Did Ibn Hajr support isthigaaza from dead ??!!

[mizbah]

One brother send me this ibaarath saying that ibn hajr says that the report(a majhool visiting prophet(peace be upon hom )'s grave during the time of Umar(r) is an evidence for seeking help from the dead .
Is there such a satatement from ibn hajr in the ibaarath ???

باب سُؤَالِ النَّاسِ الْإِمَامَ الِاسْتِسْقَاءَ إِذَا قَحَطُوا قوله: (باب سؤال الناس الإمام الاستسقاء إذا قحطوا) قال ابن رشيد: لو أدخل تحت هذه الترجمة حديث ابن مسعود الذي قبله لكان أوضح مما ذكر، انتهى، ويظهر لي أنه لما كان من سأل قد يكون مسلما وقد يكون مشركا وقد يكون من الفريقين، وكان في حديث ابن مسعود المذكور أن الذي سأل قد يكون مشركا، ناسب أن يذكر في الذي بعده ما يدل على ما إذا كان الطلب من الفريقين كما سأبينه، ولذلك ذكر لفظ الترجمة عاما لقوله " سؤال الناس " وذلك أن المصنف أورد في هذا الباب تمثل ابن عمر بشعر أبي طالب وقول أنس " إن عمر كان إذا قحطوا استسقى بالعباس " وقد اعترضه الإسماعيلي فقال: حديث ابن عمر خارج عن الترجمة، إذ ليس فيه أن أحدا سأله أن يستسقى له ولا في قصة العباس التي أوردها أيضا، وأجاب ابن المنير عن حديث ابن عمر بأن المناسبة تؤخذ من قوله فيه " يستسقى الغمام " لأن فاعله محذوف وهم الناس، وعن حديث أنس بأن في قول عمر" كنا نتوسل إليك بنبيك " دلالة على أن للإمام مدخلا في الاستسقاء، وتعقب بأنه لا يلزم من كون فاعل " يستسقى " هو الناس أن يكونوا سألوا الإمام أن يستسقى لهم كما في الترجمة، وكذا ليس في قول عمر أنهم كانوا يتوسلون به دلالة على أنهم سألوه أن يستسقى لهم، إذ يحتمل أن يكونوا في الحالين طلبوا السقيا من الله مستشفعين به صلى الله عليه وسلم، وقال ابن رشيد: يحتمل أن يكون أراد بالترجمة الاستدلال بطريق الأولى لأنهم إذا كانوا يسألون الله به فيسقيهم فأحرى أن يقدموه للسؤال، انتهى، وهو حسن ويمكن أن يكون أراد من حديث ابن عمر سياق الطريق الثانية عنه، وأن يبين أن الطريق الأولى مختصرة منها، وذلك أن لفظ الثانية " ربما ذكرت قول الشاعر وأنا أنظر إلى وجه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يستسقى فدل ذلك على أنه هو الذي باشر الطلب صلى الله عليه وسلم، وأن ابن عمر أشار إلى قصة وقعت في الإسلام حضرها هو لا مجرد ما دل عليه شعر أبي طالب، وقد علم من بقية الأحاديث أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما استسقى إجابة لسؤال من سأله في ذلك كما في حديث ابن مسعود الماضي وفي حديث أنس الآتي وغيرهما من الأحاديث، وأوضح من ذلك ما أخرجه البيهقي في " الدلائل " من رواية مسلم الملائي عن أنس قال " جاء رجل أعرابي إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله، أتيناك وما لنا بعير يئط، ولا صبي يغط، ثم أنشده شعرا يقول فيه: وليس لنـا إلا إليك فرارنا وأين فرار الناس إلا إلى الرسل فقام يجر رداءه حتى صعد المنبر فقال " اللهم اسقنا " الحديث وفيه " ثم قال صلى الله عليه وسلم: لو كان أبو طالب حيا لقرت عيناه، من ينشدنا قوله فقام علي فقال: يا رسول الله، كأنك أردت قوله " وأبيض يستسقى الغمام بوجهه " الأبيات، فظهرت بذلك مناسبة حديث ابن عمر للترجمة، وإسناد حديث أنس وإن كان فيه ضعف لكنه يصلح للمتابعة، وقد ذكره ابن هشام في زوائده في السيرة تعليقا عمن يثق به، وقوله "يئط " بفتح أوله وكسر الهمزة وكذا " يغط " بالمعجمة، والأطيط صوت البعير المثقل، والغطيط صوت النائم كذلك، وكني بذلك عن شدة الجوع، لأنهما إنما يقعان غالبا عند الشبع، وأما حديث أنس عن عمر فأشار به أيضا إلى ما ورد في بعض طرقه، وهو عند الإسماعيلي من رواية محمد بن المثنى عن الأنصاري بإسناد البخاري إلى أنس قال " كانوا إذا قحطوا على عهد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم استسقوا به، فيستسقى لهم فيسقون فلما كان في إمارة عمر " فذكر الحديث، وقد أشار إلى ذلك الإسماعيلي فقال: هذا الذي رويته يحتمل المعنى الذي ترجمه، بخلاف ما أورده هو: قلت: وليس ذلك بمبتدع، لما عرف بالاستقراء من عادته من الاكتفاء بالإشارة إلى ما ورد في بعض طرق الحديث الذي يورده، وقد روى عبد الرزاق من حديث ابن عباس " أن عمر استسقى بالمصلى، فقال للعباس: قم فأستسق، فقام العباس " فذكر الحديث، فتبين بهذا أن في القصة المذكورة أن العباس كان مسئولا وأنه ينزل منزلة الإمام إذا أمره الإمام بذلك، وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري - وكان خازن عمر - قال " أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له: ائت عمر " الحديث، وقد روى سيف في الفتوح أن الذي رأى المنام المذكور هو بلال بن الحارث المزني أحد الصحابة، وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموفق. (فتح الباري
)

[Abu_Abdallah]

al-Salamu 'Alaikum,

I believe, yes, there is. I will come back on that, Insha'Allah.

wa-Salam

[Abuz Zubair]

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=15744&postcount=36

[Abu_Abdallah]

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showpost.php?p=15744&postcount=36

Jazakullah for reminding us your view concerning this brother, however, in from what I read elsewhere concerning this I believe the Hafidh Ibn Hajar did considers it good.

Dr. Muhammad Ishaq Kindû, who is also the author of Manhaj al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani fi'l-'Aqidah, believes by the passage quoted above that the Hafidh, indeed, believes it to be admissable. Kindû says:

"As for the saying of the Hafidh - at the end of the commentary - : و يستفاد من قصة العباس استحباب الاستشفاع بأهل الخير والصلاح وأهل بيت النبوة If he intends by mediation through them in their lives with the meaning of asking them to make Du'a from them, then yes. If, however, he intends mediation through them after their death or in a state of their absence, then not, because of what preceded.

However, the Hafidh mentioned in explanation of the same chapter-heading that what indicates that he permits mediation (al-istishfâ') through the pious people after their death, for he mentioned concerning that a narration (riwâyah) for he said: وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري untill والله الموفق . (full passage is quoted, I abrrevated here)

The Hafidh noted for this narration, in affirmation of it ( مقرًا لها ), proof upon the fact that he (i.e. the Hafidh) believes in mediation (al-istishfâ') through the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him, or through another from the pious people also after their death.

And this was one of the places upon which the Shaykh, the scholar Ibn Bâz - may Allah keep him - wrote a note on, for he said: هذا الأثر - على فرض صحته كما قال الشارح - ليس بحجة على جواز الاستسقاء بالنبي بعد وفاته etc."

From this I understand that - indeed - Ibn Hajar believed it to be proof, if we accept the understanding of Dr. Kindû and Shaykh Ibn Bâz, rahimahullah. Refer to Manhaj Ibn Hajar p.1015-1018, and Fath al-Bari in the edition of Ibn Bâz 2:495ff.

Dr. Kindû criticizes the Hafidh Ibn Hajar also for his views on Tabarruk and Ziyârat al-Qubûr, which seems to support the view that he accepted this narration's impact.

However, I must say, if you read further on from p.1018 etc. you'll see that Dr. Kindû gives enough evidence - evidences brother Abuz Zubair in fact provides - that the Hafidh could have thought otherwise. I quote the author of the Manhaj:

"I say: Warning is needed here about several aspects:

First: the Hafidh Ibn Hajar, in spite of mentioning this narration in way of acceptance ('ala wajhi'l-iqrar), then he has not authenticated it absolutely. He rather said: By an sound chain from the transmission of Abu Salih al-Sammân on the authority of Mâlik al-Dâri.

And the meaning of this is that the Hafidh authenticated its Sanad till Abi Salih al-Sammân. And what he mentioned from the Isnad's narrators he does not speak of its authenticity, as is manifest for the people of knowledge (i.e. the muhaddithun). So he seperated between what he said and what could be said: by a sound chain that Malik al-Dâri said."

The author then continues with several other aspects or points of consideration, mentioning in a footnote that he relied upon Shaykh Sâlih b. 'Abd al-'Aziz 'Al al-Shaykh's book, hafidhahullah, which is a strong criticism of Muhammad b. al-'Alawi's infamous book the Mafâhim.

wa-Allahu A'lam.

[Abuz Zubair]

JazakumAllahu Khayran brother Sharif Abu Ja'far for your comments.

The statement of Ibn Hajar:

و يستفاد من قصة العباس استحباب الاستشفاع بأهل الخير والصلاح وأهل بيت النبوة

is the sort of statement found in all books of fiqh, and in particular in the chapter of Salat al-Istisqa where the context is only about asking the living righteous people to come out and make dua.

The fact that Ibn Hajar is referring to the narration of al-'Abbas shows that he is referring to going to the righteous people and asking them to make dua for rain. This is the dhahir, which is in accordance with nearly all the books of fiqh in the chapter of istisqa.

This statement alone does not at all indicate that he may allow intercession through the dead.

But then al-Kindu says that there is an indication that Ibn Hajar actually supports seeking intercession from the dead, merely because of the fact he mentions the Hadith of Malik al-Dar, because he quotes it while showing no objection to it.

In response, I would say:

Firstly, al-Kindu himself warns us that Ibn Hajar does not accept this athar, due to the reasons I had outlined in the other post.

Secondly, Ibn Hajar is not quoting this narration to prove intercession via the dead at all. His reason for citing the report is completely different, and the scholars of hadeeth often quote very weak narrations for isti'nas, i.e. just to show a point that al-Bukhari's chapter heading DOES correspond to the narrations he mentions, and this is why Ibn Hajar says after quoting the athar of Malik al-Dar:

وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموف

"This all shows the relevance of the chapter heading to the origin of this story"

This is the only purpose of quoting the text.

Thirdly, Ibn Baz's statement: 'even if it were to be authentic as the Sharih has said', refers to the same authentication up to Abu Salih. Ibn Baz does not suggest that this is Ibn Hajar's opinion. He only comments on the athar saying that it is a gateway to Shirk, whilst some scholars consider it to be Shirk in and of itself. Yet, no criticism of Ibn Hajar, simply because there is no indication in the text that Ibn Hajar supports asking the dead for intercession.

Fourthly, as we have said earlier, it is impossible for Ibn Hajar to deem this athar authentic, especially a) due to his comment, 'sahih from Abu Salih via Malik al-Dar', and b) the fact that he regards Sayf b. 'Umar to be weak in his taqrib.

wallahu alam

[Abu_Abdallah]

JazakumAllahu Khayran brother Sharif Abu Ja'far for your comments.

The statement of Ibn Hajar:



is the sort of statement found in all books of fiqh, and in particular in the chapter of Salat al-Istisqa where the context is only about asking the living righteous people to come out and make dua.

The fact that Ibn Hajar is referring to the narration of al-'Abbas shows that he is referring to going to the righteous people and asking them to make dua for rain. This is the dhahir, which is in accordance with nearly all the books of fiqh in the chapter of istisqa.

I understand that and I agree.

This statement alone does not at all indicate that he may allow intercession through the dead.

This is what I question, based upon my reading of the passage and the understanding of Kindû and Ibn Bâz.

But then al-Kindu says that there is an indication that Ibn Hajar actually supports seeking intercession from the dead, merely because of the fact he mentions the Hadith of Malik al-Dar, because he quotes it while showing no objection to it.

True. Kindu says: لكن ذكر الحافظ في شرح الباب نفسه ما يدل على أنه يجيز الاستشفاع بالصالحن بعد موتهم
He then cites the Hafidh and the narration of Malik al-Dar. This is the apparent understanding; to this Kindu subscribes, and Ibn Bâz.

In response, I would say:

Firstly, al-Kindu himself warns us that Ibn Hajar does not accept this athar, due to the reasons I had outlined in the other post.

