Skip to main content

Tag: proof

Father Of The Prophet In The Fire? Yet He Was From Those Before The Sending! – Shaykh Rabī’

Question:
Ahlul-Fatra (those people who lived during the break in the series of Messengers) were Mushrikūn (polytheists) kuffār (disbelievers). However, there is a party of the People of Knowledge who say, “Indeed Ahlul-Fatra will not be punished up until the divine proof has been established upon them.” So based on this statement, the following hadīth poses as a problem: “Indeed my father and your father are in the Fire.” [Muslim, hadith no.247]
That which is well known is that the father of the Messenger – صلى الله عليه وسلم – was before the sending (of the Prophet). So what is the principle rule in knowing who Ahlul-Fatra were and who the Mushrikūn were before the sending of the Messenger – صلى الله عليه وسلم –?

Answer:
Ahlul-Fatra are those who had no Prophet sent to them. Allāh, the Most-High, said,

“O People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Now has come to you Our Messenger (Muhammad – صلى الله عليه وسلم –) making things clear to you, after a break in (the series of) Messengers, lest you say, “There came to us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner.”[Al-Māidah:19].

This is that period of time between ‘īsā (Jesus) and Muhammad – عليهما الصلاة والسلام – this is a period (of a break in the series of Messengers). Whoever died in this period of time, whilst there didn’t reach him anything from the (divine) Message, the message of Mūsā or ‘īsā, this person although he may have been upon shirk (polytheism), Allāh will raise him on the Day of Resurrection, examine and test him. This applies to the one who died in this period of time, the mentally disabled, the deaf person, the child, the old senile person who lacks understanding. This person will say, “No warner came to me in this period of time and had he come to me, I would have believed.” The mentally disadvantaged would say, “I was disadvantaged mentally, the children would push me into the side of the pathways.” Another would say, “He (the Messenger) came to me, yet I was feeble-minded and couldn’t hear.”
So Allāh will send to them a Messenger from the Angels or other than them, who will say to them, “enter the Fire!” So whoever from them is prepared to enter the Fire, will be considered as an obedient believer. And whoever rejects and refuses, will be considered a disbeliever who shall enter the Fire, because this person, if a warner came to him and established upon him the proof, he would contest and oppose him like the rest of the Mushrikīn. So this person would enter the Fire due to his disbelief.

It is possible that a person is from this period of time (fatra) yet the evidence reached him from the remnants of the religion of Ibrāhīm, Mūsā or ‘īsā. So this person, the proof has been established with him. Hence, the Messenger – صلى الله عليه وسلم – mentioned concerning some of the Mushrikīn – they are in the Fire, because the proof had reached them yet they refused to enter into the true religion – the religion of Islam.

Before the sending of Muhammad there remained something from the da’wah of Ibrāhīm – عليه السلام -. So to whoever it became apparent concerning that which the Arab were upon was Shirk, like with Waraqah ibn Nawfal and Zayd ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufayl and other than them, if he was to remain with his people with that which they were upon, this person would be from the People of the Fire. However, if he was to shun this Shirk and abandon it as did Waraqah and his companions, then these – if Allāh wills – are from the People of Salvation.

The proof cannot be established until a person hears the evidence and understands it. So when you come and read to an Indian person for example, a non-Arab who doesn’t know Arabic and you read the Qur’ān to him, (can we say) the evidence has been established upon him? Another person is English! Another American! Is this the way the da’wah of the Messenger was?!

Therefore it is necessary to establish the clear proof. The Messenger – صلى الله عليه وسلم – used to explain and make clear. So when he used to write to Caesar and Chosroes, there was for them translators who would translate for them so they understood. So once they understand, the proof is then considered as being established and (if they refuse and) want to fight us, we fight them, and if we’re not able, Allāh is in charge of their affair and the proof has been established upon them.

 

Fatāwā Faḍeelatis-Shaykh Rabī’ Al-Madkhalī, Majmū’ Kutub Wa Rasāil Wa Fatāwā Ash-Shaykh Al-‘Allāmah Rabī’ bin Hādī Al-Madkhalī  – Volume 14, page 318 – 320, fatwā no. 48 & 104 (combined together and abridged).
Translated by Abū Humayd Sālim.

Follow the Evidences & Not Innovate – Shaykh Zayd Al Madkhalee

 

Shaykh Zayd ibn Haadi Al Madkhalee (Rahimahullah) said:

Indeed the people are commanded to follow (evidences) and they are prohibited from innovating (in the religion), since they are not allowed except to hold firm to the text and evidences from the Quraan and Sunnah, upon the understanding of the predecessors of this Ummah and those who walked upon their way step by step (exactly without any change).

And there is no allowable pathway to divert away from this to the statements of the people of innovation and misguidances and the people of opposing opinions to the correct Islamic belief and his upright and sound methodology.

التعليقات اللطيفة على أصول السنة المنيفة للشيخ زيد المدخلي

 

Concerning the Correct understanding of: Laa Inkaar fee Masaa-il Al-Khilaaf

There is no inkaar (renouncement/disapproval of one another) in those affairs of the Religion in which the (scholars) hold differences of opinion

Some people are under the illusion that what is intended by this statement, is that it is not permissible to disapprove of (one another) with regards to any affair in which difference of opinion is held. So based upon this (illusion of theirs), it becomes impermissible to disapprove of a Munkar (an evil) unless there is complete agreement in doing so. This is a wrong understanding necessitating the closure of the door of enjoining good and forbidding evil.

The scholars hold differences of opinion in most of the masaa-il; and that which is correct with regards to this statement (Laa Inkaar Fee Masaa-il Al-Khilaaf) is that there should neither be harshness in disapproval nor reprimand with regards to those issues about which there is no manifest proof to be taken as the final (affair). And the basis upon which this is founded is that the issues of khilaaf are of two categories;

The First Category Of Khilaaf:

They are those issues of khilaaf in which there is proof necessitating that it be taken as the final (affair). So here, the proof must be taken and the other statement/opinion in opposition is discarded.

And whoever follows the statement/opinion that is established to be in opposition to the proofs, then he is to be renounced/disapproved of.

The Second Category Of Khilaaf:

It is those issues of khilaaf in which the proof has not been manifested for it to be taken as the final (affair). It is an affair in which the evidences are either at contention or the views are at variance. This is an issue of ijtihaad, and there is neither disapproval nor reprimand against the one in opposition; rather advice is given for acquaintance with the statement/opinion that carries more weight.

This second category of (khilaaf) is what is intended by the statement (Laa Inkaar Fee Masaa-il Al-Khilaaf), which some people have understood in an unrestrictive manner. [1]

The featured image (which may only be displayed on the index pages, depending on your settings) was randomly selected. It is an unlikely coincidence if it is related to the post.