Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The original Najdi/ Wahhabi movement was more extreme in bloodshed & Takfir than ISIS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Hadith of the blind man was reported by him. The supplication which he taught to the man in need after the death of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was not criticized by a single companion or scholar prior to Ibn Taymiyyah.
    It shows that Tawassul with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and calling him in his absence

    Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy.اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد نبي الرحمةwhich is clear cut Tawassul with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -O Muhammad, I turn through you to my Lord in this need of mine, that it be fulfilled.يا محمد، إني توجهت بك إلى ربي في حاجتي ليقضي لي.

    Now Ibn Taymiyyah argues that Tawassul through the Dhat of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is not intended, but rather only Tawassul through his supplication (while he categorically rejects Tawassul through his blessed Dhat in every situation, he allows Tawassul through his supplication only in his Dunyawi life). O Allah, grant him intercession for meاللهم شفعه فيThere is one detail here (other than the obvious meaning of the supplication itself) that basically destroys the whole explanation of Ibn Taymiyyah:
    After the blind man heard the order of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - he left his Majlisفوالله ما تفرقنا وطال بنا الحديث حتى دخل علينا الرجل كأنه لم يكن به ضر قطwhich shows that the blind man had gone and had made the teached supplication IN THE ABSENCE(!!!) of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - therefore understood this supplication to be general and therefore teached it after the death of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - to a man in need in the time of the Khilafa of 'Uthman bin 'Affan, radhiallahu 'anhu.
    Conclusion from this post:
    - The Hadith of the blind man includes making Tawassul and calling the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - IN HIS ABSENCE.
    - The Hadith of the man in need includes Tawassul and calling the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - AFTER HiS DEATH.
    Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 21-10-18, 07:33 PM.

    Comment


    • What a joke
      Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage. It takes courage for a person to listen to his own goodness and act on it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
        Before we go more into detail, I would like to state something regarding which I do not accept any discussion:
        ' The Hadith of the blind man was reported by him. The supplication which he taught to the man in need after the death of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was not criticized by a single companion or scholar prior to Ibn Taymiyyah.
        It doesn't matter what you accept or don't accept.

        The Ijtihaad of the Companions, especially that of a single Companion, is not a proof among the foundations of the Deen unless dealing with a matter not related in the Quran and Sunnah. This is a well-known approach in Usul among Ahl as-Sunnah.

        See the following links for the discussion:

        http://www.dd-sunnah.net/forum/showthread.php?t=159690
        http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/inde...waId&Id=236980

        With this in mind, it is not allowed to defer this matter to the manner in which you claim Uthman bin Hunayf applied it, to the exclusion of verses of the Quran and authentic Ahadith.

        This is not a mistake of Uthman bin Hunayf or Ibn Taymiyyah, rather it is a comparison between the Ijtihaad they both made and a determination about which one is closer to being more sound and consistent with the Quran and Sunnah.

        Also, this is not an argument about the status or integrity of Uthman bin Hunayf, may Allah be pleased with him, or that of Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

        This is an exposition of your lack of understanding of both the Hadith of Ibn Hunayf, your reliance upon dubious sources for your understanding of the Hadith, and your hatred for one of the most respected scholars of Islam.

        The Hadith of Uthman bin Hunayf is not even mentioned in the majority of Fiqh works from any of the four schools of Fiqh. This demonstrates the lack of authority of the Hadith in matters pertaining to supplications as a legal matter.

        The scholars of Hadith did include this Hadith in their compilations, namely Ibn Maajah, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa'ee, al-Hakim, Imam Ahmad, at-Tabarani, and Ibn Khuzaymah. Ibn Maajah included this Hadith in the chapter of "The Need Prayer" and Ibn Khuzaymah in the chapter of "The Prayer of Exhortation and Admonition". At-Tirmidhi did not name the chapter title where this Hadith is found and the other compilers included this Hadith in a Musnad, which does not have a chapter title but is organized according to Companion/narrator.

        The only Fiqh works that included this Hadith in their discussions, sometimes completely unrelated to Tawassul, are the later Hanafi texts of the 6th and 7th centuries Hijree or later.

        The only scholars who approved of Tawassul based on this Hadith were Ash'ari or they explained the Hadith as limited to the Prophet, peace be upon him, like al-Izz bin Abd as-Salaam as reported by Ibn Abideen in his Radd al-Muhtar, see 6/397.

        The question and challenge to you, Abu Sulayman, is to find a non-Ash'ari scholar or someone from the Salaf, who understands this Hadith the way that you claim- it is calling upon the Prophet, peace be upon him, in Du'a.

        Most scholars from Ahl as-Sunnah understand the use of the Du'a reported by Uthman bin Hunayf as simply repeating the wording as transmitted in the Hadith, just as we do when sending as-Salaat was-Salaam, using the formula "As-Salaamu Alayka, Yaa Ayyuhan-Nabi..." The address to the Prophet, peace be upon him, is not understood as a Nidaa' or calling upon or supplication to the Prophet, peace be upon him.

        What is the proof for understanding the address in the Hadith differently than the address in the Salaah upon the Prophet?

        Comment


        • As-Subki is well-known to be an extremist Ash'ari in this matter, so his views are not objective or proof of something other than the Ash'ari view.

          Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
          Conclusion from this post:
          - The Hadith of the blind man includes making Tawassul and calling the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - IN HIS ABSENCE.
          - The Hadith of the man in need includes Tawassul and calling the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - AFTER HiS DEATH.
          There is no proof in the Hadith of Ibn Hunayf that the Tawassul was in the absence of the Prophet, peace be upon him. It doesn't say he departed and made ablution or prayed anywhere beside where he visited the Prophet, peace be upon him. So, we must assume that the Prophet, peace be upon him, could hear Ibn Hunayf, especially since he asked him to make Du'a for him.

          As for Ibn Hunayf telling the Hadith to another person after the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him, then this enters the realm of simply repeating the wording of a Hadith exactly as transmitted, including the Du'a contained therein, just as is done with the Salaah upon the Prophet.

