Explanation of the hadith of Abu Bakrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: When two Muslims face each other with their swords, the killer and the killed are in

The Shaykh : From Abu Bakrah, Nafi' ibn al-Harith al-Thaqafi, al-Harith al-Thaqafi (may Allah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said I said "O Messenger of Allah, this is the killer, so what about the killed one?" He said Agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim. In this hadith is an explanation of the effect of a bad intention on its owner when it is accompanied by a bad deed. The effect of a bad intention on its owner when it is accompanied by a bad deed. We say with this condition, that it is accompanied by a bad deed in its owner. This condition is necessary because a mere bad intention, if it settles in the heart of its owner, by the grace of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) upon the believing servants of this Ummah, they are not held accountable for it. If a Muslim intends a bad intention, his Lord (Blessed and Exalted is He) does not hold him accountable for it unless it is accompanied by a deed. Among the evidence for this is His saying (peace and blessings be upon him) in the hadith agreed upon by the two Shaykhs from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) says to His angels And in a narration So in this hadith is a clear and distinct statement that a bad deed is not recorded as long as it remains in the realm of intention, but it is only recorded when it moves to the realm of action. Also among the evidence for this is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah in the two Sahihs, where he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said And in a narration So if this condition is met, meaning he did not speak or act upon what he intended, then Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has forgiven that. This is also indicated by the hadith as a specific matter and a grace from Allah (Mighty and Majestic) that He has singled out the Muhammadan Ummah for, because He says Once we understand these hadiths, then there is no contradiction between them and the hadith of the book. I said "O Messenger of Allah, this is the killer, so what about the killed one?" He said This killed man, whom the Messenger (peace be upon him) ruled to be in the Fire, did not deserve this ruling merely because he intended to kill his companion, but rather, but rather because he was eager to kill his companion with an eagerness that led him to duel him and directly engage in killing him. But the decree of Allah overcame him, so he was killed by his companion. Once we understand this, there is no contradiction at that time between the preceding hadiths that explicitly state that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) does not hold one accountable for a mere bad intention, and this hadith that explicitly states that the one who directly engaged in fighting his companion and killed him. There is no contradiction between this and that, because here the deed was present with the intention. He was eager to kill his companion, as evidenced by the fact that he met his companion and was killed by his companion's sword, so he was in the Fire not merely because he intended to kill the one who killed him, but because with the intention he directly engaged in killing him, but he did not succeed. From this, it becomes clear to you that whoever argues with this hadith, the hadith of the chapter, the hadith of Abu Bakrah al-Thaqafi, that a Muslim who intends a bad deed and resolves to it is held accountable for it, whoever uses this hadith as evidence for this, the hadith does not indicate that, because this hadith did not say that whoever is eager to kill his companion is in the Fire, but rather it said So the killer is clear as stated in the hadith, so what about the killed one? He said If this killed man had both the bad intention and the bad deed present in him, then it is not permissible in this case to use this hadith as evidence that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) holds a Muslim accountable for a bad intention that has not moved to the realm of execution and action, because it is not in it only that he intended, but rather that he intended and directly engaged in killing, especially since in the previous hadith there is an explicit statement that one is not held accountable unless he speaks or acts upon it. The scholars differ greatly on this issue, as they divide the thoughts that occur to a person into three categories: a fleeting thought, a desire, and a resolve.
A fleeting thought is the beginning of a bad idea that occurs to a person, then it may settle or it may pass and go away.

The questioner : Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And peace be upon you. So this fleeting thought, they agreed that one is not held accountable for it, if it is a fleeting thought. Then if this fleeting thought settles in the mind of its owner, it takes on some strength and rises from a fleeting thought to a desire. And this desire may be strong such that its owner turns away from it.
Another questioner: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : And upon you be peace, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. So this is also among what one is not held accountable for, as evidenced by the previous hadith But if the desire becomes intense such that he plans for it and nothing remains between him and directly engaging in the deed, then that is the resolve. It is the third level, where after the resolve there is only direct engagement and execution. The scholars differed on whether the owner of this resolve is held accountable for it or not. Some said he is held accountable, and some said he is not held accountable. And this latter opinion is the stronger opinion, due to the previously mentioned condition, "unless he speaks or acts upon it." As for those who opposed that opinion and held that even if it is not accompanied by speech or action, as long as it has reached the level of resolve and has not stopped at the level of desire, let alone a fleeting thought, then he is held accountable. Their argument, or one of their arguments, is this hadith that is before us, where he said But the answer to this argument has been known from what preceded, which is that this hadith does not explicitly state that he resolved and did not act, but it is explicit that he directly engaged in the deed, because he met his companion, dueled him, and intended to kill him, then his companion overcame him. But in any case, this hadith should be taken as a lesson and psychological training that a person is not allowed to surrender to his fleeting thoughts and what he desires, and that he should not allow the space for a fleeting thought to rise to the level of a desire, and that he should keep thinking and thinking until the desire rises to the level of a resolve, because he fears that after that he will reach the level of resolve, which, if he becomes a killed man while he wanted to be a killer, the situation will turn against him and he will become liable for the punishment of the killer while he is a killed man. So a person must block the paths of Satan for himself by occupying his mind and thoughts with what occupies him from continuing to think about disobedience.