Wiping the hands on the face after du'a

[DeRaye Mustafa]

I know I saw this already posted in here somewhere, but I cannot find it for the life of me, so I thought that I would post this and someone could point me in the right direction(link) or just answer.

Is this action merely something cultural, or is it prescribed by the Prophet(saw)? Also, if it is something that the Prophet(saw) used to do, was this done for all du'as?

Jazakallah Khair!:D

[MMS]

Narrated Yazid ibn Sa'id al-Kindi: When the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) made supplication (to Allah) he would raise his hands and wipe his face with his hands. (Sunan Abudawud Book 8, Hadith 1487)

[MalikOne™]

Im not even jokin baaare people in college been sayin wiping hands over face is bidah bidah bidah now ima show dem this hadith :jkk:

[K@M]

Hmm, I read that there is no strong hadith saying that he wiped his face after anywhere. There is many saying he raised his hands but didnt wipe his face.

Got it from "the Prophets prayer: from beggining to end".

[Unique Muslimah]

Im not even jokin baaare people in college been sayin wiping hands over face is bidah bidah bidah now ima show dem this hadith :jkk:
Yeah,my biology teacher told me it was Bid'ah too..I got a bit confused..:rubeyes:

[MalikOne™]

Abu Duwad is Sahih alie?

[K@M]

Hmm, I'm not one to call Bi'dah or what not, but I'm not sure about the strengh of that hadith or what classification it comes under. Im sure I've read/heard it isnt allowed and now I'm probs be acused of being a hardcore salafi :rolleyes:

Only Muslim and Bukhari are all completely sahih, the rest have some weak narrations , are da'eef etc, hence they werent recorded under Bukhari or Muslim.

[PaGaL~LaDo0]

^ i hrd d@ azvl sme az u i uzeta wipe ma hndz 0va ma fce den i hrd d@ u vrnt mena @ a islmic tlk afta d@ i stpd :D

[K@M]

My freeeeend, I was right alhamdulilah :)
What is the ruling on wiping the face and body with the hands after making du’aa’, and kissing the eyes?. Answer : Praise be to Allaah. It is not prescribed to wipe the face after making du’aa’. There are many ahaadeeth which describe how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called upon his Lord in du’aa’, and there is no proven report that he used to wipe his face after making du’aa’.
Those who say that the face should be wiped quoted some ahaadeeth as evidence, but upon further examination they are not saheeh, and do not support one another.
As for the views of the scholars who say that it is not allowed to wipe the face, they include the following:

1 – Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: It is not known that anyone used to wipe his face after making du’aa’ except al-Hasan.
Al-‘Ilal al-Mutanaahiyah , 2/840, 841

2 – Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: With regard to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) raising his hands when saying du’aa’, there are many saheeh ahaadeeth concerning this, but as for his wiping his face with his hands, there are only one or two hadeeths concerning that, and they cannot be taken as evidence.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 22/519

3 – al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam said: No one wipes his face with his hands after saying du’aa’ except one who is ignorant.
Fataawa al-‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam , p. 47
If it is not permitted to wipe the face after making du’aa’, it is more likely that the person who says du’aa’ should not be allowed to wipe his body either, or to kiss his eyes.


Rather the scholars stated that kissing the thumbs and placing them on the eyes is a bid’ah that was introduced by some of the Sufi tareeqahs, and there is a hadeeth concerning that which is falsely attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about the ruling on wiping the face with the hands after making du’aa’. He replied: Wiping the face with the hands after making du’aa’ is more likely to be not prescribed in Islam, because the ahaadeeth that have been narrated concerning that are da’eef (weak). Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: They cannot be used as evidence. If we are not certain or we think it most likely that this is not prescribed, then it is better not to do it, because Islamic rulings cannot be proven on the basis of mere conjecture, unless we believe it to be mostly likely to be the case.

What I think about wiping the face with the hands after du’aa’ is that it is not Sunnah. As is well known, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) prayed for rain during his Friday khutbah and raised his hands, but it is not narrated that he wiped his face with them. Similarly in a number of ahaadeeth it says that the Prophet raised his hands, but there is no proof that he wiped his face. End quote.
Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 14/question no. 781
And Allaah knows best.

[MMS]

[Wiping the face after du`a]
As for wiping the face after the du`a, whether the du`a is made after the prayer or at another time, it is a sunna also for what has been related by Tirmidhi by our master, Ibn `Umar, may Allah be well pleased with them both, who said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, whenever he used to extend his hands out in supplication, he did not draw them back until he had wiped his face with both of them.”
Hafidh Ibn Hajar said in Bulugh al-Muram, in the chapter of dhikr and du`a, “This was related by Tirmidhi, and he has proofs for this, of them is the hadith of Ibn `Abbas, according to Abu Dawud and others, and all of them together rule that it is a sound hadith (hadith hasan).”
A hadith that his hasan is depended upon in rulings, so it is a sunna to wipe one’s face with one’s hands after the du`a as many scholars considered it [s. depended upon] such as Imam a-Nawawi and his book, al-Tahqiq.
San`ani said in his Subul al-Salam in his commentary on the above hadith,
“and it contains a proof for the legitimacy of wiping one’s face with the hands after making du`a. It is as though the occasion means that Allah, Most High does not return anyone empty-handed so it is as though mercy has touched them, so it is most suitable to pour forth [s. that mercy] on the face, which is the most honored part of the body and the most deserving of reverence.”

[PASHTUN WARRIOR]

WIPING THE FACE IS BIDAH

WHY?

EXPLAINATION OF WHY THIS HADEETH IS WEAK (MIGHT BE A LITTLE COMPLICATED TO UNDERSTAND)

Da`eef (Weak) Hadeeth No:20
"The Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam), when he raised his hands in du`aa', he would not put them down until he had wiped his face with them."

Transmitted by Tirmidhi (2/244) & Ibn `Asaakir (7/12/2) via: Hammaad ibn `Isa al-Juhani from Hanzalah ibn Abi Sufyaan al-Jamhi from Saalim ibn `Abdullaah from his father from `Umar ibn al-Khattaab, who said: ...

Tirmidhi said after it, "This is a saheeh ghareeb hadeeth. We only know it as a hadeeth of Hammaad ibn `Esa, for he is alone in reporting it; he has few ahaadeeth, but the people have reported from him."

However, this reporter is weak, as in Taqreeb of Ibn Hajr, who says about him in Tahdheeb:

Ibn Ma`een said, "A good shaikh" Abu Haatim said, "Weak in Hadeeth"; Abu Daawood said, "Weak, he reports munkar ahaadeeth"; Haakim and Naqqaash said, "He reports fabricated ahaadeeth from Ibn Juraij and Ja`far as-Saadiq." He is declared to be weak by Daaraqutni. Ibn Hibbaan said, "He reports things which are the wrong way round on the authority of Ibn Juraij and `Abdul `Azeez ibn `Umar ibn `Abdul `Azeez, such that it seems to those whose field this is that it is deliberate; it is not permissible to use him as proof." Ibn Maakoolaa said, "They declare his ahaadeeth to be weak."

Hence, the like of this reporter is very weak, so his ahaadeeth cannot be raised to the level of hasan, let alone saheeh!

A similar hadeeth is: "When the Prophet did du`aa' and raised his hands, he would wipe his face with his hands."

Da`eef (Weak). Abu Daawood (1492) from Ibn Lahee`ah from Hafs ibn Hishaam ibn `Utbah ibn Abi Waqqaas from Saa'ib ibn Yazeed from his father.

This is a weak sanad due to Hafs ibn Hishaam being unknown and the weakness of Ibn Lahee`ah (cf. Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb).

This hadeeth cannot be strengthened by the two routes of narration together due to the severity in weakness of the first one, which you have seen.


The Weakness of the Ahaadeeth Mentioning Wiping the Face with the Hands After Du`aa' (Supplication)

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

Sunan Abu Dawud :

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Do not cover the walls. He who sees the letter of his brother without his permission, sees Hell-fire. Supplicate Allah with the palms of your hands; do not supplicate Him with their backs upwards. When you finish supplication, wipe your faces with them.
(Book #8, Hadith #1480)

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

If some hadith masters deemed them weak, it would not affect the ruling of the fuqaha: there is generally agreement that it is recommended to wipe one’s face after supplication. [Nawawi, Majmu` (4.487); Fatawa Hindiyya (5.318)]


And no lesser hadith master than Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani deemed the hadiths related to wiping the face to be sound (hasan). [See: Bulugh al-Maram (#1463)]

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

Besides many salafis stretch their legs having a great distance between their feet, when not offering salah in congregation, yet the actual ruling is for congregation to touch others feet and not merely to stretch legs.

And they think its a gr8 deed

[MG]

Im not even jokin baaare people in college been sayin wiping hands over face is bidah bidah bidah now ima show dem this hadith :jkk:

i have read it is not something that the Prophet SAW used to practice but i cant rmeber where.

[PASHTUN WARRIOR]

i can just repeat myself:

[edit: no you can not. You post something once. You do not spam by posting the same thing over again.]

[abuhariyah]

Imam Muslim related, through the route of Jarir Ibn ^Abdullah, the Prophet said:

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/images/Mawlid1.gif

which means: <<The one who innovates a good innovation in Islam has its reward and a reward similar to those who follow him in it--until the Day of Judgment--without lessening their reward. The one who innovates an innovation of misguidance would be sinful for it and has sins similar to those who follow him in it--until the Day of Judgment--without lessening their sins.>> There are two types of innovations mentioned in this hadith: the innovations of guidance and the innovations of misguidance.

Even if it were bidah, it is still halal, becasue it doesn't contradict the Quran and Sunnah, and that is how we distinguish good bidah from bad bidah.

[ibn suleman]

for those who want to know more on it read "Dua, the weapon of the believer" by Shaykh yassir Qadhi.

in it he speaks about this issue and gives evidences for and against, he is of the view you shoudn't wipe your hands, however he mentions that wiping and not wiping both have evidences from the scholars of the past. so regardless which you do it has evidence!

in reality its such a small issue to be debating over!

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

TO ALL SUFIS HERE: PLEASE SHOW ME THE FULL AND CORRECT CHAIN OF NARRATION SO I CAN BELIEVE IN THIS HADEETH. THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THE CHAIN OF NARRATION THAT ARE NOT KNOWN.


Answer the following Hadith, ur post doesnt have any mention of the second one which i posted and i repeat it below :

Sunan Abu Dawud :

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Do not cover the walls. He who sees the letter of his brother without his permission, sees Hell-fire. Supplicate Allah with the palms of your hands; do not supplicate Him with their backs upwards. When you finish supplication, wipe your faces with them.
(Book #8, Hadith #1480)

[Cheif]

I cant believe we are arguing over this!!!

if you wipe your face after dua thinking its hadith and you want to copy the prophet as much as possible then thats fine! IF someone dosent want to do that then thats fine too. Its not like its fard and its not like your getting sin if you dont want to it.

Its a matter of how much you love the prophet. Thats with the individual so dont waste time over arguing over such stuff. Youve all wasted valuable time arguing over something of little importance.

