Did Abu Talib become a Muslim before his death?

[Ruhi_Rose]

As everyone knows, Abu Talib was the uncle and guardian of the Prophet (SAW) in Makkah.   The  Sunnis say that although Abu Talib was very caring toward the Prophet (SAW), yet he never accepted the Prophet's message of Islam and died a mushrik.  The Shiias claim that he did embrace Islam prior to his death.  I'm totally confused as to which version is correct.  Surely one version has to be wrong and the other right.  So, which is the correct one?  Would anyone know?

[N. Truth Seeker]

Yes, there is a tug of war between sunnis and shiias on this issue.  I'm afraid it's impossible to prove who is right or who's wrong.  All such details of Islamic history have been completely erased by the petty wranglings in hadith narratives.  Since shiias support the Ahl-Bait (Prophet's family), their version says Abu Talib became a Muslim before he died.  And because shiias strongly support Ahl-Bait, the sunnis (who call themselves Ahl-sunnah) oppose the Ahl-Bait as a backlash.  They claim that he never accepted Islam and died a disbeliever.  There are many hadiths in the form of little stories in the sunni hadith collections by so-called "sahabahs" narrating that Abu Talib died a disbeliever.  Maybe but only Allah Almighty can confirm.  Similarly, shiias have their own sources saying he died a Muslim.  Only Allah Almighty knows which of the two version is correct. 
 
The only point on which both sides agree is that Abu Talib was kind and loving towards the Prophet.

[Heba E. Husseyn]

Hummm .... well  (hadith excluded) in my personal and logical opinion, I think Abu Talib died a disbeliever and never embraced Islam although he was very loving towards the Prophet (S) who was his nephew.  Only Allah knows best, but I don't think any of the Prophet's relatives of Abu Talib's generation accepted Islam .. I have no information nor any confirmations on that through any reliable sources. 

For the sunnis there are 2 reasons why they claim Abu Talib didn't embrace Islam.  Firstly, there are many sunni hadiths which say he didn't become a Muslim.  Secondly, as br. pt mentioned, it's simply as a backlash-rejoinder to the shiias to oppose them.
 
Also, the term Ahl-Bait is supposed to refer only to those members of the Prophet's family who embraced Islam and the later generations of the Prophet's family who were born Muslims e.g. Imam Hussein and his brother Hassan, the grandsons of the Prophet, and their descendents.  So, the shiias should not feel upset even if Abu Talib didn't accept Islam.  That's really not important.  The responsibility of that is on Abu Talib himself, none else.  It does not at all have any bearing on the other believing members of the Prophet's household who are known as Ahl-Bait.

[N. Truth Seeker]

Yes sister Heba, I read your points.  They make lots a sense.  thanks.

[Zainab_M]

Yeah, it is a "tug of war" between sunnis and shiias, and I too think the truth of this matter is only known to Allah.  The false stories and gossips thru hadiths and the usual wranglings have re-shaped Islamic history with too many fabrications.  Actually the shiias are eager to say that Abu Talib embraced Islam before his death because he was the father of Imam Ali.  But as sister Heba stated very correctly, the shiias should not worry about that because even if Abu Talib hadn't embraced Islam, that wasn't the responsibility of Imam Ali.  The fact that Imam Ali being the cousin of the Prophet and his son-in-law was a devout Muslim is what's important.  Though I too think Abu Talib did not embrace Islam, various segments of sunnis who think the same is mainly because of the fun they derive by teasing the shiias .. and of course the sunni hadiths of Bukhari etc. do the same. 

[Heba E. Husseyn]

I'll tell u what.  Actually some of the Ahl-sunnah (i.e. sunnis) also think that he embraced Islam before his death, but all such arguments are based on individual presumptions and then circulated.  According to them, it was Abu Talib who conducted the Prophet's (SAW) nikkah or marriage oath when the Prophet (SAW) married Khadija in Makkah.  So, some sunni imams or ulemas think that a non-Muslim cannot conduct the Prophet's nikkah, therefor he must have embraced Islam.  But this argument is completely senseless.  Even if Abu Talib did embrace Islam before his death, he surely wasn't a Muslim when or if he conducted the nikkah of the Prophet (SAW) with Khadija in Makkah because that was before the Prophet (SAW) got the Call from Allah, and at that time no one was a Muslim.  Thus, the argument is devoid of logic.

