In my last week's article, I discussed the issue of praying to non-Muslims for mercy and forgiveness, and given “some” comments that were confused about the matter, so the concept went by various schools of thought; I clarify that my previous article (which is the first article) adhered to a specific condition, which is nullifying the unanimous claim on the inviolability of supplication to the unbeliever altogether, proving that the issue is controversial, and weakening the popular understanding that believes that the issue is very clear and even obvious! Therefore, my article detailed the proof of the absent opinion, and that the dispute is strong and ancient, and it lasted for centuries before the popular understanding that stands at the surface and fragmented some verses or hadiths to portray that the issue is clear, without trying to search and dive into books of interpretation and commentaries of the hadith, and without comprehending all the evidence and texts that are The commentators and interpreters of the hadith themselves and from different jurisprudential schools of thought were hot.

It is interesting that some of the brothers understood that the article was a defense of an old position of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, may God protect him. Just because the article began by mentioning that position, while some Salafists understood that I attached the issue of the prohibition of supplication to an infidel to the Salafi thought only! And I would like to say a clear text: my article was neither in defense of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi nor criticism of Sheikh Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him (and I have previous criticisms of the two sheikhs together), and the article did not say that the issue is a product of the Salafi thought only, how and I proved that the dispute is old and continuous and the discussion in it is rich ?!

Rather, the story of the Sheikh's supplication to the Pope was merely an introduction, as is my habit of starting from a specific incident to link the theoretical discussion with the reality / fact, and to show that the old discussions that seem to some of them isolated are not related to our reality only, but can contribute to enriching our current discussions. The issue is greater than the Brotherhood / Salafi dichotomy, and greater than the story of al-Qaradawi / Albani. Because the article aims to edit verbal and jurisprudential issues, and to broaden the horizon of discussion in it with multiple tools and interpretations. And if you wish, say: It is an intellectual exercise that I transfer from the stomachs of books to present it to you smoothly, in which I show the breadth of the jurisprudential and theological heritage, its breadth, the depth of its questions and discussions, away from the current ideological conflicts, and away from the mood of militancy and the narrowness that dominates the public space.

Judge Al-Maliki Ayyad - may God Almighty have mercy on him - went on to state that a righteous deed from an infidel does not benefit him, and said, “There has been consensus that the disbelievers do not benefit them from their deeds and they are not rewarded for it with blessings nor the reduction of punishment, but some of them are more punished than others according to their crimes.”

My previous article concluded that it is permissible - among a group of scholars at least - to make supplication for an infidel or polytheist for an otherworldly matter, provided that this supplication deals with the forgiveness of sins that are without the guilt of disbelief or polytheism. It is not restricted to them alone.

My article raised some questions that deserve pause, and they are three:

The first: The article did not clarify my critical position on the issue I addressed, and this is normal based on the intent that I explained a little while ago.

It is proving the existence of a strong disagreement that was ignorant or ignored.

Therefore, I exaggerated the investigation and attributed the words to their owners very briefly and intensely, otherwise the story of the texts would go on and on, and in my hands many of those texts that talk about this disagreement.

The second: that the article did not discuss the arguments and explanations that those who say that it is permissible to pray for an infidel for forgiveness without disbelief or polytheism, and this will be the subject of the next article, God willing, and I mentioned in the last article that it is the first article, in addition to that the books of fiqh - for whoever is an expert in it - It takes care to mention the rulings without their evidence in most cases, so books of evidence we find separated from the branches of the doctrine, and when ignorance is completed or the disagreement is ignored, it is natural for the first article to proceed to first prove the disagreement and liberate it.

The third: that the article did not discuss the ethical dimension in the matter outside of my habit, and this will be the topic of the article after the next, God willing, and so the total - along with the current article - is 4 articles, and it is in my mind now that all will be followed by an article or two other articles on the concepts of disbelief, and God is the conciliator. And he has to trust.

This article focuses on discussing a broader issue than just supplication for an infidel, which is the evaluation of the righteous deed of an infidel, and it is the basis upon which the issue of supplication for him is based on a worldly or otherworldly matter, just as the evaluation of the actions of the infidel relates to a holistic origin, which is divine justice and its help, which is the discussion that will take us to The field of ethics.

Judge Al-Maliki Ayyad - may God Almighty have mercy on him - went that the righteous deed of an unbeliever does not benefit him, and said, “There is consensus 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.”

The judge’s speech is questionable on two sides:

The first: his story for consensus, which is not correct.

It is contrary to reality;

Since the issue is controversial before him, after him, and in his time, as I will explain, and the claim of consensus was answered by more than one, among them the scholar Shihab al-Din al-Khafaji (1069 AH) and the scholar Shihab al-Din al-Alusi (1270 AH) and others.

The second: that Ayyad separated two related issues: the first is the waste of the deeds of the infidels, and the second is the recognition of the different degrees of the infidels in the Hereafter, and this is a problematic matter. For those of the different degrees of the infidels in the Hereafter, their deeds must differ; As the disparity is based only on the basis of their deeds and their history in this world, and this is why Imam Anwar Al-Kashmiri said, "I do not know a way for the disparity between an infidel and an infidel in the depths of Hell except the discrepancy between their deeds."

If we go back to what was before al-Qadi Ayyad, we find that the issue is a disagreement between two modern imams, Shafi’i. They are Abu Abdullah Al-Halimi (403 AH) who won the idea that the deeds of the infidels were wasted on the Day of Resurrection, although his words indicate that there was a disagreement as well, and his student Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi (458 AH) who proved the disagreement on the issue, and that the waste of business is only the saying of “some scholars And look ", and perhaps he means his sheikh. Al-Bayhaqi said, “It may be permissible that the hadith of Ibn Jadaan and the verses and news reported about the invalidity of the good of the unbeliever if he dies on the disbelief: With what he did of good deeds. "

As for Imam al-Maliki Ibn al-Faras (597 AH), he said, “And it is different about the infidel who, in the event of his disbelief, does some kind of acts of righteousness, such as the bond of kinship and the like, will he be rewarded for him in the Hereafter or not? "The talk about this is long, and what we mentioned is rich."

The disagreement was proven by those who were before Iyad, his contemporaries and those who came after him, and those who were late to Ayyad, for example Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, who said: This continued until a very late time. This Shihab al-Din al-Nafrawi al-Azhari al-Maliki (1126 AH) mentions the disagreement and recounts 3 sayings about the deeds of the infidel, saying, “What good he did that does not depend on an intention, (1) it was said: He will be rewarded in this world with softness and physical well-being. And the large number of children, (2) It was said in the abode of torment to reduce the punishment of other than disbelief on his behalf, because the correct view is from Malik’s doctrine, like any other, that the infidels are addressed with the branches of Sharia (...) As for faith, they are addressed in agreement with it, (3) and it was said: In the hereafter they will only be rewarded for doing good A specific group in which the text (...) was mentioned. Perhaps the reduction in the punishment for this group is due to the punishment they deserve in the sin that they committed, apart from disbelief, and as for the torment of disbelief, it is not reduced, not diminished, and is not forgiven as we presented.

These models - and many others - make it clear that the disagreement on the issue is significant, and that the work of the infidel is a complex issue, and the disagreement occurred in his evaluation in two cases:

The first case: the actions of the infidel before his conversion to Islam if he became Muslim

The evaluation of these deeds includes 3 issues: (1) the fate of his good deeds in the hereafter, (2) the fate of his bad deeds that he did before his conversion to Islam in the hereafter, and (3) the fate of the acts of worship of the infidel in the rulings of this world.

In the first issue: which is the fate of his good deeds, the origin of the disagreement - along with the disagreement over the interpretation of verses and hadiths - is the concept of requiring faith to respect deeds and not frustrate them, so is it (1) in the sense of the existence of faith at work (2) or its existence at all, even after the action has occurred?

Whoever invalidates the reward of his righteous deeds goes to the condition that faith accompanies work, and whoever makes him rewarded for it, he considers the absolute faith - even after work - as long as it was achieved before his death.

What was suggested by more than one of the scholars is that if an unbeliever becomes Muslim, he will be rewarded for his righteous deeds before he becomes Muslim.

Al-Qurtubi said: "Islam if it is good to destroy the sins that preceded it and attain righteousness before it."

However, sects of the speakers and others disagreed regarding this, and they said: "Deeds in the state of disbelief are despondent and have no reward in any case."

Regarding the second issue: the fate of his bad deeds, the first group of scholars did not see that the infidel after becoming Muslim was rewarded only for his good deeds, but also replaced the bad ones with good deeds.

Ibn Rajab said, “There have been clear hadiths stating that if an unbeliever becomes Muslim and his Islam is good, his bad deeds in polytheism will be transformed into good deeds.” Rather, this is proven by the text of the Qur’an (for those who are changed by God will change their bad deeds with good deeds).

The first: That the substitution takes place in this world, meaning that God changes the one who embraced Islam and repented to him in exchange for what he had of infidelity and sin: faith and righteous deeds.

This is the saying of a group of scholars, but Ibrahim al-Harbi narrated it on the authority of most of the commentators, and named them: Ibn Abbas, Ataa, Qatada, As-Sadi, and Ikrimah, and it is the well-known of Al-Hasan Al-Basri.

The second: that the substitution takes place in the Hereafter, by placing them in the place of every bad good and good, and a group of them including Amr bin Maymun, Makhoul, and Ibn Al-Musayyab went to this.

This substitution has been found to have been found to be better for the one whose bad deeds are greater than those whose bad deeds are reduced, so that the place of each bad is given a good! Ibn Rajab tried to solve this problem by saying, “Rather, the substitution is the right of one who regretted his bad deeds and made them focus his eyes, so the more he mentioned them, the more fear, shame and shyness of God, and hastening to do righteous deeds as the Almighty said (except for the one who repents and believes and works, and what he did) All of his sins are included in the righteous deed, and whoever is in this state, he suffers from the bitterness of remorse and regret for his sins many times the sweetness he tasted when he did them, and every sin of his sins becomes a cause for good deeds that are erased for him.

The third issue: It is the fate of the acts of worship of the unbeliever in the rulings of this world. If he embraced Islam, would he be credited - juridically - with an act of worship that he had performed before his conversion to Islam?

Al-Nawawi said, “As for the saying of the jurists: It is not valid for an unbeliever to worship, so what they mean is that it is not valid for him in the rulings of this world, (...) some of the actions of the infidels may be counted in the rulings of this world. His disbelief is sufficient for that, and if he embraces Islam, he does not have to return it. He performed tayammum, and if he embraced Islam, he would pray with it.

As for Kashmiri, Al-Nawawi disagreed with this, and said that (acts of worship) are not considered an original, neither in this world nor in the hereafter.

The second case: the righteous deed of an infidel who died of infidelity

The disagreement intensified in this case, so more than one of the scholars argued that the good deeds of an unbeliever if he dies in disbelief are wasted (in the hereafter). Walking on all verses without interpretation. Al-Khattabi said, “It was narrated that the good deeds of an unbeliever if he concludes with Islam for him are counted for him, and if he dies on his disbelief, they are wasted.” Rather, Imam Saad al-Din al-Taftazani claimed unanimity to thwart the actions of the infidels in the hereafter, and if this consensus was proven, we would not have found all this discussion, and from here, if Al-Bayhaqi had mentioned this as a possibility as previously mentioned, then someone else has confirmed it, among these the jurist and modernist Ahmad al-Qurani (893 AH) And the modern jurist, Anwar Shah Al-Kashmiri and others, and Al-Kurani said: "Deeds of righteousness benefit the unbeliever in reducing the punishment." It is necessary to clarify the justifications for waste according to those who say it and the justifications for consideration according to those who say it.

The justifications for wasting the deeds of an unbeliever altogether - along with the phenomena and generalities of some verses - are due to the fact that the unbeliever complied - as it appears - for the command in performing his righteous deeds, then he did not expect a reward in the hereafter.

