Translated by the wonderful brothers at Al-Ma’rifah!

Click Here

• We should look for excuses for Muslims
• Swearing by the Nabi ‘alayhis salam and the Ka’bah are held permitted by many as stated by Ibn Mundhir as the “intent is extolling Allah and drawing near to Him, these do not fall under the prohibition.”
• Discusses that Tawaf falls under Makruh or Haram and the majority say Haraam, clarifying that Shirk and kufr do not fall into the matter unless belief that the dead person is co-equal with Allah is manifested.

There are several amazing jewels in this discourse that I took away from this lecture, and feel free to add what you like in the comments:

• The recognition of Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, T.J. Winters, as the Ghazali of the west. There is no doubt in my mind, after hearing his multitude of lectures and listening to his deep insight, that Shaykh Abdal Hakim has a strong command of the sciences, and he has achieved this – as Shaykh Habib is pointing out – through his mastery of the Ihya Ulum Ad-Din!
• The Shaykh clearly uses the Sunni Imams – particularly Imam Ahmad – for the solidification of weak hadith as a source of benefit and meritorious acts and – regarding Imam Ahmad – as a source of fiqh when there is nothing authentic related regarding a fiqh issue. He also refers the student to the agreeable words of Al-Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani, Ibn As-Salah in his Muqaddimah, Imam As-Suyuti in Tadrib Ar-Rawi, Imam An-Nawawi in his introduction to his Al-Adhkaar. He states clearly that the scholars of hadith – the vast majority [jumhur] of them hold this to be the case.
•  I should point out that regarding the hadith which Shaykh Habib – a Shafi’i – is alluding to regarding the measure of water being a qullatayn and not carrying najasah with it, that the translator does not translate his words precisely – which he is certainly excused for. The shaykh says – and note his mastery of the nomenclature of the Ulum Al-Hadith – that this chain is mutakallim fihi, i.e. that there is scholarly debate regarding the authenticity of this narration. He then goes to say that what is – in his opinion – the closer view to the truth [aqrab] is that it has weakness [note he did not call it da’if absolutely, but that its weakness is closer to truth.
• Another point the Shaykh correctly makes is that in no chapter of the Ihya does Imam Al-Ghazali make his point or argument by only weak hadith, but that he always uses ayaat from the Qur’an or rigorously authentic (sahih) hadith to prove his point, adding along with it weak hadith.

Lesson in Adab: The Shaykh points out that Hafith Al-’Iraqi – the master of Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani – when doing his takhrij (research and commentary regarding the hadith quoted in the Ihya) would say – and this is known only to one who has delved into the works takhrij – ‘I could not find this hadith‘. In other words, ‘Iraqi would not bash and degrade the hadith being quoted as fabricated or even weak  ’having no source for it’ as the extremist polluters of the religion the pseudo-salafis and their ilk do, but he would simply admit that he did not know of the source of the hadith – which is an incredibly gentle way of saying there is not an isnaad (chain) that I have found for this hadith, but it may exist so I should have enough humility to say it like it is.

In fairness, some of the pseudo-salafis do say that they ‘can’t find‘ a hadith or a biography for a reporter, but interestingly enough, when they do say such they immediately conclude that the athar or hadith is weak, unlike Hafith Al-’Iraqi and the masters of the past. I recently came upon a horrid example of this regarding the very authentic words of Imam Ash-Shafi’i ‘There are two types of Bida’ah’. Halabi and Hilali, two pseudo-salafi Albanites who have polluted the works of the scholars with their immense ignorance of hadith, claimed that Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Fadl As-Sayrafi was unknown because they could ‘not find a biography for him‘! Lo and Behold, beloved ummah of Prophet Muhammad, an ignorant non-scholar – myself – found his biography in less than 5 minutes of simple research! You can read the research and the refutation of them here with the scans and the references! This is an example of the treachery in abandoning the tradition of the traditionists!

The extremists that Shaykh Habib Ali Jifri, qaddasa Allahu sirruh, refers to in this discourse are in fact the so-called “salafis” who have polluted Sunni works with their blatant lies and manipulations for the past 150 years – unless you include Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab in their cult and then you have to add about another 300. May Allah bless the Sunni ‘Ulama’ for their defense of the tradition as it is attacked by the pseudo-salafis and the modernists of this era amin!

Part 1:

http://youtu.be/GI7RUARO4_Q

Part 2:

http://youtu.be/SW-CkASfNvg

Part 3:

http://youtu.be/N44rAa5tuZ4

Shaykh Khatri performs wudu was recorded around 2000 during a series of Maliki Fiqh lessons taught by Shaykh Khatri at Ustadha Eiman Sidky’s home in the USA.

Translator – Ustadh Khalil Moore

Camera & Editing – Sidi Aaron Sellars

Alhamdulillah for the ability given to us to research the claims of the pseudo-salafis for ourselves, and having the chains of serfdom to pseudo-salafi “Shaykhs” removed from our necks! For our brethren shackled in pseudo-salafi Saudi Arabia do not have the ability to freely search out the truth! May Allah free them from the oppression of the Wahhabi propaganda machine funded by oil dollars, Amin! All of us reading this article should thank Allah ta’ala for this ability!

Several years ago we compiled statements of Imam Ash-Shafi’i (rahmatullah ‘alayh), the forefather of this Ummah that standardized Usul Al-Fiqh with his Risalah, in which he held that there existed good bida’ah and evil bida’ah. We recently came upon some quotes from some pseudo-salafi “Shaykhs”, particularly Salim Al-Hilali and ‘Ali Al-Halabi – students of al-Albani who claimed these reports were weak. In this article we will refute the baseless accusation and expose such ignorance in this science.

