The Refutation of Those Who Denied the Hadith: "My Father and Your Father Are in the Fire," on the Ground That They Were from the People of the Interregnum
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : This hadith, in addition to being in *Sahih Muslim* and being one of the hadiths that the Muslim community accepted, is, in the words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, "a hadith that provides certainty," meaning: its authenticity is established. This is because two conditions are met: first, the soundness of the chain of narration; and second, the acceptance of the hadith by the Muslim community. In the present age, there are those who have demolished it with the logic of an ignorant person, thinking that he is a scholar! And this is the calamity of the age in this time. He said: The father of the questioner and the father of the one being asked are both from the People of the Interregnum; no messenger came to them. Keep your question in mind, here!
The student : Keep the question in mind!
The Shaykh : No messenger came to them. How can the Messenger say:Sahih Muslim 203?! And Allah says: [Al-Isra 17:15]?! We brought the verse, so our answer to this objection was: Allah has spoken the truth, and the Messenger of Allah has spoken the truth, [Al-Isra 17:15], and Sahih Muslim 203. But where do you get the idea that these two individuals are from the People of the Interregnum; that is, that the call did not reach them?!
The student : I think, O Shaykh, that they were on the religion of Abraham, and Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : No, the most precise answer, which will come to you as a complete research answer to the question of "Abu Rami," is this question: Where does this denier of the authenticity of the hadith get the idea that these two fathers did not have the call reach them, so they are from the People of the Interregnum?! Now I will come directly to the answer to your question. He said, from his argument in the noble verse, the Lord of the Worlds says:[Ya-Sin 36:70], and the other verse: [Fatir 35:24]; those who were before the Messenger, before the coming of the Messenger, no warner came to them. And we said, we, the Ummah of Muhammad today, pay attention to the question: Did a warner come to us? It is possible for us to hear two contradictory answers: A warner came to us, or a warner did not come to us! And I say: A warner came to us and a warner did not come to us. Why? Because the answer, whether negative or affirmative, branches out from our understanding of the verse: [Fatir 35:24]. Does the verse mean that every person in any time, in any era, must have the call of a Messenger come to him directly from this warner to him directly, or is the intended meaning his call, not his personal speech?
The student : His call!
The Shaykh: Huh?
The student : Just as the Shaykh said.
The Shaykh : His call.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : With this understanding, and with its opposite, which is a misunderstanding, the answer becomes confused. Do we today have a warner who came to us? So the answer is: Yes, and the answer is: No. If you mean, O questioner, did a warner come to us directly? We say: No, there is no prophet or warner after Muhammad. And if you mean—and here is the crux of the matter—if you mean that a warner came to us, then I say: Whoever the call of the Messenger reached, the argument has been established against him, and whoever the call of the Messenger did not reach is from the People of the Interregnum. Did you understand how?
The student : Keep the question in mind!
The Shaykh : No messenger came to them. How can the Messenger say:
Verily my father and your father are in the Fire.
إنَّ أبي وأباك في النارAnd never would We punish until We sent a messenger.
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًاAnd never would We punish until We sent a messenger.
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّى نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًاVerily my father and your father are in the Fire.
إنَّ إبي وأباك في النارThe student : I think, O Shaykh, that they were on the religion of Abraham, and Allah knows best.
The Shaykh : No, the most precise answer, which will come to you as a complete research answer to the question of "Abu Rami," is this question: Where does this denier of the authenticity of the hadith get the idea that these two fathers did not have the call reach them, so they are from the People of the Interregnum?! Now I will come directly to the answer to your question. He said, from his argument in the noble verse, the Lord of the Worlds says:
To warn whoever is alive and justify the word against the disbelievers.
لِيُنْذِرَ مَنْ كَانَ حَيًّا وَيَحِقَّ الْقَوْلُ عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَAnd there was no nation but that there had passed within it a warner.
وَإِنْ مِنْ أُمَّةٍ إِلَّا خَلَا فِيهَا نَذِيرٌAnd there was no nation but that there had passed within it a warner.
وَإِنْ مِنْ أُمَّةٍ إِلَّا خَلَا فِيهَا نَذِيرٌThe student : His call!
The Shaykh: Huh?
The student : Just as the Shaykh said.
The Shaykh : His call.
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : With this understanding, and with its opposite, which is a misunderstanding, the answer becomes confused. Do we today have a warner who came to us? So the answer is: Yes, and the answer is: No. If you mean, O questioner, did a warner come to us directly? We say: No, there is no prophet or warner after Muhammad. And if you mean—and here is the crux of the matter—if you mean that a warner came to us, then I say: Whoever the call of the Messenger reached, the argument has been established against him, and whoever the call of the Messenger did not reach is from the People of the Interregnum. Did you understand how?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.