Refuting the Polytheistic belief of omnipresence of the Prophet sallallahu ‘alaihiwasallam January 7, 2008

By Abu Alqamah

1) Taken and adapted from Silsilah Da’eefah vol 2 p 404, n 975 of Shaykh Albanee.

Hafiz Abu Bakr Al Bazzar narrated in his Musnad from Yussuf ibn Mussa, from Abdel Majeed ibn Abdil Azeez ibn Abi Ruwad from Sufyan from Abdallah ibn Saib from Zathan from Abdullah and he is Ibn Mas’ood from Prophet saw :

“ Allah has (appointed) angels wandering on earth, they bring me the salam of my Ummah”, and the Prophet saw said : “ My life is good for you, you narrate me and I narrate to you, and my death is good for you, your actions will be presented to me, what I will see from good deeds I will praise Allah, what I will see from bad deeds, I will ask forgiveness to Allah for you”

And Al Bazzarr said : “ We do not know anyone who narrated the last part from Abdallah ( ibn Mas’ood) except from this way ( this sanad)”

The first part : “ Allah has (appointed) angels wandering on earth, they bring me the salam of my Ummah” has been transmitted by Nassai ( 1/189) from many asaneed from Sufyan Thawree from Abdallah ibn Saib, and from Al A’mash in Mu’jam Kabeer of Tabaranee ( 3/81/2) , Akhbar Asbahan of Abu Nu’aym ( 2/205) and Ibn Asakir ( 9/189/2)

Shaykh Albanee said : “ The agreement of a Jama’at of thiqah on this narration from Sufyan without mention of end of hadeeth “ My life…”, and A’mash following him in that shows for me the Shuzooz of this addition ( meaning the addition is shaadh), because Abdel Majeed ibn Abdel Azeez is alone in reporting it, and how not when he his mutakalam fihi ( talked about) because of his memory, despite his being from narrators of Muslim, a Jama’at has declared him thiqqah, and other have declared him weak, and some mention reason ( of weakening).

Khalili said : “ He is Thiqqah, but he makes mistakes in Ahadeeth”

Nassai said : “ He is not Qawee, his hadeeth are written”

Ibn Abdil Barr said : “He narrated from Malik Ahadeeth in which he made mistakes”

Ibn Hibban said in “ Al Majroohin” ( 2/152) : “ Munkarul Hadeeth Jidan, he mixes akhbar, he narrates manakeer from famous ( people), and he deserves to be abandoned”

I say : this is why Hafiz said in Taqreeb : “ Sadooq he makes mistakes”

So when you know this, then the saying of Hafiz Haythamee in Majma’ ( 6/24) : “ Narrated by Bazzar and men are men of Saheeh”, then it gives mistake that nobody has been criticized among them.

Maybe Suyutee has been misled by this when he said : “ Its Sanad is Saheeh”

And this is why, I say, that Hafiz al ‘Iraqee, shaykh of Haythamee, was more precise in telling the reality of this isnad in his Takhreej Al Ihya ( 4/128) where he said : “ Men are men of Saheeh, except that Abdel Majeed ibn Abi Ruwad although Muslim narrated from him, and Ibn ma’een and Nassai declared him thiqqah, other declared him weak”

As for his saying or from his son in “ Tarh At Tathreeb fi Sharh Taqreeb” ( 3/297) “ Its isnad is Jayd”, then it is not Jayd for me, and he was saying this if there was no opposition of Abdel Majeed to Thiqah ( jama’ah) as it has preceded. So this is a defect in the hadeeth…

Yes, the isnad has been declared saheeh in mursal way from Bakr ibn Abdullah Al Muzanee, and it has three ways

First from Ghalib Al Qattan from him ( Muzanee), it has been quoted by Ismail Al Qadhee in “ Fadl Salah Ala Nabi” p 25 with my tahqeeq, and ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat (2/2/2), and all his men are thiqah, men of two saheeh.

Second from Katheer ibn Fadl from him ( Muzanee), also quoted by Ismail p 26, and men are men of Muslim except Katheer, and the name of his father is Yasar, and he is known as Hafiz has shown in Lisan in refutation of the saying of Ibn Al Qattan that his condition is not known.

Third : from Jisr ibn Farqad from him, it has been quoted by Al Harith ibn Abi Ussamah in his Musnad ( 230 in Bughyatul Bahith in Zawaid Musnad Al Harith) and Jisr is weak.”

…

As for the hadeeth of Anas, it has two ways :

From Abi Said Al Hassan ibn Ali ibn Zakaryah ibn Salih Al ‘Adawee Al Basree, from Kharash from Anas marfu’an and in mukhtasar way similar to this and in it there is :

“ Your actions will be presented to me in night of Monday and Thursday”

It has been quoted by Ibn ‘Adi ( 2/124) and Abu Mansoor Al Jarbazqanee in “ Thanee min Uroos Al Ajzai” ( 2/139) and Abdel Qadir ibn Muhammad Al Qurshee al Hanafee in “ Juzz lahu” ( 2/2) and Hafiz Al Iraqee (4/128) attributed it to Al Harith ibn Abi Ussamah in his Musnad with a weak isnad, and this is this isnad, and shown by Manawee in Fayd Al Qadeer, after mentioning its weakness

“ Because there is in it Kharash ibn Abdallah Saqitun ‘Admun, and he does not come except with Abi Sa’id Al ‘Adawee Al Kazab ( liar), and ibn Hibban said it is not permissible to write his ahadeeth except to know him…”

I say : the isnad is fabricated, so there is no need to be happy from it.

Second from Yahya ibn Khidam from Muhammad ibn Abdil Malik ibn Zyad Abu Salamah Al Ansaree from Malik ibn Deenar from Anas similar to this and there is in it :

“ Your actions will be presented to me every Thursday”

This has been quoted by Abu Tahir Al Mukhlis in “ Thanee minal ‘Aashir min hadithihi” ( 2/212) from Yahya ( ibn Muhammad ibn Sa’id) from Yahya ibn Khidam.

