General cursing of the kuffar is established by the Quran, Sunnah, consensus, and statements of the four madhhabs. The ruling varies when it comes to cursing a specific individual, whether he is a kafir or a Muslim, alive or dead.
Speaking on faults is not the same as abusive sabb. Mentioning faults is allowed when needed for testimony, jarh wa taʿdil, or warning the Muslims.
General Cursing Of The Kuffar
All four madhhabs agree that cursing the kuffar in general is permissible. The Companions made qunut against hostile tribes, and imams permitted laʿn in a general way.
Some jurists discussed whether this is simply permissible or in some cases obligatory, especially regarding those who die on kufr, since Allah declared His curse upon them. Others treated it as permissible but not binding.
Cursing A Specific Kafir By Name
The scholars differed on this issue.
- Prohibition: The Hanafi madhhab, a Maliki view, the Shafii madhhab, and a Hanbali narration forbade cursing a specific kafir. The reasoning is that we do not know a person’s final state, and some texts discourage specific laʿn.
- Conditional permissibility: Some scholars allowed it if the person is known to have died on kufr, or if the text itself named the person. Even here, many preferred refraining and using general wording.
Views Of The Scholars
- Ibn Taymiyyah: Permitted general cursing but discouraged specific cursing, since repentance and final outcome are unknown. He allowed cursing if someone certainly died on kufr, though leaving it is better.
- Ibn al Jawzi: Reported harsh criticism of Yazid from early Hanbalis. Yet he acknowledged narrations showing that Imam Ahmad preferred refraining from explicit laʿn, choosing instead general phrases such as “curse upon the wrongdoers.”
- Contemporary scholars: Ibn Baz and Ibn Uthaymin both discouraged cursing specific living kuffar. They encouraged dua for guidance and warned against misguidance. Some allowed laʿn of named enemies who directly harmed the Muslims.
Cursing A Specific Muslim By Name
The general ruling is prohibition. The Prophet forbade cursing Abdullah ibn Himar, though he cursed wine drinkers in general. This shows a clear difference between general rulings on acts and specific laʿn on individuals.
Some Hanbalis mentioned an exception for callers to innovation, due to their severe harm. Still, most scholars preferred general wording, open refutation, and lawful punishments instead of laʿn.
Speaking Ill Of The Dead
The Prophet said, “Do not abuse the dead, for they have reached what they put forth.” This is the general rule.
Specified Allowances
- Kuffar and open sinners: Their evils may be mentioned for warning (tahdheer) and turning people away (tanfeer). This is not abusive sabb, but necessary clarification.
- Before burial: Some allowed faults to be mentioned before burial so the living may take admonition. After burial, one refrains.
- Testimony and rights: When speaking on faults ensures rights return to their owners or prevents harm, it is allowed and may be obligatory.
- Jarh wa taʿdil: Scholars agreed it is permissible to criticise weak hadith narrators, alive or dead, to protect the Deen.
Harm Consideration
If cursing a kafir causes harm to a living Muslim, some scholars prohibited it in that case. This balances loyalty to Allah with protection of the believers.
Practice Of The Companions And Early Imams
The Companions made general qunut cursing against hostile tribes. As for naming individuals, many imams avoided specific laʿn and used general wording. This was to avoid chaos, sectarian strife, or bloodshed.
Practical Summary
- General cursing of the kuffar: Permissible, and sometimes treated as a form of worship against enemies of Islam.
- Specific kafir alive: Not cursed. Dua for guidance is preferred, unless he actively harms Muslims, where some allowed it but most advised restraint.
- Specific kafir dead: Some permitted cursing if death on kufr is certain. Many preferred refraining and using general phrases.
- Specific Muslim: Not cursed. General wording against wrongs is used instead. Callers to innovation are warned against without direct laʿn.
- Speaking on faults of the dead: Generally forbidden. Allowed for tahdheer, testimony, restoring rights, and jarh wa taʿdil.
- Public interest: Avoid speech that incites tribulation or harms Muslims. Use clear but careful warning, justice, and balanced language.
Cursing The Kuffar In A General Way
Cursing the kuffar in a general way is permissible by the Book, the Sunnah, and consensus. The Hanafis state its permissibility (see Ibn Abidin’s Hashiyah 5, 49, and al Biriqah al Mahmoodiyyah 3, 196).
The Malikis state it (see al Tanbihat al Mustanbatah 1, 342, and al Istidhkar 2, 73, and al Zurqani’s Sharh on al Muwatta 1, 421).
The Shafiis state it (see Ihya Ulum al Din 3, 123, and al Haythami’s al Fatawa al Hadithiyyah p. 270, and Fath al Bari 12, 76, and al Suyuti’s Sharh on Muslim 4, 292, and Tuhfat al Habib 5, 91).
The Hanbalis state it (see al Adab al Shar’iyyah 1, 285, and Kashshaf al Qina 6, 126).