True, only I would say: he would not since he does not explictly say this. It is, rather, the understanding of Kindu, following Shaykh Sâlih Âl al-Shaykh who pointed this out in his radd on al-'Alawi. And they are correct in this, as you are in your initial criticism.

The Hafidh accepts or believes the narration, according to Kindu, but he does not authenticate it absolutely. There is a difference between this and not accepting it at all, I think.

Secondly, Ibn Hajar is not quoting this narration to prove intercession via the dead at all. His reason for citing the report is completely different, and the scholars of hadeeth often quote very weak narrations for isti'nas, i.e. just to show a point that al-Bukhari's chapter heading DOES correspond to the narrations he mentions, and this is why Ibn Hajar says after quoting the athar of Malik al-Dar:

وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموف

"This all shows the relevance of the chapter heading to the origin of this story"

This is the only purpose of quoting the text.

I agree and disagree, dear brother. You are right: It is true that they (i.e. the Muhaddithun) cite many narrations, weak or authentic, just to show a relationship between a chapter heading and what it contains of narrations.

However, in this particular instance there is enough evidence that the Hafidh considers it (i.e. istishfâ', lit. seeking healing from others, and other types of mediation or intercession) from the dead admissable. This is something Dr. Kindu clearly provides in his chapters on Tabarruk and especially Ziyarat al-Qubur. I will point that out later.

Thirdly, Ibn Baz's statement: 'even if it were to be authentic as the Sharih has said', refers to the same authentication up to Abu Salih. Ibn Baz does not suggest that this is Ibn Hajar's opinion. He only comments on the athar saying that it is a gateway to Shirk, whilst some scholars consider it to be Shirk in and of itself. Yet, no criticism of Ibn Hajar, simply because there is no indication in the text that Ibn Hajar supports asking the dead for intercession.

I think Ibn Baz's statement about the authentication of the commentator (i.e. the Hafidh) in its apparent sense is clear: he considers the Hafidh to have authenticated it. It is not apparent from the Shaykh, rahimahullah, that he referred to a part of the Sanad.

I, you, Kindu, Ibn Baz and many others disagree with this, and the evidences point this also out. What concerns me now, as the originator of the thread requested, is Ibn Hajar's view on this issue of Tawassul/Istighata/Istishfa etc. It is clear - chrystal clear - that the Hafidh supported mediation through the dead from many other passages of hsi Fath; that is if Kindu understand the Hafidh well in his master thesis on him.

Fourthly, as we have said earlier, it is impossible for Ibn Hajar to deem this athar authentic, especially a) due to his comment, 'sahih from Abu Salih via Malik al-Dar', and b) the fact that he regards Sayf b. 'Umar to be weak in his taqrib.

I think the Hafidh may have been mistaken or slipped, since I believe he support the impact of it. Or you may be right in his weakening it [and by your logic also its impact]. It is, indeed, strange to claim it is authentic based upon the Sanad provided by Ibn Abi Shaybah alone, let alone in addition adducing Sayf's testimony of a crucial transmitter! For this reason, among other, I would reject it.

But the Hafidh is mutasâhil in the eyes of some of the people of knowledge who came after him, espec. when it comes to the category of the mastûr or majhul al-hâl, indeed in the category of the maqbûl in his terminology. And some, incl. Malik al-Dar, can fit one of these categories. I think that he authenticated it, in the least category of sound narrations, based upon his iqrâr in it as said by Kindu and even based upon the apparent sense of Ibn Bâz's statement.

To provide clarity about the Hafidh's stance concerning Istighata, Istishfâ' and Tawassul of the dead, I understand from Kindu's study the following:

* In a chapter of his book about 'Ibadah, Kindu says that the Hafidh is right and in agreement with the Ahl al-Sunnah concerning the following anwâ' al-'ibadah: al-Du'a, al-Isti'âdah, al-Tawakkul, al-Dabh (slaughtering), al-Khawf wa'l-Rajâ' etc. So far, this is all good.

* In the chapter that follows Kindu discusses al-istishfâ' bi'l-sâlihin (seeking shafâ'a from the righteous ones) and the Hafidh's position concerning that.

He begins by criticizing him in his approval of Ibn Rushayd al-Maliki's statement concerning the 'Umar/'Abbas-narration. Kindu says in comment upon the Hafidh's wrong approach and support:

"فقد وقع في كلام الحافظ ابن حجر ما يخالف هذا المنهج"

meaning: Ibn Rushayd's understanding that Shafâ'ah is through the body of 'Abbas himself, instead of 'Abbas' request. The Sahaba, i.e. 'Umar, did not seek anything through 'Abbas' body or person himself, but only through his Du'a by a specific person (who may be righteous). Here the Hafidh makes a mistake, common to many others of today. This has, yet, nothing to do with seeking from the dead but that will be pointed out later. Here I just want to adress, through the eyes of Kindu and others, were the Hafidh slipped or departed from what is right.

Kindu then starts discussing the things I mentioned above.

*In the next chapter he speaks about the Hafidh's view on Tabarruk. And here he criticizes him explicitly in several passages, as did scholars before who wrote on the Fath al-Bari. He says almost in the beginning of this chapter:

"و ممن خالف منهج السلف في هذا الموضوع الحافظ ابن حجر في كتابه فتح الباري حيث أجاز التبرك بآثار الصالحين و فضلاتهم الطاهرة على الإطلاق"

And then he mentions many passages, wherein he clearly opposes what is right. He relies upon his criticism on what Ibn Baz stated in his Ta'liqat upon the Fath. Kindu says in criticism of the Hafidh, rahimahullah:

That all the evidences he collected or explained about the Prophet's baraka as person by body, act and traces are Mashrû', i.e. by law ordained. And he accepts this and this is true. So far so good. But this does not allow any analogy whatsoever with people other than him, peace be upon him, be they Salihin or not. This is forbidden. The Hafidh is wrong in this.

He then says, and I cite:

"و لم يقتصر تجويز الحافظ التبرك بالصالحين على ذواتهم وآثارهم فحسب بل تعدى ذلك إلى قبورهم و هذا أخطر"

And then the author mentions many sound narrations against taking qubur as masâjid and places of devotion. He even cites the approved comment of al-Baydawi on one narration which is evidently against the quburiyyah but al-Baydawi contrues it in such a way that he paints a picture that makes it acceptable; refer to the Fath 1:525 in commentary of Umm Habiba and Umm Salamah's narration on Awliya taken beside Allah as object of prayer in masâjid.

*In the following chapter about his stance concerning travelling to qubûr there can be found explicit approvals of the Hafidh for it - be it for the Prophet or any other salih person.

Indeed, the Hafidh himself comes up with a strange and very very wrong understandin of special visits to places. Explaining the famous narration about the three mosques which are singled out for travel, Kindu describes his odd conclusion as such:

"و هكذا يذهب الحافظ الى جعل النهي في الحديث خصا في السفر إلى المسجد ويجيز - بناء على ذلك - السفر إلى قبور الصالحين"

And this is what is apparent if one follows up all those passages in his Fath - something I havent done! - and read carefully what he said. Kindu did this and from what I read I agree with him. He concluded therefore this chapter also with that the Hafidh was wrong, mistaken in this issue.

So my conclusion is - and Allah Knows best - is that the Hafidh did had his mistakes, in particularly these issues. This is what I understand from others and from occasional reading of his passages in comment on Hadiths.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

wa-Salam

[Abuz Zubair]

Well, let's just list all what we have so far to determine whether or not Ibn Hajar certainly believed in calling upon the dead for intersession, or he may have believed such.

1) Ibn Hajar's mention of the narration of Malik al-Dar. For this we have already proven that considers a part of the chain to be weak.

You are right that Ibn Hajar is mutasahil and he often strengthens weak narration. However, this mostly applies to ahadeeth that are not VERY weak, such as a hadeeth having a narrator with weak memory, or inqita' in the sanad. But it is very rarely that he would authentic a narration where it has two or more serious 'ilal, such as the case with Malik al-Dar's narration.

I need to read al-Kindu's work to figure out what he is exactly saying, but as far as Ibn Baz's concerned, then his comment does not deal with Ibn Hajar at all, either positively or negatively. All Ibn Baz says is that even if this athar is true, as Ibn Hajar states, then there is no proof in it for making istisqa through the dead, because the matn of the text is beyond the scope of Hujja in usul al-fiqh, since it is not even considered opinion of a Sahabi. So I disagree that Ibn Baz's conclusion of Ibn Hajar's statement is that he believes in seeking istisqa from the dead.

The Hafidh accepts or believes the narration, according to Kindu, but he does not authenticate it absolutely. There is a difference between this and not accepting it at all, I think.
This is what I cannot figure out, how can one say with certainty that Ibn Hajar holds opinion a, b, or c, using a text which, to say the least is mutamal, right?

Fine, a person may not authenticate the chain, but may agree with the matn for other reasons, shawahid, etc, but where is the proof, the certain proof from Ibn Hajar's writing that he believes in asking the dead for istisqa? This is what is lacking.

However, in this particular instance there is enough evidence that the Hafidh considers it (i.e. istishfâ', lit. seeking healing from others, and other types of mediation or intercession) from the dead admissable. This is something Dr. Kindu clearly provides in his chapters on Tabarruk and especially Ziyarat al-Qubur. I will point that out later.
But there is no direct link between tabarruk (seeking blessings) and istishfa', seeking someone's intercession. If a person allows the former, it does not necessarily mean that he must allow the latter.

Many of the scholars believed in al-Tabarruk bil-Salahin whilst others considered it a bid'a, and a gateway to Shirk.

This tabarruk included the tabarruk with the relics of the deceased as it happened with the Prophet - SallAllahu 'alaihi wa-sallam - and in fact, Ibn Taymiyya as Ibn Kathir records. But tabarruk is not in and of itself Shirk, although it is a gatewa to Shirk.

This is why the rest of the examples you mentioned, such as Ibn Hajar allowing tabarruk, taking long journeys to tombs, etc, are not Shirk, but wasa'il, and many scholars permitted such as you know.

I think Ibn Baz's statement about the authentication of the commentator (i.e. the Hafidh) in its apparent sense is clear: he considers the Hafidh to have authenticated it. It is not apparent from the Shaykh, rahimahullah, that he referred to a part of the Sanad.
There is a possibility that what you think is right, whereas there is also a possibility that my conclusion is right. Because all Ibn Baz says, if it is authentic, as Ibn Hajar said. Now 'as Ibn Hajar said', to me refers to Ibn Hajar's statement - authentic from Abu Salih via Malik al-Dar. Surely, this is what Ibn hajar says, and this is what Ibn Baz is pointing to. But even then, I would admit that this is ihtimal, whilst yours is also ihtimal, and I guess we would differ as to which of the two ihtimals is rajih. But the point is, so long as there is ihtimal, it cannot be used as a concrete argument to suggest either that a) Ibn Baz believed Ibn Hajar authenticated the whole chain (which is what you believe), or that b) Ibn Baz only pointed to Ibn Hajar's authentication up to Abu Salih.

So this is one ihtimal, only with respect to the chain.

The other ihtimal is with respect to matn, because tashih of sanad does not mean tashih of matn, and there is no indication from either Ibn hajar that he considered the matn to be correct. Similarly, there is no indication from Ibn Baz's comment that Ibn Hajar actually believed what the matn implies. There is ihtimal, no doubt, but there is also the other ihtimal. Again, nothing concrete.

It is clear - chrystal clear - that the Hafidh supported mediation through the dead from many other passages of hsi Fath; that is if Kindu understand the Hafidh well in his master thesis on him.
Ok, and this is what I need to see. Did he or did he not support intercession via the dead in other parts of his Fath.

But the Hafidh is mutasâhil in the eyes of some of the people of knowledge who came after him, espec. when it comes to the category of the mastûr or majhul al-hâl, indeed in the category of the maqbûl in his terminology. And some, incl. Malik al-Dar, can fit one of these categories. I think that he authenticated it, in the least category of sound narrations, based upon his iqrâr in it as said by Kindu and even based upon the apparent sense of Ibn Bâz's statement.
Again, this brings us to our first argument, that if Ibn Hajar had accepted the whole chain, because he accepts many of the majahil, he wouldn't have said: with sahih chain from Abu Salih via Malik al-Dar, and the furthermore, quote a matruk (sayf) saying that the main transmitter was Bilal. The dhahir of what al-Hafidh did is authenticated it upto Abu Salih. The comment of Ibn Baz, as I pointed above is muhtamal, and as for al-Kindu, then as pointed earlier that he also highlighted the fact that Ibn Hajar does not consider it authentic because he said: via Abu Salih, etc...