I say : It is also fabricated because of this Al Ansaree (Muhammad ibn Abdil Malik ibn Zyad Abu Salamah Al Ansaree)

‘Uqaylee said : Munakrul hadeeth.

Ibn Hibban said : Munkarul Hadeeth Jiddan, he reports from thiqqah what is not from
their hadeeth, Ihitijaj is not permissible with him”

Ibn Tahir said : Liar…

Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdillah said : “ He narrates fabricated ahadeeth”
…

In conclusion, this hadeeth is weak from all its ways, the best among them being from hadeeth Bakr ibn Abdillah Al Muzanee and it is mursal, which is from weak types for muhadith, then hadeeth of ibn Mas’ood, and it is a mistake, and the worst is hadeeth from Anas with both ways”

end of shaykh Albani’s words

So one can see that this hadeeth is never to the standards of Bukharee and Muslim, and Muslim brought some criticised men but only in mutab’iat not for Ihtijaj.

And the narration of Al Hawd that is from Bukharee and Muslim, which denies Prophet saw knoledge of whatr some people did after him is a nass Qat’i, as theses ahadeeth are accpeted by the Ummah.

And the hadeeth ever thursday oppose bralwi creed, and even actions of Ummah as bralwi say even actions of kufar, animals, Prophet saw is hadhir and nadhir.

So their making taweel of agreed upon hadeeth of Hawd with mockery, and taking these criticised ahadeeth, then it shows the febility of bralwi invented creed

May Allah protect us from shirk

2)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar quoted the explanations of scholars about Prophet saw calling people his companions to the Hawd, and then angels informing him that they turned on their heels and changed and invented new matters.

Ibn Hajar said in fathul Bari kitab Riqaq bab Kayfa Al Hashr:

“ Firabri said that it is mentioned from Abi Abdillah Al Bukhari from Qabeesah that these ( people) are those who became apostate at time of Abu Bakr and Abu Bakr fought them, meaning until they were killed and died on kufr. Ismaili brought full isnad of that trough another way from Qabeesah. Khattabee said that none of the Sahabah did became apostate, only some hard Bedouins bringing no help to religion did became apostate, and this does not bring any blame on famous Sahabah, and the name “ ushayhabi” in reduced form ( tasgheer) shows that they were few.

And others said : the kufr is on its apparent meaning, and the meaning of “ my Ummah” is ummah of da’wah ( meaning all mankind including kafir) and not Ummatul Ijabah ( answering Ummah who believed in the Prophet saw), and this is justified by his saying in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah : Then I would say to them go away and Suhqan” and this is also strengthened by the fact that their situation remained hidden for him, and if they were from Ummah of Ijabah, then he would know their situation as their actions are presented to him, and this is rejected in the hadith of Anas : “ until I recognized them ( ‘araftuhum) and the same in hadith of Abu Hurayrah.

( So Prophet saw did recognize them, and he did not know what they did after him, and the hadith actions being presented is weak as preceded in previous post)

And Ibn Teen said that it is possible that they were hypocrites or doers of kabair ( big sins). And it has been said that they are people from hard Bedouins who entered Islam out of fear.

Dawoodi said : there is nothing preventing people of kabair and innovations to be from these people.

And Nawawi said : “ And it is said they are hypocrites and apostate, and it is possible that they are also resurrected with light because of there being from Ummah generally, and he saw will call them because of their signs on them ( of light) and it will be said : they changed after you, meaning they did not die on the apparent on which you left them. ‘Iyad and others said : and after this, their signs will disappear and their light will end.

And it has been said that there is no necessity for them to have signs, rather he saw will call them from what he knew from them from Islam.

And it has been said that they are people of kabair and innovations who died on Islam, so we cannot be certain of their entry into fire, as it is permissible that they are first prevented from hawd as a punishment for them, then they are being forgiven, and there is nothing preventing them to have signs of light, so he recognized them with their signs whether they were from his time of after him.

And ‘Iyad, Baji and others gave preference to the saying of Qabeesah, the narrator of the khabar, that they became apostate after him, and the fact he recognized them does not necessitate them having signs, because it is a favor that shows the actions of a muslim, and the apostate, his actions are cancelled, so he recognized them individually and not their characteristics, ( he recognized them) on what they were before their apostasy,

And it is not far that hypocrites from his time might enter these people, and it will come in the hadith of Shafa’ah that this Ummah will remain with hypocrites inside it, and this shows that they will be gathered with believers and their individuals will be recognized, although they will not have these signs, and the one that is recognized will be called according to the situation he was left in the Duniya.

As for the entering of people of innovations in that, then it is far because he called them : “ My companions” and people of innovations innovated after him. And it has been answered by taking the meaning of companion to general meaning, and this is also far because we do not say “ Suhqan” to a muslim although he is an innovator. This has been answered that it is not forbidden to say that to someone he knew that he will be judged with punishment for his sins, then saved with Shafa’ah, then his saying “Suhqan” is acknowledging the decision of Allah with remain of hope, and the same way for people of kabair.

Baydhawi said that his saying “ murtadeen” ( apostate) is not a prove for their being apostate from Islam, but it is only possible, and it is also possible that that he meant they were sinners from believers turning away from istiqamah and they changed good actions by bad. End of his words.

Abu Ya’la narrated with a Hassan isnad from Abu Said : I heard the Prophet saw mentioning a hadith and he said : “ O people, I will be waiting you on Hawd, when you will come, a man will say : O Prophet of Allah, I am fulan ibn fulan” and another will say : “ I am fulan son of fulan” and I will say : as for the nasab I knew it ( by Wahi or knowing them in his lifetime), but maybe you changed after me and became apostate”

And Ahmad and Bazzar narrated a similar version from the hadith of Jabir…” end of Ibn Hajar’s words

So we see Ibn Hajar clearly saying that hypocrites might not be recognized and be from these people, and Nawawi mentioned from Iyad and others that they might have signs by which the Prophet saw will recognize them, then these signs will vanish. And all other explanations, are all clear that prophet saw did not know what they did after him.

Whether they are apostate, sinners of innovators, no scholars said that Prophet saw knew them, as he was hadhir nadhir and knowing all things to happen, they all agreed that Prophet saw did not what they did after him.

While bralwi do reject all scholar’s explanation and explain these ahadith in such matters that Prophet saw knew they were apostate, but he called them companions on purpose, hoping Allah will forgive them, total nonsense, because he would not say “ Suhqan” if he had pity of them, and Prophet saw was forbidden to ask for mercy for kafir…

Also Barelwi’s saying that Prophet saw knew what they did, but he was not concentrated, that is why he did not recognize them properly is another rubbish, said by no scholars before them.

So Barelwi had to reject all these scholars’ saying and reading these clear hadith against their meaning, justifying their fabricated religion.

3)

n Umdatul Qari, al Ayni, imam of Ahnaf of his time, quoting same scholars, ibn Teen, Dawoodi, Nawawi, Iyad and others, clearly quoting that Prophet saw will recognise them with their signs, and then their signs will disapear, also other saying that Prophet saw recognised them on what he left them

So Ayni also quoted these sayings all saying wether they were apostate or sinners, then Prophet saw was not aware of what they did after him.

Imam Qurtubi says in his “Tazkirah fi Ahwalil Mowta wal Akhirah” after quoting ahadith of Hawd and people being pushed away from it, and Prophet (saw) would first say theur are my Companions, and then Angels will inform him that he does not know what innovations they did after him and turned on their heels…

Chapter : Our scholar, may Allah’s mercy be on them all, have stated : whoever apostasies from the religion of Allah or innovates in it what displeases Allah and what Allah did not legislate, they will be pushed away and distanced from it, and the most pushed away are those who oppose the Jama’ah of Muslims and separate from their way, as the Khawarij with their difference in sects, the Rawafid with their difference in misguidance, and the Mu’tazilah with their categories of passion, all of them are people who have changed.

And this is also the case for the darkness of people involved in tyranny and oppression and discredit of the truth and killing those who support the truth and their humiliation.

The same for those who do Kabair openly and exceed the bounds in sins and the Jama’at of people of deviation and desire and innovation.

Then the distance can be in a state then they can get approach it after forgiveness if it is change in actions and it was not in beliefs.

And on this supposition, they will be recognized (by the Prophet) with the light of their Wudhu, and then they will be said : May you perish.

And if they are among hypocrites that were present at time of Prophet (saw) and they were showing faith and hiding Kufr, then he will consider them on Zahir (evident actions) and then their covers (real states) will be uncovered (to him) and he will say to them : May you perish.END OF QURTUBI’s WORDS

So Imam Qurtubi gave two interprations from scholars :

1) These people are innovators or Tyrants or severe sinners, and these people will be recognised by the Prophet (saw) because of the lighteness of their Wudhu and he will call them companions because of that, and then will be informed of their innovations

2) These people are hypocrites and Prophet (saw) will recognise them because of their apparent actions as they were hiding their Kufr, then their hidden Kufe will be told to him.

And there is no saying similar to Bralwiyah’s fallacy and distortion of truth that Prophet (saw) knew their states but lacked of concentration or that he said that hoping for their mercy and knowing who they were…

The truth is so clear but for people who prefer darkness over faith and Tawheed, only Allah can guide them

4)

As for Hafiz ibnul Qayim’s words, then they do not mean the Prophet (saw) or relatives see all of our actions as they happen, but they are presented like the Salah and Salam of the Muslims. And the mubah actions are not comcerned, so the Prophet (saw) do not see our actions, only those good and bad are presented, according to these sayings of ibn Ul Qayim.

Yet the Prophet (saw0 knowing the actions in detail od each individuals of his Ummah, this opposes the Mutawatir narrations of Hawd, so this concept is batil…

And no scholar is free from mistakes, but Ahlus Sunnah take from shar’i daleel not from any scholar despite his high rank.

As for the book Ar-Rooh, Shaykh Albani put some doubts on it in his introduction of “Ayatul Bayinat” and said that might be before his meeting with Ibn Taymiyah.

And Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd refuted this as quoted in “Kutub Lazi hazzara minha Al Ulema” of Mashhoor Aal-Salman, and said that ibnul Qayim quotes in it words of ibn Taymiyah and also from his other works.

Allah knows best.

Refutation of GF Haddad’s accusation against Shaikh Ehsan Elahi Zaheer January 7, 2008

By Abu Alqamah

GF Haddad tried to answer to the book “Al-Bralwiya” of Allamah Ihsan Ilahi Zahir.

Let’s have a glimpse at the case of GF Haddad and his false accusations.

Shaykh Ihsan Ilahi Zahir wrote :

Shaykh Hasan ibn Mansoor al-Ma`roof Biqaadeekhaan (d.592H) writes, “A man did nikaah with a woman without any witnesses and at the time of the nikaah he said to the woman “We make Allah and his Messenger our witnesses.” The fuqahaa (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief (kufr), because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sal- Allahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death.” [Fatawaa Qaadee Khaan (p. 883)]

GF Hadd tried to answer : Following is the text of the original Egyptian edition of the Fatawa Qadi Khan, printed in the margins of the Fatawa Hindiyya [1:305-306]: “A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah and His Messenger: this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah. Some of them deemed this to be tantamount to kufr (wa ba`duhum ja`alu dhalika kufran) because the man believes that the Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam knows ghayb, and this is kufr.” End of fatwa.

