http://asharis.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/is-al-ibanah-attributed-to-imam-al-ashari-authentic/

The authors show the discrepancies in the manuscripts and in the publications of the works. They also quote the analysis of some of the scholars regarding the works.

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‘¹ 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]

1. 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!

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

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

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 us thus rejecting 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-Hasanah¹.

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 this athar:

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

1. http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?hflag=1&bk_no=1849&pid=353638

Problematic

The introduction of these sciences was initially problematic in some aspects. There are always individuals that are willing to push an idea too far, and indeed there were scholars who were willing to dismiss proclamations in the Quran (particularly ideas related to eternality, God’s knowledge, and the resurrection) because they saw them as incompatible with supposedly rational principles. People familiar with the ideas of Aristotle should be able to recognize what lead them to such conclusions: the Greeks held the view that for something to be eternal (never-ending) it would also have to be static (unchanging – thus Aristotle’s famous description of God as the “unmoved mover” of the universe, or of “eternal” laws as being “immutable”). This phenomenon is generally associated with a theological school known as the Mu`tazilah (“those who withdraw” because their founder famously withdrew from the circle of Hasan al-Basri over a theological dispute; they preferred the term Ahl al-Tawhid wa’l `Adl, People of Unity and Justice).  But there other scholars who fell into heretical beliefs who aren’t considered from the Mu`tazliah.  The popularity of this new dialectic was one of the greatest threats to Sunni Islam, and it explains why many early scholars prohibited what came to be known as kala̱m (“word” because discussions involving it used a lot of them), or dialectical theology.

A New Debate

Part of the difficulty of refuting the neo-Hellenistic/Mu`tazilah heresy, was that the debate delved into uncharactered territory, intellectual domains that the Sahaba themselves had not encountered. Furthermore, logical science itself was not incompatible with the religion, even when it was being used to form conclusions that were. What began to emerge was a Sunni kalam theology that able to convincing answer a wider range questions than had previously been available. Imam Ashari himself had been a scholar among the Mu`tazilah, but then left and refuted the school, developing perhaps the most influential of the schools of Islamic theology. Another giant of the Ashari school was Imam al-Ghazzali, whose brilliance effectively reversed the spread of the Mu`tazaliah and of the Ismaili Shia (neither ever fully recuperated even after his death). Yet even if the Ashari and Maturidi schools are today seen as intrinsically linked with the kalam of dialectical theology, both schools obviously allow for adherents to limit themselves to the simpler fundamentals that make up the creedal beliefs of each.

The Controversy

This grossly simplified summary of the role of kalam theology is to provide background to the real topic we at SeekingIlm would like to address: neither the Ashari or Maturidi school (or for that matter Imam Tahawi) adheres to the literalist school of “thought” that is at the heart of modern neo-Wahhabi Salafee-ism. Unfortunately this most central tenet of the “Salafee” movement also encompasses its most damning innovation: that of championing literal interpretations of issues over which the Sahaba themselves were silent. In their need to malign the traditional creed of Sunni Islam which is in contention with their own “Salafee” innovation, it is now common place to see the Ashari school dismissed as being influenced by kalam, the Mu`tazilah (or even being an extention of), Greeks, kuffar, Aristotle, St John of Damacus &c &c &c.

The issue (like so many hurled against traditional Islam) is a sideshow with little relevance to whether the Asharis are actually correct in their refutation, their refusal to accept this Wahhabi invention: invented arguments, invented statements, and an entirely invented view of history that they alone are the true Islam, suppressed by the Ashari tyranny but nevertheless clandestinely taught among a small minority until March 3, 1938 made it a global phenomenon and arguably the innovation of our times. Whatever the origin of kalam dialectics, the only measure by which such things can be measured is the revealed truth of the Quran and the teachings of our beloved Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his folk! And since the Asharis only delved into kalam in order to defend the truth, well, let us say that there’s a reason for the “Salafee” tactic of shifting the focus away from the main issues.

But let us entertain the thought that kalam and Asharism are intrinsically linked, and they represent a bastardization of Islam fathered by heretics and Hellenistic kuffar. Let us pretend that things are not measured and judged by the truth, but by their origins. Let us fantasize that this weasle-like argument has any weight in discrediting the greatest theological school in the history of mankind. If that is so, well, so what?

The Proof

Here is proof of yet another attempt of the “Salafee” movement to blindly pervert Islam to advance their own heresy:

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Any word of wisdom is the stray of the believer, who has the better right to it wherever it may be found.”

Comment: If the sciences of Hellenistic logic and philosophy do not constitute wisdom, what does?

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Accept the truth from whoever states it, even if he is a kafir,” and he said, “even if he is corrupt. And beware the error of the wise man.” They asked, “how will we know that the kafir is telling the truth?” he said, “Truly, light shines over the truth!” [Sunan Abu Dawud]

Comment: Maybe kafir philosophers are excluded by implication (“taqdeerul kalaam”) as being of the people from whom we accept the truth they manifest.

From the hadith of Abu Hurayra being recommended to recite Ayat al-Kursi by Iblis:

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “He really spoke the truth, although he is an absolute liar. Do you know to whom you were speaking these three nights, O Abu Hurayra?” Abu Hurayra said, “No.” He said, “It was Satan.”

Comment: At least it was Satan and not a philosopher.

