In 2005 the Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II passed away, so Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, may God Almighty preserve him, called for him, saying: “We pray to God Almighty to have mercy on him and reward him, as much as he did good for humanity and what he left of a good deed or a good effect.”
However, this supplication provoked angry responses from some of the Salafi sheikhs and many of the public against Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, which still raises discussion in similar incidents when some people invite the deceased if he is not from the people of Islam.
The consensus claim referred to in Al-Albani’s words is due to the Maliki judge Ayyad Al-Hasabi (544 AH), who was quoted by Al-Nawawi as saying: “The consensus has been established that the disbelievers do not benefit them from their deeds and they are not rewarded for it with blessings or the reduction of punishment, but some of them are more punished than others, according to their crimes. That is, supplication to the infidels is not only forbidden, but it is not beneficial when they die in infidelity
Sheikh Nasir al-Din al-Albani - may God Almighty have mercy on him - had previously reported on the authority of Imam Muhyiddin al-Nawawi (676 AH) that there was consensus on the prohibition of supplication for forgiveness for an infidel, then he added: “And from this he learned the error of some Muslims today from compassion and consent to some of the infidels, and this abounds. From some of the owners of newspapers and magazines ... And there is no wonder about this; it may be hidden for such a ruling, but the astonishment of some Islamic preachers is that it falls into such a thing.
And it seems that the public of the communication sites today adopts the position of Sheikh Al-Albani, and every time there is much denial of those who have mercy on those who died in connection with the religion of Islam.
For this reason, the issue of invoking the infidel for forgiveness and mercy needs a serious and critical discussion, in which we will recall the original jurisprudential discussions that preceded the tendencies of borrowing and the advocacy discourses that tend to disaggregate with poverty in the jurisprudential provision, which I will try in this article.
Supplication for the unbeliever is related to another very important issue, which is the attitude towards the good deeds that the infidel did in his life, and whether it is considered a mother in waste.
For his disbelief?
Will she be rewarded in the Hereafter, or does it just alleviate his suffering?
These are verbal issues that deserve discussion in order to understand the perceptions of Muslim speakers, away from the popular perceptions that are dominant today and which promote an intolerant, general mood that sometimes does not take into account the slightest degree of tact in dealing with the dead of non-Muslims.
The consensus claim referred to in Al-Albani’s words is attributed to the Maliki judge Ayyad Al-Hasbi (544 AH), who was quoted by Al-Nawawi as saying: “The consensus has been established that the infidels do not benefit them from their deeds and they are not rewarded for them with blessings or the reduction of punishment, but some of them are more punished than others, according to their crimes. That is, supplication to the infidels is not only forbidden, but it is not beneficial when they die in infidelity.
Al-Nawawi Al-Shafi’i discussed this issue in two of his books. In his book of jurisprudence, he said: “As for prayer for the unbeliever and supplication for him with forgiveness, it is forbidden according to the text of the Qur’an and consensus.” Muslims are unanimous on it. "
He also said: "I know that it is not permissible for him to be called for forgiveness and the like that are not said to the infidels, but it is permissible to claim guidance, health of the body, wellness and the like."
The question that the auditor should discuss here is: Where did this consensus come from? Is the issue really unanimous, as Judge Ayyad claimed and Al-Nawawi followed him, who quoted him frequently in his commentary on Sahih Muslim? The reality is that al-Nawawi himself invalidates this consensus in an explicit manner when he quotes directly after the words of al-Qadi Ayyad from Imam al-Bayhaqi al-Shafi’i (458 AH) that the saying that the righteous deeds of the unbeliever does not benefit him in the hereafter is the saying of “some scholars and scholars,” meaning that it is nothing more than a mere A saying and not a consensus. Rather, Al-Nawawi quotes from Al-Bayhaqi also that the verses and hadiths which are mentioned in the invalidity of the good deeds of an unbeliever if he dies in disbelief can be carried on the meaning of removing him from the fire and bringing him into Paradise, and this means that these good deeds of the unbeliever can help him to reduce About the punishment that he required for felonies committed other than infidelity.
