SalafiTalk.Net
SalafiTalk.Net » Affairs of Aqeedah
» Dead Dont Hear - Radd Upon G.F.Haddad
Search ===>




Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7Part 8Part 9 • Part 10 • Part 11 • Part 12


   Reply to this Discussion Start new discussion << previous || next >> 
Posted By Topic: Dead Dont Hear - Radd Upon G.F.Haddad

book mark this topic Printer-friendly Version  send this discussion to a friend  new posts last

abdul.azeem
08-12-2009 @ 12:30 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Dead Dont Hear - A Refutation Upon The Claims Of G.F. Haddaad



Introduction:-


The following is the claim of G.F.Haddad and the essence of this article revolves around -

a)That the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam hears the salam at his grave.

b)On the basis of this, anyone lesser than the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam is also able to hear through analogical deduction or reasoning.

The crux of the matter here is to merely show the readers who have been deluded by the fulgurous references rendered by G.F.Haddad and his crew together with their claim that salafees have indeed betrayed by providing partial and misleading information hence this is tantamount to lying is all but far fetched, if one were to ransack these claims or even skim through Shaykh Nasir's thahqeeq Insha Allah. Other claims will be answered in appropriate place Insha Allah.

I donŭt know anyone in this dispute to whom this characteristic (of betrayal, lying, misleading) is most befitting except G.F.Haddad and his crew! As always al-Albaaneeŭs meticulous research vivifies an otherwise disarrayed set of claims from past and present, filled with knowledge and accurate conclusions. May Allah reward the Shaykh rahimahullah.


G.F.Haddad wrote:-

Concerning the statement of certain "Salafis" made about the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- whereby "The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) does not hear the greetings of peace from Muslims when they pronounce it upon him": this is the essence of false testimony and innovation. You will not find in Islam anyone saying that except the people of innovation. May Allah rid us of them.

I also add for the record some corrections to the falsehoods conveyed in this chapter by a person named ABDUL HAQ from his friend Abu Bilal Mustafah al-Kanadi -- may Allah guide them both:

They say: "There are two unequivocal texts from the Qur'an which deny the possibility of the dead in their graves possessing the faculty of hearing. Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, states :

"Verily you cannot make the dead hear and you can not make the deaf hear the call when they turn their backs and retreat." [Surah an-Naml 27:80]
"The living and the dead are not alike. Allah makes whoever he wishes hear, but you cannot make those in the graves hear." [Surah Fatir 35:22]

We reply: It is enough that those who have hikma know the crucial difference between Allah's statements "you cannot make the dead/those in the graves hear" and the presumption that "the Qur'an denies the possibility of the deceased possessing the faculty of hearing "! As for those who have no hikma, we cannot make them understand in a million years. Truly it is not the eyes that are blind but the hearts.
Rasulullah sallaho alayhi wa sallam has taught us to address the Muslims in the graves with salam, and the reports from the Salaf are innumerable to the effect of visiting the dead and greeting them. As Ibn Kathir said in his Tafsir of the above verses: To address those who cannot hear is absurd. The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- would never enjoin absurd practices upon his Umma.

As for their claims concerning these two verses, they are rejected because Tabari, Qurtubi, Ibn Kahir, Suyuti, and the rest of the Imams of Tafsir have spoken clearly and authoritatively on this subject.

They say:
"Ibn Mas'ud reported that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Allah has angels who travel about the earth; they [do and will] convey to me the peace greeting from my ummah." [Authentically reported by Abu Dawud]

"This hadith clarifies that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) does not hear the greetings of peace from Muslims when they pronounce it upon him, for if he could hear it directly, there would be no need of angels to convey it to him. Therefore, it follows that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) cannot hear other forms of conversation directed to him either;[3] and it stands even more to reason that the deceased, being lesser than the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), also cannot hear the salam (greeting of peace) or any other form of speech. [4] Thus contrary to a popular misconception, because the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) cannot directly hear either one's invocation of blessings [5] or one's salam addressed to him, such greetings may be conveyed to him from anywhere, regardless of the distance or proximity of the greeter to the Prophet's grave."

We reply: This is a case in skewed logic because they refuse to heed the explanations of the scholars and insist on reinterpreting Islam according to their own desire; first of all, the evidence they provide is oftentimes partial and/or false: Why do they not report Abu Dawud's sound narration whereby the Prophet said: "No one greets me except Allah has returned my soul to me so that I can return his Salam"? Or the well-known, authentic narration whereby the Prophet said: "The Prophets are alive in their graves, praying to their Lord"? That is because the innovators hate to admit this as it destroys their argument, since being alive entails hearing.

They say: "The erroneous belief that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) hears these greetings directly disregards the previous hadith which specifies that the greetings are conveyed to him by the angels, and it is based on a forged tradition whose text follows:

It has been narrated that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: "Whoever asks blessings for me at my grave, I hear him, and whoever asks blessings upon me from afar, it is conveyed to me." [This tradition was mentioned by al-'Uqayli in his book, adh-Dhu'afa and by al-Khateeb, Ibn 'Asakir, et. al., and they all agreed that it is a forged (mawdhu') hadith. See al-Albani's al-Ahadith adh-Dha'eefah, vol.1, hadith no.203]

We say: To give partial or misleading information is betrayal in the trust of the informer tantamount to lying. First, the above never agreed that this narration is forged! Second, Abu al-Shaykh cites it in Kitab al-Salat `ala al-nabi ("Jala' al-afham" p. 22), and Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari (6:379): "Abu al-Shaykh cites it with a good chain (sanad jayyid)."
Following is the documentation available to me about this hadith and its accurate translation and transliteration insha Allah:

"Whoever invokes blessings upon me at my grave I hear him, and whoever invokes blessings on me from afar, I am informed about it." (Man salla `alayya `inda qabri sami`tuhu wa man salla na'iyan bullightuhu.)
A sound (?) hadith narrated from Abu Hurayra:
- By al-Bayhaqi with two chains - with ublightuhu in the end - in Shu`ab al-Iman (2:218 #1583). One chain is very weak because of Muhammad ibn Marwan al-Suddi who is accused of lying, and the other is weak because of al-`Ala' ibn `Amr al-Kufi, but al-Bayhaqi in Hayat al-Anbiya' cites corroborating chains and narrations which strengthen the hadith.

- By Abu al-Shaykh - with a third chain - in al-Salat `ala al-Nabi sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam as stated by Ibn al-Qayyim in Jala' al-Afham (p. 16-22) and by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 6:379=1959 ed. 6:488). Ibn al-Qayyim states: "This narration is extremely strange" while Ibn Hajar states: "Abu al-Shaykh cites it in al-Thawab with a good chain (sanad jayyid)." Al-Sakhawi reiterates the latter verdict in al-Qawl al-Badi` (p. 154). Al-Munawi questions this grading in Fayd al-Qadir and Ibn `Abd al-Hadi in al-Sarim al-Munki (p. 206) avers that Abu al-Shaykh's chain, although strong, is "a gross mistake" because the hadith did not come to us except through al-Suddi, who is discarded. However, Ibn `Arraq in Tanzih al-Shari`a (1:335) confirms Ibn Hajar's verdict and al-Suyuti in al-La'ali' al-Masnu`a (1996 ed. 1:259 = 1:282-283) adduces Abu al-Shaykh's chain - among other narrations - as corroboration for the hadith, citing it in his commentary on al-Nasa'i's Sunan (4:110) and rejecting Ibn al-Jawzi's verdict of forgery in al-Mawdu`at (1:303).

- By al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad (3:292) with the chain of Muhammad ibn Marwan al-Suddi with the wording: "Whoever invokes blessings upon me at my grave I hear him, and whoever invokes blessings on me from afar, an angel was put in charge of it who informs me of it. He will have sufficiency of his worldly needs for it as well as his needs in the hereafter, and I shall witness on his behalf - or: I shall be his intercessor." The second sentence of this narration is undoubtedly forged. Cf. al-Ahdab, Zawa'id Tarikh Baghdad (3:69).




******End of words of G.F.Haddad (Part ŭ 1)*************


Below is the thahqeeq of Mujaddid, Shaykh of Hadeeth, the Allamah, Muhammad Nasiruddeen al-Albanee rahimahullah with regards to this narration. The challenge for G.F.Haddad and his crew is to firstly, bring supporting witnesses for the first part (من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته) which neither Suyoothi nor Ibn Arraq have brought forward instead of caviling and being utterly rudderless. Secondly, to prove that the narration of Abu ash-Shaykh (al-Asbahaanee) in ŭath-Thawabŭ is saheeh by showing us that ŭal-Aŭrajŭ is not majŭhool ŭ which neither Ibn Hajar nor Sakhawee, Suyoothi, Ibn Arraq have shown.


Translation Checked by Aboo Talha Dawood Ibn Ronald Burbank hafidhahullahu Taŭaala


203 - " من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته ، ومن صلى علي نائيا وكل بها ملك يبلغني ، وكفي بها أمر دنياه وآخرته ، وكنت له شهيدا أو شفيعا " .
موضوع بهذا التمام .


"Whoever invokes blessings upon me at my grave I hear him, and whoever invokes blessings on me from afar, I am informed about it. It is sufficient for the affairs of dunya and aakhirah and for them I shall be a witness or intercessor" (Man salla `alayya `inda qabri sami`tuhu wa man salla na'iyan bullightuhu.)

