I recently read the following narration reported from Imam Malik ibn Anas (radiya Allahu Anhu) in “Risalat al-Wafiyah”:
(Click Image to Make it larger)
Translation:
“It was narrated to us by Khalf ibn Ibrahim al-Maliki who said: It was narrated to us by Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Haywayh An-Naysaburi, who said from Ibrahim ibn Jumayl from Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, that my father narrated to me [i.e. Imam Ahmad] from Surayj ibn An-Nu’man from Abdullah ibn Nafi’ who said that Malik said, “Allah 
is in the heavens, and His Knowledge is in every place.“
Translation of Footnote by Abi Anas Ar-Rashidi – the pseudo-salafi (published by Dar Al-Basirah):
Its chain is Sahih: and it is reported ffrom Abdullah ibn Ahmad in his Sunnah (11) and Abu Dawud in his “Masa‘il” page 263 and Al-Lalaka‘i in “Sharh al-’Itiqad” (673) and Al-Ajuri 695 and Ibn Battah in Al-Ibanah (110) and Ibn Abdul Barr in At-Tamhid 7/138 all of them by way of Ahmad ibn Hanbal. And its chain is Sahih. And Shaykh al-Albani (rahimahullah) said in Mukhtasar Al-’Uluww page 140, “Its chain is Sahih.” [End Quote]
So this is what he says! This same individual, in his hopes to weaken narrations, stated that Mutarrif ibn Abdullah ibn Mutarrif, the nephew of Malik Ibn Anas was also weak – a blatant blunder! This was also quoted on “Jami’ ibn Taymiyyah” website claiming that somehow this means that Allah is in the heavens “in his essence”1 ! Rather, Allah is transcendent above and beyond what these people claim, and it would have befit them to remain silent as the salaf did about this matter! Let us review the chain of this narrative and see if it is truly “Sahih“!
A Review of the Chain:
From Ahmad ibn Hanbal from Surayj ibn An-Nu’man.
Surayj ibn An-Nu’man: Declared thiqah (trustworthy) by Abu Hatim [Jarh wa ta'dil page 304], Ibn Ma’in, An-Nasa‘i, Ad-Daraqutni, Ibn Sa’ad, Al-’Ijli and others. The only one to criticize him was Abu Dawud who said of him, “He was thiqah (trustworthy), though he made ghalita (blunders) in his narrations.” Hafith Ibn Hajr al-’Asqalani said of him in his Taqrib, “Trustworthy, yahim qalilan (small weakness). (Taqrib 2218, to which grading Hafith S. Arna‘ut disagrees in his Tahrir At-Taqrib)”
Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh: Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani said of him, “Trustworthy and authentic [when narrating from] the book, and in his memorization is weakness (Taqrib, 3659).”
Those who praised him:
Abu Zura’ah said, “There is no problem with him (la ba’asa bihi).” An-Nasa‘i said, “laysa bihi ba’as and in another narration he said, “Trustworthy”. Ibn Ma’in considered him established. Al-’Ijli said of him, “Thiqah!” Abu Dawud said, “ِAbdullah was knowledgeable with Malik. He was a companion of Fiqh, and perhaps he would point/refer to Malik (dall ‘alal Maalik).”
Those who criticized him:
Abu Talib narrated from Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal that he weakened him. In the “Questions of Abu Dawud for Imam Ahmad page 178 it says, ‘He was not good in narrating, and he was a companion of Ra’i (opinion).’ [See al-Mizan of adh-Dhahabi as well, though he narrates this with a slightly different wording.] There are actually several different wordings of his criticism of ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh. We have provided a summarization of them below taken from “Mawsu’at aqwal al-Imam Ahmad fi Rijal al-hadith”:
Click Image To Enlarge
You will see that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal did not accept his narrations from the above quotes.
So it becomes clear then, that the very individual who established this chain, and who the pseudo-salafis claim to follow, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) criticized Abdullah ibn Naf’i as-Sa‘igh as weak, and did not deem his narrations worthy of establishing knowledge.
Abu Zura’ah has several statements, and acts, that contradict the view narrated from him that Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh had “no problem with him”. Imam Al-Mizzi in his Tahdhib Al-Kamal only mentions the declaration of trustworthiness. To this Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma’ruf in his Tahqiq of Mizzi’s Tahdhib Al-Kamal quotes all of the criticism against A. ibn Nafi Sa’igh by Abu Zura’ah:
(Click Image to Make Larger)
Al-Bardha’i said, “Abu Zur’ah said: Ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh is Munkar al-Hadith according to me.” [375]
Al-Bardha’i said, “I mentioned to Abu Zur’ah the hadith of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ from his father from Ibn ‘Umar that the Nabi 
‘alayhis salam forbade Ihsa‘ Al-Khayl. He said, “This was reported from Ayyub, Malik, ‘Ubaydullah, Bard ibn Sinan, Muhammad ibn Is-Haq, Al-Ma’mari, and a group from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar only, and with this it proves that only he reported it like this, it being ascribed ]to the Prophet Muhammad ] only by this man. Meaning that Abdullah ibn Nafi, in ascribing this narration to the Prophet Muhammad , proved that he was defective in memorization, and he was weakened. (Abu Zur’ah Ar-Razi 693-694)
al-Bardha’i said: I mentioned the companions of Malik to Abi Zur’ah and I mentioned Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa‘igh and his face frowned.” (Ibid, 732) [Quote take from entry 3609 of Mu'asassat Ar-Risalah's publication]
Abu Hatim said, “He was not a preserver of hadith (Hafith), he was weak in his memorization and [when narrating from his] book he is more authentic.”
There are two reports of criticism reported from Imam al-Bukhari:
Imam Al-Bukhari said of him, “In his memorization is something (shay‘, i.e. defect).” [Tarikh as-Saghir] And the other quote manifests his disdain for his reports, though he deemed his reporting from his book to be more authentic than his memory [Tarikh al-Kabir].
Ibn Hibban said in his Ath-Thiqat about him, “He is Sahih when he narrates from his book, though when he narrates from his memory he possibly makes mistakes.” Imam Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim said, “He was not a Hafith (a hadith memorizer) according to them [i.e. the scholars]. (Tahdhib of Ibn Hajr) There is another report from him from as-Sijzi that al-Hakim said he was ‘thiqah‘ [Su'alaat as-Sijzi lil-Haakim 188]
In the Mawsu’at al-Aqwal Abul Hasan ad-Daraqutni we find the following criticism:
al-Barqani said that he asked Ad-Daraqutni about ibn Nafi and he said, “A Medinan faqih (jurist), Support [from other narrators] must be sought for him [yu'tabir bihi].”
Ibn Hajr reports from al-Ajuri from Ahmad ibn Hanbal that he heard him saying, “Abdullah ibn Nafi’ was the most knowledgeable of people in the opinions of Malik and his narrations, he preserved all of the hadith of Malik, and then he entered in the end of his life into doubt (shakk).”
Ibn ‘Adi criticizes him in his Al-Kamil saying,
“And Abdullah ibn Naf’i reported from Malik anomalous reports.” (page 1556)
The above are clear criticisms from the highest authorities such as Imam Al-Bukhari, Ahmad, Daraqutni, Ibn Hibban, Ibn ‘Adi and others questioning the reliability of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ ibn Sa’igh in both narrating from Malik and narrating hadith. Gathering the words of the Imams about Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh one says:
“He is authentic in narrating from his book, but from memory he is weak, and he reports anomalous reports from Imam Malik!” Thus such a narrator can not be accepted as proof!
Conclusion:
Much to the dismay of the pseudo-salafis, this athar from Imam Malik is not preserved and is weak, not Sahih as claimed by the editor Abi Anas Ar-Rashidi (and others) who, in his dishonesty, did not narrate a single criticism of the Imams upon Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa‘igh, though does not hesitate to disparage the Imams of Islam who are declared trustworthy by them! There exists here another anomaly, and that is that none of the companions of Imam Malik reported such a narrative. If such was the “well-known” creed of Imam Malik, then why would only one of his many established companions narrate such? This fact shows that the weakness of Abdullah ibn Naf’i is certain.
Another interesting point in this discussion is that “Imam” Al-Albani seemingly contradicts himself on the point of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa‘igh as pointed out by Shaykh Gibril Haddad. He points out in the refutation that we are going to reproduce below:
Al-Albânî in his notes in Mukhtasar al-’Uluw (p. 140) criticized al-Kawthari for citing al-Sa’igh as weak in his introduction to al-Bayhaqî’s al-Asmâ’ wa al-Sifat (p. 0), but he himself cites him as weak in al-Silsila al-Da’ifa (2:231-232) as pointed out by Shaykh H.asan al-Saqqâf in his edition of al-’Uluw (p. 397 n. 708)
The quote alluded to here by S. Hasan Saqqaf is that Al-Albani deems weak a chain in which Abdullah ibn Nafi’ is in.
So as you can see al-Albani does not weaken this chain solely because of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa‘igh, but he does utilize Hafith Ibn Hajr’s grading of “Thiqah (trustworthy), Sahih [in narrating from his] book, and in his memory he is weak.”
This same standard he did not use when supposedly “refuting” Al-Kawthari! Such is certainly nothing new from Al-Albani! He contradicted his own rulings and principles numerous times much to the dismay of his own followers!
Sidi Gibril scathingly refuted the utilization of this athar by the pseudo-salafis with the following points:
The report attributing to Imâm Mâlik the words: “Allâh is in the heaven and His knowledge is in every place” is a condemned (munkar), anomalous (shâdhdh) report of questionable authenticity narrated through Ah.mad ibn H.anbal from Surayj ibn al-Nu’mân al-Lu’lu’i (4) from ‘Abd Allâh ibn Nâfi’ al-Sa’igh from Mâlik. (5) Imâm Ah.mad himself declared ‘Abd Allâh ibn Nâfi’ al-Sa’igh weak (da’îf), Abû Zur’a frowned at his name and declared him “condemned” (munkar), al-Bukhârî questioned his memorization, and Ibn ‘Adi stated that he transmitted oddities (gharâ’ib) from Mâlik. (6) As for the content of the report, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Fattah Abû Ghudda noted in his commentary on Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s al-Intiqa’ that it is contradicted by what is firmly established in mass-transmitted narrations from Mâlik and by al-Sa’igh’s other report from Mâlik omitting the above words.(7) The report is made further dubious by the fact that Mâlik was well-known to condemn any statements about the Essence and Attributes of Allâh Most High other than sound reports, particularly statements that suggest anthropomorphism.(8) Al-Awzâ’î said: “Whoever holds on to the rare and unusual positions of the scholars has left Islâm.”
Footnotes For the above:
4) Misspelt Shurayh in al-Saqqâf’s edition of al-’Uluw (p. 396 #340) and al-Mahdî’s edition of al-Shari’a (p. 293 #663-664). Shurayh ibn al-Nu’mân al-Sa’idi al-Kûfî is a Tâbi’î who died before al-Sa’igh was born
5) In Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s al-Intiqa’ (p. 71), al-Dhahabî’s Mukhtasar al-’Uluw (p. 247), and al-Ajurrî’s al-Shari’a (p. 293 #663-664).
6) Al-Dhahabî, Mîzân (2:513-514 #4647); al-’Uqayli, al-Du’afa’ (2:311), Ibn ‘Adi, al-Kamil (4:242 #1070=4:1556); Abû Hatim, al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil (5:183); Ibn H.ajar, Tahdhîb al-Tahdhîb (6:46-47 #99). Dr. Nur al-Dîn ‘Itr, however, states in his margins on al-Dhahabî’s al-Mughnî fî al-Du’afa’ (1:513 #3396) that al-Sa’igh is very reliable when narrating from Mâlik and that Ibn H.ajar declared him trustworthy (thiqa) in al-Taqrîb. Yet, the latter grading was downgraded to “truthful” (sadûq) by al-Arna’ût and Ma’rûf in al-Tahrir (2:277 #3659). Al-Albânî in his notes in Mukhtasar al-’Uluw (p. 140) criticized al-Kawthari for citing al-Sa’igh as weak in his introduction to al-Bayhaqî’s al-Asmâ’ wa al-Sifat (p. 0), but he himself cites him as weak in al-Silsila al-Da’ifa (2:231-232) as pointed out by Shaykh H.asan al-Saqqâf in his edition of al-’Uluw (p. 397 n. 708)!
7) In Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa’ (p. 71 n. 3 and p. 73).
8 ) For example, Mâlik said: “Allâh is neither ascribed a limit nor likened with anything” (lâ yuhaddad wa lâ yushabbah). Ibn al-’Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’ân (4:1740)
9) Cited by al-Dhahabî, Siyar A’lâm al-Nubalâ’ (1997 ed. 7:99).
(source: http://www.livingislam.org/n/slfm_e.html#fn-4)
Shaykh Wahby Sulayman Al-Albani also refuted the utilization of this athar of Imam Malik saying:
وما يرويه سريج بن النعمان عن عبد الله بن نافع عن مالك أنه كان يقول : ” الله في السماء وعلمه في كل مكان ” .لا يثبت .قال الإمام أحمد : عبد الله بن نافع الصايغ لم يكن صاحب حديث وكان ضعيفا فيه . قال ابن عدي : يروي غرائب عن مالك . وقال ابن فرحون : كان أصم أميا لايكتب .وبمثل هذا السند لا ينسب إلى مثل مالك مثل هذا وقد تواتر عنه عدم الخوض في الصفات وفيما ليس تحته عمل كما كان عليه أهل المدينة على ما في شرح السنة للألكائي وغيره
He said, “It is not established…” After quoting some of the reports weakening Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa‘igh – and adding to the list of Imams who criticized Abdullah Ibn Nafi’ As-Sa‘igh that of Imam ibn Farhun Al-Maliki – he states, “And it is mass-transmitted that Imam Malik did not delve into the attributes of Allah …” [See his Sharh of Idah ad-Dalil of Badr-ud-Din Ibn Jama'ah]
Refutation of a Doubt Raised by Pseudo-Salafis [added August 2, 2010]
Some individuals claim that Abdullah ibn Nafi’ is not “As-Sa‘igh” but that of Abdullah ibn Naf’i Az-Zubairi. This claim is one without certain proof. Both the pseudo-salafi “Imams” and the Sunni Imams generally agree that this is “as-Sa’igh”. Let us first review their words.
For example, under this athar Muhammad al-Albani states in his horridly edited “Mukhtasar al-’Uluww”, which I have produced for people to see for themselves:
The important parts of his words have been translated:
“I say: It is reported by Abdullah in As Sunnah page 5, and Abu Dawud in al-masa’il page 263, Aajuri pae 289, Al-Lalaka’i and its chain is Sahih. [...] kawthari stated in his intro to the Asmaa: in it is Abdullah ibn Naf’i Al-Asamm, a companion of Manakir from Malik [...] so there is not a single Imam who ever made this criticism with this statement, rather what was said specifically about his reporting from Malik was “He was the most knowledgeable amongst the people regarding the opinion of Malik and his narrations. So look to the Tahthib if you wish! And as for his claim that this was al-Asamm, then this is the essence of delusion (wahm), for verily he is as-Sa’igh!” [end quote]
So here Muhammad Al-Albani argues without a second blink that this is as-Sa’igh while attacking al-Kawthari in saying he was al-Asamm. What is also striking is that Al-Albani tells us to look to Tahthib at-Tahthib to see that As-Sa’igh is the most knowledge regarding Malik, yet when one does look to Tahthib at-Tahthib, one sees that and more, for at the end of the statement we see ultimate criticism by way of Imam Ahmad that at the end of As-Sa’igh’s life he entered shakk “doubtfulness” [see the quote above with the scanned text!] . He also seems to have excluded the other criticisms by Ibn ‘Adi that he did narrate ghara’ib (anomalous reports) from Imam Malik as stated by al-Kawthari! al-Albani also seemed to withhold from the reader Ad-Daraqutni, Abu Hatim, Abu Zura’ah and others’ criticisms of As-Sa’igh. One wonders why Muhammad Al-Albani would do such a thing! Rather his own words he said of Imam Al-Kawthari, “This is the essence of Delusion”, could be applied to himself!
Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda, an agreed upon Muhaddith, forwards the same position in his tahqiq of the Intiqa’ of Ibn Abdul-Barr, [See scan and look to the footnotes] who he deemed weak and one who contradicted what was mass-transmitted from Imam Malik regarding this issue:
So here we have a Sunni Muhaddith, and a pseudo-salafi “Muhaddith” – though such a title given to him is hardly deserved, and by the quote in the Mukhtasar Al-’Uluww we have provided such can be seen from Muhammad Al-Albani and his deceitful ways – stating this is Ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh.
What then is the proof that this is as-Sa’igh and not Az-Zubayri? What proofs do they have to support their argument? It is here that I will present the proof, in my own estimation, but I bid thee to pay careful attention to the following points, for if a minor detail is missed, the argument will not unveil itself to the reader.
