What is the authenticity of the hadith narrated by al-Hakim in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke about his parents?

The Shaykh : Al-Hakim narrated in his *Sahih* from Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) was asked about his parents, and he said: . A group of the huffaz mentioned this hadith and approved it; indeed, they cited it as evidence for the salvation of the noble parents, as stated by Imam al-Suhayli, al-Suyuti, and al-Qarafi. The people of the Sunnah and the community have agreed that the people of the period of ignorance are saved because there was no prophet among them. And Allah (the Exalted) says: , . And Allah knows best.
Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, one of the Maliki imams (may Allah have mercy on him), was asked about this.
What is this? Who said that?

Eid Abbasi : It may be that he said: Who said that? He is accursed, because of His saying (the Exalted): .

The Shaykh : What Allah willed!
Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi was asked about the one who said that; he answered by saying: He is accursed, because of His saying (the Exalted): . There is a similar story about 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, which Ibn 'Asakir narrated through the chain of Yahya ibn 'Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Ghaniyyah. As for al-Nawfal ibn Farat; is this correct? I have quoted this from the book of Abu Hanifah by Wahbi Sulayman Ghaouji al-Albani, page such-and-such to the end.
As for the hadith of al-Hakim, it is not authentic. It is traced in my *Silsilah* (The Chain), and I do not recall the specific defect ('illah) at the moment.
Before continuing the discussion, I want to remind you that this writer’s statement, “Al-Hakim narrated this in his *Sahih*,” is an innovation in terminology for the scholars of knowledge, first, and an error in reality, second. This is because *al-Mustadrak* of al-Hakim is not a *Sahih* in the sense that he committed to including only authentic hadiths. Often, he narrates hadiths about which he remains silent; he does not say: “It is on the condition of al-Bukhari and Muslim,” or “on the condition of al-Bukhari,” or “on the condition of Muslim,” or “the chain is authentic but they did not narrate it.” There are four levels. There is a fifth and a sixth level. In the fifth level, he narrates the hadith and remains silent; he does not mention any of these four categories. In the sixth level, he narrates the hadith and explains its defect himself. Therefore, calling *al-Mustadrak* of al-Hakim a *Sahih* is an error in both terminology and reality.
As for what he quoted from Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, that whoever says about the parents of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) what the Messenger himself said: , and what he quoted from Abu Bakr that this speaker is accursed; I imagine that Ibn al-Arabi means that the speaker is as if he is sinless from speaking such words. Why? Because it is a very terrifying statement. The majority of Muslims, including Abu Hanifah, for whom this Mutahannif (one who claims to be a Hanafi) and who is attributed to Abu Hanifah in a way that Abu Hanifah would not approve, Abu Hanifah himself, as narrated by Shaykh 'Ali al-Qari and others, stated that the parents of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) are from the people of the Fire. Abu Hanifah and those like him, when they mention this, do not mention it except in the context of conveying the Shari'ah to the people, not in the context of harming the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So it is not correct for someone like Ibn al-Arabi, or someone below him, to say this. And of course, Ibn al-Arabi is not Ibn al-Arabi. The unknown Ibn al-Arabi buried here is not the same as Ibn al-Arabi. So Ibn al-Arabi [the unknown one] might say this or something more astray than it. But Ibn al-Arabi, the author of *Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi Sharh al-Tirmidhi*, and the author of...

Eid Abbasi : "A'radhat al-Ahwadhi."

