Explanation of the Hadith: (The deceased is punished by the weeping of his family over him); so what is the sin of the deceased?

The Shaykh: ; so what is the sin of the deceased?
This hadith is authentic and agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim. The scholars have two interpretations of the hadith. The first interpretation is that the deceased is punished by the weeping of his family over him because he did not warn them, did not advise them, and did not teach them the etiquette of relatives regarding their deceased when they die. This is the first opinion. So, according to this interpretation, the deceased is held accountable for his own actions because he did not fulfill his duty toward his relatives. Thus, the hadith aligns with this interpretation with the saying of Allah the Exalted: . So, if the weeping of the children, the wife, and the relatives over the deceased is due to the deceased's negligence in not forbidding them from weeping, then he is punished. But if he fulfilled his duty toward them, and yet they still defied his teaching to them, then he is not held accountable. This is the first interpretation. In my view, it is the weaker position, excuse me, the stronger position.
The second interpretation is the weaker one: . The punishment intended here is not the kind of punishment that a person knows, such as being punished by fire, being punished by flogging, being beaten, and so on. Rather, the punishment here, in this second interpretation, means distress. ; that is, to be distressed, . According to this interpretation, there is no problem with the hadith regarding the verse: .
The truth is that I lived for years at peace with this interpretation, then I realized its invalidity in terms of both the chain of narration and the understanding. As for the chain of narration, I found in "Sahih Muslim" a narration of this hadith with an addition: ; . The second interpretation is somewhat undermined, were it not for the second point I will mention, if we imagine that the distress is in the grave. But since the addition states that he is punished on the Day of Resurrection, the second interpretation is invalidated, and we are assured that the first interpretation is the correct one. "Punished" means he is struck, he is flogged in the fire, and so on, of the types of punishment. So it does not mean distress. This is from the perspective of the chain of narration with the addition: .
Pain is not punishment on the Day of Resurrection. On the Day of Resurrection, one is punished, punished by fire, punished in Hellfire. The phrase, the addition: , supports that the punishment is upon... the deceased who did not will his family and did not forbid them from weeping over him; he is punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it is not merely that he is distressed. He is punished with the known punishment. As for those who went to the interpretation of punishment here as meaning distress, they relied on his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): . Does the punishment here mean punishment according to the first interpretation; that is, the penalty? No, distress means hardship and fatigue and... and so on, but it is not in the sense of penalty. This is the stance of those who went to the second interpretation of the hadith: ; that is, he is not distressed; by analogy with the hadith: . But the addition: confirms the first meaning, which is in the sense of penalty.
The second thing that prevents us from interpreting the punishment in the hadith as meaning distress is that this interpretation brings us to something we have no precedent for in the Book or the Sunnah, which is that the deceased has a connection to the material world, the world of this life, while he is in the barzakh (the interval between death and resurrection). So he feels, if we do not say, as the majority say today, that he hears. From where do we establish this fact for the deceased? , that is, to be distressed by the weeping of his family over him. This implies that he has a sense of what his family does after him that pains him. And this is a new meaning that we cannot accept with such an interpretation, especially since it is the weaker position.