How the shaytan has a share with people's Children!!!

[Samafal]

Is it true that if a person does not say “Bismillaah” before having intercourse, the Shaytaan shares with him in that?

 

Answer:

 

Praise be to Allaah.

 

With regard to the Shaytaan having a share when one does not say Bismillaah, Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“share with them wealth and children (by tempting them to earn money by illegal ways usury, or by committing illegal sexual intercourse),”

 

[al-Israa’ 17:64]

 

Al-Qurtubi said: i.e., give yourself a share in that…

 

“children”: it was said that this means the children of zina (fornication, adultery). This was the view of Mujaahid, al-Dahhaak and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas. It was also narrated that he said, this refers to the children whom they killed and against whom they committed other crimes. It was also narrated that he said, this refers to when they call them by names such as ‘Abd al-Haarith, ‘Abd al-‘Uzza, ‘Abd al-Laat, ‘Abd al-Shams [i.e., names meaning “slave of…” referring to their false gods]. And it was said that this refers to their initiating their children into kufr so that they make them into Jews or Christians, as the Christians do with their children when they baptize them with water. This was the view of Qutaadah.

 

The fifth view was narrated from Mujaahid who said: If a man has intercourse and does not mention the name of Allaah, the jinn wraps himself around his penis and has intercourse along with him. This is what is referred to in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“with whom no man or jinni has had Tamth [sexual intercourse] before them”

 

[al-Rahmaan 55:56]

 

Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 10/289

 

Ibn Katheer said:

 

“ ‘share with them wealth and children (by tempting them to earn money by illegal ways usury, or by committing illegal sexual intercourse)’

 

[al-Israa’ 17:64 – interpretation of the meaning]

 

‘children’: al-‘Awfi said, narrating from Ibn ‘Abbaas, Mujaahid and al-Dahhaak: this means the children of zina. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah said, narrating from Ibn ‘Abbaas: this refers to their children whom they used to kill from folly, without knowledge. Qutaadah said, narrating from al-Hasan al-Basri: by Allaah, he had a share with them in their children by making them Magians, Jews and Christians, so that they followed a religion other than the religion of Allaah and gave a share of their wealth to the Shaytaan. This was also the view of Qutaadah. Abu Saalih said, narrating from Ibn ‘Abbaas: this refers to when they give their children names such as ‘Abd al-Haarith, ‘Abd al-Shams and so on.

 

Ibn Jareer said: The most correct view is that every child who is born of a woman concerning whom a sin is committed by giving him a name which Allaah dislikes, or by initiating him into a religion other than that with which Allaah is pleased, or by committing adultery with his mother, or by killing him, or by burying him or her alive, or other actions which involve sin and disobedience towards Allaah, all come under the heading of the Shaytaan having a share in that with the one to whom the child is born, because in the aayah ‘share with them wealth and children’ Allaah did not specify one meaning to the exclusion of any other. Every case where Allaah is disobeyed and the Shaytaan is obeyed is a form of his sharing in that.

 

What he said is sound. Each of the salaf pointed out some aspect in which the Shaytaan has a share. It was proven in Saheeh Muslim (2865) from ‘Iyaad ibn Himaar that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah said, ‘I created My slaves as pure monotheists (haneefs), then the shayaateen (devils) came to them and diverted them from their religion and forbade them that which I had permitted to them.’”

 

In al-Saheehayn (al-Bukhaari, 3271; Muslim, 1434) it is narrated that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When any one of you want to have intercourse with his wife, let him say, ‘Bismillaah, jannibnaa al-shaytaan wa jannib al-Shaytaan ma razaqtana (In the name of Allaah. Keep the Shaytaan away from us and from what You bestow upon us).’ Then if it is decreed that they should have a child, the Shaytaan will never be able to harm him.”

 

(Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/50-51)

 

al-Tabari said:

 

The most correct view is that every child who is born of a woman concerning whom a sin is committed by giving him a name which Allaah dislikes, or by initiating him into a religion other than that with which Allaah is pleased, or by committing adultery with his mother, or by killing him, or by burying him or her alive, or other actions which involve sin and disobedience towards Allaah, all come under the heading of the Shaytaan having a share in that with the one to whom the child is born, because in the aayah ‘are with them wealth and children’ Allaah did not specify one meaning to the exclusion of any other. Every case where Allaah is disobeyed and the Shaytaan is obeyed is a form of his sharing in that is giving Iblees a share in that

 

(Tafseer al-Tabari, 15/120, 121)

 

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Sa’di said:

 

“share with them wealth and children”. This includes all kinds of sins that have to do with their wealth and children, such as withholding zakaah, failing to give kafaaraat (expiation) and to give people their dues, not disciplining and training children to do good and give up evil, taking wealth unlawfully or spending it unlawfully, or using earnings gained from haraam sources.

 

Indeed, many of the mufassireen said that also included in the Shaytaan’s share of wealth and children is neglecting to say Bismillaah when eating, drinking or having intercourse; if one does not say Bismillaah when doing those things, the Shaytaan has a share in them, as was mentioned in the hadeeth.

 

Tayseer al-Kareem al-Rahmaan, p. 414

 

I say: with regard to the Shaytaan sharing in intercourse when a person fails to say Bismillaah, we have mentioned above the hadeeth narrated by Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) and the comment of Mujaahid (may Allaah have mercy on him).

 

Conclusion:

 

The correct view on the meaning of this aayah is that it should be interpreted in the ways mentioned above, for there is no contradiction between these meanings. Each of the salaf mentioned one aspect of its meanings, and there is no contradiction between them. The basic principle in such a case is that the aayah should be interpreted according to all its meanings.

 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

 

The differences among the salaf concerning tafseer are very small. Their differences concerning rulings are greater than their differences concerning tafseer. Most of the differences narrated from them in saheeh reports have to do with variations, not contradictions. These are of two types:

 

The first is that each of them expresses the meaning that he has in mind using words that differ from the words used by others, each referring to a different aspect of the same thing… This is similar to the case where different words are used to refer to a sword: al-saarim (that which parts or cuts off) and al-muhannad (made from Indian iron). And it is like the names of Allaah, the names of His Messenger, and the names of the Qur’aan. All of the names of Allaah refer to One; calling upon Him by one of His Most Beautiful Names does not contradict calling upon Him by one of His other Names. Rather it is as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“Say (O Muhammad): ‘Invoke Allaah or invoke the Most Gracious (Allaah), by whatever name you invoke Him (it is the same), for to Him belong the Best Names’”

 

[al-Israa’ 17:110]

 

Each of His names refers to the same Essence and to the attribute referred to in that name. So al-‘Aleem (the All-Knowing) refers to His Essence and His knowledge; al-Qadeer (the All-Powerful) refers to His Essence and His power; al-Raheem (the Most Merciful) refers to His Essence and His mercy…

 

The second kind is when each of them refers to a specific meaning by way of giving an example or drawing the attention of the listener to an example, not in a precise and exclusive sense. This is like when a non-Arab asks what the word khubz (bread) means, and someone shows him a loaf of bread. He is referring to a type, not this specific loaf.