The Shaykh : ...*'Aridhat al-Ahwadhi*, and the author of *al-'Awasiq min al-Qawaqim*, and the author of the Tafsir of the Qur'an, and so on; this man is one of the great scholars of the Maliki school and of the people of the Sunnah. It is very unlikely that he would say such a thing. Because Imam Muslim narrated in his *Sahih* from Anas ibn Malik that a man came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and said: O Messenger of Allah, where is my father? He said: . So the man turned away, naturally sad, so he brought him back and said to him, as a consolation: . So Muslim narrated this hadith, and Imam Muslim actually did. Would it be said: Muslim says about Ibn al-Arabi: Accursed?! This only happens from a madman.
Then Imam al-Bukhari narrated it as a comment (ta'liq) and Imam Muslim narrated it with a connected chain through his authentic chain from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) said: . So whoever believes in these authentic hadiths, among the foremost of the jurists is Abu Hanifah, and among the foremost of the hadith scholars are al-Bukhari and Muslim. Whoever believes in these hadiths, and Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi knows this reality exactly as we do; is it conceivable that Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi would say: Accursed is the one who said that, and the speaker does not say anything other than exactly what the Messenger (peace be upon him) said?! Rather, if a speaker reversed the claim and said: Whoever says the opposite of what the Messenger said is accursed; that would be closer to the truth. And yet, I mean what I say: what I said was closer to the truth, and I did not say: it was the truth. This is because those who go to such a hadith as the one Ghaouji quoted from *al-Mustadrak* of al-Hakim, the matter was confused for them; they do not intend to strike at the core of the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), but rather the matter was confused for them. Therefore, we do not treat them in kind; we do not say: Those who contradict the authentic hadiths of the Messenger are accursed and they cling to weak and fabricated hadiths.
As for citing the verse: ; this is a valid argument in the wrong place. Because the approach they took in ruling on the salvation of the parents opens the door for millions of Muslims today to cite this noble verse on the Day of Resurrection: “We did not have a messenger come to us, did a messenger come to you? You had a messenger come to you? So all of you are saved, because a messenger did not come to you.” These same people will say: No, the intention is that no messenger came to them, meaning the call of the Messenger. This answer is correct. So from where do these people get that the call of tawhid (the oneness of Allah) did not reach the Arabs before the mission of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? So from here we must know ; we must understand this in light of the previous verse: . The warner may come to people directly, like the Messenger with the Companions, or he may come to them through the path of da'wah (calling) without his person, like us. So the verse: does not negate the arrival of the call, but rather negates the direct arrival of the warner. Therefore, the people who are considered among the people of the period of ignorance are not those to whom a messenger did not come directly, but rather those to whom the call of the Messenger did not reach. Otherwise, we are among the people of the period of ignorance, because although the call of the Messenger came to us, the person of the Messenger did not come to us. And the Messenger (peace be upon him), when he says in the first hadith: , how can he rule that this one and that one are from the people of the Fire, and the call is that they are from the people of the period of ignorance to whom the call of the Messenger did not reach?! This is impossible.
And the saying of the Messenger: , why? Because it is not permissible to seek forgiveness for the disbelievers, as He said (the Exalted): . And before the revelation of this verse, the Companions used to seek forgiveness for their polytheist fathers, so this verse was revealed and they stopped, and it clarified to them the reason for Ibrahim’s seeking forgiveness for his father previously.
In conclusion: This issue is actually a sensitive matter, and it is not raised except in response to a question, but we must know two things:
First: Is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) hurt by conveying to people what he spoke to them about? Of course not. Did you see that the Messenger’s (peace and blessings be upon him) uncle, Abu Talib, is the one who told us that when he came to his uncle Abu Talib while he was in his death throes, he said to him: . He said: “Were it not that my people would blame me for it, I would have pleased your eye with it.” It was he who informed us that on the occasion of the death of his uncle Abu Talib in a state of disbelief, Allah revealed to him: . Do you see, if we recite this verse and mention its aforementioned occasion of revelation, do we hurt the Messenger of Allah? Does any sane believer say that our narration of this constitutes hurting the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? Yes, if one is of that type who objects to reciting Surat Tabbat, then his mind and his school of thought may lead him to say that it is not permissible for us to narrate this hadith and this verse; because regarding Surat Tabbat, he said: This is one who saw in a dream that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is giving Abu Lahab a drink from what? From a very small place. I forgot the story; it is a vision, in any case. Why? He said: Because of Abu Lahab’s slave woman.
Yes?

Eid Abbasi: Thawiybah.

The Shaykh: Thawiybah was happy. What did she do?

Eid Abbasi: She was happy and nursed the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so he freed her, and he gave her glad tidings of his birth, so he freed her.

The Shaykh: So Abu Lahab freed her; because he did not know that this son of his brother would become his most severe enemy, and yet he is in the Fire being given a drink of water!
These myths, these absurdities, lead people to depicting the Shari'ah, even in the Qur'an, saying that it is not good to recite Tabbat because it hurts the Messenger by disparaging what? His uncle. By Allah, why did Allah reveal this Surah? If a person’s mind reaches this serious deviation, it follows in a sequence, saying: It is not permissible for us to say that Muslim narrated in his "Sahih" from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that the Prophet said: , and al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): .
Therefore, it is obligatory for us to be certain that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is not hurt at all by a Muslim narrating what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) spoke, and he is certainly not intending to hurt the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) with that hadith.
The second thing...