There is a difference whether the ruling of cursing is obligation or permissibility. That will be indicated.
First proof. His saying, Indeed those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, upon them is the curse of Allah and the angels and all people. Al Baqarah 161.
Fourth proof. From Dawud ibn al Husayn that he heard al A’raj say, I only ever caught the people while they were cursing the unbelievers in Ramadan. (reported by Malik 1, 115, and from him by Abdurrazzaq 7734, from Dawud ibn al Husayn that he heard al A’raj say it. Its isnad is sound). The people are the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them.
Fifth proof. Consensus. Al Qadi Iyad said, there is no disagreement about supplicating against the kuffar. (Ikmal al Mu’allim 2, 659)
Al- Qurtubi said:There is no disagreement about the permissibility of cursing the kuffar and supplicating against them. (al Mufhim 2, 304)
Abu Abd Allah Muhammad al Qurtubi said, cursing the kuffar as a group without specifying individuals, there is no disagreement about that. (Tafsir al Qurtubi 2/127)
Ibn Kathir said, there is no disagreement about the permissibility of cursing the kuffar, and Umar ibn al Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and the imams after him used to curse the kuffar in qunut and elsewhere. As for the specific kafir, a group of scholars held that he is not to be cursed, because we do not know with what Allah will conclude for him. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1/201)
Ibn al Mulqin said, cursing the Jews and the Christians when not specifying persons is consensus, whether they have a covenant of protection or not, due to their denial of the truth and their enmity toward the religion and its people. (al I’lam bi Fawa’id Umdat al Ahkam 4, 508)
The second case, that it is a specific cursing, so a particular kafir is cursed by name.
The people of knowledge have two positions about cursing a specific kafir, one position of prohibition and one of permissibility.
First position. It is haram to curse a specific kafir. This is the madhhab of the Hanafis (see Ibn Abidin’s Hashiyah 5, 49), and a position of the Malikis (see Ahkam al Qur’an by Ibn al Arabi 1, 74),
and the madhhab of the Shafiis (see Ihya Ulum al Din 3, 124, and al Haythami’s al Fatawa al Hadithiyyah p. 270, and Hashiyat I’anat al Talibin 4, 467, and Asna al Mataleeb 4, 346, and Tuhfat al Habib 5, 91),
and a narration with the Hanbalis (see al Adab al Shar’iyyah 1, 285, and Kashshaf al Qina 6, 126, and Kashf al Latham 6, 410),
and it was chosen by our shaykh, Shaykh Muhammad al Uthaymin, may Allah have mercy on him. (see al Qawl al Mufid 1, 302, and Sharh Riyad al Salihin 6, 191)
First proof. His saying, Indeed those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, upon them is the curse of Allah and the angels and all people. Al Baqarah 161. The face of inference, you do not know the state of the specific kafir at death, and Allah has conditioned his being cursed on dying upon kufr. (see Ahkam al Qur’an by Ibn al Arabi 1, 74 and 76, and Tafsir al Qurtubi 2, 126, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1, 201)
Response from several angles. First, inferring by the verse is from the category of the indication by implication, and that indication is weak.
Second, the verse is an information that the one who dies upon kufr, on the Day of Resurrection upon him is the curse of Allah and the angels and all people, and it did not address the living kafir. Third, some of the people of knowledge see that the verse came to clarify the obligation of cursing one who died from the kuffar.
There is a difference about whether cursing one who died a kafir is obligatory. Al Jassas said in Ahkam al Qur’an 1, 143 that in the verse there is an indication that it is upon the Muslims to curse one who died a kafir and that the lifting of obligation due to death does not remove from him being cursed and dissociated from, because His saying and all people has entailed our being commanded to curse him after his death.
If it is said that it was narrated from Abu al Aliyah that the meaning of the verse is that people will curse him on the Day of Resurrection as in His saying then on the Day of Resurrection some of you will disbelieve in others and some of you will curse others al Ankabut 25, it is said to him that this is specification without proof.
There is no disagreement that he deserves the curse from Allah and the angels in the dunya by the verse, so likewise from people, and the confusion only comes to one who thinks that this is an information from Allah that people curse him.
It is not so. Rather it is information of his deserving the curse from people, whether they curse him or not. Al Kiya al Harasi said in Ahkam al Qur’an 1, 26 that there is proof in it that it is upon the Muslims to curse one who died a kafir.
The meaning of the verse on this understanding is that people curse him on the Day of Resurrection so that he is affected and harmed by it and his heart is pained, and this is a recompense for his kufr. What supports the soundness of this is that the verse indicates an information from Allah about cursing them, not a command. Abu Abd al Rahman said, and this is the apparent meaning of the verse and upon it are the majority of the mufassirin. (See Tafsir al Qurtubi 2, 127, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir 1, 200)
The ruling of cursing, and cursing a specific person
It is permissible to curse the unbelievers in general. As for whether it is permissible to curse a specific unbeliever, there are two narrations. Shaykh Taqi al Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) said, cursing the one who abandons the prayer in general is permissible, but as for cursing a specific person, it is better to leave it because he may repent.