Imam Al-Bayhaqi, in what was called the greatest biographical work on Imam ash-Shafi’i by Taqiyud-Din As-Subki – Manaqib Al-Imam Ash-Shafi’i, narrates the following report from Imam Ash-Shafi’i:

“It was narrated to us by Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl who had it narrated to him from Abul-Abbas Al-Asam who said Rabi’ ibn Sulayman narrated to us from Imam ash-Shafi’i that he said,

“Innovated matters in religion (min Al-Umur) are of two kinds: 1) Whatever is innovated and contravenes the Book, or the Sunnah, or a narration, or Ijma‘ (consensus) – then that is an innovation of misguidance. 2) Whatever is innovated of [any and all good things [min al-khayr] and that does not contradict any of these – then this is a novelty which is not blameworthy.  And ‘Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) said concerning the night-prayer in the month of Ramadan: ‘ni’matu bida’at hadhihi‘ what a good innovation this is’ meaning it was innovated without having existed before and, even so, there was nothing in it that contradicted the above.”

This clearly refutes the claim by the pseudo-salafis that Imam Ash-Shafi’i only meant bida’ah “linguistically”, as here he clearly says  min al-Umur – which means ‘from the religion’ as it is an allusion to the hadith of The Nabi ‘alayhis salam where He stated ‘min amrinaa hadha – this affair [religion] of ours’. Furthermore he is utilizing it regarding an act of worship that was abandoned as well as not performed by the Prophet Muhammad; we mean here a) He abandoned tarawih as the Sahih hadith states b) he never gathered the people behind one Imam in doing this Salah, c) he did not read the entire Qur’an throughout the month of Ramadan etc. Furthermore, it proves that Imam Ash-Shafi’i utilized the statement of Umar ibn Al-Khattab to prove the existence of “good bida’ah”. So the question arises is this report Sahih from Imam ash-Shafi’i?

Claim of Weakness by Pseudo-Salafi:

The claim regarding this chain by Salim Al-Hilali and ‘Ali Al-Halabi,  pseudo-salafi propagandists and students of Muhammad al-Albani is that Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl is that he is somehow unknown as ‘he did not find a biography for him فإني لم أجد له ترجمة‘ ((In the horrible work labeled “al-Bida’ah” of Hilali and Usul Al-Bid’ah by Al-Halabi, a work full of lies and distortions indeed! )) in the works of Jarh and Ta’dil.

The Sunni Response:

This chain is certainly Sahih by the standards of the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah. We truly wonder if Salim al-Hilali and co. truly ever looked for the biographical information on Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl as-Sayrafi! For it did not take long for a non-scholar, such as myself, to find his entry within the very well known work Siyar Al-’Alam An-Nubala’ of Imam Adh-Dhahabi. The entry, in its entirety is as follows:

click image to enlarge

“5901: Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan As-Sayrafi [died 412 A.H]

As-Sayrafi, The Shaykh, the Thiqah (trustworthy), The Ma’mun (the reliable), Abu Sa’id, Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan as-Sayrafi, ibn Abi ‘Amru An-Naysaburi. [He then mentions the narrating of him from al-'Asamm - the one who he is narrating this from in this athar under review] [Those who] Reported from him, Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Khatib, Abu Salih Al-Mu’adhdhin, Abu Isma’il Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Harawi [...] “

This is not the only well known work his biographical data is recorded in. In Kitab Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyat of Shaykh Salahud-Din as-Safadi we also find his biographical entry:

Click Image to enlarge

[Excerpt taken from Vol. 5 page 59 of Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyat of Imam Salahud-Din Khalil ibn Aybak As-Safadi [764 A.H] published by Dar Al-Ihya At-turath al-Arabi]:

“Ibn Shadhan Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan, Abu Sa’id ibn ‘Amru An-Naysaburi As-Sayrafi, one of the well known trustworthy (thiqaat) scholars. Those who reported from him are al-Khatib, Al-Bayhaqi, and a large group [of scholars]. He died in the year 412 a.h.”

These are two well known works, available to the masses of Muslims by free download or by purchasing the multiple printed editions, and we thank Allah for allowing us the ability to find the truth!

The problem for Salim Al-Hilali and his cohorts in deception does not stop here however. For there is another completely different narration of this principle by Imam Ash-Shafi’i found in Hilyat al-Awliya:

[Click to Enlarge]

The difference here is the chain and the wording at the end the narration, “And he sought proof with the words of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab regarding the prayer in Ramadan: “This is a good bida’ah!”

Salim Al-Hilali says about this chain:

ففي سنده عبدالله بن محمد العطشي، ذكره الخطيب البغدادي في “تاريخه” والسمعاني في”الأنساب” ولم يذكرا فيه جرحاً ولا تعديلاً.

“In its chain is Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-’Atshi, he was mentioned by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi in his “Tarikh”, and As-Sam’ani in Al-Ansaab, and no criticism or praise was mentioned regarding him!”

Therefore, he is “unknown” for no Jarh or ta’dil has been mentioned regarding him! Imam As-Sam’ani in his Ansaab does mention him as the pseudo-salafis claim:

وأبو القاسم عبد الله بن محمد بن عبدوس العطشي المقرىء، من أهل بغداد، حدث عن إبراهيم بن عبد الله بن الجنيد، وحماد بن الحسن بن عنبسة الوراق، وعلي بن حرب الطائي، ومحمد بن إسحاق الصغاني. روى عنه أبو بكر محمد بن الحسين الآجري وأبو حفص بن شاهين، ويوسف بن عمر القواس وغيرهم. مات في ذي الحجة سنة سبع عشرة وثلاثمائة.

