There are many such traditions that are contradictory to one another. Considering the contradictons, the correctness of the tradition under review is questionable. Another valid reason is that the narrators too are not dependable. From the first tradition it appears that the Verse was revealed six years after the demise of Abu Talib, because the Battle of Ohod was fought in the year 3 H. and he had expired three years prior to the Hijra. Hazrat Ayesha’s version suggests that the Verse was revealed around three to four years after the death of Abu Talib because she was married in 1H which was the period about three or four years after the demise of Abu Talib. In this event the Verse cannot concern Abu Talib since, at the time of its revelation, he was no more in the world. And, after a person’s death, neither there is need of guidance for him nor any reason for his refusing to take advice! And, if it is presumed that the Verse was revealed on many occasions, it cannot be accepted till there is a positive proof of the events.
Fourthly, even if the Verse is accepted to have been revealed concerning Abu Talib, no doubt can be cast as to his Faith because the manner is the same as the Verse “Maa ramaita iz ramait walakinallahrami” O Prophet! When you threw the arrow, it was not you, but Allah has thrown it. In this verse there is contradiction of rami with the words maa ramait and with iz ramait there is affirmation. Affirmation because the event was performed at the hands of the Prophet (s.a.), and contradiction because in actual fact the act emanated from Allah.. So, in the Verse there is affirmation of the guidance and contradiction as well. It means that apparently the guidance was through the Prophet (s.a.)’s preaching and instructions, but in reality it was the result of Allah’s help and support. The reason is that Allah is the fountainhead of Guidance. If His consent is not available, none can achieve the state of guidance! The Prophet, in this process of guidance is only the medium. Now, the Verse doesn’t mean that the Prophet (s.a.) cannot guide
those whom he considers his friends, or he cannot influence them with his guidance. The meaning is that those whom the Prophet holds friends too are guided by Allah to the path of Faith. This view is supported by other verses of the Holy Quran, like:
“Laisa alaika hadahum wa lakin Allah yahdi main yasha
O Prophet (s.a)! Responsibility of guiding these people
is not on you, Allah gives guidance to those He wants to.
This illustrates that the guidance of Abu Talib to the path of Virtue was not only because of The Prophet (s.a.)’s guidance, but Allah’s Wish was there. This Verse adds confirmation to Abu Talib’s Faith rather than contradicting it. The services that he rendered to Islam are a positive proof of his Faith, and Allah’s Wish has been his motivating factor in all these efforts!
The fifth point is that if the Verse is accepted to have been revealed concerning Abu Talib, then it is confirmed that The Prophet (s.a) held him in great regard as a friend, which fact is a part of history. The Prophet (s.a.) expressed affection for Aqeel ibne Abu Talib because of the love for his father:
“I consider you a friend on two counts. Firstly because of my relationship with you. Secondly because of the love for Abu Talib who had affection
for you. “”
Tareeq e Islam Zahbi, Vol 2, Page 233
This love for Abu Talib is a positive proof of his Faith.because the Prophet (s.a.) couldn’t possibly have befriended or loved any infidel or hypocrite. Therefore Allah says:
“Those who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement,
You will not find them befiriending the enemies of Allah and His Prophet, Even if they are their fathers, sons, brothers or men of their Tribe.
When Muslims are asked not to brfriend the infidels and polytheists, even when they are their own kin, how is it possible that the Prophet (s.a.) kept extremely friendly and affectionate relations with Abu Talib! An infidel and polytheist is an enemy of Allah. How could an enemy of Allah be a friend of the Prophet (s.a.), whom Allah Himself has called a Habeeb or Dear Friend! When the love and affection between the Prophet (s.a.) and Abu Talib is irrefutable, there remains no doubt about the Faith of the latter.
Sixthly, it doesn’t stand to reason, according to Darayat (or the discipline of higher knowledge), that how could a person be an infidel who, all his life, stood like a wall in the support of the Prophet (s.a.), openly supported the cause of Islam, announced in crowds of the Qureish that Mohammed (s.a.)’s Faith was the best, acknowledged Mohammed (.s.a) like the prophets of yore and was never intimidated by any force while taking sides with the Prophet (s.a.)
The third tradition in this series is that a person heard Ibne Abbas say that the Verse, “wa hum yanhauna anhu wa yaoona anhu” is revealed about Abu Talib, and to ascribe it to him the meaning of the Verse is taken that “although he prevented the Prophet (s.a.) from the infidels harming him, he
“”
himself maintained a distance from the prophet (s.a.)” In his view the condition of Abu Talib with regard to the Prophet (s.a.) was the same that he did protect Mohammed( s.a.) from his enemies, didn’t profess the Faith himself! This tradition too is weak and not worth acceptance.
First of all there is no continuity of the narrators of this tradition. The name of the person who was the medium between Ibne Abbas and the narrator Habib ibne Abi Thabit has not been mentioned. When the narrator himself had not heard it directly from Ibne Abbas, nor has he mentioned the name of the first person who had heard and communicated to him, how could the narrative be accepted as concerning Abu Talib. The narrative is doubtful because the narrator, Habib ibne Thabit, is a cheat andexaggerator according to scholars of Ilm al Rijal. Secondly, the place and time of revelation of the Verse is indicative that it is about a group of infidels and polytheists that attributed the Quran to “Asateer al Awwaleen- Stories of people of Old Times” Therefore the author of “Kashaf” and Allama Baidawi have written that Abu Sufian, Walid, Otba, Shaiba, Abu Jahl, Nazr Ibne Harith and some other persons heard the Prophet (s.a) recite the verses of the Quran, they asked Nazr bin Harith as to what Mohammed was reciting? He replied that it was Asateer al Awwaleen. This is mentioned in the first part of the Verse, “wa yaqool allazeena kafaru an hial asateer al awwaleen-the infidels say that these are stories of people gone by and nothing else” In the last part of the Verse it is mentioned that they will be destroyed because of their waywardness and misdeeds—“wa an yahlekoona illa anfusahum wamaa yashooroon- they expose themselves to destruction and have no sense.” Between these two parts of the Verse there is “wa hum yanhoona anhu wa yanaoona anhu”. If the meaning of Yanhoona anhu is taken as ‘they prevent the Prophet (s.a.) from harms way, the entire Verse becomes disconnected and its continuity becomes disturbed. The verse talks about things that are shameful and deserving of condemnation and because of them their destruction is definite. But protecting the Prophet (s.a.) from harm is a virtuous act and has no connection with the first and last parts of the Verse, Therefore the translation of “wa hum yanhoona anhu” as “they prevent people from following the Prophet (s.a.) and listening to the recitation of the Quran” will be correct and meaningfully coordinated with the first and last part of the Verse.
Therefore Ibne Kathir and Fakhr ud Deen Razi have preferred the same meaning of the Verse and have written that this Verse is revealed about the polytheists who used to stop people following the Prophet (s.a.) and obstruct them from hearing the recitation of the Quran. Therefore, as long as it is not confirmed that Abu Talib came in the way of people following the teachings of the Prophet (s.a.) and hearing the readings of the Quran, his being the subject of the Verse cannot be established. The fact has been accepted by all, friend and foe, that Abu Talib had never asked anyone not to listen to the recitation of the Book nor even suggested to the people not to follow the Prophet(s.a)’s teachings. In fact he never differed with the ideas and teacings of Mohammed (s.a.) He spent his entire life in the protection and promotion of the Prophet’s Creed. In view of this, they will be dishonest, who do Tahreef Manawi (Misinterpret the Meaning) of the Verse to http://www.alhassanain.org/english
discredit Abu Talib. They try to break the earlier and latter part of the Verse and make a futile effort to try to prove that Abu Talib was an infidel and that he strived to maintain a distance from the Prophet. When did Abu Talib ever turn away from the Prophet (s.a) and abstain from helping and defending him?!
The fourth tradition is the one that is narrated by Abbas ibne Abd al Mutallib. He told to the Prophet (s.a.) that Abu Talib was busy in supporting and helping him. Will he get any reward for these efforts or all his troubles would go in vain? The Prophet (s.a.) said that Abu Talib is up to his knees in the Hell and that if he (the Prophet (s.a.) had not interceded, he would be in the lower echelons of the Hell!
This tradition too is concocted and false.
Firstly this tradition is attributed to Abbas, who is also credited with the tradition that Abu Talib, at the instance of The Prophet (s.a.) recited the Kalima of Unity of Allah and departed from this world. Will there be any weight in the traditions of contradictory nature narrated by one person and also concerning only one individual!
Furthur, there is a marked difference in the meaning of this and other tradiotions of this genere. In one tradition it is said that intercession has been made by the Prophet (s.a.) on behalf of Abu Talib and he is in the upper echelon of the Hell and in another tradition it is said that intercession will be made on the Day of Reckoning and in yet another tradition it is recorded that there is diminution of retribution but there is no mention of the Prophet (s.a.)’s intercession.. With this handling of the traditions, they become doubtful and unacceptable.
Thirdly, the narrators of these traditions were liars, unreliable and scheming. Therefore, Dahbi writes in Meezan al Aitadal about the narrators, and says about Sufian that he– Yaktab anil kaazabeen – copies traditions from liars. He writes about Abdul Malik ibne Omair that —saii al hifz—his memory is not good. Similarly he makes such negative remarks on some other narrators who are Majhool al Haal and not dependable according to Ulema e Rijaal. Depending on such narrators, neither can one draw any conclusion about the Faith or infidelity of any person, nor can a surmise be made whether the person will be Hell-bound or deserve the Reward of the Heaven!
Fourthly, this tradition mentions that in view of Abu Talib’s unstinted support to the cause of Islam the Prophet (s.a.) made intercession on his behalf and his retribution was reduced, while in regard to the infidels and polytheists there is no question of either any intercession or reduction of retribution! Therefore Allah says:
“We shall chase the sinners to the Hell like the thirsty animals And seeking intercession at that time will not be in their Choice but of those who have borne witness to Allah’s Unity (Tawheed)” At another place Allah says: “Those who became infidels for them there is Hellfire. They will neither end nor will they die. There won’t be any diminution in their Retribution.”
Aal-e-Qutub Aal-e-Syed Abdullah Shah Ghazi 