Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

www.alhassanain.org/english

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/24682470-12340001

Shii Studies Review 1 (2017) 3-41

brill.com/ssr

Treatises on the Salvation of Abū Ṭālib

[Treatises on the Salvation of Abu Talib (A.S)]

Nebil A. Husayn*

University of Miami

nhusayn@miami.edu

www.alhassanain.org/english

Notice:

This version is published on behalf of www.alhassanain.org/english

The composing errors are not corrected.

Alhassanain network does not acknowledges with all contents of this book and we think that Abu Talib (A.S) and Parents of Holy Prophet (P) were mumin [Din e Hanif of Hazrat Ibrahim (A.S)] even before the Bisath of Holy Prophet.

Table of Contents

Abstract 5

Keywords 5

Introduction 6

Abū Ṭālib in Islamic Historiography 8

The Salvation of Abū Ṭālib in Sunnism 10

Abū Ṭālib in the Shīʿī Tradition 13

Pro-ʿAlid Sentiment in the Texts 15

The Prophet’s Parents 16

The Proof-Texts 17

Argumentation in the Shīʿī Treatises 19

Argumentation in the Sunnī Treatises 23

Conclusions 27

Notes 28

Bibliography 37

Abstract

The following article surveys a few treatises regarding the salvation of the Prophet Muḥammad’s uncle, Abū Ṭālib b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (d. circa 619 CE). The controversy concerning Abū Ṭālib’s place in the hereafter stems from a wealth of reports condemning him to hell due to his refusal to convert to Islam and others which testify to his lifelong belief in God and the prophethood of Muḥammad. The first group of reports was canonized in the collections of Bukhārī and Muslim, while the second group largely appeared in sīra and Shīʿī ḥadīth literature. Although Shīʿī thinkers have upheld the faith and salvation of Abū Ṭālib from the earliest periods of Islamic history, very few Sunnīs shared this opinion despite transmitting some of the same proof-texts cited in Shīʿī works. According to most Sunnīs, these proof-texts were either inconclusive or insufficient in proving Abū Ṭālib’s conversion to Islam or his salvation. However, there is a remarkable shift in the sensibilities of some Sunnīs after the ninth century hijrī (fifteenth century CE). In contrast to early Sunnīs who considered such a possibility to be unlikely or flatly denied it, a few Sunnīs over the past five centuries have joined their Shīʿī co-religionists in their commitment to the salvation of Abū Ṭālib. This article introduces the relevant proof-texts and theological arguments that classical Shīʿī and modern Sunnī writers have utilized to advocate the belief in Abū Ṭālib’s salvation.

Keywords

Abū Ṭālib - ḥadīth criticism - Sunnī theology - Shīʿī theology - salvation - Muḥammad al-Barzanjī - Aḥmad Daḥlān - Sulaymān al-Azharī - ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn al-Amīnī - Ibn al-Maʿadd - al-Shaykh al-Mufīd - ahl al-bayt

