The hadith in question is the hadith in Bukhari and Muslim

‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar reported that Hafsa wept for ‘Umar (when he was about to die). He (‘Umar) said: Be quiet, my daughter. Don’t you know that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had said:” The deceased is punished because of his family’s weeping over the death”? (Sahih Muslim 927a & Bukhari 1292)

The verse it supposedly contradicts

Reconciling The Hadith And The Verse &  The Dispute Among Scholars As To What It Means.

The Disagreement over Punishment of the Deceased for Crying

Some scholars understood the hadith about the deceased being punished because of crying as it appears, especially due to the story of Umar with Suhayb and Hafsah. They believed that if the deceased could have forbidden such acts and failed to do so, then he would be punished. This was the view of Umar, Ibn Umar, and others. Ibn Umar even warned the family of Rafi ibn Khadij, saying that the deceased may be punished due to their crying.

Rejection Based on the Verse about Bearing Burdens

Other scholars rejected this view, using the verse, “No bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another”, to argue that a person cannot be punished for the sins of others. Abu Hurayrah rejected this, and so did some Shafi‘i scholars including Abu Hamid. They found it unacceptable that someone like a martyr would be punished because of someone else’s crying.

Alternative Interpretations of the Hadith

Some scholars interpreted the wording “because of the crying” as a statement of time rather than cause. This means the punishment happens while the crying is taking place, not because of it. This interpretation, mentioned by al-Khattabi, tries to link the timing of crying with the beginning of the grave’s punishment. However, this view was seen as strained and unnatural.

The View that the Narrator Missed Part of the Hadith

Some said that the narrator only heard part of the hadith and missed another part. According to this view, the phrase “the deceased” refers to a specific known person. This interpretation was supported by Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani and others. They relied on a narration where Aisha corrected Ibn Umar, saying that the Prophet passed by a Jewish woman and the meaning was misunderstood.

Limiting the Hadith to Disbelievers

Another interpretation is that the hadith only applies to disbelievers. This is supported by a narration of Ibn Abbas from Aisha, where she confirms that a disbeliever may have their punishment increased due to the crying of their family. So this view limits the hadith and says it does not apply to believers.

Different Interpretations from Aisha رضي الله عنها

The various statements from Aisha show she did not reject the hadith using another hadith, but rather felt it opposed the meaning of the Quran. Al-Dawudi pointed out that Aisha’s report from Ibn Abbas confirms what others denied, except that she limited it to disbelievers. He asked, what difference is there between punishment starting because of others, or increasing because of others?

Al-Qurtubi’s Clarification of Aisha’s Rejection

Al-Qurtubi pointed out that many companions narrated the same meaning, so it is better to try to interpret the hadith rather than reject it, like Aisha رضي الله عنها did when she criticised the narrators of the hadith and the hadith itself.

Three Main Ways of Reconciliation

First: The Method of al-Bukhari

Al-Bukhari reconciled by limiting the hadith to cases where the deceased approved of or did not forbid such acts. This method uses other evidence to limit the general meaning of the hadith.

Second: Punishment Due to a Specific Instruction

Some scholars, including Al-Muzani and Ibrahim al-Harbi, said this only applies if the deceased directly instructed his family to cry or wail. This view is also reported from most scholars. Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi said this was known to the early Arabs, even seen in poetry such as that of Tarafah ibn al-Abd. Some objected by saying that the punishment should be just for the instruction itself. But the reply is that the hadith does not limit the punishment to just one case.

Third: Neglecting to Forbid Family

Others said it also applies to someone who knew his family were likely to do this, but failed to forbid them. This view was taken by Dawud and others. It is only relevant when the family are known to engage in such behaviour or are likely to do so.

Fourth Clarification from Ibn al-Murabit

Ibn al-Murabit explained that if someone knows about the prohibition of wailing and knows his family tend to do it, but he fails to teach them or stop them, then he is punished for his own failure, not for what they did alone.

Translation: Some scholars criticised al-Bukhari’s reasoning using this verse and hadith to support his view, by applying the hadith in this chapter to it. This is because the hadith clearly says that the deceased is punished due to his family’s crying, while the verse and the other hadith indicate that he is punished because of his own sin. So the two matters are not the same. The answer is that there is no problem, when trying to reconcile between texts, in specifying some general expressions and restricting some absolute ones.

So even if the hadith implies that every deceased person is punished for every kind of crying, other evidence has come to specify this and restrict it to a certain kind of crying, as will be explained later, and also to restrict it to someone for whom that was his usual practice or who neglected to forbid it. So the meaning, in this case, is that the one who is punished because of some of his family’s crying is the one who was pleased with that, meaning that this was his way.

For this reason, the author said: “So if it was not from his way,” meaning, like someone who had no idea that they would do anything like that, or he fulfilled his responsibility by forbidding them, then such a person is not held accountable for the actions of others. That is why Ibn al-Mubarak said: If he used to forbid them during his life, and they did something like that after his death, then there is nothing on him.

His saying: “So it is as Aisha said,” means, as Aisha used as evidence with the saying of Allah Most High: “And no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another” meaning, no one will carry someone else’s sin on their behalf. This was her way of rejecting the idea that every deceased person is punished for the crying over him.

