Discussion in 'Islamic Theology and Ideology' started by sultanmuradII, Dec 22, 2006.
Why does this Imam say this? Is he deviant?
as wr wb, this imam is either deobandie or maaturidi as i remember he also answered many questions regarding the ashariees and maaturidies saying they were ahlus sunnah and you can use kallam and rationality to prove certain issues in the deen (you can find many of his wrong statements on his q&a website). Many of the scholars from south africa have this weakness. So yes, he is deviant in his understanding of the salaf.
Who to Believe? Below is a scholar called Gibril Haddad he states:
he isn't a scholar. He is an 'ash'ari student of knowledge
And even if shaykh al-albani said this, even haddad admits ibn hajar would find qaraa'in in akhbar al-ahaad to make the narration qati'e 'ilm an-nadhari. and one of the qaraa'in is the rawi like imaam ash-shafi'e and imaam malik!
It could be argued this is not a real external qareena
also a "handful" where has the "ash'ari" principle gone where if there is some ikhtilaf upon an issue we should respect it and not speak ill of those who hold an opinion you oppose in that matter.
wa ALLAHU A'lam
I think akhi abuz zubair wrote an article on khabar ahad and its validity in aqidah however, I can't seem to locate it??
HT and Khabr al-Ahad
A Decisive Word
The following is my recent response to certain statements brought forward to me concerning some of the classical scholars supposedly, supporting the stance of HT regarding Ahad narrations, which results in their rejection of most of the articles of faith, from them, the Punishment of the Grave.
As-Salaamu 'Alaikum wa-raHmatullahi wa-barakaatuh
Jazaakillahu Khaira for responding to my questions concerning Ahad narrations and their relation with Aqeedah. AlHamdulillah, it is good to see that you are not blindly accepting anything from anyone, but you are Inshaa`Allah searching for the truth with an open mind, and are prepared to accept the truth from wherever you find it.
The following is going to be my reply to your email Inshaa`Allah, read it yourself and share it with others, may Allah guide us all to the truth and unite us upon that.
We all know that the aqeedah should be tasdeeq jazim, should not have a sahdow of doubt, so we only take into our aqeedah what is definate and decisive...hence the Quran and Mutawatir Hadith...
I think we should rather stick to the Shara'ee terminologies while discussing these issues, so we don't use the word "doubt" rather we use the word "Dhan", as this is the word that has been used by all the scholars you have quoted below. By simply rendering the word "Dhan" into English as "doubt" is not possible as the word "Dhan" carries two possible meanings, blameworthy as well as praiseworthy as you will see later on.
Then comes a question: How do you exactly define a Mutawaatir Hadeeth? As you should know that there are various types of Mutawaatir Ahadeeth and the scholars have various classification of what is a Mutawaatir Hadeeth in the first place!
So you have:
1) Mutawaatir Lafdhee (Mutawaatir in words): A Hadeeth with the same wording that has many chains, by various companions, who heard it from a singular gathering. Like the Hadeeth, "Whoever lies upon me intentionally, then let him take his seat in the Fire". The scholars say that the Hadeeth has been narrated by 60-200 Sahaabah. The Hadeeth about the spring of the Prophet SAW when some people will be prevented from drinking from it. This has been narrated by fifty companions of the Prophet SAW.
2) Mutawaatir Ma'nawee (Mutawaatir in meaning): Various Ahadeeth with different wordings, but pointing to the same issue, narrated by various Sahaaba at different times. Such as the Ahadeeth of intercession of the Prophet SAW, or the Ahadeeth regarding seeing Allah in the hereafter, or the Ahadeeth regarding water coming out from between the two fingers of the Prophet SAW, which was a miracle, or the Ahadeeth regarding raising the hands in Du'aa and so on.
Ahmad Shaakir says regarding this type of Mutawaatir Ahadeeth: From the Mutawaatir Ma'nawee with me, are [what are known as] Mutawaatir 'Amali (Mutawaatir in actions), which is [what is know as] known from the Deen by necessity. It is Mutawaatir amongst the Muslims that the Prophet SAW did such-and-such or ordered with such-and-such and so on and so forth. And this is where the definition of Ijmaa' is implemented, with correct implementation. For example: The times of Salawaat and the numbers of their units, the Salaatul-Janaazah, the two 'Eids, the Hijaab of the women in front of non-Mahram people to them, the amount of Zakah to be paid on wealth, until [the issues] which cannot be numbered and accounted from the legislations of Islaam. (Sharh al-Alfiya lis-Suyuti p.47)
Therefore, if the articles of faith like the punishment of the grave or other matters (that are listed later on) are not Mutawaatir Lafdhee, then indeed they are Mutawaatir Ma'nawee without dispute, as none of the Muslims have ever rejected faith in them. Speaking from common sense, if the Sahaabah narrate Ahadeeth with different wordings at different times, but pointing to one and the same thing, how is it possible that all them happen to have mistaken, in at least conveying us the truth of about existence of the matter?
Then comes the issue of the definition of Mutawaatir. How many narrators are required to make a Hadeeth Mutawaatir?
Some scholars actually set a number of narrators that are required for a Hadeeth to be Mutawaatir, and some didn't restrict it to any number at all!
And from those who restricted the Tawaatur of Ahadeeth by the number of narrators vary so vastly that it's amazing! So some say five narrators are enough to make a Hadeeth Mutawaatir, some say six, some say 12, some say 20, some say 40, some say 70, some say 313 and some say 1700!
So where do the HTs draw the line and say "this is the number of narrators that are required to make a Hadeeth Mutawaatir", for if they don't then how would we know which Ahadeeth are Mutawaatir and which are classified to be Ahad, so that we know what to believe in and what not to believe in.
So for example, if the HTs say: 20 narrators make a Hadeeth Mutawaatir. So we ask: So if a Hadeeth is narrated by 19 is it Mutawaatir? If they say: No, then we would like to see some evidence for both of these figures (20 and 19), and if they say: Yes, then they have contradicted their own principle. Nevertheless, this principle is based on "doubt" itself (due to no fixed number of narrators), so here are HTs refusing to accept small articles of faith because they are "doubtful" and yet basing their entire Aqeeda on a principle which itself is doubtful!
Here is what some classical scholars have said regarding ahad hadith... that it has doubt it in..... so therefore we cant it part of our aqeedah...
The scholars never use the word "doubt", rather they used the word "Dhan" which has two opposite meanings. "Dhan" is sometimes condemned in the Qur`aan and sometimes praised.
From the examples of praiseworthy "Dhan" is when Allah said:
"Indeed, I believed (Dhanantu)that I shall meet my Account! So he shall be in a life, well-pleasing." (al-Haaqqah 20-21)
Here Allah uses the word "Dhan" as a synonym for belief in the day of reckoning, which is indeed a decisive belief.
"...and they perceived (wa Dhannoo) that there is no fleeing from Allah, and no refuge but with Him." (at-Tawbah 118).
Again, Allah praises the "Dhan" of the three Sahaaba who were abandoned by the Prophet SAW and his companions, as a punishment for not responding to the call of Jihaad.
"(They are those) who are certain (Yadhunnoona) that they are going to meet their Lord, and that unto Him they are going to return." (al-Baqarah 46)
Again, Allah uses the word "Dhan" is a replacement for our decisive belief in the day of judgement.
" But those who knew with certainty (Yadhunnoona) that they were to meet their Lord, said: "How often a small group overcame a mighty host by Allah's Leave?"(al-Baqarah 249)
Yet again, Allah uses the word "Dhan" for certainty and not doubt.
