Tag: Tarikh

  • Q n A : How was life in Arabia before Islam?


    Q
    How was life in Arabia before Islam?


    A

    Praise be to Allah.Before Islam, Arabia was in a very bad state. When they were blessed with Islam and became followers of this faith, the people of Arabia found themselves in the best state, for they became leaders of nations and the best nation that was ever brought forth for humanity.
    The evil that was present in Arabia before Islam was manifested in many ways; we cannot list them all in this answer because there were so many. But this does not prevent us from mentioning the most significant of them. They include:

    Beliefs

    The Arabs were idol worshippers; they would seek to draw close to them, offer sacrifices before them and venerate them completely. The idols were made by other humans like them, and sometimes they made them themselves, from dates, clay and other things. The number of idols around the Holy Ka‘bah was approximately 360.

    Allah, may He be exalted, says, describing those ignorant people (interpretation of the meaning):
    “And they worship other than Allah that which neither harms them nor benefits them, and they say, ‘These are our intercessors with Allah’”
    [Yoonus 10:18].

    They used to seek omens, so if one of them wanted to get married, or travel, or engage in trade, he would throw a bird into the air, and if it flew right, he would go ahead with his plans and would believe that they were good and beneficial, but if the bird flew left, he would cancel his plans and not go ahead with them, and would believe that they were bad.

    They believed in evil omens; if one of them heard the sound of an owl, or saw a crow, he would feel anxious and believe that some harm would befall him on that day. They would not get married in the month of Shawwaal, believing that marriage in that month would not succeed.

    The loyalty of the people of Arabia was to different great powers of their time. Some of them were loyal to the Byzantines, others to the Persians, and others to the Ethiopians.

    Morals and manners, conduct, and customs

    During the Jaahiliyyah, the Arabs would attack and kill one another for the most trivial of reasons. Wars among them would continue for many years, in which the men would be killed and the women and children taken captive.

    One example of that was the War of al-Basoos, which lasted for thirty years, because of a she-camel that stepped on the egg of a lark [a type of bird] and broke it. Another was the War of Daahis and al-Ghabraa’, which lasted for forty years, because one horse beat another in a race.

    They did not refrain from eating unclean things. For example, they used to eat the meat of animals that died of natural causes, and drink blood.
    Tribes other than Quraysh used to circumambulate the Ka‘bah (tawaaf) naked, women and men alike, if the people of Quraysh did not do them the favour of giving them clothes to wear. They believed that a garment in which one had committed sin was not fit to be worn when doing tawaaf. A woman would say: “Today all of it or some of it appears, and whatever of it appears, I do not permit it”!
    Zina (fornication, adultery) was widespread among them, along with its consequences, the worst of which was attributing a child to someone other than the husband.

    It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah, the wife of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: There were four types of marriage during the Jaahiliyyah [period before Islam]:
    One type was like the marriage of people today: one man would ask another for permission to marry a woman under his guardianship or his daughter, and he would give her a dowry, then marry her.
    The second type was when a man would say to his wife, when she became pure following her menses: Send for So-and-so and have relations with him. Then her husband would stay away from her and not touch her until it became clear that she had got pregnant from that man with whom she was having relations. When her pregnancy became evident, her husband would have relations with her if he wanted to. He only did that so that he might have a child with good characteristics. This kind of marriage was called nikaah al-istibdaa‘.
    Another kind of marriage was where a group of men, less than ten, would get together and go to a woman, and all have relations with her. Then if she became pregnant and gave birth, a few days after giving birth she would send for them, and not one of them would refuse to come. When they all gathered before her, she would say to them: You know what you have done, and now I have given birth. He is your son, O So-and-so – naming whoever she wanted, and her child would be attributed to him and he could not refuse to take him.
    The fourth type of marriage was where many people would go to a woman and she never refused anyone who came to her. Those were the prostitutes, who used to put flags at their doors as a sign, so anyone who wanted to could go in (and have relations with them). If one of them got pregnant and gave birth, all those men would be brought together and they would call those who were skilled in recognizing the resemblance of a child to his father, then they would attribute the child to the one whom those skilled people thought that he resembled; the child would be called his son, and he could not refuse that.
    But when Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was sent with the truth, he abolished all the kinds of marriage that were known during the Jaahiliyyah, except the kind of marriage that people know today.
    Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4834).

    They used to kill their children because of the poverty they were suffering, or because they feared falling into poverty. Some of them would bury their daughters alive for fear that they would be taken captive, thus bringing shame upon them. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “and do not kill your children out of poverty; We will provide for you and them”
    [al-An‘aam 6:151].
    “And do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Indeed, their killing is ever a great sin”
    [al-Isra’ 17:31]
    “And when one of them is informed of [the birth of] a female, his face becomes dark, and he suppresses grief.
    He hides himself from the people because of the ill of which he has been informed. Should he keep it in humiliation or bury it in the ground? Unquestionably, evil is what they decide”
    [an-Nahl 16:58-59].

     They felt pride in their forefathers and lineage, to the extent that they would remember their forefathers and boast of them during Hajj season and when performing the rituals of Hajj.

    It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has taken away your pride of Jaahiliyyah and your boasting about your forefathers. One is either a righteous believer or a doomed evildoer. You are the sons of Adam and Adam was created from dust. Men should stop boasting about people [their forefathers] who are no more than the coal of Hell, or they will certainly be more insignificant before Allah than the beetle that rolls dung with its nose.”
    Narrated by at-Tirmidhi (3955) and Abu Dawood (5116); classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh at-Tirmidhi.

    They used to deal in riba (usury) in various forms.

    Ja‘far ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) summed up their situation during the Jaahiliyyah when he said before the Negus (ruler) in Ethiopia, when he migrated there: “We were a people of ignorance, worshipping idols, eating dead meat, committing abominations, severing ties of kinship, treating neighbours badly, and the strong among us devoured the weak.
    Narrated by Ahmad (3/265); classed as hasan by the commentators on al-Musnad.

    Women during the Jaahiliyyah

    Women were vulnerable to the worst types of mistreatment, humiliation and degradation during the Jaahiliyyah. That took many forms, apart from being buried alive in infancy, as referred to above:

    Women would be deprived of inheritance altogether, so a woman would have no share of whatever wealth her son, father or mother left behind, even if it was great; rather they would treat her as chattels to be inherited! That is referred to in the verse (interpretation of the meaning):

    “O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion”
    [an-Nisaa’ 4:19].
    Al-Bukhaari (4303) narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: When a man died, his heirs would have more right to his wife. If one of them wanted to marry her, he would do so, and if they wanted to they would give her in marriage to someone else, or if they wanted to they would not arrange a marriage for her, because they had more right to her than her own family. Then this verse was revealed concerning that.