The scholars differed over the issue of the deceased being punished because of the crying over him. Some of them took the hadith according to its apparent meaning. This is clearly shown in the story of Umar with Suhayb, as will be mentioned in the third hadith of this chapter. It is possible that Umar held the view that the deceased is held accountable if he was able to forbid something and did not do so.

That is why he was quick to forbid Suhayb, and also forbade Hafsah, as narrated by Muslim through the chain of Nafi from Ibn Umar from him. Among those who took the hadith by its apparent meaning was Abdullah ibn Umar. Abd al-Razzaq narrated from him that he attended the funeral of Rafi ibn Khadij and said to his family, “Indeed Rafi is an old man who cannot bear punishment, and the deceased is punished because of the crying of his family over him.”

Opposing the view of these scholars is the saying of those who rejected this hadith and opposed it with the verse of Allah, “And no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another.”

Among those who reportedly denied this altogether was Abu Hurayrah, as narrated by Abu Ya‘la through the route of Bakr ibn Abdillah al-Muzani who said: Abu Hurayrah said, “By Allah, if a man were to go out striving in the path of Allah and were then martyred, and his wife, in her ignorance and foolishness, cried over him, would this martyr then be punished because of the sin of this foolish woman?”

This was also the position adopted by a group from the Shafi‘i scholars, such as Abu Hamid and others.

Some scholars interpreted the phrase “because of the crying of his family” with the letter “ba” indicating circumstance, not causation, meaning that the start of the punishment of the deceased happens while his family are crying over him.

This is because the intense crying usually occurs at the time of burial, which is also when the questioning begins and the punishment of the grave starts. So the meaning of the hadith, according to this, is that the deceased is punished while his family are crying over him, but their crying is not the cause of his punishment.

This was mentioned by al-Khattabi, but the forced nature of this interpretation is not hidden. Perhaps the one who said this based it on the statement of Aisha: “The Messenger of Allah only said, ‘He is indeed punished for his sin or for his wrongdoing, and his family are crying over him now.’” This is found in Muslim through the route of Hisham ibn Urwah from his father from her. Based on this, the hadith would only apply to some specific people.

Others interpreted the hadith to mean that the narrator heard part of the hadith and missed part of it, and that the definite article in “the deceased” refers to a known specific person. This was the position affirmed by Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani and others.

Their evidence is what will come in the narration of Amrah from Aisha in the fourth hadith of the chapter. Muslim also narrated it through the same route used by al-Bukhari, and added at the beginning: “It was mentioned to Aisha that Ibn Umar says, ‘Indeed the deceased is punished because of the crying of the living over him.’ Aisha said, ‘May Allah forgive Abu Abd al-Rahman. He did not lie, but he forgot or made a mistake. The Messenger of Allah only passed by a Jewish woman…’” and then she mentioned the hadith.

Some said that the hadith applies only to the disbeliever, and that the believer is never punished for the sin of someone else. This is clearly supported by the narration of Ibn Abbas from Aisha, which is the third hadith in this chapter. These interpretations from Aisha are different, and they indicate that she did not reject the hadith by another hadith, but rather by what she sensed to be a contradiction with the Quran.

Al-Dawudi said: The narration of Ibn Abbas from Aisha affirms what Amrah and Urwah denied from her, except that she restricted it to the disbeliever.

This is because she affirmed that the deceased increases in punishment due to the crying of his family. So what is the difference between someone being punished more because of the actions of others or being punished from the beginning?

Al-Qurtubi said: Aisha’s rejection of the hadith, and her declaring the narrator to have made a mistake or forgotten, or that he heard part and not the whole, is far-fetched. This is because many companions narrated this same meaning with certainty. So there is no need to reject it when it is possible to interpret it in a sound way.

Many of the scholars reconciled between the hadiths of Umar and Aisha in various ways.

The first: is the method of al-Bukhari, which has already been explained.

The second, which is more specific than the first: that this happens if the deceased instructed his family to do this. This was the view of al-Muzani, Ibrahim al-Harbi, and others from the Shafi‘i scholars and others. Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi said: This is the view of the majority of scholars. Al-Nawawi also quoted it from the majority. It was even known among the early Arabs, such that Tarafah ibn al-Abd said:

“If I die, then mourn me as I deserve,
And tear your garment for me, O daughter of Ma‘bad.”

It was objected that if the punishment is because of the instruction, then it would be deserved simply for issuing the instruction, whereas the hadith indicates that the punishment only occurs when the instruction is acted upon. The answer is that the wording of the hadith does not confine the punishment to only one time or circumstance. So it does not mean that the punishment only happens if they carry out the instruction and never otherwise.

The third: that this also applies to the one who neglected to instruct or forbid his family from this. This was the view of Dawud and a group of scholars. But it is clear that this only applies in the case where the family are known to be accustomed to such behaviour, or it is likely they would do so.

Ibn al-Murabit said: If a person knows about the prohibition of wailing and also knows that his family are the type who would do that, but he never informed them of its prohibition or warned them against it, then if he is punished for it, he is punished for what he himself failed to do, not for what others did independently.

Fath Al Bari (4/593-597)