Muslim

Hadith Footnote:
Vocabulary of the Hadith:
(1)
‘Uzhm:
With a damma (u-sound) on the ‘ayn,
the major part,
Kubr with a damma or kasra (u- or i-sound) on the kāf,
the greater part.
(2)
Da‘ā ‘alayhi:
To supplicate against someone (to invoke a curse).

Benefits and Issues:
The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said regarding the one who bears witness to the oneness of Allah and the messengership (tawhid and risalah) that the Fire is forbidden for him or that the Fire will not consume him. In such glad tidings, the Prophet’s (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) intent and objective is to clarify the inherent quality of a good deed and its essential effect, and this quality and effect only manifest when there is no impediment present that would nullify its effect.

For example, when a physician says:
Whoever continually uses atrifal (a medicinal compound) will always be protected from catarrh (nazla),
is it correct to understand from this that there is no need for any abstinence or caution?
If that person continues to consume things that cause catarrh, such as:
oil,
sour things,
and similar items, will he still be protected from catarrh? The real purpose of bearing witness to tawhid and risalah is to accept the call to faith and to adopt the religion of Islam brought by the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), as we have already explained earlier.

Therefore, the implication of bearing witness to tawhid and risalah is that such a person should be protected from punishment and the Fire, and should enter Paradise. However, if due to his own wretchedness, he has also committed some deeds whose inherent demand or effect, according to the Qur’an and hadith, is to incur punishment and enter the Fire, then obviously those deeds will also have some effect, and accordingly (if Allah, exalted is He, does not forgive him), he will have to spend some time in the Fire.

A Doubt and Its Clarification:
Some commentators of Sahih Muslim have written:
That some Companions suspected regarding Malik ibn Dukhshum that he did not recite the testimony (kalimah) from his heart, so the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) refuted this. From this, it is inferred that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was aware of the states of hearts.

The answer to this is:
That earlier such narrations have passed which establish that our duty is to judge according to what is apparent; we are not aware of anyone’s inner state, so it is not correct to pass judgment on that. Its decision is in the hand of Allah. Based on this principle, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) stated a general rule: “Lā yash-hadu ahadun”—whoever bears witness, and bearing witness is the conformity of heart and tongue.

That is, bearing witness is the testimony of the heart; merely saying it with the tongue is not bearing witness. That is why Allah, exalted is He, in Surah al-Munafiqun, refuted the hypocrites’ claim of bearing witness, and the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said to Usamah (radi Allahu anhu):
(Hal shaqaqta qalbahu)
“Did you split open his heart to see whether he had affirmed Islam in his heart or not?” And regarding the one who suspected hypocrisy in Ibn Dukhshum, the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:
(A-lā tarāhu qad qāla: lā ilāha illā Allah, yurīdu bi-dhālika wajh Allah?)
“Do you not see that he professes lā ilāha illā Allah and desires by it only the Face of Allah?”

The Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) used the word “tarāhu” (do you not see), so was he aware of the states of his heart or was he looking into his heart? If the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was aware of the hearts, then why was it said:
﴿Lā ta‘lamuhum naḥnu na‘lamuhum﴾ “You do not know them; We know them.” (Tawbah: 101)