Very early Hadith books such as the Mussanaf of Abdul Razzaq Ibn Humam
(May Allaah have mercy on him) (126-211 AH)( Ref: Musannaf Abdur Razzaq 4/317) and the Musnad of Ahmed bin Hanbal (May Allaah have mercy on him) (164-241 AH) ( Ref: Musnad Ahmad 2/176 & 6/238)contain Ahadith relating to the virtues of 15th Sha'ban.
Even within the famous Six Books of Hadith (al-Kutub al-Sittah), Trimdhi ( Ref: Jami' Al-Trimidhi: Kitab Al-Sawm, Bab "Ma ja'a fi Laylatin Nisfi min Sha.ban" #739 (Vol.3 p107))and Ibn Majah (Sunan Ibn Majah: Kitab Al-Iqamah, Bab "Ma Ja'a Fi Laylatun Nifsi min Sha'ban" #1388 (Vol. 1 p444) have devoted a special chapter on "The Night of the Middle of Sha'ban" in their Hadith collections. In fact there are over a dozen Ahadith available which establish the significance of the night of the 15th of Sha'ban.
There are many hadith on the merits of this Night and some of them are weak ( dai’f).However, it is to be noted that not all of the 'weak' Ahadith suffer from major weaknesses and in fact the minor weaknesses in some Ahadith are curable and strengthened by other narrations.
( Wahabi Scholar Albani : : Silsilah Al-Ahadith Al Sahihah 3/135)
When all the numerous weak Ahadith are combined together, they reach a level of acceptability among Hadith scholars equivalent to being 'Hasan' (good).
Here are a few Sahih (Authentic) Hadith on the merits on the Night of 15 th of Shaba’an.
Hadith 1
Ibn Hibban narrated from Mu`adh ibn Jabal in his Sahih the following narration which the hadith scholar and editor of the Sahih Shu`ayb Arna'ut confirmed as sound:
The Prophet said : yattali`u Allahu ila khalqihi fi laylati al-nisfi min sha`bana fa-yaghfiru li-jami`i khalqihi illa li mushrikin aw mushahin.
Allah looks at His creation in the night of mid-Sha`ban and He forgives all His creation except for a mushrik (idolater) or a mushahin (one bent on hatred).
( Reference: Al-Tabarani: Al-Mu'jam Al-Kabir 20/108-9, Ibn Hibban:
Sahih Ibn Hibban 7/470, Al-Bayhaqi: Shu'bal Iman 2/288, Abulhasan
Al-Qazwini: Al-Amali 4/2, Ibn 'Asakir: Al-Tarikh 15/302 & Ibn Abi 'Asim:Al-Sunna1/224)
Note :
1)Ibn Hibban (May Allaah have mercy on him) considered this Hadith to be Sahih.
(Ibn Rajab: Lataif Al-Ma'arif 1/224)
2)And Ibn Hajr Al-Haytami (May Allaah have mercy on him) said: "This Hadith is related by Al-Tabarani (May Allaah have mercy on him) in Al-Mu'jam Al-Kabir and Al-Awsat and the narrators of both are trustworthy"(thiqat) ( Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami: Majma' Al-Zawaid 8/65)
3)The great hadith scholar of the present time , Shaykah Shuayb Al-Arna'uat ( Rh) and the self claimed Wahabi hadith scholar Nasiruddin Al-Albani, have also considered this Hadith as 'Sahih'.
( Ref: - Shuayb Al-Arna'ut: Al-Ihsan fi Taqrib Sahih Ibn Hibban 12/481 #5665 & Nasiruddin Al-Albani: Silsilah Al-Ahadith Al-Sahihah 3/135 #1144 )
Hadith 2
There is another identical Hadith related from the Companion Abdullah b.'Amr (May Allaah be pleased with him) which says that the Prophet(Sallalahu Alaihi Wassalam) said: "Allah looks at His creation during the night of the 15th of Sha'ban and He forgives His servants except two- one intent on hatred (mushanin) and a murderer (qatilu nafs).
( Ref : Musnad Ahmad 2/176 #6642. Al-Bazzar also related this Hadith and he classified it as 'hasan'. )
Note :
In his edition of Musnad Ahmed, Shaykh Ahmed Shakir has classified this Hadith as'Sahih' and Nasiruddin Al-Albany classified it is 'Hasan'
( Al-Albani: Silsilah Al-Ahadith Al-Sahihah 3/136).
Hadith 3
A similar narration as above , but narrated by Abu Bakr Siddiq Rd .
It has been classified as sound by Haafiz al-Munzhiri (RA) in his al-Targheeb (vol.3 pg.459). This narration is of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Radhiallaahu Anhu) and is recorded by Imaam Bazzaar (RA) in his Musnad. In fact, Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) has also classified one of its chains as Hasan (sound). (al-Amaalil mutlaqah pgs.119-120)
An important Note:
All the weak hadith which talks about the merits of 15th of Shaba’an, have got only minor weakness in them. Going by the principle of hadith, these weak hadiths also strengthen each other.
Besides the above, there are many other Sahaaba (Radhiallaahu Anhum) that narrated Ahaadith regarding the merit of this night, such as: Abu Hurayra (Musnad al-Bazzaar), Abu Tha’labah (Shu’ubul Imaan), Awf ibn Maalik (Musnad al-Bazzaar), Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-Aas (Musnad Ahmad Hadith6642), Abu Moosa al-Ash’ari (ibn Majah Hadith1390; Shu’ubul Imaan Hadith3833) and others. The collective strength of these narrations cannot be refuted.
