My Blog

Just another weblog

Pseudo-Hanbali admits Imam Tabari believed in creation of place, yet persists!

Posted by muhammedm on August 22, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

Initially, I didn’t want to discuss this issue further due to the many quotes by Hanbali scholars, but because of the continuation of the individual in defending ascription of makan to Allah ta’ala, I feel that exposing this individual is necessary. After reading many of his posts, the individual is hell-bent on refuting anything that the AhlusSunnah Mutakallimun hold, this topic being one of them, not only does he continue to go down the road of ‘refuting negation of makan’, but he says that some of the early Salaf ascribed makan to Him.
This post is regarding his explicit statements in which he says that at one point ‘makan’ wasn’t there, but came into being, thus it (makan) being a creation. In the links below he says: “The most that can be deduced from all of this is that Allah was present when there was no place.” This is an explicit statement from him saying Imam Tabari’s quote means that there was NO PLACE when Allah ta’ala was present in pre-eternity. Now if he wants to continue with his stubborn rant about ascribing place to Him, then that would mean that He is in creation, as he himself has said at one time or another there was not place, hence it’s a creation.
In the second quote he says: “when in fact he was clearly referring to pre-creation. Why did you say ‘is’, which denotes the present tense, when in fact the Khalifah was talking about pre-creation when nothing had been created, including place? Why didn’t you say ‘was’?” This quote is explicit that the psuedo-hanbali believes makan to be a creation, yet he continues to argue that it’s wrong to negate it and it’s fine to say He is in makan, as his quote “Why didn’t you say ‘was’? implies since he’s arguing that it’s fine to say makan is created, yet it’s ok to say He’s in place now, and we seek refuge in Allah ta’ala from such beliefs.

Allah ta’ala indwelling in creation is the belief of the misguided sufis and other sects, May Allah ta’ala protect us from such deviancy.

Links – 1st quote –
2nd quote –

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

‘Allama As-Saffarini al-Hanbali al-Khalwati al-Athari’s: Proponent of Tafwid

Posted by muhammedm on July 6, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

Before going into the discussion, I’ve given a snippet of ‘Allama Saffarini’s connection to tassawuf and Mutakallim scholars, and the response of the salafi editor.

One of his main teacher and his shaykh in Tassawwuf:
On Page 167 he praises Abdul Ghani an-Nabulusi in over six lines, and the Muhaqqiq (the salafi editor), as usual, has problems with him. He studied Thulathiyat, Tafsir Baydawi and books on tassawwuf.

Regarding his shaykh in tasawwuf in the Khalwati path, he says, “from the greatest of my shuyukh, and highest in rank and most well known is the Sayyid al-‘Arif, al-Mutamakkin, al-Awwah al-Muhaqqiq as-Shaykh al-murabi al-Musallik, al-Humam as-Sayyid Mustafa bin as-Sayyid Kamal ud Din al-Bakri al-Khalwati, the Wonder of his time, The Unique of time and age…I read a number of his works with him, from them: on Mi’raj, al-Mawlid, al-Wird which is read in the morning time, it’s commentary both al-Kabir and as-Saghir, and other poetry and prose works, which will lenghten the description, and he gave me Ijazah in all of it, and in the Khalwati Tariqa, and permisiion to give Ijazah to whom I see fit, Allah ta’ala have mercy on him and be pleased with him..” (Muhaqqiq has a problem with Tariqas and Saffarini’s taking the Tariqa).

Transmition of Imam Sha’rani’s work:
On Page 151 he says, “we narrate the works of al-‘Allama as-Sufi as-Shaykh Abdul Wahhab as-Sha’rani such as ‘al-‘Uhud al-Kubra, ‘Uhud al-mashayikh as-Sughra… and others” (The muhaqqiq goes on to say Sha’rani was a bad sufi, and other usual nonsense). On page 172, Saffarini says, “the knower of Allah ta’ala, Ocean of vas knowledge and outward states as-Shaykh AbdulWahhab bin Ahmed as-Sha’arini”.

Transmision of Qasidah Burda
On page 153 he says, “we narrate ‘Burdatul Busuri’, and the rest of his works of prose and poetry with the aforementioned chain on the authority of al-Kamal bin Hamza al-Husayni…” (The salafi Muhaqqiq says “the people of knowledge who are well-grounded don’t agree with some of the overstepping of boundries in the Burdah”).

Misc matters where Saffarini differs with salafis: the place where the Prophet’s noble body contains is better than the ‘Arsh and Kursi, as held by Ibn ‘Aqil, Muhammed bin Zayn as-Shafi’i, Page 204. Page 224, Saffarini does tawassul through the Prophet. Page 222, Saffarini mentions poetry that describes the Prophet as ghawth al-Barriyya. Page 309, does tawassul.