…He was from the people of Baghdad…those that reported from him were Abu Bakr [..] Al-Aajuri, Abu Hafs ibn Shahin and Yusuf ibn ‘Umar al-Qawwas, and other than them.

If the pseudo-salafis argue that he is “Majhul-Al-Haal“, for in such a case no one has criticized him nor has anyone praised him on record, then his unknowness (jahalah) is raised for there are more than two trustworthy narrators who narrate from him; Ibn Shahin and Abu Bakr Al-Aajuri – who is credited for many works that have been preserved throughout the generations, and Yusuf ibn ‘Umar al-Qawwas. As for Yusuf ibn ‘Umar al-Qawwas then Al-Khatib said he was a Hafith and Thiqah, Dhahabi describes him as a “Master of Hadith, Thiqah!” [Siyar Al-'Alam An-Nubala': entry 6843]

Therefore his “majhul al-haal” is lifted from him. We have compiled many statements from the scholars of hadith who held this position to be sound; namely Ibn Abdul Barr, Ibn As-Salah, Al-Qastalani, Ad-Daraqutni, Ibn Hibban,  Imam Al-Bazzar, Imam An-Nawawi and many others.

What further strengthens the standing of Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-’Atshi is the fact that this is corroborated authentically through the chain of Imam Al-Bayhaqi that we mentioned above.

Conclusion and Warning

This text from Imam Ash-Shafi’i is preserved and Sahih. The Shafi’is have utilized this text as proof throughout their works defining bida’ah, and they have upheld the view of Imam Ash-Shafi’i throughout the ages. Even Ibn Taymiyyah – an arch enemy to the Sunni creed who died in Ahlus Sunnah’s prison for his deviance – held this text to be authentic in his Majmu’ Al-Fatawa [20/163] with the words:

رواه البيهقي باسناده الصحيح

“It is reported by Al-Bayhaqi with a Sahih chain!”

I call upon all of the pseudo-salafis to recant their position that this is not authentic upon Imam Ash-Shafi’i, and such includes the pseudo-salafis on the internet such as Sahab, Ahlul-Hadith, and in English the distorter, Umm Abdullah on her devious blog who wrote a misleading article quoting  her deviant and deceptive Imam, Salim Al-Hilali claiming these narrations were weak [as of Aug 1st 2010 she has said she will remove it]!

All of this shows that the deviant pseudo-salafi cult, as we have shown many times on SeekingIlm.com, will go to any means necessary to distort the Sunni understanding of Bida’ah. They will lie, cheat, and deceive the masses in their works labeling men who are established as trustworthy, weak, and those weak as trustworthy. We warn you all from their deviance and treachery and ask Allah to save you all from their propaganda Amin!

May Allah bless the Prophet Muhammad, His Family, and those that follow him Amin!

[updated Aug. 1st 2010]

Disclaimer: This article is intended for Shafi’is. If individuals from other schools read this, take note that we are not attacking your school, or saying that your madhhab’s views are invalid. We respect all 4 Sunni schools and respect the differences of them as the Sunni scholars of our glorious past did as well!

There is no doubt that the official view of the Madhhab of Imam Ash-Shafi’i is that a man or a woman touching the opposite gender- skin to skin – nullifies wudu’. Imam An-Nawawi solidifies this as the “Jadid” or new school opinion of Imam Ash-Shafi’i himself throughout many of works, Kitab At-Tahqiq, Majmu’ etc. To see solid proof based legal arguments from the Qur’an and the Sunnah regarding this issue, as well as refutations of the Hanafis and others, click here. I would like, however, to mention some possible dispensations from within the school for those who may face some need or reason to utilize these views.

Everything I have quoted below is found within the Majmu’ of Imam An-Nawawi.

1) Imam An-Nawawi in his Majmu’ [vol. 2 page 29] mentions the second view of Imam Ash-Shafi’i which is that the malmus (the one being touched) does not have their wudu’ broken by being touched. This view has support from both the Qur’an linguistically and from the hadith of A’ishah (r) who said she touched the Nabi’s foot while he was making Salah – and so it did not nullify his wudu. This is one of the ways some of the Imams reconciled the reports with the aayat on this issue. This is actually reported in the report of Harmalah from Imam ash-Shafi’i alone. Qadi ash-Shashi and Imam ar-Rawyani [and a small group - according to Imam An-Nawawi] held this to be the “Sahih” view of the school – though it is certainly not according to the majority!

2) Another dispensation that could be taken in this regards from the school of Imam ash-Shafi’i is that Ar-Rafi’i quotes Imam Al-Hanaati who quotes Imam Surayj that he held the view that desire “shahwah” is involved in “lams” and therefore if the touch is not with “desire”, wudu’ is not broken – he ascribes this view to ash-Shafi’i as well. This is a weak opinion in our school.

3) Another dispensation is the view of Imam Al-Haramayn al-Juwayni and Imam Al-Fawraani as well as others, that the “touch” must be intentional (qasdan). Therefore if the touch is accidental it does not nullify wudu’.

All of these reports Imam an-Nawawi says about, “All of these views are anomalous (shadhah) and weak (da’ifah). [Vol. 2 page 29]

4) To add to this is the established view that if one touches hair or fingernails, such does not break wudu’ and this is the view of Imam ash-Shafi’i in his Al-Umm – and the relied upon verdict of the school.

5) Also the correct view from Imam ash-Shafi’i and companions (save for Harmalah) that blood-related Mahrams do not break wudu by touching.