This opinion is not the opinion of Al-Bayhaqi alone, rather it is the opinion of many scholars from different schools of jurisprudence, and it is a strong opinion and I found it popular in various sources after research and tracking, so that the great Maliki jurist Ibn al-Faras al-Andalusi (597 AH), who is a contemporary of Judge Ayyad, was satisfied with the story of existence Two sayings in the matter were not more likely between them. We find the story of these two sayings or the disagreement in the books of commentaries on hadith, jurisprudence and tafsir, and in different times. It is a strong disagreement, even if the saying that a righteous deed from an unbeliever benefits him is the strongest saying, so that the Hanafi jurist Ahmad al-Kourani (893 AH) was satisfied with his income alone and was confirmed by it, and this was more likely by a number of scholars who dismissed the consensus case launched by Judge Ayyad and said that it is incorrect. And Al-Qadi Ayyad has such releases that need deliberation, and Al-Nawawi often reports from him.Among those who believed that the unbeliever would benefit from his righteous deeds in the hereafter were the Hanafi jurist and the modernist Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri (1353 AH), the scholar Shihab al-Din al-Khafaji (1069 AH) and the scholar Shihab al-Din al-Alusi (1270 AH) and others.
Talking about the benefit of the unbeliever in his righteous deeds in the hereafter will be prolonged, and I might devote a separate article to him.
Because my purpose in this article is to clarify that it is permissible to invoke an infidel for forgiveness and mercy or for something other than worldly, whether in his life or after his death.
But on the condition that it does not address the sin of infidelity or greater polytheism, and this is a recognized doctrine, rather it is the doctrine of the Shafi'i faith, contrary to what was deluded by the words of the previous Imam al-Nawawi, and in contrast to the consensus of Iyad, whom I do not know of anyone before him.
If we are going to talk about the Shafi’i to clarify the place of the words of al-Nawawi al-Shafi’i, then we find that his words have confused the later Shafi’i imams, and I can distinguish here between two positions:
The first position:
Understanding from the words of Al-Nawawi is absolute, and that it is absolutely forbidden to pray for forgiveness and mercy for the unbeliever, whether it is the sin of polytheism or otherwise, and then some of the sheikhs of the school of thought were preoccupied with explaining that the doctrine is that it is permissible to pray for the infidel for forgiveness.
Contrary to the words of nuclear.
This trend has been attributed to several sheikhs in the doctrine, as will be clarified later.
The second position: Al
-Nawawi’s words were interpreted as saying that he wants the inviolability of supplication to an unbeliever for the forgiveness of his fellowship or his disbelief, that is, to bring him into Paradise.
He explained Al-Nawawi’s words that what is meant is “mercy, or entering Paradise, or the pleasure of God Almighty,” meaning seeking forgiveness that brings out the fire and enters Heaven.
Apart from the claim of consensus by Ayyad, if we go back to the words of Al-Nawawi in his books, we find that its apparent meaning indicates that he only wanted greater polytheism, not what is below it, and this is indicated by 3 clues:
The first presumption:
that al-Nawawi is a century between praying for the infidel and supplicating for him, then after he decided that it is forbidden to pray for him for forgiveness, he also decided that the doctrine is permissible for a Muslim to follow the funeral of his infidel relative, and that visiting the grave of an infidel is permissible.
The second presumption:
that al-Nawawi himself broke the consensus of Judge Ayyad when it was reported from Imam al-Bayhaqi al-Shafi’i that the good deeds of an unbeliever will benefit him in the hereafter even if he does not bring him into Heaven.
The third context: Al-
Nawawi’s inference in this context with the verse “The Prophet and those who believed would not ask forgiveness for the polytheists, and if they were closer to you than they are after you, and it indicates that they are close to the companions of them.” 113 Here Ibn Allan al-Shafi’i explained that there is evidence in the verse that it is permissible to seek forgiveness for living polytheists.
