The Forty Hadith - Hadith number 1: Actions are judged by intentions

the_new_mr

I've been thinking for a while that most of the discussion on here (if not all of it) is some kind of defence of Islam against people bringing up certain accusations against it or against the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) and I was thinking that it's not so nice For one, it means that the Muslims on the forum can't spend any time on the forum just discussing certain aspects of their religion as they're usually too busy defending it and it also gives a bad impression of Islam in general as it looks like it has to keep defending itself all the time as if there's nothing nice to say

An Imam in a mosque nearby decided to start a series of Friday sermons by discussing one hadtih every Friday. The hadith are from the collection of Imam Al-Nawawi who decided to compile these hadith as he knew them to all be authentic whilst at the same time core to Islamic belief. Imam Al-Nawawi is one of the heroes of Islamic knowledge and, as you can see from the small biography I linked, he was very intelligent, knowledgeable and persistent in his work.

So, I thought "Why not do the same on this forum?" We could discuss one hadith per week or more or even less if the discussion of one particular hadith needs more time. It'll give us all the chance to understand Islam a bit better and, perhaps more importantly, allow us to contemplate, reflect and just maybe become better Muslims. We can get them from the below site which not only has the hadith in both Arabic and English but also has a lot of commentary underneath.
http://fortyhadith.iiu.edu.my/

So, I invite everyone here both Muslim and non-Muslim alike to discuss the forty hadith with us here.

As it happens, they're actually forty-two hadith. They're called the forty hadith 'cos I guess it sounds better

Without further ado then, here's hadith number 1 (I'd recommend everyone reads the short introduction to the forty hadith as well as the small bio on Imam Al-Nawawi before starting).
1.: Actions are judged by intentions

This is definitely one of my favourite hadiths. In underlines the fact that God is The Only True Judge of our actions and gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside

It brings a sense of comfort to our day to day actions. For example, if I set the alarm clock to wake up to pray the fajr but I didn't hear it so I can't get up then, Insha Allah (God willing), I've been rewarded as if I had gotten up. Of course, I shouldn't go to bed wrecked tired about half an hour before the fajr with basically no chance of hearing the alarm clock especially if I'm a deep sleeper (which I am ) but you get the general picture.

But there's the other side of the hadith. And that's how we have to be careful that our intention doesn't become corrupted when attempting to perform a good deed. This is so easily done as well. I heard some good advice that while doing a good deed, it's a good idea to renew your intention by starting the deed with a good intention Insha Allah and then continuing to remind yourself that you're doing it for God's sake (and also to perform the good deed itself if applicable).

The part of the commentary I found most, how could I say it, hard-hitting? Well, it was this bit:

Ibnu al-Qayyim says: Any action we do is subject to three defects:
1. Being conscious that others are observing our actions
2. Seeking a return (benefit/reward) for the action
3. Being satisfied with the action

These are all too easy to do. Even the second one can be wanting someone to say a simple "thanks" for helping them out. Although it's good manners to say thanks and you should always say it if someone does something for you (as I think there's a hadith that says something like he who doesn't thank people doesn't thank God), it should not be something you're waiting for. Sometimes, I think I'd prefer that someone doesn't say thanks because if they do then that can lead to either the first or third item of the defects above.

What's your opinion on the third one though? I'd be interested to hear. In my opinion, it's the third one that can be hardest to resist. If you do something good, it's difficult not to feel at least a little good about yourself. Perhaps we should make the distinction between simply feeling good about yourself for doing a good deed and feeling good that you're doing something good for the sake of God and for the sake of helping people. I guess it's a small difference. In the first instance, you might feel proud like you're some kind of righteous person and sort of become conscious that you're watching yourself but in the second instance you can try to remind yourself that you're not that big a deal and that you've sinned before and will sin again and this is a positive thing that you should try and keep up with God's help.

I'd like to hear what others have to say on this.

One of the really great things about Islam in my opinion is that any action can be worship. Like even eating can be worship if you're eating so you can get back to work so that you can learn more and improve the state of the Muslim nation and mankind in general. It's all a matter of intentions.

May Allah make our intentions pure and for His sake and protected from any kind of showing off or being overly pleased with ourselves.

Schuhart

Sounds like a worthwhile exercise, and I hope folk take you up on the offer.

For me, I think this Hadith is describing a feature of what is necessary to make something a truly moral act. This is that the individual should not be seeking personal gain from it. I think the quote you gave from Ibnu al-Qayyim gives a good summary of the considerations at stake here.

If we take theft as something we all likely agree to be wrong, the Hadith would seem to invite us to consider why we do not steal. If we do not steal because we fear that others will punish us if we are found out, then our motivation is self interest rather than justice. Similarly, if we do not steal because we feel a reputation for honesty will help us in business, our motivation is still self interest.

I agree the last consideration is the most interesting. It suggests to me that even if our motivation for not stealing is we want (for example) to avoid a feeling of shame that no-one else will know about, the action is still self interest – as we are doing it for our personal happiness. What the Hadith (I think) is saying is that a right action should be done simply because it is right, and for no other reason.

Much as yourself, I would see the Hadith as essentially saying the right action is not sufficient unless done with the right motive. It might also contain an element of protection for wrong actions done by accident with the right intention. But it would strike me that right intention in isolation is not enough to make an action good.

For the sake of argument, if I pick up a wallet in a public place truly believing it to be mine and only discover my mistake later, it’s obviously not enough for me to say ‘well, I had no intention to steal’ and pocket the money. Equally, if I repeatedly pick up wallets by mistake, I might have no bad intent but my carelessness is clearly something wrong – even if I don’t intend the harm I create.

But I think this just means that any single moral principle, taken to extremes, will give strange results. It would strike me that right intentions would be enough to make an action moral in a context where someone is making reasonable efforts to figure out what actions are right (which, I’d guess, is probably what the other 41 texts will elaborate on).

hivizman

I just want to encourage you to keep going with these thoughtful comments on the Forty Hadiths - thanks also for bringing them to my attention. I'm not a Muslim, but most of the ethical teachings of Islam have universal relevance, and this Hadith makes us think about our reasons for our actions. We are being encouraged to take into account much wider issues than our own self-interest when we make choices. The three 'defects' that you point out (being conscious that others are observing our actions; seeking a return for the action; being satisfied with the action) need to be understood carefully, though. I think that the last of these is a warning against complacency rather than telling us that we should not feel satisfied by doing something because we believe that it is pleasing to God. For the last few years, I've been learning the piano, and there are times when I feel very pleased with a good performance a piece that I'm learning for one of my examinations, while at the same time I'm conscious that I could play the piece better. This encourages me to keep on practising and improving rather than making me feel that, whatever I do, I can never be good enough.

As a parallel, I remember reading a few years ago a book by the Anglican theologian Alastair McGrath and his wife (a psychologist) on self-esteem within a Christian framework. They began the book by telling the story of someone whose understanding of the Christian doctrine of original sin left her devastated - 'I'm so full of sin that nothing I can possibly do will ever please God'. The authors argued that it was possible to please God, and that fulfilling God's plan for us should give us pleasure. Self-esteem isn't the same as pride, though there is the danger that it can creep into pride if we don't take care. I know that Islam rejects the doctrine of original sin, but I think that the basic principle still applies, that we should take pleasure (but not pride) from acting with the intention of pleasing God.

One small point that worries me a bit in the commentary by Imam Nawawi: he quotes the defect about 'seeking a return (benefit/reward) for the action', but then, in the conclusion, he states: 'We must make sure that the action is for the sake of Allah so that it is accepted by Allah and that we will be rewarded for it, insha Allah'. Does that mean that any actions we do with the intention of pleasing God are done because we believe that God will reward us, in which case the actions are defective?

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

If we do not steal because we fear that others will punish us if we are found out, then our motivation is self interest rather than justice. Similarly, if we do not steal because we feel a reputation for honesty will help us in business, our motivation is still self interest.

Yeah, that's obviously the other side of the coin. Whereas having a good intention when performing a good deed is vital, so is having the right intention for avoiding a bad deed. You're absolutely right of course. Some people may avoid doing certain things because they're afraid that so-and-so will say this-and-that about them and it will spread by word of mouth when in fact the real reason for not wanting to do the sin should be not to displease God.

What's the name of that philosopher who said that everything we do is selfish? That even when we do something good and apparently selfless, we're doing it to either feel better about ourselves, get a reward later or perhaps even to just avoid a feeling of guilt. You could say that it's true to a certain extent but I still believe in a selfless act.

Schuhart wrote:

What the Hadith (I think) is saying is that a right action should be done simply because it is right, and for no other reason.

I think you're right there to an extent but I also think that doing it for God's sake is an integral part of it. I also think that doing something for the sake of God is doing something because it is right. When you do an act purely for the sake of God (and not just because you want a reward for it in heaven) because you know that that's what God would want you to do and it pleases him when you do it then I guess you're a long way to achieving the goal of purity of intention.

hivizman wrote:

I think that the last of these is a warning against complacency rather than telling us that we should not feel satisfied by doing something because we believe that it is pleasing to God.

I'd never thought about it like that before actually. That could be part of it but I think the main idea about it is the avoiding of the feeling of pride you were talking about.

You made a good point though about the difference between satisfaction and pride. Pride is definitely frowned upon big time in Islam and, as far as I know, the only time outward showings of being proud are allowed is on the battlefield to intimidate the enemy. So, perhaps a certain amount of satisfaction is fine as long as it doesn't turn into pride?

But the question is: how much self-satisfaction takes away from the reason for doing it for God's sake? One kind of spiritual exercise I'm trying to do is to try and do things which really put me out but are good deeds. To use a (silly) example, it could be something like giving someone a lift when I actually wanted to stay in and watch one of the TV shows I like. That way, I know I'm missing out but I also know that I'm missing out to do something good to please God and to give the person a lift and, when I'm done, I'm still sorry I missed the show which somehow helps to protect my intention from corruption from my own self of self satisfaction. I don't think I explained myself very well

hivizman wrote:

...in the commentary by Imam Nawawi...

In passing there, the commentary doesn't belong to Imam Al-Nawawi but is in fact the commentary of Dr. Jamal Ahmed Badi as stated on the site's home page.

hivizman wrote:

in the conclusion, he states: 'We must make sure that the action is for the sake of Allah so that it is accepted by Allah and that we will be rewarded for it, insha Allah'. Does that mean that any actions we do with the intention of pleasing God are done because we believe that God will reward us, in which case the actions are defective?

That's an interesting point. I think that as you want to perform a good deed more and more, the doing of the deed for the sake of being correct becomes quite important but the pleasing of God is more important. Or perhaps just as important? I honestly don't know. We can at least say that they're both important

I remember reading in Yusuf Ali's commentary on one of the verses of the Quran that eventually, doing the good deed eventually becomes the reward itself and I think I can get this.

