Is Omitting a Blessing a Sign of Stinginess? Examining Tirmidhi 3546 in Light of the Qur’an

A report in Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi, a collection of hadith (reports attributed to Muhammad), describes a person who fails to invoke blessings upon him as stingy:

«الْبَخِيلُ الَّذِي مَنْ ذُكِرْتُ عِنْدَهُ فَلَمْ يُصَلِّ عَلَيَّ»

“The stingy person is the one in whose presence I am mentioned and who does not invoke blessings upon me.”

Jamiʿ al-Tirmidhi, report 3546

This report is sometimes used to rebuke people who write or say “Muhammad” without adding “May God bless him and grant him peace.” The Arabic expression usually written after his name is salla Allahu alayhi wa-sallam (may God bless him and grant him peace). Before treating its omission as evidence of stinginess or disrespect, however, we need to ask what the report actually says—and whether the judgment drawn from it is consistent with the Qur’an.

The report uses a form of salat (here, the act of invoking blessing upon someone). It does not use a verb meaning “append a written formula.” That distinction matters: praying for someone, recording a prayer on a page, and showing respect are related acts, but they are not interchangeable descriptions of the same thing.

Consider how the Qur’an itself mentions Muhammad:

«مَا كَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ أَبَا أَحَدٍ مِنْ رِجَالِكُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمًا»

“Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is God’s messenger and the seal of the prophets. God has knowledge of all things.”

33:40

His name also appears in Qur’an 3:144, 47:2, and 48:29 without a blessing formula immediately after it. This raises a straightforward question. If someone recites these passages exactly as they stand, or listens to them being recited, and does not add a separate invocation after Muhammad’s name, is that omission alone sufficient grounds for calling the person stingy?

Accusing the questioner of irreverence does not answer the question. The Qur’an gives the name without the additional formula; the reader repeats that text. If mentioning the name without an accompanying invocation is inherently disrespectful, why does the Qur’an itself use that form of reference? And if a simple mention is not inherently disrespectful, anyone who condemns a writer for using it needs evidence beyond the absence of a few words.

The report itself makes no exception for Qur’anic recitation. Anyone claiming such an exception must establish it; an unstated qualification cannot simply be inserted into the wording. Yet the absence of an exception does not, by itself, prove that the report contradicts the Qur’an. The question requiring an answer is more precise: what justifies using this report to condemn a reader of the Qur’an, or to impose a particular writing convention? The burden of establishing that obligation rests with the person who presents it as a religious duty.

A further principle concerns our treatment of God’s messengers. The Qur’an says:

«آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ رَبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لَا نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ رُسُلِهِ وَقَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ»

“The Messenger believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. Each believes in God, His angels, His books, and His messengers: ‘We make no distinction between any of His messengers.’ They say, ‘We hear and we obey. We seek Your forgiveness, our Lord; to You is the return.’”

2:285

The same commitment appears in Qur’an 2:136 and 3:84. These passages speak of believing in all God’s messengers. But how could acknowledging someone as God’s messenger be compatible with humiliating or disparaging that person? This study therefore understands the refusal to discriminate among messengers as carrying an ethical consequence as well: the dignity of one messenger must not be diminished in order to exalt another.

That does not require every messenger to have the same mission or rank. The Qur’an itself speaks of differences in rank among them in Qur’an 2:253. Such differences do not authorize contempt for any messenger; equally, giving one messenger special honor does not automatically dishonor another. The question here is the standard by which respect and disrespect are judged.

Why, then, is omitting a blessing after Muhammad’s name often treated as disrespectful, while the same response is not demanded after the names of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or Noah? If a name without an accompanying invocation is intrinsically disrespectful, why would the same form of reference have a different moral character in those other cases? If it is not intrinsically disrespectful, how can a writer be condemned without examining the meaning and context of the passage? A double standard requires an explanation. Familiarity with a convention is not evidence that the convention defines respect.

A reader might object: “Invoking blessings upon Muhammad is a special case, because the Qur’an itself commands it.” To examine that claim, we need the complete wording of Qur’an 33:56:

«إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَمَلَائِكَتَهُ يُصَلُّونَ عَلَى النَّبِيِّ يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا صَلُّوا عَلَيْهِ وَسَلِّمُوا تَسْلِيمًا»

“God and His angels bestow blessings upon the Prophet. You who believe, invoke blessings upon him and greet him with peace.”

33:56

The verse says عَلَى النَّبِيِّ, ala al-nabiyyi (“upon the Prophet”); it does not use the Arabic word for “messenger” here. It refers to Muhammad by his prophetic title rather than by name. In the context of this chapter, however, “the Prophet” still refers to Muhammad. The absence of his personal name therefore neither cancels the specific command nor, by itself, makes it a command about every prophet. The relevant question is whether a command concerning the Prophet also requires a fixed phrase after every occurrence of his name. The verse does not equate those two requirements. Identifying the recipient of an action does not, on its own, prescribe a verbal formula, a frequency of repetition, or a writing convention.

In the conceptual account developed in our related study, salat upon someone (a benevolent, honoring act toward that person) takes a form appropriate to its agent: God grants care and blessing, while believers pray for and honor the Prophet. For the fuller discussion, see Salawat in the Qur’an: The Command, Prayer, and the Limits of Obligation (Persian study).

This command must be taken seriously. Criticizing a report or an inherited practice does not cancel a Qur’anic instruction. But the verse does not say that a particular phrase must be repeated every time Muhammad’s name is written or heard. The command to invoke blessings is one question; prescribing an exclusive formula, its frequency, and its written placement is another. Those additional requirements need evidence of their own.

The report in al-Tirmidhi likewise says nothing about writing a fixed phrase after the name. Someone who turns it into an editorial rule has therefore made a claim beyond its wording. That person must explain why failing to invoke blessings should be treated as equivalent to not printing a sentence in a particular place. These are not the same proposition.

The absence of that sentence from a line of text does not establish that the writer has never prayed for Muhammad or failed to respect him. Conversely, its presence does not establish the writer’s sincerity, affection, or faithfulness to the messenger’s teaching. A phrase may be repeated from habit, or offered as a deliberate and heartfelt prayer. Judging a person requires more than counting expressions on a page.

If this report is made into a rule for rebuking everyone who mentions Muhammad without saying or writing a specified phrase, the grounds for that extension must be examined. In particular, condemning someone as stingy or disrespectful solely for mentioning his name as the Qur’an does must confront the fact that the Qur’an itself gives the name without the additional prayer. Unsubstantiated qualifications and accusations against the questioner do not resolve that difficulty.

Praying for the Prophet’s good is neither objectionable nor forbidden. The dispute concerns turning a verbal formula into a conclusive test of faith and respect. Honoring Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and God’s other messengers is a serious responsibility. That responsibility cannot be confined to a phrase following a name, with the absence of the phrase then treated as sufficient evidence against a person.

Our standard is the Qur’an—not a convention turned into an instrument for condemning God’s servants.