Point 1:
In the Sunan of Abu Dawud is the following hadith:
حدثنا أحمد بن صالح قال قرأت على عبد الله بن نافع قال أخبرني ابن أبي ذئب عن ابن أخي جابر بن عبد الله عن جابر بن عبد الله قال
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المجالس بالأمانة إلا ثلاثة مجالس سفك دم حرام أو فرج حرام أو اقتطاع مال بغير حق
[Source]
Look carefully at the chain for within it is Ahmad ibn Salih from Abdullah ibn Nafi’. Who is this Ahmad ibn Salih? Abu Dawud is reporting from him so he is Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, the Hafith, known as Ibn Tabari. There are huge amounts of information regarding him in the books of rijal! Hafith Al-Mizzi in his Tahdhib al-Kamal says that Ahmad ibn Salih reports from Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh in Abu Dawud, here is the text of Al-Mizzi [vol.1 page 341]:
This point of it being reported by As-Sa’igh is testified to in ‘Awn Al-Mabud, the commentary of Sunan Abu Dawud, when its author quotes Imam Al-Mundhiri as saying:
وَفِي إِسْنَاده عَبْد اللَّه بْن نَافِع الصَّائِغ مَوْلَى بَنِي مَخْزُوم مَدَنِيّ كُنْيَته أَبُو مُحَمَّد وَفِيهِ مَقَال
“In its chain is Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh … and regarding him there are negative statements [maqaal]!” [Note here the criticism of Abdullah ibn Nafi As-Sa'igh by Al-Mundhiri as well!]
[Source]
Point 2)
This hadith is also narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad:
حدثنا سريج بن النعمان حدثنا عبد الله بن نافع عن ابن أبي ذئب عن ابن أخي جابر بن عبد الله عن جابر بن عبد الله قال
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المجالس بالأمانة إلا ثلاثة مجالس مجلس يسفك فيه دم حرام ومجلس يستحل فيه فرج حرام ومجلس يستحل فيه مال من غير حق
Look carefully! This goes from Imam Ahmad from Surayj An-Numan from Abdullah ibn Nafi…[with the same text thereafter]…
In other words the hadith is the same in the Musnad of Ahmad and Sunan Abu Dawud except that Ahmad ibn Salih is narrating from Abdullah ibn Nafi’ in Abu Dawud, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrates it through Surayj ibn An-Nu’man from Abdullah ibn Nafi’! This shows that Surayj Ibn an-Nu’man heard hadith from Abdullah ibn Nafi’ as-Sa’igh, and establishes this due to the fact that this hadith only goes through him in these two routes mentioned.
What further solidifies that Abdullah ibn Nafi’ is As-Sa’igh is that Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh is known to report from Ibn Abi Dhi’b [who he reports from in this hadith mentioned above], as these two chains testify, where as Abdullah ibn Nafi’ Az-Zubayri is not known to have done so. You can compare their biographies and see for yourself. As for As-Sa’igh, then Adh-Dhahabi mentions this in his Tahthib [vol 5 327 pub al faruq al hadith]:
This solidifies that Surayj ibn An-Nu’man heard this from none other than Abdullah ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh, as this hadith clearly – as attested to by the hadith of Abu Dawud – is only going through Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh from both the way of the one it was heard by from him, and by way of whom he heard from!
There is no proof at all that Surayj An-Nu’man heard from Az-Zubayri. There is certain proof, however, that he heard from As-Sa’igh! Therefore, Muhammad Al-Albani, Shaykh Wahbi Ghawji, Shaykh Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah, as well as others have proof for their claim that this is Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh.
May Allah bless our Prophet Muhammad , his family, his companions and those who follow them until the hour Amin.
May Allah grant us all Tawfiq!
updated August 2nd 2010
I updated this article on July 29th 2010 adding to it the footnote of Dr. Bashshar ‘Awwad Ma’ruf of his Tahqiq of Mizzi’s Tahdhib Al-Kamal that included the criticism of Abu Zur’ah as reported by Al-Bardha’i of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh. The scan is available for view.
Wa billahit-tawfiq!
“Al-Albânî in his notes in Mukhtasar al-’Uluw (p. 140) criticized al-Kawthari for citing al-Sa’igh as weak in his introduction to al-Bayhaqî’s al-Asmâ’ wa al-Sifat (p. 0),”
I think you need to provide a little more detail than that.
Shaykh Al Albani took issue with Imam Al Kawthari saying that Abdullah ibn Saani’ reports fabrications from Malik (صاحب المناكير عن مالك). Shaykh Al Albani said that no one criticized him TO THAT EXTENT (لم يجرحه بهذا القول), meaning no one said that Abdullah ibn Saani is specifically known for reporting fabrications from Imam Malik. Rather he argues that people said that he is one of the most knowledgeable people regarding Imam Malik’s opinions.
It may very well be that Shaykh Al Albani was wrong regarding this narrator, but I wanted to clarify this point regarding his comment on Al Kawthari.
The chains do not mentioned “As-Sa’igh” with the name “Abdullah bin Nafi3″
so it could have been “Abdullah bin Nafi3 Az-Zubairi” instead of “As-Sa’igh”
but we can’t be sure until we find a chain mentioning which Abdullah it is.
This is a strange view you are claiming. Shaykh Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah in his Tahqiq of the Tamhid of Ibn Abdul Barr holds that this is As-Sa’igh. Every commentary I have seen by the pseudo-salafis has also stated that it was “Sa’igh”. Who claimed it was az-Zubairi Um Abdullah?
Ibn Saani’ or ibn Nafi’?
have any of them mentioned their reason for assuming it to be As-Sa’igh and not az-Zubairi?
because when I searched for this narration in many books, none of the chains mentioned which one it is, it only had “Abdullah bin Nafi’”, so I would like to know how they reached that conclusion, whether it was a salafi or non-salafi.
since you’ve already seen their comment on the chain of the athar, maybe you can let me know if they mentioned how they concluded that it is as-Sa’igh and not Az-Zubairi, especially when both narrated from Imam Malik.
Once my question is answered, we will move to yours bi-idhnillah:
Is there anyone to your knowledge, Oh Um Abdullah, that held this to be Abdullah ibn Nafi’ az-Zubayri in this chain?
I also made a mistake in the above comment, it is not his tahqiq of the Tamhid, but that of the Intiqaa’ of Ibn Abdul-Barr as quoted in the article.
was-salam,
Abu Layth
As for your question:
(Is there anyone to your knowledge, Oh Um Abdullah, that held this to be Abdullah ibn Nafi’ az-Zubayri in this chain?)
Not to my knowledge (though I haven’t checked every comment from scholars on this narration), but it doesn’t make a difference because whatever anyone claims, they must back it up with proof, and I want to know how those scholars have reached that conclusion.
You might be satisfied with making complete taqlid in this matter without knowing the evidence for their assumption, but I am not.
Bismillah
Alhamdulillah for the ability to research freely, free from the shackles of pseudo-salafi governments!
Well, Um Abdullah, you had no problem making taqlid of Halabi and Hilali on the matter of Imam Ash-Shafi’i saying there is a such thing as good bida’ah. You have no qualms with making taqlid in tons of matters – particularly in Jarh and Ta’dil within Ulum Al-Hadith, yet now you plea you are not a muqallid? This is an interesting shift indeed…
If it is not Sa’igh – which you claim it is Zubairi, and such cannot be claimed because there is no proof for such at all, and no Imam ever said it was to my knowledge – then it would be in disagreement with your own pseudo-salafi Imams.
For example, under this athar Muhammad al-Albani states in his horridly edited “Mukhtasar al-’Uluww”, which I have produced for people to see for themselves:
http://www.seekingilm.com/downloads/albanimaliksaigh.jpg
Here is the quick translation which some parts I did not care to translate as it is worthless to our discussion. The important parts have been translated:
So here Al-Albani argues without a second blink that this is as-Sa’igh while attacking al-Kawthari in saying he was al-Asamm. What was also striking is that Al-Albani tells us to look to Tahthib at-Tahthib to see that As-Sa’igh is the most knowledge regarding Malik, yet when we do take a look, we see just that but at the end of the statement we see ultimate criticism by way of Imam Ahmad that at the end of As-Sa’igh’s life he entered shakk “doubtfulness” [see the quote above with the scanned text!] . He also seems to have excluded the other criticisms by Ibn ‘Adi that he did narrate ghara’ib from Imam Malik as stated by al-Kawthari! al-Albani also seemed to withhold from the reader Ad-Daraqutni, Abu Hatim, Abu Zura’ah and others’ criticisms of As-Sa’igh. I wonder why Al-Albani would do such a thing? Or as he said of Imam Al-Kawthari, “This is the essence of Delusion!” Maybe someone should have looked into the mirror before he told the reader to “look to tahthib at-tahthib”! Or maybe he thought the pseudo-salafis would follow his every word without questioning? I certainly have seen a whole lot of it!
