Surah Al-Hujuraat (49) — Ayah 6

(Ayah 6) ➊ { يٰۤاَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ اٰمَنُوْۤا اِنْ جَآءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوْۤا: ’’ فَاسِقٌ‘‘} One who crosses any limit of the religion or all its limits, whose observance is obligatory. Its derivation is from {’’فَسَقَ الرُّطَبُ‘‘} (the fresh date came out of its skin, i.e., it burst open). Its most common usage is for a Muslim who commits disobedience, but it can also be used for a disbeliever, as He said: «اَفَمَنْ كَانَ مُؤْمِنًا كَمَنْ كَانَ فَاسِقًا لَا يَسْتَوٗنَ » [السجدۃ: ۱۸] "So is the one who is a believer like the one who is defiantly disobedient? They are not equal." {’’نَبَأٌ‘‘} Any important news. Raghib said: "A report is called 'naba’' when it brings some great benefit, and such a report gives certainty or a strong presumption." {’’ فَتَبَيَّنُوْۤا ‘‘ ’’تَبَيَّنَ يَتَبَيَّنُ ‘‘} (tafa‘‘ul) comes as intransitive, meaning something becomes very clear, and as transitive, meaning to thoroughly ponder and investigate something, to ascertain its reality; here it is in the transitive sense. In most recitations, it is {’’ فَتَبَيَّنُوْۤا ‘‘}, in the recitation of Hamzah and Kisai it is {’’فَتَثَبَّتُوْا‘‘}, the meaning is the same for both.

➋ In this verse, Allah Almighty has taught Muslims such etiquette whose observance is extremely necessary in their religious and worldly affairs, and whose neglect can lead to immense harm. That is, when a fasiq, who openly violates the limits of the religion, brings some important news, do not immediately believe it to be true upon hearing it, nor trust his word without full investigation, because one who does not refrain from fisq (transgression) can also lie.

➌ { اَنْ تُصِيْبُوْا قَوْمًۢا بِجَهَالَةٍ:} From this it is understood that acting upon the report of a fasiq without investigation is ignorance, which is worse than a mistake, because if a mujtahid errs, he can be called mistaken, not ignorant, whereas one who decides based on the uninvestigated word of a fasiq, if he makes a wrong decision, he is ignorant. (Razi) That is, do not act upon the report of a fasiq without investigation and, unknowingly, harm some people, attack them, injure or kill them, backbite them, or cut off relations with them; in short, any harm can reach them from your side. Many tribulations and mischiefs arise as a result of acting upon such uninvestigated reports, and matters escalate far beyond control.

➍ { فَتُصْبِحُوْا عَلٰى مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نٰدِمِيْنَ:} Then you become regretful over it, because the result of haste and uninvestigated action is only regret.

➎ This verse is the foundation of that great science which is called the principles of hadith, which is a specialty of our ummah, and because of which the actions, sayings, conditions, and tacit approvals of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) have reached us in a preserved manner and will continue to reach until the Day of Judgment. For the completion of this science, the Muslim ummah has preserved the life conditions of more than one hundred thousand narrators, their truthfulness and lying, uprightness and sinfulness, whether they were memorizers or not, etc. The first thing checked is whether the one reporting is a fasiq or upright; if he is a fasiq, his report will be investigated, and if its correctness is established by another source, it will be accepted, otherwise it will not be accepted. If the reporter is upright, then no further investigation is needed and his report will be accepted, even if he is the only one reporting. In terminology, it is said that a solitary report is proof. From this, it is also understood that the report of an unknown person will also not be accepted without investigation, because there is a possibility of him being a fasiq.