          It is not proof for calling upon the Prophet, peace be upon him, or supplicating to him or anyone else in their absence or after their death.

          You still have not shown proof for that understanding of the Hadith from a scholar among the Companions or Salaf, or even one of the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah like Abu Haneefah, or Imam Ahmad.

          I don't care about your issues with Ibn Taymiyyah. The most important thing, which you keep avoiding, is to bring non-Ash'ari proof that your understanding of the Hadith of Ibn Hunayf is the correct one and that it existed in the time of the Salaf and was adopted by the Imams of Ahl as-Sunnah in Fiqh and Aqeedah.

          So far, you have only referred to scholars from the 5th century or later and only Ash'ari scholars.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by eesa the kiwi View Post
            What a joke
            which part akhi?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
              The Hadith of the blind man was reported by him. The supplication which he taught to the man in need after the death of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was not criticized by a single companion or scholar prior to Ibn Taymiyyah.
              It shows that Tawassul with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and calling him in his absence

              Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through Your Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of Mercy.اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيك محمد نبي الرحمةwhich is clear cut Tawassul with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -O Muhammad, I turn through you to my Lord in this need of mine, that it be fulfilled.يا محمد، إني توجهت بك إلى ربي في حاجتي ليقضي لي.

              Now Ibn Taymiyyah argues that Tawassul through the Dhat of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is not intended, but rather only Tawassul through his supplication (while he categorically rejects Tawassul through his blessed Dhat in every situation, he allows Tawassul through his supplication only in his Dunyawi life). O Allah, grant him intercession for meاللهم شفعه فيThere is one detail here (other than the obvious meaning of the supplication itself) that basically destroys the whole explanation of Ibn Taymiyyah:
              After the blind man heard the order of Rasulallah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - he left his Majlisفوالله ما تفرقنا وطال بنا الحديث حتى دخل علينا الرجل كأنه لم يكن به ضر قطwhich shows that the blind man had gone and had made the teached supplication IN THE ABSENCE(!!!) of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - therefore understood this supplication to be general and therefore teached it after the death of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - to a man in need in the time of the Khilafa of 'Uthman bin 'Affan, radhiallahu 'anhu.
              Conclusion from this post:
              - The Hadith of the blind man includes making Tawassul and calling the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - IN HIS ABSENCE.
              - The Hadith of the man in need includes Tawassul and calling the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - AFTER HiS DEATH.
              mubtadi

              Comment


              • subhanAllah
                its so strange

                that someone can be so passionate about making duaa to other than Allah
                or making dua using other people

                why can you not just make duaa to Allah

                why do u want to be like the nassara

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Simply_Logical View Post

                  which part akhi?
                  His comments regarding ibn taymiyah in particular but this whole thread in general
                  Each person has inside a basic decency and goodness. If he listens to it and acts on it, he is giving a great deal of what it is the world needs most. It is not complicated but it takes courage. It takes courage for a person to listen to his own goodness and act on it.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by eesa the kiwi View Post

                    His comments regarding ibn taymiyah in particular but this whole thread in general
                    to be honest i think what he has to say is interesting

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post

                      You're the one stirring up the mud, so don't say you're too busy to respond once the water clears.

                      This is not about defending Ibn Taymiyyah. It's about exposing your lies and deception on this very simple matter.

                      Why should I "go and read" something when you're the one making the point? If you can't be bothered to bring proof and evidence for what YOU say, then why put it on others to do so?

                      That's the problem with you Ash'aris- you will not stop speaking as long as your lie or deception depends on it, however when asked straightforward questions that will lead to the truth, you go quiet.
                      Note that I said that Ibn Taymiyyah critisized 'Uthman bin Hunayf's - radhiallahu 'anhu - position and rejected his position. Is this a lie? Is this deception? NO!
                      Then why all these accusations, when I said the truth?

                      Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                      So Ibn Taymiyyah says the following about Uthman bin Hunayf, in speaking about the Ziyaadah/additional wording in the Hadith of the blind man wherein Ibn Hunayf suggests the Du'a to someone after the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him:

                      "In summary, this additional wording, if established, does not entail proof. At most, it only means that Uthman bin Hunayf thought that the Du'a can be made by means of some of its [wording]. Thus, [Ibn Hunayf] did not order [the other person] to make the legislated Du'a, rather only a part of it. [Ibn Hunayf] also thought that this was legislated after his death, peace be upon him, while the wording of the Hadith contradicts that.

                      In the Hadith is says that the blind man asked the Prophet, peace be upon him, to make Du'a for him and that he taught the blind man to make Du'a and ordered him to say in it: "Oh Allah! Thus, grant him intercession for me." He only made this Du'a when the Prophet, peace be upon him, was supplicating and interceding for him as opposed to someone who is not like that. So this situates the [Prophet's] intercession and Du'a for people during his lifetime in the worldly life and on the Day of Judgment when he intercedes for them.

                      And the intended meaning [of the Hadith of the blind man] is not that one intercede regarding a need with the Prophet to the Prophet, peace be upon him. We are commanded to send Salaah was-Salaam upon [the Prophet] and ask Allah to grant him the agency [of intercession]..."


                      See page 214 of Qa'idah Jaleelah

                      ...

                      I don't think you even read Qa'idah Jaleelah or understood Ibn Taymiyyah's argument. Instead, you want people to believe that he is insulting or "making a claim" against Ibn Hunayf.
                      Well, you're the one who's unable to understand Ibn Taymiyyah's argument. I'll explain it, but first let's see what the above qoute is actually about.