So the question is, what is the understanding of this word "Dhan" for which the Mushrikeen are condemned for following, and the Muslims are praised for believing in?
The word "Dhan" , when it is blameworthy, then it is only a doubt, uncertainty and so it's condemned in all aspects of Sharee'ah whether belief or actions. But when it is praiseworthy, it is decisive belief with certainty. This is why the scholars of the Arabic language stated "Adh-Dhan - Shakkun wa Yaqeen" (meaning: adh-Dhan is doubt and certainty, see Lisaan al-Arab 13/272 and an-Nihaaya 3/163).
So the "Dhan" used in the Qur`aan in praise for the believers is known as "Dhan ar-Raajih" (the beneficial Dhan) which amounts to certainty, where as the "Dhan" that is condemned is know as "Dhan al-Marjooh" which amounts to doubt and uncertainty.
Therefore the "Dhan" mentioned by the scholars regarding Ahadeeth al-Ahad is Dhan ar-Raajih (beneficial Dhan), and this is why all of the scholars you mentioned below, accept Ahad narrations in Aqeeda, in spite of stating that Ahad narrations are Dhanni, as will be shown later on.
Al-Haafidh Ibn Abdil-Bir said: "And what we say is: That it necessitates actions but not knowledge, like the witness of two witnesses or four is the same. And upon this are most of the people of Fiqh and Athar, and all of them adhere to the just Khabr al-Waahid in al-I'tiqaadaat (belief) and show enmity to and befriend upon it, and make it a path and a Deen in their beliefs, and upon this is the Jamaa'ah of Ahlus-Sunnah" (at-Tamheed 1/8)
Secondly, lets say for the sake of argument, that the Dhan regarding Ahad narrations is of the doubtful type, and Allah said in the Qur`an, "And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth. Surely, Allah is All-Aware of what they do." (Yunus 36), then from where did HT get the evidence to restrict this verse to only the doubts in belief and not actions? What proof do they have to restrict this verse to beliefs only and say, "it is condemned to follow doubts in belief, but one may follow doubts in actions"? Because the verse is 'Aam (general) without any Qaid (restriction) and if one wishes to make Taqyeed should come forward with another Shara'ee text in his support, as it is know from the rules of Usool al-Fiqh.
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah: In his book Al Fatawa [vol. 7. pg. 117-127], he addressed the subject of the Iman and says that Iman is yaqeen (detailed and clarified conviction), and not just tasdiq (belief). He said that this is the Shari' meaning of Iman.
I really hope that it's an error on part of the one who wrote/compiled this article, because Imaam Ibn Taymiya Raheemahullah, wrote a whole book about the matter of Imaan, called "Kitaabul-Imaan" (which is now available in English), in which he clarified the mathhab of the Salaf regarding the definition of Imaan and affirmed that Imaan is statement and actions, of the heart and the limbs, which increases with obedience and decreases with disobedience to Allah. In this book he refutes the Ashaa'irah, who say that Imaan is just Tasdeeq al-Jaazim (firm conviction in the heart) only, and actions and statements are not part of Imaan. This definition for Imaan given by the Ashaa'irah is very close (if not the same!) to the definition given by Jahm bin Safwaan who said that Imaan is merely acknowledgement of Allah's existence in the heart. So according to Jahm ibn Safwaan, and those who were influenced by him from the Ashaairah and HTS, Iblees is a Mu`min complete in his Imaan since he recognises Allah's existence, more over he makes Du'aa to Him alone, and his Imaan is the same as Imaan of Jibreel, as Imaan does not increase nor does it decrease according to the Ashaa'irah and the Jahmiyah. Jahm bin Safwaan was an apostate Zindeeq who was executed by the ruler of his time for corrupting the beliefs of the Muslims with atheism.
Therefore he could not have said that this is the Shara'ee meaning of Imaan. I would challenge anyone to actually read out for him/herself what the Imaam said, translate it word-by-word show us where Ibn Taymiyah defines Iman to be Yaqeen only and calls it a Shara'ee definition of Imaan.
Then you say:
Furthermore, he said in Al Fatawa vol. 18. pg. 16-22, that the mutawatir hadeeth imply the 'ilm (certainty) and that one can absolutely confirm that this is true because it is mutawatir. Regarding the authentic ahaad hadeeth, he attached certain details to it before it would be able to imply the 'ilm, unlike the case of mutawatir for which he gave only one rule. Regarding the sahih (authentic) hadeeth, which could imply certainty, Ibn Taymiyyah placed two conditions, where if either one existed then it would point up 'Ilm only. These two conditions are Ijma' al 'Ulema (Consensus of the Scholars). Therefore, for those who do not take any Ijma' besides that of the Sahabah, the ahaad hadeeth will not be considered as definitive.
You said that he mentions TWO conditions, but you only mentioned ONE, which is Ijmaa' al-Ulama`.
Secondly your statement that you only take Ijmaa' as-Sahaabah and not the Ijmaa of Ulama is a bogus statement, and shows that a person knows very little (if any) of Usoolul-Fiqh. The definition of Ijmaa' is: The unanimous agreement of the Mujtahideen/Fuqahaa` of the Muslim community of any period following the demise of the Prophet SAW on any matter. (See Ihkaam by al-Aamidi 1/196 and Irshaad by ash-Shawkaani p.71, and al-Waraqaat by Ibn al-Jawzi). The Prophet SAW said,"My Ummah will not unite upon misguidance", thus rendering Ijmaa to be an evidence in itself which cannot contain error. Ijmaa' of the Sahaabah is in fact included in the Ijmaa' of the Salaf (as the Sahaaba are the first of the three generations) and Ijmaa' as-Salaf is included in Ijmaa' of the 'Ulama, which in effect is Ijmaa' of the entire Ummah!
Even if you say, for the sake of argument, that you only take Ijmaa' as-Sahaaba, then what do you say about Ijmaa' as-Sukooti (silent Ijmaa) of the Sahaaba concerning accepting Ahad narrations whole heartedly without differentiating between Aqeeda and Ahkaam? What do you say about Mu'aadh bin Jabal being sent to Yemen to teach people Islaam, and Tawheed to start with!? What do you say about the Prophet SAW sending a messenger (just one) to the kings? What do you say, when Ibn Abbas was told that someone denied that the Musa who accompanied al-Khidr was the same Musa of Bani Israa`il, which he refuted, by narrating the Ahad Hadeeth from Ubay bin Ka'ab confirming that the Musa of al-Khidr is the same Musa of Bani Israa`il and called the initiator of this statement an "enemy of Allah". Musa and al-Khidr have nothing to do with Ahkaam, rather it's a matter of Aqeeda, and yet Ibn Abbaas refutes another person's deviant belief using an Ahad narration and then calling him an enemy of Allah! And the examples are many in this regard, which show that the Sahaab would accept Ahad narrations, without differentiating between 'Aqeeda and Ahkaam.
