The Inheritance of Abu Talib
Among the fabrications against Abu Talib was the pretense that Ali and Ja’far had not taken anything from the inheritance of their father because they were Muslims while their father was unbeliever.
We did not find the narrators of this lie in order to remove the cover from above this scandal and this disgrace!
Surely this lie was fabricated by someone, who was ignorant of the conditions of inheritance among the Muslims. Definitely, that fabricator did not know more than the tradition of “There is no succession between the followers of two different religions.”
We believe in this tradition but it means that the unbeliever is not to inherit from the Muslim.
This prophetic tradition would not prevent a Muslim from inheriting from an unbeliever because Islam exalted the Muslim as it was confirmed by many prophetic traditions such as: “Islam is exalted and nothing is to be more exalted than it.”
Hence Islam didn’t permit an unbeliever man to marry a Muslim woman because she was loftier than him whereas some of the ulema permitted a Muslim man to marry a (kitabi)
unbeliever woman in a continuous marriage. The Shia agreed upon the permission of marrying a kitabi unbeliever woman in temporary marriage as I knew.
If we submitted to this fabrication and supposed that it was true, although it was not, it would not be as evidence showing that Abu Talib was unbeliever because Ali and Ja’far, who were Muslims, had the right to inherit their father even if he was unbeliever as the fabricators pretended. The Islamic law did not forbid that but the one, who fabricated this lie, was unaware of Islam and its laws.
The Tradition of ad-Dhihdhah
The Tradition of ad-Dhihdhah
We would like to quote the different ways of the tradition as fabricated by the fabricators and then to discuss it.
1. Obeidillah bin Omar al-Qawareeri, Muhammad bin Abu Bakr al-Maqdimi and Muhammad bin Abdul Melik al-Amawi said: Abu Owana told us from Abdul Melik bin Omayr from Abdullah bin al-Harith bin Nawfal that al-Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib had said: “O messenger of Allah! Did you benefit Abu Talib with something? He protected and defended you. The Prophet (S) said, Yes! He is in a shallow place of Hell but without me, he will be in the lowest bottom of Hell.”
2. Ibn Abu Omar from Sufyan from Abdul Melik bin Omayr that Abdullah bin al-Harith said: “I heard al-Abbas saying: “I said: O messenger of Allah! Abu Talib used to protect and support you. Did that benefit him? He said, yes! I found him in a flood of Fire and I took him out to a shallow place (in Hell!).””
3. Muhammad bin Hatim from Yahya bin Sa’eed from Sufyan… etc. like the first one.
4. Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba from Wakee’ from Sufyan… like the first one.
5. Qutayba bin Sa’eed from Layth from ibn al-Had from Abdullah bin Khabbab that Abu Sa’eed al-Khidri said: “Once Abu Talib was mentioned near the Prophet (S). The Prophet (S) said, My intercession may benefit him in the Day of Resurrection. He may be put in a shallow place of Fire reaching his heels and making his brain boil.”
6. Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba from Affan from Hammad bin Salama from Thabit from Abu Othman an-Nahdi that ibn Abbas said: “The Prophet (S) said: The least tortured one among the people of Hell is Abu Talib where he wears two shoes, from which his brain boils.”
7. Musaddad from Yahya from Sufyan from Abdul Melik from Abdullah bin al-Harth said: “Al-Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib (may Allah be pleased with him) told us that he had said to the Prophet (S)”, “With what did you benefit your uncle? He protected and defended you.” The Prophet (S) said: “He is in a shallow place of Fire and without me; he would be in the lowest bottom of Hell.”
8. Abdullah bin Yousuf from al-Layth… etc. like the fifth tradition.
9. Ibraheem bin Hamza from Abu Hazim and ad-Darawardi from Yazeed… like the fifth tradition.
The Narrators
Now we discuss the series of narrators of these traditions to see their positions and their weights in the scales of the men of Hadith.
