Is Paradise Forbidden for a Child born of Fornication?
by The Albaani Site
Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم said, “No one who is disobedient to his parents, no one who reminds others of his favours, no drunkard, and no fornicator [lit: ‘son of fornication’] will enter Paradise.” Reported by Nisaa’i and others.
The Imaam said, “His saying, ‘… and no son of fornication will enter Paradise …’ is not to be taken upon its apparent meaning, rather what is meant is the person who fornicates such that it becomes his overwhelming characteristic, and so as a result of that he deserves to be attributed to it, and thus it is said of him, ‘He is the son of fornication,’ just as those who are addicted/love the dunyaa are attributed to it, it being said of them, ‘Sons of the world,’ due to their knowledge and their addiction/love of it, and just as the traveller is called, ‘Son of the road,’ [cf: Surah Baqarah 2:177, ‘ابن السبيل’].
So, ‘the son of fornication,’ is like these expressions, it is said of the one who is given to fornication such that its habituality has become attributed to him, and fornication has become his overwhelming characteristic, such a person is the one referred to in his saying, ‘… and no son of fornication will enter Paradise …’
The child who is born out of fornication and who himself is not a fornicator is not what is meant here … and I benefitted by acquiring this meaning from the speech of Ibn Ja’far at-Tahaawi, may Allaah have mercy on him, and his explanation of this hadith.
And Allaah knows best.
As-Saheehah, 2/280-283.
The Albaani Site 
This is simply the interpretation of one Imam. No matter how educated and well versed he is you can’t simply agree with him 100%. It is not far fetched to claim that the Imam’s interpretation is based off of his own modern moral standards and logic. To him, it wouldn’t make sense for Allah’s messenger to condemn the sons of fornicators to hell so he adjusts the interpretation to accomodate the modern outlook. I wouldn’t be unreasonable that a 1400 year old prophet could’ve asked for the death of the son of fornicators. This is the problem I have with Islam and many other religions, so many of the scriptures and prophetic teachings are vague and ambiguously stated. It becomes easy to justify unjust acts.
LikeLike
It would do you well to read a post carefully before passing shallow judgement as you just did. He stated at the end of the article that he took this meaning from Imaam Ibn Ja’far al-Tahawi who passed away in the year 321ah, well over a thousand years ago, which puts to rest your weak and futile claim of it being based upon al-Albaani’s, ‘own modern moral standards and logic,’ or that, ‘… he adjusts the interpretation to accomodate the modern outlook.’
Do some research before putting forward such baseless arguments.
LikeLike
That still doesn’t change my point. Now, instead of one Islamic scholar it is two Islamic scholars. Ultimately, I mean to show that a lot of the the Quran and hadiths are very vague and ambiguous. You cannot deny this since your post is about how confused you were before being “educated” by Imaam Ibn Ja’far alTahawi. These ambiguities and inconsistencies are what cause so much strife within and outside of religion. It is well known that the hadiths are interpreted differently by different scholars. Some may read a page and conclude A and some conclude B. And it isn’t like they are making these conclusions from consistent logic and reason, its off of earlier inconsistent premises. Also, aren’t we all fornicators if we wish to beget a son? Fornication does not mean promiscuity, so really this translation is misleading. What if my partner gave birth to a girl? Would I still be considered a sinful fornicator? I am guessing you would say yes ;)
LikeLike
You said, “I [sic] wouldn’t be unreasonable that a 1400 year old prophet could’ve asked for the death of the son of fornicators.” A child in Islaam does not bear the sins of the father, Allaah said:
“And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And if a heavily laden soul calls [another] to [carry some of] its load, nothing of it will be carried, even if he should be a close relative.” [Faatir 35:18]
This is an unjust claim and is contrary to everything the Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam taught about justice and mercy.
The clearest answer to what you said is the following hadith reported in Muslim:
“Abdullah bin Buraidah narrated from his father that Maa’iz bin Maalik Al-Aslami came to the Messenger of Allaah and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I have wronged myself and committed Zinaa, and I want you to purify me.’ But he turned him away. The next day he came to him and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I have committed Zina,’ but he turned him away a second time, and the Messenger of Allaah sent word to his people saying, ‘Do you know whether there is anything wrong with his mind?’ They said, ‘All we know is that he is of sound mind, and he is one of our righteous men as far as we can tell.’ He came to him a third time, and he sent word to them again asking them, and they told him, ‘There is nothing wrong with him or his mind.’ When he came a fourth time, he had a pit dug for him then he ordered that he be stoned. Then the Ghaamidi woman came and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! I have committed Zinaa , purify me,’ but he turned her away. The next day she said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah! Why are you turning me away? Perhaps you are turning me away as you turned Maa’iz away. But by Allaah, I am pregnant.’
He said, ‘Then no (not now), go away until you give birth.’ When she gave birth, she brought the child to him wrapped in a cloth, and said, ‘Here he is, I have given birth.’ He said, ‘Go away and breast-feed him until he is weaned.’ When she had weaned him, she brought the boy to him, with a piece of bread in his hand and said, ‘Here, O Prophet of Allaah, I have weaned him, and he is eating food.’ He handed the boy over to one of the Muslim men.
Then he ordered that a pit be dug for her, up to her chest, and he ordered the people to stone her. Khaalid bin Al-Waleed came forward with a stone, which he flung at her head. The blood spurted onto Khaalid’s face and he cursed her. The Prophet of Allaah heard him cursing her and he said, ‘Calm down, O Khaalid! By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, she has repented in such a manner that if the Maks[(3)]-collector repented like that, he would be forgiven.’ Then he ordered that the funeral prayer be offered for her, and she was buried.”
This proves the opposite of what you said.
“That still doesn’t change my point.” How convenient. Your saving grace was that it was a modern interpretation, that having been taken away you still seem to think you have an argument.
This whole blog is dedicated to explaining the Quraan and the Sunnah. Of course the texts require explanations, and those we take from are the first three generations of Muslims and those who followed their way.
You accuse the scholars of not basing their conclusion on logic and reason in the assumption that you do, the lack of which you totally proved when you said, “Also, aren’t we all fornicators if we wish to beget a son? Fornication does not mean promiscuity, so really this translation is misleading. What if my partner gave birth to a girl? Would I still be considered a sinful fornicator? I am guessing you would say yes ;).”
No, ‘Waleed,’ we aren’t all fornicators. And where in the post or anywhere has it been stated that, ‘Fornication does not mean promiscuity, so really this translation is misleading?’ A particularly weak comeback. We were talking about a habitual fornicator. And I think it would be best for you not to talk about the translation being, ‘misleading,’ since you show a lack of a reasonable command of the English language let alone Arabic, when you said, “Also, aren’t we all fornicators if we wish to beget a son?’ A beginner’s dictionary will show you that fornication is having sexual relations outside of marriage, so how would that make, ‘all of us,’ fornicators? Just becuase you have a boy doesn’t mean you’re a fornicator.
“What if my partner gave birth to a girl? Would I still be considered a sinful fornicator? I am guessing you would say yes ;).” Once again, your refusal to accept the explanation of the expression given in the original post leads you to come to childlike conclusions. It’s interesting to note you say ‘partner’ and not ‘wife.’ It’s the fact that you’re accustomed to people being together who are not married that makes you come to such conclusions. If you had sexual relations outside marriage and your partner gave birth to a boy or a girl, or neither one of them, you would be a fornicator, yes. Married people are not referred to as fornicators.
The explanation given in the post was showing how such an expression is used in the Arabic language. Since you refused to accept it, your ‘logic and reasoning,’ will make you the proponent of the following and there’s no way out for you; the Shaikh said that the expression, literally translated as, ‘son of fornication,’ means a habitual fornicator, someone who has become so accustomed to it that he is attributed to that act, i.e., ‘fornication,’ as though fornication is all he knows; and the Shaikh clearly stated that the child of someone who fornicates is not what is being referred to here. You said no. Thus, we’ll follow you’re line of reasoning and we’ll hold you to your ‘logic,’ which means you will have to believe the following:
In Arabic, the term, ‘Ibnus-Sabeel,’ literally translated as, ‘Son of the path,’ means a traveller. But that is not good enough for you, since according to what you said it means the son of the actual path we’re talking about. So based upon your logic, ‘the path’ got pregnant and then gave birth to a child. So that child’s father/mother is called, ‘Path.’ Profound logic, ‘Waleed.’
In Arabic, the term, ‘Ibnul-Ahdhaar,’ literally translated as, ‘Son of warnings,’ means a person who is highly cautious. But again, that is not good enough for you, in line with your ‘logic’ it means that a ‘warning’ got pregnant and then gave birth to a child. Here is a classical line of poetry with the usage in question:
أَبْلِغْ زِيَادًا وَخَيْرُ الْقَوْلِ أَصْدَقُهُ … فَلَوْ تَكَيَّسَ أَوْ كَانَ ابْنَ أَحْذَارِ
“Inform Ziyad – and the best of speech is that which is most truthful – even if he is intelligent and highly cautious (lit:, ‘son of warnings,’ ‘Ibnul-Aadhaar’)”
In Arabic, the term, ‘Ibnul-Aqwaal,’ literally translated as, ‘Son of many sayings,’ means a person who is given to talking, a habitual talker. Again, according to you, it means some ‘sayings’ got pregnant and gave birth to a child.
In Arabic, the term, ‘Ibnul-Madinah,’ literally translated as, ‘Son of the city,’ means a city-dweller. According to you, it means the ‘city’ got pregnant and gave birth to a child. Again, here’s a line of classical Arabic poetry showing how this term is used in such a way:
رَبَتْ وَرَبَا فِي حِجْرِهَا ابْنُ مَدِينَةٍ … يَظَلُّ عَلَى مِسْحَاتِهِ يَتَرَكَّلُ
“It (the wine) was cultivated, and cultivated with it a seasoned city-dweller, who continues to press with his foot on the spade/shovel.”
So now we have one child whose father is called, ‘The Path.’ Another whose father is, ‘Warnings.’ A third whose father is called, ‘Sayings.’ An unfortunate fourth whose father is called, ‘City,’ and the last miserable one has one called, ‘Fornication.’
These are well known expressions, all based on the same grammatical and syntactical rules and understood by the people whose tongue it is in the way it was explained in the original post.
May Allaah guide us all.
LikeLike
“This is simply the interpretation of one Imam.”
Uh, no. He’s not interpreting, he’s providing references of how the idiom is used in their Arabic. It’s an actual answer based on how the people of the time would’ve understood it, i.e. how it should still be understood.
“I wouldn’t be unreasonable that a 1400 year old prophet could’ve asked for the death of the son of fornicators.”
Yeah it would be unreasonable seeing how as far as anyone knows that never actually happened.
“It becomes easy to justify unjust acts.”
With the absence of objectivity that you displayed I’m sure it’s very easy to say and think and believe as you please. Of course you have a problem with Islam, you’re essentially making things up.
LikeLike
The punishment of the one guilty of fornication is well known.
No where is there a punishment for the child produced from fornication.
Your objection is that of a foolish person.
LikeLike
“This is the problem I have with Islam” by Waleed Rahmani aka Irshad Manji.
Perhaps it’s the other way around. Islam has a problem with the ignoramus. No matter how educated and well versed they are, you simply can’t agree with them.
You spoke too soon and Abu Turab shut the door before ignorance was going to define you. Please understand the CONTEXT before saying “so many of the scriptures and prophetic teachings are vague and ambiguously stated.” You jump to quickly, without knowing how far deep the ground is.
LikeLike
Jazak Allahu Khairan, Abu Turaab. May Allah Bless you for the great work you are doing!
LikeLike
Barakallaahu feek. I learnt something new today.
LikeLike
It is amusing that someone like Shaykh al-Albani رحمه الله is now being considered a modernist? SubhaanAllah
BaarakAllaahufeek for these translations.
LikeLike
Assalaam `alaikum.
Just for reference…among the first ones to use the idioms “children of the world” and “children of the Hereafter” (Abnaa al-dunya & abnaa al-aakhirah) were used by `Alee bin Abu Taalib رصي الله عنه as reported by Imaam al-Bukhaaree in his Saheeh.
barak Allaahu feekum.
LikeLike
Wallahi, im really grateful for this detail explanation. i now understand the hadith…
may Allah have mercy on sheikh
LikeLike