But most sunnis say that Abu Talib died a non-believer.  Some sunnis also claim that the above notion of Abu Talib embracing Islam because he conducted the Prophet's (SAW) nikkah is falsely propagated by shiias pretending to be sunnis .... lol.   

There is only one sunni imam by the name of Sheikh Ahmed Ridha Fadhil who has a sensible & logical view.  He categorically stated to finally close this episode of guesswork that Abu Talib's faith is not known to us (only Allah knows best).  Sh. Fadhil also added that regardless of whether or not Abu Talib embraced Islam, he should be remembered with respect because he helped the Prophet (SAW) in difficult times and protected the Prophet (SAW) from his enemies.
Eventually everything is up to Allah to decide.

[N. Truth Seeker]

The king of wahabis, the medieval imam ibn Taymiyyah was so obsessed to believe that Abu Talib was not a Muslim that any other imam or ulema who came up with any possibilities that Abu Talib might have been a Muslim made Taymiyyah declare that imam or ulema as a "kafir." 

However, sister Heba is right that some circles of sunni imams do think that possibly he did convert to Islam before his death.  Those sunni imams who consider this to be a possibility are the ones who consider the Bukhari ahadith on Abu Talib to be weak. 

I quote a non-wahabi, non-salafi sunni, who concluded this matter in a forum discussion saying  "Anyways differences apart we should be tolerant on this opinion and not be rigid in this regard. The best thing to do is to leave the matter to Allah azza Wajjal and not ridicule Abu Talib."   

[Ruhi_Rose]

Okay, I now get it.  It gives me a clearer idea of matters, that is, we must leave it to Allah (Subhana wa'Tala). 
 
Bukhari and other ahadith are so crazy, forget about them.  Some of the false hadiths on Abu Talib claim that though he didn't embrace Islam but he will be in the lower depth of Hellfire where the fire will be knee deep.   But the Prophet (SAW) never had the power to predict anyone's fate, much less to declare who will be in which part of Hell or Paradise. 

I benefited a lot from this thread.  Thanks in plenty, folks!

[Heba E. Husseyn]

lol ,, yes there are many such hilariously FALSE hadiths written by Mr. Bukhari & associates.  Also, Bukhari has tried to interfere with the relationships between the Prophet's family members by writing such false hadiths.  E.g. There's one Bukhari hadith I quote as under:
 
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 222: Narrated Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib:
That he said to the Prophet "You have not been of any avail to your uncle (Abu Talib) (though) by Allah, he used to protect you and used to become angry on your behalf." The Prophet said, "He is in a shallow fire, and had It not been for me, he would have been in the bottom of the (Hell) Fire."   
 
I think it's easy enough to pick the glaring flaws and guile of this untrue,  stupid and gossipy hadith.  As usual, Bukhari's aim is to badmouth the Prophet (SAW) through this nonsensical hadith.  It's claimed to be narrated by another uncle of the Prophet (SAW) name Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib who was apparently the brother of Abu Talib.  In this hadith Abbas is supposed to be blaming the Prophet (SAW) for not being helpful to Abu Talib in any way at all as a nephew.  And then Bukhari's silly mind comes up with the lie that that Prophet (SAW) said that it was because of him that Abu Talib is in shallow fire in Hell - a clear contradiction of the Noble Quran which states clearly that no one (including the Prophet) knows the ultimate fate of people on the Day of Resurrection.  This is how Bukhari etc. spread immense fitnah among Muslims, and such writings play a vital role in deepening the animosity between sunnis and shiias.

[Ruhi_Rose]

hummm, right u r sis.   That one u quoted was one of Bukhari's magnificient lies