He also said in another place, it was said to Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), should hadith be taken from Yazid ibn Muawiyah (d. 64 AH). He said, no, and no honour. Did he not do to the people of Madinah what he did. It was said to him, a group say we love Yazid. He said, does anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day love Yazid. It was said to him, will you not curse him. He said, when did you ever see your father curse anyone.
Shaykh Taqi al Din also said in another place regarding cursing a specific person, whether from the unbelievers, or from the people of the qiblah, or others, and from the sinners in creed or in action, our companions have several sayings.
One, that it is not permissible in any case, and this is the saying of Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz al Ghulam al Khallal (d. 363 AH). The second, that it is permissible regarding the unbeliever but not the sinful Muslim. The third, that it is permissible absolutely.
Ibn al Jawzi (d. 597 AH) said about cursing Yazid, the cautious scholars allowed it, among them Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Shaykh Abdul Mughith al Harbi (d. 583 AH) and most of our companions denied that of him. Some of them built their view on the claim that his flagrant sin was not established, and the words of Abdul Mughith indicate that, and in that there is a weak kind of defence. Some built it on the principle that a specific sinful Muslim is not to be cursed. Ibn al Jawzi attacked those who denied the permissibility of condemning one who is condemned and cursing one who is cursed like Yazid. He said, Ahmad mentioned about Yazid what goes beyond cursing.
He mentioned the narration of Mahna, I asked Ahmad about Yazid. He said, he is the one who did to the people of Madinah what he did. I said, is hadith to be narrated from him. He said, no hadith is to be narrated from him, and it is not proper for anyone to write hadith from him. I said, and who was with him when he did that. He said, the people of Sham. Shaykh Taqi al Din said, this indicates flagrant sin more than it indicates cursing a specific person.
Ibn al Jawzi also mentioned what the Qadi stated in al Muʿtamad from the narration of Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 266 AH), and what would prevent me from cursing one whom Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has cursed in His Book, if the narration is sound.
He said, Qadi Abu al Husayn ibn al Qadi Abu Yaʿla al Farraʾ (d. 526 AH) compiled a book explaining who deserves cursing, and he mentioned among them Yazid. He said, there has come in hadith the cursing of one who did what does not approach a tenth of a tenth of what Yazid did.
He mentioned general acts such as the cursing of the woman who joins hair and the one who plucks eyebrows and their likes. He mentioned the narration of Abu Talib, I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal about one who said, may Allah curse Yazid ibn Muawiyah. He said, do not speak about this, refraining is more beloved to me.
Ibn al Jawzi said, this narration indicates a person occupying himself with himself instead of cursing others, and the first narration indicates the permissibility of cursing, as we said regarding preferring tasbih over cursing Iblis, and Ibn al Jawzi conceded that leaving cursing is better. Muslim narrated from Abu Hurayrah (d. 59 AH) that he said, it was said, O Messenger of Allah, supplicate to Allah against the polytheists. He said, I was not sent as one who curses, rather I was sent as mercy.
Ibn al Jawzi said, Ahmad ibn Hanbal did curse those who deserve cursing. He said in the narration of Musaddad, the Waqifiyyah are accursed and the Muʿtazilah are accursed.
Ubayd Allah ibn Ahmad al Halabi said, I heard Ahmad ibn Hanbal say, upon the Jahmiyyah is the curse of Allah. Al Hasan al Basri (d. 110 AH) used to curse al Hajjaj, and Ahmad said, al Hajjaj is an evil man. Shaykh Taqi al Din said, there is nothing here from Ahmad of cursing a specific person, but the statement of al Hasan, yes.
Ibn al Jawzi said, the jurists said, it is not permissible for one less virtuous to be appointed over one more virtuous, unless there is a preventing factor, either fear of tribulation, or that the more virtuous is not knowledgeable in governance.
The hadith of Umar in al Saqifah, and the hadith of Abu Bakr in appointing Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both. He answered the one who said that al Husayn was a Khariji by saying, the Khariji is one who rebels against one who is entitled, and al Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, only went out to repel falsehood and establish truth.
Ibn al Jawzi said, I copied from the handwriting of Ibn Aqil al Hanbali (d. 513 AH). He said, a man said, al Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, was a Khariji.
That reached my heart, so I said, if Ibrahim had lived he would have been fit to be a prophet. So grant that al Hasan and al Husayn descended from the rank of Ibrahim, even though He named them His two sons, would it not be fitting that the child of his child be an imam after him.
As for calling him a Khariji and removing him from imamah because of the force of Banu Umayyah, this is what neither intellect nor religion entails. Ibn Aqil said, whenever your soul tells you to expect loyalty from people, do not believe it.
This is the son of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, the one most entitled among people to rights upon creation, until he said, say, I do not ask you for any reward for it except affection for near kin. Then they killed his companions and destroyed his children.
Shaykh Taqi al Din said, thus Ibn al Jawzi permitted rebellion against one who is not just, and Ibn Aqil interpreted the verse with a weaker interpretation. In al Bukhari from Ibn Umar (d. 73 AH), from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he said, the first army to raid Constantinople will be forgiven for them.
The first army that raided it had as their commander Yazid ibn Muawiyah in the caliphate of his father Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (d. 60 AH), and in the army was Abu Ayyub al Ansari (d. 52 AH). Shaykh Taqi al Din said, the army is a specific number, not unrestricted. The inclusion of forgiveness for the individuals of this army is stronger than the inclusion of cursing each single one of the wrongdoers. For that is general, and the army are specified. It is said, Yazid only raided Constantinople because of this hadith.
The Qadi said in al Muʿtamad, those whom we rule to be disbelievers from among the people of interpretation and others, then cursing them is permissible. He stated it explicitly.
He mentioned that he said regarding the Lafziyyah, upon the one who brought this be the curse of Allah, upon him be the anger of Allah. He mentioned that he said about certain persons, may Allah disgrace the wicked one. And about other people, may Allah curse them. And he said about another, may Allah fill his grave with fire.
Shaykh Taqi al Din said, I did not find him transmitting cursing a specific person except the cursing of a type, or supplicating upon a specific person for punishment, or insulting him. But the Qadi did not distinguish between the unrestricted and the specific.
Likewise our grandfather Abu al Barakat Ibn Taymiyyah the elder Majd al Din Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 653 AH). The Qadi said, as for the flagrant sinners among the people of the community by actions such as fornication, theft, drinking wine, killing a soul and the like, is it permissible to curse them or not.
Ahmad, may Allah be pleased with him, refrained from that in the narration of Salih. I said to my father, a man is mentioned in his presence such as al Hajjaj, or someone else, should he be cursed. He said, it does not please me. If he generalised and said, the curse of Allah upon the wrongdoers.
Abu Talib said, I asked Ahmad about one who attacks Yazid ibn Muawiyah. He said, do not speak about this. The Prophet said, cursing the believer is like killing him. Thus he refrained from cursing al Hajjaj despite what he did, along with his statement, al Hajjaj is an evil man.
He refrained from cursing Yazid ibn Muawiyah while saying in the narration of Mahna when he asked him about Yazid ibn Muawiyah, he is the one who did in Madinah what he did. He killed in Madinah from the companions of the Messenger of Allah and he plundered it. It is not proper for anyone to write his hadith.
Abu Bakr al Khallal (d. 311 AH) said in the Book al Sunnah, that which Abu Abdullah mentioned regarding refraining from cursing has many hadiths which are not hidden from the people of knowledge. In that he followed the saying of al Hasan al Basri and Ibn Sirin (d. 110 AH), for they were the two imams in their time. He would say, may Allah curse the one who killed al Husayn ibn Ali.
May Allah curse the one who killed Uthman. May Allah curse the one who killed Ali. May Allah curse the one who killed Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. He would say, the curse of Allah upon the wrongdoers, if a man from the people of tribulations was mentioned to us, upon what Ahmad adopted.
The Qadi said, thus al Khallal made explicit about cursing. He said, and Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz al Ghulam al Khallal said, in what I found in the annotations of Abu Ishaq, it is not for us to curse except whom the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, cursed, by way of reporting from him.
Shaykh Taqi al Din said, what is transmitted from Ahmad and affirmed by al Khallal is the unrestricted general cursing, not the specific restricted, as we say regarding the texts of threat and promise, and as we say regarding testimony for the Garden and the Fire.
We testify that the believers are in the Garden and that the unbelievers are in the Fire, and we testify for the Garden and the Fire for the one whom the Book and Sunnah testified for. We do not testify about a specific person except for one whom the text testified for, or public attestation testified for according to one view. So testimony in good is like cursing in request and report, and request and report are two types of speech.
For this reason the Prophet said, those who are frequent in cursing will not be witnesses nor intercessors on the Day of Resurrection. Intercession is the opposite of cursing, just as testimony is the opposite of cursing. The words of al Khallal indicate that he does not curse specific individuals among the unbelievers, for he mentioned the killer of Umar who was an unbeliever.
They indicate that he does not curse a specific person among the people of desires, for he mentioned the killer of Ali who was a Khariji. Then the Qadi argued for the prohibition with what has come regarding censuring cursing, and that these people are hoped for forgiveness, so it is not permitted to curse them.
For cursing entails expulsion and distancing, unlike the one whose disbelief has been ruled from among the people of interpretation, for they are far from mercy like other unbelievers. He argued for permitting that and for releasing it based on the texts that came regarding cursing, and all of them are unrestricted, such as the briber, the bribed, the one who consumes usury, the one who gives it, its witnesses and its scribe.
Shaykh Taqi al Din said, thus the companions have three sayings regarding the flagrant sinners. One, prohibition both generally and specifically except where there is a transmitted text. Two, permissibility.
Three, differentiation, and this is the transmitted position. But is the prohibition regarding the specific person a prohibition of dislike or a prohibition of strict unlawfulness. Then he said in refuting the Rafidi, it is not allowed, and he argued by his saying, peace be upon him, about the prohibition of cursing the man who was called Himar.
He said, here the apparent meaning of his words is dislike. For that reason the Qadi explained later when he mentioned the saying of Ahmad, it does not please me to curse al Hajjaj and the like. If he generalised and said, the curse of Allah upon the wrongdoers.
The Qadi said, Ahmad disliked cursing al Hajjaj. He said, it can be interpreted that the refraining of Ahmad from cursing al Hajjaj and the like was because he was among the rulers. So he refrained from that for two reasons. One, a prohibition that came specific to cursing the rulers. Two, that cursing the rulers may lead to chaos, bloodshed, and tribulations. This meaning is absent regarding others.
Shaykh Taqi al Din said, those who are taken as imams in religion from the people of desires are greater than the rulers in the sight of their followers, and that may lead to tribulations.
He mentioned, meaning the Qadi, what he transmitted from the handwriting of Abu Hafs al Akbari al Hanbali (d. 482 AH). He narrated it with a chain to Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal. I said to my father, a people attribute to me loyalty to Yazid. He said, my son, does anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day have loyalty to Yazid. I said, why then do you not curse him. He said, and when did you see me curse anything.
Why do you not curse one whom Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has cursed in His Book. I said, where did Allah curse Yazid in His Book. He recited,
فَهَلْ عَسَيْتُمْ إِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ أَن تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَتُقَطِّعُوا أَرْحَامَكُمْ. أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ ٱلَّذِينَ لَعَنَهُمُ ٱللَّهُ فَأَصَمَّهُمْ وَأَعْمَىٰٓ أَبْصَٰرَهُمْ
Is it likely that if you turn away you will cause corruption on the earth and cut your ties of kinship. Those are the ones Allah has cursed, so He deafened them and blinded their sights. (Surah Muhammad: 22-23)
Can there be anything greater in cutting kinship than killing. The Qadi said, if this narration is sound, it is explicit regarding the meaning of cursing Yazid. Shaykh Taqi al Din said, the proof rests on the entailment of the unrestricted applying to the specific.
He also said in another place, cursing specific individuals among the callers of the people of innovation has been transmitted from Ahmad, and for this reason some of the companions differentiated between cursing the sinful person for actions and between the callers of misguidance, either on the basis of declaring them disbelievers, or on the basis that their harm is more severe.
Whoever permits cursing the innovator who is a disbeliever specifically then he permits cursing the unbeliever specifically by greater reason. Whoever does not permit cursing except one whose cursing has been established by text does not permit cursing a specific unbeliever. Whoever permitted only cursing the one named by text sees that it is not allowed, neither as a way of retaliation, nor as a way of jihad and establishing punishments, such as migration, disciplinary punishment, and warning.
This is entailed by the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, in the Sahih, that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, when he wanted to supplicate for someone or against someone, he would make qunut after bowing and say in it, O Allah curse so and so and so and so from the living Arabs, until the verse was revealed, “لَيْسَ لَكَ مِنَ الأَمْرِ شَىْءٌ” “not for you is any part of the decision.” (Al Imran 128.) (Sahih Al Bukhari 4560)
He said, likewise the one who does not curse the specific person from among the people of the Sunnah or from the people of the qiblah or absolutely. As for the one who permits cursing the specific sinful person on the basis of hatred for Allah’s sake and disavowal from him and disciplinary punishment, he may permit that also by way of retaliation. And the one who prefers the prohibition of cursing the specific person may answer what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did with one of three answers.
Either that this was abrogated, that is, what was cursed in qunut, as Abu Hurayrah said. Or that this is from what enters his saying, O Allah, I am only a human, I become angry as humans become angry, so any Muslim whom I insulted or cursed and it is not fitting for him, then make that for him prayer and alms and mercy by which you draw him near to you on the Day of Resurrection.
But it may be said, this hadith does not indicate the prohibition of cursing, it only indicates that he did it by his ijtihad as disciplinary punishment, so he made this supplication a protection for one who was not deserving of it. Or it may be said, cursing from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is established by text, so he may have been informed of the outcome of the one cursed.
It may also be said, the default is that we share with him in the action, and if he were not to curse except one whom he knew to be from the people of the Fire, he would not have said, I am only a human, I become angry as humans become angry, so any Muslim whom I insulted or abused or cursed, then make that for him prayer and alms and closeness by which you draw him near to you on the Day of Resurrection.
This implies that he feared that his cursing might require compensation with what counters it from good deeds, for he is protected, and compensating with this supplication repels what he fears of his supplication touching one who does not deserve it, even if it was by ijtihad, since he is protected in his legal ijtihad for the sake of being followed.
It may be said, the textual actions indicate permissibility against the wrongdoer, as analogy also entails that, for cursing is distancing from the mercy of Allah, and it is known that it is permissible to supplicate against him with a punishment that would distance from the mercy of Allah in some situations as has preceded, so cursing is more deserving to be permissible. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, only forbade cursing one whom he knew loves Allah and His Messenger.
So one who is known to be a believer inwardly who loves Allah and His Messenger is not cursed, because such a person is shown mercy, unlike one who is not so. His words end.
In the two Sahihs from Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, that a group of Jews sought permission to enter upon the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and they said, al sam ʿalaykum. Aishah said, upon you be al sam and the curse. He said, O Aishah, indeed Allah loves gentleness in the matter.
She said, did you not hear what they said. He said, I said, and upon you. In al Bukhari in a wording, indeed Allah is Gentle. In them both also that Aishah said, rather upon you al sam and al dam.
He said, O Aishah, do not be obscene. I said, did you not hear what they said. He said, did I not return upon them what they said. I said, and upon you. In a wording, O Aishah, for Allah does not love obscenity or obscene speech.
Allah revealed, and when they come to you they greet you with what Allah did not greet you. Al Mujadalah 8.
He said in the commentary of Muslim, in it is taking revenge from the wrongdoer, and in it is taking revenge for the people of virtue when they are harmed. His words end.
Using this hadith as proof for the permissibility or impermissibility of cursing a specific person is possible.
In al Nihayah, the phrase qātala Allah al Yahud means may Allah kill them. It is also said, may He curse them. It is also said, may He show enmity to them. In the two Sahihs from Ibn Abbas (d. 68 AH) that Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, was informed that Samurah sold wine, so he said, qātalahu Allah. But it is mentioned in al Nihayah that it is from supplications that are not intended literally, like his saying, may your hands be dusty.
In the two Sahihs regarding his qunut during a calamity, O Allah curse Lihyan and Riʿl and Dhakwan and ʿUsayyah. He said in the commentary of Muslim, in it is the permissibility of cursing the unbelievers and the group for their actions.
In al Funun of Ibn Aqil, a man swore by a triple divorce that al Hajjaj is in the Fire. He went to a jurist. The jurist said, keep your wife, for if al Hajjaj is not in the Fire, your adultery will not harm you. It is permitted to curse the one whom the text came cursing him, and one is not sinful for leaving it. It is obligatory to condemn misleading innovations and to establish the proof for their invalidation, whether the one who said them accepts or rejects. He mentioned it in al Riʿayah, and it has passed.
Ibn Aqil said in al Funun, it is not valid to purchase wine in order to pour it out, and it is valid to purchase books of heresy in order to burn them. Shaykh Taqi al Din mentioned it in the draft of his commentary on al Muharrar, and he did not object to it. Then I found it in al Funun, he said, because in the books there is monetary value for the paper. His words end.
Al-Adaab ash-Shar’iyyah By Ibn Muflih (1/285-294)
Shayk Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: And cursing is allowed in general for the one whom Allah and His Messenger have cursed. As for cursing a specific person, if it is known that he died as a kafir, then it is permissible to curse him.
As for a specific sinful Muslim, he should not be cursed, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade cursing Abdullah ibn Himar, who used to drink wine, even though he cursed those who drink wine in general.
There is also a dispute regarding cursing a specific individual if he is a sinner or one who calls to innovation.
Majmu Fatawa (6/511)
Shayk Bin Baz said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, cursed those who harmed the Muslims, so he cursed Abu Jahl (d. 2 AH), Utbah ibn Rabiʿah (d. 2 AH), Shaybah ibn Rabiʿah (d. 2 AH), and those like them who harmed the Muslims.
As for unbelievers who did not harm, they are not to be cursed. Rather, you make duʿa for them to be guided. When it was said, O Messenger of Allah, the tribe of Daws has delayed in accepting Islam, he said, O Allah guide Daws and bring them. So he made duʿa for them to be guided. And when some Jews would sneeze in his presence wanting him to say, may Allah have mercy on you, he said, may Allah guide you.
Question: So the correct view is that a specific kafir is not to be cursed?
The Shayk said: He is not to be cursed, except if he harmed the Muslims.
Shayk Ibn Uthaymeen said: It is not permissible to curse the living or the dead? That is not allowed. It is not allowed to curse a specific kafir if he is alive, because Allah, Blessed and Exalted, forbade the best of the believers from supplicating against the most stubborn of the kuffar in his time.
The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, used to supplicate against certain individuals from the Quraysh who were rebellious, but Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, forbade him and said, “Not for you is the decision, whether He turns in mercy to them or punishes them” (Al Imran 128).
But after his death, is he cursed? It may be said that he is not cursed after death, because the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Do not abuse the dead, for they have gone on to what they sent forth.”
But if he had a specific ideology, like a communist calling to communism, or a Christian calling to Christianity, then here we clarify his misguidance and we warn against him.
As for cursing him, there is no benefit in that, because he is a kafir who died upon kufr, already cursed. He does not need dua.
Narrated from Aisha رضي الله عنها: The Prophet ﷺ said:
“Don’t abuse the dead, because they have reached the result of what they forwarded.” (Bukhari 1393)
Sharh For This Hadith Below
What Is Forbidden From Speaking ill of The Dead
Al Zayn ibn al Munir (d. 683 AH) said the wording of the chapter heading suggests that sabb (abuse or insulting) is of two types, some prohibited and some not. Yet the hadith wording shows an absolute prohibition.
He explained this by the earlier hadith of Anas (d. 93 AH) where the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, when people praised someone with khayr (good) or sharr (evil), said: “It has been established, and you are the witnesses of Allah on earth,” and did not object.
This shows that the generality is restricted. Some held that the lam in al-amwat (the dead) refers specifically to Muslims, since regarding the kuffar, drawing near to Allah is done by sabbihim (reviling them or speaking ill of them).
Al Qurtubi’s explanations
Al Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) explained the hadith “Wajabat” with three possibilities:
The person spoken of with evil was openly known for it, making it under the rule “la ghiba li al-fasiq” (there is no backbiting for an open sinner), or he was a munafiq (hypocrite).
The prohibition applies after burial, while before burial it is permitted so people take admonition.
Some said the prohibition is abrogating of what came before, but he considered this weak.
Ibn Rashid’s view
Ibn Rashid (d. 721 AH) divided the ruling between kuffar and Muslims:
For the kafir, sabb (cursing) is prohibited if it causes harm to a Muslim that is alive.
For the Muslim, sabb (speaking ill or abuse) may be permitted if necessity requires, such as when it is used as testimony.
In some cases it may even be wajib (obligatory), for example if exposing a false testimony ensures that wealth returns to its rightful owner.
He added that al Bukhari (d. 256 AH) did not overlook the hadith of praise with good and evil. Rather, al Bukhari intended to show that what was allowed was on the basis of shahadah (testimony), while what is forbidden is sabb (insulting or abuse).
Ibn Battal’s view
Ibn Battal (d. 449 AH) compared sabb al-amwat (speaking ill of the dead) to ghiba (backbiting):
If a person’s state was mostly good, speaking ill of him is forbidden.
If he was a fasiq mu‘lin (open sinner), then there is no ghiba for him, whether alive or dead.
He suggested that the prohibition applies after burial, while before burial one may mention his faults to admonish others.
How Aishah رضي الله عنها Acted Upon This Hadith
Aishah رضي الله عنها (d. 58 AH) acted upon this hadith. She used to la‘n (curse) a man she considered deserving while he was alive, but when he died she refrained and forbade la‘n, saying that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade sabb al-amwat (reviling or abusing the dead). Reports about her and Yazid al-Arhabi show this.
General ruling and exceptions
The phrase “anḍaw” (they have gone on) means the dead have reached what they did of good or evil, which supports the general prohibition of sabb (speaking ill).
This generality is restricted: The evils of kuffar and open sinners may be mentioned for the purpose of tahdheer (warning) and tanfeer (turning people away from them).
Scholars agreed on the permissibility of jarh (criticism) of weak hadith narrators, whether alive or dead.
Summary of rulings on speaking ill of the dead
General rule: Sabb (reviling, insulting, or cursing) and la‘n (invoking curse) of the dead is forbidden.
Muslims: If their state was mostly good, it is forbidden to insult, revile, or curse them.
If they were fasiq mu‘lin (open sinners), some scholars allowed mentioning their evil, especially before burial for admonition, or when shahadah or restoring rights requires it.
Kuffar: Some scholars allowed sabb (reviling) of them as qurbah (drawing near) to Allah.
Ibn Rashid restricted this, saying it is prohibited if it harms a living Muslim.
Examples: Aishah رضي الله عنها cursed Yazid al-Arhabi during his life, but stopped after his death, acting upon the prohibition of the Prophet. Mentioning the faults of weak hadith narrators is allowed to protect the Deen.
Translation: Al Zayn ibn al Munir (d. 683 AH) said: The wording of the chapter heading suggests that abuse is divided into what is forbidden and what is not forbidden, while the wording of the hadith itself contains an absolute prohibition of abuse.
The answer is that its generality is specified by the earlier hadith of Anas (d. 93 AH), where the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, when they praised someone with good or evil, said: “It has been established, and you are the witnesses of Allah on earth,” and he did not object to them.