As for the relatives by way of breast-feeding, then the correct view as stated by An-Nawawi and Rafi’i is that touching them does not break wudu’ as well. This includes the spouses of one’s children too. [Majmu' vol 2 page 31]

6) As for touching a child or an elderly person that is not related, there exists two views as well, that it does break it or it does not. There is agreement of the major Imams that the Sahih (correct) view is that the child does not break wudu [ibid. pag 32]. As for the elderly non-Mahram, then in the view of the majority according to Imam an-Nawawi, it does break wudu’. Though Imam Al-Jurjani and Al-Mahamali in Al-Muqni’ report an anomalous view that such does not break wudu.

As for the definition of what a “child” is then it is based upon the ‘Urf (customs) of the people as stated by Nawawi, though he states that he read that Imam al-Ghazzali said in his Ta’liq that a child (As-Saghirah) is 7 years or younger. Though Nawawi said that what is correct is that customs take precedence in this matter. [ibid. page 32]

7) Touching over a garment does not break wudu’ according to the relied upon view.

8 ) As for touching the dead person, then there is disagreement as well. The correct is that it does break wudu’, as Imam al-Baghawi and a group of jurists said of them being Al-Fawrani, Ad-Darimi, and Al-Mahamili. However the minority view is that it does not break wudu’

9) A Severed limb! Yes you read that correctly! The first view is that it nullifies it just as it would have done so if connected. The correct view is that it does not nullify as it is not considered “a person” and desire etc does not exist. “This is the well known way of Khurasani jurists … as well as the ‘Iraqi school, and Imam al-Baghawi and Qadi Husayn…” [ibid page 33]

10) If one touches a hermaphrodite that is a variegated hermaphrodite, looks like a man, or a woman, or looks like both man and woman, then wudu’ is not broken due to the possibility that they could be either (ihtimaal). As for the hermaphrodite touching another individual then it seems that the hermaphrodite’s wudu’ is broken, though the wudu’ of either the man or woman is not. As for the hermaphrodites wudu’ being broken or not when being touched, then there are two views on this issue. May Allah save us!

10) If you do not know if the person is a woman or a man it does not break wudu’.

* I guess this may be a problem if one encounters a transvestite -whatever that even means anymore – and one does not know what they are.  Or if one encounters a lesbian that may look like a man – or a man who may look like a woman and cannot be certain. This is one messed up world we live in – but a messed up world the scholars thought about some 1000 years ago! May Allah save us from such encounters Amin!

wa Billahit-tawfiq!

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” ((http://www.taimiah.com/index.aspx?function=Printable&id=2377&node=10642#2 )) ! 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

Imam Muslim narrates the following hadith in his Sahih:

أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ‏ ‏صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ‏ ‏قَالَ يَنْزِلُ رَبُّنَا تَبَارَكَ وَتَعَالَى كُلَّ لَيْلَةٍ إِلَى السَّمَاءِ الدُّنْيَا حِينَ يَبْقَى ثُلُثُ اللَّيْلِ الْآخِرُ فَيَقُولُ ‏ ‏مَنْ يَدْعُونِي فَأَسْتَجِيبَ لَهُ وَمَنْ يَسْأَلُنِي فَأُعْطِيَهُ وَمَنْ يَسْتَغْفِرُنِي فَأَغْفِرَ لَهُ ‏

“Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, ‘Our Lord – Blessed and Exalted is He! – descends every night to the lowest heaven in the last third of the night and says: Who is supplicating Me so that I may answer him? Who is asking forgiveness from Me so that I may forgive him?”

Shaykh ul-Islam, Imam An-Nawawi says in his Sharh Sahih Muslim,

هَذَا الْحَدِيث مِنْ أَحَادِيث الصِّفَات , وَفِيهِ مَذْهَبَانِ مَشْهُورَانِ لِلْعُلَمَاءِ سَبَقَ إِيضَاحهمَا فِي كِتَاب الْإِيمَان وَمُخْتَصَرهمَا أَنَّ أَحَدهمَا وَهُوَ مَذْهَب جُمْهُور السَّلَف وَبَعْض الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ : أَنَّهُ يُؤْمِن بِأَنَّهَا حَقّ عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِاَللَّهِ تَعَالَى , وَأَنَّ ظَاهِرهَا الْمُتَعَارَف فِي حَقّنَا غَيْر مُرَاد , وَلَا يَتَكَلَّم فِي تَأْوِيلهَا مَعَ اِعْتِقَاد تَنْزِيه اللَّه تَعَالَى عَنْ صِفَات الْمَخْلُوق , وَعَنْ الِانْتِقَال وَالْحَرَكَات وَسَائِر سِمَات الْخَلْق . وَالثَّانِي : مَذْهَب أَكْثَر الْمُتَكَلِّمِينَ وَجَمَاعَات مِنْ السَّلَف وَهُوَ مَحْكِيّ هُنَا عَنْ مَالِك وَالْأَوْزَاعِيِّ : أَنَّهَا تُتَأَوَّل عَلَى مَا يَلِيق بِهَا بِحَسْب مَوَاطِنهَا . فَعَلَى هَذَا تَأَوَّلُوا هَذَا الْحَدِيث تَأْوِيلَيْنِ أَحَدهمَا : تَأْوِيل مَالِك بْن أَنَس وَغَيْره مَعْنَاهُ : تَنْزِل رَحْمَته وَأَمْره وَمَلَائِكَته كَمَا يُقَال : فَعَلَ السُّلْطَان كَذَا إِذَا فَعَلَهُ أَتْبَاعه بِأَمْرِهِ . وَالثَّانِي : أَنَّهُ عَلَى الِاسْتِعَارَة , وَمَعْنَاهُ : الْإِقْبَال عَلَى الدَّاعِينَ بِالْإِجَابَةِ وَاللُّطْف . وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَم . ‏