Al-Albani, as I said before, was not alone in this claim that it was Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh who narrated this. Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda, an agreed upon Muhaddith, forwards the same position in his tahqiq of the Intiqa’ of Ibn Abdul-Barr, See scan and look to the footnotes, who he deemed weak and one who contradicted what was mass-transmitted from Imam Malik regarding this issue:
http://www.seekingilm.com/downloads/abughuddasaigh.jpg
So here we have a Sunni Muhaddith, and a pseudo-salafi “Muhaddith” – though such a title given to him is hardly deserved, and by the quote in the Mukhtasar Al-’Uluww we have provided such can be seen from Muhammad Al-Albani and his deceitful ways – stating this is Ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh.
So is there a tarjamah of As-Sa’igh that states Surayj ibn An-Nu’man heard from him? Is there a tarjamah of Surayj ibn An-Nu’man that he heard from As-Sa’igh?
I have yet to find such a tarjamah, and I have searched all of the works in my possession! What then led Al-Albani and Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah as well as the masses to believe this was As-Sa’igh?
It is here that I will present the proof in my estimation but I warn you to pay careful attention as this is a fine point that I believe needs careful attention:
Point 1:
In the Sunan of Abu Dawud is the following hadith:
حدثنا أحمد بن صالح قال قرأت على عبد الله بن نافع قال أخبرني ابن أبي ذئب عن ابن أخي جابر بن عبد الله عن جابر بن عبد الله قال
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المجالس بالأمانة إلا ثلاثة مجالس سفك دم حرام أو فرج حرام أو اقتطاع مال بغير حق
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4226&doc=4&IMAGE=%DA%D1%D6+%C7%E1%CD%CF%ED%CB
Look carefully at the chain: Ahmad ibn Salih from Abdullah ibn Nafi’…
Who is this Ahmad ibn Salih? Abu Dawud is reporting from him so he is Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, the Hafith, known as Ibn Tabari. There are huge amounts of information regarding him in the books of rijaal!
Hafith Al-Mizzi in his Tahdhib al-Kamal says that Ahmad ibn Salih reports from Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh in Abu Dawud, here is the text of Al-Mizzi [vol.1 page 341]:
http://www.seekingilm.com/downloads/ahmadibnsalihandsaigh.jpg
This point of it being reported by As-Sa’igh is testified to in ‘Awn Al-Mabud when its author quotes Al-Mundhiri as saying:
وَفِي إِسْنَاده عَبْد اللَّه بْن نَافِع الصَّائِغ مَوْلَى بَنِي مَخْزُوم مَدَنِيّ كُنْيَته أَبُو مُحَمَّد وَفِيهِ مَقَال
“In its chain is Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh … and regarding him there are negative statements [maqaal]!” [Note here the criticism of Abdullah ibn Nafi As-Sa'igh by Al-Mundhiri as well!]
See: http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4226&doc=4&IMAGE=%DA%D1%D6+%C7%E1%CD%CF%ED%CB
Point 2)
This hadith is also narrated in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad:
حدثنا سريج بن النعمان حدثنا عبد الله بن نافع عن ابن أبي ذئب عن ابن أخي جابر بن عبد الله عن جابر بن عبد الله قال
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المجالس بالأمانة إلا ثلاثة مجالس مجلس يسفك فيه دم حرام ومجلس يستحل فيه فرج حرام ومجلس يستحل فيه مال من غير حق
Look carefully! This goes from Imam Ahmad from Surayj An-Numan from Abdullah ibn Nafi…[with the same text thereafter]…
In other words the hadith is the same in the Musnad of Ahmad and Sunan Abu Dawud except that Ahmad ibn Salih is narrating from Abdullah ibn Nafi’ in Abu Dawud, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal narrates it through Surayj ibn An-Nu’man from Abdullah ibn Nafi’!
What further solidifies this claim of theirs is that Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh is known to report from Ibn Abi Dhi’b, as these two chains testify too, where as ibn Nafi’ Az-Zubayri is not known to have done so. You can compare their biographies and see for yourself. As for As-Sa’igh, then Adh-Dhahabi mentions this in his Tahthib [vol 5 327 pub al faruq al hadith]:
http://www.seekingilm.com/downloads/saighfromibnabidhib.jpg
This solidifies that Surayj ibn An-Nu’man heard this from none other than Abdullah ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh, as this hadith clearly – as attested to by the hadith of Abu Dawud – is only going through Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh from both the way of the one it was heard by from him, and by way of whom he heard from!
There is no proof at all that Surayj ibn An-Nu’man heard from Az-Zubayri. There is certain proof, however, that he heard from As-Sa’igh!
Thus, your “Shaykh” Al-Albani actually has a strong argument in support of his claim. As does the Sunni Shaykh, Abdul-Fattah Abu Ghuddah, and Shaykh Wahby Ghawji!
And May Allah
bless our beloved Sayyid Muhammad, his family, his followers amin!
Abu Layth
P.S. I will be adding this research with more quotes etc to the main article soon insha’Allah
so as to thwart anyone who may spread doubts as you have.
was-salam
<> Well, Um Abdullah, you had no problem making taqlid of Halabi and Hilali on the matter of Imam Ash-Shafi’i saying there is a such thing as good bida’ah. You have no qualms with making taqlid in tons of matters – particularly in Jarh and Ta’dil within Ulum Al-Hadith, yet now you plea you are not a muqallid? This is an interesting shift indeed…<>
Sometime one has no choice but to make taqlid when one doesn’t have enough resources to research himself, but now I have much more resources than I had 2 yrs ago, so alhamdulillah I can do my own research, though sometimes I am not successful in my research and don’t find the answer, such as in this case.
<> which you claim it is Zubairi <>
I never claimed it was az-Zubairi, I only asked why can’t it be az-zubairi instead of as-sa’igh, and asked how those scholars concluded that it was as-sa’igh.
being above the heavens / fis-sama), and it is proven through other means, other than this narration.
And through your research it seems that it is As-Sa’igh, and good research by the way.
Now I am at peace that I found the answer to my doubt regarding who the narrator is, because my goal was to know who the narrator is, and not to prove it to be sahih, because I have no doubt Imam Malik rahimahullah believed this (i.e. Allah
I have updated the article to include within it the refutation of the claim that this is not Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh.
Was-Salam,
Abu Layth
August 2, 2010
Every Sunni affirms that Allah
is “fawq al-’Arsh”. Sunnis, however, do not affirm such literally, and they believe this upon the meaning that Allah 
and His Messenger (saaws) intended, in effect relegating the real meaning to Allah 
ta’ala. Imam Malik, as Shaykh Abdul Fattah Abu Ghudda stated in his Tahqiq of the Intiqa’, was one who did not delve into these things, and took the path of affirmation while relegating the true meanings to Allah 
ta’ala. This is the path of the salaf, and a path free of anthropomorphism, and free of the pseudo-salafi claims.
was-salam
you said that you affirm that Allah
is “fawq al-Arsh” but you relegate its meaning to Allah 
, but that method of yours is only in regards to ayat and hadith, is there an ayah or authentic hadith saying “Allah 
fawqa al-Arsh” (with those exact words), for you to accept that statement and make tafwid of it?
Sure Um Abdullah,
The hadith of Ibn Mas’ud reported by the Asha’ri Imam Al-Bayhaqi in his Al-Asma’i was-Sifaat, through a Sahih chain:
“Al-’Arsh Fawq al-ma’a, wa Allahu fawq al-’Arsh, …”
The hadith of Abu Hurayrah … “fa huwa ‘indahu fawq al ‘arsh” that is reported in the Sahihayn. Valid ta’wil could easily be made of these reports, but the safest path as our Asha’ri Imams, such as Nawawi, Suyuti, Taqi As-Subki, and others took was to pass the texts on as they come, believe in them, and refer the real meaning in relation to Allah
to Allah 
and His Messenger (saaws), and that is the way of Imam Malik ibn Anas (rahmatullah ‘alayh).
was-salam
Abu Layth
The first one isn’t a hadith, it is an athar of Ibn Mas’ud radiyallahu anhu.
I personally hold that this most probably is marfu’. Where did Ibn Mas’ud take it from – his own nafs? I can’t imagine ibn Mas’ud talking of Allah
without hearing it from Sayyid al-khalq (‘alayhis salam), considering Allah 
ta’ala says :
وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَىٰ عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا
Fiqh maybe he narrates his own view, but to speak of Allah
is a different station…Such is my personal view though, and I have no problem in repeating such words while saying them with sukut, imraar, without meaning, and without kayf.
Its not marfu’ itself but it take the hukm of a marfu’, because it is matter of ghayb related to Allah
Azza wa Jal which there is no room for ijtihad in it, so it would take the hukm of a marfu’ hadith, but it is still the words of Ibn Mas’ud, he said it as he understood it from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam (i.e. narrated by meaning and not word for word), so unless he says “the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said” you can’t claim that he said it word for word like the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said it. Also, the context is very clear, there is no room for tawil here.