    They would force a woman to marry someone she did not like, or they would prevent her from getting married.
    Some husbands would leave their wives suspended, as it were, so a woman would not be treated with dignity as his wife, but she would not be able to marry anyone else. For example, a man would forbid his wife to himself, and make her like his mother or sister; or he would swear an oath not to have intercourse with her, so she would be left hanging, as it were. Then Islam came and prohibited zihaar [a jaahili form of divorce in which a man would say to his wife, “You are to me like my mother’s back]; and it set a time limit for the one who swore that he would not have intercourse with his wife, namely four months, after which he must either offer expiation for his oath and have intercourse with her, or he would be compelled to divorce her. This is what is called eelaa’, and it is mentioned in the verses (interpretation of the meaning):

    “For those who swear not to have sexual relations with their wives is a waiting time of four months, but if they return [to normal relations] – then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
    And if they decide on divorce – then indeed, Allah is Hearing and Merciful”
    [al-Baqarah 2:226-227].

    We may read what a wife used to do after her husband died:

    Zaynab bint Abi Salamah said: If a woman’s husband died, she would go into a hut and wear her worst clothes, and she would not put on perfume until one year had passed. Then an animal would be brought – a donkey or a sheep or a bird – and she would rub her hands over it, and rarely did (such a woman) rub her hands over anything but it died, then she would come out and would be given a piece of dung which she would throw.
    Narrated by al-Bukhaari (5024) and Muslim (1489).
    Islam, with its wise rulings, changed all these ignorant customs and rulings, and replaced them with something better. We do not have room here to list all the changes that were made to the ways of Jaahiliyyah; doing so would require a large volume. It is sufficient for us to mention some of the ways of Jaahiliyyah and some of the changes that Islam brought. For more information, please see Buloogh al-Arab fi Ma‘rifat Ahwaal al-‘Arab by Mahmoud Shukri al-Aloosi; al-Mufassal fi Taareekh al-‘Arab qabl al-Islam; and Taareekh al-‘Arab qabl al-Islam.
    And Allah knows best.

  • Q n A : Doubts about the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) and a response to those doubts


    Q
    Doubts about the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) and a response to those doubts


    A

    Praise be to Allah.I.
    The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) – even though they are the best of people – were also human, and there occurred among them that which usually occurs among people of disputes and differences of opinion. But they were the swiftest of people in doing good, and they were the foremost in knowledge of the truth, acting upon it and the swiftest to acknowledge and correct their mistakes, if one of them made a mistake, like any other human.
    What is required of anyone who is accountable is to refrain from discussing the differences that arose among the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) and to think positively of every one of them.
    Where could you find any people who are better than those who accompanied the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), migrated with him, strove with him in jihad, and prayed behind him?
    See the answer to question no. 127028.
    II.
    It was narrated by ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad in as-Sunnah (1312), Ibn Abi ‘Aasim in as-Sunnah (1219) and al-Bayhaqi in al-I‘tiqaad (p. 358) that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said: No one gives me precedence over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) but I shall flog him with the hadd punishment of one who fabricates lies.
    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
    It is proven via many isnads from ‘Ali that he said: No man will be brought to me who gives me precedence over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar but I shall flog him with the hadd punishment of one who fabricates lies.
    End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/479).
    He also said:
    It was narrated from ‘Ali via approximately eighty isnaads or more that he said on the minbar of Kufah: The best of this ummah after its Prophet are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
    End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/407).
    III.
    It is proven in as-Saheehayn that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, even though it was delayed by a few months.
    ‘Ali did not show any disagreement towards Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) or express any disapproval of the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and never expressed any dissent. Rather he delayed giving his allegiance to Abu Bakr. The reason for that was that he objected to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and others among the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) deciding the matter of the caliphate without him, despite his virtue, honour and high status, for he had the right to be present and be consulted about the matter, and that no decision should be taken without him.
    The excuse that the Sahaabah gave was that they had hastened to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr so as to ward off fitnah and turmoil in the Muslim community, because they feared that disputes and conflicts might arise if they delayed it.
    Another reason for the delay [in ‘Ali swearing allegiance to Abu Bakr] was the fact that Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) got angry with Abu Bakr’s response to her when she asked him about her inheritance (from the Prophet(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)], and ‘Ali thought that he should show sympathy to her by staying away from Abu Bakr, especially since she was going through sorrow, distress and grief at the passing of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
    ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not refuse to swear allegiance to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him); rather he delayed doing so for the reasons mentioned above. Then he came and swore allegiance to him without being forced to do so.
    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
    It is known via tawaatur reports that no one held back from swearing allegiance to him – namely Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah be pleased with him) – except Sa‘d ibn ‘Ubaadah. As for ‘Ali and Banu Haashim, all of them swore allegiance to him, according to consensus, and none of them died until after swearing allegiance to him. But it was said that ‘Ali delayed swearing allegiance to him for six months, or that he swore allegiance to him on the second day. Whatever the case, they swore allegiance to him without being forced to do so.
    End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah (8/232).
    See also the answer to question no. 147540.
    IV.
    It is not proven that ‘Uthmaan beat ‘Ammaar (may Allah be pleased with them both), let alone that ‘Ali saw that and did not object. All of the reports that have been narrated concerning that are not sound in their isnaads (chains of narration).
    Ibn Shabbah said in Taareekh al-Madinah (3/1098):
    Al-Qaasim ibn al-Fudayl told us: ‘Amr ibn Murrah told me, from Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d, who said: ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) called some of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), among whom was ‘Ammar, and said: I am going to ask you something; I adjure you by Allah, do you know that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to give precedence to Quraysh over all other people, and he used to give precedence to Banu Haashim over the rest of Quraysh? The people remained silent, so he said: If the keys of Paradise were in my hand, I would give them to Banu Umayyah so that all of them, to the last man, would enter it. By Allah, I would surely give to them and appoint them (to positions of authority), in spite of you. ‘Ammar said: Inspite of me? ‘Uthmaan said: In spite of you. ‘Ammaar said: And in spite of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar? ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) got angry and leapt up, and started to beat him severely, and the people intervened and pushed him away from ‘Ammaar.
     This is a da‘eef (weak) isnad. Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d did not hear [reports] from ‘Uthmaan. Al-Haafiz al-‘Alaa’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d al-Kufi is well known; he narrated many mursal reports from the senior Sahaabah such as ‘Umar, ‘Ali, ‘Aa’ishah, Ibn Mas‘ood and others (may Allah be pleased with them). Abu Zar‘ah said: [Reports narrated by] Saalim ibn Abi’l-Ja‘d from ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali are mursal.
    End quote from Jaami‘ at-Tahseel (p. 179)
    Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi said in al-‘Aqd al-Fareed (5/57):
    In a hadith narrated by al-A‘mash from Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, he said: The companions of ‘Uthmaan wrote down his mistakes on a page and wrote down people’s criticisms of him. They said: Who will take this to him? ‘Ammaar said: I will. So he took it to him, and when he read it he [‘Uthmaan] said: May Allah cause your disgrace. ‘Ammaar said: And Abu Bakr and ‘Umar too? ‘Uthmaan stood up and beat him until he fell unconscious. Then ‘Uthmaan regretted it, and he sent Talhah and az-Zubayr to him to say to him: Choose one of three: either forgive me, or accept compensation for the injury, or retaliate in kind [qisas]. ‘Ammaar said: By Allah, I will not accept any of them until I meet Allah! Abu Bakr [ibn Abi Shaybah, the narrator of this report] said: I mentioned this hadith to al-Hasan ibn Saalih, and he said: ‘Uthmaan could not have done more than he did (to seek reconciliation).
    This is a da‘eef (weak) isnad, like the previous report. Al-A‘mash is regarded as being among the junior Taabi‘een; he was born too late to have met ‘Uthmaan or ‘Ali or ‘Ammaar.
    See: Mizaan al-I‘tidaal (2/224) and at-Tahdheeb (4/196).
    In fact, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi, who quoted this report in his book, did not trace its isnad back to al-A‘mash. As it is possible that this report may be traced to someone who comes before al-A‘mash [in the chain of narration], it is also possible that it may be traced to someone who comes after him,  whom Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihi omitted between Ibn Abi Shaybah and al-A‘mash.
    Ibn Abi Bakr al-Maaliqi said: If it is said that ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him) beat ‘Ammaar, it should be pointed out that this is not proven. Even if it could be proven, the imam (ruler) has the right to discipline some of his subjects, as he sees fit, even if he is mistaken.
    Do you not see that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) allowed people to settle scores with him. Similarly, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) disciplined some of their subjects slapping and hitting with a stick, and they allowed others to settle the score with them.
    If someone says that ‘Uthmaan did not allow anyone to settle a score with him,
    It should be said to him: How can that be true, when he made offers to that effect in an unprecedented manner, especially when he was under siege in his house, when he said: O people, if you find in the Book of Allah that you should put my feet in fetters, then do so.”
    End quote from Shubuhaat hawla as-Sahaabah: Dhu’n-Noorayn ‘Uthmaan (p. 144).
    There are sounder reports which contradict that. It was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf (7/521) and Ibn Shabbah in Taareekh al-Madinah (3/1101), via Husayn ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan who said: Juhaym, a man from Banu Fihr, told me: I witnessed this event. He said: Sa‘d and ‘Ammaar came and sent word to ‘Uthmaan, saying: Please come; we want to remind you of something novel that you introduced, or things that you did. He sent word to them telling them: Leave for today, because I am busy; your appointment is on such and such a day.
    So Sa‘d left, but ‘Ammaar refused to leave.
    So ‘Uthmaan’s messenger grabbed him and beat him.
    When they and those who were with them gathered at the appointed time, ‘Uthmaan said to them: What grievances do you have against me?
    They said: Our grievance is your beating of ‘Ammaar.
    ‘Uthmaan said: Sa‘d and ‘Ammaar came, and I sent word to them, then Sa‘d left but ‘Ammaar refused to leave, so a messenger grabbed him and beat without me instructing him to do that. By Allah, I did not give any instruction to that effect and I am not pleased with it. This is my hand for ‘Ammaar; let him retaliate.
    There is nothing wrong with this isnad, and its men are thiqaat (trustworthy). Juhaym is a Taabi‘i from whom two trustworthy narrators narrated, and he was classed as trustworthy by Ibn Hibbaan, so his hadith may reach the level of hasan.
    This report is the soundest of those that were narrated about ‘Uthmaan beating ‘Ammaar.
    Conclusion:
    It is not proven that ‘Uthmaan beat ‘Ammaar in the first place, let alone any notion that he beat him in the presence of ‘Ali and that ‘Ali remained silent and did not defend him. What is required of us is to acknowledge the high status of the companions of our Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), to love them and defend them.
    It is not permissible to rely on everything that has been narrated in the books of history, except for that which is proven to be sound. How good are the words of Ibn Khaldoon:
    How often the historians, mufassireen and narrators of reports make mistakes in the stories they narrate, because their method is mere transmission of reports, whether sound or unsound, without examining these reports and their chains of narration, and comparing them to other, similar reports, and without examining them in the light of reason and in the light of human nature. Thus they drifted away from the path of truth and fell into grievous mistakes and errors.
    And Allah knows best.