[arabic_courses]

Sunan Abu Dawud :

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Do not cover the walls. He who sees the letter of his brother without his permission, sees Hell-fire. Supplicate Allah with the palms of your hands; do not supplicate Him with their backs upwards. When you finish supplication, wipe your faces with them.
(Book #8, Hadith #1480)

Assalaamu alaikum
Since it seems like nobody was able to go back to Sunan Abee Daawood, I thought I would do it myself and translate what it said. Below is the hadeeth:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَيْمَنَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ إِسْحَقَ عَمَّنْ حَدَّثَهُ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ الْقُرَظِيِّ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ
أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَا تَسْتُرُوا الْجُدُرَ مَنْ نَظَرَ فِي كِتَابِ أَخِيهِ بِغَيْرِ إِذْنِهِ فَإِنَّمَا يَنْظُرُ فِي النَّارِ سَلُوا اللَّهَ بِبُطُونِ أَكُفِّكُمْ وَلَا تَسْأَلُوهُ بِظُهُورِهَا فَإِذَا فَرَغْتُمْ فَامْسَحُوا بِهَا وُجُوهَكُمْ
قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُد رُوِيَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ كُلُّهَا وَاهِيَةٌ وَهَذَا الطَّرِيقُ أَمْثَلُهَا وَهُوَ ضَعِيفٌ أَيْضًا
The Imaam Abu Daawood said:
Abdullah ibn Maslamah reported to him saying:
AbdulMalik ibn Muhammad ibn Ameean reported it from:
Abdullah ibn Yaqoob ibn Ishaaq (reported) on:
Somebody who told him who reported it from:
Muhammad ibn Ka'b al Quradhee said I was told by:
Abdullah ibn Abaas that the Messanger of Allaah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam said:
"Don’t cover the walls!
Whoever looks in the book of his brother without his permission then all he is doing is look into the hell-fire!
Ask Allaah with the insides of your hands and don’t ask Him with the backs of them. If you have finished wipe your faces with it" (end of hadeeth)
(Then Abu Daawood Himself writes)
"This hadeeth has been narrated from other than this way from Muhammad ibn Ka'b and all of them are weak (not authentic), and this chain(1) and those like it are also weak(2)" (end of Abu Daawoods speech)

(1) I read in the explanation of this hadeeth in the book call "Awnul Ma'bood fee sharh Sunan Abee Daawood" this is the explanation of sunan abe Daawood, and he said at this point that abu Daawood mant by "this chain" was the chain that had "Abdullan ibn Ya'qoob" in it.
(2) The explainer of Sunan Abu Daawood also said that the reason why they are week is because there is a narrator who is unknown in the chain. This can be seen clearly when it says
" Abdullah ibn Yaqoob ibn Ishaaq (reported) on:
SOMEBODY who told him who reported it from:
Muhammad ibn Ka'b al Quradhee"

I hope that this has been beneficial for all.

Oh, I would just like to mention, as I was studying Sunan Abe Daawood just this year, and we studied the methodology of the Imaam in his book, and from the things that we studied was that if there was a hadeeth that was weak, but not severely weak, then the shaykh would write it in his book but put stronger ahaadeeth before it (in that chapter), but did not comment on it. However if the weakness was sever, then he make it a condition upon himself to mention it (ie the weakness) as he has done here.


Just in case anyone would think that the explainer of this hadeeth that I mentioned before was maybe a wahaabi who wants to destroy the sunna of the prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa sallaam, I thought I would mention when he died and what his name was.
His name was Shamsul Haqq al Atheem Abaadee, and he died 328H after hijree. That was about almost 850 years prior to the birth of Muhammad ibn abdul Wahaab.

Just before I go, I would like to mention that our brother in Islaam, "slave of …" does not seem to be totally truthful in his reporting as he also reported that ibn Hajar praised some "futuhaat al makiyya" in his book "lisaanul Meezaan". I have that book on computer and I searched for it for over half an hour and could not find what he is talking about. Also his reporting that he put on some soofi cloak, I could not find it, however I was not sure if he meant that that part (putting on the soofi cloak) was in lisaanul meezaan or not, so maybe he has an excuse on that one, but as for the "futuhaat al makiyya" then no.


I think it was mentioned in the thread about " Explaination Of An Important Hadeeth, The Hadeeth Of Najd". I was also researching that hadeeth (the hadeeth of najd) and I have found about 6 narrations inside "al Mu'jam al kabeer" and "al Mu'jam al Awsat" by at Tabaraanee and inside hilyatul awliyaa that clearly say the words "In our Iraaq?" rather than "In our Najd?", and as we know, all the ahaadeeth each explain each other, however I have not had the opportunity to check over the isnaad yet because I have exams, but insha Allaah, I shall post it soon. But my point is, that our brothers' narrating is not always accurate, may Allaah forgive us all. So I ask Mr "slave" Could you please be more truthful in what you say as what you did here resembles what the Jews did when the Messenger of Allah went to them and asked them what Allaah ruled with regards to the Stoning. So they covered the verse of Stoning and denied that it was there. You have deliberatly covered what Imaam abu Daawood said directly after narrating this hadeeth. Please fear Allaah in what you say and remember the saying of the Messenger of Allaah that is Mutawaatir "whoever lies on me deliberatly then let him take his seat in the healfire". Hiding what the the Imaam said about the hadeeth 'could' come under that hadeeth. But let us not forget, the doors of repentence is never closed.


One last thing, to my friend Mr Worrior, could you please tone down the language and leave off the harshness. The messenger of Allaah said "harshness was never put into a thing except that it made it ugly, and gentleness was never put into a thing except that it made it beautiful." And remember, calling someone a mushrik is making takfeer, and as the messenger of Allaah said "Whoever says to his brother "oh kaafir" then one of them is a kaafir".
So I am asking you in the Name of Allaah! Please stop your harshness. Speak with proof and then leave it. Whoever accepts it, accepts it and whoever leaves it, then so be it. If Allaah said to the Messenger of Allaah:
[088:022] You are not a dictator over them –

[088:023] Except the one who turns away and disbelieves.

[088:024] Then Allâh will punish him with the greatest punishment.
That what about us? So just mention your point with knowledge, and then leave it man. And may Allaah guide us all.

Assalaamu alaikum

[faqir]

WIPING THE FACE IS BIDAH

WHY?

EXPLAINATION OF WHY THIS HADEETH IS WEAK (MIGHT BE A LITTLE COMPLICATED TO UNDERSTAND)

Da`eef (Weak) Hadeeth No:20
"The Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wa sallam), when he raised his hands in du`aa', he would not put them down until he had wiped his face with them."

Transmitted by Tirmidhi (2/244) & Ibn `Asaakir (7/12/2) via: Hammaad ibn `Isa al-Juhani from Hanzalah ibn Abi Sufyaan al-Jamhi from Saalim ibn `Abdullaah from his father from `Umar ibn al-Khattaab, who said: ...

Tirmidhi said after it, "This is a saheeh ghareeb hadeeth. We only know it as a hadeeth of Hammaad ibn `Esa, for he is alone in reporting it; he has few ahaadeeth, but the people have reported from him."

However, this reporter is weak, as in Taqreeb of Ibn Hajr, who says about him in Tahdheeb:

Ibn Ma`een said, "A good shaikh" Abu Haatim said, "Weak in Hadeeth"; Abu Daawood said, "Weak, he reports munkar ahaadeeth"; Haakim and Naqqaash said, "He reports fabricated ahaadeeth from Ibn Juraij and Ja`far as-Saadiq." He is declared to be weak by Daaraqutni. Ibn Hibbaan said, "He reports things which are the wrong way round on the authority of Ibn Juraij and `Abdul `Azeez ibn `Umar ibn `Abdul `Azeez, such that it seems to those whose field this is that it is deliberate; it is not permissible to use him as proof." Ibn Maakoolaa said, "They declare his ahaadeeth to be weak."

Hence, the like of this reporter is very weak, so his ahaadeeth cannot be raised to the level of hasan, let alone saheeh!

A similar hadeeth is: "When the Prophet did du`aa' and raised his hands, he would wipe his face with his hands."

Da`eef (Weak). Abu Daawood (1492) from Ibn Lahee`ah from Hafs ibn Hishaam ibn `Utbah ibn Abi Waqqaas from Saa'ib ibn Yazeed from his father.

This is a weak sanad due to Hafs ibn Hishaam being unknown and the weakness of Ibn Lahee`ah (cf. Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb).

This hadeeth cannot be strengthened by the two routes of narration together due to the severity in weakness of the first one, which you have seen.


The Weakness of the Ahaadeeth Mentioning Wiping the Face with the Hands After Du`aa' (Supplication)




Who authored the above?

Ibn Hajar considered the Hadith hasan.

please see:


[Wiping the face after du`a]

As for wiping the face after the du`a, whether the du`a is made after the prayer or at another time, it is a sunna also for what has been related by Tirmidhi by our master, Ibn `Umar, may Allah be well pleased with them both, who said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, whenever he used to extend his hands out in supplication, he did not draw them back until he had wiped his face with both of them.”

Hafidh Ibn Hajar said in Bulugh al-Muram, in the chapter of dhikr and du`a, “This was related by Tirmidhi, and he has proofs for this, of them is the hadith of Ibn `Abbas, according to Abu Dawud and others, and all of them together rule that it is a sound hadith (hadith hasan).”

A hadith that his hasan is depended upon in rulings, so it is a sunna to wipe one’s face with one’s hands after the du`a as many scholars considered it [s. depended upon] such as Imam a-Nawawi and his book, al-Tahqiq.

San`ani said in his Subul al-Salam in his commentary on the above hadith,

“and it contains a proof for the legitimacy of wiping one’s face with the hands after making du`a. It is as though the occasion means that Allah, Most High does not return anyone empty-handed so it is as though mercy has touched them, so it is most suitable to pour forth [s. that mercy] on the face, which is the most honored part of the body and the most deserving of reverence.”

[faqir]

Ibn `Abd al-Razzaq narrated with his chain in his Musannaf (2:252-253) from Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Ansari the qadi of al-Madina that "Ibn `Umar used to supplicate together with al-Qass" (kâna yabsutu yadayhi ma`a al-Qass) and that "they [i.e. the senior Successors] mentioned that those that came before them [i.e. the Companions] would supplicate and then place back their hands on their faces so as to place back the du`â' and its baraka. Al-Qass is the Tâbi`î `Ubayd ibn `Umayr ibn Qatada al-Laythi al-Makki the admonisher and Qur'anic commentator.


Shaykh Abu Ghudda said (p. 94): "This is frank evidence to the effect that wiping the face with the two hands after raising them in supplication was practiced in the first generations."

[Nawar]

Wiping hands over the face is not bidah, and NOT wiping your face is not wrong either, just depends on the opinion you follow.

There are 7 ahadith that state the Prophet (saw) wiped his face. The issue is the fact that these ahadith are considered weak. However the difference of opinion occurs in whether these ahadith, put together, raise them to the status of being acceptabe or not. Some scholars say that the ahadith are too weak and therefore do not reach the status of acceptability, and that the stronger opinion is that you shouldnt wipe your face.

As someone mentioned earlier, this is mentioned in the excellent book 'Du'a the weapon of the believer' by Yasir Qadhi..everyone should really give that a read, amazing book mashallah.

But either way inshallah, whether you wipe your face or not, there is basis for it.

[PASHTUN WARRIOR]

salam akhy,
i agree with your post. I am a little bit harsh and should change it. several brothers tried to correct 'slave of muhammed' and told him to change his name since it is shirk. isnt it shirK? muhammed (peace be upon him) is dead and we worship ALLAAH swt and not the prophets like the christians. we have shown him evidence that calling oneself slave of muhammed is shirk. he doesnt listen. he knows the truth and does the opposite. he covers the truth.

as for me making takfeer. I didnt make takfeer. The scholars of ahlel sunnah have called the sufis mushrikeen. so I just follow what my scholars say. if they call them mushirkeen, then so will I. why isnt this allowed in islaam?

And also, i hate for the sake of ALLAAH and love for the sake of ALLAAH.

wsalam


Assalaamu alaikum
Since it seems like nobody was able to go back to Sunan Abee Daawood, I thought I would do it myself and translate what it said. Below is the hadeeth:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مَسْلَمَةَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ أَيْمَنَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ إِسْحَقَ عَمَّنْ حَدَّثَهُ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ الْقُرَظِيِّ حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ
أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَا تَسْتُرُوا الْجُدُرَ مَنْ نَظَرَ فِي كِتَابِ أَخِيهِ بِغَيْرِ إِذْنِهِ فَإِنَّمَا يَنْظُرُ فِي النَّارِ سَلُوا اللَّهَ بِبُطُونِ أَكُفِّكُمْ وَلَا تَسْأَلُوهُ بِظُهُورِهَا فَإِذَا فَرَغْتُمْ فَامْسَحُوا بِهَا وُجُوهَكُمْ
قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُد رُوِيَ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ مِنْ غَيْرِ وَجْهٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ كَعْبٍ كُلُّهَا وَاهِيَةٌ وَهَذَا الطَّرِيقُ أَمْثَلُهَا وَهُوَ ضَعِيفٌ أَيْضًا
The Imaam Abu Daawood said:
Abdullah ibn Maslamah reported to him saying:
AbdulMalik ibn Muhammad ibn Ameean reported it from:
Abdullah ibn Yaqoob ibn Ishaaq (reported) on:
Somebody who told him who reported it from:
Muhammad ibn Ka'b al Quradhee said I was told by:
Abdullah ibn Abaas that the Messanger of Allaah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam said:
"Don’t cover the walls!
Whoever looks in the book of his brother without his permission then all he is doing is look into the hell-fire!
Ask Allaah with the insides of your hands and don’t ask Him with the backs of them. If you have finished wipe your faces with it" (end of hadeeth)
(Then Abu Daawood Himself writes)
"This hadeeth has been narrated from other than this way from Muhammad ibn Ka'b and all of them are weak (not authentic), and this chain(1) and those like it are also weak(2)" (end of Abu Daawoods speech)

(1) I read in the explanation of this hadeeth in the book call "Awnul Ma'bood fee sharh Sunan Abee Daawood" this is the explanation of sunan abe Daawood, and he said at this point that abu Daawood mant by "this chain" was the chain that had "Abdullan ibn Ya'qoob" in it.
(2) The explainer of Sunan Abu Daawood also said that the reason why they are week is because there is a narrator who is unknown in the chain. This can be seen clearly when it says
" Abdullah ibn Yaqoob ibn Ishaaq (reported) on:
SOMEBODY who told him who reported it from:
Muhammad ibn Ka'b al Quradhee"

I hope that this has been beneficial for all.

Oh, I would just like to mention, as I was studying Sunan Abe Daawood just this year, and we studied the methodology of the Imaam in his book, and from the things that we studied was that if there was a hadeeth that was weak, but not severely weak, then the shaykh would write it in his book but put stronger ahaadeeth before it (in that chapter), but did not comment on it. However if the weakness was sever, then he make it a condition upon himself to mention it (ie the weakness) as he has done here.


Just in case anyone would think that the explainer of this hadeeth that I mentioned before was maybe a wahaabi who wants to destroy the sunna of the prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa sallaam, I thought I would mention when he died and what his name was.
His name was Shamsul Haqq al Atheem Abaadee, and he died 328H after hijree. That was about almost 850 years prior to the birth of Muhammad ibn abdul Wahaab.

Just before I go, I would like to mention that our brother in Islaam, "slave of …" does not seem to be totally truthful in his reporting as he also reported that ibn Hajar praised some "futuhaat al makiyya" in his book "lisaanul Meezaan". I have that book on computer and I searched for it for over half an hour and could not find what he is talking about. Also his reporting that he put on some soofi cloak, I could not find it, however I was not sure if he meant that that part (putting on the soofi cloak) was in lisaanul meezaan or not, so maybe he has an excuse on that one, but as for the "futuhaat al makiyya" then no.


I think it was mentioned in the thread about " Explaination Of An Important Hadeeth, The Hadeeth Of Najd". I was also researching that hadeeth (the hadeeth of najd) and I have found about 6 narrations inside "al Mu'jam al kabeer" and "al Mu'jam al Awsat" by at Tabaraanee and inside hilyatul awliyaa that clearly say the words "In our Iraaq?" rather than "In our Najd?", and as we know, all the ahaadeeth each explain each other, however I have not had the opportunity to check over the isnaad yet because I have exams, but insha Allaah, I shall post it soon. But my point is, that our brothers' narrating is not always accurate, may Allaah forgive us all. So I ask Mr "slave" Could you please be more truthful in what you say as what you did here resembles what the Jews did when the Messenger of Allah went to them and asked them what Allaah ruled with regards to the Stoning. So they covered the verse of Stoning and denied that it was there. You have deliberatly covered what Imaam abu Daawood said directly after narrating this hadeeth. Please fear Allaah in what you say and remember the saying of the Messenger of Allaah that is Mutawaatir "whoever lies on me deliberatly then let him take his seat in the healfire". Hiding what the the Imaam said about the hadeeth 'could' come under that hadeeth. But let us not forget, the doors of repentence is never closed.


One last thing, to my friend Mr Worrior, could you please tone down the language and leave off the harshness. The messenger of Allaah said "harshness was never put into a thing except that it made it ugly, and gentleness was never put into a thing except that it made it beautiful." And remember, calling someone a mushrik is making takfeer, and as the messenger of Allaah said "Whoever says to his brother "oh kaafir" then one of them is a kaafir".
So I am asking you in the Name of Allaah! Please stop your harshness. Speak with proof and then leave it. Whoever accepts it, accepts it and whoever leaves it, then so be it. If Allaah said to the Messenger of Allaah:
[088:022] You are not a dictator over them –

[088:023] Except the one who turns away and disbelieves.

[088:024] Then Allâh will punish him with the greatest punishment.
That what about us? So just mention your point with knowledge, and then leave it man. And may Allaah guide us all.

Assalaamu alaikum

[arabic_courses]

salam akhy,
i agree with your post. I am a little bit harsh and should change it. several brothers tried to correct 'slave of muhammed' and told him to change his name since it is shirk. isnt it shirK? muhammed (peace be upon him) is dead and we worship ALLAAH swt and not the prophets like the christians. we have shown him evidence that calling oneself slave of muhammed is shirk. he doesnt listen. he knows the truth and does the opposite. he covers the truth.

as for me making takfeer. I didnt make takfeer. The scholars of ahlel sunnah have called the sufis mushrikeen. so I just follow what my scholars say. if they call them mushirkeen, then so will I. why isnt this allowed in islaam?

And also, i hate for the sake of ALLAAH and love for the sake of ALLAAH.

wsalam

assalaamu alaikum
With regards to name "slave of Allaah" being shirk, then the "actual" name or the action (not looking at the intention) is not shirk, it is haraam. There is a difference. Shirk is the worst type of sin and Allaah has promised in His Book that He will not forgive Shirk. As for sins, then that is under Allaahs will, if He wants to forgive, then He will forgive, and if not, then may Allaah Help us all.

As for the proof that it is not allowed, then inside the hanbali Mathhab it is haraam due to the Ijmaa that Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm reports on this issue. He reports that it is haraam to call anyone the slave of anyone other than Allaah except for the ikhtilaaf that occurs with the name "abdul Muttalib" because the messenger of Allaah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam said "I am the son of Abdul Muttalib". So some scholars considered this just information that the messenger of Allah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam was informing of, and other understood that it was a sign if its permissibility. As for the Shaafi'ee mathhab then the majority are of the opinion that it is not allowed (to call oneself or others "the slave of the prophet" however they all agree that it is not allowed to call oneself the slave of other people or things like Ali or the Ka'ba) due to the fact that it gives the impression of shirk as stated by ibn Hajr, however there is a small amount of shaafi'ees who consider it permissible if the intent is "ascription", ie "follower of Muhammad". However that opinion, even thought some scholars hold it, is not correct as it goes against the ijmaa previously mentioned.
As for the 'shirk' part, then that goes back to the intention of the one doing it. If they intended by it that they worship the Messenger of Allaah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam by maybe calling upon him by du'aa or making nathr by him, or of the like then it is shirk akbar, and takes a person out of Islaam. But if he only intended that he is the follower of the Messenger of Allaah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam, then he has done a great sin and has gone against the ijmaa'. I was gonna post something on that issue as I did a little research on it but because of exams I was not able as I need to translate things and bring references. But give me about a week and my exams should be over. Even now I have a nahw exam, so I cant really talk now.
Talk another time insha Allaah.
As with regards to the wiping of the face, then two things I have noticed.
Firstly, it don’t seem like the issue is "is it permissible to wipe my face after du'aa?" it seems to be "are the Wahaabis right or wrong?". It seems as though people have taken this issue of ikhtilaaf in fiqh and made it an issue of "Aqeeda". It is an issue of Fiqh and there is wideness in fiqh. Scholars differ on issues larger than this, so one should not argue over it as the scholars never argued over it, nor should anyone hide things (like what our brother Mr slave did). Another example is the placing of the hands back on the chest after rising from salaah. Some mashaayikh say yes and others say no, and one even described it as a bida' but this is all ikhtilaaf that is ok as long as they have proof for what they say. Yes, there is only one truth, but a person who takes the wrong opinion based upon proof is not the same as the one who makes things up without any proof. The one with proof 'might' have an excuse on the day of judgement, but the one without proof has no excuse. However, if anyone wants to still argue about it, and accuse the 'wahabis' of calling everything a bid'a, then what about the khutba for jumu'ah? The hanafees say that it is bid'a to do it in other than Arabic, but abu haneefa himself said it was permissible!.
I'll leave you all to think about that.
Secondly, the scholars call "soofees" mushrikeen but not specific people. The difference is that the scholars are talking about a particular description, ie the one who calls upon other than Allaah like a wali or pir or the Messenger of Allaah sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam himself. I live in madeena and I have even seen people make sujood to the grave of Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam and the qibla is in the other direction, so I don’t think that anyone can deny that 'some soofees' commit open shirk. I have a CD that was recorded showing soofees prostrating to graves, rubbing it and so on. So if a person is like this, then he is a kaafir (for prostrating to a grave). But at the same time, the hukm of calling someone a kaafir is not for us, it is for the Islamic judge. But on the chance that some soofees of today don’t make du'aa to the dead and so on, then it makes it impossible to call a particular person who calls himself a soofee a kaafir or mushrik, as he may not do any act of shirk.
So closing point, a general takfeer does not necessitate a specific one.
Assallaamu alaikum

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

as far as some one who said i lied , plz refer to www.sunnipath.com they have posted the same info abt this issue

Besides online books are not mistake proof.

Even the tafsir of ibn kathir which is online has mistakes in arabic text

[arabic_courses]

Assalaamu alaikum
I said


"As for the 'shirk' part, then that goes back to the intention of the one doing it. If they intended by it that they worship the Messenger of Allaah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam by maybe calling upon him by du'aa or making nathr by him, or of the like then it is shirk akbar, and takes a person out of Islaam."

I said this, but upon reading it again, I thought it needed clarification.
If a person intended by calling themselves "abdu an Nabee" the real meaning of Ibaadah, then it is shirk as they are intending by it that they are the worshipers of Allaah and of His Messenger sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam. Such worship as asking the Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam for thing in their du'aa, and that the Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam can hear all and see all and knows all things then it is shirk.
This can be seen in the poem called "qaseedatul Burda" when it says talking about the messenger of Allaah:
فإن مِن جودِك الدنيا و ضرتها***و من علومِك عِلمُ اللَوحِ و القلمِ

Which means:
From your generosity is the creation and its treasures, and some of your knowledge is the knowledge of the Lawh (al Lawhul Mahfooth) and the Pen (ie the pen that wrote in it when Allaah ordered to write everything that will be until the last day).
So as you can see, this is worse ghuloo than what the Christians have in Eesaa. It first says that the whole dunyaa is from the Prophet's sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam generosity, and then says that some of what the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam knows is the knowledge of all that has happened and all that will happen in until the last day. So because of this Shaykh ibn Rajab said about this line of poetry:
"If this is what Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam has then what is left for Allaah?!"
Firstly, the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam never created anything let alone give it generously to creation, and if the knowledge of all that has happened and will happen is some of what he knows, then what is the difference between Him sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam and Allaah in knowledge?
Anyway, back to my point, if what was intended by saying "abdun Nabee" is the reality of worship then it is shirk, but if that was not intended, then it is haraam by Ijmaa because it gives the impression of worship.

As for the 'proof' from aayatuz Zumar, then when our brother mentioned it (ie the whole soorah and did not mention the specific aayah) I initially thought he was talking about the aayaah that mentioned that the prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam will die, so I went to tafseer of jalaalain like the brother said to and the tafseer of ibn abaas which is not true (I will m,ention this later) it said the following
إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُمْ مَيِّتُونَ (30)
{ إِنَّكَ } خطاب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم { مَيّتٌ وَإِنَّهُمْ مَّيّتُونَ } ستموت ويموتون فلا شماتة بالموت ، نزلت لما استبطأوا موته صلى الله عليه وسلم .
تفسير الجلالين
إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُمْ مَيِّتُونَ (30) ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عِنْدَ رَبِّكُمْ تَخْتَصِمُونَ
{ إِنَّكَ } يا محمد { مَيِّتٌ } ستموت { وَإِنَّهُمْ } يعني كفار مكة { مَّيِّتُونَ } سيموتون { ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ يَوْمَ القيامة عِندَ رَبِّكُمْ تَخْتَصِمُونَ } تتكلمون بالحجة يعني النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ورؤساء الكفار
تنوير المقابس
Which translates roughtly (I have not got the time at the moment to do a detail translation):
Verily you will die, and they (ie the kuffaar of makka) will die…
Which is opposite to what 'some' soofees believe.
But then I remember the aayah where it mentioned
قل يا عباد الذين آمنوا
So then I looked at the tafseer of it in 14 books of tafseer and only one of them (the tafseer that is ascribed to ibn abaas but is false and is a lie on him due to a person who is in the chain of narraition called ka'bee, ie the isnaad is not correct) said that the meaning was
"say [oh Muhammad] "oh my slaves that believe""
Whereas all of the other books of tafseer said (if they even commented) that the meaning is:
"say [Allaah talking to the prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam] to my slaves 'oh you who believe…'".
The books of tafseer I looking into were:
1) Jaami'ul bayaan fee ta'weelil Qur'aan by at Tabaree,
2) Fathul qadeer by ash Shawkaani
3) al Bahrul Muhaat by ibn Hayyaaan al Andaloosi
4) al Ikleel by Suyooti
5) Tafseer bin Katheer
6) Adhwaa'ul Bayaan by ash Shanqeeti
7) Tafseer al Baghawee by Imaam al Baghawee
8) al Jaami li Ahkaamul Qur'aan by al Qurtubee
9) tayseer al kareem al Rahmaan by abdur Rahmaan as Sidee
10) at Tafseer al Qayyim by Imaam ibn Qayyim
11) Rawaa'I al Tafseer by ibn Rajab
12) Tafseer al Jalaalain

None of them mentioned the permissibility of calling someone the "slave of Muhammad" or that the messenger of Allaah ever called any sahaabe his slave, but they mention that the meaning is:
"say to my slaves 'oh you who believe…'"
However, maybe our brother 'slave' never knew that the tafseer that is ascribed to ibn abbaas was a lie, just like he did not know that the one who quoted abu Daawood lied on him and hid certain information because anyone who looks at the hadeeth can see that the comment made by the shaykh was connected to the hadeeth and not pages later (it was straight after it). And on that issue, then I am sorry Mr slave for talking as if you was a lier, but I thought you read the hadeeth from the original Arabic. As for quoting from websites, then it shouldn't taken as 100% correct. One should always return back to the original books (if they can).
But for those who believe it is permissible to wipe their faces, don’t forget, it is sunna and not waajib, and one of the definitions of a sunna given by the scholars of Usoolul Fiqh is:
"What a person can't be criticised for leaving, but praised for doing it". So nobody can criticise anyone for not doing it.

I just thought that clarification was needed.


Assalaamu alaikum

[PASHTUN WARRIOR]

salam arabic course,
jazakullah kheir for the translation and explaination. i will stop labelling certain people. it is sad that until these days there are some people that worship the prophet Muhammed saw.

I have a question about the ameer of a country. is the ameer of a country allowed to make takfeer on someone if he has evidence or is it only the islamic judge?


salaam alykum

Assalaamu alaikum
I said


"As for the 'shirk' part, then that goes back to the intention of the one doing it. If they intended by it that they worship the Messenger of Allaah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam by maybe calling upon him by du'aa or making nathr by him, or of the like then it is shirk akbar, and takes a person out of Islaam."

I said this, but upon reading it again, I thought it needed clarification.
If a person intended by calling themselves "abdu an Nabee" the real meaning of Ibaadah, then it is shirk as they are intending by it that they are the worshipers of Allaah and of His Messenger sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam. Such worship as asking the Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam for thing in their du'aa, and that the Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam can hear all and see all and knows all things then it is shirk.
This can be seen in the poem called "qaseedatul Burda" when it says talking about the messenger of Allaah:
فإن مِن جودِك الدنيا و ضرتها***و من علومِك عِلمُ اللَوحِ و القلمِ

Which means:
From your generosity is the creation and its treasures, and some of your knowledge is the knowledge of the Lawh (al Lawhul Mahfooth) and the Pen (ie the pen that wrote in it when Allaah ordered to write everything that will be until the last day).
So as you can see, this is worse ghuloo than what the Christians have in Eesaa. It first says that the whole dunyaa is from the Prophet's sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam generosity, and then says that some of what the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam knows is the knowledge of all that has happened and all that will happen in until the last day. So because of this Shaykh ibn Rajab said about this line of poetry::torture:
"If this is what Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam has then what is left for Allaah?!"
Firstly, the Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam never created anything let alone give it generously to creation, and if the knowledge of all that has happened and will happen is some of what he knows, then what is the difference between Him sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam and Allaah in knowledge?
Anyway, back to my point, if what was intended by saying "abdun Nabee" is the reality of worship then it is shirk, but if that was not intended, then it is haraam by Ijmaa because it gives the impression of worship.

As for the 'proof' from aayatuz Zumar, then when our brother mentioned it (ie the whole soorah and did not mention the specific aayah) I initially thought he was talking about the aayaah that mentioned that the prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam will die, so I went to tafseer of jalaalain like the brother said to and the tafseer of ibn abaas which is not true (I will m,ention this later) it said the following
إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُمْ مَيِّتُونَ (30)
{ إِنَّكَ } خطاب للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم { مَيّتٌ وَإِنَّهُمْ مَّيّتُونَ } ستموت ويموتون فلا شماتة بالموت ، نزلت لما استبطأوا موته صلى الله عليه وسلم .
تفسير الجلالين
إِنَّكَ مَيِّتٌ وَإِنَّهُمْ مَيِّتُونَ (30) ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عِنْدَ رَبِّكُمْ تَخْتَصِمُونَ
{ إِنَّكَ } يا محمد { مَيِّتٌ } ستموت { وَإِنَّهُمْ } يعني كفار مكة { مَّيِّتُونَ } سيموتون { ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ يَوْمَ القيامة عِندَ رَبِّكُمْ تَخْتَصِمُونَ } تتكلمون بالحجة يعني النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ورؤساء الكفار
تنوير المقابس
Which translates roughtly (I have not got the time at the moment to do a detail translation):
Verily you will die, and they (ie the kuffaar of makka) will die…
Which is opposite to what 'some' soofees believe.
But then I remember the aayah where it mentioned
قل يا عباد الذين آمنوا
So then I looked at the tafseer of it in 14 books of tafseer and only one of them (the tafseer that is ascribed to ibn abaas but is false and is a lie on him due to a person who is in the chain of narraition called ka'bee, ie the isnaad is not correct) said that the meaning was
"say [oh Muhammad] "oh my slaves that believe""
Whereas all of the other books of tafseer said (if they even commented) that the meaning is:
"say [Allaah talking to the prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam] to my slaves 'oh you who believe…'".
The books of tafseer I looking into were:
1) Jaami'ul bayaan fee ta'weelil Qur'aan by at Tabaree,
2) Fathul qadeer by ash Shawkaani
3) al Bahrul Muhaat by ibn Hayyaaan al Andaloosi
4) al Ikleel by Suyooti
5) Tafseer bin Katheer
6) Adhwaa'ul Bayaan by ash Shanqeeti
7) Tafseer al Baghawee by Imaam al Baghawee
8) al Jaami li Ahkaamul Qur'aan by al Qurtubee
9) tayseer al kareem al Rahmaan by abdur Rahmaan as Sidee
10) at Tafseer al Qayyim by Imaam ibn Qayyim
11) Rawaa'I al Tafseer by ibn Rajab
12) Tafseer al Jalaalain

None of them mentioned the permissibility of calling someone the "slave of Muhammad" or that the messenger of Allaah ever called any sahaabe his slave, but they mention that the meaning is:
"say to my slaves 'oh you who believe…'"
However, maybe our brother 'slave' never knew that the tafseer that is ascribed to ibn abbaas was a lie, just like he did not know that the one who quoted abu Daawood lied on him and hid certain information because anyone who looks at the hadeeth can see that the comment made by the shaykh was connected to the hadeeth and not pages later (it was straight after it). And on that issue, then I am sorry Mr slave for talking as if you was a lier, but I thought you read the hadeeth from the original Arabic. As for quoting from websites, then it shouldn't taken as 100% correct. One should always return back to the original books (if they can).
But for those who believe it is permissible to wipe their faces, don’t forget, it is sunna and not waajib, and one of the definitions of a sunna given by the scholars of Usoolul Fiqh is:
"What a person can't be criticised for leaving, but praised for doing it". So nobody can criticise anyone for not doing it.

I just thought that clarification was needed.


Assalaamu alaikum

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

Assalaamu alaikum
I said


"As for the 'shirk' part, then that goes back to the intention of the one doing it. If they intended by it that they worship the Messenger of Allaah Sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam by maybe calling upon him by du'aa or making nathr by him, or of the like then it is shirk akbar, and takes a person out of Islaam."

I said this, but upon reading it again, I thought it needed clarification.
If a person intended by calling themselves "abdu an Nabee" the real meaning of Ibaadah, then it is shirk as they are intending by it that they are the worshipers of Allaah and of His Messenger sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam.Such worship as asking the Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam for thing in their du'aa, and that the Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam can hear all and see all and knows all things then it is shirk.


This can be seen in the poem called "qaseedatul Burda" when it says talking about the messenger of Allaah:
فإن مِن جودِك الدنيا و ضرتها***و من علومِك عِلمُ اللَوحِ و القلمِ



1. Claiming it as worshipping Muhammadur RasooLaLLah saLLaLLahu ALaihiwassaLLam which is no one intention is a fabrication and baseless charge, as it has never been the intention.

2. It is not haraam as there is no clear ruling in Quran and hadith against it, but here are multiple evidences in Quran and hadith in favour of this name and only misinterpretations based on self styled psychotic ideas of trying to
comment on some one elses intention without even knowing what the real intention is in infact unislamic.

3. Idolatory is infact saying ALLAh's hands, feet etc which the salafis are usually lost in.

[abuhariyah]

Saying Allah has body parts [as the whahabies explicitly say] is not nessicarly idolatry, it is Tashbih, and it is th3e second most evil thing in existance, the ONLY one who is worse than someone who comits tashbih, is an aetheist.

All whahabies comit tashbih if they believe what ibn tammiyyah said in his books.

[PASHTUN WARRIOR]

so imaam abu hanifa rahimullah was a wahabbi who said that ALLAAH has a face and a hand? We salafis say only what is mentioned in the holy quran. The holy Quran mentions that ALLAAH has a hand and a face and we do not compare this hand or face to anything in this world because ALLAAH swt cannot be compared to anything. we dont say the hand is so and so because this is forbidden in islaam. we also dont say that he has limbs or a body like us humans which are fabricated lies against ahlel sunnah. our aqeedah is the aqeedah of IMAAM ABU HANIFA RAHIMULLAH AND IMAAM ABU HANIFA RAHIMULLAHS AQEEDAH IS THE AQEEDAH OF PROPHET MUHAMMED SAW.
i know that you guys go to these misguided websites from sheikh nuh keller and so on and that he says things about the salafis which are not true.


Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah)

When Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah) was asked of his opinion of the one who says I do not know whether Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above the heavens or on the earth, Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah) said:



“He has disbelieved, because Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) says: ‘The Most Merciful rose above the Throne’, and His Throne is above His (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) seven heavens.”



He was then asked, what if he said that Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above His (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) Throne but he does not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth he (rahimhullaah) said:



“He has disbelieved, because he has denied that He (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above the heavens.”


[Quoted in Al-Uluww of adh-Dhahabi, also in Sharh ‘Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah of Ibn Abi Al-Izz al-Hanafi]



Imaam Abu Haneefah (rahimhullaah) also said:



“ALLAAH is something (shay’un) but not like other things, and the meaning of Shay’un is affirmed without affirming a body, limbs or organs. And He has no limit and no partner or opposite, and no similitude. And He has a Hand, a Face and a Self. As for what is mentioned in the Quran: the Face, the Hand, the Self (Nafs) then these are His Attributes without asking how. And it is not said that His Hand is His Power (Qudra) or Favour (Ni’ma) because this contains nullification of the Attribute, and this is the saying of the People of Qadr (Jabariyyah) and the Mu'tazila. Rather His Hand is His Attribute without asking how, and His Anger (Gadb) and Pleasure (Ridaa) are two Attributes without asking How.”


[Quoted in Fiqh al-Akbar, P. 36-37]



who can better explain these verses than IMAAM ABU HANEEFA RAHIMULLAH.
:rolleyes:
btw these books mentioned as source were written by IMAAM ABU HANIFA and not some wahabbi.

[arabic_courses]

1. Claiming it as worshipping Muhammadur RasooLaLLah saLLaLLahu ALaihiwassaLLam which is no one intention is a fabrication and baseless charge, as it has never been the intention.

2. It is not haraam as there is no clear ruling in Quran and hadith against it, but here are multiple evidences in Quran and hadith in favour of this name and only misinterpretations based on self styled psychotic ideas of trying to
comment on some one elses intention without even knowing what the real intention is in infact unislamic.

3. Idolatory is infact saying ALLAh's hands, feet etc which the salafis are usually lost in.
Assalaamu alaikum

To everyone reading this, could someone please tell me where I said that ANYONE SPECIFIC had the intention of worshipping anyone other than Allah?!! Could you please take back your accusation as you are guilty of what you accused me of.
I was mearly stating the rulings mentioned in the books of fiqh. And this is clearly mentioned in the book of shaafi'ee fiqh called Mughnee al Muhtaaj. It says:
و التسمية بعبد النبي قد تجوز إذا قصد به التسمية لا النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم, و مال الأكثرون إلى المنع خشية التشريك لحقيقة العبودية, و اعتقاد حقيقة العبودية: كما أنه لا يجوز التسمي بعبد الكعبة و عبد العزى...
Page 183 Volume 6 in the "daar ihyaa at turaath" print, printed 2001
Which translates as:
Calling (someone) "abdun Nabee" 'could' be permissible if the intent was the actual name, and not the actual Prophet sallallaahu alaihi wa salaam, however the majority (of Shaafi'ees) lean towards the opinion that it is not allowed due to fear of associating with the reality of worship ('shirk' as anyone can see in the word التشريك) and the belief of the real type of worship just like it is not allowed to call (oneself or others) the "abdul Ka'bah" (the slave of the Ka'ba) and abdul 'Auzzaa…

It is also says in another book of Shaafi'ee fiqh called Tuhfatul Muhtaaj:


وَيَحْرُمُ مَلِكُ الْمُلُوكِ ؛ لِأَنَّ ذَلِكَ لَيْسَ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَكَذَا عَبْدُ النَّبِيِّ أَوْ الْكَعْبَةِ أَوْ الدَّارِ أَوْ عَلِيٍّ أَوْ الْحُسَيْنِ لِإِيهَامِ التَّشْرِيكِ
تحفة المحتاج في شرح المنهاج ج41\ص191
It translates as:
"It is haraam (to call oneself) Malikul Mulook (the king of kings) because that (ie the name) is not for other than Allaah, and also "Abdun Nabee" or "abdul Ka'ba" or "abdul Daar" (the slave of the building) or "Abdu Ali" or "abdul Husain" due to the hinting of shirk…

As for in the Hanbali Fiqh then it says in "al Iqnaa'" the following:
"قال ابن حزم: اتفقوا على تحريم كل اسم معبد لغير الله, كعبد العزى و عبد عمرو و عبدعلي و عبد الكعبة و ما أشبه ذلك. انتهى. و مثله عبد النبي و عبد المسيح."
Page 56 volume 2
Which translates as:
Ibn Hazm said "there is an agreement (ijmaa) that every name that is mu'abbad (made the abd to) other than Allaah is haraam like abdul 'Auzza and abdu Amrin and abdu Ali and abdul Ka'ba and what is like that." end of quote and like that is abdun Nabi and abdul Maseeh (the slave of the Messier)."
Page number and volume mentioned above.

This is also found in the book of Hanbali Fiqh, "Muntahaa al Iraadaat" page 216 volume 1, in "Daleelul Taalib" on page 229.
So if you doubt what I say I have given you where to look and the page numbers and volume numbers. If you still have difficulty in finding it in the books of the hanbali's then you will find it in the chapter of Aqeeqa which is always at the end of the book of Hajj. As for the Shaafi'ees then they put the chapter of Aqeeqa at the end with the chapter of sacrifice and food. As for the Maalikiyya and the Hanafees, then I looked in 17 hanafee books and none of them mentioned the ruling of it, and also I briefly looked in the books of the maalikiyya and the same, I could not find anything. If you can find it then let me know, but as it clearly says in the books of the hanaabila (I should know, I'm hanbali) that there is Ijmaa' of the sahaaba. If you think that it is waajib to follow one of the 'four' mathhabs and that they are all correct, then it is waajib to accept what I have just said and that it is a legitimate ruling from the scholars.
I would like to end this point with a hadeeth that Imaam al Bukhaari brought in his book "al Adab al Mufrad":
قال: وفد على النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قوم فسمعهم يسمون رجلا عبد الحجر فقال له: (( ما اسمك)) قال: عبد الحجر. فقال له رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم: ((إنما أنت عبد الله))"
This hadeeth is number 811 and it is hasan.
Which means:
"A small group came to the Prophet Sallallah alaihi wa salaam, and he heard them call someone "abdul Hajr" (ie the slave of the stone) so He Sallallah alaihi wa salaam said "what is your name?" and he said "abdul Hajr" so the messenger of Allaah said to him "Verily you are only the Slave of Allaah"

As for saying that anybody says that Allaah has a hand and a foot, then you need to express what you mean. If you mean that Allaah has described himself with the attribute of having a hand, then Allaah did when He said:
[005:064] The Jews say: "Allâh's Hand is tied up (i.e. He does not give and spend of His bounty)." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for what they uttered. Nay, both His Hands are widely outstretched. He spends (of His bounty) as He wills.
And He also said:
[038:075] (Allâh) said: "O Iblîs (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one whom I have created with Both My Hands. Are you too proud (to fall prostrate to Adam) or are you one of the high exalted (in pride)?"
But if you are saying that Allaah's hand is the same as the hand of creation in anyway then Allaah also said about that:
[042:011] The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you mates from yourselves, and for the cattle (also) mates. By this means He creates you (in the wombs). There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer.
And all us Muslims believe that the Qur'aan does not contradict itself. So we know that Allaah said he had a hand and we know that Allaahs hand is nothing like the creation and not like anything.
This may be hard for you to understand as you have been taught one way and you don’t want to accept anything else, however, I will try to give example, maybe you will understand.
We know that there are rivers of milk and honey and water in paradise and that there are wives there for each man, but at the same time it is nothing like we have ever seen before. The food of this life is not like the food of the next, and the wings of the angels are not like the wings of bats and birds but we still call them wings and Jibreel has 600 of them. We know that the light that comes out of a light-bulb is not the same as the light that comes from the sun, but they are both called light. You have never seen ultra violet light but you know it is there and you call it light, so why is it impossible for Allaah to have attributes that are not the same as the creation even if the actual words may be the same? If you deny this then you deny that there is a difference between the light from the sun and the light from the moon. If you deny this then you believe that all of what Allaah tells us about Jannah is the same as this dunyaa.
I'll leave it there for now, I really need to revise.

Assalaamu alaikum

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

Ibn Rajab's words :

On Mawlid IBN RAJAB AL-HANBALI AL-DIMASHQI (736-795)

Adapted by Dr. G. F. Haddad

[The following is adapted from Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali's masterpiece entitled Lata'if al-Ma`arif fi ma li Mawasim al-`Am min al-Waza'if ("The Subtleties of Learning Concerning the Devotions That Pertain to the Various Times of the Year"), ed. YaSin Muhammad al-Sawwas, Dar Ibn Kathir, 1996]

[p. 158] Imam Ahmad [in the Musnad 4:127-128 = 13:281-282 #17085 - sahih chain (Sh. Hamza al-Zayn)] narrated from al-`Irbad ibn Sariya al-Sulami - Allah be well-pleased with him - that the Prophet said - Allah bless and greet him: "I am Allah's servant (as written) in the Mother of the Book, and verily the seal of Prophets when Adam was still kneaded in his clay. I shall tell you of the meaning of this. (I am) the prayer of my father Ibrahim and the glad tidings proclaimed by `Isa to his people and the vision of my mother who saw that a light issued from her illuminating the very palaces of Syria, and so do all the mothers of Prophets see, Allah's blessings be upon them." Al-Hakim [also] narrated it [in al-Mustadrak 2:418], and said its chain is sound (sahih) [and al-Dhahabi concurred]. [Also Ibn Hibban in his Sahih 14:312-313 #6404 - sahih (Sh. Shu`ayb Arna'ut); al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa'id 8:223 - sahih chain. Also narrated from Abu Umama and other Companions with sound chains as stated by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidaya 2:275 and al-Arna'ut in Sahih Ibn Hibban 14:315.]

What is meant by the above hadith is that the Prophet's Prophetship - Allah bless and greet him - was renowned and well-known even before Allah created him and brought him forth into the world in his lifetime, and that this was written in the Mother of the Book before the blowing of the spirit into Adam - peace upon him. The "Mother of the Book" was explained to mean the Preserved Tablet.
[p. 159] In Muslim's Sahih [also al-Tirmidhi and Ahmad] from `Abd Allah ibn `Amr ibn al-`As, the Prophet said - Allah bless and greet him: "Truly Allah wrote the destinies (maqadir) of creatures before He created the heavens and the earth by fifty thousand years, and/when His Throne was above the water." Among what He wrote in that dhikr, which is the Mother of the Book, is that Muhammad is the Seal of Prophets, whence all creatures moved from the status of [Allah's] Knowledge to the status of [His] Writing which is a type of external existence.
[p. 160-162, he discusses the narrations and meanings of the sahih hadith: "I was Prophet when Adam was between spirit and body." Then he says:] Most of the Salaf hold that the bringing out [p. 162] of the seed of Adam from him was after the spirit was breathed into him, and this is what the majority of the reports indicate. So it is possible that Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him - was specifically brought out from the loins of Adam before the spirit was breathed into the latter, for Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him - is the purpose (al-maqsud) in the creation of the human species, he is its very essence (`aynuhu), quintessence (khulasatuhu), and core (wasita `aqdih). And it has been narrated that Adam - upon him peace - saw the name of Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him - written on the Throne and that Allah - Almighty and Glorified - said to Adam: "Were it not for Muhammad I would not have created you." Al-Hakim narrated it in his Sahih [see its documentation in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine 4:36-41].

[The above position is also that of Ibn Rajab's two teachers, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. Ibn Taymiyya said in his Fatawa al-Kubra (11:95-97):
"Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him - is the Chief of the Children of Adam, the Best of Creation, the noblest of them in the sight of Allah. This is why some have said that "Allah created the Universe due to him," or that "Were it not for him, He would have neither created a Throne, nor a Footstool, nor a heaven, earth, sun or moon." However, this is not a hadith on the authority of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him -... but it may be explained from a correct aspect..."
Since the best of the righteous of the children of Adam is Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him -, creating him was a desirable end of deep-seated purposeful wisdom, more than for anyone else, and hence the completion of creation and the fulfillment of perfection was attained with Muhammad, may Allah Exalted bless him and grant him peace... The Chief of the Children of Adam is Muhammad, may Allah Exalted bless him and grant him peace, Adam and his children being under his banner. He, may Allah Exalted bless him and grant him peace, said: "Truly, I was written as the Seal of the Prophets with Allah, when Adam was going to-and-fro in his clay," i.e. that my prophethood was decreed and manifested when Adam - upon him peace - was created but before the breathing of the Spirit into him, just as Allah decrees the livelihood, lifespan, deeds and misery or happiness of the slave when He creates the embryo but before the breathing of the spirit into it.

"Since man is the seal and last of all creation, and its microcosm, and since the best of man is thus the best of all creation absolutely, then Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him -, being the Pupil of the Eye, the Axis of the Mill, and the Distributor to the Collective, is as it were the Ultimate Purpose from amongst all the purposes of creation. Thus it cannot be denied to say that "Due to him all of this was created", or that "Were it not for him, all this would not have been created," so if statements like this are thus explained according to what the Book and the Sunna indicate, it is acceptable." End of Ibn Taymiyya's words.

Similarly Ibn al-Qayyim wrote in his Bada'i` al-Fawa'id (p. 63): "Have you realized your value? I only created all the universes for your sake... All things are trees whose fruit you are."]



[p. 185] The vast majority hold that He [the Prophet, Allah bless and greet him] was born on the Second Day of the Week (al-Ithnayn = "Monday") 12 Rabi` al-Awwal... in the Year of the Elephant. The episode of the Elephant was in preparation for his Prophetship and a preliminary for his appearance and messengership, Allah bless and greet him.

[p. 188] In the Musnad [of Imam Ahmad, 1:277] from Ibn `Abbas who said: "The Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - was born on al-Ithnayn; received Prophetship on al-Ithnayn; emigrated out of Mecca on al-Ithnayn; entered Madina on al-Ithnayn; died on al-Ithnayn; and raised the Black Stone to its place on al-Ithnayn." ... They differed on the month in which his Prophetship began. It was said: in Ramadan. Or: in Rajab - this is incorrect. Or: in Rabi` al-Awwal. It was said that he received Prophetship on Monday 8 Rabi` al-Awwal.
[p. 189] As for Isra', it was said that it took place in Rajab, but several scholars consider this position weak. It was said that Isra' took place in Rabi` al-Awwal; this is the position of Ibrahim al-Harbi and others.
[Note by Hajj Gibril on Ibrahim al-Harbi: Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Harbi (d. 285) was a prominent companion and student of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He authored: Gharib al-Hadith, Ikram al-Dayf, and Manasik al-Hajj (the last two were published) among other books. Al-Hakim relates that he was pre-eminent in Baghdad for four traits: his superlative manners, his knowledge of the Law, his knowledge of hadith, and his asceticism (zuhd). Al-Daraqutni said that in all these respects he compared to Imam Ahmad himself. Among his sayings: * "Not every separation is estrangement, nor is every reunion love; only the nearness of the hearts is love." * "The stranger is the one who once lived among saintly people who helped him when he ordered good and forbade evil, and supplied him when he had some worldly need, then they died and left him alone." * "I never wasted anything, nor ate twice in the same day." Ibrahim al-Harbi disapproved of `Ali ibn al-Madini because he once saw him going to pray behind the Jahmi judge and grand inquisitor of Ahl al-Sunna, Ahmad ibn Abi Du'ad (d. 240). The latter was principally responsible for the 28-month-long jailing and flogging of Imam Ahmad who had declared him a disbeliever (kafir) for holding that the Qur'an was created. This is related by al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad (4:142-153 #1825), al-Dhahabi in the chapter on Imam Ahmad in the Siyar, Ibn al-Subki in Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra (2:37-51), and others.

[B]Al-Dhahabi relates that al-Harbi's grave in Baghdad is a place one visits for its blessings. Ibn al-Jawzi included himself in the number of those who performed this visitation and relates that al-Harbi himself used to say: "Ma`ruf al-Karkhi's grave is proven medicine." This is also related by al-Dhahabi who comments: "The supplication of those in need is answered at every blessed site." Main sources: Ibn al-Jawzi, Sifa al-Safwa 2:410, 2:214; al-Dhahabi, Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' 10:668-674 #2391; 8:219 #1425. End of note on Ibrahim al-Harbi.][p. 189]

The Prophet's saying - Allah bless and greet him - when he was asked about fasting al-Ithnayn: "That is the day I was born, and the day in which Prophetship was sent down upon me" [Muslim and Ahmad from Abu Qatada] points to the desirability of fasting the days in which Allah's favors on His servants are renewed. For the greatest favor of Allah upon this Community is His causing to appear among them Muhammad - Allah bless and greet him - and sending him as His Prophet to them, as Allah said: “Allah verily hath shown grace to the believers by sending unto them a messenger of their own” (3:164). This favor is greater than the creation of the heaven and the earth, the sun and moon, the winds, night and day, sending down rain, causing vegetation to sprout, and other than that.... The fasting of a day in which those blessings of Allah on his believing servants are renewed is fine and well. It proceeds from the meeting of favors with thanks at the time these favors are renewed. The equivalent of this fasting is the fasting of the day of `Ashura' in which Allah saved Nuh from drowning etc.

Allah's Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions.

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

so imaam abu hanifa rahimullah was a wahabbi who said that ALLAAH has a face and a hand? We salafis say only what is mentioned in the holy quran. The holy Quran mentions that ALLAAH has a hand and a face and we do not compare this hand or face to anything in this world because ALLAAH swt cannot be compared to anything. we dont say the hand is so and so because this is forbidden in islaam. we also dont say that he has limbs or a body like us humans which are fabricated lies against ahlel sunnah. our aqeedah is the aqeedah of IMAAM ABU HANIFA RAHIMULLAH AND IMAAM ABU HANIFA RAHIMULLAHS AQEEDAH IS THE AQEEDAH OF PROPHET MUHAMMED SAW.
i know that you guys go to these misguided websites from sheikh nuh keller and so on and that he says things about the salafis which are not true.


Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah)

When Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah) was asked of his opinion of the one who says I do not know whether Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above the heavens or on the earth, Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah) said:



“He has disbelieved, because Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) says: ‘The Most Merciful rose above the Throne’, and His Throne is above His (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) seven heavens.”



He was then asked, what if he said that Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above His (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) Throne but he does not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth he (rahimhullaah) said:



“He has disbelieved, because he has denied that He (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above the heavens.”


[Quoted in Al-Uluww of adh-Dhahabi, also in Sharh ‘Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah of Ibn Abi Al-Izz al-Hanafi]



Quote:
TO ALL SUFIS THAT SAY ALLAAH IS EVERYWHERE:

When Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah) was asked of his opinion of the one who says I do not know whether Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above the heavens or on the earth, Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah) said:



"He has disbelieved, because Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) says: 'The Most Merciful rose above the Throne', and His Throne is above His (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) seven heavens."



He was then asked, what if he said that Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above His (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) Throne but he does not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth he (rahimhullaah) said:



"He has disbelieved, because he has denied that He (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above the heavens."






First of all it is the belief of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah that Allah exists without a place. Allahu maujoodum bila makaan.

So we do not say Allah is everywhere for the very same reason we do not say Allah is here or there or in any place or location.

Next, the above "quote" is Mawdoo. A fabrication and lie upon the Imam.

One of the narrators of the above report is Abu Muti' al-Balkhi.

Al-Dhahabi himself states [Mukhtasar p. 136 #118; al-`Uluw p. 391 #327] that everything above was reported from the Imam by Abu Muti` al-Hakam ibn `Abd Allah al-Balkhi who is DISCARDED as a narrator according to Imam Ahmad, Ibn `Adi, Abu Dawud, a liar according to Abu Hatim, and a forger according to al-Dhahabi himself as reported by Ibn Hajar in Lisan al-Mizan (2:407)!.

[QUOTE=PASHTUN WARRIOR]

Imaam Abu Haneefah (rahimhullaah) also said:



“ALLAAH is something (shay’un) but not like other things, and the meaning of Shay’un is affirmed without affirming a body, limbs or organs. And He has no limit and no partner or opposite, and no similitude. And He has a Hand, a Face and a Self. As for what is mentioned in the Quran: the Face, the Hand, the Self (Nafs) then these are His Attributes without asking how. And it is not said that His Hand is His Power (Qudra) or Favour (Ni’ma) because this contains nullification of the Attribute, and this is the saying of the People of Qadr (Jabariyyah) and the Mu'tazila. Rather His Hand is His Attribute without asking how, and His Anger (Gadb) and Pleasure (Ridaa) are two Attributes without asking How.”


[Quoted in Fiqh al-Akbar, P. 36-37]



who can better explain these verses than IMAAM ABU HANEEFA RAHIMULLAH.
:rolleyes:
btw these books mentioned as source were written by IMAAM ABU HANIFA and not some wahabbi.


frm above
1. the Face, the Hand, the Self (Nafs) then these are His Attributes without asking how.
Not organs ok

2. Read Tafsir of Surah fath

1. Hand

The words Yadullahi etc were said when Sahaba ridhwanullahitaa'la alaihimajmaeen gave bayah on the Hands of Prophet Muhammed (may unlimited peace and blessinge be upon Him)

2. Face :

Fa aynama tawallau fa samma wajhullah

read its translation and then reply back as to what it means

3. Fiqh al akbar which u have quoted does not explain the meaning of hand as hand itself neither does it refuse other words completely, but rather means all those words are beyond our comprehension and not salafi tashbeeh

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

ON THE ANTHROPOMORPHISM OF "SALAFIS"
THE METHOD OF AHL AL-SUNNA TOUCHING ON THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

It should, by now, be sufficiently clear in what way Ibn Taymiyya deviated from the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a. Much less can he and those who follow his ideas be properly described as Salafi. This section highlights the method of the true Salaf with regard to interpreting ambiguous verses of the Qur'an, and how the Khalaf or scholars of later generations, applied that method to the needs of their times, expanding its details but retaining its priorities, according to the paramount belief that there is nothing like Allah whatsover. Present-day "Salafis" attack the Khalaf and pretend that we should keep to the way of the Salaf, although "Salafis" are closer in spirit to those whom the Salaf and Khalaf fought, namely, the anthropomorphists. As said earlier, common to all Ahl al-Bid`a groups is their arbitrary reading of texts which admit of some uncertainty with regard to their interpretation. There are, in fact, two types of verses in the Qur'an. On the one hand, we find verses called muhkamat (conveying firm and unequivocal meaning). On the other, we find those called mutashabihat. It is in the interpretation of the latter that Ahl al-Bid`a come to the fore. The Mutashabihat (Ambiguities) In Qur'an and Hadith

Let us begin with the definition of the word mutashabih: a verse or a hadith is called mutashabih if:

it has more than one meaning in Arabic and
its meaning or interpretation is not explicit.
The definition of muhkam is a verse that has one explicit meaning. An example of the mutashabih is the verse:

al-rahmanu `ala al-`arsh istawa. (20:5) which is sometimes translated as "The Merciful is established on the Throne," while the word istawa has over fifteen meanings in Arabic among which are:

to settle (istaqarra), as in verse 11:44: "And the ship came to rest (istawat) upon al-Judi"; the anthropomorphists apply this to verse 20:5, as stated by Ibn Battal and Abu Bakr Ibn al-`Arabi.
to ascend or rise (irtafa`a); al-Baghawi says that it is the meaning of 20:5 according to Ibn `Abbas and most of the commentators of Qur'an.
to rise above or tower above (`ala); this is the meaning given by Mujahid for 20:5 in Sahih al-Bukhari, and Ibn Battal declares it to be "the true position and the saying of Ahl al-Sunna";
to become straight, as in verse 48:29: "And it stands firm (istawa) upon its stalk";
to attain maturity, as in verse 28:14: "And when he reached his full strength and was ripe (istawa)";
to subdue (qahara), conquer (istawla), and prevail or overcome (ghalaba), as in the poet's saying concerning Bishr ibn Marwan's conquest of Iraq: istawa bishrun `ala al-`iraq and that boasting: idha ma `alawna wa istawayna `alayhim ja`alnahum mar`a li nisrin wa ta'irin or: "When we tower over them and overcome them, we shall make them a pasture for eagles and other birds." Ibn Battal and Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi attribute the interpretation of 20:5 as istawla chiefly to the Mu`tazila;
to mount (sa`ida), as in verse 23:28: "And when you are on board (istawayta) the ship" and 43:13: "That they may mount (li yastawu) upon their backs," and with regard to 20:5 this is worse than istaqarra;
to attain the end-point of an act such as growth, as in verse 28:14 already cited, or such as creation (intiha' khalqihi ilayh), as in verse 41:11: "Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke." This is the interpretation of Ibn Hazm who explains istiwa' as "an act pertaining to the Throne, and that is the termination of His creation at the Throne, for there is nothing beyond it." Etc.
"To rise," "ascend," and "rise above" must be understood in the sense of rank and lordship, not in the sense of physical elevation or displacement. Among the least injurious and most befitting meanings of verse 20:5 -- and Allah knows best -- is also "subdue" (qahara) and "conquer" (istawla). By this we understand that Allah praises Himself as the Irresistible (al-qahhar) in declaring that even the greatest of all creations, the Throne, lies subject to Him. This in nowise suggests, as one objection goes, that subduing and conquering suppose prior opposition in the face of the Creator, no more than do the attributes of Irresistible (qahhar) or Omnipotent (qahir) presuppose any resistance or power on anyone's part. This is confirmed by the verses: "He is the Omnipotent (qahir) over His slaves" (6:18, 6:61) and "Allah prevails (ghalib) in His purpose" (12:21) To those who object to istawla on the grounds that it supposes prior opposition, Ibn Hajar remarked that that assumption is discarded by clinging to the verse: "Allah was ever Knower, Wise" (4:17), which the commentators, he says, have explained to mean "He is ever Knower and Wise." Yet again, we never tire of saying "There is nothing like Him whatsoever" (42:11) and that the best explanation is the recitation of the verse as it was revealed and its leaving it unexplained. This was the way of Malik, al-Shafi`i, al-Awza`i, Ahmad, and the rest of the Salaf with regard to this verse. However, in the face of the false suggestions of those who, between the time of the Salaf and ours, have represented the Creator of heaven and earth as a limited body sitting in a confined space, it has been and still is an obligation of Ahl al-Sunna to clarify ambiguities some used to spread falsehood. And this has been the position of Ahl al-Sunna since Bukhari, al-Khattabi, Ibn Battal, and Ibn al-Jawzi, through the time of Nawawi, Subki, and Ibn Hajar, as the present book abundantly makes clear.

Reproduced with permission from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani's _The Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations_ (Kazi, 1996) p. 104-107.

Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions

[FollowerOfMuhammad]

ON THE ANTHROPOMORPHISM OF "SALAFIS"

Method of the True Salaf Regarding Ambiguities

The scholars of the true Salaf -- that is, the pious Muslims of the first three centuries after the Hijra of the Prophet -- used to interpret the mutashabihat in the following way: they refuted the unacceptable interpretations but did not specify which one of the acceptable meanings was the intended meaning of the verse or the hadith.

When Imam Malik, al-Shafi`i, and others were asked about the interpretation of the verse al-rahman `ala al-`arsh istawa in particular, and about similar verses in general, they used to say: "Accept these verses and hadith as they were given without believing that they have meanings which pertain to a manner, such as images, descriptions related to creations, and the like." Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: "Allah mentioned Establishment (al-istiwa') and Establishment is only what Allah mentioned about it, not what humans imagine about it."

From these quotations it is clear that the Salaf, including Imam Ahmad, rejected the meanings that imply a mode or manner (kayf) of "establishment" because specifying the manner implies a resemblance to created things.

Thus we see that the way of the Salaf was mere acceptance of expressions on faith without saying how they are meant, and without additions, subtractions, or substituting meanings imagined to be synonyms, while stressing Allah's absolute transcendence beyond the characteristics of created things in order to preclude likening Him to His creation. To suggest or cite opinions that they added the terms: "sitting" or "in person" (bi al-dhat) or "sitting in person" or "literally" (haqiqatan) is to give the lie to their insistance on rejecting the kayf of Allah's establishment.