Saffarini believes Ayat of Sifat are from Mutashabihat, taken from Sharh al-‘Aqidah as-Saffariniya entitled al-Kawakib ad-Durriya by Shaykh Muhammed AbdulAziz Mani’:

“Whatever has come in the Ayat or is authenticially reported in narrations, from trustworthy narrators in ahadith and athar which give an impression of tashbih, then it is from the Mutashabih which no one knows except Allah ta’ala“. Page 42 The Salafi commentary says regarding the last statement, “to say that the meanings of the names of Allah ta’ala and His attributes are from the Mutashabih or are the Mutashabih is completely incorrect, and it hasn’t come from any of the Salaf.”

On Page 44, Saffarini says, “the Madhab of the Salaf is to not delve in it, and to keep silent regarding it, and to relegate (Tafwid) it’s knowledge to Allah ta’ala“. To this the Salafi commentator (Shaykh Ibn Mani’) says, “What he ascribed to the Salaf that their madhab was Tafwid is not correct.”

Then as-Saffarini quotes Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas as saying, “this is from the hidden which shouldn’t be interpreted” and likewise other Sahaba and Tabi’in said it.” Another Commentator (Ibn Sahman) says regarding the mistake ‘Allama as-Saffarini supposidly made, “Know O my brother, that this statement that Saffarini ascribed to sayyidina Ibn Abbas and others of the Sahaba, if it’s authentic, the meaning isn’t what Saffarini claims that the text of the Book and Sunnah which contain the Names of Allah ta’ala and His attributes which give the impression of Tashbih thus making it included amongts the Mutashabih which only Allah ta’ala knows, and is from those we can’t understand it’s meaning nor can it be interpreted. And this discussion has preceded in the discussion on Tafwid.”

‘Allama as-Saffarini devotes many pages on Sifat being from the Mutashabih in his commentary on the poetry, the same opinion held by ‘Allama Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali.

Note: The Thabat of as-Saffarini, the commentary by Shaykh Mani’, and his own commentary are available online.

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in 'Aqidah | Leave a Comment »

‘Allama Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali a Mufawwid

Posted by muhammedm on July 5, 2010

A – ‘Allama Ibn Qudama considers the Ayat of Attributes to be from the Mutashabihat, as is stated in Rawdatun Nadhir. After stating this position, he says the correct stoppage in the ayah that talks about Muhkamat and Mutashabihat is “No one knows it’s interpretation except Allah ta’ala. Those grounded in knowledge say we believe in it…” The point where Ibn Qudama considers the correct stopping point is after except Allah ta’ala, meaning He’s the only one that knows the Mutashabihat, and no one else. And Ibn Qudama has stated that from the Mutashabihat is the Ayat on Sifat, thus concluding that the knowledge of Sifat is only known to Allah ta’ala, just like the Huruf al-Muqat’at. It’s clear from his statement his position on it. This is the position of Tafwid al-Ma’ana, as propounded by the Ash’irah and Maturidiya and in opposition to todays salafi scholars whom I will quote regarding their statements on the Mutashabihat.

B – Another indication of tafwid al-Ma’ana is Ibn Qudama’s statement in Lum’atul Itiqad, wherein he states, “What is difficult from those (ayat of Sifat) affirmation of it’s wording is necessary, and to leave delving into it’s meaning, and we leave it’s knowledge to the one who Spoke it (Allah ta’ala), we place it’s responsibiltiy on the one who transmited it, following the path of those grounded in knowledge, about whom Allah ta’ala praised in His Clear Book by His statement, “and Those firmly grounded in knowledge say we believe in it, all of it is from our Lord.”
C – It’s clear from his statement where he says we affirm the wording, yet we relegate the meaning to Allah ta’ala. Ibn Qudama goes on to say Allah ta’ala censures those who seek the interpretation of the Mutashabih (the ayat of sifat amongst them), “He said regarding the censure of those who seek interpretation of the Mutashabih of Quran, “As for those who have deviancy in thier hearts because of which they go after the Mutashabih, intending to spread fitnah and seeking it’s interpreation, and no one knows it’s interpretation except Allah ta’ala. Ayah” Clearly the intent of Ibn Qudama is to drive home the point that only Allah alone knows the Mutashabihat, and the Ayat of Sifat are from the Mutashabihat according to Ibn Qudama. And thus we don’t know it’s interpreations.

D – Another passage he states after the hadith “Allah ta’ala will be seen on the day of judgement”, “and similar to these ahadith, we believe in them, and affirm them, without modality and meaning, and we don’t reject any of it…’ Again Ibn Qudama is driving home the point that the meaning as well as the modality is unknown. The rules of arabic grammar state that when Waw is used, as it’s used in Ibn Qudama’s words, the default meaning of it is dissimilarity between the thing before and after the particle waw. So, Kayf and Ma’ana are two different things, not same, as some of tried to distort.

In response to these passages, it’s interesting to note what salafi scholars have said, and their criticism of Ibn Qudama.