  • Q n A : Prophet Zakariyya’s sponsorship of Maryam


    Q
    Prophet Zakariyya’s sponsorship of Maryam


    A

    Praise be to Allah.
    Firstly:

    The scholars differed concerning the relationship between
    Zakariyya and Maryam (peace be upon them both). There are two views:

    That
    he was the husband of her sister

    That
    he was the husband of her maternal aunt.

    See the answer to question no. 82569.

    It was narrated that Zakariyya (peace be upon him) was also
    one of the paternal cousins of Maryam (peace be upon her), in addition to
    being the husband of her maternal aunt or sister. See: al-Hidaayah by
    Makki (2/999).

    Secondly:

    Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has told us about
    Zakariyya’s sponsorship (kafaalah) of Maryam, as He said (interpretation of
    the meaning):

    “So her Lord accepted her with good acceptance and caused her
    to grow in a good manner and put her in the care
    [kaffalaha] of Zechariah [Zakariyya]”

    [Aal ‘Imraan 3:37].

    What is meant by kafaalah [sponsorship or taking care] is
    that he looked after her affairs and needs. Kafaalah includes taking care of
    the interests of the person under one’s care, spending on him, and looking
    after his needs.

    Ibn ‘Atiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: What it means
    is that he took her into his care and spent on her. The kaafil (sponsor) is
    the one who takes care of another.

    End quote from al-Muharrar al-Wajeez (1/425).

    Al-Waahidi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: He took her
    into his care and looked after her affairs.

    Az- Zajjaaj said: What is meant is that he took care of her
    affairs. … The kaafil is the one who sponsors a person, looks after him and
    spends on him..

    End quote from at-Tafseer al-Baseet (5/203).

    Ibn Katheer said: Here our Lord is telling us that He
    accepted the vow of her mother, and that He “caused her to grow in a good
    manner” that is, He made her good-looking and endeared her to peopler,
    and caused her to be in the company of the righteous among His slaves, so
    that she could learn goodness, knowledge and religion from them.

    Hence Allah says: “and put her in
    the care [kaffalaha] of Zechariah
    [Zakariyya]”; the grammatical
    structure of this phrase in the original Arabic indicates that Zakariyya was
    made to be her sponsor or carer.

    Ibn Ishaaq said: That was only because she was an orphan.

    Other scholars stated that the Children of Israel were
    stricken by a famine, so Zakariyya sponsored Maryam and took care of her
    because of that.

    There is no contradiction between the two views. And Allah
    knows best.

    The reason why Allah decreed that Zakariyya should be her
    sponsor was because this would be in her best interests, so that she might
    learn a great deal of beneficial knowledge and righteous deeds from him, and
    because he was the husband of her maternal aunt, according to what was
    mentioned by Ibn Ishaaq, Ibn Jareer, and others.

    It was also said that he was the husband of her sister.

    At-Tafseer
    (2/35).