But I guess there's nothing wrong in waiting for a reward from God in the after life. I think the defect is mainly about the reward of worldly gain. Although, I personally think that God would be more pleased with us (and thereby being more correct) if we do a good deed (or avoid a bad one) for the sake of pleasing Him and doing the good deed and not just for seeking a reward from God (and God knows best about this).

Perhaps you could even say that a good deed should be done to please God first and foremost, to do the good deed for the sake of doing it simply because it's right secondly (such as helping someone out) and finally for seeking a reward from God. I guess as long as the first element is in there then the existence of the second element makes it better and the existence of the third element is no harm (and God knows best).

It's a very interesting topic actually. You could write books about it... and I think people actually have!!

I'd be interested in taking this further.

hivizman

Thanks to the_new_mr for pointing out that the commentary to the Forty Hadiths is modern rather than by Imam An-Nawawi himself.

Perhaps you could even say that a good deed should be done to please God first and foremost, to do the good deed for the sake of doing it simply because it's right secondly (such as helping someone out) and finally for seeking a reward from God. I guess as long as the first element is in there then the existence of the second element makes it better and the existence of the third element is no harm (and God knows best).

Your comment reminded me, rather bizarrely you may think, of British tax law. There is a rule that businesses may deduct costs in arriving at their taxable profits only if the costs have been incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the purposes of the business. This leads to problems where a cost is incurred for several purposes. The classic law case involved a barrister who tried to claim a tax deduction for the cost of the black suits that she had to wear in court. The House of Lords held that spending money on clothes fulfilled two purposes, first that of complying with court etiquette (which would be for the purposes of the barrister's business) and secondly to provide warmth and decency. This purpose was considered to be a personal one rather than a business one, and hence the cost of the clothes was not "wholly and exclusively" for the purposes of the business and thus could not be deducted for tax purposes.

The reason why thinking about this case seems helpful is that the judges discussed the problems of multiple intentions quite carefully, and I think that their comments provide a way of reflecting on this Hadith which is quite consistent with what I think is its key message. The judges distinguished between the "purpose" for an action, and the "effects" of the action. One judge gave the example of a doctor who is called to the South of France to treat a patient. The doctor may be very enthusiastic about spending some time in a pleasant environment, but this is just a fortunate by-product of a visit whose purpose is a business one. On the other hand, if the doctor plans to visit the South of France basically for a holiday, then fitting in a consultation with a patient living there would not make the cost of the trip tax-deductible, because in that case one of the purposes of the trip was a personal one.

So perhaps the way to deal with the issue of rewards for actions is to say that doing something, or refraining from something, with the intention of pleasing God, isn't tainted if we believe that God rewards actions taken for good intentions, because the rewards are an effect rather than a purpose of our action. On the other hand, if we do something simply to earn a reward, whether in this life or in the hereafter, then our action is of a lesser status.

"Actions are (judged) by motives (niyyah), so each man will have what he intended. Thus, he whose migration (hijrah) was to Allah and His Messenger, his migration is to Allah and His Messenger; but he whose migration was for some worldly thing he might gain, or for a wife he might marry, his migration is to that for which he migrated."

Re-reading the Hadith, which I've quoted for convenience, I also think that we shouldn't take too ascetic a view of what the Prophet is reported as saying. "Worldly things" and "wives to marry" are not intrinsically evil, on the contrary they may be great goods. The person who, to paraphrase the Hadith, emigrated with the intention of pleasing God, could well as a by-product have gained in "worldly things" in exactly the same way as the person who emigrated with "worldly things" as the primary purpose, but presumably would gain greater reward.

There are many other issues that reading this Hadith has made me think about, but I don't have time to write anything on them. First, there is the issue of whether we can have intentions of which we are not consciously aware (in the case of the barrister's clothes, the court held that wearing clothes for warmth and decency was a self-evident purpose that the barrister did not have to consciously have in mind for it to count as a purpose), and if so, should our actions be judged on such sub-conscious intentions? Secondly, the classic problem of "weakness of will" - we intend to do something good but fail to do so through our personal weakness (like the example given of setting the alarm clock to be woken in time for prayer but failing to get up - I've done this myself on Sundays, sleeping through my alarm and missing church). Thirdly, can we do bad things with good intentions, and if so what are or should be the consequences? All of these are age-old problems of moral philosophy, and I'd appreciate any specific Islamic angle on them from anyone following this thread.

the_new_mr

hivizman wrote:

Your comment reminded me, rather bizarrely you may think, of British tax law.

lol... It's fair to say that I didn't see that coming

Having read that story and the example of the doctor given by one of the judges, I'm kind of in favour of the barrister who had to buy the suits. I don't think she would have bought them if she didn't have to work as a barrister so she wouldn't have spent the money in the first place in the same way that the doctor might be called to the south of France. I'm a little confused actually as I think the judge's analogy kind of seems in the barrister's favour Perhaps I'm not quite getting something?

hivizman wrote:

So perhaps the way to deal with the issue of rewards for actions is to say that doing something, or refraining from something, with the intention of pleasing God, isn't tainted if we believe that God rewards actions taken for good intentions, because the rewards are an effect rather than a purpose of our action. On the other hand, if we do something simply to earn a reward, whether in this life or in the hereafter, then our action is of a lesser status.