Note the following:

(1) The fatwa does NOT contain the words, “The fuqahaa (Islaamic jurisprudents) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief” but rather restricts the opinion of takfir to “some of them”;

(2) The fatwa does NOT contain the words, “whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death”! This is the soul of the tampering of the truth by non-Muslims. { Some of those who are Jews change words from their context} (4:46).

Answer to the false accusations of GF Haddad and his treacheries

I checked Fatawa Alamgiriah with in notes Qadhee Khan published by Darul ma’rifah Beyroot

And I discovered that Qadhee Khan speaks about taking Allah and His Prophets as witness in two separates places of his Fatawa, once in chapter of Nikah and witnesses where he quotes what GF Haddad translated as

“A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah and His Messenger: this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah. Some of them deemed this to be tantamount to kufr (wa ba`duhum ja`alu dhalika kufran) because the man believes that the Messenger sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam knows ghayb, and this is kufr.” End of fatwa

See the picture

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17577164/273636522.jpg
And Qadhee Khan also speaks about that in chapter what makes a Muslim Kafir, which is in third vol, so at the end of the book.
And here Qadhee khan said

“A man did nikaah with a woman without any witnesses and at the time of the nikaah he said to the woman “We make Allah and his Messenger our witnesses.” They (The fuqahaa) have said that this statement of the man is disbelief (kufr), because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sal- Allahu ‘alayhe wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen whereas he didn’t have the knowledge of the unseen when he was alive so how would he then have it after his death.”

See the scann

http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1773/9677484/17577164/273636516.jpg
So Allamah Ihsan is not a follower of jews but GF Haddad is, as he lies and distorts.

And it was clear that what Allamah Ihsan quoted was totally different from what Haddad had as there where other words that Haddad had : “ this is invalid due to his saying / sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam: ‘There is no nikah except with witnesses’ whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah” and shaykh Ihsan did not quote them.

So one could see that there were three different sentences, so they were not same quotes, but instead GF Haddad tried to hide this fact and put blame on Ahle Hadeeth.

Also what Qadhee Khan quoted in two separate places is both against GF Haddad’s creed, and called GF Haddad’s creed as kufr.

In the first extract, there are words : “whereas every nikah is with the witness of Allah”, so Qadhee Khan said this is invalid as every Nikah is with Witness of Allah, and he did not say every Nikah is with witness of Prophet saw.

While GF Haddad and bralwi say Prophet saw is given power to be Hadhir Nadhir, and he sees all actions of creations as they happen, actions of hearts of all Humans, animals, and trees…

So if the Prophet saw was given these powers, why would Qadhee Khan deny Prophet saw being witness, did he not know Prophet saw was given this power of being witness to all nikah ?

And Qadhee Khan gave in both fatwa reason of takfeer, and it is because the man doing this believes Prophet saw knows ghayb, and Prophet saw was not knowing ghaybh while he was alive, so how after his death ?

GF Haddad then tries more deception

He said :

Imam al-Haskafi in al-Durr al-Mukhtar [3:27] only said: “It is impermissible to take Allah and His Prophet as one’s witnesses to nikah, and *it was said* that this constitutes kufr.”

Note that the passive phrase denotes the weak or secondary rank of the fatwa. This should immediately ring the bell of every student of fiqh that the position in question is a weak one and not relied upon in the madhhab. end of GF Haddad’s words

Answer to GF Haddad : The passive rank does not always mean weak opinion. Yet it can mean when a scholar first mentions an opinion in affirmative form then others in passive. But here there is only one opinion, so this is the Rajih for Al-Haskafi, else he would mention another one.

So the bell of GF Haddad is fulled with shirk, so it is difficult to ring.

Al-Haskafi only mentioned one opinion for the Madhab, and GF Haddad said this only one opinion is the weak and rejected.

GF Haddad Al Quburi went on his fallacies saying :

The next step is to verify the main reference-books in the Hanafi madhhab in our time, which is not the Qadi Khan nor the Fatawa Bazzaziyya nor `Umdat al-Qari nor Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar nor the Musayara [the last three are not even books of Hanafi fiqh] nor the other, more minor works quoted, but the Hidaya of al-Haskafi and the Hashiya of Ibn `Abidin where he says: [3:27-28=2:283-284]:

“The compiler said in the Tatarkhaniyya and the Hujja: ‘It was mentioned in al-Multaqat that the person [who says that] does not commit kufr, because things are shown to the soul of the Prophet and because the Messengers know part of the ghayb….’

I say [i.e. Ibn `Abidin]: More than that, they mentioned in the Books of `Aqa’id that among the miraculous gifts (karamat) of the Awliya’ is the fact that they are aware of some of the unseen matters…. We have expanded on this issue in our epistle, Sall al-Husam al-Hindi liNusrat Sayyidina Khalid al-Naqshbandi (‘Drawing the Indian Sword in the Defense of our Master Khalid al-Naqshbandi’) so look it up there.”

Note that the Wahhabis quoted the Tatarkhaniyya only as saying: “The one who makes Allah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen.” But they do not quote the continuation of this verdict, which is that this fatwa is not recognized as valid as cited above in the text of Ibn `Abidin.

This shows that if Imam Ibn `Abidin rejects this fatwa as false and incorrect, those who hold it today cannot be called Hanafis in this particular matter but more correctly deviants from the Madhhab. This does not refer to the fatwa of takfir on the false claim that the Prophet knows ghayb independently and exclusively, but rather to the fatwa of takfir on the correct claim that he knows ghayb because Allah Most High said { the knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, Save unto every messenger whom he hath chosen} (72:26) and other evidence.

end of Gf Haddad’s words

irst GF Haddad’s saying :

The next step is to verify the main reference-books in the Hanafi madhhab in our time, which is not the Qadi Khan nor the Fatawa Bazzaziyya nor `Umdat al-Qari nor Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar nor the Musayara [the last three are not even books of Hanafi fiqh] nor the other, more minor works quoted, but the Hidaya of al-Haskafi and the Hashiya of Ibn `Abidin where he says: [3:27-28=2:283-284]:

Then this shows that Qadi Khan, fatawa Bazzaziyah, ‘Ayni, Mulla Ali Qari and others all said words opposing the Bralwi creed.

This is why GF Haddad tried to say that these opinions are seconderay and the true Hanafi Madhab is Durul Mukhtar anbd Rad Al-Muhtar.

So he admitted that many Ahnaf say Bralwi creed is Kufr.

Secondly, The author of Dur Al-Mukhtar only mentioned one opinion for the Madhab, so it shows for him there is no other. Else he would say this opinion is weak and another is the right one.

Gf Haddad said :

“The compiler said in the Tatarkhaniyya and the Hujja: ‘It was mentioned in al-Multaqat that the person [who says that] does not commit kufr, because things are shown to the soul of the Prophet and because the Messengers know part of the ghayb….’

Answer : The Prophet (saw) knowing part of the Ghayb is not the Bralwi creed, the bralwi creed is the Prophet (saw) is given All ghayb, knowledge of everything that was (ma Kana) and of everything that is to happen (Ma Yakunu).

And Salafi Ahlul Hadith Ahlus Sunnah also say that if Allah informs the Prophet (saw) of a particular event or makes him see some hidden matters happening faraway, then this belief is not kufr, as it is a miracle, which is the action of Allah.

But this is not the general rule, and the Prophet (saw) is not aware of the actions of his Ummah as the Ahadith of Hawd show.

So these words from Al-Multaqat oppose the Bralwi creed.

Secondly, things being shown to the Prophet (saw) is not also the bralwi creed, as for them the Prophet (saw) sees them as they happen, knew them before.

Gf Haddad said

I say [i.e. Ibn `Abidin]: More than that, they mentioned in the Books of `Aqa’id that among the miraculous gifts (karamat) of the Awliya’ is the fact that they are aware of some of the unseen matters…. We have expanded on this issue in our epistle, Sall al-Husam al-Hindi liNusrat Sayyidina Khalid al-Naqshbandi (‘Drawing the Indian Sword in the Defense of our Master Khalid al-Naqshbandi’) so look it up there.”

Answer : being aware of some matters, as a miracle or a Karamat is not the Bralwi creed.

FOR THE BRALWIS THE PROPHET (SAW) KNOWS EVERYTHING FROM THE GHAYB

So this saying of ibn Abidin opposes the Bralwi creed. It is about knowing some matters as a miracle.

So for ibn Abidin this saying of the man is not Kufr, because it does not necessarly mean the Prophet (saw) knows the Ghayb, but it implies the Prophet (saw) as a miracle can know some matters of ghayb.

And the difference is clear.

Ibn Abidin did not reject the saying of Ahnaf that saying the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb is kufr, he only objected that this man’s saying does not imply this belief, rather as a miracle the Prophet (saw) can know some matters of Ghayb.

So ibn Abidin does not differ on knowing all Ghayb. He only differs saying this saying only apllies the man belives the Prophet (saw) knows part of ghayb as a miracle, and this belief is not Kufr.

Ibn Abidin did not say the Bralwi creed that the Prophet (saw) knows all Ghayb, everything is not Kufr.

But GF Haddad like bralwis like to confuse people.

They present scholars’ saying the Prophet (saw) knows part of ghayb, and this is true in the meaning of knowing informations of ghayb by Wahee.

Gf Haddad then goes on :

Note that the Wahhabis quoted the Tatarkhaniyya only as saying: “The one who makes Allah and his Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) as witnesses for nikaah, then his nikaah will be invalid and the individual will become a kaafir because he held the belief that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) had the knowledge of the unseen.” But they do not quote the continuation of this verdict, which is that this fatwa is not recognized as valid as cited above in the text of Ibn `Abidin.

In TatarKhaniyah, his author does not say that the first fatwa is not valid. Rather it seems to be his own opinion.

He only mentions another saying from Al-Multaqat, without saying the saying of Al-Multaqat is right and the first not valid.

But GF Haddad is used to deception and lies

Gf Haddad finishes :

This shows that if Imam Ibn `Abidin rejects this fatwa as false and incorrect, those who hold it today cannot be called Hanafis in this particular matter but more correctly deviants from the Madhhab. This does not refer to the fatwa of takfir on the false claim that the Prophet knows ghayb independently and exclusively, but rather to the fatwa of takfir on the correct claim that he knows ghayb because Allah Most High said { the knower of the Unseen, and He revealeth unto none His secret, Save unto every messenger whom he hath chosen} (72:26) and other evidence

Answer : Ibn Abidin never said that those who hold to the Fatwa in Qadhi Khan and other are not on the Hanafi Madhab, rather this is the saying of the majority of Hanafi books.

And there is no mention of knowing Ghayb indenpendantly or not.

Ibn Abidin did not say Kufr is only to say the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb independantly, and the Prophet knows all ghayb from Allah directly from Allah is OK.

Ibn Abidin talked about knowing some ghayb and miracles.

So GF Haddad lies on ibn Abidin.

Gf Haddad said before quoting from ibn Abidin :

Following is the text of the original Egyptian edition of the Bazzaziyya, printed in the margins of the Fatawa Hindiyya [4:135]: “A man marries a woman with the witness of Allah Most High – Mighty and Exalted – and His Messenger : It [nikah] is invalid, and kufr is feared for the man because he is suggesting that he knows the unseen (ghayb): { And with Him are the keys of the invisible. None but He knoweth them} (6:59).

As for what Allah Most High teaches to the elite of His servants through revelation or true inspiration, after this takes place then it no longer called ghayb, so it is not part of the [verse's] two exclusive statements, namely, the affirmation in first place and then the exclusive clause { none but} .”

This shows that, according to the Bazzaziyya, only the man who states that the Prophet knows ghayb in the sense that he possesses the keys of the invisible or that he shares their knowledge with Allah, commits kufr. Meaning, a man who states that the Prophet knows ghayb in a dependent, inexclusive sense does not commit kufr. end of GF Haddad’s lies

What a lie !!!

Where did Al Bazazi said this ?

Compare the saying in Al Bazaziyah and the understanding of GF Haddad, there are totally different.

Al-Bazazi says that what Allah reveals to the Prophet (saw) by inspiration is no more Ghayb, meaning the Prophet (saw) knows what is revealed to him.

And everybody agrees the Prophet (saw) knows hidden matters Allah reveals him.

But Al-Bazazi restricted this to Wahee for the Prophet (saw)

So it is the same as ibn Abidin, in Bazaziyah it is about some part of ghayb that are revealed by Wahee.

It is not about knowing all Ghayb.

Al-Bazazi did not say that The Prophet (saw) knowing ghayb is only kufr when someone believes it is independantly from Allah,

Nor did he say the Prophet (saw0 knows everything and knows the Ghayb.

He only said that the Prophet (saw) knows what is revealed to him.

So GF Haddad does not acknoledge that all these scholars agreed that the Prophet (saw) was not given knowledge of everything, and this is the knowledge of ghayb.

So this is the bralwi strategy, when scholar deny ghayb for the Prophet, say to the people that it means Ghayb known independantly.

Which Muslin will believe that anything that happens in the creations happens indepandantly from Allah ?

So scholar deny the Prophet (saw) knwiung Ghayb, and they say the Prophetr (saw) knew some parts by Wahee…

lso one of the saying of Qadhi Khan, that some scholars sais this is Kufr, then it does not mean Ahnaf differ on knowing Ghayb, some scholars said it is Kufr to believe Prophet (saw) knows ghayb and others said no.

The difference is that some say this saying is not kufr, because the Prophet (saw) knows parts of the ghayb, by Wahee.

And the man who says this saying does not necesseraly belive the Prophet (saw) knows ghayb.

So the ikhtilaf is about the saying of this man, whether it constitutes kufr or not, not about the Prophet (saw) knowing ghayb.

And they explained what GF Haddad missed to explain :

PART OF GHAYB…

and he tries to render it as independantly Ghayb, which no one believes

May Allah protect us from shirk

Fabricated Hadith: He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life January 7, 2008

بسم الله الحمن الحيم

---

By Abu Alqamah 

Hafiz ibn Abdil Hadi said in “Sarim Al-Munki fi Radd ‘ala Subki” about the Hadith collected by Ad-Daraqutni and quoted by Subki in his “Shifa As-Siqam”: Abu Rabi’ Az-Zahrani from Hafs ibn Abi Dawud from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet (saw): “He who performs Hajj and visits my grave after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life”:

“Know that it is a Hadith on which it is not permissible to base, nor is it suitable to rely on it, because it is a Munkar Hadith, with a dropped Isnad, and none of the Hufaz authenticated it and none of the Imams based themselves on it, rather they weakened it and criticised it and some of them mentioned it among fabricated Ahadith and reports that are lies.”

And Hafiz ibn Abdil Hadi mentioned that its narrator Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and he is Hafs ibn Sulayman Abu ‘Umar Al-Asadi Al-Kufi Al-Bazar Al-Qari Al-Ghadiri though he was an Imam in Qira’ah, but in the field of Hadith he has been weakened by the Ahlul Hadith and some of them accused him of lying.

Here are some quotes from Ibn Abdil Hadi from Imams of Jarh and Ta’deel on Hafs, p 63 and after of the edition published by “Muasasah Ar-Rayan” with the footnotes of ‘Aqil ibn Muhammad Al-Muqtari, student of Shaykh Muqbil:

Abu ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id Ad-Darimi and others said from Yahya ibn Ma’in: “He is not trustworthy (thiqah)”

Al-‘Uqayli mentioned from Yahya (ibn Ma’in) that he was asked about him and he said: “He is nothing” (Laysa bi Shayin)

And Abdullah ibn Imam Ahmad said: I heard my father saying: Hafs ibn Sulayman Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari is abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith).

And Al-Bukhari said: “They left him”

Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub Al-Juzjani said: ‘They have left him from a long time.”

Muslim ibn Hajjaj said: “Matruk”

‘Ali ibn Madini said: “Weak in Hadith and I have left in purposely”

An-Nassa’i said: “he is not trustworthy and his Hadith is not written” and he said once: “Abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith)”

Salih ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdadi said: “His Ahadith are not written and all of his Ahadith are Manakir” (A Munkar Hadith is that of a weak narrator and it also opposes an authentic Hadith)

Zakariya As-Saji said: “He narrates from Samak, ‘Alqamah ibn Marthad, Qays ibn Muslim and ‘Asim some Bawatil (false Ahadith).”

Abu Zur’ah said: “Weak in Hadith”

Ibn Abi Hatim said: “I asked my father about him and he said: His hadith is not written and he is weak in Hadith, he is not trusted and is abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith)”

AburRahman ibn Yusuf Kharash said: “He is a liar, abandoned (Matruk), he used to fabricate Hadith.”

Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: “Zahib Al-Hadith” (He forgets Hadith).

Ad-Daraqutni said: “Weak”

Abu Hatim ibn Hibban said: “He used to mix the chains of transmission and used to declare Marfu’ some mursal reports, and he used to take from the books of people and write them and narrate them without listening (to them).”

Ibn ‘Adi said: “As-Saji informed me that Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdadi informed me, he said: “I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in saying: “Hafs ibn Sulayman and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayash where the most knowledgeable people of the Qira’ah of ‘Asim, and Hafs was better in Qira’ah than Abu Bakr, and Abu Bakr was Saduq, and Hafs was a liar”

And ibn ‘Adi mentioned some of his rejected Hadith and among them this Hadith about the visit of the Prophet’s grave.

Ibn Abdil Hadi said that Al-Bayhaqi narrates in his Sunnan Kabir and in His Shu’b Al-Iman this narration of Hafs about the visit and he declared him to be weak in both of his works.

And ibn Abdil Hadi concluded that if this is the status of Hafs for the Imams of Hadith, then how can someone rely on his report, especially when the narrator from him, Layth ibn Abi Sulaym is Mudhtarib Al Hadith (he contradicts in narrating)?

Then ibn Abdil Hadi mentioned that As-Subki tried to strengthen this Hadith with ignorance and deception, as he refused to admit for sure that Hafs ibn Abi Dawud the narrator of this Hadith is Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Qari, and he said that it is possible they are two different narrators. And As-Subki claimed that Ibn Hibban mentioned Hafs ibn Abi Dawud in his “Kitab Ath-Thiqat”.

And Ibn Abdil Hadi replied that these words of As-Subki are full of mistake, mixing and deception (Talbis), as the narrator of this Hadith is Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Qari et he is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud without any doubt, and the one who claims that this Hadith is narrated by two narrators one of them being Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and the other Hafs ibn Sulayman, and one of them is Thiqah (trustworthy) and the other is weak, then he is ignorant mistaken by consensus or an opponent (to the truth) a person of passion following his desire and his aim is to deceive and mix the truth with falsehood : “And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light” (An-Nur 24 : 40)

Hafiz ibn Abdil Hadi further added that he did not find in the nuskhah of the book “Ath-Thiqat” of ibn Hibban that was available for him what As-Subki quoted, that Hafs ibn Abi Dawud was mentioned in it. And ‘Aqil Al-Muqtari also checked a nuskhah of it and did not find these words of Ibn Hibban.

And what is strange is that Ibn Hibban himself said that Hafs ibn Sulayman is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud as indicated by ibn Abdil Hadi and Ibn Hibban weakened him in “Kitab Al-Majruhin”: “Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Al-Qari Abu ‘Umar Al-Bazar, and he is the one called Hafs ibn Abi Dawud… He used to mix the chains of transmission and used to declare Marfu’ some mursal reports, and he used to take from the books of people and write them and narrate them without listening (to them)”

And ibn Abdil Hadi said that if the quote of As-Subki that Ibn Hibban mentioned Hafs ibn Abi Dawud in his Kitab Thiqat is true, then it will be a clear contradiction of Ibn Hibban. Yet As-Subki took from ibn Hibban what suited him and left his words in “Al-Majruhin” that was against him. Hafiz Ibn Abdil Hadi described the pathetic condition of As-Subki: “It is not a novelty for this person who is an objector to Shaykh Al-Islam and a follower of his desire that he takes the saying of a person (ibn Hibban) in which he erred and none agreed with him in it and he leaves his saying (of Ibn Hibban) that is correct and in which he is followed. And Allah gives Tawfiq.”

And if ever this quote of As-Subki exists, yet As-Subki took this saying of ibn Hibban and opposed Hufaz like Al-Bukhari, ibn Abi Hatim, Abu Zur’ah, Al-Hakim and others who said that Hafs ibn Sulayman is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and here are some quotes taken from ibn Abdil Hadi:

“Al-Bukhari said in his “Kitab Du’afa”: Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari narrating from ‘Alqamah ibn Marthad and ‘Asim, they left him and he is ibn Abi Dawud Al-Kufi. Then ibn Abi Al-Qadhi said: Sa’id ibn Mansur said to us: Hafs ibn Sulayman said to us from Layth from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar: he said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life” So Al-Bukhari mentioned like this showing some rejected narrations of Hafs.

And he said in his Kitab At-Tarikh: “Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari, they abandoned him and he is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud.”

Ibn Abi Hatim said in his book “Jarh wa Ta’dil”: Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Muqri, and he is Al-Bazzar and he is Ibn Abi Dawud the companion of ‘Asim in Qira’at, I heard my father saying this. And Abu Zur’ah was asked about Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and he said: he is hafs ibn Sulayman and he is weak in Hadith. And Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said in his book “Al-Kuna”: Abu ‘Umar Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Al-Muqri Al-Kufi and Sulyman (his father) is Al-Asadi Al-Muqri Al-Kufi and Sulayman has the kuniyah Abu Dawud, he is Zahib Al-Hadith (he forgets hadith)”

So one can clearly see the sayings of the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil, and how As-Subki opposed them, making ibn Abdil Hadi saying: “I am surprised to see how this objector (to Ibn Taymiyah) came with this mixing in words and deception in saying…”

And specially when someone lacks of respects towards Ibn Taymiyah, attacks him violently with lies, and is unjust and oppressor as mentioned by ibn Abdul Hadi, and this man (As-Subki) comes with deception and opposes the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil. Allah ul-Musta’an.

And what is shocking is that the commander of the believer in Hadith, Imam Al-Bukhari mentioned this Hadith of Hafs to show some of his rejected Hadith, and Ibn ‘Adi also did the same. So earlier Hufaz have clearly weakened this narration, yet As-Subki tried with ignorance or deception to authenticate this Hadith. And if Al-Bukhari and ibn ‘Adi knew some reliable strengthening reports, he would have mentioned them.

But As-Subki said that this Hadith of Hafs has a following narration that strengthens it, and Ibn Abdil Hadi showed the status of this following narration.