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “No one who has an atom’s weight of pride in his heart will enter the Garden.” A man said, “And if the man likes his clothes to be good and his sandals to be good?” He said, “Allah is Beautiful and loves beauty. Pride means to reject the truth and abase people.” [Muslim]

Conclusions

There is actually only one, that the “Salafee” movement is yet again proven to be without any firm foundation in reality. The intellectual discord (fancy word for inconsistency) is such that this movement claims to revive Islam upon a foundation that comes purely from what Allah and His Messenger (peace and bless upon him and his folk!) brought, yet they often “prove” their queer positions by intellectual charades. They manipulate others by obsession over side-issues, using fundamentalist illogic to distort whatever serves their purpose of turning decent Muslims into another one of their brain-eating zombies. I was talking with Abu Layth shortly before writing this. He introduced the term “psychological castration” to me, while I coined the label “intellectual syphilis”.

Further Reading:

Kalam & Islam

The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazali

Sophie’s World

Articles Defending the Asharis

Correcting a popular “Salafee”

Hadiths in Praise of the Asharis

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.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.”²

Imam As-Samarqandi (d. 375)  in his Bahr Al-’Ulum also quotes the view that the Jilbab is what is brought upon the face.³

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.⁴

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”.⁵

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.⁶

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.⁷

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!”⁸

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 اليسرى⁹

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.¹⁰

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…”¹¹

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.¹²

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…”¹³

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.¹⁴

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.¹⁵

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…”¹⁶

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.¹⁷

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.”¹⁸

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.¹⁹

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.²⁰

At-Tusi (460) quotes the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas and Al-Hasan as saying it is the garment worn to cover the face.²¹

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…”²²

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!

1. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
2. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=91&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
3. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=11&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
4. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=11&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
5. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=13&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
6. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=2&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
7. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=14&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
8. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=15&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
9. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=16&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
10. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
11. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=17&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
12. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=18&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
13. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=88&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
14. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=19&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
15. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1
16. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=6&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
17. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=28&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
18. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=3&tTafsirNo=37&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
19. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=9&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
20. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=3&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
21. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=39&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1
22. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=4&tTafsirNo=41&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=59&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

The following scan is taken from the book “Taraj’u Al-‘Allamah Al-Albani fimaa Nass ‘Alayhi tas-hihan wa tad-‘ifan” authored by Abul Hasan Hasan Ash-Shaykh. It is a collection of contradictory verdicts found throughout the works of Al-Albani, but specifically his recantantions on his verdicts. In this scan we see that originally Al-Albani believed that the hadith, “The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying” was da’if (weak) because ibn Qutaybah was the only one to have reported this narration. Later on, he says, after looking in to further works of hadith he just happened to realize that the chain was in fact “strong” and thus authentic. So, he says, if you find in any of works that he weakened this hadith, take hold upon his verdict of authentication with your “molars”!

How many times have we heard the wahhabis/pseudo-salafis quote Al-Albani’s spurious opinion that this hadith was da’if, yet many years later we see his recantation! If only Al-Albani (May Allah forgive him and grant him mercy) would have followed his predecessors in accepting this hadith, he would have been saved from such a blunder and misguiding the masses into believing that it was weak! This recantation proves two things:

1)    Al-Albani was not qualified to release verdicts on hadith, as he self-admittedly did not know of all of its chains, and how many masters of hadith had narrated it.

2)    No one should rely upon the verdicts of Al-Albani as they often contradict the verdicts of the salaf-us-salih (radiya Allahu ‘Anhum) and Imams of Ahlus Sunnah!

So Beware of this pseudo-salafi fitnah that has plagued the Ummah and see for yourself the dangers of following a non-traditionalist!

Imam As-Suyuti comments upon this hadith: “The life of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and give him peace, in his grave, and [also] that of the rest of the prophets is known to us as definitive knowledge (`ilman qat`iyyan).”

This is a fact denied by many in the pseudo-salafi movement, and this authentic hadith refutes their ridiculous denial of the truth!

Ibn Al-Mullaqin in his “Badr Al-Munir” [5/285] states after reporting the chain of of Abu Ya’ala that Imam Al-Bayhaqi said:

هَذَا إِسْنَاد صَحِيح

This chain is Sahih!

ثم قال ابن الملقن : «وَهُوَ كَمَا قَالَ ؛ لِأَن رِجَاله كلهم ثِقَات »

Then Ibn Al-Mullaqn stated, “And it is as he stated, and that is because all of its men are trustworthy!”

[Download not found]

___________________________________

The following has been added on Aug. 26 2009 as a type of further clarification of the matter at hand:

A brother by the name of “yasir” posted the following comment on Aug. 24th 2009:

“Sheikh Al Albani made it clear why he made such a mistake and that is because he followed Al Bayhaqi’s statement. So your criticism should equally go to Imam Al Bayhaqi.”

[highlights from us]

In response to this we made two arguments:

1) Imam Al-Bayhaqi did not declare this hadith da’if (weak) as was implied by Al-Albani.

2) Muhammad Al-Albani overstepped his bounds and reach by claiming what the scholars of the past did not claim about this hadith!

As for the first claim that Imam Al-Bayhaqi DID NOT weaken this hadith then we said:

a) Imam Al-Bayhaqi actually stated in his treatise حياة الأنبياء في قبورهم that ‘this is one of the singularly narrated reports of Hasan ibn Al-Qutaybah Al-Mada’ini’.