As for Imaam Ibn Taymiyah, then he affirms that al-Bukhaari and Muslim are both agreed upon by the Ummah as a whole to be authentic and the entire Ummah has accepted them with certainty. So he says, "And from the Saheeh Hadeeth that the Muslims met with acceptance and acted upon it, then it benefits knowledge and it is definitely the truth. And from the Saheeh what the Ummah has met with acceptance and testification of the people of knowledge in Hadeeth, like all of the Ahadeeth in al-Bukhaari and Muslim, because all of the people of knowledge in Hadeeth are very definite about the authenticity of the Ahadeeth of the two books... So the Ijmaa' of the people of knowledge in Hadeeth, that the Khabr is true, is like the Ijmaa' of the Fuqahaa` that such-and-such is Halaal or Haraam or Waajib, and when the people of knowledge agree upon something, then the entire Ummah follows them in that, so their Ijmaa' is Ma'soom (infallible) as it is not possible for them to agree upon an error" (Majmoo' al-Fataawa 18/16-17)
This was regarding the collection of Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Muslim, and as for Ahadeeth in other collections he states: "Khabr al-Waahid that has been met with acceptance, necessitates knowledge.According to the majority of the scholars from the companions of Abu Haneefah, Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee and Ahmad, and it is also the statement of most of the companions of Ash'ari such as as-Safarini and Ibn Fuwarrak. Even if it [Ahad narration] on its own does not benefit except Dhan, but when it is accompanied with Ijmaa' of the people of the knowledge of Hadeeth upon accepting it with testification of it, it reaches the level of Ijmaa' of the people of the knowledge of Fiqh over a ruling, as they base it on either the Dhaahir, or Qiyaas or Khabr Waahid, then this ruling becomes Qata'ee (definite) with the majority, and if it is without Ijmaa', it will be non-definite as Ijmaa' is Ma'soom (infallible)". (Majmoo' al-Fataawa 18/48 & 70)
Then you say:
Imam Nawawi: In his book Sharh Sahih Muslim, vol. 1 pg. 20, Imam Nawawi discusses the statement of Shaykh Ibn al-Salah who claimed that the ahadeeth in Bukhari and Muslim imply certainty. Imam Nawawi writes, "What Shaykh (ibn al-Salah) said in this issue is against what the Scholars said. Most of them said that the non-Mutawatir Hadeeth of Bukhari and Muslim, imply thunn since it is Ahaad, and the Ahaad implies nothing but the thunn. This is based on what was already known and agreed upon. This rule applies without distinguishing between Bukhari, Muslim or others. However, their Hadeeth are enough to be taken in the ahkam (rules)."
I did not find such statement of Imaam an-Nawawi to start with. Some of what is said above are his statements, but some statements are twisted and some are even forgery. Imaam an-Nawawi states in Sharh Saheeh Muslim volume 1 page 20:
"This is what the Sheikh has mentioned in these places, oppose what the most of the researchers said, for they said that the Ahadeeth as-Saheehain, al-Bukhaari and Muslim, those that are not Mutawaatir, only benefit Dhan because they are Ahad, and Ahad only benefit Dhan as it has been agreed. And there is no difference between al-Bukhaari and Muslim and other [collections] than them in this regard. And the Ummah has met them with acceptance, because they benefit the necessity of acting upon them, and this is agreed upon, for the Ahad narrations that exist in other than them [al-Bukhaari and Muslim] necessitate acting upon them if their chain of narration is authentic, but they do not benefit except Dhan and likewise the Saheehain. Rather, the Saheehain differ from other books than them because of the fact that what is contained within them [al-Bukhaari and Muslim] is all Saheeh and is not in need of looking into them [with a doubtful eye], rather it is waajib to act upon them in absolute terms. But what is contained in books other than them, they are not acted upon until they are researched and the conditions of authenticity are met. And the Ijmaa' of the Ummah upon acting upon them [Ahad narrations in al-Bukhaari and Muslim] does not necessitate the Ijmaa' of the Ummah that they are all definitely the statements of the Prophet SAW. And Ibn Burhaan al-Imaam severely criticised the one who says what the Sheikh (Ibn as-Salaah) has said..."
As you notice how different is the statement of Imaam an-Nawawi from what has been quoted from his supposed statement from his Sharh of Saheeh Muslim. Please also note the forgery where the paragraph above quotes Imaam an-Nawawi saying, "However, their Hadeeth are enough to be taken in the ahkam (rules)." Imaam an-Nawawi never used the word "Ahkaam" (as opposed to Aqeedah), but he used the word "Amal" (action) (as opposed to 'Ilm) and as we know, 'Ilm is defined differently than Aqeeda (see al-Waraqaat of Ibn al-Jawzi). This was a result of HTs - out of their love for their party - playing around, adding, subtracting and twisting the words of this great Imaam!
Regarding Imaam an-Nawawi's criticism of Ibn as-Salaah, then a lot can be said, and I will only mention whatever little is available to me. We acknowledge that Imaam an-Nawawi was indeed from the greatest of scholars of this Ummah, but that did not prevent him from falling into errors, as no one is Ma'soom after the Messenger of Allah SAW. So when Imaam an-Nawawi states that the saying of Ibn as-Salah is against the majority of researchers, then this statement contradicts what as-Sakhaawi said about Ibn as-Salaah that: "He (Ibn Salaah) has been preceded in this statement about the meeting of the narrations with acceptance by the majority of the Muhadditheen, the Usooliyeen and the Salaf in general" (Qawaa'id at-Tahdeeth 85, Fath al-Mugheeth 1/51)
It is also interesting to note is that many of those who came after Imaam an-Nawawi in fact sided with Ibn as-Salaah, and from them, al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer, Siraajud-Deen al-Balqini, Ibn Hajr, Abu Ishaaq ash-Sheerazi (Imaam of the Shaafi'ees). So much so that Imaam al-Balqeeni said, "And what was said by Ibn Abdis-Salaam and an-Nawawi and whoever followed them is prohibited. . For some of the latter Huffaadh [then he mentioned their names] narrated that they accept the Ahadeeth that have been met by the Ummah with acceptance, as definite [proofs]" (Mahaasin al-Istilaah 101, Tadreeb ar-Raawi 1/133 by as-Suyooti). Regarding this, Ibn Hajr states, "... it is as if he meant by that [latter Huffaadh], ash-Sheikh Taqiyud-Deen Ibn Taymiyah, narrating from some of his trustworthy companions". Then Ibn Hajr refutes an-Nawawi from various angles.
Al-Haafidh al-Iraaqi states, "What he (Ibn as-Salaah) claimed that whatever has been extracted by ash-Shaikhain (al-Bukhaari and Muslim) is definite with its authenticity, he was preceded by al-Haafidh Abul-Fadhl Muhammad bin Taahir al-Maqdisi, and Abu Nasr Abdur-Raheem bin Abdul-Khaaliq bin Yusuf. So they said: they are [Ahad Ahadeeth in Bukhaari and Muslim] definite proofs with their authenticity"
As-Suyooti adds to these two, Abu Haamid al-Asfaraaini, al-Qaadhi Abut-Tayyib, ash-Sheerazi, as-Sarkhasi, al-Qaadhi Abdul-Wahhaab from the Maalikis and Abu Ya'la and Abul-Khattaab, az-Zaaghuni from the Hanbalis, Ibn Fuwarrak and most of the people of Kalaam from the Ashaa'irah. (Tadreeb ar-Raawi 1/132).
Al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer says, "...and I am with Ibn as-Salaah in what he relies upon and guides towards..." (Mukhtasar 'Uloom al-Hadeeth 35)
As-Suyooti says: "And this is what I choose and I do not believe anything besides it" (Tadreeb ar-Raawi 1/134)
However, in spite Imaam an-Nawawi criticising Ibn as-Salaah, he states: "The Khulafaa` ar-Raashidoon, the rest of the Sahaabah and those who came after them from the Salaf and the Khalaf did not cease to act upon Khabr al-Waahid" (Sharh Saheeh Muslim 1/130). In spite of his stance, that Khabr al-Waahid is not Qata'i (definite) but Dhanni, regardless of whether it's in al-Bukhaari and Muslim or other collections, he still accepts Ahad narrations without differentiating between 'Aqeeda and Ahkaam, just like all the other scholars who did not consider Ahad to be amounting to 'Ilm but accepted them in their Aqeedah.