What the Scholars have said about this Night:
1) The general virtue of this night has been accepted by many great Ulama of the past. From among many great scholars which have agreed to the virtue of this night are: Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz, Imaam al-Shaafi’ee, Imaam al-Awzaa’ie, Attaa ibn Yassaar, Imaam al-Majd ibn Taymiyah, ibn Rajab al-Hambaliy and Hafiz Zaynu-ddeen al-Iraaqiy (Rahmatullaahi alayhim) .
Refer Lataiful Ma’aarif of Hafiz ibn Rajab pgs.263-264 and Faydhul Qadeer vol.2 pg.317.
2) Even Ibn Taymiyya -- the putative authority of "Salafis" -- considered the night of mid-Sha`ban "a night of superior merit" in his Iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqim:
[Some] said: There is no difference between this night (mid-Sha`ban) and other nights of the year. However, the opinion of many of the people of learning, and that of the majority of our companions (i.e. the Hanbali school) and other than them is that it is a night of superior merit, and this is what is indicated by the words of Ahmad (ibn Hanbal), in view of the many ahadith which are transmitted concerning it, and in view of what confirms this from the words and deeds transmitted from the early generations (al-athar al-salafiyya). Some of its merits have been narrated in the books of hadith of the musnad and sunan types. This holds true even if other things have been forged concerning it.
( Ref:Ibn Taymiyya, Iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqim (1369/1950 ed.) p. 302.)
Ibn Taymiayh also said
“ As for the middle night of Sha’baan, there are various narrations that have been narrated regarding its significance and it has been reported from a group of the Salaf (predecessors) that they performed Salaat in it individually, hence, such a deed cannot be disputed.’
(Majmoo’ al-Fataawa ibn Taymiyah vol.23 pg.132)
3) Imam Suyuti (Rh)says in his Haqiqat al-sunna wa al-bid`a:
“As for the night of mid-Sha`ban, it has great merit and it is desirable (mustahabb) to spend part of it in supererogatory worship.”
( Ref: Suyuti, Haqiqat al-sunna wa al-bid`a aw al-amr bi al-ittiba` wa al-nahi `an al-ibtida` (1405/1985 ed.) p. 58. He adds: "However, this must be done alone, not in congregation.")
4. Imam Haskafi ( Rh) said in his Durr al-Mukhtar, one of the primary references in the Hanafi school:
"Among the recommended [prayers] are on. . . . the nights of the two Eids, the middle of Sha`ban, the last ten of Ramadan, and the first [ten] of Dhul-Hijjah”.
5. Imam Nawawi ( Rh) mentioned in his Majmu`, where he also quoted Imam al-Shafi`i from the latter’s al-Umm that it has reached him that there are 5 nights when dua is answered, one of them being the night of the 15th of Sha`ban.
End Note
Only Sahih hadiths have been quoted above. The weak hadith on this topic suffer only from minor weakness . There is general consensus that weak hadiths may be acted upon for virtuous acts, such as voluntary fasting and prayer, as long as the hadith is not excessively weak, returns to a general basis in the Shariah, and one is not convinced that the Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) specifically prescribed it.
There are many other narrations from the Companions and early Muslims confirming the merits of this night as mentioned by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali in his Lata’if al-Ma`arif, and others.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Gay Culture in Christianity!
Archbishop of Canterbury's support for gay marriage revealed
By Tony Grew • August 7, 2008 - 13:34
Correspondence between an evangelical Christian and Rowan Williams has been uncovered which reveals his support for gay marriage.
The letters were written in 2000 and 2001, when Dr Williams was the Archbishop of Wales, and confirm his liberal stance on homosexuality.
He stated in his correspondence with Deborah Pitt, an evangelical who lived in his then-Archdiocese, that parts of the Bible relating to homosexual acts are not aimed at people who are born gay but "heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience."
"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,” read one letter, quoted in The Times.
Archbishop Williams quoted the theologian Jeffrey John to back his position.
In 2003 Dr John was asked to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Reading by Dr Williams, by then Archbishop of Canterbury, after conservative Anglicans objected to the fact that he was in a gay relationship.
Under House of Bishops guidelines, clerics are allowed to enter into a civil partnership as long as they are not engaging in sexual relations.
Lambeth Palace, when asked for a comment on the letters to Ms Pitt, quoted a recent interview in which the Archbishop said:
"When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."
The ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire, was the catalyst for the ongoing crisis in the Anglican communion over gay issues.
At an event in Edinburgh last night Bishop Robinson said he felt personally "disrespected" by the way the Archbishop of Canterbury ignored his letters and banished him from a meeting of Anglican leaders.
"He is no longer the Rowan we once knew. I don't know how he sleeps at night," said Bishop Robinson.
At the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference last week Dr Williams said the "pieces are on the board" for a settlement.
The conference, held once every ten years, is a meeting of the leaders of the Church from around the world.
This year more than 200 bishops boycotted the event.
He also called on American churches not to elect any more gay bishops.
In a sermon on the final day of the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, Dr Williams said: "In these days together we have not overcome our problems or reinvented our structures: that will still take time."
But despite there still being "many questions" on the issue, a Covenant to bind the Communion together is needed, he said: "We may not have put an end to all our problems - but the pieces are on the board."
The Covenant could mean churches with new gay bishops could be expelled from the Anglican Communion.
In a reference to the bishops who refused to attend the Conference Dr Williams said: "In the months ahead it will be important to invite those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages."
He added that the Communion must not just be "an association of polite friends," rather, it must "embrace deeper and more solid ways of recognising and trusting each other
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8634.html
This news article was also available on the UK Guradian online edition , but it has been removed now!