He did not label this hadith weak but said that it is from the afraad of Al-Hasan ibn Al-Qutaybah. This term “afraad” or singularly reported narrations has been used on multiple occassions by the Imams of Hadith not to mean weak, but that he was the only one to narrate such from his Shaykh.

The following were the examples we gave in the response:

:أنه ذكر حديث « حديث أنس قال : والله إن كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ليرينا مصارع القوم قبل أن يقتلوا.» الحديث …. ثم قال : « تفرد به سليمان بن المغيرة عن أنس عنه،وهو صحيح، أخرجه مسلم عن
عمر بن إبراهيم بن سليط وشيبان بن فَرُّوخ عن سليمان » راجع أطراف الغرائب [1/47/الطبعة التدمرية]

another:

ومنها : أنه ذكر حديث مالك بن أوس بن الحَدَثان عن عمر :« أنه أخرج مائة دينار يصرفها… » الحديث…. ثم قال : « تفرد به إبراهيم بن سعد عن صالح بن كيسان عن الزهري، وهو صحيح عنه .» راجع أطراف الغرائب [1/ 67]

another:

ومنها أنه ذكر حديث أنس : « قيل للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: لو أتيت عبد الله بن أُبَيّ تعوده… الحديث….» ثم قال :« تفرد به معتمرعن أبيه، وهو صحيح، أخرجه البخاري ومسلم من حديثه عن أبيه.» راجع أطراف الأفراد [1/ 195]

Here are other examples:

Ad-Daraqutni states after the hadith

كل معروف صدقة  : تفرد به علي بن عياش عن محمد

“Every good deed is charity”

“It is singularly narrated from ‘Ali ibn ‘Ayyash from Muhammad”

Yet the hadith is in Sahih Al-Bukhari, as was known by Ad-Daraqutni! So where is such weakening by these words?

What further lends support to this non-weakening of Imam Al-Bayhaqi is that Hafith Ibn Hajr as well as Hafith Ibn Mullaqn narrate in fat-hul baari and Badr Al-Munir respectively that Al-Bayhaqi declared this narrative Sahih!

Ibn Al-Mullaqin in his “Badr Al-Munir” [5/285] states after reporting the chain of of Abu Ya’ala that Imam Al-Bayhaqi said:

هَذَا إِسْنَاد صَحِيح

This chain is Sahih!

ثم قال ابن الملقن : «وَهُوَ كَمَا قَالَ ؛ لِأَن رِجَاله كلهم ثِقَات »

Then Ibn Al-Mullaqn stated, “And it is as he stated, and that is because all of its men are trustworthy!”

Al-Hafith ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalani does the exact same when he says:

وقد جمع البيهقي كتابا لطيفا في ” حياة الأنبياء في قبورهم ” أورد فيه حديث أنس ” الأنبياء أحياء في قبورهم يصلون ” أخرجه من طريق يحيى بن أبي كثير وهو من رجال الصحيح عن المستلم بن سعيد وقد وثقه أحمد وابن حبان عن الحجاج الأسود وهو ابن أبي زياد البصري وقد وثقه أحمد وابن معين عن ثابت عنه ، وأخرجه أيضا أبو يعلى في مسنده من هذا الوجه ، وأخرجه البزار لكن وقع عنده عن حجاج الصواف وهو وهم والصواب الحجاج الأسود كما وقع التصريح به في رواية البيهقي ، وصححه البيهقي ، وأخرجه أيضا من طريق الحسن بن قتيبة عن المستلم ، وكذلك أخرجه البزار وابن عدي .

[6/487 of the fath]

key words:

وصححه البيهقي

“Declared Sahih by Al-Bayhaqi!”

There were other masters of hadith who declared this Sahih as well. Hafith Al-Munawi in his Fayd [3/184], Imam Az-Zarqani in his Sharh of the Muwatta’ both declared this narration Sahih.  Hafith Al-Haythami in his Majma’ stated,

رواه أبو يعلى والبزار ورجال أبو يعلى ثقات

“Reported by Abu Ya’la and Al-Bazzar and the men of Abu Ya’ala are impeccably trustworthy (thiqaat)!”

So we can see from all of this Al-Albani’s commenting upon an issue that was far greater than his knowledge. When one does not know they should remain silent, yet Al-Albani contradicted the ‘Ulama’ of old in his rulings and certainly did not have the authority to do so!

And Allah is our source of Truth!

The article’s intent, as it seems to me, is to prove that the Imams of Islam were Mutakallimin. His argument stems from a brief excerpt that he translates taken from Shaykh Abdul-Qahir Al-Baghdadi’s Usulud-Din. The fact isy, anyone who picks up a book titled “Tabaqat” will find that the Imam’s of Islam utilized Kalam to defeat the opponents of the Sunnah.