أخرجه ابن سمعون في " الأمالي " ( 2 / 193 / 2 ) والخطيب في " تاريخه " ( 3 /291 - 292 ) وابن عساكر ( 16 / 70 / 2 ) من طريق محمد بن مروان عن الأعمش عن أبي صالح عن أبي هريرة مرفوعا .
وأخرج طرفه الأول أبو بكر بن خلاد في الجزء الثاني من حديثه ( 115 / 2 ) وأبوهاشم السيلقي فيما انتقاه على ابن بشرويه ( 6 / 1 ) والعقيلي في " الضعفاء " ( 4 / 136 - 137 ) والبيهقي في " الشعب " ( 2 / 218 ) وقال
العقيلي : لا أصل له من حديث الأعمش ، وليس بمحفوظ ، ولا يتابعه إلا من هو دونه ، يعني ابن مروان هذا ، ثم روى الخطيب بإسناده عن عبد الله بن قتيبة قال :
سألت ابن نمير عن هذا الحديث ؟ فقال : دع ذا ، محمد بن مروان ليس بشيء .


Collected by Ibn Samŭoon in ŭal-Amaaleeŭ (2/193/2), and al-Khateeb in his ŭTaareekhŭ (3/291-292) and Ibn Asakir (16/70/2) via the route of Muhammad bin Marwan upon Aŭmash from Abee Saleh from Abee Hurayrah in a marfooŭ form.

And collected via the first route by Abu Bakr bin Khallad in the second juzŭ (portion) of his hadeeth ( 2/115) and Aboo Hashim as-Saylaqee from that which has been selected by Ibn Bashrooyah (1/6) and al-Uqaylee in ŭadh-Dhuŭafaaŭ (4/136-137) and al-Bayhaqee in ŭAsh-Shuŭbŭ (2/218) and al-Uqaylee said: There is no foundation for it from the hadeeth of al-Aŭmash, and it is not preserved, and no one follows/supports him upon it, meaning, Ibn Marwaan; then al-Khateeb narrated with a chain upon Abdullah ibn Qutaybah who said: I questioned Ibn Numayr concerning this hadeeth (and) he said: Muhammad ibn Marwaan is nothing.


قلت : ومن طريقه أورده ابن الجوزي في " الموضوعات " ( 1 / 303 ) من رواية العقيلي ثم قال : لا يصح ، محمد بن مروان هو السدي الصغير كذاب ، قال العقيلي :
لا أصل لهذا الحديث .
وتعقبه السيوطي في " اللآليء " ( 1 / 283 ) بقوله : قلت : أخرجه البيهقي في " شعب الإيمان " من هذا الطريق ، وأخرج له شواهد .


I say: And from the route ŭ by Ibn al-Jawzee in ŭal-Mawdhooŭaatŭ from the narration of al-Uqaylee, then he said: Not Saheeh! Muhammad ibn Marwaan, he is Suddi-Sagheer, liar. Uqaylee said: There is no basis for this hadeeth.

And as-Suyoothi traced it in ŭAl-Laŭlaiŭ (1/283) with his saying: I say: It was collected by al-Bayhaqee in ŭShuŭb al Eemanŭ from this route and he also recorded witnesses (to this hadeeth).


قلت : ثم ساقها السيوطي وبعضها صحيح ، مثل قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " إن لله ملائكة سياحين في الأرض يبلغوني عن أمتي السلام " وقوله صلى الله عليه وسلم :
" ما من أحد يسلم علي ... " الحديث وتقدم ذكره قريبا ( ص 362 ) ، وهي كلها إنما تشهد للحديث في الجملة ، وأما التفصيل الذي فيه وأنه من صلى عليه عند قبره صلى الله عليه وسلم فإنه يسمعه ، فليس في شيء منها شاهد عليه .


I say: Then as-Suyootee quoted them, and some of them are saheeh, like the saying of (the Messenger of Allah) Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam: ŭAllah has Angels, who travel about the earth who  convey to me the salaam from my Ummah.ŭ

And the saying of him Sallallahu Alaihi wa sallam: ŭWhosoever sends salaam upon meŭ.ŭ The hadeeth that has preceded that has been discussed at about (page 362), and this hadeeth and all others verily are supporting witnesses for the hadeeth in its overall wording. As for the details in it which is that whoever sends salam near the grave of him sallallahu alaihi wa sallam then he hears it (the salam), then there is nothing from these ahadeeth that witness/support it.


وأما نصفه الآخر ، فلم يذكر السيوطي ولا حديثا واحدا يشهد له ، نعم قال السيوطي : ثم وجدت لمحمد بن مروان متابعا عن الأعمش ، أخرجه أبو الشيخ في " الثواب " حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن أحمد الأعرج حدثنا الحسن بن الصباح حدثنا أبو معاوية عن الأعمش به .



As for the other half of the hadeeth, Suyoothi has not discussed a single hadeeth that is witness for it.
Yes (indeed), Suyoothi said: Then we find Muhammad bin Marwaan who reports from Aŭmash, Abu ash-Shaykh has collected in his ŭath-Thawaabŭ, Abd-ar-Rahman bin Ahmed al-Aŭraj narrated to us, (that) al-Hasan bin as-Sabaah narrated to us, (that) Aboo Muŭaawiyah narrated to us from Aŭmash, this hadeeth.



قلت : ورجال هذا السند كلهم ثقات معروفون غير الأعرج هذا ، والظاهر أنه الذي أورده أبو الشيخ نفسه في " طبقات الأصبهانيين " ( ص 342 / 463 ) فقال :
عبد الرحمن بن أحمد الزهري أبو صالح الأعرج ، ثم روى عنه حديثين ولم يذكر فيه جرحا ولا تعديلا فهو مجهول ، وسيأتي
تخريج أحدهما برقم ( 5835 ) وسوف يأتي له ثالث برقم ( 6246 ) بإذن الله .


I say: the men of this chain are all trustworthy, well known and reliable except ŭal-Aŭrajŭ this one, and what is apparent is that he is the one whom Abush-Shaikh himself mentioned in ŭTabaqaatul-Asbahaaniyyeenŭ, (page 342/463) where he said:
Abd-ar-Rahman bin Ahmed az-Zuhree Aboo Saleh al-Aŭraj, then he narrated from him two ahadeeth, and he did not mention either jarh or taadeel so he is majŭhool. And soon will come thakhreej of both (these ahadeeth) numbering (# 5835) and the third in due course numbering (#6246) by the permission of Allah.


فقول الحافظ في " الفتح " ( 6 / 379 ) : سنده جيد ، غير مقبول ، ولهذا قال ابن القيم في هذا السند : إنه غريب ، كما نقله السخاوي عنه في " القول البديع في الصلاة على الحبيب الشفيع " ( ص 116 ) وقال ابن عبد الهادي في " الصارم المنكي في الرد على السبكي " ( ص 190 ) : وقد روى بعضهم هذا الحديث من رواية أبي
معاوية عن الأعمش ، وهو خطأ فاحش ، وإنما هو محمد بن مروان تفرد به وهو متروك الحديث مُتَّهَمٌ بالكذب .


And the saying of al-Hafidh in ŭFathŭ: Chain is jayyid (good), is not acceptable, so Ibn al-Qayyim said about this chain: That it is ghareeb(strange), as reported from him by Sakhawee in ŭal-Qawl al-Badeeŭ Fis-Salaah ala al-Habeeb ash-Shafeeŭ ŭ(page 116) and Ibn Abd-il-Hadee said in ŭas-Sarim al-Mankee Fee Radd alaa as-Subkeeŭ (page 190) (who said): And some have narrated this hadeeth from the route of Abee Muŭaawiyah from Aŭmash and it is a gross mistake because indeed, it is Muhammad bin Marwan alone in reporting it and he ( is) matrook in hadeeth ( who was accused of being a liar.


على أن هذه المتابعة ناقصة ، إذ ليس فيها ما في رواية محمد بن مروان :
" وكفي بها أمر دنياه ... " ، كذلك أورده الحافظ ابن حجر والسخاوي من هذا الوجه خلافا لما يوهمه فعل السيوطي حين قال : ... عن الأعمش به ، يعني بسنده ولفظه المذكور في رواية السدي كما لا يخفى على المشتغلين بهذا العلم الشريف .
وقال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية في " الرد على الأخنائي " ( ص 210 - 211 ) : وهذا الحديث وإن كان معناه صحيحا ( لعله يعني في الجملة ) فإسناده لا يحتج به ، وإنما يثبت معناه بأحاديث أخر ، فإنه لا يعرف إلا من حديث محمد بن مروان السدي الصغير عن الأعمش وهو عند أهل المعرفة بالحديث موضوع على الأعمش .


Along with the fact that this support is a partial/incomplete support,since this does not contain what is present in the narration of Muhammad bin Marwan: ŭ Sufficient with it is the affair of dunyaŭ.ŭ , similary al-Hafidh ibn Hajr and Sakhawee mentioned it from this perspective as opposed to the false impression that may come about from what as-Suyootee said: ŭupon Aŭmash, meaning with the chain and wording mentioned in the narration of Suddi as it is not hidden from those who are busy with this noble science.

And Ibn Taymiyyah said in ŭRadd ala al-Aqnaŭeeŭ (page 210-211): Even if it be said that the meaning of it is saheeh (perhaps he meant overall), its isnaad cannot be relied upon and the meaning is established from the other hadeeth, since it is not known except as a hadeeth of Muhammad bin Marwaan which, with the people of knowledge of hadeeth (is considered) mawdoo upon Aŭmash. Kaddhab (liar) with the unanimous agreement, and this hadeeth is mawdoo upon Aŭmash unanimously.


وقال في مختصر الرد المذكور ( 27 / 241 ـ مجموع الفتاوي ) : حديث موضوع ، وإنما يرويه محمد بن مروان السدي عن الأعمش ، وهو كذاب بالاتفاق وهذا الحديث موضوع على الأعمش بإجماعهم .