It is possible that the lam in “the dead” is for a specific group, and what is meant are the Muslims, because as for the kuffar, drawing near to Allah is done by abusing them.
Al Qurtubi (d. 671 AH), in commenting on the hadith “It has been established,” said that it allows for different answers. The first is that the one who was spoken about with evil was openly known for it, so it would be like the rule “there is no backbiting of an open sinner,” or that he was a hypocrite.
The second is that the prohibition applies to after burial, and the permissibility applies to before it, so that those who hear may take admonition. The third is that the general prohibition came later and abrogated what was before, but this is weak.
Ibn Rashid (d. 721 AH) said, in summary, that abuse is divided regarding kuffar and regarding Muslims. As for the kafir, it is forbidden if a living Muslim would be harmed by it. As for the Muslim, if necessity calls for it, like when it falls under testimony, then it is allowed, and it may even be obligatory in some cases.
It can also bring benefit to the deceased, like if it is known that he took someone’s wealth through false testimony, then the witness died, so mentioning that helps the deceased by ensuring the wealth is returned to its owner. He said: because of neglecting this detail some thought that al Bukhari (d. 256 AH) forgot the hadith of praising with good and evil, but what al Bukhari intended was to show that what was allowed was on the basis of testimony, while what is forbidden is on the basis of abuse.
And since the hadith text may give an impression of generality, he followed it with the next chapter heading. Some also interpreted the first heading to mean Muslims specifically. The correct view to me is to carry it upon generality except where evidence specifies otherwise. In fact, one may deny that what comes in the form of testimony and intended warning is called abuse in the language.
Ibn Battal (d. 449 AH) said: Abusing the dead takes the same ruling as backbiting. If the majority of a person’s state was goodness, and only an occasional slip came from him, then backbiting him is forbidden.
But if he was a sinner openly, then there is no backbiting for him, and the same applies to the dead. It is possible that the prohibition is in general after burial, while what is allowed is mentioning a man with what was in him before burial so that the sinners among the living take admonition. Once he has been placed in his grave, one refrains from it, for he has gone on to what he put forward.
Aishah (d. 58 AH), the narrator of this hadith, acted upon this in regard to someone she deemed deserving of cursing. She used to curse him while he was alive, but when he died she stopped and forbade cursing him, as I will mention.
His saying: “They have gone on” means they have reached what they did of good or evil. This is used as evidence for forbidding abuse of the dead in general.
It was mentioned earlier that its generality is specified, and the most correct view said regarding that is that the dead from among the kuffar and the open sinners may have their evils mentioned for the sake of warning from them and turning people away from them. The scholars have unanimously agreed on the permissibility of criticising weak narrators, whether they are alive or dead.
His saying: “And it was narrated by Abdullah ibn Abd al Quddus and Muhammad ibn Anas from al A’mash” means they are supporting narrations for Shu’bah. Anas, the father of Muhammad, is the well known one.
He was a Kufan who lived in Dinawar, and Abu Zur’ah (d. 264 AH) and others declared him reliable. From the shuyukh of al Bukhari, Ibrahim ibn Musa al Razi (d. 240 AH) narrated from him. As for Ibn Abd al Quddus, al Bukhari mentioned him in al Tarikh and said: he is truthful, except that he narrates from weak people. Others differed in their words about him. He has no place in the Sahih except this one spot.
We also have from the narration of Muhammad ibn Fudayl (d. 194 AH) from al A’mash (d. 148 AH) with an addition in it. Umar ibn Shabbah (d. 262 AH) brought it in the “Kitab Akhbar al Basrah” from Muhammad ibn Yazid al Rifai from him with this chain to Mujahid (d. 104 AH): that Aishah said: What did Yazid al Arhabi, may Allah curse him, do? They said: He died. She said: I seek forgiveness of Allah. They said: What is this?
Then she mentioned the hadith. And it was brought from the path of Masruq (d. 63 AH): that Ali (d. 40 AH) sent Yazid ibn Qays al Arhabi in the days of al Jamal with a message, but she did not return an answer.
Then it reached her that he criticised her for that, so she used to curse him, then when news of his death reached her she forbade cursing him and said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, forbade us from abusing the dead. Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH) authenticated it from another route from al A’mash from Mujahid with the same story.
His saying: “Ali ibn al Ja’d (d. 230 AH) followed him” was connected by the author in the Book of Riqaq from him.
His saying: “and Muhammad ibn Ararah (d. 198 AH), and Ibn Abi Adi (d. 219 AH)” I did not see it from the route of Muhammad ibn Ararah connected. As for the route of Ibn Abi Adi, al Isma’ili (d. 371 AH) mentioned it. It was also connected from the route of Abdur Rahman ibn Mahdi (d. 198 AH) from Shu’bah (d. 160 AH), and Ahmad (d. 241 AH) has it from him.
Fath Al Bari By Ibn Hajar (4/800-802)
