How will the father of Prophet Muhammad be judged?
A well-known hadith in Sahih Muslim states that the Prophet ﷺ said:
“Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire.”
At first sight, the meaning appears clear. Yet this narration became the subject of detailed discussion among later scholars, especially Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, who questioned whether this particular wording was the strongest version of the report. The discussion is important because it shows how classical scholars dealt with apparently difficult hadith: by comparing chains of transmission, examining different wordings and distinguishing between what is firmly established and what may be open to interpretation.
The hadith in Sahih Muslim
Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) reported:
عن أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه:
أن رجلا قال: يا رسول الله، أين أبي؟ قال ﷺ: «في النار». فلما قفى دعاه فقال: «إن أبي وأباك في النار».
A man asked:
“O Messenger of Allah, where is my father?”
The Prophet ﷺ replied:
“In the Fire.”
When the man turned to leave, the Prophet ﷺ called him back and said:
“Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire.”
The narration is found in Sahih Muslim, in the Book of Faith, under the chapter concerning those who die upon disbelief. It is narrated through Hammad ibn Salamah, from Thabit, from Anas ibn Malik. The wording is therefore undeniably present in Sahih Muslim and is also transmitted in other hadith collections.
The question raised by al-Suyuti was not whether Muslim had narrated it, but whether this exact wording should be regarded as the strongest version of the incident.
Al-Suyuti’s first approach: comparing different narrations
In Masalik al-Hunafa fi Waliday al-Mustafa, Imam al-Suyuti points out that the words:
“Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire”
were not transmitted in every version of the report. He notes that Hammad ibn Salamah narrated the incident from Thabit with this explicit wording. However, Ma’mar also narrated from Thabit without mentioning the Prophet’s ﷺ father. In that version, the Prophet ﷺ said:
“Whenever you pass by the grave of a disbeliever, give him the tidings of the Fire.”
This wording makes no explicit statement about the father of the Prophet ﷺ, and for al-Suyuti that difference was significant. He argued that the version transmitted by Ma’mar should be preferred from the perspective of transmission. Later discussions of Abu Dawud’s narration likewise record this comparison between Hammad’s wording and that attributed to Ma’mar.
His argument was therefore not simply an attempt to avoid an uncomfortable meaning. He was comparing different transmissions of the same report and asking which wording was more securely preserved.
The narration of Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas
Al-Suyuti also refers to another narration from Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him). In this report, a Bedouin asked the Prophet ﷺ about his father and was told that he was in the Fire. The man then asked:
“Where is your father?”
The Prophet ﷺ replied:
“Whenever you pass by the grave of a disbeliever, give him the tidings of the Fire.”
Again, the Prophet ﷺ does not explicitly say in this version:
“My father is in the Fire.”
Al-Suyuti regarded this narration as further support for the wording transmitted through Ma’mar. He therefore preferred the version which speaks generally about the grave of a disbeliever over the version which explicitly mentions the Prophet’s ﷺ father.
Al-Suyuti did not reject the whole incident
This is an important distinction. Al-Suyuti did not deny that the incident occurred, nor did he claim that the narration in Sahih Muslim had been fabricated. Rather, he challenged one particular wording within one route of transmission.
His argument can therefore be summarised as follows: the incident itself is established, but one route says:
“Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire.”
while other narrations give a different response:
“Whenever you pass by the grave of a disbeliever, give him the tidings of the Fire.”
Al-Suyuti preferred the latter wording.
A second approach: was this an earlier ruling that was later superseded?
There is also a second approach that has been mentioned in the scholarly discussion. According to this interpretation, even if the wording:
“Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire”
is accepted as authentic and understood as referring to the Prophet’s ﷺ biological father, it may have been spoken at an earlier stage, before the final ruling concerning this matter had been made known to the Prophet ﷺ. On this reading, what was said at that point was later superseded by what Allah subsequently revealed or made known.
This is essentially an argument based on chronology and abrogation (naskh). Revelation came gradually over the twenty-three years of the Prophet’s ﷺ mission, and there are many examples in the Shariah where an earlier ruling was subsequently replaced by a later one. Therefore, the existence of an authentic earlier statement does not, in itself, rule out the possibility that its ruling was later changed.
However, this approach needs to be expressed carefully. It is not enough simply to label an authentic hadith “abrogated”. Establishing abrogation normally requires evidence that the two rulings cannot be reconciled and, crucially, that the later evidence can actually be shown to have come after the earlier one. In this particular discussion, the claim of abrogation is therefore one scholarly attempt to reconcile the evidence rather than something that all hadith scholars accepted.
This approach also differs from al-Suyuti’s first argument. His first argument concerns which wording was most accurately transmitted. The abrogation approach, by contrast, can accept the wording in Sahih Muslim as genuinely spoken by the Prophet ﷺ while arguing that it represented an earlier stage and was not necessarily the final word on the matter.
A third approach: what can the word “father” mean?
Al-Suyuti also offered another possible answer. He said that even if the wording in Sahih Muslim is accepted exactly as it stands, the Arabic word ab, meaning “father”, can sometimes be used in a wider sense. It may refer to a forefather or senior paternal relative, rather than only to one’s immediate biological father.
The Quran itself uses the word in this broader way. Allah says:
قَالُوا نَعْبُدُ إِلَٰهَكَ وَإِلَٰهَ آبَائِكَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا
“They said, ‘We will worship your God and the God of your fathers: Ibrahim, Ismail and Ishaq – one God.’”
(Surah al-Baqarah, 2:133)
Ismail (peace be upon him) was not the direct father of Ya’qub (peace be upon him). He was the brother of his grandfather Ishaq (peace be upon him). Yet the Quran includes him among the aba, the “fathers” or forefathers. On this basis, al-Suyuti suggested that the words “my father” could potentially be understood in a broader family sense.
