted? How can a people in these times be excused when the knowledge of al-salat and the disbelief of abandoning it is spread far and wide? So, the two claims which have been mentioned above are clearly incorrect.

 

This hadith is mawquf (a narration attributed to a companion), and it is traced back to Hudhayfah. The chain of narration does not go all the way back to the prophet. However, the ‘ulama said that when the sahabah speak about the ghayb in a narration that is mawquf, and they do not read from the books of ahl al-kitab, it is raised to the level of marfu’ because they could only know about the ghayb by having knowledge about it from prophet Muhammad. Regarding the authenticity of this narration about the Qur’an being lifted, Al-Hakim and Ibn Majah said that the narration is sahih and that it meets the conditions of Imam Muslim.

 

Mu’adh ibn Jabal prostrating to the prophet.

 

The following narration is another evidence that the ‘ulama disagree over. It is also used by some people to give the excuse of ignorance for those who make shirk.

 

Abdullah bin Abu Awfa said, “When Muadh bin Jabal came from Sham, he prostrated to the Prophet who said: ‘What is this, O Muadh?’ He said: ‘I went to Sham and saw them prostrating to their bishops and patricians and I wanted to do that for you.’ The messenger of Allah said: ‘Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad! No woman can fulfil her duty towards Allah until she fulfils her duty towards her husband. If he asks her (for intimacy) even if she is on her camel saddle, she should not refuse.’” (Ibn Majah 1853)

 

In the above narration, Mu’adh prostrated to the prophet when he came back from al-Sham. Some people who use this say that due to jahl (ignorance), Mu’adh bin Jabal did sujood (prostration), i.e., he prostrated to the prophet. They say that the prophet did not make takfir upon him, but rather he corrected him. They say that this sujood (prostration) was an act of worship, i.e., shirk (polytheism/giving worship to other than Allah), and he was excused due to ignorance.

 

When Mu’adh ibn Jabal went to al-Sham (approximately the areas of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon & Palestine), he found the people prostrating to the most respected and honoured ones among themselves. He asked the people why they did that, and they told him that it was the salutation (greeting) of the prophets.

 

Al-Haakim related the following hadith,

Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Abdullah As-Saffar told us: Ahmad Ibn Mahdi Ibn Rustum Al-Asfahani told us: Mu’adh Ibn Hisham Ad-Distwani told us: my father told me: Al-Qasim Ibn ‘Awf Ash-Shaybani told me: Mu’adh Ibn Jabal – radiya Allahu’anhu – told us that he went to Sham and saw the Christians prostrate to their Bishops and priests and saw the Jews prostrate to their Rabbis and scholars. He said, “Why do you do this?” they answered, “This is the greeting of Prophets (peace be upon him)”. I said, “We better do this to our Prophet”. Allah’s Prophet – salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam – said, “They lied about their Prophets just as they distorted their Book. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone, I would command woman to prostrate to her husband for his great right upon her. No woman will taste the sweetness of Faith till she does her husband’s rights even if he asks herself while she is on a Qutub”. (Al-Mustadrak, 2763)

 

Narrated Qays ibn Sa’d:

I went to al-Hirah and saw them (the people) prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, so I said: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) has most right to have prostration made before him. When I came to the Prophet (ﷺ), I said: I went to al-Hirah and saw them prostrating themselves before a satrap of theirs, but you have most right, Messenger of Allah, to have (people) prostrating themselves before you. He said: Tell me, if you were to pass my grave, would you prostrate yourself before it? I said: No. He then said: Do not do so. If I were to command anyone to make prostration before another I would command women to prostrate themselves before their husbands, because of the special right over them given to husbands by Allah. (Sunan Abi Dawud, 2140)

 

In the narration collected by Al-Hakim above, the prophet said the Jews and Christians lied against their anbiya (sing. nabi prophet) about the salutation/greeting of the prophets being prostration to them just as they changed their book.