Now, the only thing that needs a comment is al-Kindu's claim that Ibn hajar narrated it whilst agreeing with the content of it. There are several things here:

1) The entire purpose of Ibn Hajar quoting the text was not to justify calling upon the dead, as he himself stated clearly, it was only to reconcile the chapter heading with some of the narrations al-Bukhari mentioned.

2) Even if he considered the chain to be correct (up to Malik al-Dar), and for the matn to have an origin, it would still not be a dalil in the realm of Usul al-fiqh, because it is neither a hadeeth of the Prophet, nor Qawl al-Sahabi, so even if this incident was recorded in al-bukhari, it would carry no weight.

In light of these two points, it becomes difficult to suggest that Ibn Hajar not only authenticated the whole chain, and affirmed the matn, but also considered it suitable for deriving hukm shara'i. So we have a long series of ihtimalat here, but again, nothing certain.

This is with respect to Ibn Hajar's mention of the athar of Malik al-Dar...

Now to other points that are used to substantiate that Ibn Hajar believed in calling upon the dead for istisqa.

2) Ibn Hajar allowing tabarruk via the graves. Again, this issue is not in and of itself shirk, nor is it related to calling upon the dead to ask him for anything. No doubt this is very close to Shirk. But many of the scholars in the past used to believe in going to the grave of ma'ruf al-Karkhi for tabarruk and making du'a, because they believed that the dua has more chance of being answered there. But this does not back the claim that Ibn Hajar allowed calling upon the dead for istisqa or any other need.

3) Ibn hajar allowing one to take long journeys to the qubur of salihin, again, this is not shirk in and of itself. No doubt it is a gateway to Shirk, which is why it is forbidden according to correct opinion. But just because he allowed it, does not mean he allowed one to ask the dead for istisqa.

So I still haven't come across something concrete to suggest that Ibn Hajar actually believed in the permissibility of asking the dead for istisqa.


And for Ibn Hajar to allow tabarruk at the graves as well as shid al-rihal does not necessitate that he believes in calling upon the dead for istisqa. Many other scholars, such as al-Subki, also allowed shid al-rihal, tabarruk, etc, yet considered calling other than Allah to be Shirk, because one does not necessitate the other.

Wallahu Alam

I need to get hold of al-Kindu's book, though... I saw it in a book shop the other day but didn't buy it, thinking I can buy it later on.. I went back and it had gone :eek:

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

an interesting discussion going on. Akhi abu zubair it came to my knowledge that Ibn Kathir authenticated this narration of malik Dar as well in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya (7:92). where he said "isanaduhu sahih". could you please check the context of this. Im a little baffled as to why Ibn Kathir would said the the narration is sahih and mention no critisicm of the matn since it clearly goes against shariah.

also Ibn Hajar al-Haytami(not asqalani) uses the narration of malik dar as proof he says:

"Tawassul could also mean seeking supplication from him for indeed he is living and knowing the question of the one who asks him. It has been authentically reported from a long hadith:

The people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said:

"O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished," after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him that the rain shall come. And in it also it appears: "Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!"

Meaning gentleness, because he was severe in the religion of Allah. So he came to him and informed him, after which he cried and then said: "O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!"

This was said in his al-Jawhar al-Munazzam. the original arabic cna be found on the link as well:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=144407

also i see the words of al-haythami on istigatha although he clealry says aid is not sought from the prophet but only from Allah. and that aid is sought from the porphet as an intermdeiary ie metaphorically. I feel there is no differecne between this and what the ancient mushrikeen said as they too didnt believe that their idols could benefit and that their idols were intermdeiaries/intercessors!

I would be glad if you could comment on this as i know previously you have said that ibn hajar al-haytami didnt approve of calling anyone besides Allah.

Jazakallah khair

[Abuz Zubair]

With respect to Ibn Kathir, I don't think he mentions the story of Malik al-Dar as far as I remember. He remembers the story of 'Utbi which does not contain asking the dead for anything.

As far as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami is concerned, then in that particular book from which you quoted, he expresses a possibility and does believe in it certainly. But there is another book of his in which he makes his Shirki beliefs quite obvious. I guess, it was his punishment for cursing Ibn Taymiyya unjustly. Although, to be fair to him, he had contradictory approach on this issue, and Allahu Alam what he died upon.

[justabro]

As far as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami is concerned, then in that particular book from which you quoted, he expresses a possibility and does believe in it certainly. But there is another book of his in which he makes his Shirki beliefs quite obvious. I guess, it was his punishment for cursing Ibn Taymiyya unjustly. Although, to be fair to him, he had contradictory approach on this issue, and Allahu Alam what he died upon.

May Allah grant all of us 'Afiyah from shirk. All those years spent reading the Hadiths of Allah's Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and then to believe in shirk. How scary is that...

[Abuz Zubair]

I said:

As far as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami is concerned, then in that particular book from which you quoted, he expresses a possibility and does believe in it certainly

Sorry, I meant to say does NOT believe in it for certain! Slip on my part!

[Abuz Zubair]

It is nothing new from some Shafi'i scholars. One of the greatest Shafi'i Ash'ari scholars, Fakhr al-Razi wrote works on magic and witchcraft, which Ibn Taymiyya and al-Dhahabi called clear-cut riddah, but Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, opined that he 'improved his beliefs' before his death in his last will.

[mizbah]

Dear brother Abuz Zubair,
Assalamualykkum ,

Thanks for your analysis, Jazakhllahu khayr .

But ahlul bidah quote the same incident from some other kitabs including one also from Ibn Kathir .......


From the Musannaf (12/31-32) of ibn Abi Shayba (d. 235 AH)

مُصَنَّفُ ابْنِ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ >> كِتَابُ الْفَضَائِلِ >> مَا ذُكِرَ فِي فَضْلِ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ >>
يَا رَبِّ لَا آلُو إِلَّا مَا عَجَزْتُ عَنْهُ *

31380 حدثنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك الدار ، قال : وكان خازن عمر على الطعام ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر ، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله ، استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له : " ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مستقيمون وقل له : عليك الكيس ، عليك الكيس " ، فأتى عمر فأخبره فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *

From Imam al-Bayhaqi's Dala'il al-Nubuwwa (7/47)

دَلَائِلُ النُّبُوَّةِ لِلْبَيْهَقِيِّ >> جُمَّاعُ أَبْوَابِ غَزْوَةِ تَبُوكَ >> جُمَّاعُ أَبْوَابِ مَنْ رَأَى فِي مَنَامِهِ شَيْئًا مِنْ آثَارِ نُبُوَّةِ مُحَمَّدٍ >> بَابُ مَا جَاءَ فِي رُؤْيَةِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي >>
مَا آلُو إِلَّا مَا عَجَزْتُ عَنْهُ *

2974 أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة ، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا : أخبرنا أبو عمرو بن مطر ، أخبرنا أبو بكر بن علي الذهلي ، أخبرنا يحيى ، أخبرنا أبو معاوية ، عن الأعمش ، عن أبي صالح ، عن مالك قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب ؛ فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا رسول الله , استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا ؛ فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام ؛ فقال ائت عمر فأقرئه السلام ، وأخبره أنكم مسقون . وقل له : عليك الكيس الكيس . فأتى الرجل عمر ، فأخبره ، فبكى عمر ثم قال : يا رب ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه *

From al-Irshad fi Ma'rifa Ulama al-Hadith of Hafiz al-Khalili (1/313-314)

الْإِرْشَادُ فِي مَعْرِفَةِ عُلَمَاءِ الْحَدِيثِ لِلْخَلِيلِيِّ >>
مَالِكُ الدَّارِ

مالك الدار مولى عمر بن الخطاب الرعاء عنه : تابعي , قديم , متفق عليه , أثنى عليه التابعون , وليس بكثير الرواية , روى عن أبي بكر الصديق , وعمر , وقد انتسب ولده إلى جبلان ناحية . حدثني محمد بن أحمد بن عبدوس المزكي أبو بكر النيسابوري , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن الحسن الشرقي , حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب قال : قلت لعلي بن عثام العامري الكوفي : لم سمي مالك الدار ؟ فقال : الداري المتطيب . حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن الفتح , حدثنا عبد الله بن محمد البغوي , حدثنا أبو خيثمة , حدثنا محمد بن خازم الضرير , حدثنا الأعمش , عن أبي صالح , عن مالك الدار ، قال : أصاب الناس قحط في زمان عمر بن الخطاب , فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : يا نبي الله , استسق الله لأمتك فرأى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال : " ائت عمر , فأقرئه السلام , وقل له : إنكم مسقون , فعليك بالكيس الكيس " . قال : فبكى عمر , وقال : يا رب , ما آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه يقال : إن أبا صالح سمع مالك الدار هذا الحديث , والباقون أرسلوه

Imam Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wal Nihaya (7/106)


وقال الحافظ أبو بكر البيهقي: أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا: حدثنا أبو عمر بن مطر، حدثنا إبراهيم بن علي الذهلي، حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن الأعمش، عن أبي صالح، عن مالك قال: أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر بن الخطاب، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
فقال: يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا.
فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال: إيت عمر، فأقرئه مني السلام، وأخبرهم أنه مسقون، وقل له عليك بالكيس الكيس.
فأتى الرجل فأخبر عمر، فقال: يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه.وهذا إسناد صحيح.

Shaykh al-Islam al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in al-Isaba fi Tamyiz al-Sahaba (3/484) :

الإصابة - لابن حجر

8362[ص:274] مالك بن عياض مولى عمر هو الذي يقال له مالك الدار له إدراك وسمع من أبي بكر الصديق وروى عن الشيخين ومعاذ وأبي عبيدة روى عنه أبو صالح السمان وابناه عون وعبدالله ابنا مالك وأخرج البخاري في التاريخ من طريق أبي صالح ذكوان عن مالك الدار أن عمر قال في قحوط المطر يا رب لا آلو إلا ما عجزت عنه وأخرجه بن أبي خيثمة من هذا الوجه مطولا قال أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فأتاه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال له ائت عمر فقل له إنكم مستسقون فعليك الكفين قال فبكى عمر وقال يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه وروينا في فوائد داود بن عمرو الضبي جمع البغوي من طريق عبدالرحمن بن سعيد بن يربوع المخزومي عن مالك الدار قال دعاني عمر بن الخطاب يوما فإذا عنده صرة من ذهب فيها أربعمائة دينار فقال اذهب بهذه إلى أبي عبيدة فذكر قصته وذكر بن سعد في الطبقة الأولى من التابعين في أهل المدينة قال روى عن أبي بكر وعمر وكان معروفا وقال أبو عبيدة ولاه عمر كيلة عيال عمر فلما قدم عثمان ولاه القسم فسمى مالك الدار وقال إسماعيل القاضي عن علي بن المديني كان مالك الدار خازنا لعمر.

Hafiz ibn Hajar in Fath al Bari (2/495)


وروى ابن أبي شيبة بإسناد صحيح من رواية أبي صالح السمان عن مالك الداري - وكان خازن عمر - قال " أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا، فأتى الرجل في المنام فقيل له: ائت عمر " الحديث.
وقد روى سيف في الفتوح أن الذي رأى المنام المذكور هو بلال بن الحارث المزني أحد الصحابة، وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموفق.

Imam ibn Abdal Barr in al-Isti’ab (2/464) under the biography of Umar ibn al Khattab (ra) said:

وروى أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن أبي صالح عن مالك الدار قال‏:‏ أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال‏:‏ يا رسول الله استسق لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا‏.‏

[Abuz Zubair]

Again, I don't know if Ibn Kathir quotes it or not... but so what if the scholars quote it? As I have said on numerous occasions that scholars in their hadeeth works quote MANY traditions and they all have different methodology and reasons as to why they like to quote weak and fabricated narrations. Many, MANY scholars also quoted the infamous narration about Satanic Verses and Ibn Hajar even authenticated it! Whilst other scholars also narrated it but didn't authenticate it. Merely narrating an incident does not mean that a) the author deems the chain authentic and b) he believes in its contents.

[Um Abdullah M.]

the posts in this thread are very long, I get tired of reading long post, so I read only a few and going to put my comments on this, may Allah reward the brother who brought this to my attention (regarding the hadith and why Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah quoted it).

bismillah
alhamdulillah was-salalatu was-salamu 'ala rasulillah, amma ba'd


Secondly, Ibn Hajar is not quoting this narration to prove intercession via the dead at all. His reason for citing the report is completely different, and the scholars of hadeeth often quote very weak narrations for isti'nas, i.e. just to show a point that al-Bukhari's chapter heading DOES correspond to the narrations he mentions, and this is why Ibn Hajar says after quoting the athar of Malik al-Dar:

وظهر بهذا كله مناسبة الترجمة لأصل هذه القصة أيضا والله الموف

"This all shows the relevance of the chapter heading to the origin of this story"

This is the only purpose of quoting the text.

masha Allah, I was going to mention about this, because this is evidance that he didn't quote it to show permissability for tawassul of person after his death.
you might ask "how"?
Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah mentioned the hadith under the chapter heading,
Ibn hajar rahimahu Allah quoted only part of the hadith and not all of it, and said "This all shows the relevance of the chapter heading to the origin of this story". so the hadiths he is quoting in that section all have to do with the chapter heading.
if u notice, u will see him quoting only part of the hadith:

وَرَوَى اِبْن أَبِي شَيْبَة بِإِسْنَادٍ صَحِيح مِنْ رِوَايَة أَبِي صَالِح السَّمَّانِ عَنْ مَالِك الدَّارِيّ - وَكَانَ خَازِن عُمَر - قَالَ " أَصَابَ النَّاس قَحْط فِي زَمَن عُمَر فَجَاءَ رَجُل إِلَى قَبْر النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَقَالَ : يَا رَسُول اللَّه اِسْتَسْقِ لِأُمَّتِك فَإِنَّهُمْ قَدْ هَلَكُوا ، فَأَتَى الرَّجُلَ فِي الْمَنَام فَقِيلَ لَهُ : اِئْتِ عُمَر " الْحَدِيث .

he stops at "come to Umar", he used this as evidance that people ask the Imam to do istisqa for them in times of drought
قَوْله : ( بَاب سُؤَال النَّاس الْإِمَام الِاسْتِسْقَاء إِذَا قَحَطُوا )

he didn't mention the rest of the hadith becasue it has nothing to do with the chapter, he only quoted what he believed fits the chapters title.
also the hadith of malik ad-dar is not evidance for tawassul by asking the Prophet sallallahau alayhi wa sallam after his death, and it seems to me the Imam Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah understood that, especially when he mentioned the part up to "come to Umar", and that the hadith shows that one goes and asks Imam to do istisqa' at times of drought.
soon insha Allah I will write something regarding hadith of Malik ad-Dar and how it is actually a proof against tawassul by asking the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam after his death.


This is what I question, based upon my reading of the passage and the understanding of Kindû and Ibn Bâz.

I didn't understand what u said when I read Shaikh Ibn Baz's statement, he is commenting on the narration itself and showing the ones who believe it is evdiance for istiqatha of the dead that it is not evidance.
That doesn't necessarly mean he believes that Imam Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah believed it to be evidance for that.

[Um Abdullah M.]

to try to say that Ibn Kathir rahimahu Allah supports tawassul by asking the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam after his death just because he mentioned the narration in his book al-bidayah wan-Nihaya is absurd.
He mentions it in a book of history, and it is known that books of history contain many weak narrations, and it doesn't necessarly mean that the one who put it in his book agrees with it, he is only collecting narrations relating incidents.

like I said, soon insha Allah I will write something on this issue and it will include what is mentioned in alHafidh Ibn Kathir's book al-Bidayah wal-Nihaya.
it might not be very soon because I am busy with many things.
May Allah help me and grant me ikhlas.

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

sister Asmaa i have a few questions related to what you said:

1) You said that the hadiht of malik Dar as cited by ibn Hajar Asqalani shows how the sheikh beleived it was an evidence of asking the Imam (who is alive) to do istisqa. How is this so when he quotes the story of a man coming to the grave of nabi saw and asking him to make dua? (not the imam) I realise he didnt quote the full hadith but he still quoted the crucial part of the story which was that a man came to the grave and asked for itnercession.


2) You mentioned how ibn Kathir quoting the narration doesnt mean that he approves it. agreed! But the fact is that he actually authenticated the narration in his al-Bidayah. Could you please clarify the position of Ibn Kathir regarding this.

3) Could you please show how the narration of malik dar is actually proof against seeking intercession throuhg the dead?

Jazakallah khair.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Asalamu alaykum

sister Asmaa i have a few questions related to what you said:

1) You said that the hadiht of malik Dar as cited by ibn Hajar Asqalani shows how the sheikh beleived it was an evidence of asking the Imam (who is alive) to do istisqa. How is this so when he quotes the story of a man coming to the grave of nabi saw and asking him to make dua? (not the imam) I realise he didnt quote the full hadith but he still quoted the crucial part of the story which was that a man came to the grave and asked for itnercession.


2) You mentioned how ibn Kathir quoting the narration doesnt mean that he approves it. agreed! But the fact is that he actually authenticated the narration in his al-Bidayah. Could you please clarify the position of Ibn Kathir regarding this.

3) Could you please show how the narration of malik dar is actually proof against seeking intercession throuhg the dead?

Jazakallah khair.

wa alaykum assalam

actually my post about Malik ad=Dar's hadith that I will be posting in near future insha Allah will answer all the questions you asked insha Allah.

I will only briefly answer the first one since this topic is about it.

he had to quote the first part so one would understand the story before the part "come to Umar", but stopped at "come to Umar" because that is the part where the evidance for >> "people asking the Imam to do istisqa for them in times of drought" is.

now the hadith says that a man went to the grave of the Prophet and asked him to do istisqa', then saw a dream where Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told him to go to Umar, so the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was guiding the man to do the correct thing when wanting istisqa' which is to go to the Imam, and not ask him to do istisqa', if it wasn't like that, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam wouldnt' have ordered him to go to Umar, and would have just told him that rain will come down.

anyways, I will speak in more detail about the hadith of Malik ad Dar and how it is evidance against the tawassul by asking the dead to make duaa soon insha Allah, for there are more evidances than the one I mentioned above, that is only a small part which I believe al Hafidh Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah understood from the hadith, which is that the correct way to do istisqa' is to ask the Imam, and evidacne of that is that he mentioned it specifically in the intro of this chapter that is titled "people asking ...etc."
wallahu a'lam

May Allah make it easy for me and grant me ikhlas.

[Amid Khan]

wa alaykum assalam

actually my post about Malik ad=Dar's hadith that I will be posting in near future insha Allah will answer all the questions you asked insha Allah.

I will only briefly answer the first one since this topic is about it.

he had to quote the first part so one would understand the story before the part "come to Umar", but stopped at "come to Umar" because that is the part where the evidance for >> "people asking the Imam to do istisqa for them in times of drought" is.

now the hadith says that a man went to the grave of the Prophet and asked him to do istisqa', then saw a dream where Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam told him to go to Umar, so the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was guiding the man to do the correct thing when wanting istisqa' which is to go to the Imam, and not ask him to do istisqa', if it wasn't like that, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam wouldnt' have ordered him to go to Umar, and would have just told him that rain will come down.

anyways, I will speak in more detail about the hadith of Malik ad Dar and how it is evidance against the tawassul by asking the dead to make duaa soon insha Allah, for there are more evidances than the one I mentioned above, that is only a small part which I believe al Hafidh Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah understood from the hadith, which is that the correct way to do istisqa' is to ask the Imam, and evidacne of that is that he mentioned it specifically in the intro of this chapter that is titled "people asking ...etc."
wallahu a'lam

May Allah make it easy for me and grant me ikhlas.

If you or anyone can have a look at the file at this link:

http://www.4shared.com/file/10479631/914e4c80/Malik_al_Dar_narration.html

I would be interested in seeing a full radd to its claims insha'allah.

[Abu_Abdallah]

If you or anyone can have a look at the file at this link:

http://www.4shared.com/file/10479631/914e4c80/Malik_al_Dar_narration.html

I would be interested in seeing a full radd to its claims insha'allah.

You seem to be quite interested in publishing the productions of a certain Abul Hasan, see http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=133914&postcount=1

It seems that only he, and you quite interesting, have acces in uploading such a file. You look like a certain Salafist, from ahya.org, who was also so eager in re-directing people to whatever this Abul Hasan answered in defense of his personal ideas and thoughts. Cf. http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3915&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=malik%20aldar&start=10 and http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3837

You, indeed, look like SMAkber or Tilmeedh of RealSalafist or Salafi_Sunni or any other of those nicks. One even said here: you look like Abu Abdallah of talk.islamicnetwork..

Some people are really pathetic liars.

[Abuz Zubair]

Amid, I briefly read the document and I am sorry to say, the author does not even know Arabic, and he is zilch in the science of hadeeth. This much is clear when he says that Malik al-Dar is thiqa because Ibn Hibban mentioned him amongst thiqat!

Although, I find it surprising what would one find new this 70 page useless document when the crux of the matter has been done and dusted with, right here on this thread.

[abudurrah]

It is nothing new from some Shafi'i scholars. One of the greatest Shafi'i Ash'ari scholars, Fakhr al-Razi wrote works on magic and witchcraft, which Ibn Taymiyya and al-Dhahabi called clear-cut riddah, but Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani, opined that he 'improved his beliefs' before his death in his last will.

fakhr a din ar razi is still quoted by many, even salafis for tafsir

youre saying he only improved his beliefs before he died

so how come people quote him from his earlier work

[Abuz Zubair]

Because this is academic maturity, dear brother. That is to have the ability to accept the good and reject and refute the wrong found in these works.

It is ironic you mentioned the 'tafseer' of Fakhr al-Razi because some said of his 'tafseer', that it is a voluminous collection on nearly all types of science - but tafseer :)

But it is, nevertheless, a great contribution.

al-Shawkani's Fath al-Qadir is riddled with quotes from al-Zamakhshari's Kashaf, who he was a hardcore Mu'tazili. It was still a great contribution to tafseer.

[Um Abdullah M.]

I think it is a waste to argue about the authenticity of the hadith of Malik ad-Dar

the hadith, whether authentic or not, is not evdiance for the tawassul by asking the dead to make duaa to Allah for them.

it is actually against it.

[abudurrah]

Because this is academic maturity, dear brother. That is to have the ability to accept the good and reject and refute the wrong found in these works.

It is ironic you mentioned the 'tafseer' of Fakhr al-Razi because some said of his 'tafseer', that it is a voluminous collection on nearly all types of science - but tafseer :)

But it is, nevertheless, a great contribution.

al-Shawkani's Fath al-Qadir is riddled with quotes from al-Zamakhshari's Kashaf, who he was a hardcore Mu'tazili. It was still a great contribution to tafseer.

i understand taking the good and leaving the bad

but i never thought you could do this with muslims that were once on clear cut riddah like you said, and take their earlier works before they change

i mean most hardcore mutazilahs were not even muslims some of them believed in the trinity, (dont know them by name)

[Abuz Zubair]

Well, I don't think it is clear when exactly al-Razi wrote works in witchcraft and magic... which al-Dhahabi and Ibn Taymiyya regarded to be clear cut Ridda... and likewise, it is not known what state he was in when he wrote his tafseer.

All Ibn Taymiyya's and al-Dhahabi's statements dictate is that the work her wrote is clear cut riddah.

Plus, the fact that his wasiyya which he wrote before his death, only indicates that he died on sound beliefs, not as to when he changed his beliefs.

As for the mu'tazila then most of the scholars do not make takfeer of them, and I don't think any of them believed in trinity.

[Amid Khan]

You seem to be quite interested in publishing the productions of a certain Abul Hasan, see http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=133914&postcount=1

It seems that only he, and you quite interesting, have acces in uploading such a file. You look like a certain Salafist, from ahya.org, who was also so eager in re-directing people to whatever this Abul Hasan answered in defense of his personal ideas and thoughts. Cf. http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3915&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=malik%20aldar&start=10 and http://www.siratemustaqeem.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3837

You, indeed, look like SMAkber or Tilmeedh of RealSalafist or Salafi_Sunni or any other of those nicks. One even said here: you look like Abu Abdallah of talk.islamicnetwork..

Some people are really pathetic liars.

What a strange answer from someone who is merely guessing- and yes some who guess are the most pathetic liars when they are guilty of shameless accusations with NO PROOF.

Merely directing someone to a file is not a promotion of a specific view unless you look at it with convoluted vision. As for Abu Alqama's "reply" - there is very little scholarliness in it that deserves my attention. The file was freely available for all and sundry to download at "sunniforum" - so where is your own sincerity when you are known to post at that very forum as "Ibn Abi Yala". Hasbinallah wa ni'mal wakil.

[Abuz Zubair]

Well, Amid Khan, whatever the case... do you have anything to add to what we have discussed here with respect to the narration? Because the pdf you posted here does not answer any of the points raised here. rather, it only highlights the fact that this person has no expertise at all in hadeeth. I wouldn't even consider him a novice. But let's forget about people and discuss the subject at hand.

