Category Archives: Science of Hadeeth

Doubts around the Da’wah (Part 2)

Doubts around the Da’wah Part 2

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā Rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d:

Introduction

Ahlus Sunnah in the west face a resurfacing trial, one that isn’t new to them.

The trial of a people who are displeased with the true methodology of ahlil hadīth.

A people who are upset with the fact Ahlus Sunnah are distinguished from other than them, and wish to turn Salafiyah into a melting pot that accepts everyone and excludes no one, except its true proponents.

A people who accuse the people of Sunnah and hadīth of being harsh and extreme, due to their correct implementation of the methodology of Ahlul hadīth.

A people who attempt to paint Ahlus Sunnah as a people who do not believe in softness, gentleness and clemency and its application, as though they are not very familiar with those texts.

A people who call to Tamyī’ (watering the true methodology down) and attempt to make that fair seeming.

A people who throw out a ‘lifeline’ to those who seeks to destroy true Salafiyah with false misconstrued principles.

A people who have no concern except to attack the people of Sunnah and hadīth, and defend their methodology, while the true people of innovation are safe from their tongues, their writings and their videos.

A people who spread confusion and misguidance in the name of ‘justice’.

A people who are guilty of doing with Ahlus Sunnah, what they accuse Ahlus Sunnah of.

A people who accuse the callers to the Sunnah of being ignorant, while they are the true paupers in knowledge and are a people unknown.

A people who bring joy to the hearts of the people of misguidance for their ignorant defence of them, when they attempt to weaken the solid framework of Ahlul hadĪth.

Who accuse the defenders of the methodology of the companions and their successors of extremism, oppression and injustice, either by way of them using innovated principles or misusing established ones, but despite their (daily) efforts and striving, Ahlus Sunnah are not affected.

The Prophet -صلى الله علي سلم – said (as occurs in the hadeeth of Mugheerah Ibn Shu’bah:

There will never cease to be a group from my Ummah manifest upon the truth, not being harmed by those who oppose them, nor those who forsake them until the affair of Allah comes and they are upon that

(Bukhāri: 7311 Muslim: 156)

Neither are their attempts new to Ahlus Sunnah, they (Ahlus Sunnah) are very familiar with them!

He also said (as occurs in the hadeeth of Ibrāheem Ibn Abdur Rahmān Al ‘Udhri):

This knowledge is carried in every generation by the trustworthy ones, they repel from it the distortions of those who go beyond bounds, the fabrications of those who fabricate, and the false interpretations of the ignorant’”

(Baihaqi: (10/209 hadeeth no#: 20700)

But as some of the Salaf used to say:

The ignoramus is his own enemy, how then will he be anyones friend?

Shaikhul Islām Ibn Taimiyah narrates the statement of  Imām Mālik who said:

When knowledge is meagre, disaffection and aversion becomes manifest, and when narrations (of the Salaf) are meagre, desires become plentiful

(Al Fatāwā 17/308)

Abu bakr Al khawārizmi (d. 383H) said:

Allah has refused to let anyone fall into a ditch except he who has dug it, for indeed the evil plot does not encompass except he who devises it!”

(Yateemiyatud Dahr: 4/226)

Thus he who is unhappy with the methodology of the Salaf, and speaks against it, and against those who defend and implement it, does nothing but harm himself, the methodology is Allah’s methodology, for it is his deen, and the one who seeks to please the people by speaking against it, earns the anger and wrath of Allah, regardless of the good he thinks he is doing.

The Prophet -صلى الله علي سلم – said (as occurs in the hadeeth of Aisha – رضي الله عنها )

Whoever seeks to please Allah, by way of that which displeases the people, Allah will be pleased with him and will make the people pleased with him. And whosoever seeks to please the people through the displeasure of Allah, Allah will be displeased with him, and will make the people displeased with him”

(Collected by Ibn Hibbān 1/510 and declared ‘Sahīh’ by Shaikh Albāni Sahih Targhīb 2/547)

Unfortunately, those who claim islāh (rectification) with their speech, do nothing but cause ifsād (corruption) through their ignorance (if we even accept they are being sincere)

The members of the Fatwā Committee of Saudi Arabia mention in refutation of Muraad Shukri who fell into negligence in Takfeer and followed the path of the murji’ah:

It is upon the one whose feet are not firm upon knowledge; to refrain from entering into these affairs, so there does not come from him harm and corruption in aqĪdah far greater than the rectification they were hoping to achieve…”

(Fatāwā Al lejnatid Dā’imah: Fatwa no# 20212 – 2/135)

This individual (who I know personally and who came to my home in Madinah) thought he was doing well ‘defending the balanced position‘ but fell into negligence and had a group of individuals defending this ‘balanced’ position of his, in various countries! Therefore when individuals speak ‘In defense’ of the deen, we must attempt to perceive the goal and intent. What is the goal? What will the outcome of this speech be? What do they intend by their statements ultimately?

Imām Al Barbahāri mentioned:

look!, May Allah show you mercy, to the speech of anyone you hear speaking in your time specifically and don’t be hasty, and don’t enter into anything from it until you ask, is it some thing the companions of the messenger used to say? Or any of the Ulamā? So if you find a narration then do not go past it for anything, and don’t choose anything over it and thus fall into the fire!”

(Sharhus Sunnah p23 – Point 5)

Pay attention to the statement of the Imām “..the speech of anyone you hear speaking in your time specificallyThis is a clear indication that this manhaj was not restricted  to the period of the Salaf as some would have us believe, rather for every time!

Imām Ahmad mentions in describing the people of innovation:

“..They utter ambiguous statements, and they begile the ignorant people by way of the ambiguity they present to them, so we seek refuge from the fitan of the people of misguidance!”

Concerning this tremendous statement Shaikhul Islām mentions in Minhājus Sunnah:

“The intent here is that they corrupt the textual evidences through that which they attribute to them from Qarmatah (definition will follow below) and distorting words from their places, just as they have corrupted intellectual evidences, and reversed the nature of perceived affairs from their reality, and by changing the Fitra that Allah has created things upon. Therefore they use general ambiguous speech, because that is better for purposes of delusion and misrepresentation”

(Minhājus Sunnah: 1/187)

Shaikh Abdur Rahmān Ibn Nāsir As S’adi said: ” Al Qarmatah (is a term used) in regard to textual evidence and safsatah (is a term used) in regard to intellectual evidence. they both come together in that they(these two terms) refer to rejection of what is not to be rejected, rejection of basic things, things known by necessity…(he goes on to mention)..Because evidence is of two types: Textual and Intellectual, thus textual evidence, if it is authentic and its indications are clear, then whosoever distorts its clear indications then (it is said) he has Qarmatah (fell into rejection of what is crystal clear) an attribution to the (deviant) Qarāmitah Bātiniyah (sect) those who explain text that are known by necessity to everyone with distortion, the like of which is recognized by the Aalim and the ignorant..”

