Abualqamah
10th July 2008, 12:01 AM
Fabrication of the Hadith of Nur by the Brawliyah, with help of Dr ‘Isa al-Himyari and Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh
This article is adapted from the words of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Zyad ibn ‘Umar At-Tuklatah in his book entitled “Difa’ ‘ani Nabi (saw) wa Sunnatihi Al-Mutaharah wa Kashf Tawatu ‘Isa Al-Hiymari wa Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh ‘ala Wad’il Hadith” (Defense of the Prophet (saw) and his noble Sunnah and unveiling the complicity of ‘Isa Al-Himyari and Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh in fabricating Hadith”.
It is mentioned in Mutawatir Hadith: “Whoever lies upon me intentionally, he should prepare his place in hell.”
Sufiyan Ath-Thawri said: “If a man thinks about lying in a Hadith and he is in his house, Allah will make him apparent”
Sufiyan ibn ‘Uyaynah said: “Allah did not hide anyone who lied in Hadith”
Ibnul Mubarak was asked: “Are these Ahadith fabricated?” and he replied: “The experts will find it, Allah said: “We have sent down the Zikr and We will protect it.”
The first edition of “Juzz Awal min al-Musannaf lil Hafiz al-Kabeer Abi Bakr ‘AbdurRazaq ibn Humam As-San’ani” was published in 2005 in a little volume with the Tahqiq of ‘Isa ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn Mani’ Al-Himyari and introduction of Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh, with a total of 105 pages and the text of Ahadith is of 44 pages.
Shaykh At-Tuklatah said that whoever ponders over this book will see it is a lie and a calumny upon Hafiz ‘AbdurRazaq, and this was only invented to promote the creed of Nur Muhammadi. The Isnads are clearly fabricated and any experts can see that at first glance, and the texts (Mutun) are opposing the Shari’ah and have non-Arabic style.
The “Musannaf” of ‘AbdurRazaq ibn Humam As-San’ani (d 211) is among oldest and greatest of books of Sunnah, and it contains a lot of marfu’ Ahadith and narrations of Sahabah and Tabi’is in greater number. This “Musannaf” was published by Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami from many manuscripts, and the book was beginning with the chapter of washing the hands in the book of purification, and it seemed that one or two pages were missing in the beginning.
And the people of innovations were not satisfied with this edition, as they could not find the Hadith of Nur from Jabir that some Sufis attributed to ‘AbdurRazaq without any Sanad. So they hoped that maybe the first missing pages contained this Hadith.
Dr Himyari, who was working with the “Idarah Awqaf” in Dubai, said in the introduction (p 5-6) that he appointed people to search for this Hadith in Turkey and Yemen but could not find it. And Dr Sayid Muhammad Ameen Barkati Qadiri Bralwi from India claimed he found such a manuscript of the beginning with the Hadith of Nur, and he sent it to Dr Himyari.
And then Dr Himyari said he was convinced about the authenticity of this manuscript, and he said that it proved that the Prophet (saw)’s soul was created first and Adam (aley salam) was the first body, and Adam is a Mazhar if his (saw) Mazahir, and the Prophet (saw) is the reality of realities, the lantern of east and west and the Hadith of Jabir is only but an explanation of the verse of niche, meaning “Allah is the light of the heavens and earth”.
And the deatils given about this manuscript in the introduction are:
1)This manuscript was found by a Shaykh of the Qadiriyah Tariqah in India
2)Al-Humayri obtained this manuscript, and Mahmud Sai’d Mamduh saw it.
3)It is written on it that it was copied in Baghdad in 938 by Ishaq ibn ‘AbdirRahman As-Sulaymani.
4)This copyist is told to be precise according to Al-Himayari because he is more precise than the published edition.
5)Al-Himyari compared his style of writing with manuscripts of tenth century and told it to be close to them.
6) There is no Sima’ nor Isnad on the manuscript.
7) The manuscript contains ten more pages from the published version in the beginning, the first chapter being “Creation of the Nur of Muhammad (saw)” and nine others about Wudhu.
Shaykh Adeeb Al-Kamadani is a specialist of the knowledge of Hadith and manuscripts in Damascus, and he is among most knowledgeable companions of Shaykh Farid Al-Baji At-Tunsi. He went since some years in Dubai as a searcher for the Awqaf, and he is also an Imam and Khatib in some of its mosque, and he had direct links with Al-Himyari about this manuscript.
Al-Himyari when he received the manuscript from the Bralwiyah of India was extremely happy and showed this manuscript to al-Kamadani and Al-Kamadani said this is fabricated by just looking at the paper and style of writing. What about if we add these Isnads and texts (mutun)? Al-Kamadani said: “I do not give more than two years approximately”. He saw a recent paper and fresh writing on it.
Al-Kamadani requested Al-Himyari to check this manuscript in the Markaz Jum’ah Al-Majid in Dubai to prove it is a fabrication. Also seeing that this manuscript was recent, he asked Al-Himyari to request the people of India to tell about the original manuscript from which they copied this one, and Al-Himyari replied this manuscript was copied from a library of Soviet Union and it the library was burned in the war.
Furthermore, Al-Kamadani said to him to ask the people of India to send the rest of the manuscript, meaning containing the whole of the Musannaf, but the people of India did not sent it, also Al-Kamadani requested a photocopy of the manuscript Al-Himyari had in his hands but Al-Himyari refused. So this shows that the people of India did not have the complete manuscript of it, and Al-Himyari even refused to give a photocopy of what he had, meaning the fourty Ahadith.
And this happened in 2001, and after this Al-Himyari left the Idarah of Awqaf, and he only saw him two or three times, Al-Himyari informed him that he would publish the book with his Tahqiq and al-Kamadani objected to such a matter, and he saw the book published in 2005.
So Al-Kamadani tried to prevent him from publishing such falsehood and warned him about the fabrication in this manuscript, but Al-Himyari carried on and he is thus a partner in the crime of fabricating this Hadith, as he knew that the manuscript was recent, and the old manuscript was in Soviet Union as he claimed, and despite this he did not mention these matters in the introduction, rather deceived people and claimed that this manuscript was written in the tenth century and he compared it with other manuscripts of this period, so he knew the defect of this manuscript, yet he hided it on purpose.
And the scholars of Hadith do not differentiate between the one who fabricates in the beginning and the one who steals this lie, and both are declared liars. So Al-Himayri is a accomplice in crime. This manuscript came from a suspect sect A-Brawliyah, it is not in a known Maktabah.
Moreover, Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh also is accomplice in this treachery. Al-Himyari needed someone to follow him in this evil action and he did not find anyone except Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh Al-Misri. He wrote the introduction p 3-4, said he had a look at the manuscript in Al-Himyari’s library and Al-Himyari described the manuscript in its tahqiq in such a manner that it proves its reliability, and he thanked him for his efforts.
The gravity of lying on the Prophet (saw) is not hidden to Mamduh and his companions Al-Himyari, but desire increases people in misguidance, and we seek the refuge from Allah.
At-Tuklatah gave clear signs about this manuscript being written by someone of India. Its style (Khat) is not from the tenth century, rather it is similar to the Indian manuscripts written in last century. And the way the letters are written strengthens this like the “Ya” at the end of the word like in the word “Az-Zuhri”, the words “Tawus”, “Malaikah” and this appears in the photocopy of the first page shown by al-Himyari p 18.
And in the last page also shown by Al-Himyari p 22 one can see the “ha” (å) at the end of words like Mithluhu, Al-Ayah, ‘Aleyhi” and the “Ha” (Í) at the end of words such as ‘Najih” and the “Ghayn” at the end of the word “Al-Firagh”, and this style is the one of Indians. And whoever has a copy of the Quran written in the style of people of Pakistan and India can see it.
When Shaykh Abdul Quddus Nadheer Al-Hindi saw the photocopy of first and last page given by Al-Himyari, he clearly said to At-Taklutah: “This is recent Indian style”. And the same was said to him by Shaykh ‘Umar ibn Sulayman Al-Hufayan, who has done a MA in the science of manuscripts in the institute of Manuscript in Egypt and other than these two scholars.
As for his claim of this style resembling those of tenth century, then At-Tuklatah said he has many manuscripts of ten century that are completely different than this.
As for the copyist being precise, then this claim is false, and we have two photocopies of this manuscript told to be reliable, and forty published Ahadith. In the first Hadith the copyist erred in writing the name of the famous Sahabi Saib ibn Yazid and he wrote instead Saib ibn Zayd. In the second Hadith, he wrote: Ibn Jurayj said (and he is from Atba Tabi’in): Al-Bara informed me (Akhbarani), so where is the precision in the beginning of this manuscript?
At-Tuklatah showed that Al-Himyari is not reliable in his quotes from the manuscript, and he alters from what is in the manuscript told to be reliable by him. In the first page of the photocopy provided by Al-Himyari it is written: “he prostrated five times, so these prostrations became worship for us (‘Ubiddat ‘aleyna)” and Al-Himyari wrote p 18 of the published version: “he prostrated five times, and these prostrations became for us (Sarat aleyna)…”, and he did not indicate this change.
Anybody can see that the words “’Ubiddat “ and “Sarat” are very far in letters, so it is not a mistake but an alteration on purpose of Al-Himyari, and he should indicate that the manuscript contained the words “’Ubiddat” and for this or that reason, they are an error, and the right words are “Sarat”
And At-Tuklatah concluded that this was probably to hide the non-Arabic style of this sentence. Anyway, this is a clear treachery in Tahqiq, and this is only in what he showed to us from photocopies of manuscripts, so what about what he did not show to us?
And he refused to give a full photocopy to his friend Al-Kamadani, so what about his ennemies?
Also in the Hadith of Jabir, he made some changes from the so called precise manuscript and took some words of his model and example Muhiyudin ibn ‘Arabi Al-Hatimi. So one can see the precision of this manuscript.
Al-Himyari invented in the beginning of the book “Kitab ul Iman” and there is no basis for this neither from what happened nor by reason, when have you heard of a Kitab having only one chapter? So the manuscript only contained the name of chapter “Bab Takhliq Nur Nabi (saw)” and Al-Himyari invented this “Kitab ul Iman”.
Insha Allah more to come
Yet anyone can see what these Batini Sufis Himyari and Mamduh showed to us, these Quburis Jahmis promoters of greek religion of Faydh and Shi'ah religion of Nur
This article is adapted from the words of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Zyad ibn ‘Umar At-Tuklatah in his book entitled “Difa’ ‘ani Nabi (saw) wa Sunnatihi Al-Mutaharah wa Kashf Tawatu ‘Isa Al-Hiymari wa Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh ‘ala Wad’il Hadith” (Defense of the Prophet (saw) and his noble Sunnah and unveiling the complicity of ‘Isa Al-Himyari and Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh in fabricating Hadith”.
It is mentioned in Mutawatir Hadith: “Whoever lies upon me intentionally, he should prepare his place in hell.”
Sufiyan Ath-Thawri said: “If a man thinks about lying in a Hadith and he is in his house, Allah will make him apparent”
Sufiyan ibn ‘Uyaynah said: “Allah did not hide anyone who lied in Hadith”
Ibnul Mubarak was asked: “Are these Ahadith fabricated?” and he replied: “The experts will find it, Allah said: “We have sent down the Zikr and We will protect it.”
The first edition of “Juzz Awal min al-Musannaf lil Hafiz al-Kabeer Abi Bakr ‘AbdurRazaq ibn Humam As-San’ani” was published in 2005 in a little volume with the Tahqiq of ‘Isa ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn Mani’ Al-Himyari and introduction of Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh, with a total of 105 pages and the text of Ahadith is of 44 pages.
Shaykh At-Tuklatah said that whoever ponders over this book will see it is a lie and a calumny upon Hafiz ‘AbdurRazaq, and this was only invented to promote the creed of Nur Muhammadi. The Isnads are clearly fabricated and any experts can see that at first glance, and the texts (Mutun) are opposing the Shari’ah and have non-Arabic style.
The “Musannaf” of ‘AbdurRazaq ibn Humam As-San’ani (d 211) is among oldest and greatest of books of Sunnah, and it contains a lot of marfu’ Ahadith and narrations of Sahabah and Tabi’is in greater number. This “Musannaf” was published by Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami from many manuscripts, and the book was beginning with the chapter of washing the hands in the book of purification, and it seemed that one or two pages were missing in the beginning.