[Amid Khan]

Amid, I briefly read the document and I am sorry to say, the author does not even know Arabic, and he is zilch in the science of hadeeth. This much is clear when he says that Malik al-Dar is thiqa because Ibn Hibban mentioned him amongst thiqat!

Although, I find it surprising what would one find new this 70 page useless document when the crux of the matter has been done and dusted with, right here on this thread.


LOL. BRIEFLY. That's very fine. I never knew that the author knew no arabic to write such a piece, but anyway, i didn't read him claim that Malik al-Dar is Thiqa just because Ibn Hibban said so. Did you see his claim that Malik was possibly form the Sahaba as well? I have seen a copy of Jami al-Masanid of Imaam Ibn Kathir at the London Central Mosque Library (Regents Park) - and what the author claimed about Ibn Kathir was definitely there - please do go and check if you wish. Did you not read the quote fom Ibn Hajar saying on p. 67? Is that not about Ibn Hajar's own alleged Tawassul?!


What is this "crux of the matter " you are referring to? Did you not see his claim that Imaam al-Albaani himself decalred a narration to be Hasan via Malik al-Dar and the claim that al-Khalili said that Malik is agreed upon - meaning in his adala?! And so on.

Anyway, if you are a top notch Muhaddith then may be you can reply point by point to that useless document as you say it is. I asked you by PM something regarding the Sawt issue and i tried to find what you claimed but to no avail - which is now making me wonder how you came to make some of your claims. Did you not rely on some other person(s) research?! Or did you really read the original reference books in their totality on al-Sawt?

[Amid Khan]

Well, Amid Khan, whatever the case... do you have anything to add to what we have discussed here with respect to the narration? Because the pdf you posted here does not answer any of the points raised here. rather, it only highlights the fact that this person has no expertise at all in hadeeth. I wouldn't even consider him a novice. But let's forget about people and discuss the subject at hand.

What was mentioned on p. 66-67 from Ibn Hajar - is this not connected to the thread at hand:

-----

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar departed this life in 852. His funeral was attended by ‘fifty thousand people’, including the sultan and the caliph; ‘even the Christians grieved.’ He was remembered as a gentle man, short, slender, and white-bearded, a lover of chess and calligraphy, much inclined to charity; ‘good to those who wronged him, and forgiving to those he was able to punish.’ A lifetime’s proximity to the hadith had imbued him with a deep love of the Messenger (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as is shown nowhere more clearly than in the poetry assembled in his Diwan, an original manuscript of which has been preserved at the Egyptian National Library. A few lines will suffice to show this well:


By the gate of your generosity stands a sinner, who is mad with love,

O best of mankind in radiance of face and countenance!

Through you he seeks a means [tawassala], hoping for Allah’s forgiveness of slips;

from fear of Him, his eyelid is wet with pouring tears.

Although his genealogy attributes him to a stone [hajar],

how often tears have flowed, sweet, pure and fresh!

Praise of you does not do you justice, but perhaps,

In eternity, its verses will be transformed into mansions.

My praise of you shall continue for as long as I live,

For I see nothing that could ever deflect me from your praise.

-----

Is the above a forgery or is this not ibn Hajar making the type of "Tawassul" which is condemned by some major Salafee Ulama as "Shirk" etc?!

[Abu_Abdallah]

What a strange answer from someone who is merely guessing- and yes some who guess are the most pathetic liars when they are guilty of shameless accusations with NO PROOF.

Merely directing someone to a file is not a promotion of a specific view unless you look at it with convoluted vision. As for Abu Alqama's "reply" - there is very little scholarliness in it that deserves my attention. The file was freely available for all and sundry to download at "sunniforum" - so where is your own sincerity when you are known to post at that very forum as "Ibn Abi Yala". Hasbinallah wa ni'mal wakil.

I know who the liar is as Allah is mine Witness!

I say again - as I said more than once to you and Abul Hasan and every other double faced person who acts as the poor - to give a time and place (Paltalk I prefer, publicly): we will deal solely with this Malik al-Dar narration.

This week, after 23:00 (11pm) GMT I have all the time of the world. Pick out any day.

[Abuz Zubair]

Dear bro, it seems you haven't a clue what the debate is about.

In the chain we mentioned two people that weaken the narration:

1) Malik al-Dar
a) He remains unknown - majhul - for about 3 centuries until suddenly al-Khalili comes up and says he knows him!

b) No wonder al-Dhahabi cautioned us against al-Khalili's Irshad saying that he has many mistakes in it, which gives us the impression that he dictated the whole book from his memory.

c) And no wonder why those who came after him, such as al-Mundhiri as well as Ibn Hajar al-haytami declared him to be majhul.

d) al-Khalili's statement that he is 'agreed upon', even if we were to accept it, then it only means, as the author admitted, that his uprightness is agreed upon, while his dhabt remains majhul, and therefore, he still remains majhul al-hal.

e) As far as his idrak is concerned, then that does not mean he is a Sahabi. He is, as Ibn hajar says, still a mukhadram, from the senior Tabi'in, and that is it, and their narrations are still regarded to be mursal.

f) al-Albani declaring a hadeeth of Malik al-Dar to be authentic is surprising, but not something I have read from him before so I cannot comment. But if he did authenticate his hadeeth, he is wrong, because it is contrary to what I have been taught and read in the works of mustalah. But what's the big deal if he is wrong?

g) If you do not recall the author's usage of Ibn Hibban's tawtheeq, then you certainly haven't read the document. I pointed it out by only skim reading it.

2) The unknown person who saw the dream

The only person to identify this main narrator is none other than Sayf, whom Ibn Hajar himself declares weak, whereas most of the statements he mentions in his tahdheeb show that he is in fact matruk. Ibn Hibban even said he was accused of zandaqa...

So the chain remains hopelessly weak...

Now, from here we should move on...

Do I use other people's reseaches? Of course I do, because it is all done and dusted, as I also refer to original sources that sitting on my shelves. And do you think Abul-Hasan comes up with this research all by himself? His Arabic as I noticed is too poor for that, and as his 'rebuttal' quite clearly shows that his work is actually not his, but that of Mahmud Sa'id Mamduh's Raf' al-Manara. Abul-Hasan is just an empty pot that makes a lot of sound, thats all.

And as for the poem by Ibn Hajar, he only mentions that he makes tawassul through the Prophet, which none of the scholars say is Shirk, rather it is a fiqhi matter.

The Hadeeth of Malik al-Dar is not about simply seeking tawassul via the Prophet, rather it is about asking the Prophet directly and seeking his intercession, which has nothing to do with Ibn Hajar's poem.

But dear brother, why the need to hide your identity? I thought you were a Salafi, but didn't know that you are just a pretender. You can be who you are on these forums without any fear. We do not ban people we disagree with, nor delete the posts. We refute them and put them out of business.

[Abu_Abdallah]

Dear bro, it seems you haven't a clue what the debate is about.

In the chain we mentioned two people that weaken the narration:

1) Malik al-Dar
a) He remains unknown - majhul - for about 3 centuries until suddenly al-Khalili comes up and says he knows him!

b) No wonder al-Dhahabi cautioned us against al-Khalili's Irshad saying that he has many mistakes in it, which gives us the impression that he dictated the whole book from his memory.

c) And no wonder why those who came after him, such as al-Mundhiri as well as Ibn Hajar al-haytami declared him to be majhul.

d) al-Khalili's statement that he is 'agreed upon', even if we were to accept it, then it only means, as the author admitted, that his uprightness is agreed upon, while his dhabt remains majhul, and therefore, he still remains majhul al-hal.

e) As far as his idrak is concerned, then that does not mean he is a Sahabi. He is, as Ibn hajar says, still a mukhadram, from the senior Tabi'in, and that is it, and their narrations are still regarded to be mursal.

f) al-Albani declaring a hadeeth of Malik al-Dar to be authentic is surprising, but not something I have read from him before so I cannot comment. But if he did authenticate his hadeeth, he is wrong, because it is contrary to what I have been taught and read in the works of mustalah. But what's the big deal if he is wrong?

g) If you do not recall the author's usage of Ibn Hibban's tawtheeq, then you certainly haven't read the document. I pointed it out by only skim reading it.

2) The unknown person who saw the dream

The only person to identify this main narrator is none other than Sayf, whom Ibn Hajar himself declares weak, whereas most of the statements he mentions in his tahdheeb show that he is in fact matruk. Ibn Hibban even said he was accused of zandaqa...

So the chain remains hopelessly weak...

Now, from here we should move on...

Do I use other people's reseaches? Of course I do, because it is all done and dusted, as I also refer to original sources that sitting on my shelves. And do you think Abul-Hasan comes up with this research all by himself? His Arabic as I noticed is too poor for that, and as his 'rebuttal' quite clearly shows that his work is actually not his, but that of Mahmud Sa'id Mamduh's Raf' al-Manara. Abul-Hasan is just an empty pot that makes a lot of sound, thats all.

And as for the poem by Ibn Hajar, he only mentions that he makes tawassul through the Prophet, which none of the scholars say is Shirk, rather it is a fiqhi matter.

The Hadeeth of Malik al-Dar is not about simply seeking tawassul via the Prophet, rather it is about asking the Prophet directly and seeking his intercession, which has nothing to do with Ibn Hajar's poem.

But dear brother, why the need to hide your identity? I thought you were a Salafi, but didn't know that you are just a pretender. You can be who you are on these forums without any fear. We do not ban people we disagree with, nor delete the posts. We refute them and put them out of business.

For argument's sake:

Lets agree with 'Amr Abd al-Mun'im Salim's research - the one who wrote a refutation of Mamduh, who wrote one against al-Albani - who made Takhrij of it.

Even he said after bringing up Ibn Abi Shaybah's narration:

"I say: And this Sanad is Sahih up to Malik al-Dar" - which means, as one can understand from the early Muhaddithun and as pointed out here before, that its Sanad's part is Sahih and not the Hadith in full, let alone the Hadith with its full chain.

The this 'Amr Abd al-Mun'im Salim says:

"Some of the people of knowledge have weakened this report because of the Jahalat of Malik al-Dar, but he is not Majhul. Rather, he has a Tarjama in al-Irshad by al-Khalili (1/313) saying: an old Tabi'i, agreed upon, the followers praised him.."

untill this author says,

"I say: the defect in the report is from that unknown man, the person of the dream, for he has not be named - except that the Mu'allif (i.e. Mamduh, on which Abul Hasan blindly relies and this fellow ardently supports in blindness) attempted to refute this weakness.."

he then, i.e. 'Abd al-Muni'im Salim, mentions what he stated - and it is exactly what has been mentioned therein and elsewhere - and only to refute him, saying:

"This incident has not been seen by Malik al-Dar as the author supposes. Rather, he has received it from this man, al-mubham, al-majhul. Indeed, even if we admit that he saw the coming of the man to the grave, and his coming to 'Umar, then we do not admit that he saw the man's dream of the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him, in his sleep. For that is impossible! Its necessary that he has been informed of that. And there is no way of being informed of that except by way of that mubham man. And from there, there is no longer acceptance by letting pass Malik al-Dar this report from the man. And this suffices in weakening this report"

He then adduces the indicators that prove this. Indeed, he even states that if this narration is authentic - and this argument is not new - then there is nothing in it which proves that the unknown man informed 'Umar of his coming to the grave, which means that one has no proof to say that 'Umar approved of it; indeed, he even states that IF we accept that the man acted and informed 'Umar of his coming to the grave, still, there is no evidence that he made Tawassul bi-jaah al-nabi, sallalahu alayhi wa sallam, nor du'a at him..

wa-Allahu Musta' an

[Amid Khan]

I know who the liar is as Allah is mine Witness!

I say again - as I said more than once to you and Abul Hasan and every other double faced person who acts as the poor - to give a time and place (Paltalk I prefer, publicly): we will deal solely with this Malik al-Dar narration.

This week, after 23:00 (11pm) GMT I have all the time of the world. Pick out any day.


More LIES - Hadakallaah.

[abu hafs]

Salaamualaikum
Dear Amid Khan ,
Why don't u go on paltalk and clear your name , that way u can actually guide him to the truth about urself .....give it a try !

[Amid Khan]

Dear bro, it seems you haven't a clue what the debate is about.

