Here is yet another lie from that wahabi website , Islamqa.
It is my humble request to the readers that please read and decide.
This is what Islamqa said
Question :47170
Are the parents of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in Paradise or in Hell?
Question:Where are the parents of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? Are they in Paradise or in Hell? We hope you can tell us of a hadeeth which proves the answer?.
Answer:Praise be to Allaah.
There is a hadeeth from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which indicates that they are in Hell.
Muslim (203) narrated from Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) that a man said: “O Messenger of Allaah, where is my father?” He said: “In Hell.” When he turned away he called him back and said: “My father and your father are in Hell.”
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
This shows that whoever dies in a state of kufr will be in Hell. And being related to one who is close to Allaah will not avail him anything. It also shows that whoever died during the fatrah (the interval between the Prophethood of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and that of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) and was the follower of the way of the Arabs at that time, which was idol worship, will also be among the people of Hell. There is no excuse for the call not reaching them, because the call of Ibraaheem and other Prophets (peace be upon them) had reached these people.
Muslim (976) narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I asked my Lord for permission to pray for forgiveness for my mother, but He did not give me permission. And I asked Him for permission to visit her grave, and He gave me permission.”
It says in ‘Awn al-Ma’bood:
“But He did not give me permission” means: because she was a kaafirah (disbeliever) and it is not permissible to pray for forgiveness for the kuffaar.
Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
This shows that it is not permitted to pray for forgiveness for the kuffaar.
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “My father and your father are in Hell,” he spoke with knowledge, for he did not speak on the basis of his whims and desires, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“By the star when it goes down (or vanishes).
2. Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred.
3. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire.
4. It is only a Revelation revealed”
[al-Najm 53:1-4]
Were it not that proof has been established against ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, the father of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not have said what he did about him. Perhaps he had heard something that established proof against him on the basis of the religion of Ibraaheem, because they used to follow the religion of Ibraaheem until the innovations were introduced by ‘Amr ibn Luhayy al-Khuzaa’i and his innovations became widespread among the people, such as the propagation of idols and praying to them instead of to Allaah. Perhaps ‘Abd-Allaah had heard something that showed him that the idol worship of Quraysh was wrong, but he still followed them, and thus proof was established against him. Similarly, the hadeeth which says that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) asked for permission to pray for forgiveness for his mother but it was not granted, and he asked for permission to visit her grave and he was permitted to do so but not to pray for forgiveness for her, perhaps she had heard something that established proof against her, or perhaps the people of the Jaahiliyyah are to be treated as kuffaar as far as rulings in this world are concerned, so we should not pray for them or pray for forgiveness for them, because outwardly they seem to be kuffaar, and should be regarded and dealt with as such, and their case in the Hereafter is for Allaah to judge.
Fataawa Noor ‘ala al-Darb
Al-Suyooti (may Allaah have mercy on him) was of the view that the parents of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) will be saved (from Hell), and that Allaah brought them back to life after they had died and they believed in him. ( emphasis adeed by me )
This view was rejected by the majority of scholars who ruled that the ahaadeeth which indicate that are fabricated (mawdoo’) or very weak (da’eef jiddan).
It says in ‘Awn al-Ma’bood:
Most of the reports that been narrated to the effect that the parents of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) were brought back to life and believed in him and were saved are fabricated and false. Some of them are very weak and cannot be saheeh under any circumstances, as the imams of hadeeth are unanimously agreed that they are fabricated, such as al-Daaraqutni, al-Jawzaqaani, Ibn Shaheen, al-Khateeb, Ibn ‘Asaakir, Ibn Naasir, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Suhayli, al-Qurtubi, al-Muhibb, al-Tabari, Fath al-Deen ibn Sayyid al-Naas, Ibraaheem al-Halabi and others. The scholar Ibraaheem al-Halabi explained at length the fact that the parents of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) have not been saved from Hell in a separate essay, as did ‘Ali al-Qaari in Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar and in a separate essay. The basis for this opinion is the soundness of this hadeeth (“My father and your father are in Hell”). Shaykh Jalaal al-Deen al-Suyooti differed from the huffaaz and scholars and affirmed that they had believed and had been saved, and he wrote numerous essays on that topic, including al-Ta’zeem wa’l-Minnah fi anna Abaway Rasool-Illaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) fi’l-Jannah.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked: Is there any saheeh report from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that Allaah brought his parents back to life so that they could become Muslims, then they died (again) after that?