➏ In the words of the verse, {’’ فَاسِقٌ‘‘} and {’’ بِنَبَاٍ ‘‘} are both indefinite, no specific person is designated, rather a general rule is stated that if any fasiq brings any report to you, then investigate it. Many commentators have written that this verse was revealed about Walid bin Uqbah (may Allah be pleased with him), whom the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent to collect zakat from the tribe of Banu Mustaliq. He was the brother of Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) from his mother's side. There was enmity between Banu Mustaliq and his tribe from before Islam. Those people came out armed to receive him, so he became afraid that perhaps they wanted to kill him, and returned to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and complained that Banu Mustaliq had refused to give zakat and even wanted to kill him. Upon hearing this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) dispatched an army towards Banu Mustaliq. While this army was on the way, the chief of Banu Mustaliq, Harith bin Dirar (may Allah be pleased with him, the father of Umm al-Mu’minin Juwayriya), was seen approaching with some companions. When they came near, they asked the army where they were going. They replied, "We are coming to you." They asked the reason, and the army told them that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had sent Walid bin Uqbah to you and you refused to give zakat and even tried to kill him. They said, "By the One Who sent you with the truth! Walid neither came to us nor did we see him." Then they said the same thing to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and added that they themselves had come because no one had come to collect zakat from them and they feared that perhaps the Prophet (peace be upon him) was displeased with them. Upon this, this verse was revealed. This is a summary of the narrations transmitted by Ibn Kathir and others.

➐ Most commentators, based on this incident, have declared Walid bin Uqbah (may Allah be pleased with him) a fasiq and his report unacceptable without investigation. Some ill-minded people have used this as a means to criticize the Muslim principle that all the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) are upright and none of them is proven to have lied about the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), so any narration reported by any Companion is reliable.

The reality is that none of the narrations that relate this verse to Walid bin Uqbah (may Allah be pleased with him) have an authentic chain. Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) has transmitted four narrations at this place and considered the narration of Harith bin Dirar Khuza‘i (may Allah be pleased with him) the best among them. Its chain is: {’’ قَالَ الْإِمَامُ أَحْمَدُ فِيْ مُسْنَدِهِ حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ سَابِقٍ حَدَّثَنَا عِيْسَي بْنُ دِيْنَارٍ حَدَّثَنَا أَبِيْ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ الْحَارِثَ بْنَ ضِرَارٍ الْخُزَاعِيَّ قَالَ ‘‘} [ مسند أحمد : 279/4، ح : ۱۸۴۵۹ ] The researcher of Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Sami bin Muhammad Salamah, writes: "Many commentators have inclined to this view (that this verse was revealed about Walid bin Uqbah), although there is a problem with this view, because all the narrations in which this story is mentioned are defective (have flaws), the best among them is the narration of Imam Ahmad from Harith bin Dirar Khuza‘i (may Allah be pleased with him). In its chain is an unknown narrator, and Qadi Abu Bakr bin al-‘Arabi denied this story in his book 'al-‘Awasim min al-Qawasim' (p. 102)."

In the verification of Tafsir Ibn Kathir {’’هداية المستنير‘‘} (compiled by Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman ‘Adil bin Yusuf al-‘Azazi) it is stated: "In this narration is Dinar al-Kufi. Hafiz said, he is 'maqbul', i.e., when there is corroboration for him." Obviously, here there is no corroboration, so this narration is not accepted. The researchers of Musnad Ahmad wrote about this narration: "Except for the story of Harith bin Dirar's acceptance of Islam, the rest of the narration is Hasan due to its supporting narrations, and this chain is weak because ‘Isa's father Dinar is unknown. He was from Kufa and the freed slave of ‘Amr bin Harith, and only his son ‘Isa narrated from him, and Ibn al-Madini said: {’’لَا أَعْرِفُهُ‘‘} (I do not know him). Nevertheless, Ibn Hibban mentioned him in 'al-Thiqat.'"