In the chain we mentioned two people that weaken the narration:

1) Malik al-Dar
a) He remains unknown - majhul - for about 3 centuries until suddenly al-Khalili comes up and says he knows him!

b) No wonder al-Dhahabi cautioned us against al-Khalili's Irshad saying that he has many mistakes in it, which gives us the impression that he dictated the whole book from his memory.

c) And no wonder why those who came after him, such as al-Mundhiri as well as Ibn Hajar al-haytami declared him to be majhul.
d) al-Khalili's statement that he is 'agreed upon', even if we were to accept it, then it only means, as the author admitted, that his uprightness is agreed upon, while his dhabt remains majhul, and therefore, he still remains majhul al-hal.

e) As far as his idrak is concerned, then that does not mean he is a Sahabi. He is, as Ibn hajar says, still a mukhadram, from the senior Tabi'in, and that is it, and their narrations are still regarded to be mursal.

f) al-Albani declaring a hadeeth of Malik al-Dar to be authentic is surprising, but not something I have read from him before so I cannot comment. But if he did authenticate his hadeeth, he is wrong, because it is contrary to what I have been taught and read in the works of mustalah. But what's the big deal if he is wrong?

g) If you do not recall the author's usage of Ibn Hibban's tawtheeq, then you certainly haven't read the document. I pointed it out by only skim reading it.

2) The unknown person who saw the dream

The only person to identify this main narrator is none other than Sayf, whom Ibn Hajar himself declares weak, whereas most of the statements he mentions in his tahdheeb show that he is in fact matruk. Ibn Hibban even said he was accused of zandaqa...

So the chain remains hopelessly weak...

Now, from here we should move on...

Do I use other people's reseaches? Of course I do, because it is all done and dusted, as I also refer to original sources that sitting on my shelves. And do you think Abul-Hasan comes up with this research all by himself? His Arabic as I noticed is too poor for that, and as his 'rebuttal' quite clearly shows that his work is actually not his, but that of Mahmud Sa'id Mamduh's Raf' al-Manara. Abul-Hasan is just an empty pot that makes a lot of sound, thats all.

And as for the poem by Ibn Hajar, he only mentions that he makes tawassul through the Prophet, which none of the scholars say is Shirk, rather it is a fiqhi matter.

The Hadeeth of Malik al-Dar is not about simply seeking tawassul via the Prophet, rather it is about asking the Prophet directly and seeking his intercession, which has nothing to do with Ibn Hajar's poem.

But dear brother, why the need to hide your identity? I thought you were a Salafi, but didn't know that you are just a pretender. You can be who you are on these forums without any fear. We do not ban people we disagree with, nor delete the posts. We refute them and put them out of business.

I am not here to debate endlessly, but anyway I haven't hidden my ID nor do i pretend with multiple ID's on various forums as i saw the likes of Abu Alqama from ahya.org and "Sharif Abu Jafar" who posts under screen names like: "Ibn Abi Yala" or is it Kalwadhani or is it Moulay Abdullah do?!

Anyway, i can't recall Mundhiri and Haythami saying Malik is Majhul but did not Shaykh al-Albaani say:

What we have said is also aided by the fact that al-Haafidh al-Mundhiree reports another story from the narration of Maalik ad-Daar, from 'Umar in at-Targheeb (2/41-42) and says after it: 'at-Tabaraanee reports it in al-Kabeer. Its narrators up to Maalik ad-Daar are famous and reliable, but as for Maalik ad-Daar then I do not know him.' The same is said by al-Haythamee in Majma' az-Zawaa'id (3/125)."


Haythami on Malik al-Dar:

4687- وعن مالك الدار أن عمر بن الخطاب أخذ أربعمائة دينار فجعلها في
صرة فقال للغلام‏:‏ اذهب بها إلي أبي عبيدة بن الجراح ثم تله في البيت ساعة حتى تنظر ما يصنع‏؟‏ فذهب بها الغلام إليه فقال‏:‏ يقول لك أمير المؤمنين اجعل هذه في بعض حاجاتك‏.‏ فقال‏:‏ وصله الله ورحمه‏.‏ ثم قال‏:‏ تعالي يا جارية اذهبي بهذه السبعة إلى فلان وبهذه الخمسة إلى فلان وبهذه الخمسة إلى فلان‏.‏ حتى أنفدَها‏.‏ فرجع الغلام إلى عمر فأخبره فوجده قد أعد مثلها لمعاذ بن جبل فقال‏:‏ اذهب بها إلى معاذ بن جبل وتله في البيت حتى تنظر ما يصنع‏؟‏‏!‏ فذهب بها إليه فقال‏:‏ يقول لك أمير المؤمنين‏:‏ اجعل هذه في بعض حاجاتك‏.‏ فقال‏:‏ رحمه الله ووصله، تعالي يا جارية اذهبي إلى بيت فلان بكذا اذهبي إلى بيت فلان بكذا فاطلعت امرأة معاذ وقالت‏:‏ ونحن والله مساكين فأعطنا‏.‏ فلم يبق في الخرقة إلا ديناران فدحا بهما إليها‏.‏ ورجع الغلام إلى عمر فأخبره فسر بذلك وقال‏:‏ إنهم أخوة بعضهم من بعض‏.‏
رواه الطبراني في الكبير‏.‏ ومالك الدار لم أعرفه وبقيه رجاله ثقات‏.

There is a difference in declaring someone Majhul and not knowing someone because they may not have had all the background details to Malik al-Dar. If he was absolutely majhul then why would there be some form of tawtheeq made by Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Hibban and al-Khalilee? It is obvious that al-Mundhiri and al-Haythami missed these points. Be precise before you make such assertions, as to date i see you are quick to put others down but show some rashness in your own claims on this deep sea of Mustalah al-Hadith. And this point from yourself:

Ibn Hajar al-haytami declared him to be majhul

Where did HE say this?!

Do you even know the difference between Ibn Hajar al-HAYTAMI AND NURUD-DIN AL-HAYTHAMI (Sahib of Majma al-Zawa'id)?!


As for al-Khaliliee - al-Dhahabee did also praise him quite highly despite some apparent errors in his al-Irshaad.


In that pdf file the case for Malik to be thiqa based on the saying of Ibn Sa'd and ibn Hibban's tawthiq was the chief reason to claim that Malik is Thiqa. So it seems your skimming is very shallow indeed. Did you not see those examples that even Shaykh al-Albaani himself apparently utilised?!

It wasn't just Ibn Hajar who listed Malik in his book on the Sahaba (al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba) but also al-Dhahabee. After all that, why on earth would Ibn Kathir authenticate the report in 2 works?

BTW - I wish to know who did you study the Sihah Sitta under with all the major books on Mustalah al-Hadith. You seem very quick to claim fulan doesn't know Arabic or fulan doesn't know zilch in Hadith - so i can't see why you won't answer this question on your own credentials... When even I - A simple Talib al-Ilm - can spot your errors!

And Yes, I am a La-madhabee on the Salafee path Insha'allaah.

[Amid Khan]

Salaamualaikum
Dear Amid Khan ,
Why don't u go on paltalk and clear your name , that way u can actually guide him to the truth about urself .....give it a try !

Why should I have to? Have you heard of Husn al-Dhann?! I have not called anyone a LIAR here until this "Sharif Abu Ja'far" started his fiendish talk. He is the LIAR until he proves that I am not who I say I am.

[abu hafs]

Look at this way , You have absolutely NOTHING to hide ...so go ahead clear ur name, If u love ur brother u will .

The reason many of us suspect is because ur posts are EXACTLY SIMILAR to many of these charecters who cut and paste from sunniforum while pretending to be salafis , we simply cant help notice the similarity .

[abu hafs]

And Yes, I am a La-madhabee on the Salafee path Insha'allaah.

Most of us here dont refer themselves as La madhbis , we dont see a problem in following a madhab and the term itself is coined by the enemies of the da'wah

[abu hafs]

Bro Amid , U are cutting and pasting from faqir's blog ....more reasons we suspect that u ar faqir himself

[justabro]

br. amidkhan, even the prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) cleared himself of doubt by stopping the two companions and telling them that the lady he was walking with was his wife safiyyah as to eliminate any doubts and misgivings that may spring up from shaytan...

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

I think we need to refocus on the topic in hand. I think the narration has been proven weak from numerous angles. However, I am interested in what Ibn Kathir mentions in his al-Bidayah i think sister Asmaa said she would explain this?

[Abuz Zubair]

I am not here to debate endlessly, but anyway I haven't hidden my ID nor do i pretend with multiple ID's on various forums as i saw the likes of Abu Alqama from ahya.org and "Sharif Abu Jafar" who posts under screen names like: "Ibn Abi Yala" or is it Kalwadhani or is it Moulay Abdullah do?!
You are not here to debate because you cannot. Be honest.

I don't know how many IDs you have and to be honest I do not care. It has nothing to do with IDs. Everyone knows that brother Moulay is known as Sharif Abu Jafar, Ibn Abi Yala and Kalwadhani. Everyone knows I appear on other forums as al-Harrani.

What I meant was that you pretended all that time that you are actually a Sunni, and not an Ash'ari. I mean, to me personally it is not a big deal, but I cannot help but think that the only one who would do something like this must be very twisted. Are you?

And of course, it is even more worrying if what you have been accused of is true, that is to ask questions on sunniforums pretending to be a Salafi. This is deception, and a Muslim should be far above that, don't you think?

There is a difference in declaring someone Majhul and not knowing someone because they may not have had all the background details to Malik al-Dar
This is just pure guess work, dear brother, which shows to anyone who has studied Mustalah that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. It goes without saying that a person shouldn't speak out of ignorance. Only say that which you know.

For a naqid to say: I do not know him, meaning to him he is a majhul, either Majhul al-'ayn or majhul al-hal. Whichever the type of jahala it may be, the narration will remain inadmissible for ihtijaj.

If he was absolutely majhul then why would there be some form of tawtheeq made by Ibn Sa'd, Ibn Hibban and al-Khalilee?
Another proof that you are a stranger to this science, quite like the author of the document.

Ibn Sa'd did not make tawtheeq of him. He said: 'He was known...', and only mentioned ONE person who narrated from him, Abu Salih. And so long as only one person narrates from him, he remains majhul al-'ayn, and if two, and some say three or more people narrate from him, while his condition remains unkown then he still remains majhul al-hal. So even if according to Ibn Sa'd he was not majhul al-'ayn, he was, nevertheless, majhul al-hal. But 'kana ma'rufan' is no way a statement of tawtheeq.

Ibn Hibban, as it is known to 14 year old students of Hadeeth, mentions all the majahil in his thiqat, due to his own odd opinion that anyone about him there is no mention of jarh and ta'dil then by default he is a thiqa. And hence, Ibn Hibban merely mentioning a person in his thiqat does not mean anything.

As for al-Khalili, then you didn't answer my questions:

a) He remains unknown - majhul - for about 3 centuries until suddenly al-Khalili comes up and says he knows him!
and

b) No wonder al-Dhahabi cautioned us against al-Khalili's Irshad saying that he has many mistakes in it, which gives us the impression that he dictated the whole book from his memory.
and

d) al-Khalili's statement that he is 'agreed upon', even if we were to accept it, then it only means, as the author admitted, that his uprightness is agreed upon, while his dhabt remains majhul, and therefore, he still remains majhul al-hal.
You remained silent about these three points to do with al-Khalili? I wonder why.

So there goes your assumption of Malik's tawtheeq out of the window.

It wasn't just Ibn Hajar who listed Malik in his book on the Sahaba (al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba) but also al-Dhahabee. After all that, why on earth would Ibn Kathir authenticate the report in 2 works?
The scholars mention not only the companions but even those over whom there may be difference whether they are companions or not, and even the mukhadrams. Just because so-and-so is mentioned in al-Isaba or other collections does not mean he is a Sahabi. I have yet to see what exactly Ibn Kathir says about the authenticity of the chain for I couldn't find it in al-Bidaya. Whatever the case, even if the chain is authentic up to Malik al-Dar, for argument's sake, we still do not know who saw the dream and he is the essential important link in the chain, without whom the chain remains unconnected.

BTW - I wish to know who did you study the Sihah Sitta under with all the major books on Mustalah al-Hadith. You seem very quick to claim fulan doesn't know Arabic or fulan doesn't know zilch in Hadith - so i can't see why you won't answer this question on your own credentials...
You mean the Sahihayn and al-Sunan al-Arba'a. It is completely irrelevant to you what I have studied and with whom and where. I hate pretentious people who buy people's confidence in them by parading their fake ijazat and so-called credentials. Even if I were to mention the teachers you most probably wouldn't even have heard of them.

It is rather childish for anyone to ask for someone else's credentials. What is important and relevant is to present one's argument, and that itself speaks volumes about a person's credentials. As I said, I skimmed through Abul-Hasan's article and realised that the guy does not know basic Arabic grammar. Otherwise, please ask him to give us I'rab for 'Ya Abu Alqama', for he repeats this grammatical blunder on six different occasion in this document, so it cannot be a typo. This is disgraceful. And on this I base my judgement that the guy does not know basic Arabic grammar.