This interpretation is not the most obvious meaning
This linguistic argument needs an important qualification. In ordinary Arabic, when someone says “my father”, the immediate meaning is normally the person’s actual father. Al-Suyuti’s explanation is therefore a possible linguistic interpretation rather than the most apparent reading of the hadith. His stronger argument was his first one: that another transmitted wording should be preferred.
Other scholars understood the hadith literally
Not all scholars accepted al-Suyuti’s approach. The explicit wording:
“Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire”
is found in Sahih Muslim through recognised narrators, and the report has been judged authentic by numerous hadith scholars.
Major scholars therefore accepted the narration according to its apparent meaning. Imam al-Nawawi, in his commentary on Sahih Muslim, understood the word “father” in its ordinary sense. He explained that when the Prophet ﷺ called the man back, he was consoling him by showing that the painful ruling was not unique to his family. Al-Nawawi therefore did not adopt the later interpretation advanced by al-Suyuti.
This is important because it shows that there was genuine scholarly disagreement. It would be inaccurate to say that the wording in Sahih Muslim was simply rejected by the scholars, but it would also be inaccurate to suggest that no recognised scholar questioned whether this particular wording should be preferred over other narrations or whether other ways of reconciling the evidence were possible.
The wider issue of ahl al-fatrah
This discussion is also connected to a wider theological question: what is the ruling concerning people who lived during a period when the message of a prophet had not reached them clearly?
Allah says:
وَمَا كُنَّا مُعَذِّبِينَ حَتَّىٰ نَبْعَثَ رَسُولًا
“We do not punish until We have sent a messenger.”
(Surah al-Isra, 17:15)
Classical scholars discussed those who lived between prophetic missions under the heading of ahl al-fatrah. The parents of the Prophet ﷺ died before his prophethood, and their status therefore became linked, in later scholarly discussions, with broader questions about whether previous revelation had reached them clearly and whether religious responsibility had been fully established against them.
Different scholars approached this question differently. Some held that the message of Ibrahim (peace be upon him) remained sufficiently known among the Arabs for responsibility to have been established, while others considered those who had not received a clear prophetic message within the broader discussion of ahl al-fatrah. The apparent tension between this hadith and the Quranic principle that Allah does not punish until He sends a messenger has itself generated extensive scholarly discussion.
This wider context is one reason why the subject cannot be reduced to a single isolated quotation.
Three ways the narration has been approached
The discussion can therefore be understood through three distinct approaches.
The first concerns transmission. Al-Suyuti argued that although the wording “Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire” occurs in Sahih Muslim, another transmission should be preferred in which the Prophet ﷺ instead says: “Whenever you pass by the grave of a disbeliever, give him the tidings of the Fire.”
The second concerns chronology. According to this approach, even if the wording in Muslim is accepted exactly as transmitted and understood as referring to Abdullah, the father of the Prophet ﷺ, it may represent an earlier stage whose ruling was subsequently superseded. This interpretation depends upon establishing the necessary chronology and was not accepted by all scholars.
The third concerns interpretation. Al-Suyuti suggested that if Muslim’s wording is retained, the Arabic word ab can sometimes refer more broadly to a forefather or paternal relative, although this is not the most immediate meaning of the expression.
These approaches should not be confused with one another. One questions which wording is strongest, another accepts the wording but argues for a later ruling, and the third accepts the wording but interprets one of its key words differently.
A lesson in scholarly precision
There is a wider lesson here about the way hadith should be studied. Classical scholars did not simply accept or reject narrations according to personal preference. They compared chains, examined differences in wording, assessed narrators, considered Arabic usage, looked at chronology and attempted to reconcile texts where possible. They also sometimes disagreed with one another.
That disagreement does not mean that one side was careless or that the hadith sciences were inconsistent. It reflects the depth of the scholarly tradition and the seriousness with which scholars treated the words attributed to the Prophet ﷺ.
The narration in Sahih Muslim should therefore be treated with the respect due to an authentic hadith recorded by Imam Muslim. At the same time, the discussions of scholars such as al-Suyuti should also be represented accurately. He did not pretend the narration did not exist. He examined alternative transmissions and offered further ways of understanding the text, while other major scholars retained its apparent meaning.
The balanced conclusion
The safest and most accurate conclusion is that there was scholarly disagreement over how this narration should be understood. The explicit words:
“Indeed, my father and your father are in the Fire”
are unquestionably recorded in Sahih Muslim. Imam al-Nawawi and other scholars understood them according to their apparent meaning. Imam al-Suyuti, however, preferred another transmitted wording which does not explicitly mention the Prophet’s ﷺ father and offered a further linguistic interpretation if the wording in Muslim is accepted. A further approach found in the scholarly discussion is that the statement may belong to an earlier stage and that the ruling was subsequently superseded, although this requires evidence of chronology and should not be presented as an undisputed conclusion.
The discussion should therefore be approached with care, knowledge and respect. It is not a matter for careless polemics, nor should one scholarly position be presented as though no other recognised interpretation ever existed. The subject is ultimately part of a much larger discussion concerning hadith transmission, abrogation, ahl al-fatrah and the limits of what human beings can say with certainty about the final judgement of individuals.
And Allah knows best.
References
- The Quran, Surah al-Baqarah, 2:133.
- The Quran, Surah al-Isra, 17:15.
- Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Iman, Hadith 203.
- Imam al-Nawawi, al-Minhaj Sharh Sahih Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj.
- Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Masalik al-Hunafa fi Waliday al-Mustafa.
- Al-Bazzar, Musnad.
- Al-Tabarani, al-Mu’jam al-Kabir.