Shaykh Salih’s criticism of Ibn Qudama:
Shaykh Salih Fawzan says regarding point B mentioned above, “this sentence isn’t accepted from the Shaykh (ibn Qudama), Allah ta’ala have mercy on him, it’s as if he’s dividing the texts of the Attributes into two kinds, one kind the meaning and interpreation is apparent, and this we believe in, as well as it’s meaning and interpretation, and the second kind, the meaning isn’t apparent to us, and this we relegate to Allah ta’ala, and this is wrong. Because meaning is known of all of the text of the Names and Attributes. Nothing from them is obscure or from the Mutashabihat, so the text of Names and Attributes aren’t from the Mutashabih nor do they enter into the category of Mutashabih, as Ibn Taymiyya explained…”

On Page 75 Shaykh Muni’ says, “What is correct is that the Ayat of Sifat aren’t from the Mutashabihat.”

Disparity regarding Ibn Qudama’s quote of Imam Ahmed’s words: “Without Modality and Meaning”:
Shaykh Fawzan says regarding “without Meaning”: “the meaning that the innovators have given, and that is ta’wil”, while Shaykh Muni’ says, “it means the essence, we don’t delve into the essence of the attribute.”

Shaykh Fawzan answering question regarding Sifat from Mutashabih, pg 296;
Q – “Is it true that Ibn Qudama in Rawdatun Nadhir mentioned the Ayat of Sifat in the Mutashabih, and are his words there the same as here (in Luma’)?
A – The correct and considered opinion is his words here, however he divided the Sifat into two categories, clear and obscure/difficult, and this wrong. All of the Attributes are clear, nothing from it is difficult. As for what’ in the Rawdah, he agreed with the later Usulis such as the Asharis and others, and it’s said that rawdah is taken from Mustasfah of Imam Ghazali, and Imam Ghazzali is Ashari’, it’s possible that he missed this note (him being an Ashari’?).

Shaykh Muhammed bin Ibrahim Aal as-Shaykh says regarding Ibn Qudama:,
“As for what he mentioned in al-Luma’, it’s in agreement with the Madhab of Mufawwidah (relegating it’s meaning to Allah ta’ala), and this is from the worst of Madhahib, and the author is an Imam in regards to the Sunnah, and he’s the most distant of people from the Mufawwidah madhab and other innovative groups. And Allah ta’ala knows best.”

Shaykh ‘Afifi affirming Ibn Qudama to be a Mufawwid –

An objection is raised regarding Ibn Qudama’s statements above and his other statements regarding leaving it upon the dhahir (the apparent). The only way to reconcile this contradition, as it’s well known Ibn Qudama considers the Ayat of Sifat to be from the Mutashabih and only Allah knows their meaning, is that the position of Ibn Qudama is to leave the words alone. Not to give explantion of it (it’s meaning) nor it’s interpreation that would take away the apparent meaning, such as Qudrah for Yad. So ibn Qudama’s position is we leave Yad alone without saying it means such as such, and also we leave it’s interpreation being Qudrah, as that would nullify the Sifah.

As for those who say, we know the meaning of Yad for humans, as well as for Allah ta’ala. I ask, the meaning for yad for humans is a limb consisting of flesh and bone, what is the meaning, if you say you know it, of Yadullah?

Another posting will be done regarding Salafis opinion on the Mutashabih and the Hanbali scholars, as well as the argument why would Allah ta’ala reveal something of which we don’t understand, InshAllah.

Works cited:
Sharh Luma’atul Itiqad by Shaykh Salih Fawzan
Sharh Luma’tul Itiqad by Muhammed bin Ahmed al-Muni’
Sharh Luma’tul Itiqad by Shaykh Uthaymin

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in 'Aqidah | 5 Comments »

Evidence for wiping the neck in Wudu

Posted by muhammedm on June 25, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

While reading Nurul Idah, I came up ‘wiping the neck’ under the sunan of Wudu. I looked into it’s evidences and found that there is proof for this practice which is prevelant in the Subcontinent and other places.

1 – In the notes on Maraqi Falah, it states under this discussion, “‘Allama Iraqi said, “wiping on the neck is mentioned in the hadith of Wa’il bin Hujur in the description of the Wudu of the Prophet, narrated by al-Bazzar and Tabarani in al-Kabir with a chain that has no problems (is authentic).”

2 – Hafidh Ibn Salah says regarding the saying, “wiping on the neck is safety from the chain (in the hereafter), that this isn’t a saying of the Prophet but is from the sayings of one of the Salaf.” To this Hafidh ibn Hajar in Talkhis says, ‘The saying of some of the Salaf which Ibn Salah mentioned, it’s possible that he intended what Abu ‘Ubayd narrated in Kitab at-Tuhur on the authority of ‘AbdirRahman bin Mahdi on the authority of Mas’udi on the authority of al-Qasim bin ‘AbdirRahman on the authority of Musa bin Talha that he said, “whoever wipes his neck with his head is saved from the chain on the day of judgement. I (Hafid) say, “it’s possible to say even though the narration is Mawquf, it’s grading is that of Raf’ because something like this can’t be said based on one’s own opinion, and because of this it’s a Mursal” (Mawquf is when a Tab’ tabi’ says the Prophet said something, while a Mursal usually is a when a tabi’ says the Prophet said something.)