And Yes, I am a La-madhabee on the Salafee path Insha'allaah.
Good for you. I am a humble Hanbali and brother Mouley is an honourable Maliki, and we are both Salafis and proud.

Brother Sharif Abu jafar what you said is relevant to the thread. One of the major obstacles for some people in accepting the truth is not the facts or understanding. It is just diseased heart. If only these brothers stopped for a second and thought about themselves with honesty, that perhaps their actions and intentions are wrong and they need to re-evaluate their souls.

[Amid Khan]

Bro Amid , U are cutting and pasting from faqir's blog ....more reasons we suspect that u ar faqir himself


Quote the example i allegedly cut from his blog please. Then see if any quote is also found in other websites. Suspicion is from the Shaytan.

[Amid Khan]

Abuz Zubair - Like i said i am not here to cause Fitna or debate without Ilm.

I don't need to convince you or any opponent anything here. The fact is that Imaam Ibn Kathir did authenticate it and so your rudud should also apply to him and others. As far as I am concerened you don't come close to the very foot sole of Imam Ibn Kathir in terms of the level of Ilm he had on Hadith.

It is really strange how you are quick to say i remained silent on this or that - but you are not manly enough to admit that you falsely claimed that Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said that Malik al-Dar was a Majhul! How honest are you if you couldn't even admit that blunder, though you like to brag that even 14 year old students of Hadith know that Ibn Hibban used to make tawthiq on majahil. So why did Shaykh al-Albaani himself rely on Ibn Hibban's tawthiq alone to declare some chains to be authentic?! Rather it is known that Ibn Hajar al-Haytami was a proponent of Istisgatha and Tawassul and didn't attack the authenticity of the Malik al-Dar narration.

So your own point here is for you to ponder over:

This is just pure guess work, dear brother, which shows to anyone who has studied Mustalah that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. It goes without saying that a person shouldn't speak out of ignorance. Only say that which you know.

As it applies equally to you.

[Amid Khan]

br. amidkhan, even the prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) cleared himself of doubt by stopping the two companions and telling them that the lady he was walking with was his wife safiyyah as to eliminate any doubts and misgivings that may spring up from shaytan...


So you want to misuse that example and make it look like that it is a Hujja to say I post under numerous ID's here or there - so that I have to prove my worth and shout this point on some paltalk room?! What kind of nonsensical issue is this? Who are you - if you post under anonymous screen names? At least I post under my real name and not some fancy screen name. If i was to start saying "Sharif Abu Jafar" is really You or Abuz-Zubair under different ID's - would that be fair and right? Would it now require each of us to shout our real names on paltalk and prove our worth?! Subhanallah.

[moubeen]

Abuz Zubair - Like i said i am not here to cause Fitna or debate without Ilm.

I don't need to convince you or any opponent anything here.

then just stop posting or copying and pasting links or other words which are not trying to "convince" others...

You seem to like to bring words that are for you and forget, ignore and leave out all points against you. Do yourself a favour and start being honest.

[Amid Khan]

then just stop posting or copying and pasting links or other words which are not trying to "convince" others...

You seem to like to bring words that are for you and forget, ignore and leave out all points against you. Do yourself a favour and start being honest.


LISTEN - Tell the admins here that I am no longer welcome here and take my privileges to post here away. Then the matter need not be prolonged. Rather who are you to tell me to be honest when you don't know me?! I haven't deceived anyone nor called anyone a Liar until the ill mannered braggart calling himself "Sharif Abu Jafar" called me a liar.

[Abuz Zubair]

Tasawwuf makes one spiritually bankrupt, and I am afraid you are a living proof of that.

You say at first that you are not here to speak without 'ilm, and the rest of what you write is nothing but ignorant ranting devoid of any knowledge.

The fact is that Imaam Ibn Kathir did authenticate it and so your rudud should also apply to him and others.

This is what needs to be proven. Please quote to us what Ibn Kathir said. I told you I couldn't find it in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya, so this fact is no fact to me. And even if he authenticates the narration, he can only authenticate it upto Malik al-Dar... because this is where the chain ends. It does not mention the one who comes after Malik al-Dar, the one who saw the dream. So I wouldn't even have any problems if Ibn Kathir authenticated it up to Malik al-Dar. Have you no sense?

It is really strange how you are quick to say i remained silent on this or that - but you are not manly enough to admit that you falsely claimed that Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said that Malik al-Dar was a Majhul! How honest are you if you couldn't even admit that blunder

Amid, remember you promised you wouldn't speak without ignorance?

For you to assume that: 'I do not know him' is anything other than 'majhul' is your own blunder and a glaring sign of your deep ignorance and persistence on falsehood, and of course, argumentation based on jahl.

I told you that Ibn Hajar al-Haytami and al-Mundhiri both consider Malik al-Dar majhul because they both say that Malik al-Dar: 'I do not know him.' Instead of being an obstinate idiot, just admit that you haven't a clue about science of hadeeth. And that's perfectly fine. I don't expect an Ash'ari deviants to be acquainted with Sunna and its sciences anyway.

And so what if Shaykh al-Albani relies on Ibn Hibban's tawtheeq (which I doubt very much)?! He is wrong, if he truly does that. I am astonished that you are even arguing on this point and it further shows that you are completely, 100% ignorant about this science, and I can probably guarantee that you haven't read a single primer on mustalah... have you? Just a yes/no would suffice.

Yes, it is known Ibn Hajar was an advocate of not only tawassul through the Prophet but at places he even promotes praying to the Prophet, fitting punishment from Allah for eating the flesh of Ibn Taymiyya. Allah knows what he died upon. But hey, I am not denying al-Haytami's opinion which is crystal clear. I am only confirming the fact that Ibn Hajar considered Malik al-Dar to be majhul. Malik al-Dar's narration isn't the only narration the grave-worshippers bring to justify praying to other than Allah.

Lastly, I would advise you for your own sake: Do not spend your time debating issues that are way above your head, when you have not learnt the basics of your religion. You could end up losing your religion.

Whatever the case, I hope we agree that Muslims only pray to Allah, and that anyone who prays to other than Allah is beyond the pale of Islam. This is the bare minimum for one to be considered a Muslim.

[ibn 'abd al-jabbaar]

Tell the admins here that I am no longer welcome here and take my privileges to post here away.

we don't ban people just because we disagree with them :)

[moubeen]

LISTEN - Tell the admins here that I am no longer welcome here and take my privileges to post here away. Then the matter need not be prolonged. Rather who are you to tell me to be honest when you don't know me?! I haven't deceived anyone nor called anyone a Liar until the ill mannered braggart calling himself "Sharif Abu Jafar" called me a liar.


If you have no need to convince people, then why do you seem to have an apparent compulsion to show otherwise (with your relentless posts in favour of a certain opinion)?

As far as I know the admins here have allowed you to post freely and will continue to do so. What seems lacking in your approach from some observers is your lack of sincerity - shown not from the unseen - but from the way you come across in your writing - both content and style. At the end of the day, only Allah and you know if you are sincere in what you write. But my advice for you is to reply in a polite manner and answer points which are against you while remaining true to your word and not being obsessed about being right (as we all can err or have an incorrect understanding on a particular issue) - or as you have said having a "need to convince".


As for you comment about Ibn Kathir knowledge on hadith and people here not reaching the soles of his feet. Then you might as well put an end to all discussion on what is right and wrong. Because you will find in every field be it Fiqh or Aqeedah a scholar who we won't reach the soles of his feet having a diverging opinion. And in the noble science of hadeeth this is even more apparent. Don't make your argument based on the fact that Ibn Kathir was a great scholar - make it on the content first, followed by the credential if you must.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

we don't ban people just because we disagree with them :)

nor do we cut off threads, delete posts just because we disagree with what it states unless it necessary......unlike sunniforum ;)

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

I am not here to debate endlessly, but anyway I haven't hidden my ID nor do i pretend with multiple ID's on various forums as i saw the likes of Abu Alqama from ahya.org and "Sharif Abu Jafar" who posts under screen names like: "Ibn Abi Yala" or is it Kalwadhani or is it Moulay Abdullah do?!



With all due respecthaving different ID's does not equate insincerity, and it is palin as day we know al-harraniand abuz-zubair are one and ibn abi al-ya'la and sharif abu ja'far and al-khadalwi are one. Why? Because when you read their posts you see them admit it.

In all fairness to you, when I asked you if you were faqir/abu 'abdullah you said:


Nope, don't know them at all.. But why do you ask anyway?


http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=12006#post12006

Maybe you knew of abul hasan but not faqir right?

Wa ALLAHU A'lam

[justabro]

LISTEN - Tell the admins here that I am no longer welcome here and take my privileges to post here away. Then the matter need not be prolonged. Rather who are you to tell me to be honest when you don't know me?! I haven't deceived anyone nor called anyone a Liar until the ill mannered braggart calling himself "Sharif Abu Jafar" called me a liar.

i was just suggesting that you exonerate yourself of being a liar as the shari'ah encourages that we avoid letting people have false suspicions of us when they are raised.

no one has yet accused me of lying here as far as i know... so i dont really have anything to clear up

i'm not trying to attack u

[justabro]

And so what if Shaykh al-Albani relies on Ibn Hibban's tawtheeq (which I doubt very much)?! He is wrong, if he truly does that. I am astonished that you are even arguing on this point and it further shows that you are completely, 100% ignorant about this science, and I can probably guarantee that you haven't read a single primer on mustalah... have you? Just a yes/no would suffice.

He does not rely on his tawthiq absolutely. only under certain conditions which he delineates in his writing. i dont personally agree with his exact conclusions, but he doesnt apply it generally

[Abuz Zubair]

Yes, if he accepts his tawtheeq on conditions, such as if he was one of his mashaykh, then yes it is a qarina accepted by many scholars where Ibn Hibban's tawtheeq is accepted, and not something particular with Sh al-Albani.

[Amid Khan]

With respect to Ibn Kathir, I don't think he mentions the story of Malik al-Dar as far as I remember. He remembers the story of 'Utbi which does not contain asking the dead for anything.

As far as Ibn Hajar al-Haytami is concerned, then in that particular book from which you quoted, he expresses a possibility and does believe in it certainly. But there is another book of his in which he makes his Shirki beliefs quite obvious. I guess, it was his punishment for cursing Ibn Taymiyya unjustly. Although, to be fair to him, he had contradictory approach on this issue, and Allahu Alam what he died upon.


Oh well, i suppose you can also quote Ibn Hajar al-Haytami saying that Malik al Dar is majhul as you claimed?!

[Amid Khan]

Maybe you knew of abul hasan but not faqir right?

Wa ALLAHU A'lam

Nope and Nope again! Never met them or know them personally except from what they posted on their forum.

[Amid Khan]

we don't ban people just because we disagree with them :)

Mashallah... we'll see in time.

[Abuz Zubair]

Oh well, i suppose you can also quote Ibn Hajar al-Haytami saying that Malik al Dar is majhul as you claimed?!
Sorry, I was wrong.

You need to learn English before you reach out for books on Arabic, let alone mustalah

[Abuz Zubair]

We haven't banned the most annoying little housefly we have here (aMuslimForLife), so you are going to be here till the end of time ;)

[Amid Khan]

I told you that Ibn Hajar al-Haytami and al-Mundhiri both consider Malik al-Dar majhul because they both say that Malik al-Dar: 'I do not know him.' Instead of being an obstinate idiot, just admit that you haven't a clue about science of hadeeth. And that's perfectly fine. I don't expect an Ash'ari deviants to be acquainted with Sunna and its sciences anyway.



And I told you that IBN HAJAR AL HAYTAMI didn't say that Malik al-dar was a Majhul - so where is your proof he did?! Still can't be manly enough to admit that you blundered badly when it was Nurud-Din al-Haythami you should have referred to. Your insincerity is all too glaringly obvious - but it seems even your blind cheer leaders can't even spot that! Subhanallah. Rather, it is you who seems to be a self taught claimant to Hadith Mastership. "I do not Know Him" doesn't mean that Malik is Majhul - for if it does according to the Istilah of these two Huffaz - then quote them or better still from the well known books on Mustalah that it does as you claim.

And yes, The Sufi Wufi way can make you bankrupt so since you claim to be Hanbali then may be you also have a problem with Shaykh Abdal Qadir al-Jilani's Tasawwuf?!

[Amid Khan]

We haven't banned the most annoying little housefly we have here (aMuslimForLife), so you are going to be here till the end of time ;)


We'll see...