This hadith is from the hadith of the Sifat (of Allah ), and regarding it there are two well known madhdhabs: the first, and it is the madhhab of the salaf and some of the Mutakallimin (scholars of kalam) that it is believe in their [i.e. the attributes] reality according to what befits Allāh ta’ala, and that the literal meaning that we commonly apply to ourselves is not what is meant, and that one does not speak regarding its interpretation while holding the belief that Allah  ta’alā is free from the attributes of the created, and from translocation, and movement, and the rest of the attributes of created beings. The second is the madhdhab of the majority of the Mutakallimīn, and a group from amongst the Salaf, and it is what is reported from Mālik and al-Awzā’ī that they are interpreted figuratively but only according to their appropriate contextual meanings. On this basis there are two interpretations (ta’wils). The first is the ta’wil of Imam Malik ibn Anas and other than he, that its meaning is the descent of His mercy and decree and His angels. [as is said regarding the Sultan ...] and the Second interpretation is that it is an Isti’arah (metaphor) to signifiy turning to (iqbal) to those who supplicate to Him with fulfillment by answering [the du'aa] and showing lutf (kindness, generosity) [to those beseeching Him].

[Sharh Sahih Muslim; Kitab Salat al-Musafirin, number 1261 of hadith.al-islam.com of Sahih Muslim]

Shaykh ul Islam, Imam An-Nawawi (qaddasa Allahu Ruhu) quotes Imam Malik and Al-Awza’i as making ta’wil, that is interpreting this hadith away from its literal meaning, as ‘the descent of His mercy and decree and His angels’. Note here that Imam An-Nawawi only quotes two schools:

1) The school that believes in these texts, without believing in their literal meaning, and to adopt silence in discussing them. This method is called tafwid.

2) The school that interprets them, and this is Imam Malik and Awza’i's reports.

He does not report a third school, a school revived in our time, that endorses the literal meaning – the meaning which entails corporeality and displacement for Allah – and thus rejects such a schools validity in Sunni creed!

Abu ‘Umar Ibn Abdul-Barr quotes in his Tamhid a report from Imam Malik regarding this hadith:

“And it is reported from Muhammad ibn ‘Ali Al-Jabali, and he was from the trustworthy Muslims of Qayrawan who said, it was narrated to me from Jaami’ ibn Sawadah in Egypt saying, it was narrated to us from Mutarrif from Malik ibn Anas that he was asked about the hadith ‘Verily Allah descends at night to the heavens of the earth’, so Malik said, “His command descends!”

This was reported in At-Tamhid of Ibn Abdul-Barr Vol. 7 page 143, who says – even though quoting this – that the majority of the Imams of the Sunnah affirm this hadith saying ‘He descends just as Rasulullah said, while believing within his hadith, without delving into the modality (wa la yukayyifuna), though he says further down the page, “And it was said by a people of Ahlul-Athar also: ‘His command descends, and his mercy descends’. This was reported from Habib, the Katib (transcriber) of Malik, and other than him. And this was rejected by another group from them…[and he goes on saying that Allah does whatever He wills etc]…and then he quotes the above. Take note that Ibn Abdul-Barr was criticized in creed by the scholars of the Sunnah, especially by the Malikis, see Sidi Gibril’s brief bio of Ibn Abdul-Barr! Also take note that such literal belief was not affirmed by Shaykh ul Islam Imam An-Nawawi in his commentary of this hadith! Hafith Al-’Iraqi, the Shaykh of Hafith Ibn Hajr said of Ibn Abdul-Barr, “He is one of those who hold that Allah has a direction, therefore beware of him.” [Tarh At-Tathrib 2:382]

This exact wording quoted by Imam An-Nawawi from Imam Malik was also narrated without chain from Ibn Sayyid Al-Andalusi Al-Batluyusi in his work “Al-Insaaf”:

“And for this hadith there are two Sahih interpretations that do not allude to tashbih (likening Allah to the creation). The first is what was alluded to by Imam Malik rahimahullah [then he quotes as Imam An-Nawawi did]…”

Imam Ibn Sayyid Al-Andalusi, born 444 A.H. died in 521 A.H. during the reign of Amir Al-Mu’minin Ibn Tashfeen, starts his explanation of this hadith by saying,

“The Mujassimah (anthropomorphists) made his ‘nuzul‘ literal (haqiqi), exalted is Allah above what these oppressors [and in another manuscript - ignoramuses/Jahilun] ascribe to Allah! And the ‘Arifin of Allah have consensus that Allah does not ‘displace’, as displacement is from the attributes of the temporal/created entities!” [page 84 of his Insaf, published by Dar Al-Fikr, Damascus]

To download this book of benefit click here.

I am currently only able to find two chains for this athar from Imam Malik, and it seems it is the only available regarding this specific issue:

1) The one mentioned by Ibn Abdul-Barr from Habib that he narrated without chain. The certain problem is with Habib, who is Habib ibn Abi Habib Abu Muhammad Al-Misri who is definitely questioned by the scholars of hadith. Ahmad declared him “not trustworthy”. Ibn Hajr said about him in his Taqrib, “Matruk (abandoned), declared a liar by Abu Dawud and a group [of scholars].” [entry 1087 mu'assasah ar-risalah] This certainly makes the chain rejected.

2) The second athar narrated with full chain by Ibn Abdul-Barr.