Because it is "a request to reconcile them to faith."
In addition to the previous evidence, it must be said: Forgiveness, if released, leads to greater polytheism.
So the supplication for forgiveness is directed until the fire that is called to him does not touch, and it is the truth of the supplication for the monotheists, especially when the supplication for the dead is combined with the prayer for him.
Because what is meant by the prayer on him is a supplication for him for forgiveness, which is introduced to the commission.
The confusion in Al-Nawawi’s speech stems from the failure to liberate the subject of the dispute.
His words have two meanings:
The first possibility:
that he wants to pray for the forgiveness of major polytheism, and the prohibition of this supplication is subject to consensus among the jurists.
Because it contradicts the explicit Qur’an text, which is the apparent meaning of al-Nawawi’s words when he said: “With the text of the Qur’an and consensus.” What is proven in the clear text is “God does not forgive him to associate with him and forgive what is below that for whomever He wills,” which is the unanimous meaning of it.
The second possibility:
that Al-Nawawi wants to absolutely prohibit supplication for forgiveness.
Including major polytheism and other sins, if he wanted this meaning, then the most correct in his Shafi'i school of thought is otherwise, and a number of the sheikhs of the school have mentioned this most correct explanation.
And if we go back to the books of the doctrine, we find some Shafi’i imams stating that it is permissible to pray for an infidel for an otherworldly matter, for forgiveness and mercy.
Contrary to what Al-Nawawi’s words made illusion of saying that it is forbidden, as we find, for example, among Al-Khatib Al-Sherbini (977 AH), Ahmad Salama Al-Qalioubi (1069 AH), Ibrahim Al-Barmawi (1106 AH), and Suleiman Al-Bajermi (1221 AH).
Perhaps this explicit text is confused with other texts in some Shafi’i books in which the statement is stated that it is forbidden to pray for the infidel for forgiveness, as we find among Khatib al-Sherbini and Shahab al-Din al-Ramli, for example. They justified the prohibition of praying for the unbeliever by saying that it is not permissible to pray for him for forgiveness, because God Almighty says: “God does not forgive Him for associating with Him” [An-Nisa ': 48]. But the introduction of the prohibition in these texts is only contained in conjunction with the prohibition of prayer for the unbeliever and the funeral prayer In some texts the expression is mentioned that "the issue of their speech in funerals is the prohibition of supplication to the unbeliever for forgiveness," along with the stipulation that it is permissible to invoke an infidel for forgiveness, and it indicates that their intention in the prohibition of praying upon him with supplication for him is the forgiveness of the sin of the greater polytheism that is felt by this coupling between prayer He must pray for him, especially since the footnotes of the books of the Shafi’i school of thought say that there is a disagreement among the jurists regarding the "desirability of supplication for an unbeliever", although the more correct view is that supplication is permissible.We find this in Nur al-Din bin Ali al-Shibramlisi (1087 AH), Sulayman bin Mansur al-Jamal (1204 AH) and Abdul Hamid al-Sharwani (1301 AH), for example.
Rather, Al-Shibramlisi follows the previous absolute utterance from Al-Sherbini and Al-Ramli that the verse “God does not forgive him for associating with him” is more specific than the claim for the absolute prohibition of making supplication to an unbeliever. Because the verse only indicates a specific meaning, which is not forgiveness of greater polytheism, and it may indicate forgiveness other than polytheism. For the general meaning of the Almighty’s saying: “Whatever is less will be forgiven for whomever He wills” [An-Nisa ': 48]. This indicates that it is permissible to pray for an unbeliever for forgiveness other than polytheism. Because the sin of polytheism is not forgiven, it is not permissible to pray for it with it, while it is permissible to pray for the infidel for forgiveness, except for polytheism, mercy, health of the body, abundance of money and the child, and guidance, but “it is permissible to insure the supplication of the infidel, and it is permissible to ask for supplication from him as well” as explained by Qaliubi and others.
