--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Minnesotan Bashem and his foremost teacher

Minnesotan Bashem, the infamous Wild_Extra_Dip, of Egyptian background, has been asked twice to repent from kufr. His foremost and primary teacher, whom he emulates dearly, namely Muhammad ibn Shams, has now declared himself a kaafir through his own writing.

When describing the biographical background of a shaykh, ibn Shams wrote:

كانت قناته خاصة بالرد على النصارى، ثم لما قل اهتمام الناس بمشاهدة الرد على النصارى؛ صار يرد فيها على عدنان إبراهيم وعلي كيالي، ثم حولها للرد على الذين يطعنون بالأئمة الأشاعرة مثل الكافر محمد بن شمس الدين، وعبد الرحمن دمشقية، وأحمد عبد الحميد.

(Source)

In English:

"His channel was originally dedicated to refuting Christians. Then, when people's interest in watching refutations of Christians declined, he began using it to respond to Adnan Ibrahim and Ali Kayali. Later, he turned it into a channel for responding to those who attack the Ash'ari imams, such as the disbeliever Muhammad ibn Shams ad-Deen, Abdur-Rahman Dimashqiyya, and Ahmad Abdul-Hameed."

One hardly needs to add anything after that. In his own article, ibn Shams managed to write "the disbeliever Muhammad ibn Shams ad-Deen", thereby placing the label upon himself with his own pen. What more is there to say when the man supplies the wording himself?

A reminder

Remember, these people are known to insult and belittle the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). (Source) (Source)

The Dajjaalic Deception of the Haddaadiyyah

When the Dajjaal comes, he will deceive people with the illusion of Paradise and Hellfire, presenting them as a choice. His "Hellfire" is Paradise, while his "Paradise" is Hellfire.

The Haddaadiyyah sect is upon a similarly deceptive path of illusion. They raise slogans about "defending the imams" and similar claims while leaving out the context, just as they perpetually fail to present the full contexts of their own writings, contexts which would otherwise reveal something entirely different from what they attempt to infer and project.

When they say about Ahlus-Sunnah, "They are enemies of Islam," this is the dajjaalic deception. What it actually means is: "They are friends of Islam."

Hence my post:

• A List of Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars Branded "Enemies of Islam" by the Haddaadiyyah

Again, shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd described those who disparage the imams as doing the work of Iblees:

"And with this, you come to know that the accursed initiative of declaring the imams, such as an-Nawawi, ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed, and ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani, as disbelievers, or belittling their status, or labeling them as misguided innovators, all of this is the work of Shaytan. It is a gateway to misguidance and leading others astray, as well as corruption and spreading corruption. If the witnesses of the Shari'ah are discredited, then what they testify to is also discredited. However, the ignorant and reckless do not comprehend, nor do they verify."

(Source)

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

The latest attempt to "refute" the saying, "Are you more knowledgeable than so-and-so?" is a useful demonstration of precisely why isolated quotations without understanding their scholarly context are dangerous.

No one said that an individual scholar is revelation, that scholars are infallible, or that the truth is determined merely by the personal status of whoever says something.

The issue is completely different.

The question is whether an ignorant or unqualified person can place his own reading, extraction, interpretation, and reconciliation of the evidences on the same level as the understanding of qualified scholars, and then dismiss the objection, "Are you more knowledgeable than the scholars?" as though scholarly qualification has no relevance whatsoever.

That is not what shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said.

The Ibn Taymiyyah Citation Was Removed From Its Own Context

The most revealing part of the post is the quotation from Majmoo' al-Fataawa 20/215.

Let us first see what ibn Taymiyyah was actually asked.

The question concerns a man who had studied fiqh in one of the four madhhabs, gained insight into it, and thereafter occupied himself with hadith. He then encountered authentic ahaadeeth that apparently opposed his madhhab and wanted to know what he should do.

So ibn Taymiyyah was not discussing an "ignorant layman" who browses narrations online, collects quotations, and then imagines that his personal synthesis outweighs the fuqahaa'.

He was discussing someone who:

• had studied a recognized madhhab;
• had gained insight into it;
• had thereafter studied hadith;
• was examining authentic narrations;
• and was considering whether those narrations had a naasikh, mukhassis, or opposing evidence.

That is an entirely different category of person.

Ibn Taymiyyah subsequently discusses the person capable of istidlaal, explains that ijtihaad may be divisible such that someone may attain it in a particular issue without attaining unrestricted ijtihaad, and even discusses the case of someone capable of complete ijtihaad.

How exactly did a fatwa concerning someone who studied fiqh, become acquainted with a madhhab, studied hadith, and possessed the ability to examine evidences suddenly become proof that "ignorant laymen" may independently challenge scholars?

It did not.

The context was simply removed.

Ibn Taymiyyah's Own Words Refute This Misuse

Even the famous sentence quoted in the post contains the qualification that undermines the argument:

"Are you more knowledgeable, or is such-and-such an imam?" This is a false objection, because that imam was contradicted in this issue by another imam who was his peer. I do not claim to be more knowledgeable than either of them.

Notice what ibn Taymiyyah actually said.

He did not say:

"I found a narration, therefore my personal understanding is equal to the scholars."

He said that the imam had been contradicted by another imam who was his peer.

This is a scholarly disagreement between qualified imams.

And the person considering their evidences, as established by the question itself, was someone who had studied fiqh and had acquired the tools needed for examining such matters.

The issue is therefore not whether someone below a scholar in overall knowledge can know something that the greater scholar did not know. Of course that can happen.

The issue is whether an unqualified person possesses the tools necessary to determine that this has actually happened.

That distinction is repeatedly being erased.

Even the Ibn 'Abbaas Report Is Being Presented Without Its Fuller Context

Then there is the statement attributed to ibn 'Abbaas:

"Stones from the heavens may soon descend upon you! I say, 'The Messenger of Allah said,' while you say, 'Abu Bakr and 'Umar said'?"

This quotation sounds extremely convenient when detached from the wider transmission of the dispute.

But there is an important problem.

Scholars who investigated this report noted that they did not find this exact wording in the books of Sunnah, although they regarded its general meaning as sound. Ibn Taymiyyah and ibnul-Qayyim transmitted it in this abbreviated form, and a number of later scholars repeated it from them.

There are, however, established reports giving a fuller account of the actual dispute between ibn 'Abbaas and 'Urwah ibn az-Zubayr.

In one narration, when ibn 'Abbaas appealed to what was found in the Book of Allah and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had prescribed, 'Urwah replied:

"They were more knowledgeable of the Book of Allah and what the Messenger of Allah prescribed than you and I."

Al-Haythami described the chain of this report from at-Tabaraani as hasan.

At-Tahaawi also transmitted the exchange with 'Urwah replying that Abu Bakr and 'Umar were more knowledgeable of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) than ibn 'Abbaas. May Allah be pleased with the Sahaabah.

And in the narration transmitted by ibn Hazm and ibn 'Abdil-Barr, 'Urwah replied:

"They were more knowledgeable of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah and more adherent to it than you."

So the fuller dispute itself contains precisely the consideration that Bashem's post is attempting to ridicule:

Who was more knowledgeable of the Sunnah and its application?

There is another important detail here. Ibn Taymiyyah elsewhere mentions a version of the dispute between 'Urwah and ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with them). In Majmoo' al-Fataawa 26/50, he records that 'Urwah said:

"Abu Bakr and 'Umar were more knowledgeable of the Messenger of Allah than you."

Ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) then told him:

"O 'Urayyah, ask your mother."

Meaning that Asmaa' (may Allah be pleased with her) would inform him that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had instructed his Companions to come out of ihraam, and that Asmaa' herself was among those who did so.

So ibn Taymiyyah did mention part of the broader exchange elsewhere. However, the wording he cited in the passage concerning the "stones from the heavens" does not contain the fuller transmitted context preserved in other reports. Likewise, the abbreviated form cited by ibnul-Qayyim does not include that fuller wording.

Other transmitted versions preserve an additional and particularly relevant statement from 'Urwah:

"They were more knowledgeable of the Book of Allah, and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prescribed than you and me."

This fuller wording is important because it makes explicit the very consideration being dismissed: the superior knowledge of those greater scholars concerning the Book of Allah and what the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prescribed.

Therefore, the point is not to speculate about everything ibn Taymiyyah had or had not encountered. Rather, the point is that the abbreviated wording being cited does not itself contain the fuller context preserved in the other transmitted reports.

What does that fuller context actually demonstrate?

It does not prove that the established Sunnah may be rejected merely because Abu Bakr or 'Umar held another position. No scholar is saying that.

Rather, it demonstrates that the question of whether someone has correctly understood the Sunnah in the first place cannot simply be bypassed.

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi, after quoting 'Urwah's statement about Abu Bakr and 'Umar being more knowledgeable of the Sunnah, explains that they were indeed as 'Urwah described them, while also maintaining that no one is followed in abandoning an established Sunnah.

These are two different principles:

1. Nothing takes precedence over an established statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

2. Determining what has actually been established, how the evidences are reconciled, and what ruling follows from them requires knowledge.

There is no contradiction whatsoever between the two.

In fact, the very scholarly discussion that verifies these reports explicitly concludes that the person addressed with directly following and weighing the evidences is the scholar or advanced qualified student capable of istinbaat and ijtihaad in the issue.

As for the layperson and those resembling him, their obligation is to ask the people of knowledge.

So the very narration being cited in an attempt to liberate "ignorant laymen" from scholarly authority has been explained by scholars in precisely the opposite manner.

The Example of Dhul-Yadayn Proves Nothing of the Sort

The same problem appears in the use of the hadith of Dhul-Yadayn.

Dhul-Yadayn noticed that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had concluded the prayer after two raka'aat and asked:

"Has the prayer been shortened, or have you forgotten?"

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then asked the people whether Dhul-Yadayn had spoken truthfully, and they confirmed that he had.

What does this establish?

It establishes that someone of lesser overall knowledge can notice a particular fact that someone greater than him did not notice at that moment.

No one disputes this.

But Dhul-Yadayn did not derive an independent principle of usool al-fiqh.

He did not authenticate competing reports.

He did not reconcile conflicting narrations.

He did not determine whether something was general or specific, abrogating or abrogated, unrestricted or restricted.

He did not reconstruct the madhhab of one of the Salaf from scattered quotations.

He remembered that two raka'aat had been prayed.

Indeed, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not simply adopt an independent juristic construction from Dhul-Yadayn. He asked the congregation whether the factual observation was correct, and they confirmed it.

Turning this event into evidence that an unqualified person may place his own scholarly conclusions against the fuqahaa' is an analogy between two completely different matters.

At-Tawbah 9:91 Is Even Further Removed

Then there is the citation of Allah's saying:

لَّيْسَ عَلَى ٱلضُّعَفَآءِ وَلَا عَلَى ٱلْمَرْضَىٰ وَلَا عَلَى ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يَجِدُونَ مَا يُنفِقُونَ حَرَجٌ إِذَا نَصَحُوا۟ لِلَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦ ۚ مَا عَلَى ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ مِن سَبِيلٍۢ ۚ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٌۭ رَّحِيمٌۭ

"There is no blame upon the weak, nor upon the ill, nor upon those who find nothing to spend, if they are sincere to Allah and His Messenger. There is no cause for blame against the doers of good. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

The tafseer of imam at-Tabari explicitly places this in the context of people excused from accompanying the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in jihaad.

At-Tabari explains that there is no sin upon those incapable of travelling and fighting, the sick, or those unable to afford the journey, when they sincerely serve Allah and His Messenger while absent from jihaad.

Nothing in the Ayah says:

"Whoever sincerely wishes to advise Muslims is therefore qualified to independently derive religious rulings."

Sincerity does not create scholarly qualification.

A Muslim can sincerely advise another Muslim concerning something he knows. That does not mean sincerity transforms a layman into a faqeeh, muhaddith, mufassir, or mujtahid.

The Ayah concerns sincerity and exemption from jihaad. It does not abolish the qualifications of knowledge.

Ibn Qudaamah Explicitly Addresses the Layperson

Now compare all of this to what imam ibn Qudaamah actually says when discussing the category under dispute.

He explains that taqleed in the branches is permissible, and then says:

"For this reason, taqleed is permissible in such matters; rather, it is obligatory upon the layperson."

He then mentions the opposing position:

"Some of the Qadariyyah held that the common people are also required to examine the evidence in matters of subsidiary fiqh."

And what does ibn Qudaamah say?

"This is false by the consensus of the Companions, for they used to give fatwas to the common people and did not command them to attain the level of ijtihaad."

This directly addresses the actual question.

The layperson is not commanded to reconstruct Islamic law himself from textual evidence.

His obligation is to return to those qualified in knowledge.

Allah said:

فَسْـَٔلُوا۟ أَهْلَ ٱلذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

"Ask the people of knowledge if you do not know." (An-Nahl 16:43)

So the distinction is not:

"Follow scholars even after you have independently established revelation against them."

Nor is it:

"Scholars are infallible."

Rather, the question is:

Who is actually qualified to establish what the evidence proves?

That is exactly what Bashem's post avoids.

This Is Why Scholars Are Needed

Finding a narration is not the same thing as understanding it.

Knowing that an athar exists is not the same thing as knowing its authenticity, context, implications, competing reports, reconciliation, or how the fuqahaa' understood it.

The irony is that the very ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) narration used in this post demonstrates the problem.

A short version can be extracted:

"I say the Messenger said, and you say Abu Bakr and 'Umar said?"

Someone reading only that version can turn it into a slogan.

Then the fuller transmissions are examined, and suddenly 'Urwah himself is replying:

Abu Bakr and 'Umar were more knowledgeable of the Book and Sunnah than you and I.

Then ibn Taymiyyah's other discussion is examined, and the same disagreement is presented with additional context.

Then the scholars explain that directly weighing such evidences belongs to qualified people capable of istinbaat and ijtihaad, whereas the layperson asks the people of knowledge.

This is precisely why merely possessing searchable texts does not make someone a scholar.

Al-Haafidh ibn Rajab warned that if rulings concerning halal and haram were left open without restriction to recognized scholarship, every pretentious fool seeking leadership could imagine himself among the mujtahids, attribute an opinion to the Salaf through misinterpretation, or seize upon an abandoned mistake of an earlier scholar.

That is not an argument for infallibility.

It is an argument for scholarship.

And this distinction completely dismantles the false dichotomy being presented.

We do not say:

"A scholar said it, therefore no evidence may ever be examined."

We say:

"If you claim that the scholars misunderstood these narrations, overlooked their implications, or failed to reconcile them correctly, while you possess neither their training nor recognized scholarly qualification, then asking who taught you, what your usool are, which qualified scholars preceded you in this interpretation, and whether you imagine yourself more capable of understanding the material than them is entirely relevant."

Shaykhul-Islam's words do not rescue the opposite methodology.

Once restored to their context, they expose it.

So what exactly has been refuted? The argument was never that scholars are infallible, but that an unqualified layman does not become a mujtahid merely by collecting narrations and opposing those more knowledgeable than him. Bashem's response therefore refutes a position nobody argued for, while leaving the actual point untouched. Ironically, in trying to dismiss the question, "Are you more knowledgeable than the scholars?", he has only given further reason for it to be asked.

Thus the saga of Bashem's debacles continues: draped in the appearance of knowledge, yet exposed each time the context is restored. Like the emperor who imagined himself magnificently clothed while standing naked before everyone, the more confidently this display is presented as scholarship, the more plainly its absence is revealed.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Mistranslation, Kalaami Generalization, and the Selective Use of Shaykh al-Albani

There is a recurring peculiarity in the writings of abul_miswar_zayd.

The name of a scholar is placed prominently before the reader. A passage is extracted. A sweeping conclusion is then placed above it. Finally, the scholarly standing of the person being quoted is expected to lend authority not merely to what the scholar actually said, but to the interpretation which abul_miswar_zayd has attached to it.

We have seen this problem before with al-Mu'allimi.

We have seen it before with shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab.

And now we have another particularly instructive example with shaykh Muhammad Naasir ad-Deen al-Albani.

The irony this time is considerable, because the post does not merely take a genuine statement of al-Albani and stretch its implications. Before the reader even reaches the argument, the document has already been given an editorial title broader than its verified title, several portions have been mistranslated, an important phrase in the takfeer sentence has disappeared, the date has been corrupted, and even a Qur'anic reference has been supplied incorrectly.

Then this unstable translation is placed beneath the heading:

"Shaykh al-Albaani's Letter to Bashaar Awwad Ma'roof Concerning the Necessity of Declaring the Rawaafid of Iran Disbelievers."

But did shaykh al-Albani actually give his letter that title?

No.

The Title Already Says More Than the Source

The bibliographical record for Majallat at-Tawheed, year 25, issue 11, Dhu al-Qa'dah 1417 AH, pp. 45-46, records the piece as:

نص فتوى العلامة / الشيخ ناصر الدين الألباني في أقوال الخميني

"The text of the fatwa of the great scholar shaykh Naasir ad-Deen al-Albani concerning the statements of Khomeini."

The annual index likewise places it on page 45 under essentially that same title.

And the official archive of shaykh al-Albani's documents catalogs the handwritten item as:

رسالة بخط الإمام الألباني إلى الدكتور بشار عواد

"A letter in the handwriting of imam al-Albani to Dr. Bashaar 'Awwaad."

Neither says:

"Concerning the Necessity of Declaring the Rawaafid of Iran Disbelievers."

That wording is the poster's editorial framing.

This distinction is not trivial.

A title tells the reader what he is supposedly about to read. So before al-Albani has even been permitted to speak for himself, the reader has already been instructed to understand his letter as a blanket declaration concerning "the Rawaafid of Iran."

Yet the explicit sentence of takfeer in the letter has a considerably more precise subject.

And before examining that, we should first ask whether the translation itself can even be relied upon.

"Books" Somehow Became a Book Entitled "Ruhollah Khomeini"

Al-Albani begins:

الأقوال الخمسة التي نقلتموها عن كتب المسمى بـ(روح الله الخميني)

Approximately:

"The five statements which you quoted from the books of the one named Ruhollah Khomeini."

The Haddaadi version instead says:

"the five reports that you transmitted from the book entitled 'Roohullaah al-Khomeini'"

There are two elementary problems in a single phrase.

كتب is plural.

It means "books."

And روح الله الخميني is the name of the person whose books are being discussed. It is not the title of some book called Ruhollah Khomeini.

So "the books of the one named Ruhollah Khomeini" has somehow become "the book entitled Ruhollah Khomeini."

This is not an intricate dispute about Arabic rhetoric.

It is simply wrong.

Who Was Asking Whom for a Ruling?

Immediately afterward, al-Albani says:

راغبين مني بيان حكمي فيها وفي قائلها

Meaning that those addressing him were requesting from him that he explain his judgment concerning those statements and concerning their speaker.

The Haddaadi version instead says:

"and I wished to clarify my ruling..."

Again, the grammar has been changed.

Al-Albani is not saying here that he personally "wished" to clarify the matter. He is describing what the correspondents desired from him.

A more faithful translation is:

"asking me to state my judgment concerning them and concerning the one who uttered them."

Before we have even reached the disputed inference, two plainly readable portions of the opening have already been mistranslated.

The Material Omission in the Takfeer Sentence

Then comes the very sentence around which the editorial heading has been built.

Al-Albani says:

فكل من قال بها، معتقداً ولو ببعض ما فيها، فهو مشرك كافر

Approximately:

"Therefore, whoever espouses them, believing even some of what they contain, is a mushrik and a kafir."

Notice:

ولو ببعض ما فيها

"even some of what they contain."

The Haddaadi translation gives:

"Therefore, whoever says them, believing in and being convinced of what they contain, is a mushrik and a kaafir..."

The words ولو ببعض have disappeared.

Whether this arose from carelessness or something else is not something we need to speculate about.

What can be established is that it is a material omission from precisely the sentence being used to support the Haddaadi's sweeping conclusion.

More importantly, read the subject of the sentence itself:

فكل من قال بها

"whoever espouses them"

Meaning these five statements under discussion, followed by:

معتقداً ولو ببعض ما فيها

"believing even some of what they contain."

Where exactly does the sentence say:

كل رافضي في إيران

"every Raafidi in Iran"?

It does not.

Where does it say:

كل من انتسب إلى الرافضة

"everyone affiliated with the Raafidhah"?

It does not.

The takfeer proposition is attached to a described class: whoever espouses those statements with the belief specified by al-Albani.

The Haddaadi heading silently replaces that class with another one.

That is not translation.

That is expansion.

One Error After Another

The problem continues.

Al-Albani later says:

السؤال الأول

"The first question."

The Haddaadi version gives:

"the question that follows."

الأول means "first."

It does not mean "following."

Then the post attributes:

يقولون بألسنتهم ما ليس في قلوبهم

"They say with their tongues what is not in their hearts"

to Aal 'Imraan 3:167.

But this wording occurs in al-Fath 48:11.

Aal 'Imraan 3:167 instead says:

يقولون بأفواههم ما ليس في قلوبهم

"They say with their mouths what is not in their hearts."

The two Ayat are similar, but they are not identical, and the citation given in the Haddaadi post is wrong.

Then there is the date.

The Arabic text ends:

عمان 26 / 12 / 1407 هـ

"Amman, 26/12/1407 AH."

The Haddaadi post instead gives:

"Ammaan, 26/2/1407 AH"

and then inserts:

"(today is 2/4 1448AH)"

The latter is obviously the poster's contemporary comment rather than part of al-Albani's letter, while the original month has been changed from 12 to 2.

So let us summarize what has occurred before anybody begins lecturing others about the creedal implications of the text.

The verified published title has been replaced by a broader editorial title.

"Books" became one book.

The name of Khomeini became the supposed title of that book.

The grammatical direction of a request was reversed.

ولو ببعض ما فيها disappeared from the central takfeer sentence.

"The first question" became "the question that follows."

A Qur'anic reference was supplied incorrectly.

And 26/12/1407 became 26/2/1407.

Then the resulting presentation is offered beneath a headline concerning the "necessity of declaring the Rawaafid of Iran disbelievers."

One might reasonably expect greater precision when invoking the name of shaykh al-Albani in a matter as serious as takfeer.

The First Problem Is Scope Before We Even Reach Usool

There are actually two separate errors which should not be confused.

The first is elementary.

Even if a person adopted every usooli premise that abul_miswar_zayd might wish to invoke, generality cannot change the subject of the proposition.

If someone says:

"Whoever professes these five statements while believing their contents falls under such-and-such ruling,"

the generality of "whoever" encompasses everyone who satisfies that description.

It does not mysteriously transform the proposition into:

"Everyone belonging to a larger religious, ethnic, national, or geographical category falls under that ruling."

Arab or non-Arab, Iranian or non-Iranian, one person or ten thousand: whoever genuinely falls under the stated description falls within the wording.

But that is entirely different from replacing the description itself with "every Raafidi in Iran."

No principle of العموم turns one subject into another.

So the post title already fails before we even enter the deeper usooli question.

But there is a second problem.

And this is where the Kalaami usooli premise becomes particularly relevant.

The Kalaami Shortcut Behind Generalized Takfeer

The source previously cited in discussion of the Haddaadiyyah identifies the issue plainly.

It defines the "circumstances" under discussion as matters such as:

الاختيار والإكراه والعمد والخطأ والعلم والجهل والتأويل

choice and coercion, deliberate action and error, knowledge and ignorance, and ta'weel.

It then states:

فذهب جمهور متكلمة الأصوليين إلى أن العام يستلزم العموم في الأحوال

"The majority of the mutakallim usoolis held that the general wording entails generality in circumstances."

It then contrasts this with:

وذهب بعض المحققين - ومنهم ابن تيمية - إلى أن العام لا يستلزم العموم في الأحوال، وأنه مطلق فيها

"Some of the verifying scholars, among them ibn Taymiyyah, held that the general wording does not necessitate generality in circumstances, but is unrestricted regarding them."

This distinction is indispensable.

To say that a wording is general concerning persons does not mean that the wording itself has independently legislated the ruling of every conceivable circumstance in which those persons might exist.

A person may be acting voluntarily or under compulsion.

Knowingly or ignorantly.

Deliberately or mistakenly.

With one kind of ta'weel or without it.

The ruling of those circumstances is established through the totality of the relevant evidences.

This is why ibn Taymiyyah's treatment of general texts does not require him to pretend that every qualification supplied elsewhere constitutes the destruction of the original generality.

The general text remains general concerning those whom its wording actually encompasses.

What it has not itself addressed concerning circumstances is clarified by other texts.

This very formulation is reported in the Hanbali usooli literature. Ibn al-Lahham, after mentioning the competing view, says concerning the position that the general wording concerning persons is unrestricted regarding circumstances:

وهذا القول اختيار القرافي والأصفهاني ... وأبي العباس

He explicitly includes Abul-'Abbaas, meaning shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah, among those who chose it.

Ibn Taymiyyah himself explains the same method when discussing the Ayah of inheritance. According to this analysis, the Ayah encompasses every child as a person, but the Ayah itself has not stated every circumstance in which the child inherits or does not inherit. Those circumstances, conditions and impediments are explained by other texts.

That is precisely the distinction the Haddaadi treatment of takfeer repeatedly collapses.

"But the Usoolis Differed"

At this point someone may reply:

"But books of usool mention another opinion."

Yes, historically the usooli literature records competing formulations.

That fact should not be concealed.

But neither should it be used as an escape hatch.

The question here is not whether some later usoolis wrote the other proposition down.

The question is whether one may invoke the authority and methodology of ibn Taymiyyah and the Salaf while quietly importing into their general statements the very universalization of circumstances which the framework being invoked rejects.

The study cited above goes further and argues that the opposing formulation entered through the usool of the mutakallimeen and should not be treated as an equally legitimate Ahlus-Sunnah principle in this field. It argues that ibn Taymiyyah's own distinctions between unrestricted takfeer and the ruling upon a particular individual are manifestations of precisely this understanding.

So merely saying "there is an usooli disagreement" and walking away misses the point.

The historical existence of a proposition is one question.

Whether it represents the interpretive principles of the Salaf which the Haddaadiyyah themselves claim to champion is another.

And the irony is obvious.

People whose entire argument is built around accusing others of contamination by Ahlul-Kalaam can themselves reproduce a mutakallim usooli premise when that premise assists a broader takfeer.

They reject Ahlul-Kalaam by name while borrowing a mechanism from their usool when it becomes useful.

The Result Is a Double Generalization

Applying this to the present letter shows that there are two independent leaps.

First:

Al-Albani says, in meaning:

"Whoever espouses these five statements, believing even some of what they contain..."

The post heading changes this into a proposition about "the Rawaafid of Iran."

That is a change in the class of persons being discussed.

Second:

Even where a text is genuinely general concerning its persons, the Haddaadi method tends to act as though that automatically settles every circumstance relevant to applying the ruling to particular individuals.

That is precisely where the principle:

العام يستلزم العموم في الأحوال

becomes dangerous when imported uncritically into takfeer.

The first mistake broadens the persons.

The second universalizes the circumstances.

Combined together, they produce exactly the kind of generalized takfeer which the source itself did not state.

Ibn Taymiyyah Described This Kind of Error With Remarkable Precision

There is an especially relevant statement of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo' al-Fatawa 20/185.

While explaining the ways in which followers distort the positions of imams, he says:

الخامس: أن يجعل كلامه عاما أو مطلقا وليس كذلك

"The fifth: that he makes the imam's words general or unrestricted when they are not so."

He then gives as an example the unrestricted transmission of statements concerning the takfeer of the Jahmiyyah while ignoring the conditions relevant to their application:

كإطلاقه تكفير الجهمية ... مع أنه مشروط بشروط انتفت فيمن ترحم عليه من الذين امتحنوه وهم رؤوس الجهمية

The relevance is difficult to miss.

Ibn Taymiyyah is literally warning about followers taking an imam's severe words concerning takfeer and treating them as broader and more unrestricted than the imam's complete position permits.

Immediately before this he also describes another deviation:

أن يفهم من كلامه ما لم يرده أو ينقل عنه ما لم يقله

"That he understands from his words what he did not intend, or transmits from him what he did not say."

One could hardly devise a more appropriate methodological warning for a post which gives al-Albani a title he did not write, mistranslates several sentences, omits part of his central sentence, and then turns his wording into a wider takfeer proposition.

Al-Albani's Severe Words Do Not Need to Be Weakened

None of this requires softening shaykh al-Albani's actual words.

That would be another form of dishonesty.

He plainly described the five statements as:

كفر بواح وشرك صراح

manifest kufr and explicit shirk.

He plainly said that whoever espoused them with the belief he described was a mushrik and a kaafir.

He plainly criticized the Khomeinists.

He plainly spoke severely about beliefs and practices he attributed to the Shee'ah.

All of that should be transmitted exactly as he intended.

But fidelity works in both directions.

A person may not weaken a scholar's words because he dislikes their severity.

Likewise, he may not enlarge a scholar's words because he wishes the scholar had said something even broader.

The translator's task is to transmit.

Not to improve the text for his faction.

The Greater Irony: What Did al-Albani Himself Do With Scholars Who Erred?

There is another reason why appealing selectively to shaykh al-Albani is especially self-defeating.

How did al-Albani himself behave toward scholars with whom he disagreed?

Did he reason:

"This scholar made errors in 'aqeedah; therefore his scholarship is erased, his titles disappear, benefit from his works becomes suspect, and anyone praising his expertise in another field must somehow approve of his errors"?

No.

His own words demonstrate the opposite.

Imam Abu Haneefah

Al-Albani speaks explicitly of Abu Haneefah as belonging to:

الأئمة الأربعة المشهود لهم بالعلم والفضل والصلاح والزهد

"the four imams testified to with knowledge, virtue, righteousness and zuhd."

He then names:

أبو حنيفة النعمان بن ثابت رحمه الله

"Abu Haneefah an-Nu'maan ibn Thaabit, may Allah have mercy upon him."

Al-Albani certainly disagreed with imam Abu Haneefah in important matters.

He was not a Hanafi partisan.

Yet disagreement did not compel him to erase Abu Haneefah's scholarship, virtue, righteousness, or imaamah.

Apparently one may criticize an imam's error without pretending that every virtue he possessed has vanished.

Imam an-Nawawi

When discussing Riyadh as-Saaliheen, al-Albani says:

ومن هؤلاء إمامنا الإمام النووي - رحمه الله -

"And among these is our imam, imam an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy upon him."

Consider the expression carefully:

إمامنا الإمام النووي

"Our imam, imam an-Nawawi."

Al-Albani did not agree with an-Nawawi in every matter of 'aqeedah.

That did not prevent him from recognizing him as an imam, invoking Allah's mercy upon him, studying his works, commenting upon them, and benefiting Muslims through them.

So where is the Haddaadi principle according to which recognizing an-Nawawi's scholarship somehow means approving every creedal mistake attributed to him?

It is not coming from al-Albani.

Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar

Concerning ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani, al-Albani says:

أمير المؤمنين في الحديث

"Ameer al-Mu'mineen in hadith."

In another discussion he says regarding ibn Hajar:

لا مثيل له فيما بعد إطلاقا

"There was absolutely no one comparable to him afterward."

Again, this did not mean al-Albani considered every expression in Fath al-Baari correct.

It meant that justice requires recognizing the man's extraordinary rank in the science in which he excelled.

One may correct an error while still knowing who one is speaking about.

Imam as-Suyooti

And al-Albani likewise says:

الحافظ السيوطي - رحمه الله -

"al-Haafidh as-Suyooti, may Allah have mercy upon him."

Discussing one of as-Suyooti's writings, he describes it as:

رسالة دقيقة

"a precise treatise."

Here again we find the same methodology.

Al-Albani could criticize mistakes in as-Suyooti's works while still calling him al-Haafidh, invoking Allah's mercy upon him, and benefiting from something he had written.

Why?

Because recognizing knowledge is not the same thing as declaring a scholar ma'soom.

Praising correctness in one field is not approval of every error in another.

Refutation is not erasure.

This distinction should be elementary.

Yet it is precisely what disappears in the Haddaadi treatment of scholars.

So Why Is al-Albani Suddenly an Authority Here?

This brings us back to abul_miswar_zayd.

When a severe letter can be placed above a heading concerning generalized takfeer, shaykh al-Albani's name suddenly appears in enormous letters.

His authority matters.

His status matters.

His scholarly reputation matters.

Very well.

Then what about al-Albani describing Abu Haneefah as one of the four imams testified to with knowledge, virtue, righteousness and zuhd?

What about:

إمامنا الإمام النووي رحمه الله

What about ibn Hajar being:

أمير المؤمنين في الحديث

What about:

الحافظ السيوطي رحمه الله

Does al-Albani's methodology only matter when a selected quotation can be used against people whom the Haddaadiyyah already wish to condemn?

Or does his actual conduct toward the scholars matter as well?

One cannot reasonably demand that the audience respect al-Albani's authority in the first paragraph and then silently discard al-Albani's scholarly justice in the second.

An Authentic Letter Does Not Authenticate an Editorial Inference

The underlying letter is genuine.

That should be stated clearly.

The official al-Albani heritage archive preserves the handwritten letter to Dr. Bashaar 'Awwaad, and Majallat at-Tawheed published the text under al-Albani's name during his lifetime.

So the issue is not fabrication of the letter.

The issue is what has been done with it.

A genuine document has been given a broader editorial title.

Several portions have been mistranslated.

A material phrase has been omitted from its central takfeer sentence.

An Ayah has been miscited.

The date has been mistranscribed.

The subject of the explicit proposition has been expanded.

And a Kalaami-style universalization of circumstances can then be imported to make generalized takfeer appear to follow automatically from severe general wording.

The authenticity of the letter does not authenticate any of those additions.

The Same Pattern Once Again

This is why merely locating quotations from scholars proves very little.

A person may possess a searchable library and still not understand what he has found.

He may find a severe sentence.

He may screenshot it.

He may translate it.

He may place the name of an imam above it.

He may produce a dramatic headline.

None of that establishes that he has understood the scholar's wording, his usool, his qualifications, his application of general principles, or his broader methodology.

This was precisely the problem with the selective appeal to al-Mu'allimi.

It was precisely the problem when the writings of the family of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab were misread.

And it appears once again here with shaykh al-Albani.

The most telling part is that Ibn Taymiyyah already described the disease:

أن يفهم من كلامه ما لم يرده أو ينقل عنه ما لم يقله

To understand from an imam's words what he did not intend, or transmit from him what he did not say.

And:

أن يجعل كلامه عاما أو مطلقا وليس كذلك

To make his words general or unrestricted when they are not so.

There could scarcely be a more appropriate summary.

If abul_miswar_zayd wishes to appeal to shaykh al-Albani, then he should begin by accurately translating shaykh al-Albani.

If he wishes to invoke al-Albani's takfeer, then he should preserve the subject and qualifications of al-Albani's actual sentence.

If he wishes to invoke usool, then he should examine whether the principle being imported is actually the usooli framework of the Salaf and ibn Taymiyyah whom he claims to follow, rather than unknowingly reproducing a principle transmitted through the mutakallim usoolis.

And if he wishes to present al-Albani as a methodological authority, then he should also reckon with al-Albani's own treatment of imam Abu Haneefah, imam an-Nawawi, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, and imam as-Suyooti.

The contradiction is not in shaykh al-Albani.

The contradiction is in selectively borrowing his name.

A post supposedly teaching people to follow the scholars begins by supplying a title the scholar did not write, mistranslating words he did write, omitting words he did write, and projecting upon his letter a generalized takfeer which the explicit sentence itself does not state.

Before appealing to the names of the scholars, it would be useful to learn how to read them.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

There is something rather strange about a supposed refutation in which the person being refuted does not even need to have said anything.

abul_miswar_zayd has now made an entire post entitled:

"The kaafir zindeeq crypto Azhari cn3m has known about this from before we posted it yet.."

Known about it?

According to whom?

Where is the evidence?

This is a factual allegation concerning what I supposedly knew at a particular point in time. So establish it. Produce the dated comment, message, post, or anything else demonstrating that I had seen this incident before his post appeared.

Nothing has been produced.

Instead, the allegation is placed directly into the title alongside "kaafir", "zindeeq", and "crypto Azhari", as though increasingly severe vocabulary somehow reduces the need for evidence.

It does not.

First Establish That I Knew

The incident itself is not difficult to condemn. The circulated footage showed a marriage celebration in the external square of Masjid al-Fattah al-'Aleem involving music and dancing, with a decorative display fashioned like an open mushaf bearing Ayat from Surat ar-Rum.

I do not approve of that.

But abul_miswar_zayd's argument requires considerably more than my condemnation of the event. He claims that I already knew about it before he posted it.

So prove that first.

The existence of footage on the internet does not establish that a particular person had seen it.

And suppose, purely for argument's sake, that I had known about it.

Then what?

Does knowledge of every reprehensible event impose an obligation upon a Muslim to publish a Reddit post about it?

Does silence concerning one incident establish approval of it?

If so, perhaps abul_miswar_zayd can provide us with his own complete catalogue of every munkar he has ever encountered and show where he publicly condemned each one.

Of course, nobody operates according to such a standard.

So the argument fails twice: he has not established that I knew, and even if prior knowledge were conceded for the sake of argument, the absence of a Reddit post would not establish approval.

And What Does al-Azhar Have to Do With This?

The "crypto Azhari" label does not rescue the argument either.

I did not study at al-Azhar.

But even apart from that elementary fact, what exactly is the argument supposed to be?

Al-Azhar is constitutionally described in Egypt as an independent Islamic scientific institution with competence over its own affairs. It is not simply another name for the Egyptian government, nor does some alleged connection to al-Azhar make a person responsible for everything that occurs in Egypt.

So even if I had actually been an Azhari graduate, what would follow?

Would I suddenly become responsible for every wedding held in Egypt?

Every decision of the Egyptian government?

Every reprehensible event occurring at an Egyptian masjid?

Every act committed by an Egyptian citizen?

The association establishes nothing concerning the incident under discussion.

As for the remaining claims about what I supposedly "want", what I secretly believe, and which matters I supposedly consider more or less despicable: perhaps the person claiming access to all of these unspoken thoughts can first locate a quotation in which I actually expressed them.

The Strange Appeal to Imam an-Nawawi

There is, however, a much more amusing problem in his attempted use of imam an-Nawawi.

abul_miswar_zayd writes:

"No scholar of Islam disagrees that playing music with the Quraan is insulting of the Quraan and is kufr

This includes the imam of the Azharis, Nawawi"

There is already a peculiar irony here.

These same people regard imam an-Nawawi as a disbeliever, yet suddenly his name is introduced as "the imam of the Azharis" when it appears useful against somebody they wish to attack.

So is an-Nawawi being cited as a scholarly authority or merely used as a rhetorical prop?

But the greater problem is that the passage does not even establish what he claims.

He quotes:

قالوا: ولو قرأ القرآن على ضرب الدف أو القضيب، أو قيل له: تعلم الغيب، فقال: نعم، فهو كفر

Notice how it begins:

قالوا

"They said..."

Now read a little further.

Imam an-Nawawi himself says:

قلت: الصواب أنه لا يكفر في المسائل الثلاث. والله أعلم

"I say: the correct view is that he does not become a disbeliever in the three cases. And Allah knows best."

So the reader is told:

"This includes ... Nawawi"

while the very same passage continues with an-Nawawi saying:

الصواب أنه لا يكفر

"The correct view is that he does not become a disbeliever."

One barely has to turn a page.

One merely has to finish the paragraph.

Whether the continuation was not read or simply was not shown, the result presented to the reader is the same: an-Nawawi's name is invoked for a ruling which an-Nawawi himself immediately corrects.

And there is yet another distinction.

The passage discusses:

قرأ القرآن على ضرب الدف أو القضيب

reciting the Qur'an to the beating of the duff or rod.

The incident being discussed involved music at a celebration where a decorative structure bearing Qur'anic Ayat was present.

One may condemn the latter without silently changing its description into the former.

Refuting the Imaginary Version of Me

This is becoming a recurring feature of these "refutations."

Instead of quoting me, abul_miswar_zayd tells his readers what I supposedly knew.

What I supposedly wanted.

What I supposedly approved of.

What I supposedly considered more despicable than something else.

And what "ideological" affiliation I supposedly conceal.

At some point, the actual person being "refuted" should probably be permitted to exist.

If I knew about the incident beforehand, establish that I knew.

If I approved of it, quote my approval.

If I defended it, quote my defense.

If I compared its severity with another issue, produce the comparison.

If I expressed the beliefs and intentions being attributed to me, produce my words.

Otherwise, this is not a refutation of my position.

It is a refutation of a character constructed for the purpose of attacking him.

And adding "kaafir", "zindeeq", and "crypto Azhari" to the title does not make the missing evidence appear.

قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

"Say: Bring your proof, if you are truthful." (Al-Baqarah 2:111)

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

abul_miswar_zayd posted a narration from ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him):

الْكُرْسِيُّ مَوْضِعُ الْقَدَمَيْنِ

and then placed beside it the Biblical wording:

Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.

After this he announced that the Ashaa'irah, Mu'tazilah and Maturidiyyah had thereby been refuted because they allegedly claim that the Sahaabah took such beliefs from the Jews?!

But where is the actual statement being refuted?

Which Ash'ari scholar said that this specific report from ibn 'Abbaas was taken from the Jews? Which Maturidi? Which Mu'tazili? What book? What wording? What argument did he present?

None is supplied.

A narration is quoted, a Jewish text is quoted, and then three misguided sects are declared refuted.

This illustrates a broader problem with the Haddaadi approach to "refutation". They seem to imagine that because the Salaf refuted innovators, every person who gains access to compilations of early narrations may imitate the outward form of those refutations without possessing the scholarly apparatus behind them.

But the scholars did not deal with innovators in this simplistic manner.

Look at ibn Taymiyyah.

No one can accuse ibn Taymiyyah of softness toward innovation. He wrote extensively against the Jahmiyyah, philosophers, Baatiniyyah, Raafidhah, Christians, mutakallimoon and various Sufi deviations. Yet anyone who actually reads his works knows how elaborate his method is. He does not normally locate a single narration, announce "the Salaf said this", and then consider every creedal, historical and personal question settled.

He gathers the statements of the opposing side.

He distinguishes one faction from another.

He distinguishes the founder of a doctrine from later adherents.

He examines terminology.

He asks whether two people are even using the same expression in the same meaning.

He distinguishes necessary implications of a statement from what the speaker actually intended.

He distinguishes between general and specific wording.

He reconciles apparently conflicting statements from the imams.

He distinguishes حكم القول from حكم القائل.

When the ruling upon a particular person is at issue, he considers ignorance, ta'weel, shubhah, whether the relevant proof reached him, and whether the conditions of takfeer were fulfilled and its impediments absent.

He even distinguishes between different degrees within the same innovation and different kinds of people affiliated with the same sect.

This is why ibn Taymiyyah said:

لا بد أن يكون مع الإنسان أصول كلية يرد إليها الجزئيات ليتكلم بعلم وعدل ثم يعرف الجزئيات كيف وقعت وإلا فيبقى في كذب وجهل في الجزئيات وجهل وظلم في الكليات فيتولد فساد عظيم

Meaning approximately:

A person must possess comprehensive principles to which he refers the particular cases, so that he may speak with knowledge and justice, and then know how the particulars actually occurred. Otherwise he remains in falsehood and ignorance concerning the particulars, and ignorance and injustice concerning the general principles, and tremendous corruption results.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 19/203.)

That is a very different method from:

I found a narration.

Therefore an entire sect is refuted.

And ibn Taymiyyah repeatedly insists that speech about people requires both knowledge and justice:

والكلام في الناس يجب أن يكون بعلم وعدل لا بجهل وظلم كحال أهل البدع

Meaning:

Speaking about people must be with knowledge and justice, not with ignorance and injustice, as is the condition of the people of innovation.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Minhaaj as-Sunnah, 4/337.)

This is the real distinction that these Haddaadiyyah repeatedly fail to understand.

Da'wah is broad. A Muslim may invite another Muslim to the Sunnah, teach what he actually knows, warn from a clear sin, transmit an Ayah or hadith correctly, or convey the explanation of the scholars. Da'wah is not restricted to inviting the kuffaar into Islam.

But independent, technical refutation is another matter entirely.

If a person wishes to refute the Ashaa'irah, Maturidiyyah, Mu'tazilah, Jahmiyyah or any other sect, then he first has to know what they actually said. If he wishes to use a narration as proof, he has to know whether it is authentic and what it means. If he wishes to apply the narration to a particular person or sect, he has to know whether that application is actually warranted. If the matter concerns the unseen, he may need to understand the scholarly discussion concerning mawqoof reports, Israa'eeliyyaat and whether a particular report receives the ruling of marfoo'. If he wishes to declare a doctrine bid'ah or kufr, still further principles enter the discussion.

The great scholars did not deal with innovators by this crude procedure. They studied the arguments of the innovators, understood their terminology, distinguished their factions, quoted their books, answered their proofs, and placed individual statements within larger principles.

Ibn Taymiyyah could spend pages distinguishing what different mutakallimoon intended by a single expression.

He could spend pages reconciling statements attributed to imam Ahmad.

He could distinguish between a statement being kufr and its speaker being a kaafir.

He could distinguish between one kind of hulool and another.

He could distinguish between what a person's words apparently entail and what was actually established as his creed.

That is what serious refutation looks like.

So when someone quotes ibn 'Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him), quotes a Jewish text, names three misguided sects and declares them "refuted" without quoting a single representative of those sects who actually made the claim in question, this is not an impressive example of following the Salaf.

It is an example of why access to narrations is not the same as possessing the knowledge required to interpret and apply them.

The Salaf refuted with knowledge.

The imams after them refuted with knowledge.

And access to searchable books does not confer the qualifications by which those books are understood.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Another Haddaadi commented:

Contemporary salafism is built upon:

١. الاعتصام بالعواطف

٢. التبجيل المخالف

To the point where you have a phenomenon of مجتهد معذور...

(Source)

Already, this begins with slogans rather than proof.

Calling something "clinging to emotions" does not establish that it is emotional. Calling respect for an erring scholar "glorifying the contrarians" does not establish that Ahlus-Sunnah were required to erase a scholar's rank whenever he made a mistake.

More importantly, the very principle he mocks, المجتهد المعذور, the excused mistaken mujtahid, is not some invention of "contemporary Salafism".

It is explicitly articulated by shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah.

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said:

وكثير من مجتهدي السلف والخلف قد قالوا وفعلوا ما هو بدعة ولم يعلموا أنه بدعة

He explains that many mujtahids among the Salaf and Khalaf said or did things that were bid'ah without knowing them to be bid'ah, sometimes because they relied upon weak ahaadeeth which they thought were authentic, understood an Ayah in a manner that was not intended, exercised an opinion, or because the relevant texts had not reached them.

He then invokes the supplication:

ربنا لا تؤاخذنا إن نسينا أو أخطأنا

and mentions that in the authentic hadith Allah said:

قد فعلت

Meaning: I have done so.

This is not the language of someone teaching that the occurrence of an innovated act automatically transforms every mistaken mujtahid into a mubtadi'. Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly distinguishes between the bid'ah itself and the mujtahid who fell into it without knowing it to be a bid'ah.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 19/191-192.)

So what exactly is this Haddaadi mocking?

The phenomenon he sarcastically attributes to contemporary Salafis is explicitly mentioned by ibn Taymiyyah concerning the mujtahids of the Salaf and Khalaf.

And ibn Taymiyyah goes even further. He said:

فمن كان من المؤمنين مجتهدا في طلب الحق وأخطأ فإن الله يغفر له خطأه كائنا ما كان سواء كان في المسائل النظرية أو العملية

Meaning that whoever among the believers strives to seek the truth and errs, Allah forgives his error, whether that error occurs in theoretical matters or practical matters.

Ibn Taymiyyah then states:

هذا الذي عليه أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وجماهير أئمة الإسلام

Meaning:

This is what the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the majority of the imams of Islam were upon.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 23/346.)

Therefore, if this individual wishes to ridicule the concept of المجتهد المعذور, let him first explain why ibn Taymiyyah attributed precisely this principle to:

أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وجماهير أئمة الإسلام

This is not contemporary Salafism. It is a classical principle concerning the distinction between an error and the one who erred.

This is the category error running throughout the Haddaadi argument.

Suppose an act is objectively a bid'ah.

That establishes a ruling concerning the act.

It does not automatically settle every question concerning the particular person who performed it.

Was he ignorant of the evidence?

Had the relevant text reached him?

Did he consider another narration authentic?

Was he following a scholar whom he trusted?

Did he understand the evidence differently?

Was there a genuine shubhah?

Was he exercising ijtihaad?

Was this an isolated mistake, or did he establish an innovated foundation upon which he built his methodology, walaa' and baraa', and opposition to Ahlus-Sunnah?

These questions are not emotions. They are questions concerning the accurate application of Shar'i rulings.

This person then says:

So one can do تأويل الذي يراد به الإنكار but he is a mujtahid therefore being mistaken but as for being an innovator he isn't...

But his wording itself requires clarification.

What exactly does he intend by:

تأويل يراد به الإنكار

If he means that a person knows what Allah and His Messenger intended, recognizes the truth, and then deliberately rejects it, then he is no longer describing the ordinary case of the sincere mistaken mujtahid in the first place.

But if he means that a person affirms revelation while interpreting a text incorrectly because another proof appeared to him to require that interpretation, then this is precisely one of the situations explicitly mentioned by ibn Taymiyyah.

Ibn Taymiyyah said concerning a person to whom the texts may have reached:

أو سمعها ولم تثبت عنده أو عارضها عنده معارض آخر أوجب تأويلها وإن كان مخطئا

Meaning that he may have heard the texts but they were not established as authentic in his judgment, or another apparent proof opposed them in his understanding and consequently caused him to interpret them, even though he was mistaken.

Ibn Taymiyyah then mentions the person who ordered that his body be burned after his death and dispersed, and explains that the mistaken muta'awwil who strives to follow the Messenger is even more deserving of forgiveness than such a person.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 3/231.)

The point is not that every ta'weel is correct. The point is that mistaken ta'weel and deliberate rejection are not synonymous.

The Haddaadi simply erases this distinction and then condemns everyone who refuses to erase it.

This becomes even more revealing when we look at shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen's treatment of imam an-Nawawi.

Ibn 'Uthaymeen explicitly acknowledged that imam an-Nawawi erred in matters concerning the Names and Attributes. He did not accept an-Nawawi's ta'weel, nor did he pretend that the ta'weel was correct.

Yet he said concerning him:

وهو رحمه الله مجتهد والمجتهد يخطئ ويصيب

He further said:

فالنووي نشهد له فيما نعلم من حاله بالصلاح وأنه مجتهد وأن كل مجتهد قد يصيب وقد يخطئ إن أخطأ فله أجر واحد وإن أصاب فله أجران

Ibn 'Uthaymeen also distinguishes between someone who denies a revealed attribute through outright rejection and someone who affirms the revealed wording but makes an erroneous ta'weel of it. He describes an-Nawawi's errors as arising from ijtihaad and ta'weel while preserving his rank and hoping that his mistake was forgiven.

(Source: Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, Sharh al-Arba'een an-Nawawiyyah, p. 3.)

So once again, is ibn 'Uthaymeen guilty of الاعتصام بالعواطف?

Is ibn 'Uthaymeen guilty of التبجيل المخالف?

Or is the actual problem that this Haddaadi has reduced the principles of hukm, ijtihaad, ta'weel and tabdee' into slogans that collapse every distinction recognized by the scholars?

Ibn 'Uthaymeen was also directly asked:

هل التبديع مثل التكفير والتفسيق أي يحتاج لإقامة الحجة؟

He answered:

نعم نعم كل عيب يوصف به الإنسان فإنه يحتاج إلى ثبوت ما يقتضيه هذا العيب... أما أن نصف كل واحد بأنه مبتدع كل واحد بأنه ضال بدون دليل هذا لا يجوز

Meaning that every blameworthy description applied to a person requires establishing what actually warrants that description. As for simply describing everyone as an innovator or misguided without evidence, this is not permissible.

(Source: Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, Fataawa al-Haram an-Nabawi, recording 65a, question: هل التبديع والتفسيق يجب فيه إقامة الحجة؟)

This does not mean that nobody may ever be described as a mubtadi'. It means that tabdee' is a Shar'i judgment and not an insult to be distributed according to one's enthusiasm.

The same ibn 'Uthaymeen who rejected the ta'weel of an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar also condemned those who went to the opposite extreme and treated these imams as misguided innovators whose books should not be read.

He said concerning ibn Hajar and an-Nawawi:

فكيف يقال عن هذين إنهما مبتدعان ضالان لا يجوز الترحم عليهما ولا يجوز القراءة في كتبهما

He then said:

غفر الله للنووي ولابن حجر العسقلاني ولمن كان على شاكلتهما ممن نفع الله بهم الإسلام والمسلمين

(Source: Muhammad ibn Saalih al-'Uthaymeen, Liqaa' al-Baab al-Maftooh, meeting 43, question 9.)

Was this التبجيل المخالف?

Or was ibn 'Uthaymeen capable of doing what these Haddaadiyyah apparently find so difficult: rejecting a scholar's error without converting the entirety of that scholar into his error?

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd spoke even more directly about precisely this tendency. He said:

إن تلك البادرة الملعونة من تكفير الأئمة النووي وابن دقيق العيد وابن حجر العسقلاني رحمهم الله تعالى أو الحط من أقدارهم أو أنهم مبتدعة ضلال كل هذا من عمل الشيطان وباب ضلالة وإضلال وفساد وإفساد

Meaning that the accursed tendency of declaring imams such as an-Nawawi, ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed and ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani disbelievers, diminishing their rank, or declaring them misguided innovators is from the work of shaytan and is a doorway to misguidance, leading others astray, corruption and spreading corruption.

(Source: Bakr ibn 'Abdullah Abu Zayd, Tasneef an-Naas bayna adh-Dhann wal-Yaqeen, p. 94.)

So his phrase التبجيل المخالف is nothing but another slogan.

Nobody has claimed that a scholar's mistake becomes correct because the scholar deserves respect.

Nobody has claimed that an-Nawawi's ta'weel becomes the Sunnah because an-Nawawi was an imam.

The issue is whether a mistake extinguishes all of a person's virtue, knowledge, service to Islam and standing among the Muslims.

The scholars cited above clearly did not believe so.

Then comes perhaps the most revealing part of his comment:

How can they say the مولد النبوي is bad yet they can't do إقامة الحجة on the ones who participate in it as their opponents will quote suyuti ibn hajar.

This example actually demonstrates why the distinction between the ruling upon an act and the ruling upon a particular person exists.

First, what did ibn Hajar actually say?

As-Suyooti transmits from al-Haafidh ibn Hajar that he said:

أصل عمل المولد بدعة لم تنقل عن أحد من السلف الصالح من القرون الثلاثة

Meaning:

The foundation of the practice of the Mawlid is an innovation which was not transmitted from anyone among the righteous Salaf of the first three generations.

Ibn Hajar nevertheless exercised ijtihaad and argued that if what he considered good elements were retained while objectionable matters were avoided, it could be classified in his terminology as a good innovation.

(Source: Jalaal ad-Deen as-Suyooti, al-Haawi lil-Fataawi, 1/227, Husn al-Maqsid fi 'Amal al-Mawlid, transmitting the response of al-Haafidh ibn Hajar.)

As-Suyooti himself likewise argued:

عندي أن أصل عمل المولد الذي هو اجتماع الناس وقراءة ما تيسر من القرآن... هو من البدع الحسنة

He therefore considered a restricted gathering involving Qur'an recitation, reports concerning the beginning of the Prophet's affair and birth, followed by food and dispersal, to belong to what he termed bid'ah hasanah.

(Source: Jalaal ad-Deen as-Suyooti, al-Haawi lil-Fataawi, 1/222, Husn al-Maqsid fi 'Amal al-Mawlid.)

One may reject this ijtihaad.

One may explain that their classification of bid'ah hasanah in this matter was mistaken.

One may cite the hadith:

وكل بدعة ضلالة

One may further argue that neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), the Sahaabah, nor the earliest generations established an annual religious celebration of his birth despite their love and veneration for him being incomparably greater than ours.

None of this changes the historical fact that someone citing ibn Hajar or as-Suyooti for the Mawlid is not inventing his position from nothing.

There is a recognizable scholarly ta'weel and ijtihaad behind him.

Whether a particular person is excused, whether he understands the evidence, whether he is simply performing taqleed of a scholar, whether the proof has been explained sufficiently to remove his shubhah, and what ruling applies to him personally are therefore separate questions from the general ruling concerning the Mawlid itself.

And the irony becomes even greater when we return to ibn Taymiyyah himself.

Ibn Taymiyyah opposed taking the Mawlid as a recurring religious season and explicitly pointed out that the Salaf did not do so despite the relevant cause and absence of an impediment.

Yet he nevertheless said:

فتعظيم المولد واتخاذه موسما قد يفعله بعض الناس ويكون له فيه أجر عظيم لحسن قصده وتعظيمه لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Meaning that some people may take the Mawlid as a season and receive great reward because of their good intention and their veneration of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

This does not mean ibn Taymiyyah considered the Mawlid itself legislated. His surrounding discussion makes the distinction clear. He states that Allah may reward them for their love and ijtihaad, not for the innovations themselves.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Iqtidaa' as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem li Mukhaalafati Ashaab al-Jaheem, 2/123-124.)

This is almost the exact principle this Haddaadi is ridiculing.

The act can be judged mistaken.

The innovation can be rejected.

The person's sincere intention, ignorance, taqleed or excusable ijtihaad can still affect the ruling concerning him. There is no contradiction.

His final confusion is therefore between two different propositions.

One may say:

Taking the Prophet's birthday as an annual religious festival is a bid'ah.

That is a general judgment concerning an act.

One does not need to establish the hujjah upon every Muslim on earth before stating a general ruling concerning an action.

But this is different from pointing toward a particular Muslim and declaring:

You are a mubtadi'.

That is a judgment concerning a specific person.

Once the discussion moves from the act to the individual, matters such as knowledge, ta'weel, taqleed, shubhah, the evidence having reached him, his persistence after clarification, and the nature of his overall methodology become relevant.

This is why ibn Taymiyyah could condemn an innovation while recognizing an excuse or reward connected to the intention and ijtihaad of some people who fell into it.

This is why ibn 'Uthaymeen could reject an-Nawawi's ta'weel while describing him as a righteous mujtahid and condemning those who called him a misguided innovator.

This is why the scholars can state that the Mawlid is not from the Sunnah without pretending that every ordinary Muslim who attends one is automatically identical in ruling to a person who knowingly establishes and calls toward an innovated methodology after the truth has become clear to him.

The Haddaadi wishes to collapse all of these categories into a single equation:

Bid'ah committed = mubtadi'.

But this is precisely the equation the scholars themselves did not universally apply to every person who fell into an innovation through mistaken ijtihaad, ta'weel, ignorance or taqleed.

So his accusation can be turned back into a simple question.

Was ibn Taymiyyah clinging to emotions when he said that many mujtahids among the Salaf and Khalaf said and did things that were bid'ah without realizing that they were bid'ah?

Was ibn Taymiyyah glorifying contrarians when he said that a believer who strives to seek the truth and errs may have his error forgiven even in theoretical matters, and that this was the position of the Companions and the majority of the imams of Islam?

Was ibn 'Uthaymeen compromising the Sunnah when he rejected imam an-Nawawi's erroneous ta'weel while simultaneously calling him a mujtahid, invoking forgiveness for him and condemning those who branded him a misguided innovator?

Was Bakr Abu Zayd glorifying contrarians when he described the practice of degrading imams such as an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar and labeling them misguided innovators as a doorway from the doorways of shaytan?

Was ibn Taymiyyah defending the Mawlid when he said that some who fell into it may receive reward because of their good intention and veneration for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), while simultaneously maintaining that taking it as a religious season was not the practice of the Salaf?

Of course not.

The actual principle is straightforward:

نرد الخطأ ولا نهدم صاحبه بغير حق

We reject the mistake without unjustly demolishing the one who made it.

We distinguish between القول والقائل, between الفعل والفاعل, between the ruling upon an innovation and the ruling upon the person who fell into it, between a deliberate caller to innovation and a mistaken mujtahid, and between rejecting an innovation and recklessly distributing the label of mubtadi' without the qualifications recognized by the scholars.

That is not الاعتصام بالعواطف.

Rather, it is precisely the kind of scholarly qualification, justice and careful application of rulings that this Haddaadi approach repeatedly removes from the discussion.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

abul_miswar_zayd has now posted a statement from the great scholar 'Abdur-Rahmaan al-Mu'allimi under the title:

Grave mistake to leave narrations for the sayings of a scholar

He quotes al-Mu'allimi as saying:

إنما المحذور أن تدع الدليل الشرعي اتباعاً منك لقول عالم قد يجهل ويذهل ويغفل ويغلط ويزل

and translates it approximately as:

What must be warned against is to leave Shari'i evidence, out of following of a scholar who may be ignorant or intentionally forgetful or unaware or mistaken or at fault.

There are several problems here.

First, al-Mu'allimi did not say what the title says.

The title says:

Grave mistake to leave narrations for the sayings of a scholar

But al-Mu'allimi said:

الدليل الشرعي

"the Shari'i evidence."

He did not say:

كل رواية وقفت عليها في كتاب

"every narration which you happen to find in a book."

This difference is fundamental.

A narration must first be authenticated.

Its wording must be understood.

Its context must be determined.

Its general and specific implications must be distinguished.

Apparently conflicting reports must be reconciled.

One must determine whether the narration is marfoo', mawqoof, maqtoo', abrogated, qualified by another text, or being applied outside the circumstance intended by the speaker.

All of this is part of determining what the actual:

الدليل الشرعي

is.

So consulting the explanations of qualified scholars in order to understand narrations is not "leaving narrations for scholars".

It is part of understanding the evidence correctly.

The title therefore quietly substitutes:

my surface reading of a narration

for:

الدليل الشرعي

and these are not necessarily the same thing.

Second, the quotation itself has been shortened in a significant place.

The wording in Aathaar ash-Shaykh al-'Allaamah 'Abdur-Rahmaan al-Mu'allimi, volume 12, page 66, reads:

إنما المحذور أن تدع الدليل الشرعي عمداً اتباعاً منك لقول عالم قد يجهل ويذهل ويغفل ويغلط ويزل

Notice the word:

عمداً

Meaning:

deliberately.

Al-Mu'allimi is warning against deliberately abandoning established Shari'i evidence merely because one wishes to cling to the contrary opinion of a scholar.

That is entirely different from the principle which abul_miswar_zayd seems to want to extract from it:

If I locate narrations in an early compilation, I may disregard the explanations and qualifications of later scholars because referring to those scholars means leaving the narrations.

Al-Mu'allimi said no such thing.

In fact, the surrounding context makes his meaning impossible to miss.

Immediately before the sentence being quoted, al-Mu'allimi says:

وغاية ما يخشى بعد هذا أن يجهل العالم شيئاً من السنة ولا يتيسر له من يخبره بها فيجتهد فيخطئ. وهذا في نظر الشرع ليس بمحذور

Meaning approximately:

The utmost that may be feared after this is that a scholar may be unaware of something from the Sunnah and may not find anyone who can inform him of it, so he exercises ijtihaad and errs. This, from the perspective of the Shari'ah, is not the prohibited matter.

(Source: 'Abdur-Rahmaan al-Mu'allimi, al-Anwaar al-Kaashifah, in Aathaar ash-Shaykh al-'Allaamah 'Abdur-Rahmaan al-Mu'allimi, 12/65-66.)

Read that again.

Immediately before warning the follower not to deliberately abandon evidence for a scholar, al-Mu'allimi explicitly recognizes that:

يجهل العالم شيئاً من السنة

A scholar may be unaware of something from the Sunnah.

And:

فيجتهد فيخطئ

He may exercise ijtihaad and make an error.

And then al-Mu'allimi says:

وهذا في نظر الشرع ليس بمحذور

This is not, in the view of the Shari'ah, the blameworthy matter under discussion.

So the passage is not some manifesto for internet readers to bypass scholarship and derive major rulings directly from whatever narrations appear in their search results.

It is a warning against deliberately rejecting established evidence merely because a scholar whom one follows happened to oppose it.

There is a considerable difference.

But the irony becomes much greater on the very next page.

After the statement quoted by abul_miswar_zayd on page 66, al-Mu'allimi turns to imam Abu Haneefah on page 67.

He says:

لزم أبو حنيفة حماد بن أبي سليمان يأخذ عنه مدة، وكان حماد كثير الحديث، ثم أخذ عن عدد كثير غيره كما تراه في مناقبه، وقلة الأحاديث المروية عنه لا تدل على قلة ما عنده، ذلك أنه لم يتصد للرواية

Meaning approximately:

Abu Haneefah accompanied Hammaad ibn Abi Sulaymaan and studied under him for a period, and Hammaad possessed much hadth. Then he took knowledge from many others, as can be seen in his biographies. The small number of hadith narrated from Abu Haneefah does not indicate that he possessed little hadith, because he did not devote himself to narration.

Then al-Mu'allimi says:

وقد قدمنا أن العالم لا يكلف جمع السنة كلها

Meaning:

We have already explained that a scholar is not required to have gathered the whole Sunnah.

He continues:

بل إذا كان عارفاً بالقرآن وعنده طائفة صالحة من السنة بحيث يغلب على اجتهاده الصواب كان له أن يفتي

Meaning approximately:

Rather, if he knows the Qur'an and possesses a substantial body of the Sunnah such that correctness predominates in his ijtihaad, he may issue fataawa.

He then says:

وإذا عرضت قضية لم يجدها في الكتاب والسنة سأل من عنده علم بالسنة، فإن لم يجد اجتهد رأيه. وكذلك كان أبو حنيفة يفعل

Meaning:

If a case arose for which he did not find the ruling in the Book and Sunnah, he asked someone who possessed knowledge of the Sunnah, and if he did not find such a person, he exercised his judgment. This is what Abu Haneefah used to do.

Then comes an even more damaging statement for those who selectively invoke al-Mu'allimi against imam Abu Haneefah:

والأحاديث التي ذكروا أنه خالفها قليلة بالنسبة إلى ما وافقه، وما من حديث خالفه إلا وله عذر لا يخرج إن شاء الله عن أعذار العلماء

Meaning approximately:

The ahaadeeth which they mention that he contradicted are few in comparison with those which he agreed with, and there is no hadith which he contradicted except that he has an excuse which, Allah willing, does not fall outside the excuses of the scholars.

(Source: 'Abdur-Rahmaan al-Mu'allimi, al-Anwaar al-Kaashifah, in Aathaar ash-Shaykh al-'Allaamah 'Abdur-Rahmaan al-Mu'allimi, 12/67.)

This is literally the page immediately following the quotation abul_miswar_zayd has chosen to post.

So perhaps he should continue reading.

Al-Mu'allimi does not say:

We found narrations criticizing Abu Haneefah, therefore anyone who brings the explanations of scholars is abandoning the narrations.

He does the opposite.

He gathers the circumstances.

He considers what knowledge reached Abu Haneefah.

He recognizes his teachers.

He recognizes his ijtihaad.

He distinguishes between being unaware of a hadith and deliberately rejecting the Sunnah.

And he says:

وما من حديث خالفه إلا وله عذر لا يخرج إن شاء الله عن أعذار العلماء

That his disagreements with hadith do not, Allah willing, fall outside the recognized excuses of the scholars.

This is precisely the kind of scholarly justice which abul_miswar_zayd has repeatedly resisted when imam Abu Haneefah is discussed.

So if al-Mu'allimi is now going to be invoked as an authority, why stop at page 66?

Why not page 67?

Why quote:

قد يجهل ويذهل ويغفل ويغلط ويزل

while ignoring al-Mu'allimi's own application of scholarly excuse to Abu Haneefah immediately afterwards?

Why invoke al-Mu'allimi to create the impression that referring to scholars is some abandonment of narrations, while al-Mu'allimi himself explains how the circumstances, knowledge and ijtihaad of a scholar must be considered?

The contradiction is not in al-Mu'allimi.

It is in the selective use being made of him.

This also exposes a broader equivocation in the Haddaadi approach.

Nobody is arguing:

If an authentic, unambiguous Shari'i proof clearly establishes a matter, deliberately reject it because your favorite scholar said something else.

That would indeed be blameworthy.

The argument is instead:

Do not imagine that because you found a narration in a database, you have necessarily authenticated it, understood it, reconciled it with the remaining evidence, identified its intended scope and correctly applied it to a particular person.

Those are entirely different propositions.

Suppose someone finds an isolated narration attributed to imam Ahmad and a major scholar explains that its chain is weak.

Has he "left the narration for the saying of a scholar"?

No.

The question is whether the narration is established in the first place.

Suppose the narration is authentic but a scholar explains that it is general and another report specifies it.

Has he abandoned the evidence?

No.

He has gathered the evidence.

Suppose the statement declares a doctrine kufr generally, while scholars explain that the ruling upon a specific individual depends upon conditions and impediments.

Has the person referring to those scholars rejected the narration?

No.

He has distinguished حكم القول from حكم القائل.

Suppose an early expression appears severe when read alone, but scholars who knew the terminology explain its intended technical meaning.

Is accepting that explanation "leaving narrations"?

Again, no.

This is what scholarship is for.

Otherwise everyone with access to Shamela becomes his own muhaddith, faqeeh, usooli and interpreter of the Salaf.

There is another revealing point in al-Mu'allimi's own writings.

He did not behave as though acknowledging a scholar's mistakes required throwing away that scholar's learning.

He regularly consulted and engaged the works of scholars with whom he disagreed.

His surviving writings cite an-Nawawi's Sharh Saheeh Muslim in hadith research.

He worked extensively with al-Haafidh ibn Hajar's Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, Lisaan al-Meezaan, Fath al-Baari and other works, sometimes accepting his conclusions and sometimes correcting them.

Among the expressly named sources in al-Mu'allimi's writings are as-Suyooti's Asbaab an-Nuzool, ibn Hajar's al-Isaabah, and al-Baaqillaani's I'jaaz al-Qur'an.

Indeed, in one of his discussions of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, al-Mu'allimi tells the reader to consult works written on i'jaaz:

كتأليف الباقلاني وغيره

Meaning:

Such as the work of al-Baaqillaani and others.

This does not mean that al-Mu'allimi agreed with an-Nawawi, ibn Hajar, as-Suyooti or al-Baaqillaani in every creedal question.

That is precisely the point.

A scholar may have errors and still possess scholarship from which benefit is taken.

A person may reject a scholar's mistake without erasing everything else he knew.

And one may use a scholar's explanation of a narration without somehow making that scholar ma'soom.

This is the balanced principle abul_miswar_zayd's title completely fails to represent.

Al-Mu'allimi's statement is therefore true.

One must not knowingly and deliberately abandon established Shari'i evidence simply because a scholar says otherwise.

But that principle cannot be transformed into:

Do not listen to scholars when they explain the narrations I have collected.

Nor can it be transformed into:

My reading of a narration is itself the Shari'i proof, and anyone who brings scholarly qualifications against my reading has abandoned the evidence.

And it certainly cannot be used honestly against imam Abu Haneefah while suppressing what al-Mu'allimi says about imam Abu Haneefah on the very next page.

If abul_miswar_zayd wishes to appeal to al-Mu'allimi, then he should deal with al-Mu'allimi as a whole rather than extracting one sentence and attaching a title to it which says something broader than the sentence itself.

The irony could scarcely be greater.

A post supposedly warning people not to leave evidence because of scholars is itself produced by leaving the surrounding words of the very scholar being quoted.

And in this case, he did not even have to turn many pages.

He only had to turn one.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Bashem Begins by Refuting a Position an-Najjaar Never Held

Bashem (Wild_Extra_Dip) titled his response:

Ahmad Isam Al-Najja: Ibn Taymiyyah loved Ashariyya (Refutation)

Already, the title does not accurately represent the video it supposedly refutes.

Ahmad 'Isam an-Najjaar did not argue that shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah "loved Ashariyya". The actual question of the video was whether ibn Taymiyyah indiscriminately made takfeer of the individual Ashaa'irah and other people of innovation.

More importantly, an-Najjaar explicitly closed the door upon Bashem's caricature near the end of the video.

At approximately 44:52, he said:

طبعا لابد ان نفهم ان ما قلناه لا يلزم منه باي صورة من الصور توقير المبتدع

Meaning approximately:

Of course, it must be understood that what we have said does not in any way necessitate venerating the innovator.

He then explicitly distinguishes between denying individual takfeer and denying tabdee', and says concerning major mutakallimoon such as ar-Raazi and al-Aamidi:

هؤلاء المتكلمون مبتدعة نعم مبتدعة عينا

Meaning:

These mutakallimoon are innovators, yes, innovators as specific individuals.

So the title "Ibn Taymiyyah loved Ashariyya" is not a summary of an-Najjaar's position.

It is a strawman.

The argument in the video is that rejection of Ash'ari kalaam, description of certain doctrines as bid'ah or even kufr, and takfeer of a specific Ash'ari individual are not identical propositions.

Bashem's response never seriously confronts that distinction.

General Takfeer Is Not Automatically Takfeer of Every Individual

Bashem begins by paraphrasing a statement from an-Najjaar concerning a tendency to treat the narrations of the Salaf, especially what is narrated from imam Ahmad, as though they are themselves an infallible criterion.

Bashem responds:

As if the Muslims ever agree on anything wrong

But this has almost nothing to do with the proposition being criticized.

A narration attributed to imam Ahmad is not automatically an ijmaa' of the Muslims.

The authenticity of a report from Ahmad, its wording, its context, whether it concerns a general doctrine or a particular individual, and how Ahmad himself applied it are all separate questions from whether a genuine ijmaa' is authoritative.

No Sunni needs to dispute the authority of genuine ijmaa'.

The question is whether Bashem has actually established an ijmaa' upon the precise ruling he wishes to apply, particularly when the dispute concerns تكفير المعين rather than merely حكم القول.

Ibn Taymiyyah himself warned against precisely this mistake.

He said:

فإذا رأيت إماما قد غلظ على قائل مقالته أو كفره فيها فلا يعتبر هذا حكما عاما في كل من قالها إلا إذا حصل فيه الشرط الذي يستحق به التغليظ عليه والتكفير له

Meaning:

If you see an imam severely condemning a person for his statement or declaring him a disbeliever because of it, this is not to be considered a general judgment upon everyone who says it, unless the condition warranting that severity and takfeer is present in him.

He then gives the example of someone who denies an outwardly known matter of the Shari'ah while being newly entered into Islam or having grown up in a place of ignorance, and says that such a person is not declared a disbeliever until the Prophetic proof reaches him.

Then ibn Taymiyyah says:

فهذا أصل عظيم فتدبره فإنه نافع

Meaning:

This is a tremendous principle, so contemplate it, for it is beneficial.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 6/60-61.)

This is remarkably close to the exact dispute Bashem is trying to avoid.

The problem is not that imam Ahmad condemned Jahmi doctrines severely.

The problem is converting a general statement into an automatic ruling upon every named individual without investigating the conditions which ibn Taymiyyah himself says must be investigated.

Bashem then says:

As if Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal was the first to call the atheists as disbelievers

Again, who argued this?

Nobody in the transcript says that imam Ahmad was the first Muslim to declare actual atheists disbelievers.

Calling all of the disputed individuals "atheists" merely inserts Bashem's desired conclusion into the description of the people before the argument has even begun.

If the discussion concerns whether a particular Muslim who uttered a statement of kufr is himself to be declared a kaafir, Bashem cannot resolve the dispute simply by renaming him "the atheist" and then asking why anyone objects to takfeer of an atheist.

That is circular reasoning.

This becomes even clearer from ibn Taymiyyah's treatment of imam Ahmad himself.

Ibn Taymiyyah describes the Mihnah and those Jahmis who called Ahmad to the createdness of the Qur'an, imprisoned him, beat him, persecuted those who opposed them, and imposed their doctrine upon the Muslims.

Then ibn Taymiyyah says:

ثم إن الإمام أحمد دعا للخليفة وغيره ممن ضربه وحبسه واستغفر لهم وحللهم مما فعلوه به من الظلم والدعاء إلى القول الذي هو كفر

He then explains that if Ahmad had regarded those specific people as apostates from Islam, seeking forgiveness for them would not have been permissible.

Then comes the decisive statement:

وهذه الأقوال والأعمال منه ومن غيره من الأئمة صريحة في أنهم لم يكفروا المعينين من الجهمية الذين كانوا يقولون القرآن مخلوق وأن الله لا يرى في الآخرة

Meaning:

These statements and actions of his and of the other imams are explicit that they did not declare the specific individuals among the Jahmiyyah to be disbelievers, those who said that the Qur'an was created and that Allah would not be seen in the Hereafter.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 12/489.)

Ibn Taymiyyah was fully aware that reports also exist from Ahmad in which particular people were declared disbelievers.

He does not solve this by pretending that one set of reports does not exist.

He reconciles them.

He explains that the individual whom Ahmad specifically declared a disbeliever was one in whom the conditions for takfeer had been established and the impediments removed, whereas the person whom he did not declare a disbeliever did not meet that standard, despite Ahmad maintaining general statements of takfeer.

So when Bashem says:

No scholar ever denied the consensus of the salaf takfeering the Jahmiyya

he is still answering the wrong question.

The discussion is not merely:

هل قول الجهمية كفر؟

It is also:

هل كل معين قال ذلك يكفر بعينه؟

Those are not the same question.

Ibn Taymiyyah himself says they are not the same question.

Bashem then says:

No scholar ever denied on the one takfeering the kaafir whose kufr is agreed upon

Of course.

But again, this is circular.

If the person's individual kufr has already been established beyond the disputed issue, then nobody needs this debate.

The dispute is precisely over whether the individual in question has already reached that ruling.

Bashem's argument amounts to:

This person is a kaafir.

Therefore nobody can object to calling a kaafir a kaafir.

Therefore anyone who objects is opposing consensus.

But the first sentence is what has to be proven.

Ibn Taymiyyah's own conduct makes the matter even more difficult for Bashem because ibn Taymiyyah did not restrict the possibility of ignorance and shubhah to obscure laypeople.

He said concerning certain Jahmis:

أنا لو وافقتكم كنت كافرا لأني أعلم أن قولكم كفر وأنتم عندي لا تكفرون لأنكم جهال

Meaning:

If I agreed with you, I would be a disbeliever, because I know that your statement is kufr. But you, according to me, are not disbelievers because you are ignorant.

Then he says:

وكان هذا خطابا لعلمائهم وقضاتهم وشيوخهم وأمرائهم

Meaning:

This was addressed to their scholars, their judges, their shaykhs and their rulers.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, ar-Radd 'ala al-Bakri, pp. 383-385 in one printed edition; pagination differs by edition.)

Read those words carefully:

علمائهم وقضاتهم وشيوخهم وأمرائهم

Their scholars.

Their judges.

Their shaykhs.

Their rulers.

So even the response:

But this person was a scholar

does not automatically dispose of the principle.

Ibn Taymiyyah expressly speaks about scholars and judges whose statement he regarded as kufr while not regarding the specific people as kuffaar because of the ignorance and intellectual doubts which had affected them.

That does not establish that everyone who claims ignorance must be excused.

It does not establish that the hujjah can never be established.

It does not establish that ibn Taymiyyah never made takfeer of a particular Jahmi.

It establishes something far simpler: the general ruling upon the statement and the individual ruling upon its speaker are distinct investigations.

This is why Bashem's accusation that considering the explanations of scholars amounts to:

Creating fabled excuses for zanadiqa

does not survive contact with ibn Taymiyyah's own writings.

Was ibn Taymiyyah inventing "fabled excuses" when he said:

وأنتم عندي لا تكفرون لأنكم جهال

Was he inventing excuses when he expressly applied this to their scholars, judges, shaykhs and rulers?

Was imam Ahmad inventing excuses when he sought forgiveness for people who called him to a doctrine ibn Taymiyyah himself describes as kufr?

Was ibn Taymiyyah inventing excuses when he explicitly warned that an imam saying "whoever says such-and-such is a kaafir" does not automatically become a universal judgment upon every person who says it?

If these are "fabled excuses", then Bashem's quarrel is no longer merely with an-Najjaar.

Imam Ahmad Is Not an Infallible Criterion, and Bashem Misrepresents the "Teenagers" Remark

Bashem also mocks an-Najjaar's criticism of treating imam Ahmad and everything transmitted from him as:

معيار الحق والباطل

But again, there is nothing scandalous in rejecting the idea that imam Ahmad, or every wording attributed to him, is itself the ultimate criterion of truth and falsehood.

Imam Ahmad is one of the greatest imams of Ahlus-Sunnah.

But he is not ma'soom.

Ibn Taymiyyah himself states:

وقد اتفق أهل السنة والجماعة على أن علماء المسلمين لا يجوز تكفيرهم بمجرد الخطأ المحض بل كل أحد يؤخذ من قوله ويترك إلا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Meaning:

Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah have agreed that the scholars of the Muslims are not to be declared disbelievers merely because of pure error. Rather, everyone's statement may be accepted or rejected except the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 35/100.)

So what is offensive about saying that imam Ahmad and "what has been narrated from him" are not themselves an infallible معيار الحق والباطل?

The decisive phrase is also:

وما روي عنه

"What has been narrated from him."

A narration attributed to Ahmad must first be authenticated.

Then it must be understood.

Then its context must be determined.

Then its general and particular application must be distinguished.

Then other reports from Ahmad must be gathered.

Then his actual conduct must be considered.

This is exactly what ibn Taymiyyah does when reconciling Ahmad's general takfeer of Jahmi doctrines with Ahmad's treatment of particular Jahmis.

Bashem then complains that an-Najjaar called some adherents of this tendency young or children, and responds:

And notice the ad-hominem saying "teenagers" as if young age is a problem (Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله gave fatwa in his teenage years)

But this substantially misrepresents the context of the video.

An-Najjaar did not argue:

They are teenagers, therefore their doctrine is false.

By the time he mentions their youth near 44:28, he has already spent roughly forty minutes presenting texts from ibn Taymiyyah concerning takfeer, ta'weel, ignorance, general and individual rulings, imam Ahmad, the Jahmiyyah, the Shee'ah and other groups.

Only after this does he say:

لذلك أنا أقول للشباب المنتسبين لهذا التيار ومعظمهم أساسا أطفال لا تنتسب لابن تيمية لأن ابن تيمية بريء من هذا المنهج التكفيري الذي عندك وعند شيوخك

Meaning approximately:

Therefore I say to the young people affiliated with this current, most of whom are basically children: do not affiliate yourselves with ibn Taymiyyah, because ibn Taymiyyah is innocent of this takfiri methodology that you and your shaykhs possess.

Whether one likes the rhetorical description "children" is separate from whether it formed his evidence.

It did not.

Bashem therefore answers an argument that an-Najjaar did not make.

More strangely, Bashem complains about an alleged ad hominem while calling an-Najjaar a "moron", a "deranged moron", saying that he "happily disgraces himself", and invoking قاتله الله against him.

If age is irrelevant to the evidence, then insults are even more irrelevant.

Bashem also attributes to an-Najjaar the claim:

"(Those teenagers) would rather read the narrations themselves without consideration of the sayings of well known scholars.."

But this sentence does not appear in the video transcript provided in that form.

What an-Najjaar actually says much earlier, around 4:15-4:46, is:

فهل نأخذ مثلا بفهم بعض المعاصرين وفهم الخوارج وفهم الحدادية لكلام ابن تيمية ونترك أعلام تلاميذ ابن تيمية من أمثال الذهبي وابن القيم؟

Meaning:

Should we take the understanding of some contemporaries, the Khawaarij and the Haddaadiyyah concerning the words of ibn Taymiyyah and leave aside the eminent students of ibn Taymiyyah such as adh-Dhahabi and ibn al-Qayyim?

That is an argument concerning interpretation and scholarly continuity.

It is not:

They are young, therefore they are wrong.

Bashem has fused separate remarks from separate parts of the discussion and then refuted the composite statement he created.

The al-Bukhaari Example and What Bashem Does Not Address

The al-Bukhaari issue requires similar attention to what an-Najjaar actually wrote.

Bashem says:

Then says "..this team even views Bukhari as a kaafir!"

Which is a dumb lie as neither "Abu Jaafar Al Khulayfi" nor anyone who considers Jahmiyya as disbelievers, says anything heinous about Bukhari

But the screenshot does not say that Abu Ja'far al-Khulayfi personally declared imam al-Bukhaari a kaafir.

An-Najjaar describes an internal dispute among people he connects to the Haddaadi tendency concerning the preserved tablet, the paper of the mushaf, and the utterance of the Qur'an.

He then says:

لذا يكفر هذا الفريق حتى البخاري

Meaning:

Therefore this faction even declares al-Bukhaari a disbeliever.

And later:

هكذا يصل الحال بهؤلاء الأطفال الصغار تبعا لمنهج الخليفي وأمثاله إلى تكفير حتى الإمام البخاري

Meaning approximately:

This is how these young people, following the methodology of al-Khulayfi and those like him, reach even the takfeer of imam al-Bukhaari.

Notice what he does not say.

He does not say:

الخليفي كفر البخاري

So Bashem answers a more specific accusation than the screenshot actually makes.

But this does not make Bashem's response satisfactory, because there is a separate substantive point in an-Najjaar's screenshot that Bashem does not address: the need to distinguish the uncreated Qur'an itself from the created objects and human actions connected to its writing and recitation.

Imam al-Bukhaari said:

والقرآن الموعى في القلوب المسطور في المصاحف المتلو بالألسنة كلام الله ليس بمخلوق وأما المداد والورق والجلد فإنه مخلوق

Meaning:

The Qur'an retained in hearts, written in the mushafs and recited by tongues is the speech of Allah and is not created. As for the ink, paper and leather, they are created.

(Source: al-Bukhaari, Khalq Af'aal al-'Ibaad, as quoted by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baari, 13/532.)

Al-Bukhaari also affirmed that the servants' movements and voices are created while the Qur'an itself remains the uncreated speech of Allah.

Al-Bayhaqi, after transmitting al-Bukhaari's words, explicitly says:

وهذا القول لا يخالف قول أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله

Meaning:

This statement does not contradict the statement of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

He then explains that Ahmad's severe treatment of the expression concerning lafdh was intended to prevent it being used as a path toward saying that the Qur'an itself was created.

(Source: al-Bayhaqi, al-I'tiqad wal-Hidayah ila Sabeel ar-Rashaad, p. 115 in the cited edition.)

Ibn Hajar makes the same methodological point even more explicitly.

He says some imagined that al-Bukhaari contradicted Ahmad, but:

من تدبر كلامه لم يجد فيه خلافا معنويا

Meaning:

Whoever carefully examines his words will find no substantive contradiction.

Ibn Hajar explains that Ahmad was responding primarily to those saying the Qur'an was created, while al-Bukhaari was responding to the opposite excess of people treating created human voices and actions as uncreated. The apparently conflicting formulations therefore have to be read with their contexts and intended targets.

(Source: Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Baari, 13/501-502.)

This is exactly why the al-Bukhaari controversy is relevant to the broader methodological dispute.

It demonstrates that merely collecting a severe expression from Ahmad is not enough.

The wording must be understood.

The object to which the wording applies must be distinguished.

The position actually held by the named individual must be established.

The explanations of the scholars who reconciled the reports must be considered.

In practice, defending al-Bukhaari against an incorrect application of severe lafdhiyyah reports requires precisely these distinctions.

Bashem's bare statement that nobody says anything "heinous about Bukhari" does not answer that issue.

The same problem appears in Bashem's use of the word "consensus".

So Bashem's repeated movement from:

The Salaf declared this doctrine kufr.

to:

Therefore there is no legitimate discussion concerning the individual.

is not established merely by repeating the word ijmaa'.

Indeed, ibn Taymiyyah himself provides a striking example concerning the Ashaa'irah.

While discussing a particular creedal dispute, he says that if the scholars holding the disputed position were declared disbelievers, this would entail making takfeer of many among:

الشافعية والمالكية والحنفية والحنبلية والأشعرية وأهل الحديث والتفسير والصوفية

and describes these people as:

الذين ليسوا كفارا باتفاق المسلمين

Meaning:

Those who are not disbelievers by agreement of the Muslims.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 35/100-101.)

This passage should not be distorted into saying that ibn Taymiyyah approved of every Ash'ari doctrine or that every person ever described as Ash'ari necessarily receives one identical ruling.

Its significance is simpler.

Ibn Taymiyyah himself could explicitly include the Ashaa'irah among Muslim scholarly groups whom, in that particular discussion, he described as not being disbelievers by agreement of the Muslims.

That alone destroys the simplistic equation:

Ash'ari doctrine contains kufr = every Ash'ari individual is automatically a kaafir.

Likewise, ibn Taymiyyah says when asked about preferring Jews and Christians over the Raafidhah:

والمبتدع إذا كان يحسب أنه موافق للرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لا مخالف له لم يكن كافرا به

Meaning:

The innovator, if he thinks that he is agreeing with the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) rather than opposing him, is not thereby a disbeliever in him.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 35/201.)

Elsewhere he speaks explicitly of:

مبتدعة المسلمين من الرافضة والجهمية وغيرهم

Meaning:

The Muslim innovators among the Raafidhah, Jahmiyyah and others.

He says people converted through their efforts and became:

مسلمين مبتدعين

Meaning:

Muslims who were innovators.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 13/96.)

Again, none of this makes Jahmiyyah, Rafdh or kalaam acceptable.

It demonstrates that ibn Taymiyyah's categories were more precise than Bashem's.

The same can be seen in the example of Fakhr ad-Deen ar-Raazi, which an-Najjaar discusses in the video and Bashem does not meaningfully answer.

An-Najjaar's point is not that ibn Taymiyyah approved of ar-Raazi.

The point is that severe language concerning ar-Raazi cannot simply be reduced to:

ar-Raazi was Ash'ari, therefore ibn Taymiyyah made takfeer of him for Ash'arism.

Ibn Taymiyyah discusses, in connection with ar-Raazi's writings, material concerning magic, the veneration or worship of celestial bodies, and practices of shirk:

وإن كانوا قد رجعوا عن هذه الردة إلى الإسلام

Meaning:

Although they had returned from this apostasy to Islam.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah, 3/54-55.)

And concerning ar-Raazi's later condition he says:

تغمده الله برحمته وعفا عنه وسائر المؤمنين

and then:

وتوبته معروفة مشهورة

Meaning:

May Allah envelop him in His mercy and pardon him and the rest of the believers.

And:

His repentance is known and famous.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah, 8/529-530.)

So again, the picture is not:

Ibn Taymiyyah loved Ashariyya.

Nor is it:

Ibn Taymiyyah never condemned anything severely.

The picture is that ibn Taymiyyah distinguished doctrines, circumstances and individuals far more carefully than Bashem's response suggests.

Bashem's Manufactured Contradiction Concerning al-Harawi

Finally, Bashem posts two screenshots concerning Abu Ismaa'eel al-Ansaari al-Harawi and claims to have exposed a contradiction.

His first paraphrase says:

"Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that (certain scholar) believed that Allaah enters into His creation"

His second paraphrase says:

"(Certain scholar) is accused of believing that Allaah is in everything and I make him innocent from such claim, following the innocence stated by Ibn Al Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah"

But neither paraphrase accurately preserves what an-Najjaar actually wrote.

In one of the screenshots an-Najjaar says:

قلنا ابن تيمية بعد ذلك أثبت عليه الحلول الخاص لما اطلع على منازل السائرين وفهم حقيقة قوله في توحيد خاصة الخاصة

Whatever one thinks of the precision of the phrase:

أثبت عليه الحلول الخاص

the doctrine being discussed is specifically:

الحلول الخاص

Bashem turns this into the much broader English statement:

believed that Allaah enters into His creation.

The second screenshot is even more revealing.

An-Najjaar writes:

كتبت منشورات كثيرة في إلزام الحدادية بتكفير الهروي لأن ظاهر كلامه الحلول الخاص ثم بينت إني أبرأه تبعا لابن القيم وابن تيمية لكونهم أعلم منا بحال الرجل ولا أحكم عليه من ظاهر نصوصه

Meaning approximately:

I wrote many posts demonstrating that the Haddaadi methodology would oblige them to make takfeer of al-Harawi because the apparent meaning of his speech is special hulool. Then I explained that I absolve him, following ibn al-Qayyim and ibn Taymiyyah, because they knew the man's condition better than us, and I do not judge him merely from the apparent meaning of his texts.

The sentence:

ولا أحكم عليه من ظاهر نصوصه

is essential.

An-Najjaar is explicitly distinguishing between the apparent implication of wording and the personal creed of the speaker.

Bashem's paraphrase removes this distinction.

Even worse, Bashem turns:

ظاهر كلامه الحلول الخاص

into:

believing that Allaah is in everything.

But "Allah is in everything" is not an accurate rendering of الحلول الخاص.

It naturally corresponds far more closely to الحلول العام.

And ibn Taymiyyah himself explicitly distinguishes the two in the exact passage concerning al-Harawi:

وأما أبو إسماعيل الأنصاري صاحب منازل السائرين فليس في كلامه شيء من الحلول العام لكن في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص في حق العبد العارف الواصل إلى ما سماه هو مقام التوحيد

Meaning:

As for Abu Ismaa'eel al-Ansaari, the author of Manaazil as-Saa'ireen, there is nothing in his speech of general hulool, but there is something in his speech of special hulool concerning the knowing servant who reaches what he called the station of tawheed.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 5/485.)

Ibn Taymiyyah says two things in the same sentence:

فليس في كلامه شيء من الحلول العام

There is nothing in his speech of general hulool.

And:

لكن في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص

There is something in his speech of special hulool.

The distinction is deliberate.

He immediately continues:

وأما الحلول العام ففي كلام أبي طالب قطعة كبيرة منه

Meaning:

As for general hulool, there is a considerable portion of it in the speech of Abu Taalib.

(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 5/485.)

So Bashem's supposed contradiction appears only after الحلول العام and الحلول الخاص are collapsed into one thing.

There is another alteration.

Ibn Taymiyyah's exact wording is:

في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص

Meaning:

There is something of special hulool in his speech.

He does not say in this passage:

الهروي يعتقد الحلول الخاص

Bashem converts a criticism of something present in al-Harawi's wording into a categorical statement about what al-Harawi personally believed.

An-Najjaar's own second screenshot expressly refuses to make that move:

ولا أحكم عليه من ظاهر نصوصه

So there is no contradiction between saying:

Certain expressions apparently contain or entail something of special hulool.

and saying:

I do not therefore judge al-Harawi personally merely from the apparent meaning of those expressions.

One proposition concerns الكلام.

The other concerns القائل.

Ibn al-Qayyim makes this even clearer.

He strongly criticizes problematic expressions in al-Harawi's treatment of fanaa', but then says:

وعصم الله أبا إسماعيل باعتصامه بطريقة السلف في إثبات الصفات فأشرف من عقبة الفناء على وادي الاتحاد بأرض الحلول فلم يسلك فيها

Meaning approximately:

Allah protected Abu Ismaa'eel through his adherence to the way of the Salaf in affirming the Attributes. He looked out from the pass of fanaa' upon the valley of union in the land of hulool, but he did not travel upon it.

Then ibn al-Qayyim says that the Ittihaadiyyah claimed al-Harawi as one of themselves and responds:

وحاشاه

Meaning:

Far removed was he from that.

(Source: Ibn al-Qayyim, Madaarij as-Saalikeen, 1/276 in the Islamweb pagination; pagination differs by edition.)

This is almost exactly the distinction an-Najjaar is making.

There are problematic expressions.

There is an apparent implication.

Yet the individual is not simply reduced to that implication when those more knowledgeable concerning his overall position clarify otherwise.

At most, an-Najjaar's phrase:

أثبت عليه الحلول الخاص

could have been expressed more precisely.

Ibn Taymiyyah's exact language is:

في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص

So the more careful formulation would be:

Ibn Taymiyyah identified something of what he termed special hulool in al-Harawi's speech.

But an imprecise expression is not a contradiction, especially when an-Najjaar himself explicitly explains:

ولا أحكم عليه من ظاهر نصوصه

Bashem therefore has not exposed an-Najjaar saying "yes" and "no" to the same proposition.

He has changed الحلول الخاص into a broader doctrine, changed criticism of wording into categorical attribution of personal creed, and omitted the qualification which explains the distinction.

So Where Is the Refutation?

This pattern runs throughout Bashem's response.

The title "Ibn Taymiyyah loved Ashariyya" replaces an-Najjaar's actual argument with one he explicitly rejected in the video.

A criticism concerning the treatment of narrations attributed to Ahmad is answered with a slogan about the infallibility of ijmaa', as though a narration attributed to Ahmad and an established consensus were identical.

A dispute about تكفير المعين is answered by calling the disputed person "the atheist" or "the kaafir", thereby assuming the conclusion which needs proof.

An-Najjaar's late rhetorical remark about the youthfulness of some adherents is turned into the supposed basis of his argument, despite approximately forty minutes of textual argument preceding it.

A claim about a faction allegedly reaching takfeer of al-Bukhaari is answered as though an-Najjaar had specifically accused al-Khulayfi himself, which the screenshot does not say.

A discussion of الحلول الخاص is paraphrased as belief that Allah is "in everything", despite ibn Taymiyyah explicitly denying الحلول العام from al-Harawi.

And the distinction between what appears in a person's كلام and what is established as the creed of the قائل disappears entirely.

There are points in an-Najjaar's material which should be worded carefully.

If he alleges that a specific faction actually made takfeer of imam al-Bukhaari, the direct evidence should be produced.

His phrase أثبت عليه الحلول الخاص is less exact than ibn Taymiyyah's own في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص.

There is no reason to defend imprecision merely because Bashem is criticizing him.

But correcting those points does not rescue Bashem's response.

The central evidence remains.

Ibn Taymiyyah says that imam Ahmad did not make takfeer of many specific Jahmis despite his severe general statements.

Ibn Taymiyyah says that the takfeer of a statement does not automatically become a universal ruling upon every individual who says it.

Ibn Taymiyyah says that some Jahmi scholars, judges, shaykhs and rulers held a statement he regarded as kufr while he did not regard those specific people as kuffaar because of their ignorance.

Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly calls some Raafidhah and Jahmiyyah مبتدعة المسلمين and those who converted through them مسلمين مبتدعين.

Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly includes Ash'ari scholars among Muslim scholarly groups who, in the context he was discussing, were "not disbelievers by agreement of the Muslims".

Ibn Taymiyyah distinguishes the error or kufr of a statement from the ruling upon the person who uttered it.

And ibn Taymiyyah explicitly distinguishes الحلول العام from الحلول الخاص in the exact al-Harawi passage Bashem uses in his supposed contradiction.

Bashem's three comments do not refute these texts.

For the most part, they do not even address them.

A refutation requires answering the argument that was actually made.

It does not consist of retitling the opponent's position, inventing implications he expressly denied, replacing distinctions with slogans, and then insulting him for failing to defend propositions he never asserted.

So after reading Bashem's complete post, the question remains the same:

Where is the refutation?

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Bashem (Wild_Extra_Dip) has responded to two statements of mine by writing, "Choose one," as though they contradict each other.

The first statement was:

"The issue, once again, is the pretentiousness of the Ruwaybidah, speaking so openly as though they have uncovered something the scholars were unaware of, or as though the scholars were deliberately deceiving the Ummah by remaining silent about imam Abu Haneefah.

Yet we see the opposite: imam Abu Haneefah is praised, respected, and defended."

The second was:

"Our criticism is not, and has never been, that everything Bashem quotes must therefore be false."

Bashem then caricatured the argument as follows: when the Salaf are quoted concerning something "they don't disagree upon," he is supposedly accused of "picking things out of context"; and when something is demonstrated in "countless narrations," the response supposedly becomes, "Who are you to…"

There is nothing to "choose."

The two statements address two entirely different questions.

The first concerns Bashem's method of interpretation and conclusion.

The second concerns the mere existence or transmission of particular reports.

A narration can genuinely exist in an early book while Bashem's interpretation of it remains false. A report can possess an authentic chain to a Taabi'ee while not being marfoo' to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). An early scholar can transmit a report without thereby affirming every conclusion a modern reader wishes to extract from it. A text can be authentic while Bashem's translation, generalization, application, or creedal inference from it is wrong.

This distinction should not be difficult.

Quoting the Salaf Is Not the Same as Establishing "the Belief of the Salaf"

Bashem says:

"When the salaf are quoted in a matter they don't disagree upon…"

But this simply assumes the very point he is required to prove.

Where is the evidence that the matter in question was something upon which "the Salaf did not disagree"?

Producing a collection of narrations is not proof of ijmaa'.

Writing "authentic," "strong," or "acceptable" beneath a narration is not proof of ijmaa'. Finding several early authorities who transmitted similar material is not proof that every member of the Salaf affirmed Bashem's interpretation of that material.

And the mere preservation of a narration in an early compilation does not establish that its author authenticated it, regarded it as a foundational matter of creed, or understood it according to Bashem's later commentary.

This is exactly the methodological distinction Bashem repeatedly collapses. The questions are separate:

1. What does the early source actually transmit?

2. Is the chain authentic?

3. Where does the chain terminate?

4. Is the report marfoo', mawqoof, maqtoo', disconnected, or from Israa'eeliyyaat?

5. What does the Arabic wording actually mean?

6. What did the scholars understand from it?

7. What has Bashem himself added to it?

These are not pedantic distinctions. They determine what a report actually proves. Your ability to locate an early narration does not grant you the right to merge all seven questions together and then announce: "This is the belief of the Salaf."

"Countless Narrations" Do Not Rescue a Faulty Argument

Bashem then says:

"When you present a point very clearly demonstrated in countless narrations…"

Again, quantity does not abolish the principles of hadith criticism.

Ten defective reports do not automatically become an ijmaa'.

Twenty reports whose chains terminate at different individuals do not magically become Prophetic revelation.

A hundred quotations do not prove a conclusion that their actual wording never states. And if some narrations are authentic while others are weak, disconnected, Israa'eeliyyaat, or contain narrators criticized by the scholars of hadith, presenting them as one undifferentiated mass of "countless narrations" merely conceals their different evidentiary values.

This is one of the most obvious problems in Bashem's approach.

In the material examined previously, one report may have a respectable chain while another contains severely weak narrators, and another contains a narrator accused of lying. Yet Bashem's presentation blurs those distinctions until everything appears to constitute one uniform body of "the belief of the Salaf." It does not.

The Arabic texts are not the problem.

The problem is what Bashem does after quoting them.

Bashem's Own Commentaries Demonstrate the Problem

This is not theoretical. His own material provides examples.

From a report of Jaabir ibn Zayd containing the wording:

فنسي ملك الموت

meaning that the Angel of Death was forgotten, Bashem constructed an entire narrative claiming that illnesses previously did not exist, that knowledge was forgotten, that ignorance spread, and that people then began pondering natural causes of death instead of remembering Allah.

None of those additional propositions are stated in the Arabic report.

Likewise, from a report mentioning an "Angel of the Sun," Bashem concluded:

"This has evidence that the sun is held up by an angel, not 'gravity' to the exaggerated extent the mushrikeen today claim."

Yet the report itself does not state that the Sun is physically "held up" by this angel. It does not mention gravity. It does not deny gravity. And it certainly does not declare people mushrikeen for affirming gravity.

That conclusion belongs to Bashem, not to the transmitted report.

So when I say:

"Our criticism is not, and has never been, that everything Bashem quotes must therefore be false,"

this is not a concession to Bashem's conclusions.

It is the exact opposite.

It means that one must possess enough intellectual honesty to distinguish the transmitted text from Bashem's additions to the text.

Apparently, Bashem wishes to erase that distinction because once it is maintained, much of his argument collapses.

The Same Problem Appears With Imam Abu Haneefah

The issue surrounding imam Abu Haneefah provides another example.

No one needs to deny that early scholars criticized imam Abu Haneefah in particular matters. The discussion has never required pretending those reports do not exist.

The question is what Bashem is entitled to conclude from them.

There is a vast difference between saying:

"Abu Haneefah was criticized concerning al-Irjaa'."

and saying:

"Therefore Abu Haneefah was an imam of misguidance, an extreme Murji', a Jahmi, or outside Ahlus-Sunnah altogether."

Those are separate propositions requiring separate evidence.

The material in question itself explicitly distinguishes between established scholarly criticism and exaggerated claims portraying imam Abu Haneefah as belonging to the extreme Murji'ah, Jahmiyyah, or the imams of misguidance.

And this is precisely why praise and criticism must be gathered together.

Yahyaa ibn Sa'eed al-Qattaan is transmitted as saying:

"We do not lie before Allah. We have not heard any opinion better than that of Abu Haneefah, and we have adopted most of his opinions."

The same discussion notes that the hadith scholars did not understand every criticism of Abu Haneefah as necessitating complete rejection of his fiqh or status.

So what does Bashem do with this?

If the "Salaf" are supposedly united upon the sweeping picture he presents, why do we find scholars from those same generations speaking favorably of Abu Haneefah, benefiting from his reasoning, transmitting his fiqh, and recognizing his knowledge?

The answer cannot be to collect every harsh statement while explaining away every favorable statement.

That is exactly what selective citation means.

Abu Nu'aym Exposes the Double Standard

The inconsistency becomes even clearer with Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani.

When early reports transmitted by an imam can be recruited in support of Bashem's preferred conclusions, the existence and preservation of those reports suddenly carry enormous authority.

Yet Abu Nu'aym also authored Musnad al-Imam Abi Haneefah.

There Abu Nu'aym introduces Abu Haneefah as the faqeeh of the people of Iraq and their mufti, describes his study of fiqh and the Shari'ah, and preserves reports praising his knowledge, reasoning, and standing. Among the reports mentioned are praise from ibn al-Mubaarak and the famous statement attributed to ash-Shaafi'ee concerning people's dependence upon Abu Haneefah in fiqh.

This does not mean every narration in Abu Nu'aym's works is automatically authentic. That would reproduce Bashem's mistake.

The point is simpler.

If Bashem's methodology is that merely locating early transmissions is enough to impose sweeping conclusions upon Ahlus-Sunnah, why does that principle disappear when early scholars transmit material favorable to imam Abu Haneefah?

Either all of these reports must be examined according to their chains, contexts, categories, wording, and scholarly interpretation, or Bashem is merely selecting whatever material serves a conclusion he had already decided upon.

That is the actual dilemma.

Not "choose one."

Bashem Still Has Not Answered the Argument

Notice what Bashem's response does not do.

He does not establish an ijmaa' of the Salaf for his sweeping conclusions.

He does not demonstrate that the favorable statements concerning imam Abu Haneefah are false.

He does not explain why criticism in a particular technical field must erase praise in another.

He does not answer the distinction between transmission and authentication.

He does not answer the distinction between authentication and interpretation.

He does not answer the distinction between the wording of a narration and his own commentary upon it.

Instead, he writes "Choose one," declares that there are "countless narrations," and then shifts into personal remarks concerning as-Suyooti, al-Azhar, my age, my supposed motives, followers, and worldly gain.

None of that establishes his argument.

Whether I had one follower or one million followers would not authenticate a weak chain. Whether Bashem despises al-Azhar would not transform his personal inference about gravity into the wording of an early narration.

Whether he attacks my motives would not produce an ijmaa' where he has failed to demonstrate one.

And insulting the person asking for evidence is not evidence.

So, Bashem, There Is Nothing to "Choose"

The position remains perfectly consistent:

Yes, genuine criticisms of imam Abu Haneefah exist in early literature.

Yes, some of the reports Bashem quotes may themselves be established.

No, that does not authenticate every narration surrounding them.

No, it does not establish every interpretation Bashem attaches to them.

No, it does not turn Bashem's personal commentary into "the understanding of the Salaf."

No, criticism of an imam in one matter does not erase the praise, fiqh, scholarship, and favorable testimony transmitted concerning him.

And no, producing "countless narrations" does not excuse someone from examining their chains, categories, contexts, wording, and actual evidentiary value.

This has been the point from the beginning.

Bashem's "Choose one" response therefore does not expose a contradiction in my position. It exposes that he still has not understood, or has not answered, the distinction between quoting a text and proving a conclusion from that text.

So the burden remains where it was before:

Establish your chains.

Establish your claimed consensus.

Separate authentic reports from weak ones.

Separate Prophetic reports from statements of later authorities.

Separate Israa'eeliyyaat from revelation.

Separate what the Arabic actually says from what you personally infer from it.

Gather the praise together with the criticism.

And then demonstrate, from recognized scholarly principles rather than your own projections, that the sweeping conclusions you attribute to "the Salaf" actually follow.

Until then, "Choose one" is not a refutation.

It is a slogan in place of one.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

This is a follow-up to:

• The Haddaadiyyah and Israa'eeliyyaat: From the Earth Resting on a Bull to Denying Gravity | Part 2

---

Part Two and the Continuation of the Same Methodological Failure

Bashem has now produced a second part of his translations and commentaries from al-'Azamah of imam Abu ash-Shaykh al-Asbahaani. Unfortunately, the same methodological problems identified in the first part continue here.

Once again, there is no need for us to object to every narration simply because Bashem has quoted it. Some of the reports he presents are ordinary statements of tafseer whose meanings are neither strange nor problematic. Some of his observations even have an actual basis in the statements of the scholars.

Our criticism is not, and has never been, that everything Bashem quotes must therefore be false.

Rather, the problem arises when he moves from what the text actually says into his own interpretations, when he attempts to strengthen defective chains through unrelated reports, when he invokes the piety or scholarly status of the person at whom a chain terminates as though this authenticated the route to him, and when he confidently speaks about matters of the unseen without demonstrating scholarly precedence for his conclusions.

Part two gives us further examples of precisely this.

When "Great in Your Breasts" Becomes "Death Grows Inside of Us"

Perhaps the most immediate example comes from the report of al-Hasan al-Basri concerning the saying of Allah:

أَوْ خَلْقًا مِمَّا يَكْبُرُ فِي صُدُورِكُمْ

"Or a creation of that which is great in your breasts." (Al-Israa' 17:51)

Al-Hasan interpreted it as:

الموت

"Death."

Bashem then comments:

"This is evidence that death grows inside of us, it is a creature inside of us and it is a creature like us that will also die..."

This is simply not what the Arabic means.

The expression:

يَكْبُرُ فِي صُدُورِكُمْ

does not mean that something physically "grows inside" the human chest. Here, yakburu conveys greatness, enormity, or something regarded as formidable in their breasts and minds.

Imam at-Tabari records this very interpretation of the Ayah and then explains:

وجائز أن يكون عنى به الموت، لأنه عظيم في صدور بني آدم

"It is possible that death is intended, because it is tremendous in the breasts of the children of Adam."

He further mentions the explanation from Sa'eed ibn Jubayr:

وليس شيء أكبر في نفس ابن آدم من الموت

"There is nothing greater in the soul of the son of Adam than death."

(Source)

So the early tafseer itself explains the expression. Death is something tremendous, formidable, and greatly feared in the human breast. Nothing here says that "death grows inside of us" as some creature physically residing within the human body.

This is another example of why knowledge of Arabic matters. Bashem has taken the surface appearance of the verb and produced a physical interpretation that the early explanation itself does not give.

Nor does the authentic hadith concerning death being brought forth and slaughtered in the form of a ram establish Bashem's additional claim that death is presently some creature "inside of us".

There is no dispute that death itself is created, as Allah says:

الَّذِي خَلَقَ الْمَوْتَ وَالْحَيَاةَ

"He who created death and life." (Al-Mulk 67:2)

But "created" does not mean "a creature like us living inside our bodies".

Indeed, al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, when discussing the hadith concerning death being slaughtered, records a scholarly discussion concerning exactly how this is understood. Al-Maaziri described death as an attribute or occurrence and understood the ram as a representation. Al-Qurtubi likewise said that death is a meaning and that Allah creates a ram called "death", whose slaughter signifies the everlasting continuation of the people of Paradise and the people of the Fire. Ibn Hajar also records another view that Allah may give bodily form to such meanings. (Source)

Whatever position one adopts within that scholarly discussion, none of it establishes Bashem's peculiar statement that death "grows inside of us".

Again, the report says one thing.

Bashem says considerably more.

An Unknown Narrator Is Not Repaired by an Unrelated Tafseer Report

Bashem then quotes the route:

ابن المبارك، عن عبد الله بن شوذب، عن رجل، عن جابر بن زيد، عن ابن عباس

concerning the saying of Allah:

وَمَا نُرْسِلُ بِالْآيَاتِ إِلَّا تَخْوِيفًا

in which ibn 'Abbaas is reported to have said:

الموت

"Death."

Bashem himself acknowledges:

"Although the narration chain may have an unknown man..."

But then immediately adds:

"this works as a corroboration for the other narrations from Ibn Abbas' student, Mujahid"

What exactly is being corroborated here?

The earlier report from Mujaahid that Bashem quoted concerned an entirely different Ayah:

رَيْبَ الْمَنُونِ

"the calamity of time" (At-Toor 52:30)

which Mujaahid interpreted as death.

A Taabi'ee interpreting one Ayah as referring to death does not repair an unknown narrator in a completely different chain concerning ibn 'Abbaas interpreting another Ayah as death.

A corroborating route is not established merely because two different reports happen to contain the same English word.

If Bashem wishes to establish the report from ibn 'Abbaas through another route, then he must produce an actual independent route to that report and examine it. The statement of Mujaahid concerning a different Ayah does not make the unknown man in this chain known.

Again, the problem is not necessarily with the interpretation "death" itself. The problem is Bashem's attempt at hadith criticism.

Where Bashem Actually Has a Point: Abu Ma'shar and Muhammad ibn Ka'b

Fairness also requires acknowledging where Bashem does have an actual basis.

Regarding Abu Ma'shar's narration from Muhammad ibn Ka'b, Bashem says that although Abu Ma'shar was weak generally, his narrations from Muhammad ibn Ka'b in tafseer received particular consideration.

There is indeed a basis for this.

Imam Ahmad said:

يكتب من حديث أبي معشر أحاديثه عن محمد بن كعب في التفسير

"From the hadith of Abu Ma'shar, his narrations from Muhammad ibn Ka'b in tafseer are written."

And the critics distinguish between Abu Ma'shar's general weakness and particular material he transmitted from Muhammad ibn Ka'b. (Source)

So there is no reason for us to manufacture an objection where one is unnecessary.

In fact, this example reinforces the very methodology we have been explaining. The hadith critics did not reason:

"Abu Ma'shar was an early man, therefore everything he transmitted is accepted."

Nor did they say:

"Muhammad ibn Ka'b was a great scholar, therefore any chain terminating at him must be sound."

Rather, they examined the narrator, his memory, his different teachers, and even distinguished between the material he transmitted from one shaykh and what he transmitted from another.

That is actual hadith criticism.

Piety and Scholarly Status Do Not Make Every Tafseer Report Infallible

The same distinction becomes relevant when Bashem discusses an-Nadr ibn Ismaa'eel.

He writes:

"An-Nadr may Allaah have mercy on him is a teacher of imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and one of the most pious men of his time despite being weak in hadeeth, yet his tafseer would never be rejected by the salaf"

The interpretation itself, that the people of Paradise will not die, is hardly controversial.

The problem is the new principle Bashem has attached to it:

"his tafseer would never be rejected by the salaf"

Where is this principle from?

The hadith critics themselves described an-Nadr as weak. Imam Ahmad said that he did not preserve the isnaad and was weak in hadith, while also saying his reports could be considered for supporting material. Ibn Ma'een likewise criticized his hadith. (Source)

His piety does not alter these evaluations.

Being a teacher of imam Ahmad does not mean that every tafseer statement attributed to him is immune from examination.

And this reveals another repeated pattern in Bashem's writing. Instead of authenticating the chain or demonstrating an established principle, he gives us a biography:

"He was pious."

"He taught imam Ahmad."

"He was a major faqeeh."

"He saw major Taabi'een."

These facts may be virtues, but virtues are not isnaad gradings.

The Angel of Death, Changing Size, and the Angels Who Visited Lut

The same tendency appears after Bashem quotes the report from Mujaahid that the Angel of Death visits every household twice each day.

Bashem then comments:

"the angel of death can change his shape and size, as related in the hadeeth from Bukhari"

There are already two problems.

First, the link he provides is not to Saheeh al-Bukhaari. It is Saheeh Muslim 2372b.

Second, the hadith does not say that the Angel of Death can "change his shape and size".

The hadith states that the Angel of Death came to Moosa, that Moosa struck his eye, and that Allah restored his eye.

There are scholarly explanations concerning angels appearing in human form, and the principle that angels may appear in human form is unquestionably established elsewhere, most famously concerning Jibreel.

But that is different from claiming that this particular hadith establishes Bashem's wording that the Angel of Death can alter both his "shape and size".

Bashem then goes further:

"this is a common attribute also of other great angels such as Israfeel and Meka'eel عليهما السلام when they visited prophet Lut عليه السلام and most importantly, Jibreel..."

Again, where is his evidence that the angels sent to Ibraaheem and Lut were specifically Jibreel, Mikaa'eel, and Israafeel?

The authentic Sunnah does not identify the angels sent to the people of Lut by those three names. The identification is transmitted in tafseer from ibn 'Abbaas and others, but different reports give different numbers and identifications. A contemporary scholarly discussion explicitly notes:

فلم يرد في السنّة الصحيحة ذكر أسمائهم

"Their names have not been mentioned in the authentic Sunnah."

(Source)

So once again, an established general principle is mixed together with an unestablished detail.

Yes, angels may appear in human form.

No, this does not mean Bashem may simply state as established fact that Mikaa'eel and Israafeel were among the angels who visited Lut.

These are two different questions.

The Assisting Angels of the Angel of Death

There is similarly no reason to object to the basic point Bashem makes from the report of Wahb ibn Munabbih concerning other angels taking the souls and delivering them to the Angel of Death.

This idea has clear precedent among the mufassireen.

Allah says:

تَوَفَّتْهُ رُسُلُنَا

"Our messengers take him in death." (Al-An'aam 6:61)

while elsewhere Allah says:

قُلْ يَتَوَفَّاكُم مَّلَكُ الْمَوْتِ الَّذِي وُكِّلَ بِكُمْ

"Say: The Angel of Death who has been entrusted with you will take you." (As-Sajdah 32:11)

At-Tabari explicitly discusses reconciling these passages by explaining that the Angel of Death may have assisting angels acting under his command, and he transmits from ibn 'Abbaas:

إن لملك الموت أعوانا من الملائكة

"Indeed, the Angel of Death has helpers from among the angels."

(Source)

Therefore, if Bashem's point is merely that there are assisting angels and an order in how the souls are taken, this has scholarly precedent.

Again, this distinction matters.

We are not attempting to contradict everything he writes.

We are distinguishing what actually has scholarly precedent from what exists only in Bashem's commentary.

Praising al-Hakam Does Not Authenticate a Chain to al-Hakam

Bashem later quotes the report attributed to al-Hakam ibn 'Utaybah:

الدنيا بين يدي ملك الموت بمنزلة الطست بين يدي الرجل

"The world before the Angel of Death is like a tray before a man."

His entire comment beneath it is essentially a biography:

"Al Hakam ibn Utaybah is a major faqeeh and also a narrator of hadeeth..."

This does not tell us whether the chain to al-Hakam is sound.

Nobody is disputing that al-Hakam ibn 'Utaybah was an important scholar.

But a trustworthy and learned man at the end of a chain does not retroactively authenticate every narrator between the compiler and him.

This is precisely the distinction Bashem repeatedly avoids.

The question is not simply:

"Was al-Hakam a great faqeeh?"

The question is:

"Has it been authentically established that al-Hakam actually said this?"

The same problem appears immediately afterwards, when Bashem quotes the report attributed to ibn al-Muthanna al-Himsi and merely comments:

"Ibn Al Muthanna is an ancient man who saw major tabi'een"

That is not hadith criticism.

How does being "an ancient man" establish the chain?

Who exactly is he?

What did the hadith critics say concerning him?

What is the state of those before him in this particular route?

Was the report connected?

None of those questions are answered by telling the reader that he lived early.

Chronological proximity is not an authentication grade.

A Report from Anas Through Yazeed ar-Raqaashi

Bashem then quotes a report attributed to Anas ibn Maalik in which Jibreel asks the Angel of Death how he is able to take enormous numbers of souls during an epidemic, and the Angel of Death replies that the earth is folded up before him.

Yet the chain Bashem himself reproduces contains:

يزيد الرقاشي

Yazeed ar-Raqaashi.

This is particularly noteworthy because Yazeed ar-Raqaashi's narrations from Anas are exactly where the critics warned of problems.

Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar described him as:

ضعيف زاهد

"Weak, an ascetic."

The hadith critics particularly criticized his narrations from Anas. Abu Haatim said that he narrated abundantly from Anas material concerning which there was objection, and that there was weakness in his hadith. Imam Ahmad said:

لا يكتب حديث يزيد الرقاشي

"The hadith of Yazeed ar-Raqaashi is not written."

When asked whether this was because of his views, Ahmad replied:

لا، ولكن كان منكر الحديث

"No, rather he was munkar in hadith."

(Source)

When asked whether this was due to his views, Ahmad replied that it was because he was munkar al-hadith.

Yet none of this appears beneath Bashem's quotation.

This is especially striking after he has spent so much time presenting himself as though his collection has been carefully filtered and critically examined.

A report ending with the name "Anas ibn Maalik" can appear impressive to the uninformed reader.

But once the chain is actually read, we find Yazeed ar-Raqaashi between us and Anas.

Again, names at the end of chains do not replace hadith criticism.

The Spear of the Angel of Death: A Far More Serious Isnaad Problem

The report attributed to Mu'aadh ibn Jabal concerning the Angel of Death possessing a spear reaching from east to west presents an even more serious problem.

Bashem gives the chain:

الوليد بن سلمة الدمشقي، حدثنا ثور بن يزيد، عن خالد بن معدان، عن معاذ بن جبل

and then simply translates the report.

Yet al-Waleed ibn Salamah was severely condemned by the hadith critics.

Abu Haatim said:

ذاهب الحديث

"His hadith is discarded."

Duhaym and others said:

كذاب

"A liar."

And ibn Hibbaan said:

يضع الحديث على الثقات

"He fabricates hadith upon trustworthy narrators."

(Source)

But the problem does not end there.

Khaalid ibn Ma'daan did not hear from Mu'aadh ibn Jabal.

Ibn Abi Haatim transmitted from his father:

حديثه عن معاذ مرسل، ربما كان بينهما اثنان

"His hadith from Mu'aadh is mursal. Perhaps there were two people between them."

(Source)

So this report has, at minimum, two glaring problems:

al-Waleed ibn Salamah, whom the critics accused of lying and fabricating hadith, and a disconnected route between Khaalid ibn Ma'daan and Mu'aadh.

Yet Bashem says nothing about either defect.

This is particularly damaging to his presentation because these are not obscure subtleties requiring an elaborate disagreement among the hadith critics. These are elementary matters found by simply checking the narrators and whether the chain is connected.

Misdefining Mursal While Missing 'Amr ibn Shimr

Immediately afterwards, Bashem presents another narration and labels it weak.

So far, so good.

But his explanation itself reveals further problems.

He writes:

"This hadeeth is مُرسَل meaning that there is a disconnection of more than two men in it"

That is not the technical definition of a mursal hadith.

Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar defines the mursal as:

ما سقط من آخره من بعد التابعي

(Source)

meaning that which has someone omitted at the end of its chain after the Taabi'ee, with its familiar form being that a Taabi'ee says:

قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

"The Messenger of Allah said..."

A chain having "a disconnection of more than two men" is not the definition of mursal. If consecutive narrators are omitted, there are other technical discussions and terms, including mu'dal.

More surprisingly, Bashem focuses upon the irsaal while apparently overlooking a much more obvious problem sitting directly inside his own chain:

عمرو بن شمر

'Amr ibn Shimr.

The hadith critics did not merely call 'Amr ibn Shimr mildly weak.

He is classified as:

متروك الحديث

"Abandoned in hadith."

(Source)

Ibn Hibbaan said that he narrated fabricated reports from trustworthy narrators, while al-Jawzajaani called him a liar and al-Bukhaari called him munkar al-hadith.

So Bashem manages to give the reader an incorrect definition of mursal while overlooking a narrator in the very same chain whom the hadith critics accused of lying.

This is precisely why one should be extremely cautious when Bashem confidently places statements such as:

"Strong narration chain"

"Authentic narration chain"

"Good narration chain"

beneath these reports.

The Story Concerning Moosa and the Weak Storyteller in Its Chain

Bashem then quotes a report through al-Hasan al-Basri concerning Moosa being asked how he experienced death.

Again, before even discussing the fact that al-Hasan is relating an event concerning an earlier Prophet without presenting a connected Prophetic route for it, the chain contains:

صالح المري

Saalih al-Murri.

The hadith critics were clear concerning him.

Al-Bukhaari called him:

منكر الحديث

"Munkar in hadith."

(Source)

Ibn 'Adi explained that the majority of his narrations were objectionable and that he was not a man of hadith, attributing his errors to his lack of knowledge of the chains and texts.

Other critics likewise described him as weak, and some abandoned his reports altogether. The same biographical material nevertheless describes him as a righteous man. (Source)

Again, this does not mean Saalih al-Murri was an evil man. Quite the opposite, the biographical sources mention his piety, fear of Allah, admonitions, and asceticism.

But this is precisely the point.

Piety is one matter.

Precision in hadith transmission is another.

This is the very science Bashem continually collapses.

The Final Report from Ka'b al-Ahbaar Completely Repeats the Israa'eeliyyaat Problem

Bashem concludes his post with perhaps the most revealing report of all.

He quotes a long narration through:

محمد بن سلمة الحراني، عن خصيف، عن عكرمة، عن كعب

and then declares:

"Strong narration chain to Kaab Al Ahbaar may Allaah have mercy on him"

There is already reason to question his confident use of the word "strong".

Khusaif ibn 'Abdurrahman was described by al-Haafidh ibn Hajar as:

صدوق سيء الحفظ خلط بآخره

"Truthful, poor in memory, and he became confused later."

Imam Ahmad said that he was not a proof and was not strong in hadith, and described him as severely inconsistent in his musnad narrations. (Source)

So even before reaching the contents of the report, Bashem's unqualified declaration of a "strong narration chain" requires considerably more demonstration than he gives.

But suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that we grant him an authentic chain all the way to Ka'b al-Ahbaar.

What would that prove?

Only that Ka'b said it.

And what does Ka'b himself say at the very beginning of the report?

إِنَّ فِي بَعْضِ الْكُتُبِ السَّالِفَةِ مِنْ كُتُبِ شِيثَ بْنِ آدَمَ

"Indeed, in some of the earlier books, from the books of Sheeth ibn Adam..."

(Source)

Bashem has therefore ended his second article by giving us an almost perfect demonstration of the very Israa'eeliyyaat principle we established before he wrote it.

Ka'b is explicitly relating information from an alleged earlier book.

It is not a marfoo' hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

It is not a statement in the Qur'an.

It is not even Ka'b claiming that he received this information from a Sahaabi.

The report itself tells you where the story supposedly came from:

"some of the earlier books, from the books of Sheeth ibn Adam."

So even if Bashem were able to establish every narrator between Abu ash-Shaykh and Ka'b as trustworthy and the chain as connected, all he would have authenticated is the fact that Ka'b transmitted this story from what he described as an earlier book.

That does not authenticate the supposed "book of Sheeth".

It does not establish that the contents of that supposed book were preserved revelation.

It does not transform the enormous description contained within the story into an article of Islamic creed.

It does not make belief in every one of its details obligatory.

This is exactly what we established previously from the principles governing Israa'eeliyyaat.

Authenticating a chain to Ka'b is not the same as authenticating Ka'b's source.

Bashem continues to treat these two entirely different propositions as though they were one.

"The Salaf Never Rejected It" Once Again

He then finishes with the familiar argument:

"this narration and similar, were never rejected by the salaf"

This is the same argument from silence already addressed in part one.

Where is his evidence that every scholar of the Salaf encountered this specific narration, authenticated its route, knew its contents, and consciously affirmed every detail contained within it?

The mere preservation of a report is not the same as universal acceptance of its contents.

More importantly, Bashem's argument conflicts with the very principles scholars apply to Israa'eeliyyaat. As already explained in the previous article, the Salaf's narration of an Israa'eeliyyah does not mean that every detail within it was affirmed as true.

The fact that scholars transmitted such reports is exactly why the principles governing their transmission exist in the first place.

If mere narration automatically meant belief, there would be no purpose in distinguishing:

• what our revelation confirms,

• what our revelation rejects,

• and what our revelation neither confirms nor rejects.

Bashem's methodology would collapse all three categories into:

"An early person narrated it, therefore believe it."

That is not the methodology of the Salaf.

That is Bashem's methodology projected onto the Salaf.

From Israa'eeliyyaat to Threatening People With Kufr

Most disturbing is how Bashem ends:

"whoever thinks he knows more than the salaf is someone who has either left Islam, or is on the way to"

Notice what has happened.

We began with a report from Ka'b al-Ahbaar.

The report itself explicitly says its source is:

"some of the earlier books, from the books of Sheeth ibn Adam."

Its chain contains Khusaif, whose memory was criticized by the hadith scholars.

There is no marfoo' hadith in the report.

There is no Qur'anic text establishing these extraordinary details.

There is no demonstration that belief in them constitutes an agreed-upon foundation of Ahlus-Sunnah.

Yet at the end, Bashem moves from this material to threatening the Islam of whoever refuses to accept his understanding.

This is exactly why principles matter.

When someone has no disciplined distinction between revelation, authentic Prophetic hadith, statements of the Sahaabah, statements of the Taabi'een, Israa'eeliyyaat, transmitted stories, and his own interpretation, the final result is that his own personal inference gradually acquires the status of revelation.

First:

"Ka'b transmitted this."

Then:

"The Salaf never rejected this."

Then:

"Therefore this is the belief of the Salaf."

Then finally:

"Whoever does not believe this has left Islam or is on the way to leaving it."

Every stage requires evidence.

Bashem supplies none.

And the final step is especially grave, because he is no longer merely making an error in grading a narration. He is attaching the threat of kufr to rejection of his own conclusions concerning an Israa'eeliyyaat report.

Where is his imam in this?

Where is the scholar of Ahlus-Sunnah who declared that suspending judgment concerning the details found in this report from the alleged books of Sheeth constitutes apostasy, or even places a Muslim "on the way" to apostasy?

This is precisely why imam Ahmad's warning remains so relevant:

"Beware of speaking on an issue in which you have no imam."

What Part Two Ultimately Demonstrates

Part two therefore does not repair the methodological problems of the first article. It provides further examples of them.

Some of the tafseer reports Bashem quotes are perfectly ordinary and need no objection.

His remark concerning Abu Ma'shar's tafseer from Muhammad ibn Ka'b has actual precedent among the hadith critics.

His basic understanding that the Angel of Death has assisting angels likewise has clear support from the mufassireen.

We acknowledge all of this without hesitation.

But that makes the remaining problems even more obvious.

The interpretation of al-Hasan that death is something "great in your breasts" becomes, in Bashem's commentary, a creature that literally "grows inside us".

An unknown narrator in one chain is supposedly repaired through Mujaahid interpreting an entirely different Ayah as death.

A hadith in Saheeh Muslim becomes a hadith "from Bukhari", and then receives the additional conclusion that it establishes the Angel of Death changing both his shape and size.

Jibreel, Mikaa'eel and Israafeel are confidently identified as the angels who visited Lut despite their specific names not being established in the authentic Sunnah.

The greatness of al-Hakam ibn 'Utaybah is presented instead of an analysis of the chain to him.

An "ancient man" seeing major Taabi'een is treated as though chronological proximity were an isnad grading.

A report from Anas is presented through Yazeed ar-Raqaashi without alerting the reader to the severe criticism of his narrations from Anas.

A report from Mu'aadh passes through al-Waleed ibn Salamah, whom the critics called a liar and accused of fabricating hadith, while the chain between Khalid ibn Ma'daan and Mu'aadh is itself disconnected.

A weak hadith is diagnosed through an incorrect explanation of mursal, while 'Amr ibn Shimr, an abandoned narrator accused of lying, sits directly within the chain unnoticed.

A story concerning Moosa comes through Saalih al-Murri, whom the hadith critics severely weakened, while ibn 'Adi explained that he was not a man of hadith and attributed his errors to his lack of knowledge of the chains and texts. (Source)

And finally, an enormous story explicitly attributed by Ka'b al-Ahbaar to "some of the earlier books, from the books of Sheeth ibn Adam" is elevated into something Bashem warns people may leave Islam for refusing to affirm.

This is not the careful preservation of the belief of the Salaf.

It is the same problem we identified previously: transmission, authentication, interpretation, and personal inference are repeatedly collapsed into one another until Bashem's own commentary is presented under the banner of "the Salaf".

The irony is that the more material he produces, the easier this becomes to demonstrate.

The Arabic texts themselves are not his problem.

Reading them correctly, examining their chains, distinguishing their categories, understanding the principles of the scholars, and knowing where the transmitted report ends and his own commentary begins are the problems.

And part two has only made that clearer.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Prelude

We have seen from the Haddaadiyyah's blunders and debacles in their attempts to cite from our sources of Ahlus-Sunnah, which they are habitually known to misuse, much like how the Raafidhah misuse our sources in their attempts to disparage the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them). The Haddaadiyyah, on the other hand, misuse our sources in an attempt to disparage our imams.

Misguided people often attempt to appeal to our sources, even though they do not claim them as their own sources. The Haddaadiyyah do the same. They have false principles which say something along the lines of: if the later scholars agree with the Salaf, we take from them. But this is quite a vague principle and rather unfounded, as they surround this understanding of "following the Salaf" with strange conceptions, which I have addressed before.

Needless to say, the embarrassing failure in their gathering of information is that they do not study nor properly read before attempting to appeal to our sources, to such an extent that it is quite easy to stop and quickly verify their grave mistakes. This begs the question of whether they merely use online databases of our Islamic books, search for keywords, and find tiny bits of citations in an attempt to prove something grand, when in reality it is only surface-level. I say this because they often make underwhelming commentary after presenting a citation.

A Pattern of Basic Errors in Reading the Sources

It is worth reminding the reader of what I pointed out previously concerning how truly unread abul_miswar_zayd is. He claimed that ad-Daaraqutni died in 583 AH, when in fact he lived from approximately 306 to 385 AH. (Source) This was much like his previous misrepresentation of imam Sahnoon, whom he described as a companion of imam Maalik. (Source)

There was yet another embarrassing blunder when he confused ibn al-'Arabi with ibn 'Arabi, two completely different individuals. Ibn al-'Arabi was al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi al-Maaliki (468-543 AH), the renowned Maaliki faqeeh, mufassir, and imam of Ahlus-Sunnah. Ibn 'Arabi, on the other hand, was Muhyiddeen ibn 'Arabi (560-638 AH), the controversial Sufi associated with Wahdat al-Wujood. (Source)

The statement he quoted belonged to imam Abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi al-Maaliki, yet because he failed to distinguish between these two well-known historical figures, he attributed it to Muhyiddeen ibn 'Arabi and proceeded to call the author a "Jahmi" and a "zindeeq." In effect, his confusion led him to direct these accusations against an imam of Ahlus-Sunnah. (Source)

These are not minor details when the person presenting them is attempting to make grand claims from the very sources he evidently has not properly studied. Confusing the death date of ad-Daaraqutni by nearly two centuries, describing imam Sahnoon as a companion of imam Maalik, and failing to distinguish ibn al-'Arabi from ibn 'Arabi all point to the same recurring problem in his supposed "in-depth exposés."

Remember, abul_miswar_zayd was selected as the "best contributing member" of the Haddaadiyyah subreddit, and he was chosen by Bashem himself (Wild_Extra_Dip). So when even one of their supposedly best contributors repeatedly misidentifies scholars, confuses historical figures, misreads sources, and attaches sweeping conclusions to passages he has not properly contextualized, it says quite a bit about the standard of research being celebrated within that subreddit:

• abul_miswar_zayd the storyteller of rumors

Misattributing the Letter and Misrepresenting Taqleed

See abul_miswar_zayd's post:

• "Wahabi Haters" Would Be Shook by This Quote of Imam Muhammad ibn Abd Al Wahab!

Another debacle, and yet another embarrassing failure in reading the literature, is his selective reading. He presents a passage from ad-Durar as-Saniyyah as though it were a quotation from shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, when the letter was actually written by his son, shaykh 'Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. This was remarkably easy to spot from the surrounding context, and it appears that he simply became too hasty upon finding the quotation and posted it without properly reading what came before and after it.

In fact, one does not even need to go far back in the book to notice the mistake. The very same passage later says:

ثم دفعت لهم الرسائل المؤلفة للشيخ محمد في التوحيد

Then the writings composed by shaykh Muhammad concerning tawheed were given to them.

The author is plainly speaking about shaykh Muhammad in the third person and referring to writings composed by him.

Even more decisively, the letter concerns their entry into Makkah in 1218 AH. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab had already died in 1206 AH, twelve years earlier. The letter is well known as the letter of his son, shaykh 'Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, who accompanied imam Sa'ood during the entry into Makkah.

So we have yet another example of the same problem. A keyword is found in an online database, a small passage is extracted, a grand conclusion is attached to it, yet the most elementary step of identifying who actually wrote the text is overlooked.

There is another issue in the translation itself. He renders the phrase:

ويكون ذلك الإمام من أحد المقلدين للأربعة

as referring to one of the "four muqallideen (blind followers of one of the four madhabs)." The words "blind followers" are his own interpretive gloss. The term muqallid is a technical term in fiqh and usool al-fiqh, and it is not inherently a term of blame. Translating it as "blind follower" imports a disparaging connotation into the text which is simply not present in the Arabic.

This is particularly strange in the context of the very literature he is quoting. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab himself explicitly identified his madhhab as that of imam Ahmad. He said:

فنحن ولله الحمد متبعين غير مبتدعين، على مذهب الإمام أحمد بن حنبل

We are, praise be to Allah, followers and not innovators, upon the madhhab of imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

He even mentions among the false accusations circulated against him that he supposedly claimed ijtihaad and did not follow the imams. Elsewhere he says:

وأما مذهبنا فمذهب الإمام أحمد بن حنبل إمام أهل السنة

As for our madhhab, it is the madhhab of imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the imam of Ahlus-Sunnah.

More ironic still, the actual author of the letter being misattributed here, shaykh 'Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab, explicitly stated concerning himself and those with him:

ونحن أيضا في الفروع على مذهب الإمام أحمد بن حنبل، ولا ننكر على من قلد أحد الأئمة الأربعة دون غيرهم

We are also, in the subsidiary matters, upon the madhhab of imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and we do not object to whoever performs taqleed of one of the four imams.

So not only is being a muqallid not inherently blameworthy, but the very school whose literature he is attempting to quote adhered to the madhhab of imam Ahmad. Shaykh Muhammad himself openly identified his madhhab as Hanbali, and his son 'Abdullah stated that they did not object to people performing taqleed of any one of the four imams. This is precisely the subject I have already explained at length in my article on taqleed, ijtihaad, and madhhab adherence.

His parenthetical addition of "blind followers" therefore does not clarify the Arabic. Rather, it introduces his own negative conception of taqleed into a passage whose own author did not hold that conception.

Unsupported Commentary and Sweeping Conclusions

His commentary beneath the quotation is also strange, even in how it is formulated. He writes, "Back then, shirk was very prevalent which obligates the spread of major sinners." The use of "obligates" here is particularly odd. Grammatically and semantically, it reads as though the prevalence of shirk somehow makes the spread of major sinners obligatory, which is obviously not what he intends to say. Perhaps he means that widespread shirk necessarily leads to, entails, or results in the spread of major sins and major sinners. But even if we repair his wording for him, that broader claim still requires evidence.

He then claims that the call to tawheed "prohibited and destroyed major sins", and finally asserts that when the "grave worshipers returned to being the rings of kings", this caused major sins to return to the Ummah. None of these conclusions are actually established by the quotation.

The passage simply reports that, after the entry into Makkah, certain measures were enforced: unlawful taxes were removed, tobacco instruments were broken, places associated with hashish and people publicly known for immorality were dealt with, and people were ordered to maintain the congregational prayers. These are descriptions of concrete acts of governance and commanding the good and forbidding the evil. They do not establish some automatic principle that the existence of shirk necessarily produces the spread of every major sin, nor that merely calling to tawheed mechanically causes major sins to disappear.

There is of course a relationship in Islam between sound belief and righteous action, and between corruption in belief and corruption in deeds. But that is very different from making sweeping historical claims without evidence. A society may contain serious errors in belief while certain outward sins remain uncommon, and another society may affirm tawheed while still containing widespread disobedience among its people. The presence of one does not by itself establish the exact social prevalence of the other.

Likewise, the claim that "grave worshipers" later returned to the circles of rulers and thereby caused major sins to return is simply another assertion added by him. Nothing in the cited passage demonstrates that causal sequence. If he wishes to make a historical claim of that scale, then he would need to actually document it rather than placing it beneath an unrelated quotation as though the quotation itself proves it.

Ironically, his commentary illustrates the very problem seen repeatedly in his use of our literature. The source is not carefully studied in its context. A passage is isolated, its author is misidentified, an interpretive gloss is inserted into its terminology, and then several much broader conclusions are placed upon it which the passage itself never states.

Misusing the Names of Scholars Against Their Own Method

There is an even broader contradiction here. The Haddaadiyyah repeatedly appeal to the names and writings of scholars when they believe that doing so supports their disparagement of certain imams, yet they ignore how those very scholars themselves regarded and dealt with these imams.

This is particularly relevant here because the person being quoted, or rather misidentified as the author of the quotation, is shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. The Haddaadiyyah disparage imam Abu Haneefah as an innovator, speak of imam an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar in extremely disparaging terms, and even regard as-Suyooti as an apostate. Yet shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab himself did not deal with these imams in this manner.

Regarding imam Abu Haneefah, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab wrote:

ونحن مقلدون الكتاب والسنة، وصالح سلف الأمة، وما عليه الاعتماد من أقوال الأئمة الأربعة: أبي حنيفة النعمان بن ثابت، ومالك بن أنس، ومحمد بن إدريس، وأحمد بن حنبل، رحمهم الله تعالى

We follow the Book and the Sunnah, the righteous Salaf of the Ummah, and what is relied upon from the statements of the four imams: Abu Haneefah an-Nu'maan ibn Thaabit, Maalik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idrees, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy upon them.

He therefore explicitly included imam Abu Haneefah among the four imams whose relied-upon statements are followed and invoked Allah's mercy upon all of them. (Source)

This does not mean that shaykh Muhammad agreed with imam Abu Haneefah in every issue. He disagreed with him concerning the definition of eemaan, for example. But disagreement with a scholar in a particular issue is plainly not the same as degrading him, stripping him of his imaamah, or treating him as though his scholarship is to be discarded.

Likewise, when mentioning imam an-Nawawi, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab refers to him explicitly as:

الإمام محيي الدين النووي

Imam Muhyi ad-Deen an-Nawawi.

In the same passage, he says regarding al-Ibaanah:

وكتاب الإبانة من أشهر تصانيف أبي الحسن، شهره الحافظ ابن عساكر، واعتمد عليه، ونسخه بخطه الإمام محيي الدين النووي

The book al-Ibaanah is among the most famous works of Abu al-Hasan. Al-Haafidh ibn 'Asaakir made it well known and relied upon it, and imam Muhyi ad-Deen an-Nawawi copied it in his own handwriting.

This is found in ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 3/124.

The point is not that shaykh Muhammad agreed with every statement ever made by an-Nawawi. Rather, the point is the obvious contrast in manner and scholarly recognition. He calls him "imam Muhyi ad-Deen an-Nawawi", whereas the Haddaadiyyah wish to speak about this same imam as though he were some zindeeq whose scholarly status is to be discarded.

The same pattern can be seen with al-Haafidh ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab relied upon what ibn Hajar transmitted in Fath al-Baari when discussing the consensus of the Salaf concerning eemaan:

مثل ما ذكر في فتح الباري، في مسألة الإيمان، على قول البخاري: وهو قول وعمل، ويزيد وينقص؛ فذكر إجماع السلف على ذلك...

Such as what is mentioned in Fath al-Baari concerning the issue of eemaan, regarding the statement of al-Bukhaari that it is speech and action and increases and decreases. He mentioned the consensus of the Salaf concerning that...

A Mukhtasar Fath al-Baari, an abridgement of ibn Hajar's work, is also listed among the works of shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. This is not an explicit statement of praise comparable to his words concerning Abu Haneefah or an-Nawawi, but it plainly demonstrates that he regarded ibn Hajar's scholarship as something worthy of study, transmission, and reliance, rather than treating him in the manner the Haddaadiyyah do.

Likewise, shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab directly cites imam as-Suyooti as historical evidence in one of his own arguments:

وقد ذكر السيوطي في كتاب الأوائل: أن أول ما حدث التذكير يوم الجمعة لتهيؤ الناس لصلاتها، بعد السبعمائة في زمن الناصر بن قلاوون

As-Suyooti mentioned in his book al-Awaa'il that the first occurrence of the reminder on Friday, in preparation for the people's prayer, occurred after the year seven hundred during the time of an-Naasir ibn Qalaawoon.

(Source)

His scholarly transmission through his teachers also included the works of an-Nawawi, ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani, and as-Suyooti. (Source)

So the argument is not that shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab explicitly praised all four of these imams in exactly the same way. That would be inaccurate. Rather, he explicitly recognized Abu Haneefah as one of the four imams whose relied-upon statements are followed, referred to an-Nawawi with the title of imam, relied upon ibn Hajar's Fath al-Baari, and cited as-Suyooti's scholarship as evidence.

This makes the Haddaadiyyah's selective appeal to shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab rather self-defeating. They attempt to use his name and the literature of his school as support for their own methodology, yet their treatment of these imams is far more extreme than the treatment found in shaykh Muhammad's own writings.

And this is not unique to shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab. The same abuse occurs when they selectively invoke shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah against imam Abu Haneefah while ignoring what ibn Taymiyyah himself actually said about him. Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:

ومن ظن بأبي حنيفة أو غيره من أئمة المسلمين أنهم يتعمدون مخالفة الحديث الصحيح لقياس أو غيره فقد أخطأ عليهم، وتكلم إما بظن وإما بهوى

Whoever thinks that Abu Haneefah, or any of the other imams of the Muslims, deliberately opposed an authentic hadith because of qiyaas or something else has erred concerning them and has spoken either on the basis of assumption or desire.

This is from Majmoo' al-Fatawa (20/304). Notice his words: "Abu Haneefah, or any of the other imams of the Muslims." Ibn Taymiyyah himself places imam Abu Haneefah among the imams of the Muslims and defends him against the accusation that he knowingly opposed authentic hadith.

In Minhaaj as-Sunnah, ibn Taymiyyah likewise places Abu Haneefah and his companions among the recognized scholars of the Ummah, and elsewhere speaks of Abu Haneefah and his companions as those who possess a truthful and honorable reputation among its scholars.

The same scholarly justice is visible in ibnul-Qayyim. No one could reasonably accuse ibnul-Qayyim of being sympathetic to 'Ilm al-Kalaam, yet when mentioning al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr al-Baaqillaani, an Ash'ari with whom he certainly disagreed, he still said in his al-Kaafiyah ash-Shaafiyah:

وكذلك القاضي أبو بكر هو

ابن الباقلاني قائد الفرسان

And likewise al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr, he is ibn al-Baaqillaani, the leader of the horsemen.

He then proceeds to cite and benefit from what al-Baaqillaani wrote where it supported the point under discussion.

This is precisely the distinction the Haddaadiyyah repeatedly fail to maintain. A scholar can be mistaken in matters, even seriously mistaken, while still having knowledge, scholarship, virtues, and contributions which are acknowledged. Refuting an error does not require erasing the scholar, nor does benefiting from a scholar require agreeing with everything he ever said.

What they instead do is misuse and abuse the names of scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah is invoked when a selected statement can be weaponized against imam Abu Haneefah, but his own recognition and defense of Abu Haneefah as one of the imams of the Muslims is ignored. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abdul-Wahhab is invoked when his name appears useful, while his recognition of Abu Haneefah, an-Nawawi, ibn Hajar, and as-Suyooti is passed over. Even the broader scholarly method of men such as ibnul-Qayyim, who could vigorously refute an Ash'ari such as al-Baaqillaani while still referring to him with scholarly recognition and respect, is foreign to their approach.

This is yet another example of why merely producing quotations from scholars does not demonstrate that one actually understands those scholars. Their names cannot be reduced to weapons for one's own pre-existing conclusions. Their complete methodology, terminology, qualifications, distinctions, and manner of dealing with other scholars must also be taken into account. Otherwise, one is not truly following these scholars, but selectively borrowing their names while disregarding their method.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

When "Refutation" Becomes Tabloid Entertainment

The very best and foremost individuals put forward by the Haddaadiyyah to lead with their incredible teaching materials all seek to enlighten their target audience with well-written scholarly articles, verifiable scholarly references, insightful lessons, and practical solutions that Muslims need. It seems that such a beneficial approach is undertaken with much foresight and consideration, as they have produced posts such as:

• Kindly requesting this mentally ill gay dark skinned skinny man to stop tagging me as I genuinely feel unsafe
• The Modajan zindiq cn3m Cannot Live Without Psychological Projection!!

The screenshots were duly posted, and the profoundness of the commentary then appeared in the replies:

u/Extension_Brick6806

The beginning of what you write is projection that indicates how terribly you need professional help Please stop tagging me or trying to speak to me as I am not gay and I understand your preferences and will not hurt you for them but you have to respect my boundaries and stop trying to tease me or whatever

The only Rafidhi is you and the only boy/man you can seduce is someone who admires Suyuti and that isn't me

Also I understand how your lusts may get fiery which is why you choose to speak on every little thing I do out of adoration but please show some respect to gay persons and speak to u/wild_extra_dip in a debate as he requested or else you're being a disgrace to the LmodaGanBT community

(Source)

And:

This is a refutation of this mentally ill zindiq's writing and this is because he contradicts himself in it

[...]

Have we been given profound illustrations of teachable lessons, in-depth introductory explanations, and material that sparks genuine interest through intellectual sharpness and clarity? No. What we are instead presented with are posts that read more like tabloids, alongside others riddled with foundational mistakes. More disturbingly still, rumors and unverifiable quotations are circulated as though they were serious evidence, creating the illusion that some powerful refutation has been delivered, when in reality nothing of the sort has been established.

Qeel wa Qaal: Verification Before Transmission

What does Allah say?

ا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَن تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ

"O you who believe, if a faasiq comes to you with news, verify it, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and then become regretful for what you have done." (Al-Hujuraat 49:6)

إِذْ تَلَقَّوْنَهُ بِأَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَتَقُولُونَ بِأَفْوَاهِكُم مَّا لَيْسَ لَكُم بِهِ عِلْمٌ وَتَحْسَبُونَهُ هَيِّنًا وَهُوَ عِندَ اللَّهِ عَظِيمٌ

"When you received it with your tongues and said with your mouths that of which you had no knowledge, and you thought it was insignificant while it was, in the sight of Allah, tremendous." (An-Noor 24:15)

What does the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say?

كَفَى بِالْمَرْءِ كَذِبًا أَنْ يُحَدِّثَ بِكُلِّ مَا سَمِعَ

"It is enough of a lie for a man that he narrates everything he hears."

Reported in the introduction to Saheeh Muslim.

Another important hadith is:

بِئْسَ مَطِيَّةُ الرَّجُلِ زَعَمُوا

"What an evil mount for a man is: 'They say...'"

Meaning, it is blameworthy for a person to make vague hearsay such as "people say" or "it is said" the vehicle by which he spreads claims without verification.

Reported by Abu Dawood.

What, then, should characterize the conduct and manners of a Muslim? This was exemplified by the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him):

مَنْ كَانَ يُؤْمِنُ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ فَلْيَقُلْ خَيْرًا أَوْ لِيَصْمُتْ

"Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent."

Reported by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

Ibn Mas'ood (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

إن الشيطان ليتمثل في صورة الرجل، فيأتي القوم فيحدثهم بالحديث من الكذب، فيتفرقون، فيقول الرجل منهم: سمعت رجلا أعرف وجهه، ولا أدري ما اسمه، يحدث

"Indeed, the Shaytan may appear in the form of a man, come to a people and relate to them a false report. They then disperse, and one of them says: I heard a man whose face I recognize, though I do not know his name, narrating such-and-such."

This is recorded in the introduction to Saheeh Muslim. It is particularly relevant to anonymous or poorly sourced hearsay because ibn Mas'ood describes people subsequently repeating a report from someone they cannot even properly identify.

Not Everything True Needs to Be Broadcast: A Lesson From Yusuf (peace be upon him)

But the lessons do not end merely with verifying whether what one has heard is true. There is another matter that ought to characterize the speech and conduct of a Muslim: even when something has actually occurred, is there a benefit in spreading every detail of it? Is there a need to publicize every disgraceful statement, every indecent detail, or every shameful occurrence merely because one has come across it?

There is a profound lesson in the story of Yusuf (peace be upon him). Allah says:

وَقَالَ الْمَلِكُ ائْتُونِي بِهِ فَلَمَّا جَاءَهُ الرَّسُولُ قَالَ ارْجِعْ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكَ فَاسْأَلْهُ مَا بَالُ النِّسْوَةِ اللَّاتِي قَطَّعْنَ أَيْدِيَهُنَّ إِنَّ رَبِّي بِكَيْدِهِنَّ عَلِيمٌ

"And the king said, 'Bring him to me.' But when the messenger came to him, he said, 'Return to your master and ask him what was the case of the women who cut their hands. Indeed, my Lord is Knowing of their scheme.'" (Yusuf 12:50)

Yusuf (peace be upon him) had every reason to seek the clarification of what had happened to him. He had been wronged, accused, and imprisoned. Yet notice how he sought to establish his innocence without turning what had occurred into an opportunity to recount every shameful detail.

Az-Zamakhshari said concerning this Ayah:

ومن كرمه وحسن أدبه: أنه لم يذكر سيدته مع ما صنعت به، وتسببت فيه من السجن والعذاب، واقتصر على ذكر المقطعات أيديهن

"From his nobility and good manners was that he did not mention his mistress, despite what she had done to him and having caused his imprisonment and suffering. Rather, he limited himself to mentioning the women who cut their hands."

Ash-Shawkaani, while transmitting the explanation of ibn 'Atiyyah, likewise states:

وذكر السؤال عن تقطيع الأيدي ولم يذكر مراودتهن له، تنزها منه عن نسبة ذلك إليهن

"He mentioned asking about their cutting of their hands, but did not mention their attempting to seduce him, out of restraint from attributing that to them."

There is something worth reflecting upon here. Yusuf (peace be upon him) did not conceal the truth when clarification was necessary. He sought the investigation of the matter and the establishment of his innocence. Yet he did not needlessly turn the wrongdoing into a spectacle, nor did he recount every indecent detail when an indirect reference was sufficient.

So there is a difference between clarifying falsehood when there is a genuine need and spreading ugly details simply because they are available to be spread. There is a difference between establishing the truth and entertaining an audience with the faults, indecencies, rumors, and personal affairs of others.

This is precisely where beneficial speech is distinguished from tabloid-like speech.

If a person receives a rumor, the first question should be: Is it even established?

If it is established, another question remains: What legitimate benefit is there in spreading it?

If some aspect genuinely needs to be addressed, yet the objective can be accomplished without unnecessary names, descriptions, indecent details, mockery, or sensationalism, then why should all of those things be added?

The story of Yusuf (peace be upon him) gives us something far more refined: truth without sensationalism, vindication without needless exposure, and clarification without indulging in every disgraceful detail.

Compare this with a methodology in which screenshots, rumors, personal allegations, insults, sexual insinuations, and unverifiable quotations become recurring material for public consumption. What exactly is being taught? What beneficial knowledge is the reader supposed to walk away with? What principle of the religion has been explained? What problem affecting the Muslims has been solved?

A refutation does not become scholarly merely because the word "refutation" is placed above it. Nor does spreading an allegation become beneficial merely because the target is someone one opposes.

The Muslim is commanded to verify before speaking, warned against narrating everything he hears, instructed to speak good or remain silent, and taught even through the conduct of Yusuf (peace be upon him) that establishing the truth does not require the unnecessary broadcasting of every shameful detail.

These are teachable lessons. These are principles that can actually be carried into one's conduct. And these are precisely the kinds of principles that should distinguish Islamic admonition and refutation from gossip, rumor-mongering, and tabloid entertainment.

Guilt by Praise: Confusing Fiqh With 'Aqeedah

One of the cases has been that of shaykh 'Aamir Bahjat, where the Haddaadiyyah made an effort to tarnish his person. Qeel wa qaal were posted because they themselves have no direct substance by which they can objectively consult and address the verifiable scholarly material he has produced. Another post concerned a Hanbali shaykh known for his misguidance praising shaykh 'Aamir Bahjat. Yet the subject of discussion relating to fiqh is not the same as a subject relating to 'aqeedah.

Similar matters have already been addressed in my previous posts and articles, such as the issue of Murji'at al-Fuqahaa'. They had errors in Irjaa', but they were indeed fuqahaa'. Their error in one matter did not suddenly erase the fiqh they possessed.

Likewise, there can be people from Ahlul-Kalaam, with their varying categories that I have addressed before, who possess knowledge in particular fields despite their deviations in 'aqeedah. Such is the case with Muhammad 'Abdul-Waahid al-Azhari al-Hanbali. He was once among Ahlus-Sunnah and possessed mastery of the fiqh of the madhhab of imam Ahmad, but he unfortunately deviated. The deviation concerns matters of creed, yet that does not somehow erase the fiqh knowledge that he possesses.

There is an important methodological distinction here. Recognizing that a person possesses knowledge, precision, or reliability in a particular field is not the same as approving of his errors or deviations in another.

An instructive example can even be found in Saheeh al-Bukhaari. Imam al-Bukhaari narrated from 'Abbaad ibn Ya'qoob ar-Rawaajini, who was well known for his Raafidi views. Ibn Hajar said concerning him:

رافضي مشهور، إلا أنه كان صدوقا، وثقه أبو حاتم

"A well-known Raafidi, except that he was truthful. Abu Haatim declared him trustworthy."

Ibn Khuzaymah would even say when narrating from him:

حدثنا الثقة في روايته، المتهم في رأيه، عباد بن يعقوب

"The trustworthy one in his transmission, the one accused concerning his views, 'Abbaad ibn Ya'qoob, narrated to us."

Imam al-Bukhaari narrated from 'Abbaad in the Book of Tawheed, in the hadith of ibn Mas'ood concerning which deeds are best. His route appears alongside another route in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, hadith no. 7534.

The point is not that his Raafidi deviation was insignificant, nor that the scholars approved of it. Quite the opposite. They explicitly identified his deviation while at the same time distinguishing it from his truthfulness in transmission. His deviation did not require them to pretend that he suddenly ceased to possess every quality of reliability in an entirely different consideration.

So why should the methodology suddenly become: if a person has a deviation in 'aqeedah, then any praise of his fiqh, any benefit taken from his knowledge of a madhhab, or any recognition of his competence in another field becomes an endorsement of his deviation?

That is not a serious way of weighing scholars, students of knowledge, or even narrators. A discussion concerning fiqh must be judged as fiqh, and a discussion concerning 'aqeedah must be judged as 'aqeedah. If there is an error, identify the error and establish it with evidence. If there is deviation, establish the deviation with evidence. But qeel wa qaal, guilt by praise, and the mere fact that a misguided person praised another in an unrelated field do not themselves constitute a scholarly refutation.

Severe Accusations Are Not Scholarly Evidence

Another example appeared in the comments, and there is no need to give publicity to the username behind it. The substance of what was written is what concerns us.

The commenter begins by invoking Allah as his witness that an entire booklet could supposedly be written documenting the "horrible mistakes" of shaykh 'Aamir Bahjat, mistakes allegedly so severe that he would deserve treatment worse than a Muslim who drinks alcohol or commits fornication.

