Category Archives: Hadeeth

Is eating while walking the same as eating while standing?

Bismillahi wal hamdu lillah was salaatu was salaamu ‘alaa rasolilahi

Ammaa ba’d:

I was recently asked about this issue and promised I would look into its authenticity and came across this benefit and thought I would share it.

Is eating walking the same as eating standing? Continue reading

Ahaadeeth that are popular, Widespread and Weak (Part 5 – Concerning the day of Aashooraa)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu Alaa Rasoollillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

In continuing with this series, since today is the day of Aashooraa we mention here a number of weak ahaadeeth regularly quoted upon this blessed day. Continue reading

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say.. (Part 3)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say (and still hold):

3. Weakness due to a narrator being discredited for problems in his Dhabt (His Precision) Continue reading

The virtues of giving Sadaqah – 2

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

Upon the authority of Abu Hurairah – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu who said: That the Messenger of Allah said:

The servant says: “My Wealth! My Wealth! While he only possesses from his wealth three things, that which he has eaten and so it is consumed, or that which he has worn (from garment) and it is worn out, and that which he has given (in sadaqah) and so he has stored it away (i.e. for his hereafter)” Continue reading

The Virtue of Giving Sadaqah – Part 1

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

Upon the authority of Uqbah Ibn ‘Aamir – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu from the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam who said:

“Indeed Charity puts out the heat of the grave for its people, and certainly the believer will take shade under his charity on the day of Judgement”

(Collected by By At Tabaraani in mu’jam Al Kabeer (14207) and Al Baihaqi in ‘Shu’abul Imaan (3347) and it is from the ahaadeeth that Shaikh Albaani made ‘Dha’eef’ then later declared it ‘Saheeh’ in As Saheehah (3484))

Upon the authority of ‘Uqbah Ibn Aamir who said: “I heard The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam said:

Every individual will be under the shade of his Sadaqah until the people are judged between (on the day of Judgement)”

(Collected by Ibn Hibaan (3299) and declared ‘Saheeh’ By Shaikh Albaani)

Upon the authority on Buraidah who said the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam said:

No man gives anything from sadaqah except after the jaws of seventy devils attempt to deter him”

(Collected by Haakim (23012) and declared ‘Saheeh’ by Shaikh Albaani in ‘Saheehul Jaami’ (5814))

Upon the authority of Abu Hurairah – Radhiyallahu Anhu who said: The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam who said:

There is no morning the servant rises in except that two angels descend. One Angel say ‘Oh Allah give the one who spends (in the way of Allah) a goodly substitution and the other says: “Oh Allah give the one who withholds (from giving) destruction”

(Agreed Upon – Bukhaari (1347) and Muslim (1010))

Upon the authority of Abu Hurairah who said: Upon the authority the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam who said:

Indeed there is an Angel upon a door from the doors of Jannah who says:

Whoever gives a loan today will be recompensed tomorrow!”

and another Angel at another door who says:

Oh Allah give the one who spends (in the way of Allah) a goodly substitution and give the one who withholds (from giving) destruction

(Collected by Ibn Hibbaan (3323) and declared ‘Saheeh’ By Shaikh Albaani)

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say…(Part 2)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say (and still hold) that: Continue reading

The Hadeeth ‘..His portion of Jannah will be two thousand years journey..’

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

Immamut Tirmidhi said It was Narrated to us from Abd Ibn Humaid who said I was informed by shabaabah upon the authority of Israa’eel upon the authority of Thuwair who said I heard Ibn Umar say: The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam Said:

Indeed the least of the people in Janah in station is one who will look at his (portion of) paradise and his wives and his blessing and his servants and his beds (and thrones) and they will cover the distance of one thousand years journey and the most noble of them in station is the one who looks at his (Allah) face every morning and evening then the Messenger of Allah recited the statement of Allah “Faces on that day will be bright and illuminated looking at their lordContinue reading

100 Observations against Al Hajoori – Point 13

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasooliillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

As mentioned in the beginning of this post the intent behind this post is only to mention the issues and not to discuss the issues with any detail

It has reached me that one of the Hajoori fanatics has criticized part one of this post (which, of course was what I was expecting!) saying that in point 13 you mentioned:

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

The individual states:


Abu Hakeem has falsely accused Shaikh Yahya (may Allaah preserve him) of having the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees. Abu Hakeem said,
“13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees…”

Here B. Davis makes a terrible mistake. Why is this such a huge mistake? Because the meaning of the speech of Shaikh Yahya comes in a hadeeth which Shaikh Muqbil brings in his Al-Jaamee As-Saheeh.