[justabro]

Yes, if he accepts his tawtheeq on conditions, such as if he was one of his mashaykh, then yes it is a qarina accepted by many scholars where Ibn Hibban's tawtheeq is accepted, and not something particular with Sh al-Albani.

actually, i was talking about with the tabi'in. he accepts his tawthiq of the tabi'in if a certain number of thiqat have narrated from that tabi'i in line with what al dhahabi and others have said about the relative trustworthiness abt the generation of the tabi'in. i know a number of scholars are willing to be lax in certain circumstances with unknown tabi'in with certain qara'in, but it seems to be that al albani is a little looser than most in that regard (barring of course people like ibn hibban himself)

[Amid Khan]

Sorry, I was wrong.

You need to learn English before you reach out for books on Arabic, let alone mustalah


Subhanallah - What took you?! I think it is you who needs a course in Akhlaq before you and "Sharif Abu Jafar" accuse others of poor English or Arabic for that matter; for i have read some of your posts littered with typos and poor grammar:p

I hear that Shaykh Haytham Haddad is one of your teachers. If i do meet him then I will hope to raise some points about your manners at least Insha'allah.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

but it seems even your blind cheer leaders can't even spot that! Subhanallah.

well I guess g f haddad's and abu'l hasan's bodyguard did! ;)


And yes, The Sufi Wufi way can make you bankrupt so since you claim to be Hanbali then may be you also have a problem with Shaykh Abdal Qadir al-Jilani's Tasawwuf?!

just like some people have a problem with admiting he was a muthbit affirming the attributes literally? or they make ta'weel of what he states?

I don't think anyone here has a problem with Abuz-Zubair being blatantly wrong, I mean if we thought he was ma'soom we would all be kafirs right?

So if he is wrong I trust he will say it, also many of us disagree on matters and have had discussions upon that, and we don't hide it. But if you want the opposite of that then why not return to sunniforum? they are so bammy! That even a simple thread on HT they banned because the didn't want to discuss a group which was "illegal".....??????

Wheh I asked them why kabbani the great sunni of The white house met with karimov the butcher of Uzbeckistan and Bush Jnr, with "eid mubarak" cards, they closed that simple thread.

To be honest I can see why you would be accussed of being someone like "salafist" from ahya. You definitley post in a strickingly similar manner.

May ALLAH Ta'ala help us all!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

I hear that Shaykh Haytham Haddad is one of your teachers. If i do meet him then I will hope to raise some points about your manners at least Insha'allah.

interesting, can I ask where you heard this?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

bro, you go regents park library often? maybe we can meet? I use to frequent it also but busy nowadays, but maybe we can arrange something innsha'ALLAH?

[Amid Khan]

With respect to Ibn Kathir, I don't think he mentions the story of Malik al-Dar as far as I remember. He remembers the story of 'Utbi which does not contain asking the dead for anything.




Another blunder on your part!

You still like to put down people for not being apparently competent in Hadith but can't even find what Imaam Ibn Kathir mentioned about Malik al-Dar's narration in al-Bidaya. See the file with the scan i just uploaded:

http://www.4shared.com/file/10578622/62bc98bb/Malik_al_Dar_Ibn_Kathirs_view.html

This edition was edited by the Salafee Shaykh - Abdullah al-Turki. Can you see him going against Ibn Kathir's view on its sanad?!

May be you want to see the other grading he mentioned in his Jami al Masanid?! Or why don't you and al-Nepalee pop down to Regents Park Library and find it if you haven't seen it?

As for the story of al-Utbi - is it not mentioned by Ibn Qudama the great champion of anti-Asharite Hanabila in al-Mughni? Or may be one needs to look at Tafsir Ibn Kathir for it! Even though its sanad is problematic..

[Abuz Zubair]

ٍSubhaanAllah dear brother, thank you for correcting me on this one... I had always thought that al-Haythami of Majma' al-Zawa'id is Ibn Hajar al-Haytami. JazakumAllahu Khayran for the correction. At least I am glad to find out that Ibn Hajar al-haytami has nothing to do with Majma' al-Zawa'id.

And now we're back to square one. al-Haythami and al-Mundhiri both say that Malik al-Dar is unknown because they both do not know him. As far as the phrase 'I do not know him' is concerned, then this term is not particular to al-Mundhiri or al-Haythami... La A'rifuhu only refers to jahala... I do not know him, meaning, I do not know who he is... and as I said, jahala could be that of 'ayn or hal.

With respect to al-Mundhiri, the jahala is of hal, and thus inadmissible as proof:

وفي إسناده إبراهيم بن سالم بن شبل الهجعي لا أعرفه بجرح ولا عدالة


or this:

قال المملي الحافظ ومن زيد بن مرة فرواته كلهم ثقات معروفون غيره فإني لا أعرفه ولم أقف له على ترجمة والله أعلم بحاله

Similarly al-Haythami:

وأبو سليمان الذي في إسناد أحمد لا أعرفه ولم أر من ترجمه

Similarly, al-San'ani comments on al-Mundhiri's statement:

قال الحافظ المنذري لا أعرفه بجرح ولا عدالة



He says:

وهو في عداد المجهولين

Don't believe me then ask someone you trust in hadeeth what does it mean when a naqid says: la a'rifuhu, is he majhul or is he not?

Or if you like, go through tahdhib al-tahdhib looking for those about whom the nuqqad have said la a'rifuhu and then refer to taqrib to see Ibn Hajar's comment.

Or if you are so certain that the dhahir of al-mundhiri's and al-haythami's statement is ghayr murad, then please tell us what exactly they mean by: 'la a'rifuhu'. To say they mean: I do not know his background, has nothing to do with jarh and ta'dil. If this person is neither majhul al-'ayn, nor majhul al-hal, that means his condition is known, then what exactly is there left to be known about which they say: la a'rifuhu?

I never claimed Shaykh Haytham to be my teacher. Reading a book or two to a Shaykh or attending a few sessions does not create teacher-student relationship.

Anyway, JK for correcting me, but we're back to square one.

[Abuz Zubair]

Amid, calm down bro... I said exactly as you quoted me:

With respect to Ibn Kathir, I don't think he mentions the story of Malik al-Dar as far as I remember. He remembers the story of 'Utbi which does not contain asking the dead for anything.


as I also said:

I have yet to see what exactly Ibn Kathir says about the authenticity of the chain for I couldn't find it in al-Bidaya. Whatever the case, even if the chain is authentic up to Malik al-Dar, for argument's sake, we still do not know who saw the dream and he is the essential important link in the chain, without whom the chain remains unconnected.

Oh... thanks for the scan btw... now what? And how is that a blunder?

[Um Abdullah M.]

Ibn kathir rahimahu Allah did mention hadith of Malik ad Dar in bidayah wa nihaya

but check the narrations he mentions before that one, to understand his view of the story of the hadith.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

ٍSubhaanAllah dear brother, thank you for correcting me on this one... I had always thought that al-Haythami of Majma' al-Zawa'id is Ibn Hajar al-Haytami. JazakumAllahu Khayran for the correction. At least I am glad to find out that Ibn Hajar al-haytami has nothing to do with Majma' al-Zawa'id.

huh? you being sarcy rite?

And now we're back to square one. al-Haythami and al-Mundhiri both say that Malik al-Dar is unknown because they both do not know him. As far as the phrase 'I do not know him' is concerned, then this term is not particular to al-Mundhiri or al-Haythami... La A'rifuhu only refers to jahala... I do not know him, meaning, I do not know who he is... and as I said, jahala could be that of 'ayn or hal.

With respect to al-Mundhiri, the jahala is of hal, and thus inadmissible as proof:

وفي إسناده إبراهيم بن سالم بن شبل الهجعي لا أعرفه بجرح ولا عدالة


or this:

قال المملي الحافظ ومن زيد بن مرة فرواته كلهم ثقات معروفون غيره فإني لا أعرفه ولم أقف له على ترجمة والله أعلم بحاله

Similarly al-Haythami:

وأبو سليمان الذي في إسناد أحمد لا أعرفه ولم أر من ترجمه

Similarly, al-San'ani comments on al-Mundhiri's statement:

قال الحافظ المنذري لا أعرفه بجرح ولا عدالة



He says:

وهو في عداد المجهولين

Don't believe me then ask someone you trust in hadeeth what does it mean when a naqid says: la a'rifuhu, is he majhul or is he not?

Or if you like, go through tahdhib al-tahdhib looking for those about whom the nuqqad have said la a'rifuhu and then refer to taqrib to see Ibn Hajar's comment.

Or if you are so certain that the dhahir of al-mundhiri's and al-haythami's statement is ghayr murad, then please tell us what exactly they mean by: 'la a'rifuhu'. To say they mean: I do not know his background, has nothing to do with jarh and ta'dil. If this person is neither majhul al-'ayn, nor majhul al-hal, that means his condition is known, then what exactly is there left to be known about which they say: la a'rifuhu?

now you say this, and amid says:


And I told you that IBN HAJAR AL HAYTAMI didn't say that Malik al-dar was a Majhul - so where is your proof he did?! Still can't be manly enough to admit that you blundered badly when it was Nurud-Din al-Haythami you should have referred to. Your insincerity is all too glaringly obvious - but it seems even your blind cheer leaders can't even spot that! Subhanallah. Rather, it is you who seems to be a self taught claimant to Hadith Mastership. "I do not Know Him" doesn't mean that Malik is Majhul - for if it does according to the Istilah of these two Huffaz - then quote them or better still from the well known books on Mustalah that it does as you claim.


Now if there is the possibility that ibn hajar al-haythami mentioned in another book that Malik al-Dar was not majhul and in another book he said he was, how wuld this then be looked at?

I never claimed Shaykh Haytham to be my teacher. Reading a book or two to a Shaykh or attending a few sessions does not create teacher-student relationship.

Interesting thing is bro, I mentioned this a year ago or so on sunniforum, and remember you corrected me on it?.......but again I did ask the brother amid who said he didn't know who faqir was how he heard this......

ALLAHU A'lam

[abubakr]

Asalamu alaykum

sister Asmaa said:

"Ibn kathir rahimahu Allah did mention hadith of Malik ad Dar in bidayah wa nihaya

but check the narrations he mentions before that one, to understand his view of the story of the hadith."

Could you or Abu Zubair please elaborate on this and provide the context jazakallah khair.

[Abuz Zubair]

What I meant is that I was wrong to assume that al-Haythami and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami are one person. I have had this impression for years.

al-Haythami (with no Ibn Hajar) is the compiler of Majma' al-Zawa'id, the teacher of Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, the Imam of the Quburis.

[abu hafs]

the Imam of the Quburis.
I heard from a scholar who has studied the Shafi'i madhab "traditionally" that ibn hajar al Haythami changed many of his opinions in the latter part of his life, he mentioned it while he was quoting from one his books 'az-Zawaajir' to disprove grave worship and tomb glorification

Here are some things mentioned in 'az-Zawajir'

He forbids
1. Building shrines over graves , he considers it a major sin to do so , he also says else where that these people who build them are cursed and its not right to believe that scholars will permit something that the prophet cursed.
2. Putting lights over graves
3. Making them idols
4. Making tawaaf around them.
5. Praying (as in Salaah) in the direction of the grave .
6. Praying towards the grave seeking barakah.


He quotes several ahadith which we generally use to censure the qubooris.
. Then he says that the biggest reason for shirk is taking graves as places of salaah and buidling tombs over them. He also says that all tombs and structures over graves should be immediately demolished and compares these tombs to Masjid-ud-Dirar and says that these tombs are worse than it. He also says those who build over tombs of the Saliheen are the worst of people on the day of judgment with Allah.

He explains that the "righteous" mentioned in the following hadith refers to "a wali" or a "prophet"

If any righteous man dies among these people they would build a place of worship at his grave and make these pictures on it. They will be the worst creature with Allah on the Day of Resurrection.“ [Saheeh al-Bukharee (Eng. Trans.), vol.1, p.251, no.419, Saheeh Muslim (Eng. Trans.). vol.1, p.268, no.1076), Sunan an-Nasa’ee (al-Masaajid) vol. 1, no. 115, and Musnad Imaam Ahmad vol. 6, no. 51.]

From all of this i believe its clear that Haytami was a lot different from modern day Quburis atleast towards the end of his life .

[al-hanafi]

Amid, calm down bro...


You and your brothers have attacked him like rabid dogs in this very thread ...

And what i also find amazing is that you have viciously attacked so many people for their understanding - tarimistudent and now amid khan come to mind yet you don't even know who the author of majma az-zawaid is and the difference between al-haythami and ibn hajar al-haytami.

I wonder how you would have jumped on anyone who made this basic mistake if the tables were turned?

So maybe this is a wake up call for you brother - you need to calm down first before telling others to calm down.

That would be my advice from what I have observed in my limited time on your forum.