3 – Hafidh says regarding wiping the neck under Masah al-‘Unuq, “I read portion narrated by Abu al-Husayn bin Faris with his chain, on the authority of Fulayj bin Sulayman on the authority of Nafi’ on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Prophet said, ‘whoever makes wudu and wipes his neck with both his hands will be saved from the chain on the day of judgement”, and said (the author) this is InshAllah an authentic narration, I (Hafidh ibn Hajar) say, “between Ibn Faris and Fulayj is a desert, which needs to be looked at (the whole chain has to be investaged)”. Talkhis

From the scholars who recommended this are Ibn Qudumah in Mughni (though I couldn’t find the passage), one narration from Imam Ahmed, Imam Baghawi as-Shafi’i, Imam Ruyani as-Shafi’i, the Ahnaf, and others. Source : Ad-Dur al-Mandud ‘ala Sunan Abi Dawud. Page 269.

“Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan in Bidur al-Ahillah page 28 writes, “to say the hadith on wiping the neck is not sahih is incorrect, because of the strenghtening of the narrations due to many chains.” Source: Tawdih urdu sharh Mishkat al-Masabih page 570.

Detailed reply on the issue –
‘Allama AbdulHayy Lucknawi wrote a treatise on this issue entitled “Tuhfatu at-talabah fi Tahqiq Mashir Ruqbah

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in Fiqh | Leave a Comment »

Kissing the Mushaf isn’t Bida’.

Posted by muhammedm on June 21, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

Without going into detail of what the ulema have said, I’ll quote few narrations regarding the issue. This is another error of our brethren who are quick to label something as bida’, had they only read.
1 – “It’s reported on the authority of Sayyidina ‘Umar (Allah ta’ala be pleased with him) that he would take the Mushaf every morning, and kiss it”
2 – “Sayyidina Uthman (Allah ta’ala be pleased with him) would kiss the Mushaf and pass it over his face”
3 – Imam Nawawi in Tibyan on page 123 narrates, “we narrate in the Musnad of Imam Darami with an authentic chain on the authority of Ibn Abi Mulayka that he said, “Sayyidina Ikrama bin Abi Jahl would put the Mushaf on his face and say, “My Lord’s Book, My Lord’s Book.”

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in Fiqh | 5 Comments »

Imam Ibn Hamdan al-Hanbali on one who says Allah ta’ala in a place!

Posted by muhammedm on May 27, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

“Whoever says He is, with His essence, in every place or in a place is a Kafir, because the statement necessitates pre-eternity of place…”Nihayatul Mubtadi’in li Ibn Hamdan Pg. 33

As the hadith states, “Allah ta’ala was, and nothing was with Him…” If someone says He was in a place always, we ask him for textual proof, for if Makan was always there, it means place which is besides Allah ta’ala, was pre-eternal as well. And if someone says He wasn’t always in place, but put Himself in place then he has put Allah ta’ala in creation, both of which are impossible.

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Julus on Kursi, Imam Dhahabi on Kitab as-Sunnah, Imam Ahmed, Waki’ Narration…

Posted by muhammedm on May 20, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

The narration of contention is: “My father (Imam Ahmed) narrated to me, Waki’ narrated it to us, the hadith of Israi’l on the authority of Abi Ishaq on the authority of ‘Abdullah bin Khalifah on the authority of ‘Umar (Allah ta’ala be pleased with him), he said, “When the Lord sat on the Kursi” a man shook (when he heard this) in the presence of Waki’, to which Waki’ got angry and said, “we were in the presence of al-‘Amash, Sufyan who would narrate these Ahadith and wouldn’t reject it”.
وبه قال عبدالله: حدثني أبي ثنا وكيع بحديث إسرائيل عن أبي إسحاق عن عبدالله بن خليفة عن عمر: «إذا جلس الرب عز وجل على الكرسي» فاقشعر رجل سَمَّاهُ أبي عند وكيعٍ فغضب وكيعٌ وقال: أدركنا الأعمش وسفيان يُحَدِّثُونَ بهذه الأحاديث لاينكرونها

Imam Dhahabi on fabrications in the name of Imam Ahmed –
(1) “…Ahmed bin Ja’far al-Istakhri narrated to us that Abu ‘Abdillah Ahmed bin Hanbal said…And Allah, indeed, spoke to Musa from His mouth and other detestable things which, By Allah, he (Imam Ahmed) didn’t say, May the curse of Allah ta’ala be upon the fabricator…” Page 877 Siyar, Imam Dhahabi.

(2) “The isnad of this Risalah is (clear) as the sun, so look at this enlightened soul, not like the Risalah of al-Istakhri nor the “Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyya” fabricated upon Imam Ahmed, for the man was rightoues and God-fearing, he wouldn’t utter such things. And maybe he said it…” Page 871 Siyar, Imam Dhahabi.

It’s well known some salafis are known to go beyond their limits, everything they see they take literally, and affirm literally. I’ve posted on the topic of Istiqrar before, now they, some of them, have started defending Julus and have started attributing them to the noble Salaf as their tafsir for Istiwa’. It’s enough of a refutation that the Muhaqiq Hanabilah didn’t hold this position nor did the earlier commentators on the verse of istiwa’ state Julus being one of them, especially someone the likes of Imam Tabari. The narration that they use is mentioned in Kitab as-Sunnah or Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyya as Imam Dhahabi refers to it, since the first chapter in Kitab as-Sunnah deals with Jahimites. The same book has the narration of the mouth as stated above(1). Imam Dhahabi refers to Kitab as-Sunnah as Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyya, and his opinion of the work is clear from his above statement(2). The isnad of the work (Kitab as-Sunnah) has at least one or two individuals whom we have no information about. This would makes sense, especially due to some of the reports mentioned in the work, which the likes of Imam Ahmed or his son would never say, as the first quote of Imam Dhahabi testifies to(1).

Regarding the narration that salafis have started to propagate regarding Istiwa’ as Julus, the narration is mentioned in Kitab as-Sunnah, in al-Uluw of Imam Dhahabi, Siyar (not exactly) and one of Abu Hatim’s work (don’t know which one). Any reliance on Kitab as-Sunnah should be deemed unreliable, not only due to the isnad of the work, but because of the rarity of the narration. The narration that they quote is “When Allah ta’ala sits on a kursi…” Through this narration, they have said istiwa means Julus. We say, is Istiwa on Kursi or ‘Arsh? As they are two different. And if you say this, then that means you believe in Istiwa on ‘Arsh and Julus on Kursi, something that any clear minded individual would deny. As a result they say, some scholars such as Imam Hasan al-Basri say ‘Arsh and the Kursi are same, we say we have clear cut narration by Sufyan and Waki’ (the so called narrators of the julus narration) that explicitly states they are two different things, and the narration is mentioned in Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, and it is, “Waki’ narrated in his tafsir, Sufyan narrated to us on the authority of ‘Ammar Ad-Dhahabi, on the authority of Muslim al-Bittin, on the authority of Sa’id bin Jubayr on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, he said, “the Kursi is the place of the two feet, and the ‘Arsh no one can assess it’s value”.

It’s also interesting that Imam Dhahabi didn’t mention Julus in the narration he narrated in Siyar, but it’s mentioned in al-Uluw. Imam Dhahabi disavowwed that work, as Shaykh Haddad mentions. I don’t know how Shaykh Albani could authenticate this narration, except only if it’s mentioned in Abu Hatim’s work, but I couldn’t find which work of his mentions it. Regarding the narration itself, there are many problems with the matan and Isnad as Imam Ibn Kathir mentions. As a sidepoint, Ibn Kathir doesn’t even mention the first part of the narration but is replaced by another wording thus deeming it to have issues in the matn. And whoever wants to read up on that can read the tafsir on Ayatul Kursi. Even Qahtani in his tahqiq of Kitab as-Sunnah says the narration is weak, Suffice it to say that Julus can’t be a tafsir for Istiwa’ as our salafi brethen would like us to believe otherwise the creed would be the following: Istiwa on ‘Arsh and Julus on Kursi.

Statements of Hanabilah negating Julus (from Nihayatul Mubtadi’in li Ibn Hamdan page 35):
1 – Ibn ‘Aqil said, “(He’s) upon the ‘Arsh, not like sitting (Jalis) on a chair nor riding on an animal”
2 – Qadi said, “He’s not sitting (Qu’ud) nor touching”.
3 – Abu Ahmed Rizqullah bin ‘AbdilWahhab at-Tamimi Shaykh bin said, “nor do we say He’s with His essance sitting on the Throne, or standing, or lying, or sleeing, or touching…”

Conclusion: The narration of Julus can’t be relied upon, since it’s not authentic and can’t be the tafsir for istiwa as some salafis are obsessed with by their defense.

Ibn Kathir’s discussion on the narration:

Shaykh Haddad’s discussion on al-Uluw:

Salafis affirming Istiwa’ is Julus not on Arsh but on Kursi – “Juloos is an interpretation of Istiwaa that is found in the Salaf.” –

Qahtani’s tahqiq on Kitab as-Sunnah – It would’ve been better also for Qahtani to mention the many differences in the Matn and Sanad.

Shaykh Nuh on Kitab as-Sunnah –

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in 'Aqidah | Leave a Comment »

Salat at-Tasbih: Bida’?

Posted by muhammedm on April 16, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

Hafidh Ibn Salah in his fatawa answers regarding Salat at-Tasbih, if it’s bida’ or not and is there reward in performing it: “yes, he will be rewarded (for performing it) and those who pray will be rewarded if they are sincere, it’s a sunnah not a bida’. It’s been narrated on the authority of Sayyidina Rasulluah, and the hadith is hasan, relied and depended up on matters similar to it, especially in ‘Ibadat and Fada’il. A group from the Imams of hadith have narrated it in their relied works: Abu Dawud as-Sijistani, Abu ‘Isa at-Tirmidhi, Abu ‘Abdillah bin Majah, An-Nasa’i, and others. Hakim Abu ‘Abdillah the Hafidh narrated it in his Sahih, al-Mustadrak. The narration has many chains and they support and strenghten each other, the author of At-Tatma mentioned it in his work. The one who rebukes others on this isn’t right, and it’s not specified to the night of Juma’ as it has come in the hadith, Allah ta’ala knows best. Page 109 Fatawa Ibn as-Salah.

Imam Tirmidhi says after narration the narration of Sayyidina Anas, “the hadith of Anas is a Hasan Gharib narration”. He goes on to say, “Ibn al-Mubarak and others from the people of knowledge were of the opinion of Salat at-Tasbih”. Meaning the Salaf.

Hafidh ibn Hajar in al-‘Amal al-Mukaffarah says due to the different chains, the hadith is Hasan li-ghayri and the actions of the Salaf and the khalaf strenghthens it. “There’s no problem with the men in the chain, Imam Bukhari sought proof from ‘Ikramah, and Hakim is Saduq, and Yahya ibn Ma’in said regarding Musa bin ‘Abdil Aziz “i don’t deem anything wrong with him”, an-Nasai’ said like wise. Ibn al-Madini said, “this isnad contains the conditions of Hasan, and it has secondary proofs which strenghten it.”

Hafidh al-Munthari says in at-Targhib after mentioning the hadith of ‘Ikramah on the authority of Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas, “this hadith has been narrated through many chains, and on the authority of group from the Sahabahs. This hadith of ‘Ikramah is like those, a group authenticated it from them: Hafidh Abu Bakr al-Ajuri, our Shaykh Abu Muhammed AbdurRahim al-Misri, our shaykh Hafidh ABul Hasan al-Maqdisi, Abu Bakr bin Abi Dawud said, I heard my father (Imam Abu Dawud) say, “there’s isn’t a sahih narration regarding Salat at-Tasbih except for this”, Muslim bin al-Hajjaj said, “there’s no chain regarding Salat at-
Tasbih than this one, meaning the hadith of ‘Ikramah on the authority of Ibn Abbas.”

The Muhaqqiq of Fatawa writes: “Huffadh and Muhaddithun have differed regarding the hadith on Salat-at-Tasbih, a group said all of it is weak, and it’s not prescriped, from there are: Hafidh al-Uqayli, Abu Bakr bin al-Arabi, al-Qazwini al-Khatib, and Ibn al-Jawzi exaggerated and placed it al-Mawdu’at! Al-Mizzi, Ibn Taymiyya as Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi states regarding this weakened it as well, Imam Ahmed and his companions weakened it as well as Ibn Taymiyya and others mentioned, and some of the contemporary go with this.”
“The other group authenticated it, either through the famous chain of Ibn Abbas or because of the many chains: Hafidh Abu Musa al-Madini, wrote a treatise on it, Hafidh Daraqutni, Imam Nawawi in al-Adhkar and Tahdhib, however he weakens it in al-Majmu’, Hafidh Ibn al-Mandah, al-Ajuri, al-Khatib, who wrote a seperate treatist on it, Abu Bakr Sa’d as-Sam’ani, who wrote a seperate treatise on it, Abul Hasan bin al-Mufaddal, Hafidh Mundhiri, the author (ibn Salah), Taqi as-Subki. Zarakhshi, al-‘Alai, Hafidh ibn Nasir ud din wrote a treatise on it, Hafidh ibn Hajar wrote a treatise on it. Hafidh Suyuti wrote a treatise on it, and many others…”

As a side point, some scholars have declared the narration fabricated, Ibn al-Jawzi (kitab al-Mawdu’at) and Ibn Taymiyya (Furu’ li Ibn Muflih), both of them are known for their tashdid and aren’t considered the final say. If i’m not mistaken, there are no fabricated reports in Sunan at-Tirmidhi or Sunan Abi Dawud, so to say it’s fabricated and use that, is incorrect. One thing to notice is that none of the scholars have said it’s bida’, rather they’ve said it’s weak or it’s not established. I don’t know how anyone can say it’s bida’ when we have narrations, and on top of that the ‘amal of the salaf. One of the later scholars who wrote on this is ‘Allama Abdul Hayy al-Lucknawi, a must read.

Wa ‘alaykumus Salam

Posted in Fatawa, Fiqh | 2 Comments »

Did the Salaf say “‏كرم الله وجهه” when Sayyidina ‘Ali was mentioned?

Posted by muhammedm on March 29, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

While researching about a topic that some of our brothers deem bida’, I came across several fatawa which claimed there was no basis for the above expression nor did the Salaf use it; at first I came upon the expression in Sharh us Shamail of Mulla ‘Ali, and I wondered if it was Mulla ‘Ali who wrote it or was it from Imam Tirmidhi himself as the expression was inside parenthesis giving the impression that it was the original text of Shamail by Imam Tirmidhi. And so my findings led me to the following, suffice it to say the Salaf would say the above expression for Sayyidina ‘Ali (Allah ta’ala be pleased with him) and so the argument that the Salaf didn’t use it is incorrect, to say the least. For surprises me is not only the flinging of the word bida’, but the expression is used in the hadith works which are widely distributed and studied, so is there any excuse for claiming it’s bida’?

1- Musnad of Imam Ahmed, hadith number 15941, regarding the hadith of Sayyidina ‘Ali receiving the flag from Sayyiduna Muhammed (peace be upon him), Imam Ahmed records in his work: ‏فقال علي بن أبي طالب كرم الله وجهه

2- Sunan Nasai, hadith number 4348, “on the authority of Abi ‘Ubayd Mawla Ibn ‘Awf he said, “I saw ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, Allah ta’ala ennoble his face, on the day of ‘Id”. From the reading of this narration, it seems the Tabi’, Mawla ibn ‘Awf, is saying ‘May Allah ta’ala ennoble his face’.

3- Sunan Nasai, hadith number 5518, “Malik bin ‘Umayr narrated to me, he said, Sa’sa’ said to ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, Allah ta’ala ennoble his face,”.

4- Sunan Nasai’, hadith number 825, “(‘Ubaydillah bin ‘Abdillah said) ‘Ibn ‘Abbas said, “do you know the name of the man who was with al-‘Abbas?” I said, “No”, he said (‘Ibn Abbas) ‘Ali, Allah ta’ala ennoble his face.”

5- Sunan Nasai’, hadith number 5533, “on the authority of al-Harith bin Suwayd, on the authority of ‘Ali, Allah ta’ala ennoble his face, on the Authority of an-Nabi (peace be upon him)…”

6- Musnad Imam Ahmed, hadith number 1775, “Isma’il narrated to us, Ayyub narrated to us, on the authority of ‘Ikramah, that ‘Ali set fire a group of people…that (Sayyidina Ibn ‘Abbas’s criticism) reached ‘Ali, Allah ta’ala ennoble his face…”

Link for Musnad Ahmed:

Link of Sunan an-Nasai’:

As for the argument that Shia’hs started this expression, they who claim this have to prove it, since the above clearly shows that the Tabi’in would say it, and number 4 gives the impression that a Sahabi, Sayyidina ‘Ibn ‘Abbas, said it. As for the reason why the Ahlus Sunnah said the above phrase, the reason is because the Khawarij would say ‘May his face be blackened’, and in response to this Ahlus Sunnah said ‘May Allah ta’ala ennoble his face’.

Ma’ Salama

Posted in Miscellaneous | Leave a Comment »

Tawassul according to Hanbalis

Posted by muhammedm on January 24, 2010

أبدأُ بالحمدِ مُصَلِّياً على مُحمَّدٍ خَيِر نبيْ أُرســـــِلا

Ibn Taymiyya says after quoting (from Ibn Abi Dunya’s work ‘Mujabi ad-Dua’) an incident from the time of the salaf in which the individual did tawassul, he (Ibn Taymiyya) says: “I say this dua’ and similar (dua’) has been narrated that the Salaf used to ask (in supplication) with, and it’s been reported in the Mansak that Imam Ahmed (encouraged) tawassul through the Prophet in his dua’”. Page 147 Qa’ida al-Jalila

1- Abu ‘Abdillah al-Ardibly said, I heard Aba Bakr bin Abi al-Khasib say, “Safwan bin Salim was mentioned in the presence of Imam Ahmed, to which Imam Ahmed said, “water is sought through this man’s sayings, and rain descends through him being mentioned” (Tahdhib al-Kamal of Hafidh Mizzi)
2- Imam Ahmed’s son wrote in al-Masail, “I heard my father say, “I performed five Hajj, two of them mounted and three on foot, or two on foot and three mounted, on one of the Hajj I forgot the route while I was walking, so I said, “O servants of Allah ta’ala guide us to the path (the road), I kept on saying it until we came upon the path”, or something similar to the saying. Imam al-Bayhaqi narrated it as well with an authentic chain, Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali mentioned it in al-Adab as-Shari’ayah, Shaykh Albani said in his work ‘as-silsilah ad-Da’if wal Mawdu’ah, “Imam Ahmed considered the hadith of Ibn Abbas to be strong, which al-Hafidh considered good, because he (Imam Ahmed) practiced it, and his son, Abdullah, said regarding the narration as ‘al-Hadith’.
3- Imam as-Samuri said in al-Mustaw’ib, “there’s nothing wrong with tawassul to Allah ta’ala, thru Shuyukh, Zuhhad, people of knowledge and virtue from the Muslims to Allah ta’ala in seeking rain.
4- Imam Taqi ud Din al-Adami in his al-Munawwar said, “Tawassul through the pious is allowed”.
5- Imam Ibn al-Muflih writes in al-Furu’, “Tawassul through a righteous person is allowed, and it’s said it’s recommended.”
6- Imam al-Mardawi writes in al-Insaf, “Tawassul through a righteous person is allowed, this is the correct opinion in the madhab. It’s said that it’s recommended. Imam Ahmed said in his work entitled ‘al-Mansak’, which he wrote for al-Marruthi, “Tawassul is done thru the Prophet, peace be upon him, in dua’, and he affirmed it in al-Mustaw’ib and other works.”
7- Imam al-Hajjawi said in al-Iqna’ on the commentary of Imam al-Buhuti, “there’s nothing wrong with doing tawasswul through the righteous”.
8- Imam Ibn Najjar in his work entitled, ‘Muntaha al-Iradat, on his commentary of Imam Buhuti, “Tawassul through the righteous is allowed”.
9- Imam Mari’ al-Karmi writes in Ghayatul Muntaha, “Likewise tawassul through the righteous is allowed”.
10- Ibn ‘Imad al-Hanbali writes in Shadharatu ad-Dhahab in the biographical note on as-Sayyid Ahmed al-Bukhari, “His grave is visited and sought blessing through it”.
11- In the book ‘Kashshaf al-Qina of al-Buhuti, “as-Samuri and the author of at-Talkhis said, “there’s nothing wrong with tawassul thru Shuyukh, and the God fearing scholars for rain. He said in al-Madhab, “It’s allowed to seek intercession with Allah ta’ala through a righteous person. It was said to Marwidhi, “Tawassul is done through the Prophet in Dua’, and he affirmed it in al-Mustaw’ib and other works. Then he said, “Ibrahim al-Harbi said, “Dua’ at the grave of Ma’ruf al-Karkhi is well known and is accepted.”
12- Imam Ibn al-Jawzi said in al-Manaqib Imam Ahmed, “on the authority of Abdullah bin Musa, that he said, “My father and I went out on a dark night we visited Ahmed, darkness was intensified, so my father said, “O my son, let’s do tawassul to Allah ta’ala through this righteous slave until the path can be seen for I have not been doing tawassul through him except that my needs are met. Then my father made dua’ and I said Amin to his dua’, then the sky lighted as if it was a full moon night until we reached the place.”
13- Ibn al-Jawzi in Manaqib Imam Ahmed narrates the story of tawassul and tabbaruk of Imam Shafi’I through the shirt of Imam Ahmed.
14- Ibn Abi Ya’ala al-Hanbali writes in at-Tabaqat, “a grave was dig at the side of the grave of Imam Ahmed, and he (another individual) was buried in it, and the people took much soil from his grave as way of blessing, and people frequented his grave, night and day for a long time, and would finish the Quran, and would increase their dua’, and it has reached me that there has been thousands of Khatamat (recitiation of whole Quran) at his grave for periods of months”.
15- Ibn Qudama al-Hanbali in his Mughni writes, “It’s recommended to seek rain through a person whose righteousness is well known.”

Others from the Hanabilah who had no problem with Tawassul: ‘Allama Ibn ‘Aqil, Shaykh ‘AbdulQadir al-Jilani, Qadi ash-Shawkani (not a Hanbali but admired by salafis), Shaykh Umar at-Taghlabi, ‘Allama as-Saffarini in his Thabat, and others.

Now for those who want to say it’s bida’ and shirk, let them point their fingers at the likes of Imam Ahmed and other Hanabilah. And keep in mind there isn’t a single criticism of Hanbalis on Tawassul until Ibn Taymiyya came on the scene and his position is rejected by the later Hanbali scholars such as as-Saffarini, Ibn Muflih, Buhuti and others, and all of these later scholars were great admirers of Ibn Taymiyya especially as-Saffarini, whose work is loaded with Ibn Taymiyya work.

For a summary of salafi scholars’ stance on tawassul through the Prophet, Shaykh Albani considered it a bida’ that was invented after the first three generation. Shaykh Bin Baz, “it’s forbidden, bida’, because it’s a means for excessiveness and shirk”. << A sad attempt at trying to interpret Imam Ahmed's position to their own liking.

Ma’ Salama

Posted in Fiqh, Miscellaneous | 11 Comments »