(Al Ajwibatun Nāfi’ah 291-294)

Doubt 1: ‘We do not accept the warnings of the scholars except with proof, because ‘We are people of evidence’

We start with this doubt, because this claim, though it appears fair seeming, the real intent behind it is an evil one. It seeks is to destroy the status of the people of knowledge, their statements and their guidance. This doubt has been used throughout time to cunningly belittle the people of knowledge in the mind of the unsuspecting innocent layperson, and to replace the people of knowledge with these individuals, who present themselves as people skilled in the knowledge of understanding strong or weak evidences. Thus reliance falls upon them.

By way of this statement of theirs, the statements of the people of knowledge have little worth, rather true worth is in the hands of this individual who will dictate who and what is to be taken from and who and what is to be rejected. This is particularly when it come to the affair of their statements against the people of deviation. As though the people of knowledge do not speak from a standpoint of taqwa and fear of Allah, but desire. As if the people of knowledge are fickle individuals who speak against people upon a whim. The Salaf of this Ummah would truly value the statements of the people of knowledge. Not so these unknowns.

Then they will use, in order to slight the statements of the Ulamā, statements of the Imaams that where mentioned in relation to affairs of rulings of the shariah, connected  to actions, dealings and ijtihād.

Such as the statement of Abu Hanīfah:

It is not permissible to take from my statements unless you know where I took

Or the statement of Imām Ash shāfi’i  “If you find my statement going against the book or the Sunnah throw my statements against the wall

These individuals regularly use statements and principles out of place or to oppose specific issues of methodology. it is well known that a principle in fiqh may not necessarily be a principle in aqidah and vice versa.

These aforementioned statements, are true statements that were mentioned to emphasise the importance of holding on to evidence in issues of shariah. But they are used by these individuals, to put doubt upon the statements, verdicts and advises of the Scholars, because when the scholars speak against someone and warns, often times the general person may not be acquainted with the reasons for the warning, and may not even understand the gravity of the issue, even if it were explained to them!

As Al Hasan Al Basri mentioned:

The fitna, when it appears, it is known by the Ulamā, and when its tail end appears (i.e. when it is over) it is known by every general person

That is to say when fitna arises it is spotted, detected and understood by the people of knowledge, how will the ignorant one perceive it, if it is intricate?

Based upon the statements of these ignoramuses, we should leave the general people to get engrossed in these issues, relying upon their own weak deficient understanding, possibly becoming unsatisfied with the evidence presented by those scholars, (since he (the layman) may be ignorant of the foundation that has been opposed) and thus go astray!

Knowledge of the men is in the hands of the people of Knowledge!

The Methodology of Criticism with the Salaf

It is established with the people of Sunnah and Hadīth, that the people of knowledge have a methodology related to criticism well known. This methodology is connected to the strong position they have against innovations in the religion, and is connected to the precise science of Jarh and ta’deel (Criticism or praise of the Narrators). None of that which we hear from the ignorant ones, about the ‘correct’ salafi position’ concerning deviant individuals, takes this science into consideration. Rather we hear the Ummah being referred back to the principles of the Ikhwaan Al Muslimīn repackaged as ‘True Salafiyah’!. Perhaps the reason for this is the fact that our communitites in the west have been strongly influenced by the da’wah of the Ikhwaan Al Muslimīn for decades (we will discuss this later inshallah), so the ignorant one refers back to this as ‘True Balanced Islām’ and ‘Just Salafiyah’ while it is nothing but ‘True Misguidance’.

The one who has knowledge of the method of criticism with the Salaf, their attitude towards it, and the statements of the people of Sunnah will be upon clarity

Sufyān Ath Thowri said:

When a man who dies is mentioned then do not look towards the statements of the general people (i.e. praise or dispraise) rather look to the statements of the people of knowledge and intellect (in determining how he was)

(Al Hilyah: 7/26)

Ibrāhīm ibn Shamās said

We asked Wakī’  (d. 196H or 197H) about Khārijah ibn Mus’ab (d. 168H a weak narrator of hadīth) and why he does not take from him, he replied:” I will not narrate from him, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal prohibited me from narrating from him”

(Tabaqāt Al Hanābilah: 1/392)

He did not mention here anything to do with the reason, just the warning!

Abu Moosā Muhammad Ibnil Muthanā (d. 252H) said “I saw in the lap of Abdur Rahmān Ibn Mahdi (d. 198H) a book wherein he had crossed out (the name of) a man so I said Oh Abu Sa’īd why have you crossed his hadīth out? He responded: Yahya Ibn Sa’īd (Al Qattaan: d. 198H) informed me that he has been accused of being upon the opinion of Jahm (ibn Safwān, the innovator) so I crossed his hadīth out

(Al Hilyah: 9/6)

In this narration this great Imām in knowledge, piety and taqwa, did not take from a man due to an accusation, was this great Imām in Hadeeth pathetic and unjust?!

It was said to Ibn ‘Aun  (d. 150H) ‘Why don’t you narrate from such and such? He responded: “Because Abu Bustām Shu’bah (d. 160H) left him”

(Taarikh Baghdaad: 9/260)

Was this typical ‘Cultish behaviour’ from Ibn Aun? Did he ‘oppress’ the one he refused to take from?

In this narration we see that these great scholars of the Salaf did not take knowledge from the aforementioned individuals and criticised their integrity, citing as their reason that the people of Hadīth and Sunnah did not take from them, people of Sunnah who were familiar with the man as his affair. Not once do we see them saying “..So I went to speak to him myself to verify” or “..but I will continue to take from them until the evidence is shown to me” or “did they advise him?” because they knew The People of Hadīth are most knowledgable concerning advice and nasīhah and that their speech is based upon them fearing Allah and knowing they will have to stand before Allah with what they say!