1. The first tradition:
a. Obeidillah al-Qawareeri: we didn’t find any mention of him in Mizanul I'tidal. We found one tradition in al-Ghadeer that Obeidillah was one of the narrators but the author said about him: “Al-Bukhari mentioned only five traditions narrated by Obeidillah al-Qawareeri and Muslim mentioned forty traditions. Ahmed bin Yahya heard from him one hundred thousand traditions.
So what about this rubbish narrated by this man that al-Bukhari and Muslim didn’t quote from this man save a few traditions and brushed the rest aside? It was not possible that they hadn’t known the rest of his traditions.”
b. Muhammad bin Abu Bakr al-Maqdimi: we did not find any mention of him save Muhammad bin Abu Bakr only and it was said, that he was unknown.
A false tradition was mentioned in al-Ghadeer and one of its narrators was Muhammad bin Abu Bakr al-Maqdimi.
c. Muhammad bin Abdul Melik al-Amawi: it was enough for him to be an Umayyad man to fabricate such a tradition or to narrate traditions like it against Abu Talib.
If he was Muhammad bin Abdul Melik bin Marwan bin al-Hakam, it would be enough for us that his father was that Umayyad tyrant and his two grandfathers were cursed by the Prophet (S), who called them as the deviants.
The Prophet (S) cursed Al-Hakam and his offspring. The Prophet (S) had expelled al-Hakam from Medina.
Marwan was but a leftover of the curse of the Prophet (S) as Aa’isha had said.
As for this Muhammad, Abu Dawood said about him: “He was not sane.”
d. Abu Owana: we couldn’t know who he was.
e. Abdul Melik bin Omayr: ath-Thahabi said about him: “He became the judge of Kuffa after ash-Shi’bi. He lived for a long time and so his memory became weak.”
Abu Hatim said about him: “He was not a good memorizer. His memory changed.” Imam Ahmed said about him: “He was weak and often mistook.” Ibn Mo’een said: “His mind was muddled.”
Ibn Kharash said, “Shu’ba wasn’t satisfied with him.” Al-Kawsaj mentioned that Ahmed said: fiHe was very weak.” Ibn Habban said: “He concealed when narrating traditions.”
Among the oddities of this bad judge -and how many oddities the umma was afflicted with- was that he passed by Abdullah bin Baqtar after the tyrant Obeidillah bin Ziyad had thrown him from above the palace to the ground. The victim was still alive but this merciful (!!!) judge finished him off with his dagger.
Here is another event about this judge, who was the example of the judges of that time. He gave his judgments according to his emotion and fancy!
Kulthom bint
Saree’ came to him, when he was the judge of Kuffa, with a claim against her family. He unthoughtfully judged for her against her family. His judgment was suspected and doubted by people. The poet Huthayl bin Abdullah al-Ashja’iy recited a poem about this event:
Waleed came to him with witnesses,
Confirming his right of the property and the servants,
And Kulthom came to him with her sweet talks,
Which recovered from illness and madness?
Waleed proved his right; he was eloquent and disputatious.
But she had coquetry and black eyes.
She flirted and exposed her kohl.
She fascinated al-Qubtiy
so he judged for her
With other than the judgment of Allah revealed in the Quran.
If those in the palace knew his news,
They wouldn™t employ him in any job.
When he judged for women, he glanced furtively.
If a woman complained to him,
He coughed and hastened to judge for her.
He flashed his eyes and chewed his tongue,
That he saw everything as nothing save her.
2. The narrators of the second tradition:
a. The series of the narrators began as usual with this obscure name: ibn Abu Omar!
b. After that came Sufyan ath-Thawri, whom we talked about when we discussed the first tradition fabricated against Abu Talib and we found that he was a liar.
3. As for the narrators of the third tradition, we already talked about them before; they were Muhammad bin Hatim, Yahya bin Sa’eed and Sufyan.
4. The narrators of the fourth tradition:
a. Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba: Ath-Thahabi considered this name as one of the unknown names.
b. We couldn’t know who Wakee’ was.
If he was Wakee’ bin aj-Jarrah, then ibn al-Medeeni said about him: “Wakee’ often mistook and if I narrated from him, it would be so odd. He often said: Ash-Shi’bi told us from Aa’isha…!”
Ahmed bin Hanbal was asked, “If Wakee’ and Abdur Rahman bin Mehdi disagreed about something, who’s saying we would depend upon?” He said, “Abdur Rahman is more fit especially if Sufyan was there.” And this tradition was narrated by Wakee’ from Sufyan.
Ath-Thahabi thought that he might complete the ring of criticism by saying about ibn al-Medeeni in his book at-Tahtheeb: “He had a little thing of Shiism.”
This tone of ath-Thahabi was clear in expressing his abominable sectarianism. If he wanted to exaggerate in criticizing someone, he would ascribe him to Shiism, which was considered by him as worse than unbelief and blasphemy.
We would not argue with him about this but we wanted to show that he had contradicted himself. If this narrator was not trusty because of his Shiism then why did they depend upon his tradition? If he were really a Shia, this tradition would not be his because it would contradict his actual belief about Abu Talib.
Anyhow, it was not important for us whether he was a Shia or not. It was important for us that the man was untrusted and unreliable for those, who stuck to the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah.
5. The narrators of the fifth tradition:
a. Qutayba bin Sa’eed: Ath-Thahabi said about him: “No one knew who he was!”
b. Al-Layth: there were many persons having this name. Most of them were either unknown or weak or whose traditions were denied or confused… etc.
If he was al-Layth bin Sa’eed -as the author of Sheikhul Abtah said
- then Yahya bin Mo’een said about him: “He took traditions from the old men unthoughtfully and depended upon hearing from this and that.” An-Nabatiy mentioned him in his commenting on the book al-Kamil as one of the weak narrators.
c. Yazeed bin Abdullah bin al-Had: Abu Abdullah al-Hadda’ mentioned him among those, who were accused of being unreliable.
Ibn Mo’een said about him: “He narrated from every one.”
d. Abdullah bin Khabbab: aj-Jawzajani said about him: “No one knew him.”
6. The narrators of the sixth tradition:
a. Abu Bakr bin Abu Shayba: we talked about him in the fourth tradition.
b. Affan: who was he?
He might be Affan bin Muslim because he narrated from Hammad bin Salama and this was mentioned by ath-Thahabi when talking about a tradition of his.
It was this one, about whom ibn Adiy said, “… by Allah, if he tried his best to narrate one correct tradition from Shu’ba, he couldn’t. He was slow and bad in memorizing and he was slow in perceiving.”
Abu Khaythama said: “We denied (traditions of) Affan some days before his death.”
c. Hammad bin Salama: Ath-Thahabi said about him that he had illusions.
Ibn al-Medeeni said: “Yahya bin ad-Dhareer had ten thousand traditions from Hammad.”
Amr bin Salama said: “I have written down more than ten thousand traditions from Hammad bin Salama.”
Did you see this plentifulness of traditions; one said that he had ten thousand traditions and the other said that he had more than ten thousand?
It was said that it was not known that Hammad had these traditions until he went to Abadan one day. He began to narrate these traditions. The sayer said, “As if I thought that a Devil came out of the sea and threw these traditions to him (Hammad).”
Ibn ath-Thalji said: “I heard Abbad bin Suhayb saying: Hammad did not memorize (traditions) and it was said that the traditions were inserted in his books. It was said that ibn Abul Awja’, who was Hammad’s stepson, inserted traditions in his books.”
It was enough to refute the trustiness and reliability of this man as it was pretended by some ones that at-Thahabi himself, after praising and defending Hammad, mentioned some of Hammad’s traditions violating the exaltedness of Allah the Almighty. He had embodied the Exalted Creator in the ugliest way of embodiment! Glory is to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe to Him.
Hammad narrated a tradition saying: “Thabit narrated that Anass had said: “The Prophet (S) recited:
… but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble… (The Holy Quran, Shakir 7:143)
Then He extended the end of His pinkie and hit His thumb then the mountain sank.””
Hameed at-Taweel said to Thabit: “Do you narrate such things?”
He hit Hameed on the chest and said: “Do want me to conceal what Anass and the Prophet (S) have said?”