    Ibn ‘Ashoor said: When Maryam was born, her father had died,
    and a number of the rabbis of the Children of Israel disputed over who was
    to sponsor her, for they were all keen to sponsor the daughter of their
    senior rabbi. They drew lots for that, and the lot fell to Zakariyya. What
    appears to be the case is that the matter of her sponsorship was delegated
    to the rabbis because she was dedicated to the service of the place of
    worship, so it was essential that she be given a righteous upbringing for
    that reason.

    At-Tahreer wa’t-Tahreer
    (2/235).

    Conclusion:

    It was narrated that Zakariyya was one of the paternal
    cousins of Maryam, and he was the husband of her sister or maternal aunt. He
    was her sponsor (kaafil), meaning that he used to take care of her needs and
    look after her.

  • Q n A : Did the Prophet of Allah Sulaymaan (peace be upon him) force the queen of Saba’ to become Muslim?


    Q
    Did the Prophet of Allah Sulaymaan (peace be upon him) force the queen of Saba’ to become Muslim?


    A

    Praise be to Allah.
    The Prophet of Allah Sulaymaan (peace be upon him) did not
    force Balqees the queen of Saba’ (Sheba) to become Muslim; rather she became
    Muslim voluntarily, as Allah, may He be exalted, tells us in the verse in
    which He, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the
    meaning):

    “She said: ‘My Lord! Verily, I
    have wronged myself, and I submit (in Islam, together with Sulaymaan
    (Solomon), to Allah, the Lord of the ‘Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that
    exists)”

    [an-Naml 27:44].

    She stated that she had wronged herself by worshipping the
    sun instead of Allah, then she voluntarily affirmed Islam and submitted with
    Sulaymaan to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds. If she had been forced to become
    Muslim, she would not have said that.

    With regard to the words of the Prophet of Allah Sulaymaan
    (peace be upon him), “Go
    back to them. We verily shall come to them with hosts that they cannot
    resist, and we shall drive them out from there in disgrace, and they will be
    abased” [an-Naml 27:37],

    this comes under the heading of jihad which is necessary to
    spread the religion of Allah; it does not have anything to do with forcing
    anyone to enter Islam. Jihad was only prescribed so that the word of Allah
    might be supreme, and so as to take away authority of kingdoms that stand
    between the people and the religion of Allah.

    Moreover, Sulaymaan was a king, to whom Allah had granted
    sovereignty on earth, as more than one of the early generations stated, so
    no one had the right to decide any of the affairs of his kingdom without his
    consent, especially with regard to the greatest matter concerning which
    jihad was prescribed and for which kingdoms were established.

    Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

    Jihad of the Muslims against the disbelievers is not for the
    purpose of making them become Muslim. Allah, may He be glorified, says
    (interpretation of the meaning): “There
    is no compulsion in religion” [al-Baqarah
    2:256]. Rather jihad is
    so that the word of Allah may be supreme, and so that dominance may belong
    to the religion of Islam.

    End quote from Majmoo‘ Fataawa wa Rasaa’il al-‘Uthaymeen
    (25/303).

    Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allah preserve him) said:

    It is not possible to force anyone to enter Islam, for
    entering Islam is something that comes from the heart, based on conviction
    in the heart, and it is not possible for us to control hearts or make them
    believe. That is in the hand of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, for
    He is the Controller of the hearts, and it is He Who guides whomever He
    wills and leaves astray whomever He wills. But our duty is to call people to
    Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and to explain the truth, and to
    strive in jihad for the sake of Allah against those who are stubborn and
    recognise the truth but obstinately reject it after coming to know it. This
    is the one against whom we must strive in jihad, but as for the idea of
    forcing him to enter Islam and instilling faith in his heart by force, this
    is not for us to do, rather that is up to Allah, may He be glorified and
    exalted.

    End quote from Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh Saalih ibn
    Fawzaan (1/209)

    The fact that the queen of Saba’ became Muslim and admitted
    having wronged her self when she disbelieved clearly indicates that she was
    content with faith and became Muslim voluntarily, and was not forced to do
    so.

    Please see also the answers to questions no.
    178756 and 82613.

    And Allah knows best.

  • Q n A : Imam Ja‘far as-Saadiq


    Q
    Imam Ja‘far as-Saadiq


    A

    Praise be to Allah.
    Firstly:

    His full name is Imam Abu ‘Abdullah Ja‘far as-Saadiq ibn
    Muhammad al-Baaqir ibn ‘Ali Zayn al-‘Aabideen ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi
    Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him and be pleased with them).

    His mother was Umm Farwah bint al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi
    Bakr at-Taymi. Her mother was Asmaa’ bint ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Abi Bakr. So
    his mother was descended from Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq on her mother’s side and
    also on her father’s side.

    Hence he used to say: Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq was my ancestor
    twice over.

    He was born in 80 AH, and met some of the Sahaabah.
    Adh-Dhahabi said: I think he met Anas ibn Maalik and Sahl ibn Sa‘d.

    See: Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’ (6/255-270).

    Secondly:

    His shaykhs and students:

    He narrated from his father, Abu Ja‘far al-Baaqir, and from
    ‘Ubaydullah ibn Abi Raafi‘, ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, ‘Ata’ ibn Abi Rabaah – and
    his reports from him are narrated in Muslim, his grandfather al-Qaasim ibn
    Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, Naafi‘ al-‘Umari, Muhammad ibn al-Munkadir, az-Zuhri,
    Muslim ibn Abi Maryam, and others. He did not narrate a great deal, except
    from his father; they were both among the scholars of Madinah.

    The following narrated from him: his son Moosa al-Kaazim,
    Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari, Yazeed ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al-Haadi – they (Yahya
    and Yazeed) were both older than him –, Abaan ibn Taghlib, Ibn Jurayj,
    Mu‘aawiyah ibn ‘Ammaar ad-Duhni, Ibn Ishaaq – among a group of his peers – ,
    Sufyaan, Shu‘bah, Maalik, Ismaa‘eel ibn Ja‘far, Wahb ibn Khaalid, Haatim ibn
    Ismaa‘eel, Sulaymaan ibn Bilaal, Sufyaan ibn ‘Uyaynah, al-Hasan ibn Saalih,
    al-Hasan ibn ‘Ayyaash – the brother of Abu Bakr, Zuhayr ibn Muhammad, Hafs
    ibn Ghiyaath, Zayd ibn Hasan al-Anmaati, Sa‘eed ibn Sufyaan al-Aslami,
    ‘Abdullah ibn Maymoon, ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Imraan az-Zuhri, ‘Abd al-‘Azeez
    ad-Daraawardi, ‘Abd al-Wahhaab ath-Thaqafi, ‘Uthmaan ibn Farqad, Muhammad
    ibn Thaabit al-Bunaani, Muhammad ibn Maymoon az-Za‘faraani, Muslim az-Zanji,
    Yahya al-Qattaan, Abu ‘Aasim an-Nabeel, and others. See: as-Siyar.