In fact even when individuals denyed with their own mouths what had been attributed to them, the people of Sunnah would not reject what was established with the people of Sunnah concerning the individual, since it is well known that the people of innovation are cunning, tricky and deceptive.

Imām Khateeb Al Baghdādi (d. 463H) mentions the statement of Sālih the son of Imām Ahmad who inform his father that some one had come to see him who said his name was daawūd (Dawūd ibn Ali Adh Dhāhiri) his father aid : “From where? He replied “Asbahān” he said: “what does he do? and Sālih did not do well to define who he was Abu Abdillah (Imam Ahmad) did not cease asking until he realised who he was. He said: Him! Muhammad Ibn Yahyā An Naisābūri wrote to me informing me that he holds that the qurān is created” so his son said: He negates and rejects that! He replied “Muhammad Ibn Yahyā is more trustworthy that him! do not give him permission to come to me!

(Collected by Khateeb Al Baghdādi in Tarīkh Al Baghdād 8/374)

Was this more ‘Cliche-ish‘ ‘Cultish‘, ‘Cringeworthy‘ behavior from Imām Ahmad? did Imām Ahmad wrong him by not accepting from him his denial? should he have ‘been more of a man’ and talk to him? Perhaps give him an interview..let him have his say! Or was this a methodology Well-Known?

Hamād ibn zaid (d. 179H b. 98) said Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān (d.120H) the Shaikh of Abu Hanīfah came to us in Basrah and Ayoob (As Sikhiyaani: d. 131H b. 66) didn’t go to see him, so neither did we, for if Ayoob didn’t go to see someone we too would not go. Laith Ibn Abi Sulaim came to Us and Ayoob went to see him so we too went”

(Tabaqāt Ibn Sa’d: 7/286)

Bear in mind that Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān was a taabi’i who had taken from Anas Ibn Maalik! and Ibraaheem An Nakhai’ and that Hamād Ibn Zaid was born in the year 98H. That would mean that if we were to say Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān visited basra just before he died, Hamād Ibn Zaid wouldnt have been more than 18 years old! Shouldn’t Imaam Ayoob be teaching these young students the etiquette of visiting and taking from the people of knowledge? particularly this elderly man who was a student of the companion Anas Ibn Maalik? but though he was praised by some, he was accused of irjaa, thus Ayoob did not go to see him, neither did his many students. From his students were Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah, Sufyaan at Thawri, Hamād Ibn Salamah, Hamād Ibn zaid, Shu’bah, Ma’mar Ibn Raashid, Ismaa’il Ibn Ulaiyah to name but a few! And none of them went?!

No doubt the ignoramuses of our time would deem this ‘Cultish’ behaviour of the highest order!

Al Hasan Ibn Īsā said I asked (Abdullah) Ibn Mubārak (d. 181) about Asbāt (Ibn Muhammad (d. 200H)) and Muhammad Ibn Fudhail Ibn Ghazawān (d. 194H or 195H accused of the bid’ah of Tashayu’ (early Shi’ism)) and he remained silent. After a number of days he saw me and said “Oh Hasan your two companions (i.e. the two you asked me about) our companions (i.e. the people of Sunnah) are not pleased with them

(Dhu’afaa ul “Uqaili: 1/119)

Al Hasan did not follow this statement up with “well what was their evidence??” so did they fall short in relation to giving the muslim his right? Or was it because this an affair well known!

Abdullah Ibn Umar As Sarkhasi said “I ate with a person of innovation once, and that reached Abdullah ibn Mubārak and he said: “I will not speak to him for thirty days!”

(Collected by Al lillakā’i in ‘Sharh I’tiqād Ahlis Sunnah: 1/139)

Did Abdullah Ibn Umar As Sarkhasi respond with: “Well why doesn’t he ask me what happened?” or “Subhanallah I could have had a number of reasons” or other similar arguments we hear from the ignorant ones! Was this ‘childish’ ‘cultish’ behavior from Ibnil Mubārak ?

If the Salaf held onto the principles these people claim, imagine the state the Ahādeeth of the Messenger of Allah would be in today!?

Statement such as “akhi just take benefit” or “dont listen to those brothers” or ” the shaikh is just a man with an opinion akhi!” or “What is the shaikhs evidence akhi” would have destroyed the Sunnah!

Certainly we will hear (from them) that these narrations are not acted upon correctly, or are not to be acted upon in this way (as though they are just some historical record!) or were for a particular time or or or…

Just as we hear these people quoting principles we have been teaching for over a quarter of a century, since the early nineties, as our teachers, the Ulamaa of Madinah, taught us, (from them Shaikhanā Hamād Al Ansāri (and his Son), Shaikhanā Umar Falāta, Shaihanā Abdul Muhsin Al ‘Abād (and his son), Shaikhanā Ali Nāsir Al Faqīhi, Shaikhanā Rabee’ Ibn Hādi, Shaikhanā Ubaid Al Jābiri, Shaikhanā Muhammad Ibn Hādi, Shaikhanā Abdullah al Bukhāri, Shaikhanā Ahmad An Najmi to name but a few. Or those who taught us the book of Allah. Such Shaikhanā Ubaidallah Al Afghāni or Abdullah Al Juhani among others. Or those who were our study companions who we benefited greatly from upon the path, such as Shaikh Usāma Al ‘Amri, Shaikh Fu’ād Al ‘Amri Shaikh Khālid Adh dhafeeri or Shaikh Nizār Hāshim Abbās among others, people we actually spent time and studied with, not odd visits)

 Do these previously mentioned narrations mean we are calling to abandonment of evidence? Of course not but we must first understand what evidence (particularly in issue of jarh (disparagement)) is!