In Kashf Al-Al-Hathith the author quotes another athar that goes through Jami’ that is reported by Ibn Al-Jawzi who declared Jami’ to be “majhul – unknown”. Ibn Hajr in his Lisan Al-Mizaan says about him,

جامع بن سوادة عن آدم بن أبي إياس بخبر باطل في الجمع بين الزوجين كأنه آفته قال حدثنا آدم ثنا بن أبي ذئب عن الزهري عن أبي سلمة عن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه مرفوعا من مشي في تزويج بن اثنين أعطاه الله بكل خطوة وبكل كلمة عبادة سنة ومن مشى في تفريق بين اثنين كان حقا على الله أن يضرب رأسه بألف

صخرة من جهنم خرج بن الجوزي هذا الحديث في الموضوعات من طريق محمد بن إسماعيل بن العباس الوراق وكان أحد الحفاظ الثقات عن علي بن محمد بن أحمد الفقيه عن جامع هذا وما عرفت علي بن محمد وروى له الدارقطني في غرائب مالك حديثا من وجهين عنه عن زهير بن عباد عن أحمد بن الحسين اللهبي عن عبد الملك بن الحكم عن مالك عن نافع عن بن عمر رفعه آخر من يدخل الجنة رجل من جهينة فيسأله أهل الجنة هل بقي أحد يعذب فيقول لا فيقول عند جهينة الخبر اليقين الدارقطني الحديث باطل وجامع ضعيف وكذا عبد الملك بن الحكم

He quotes here Imam Ad-Daraqutni who says in his Ghara’ib Imam Malik a report Daraqutni deems null (batil), and says about Jaami’, “Da’if (weak).” This weakening by Ad-Daraqutni was also quoted in Maqasid Al-Hasanah ((http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?hflag=1&bk_no=1849&pid=353638 )).

I could not find praise for Jaami’ and so it seems that this athar is weakened by him being present in the chain.

I saw in the Tahqiq of Risalat Al-Waafiyah of Abi Amru Ad-Dani by the pseudo-salafi Abi Anas Ar-Rashidi published by Dar-Al-Basirah, the claim that Mutarrif ibn Abdullah ibn Mutarrif  was weak, the nephew of Imam Malik ibn Anas. Ibn Abi Hatim reports from Abu Hatim that he said regarding him, “Honest (Saduq), but he mingled hadith.” Ibn ‘Adi said of him, “He reports manakir (which means singularly narrated narrations).” This is of course all that they quote regarding him. They do not however quote the view of Hafith Ibn Hajr  who says about him in his Taqrib, “Thiqah (impeccably trustworthy)”, and Ibn Hajr in his Tahthib refutes the claim of Ibn ‘Adi saying that the problem is not with Mutarrif but from an individual who reported from him named “Ahmad ibn Abi Dawud ibn Abi Salih Al-Harrani” who was a liar, so he argues that nothing is wrong with Mutarrif ibn Abdullah. They also do not quote the view of Imam Ad-Daraqutni who says about him, “Thiqah (impeccably trustworthy)” or the words of Ibn Sa’ad, “He was thiqah…” or the inclusion of him in Ibn Hibban’s Thiqaat! [Tahthib At-Tahthib of Hafith Ibn Hajr] So such an aspersion upon this chain is preposterous and uncalled for by the pseudo-salafis!

I have also seen people criticize Muhammad ibn ‘Ali Al-Jabali, of whom Ibn Abdul-Barr says in his own chain of this hadith “He was from the thiqaat (trustworthy) Muslimin in Qayrawan!” Al-Khatib said of him, “It is said (qil) he is a rafidi!”, which is indicates uncertainty. Nevertheless they did not attack his memory, and this athar does not support his bida’ah – which is to revile the companions, and Ibn Abdul-Barr knew what he was talking about considering he was from this man’s region and made such an open claim praising him.

Conclusion:

It seems, and Allah knows best, that this chain has weakness in it due to Jaami’ being from its narrators. This is not an extreme weakness though, as the pseudo-salafis would have us believe, for at worst he is da’if as Imam Ad-Daraqutni stated, and at best he is majhul. Mutarrif is thiqah, as is Muhammad ibn ‘Ali Al-Jabali, even though some will boldly deceive to weaken this chain further. The first chain goes through Habib who was deemed abandoned. So it does not seem based upon the principles of hadith, that it could be utilized to strengthen the hadith of Jaami’.

Nevertheless, the language of Arabic does support such ta’wil as shown by Ibn Sayyid in his Al-Insaaf which you can download above. Such ta’wil was also validated in the language by Shaykhul-Islam Imam An-Nawawi in his Sharh. Imam An-Nawawi held that the safest opinion regarding the sifaat is to believe in them as they come, without believing the literal meanings as such would be tashbih, and remaining silent about its interpretations as he stated in his Sharh Sahih Muslim.

It is interesting to note that in the Risalat Al-Wafiyah of Abi ‘Amru Ad-Daniy there is an authentic athar from Nu’aym ibn Hammad and Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh (radiya Allahu anhuma) of them saying:

“Whoever likens Allah ta’ala to anything of His creation is a Kafir (disbeliever)!”

