The Book of Faith-04a
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: And Salama ibn Shubayb narrated to me, saying: Al-Hasan ibn A'yan narrated to us, saying: Ma'qil, and he is Ibn 'Abd Allah, narrated to us from Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir Sahih Muslim 15c
The Shaykh : This last wording is the most complete of the contexts that Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) cited in this hadith, because he added the fasting of Ramadan in it, and did not mention zakah or Hajj. As for Hajj, the matter is easy, because this question was before Hajj was made obligatory, for Hajj was not made obligatory until the ninth year. As for zakah, it was made obligatory in the second year, and it is said it was made obligatory in Makkah, but the explanation of its amount, the amounts of its thresholds, and the explanation of its recipients was delayed until the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) migrated. So that is understood to mean that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew that this man was currently poor and that zakah was not obligatory upon him, and for this reason he remained silent about it, and the man did not ask about it. This is the best answer to the difficulty of this hadith.
In this hadith, there is a point in the chapter of terminology: that if differences in wording do not lead to contradiction, they are not considered instability, because instability is when wordings differ in a way that makes reconciliation or preference impossible. If reconciliation is possible, there is no instability, and if preference is possible, there is no instability, because we take the stronger position.
In it also, there is a point regarding the chain of narration: that it has become well-known among scholars and narrators that it is permissible to narrate a hadith by meaning. For this reason, he said in the first chain: "Said: And the wording is for Abu Kuraib," meaning that the wording of his companion does not resemble it, otherwise the wording would be for both of them. And in his saying: "I made lawful what is lawful and made forbidden what is forbidden," there is proof that it is necessary to believe that what is lawful is lawful, and to believe that what is forbidden is forbidden. This is an addition to the action in what is lawful and to the abstention in what is forbidden, because if one does what is lawful without believing it is lawful, he is deficient in belief, specifically the belief in the legal ruling regarding what he did. Similarly, if one avoids the forbidden without believing it is forbidden, he is deficient in belief regarding the ruling of that thing. So even though deeds are bodily actions of speech or limbs, belief is necessary in them: you believe that the lawful is lawful and the forbidden is forbidden. For this reason, if you did the lawful while believing it was forbidden, there would be a type of disobedience to Allah in that. If you left the forbidden while believing it was lawful, but you had no desire for it, this would also be defective. For this reason, whoever distinguishes between the fundamentals and the branches by saying that the fundamentals are belief and the branches are the actions of the limbs, his distinction is subject to scrutiny. Rather, we say: even the actions of the limbs must be accompanied by belief. But yes, they are practical issues, not theoretical ones, but belief is necessary.
It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that a man once said to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ): Shall I enter Paradise in case I say the obligatory prayers, observe the (fasts) of Ramadan and treat that as lawful which has been made permissible (by the Shari'ah) and deny myself that what is forbidden, and make no addition to it? He (the Holy Prophet) replied in the affirmative. He (the inquirer) said: By Allah, I would add nothing to it.
أنّ رجلًا سأل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، فقال : أرأيت إذا صلّيت الصّلوات المكتوبات ، وصمت رمضان ، وأحللت الحلال ، وحرّمت الحرام ، ولم أزد على ذلك شيئًا ، أأدخل الجنّة ؟ قال : نعم ، قال : والله لا أزيد على ذلك شيئًاThe Shaykh : This last wording is the most complete of the contexts that Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him) cited in this hadith, because he added the fasting of Ramadan in it, and did not mention zakah or Hajj. As for Hajj, the matter is easy, because this question was before Hajj was made obligatory, for Hajj was not made obligatory until the ninth year. As for zakah, it was made obligatory in the second year, and it is said it was made obligatory in Makkah, but the explanation of its amount, the amounts of its thresholds, and the explanation of its recipients was delayed until the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) migrated. So that is understood to mean that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) knew that this man was currently poor and that zakah was not obligatory upon him, and for this reason he remained silent about it, and the man did not ask about it. This is the best answer to the difficulty of this hadith.
In this hadith, there is a point in the chapter of terminology: that if differences in wording do not lead to contradiction, they are not considered instability, because instability is when wordings differ in a way that makes reconciliation or preference impossible. If reconciliation is possible, there is no instability, and if preference is possible, there is no instability, because we take the stronger position.
In it also, there is a point regarding the chain of narration: that it has become well-known among scholars and narrators that it is permissible to narrate a hadith by meaning. For this reason, he said in the first chain: "Said: And the wording is for Abu Kuraib," meaning that the wording of his companion does not resemble it, otherwise the wording would be for both of them. And in his saying: "I made lawful what is lawful and made forbidden what is forbidden," there is proof that it is necessary to believe that what is lawful is lawful, and to believe that what is forbidden is forbidden. This is an addition to the action in what is lawful and to the abstention in what is forbidden, because if one does what is lawful without believing it is lawful, he is deficient in belief, specifically the belief in the legal ruling regarding what he did. Similarly, if one avoids the forbidden without believing it is forbidden, he is deficient in belief regarding the ruling of that thing. So even though deeds are bodily actions of speech or limbs, belief is necessary in them: you believe that the lawful is lawful and the forbidden is forbidden. For this reason, if you did the lawful while believing it was forbidden, there would be a type of disobedience to Allah in that. If you left the forbidden while believing it was lawful, but you had no desire for it, this would also be defective. For this reason, whoever distinguishes between the fundamentals and the branches by saying that the fundamentals are belief and the branches are the actions of the limbs, his distinction is subject to scrutiny. Rather, we say: even the actions of the limbs must be accompanied by belief. But yes, they are practical issues, not theoretical ones, but belief is necessary.