Hammad also narrated a tradition that the Prophet (S) had said: “I saw my God! Curled, beardless, and wearing a green garment… young… there was a curtain of pearls before Him. His feet and legs were in green…!”
Ath-Thahabi forgot his previous praise to Hammad when he commented on such traditions by saying: “This is one of the most denied oddities of Hammad bin Salama. It was just a vision of sleep if it was true.”
Then he said that ibn Adiy had mentioned some of single-narrated traditions of Hammad.
Also he mentioned that al-Bukhari had avoided Hammad and hadn’t narrated any of his traditions.
d. Thabit: we did not know who he was!
There were many persons having this name; among them there were the liars, the weak, the unknown and those, whose traditions were denied.
We didn’t know where his place would be among these categories.
He might be Thabit bin Abu Thabit, the brother of Habeeb bin Abu Thabit, who was the first one we talked about in discussing this distortion and fabrication against Abu Talib. If it was he, so ath-Thahabi considered him as unknown.
Of course, it was he, from whom Hammad bin Salama narrated traditions, and it was enough evidence for us to brush him aside that he agreed with Hammad in narrating the tradition that embodied Allah the Almighty.
Hence whoever dared to violate the exaltedness of Allah, would definitely not refrain from violating the sanctity of people.
e. Abu Othman an-Nahdi: he was unknown.
7. The narrators of the seventh tradition:
a. Musaddad: we could not know who he was. There was no one with this name in Mizanul I'tidal save al-Musaddad bin Ali, who was not so careful about traditions
but we did not know if he was the same one or another.
b. The rest of the series; Yahya, Sufyan and Abdul Melik. We talked about each of them and knew their situations.
8. The narrators of the eighth tradition:
a. Abdullah bin Yousuf: if he was Abdullah bin Yousuf at-Taneesiy as the author of Sheikhul Abtah mentioned, then he was considered by ibn Adiy as one of the weak narrators
but if he was Abdullah bin Sulayman bin Yousuf, who narrated traditions from al-Layth, then he was not reliable
and was suspected.
He narrated a tradition about the virtues but it was denied by at-Thahabi
and it would be denied by every prudent one.
b. Thus the series of the narrators reached al-Layth and then to the last one of the series we mentioned in the fifth tradition.
9. The narrators of the ninth tradition:
a. Ibraheem bin Hamza: we didn’t find anything leading to know him.
b. Ibn Abu Hazim, whose name was Abdul Azeez: ibn Sayyid an-Nass considered him as not so firm in his traditions as it was mentioned by al-Aqeeli in his book about the weak narrators. It was said that he used to narrate from his father but the books he had were not of his father. It was said that the books of Sulayman bin Bilal became with him and that Sulayman did not know that he distorted them.
Al-Fallass said, “I haven’t found ibn Mehdi narrating even a single tradition from ibn Abu Hazim.”
Ahmed bin Hanbal said: “It was not known that he cared for traditions. It was said that he was weak except in his father’s traditions.”
Ibn al-Madeeni said, “Hatim bin Isma’eel often criticized him about some traditions, which he narrated from his father. Hatim said to me, I forbade him from that but he paid no attention.”
c. Ad-Darawardi whose name was Abdul Azeez bin Muhammad:
Imam Ahmed said about him: fiIf he narrated out of his memory, he would imagine. He was nothing. When he narrated traditions, he told of false things.fl Abu Hatim said: “No one depended upon him.fl Abu Zar’a said: fiHe was a bad memorizer.”
d. Yazeed: we did not know who he was. If he was Yazeed bin Kayssan, we knew him previously. He was not reliable and no one depended upon him.
A Look at the Tradition
The round we did about the narrators of the tradition did not leave for us a bit of trust in them so that we might accept any tradition narrated by any of them.
We found in every series a group of liars, weak narrators, malicious men, unknown persons and those, whom we couldn’t find anything about.
If we found something unacceptable in one of the narrators of the tradition, we wouldn’t trust in the tradition at all, so how about it when all the members of the series were suspected and doubted especially when the tradition was about the faithfulness of the man, who supported and defended Islam?