This announcement means , more and more kids will be exploited by the holy fathers of the holy curch in an holy manner to get close to god!
By Tony Grew • August 7, 2008 - 13:34
Correspondence between an evangelical Christian and Rowan Williams has been uncovered which reveals his support for gay marriage.
The letters were written in 2000 and 2001, when Dr Williams was the Archbishop of Wales, and confirm his liberal stance on homosexuality.
He stated in his correspondence with Deborah Pitt, an evangelical who lived in his then-Archdiocese, that parts of the Bible relating to homosexual acts are not aimed at people who are born gay but "heterosexuals looking for sexual variety in their experience."
"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness,” read one letter, quoted in The Times.
Archbishop Williams quoted the theologian Jeffrey John to back his position.
In 2003 Dr John was asked to stand down from his appointment as Bishop of Reading by Dr Williams, by then Archbishop of Canterbury, after conservative Anglicans objected to the fact that he was in a gay relationship.
Under House of Bishops guidelines, clerics are allowed to enter into a civil partnership as long as they are not engaging in sexual relations.
Lambeth Palace, when asked for a comment on the letters to Ms Pitt, quoted a recent interview in which the Archbishop said:
"When I teach as a bishop I teach what the Church teaches. In controverted areas it is my responsibility to teach what the Church has said and why."
The ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire, was the catalyst for the ongoing crisis in the Anglican communion over gay issues.
At an event in Edinburgh last night Bishop Robinson said he felt personally "disrespected" by the way the Archbishop of Canterbury ignored his letters and banished him from a meeting of Anglican leaders.
"He is no longer the Rowan we once knew. I don't know how he sleeps at night," said Bishop Robinson.
At the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference last week Dr Williams said the "pieces are on the board" for a settlement.
The conference, held once every ten years, is a meeting of the leaders of the Church from around the world.
This year more than 200 bishops boycotted the event.
He also called on American churches not to elect any more gay bishops.
In a sermon on the final day of the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, Dr Williams said: "In these days together we have not overcome our problems or reinvented our structures: that will still take time."
But despite there still being "many questions" on the issue, a Covenant to bind the Communion together is needed, he said: "We may not have put an end to all our problems - but the pieces are on the board."
The Covenant could mean churches with new gay bishops could be expelled from the Anglican Communion.
In a reference to the bishops who refused to attend the Conference Dr Williams said: "In the months ahead it will be important to invite those absent from Lambeth to be involved in these next stages."
He added that the Communion must not just be "an association of polite friends," rather, it must "embrace deeper and more solid ways of recognising and trusting each other
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8634.html
This news article was also available on the UK Guradian online edition , but it has been removed now!
This announcement means , more and more kids will be exploited by the holy fathers of the holy curch in an holy manner to get close to god!
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi and Tasawwuf ??
The Wahabis have a bad habit of pick and chose.With the passage of time , Ibn Taymiah will be sidelined from Wahabi books and Albani , Ibn Baz, Uthaymeen will be projected as ' Mujtahid". There are only 2 stage into which all the wahabis can be categorized:
1) Those who have already become Mujtahid.
2) Those who are in the process of becoming a Mujtahid.
The reviver of kahwarism in the present era, Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi Al tamimi, wrote following words regarsding 'sufis'.
It should be noted that his writing in praise or support of tawassuf does not mean he was a good man or a sunni muslim. Even enemies of Islam agree that Makkah and Medina are 2 holy places. If some enemy of Islam speaks some truth about Islam , it does not mean he becomes a "muslim". Same goes with Ibn abdul wahab najdi. He could not deny the imporatnce and teachings of tasawwuf. After internet was filled with proof showing ibn taymiah himself was linked to Qadri sufi tariqah , the wahabis coined a new term" extreme sufis'!
All this is an attempt to confuse revert brothers and sisters with the movement headed by some bedoiun who is issuing fatwa to invite STAR BUCKS in Makkah. The tawil given by the blind followers of Wahabi shaykh are: we will use the income from star bucks ( owned by a jew) to improve facility for pilgrims!
It is a lie. Rather one can say: I will kill 100 muslims and after their death I will use their organs to save a few of my relatives !
READ, WHAT IBN ABDUL WAHAB AL NAJDI AL TAMIMI , said about tasawwuf.
Ibn `Abd al- Wahhab said in the third volume of his complete works published by Ibn Sa`ud University, on page 31 of the Fatawa wa rasa'il, Fifth Question:
Know -- may Allah guide you -- that Allah Almighty has sent Muhammad, blessings and peace upon him, with right guidance, consisting in beneficial knowledge, and with true religion consisting in righteous action. The adherents of religion are as follows: among them are those who concern themselves with learning and fiqh, and discourse about it, such as the jurists; and among them are those who concern themselves with worship and the pursuit of the Hereafter, such as the Sufis. Allah has sent His Prophet with this religion which encompasses both kinds, that is: fiqh and tasawwuf
1) Those who have already become Mujtahid.
2) Those who are in the process of becoming a Mujtahid.
The reviver of kahwarism in the present era, Ibn Abdul Wahab Najdi Al tamimi, wrote following words regarsding 'sufis'.
It should be noted that his writing in praise or support of tawassuf does not mean he was a good man or a sunni muslim. Even enemies of Islam agree that Makkah and Medina are 2 holy places. If some enemy of Islam speaks some truth about Islam , it does not mean he becomes a "muslim". Same goes with Ibn abdul wahab najdi. He could not deny the imporatnce and teachings of tasawwuf. After internet was filled with proof showing ibn taymiah himself was linked to Qadri sufi tariqah , the wahabis coined a new term" extreme sufis'!
All this is an attempt to confuse revert brothers and sisters with the movement headed by some bedoiun who is issuing fatwa to invite STAR BUCKS in Makkah. The tawil given by the blind followers of Wahabi shaykh are: we will use the income from star bucks ( owned by a jew) to improve facility for pilgrims!
It is a lie. Rather one can say: I will kill 100 muslims and after their death I will use their organs to save a few of my relatives !
READ, WHAT IBN ABDUL WAHAB AL NAJDI AL TAMIMI , said about tasawwuf.
Ibn `Abd al- Wahhab said in the third volume of his complete works published by Ibn Sa`ud University, on page 31 of the Fatawa wa rasa'il, Fifth Question:
Know -- may Allah guide you -- that Allah Almighty has sent Muhammad, blessings and peace upon him, with right guidance, consisting in beneficial knowledge, and with true religion consisting in righteous action. The adherents of religion are as follows: among them are those who concern themselves with learning and fiqh, and discourse about it, such as the jurists; and among them are those who concern themselves with worship and the pursuit of the Hereafter, such as the Sufis. Allah has sent His Prophet with this religion which encompasses both kinds, that is: fiqh and tasawwuf
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Authenticity of Hadith Regarding Salat-ut-Tasbeeh
The ruling regarding Salat-ut-Tasbeeh is that it is permissible and, in fact, very meritorious.
The Hadith in question has been accepted as Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (sound) by various eminent Masters of Hadith. Those that claimed that it was weak did so on the basis of a few chains of the narration. However, if all the various chains be gathered, there will remain no doubt as to its authenticity.
Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani (RA) states that sometimes a Muhaddith classifies a certain Hadith as weak, very weak or even as a fabrication based on one or two chains that were available to him, whereas there may be other chains through which that Hadith may be classified as Hasan (sound) or even Sahih (authentic). (Anukat vol.2 pg.848-850)
Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) then mentions the Hadith of Salat-ut-Tasbeeh as an example for this and he accepts it to be in fact either Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (sound) and not Dha'eef (weak). (Ibid)
Imaam Tirmidhi (RA) says that many Ulama, among them Imaam Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak (RA), have accepted the virtue of Salat-ut-Tasbeeh. (Tirmidhi vol.2 pg.348; Hadith 481)
Imaam Bayhaqi (RA) states that ' Salat-ut-Tasbeeh was the practice of Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak and may pious predecessors of various eras. And this in fact lends strength to its acceptability.' (Shu'ubul Imaam vol.1 pg.427; Ilmiyyah)
Allaamah Munzhiri (RA) mentions: Many Muhadditheen have accepted it's authority from among them are: 1) Imaam Abu-bakr al-Ajurriy, 2) Imaam Abu Muhammad al-Misriy (Ustaadh of Allaamah Munzhiri), 3) Hafiz Abul-Hasan Maqdisi (Ustaadh of Allaamah Munzhiri), 4) Imaam Abu-Dawud and 5) Imaam Haakim. (Targheeb vol.1 pg.468)
Allaamah Suyuti (RA) has enumerated upto 20 great Muhadditheen who have accepted its authenticity. Besides those that are mentioned above, some of them are: 6) Hafiz Abu-Sa'eed al-Sam'aaniy, 7) Hafiz Khateeb al-Baghdaadiy, 8) Hafiz ibn-Mandah, 9) Imaam Bayhaqi, 10) Imaam al-Subkiy, 11) Imaam al-Nawawiy, 12) Haafiz ibn al-Salat, 13) Hafiz Abu-Musa al-Madiniy, 14) Hafiz al-Alaaeiy, 15) Imaam Siraaj-ud-Deen al-Bulqiniy, 16) Hafiz al-Zarkashiy and a few others. (al-Laalil Masnoo'ah vol.2 pg.42-44)
The following list of Muhadditheen is of those who have written detailed articles on this matter: 1) Imaam al-Daraaniy, 2) Imaam Abu-Musa al-Madiniy,
3) Imaam ibn Mandah, 4) Hafiz ibn Naasirud-Deen ad-Dimishqiy, Allaamah al-Suyyooti.
As for the claim of the writer, 'It had been unknown to the great Imaams. and presumably Imaam Shaafi'ee (RA).'
This is a claim that lacks the support of explicit quotations from those illustrious Imams as well as any reference. In fact, the books of Hanafi Fiqh support the view of its acceptance. (refer Shaami vol.2 pg.27; HM Saeed). And several Shaafi'ee Jurists have also endorsed it, namely Imaam al-Muhaamiliy, Imaam al-Juwaini, Imaam-ul-haramayn, Imaam Ghazaaliy, Imaam Raafi'ee and others. (al-La-aaliy vol.2 pg.43; al-Azkaar of Imaam Nawawiy pg.242)
Khateeb Baghdaadiy (RA), who is Maaliki, states that there is no reason for it not being permissible. In fact, Imaam ibn Hajar (RA) has mentioned a quotation from Imaam Maaliki from which it could be deduced that it was acceptable in his Madhab. (refer Futuhaat al-Rabbaaniyyah vol.4 pg.321) Qaadhi Iyaad Maaliki (RA) has also accepted its virtue. (Ibid)
As far as Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RA) is concerned, Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) has stated that he had reversed his decision and was possibly inclined towards its acceptability later on. (Futuhaat al-Rabbaaniyyah vol.4 pg.318, 320)
From the above, it is apparent that there can be no doubt regarding Salat-ut-Tasbeeh being an act of virtue which has been established authentically. And is accepted by a large number of celebrated scholars of Hadith as well as the scholars of Fiqh (jurisprudence).
Imaams Taajud-Deen Subki (RA) and Badrud-Deen Zarkashi have stated that it is from the fundamentals of Deen and anyone who discards it despite knowing its virtue is not on the correct path. (Futuhaat vol.4 pg.321-322)
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
The Hadith in question has been accepted as Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (sound) by various eminent Masters of Hadith. Those that claimed that it was weak did so on the basis of a few chains of the narration. However, if all the various chains be gathered, there will remain no doubt as to its authenticity.
Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani (RA) states that sometimes a Muhaddith classifies a certain Hadith as weak, very weak or even as a fabrication based on one or two chains that were available to him, whereas there may be other chains through which that Hadith may be classified as Hasan (sound) or even Sahih (authentic). (Anukat vol.2 pg.848-850)
Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) then mentions the Hadith of Salat-ut-Tasbeeh as an example for this and he accepts it to be in fact either Sahih (authentic) or Hasan (sound) and not Dha'eef (weak). (Ibid)
Imaam Tirmidhi (RA) says that many Ulama, among them Imaam Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak (RA), have accepted the virtue of Salat-ut-Tasbeeh. (Tirmidhi vol.2 pg.348; Hadith 481)
Imaam Bayhaqi (RA) states that ' Salat-ut-Tasbeeh was the practice of Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak and may pious predecessors of various eras. And this in fact lends strength to its acceptability.' (Shu'ubul Imaam vol.1 pg.427; Ilmiyyah)
Allaamah Munzhiri (RA) mentions: Many Muhadditheen have accepted it's authority from among them are: 1) Imaam Abu-bakr al-Ajurriy, 2) Imaam Abu Muhammad al-Misriy (Ustaadh of Allaamah Munzhiri), 3) Hafiz Abul-Hasan Maqdisi (Ustaadh of Allaamah Munzhiri), 4) Imaam Abu-Dawud and 5) Imaam Haakim. (Targheeb vol.1 pg.468)
Allaamah Suyuti (RA) has enumerated upto 20 great Muhadditheen who have accepted its authenticity. Besides those that are mentioned above, some of them are: 6) Hafiz Abu-Sa'eed al-Sam'aaniy, 7) Hafiz Khateeb al-Baghdaadiy, 8) Hafiz ibn-Mandah, 9) Imaam Bayhaqi, 10) Imaam al-Subkiy, 11) Imaam al-Nawawiy, 12) Haafiz ibn al-Salat, 13) Hafiz Abu-Musa al-Madiniy, 14) Hafiz al-Alaaeiy, 15) Imaam Siraaj-ud-Deen al-Bulqiniy, 16) Hafiz al-Zarkashiy and a few others. (al-Laalil Masnoo'ah vol.2 pg.42-44)
The following list of Muhadditheen is of those who have written detailed articles on this matter: 1) Imaam al-Daraaniy, 2) Imaam Abu-Musa al-Madiniy,
3) Imaam ibn Mandah, 4) Hafiz ibn Naasirud-Deen ad-Dimishqiy, Allaamah al-Suyyooti.
As for the claim of the writer, 'It had been unknown to the great Imaams. and presumably Imaam Shaafi'ee (RA).'
This is a claim that lacks the support of explicit quotations from those illustrious Imams as well as any reference. In fact, the books of Hanafi Fiqh support the view of its acceptance. (refer Shaami vol.2 pg.27; HM Saeed). And several Shaafi'ee Jurists have also endorsed it, namely Imaam al-Muhaamiliy, Imaam al-Juwaini, Imaam-ul-haramayn, Imaam Ghazaaliy, Imaam Raafi'ee and others. (al-La-aaliy vol.2 pg.43; al-Azkaar of Imaam Nawawiy pg.242)
Khateeb Baghdaadiy (RA), who is Maaliki, states that there is no reason for it not being permissible. In fact, Imaam ibn Hajar (RA) has mentioned a quotation from Imaam Maaliki from which it could be deduced that it was acceptable in his Madhab. (refer Futuhaat al-Rabbaaniyyah vol.4 pg.321) Qaadhi Iyaad Maaliki (RA) has also accepted its virtue. (Ibid)
As far as Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (RA) is concerned, Hafiz ibn Hajar (RA) has stated that he had reversed his decision and was possibly inclined towards its acceptability later on. (Futuhaat al-Rabbaaniyyah vol.4 pg.318, 320)
From the above, it is apparent that there can be no doubt regarding Salat-ut-Tasbeeh being an act of virtue which has been established authentically. And is accepted by a large number of celebrated scholars of Hadith as well as the scholars of Fiqh (jurisprudence).
Imaams Taajud-Deen Subki (RA) and Badrud-Deen Zarkashi have stated that it is from the fundamentals of Deen and anyone who discards it despite knowing its virtue is not on the correct path. (Futuhaat vol.4 pg.321-322)
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Sunday, August 3, 2008
The Tribe of Banu Tamim in Quran !
An early indication of the nature of the Tamimites is given by Allah himself in Sura al-Hujurat. ( Sura/ chapter 49, Aya 4 )
In aya 4 of this sura, He says: ‘Those who call you from behind the chambers: most of them have no sense.’ The occasion for revelation (sabab al-nuzul) here was as follows:
‘The “chambers” (hujurat) were spaces enclosed by walls. Each of the wives of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) had one of them. The aya was revealed in connection with the delegation of the Banu Tamim who came to the Prophet (s.w.s.). They entered the mosque, and approached the chambers of his wives. They stood outside them and called: “Muhammad! Come out to us!” an action which expressed a good deal of harshness, crudeness and disrespect. Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) waited a while, and then came out to them. One of them, known as al-Aqra‘ ibn Habis, said: “Muhammad! My praise is an ornament, and my denunciation brings shame!” And the Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “Woe betide you! That is the due of Allah.”’ (Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy, al-Tashil [Beirut, 1403], p.702. See also the other tafsir works; also Ibn Hazm, Jamharat ansab al-‘Arab [Cairo, 1382], 208, in the chapter on Tamim.)
This tribe has been disrespectful to prophet, right from the begining. Ibn Abdul wahab najdi , who killed muslim men and made halal ( permissible) for his followers to rape muslim women , was from this tribe.! He showed disrespect to prophet in his writings.
In aya 4 of this sura, He says: ‘Those who call you from behind the chambers: most of them have no sense.’ The occasion for revelation (sabab al-nuzul) here was as follows:
‘The “chambers” (hujurat) were spaces enclosed by walls. Each of the wives of Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) had one of them. The aya was revealed in connection with the delegation of the Banu Tamim who came to the Prophet (s.w.s.). They entered the mosque, and approached the chambers of his wives. They stood outside them and called: “Muhammad! Come out to us!” an action which expressed a good deal of harshness, crudeness and disrespect. Allah’s Messenger (s.w.s.) waited a while, and then came out to them. One of them, known as al-Aqra‘ ibn Habis, said: “Muhammad! My praise is an ornament, and my denunciation brings shame!” And the Messenger (s.w.s.) replied: “Woe betide you! That is the due of Allah.”’ (Imam Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Juzayy, al-Tashil [Beirut, 1403], p.702. See also the other tafsir works; also Ibn Hazm, Jamharat ansab al-‘Arab [Cairo, 1382], 208, in the chapter on Tamim.)
This tribe has been disrespectful to prophet, right from the begining. Ibn Abdul wahab najdi , who killed muslim men and made halal ( permissible) for his followers to rape muslim women , was from this tribe.! He showed disrespect to prophet in his writings.
Israel and Money!!
JERUSALEM - A New York fundraiser and a Las Vegas gambling czar have become major headaches for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, raising new questions about the relationship between Jewish Americans and the Jewish state.
While Israel has had close ties with the U.S. Jewish community throughout its history, some wealthy American donors have extended their influence to Israel's halls of power, crossing what many Israelis see as a red line. The cases of fundraiser Morris Talansky and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson have drawn new attention to this sometimes blurry relationship.
Talansky's testimony that he handed Olmert cash-stuffed envelopes in the years before he became prime minister is at the center of a scandal that may topple the Israeli leader. Olmert's lawyers are set to cross-examine Talansky on Thursday.
Adelson, meanwhile, has launched a newspaper that makes no bones about its disgust with Olmert.
Neither man is suspected of anything illicit. But there is an important similarity. Both have chosen to move beyond philanthropy to political activism, using their money to influence decision-making in a country they love but which is not their home.
"It's simple: Whoever doesn't pay the price does not have the right to get involved," said Matti Golan, an Israeli author who has written about the ties between U.S. Jews and Israel.
The relationship benefits both wealthy U.S. Jews, who get to feel important by hobnobbing with powerful politicians, and Israeli politicians, who can expand their limited pool of donors in Israel and who enjoy getting the royal treatment on trips abroad, he said.
"Who gave American Jews the right to decide what is good or bad for Israel?" said Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, an American Jewish advocacy group. "What are the consequences of their opinion if they are wrong in their assessments? They will sit in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons and say, 'I was wrong,'" Foxman said.
"The fact that you support universities and charitable needs doesn't give you the right to determine issues of life and death," he said.
Israeli law forbids direct foreign donations to political parties and limits donations to individual politicians to a maximum of about $10,000, depending on whether the money is meant for a local election, a national race or an internal party primary.
But other activities aren't restricted. American donors can give money to political causes ranging from hardline groups that promote Jewish settlements in the West Bank to the dovish Peace Now.
In the case of Adelson, he launched a newspaper that harshly criticizes Olmert and is distributed free to hundreds of thousands of Israelis. The newspaper is part of what is widely seen by Adelson as a concerted attempt to replace Olmert with his hardline rival, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israeli political insiders see the paper, Yisrael Hayom — Israel Today — as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. Olmert's media adviser, Jacob Galanti, refuses to refer to it as a newspaper, recently terming it a "printed product."
Adelson, a casino multibillionaire listed by Forbes last year as the third-richest man in America, has long had pull in Israel's corridors of power. In May, when he helped fund a conference convened by President Shimon Peres for Israel's 60th anniversary, he and his wife were seated alongside Olmert and other Israeli leaders.
Nahum Barnea, one of Israel's most respected journalists, later referred in his column to the "gambling mogul from Las Vegas who bought my country's birthday for $3 million."
"Is the country worth so little?" Barnea asked.
Through a representative in Las Vegas, Adelson declined an interview request.
Adelson's paper, a tabloid heavy on sports and celebrity gossip, has extended Adelson's reach to everyday Israelis. It is delivered free of charge to people's doorsteps and distributed at busy intersections.
The newspaper typically carries a front-page editorial blasting Olmert and his government, with long investigative pieces inside on the misdeeds of Olmert and his cronies. Coverage of Netanyahu is generally benign.
Newspaper officials did not return messages seeking comment.
Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, would not comment on Adelson's activities, but noted that Olmert told The Atlantic Monthly in May that there were U.S. Jews "investing a lot of money trying to overthrow the government in Israel."
Until his recent troubles, Olmert welcomed involvement by American Jews. In the years before he became prime minister, he was happy to accept donations from Americans. One donor was Talansky, now the central figure in a corruption scandal that has ravaged what little popularity Olmert had and could force him out of office.
Talansky, who lives on New York's Long Island, made his donations to Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem, a Likud lawmaker and later a Cabinet minister. Testifying in May, Talansky spoke of his deep love for Israel and his conviction that Olmert was the right man to lead the country.
In 2006, Olmert broke away from Likud and led the centrist Kadima Party to victory in national elections. Today, Talansky appears to be bitterly disillusioned with Olmert, and says he believes some of his money went to fund a lavish lifestyle that included expensive cigars, luxury hotels and a vacation in Italy.
Police are investigating and Olmert has said he will resign if indicted. In the meantime, his political rivals have begun the process of replacing him as leader of the Kadima party, with primaries scheduled by the end of September.
Amnon Rubinstein, a prominent Israeli legal expert and a former justice minister, said American Jews "should give money to charity, to universities, to hospitals, but not to political parties."
But across the Israeli political spectrum, it has become a commonly accepted practice.
"Israel has been receiving donations from Diaspora Jews for 60 years," said Eliad Shraga, who founded the country's best-known good governance group, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel. "As long as it's legal, I don't see a problem."
Yossi Beilin of the dovish Meretz Party said the involvement of American Jews, even those with views different from his own, is preferable to apathy.
In the 1990s, Florida bingo magnate Irving Moskowitz set off a political storm by building a Jewish neighborhood in heavily Arab east Jerusalem with the enthusiastic cooperation of Jerusalem's mayor — Olmert. Beilin was an unlikely defender.
"I said I thought he was doing terrible damage, but I couldn't ignore the fact that he cares. I prefer someone who cares about Israel to someone who doesn't," Beilin said.
While Israel has had close ties with the U.S. Jewish community throughout its history, some wealthy American donors have extended their influence to Israel's halls of power, crossing what many Israelis see as a red line. The cases of fundraiser Morris Talansky and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson have drawn new attention to this sometimes blurry relationship.
Talansky's testimony that he handed Olmert cash-stuffed envelopes in the years before he became prime minister is at the center of a scandal that may topple the Israeli leader. Olmert's lawyers are set to cross-examine Talansky on Thursday.
Adelson, meanwhile, has launched a newspaper that makes no bones about its disgust with Olmert.
Neither man is suspected of anything illicit. But there is an important similarity. Both have chosen to move beyond philanthropy to political activism, using their money to influence decision-making in a country they love but which is not their home.
"It's simple: Whoever doesn't pay the price does not have the right to get involved," said Matti Golan, an Israeli author who has written about the ties between U.S. Jews and Israel.
The relationship benefits both wealthy U.S. Jews, who get to feel important by hobnobbing with powerful politicians, and Israeli politicians, who can expand their limited pool of donors in Israel and who enjoy getting the royal treatment on trips abroad, he said.
"Who gave American Jews the right to decide what is good or bad for Israel?" said Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, an American Jewish advocacy group. "What are the consequences of their opinion if they are wrong in their assessments? They will sit in Beverly Hills or the Hamptons and say, 'I was wrong,'" Foxman said.
"The fact that you support universities and charitable needs doesn't give you the right to determine issues of life and death," he said.
Israeli law forbids direct foreign donations to political parties and limits donations to individual politicians to a maximum of about $10,000, depending on whether the money is meant for a local election, a national race or an internal party primary.
But other activities aren't restricted. American donors can give money to political causes ranging from hardline groups that promote Jewish settlements in the West Bank to the dovish Peace Now.
In the case of Adelson, he launched a newspaper that harshly criticizes Olmert and is distributed free to hundreds of thousands of Israelis. The newspaper is part of what is widely seen by Adelson as a concerted attempt to replace Olmert with his hardline rival, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israeli political insiders see the paper, Yisrael Hayom — Israel Today — as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. Olmert's media adviser, Jacob Galanti, refuses to refer to it as a newspaper, recently terming it a "printed product."
Adelson, a casino multibillionaire listed by Forbes last year as the third-richest man in America, has long had pull in Israel's corridors of power. In May, when he helped fund a conference convened by President Shimon Peres for Israel's 60th anniversary, he and his wife were seated alongside Olmert and other Israeli leaders.
Nahum Barnea, one of Israel's most respected journalists, later referred in his column to the "gambling mogul from Las Vegas who bought my country's birthday for $3 million."
"Is the country worth so little?" Barnea asked.
Through a representative in Las Vegas, Adelson declined an interview request.
Adelson's paper, a tabloid heavy on sports and celebrity gossip, has extended Adelson's reach to everyday Israelis. It is delivered free of charge to people's doorsteps and distributed at busy intersections.
The newspaper typically carries a front-page editorial blasting Olmert and his government, with long investigative pieces inside on the misdeeds of Olmert and his cronies. Coverage of Netanyahu is generally benign.
Newspaper officials did not return messages seeking comment.
Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, would not comment on Adelson's activities, but noted that Olmert told The Atlantic Monthly in May that there were U.S. Jews "investing a lot of money trying to overthrow the government in Israel."
Until his recent troubles, Olmert welcomed involvement by American Jews. In the years before he became prime minister, he was happy to accept donations from Americans. One donor was Talansky, now the central figure in a corruption scandal that has ravaged what little popularity Olmert had and could force him out of office.
Talansky, who lives on New York's Long Island, made his donations to Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem, a Likud lawmaker and later a Cabinet minister. Testifying in May, Talansky spoke of his deep love for Israel and his conviction that Olmert was the right man to lead the country.
