Ibne Athir writes:

“Qazi Fayaz says that there is ijma (Unanimity of Opinion) That the infidels will not benefit from their good deeds. Neither will they get bounties as Reward nor will there be diminution of their Retribution.”

When this tradition doesn’t weigh on the yardstick of the Nusoos e Quran and Ijma, even if its narrators were Siqa (truthful) and Adil (Just), it is not acceptable in any condition. In this instance, the narrator is neither Siqa nor Adil

The fifth point is that the Prophet (s.a.) who was a paragon of kindness could only bring Abu Talib out of the depths of the Hell, but couldn’t help him to get total relief from the Hellfire in the top layer of the Hell! For his selfless and unstinted services ti Islam, if not getting him assigned to the Heaven, atleast he could have been settled in its suburbs! When these type of concessions have been given to Nausherwan despite his infidelity for his sense of justice! Hatim enjoys this concession for his generosity! Even for the sworn enemy of Islam, Abu Lahab, concessions have been recommended. Therefore the well known Ahl e Hadith, Waheed al Zaman, in his book Lugat al Hadith, Bab al Zad, page 12 narrates a tradition that one person dreamt of Abu Lahab saying that he got some water on Mondays. This, he said, was the reward for freeing Toobia, his slave girl, to celebrate the birth of the Prophet (s.a.).— Al Lugat al Hadith, Bab al Daad,Page 12. There is another tradition of similar type. The Prophet (s.a.) saw Abu Lahab in his dream that he was restless with thirst, and he did have something to quench his thirst. The Prophet (s.a.) asked, “What is it that you have to quench your thirst?” Abu Lahab replied, “.Toobia fed you the milk and I had released her from slavery. I have been rewarded for that. “—Tareeq e Yaqoobi, Vol 2, Page 9.

How strange it is the Abu Lahab gets rewarded for his small gesture of releasing a slave girl. Abu Lahab, no doubt, was a sworn enemy of the Prophet (s.a.) and in the forefront of the persons ridiculing and insulting him. He remained stubbornly infidel till his last breath. And Abu Talib, who dedicated his entire life to the care and service of the Prophet (s.a.) there is no acknowledgement of his effort in bringing the Prophet (s.a.) and providing support and protection all along to his mission. In some other traditions it is also said that although Abu Talib will be in the upper echelon of the Hell, his brain would melt and fall near his feet because of the excessive heat of the Hellfire. Can it be imagined that this Retribution will be despite the intercession of the Prophet (s.a.). In return for his sterling services, there is reduction in his Retribution as described above. But please think over what the Prophet (s.a.) has to pray for Abu Huraira’s mother:

Shah Wali Allah writes:

“The Prophet (s.a.) prayed for the conversion of Abu Huraira’s mother, and she became a Muslim the same day!”

Ref: Hujjat Allah al Baligha, Vol 2, Page 578:

How could it be imagined that his prayer for the deliverance of Abu Huraira’s mother was accepted and his prayer wasn’t answered when he

prayed for Abu Talib, although he was a staunch supporter of the Prophet ( s.a.)’s Cause. Can Umm e Abu Huraira’s being a mother of Abu Huraira be a cause of her deliverance Even if we overlook the services of Abu Talib to the cause of the Prophet (s.a.)’s Creed, should’nt his efforts in the bringing up of Mohammed (s.a.) and protecting him against all odds be sufficient for his deliverance! Who was Umm e Abu Huraira? Just the mother of Abu Huraira who died an infidel!

The fifth justification they advance is through the tradition which says la tawaras bain ahl millatain—two different creeds cannot share inheritance. Therefore they say that a Muslim cannot inherit the assets of an infidel and an infidel likewise cannot be an inheritor of a Muslim. They say that if Abu Talib was a Muslim, Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and Jafar, who were Muslim, wouldn’t have refused to accept Abu Talib’s inheritance. They also say that Aqeel and Talib, who had not embraced Isalm till the time of Abu Talib’s death, inherited his assets. ===

