العباس ولم يذكر الأحنف وفيه قال ( بينهما مسيرة خمس مائة ومن كل سماء إلى سماء مسيرة خمس مائة سنة وكثف كل سماء خمس مائة سنة ) وفي آخره ( وليس يخفى عليه من أعمال بني آدم شيء ) ( 1 ) ورواه أبو داود عن محمد بن الصباح ( 2 ) وعن أحمد بن حفص ( 3 ) وعن أحمد بن أبي سريج ( 4 ) عن عبدالرحمن بن عبدالله بن سعد ومحمد بن سعيد عن عمرو بن أبي قيس عن سماك بإسناده ومعناه ورواه الترمذي عن عبد بن حميد عن عبدالرحمن بن سعد عن عمرو بن أبي قيس بإسناده ومعناه وقال حديث حسن غريب ( 5 ) وروى شريك بعض هذا الحديث عن سماك ووقفه ورواه ابن ماجة عن محمد بن يحيى عن محمد بن الصباح ( 6 )

Can you provide a reference and the full hadith which you cited:

“The hadith of Abu Hurayrah … “fa huwa ‘indahu fawq al ‘arsh” that is reported in the Sahihayn. ”

I also note elsewhere someone mentioned:

“Nabi salalahu alayhi salam said: “Wal arshu fawqa dhalika wallahu fawqa al arsh “…and the throne is above that, and Allah is above the throne” [Laalakaaee. Adh dhahabi and ibn qayyim authenticated it]”

I can’t seem to locate the full text of this hadith…. anyone come across it?

Ibn Hazm writes:

Truly, the meaning of His saying, exalted is He, ‘He made istiwā on the Throne’ is that He acted
in some way on the Throne; namely, He ended His creation with it, for there is nothing after the
Throne which is the end of creation; there is nothing after it, neither space, nor void. Anybody
who denies that the creation has a finite limit in distance and time and space joins the
materialists and leaves Islam. 3

Nothing can be in space except what is a body or an accident [what occurs in a substance like
heat, color and so on] in a body; there is no other possibility, for neither reason nor imagination
can conceive of another possibility at all. Since it is concluded that Allāh is neither a body nor an
accident, it is concluded that He cannot occupy space absolutely. And Allāh is our help.4

http://marifah.net/articles/ascribingplace-ibnhazm.pdf

As far as I can tell Imam Malik’s statement:

“Allah is in the heavens, and…” is simply affirming the ayah:

“have you taken security from Him Who is in the Heaven …” 67:17

You can read the tafsir of this verse here:

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=67&tAyahNo=16&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

Perhaps Abul Layth could translate the first part of the tafsir where Imam al-Qurtubi brings Ibn Abbas’s explanation.

The latter part was previously translated as:

“I (Imam al-Qurtubi) say:
This may mean: “Do you feel secure that He Who is the Creator of whomever is in the heavens will not make the earth swallow you, as He did Korah?” The more exacting hold that “in the heavens” signifies: “Do you feel secure from Him who is over the heavens,” just as Allah says: “Journey in the earth” (9:2) meaning over it; not over it by way of physical contact or spatialization, but by way of omnipotent power and control. Another position is that it means: “Do you feel secure from Him Who holds sway over (`ala) the heavens,” i.e. just as it is said: “So-and-so is over Iraq and the Hijaz,” meaning that he is the governor and commander of them. The hadiths on this subject are numerous, rigorously authenticated (sahih), and widely known, and indicate the exaltedness of Allah, being undeniable by anyone save an atheist or obstinate ignoramus. Their meaning is to dignify Allah and exalt Him above what is base and low, to characterize Him by exaltedness and grandeur, not by being in places, particular directions, or within limits, for these are the qualities of physical bodies. The hands are only raised skyward when one supplicates because the sky is from whence divine revelation descends and rains fall, the place of purity and the wellspring of the purified ones of the angels, and that the works of servants are raised to it and over it is the Throne and His Paradise, just as Allah has made the Ka`ba the direction of supplication and prayer. He created all places and has no need of them. He was without space or time in His beginningless eternality before creating space and time, and is now as He ever has been.”

So, even if the statement were true the meaning is not as the salafis would like to claim that Allah is in a location or place.

was-salam

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

“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.

Assalamu Alaikum brother Abu Layth,

Is Dr. Bashar’s tahqeeq on Tahdheeb Al Kamal available online?

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

As Al Dhahabi said:

فإنَّ الصائغ أكبر وأقدم وأثبت في مالك لطول صحبته له

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

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

Is Dr. Bashar’s tahqeeq on Tahdheeb Al Kamal available online?