وقال الإمام أحمد رحمه الله أيضا(5/185)
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا سِنَانٍ يُحَدِّثُعَنْ وَهْبِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الْحِمْصِيِّ عَنِ ابْنِ الدَّيْلَمِيِّ قَالَ وَقَعَ فِي نَفْسِي شَيْءٌمِنْ الْقَدَرِ فَأَتَيْتُ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ فَسَأَلْتُهُ فَقَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِوَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ لَوْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَذَّبَ أَهْلَ سَمَاوَاتِهِ وَأَهْلَأَرْضِهِ لَعَذَّبَهُمْ غَيْرَ ظَالِمٍ لَهُمْ وَلَوْرَحِمَهُمْ كَانَتْ رَحْمَتُهُ لَهُمْ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَعْمَالِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَلَكَ جَبَلُ أُحُدٍ أَوْ مِثْلُ جَبَلِ أُحُدٍ ذَهَبًا أَنْفَقْتَهُ فِي سَبِيلِاللَّهِ مَا قَبِلَهُ اللَّهُ مِنْكَ حَتَّى تُؤْمِنَ بِالْقَدَرِ وَتَعْلَمَأَنَّ مَا أَصَابَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِيُخْطِئَكَ وَأَنَّ مَا أَخْطَأَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْلِيُصِيبَكَ وَأَنَّكَ إِنْ مِتَّ عَلَى غَيْرِ هَذَا دَخَلْتَ النَّارَ.

“So he (Zaid ibn Thaabit) said, I heard the Messenger of the Allaah (praise and peace be upon him) say, “If verily Allaah punished the companions of His heavens and the companions of His earth, He would punish them and would not be an Oppressor to them…” (Al-Hadeeth)

So we see that Shaikh Yahya did not add anything to the hadeeth. So we ask B. Davis, “Do you accuse the Prophet (praise and peace be upon him) of being Jahmee or Ash’aree?” Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..”

Here we see a typical example of the problem at hand, the tarbiyah Ilmiyah they recieve, and the smug attitude of one pleased with himself and his skanty understanding. Not forgetting the close to humourous ‘confidence’ many of their ignorant chests are filled with!

His statement: “..Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..” is actually an invitation to play ‘Ping-Pong’ with them which is something i refuse to do! But i will say this..

He accuses me of ignorance in the affairs of the adeedah as is their normal practice (though i have been aquainted with this hadeeth for more than 15 years since studying the explanation of Al Aqeedatut Tahaawiyah of Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi with our Shaikh Ali Naasir Al faqeehi in Madina in the mid ninties!)

But this ‘Defense’ of theirs is nothing but more evidence of their Jahl!

For your information, this hadeeth has been discussed and used by three sets of people. It has been discussed by the Qadariyah, it has been used by the Jabariyah and it has been used ‘correctly’ by Ahlus Sunnah. Each of them UNDERSTAND the hadeeth in accordance with their belief.

Al Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions in ‘Fathul Baari (18/284)

“قَالَ وَهَذَا فَصْل الْخِطَاب مَعَ الْجَبْرِيَّة الَّذِينَ أَنْكَرُوا أَنْ تَكُون الْأَعْمَال سَبَبًا فِي دُخُول الْجَنَّة مِنْ كُلّ وَجْه ، وَالْقَدَرِيَّة الَّذِينَ زَعَمُوا أَنَّ الْجَنَّة عِوَضُ الْعَمَل وَأَنَّهَا ثَمَنه وَأَنَّ دُخُولهَا بِمَحْضِ الْأَعْمَال ، وَالْحَدِيث يُبْطِل دَعْوَى الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ وَاَللَّه أَعْلَم

This is the determining factor between the belief of the Jabariyah those who reject the fact that ones actions may be a cause for an individual entering Jannah, and between the Qadariyah who claim that Jannah is granted to a person in exchange for his actions, but this hadeeth (actually) nullifies the claim of both parties..”

The Jabariyah then, hold that ones actions are not a cause for one entering jannah (since they believe that we are taken by predecree like feathers are taken by wind and our actions have no effect upon our final destination).

Since this is their belief they use the hadeeth in question to establish that Allah does with us that which he wills (i.e. without our actions coming into play and having any effect upon our outcome) therefore this hadeeth is from the strongest of that which they use to substantiate their belief.