 

In the second narration above, the prophet said to Muadh, “If you passed by my grave, would you prostrate?” Muadh said, “No.” Then, the prophet said that if he was to command anyone to prostrate to another person, he would have commanded the wife to prostrate to her husband.

 

In al-Musnad (4038), and other books of hadith, there is a narration that states, “When Mu’adh ibn Jabal returned from as-Sham Area, he bowed down before the Prophet … who said, ‘What is this, O, Mu’adh?’ He said, ‘O, Messenger of Allah! I saw the people in ash-Sham bowing down before their bishops and patriarchs, and they attributed this practice to their prophets.’ He said, ‘If I were to command any person to bow down before anyone, I will command the wife to bow down before her husband, because of his great right on her. O, Mu’adh! If you pass by my grave, would you bow down?’ Mu’adh said, ‘No.’ The Prophet said, ‘True, do not do it.’”

 

In the previous shari’ah (law), sujood (prostration) as a greeting was something that had been allowed by Allah. In the ahadith above, the prophet is teaching us that it is no longer allowed. Making sujood to other than Allah is not allowed in the shari’ah that Allah revealed to Muhammad.

 

Muadh Ibn Jabal was someone who knew Islam. He knew what was right and wrong. He also narrated ahadith on ‘aqidah. The sujood to the husband as stated in the hadith is a sujood of respect, not a sujood of ‘ibadah (worship). What Mu’adh did was greet the prophet, then the prophet said, “what is this, O, Mu’adh?”. Mu’adh simply greeted the prophet as he saw the people in al-Sham greeting their noble ones. He believed that the prophet was more deserving of being given such respect and honour. It was not what some people do when they know that an act is a pure act of ‘ibadah (worship), i.e., something that can only ever be directed to Allah, and they direct it to other than Allah, like du’a (supplication). None of the salaf (predecessors) said that Mu’adh worshipped the prophet. Are people saying that Mu’adh was jahil of this? Are they saying that he did not know that he should worship Allah alone? If somebody asks their child whether it is allowed to prostrate and worship other than Allah, what would they say? The answer is obvious! How could someone think that Mu’adh was jahil about this? If somebody decides to sit in front of someone in the same fashion as someone who sits in the sitting position in as-salat, is this worship? If somebody stands in front of someone as someone stands up straight in as-salat, is this worship? Standing or sitting in such a manner in front of someone or a wall, or standing like this in your room, etc., is not worship. It is simply standing or sitting. Mu’adh used to pray with the prophet, bow in ruku’, bow in sujood, etc., all as part of the act of worship of as-salat directed to Allah. How could he come back from al-Sham and bow as an act of worship to the prophet? When Mu’adh bowed before the prophet, the prophet said, “what is this, O, Mu’adh?”. The prophet was asking what it was that Mu’adh was doing. He did not know what Mu’adh was doing in front of him. If it was worship, the prophet would not say, “what is this, O, Mu’adh?”, he would say why did you do this and severely reprimand him. Mu’adh said that he believed the prophet was more deserving of respect with such a greeting than the noble people among the Jews and Christians because he was a prophet. The prophet simply told him not to do it. He said that the Jews and Christians lied against their prophets with their claim that it was the greeting of the prophets. He said that if he was to order anyone to prostrate to other than Allah, it would be the wife to her husband due to the respect he deserves. When sujood is to Allah, it is ‘ibadah. If somebody just does sujood for no reason, it is just sujood. When it is done in as-salat to Allah, it is ‘ibadah. The prophet did not even ask Mu’adh to make tawbah. We know that the prophet prohibited many things, but with Mu’adh, he simply told him not to do it again. He told him not to greet him like that ever again thereby giving the hukm of its prohibition. i.e., the sujood of tahiya (greeting, salutation) is prohibited in Islam. Nevertheless, greetings are a sign of respect. Greetings for people can be different between elders, parents, friends, etc. Somebody may kiss their parents while another person shakes his boss’s hand. There are different ways to greet somebody. What Muadh did was in the context of respect. He wanted to greet the prophet with the best greeting he knew of. Therefore, it is incorrect to use this hadith to give an excuse of ignorance for shirk because there was never any shirk performed in the first place.

 

There are people who use the hadith of Mu’adh as a daleel to give the excuse of ignorance for people who do acts that are haram. What Mu’adh did cannot be used to give such an excuse because he simply greeted the prophet in a way that he did not know was wrong. He only wanted to give a salutation of respect and honour which he did not know was prohibited. The sahabah used to greet the prophet with the Islamic greeting and so did Mu’adh. Mu’adh thought he would greet the prophet in a different way and did not know that prostrating to the prophet as a salutation out of respect for him was an act that would be disliked. Rather, it was when he did the act that the prophet prohibited it. He did not know that the act was forbidden. On the other hand, and contrary to Mu’adh’s situation, there is no excuse for neglecting knowledge of haram actions or violating the prohibitions that Allah has set and commanded to stay away from when the prohibitions are known and there is access to this knowledge, such as Muslims who know, scholars, books, the internet, etc. A person must know what is widely spread of knowledge among the people because it is available, and they have been commanded to worship Allah. Thus, the one who is ignorant has no excuse when it is available.

 

Also, there are people who use it as a daleel to give the excuse of ignorance for anyone who commits an act of shirk. When looking at all the ahadith, we can see that the act that Mu’adh did was not shirk. Rather, it was an act that Mu’adh performed which the prophet then told him was haram (forbidden/prohibited) and it was far away from being polytheism.

 

The only conclusion we can make is that Mu’adh went to al-Sham and heard that the people of the book would greet the anbiya (sing. nabi prophet) with sujood (prostration). As a result, Mu’adh bowed to the prophet out of respect, and the prophet swiftly corrected him.

 

The juwairiyyah (young girl).

 

Another evidence that the ‘ulama disagree over is the following narration.

 

Narrated Ar-Rabi`:

(the daughter of Muawwidh bin Afra) After the consummation of my marriage, the Prophet (ﷺ) came and sat on my bed as far from me as you are sitting now, and our little girls started beating the tambourines and reciting elegiac verses mourning my father who had been killed in the battle of Badr. One of them said, “Among us is a Prophet who knows what will happen tomorrow.” On that the Prophet said, “Leave this (saying) and keep on saying the verses which you had been saying before.” (Bukhari, 5147 / Volume 7, Book 62, Number 77)

 

People say that this girl claimed that other than Allah knows the unseen, and attributing knowledge of the unseen to other than Allah is shirk. They say that rasulullah did not make takfir upon her and just told her to leave it (to stop saying that he has knowledge of what will happen tomorrow), so giving her the excuse of ignorance.

 

In the hadith, there were juwairiyyat (sing. juwairiyyah young girl [that is not mature]). These girls in the narration were children. One of the divine preventions which is established by a hadith is that the pen is lifted on three, and one of those three is the child who is not an adult.

 

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: There are three (persons) whose actions are not recorded: a sleeper till he awakes, a boy till he reaches puberty, and a lunatic till he comes to reason.

Abu Dawud said: Ibn Juraij has transmitted it from Al-Qasim b. Yazid on the authority of ‘Ali from the Prophet (ﷺ). This version adds: “and an old man who is feeble-minded.” (Sunan Abi Dawud, 4403)

 

This is the first answer about the hadith to those who claim rasulullah did not make takfir. A child who is not mature is not held accountable for their deeds. The ahkam do not apply to them because they are not mukallaf. The Muslim child who says or does kufr is not regarded as a kafir because they are not held accountable for their actions, and the rulings do not apply to them. This is the first valid explanation, and this is the first point which clearly shows that the narration which is about a child cannot be used to give the excuse of ignorance for fully mature adults that commit shirk. Young immature girls who are not held accountable for their actions are not judged as fully mature accountable adults.

 

Secondly, the prophet did have knowledge of the ghayb and used to talk about matters of the ghayb because Allah disclosed them to him.