He makes some commentary on the long Hadeeth regarding the beast where some Sahaaba saw the Dajjaal, and then he said, "And in it there is [proof] for acceptance of Khabr al-Waahid" (Sharh Saheeh Muslim 8/80). If someone might say, that an-Nawawi meant, acceptance in Ahkaam only and not Aqeedah, then we ask: Where are the Ahkaam in the narration of the Sahaabi meeting the beast and the Dajjaal? Rather the entire Hadeeth is about Aqeeda, so how can an-Nawawi accept it in Ahkaam only but not Aqeeda?
Indeed Imaam an-Nawawi spoke the truth when he said that the Salaf did not cease to act upon Khabr al-Waahid, and an-Nawawi did not differentiate between Aqeeda and Ahkaam, just as the Salaf themselves never did! So here we have 'Abdullah Ibn 'Umar asking his father - 'Umar - about Sa'ad Ibn Abi Waqqaas's narration about wiping over the socks, so 'Umar - Ra - replied: "If Sa'ad narrates something to you from the Prophet SAW, then do not ask anyone else about it!" (al-Bukhaari #202). So where did 'Umar differentiate between Ahkaam and Aqeeda in accepting Khabr al-Waahid?
Then Imaam an-Nawawi states in explicit terms that he believes in (have I'tiqaad in) the beneficial Ahadeeth narrated in Saheeh Muslim, so he says while commenting on the Hadeeth of Dhamaam bin Tha'lubah, which comprises of various aspects of Aqeedah: "And in this Hadeeth [there is proof for] acting upon Khabr al-Waahid". And he says, "And it is great in its place, and it is from the most collective of Ahadeeth, which comprises of 'Aqaa`id (beliefs), for he [the Prophet] SAW collected in it what comes from all of the nations of Kufr regarding the differences between their 'Aqaa`id (beliefs)." (Sharh Saheeh Muslim 1/171, 227).
In Kitaabul-Adhkaar, an-Nawawi mentions the Hadeeth, "O My Slaves, indeed I have forbidden oppression upon myself..." then he comments on it saying, "This Hadeeth gathers a number of benefits... and from it, is what comprises of explanation to great principles in Usool ad-Deen (the definite principles of Deen including beliefs)" (al-Adhkaar p. 368)
An-Nawawi also refutes those who deny the Ahad narration about the Prophet SAW being affected by magic and says, "Some of the innovators rejected this Hadeeth, and claimed that it reduces the dignity of Prophethood and casts doubts in it... And what the innovators claim is falsehood!" (Sharh Saheeh Muslim 14/425 #2189). So an-Nawawi, yet again, refutes the people of bid'ah who reject this Ahad narration in Aqeedah.
So Imaam an-Nawawi Raheemahullah, just like other scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah is a proof against HT and not for them, since he accepts Ahad narrations without differentiating between 'Aqeeda and Ahkaam, and further more he explicitly comments upon Ahadeeth that are related to Aqeeda only and demonstrate his whole-hearted acceptance of them.
Then you go on to say:
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal: In his book 'Usul Madhab Imam Ahmad, Dr. 'Abdullah al Turki summarized the issue of khabr ahaad in the 'Aqeedah, carefully discussing all reports mentioned in various Hanbali books. The following are some of his findings: There are two reports on behalf of Imam Ahmad: a report that indicates that Imam Ahmed says that khabr ahaad does not imply certainty and another report, which claims that it does imply certainty. Some Hanbali scholars tried to reconcile between these two contradictory statements by saying that what Imam Ahmed means is that khabr ahaad implies certainty only if it is supported by other indications. The majority of the Hanbali jurists, however, say that khabr ahaad does not imply certainty, and this is obvious in reviewing many Hanbali books in 'Usul ul-Fiqh [see 'Usulu Madhab Imam Ahmad, pg. 250]
This is a deception by cutting and pasting from the book of Sheikh Abdullah at-Turki and presenting the information in a way, which makes people think, Dr. Abdullah at-Turki says Khabr al-Ahad are Dhanni! Further more, the paragraph above lies upon the Sheikh when it states, "The majority of the Hanbali jurists, however, say that khabr ahaad does not imply certainty", as the Sheikh explicitly stated the contrary to it!
Dr. Abdullah at-Turki states in his book Usool Madh-hab al-Imaam Ahmad, page 7: Imaam Ahmad, two narrations have been reported concerning him: One of them that it [Khabr al-Waahid] benefits 'Ilm, and the other, that it does not benefit 'Ilm. And the companions [of Ahmad] differed over the two statements, in accordance with what had been narrated from Ahmad: So, from amongst them who said: It benefits 'Ilm, and amongst them who say, it does not benefit 'Ilm."
Then comes the lie upon Dr Abdullah at-Turki where he supposedly stated, "The majority of the Hanbali jurists, however, say that khabr ahaad does not imply certainty" which can sufficiently be dealt with Dr. Abdullah at-Turki's following statement: "And that which I incline towards at the end, is the opinion of the majority of the Hanbalis, which is that when Khabr al-Waahid benfits 'Ilm if it has been confirmed to be authentic, and an evidence is indicative upon the truth of the one who said it, meaning, when it is combined with related [evidence]".
Regarding one of the two narrations attributed to Imaam Ahmad, which is reported by al-Athram, where he supposedly considers Khabr al-Waahid not to be definite, has been criticised by Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyah when he said: "As for the narration of al-Athram regarding Ahmad, that he does not testify to [attributing] a narration to the Messenger of Allah SAW, but he will act upon it, then this narration has been singled out by al-Athram, and it is not found in the matters [related to this issue] nor in Kitaab as-Sunnah, rather, al-Qaadhi narrated that he found it in the book Ma'aani al-Hadeeth, and al-Athram does not mention that he heard it from him [Ahmad Ibn Hanbal], but perhaps it reached him through someone's speculation, and in its words, then none of his [Ahmad's] companions narrated it from him, rather what is authentically narrated from him is that he decisively testifies for the ten [companions] with paradise, and the report concerning that is Khabr al-Waahid." (Mukhtasar as-Sawaa'iq 2/370)
Not surprisingly, the compiler/translator of this article, shamelessly hid away the statement of Abdullah at-Turki when he agrees with Ibn Taymiya regarding fallacy of the report of al-Athram regarding Ahmad Ibn Hanbal that he supposedly did not consider Ahad narrations to be definite!
Furthermore at-Turki states: "And, when Khabr al-Waahid is combined with what strengthens it, benefits 'Ilm, is not the statement of Ahmad Raheemahullah alone, rather scholars other than him also share in this [opinion]." (Usool Madh-hab al-Imaam Ahmad p. 253-55)
And then you say:
Imam Shaf'i considers the Hujjah (proof) as one of the two types: The first is the type where no one will be excused for discarding it. It is established by a clear text from the Qur'an, or an unanimously agreed upon Sunnah. This kind has no doubt in it, and anyone who refuses to accept it, then he would be asked (by the Qadi) to repent [see Ar Risalah, Arabic edition pg. 460, English edition pg. 278]. This means that rejecting this type of Hujjah or Daleel is tantamount to Kufr. The second type of proof is that which was narrated by a few reporters, and where the text is open to varying interpretations. It originally emanated from a single source. In this case, it is binding upon only those who are informed about it and accepted it, for they cannot reject any thing mentioned in the text, in the same way that they should accept the testimony of the trustworthy. However, this acceptance should not be taken in the sense of the first category. That is, if a person were to cast doubt upon it (the second type), we would not ask him to repent, while in the case of the first type of proof the person would be asked, according to Shaf'i, to repent. [See Ar-Risalah, Arabic edition pg. 460-461, English edition 278]
It is obvious from this that Imam Shaf'i distinguished between the two kinds of reports, the first being khabr al aamah (a synonym, based on his definition, for mutawatir) and the other being khabr al khaasah (which is called khabr al ahaad). By saying that he who denies the second type will not be asked to repent, means that Imam Shaf'i did not take it in the Aqeedah, otherwise the person would be asked to repent. The book of Imam Shaf'i was edited and printed under the supervision of a great contemporary muhaddith, Ahmad Shakir. Based on what was quoted from Imam Shaf'i's Ar Risalah, we now know that he did not accept khabr al ahaad in the 'Aqeedah.
I did not find any of such statements of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee, and I would urge you or someone else to quote to me exactly what ash-Shaaf'iee says and where, and not paraphrase! What the actual paragraph in ar-Risaalah (p.478) is referring to is ash-Shaafi'ee's discussion on 'Ilm 'Aam and 'Ilm Khaas and that it is binding upon everyone to know 'Ilm 'Aam, but not 'Ilm Khaas because such knowledge is not available to the public. So in this case, it is Waajib upon the people of knowledge to hold on to it! The Imaam was certainly not talking about the matters of 'Aqeeda and Ahkam! It is the compiler/translator deception, by twisting the words of the Imaam implying that Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee does not take Ahad narrations into 'Aqeedah, which is a far fetched assumption.
As a matter of fact, Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee in his work ar-Risaalah (p. 401-458), titled a chapter with the heading "The evidence for affirming Ahad narrations, with many evidences that affirm the [fact that] Khabr al-Waahid is an evidence [in itself], and the refutation of those who criticised it as an evidence". It is known that the people of Kalaam in his time from the Jahmiyah intended to rejected the evidences of Khabr al-Waahid that are related to the Names and Attributes of Allah. Therefore, he wrote this chapter, affirming the fact that he accepts Ahad narrations in his Aqeeda, by refuting the Jahmiyah who rejected Ahad narrations to do with the names and attributes. No where does Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee make a distinction between accepting Ahad narrations in Aqeeda and Ahkam.
And from what confirms that, by accepting Khabr al-Waahid, ash-Shaafi'ee meant the entire Deen in its totality and not just Ahkaam without Aqeeda, is the fact that he mentions in ar-Risaala (p. 242) the story of Sa'eed bin Jubair regarding Ibn 'Abbaas belying a person who claimed that the Musa of al-Khidr was different than Musa of Bani Israa`il, by using Ahad narration, narrated by Ubay Ibn Ka'ab. It is obvious that this Hadeeth has no relation with Ahkaam, and it is only related to 'Aqeeda, yet Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee uses this incident to prove the fact that Ahlus-sunnah accept Ahad narrations whole heartedly whether in Ahkaam or Aqeeda so he says, "So Ibn 'Abbaas, due to his understanding and his piety, affirms the report of Ubay bin Ka'b from the Messenger of Allah SAW, so much so that he belies a man from the Muslims, when Ubay Ibn Ka'b reports from the Messenger of Allah SAW, in which there is proof that the Musa of Bani Israa`il is the companion of al-Khidr"
This statement of Imaam ash-Shaafi'ee is an evidence that he does not differentiate between Aqeeda and Ahkaam in accepting Ahad narrations, because Musa being the same Musa to accompany al-Khidr is a matter of Aqeeda and not Ahkaam, as it is obvious!
Then you say:
Al Khateeb al Baghdadi, a well known faqih and muhaddith, said in his book, Al Kifayyah Fi 'Ilm Al Riwayah, pg. 605: "Khabr al ahaad cannot be taken in any issue where conclusive belief ('ilm) is required. The reason is because it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that this is what the Prophet (saaw) said. However, khabr al ahaad should be accepted in the ahkam, such as hudood, moonsighting, hajj, zakat, inheritance, salah, and prohibiting the prohibited things, etc." Imam Al Ghazali says in Al Mustasfa, pg. 145: "Khabr al ahaad does not imply certainty. This is a basic fact of its definition." He goes on to say in Al Mankhool, edited by Dr. Muhammad Hassan Hito, pg. 252: "Some claim that khabr al ahaad imply certainty. This is impossible." Imam Ash Shatibee says in Al Muwaafaqaat, vol. 1, pg. 29-31, "Anything related to 'Usul ud Deen ('Aqeedah) must be conclusive." He also says, "The daleel could be either ahaad or mutawatir. If it is ahaad, then it obvious that it doesn't imply certainty." He continues making distinctions between mutawatir and ahaad in the 'Aqeedah and 'Usul ul Fiqh [vol. 1, pg. 35-36]. In vol. 2, pg. 15, he says: "If any conclusive daleel conflicts with a thanni daleel, the conclusive daleel is binding." Imam as Shawkanee: He says in his book Irshad ul Fuhool: "The other category is ahaad (whether it does not imply al 'ilm at all or implies 'ilm with additional supports). This category does not imply certainty by itself, and this is the opinion of the majority [of Scholars]." After this explanation, as Shawkanee moves to another point, saying: "The majority [of Scholars] agree that it is a must to utilize khabr ul ahaad in the actions." [Irshad ul Fuhool, pg. 48] Syed Qutb: He writes in Fi Dhilaal al Qur'an (In the Shade of the Qur'an), vol. 8 pg. 710, 7th edition: "Ahaadeeth al ahaad cannot be taken in the 'Aqeedah. The reference is the Qur'an and the hadeeth mutwatir, in the 'Aqeedah."
Again, the word "'Ilm" has been translated as "conclusive belief" where as the definition of 'Ilm is different to the definition of 'Aqeedah as far as Ahlus-Sunnah and most of the Ashaa'irah are concerned. But the Mu'tazilah have one and the same definition for 'Ilm and 'Aqeeda, this explains why each time the word "'Ilm" is being translated as "conclusive belief" and not "knowledge". And as it has been explained before that even the scholars who said Khabr al-Ahad does not benefit knowledge, accepted Khabr al-Ahad in Aqeeda! So, do the HTs have any explanation to this?
Imaam al-Ghazzaali states: "Its has become Mutawaatir and well-known from the companions, acting upon Khabr al-Waahid, in various instances that cannot be counted. And even if it [Ahad narration] on its own is not sufficient, 'Ilm is still conceived by its gathering" (al-Mustasfaa p.173).
Was the compiler/translator too shy to quote this statement? And as it has been established before, even the scholars who stated that Khabr al-Waahid does not amount to 'Ilm, accepted them in their Aqeeda.
The quotes from the rest of the scholars is referring has been answered previously as they all accept Ahad narrations in Aqeeda, and none of them have denied faith in any of the articles of faith that are estbliashed through Ahad narrations.
In the passage above, the compiler/translator implies that Imaam ash-Shaatibi did not accept Ahad narrations in Usool ad-Deen (principles of Deen including belief), which is just another example of twisting the words of this scholar just like the ones before him and after him, which has been made very clear.
As-Safaarini states: "And Khabr al-Waahid is acted upon in Usool ad-Deen" (Lawaami' al-Anwaar al-Bahyah 1/19), and no one differs from this except the Mu'tazila and some of the Ashaa'irah.