He replied: There is no saheeh report to that effect from the scholars of hadeeth. Rather the scholars are agreed that this is an invented lie… There is no dispute among the scholars that this is one of the most obvious of fabrications, as was stated by those who have knowledge. That does not appear in any of the reliable books of hadeeth, either in the Saheehs or the Sunans or the Musnads or any other well-known books of hadeeth. It was not mentioned by the authors of the books of Maghaazi or Tafseer, even though they narrated da’eef (weak) reports along with saheeh (sound) ones. The fact that this is a lie is clear to any one who has any knowledge of religion. If such a thing had happened there would have been a great deal of motivation to transmit it, because it is something that is extraordinary on two counts: the raising of the dead and believing after death. Such a thing would have been more deserving of being transmitted than anything else. Since no trustworthy narrated transmitted it, it may be understood that this is a lie.
Moreover, this goes against the Qur’aan and the saheeh Sunnah, and the consensus of the scholars. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allaah accepts only the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and foolishness and repent soon afterwards; it is they whom Allaah will forgive and Allaah is Ever All‑Knower, All‑Wise.
18. And of no effect is the repentance of those who continue to do evil deeds until death faces one of them and he says: ‘Now I repent;’ nor of those who die while they are disbelievers”
[al-Nisa’ 4:17-18]
So Allaah states that there is no repentance for one who dies as a disbeliever. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Then their Faith (in Islamic Monotheism) could not avail them when they saw Our punishment. (Like) this has been the way of Allaah in dealing with His slaves. And there the disbelievers lost utterly (when Our Torment covered them)”
[Ghaafir 40:85]
So He tells us that the way in which He deals with His slaves is that faith will be to no avail once they have seen the punishment, so how about after death? And there are other similar texts. Then he quoted the two hadeeth which we quoted at the beginning of our answer.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 4/325-327.
Islam Q&A
HERE IS THE LIE IN THE ABOVE ANSWER WHICH WE WILL SEE BELOW
The part which was highlighted by me in the wahabi answer was this
Al-Suyooti (may Allaah have mercy on him) was of the view that the parents of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) will be saved (from Hell), and that Allaah brought them back to life after they had died and they believed in him.
Did Imam Suyuti (Rh) used this daleel( evidence) in his answer?
Read here and see it your self
The Prophet's Parents Are Saved (1)
This writing concerns the question of the ruling (hukm) that the father and mother of the Prophet are (believed to be) saved and not in Hellfire. This has been declared by the majority of the scholars, and in reaching that declaration they have several methods (masālik).
Imam Suyuti's Fatwa Concerning The Prophet's Parents Being In Paradise
From His Book Entitled: "Methods Of Those With Pure Belief Concerning The Parents Of The Prophet" (Masalik al-Hunafa' fi walidayy al-Mustafa)
FIRST
His parents died before he was sent as Prophet, and there is no punishment for them as
“We never punish until We send a messenger (and they reject him)” (17:15). Our
Ash`ari Imams of those in kalam, usul, and Shafi`i fiqh agree on the statement that one who dies while da’wa has not reached him, dies saved. This has been defined by Imam Shafi`i . . . and some of the fuqaha’ have explained that the reason is that that person is on fitra (primordial disposition), and has not stubbornly refused nor rejected any Messenger.
That is the position of our Shaykh, Shaykh al-Islam Sharafuddin al-Munawi, as I received it. He was once asked whether the Prophet’s father was in the fire and he groaned loudly at the questioner. The latter insisted: “Is his Islam established?” and he answered that he
died in fitra and quoted the verse.
It is the position of Ahl al-Sunnah and it was opposed by the Mu`tazila and those who follow them among those who say that one is condemned because Allah is known rationally.
It is also the position of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani who said,
The (proper) conjecture (zann) concerning his parents, meaning also all those who
died before his Messengership, is that they shall obey (his call) at the time of their
examination (in the grave), as a gift (from Allah) to please him.
This method is based on the following sources:
[Evidence from the Qur’an]
• The aforementioned verse. (17:15)
• The verse, “Your Lord does not unjustly (bi zulm) destroy the townships
while their people are unconscious (of the wrong they do)” (6:131). Al-
Zarkashi adduced it to illustrate the rule (qa`ida) that one thanks Allah through
hearing (about Him), not through rational induction. (2)
• The verse, “Otherwise . . . they might say, Our Lord! Why sentest Thou no
messenger unto us, that we might have followed Thy revelations and be
among the believers?” (28:47) Adduced by Zarkashi and Ibn Abi Hatim in their
tafsirs. The latter adds the Hadith, “Those who die in fitra will say, My Lord, no
book nor messenger reached me, and he recited this verse.” (Bukhari and
Muslim)
• The verse, “And if We had destroyed them with some punishment before it
[your coming], they would assuredly have said: Our Lord! If only Thou
hadst sent unto us a messenger, so that we might have followed . . .”
(20:134)
• “And never did thy Lord destroy the townships, till He had raised up in
their mother-town a Messenger reciting unto them Our revelations. And
never did We destroy the townships unless the folks thereof were evildoers”
(28:59). Ibn Abi Hatim quotes Ibn `Abbas’s and Qatada’s explanations
that it refers to the people of Mecca, who were condemned only after the
Prophet was sent to them and they denied him.
• “Lest ye should say, the Scripture was only revealed to two sects before us,
and we in sooth were unaware of what they read” (6:156).
• “And We destroyed no townships but it had its warners for reminder, for
We never were oppressors” (26:208-209). `Abd ibn Hamid, Ibn al-Mundhir,
and Ibn Abi Hatim quote Qatada in their tafsirs to the effect that revelation,
proof, and exhortation must precede condemnation.
• “And they cry for help there, (saying), Our Lord! Release us; we will do
right, not (the wrong) that we used to do. Did not We grant you a life long
enough for him who reflected to reflect therein? And the warner came unto
you” (35:37). The commentators said, “The warner is the Prophet .”
[Evidence from the Hadith]
Hadith Concerning the Examination of the People of fitra [Primordial Disposition] on the Day of
Resurrection and the Entry into Paradise of Those Who Obey and the Entry into the Fire of Those Who Disobey:
Ahmad, Ibn Rahawayh, Ibn Mardawayh, and Bayhaqi (al-I`tiqad `ala madhhab al-salaf ahl alsunnah wa-l-jama`ah) who said, sahih through Aswad ibn Sari’. The Prophet said,
Four will present excuses on the Day of Resurrection: The deaf one, the idiot, the
senile old man, and the one who died in fitra. The first will say, I didn’t hear
anything; the second, Islam came and street-children were throwing dung at me; the
third, Islam came and I did not have my wits about me, and the fourth, my Lord, no
Messenger came to me. Allah will Himself take their covenant to obey Him. They
will be told to enter the fire (as a test). Those who obey will find it cool and safe,
while those who refuse will be dragged to it. (Aswad, Abu Hurayra)
Al-Bazzar and Tirmidhi who correctly graded it hasan: The Prophet said,
The one who died in fitra, the imbecile, and the infant will say respectively: No
Book or Messenger reached me; You gave me no mind wherewith to understand
good or evil; I did not have a chance to do anything. A fire will be presented to
them and they will be told to enter it. Those who would have done well in life will
obey and enter it (temporarily) while those who would have disobeyed in life will
refuse. Allah will tell them, You disobey Me (seeing Me), so how could you obey My
Messengers in My absence? (Abu Sa`id al-Khudri)
Al-Bazzar and Abu Ya’la: same as above with the addition of the senile old man. Those
who obey and enter the fire will go across it speedily. (Anas)
`Abdul Razzaq, Ibn Jarir, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Hatim, with an authentic chain that meets
the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim: The Prophet said,
“The one who died in fitra, the idiot, the deaf, the mute, and the senile will be
sent a messenger (at that time) who will say, Enter the fire. They will argue
and say: How can it be when no messenger reached us? But woe to them! If
they had entered it they would have found it cool and safe. Whoever accepts
and obeys will enter it.” Abu Hurayra added, Read, “We never punish until
We send a messenger” (17:15).”
Al-Bazzar and Hakim, who graded it sahih by the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim: The
Prophet said,
The people of Jahiliyya will come on the Day of Judgment carrying their idols on
their backs. Allah will question them and they will say: Our Lord, You did not send
us a Messenger and nothing from You reached us. If you had sent us one, we would
have been your most obedient servants. Allah will say, Shall I test your obedience?
And He will tell them to enter the fire and stay in it. They will enter it and return
again, in fear of its fury and exhalations, and they will say, Our Lord, protect us
from it. He will say: Didn’t you promise to obey Me if I ordered you something?
They will pledge again and enter it, only to come back and plead again. The Prophet
said, Had they stayed in it the first time, they would have found it cool and safe.
(Thawban)
Tabarani and Abu Nu’aym: The Prophet said,
The imbecile will come on the Day of Judgment together with the one who died in
fitra and the infant etc. (same as (e)) They will keep coming back although the fire
would not have hurt them, and Allah will say, I knew your actions from afore, so
take them (O Fire). (3)
Comment of Tabari,
Know that the Ahl al-Sunnah have one and all agreed on the fact that there is no
knowledge of rulings except on the basis of revealed Law as opposed to the
productions of the mind, while opponents of the truth such as the Rafidah
[Rejecters of the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs], the Karramiyyah
[anthropomorphists], the Mu`tazila [rationalists] and others consider that the
derivation of rulings have different bases, some revealed, some based on pure
reasoning. As for us [Ahl al-Sunnah], we say that nothing is ruled as obligatory before
the coming of a Prophet .
Imam Fakhruddin Razi said in the Mahsul,
To be thankful to the One Creator is not a mind-based obligation, contrary to what
the Mu`tazila say. If it were, those who leave that action before a Prophet is sent
to them would be punished, which is not the case [citing 17:15].
Similarly, those of his school [i.e. kalam] as well as Baydawi and Tajuddin Subki said,
We believe that those whom da`wa did not reach die saved, and that while
alive they are not fought against until they reject a clear call, and that they
enjoy protection in their life and possessions, etc.
Now this method of ruling (exemption from punishment), does it apply to all the people
of the Jahiliyya? No, rather it applies specifically to those who have never been reached by
the call of a previous Prophet . As for those who have been reached and who have
rejected that previous Prophet , no one disputes that they are definitely (ruled to be) in
the fire.
The noble parents (of the Prophet ), from what has been known of them, belong to the
former group according to our belief.
No call reached them, because the previous Prophet came about six hundred years
earlier, and of the rare divines (ahbar) of the People of the Book who still knew the
(original) prophetic dispensations and called people to the religion, a tiny remnant were
left dispersed here and there between Sham and other places.
They apparently travelled little and lived brief lives: eighteen years for `Abdullah who
died in Medina, and nearly the same for the reclusive Amina, according to the hafiz al-
`Ala’i in his book, al-durra al-saniyya fi mawlid sayyid al-bariyya (The pristine pearl: the birth
of the Master of Creatures).
They knew no better than the majority of the people of Mecca, whose ignorance even of
the fact that Allah sends prophets is shown in the verses, “Does Allah send a human
Messenger?” (17:94) and “They said, if our Lord wished, He would have sent
angels; we never heard the like from our forefathers” (23:24).
Imam ‘Izzuddin ibn `Abdul Salam said (in al-Amali),
Every Prophet was sent to his own particular people except ours, which means that
every people not previously sent to, is of the fitra, except the descendants of a
Prophet that are born in other nations [e.g. the descendants of Ibrahim leading to
Shu`ayb], because his Law addresses them as well. But if the previous dispensation
becomes obliterated, then all people become people of the fitra.” This is categorical
proof that the noble parents are without doubt of the fitra, because they are neither
descendants of ‘Isa nor of his nation.
We now turn to further proofs from the Hadith. Ibn Hajar’s statement that the correct conjecture is that the Prophet’s entire family will obey when asked on Judgment Day is inferred from these sources:
The Hadith related by al-Hakim in the Mustadrak from Ibn Mas`ud and graded authentic,
that:
A young man of the Ansar who asked a lot of questions once asked the Prophet ,
“Are your parents in the Fire?” To which the Prophet answered, “My Lord
promised to give me what I ask concerning them, and on that day I shall stand at
the Praiseworthy Station (of chief intercessor).”
The Hadith cited by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari from Ibn `Abbas to the effect that the verse
“And your Lord shall give you so that you will be pleased” (93:5) alludes to the
Prophet’s pleasure that none of his family enter the fire.
The Hadith of Abu Sa`id in Sharaf al-nubuwwa, Tabari (Dhakha’ir al-‘Uqba), and al-Mulla in
his Sira from ‘Umran ibn Husayn:
The Prophet said, “I asked my Lord that He not enter any of my family
into the fire and it was granted me.”
Tamim al-Dari in the Fawa’id with a weak isnad from Ibn `Umar:
The Prophet said, “On the Day of Judgment I shall intercede for my father and
mother, my uncle Abu Talib, and a [milk-]brother of mine from the Jahiliyya.”
Tabari said, If established, then it is understood in the light of the authentic Hadiths
concerning Abu Talib [i.e. that he is in a shallow fire = Bukhari and Muslim]. Tabari
said “concerning Abu Talib” in view of the fact that Islam did reach him unlike the
other three who died in fitra.” (4)
[Lack of Proof That His Parents Were Not of the
Pure Religion (Hanifiyya) and Weakening of the
Hadith Whereby His Father is in the Fire]
SECOND
The shirk (idolatry) of the Prophet’s parents is not an established fact and that they more
probably followed the Pure Religion (Hanifiyya) of their ancestor Ibrahim. A group of
Arabs did that, such as `Amr ibn Nufayl and Waraqa ibn Nawfal and others. This is the
view of Imam Fakhruddin al-Razi and others named below.
Al-Razi states in asrar al-tanzil that some scholars have said that Azar was not Ibrahim’s
father but his uncle because, among other proofs, the parents of prophets are not
unbelievers. Proving the latter, is the verse, “[Your Lord] Who sees you when you
stand, and your turning (taqallubak) among those who prostrate themselves”
(26:218-219), i.e. your descent through the loins of your ancestors, who are called:
worshippers.
He continued: And what proves that the Prophet’s parents were not idolaters is his
saying, “I was carried from the loins of the pure men into the wombs of the pure
women” (lam azal unqal . . .) Therefore it is necessary that none of his ancestors be a
mushrik.
The above is verbatim what Imam Razi said, and I remind you of his status as the Imam
of Ahl al-Sunnah among his contemporaries, the principal upholder of belief against the
various sects of innovators, the one who defended the truth of the Ash`ari creed in his
time, and the Mujaddid (renewer) of this Ummah in the sixth century. (5)
I say also, what further establishes the truth of this method and of what Imam al-Razi
said is, first, the authentic Hadiths to the effect that the Prophet’s origins are the best in
every respect from Adam to his father `Abdullah, and that his century is the best; second,
the Hadiths to the effect that the earth is never empty of the True Monotheists
(muwahhidun) from Adam until Judgment Day, and that it is for their sake that the earth is
preserved otherwise it would have perished long ago. These two points categorically
prove that the best origins and the true monotheists are first and foremost the parents of
the prophets as it ill fits that they should be mushriks while other people be considered of
the fitra. (6)
Another perspective which verifies that method is the verse whereby Allah keeps tawhid -
knowledge of Oneness - within the posterity of Ibrahim. [He cites verses, commentaries,
and Hadiths to that effect.]
Further probative views are that of Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi in A`lam al-nubuwwa
who said,
The light of prophecy was present in the Prophet’s parents, and the Prophet had
no partner in inheriting it, that is, no brother and no sister, because the quintessence
(safwa) of his parents resides in him, and the greatness of their lineage (nasab) is
derived from him alone, and that is also why they died young.
Further, Ibn al-Jawzi enumerates in al-Talqih the names of nine who refused to worship
idols in the time of the Jahiliyya: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Zayd ibn `Amr ibn Nufayl,
`Abdullah ibn Jahsh, `Uthman ibn al-Huwayrith, Waraqa ibn Nawfal, Rabab ibn al-
Barra’, As`ad ibn Kurayb al-Humayri, Qass ibn Sa`ida al-Iyadi, Abu Qays ibn Sarma.
Now for the objections that:
Muslim narrated on the authority of Anas:
A man said, O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?” He said: “In the fire.”
When the man left he called him back and said, “Verily my father and your father
are in the fire.( 7)
Muslim and Abu Dawud narrated on Abu Hurayra’s authority:
That the Prophet asked permission to ask forgiveness for his mother and it was not
granted him [and he asked permission to visit her grave and it was granted].( 8)
I say: Yes (they did narrate it) and the answer is that the narrators do not agree on the
words, “Verily my father and your father are in the fire.” The chain that Muslim used is
that of Hammad ibn Salama - from Thabit - from Anas. It is contradicted by the chain of Mu’ammar - from Thabit - (from Anas), which does not mention those words, but which says, “He called him back and said, “When you pass by the grave of an unbeliever, tell him of the fire.”
There is no mention of the Prophet’s father in the latter version whatsoever, and its chain is more established (athbat) as Mu`ammar is more established than Hammad, whose memory has been questioned and some of whose narrations have been rejected.
Bukhari did not take anything from him, nor did Muslim in the usul (Hadiths related to the principles of the Shari`ah) except through Thabit. Mu’ammar is impeccable from all those points of view and both Bukhari and Muslim use him. His version is therefore more reliable.
The Hadith also comes through another chain in a wording similar to the version of Mu`ammar:
Al-Bazzar, Tabarani, and Bayhaqi cite it on the authority of Ibrahim ibn Sa`d - from al-
Zuhri - from `Amr ibn Sa`d - from his father, that:
A Bedouin Arab said to the Prophet , “Where is my father?” He answered, “In the
fire.” The man said, “And where is yours?” The Prophet replied, “Whenever you
pass by the grave of an unbeliever, tell him about the fire.”
The above chain is authentic according to the criteria of Bukhari and Muslim: reliance
upon it therefore takes precedence over any other (that does not meet such criterion).
Tabarani and Bayhaqi add that the Arab later entered Islam and said, “The Prophet
put a heavy burden on me, because I did not pass by a single grave of an unbeliever
except I told him about the fire.” Ibn Majah cites something similar through Ibrahim ibn
Sa`d - from al-Zuhri - from Salim - from his father.
The above addition shows beyond doubt that the words spoken by the Prophet had a
general meaning, and that the Arab was given an order which he carried out all his life. In
the first narration, however, he was not ordered anything. It is clear that the first narrator
related it in the form he understood (incorrectly).
Al-Hakim in the Mustadrak narrates the following (sahih) on the authority of Luqayt ibn
`Amr, that the latter went in a delegation comprising Nuhayk ibn ‘Asim ibn Malik ibn al-
Muntafiq to Medina to see the Prophet . The latter asked,
Is there any good among those of us who were in Jahiliyya?” He said, “Your father
al-Muntafiq is in the Fire.” Nuhayk said, “I thought an abyss had opened between
the skin of my face and my very flesh when I heard him say that about my father in
front of everyone. I wanted to say, What about yours, O Prophet, but I considered
it more appropriate to say instead, What about your family, O Prophet?” The
Prophet answered, “Whenever you see the grave of an idolater, whether of the
Quraysh or of ‘Amr, say, Muhammad sends me to you to tell you about the fire.”
The preceding is the clearest narration yet of what took place. Now, even if the words,
“My father and your father” are established as authentic, this does not mean ‘Abdullah
but Abu Talib [cf. Bukhari and Muslim’s narrations of the dakhdakh or shallow fire in
which he is placed due to the Prophet’s intercession], similarly to what Imam Razi said
about the Prophet Ibrahim calling his uncle: my father. This is clear from the fact that
Abu Talib commonly called his nephew “My son,” and that is how the Quraysh also
called him when they said, “Tell your son to stop insulting our gods.”
It has also been stated in the Hadith that the most leniently punished of the inmates of
the fire is Abu Talib [Bukhari and Muslim]. If the Prophet’s parents were in the fire,
surely they would be the ones to be punished the most leniently. The scholars of the
principles of jurisprudence (usul) call this an allusive proof (dalalat al-ishara).