 

Allah says,

[He is] Knower of the unseen, and He does not disclose His [knowledge of the] unseen to anyone

 

Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed, He sends before him [i.e., each messenger] and behind him observers. (72:26-27)

 

This young girl in the hadith meant that the prophet knows some of the ghayb (unseen) that Allah gave him. Rasulullah told her to leave what she was saying for the purpose of closing the doors that lead to shirk. It is quite possible that a person who is new to Islam could hear the statement and think that rasulullah knows everything of the ghayb like Allah does, which is not true and impossible, or that later generations may misunderstand the statement and due to that end up making shirk by attributing knowledge of the ghayb to the prophet. Rasulullah was stopping the possibility of people misunderstanding and making shirk by putting him on the same level as Allah by attributing Allah’s all-encompassing knowledge of the unseen to him. This second point makes it even clearer that this narration cannot be used to give the excuse ignorance for people who commit shirk because the young girls were stating what was merely a fact, the truth, nothing of shirk, for which no excuse was needed, contrary to people who commit acts that are clearly defined as shirk that expel from the fold of Islam. Therefore, this narration contains nothing of evidence showing that a Muslim committed shirk for which the excuse of ignorance was given, so it cannot be used as evidence for the excuse of ignorance for shirk.

 

What Allah wills and what you will.

 

Another evidence that people disagree over is the following narration. It is used by some people who say that those who make shirk are excused due to ignorance because the prophet never made takfir upon the one who swore by other than Allah. They say that there was a Muslim who swore by other than Allah referring to the will of the prophet in the same way that he referred to the will of Allah. They say that the prophet referred to it as shirk, but did not make takfir upon him due to ignorance.

 

An-Nasa’i reported the hadith of Abdullah bin Abbas (R.A.)

Once a man came to the Prophet (SAW) and said, “With the Will of Allah and (also) with your will”, He (SAW) then said, “Have you made me an associate with Allah? Rather it is ‘what Allah Alone wills.”

 

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that a man said to the prophet:

Whatever Allah wills and you will. The prophet said to him: “Are you regarding me and Allah as equal? Rather it is what Allah alone wills.” (Musnad Ahmad, 1839)

 

In the above narrations, the prophet did not tell the people to come back to Islam. Nothing was judged upon them as being non-Muslims.

 

Once, a Jew came to the prophet and told him that he was making shirk. He said, “you say maa sha Allah wa shi’ta (what Allah wills and you will)” and you say “wal ka’bah (by the Ka’bah)”. Then, the prophet ordered the Muslims to say, “by the Lord of the Ka’bah”, and to say, “whatever Allah wills, then what you will”.

 

It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin Yasar, from Qutailah, a woman from Juhainah, that a Jew came to the Prophet and said:

“You are setting up rivals (to Allah) and associating others (with Him). You say: ‘Whatever Allah wills and you will,’ and you say: ‘By the Ka’bah.’” So, the Prophet commanded them, if they wanted to swear an oath, to say: “By the Lord of the Ka’bah;” and to say: “Whatever Allah wills, then what you will.” (al-Nasa’i, 3773)

 

It was narrated from Hudhaifah bin Yaman that:

a Muslim man saw in a dream that he met a man from among the People of the Book, who said: “What good people you would be if only you were not committing Shirk. For you say: ‘What Allah wills and Muhammad wills.’” He mentioned that to the Prophet (ﷺ) and he said: “By Allah, I am aware of that. Say: ‘What Allah wills then what Muhammad wills.’” Another chain from Tufail bin Sakhbarah, the brother of ‘Aishah by her mother, from the Prophet (ﷺ), with similar wording. (Sunan Ibn Majah, 2118)

 

Ibn Majah reported from Tufail (R.A.), ‘Aishah’s brother from her mother’s side, that he

narrated:

I had a dream in which I came upon a group of Jews and said to them, “You are indeed a good people had you not claimed Uzair (A.S.), the son of Allah.” Then they said, “You too are good if you do not say: ‘What Allah may will and Muhammad may will.” After that, I came upon a group of Christians and said to them, “You are indeed a good people if you do not claim Christ, the son of Allah,” then they said, “You too are good if you do not say: ‘What Allah may will and Muhammad may will.” Then the following morning, I narrated the above event to some, and came to the Prophet (SAW) and repeated the whole event. He (SAW) asked, “Have you told this to anybody else?” I said, “Yes”. Then He (SAW) went to his pulpit and after offering praises to Allah said, “Tufail had a dream which he already had communicated to some of you. You used to say a sentence which due to some hesitation (that Allah did not reveal in this regard) I could not prevent you from. Henceforth, do not say: ‘What Allah may will and Muhammad may will’ but say: ‘What Allah may will Alone.”

 

In a riwayah (report, account) collected by Imam Ahmad, like the narration above, it is stated that shyness was what prevented the prophet from forbidding the Muslims from swearing by other than Allah. However, the prophet was sent to forbid people from shirk and kufr, and to teach them Islam. He would never let shyness stop him from doing his unique duty of conveying Islam. We are sure, and there is no doubt that this was not shirk because the prophet would not let shyness prevent him from forbidding shirk.

 

What the Muslims, who had recently embraced Islam, were saying when they swore by other than Allah was shirk, i.e., the words were statements of shirk, but they did not do shirk themselves because they did not mean by their words to put anything or anyone on the same level as Allah. It was a widespread practise by the Muslims to swear by people and things other than Allah as can be seen from the following narrations. For example, ‘Umar used to swear by his father, but he was not putting his father on the same level as Allah.

 

Narrated Ibn `Umar:

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) met `Umar bin Al-Khattab while the latter was going with a group of camel-riders, and he was swearing by his father. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Lo! Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers, so whoever has to take an oath, he should swear by Allah or keep quiet.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 6646)

 

The prophet told the Muslims not to swear by their fathers.

 

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: Do not swear by your fathers, or by your mothers, or by rivals to Allah; and swear by Allah only, and swear by Allah only when you are speaking the truth. (Abu Dawud, 3248 & al-Nasa’i, 3769)

 

In one narration, he called swearing by other than Allah shirk, and kufr in another.

 

Sa’id ibn Ubaydah said:

Ibn Umar heard a man swearing: No, I swear by the Ka’bah. Ibn Umar said to him: I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: He who swears by anyone but Allah is a polytheist. (Sunan Abi Dawud, 3251)

 

Narrated Sa’d bin ‘Ubaidah:

That Ibn ‘Umar heard a man saying: “No by the Ka’bah” so Ibn ‘Umar said: “Nothing is sworn by other than Allah, for I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: ‘Whoever swears by other than Allah, he has committed disbelief or shirk.’” (al-Tirmidhi, 1535)

 

Swearing by anything other than Allah is kufr al-akbar. However, when someone comes to Islam (is new in Islam) and swears by other than Allah, this person makes such a statement out of habit but not intending the apparent meaning of the words. It is something they used to say, and as a result they say it out of habit which is kufr al-asghar.

 

There was a man who swore by Lat and ‘Uzza, but he did not become a kafir because of such words. Rather, he was told by the prophet that saying laa ilaha ila Allah was an expiation for such a statement.

 

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Whomever takes an oath in which he mentions Lat and ‘Uzza (forgetfully), should say: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever says to his companion. ‘Come along, let us gamble’ must give alms (as an expiation).” (al-Bukhari, 4860)

 

In a version of the following hadith, the prophet swore by someone’s father.

