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

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) was asked about his parents and said A number of the scholars of hadith mentioned this hadith and approved of it, and even used it as evidence for the salvation of the noble parents, as stated by Imam al-Suhayli, al-Suyuti, and al-Qarafi. And 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 that. What did he say?

The questioner : It may be ... he said that regarding the statement of Allah the Exalted

The Shaykh : Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi was asked about the one who said that, and he answered by saying: Cursed is the one who said that, because of the statement of Allah the Exalted There is also a similar story of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, which Ibn 'Asakir narrated through the chain of Yahya ibn 'Abd al-Malik ibn Abi Ganiyyah, who narrated to us. And as for the death of Ibn al-Furat, is this correct? And I have quoted this from the book of Abu Hanifah ... Sulayman Ghawtshi al-Albani, page such-and-such, to the end of it. As for the hadith of al-Hakim, it is not a correct hadith, and it is included in my al-Silsilah, but I do not recall the explanation of its defect right now. And before continuing the discussion, I want to mention that the statement of this writer, "Al-Hakim narrated in his Sahih," is an innovation in terminology for the people of knowledge, first, and an error in terms of reality, second, because al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim is not a "Sahih" in the sense that the hadiths he included in it are not restricted to only what is authentic. He does not commit to including only what is authentic; rather, in many cases, he narrates hadiths about which he remains silent, without saying that they are on the condition of al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the condition of al-Bukhari, on the condition of Muslim, or that the chain is authentic and not narrated by them. There are four levels in it, plus a fifth and a sixth. In the fifth level, he narrates the hadith and remains silent, mentioning nothing from these four levels. 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 terminology and in reality. As for what was quoted from Qadi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, that the one who said regarding the parents of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) what the Messenger himself said , what was quoted from Abu Bakr is that this speaker is cursed. I imagine that Ibn al-Arabi is considered as if he is protected from speaking such words. Why? Because it is very terrifying speech. Because the majority of Muslims, including Abu Hanifah, to whom this Mutahannaf is attributed, and who is attributed to Abu Hanifah in a way that Abu Hanifah himself would not approve of, Abu Hanifah himself, as narrated by Shaykh 'Ali al-Qari and others, stated regarding the parents of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that they are from the people of the Fire. And 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 hurting the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So it is not right for someone like Ibn al-Arabi, or someone of lower status, to say this. And of course, Ibn al-Arabi is not Ibn al-Arabi. The Ibn al-Arabi mentioned here is not the famous Ibn al-Arabi. So the famous Ibn al-Arabi might say this and something even more misguided. But Ibn al-Arabi, the author of Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi, the commentary on al-Tirmidhi,

The questioner : 'Aridhat al-Ahwadhi

The Shaykh : 'Aridhat al-Ahwadhi, and the author of al-'Awasiim min al-Qawaasiim, and the author of the Tafsir of the Qur'an, and so on, is a man among the great scholars of the Maliki school and the people of the Sunnah. It is very far-fetched that he would say such words. 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, of course, while sad. So he brought him back and said to him, in the context of consoling him, So Muslim narrated this hadith, and Imam Muslim actually narrated it. Can it be said that Muslim says about Ibn al-Arabi that he is cursed? This only happens from a madman. Then Imam al-Bukhari narrated it as a suspended narration, and Imam Muslim narrated it with a connected chain with its authentic chain, from the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) 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: Cursed is the one who said that, when the speaker is not saying anything other than exactly what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said? In fact, if the claim were reversed and it was said: Cursed is the one who said the opposite of what the Messenger said, that would be closer to the truth. And yet, I mean, what I said was closer to the truth, and what I said was the truth. That is because those who go to such a hadith as the one quoted by al-Ghawtshi from al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim, the matter is 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 the matter is confused for them. And therefore, we do not treat them in kind. We do not say that those who contradict the authentic hadiths of the Messenger are cursed, and that they cling to weak and fabricated hadiths. As for arguing with the verse , this is a valid argument in an inappropriate place, because the approach they take in ruling on the salvation of the parents opens the door for millions of Muslims today to argue on the Day of Resurrection with this noble verse: "We did not have a messenger sent to us. You had a messenger sent to you?" So all of you are saved because no messenger was sent to you. These same people will say: No, the intended meaning is that no messenger was sent to them, meaning the call of the Messenger. This answer is correct. So where do these people get the idea 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 call, not through his person, like us. So the verse does not deny the arrival of the call, but it denies the direct arrival of the Warner. And therefore, the people who are considered from the people of the period of ignorance are not those to whom a Messenger did not come directly, but those to whom the call of the Messenger did not reach. Otherwise, we are from the people of the period of ignorance, because although the call of the Messenger reached us, the person of the Messenger did not come to us. And when the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) 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 statement of the Messenger , why? Because it is not permissible to seek forgiveness for the disbelievers, as Allah the Exalted said 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 the reason for Ibrahim's seeking forgiveness for his father was explained to them previously. In conclusion, this issue is actually a sensitive matter and 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 the people what he told the people? Of course not. You see, the uncle of the Messenger, Abu Talib, is the one who told us (peace and blessings be upon him) that when he came to his uncle Abu Talib while he was in his death throes, he said to him So he is the one who informed us that on the occasion of the death of his uncle Abu Talib, Allah revealed to him You see, if we recite this verse and mention its previous occasion of revelation, do we hurt the Messenger of Allah? Does a sane believer say that in our narration of this, there is hurt to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? Yes, if he is of that type who objects to reading Surat Tabbat, his mind and his school of thought may go to the extent that it is not permissible for us to narrate this hadith and this verse, because Surat Tabbat is about this. One person saw a dream that Allah the Exalted is giving Abu Lahab a drink from a very small place. I forgot the story. It is a vision, in any case. Why did he say that? Because the wet nurse of Abu Lahab, Thawiybah, was happy

The questioner : She rejoiced and nursed the Messenger (peace be upon him), so he freed her and gave her glad tidings of his birth, so he freed her.

The Shaykh : So Abu Lahab freed her because he knew that this was his brother's son, and that he would be one of his fiercest enemies, and yet he is in the Fire, being given to drink from the water of these fabrications, these absurdities that lead people to distort the Shari'ah, even in the Qur'an. So repent, for he does not recite it well, because it contains harm to the Messenger by disparaging... what is your uncle to you? Did Allah not reveal the surah? For what purpose? If a person's mind reaches this serious deviation, it follows that he says it is not permissible to say that Muslim narrated in his Sahih from the Messenger (peace be upon him) that the Prophet said: and al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): So it must be concluded that the Messenger (peace be upon him) is not harmed at all by a Muslim narrating what the Messenger (peace be upon him) spoke, and he is certainly not intending to harm the Messenger (peace be upon him) with that hadith. The second thing...