And he said in Mukhtasar radd upon al-Aqnaŭee, (Majmooŭ Fatawa ŭ 27/241): This hadeeth is mawdooŭ (fabricated), and those who narrated from Muhammad bin Marwaan as-Suddi from Aŭmash, and he is Khaddhab (liar) unanimously (with the scholars of hadeeth) and this hadeeth is mawdooŭ upon Aŭmash by Ijmaa of them.


وجملة القول أن الشطر الأول من الحديث ينجومن إطلاق القول بوضعه لهذه المتابعة التي خفيت على ابن تيمية وأمثا 

abdul.azeem
08-25-2009 @ 2:45 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Al-A'raj Is The Same Man Dhahabi Noted In Tareekh al-Islam



Al-Albaanee said:

quote:

I say: the men of this chain are all trustworthy, well known and reliable except 'al-A'raj' this one, and what is apparent is that he is the one whom Abush-Shaikh himself mentioned in ŭTabaqaatul-Asbahaaniyyeenŭ, (page 342/463) where he said:
Abd-ar-Rahman bin Ahmed az-Zuhree Aboo Saleh al-Aŭraj, then he narrated from him two ahadeeth, and he did not mention either jarh or taadeel so he is majŭhool. And soon will come thakhreej of both (these ahadeeth) numbering (# 5835) and the third in due course numbering (#6246) by the permission of Allah.




Imam adh-Dhahabee rahimahullah noted this in his Tareekh al-Islam. What is apparent is that Ibn Hajar, Sakhawee & Suyoothi missed this defect! It is quite possible that Manawee was aware of it and hence he rejected Ibn Hajar's verdict on this chain. Wallahu A'lam!

Hence, Al-Albaanee's conclusion is quite accurate walhamdulillah. See below the scan from Taareekh al-Asbahaneen (and the footnote where the muhaqqiq noted that Abdar_Rahman al-A'raj's biography is listed in Tabqat_ul_Muhadditheen bi_asbahaan 4/464, and there is neither Jarh nor Ta'deel about him).



[Note:- There is one Muhaqqiq who has claimed that Abdar Rahman al-A'raj was declared Maj'hool by Imam al-Bayhaqee rahimahullah but I could not locate its reference. If I locate, I will post it insha' Allah.As for the narrator mentioned in Musannaf of Ibn Abee Shaybah, from the Athar Of Kab,  neither Muhammad Awwamah (Volume 20/25 - Kitab al-Awail #37195) nor Hamad bin Abdullah & Muhammad Lihaydaan (Volume 13/16 - Kitab al-Awail #11) have mentioned any details in their respective checking. Except that Muhammad Awwamah noted "Haddathna" in "Sheen" (Manuscript) instead of "Akhbarna" in "Ain"]


abdul.azeem
08-26-2009 @ 2:30 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Ibn Arraq Did Not Mention Any Witnesses For The First Part Of The Narration



Ibn Arraq in Thanzee'athu Shar'ee'ah (335) declared this chain to be Jayyid but he did not provide witnesses for the first part. The shawahid he quoted were for the salam being conveyed to the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam by the angels from the ahadeeth of Ibn Mas'ood, Ibn Abbas & Aboo Hurairah radhiAllahu anhum (see Shaykh Nasir's comment on Suyoothi's claim that there are witnesses). Ibn Arraq in addition to this, only observed that as-Suddi was followed by Abu Mu'awiyah (even though this following is partial as pointed out by Shaykh Nasir rahimahullah) in quoting this from al-A'mash but he missed the fact that al-A'raj in the chain below is maj'hool.



This could be one of the main reason why Shaykh al-Albaanee rahimahullah did not comment on Ibn Arraq as its mere copious claim like Suyoothi that he responded fully.




abdul.azeem
08-26-2009 @ 3:05 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Manawee Rejects The Verdict Of Ibn Hajar - Agrees With Ibn al-Jawzee



Manawee in Faydh-al-Qadeer Sharh Of Jaami' Sagheer rejected the verdict of Ibn Hajar al-Asqalanee in Fath that the chain is Jayyid. He also does not object to Ibn al-Jawzee's listing of it in al-Mawdoo'aat.

Then he mentioned what Dhahabee listed in Meezan under the biography of Muhammad bin Marwan.

Dhahabee clearly knew that there is another chain about which his contemporaries (Ibn al-Qayyim, Ibn Abdul Haadee) have declared the chain of Abu ash-Shaykh as "Ghareeb Jiddan" & "Khata Fahisha" respectively and he also noted al-A'raj (who is majhool) in his Tareekh but did not pass any other comment on the narration (in agreement with other Scholars) except that it is mawdoo'. So Manawee rejected the claim of Ibn Hajar (who came later) and clearly agreed with the earlier Scholars of hadeeth. Wallahu A'lam!





abdul.azeem
08-27-2009 @ 2:36 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Ibn al-Qayyim Does Not Believe That The Prophet Hears Salam At His Grave




In Jalaa`ul-Af'haam (page 92), Imam Ibn al-Qayyim declares the narration of Abu ash-Shaykh as "Ghareeb Jiddan". He did not comment anything regarding the hearing of the Salam of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam by either defending the matn of the hadeeth or the soundness of the chain. Nor did he rahimahullah support anything from this narration with any supporting witnesses or from linguistic point of view or qiyaas etc.

