The Book of Faith-09b
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reciter: And Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna, and Ibn Bashar all narrated to us from Muhammad ibn Ja'far from Shu'bah. And Muhammad ibn Hatim narrated to me, Yahya ibn Sa'id narrated to us, Sufyan narrated, both of them from Sa'd ibn Ibrahim, with this chain of narration, similar to it.
The Shaykh : This hadith indicates that cursing one's parents is among the major sins because it is a form of undutifulness to parents. It has been mentioned previously in the hadith of Abu Bakrah that undutifulness to parents is among the major sins. However, the Companions found it unlikely that a man would curse his parents. For this reason, they said:Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1902Sahih (Darussalam) The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) clarified that the one who causes it is like the one who does it directly. If someone curses a man's father and the man curses his father in return, then it is he who has cursed his father, because he caused it.
If someone were to ask: Is it permissible for a man whose father was cursed to curse the father of the one who cursed him? And is his father a jinn?
We say: This may fall under the general meaning of the saying of Allah the Exalted:, and because it is customary that when a person curses a man's father, the man curses his father in return. For example, if one says, "May Allah curse your father!" the second one says, "No, may Allah curse your father," and the like. In any case, this is a matter of attributing the thing to its cause.
If someone were to ask: Do you treat the cause as equivalent to the direct action in every case? The answer is: We see that if the direct action is based on the cause, then the cause is treated as the direct action. If it is not based on it, then the direct actor is the one who is specifically subject to the ruling.
For example, if a man runs over a child and his mother was negligent in guarding him, so the child went out into the street and the car driver ran over him, on whom is the liability? On the car driver, because he is the direct actor. He was required to stop when he saw the child, unless his mother threw him in front of the car in a situation where the driver could not control the vehicle. In that case, we say: The direct action is invalid. The ruling cannot be attributed to him due to the inability to act.
As for when the direct action is based on the cause, the liability is on the cause. Or if it is not possible to attribute the liability to the direct actor, then the liability is on the one who caused it.
An example of the first: If a group of witnesses testified against a person that he did what warrants execution, so he was executed. Then they returned and said: We intended to kill him. On whom is the liability? On the witnesses, on the judge, or on the executor? On the witnesses, because this direct action was based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Similarly, if a person throws someone in front of a lion and the lion eats him, is the liability on the lion because it is the direct actor? No, because it is not possible to attribute the liability to it. So the liability here is on the man who threw the man in front of the lion.
These are the rules regarding the direct action and the cause. So the original rule is that the liability is on whom? On the direct actor, unless the direct action is based on the cause, or unless it is not possible to attribute the liability to the direct actor in the direct action. This hadith is a principle in this issue, where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made the one who causes the cursing of his father like the one who directly curses his father.
The Shaykh : This hadith indicates that cursing one's parents is among the major sins because it is a form of undutifulness to parents. It has been mentioned previously in the hadith of Abu Bakrah that undutifulness to parents is among the major sins. However, the Companions found it unlikely that a man would curse his parents. For this reason, they said:
Does a man curse his parents?" He said: "Yes.
وهل يشتم الرجل والديه ؟ ! قال: نعمIf someone were to ask: Is it permissible for a man whose father was cursed to curse the father of the one who cursed him? And is his father a jinn?
We say: This may fall under the general meaning of the saying of Allah the Exalted:
And the recompense for an evil is an evil like it
وجزاء سيئةٍ سيئة مثلهاIf someone were to ask: Do you treat the cause as equivalent to the direct action in every case? The answer is: We see that if the direct action is based on the cause, then the cause is treated as the direct action. If it is not based on it, then the direct actor is the one who is specifically subject to the ruling.
For example, if a man runs over a child and his mother was negligent in guarding him, so the child went out into the street and the car driver ran over him, on whom is the liability? On the car driver, because he is the direct actor. He was required to stop when he saw the child, unless his mother threw him in front of the car in a situation where the driver could not control the vehicle. In that case, we say: The direct action is invalid. The ruling cannot be attributed to him due to the inability to act.
As for when the direct action is based on the cause, the liability is on the cause. Or if it is not possible to attribute the liability to the direct actor, then the liability is on the one who caused it.
An example of the first: If a group of witnesses testified against a person that he did what warrants execution, so he was executed. Then they returned and said: We intended to kill him. On whom is the liability? On the witnesses, on the judge, or on the executor? On the witnesses, because this direct action was based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Similarly, if a person throws someone in front of a lion and the lion eats him, is the liability on the lion because it is the direct actor? No, because it is not possible to attribute the liability to it. So the liability here is on the man who threw the man in front of the lion.
These are the rules regarding the direct action and the cause. So the original rule is that the liability is on whom? On the direct actor, unless the direct action is based on the cause, or unless it is not possible to attribute the liability to the direct actor in the direct action. This hadith is a principle in this issue, where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made the one who causes the cursing of his father like the one who directly curses his father.