 

It is reported on the authority of Talha b. ‘Ubaidullah that a person with dishevelled hair, one of the people of Najd, came to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). We heard the humming of his voice but could not fully discern what he had been saying, till he came nigh to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). It was then (disclosed to us) that he was asking questions pertaining to Islam. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Five prayers during the day and the night. (Upon this he said: Am I obliged to say any other (prayer) besides these? He (the Holy Prophet,) said: No, but whatever you observe voluntarily, out of your own free will, and the fasts of Ramadan. The inquirer said: Am I obliged to do anything else besides this? He (the Holy Prophet) said: No, but whatever you do out of your own free will. And the Messenger of Allah told him about the Zakat (poor-rate). The inquirer said: Am I obliged to pay anything else besides this? He (the Holy Prophet) said: No, but whatever you pay voluntarily out of your own free will. The man turned back and was saying: I would neither make any addition to this, nor will decrease anything out of it. The Prophet remarked: He is successful if he is true to what he affirms. (Muslim, 11a)

 

Another hadith, the like of which has been narrated by Malik (b. Anas) (and mentioned above) is also reported by Talha b. ‘Ubaidullah, with the only variation that the Prophet remarked: By his father, he shall succeed if he were true (to what he professed), or: By his father, he would enter heaven if he were true (to what he professed). (Muslim, 11b)

 

The ‘ulama said regarding the narration above that prophet Muhammad was not making shirk when he swore by this man’s father.

 

If swearing by other than Allah had been something that removed someone straight away from Islam, the prophet would have put an end to it straight away as he did with other acts of shirk like slaughtering for other than Allah, trusting in other than Allah, calling on other than Allah, etc. Also, the people in the narrations above who swore by other than Allah were not judged by the prophet to have left Islam, and he did not tell them to do tawbah and come back to Islam. Nothing was judged upon them by the prophet as being non-Muslims. They were rebuked by the prophet and corrected.

 

The narrations above can be summarised as follows. Swearing by other than Allah is clear shirk. However, at that time and in the instances quoted above where the Muslims were making such statements, those statements of swearing by other than Allah did not carry the meaning of shirk. To put anything or anyone else on the same level as Allah was not what they intended by their statements, but rather it was something done out of habit.

 

It is major kufr to swear by other than Allah. If anyone swears by their father, anyone, or anything else while making that equal to Allah, they have committed shirk. If the person did not intend to make partners with Allah, the person should be told that it is haram. Therefore, when taking the related and relevant ahadith into account, we see that we must clarify what is meant if someone makes such a statement.

 

It is stated that shyness prevented the prophet from saying anything. This is incorrect because shyness would never stop or prevent the prophet from forbidding anything unlawful. If swearing by other than Allah was prohibited let alone shirk, the prophet would have forbidden it straight away. The Muslims were not saying anything of shirk because the prophet was someone who would not even neglect speaking about and prohibiting ma’siya (sin).

 

People use the statements quoted above incorrectly to say that the individuals in the narrations made shirk and rasulullah did not make takfir on them. This is not true at all. The Muslims used to swear by the Ka’bah. They used to swear by their fathers. It was a habit that they had from jahiliya (pre-Islamic times). It was stated in one narration that what prevented the prophet from prohibiting such statements was his shyness. However, if these statements were haram, the prophet would never delay the hukm prohibiting them. The reason why the prophet did not want to say anything was because he did not want to and could not prohibit what Allah had not prohibited. He could not do that. He was never allowed to do that. It was after all the statements of swearing by other than Allah, Tufail informing the prophet of the dream he had, the Jew coming to the prophet and saying that the Muslims say what Allah wills and Muhammad wills, etc., that the hukm from Allah came and the prophet gave the hukm that it was haram to swear by other than Allah.

 

In the narration where the people were saying maa sha Allah wa shi’ta, the prophet wanted to highlight and draw attention to the fact that there is the will of the people, but that it is under the will of Allah. In the other narration (of Tufail), he wanted to cut off such a statement just to Allah’s will alone.

 

Conclusion.

 

The saying of kufr by someone does not necessarily mean that the individual who said it has done kufr. The saying does not necessarily mean that the individual has become a kafir.

