The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Indeed, Allah has pardoned my Ummah for what their souls think, as long as they do not speak of it or act upon it.” So are we held accountable for envy and bad suspicion?

The questioner : The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , so how are we held accountable for envy and bad suspicion?

The Shaykh : How are we held accountable for what?

The questioner : For envy, which we did not speak of and did not act upon.

The Shaykh : Yes... Before answering, I will say that in your narration you repeated it twice, whereas it is only once. Did you notice this or not?

The questioner : How, my Shaykh?

The Shaykh : And the hadith is: You said: as long as they do not speak of it or act upon it.

The questioner : It was a slip of the tongue.

The Shaykh : Ah, that is why I am pointing it out,

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : For the sake of the accuracy of the narration. As for the answer, where do we get the idea that a person is held accountable merely for envy or bad suspicion that exists in the soul? Where is the evidence for you?

The questioner : It means that the apparent texts indicate that it is an ugly act.

The Shaykh : An ugly act, yes, but the issue is not here, within the scope of how you posed the question. Your question was not about whether it is ugly or not; rather, the question was very clear: how do we reconcile this hadith with the fact that we are punished and held accountable for envy and bad suspicion? Was that not the question?

The questioner : Yes, yes.

The Shaykh : And so the question followed the question: where do we get the idea that the one who envied or had a bad suspicion is punished? Here the answer is that the envy and bad suspicion for which a person is punished is that which appears in his actions and deeds. As for mere envy in his heart or bad suspicion in his soul regarding his brother, we have no indication that he is held accountable for it, but it is undoubtedly ugly; because this is like humming around the leper’s camp. And so it came in some hadiths, and I do not remember if it is authentic, and I am inclined to think it is weak, and it is certainly recorded in some of my books: “If you envy, or if you have a bad suspicion...” Now the matter differs for me. The important thing is the word , do you see? So do not verify it, and verification does not occur except by manifesting the effect of envy in his speech, at least, if there is no action of plotting and scheming against him. And so there is a great pardon for this Ummah in that the Muslim is not held accountable unless what is in his heart of bad intentions appears in his action or on his tongue. And so we say the reconciliation is very clear, by understanding that the warning against envy and bad suspicion is out of fear that it may have practical bad effects in the life of the one who envies or the one who has a bad suspicion. So his saying: “as long as they do not speak of it or act upon it” is an explicit answer to your question, meaning that envy and bad suspicion, as long as one does not act upon it or speak of it, is pardoned, and Allah has overlooked it. But from an educational perspective, do we tell the Muslim: envy but do not act? No, we tell him: stay away from evil as much as you can. I think the answer is clear, if Allah wills?

The questioner : In the classification of envy by some scholars, classifying envy into the degree of resolve and the soul and the like. Is one held accountable for the resolve, or is one not held accountable for what is less than that?

The Shaykh : Do you say inability?

The questioner : Resolve.

The Shaykh : Resolve, ah. This is not, of course, this restriction. It is not specific to envy, or to bad suspicion, but to everything he intends from the sins. But this hadith, may Allah reward you, the hadith you mentioned before is the decisive criterion in this matter; because he said whether it settled or not; why? Because he said: , so this hadith does not need any restriction at all; because he generalized then specified, he said: then he excepted, he said: , so it is from the tedious philosophy for the Muslim, who is the one who remembers, and this mistake is one from which no one is safe, and he is remembering with this generalization and then this restriction, so we say except such and such and except such and such. Is the answer clear?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And perhaps you can recall some of the evidence that I rightly call doubts for those who distinguish between the thought and the resolve. They make a psychological distinction that matches reality, and they say first of all the passing thought, then the thought, then the resolve. That is, the person as an ordinary, natural person, when he wants to do evil, his mind is free of this evil, a thought occurs to him, that for example he goes to the cinema, this is a thought. If this thought does not settle, and it does not take hold of the soul of its owner, and there is no thought between him and that, as this thought intensifies in his soul, he moves to the stage of what? The thought. So there remains only bringing out what he thought of into the realm of action. There remains only the resolve. This is a jurisprudential detail, and perhaps I would say, with reservation, perhaps it is linguistic, although I do not feel that there is a difference between thought and resolve; because Allah says: But this is how they say, they distinguish and they say passing thought, so thought, so resolve. So he resolved to disobey and did not do it, he is taken for it, say those whom you referred to. But this conflicts with many hadiths, except that here was the purpose of my question, perhaps you remember some of their evidence that I call doubts. Do you remember?

The questioner : General texts came in the Sunnah with negation or...

The Shaykh : No, we say now it is not from the perspective of envy and bad suspicion, as a general principle. They want, for example, a problem. His saying (peace be upon him): ... They said this is the killer, so what about the one who was killed? He (peace be upon him) said: , they argue with this hadith, as they also argue with the hadith of the sheep of the Fire, which also contains that the Muslim who gives charity and does good, and another who wishes to do the same. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , does anyone among you remember this hadith? The important thing is the second part, also one who has wealth and spends it in evil, and one who has no poor person, what does he say? He says: if I had it, I would have done the same. He said: , this also poses a problem for some people, as the first hadith poses a problem for them, that he intended to kill his companion, but they, glory be to Allah, they overlook, despite their virtue and knowledge, that the intention in both hadiths is explained by action. One is explained by his saying (peace be upon him) that if a Muslim meets his Muslim brother and kills him: So this one who was killed, acted. So it is not just intention, his intention came out into the realm of action, but the result was that he became a victim. That he intended to kill his companion, meaning it was not just intent; because if we imagine now a Muslim in his home, he harbored in his soul to kill his opponent, and if that one was faster to him, and came and treacherously killed him, does this hadith apply to them? Absolutely not. Why? Yes, he harbored in his soul, and intended in his soul to kill this killer, but no action came from him, whereas action came from that one. So this killer is in the Fire, whereas the one who was killed is not in the Fire, unlike if they duelled with their swords, so they are like each of them manifested what he resolved in his soul and intended of evil for his enemy by his action. So here the accountability was not for mere prior intention, but for the intention that came out into the realm of action. So this hadith does not conflict with his saying “as long as they do not speak of it or act upon it,” but rather this supports it completely. Likewise the other hadith, if I had wealth I would have done the same, he is saying and striving... the people that he does and goes and comes to the end of it. So this is taken from him not just for something hidden in his soul, but for something that appeared on his tongue and his action. And so the hadith remains and in a wording: and all of it is authentic it remains as it is, clear and apparent, there is nothing that can restrict it absolutely.