Very early Hadith books such as the Mussanaf of Abdul Razzaq Ibn Humam
(May Allaah have mercy on him) (126-211 AH)( Ref: Musannaf Abdur Razzaq 4/317) and the Musnad of Ahmed bin Hanbal (May Allaah have mercy on him) (164-241 AH) ( Ref: Musnad Ahmad 2/176 & 6/238)contain Ahadith relating to the virtues of 15th Sha'ban.
Even within the famous Six Books of Hadith (al-Kutub al-Sittah), Trimdhi ( Ref: Jami' Al-Trimidhi: Kitab Al-Sawm, Bab "Ma ja'a fi Laylatin Nisfi min Sha.ban" #739 (Vol.3 p107))and Ibn Majah (Sunan Ibn Majah: Kitab Al-Iqamah, Bab "Ma Ja'a Fi Laylatun Nifsi min Sha'ban" #1388 (Vol. 1 p444) have devoted a special chapter on "The Night of the Middle of Sha'ban" in their Hadith collections. In fact there are over a dozen Ahadith available which establish the significance of the night of the 15th of Sha'ban.
There are many hadith on the merits of this Night and some of them are weak ( dai’f).However, it is to be noted that not all of the 'weak' Ahadith suffer from major weaknesses and in fact the minor weaknesses in some Ahadith are curable and strengthened by other narrations.
( Wahabi Scholar Albani : : Silsilah Al-Ahadith Al Sahihah 3/135)
When all the numerous weak Ahadith are combined together, they reach a level of acceptability among Hadith scholars equivalent to being 'Hasan' (good).
Here are a few Sahih (Authentic) Hadith on the merits on the Night of 15 th of Shaba’an.
Hadith 1
Ibn Hibban narrated from Mu`adh ibn Jabal in his Sahih the following narration which the hadith scholar and editor of the Sahih Shu`ayb Arna'ut confirmed as sound:
The Prophet said : yattali`u Allahu ila khalqihi fi laylati al-nisfi min sha`bana fa-yaghfiru li-jami`i khalqihi illa li mushrikin aw mushahin.
Allah looks at His creation in the night of mid-Sha`ban and He forgives all His creation except for a mushrik (idolater) or a mushahin (one bent on hatred).
( Reference: Al-Tabarani: Al-Mu'jam Al-Kabir 20/108-9, Ibn Hibban:
Sahih Ibn Hibban 7/470, Al-Bayhaqi: Shu'bal Iman 2/288, Abulhasan
Al-Qazwini: Al-Amali 4/2, Ibn 'Asakir: Al-Tarikh 15/302 & Ibn Abi 'Asim:Al-Sunna1/224)
Note :
1)Ibn Hibban (May Allaah have mercy on him) considered this Hadith to be Sahih.
(Ibn Rajab: Lataif Al-Ma'arif 1/224)
2)And Ibn Hajr Al-Haytami (May Allaah have mercy on him) said: "This Hadith is related by Al-Tabarani (May Allaah have mercy on him) in Al-Mu'jam Al-Kabir and Al-Awsat and the narrators of both are trustworthy"(thiqat) ( Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami: Majma' Al-Zawaid 8/65)
3)The great hadith scholar of the present time , Shaykah Shuayb Al-Arna'uat ( Rh) and the self claimed Wahabi hadith scholar Nasiruddin Al-Albani, have also considered this Hadith as 'Sahih'.
( Ref: - Shuayb Al-Arna'ut: Al-Ihsan fi Taqrib Sahih Ibn Hibban 12/481 #5665 & Nasiruddin Al-Albani: Silsilah Al-Ahadith Al-Sahihah 3/135 #1144 )
Hadith 2
There is another identical Hadith related from the Companion Abdullah b.'Amr (May Allaah be pleased with him) which says that the Prophet(Sallalahu Alaihi Wassalam) said: "Allah looks at His creation during the night of the 15th of Sha'ban and He forgives His servants except two- one intent on hatred (mushanin) and a murderer (qatilu nafs).
( Ref : Musnad Ahmad 2/176 #6642. Al-Bazzar also related this Hadith and he classified it as 'hasan'. )
Note :
In his edition of Musnad Ahmed, Shaykh Ahmed Shakir has classified this Hadith as'Sahih' and Nasiruddin Al-Albany classified it is 'Hasan'
( Al-Albani: Silsilah Al-Ahadith Al-Sahihah 3/136).
Hadith 3
A similar narration as above , but narrated by Abu Bakr Siddiq Rd .
It has been classified as sound by Haafiz al-Munzhiri (RA) in his al-Targheeb (vol.3 pg.459). This narration is of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and is recorded by Imaam Bazzaar (RA) in his Musnad. In fact, Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) has also classified one of its chains as Hasan (sound). (al-Amaalil mutlaqah pgs.119-120)
An important Note:
All the weak hadith which talks about the merits of 15th of Shaba’an, have got only minor weakness in them. Going by the principle of hadith, these weak hadiths also strengthen each other.
Besides the above, there are many other Sahaaba (Radhiallaahu Anhum) that narrated Ahaadith regarding the merit of this night, such as: Abu Hurayra (Musnad al-Bazzaar), Abu Tha’labah (Shu’ubul Imaan), Awf ibn Maalik (Musnad al-Bazzaar), Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas (Musnad Ahmad Hadith6642), Abu Moosa al-Ash’ari (ibn Majah Hadith1390; Shu’ubul Imaan Hadith3833) and others. The collective strength of these narrations cannot be refuted.
What the Scholars have said about this Night:
1) The general virtue of this night has been accepted by many great Ulama of the past. From among many great scholars which have agreed to the virtue of this night are: Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz, Imaam al-Shaafi’ee, Imaam al-Awzaa’ie, Attaa ibn Yassaar, Imaam al-Majd ibn Taymiyah, ibn Rajab al-Hambaliy and Hafiz Zaynu-ddeen al-Iraaqiy (Rahmatullaahi alayhim) .
Refer Lataiful Ma’aarif of Hafiz ibn Rajab pgs.263-264 and Faydhul Qadeer vol.2 pg.317.
2) Even Ibn Taymiyya -- the putative authority of "Salafis" -- considered the night of mid-Sha`ban "a night of superior merit" in his Iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqim:
[Some] said: There is no difference between this night (mid-Sha`ban) and other nights of the year. However, the opinion of many of the people of learning, and that of the majority of our companions (i.e. the Hanbali school) and other than them is that it is a night of superior merit, and this is what is indicated by the words of Ahmad (ibn Hanbal), in view of the many ahadith which are transmitted concerning it, and in view of what confirms this from the words and deeds transmitted from the early generations (al-athar al-salafiyya). Some of its merits have been narrated in the books of hadith of the musnad and sunan types. This holds true even if other things have been forged concerning it.
( Ref:Ibn Taymiyya, Iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqim (1369/1950 ed.) p. 302.)
Ibn Taymiayh also said
“ As for the middle night of Sha’baan, there are various narrations that have been narrated regarding its significance and it has been reported from a group of the Salaf (predecessors) that they performed Salaat in it individually, hence, such a deed cannot be disputed.’
(Majmoo’ al-Fataawa ibn Taymiyah vol.23 pg.132)
3) Imam Suyuti (Rh)says in his Haqiqat al-sunna wa al-bid`a:
“As for the night of mid-Sha`ban, it has great merit and it is desirable (mustahabb) to spend part of it in supererogatory worship.”
( Ref: Suyuti, Haqiqat al-sunna wa al-bid`a aw al-amr bi al-ittiba` wa al-nahi `an al-ibtida` (1405/1985 ed.) p. 58. He adds: "However, this must be done alone, not in congregation.")
4. Imam Haskafi ( Rh) said in his Durr al-Mukhtar, one of the primary references in the Hanafi school:
"Among the recommended [prayers] are on. . . . the nights of the two Eids, the middle of Sha`ban, the last ten of Ramadan, and the first [ten] of Dhul-Hijjah”.
5. Imam Nawawi ( Rh) mentioned in his Majmu`, where he also quoted Imam al-Shafi`i from the latter’s al-Umm that it has reached him that there are 5 nights when dua is answered, one of them being the night of the 15th of Sha`ban.
End Note
Only Sahih hadiths have been quoted above. The weak hadith on this topic suffer only from minor weakness . There is general consensus that weak hadiths may be acted upon for virtuous acts, such as voluntary fasting and prayer, as long as the hadith is not excessively weak, returns to a general basis in the Shariah, and one is not convinced that the Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) specifically prescribed it.
There are many other narrations from the Companions and early Muslims confirming the merits of this night as mentioned by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali in his Lata’if al-Ma`arif, and others.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Gay Culture in Christianity!
Archbishop of Canterbury's support for gay marriage revealed
By Tony Grew • August 7, 2008 - 13:34
Correspondence between an evangelical Christian and Rowan Williams has been uncovered which reveals his support for gay marriage.
The letters were written in 2000 and 2001, when Dr Williams was the Archbishop of Wales, and confirm his liberal stance on homosexuality.
He stated in his correspondence with Deborah Pitt, an evangelical who lived in his then-Archdiocese, that parts of the Bible relating to homosexual acts are not aimed at people who are born gay but "heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience."
"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,” read one letter, quoted in The Times.
Archbishop Williams quoted the theologian Jeffrey John to back his position.
In 2003 Dr John was asked to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Reading by Dr Williams, by then Archbishop of Canterbury, after conservative Anglicans objected to the fact that he was in a gay relationship.
Under House of Bishops guidelines, clerics are allowed to enter into a civil partnership as long as they are not engaging in sexual relations.
Lambeth Palace, when asked for a comment on the letters to Ms Pitt, quoted a recent interview in which the Archbishop said:
"When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."
The ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire, was the catalyst for the ongoing crisis in the Anglican communion over gay issues.
At an event in Edinburgh last night Bishop Robinson said he felt personally "disrespected" by the way the Archbishop of Canterbury ignored his letters and banished him from a meeting of Anglican leaders.
"He is no longer the Rowan we once knew. I don't know how he sleeps at night," said Bishop Robinson.
At the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference last week Dr Williams said the "pieces are on the board" for a settlement.
The conference, held once every ten years, is a meeting of the leaders of the Church from around the world.
This year more than 200 bishops boycotted the event.
He also called on American churches not to elect any more gay bishops.
In a sermon on the final day of the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, Dr Williams said: "In these days together we have not overcome our problems or reinvented our structures: that will still take time."
But despite there still being "many questions" on the issue, a Covenant to bind the Communion together is needed, he said: "We may not have put an end to all our problems - but the pieces are on the board."
The Covenant could mean churches with new gay bishops could be expelled from the Anglican Communion.
In a reference to the bishops who refused to attend the Conference Dr Williams said: "In the months ahead it will be important to invite those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages."
He added that the Communion must not just be "an association of polite friends," rather, it must "embrace deeper and more solid ways of recognising and trusting each other
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8634.html
This news article was also available on the UK Guradian online edition , but it has been removed now!
This announcement means , more and more kids will be exploited by the holy fathers of the holy curch in an holy manner to get close to god!
By Tony Grew • August 7, 2008 - 13:34
Correspondence between an evangelical Christian and Rowan Williams has been uncovered which reveals his support for gay marriage.
The letters were written in 2000 and 2001, when Dr Williams was the Archbishop of Wales, and confirm his liberal stance on homosexuality.
He stated in his correspondence with Deborah Pitt, an evangelical who lived in his then-Archdiocese, that parts of the Bible relating to homosexual acts are not aimed at people who are born gay but "heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience."
"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,” read one letter, quoted in The Times.
Archbishop Williams quoted the theologian Jeffrey John to back his position.
In 2003 Dr John was asked to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Reading by Dr Williams, by then Archbishop of Canterbury, after conservative Anglicans objected to the fact that he was in a gay relationship.
Under House of Bishops guidelines, clerics are allowed to enter into a civil partnership as long as they are not engaging in sexual relations.
Lambeth Palace, when asked for a comment on the letters to Ms Pitt, quoted a recent interview in which the Archbishop said:
"When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."
The ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire, was the catalyst for the ongoing crisis in the Anglican communion over gay issues.
At an event in Edinburgh last night Bishop Robinson said he felt personally "disrespected" by the way the Archbishop of Canterbury ignored his letters and banished him from a meeting of Anglican leaders.
"He is no longer the Rowan we once knew. I don't know how he sleeps at night," said Bishop Robinson.
At the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference last week Dr Williams said the "pieces are on the board" for a settlement.
The conference, held once every ten years, is a meeting of the leaders of the Church from around the world.
This year more than 200 bishops boycotted the event.
He also called on American churches not to elect any more gay bishops.
In a sermon on the final day of the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, Dr Williams said: "In these days together we have not overcome our problems or reinvented our structures: that will still take time."
But despite there still being "many questions" on the issue, a Covenant to bind the Communion together is needed, he said: "We may not have put an end to all our problems - but the pieces are on the board."
The Covenant could mean churches with new gay bishops could be expelled from the Anglican Communion.
In a reference to the bishops who refused to attend the Conference Dr Williams said: "In the months ahead it will be important to invite those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages."
He added that the Communion must not just be "an association of polite friends," rather, it must "embrace deeper and more solid ways of recognising and trusting each other
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8634.html
This news article was also available on the UK Guradian online edition , but it has been removed now!
This announcement means , more and more kids will be exploited by the holy fathers of the holy curch in an holy manner to get close to god!
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi and Tasawwuf ??
The Wahabis have a bad habit of pick and chose.With the passage of time , Ibn Taymiah will be sidelined from Wahabi books and Albani , Ibn Baz, Uthaymeen will be projected as ' Mujtahid". There are only 2 stage into which all the wahabis can be categorized:
1) Those who have already become Mujtahid.
2) Those who are in the process of becoming a Mujtahid.
The reviver of kahwarism in the present era, Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi Al tamimi, wrote following words regarsding 'sufis'.
It should be noted that his writing in praise or support of tawassuf does not mean he was a good man or a sunni muslim. Even enemies of Islam agree that Makkah and Medina are 2 holy places. If some enemy of Islam speaks some truth about Islam , it does not mean he becomes a "muslim". Same goes with Ibn abdul wahab najdi. He could not deny the imporatnce and teachings of tasawwuf. After internet was filled with proof showing ibn taymiah himself was linked to Qadri sufi tariqah , the wahabis coined a new term" extreme sufis'!
All this is an attempt to confuse revert brothers and sisters with the movement headed by some bedoiun who is issuing fatwa to invite STAR BUCKS in Makkah. The tawil given by the blind followers of Wahabi shaykh are: we will use the income from star bucks ( owned by a jew) to improve facility for pilgrims!
It is a lie. Rather one can say: I will kill 100 muslims and after their death I will use their organs to save a few of my relatives !
READ, WHAT IBN ABDUL WAHAB AL NAJDI AL TAMIMI , said about tasawwuf.
Ibn `Abd al- Wahhab said in the third volume of his complete works published by Ibn Sa`ud University, on page 31 of the Fatawa wa rasa'il, Fifth Question:
Know -- may Allah guide you -- that Allah Almighty has sent Muhammad, blessings and peace upon him, with right guidance, consisting in beneficial knowledge, and with true religion consisting in righteous action. The adherents of religion are as follows: among them are those who concern themselves with learning and fiqh, and discourse about it, such as the jurists; and among them are those who concern themselves with worship and the pursuit of the Hereafter, such as the Sufis. Allah has sent His Prophet with this religion which encompasses both kinds, that is: fiqh and tasawwuf
1) Those who have already become Mujtahid.
2) Those who are in the process of becoming a Mujtahid.
The reviver of kahwarism in the present era, Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi Al tamimi, wrote following words regarsding 'sufis'.
It should be noted that his writing in praise or support of tawassuf does not mean he was a good man or a sunni muslim. Even enemies of Islam agree that Makkah and Medina are 2 holy places. If some enemy of Islam speaks some truth about Islam , it does not mean he becomes a "muslim". Same goes with Ibn abdul wahab najdi. He could not deny the imporatnce and teachings of tasawwuf. After internet was filled with proof showing ibn taymiah himself was linked to Qadri sufi tariqah , the wahabis coined a new term" extreme sufis'!
All this is an attempt to confuse revert brothers and sisters with the movement headed by some bedoiun who is issuing fatwa to invite STAR BUCKS in Makkah. The tawil given by the blind followers of Wahabi shaykh are: we will use the income from star bucks ( owned by a jew) to improve facility for pilgrims!
It is a lie. Rather one can say: I will kill 100 muslims and after their death I will use their organs to save a few of my relatives !
READ, WHAT IBN ABDUL WAHAB AL NAJDI AL TAMIMI , said about tasawwuf.
Ibn `Abd al- Wahhab said in the third volume of his complete works published by Ibn Sa`ud University, on page 31 of the Fatawa wa rasa'il, Fifth Question:
Know -- may Allah guide you -- that Allah Almighty has sent Muhammad, blessings and peace upon him, with right guidance, consisting in beneficial knowledge, and with true religion consisting in righteous action. The adherents of religion are as follows: among them are those who concern themselves with learning and fiqh, and discourse about it, such as the jurists; and among them are those who concern themselves with worship and the pursuit of the Hereafter, such as the Sufis. Allah has sent His Prophet with this religion which encompasses both kinds, that is: fiqh and tasawwuf
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Authenticity of Hadith Regarding Salat-ut-Tasbeeh
The ruling regarding Salat-ut-Tasbeeh is that it is permissible and, in fact, very meritorious.
The Hadith in question has been accepted as Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (sound) by various eminent Masters of Hadith. Those that claimed that it was weak did so on the basis of a few chains of the narration. However, if all the various chains be gathered, there will remain no doubt as to its authenticity.
Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani (RA) states that sometimes a Muhaddith classifies a certain Hadith as weak, very weak or even as a fabrication based on one or two chains that were available to him, whereas there may be other chains through which that Hadith may be classified as Hasan (sound) or even Sahih (authentic). (Anukat vol.2 pg.848-850)
Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) then mentions the Hadith of Salat-ut-Tasbeeh as an example for this and he accepts it to be in fact either Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (sound) and not Dha'eef (weak). (Ibid)
Imaam Tirmidhi (RA) says that many Ulama, among them Imaam Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak (RA), have accepted the virtue of Salat-ut-Tasbeeh. (Tirmidhi vol.2 pg.348; Hadith 481)
Imaam Bayhaqi (RA) states that ' Salat-ut-Tasbeeh was the practice of Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak and may pious predecessors of various eras. And this in fact lends strength to its acceptability.' (Shu'ubul Imaam vol.1 pg.427; Ilmiyyah)
Allaamah Munzhiri (RA) mentions: Many Muhadditheen have accepted it's authority from among them are: 1) Imaam Abu-bakr al-Ajurriy, 2) Imaam Abu Muhammad al-Misriy (Ustaadh of Allaamah Munzhiri), 3) Hafiz Abul-Hasan Maqdisi (Ustaadh of Allaamah Munzhiri), 4) Imaam Abu-Dawud and 5) Imaam Haakim. (Targheeb vol.1 pg.468)
Allaamah Suyuti (RA) has enumerated upto 20 great Muhadditheen who have accepted its authenticity. Besides those that are mentioned above, some of them are: 6) Hafiz Abu-Sa'eed al-Sam'aaniy, 7) Hafiz Khateeb al-Baghdaadiy, 8) Hafiz ibn-Mandah, 9) Imaam Bayhaqi, 10) Imaam al-Subkiy, 11) Imaam al-Nawawiy, 12) Haafiz ibn al-Salat, 13) Hafiz Abu-Musa al-Madiniy, 14) Hafiz al-Alaaeiy, 15) Imaam Siraaj-ud-Deen al-Bulqiniy, 16) Hafiz al-Zarkashiy and a few others. (al-Laalil Masnoo'ah vol.2 pg.42-44)
The following list of Muhadditheen is of those who have written detailed articles on this matter: 1) Imaam al-Daraaniy, 2) Imaam Abu-Musa al-Madiniy,
3) Imaam ibn Mandah, 4) Hafiz ibn Naasirud-Deen ad-Dimishqiy, Allaamah al-Suyyooti.
As for the claim of the writer, 'It had been unknown to the great Imaams. and presumably Imaam Shaafi'ee (RA).'
This is a claim that lacks the support of explicit quotations from those illustrious Imams as well as any reference. In fact, the books of Hanafi Fiqh support the view of its acceptance. (refer Shaami vol.2 pg.27; HM Saeed). And several Shaafi'ee Jurists have also endorsed it, namely Imaam al-Muhaamiliy, Imaam al-Juwaini, Imaam-ul-haramayn, Imaam Ghazaaliy, Imaam Raafi'ee and others. (al-La-aaliy vol.2 pg.43; al-Azkaar of Imaam Nawawiy pg.242)
Khateeb Baghdaadiy (RA), who is Maaliki, states that there is no reason for it not being permissible. In fact, Imaam ibn Hajar (RA) has mentioned a quotation from Imaam Maaliki from which it could be deduced that it was acceptable in his Madhab. (refer Futuhaat al-Rabbaaniyyah vol.4 pg.321) Qaadhi Iyaad Maaliki (RA) has also accepted its virtue. (Ibid)
As far as Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RA) is concerned, Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) has stated that he had reversed his decision and was possibly inclined towards its acceptability later on. (Futuhaat al-Rabbaaniyyah vol.4 pg.318, 320)
From the above, it is apparent that there can be no doubt regarding Salat-ut-Tasbeeh being an act of virtue which has been established authentically. And is accepted by a large number of celebrated scholars of Hadith as well as the scholars of Fiqh (jurisprudence).
Imaams Taajud-Deen Subki (RA) and Badrud-Deen Zarkashi have stated that it is from the fundamentals of Deen and anyone who discards it despite knowing its virtue is not on the correct path. (Futuhaat vol.4 pg.321-322)
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
The Hadith in question has been accepted as Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (sound) by various eminent Masters of Hadith. Those that claimed that it was weak did so on the basis of a few chains of the narration. However, if all the various chains be gathered, there will remain no doubt as to its authenticity.
Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani (RA) states that sometimes a Muhaddith classifies a certain Hadith as weak, very weak or even as a fabrication based on one or two chains that were available to him, whereas there may be other chains through which that Hadith may be classified as Hasan (sound) or even Sahih (authentic). (Anukat vol.2 pg.848-850)
Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) then mentions the Hadith of Salat-ut-Tasbeeh as an example for this and he accepts it to be in fact either Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (sound) and not Dha'eef (weak). (Ibid)
Imaam Tirmidhi (RA) says that many Ulama, among them Imaam Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak (RA), have accepted the virtue of Salat-ut-Tasbeeh. (Tirmidhi vol.2 pg.348; Hadith 481)
Imaam Bayhaqi (RA) states that ' Salat-ut-Tasbeeh was the practice of Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak and may pious predecessors of various eras. And this in fact lends strength to its acceptability.' (Shu'ubul Imaam vol.1 pg.427; Ilmiyyah)
Allaamah Munzhiri (RA) mentions: Many Muhadditheen have accepted it's authority from among them are: 1) Imaam Abu-bakr al-Ajurriy, 2) Imaam Abu Muhammad al-Misriy (Ustaadh of Allaamah Munzhiri), 3) Hafiz Abul-Hasan Maqdisi (Ustaadh of Allaamah Munzhiri), 4) Imaam Abu-Dawud and 5) Imaam Haakim. (Targheeb vol.1 pg.468)
Allaamah Suyuti (RA) has enumerated upto 20 great Muhadditheen who have accepted its authenticity. Besides those that are mentioned above, some of them are: 6) Hafiz Abu-Sa'eed al-Sam'aaniy, 7) Hafiz Khateeb al-Baghdaadiy, 8) Hafiz ibn-Mandah, 9) Imaam Bayhaqi, 10) Imaam al-Subkiy, 11) Imaam al-Nawawiy, 12) Haafiz ibn al-Salat, 13) Hafiz Abu-Musa al-Madiniy, 14) Hafiz al-Alaaeiy, 15) Imaam Siraaj-ud-Deen al-Bulqiniy, 16) Hafiz al-Zarkashiy and a few others. (al-Laalil Masnoo'ah vol.2 pg.42-44)
The following list of Muhadditheen is of those who have written detailed articles on this matter: 1) Imaam al-Daraaniy, 2) Imaam Abu-Musa al-Madiniy,
3) Imaam ibn Mandah, 4) Hafiz ibn Naasirud-Deen ad-Dimishqiy, Allaamah al-Suyyooti.
As for the claim of the writer, 'It had been unknown to the great Imaams. and presumably Imaam Shaafi'ee (RA).'
This is a claim that lacks the support of explicit quotations from those illustrious Imams as well as any reference. In fact, the books of Hanafi Fiqh support the view of its acceptance. (refer Shaami vol.2 pg.27; HM Saeed). And several Shaafi'ee Jurists have also endorsed it, namely Imaam al-Muhaamiliy, Imaam al-Juwaini, Imaam-ul-haramayn, Imaam Ghazaaliy, Imaam Raafi'ee and others. (al-La-aaliy vol.2 pg.43; al-Azkaar of Imaam Nawawiy pg.242)
Khateeb Baghdaadiy (RA), who is Maaliki, states that there is no reason for it not being permissible. In fact, Imaam ibn Hajar (RA) has mentioned a quotation from Imaam Maaliki from which it could be deduced that it was acceptable in his Madhab. (refer Futuhaat al-Rabbaaniyyah vol.4 pg.321) Qaadhi Iyaad Maaliki (RA) has also accepted its virtue. (Ibid)
As far as Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RA) is concerned, Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) has stated that he had reversed his decision and was possibly inclined towards its acceptability later on. (Futuhaat al-Rabbaaniyyah vol.4 pg.318, 320)
From the above, it is apparent that there can be no doubt regarding Salat-ut-Tasbeeh being an act of virtue which has been established authentically. And is accepted by a large number of celebrated scholars of Hadith as well as the scholars of Fiqh (jurisprudence).
Imaams Taajud-Deen Subki (RA) and Badrud-Deen Zarkashi have stated that it is from the fundamentals of Deen and anyone who discards it despite knowing its virtue is not on the correct path. (Futuhaat vol.4 pg.321-322)
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Sunday, August 3, 2008
The Tribe of Banu Tamim in Quran !
An early indication of the nature of the Tamimites is given by Allah himself in Sura al-Hujurat. ( Sura/ chapter 49, Aya 4 )
In aya 4 of this sura, He says: ‘Those who call you from behind the chambers: most of them have no sense.’ The occasion for revelation (sabab al-nuzul) here was as follows:
‘The “chambers” (hujurat) were spaces enclosed by walls. Each of the wives of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) had one of them. The aya was revealed in connection with the delegation of the Banu Tamim who came to the Prophet (s.w.s.). They entered the mosque, and approached the chambers of his wives. They stood outside them and called: “Muhammad! Come out to us!” an action which expressed a good deal of harshness, crudeness and disrespect. Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) waited a while, and then came out to them. One of them, known as al-Aqra‘ ibn Habis, said: “Muhammad! My praise is an ornament, and my denunciation brings shame!” And the Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “Woe betide you! That is the due of Allah.”’ (Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy, al-Tashil [Beirut, 1403], p.702. See also the other tafsir works; also Ibn Hazm, Jamharat ansab al-‘Arab [Cairo, 1382], 208, in the chapter on Tamim.)
This tribe has been disrespectful to prophet, right from the begining. Ibn Abdul wahab najdi , who killed muslim men and made halal ( permissible) for his followers to rape muslim women , was from this tribe.! He showed disrespect to prophet in his writings.
In aya 4 of this sura, He says: ‘Those who call you from behind the chambers: most of them have no sense.’ The occasion for revelation (sabab al-nuzul) here was as follows:
‘The “chambers” (hujurat) were spaces enclosed by walls. Each of the wives of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) had one of them. The aya was revealed in connection with the delegation of the Banu Tamim who came to the Prophet (s.w.s.). They entered the mosque, and approached the chambers of his wives. They stood outside them and called: “Muhammad! Come out to us!” an action which expressed a good deal of harshness, crudeness and disrespect. Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) waited a while, and then came out to them. One of them, known as al-Aqra‘ ibn Habis, said: “Muhammad! My praise is an ornament, and my denunciation brings shame!” And the Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “Woe betide you! That is the due of Allah.”’ (Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy, al-Tashil [Beirut, 1403], p.702. See also the other tafsir works; also Ibn Hazm, Jamharat ansab al-‘Arab [Cairo, 1382], 208, in the chapter on Tamim.)
This tribe has been disrespectful to prophet, right from the begining. Ibn Abdul wahab najdi , who killed muslim men and made halal ( permissible) for his followers to rape muslim women , was from this tribe.! He showed disrespect to prophet in his writings.
Israel and Money!!
JERUSALEM - A New York fundraiser and a Las Vegas gambling czar have become major headaches for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, raising new questions about the relationship between Jewish Americans and the Jewish state.
While Israel has had close ties with the U.S. Jewish community throughout its history, some wealthy American donors have extended their influence to Israel's halls of power, crossing what many Israelis see as a red line. The cases of fundraiser Morris Talansky and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson have drawn new attention to this sometimes blurry relationship.
Talansky's testimony that he handed Olmert cash-stuffed envelopes in the years before he became prime minister is at the center of a scandal that may topple the Israeli leader. Olmert's lawyers are set to cross-examine Talansky on Thursday.
Adelson, meanwhile, has launched a newspaper that makes no bones about its disgust with Olmert.
Neither man is suspected of anything illicit. But there is an important similarity. Both have chosen to move beyond philanthropy to political activism, using their money to influence decision-making in a country they love but which is not their home.
"It's simple: Whoever doesn't pay the price does not have the right to get involved," said Matti Golan, an Israeli author who has written about the ties between U.S. Jews and Israel.
The relationship benefits both wealthy U.S. Jews, who get to feel important by hobnobbing with powerful politicians, and Israeli politicians, who can expand their limited pool of donors in Israel and who enjoy getting the royal treatment on trips abroad, he said.
"Who gave American Jews the right to decide what is good or bad for Israel?" said Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, an American Jewish advocacy group. "What are the consequences of their opinion if they are wrong in their assessments? They will sit in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons and say, 'I was wrong,'" Foxman said.
"The fact that you support universities and charitable needs doesn't give you the right to determine issues of life and death," he said.
Israeli law forbids direct foreign donations to political parties and limits donations to individual politicians to a maximum of about $10,000, depending on whether the money is meant for a local election, a national race or an internal party primary.
But other activities aren't restricted. American donors can give money to political causes ranging from hardline groups that promote Jewish settlements in the West Bank to the dovish Peace Now.
In the case of Adelson, he launched a newspaper that harshly criticizes Olmert and is distributed free to hundreds of thousands of Israelis. The newspaper is part of what is widely seen by Adelson as a concerted attempt to replace Olmert with his hardline rival, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israeli political insiders see the paper, Yisrael Hayom — Israel Today — as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. Olmert's media adviser, Jacob Galanti, refuses to refer to it as a newspaper, recently terming it a "printed product."
Adelson, a casino multibillionaire listed by Forbes last year as the third-richest man in America, has long had pull in Israel's corridors of power. In May, when he helped fund a conference convened by President Shimon Peres for Israel's 60th anniversary, he and his wife were seated alongside Olmert and other Israeli leaders.
Nahum Barnea, one of Israel's most respected journalists, later referred in his column to the "gambling mogul from Las Vegas who bought my country's birthday for $3 million."
"Is the country worth so little?" Barnea asked.
Through a representative in Las Vegas, Adelson declined an interview request.
Adelson's paper, a tabloid heavy on sports and celebrity gossip, has extended Adelson's reach to everyday Israelis. It is delivered free of charge to people's doorsteps and distributed at busy intersections.
The newspaper typically carries a front-page editorial blasting Olmert and his government, with long investigative pieces inside on the misdeeds of Olmert and his cronies. Coverage of Netanyahu is generally benign.
Newspaper officials did not return messages seeking comment.
Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, would not comment on Adelson's activities, but noted that Olmert told The Atlantic Monthly in May that there were U.S. Jews "investing a lot of money trying to overthrow the government in Israel."
Until his recent troubles, Olmert welcomed involvement by American Jews. In the years before he became prime minister, he was happy to accept donations from Americans. One donor was Talansky, now the central figure in a corruption scandal that has ravaged what little popularity Olmert had and could force him out of office.
Talansky, who lives on New York's Long Island, made his donations to Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem, a Likud lawmaker and later a Cabinet minister. Testifying in May, Talansky spoke of his deep love for Israel and his conviction that Olmert was the right man to lead the country.
In 2006, Olmert broke away from Likud and led the centrist Kadima Party to victory in national elections. Today, Talansky appears to be bitterly disillusioned with Olmert, and says he believes some of his money went to fund a lavish lifestyle that included expensive cigars, luxury hotels and a vacation in Italy.
Police are investigating and Olmert has said he will resign if indicted. In the meantime, his political rivals have begun the process of replacing him as leader of the Kadima party, with primaries scheduled by the end of September.
Amnon Rubinstein, a prominent Israeli legal expert and a former justice minister, said American Jews "should give money to charity, to universities, to hospitals, but not to political parties."
But across the Israeli political spectrum, it has become a commonly accepted practice.
"Israel has been receiving donations from Diaspora Jews for 60 years," said Eliad Shraga, who founded the country's best-known good governance group, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel. "As long as it's legal, I don't see a problem."
Yossi Beilin of the dovish Meretz Party said the involvement of American Jews, even those with views different from his own, is preferable to apathy.
In the 1990s, Florida bingo magnate Irving Moskowitz set off a political storm by building a Jewish neighborhood in heavily Arab east Jerusalem with the enthusiastic cooperation of Jerusalem's mayor — Olmert. Beilin was an unlikely defender.
"I said I thought he was doing terrible damage, but I couldn't ignore the fact that he cares. I prefer someone who cares about Israel to someone who doesn't," Beilin said.
While Israel has had close ties with the U.S. Jewish community throughout its history, some wealthy American donors have extended their influence to Israel's halls of power, crossing what many Israelis see as a red line. The cases of fundraiser Morris Talansky and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson have drawn new attention to this sometimes blurry relationship.
Talansky's testimony that he handed Olmert cash-stuffed envelopes in the years before he became prime minister is at the center of a scandal that may topple the Israeli leader. Olmert's lawyers are set to cross-examine Talansky on Thursday.
Adelson, meanwhile, has launched a newspaper that makes no bones about its disgust with Olmert.
Neither man is suspected of anything illicit. But there is an important similarity. Both have chosen to move beyond philanthropy to political activism, using their money to influence decision-making in a country they love but which is not their home.
"It's simple: Whoever doesn't pay the price does not have the right to get involved," said Matti Golan, an Israeli author who has written about the ties between U.S. Jews and Israel.
The relationship benefits both wealthy U.S. Jews, who get to feel important by hobnobbing with powerful politicians, and Israeli politicians, who can expand their limited pool of donors in Israel and who enjoy getting the royal treatment on trips abroad, he said.
"Who gave American Jews the right to decide what is good or bad for Israel?" said Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, an American Jewish advocacy group. "What are the consequences of their opinion if they are wrong in their assessments? They will sit in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons and say, 'I was wrong,'" Foxman said.
"The fact that you support universities and charitable needs doesn't give you the right to determine issues of life and death," he said.
Israeli law forbids direct foreign donations to political parties and limits donations to individual politicians to a maximum of about $10,000, depending on whether the money is meant for a local election, a national race or an internal party primary.
But other activities aren't restricted. American donors can give money to political causes ranging from hardline groups that promote Jewish settlements in the West Bank to the dovish Peace Now.
In the case of Adelson, he launched a newspaper that harshly criticizes Olmert and is distributed free to hundreds of thousands of Israelis. The newspaper is part of what is widely seen by Adelson as a concerted attempt to replace Olmert with his hardline rival, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israeli political insiders see the paper, Yisrael Hayom — Israel Today — as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. Olmert's media adviser, Jacob Galanti, refuses to refer to it as a newspaper, recently terming it a "printed product."
Adelson, a casino multibillionaire listed by Forbes last year as the third-richest man in America, has long had pull in Israel's corridors of power. In May, when he helped fund a conference convened by President Shimon Peres for Israel's 60th anniversary, he and his wife were seated alongside Olmert and other Israeli leaders.
Nahum Barnea, one of Israel's most respected journalists, later referred in his column to the "gambling mogul from Las Vegas who bought my country's birthday for $3 million."
"Is the country worth so little?" Barnea asked.
Through a representative in Las Vegas, Adelson declined an interview request.
Adelson's paper, a tabloid heavy on sports and celebrity gossip, has extended Adelson's reach to everyday Israelis. It is delivered free of charge to people's doorsteps and distributed at busy intersections.
The newspaper typically carries a front-page editorial blasting Olmert and his government, with long investigative pieces inside on the misdeeds of Olmert and his cronies. Coverage of Netanyahu is generally benign.
Newspaper officials did not return messages seeking comment.
Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, would not comment on Adelson's activities, but noted that Olmert told The Atlantic Monthly in May that there were U.S. Jews "investing a lot of money trying to overthrow the government in Israel."
Until his recent troubles, Olmert welcomed involvement by American Jews. In the years before he became prime minister, he was happy to accept donations from Americans. One donor was Talansky, now the central figure in a corruption scandal that has ravaged what little popularity Olmert had and could force him out of office.
Talansky, who lives on New York's Long Island, made his donations to Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem, a Likud lawmaker and later a Cabinet minister. Testifying in May, Talansky spoke of his deep love for Israel and his conviction that Olmert was the right man to lead the country.
In 2006, Olmert broke away from Likud and led the centrist Kadima Party to victory in national elections. Today, Talansky appears to be bitterly disillusioned with Olmert, and says he believes some of his money went to fund a lavish lifestyle that included expensive cigars, luxury hotels and a vacation in Italy.
Police are investigating and Olmert has said he will resign if indicted. In the meantime, his political rivals have begun the process of replacing him as leader of the Kadima party, with primaries scheduled by the end of September.
Amnon Rubinstein, a prominent Israeli legal expert and a former justice minister, said American Jews "should give money to charity, to universities, to hospitals, but not to political parties."
But across the Israeli political spectrum, it has become a commonly accepted practice.
"Israel has been receiving donations from Diaspora Jews for 60 years," said Eliad Shraga, who founded the country's best-known good governance group, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel. "As long as it's legal, I don't see a problem."
Yossi Beilin of the dovish Meretz Party said the involvement of American Jews, even those with views different from his own, is preferable to apathy.
In the 1990s, Florida bingo magnate Irving Moskowitz set off a political storm by building a Jewish neighborhood in heavily Arab east Jerusalem with the enthusiastic cooperation of Jerusalem's mayor — Olmert. Beilin was an unlikely defender.
"I said I thought he was doing terrible damage, but I couldn't ignore the fact that he cares. I prefer someone who cares about Israel to someone who doesn't," Beilin said.
Sulayman ibn Abd al- Wahhab
Q. Another question is that it is well known that Sulayman Ibn Abd al-Wahaab rejected his brothers misguidence and wrote against the wahaabi regime. A salafi brother pointed out that he repented from going against his brother before he died. I needed some clairty on that issue too.
A. Bakr Abu Zayd and `Abd al-Rahman `Uthaymin, the two Wahhabi editors of Ibn Humayd al-Najdi's Hanbali bio-dictionary _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara'ih al-Hanabila_ (Risala ed. 2:679), consider the report of that repentence spurious and say there is no proof that Sulayman ever changed his mind.
What is agreed upon is that when his father died, Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman al-Tamimi al-Najdi (d. 1210?) succeeded him as qadi of Huraymila' in 1153. Twelve years later, in 1165, Sulayman led the people of that town and `Uyayna, another nearby town, in a rebellion against his brother Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman's (d. 1207) Wahhabi forces which lasted for three years. The towns were overrun in 1168 and Sulayman fled to Sudayr where he was left alone. Twenty years later he was brought against his will to Dir`iyya, the capital of his brother and `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Sa`ud, where Muhammad kept him under a sumptuous but strict house arrest until they both died.
Sources: Ibn Bishr, _`Unwan al-Majd bi-Tarikh Najd_ (years 1165 and 1168); _Tarikh Ibn La`bun_ (year 1190); Ibn Ghannam, _ Tarikh_ (1:142), all as cited in the marginalia of Ibn Humayd, _al-Suhub al-Wabila_ (2:678-679).
It is in the context of his losing battle against his brother that Sulayman wrote his famous book against the Wahhhabi sect titled:
_Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul (salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) wa-Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab_ ("The Final Word from the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sayings of the Scholars Concerning the School of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab"),
also known as:
_al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya_ ("The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School").
This book is among the first and earliest refutations of the Wahhabi sect in print, consisting in over forty-five concise chapters spanning 120 pages that aim to show the divergence of the Wahhabi school, not only from the Consensus and usûl of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a and the fiqh of the Hanbali Madhhab, but also from their putative Imams, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim on most or all the issues reviewed.
The biographer of the Hanbali School, Ibn Humayd al-Najdi (1236-1295) said in _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara'ih al-Hanabila_ (2:675-679 §415):
<<`ABD AL-WAHHAB ibn Sulayman ibn `Ali ibn Musharraf al-Tamimi al-Najdi. He read fiqh with his father the author of the famous _Mansak_ and with others. He obtained learning and fiqh, taught, and wrote excellent epistles on various legal issues. He died in the year 1153. He is the father of MUHAMMAD, the founder of the Da`wah whose evil has spread to / every horizon, but there is a vast difference between the two of them.... / He was angry with his son Muhammad because he would not study fiqh as his predecessors and peers did. His premonition concerning him was that he would bring upon a calamity. He would say to the people, 'One day you will see Muhammad cause evil.' Then Allah decreed that whatever happened happened.
Similarly his son, SULAYMAN, the brother of Shaykh Muhammad, opposed the latter and his Da`wah and refuted him with a fine refutation with Qur'anic verses / and reports, since the one being refuted put no credence in anything else and lent no ear to the discourse of any of the Ulema whether old or late, whoever they may be, except Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim. He considered their words uninterpretable scripture and would hammer the people on the head with it / even if what they said differed from his understanding. Shaykh Sulayman titled his refutation of his brother _Fasl al-Khitab fil-Radd `ala Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab_.>>
The Fasl/Sawa`iq received the following editions:
1st edition: Bombay: Matba`a Nukhbat al-Akhbar, 1306/1889. 2nd edition: Cairo (date?). 3rd edition: Istanbul: Ishik reprints at Wakf Ihlas, 1399/1979. 4th edition: (Annotated) Damascus, 1420/1999.
The claim that Sulayman repented apparently originates under the pen of the contemporary literary historian of Arabia, `Ali Jawad Tahir in his eight-volume history published in Baghdad in the Fifties, _Tarikh al-`Arab qabl al-Islam_ ('Pre-islamic History of the Arabs') 7:227. What gave this claim circulation is its endorsement by the Syrian historian Nur al-Din al-Zirikli (d. 1410/1990) in his much more famous biographical dictionary _al-A`lam_ (3:130).
Al-Zirikli says in his snippet on Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab:
'Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: the brother of the Shaykh and leader of the reformist revival Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. His brother opposed him in the Call (al-da`wah) and wrote epistles voicing this [opposition], among them _al-Radd `ala man Kaffara al-Muslimin bi-Sababi al-Nadhri li-Ghayr Allah_ ('Refutation of Him Who Pronounced Apostasy against the Muslims for Vows to Other than Allah') in Baghdad's Awqaf archives, manuscript 6805. Then he abandoned his position and proclaimed he was sorry. He authored an epistle to that effect, in print. [FOOTNOTE:] _Al-Kashif_ by Talas (p. 126-127) [a catalogue of manuscripts] which misattributes to him the book _al-Tawdih `an Tawhid al-Khallaq_. See also the periodical _al-`Arab_ (7:227).'
The latter is a sourcing mistake and elsewhere al-Zirikli shows that he means `Ali Jawad's book _Tarikh al-`Arab_ rather than the periodical, as the latter obviously requires a different type of sourcing than volume and page number.
There are many problems with the above claim in addition to its being rejeted by the Wahhabis themselves as already mentioned:
1. Why does the author of the claim not cite the title of the supposed pro-Wahhabi 'repentence epistle' of Sulayman and who printed it and where?
2. Why is there no record of this supposed pro-Wahhabi position of Sulayman even among the Wahhabis? If he had really authored such a book one would expect the many supporters of the Wahhabi movement to have made sure it never got lost to the Muslim world but, on the contrary, no one ever heard of it other than an Iraqi literary historian and the Syrian biographer who cites him.
3. Why does the great bio-bibliographer `Umar Rida Kahhala not mention any such pro-Wahhabi recanting in his entry on Sulayman ibn`Abd al-Wahhab in his much more detailed eight-volume _Mu`jam al-Mu'allifin_ ('Dictionary of Authors'), other than Sulayman's known anti-Wahhabi work?
4. The style of Sulayman's anti-Wahhabi epistle typifies staunchness and a systematic refutation style with complete mastery of the Usul and `Aqida literature that a Hanbali debater is expected to possess. He also states that he waited eight years before deciding to speak out against the deviations of his little brother's followers. It is unlikely that he would then back up and change his mind.
5. In 1995 the Jordanian Wahhabi, Mashhur Hasan Salman published in Ryadh a 2-volume work he titled _Kutubun Hadhdhara al-`Ulama'u Minha_ ('Books the Ulema [supposedly] Warned Against'), a 'Salafi' equivalent of the Vatican's _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, a guide listing books that the Roman Catholic Church forbade its members to read (except by special permission) because they were judged dangerous to faith or morals. He included Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's _Fasl/Sawa`iq_ in his pompous censorship manual. To us, of course, the fact that Salman includes Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's classic refutation in his index is in fact a thumbs-up and a proof that it is a Sunni book. The point, however, is that Salman makes no mention of a supposed repentence of Sulayman nor of his supposed pro-Wahhabi book. If there had truly been such a repentence and book he would have not missed it nor would he have omitted mentioning it.
The above are internal and external circumstancial evidence that Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab never changed his anti-Wahhabi position nor authored a pro-Wahhabi epistle.
A selected chronology of other early condemnations of Wahhabism in print:
1. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i al-Kurdi al-Madani, said to be one of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's former teachers, wrote a fatwa condemning the Wahhabi movement in general terms. It is reproduced at the end of Sayyid `Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad's Misbah al-Anam (1908 edition; see below) and is also found at the beginning of the Waqf Ihlas offset reprint of Sulayman IAW's _Sawa`iq_.
2. Al-San`ani (d. 1182) the famous author of _Subul al-Salam_ at first wrote Muhammad IAW a panegyric which he sent him. Then he changed his mind and wrote an epistle denouncing him titled _Irshad Dhawi al-Albab ila Haqiqat Aqwal Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab._ See on this Imam al-Kawthari's _Maqalat_ (article 'IAW and Muhammad `Abduh'), al-Shawkani's _al-Badr al-Tali`_, s.v. 'Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Yamani,' and Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qinnawji's _Abjad al-`Ulum_, introduction, and his _Taj al-Mukallal_.
3. Al-Habib `Alawî ibn Ahmad al-Haddad, _Misbah al-Anam fi Raddi Shubah al-Najdi al-Bid`i al-Lati Adalla biha al-`Awamm_ ('The Luminary of Mankind Concerning the Refutation of the Fallacies of the Innovator from Najd by which He Has Misguided the Common Public' written 1216/1801 but long out of print!) of which I translated and published the introduction [see outline in a separate post] together with the translation of al-Sayyid Yûsuf al-Rifa`i's _Advice to Our Brothers the Scholars of Najd_ (1420/1999);
4. Al-Sawi (d. 1241) in his _Hashiya `ala al-Jalalayn_ for Surat 35:6 mentions the Wahhabis and refers to them as Khawârij. NOTE that this phrase and the word 'Wahhabiyya' was excised from all present-day editions of this Tafsir!
5. Ibn `Abidin (d. 1243) said the same in his famous Hashiya, Book of Iman, Bab al-Bughât.
6. The Mufti of Makka, Sayyid Ahmad Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304/1886) with several works: _al-Durar al-Saniyya fî al-Radd alâ al-Wahhabiyya_ ('The Pure Pearls in Refuting the Wahhabis') (Cairo, 1319 and 1347), _Fitnat al-Wahhabiyya_ ('The Wahhabi Tribulation'), and _Khulâsat al-Kalâm fî Bayân Umarâ' al-Balad al-Harâm_ ('The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Holy Land,' whose evidence is quoted in full by al-Nabhânî in _Shawâhid al-Haqq_ p. 151-177), the last two a history of the Wahhabi movement in Najd and the Hijâz.
7. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (1272-1340) states in his _Fatawa al-Haramayn_ (Waqf Ikhlas offset ed. p. 11-12):
'As for the Wahhabis they are a misguided sect (firqa dalla) and volumes were compiled - both in Arabic and other languages - declaring them heretics. Among them is the book of our teacher in Hadith, our Master `Allama Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan al-Makki ' Allah sanctify his secret - titled _al-Durar al-Saniyya fi al-Radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya_. The best word ever said about them is that of the Mufti of al-Madinat al-Munawwara, Mawlana Abu al-Su`ud - Allah have mercy on all of them: {The devil has engrossed them and so has caused them to forget remembrance of Allah. They are the devil's party. Lo! is it not the devil's party who will be the losers'} (58:18-19).'
Al-Sawi al-Maliki adduced the same verse against them in his Hashiya on Tafsir al-Jalalayn. And Allah knows best.
GF Haddad
A. Bakr Abu Zayd and `Abd al-Rahman `Uthaymin, the two Wahhabi editors of Ibn Humayd al-Najdi's Hanbali bio-dictionary _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara'ih al-Hanabila_ (Risala ed. 2:679), consider the report of that repentence spurious and say there is no proof that Sulayman ever changed his mind.
What is agreed upon is that when his father died, Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman al-Tamimi al-Najdi (d. 1210?) succeeded him as qadi of Huraymila' in 1153. Twelve years later, in 1165, Sulayman led the people of that town and `Uyayna, another nearby town, in a rebellion against his brother Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman's (d. 1207) Wahhabi forces which lasted for three years. The towns were overrun in 1168 and Sulayman fled to Sudayr where he was left alone. Twenty years later he was brought against his will to Dir`iyya, the capital of his brother and `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Sa`ud, where Muhammad kept him under a sumptuous but strict house arrest until they both died.
Sources: Ibn Bishr, _`Unwan al-Majd bi-Tarikh Najd_ (years 1165 and 1168); _Tarikh Ibn La`bun_ (year 1190); Ibn Ghannam, _ Tarikh_ (1:142), all as cited in the marginalia of Ibn Humayd, _al-Suhub al-Wabila_ (2:678-679).
It is in the context of his losing battle against his brother that Sulayman wrote his famous book against the Wahhhabi sect titled:
_Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul (salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) wa-Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab_ ("The Final Word from the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sayings of the Scholars Concerning the School of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab"),
also known as:
_al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya_ ("The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School").
This book is among the first and earliest refutations of the Wahhabi sect in print, consisting in over forty-five concise chapters spanning 120 pages that aim to show the divergence of the Wahhabi school, not only from the Consensus and usûl of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a and the fiqh of the Hanbali Madhhab, but also from their putative Imams, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim on most or all the issues reviewed.
The biographer of the Hanbali School, Ibn Humayd al-Najdi (1236-1295) said in _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara'ih al-Hanabila_ (2:675-679 §415):
<<`ABD AL-WAHHAB ibn Sulayman ibn `Ali ibn Musharraf al-Tamimi al-Najdi. He read fiqh with his father the author of the famous _Mansak_ and with others. He obtained learning and fiqh, taught, and wrote excellent epistles on various legal issues. He died in the year 1153. He is the father of MUHAMMAD, the founder of the Da`wah whose evil has spread to / every horizon, but there is a vast difference between the two of them.... / He was angry with his son Muhammad because he would not study fiqh as his predecessors and peers did. His premonition concerning him was that he would bring upon a calamity. He would say to the people, 'One day you will see Muhammad cause evil.' Then Allah decreed that whatever happened happened.
Similarly his son, SULAYMAN, the brother of Shaykh Muhammad, opposed the latter and his Da`wah and refuted him with a fine refutation with Qur'anic verses / and reports, since the one being refuted put no credence in anything else and lent no ear to the discourse of any of the Ulema whether old or late, whoever they may be, except Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim. He considered their words uninterpretable scripture and would hammer the people on the head with it / even if what they said differed from his understanding. Shaykh Sulayman titled his refutation of his brother _Fasl al-Khitab fil-Radd `ala Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab_.>>
The Fasl/Sawa`iq received the following editions:
1st edition: Bombay: Matba`a Nukhbat al-Akhbar, 1306/1889. 2nd edition: Cairo (date?). 3rd edition: Istanbul: Ishik reprints at Wakf Ihlas, 1399/1979. 4th edition: (Annotated) Damascus, 1420/1999.
The claim that Sulayman repented apparently originates under the pen of the contemporary literary historian of Arabia, `Ali Jawad Tahir in his eight-volume history published in Baghdad in the Fifties, _Tarikh al-`Arab qabl al-Islam_ ('Pre-islamic History of the Arabs') 7:227. What gave this claim circulation is its endorsement by the Syrian historian Nur al-Din al-Zirikli (d. 1410/1990) in his much more famous biographical dictionary _al-A`lam_ (3:130).
Al-Zirikli says in his snippet on Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab:
'Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: the brother of the Shaykh and leader of the reformist revival Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. His brother opposed him in the Call (al-da`wah) and wrote epistles voicing this [opposition], among them _al-Radd `ala man Kaffara al-Muslimin bi-Sababi al-Nadhri li-Ghayr Allah_ ('Refutation of Him Who Pronounced Apostasy against the Muslims for Vows to Other than Allah') in Baghdad's Awqaf archives, manuscript 6805. Then he abandoned his position and proclaimed he was sorry. He authored an epistle to that effect, in print. [FOOTNOTE:] _Al-Kashif_ by Talas (p. 126-127) [a catalogue of manuscripts] which misattributes to him the book _al-Tawdih `an Tawhid al-Khallaq_. See also the periodical _al-`Arab_ (7:227).'
The latter is a sourcing mistake and elsewhere al-Zirikli shows that he means `Ali Jawad's book _Tarikh al-`Arab_ rather than the periodical, as the latter obviously requires a different type of sourcing than volume and page number.
There are many problems with the above claim in addition to its being rejeted by the Wahhabis themselves as already mentioned:
1. Why does the author of the claim not cite the title of the supposed pro-Wahhabi 'repentence epistle' of Sulayman and who printed it and where?
2. Why is there no record of this supposed pro-Wahhabi position of Sulayman even among the Wahhabis? If he had really authored such a book one would expect the many supporters of the Wahhabi movement to have made sure it never got lost to the Muslim world but, on the contrary, no one ever heard of it other than an Iraqi literary historian and the Syrian biographer who cites him.
3. Why does the great bio-bibliographer `Umar Rida Kahhala not mention any such pro-Wahhabi recanting in his entry on Sulayman ibn`Abd al-Wahhab in his much more detailed eight-volume _Mu`jam al-Mu'allifin_ ('Dictionary of Authors'), other than Sulayman's known anti-Wahhabi work?
4. The style of Sulayman's anti-Wahhabi epistle typifies staunchness and a systematic refutation style with complete mastery of the Usul and `Aqida literature that a Hanbali debater is expected to possess. He also states that he waited eight years before deciding to speak out against the deviations of his little brother's followers. It is unlikely that he would then back up and change his mind.
5. In 1995 the Jordanian Wahhabi, Mashhur Hasan Salman published in Ryadh a 2-volume work he titled _Kutubun Hadhdhara al-`Ulama'u Minha_ ('Books the Ulema [supposedly] Warned Against'), a 'Salafi' equivalent of the Vatican's _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, a guide listing books that the Roman Catholic Church forbade its members to read (except by special permission) because they were judged dangerous to faith or morals. He included Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's _Fasl/Sawa`iq_ in his pompous censorship manual. To us, of course, the fact that Salman includes Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's classic refutation in his index is in fact a thumbs-up and a proof that it is a Sunni book. The point, however, is that Salman makes no mention of a supposed repentence of Sulayman nor of his supposed pro-Wahhabi book. If there had truly been such a repentence and book he would have not missed it nor would he have omitted mentioning it.
The above are internal and external circumstancial evidence that Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab never changed his anti-Wahhabi position nor authored a pro-Wahhabi epistle.
A selected chronology of other early condemnations of Wahhabism in print:
1. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i al-Kurdi al-Madani, said to be one of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's former teachers, wrote a fatwa condemning the Wahhabi movement in general terms. It is reproduced at the end of Sayyid `Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad's Misbah al-Anam (1908 edition; see below) and is also found at the beginning of the Waqf Ihlas offset reprint of Sulayman IAW's _Sawa`iq_.
2. Al-San`ani (d. 1182) the famous author of _Subul al-Salam_ at first wrote Muhammad IAW a panegyric which he sent him. Then he changed his mind and wrote an epistle denouncing him titled _Irshad Dhawi al-Albab ila Haqiqat Aqwal Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab._ See on this Imam al-Kawthari's _Maqalat_ (article 'IAW and Muhammad `Abduh'), al-Shawkani's _al-Badr al-Tali`_, s.v. 'Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Yamani,' and Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qinnawji's _Abjad al-`Ulum_, introduction, and his _Taj al-Mukallal_.
3. Al-Habib `Alawî ibn Ahmad al-Haddad, _Misbah al-Anam fi Raddi Shubah al-Najdi al-Bid`i al-Lati Adalla biha al-`Awamm_ ('The Luminary of Mankind Concerning the Refutation of the Fallacies of the Innovator from Najd by which He Has Misguided the Common Public' written 1216/1801 but long out of print!) of which I translated and published the introduction [see outline in a separate post] together with the translation of al-Sayyid Yûsuf al-Rifa`i's _Advice to Our Brothers the Scholars of Najd_ (1420/1999);
4. Al-Sawi (d. 1241) in his _Hashiya `ala al-Jalalayn_ for Surat 35:6 mentions the Wahhabis and refers to them as Khawârij. NOTE that this phrase and the word 'Wahhabiyya' was excised from all present-day editions of this Tafsir!
5. Ibn `Abidin (d. 1243) said the same in his famous Hashiya, Book of Iman, Bab al-Bughât.
6. The Mufti of Makka, Sayyid Ahmad Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304/1886) with several works: _al-Durar al-Saniyya fî al-Radd alâ al-Wahhabiyya_ ('The Pure Pearls in Refuting the Wahhabis') (Cairo, 1319 and 1347), _Fitnat al-Wahhabiyya_ ('The Wahhabi Tribulation'), and _Khulâsat al-Kalâm fî Bayân Umarâ' al-Balad al-Harâm_ ('The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Holy Land,' whose evidence is quoted in full by al-Nabhânî in _Shawâhid al-Haqq_ p. 151-177), the last two a history of the Wahhabi movement in Najd and the Hijâz.
7. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (1272-1340) states in his _Fatawa al-Haramayn_ (Waqf Ikhlas offset ed. p. 11-12):
'As for the Wahhabis they are a misguided sect (firqa dalla) and volumes were compiled - both in Arabic and other languages - declaring them heretics. Among them is the book of our teacher in Hadith, our Master `Allama Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan al-Makki ' Allah sanctify his secret - titled _al-Durar al-Saniyya fi al-Radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya_. The best word ever said about them is that of the Mufti of al-Madinat al-Munawwara, Mawlana Abu al-Su`ud - Allah have mercy on all of them: {The devil has engrossed them and so has caused them to forget remembrance of Allah. They are the devil's party. Lo! is it not the devil's party who will be the losers'} (58:18-19).'
Al-Sawi al-Maliki adduced the same verse against them in his Hashiya on Tafsir al-Jalalayn. And Allah knows best.
GF Haddad
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Ibn Taymiah and Christinaity( VERY IMP)
In his Tafsir named "an-Nahrul-Madd", the Grammarian Abu Hayyan al-'Andalusi reported about Ibn Taymiyah having this belief.
He said:
In his handwriting, a book of Ahmad Ibn Taymiyah, who was contemporary with us, which he called "Kitab-ul-‘Arsh", I read: Allah sits on al-Kursi and has left a space for the Messenger of Allah to sit with Him. At-Taj Muhammad Ibn ‘Ali Ibn ‘Abdil-Haqq al-Baranbari pretended that he is a promoter of his ideas and tricked him, until he took it from him; we read that in it.
[The author of "Kashf-uz-Zunun" reported that about him also in Volume 2, page 1438.]
This reporting of Abu Hayyan was omitted from the old printed copy. However, the manuscript confirms it.
In his commentary on "as-Sayf-us-Saqil", page 85, Az-Zahid al-Kawthari said explaining the reason of omitting these statements of Ibn Taymiyah:
The editor of as-Sa‘adah Printing House told me that he found it very ugly and he omitted it upon printing so that the enemies of al-'Islam would not use it. Then he requested that I record that here to catch up what he missed and out of sincerity to the Muslims.
Ibn Taymiah and universe
A man called Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah who died about 600 years ago claimed that the universe does not have a beginning and that it existed eternally with Allah. Such a statement is blasphmey regardless of who says it. All muslims believe Allah existed in eternity ALONE - Allah is the ONLY One Who exists without a beginning. The greatest scholars of his time judged him (Ibn Taymiyah) as a blasphemer.
In Islam it is the belief that ONLY ALLAH existed eternally and He brought all the things from the state of non existence into existence. If any muslims doubts this , it implies that "if" there were other things also existing along with Allah since eternity , then the question comes who made these things? This will give rise to another god who was responsible for this "other things"! Also among the attributes of Allah is 'qadeem'.
But Ibn Taymiah was so much involved in Greek Philosophy that like greek philosophers he said along with Allah , Throne and water also existed along with Allah and they were not created by Allah ( this is total Kufr).
Only Allah existed eternally and HE will exist always.
Shaykhul Islam , hafiz , Ibn Hajar al asqalani said this was the wors thing from Ibn Taymiah among many other bad things in Aqidah reported from Ibn Taymiah.
Plz see the attached scan from Fathul Bari . Those who are interested MUST read this whole artcile to see this deviancy of Ibn Taymiah.
Ibn Taymiyyah's Saying of Hawadith with No Beginning Existing Eternally with Allah
This issue is one of the ugliest issues in belief by which Ibn Taymiyyah dissented from the sound mind and the explicit tradition and Ijma’ of the Muslims. He mentioned this belief in five of his books: "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", "Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", "Sharh Hadith-in-Nuzul", "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", and "Naqdu Maratib-il-’Ijma’".
Ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", Volume I, page 24 is: If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar’ and mind showed.
He replied to Ibn Hazm for reporting the Ijma’ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words, Ibn Taymiyyah said: What is stranger than that is his (Ibn Hazm's) reporting the Ijma’ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.
Ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", page 193,: If the kind of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not negated by the Shar’ or the mind, but it is of His perfection. Allah, ta’ala, said that the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not create. Then Ibn Taymiyyah said: The creation existed eternally with Him. Then he said: but many people confuse the self with the kind.
His statement in "Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", page 291 is: We said: we do not accept. However, the daily hadith is preceded by hawadith without a beginning.
In the manuscript of "Tashnif-ul-Masami’", page 342, Muhaddith, Usuli Badr-ud-Din az-Zarkashi reported the agreement of the Muslims upon the kufr of whoever says that the kind of the world is eternal. After mentioning that the philosophers said the world is eternal by matter and shape, and that some said it is eternal by matter but its shape is muhdath (has a beginning), he said: and the Muslims charged them (the philosophers) with deviation and kufr. Before that Hafiz Ibn Daqiq al-’Id, Qadi ‘Iyad, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar said the like in "Sharh al-Bukhari". Hafiz as-Subki confirmed this belief about Ibn Taymiyyah in his treatise "ad-Durrat-ul-Mudiyyah" and as said previously, Abu Sa’id al-’Ala'i did too. This belief was reported also by al-Jalal-ud-Dawwani in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah". He said: I saw in a writing of Abul-’Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah the saying that the kind of al-’Arsh is eternal.
The Hanafi ‘Allamah al-Bayyadi mentioned in his book "Isharat-ul-Maram", page 197, after mentioning the proofs about the beginning of the world: Hence, what Ibn Taymiyyah thought of al-’Arsh being eternal, as reported in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah", is invalidated.
In his poem, which is famous even among the defenders of Ibn Taymiyyah, and which contained refuting al-Hilli then Ibn Taymiyyah, among of what as-Subki said: Ibn Taymiyyah has a refutation to what one of the rawafid (some deviant groups) said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw [The hashw is done by a group called al-Hashwiyyah. It is a vile group with ignorant members attributing themselves to Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who is clear of them. They reported words about him which they misunderstood. Then, they continued with their bad belief claiming to cling to the Hadith. The best of the muhaddithun (pl. of muhaddith) in his time, Ibn ‘Asakir used to refrain from teaching them the Hadith and prevent them from attending his circle in Damascus. This group did not have a head or someone to carry its invalid belief, except some scattered efforts which were foiled by the Muslims. Then, around the end of the 700th Hijriyyah year, Ibn Taymiyyah advocated the invalid beliefs and ideas of this group.] whenever he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he (Ibn Taymiyyah) thinks about Him.
Ibn Taimiyah is characteristically audacious in rejecting hadith which do not conform with his purpose at hand even if those hadith are rigorously authentic (sahih) .
A good example of that is the following case: Al-Bukhari reported in his sahih:
“Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.”
This hadith is in agreement with the [clear-cut] evidence of the Qur`an, the sunnah, reason, and certain consensus (al-ijmà‘ al-mutayaqqan). However, since it conflicts with his belief in the eternity of the world,45 he turned to another version of this hadith which al-Bukhàri also reported: “Allah existed and their was nothing before Him.” And he rejected the first version in favor of the second on the grounds that the second conforms with another hadith: “You are the first; there is nothing before You.” [He held that the implication was that created things always existed along with Allah] .
Hafiz Ibn Hajr remarked concerning the correct manner of reconciling the apparent contradiction in the above-mentioned hadiths:
“In fact the way to reconcile the two versions of the hadith is to understand the second in light of the first, and not the other way around. Moreover, there is consensus on the principle that reconciliation of two apparently contradictory versions of a text (nass) takes precedence over endorsing one version at the expense of revoking the other. ”
Actually, Ibn Taimáyah’s prejudice blinded him from understanding the two versions of the hadith which, in fact, are not mutually contradictory. That is because the version “Allah existed and there was nothing before Him.” has the meaning which is contained in His name the First; whereas, the version “Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.” has the meaning contained in His name the One. The proof of this is still another version of the hadith with the wording “Allah existed before everything."
TO SUM UP
1.قال في منهاج السنّة النبوية (1/ 24) : "فإن قلتم لنا: فقد قلتم بقيام الحوادث بالربّ، قلنا لكـم: نعم، وهذا قولنا الذي دلّ عليه الشرع والعقل"
Ibn Taymiyah said in “Minhajus-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah”, Volume 1, page 24: “If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar^ and mind showed”
2.وقد ردّ على ابن حزم في نقد مراتب الإجماع (ص/ 168) لنقله الإجماع على أن الله لـم يزل وحده ولا شىء غيره معه، وأن المخالف بذلك كافر باتفاق المسلمين، فقال ابن تيمية بعد كلام ما نصه: "وأعجب من ذلك حكايته الإجماع على كفر من نازع أنه سبحانه لم يزل وحده ولا شىء غيره معه"
Ibn Taymiyah in “Naqdu Maratibil-^Ijma^, page 168” replied to Ibn Hazm for reporting the Ijma^ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words, Ibn Taymiyah said “What is stranger than that is his reporting the Ijma^ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.”
3.أما عبارته في شرح حديث عمران بن الحصين(ص/ 193)، ومجمرع الفناوى (18/ 239) فهي: "وإن قدّر أن نوعها- أي الحوادث- لم يزل معه فهذه المعية لم ينفها شرع ولا عقل، بل هي من كماله، قال تعالى: أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لاَّ يَخْلُقُ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرُونَ (سورة النحل/17) وقال: "والخلق لا يزالون معه " إلى أن قال: "لكن يشتبه على كثير من الناس النوع بالعين ".
Ibn Taymiyah said in “Sharh Hadith ^Imran Ibn Husayn, page 193 and Majmu^ Al-Fatawa Volume 18, page 239”: “If the kind of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not negated by the Shar^ or the mind, but it is of His perfection.
Allah, said
أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لاَّ يَخْلُقُ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرُونَ
which means the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not create; do you not see?” Then he said “and the creation existed eternally with Him” then he said “but many people confuse the self with the kind”.
4.أمّا عبارته في الموافقة فهي ما نصّه (291): "قلنا: لا نسلم بل يكون الحادث اليومي مسبوقًا بحوادث لا أول لها"
In “Muwafaqat Sarihil-Ma^qul li Sahihil-Manqul, page 291”, Ibn Taymiyah said: “We said: we do not accept. However, the daily haadith is preceded by hawadith without a beginning”.
5.قال العلاّمة البياضي الحنفي في كتابهإشارات المرام (ص/ 197) بعد ذكر الأدلة على حدوث العالم ما نصّه: "فبطل ما ظنه ابن تيمية من قدم العرش كما في شرح العضدية"
The Hanafiyy Scholar Al-Bayyadiyy mentioned in his book “Ishaaraatul-Maraam, page 197”, after mentioning the proofs about the beginning of the world: “Hence, what Ibn Taymiyah thought of al-^Arsh being eternal, as reported in “Sharhul-^Adudiyyah”, is invalidated.”
6. قال الجلال الدواني (الدواني عالم مشهور ترجمه الحافظ السخاوي في البدـر الطالع ووثق) في كتاب شرح العضدية (ص/ 13): "وقد رأيت في بعض تصانيف ابن تيمية القول به- أي بالقدم الجنسي- في العرش"
Jalalud-Din Ad-Dawwaaniyy said in “Sharhul-^Adudiyyah, page 13”: “I saw in a writing of Abul-^Abbas Ibn Taymiyah the saying that the kind of al-^Arsh is eternal.
7. وقد ثبت عن السبكي ما نقله عنه تلميذه الصفدي وتلميذ ابن تيمية أيضًا في قصيدته المشهورة وقال: "ولابن تيمية ردُّ عليـه وفـى بمقصد الردّ واستيفاءِ أضْرُبِهِ
لكنه خَلطَ الحق المبين بما يشوبـُهُ كَـدًرٌ فـي صَفوِمشرَبِهِ
يحاوِلُ الحَشوَ أنَّى كان لهُ حثيثُ سيرٍ بشرقٍ او بمغرِبِهِ
يـرى حـوادث لا مبـدَا لأوَّلـهـا في الله سبحـانَهُ عما يظُنُّ ب"
Taqiyud-Din As-Subkiyy in a famous poem said: “Ibn Taymiyah has a refutation of what one of the rawafid said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw whenever he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he thinks about Him.”
The true case of Ibn Taymiyah is not a clear one for people nowadays as it was during his time. Ibn Taymiyah was a man with alot of knowledge however he lacked the comprehension of that knowledge and he became misguided after being guided. In the coming future I will post for information regarding the history of this man and his beliefs In sha' Allah. In the mean time one can check the following references and read for themselves what the scholars said about Ibn Taymiyah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalaniyy, Ad-Durar Al-Kaminah, Vol. 1, pp. 144- 153. 2.
Ibn Al-Wardiyy, Tatimat Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar Al-Bashar (Tarikh Ibn Al-Wardiyy), Vol. 2, p. 381, p. 398. 3.
Salah Ad-Din As-Safadiyy[1], ‘A`yan Al-`Asr wa A`wan An-Nasr (manuscript), Vol. 1, p. 34. 4.
Taqiyy Ad-Din Al-Husniyy, Daf` Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad, pp. 41-42, 43-45. (He quoted Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbiyy in his book of Tarikh, Vol. 20.) Al-Husniyy said: “Ibn Shakir was one of the followers of Ibn Taymiyah and was beaten severely because he said to a caller of athan you committed kufr when the caller said O Prophet of Allah you are my means. They wanted to sever off his head, but he renewed his faith in Islam. I only mention what he said because that is more prudent to establish the case against Ibn Taymiyah, in spite the fact that he neglected things out of his spitefulness and wickedness, which if mentioned would deeply degrade his role model. The surprising thing is that Ibn Taymiyah mentioned them, while he ignored them.”
Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbiyy, `Uyun At-Tawarikh (manuscript), p. 179. 6.
Ibn Al-Mu`allim Al-Qurashiyy, Najm Al-Muhtadiyy wa Rajm Al-Mu`tadiyy (manuscript), p. 630-631.
In Islam it is the belief that ONLY ALLAH existed eternally and He brought all the things from the state of non existence into existence. If any muslims doubts this , it implies that "if" there were other things also existing along with Allah since eternity , then the question comes who made these things? This will give rise to another god who was responsible for this "other things"! Also among the attributes of Allah is 'qadeem'.
But Ibn Taymiah was so much involved in Greek Philosophy that like greek philosophers he said along with Allah , Throne and water also existed along with Allah and they were not created by Allah ( this is total Kufr).
Only Allah existed eternally and HE will exist always.
Shaykhul Islam , hafiz , Ibn Hajar al asqalani said this was the wors thing from Ibn Taymiah among many other bad things in Aqidah reported from Ibn Taymiah.
Plz see the attached scan from Fathul Bari . Those who are interested MUST read this whole artcile to see this deviancy of Ibn Taymiah.
Ibn Taymiyyah's Saying of Hawadith with No Beginning Existing Eternally with Allah
This issue is one of the ugliest issues in belief by which Ibn Taymiyyah dissented from the sound mind and the explicit tradition and Ijma’ of the Muslims. He mentioned this belief in five of his books: "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", "Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", "Sharh Hadith-in-Nuzul", "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", and "Naqdu Maratib-il-’Ijma’".
Ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Minhaj-us-Sunnat-in-Nabawiyyah", Volume I, page 24 is: If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar’ and mind showed.
He replied to Ibn Hazm for reporting the Ijma’ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words, Ibn Taymiyyah said: What is stranger than that is his (Ibn Hazm's) reporting the Ijma’ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.
Ibn Taymiyyah's statement in "Sharh Hadith ‘Imran Ibn Husayn", page 193,: If the kind of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not negated by the Shar’ or the mind, but it is of His perfection. Allah, ta’ala, said that the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not create. Then Ibn Taymiyyah said: The creation existed eternally with Him. Then he said: but many people confuse the self with the kind.
His statement in "Muwafaqatu Sarih-il-Ma’qul li Sahih-il-Manqul", page 291 is: We said: we do not accept. However, the daily hadith is preceded by hawadith without a beginning.
In the manuscript of "Tashnif-ul-Masami’", page 342, Muhaddith, Usuli Badr-ud-Din az-Zarkashi reported the agreement of the Muslims upon the kufr of whoever says that the kind of the world is eternal. After mentioning that the philosophers said the world is eternal by matter and shape, and that some said it is eternal by matter but its shape is muhdath (has a beginning), he said: and the Muslims charged them (the philosophers) with deviation and kufr. Before that Hafiz Ibn Daqiq al-’Id, Qadi ‘Iyad, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar said the like in "Sharh al-Bukhari". Hafiz as-Subki confirmed this belief about Ibn Taymiyyah in his treatise "ad-Durrat-ul-Mudiyyah" and as said previously, Abu Sa’id al-’Ala'i did too. This belief was reported also by al-Jalal-ud-Dawwani in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah". He said: I saw in a writing of Abul-’Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah the saying that the kind of al-’Arsh is eternal.
The Hanafi ‘Allamah al-Bayyadi mentioned in his book "Isharat-ul-Maram", page 197, after mentioning the proofs about the beginning of the world: Hence, what Ibn Taymiyyah thought of al-’Arsh being eternal, as reported in "Sharh-ul-’Adudiyyah", is invalidated.
In his poem, which is famous even among the defenders of Ibn Taymiyyah, and which contained refuting al-Hilli then Ibn Taymiyyah, among of what as-Subki said: Ibn Taymiyyah has a refutation to what one of the rawafid (some deviant groups) said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw [The hashw is done by a group called al-Hashwiyyah. It is a vile group with ignorant members attributing themselves to Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, who is clear of them. They reported words about him which they misunderstood. Then, they continued with their bad belief claiming to cling to the Hadith. The best of the muhaddithun (pl. of muhaddith) in his time, Ibn ‘Asakir used to refrain from teaching them the Hadith and prevent them from attending his circle in Damascus. This group did not have a head or someone to carry its invalid belief, except some scattered efforts which were foiled by the Muslims. Then, around the end of the 700th Hijriyyah year, Ibn Taymiyyah advocated the invalid beliefs and ideas of this group.] whenever he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he (Ibn Taymiyyah) thinks about Him.
Ibn Taimiyah is characteristically audacious in rejecting hadith which do not conform with his purpose at hand even if those hadith are rigorously authentic (sahih) .
A good example of that is the following case: Al-Bukhari reported in his sahih:
“Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.”
This hadith is in agreement with the [clear-cut] evidence of the Qur`an, the sunnah, reason, and certain consensus (al-ijmà‘ al-mutayaqqan). However, since it conflicts with his belief in the eternity of the world,45 he turned to another version of this hadith which al-Bukhàri also reported: “Allah existed and their was nothing before Him.” And he rejected the first version in favor of the second on the grounds that the second conforms with another hadith: “You are the first; there is nothing before You.” [He held that the implication was that created things always existed along with Allah] .
Hafiz Ibn Hajr remarked concerning the correct manner of reconciling the apparent contradiction in the above-mentioned hadiths:
“In fact the way to reconcile the two versions of the hadith is to understand the second in light of the first, and not the other way around. Moreover, there is consensus on the principle that reconciliation of two apparently contradictory versions of a text (nass) takes precedence over endorsing one version at the expense of revoking the other. ”
Actually, Ibn Taimáyah’s prejudice blinded him from understanding the two versions of the hadith which, in fact, are not mutually contradictory. That is because the version “Allah existed and there was nothing before Him.” has the meaning which is contained in His name the First; whereas, the version “Allah existed and there was nothing other than Him.” has the meaning contained in His name the One. The proof of this is still another version of the hadith with the wording “Allah existed before everything."
TO SUM UP
1.قال في منهاج السنّة النبوية (1/ 24) : "فإن قلتم لنا: فقد قلتم بقيام الحوادث بالربّ، قلنا لكـم: نعم، وهذا قولنا الذي دلّ عليه الشرع والعقل"
Ibn Taymiyah said in “Minhajus-Sunnah An-Nabawiyyah”, Volume 1, page 24: “If you say to us: You said of the occurrence of the hawadith in Allah, we say to you: Yes, and this saying of ours is what the Shar^ and mind showed”
2.وقد ردّ على ابن حزم في نقد مراتب الإجماع (ص/ 168) لنقله الإجماع على أن الله لـم يزل وحده ولا شىء غيره معه، وأن المخالف بذلك كافر باتفاق المسلمين، فقال ابن تيمية بعد كلام ما نصه: "وأعجب من ذلك حكايته الإجماع على كفر من نازع أنه سبحانه لم يزل وحده ولا شىء غيره معه"
Ibn Taymiyah in “Naqdu Maratibil-^Ijma^, page 168” replied to Ibn Hazm for reporting the Ijma^ that Allah existed eternally and no thing existed with Him, and that the disagreer with this is a kafir. After these words, Ibn Taymiyah said “What is stranger than that is his reporting the Ijma^ upon the kufr of whoever contended with the belief that Allah existed eternally by Himself and no thing existed with Him.”
3.أما عبارته في شرح حديث عمران بن الحصين(ص/ 193)، ومجمرع الفناوى (18/ 239) فهي: "وإن قدّر أن نوعها- أي الحوادث- لم يزل معه فهذه المعية لم ينفها شرع ولا عقل، بل هي من كماله، قال تعالى: أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لاَّ يَخْلُقُ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرُونَ (سورة النحل/17) وقال: "والخلق لا يزالون معه " إلى أن قال: "لكن يشتبه على كثير من الناس النوع بالعين ".
Ibn Taymiyah said in “Sharh Hadith ^Imran Ibn Husayn, page 193 and Majmu^ Al-Fatawa Volume 18, page 239”: “If the kind of the creations is assumed to be eternal with Allah, this companionship is not negated by the Shar^ or the mind, but it is of His perfection.
Allah, said
أَفَمَن يَخْلُقُ كَمَن لاَّ يَخْلُقُ أَفَلا تَذَكَّرُونَ
which means the One Who creates is not equal to whoever does not create; do you not see?” Then he said “and the creation existed eternally with Him” then he said “but many people confuse the self with the kind”.
4.أمّا عبارته في الموافقة فهي ما نصّه (291): "قلنا: لا نسلم بل يكون الحادث اليومي مسبوقًا بحوادث لا أول لها"
In “Muwafaqat Sarihil-Ma^qul li Sahihil-Manqul, page 291”, Ibn Taymiyah said: “We said: we do not accept. However, the daily haadith is preceded by hawadith without a beginning”.
5.قال العلاّمة البياضي الحنفي في كتابهإشارات المرام (ص/ 197) بعد ذكر الأدلة على حدوث العالم ما نصّه: "فبطل ما ظنه ابن تيمية من قدم العرش كما في شرح العضدية"
The Hanafiyy Scholar Al-Bayyadiyy mentioned in his book “Ishaaraatul-Maraam, page 197”, after mentioning the proofs about the beginning of the world: “Hence, what Ibn Taymiyah thought of al-^Arsh being eternal, as reported in “Sharhul-^Adudiyyah”, is invalidated.”
6. قال الجلال الدواني (الدواني عالم مشهور ترجمه الحافظ السخاوي في البدـر الطالع ووثق) في كتاب شرح العضدية (ص/ 13): "وقد رأيت في بعض تصانيف ابن تيمية القول به- أي بالقدم الجنسي- في العرش"
Jalalud-Din Ad-Dawwaaniyy said in “Sharhul-^Adudiyyah, page 13”: “I saw in a writing of Abul-^Abbas Ibn Taymiyah the saying that the kind of al-^Arsh is eternal.
7. وقد ثبت عن السبكي ما نقله عنه تلميذه الصفدي وتلميذ ابن تيمية أيضًا في قصيدته المشهورة وقال: "ولابن تيمية ردُّ عليـه وفـى بمقصد الردّ واستيفاءِ أضْرُبِهِ
لكنه خَلطَ الحق المبين بما يشوبـُهُ كَـدًرٌ فـي صَفوِمشرَبِهِ
يحاوِلُ الحَشوَ أنَّى كان لهُ حثيثُ سيرٍ بشرقٍ او بمغرِبِهِ
يـرى حـوادث لا مبـدَا لأوَّلـهـا في الله سبحـانَهُ عما يظُنُّ ب"
Taqiyud-Din As-Subkiyy in a famous poem said: “Ibn Taymiyah has a refutation of what one of the rawafid said that was complete. However, he mixed the truth with the hashw whenever he could. He says that there are hawadith with no beginning that occur in Allah. Praise to Allah; He is clear of what he thinks about Him.”
The true case of Ibn Taymiyah is not a clear one for people nowadays as it was during his time. Ibn Taymiyah was a man with alot of knowledge however he lacked the comprehension of that knowledge and he became misguided after being guided. In the coming future I will post for information regarding the history of this man and his beliefs In sha' Allah. In the mean time one can check the following references and read for themselves what the scholars said about Ibn Taymiyah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalaniyy, Ad-Durar Al-Kaminah, Vol. 1, pp. 144- 153. 2.
Ibn Al-Wardiyy, Tatimat Al-Mukhtasar fi Akhbar Al-Bashar (Tarikh Ibn Al-Wardiyy), Vol. 2, p. 381, p. 398. 3.
Salah Ad-Din As-Safadiyy[1], ‘A`yan Al-`Asr wa A`wan An-Nasr (manuscript), Vol. 1, p. 34. 4.
Taqiyy Ad-Din Al-Husniyy, Daf` Shubah man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad, pp. 41-42, 43-45. (He quoted Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbiyy in his book of Tarikh, Vol. 20.) Al-Husniyy said: “Ibn Shakir was one of the followers of Ibn Taymiyah and was beaten severely because he said to a caller of athan you committed kufr when the caller said O Prophet of Allah you are my means. They wanted to sever off his head, but he renewed his faith in Islam. I only mention what he said because that is more prudent to establish the case against Ibn Taymiyah, in spite the fact that he neglected things out of his spitefulness and wickedness, which if mentioned would deeply degrade his role model. The surprising thing is that Ibn Taymiyah mentioned them, while he ignored them.”
Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbiyy, `Uyun At-Tawarikh (manuscript), p. 179. 6.
Ibn Al-Mu`allim Al-Qurashiyy, Najm Al-Muhtadiyy wa Rajm Al-Mu`tadiyy (manuscript), p. 630-631.
Why was Albani removed from Saudi Kingdom?
Wahabis are divided into many sects like Madhkhalee, Qutubis etc. Those Wahabis who are blind supporter of Kingdom of Saudia , its policies and rulers, they are called 'Madhkhalees"( After their scholat Madhkhal).They do not want to talk about any chnage in Saudi Kingdom and are against Osama Bin Laden.They support all policies of Saudi Kingdom like their support to USA, inviting US Army in past to attacl Iraq. In short, they are blind supporter of Saudi Government and use personal interpretation of Quranic verses and hadith to prove their point.
Qutbis on the other hand are those Wahabis who want a change in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and use a Qauranic verse( Any 1 who rules by other than what Allah has revealed) to call all rulers of Saudi Arabia as Kafir.
The common thing between them is that they both are Mujassima ( Anthropomorphsit)and ascribe Human attributes to Allah, they both have the cocept of Triple Tawheed in Islam and both of the groups follow only recent scholars.
For Ahlus sunnah both these wahabi sect is deviated. We do not show any prefernce when the choice is between Cow Dung and Buffalo dung.
Read below an interesting article and keep checking the blog , Insha Allah soon many more artciles will be posted on ANTHROPOMORPHISM.
When on the first of October 1999 Shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani passed away at the age of 85, he was mourned by virtually everyone in the world of Salafi Islam. To many, he represented its third main contemporary reference, after ‘Abd al-’Aziz bin Baz (who himself had died a few months before) and Muhammad bin ‘Uthaymin (who would pass away in January 2001), both leading figures of the Saudi religious establishment. Salafi newspapers, journals, and websites celebrated this Syrian son of an Albanian clock-maker—whose family left Albania in 1923, when he was nine years old, and re-established itself in Damascus—who had become known as the muhaddith al-’asr (traditionist of the era), that is, the greatest hadith scholar of his generation.
How did al-Albani, with his undistinguished social and ethnic origins, come to occupy such a prestigious position in a field long monopolized by a religious elite from the Saudi region of Najd—The answer is, as we shall see through the example of al-Albani himself and some of his disciples, lies in his revolutionary approach to hadith.
The Wahhabi paradox
Common knowledge considers Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani to be staunch proponent of Wahhabism, the discourse produced and upheld by the official Saudi religious establishment.1 This is undoubtedly true in terms of ‘aqidah (creed), yet al-Albani strongly disagrees with the Wahhabis—and especially with their chief representatives, the ulama of the Saudi religious establishment—when it comes to fiqh (law). There, al-Albani points to a fundamental contradiction within the Wahhabi tradition: the latter’s proponents have advocated exclusive reliance on the Quran, the Sunna, and the consensus of al-salaf al-salih (the pious ancestors), yet they have almost exclusively relied on Hanbali jurisprudence for their fatwas—acting therefore as proponents of a particular school of jurisprudence, namely Hanbalism. According to al-Albani, this also applies to Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab whom he describes as “salafi in creed, but not in fiqh.”
For al-Albani, moreover, being a proper “salafi in fiqh” implies making hadith the central pillar of the juridical process, for hadith alone may provide answers to matters not found in the Quran without relying on the school of jurisprudence. The mother of all religious sciences therefore becomes the “science of hadith,” which aims at re-evaluating the authenticity of known hadiths. According to al-Albani, hoever, independent reasoning must be excluded from the process: the critique of the matn (the content of the hadith) should be exclusively formal, i.e. grammatical or linguistic; only the sanad (the hadith’s chain of transmitters) may be properly put into question. As a consequence, the central focus of the science of hadith becomes ‘ilm al-rijal (the science of men), also known as ‘ilm al-jarh wa-l-ta’dil (the science of critique and fair evaluation), which evaluates the morality—deemed equivalent to the reliability—of the transmitters. At the same time—and contrary to earlier practices—al-Albani insists that the scope of this re-evaluation must encompass all existing hadiths, even those included in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim, some of which al-Albani went so far as to declare weak.2
Revolutionary interpretations
As a consequence of the peculiarirty of this method, al-Albani ended up pronouncing fatwas that ran counter to the wider Islamic consensus and more specifically to Hanbali/Wahhabi jurisprudence. For instance, he wrote a book in which he redefined the proper gestures and formulae that constitute the Muslim prayer ritual “according to the Prophet’s practice”—and contrary to the prescriptions of all established schools of jurisprudence. Also, he stated that mihrabs—the niche found in a mosques indicating the direction of Mecca—were bid’a (an innovation) and declared licit to pray in a mosque with one’s shoes. Another controversial position was his call for Palestinians to leave the occupied territories since, he claimed, they were unable to practice their faith there as they should—something which is much more important than a piece of land. Finally, al-Albani took a strong stance against indulging in politics, repeating that “the good policy is to abandon politics”—a phrase implicitly aimed at the Muslim Brotherhood, whose political views he consistently denounced.
The presence of al-Albani in Saudi Arabia—where he was invited in 1961 by his good friend Shaykh ‘Abd al-’Aziz bin Baz to teach at the Islamic University of Medina—prompted embarrassed reactions from the core of the Wahhabi establishment, who disagreed with him but could hardly attack him because of his impeccable Wahhabi credentials in terms of creed. The controversy sparked by his book The Veil of the Muslim Woman, in which he argued that Muslim women should not cover their face—a position unacceptable by Saudi standards—, finally gave the Wahhabi establishment the justification needed to get him out of the Kingdom in 1963. He then re-established himself in his country of birth, Syria, before leaving for Jordan in 1979.3
However, the opposition al-Albani encountered from the Wahhabi religious establishment was not merely intellectual. By putting into question the methodological foundations upon which the Wahhabis had built their legitimacy, he was also challenging their position in the Saudi religious field.
From its inception, Wahhabism had established itself as a religious tradition—at the core of which laid a number of key books, both in creed and law. This tradition had been monopolized by a small religious aristocracy from Najd, first centered around Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his descendants (known as the Al al-Shaykh) before opening up to a small number of other families. In the Saudi system as it took shape, the members of aristocracy would become the only legitimate transmitters of the Wahhabi tradition; in this context independent scholars were excluded because they had not received “proper ‘ilm” from “qualified” ulama.
Traditional Wahhabi ‘ilm, therefore, was the fruit of a process of transmission and depended on the number of ijazas—a certificate by which a scholar acknowledges the transmission of his knowledge (or part of it) to one of his pupils, and authorizes him to transmit it further—given by respected Wahhabi scholars. This is the very logic of al-Albani—who, himself, owned very few of these certificates—would challenge by promoting his critical approach. As a matter of fact, according to al-Albani, transmission has no importance whatsoever, because, every hadith being suspect, the fact that it was narrated by a respected scholar cannot guarantee its authenticity. On the contrary, the important process of accumulation—a good scholar of hadith being someone who has memorized a large sum of hadith and, more importantly, the biographies of a large number of transmitters. Thus, the science of hadith can be measured according to the objective criteria unrelated to family, tribe, or regional descent, allowing for a previously absent measure of meritocracy. More importantly, al-Albani claims of being more faithful to the spirit of Wahhabism than ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself made the former’s ideas very popular among Salafi youth.
Religious entrepreneurs
For all these reasons, al-Albani’s ideas would rapidly become a means for Salafi religious entrepreneurs from outside the Wahhabi aristocracy to challenge the existing hierarchy. Al-Albani himself quickly gathered a large following, in Saudi Arabia and beyond. He would soon have to be recognized, despite the initial hostility of the Wahhabi religious establishment, as one of the leading figures in Salafism.
In the mid-1960s, a number of al-Albani’s disciples in Medina founded al-Jamaa al-Salafiyya al-Muhtasiba (The Salafi Group which Commands Good and Forbids Evil), a radical faction of which, led by Juhayman al-’Utaybi, would storm the grand mosque in Mecca in November 1979. Many of the group’s members—and especially its scholars—were either of Bedouin descent or non-Saudi residents, and were thus marginalized in the religious field. Their activism came, in part at least, as a response to their marginalization.4 One of the main religious figures of this group—who was “lucky” enough to have been thrown out of the Kingdom in 1978 and therefore did not take part in the 1979—was Muqbil al-Wadi’i, who subsequently re-established himself in his native Yemen and became the country’s most prominent Salafi scholar.
In the late 1980s, some of al-Albani’s pupils, led by Medinan shaykh called Rabi’ al-Madkhali, formed an informal religious network generally referred to as al-Jamiyya (”the Jamis”, named after one of their key members, Muhammad Aman al-Jami). Beyond their focus on hadith, the Jamis became known as emphasizing al-Albani’s calls not to indulge in politics and for denouncing those who did. Again, many of the Jamis were peripheral origin (al-Madkhali was from Jazan, on the Yemeni border, while al-Jami was from Ethiopia) and had therefore been excluded from all leading positions in the religious field. They would finally gain prominence in the early 1990s, when the Saudi government supported them financially and institutionally, in the hope of creating an apolitical ideological counterweight to the Islamist opposition led by the al-Sahwa al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Awakening), an informal religio-political movement which appeared in Saudi Arabia in the 1960s as the result of a hybridization between Wahhabism, on religious issues, and on the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood, on political issues.5
In the 1990s, a few students of al-Albani would go so far as to challenge both the Wahhabi religious aristocracy and al-Albani himself. Following the teachings of an Indian shaykh called Hamza al-Milibari,6 they would promote the centrality of hadith, while criticizing al-Albani for relying, in his critique of hadith, on the methods used by late traditionists—at least so they claimed. On the contrary, they would pride themselves for relying exclusively on the methodology of the early traditionists (that is those anterior to al-Dar Qutni (917-995)) and would therefore name their approach manhaj al-mutaqad-dimin (the methodology of the early ones). Again, most of these scholars were peripheral figures, such as Sulayman al-’Alwan, a very young—al-’Alwan was born in 1970 and started to become known as a scholars while he was in his twenties—shaykh of non-tribal descent, and ‘Abdallah al-Sa’d, whose family had come from the city of Zubayr in Modern Iraq. The two of them would later become key figures in the Saudi Jihadi trend, challenging the political order after they had challenged the religious order. As a consequence, they would be arrested and jailed after the May 2003 bombings.
Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani’s denunciation of the “Wahhabi paradox” and his promotion of a new approach to the critique of hadtih as the pillar of religious knowledge have prompted a revolution within Salafism, challenging the very monopoly of the Wahhabi religious aristocracy. As a consequence, al-Albani’s ideas have given independent Salafi religious entrepreneurs a weapon with which to fight their way into previously closed circles. Although none have yet achieved al-Albani’s prestige, some have become recognized scholars. Interestingly enough, al-Albani’s rise to prominence as a de facto part of an establishment he once rejected has encouraged some of disciples, proponents of the “methodology of the early ones,” to call—along al-Albani’s earlier line—for an even “purer” approach to the critique of hadith. As this shows, the revolutionary power of his methods remains intact.
Notes:
1.As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al-Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism.
2.Stéphane Lacroix, “Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani’s Contribution to Contemporary Salafism,” in Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, ed. Roel Meijer (London/New York: Hurst/Columbia University Press, 2008 (forthcoming)).
3.On the controversies surrounding al-Albani, see ibid.
4.See Thomas Hegghammer and Stéphane Lacroix, “Rejectionist Islamism in Saudi Arabia: The Story of Juhayman al-’Utaybi Revisited,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39, no. 1 (2007):103-122.
5.For more details, see ibid.
6.The book is called Al-muwazana bayna al-mutaqaddimin wa-l-muta’akhkhirin fi tashih al-ahadith wa ta’liliha [The balance between the early ones and the late ones regarding the identification of authentic and weak hadiths].
TO know more about this man who said the dome over the prophets grave should be destroyed, masterbation does not breaks ones Fasting in Ramadhan and other adventures of this self proclaimed Scholar who did not have an Ijaza in Hadith ( certificate to teach and communicate hadith), Please visit this link
(copy and paste in your browser bar).
AL-ALBANI
Concise Guide to the Chief Innovator of Our Time
http://www.livingislam.org/alb_e.html
Qutbis on the other hand are those Wahabis who want a change in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and use a Qauranic verse( Any 1 who rules by other than what Allah has revealed) to call all rulers of Saudi Arabia as Kafir.
The common thing between them is that they both are Mujassima ( Anthropomorphsit)and ascribe Human attributes to Allah, they both have the cocept of Triple Tawheed in Islam and both of the groups follow only recent scholars.
For Ahlus sunnah both these wahabi sect is deviated. We do not show any prefernce when the choice is between Cow Dung and Buffalo dung.
Read below an interesting article and keep checking the blog , Insha Allah soon many more artciles will be posted on ANTHROPOMORPHISM.
When on the first of October 1999 Shaykh Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani passed away at the age of 85, he was mourned by virtually everyone in the world of Salafi Islam. To many, he represented its third main contemporary reference, after ‘Abd al-’Aziz bin Baz (who himself had died a few months before) and Muhammad bin ‘Uthaymin (who would pass away in January 2001), both leading figures of the Saudi religious establishment. Salafi newspapers, journals, and websites celebrated this Syrian son of an Albanian clock-maker—whose family left Albania in 1923, when he was nine years old, and re-established itself in Damascus—who had become known as the muhaddith al-’asr (traditionist of the era), that is, the greatest hadith scholar of his generation.
How did al-Albani, with his undistinguished social and ethnic origins, come to occupy such a prestigious position in a field long monopolized by a religious elite from the Saudi region of Najd—The answer is, as we shall see through the example of al-Albani himself and some of his disciples, lies in his revolutionary approach to hadith.
The Wahhabi paradox
Common knowledge considers Shaykh Nasir al-Din al-Albani to be staunch proponent of Wahhabism, the discourse produced and upheld by the official Saudi religious establishment.1 This is undoubtedly true in terms of ‘aqidah (creed), yet al-Albani strongly disagrees with the Wahhabis—and especially with their chief representatives, the ulama of the Saudi religious establishment—when it comes to fiqh (law). There, al-Albani points to a fundamental contradiction within the Wahhabi tradition: the latter’s proponents have advocated exclusive reliance on the Quran, the Sunna, and the consensus of al-salaf al-salih (the pious ancestors), yet they have almost exclusively relied on Hanbali jurisprudence for their fatwas—acting therefore as proponents of a particular school of jurisprudence, namely Hanbalism. According to al-Albani, this also applies to Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab whom he describes as “salafi in creed, but not in fiqh.”
For al-Albani, moreover, being a proper “salafi in fiqh” implies making hadith the central pillar of the juridical process, for hadith alone may provide answers to matters not found in the Quran without relying on the school of jurisprudence. The mother of all religious sciences therefore becomes the “science of hadith,” which aims at re-evaluating the authenticity of known hadiths. According to al-Albani, hoever, independent reasoning must be excluded from the process: the critique of the matn (the content of the hadith) should be exclusively formal, i.e. grammatical or linguistic; only the sanad (the hadith’s chain of transmitters) may be properly put into question. As a consequence, the central focus of the science of hadith becomes ‘ilm al-rijal (the science of men), also known as ‘ilm al-jarh wa-l-ta’dil (the science of critique and fair evaluation), which evaluates the morality—deemed equivalent to the reliability—of the transmitters. At the same time—and contrary to earlier practices—al-Albani insists that the scope of this re-evaluation must encompass all existing hadiths, even those included in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim, some of which al-Albani went so far as to declare weak.2
Revolutionary interpretations
As a consequence of the peculiarirty of this method, al-Albani ended up pronouncing fatwas that ran counter to the wider Islamic consensus and more specifically to Hanbali/Wahhabi jurisprudence. For instance, he wrote a book in which he redefined the proper gestures and formulae that constitute the Muslim prayer ritual “according to the Prophet’s practice”—and contrary to the prescriptions of all established schools of jurisprudence. Also, he stated that mihrabs—the niche found in a mosques indicating the direction of Mecca—were bid’a (an innovation) and declared licit to pray in a mosque with one’s shoes. Another controversial position was his call for Palestinians to leave the occupied territories since, he claimed, they were unable to practice their faith there as they should—something which is much more important than a piece of land. Finally, al-Albani took a strong stance against indulging in politics, repeating that “the good policy is to abandon politics”—a phrase implicitly aimed at the Muslim Brotherhood, whose political views he consistently denounced.
The presence of al-Albani in Saudi Arabia—where he was invited in 1961 by his good friend Shaykh ‘Abd al-’Aziz bin Baz to teach at the Islamic University of Medina—prompted embarrassed reactions from the core of the Wahhabi establishment, who disagreed with him but could hardly attack him because of his impeccable Wahhabi credentials in terms of creed. The controversy sparked by his book The Veil of the Muslim Woman, in which he argued that Muslim women should not cover their face—a position unacceptable by Saudi standards—, finally gave the Wahhabi establishment the justification needed to get him out of the Kingdom in 1963. He then re-established himself in his country of birth, Syria, before leaving for Jordan in 1979.3
However, the opposition al-Albani encountered from the Wahhabi religious establishment was not merely intellectual. By putting into question the methodological foundations upon which the Wahhabis had built their legitimacy, he was also challenging their position in the Saudi religious field.
From its inception, Wahhabism had established itself as a religious tradition—at the core of which laid a number of key books, both in creed and law. This tradition had been monopolized by a small religious aristocracy from Najd, first centered around Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and his descendants (known as the Al al-Shaykh) before opening up to a small number of other families. In the Saudi system as it took shape, the members of aristocracy would become the only legitimate transmitters of the Wahhabi tradition; in this context independent scholars were excluded because they had not received “proper ‘ilm” from “qualified” ulama.
Traditional Wahhabi ‘ilm, therefore, was the fruit of a process of transmission and depended on the number of ijazas—a certificate by which a scholar acknowledges the transmission of his knowledge (or part of it) to one of his pupils, and authorizes him to transmit it further—given by respected Wahhabi scholars. This is the very logic of al-Albani—who, himself, owned very few of these certificates—would challenge by promoting his critical approach. As a matter of fact, according to al-Albani, transmission has no importance whatsoever, because, every hadith being suspect, the fact that it was narrated by a respected scholar cannot guarantee its authenticity. On the contrary, the important process of accumulation—a good scholar of hadith being someone who has memorized a large sum of hadith and, more importantly, the biographies of a large number of transmitters. Thus, the science of hadith can be measured according to the objective criteria unrelated to family, tribe, or regional descent, allowing for a previously absent measure of meritocracy. More importantly, al-Albani claims of being more faithful to the spirit of Wahhabism than ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself made the former’s ideas very popular among Salafi youth.
Religious entrepreneurs
For all these reasons, al-Albani’s ideas would rapidly become a means for Salafi religious entrepreneurs from outside the Wahhabi aristocracy to challenge the existing hierarchy. Al-Albani himself quickly gathered a large following, in Saudi Arabia and beyond. He would soon have to be recognized, despite the initial hostility of the Wahhabi religious establishment, as one of the leading figures in Salafism.
In the mid-1960s, a number of al-Albani’s disciples in Medina founded al-Jamaa al-Salafiyya al-Muhtasiba (The Salafi Group which Commands Good and Forbids Evil), a radical faction of which, led by Juhayman al-’Utaybi, would storm the grand mosque in Mecca in November 1979. Many of the group’s members—and especially its scholars—were either of Bedouin descent or non-Saudi residents, and were thus marginalized in the religious field. Their activism came, in part at least, as a response to their marginalization.4 One of the main religious figures of this group—who was “lucky” enough to have been thrown out of the Kingdom in 1978 and therefore did not take part in the 1979—was Muqbil al-Wadi’i, who subsequently re-established himself in his native Yemen and became the country’s most prominent Salafi scholar.
In the late 1980s, some of al-Albani’s pupils, led by Medinan shaykh called Rabi’ al-Madkhali, formed an informal religious network generally referred to as al-Jamiyya (”the Jamis”, named after one of their key members, Muhammad Aman al-Jami). Beyond their focus on hadith, the Jamis became known as emphasizing al-Albani’s calls not to indulge in politics and for denouncing those who did. Again, many of the Jamis were peripheral origin (al-Madkhali was from Jazan, on the Yemeni border, while al-Jami was from Ethiopia) and had therefore been excluded from all leading positions in the religious field. They would finally gain prominence in the early 1990s, when the Saudi government supported them financially and institutionally, in the hope of creating an apolitical ideological counterweight to the Islamist opposition led by the al-Sahwa al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Awakening), an informal religio-political movement which appeared in Saudi Arabia in the 1960s as the result of a hybridization between Wahhabism, on religious issues, and on the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood, on political issues.5
In the 1990s, a few students of al-Albani would go so far as to challenge both the Wahhabi religious aristocracy and al-Albani himself. Following the teachings of an Indian shaykh called Hamza al-Milibari,6 they would promote the centrality of hadith, while criticizing al-Albani for relying, in his critique of hadith, on the methods used by late traditionists—at least so they claimed. On the contrary, they would pride themselves for relying exclusively on the methodology of the early traditionists (that is those anterior to al-Dar Qutni (917-995)) and would therefore name their approach manhaj al-mutaqad-dimin (the methodology of the early ones). Again, most of these scholars were peripheral figures, such as Sulayman al-’Alwan, a very young—al-’Alwan was born in 1970 and started to become known as a scholars while he was in his twenties—shaykh of non-tribal descent, and ‘Abdallah al-Sa’d, whose family had come from the city of Zubayr in Modern Iraq. The two of them would later become key figures in the Saudi Jihadi trend, challenging the political order after they had challenged the religious order. As a consequence, they would be arrested and jailed after the May 2003 bombings.
Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani’s denunciation of the “Wahhabi paradox” and his promotion of a new approach to the critique of hadtih as the pillar of religious knowledge have prompted a revolution within Salafism, challenging the very monopoly of the Wahhabi religious aristocracy. As a consequence, al-Albani’s ideas have given independent Salafi religious entrepreneurs a weapon with which to fight their way into previously closed circles. Although none have yet achieved al-Albani’s prestige, some have become recognized scholars. Interestingly enough, al-Albani’s rise to prominence as a de facto part of an establishment he once rejected has encouraged some of disciples, proponents of the “methodology of the early ones,” to call—along al-Albani’s earlier line—for an even “purer” approach to the critique of hadith. As this shows, the revolutionary power of his methods remains intact.
Notes:
1.As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al-Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism.
2.Stéphane Lacroix, “Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani’s Contribution to Contemporary Salafism,” in Global Salafism: Islam’s New Religious Movement, ed. Roel Meijer (London/New York: Hurst/Columbia University Press, 2008 (forthcoming)).
3.On the controversies surrounding al-Albani, see ibid.
4.See Thomas Hegghammer and Stéphane Lacroix, “Rejectionist Islamism in Saudi Arabia: The Story of Juhayman al-’Utaybi Revisited,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 39, no. 1 (2007):103-122.
5.For more details, see ibid.
6.The book is called Al-muwazana bayna al-mutaqaddimin wa-l-muta’akhkhirin fi tashih al-ahadith wa ta’liliha [The balance between the early ones and the late ones regarding the identification of authentic and weak hadiths].
TO know more about this man who said the dome over the prophets grave should be destroyed, masterbation does not breaks ones Fasting in Ramadhan and other adventures of this self proclaimed Scholar who did not have an Ijaza in Hadith ( certificate to teach and communicate hadith), Please visit this link
(copy and paste in your browser bar).
AL-ALBANI
Concise Guide to the Chief Innovator of Our Time
http://www.livingislam.org/alb_e.html
Imam al-Haytami on the followers of Imam Ahmad.
Taken from Shaykhul Islam Of his time , Imam and al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's Fatawa Hadithiyyah.
[مطلب: في عقيدة الإمام أحمد رضي الله عنه وأرضاه]
211 ــــ وسئل رضي الله عنه ونفعنا به: في عقائد الحنابلة ما لا يخفى على شريف علمكم، فهل عقيدة الإمام أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه كعقائدهم؟
فأجاب بقوله: عقيدة إمام السنة أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه وأرضاه وجعل جنان المعارف متقلَّبه ومأواه وأفاض علينا وعليه من سوابغ إمتنانه وبوأه الفردوس الأعلى من جنانه، موافقة لعقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة من المبالغة التامة في تنزيه الله تعالى عما يقول الظالمون والجاحدون علواً كبيراً من الجهة والجسمية وغيرهما من سائر سمات النقص، بل وعن كل وَصْف ليس فيه كمال مطلق، وما اشتهر بين جهلة المنسوبين إلى هذا الإمام الأعظم المجتهد من أنه قائل بشيء من الجهة أو نحوها فكذب وبُهتان وافتراء عليه، فلعن الله من نسب ذلك إليه، أو رماه بشيء من هذه المثالب التي برَّأه الله منها، وقد بين الحافظ الحجة القدوة الإمام أبو الفرج بن الجوزي من أئمة مذهبه المبرئِّين من هذه الوصمة القبيحة الشنيعة، أنَّ كل ما نسب إليه من ذلك كذب عليه وافتراء وبهتان وأن نصوصه صريحة في بطلان ذلك وتنزيه الله تعالى عنه فاعلم ذلك فإنه مهم.
وإياك أنْ تصغى إلى ما في كتب ابن تيمية وتلميذه ابن قيم الجوزية وغيرهما ممن اتخذ إلهه هواه وأضله الله على علم وختم على سمعه وقلبه وجعل على بصره غشاوة فمن يهديه من بعد الله، وكيف تجاوز هؤلاء الملحدون الحدود، وتعدوا الرسوم وخرقوا سياج الشريعة والحقيقة، فظنوا بذلك أنهم على هدى من ربهم وليسوا كذلك، بل هم على أسوأ الضلال وأقبح الخصال وأبلغ المَقَّتْ والخسران وأنهى الكذب والبهتان فخذل الله متَّبِعهم وطهر الأرض من أمثالهم
Translation by GF Haddad Sha`bân 1423:
The Shâfi’ faqîh, Shaykh al-Islâm al-Haytamî was asked: "Was the belief of Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal the same as [certain] present-day Hanbalîs claim?" - He replied:
Concerning the doctrine of the Imâm of Ahl al-Sunna, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra) - may Allâh (swt) grant him the loftiest of gardens as his resting-place and destination, bestow upon us and him His bounties, and grant him a dwelling in the loftiest firdaws: his doctrine was in absolute conformity with the belief of Ahl al-Sunna, and completely concordant. It included the belief that Allâh (swt) is exalted beyond those matters that the oppressors and dissenters attribute to Him. That is, Allâh (swt) is exalted from possessing direction, parts, corporeality, and so forth among the various Attributes of imperfection.
The truth of the matter is that Allâh is free from all the Attributes that are not characterized by absolute perfection; and all those things that are being circulated and publicized among the ignoramuses as being said by this great mujtahid Imâm are a slander. It is an outright lie that this Imâm ever claimed direction or the like in describing the Attributes of Allâh (swt). May Allâh lead to perdition those who attribute such positions to the Imâm who is entirely exonerated of having said such things.
All these matters have been explained by the hadîth Master, Imâm Ab al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzî, who belongs to his [Imâm Ahmad's] school. He has cleared the Imâm's name of such foul slanders and has provided explicit proofs exposing the lies of the slanderers.
And beware of what Ibn Taymiyya, his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and others wrote; he [Ibn Taymiyya] is a man who took his lusts for his Lord, for which Allâh led him astray despite his learning, sealed upon his hearing and heart, and put a veil upon his sight; and who can guide him after Allâh let him be misguided? Why should He not, when these heretics have gone past the boundaries set by the Sharî`a and trampled them? Yet they imagine that they are the guided ones, that they are guided by their Lord Almighty when the truth is that they are not. Rather, they are on the wrong path, the most heinous, misleading way and most abominable traits. They are afflicted by vices and have incurred a great loss. May Allâh humble their followers and wipe the earth clean from their likes!
[مطلب: في عقيدة الإمام أحمد رضي الله عنه وأرضاه]
211 ــــ وسئل رضي الله عنه ونفعنا به: في عقائد الحنابلة ما لا يخفى على شريف علمكم، فهل عقيدة الإمام أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه كعقائدهم؟
فأجاب بقوله: عقيدة إمام السنة أحمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه وأرضاه وجعل جنان المعارف متقلَّبه ومأواه وأفاض علينا وعليه من سوابغ إمتنانه وبوأه الفردوس الأعلى من جنانه، موافقة لعقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة من المبالغة التامة في تنزيه الله تعالى عما يقول الظالمون والجاحدون علواً كبيراً من الجهة والجسمية وغيرهما من سائر سمات النقص، بل وعن كل وَصْف ليس فيه كمال مطلق، وما اشتهر بين جهلة المنسوبين إلى هذا الإمام الأعظم المجتهد من أنه قائل بشيء من الجهة أو نحوها فكذب وبُهتان وافتراء عليه، فلعن الله من نسب ذلك إليه، أو رماه بشيء من هذه المثالب التي برَّأه الله منها، وقد بين الحافظ الحجة القدوة الإمام أبو الفرج بن الجوزي من أئمة مذهبه المبرئِّين من هذه الوصمة القبيحة الشنيعة، أنَّ كل ما نسب إليه من ذلك كذب عليه وافتراء وبهتان وأن نصوصه صريحة في بطلان ذلك وتنزيه الله تعالى عنه فاعلم ذلك فإنه مهم.
وإياك أنْ تصغى إلى ما في كتب ابن تيمية وتلميذه ابن قيم الجوزية وغيرهما ممن اتخذ إلهه هواه وأضله الله على علم وختم على سمعه وقلبه وجعل على بصره غشاوة فمن يهديه من بعد الله، وكيف تجاوز هؤلاء الملحدون الحدود، وتعدوا الرسوم وخرقوا سياج الشريعة والحقيقة، فظنوا بذلك أنهم على هدى من ربهم وليسوا كذلك، بل هم على أسوأ الضلال وأقبح الخصال وأبلغ المَقَّتْ والخسران وأنهى الكذب والبهتان فخذل الله متَّبِعهم وطهر الأرض من أمثالهم
Translation by GF Haddad Sha`bân 1423:
The Shâfi’ faqîh, Shaykh al-Islâm al-Haytamî was asked: "Was the belief of Imâm Ahmad ibn Hanbal the same as [certain] present-day Hanbalîs claim?" - He replied:
Concerning the doctrine of the Imâm of Ahl al-Sunna, Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra) - may Allâh (swt) grant him the loftiest of gardens as his resting-place and destination, bestow upon us and him His bounties, and grant him a dwelling in the loftiest firdaws: his doctrine was in absolute conformity with the belief of Ahl al-Sunna, and completely concordant. It included the belief that Allâh (swt) is exalted beyond those matters that the oppressors and dissenters attribute to Him. That is, Allâh (swt) is exalted from possessing direction, parts, corporeality, and so forth among the various Attributes of imperfection.
The truth of the matter is that Allâh is free from all the Attributes that are not characterized by absolute perfection; and all those things that are being circulated and publicized among the ignoramuses as being said by this great mujtahid Imâm are a slander. It is an outright lie that this Imâm ever claimed direction or the like in describing the Attributes of Allâh (swt). May Allâh lead to perdition those who attribute such positions to the Imâm who is entirely exonerated of having said such things.
All these matters have been explained by the hadîth Master, Imâm Ab al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzî, who belongs to his [Imâm Ahmad's] school. He has cleared the Imâm's name of such foul slanders and has provided explicit proofs exposing the lies of the slanderers.
And beware of what Ibn Taymiyya, his student Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and others wrote; he [Ibn Taymiyya] is a man who took his lusts for his Lord, for which Allâh led him astray despite his learning, sealed upon his hearing and heart, and put a veil upon his sight; and who can guide him after Allâh let him be misguided? Why should He not, when these heretics have gone past the boundaries set by the Sharî`a and trampled them? Yet they imagine that they are the guided ones, that they are guided by their Lord Almighty when the truth is that they are not. Rather, they are on the wrong path, the most heinous, misleading way and most abominable traits. They are afflicted by vices and have incurred a great loss. May Allâh humble their followers and wipe the earth clean from their likes!
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Masjis Al Aqsa
What do u know about Masjid Al Aqsa..??
Have you noticed that whenever Masjid Al Aqsa is mentioned in the MEDIA,
they show the picture of the DOME OF THE ROCK.. WHY..??
The main reason for that is the ZIONISHT CONSPIRACY to erase from the
memory of Muslims worldwide the True picture of Masjid Al Aqsa
PLEASE BE CAUTIONED
THIS IS DOME OF ROCK NOT MASJID AL AQSA
Masjid Al Aqsa and DOME OF ROCK
Many Muslims and Non Muslims publish the incorrect picture of Masjid AL Aqsa out of ignorance.
What is worse than this is that many muslims today,display the picture of Dome of Rock in ther homes and offices, as it were Masjid Al Aqsa...
It has become a common mistake in the Muslim World...
The Real Tragedy is that Generations of Muslim Children (as well as many adults) around the world, are unable to differentiate between Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock..
Real Masjid AL AQSA
What do you think is going to happen if MASJID AL-AQSA
is destroyed and removed from the present landscape..??
Obviously you might not expect much, since everyone will see the DOME OF THE ROCK Still standing, unharmed.
People will incorrectly belive that nothing has changed and that something else was destroed.
What are you going to do NOW..?
It is your duty now to clear up this misunderstanding, especially for our children because they are the future.
We have to carry out this duty even if we demostrate and scream in the streets.
We must help people understand the truth.
Please pass on this message to as many friends as possible and take part in stopping this conspiracy.
Have you noticed that whenever Masjid Al Aqsa is mentioned in the MEDIA,
they show the picture of the DOME OF THE ROCK.. WHY..??
The main reason for that is the ZIONISHT CONSPIRACY to erase from the
memory of Muslims worldwide the True picture of Masjid Al Aqsa
PLEASE BE CAUTIONED
THIS IS DOME OF ROCK NOT MASJID AL AQSA
Masjid Al Aqsa and DOME OF ROCK
Many Muslims and Non Muslims publish the incorrect picture of Masjid AL Aqsa out of ignorance.
What is worse than this is that many muslims today,display the picture of Dome of Rock in ther homes and offices, as it were Masjid Al Aqsa...
It has become a common mistake in the Muslim World...
The Real Tragedy is that Generations of Muslim Children (as well as many adults) around the world, are unable to differentiate between Masjid Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock..
Real Masjid AL AQSA
What do you think is going to happen if MASJID AL-AQSA
is destroyed and removed from the present landscape..??
Obviously you might not expect much, since everyone will see the DOME OF THE ROCK Still standing, unharmed.
People will incorrectly belive that nothing has changed and that something else was destroed.
What are you going to do NOW..?
It is your duty now to clear up this misunderstanding, especially for our children because they are the future.
We have to carry out this duty even if we demostrate and scream in the streets.
We must help people understand the truth.
Please pass on this message to as many friends as possible and take part in stopping this conspiracy.
Monday, May 12, 2008
HADITH OF "MUSHRIK" ( IMPORTANT)
Imam and Hafiz of hadith Abu Yala (Rh) narrates a hadith in his Musnad with the chain going back to the companion of prophet , Sayyedina Huzaifa (rd) that the prophet of Allah ( Rasul Allah Sallala hu alai hi wasallam) said
"
Verily, I fear about a man from you who will read the Quran so much that his face will become enlightened and will come to personify Islam. This will continue until Allah wishes when these things will be taken away from him when he will disregard them by putting them all behind him and attack his neighbour with the sword accusing him of Shirk. The Prophet was asked 'Which of the two was commiting Shirk? The attacker or the attacked?' The prophet replied 'The attacker (the one accusing the other of Shirk)."
The classification of this Hadith is Jayyid.( Strong)
Imam Ibn Kathir (Rh) also recorded this hadith in his Tafsir under Surah Al-Araf.
Please recall that Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi al Tamimi, the fore father of all the Wahabis , called Muslims as “ Mushrik’( polytheist) and made it Halal ( Permissible) for his followers to loot the property belonging to Mulslims, to rape their women and kill Muslims.
Eevn today all the Wahabis try to justify this act of Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi Tamimi stating that the muslims in the Arabian region were all mushrik and hence this barbaric act of Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi is correct.
The present Wahabi generation also labels Sunni Muslims as ‘ Mushrik”
It is very clear from this hadith that prophet called these people as Mushrik and not Sunni Muslims.
Wahabis ansd modern day Khawarij, about whom Insha Allah another article will be posted.
Muslims should read the History of Wahabi massacre in TAIF in 1924.
Please visit these links
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/wah-38.html
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/radd_ul_salafiyya.html
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Hadith about Imam Abu Hanifa ( Rh)
Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were sitting with the Prophet Surat Al-Jumu'a was revealed to him, and when the Verse, "And He (Allah) has sent him (Muhammad) also to other (Muslims).....' (62.3) was recited by the Prophet, I said, "Who are they, O Allah's Apostle?" The Prophet did not reply till I repeated my question thrice. At that time, Salman Al-farisi was with us. So Allah's Apostle put his hand on Salman, saying, "If Faith were at (the place of) Ath-Thuraiya (pleiades, the highest star), even then (some men or man from these people (i.e. Salman's folk) would attain it."
(Book 60, Hadith 420,Sahih Bukhari)
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti [r.h] writes:
اقول قد بشر صلى اللّه عليه واله وسلم بالامام ابى حنيفه فى الحديث
"I say that Prophet Muhammed [s.a.w] has given the glad tidings of Imam Abu Hanifa [r.h] in this hadith [of Abu Hurayra] [r.a]."
[Tabyeed al-Sahifa, page 403]
Allamah ibn Hajar Makki [r.h] has also quoted this view of Allamah Suyuti [r.h] in al-Khayrat al-Hisaan.
Imam Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlwi [r.h] has mentioned in his Maktubaat that Imam Abu Hanifa [r.h] falls under the above mentioned hadith. [Kalmat al-Tayyibaat, page 168]
Famous Wahabi scholar Nawab Saddiq Hassan Khan [r.h]( Who later accepted Islam) also wrote that this hadith refers to Imam Abu Hanifa [r.h]. [Ithaf al-Nubla, page 424]
IMPORTANT POINTS
Courtsey: Shaykh Salman
Imam Abu Hanifa Numan ibn Thabit ibn Numan ibn Marzuban [2], called "The Imam" by Abu Dawud, and "The Imam, one of those who have reached the sky" by Ibn Hajar, he is known in the Islamic world as Imam Al Azam (The greatest Imam) and his school has the largest number of followers among the four schools of Ahly Sunna. He was a successor and met such Sahaba as Anas bin Malik, Sahl bin Sa’d, Ibn Abi Awfa etc. He was the first to organize Fiqh in written form under subheadings due to which Imam Shafi said:
(intro taken from Sunnipath.com)
Al Nasu Iyalun Ala Abi Hanifa Fi Al Fiqh
People are the dependents of Abu Hanifa in Fiqh. [3]
Imam Abu Hanifa was born in Kufa, and this is the opinion of the majority of the Ulema, in the year 80 Ah during the reign of Caliph Abdul Malik ibn Marwan ibn Al Hakim. His coming was predicted by the Prophet (Allah Bless him and grant him peace). Abu Nuaym narrates in his Hiyat al Awliya, Bukhari and Muslim narrate from another Sanad from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him), Abu Bakr Shirazi narrates in his Kitab Alqab, Tabarani from Sa’d bin Ubaidah (Allah be pleased with him) and Ibn Masud (Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (Allah Bless him and grant him peace) said:
---If Ilm was suspended from Pleiades and the Arabs are unable to reach it, then a man from the sons of Persia will be able to reach it.
Imam Suyuti mentions that the Ulema have stated that that these hadith are in favor of Imam Abu Hanifa and are authentic.
However, it was not only the Ilm of Imam Abu Hanifa that made him such a great man, but It was also his constant Ibadat and fear of Allah, his endeavor to purify himself from all worldy things, his asceticism and his forbearance in the face of difficulties. That is what made Imam Abu Hanifa Imam Al Azam.
1. Imam Abu Hanifas constant Ibadat, recitation of the Quran and Night Vigils:
Imam Dhahabi says that Imam Abu Hanifas Ibadat, in particular his Tahajjud prayers and recitation of the Quran, are established by Khabare Mutawattir, which means that it is a fact so commonly narrated by the tongues of people that it would be impossible to deny. Sufyan ibn Uyannah is said to have remarked:
In our time from amongst those who came to visit Mecca not a single soul could surpass Abu Hanifa in Salah.
Hammad, the son of Imam Abu Hanifa, narrates that Hasan ibn Ammarah said:
May Alah have mercy on Abu Hanifa. For thirty years he fasted and for fourty years he did not sleep at night.
Like Imam Bukhari, Imam Abu Hanifa used to finish the Quran 60 times in Ramadhan. He was so pious and scrupulous that he used to recite the whole Quran in one Raka, May Allah grant him the highest abode.
Zafir ibn Sulayman says:
Abu Hanifa used to spend much of the night in one Raka and in that one Raka he used to recite the entire Quran.
Ibrahim ibn Rustum Al Marwazi said:
Four are the Imams that recited the entire Quran in a single Raka: Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him), Tamim Al Dari, Said ibn Jubayr, and Abu Hanifa.
Ibn K’as narrates:
Due to his excessive Ibadat Abu Hanifa used to lo ok like a worn out rag.
2. Imam Abu Hanifas Allah-consciousness and withdrawal from futile things:
Khatib Baghdadi narrates that Asad ibn Amir said:
Overcome by fear of Allah Imam Abu Hanifas weeping could be heard right outside. On hearing his excessive weeping, even his neighbors were overwhelmed with pity for him.
Yahya ibn Mai’n says that he heard Yahya ibn Said sayd:
By Allah! We sat in the company of Abu Hanifa and heard many religious issues from him. I swear by Allah! When I looked at his face I used to be overcome with firm conviction that this man is very fearful of Allah.
Saymari narrates that Bakr Al Abid said:
I saw Imam Abu Hanifa performing Salah at night. He was weeping and praying, “Oh Allah have mercy on me on the day you resurrect me.”
Qadi Abul Qasim narrates that Abu Nuaym ibn Dukain said:
Imam Abu Hanifa was very wary of people. He used to speak to them only when questioned. He did not ponder over or listen to futile things.
3. Imam Abu Hanifas piety, asceticism, forbearance and trustworthiness:
Ibn Dukain narrates:
Imam Abu Hanifa was very pious and trustworthy.
Muhammad ibn Ayman narrates that when Abdullah ibn Mubarak was asked about Imam Abu Hanifa he replied:
Can anyone ever be like him? He was tried with lashes [4] but he exercised forbearance.
Abdullah ibn Mubarak said regarding Imam Abu Hanifa:
What can be said about a man who was presented with all the material wealth and chattels of the dunya but rejected it all? A man who was severely lashed but bore it with patience?
Nadr ibn Muhammad said:
I haven’t witnessed anyone as abstinent and pious as Imam Abu Hanifa.
Hasan ibn Ziyad said
Abu Hanifa never accepted any gift or favor from the rulers and kings (although he was offered much)
Zaid ibn Zarqa narrates that a man once remarked to Abu Hanifa:
This dunya is being presented to you then why don’t you accept it since you are a family man?
Imam Abu Hanifa replied:
Allah is sufficient to attend to the needs of my family. As for me, my monthly expenses amount to just two dirhams. Why should I accumulate wealth for them when I will be questioned about accumulating it? Whether they are obedient to him or disobedient does not make a difference to me being questioned since Allah’s sustenance reaches both the obedient and disobedient, “And in the sky is your sustenance and that which you are being promised (Zariyat: 22)
4. Opinions of other great Ulema regarding Imam Abu Hanifa:
a. Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussain ibn Fatima Bint Prophet Muhammad:
Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ali the great grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah Bless him and grant him peace) said:
How commendable are Abu Hanifas manners and how sublime is his skill in Fiqh!
b. Imam Malik ibn Anas ibn Malik
The founder of the Maliki school of thought, Imam Malik is reported to have said when asked about Imam Abu Hanifa:
Yes, I saw him and I saw him to be a man of such caliber that if he claims that this pillar of wood is made of gold he will prove it to you!
c. Imam Shafi Al Hashmi
The founder of the Shafi school of thought, Imam Shafi is reported to have said:
The person who wishes to excel in Fiqh is bound to be in need of Imam Abu Hanifa. He was a person who was divinely guided with Fiqh by Allah. I have not seen a greater Faqih then him.
d. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal
The founder of the Hanabli school of thought, Imam Ahmad is reported to have said:
In terms of Ilm, piety, abstinence from this dunya and preference of the hereafter, Abu Hanifa occupied such a lofty position that no one else could reach. May Allah shower his mercy on him!
5. Imam Abu Hanifas Death:
Imam Abu Hanifa died a martyr in prison in the year 150 Ah. He was poisoned on the orders of the Caliph Mansur after being lashed and thrown in jail for refusing the post of Chief Justice. According to Yaqub ibn Shaybah he died while in a state of sujud. May Allah have mercy on him and grant him the best of Rewards!
FOOT NOTES
[1] The main source of this biography is Uqudul Jamman Fi Manaqibil Imami Al Azam Abi Hanifata An Numan by Muhaddith Allamah Shamsudin Muhammad ibn Yusuf Dimashqi. It was translated in Urdu by Maulana Abdullah ibn Bastawi Madani. I advise everyone to get this valuable book as it has also been translated into English.
[2] Narrated by Ismail ibn Hammad ibn Abu Hanifa
[3] Narrated by Imam Dhahabi in Tadkhirat al Huffaz.
[4] Imam Abu Hanifa was lashed by the Caliph for refusing the post of chief justice.
(Book 60, Hadith 420,Sahih Bukhari)
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti [r.h] writes:
اقول قد بشر صلى اللّه عليه واله وسلم بالامام ابى حنيفه فى الحديث
"I say that Prophet Muhammed [s.a.w] has given the glad tidings of Imam Abu Hanifa [r.h] in this hadith [of Abu Hurayra] [r.a]."
[Tabyeed al-Sahifa, page 403]
Allamah ibn Hajar Makki [r.h] has also quoted this view of Allamah Suyuti [r.h] in al-Khayrat al-Hisaan.
Imam Shah Waliullah Muhaddith Dehlwi [r.h] has mentioned in his Maktubaat that Imam Abu Hanifa [r.h] falls under the above mentioned hadith. [Kalmat al-Tayyibaat, page 168]
Famous Wahabi scholar Nawab Saddiq Hassan Khan [r.h]( Who later accepted Islam) also wrote that this hadith refers to Imam Abu Hanifa [r.h]. [Ithaf al-Nubla, page 424]
IMPORTANT POINTS
Courtsey: Shaykh Salman
Imam Abu Hanifa Numan ibn Thabit ibn Numan ibn Marzuban [2], called "The Imam" by Abu Dawud, and "The Imam, one of those who have reached the sky" by Ibn Hajar, he is known in the Islamic world as Imam Al Azam (The greatest Imam) and his school has the largest number of followers among the four schools of Ahly Sunna. He was a successor and met such Sahaba as Anas bin Malik, Sahl bin Sa’d, Ibn Abi Awfa etc. He was the first to organize Fiqh in written form under subheadings due to which Imam Shafi said:
(intro taken from Sunnipath.com)
Al Nasu Iyalun Ala Abi Hanifa Fi Al Fiqh
People are the dependents of Abu Hanifa in Fiqh. [3]
Imam Abu Hanifa was born in Kufa, and this is the opinion of the majority of the Ulema, in the year 80 Ah during the reign of Caliph Abdul Malik ibn Marwan ibn Al Hakim. His coming was predicted by the Prophet (Allah Bless him and grant him peace). Abu Nuaym narrates in his Hiyat al Awliya, Bukhari and Muslim narrate from another Sanad from Abu Hurayrah (Allah be pleased with him), Abu Bakr Shirazi narrates in his Kitab Alqab, Tabarani from Sa’d bin Ubaidah (Allah be pleased with him) and Ibn Masud (Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (Allah Bless him and grant him peace) said:
---If Ilm was suspended from Pleiades and the Arabs are unable to reach it, then a man from the sons of Persia will be able to reach it.
Imam Suyuti mentions that the Ulema have stated that that these hadith are in favor of Imam Abu Hanifa and are authentic.
However, it was not only the Ilm of Imam Abu Hanifa that made him such a great man, but It was also his constant Ibadat and fear of Allah, his endeavor to purify himself from all worldy things, his asceticism and his forbearance in the face of difficulties. That is what made Imam Abu Hanifa Imam Al Azam.
1. Imam Abu Hanifas constant Ibadat, recitation of the Quran and Night Vigils:
Imam Dhahabi says that Imam Abu Hanifas Ibadat, in particular his Tahajjud prayers and recitation of the Quran, are established by Khabare Mutawattir, which means that it is a fact so commonly narrated by the tongues of people that it would be impossible to deny. Sufyan ibn Uyannah is said to have remarked:
In our time from amongst those who came to visit Mecca not a single soul could surpass Abu Hanifa in Salah.
Hammad, the son of Imam Abu Hanifa, narrates that Hasan ibn Ammarah said:
May Alah have mercy on Abu Hanifa. For thirty years he fasted and for fourty years he did not sleep at night.
Like Imam Bukhari, Imam Abu Hanifa used to finish the Quran 60 times in Ramadhan. He was so pious and scrupulous that he used to recite the whole Quran in one Raka, May Allah grant him the highest abode.
Zafir ibn Sulayman says:
Abu Hanifa used to spend much of the night in one Raka and in that one Raka he used to recite the entire Quran.
Ibrahim ibn Rustum Al Marwazi said:
Four are the Imams that recited the entire Quran in a single Raka: Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him), Tamim Al Dari, Said ibn Jubayr, and Abu Hanifa.
Ibn K’as narrates:
Due to his excessive Ibadat Abu Hanifa used to lo ok like a worn out rag.
2. Imam Abu Hanifas Allah-consciousness and withdrawal from futile things:
Khatib Baghdadi narrates that Asad ibn Amir said:
Overcome by fear of Allah Imam Abu Hanifas weeping could be heard right outside. On hearing his excessive weeping, even his neighbors were overwhelmed with pity for him.
Yahya ibn Mai’n says that he heard Yahya ibn Said sayd:
By Allah! We sat in the company of Abu Hanifa and heard many religious issues from him. I swear by Allah! When I looked at his face I used to be overcome with firm conviction that this man is very fearful of Allah.
Saymari narrates that Bakr Al Abid said:
I saw Imam Abu Hanifa performing Salah at night. He was weeping and praying, “Oh Allah have mercy on me on the day you resurrect me.”
Qadi Abul Qasim narrates that Abu Nuaym ibn Dukain said:
Imam Abu Hanifa was very wary of people. He used to speak to them only when questioned. He did not ponder over or listen to futile things.
3. Imam Abu Hanifas piety, asceticism, forbearance and trustworthiness:
Ibn Dukain narrates:
Imam Abu Hanifa was very pious and trustworthy.
Muhammad ibn Ayman narrates that when Abdullah ibn Mubarak was asked about Imam Abu Hanifa he replied:
Can anyone ever be like him? He was tried with lashes [4] but he exercised forbearance.
Abdullah ibn Mubarak said regarding Imam Abu Hanifa:
What can be said about a man who was presented with all the material wealth and chattels of the dunya but rejected it all? A man who was severely lashed but bore it with patience?
Nadr ibn Muhammad said:
I haven’t witnessed anyone as abstinent and pious as Imam Abu Hanifa.
Hasan ibn Ziyad said
Abu Hanifa never accepted any gift or favor from the rulers and kings (although he was offered much)
Zaid ibn Zarqa narrates that a man once remarked to Abu Hanifa:
This dunya is being presented to you then why don’t you accept it since you are a family man?
Imam Abu Hanifa replied:
Allah is sufficient to attend to the needs of my family. As for me, my monthly expenses amount to just two dirhams. Why should I accumulate wealth for them when I will be questioned about accumulating it? Whether they are obedient to him or disobedient does not make a difference to me being questioned since Allah’s sustenance reaches both the obedient and disobedient, “And in the sky is your sustenance and that which you are being promised (Zariyat: 22)
4. Opinions of other great Ulema regarding Imam Abu Hanifa:
a. Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussain ibn Fatima Bint Prophet Muhammad:
Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Ali the great grandson of the Prophet Muhammad (Allah Bless him and grant him peace) said:
How commendable are Abu Hanifas manners and how sublime is his skill in Fiqh!
b. Imam Malik ibn Anas ibn Malik
The founder of the Maliki school of thought, Imam Malik is reported to have said when asked about Imam Abu Hanifa:
Yes, I saw him and I saw him to be a man of such caliber that if he claims that this pillar of wood is made of gold he will prove it to you!
c. Imam Shafi Al Hashmi
The founder of the Shafi school of thought, Imam Shafi is reported to have said:
The person who wishes to excel in Fiqh is bound to be in need of Imam Abu Hanifa. He was a person who was divinely guided with Fiqh by Allah. I have not seen a greater Faqih then him.
d. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal
The founder of the Hanabli school of thought, Imam Ahmad is reported to have said:
In terms of Ilm, piety, abstinence from this dunya and preference of the hereafter, Abu Hanifa occupied such a lofty position that no one else could reach. May Allah shower his mercy on him!
5. Imam Abu Hanifas Death:
Imam Abu Hanifa died a martyr in prison in the year 150 Ah. He was poisoned on the orders of the Caliph Mansur after being lashed and thrown in jail for refusing the post of Chief Justice. According to Yaqub ibn Shaybah he died while in a state of sujud. May Allah have mercy on him and grant him the best of Rewards!
FOOT NOTES
[1] The main source of this biography is Uqudul Jamman Fi Manaqibil Imami Al Azam Abi Hanifata An Numan by Muhaddith Allamah Shamsudin Muhammad ibn Yusuf Dimashqi. It was translated in Urdu by Maulana Abdullah ibn Bastawi Madani. I advise everyone to get this valuable book as it has also been translated into English.
[2] Narrated by Ismail ibn Hammad ibn Abu Hanifa
[3] Narrated by Imam Dhahabi in Tadkhirat al Huffaz.
[4] Imam Abu Hanifa was lashed by the Caliph for refusing the post of chief justice.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
A WAHABI ' TWIST" on Hadith of Dhikr
The Wahabi Fatwa Factory (WFF) is famous for its Fatwa against Muslims. The Wahabi sect is based on pleasing the enemies of Islam and full filling desires. Everyone is aware of the Wahabi fatwa making Misyar ( TRAVELLER'S MARRIAGE) halal,Inviting Jew Owned Star Bucks Coffee chain in Makkah and other anti islanic steps taken by the Wahabi Kingdom and supported by its puppet scholars.
Wahabis have a natural tendency of calling Sunnah as ' Biddah". So very often we find wahabis telling that Group dhikr is a Biddah ( innovation).
Let us analyze the hadith which Wahabis bring to confuse Muslims, usually our revert brothers and sisters.
Here is the hadith
Amr ibn salmah said: We used to sit in front of Abdullah Ibn Masoud's house before the Fajr prayer, so that when he came out we would go with him to the Masjid. {one day} Abu Moosa al-Ash'aaree came and asked us: 'Did Abu Abdur Rahmaan (i.e. Ibn Masoud) leave yet? ' We answered: 'No.'
So Abu Moosa al-Ash'aaree sat with us waiting for him. When he came out, we all stood up. Abu Moosa told him: "Oh, Abu Abdur Rahmaan! I recently saw something in the Masjid which I deemed to be evil, but all praise is for Allah, I did see anything except good " Ibn Masoud then asked: "then What was it?"
Abu Moosa said: "You will see it if you stay alive. In the Masjid, I saw a group of people sitting in circles waiting for the Salââh. Each circle is led by a person. And every person in these circles carries small stones (pebbles).
The leader of a circle would say: "Say 'Allah-u Akbar' a hundred times" so they would repeat Allah-u Akbar a hundred times; then he says "Say 'Laa ilaaha illallaah', a hundred times" so they would say Laa ilaaha illallaah a hundred times; then he would say: "Say 'Subhaanallah', a hundred times", they will say Subhana Allah a hundred times.
Then Ibn Masoud said: "What did you tell them?"
He said: 'I didn't say anything, I waited to hear your opinion."
Abdullah Ibn Masoud said: "Could you not order them to count their evil deeds, and assured them of getting their rewards."
Then Abdullah Ibn Masoud went ahead and we accompanied him. As he approached one of the circles, he said: "What is this that you are doing?"
They said: "Oh! Abu Abdur Rahmaan, these are pebbles to count the number of times we say Allah-u Akbar, La ilaaha Illallah, and Subhaanallah."
He said: "Count your evil deeds, and I assure you that you are not going to lose anything of your rewards (Hasanat). Woe unto you, people of Muhammad, how quickly you go to destruction! Those are your Prophet's companions available, these are his clothes not worn out yet, and his pots are not broken yet. I swear by Whom my soul is in His Hands that you are either following a religion that is better than the Prophet's religion or you are opening a door of misguidance." They said: "We swear by Allah Almighty, oh, Abu Abdur Rahmaan, that we had no intention other than doing good deeds." He said: "So what? How many people wanted to do good deeds but never got to do them? The Prophet of Allah has told us about people who recited the Qur'ân with no effect on them other than the Qur'ân passing through their throats. [I.e. You are Khawarij]...
Answer
This hadith is a Mawquf hadith , that is , the chain does not go back upto the prophet, but stops at a companion.
This report is inauthentic.
Al-Darimi in the Muqaddima of his Sunan, narrated from al-Hakam ibn al-Mubarak who narrates from `Amr ibn Salima al-Hamadani. This `Amr ibn Yahya ibn `Amr ibn Salama al- Hamadani is da`if( Weak narrator). Ibn Ma`in saw him and said: "his narrations are worth nothing"; Ibn Kharrash: "he is not accepted; al-Dhahabi listed him among those who are weak and whose hadith is not retained in al-Du`afa' wal-Matrukin (p. 212 #3229), Mizan al-I`tidal (3:293), and al-Mughni fil-Du`afa' (2:491); and al-Haythami declared him weak (da`if) in Majma` al-Zawa'id, chapter entitled Bab al-`Ummal `ala al-Sadaqa.
Further, its authenticity was questioned by al-Suyuti in al-Hawi (2:31); al-Hifni in Fadl al-Tasbih wal-Tahlil as cited by al-Lacknawi, Sibahat al-Fikr (p. 25 and 42-43).
Further, it is belied by Imam Ahmad's narration in al-Zuhd from Abu Wa'il who said: "Those who claim that `Abd Allah [= Ibn Mas`ud] forbade dhikr [are wrong]: I never sat with him in any gathering except he made dhikr of Allah in it." Cited by al-Munawi in Fayd al-Qadir (1:457), al-Suyuti in Natijat al-Fikr fil-Jahri bil-Dhikr in al-Hawi, al-Nabulusi in Jam` al-Asrar (p. 66), al-Hifni in Fadl al-Tasbih wal- Tahlil as cited in al-Lacknawi, Sibahat al-Fikr (p. 25).
In addition, the Prophetic narrations affirming loud dhikr are sahih and innumerable, and definitely take precedence over a mawquf Companion-report even if we were hypothetically to consider it authentic.
Naysayers mention other pseudo-evidence against loud dhikr, all weak, such as the hadith "The best Dhikr is soft, and the best sustenance is what is sufficient," "One silent du`a is seventy times more superior than one loud du`a," and other da`if and maqtu` reports for which we are supposed to leave Qur'an and Sahih evidence and the understanding of the Imams!
It is also against many authentic (sahih) hadith narrated in both , Bukhari and Muslim on the virtues and benifits of joining Group Dhikr.
Just to mention ;
Ibn.'Abbas reported: Dhikr (mentioning the name of Allah) in a loud voice after peo obligatory prayers was (a common practice) during the lifetime of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) ; and when I heard that I came to knew that they (the ) had finished the prayer.
(Muslim :: Book 4 : Hadith 1211)
and every Wahabi must read this hadith
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying Allah has mobile (squads) of angels, who have no other work (to attend to but) to follow the assemblies of dhikr and when they find such assemblies in which there is dhikr (of Allah) they sit in them and some of them surround the others with their wings till the space between them and the sky of the world is fully covered, and when they disperse (after the assembly of dhikr is adjourned) they go upward to the heaven and Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, asks them although He is best informed about them: Where have you come from? They say: We come from Thine servants upon the earth who had been glorifying Thee (reciting Subhan Allah), uttering Thine Greatness (saying Allah o-Akbar) and uttering Thine Oneness (La ilaha ill Allah) and praising Thee (uttering al-Hamdu Lillah) and begging of Thee. Be would say: What do they beg of Me? They would say: They beg of Thee the Paradise of Thine. He (God) would say: Have they seen My Paradise? They said: No, our Lord. He would say: (What it would be then) if they were to see Mine Paradise? They (the angels) said: They seek Thine protection. He (the Lord) would say: Against what do they seek protection of Mine? They (the angels) would say: Our Lord, from the Hell-Fire. He (the Lord) would say: Have they seen My Fire? They would say: No. He (the Lord) would say: What it would be if they were to see My Fire? They would say: They beg of Thee forgiveness. He would say: I grant pardon to them, and confer upon them what they ask for and grant them protection against which they seek protection. They (the angels) would again say: Our Lord, there is one amongst them such and such simple servant who happened to pass by (that assembly) and sat there along with them (who had been participating in that assembly). He (the Lord) would say: I also grant him pardon, for they are a people the seat-fellows of whom are in no way unfortunate.
(Book #035, Hadith #6505, Sahih Muslim)
It is clear .. Allah, prophet, the anagels and Muslims like Dhkir of Allah, where as Shaitan and enemies of Allah try to stop muslims from joining Dhikr of Allah.
ALSO NOTE
The narration you mention was discussed by Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Lakhnawi,[1] in his book on the permissibility of loud group dhikr, Sibahat al-Fikr fi?l Jahri bi?l Dhikr.[2] He said, while presenting the evidences for those who hold such dhikr to be impermissible, before proving the contrary:
?This may be answered in several ways:
First, while this narration was mention by a group of fuqaha, it does not have any trace in the books of hadith. Rather, what is authentically established from Ibn Mas`ud (Allah be pleased with him) is the contrary. Imam al-Suyuti (Allah have mercy on him) said in Natijat al-Fikr [his work on the permissibility of group dhikr out loud], ?This narration from Ibn Mas`ud (Allah be pleased with him) needs exposition in terms of its chain of narrations and who of the hadith masters transmitted it in their works, and I have seen evidence that would disprove its being established from Ibn Mas`ud. Ahmad ibn Hanbal transmitted in his Kitab al-Zuhd, that Husain ibn Muhammad related with his chain from Abu Wa?il that he said, ?Those who think that Abdullah [Ibn Mas`ud] used to prohibit the dhikr! I never sat with Abdullah [Ibn Mas`ud] in a gathering save that he did dhikr in it.??
Second, even if this narration were established, it goes against explicit rigorously authenticated Prophetic hadiths that permit dhikr out loud as long as it is not excessively loud.[3] These hadiths are given precedence [over this narration] when their indication conflicts.
Third, what al-Bazzazi mentioned in his Fatawa.? (Sibahat al-Fikr, 42-43)
What al-Bazzazi[4] said was, ?If he [Ibn Mas`ud] actually removed them from the masjid, it is possible that it was because they believed that it was an act of worship [specifically enjoined], and to teach people that such a belief is a blameworthy innovation.[5] (Sibahat al-Fikr , 27-28)
Among the proofs for the permissibility of group dhikr:
1. What Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa?i, Ibn Majah, and Bayhaqi narrated from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,
Allah says, ?I am as My servant thinks of Me, and I am with him when he makes remembrance (dhikr) of Me. If he makes remembrance of Me to himself, I make remembrance of him to Myself. If he makes remembrance of Me in a gathering, I make remembrance of him in a gathering better than it?
Imam al-Jazari (Allah have mercy on him) said in his Miftah al-Hisn al-Hasin,[6] ?This hadiths indicates the permissibility of group dhikr?? Imam al-Suyuti said,[7] ?Group dhikr can only be out loud, so this hadith indicates its permissibility.? After this hadith, Imam Lakhnawi quotes thirty nine other hadiths of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that indicate the permissibility of group dhikr. (Sibahat al-Fikr 44-58)
Imam Lakhnawi, a Hanafi, then quoted numerous Hanafi authorities, including al-Bazzazi, Abd al-Haqq al-Dahlawi, Khayr al-Din al-Ramli, and others, who said group dhikr is permitted. [This is also the position adopted by al-Tahtawi and Ibn Abidin, the two foremost references for fatwa in the Hanafi school, and there is no consequential disagreement about the permissibility of group dhikr in the Shafi`i school; it is the recorded position of al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, al-Subki, Ibn Daqiq, Ibn Abd al-Salam, al-Khalili, and their other imams].
He concluded by stating, ?As for loud dhikr? the hadiths permitting it are numerous, as are the reports [from the Companions and early Muslims], and we did not find a single proof clearly indicating that loud dhikr is impermissible or disliked. The hadith experts, Shafi`i fuqaha and some Hanafi fuqaha[8] also permitted it.?
It should be noted, too, that when it comes to the legal ruling of a particular human act, it is our duty to see what the legal experts of Islam, the fuqaha of the four schools, said about the matter. Any matter that they deemed permitted may not be criticized by the common person or deemed wrong, for they are the inheritors of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and they fulfilled the duty of operationalizing the sunnah of the Beloved of Allah.
[1] Imam Lakhnawi died 1306 AH, at the age of 39, after having authored over 120 books, many of with were multiple volume works, and he is considered to have been one of the great mujaddids (renewers) of the 14th Islamic Century.
[2] It is noteworthy that this work was edited by Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda (Allah have mercy on him), the Hanafi faqih who is widely acknowledged to have been one of the foremost hadith experts of the 20th Century, and whose numerous books and critical editions of classic works are highly esteemed by students and scholars of sacred law across the Muslim world.
[3] Such that it annoys others, or, if in a masjid, distracts those who come to pray.
[4] Imam al-Bazzazi?s Fatawa are a major reference in Hanafi fiqh.
[5] That is, they believed that such group dhikr was specifically enjoined by Allah and His Messenger, which is blameworthy. Rather, the correct understanding is that it falls under the general command to do much dhikr, in any permitted way. Their being people of innovation is, of course, borne out by the final part of the narration itself, as the ?the great majority? of these people fought with the deviant Kharijites against the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).
[6] This is one of the most authoritative and most used sources on Prophetic invocations, and has been accepted and commented upon by great scholars of Islam.
[7] Imam al-Suyuti?s words carry great weight, as it is generally agreed that he was a mujtahid. He authored at least 800 works, in virtually every science of Islam.
[8] Including most late authorities in the Hanafi school.
ALSO NOTE
Here are the notices regarding 'Amr ibn Yahya from the various books of Rijal, with their actual wordings lest someone deny it:
From Imam Dhahabis Mizan Al i'tidal (vol 3, #6474)
6474 - عمرو بن يحيى بن عمرو بن سلمة . قال يحيى بن معين : ليس حديثه بشئ . قد رأيته . وذكره ابن عدى مختصرا
- 'Amr bin Yahya bin 'Amr bin Salama. Ibn Ma'in said: "His hadith are nothing"....
From Imam Dhahabi in his Mughni al Dhuafa (#4728)
4728 - عمرو بن يحيى بن عمارة شيخ مالك وثقوه وقال ابن معين ليس بقوي
Shaykh al Islam Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani in his Lisan Al Mizan (Vol 4, #1128):
[ 1128 ] عمرو بن يحيى بن عمرو بن سلمة قال يحيى بن معين ليس حديثه بشيء قد رأيته وذكره بن عدي مختصرا انتهى وقال بن خراش ليس بمرضي وقال بن عدي ليس له كبير شيء ولم يحضرني له شيء
- 'Amr bin Yahya bin 'Amr bin Salama. Yahya bin Ma'in said, "His hadith are nothing"(same as Dhahabi". Ibn Khurash said, "He is not accepted."
From Faydh Al Qadir by Al Munawi:
{إذ نادى ربه نداءً خفياً} وأما ما نقل عن ابن مسعود من أنه رأى قوماً يهللون برفع الصوت في المسجد فقال ما اراكم إلا مبتدعين وأمر بإخراجهم فغير ثابت. وبفرض ثبوته يعارضه ما في كتاب الزهد لأحمد عن شفيق بن أبي وائل قال هؤلاء الذين يزعمون أن عبد الله كان ينهى عن الذكر ما جالسته مجلساً قط إلا ذكر الله فيه، وأخرج أحمد في الزهد عن ثابت البناني: إن أهل الذكر ليجلسون إلى ذكر الله وإن عليهم من الآثام مثل الجبال وغنهم ليقومون من ذكر الله ما عليهم منها شيء اهـ.
And before this Shaikh al Islam Munawi discusses the superiority of loud dhikr (jahr) as well as the explanations to the verses of the Qur'an which many use to try and refute such a claim.
It should also be known that Shaqiq ibn Abu Wa'il who categorically denies such a claim from Ibn Mas'ud Is Thiqa as Ibn Hajar states in his Taqrib:
2816- شقيق ابن سلمة الأسدي أبو وائل الكوفي ثقة [من الثانية] مخضرم مات في خلافة عمر ابن عبدالعزيز وله مائة سنة
- Shaqiq Ibn Salama Al Asadi Abu Wa'il Al Kufri, trustworthy (thiqa).
Wahabis have a natural tendency of calling Sunnah as ' Biddah". So very often we find wahabis telling that Group dhikr is a Biddah ( innovation).
Let us analyze the hadith which Wahabis bring to confuse Muslims, usually our revert brothers and sisters.
Here is the hadith
Amr ibn salmah said: We used to sit in front of Abdullah Ibn Masoud's house before the Fajr prayer, so that when he came out we would go with him to the Masjid. {one day} Abu Moosa al-Ash'aaree came and asked us: 'Did Abu Abdur Rahmaan (i.e. Ibn Masoud) leave yet? ' We answered: 'No.'
So Abu Moosa al-Ash'aaree sat with us waiting for him. When he came out, we all stood up. Abu Moosa told him: "Oh, Abu Abdur Rahmaan! I recently saw something in the Masjid which I deemed to be evil, but all praise is for Allah, I did see anything except good " Ibn Masoud then asked: "then What was it?"
Abu Moosa said: "You will see it if you stay alive. In the Masjid, I saw a group of people sitting in circles waiting for the Salââh. Each circle is led by a person. And every person in these circles carries small stones (pebbles).
The leader of a circle would say: "Say 'Allah-u Akbar' a hundred times" so they would repeat Allah-u Akbar a hundred times; then he says "Say 'Laa ilaaha illallaah', a hundred times" so they would say Laa ilaaha illallaah a hundred times; then he would say: "Say 'Subhaanallah', a hundred times", they will say Subhana Allah a hundred times.
Then Ibn Masoud said: "What did you tell them?"
He said: 'I didn't say anything, I waited to hear your opinion."
Abdullah Ibn Masoud said: "Could you not order them to count their evil deeds, and assured them of getting their rewards."
Then Abdullah Ibn Masoud went ahead and we accompanied him. As he approached one of the circles, he said: "What is this that you are doing?"
They said: "Oh! Abu Abdur Rahmaan, these are pebbles to count the number of times we say Allah-u Akbar, La ilaaha Illallah, and Subhaanallah."
He said: "Count your evil deeds, and I assure you that you are not going to lose anything of your rewards (Hasanat). Woe unto you, people of Muhammad, how quickly you go to destruction! Those are your Prophet's companions available, these are his clothes not worn out yet, and his pots are not broken yet. I swear by Whom my soul is in His Hands that you are either following a religion that is better than the Prophet's religion or you are opening a door of misguidance." They said: "We swear by Allah Almighty, oh, Abu Abdur Rahmaan, that we had no intention other than doing good deeds." He said: "So what? How many people wanted to do good deeds but never got to do them? The Prophet of Allah has told us about people who recited the Qur'ân with no effect on them other than the Qur'ân passing through their throats. [I.e. You are Khawarij]...
Answer
This hadith is a Mawquf hadith , that is , the chain does not go back upto the prophet, but stops at a companion.
This report is inauthentic.
Al-Darimi in the Muqaddima of his Sunan, narrated from al-Hakam ibn al-Mubarak who narrates from `Amr ibn Salima al-Hamadani. This `Amr ibn Yahya ibn `Amr ibn Salama al- Hamadani is da`if( Weak narrator). Ibn Ma`in saw him and said: "his narrations are worth nothing"; Ibn Kharrash: "he is not accepted; al-Dhahabi listed him among those who are weak and whose hadith is not retained in al-Du`afa' wal-Matrukin (p. 212 #3229), Mizan al-I`tidal (3:293), and al-Mughni fil-Du`afa' (2:491); and al-Haythami declared him weak (da`if) in Majma` al-Zawa'id, chapter entitled Bab al-`Ummal `ala al-Sadaqa.
Further, its authenticity was questioned by al-Suyuti in al-Hawi (2:31); al-Hifni in Fadl al-Tasbih wal-Tahlil as cited by al-Lacknawi, Sibahat al-Fikr (p. 25 and 42-43).
Further, it is belied by Imam Ahmad's narration in al-Zuhd from Abu Wa'il who said: "Those who claim that `Abd Allah [= Ibn Mas`ud] forbade dhikr [are wrong]: I never sat with him in any gathering except he made dhikr of Allah in it." Cited by al-Munawi in Fayd al-Qadir (1:457), al-Suyuti in Natijat al-Fikr fil-Jahri bil-Dhikr in al-Hawi, al-Nabulusi in Jam` al-Asrar (p. 66), al-Hifni in Fadl al-Tasbih wal- Tahlil as cited in al-Lacknawi, Sibahat al-Fikr (p. 25).
In addition, the Prophetic narrations affirming loud dhikr are sahih and innumerable, and definitely take precedence over a mawquf Companion-report even if we were hypothetically to consider it authentic.
Naysayers mention other pseudo-evidence against loud dhikr, all weak, such as the hadith "The best Dhikr is soft, and the best sustenance is what is sufficient," "One silent du`a is seventy times more superior than one loud du`a," and other da`if and maqtu` reports for which we are supposed to leave Qur'an and Sahih evidence and the understanding of the Imams!
It is also against many authentic (sahih) hadith narrated in both , Bukhari and Muslim on the virtues and benifits of joining Group Dhikr.
Just to mention ;
Ibn.'Abbas reported: Dhikr (mentioning the name of Allah) in a loud voice after peo obligatory prayers was (a common practice) during the lifetime of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) ; and when I heard that I came to knew that they (the ) had finished the prayer.
(Muslim :: Book 4 : Hadith 1211)
and every Wahabi must read this hadith
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying Allah has mobile (squads) of angels, who have no other work (to attend to but) to follow the assemblies of dhikr and when they find such assemblies in which there is dhikr (of Allah) they sit in them and some of them surround the others with their wings till the space between them and the sky of the world is fully covered, and when they disperse (after the assembly of dhikr is adjourned) they go upward to the heaven and Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, asks them although He is best informed about them: Where have you come from? They say: We come from Thine servants upon the earth who had been glorifying Thee (reciting Subhan Allah), uttering Thine Greatness (saying Allah o-Akbar) and uttering Thine Oneness (La ilaha ill Allah) and praising Thee (uttering al-Hamdu Lillah) and begging of Thee. Be would say: What do they beg of Me? They would say: They beg of Thee the Paradise of Thine. He (God) would say: Have they seen My Paradise? They said: No, our Lord. He would say: (What it would be then) if they were to see Mine Paradise? They (the angels) said: They seek Thine protection. He (the Lord) would say: Against what do they seek protection of Mine? They (the angels) would say: Our Lord, from the Hell-Fire. He (the Lord) would say: Have they seen My Fire? They would say: No. He (the Lord) would say: What it would be if they were to see My Fire? They would say: They beg of Thee forgiveness. He would say: I grant pardon to them, and confer upon them what they ask for and grant them protection against which they seek protection. They (the angels) would again say: Our Lord, there is one amongst them such and such simple servant who happened to pass by (that assembly) and sat there along with them (who had been participating in that assembly). He (the Lord) would say: I also grant him pardon, for they are a people the seat-fellows of whom are in no way unfortunate.
(Book #035, Hadith #6505, Sahih Muslim)
It is clear .. Allah, prophet, the anagels and Muslims like Dhkir of Allah, where as Shaitan and enemies of Allah try to stop muslims from joining Dhikr of Allah.
ALSO NOTE
The narration you mention was discussed by Imam Abd al-Hayy al-Lakhnawi,[1] in his book on the permissibility of loud group dhikr, Sibahat al-Fikr fi?l Jahri bi?l Dhikr.[2] He said, while presenting the evidences for those who hold such dhikr to be impermissible, before proving the contrary:
?This may be answered in several ways:
First, while this narration was mention by a group of fuqaha, it does not have any trace in the books of hadith. Rather, what is authentically established from Ibn Mas`ud (Allah be pleased with him) is the contrary. Imam al-Suyuti (Allah have mercy on him) said in Natijat al-Fikr [his work on the permissibility of group dhikr out loud], ?This narration from Ibn Mas`ud (Allah be pleased with him) needs exposition in terms of its chain of narrations and who of the hadith masters transmitted it in their works, and I have seen evidence that would disprove its being established from Ibn Mas`ud. Ahmad ibn Hanbal transmitted in his Kitab al-Zuhd, that Husain ibn Muhammad related with his chain from Abu Wa?il that he said, ?Those who think that Abdullah [Ibn Mas`ud] used to prohibit the dhikr! I never sat with Abdullah [Ibn Mas`ud] in a gathering save that he did dhikr in it.??
Second, even if this narration were established, it goes against explicit rigorously authenticated Prophetic hadiths that permit dhikr out loud as long as it is not excessively loud.[3] These hadiths are given precedence [over this narration] when their indication conflicts.
Third, what al-Bazzazi mentioned in his Fatawa.? (Sibahat al-Fikr, 42-43)
What al-Bazzazi[4] said was, ?If he [Ibn Mas`ud] actually removed them from the masjid, it is possible that it was because they believed that it was an act of worship [specifically enjoined], and to teach people that such a belief is a blameworthy innovation.[5] (Sibahat al-Fikr , 27-28)
Among the proofs for the permissibility of group dhikr:
1. What Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa?i, Ibn Majah, and Bayhaqi narrated from Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,
Allah says, ?I am as My servant thinks of Me, and I am with him when he makes remembrance (dhikr) of Me. If he makes remembrance of Me to himself, I make remembrance of him to Myself. If he makes remembrance of Me in a gathering, I make remembrance of him in a gathering better than it?
Imam al-Jazari (Allah have mercy on him) said in his Miftah al-Hisn al-Hasin,[6] ?This hadiths indicates the permissibility of group dhikr?? Imam al-Suyuti said,[7] ?Group dhikr can only be out loud, so this hadith indicates its permissibility.? After this hadith, Imam Lakhnawi quotes thirty nine other hadiths of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that indicate the permissibility of group dhikr. (Sibahat al-Fikr 44-58)
Imam Lakhnawi, a Hanafi, then quoted numerous Hanafi authorities, including al-Bazzazi, Abd al-Haqq al-Dahlawi, Khayr al-Din al-Ramli, and others, who said group dhikr is permitted. [This is also the position adopted by al-Tahtawi and Ibn Abidin, the two foremost references for fatwa in the Hanafi school, and there is no consequential disagreement about the permissibility of group dhikr in the Shafi`i school; it is the recorded position of al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, al-Subki, Ibn Daqiq, Ibn Abd al-Salam, al-Khalili, and their other imams].
He concluded by stating, ?As for loud dhikr? the hadiths permitting it are numerous, as are the reports [from the Companions and early Muslims], and we did not find a single proof clearly indicating that loud dhikr is impermissible or disliked. The hadith experts, Shafi`i fuqaha and some Hanafi fuqaha[8] also permitted it.?
It should be noted, too, that when it comes to the legal ruling of a particular human act, it is our duty to see what the legal experts of Islam, the fuqaha of the four schools, said about the matter. Any matter that they deemed permitted may not be criticized by the common person or deemed wrong, for they are the inheritors of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), and they fulfilled the duty of operationalizing the sunnah of the Beloved of Allah.
[1] Imam Lakhnawi died 1306 AH, at the age of 39, after having authored over 120 books, many of with were multiple volume works, and he is considered to have been one of the great mujaddids (renewers) of the 14th Islamic Century.
[2] It is noteworthy that this work was edited by Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda (Allah have mercy on him), the Hanafi faqih who is widely acknowledged to have been one of the foremost hadith experts of the 20th Century, and whose numerous books and critical editions of classic works are highly esteemed by students and scholars of sacred law across the Muslim world.
[3] Such that it annoys others, or, if in a masjid, distracts those who come to pray.
[4] Imam al-Bazzazi?s Fatawa are a major reference in Hanafi fiqh.
[5] That is, they believed that such group dhikr was specifically enjoined by Allah and His Messenger, which is blameworthy. Rather, the correct understanding is that it falls under the general command to do much dhikr, in any permitted way. Their being people of innovation is, of course, borne out by the final part of the narration itself, as the ?the great majority? of these people fought with the deviant Kharijites against the Companions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace).
[6] This is one of the most authoritative and most used sources on Prophetic invocations, and has been accepted and commented upon by great scholars of Islam.
[7] Imam al-Suyuti?s words carry great weight, as it is generally agreed that he was a mujtahid. He authored at least 800 works, in virtually every science of Islam.
[8] Including most late authorities in the Hanafi school.
ALSO NOTE
Here are the notices regarding 'Amr ibn Yahya from the various books of Rijal, with their actual wordings lest someone deny it:
From Imam Dhahabis Mizan Al i'tidal (vol 3, #6474)
6474 - عمرو بن يحيى بن عمرو بن سلمة . قال يحيى بن معين : ليس حديثه بشئ . قد رأيته . وذكره ابن عدى مختصرا
- 'Amr bin Yahya bin 'Amr bin Salama. Ibn Ma'in said: "His hadith are nothing"....
From Imam Dhahabi in his Mughni al Dhuafa (#4728)
4728 - عمرو بن يحيى بن عمارة شيخ مالك وثقوه وقال ابن معين ليس بقوي
Shaykh al Islam Ibn Hajar 'Asqalani in his Lisan Al Mizan (Vol 4, #1128):
[ 1128 ] عمرو بن يحيى بن عمرو بن سلمة قال يحيى بن معين ليس حديثه بشيء قد رأيته وذكره بن عدي مختصرا انتهى وقال بن خراش ليس بمرضي وقال بن عدي ليس له كبير شيء ولم يحضرني له شيء
- 'Amr bin Yahya bin 'Amr bin Salama. Yahya bin Ma'in said, "His hadith are nothing"(same as Dhahabi". Ibn Khurash said, "He is not accepted."
From Faydh Al Qadir by Al Munawi:
{إذ نادى ربه نداءً خفياً} وأما ما نقل عن ابن مسعود من أنه رأى قوماً يهللون برفع الصوت في المسجد فقال ما اراكم إلا مبتدعين وأمر بإخراجهم فغير ثابت. وبفرض ثبوته يعارضه ما في كتاب الزهد لأحمد عن شفيق بن أبي وائل قال هؤلاء الذين يزعمون أن عبد الله كان ينهى عن الذكر ما جالسته مجلساً قط إلا ذكر الله فيه، وأخرج أحمد في الزهد عن ثابت البناني: إن أهل الذكر ليجلسون إلى ذكر الله وإن عليهم من الآثام مثل الجبال وغنهم ليقومون من ذكر الله ما عليهم منها شيء اهـ.
And before this Shaikh al Islam Munawi discusses the superiority of loud dhikr (jahr) as well as the explanations to the verses of the Qur'an which many use to try and refute such a claim.
It should also be known that Shaqiq ibn Abu Wa'il who categorically denies such a claim from Ibn Mas'ud Is Thiqa as Ibn Hajar states in his Taqrib:
2816- شقيق ابن سلمة الأسدي أبو وائل الكوفي ثقة [من الثانية] مخضرم مات في خلافة عمر ابن عبدالعزيز وله مائة سنة
- Shaqiq Ibn Salama Al Asadi Abu Wa'il Al Kufri, trustworthy (thiqa).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)