[Lalaka'i in Sharh Al-'Itiqad #936, with and authentic chain and Ibn 'Asakir in his Taarikh 17/612] Abi ‘Amru Ad-Daniy also says about the hadith of Nuzul,

“…and His nuzul is ‘how‘ He wills, tabarak wa ta’ala, without hadd, without howness (takyif), and without ascribing to Him displacement (intiqaal), and without zawaal.” (pages 22-23)

Shaykh Gibril Haddad says the following about the athar under review in this article:

Narrated from Mutarrif by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd (7:143) with a weak chain because of Jâmi’ ibn Sawada as per al-Dâraqut.nî in Ibn H.ajar’s Lisân (2:93). Also narrated from Salih ibn Ayyûb from Habib ibn Abî Habib – who is very weak – by al-Dhahabî in Syar A’lâm al-Nubalâ’ (8:418). The latter reported in his Mîzân (1:452) from Ibn ‘Adi’s Kamil (2″818) the opinion that all of Ibn Abî Habib’s narrations are forged but this is an extreme statement in light of three factors: (a) Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd (24:177) mentioned Habib as merely weak, adding: “His reports from Mâlik are full of mistakes and condemned matters”; (b) Salih ibn Ayyûb said: “I mentioned this report to Yah.yâ ibn Bukayr and he said: “Excellent, by Allâh! and I did not hear it from Mâlik.” Narrated by al-Dhahabî who describes Ibn Bukayr in Tadhkirat al-H.uffâz. (2:420) as “the muh.addith of Egypt, the Imâm and trustworthy h.adîth Master… one of the vessels of knowledge together with truthfulness and complete reliability… Where is the like of Ibn Bukayr in his leadership in the Religion, his insight in fatwâ, and the abundance of his learning?” (c) Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhîd (7:143) also narrates this report from Habib, then goes on to narrate it from Mutarrif, adding: “It is possible that the matter be as Mâlik said, and Allâh knows best.” It is established that Jâmi’ did narrate from Mutarrif, as stated by al-Mizzî in Tahdhîb al-Kamâl (28:71).

Source

Recently the deceptive and sly enemy of our Ummah, “Shaykh Al-Azhar” Tantawi claimed that “The niqab is a tradition and has nothing to do with Islam.” He further banned the niqab in the noble Azhar, following the whims of the shayatin and taghut within the Egyptian government, may Allah guide them all Amin!

I tried to forward 4 possible reasons why he made this horrible blunder. The first possible reason for his stance that I gave was,

That he is truly ignorant of this matter. If such is the case, it only shows the lack of knowledge held by him and his immense ignorance! It shows he has not picked up a single major work of tafsir, and has in fact abandoned the works of traditional fiqh as well!

In a comment someone challenged me on this point saying:

Dear Abul Layth,

Assalamu’alaikum. How sure are you regarding the option that you wrote assuming that Tantawi have not held a book of tafsir in his life? Are you aware of the fact that he has written a 7000 long tafsir on the Qur’an which took him over 10 years to complete? What book…or article of tafsir have you written my friend?

If it is true that Tantawi wrote a “7000 [page] long tafsir” while still claiming that the Niqab has nothing to do with Islamic law, then one could say that this claim of mine must be null. For certainly this “master of Islam”,”doctor of the law”, “Shaykh of Al-Azhar”, Jurisconsult appointed by the idiot and human rights abuser Hosni Mubarak must certainly know more than the insignificant Abul-Layth!

If it is true that he knows the official quoted stance of the disciples of the Prophet Muhammad,  mainly Ibn ‘Abbas and  ’A'ishah’ as well as the many followers of the disciples such as Ibn Sirin, Hafsah bint Sirin, Fatimah bint Mundhir, ‘Abidah As-Salmani, As-Suddi, Al-Hasan, Qatadah and a large mass of Muslim saints and jurists for the past 1400 years of Islamic legal code, then it is necessary for us to say he has simply ignored the evidence! It would be impossible that in his “immense” knowledge of Islam he could have overlooked what is the most commonly reported view within Qur’anic exegesis for Ahzab (33) verse 59! Let us then peer into the main Sunni books of Qur’anic Tafsir to see if the claims of Tantawi hold merit!

Imam At-Tabari (d 310 A.H.) mentioned in what is considered one of the earliest works in tafsir, that the scholars of the early generations held that 33:59 (referring to the idnaa of the Jilbab) refers – linguistically as well as legally – to covering the face and the whole of the woman:

He quotes the folliwing companions, and tabi’in: Ibn ‘Abbas, ‘Abidah (Some say ‘Ubaidah) As-Salmani. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

He also professes that this verse was revealed to make a distinction between the “slaves” (whores) and the “Free Believing Women”, as the slaves used to go about with their hair and faces exposed, so Allah commanded that the believing women cover their bodies with their Jilbaabs!

Imam At-Tabarani (360 A.H) states in his Tafsir Al-Kabir,

قال المفسِّرون: يُغطِّين رؤُوسَهن ووجوههن إلا عَيناً واحدة

“The Qur’anic commentators state that [the Jilbab is worn] so as to cover the women’s heads and their faces, save for one eye.” ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=91&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam As-Samarqandi (d. 375)  in his Bahr Al-’Ulum also quotes the view that the Jilbab is what is brought upon the face. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=11&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Al-Mawardi (d. 450) in his Tafsir An-Nukt Wal-’Uyun quotes ‘Abidah As-Salmaani also holding the view that the Jilbab is the garment that covers the face. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=11&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Al-Baghawi states in his Ma’alim At-Tanzil that Ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Ubaidah held that the Jilbab was covered their “heads and their faces”. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=13&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Az-Zamakhshari (538 AH), the grammarian and exegete, says:

ومعنى { يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَـٰبِيبِهِنَّ } يرخينها عليهنّ، ويغطين بها وجوههنّ وأعطافهنّ.