In response to this common doubt and in refutation of Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi Our Shaikh Rabī Ibn Hādi mentions: (and pay close attention to this!):

  • “From the fundamental principles of Ahlis Sunnah is: ‘Know the truth, and you will know the men and the fact that the truth is not known because of the men (i.e. because it is held by certain individuals.
  • And from the fundamental principles of Ahlis Sunnah is: ‘Evidence is sought to substantiate positions held by individuals, they themselves are not the evidence.
  • And from the fundamental principles that Ahlus Sunnah have united upon is: ‘Whosoever the Sunnah of the messenger of Allah has become clear to, it is not permissible for him to leave it for anyone’ as Imām Ash Shāfi’ī has said

These fundamentals or evidences have been neglected, destroyed and wasted by Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi and his supporters, he created a smokescreen of claims, that him and his followers reiterate, claiming to the people that they are Ahlus Sunnah and they are the ‘people of evidence’ and that they do not accept statements except with daleel (evidence) and that they are people of principles and other than them are unstable and fear the mention of fundamentals and principles, and that ‘ they do not make taqleed of anyone‘ and that such and such (people of knowledge and Sunnah) are not infallible, and that we are not bound to accept the statement of such and such nor such and such, and other such statements, the like of which, when incidents transpire, we see the statement of the guided khalifah Ali – Radhiyallahu anhu – concerning the khawaarij, being true of them. When they used to repeat their statement “Indeed rule is but for Allah!” so he said: ” A statement of truth, but what is intended by it is falsehood!” (Muslim:1066)

We recognise and understand, what they repeat and regurgitate from their great claims of:

‘Fundamentals’ and ‘principles’ and the ‘seeking of proofs’ and the ‘clinging to evidence’ and ‘fighting against taqleed’, and that ‘We don’t have popes or religious chiefs or custodians’.

We recognise and understand, that the apparent statement is truth, but they intend by way of it great falsehood, they intend by way of it agitation and wreaking havoc and fitan with the people of Haq and Sunnah.

So Ahlus Sunnah engaged them and confronted them, with the book and the Sunnah and with the Manhaj of the Salaf us Saalih and with their sound, guided principles, and they (Ahlus Sunnah) exposed these principles of theirs and stripped them of the ‘weapons’ they had the cheek and insolence to present, of ‘Fundamentals‘ and ‘Principles‘ and ‘proofs‘ and ‘evidences‘. So then they resorted to blind following, and clinging to ‘such and such said‘ and ‘such and such said‘ (such as that which we observe from them now in the west, “Shaikh such and such said about those brothers” (someone who knows nothing about them)! without a shred of evidence! Just claims (but that is accepted without question or ‘evidence’..How ironic!). Additionally (even) this wasn’t sufficient for them, so they resorted to what was worse than that, they resorted to attacking the text (or the book and the sunnah) through deception, severing (parts of evidence) and concealing (text)”

(Majmoo’ Ash Shaikh Rabī’ 13/175-176)

Bear in mind, Our Shaikh wrote these words in refutation of Abul Hasan 15 years ago!

As the Arab parable goes ما أشبه الليلة بالبارحة ‘How much tonight resembles last night!’ perhaps now it becomes clearer to some of us, why Shaikh Rabī sought from certain individuals to free themselves from Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi, is it a coincidence then, that today we see them championing the very same rhetoric!

May Allah save us from being self-conceited, arrogant, vain-glorious individuals concerned only with promoting ourselves and our ‘achievements’ and grant us Knowledge of the ‘True‘ Manhaj of the Salaf of this Ummah.

Was Sallallahu ‘alaa Nabiyinaa Muhammad

@abuhakeembilal

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

Trust your Mashaaykh!

Bismillahi wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘ala rasoolillahi

Ammaa ba’d:

Ibn Abi Haatim mentions under the biography of Yusuf Ibn Khaalid As Samti:

I refused to accept the statement of Yahya Ibn Ma’een concerning him, wherein he referred to him as a ‘Zindeeq’ (Heretic) until a book that he wrote supporting ‘Tajahum’ (The aqeedah of the Jahmiyah) chapter after chapter, was brought to me. He rejected within it belief in the scales on the day of Judgement. It was then that I knew that Yahya Ibn Ma’een did not speak except upon foresight and understanding!” 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 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

Shaikh Usaama Al Utaibee on the speech of Muhammad Muneer ‘Muftee’

Shaykh Aboo ‘Umar Usaamah al-‘Utaybee on the Statements of Muhammad Ibn Muneer “Muftee”

[Q]: O Shaykh Usaamah, perhaps you have heard about the statements of an individual named Muhammad Ibn Muneer, he has made some statements. And we would like your comments on his statements O Shaykh, if you would be so kind.

[A]: What are his important statements that he says?

[Q]: He differentiates between ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel O Shaykh. So he says for example yaa Shaykh, ar-Radd ‘alal-Mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) is one thing and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is something else. Meaning, whosoever mixes between the two falls into problems and fumbles about…

[A]: Fine, we will begin with the first affair, may Allaah bless you. Then we will move on to the second affair. do not know this individual, but I will speak about these things that you are mentioning from the one who said them. So this statement, it is the differentiation between ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent) and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel as a complete differentiation, this indicates the ignorance of the one who spoke of it. And when Allaah the Mighty and Majestic mentioned Fir’awn with kufr (disbelief) and that he claimed Uloohiyyah (divinity) and he claimed Ruboobiyyah (Lordship) for himself, and He mentioned his disbelief in Allaah the Mighty and Majestic and his striving in that, in the aayah of Allaah,

“And they belied those aayaat wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof. So see what was the end of the mufsidoon (evil-doers).” [Sooratun-Naml 27:14]

Then is this not a Jarh upon Fir’awn? And is it not also from the radd (refutation) upon Fir’awn? The refutation upon his belief comprises al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel. So al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is an aspect of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil and it is an aspect of refuting the statements of the opponent (ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif). So when he speaks about and claims that there is a difference between that and al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, then this indicates his ignorance and his misguidance. because al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel is a part of and cannot be separated from ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif (refuting the opponent). Yes, it is true that refuting the opponents and those who have erred does not necessitate at-tajreeh (disparagement). For example, when a Scholar of the Sunnah slips up and errs, then he is refuted with knowledge, but he is not disparaged (jarraha) due to that, especially when he is known for being upon the truth and striving to attain the truth, except that he has slipped up and erred in an issue. So this involves the occurrence of an error amongst the righteous and the trutfhul and refuting their error. This is to be mentioned and refuted.

However, when the opponent who is being refuted is an innovator or a disbeliever, then the refutation upon him is not excluded from al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, not from the Jarh upon this disbeliever, nor from the Jarh upon this innovator. This is because you are refuting his corrupt principles, which necessitate Jarh of him and expelling him from the Sunnah if he falsely and slanderously ascribes himself to it. If the opponent reaches the level of a disbeliever or an innovator or a faasiq who is criminal in his belief and his statement, there is no doubt that the refutation upon him includes tajreeh (disparagement) of him, because these errors that he has committed obligate that he be refuted.

As for when what is intended by mukhaalif (opponent) is an opponent in an issue of ijtihaad (independent reasoning), or when the opponent is someone from Ahlus-Sunnah who slips up and errs but he is generally upon the truth, then this does not necessitate tajreeh (disparagement) of him. Rather, his error is refuted. So this is the detailed explanation of the issue. The one who says that al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel has no connection to ar-radd ‘alal-mukhaalif or that there is a complete differentiation between the two of them, then such an individual is an ignorant liar. And Allaah knows best.

[Q]: May Allaah reward you with goodness yaa Shaykh! He also says, “Obedience to the rulers and the Scholars is not unconditional. Rather, it is restricted. If an individual says something that you do not agree with, then it is not permissible for someone to tell you, ‘It is obligatory upon you to accept his statement because he is a Shaykh, or because he is Shaykh so and so, or that Shaykh so and so said.’ This is not what the aayah said.” And, Shaykh Usamaah, he intends by this to reject what Shaykh Rabee’ said about Taahir Wyatt because made this statement during his defence of Taahir Wyatt.

[A]: Yes. This philosophy, with which some of the people philosophize, it is rejected from its proponents, because obedience to the Scholars and the rulers and obedience to the parents is obedience in that which is good. It is only obedience when they command with good. As for obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then it is an unrestricted obedience. And whoeover is obeyed outside of Allaah and His Messenger, then he is obeyed as part of obedience to Allaah and His Messenger. This is well known and understood from the aayah. No one says that the rulers must be obeyed in everything, even in disobedience to Allaah and no one says that it is obligatory to obey the Scholars when they err and slip up. No one says such a thing. However, the speech that is said to cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and which implies that the youth can make ijtihaad in affairs where they have no knowledge and that they can oppose the Scholars and say that it is not binding upon us to obey the Scholars; this is from ignorance.

So for example, when the ruler, or the father, or the husband when he orders his wife in a permissible affair, or an affair that the people consider from goodness, is it obligatory for him to be obeyed at that point? The commander, regardless of whether he is the husband with his wife, or the ruler with his constituents, or some the people with the Scholar, then it is necessary that these individuals be obeyed, whether it is the ruler or the husband or the likes of that, regardless of whether it is in the affairs of the worldly life, even if he does desire this worldly affair. So the person does not reply, ‘But my opinion is such and such,’ no! If the affair is permissible (mubaah), then it is obligatory to obey the ruler and the wife must obey her husband and the son must obey his mother an,d his father.

As for the Scholars, then the obedience that is due to them is an obedience in the Religion. Meaning, they clarify to the people what is halaal and what is haraam and they explain the ahkaam (religious rules and regulations) to the people and they clarify to them the rulings upon men, the rulings of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel. The Scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets and it is necessary that they Scholars be revered and respected. Allaah the Sublime and Exalted says,

“So ask the people of the reminder (knowledge) if you do not know.”

So questioning them obligates and makes it binding to follow what they answer from the truth and the guidance. So if you have asked a Scholar about a man and the Scholar makes Jarh (disparagement) of him and warns you against him, it is binding upon you to listen to the speech of the Scholar, except if it becomes clear the Scholar has erred and opposed the truth, or if another Scholar has opposed him with proof, then the ruling is made with proof amongst the Scholars. However, if the affair is from a specialized field of knowledge that a Scholar knows and he has a specific study in al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel, especially the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel in modern times, Shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Rabee’ Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee, then his speech concerning the men is like pure honey. It is speech based upon sound proofs, clarification and evidence. So when he speaks with speech, it is obligatory upon the youth to listen to him and to obey him. This due to the command of Allaah the Sublime and Exalted to them in His statement,

“O you who believe! Obey Allaah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from amongst you.”

So if Shaykh Rabee’ has clarified that affair, and he, may Allaah reward him with goodness, does not speak, except with knowledge and proof, then obedience to him is obligatory. And the one who says that obedience is not obligatory must clarify: why is it not obligatory? Why is he causing doubt in the rulings of Shaykh Rabee’? These people are diseased yaa Shaykh. These are people of disease and people of innovation and people of desire.

They cause doubt in the rulings of the Scholars and they make themselves equals to the Scholars. Meaning, they consider themselves as one of them has stated, ‘We are men and they are men.’ The truthful student of knowledge does not say such speech, it is only said by people who are unsteady and fickle and people of corruption. These people want to separate the youth from the Scholars and they want the youth to be attached to them. Meaning, the likes of this ignorant youth wants the people for himself, instead of connecting them to Shaykh Rabee’. And he may deceive the people with the affair of Shaykh ‘Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbaad, that he opposed Shaykh Rabee’ in such and such an issue… Where is the Salafee manhaj with these individuals? The Salafee manhaj says to follow the proof and follow the Scholar who is most knowledgeable if you do not have the proof or you do not know it. The Scholar with the most knowledge of al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel and the knowledge of men in these times by agreement of the Scholars is Shaykh Rabee’. He is the one who is specialized in this and the Imaams of Ahlul-Hadeeth have testified to this, such as Shaykh al-Albaanee and Shaykh Ibn Baaz and Shaykh Ibnul-‘Uthaymeen.

Due to this, those who say that the obedience to the Scholars is not unconditional, and they desire by this to reject the rulings of the Scholars, they are bring about fitnah (trial, tribulation). However, they say that as long as obedience to them is in goodness and it is in obedience to Allaah and His Messenger, then there is no problem in that. Indeed, this is truthful speech, but the intent should not be to nullify the speech of the Scholars. Rather, it is obligatory upon the youth to be with their Scholars and to stick to them, as the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “The blessing is with your elders.” Yes.

[Q]: Lastly, our Shaykh, he translated a lecture for the noble Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee – hafidhahullaah – when he commented upon three passages from Kitaabur-Rooh about the difference between naseehah (sincere advice) and gheebah (backbiting). So I reminded this individual, yaa Shaykh, about what he translated for the noble Shaykh, Muhammad Ibn Haadee. So he replied on Youtube saying, “Since when is it a condition that the translator must agree with everything that the lecturer says? If I translate a book or a lecture, is it a condition that I take every letter said therein as my Religion in front of Allaah? If it is a condition that the translator must accept everything the lecturer is saying, then bring the proof if you please. And even if I did agree with everything that Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee said (in that lecture) is this then to be applied in all situations? Undoubtedly there is a difference between naseehah and gheebah, there is no doubt. The Scholars have insight, however, the application! Is this speech to be applied in all situations? Respond please.” This is how he said it yaa Shaykh, so what are your comments upon this speech of his?

[A]: This speech, which is his statement that it is not binding upon the translator to agree with the speech of the one for whom he is translating, then one of two affairs could be intended by this. If he intends that he is not required to translate in a trustworthy manner and with truthfulness what the Scholar is saying, then such and individual is treacherous and he has made treachery permissible. This is a treacherous person who has made treachery permissible, because he is a translator and the translator only clarifies the speech of the one whose speech is being translated. So if his duty is merely to translate, then it is obligatory that it be trustworthy. And if this speech contains that which is false, according to his thought, then he must translate the speech of the Shaykh and then he comments upon it if he is capable of that. If we assume that there is a problem or an opposition in this speech, then he must clarify it in a translator’s note. As for translating falsehood and concealing the speech of a Scholar, then this action of his is like the action of Banee Israa`eel from the Jews who concealed parts of the Torah and were treacherous. So this treachery is not from the nature and the character of the Muslims. And the Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Plotting and deception is in the Fire.” And the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “And do not deceive the one who deceives you.” And Allaah the Glorified and Exalted said,

“And do not be a pleader for the treacherous.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:105]

And Allaah the Exalted said,

“And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves.” [Sooratun-Nisaa` 4:107]

So deception is a matter that is ignonimous. So it is not permissible to be deceptive in translation. Rather, it is obligatory to be truthful in it, especially when he is translating the speech of a Salafee Scholar who is well known for the Sunnah such as the Shaykh, al-‘Allaamah Muhammad Ibn Haadee al-Madkhalee. So playing around and being deceptive in translating his speech is not from the attributes of Ahlus-Sunnah. Rather, it is from the attributes of the people of desires.

And as for if the translator intended that it is not obligatory for him to be in agreement with what he is translating, then this is correct. Meaning, his opinion could be in opposition to the speech that he is translating. For example, he may translate a book of fiqh in which differing has occurred (between the Scholars). So the Scholar will determine the soundest position from these issues and this student of knowledge may follow another Scholar, or he may follow a statement that opposes this Scholar. There is no problem with this as long as it is done with proofs and evidence, and as long as this person is qualified to make this disagreement. There is no problem in this. Meaning, the translator is not required to agree with all of the speech that he translates, as long as he is trustworthy in conveying the information. Then after he has conveyed the information as it is, he can say, `This speech has been opposed by such and such a Scholar and I say such and such,’ with proof and evidence.

However, who is this individual who deceives the people by translating for Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Haadee, then he says, ‘I oppose him and I do not agree with him.’ Who are you to say such speech? Is this from manners with the Scholars? And who has burdened you with translating this lecture if you do not agree? If you do not agree, then do not translate. Or at the very least, be trustworthy in conveying the information, and then mention what opposes this speech with proof and evidence. So the authority is with the proof. And it was the manhaj of the Salaf to take the proof. However, do not make these issues a means for reviling the Scholars and causing doubts in their rulings and playing around with the likes of these affairs. And it is not permissible for the Muslim to be treacherous. Yes.

[Q]: May Allaah reward you with good. We shall suffice with this, yaa Shaykhanaa. May Allaah reward you with good.

[A]: The important thing is to be cautious of these people of desires who are people of fitan (trials, tribulations) and people of unrest and those who do not stick to the objective of the Scholars and those who stir up these fitan. So Shaykh Rabee’ – hafidhahullaah – is familiar with what is going on in Masjid Rahmah and other than it from the mosques in America and he has given them an appropriate advice. And it is obligatory upon the youth to be cautious and to warn against those who are stirring up these fitan and to remain far away from them. These individuals are a disease like scabies, which is contagious and spreading amongst the people. And it cannot be passed on, except in accordance with the command of Allaah. However, these individuals are a people of fitnah, so be cautious of them and remain far away from them and warn the youth against them. And Allaah the Exalted knows best.

Here is the audio: http://www.sunnahpublishing.net/audio/utaybimufti.mp3

[Source: http://www.sunnahpublishing.net]

Ahaadeeth that are popular, Widespread and Weak (Part 4 – Concerning Ramadhan and fasting)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu Alaa Rasoollillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

Ramadhaaniyaat: Ahaadeeth concerning Ramadhaan and fasting

In continuing with this series we mention here ahaadeeth connected to Ramadhaan. Every ramadhaan in sermons, lectures and articles there are a number of oft repeated claims made concerning this blessed month, hopefully the origin of some of these claims will become clearer with these brief articles. Whatever is established by other texts will be indicated inshallah.

Upon the authority of Abu Huraira – Radhiyallahu anhu who said that the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu alaihi Wa Salam said:

The beginning of Ramadhaan is mercy, its middle is forgiveness, and its end sees (the) freedom (of individuals) from the fire

Ruling: Dha’eef Jiddan (Very weak)

(Collected by Ibn Abi Dunya in ‘Fadhaa’ilu shahri Ramadhaan’ (37), and declared ‘Dha’eef Jiddan by Shaikh AlAlbaani in ‘Ad dha’eefah’ (4/1569))

Upon the authority of Anas Ibn Maalik who said:

When (the month of) Rajab would enter (upon us) he (the prophet – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam) used to say:

“Allahumma Baarik lanaa fee Rajabin Wa Sha’baan wa Balighnaa Ramadhaan (Oh Allah bless us in Rajab and sha’baan and bring us to Ramadhaan)”

Ruling: Dha’eef (Weak)

(Collected by Ibn Abi Dunya in ‘Fadhaa’ilu Shahri Ramadhaan (1) and Ibn Asaakir and declared ‘Dha’eef’ by Shaikh Al Albaani in Dha’eeful Jaami’ (4395))

Upon the authority Abdullah Ibn Abi Aufaa who said that the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam said:

The sleep of the fasting person is worship, and his silence is tasbeeh (glorifying Allah) and his actions are multiplied, his supplications are answered and his sins are forgiven

Ruling:Maudoo’ (Fabricated)

(Collected by Al Khalaal in ‘Al Amaali’ (46) and declared ‘Dha’eef’ by Shaikh Al Albaani in ‘Dha’eef Al Jaami’ (5972)) and ‘Maudoo’ in ‘Dha’eefah (4696))

Upon the authority of Abu Huraira who said that the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi wa Salam who said:

Fast!, and become healthy

Ruling: Dha’eef (Weak)

(Collected by Ibn Sunni and Abu Nu’aym and declared ‘Dha’eef’ by Sh Al Albaani in Dha’eeful Jaami’ (3504))

Upon the authority of Bilal ibnil Haarith who said that the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu alaihi was Salam who said

Ramadhaan in Madeenah is better than Ramadhaan in any other place

Ruling: Baatil (False hadeeth)

(Collected by At Tabaraani 1/111/2 and Ibn Asaakir 8/510/2 and declared ‘Baatil’ by Sh Naasir in ‘Ad Dha’eefah (831))

Upon the authority Anas Ibn Maalik – Radhiyallahu anhu who said the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam said:

Indeed Allah revealed to his angels who record the deeds of the servants, do not record any of the evil deeds of my fasting servants after Asr

Ruling: Baatil (False hadeeth)

(Collected by Al Khateeb Al Baghdaadi in ‘At Taareekh’ (6/124) and declared ‘Baatil’ by Imaamud daaraqtni and Sh Al Albaani in ‘Ad Dha’eefah (6580))

Upon the authority Abu Huraira who said the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi was Salam:

Everything has its zakaat, and the zakaat of the body is fasting, for fasting is half of patience

Ruling: Dha’eef (Weak)

(Collected by Ibn Maajah (1745) and declared ‘Dha’eef’ by Sha Al Albaani in ‘Dha’eef At Targheeb 579))

Wallahu a’lam

www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

Ahaadeeth that are popular, widespread and weak (Part 3)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

In continuing with this series concerning popular weak ahaadeeth:

16. Upon the authority of Ibn Umar who made wudhu and wiped his neck then said (attributing his statement to the messenger – Sallallahu alaihi Wa Sallam

Whoever makes wudhu and wipes his neck will not be bound with collars on the day of judgement

Ruling: Fabricated – Collected by Abu Nu’aym in akhbaar Asbahaan 2/115 and declared ‘Fabricated by Shaikh Al Albaani in Ad Dha’eefah 2/167 Number 744

17.Wiping the eyes with ones index fingers when hearing ‘Ash hadu an Laa ilaaha ilallah…and the that one who does so will have the right to the intercession of the messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Sallam

Ruling: Not Authentic

(Collected by Ad Dailami In ‘Musnadul Firdous upon the authority of ibn Umar and it is declared: ‘Not Authentic by shaikh Al Albaani in ‘Ad Dha’eefah’ 72)

18. “Salaah in a turban is equivalent to 10,000 good deeds

Ruling: Fabricated

(it was mentioned by As Suyooti in ‘Dhail Al Ahaadeeth Al Maudoo’ah’ (111) and declared ‘Fabricated’ by Shaikh Al Albaani in ‘Ad Dha’eefah 129)

19. “Be plentiful in saying ‘Laa ilaaha illallah’ during funerals

Ruling: Da’eef  (weak)

(Collected by Ad Dailami (1/1/32) upon the authority of Ibn Umar and declared ‘Dha’eef’ by Shaikh Al Albaani in Adh’Dha’eefah 2881)

20. “Whoever visits the grave of his parents or one of them every friday will have his sins forgiven and will be written as one who was dutiful to his parents

Ruling: Fabricated

(Collected by At Tabaraani in ‘As Sagheer’ (199) upon the authority of Abu Hurairah and declared ‘Fabricated’ By Shaikh Al Albaani in Ad Dha’eefah (49)

21. “Be plentiful in the rememberance of Allah until it is said about you ‘Majnoon! (Deranged!)

Ruling: Dha’eef

(Collected by Haakim 1/499) and declared ‘Dha’eef’ By shaikh Al Albaani in Ad Dha’eefah 517)

22. “Whenever he – Sallallahu alaihi Was Sallam – would cut his hair, trim his nails or blood cup he would have it sent to the baqee’ (graveyard in Madina) and have it buried

Ruling: Baatil (False)

(Mentioned by Ibn Abi Haatim (2/337) and declared ‘False’ by shaikh Al Albaani in Ad dha’eefah 713)

23. “He – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Sallam – used to eat with the whole of his palm

Ruling: Munkar (Conflicting). (‘Munkar’ is hadeeth terminology for a hadeeth that opposes an authentic hadeeth and has in its chain of transmission, a weak narrator)

(Collected by Al Uqaili in Ad Dhu’afaah 4/90 and declared ‘Munkar By Shaikh Al Albaani in Ad Dha’eefah (6225) he also mentioned it in number 1202 and declared it ‘Fabricated’)

24. “The Messenger of Allah did not used to raise his hands until he finished from Salaah (i.e. other than the initial Takbeer)

Ruling: Dha’eef (Weak)

(Collected by At Tabaraani in ‘Mu’jamul Kabeer 3/211/1 who mentions his chain going back to Abdullah ibn Zubair who saw a man raising his hands in Salaah before finishing his Salaah, then when he finished praying he said “The Messenger of Allah did not used to…” Shaikh AlAlbaani declared it weak in Ad Dha’eefah 2544 due to the presence of Fudhail Ibn Sulaimaan An Numairi who the majority of he Imaams of hadeeth declare a weak narrator)

25. The Messenger raised his hands after giving salaam (from Salaah) and while (still) facing the qibla and made dua that Allah frees Waleed Ibnil Waleed, ‘Iyaash ibn abi Rabee’ah, Salamah Ibn Hishaam and the (other) weak defenseless muslims from the Mushrikeen. Those who are unable to devise a plot or direct their way, from the hands of the mushrikeen

Ruling: Munkar

(Collected by Bazaar (3172) Shaikh Al Albaani after mentioning the hadeeth in ‘Ad Dha’eefah and discusses the presence of the weak narrator Ali Ibn Zaid ibn Jud’aan in its chain then he mentions:

The conclusive statement then is that nothing is established upon the messenger – Sallallahu Alahi was sallam – regarding him raising his hands after Salaah. As far as the affair of the Imaam making Du’a and those behind him saying ameen! after the prayer as is customary practice today in many Islamic countries then it is a bid’ah (innovation ) having no origin..” (See ‘Ad Dha’eefah 6/57-60)

Wallahu a’lam

Was Sallallahu ‘alaa Nabiyinaa Muhammad

www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

Ahaadeeth that are popular, widespread and weak (Part 1)

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d

Indeed the people of Hadeeth of the past used to concern themselves with collecting, preserving, memorizing and familiarizing themselves with the ahadeeth of the messenger – Sallallahu alaihi was Salam. They would gather the asaaneed (chains of narration for one hadeeth) and study the various versions of the hadeeth and the connection between the chains of narration, with a view to analysing errors of the various versions.

From their methodology in hadeeth is that they would memorise ahaadeeth that they knew to be weak for the purposes of ‘i’tibaar’ (that is for the purpose of comparing those narrations with other than them, and also if the hadeeth is weak but they come across other chains of transmission then those weak narrations may be strengthened by way of those chains (as long as the weakness is not severe).

One reason they would memorise weak Ahaadeeth is ‘lil ma’rifati’ (that is to become aquainted with them)

Imaam Khateebul Baghdaadi mentions in Al Jaami’ li akhlaaqir Raawi wa adaabis saami’ 2/192:

“As for the ahaadeeth of weak narrators and those who we do not rely upon their narrations, then they are written down that one may be acquainted with them and so that they will not be exchanged with (and be confused by) the ahaadeeth of the trustworthy narrators and that one may compare and judge them with the narrations of others.”

Al Imaam Ibn Rajab mentions in his explanation of ‘Illal At Tirmidhi (1/130 Noorudeen ‘itr Print) a narration of Muhammad Ibn Raafi’ An Naisaaboori who said:

“I saw Ahmad (the Imaam) in front of yazeed Ibn Haroon and in his hand was a book of Zuhair narrating from Jaabir Al Ju’fee (a well known weak narrator) and he was copying it so i said: “Oh Abaa Abdillah! you have prohibited us from narrating from Jaabir yet you write his ahaadeeth?! so he responded: “I know him!” (That is i am awre of his state)

Similarly he said about the weak narrator Ubaidillah Al Wasaafi: “Indeed I write his hadeeth to be acquainted with them

Thus in an attempt to follow the path of ahlul hadeeth in that regard I start this series of popular ahaadeeth da’eefah lil ma’rifah. Wa Billahit Tawfeeq.

1. “The differing of my Ummah is a mercy

Ruling: ‘The hadeeth has no origin’

Ibn Hazm mentions in Ihkaamul ahkaam 2/61:

It is not a hadeeth!”

Shaikh Al Albaani mentions in Ad Da’eefah (1/141):

It has no origin

Shaikh muqbil mentions about the hadeeth in ‘Al Muqtarah (P9):

“It has no Sanad (chain of narration) and it is not established upon the prophet

2. “If affairs become difficult for you then turn to the inhabitants of the graves

Ruling: Fabricated

Shaikhul Islaam mentions in Majmoo’ul fataawaa 1/356:

“It is a lie fabricated upon the prophet by consensus of those well aquainted with hadeeth

3. “If you see a man being regular in the masjid then bear witness to his Imaan

Ruling: Weak

(Collected by Ahmad (11651) and Tirmidhi (2750) and Ibn Maajah (806))

In its Isnaad is Darraaj Ibn Sam’aan Abu Samh: Imaanudh Dhahabee said :

“Darraj is plentiful in manaakeer” (A narration wherein a weak narrator opposes trustworthy narration)

Imaam Ahmad said about him: “His ahaadeeth are Manaakeer”

See Tahdheebut Tahdheeb (3/186)

4. “My companions are like stars, any which one of them you follow you will be guided

Ruling: Fabricated

(Collected by Ibn Abdil Barr in Jaami’ul bayaanul Ilm 9″/91) “In its chain of narration is Sallaam ibn Sulaimaan there is consensus upon him being weak”

Ibn Kharaash mentioned: “Khadhaab!” (He is a liar!)

Ibn Hibbaan mentioned: “He has narrated fabricated Ahaadeeth

The hadeeth is declared Baatil (false) By

Shaikh Al Albaani in ‘Da’eefah (58), Ibn Hajr in At Talkhees Al Habeer (4/190) and Ibnil Jawzi in ‘Al ‘Illal Al Mutanaahiyah (1/283)

5. “Seek knowledge even if it is in China

Ruling: False

(Collected by Ibn ‘Adee in Al Kaamil Fid Dhu’afaa (5/188)

In its chain Al Hasan Ibn ‘Atiyah who was declared Weak by Ibu Haatim Ar Raazi

Similarly in its chain is Tareef ibn Sulaimaan: Imaamul Bukhaari said about him “Mumkar in Hadeeth”

Ibn Hibban mentions in ‘Al Majrooheen’: “This hadeeth is Baatil (False) it has no origin”

6. “Work for your dunya as though you will live forever, and work for your hereafer as though you will die tomorrow

Ruling: The hadeeth has no Origin

Shaikh Al Albaani mentions in ‘Da’eefah (8): “It has no origin even though it has become popular upon the tongues in recent times

7. “Be plentiful in remembering Allah until it is said of you Majnoon (deranged)”

Ruling: Weak

(Collected by ahmad (11673) and in its chain is Darraaj ibn Sam’aan who is weak the hadeeth has been declared weak by Al Haithame, Al Albaani, Shaikh Muqbil and others)

8. “I am the most elequent of any who speak with (the letter) Daad (i.e. the arabic language)”

Ruling: No origin

Imaam ibn Katheer mentioned: in his tafseer (1/54) “It has no origin though its meaning is correct

9. “Read ‘Yaaseen’ over your dead”

Ruling: Weak

(Collected by Ahmad (20301) Abu Dawood (3121) Ibn Maajah (1448))

The hadeeth has three defects:

1. ‘Jahaalah’ (The unknown state of a narrator) namely Abu Uthmaan

2. The ‘Jahaalah’ of his father

3. ‘Al Idtiraab’ (Uncertainty in the manner in which the chains of narration have occured, leading to inability to establish the hadeeth)

10. “The most hated of the halaal affairs to Allah is Divorce”

Ruling: Weak

(Collected by Abu Daawood (2176,2177) Ibn Maajah (2018) Al Haakim (2853))

The hadeeth is declared ‘Mursal’ which is when a taabi’ee attributes a hadeeth to the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam – which necessitates a break in the chain since none of the successors met the Messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam – that is of course if one is unable to establish that the missing narrator is a companion or another successor, thus it is declared weak

Wallahu A’lam

Abu Hakeem

www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

%d bloggers like this: