Rob Christian is back with another lie upon The Prophet ﷺ saying he commited Shirk. An Nawawi addresses this and says the statement (By his father) was a phrase that the Arabs were accustomed to that had no intention of a real oath.
He also lies on Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen saying that The Prophet ﷺ was allowed to commit shirk, if we actually read what he says in context you’d see he is merely mentioning some positions scholars took in reconciling it with the fact that we cannot swear by other than Allah, but the position he leans to is that it was abrogated but he also says about this view, that there remains some unease in the soul, because we do not know firmly its time in relation to the prohibition, or that it is something special to the Messenger of Allah.
He does not affirm any view with certainty
Some said the wording was originally “by Allah” and got changed in writing, but he rejects this because we cannot claim mistakes in the text without proof.
Others said the hadith was before the ruling that forbids swearing by fathers, so it was later abrogated, but he says this is weak because real abrogation needs clear knowledge of which text came later, not just reasoning.
Another view is that this phrase is only a careless expression on the tongue and is counted as an unintentional oath, but he says this clashes with the clear hadith that directly forbids swearing by fathers, so it is also not strong.
A fourth view says the Prophet is different from the rest of the Ummah, because the fear behind the ruling, which is glorifying something like Allah in the heart, cannot exist in him, so it would be allowed only for him and forbidden for others.
He says that this is weakened by the fact that he is a role model and people copy him, although some scholars like al Shawkani still accept this type of answer.
Ibn Uthaymeen says the closest answer is that the wording is abrogated.
He then says the safe path is to treat this hadith as an unclear text and to interpret it in the light of the clear text, which is the firm prohibition of swearing by forefathers.
An Nawawi said: His hadith ﷺ “Whoever is going to swear, let him swear by Allah,” and his hadith ﷺ, “Indeed Allah forbids you that you swear by your fathers.”
The answer is that his saying ﷺ “He has succeeded, by his father,” is not an oath.
It is only a phrase that the Arabs were accustomed to bring into their speech, without intending by it the real meaning of an oath.
The prohibition in the Sharia only came about the one who intends the real meaning of an oath, because in that there is glorifying the one being sworn by and making him like Allah the Most High.
This is the pleasing answer. It has also been said that it is possible that this was before the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah the Most High. And Allah knows best.
Sharh Sahih Muslim (1/168)
Ibn Uthaymeen said: If you say: Swearing by other than Allah is forbidden and is Shirk (associating others with Allah), but the most God fearing of the people, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, did it. A bedouin came to him and asked him about the signs of Islam, so he informed him of them.
Then the man said: By Allah, I will not add to this and I will not decrease from it. So the Prophet said: He has succeeded, by his father, if he is truthful. So how can we say that swearing by other than Allah is forbidden or is Shirk, while Shirk is impossible for the Prophets, because it completely opposes their call, since they call to Tawhid, and Shirk goes against it even if it is small. If it is major Shirk it opposes the very root of Tawhid, and if it is minor Shirk it opposes the perfection of Tawhid.
So how can the Messenger of Allah, swear by other than Allah in his saying: He has succeeded, by his father?
The answer: The scholars have several replies to this.
The first reply is that in this hadith there is a mistake in transmission, and that its original wording is: He has succeeded, by Allah. But because in the early days they did not put dots on the letters, the word abihi (By his father) and the word Allah are similar, both having two humps and the letter ha, but the two humps were shortened and the dots were removed, so it became abihi (By his father).
This is not correct, because the basic rule is that we do not claim a mistake in transmission. Also this would open for us a very dangerous door regarding the narrators, since whenever our souls do not accept something we would simply say: This has been altered.
The second reply is that this was before the prohibition of swearing by the forefathers, and that this way of speaking was in the beginning very common and widespread, and the people were attached to it, so the prohibition of it came later.
Just as the intoxicant drink of khamr was not made forbidden except in the sixth year after the Hijrah, and likewise the hijab was not made obligatory except in the sixth year after the Hijrah. This is because something that is deeply familiar to the soul is hard for a person to leave at the very beginning.
So they said: The Sharia left them upon this thing because it was familiar to them, and when faith settled firmly in their hearts, it forbade it. Thus the oath of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, by the father of this bedouin would be before the prohibition, and in that case we would say that it is abrogated.
However, for Naskh (abrogation) one of its conditions is knowledge of the order of events in time, and mere reasoning about the matter is not a firm ruling about what came first and what came later. This is not enough, rather we must know which text came later. Based on this, the claim of Naskh here is also weak.
The third reply is that this is from the kind of words that flow on the tongue without intention, so it is counted as Laghw al yamin (unintentional oath). Allah, the Most High, said: Allah does not take you to task for what is unintentional in your oaths (al Maidah 89).
If we imagine that people had become used to this expression, we would then leave them upon it, and based on this, those who are used to swearing by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would not be stopped, because this would be something that just runs on their tongues. A man once came to me wanting to ask me for a fatwa and he said to me: By the Prophet, give me a ruling in this issue.
So I said to him: Swearing by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is forbidden. The man went silent and then said: By the Prophet, I will never go back to this thing in all my life. This shows that this view is not strong. It does not agree with his saying: Do not swear by your forefathers, because he forbade this thing itself. When something is forbidden in and of itself, how can we say that he approved it and that its ruling remains until today This is not possible.
The fourth reply is that the prohibition of swearing by other than Allah is out of fear that there may arise in the heart of the one who swears a kind of respect and glorification for the one sworn by that is like the respect and glorification he has for Allah. But in the case of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, this is impossible.
It cannot be that in his heart there would be a glorification of the father of this bedouin like the glorification of Allah, the Most High. Based on this understanding, this would be something special for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, because we know that the feared danger from swearing by other than Allah cannot happen in his case.
So for people other than the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, swearing by the father and things like that is forbidden, but in his case it is allowed.
However, this is weakened by the fact that he is an example and a model for his Ummah , and it is not possible that he would swear by other than Allah while knowing that the Ummah is going to copy him in that. But it could be said in reply that he had already informed the Ummah (Muslim community) of the ruling in his clear words: Do not swear by your forefathers.
This fourth reply agrees completely with what al Shawkani and a group of scholars chose, which is that an action from the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, does not ever oppose his words in an absolute way.
The closest of these interpretations is that this wording is abrogated, but even about this there remains some unease in the soul, because we do not know firmly its time in relation to the prohibition, or that it is something special to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.
In every case we say: We have one text that is unclear and one text that is clear.
The unclear text is his swearing by the father of this man. The clear text is his prohibition of swearing by the forefathers.
The Sharia rule, which is the path of those who are firmly grounded in knowledge, is that they refer what is unclear to what is clear, so that the whole matter becomes clear and firm. As long as this unclear matter can be understood in different ways, we have with us a clear text which we cannot leave, and that is the prohibition of swearing by the forefathers.
It is also possible to answer by saying that in the wording there is an omitted word and that the meaning is: By the Lord of his father.
But this is weak, because the basic rule is that we do not claim an addition or an omission in the text without proof.
The fifth reply is that this wording and by his father is irregular and not firmly preserved. If this is correct, then that is enough for us and we do not need any of these other replies. If it is authentic and established, then these are the replies that answer it.
Ash-Sharh al-Mumti’ ala Zad al-Mustaqni’ by Ibn Al Uthaymeen page 122-125