    Thirdly:

    His status in terms of knowledge, virtue and adherence to the
    Sunnah, and his disavowal of the Raafidis and other extremists, and the
    seriousness of their fabrications against him:

    Abu Ahmad ibn ‘Adiyy said: He narrated many hadiths from his
    father, from Jaabir and from his forefathers. The leading scholars narrated
    from him. And he was one of the trustworthy people, as Ibn Ma‘een said.

    It was narrated that ‘Amr ibn Abi’l-Miqdaam said: When I
    looked at Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, I realised that he was descended from
    Prophets. I saw him standing at the Jamrah, saying: Ask me, ask me.

    ‘Ali ibn al-Ja‘d narrated that Zuhayr ibn Mu‘aawiyah said: My
    father said to Ja‘far ibn Muhammad: I have a neighbour who claims that you
    disavowed Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Ja‘far said: May Allah disavow your neighbour.
    By Allah, I hope that Allah will benefit me through my ties of blood with
    Abu Bakr, for I fell ill one time and  I left my will with my maternal uncle
    ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn al-Qaasim (which means that he was very close to him).

    Ibn ‘Uyaynah said: They narrated to me from Ja‘far ibn
    Muhammad – although I did not hear it (directly) from him – that he said: At
    the time of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
    him), the family of Abu Bakr were called the family of the Messenger of
    Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).

    Muhammad ibn Fudayl said, narrating from Saalim ibn Abi
    Hafsah, that he said: I asked Abu Ja‘far and his son Ja‘far about Abu Bakr
    and ‘Umar. He said: O Saalim, regard them as allies and disavow anyone who
    regards them as enemies, for they are both imams of guidance.

    Then Ja‘far said: O Saalim, would a man revile his
    grandfather? Abu Bakr is my grandfather, and I will not attain the
    intercession of Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) on the
    Day of Resurrection if I do not regard them both (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) as
    allies and disavow those who regard them as enemies.

    Adh-Dhahabi said: These words were narrated via mutawaatir
    reports from Ja‘far as-Saadiq. I bear witness by Allah that he was sincere
    in his words, and was not being hypocritical towards anyone or trying to
    appease anyone. May Allah doom the Raafidis.

    Adh-Dhahabi commented on the above report by saying:

    Saalim had an obvious inclination towards Shi‘ism, yet
    despite that he transmitted these true words. It is only people of virtue
    who recognise the virtue of people of virtue. Similarly the one who narrated
    it, Ibn Fudayl, was also a Shi‘i but trustworthy in narrating hadith. May
    Allah doom the Shi‘ah of our times; how deeply they are immersed in
    ignorance and lies! They impugn the two shaykhs (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar), the
    two close companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
    him), and interpret these words of al-Baaqir and as-Saadiq as having been
    said by way of taqiyyah (dissimulation).

    End quote from Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’, 4/402

    Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)
    said: 

    As for telling lies about Ja‘far and what they narrate from
    him of what he (allegedly) said in private (impugning Abu Bakr and ‘Umar),
    it is among the gravest of lies, to the extent that it is said that no one
    was lied about as Ja‘far (may Allah be pleased with him) was lied about.

    End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa, 4/78.

    He also said:

    The Raafidis are the most ignorant of sects, the most
    mendacious and the furthest removed from knowledge of religious texts and
    reason. They regard taqiyyah (dissimulation) as one of the fundamental
    principles of their religion, and they tell many lies about Ahl al-Bayt, the
    extent of which no one knows except Allah. They even narrate from Ja‘far as-Saadiq
    that he said: “Taqiyyah is my religion and the religion of my forefathers”!

    Taqiyyah is the symbol of hypocrisy, because in reality it
    means that they say something that is not in their hearts, and this is the
    very essence of hypocrisy. Therefore because this is one of the fundamental
    principles of their religion, whatever they transmit from ‘Ali or anyone
    else of Ahl al-Bayt that is in harmony with the teachings of Ahl as-Sunnah
    wa’l-Jamaa‘ah, they describe it as having been said by way of taqiyyah. Thus
    they opened wide the doors of hypocrisy to the baatini Qaraamitah [an
    extreme esoteric sect].

    End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (13/263).

    He also said:

    The problem is with those who lied about Ja‘far, not with
    Ja‘far himself… to the extent that everyone who wanted to make his lies
    acceptable to people attributed them to Ja‘far.

    End quote from Minhaaj as-Sunnah (4/54).

    Imam Ja‘far as-Saadiq’s disavowal of the Raafidis and their
    ilk is too well known to need a list of all the reports, and their
    fabrications against him are too many to be counted.

    A quick glance at the names of his shaykhs, such as ‘Ata’ ibn
    Abi Rabaah, az-Zuhri, ‘Urwah ibn az-Zubayr, al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad and
    others, and a quick glance at the names of his students who narrated from
    him, such as Abu Haneefah, Sufyaan ath-Thawri, Ibn ‘Uyaynah, and Maalik, and
    the high esteem in which they held him and the pride they felt in being his
    students, will expose the lies of the baatinis (esoteric sects) concerning
    him. How come his shaykhs from whom he acquired knowledge and his students
    who learned from him, were the prominent figures among Ahl as-Sunnah in his
    era, then he became the imam of their enemies among the Raafidis and their
    ilk?

    This is not the case of Ahl as-Sunnah vis-à-vis the Raafidis
    concerning as-Saadiq only; rather it is also the case with regard to his son
    and his forefathers.

    See the answer to question no. 101272.

    Fourthly:

    As for books that give the biography of Ja‘far as-Saadiq,
    there is hardly any book of biography (seerah) and prominent figures
    (a‘laam) that does not mention his biography, such as Siyar al-A‘laam
    by adh-Dhahabi, al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer,
    Wafiyyaat al-A‘yaan by Ibn Khallikaan, and others.

    There are also books that deal exclusively with his
    biography, such as al-Imam as-Saadiq: Hayaatuhu wa ‘Asruhu wa Aaraa’uhu
    wa Fiqhuhu by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahrah.

    There is a brief essay entitled al-Imam Ja‘far as-Saadiq
    by Shaykh Saalih ad-Darweesh, at the end of which he mentions some other
    writings that give his biography, including the following:

    ·
    al-Imam Ja‘far as-Saadiq wa Aaraa’uhu f’il-Imaamah: Diraasah
    Naqdiyyah lima nasabahu ilayhi ash-Shi‘ah min al-Abaateel
    by Muhammad Mahfooz Abu ‘Akkaaz, Master’s thesis in Sharee‘ah and Usool ad-Deen
    at Umm al-Qura University in Makkah.

    ·
    Marwiyaat al-Imam Ja‘far as-Saadiq fi’s-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah
    wa Ahwaal ar-Ruwwaat ‘anhu wa Namaadhij mimma nusiba ilayhi
    by Lateefah Ibraaheem al-Haadi, PhD thesis in Sharee‘ah and Usool ad-Deen at
    Umm al-Qura University in Makkah.

    And Allah knows best.