 

Muhammad is transmitting the deen from Allah. He is not speaking from his own mind. The One who is making ‘ibadah as ‘ibadah and shirk as shirk is Allah, and Muhammad is receiving this from Allah. Tashri’ (legislation) is coming from Allah to His messenger Muhammad. When the new sahabah were asking rasulullah for something, it meant that they were asking him to ask Allah for something to become an act of ‘ibadah (worship). It is just like Musa being asked to ask Allah to make something an act of ‘ibadah. It is like the one who is going to a mufti (someone who is qualified to deliver legal rulings) to find out from the kitab and sunnah if an act of shirk is allowed in a specific situation. For example, a man asks an ‘alim for a shari’ proof to go for tahakum to the taghut in a specific situation, so the ‘alim goes to the shari’ah to find a proof. This ‘alim knows it is not allowed and so does the questioner, too. The ‘alim goes to the Qur’an and sunnah to see if there is evidence that allows it in a specific situation. What is not included here is believing in the permissibility of kufr which is kufr. If a Muslim or an ‘alim already believes it is okay to go for tahakum to the taghut, neither of them are Muslims in the first place. Also, if an ‘alim who knows it is not allowed gives a hukm (ruling) to go for tahakum to the taghut without any proof, he is a kafir, and the one (the questioner) who goes for tahakum to the taghut without any proof is also a kafir.

 

It is narrated that a sahabi asked the prophet to make zina (adultery) lawful for him. He was asking the prophet to allow him to do something prohibited. However, he did not become a sinner for this.

 

Abu Umamah reported: A young man came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and he said, “O Messenger of Allah, give me permission to commit adultery.” The people turned to rebuke him, saying, “Quiet! Quiet!” The Prophet said, “Come here.” The young man came close and he told him to sit down. The Prophet said, “Would you like that for your mother?” The man said, “No, by Allah, may I be sacrificed for you.” The Prophet said, “Neither would people like it for their mothers. Would you like that for your daughter?” The man said, “No, by Allah, may I be sacrificed for you.” The Prophet said, “Neither would people like it for their daughters. Would you like that for your sister?” The man said, “No, by Allah, may I be sacrificed for you.” The Prophet said, “Neither would people like it for their sisters. Would you like that for your aunts?” The man said, “No, by Allah, may I be sacrificed for you.” The Prophet said, “Neither would people like it for their aunts.” Then, the Prophet placed his hand on him and he said, “O Allah, forgive his sins, purify his heart, and guard his chastity.” After that, the young man never again inclined to anything sinful.

 

In another narration, the Prophet said to him, “Then hate what Allah has hated, and love for your brother what you love for yourself.” (Musnad Aḥmad, 21708)

 

So, an individual should not come with a belief that it (for example, tahakum to the taghut) is allowed, that this kufr is allowed. If he does, this is kufr. He should not have done it before and then come to ask if it is okay. If he did, this is kufr. However, when a person knows that it is kufr and he goes to find out from an ‘alim if he can make it possible for him to go, by finding an exception to this from the kitab and sunnah, this is not kufr. This is what the difference is.

 

The messengers and prophets do not speak except what Allah wants them to, and the people asking them are aware of this. People of haq (truth) go to the kitab and sunnah to find the truth. People of batil (falsehood) go to the kitab and sunnah to find something to support their incorrect beliefs.

 

When people like the new Muslims in the hadith of Dhat Anwat and the sahabi who asked for the prophet to make zina’ halal for him asked the prophet for something like they did, they are asking their Lord to make it permissible for them. The new Muslims in the hadith of Dhat Anwat asked the messenger of Allah to make what they believed to be another type of ‘ibadah (worship). They were asking the one to whom the shari’ah (law) came down to, Muhammad, for permission. They were firmly rebuked, informed of their ignorance regarding such a request, and informed that this could never happen. These new Muslims were given the excuse of ignorance for not knowing something that they should have known not to ask for because they were new in Islam. People use this evidence to excuse those Muslims who do shirk. However, the evidence is not to do with any Muslim that did shirk.

 

To doubt the capability of Allah is kufr. A prophet or a messenger would convey knowledge about the capability of Allah. Nevertheless, there is a lot of knowledge to do with the capability of Allah. The man’s jahl (ignorance) in the hadith about the man and his ashes was a prevention for him. If a Muslim does not know one of the sifaat (attributes) of Allah, he is not a kafir until the proof is shown to him and he rejects it. If a prophet, messenger, someone else or another means establishes the hujjah and then a person rejects it, then it is kufr and the person becomes a kafir. This is how we know that there was no prophet or messenger in the time of the man in the hadith who doubted the capability of Allah. The knowledge was not there because he would not be excused if it was. A person can become a kafir if they neglect learning the knowledge about Allah’s names and attributes which is widely available, and this depends on what that name or attribute is. For example, not everyone knows that Allah has a hand, and as it is knowledge that is not widely spread, a person would not become a kafir for not knowing about it. On the other hand, if someone does not know that Huwa ala kulli shayin qadeer (He has power over all things), there is no excuse because the knowledge of this is everywhere.

 

What has been mentioned above about doubting some of the names and attributes of Allah is a principle that also applies to the hadith about ‘Aishah and the situation to do with the hawaariyyun if we assume that the incorrect statements attributed to them are true.

 

Regarding Mu’adh prostrating to the prophet, Prophet Yusuf’s father was prophet Yaqub, and Yaqub, his wife and all their children made sujood to Yusuf. Did Yaqub worship other than Allah? Never! Did Yusuf like people worshipping him? Never! Sujood (bowing or prostrating) in its essence is not an act of shirk because shirk never ever changes. For example, saying that Allah has a son is shirk, and such a statement never changes from being shirk through the passage of time because the essence of what constitutes shirk never ever changes. This is in total contrast to something that is allowed and then forbidden, like alcohol, or something that is allowed in one shari’ah and then forbidden in another shari’ah. The statements and actions of shirk never change from shari’ah to shari’ah. So, saying Allah has a son was shirk in the time of Adam, in the time of Ibrahim, in the time of ‘Eesa, now and will continue to always be shirk. Therefore, how could sujood be shirk when it was allowed in the previous shari’ah? How can sujood be shirk when Allah commanded the angels to bow to Adam? How can sujood be shirk when Allah is praising Yusuf in the final verses of his story which includes his family making sujood to him? The matter is very clear.

 

A prevention from making takfir upon the juwairiyyah and labelling her as a mushrik or a kafir would be that the ahkam did not apply to her because she was a young girl who was not mukallaf. To add to that, the prophet did know some of the ghayb, so what she was saying was not wrong, but the prophet stopped her from saying what she said to close the doors that lead to shirk. Even if the juwairiyyah was mature, there would not be any takfir because she rightfully meant that the prophet knows the ghayb, i.e., the prophet knows some things about the past, present, and future from Allah.

 

The statement maa sha Allah wa shi’ta was not even ma’siya (a sin, pl. ma’asiy) because the prophet did not even stop it from being said. It was after the dream that the prophet stopped the saying and made it haram.

 

Now, we can clearly see that there is al-‘udhr bil-jahl. It is by studying the evidence correctly that we see where and when it is applicable.

 

After looking at all the ayat and ahadith, we can see that there is no excuse for being ignorant from doing an act of shirk. We also see that those who say there is no excuse in being ignorant of an aspect of the core of laa ilaha ila Allah, i.e., the names and attributes of Allah, is also incorrect.

 

There are people who generalise and say that there is no excuse in laa ilaha ila Allah. We know from looking at the different evidence that there exists the excuse of ignorance when a Muslim does not know some things about laa ilaha ila Allah, and from that we know that there can be situations where Muslims may not know a name or attribute of Allah, but there are people who say this is not allowed. On the other hand, others say that there is an excuse to the point of shirk, and both views are incorrect.

 

We have seen from what we have covered above that this subject is not one that can be taken lightly. It is not something that can be looked at without giving it the time and attention it requires.