And the meaning of this verse is that they drape themselves with the Jilbab, while covering their faces. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=2&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Ibn ‘Atiyyah (d 546), the Spanish Muslim Jurist and Exegete, states in his Al-Muharrar Al-Wajiz that Ibn ‘Abbas, ‘Abidah As-Salmani, and Qatadah aheld the view  that the Jilbab is what covers the face – though quotes Qatadah and another reported view of Ibn ‘Abbas that it is brought to the nose and covers a part of the face. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=14&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi (597) states in his tafsir, “Zad Al-Masir Fi ‘Ilm At-Tafsir”, the opinion regarding this verse:

يغطِّين رؤوسهنّ ووجوهن ليُعلَم أنهنَّ حرائر

“That the women are to cover their heads and their faces so that they are known as free!” ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Fakhr ud Din Ar-Razi (606 A.H) states in his tafsir Mafatih Al-Ghayb

Imam Ibn Abdus-Salam (d 660), known as the Sultan of the scholars, in his Tafsir of the Qur’an states regarding this verse that is the garment that it is brought over the khimaar (scarf) so that nothing is seen down to the cleavage, or it is the garment that is worn so that her face is not seen. أو تغطي به وجهها حتى لا تظهر إلا عينها اليسرى ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=16&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Al-Qurtubi (671) in his famous work of Tafsir also quotes the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Abidah As-Salmani that the Jilbab is worn to cover the face. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam An-Nasafi (710 A.H.) states in his Madark At-Tanzil that it is the garment:

يرخينها عليهن ويغطين بها وجوههن وأعطافهن

“that is loose upon her, and that she covers her face with…” ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=17&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1 ))

The grammarian and scholar, Al-Khazin (725 a.H.)  in his Lubab At-Ta’wil, quotes Ibn ‘Abbas saying that the Jilbab is to be worn so as to cover the face. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=18&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1 ))

Ibn Juzayy Al-Ghranati (The Granadian, 741 A.H.), the well known Spanish Jurist, states in his Tafsir that “the Arab women used to expose their faces as the slaves did. That act would call the men to look at their faces, so Allah commanded that the women cover their faces…” ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=88&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Abu Hayyan (754 A.H.)  in his Bahr Al-Muhit mentions that the free women and the slaves of Jahaliyyah would only cover their hair. When this verse came down the free women covered their faces with the Jilbabs. He also adds to the list of those who hold the face to be cover, Imam As-Suddi the student of the companions. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=19&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Ibn Kathir (774 A.H) in his well known work of Tafsir strongly supports the view that the face of the woman is to be covered by the Jilbab. He quotes Ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Abidah As-Salmani. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Al-Baydawi, the grammarian, jurist, exegete, and scholar of hadith stated in his Anwar At-Tanzil that this verse means:

يغطين وجوههن وأبدانهن

“They are to cover their faces and their bodies…” ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=6&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam As-Suyuti (911 A.H) also states that it is worn to cover the face in his Tafsir. He mentions the report of Muhammad ibn Ka’ab Al-Qurathi also holding the view that the face is to be covered by the Jilbab (he quotes Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Jarir and ibn Mardawayh quoting Ibn ‘Abbas saying that it covers the face). He also quotes reports from Qatadah, ‘Abidah, Ibn Sirin stating the same. See Ad-Durr Al-Manthur and Tafsir Jalalayn, one of the most common referenced works of tafsir in the entire Muslim Ummah!

The Ottoman Shaykh Ul-Islam Abu Su’ud (951 A.H) also quotes the view of As-Suddi that the face is to be covered by the Jilbab in his Irshad. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=28&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Ash-Shaykh Ibn ‘Ajibah (1224 A.H.) , the Shadhili and Maliki Jurist, states in his tafsir of this verse:

يُرخين على وجوههنّ من جلابيبهن فيغطين بها وجوهَهن.

“It means that they are to draw the Jilbabs upon their faces and to cover their faces with them.” ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=3&tTafsirNo=37&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Imam Ash-Shawkani, the Yemeni Mujtahid (1250 AH) states in his Fat-hul-Qadir:

قال الواحدي: قال المفسرون: يغطين وجوههنّ ورؤوسهنّ إلاّ عيناً واحدة،

“Al-Wahidi said, ‘The commentators upon the Qur’an [have said regarding this verse] it means that they cover their faces and their heads leaving one eye exposed.”

He then quotes Al-Hasan as saying, تغطي نصف وجهها they are to cover half of their face. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=9&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

The Shi’ah from the Ithna ‘Ashariyyah also maintain that the Jilbab is the garment that is worn to cover the face:

At-Tabrisi (548) states that the Jilbab is the garment that is worn when a woman goes out of her home that covers her face. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=3&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

At-Tusi (460) quotes the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas and Al-Hasan as saying it is the garment worn to cover the face. ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=39&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1 ))

Al-Kaashaani (1090) states in his tafsir As-Saafi regarding this verse:

يغطّين وجوههنّ وابدانهنّ بملاحفهنّ

“That they are to cover their faces and their bodies with their garments…” ((http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=41&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 ))

Conclusion:

We have quoted  20 Qur’anic commentators from the past 1400 years of Islamic history, not counting the companions and their students. It is obvious to anyone who takes the time to do some simple research, and this article only took me 1 hour, to come to the simple conclusion that the scholars of old held that the face of the woman was to be covered. In fact, if one reads the commentaries of the Andalusian scholars, one can clearly see that the covering of the face was not inherently an “Arab Tradition“, but came about with the Islamic commandment, unlike some modern “scholars”, such as Tantawi, claim.

For more articles on the issue of “niqab” and the covering of the face within the Orthodox tradition of Islam you can click here. May Allah shed his mercy and serenity upon the Prophet Muhammad, His family and his followers Amin!