In the “Mu’jam “of At-Tabarani, he said: Ahmad ibn Rushdin narrated to us, ‘Ali ibn Al-Husayn ibn Harun Al-Ansari narrated to us, Al-Layth ibn Bint Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym said: My grant mother ‘Aishah bint Yunus the wive of Al-Layth narrated me from Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar; he said the Messenger of Allah said: “He who visits my grave after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life”:

Ibn Abdil Hadi said: “This isnad is nothing on which one can rely, and it is not something one can turn to, rather it is an unjust and extremely weak sanad, because it is composed of weak narrators on which it is not permissible to base upon and of unknown narrators whose condition is not known so to accept their information, and ibn Rushdin is the teacher of At-Tabarani and he has been criticised, and ‘Ali ibn Al-Husayn Al-Ansari is not someone whose narrations are reliable, and Al-Layth ibn Bint Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym and his grant mother are both unknown (Majhul), their condition is not known to the people of knowledge so to accept their narration, and they do not have any mention in other than this hadith, and Layth ibn Abi Sulaym is Mudhtarib Al Hadith (he contradicts in narrating), this has been said by Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal.

Abu Mu’mar Al-Qati’i said: Ibn ‘Uyaynah used to weaken Layth ibn Abi Sulaym. And Yahya ibn Al-Ma’in and An-Nassa’i said: weak. As-Sa’di said: His Hadith is weakened. Ibrahim ibn Sa’id Al-Johiri said that Yahya ibn Ma’in narrated to us from Yahya ibn Sa’id Al-Qattan that he would not narrate from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym.

And Ahmad ibn Sulayman Ar-Rahawi said from Muamil ibn Al-Fadl, ‘Issa ibn Yunus narrated to us: don’t you listen (Hadith) from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym. He replied: I have seen him, and he mixes (ikhtalata) (Hadith)…”

Ibn Abi Hatim said: I heard my father and Abu Zur’ah saying: Layth should not be dealt with, he is Mudhtarib Al-Hadith (contradicts himself)…”

So Ibn Abdil Hadi pointed that even if the sanad was authentic up to Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, then the narration would be weak, and how can it be authentic when the chain contains darkness over darkness? And how can such a narration of many unknown and mudhtarib and mukhtalit people be a witness to the narration of Hafs?

Ibn Abdil Hadi said that someone from the later Hufaz reported a narration other than the way of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, he said: Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Abdillah ibn Bukar ibn Karmun narrated us at Intakiyah, Abu ‘Umar and ‘Uthman ibn Abdillah ibn Kharzad Al-Baghdadi narrated to us, that An-Nu’man ibn Ash-Shibl narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Al-Fadl narrated to us from Jabir from Muhammad ibn ‘Ali from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib that he said: the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life, and he who does not visit my grave has harmed me”:

Hafiz Ibn Abdil Hadi replied that it is a fabricated hadith and this for four reasons

First: An-Nu’man ibn Shibl as been accused (of lying) by Musa ibn Harun al-Hamal and Abu Hatim ibn Hibban Al-Busti said: he narrates from trustworthy narrators with some falsehood and from established people with inversed Hadith (Maqlub).

Secondly: Muhammad ibn Al-Fadl ibn ‘Atiyah is a liar as said by Yahya ibn Ma’in. And Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal said: he is nothing, his Hadith is that of people of lies. Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub Al-Juzjani said: he is a liar…Al-Falas said: Abandoned in Hadith (Matruk) a liar. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said: Zahib Al Hadith (forgets Hadith) and his Hadith was abandoned. And Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj, ibn Kharash and An-Nassa’i said: Abandonned in Hadith (Matruk) and An-Nassa’i said in another place: a liar, and ibn ‘Adi said: majority of his Hadith are not followed by trustworthy narrators (Thiqat), and Salih ibn Muhammad Al-Hafiz said: he used to fabricate Hadith, and ibn Hibban said: he was among those who would narrate fabrications from established narrators… And Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah attacked him severly.

Third reason: Jabir in the chain is Jabir Al-Ju’fi and he was not trustworthy. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said from Ahmad ibn Hambal: Yahya and AbdurRahman left him, and Abu Hanifah said: I did not see someone more liar than Jabir Al-Ju’fi. Yahya ibn Ma’in said: Jabir Al-Ju’fi was a liar, his Hadith is not written without any doubt, he is nothing. As-Sa’di said: he is a liar, I asked Ahmad ibn Hambal and he said: Ibn Mahdi abandoned him…An-Nassa’i said: abandoned in Hadith (Matruk) and he said in another place: he is not trustworthy and his Hadith is not written, and Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: Zahib Al-Hadith (He forgets hadith). And ibn Hibban said: he was a Sabai, from the companions of Abdullah ibn Saba, and he used to say that ‘Ali would return in this world, then he narrated from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah that he said: Jabir Al-Ju’fi believes in the return (of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib), Zaidah said: As for Jabir Al-Ju’fi, he was by Allah a liar and a believer in the return (of ‘Ali).

Fourth reason: Muhammad ibn ‘Ali from who Jabir narrates Abu Ja’far Al-Baqir and he did not meet the grant father of his father ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.

So one can be shocked to see people mentioning such liars to support the narration of Hafs ibn Sulayman that is fabricated. May Allah protect us from the disease of grave worship and innovations on graves.

As-Subki mentioned another narration of Ad-Daraqutni with close words, but it contains Harun ibn Abi Quz’ah who is unknown and also a narrator is not named in the chain : “a man from Ale Hatib” and this narration is Mudhtarib as some narrators said “a man from Ale ‘Umar” and some said: “a man from Ale Khattab” and the Matn is different for each hadith, this Hadith has so much Idhtirab and two unknown narrators, how on earth can this Hadith be authentic?

As-Subki came with so many liars and unknown people contradicting each others, and he wants to refute Shaykh Al-Islam with lies and forgeries. What if these unknown narrators are liars like others? May Allah protect us from taking our religion from unknown narrators and liars.

May Allah protect us from the Quburiyah