Yeah, although I kinda feel that wanting a reward in the hereafter doesn't really taint it that much. So, you could say that doing something to please God and knowing that they'll be a reward for it (God willing) means that it's basically impossible to do it without the mind knowing about the reward and therefore making it purely to please God but wanting a reward of the worldly life does go some way to tainting the deed.

As you say, worldly rewards aren't necessarily evil at all. In fact, something such as getting married could (and certainly should) be done as an act of worship in the sense that you can help each other to lower your gaze and have someone to go through life together making a family of your own and trying to bring up God-fearing children who can improve the world etc.

So, I guess that someone could:
a) emigrate for the sake of God
b) emigrate for the sake of God and then end up getting worldly gain as well although unplanned
c) emigrate for the sake of God but with a worldly gain planned as well
d) emigrate for the sake of the worldly gain

Is it correct to say then that both (a) and (b) are the same in intention since the primary intention (and plan) was to emigrate for the sake of God alone? Perhaps (c) is a little below (a) and (b) in intention as the emigration was for two reasons planned from the start and (d)'s intention, although may not be necessarily wrong, can't be counted as doing it for the sake of God?

hivizman wrote:

There are many other issues that reading this Hadith has made me think about, but I don't have time to write anything on them.

Be sure to write what you can. I'm interested in reading what you have to say.

hivizman wrote:

First, there is the issue of whether we can have intentions of which we are not consciously aware (in the case of the barrister's clothes, the court held that wearing clothes for warmth and decency was a self-evident purpose that the barrister did not have to consciously have in mind for it to count as a purpose), and if so, should our actions be judged on such sub-conscious intentions?

It's an interesting point but I don't think that someone can be held accountable for a sub-conscious intention really since the sub-conscious is something you don't really have that much control over. I think we can only be held responsible for an intention which we had a choice of either having or not having.

hivizman wrote:

Secondly, the classic problem of "weakness of will" - we intend to do something good but fail to do so through our personal weakness

Although not exactly what you're talking about, I understand that the Islamic point of view is that if you intend to do something good (like visit a friend in hospital or something) but you can't because of circumstances outside of your control (like the car won't start and there are no taxis about), you still get rewarded as if you had done so since it was your intention to do it. If, however, you actually do get the chance to go then you can rewarded ten fold.

It's also my understanding that if you get a bad thought in your head to do an evil act but don't do it, you get rewarded for not doing it too since you had to resist your own inner evil or the evil of satan.

But I guess that when it comes to weakness of will when not going through with something we wanted to then I guess God may reward us for trying to be better but for sure it wouldn't be the same as actually going through with it.

hivizman wrote:

(like the example given of setting the alarm clock to be woken in time for prayer but failing to get up - I've done this myself on Sundays, sleeping through my alarm and missing church)

I don't think that counts as weakness of will though. If you can't wake up despite going to bed at a reasonable hour and setting the alarm clock simply because you're a heavy sleeper then it was out of your control so I think that, in a case like that, someone would be rewarded as if they had gotten up to pray.

hivizman wrote:

Thirdly, can we do bad things with good intentions, and if so what are or should be the consequences?

That's the trickiest one to answer I think. The hadith does say that actions are measured by intentions. But I understand that there's a rule of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) that says that a bad deed cancels the good intention (or something like that). But is this only when you know something is a bad deed? Like murder or something? What if someone honestly believes that what they're doing is a good deed, will they be rewarded as such for having what they see to be good intentions? Only God knows. It's definitely something I'd like to find out more about but I've got a feeling that because each case is special, God will deal with it in a unique and special manner.

I performed a quick search on helpuu (it's google... but different... good different ) for intentions in Islam and came across this article on islamonline.net It's too late to read it now so I'll have to take a look at it either tomorrow or after tomorrow. Thought I'd link to it here anyway.

Purity of Intentions

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote: »

I think you're right there to an extent but I also think that doing it for God's sake is an integral part of it. I also think that doing something for the sake of God is doing something because it is right.

That made me think of a post by PDN on another forum, which seemed interesting to me. It was in response to a query from someone as to if someone could be saved if they made a deathbed conversion, and if this was unfair to people who spent their whole lives following a faith. (The question seems valid both in Christianity and Islam). His feeling was yes; and he went on to explain his view that a life lived in a faith was a benefit in itself - ie the deathbed convert might gain paradise, but had lost the chance to have a rewarding life.

Is there space for that view in that Hadith? ie, that there is no conflict between something being right/will of God/good for the individual. But that the motive should be one or both of the first two. (Just to know, the connection I'm seeing is to what I understand Aristotle's view of ethics to be - that a healthy life for an individual will bring them to moderation and to treating others decently; clearly as a motivation that would be inconsistent with the Hadith, but it might actually bring someone to a similar destination).

To an extent, I think that might become clearer as we see a few more texts.

the_new_mr wrote: »

I don't think she would have bought them if she didn't have to work as a barrister so she wouldn't have spent the money in the first place in the same way that the doctor might be called to the south of France.

I think (I'm working from memory, as I can actually dimly remember the case being a news item) that the judge was basically saying that if she hadn't bought those particular clothes she would still have bought some clothes - ie she would not have gone about naked. Hence, he was deeming her subliminal desire for warmth and decency to take priority over her conscious desire to have clothes suitable for Court.

I suppose the point about the doctor is he would not be in France unless called to see a patient. But the barrister would be dressed in something regardless of if she was in court.

hivizman

Schuhart wrote: »

To an extent, I think that might become clearer as we see a few more texts.I think (I'm working from memory, as I can actually dimly remember the case being a news item) that the judge was basically saying that if she hadn't bought those particular clothes she would still have bought some clothes - ie she would not have gone about naked. Hence, he was deeming her subliminal desire for warmth and decency to take priority over her conscious desire to have clothes suitable for Court.

I suppose the point about the doctor is he would not be in France unless called to see a patient. But the barrister would be dressed in something regardless of if she was in court.

There's a discussion of the case involving the barrister's clothes at http://www.taxation.co.uk/Articles/2004/04/15/40668/Suits+you+Madam.htm.

Schuhart wrote: »

That made me think of a post by PDN on another forum, which seemed interesting to me. It was in response to a query from someone as to if someone could be saved if they made a deathbed conversion, and if this was unfair to people who spent their whole lives following a faith. (The question seems valid both in Christianity and Islam). His feeling was yes; and he went on to explain his view that a life lived in a faith was a benefit in itself - ie the deathbed convert might gain paradise, but had lost the chance to have a rewarding life.

Is there space for that view in that Hadith? ie, that there is no conflict between something being right/will of God/good for the individual. But that the motive should be one or both of the first two. (Just to know, the connection I'm seeing is to what I understand Aristotle's view of ethics to be - that a healthy life for an individual will bring them to moderation and to treating others decently; clearly as a motivation that would be inconsistent with the Hadith, but it might actually bring someone to a similar destination).

Would I be correct that the Islamic view would be that the person making a deathbed conversion would probably gain admission to paradise, because all sins previously committed are forgiven when someone converts to Islam, but that the convert would be likely to end up in a rather humble part of paradise? This would be on the basis that someone on their deathbed could not accumulate any significant rewards either for carrying out religious duties such as prayer and fasting (because they won't have the time if they are close to death).

One of my uneasy feelings about Islam is the way in which there seems to be an underlying "accountant's mentality" about rewards for good deeds and punishments for bad deeds. I read somewhere that the arabic word hisab (meaning "account" or "reckoning") and its forms appears more than 80 times in the Qur'an. On the other hand, the Christian doctrine is even more problematic, with original sin implying that we are so much "in debt" that good deeds in themselves can never provide sufficient reward to balance out our inherent evil, and it is only through faith that we have any hope of heaven.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding things here.

Schuhart

hivizman wrote: »

there seems to be an underlying "accountant's mentality" about rewards for good deeds and punishments for bad deeds.

I'm not claiming any expertise in what Islam is about, but I can picture what you mean. At the same time, I would not read that into this Hadith, which I think is trying to say that actions should be performed with selfless intentions.

hivizman

Schuhart wrote: »

I'm not claiming any expertise in what Islam is about, but I can picture what you mean. At the same time, I would not read that into this Hadith, which I think is trying to say that actions should be performed with selfless intentions.

I also can't claim any expertise in Islam. To get a clearer idea, I looked at alternative translations of this hadith on the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts. I understand that the arabic text is the same in both hadith collections, so the translations below are just different interpretations of the arabic meaning.

The translation of this hadith as it appears in Bukhari (Vol. 1, Book 2, No. 51) is as follows:

The reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended. So whoever emigrated for Allah and His Apostle, then his emigration was for Allah and His Apostle. And whoever emigrated for worldly benefits or for a woman to marry, his emigration was for what he emigrated for.

The translation of this hadith as it appears in Muslim (Book 20, No. 4692) is as follows:

(The value of) an action depends on the intention behind it. A man will be rewarded only for what he intended. The emigration of one who emigrates for the sake of Allah and His Messenger (may peace be upon him) is for the sake of Allah and His Messenger (may peace be upon him) ; and the emigration of one who emigrates for gaining a worldly advantage or for marrying a woman is for what he has emigrated.

What this implies to me is, first, that good deeds (actions that are pleasing to God) will be rewarded, but, secondly, that the reward will be greater if the deeds are done with the intention of pleasing God rather than just for personal motives. Indeed, I understand that it may be enough to have the intention (for example, to go on the Hajj) even though it is not possible to carry out the action (perhaps because some medical problem prevents one from travelling).

Maybe my worries about doing things for rewards in the hereafter are just linguistic ones. If I believe that pleasing God will bring rewards, then saying "I am doing something because I believe that it will please God", and saying "I am doing something because I believe that God will reward me", are just different ways of expressing the same sentiment. Would a "god" that did not reward us for doing things that were pleasing to "god", or even more capriciously actually punished us for doing what was pleasing, simply be a "god" that was not worthy of worship?

One final point - am I correct in thinking that, for various religious acts such as the profession of faith (Shahadah), prayer and fasting, these are not regarded as valid unless one has a definite intention?

Schuhart

hivizman wrote: »

I understand that the arabic text is the same in both hadith collections, so the translations below are just different interpretations of the arabic meaning.

Useful to have the alternatives.

hivizman wrote: »

What this implies to me is, first, that good deeds (actions that are pleasing to God) will be rewarded, but, secondly, that the reward will be greater if the deeds are done with the intention of pleasing God rather than just for personal motives.

I'd broadly agree with that reading.

hivizman wrote: »

Indeed, I understand that it may be enough to have the intention (for example, to go on the Hajj) even though it is not possible to carry out the action (perhaps because some medical problem prevents one from travelling).

I know that this element has also been mentioned by the_new_mr, and it may well be the accepted scholarly understanding. But this meaning does not leap out at me from the actual text. As I read that text, it seems to be assuming an action has occured. That said, I would agree that the text does not rule out the possibility that people might be rewarded for a genuine intention to perform an action that they were unable to do.

hivizman wrote: »

Would a "god" that did not reward us for doing things that were pleasing to "god", or even more capriciously actually punished us for doing what was pleasing, simply be a "god" that was not worthy of worship?

That would sound reasonable to me. But I'm also mindful of that idea that presumably the permitted actions should be ones that are good in themselves. For the sake of argument, respecting marriage vows brings a benefit of a rewarding relationship. Hence, the action may be (partly) its own reward. However, I feel that I'm really only speculating in saying that as the Hadith seems (to me) simply to state that right intention is necessary. We still haven't got on to what right action would be.

hivizman wrote: »

One final point - am I correct in thinking that, for various religious acts such as the profession of faith (Shahadah), prayer and fasting, these are not regarded as valid unless one has a definite intention?

I don't positively know, although that would seem consistent with the Hadith under discussion.

hivizman

Schuhart wrote: »

I know that this element has also been mentioned by the_new_mr, and it may well be the accepted scholarly understanding. But this meaning does not leap out at me from the actual text. As I read that text, it seems to be assuming an action has occured. That said, I would agree that the text does not rule out the possibility that people might be rewarded for a genuine intention to perform an action that they were unable to do.That would sound reasonable to me.

Looking ahead to Imam An-Nawawi's Hadith 37 , this seems to clarify the issue. To quote from this hadith:

"Verily Allah has recorded the good deeds and the evil deeds." Then [the Messenger of Allah] clarified that: "Whosoever intends to do a good deed but does not do it, Allah records it with Himself as a complete good deed; but if he intends it and does it, Allah records it with Himself as ten good deeds, up to seven hundred times, or more than that. But if he intends to do an evil deed and does not do it, Allah records it with Himself as a complete good deed; but if he intends it and does it, Allah records it down as one single evil deed."

It's interesting how the commentary to this hadith on the website picks up several of the points already raised in this thread. First, intention to do a good deed is rewarded in itself, even if the deed is not actually completed. The commentary quotes some examples given by Ibn Rajab, who wrote a commentary on the forty hadith of Nawawi (Jami' al-Ulum wa al-Hikam) that Wikipedia describes as 'the largest as well as generally being considered the best commentary available':
(1) If someone has intended to wake up in the middle of the night to perform the night prayer but he did not do so because he overslept.
(2) If someone intended to pray or fast.
(3) If someone intended to do jihad or umra (the 'lesser pilgrimage' to Mecca).
(4) If someone intended to perform the Hajj (pilgrimage).

Between us, we have already mentioned most of these!

Secondly, intending to do a good deed and actually doing it is rewarded more than just having the intention.

Thirdly, intending to do an evil deed but refraining from it is rewarded. The commentary seems a bit sceptical about this, and goes into more detail about what this could mean - for example, the issue is raised of motives for refraining from doing an evil deed that one had intended to do:

The one who decides or just has the intention to do the evil act but then he refrains from doing it because of his fear of the people or does not like to be blamed by them. Ibn Rajab says that some scholars say this person will be punished.

As Schuhart noted in an earlier posting:

Schuhart wrote: »

If we take theft as something we all likely agree to be wrong, the Hadith would seem to invite us to consider why we do not steal. If we do not steal because we fear that others will punish us if we are found out, then our motivation is self interest rather than justice. Similarly, if we do not steal because we feel a reputation for honesty will help us in business, our motivation is still self interest.

I agree the last consideration is the most interesting. It suggests to me that even if our motivation for not stealing is we want (for example) to avoid a feeling of shame that no-one else will know about, the action is still self interest – as we are doing it for our personal happiness. What the Hadith (I think) is saying is that a right action should be done simply because it is right, and for no other reason.

Putting hadith 37 together with hadith 1, and with the various postings in this thread, I think that this may sum things up (I'm using the term 'good deeds' to include both religious acts such as prayer and fasting and secular acts, while 'evil deeds' would include acts that are religiously forbidden - haram - as well as acts considered to be crimes or wrongs by society):

(1) Whatever we do, we should have the intention of pleasing God (doing the 'right thing' perhaps would be another way of expressing this).
(2) Good deeds done for other motives are not inherently without merit, but they don't carry as much merit as good deeds done with the intention of pleasing God.
(3) Doing a good deed with the intention of pleasing God may have by-products or side-effects, which may be favourable to ourselves, but so long as these consequences (such as financial gain) are not the primary purpose of our actions, they do not devalue the actions.
(4) If we have proper intentions to do good deeds, but are unable to carry them out, then our intentions are still rewarded.
(5) If we refrain from evil deeds with the intention of pleasing God, this will be rewarded.
(6) If we refrain from evil deeds for more 'self-interested' reasons, then there's some issue of whether this will lead to punishment, but it's unlikely to be rewarded.

This doesn't in itself tell us what we should or shouldn't do, but perhaps this issue will come up in the context of another of Imam An-Nawawi's 40 Hadiths.

By the way, I again mention that I'm not a Muslim and certainly not a scholar, so please point out anything that I've got wrong.

the_new_mr

Oh oh ohhhhhhhhhh. It's gotten interesting since my last visit

Schuhart wrote:

That made me think of a post by PDN on another forum, which seemed interesting to me. It was in response to a query from someone as to if someone could be saved if they made a deathbed conversion, and if this was unfair to people who spent their whole lives following a faith. (The question seems valid both in Christianity and Islam). His feeling was yes; and he went on to explain his view that a life lived in a faith was a benefit in itself - ie the deathbed convert might gain paradise, but had lost the chance to have a rewarding life.

I think that all one can say is that it is between God and them and that's that. The hadith we are discussing actually goes a long way to describing such a situation I believe. I mean, if someone intentionally decided not to be Muslim for the all the wrong reasons (like wanting to keep drinking, fornicating etc) then perhaps their position would be different to someone who suddenly had "a moment of clarity" on their deathbed. Having said that, who am I to say such things? I'm nobody and it's only God's opinion on this that matters (and I've got a feeling that every person's case is specific).

One thing I do know is that there is mention of Pharaoh in the Quran (the one who rejected Moses' (peace be upon him) preachings) and how he change his mind at the last minute.

Yunus:90-92
"And We brought the children of Israel across the sea; and thereupon Pharaoh and his hosts pursued them with vehement insolence and tyranny, until [they were overwhelmed by the waters of the sea. And] when he was about to drown, [Pharaoh] exclaimed: "I have come to believe that there is no deity save Him in whom the children of Israel believe, and I am of those who surrender themselves unto Him!"; [But God said:] "Now? -when ever before this thou hast been rebelling [against Us], and hast been among those who spread corruption?; [Nay,] but today We shall save only thy body, [112] so that thou mayest be a [warning] sign unto those who will come after thee: for, behold, a good many people are heedless of Our messages!""

It's important to remember of course that Pharaoh was a tyrant as well as overly proud (even believing that he was some kind of god), led his people astray and committed great crimes against humanity.

It's a well known fact the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) tried his utmost to convince his beloved uncle Abu Taleb to convert while he was lying on his death bed so clearly, if the Prophet thought it was okay to do it then it must be okay. I guess this just highlights how it's different from one person to the next. It's a personal thing between each person and God and one should never spare of God's mercy whilst at the same time not bank too much on it.

hivizman wrote:

Would I be correct that the Islamic view would be that the person making a deathbed conversion would probably gain admission to paradise, because all sins previously committed are forgiven when someone converts to Islam, but that the convert would be likely to end up in a rather humble part of paradise? This would be on the basis that someone on their deathbed could not accumulate any significant rewards either for carrying out religious duties such as prayer and fasting (because they won't have the time if they are close to death).

Only God knows. I do know of one companion of the Prophet who converted to Islam right before battle and fought with the rest of the Muslims. He died in that battle and he's well known for the Prophet saying that he would be in heaven despite never having prayed or fasted. Of course, he died a martyr.

Schuhart wrote:

Is there space for that view in that Hadith? ie, that there is no conflict between something being right/will of God/good for the individual. But that the motive should be one or both of the first two.

Interesting question. I think that it's fair to say that all those three are equal but that the motivation (as far as the hadith is concerned) should be for God (if that person would like it to be considered an act of worship).

Schuhart wrote:

To an extent, I think that might become clearer as we see a few more texts.

Yeah, I think so.

hivizman wrote:

One of my uneasy feelings about Islam is the way in which there seems to be an underlying "accountant's mentality" about rewards for good deeds and punishments for bad deeds. I read somewhere that the arabic word hisab (meaning "account" or "reckoning") and its forms appears more than 80 times in the Qur'an. On the other hand, the Christian doctrine is even more problematic, with original sin implying that we are so much "in debt" that good deeds in themselves can never provide sufficient reward to balance out our inherent evil, and it is only through faith that we have any hope of heaven.

I know what you're trying to ask. I think it's not quite like that. Although it's true to say that there is mention of an actual weighing scale that weighs our good deeds versus our bad deeds, the idea of measuring good and bad deeds is not quite exact (at least for humans).

There is another hadith that mentions how God may reward a good deed with 10 or many more times for doing a good deed as He pleases. The "many more times" clearly shows that God is willing (and wants) to reward us as much as possible if only we tried.

And God's mercy is something not to be forgotten. There is another hadith where the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) mentions that nobody will enter heaven without God's mercy to which some of the companions asked "Even you messenger of God?". "Even me" he replied.

And there is yet another hadith that mentions a man who is conversing with God on the day of judgement (a story from the future... which is common the hadith). The man was particularly righteous on earth and God asks him "Would like to enter heaven according to My mercy or your deeds?". The man, feeling that he had led a good life says "My deeds". Then, (not sure about the following details so may God forgive me for any inaccuracies) God says that his good deeds are enough to get one of his eyes into heaven (or, to put it another way, his good deeds are good enough considering that he had the blessing of sight in one of his eyes not including all the other blessings). So, the man then quickly said "Okay, Your mercy!"

Amr Khaled (the Islamic preacher) once mentioned the idea that if God had commanded us to say "Thank God" or "Praise be the Lord" on each breath that we took, it wouldn't be unfair.

And yet another example of God's mercy can be seen in the verse below. God mentions Himself as the Most Merciful literally hundreds of times in the Quran. In this verse, He describes how He has "precribed mercy upon Himself".

Al-'Anam:12
"Say: Unto whom belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth? Say: Unto Allah. He hath prescribed for Himself mercy, that He may bring you all together to a Day whereof there is no doubt. Those who ruin their own souls will not believe."

Schuhart wrote:

At the same time, I would not read that into this Hadith, which I think is trying to say that actions should be performed with selfless intentions.

I don't think the hadith is necessarily saying that they are to be selfless. I think it's talking more about the intention and it being for God to be considered an act of worship.

Thanks for the two translations hivizman. I shall try my best to translate what I understand from the Arabic text (trying my best not to insert any extra meaning... so the English will seem a little weird as I don't want to put anything in there that I think shouldn't be). Any mistakes are mine and not God's.

"Actions are by intentions. And for every action as was intended. So who's migration was for God and His messenger then his migration was for God and His messenger. And who's migration was for something worldy to get or a woman to marry then his migration was for what he migrated for."

I was very tempted there to put (measured) before intentions in the first sentence but it's not explicitly there. However, in the way it's worded in Arabic, that's the implication. The letter "be" before intentions is what I translated as "by" but it can be considered to be a kind of "measured by" or "are equal depending on" if you know what I mean?

hivizman wrote:

What this implies to me is, first, that good deeds (actions that are pleasing to God) will be rewarded, but, secondly, that the reward will be greater if the deeds are done with the intention of pleasing God rather than just for personal motives.

Yes, that's what I get from it too.

hivizman wrote:

Maybe my worries about doing things for rewards in the hereafter are just linguistic ones. If I believe that pleasing God will bring rewards, then saying "I am doing something because I believe that it will please God", and saying "I am doing something because I believe that God will reward me", are just different ways of expressing the same sentiment.

I think the difference is subtle yet important. I don't think that thinking to oneself "I am doing something because I believe that God will reward me" is bad. There's nothing wrong with that. After all, we're not God's equal and don't expect to be. We are in need of Him and He doesn't need us and there's no shame in wanting to be rewarded or saved from the hell-fire by God. But I think that if someone can begin to do things because they know that it would please God (and maybe also want a reward) and get a certain amount of satisfaction (there's that word again ) from knowing that you've pleased God then I think that could even have a greater significance (dare I say: reward?). In the end, I think both are good but one could bring someone closer to God than the other. You could also be doing something to try and purify your soul which is no doubt pleasing for God.

Schuhart wrote:

That said, I would agree that the text does not rule out the possibility that people might be rewarded for a genuine intention to perform an action that they were unable to do.

It certainly doesn't rule it out but, as it happens, there is another hadith that describes how deeds are measured. I tried a quick google but can't find. It goes something like if you intend to do a good deed and do it then you get the reward of 10 (or many more) times reward of this good deed. If you intend to do a good deed but can't do it, you get rewarded as if you had done it. If you intend to do a bad deed and then fight that intention so that you don't do it, you get rewarded as if you had done a good deed and if you intend to do a bad deed and actually do it then you get one bad deed against you.

hivizman wrote:

One final point - am I correct in thinking that, for various religious acts such as the profession of faith (Shahadah), prayer and fasting, these are not regarded as valid unless one has a definite intention?

100%. Actions are nothing without proper intentions. Saying the shahada is a true action of the heart. Same goes prayer and fasting (though there's no need to say anything out loud). It's recommended to take a moment and try and sort of concentrate the intention in your heart before you perform an action and try your best to rid your intention of any impurities (like showing off or anything like that).

Schuhart wrote:

I think (I'm working from memory, as I can actually dimly remember the case being a news item) that the judge was basically saying that if she hadn't bought those particular clothes she would still have bought some clothes - ie she would not have gone about naked. Hence, he was deeming her subliminal desire for warmth and decency to take priority over her conscious desire to have clothes suitable for Court.

I suppose the point about the doctor is he would not be in France unless called to see a patient. But the barrister would be dressed in something regardless of if she was in court.

Don't want to be hijacking this thread and don't really fancy following hivizman's link (time is tight) but surely the woman would not have bought those particular clothes if she wasn't a barrister. What I mean is that she would have bought some other clothes to stay warm and decent and her barrister clothes are probably only used for her job.

hivizman

the_new_mr wrote: »

Don't want to be hijacking this thread and don't really fancy following hivizman's link (time is tight) but surely the woman would not have bought those particular clothes if she wasn't a barrister. What I mean is that she would have bought some other clothes to stay warm and decent and her barrister clothes are probably only used for her job.

The judges just didn't want the barrister to get tax relief for her court clothes (she could claim a deduction for her wig and gown). I thought at the time of the case that the judges were stretching logic in reaching their decision. Also, they may have thought that men would be at a disadvantage because they probably would have bought their suits for other reasons even if they didn't need them for court, whereas women barristers would be less likely to buy black suits if they didn't need them in court. However, the distinction that the judges made between purposes and effects is, I believe, still useful for thinking about intention.

Are we ready to move on to Hadith 2?

Schuhart

hivizman wrote: »

Are we ready to move on to Hadith 2?

I think so.

the_new_mr

I guess so. I kinda felt that there was still more to discuss on this one but I guess there's nothing to stop us from revisiting it later Especially as it's likely that one of the other hadith will likely involve thinking about intentions.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote: »

I kinda felt that there was still more to discuss on this one but I guess there's nothing to stop us from revisiting it later

Indeed, I really just feel a need for more material. For the sake of argument, one thought that occurs to me out of this thread is that there is a potential logic to why resisting a bad intention might be deemed a benefit. Otherwise, if a bad intention was deemed sinful, there would be less of an incentive to resist it - as, if someone felt they would be punished anyway, they might act on that bad intention. (Like that old phrase 'you might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'.) However, I think progressing through the texts might reveal whether this fits in to the general logic.