Sidi Abu Adam also responds to the pseudo-salafi Yasir Qadhi, and explains Yasirs’ simpleton misunderstandings of kalam and creed. The fact is, Abu Adam has done this more times than I can recall in one sitting, and at each time Yasir Qadhi and crew delete his comments without a legitimate response or simply refuse to allow the comment through.  This issue is really about Yasir Qadhi, in that he is ignorant of the nomenclature as well as intent of the Mutakallimun. Why is he ignorant of these things on may ask, considering he is a graduate of  Medinah University? It is because he has not studied the science of ‘Aqidah beneath one of the Imams of the Maturidi or Asha’ri way. Instead, he takes second hand knowledge through pseudo-salafi commented-upon works as well as ignorant individuals who attempt to understand a deep science without going to its doctors. The effect of all of this is ignorant youth at Maghrib institute who take Yasir’s pathetic course on creed, yet are unable to legitimize their creed from any of the Imams of the past, nor are they even able to stand toe to toe with a child who has studied basic Asha’ri doctrine. General these followers of Yasir Qadhi make blatant tabdi‘ of the Sunnis, while having little knowledge of what they say. They are parrots, taught that taqlid in ‘aqidah is legitimate, and so to them they can make taqlid of say Ibn Taymiyyah, yet in a more minor field – that of Fiqh, which necessitates proper creed to even validate one’s actions – they claim to be  mujtahideen and that they follow the “hadith“, a science they know nothing about and a science their master Al-Albani blundered in more times than has been written about.

The article of Sidi Abu Adam explains basic Kalami premises. However, it is not indepth, and at times I think he could have gone into the science with more references. It is a good read though and I recommend you take a look!

Sidi Gibril Haddad exposes the pseudo-salafi tactics:

o decontextualization
o misattribution
o mistranslation
o misinterpretation
o marginalization/poor adab

in the quote from the Sharh of Sahih Muslim regarding the hadith of the slave girl.

A questioner asked on Sidi G.F. Haddad’s email list the following question:

 Has anyone come across the following slightly odd statement of Imam al-Nawawi
[somewhat mis-translated by a salafi as follows ]:

 فمن قال بإثبات جهة فوق من غير تحديد ولا تكييف من المحدثين والفقهاء والمتكلمين
تأول : في السماء , أي : على السماء , ومن قال من دهماء النظار والمتكلمين وأصحاب
التنزيه بنفي الحد واستحالة الجهة في حقه سبحانه وتعالى تأولوها تأويلات بحسب
مقتضاها

[Here follows some nonsensical mistranslation.]

> He seems to be suggesting that jiha was affirmed by the scholars of hadith and
fiqh? Is this something that the majority of scholars of hadith did?

Are you sure you understood the above correctly? Why even mention a
pseudo-translation? Have you read the rest of the paragraph on the webpage you
cited?

We should keep a checklist of the various tactics used by the innovators for the
misrepresentation of the words and positions of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunna.
Among those tactics:

o decontextualization
o misattribution
o mistranslation
o misinterpretation
o marginalization/poor adab

Etc.

These tactics are not an accident and it is sound advice for us to not only be
aware of them, but suspect their presence by default, in some degree or other,
in most discussions and publications on Islam nowadays (as I warned in my
critique of Lings’ Prophetic Sira) and, if needs be, question our own naive
assumptions before proceeding.

First, the above are not Imam al-Nawawi’s but Qadi `Iyad’s words as cited from
the latter’s commentary on Sahih Muslim by Imam al-Nawawi in his own Sharh Sahih
Muslim.

Second, the words suggest that direction was affirmed not by “the scholars of
hadith” but by some from among the commonality of the scholars, while giving the
counter-position both the numerical edge (dahma’) and superior authority
(nuzzar=keensighted). Moreover, “those among” them who asserted the upward
direction, did so (i) without a limit (hadd), contrary to the mujassima who
affirm it and (ii) through ta’wil of the preposition “fi”, contrary to those who
deny that they apply ta’wil in the Sifaat.

Third, anyone who reads on can see that `Iyad (and implicitly al-Nawawi)
ultimately disagree with the assertion of direction as it violates the Salaf’s
rule of bila-kayf.

Note: there is tahrif and tas-hif in the website’s text and you will need to
combine it with `Iyad’s Ikmal al-Mu`lim bi-Fawa’id Muslim (Dar al-Wafa’ ed.
2:465) to get the complete picture.

The above discussion took place in the context of mentioning the highmost
exaltation (`uluw) of Allah Most High in the hadith “Where is Allah ?” narrated
from Mu`awiya ibn al-Hakam al-Sulami by Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Nasa’i, and Ahmad
concerning which Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah Most High have mercy on him) said in
Sharh Sahih Muslim (Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-`Arabi ed. 5:24-25):

“This is one of the narrations that deal with the Divine Attributes and there
are two schools of reading for it which we have already discussed several times
in the book of Iman [of his Sharh Sahih Muslim]. The first consists in believing
in it without probing its meaning while holding that there is nothing like unto
Allah Most Highand, declaring His transcendence beyond the characteristics of
things created. The second consists in interpreting it in whatever way befits
it.

“Whoever holds the latter position says that the intention [of the Prophet, upon
him blessings and peace] was to test her: was she a believer in oneness
(muwahhida) who confirms that the Creator, Disposer, and Doer is Allah alone?
and that it is He Who, when the petitioner invokes Him, he turns towards the
heaven, just as when the worshipper prays, he turns towards the Ka`ba? And this
is not because He is circumscribed in the heaven nor is it because He is
circumscribed in the direction of the Ka`ba. Rather, this is because the heaven
is the orientation (qibla) of those who supplicate, just as the Ka`ba is the
orientation of those who worship. Or, on the other hand, was she of the
idol-worshippers who worship the idols that are displayed in front of them?

“When she replied: ‘In the heaven,’ it became known that she was a believer in
Oneness and not an idol-worshipper.