There were other sides that made us not trust in this tradition and brush it aside even if its narrators were trusty… so how would it be where the narrators were liars or unknown persons and the tradition was false?
Here we discuss the other sides that confirmed the invalidity of the tradition:
1. There was a contradiction in the text of the tradition that made the meaning different from one narration to another.
In some narrations, we found that the pretended answer of the Prophet (S) was, “Yes, he is in a shallowness of Fire and without me (without my intercession) he will be in the lowest bottom of Hell.”
This showed that the intercession of the Prophet (S) was immediate and that it actually occurred. This appeared clearer in the second way of the tradition: “Yes, I found him in the deepest bottom of fire and I took him out to shallowness.” We didn’t know why the Prophet (S) hadn’t completed his favor upon his uncle whereas he had the power to take him out of the lowest bottom of Hell to a shallow place! Why did the Prophet (S) leave his favor uncompleted?
Al-Mutanabbi, the poet, said:
I have not seen among the defects of people something
Worse than a shortage in a favor of those who are able to
Complete it.
The Prophet (S) was the perfect ideal example of humanity, he was, chosen by Allah to perfect the morals and nobilities, and it was he, who had been, educated by his God so perfectly! Would he then leave his favors uncompleted?
Some ways of the tradition said: “… my intercession may benefit him in the Day of Resurrection.” This wording just showed a kind of praying.
The linguists said that it had the meaning of fihopingfl that the Prophet (S) hoped that the intercession might benefit his uncle. It might benefit him and it might not. If it was supposed that it would benefit, then it would be delayed until the Day of Resurrection!
Some other ways of the tradition said: “The least tortured one among the people of Hell is Abu Talib where he wears two shoes, from which his brain boils.” This didn’t show that he was the least tortured one among the people of Hell because of an intercessor that interceded for him or because that he deserved the least torture among the tortured in Hell.
How would it be possible for an unbeliever to be the least tortured one among the people of Hell?
Was unbelieving easier than disobedience or committing a sin to be said that this one would be tortured less than that one?
Then was that the least torment among the people of Hell? Did it have a thing of rest and comfort?
Was this torment easy where it would make “his brain flow over his feet”?
This saying contradicted the other that was said by someone, who justified this torture by saying that Allah would concentrate the torture on Abu Talib’s feet because he (Abu Talib) had fixed them on his old religion and so the punishment would conform to the guilt.
If the torture would be concentrated upon his feet only, then why would his brain boil, melt and flow over his feet? Was his brain an eternal spring that would not be empty?
O Allah! We seek Your protection against this silliness and superstition!
2. How would the Prophet (S) intercede for his uncle, who was unfaithful-as they pretended-whereas he had been forbidden from less than this according to the Quranic verses, because intercession was much greater than being loving or kind to the unfaithful people?
What was the reason behind the Prophet’s intercession for his uncle if he was forbidden from doing that?
Was the reason that because his uncle had supported him and his mission?
Then what made his uncle do that? And what made the Prophet (S) accept this support from an unfaithful man whereas the Prophet (S) himself had said: “O Allah! Don’t make a dissolute or an unbeliever have a chance of getting my kindness!”?
What made the Prophet (S) intercede for his uncle-if he was unfaithful-whereas there were many Quranic verses confirming that unfaithful people would be perpetuated in Hell for ever, wouldn’t get the mercy of Allah at all, their punishment wouldn’t be lessened and no intercession would benefit them?
