What is your opinion of those who cite the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), “My father and your father are in the Fire,” to argue that Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) will hold people accountable even if no messenger was sent to them?

The questioner : Some scholars add to this statement you mentioned other hadiths, such as the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding his father: and . They also add to this the saying of Allah the Exalted: , even though Allah the Exalted says: or . In the other verse, it appears that no warner came to Quraysh, and at the same time, Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) placed them in the Fire, with some of them being 'Amr ibn Luhayy. So what is your opinion, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Yes, may Allah reward you. To clarify the topic or the question for those present first, and then perhaps secondly, we ask you to summarize the question. What is the question?

The questioner : The question is: Is there not in the verse of fitrah in al-A'raf, the verse of the covenant:

The Shaykh : We have finished with that, which you mentioned later.

The questioner : I say that those who claim that Allah the Exalted will hold the polytheists accountable on the Day of Resurrection even if no messenger came to them have cited the hadiths in the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): and the hadith of his mother, as well as 'Amr ibn Luhayy, even though the Qur'an establishes that no warner came to Quraysh. Is this not evidence for the first opinion, which is that Allah the Exalted will punish the polytheist on the Day of Resurrection without sending a messenger? And regarding the verses about sending a messenger: , they said to restrict them to non-polytheists. Yes, this is the question.

The Shaykh : What is the restrictor in their opinion?

The questioner : Reconciliation, meaning based on the fact that this contradiction, after they established the contradiction, said there is a contradiction between these two pieces of evidence, therefore reconciling the two texts is what takes precedence.

The Shaykh : And this contradiction is clear to you?

The questioner : This contradiction is indeed present for me.

The Shaykh : Okay, , how did they interpret it?

The questioner : Other than associating partners with Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He), meaning that He the Exalted has obligated many things on people other than tawhid (the oneness of Allah). So the Shari'ah came to teach people and clarify to them what they were commanded of the obligatory legal duties. So whoever did not perform those obligatory duties because the messenger did not come to him will not be held accountable on the Day of Resurrection if he did not associate partners with Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He).

The Shaykh : I see that the evidence they hold onto to restrict the generality of the verse: is not explicit in its indication to stand and be established on restricting the verse. And this is confirmed by two things:
The first thing: As you know, from the principles and rules of the Shari'ah, the Sunnah clarifies the Qur'an and explains the Qur'an. So you learn from the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that restricting the verse by what you mentioned is a matter not accepted, at the very least, if we do not say it is invalid. This is due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): . So the verse must remain on its generality by the evidence of this hadith which confirms the meaning that was elevated from the verse by the claim that those pieces of evidence are what restrict or specify it. So this authentic hadith, and I may have mentioned that it is in Sahih Muslim, in addition to others, confirms the preservation of the verse on its generality and its comprehensiveness. Then, citing the verse: to its end is a very clear error in reasoning. Otherwise, every Muslim today would be true to or upon the fact that he was not warned, that no warner came to us on the concept you mentioned earlier. We were not warned, but we were called to the call of the warner. So the verse does not mean the person only, but also his call. So the person, with respect to the call, is like the means with the goal, and the goal is the call. So if the call reaches a person, a people, or a nation, then the proof has been established, whether this reaching was directly from the messenger (peace be upon him) to his people, or through his companions, or those who come after them. The important thing is the reaching of the call. And on this, we say that the hadiths... the verse that the warning mentioned in it does not mean only the direct warning from the warner, but rather the arrival of the warning. So whether by means or without means, and in that case, the many hadiths are accepted by us, which we can say are mass-transmitted in meaning, because they all agree that those who died before the mission of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Prophet (peace be upon him) informed that they will be punished, that they will be punished and the call reached them. And the call that reached them is nothing but the call of our father Ibrahim and Isma'il, who built the Ka'bah and inherited the circumambulation or Hajj to the House of Allah the Most Merciful from their father Ibrahim and Isma'il (peace be upon them). So when a hadith like the hadith: “You, excuse me:” or the second hadith you mentioned: or the third hadith: and the fourth hadith, in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by two graves and his mount shied away, and he saw two graves, so he asked about them, and they said: They died in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance. So he (peace be upon him) said: . This hadith indicates that when the mount shied away, it heard the punishment of those being punished in the grave. So these people died in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance and yet they are punished. So it is not possible to interpret these hadiths, which as I said earlier give us a mass-transmitted meaning, which is that those who died in the pre-Islamic age of ignorance and the Prophet informed that they will be punished, and we know necessarily that no warner came to them in the first narrow sense, but we know that the warner came to them in the broad sense, meaning the call came to them, the call of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), the call of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) and Isma'il. So the proof was established against them, and therefore they are punished. So the verse: is on its generality and supported by the explicit text: and the other hadiths we mentioned all fit together and compel us, by scientific compulsion, to say that the verse is on its generality, and that the intended meaning is not, as is the apparent understanding from the verse: , without tawhid (the oneness of Allah). This is not the apparent understanding. Nevertheless, the hadith supports the generality and comprehensiveness of the verse and the other hadiths. And therefore, here, as I believe, in the books of tawhid (the oneness of Allah), no one says to restrict the verse, as far as I know from the people of the Sunnah and the community: that this is specific to rulings other than tawhid. What I know from long ago is that the Mu'tazilah, who are known for prioritizing the ruling of their intellect over the ruling of the Book of their Lord and the Sunnah of their Prophet, meaning that they impose their intellects on the texts of the Book and Sunnah and interpret them according to their desires, these are the ones who say the intended meaning of the messenger is the intellect, and they return to this interpretation to fitrah (the innate natural disposition). As for someone saying, as far as I know from the scholars, that the verse is restricted, I do not know of this, and I do not rule out that such a restriction might be, because it is closer to the one who says: , meaning by intellect, knowing that intellects vary to the greatest extent. I think I have answered your question, if Allah wills.

The questioner : May Allah will it.