In contrast he had had no problems in passing a decisive verdict that this narration is very strange.

Earlier I have quoted Ibn al-Qayyim did not believe that the dead hear, nor do they benefit from recitation of the Qur'aan and that it is bidah. And now as the readers can clearly see that he did not believe rahimahullah that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam hears Salam at his grave.

[See the links below]

>>> Dead Dont Hear - Reciting Qur'aan At The Grave Is Bidah <<<

[url=http://salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=6534&srow=19&erow=20]>>> Salaf-us-Saalih & Recitation Of Qur'aan At The Graves <<<[/url]

So if the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam cannot hear the Salam at his grave then how about those other than the Prophet? And the claim that they hear the speech of the living? Let alone the dead hearing Salam and the recitation of the Qur'aan!!!




abdul.azeem
09-01-2009 @ 3:41 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Why Did Manawee Refer To Al-Meezan?



Inspite of there being many Mawdoo narrations reported from Muhammad bin Marwaan Suddi Sagheer, Dhahabee in "al-Meezan" only quoted one fabricated narration that he reported upon A'mash (via Abu Saleh and Abu Hurairah) attributed to the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam.

This shows how well known this narration was amongst the Scholars of hadeeth as being fabricated. This is the very same narration in question!
G.F.Haddad and his crew need to ponder over why Dhahabee chose this specific narration out of all those narrations?

So Imam adh-Dhahabee rahimahullah said under his biography -

محمد بن مروان السدى الكوفى، وهو السدى الصغير.
يروى عن هشام بن عروة والاعمش.
تركوه واتهمه بعضهم بالكذب.
وهو صاحب الكلبى.
قال البخاري: سكتوا عنه، وهو مولى الخطابيين، لا يكتب حديثه البتة.
وقال ابن معين: ليس بثقة.
وقال أحمد: أدركته وقد كبر فتركته.
العلاء بن عمرو الحنفي، حدثنا محمد بن مروان، عن الاعمش، عن أبى صالح، عن أبى هريرة - مرفوعا:

من صلى على عند قبري سمعته، ومن صلى على نائيا بلغته.


What is noteworthy is the fact that al-Hafidh Ibn Hajr rahimahullah in Lisanul Meezan did not object to what Dhahabee said - neither regarding this individual nor regarding this narration.

I dont wish to go as far to claim that Ibn Hajar changed his opinion but those who rely upon this narration in the matter of aqeedah should be well aware that it is not a clear and decisive verdict of Ibn Hajar when you look at his other books.

So who is the one that misleads, betrays, gives partial information?

Wallahu Ta'aala A'lam!

abdul.azeem
09-02-2009 @ 6:02 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Why Al-Albaanee Made A Distinction Between Ibn Hajr's Mention & Suyoothi's Claim




quote:


Along with the fact that this support is a partial/incomplete support,since this does not contain what is present in the narration of Muhammad bin Marwan: ŭ Sufficient with it is the affair of dunyaŭ.ŭ , similary al-Hafidh ibn Hajr and Sakhawee mentioned it from this perspective as opposed to the false impression that may come about from what as-Suyootee said: ŭupon Aŭmash, meaning with the chain and wording mentioned in the narration of Suddi as it is not hidden from those who are busy with this noble science



If you look at the context in which Ibn Hajr rahimahullah quoted this narration in his Fath, it is distinctly clear that he is defending the hayaath of Ambiyaa in al-Barzakh who infact are superior to the Shuhadaa about whom Allah has said:

Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allŭh as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision. (Aali Imran 3:169)

If you examine all the narrations that al-Hafidh quoted to prove this are all with regards to the Salam being conveyed to the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam - The hadeeth of Abu Dawood on authority of Abu Hurairah, the narration of Nasa'ee & Abu Dawood authenticated by Ibn Khuzaymah with regards to the fadl of Jumu'ah upon the authority of Aws bin Aws. Then even further down Ibn Hajr quoted the narration of those who send Salam upon the Prophet, Allah returns his soul until he responds to it.

Pay attention to the narration of Abu ash-Shaykh that was brought in this particular context, only to show that the Ambiyaa are alive in al-Barzakh - and he derived directly from the fact that Salam is conveyed to him Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam with this particular narration and other narrations.

As for the first portion of the narration (من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته) al-Hafidh does not seem to strengthen it by quoting other mawdoo narrations from either Bayhaqee or Tabarani or other books that contain Muhammad Ibn Marwaan who is matrook.