  • Q n A : Is it proven that when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was born, he rested on his arms, raising his head to heaven?


    Q
    Is it proven that when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was born, he rested on his arms, raising his head to heaven?


    A

    Praise be to Allah.
    It was narrated
    by ‘Abd ar-Razzaaq in al-Musannaf (9718) from Ma‘mar, from az-Zuhri, that
    the mother of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:
    When he was born, he rested on his arms, raising his head to heaven.

    This is mursal,
    although the isnaad is saheeh.

    It was narrated
    by Ibn Hibbaan (6335) and Abu Ya‘la (7163) via Muhammad ibn Ishaaq, from
    Jahm ibn Abi Jahm, from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far (may Allah be pleased with
    him), from Haleemah bint al-Haarith as-Sa‘diyyah… And he mentioned the story
    of the breastfeeding of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
    him), in which it says that the mother of the Messenger of Allah (blessings
    and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

    … Then I gave
    birth to him, and he did not come out as other infants come out; he came out
    placing his hands on the ground, raising his head to heaven.

    Shaykh Shu‘ayb
    al-Arna‘oot said in his commentary on Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan:

    In its isnaad
    there is an interruption between ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far – who is the son of
    Abu Taalib – and Haleemah.

    Jahm ibn Abi
    Jahm was mentioned by the author in ath-Thiqaat (4/113), where he
    said: He narrates from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far and from al-Miswar ibn
    Makhramah, who was the freed slave of al-Haarith ibn Haatib al-Qurashi.
    Muhammad ibn Ishaaq, ‘Abdullah al-‘Umari and al-Waleed ibn ‘Abdillah ibn
    Jamee‘ narrated from him. Al-Bukhaari (2/229) and Ibn Abi Haatim (2/521)
    both mentioned him, but they did not say anything about him, good or bad.

    No report is
    known from Haleemah except this hadith, and there is no proof that she saw
    the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) after his mission
    began. End quote.

    It was narrated
    by al-Aajurri in ash-Sharee‘ah (964), al-Bayhaqi in ad-Dalaa’il
    (1/132) and Ibn ‘Asaakir in at-Taareekh (3/91) that Muhammad ibn
    Ishaaq said: Ibn Abi Jahm told me: someone who heard ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far
    ibn Abi Taalib told me that he said: I was told, from Haleemah bint
    al-Haarith, the foster-mother of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace
    of Allah be upon him)… and he narrated this report.

    This is a da‘eef
    (weak) isnaad. Jahm ibn Abi Jahm is unknown. Adh-Dhahabi mentioned him in
    al-Mizaan (1/426) and said: He is not known; he narrated the report from
    Haleemah as-Sa‘diyyah. End quote.

    He did not hear
    this story directly from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far, because he said: someone who
    heard ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far ibn Abi Taalib told me that he said.

    And ‘Abdullah
    ibn Ja‘far did not hear it from Haleemah as-Sa‘diyyah, because he said: I
    was told, from Haleemah bint al-Haarith.

    But this last
    problem is minor, because ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far was a Sahaabi, but he was one
    of the younger Sahaabah.

    It was narrated
    by Ibn Sa‘d in at-Tabaqaat (1/81, 120) via his shaykh al-Waaqidi, via
    various isnaads, but al-Waaqidi is dubious. He was regarded as a liar by
    Imam Ahmad and others. Abu Dawood said: I do not write down his hadith and I
    do not narrate from him; I have no doubt that he made up hadith. Bandaar
    said: I have not seen anyone who tells more lies than him.

    Ishaaq ibn
    Raahawayh said: In my view, he is one of those who fabricate hadith.

    See: Tahdheeb
    at-Tahdheeb (9/323-326).

    So what he
    narrates is of no value.

    The hadith was
    classed as da‘eef by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him), who
    said in his commentary on al-Booti’s Fiqh as-Seerah:

    This story was
    not narrated via any isnaad which may be taken as evidence. The most
    well-known of its versions is that which was narrated by Muhammad ibn Ishaaq
    from Jahm ibn Abi Jahm from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far from Haleemah bint
    al-Haarith as-Sa‘diyyah.

    It was narrated
    by Abu Ya‘la (1/128) and from him by Ibn Hibbaan in Mawaarid (1094)
    and by Abu Nu‘aym in Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah (1/47) from Ibn Ishaaq.

    It was also
    narrated from him by al-Bayhaqi in Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah (1/108),
    except that he said: Jahm ibn Abi Jahm – the freed slave of a woman from
    Banu Tameem who was married to al-Haarith ibn Haatib; it was also said that
    he was the freed slave of al-Haarith ibn Haatib – told us: someone who heard
    ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far ibn Abi Taalib told us that he said: I was told, from
    Haleemah bint al-Haarith.

    I say: This is a
    da‘eef isnaad; there are two problems with it:

    Firstly: there
    is some problem with the isnaad, as is quite clear. In the first report, Ibn
    Ishaaq narrates it by saying ‘an (from) with regard to all of its narrators.
    In the second report, it is narrated with a clear statement of it having
    been told from one narrator to another, even though al-Jahm says that he did
    not hear it directly from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far, and he says that ‘Abdullah
    ibn Ja‘far did not hear it directly from Haleemah.

    In the first
    report, there is an interruption between Ibn Ishaaq and al-Jahm, because Ibn
    Ishaaq is known for tadlees (saying ‘an (from) to give the impression that
    it was heard directly from one narrator to another). In the second report
    there is an interruption in two places in the isnaad.

    Thus you may
    learn that al-Haafiz was mistaken in his book al-Isaabah, where he
    said (4/266): Ibn Hibbaan stated in his Saheeh that it was stated
    that Haleemah told ‘Abdullah, because there is no basis for this idea
    according to Ibn Hibbaan or anyone else whom we have mentioned.

    It is very
    unlikely that ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far could have met Haleemah, the wet-nurse of
    the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), because
    when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, ‘Abdullah
    was ten years old; even though no one mentioned when Haleemah died, one
    would expect her to have died before the Messenger of Allah (blessings and
    peace of Allah be upon him). And Allah knows best.

    Regardless of
    whether the first or second report is more sound, in both cases there is an
    interruption in the isnaad.

    The other
    problem with the hadith is that its main narrator, Jahm ibn Abi’l-Jahm, is
    unknown. Adh-Dhahabi said in al-Mizaan: The story of Haleemah
    as-Sa‘diyyah is not known to be his.

    As for Ibn
    Hibbaan, he mentioned him in ath-Thiqaat (1/31), according to his
    method of verifying unknown narrators.

    According to Abu
    Nu‘aym, the story has two other isnaads, both of which are connected to
    al-Waaqidi, who was a liar. One of the isnaads is from his shaykh, Moosa ibn
    Shayba, who is layyin al-hadith (not strong in hadith), as al-Haafiz said in
    at-Taqreeb. The other is from ‘Abd as-Samad ibn Muhammad as-Sa‘di,
    from his father, from his grandfather, who said: Someone who used to tend
    the sheep of Haleemah told me… These narrators are unknown.

    End quote from
    Difaa‘ ‘an al-Hadith an-Nabawi (39).

    He also said in
    his commentary on Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan (9/128):

    … Ibn Ishaaq
    stated in Seerat Ibn Hishaam (1/172) that the report was told from
    one narrator to another, but he was not sure. He said: From ‘Abdullah ibn
    Ja‘far ibn Abi Taalib, or from someone who narrated from him…

    So we cannot be
    sure that the isnaad is complete, especially since this Jahm is unknown and
    no one regarded him as trustworthy except Ibn Hibbaan (4/113). Adh-Dhahabi
    said in al-Mizaan and elsewhere: He is not known. End quote.

    See: al-Mataalib
    al-‘Aaliyah by Ibn Hajar, and the comment of the commentators
    (17/180-182).

    This hadith,
    with its isnaads, is well known to the scholars of Seerah (the Prophet’s
    biography), as Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This hadith
    was narrated via other isnaads, and it is one of the well-known hadiths that
    were mentioned by the scholars of Seerah and Maghaazi (reports of military
    campaigns).

    End quote from
    al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (2/275).

    Perhaps because
    it is well-known, adh-Dhahabi classed it as qawiy (strong) and said
    concerning this hadith of Ibn Ishaaq that is mentioned above:

    This is a hadith
    with a jayyid (good) isnaad.

    End quote from
    Tareekh al-Islam (1/48).

    And Allah knows
    best.

  • Q n A : Commentary on the verse “Thus did We plan for Yoosuf” [Yoosuf 12:76] and what this plan brought of goodness and blessings to him and to his father and his brothers


    Q
    Commentary on the verse “Thus did We plan for Yoosuf” [Yoosuf 12:76] and what this plan brought of goodness and blessings to him and to his father and his brothers


    A

    Praise be to Allah.
    Firstly:

    Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is the most truthful
    of speakers. He, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

    “And who is truer in statement
    than Allah?”

    [an-Nisa’ 4:87]

    “and whose words can be truer
    than those of Allah?”

    [an-Nisa’ 4:122].

    So it is not permissible to attribute any kind of lie to
    Allah, may He be exalted, for Allah is majestic, exalted and holy, and He is
    far above any such thing. The Prophet of Allah Yoosuf (peace be upon him)
    was a Prophet and a siddeeq (one who is strong and true in faith); the word
    siddeeq is an intensive form of noun and comes from a root meaning true and
    sincere. ar-Raazi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

    Siddeeq is a word that describes anyone whose habit and
    custom is to be truthful. End quote.

    Tafseer ar-Raazi
    (10/133).

    Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

    The siddeeq is the one whose actions confirm his words. End
    quote.

    Tafseer al-Qurtubi
    (5/272)

    Secondly:

    Allah, may He be exalted, says in the story of Yoosuf (peace
    be upon him) and his brothers (interpretation of the meaning):

    “So when he had furnished them
    forth with their provisions, he put the (golden) bowl into his brother’s
    bag, then a crier cried: ‘O you (in) the caravan! Surely, you are thieves!’
    They,
    turning towards them, said: ‘What is it that you have missed?’
    They said:
    ‘We have missed the (golden) bowl of the king and for him who produces it is
    (the reward of) a camel load; I will be bound by it.’
    They said:
    ‘By Allah! Indeed you know that we came not to make mischief in the land,
    and we are no thieves!’
    They (Yoosuf’s
    (Joseph) men) said: ‘What then shall be the penalty of him, if you
    are (proved to be) liars?’
    They (Yoosuf’s
    (Joseph) brothers) said: ‘The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is
    found, should be held for the punishment (of the crime). Thus we punish the
    Zalimoon (wrong-doers, etc.)!’
    So he
    began (the search) in their bags before the bag of his brother. Then he
    brought it out of his brother’s bag. Thus did We plan for Yoosuf (Joseph).
    He could not take his brother by the law of the king (as a slave), except
    that Allah willed it. (So Allah made the brothers to bind themselves with
    their way of ‘punishment, i.e. enslaving of a thief.’) We raise to degrees
    whom We please, but over each one who is possessed of knowledge is one more
    knowing.
    They ((Yoosuf’s
    (Joseph) brothers) said: ‘If he steals, there was a brother of his (Yoosuf
    (Joseph)) who did steal before (him).’ But these things did Yoosuf (Joseph)
    keep in himself, revealing not the secrets to them. He said (within
    himself): ‘You are in worst case, and Allah knows best the truth of what you
    assert!’”

    [Yoosuf 12:70-77].

    Shaykh as-Sa‘di (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

    “So when he had furnished them forth with their provisions”
    that is, when he had weighed out provisions for each of his brothers,
    including this brother,

    “he put the (golden) bowl” which was a vessel from
    which he drank, and also used for measuring “into his brother’s bag,
    then” they loaded up their luggage, but when they set out, “then a crier
    cried: ‘O you (in) the caravan! Surely, you are thieves!’” Perhaps this
    caller did not know what was really going on. 

    They namely the brothers of Yoosuf “turning towards them”
    – they had no concern except to dispel the accusation that had been made
    against them, so they said: “What is it that you have missed?’” And
    they did not say, “What have we stolen?” because they were certain that they
    were innocent of theft. 

    “They said: ‘We have missed the (golden) bowl of the king
    and for him who produces it is (the reward of) a camel load” that is, as
    a reward for finding it

    “I will be bound by it” that is, I guarantee it – this
    was said by the caller who was looking for it. 

    “They said: ‘By Allah! Indeed you know that we came not to
    make mischief in the land” by committing all kinds of sins

    “and we are no thieves”, for stealing is one of the
    worst kinds of making mischief in the land. They only swore because they
    were confident that the Egyptians were aware that they were not making
    mischief and were not thieves, as they knew them very well and were aware
    that they were people of dignity and piety, who could not have committed
    this theft; those who accused them knew that they could not have done that.
    This is a more eloquent way of refuting the accusation than saying “By Allah
    we did not make mischief in the land and we did not steal anything.” 

    “They (Yoosuf’s (Joseph) men) said: ‘What then shall be
    the penalty, if you are (proved to be) liars?”

     “They (Yoosuf’s (Joseph) brothers) said: ‘The penalty
    should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the
    punishment (of the crime)” that is, the one in whose saddle-bag it is
    found should become the slave of the owner of the stolen item. According to
    their religion, if the thief was proven to be guilty, he would become the
    property of the owner of the stolen wealth. Hence they said: “Thus we
    punish the Zalimoon (wrong-doers, etc.)!’”

    “So he” the inspector “began (the search) in their
    bags before the bag of his brother”, so that there would be no suspicion
    that it had been done deliberately. When he did not find anything in their
    baggage,

    “Then he brought it out of his brother’s bag”. It does
    not say “he found it” or “his brother stole it”, so as to reflect the
    reality of the situation.

    Thus Yoosuf accomplished what he wanted to do of keeping his
    brother with him in such a way that his other brothers would not realise it,
    Allah says (sa): “Thus did We plan for Yoosuf (Joseph)” that is, We
    made easy for him this plan which enabled him to achieve something that was
    not blameworthy

    “He could not take his brother by the law of the king (as
    a slave)” because there was nothing in that law that allowed enslavement
    of the thief; rather they had some other penalty in such cases. Therefore if
    the ruling had been referred to the king’s law, Yoosuf would not have been
    able to keep his brother with him. But he made the ruling come from them, so
    that he might achieve his aim.

    “We raise to degrees whom We please” by means of
    beneficial knowledge and knowledge of ways and means of achieving desired
    goals, as We raised Yoosuf in status

    “but over each one who is possessed of knowledge is one
    more knowing.” Above each one who has knowledge is one who is more
    knowledgeable than him, until knowledge ends with the Knower of the unseen
    and the seen.

    When the brothers of Yoosuf saw what happened, “They said:
    ‘If he” – namely this brother – “steals”, there is nothing surprising about
    that, because “there was a brother of his (Yoosuf (Joseph)) who did steal
    before (him).”  They were referring to Yoosuf (as); what they meant by
    saying this was to declare their own innocence. In other words: this one and
    his brother may commit acts of theft, but they are not our full brothers.

    These words implied a great deal of disparagement, but Yoosuf
    kept his thoughts to himself “revealing not the secrets to them” that
    is, he did not respond to their words in a way that would be displeasing to
    them; rather he restrained his anger and kept it to himself.

    “He said (within himself): ‘You are in worst case”
    because you blamed us when you are worse than us in that regard

    “and Allah knows best the truth of what you assert”
    against us, that is, He knows better than others, as you are accusing us of
    theft when Allah knows that we are innocent.
    Tafseer
    as-Sa‘di (p. 402)
    This was not
    any kind of lying or prohibited deceit on the part of Yoosuf (peace be upon
    him); rather it was good planning that Allah planned for him so as to
    complete His blessing upon him and reunite him with his parents and family,
    and so that his brothers might repent, and so that He might highlight to
    them the wrong that they had done towards their father and their two
    brothers, and so that Allah might complete His blessing upon their father
    Ya‘qoob (peace be upon him) and restore to him his son after a lengthy
    absence and great suffering. So Allah, may He be exalted, ordained this good
    and blessed plan for His Prophet, so that these blessings might be attained
    by all concerned. This does not come under the heading of wrongdoing, enmity
    and prohibited deceit – Allah forbid.
    The caller
    who cried out “‘O you (in) the caravan! Surely, you are thieves!’”
    thought that they were the ones who had stolen the king’s bowl, so he cried
    out on the basis of what he knew; so he was not lying.
    What Yoosuf
    (peace be upon him) meant was that they had stolen from his father, and he
    spoke the truth. This comes under the heading of double entendres by means
    of which the truth may be found out and proof established.
    Ibn al-Jawzi
    (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
    If it is
    said: How could it have been permissible for Yoosuf to accuse of theft
    someone who had not stolen anything? There are four answers to this
    question:

    1.
    That what is meant is: You stole Yoosuf when you cut him off from his father
    and threw him into the well. This was the view of az-Zajjaaj.

    2.
    That when the caller said this, he did not know that Yoosuf had issued
    instructions that the bowl be placed in his brother’s bag, so he was not
    lying when he said it. This was the view of Ibn Jareer.

    3.
    That the caller cried out, accusing them of theft, without any instructions
    from Yoosuf to do so.

    4.
    That what is meant is: You are thieves as it appears to one who is not aware
    of the reality of your situation; this is like the verse in which Allah says
    (interpretation of the meaning): “Taste you (this)! Verily, you were
    (pretending to be) the mighty, the generous” [ad-Dukhaan 44:49] – i.e.,
    in your own mind you were mighty and generous, but not in Our view. And the
    Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Ibraaheem told
    three untruths” i.e., he said words that seemed to be lies, but they were
    not really lies.  
    End quote
    from Zaad al-Maseer (2/457)
    Shaykh
    al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
    What Yoosuf
    (peace be upon him) meant was: You stole Yoosuf from his father, and he was
    telling the truth when he said that.
    What the
    caller meant was: You stole the bowl; he thought that they had stolen it,
    and he did not deliberately intend to lie, even though what he said was
    untrue. End quote.
    Majmoo‘
    al-Fataawa (16/451). See also: al-Fataawa
    al-Kubra (6/127)
    Ibn al-Qayyim
    (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Ighaathat al-Lahfaan (2/118):
    Allah, may He
    be exalted, inspired the brothers of Yoosuf (peace be upon him) to say: “The
    penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the
    punishment (of the crime)” – this was a plan from Allah, may He be
    exalted, in support of Yoosuf (peace be upon him) that He caused to be
    uttered by his brothers. It was beyond Yoosuf’s control.
    They could
    have avoided that by saying “There is no penalty for him unless it is proven
    that he is the one who stole it”, because the mere fact that it was found in
    his bag did not necessarily mean that he was a thief. But Yoosuf (peace be
    upon him) was just and would not have held them responsible without proof.
    They could
    also have avoided that by saying “His penalty should be the same as whatever
    you do to thieves according to your law.” The custom according to the law of
    the king of Egypt – as was narrated – was that the thief would be beaten and
    fined double the value of the stolen property. If they had said that, he
    could not have imposed upon them what he did not impose upon others;
    therefore Allah, may He be glorified, says: “Thus did We plan for Yoosuf
    (Joseph). He could not take his brother by the law of the king (as a slave),
    except that Allah willed it.”
    In other
    words, he could not have taken him according to the law of the king of
    Egypt, because in his law there was no way for him to take him.
    The words “except
    that Allah willed it” may mean: except that Allah willed that he should
    take him by some other means. Or it may be that what is meant is: except
    that Allah brought about some other means for him to take him according to
    the law of the king, other than theft. End quote.
    See also:
    I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (3/168)
    Ibn Katheer
    (may Allah have mercy on him):
    “Thus did
    We plan for Yoosuf (Joseph)” – this comes under the heading of planning
    for good and to achieve that which Allah loves and is pleased with, because
    of what it involves of wisdom and achieving the desired purpose. End quote.
    Tafseer
    Ibn Katheer (4/401)
    The point is
    that none of that comes under the heading of lying whatsoever; rather it
    comes under the heading of good double entendres which, among other things,
    lead to: the truth becoming manifest; the wrongdoers acknowledging their
    mistake and repenting from it and seeking forgiveness from the one who was
    wronged; bringing about reunion of the family; fulfilling the promise of
    Allah to Ya‘qoob and Yoosuf (peace be upon them both); bringing about
    Allah’s support to the one who had been wronged and fulfilling His plan for
    him. All of this is part of the immense blessings that they attained through
    these double entendres that were not lies, even though one who did not
    understand the reality of the situation might think them to be lies.
    And Allah
    knows best.