Because of his lack of faith, and the one who is close to him did not know these obedience and closeness to him, and thus he became obedient and not close, and therefore his reward was limited to the world which is the horizon of his perceptions, and his deeds were wasted in the hereafter, and he obtained his reward for them in this world with pure justice and according to what he hoped for himself.

The justification for the benefit of an unbeliever who died in disbelief by his righteous deeds in the Hereafter, is based on several considerations:

The first: It is decided that Hell is dark, just as Paradise is degrees, and the difference in deeds is the reason for the differentiation between the infidels and their different degrees, and this requires the justice and reward of God Almighty.

Kashmiri said, "Therefore they are unanimously agreed that the just disbeliever is lighter than the unjust infidel, and it is also known from the Sharia that there is a difference in the intensity of torment, and this is only for the benefit of obedience simple."

Rather, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said, “The infidels negotiate disbelief as the people of faith differ in faith (...). If the infidels have those who have reduced their disbelief because of his support and aid, then the Prophet’s intercession will benefit him in reducing the punishment for him and not in the complete abolition of torture.”

The second: that the deeds of the unbeliever are varied, some of them require faith, and some of them do not require faith, and therefore the lack of faith does not affect them as good deeds within themselves, and if they are good then they are considered.

Because the link between it and faith is severed, and if its reward does not outweigh the guilt of disbelief, and then its benefit is not completely removed from the fire.

Because of the greater sin of disbelief.

The third: that based on the saying that the unbeliever is addressed to a letter of assignment with the principles (the origin of faith) and the branches (detailed orders), he will be held accountable for all of them, and then he will be tormented for abandoning the faith and for abandoning all commands, so the torment in the hereafter will be alleviated and he will benefit from his righteous deeds.

A peer to be held accountable for the branches if he left them.

Rather, it is agreed upon - as Al-Allamah Al-Khafaji said - that the infidels are addressed with costs in transactions and felonies, he said: There is no doubt that it is meaningless to address them except to punish those who neglect them and the reward for their perpetrator, and the least is to reduce the punishment.

It is clear from the previous disagreement that the righteous deeds of an unbeliever are not equal, and that faith and disbelief are not the only criteria in their evaluation, whether in this world or in the hereafter, and therefore it is necessary to distinguish between two types:

The first: What necessitates faith, such as acts of worship, and the aspect of it and the disagreement regarding it has been explained as to whether Islam comes after it, whether in the provisions of this world or in the rulings of the Hereafter.

Second: What does not require faith, and includes general obedience and affection, such as dreams, ties of kinship, charity and other good deeds, and the disagreement here is not about its entitlement to the reward but about the timing of the reward, and whether it falls in this world only or is it beneficial in the hereafter as well?

The most correct, as previously stated, is that this type is considered, and that is why the Kashmiri said - for example - “All acts of obedience and ties are beneficial to the unbeliever,” and even if they are not a purveyor, they become a cause to relieve the suffering something.

The one who is saved from Hellfire is faith (and this is a detail about who is excused on the Day of Resurrection, perhaps he will have another place).

It must be clarified that all these discussions are referred to the texts of the Qur’an and the hadith of the Prophet.

Because they are metaphysical matters that can only be known by reporting on God and His Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and they are part of the broader perceptions on which the various schools of discourse are based.

And if the above is about the good deed of the infidel, then what about the invalid deed from it as well?

The textual evidence is spoken that (a) if it is disbelief is not forgiven, (b) if it is an invalid act without disbelief, then it is under the divine will, and here it is permissible to pray for the infidel for forgiveness of this, meaning that the supplication is a request from God that the infidel includes the divine will to forgive and relieve him .

This disagreement, which I have outlined in great intensification, illustrates the complexities of the issue in the fields of speech and jurisprudence, and that standing at the mere phenomena of the Qur’an text is extremely problematic.

Because the entire discussion is about interpreting these generalities on the one hand, and about downloading these generalities to the details of the facts and notables on the other hand, and we will detail the evidence and the method of interpreting them in a later article, God willing, and God is the successor.