The second narration relating this verse to Walid bin Uqbah is narrated by Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with her) and transmitted by Ibn Kathir (Dar Ibn al-Jawzi edition). Its researcher, Dr. Hikmat bin Bashir, said: "Its chain is weak due to Musa bin ‘Ubaydah being weak." The third narration of this meaning is from Ibn ‘Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), which is weak due to ‘Awfi. The fourth narration is from Mujahid and Qatadah, who are Tabi‘in, and their narration is mursal, which is not proof. Consider! This is an incident whose best narration is admitted by those who call it Hasan to have a weak chain, and they call it Hasan only due to supporting narrations, and all those supporting narrations are weak. How can it be correct to declare a Companion a fasiq based on such a weak narration, when he is a member of that group which has already received Allah's approval?

➑ Even if this story is considered correct, it still does not necessitate that Walid bin Uqbah (may Allah be pleased with him) was a fasiq. First of all, the Prophet's (peace be upon him) selection of him for collecting charity negates his being a fasiq, because the Prophet (peace be upon him) would appoint only the most trustworthy people for collecting charity and the like, as is evident from sending Abu ‘Ubaydah, the trustworthy one of this ummah, to Yemen. Then Walid's statement that Banu Mustaliq refused to give zakat and intended to kill him, its reason is present in the narration itself, that there was previous enmity between them, and seeing a large armed group, he thought they had come to kill him and were not ready to give zakat. Such a suspicion is natural. You may call it a mistaken suspicion, but not a lie or fisq. As for the revelation of the verse, neither did Allah say that Walid is a fasiq, nor did His Messenger (peace be upon him) say so. The verse gives Muslims a command that if a fasiq brings them any news, they should investigate it and not act blindly upon it.

➒ Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahman Mu‘allimi Yamani, in "al-Anwar al-Kashifah" (p. 263), while discussing Walid bin Uqbah (may Allah be pleased with him), has established that no hadith is transmitted from the Prophet (peace be upon him) by Walid bin Uqbah, so from this incident, it does not follow that any narration transmitted by a Companion is rejected, because he did not transmit any narration from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Shaykh Mu‘allimi has also negated, among other narrations, the narration in Musnad Ahmad in which Walid (may Allah be pleased with him) says: [ لَمَّا فَتَحَ رَسُوْلُ اللّٰهِ صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَكَّةَ جَعَلَ أَهْلُ مَكَّةَ يَأْتُوْنَهُ بِصِبْيَانِهِمْ فَيَمْسَحُ عَلٰی رُؤُوْسِهِمْ وَيَدْعُوْ لَهُمْ، فَجِيْئَ بِيْ إِلَيْهِ وَ إِنِّيْ مُطَيَّبٌ بِالْخَلُوْقِ، فَلَمْ يَمْسَحْ عَلٰی رَأْسِيْ، وَلَمْ يَمْنَعْهُ مِنْ ذٰلِكَ إِلاَّ أَنَّ أُمِّيْ خَلَّقَتْنِيْ بِالْخَلُوْقِ فَلَمْ يَمَسَّنِيْ مِنْ أَجْلِ الْخَلُوْقِ ] [مسند أحمد : 32/4، ح : ۱۶۳۷۹ ] "When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) conquered Makkah, the people of Makkah began bringing their children to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), he would place his hand on their heads and pray for blessing for them. I too was brought to him, but he did not place his hand on my head, and the reason was that my mother had applied khuluq (a perfume made from saffron) to me, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not touch me because of the khuluq." The researchers of Musnad Ahmad wrote: "Its chain is weak due to ‘Abdullah al-Hamdani being unknown, his kunyah is Abu Musa. Thabit bin Hajjaj al-Kilabi is the only one who narrated from him, and al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar called him unknown in 'al-Taqrib.' Al-Bukhari said in 'al-Tarikh al-Kabir' (5/224): {’’لَا يَصِحُّ حَدِيْثُهُ‘‘} (His hadith is not authentic), and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said that this Abu Musa is unknown and this report is munkar, not authentic." If this narration is considered authentic, then the very basis for calling Walid bin Uqbah a fasiq is eliminated, because it establishes that Walid was a child at the time of the conquest of Makkah, so the question of sending him as a collector of charity does not arise.