                      _____
                      This is what Ibn Taymiyyah said right before the above qoute which was mentioned by you:

                      وقد روى أبو بكر بن أبي خيثمة في تاريخه حديث حماد ابن سلمة فقال: حدثنا مسلم بن إبراهيم، حدثنا حماد بن سلمة، نا أبو جعفر الخطمي، عن عمارة بن خزيمة، عن عثمان بن حنيف، أن رجلا أعمى أتى النبي ﷺ فقال: إني أصبت في بصري، فادع الله لي. قال: "اذهب فتوضأ، وصل ركعتين ثم قل: اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبيي محمد نبي الرحمة، يا محمد إني أستشفع بك على ربي في رد بصري، اللهم فشفعني في نفسي، وشفع نبيي في رد بصري، وإن كانت حاجة فافعل مثل ذلك". فرد الله عليه بصره.قال ابن أبي خيثمة: وأبوجعفر هذا - الذي حدث عنه حماد بن سلمة - اسمه عمير بن يزيد، وهو أبو جعفر، الذي يروي عنه شعبة.ثم ذكر الحديث من طريق عثمان بن عمر، عن شعبة.قلت: وهذه الطريق فيها: "فشفعني في نفسي" مثل طريق روح بن القاسم، وفيها زيادة أخرى وهي قوله: "وإن كانت حاجة فافعل مثل ذلك - أو قال - فعل مثل ذلك". وهذه قد يقال: إنها توافق قول عثمان بن حنيف، لكن شعبة وروح بن القاسم أحفظ من حماد بن سلمة، واختلاف الألفاظ يدل على أن مثل هذه الرواية قد تكون بالمعنى، وقوله: "وإن كانت حاجة فعل مثل ذلك". قد يكون مدرجا من كلام عثمان، لا من كلام النبي ﷺ فإنه لم يقل: "وإن كانت لك حاجة فعلت مثل ذلك" بل قال: "وإن كانت حاجة فعل مثل ذلك".
                      -end of qoute -

                      Ibn Taymiyyah mentions one of the versions of the Hadith of the blind man (NOT the man in need!) where Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - says at the end "and if there is a need, then do the same" ("وإن كانت حاجة فافعل مثل ذلك"). Ibn Taymiyyah then tries to act as if this addition is most likely not from the words of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, but maybe taken from the words of 'Uthman bin Hunayf, radhiallahu 'anhu. (As if this is a guessing-game!)
                      This is the addition that your qoute is about. It's obvious that you haven't even understood that.

                      The ironic thing is that the qoute which you brought proves what I said regarding Ibn Taymiyyah and that his statement "At most, it only means that Uthman bin Hunayf thought that the Du'a can be made by means of some of its [wording]. Thus, [Ibn Hunayf] did not order [the other person] to make the legislated Du'a, rather only a part of it. [Ibn Hunayf] also thought that this was legislated after his death, peace be upon him, while the wording of the Hadith contradicts that." ("وإنما غايتها أن يكون عثمان بن حنيف ظن أن الدعاء يدعى ببعضه دون بعض، فإنه لم يأمره بالدعاء المشروع بل ببعضه، وظن أن هذا مشروع بعد موته ﷺ.ولفظ الحديث يناقض ذلك").
                      Here he's clearly critisizing the position of 'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - for teaching this supplication after the death of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
                      It is said to Ibn Taymiyyah: You've lied! He did NOT THINK that this is legislated, rather he KNEW that teaching this supplication after the Prophet's - sallallahu 'alawhi wa sallam - death is legislated, because the wording is general.O Allah, grant him intercession for meThe like of this can not be used to prove divine rulings. Just like if something is reported from one of the compaions regarding the acts of worship, the permissable actions, the duties or the forbidden actions, while other companions do not agree with him and that which is established from the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - goes against it and does not support it, then the action [of this companion] is not regarded as a Sunnah that the Muslims must follow. The most that can be said is, that it is from among that where Ijtihad is allowed and from among that where the Ummah has disagreed, so it becomes necessary to refer it back to Allah and the Messenger."
                      - end of qoute -

                      What he tries to say is clear: This is only the position of one companion, the rest of the companions disagreed and it goes against what is established from the Sunnah.
                      The question here is: Which companion or which scholar has ever disagreed with his position prior to Ibn Taymiyyah? In fact we find the actions of other companions, scholars from the Salaf and Khalaf all supporting it!
                      As for the Sunnah: Then the obvious meaning of the Hadith of the blind is more than enough to show that 'Uthman bin Hunayf's - radhiallahu 'anhu - position is supported by the Sunnah of Rasulullah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.

                      After a while he says:

                      وإذا كان كذلك فمعلوم أنه إذا ثبت عن عثمان بن حنيف أو غيره أنه جعل من المشروع المستحب أن يتوسل بالنبي ﷺ بعد موته من غير أن يكون النبي ﷺ داعيا له ولا شافعا فيه، فقد علمنا أن عمر وأكابر الصحابة لم يروا هذا مشروعا بعد مماته، كما كان يشرع في حياته، بل كانوا في الاستسقاء في حياته يتوسلون به، فلما مات لم يتوسلوا

                      "So if's it like that, then it becomes known that if it's established that 'Uthmani bin Hunayf or other than him regarding it as legislated and recommended to perform Tawassul with the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - after his death without the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - supplicating for him or interceding for him, then we have known that 'Umar and the Akabir of the companions did not see this as legislated after his death, like it was legislated in his life. Rather they would perform Tawassul with him regarding the prayer for rain, and when he died they did not perform Tawassul with him anymore."
                      - end of qoute -

                      Here Ibn Taymiyyah mixes the issues as it pleases his whims and desires and makes wrong and empty claims. Which scholar has understood from the Tawassul of 'Umar through al-'Abbas - radhiallahu 'anhuma - that Tawassul through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alahyhi wa sallam - is not allowed after his death prior to Ibn Taymiyyah?
                      In fact the Tawassul through al-'Abbas - radhiallahu 'anhu - itself is based upon the Tawassul through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - as it's clear from the supplication of al-'Abbas - radhiallahu 'anhu - himself "The people have turned to You by means of me because of my position in relation to your Prophet".
                      Note that Ibn Taymiyyah even in the case of the Tawasssul of 'Umar - radhiallahu 'anhu - does not believe that he's doing Tawassul with al-'Abbas - radhiallahu 'anhu - himself (i.e. his person), but rather only his supplication, even though our Master 'Umar explicitly states "[now] we take our Prophet's uncle as a means to you" ("وإنا نتوسل إليك بعم نبينا"). Can it get clearer and more obvious than that? So this man rejects whatever doesn't suit him. This is his state, we ask Allah ta'ala for well-being.