I do not consider Sayyid Qutb to be from the people of knowledge, rather he was merely an Islaamic thinker, and a Mujaahid and I make Du'aa to Allah that He accepts him as Shaheed, but his statements in the arena of the principle of Deen carry no weight. Moreover, it has been heard from his own brother, Muhammad Qutub, that he left this thinking and joined the camp of Ahlus-Sunnah in this issue, and Allah knows best.
And the proof for this is the fact that Ahlus-Sunnah and the Ashaa'irah/Maaturidiyah accepted many articles of faith in Aqeeda that are baed on Ahad narrations.
Punishment of the Grave is just ONE of the many examples where the Salaf and the Khalaf accepted these narrations whole-heartedly in Aqeeda!
Even the Ash'ari/Maaturidi scholars refuted those who rejected the Punishment of the grave in Aqeeda due to the Ahadeeth being Ahad.
Al-Hakeem as-Samarqandee says: "Whoever rejects the punishment of the grave, then he is a misguided innovator!" and he supported this creed by the verse of Allah in His Book, "The Fire; they are exposed to it, morning and afternoon" (Ghaafir 46) (Salaam al-Ahkam p.67)
Al-Imaam an-Nasfi said: "the punishment of the grave for the disbelievers, and some of the sinful ones from amongst the Muslims, and the bliss for the people of obedience in the grave with what Allah knows and wishes, and the questioning of Munkar and Nakeer is affirmed by the aural evidences. The Most High has said: "The Fire; they are exposed to it, morning and afternoon"" (Sharh al-'Aqaa`id an-Nasfiyah p.126, al-'Aqaa`id 'Adhadiyah 2/273)
An-Naasiry said: "The reports have become Mutawaatir from the Prophet SAW confirming the punishment of the grave and its bliss, for the one who is from its people, and this is the Madh-hab of Ahlus-Sunnah al-Jamaa'ah (meaning al-Maatureediyah), so it is an obligation to believe in its affirmation (fa yajibu al-'I'tiqaad bi Thuboot Dhaalik)" (an-Noor al-Laami' 110)
Abdul-Qaahir al-Baghdaadi al-Ash'ari says: "The Muslims have agreed that the punishment of the grave is true, and whoever denies it, will be punished in the grave, this is because he is isolating [himself] from the gathering of the Muslims, and whoever isolates himself, isolates himself for the Fire". And he also said: "And they affirmed the resurrection from the grave, along with affirmation of questioning in the grave" (al-Farq bain al-Firaq)
This is also a refutation of OBM when he claims that the Salaf differed amongst themselves about the punishment of the grave!
These were the statements of Asha'ri/Maatureedi scholars about affirmation of the punishment of the grave in Aqeeda, which they HTs vehemently reject claiming that the Ahadeeth regarding punishment of the grave are all Ahad!
Even if we say, for the sake of argument that Ahad Ahadeeth cannot be taken into 'Aqeeda, then the scholars have also stated that the narrations related to the punishment of the grave have reached the level of Tawaatur! (i.e. they are Mutawaatir!).
Al-Haafidh Ibn Rajb says: "The Ahadeeth from the Prophet SAW have become Mutawaatir, regarding [punishment in] the grave and seeking refuge from it" (Min Ahwaal al-Quboor 43, 50 & 58)
Al-Katani says in Nadhm al-Mutanaathir page 84: "32 companions have narrated the punishment of the grave"
Al-Juwaini said: "The Ahadeeth have become Mutawaatir, about the Messenger of Allah SAW seeking refuge in His Lord from the punishment of the grave", and he gave the verse as his proof: "The Fire; they are exposed to it, morning and afternoon", and said, "this text affirms the punishment of the grave" (al-Irshaad by al-Juwaini 374-5)
As-Suyooti wrote a book called "Sharh as-Sudoor bi Sharh Haal al-Mawta wal-Quboor", and he mentioned there in Mutawaatir Ahadeeth regarding the punishment of the grave.
Al-Qurtubi said, "al-Imaan in the punishment of the grave and the trial is Waajib, and to testify to it is necessary, for the most truthful one (i.e. the Prophet SAW) has informed [us] about it. And this is the Madh-hab of Ahlus-Sunnah and what this is what the people of [this] nation are upon" (at-Tadhkirah Fee Ahwaal al-Mawta wa Umoor al-Ukhrah p.137).
Furthermore he says, "the Atheists denied it, and them adhering to the Madh-hab of the philosophers regarding the punishment of the grave is that it has no reality to it" (at-Tadhkirah 139)
In fact, the ones to deny the punishment of the grave were the Mu'tazilah, as their leader al-Qaadhi Abdul-Jabbaar said, "Our teachers denied the punishment of the grave and its bliss in all cases" (Sharh Usool al-Khamsah 733, Kitaab Fadhl al-I'tizaal 202).
This was opposed by the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah, and from them, Imaam at-Tahaawi when he said "And we have Imaan in the punishment of the grave, and its bliss..." (Aqeeda at-Tahaawiyah p.25)
Note, that he did not say "Tasdeeq", but he said "Imaan" contrary to HT.
What is ironic that after reading all of this, you will hear HT saying, "We believe in it, but do not take it into 'Aqeeda", which is a bogus statement. Isn't ironic that only couple of years back, they would say "We do not believe in the punishment of the grave, but we trust it", and now they have change their statement to, "We believe in the punishment of the grave but do not take it into 'Aqeeda". Playing around with words to deceive the masses, as the most important issue for them is Khilaafah, so when they feel they have been cornered they will try to cut corners to somehow get the opponent to agree with them in Aqeeda so that they may speak about "more important issues".
Sufficient it is for me to say that there is no difference between "Tasdeeq" or "Aqeeda" or "belief", and this is understood from the language without any need of any evidence. So whoever says, "I believe in something, but I do not take it into my Aqeeda", is like saying, "I believe in it in English, but reject it in Arabic!", which will only cause the public to laugh at this poor individuals intellect.
By looking at it from another perspective, there is no such thing is half-belief. A person either believes in something, or disbelieves, as doubt amounts to disbelief. For example, if a person says, "I believe in Allah 99.9%" this is regarded to be Kufr and not Tasdeeq. Similarly, if a person says "I believe in the punishment of the grave 99.9%, and only if it was 100% certain I would take it into Aqeeda", then this person is in effect is disbelieving in the punishment of the grave and it cannot be called Tasdeeq. Unless they have one criterion for belief in Allah and another for the Punishment of the grave.
But let us not focus our attention on just the punishment of the grave, because HTs have denied a lot more than that. They in fact state in al-Wa'ee magazine that they do not have I'tiqaad in the decsent of 'Isaa the son of Mary rather they only have Tasdeeq in it (meaning they do not believe in it, but act upon its rulings, if any), as usual, playing around with words. Even though the Ash'ari Imaam of our time, al-Kawthari wrote a whole book called, "Nadhratun 'Aabirah" in which he refuted those who deny the decsent of 'Isaa AS by claiming Ahad Hadeeth cannot be accepted in 'Aqeeda.
Because most of the Islaamic 'Aqeeda is in fact based on Ahad narrations, let us now list some of the articles of faith that are based on Ahad narrations in order to realise how much of the Islaamic creed HTs are denying.
1) The Prophethood of Aadam AS and other prophets who have not been mentioned in the Qur`aan.
2) The virtue of our Prophet Muhammad SAW over rest of the Prophets and the Messengers.
3) The great intercession of the Prophet SAW on the day of resurrection.
4) Miracles of the Prophet SAW, such as splitting of the moon. Even though it is mentioned in the Qur`aan, they give it their own explanation different to its original meaning, and declare the supporting Ahadeeth to be Ahad, thus nullifying the belief that this miracle ever happened.
5) Some of the bodily characteristics of the Prophet SAW and some attributes related to his personality.
6) Some of the specialities of the Prophet SAW which as-Suyooti gathered in "al-Khasaa`is al-Kubraa", such as the prophet SAW entering Paradise (before his death) and seeing its people etc.
7) Belief in the questioning of Munkar and Nakeer in the grave.
8) Belief in the punishment of the grave.
9) Belief in the (Meezan) scales on the day of Judgement.
10) Belief in the bridge called Siraat.
11) Belief in the spring of the Prophet SAW, and that whoever drinks from it will never be thirsty again.
12) The questioning of the Prophets on the Day of Judgement about them proclaiming their message.
13) Imaan in all that has been authentically reported regarding the attributes of the Day of Resurrection.
14) Belief that Allah has written for every human being, his happiness and his sorrow, his provision and his lifespan.
15) Belief that the Qur`aan is the speech of Allah in reality and not metaphorical.
16) Belief that the Throne and the Footstool of Allah are a reality and not metaphorical.
17) Belief that the people of major sins will not last in the Fire forever.
18) Belief that the souls of martyrs are in the hearts of green birds.
19) Belief that Allah has made forbidden for the earth to consume of the bodies of the Prophets.
20) Belief that Allah has appointed angels to deliver the Salaam of the Ummah upon the Prophet SAW to him.
21) Belief in all the signs before the Day of Judgement, such as the appearance of Mahdi, the decsent of 'Isa AS, the emergence of the Dajjal, and the beast of the earth, and other narrations that have been authentically reported from the prophet SAW.
22) Belief that the Muslims will be divided in 73 sects, all of them in the Fire except one.
23) Belief in most the beautiful Names and the magnificent Attributes of Allah that the authentic narrations are very explicit about.
24) Belief in the Prophet SAW ascending up to the Heavens and seeing some of the great signs of His Lord.
And the list can go on and on, of various articles of faith, that are based on Ahad narrations. So those who refuse to take Ahad narrations in Aqeeda, effectively reject belief in all of the above I have mentioned.
Note: After reading this, if HTs say, "We believe in it 100% but do not take it into 'Aqeeda", then this cannot be accepted, as they have quoted statements from the scholars to imply that Ahad Ahadeeth cannot be believed in, but only acted upon, and they have repeated themselves time after time, that Ahad Ahadeeth are NOT taking into 'Aqeeda but are taken into Ahkaam. So they cannot now deceive the Muslims by playing around with words.
And then you say:
From the opinions of all these scholars and the proofs given above, it is obvious that khabr ahaad cannot be taken in the 'Aqeedah, and that it is neither a new invention nor an outdated one. Rather, it is the correct and strongest opinion in this issue
I have just proven to you from all angles possible the fallacy in the claim of this article (I am not saying YOUR claim, because I know you did not write this nor compile it, but you just trusted whatever was given to you), I have shown to you mistranslations, lies, additions, subtractions from the text of the scholars and hiding the truth.
I have clearly shown to you the stance of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah as well as the Ashaa'irah/Maasturidiah regarding Ahad narrations and some of the articles of faith, such as the punishment of the grave, that they all accept them in 'Aqeeda. I showed to you that the people who refuse to accept Ahad narrations in Aqeeda are the Mu'tazilah. I also proved to you that even those scholars who say that Ahad narrations are "Dhanni" whole-heartedly accept Ahad narrations in their Aqeeda.
This is just ONE of the issues where HT differ in with the main body of the Muslims, and this issue itself has taken up 15 pages, in spite of my struggle to keep it as short as possible!
Yet there are so many other issues to be mentioned regarding HTs that will blow one's mind! For example:
1) Upon contradiction of text with intellect, they give priority to the intellect over the text, following Fakhr ar-Raazi, which is exactly what caused them to reject so many of the Ahad narrations in the fist place!
2) They are hardly seen learning or preaching Tawheed al-Uloohiyah (Oneness of Allah in worship) to people, which resulted in these people going to al-Khomaini - The Mushrik - and asking him to be the Imaam of Muslims. (Note: Khomaini said in Hukoomah al-Islaamiyah that form their beliefs is that their Imaams have power over every single atom of the universe)
3) Their belief that Imaan is just belief in the heart and actions and statements are not part of it, which in effect tells us that Iblees is also a Muslim because he believes in Allah in his heart! These people even beat the Murji'ah in their Irjaa` because at least the Murji`ah take statements into Imaan, but these people went a step further and ejected even statements from Imaan! So these people are worse than the Murji`ah, who are worse than the Khawaarij, and Khawaarij are the dogs of the Hellfire as the Prophet SAW stated.
4) Their denial of the fact that Qur`aan is the speech of Allah, word-by-word, letter-by-letter, as they say Allah's speech is without voice, letters, accent etc. This belief of theirs is inherited from the Ashaa'irah, who say that since Allah speaks without voice, then he couldn't have spoken the Qur`aan. So they say that the Qur`aan is only the intended meaning of Allah, where as the words are either from Jibreel or Muhammad SAW! Al-Baaqillani believed in the former and al-Juwaini followed him in that!
5) Twisting, changing the meaning of, and negating some of the Names and Attributes of Allah.
They did not limit their misguidance to Aqeeda only, but even in Fiqh they followed the trends of the modernists by saying:
1) It is allowed to smoke
2) It is allowed to shave the beard
3) It is allowed to listen to music
4) It is prohibited to give Zakah to contemporary Zakah organisations, as according to their claim only the Khaleefah is responsible for collecting Zakaah money. They quote statements of scholars in their evidence that talk about the responsibility of collecting the Zakah when the Khaleefah is present. But they never quote to you what the scholars said in cases where there is no Khaleefah to collect the Zakaah!
5) It is allowed to look at a nude picture, as it is only a reflection and not reality. No matter how vehemently they try to deny it but it has already appeared in their publications, in the questions answers section, dated: 24 of Rabee' al-Awwal, year 1390 AH (29/05/1970 CE):
"... So a nude picture is not Haraam, rather it is from the Mubaahaat (permissible acts), but the government prohibits its circulation..."
When I posted it on the message board, a brother even replied back defending this view, when he said:
>>By Abu Maghrib on Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 11:06 pm: Asalaam Alaikum these are the final points I will make in relation to this discussion. *Yes brother I do believe a picture itself is not haram. But I never said pornography is halaal. But since you believe a picture is reality, than you should start praying fajr salaat if you see a photograph of dawn. Sheikh Taqi didn't perform the ijtihaad about tasaweer, it was originally discussed by Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafie (I'll bring more information on those discussion later). This post was sent in mid-June, and now we are in mid-August, so that's 2 months gone by, and I still haven't seen the statements of Imaam Abu Haneefa and ash-Shaafi'ee regarding this.
Furthermore, Anjum Choudary wrote in an article freeing Omar Bakri from this perversion, so he says:
>>By Anonymous on Wednesday, June 21, 2000 - 12:24 pm:
As far as watching pornography is concerned I set out below Sheikh Omar's answer in this respect:
'...Watching pornography is Haram i.e. prohibited and the origin of nude pictures is from Haram actions i.e. a person(s) displaying his/her Aworah which is haram. Therefore to take the pictures, print them, develop them, trade with them, buy them, sell them, look at them or to promote them is HARAM...Allah (swt) says: " order the believers to lower their gaze and to protect and cover their private parts i.e. Aworah.." [Chapter of An-Noor] This verse is general (A'am)and it includes the real Aworah or its Image and to restrict the verse requires evidence. After having studied the topic of reality and its image deeply I am now prepared to give fatwa on the subject. I found that Sheikh Taqi (ra) or HT were wrong here because neither he nor HT brought any evidence except to say that 'the image is not reality' however this is not evidence to permit looking at the images of nude pictures! Rather Allah (SWT) ordered us to cover our aworah and not to look at the aworah of others except those who Allah (SWT) has permitted for us to look at. And He (SWT ) says: "Order the believers to lower their gaze and to protect and cover their private parts i.e. Aworah.." This verse is general (A'am) the generality of which is the act of lowering the gaze...etc therefore in order to exclude images or Aworah from the reality you need another evidence to restrict it. There are also other evidences related to the subject matter of images which support this verdict...'<<
So let us not make flimsy excuses to deny that HT even holds this stance!