“Al-Qadi `Iyad said : ‘There is no disagreement among the Muslims – all without
exception: jurists, scholars of hadith, theologians, debaters, and followers,
that the external terms (al-zawahir) cited pertaining to Allah being ‘in the
heaven’ – as in His saying: {Have you taken security from Him Who is in the
Heaven that He will not cause the earth to swallow you?} (67:16) and the like –
are not meant in their outward sense (laysat `ala zahiriha) but rather are
interpreted by all of them (muta’awwila `inda jami`ihim). So whoever among the
hadith scholars, jurists, and mutakallimun asserted the upward direction (jihati
fawq) without specifying limit or modality did so only by interpreting {in the
heaven} (fil-sama’) to mean ‘OVER the heaven’ (`alal-sama’). And whoever, among
the great multitude (dahma’) of the perspicuous experts (al-nuzzar) and
theologians (al-mutakallimun) and those who stress the transcendence of Allah
Most High (as-hab al-tanzih), spoke to negate the concept of limit and the
inconceivability of direction with relaation to Him – exalted is He! –
interpreted them variously according to their necessary inference (muqtadaha).’

“Then he [`Iyad] said: ‘I would truly like to know: What is it that made Ahl
al-Sunna all agree and made them all join in the obligation of withholding
reflection about the [Divine] Essence just as they were commanded, and they
refrained from speech due to the mind’s defeat and they concurred that modality
(takyif) and composition (tashkil) were categorically prohibited, and that such
suspension and self-restraint on their part did not form doubt in the Existence
and the Existent, nor did it gainsay the doctrine of Oneness, rather, it formed
its very reality? Then X or Y negligently asserted a direction specific to Him
or pointed to Him with a boundary circumscribing Him – but is there, between
modality and the assertion of direction, any difference? or, between attributing
a limit to His Essence and asserting direction, any distinction? However, the
unqualified statement (itlaq) of what the Law has stated in unqualified terms,
namely, that {He is the Omnipotent above His servants} and that {He has
established Himself over the Throne}, while strongly holding onto the verse of
comprehensive, all-encompassing transcendence (al-ayat al-jami`a lil-tanzih
al-kulli), which is {There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him}, is a thorough
protection for him to whom Allah Most High grants success.’ And that is the
discourse of the Qadi, may Allah Most High have mercy on him.”

Allahumma tawaffana Muslimin wa-alhiqna bil-Salihin!

Was-Salam,
GF Haddad

Compiled by Abul Layth

It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salam) said:

حَيَاتي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُحْدِثُونَ وَيُحْدَثُ لَكُمْ ، فَإِذَا كَانَتْ وَفَاتي خَيْراً لَكُمْ ، تُعْرَضُ عَلَيَّ أَعْمَالُكُمْ ، فَإِنْ رَأَيْتُ خَيْراً حَمِدْتُ اللَّهَ ، وَإِنْ رَأَيْتُ شَرًّا اسْتَغْفَرتُ لكُمْ

“My life is good for you. You will relate about me and it will be related to you, and my death is a good for you, for your actions will be presented to me. If I see goodness I will praise Allah , and if I see other than that I will ask forgiveness of Him for you.”

In this article we will be reviewing the chains and texts of this narration. It will also be our objective to respond to doubts raised regarding its authenticity.

The Reports:

This hadith is reported by Imam Al-Bazzar in his Musnad (Kashf Al-Astar 1/397) in the following manner:

حدثنا يوسف بن موسى ، ثنا عبد المجيد بن عبد العزيز بن أبي رواد عن سفيان عن عبد الله بن السائب ، عن زاذان ، عن عبد الله عن النبي (ص) قال :

حياتي خير لكم تحدثون ويحدث لكم ، ووفاتي خير لكم تعرض على أعمالكم ، فما رأيت من خير حمدت الله عليه ، وما رأيت من شرٍ استغفرت لكم

Hafith Al-’Iraqi states in his Tarh At-Tathrib, “Its chain is jayyid (good).” (3/297) Al-Haythami said in Majma’ Az-Zawa’id, “It is reported by Al-Bazzar and its men are the men of the Sahih.” (9/24) Imam As-Suyuti declared its chain Sahih in his work “Al-Khasa’is” (2/281) as well as in his takhrij of the Ash-Shifaa. The late researcher and Hafith Abdullah ibn Siddiq Al-Ghumari wrote in his work نهاية الآمال ، في شرح وتصحيح حديث عرض الأعمال that this chain was Sahih.

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki (rahimahullah) stated in his Mafahim, “It was also declared Sahih in Hafith As-Suyuti in Mu’jizat, as well as Al-Khasa’is, as well as by Al-Qastalani who explained Sahih Al-Bukhari. Al Munawi stated in Fayd Al-Qadir that it was Sahih, as well as Az-Zurqani in his Sharh of Qastalani’s Al-Mawahib. It was also declared Sahih by Imam Al-Khafaji in his explanation of Ash-Shifaa’. (pgs 248-249, English edition translated as “Notions that Must be corrected”)

The opponents of this hadith claim that this narration is weak due to the narrator Abdul Majid ibn Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad, who in their view is weak in memory. The late Muhammad Al-Albani in his Da’ifah quoted Al-Haythami’s words ‘and its men are the men of the Sahih’ and then said, ‘[However] He is spoken about negatively (وهو متكلم فيه). The wahhabi leaning website, Islamweb.net¹, has declared this hadith weak as well, repeating the verdict of Al-Albani in his Silsilat Ad-Da’ifah that the strongest of the narrations is that of Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani, a mursal narration that in his view is authentic. We shall return to this mursal narration later in the article. At this time the claim that Abdul Majid ibn Abdul Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad is weak must be investigated. Why didn’t Al-Haythami deem him weak in his grading of this hadith? Or Suyuti and the others who declared it authentic? It is their opinion that we shall defend in this article, with Allah ’s permission.