And the people of innovations were not satisfied with this edition, as they could not find the Hadith of Nur from Jabir that some Sufis attributed to ‘AbdurRazaq without any Sanad. So they hoped that maybe the first missing pages contained this Hadith.
Dr Himyari, who was working with the “Idarah Awqaf” in Dubai, said in the introduction (p 5-6) that he appointed people to search for this Hadith in Turkey and Yemen but could not find it. And Dr Sayid Muhammad Ameen Barkati Qadiri Bralwi from India claimed he found such a manuscript of the beginning with the Hadith of Nur, and he sent it to Dr Himyari.
And then Dr Himyari said he was convinced about the authenticity of this manuscript, and he said that it proved that the Prophet (saw)’s soul was created first and Adam (aley salam) was the first body, and Adam is a Mazhar if his (saw) Mazahir, and the Prophet (saw) is the reality of realities, the lantern of east and west and the Hadith of Jabir is only but an explanation of the verse of niche, meaning “Allah is the light of the heavens and earth”.
And the deatils given about this manuscript in the introduction are:
1)This manuscript was found by a Shaykh of the Qadiriyah Tariqah in India
2)Al-Humayri obtained this manuscript, and Mahmud Sai’d Mamduh saw it.
3)It is written on it that it was copied in Baghdad in 938 by Ishaq ibn ‘AbdirRahman As-Sulaymani.
4)This copyist is told to be precise according to Al-Himayari because he is more precise than the published edition.
5)Al-Himyari compared his style of writing with manuscripts of tenth century and told it to be close to them.
6) There is no Sima’ nor Isnad on the manuscript.
7) The manuscript contains ten more pages from the published version in the beginning, the first chapter being “Creation of the Nur of Muhammad (saw)” and nine others about Wudhu.
Shaykh Adeeb Al-Kamadani is a specialist of the knowledge of Hadith and manuscripts in Damascus, and he is among most knowledgeable companions of Shaykh Farid Al-Baji At-Tunsi. He went since some years in Dubai as a searcher for the Awqaf, and he is also an Imam and Khatib in some of its mosque, and he had direct links with Al-Himyari about this manuscript.
Al-Himyari when he received the manuscript from the Bralwiyah of India was extremely happy and showed this manuscript to al-Kamadani and Al-Kamadani said this is fabricated by just looking at the paper and style of writing. What about if we add these Isnads and texts (mutun)? Al-Kamadani said: “I do not give more than two years approximately”. He saw a recent paper and fresh writing on it.
Al-Kamadani requested Al-Himyari to check this manuscript in the Markaz Jum’ah Al-Majid in Dubai to prove it is a fabrication. Also seeing that this manuscript was recent, he asked Al-Himyari to request the people of India to tell about the original manuscript from which they copied this one, and Al-Himyari replied this manuscript was copied from a library of Soviet Union and it the library was burned in the war.
Furthermore, Al-Kamadani said to him to ask the people of India to send the rest of the manuscript, meaning containing the whole of the Musannaf, but the people of India did not sent it, also Al-Kamadani requested a photocopy of the manuscript Al-Himyari had in his hands but Al-Himyari refused. So this shows that the people of India did not have the complete manuscript of it, and Al-Himyari even refused to give a photocopy of what he had, meaning the fourty Ahadith.
And this happened in 2001, and after this Al-Himyari left the Idarah of Awqaf, and he only saw him two or three times, Al-Himyari informed him that he would publish the book with his Tahqiq and al-Kamadani objected to such a matter, and he saw the book published in 2005.
So Al-Kamadani tried to prevent him from publishing such falsehood and warned him about the fabrication in this manuscript, but Al-Himyari carried on and he is thus a partner in the crime of fabricating this Hadith, as he knew that the manuscript was recent, and the old manuscript was in Soviet Union as he claimed, and despite this he did not mention these matters in the introduction, rather deceived people and claimed that this manuscript was written in the tenth century and he compared it with other manuscripts of this period, so he knew the defect of this manuscript, yet he hided it on purpose.