Here are some of the verses:
a. Abiding in it; their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be given respite. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 2:162, 3:88)
b. These are they who buy the life of this world for the hereafter, so their chastisement shall not be lightened nor shall they be helped. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 2:86)
c. And leave those who have taken their religion for a play and an idle sport, and whom this world's life has deceived, and remind (them) thereby lest a soul should be given up to destruction for what it has earned; it shall not have besides Allah any guardian nor an intercessor, and if it should seek to give every compensation, it shall not be accepted from it; these are they who shall be given up to destruction for what they earned; they shall have a drink of boiling water and a painful chastisement because they disbelieved. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 6:70)
d. And when those who are unjust shall see the chastisement, it shall not be lightened for them, nor shall they be respited. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 16:85)
e. And (as for) those who disbelieve, for them is the fire of hell; it shall not be finished with them entirely so that they should die, nor shall the chastisement thereof be lightened to them: even thus do We retribute every ungrateful one. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 35:36)
f. And those who are in the fire shall say to the keepers of hell: Call upon your Lord that He may lighten to us one day of the punishment They shall say: Did not your messengers come to you with clear arguments? They shall say, Yea. They shall say, Then call. And the call of the unbelievers is only in error. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 40:49-50)
g. In gardens, they shall ask each other about the guilty: What has brought you into hell? They shall say: We were not of those who prayed; and we used not to feed the poor; and we used to enter into vain discourse with those who entered into vain discourses and we used to call the day of judgment a lie; till death overtook us, so the intercession of intercessors shall not avail them. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 74:40-48)
h. And warn them of the day that draws near, when hearts shall rise up to the throats, grieving inwardly; the unjust shall not have any compassionate friend nor any intercessor who should be obeyed. (The Holy Quran, Shakir 40:18)
i. There is a prophetic tradition saying: “When the people of Paradise enter into Paradise and the people of Hell enter into Hell, a caller stands up between them calling: O people of Hell! No death is here. O people of Paradise! No death is here. It is eternality!”
j. Another tradition saying: “It is said to the people of Paradise: Eternality… no death! And it is said to the people of Hell: O people of Hell! Eternality… no death!”
The mentioned above verses and prophetic traditions confirmed that the unbelievers would remain in the abasing torment forever and that the torment would not be lightened for the unbelievers even for a moment because intercession wouldn’t include them.
3. This tradition (of ad-Dhihdhah)-besides the contradiction in its text and the contradiction with the Quranic verses, which denied interceding for the unbelievers, contradicted the tradition fabricated against Abu Talib when he was dying; the tradition, which was discussed in details in the previous chapter of this book.
Therefore, the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah and that of the dying of Abu Talib were contradicted and they could not be depended upon even if the narrators were reliable.
In spite of that, we found that some of the narrators of the tradition of the dying of Abu Talib participated in narrating the Tradition of ad-Dhihdhah. The two traditions were contradicted whether in the text or in the meaning, so how did the narrators narrate two contradicted traditions?
Ibn Abu Omar, Muhammad bin Hatim and Yahya bin Sa’eed might forget, when narrating the next tradition, what they had fabricated in the previous one!
They forgot that a liar had to have a good share of memory lest he would be involved in what they had been involved in of such contradicted falsehood in order that their ill will would not be, uncovered so easily. In any case, this would be the end of every falsehood and fabrication!
They mentioned in the tradition of the dying of Abu Talib that the Prophet (S) had asked his uncle to declare the shahada so that the Prophet (S) would witness for him with it in the Day of Resurrection and then he would deserve intercession.
They said that he hadn’t declared shahada.
According to their tradition, they considered declaring shahada as the condition for deserving intercession and so Abu Talib would not deserve intercession without declaring shahada.
Therefore they didn’t say that the Prophet (S) interceded for his uncle but they said that he prayed Allah to forgive him until Allah forbade him from doing that and made him know that he mistook all that time when he begged forgiveness for his uncle in spite of that there were many verses revealed to him forbidding him from that.
Then they said that the Prophet (S) had interceded immediately for his uncle without declaring shahada when saying: “Yes! I found him in the lowest bottom of Fire but I took him out to a shallow place.”
So how did the Prophet (S) intercede for his uncle, who hadn’t declared shahada, if intercession was conditioned on declaring shahada?
Had Abu Talib declared shahada or he hadn’t?
If Abu Talib had not declared it as they said in the tradition of his dying, then how would the Prophet (S) intercede for him neither whereas the Quranic verses had confirmed that intercession would never include the unbelievers nor would their torment be lightened?
But if he had declared shahada, then the meaning of the tradition of the dying wouldn’t limit lightening the torment just to take Abu Talib out of the lowest bottom of Hell to a shallow place!
Was the Prophet (S) so stingy to a degree that he would not intercede for the man, who had brought him up, protected him, supported him, and defended him? Would he reward him for all that just by lightening some of his torment?
And what lightening of torment it was if his brain would melt and flow over his feet!
If Abu Talib had declared shahada and the Prophet (S) didn’t think that he had deserve intercession except after announcing shahada, then this tradition, which limited intercession just to lightening the torment, would contradict many other traditions mentioned in the books of Hadith (Sihah).
The traditions said that whoever declared shahada would be in Paradise and not in Hell: “He, who died and knew that there was no god but Allah, would enter into Paradise.”
And: “No one saying that there is no god but Allah will enter into Hell.”
Besides that, the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah itself in talking about the immediate intercession contradicted other traditions concerning the subject of intercession.
Here are some of these traditions:
“It was said to me: Ask for anything because every prophet had asked for something! I delayed my request until the Day of Resurrection to be for anyone of you witnessing that there is no god but Allah.”
The tradition showed that the Prophet (S) would not intercede for any one, who hadn’t declared shahada. So did the following traditions:
“I am granted intercession for my ummah. It will never be for any polytheist.”
“My intercession will include every Muslim.”
“Allah revealed to Gabriel (as): Go to Muhammad and say to him: Raise your head and ask for anything. You will be granted it. Intercede for anyone. Your intercession will be accepted… until his saying: Let anyone of your umma, who witnesses sincerely that there is no god but Allah even for one day and then dies, enter into Paradise.”
According to these traditions, no one would get intercession except who declared shahada. Although these traditions didn’t define intercession, they made us understand that the one, who would be interceded for, wouldn’t be in Hell.
Also we understood that the Prophet’s intercession was delayed until the Day of Resurrection where he didn’t ask for the request, which Allah had ordered him to ask for and delayed it until that day. He “will be the first intercessor and his intercession will be the first to be accepted.”
Then how did the Prophet (S) intercede for his unbeliever uncle whereas he had been ordered to intercede just for those, who declared shahada and became sincere Muslims?
And how did they determine the intercession for Abu Talib while it was delayed until the Day of Resurrection?
Therefore, this tradition not only contradicted the tradition of the dying of Abu Talib but also it contradicted many other traditions.
This contradiction was sufficient evidence to refute the two false traditions even if their dishonest narrators were regarded as reliable.
So how about it when the narrators were actually regarded as liars and fabricators?
There were some traditions of another kind. It would be better to quote some of them:
a. “Seventy thousand persons of my umma will enter into Paradise without being inquired.”
In some of them it was mentioned fiseventy thousand or seven hundred thousandfl that Abu Hazim didn’t know which of them.
It was this Abu Hazim, who was one of the narrators of the tradition of the dying of Abu Talib!
b. “Seventy thousand persons will be resurrected from this cemetery (al-Baqee’)
and they will enter into Paradise without being inquired.”
c. “Seventy thousand persons of my umma will enter into Paradise without inquiry or torment. With every thousand of them there will be seventy thousands.”
d. “I found my God glorious and generous; He granted me with every one of the seventy thousand ones, who would enter into Paradise without being inquired, seventy thousand ones.”
There was a long series of such traditions with great numbers but we did not want to busy the reader’s mind with them that the reader might multiply seventy thousand by seventy thousand to see what the result would be!
But did he, who fabricated the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah, check this seventy thousands multiplied by seventy thousands and didn’t find Abu Talib among them and then he entered into Hell to find Abu Talib there and his brain flowing over his feet?
We would like to say that we didn’t trust in many of the traditions we mentioned above and we didn’t want to discuss them because they were away from our subject but we just wanted to argue by them with the fabricators of the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah no more no less because all of these traditions were mentioned in the Sihah and they drew from the same source and met at the same purpose!
We quoted here a saying of someone of the Ansar, who was the last one of the public speakers, whom Mo’awiya had appointed to curse and abuse Imam Ali (as) on the minbars. This man was called Onayss. He praised Allah and then said, “You have cursed and abused this man (Ali) too much today. I swear by Allah that I have heard the Prophet (S) saying: “I will intercede for people in the Day of Resurrection as much as the clay and the trees on the earth.” I swear by Allah that no one was kinder to his relatives than him (the Prophet). Do you think that he will intercede for you and he will be unable to intercede for his family…?”
What a wonderful word it was that didn’t need any comment!
4. We saw that the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah talked about the intercession of the Prophet (S) for his uncle. This intercession occurred either after Abu Talib had declared the shahada and then it would save him from Hell according to the traditions of intercession we mentioned above or before declaring shahada and then the intercession would be invalid according to the clear Quranic verses in this concern.
If we noticed Abu Talib’s doings and sayings, the witnesses of the Prophet (S) and his progeny about him and if we noticed the defects of the narrators, we would find that this tradition was invalid and untrue besides that it contradicted the Quranic verses.
If a tradition contradicted the holy Quran, it would be brushed aside even if the narrators were trusty and reliable.
5. The tradition was ascribed to al-Abbas, who was free from it, and it was contradicted by the tradition of the dying of Abu Talib that was ascribed to al-Abbas, who said-or it was pretended that he had said-that he had heard Abu Talib at the last moment of his life saying the shahada, which the Prophet (S) had asked him for so that he could intercede for him with Allah. It was mentioned in the tradition that al-Abbas had said to the Prophet (S): “He said the word you asked him for.”
We said when commenting on the tradition that he, who thought that the tradition was true, had to take into consideration all the tradition until the end or he had to brush it all aside and not to take what satisfied his fancy and to leave what objected his purpose.
He, who thought that the two traditions; the tradition of the dying and the tradition of ad-Dhihdhah, were true, would be involved in contradiction as we discussed before and he, who denied one of them, had to deny the other because the narrators of the two traditions were the same. He, who denied a tradition narrated by a liar, must not accept another one narrated by the same narrator.
6. How would the Prophet (S), with his intercession, be unable to take his uncle out of the shallowness of Fire into Paradise after he had been able to take him out of the lowest bottom of Fire to a shallow place (dhihdhah) as they pretended and so the Prophet (S) would complete his favor without any shortage?
Couldn’t the Prophet (S) do that whereas we found a tradition talking about the virtues of Othman saying: “Seventy thousand persons, who deserve to be in Hell, will enter into Paradise without being inquired by the intercession of Othman?”
You noticed this number; seventy thousand that marked all the traditions, which tried to insert this fixed number into Paradise without inquiring although they deserved to be in Hell!
Then we asked: Was the caliph Othman more honorable near Allah than Prophet Muhammad?
Didn’t the Prophet (S) have a value near Allah that equaled to one in comparison with the seventy thousand values the third caliph had?
What made Allah not accept the Prophet’s intercession for his uncle, who deserved to be in Hell as they fabricated, to take him to Paradise whereas the Prophet (S) had done every Muslim great favors and at the same time Allah accepted the intercession of Othman for seventy thousand ones, who all deserved to be in Hell but the mercy of Allah took them to Paradise?
Why would this great mercy of Allah turn away from Abu Talib, who had brought up the Prophet (S), protected, assisted, and defended him and his religion? Would Allah be satisfied with lightening Abu Talib’s torment only by taking him out of the lowest bottom of Hell and putting him in a shallow place of Hell and not letting him be in Paradise?
Yes! Abu Talib was not in need of any intercession! The justice of Allah the Almighty would lead him to Paradise as a reward for his great deeds! If Paradise would not be for Abu Talib and his likes, for whom would, it be then?
But as for intercession, it would be for those, who didn’t deserve to be in Paradise according to their deeds but by virtue of the forgiveness of Allah the Merciful they would be forgiven.
Allah would not forgive any polytheist; thus His justice had determined, while He would forgive whomsoever He pleased other than polytheists; and thus his pardon and forgiveness had determined.
Such a tradition against Abu Talib was but a result of hatred and grudge towards good people, high values, and benevolence!
O Allah! We seek your protection. We pray You not to let us deviate from the straight way or stray in the slips of dangers or the abysses of darkness!
Notes
0%
Author: The Scholar Abdullah Al Khunaizy