I hope I have done my duty towards you, and the rest of the confused Muslims for that matter, and I really pray to Allah that He guides us all to our correct Fitrah (Natural inclinations) which is no different than what the Salaf of this Ummah were upon.
I have said, what I have said, and I seek forgive for myself and you.
Was-Salaamu 'Alaikum wa-raHmatullahu wa-barakaatuh
What is your stance Abu_Imaan an-napalee, specifically whether a khabr ahaad on it's own is sufficient to define Aqueeda?
you can read this as a summary of the issue: Hadith Ahad and Hadith Mutawatir
i believe that in order to have yaqeen in a khabar al-ahaad you need a qaraa'in and this for me seems a better opinion,or at least it seems quite strong, but i'm a nobody.
I didn't ask you brother whether you have yaqeen in khabr ahaad on their own (ie with out qaraa'in) but a khabr ahaad was sufficient to define Aqueeda. I should have highlighted the word specifically, previously. Shall we try again.
What is your stance Abu_Imaan an-napalee, specifically whether a khabr ahaad on it's own is sufficient to define Aqueeda?
If we say 'aqeedah is yaqeen and 'aqd al-qalb, then the only daleel that can constitute that are those evidences which themselves provide cognisance.
Is there something wrong with that?
if we define 'aqeedah as everything which the Rasul(saw) informed us about and told us to believe then yes of course akhbar al-ahaad with or without the strengths are taken!
Due to 'aqeedah not be a shari' term I could be refering to either, so if you want specifics it best to confirm understanding innsha'ALLAH
What do you say brother?
Please can you explain this to me in simpler terms.
Also is there a choice in leaving out "yaqeen and 'aqd al-qalb" from aqueeda or these must be included when talking about aqueeda?
What even daeef (weak) akhbar al-ahaad are taken? Something wrong with this statement?
brother my post is extreamly clear, what do you think I am saying? and what is your position?
I think you are saying that akhbar al-ahaad on their own can not be used to define Aqueeda, but you are being 'diplomatic'?
why would i need to be "diplomatic" do i have alteria motives? ajeeb!
As I recall brother we did have a private discussion about this did we not? but you left it? Now you tallk like this? have a little shame please! Discuss properly!
Now brother, was my point that unclear?
Then why are you avoiding answering the questions, directly? What you have stated already contradicts the lengthy article you posted, and you are telling me to have shame! Ajeeb!
I will ask again:
If we say 'aqeedah is yaqeen and 'aqd al-qalb, then the only daleel that can constitute that are those evidences which themselves provide cognisance.
Please can you explain this to me in simpler terms.
1] Also is there a choice in leaving out "yaqeen and 'aqd al-qalb" from aqueeda or these must be included when talking about aqueeda?
if we define 'aqeedah as everything which the Rasul(saw) informed us about and told us to believe then yes of course akhbar al-ahaad with or without the strengths are taken!
2] What even daeef (weak) akhbar al-ahaad are taken? Something wrong with this statement?
1-a brother asked for the article
2-I don't see where I'm differing with the article.
3-When I mentioned:
I'm refering to the qaraa'in/indications that make the khabar al-ahaad from 'ilm tamaniatul-qalq to 'ilm al-yaqeen an-nadharee.
How can I define 'aqeedah as yaqeen/'aqd al-qalb and take da'eef ahadith into 'aqeedah? who on earth does that?
4-'Aqeedah does not have a shari'ah definition, and most of the scholars from what I have seen, including salafi scholars say 'aqeedah comes from the verb 'aqada, and 'aqd al-qalb is refering to tying a knot to the heart and this is yaqeen.
So the evidences for this have to been those which yield decisive knowledge.
Decisive knowledge from the ahadith can be mutawatir lafdhee and ma'nawee and this is 'ilm ad-darouri, and can be akhbar al-ahaad with qaraa'in and this is 'ilm an-nadharee.
'Aqeedah is also termed (in reference to the sunnah) as those matters the Rasul(saw) has informed us of and ordered us to believe in. And in these matters there is not differentiation for the ahadith as long as they are authentic.
5-Have shame when you try to accuse people of idiotic things like trying to be "diplomatic" as ki aked you what do you see as my motives when you are asking me my opinion?
6-I will ask you again brother what is your understanding on the matter
Firstly when people write/talk, when they use a word it has a meaning which is known, and if there is a dual meaning which can be opposing, such us the 2 supposed meanings that you gave to 'aqueeda' ie:
1 - where it is decisive knowledge which can be from either mutawatir and ahaad WITH qaraa'in (ie without qarain NO).
2 - everything the prophet said to us to believe even WITHOUT qaraa'in
then in this case the context is used to determine which meaning is supposed.
Since you said yourself that 'most of the scholars inc salafi' say aqueeda is yaqeen and the context in which this thread was started, Aqueeda is not being used with dual meanings. Therefore, for you to try and blur the matter by padding your answer with other possible meanings of aqueeda, and not answering my question directly and repeating uneccessary terms such as ''ilm al-yaqeen an-nadharee' and other terms, when I was asking simply about khabr ahaad on their own, then this is your 'diplomacy' which is apparent. As for your motives, this Allah knows best, and I can only judge the apparent, so don't ask me about YOUR motives.
Secondly, from your quote above, if we cut out the padding then you are saying (according to most of the scholars):
Aqueeda is yaqeen, which comes only from evidences which yield decisive knowledge, which does not include akhbaar ahaad on their own (without qara'in)
ie. Aqueeda is not taken from Akhaar Ahaad on their own and this contradicts with your article you posted.
Which do you accept???
My view is that Akhbaar ahaad can not be used to define aqueeda, from what little understanding I have, but I am finding out about this matter and that is why I came to a forum where people have a differing view. I had been away from this forum and our discussion for some time because I became busy - however I will insha-Allah conclude our personal discusion aswell.
then you say:
and end it:
ok, then innsha'ALLAH seek some more understanding from 'ulemah or proper students of which is what I advise as opposed to myself if you are seeming to clarify and be firm in this matter innsha'ALLAH. it seems you say you seek to understand other people's understanding yet want ot debate? first go and be form on what you hold so that you do not need to seek clarifications from forums if that is your situation. Because if you did know then you wouldn't see any "padding" as you put it.
I answered your points without a motive to be "diplomatic" (whatever that means) so however your seeing the "dhahir" of my posts it sems blurred with hizbiyyah. If you want post my email discussion we had so far that you left to see if I say thigs differently in private and public!
I recommend maybe the books by sualyman al-ashgar available in arabic and english which discussed these points from a basic viewpoint, the khabar al-ahaad article on www.islaam.net as well is good.
If you want my assistance in materials then I will help you if you are sincere, however don't try to assert things like "diplomatic" or "padding" when I'm being straight forward to you.
wa ALLAHU Musta'an!
Separate names with a comma.