Particularly the statement of the Messenger Saw “If Allah were to punish the inhabitants of the heaven and the inhabitants of earth he would punish them without oppressing them..”

They hold that this hadeeth establishes their belief that we are like feathers in the wind

After mentioning the Hadeeth Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi mentions in his explanation of Al Aqeedah At Tahaawiyah

This Hadeeth is from that which the Jabariyyah use as evidence (i.e. for their belief)..”

As for the Qadariyah then it is not relevant to their false principles so they either receive it with rejection or interpretation. The best of the people in its regard are Ahlus Sunnah..”

(Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyah)

So do we now say as Al Hajooris defenders say “Oh the Jabariyah were only quoting the hadeeth!!”

Ibnil Qayyim Mentions concerning the Hadeeth in ‘Miftaahu Daaris Sa’aadah:

“Thus his mercy is not an exchange for their actions, neither is it a fruit of their actions, rather it is greater than their actions as occurs in the same hadeeth “If he were to be merciful to them then his mercy would be better for them than their actions..”

So he gathered between both affairs in the hadeeth that is (the clarification of the fact that) if he punished them he would punish them DUE TO THEM BEING DESERVED OF THAT and he would not have oppressed them. And if he had mercy upon them then that would be purely due to virtue from him and benevolence not because of their actions..”

Thus Ahlus Sunnah understand that the hadeeth is held to mean that if Allah were to punish all of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth he would do so because THEY WERE DESERVED OF PUNISHMENT hence he would not have wronged them.

The problem with the speech of Al Hajoori is that his speech is connected to an earlier statement (as we mentioned in the beginning of the article these were merely bullet points and was not meant to be a breakdown of the issues)

Al Hajoori mentions in ‘Al Minnatul Ilaahiyah bi Sharhil Aqeedatus Safaareeniyah P153) quoting one of the mistakes of Imaam Safaareeni who said in some lines of poetry:

And it is possible for our patron (Allah) to punish his creation * WITHOUT THEM HAVING SINNED OR COMMITED ANY CRIME!”

This statement of Safaareeni is the exact statement of the Jabariyah those who say that Allah does with us as he wills and our actions play no part in our outcome! Instead of doing that which all of the scholars who explain it do which is to hasten to highlight the error of this statement. And that it is in accordance to the belief of the Jabariyyah and that Ahlus Sunnah hold such and such.

Instead he says:

“What is EVEN BETTER(!) (Ahsan Min Haadhaa) than this, is the statement of Imaam At Tahaawi:

He guides who he wills and he protects and pardons from his virtue. He misguides who he wills and he forsakes them and tests them from his justice, all of them revolve around his will, between his virtue and his justice

then he says:

Allah says: “ He will not be asked about what he does but they will be asked”(Suratul Anbiyaa 23)

Allah pardons and is benevolent.

He says: “If it were not for the virtue of Allah upon you then none of you would be purified ever but indeed Allah purifies whosoever he wills” (Suratun Noor Vs 21)

Then he quotes: “So Virtue is for Allah before and after if Allah were to punish All of his worshippers he would not have oppressed them, and if he is merciful to them then it would be due to his virtue, his favour and his generosity..”

So as you can see the statement is devoid of the necessary explanation of the correct position of Ahlus Sunnah. And even though the statement of Imaam Tahaawi that he quotes is correct it does not sufficiently clarify the error or clarify the position of Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the Justice of Allah.

So I ask you, what will the reader walk away with?

Would he walk away correctly understanding the aqeedah of Ahlis Sunnah in relation to the justice of Allah and being clear about the error of As Safaarini or will he walk away with the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah (who are Jabariyah in regards to Qadr)?

Where is the clarification that we would expect from a small student of knowledge much less ‘An Naasihul Ameen!!

So the issue is not an issue of quotation of Hadeeth alone! If that were the case then the people of bid’ah would be correct in that which they say or hold since many of them just ‘quote the hadeeth!’

Wallahu A’lam

On hajoori: https://ah-sp.com/2013/03/15/oh-yahyaa-hold-onto-the-book-with-firm-strength-i-e-hold-fast-to-it-suratul-maryam-vs-13/

Addressing Anjem Choudhury Part 3

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

Under Point 2 The Document mentions:

02: THERE IN NO SUCH THING AS MODERATE OR RADICAL OR EXTREME ISLAM

Under this point he begins with the statement:

“The terms extremist, moderate, terrorist, radical etc… have no place in Islam whatsoever.”