                      Than Ibn Taymiyyah goes on in his vain building a whole argument on something that no one before him has stated until he says:

                      وحديث الأعمى حجة لعمر وعامة الصحابة رضوان الله عليهم أجمعين، فإنه إنما أمر الأعمى أن يتوسل إلى الله بشفاعة النبي ﷺ ودعائه لا بذاته، وقال له في الدعاء: "قل اللهم شفعه فيَّ"، وإذا قدر أن بعض الصحابة أمر غيره أن يتوسل بذاته لا بشفاعته ولم يأمر بالدعاء المشروع بل ببعضه وترك سائره المتضمن للتوسل بشفاعته، كان ما فعله عمر بن الخطاب هو الموافق [لسنة] رسول الله ﷺ، وكان المخالف لعمر محجوجا بسنة رسول الله ﷺ، وكان الحديث الذي رواه عن النبي ﷺ حجة عليه لا له

                      "The narration of the blind man is a proof for 'Umar and the comanions in general - may Allah be pleased with them all -, for he (the Prophet, sallalalhu 'alayhi wa sallam) ordered the blind man to perform Tawassul unto Allah through the intercession of the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and his supplication and not through his person. He stated in the supplication "say: O Allah, grant him intercession for me". So if some of the companions ordered others to perform Tawassul through his person and not his intercession and he did not order him to do the legislated supplication, but rather only part of it and left the rest which includes Tawassul through his intercession, then that which 'Umar bin al-Khattab did is that which is in confirmation of the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and the opponent of 'Umar is refuted by the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. So the narration that he reported from the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was a proof against him and not for him."
                      - end of qoute -

                      Here Ibn Taymiyyah acts as if there is difference of opinion between 'Umar bin al-Khattab - radhiallahu 'anhu - and 'Uthman bin Hunayf- radhiallahu 'anhu - based upon his own imagination.
                      The weird thing is how he thinks the intercession is excluded by 'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - which is not the case. Rather Tawassul through the blessed person of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, through his supplication and his intercession is correct and good.
                      Anyways, what is clear is that Ibn Taymiyyah is saying that 'Uthman bin Hunayf's - radhiallahu 'anhu - position goes against the Sunnah.

                      I ask again and again: Which companion or scholar prior to Ibn Taymiyyah agreed with Ibn Taymiyyah?

                      Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                      So tell me Mr. Ash'ari, what explanation from the scholars have you offered for the Hadith of the blind man or the additional wording as related by Ibn Hunayf regarding making the same Du'a after the death of the Prophet, peace be upon him?

                      How does it even make sense to understand the Hadith as a permission to directly address the Prophet, peace be upon him, in a Du'a while at the same time asking Allah to grant him intercession for us? If the Prophet, peace be upon him, could hear us and intercede for us by making such a Du'a, then why ask Allah to grant him intercession?

                      That's like turning to someone and instead of telling them to hand you a pen, saying "Oh Allah! Make them hand me a pen." Do you think that a person would be more inclined to hand you a pen, if they are able, just because you asked Allah to make them do so?

                      I don't think you even read Qa'idah Jaleelah or understood Ibn Taymiyyah's argument. Instead, you want people to believe that he is insulting or "making a claim" against Ibn Hunayf.

                      You think this is my first rodeo with deceptive people like you? You like to throw around references, names of scholars, and legal rulings as if you have read and understood them, when in fact you are a copy & paster of the worst order.
                      You've proven with your above qoute, that you haven't properly understood Ibn Taymiyyah.

                      And your words make me speechless to be honest.
                      FYI: Intercession can only happen by the permission of Allah ta'ala and likewise supplication (it will only be accepted, if Allah ta'ala wants that). So asking Allah ta'ala to accept the intercession is nothing wrong. This is from the abc of Islam and even your Ibn Taymiyyah does not argue like you. Infact he uses that part of the narration against his opponents to act as if Tawassul through supplication only is meant and not Tawassul through the blessed person/essence.

                      Other than that: The issue is not about hearing or not hearing. Please understand that Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is himself blessed, so the one mentioning him wants to attain blessings from Allah ta'ala through his blessed person. If seeking blessings through his relics is allowed than what about his blessed person/essence?

                      And: Seeking aid with the creation is in every case done only metaphorically, because real help comes at all times from Allah ta'ala alone without any partners, because nothing can change in the creation without the permission, knowledge and power of Allah ta'ala. This much should be known to every Muslim.

                      (The rest of your claims in your following posts will also be answered inshallah.)
                      Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 23-10-18, 10:48 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        Note that I said that Ibn Taymiyyah critisized 'Uthman bin Hunayf's - radhiallahu 'anhu - position and rejected his position. Is this a lie? Is this deception? NO!
                        Then why all these accusations, when I said the truth?
                        Well, you're the one who's unable to understand Ibn Taymiyyah's argument. I'll explain it, but first let's see what the above qoute is actually about.
                        You have to be able to identify what Ibn Taymiyyah disagrees with and what he simply does not accept from the argument of Ash'aris/Sufis regarding the Hadith. After identifying these different points in his argument, then you can say what parts he rejects, criticizes, etc. You haven't demonstrated that you can do this, yet.

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        This is what Ibn Taymiyyah said right before the above qoute which was mentioned by you:
                        Ibn Taymiyyah mentions one of the versions of the Hadith of the blind man (NOT the man in need!) [U]where Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - says at the end "and if there is a need, then do the same". Ibn Taymiyyah then tries to act as if this addition is most likely not from the words of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, but maybe taken from the words of 'Uthman bin Hunayf, radhiallahu 'anhu. (As if this is a guessing-game!)
                        This is the addition that your qoute is about. It's obvious that you haven't even understood that.
                        Ibn Taymiyyah has two issues with the addition- 1) he believes it is weak due to the narrator Hammad bin Salamah relating the addition and Shu'bah, who is stronger than him, not relating it. So, the addition would be a Shadhdh addition and not acceptable; 2) Even, if the Shadhdh were accepted, the additional wording would be Idraaj of Uthman bin Hunayf. The reason for this is because the addition is not mentioned in the original Hadith of the blind man, only in the later recounting of the Shafa'ah in the Athar of the man in need.

                        Also, to be clear, al-Albani also considers the entire story of the man in need to be Munkar, and he quotes at-Tabarani as indicating the same since the narrator Shabeeb bin Sa'eed is alone in narrating it and only certain of his Hadith on authority of his son, are considered authentic.

                        It's also strange that you're insisting on accepting the alleged story about the man in need and Uthman bin Hunayf, out of respect for the Companion, however the story itself is critical of Uthman bin Affan in his denial of seeing to the need of the man in need. So, either we accept the addition of the story of the man in need from the lone narrator Shabeeb bin Sa'eed and attribute something injurious to the integrity of Uthman bin Affan, or we reject the story and allegedly harm the integrity of Ibn Hunayf, according to you.

                        These are the arguments made by no less than 4 scholars regarding rejection of the additional wording and the text of the additional story found in the Athar of the man in need.

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        The ironic thing is that the qoute which you brought proves what I said regarding Ibn Taymiyyah and that his statement "At most, it only means that Uthman bin Hunayf thought that the Du'a can be made by means of some of its [wording]. Thus, [Ibn Hunayf] did not order [the other person] to make the legislated Du'a, rather only a part of it. [Ibn Hunayf] also thought that this was legislated after his death, peace be upon him, while the wording of the Hadith contradicts that."
                        Here he's clearly critisizing the position of 'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - for teaching this supplication after the death of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
                        That is IF the Athar is authentic. This wouldn't be the first time that one Companion contradicts the actions/statements of other Companions who are of a higher level and the scholars take the agreement of the majority over the single view. Taking what the majority are upon and rejecting the single view is not "critical" or "insulting", it's a basic principle in Hadith sciences in determining what is more likely to be correct and Ma'ruuf.

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        It is said to Ibn Taymiyyah: You've lied! He did NOT THINK that this is legislated, rather he KNEW that teaching this supplication after the Prophet's - sallallahu 'alawhi wa sallam - death is legislated, because the wording is general. The wording being general is also understood by the Hadith scholars, which is clear from the chapter they mentioned it.
                        'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - is not a random person, so that Ibn Taymiyyah dares to correct him!
                        These are nothing but appeals to emotion and not academic. Either Ibn Taymiyyah believed the story of the man in need to be authentic or he didn't. If he didn't accept the addition, which is well-known, then there is no reason to pursue that line of argument against Ibn Taymiyyah. When dealing with the scenario of the story of the man in need being authentic, which it isn't, then Ibn Taymiyyah argues that it would still be rejected due to its content, inconsistencies in wording, and contradiction to the well-known actions of Companions like Umar bin al-Khattab and others.

                        This is using the actions of other Companions to determine what is more likely to be correct and true. Stop trying to make this out like it is Ibn Taymiyyah against Ibn Hunayf. It isn't.

                        Otherwise, every time a Hadith scholar weakens an Athar or Hadith it would be an "insult" or "criticism" of the Companion who it is alleged to be from.

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        O Allah, grant him intercession for me and its different versions, while arguing that this clearly shows that only Tawassul through his supplication and not his blessed person is meant. And he also mentions that 'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - did not teach this part of the Hadith (which he has also stated in your qoute) and thinks that this somehow supports his position.
                        Now this obviously is a weird argument that Ibn Taymiyyah makes, becauses the meaning of the supplication does not change with or without that part. It also shows how confused Ibn Taymiyyah actually was regarding Shafa'a and Tawassul.
                        Yeah. Let's all believe that Ibn Taymiyyah was confused about this matter and Abu Sulayman is the first person in history to discover this confusion.

                        The Hadith of the blind man contains Tawassul in his going to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and then Shafa'ah in the part after he made ablution and supplicated that Allah grant him intercession.

                        The Athar of the man in need contains only Shafa'ah, although the wording of the Du'a contain Tawassul. It wouldn't actually be Tawassul since the wording, IF accepted would be Tawqeefi and not using the Prophet as a Waseelah.

                        You're the one confused and you claim that it is Ibn Taymiyyah. I haven't seen such arrogance in a while.

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        I ask again and again: Which companion or scholar prior to Ibn Taymiyyah agreed with Ibn Taymiyyah?
                        The burden of proof is on the claimant. Ibn Taymiyyah was not establishing a new ruling in Islam, rather he was defending the status quo wherein the Prophet, peace be upon him, is not used as a Waseelah after his death. In terms of asking for his intercession, then it is asked for through supplicating directly to Allah.

                        The burden is on you to prove that anyone from the Companions or Salaf used the Prophet as a Waseelah or addressed him directly for intercession after his death.

                        No one from the Salaf did this and all you have is a Shadhdh addition to an authentic Hadith that shows Waseelah during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

                        This is not proof. And the lack of any Companions or Salaf acting upon this Shadhdh addition is conclusive proof that it simply did not exist. Ibn Taymiyyah is only dealing with this issue when he is because of later scholars trying to establish the practice.