When forwarding their opinions on this subject, "Salafis" are fond of quoting, not the bila kayf (no-modality) opinions of the great Imams of Ahl al-Sunna, but those of the anthropomorphists that lived around them and deviated from their views, although they claimed to follow their schools. We have already mentioned some of them, like the Hanbalis Ibn Ya`la and al-Zaghuni condemned by Ibn al-Jawzi, and the Hanbalis `Abdullah ibn Ahmad, Ibn Sa`id al-Darimi, and Ibn Khuzayma denounced by al-Razi and Kawthari: As we said before, their assertion that the only alternative to the Jahmi belief that "Allah is in every place" is to say that "He is in one place only, above His throne" is just as false as saying He is in every place for Allah exists without place. Yet the belief that He exists in a place is what yesterday's and today's anthropomorphists pass as the opinion of the Salaf. However, just because someone lived in the first three centuries, it does not mean that he represented the doctrine of the Salaf. It will be clear from the forthcoming opinions of the Salaf and Khalaf that the correct position of Ahl al-Sunna never adds "in person" or "literally" -- which is to specify a modality -- to the mention of Allah's establishment on the Throne, and that to suggest space in the slightest manner is to leave Islam. b) The Methodology of the Khalaf The Khalaf scholars are those who came in succeeding generations after those of the first three Hijri centuries. They are so-named for their successorship of the inheritance of the Prophet (s), acquiring the knowledge and understanding and of religion. An example of their method is in the interpretation of the verse: yad Allahi fawqa aydihim (58:10) translated as: "Allah's Hand is over their hands." Khalaf scholars usually give an explicit meaning to such verses. This way is acceptable insofar as there is a fear that people will otherwise interpret them anthropomorphically, likening Allah to his creations (tashbih) and begin to speak of His "Hand" as a literal (haqiqi) attribute, in the manner of Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim, and the early Hanbali anthropomorphists decried by Ibn al-Jawzi. Thus the Khalaf scholars here explain the words yad Allah (Allah's hand) in this verse as referring to `ahd Allah, that is, "the Covenant with Allah. Similarly they interpreted the word yadayy (Allah's two hands) in the verse lima khalaktu bi yadayy which is literally "for what I created with My two Hands" as "care" (al-`inaya).

The explanation of the word in other verses confirms the above meanings. The scholars have pointed out that al-yad among the Arabs also signifies strength (al-quwwa). The verse "We have built the heaven with (Our) hands" (51:47) is cited in al-Hafiz al-Zabidi's massive dictionary of Arabic "Taj al-`Arus" (10:417) as an illustration that "hands" may mean "strength." Allah says: "And make mention of our bondmen, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, men of parts (literally of two hands) and vision" (38:45) meaning, "men possessing strength." It also means ownership (al-mulk) as Allah said: "Lo! the bounty is in Allah's hand" (3:73). It also means favor, as it is said: "So-and-so has a hand over so-and-so," to mean that he owes him a favor. It also means a kind of link, as Allah said: "Or he agrees to forego it in whose hand is the marriage tie" (2:237).

As Nawawi said in the passage already quoted from his commentary on Muslim, many of the Salaf also applied such figurative interpretation (ta'wil) of Allah's "Hand," as shown from the explanation of aydin (Hands) as meaning "strength" in the verse:

"We have built the heaven with (Our) hands" (51:47) Ibn Jarir al-Tabari said in his Tafsir: Ibn `Abbas said: "It means: with strength." He reports an identical position from Mujahid, Qatada, Mansur, Ibn Zayd, and Sufyan al-Thawri.1 This is also Imam al-Ash`ari's explanation according to Ibn Furak in the latter's recension of Ash`ari's school.2

These interpretations are all acceptable and they do not imply the slightest denial of any of Allah's Attributes on which there is consensus. We should nevertheless obligatorily believe that the word yad (hand) does not mean an organ as we know it, in accordance with the verse already cited: "There is nothing like Him whatsoever" (42:11) and that the word yad does not imply a resemblance to creatures.

As for the Prophet's saying: "The Black Stone is Allah's right hand," if it is established as true, then the mind witnesses that Allah is not spatially confined anywhere and is not divisible; and the senses witness that the Black Stone is not literally the right hand of Allah, rather, that it consists in prosperity and blessing.3 Yet we see the excesses of the anthropomorphists at work here also: Ibn Rajab relates in Dhayl tabaqat al-hanabila that Ibn al-Fa'us al-Hanbali gave the hadith a literal meaning: "He used to say: The Black Stone is Allah's Right Hand literally (haqiqatan)."4 Ash`ari's biographer Abu Bakr ibn Furak writes that he embarked on a study of kalam (theology) because of this hadith according to Subki in Tabaqat al-shafi`iyya.5


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tafsir 7:27.

2 Abu Bakr ibn Furak, Mujarrad Maqalat al-Ash`ari (Beirut, 1987) p. 44.

3 This hadith on the authority of Ibn `Abbas and others is related by Ibn Abi `Umar al-Ma`dani in his Musnad, Tabarani, Suyuti in his Jami` al-saghir 1:516 (#3804-3805), Ibn `Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq 15:90, 92, and others. It is considered da`if (weak) by Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn `Adi, and Albani. Ibn Qutayba in Gharib al-hadith (3:107(1)) says that it is a saying of Ibn `Abbas.

4 Ibn Rajab, Dhayl tabaqat al-hanabila 7:174-175.

5 al-Subki, Tabaqat al-shafi`iyya 3:53.

Reproduced with permission from Shaykh M. Hisham Kabbani's
_The Repudiation of "Salafi" Innovations_ (Kazi, 1996) p. 108-112

Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, his Family, and his Companions

[MMS]

its turned into another pointless disscussion, arguing about where Allah is :S

lets just put it this way, Allah can be wherever he wants to be whenever he wants to be, He has no limits

as for the wiping the hands i dont think there is anything wrong with it, whoever says its a bidah which leads to the fire well that is just bizarre :rubeyes:

[arabic_courses]

Assalaamu alaikum

From what I remember this post was about wiping your face after du'a. And as I have already said on a previous post that this issue some people seem to take it as an issue of Aqeedah not an issue of fiqh and what we have seen now from Mr Slave proves my point. We only started talking about the issue of calling oneself "slave of Muhammad" to clarify the issue to Mr Warrior and was not intended to anyone specific, but rather than taking the general advice and listening to what the ulamaa of islam have said, some people directly went on the defensive and started accusing me and others of things that we are free from. When I tried to reason with certain people and discuss things on an intellectual level with Islamic manners (Adaab) without foul language, accusations or lies some people start cutting & pasting from website totally diverting from the issue at hand, and clearly choosing to ignore what I had said.
What does the issue of Allaah names and attributes got to do with wiping your face after making du'a
Or
Calling oneself the slave of the prophet?
A person who is truthful to himself would at least stop and think;
"even if I don't agree with this guy in issues of Aqeedah maybe what he is saying about the shaafi'ee mathhab and Hanbalee mathhab about all the mathaahib, has a point, let me at least look it up. It may be possible that I am wrong as every human makes mistakes and can be wrong. And maybe it is possible he is wrong and I can advise him with what I have found with references"
But rather some individuals start talking about Milaad an Nabee and Tashbeeh and others start lying on a whole nation of people of being 1 step below atheist.
Wallaahi this is sad. It is sad that Muslims can't talk things through anymore, or reason without cutting and pasting and throwing accusations and lies at each other.
So what's the point of coming to ummaah and opening up discussion and you don’t wish to discuss, you only wish to dictate to others and run.
This is exactly the same as what the Christian missionaries do (I should know I use to be Christian). They come, drop 2 sentences on how everyone should believe in Jesus Christ and then put their fingers in their ears. No matter how much you talk to them, you have a sincere feeling in your heart that they are not listening to you. As every question you ask them they answer something else (if they even answer). And if you bring them a verse from the bible rather than discussing it they just throw another verse back at you, thinking you can knock out verses with other verses. This is exactly what has happened here, I mentioned a point, and rather than replying to that point they just started to throw something else at me, thinking it will nullify my whole point.
Anyway, I will look up the points that he mentioned in those three articles that he brought but after my exams insha allaha which finish in three days. And then we will see insha Allaah, but before I go I find it funny that someone is quoting an article from Hishaam Kabbaani who himself says that Allaah is everywhere ESPECIALLY in the ka'bah as it is Allaahs house. And his shaikh Naazim Qubursee , who is in turkey says in his book 'Mercy oceans'. That Eesa is Allah and also said when his Sufi mureeds die and the 2 angels comes to ask who is their lord?, what is your deen? Who is your prophet? he will answer for them. Naazim is so bad that even the Deobandees (who accept Sufism) make takfeer of him. I remember being in England and went to his mosque in Tottenham London. I just wanted to see what his masjid was like. And to my surprise there was at least 2meter tall picture of his face (I don't need to mention the ruling of having pictures especially in a mosque) I even knew a brother who use to be with Naazim going to his dhikr circles, they told him when he goes into his house everyday he should seek refuge in Naazim from shaitaan (i.e say a'oodho bi shaykh Naazim, in stead of saying a'oodho bi llaah) this is the shaykh of Hishaam Kabbaani author of 1 of the articles posted.
Anyway after my exams insha Allaah and I advise everybody here not to argue or cu4rse anybody as this I s not the manners of a Muslims.
I am still waiting for Mr slave to admit his mistake of calling oneself slave of Muhamad or bring proof from the Qur'an or sunnah or the saying of the salaf.



As for talking about Where Allaah is? then it is not pointless as long as a person is truthful to himself and wants to know the truth, and if it did not matter, then Allaah would not have mentioned it in the Qur'aan and the Messenger of Allaah would not have asked the slave-girl where Allaah is.

asslamau alaikum

[abuhariyah]

Saying Allah is here or there oe anywhere or no where or where ever he wills, are ALL statements of Kufr, there is not Where, Allah does not have a location, he is not somewhere, he exist outside of the bounds of location.

allah does not have a hand or a face, aothobilah!

Hannafi didn't saty he had a face or ahnd either. nor did any of the valid scholars. If they had said Allah has a face, they would have become a murtad.

Both Ashari and Maturidi, the two biggest scholars on Aqqedah, both agree allah does not have body parts and is not in a location

[PASHTUN WARRIOR]

salam alykum,
basically slave of... postet a long article in which he described that the hand means power lets look at what imaam abu hanifa rahimullah said. imaam abu hanifa clearly stated in fiqh akbar that the hand does not mean power as the sufis interpret it metaphroically.

since u guys reject quran and sunnah and the other 3 imaams. thus i have to only concentrate on imaam abu hanifa:


Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah)

When Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah) was asked of his opinion of the one who says I do not know whether Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above the heavens or on the earth, Imaam Aboo Haneefah (rahimhullaah) said:



“He has disbelieved, because Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) says: ‘The Most Merciful rose above the Throne’, and His Throne is above His (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) seven heavens.”



He was then asked, what if he said that Allaah (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above His (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) Throne but he does not know whether the Throne is in the heavens or on the earth he (rahimhullaah) said:



“He has disbelieved, because he has denied that He (subhaanahu wa ta'aala) is above the heavens.”


[Quoted in Al-Uluww of adh-Dhahabi, also in Sharh ‘Aqeedah at-Tahawiyyah of Ibn Abi Al-Izz al-Hanafi, QUESTION TO SLAVE OF MUHAMMED: I MENTIONED TWO SOURCES. ARE BOTH OF THEM FABRICATED?]



Imaam Abu Haneefah (rahimhullaah) also said:



“ALLAAH is something (shay’un) but not like other things, and the meaning of Shay’un is affirmed without affirming a body, limbs or organs. And He has no limit and no partner or opposite, and no similitude. And ALLAAH has a Hand, a Face and a Self. As for what is mentioned in the Quran: the Face, the Hand, the Self (Nafs) then these are His Attributes without asking how. And it is not said that His Hand is His Power (Qudra) or Favour (Ni’ma) because this contains nullification of the Attribute, and this is the saying of the People of Qadr (Jabariyyah) and the