If you are going to start making tafwid of statements of the pious salaf, then there is no deen left, it is enough that you have made tafwid of the sunnah when the Sunnah is an explanation of the Quran !
As-Salaamu alaykum,
Don’t forget Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali also reported this in his Fath al-Bari and said that its meaning was transmitted on authority of Ali and Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah
be pleased with them both.
What’s the point of focusing on weakening a chain of a report of the one of the 4 Aa’immah, when the meaning universally accepted by the Aa’immah of this Deen?
Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qudamah, Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi, Ibn Rajab, al-Lalika’i, al-Ajuri, al-Abadi, Ibn Abd al-Barr, Imam Ahmad, al-Athram, al-Khallal, Ibn ul-Qayyim, Makki (Khatib of Cordova), at-Talamanki, Ibn Abi Zayd, Ibn Battah, adh-Dhahabi (Tathkirat al-Huffadh said ‘wa sahha’ ) and Abd Allah
bin Ahmad reported this chain specifically in their books, understanding it to be Sahih.
So your little review of the chain and holding to the criticism over the praise of a single narrator takes precedence over the above Aa’immah and their opinions on the attribution of the statement to Imam Malik?
Some things never change…
Firstly, whether it is mawquf or Marfu’, in the end you asked me and I gave it to you, so stop playing games.
Tafwid with regards to the Sifaat is the deen of Islam in its entirety. In fact, it is the embodiment of what Imam Malik said, “…ghayru ma’qul…” It is impossible to understand them and therefore, when one humbles themself and realizes that you can not truly understand Allah
, and that there is nothing like unto Him, one realizes his own weaknesses and imperfections, and His faith becomes resolute in a the Perfect and Almighty.
I’m sorry I do not believe in your god of limbs, sitting (istiqraar), and tajsim in the words of Ibn Taymiyyah. It is yourself with no deen, as you follow the way of the anthropomorphists while you delve into the meanings of attributes never explained by the Prophet Muhammad
(saaws) or His Sahabah! You do not follow the way of the salaf, but the way of the khalaf, and you have no proof that Imam Malik ibn Anas took these sifaat upon their literal import! In fact you have no proof the Sahabah or the Nabi 
‘alayhis salam did as well.
Wa’alaykum Salam. So what? It is not authentic, get over it. I know your upset that your beloved athar has been debunked, and that your Imam al-Albani has been shown as a deceitful individual who would stop at no means to make tas-hih of an athar that was da’if. But of course, such passes your pseudo-salafi mind as you cannot see the proofs even in front of you!
I am sorry that Allah
did not give you the fiqh nor insight to see what the whole point of this refutation of this chain is! For if He ta’ala had, you would see that the pseudo-salafis are deceivers – but how could you see yourself as one as you try to veil the truth from the Muslims -, and will declare the da’if to be Sahih and vice versa to justify their illegitimate creed of anthroporphism. Furthermore, when someone quotes an athar, it does not mean that he holds such to be certainly attributed to someone, so get over your second veil of deception.
There is an interesting point made by you though that shows you follow the manahj of Ibn Taymiyyah in deceit. Ibn Taymiyyah was known to use shady wording and tactics to legitimize his stances. Phrases such as “universally accepted by the Aa’immah of this Deen” when such is cow patties with flies lingering! If it was “universally accepted”, then why did not Imam an-Nawawi quote it as the view of Imam Malik in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim? Why did Imam Al-Bayhaqi not affirm it for him either as well as others who wrote on the issues of creed? Big claims from one with little proof indeed!
Let us not stop here though, for let us utilize your illegitimate principle and turn the tables on you with your own deceptive argument. Imam An-Nawawi, Ibn Abdul-Barr, Ibn Sayyid An-Nas, Ad-Daani in Risalat Al-Wafiyah, and many others reported the following athar from Imam Malik:
Clear ta’wil as stated by Imam an-Nawawi in his Sharh of Sahih Muslim. So it was affirmed by many, and Ibn Abdul-Barr stated after it, “It is possible that the matter be as Mâlik said, and Allâh knows best.” For even he in his tamhid declared its chains acceptable. Yet we know that within the chain is a man who has been criticized by the ‘Ulama’ of Hadith; Jaami’ ibn Sawada. Based upon you premise you just attempted to deceive us with, because these scholars quote the athar, because they say it is authentic and utilize it as proof, I am therefore obliged to also accept its authenticity and blindly follow them in their gradings!
We have researched the chains here:
http://www.seekingilm.com/archives/962
Let us see our pseudo-salafi brethren utilize such a principle you have forwarded upon themselves! Such will never happen, and therefore, Sunnis are not obliged to accept your batil argument either! Your argument has been debunked oh pseudo-salafi, and you should follow the Salaf and remain silent about these matters!
Lastly, Imam Malik ibn Anas (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) was not one to speak of the meanings of the sifaat. In fact, he was one who said there was no Kayf (he did not say kayfiyya – and there is a subtle difference you pseudo-salafis cannot grasp with your literalist-leaning minds in this difference), and that it is impossible to understood these attributes. Sukut and Imrar would have befit you, but instead your likes delve into meanings, and force all the innocent Muslims who have to be patient with your ignorance to delve into a matter that the Nabi
‘alayhis salam did not delve into, or his Sahabah.
The athar is weak, and not established from Imam Malik, and so your ilk have been squelched.
was-salam,
Abu Layth
Assalâmu ‘Alaykum wa Ramadân mubârak all,
Did anyone of you knew that Ibn Taymiyyah authenticated the narration of the Prophet (صلى الله تعالى عليه واله وسلم) seeing Allâh Most High in the form of young and beardless?
http://yfrog.com/ng15584907p
Source; بيان تلبيس الجهمية في تاسيس بدعهم الكلامية ج7 ص290 (Bayân talbîs al-jahmiyyah fî ta’sîs bid’ihim al-kalâmiyyah, vol. 7, page 290)
Sheikh al-Albani is a ‘Alim whether y’all like it or not.
Sure he has his mistakes just like everyone else.
It does not mean that he can’t be beneficial to us.
The methodology he follows has been followed by other imams of the muslims during generations past.
It is not befitting of a decent muslim, trying to “walk the path” and seek knowlegde to behave this way towards a giant of islam.
You are being no better than the extremist “super salafi” manhaj police who do a good job of creating division and confusion amongst brothers by much of the rhetoric on this website.
Some of Imam Nawawi’s colleagues, students, and teachers were Hanbali in ‘aqeeda.
I am a Hanbali student of fiqh, and ascribe to the Athari school of aqeeda while at the same time being accepting of the Ash’ari school as legit opinions/ijtihads regarding the names and attributes, etc.. And my Sheikh in tasawwuf is a Shafi’i/Ash’ari. He took the Shadhili path from Sheikh AbdalRahman Shaghouri rahimahu’llah (No he’s not Sheikh Nuh Keller).
It’s great what you all are doing as far as spreading knowledge on this website, but all this “wahhabi” “neo-muqatili” bla bla bla, come on now.
If you agree to cut it out, I’ll have a SURPRISE for you that’ll show you how fair and sincere Sheikh Albani was. A surprise that’ll be a shocker not just to y’all, but to all the “blind albani-followin’ salafis”. This surprise would be darn difficult to find, and I believe that all the muslims of the west are oblivious to this:
IT IS AN AUDIO RECORDING OF SHEIKH MUHAMMAD NASIR-UDDIN AL-ALBANI HIMSELF SITTING AT HOME IN AN INFORMAL LECTURE WITH SOME OF HIS STUDENTS. HE IS PRAISING SHEIKH NUH KELLER! This lesson of his is buried in the midst of the hundreds of tapes that his students recorded during informal lessons in his home. Most of these tapes don’t even have titles.
An ‘Alim is one who inherited from the Prophet Muhammad
, one who fears Allah 
both inwardly and outwardly as Allah 
says: “Verily those who fear Allah 
are the ‘ulama’”
Muhammad Al-Albani did not inherit from the Prophet Muhammad
, as he did not take clear ijaazaat in any works of hadith. He did not inherit from the Prophet Muhammad 
because he did not take the entire Qur’an with an isnad from the Prophet Muhammad 
. He did not inherit from the Prophet Muhammad 
because he opposed the way of Sunni learning, abandoning the curriculum established by the early Muslims by way of Fiqh, language, etc.
He certainly did not fear Allah
outwardly when he deceived the Muslims in believing that certain hadith were weak or Sahih, when he knew very well that the case of the ahadith were the opposite. A blatant example of such is the issue of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ as-Sa’igh, of whom he tries to tell us to look to the tahthib to see his tawthiq – though he completely ignores the hardened Jarh upon him – without even glossing over this fact. We have seen him do this on multiple occasions throughout his works in order to fulfill his twisted agendas in both creed and fiqh. He was a plague upon this Ummah, and for a hundred years to come the Sunnis will have to sift through his atrocious works and find his lies squelching them so as not to misguide later generations of Muslims.
As for him being respected then such is your view. What we have read is the scholars of Hadith warning from his many blunders and his works. Shaykh Mahmud, Shaykh H. Al-Azami in his “al-Albani Shudhudhuh wa Akhta’uh” – who points out his abuses of the language, hadith, as well as fiqh and his departure from Ijma’ on pertinent issues, The Ghumaris who penned warnings and refutations and a whole host of others from Sham – all scholars in hadith warned of this man’s deceit and novice-like blunders. “Mistakes” as you label them are far from what they were. They were concerted efforts by him to abandon the Ijma’ of the schools, rape the science of hadith of its Sunni method, and attempt to dethrone the maqam of the Salaf us Salih – all the way trying to profess he was upon their way.
So now to your “surprise”; you should know brother that we know very well that Al-albani sat in the house of Shaykh Nuh Keller several times, and you should also know that Shaykh Nuh – qaddasa allahu sirruh – invited the arch-enemy of al-albani as well, saqqaf to dinner with al-albani at his house. An interesting meeting it was indeed that the pseudo-salafis would never want to be known!
None of this, however, does not nullify the pollution of the law, hadith, and language which Muhammad al-Albani injected into this Ummah. So this “neo-Muqatili”, “pseudo-salafi” labeling that you take fault with, is simply calling ‘a spade a spade’. We will continue to warn this Ummah of the heresies of these groups and their deviant masters.
was-salam to you…
Assalamu’alaikum, Shaykh Al-Albani was correct: http://alsonnah.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/allah-is-in-the-heaven-and-his-knowledge-is-everywhere/ As for ur statement that Albani wasn’t a scholar bcz he didn’t hav any Ijaza, then this is false claim. Shaykh had Ijaza from Shaykh Raghib At-Tabbakh and sh. Bahjat al-Baitar. If u say, these ijaza were ijaza of tabarruk, then also he still hav a certificate of knowledge. If you say that those Ijaza weren’t sufficient bcz it also need company of scholars and Albani did not study with scholars, then again this is false claim. He hardly left any senior scholar of his time who he never met. Ahmed Al-Ghumari, Abdullah al-Ghumari, Taqi al-Hilali, Ahmed Shakir and many mores. He discussed issues with them, debated with them. In completed his early study under his father who was a Hanafi scholar. There are hardly any sincere scholar who doubted his scholarship. Ahmed Al-Ghumari said that he was from among scholar of this time (Afrad az-Zamaan) regarding hadith. This is beside the fact that he acknowledge that Albani’s madhhab was absurd. Scholars acknowledging his scholarship is sufficient to prove his status.
In response to Br M:
1)
The “ijazas” that were received by Al-Albani did not involve the works that he supposedly reviewed and edited, primarily the works of hadith in which he blundered in numerous times because of his lack of knowledge in the field. Blunders he himself admitted to throughout his later works. This is the problem the pseudo-salafis face in trying to establish M. alAlbani as a hadith scholar – he did not take a single work of hadith, in its entirety, from the scholars through isnad!
Regarding your claim of Ijazah by Tabbakh and Baytar you can go here for a simple refutation of your claims:
http://www.marifah.net/forums/topic/3995-al-albanis-ijazas/
But what you should be really telling the Muslims is that Muhammad Al-albani rejected the very Ijazah system you are trying to say that he had. Furthermore, why don’t you quote for us the scholars from Sham and elsewhere discrediting Al-Albani in his supposed “scholarship” in hadith. Or is it that you have an agenda and thus you will only quote what befits your da’wah – as was known to be done by Al-Albani himself and can be seen regarding ibn Naf’i as-Sa’igh! And because one sits with scholars does not mean he takes ijaazaat from them in the specific field that he claims he was.
The pseudo-salafis always claim that he learned fiqh from his father, yet where is his ijaazah from his father in any of the works of hanafi fiqh? What hanafi works did he master? Where are his ijazat in even the primer works of Hanafi fiqh?
This claim of theirs is simply a smoke screen to cover up the fact that M. al-Albani had no ijazaat in fiqh, and he did not even receive permission from his father to teach or transmit Hanafi fiqh! All of this shows that Al-Albani did not follow the Sunnah of the salaf in learning, and therefore was not an inheritor of the Prophet Muhammad
(saaws)! Therefore, he is not trusted in ‘ilm and the Muslims should beware of his works and his deceitful manhaj in narrating from the Salaf!
2) In the article you linked to your argument in defense of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ as-Sa’igh that he supposedly “… considered among highest authority while reporting from Malik.” The article goes on to say that his memory when reporting from Imam Malik is sound, whereas his memory while reporting from those who report from the Prophet Muhammad
is unsound…
Such a distinction on the part of the author is deceitful, for certainly the Imams -such as Al-Bukhari and other than him – criticized HIS MEMORY (fi hifthihi shay), and such was regarding all his narratives.
For example the report from Al-Aajuri from Abu Dawud from Imam Ahmad who said:
“The most knowledgable of people regarding the opinions of Malik and his hadith, he memorized all of Malik’s hadith, and later [in his life] entered into doubt (shakk).”
as seen here: http://www.seekingilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/imamahmadonabdullahibnnafi.jpg
Here we clearly see Imam Ahmad saying he WAS knowledgeable in both hadith and opinions of Malik, yet he clearly says that he LATER entered into doubt regarding these things.
Abu Zura’ah frowned at the very mention of his name, yet these pseudo-salafis would still have us take reports of creed from him:
http://www.seekingilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/abuzuraabdullahibnnafi.jpg
Ibn ‘Adi was clear in his condemnation of the reports from him from Imam Malik and clearly stated that they were gharib. Yet you still want us to take this issue of creed from a man whose memory was unsound, and is the ONLY ONE who reported this incident from Imam Malik? HE was KNOWN to have clearly reported things from Imam Malik that no one else did, and was criticized for it. A point addressed by ad-Daraqutni when he clearly stated that “he must be followed up with by other reports”.
Al-Albani was wrong in this issue due to multiple reasons:
1) He intentionally deceived the Muslims by leaving out the clear jarh upon this man’s memory, as well as the fact that he reported anomalous reports from Imam Malik!
2) Ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh is only reliable when narrating from his book, which he did not explicitly state here, and yet Al-Albani claimed that his narrations from his memory were correct, such as forwarded in the individual’s supposed refutation.
So no, your argument attempts to validate the MEMORY of Abdullah ibn Naf’i as-Sa’igh, and it is his very memory that the scholars criticized. He was criticized in his reports from Imam Malik from Ibn ‘Adi, and such shows that
a) if his memory is weak
b) if he is reporting from the one he was criticized in reporting from, i.e. Malik ibn Anas
=
then the conclusion as was stated earlier, he is not acceptable due to the issue of his poor memory, and his entering into doubt later in his life as stated by Imam Ahmad.
and May Allah
bless the Nabi 
Muhammad, his family, his followers Amin
was-salam
Abu Layth
Bismillah
Salamu ‘alaykum,
The author of the article linked above argued that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal quoted this athar and therefore such could be used as proof that Imam Ahmad deemed it authentic, as found in the Al-Aajuri’s Ash-Shari’ah:
وحدثنا أبو الفضل جعفر بن محمد الصندلى قال : حدثنا الفضل بن زياد قال : سمعت أبا عبد الله أحمد بن حنبل يقول : قال مالك بن أنس : الله عز وجل في السماء وعلمه في كل مكان ، لا يخلو منه مكان ، فقلت : من أخبرك عن مالك بهذا ؟ قال : سمعته من شريح بن النعمان ، عن عبد الله بن نافع .
You will notice that in this report Imam Ahmad supposedly says “Shurayh ibn an-Nu’man from Abdullah ibn Nafi’”
That is, however, not the chain of Imam Ahmad, as everyone reports it not from Shurayh but from Surayj ibn An-Nu’man – this was alluded to in the article. This points to a blunder by someone – either a narrator or (?) … we certainly would like for the pseudo-salafis to tell us who made this error…
Continuing: So the author attempts to use this as saying that Imam Ahmad declared this athar authentic (as he says “Imam Malik said…”). No where in this athar does Imam Ahmad say this athar is authentic, and this is from the whims of the author of the article, for he hopes that the Muslims would be deluded by his empty claims and unfounded interpretations of the athar. For if he were honest he would admit that this is his own interpretation of the incident, and not explicitly found within the wording of the chain!
