The authenticity of the hadith stating that the deceased hears the sound of sandals?

The questioner : Regarding the topic that the dead do not hear... there is a hadith that the deceased hears the sound of sandals. What is the degree of authenticity of this hadith?

The Shaykh : First, this hadith is authentic because it is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari This hadith is authentic. This is an exception to the general rule because it says so he does not hear at all times. The same hadith gives you the specification and does not give you the generality. "When" — what does "when" mean? It means the time when they turn their backs and depart. But does the hadith mean that the dead hear the sound of sandals every time someone passes by or...?

The questioner : Should it not be understood in the sense of rhetorical eloquence, for example?

The Shaykh : What is it that should be understood, my brother? Specify your statement.

The questioner : For example, they hear the sound of their sandals. In an advertisement for an apartment, it says "you can see the sea," but it does not actually see the sea; however, it is in a position that allows those inside to see the sea. Here, the meaning is understood to be that the sound reaches them, as if a living person were in their place, they would hear the sound of the sandals.

The Shaykh : As for the sound of sandals, they do not hear it. Does this mean, in the end, that they do not hear the sound of sandals?

The questioner : I think so, and Allah knows best.

The Shaykh : I am asking you so that I understand from you: do you mean that they do not hear the sound of sandals?

The questioner : The meaning may be understood in this way.

The Shaykh : And it may not be understood in this way. What do we benefit from the clattering sound? Then I remind the questioner and all those present of a very important linguistic rule: if the matter revolves around assuming a missing word or not assuming it, the original state is not to assume it. In other words, if we can interpret an expression or sentence from the speech of Allah or from the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), or any Arabic sentence, if we can interpret it literally, it is not permissible to interpret it figuratively unless there is a legal or rational indication. Only then do we say that an indication has been found that compels us to interpret the verse, hadith, or Arabic sentence figuratively rather than literally. But if the matter revolves between interpreting the sentence literally or figuratively without the presence of an indication, the original state is the literal meaning, not the figurative.
Otherwise, the language would be corrupted and its usage among people would be corrupted. If someone says, "The prince has arrived," is it permissible for the listener to understand that "the prince's servant has arrived"? This is a known Arabic expression with an assumed omitted possessive. It is not permissible because there is nothing that compels the listener to interpret the speaker's statement "The prince has arrived" to mean that the prince did not come, but rather his servant or his deputy came, or so on. If this door were opened, communication among people in the Arabic language would be corrupted. From this, the scholars and jurists responded to the extremists of the Sufis who, on one hand, speak of what is known among scholars as the Unity of Existence, and who speak in explicit phrases of disbelief regarding the Unity of Existence. The defenders of those Sufis come with falsehood and interpret their words in a way that ultimately agrees with the Shari'ah. We say to these people: in this way, we cannot say that this speech is disbelief. I once said to some of them: "Bring me any sentence that contains disbelief in its apparent expression, and I will, in your way, make it pure tawhid (the oneness of Allah)." What is their way? Interpreting the texts. For example, one of their speakers, deeply immersed in misguidance, said: "The dog and the pig are nothing but our God, and Allah is nothing but a monk in a church." They strain to interpret "The dog is nothing but our God" only up to the preposition. What is this interpretation? Therefore, such an interpretation can be applied to any expression. For example, if someone says, "The priest created the heavens and the earth," what is your opinion of this statement? Of course, by consensus, it is not permissible. I make it tawhid in the way of the Sufis: "He is the Lord of the priest." This is known in the language as an omitted possessive, similar to His saying, the Exalted: "Ask the village." What? Its walls? Its trees? No, but its people. Likewise, the caravan. But this omitted possessive is suggested by the Arabic style itself to the listener, so no one wonders if the texts here really mean the village. Therefore, the naming of this in the Arabic language is that this is a metaphor. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) rejects this in his specific treatise on the Truth and the Metaphor. He says: "Naming this specific expression as a metaphor is due to the omission of the possessive. This is a later convention, and the Arabs did not understand from this expression anything but one meaning, which they call the metaphor of the omitted possessive." Likewise, in the Arabic style, "The gutter flowed" in the way of the later scholars who divide speech into literal and metaphorical. The literal meaning of this expression "The gutter flowed" is that the gutter melted due to intense heat and became liquid, so the gutter flowed. But which of the Arabs, upon hearing this expression, would the meaning they call literal come to their mind? They say, "No, the intended meaning here is the metaphor." This meaning they call metaphorical in this example is the true intended meaning of "The gutter flowed," meaning the water of the gutter flowed, just like . And so on, there are many examples mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah, such as "The river flowed." The river is the channel in which the water flows. So when the Arab says "The river flowed," he does not mean the channel itself without water, nor does the listener from among the Arabs understand anything but what he intended, namely that the water of the river flowed. So naming these expressions as metaphor, Ibn Taymiyyah says, is an error. Metaphor is what is coupled with the apparent meaning of the expression to another meaning due to the presence of an indication. But here, there is no other meaning except one specific meaning: "Ask the village" means its people; "The gutter flowed" means its water; "The river flowed" means its water. From here, Ibn Taymiyyah begins his response to the later scholars who interpret the verses of attributes and hadiths of attributes by resorting to the path of interpretation, which is the path of metaphor. But what compels them to leave the understanding of the meanings of these verses and those hadiths, all of which are related to attributes, to be interpreted literally? Especially since they all, both the early and the later scholars, say that the original state of every expression is to be interpreted literally. For example, His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He: "Your Lord did not come." This understanding is not permissible. If "The mercy of your Lord came," it means an omitted possessive that they assume. And so on. We say that the truth is as the truth has spoken in His Book: But how does He come? We do not know. And this research has been addressed by scholars in the past and present, and we have also addressed something similar on a recent occasion. The conclusion is that Arabic speech, first of all, should be interpreted literally. So his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: literally, he hears the sound of sandals. In fact, I say the opposite of what you said: it is not conceivable that he hears everything, because He is All-Hearing of everything, which is impossible. But since the original state is that the dead do not hear, as we explained to you earlier, if a text comes that gives a dead person or dead people hearing, we exclude them from the rule. We say that those polytheists in the pit heard the speech of the Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, but not the hadiths of the Companions around him. And when 'Umar said, "O Messenger of Allah, you are calling bodies in which there are no spirits," we do not say that they heard the speech of 'Umar, because their hearing of the speech of the Messenger was a miracle for the Messenger, and we stop there. Likewise, in this hadith: and we do not add to that for two reasons. First, it is contrary to the original state that the dead do not hear. Second, and finally, matters of the unseen, and this is part of the unseen, the barzakh (the interval between death and resurrection), are never expanded upon. The truth is to stop at the text and not add to it.