Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Ismail Ibrahim

kitaab al-Sunnah by ibn Hanbal a forgery?

This is a discussion on kitaab al-Sunnah by ibn Hanbal a forgery? within the Islamic Theology and Ideology forums, part of the Islamic Knowledge category; Asalaam alaikum. It is claimed that Kitaab al-Sunnah is falsely ascribed to the son of Imam Ahmad... Can anyone refer ...

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Age
    40
    Posts
    102

    Default kitaab al-Sunnah by ibn Hanbal a forgery?

    Asalaam alaikum.

    It is claimed that Kitaab al-Sunnah is falsely ascribed to the son of Imam Ahmad...

    Can anyone refer me to a link that refutes such a claim?

    or is such a claim true?

    Many thanks!

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,974

    Default Re: kitaab al-Sunnah by ibn Hanbal a forgery?

    Wa 'aleyku al-salaam.
    Al-Dhahabi accepts it as a book from 'Abd Allah ibn Ahmad in Syar.

  3. #3
    Senior Member ibn 'abd al-jabbaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,598

    Default Re: kitaab al-Sunnah by ibn Hanbal a forgery?


  4. #4
    Junior Member Abu Zahra Al Soomaalee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    214

    Default Re: kitaab al-Sunnah by ibn Hanbal a forgery?

    As for it's chain then the Muhaqiqeen weaken it ( 3 people or more missing or something like that), but unfortunately this is not the only way of verifying whether a book is authentically atributted or not !!

  5. #5
    Formerly Harris Hammam
    Ismail Ibrahim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dewsbury
    Posts
    7,847
    Follow Ismail Ibrahim On Twitter Add Ismail Ibrahim on Facebook

    Default Re: kitaab al-Sunnah by ibn Hanbal a forgery?

    Bismillah:
    Quote Originally Posted by Abuz Zubair View Post
    As-Salaamu alaikum,

    Please bear with me as I clear the backlog of questions!

    Dear brother Abu Bakr,

    The editor of Abdullah b. Ahmads Kitab al-Sunnah, Dr. Muhammad b. Said al-Qahtani, lists the following from the scholars who attributed al-Sunnah to Abdullah:

    1) Ibn Abi Yala
    2) al-Lalikai
    3) al-Bayhaqi
    4) Ibn al-Jawzi
    5) Ibn Taymiyya
    6) Ibn al-Qayyim
    7) Ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafi
    8) al-Dhahabi
    9) al-Kattani

    I will add to the list al-Kawthari, who is the most despicable of them all, for calling Abdullah b. Ahmad an active proponent of idolatry (wathaniyya) for writing al-Sunnah. But, if al-Kawthari can accuse the Prophets companion, Anas b. Malik of lying upon the Prophet, who is Abdullah b. Ahmad in the scale of things?

    Anyway, he writes in his Maqalat, in response to someone who doubted the ascription of al-Sunnah to Abdullah:

    He casts doubts on the ascription of Kitab al-Sunnah to Abdullah b. Ahmad only if that was the case yet, we say with all regrets, this is not a matter of scepticism. For the texts quoted from this book, the Hanbali works are crammed full of, with respect to Allahs Highness, limit, contact, etc. Nor are the manuscripts of this book rare, to his words, We see the Ustaadh, zealous over the reputation of Abdullah b. al-Imam Ahmad alone, without moving his little finger in censure of such pagan views narrated from him, while Allahs religion is more deserving to be shown zealousness for. (Maqalat 251-2)

    Keller, nevertheless, casts doubts on ascription of Kitab al-Sunnah to Abdullah on four grounds:

    1) Unreliable chain for Kitab al-Sunnah, as asserted by Sh Shuayb al-Arnaut
    2) The amount of weak and forged Ahadeeth that exist therein.
    3) The existence of anthropomorphic narrations
    4) Censure of Imam Abu Hanfia

    Firstly, Keller is not thiqa, and even if he was, he is narrating something from his Sheikh, which supports his bida, and therefore, such reports from him are not accepted. Moreover, Sheikh Shuayb al-Arnaut is responsible for critically editing and printing at least two works, that I know of, where the authors quote from, or refer to Kitab al-Sunnah of Abdullah; such as Ibn Abil-Izz al-Hanafis Sharh of Tahawiyya, or Aqawil al-Thiqat of al-Karmi al-Hanbali, yet he does not place any comment negating the ascription of the book from Abdullah b. Imam Ahmad. Besides, isnad is not the only method of attributing works to authors, for one of the methods is biographical and historical references, and this is how Ibn Asakir and Ibn Furak attribute works to Abul-Hasan al-Ashari.

    Secondly, It is well known that it has been a practise the Hadeeth scholars to mention various types of Ahadeeth in their collection for different purposes. From these purposes is to narrate a Hadeeth authentic enough to be used as evidences, some Ahadeeth are narrated in order to support other narrations, even though these Ahadeeth on their own might be weak, while some Muhaddithun mention narrations that are fabricated with full knowledge of the fabrication, either because they want to demonstrate their amazement with the fabricated lies, or because they want people to remember the fabricated Ahadeeth with the correct chain of narrations; while some Muhaddithin simply regard those narrations to be authentic, and they believe in it without any objection.

    Thirdly, the extreme anthropomorphic ahadeeth Keller cites as examples have been declared to be weak and fabricated by the editor, Dr. al-Qahtani. However, for likes of Keller, the term anthropomorphism is so loose that it would easily include the famous sahih and sunan books. Plus, we ask Keller to name us one Hanbali book on creed (apart from Ibn al-Jawzis), which he does not regard to be anthropomorphic. The problem with Keller, of course, is that he is hung from a tree upside-down, but complains: why is the world so upside-down?! It goes without saying, as I have mentioned enough already, that accusations of anthropomorphism are quite relative, for they too, according to Mutazili standards, are what they accuse us of.

    Fourthly, Abdullah was not the only one to criticise Imam Abu Hanifa, for it is more than obvious that Ahl al-hadith were divded over Abu Hanifa. For example, from those who criticised him in similar fashion were: Imam al-Bukhari, Ibn Qutayba, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn Hibban, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi and al-Lalikai, and other Sunni giants.

    Yet, it is important that one looks at this in his historical context to realise why some of the Salaf were against Imam Abu Hanifa:

    1) Some of the Salaf were simply jealous of the Imam and the fame and understanding he was given by Allah. This sort of jealousy has existed amongst the contemporary scholars throughout Islamic history, which is why the scholars mention in the Jarh and Tadil, not to accept criticism amongst contemporaries at its face value.

    2) Some had issues with Imam Abu Hanifahs extensive use of rai, due to which we see Ibn Abi Shaiba dedicating a chapter in his Musannaf to refuting Abu Hanifas opinions in Fiqh.

    3) Others would accuse Imam Abu Hanifah of having Mutazili beliefs, such as that the Quran is created, and would therefore revile him. This is because the vast majority of those who instigated the Mutazili fitnah were Hanafis, such as Bishr al-Marrisi and the Qadhi Ahmad ibn Abi Duad, and they would attribute much of their bidah to the Imam, just as the modern day Maturidis attribute their bidahs to the Imam. This is why there are contradictory narrations reported from Imam Ahmad with regards to Imam Abu Hanifah, some in praise and others in dispraise; and the explanation to this is that whenever he heard good about Abu Hanifah he praised him, and when it was reported that Abu Hanifah had Mutazili beliefs, he dispraised him. However, that which is established from Imam Ahmad with regards to Imam Abu Hanifah, is what is reported by al-Marrudhi, where Imam Ahmad says: We know of no authentic reports from Abu Hanifah that he said that the Quran was created.

    Therefore, we should bear these points in mind while speaking of Kitab al-Sunnah by Abdullah, and accept the correct information therein, and reject the bad.

    wasalam
    Quote Originally Posted by Harris Hammam View Post
    Chit does Taqleed of whomever he wishes when it suits his agenda.

    But Chit has failed to understand that those who attributed the book to Abdullah bin Ahmed did not even have space to mention these Majhul people:

    1. Ibn Abi Ya'laa - a Hanbali scholar who knows more than Shu'ayb al-Arnaut
    2. Al-Laalakaa'i - Imam of the Ahl al-Sunnah, NOT THE ASH'ARIS
    3. Even al-Bayhaqi attributed it to Abdullah
    4. Even Ibn al-Jawzi attributed to Abdullah
    5. Ibn Taymiyyah - an excellent researcher
    6. Ibn al-Qayyim - has no parallel in refuting the Ahl al-Bid'ah
    7. Ibn Abil Izz - such a big thorn in the Ahl al-Bid'ah that all they could do is to deny his existence!
    8. Al-Thahabi - a person who did radd on Ibn Taymiyyah towards the end of his life according to Chit's fantastic research
    9. Al-Kittaani in al-Risalah al-Mustatrafah
    10. Al-Anjab bin Makki bin al-Anjab bin Ahmed al-Teebi - the writer of a sixth century manuscript of the book

    What does this prove, Chit? Are all of these people anthropomorphists? What about al-Bayhaqi? Is he a Jahil for making this attribution to Abdullah? Does it prove that all these people were ignorant?

    BTW, does that also mean that Kitab al-Aathaar of Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani is not an authentic book because many scholars have declared him to be weak?

    Is a strict application of Sanad principles the only way of verfying who wrote what? If that were the case, then you should know that many books are known to be by their authors, but don't have a Sanad.

    Educate yourself that the verdict of other authentic scholars is also a way of ascertaining the nisbah of books. There are many other ways too.

    [Tangent:] If a strict application of Sanad is demanded everywhere, I can ask: what is the Sanad for Qari Tayyib's book "The Maslak of Deoband"? The manuscript of the book was found by his family after his death. His family are - I am sure - not Thiqaat according to Hadith Sanad standards. Yet we are so sure that QT wrote that book. So why are we so sure, Chit? Did we go and try to find the Sanad of this book? Or did we suffice with other situational evidences to prove that QT did write that book?

    Isn't ten scholars evidence enough that Abdullah wrote the book then?

    But what I have said is something that is beyond your comprehension, as you are a blind Muqallid to the detriment of the verdict of the above 10 scholars.

    Can I also ask why al-Kawthari labelled Abdullah bin Ahmed as an idolater? Is it not connected with this book? How could he classed him as an idolater if Kitab al-Sunnah was unauthentic according to him?

    You can't have it both ways, Chit. You class this book unauthentic based on ONLY the Sanad with utter disregard to what the 10 scholars said, yet you still class Abdullah bin Ahmed an idolater based on this book.

    So which one is it?:

    1) The book is authentic, Shu'ayb al-Arnaut is wrong in his criticism of the nisbah, and Imam Abdullah is an idolater as al-Kawthari said, OR

    2) the book is unauthentic, Shu'ayb al-Arnaut is right in his criticism of the nisbah, and al-Kawthari is wrong in classifying Imam Abdullah as an idolater.

    And if you wanna talk about Sanad, why not consider your inalienable belief of Allah being nowhere, which - instead of being Mutawaatir - has no Sanad at all! Yet you still believe this!!!

    The last guy to be talking about Sanad is YOU, Chit.

Similar Threads

  1. Kitaab at-Tawheed | Sh. Nabeel ul-Haq
    By al-Ansaari in forum Events and Announcements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15th June 2009, 07:57 PM
  2. Can some comment on this (wheter its forgery)
    By AbuNaim in forum Islamic Law
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 25th February 2009, 05:41 PM
  3. Kitaab ash-Shari'ah by al-Aajuri
    By Ba Ba Muhammad in forum Islamic Theology and Ideology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 30th November 2008, 06:36 PM
  4. Explanation of Kitaab Al Tawheed
    By The Lone Stranger in forum Events and Announcements
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 18th May 2008, 06:30 PM
  5. Ahlul Kitaab..
    By Deobandi_Sapahi_1866 in forum Arts and Culture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 6th May 2008, 05:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129