➓ Some people, due to the narration in Sahih Muslim (1707) and others, have declared Walid bin Uqbah (may Allah be pleased with him) a fasiq, in which it is mentioned that he drank wine and after leading two rak‘ahs of the morning prayer, said, "Shall I lead more?" Upon which ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) administered the hadd punishment for drinking. It should be noted that in some narrations, it is mentioned that he led four rak‘ahs instead of two, but none of those narrations are authentic. Some scholars have written: "Allamah Alusi said in 'Ruh al-Ma‘ani': 'The correct view in this matter is that to which the majority of scholars have inclined, that the Companions are not infallible, and a major sin, which is fisq, can occur from them, and at the time of such a sin, they are to be dealt with as they deserve, i.e., the prescribed punishment is to be carried out. But the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah, based on the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah, is that a Companion may commit a sin, but there is no Companion who did not become purified by repenting from sin. The Qur’an has, in absolute terms, declared Allah’s pleasure with them, as He said: «رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهُمْ وَ رَضُوْا عَنْهُ وَ اَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنّٰتٍ تَجْرِيْ تَحْتَهَا الْاَنْهٰرُ خٰلِدِيْنَ فِيْهَاۤ اَبَدًا ذٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيْمُ » [التوبۃ : ۱۰۰ ] 'Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the great success.' And Allah’s pleasure does not occur except with the forgiveness of sins, as Qadi Abu Ya‘la said: 'Pleasure is an eternal attribute of Allah, and He only announces His pleasure for those whom He knows will die upon deeds with which Allah is pleased.'" [ کَذَا فِي الصَّارِمِ الْمَسْلُوْلِ لاِبْنِ تَیْمِیَۃَ ] In summary, if any sin ever occurred from any member of the great group of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), they were immediately granted the ability to repent. Allah, by the blessing of the company of the Messenger (peace be upon him), made them such that the Shari‘ah became their nature, and any act contrary to the Shari‘ah or sin was extremely rare. Their righteous deeds, sacrificing their lives for the Prophet (peace be upon him) and Islam, making obedience to Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him) their life’s mission, and striving in ways unparalleled in previous nations, all these countless righteous deeds and virtues, compared to a lifetime, any sin that may have occurred in a lifetime is itself nullified. Secondly, their love and reverence for Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him), and their fear and awe at the slightest sin, and their immediate repentance, even presenting themselves for punishment, are well-known in the hadith narrations. And by the ruling of hadith, the one who repents from sin becomes as if he never sinned. Thirdly, according to the Qur’an, righteous deeds themselves expiate sins, as He said: « اِنَّ الْحَسَنٰتِ يُذْهِبْنَ السَّيِّاٰتِ » [ہود: ۱۱۴] 'Indeed, good deeds remove bad deeds.' Especially since their good deeds are not like those of ordinary people, but their state is as narrated by Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi from Sa‘id bin Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him), who was among the ten promised Paradise, he said: [ لَمَشْهَدُ رَجُلٍ مِّنْهُمْ مَعَ رَسُوْلِ اللّٰهِ صَلَّی اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَغْبَرُّ فِيْهِ وَجْهُهُ خَيْرٌ مِّنْ عَمَلِ أَحَدِكُمْ عُمُرَهُ وَلَوْ عُمِّرَ عُمُرَ نُوْحٍ ] [ أبوداوٗد، السنۃ، باب في الخلفاء : ۴۶۵۰، قال الألبانی صحیح ] 'By Allah! The participation of any one of them in a battle with the Prophet (peace be upon him), in which dust settled on his face, is better than the lifetime of worship and obedience of any one of you, even if he were given the lifespan of Noah (peace be upon him).' Therefore, if at the time of committing a sin, the prescribed punishment was carried out, even so, it is not permissible for anyone afterwards to declare any of them a fasiq. Therefore, even if at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), a Companion was called a fasiq due to a sin, it does not make it permissible to consider this fisq as a permanent ruling for him and, God forbid, call him a fasiq." (As in al-Ruh)