He also claims: “..These terms have been introduced into the vocabulary by the British regime and the media in order to isolate Muslims who practice their deen and thereafter to demonize them and eventually to bring in laws to silence them hoping that the other Muslims will not speak up in their defence..”

This statement of his is again either one of ignorance concerning the statements of Allah and his Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him), or a continuation of the ongoing fabrications we see coming from this man and his group.

Regardless of how these terms are used by the Non-Muslims, it is falsehood to reject the fact that these concepts have been mentioned in the Book and the Sunnah. If Anjem is ignorant of the presence of these affairs in the book and Sunnah, then he has no place speaking on behalf of any Muslim until he learns the religion (or perhaps he is working with the previous principle of his ‘anyone of them (the Muslims) may represent them all!’) or he knows of them, and he intentionally hides that which is in the book and the Sunnah, which is a worse calamity!

Allah mentions in the Qur’aan

Thus have we make you a balanced nation (i.e. moderate) that you may be witnesses over mankind
(Suratul Baqarah Vs 143)

The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) also said:

“Be aware of extremism (Al Ghuloo) for indeed those who came before you were destroyed by extremism
(Sunan An Nasaa’ie Hadeeth No. 3057)

Thus we clearly have references to extremism and moderation in Islamic text. We have the encouragement with one, and a warning against the other.

As far as the term ‘Terrorist’ then, while the issue of striking terror in the heart of the enemy during ‘legislated’ and ‘legitimate’ warfare is a desired affair among all nations, to use murder, kidnapping and other such methods as a means for change, political or otherwise, is the evil path of the first of the innovators who appeared within this Ummah, those who assassinated Ali Radhiyallahu Anhu, the khawaarij. Thus the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah consider the terms ‘Irhaab/Irhaabi’ (Terrorism/Terrorist) as accepted terms referring to a well known group of individuals.

Shaikh Abdul Azeez Ibn Baaz mentions: “At-Tattarruf (Extremism) is (a methodology based upon) taking (innovated) allowances that have no legitimate substantiation and no evidence supporting them. Terrorism is that one attacks or kills individuals without right or evidence, in fact upon ignorance and devoid of insight. They then, are referred to as ‘Terrorists’ (Irhaabiyoon), those who kill people without right and without shariah proof. They affect the security of the people and cause problems between then and within their country, they are Terrorists.

(From the tape: Verdicts of the scholars concerning Jihaad and Suicide missions and terrorism)

In this section we see other examples of Choudhurys ignorant generalisations. He states:

“The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) Muhammad (saw) said: “Whatever is not based upon my teachings will be rejected

Again here we see an example of his untrustworthiness in narration, if he cannot be trusted when narrating from the Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him) then he undoubtedly will be even less trustworthy with the speech of anyone else!

The Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) said in the hadeeth of Aisha:

Whoever brings about in this affair of ours that which is not from it then it will be rejected

(Collected by Bukhaari and Muslim) And in a variant narration:

Whoever carries out an action in this affair of ours that is not from it will have it rejected
(Collected by Muslim)

These two narrations are the closest authentic hadeeths carrying that which resembles the meaning of the text that Choudhury has quoted. No doubt though, we observe that the meanings of the authentic narrations revolve around innovations ‘in the religion’ while the wording Choudhury sites is broader and encompasses much more than the actual hadeeth.

The authentic hadeeth mentions specifies the issues of religion, while his version would appear to carry the meaning that there is nothing that may be carried out by the Muslim at all, unless there is text to substantiate it. While this is true as it relates to acts of worship and issues of belief, it does not hold true in relation to worldly affairs. The principle that our scholars mention regularly is that the worldly affairs are all permissible unless there are clear-cut texts prohibiting a particular action. This principle they base upon the statement of Allah the most high:

It is he who has created for you all that is on the earth” (Suratul Baqarah Vs 29)

And other such texts which indicate that Allah has given us these things to enjoy as we will, as long as we do not partake in prohibited matters.

It is important then that we observe well, the inaccuracies we observe in this document, since they form the basis of much of their warped view and extreme methodology as we will go on to see inshallah.

Abu Hakeem

Addressing Anjem Choudhury Part 2

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

As mentioned in part 1, Anjem and his group have produced a document entitled ‘Islamic Prevent’ He mentions the main title, then follows it with an explanatory subtitle that states ‘Preventing Secular Fundamentalism and the Occupation of Muslim Land’ it is clear then that the document represents the blueprint for his organisations approach, ideology and methodology.