عبد المجيد بن عبد العزيز بن أبي رواد

His name was Abdul Majid ibn Abdul Aziz ibn Abi Rawwad Al-Azdi, Abu Abdul-Hamid Al-Makkiy. He reported hadith from his father, Ayman ibn Naabil, Ibn Jurayj, Ma’mar, Salim Al-Jazari, and other than them. Those who reported from him were the likes of Imam Ahmad, Imam Ash-Shafi’i, Al-Humaydi, and many others.

Those who praised him:

Imam Ahmad said, “He was trustworthy (thiqah), in him was exaggeration in Irja’.”

Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal reports from [Yahya] Ibn Ma’in that he said, “Thiqah (trustworthy), no problem with him. Ad-Dawri also reports from Ibn Ma’in that he said, “Thiqah.” Ibn Abi Maryam reported from Ibn Ma’in that he said, “Thiqah, he would narrate from the people of weakness, and he was the most knowledgeable of the scholars in the narrations of Ibn Jurayj. He was open with his Irjaa’.” Ibrahim ibn Junayd mentions that Ibn Ma’in was mentioning Abdul Majid and mentioned his nobleness, dignity (haybah), and mentioned that he was honest (saduq).

Al-Aajuri reported from Abu Dawud that he said, “Thiqah, [Imam] Ahmad used to narrate from him to us as did Yahya. Yahya said of him, ‘He was [the most] knowledgeable regarding Ibn Jurayj.’ Abu Dawud continued, ‘He was a Murji’iah and he called to Irja’ and he went to extremes in that so much so that his son and the people of Khurasan no longer narrated from him.’ Imam An-Nasa’i said of him, “Thiqah” and also said, “There is nothing wrong with him.” Ad-Daraqutni said in his Sunan, “Thiqah!” (1/311) and in his ‘Ilal said, “He is the most established of the scholars regarding the narrations of Ibn Jurayj.” Hafith Ibn Hajr said on him in his Taqrib, “He was honest (saduq), and made mistakes. He was a Murji’i. Ibn Hibban exaggerated in declaring him abandoned.” Ibn Shahin also declared him trustworthy, and of course, Imam Muslim reported from him in his Sahih!

Imam As-Sindi, the author of the commentary of Sunan Ibn Majah also concludes that Abdul-Majid is trustworthy. In hadith number 1084 in the Sunan of Ibn Majah Abdul Majid ibn Abdul-’Aziz is within the chain.

He states, “Even though he was relied upon in Sahih Muslim, he was extreme in his Irjaa’, calling to it. The majority (jumhur) declared him thiqah (trustworthy); Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawud, An Nasa’i, whereas Abu Hatim declared him weak as well as Ibn Abi Hatim. The rest of the men in the chain are thiqaat, and so the chain is Hasan!” This chain is would then meet the same standards for Imam As-Sindi!

Those who criticized him:

Al-Bukhari said of him, “He was one who delved into Irjaa’. Al-Humaydi spoke [negatively] of him.”

Abu Hatim said, “He is not strong, though write his hadith.” Muhammad ibn Yahya weakened him. As-Saji said of him, “He reported from Imam Malik a munkar hadithfrom Zayd ibn Aslam from Ata ibn Yasaar from Abu Sa’id, “Actions are by intentions.” He continued saying, “He also reported things from Ibn Jurayj that have no follow up reports for them.” Abdur-Razzaq, upon hearing of Abdul Majid’s death said, “Alhamdulillah for Allah saving the nation of Muhammad from Abdul Majid.” Al-Khalil said, “He was thiqah, though made some mistakes in hadith.” Ibn Hibban said that he would mingle narrations and he would report hadith that were singlularly narrated (munkar) from well known scholars, so he was abandoned.

It should be noted that Ibn Hajr said in his Taqrib that Ibn Hibban went to extremes in declaring him ‘abandoned!’ [entry 4160]

Conclusion and Responses to the Weakening of This Hadith By Al-Albani:

The end conclusion of Hafith Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut and Dr. Bash-shar Ma’ruf said,

“Rather he is thiqah (trustworthy), his mistakes in hadith were as the people made mistakes in them. And he is from the most established of the scholars regarding Ibn Jurayj.  And the people were only hostile towards him due to his irjaa‘ and so some of them weakened him due to that reason. Those who forwarded his trustworthiness included Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawud, An-Nasa’i, Al-Khalili, and Ibn ‘Adi stated, ‘And the general disdain for him was due to his Irja’.'” [Tahrir At-Taqrib]

Hafith Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut points out that those who weakened did so because of his Irja’. Regarding this I would like to bring forth the words of Imam At-Tajud-Din As-Subki who said,

“Always bear in mind that their [hadith scholars'] principle is that finding fault (jarh) with a hadith narrator has priority over ascribing to him acceptability of his testimony and narrations (ta’dil) without any qualification. On the contrary, the correct position is that where someone finds fault with a man whose imamate and good standing as a narrator is established, whose praisers are many and whose fault finders are few, and there is evidence to suggest that the reason for this attack is because of a fanatical devotion to a certain madh-hab (school of thought) or some other reason, then one does not pursue the matter!” [See the Muwatta of Imam Muhammad Shaybani, English version, page 34]

Shaykh Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh in his Rafa’ Minarah declares “This chain is Sahih, without doubt!”