Inspite of the fact that al-Hafidh erred in declaring the sanad to be jayyid, yet the context in which he quoted this narration is way different from what G.F.Haddad and crew want us to believe.

Al-Hafidh does not try to present shawahid to this narration to prove the first portion, nor does he object to Ibn al-Qayyim's saying that it is ghareeb, neither does he object to Uqaylee's massive statement that the hadeeth reported by Suddi has no basis, and he even does not comment on Ibn al-Jawzee's inclusion of it in Mawdoo'aat.

In summary, he has only used this narration as a proof for Salam being conveyed to the Prophet and consequently proving that Ambiyaa' are alive in al-Barzakh as they are better than Shuhadaa.

Wallahu A'lam!

So who is the one that is misleading? Lying? Betraying?

With Allah is the refuge sought!



Attached FileFath_Ibn_Hajar.jpg (48 Kbytes)

abdul.azeem
09-02-2009 @ 6:31 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Why Al-Albaanee Made a Distinction of Sakhawee's Quote & Suyoothi's Claim?




Following the same quote above from our Shaykh al-Albaanee rahimahullah, Imam Sakhawee on other hand was much more in agreement with the massive statement of al-Uqaylee who said that there is no basis for this hadeeth and that it is not preserved. He also agrees with Ibn al-Jawzee for the inclusion of this narration in al-Mawdoo'at.

As Ibn Arraq himself stated in Thanzee-ush-Shar'eeah (see above), that Sakhawee quoted from his Shaykh that the chain is jayyid ( as Sakhawee clearly adds " Kamaa afaadahu Shaykhanaa " to his verdict) initially, but later on he agrees that it is mawdoo, it has no basis and is not preserved
after he quotes various chains from other books.

Wallahu A'lam!

So who is the one that is misleading? Lying? and giving partial information?



abdul.azeem
09-03-2009 @ 6:25 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Suyoothi Declares This Narration To Be Da'eef!!!


G.F. Haddad said -
quote:

al-Suyuti in al-La'ali' al-Masnu`a (1996 ed. 1:259 = 1:282-283) adduces Abu al-Shaykh's chain - among other narrations - as corroboration for the hadith, citing it in his commentary on al-Nasa'i's Sunan (4:110) and rejecting Ibn al-Jawzi's verdict of forgery in al-Mawdu`at (1:303)




Important Note:- In order to understand Shaykh Nasir's discourse on Suyoothi, know that the narration of al-Khateeb quoted by Ibn al-Jawzee and the narration of Abu ash-Shaykh are mutually exclusive with the wording " وكفي بها أمر دنياه.....". Ibn Sam'oon in "Al-maali" has this addition.


After combing the reality of his claims we find the following -


In al-La'aali' al-Masnou'a Suyoothi quotes the narration from al-Khateeb and follows it exactly with what Ibn al-Jawzee says in al-Mawdoo'aat along with the wording of Uqaylee. He then merely quotes that Abu ash-Shaykh has narrated this same wording (narration) with a good chain ( meaning that of al-A'raj) giving a false impression that Muhammad bin Marwan was followed by Aboo Mu'awiyah.

But in "al-Manaaqib" as Shaykh al-Albaanee has traced his words, that he explicitly states that Aboo Mu'aawiyah is a companion of Muhammad bin
Marwan in narrating this hadeeth from A'mash. Al-Albaanee refutes him with the fact that this mutaa'ba'a is not complete(taammah) as the narration reported by Abu ash-Shaykh does not contain in it " وكفي بها أمر دنياه.....".

What G.F.Haddad is trying to insinuate is - that Suyoothi's claim that Aboo Mu'aawiya has followed as-Suddi in narrating this hadeeth is correct and this is how Suyoothi rejected the verdict of Ibn al-Jawzee.

If this big change in the text of hadeeth is to be classified as Mu'taa'ba'a taammah let alone al-A'raj himself being maj'hool, then what do we say about the following narration which Suyoothi quotes in the following books -

a) Jaami' as-Sagheer
b) Sharh Of Nasaai`
c) Al-Haawi
d) Khasais al-Kubraa
e) Bushra al-Ka'ib
f) Sharh Sudoor
g) Fath-ul-Kabeer
h) Jaami' al-Jawaami'
i) Jaami' al-Ahadeeth

All of these books contain exactly the same narration. And to notify G.F.Haddad and his crew, Suyoothi has declared this to be Da'eef
in Jaami' as-Sagheer.


8812- من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته، ومن صلى علي نائيا أبلغته

- ‏(‏هب‏)‏ عن أبي هريرة

- ‏       (‏ض‏)‏


~ Meaning Da'eef

Suyoothi said in Jaami` al-Ahadeeth about this narration -

أخرجه البيهقى فى شعب الإيمان (2/218 ، رقم 158) . وأخرجه أيضًا : العقيلى (4/136 ، ترجمة 1696) وقال : لا أصل له من حديث الأعمش وليس بمحفوظ ولا يتابعه إلا من هو دونه .

quote:

Suyoothi had the books of Ibn Hajar & Sakhawee and he knew their verdict, yet he declared this da'eef!!! If Suyoothi declared this narration to be Da'eef then what about the narration of al-Khateeb, quoted by Ibn al-Jawzee in al-Mawdoo'aat that has a text which our friend G.F.Haddad also agrees that it is Mawdoo (forged)?


Wallahu A'lam!

Seems like its becoming more and more clear as to who is lying? Betraying? Giving partial information?

abdul.azeem
09-16-2009 @ 6:52 AM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Imam Bayhaqee's Declaration Of These Narrations As Ma'lool



Muhammad bin Darwaysh ash-Shaf'ee said in Asnaa' ul-Mataalib Fee Ahaadees Mukhtalafatil-Maraatib, that Bayhaqee declared this as Ma'lool -


1420- حديث من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته ومن صلى علي نائيا أبلغته
أعله البيهقي وابن مروان وقال العقيلي لا أصل له وقال ابن دحية موضوع تفرد به محمد بن مروان السدي وكان كذابا وأورده ابن الجوزي في الموضوع وفي الميزان محمد بن مروان السدي وترك واتهم بالكذب وأورد له هذا الخبر


Al-Bayhaqee narrated one narration via al-Asma'ee from Muhammad bin Marwaan with the wording that negates the hearing for the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam near his grave and affirms its conveyance while the other narration via al-Alaa bin Amr al-Ju'fee from Muhammad bin Marwaan that affirms the hearing. The first narration has the wording " و كفى بهما أمر دنياه...".[as-Sarim al-Mankee, p.352-354, Shu'b al-Eeman #3156]

What strengthens the decisive declaration of Ibn Abdul Haadi in "Sarim al-Mankee" that the narration via Aboo Mu'aawiya is "Gross Mistake" is the fact that al-Bayhaqee neither records nor strengthens the narration via al-Alaa bin Amr al-Ju'fee with that of Abu ash-Shaykh.

G.F.Haddad stating that al-Bayhaqee has recorded corroborating chains is a mere wishful thinking. He cleverly deceives the readers with this allusion but the fact is al-Bayhaqee not only left them as Ma'lool but ignored the narration with the chain of Abu ash-Shaykh that fully qualifies to be a gross mistake for it was well known to be mawdoo upon A'mash.

G.F.Haddad would never reveal that al-Bayhaqee narrated several narrations via the route of Aboo Muhammad Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Jafar bin Hayyan well known as Abu ash-Shaykh [See Siyar for his biography] in his Sunan al-Kubra.[#1596, #2119, #9476, #12602 - al-Bayhaqee from Aboo Bakr bin Haarith al-Faqeeh from Abu ash-Shaykh...]

So isn't there is a Muta'ba'a with meaning and chain for this narration? Then G.F.Haddad and crew need to answer why al-Bayhaqee ignored this narration altogether?

As for the saying of Shaykh al-Albaanee rahimahullah that the first part has a Muta'ba'a that is hidden from Ibn Taymiyyah and his likes, then he is indeed referring to the same narration recorded by al-Bayhaqee. But Shaykh Nasir in Aayatul Bayyinat (p. 112-113) declared this very same part to be Mawdoo' and referred the readers to "ad-Da'eefah" #203. And he does not even mention about " و كفى بهما أمر دنياه...".

quote:


It does not matter to us whether this narration is declared as Mawdoo' ( by large group of earlier scholars) or Da'eef explicitly by Suyoothi and implicitly by Shaykh Nasir which is one of his saying above. What matters to us is that this indeed is NOT Saheeh!!



Wallahu A'lam!

abdul.azeem
10-20-2009 @ 2:27 PM    Notify Admin about this post
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een (KSA/ Bangalore, India)
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
          
Do Not Take The Deen Of Allah From Maj'hool




ولسنا نقبل دين الله تعالى عمن لا يعرفه أهل العلم بالحديث بالعدالة



Imam al-Bayhaqee rahimahullah said in "al-Qira'atu Khalful Imam":

quote:

We do not take the deen of Allah the Most-High from those who are unknown to the scholars of hadeeth with regards to their Adalah.


This is additional proof as to why al-Bayhaqee seems to have rejected this narration because al-A'raj is maj'hool.






SalafiPublications.Com
TawhidFirst | Aqidah | AboveTheThrone | Asharis
Madkhalis | Takfiris | Maturidis | Dajjaal
Islam Against Extremism | Manhaj
Ibn Taymiyyah | Bidah
Arabic Online Course over here


main page | contact us
Copyright İ 2001 - SalafiTalk.Net
Madinah Dates Gold Silver Investments