There are many other ways that this athar could have been interpreted as well – none of which show that he deemed it authentic:
1) It could have been that Fadl ibn Ziyaad heard Imam Ahmad’s words after he narrated the chain, and then asked what the chain was for this isnaad – therefore he only heard originally from Imam Ahmad that he said “Imam Malik said…”, as it was certainly the way of Imam Ahmad to give an isnaad – being the Hafith he was – then report the words. It is perfectly possible that he came late to the majlis and did not hear the chain being reported prior to this.
2) This athar is simply saying what Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh said – “That Imam Malik said…” therefore he is quoting what Abdullah said and not necessarily saying that he believed Imam Malik said it.
For the pseudo-salafis to act as if this is a “clear” matter only shows their poor hopes that the Sunnis would fall for such a ploy, for it is their interpretation, and their interpretation contradicts the words of Imam Ahmad elsewhere! So where is the authentication of this athar by Imam Ahmad!? Why didn’t he clearly declare this athar Sahih? Hasan? Maqbul? In fact what we find from Imam Ahmad is nothing more than blatant criticism of Abdullah ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh by stating that he was
a) weak in memory
b) he entered into doubt at the later part of his life
We pointed this out above when we quoted:
“The most knowledgable of people regarding the opinions of Malik and his hadith, he memorized all of Malik’s hadith, and later [in his life] entered into doubt (shakk).”
In other words his affair with Imam Malik changed in his later part of his life. What adds to this is the Jarh of Ibn ‘Adi who clearly criticized him by saying that he reported anomalous reports from Imam Malik. The question that the author of the supposed “refutation” does not truly answer is: How can we accept a report from a man accused and known to have a weak memory, and who is known to be the only one who had reported matters from Imam Malik ibn Anas as acceptable?
The response is that he believes he is acceptable in reporting from Malik – which WAS true, though ended at the later part of his life due to his doubt in narrating. The problem for the pseudo-salafis is that Imam Ahmad disagrees with him in that Ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh became weak in the reports of Imam Malik period!
So the reports from Abdullah ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh are not established and one would need a follow-up for its acceptability – but guess what! NO SUCH THING EXISTS! The only one to report this supposed incident is Abdullah ibn Naf’i As-Sa’igh – from all of the many Imams that studied with Imam Malik, who studied with him throughout his career, he is the only one to report this – with his weak memory and his ghareeb reports! By the standards of Jarh and ta’dil, and the standards of Imam Ahmad and others, this man is not acceptable from Imam Malik, and such a stance was preserved until today for the Sunnis to see!
And with Allah
is success!
and May He Bless our Beloved Mastered Muhammad (saaws)!
We affirm the texts upon the intent of Allah
and His Messenger. If they did not clarify the meaning, we remain silent, as said by the salaf.
was-salam
Abu Layth,
Muhammad ibn Hassan Al Shaybani was declared weak in memorization by several scholars http://www.ibnamin.com/Manhaj/ibn_hasan.htm yet Hanafis still appeal to him because of his companionship with Abu Hanifah.
The Malikis do the same with Al Saigh. As Al Dhahabi said:
فإنَّ الصائغ أكبر وأقدم وأثبت في مالك لطول صحبته له
So what’s the deal?
Assalamu Alaikum brother Abu Layth,
Is Dr. Bashar’s tahqeeq on Tahdheeb Al Kamal available online?
Ahmad Attiyah and co,
The premise of your argument, and your analogy is horridly flawed. Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan ash-Shaybani – rahmatullah ‘alayh – did not enter into doubt in the later part of his life regarding the words of his master Abu Hanifah. Such has not been a criticism upon him by the scholars of Jarh.
Regarding Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh, yes he was a faqih and narrated fiqh opinions from Malik, the problem however is that when he narrated from Imam Malik he was considered weak due to his weakness in memory at the end of his life (he entered into shakk - doubt).
So the “deal“, using your cliche, is that he is unreliable in his reports and narrations, and what adds to his weakness is that he narrates what no other individual narrated, which means that his reports due to his poor memory, must be followed up (yu’tabir bih – in the words of Imam Ad-Daraqutni) for support. Imam Ahmad did not make a distinction between his hadithic narratives and what he narrated specifically from Imam Malik when he condemned his memory. In fact from the apparent of the quote we mentioned before, he criticized him in both.
There is further proof for his memory being faulty. For in the full athar reported from him in Ibn Abdul Barr’s tamhid we find the athar narrated combined with the incident of the man who asked Imam Malik regarding Istiwaa’:
أخبرنا أبو محمد عبدالله بن محمد بن عبد المؤمن قال حدثنا أحمد ابن جعفر بن حمدان بن مالك قال حدثنا عبدالله بن أحمد بن حنبل قال حدثني أبي قال حدثنا سريج بن النعمان قال حدثنا عبدالله بن نافع قال: قال مالك بن أنس : ” الله عز وجل في السماء ، وعلمه في كل مكان ، لا يخلو منه مكان . وقيل لمالك : (الرحمن على العرش استوى ) كيف استوى ؟ فقال مالك : استواؤه معقول ، وكيفيته مجهولة ، وسؤالك عن هذا بدعة ، وأراك رجل سوء
He narrates the supposed first part as an entire incident with the second – which by the way also contradicts the wordings of other narrators, showing the lack of preciseness in the narrating of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh!
The scan is here: http://www.seekingilm.com/images/tamhidabdullahbinnafi.jpg
No one ever narrated this incident like this with this addition of “Allah
is in the heavens” He is the only one, hence it is an anomalous report. What adds even more to the discredit of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ in the above wording is that no one else ever narrated from Imam Malik the words “His Istiwaa’ is understood, and its kayfiyyah is majhul (unknown)…”
So here are two contradictory aspects of his narration:
1) The context and the addition of “Allah
is in the heavens…”
2) His reported wording from Imam Malik ibn Anas “His Istiwaa’ is understood, and its kayfiyyah is majhul (unknown)…”
The following is proof of the argument I put forth:
Through the sahih chain of Imam Al-Bayhaqi from Ibn Wahb – an impeccably trustworthy Imam of Hadith:
عن أبي الربيع الرشديني عن ابن وهب قال كنت عند مالك فدخل رجل فقال يا أبا عبد الله الرحمن على العرش استوى كيف استوى فأطرق مالك وأخذته الرحضاء ثم رفع رأسه فقال الرحمن على العرش استوى كماوصف نفسه ولا يقال كيف وكيف عنه مرفوع وأنت صاحب بدعة أخرجوه
Ibn Wahb did not narrate these words, whose rank in narrating is far better than the rank of Ibn Nafi’! [ibn Hajr declares this a "jayyid/good" chain ]
Ibn abdul Barr in his tamhid from Mahdi ibn Ja’far from Malik [though mahdi is honest he is said to have made mistakes]:
أخبرنا محمد بن عبدالملك قال حدثنا عبدالله بن يونس قال حدثنا بقي بن مخلد قال حدثنا بكار بن عبدالله القرشي قال حدثنا مهدي بن جعفر عن مالك بن أنس أنه سأله عن قول الله عز وجل الرحمن على العرش استوى كيف استوى قال فأطرق مالك ثم قال استواؤه مجهول والفعل منه غير معقول والمسألة عن هذا بدعة
“His Istiwaa’ is unknown, and the act from him is not understood…”
Then there is the athar of Ja’far ibn Abdullah from Imam Malik:
جعفر بن عبدالله قال ( كنا عند مالك بن أنس فجاءه رجل فقال : يا أبا عبدالله , الرحمن على العرش استوى كيف استوى ؟
فما وجد مالك من شيء ما وجد من مسألته , فنظر إلى الأرض وجعل ينكت في يده حتى علاه الرحضاء – يعني العرق – ثم رأسه ورمى العود وقال : ( الكيف منه غير معقول , والاستواء منه غير مجهول , والإيمان به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة وأظنك صاحب بدعة وأمر به فأخرج )
The “kayf” is not understood, and the istiwa from him is not unknown, …
[reported by lalaka'i, abu nu'aym in his hilyah and many others]
Then there is Yahya ibn Yahya [taymiy] from Imam Malik as reported in Bayhaqi’s asma was-sifaat:
أخبرنا أبو بكر أحمد بن محمد بن الحارث الفقيه الأصفهاني( )، أنا أبو محمد عبد الله بن محمد بن جعفر بن حيَّان المعروف بأبي الشيخ( )، ثنا أبو جعفر أحمد بن زيرك اليزدي: سمعت محمد بن عمرو بن النضر النيسابوري( ) يقول: سمعت يحيى بن يحيى يقول : كنا عند مالك بن أنس فجاء رجـل فقال : يا أبا عبد الله الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى فكيف استوى؟، قال: فأطرق مالك رأسه حتى علاه الرحضاء ثم قال: (( الاستواء غير مجهول، والكيف غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة، وما أراك إلاّ مبتدعاً. فأمر به أن يُخرج
No mention of the wording of Abdullah ibn Nafi’!
