Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (7/112)

Silsilat al-Ahadith al-SahihahNasir al-Din al-Albani

The gist of it is that the grave-robber was a believer who affirmed Allah’s oneness, and that his instruction to his children to burn him … was either due to his ignorance of Allah Most High’s power to restore him—which I consider unlikely—or to the intensity of his fear of his Lord’s punishment, such that fear overwhelmed his understanding. This is what Ibn al-Mulaqqin said, as cited by al-Hafiz (11/314), and it is what appears more probable to me from the combined narrations of his story. And Allah knows best.

Whether this was the case or that, it is certain that the man did not do anything that contradicted his affirmation of Allah’s oneness or took him from faith into disbelief. For had he done anything of the sort, Allah would not have forgiven him, as Ibn Abd al-Barr’s verification of the matter has already shown.

This clearly demonstrates that not everyone among the believers who falls into an act of disbelief thereby becomes subject to the ruling of disbelief and is encompassed by it. An example is the man whose mount, carrying his food and drink, had gone astray; when he found it, he said in the intensity of his joy: “O Allah, You are my servant and I am your lord!” (1)

All of this constitutes a very powerful refutation of two groups of young people deceived by the shallow knowledge they possess:

The first group: those who categorically maintain that ignorance is never an excuse, to the point that one of their contemporaries even authored a treatise on the matter. The correct view, required by the fundamental principles—

(1) Reported by Muslim (8/93), and through his chain by al-Baghawi in Sharh al-Sunnah (5/87), who graded the version narrated from Anas authentic. In Takhrij al-Ihya (4/5), al-Hafiz al-Iraqi also attributed to Muslim a narration from al-Numan ibn Bashir containing the additional words, “O Allah, You...”; this is an error, for Muslim reports it without this addition. Ahmad also narrated it from al-Numan (4/273, 275), while al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated an abridged version through another route from Anas. Both also narrated it at length from Ibn Masud, except that al-Bukhari recorded it as mawquf (stopping at the Companion). Muslim, Ibn Hibban (2/9/620, al-Ihsan), and Ahmad (2/316, 500) also narrated an abridged version from Abu Hurayrah, similar to their narration from Anas.

وخلاصته؛ أن الرجل النباش كان مؤمناً موحداً، وأن أمره أولاده بحرقه ... إنما كان إما لجهله بقدرة الله تعالى على إعادته- وهذا ما أستبعده أنا- أو لفرط خوفه من عذاب ربه، فغطى الخوف على فهمه؛ كما قال ابن الملقن فيما ذكره الحافظ (١١/٣١٤) ، وهو الذي يترجح عندي من مجموع روايات قصته، والله ﷾ أعلم. وسواء كان هذا أو ذاك؛ فمن المقطوع به أن الرجل لم يصدر منه ما ينافي توحيده، ويخرج به من الإيمان إلى الكفر؛ لأنه لو كان شيء من ذلك لما غفر الله له؛ كما تقدم تحقيقه من ابن عبد البر. ومن ذلك يتبين بوضوح أنه ليس كل من وقع في الكفر من المؤمنين وقع الكفر عليه وأحاط به. ومن الأمثلة على ذلك: الرجل الذي كان قد ضلت راحلته، وعليها طعامه وشرابه، فلما وجدها قال من شدة فرحه: "اللهم! أنت عبدي وأنا ربك " (١) ! وفي ذلك كله رد قوي جداً على فئتين من الشباب المغرورين بما عندهم من علم ضحل: الفئة الأولى: الذين يطلقون القول بأن الجهل ليس بعذر مطلقا؛ حتى ألف بعض المعاصرين منهم رسالة في ذلك! والصواب الذي تقتضيه الأصول

(١) رواه مسلم (٨/٩٣) ، ومن طريقه البغوي في "شرح السنة" (٥/٨٧) وصححه من حديث أنس، وعزاه الحافظ العراقي في "تخريج الإحياء" (٤/٥) لمسلم من حديث النعمان بن بشير أيضاً بزيادة " اللهم! أنت.. "، وهو وهم؛ فإنه عنده دون الزيادة، وكذلك أخرجه أحمد (٤/٢٧٣ و٢٧٥) عن النعمان، والبخاري، ومسلم أيضاً من طريق أخرى عن أنس مختصراً، وأخرجاه من حديث ابن مسعود مطولاً؛ غير أن البخاري أوقفه. ومسلم، وابن حبان (٢/٩/ ٦٢٠ - الإحسان) ، وأحمد (٢/٣١٦ و٥٠٠) عن أبي هريرة مختصراً نحو روايتهما عن أنس.