As for the second Hadith: that the Prophet was not allowed to pray at his mother’s
grave, (it is authentic; however,) it must be explained correctly, since it is a rule of usul
that whenever irrefutable proofs contradict an authentic Hadith, that Hadith must be
interpreted in a way that clears the contradiction, and the proofs have precedence over it
[i.e. it cannot be interpreted to mean that she is in the fire when it is proven otherwise].
The counter-argument may be made that in the beginning of Islam the Muslim who died
with unpaid debts was not prayed upon (and asking forgiveness for them was not
allowed). [This is still the case in Anatolia, where the janaza does not take place until all
debts are paid on the spot.] The Prophet’s mother may have had this or other reasons
which prevented his praying upon her, which does not make her a kafira.( 9)
[Conclusion]
parents are in Paradise, without need for them to consider the two Hadiths of Muslim
abrogated. However, as al-Suhayli has pointed out, it is not appropriate for Muslims to
say such a thing as, “The Prophet’s parents are in the fire,” as he himself said, “Do not
annoy the living by insulting the dead,” and Allah said, “Those who annoy Allah and
the Prophet , Allah curses them in this life and in the hereafter” (33:57).
Al-Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-`Arabi the Maliki scholar was asked about the man who did say
such a statement, and he replied, “Such a man is cursed.”
Finally, a portion of the scholars have gone to the position of withholding their opinion
on the subject, and Allah knows best.
(1) Imam al-Suyuti wrote no less than five fatawa on this topic. What is translated here by Shaykh
Gibril has been excerpted from his treatise entitled: “Methods Of Those With Pure Belief
Concerning The Parents Of The Prophet” (Masalik al-Hunafa’ fi walidayy al-Mustafa)
(2)Yusuf `Ali translates bi zulm as “for their wrongdoing” and attributes it to the object (the
people) not the subject (Allah). This produces the following meaning: “Thy Lord would not
destroy for their wrongdoing men’s habitations whilst their occupants were unwarned.” Qurtubi
mentions both meanings in his Tafsir.
(3)The Hadiths of Muslim on the Prophet’s father and mother are addressed later.
(4).Other similar Hadiths follow in descending order of authenticity, but which Suyuti adduces
nonetheless to build up the strength of the evidence that the explicit intercession of the Prophet
for his parents is true.
(5).These words by Suyuti make plain the deviation of “Salafi” charlatans who insinuate that he was not an Ash`ari or that al-Razi does not represent Ahl al-Sunnah or that his Tafsir is not representative of Ahl al-Sunnah! See for example the disparaging mention of al-Razi and of his monumental Tafsir in Mani` al-Qattan’s book published in Riyadh at dar al-sa`udiyya lil-nashr,
entitled: mabahith fi `ulum al-Qur’an (1391/1971).
(6)Suyuti then cites about 44 Hadiths sahih or hasan to illustrate the two points above. ( WAHABIS NOTE : either sahih or hasan and not Mawdu)
(7).Muslim, Iman, chapter 88
(8).Muslim, Jana’iz, chapter 36
(9).As for the Hadith “Your mother is in the Fire.... My mother is with your mother,” it is very weak and,moreover, contains an indication that the Prophet's intercession may serve to bring them out of the Fire: “Whatever I ask my Lord about the two of them [the Prophet's parents], I hope that He will give me. I shall stand, on that day, at the praiseworthy Station.”
This Hadith is narrated from Ibn Mas`ud by Ahmad, al-Tabari in his Tafsir, al-Hakim
(2:365=1990 ed. 2:396), al-Darimi (book of Riqaq), Abu al-Shaykh in al-`Azama, and Ibn al-Mundhir, all with very weak chains because of `Uthman ibn `Umayr who is disclaimed as a narrator (munkar al-hadith) cf. Shaykh Ahmad Shakir in his edition of the Musnad (4:31-32 §3787), al-Haythami (10:361-362), and al-Dhahabi’s rejection of al-Hakim’s grading of authentic.
A Kind Note to Wahabis:
(1).Go and Practice clitoridectomy in female circumcision as advised by your wahabi sheikh Salih al- Munajjid.
(2) He is the same salih al Munajjid who agreed on the authenticity of Imam Dahabi's Letter written to Ibn Taymiah.
http://ahlussunnahwaljamah.blogspot.com/2007/06/imma-dahabis-letter-to-sheikh-ibn.html