It is presented with an introductory passage which is followed by an 18 point ‘Action Plan’ for every Muslim living in the U.K. It is then sealed with a conclusion and a reference to his (now inactive) website. In the introductory passage he states: “The pamphlet you are reading is intended to open the eyes of Muslims and non-Muslims to the responsibility of Muslims living in the UK..” Thus the intent is to ‘open the eyes’ of Muslims living in the U.K to their responsibility and (he states) to highlight the dangers of this UK government led campaign against them (I.e the ‘Prevent’ agenda). In this discussion I will not quote the whole document but address some if its issues hoping this will shed light upon Anjem and his group.

    Point 1: THE ONLY IDENTITY FOR MUSLIMS IS ISLAM

Under this point he states: “A Muslim cannot have any other identity than that of Al-Islam. He is a Muslim first and last. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) taught us that (he then mentions the following in bold to give the impression that it is a hadeeth of the Messenger -Sallallahu Alahi Was Salam) the Muslims are one community among the whole of mankind, their land is one, their war is one, their peace is one, their honour is one and any one of them can represent them all.” So the question then to Anjem is where are these ‘Teachings’ of the messenger – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam recorded? Is this statement recorded in one of the well known collections of hadeeth? If so which one? Where are they in the Sunan, or the Masaaneed or the musanafaat or the Jawaami’ Or are these a collection of ‘teachings’ taken from individual Ahaadeeth? If that is the intent, then in which narration did the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi was salam teach that their land is one? In which hadeeth did he teach that anyone of them may represent them all!? or is this just your way of trying to make your own statements pass as the statement of the Messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam?

He further states: “..A Muslim cannot have any bond with other Muslims other than that of Al-Islam.

No doubt Allah has mentioned in the Qur‟an:

Cling to the rope of Allah together and do not be divided…” (Surah Aali Imraan Vs 103)

This verse no doubt commands us with unity to the best of our ability in accordance with that which is upright, correct and most apt depending upon our situation.

There is no proponent of any belief, except that he would love that the followers of his faith are united in every affair from their affairs, their reality though is very different.
While the ideal is that they strive for unity as much as possible, it has been decreed that this is something that will never occur.

Allah the most high says:

And they will never cease to disagree except him on whom your lord has bestowed his mercy…”
(Suratul Hud Vs118-119)

This then, is a decreed reality we must try and comprehend

And the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) also said:

The Jews split into seventy one sects, seventy in the hell fire, one in paradise, the Christians split into seventy two sects, seventy one in the fire one in paradise and this nation will split into seventy three sects seventy two in the hell fire one in paradise. So the companions asked who is that one oh Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him) ? So he responded “The one who is upon what I and my companions are upon today

(Just as correct guidance at the period after Moses was in following him and correctness after Jesus was in following him. Muslim belief is that the those groups that have veered away from the path of the prophet, if they are not forgiven prior to punishment, then they will be purified for their transgressions and deviations and then will ultimately enter paradise)

Thus the reality is that this absolute unity will not occur, but the Muslims have been commanded to make the best of all situations and strive to unify their ranks as best as possible.

In more than one narration the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) has commanded with this:

He said in the hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira:

Strive to do that which is right, come as close as possible to correctness and give glad tidings if you do so..” (Saheeh bukhaari)

As far as Choudhurys statement: “their land is one…”

Then this has never been the case even at the time of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him). Though the Islamic empire had one ruler, the Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him), it has always been comprised of well-known countries, having known borders and having established boundaries. The Caliphs of Muhammad after his death established governors over those regions who governed in accordance with Islamic law, much like the well-known British empire of our time. Why did the caliphs of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) not abolish these known countries with their boundaries and make one united colony without borders and names?. Shaam (a region comprising of present day Syria, Jordan and Palestine) remained sham, the Yemen remained the Yemen, Hijaaz remained Hijaaz and the Najd remained the Najd.

In addition to retaining these names the caliphs of Muhammad also appointed governors for those regions

In order to attempt to establish this concept of a borderless Muslim empire, Choudhury fabricates a prophetic narration, the correct version of which is actually a refutation of him.

He mentions: “The division of Muslim land or placing of borders is also condemned, the Prophet said: “Whoever puts a border to land has been cursed

Nowhere in the well-known collections of prophetic traditions do we find this statement attributed to the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) with an authentic chain of transmission.

What we do find though, is the authentic narration:

Cursed indeed is he who changes the borders of the land
The narration was collected in the mustadrak of Haakim 4/366, and likewise Sunanul Kubraa of Baihaqi 8/231 with an authentic chain of transmission

The classical commenters of hadeeth have mentioned that the hadeeth refers to an individual who owns land bordering the land of another, who then secretly changes the boundaries of his land in order to usurp land from his neighbour.

Thus the narration is in actuality a refutation of his claim, that division of Muslim land is condemned.

Here we see the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) condemning someone who tries to claim land that isn’t theirs, so what of Choudhurys claim that Muslims lands are one or that whoever puts a border to land is cursed??

As far as the hadeeth that he quotes from the well-known hadeeth compilation Sunan Abi Daawood concerning Asabiyah (Nationalism, tribalism):

He is not one of us he who calls for`Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for`Asabiyyah.”
Then it is a weak narration. It is weak due to there being a break in its chain between the companion of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) who narrated it, namely Jubair ibn Mut‟im (Radhiyallahu „anhu) and the narrator in the chain of transmission who took it from the companion, a narrator known as Abdullah ibn Abi Sulaimaan.

The compiler of this collection Imaam Abu Dawood himself said about the hadeeth:

قال أبو داود : هذا مُرْسَلٌ ، عَبْد اللهِ بن أَبي سُلَيْمَان لم يَسْمع من جُبَيْر

This is Mursal (meaning that the chain of transmission is broken) Abdullah ibn Abi Sulaimaan didn’t hear from JubairYes, there is a version of the Hadeeth that is authentic but it is a version that carries a slightly different meaning, the wording of which is:

Whosoever fights under a banner of bigotry, he becomes angry due to tribalism, he supports and aids it and calls to it and then he is killed (i.e. in that path) then his death is like the death of the pre-Islamic era (Jahilliyah)”

Clearly the authentic version of the narration differs in meaning and is less general than the version used by Choudhury, since it refers to one who engages in battle for that cause and dies. No doubt tribalism, racism etc is still considered a sin and unrighteous but the point here is that this text doesn‟t support the claim that the Muslim can have no bond with another Muslim other than Islaam. Neither does it support that which Anjem alludes to.

The prophet named the Muslims who migrated with him from Makka to Madina as Muhaajiroon and those who welcomed him to Madina from its Muslim inhabitants Ansaar (as Allah does in the Qur’aan). Similarly attributing oneself to ones tribe was not abolished.

The companions continued to attribute themselves to their tribes which were for the most part pagan tribes, until the conquest of Makka which was close to the death of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him).

For example we had the well-known four caliphs of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) all well known by their attributions to their tribes:

Abu Bakr As Sideeq (whose full name was Abdullah ibn abi Quhaafah At Taymee) attributed to the taymee tribe

Umar ibn Al Khataab Al Adawi (attributed to the Adawi tribe)

Uthmaan ibn „Affaan Al Amawi (attributed to the Amawi tribe)

Ali Ibn Abi Taalib Al Haashimi (attributed to the Haashimi tribe)

Abu Dharr Al Ghifaari (An attribution to the Ghifaari tribe)

Abu Huraira, also known as Abdur Rahmaan ibn sakhr Ad-Dausi (an attribution to the Dausi tribe)

And the list is endless,

From them were those who were attributed to their countries of origin for example,

Suhaib Ar Roomi (i.e. Suhaib the Roman)

Salmaan Al Faarisi (Salmaan the Persian)

Abu Raafi Al Qibti (Abu Raafi the Coptic)

Thus the attribution of a people to a tribe or place is not dispraised In Islaam, unless it leads to, or causes some form of discrimination.

Allah the most high states:
Oh Mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, an made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honourable of you with Allah is he who has most Taqwa (piety) Verily Allah is All-knowing All Aware” (Suratul Hujaraat Vs 13)

He then states towards the end of point one:

“..This will mean that nationalistic flags, clothes, emblems, anthems etc… or to support regional or national football teams are completely prohibited, let alone to join the non-Muslim armies and to protect or defend land for the sake of nationalism.

Anyone aquainted with the rhetoric of these people will know that what Anjem is attempting to do here is make you join their ‘Rally against the Rulers” Since (according to them) they put borders to your lands, they dont support and defend you when you are attacked, they prevent you from representing the Ummaah (regardless of whether you are an illiterate bedouin or an uneducated immature adolecent with a violent background) since any one of us can do so. They (the rulers) also call Non-Muslim Troops to a nationalistic war and will have you saluting the National anthem. Thus we have this Rabble-Rousing begining from this very first point…Allahul Musta’aan

%d bloggers like this: