The Book of Faith-07b
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: And Abu Nasr al-Tammar and 'Abd al-A'la ibn Hammad narrated to me, both saying: Hammad ibn Salama narrated to us from Dawud ibn Abi Hind from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib from Abu Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, in a manner similar to the hadith of Yahya ibn Muhammad from al-'Ala', mentioning therein: Mishkat al-Masabih 55Muttafaqun 'alayh (Zubair `Aliza'i)
The Shaykh : This is also one of the issues that falls under the rule we mentioned earlier: if the signs of disbelief are found in every person, does that make them a disbeliever? The answer is: they do not become a disbeliever. Here, in the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, it says: "Four qualities, if a person has them, he is a pure hypocrite, and if a person has one of them, he has a trait of hypocrisy until he abandons it: if he speaks, he lies; if he makes a covenant, he betrays; if he promises, he breaks his word; and if he quarrels, he acts unjustly." The apparent meaning of "if he speaks, he lies" is that lying is his habit and he lies frequently; it does not apply to a single lie. The second is: "if he makes a covenant, he betrays," meaning whenever he makes a covenant with a person, he betrays him. This includes the known covenant, which is an agreement on something, and it also includes contracts, for contracting between two men is in reality a covenant, and even if it is called a contract, it is a pledge. The third is: "if he promises, he breaks his word," meaning whenever a person promises, he breaks his word. The fourth is: "if he quarrels, he acts unjustly." "Quarrels" means: if he takes someone to a judge in a dispute, he acts unjustly by denying what is obligatory upon him or claiming what is not his, and this is injustice. Are these four qualities signs or causes? We say that the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explain one another, for in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah he said: "The sign of the hypocrite," and he said: "Among the signs of hypocrisy." Thus, these four qualities are signs, not causes. The difference between the two is that if we make them causes, the one possessing them becomes a hypocrite, whereas if we make them signs, possessing them indicates that he is a hypocrite, but it does not necessitate that he is a hypocrite if the one possessing them is not a hypocrite; rather, he has a trait of the traits of hypocrisy. So if you see a person who lies whenever he speaks, breaks his word whenever he promises, betrays whenever he makes a covenant, and acts unjustly whenever he quarrels, suspect him of doctrinal hypocrisy. Why? Because these are among the signs of the hypocrites, and the principle is that the presence of a sign is evidence of the presence of what it signifies; this is the principle. So if this man possesses these characteristics whenever he makes a covenant, speaks, quarrels, or promises, this is evidence that he is a hypocrite, but it does not necessitate that he is a hypocrite, as these may occur in non-hypocrites. In this is evidence for the prohibition of lying, because it is one of the traits of the hypocrites, and whoever imitates a people is one of them. It is also evidence for the prohibition of betrayal, and other texts have been transmitted indicating this, and that it is one of the major sins. It is also evidence for the prohibition of breaking a promise, and there is disagreement among scholars on this. Some said: breaking a promise is not obligatory, but it is a recommended practice, and this is the well-known view among the Hanbali jurists.
The students: ...
The Shaykh : If he promises, he breaks his word. They say: keeping a promise is a recommended practice, and if a person breaks a promise, he does not sin, and this is the well-known view among the Hanbali jurists. The Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose that keeping a promise is obligatory, and that breaking it is forbidden, except for an excuse, and this is the correct view. If you promise someone, even for a cup of coffee, you must keep your promise to him, unless you have an excuse. Then, if the excuse is sudden and you are able to apologize before he prepares for you, you must inform him. If it is sudden in a situation where you cannot apologize, you are excused. This is the stronger position, first because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) grouped it with betraying a covenant, lying in the hadith, and injustice in a dispute, so what distinguishes this from its counterparts? Nothing distinguishes it. Then, breaking a promise may result in harm to the one promised, which makes this thing undoubtedly forbidden. Then, it is a trait of hypocrisy...
Even if he fasts, prays, and asserts that he is a Muslim.
وإن صام وصلّى وزعم أنّه مسلمٌThe Shaykh : This is also one of the issues that falls under the rule we mentioned earlier: if the signs of disbelief are found in every person, does that make them a disbeliever? The answer is: they do not become a disbeliever. Here, in the hadith of 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, it says: "Four qualities, if a person has them, he is a pure hypocrite, and if a person has one of them, he has a trait of hypocrisy until he abandons it: if he speaks, he lies; if he makes a covenant, he betrays; if he promises, he breaks his word; and if he quarrels, he acts unjustly." The apparent meaning of "if he speaks, he lies" is that lying is his habit and he lies frequently; it does not apply to a single lie. The second is: "if he makes a covenant, he betrays," meaning whenever he makes a covenant with a person, he betrays him. This includes the known covenant, which is an agreement on something, and it also includes contracts, for contracting between two men is in reality a covenant, and even if it is called a contract, it is a pledge. The third is: "if he promises, he breaks his word," meaning whenever a person promises, he breaks his word. The fourth is: "if he quarrels, he acts unjustly." "Quarrels" means: if he takes someone to a judge in a dispute, he acts unjustly by denying what is obligatory upon him or claiming what is not his, and this is injustice. Are these four qualities signs or causes? We say that the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) explain one another, for in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah he said: "The sign of the hypocrite," and he said: "Among the signs of hypocrisy." Thus, these four qualities are signs, not causes. The difference between the two is that if we make them causes, the one possessing them becomes a hypocrite, whereas if we make them signs, possessing them indicates that he is a hypocrite, but it does not necessitate that he is a hypocrite if the one possessing them is not a hypocrite; rather, he has a trait of the traits of hypocrisy. So if you see a person who lies whenever he speaks, breaks his word whenever he promises, betrays whenever he makes a covenant, and acts unjustly whenever he quarrels, suspect him of doctrinal hypocrisy. Why? Because these are among the signs of the hypocrites, and the principle is that the presence of a sign is evidence of the presence of what it signifies; this is the principle. So if this man possesses these characteristics whenever he makes a covenant, speaks, quarrels, or promises, this is evidence that he is a hypocrite, but it does not necessitate that he is a hypocrite, as these may occur in non-hypocrites. In this is evidence for the prohibition of lying, because it is one of the traits of the hypocrites, and whoever imitates a people is one of them. It is also evidence for the prohibition of betrayal, and other texts have been transmitted indicating this, and that it is one of the major sins. It is also evidence for the prohibition of breaking a promise, and there is disagreement among scholars on this. Some said: breaking a promise is not obligatory, but it is a recommended practice, and this is the well-known view among the Hanbali jurists.
The students: ...
The Shaykh : If he promises, he breaks his word. They say: keeping a promise is a recommended practice, and if a person breaks a promise, he does not sin, and this is the well-known view among the Hanbali jurists. The Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) chose that keeping a promise is obligatory, and that breaking it is forbidden, except for an excuse, and this is the correct view. If you promise someone, even for a cup of coffee, you must keep your promise to him, unless you have an excuse. Then, if the excuse is sudden and you are able to apologize before he prepares for you, you must inform him. If it is sudden in a situation where you cannot apologize, you are excused. This is the stronger position, first because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) grouped it with betraying a covenant, lying in the hadith, and injustice in a dispute, so what distinguishes this from its counterparts? Nothing distinguishes it. Then, breaking a promise may result in harm to the one promised, which makes this thing undoubtedly forbidden. Then, it is a trait of hypocrisy...