Responding to Further Doubts:

One of the doubts a certain group brings up regarding this hadith is regarding the grading of Hafith Al-Iraqi. He states in his Tarh At-Tathrib that this hadith is “Jayyid (good)” whereas he has criticized this chain in his takhrij of the Ihya. As Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh points out, he wrote his takhrij of the Ihya when he was very young, and praised the hadith later on his life, and so that is what he passed upon.

Another of the doubts that Al-Albani raised was that this hadith was somehow “Shadh”. Al-Albani however, made the mistake of combining this narration we are discussing with the narration “Verily Allah sends angels out to inform me of my Ummah’s Salams…” and saying that it was an extra “addition” to the second narration. This is not the case at all, and the two are separate narrations as Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh has shown in his Rafa’. Imam As-Suyuti noticed such as well and narrated the two separately.

The issue of Abdul Majid reporting a munkar hadith from Imam Malik involves the misnaming of an individual. The actual narration from Imam Malik in chain is as follows:

مالك عن يحيى بن سعيد ، عن محمد بن إبراهيم التيمي ، عن علقمة . عن عمر

This is the chain that the “jama’ah” reported the hadith “Actions are by Intention.”

The chain that was reported by Abdul Majid was as follows:

مالك ، عن يزيد بن أسلم ، عن عطاء بن يسار عن أبي سعيد الخدري

So yes this is possibly a mistake, yet the words are authentically reported from the Prophet Muhammad and DO go through Imam Malik. This is how it was reported by Abu Nu’aym in his Hilyah, the Musnad of Shihab, and Abu Ya’la Al-Khalili in his Irshaad. This “mistake” does not make one “weak”, it simply means that he made a mistake in one chain, and that is all! That is why the scholars, such as Imam Ahmad, reported from him, as his memory was sound. It is also why the scholars generally accepted his narrations. One mistake like this does not make him completely weak at all.

Another supposed weakness brought forth by those who criticize Abdul-Majid is the following narration (as mentioned by Adh-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajr) and by which Ibn Hibban used to weaken Abdul-Majid:

عبد المجيد عن ابن جريح عن عطاء عن ابن عباس قال: القدرية كفر، والشيعة هلكة، والحرورية بدعة، وما نعلم الحق إلا في المرجئة

Abdul-Majid from Ibn Jurayj from Ataa’ from Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “The Qadariyyah are upon kufr, the Shi’ah are doomed, the Hururiyyah are upon bida’ah and I do not know of the truth in a group except in the Murji’ah.” [Note that Ibn Hajr has different wording, though the meaning is the same in his Tahthib]

Ad-Daraqutni said, “Abdul Majid was the only one who reported this narration.” Al-Hafith Ibn Hajr agreed in his Tahthib and added, “And the rest of the men are thiqaat.”

Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh states that there is no dispute that he is the only one who narrated such from Ibn Jurayj. However, this does not mean that Abdul-Majid is the one who is weak here. Rather, Ibn Jurayj was known to commit the worst kind of tadlees. Ad-Daaraqutni has said regarding Ibn Jurayj, “Beware of the tadlis of Ibn Jurayj, for certainly he performs tadlis from only those who have been criticized.” Imam Ahmad said of Ibn Jurayj’s tadlis that he reported fabrications by way of his tadlees (though he uses the term irsaal, and here it is the same thing) as is reported in Mizan Al-’Itidal of Adh-Dhahabi.

Again, tadlees is to narrate vaguely using the term “‘an (from)” without specifying how one received the transmission. Sidi Musa Furber has translated  it as “Camouflaging” the real narrator. If one is known to use this vague form of reporting “from” someone other than whom they are really reporting from, then their narrations cannot be accepted when using tadlis. In this narration Ibn Jurayj uses tadlis, and hence, one must be cautious that he did not in fact hear this hadith fron ‘Ataa’ but from someone else who claimed they heard it from ‘Ataa, and Ibn Jurayj is masking the individual through reporting. Furthermore, what shows that Abdul-Majid is not the one to blame for this is that he was the MOST knowledgeable regarding Ibn Jurayj’s reports as stated by the master of hadith Yahya ibn Ma’in. So his narrating singularly reported narrations from Ibn Jurayj is not a weakness, but instead shows that he truly was the most knowledgeable regarding the narrations of Ibn Jurayj as claimed by Yahya ibn Ma’in. Abu Dawud reports from Imam Ahmad that he said of Abdul Majid, “He was knowledgeable in the reports of Ibn Jurayj!” [Su'alaat Abi Dawud li-Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal pg 236]

The last claim forwarded by Al-Albani and co. in his Ad-Da’ifah regarding this chain is that he thinks that he mingled the chain, because the only other authentic chain is through Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani, so Abdul Majid simply must have mis-stated the chain. As Shaykh Mahmud Mamduh states, this is thann (conjecture/suspicion). There is absolutely no proof that he did such with this chain. And as the Prophet Muhammad said, “And suspicion is the most false of speech!” Furthermore, no one prior to Al-Albani made such a suspicious claim regarding this chain of Abdul-Majid. Abdul Majid is thiqah, as stated by Imam Ahmad, Nasa’i, Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawud, and many other Imams of hadith. To raise suspicion regarding him, without proof, is falsehood. Rather the mursal Sahih narration from Bakr ibn Abdullah shows support for the chain of Abdul-Majid and witnesses to its authenticity.