Then there is Ja’far ibn Maymun from Imam Malik:
قال الإمام أبو إسماعيل الصابوني حدّثنا أبو الحسن بن إسحاق المدني، حدّثنا أحمد بن الخضر أبو الحسن الشافعي، حدّثنا شاذان، حدّثنا ابن مخلد بن يزيد القهستاني، حدّثنا جعفر بن ميمون قال: سئل مالك بن أنس عن قوله: الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى كيف استوى؟، قال: (( الاستواء غير مجهول ، والكيف غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة، وما أراك إلاّ ضالاًّ، وأمر به أن يخرج من مجلسه
Again not the wording of Abdullah ibn Nafi’!
From Muhammad ibn An-Nu’man ibn Abdus-Salam from Imam Malik:
قال أبو الشيخ الأنصاري في كتابه طبقات المحدّثين: حدّثنا عبد الرحمن بن الفيض( )، قال: ثنا هارون بن سليمان( )، قال: سمعت محمد بن النعمان بن عبدالسلام يقول: (( أتى رجل مالكَ بنَ أنس فقال: الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى كيف استوى؟، قال: فأطرق، وجعل يعرق، وجعلنا ننتظر ما يأمر به، فرفع رأسه، فقال: (( الاستواء منه غير مجهول، والكيف منه غير معقول، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة، وما أراك إلاّ ضالاًّ
Again contradicts the wording and narration of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ as-Sa’igh!
The same in the athar of Bashshar Al-Khaffaf from Imam Malik as reported by Ibn Majah in his Tafsir:
قالا: كنّا عـند مالك بن أنس فأتـاه رجل فسأله عن قوله: الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى ، كيف استوى؟ فأطرق مالك مليًّا، وعلاه الرحضاء، ثم قال: (( الكيف غير معقول، الاستواء مجهول( )، والإيمان به واجب، والسؤال عنه بدعة، وما أظنّك إلاّ ضالاًّ، ثم أمر به فأخرج
NO mention of the wording of Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh, nor the context!
Ibn Rushd in his work “Al-Bayan wat-Tahsil” reports from Sahnun who says that he is reporting from “some of the companions of Malik”
قال سحنون: أخبرني بعض أصحاب مالك أنَّه كان قاعداً عند مالك فأتاه رجل فقال: (( يا أبا عبد الله مسألة؟، فسكت عنه ثم قال له: مسألة؟، فسكت عنه، ثم عاد فرفع إليه مالك رأسَه كالمجيب له، فقال السائل: يا أبا عبد الله: الرَّحْمَنُ عَلَى العَرْشِ اسْتَوَى ، كيف كان استواؤه؟ فطأطأ مالك رأسَه ساعة ثم رفعه، فقال: (( سألتَ عن غير مجهول، وتكلّمتَ في غير معقول، ولا أراك إلاَّ امرأ سوء، أَخرِجوه ))( ).
No mention of Abdullah ibn Naf’i's wording or context!
These are 8 narrations, most of them Sahih, some of then are of Hasan status all contradicting the wording and the context reported from Abdullah ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh as is in the Tamhid of Ibn Abdul-Barr!
What does this prove you ask? It proves that Abdullah ibn Nafi’ was weak in memory and did report anomalous reports from Imam Malik that contradicted those who were of more proficient memory. This is proof that what Imam Ahmad said regarding him is truth!
We await your response Ahmad Attiyah and co…
was-salam
Abu Layth
Oh, and if dhahabi said this, it is a mistake due to the indisputable problems in Abdullah ibn Nafi’s memorization. Adh-Dhahabi made other claims that were faulty as well, such as regarding Imam al-Bayhaqi when he said: “His sphere of hadith is not large, but Allah
(SWT) blessed him in his narrations for the excellence of his method in them and his sagacity and expertise in the subject-matters and narrators.
Such was a blunder about the Imam and was refuted by Dr. Najm abdur-Rahman Khalaf in his mawarid al-Bayhaqi. You can see this point mentioned in the bio of Imam Al-Bayhaqi on Shafiifiqh.com:
http://www.shafiifiqh.com/?p=471
There are many mistakes of Adh-Dhahabi pointed out by Hafith Ibn Hajr as well regarding Adh-Dhahabi’s stances.
was-salam
Abu Layth
Wa’alaykum Salam Faisal,
Here is an ‘Eid gift for you:
http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=699
Make du’aa that Allah
forgives my sins, and yours please.
was-salam,
Abu Layth
You said:
“Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan ash-Shaybani – rahmatullah ‘alayh – did not enter into doubt in the later part of his life regarding the words of his master Abu Hanifah. Such has not been a criticism upon him by the scholars of Jarh.”
What on earth is the difference? The point is that he had memory problems as stated by many scholars, yet they utilize him because he could convey the “meanings” of Abu Hanifah’s opinions. Exact words aren’t always that relevant.
“Oh, and if dhahabi said this”
Sorry my mistake, Al Dhahabi was quoting Qadi Iyyad. That is actually more damaging to you, since Qadi Iyyad is one of the Maliki giants.
Also Qadhi ‘Iyadh mentioned a book of Imam Malik which was narrated from him by Abdullah bin Nafe’ As-Sa’igh alone. After mentioning its Isnad he said, “and its sanad is also Sahih, and its narrators are all trustworthy”.[Tarteeb Al-Madarik (1/109), Ilmiyya]
See also “Ad-Deebaj Al-Madhhab” (pg. 409, Dar At-Turath) by Ibn Farhun Al-Maliki, and “Shajaratan Noor Az-Zakiyyah fee Tabaqat Al-Malikiyyah” (1/55, Matba’a Salafiyya) by Muhammad bin Muhammad Makhluf. All this evidences adds to what was stated by Shaykh Al-Albani in his Mukhtasar Al-Uluww.
2nd comment added:
PART 1:
As for your analysis on comparing Saaigh’s words with the other narrations, you are erroneously assuming that there is a significant difference or contradiction between “ghayr maquul” and “majhulah”.
3rd comment added:
There are two ways to understand ghayr ma’qool. One is either that it means it is impossible and the other is that it means BEYOND OUR COMPREHENSION.
Salamu ‘alaykum,
Firstly Ahmad Attiyya and co, Allah
ta’ala did not afford you the right to post on Seekingilm.com, as it is classified as the personal property of an individual, and therefore Seekingilm.com has the right to monitor as well as delete anything within our personal property. We give you the privilege , therefore your comments which I have chosen to delete regarding you questioning our “honesty” and the comments we have received which are threatening etc, as well as the posting of other ridiculous rhetoric you folk muster up in order to veil the fact that your argument is null, will not be tolerated here on SeekingIlm.com.
Everyone is welcome to post, but such does not mean we are obliged to allow your comments through. You can read the rules for posting here: http://www.seekingilm.com/rules
I have allowed your arguments to be seen, have listened to your arguments for the support of this weak athar from Imam Malik, and anyone with an unbiased mind will see that your arguments are weak. None of what you have presented in your comments remove the fact that Ibn Nafi’s memory was weak from Imam Malik as stated by Imam Ahmad. None of what you have presented responds to the fact that he contradicted those who were more trustworthy than he in multiple narrations. All of this shows that this athar from Imam Malik is unsound. As for your claim of Adh-Dhahabi – which there is no need to verify, or your claim of Qadi ‘Iyad as well – if it be true as I will not waste my time referencing it, then we do not believe he is correct in this matter, and we hold that Imam Ahmad’s specific Jarh and the clear contradictory narrations from Ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh are all proof against the argument of whomever claims the memory of Ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh was somehow strong in narrating from Imam Malik.
As for your apologia regarding ghayru ma’qul then we will deal with these issues in another thread, as I feel such is really off the topic of the article – which is that this athar is weak. The fact is you are missing the point, and that is that he CONTRADICTED those more trustworthy than he, and therefore it shows that he was weak in memory and prone to error, therefore you must show us someone who can corroborate this narrative – which you cannot. You have failed to solidify Ibn Nafi’ As-Sa’igh from Imam Malik, as the Jarh upon him and the clear fact that he contradicted those more trustworthy than he from Imam Malik, manifests such failure.
When you have a response of real substance regarding this matter, then post your comment. Until then, we are tired of the same old rhetoric that has already been squelched.
was-salam