And in some Shafi’i books there is a restriction of the permissibility of supplication for a living unbeliever, with a restriction “If he embraces”, or with the intention that the unbeliever will obtain the reason for forgiveness, which is Islam. The focus of the whole matter is to distinguish between major polytheism and others, and in this case the supplication is based on the request for forgiveness of polytheism in this world if he becomes Muslim. Based on the "faith of death" that many Ash'aris say, which means that the lesson in happiness and misery is the state in which a person dies, regardless of his previous work in this case, the Muslim may apostatize before his death and the unbeliever may believe upon his death, so supplication for him with the general forgiveness of forgiveness is left A room for this consideration is that God grant him guidance before his death, so he dies on Islam.
But what if a Muslim invites an unbeliever to forgive the sin of polytheism in the Hereafter, does he expiate?
Some Shafi’i sheikhs criticized the view that this is infidelity, as did al-Shibramlisi, al-Jamal and al-Sharwani, and that its owner committed only a forbidden.
In sum, supplicating an infidel for forgiveness includes two meanings:
The first: He
wants his supplication for him to forgive major polytheism, and this is forbidden by consensus.
Because greater polytheism is not forgiven by the text of the Qur’an.
Second
: He wants forgiveness without disbelief, and the basic principle in deeds that are without polytheism is that they are left to the divine will of the text of the Qur’an (and what is forgiven for whoever he wills), so the Muslim’s supplication for the infidel is a prayer for the achievement of the divine will for forgiveness for the infidel that is without polytheism, and it is not excluded Al-Alusi has this meaning, while others have explicitly proven it, as we find among a number of scholars.
Shihab al-Din al-Khafaji, al-Alusi and others have made it clear that the punishment that is not reduced is the punishment of disbelief according to its ranks, while the punishment that the hadiths indicated to reduce it is except for disbelief.
The meaning of thwarting the deeds of the infidels mentioned in the Qur’an text is that they do not save them from the eternal torment in Hell, which means that it is a mirage and a waste, and I will add this matter in detail in my article, which I will devote to the benefit of the righteous deed from the infidel in the hereafter, God willing.
The origin of this discussion is due to the main premises:
It is proven that the infidels are different in the Hereafter, and that they are not the same, and that Hell is dark and heaven is degrees. Indeed, Anwar Shah of Kashmiri passed the consensus that the just unbeliever is better off than the unjust infidel in the hereafter.
Greater polytheism is not forgiven for explicitly the Qur’an, and it is a matter of consensus.
The discussion remains about whether it is permissible for us to pray to an unbeliever for forgiveness, except for greater polytheism?
This is what we have released here and it is permissible, but the infidel whom we call here has either done a righteous deed or a bad deed.
So supplication to one who has done righteousness is that God Almighty accepts it from him, not with forgiveness.
Because forgiveness is only for a bad deed, just as God Almighty requires that the infidel be rewarded for his righteous deeds either in this world with his honor, or in the hereafter by reducing the punishment for him, and this means that my supplication for the infidel regarding his righteous deeds is not effective in reality, and what affects my supplication for the infidel by transgressing On his bad deeds without polytheism, and in the hadiths of reducing punishment on the authority of Abu Talib, Abu Lahab and others are evidence of this, although Abu Talib and Abu Lahab are not the same in the hereafter either.
Blasphemy does not require that every act performed by an unbeliever is not considered.
For his disbelief, we can distinguish between works, as we will separate in a later article, God willing.
These opinions clarify the broadness of the classic jurisprudential discussions, and that they combine textual interpretive issues with ethical and humanitarian issues. Even those who said that supplication is forbidden to an unbeliever talked about the permissibility of walking in his funeral, but visiting his grave if he is close, and his shrouding if he is from the people of the dhimmah to take care of his responsibility, but the popular discussions The present day lacks the care of the human dimension and is dominated by adopting tense positions that are not without arrogance; As well as it does not reflect the jurisprudential tradition itself, and God is the helper.