The hadith of Bakr Ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani reads:

حَياتِـي خَيْرٌ لَكُمْ تُـحَدِّثُونَ ويُحْدَثُ لَكُمْ فإذا أنا مُتُّ كانَتْ وَفـاتِـي خَيْراً لَكُمْ تُعْرَضُ علـيَّ أعْمالَكُمْ فإنْ رَأيْتُ خَيْراً حَمِدْتُ الله وإِنْ رَأيْتُ شَراً اسْتَغْفَرْتُ لَكُمْ

The same wording!

In the Musnad of Al-Harith we find the following chain for this narration:

حدثنا الحسن ابن فتيبة ثنا جسر ابن فرقد عن بكر ابن عبد الله المزني قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Even Al-Albani admits that this chain is Mursal Sahih! It is also reported by Ibn Sa’ad in his Tabaqaat and also by Imam As-Suyuti in Jaam’i Al-Ahadith wal-Maraasil (11337). Bakr ibn Abdullah Al-Muzani did not see the Prophet Muhammad (‘alayhis salam) so he has not named the companion he heard it from. Bakr was a tabi’i (of the second generation), and reported from Ibn ‘Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Mughirah ibn Shu’ba and others. It was said that he saw thirty of the companions. Ibn Sa’ad said of him, “He was trustworthy, established, impeccably honest, a proof (hujjah), and he was a jurist!”

There is yet another proof within this hadith, and that is that some of the scholars accept mursal Sahih hadith as proof in the law. The Imam Isma’il Al-Ansari said, ‘And the utilization of Mursal Sahih reports as a proof is correct according to the majority of the jurists. Al-Hafith Ibn Kathir said,

والاحتجاج به مذهب مالك وأبي حنيفة وأصحابهما وهو يحكى عن أحمد في رواية

“And using them [i.e. the mursal sahih] as proof is the madh-hab of Malik, Abu Hanifah and his companions, and it is a reported opinion of Ahmad.” [Kitab Ash-Shaybani 1/134-135]

Imam Ibn Abdul-Barr states in his At-Tajrid At-Tamhid that the position of all the Maliki jurists is that the mursal hadith of a thiqah tabi’i is a proof and can be acted upon. Imam Ash-Shafi’i also accepts mursal Sahih hadith with conditions as he has mentioned in his Risalah! He rejects mursal narrations that do not come from the elder Tabi’in. Ibn Abdul-Barr in fact says the first Imam to reject mursal narrations such as this was Imam Ash-Shafi’I (Tawjih An-Nathr page 245). Such a claim may not be true however, considering it is reported from Ibn Mahdi and Yahya ibn al-Qattan that they also held similar views.

Imam Abu Dawud wrote a letter to the people of Makka responding to some issues. He stated therein,

وأما المراسيل فقد كان أكثر العلماء يحتجون بها فيما مضى مثل سفيان الثوري، ومالك، والأوزاعي. حتى جاء الشافعي- رحمه الله- فتكلم في ذلك وتابعه عليه أحمد وغيره

“As for the marasil (pl. of mursal) many of the scholars sought proof with them, the likes of them being Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Malik, Al-Awza’i, until Imam Ash-Shafi’i (rahimahullah) came. He spoke [negatively] regarding it and Imam Ahmad and others followed him.”

Shaykh Gibril Haddad states in his translation of “The Prophets in Barzakh”,

“Even if Al-Albani’s grading were hypothetically accepted, then the weak musnad narration in conjunction with the sound Mursal one – graded Sahih by Al-Albani – would yield a final grading of Hasan or Sahih, not da’if. In addition to this Mamduh quoted Al-Albani’s own words in the latter’s attempted refutation of Isma’il Al-Ansari entitled Kitab Ash-Shaybani (1:134-135) whereby, ‘The sound mursal hadith is proof in all four schools and other than them from the Imams of principles of fiqh and hadith, therefore it is apparent to every fair-minded person that the position whereby such a hadith does not form a proof only because it is mursal, is untenable.’ This is one of the many examples of which Al-Albani not only contradicts, but soundly refutes himself.” [page 36]

According to the principles of the four schools of law, this Mursal narration alone would be enough proof to implement it, and Allah is the one who knows best!

What Does this Hadith Prove?

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Alawi Al-Maliki (rahimuhullah) stated, “It proves that the Prophet Muhammad knows our actions and they are presented to him. He seeks forgiveness for us for any sins or ugliness that we commit. If this is the case, then it is obviously permissible for us to take him as a means unto Allah and seek intercession through him and by him. This is because he knows that, therefore he can intercede for us and supplicate for us for he is the one who intercedes and the one whose intercession is accepted. Allah informs us in the Qur’an that the Prophet is a witness for his Ummah and this implies that the Ummah’s actions are presented to him to act as a witness to what he has seen and known!” (pg 248-249 of Mafahim or “Notions that must be corrected”)

1. http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=27311&Option=FatwaId