And the scholars of Hadith do not differentiate between the one who fabricates in the beginning and the one who steals this lie, and both are declared liars. So Al-Himayri is a accomplice in crime. This manuscript came from a suspect sect A-Brawliyah, it is not in a known Maktabah.
Moreover, Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh also is accomplice in this treachery. Al-Himyari needed someone to follow him in this evil action and he did not find anyone except Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh Al-Misri. He wrote the introduction p 3-4, said he had a look at the manuscript in Al-Himyari’s library and Al-Himyari described the manuscript in its tahqiq in such a manner that it proves its reliability, and he thanked him for his efforts.
The gravity of lying on the Prophet (saw) is not hidden to Mamduh and his companions Al-Himyari, but desire increases people in misguidance, and we seek the refuge from Allah.
At-Tuklatah gave clear signs about this manuscript being written by someone of India. Its style (Khat) is not from the tenth century, rather it is similar to the Indian manuscripts written in last century. And the way the letters are written strengthens this like the “Ya” at the end of the word like in the word “Az-Zuhri”, the words “Tawus”, “Malaikah” and this appears in the photocopy of the first page shown by al-Himyari p 18.
And in the last page also shown by Al-Himyari p 22 one can see the “ha” (å) at the end of words like Mithluhu, Al-Ayah, ‘Aleyhi” and the “Ha” (Í) at the end of words such as ‘Najih” and the “Ghayn” at the end of the word “Al-Firagh”, and this style is the one of Indians. And whoever has a copy of the Quran written in the style of people of Pakistan and India can see it.
When Shaykh Abdul Quddus Nadheer Al-Hindi saw the photocopy of first and last page given by Al-Himyari, he clearly said to At-Taklutah: “This is recent Indian style”. And the same was said to him by Shaykh ‘Umar ibn Sulayman Al-Hufayan, who has done a MA in the science of manuscripts in the institute of Manuscript in Egypt and other than these two scholars.
As for his claim of this style resembling those of tenth century, then At-Tuklatah said he has many manuscripts of ten century that are completely different than this.
As for the copyist being precise, then this claim is false, and we have two photocopies of this manuscript told to be reliable, and forty published Ahadith. In the first Hadith the copyist erred in writing the name of the famous Sahabi Saib ibn Yazid and he wrote instead Saib ibn Zayd. In the second Hadith, he wrote: Ibn Jurayj said (and he is from Atba Tabi’in): Al-Bara informed me (Akhbarani), so where is the precision in the beginning of this manuscript?
At-Tuklatah showed that Al-Himyari is not reliable in his quotes from the manuscript, and he alters from what is in the manuscript told to be reliable by him. In the first page of the photocopy provided by Al-Himyari it is written: “he prostrated five times, so these prostrations became worship for us (‘Ubiddat ‘aleyna)” and Al-Himyari wrote p 18 of the published version: “he prostrated five times, and these prostrations became for us (Sarat aleyna)…”, and he did not indicate this change.
Anybody can see that the words “’Ubiddat “ and “Sarat” are very far in letters, so it is not a mistake but an alteration on purpose of Al-Himyari, and he should indicate that the manuscript contained the words “’Ubiddat” and for this or that reason, they are an error, and the right words are “Sarat”
And At-Tuklatah concluded that this was probably to hide the non-Arabic style of this sentence. Anyway, this is a clear treachery in Tahqiq, and this is only in what he showed to us from photocopies of manuscripts, so what about what he did not show to us?
And he refused to give a full photocopy to his friend Al-Kamadani, so what about his ennemies?
Also in the Hadith of Jabir, he made some changes from the so called precise manuscript and took some words of his model and example Muhiyudin ibn ‘Arabi Al-Hatimi. So one can see the precision of this manuscript.
Al-Himyari invented in the beginning of the book “Kitab ul Iman” and there is no basis for this neither from what happened nor by reason, when have you heard of a Kitab having only one chapter? So the manuscript only contained the name of chapter “Bab Takhliq Nur Nabi (saw)” and Al-Himyari invented this “Kitab ul Iman”.
Insha Allah more to come
Yet anyone can see what these Batini Sufis Himyari and Mamduh showed to us, these Quburis Jahmis promoters of greek religion of Faydh and Shi'ah religion of Nur