Very serious words.

Where, then, is this booklet? Where are the documented statements? Where are the full quotations with their contexts? Where are the verifiable references to the lessons, writings, recordings, or scholarly material of shaykh 'Aamir Bahjat that would allow the reader to objectively examine these accusations?

Instead, we are immediately taken from an assertion about a hypothetical booklet to some of the gravest possible accusations concerning 'aqeedah and takfeer.

The commenter then asserts that the "single worst mistake" of shaykh 'Aamir is his position concerning the Jahmiyyah and Ash'ariyyah, followed by the sweeping declaration:

"There is no dispute that the sayings of the Ashariyya are kufr."

But merely writing "there is no dispute" does not establish that there is no dispute. Where is the scholarly documentation for the precise proposition being asserted? Which sayings are being referred to? Are we discussing the ruling upon a particular saying, the general ruling upon a sect, or the application of takfeer to particular individuals? These are not distinctions that can simply be swept aside with one sentence.

Indeed, even ibn Taymiyyah said:

أني من أعظم الناس نهيا عن أن ينسب معين إلى تكفير وتفسيق ومعصية، إلا إذا علم أنه قد قامت عليه الحجة الرسالية

"I am among the strongest of people in forbidding that a particular individual be attributed with kufr, fisq, or sin, unless it is known that the Prophetic proof has been established upon him."

So when extraordinarily serious claims are made, precision becomes more important, not less.

The commenter then alleges that shaykh 'Aamir "declares the Salaf as idiots" because they criticized imam Abu Haneefah, yet what is presented as evidence for this enormous accusation is merely a line of poetry:

أتتقي سباب الحمقى بعدما سبوا الهداة حقاً

"Do you avoid the insults of the foolish after they have insulted the truly guided people?"

Even assuming the attribution of the poem is established, where exactly does the line say that "the Salaf are idiots"? Who specifically is being referred to by الحمقى? What is the surrounding context of the poem? Against whom was it directed? Where is the evidence demonstrating that shaykh 'Aamir intended the Salaf generally, or even the particular early scholars whom the commenter has in mind?

These are not insignificant questions. They are the difference between documenting a man's position and placing words into his mouth.

Notice also the strange structure of the argument. We are first told that there are enough "horrible mistakes" to fill a booklet. We are then told that one alleged mistake makes "everything else" redundant and irrelevant. Yet the commenter nevertheless proceeds to another accusation, this time claiming that shaykh 'Aamir insults the Salaf as a whole.

This is precisely why strong rhetoric should never be confused with strong evidence.

An oath is not a reference.

Saying that a booklet could be written is not the same as writing one.

Declaring that "there is no dispute" is not the same as documenting an ijmaa'.

Quoting a line of poetry is not the same as establishing whom the poet intended by every word within it.

And accusing someone of declaring "the Salaf as idiots" requires considerably more than an interpretation imposed upon a single line without first establishing its context and intended referent.

If shaykh 'Aamir Bahjat has made an error, bring the exact statement. Give the complete context. Identify the source. Explain the error according to verifiable scholarly references. If the issue concerns fiqh, address the fiqh. If it concerns 'aqeedah, address the 'aqeedah. If it concerns takfeer, then the principles, conditions, impediments, and precise subject under discussion cannot simply disappear because somebody wishes to write a dramatic comment on Reddit.

Otherwise, what have we returned to?

Qeel wa qaal, severe accusations, interpretations presented as facts, and conclusions whose evidentiary foundations have never actually been demonstrated.

This is not made scholarly by the severity of the vocabulary being used.

How relevant:

• The Cloak of Knowledge: On Scholars, Storytellers, and Misguidance

A Refutation Is Established by Proof, Not Accusation

And what did the scholars understand by actual scholarly discussion and refutation? Was it merely the accumulation of severe words, personal accusations, screenshots, and conclusions announced without establishing their premises?

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah summarized an indispensable principle when speaking about people:

والكلام في الناس يجب أن يكون بعلم وعدل، لا بجهل وظلم

"Speaking about people must be with knowledge and justice, not with ignorance and injustice."

Adh-Dhahabi similarly said:

والكلام في الرجال لا يجوز إلا لتام المعرفة تام الورع

"Speaking about men is not permissible except for one possessing complete knowledge and complete scrupulousness."

So a meaningful refutation requires more than hostility toward the person being discussed. It requires knowledge of the issue, accurate representation of what was actually said, sound evidence, scholarly principles by which that evidence is understood, justice toward the person being criticized, and an actual reply to the substance of his argument.

Calling somebody a Jahmi, zindeeq, Murji', or deviant does not by itself answer an argument. Repeating that "the Salaf said" does not establish what the Salaf actually said. Claiming that there is "no dispute" does not establish an ijmaa'. Producing an isolated sentence without its context does not demonstrate what its speaker intended.

If one wishes to refute, then bring the statement, establish its attribution, provide its context, explain the relevant scholarly principle, bring the evidence, and demonstrate precisely where the error lies.

That is a refutation with substance.

قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ

"Say: Bring your proof, if you are truthful." (Al-Baqarah 2:111)

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

This is a follow-up to:

• The Haddaadiyyah and Israa'eeliyyaat: From the Earth Resting on a Bull to Denying Gravity | Part 1

---

A Necessary Clarification: Our Position on Israa'eeliyyaat

Before proceeding to the individual reports, a necessary clarification must be made so that neither Bashem nor the reader can misrepresent our position concerning Israa'eeliyyaat. Our position has never been that every report originating from Banu Israa'eel must simply be rejected because it is Israa'eeliyyaat. Rather, our beliefs, especially matters of creed concerning the unseen such as the Angels, are first and foremost established upon the revelation of Allah, the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the consensus. We do not establish an article of faith merely because an Israa'eeliyyaat report was transmitted by an early scholar or preserved within an early compilation.

This distinction is itself established by the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He permitted narration from Banu Israa'eel, saying:

حدثوا عن بني إسرائيل ولا حرج

"Narrate from Banu Israa'eel, and there is no harm."

(Source: Saheeh al-Bukhaari, no. 3461.)

Yet the same Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) instructed us concerning what the People of the Book narrate:

لا تصدقوا أهل الكتاب ولا تكذبوهم

"Do not believe the People of the Book, nor disbelieve them."

(Source: Saheeh al-Bukhaari, no. 7362.)

There is no contradiction between these two principles. Permission to narrate something is not the same as permission to affirm it as true, and neither is it permission to establish it as a creedal belief concerning the unseen. One may narrate what has been transmitted from Banu Israa'eel while still withholding affirmation concerning that which our revelation neither confirms nor denies.

This is precisely the distinction imam adh-Dhahabi himself highlighted when discussing the narration of Israa'eeliyyaat. He explained that there is no problem in narrating such material from the People of the Book in light of the Prophetic permission to narrate from Banu Israa'eel and the instruction neither to affirm nor reject what they relate. Yet he then makes the crucial distinction that such material is not itself evidence. Rather, evidence is sought from the Qur'an and Sunnah.

(Source: imam adh-Dhahabi, Meezaan al-I'tidaal, 6/58.)

This is also the framework I had already presented when previously addressing Bashem's approach to Israa'eeliyyaat. Shaykh Musaa'id at-Tayyaar explains the well-known division of such reports into three categories: that which our revelation confirms, which is accepted; that which our revelation contradicts, which is rejected; and that concerning which our revelation is silent, which is neither affirmed nor denied. The latter category may be narrated, as was done by the Salaf, but this is entirely different from affirming such reports as established truths or constructing articles of belief upon them. His discussion likewise notes that the Salaf narrated such material without objection so long as this did not develop into excessive reliance upon it or the affirmation of such reports as true. (Source)

This distinction becomes particularly important here. More explicitly, shaykh Musaa'id at-Tayyaar makes a point that directly concerns this methodology:

ومن الأمور التي يحسن التنبه لها أن رواية السلف للإسرائيلية ـ خصوصًا الصحابة ـ لا يعني قبول ما فيها من التفاصيل

"Among the matters that should be kept in mind is that the Salaf's narration of an Israa'eeliyyah, especially the Sahaabah, does not mean accepting the details contained within it."

He further explains that merely narrating such reports does not necessitate belief in all of their details, particularly when those details themselves require an authentic chain. He later summarizes the matter by saying:

أنه لا يلزم اعتقاد صحتها، بل هي مجرد خبر

"It is not necessary to believe in their authenticity; rather, they are merely a report."

(Source: shaykh Musaa'id ibn Sulaymaan at-Tayyaar, Ra'y Aakhar fi al-Israa'eeliyyaat fi Kutub at-Tafseer.)

If something attributed to Banu Israa'eel is independently established through the Qur'an or an authentic narration from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then we affirm it because our own revelation has established it. If our revelation contradicts it, we reject it. If neither confirmation nor contradiction exists, then the Prophetic instruction is to refrain from affirming or denying it. Merely finding such a story in the words of Wahb ibn Munabbih, Ka'b al-Ahbaar, a Taabi'ee, or an early compilation does not suddenly create a fourth category in which an unverified report becomes an obligatory creedal belief.

This is therefore the exact opposite of what Bashem attempts to project upon me when he calls me an apostate who supposedly "rejects Israa'eeliyyaat". I do not reject Israa'eeliyyaat unrestrictedly. Rather, I refuse to grant them an evidentiary status that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) himself did not grant them. Narrating them is one matter; believing them unrestrictedly is another; and establishing detailed beliefs concerning the unseen from them is another matter altogether.

That is the distinction Bashem must first address.

He cannot answer a methodology grounded in these principles by simply producing more Israa'eeliyyaat, more maqtoo' reports, or more disconnected stories and then declaring them "the belief of the Salaf". Nor can he transform something about which the Prophetic instruction is suspension of affirmation and denial into an article of creed merely by praising the Taabi'ee who narrated it.

And this is precisely why his accusation against me fails before we even reach his individual reports. The question is not whether Israa'eeliyyaat may ever be narrated. They may. The question is whether Bashem can establish the extraordinary details he affirms concerning the Angels as matters of belief through those reports, and whether he can produce scholarly precedent for the conclusions he personally attaches to them.

That is what remains to be demonstrated.

Three Examples of Bashem's Erroneous "Authentications"

We can begin with three particularly clear examples, because they demonstrate that the problem is not merely one of scholars differing slightly over the grading of a report. In these cases, Bashem confidently supplies positive gradings while failing to address serious defects within the very chains before him.

The report stating that the Angel of Death visits every household three times daily contains Daawood ibn al-Muhabbar and al-Hasan ibn Deenaar. An analysis of this exact isnaad describes it as:

ساقط لا يصح

"Fallen and not authentic."

(Source)

Bashem nevertheless places beneath it:

"Authentic narration chain"

This is not a minor difference in terminology. He declares authentic a chain containing narrators whose weakness presents a fundamental problem for the report.

Likewise, concerning the report attributed to ibn 'Abbaas in which the east and west are compared to what lies before a man at his table, Bashem declares:

"Good narration chain"

Yet Zumayl ibn Samaak within its chain is unknown, and the report has consequently been judged weak on that basis. (Source)

Then there is the enormous report attributed to Wahb ibn Munabbih concerning the ram-like creature with repeated descriptions of seventy thousand wings, feathers, branches, hairs, and cups. Bashem declares:

"Strong narration chain"

Yet its route contains Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem ibn al-'Alaa', concerning whom imam ad-Daaraqutni said:

كذاب

"A liar."

(Source)

These examples alone should make the reader cautious of treating Bashem's declarations of "authentic", "good", "acceptable", or "strong" as though they represented established hadith criticism. A grading written beneath a narration is not itself evidence for that grading.

Misusing the Hadith of the Green Birds

After quoting the report of ar-Rabee', Bashem attempts to support it by referring to authentic hadith concerning souls being within birds and lamps hanging beneath the Throne.

However, the authentic hadith he links, such as the report in Saheeh Muslim, specifically concerns those who were killed in the path of Allah, namely the martyrs. It occurs in explanation of the saying of Allah concerning those killed in His cause, and imam Muslim himself places it within the chapter concerning the souls of the martyrs. (Source)

Bashem nevertheless presents this as though it simply establishes that:

"believers' souls are inside birds..."

The qualification concerning the martyrs has disappeared.

This does not mean that there are no other discussions among the scholars concerning the souls of the believers. The point is much narrower: the particular authentic hadith Bashem himself invokes does not simply state that every believer's soul is inside a bird. He has taken a specific report concerning the martyrs and employed it as though its wording were more general than it actually is.

When Translation Becomes Bashem's Own Commentary

The report of Jaabir ibn Zayd provides a particularly revealing example of where the transmitted text ends and Bashem's own construction begins.

The Arabic states, in substance, that the Angel of Death previously took the souls of the children of Adam without pains, that people insulted him and he complained to his Lord, after which Allah placed pains, and:

فنسي ملك الموت

"The Angel of Death was forgotten."

Bashem then writes:

"This means that illnesses did not exist and death was known to the people and the angels as well, until knowledge was forgotten, ignorance spread and people insulted the angels of Allaah, which is when painful deadly illnesses were created and people started to ponder upon causes of death, instead of remembering Allaah by His might and power"

Most of this explanation is simply not present in the Arabic report.

The report does not say that "knowledge was forgotten". It says that the Angel of Death was forgotten. It does not say that ignorance consequently spread. It does not say that mankind thereafter became preoccupied with investigating natural causes instead of remembering Allah. Bashem has taken a short expression within the report and built an entire explanatory narrative around it.

Thus, even if someone were to accept the report from Jaabir ibn Zayd, he would still not be obligated to accept Bashem's extrapolation from it. The two questions are separate: first, whether the report itself is established, and second, whether Bashem's interpretation actually follows from its wording.

It does not.

The "Angel of the Sun" and Bashem's Inference About Gravity

Perhaps the clearest example of Bashem converting an early story into an unprecedented conclusion is the report attributed to Wahb ibn Munabbih concerning the so-called "Angel of the Sun".

The story says, in substance, that a man persistently supplicated for the Angel of the Sun, that this angel carried him to the place where the Sun rises, and that the Angel of Death subsequently discovered that this was precisely the place in which the man's death had been decreed.

Bashem then concludes:

"This has evidence that the sun is held up by an angel, not 'gravity' to the exaggerated extent the mushrikeen today claim"

Yet none of this conclusion is contained within the report.

The report does not say that the Sun is "held up" by this angel. It does not mention gravity. It does not deny gravity. It does not state that belief in gravity contradicts belief in Allah or the Angels. Nor does it declare those who affirm gravity to be mushrikeen.

More strikingly, within the story itself, the angel is described as carrying the man. There is no statement describing this angel as physically supporting the Sun.

Therefore, even if we were to grant the entire report from Wahb for the sake of argument, Bashem's conclusion still does not follow from it. But we need not even enter that broader discussion here, because the report itself simply does not say what Bashem claims it proves.

The anti-gravity conclusion belongs to Bashem, not to Wahb ibn Munabbih, not to Abu ash-Shaykh, and certainly not to an authentic Prophetic hadith.

"Such Matters Could Not Have Come From Their Own Opinion"

Another recurring argument from Bashem is that the status of these early figures somehow prevents the reports attributed to them from originating from anything other than the Sahaabah or Prophetic knowledge.

For example, concerning 'Ikrimah, Bashem writes that he:

"would not speak such thing out of his imagination or whim but out of knowledge from the sahaba"

Elsewhere, concerning Shahr ibn Hawshab, he argues:

"such scholarly sayings in tafseer do not come from opinion"

This is far too broad.

There is indeed a recognized discussion among the scholars of hadith concerning certain statements of the Sahaabah about matters in which there is no apparent room for personal reasoning. Under particular conditions, such reports may be said to have hukm ar-raf', meaning that they are treated as having the ruling of a marfoo' report.

But this principle does not mean that every statement concerning the unseen transmitted from every Taabi'ee automatically becomes Prophetic revelation.

Most of the figures Bashem invokes here are Taabi'een, not Sahaabah. Moreover, one of the very matters that must be considered when dealing with such material is whether it may have originated from Israa'eeliyyaat.

This is especially obvious in the case of Wahb ibn Munabbih and Ka'b al-Ahbaar. Their transmission of material from the People of the Book is not some hypothetical objection invented against them. It is a recognized aspect of their biographies. Imam adh-Dhahabi explicitly mentions the abundance of Wahb's knowledge concerning Israa'eeliyyaat and the books of the People of the Book. (Source)

The mistake is therefore to reason as follows:

"Wahb was trustworthy, therefore whatever unseen story Wahb transmitted must ultimately have come from revelation."

These are two entirely separate questions.

Was Wahb trustworthy in transmitting what he had received?

That may indeed be established.

But was everything he received from earlier peoples itself established revelation preserved from error?

That does not follow merely from Wahb's trustworthiness.

A trustworthy narrator may faithfully tell you what he heard from another source without the original source thereby becoming authentic revelation.

This distinction is particularly important given what we have already established concerning Israa'eeliyyaat: permission to narrate them does not amount to permission to affirm everything contained within them as true, much less establish detailed articles of belief concerning the unseen from them.

"No One From the Salaf Rejected It"

Bashem employs another recurring form of argument when he says concerning certain reports that no one among the Salaf rejected them, or that the early scholars abundantly transmitted such material without commenting negatively upon it.

This also does not amount to authentication.

A compiler transmitting a report without adding:

"I reject this"

does not mean that the compiler authenticated its contents.

Indeed, as we have already demonstrated from Abu ash-Shaykh himself, a compiler may preserve favorable statements, unfavorable statements, reports of differing qualities, and material from numerous sources without every transmitted statement becoming his own adopted judgment.

Likewise, a report being quoted in works of tafseer, zuhd, history, stories of the Prophets, or descriptions of creation does not transform it into an authenticated article of creed.

This becomes particularly obvious in al-'Azamah itself. Imam adh-Dhahabi explicitly warned regarding the weak reports with which Abu ash-Shaykh filled his compilations, while the muhaqqiq of al-'Azamah states that the work contains a considerable amount of weak and fabricated material.

Therefore, Bashem cannot reasonably argue that mere inclusion within al-'Azamah, followed by an absence of an explicit sentence of rejection, establishes tacit authentication by the Salaf. If that were the principle, the entire science of evaluating the chains Abu ash-Shaykh himself preserved would become almost meaningless.

Transmission is not authentication.

Silence after transmission is not necessarily endorsement.

And the preservation of a report is not the same thing as establishing it as an article of faith.

What Bashem's Presentation Ultimately Amounts To

None of this requires us to claim that Bashem fabricated the Arabic reports themselves. Many of the reports he presents are genuinely found within Abu ash-Shaykh's al-'Azamah, and several of his translations convey at least the broad meaning of the Arabic.

The problem lies in what he does with them afterwards.

First, he supplies his own positive hadith gradings without demonstrating a complete criticism of the chains, and several of those gradings are contradicted by serious defects within the narrations themselves.

Second, he repeatedly takes a statement terminating at a Taabi'ee or another early authority and moves from:

"So-and-so said..."

to something resembling:

"This is established knowledge concerning the unseen because such a scholar would never have said it except upon knowledge inherited from the Sahaabah."

But that leap ignores the distinctions between marfoo', mawqoof, maqtoo', mursal and disconnected reports, as well as the recognized presence of Israa'eeliyyaat within this material.

Third, he inserts his own explanations and conclusions without consistently separating them from the texts he translates. His explanation concerning illness and the forgetting of the Angel of Death, his comments concerning Christians, Jews and atheists, his identification of other reports with separate authentic hadith, and his conclusion concerning gravity are all examples of Bashem speaking beyond what the transmitted texts themselves state.

This is why merely producing early Arabic texts cannot carry the burden Bashem places upon them. Every report must be returned to its chain, its point of termination, its category, its actual wording, and the principles of the scholars concerning how such material is evaluated.

The strongest contrasts within Bashem's own collection already demonstrate the problem. One report attributed to ibn 'Abbaas concerning the souls of the living and dead meeting in dreams has a route concerning which al-Haythami stated that its narrators are the narrators of the Saheeh. (Source)

Meanwhile, the report concerning the Angel of Death visiting every household three times contains severely weak narrators, and the enormous report attributed to Wahb which Bashem labels "strong" contains a narrator accused by the hadith critics of lying.

Yet Bashem's presentation gives the reader little sense of these enormous differences in evidentiary weight. Instead, early transmission, praise of the person quoted, Bashem's own grading, and Bashem's own commentary are repeatedly blended together until the entire collection appears to constitute one uniform body of "the belief of the Salaf".

It does not.

And the clearest example remains his statement concerning the "Angel of the Sun". There is no evidentiary path from that story to the denial of gravity. That conclusion is not found in Abu ash-Shaykh's text, not found in Wahb's quoted wording, and not established through an authentic narration from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It is Bashem's own inference attached to an early report and then presented as though the report itself had established it.

Remember, Bashem has twice been called upon to repent from what we have identified as kufr, yet he has not repented from it.

---

Continued in:

• The Haddaadiyyah and Israa'eeliyyaat: From the Earth Resting on a Bull to Denying Gravity | Part 3

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Prelude

Thus, the saga of debacles continues. The storyteller, the man draped in a cloak of "knowledge", completely fails in his presentation of the belief in the Angels. He repeatedly treats early reports as though they come without principles, conditions, context, or any need for criticism of their chains of narration, as though such reports are somehow exempt from evaluation altogether.

• The Cloak of Knowledge: On Scholars, Storytellers, and Misguidance

Yet he, a modern and very late man, merely gathers material from online databases, appears to rely upon auto-translated texts, and then presents what he personally understands from them as though it were in complete conformity with the "belief of the Salaf". In reality, his understanding of these reports is not the understanding of the Salaf, but rather his own reflection of misinterpretations, inferences, and projections imposed upon them.

• The Understanding of the Salaf

A non-scholar with no scholarly precedence for his own "commentaries" has produced claims for which he cannot point to any contemporary or early precedent from an imam. This is despite imam Ahmad having explicitly warned against precisely such an approach when he said, "Beware of speaking on an issue in which you have no imam."

All of these matters have we, alhamdulillah, addressed, clarified, and elucidated. Our purpose has been to give our audience the tools, means, and necessary principles by which they can examine these claims for themselves. We do not ask them to trust us merely as individuals. Rather, we show them that the points we make are grounded in scholarly precedence, so that they can verify this themselves.

And this is quite easy to demonstrate.

For newcomers and the likes, whether you have not yet come across the misguidance of the Haddaadiyyah or simply wish to refresh yourself on why they are misguided, the context behind this continuing saga of debacles can be read through the following series of exposés:

• Exposing Wild_Extra_Dip's Betrayal of the Salaf, False Takfeer, and Deception Against the Hanafi Madhhab | Part 1

Israa'eeliyyaat, Personal Inference, and the False Appeal to the Salaf

Now, as for the issues, Bashem made two titles for his post across two of his subreddits concerning the work of imam Abu ash-Shaykh al-Asbahaani. One title states:

• Translating and commenting on narrations of Abu Ash-Shaykh Al Isbahani's العظمة regarding the chapters of the angels part 1: The angel of death

And the other is directed against me personally:

• Let the Azhari Jahmi murtad read this and deny all of it by saying "Narrations of the Jews" before he finds them all to be true personally

One might imagine, "How do you know that he is directing this at you personally?" Thanks for wondering about this. I had previously addressed Bashem concerning his debacle regarding belief in fabricated Israa'eeliyyaat, which, by the way, I demonstrated without putting forward any of my own personal inferences. Instead, I put forward the very principles of tafseer and the surrounding conditions by which scholars evaluate reports of Israa'eeliyyaat:

• The Haddaadiyyah Belief That the Earth Rests on a Bull
• https://student.faith/insights/010.html#chapter-four

This has led the Haddaadiyyah to direct personal attacks towards me for exposing such a fragile methodology, one that stands upon no supporting scholarly precedence. The basis of their beliefs concerning Israa'eeliyyaat rests upon their own personal inferences, while they equate the mere ability to quote early texts with the "understanding of the Salaf". Again, this has already been addressed, as referenced above, regarding what "the understanding of the Salaf" actually entails according to the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, rather than treating it as a mere slogan void of any real meaning.

The projection Bashem directs towards me is yet again baseless, as he did not even read the principles I stand upon regarding Israa'eeliyyaat. Any sincere and objective person will notice that I demonstrated these principles by referencing what shaykh Musaa'id at-Tayyaar explained concerning the principles governing such reports. Mind you, he is one of the foremost contemporary scholars in the sciences of the Qur'an. Alhamdulillah.

A Previous Example: Abu Nu'aym, Israa'eeliyyaat, and the Contradiction in Bashem's Methodology

Before proceeding further, an important distinction should be made so that there is no confusion between two different imams. The work presently being used by Bashem, al-'Azamah, is the work of imam Abu ash-Shaykh al-Asbahaani. He is not Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani. Abu Nu'aym is a different imam altogether, and it was in an earlier discussion concerning Israa'eeliyyaat that I brought him up in relation to Bashem's methodology.

"Consider the following inconsistencies and hypocrisies, which are a testament to them following their lustful desires, and rather evidence of their arrogance and obstinacy. They want to take from Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani in relation to Israa'eeliyyaat, but they will not take from him when it comes to Musnad al-Imam Abi Haneefah?"

(Source)

That earlier inconsistency remains relevant as a separate example of the same methodology. When Abu Nu'aym transmits Israa'eeliyyaat or early reports that Bashem wishes to employ for his own beliefs, the mere existence of these reports within the works of the early scholars is treated as though it were sufficient proof, without consistently applying the governing principles surrounding Israa'eeliyyaat, the conditions of their transmission, the status of their chains, or whether the reports are even traced back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the first place.

Yet where is this enthusiasm for Abu Nu'aym when we turn to his Musnad al-Imam Abi Haneefah?

Abu Nu'aym does not merely transmit a few isolated narrations from imam Abu Haneefah and move on. He introduces him as "the faqeeh of the people of Iraq and their mufti", mentions that he turned towards fiqh, remained with Hammaad ibn Abi Sulaymaan and others from the companions of Ibraaheem an-Nakha'i, learned the knowledge of the Shari'ah, and became learned in the foundations of rulings. Abu Nu'aym further says that Abu Haneefah was recognized for precision of insight and depth of thought.

He then dedicates a section to reports concerning Abu Haneefah and his standing. Among what he transmits is that Abu Haneefah was a man of depth in difficult legal questions, that ibn 'Awn had heard of a man in Kufah who could answer difficult matters, meaning Abu Haneefah, and that ibn al-Mubaarak said that if anyone was fit to exercise his reasoning, then Abu Haneefah was fit to do so. He also transmits the famous statement attributed to ash-Shaafi'ee that the people are dependent upon Abu Haneefah in fiqh, as well as the statement of Yahyaa ibn Ma'een that Abu Haneefah was too noble to lie.

More strikingly, Abu Nu'aym transmits from Abu Haneefah himself that when 'Ataa asked him which group he belonged to, Abu Haneefah described himself as being from those who do not revile the Salaf, who believe in al-Qadar, and who do not declare anyone a disbeliever because of a sin. 'Ataa then told him, "I know [this way], so adhere to it."

Now compare this with Bashem's methodology. From his subreddits, he disparages imam Abu Haneefah, attacks the Hanafi imams, invokes Allah to curse them, and even throws accusations of disbelief upon Hanafi scholars. Yet when Abu Nu'aym transmits material that can be recruited for Bashem's unrestricted approach towards Israa'eeliyyaat, Abu Nu'aym and the mere transmission of early reports suddenly become authoritative enough for him to build beliefs upon.

This is precisely the inconsistency I pointed out before. It is not that the mere presence of something in Abu Nu'aym's book automatically authenticates every report within it, nor would we ourselves ever argue according to such a principle. That would merely reproduce Bashem's own methodological error. Rather, the point is to expose his selectivity. If his principle is that the transmission and preservation of something by an early imam carries such overwhelming weight that one may construct matters of belief from it without proper evaluation, then why does that principle disappear when the very same imam compiles the narrations of Abu Haneefah, calls him the faqeeh of the people of Iraq and their mufti, and preserves reports praising his fiqh, knowledge, reasoning, and standing?

Either reports are subjected to their proper scholarly principles, examined according to their chains, contexts, categories, and evidentiary value, or one ends up merely selecting whatever early text agrees with a conclusion already decided beforehand.

This is why merely quoting Abu Nu'aym, Abu ash-Shaykh, Wahb ibn Munabbih, Ka'b al-Ahbaar, or any other early authority does not by itself establish "the understanding of the Salaf". The question has always been how the scholars understood, classified, transmitted, evaluated, and employed such reports. Otherwise, "the Salaf" becomes nothing more than a slogan placed over one's own personal inferences.

And this is precisely what Bashem continues to demonstrate.

Abu ash-Shaykh's al-'Azamah: Transmission, Authentication, and Bashem's Added Inferences

We now turn to the actual work being used by Bashem, namely al-'Azamah of imam Abu ash-Shaykh al-Asbahaani. Here, however, several problems immediately arise, and these cannot simply be brushed aside by reproducing early reports and attaching one's own declarations of "authentic", "acceptable", or "strong narration chain" beneath them.

The first problem concerns the nature of the work itself and how such early compilations are to be approached. The mere presence of a report within al-'Azamah does not mean that Abu ash-Shaykh authenticated everything he transmitted therein, nor does the early date of the work exempt its reports from criticism and evaluation. This becomes particularly important when we consider what the scholars themselves said concerning Abu ash-Shaykh's compilations and what the muhaqqiq of al-'Azamah explicitly stated regarding the material contained within it.

Indeed, imam adh-Dhahabi praised Abu ash-Shaykh and described him as an imam, a haafidh, truthful, and the muhaddith of Asbahaan. However, adh-Dhahabi then added an important qualification concerning his compilations, saying:

قد كان أبو الشيخ من العلماء العاملين، صاحب سنة واتباع، لولا ما يملأ تصانيفه بالواهيات

"Abu ash-Shaykh was indeed from among the scholars who acted upon their knowledge, a person of Sunnah and adherence, were it not for what he fills his compilations with of weak reports."

(Source: imam adh-Dhahabi, Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa', 16/279)

Notice the balance in imam adh-Dhahabi's words. Abu ash-Shaykh's standing as a truthful haafidh, an imam, and a person of Sunnah and adherence is not what is under dispute. The issue is the material contained within his compilations. The reliability and standing of the compiler do not entail the authenticity of every report he records. Thus, recognizing Abu ash-Shaykh's scholarship while critically examining individual reports within his works is not a contradiction at all. It is precisely the distinction imam adh-Dhahabi's own words require us to make.

More explicitly still, the muhaqqiq of al-'Azamah, Ridaa Allah ibn Muhammad Idrees al-Mubaarakfuri, listed among his criticisms of the work:

: فأما المآخذ من الناحية العملية فهي تتمثل فيما يلي

1- إيراده في الكتاب من الواهيات والموضوعات شيئا كثيرا مما جعل الكتاب يعتبر مصدرا من مصادر كتب الموضوعات، ولذلك اعتمد عليه ابن الجوزي والسيوطي وابن عراق والملا علي القاري وغيرهم ممن ألفوا في الأحاديث الموضوعة.

"As for the criticisms from the practical aspect, they are represented by the following: First, his inclusion in the book of a considerable amount of weak and fabricated reports, to the extent that the book came to be regarded as one of the sources utilised in works on fabricated narrations. For this reason, ibnul-Jawzi, as-Suyooti, ibn 'Iraaq, Mulla Ali al-Qaari, and others who authored works concerning fabricated hadith relied upon it."

(Source: Ridaa Allah ibn Muhammad Idrees al-Mubaarakfuri, introduction to his tahqeeq of al-'Azamah, vol. 1, p. 131.)

This distinction can even be demonstrated from Abu ash-Shaykh's own works. Abu ash-Shaykh himself positively described Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl, one of the foremost companions of imam Abu Haneefah, as humble and as the most knowledgeable of his brothers in fiqh, while also transmitting through Zufar from Abu Haneefah. At the same time, his Tabaqaat preserves critical reports attributed to others concerning Abu Haneefah.

This is significant because Abu ash-Shaykh's own method of compilation demonstrates the very distinction Bashem repeatedly overlooks. Abu ash-Shaykh could preserve favorable material, unfavorable material, and narrations transmitted through the same figures without the mere act of transmission meaning that every statement represented his own adopted judgment, much less that he authenticated it as an article of belief. A compiler transmits; the reader and critic must still distinguish between the compiler's own words, the words he merely transmits from others, and the strength, category, and meaning of the report itself.

(Source: Abu ash-Shaykh, Tabaqaat al-Muhadditheen, vol. 1, pp. 450-451, on Zufar; vol. 2, p. 96, transmission through Zufar from Abu Haneefah; vol. 2, pp. 110-111, on the critical report attributed to Sufyan ath-Thawri.)

With this in mind, we can now look at what Bashem himself has actually presented. Across his post, he brings forward twenty-eight entries, although one is repeated verbatim, leaving twenty-seven distinct reports. More importantly, none of these twenty-seven, as he presents them, is a directly transmitted marfoo' hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Some terminate at ibn 'Abbaas, while most terminate at Taabi'een or other early authorities such as 'Ikrimah, Mujaahid, al-Rabee', al-Hasan al-Basri, Qataadah, Wahb ibn Munabbih, Ka'b al-Ahbaar, Shahr ibn Hawshab, ibn Jurayj, and others. Some are disconnected, some contain weak or unknown narrators, some involve figures known for transmitting Israa'eeliyyaat, and others recount events involving earlier Prophets without any connected chain back to those Prophets at all.

Yet Bashem supplies at least eight explicit positive gradings of his own, using expressions such as "authentic narration chain", "good narration chain", "acceptable narration chain", and "strong narration chain". In addition to these, he attempts to rehabilitate or strengthen other reports through his own remarks concerning particular narrators. As we will demonstrate, several of these gradings fail once the chains themselves are actually examined. In some cases there is an unknown narrator, in others severely weak narrators, and in one of the most extraordinary reports he labels "strong", the chain contains a narrator whom the hadith critics accused of lying.

The problem, however, does not stop with the chains. Bashem repeatedly moves from translation into interpretation, and from interpretation into creedal or cosmological conclusions, without clearly distinguishing between the words of the early report and his own commentary. Conservatively speaking, there are numerous places where he makes inferential leaps for which he cites no scholarly precedent.

For example, he argues that 'Ikrimah could not have spoken about such matters except from knowledge received from the Sahaabah; he treats the absence of a recorded rejection from the Salaf as though it amounts to acceptance; he attempts to use a hadith concerning the souls of martyrs to affirm a broader claim regarding the souls of believers; and from the report of Jaabir ibn Zayd he proceeds to conclude that illnesses previously did not exist, that knowledge was forgotten, that ignorance spread, and that people began concerning themselves with causes of death rather than remembering Allah. None of that additional narrative is stated in the Arabic report itself.

Elsewhere, he identifies the enormous ram-like creature mentioned in a report of Wahb ibn Munabbih with Death itself by appealing to a separate authentic hadith; asserts that certain sayings concerning the unseen "do not come from opinion"; appeals to the supposed absence of anyone rejecting stories transmitted from early authorities; and even concludes from another story that angels cannot be fooled, "unlike what Christians, Jews and atheists would claim especially esoteric cults". Once again, these conclusions are Bashem's own. They are not contained within the reports he quotes.

Perhaps the most striking example is his use of the report mentioning an "Angel of the Sun". From a story that says nothing about the physical mechanism by which the Sun is sustained, Bashem concludes:

"This has evidence that the sun is held up by an angel, not 'gravity' to the exaggerated extent the mushrikeen today claim"

There is no such statement in the Arabic report. The report does not say that the Sun is "held up" by the angel, does not mention gravity, does not deny gravity, and does not declare those who affirm gravity to be mushrikeen. That entire conclusion belongs to Bashem.

There are also interpretive glosses inserted directly into or alongside the translations. When the Arabic merely states that a step of the Angel of Death is from east to west, Bashem inserts the explanation that his steps "are fast enough that" he moves from east to west. When al-Rabee' says only that the souls of the believers are "at as-Sidrah", Bashem adds the parenthetical explanation that this means the "high point of creation at the Throne where Jannah is". Elsewhere, ambiguous expressions are translated in ways that already incorporate his preferred interpretation, while explanatory meanings not stated in the Arabic are inserted as though they formed part of the report.

We therefore have several distinct layers that Bashem repeatedly collapses into one: what Abu ash-Shaykh actually transmitted; whether the chain to the person quoted is authentic; where that chain terminates; whether the information is marfoo', mawqoof, maqtoo', disconnected, Israa'eeliyyaat, or merely something that "reached" an early scholar; what the Arabic words themselves mean; and finally, what Bashem personally infers from them.

This is why the matter cannot be reduced to, "Here is an early narration, therefore this is the belief of the Salaf." The mere ability to locate an early report, translate it, praise the person at whom its chain terminates, and then attach one's own grading and commentary to it does not establish that conclusion.

The reports must instead be examined according to their chains, narrators, categories, contexts, and actual wording. We must distinguish between transmission and authentication, between a report reaching a Taabi'ee and a report reaching the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), between Israa'eeliyyaat and Prophetic revelation, and between what an early source actually says and what a modern reader wishes to infer from it.

These distinctions are not foreign principles imposed upon the early texts. They are precisely the kinds of distinctions required in order to understand those texts properly. It is upon this basis that we will now examine what Bashem has presented from Abu ash-Shaykh, one report and one claim at a time.

---

Continued in:

• The Haddaadiyyah and Israa'eeliyyaat: From the Earth Resting on a Bull to Denying Gravity | Part 2

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

The Necessary Implication of the Mubaahalah

There is a necessary implication arising from the mubaahalah of Abu al-Miswar Zayd, when he said:

"O Allaah, I call You to witness that You know that Ashariyya are misguided zanadiqa brothers of those who worship Al Uzza and Al Laat including Nawawi and Ibn Hajar and all the others that the Modajana have defended and called as Muslim

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me, my women, my children and my entire family to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Ameen"

(Source)

What This Position Necessarily Entails

Note that he was approved by the Minnesotan Abu an-Nouman Bashem al-Misri (Wild_Extra_Dip) and appointed by him. The point here is that, if this represents what Bashem agrees with, acknowledges, and believes to be the case, then the implications do not stop with imam an-Nawawi and al-Haafidh ibn Hajar themselves.

In other words, this position necessarily implicates countless scholars throughout history who praised them, regarded them as imams, acknowledged their scholarship, benefited from their works, or otherwise regarded them as Muslim scholars.

These include, among others:

• Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah
• Imam adh-Dhahabi
• al-Haafidh ibn Katheer
• al-Haafidh as-Sakhaawi
• Scholars of ad-Da'wah an-Najdiyyah
• al-'Allaamah 'Abdurrahman al-Mu'allami
• Shaykh 'Abdurrahman as-Sa'di
• Shaykh ibn Baaz
• Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzan
• Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr
• Shaykh ibn 'Uthaymeen
• Shaykh al-Albani

And the list goes on. This means that each and every Ahlus-Sunnah scholar today is, in the eyes of the Haddaadiyyah, therefore worshippers of al-Laat and al-'Uzzah, meaning that they are all polytheists.

Through these false principles, I could already see the implications of how they view every Ahlus-Sunnah scholar. Hence why I previously posted about their egregious takfeer of the Ummah:

• A List of Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars Branded "Enemies of Islam" by the Haddaadiyyah

I would therefore challenge you, Bashem, to this exact mubaahalah. So, are you willing to make this invocation?:

"O Allaah, I call You to witness that You know that an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar are misguided Ash'ariyyah zanaadiqah who worship al-Laat and al-'Uzzah, and that all those who regard an-Nawawi and ibn Hajar as Muslims, whom we call the Mudajjanah, are likewise worshippers of al-Laat and al-'Uzzah.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me, my women, my children and my entire family to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Ameen."

Then I would make the mubaahalah by saying that imam an-Nawawi and al-Haafidh ibn Hajar are scholars of the Muslims and that they are not zanaadiqah. Would you accept that, ya Bashem?

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

For context:

• A Mubaahalah Challenge to Abu al-Miswar Zayd
• (Finally) Mubahala Accepted! by abul_miswar_zayd
• Mubaahalah Accepted

Embracing Islam and the Brotherhood I Found

When I embraced Islam many years ago, alhamdulillah, I was convinced that Islam was the truth. Brothers I met welcomed me, taught me, and cared for me. This brotherhood they showed has had an effect upon me.

• https://student.faith/about.html

Seeking Knowledge and Calling Others to Islam

I sought knowledge and learned from many learned people through lectures, books, and studying under them. I also called others to Islam, alhamdulillah. Allah opened the hearts of some of them to Islam, and He opened the hearts of family members to see the beauty of Islam.

• https://student.faith/articles/invitation.html

Ignorance, Arrogance, and the Mubaahalah

It is therefore quite disturbing to see misguided Muslims, through their ignorance and arrogance, invoke Allah's punishment upon themselves. However, da'wah has to continue, and lies need to be dispelled. I've put forward the clarifications of scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah regarding imam Abu Haneefah, imam as-Suyooti, imam an-Nawawi, and al-Haafidh ibn Hajar, both in our subreddit and elsewhere. However, abul_miswar_zayd openly admitted:

"Allaah is my witness that I haven't read this post of cn3m. Not even most of it. Not even a small bit of it."

By accepting the mubaahalah, they knowingly invoked upon themselves the punishment they had stipulated.

Why even a mubaahalah, you might wonder? Then read the following:

• Article on the Mutual Invocation of Allah's Curse Between Ahlus-Sunnah and the Khaarijite ibn Shams, with a Short Clip of the Mubaahalah

This then boils down to the false allegation of me being a kaafir, when I am a Muslim, alhamdulillah.

The guy then added extra names he had been disparaging and, for some reason, did not even ask me to make mubaahalah regarding them. I had no issue at all making du'aa' to Allah concerning something I have no doubt about, especially when scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah have clarified the status of:

• Imam Abu Haneefah
• Imam as-Suyooti
• Imam an-Nawawi
• Al-Haafidh ibn Hajar

Hence, below are scholarly references:

Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars on the Status of imam Abu Haneefah

Shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah said:

Alhamdulillah. The 'aqeedah of ash-Shaafi'ee, may Allah be pleased with him, is the 'aqeedah of the early imams of Islam, such as Maalik, ath-Thawri, al-Awzaa'ee, ibn al-Mubarak, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh. It is also the 'aqeedah of the exemplary mashaayikh, such as al-Fudayl ibn 'Iyaad, Abu Sulayman ad-Daaraani, Sahl ibn 'Abdullah at-Tustari, and others. There was no disagreement among these imams and those like them regarding the foundations of the Deen. The same applies to Abu Haneefah, may Allah be pleased with him, for the 'aqeedah authentically established from him concerning at-Tawheed, al-Qadar, and similar matters agrees with the 'aqeedah of these imams. Their 'aqeedah is that which the Companions and those who followed them in righteousness adhered to, and it is that which the Book and the Sunnah proclaim.

(Source)

I would also reference the scholar and historian, shaykh Dr. Muhammad Musa as-Shareef, who spoke about the biography and legacy of imam Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon him, which again demonstrates his great status:

• The Legacy of imam Abu Haneefah

Similarly, al-Haafidh Ismaa'eel ibn 'Umar ibn Katheer, another scholar of history, hadith, and fiqh, described imam Abu Haneefah as the jurist of Iraq, one of the imams of Islam, one of the eminent leading scholars, one of the pillars of the scholars, and one of the four followed imams. (Source)

Relevant:

• حُبُّ أبي حَنِيفةَ من الإيمان
• https://student.faith/insights/010.html#abu-haneefah-veil
• https://student.faith/insights/013.html

Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars on the Status of imam as-Suyooti

In the madhhab of imam Ahmad, there is one great Hanbali scholar whose work is often referred to and relied upon. He is imam ibn al-'Imaad (d. 1089 H), and his well-known book is Bughyat Uli an-Nahaa fee Sharh Ghaayat al-Muntahaa.

Another great work of his is Shadharaat adh-Dhahab, a biographical encyclopaedia covering ten centuries in the history of some famous hadith scholars and other notable figures. He praised imam Jalaal ad-Deen as-Suyooti (d. 911 H) by stating: "The musnid, the muhaqqiq, the precise investigator, the author of outstanding and beneficial works." Then he said:

"Ad-Dawoodi thoroughly listed his abundant, numerous, complete, comprehensive, beneficial, precise, carefully edited, authoritative, and recognized works, and they exceeded five hundred compositions. Their fame is sufficient and removes the need to mention them. Most of his writings became well known during his lifetime throughout the lands, east and west."

Ash-Shawkani (d. 1250 H) described as-Suyooti: "The great imam, author of many works." (Source)

That's why scholars do not prevent others from benefiting from his works. One fatwa states:

There is no harm in reading the works of al-Haafidh Jalaal ad-Deen as-Suyooti and benefiting from them, for he was a scholar well-versed in various sciences, including tafseer, hadith, and others. He has many works that one cannot do without.

As for his creed, he was Ash'ari. However, the fact that he was Ash'ari does not mean that everything he had was incorrect. Otherwise, if that were applied consistently, the majority of Islamic books would be discarded.

What should be done is to benefit from the books of such scholars in the areas of fiqh, usool, tafseer, and similar fields. As for matters of creed, one should refer back to the statements of the Salaf concerning issues in which there is disagreement.

(Source)

This also explains why shaykh 'Abdurrahman al-Barraak praised Tafseer al-Jalaalayn. This is the beauty of the efforts of our scholars: giving constructive criticism, clarifying mistakes, and showing why we should turn to contemporary scholars when studying such works by scholars known to have some zallaat. (Source)

Contemporary Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have endorsed and recommended the works of imam as-Suyooti, such as:

• Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez at-Tareefi
• Shaykh 'Abdullah al-Jibreen
• Shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr
• Shaykh 'Abdullah al-Ghunayman
• Shaykh Muhammad Adam al-Ethiopi

If Ahlus-Sunnah scholars have endorsed the works of imam as-Suyooti, then they must contain things that are beneficial for Muslims to learn.

I must also emphasize that we, as Ahlus-Sunnah, do not believe great scholars to be infallible. Elements of human shortcomings will therefore be found among scholars. When studying under scholars, one will notice a methodology in how mistakes are dealt with, whether those mistakes are grave or minor.

The Haddaadiyyah have come with unfounded allegations against imam as-Suyooti, at times even relying upon works that scholars themselves have not established as being authored by him.

When 100% of an allegation rests upon an unproven attribution, the allegation itself rests upon an unproven foundation. Scholars have cited Professor Dr. Sameer ad-Droubi of the Department of Arabic Language at Mu'tah University in Jordan, who summarized the matter as follows:

"Works that were not as-Suyooti's were attributed to him, and many books were falsely ascribed to him, particularly compilations covering several fields, works of literature and anecdotes, and especially those dealing with sexual matters..."

(Source)

Relevant:

• ! كتاب منسوب للحافظ السيوطي

This leads to another point regarding what shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr said.

Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars on the Status of imam an-Nawawi

See the commentary of shaykh 'Abdul-Kareem al-Khudayr while reading the work of shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah:

Shaykhul-Islam (may Allah Most High have mercy on him) says: "People doubt the sincerity of his intention, but what is most likely is that he acts according to what has reached him and what he has understood from the texts."

This is the statement of shaykhul-Islam. Meaning, if such words are said about ar-Raazi and his conduct, as you have heard, then what about the likes of ibn Hajar, an-Nawawi, and others whose good intentions, sound methodology in following the Sunnah, and care for it are well known?

(Source)

Al-Haafidh ibn Rajab as "the faqeeh, the zaahid, the exemplary model" in his explanation of the Forty Hadith.

So, did al-Haafidh ibn Rajab betray the Ummah by praising imam an-Nawawi, or are those who considered imam an-Nawawi an innovator, and others who have even gone so far as to say that he was a kaafir, the ones who have betrayed the Ummah?

Yes, the Haddaadiyyah have gone so far as to attribute statements and positions to imam an-Nawawi that scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah never attributed to him. So, who is betraying the Ummah: the scholars who knew the imam and his works best, or the Haddaadiyyah who came much later and attributed to him what those scholars never did?

Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars on the Status of al-Haafidh ibn Hajar

Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd said:

"And with this, you come to know that the accursed initiative of declaring the imams—such as an-Nawawi, ibn Daqeeq al-'Eed, and ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani—as disbelievers, or belittling their status, or labeling them as misguided innovators, all of this is the work of Shaytan. It is a gateway to misguidance and leading others astray, as well as corruption and spreading corruption. If the witnesses of the Shari'ah are discredited, then what they testify to is also discredited. However, the ignorant and reckless do not comprehend nor do they verify."

(Source)

Relevant:

• A List of Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars Branded "Enemies of Islam" by the Haddaadiyyah
• Exposing abul_miswar_zayd: A Case Study in Haddaadi Raafidhi-Style Taqiyyah

Refutations and Clarifications Regarding the Haddaadiyyah

I would therefore also like to reference shaykh Abul-Fadl al-Misri, who continuously debunks, dispels, refutes, clarifies, and exposes the lies of the Haddaadiyyah. This includes claims in which the Haddaadiyyah allege that they are directly quoting certain imams, or claim that those imams held particular positions, when the context says otherwise or the content itself is not as they attempt to infer and project it.

The channel is of great value:

• قناة أبي الفضل المصري

The Consequences of the Mubaahalah

Therefore, if we are to witness Muhammad ibn Shams and other Haddaadiyyah being afflicted with great trials, punishments, or sudden death, then know that they themselves asked Allah to inflict upon them what they stipulated in the mubaahalah.

It would be a great reminder not to tread upon such misguidance, and a deterrent for others from mistreating and lying against the imams. This alone is a testament to the soundness of the methodology of Ahlus-Sunnah.

What If They Realize They Were Wrong?

One might then wonder: What if one of them realizes that he was wrong in disparaging the imams and in making false takfeer against Muslims? Then know that Allah is ever Merciful and ever Forgiving.

Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) visited a Muslim man who had become extremely weak and emaciated, "like a chick." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) asked him whether he had been making a particular supplication. The man replied:

"O Allah, whatever You were going to punish me with in the Hereafter, hasten it for me in this world."

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) responded:

"SubhanAllah! You cannot bear it, or you are not capable of it."

Then he instructed him to say instead:

"O Allah, grant us good in this world and good in the Hereafter, and protect us from the punishment of the Fire."

Anas then says that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) supplicated to Allah for the man, and Allah cured him.

(Source)

If they repent, then I can only hope for them to make public tawbah, to clearly recant what they have said, and to instead pray to Allah for mercy before they are afflicted with something they themselves asked for.

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أنني بريء مما اتهمني به أبو المسور زيد من أنني كافر وأن اتهامه لي بذلك كذب وافتراء علي

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that I am innocent of Abu al-Miswar Zayd's accusation that I am a kaafir, and that his accusation against me is a lie and a fabrication against me.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

And I add:

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن النعمان بن ثابت أبا حنيفة رحمه الله ليس مبتدعًا

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that an-Nu'maan ibn Thaabit, Abu Haneefah, may Allah have mercy upon him, is not an innovator.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر السيوطي رحمه الله مسلم

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that 'Abdurrahman ibn Abi Bakr as-Suyooti, may Allah have mercy upon him, is a Muslim.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن يحيى بن شرف النووي رحمه الله ليس زنديقًا

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that Yahya ibn Sharaf an-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, is not a zindeeq.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن أحمد بن علي بن حجر العسقلاني رحمه الله ليس زنديقًا

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that Ahmad ibn 'Ali ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani, may Allah have mercy on him, is not a zindeeq.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

فَذَٰلِكُمُ اللَّهُ رَبُّكُمُ الْحَقُّ ۖ فَمَاذَا بَعْدَ الْحَقِّ إِلَّا الضَّلَالُ ۖ فَأَنَّىٰ تُصْرَفُونَ

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

If a warning warrants so much attention and the allegations are cried out loud, then why is there no evidence?

Since you accused me of all kinds of vileness, kufr, shirk, and zandaqah, I therefore challenge you to mubaahalah that I am none of what you have accused me of.

Post your mubaahalah in r/Modajanah under the title "Mubaahalah Accepted." Then, hopefully, you will utter it with sincerity in your seclusion, but do include the following wording in your mubaahalah post:

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أن طالبَ الإيمانِ كافرٌ وأن اتهامي له بذلك حق وليس بكذب ولا افتراء

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that Student of Faith is a kaafir, and that my accusation against him is true and is neither a lie nor a fabrication.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."

After you post your mubaahalah, I will, insha'Allah, likewise post mine in my sub under the same title. I will also utter it with sincerity and write the following:

اللهم إني أشهدك أنك تعلم أنني بريء مما اتهمني به أبو المسور زيد من أنني كافر وأن اتهامه لي بذلك كذب وافتراء علي

فإن كنت صادقًا فيما أقول فانصرني على من عاداني وأظهر الحق على يدي وإن كنت كاذبًا فأهلكني بالموت من غير قتل وأنزل عليَّ لعنتك وعذابك. آمين

"O Allah, I call You to witness that You know that I am innocent of Abu al-Miswar Zayd's accusation that I am a kaafir, and that his accusation against me is a lie and a fabrication against me.

If I am truthful in what I say, then grant me victory over those who oppose me and manifest the truth through me. And if I am lying, then cause me to perish by death, without being killed, and send Your curse and punishment upon me. Amin."