This justification they profer is a mere exaggeration. First of all they refer to an inconclusive and undependable tradition that Ali (a.s) and Jafar had refused to accept the inheritance of their father. Then they refer to another tradition to support their contention that the refusal was because their father died an infidel. The truth is that neither the meaning of the tradition is what they try to give it, nor the two sons ever refused to accept the inheritance. The meaning of this tradition is taken that if the inheritor and the forbear were not of the same Faith, then the inheritance becomes void. The contention is that if the father was a Muslim and the son an infidel, the son would not get the inheritance. Similarly if the son is a Muslim and his father was an infidel, he would’nt accept the inheritance. The inheritance would go void wherever the inheritor and the forbear professed different creeds. In the view of Shia Jurists a Muslim can inherit the assets of his infidel parent, while an infidel is entitled only to the assets of his infidel parent. He doesn’t get anything from the effects of his father if he was a Muslim. This is with a view to maintain the ascendance of Islam. This is also supported by the tradition—Al Islam yaalu wa la yaali ilaih Islam has ascendance over every thing and nothing has ascendance over Islam. Therefore, even if Abu Talib is presumed not a follower of Islam, his Muslim sons cannot be disinherited. If the Islamic law required the Muslim sons of infidel parents to be disinherited, most of the early companions of the Prophet (s.a.) qualify for this treatment. The history, however, has not been able to throw one example of a companion getting disinherited on the demise of his infidel father! Does this not indicate that, perhaps this law was only for the nearest kin of the Prophet.(s.a.). Besides, if Hazrat Ali (a.s.) had not accepted anything from the estate of his father, is it not possible that he might have done it for some other reason than that draconian law of inheritance! Perhaps he avoided taking any part of the inheritance becaue of his frugal nature and left everything for his brother Aqeel. Or it was also possible that Aqeel had usurped the entire estate of his father. History too supports this possiblilty. The historians have written that when the Prophet (s.a.) migrated from Makka to Madina, Aqeel took advantage of the absence of the Prophet (s.a.) and he sold the house of Hazrat Khadija and two houses

of Abd al Mutallib, inherited by Abu Talib, to Abu Sufian when neither the Prophet (s.a.), Hazrat Ali or Jafar were present in Makka to prevent him from striking that deal without their consent. When, after the fall of Makka, the time for asking Aqeel about his unfair transaction, they forgave him. This forgiveness cannot be termed as Aqeel’s right of inheritance, because all the three had their right according to the morms of the Islamic Law of Inheritance! Therefore Ibne Shahab says:

“The truth is that Hazrat Aqeel Razi Allah Taala Anhu occupied the

Houses of Abd al Mutallib after the Migration of the Prophet (s.a.) the Same way as the infidels of Qureish occupied the houses of the other migrants. After the conquest of Makka, neither the Prophet (s.a.) Nor the migrants demanded the return of their properties. If Aqeel had a right over the property according to the Law of Inheritance, then under what law he sold the house of Hazrat Khadija bint e Khawilad.”

–From the footnote of Faeq, Vol 1, Page 188

The sixth argument they profer is that through the weakest tradition it doesn’t emerge that Abu Talib ever prayed alone or in the company of the Prophet (s.a.) although he lived for ten long years after the Annunciation of the Prophet (s.a.). If he was a Muslim, he would certainly have been seen praying sometime or other, because offering of prayer is an important pillar of Islam.

This argument too doesn’t hold water. In a situation where traditions are concocted to prove his infidelity, it is not a matter of surprise if there is no tradition to support the claim that Abu Talib did, if ever, offer prayers. But none can deny the fact that, in early days after the Baasat, Abu Talib once found his son, Ali (a.s.) offering prayer with the Prophet (s.a.), and expressed his appreciation and support for his act. He termed this way of offering the prayer as an act of virtue and exhorted Ali (a.s.) to remain attached to the Prophet (s.a.). Once he chanced to see Ali (a.s.) standing behind the Prophet (s.a.) on the right side. He told to his other son Jafar:

“You too should stand on the left side

behind your uncle and offer prayer”

Even if he had not participated in the prayers, it must have been to protect the Prophet (s.a.) from the mischief and machinations of the Qureish. Then, during his lifetime, prayer was still not declared mandatory.Nor was it given a prescribed form. The prayers offered those days were only optional. Therefore, Abu Talib not praying was not a proof of his not having embraced Islam!

The seventh argument proferred against Abu Talib is that if he were a Muslim, then how is it that the Prophet (s.a.) didn’t offer the namaz e Janaza (the Funeral Prayer) for him. This was done, despite the instructions to offer the prayer before any dead Muslim is interred.

This argument is absolutely baseless because the command for Salat e Janaza came much after Abu Talib’s death. This prayer wasn’t offered for any Muslim who died in that period. After a short time of the death of Abu Talib, Umm al Momineen Hazrat Khadija died and the prayer was’nt offered for her too. This was despite the fact that she was the first lady to ever have embraced the Creed of Islam. Bala Dari writes:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s