                        Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                        You've proven with your above qoute, that you haven't properly understood Ibn Taymiyyah.
                        And your words make me speechless to be honest.
                        FYI: Intercession can only happen by the permission of Allah ta'ala and likewise supplication (it will only be accepted, if Allah ta'ala wants that). So asking Allah ta'ala to accept the intercession is nothing wrong. This is from the abc of Islam and even your Ibn Taymiyyah does not argue like you. Infact he uses that part of the narration against his opponents to act as if Tawassul through supplication only is meant and not Tawassul through the blessed person/essence.
                        If you think Ibn Taymiyyah is confused, then I can't take you seriously when you think someone lowly like me is confused.

                        Comment


                        • Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 24-10-18, 05:56 AM.

                          Comment


                          • See the discussion of all the points I raised in the following texts:

                            Kashf Shubuhat as-Sufiyyah, p. 89-91
                            Muhibbat ar-Rusul bayn al-Itiba' wal-Ibdtida, p. 267
                            at-Tawdhih ar-Rashid fi Sharh il-Tawhid, p. p. 419
                            Ijalat ar-Raghib, vol. 2, p. 709
                            at-Tawassul, Anwa'ahu wa Ahkamahu, p. 81

                            I think you need to up your game a little bit and see what scholars have said about these issues before you continue.

                            Apparently, you don't know enough about the Hadith sciences or non-Ash'ari talking points to have this discussion.

                            The story about the man in need is not a Hadith. It is an Athar. Do you know the difference? That Athar contains an authentic part of a matn from the Hadith about the blind man. That does not make the entire matn of the Athar authentic.

                            They ARE NOT two separate "Hadith". One is an authentic Hadith and the other is a report with an excerpt of an authentic Hadith with a weak addition in the form of a story.

                            We can go back and forth all day about what Ibn Taymiyyah said or didn't say. It doesn't really matter what you or I think. The important thing is to quote scholarship. You simply refuse to do so and instead want to spend all day parsing the words of Ibn Taymiyyah and holding it to the standard of your own interpretation and deductions.

                            Can't you quote any scholars explaining the "mistakes" of Ibn Taymiyyah in his Qa'idah Jaleelah
                            Last edited by AbuNajm; 24-10-18, 07:02 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                              We can go back and forth all day about what Ibn Taymiyyah said or didn't say. It doesn't really matter what you or I think. The important thing is to quote scholarship. You simply refuse to do so and instead want to spend all day parsing the words of Ibn Taymiyyah and holding it to the standard of your own interpretation and deductions.
                              AbuNajm, when you've misunderstood something and someone corrects you, then there is nothing wrong when you admit it. We're all human beings and may commit mistakes. What is however not acceptable is that you ignore what is being said and act as if there is no mistake in your understanding. And thereafter you speak about "amateur analysis". First learn to understand Arabic texts properly (being able to translate is not enough).

                              You first qouted a statement of Ibn Taymiyyah where he was speaking regarding an addition and you wrongly thought that he's speaking regarding the incident of the man in need and came up with an argument that not even Ibn Taymiyyah would support. I posted the context of the statement and showed to you that he was actually speaking regarding one of the versions of the Hadith of the blind man which was reported through Hammad bin Salama where Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - says at the end "and if there is a need, then do the same" ("وإن كانت حاجة فافعل مثل ذلك"). Ibn Taymiyyah then states that this addition is not mentioned by Shu'ba and Rawh bin al-Qasim and that they're better in memorization than Hammad and then argues that this is most likely not the words of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and that it maybe from the words of 'Uthman bin Hunayf, radhiallahu 'anhu.
                              So, are you able to deny what I've mentioned and that you had a misunderstanding? NO!

                              Note that Ibn Taymiyyah does not reject the authencity of the incidence with the man in need. So there was no point from the very beginning for you to mention this qoute! Did you get this much?

                              Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                              See the discussion of all the points I raised in the following texts:

                              Kashf Shubuhat as-Sufiyyah, p. 89-91
                              Muhibbat ar-Rusul bayn al-Itiba' wal-Ibdtida, p. 267
                              at-Tawdhih ar-Rashid fi Sharh il-Tawhid, p. p. 419
                              Ijalat ar-Raghib, vol. 2, p. 709
                              at-Tawassul, Anwa'ahu wa Ahkamahu, p. 81

                              I think you need to up your game a little bit and see what scholars have said about these issues before you continue.
                              Apparently, you don't know enough about the Hadith sciences or non-Ash'ari talking points to have this discussion.
                              The story about the man in need is not a Hadith. It is an Athar. Do you know the difference? That Athar contains an authentic part of a matn from the Hadith about the blind man. That does not make the entire matn of the Athar authentic.
                              They ARE NOT two separate "Hadith". One is an authentic Hadith and the other is a report with an excerpt of an authentic Hadith with a weak addition in the form of a story.
                              First of all: You mentioning "Salafi" books is not what "scholars have said". When you bring us classical scholars then one can take it serious. As for mentioning "Salafi" liars and deceivers, then whatever they argue is worthless.
                              You ignored what major Shafi'i scholars like Imam al-Mawardi (d. 448 AH), al-Qadhi Abu al-Tayyib (d. 450 AH), Imam al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH), Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH), Imam Kamal al-Din ibn al-Zamlakani (d. 727 AH), Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH), Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni (d. 829 AH), Imam al-Samhudi (d. 911 AH), Imam al-Qastallani (d. 923 AH), Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyyah al-Ansari (d. 926 AH), Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH), Imam Shihab al-Din al-Ramli (d. 957 AH), Imam Shams al-Din al-Ramli (d. 1004 AH) and other than them said regarding seeking intercession through the Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and then have the nerves to bring me people who've no connection to the classical scholars at all and have come more than 1300 and 1400 years after the Hijrah claiming that this is what the "scholars have said"!

                              As for "Hadith" and "Athar": The scholars of Hadith have used the word "Hadith" for narrations which are Marfu' and also those who are Mawquf. This is something mentioned by Hadith scholars like Imam Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani (d. 852 AH) in his Nukhba, Imam Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 AH) in his Muqaddima and other than them. So you've no point here.

                              Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                              Can't you quote any scholars explaining the "mistakes" of Ibn Taymiyyah in his Qa'idah Jaleelah?
                              Among the scholars who've refuted Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH) regarding his rejection of taking our beloved Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - as a means to one's Lord and seeking his intercession are people like Imam Shams al-Din al-Jazari (d. 711 AH), Imam Najm al-Din al-Tufi (d. 716 AH), Imam Taqi al-Din al-Subki (d. 756 AH), Imam Taqi al-Din al-Hisni (d. 829 AH), Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 AH) and other than them.

                              Like already mentioned: Ibn Taymiyyah said that this addition is not mentioned by Shu'ba and Rawh bin al-Qasim and that they were better in memorization than Hammad and then argues that this is most likely not the words of Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and that it maybe from the words of 'Uthman bin Hunayf, radhiallahu 'anhu.
                              There is one problem here and that is: Hammad bin Salama is from the Rijal of Muslim and trustworthy and an addition by a trustworthy person that does not oppose what others have reported is actually acceptable as stated by scholars of Hadith like Imam Ibn al-Salah in his Muqaddima ("إذا انفرد الراوي بشيء نظر فيه‏:‏ فإن كان ما انفرد به مخالفا لما رواه من هو أولى منه بالحفظ لذلك وأضبط كان ما انفرد به شاذا مردودا، وإن لم تكن فيه مخالفة لما رواه غيره، وإنما هو أمر رواه هو ولم يروه غيره، فينظر في هذا الراوي المُنفرد‏:‏ فإن كان عدلا حافظا موثوقا بإتقانه وضبطه قبل ما انفرد به، ولم يقدح الانفراد فيه، كما فيما سبق من الأمثلة‏.‏وإن لم يكن ممن يوثق بحفظه وإتقانه لذلك الذي انفرد به كان انفراده خارما له، مزحزحا له عن حيز الصحيح").

                              Originally posted by AbuNajm View Post
                              The author continues:

                              زيادة الثانية: قصة الرجل مع عثمان بن عفان، وتوسله به - صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم - حتى قضى له حاجته، وأخرجها الطبراني في (المعجم الصغير) وفي (الكبير) من طريق عبد الله بن وهب عن شبيب بن سعيد المكي قال الطبراني: (لم يروه عن روح بن القاسم إلا شبيب بن سعيد أبو سعيد المكي وهو ثقة، وهو الذي يحدث عنه أحمد بن شبيب عن أبيه عن يونس بن يزيد الأيلي، وقد روى هذا الحديث شعبة عن أبي جعفر الخطمي - واسمه عمير بن يزيد - وهو ثقة تفرد به عثمان بن عمر بن فارس عن شعبة، والحديث صحيح).
                              قال الشيخ الألباني: لا شك في صحة الحديث، وإنما البحث الآن في هذه القصة التي تفرد بها شبيب بن سعيد كما قال الطبراني، وخلاصة القول: إن هذه القصة ضعيفة منكرة، لأمور ثلاثة:
                              ضعف حفظ المتفرد بها، والاختلاف عليه فيها، ومخالفته للثقات الذين لم يذكروها في الحديث، وأمر واحد من هذه الأمور كاف لإسقاط هذه القصة، فكيف بها مجتمعة؟
                              * الطبراني إنما صحح الحديث فقط دون القصة، بدليل قوله: (قد روى الحديث شعبة ... والحديث صحيح) فهذا نص على أنه أراد حديث شعبة، وشعبة لم يرو هذه القصة، فلم يصححها إذن الطبراني، فلا حجة لهم في كلامه.
                              * وفي القصة جملة إذا تأمل فيها العاقل العارف بفضائل الصحابة - رضي الله عنهم - وجدها من الأدلة الأخرى على نكارتها وضعفها، وهي أن الخليفة الراشد عثمان - رضي الله عنه - كان لا ينظر في حاجة ذلك الرجل، ولا يلتفت إليه! فكيف يتفق هذا مع ما صح عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم - أن الملائكة تستحي من عثمان، ومع ما عرف به - رضي الله عنه - من رفقه بالناس، وبره بهم، ولينه معهم؟ هذا كله يجعلنا نستبعد وقوع ذلك منه، لأنه ظلم يتنافى مع شمائله - رضي الله عنه - وأرضاه

                              The Second Addition: the story of the man with Uthman bin Affan and his seeking a means through the Prophet, peace be upon him, until his need was fulfilled. At-Tabarani brought it out in al-Mu'jam as-Saghir and al-Kabir from a pathway of Abd Allah bin Wahb, on authority of Shabeeb bin Sa'id al-Makki. At-Tabarani said: "None transmitted on authority of Rawh bin al-Qasim except Shabeeb bin Sa'id, Abu Sa'id al-Makki and he is trustworthy. It is that which Ahmad bin Shabeeb narrates on authority of his father, on authority of Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli. Shu'bah has also transmitted this Hadith on authority of Abi Ja'far al-Khatami, and his name is Umayr bin Yazid, and he is trustworthy. Uthman bin Faris is alone in narrating it on authority of Shu'bah. And the Hadith is authentic.
                              Shaykh al-Albani said: There is no doubt about the authenticity of the Hadith. The only investigation now is in this story [of the man in need] that Shabeeb bin Sa'id is alone in narrating, as at-Tabarani said; and specifically the view that indeed this story [of the man in need] is weak and rejected due to three reasons:
                              1) the weakness of the memory of the one who is alone in narrating it and;
                              2) the differing over it with regards to him and;
                              3) his contradiction of those who are trustworthy that did not mention it in the Hadith.
                              Any one of these matters is sufficient to drop this story [of the man in need], so how about all of them together?
                              At-Tabarani only authenticated this Hadith without the story [of the man in need], as evidenced by his saying: "Shu'bah has transmitted the Hadith ... and the Hadith is authentic." So, this registers that he means the Hadith of Shu'bah and Shu'bah did not transmit the story [of the man in need]. So, at-Tabarani did not authenticate it, therefore there is no proof for them in his words.
                              And regarding the story [of the man in need] in general, if an intelligent, aware person scrutinizes it with respect to the superiority of the Companions, Allah be pleased with them, he would arrive at, from another form of evidence, its rejection and weakness; and it is that the Khalifah Rashidah Uthman, Allah be pleased with him, did not see to the need of that man and did not turn to him! Thus, how can this be in agreement with what is sound on authority of the Prophet, peace be upon him, that the angels were shy from Uthman; and with what is known of him- his kindness to people, his goodness towards them, and his softness with them? All of this makes us distance the occurrence of that [story] from him because it is an oppression that is in contradiction with his character and goodwill...
                              I'm rather speechless at the amount of deception in the above qoute! It's as if he thinks that his readers are all idiots without any intellect whatsoever!

                              First: Al-Albani is not qualified to judge the strength of Ahadith and this because he's mostly self-taught and has not studied the science of Hadith in a systematic way. Please refer to classical scholars if you want to be taken serious.

                              Then: Let us see what Imam al-Tabarani (d. 360 AH) actually did and said:
                              He reported the Hadith of the man in need from the way of Tahir bin 'Isa from Asbagh bin al-Faraj from 'Abdullah bin Wahb from Shabib bin Sa'id al-Makki from Ruh bin al-Qasim from Abi Ja'far al-Khatmi from Abi Umama bin Sahl bin Hunayf from his uncle 'Uthman bin Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - ("حدثنا طاهر بن عيسى بن قيرس المقري المصري التميمي ، حدثنا أصبغ بن الفرج ، حدثنا عبد الله بن وهب ، عن شبيب بن سعيد المكي ، عن روح بن القاسم ، عن أبي جعفر الخطمي المدني ، عن أبي أمامة بن سهل بن حنيف ، عن عمه عثمان بن حنيف"), who teaches the supplication "O Allāh, I ask You and I approach You through your Prophet Muhammad - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam -, the Prophet of Mercy. O Muhammad, I approach my Lord through you that my need be fulfilled." ("اللهم إني أسألك وأتوجه إليك بنبينا محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبي الرحمة ، يا محمد إني أتوجه بك إلى ربي فتقضي لي حاجتي") after the death of Rasulullah - 'alayhi afdhal al-salati wal salam - to a man in need and in this narration Ibn Hunayf - radhiallahu 'anhu - also mentions the incident with the blind man where Rasulullah - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam - himself teaches the mentioned supplication.

                              Then al-Tabarani says:

                              لم يروه عن روح بن القاسم إلا شبيب بن سعيد أبو سعيد المكي ، وهو ثقة وهو الذي يحدث عنه أحمد بن شبيب ، عن أبيه ، عن يونس بن يزيد الأبلي ، وقد روى هذا الحديث شعبة عن أبي جعفر الخطمي واسمه عمير بن يزيد ، وهو ثقة . تفرد به عثمان بن عمر بن فارس بن شعبة ، والحديث صحيح ، وروى هذا الحديث عون بن عمارة ، عن روح بن القاسم ، عن محمد بن المنكدر ، عن جابر رضي الله عنه ، وهم فيه عون بن عمارة والصواب حديث شبيب بن سعيد

                              "None transmitted on authority of Rawh bin al-Qasim except Shabib bin Sa'id Abu Sa'id al-Makki and he is trustworthy. It is that which Ahmad bin Shabib narrates on authority of his father, on authority of Yunus bin Yazid al-Ayli. Shu'ba has also transmitted this Hadith on authority of Abi Ja'far al-Khatmi, and his name is Umayr bin Yazid, and he is trustworthy. Uthman bin Faris is alone in narrating it on authority of Shu'ba. And the Hadith is authentic.
                              The Hadith has also been narrated from 'Awn bin 'Umara from Rawh bin al-Qasim from Muhammad bin al-Munkadir from Jabir, radhiallahu 'anhu. 'Awn bin 'Umara imagined in it, so the correct is the Hadith of Shabib bin Sa'id.
                              "
                              - end of qoute -

                              How al-Albani now claims that only the narration of Shu'ba (where the incidence with the blind man is mentioned) is meant by his statement "the Hadith is authentic" is really beyond me. Note that al-Tabarani after mentioning that only Shabib bin Sa'id Abu Sa'id al-Makki narrated it, he directly mentions that he's trustworthy. And also at the end where the Hadith through 'Awn is mentioned (where the incident with the man in need is not mentioned) he clearly says that the correct here is the Hadith of Shabib bin Sa'id.

                              (Note that Imam al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) also mentioned that the narration of Shabib bin Sa'id is more reliable than that of 'Awn, but al-Albani simply ignored that and claimed that 'Awn is correct!)

                              So the anyone reading this will understand that the incident with the man in need is authentic according to Imam al-Tabarani.
                              This is also what Imam al-Mundhiri (d. 656 AH) understood. For he mentioned the narration that was reported by Imam al-Tabarani completely in his al-Tarhib wal Targhib and thereafter he said:

                              قال الطبراني بعد ذكر طرقه والحديث صحيح

                              "Al-Tabarani after mentioning the ways [of the narration] said: The narration is correct."
                              - end of qoute -

                              Other classical Hadith scholars have also stated that it's correct.


                              For a detailed refutation of al-Albani's claim please read this here (somehow I can't post the link):

                              Epistle in Refutation of al-Albani (on marifah info website)


                              AND something that you like to forget: The Hadith of the blind man is general in it's wording and this means that anyone would understand from it, that it also applies after the death of Rasulullah, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam.
                              Last edited by Abu Sulayman; 25-10-18, 05:09 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post
                                ...
                                I can't be bothered to deal with you any further. You don't respond to direct quotations from scholars. Also, the translations you're providing are amateur at best and don't reflect a understanding of Mustalah al-Hadith or Aqeedah as a science.

                                This is a waste of time.

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X