Introduction

The following is a survey of a few treatises from the Islamic intellectual tradition regarding the salvation of the Prophet Muḥammad’s uncle, Abū Ṭālib b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib (d. circa 619 CE).1 Although Shīʿī thinkers have upheld the faith and salvation of Abū Ṭālib from the earliest periods of Islamic history, very few Sunnīs agreed with this opinion despite transmitting some of the same proof-texts cited in Shīʿī works.2 According to most Sunnīs, these prooftexts were either inconclusive or insufficient in proving Abū Ṭālib’s conversion to Islam or his salvation. However, there is a remarkable shift in the sensibilities of some Sunnīs after the ninth century hijrī (fifteenth century CE). The diffusion of Sufi culture in the seventh and eighth centuries hijrī resulted in the popularity of certain festivals and beliefs across the Muslim world. For example, Sufism encouraged the celebration of the mawlid (Muḥammad’s birth), belief in the primordial light of Muḥammad, the salvation of his parents, and the sanctity of his descendants.3 It seems one understudied consequence of Sufi devotion to Muḥammad and his kin was the composition of treatises defending the salvation of Abū Ṭālib in Sunnī circles. In contrast to early Sunnīs who considered such a possibility to be unlikely or flatly denied it, a few Sunnīs since the seventh/thirteenth century have joined their Shīʿī co-religionists in their commitment to the salvation of Abū Ṭālib. The earliest Sunnī to argue in favor of Abū Ṭālib’s salvation seems to have been Saʿd al-Dīn Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad al-Ṣāliḥānī (d. 612/1215) in a ḥadīth compilation on the merits of the Prophet’s household entitled al-Mujtabā.4 Although his work is lost, it seems that the author relied on ḥadīth that depicted Abū Ṭālib dying as a Muslim and early Hāshimid authorities like Ibn ʿAbbās (d. c. 68/687) and Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (d. 148/765) scolding those who believed otherwise.5 The earliest Sunnī to argue for Abū Ṭālib’s salvation in an extant book was the well-known Shāfiʿī historian and Ayyūbid prince, Abū l-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl b. ʿAlī (d. 732/1331).6 Other prominent Sunnīs who briefly argued the same opinion include the Shāfiʿī scholar Aḥmad b. Jalāl al-Dīn al-Ḥusaynī al-Ījī (active 820/1417), the Mālikī jurist Aḥmad b. Yūnus b. Saʿīd (d. 878/1474), the Ḥanafī Muḥammad b. Ṭūlūn (d. 953/1547), and three more Shāfiʿī jurists, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Shaʿrānī (d. 973/1565), Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sajīnī (d. 1158/1745) and Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Suḥaymī (d. 1178/1765).7 Only in the past three hundred years has the salvation of Abū Ṭālib become the subject of a number of monographs in the Sunnī intellectual tradition. Prominent Sunnī thinkers who have argued in favor of Abū Ṭālibʿs spiritual eminence include Muḥammad al-Barzanjī (d. 1103/1691), Muḥammad Muʿīn b. Muḥammad Amīn al-Tatawī (d. 1161/1748), Sulaymān al-Azharī al-Lādhiqī (active 1165/1752), Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allāh Mīrghanī (d. c. 1300/1882), Aḥmad Zaynī Daḥlān (d. 1304 AH/1886), Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Jannūn al-Ṣaghīr (d. 1326/1908), Ḥasan b. ʿAlī al-Saqqāf (b. 1380/1961), and the Saudi writer Ḥasan b. Farḥān al-Mālikī (b. 1390/1970).8 Before considering this modern development in the Sunnī intellectual tradition, the following section briefly summarizes portrayals of Abū Ṭālib in Islamic historiography.

Abū Ṭālib in Islamic Historiography

According to sīra and ḥadīth literature, Abū Ṭālib b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib b.

Hāshim was the paternal uncle of the Prophet Muḥammad who raised him after the death of the latter’s parents and previous guardian, ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib b. Hāshim. When the Prophet began his mission, Abū Ṭālib was unwavering in his protection of his nephew despite the numerous attempts of the chiefs of the Quraysh to persuade him otherwise.9 The preaching of Muḥammad in Mecca coupled with the protection of Abū Ṭālib, chief of the Hāshimids, led the tribe of Quraysh to initiate a persecutory boycott against the clans of Hāshim and its only ally al-Muṭṭalib.10 The boycott prohibited any clan from conducting any commerce or contracting any marriages with those aligned with the Prophet. The Hāshimids were confined to an area in Mecca known as the shiʿb (“ravine”) of Abū Ṭālib for a period of three years and reduced to abject poverty.11 Abū Ṭālib and Muḥammad’s wife Khadīja bt. Khuwaylid died soon after the sanctions against them were lifted. Muḥammad was deeply pained at the loss of his wife and uncle and allegedly referred to the period as the “year of sorrows.”12 The Prophet and Abū Ṭālib are portrayed in the ḥadīth literature as dearly loving one another.13 Later theologians who condemn Abū Ṭālib as an unbeliever do not deny Muḥammad’s love for his uncle and in fact cite it as the reason for revelation of the verse, “Indeed thou wilt not guide [all] whom thou lovest.”14

