and these three Companions—may Allah be pleased with them—have their reports preserved in the two Ṣaḥīḥ collections. Were a researcher to examine this ḥadīth in greater depth, he would uncover yet more transmission routes. All three of the narrations we have mentioned possess sound chains of authority, so they cannot be set aside merely on the allegation that they conflict with the Qur’an.

Second, from the exegetical standpoint, the scholars have offered two explanations of the ḥadīth.

1. The first interpretation holds that the ḥadīth applies to a deceased person who, while still alive, knew that his family would commit unlawful practices after his death yet failed to advise them or leave instructions forbidding them to wail over him. Because such wailing becomes a cause of punishment for the dead, his neglect makes him liable.

The definite article al- in the word al-mayyit (the deceased) is therefore not generic or all-inclusive; the ḥadīth is not saying that every deceased person is punished for the crying of his relatives. Rather, the al- is specific, referring to that particular deceased person who neglected to warn his family against violating the Sharīʿah after his passing—he is the one punished for their wailing. As for the person who has fulfilled the obligation of advising them and has left a Sharīʿah-compliant testament instructing them not to