IMAM ABU AL-FIDA' ISMA'IL IBN KATHiR 51The Messenger of God (SAAS) rejected that idea because of the rewards God
had in store for the aqar, "the Helpers".
"When the Prophet (SAAS) emigrated to al-Medina, al-Tufayl b. 'Amr joined
him, along with another of his people. They hated the town and (the second
man, tr.) fell ill and, depressed, took an arrow head and used it to cut between
his fingers. Blood streamed from his hands and did not stop until he was dead.
"Al-Tufayl saw the man in a dream in pleasant circumstances and observed
that he had his hands covered. So he asked him, 'What did your Lord do?' He
replied, 'He forgave me because I had gone to join His Prophet (SAAS).' Al-
Tufayl asked, 'Why do I see you covering your hands?' He answered, 'I was told
that what I had spoiled would never be restored!'"
The account continued, "And al-Tufayl recounted this to the Messenger of
God (SAAS), who spoke the words, '0 God, do forgive him for his hands."'
Muslim related this from Abo Bakr b. Abo Shayba and Ishaq b. Ibrzhim, both
of them giving as their source an account of Ibn Harb.
If it were asked, "What is the connection between this hadith and what is
established in both canonical collections from al-Hasan, from Jundub", he
replied, "The Messenger of God (SAAS) replied, 'Among those who preceded
you there was a man who became afflicted and depressed and so he took a knife
and cut open his hand with it, the blood streaming out until he died. And God,
Almighty and Glorious is He, said, "He foisted himself too hastily on Me, so I
denied him paradise.""'
And so the answer could have several aspects. One is that the one man might
have been a polytheist, the other a believer.
And God may have made of this one action an independent cause of his entering
hell. And though his disbelief might have been self-sufficient (to confine him to
hell), God none the less made reference to this act so that His people give heed.
The second possibility is that the one could have been knowledgeable of what
was forbidden, while the other was not, since he had so recently accepted Islam.
The third is that the one could have been doing what he did thinking it
permissible, while the other did it knowing it to be impermissible, and, indeed,
in error.
The fourth is that the one could have intended to kill himself by his afore-
mentioned action, whereas the other, in contrast, might not have intended to kill
himself but have had some other purpose.
The fifth is that the one might have been someone of few good deeds which
did not measure up to the gravity of his aforementioned sin and so went to hell,
while the other might have been a man of many good deeds which did equal his
sin and therefore he did not go to hell but was forgiven because of his having
joined the Prophet (SAAS).
The damage, however, did remain, though only in his hands. The rest of his
form was good and he only covered the damaged part of it. And so when
al-Tufayl b. 'Amr saw him covering his hands and asked him what was the