The controversy concerning Abū Ṭālib’s place in the hereafter stems from a wealth of reports condemning him to hell due to his refusal to convert to Islam and others which testify to his lifelong belief in God and the prophethood of Muḥammad. The first group of reports was canonized in the collections of Bukhārī and Muslim, while the second group largely appeared in sīra literature and Shīʿī ḥadīth works.15 A third group of reports suggests that he converted on his deathbed or that God miraculously resurrected him and he subsequently believed.16 Medieval historians and ḥadīth specialists narrated the conflicting reports, sometimes in the very same work.17 The third group of reports likely began to circulate as a response to the canonized reports that narrated his rejection of Islam on his deathbed. Reports about Abū Ṭālib’s rejection of Islam possessed polemical value to ʿAbbāsids and likely became popular among the ʿUthmāniyya who held ʿAlī and his house in contempt.18

Exegesis explaining the reason for which a number of verses were revealed has played a large role in condemning Abū Ṭālib.19 The canonization of the ḥadīth collections of Bukhārī and Muslim and their inclusion of reports that only placed Abū Ṭālib in hell undoubtedly influenced the later Sunnī community to consider him damned.20 While Shīʿī scholars possessed an outlook that permitted the dismissal of ḥadīth in the ṣaḥīḥayn as false without any dilemmas, Sunnī theologians felt obliged to acknowledge their authenticity and used some ingenuity to incorporate them in their defense of the salvation of Abū Ṭālib. These Sunnī authors concluded that Abū Ṭālib would go to hell for a period, but that he would eventually enter paradise. Theologians could thus be grouped into three groups: those who believed Abū Ṭālib was eternally damned, those who believed he was innocent of any wrongdoing, and those who believed he would be temporarily punished. The works of Sunnī and Shīʿī scholars belonging to the last two categories are reviewed in this article as they both agree on his salvation. I will compare their methods of argumentation and some of their proofs to better understand how they respond to the opposing viewpoint.

The pronouncements of those who condemn Abū Ṭālib have been excluded from this study for two reasons. First, their method of argumentation is straightforward. They cited reports from the two most revered collections of ḥadīth in the Sunnī tradition and utilized their contents to judge the truthvalue of reports recorded in other works. In their opinion, proof-texts regarding Abū Ṭālib’s conversion or salvation are insufficient or can be shown to be defective through isnād criticism. Second, the treatises under review cite the major proofs of their opponents before responding with rebuttals. As a result, an investigation of judgments regarding Abū Ṭālib’s condemnation would largely be redundant. To my knowledge, complete treatises on Abū Ṭālib’s doom do not exist.21 However, canonical ḥadīth collections and their commentaries comprehensively discussed the matter.22

The Salvation of Abū Ṭālib in Sunnism

Before reviewing some of the extant treatises, this section introduces a few scholars in the Sunnī intellectual tradition who have upheld the salvation of Abū Ṭālib. Al-Sayyid Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Rasūl al-Barzanjī al-Husaynī

(d. 1103/1691) can be credited for writing the first comprehensive treatise within the Sunnī community defending the salvation of Abū Ṭālib, although two groups of predecessors preceded him. On one hand, there were Sunnī scholars and ḥadīth transmitters who agreed with him, but never wrote a treatise on the matter.23 On the other, there were scholars who narrated reports concerning the salvation of Abū Ṭālib, but were unsure of the truth of the matter. Both groups obviously cannot be included in the alleged consensus of Sunnī scholars who consider him doomed.24

Although literary evidence suggests a handful of Sunnī scholars upheld the salvation of Abū Ṭālib before al-Barzanjī wrote his text in 1088 AH,25 some have been mistakenly included in such lists. Despite claims to the contrary, it seems that neither al-Qurṭubī (d. 671/1273), Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 771/1370), nor Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) argued for the salvation of Abū Ṭālib. Unfortunately, the distinction is rarely made between scholars who only noted the existence of evidence for the salvation of Abū Ṭālib and those who upheld such a belief. For example, Aḥmad Zaynī Daḥlān and ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn al-Amīnī (d. 1392/1972) mention al-Qurṭubī, al-Subkī, al-Suyūṭī, and al-Shaʿrānī (d. 973/1565) as part of a circle of Sunnī scholars in the Sunnī tradition who upheld Abū Ṭālib’s conversion to Islam.26 Al-Shaʿrānī does indeed defend the salvation of Abū Ṭālib in one work, but al-Qurṭubī only mentions the possibility.27 In contrast, al-Subkī and al-Suyūṭī explicitly uphold the view that Abū Ṭālib rejected Islam. The confusion that may have arisen with Subkī is discussed below. A treatise of al-Barzanjī is frequently misattributed to al-Suyūṭī, who despite utilizing similar hermeneutical techniques to “save” the Prophet’s parents in numerous treatises, refrains from employing them for the benefit of Abū Ṭālib.28 Both al-Shaʿrānī and al-Qurṭubī refer to his salvation only in the context of some Sufis who believed that God resurrected Abū Ṭālib in order for him to convert. Those who upheld such a belief drew parallels with Christ’s ability to resurrect the dead and state that such a miracle was fully in accordance with the Prophet’s rank as the greatest prophet.29 They firmly believed that God had resurrected the Prophet’s parents in this way, so that on the Day of Judgment they could be raised as faithful members of the Muslim community.

In contrast, I have not found direct evidence that Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī (d. 756/1355) or his son Tāj al-Dīn believed in the salvation of Abū Ṭālib as some have claimed.30 Rather Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī argues explicitly that Abū Ṭālib was condemned to hell because he never converted.31 However, scholars who believed in Abū Ṭālib’s salvation appealed to al-Subkī because he did indeed consider Abū Ṭālib to have believed (kāna muʿtaqidan) in the prophethood of Muḥammad. He cites Abū Ṭālib’s poetry as clear proof that he accepted the prophetic claims of his nephew.32 However, in his theological discussion of what constitutes proper “faith” (īmān) and the minimum requirements of salvation, a long-standing debate in the theological tradition, al-Subkī comes down on the side of ḥadīth specialists and most Sunnī theologians. He argues that faith in the heart, which Abū Ṭālib seems to have possessed, was not enough for salvation because God required a full conversion, which consisted of pronouncing the testimony of faith (shahāda) and submitting to His legal commandments.33

He acquiesces that in the view of ʿAbd al-Azīz b. Yaḥyā al-Kinānī al-Makkī (d.c. 240/854) and the circle of Jahm b. Ṣafwān’s (d. 128/746), faith in the heart was sufficient, but that he considered this belief to be incorrect. Al-Qarāfī (d. 684/1285) makes the same point about the insufficiency of faith in the heart alone in the context of discussing Abū Ṭālib. Al-Qarāfī acknowledges that Abū Ṭālib believed in the prophethood of his nephew manifestly and in his heart (āmana bi ẓāhirih wa-bāṭinih).34 Both al-Subkī and al-Qarāfī acquiesce in the arguments of the Sunnī and Shīʿī authors who claim Abū Ṭālib’s poetry clearly indicate his belief in the prophethood of Muḥammad. Their response is that such faith was not enough for salvation, and they deny any possibility that he had ever secretly converted, citing the authority of canonical ḥadīth that contradict such a claim.

According to Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449), ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Suhaylī (d. 581/1185) allegedly saw in a book by al-Masʿūdī (d. 345/956) that Abū Ṭālib became a Muslim.35 Despite some acceptance as a Shāfiʿī, the latter was also considered a Shīʿī,36 so such a discovery in one of his books would not be surprising. However, Ibn Ḥajar’s memory is slightly off: al-Suhaylī had in fact seen that ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, the Prophet’s grandfather, had died a Muslim in al-Masʿūdī’s famous extant work of history.37 Nonetheless, al-Suhaylī and Ibn Ḥajar are correct in noting that ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib’s death as a Muslim would also imply Abū Ṭālib’s conversion, since the latter publicly claimed on his deathbed to follow the religion of his father. In any case, the earliest recension of Abū Ṭālib’s conversion in the Sunnī community exists in the sīra of Muḥammad b. Isḥāq (d. 151/767), a text which obviously predates al-Masʿūdī’s works by two centuries.38

The texts written by Sunnī authors in this survey are Sadād al-Dīn wa-Sidād al-Dayn fī Najāt al-Abawayn al-Sharifayn (“Correcting Belief and Providing Guidance in Substantiating the Salvation of the Two Noble Parents”) by al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-Barzanjī al-Husaynī;39 Bulūgh al-Maʿārib bi-Najāt Ābāʾihi wa-ʿAmmihi Abī Ṭālib (“Accomplishing the Aims of [proving] the Salvation of his Parents and his uncle Abū Ṭālib”) by al-Sayyid Sulaymān al-Azharī al-Lādhiqī, and Asnā al-Matālib fī Najāt Abī Ṭālib (“The Most Brilliant Demands for the Salvation of Abū Ṭālib”) by al-Sayyid Ahmad Zaynī Daḥlān al-Ḥasanī.40 The author of Bulūgh al-Maʿārib is not certain, however, internal evidence indicates he was alive in 1165/1752.41 The manuscript copy held at Princeton University ends without the author identifying himself, but the cover of the copy at the National Library in Cairo names “al-Sayyid Sulaymān al-Azharī al-Lādhiqī” as the author.42 The editor of the published edition of Bulūgh al-Maʿārib mistakenly identifies the author as Sulaymān b. ʿUmar al-ʿUjaylī, known as al-Jamal, but there is some evidence that this is incorrect.43 The author of Bulūgh was a Hāshimid who used the surname sayyid and his nisba (al-Lādhiqī) indicates that he was originally from Latakia or became a resident there. On the other hand, al-ʿUjaylī was born in Egypt (in the village of ʿUjayl) and settled in Cairo.44 Manuscripts of al-ʿUjaylī’s works neither include a sayyid surname nor the nisba “al-Lādhiqī.” Al-ʿUjaylī even assumes Abū Ṭālib’s rejection of Islam and punishment in hell to be true in his exegesis of the Qurʾān.45 Thus, it is unlikely al-ʿUjaylī is the author of our text.

Additional information about al-Sayyid Sulaymān al-Azharī does not appear in bibliographical catalogues, but one genealogist in Latakia has written about an imam of a large mosque in the city who possessed the same name and was contemporaneous to the composition of Bulūgh.46 Al-Sayyid Sulaymān b. Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Munʿim al-Ḥusaynī al-Azharī al-Lādhiqī allegedly came from a Moroccan Ḥusaynid family and studied at al-Azhar University. Sulaymān Pasha al-ʿAẓm (d. 1156/1742) asked him to come to Latakia (circa 1139/1727) in order to become the Imam of the newly constructed, large mosque known until today as al-Jāmiʿ al-Jadīd. Sulaymān al-Azharī also became the marshal of the Hāshimids (naqīb al-ashrāf ) of Latakia and the patriarch of a prominent family in the city.47 If Sulaymān al-Azharī is our third author then it seems all of the Sunnī authors were descendants of the Prophet who studied with leading Sunnī theologians and jurists and were granted public positions that required them to produce pronouncements.48

A thorough bibliographical study of treatises on the salvation of Abū Ṭālib in the Sunnī and Imāmī intellectual traditions was published in 2001 and can be found online.49 Notwithstanding the inclusion of a few scholars and lost texts from the medieval period that probably did not uphold Abū Ṭālib’s salvation,50 at least eighty texts are listed in defense of the faith and salvation of Abū Ṭālib. The bibliography is a good source for discovering some of the titles that have appeared over the past two centuries in both Sunnī and Imāmī circles.

Abū Ṭālib in the Shīʿī Tradition

It seems that questions regarding the faith of Abū Ṭālib did not enter Shīʿī circles until the middle of the second century hijrī. His faith and salvation may have been assumed and uncontested until then. For example, the Umayyadera Kufan text, Kitāb Sulaym b. Qays, makes no reference to debates regarding the salvation of Abū Ṭālib. He appears in the text as a powerful aide to the Prophet who would order his nephew to deliver the revelation from his Lord and diligently defend him from any harm. While this image of Abū Ṭālib also appears in Sunnī sources, it is not contradicted by any indication that he ever repudiated the message of the Prophet in Shīʿī literature. In fact, the author of Kitāb Sulaym and his audience assume Abū Ṭālib to be a devout Shīʿī when the Prophet specifically orders him to recognize ʿAlī as his successor, “Oh Abū Ṭālib listen now to your son ʿAlī and obey him. For indeed God has made his rank in proximity to His Prophet that of Aaron onto Moses.”51 Obviously, such advice would not be given to someone who rejected the prophethood of Muḥammad, Moses or Aaron. Finally, Abū Ṭālib is mentioned as a carrier of the sacred light that was passed on from Adam to ʿAlī.52 In Imāmī theology God would not have selected individuals guilty of polytheism or any other major sin to carry divine light in their loins and wombs. Both the ritual impurity and theological corruption of polytheists are generally upheld in Imāmī exegesis of the verse“Indeed the polytheists are impure” [Q9:28].53

Al-Kulaynī (d. 329/941) included a section on the faith and salvation of Abū Ṭālib in his al-Kāfī that succinctly expresses Shīʿī sentiments on the matter: Abū Ṭālib and his fathers were believers who witnessed the miracles of God, he hid his faith to protect the Prophet, and his reward for doing so will be magnified in the Hereafter. Al-Kulaynī’s collection is the earliest one to include reports from the ʿAlid Imams that characterize Sunnī ḥadīth about Abū Ṭālib’s punishment in hell as false.54 Following al-Kulaynī, al-Ṣadūq (d. 381/991) also relied upon ḥadīth in which authorities like Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq rejected claims about the unbelief of Abū Ṭālib to make his case.55

According to al-Najāshī (d. 450/1058), a number of Shīʿīs penned treatises on the faith of Abū Ṭālib in the fourth century (hijrī). For example, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. ʿAmmār al-Kūfī (d. 346/958), a prolific ḥadīth transmitter and writer, and Sahl b. Aḥmad (d. 380/990) reportedly wrote treatises entitled Īmān Abī Ṭālib.56 Sahl b. Aḥmad lived in Baghdad and upon his death, Sahl’s funeral prayers were led by the author of our earliest extant treatise, the famous Shīʿī theologian al-Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022).57 Al-Mufīd was one of Twelver Shīʿism’s most influential polymaths. He flourished in Baghdad under the Būyids and is well known for his rationalism and contributions to various disciplines.58 Al-Mufīd narrated ḥadīth from Sahl,59 so it is possible that Sahl may have inspired him to write on the subject.60 Although other influential Twelver Shīʿī scholars like al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067) transmitted reports about the faith of Abū Ṭālib in their ḥadīth collections,61 only authors who wrote comprehensive treatises on the subject are surveyed below.

In addition to al-Mufīd’s work, this article analyzes al-Hujja ʿalā al-dhāhib ilā takfīr Abī Ṭālib (“The Unequivocal Evidence Against Those Who Consider Abū Ṭālib an Unbeliever”) by Fikhār b. Maʿadd al-Mūsawī (d. 630/1232-3) and the unnamed treatise of ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Al-Amīnī.62 Like al-Azharī, al-Mūsawī was a prominent ʿAlid marshal. He lived in Iraq and was well connected to Shīʿī legal and ḥadīth circles as his reports on Abū Ṭālib and his various teaching licenses indicate.63 Al-Mūsawī was particularly famous for writing his treatise on Abū Ṭālib even in non-Shīʿī circles. The Muʿtazilī Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd praises his work in spite of his own decision to abstain from deciding on the salvation of Abū Ṭālib.64 Although he was not a Shīʿī, Ibn Abī l-Ḥadīd was staunchly pro-ʿAlid. He was exceptional in his readiness to critically engage Shīʿī literature and would occasionally agree with its authors. On the other hand, Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449) was an influential Shāfiʿī jurist and ḥadīth specialist more representative of Sunnī scholarship. He dismissed a Shīʿī book that argued the case for Abū Ṭālib’s conversion as untrustworthy Shīʿī myth.65 Ibn Ḥajar’s complete rejection of these Shīʿī reports is not surprising given his credentials as an expert of Sunnī ḥadīth and its criticism. After the second century hijrī, Sunnī ḥadīth specialists generally excluded Zaydī and Imāmī transmitters from their teaching circles due to their differing theologies and legal methodologies that they considered to be incorrect—if not heretical. Consequently, Ibn Ḥajar could not accept any of these reports narrated through Shīʿī transmitters as authoritative, even if al-Mūsawī’s text cited hundreds of them with complete chains of transmission.

Al-Amīnī was a leading cleric of Iranian descent who studied and lived most of his life in Iraq, but traveled the Muslim world compiling his encyclopedia al-Ghadīr.66 The eleven volumes of the unfinished encyclopedia are a testament to his outstanding scholarship. Al-Amīnī carefully scoured the Sunnī intellectual tradition (exegesis, poetry, ḥadīth, history, etc.) to document all attestations of the Prophet’s words regarding ʿAlī after his final pilgrimage at a pool (ghadīr) named al-khumm. The encyclopedia turns into a dialectical study of proof-texts in the Sunnī heritage that uphold various tenets of Shīʿī law, theology and history. Undoubtedly, al-Amīnī had read the criticisms of Sunnī ḥadīth specialists like Ibn Ḥazm, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, who claimed that Shīʿī beliefs were either unsubstantiated through acceptable chains of transmission or worse had no basis at all.67 Al-Amīnī methodically engaged them by limiting himself mostly to Sunnī sources and using the tools of Sunnī ḥadīth criticism to authenticate reports that were in his favor and dismiss others that were not.68 The wide breadth and polemical value of his work should not be understated. Al-Amīnī’s chapter on the faith of Abū Ṭālib is the third and most recent Shīʿī text in this study.

Pro-ʿAlid Sentiment in the Texts

The theologians arguing for the salvation of Abū Ṭālib, regardless of their sectarian affiliations, seem to be largely inspired by pro-ʿAlid sentiments and an allegiance to the belief in the flawless character of the Prophet. Pro-ʿAlid sentiment among non-Shīʿīs can be identified through their deep reverence for the Household (ahl al-bayt) and (occasionally) the belief in their succession to the Prophet in spiritual authority.69

Citing the Qurʼān (Q58:22) as a proof-text, the pro-ʿAlid authors in this study argue that it does not befit the Prophet to share a loving relationship with individuals destined for hell.70 The Prophet was simply too committed to God to blemish his allegiance to Him with love for someone who rejected the faith.71 Second, they argue that it does not befit the Prophet and his famous offspring to possess unbelieving ancestors. All of the authors agree that the Prophet and his Household descended from an unbroken chain of monotheists that extended back to the Biblical Adam. The belief in the prophetic light of Muḥammad descending through the loins of his ancestors is an evident motif in explanations of this belief.72 Scholars who do not ascribe faith to Muḥammad’s ancestors only acquiesce that none of them engaged in illicit sexual acts due to ḥadīth that they deem reliable in this regard.73 Finally, all of the authors are personally invested in the salvation of Muḥammad’s Household either due to their own descent from the Prophet or the legitimacy it gives to the theological beliefs of Sufism and Shīʿism.74

The Prophet’s Parents

Ḥadīth in the collections of al-Bukhārī and Muslim explicitly condemn the Prophet’s parents and Abū Ṭālib to hell.75 Scholars who extend salvation to the Prophet’s parents, but not to Abū Ṭālib, usually cite the ḥadīth of the ṣaḥīḥayn as the principal obstruction.76 There is a problem, however, in rejecting reports about the damnation of the Prophet’s parents and accepting those about Abū Ṭālib. For example, al-Suyūṭī and Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī (d. 974/1567), Shihāb al-Dīn al-Ālūsī (d. 1270/1854) and Ibrāhīm al-Bayjūrī (1276/1860) fall within this category.77 They accept that God will deal compassionately with people to whom no prophet appeared and also accept evidence that the Prophet’s grandfather and parents were actually monotheists.78 However, the damnation of Abū Ṭālib is predicated upon the assumption that he wished to remain upon the religion of his fathers, which the reports identify as the polytheism of the chiefs of Quraysh.79 A logical inconsistency emerges in the belief that the Prophet’s ancestors were monotheists, while Abū Ṭālib was a polytheist due to an allegiance to those same ancestors. With reference to the salvation of the Prophet’s parents and Abū Ṭālib, theologians have held one of three opinions; all are doomed, only Abū Ṭālib is doomed, or none are doomed. The authors of the texts under review belonged to the last category and in two cases, the surviving treatise on Abū Ṭālib directly followed one regarding the salvation of Muḥammad’s parents. This article surveys six representative treatises, three Shīʿī and three Sunnī.

The Proof-Texts

Some of the verses and reports that are cited in these treatises will be summarized and numbered here to acquaint the reader with the material and for easy reference throughout the rest of the paper. For the reports, I have only given a general description of the contents and cited the different recensions that fit the appropriate category.

Verse 1 (V1) Qurʾān, 28:56,“indeed you cannot guide whomever you desire [to guide], but it is God who guides the one who wishes [for guidance] . .” 80

(V2) Qurʾān, 9:113,“It is not fitting that the Prophet and those who believe should seek forgiveness for polytheists, though they may be close kin, after it is clarified to them that they are destined for jaḥīm.” 81

(V3) Qurʾān, 9:114,“And Abraham prayed for his father’s forgiveness only due to a promise he had made to him. Yet when it became evident to him that he was an enemy of God, he disassociated himself from him . .”

Report 1 (R1) Abū Ṭālib is on his deathbed and in the presence of the polytheists of Quraysh. He refuses the Prophet’s request to pronounce the shahāda.82

(R1S) There are reports through Saʿīd b. al-Musayyab that specifically mention the revelation of V2 and then V1 after the death of Abū Ṭālib. Most who believe in the damnation of Abū Ṭālib cite (R1S) reports as unequivocal evidence since they appear in the ṣaḥīḥayn.83

(R2) Abū Ṭālib is on his deathbed and in the presence of his brother ʿAbbās b. ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib begins moving his lips. ʿAbbas moves nearer to him and hears him reciting the shahāda to himself. ʿAbbas is consistently portrayed in each recension as the only one who hears the statement. He informs the Prophet after the event by swearing, “by God, he said the words which you commanded him to recite.”84

(R3) The Prophet is asked if Abū Ṭālib’s kinship and good deeds in service of the Prophet will benefit him in the hereafter. The Prophet responds that his uncle will be brought from the depths of hell to its highest level, where only his feet will touch the fire.85

(R4) The Prophet is asked if he wishes anything for Abū Ṭālib after the latter’s death and he says, “I hope for him all that is good.”86

(R4I) One of the twelve Imams extols the great hidden faith of Abū Ṭālib or specifically denies the authenticity of R3 (that he will reside at the highest level of hell) in a Shīʿī ḥadīth.87

(R5) Three individuals are spared from the fire or in some recensions, guaranteed intercession; Muḥammad’s father, mother, and Abū Ṭālib.88

(R6) The Prophet orders ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib to administer Abū Ṭālib’s last rites and burial.89 He also orders ʿAlī to maintain ritual purity throughout the entire procedure.90

(R7) Muslims witness the Prophet asking God to forgive Abū Ṭālib. This prompts the community to begin praying for the wellbeing of their polytheist ancestors and the revelation of V2 and in some recensions V3.91

(R8) When the elders of Quraysh agreed to the boycott of the clans of Hāshim and Muṭṭalib, they signed a covenant and placed it inside the Kaʿba for its sanctification and safe-keeping. During the boycott, the Prophet received revelation that the parchment describing the conditions of the boycott had been eaten by insects except for the words “In Your Name, O God.” When the Prophet informs Abū Ṭālib of this revelation, he has no doubt in the Prophet’s words and succeeds in using the information to end the boycott. He goes to the chiefs and publicly challenges them to end the boycott if the parchment is in the condition that Muḥammad described. They agree to the challenge and remove the parchment from the Kaʿba to find it eaten away except for the name of God. It is shortly after this incident that the boycott comes to an end.92

(R9) Abū Ṭālib states his final will to the clan of ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib and informs them that they will be guided as long as they follow Muḥammad.93