Paradise; therefore, they cannot have done anything that would inevitably consign them to Hell. If none of them (1) died in a state that would consign him to Hell, then anything short of that does not undermine their deserving Paradise. We know that they are among the people of Paradise. Even if it were not known that those particular individuals are in Paradise, we would still not be permitted to impugn their deserving Paradise because of matters (2) that we do not know would entail Hell. Indeed, this is not permissible even regarding individual believers who are not known to enter Paradise: we (3) have no right to testify that any of them is destined for Hell on the basis of inconclusive matters that do not establish that. How, then, could such a thing (4) be permissible regarding the best of the believers (5), when it is impossible for us to know in full detail the circumstances of each and every one (6) [of them] (7), inwardly and outwardly, together with his good deeds, bad deeds, and exercises of independent judgment (8)?
Our discussion would therefore concern what we do not know, and speaking without knowledge is forbidden. For this reason, refraining from speaking about the disputes that arose among the Companions is better than delving into them without knowing the true circumstances, since much of such discussion—or most of it—is speech without knowledge. This is forbidden even if it involves no caprice and no opposition to the known truth; how much more so when it is speech driven by caprice (9), through which one seeks to repudiate the known truth? The Prophet—may Allah bless him