In 2006, Olmert broke away from Likud and led the centrist Kadima Party to victory in national elections. Today, Talansky appears to be bitterly disillusioned with Olmert, and says he believes some of his money went to fund a lavish lifestyle that included expensive cigars, luxury hotels and a vacation in Italy.
Police are investigating and Olmert has said he will resign if indicted. In the meantime, his political rivals have begun the process of replacing him as leader of the Kadima party, with primaries scheduled by the end of September.
Amnon Rubinstein, a prominent Israeli legal expert and a former justice minister, said American Jews "should give money to charity, to universities, to hospitals, but not to political parties."
But across the Israeli political spectrum, it has become a commonly accepted practice.
"Israel has been receiving donations from Diaspora Jews for 60 years," said Eliad Shraga, who founded the country's best-known good governance group, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel. "As long as it's legal, I don't see a problem."
Yossi Beilin of the dovish Meretz Party said the involvement of American Jews, even those with views different from his own, is preferable to apathy.
In the 1990s, Florida bingo magnate Irving Moskowitz set off a political storm by building a Jewish neighborhood in heavily Arab east Jerusalem with the enthusiastic cooperation of Jerusalem's mayor — Olmert. Beilin was an unlikely defender.
"I said I thought he was doing terrible damage, but I couldn't ignore the fact that he cares. I prefer someone who cares about Israel to someone who doesn't," Beilin said.
Sulayman ibn Abd al- Wahhab
Q. Another question is that it is well known that Sulayman Ibn Abd al-Wahaab rejected his brothers misguidence and wrote against the wahaabi regime. A salafi brother pointed out that he repented from going against his brother before he died. I needed some clairty on that issue too.
A. Bakr Abu Zayd and `Abd al-Rahman `Uthaymin, the two Wahhabi editors of Ibn Humayd al-Najdi's Hanbali bio-dictionary _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara'ih al-Hanabila_ (Risala ed. 2:679), consider the report of that repentence spurious and say there is no proof that Sulayman ever changed his mind.
What is agreed upon is that when his father died, Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman al-Tamimi al-Najdi (d. 1210?) succeeded him as qadi of Huraymila' in 1153. Twelve years later, in 1165, Sulayman led the people of that town and `Uyayna, another nearby town, in a rebellion against his brother Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman's (d. 1207) Wahhabi forces which lasted for three years. The towns were overrun in 1168 and Sulayman fled to Sudayr where he was left alone. Twenty years later he was brought against his will to Dir`iyya, the capital of his brother and `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Sa`ud, where Muhammad kept him under a sumptuous but strict house arrest until they both died.
Sources: Ibn Bishr, _`Unwan al-Majd bi-Tarikh Najd_ (years 1165 and 1168); _Tarikh Ibn La`bun_ (year 1190); Ibn Ghannam, _ Tarikh_ (1:142), all as cited in the marginalia of Ibn Humayd, _al-Suhub al-Wabila_ (2:678-679).
It is in the context of his losing battle against his brother that Sulayman wrote his famous book against the Wahhhabi sect titled:
_Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul (salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) wa-Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab_ ("The Final Word from the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sayings of the Scholars Concerning the School of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab"),
also known as:
_al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya_ ("The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School").
This book is among the first and earliest refutations of the Wahhabi sect in print, consisting in over forty-five concise chapters spanning 120 pages that aim to show the divergence of the Wahhabi school, not only from the Consensus and usûl of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a and the fiqh of the Hanbali Madhhab, but also from their putative Imams, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim on most or all the issues reviewed.
The biographer of the Hanbali School, Ibn Humayd al-Najdi (1236-1295) said in _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara'ih al-Hanabila_ (2:675-679 §415):
<<`ABD AL-WAHHAB ibn Sulayman ibn `Ali ibn Musharraf al-Tamimi al-Najdi. He read fiqh with his father the author of the famous _Mansak_ and with others. He obtained learning and fiqh, taught, and wrote excellent epistles on various legal issues. He died in the year 1153. He is the father of MUHAMMAD, the founder of the Da`wah whose evil has spread to / every horizon, but there is a vast difference between the two of them.... / He was angry with his son Muhammad because he would not study fiqh as his predecessors and peers did. His premonition concerning him was that he would bring upon a calamity. He would say to the people, 'One day you will see Muhammad cause evil.' Then Allah decreed that whatever happened happened.
Similarly his son, SULAYMAN, the brother of Shaykh Muhammad, opposed the latter and his Da`wah and refuted him with a fine refutation with Qur'anic verses / and reports, since the one being refuted put no credence in anything else and lent no ear to the discourse of any of the Ulema whether old or late, whoever they may be, except Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim. He considered their words uninterpretable scripture and would hammer the people on the head with it / even if what they said differed from his understanding. Shaykh Sulayman titled his refutation of his brother _Fasl al-Khitab fil-Radd `ala Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab_.>>
The Fasl/Sawa`iq received the following editions:
1st edition: Bombay: Matba`a Nukhbat al-Akhbar, 1306/1889. 2nd edition: Cairo (date?). 3rd edition: Istanbul: Ishik reprints at Wakf Ihlas, 1399/1979. 4th edition: (Annotated) Damascus, 1420/1999.
The claim that Sulayman repented apparently originates under the pen of the contemporary literary historian of Arabia, `Ali Jawad Tahir in his eight-volume history published in Baghdad in the Fifties, _Tarikh al-`Arab qabl al-Islam_ ('Pre-islamic History of the Arabs') 7:227. What gave this claim circulation is its endorsement by the Syrian historian Nur al-Din al-Zirikli (d. 1410/1990) in his much more famous biographical dictionary _al-A`lam_ (3:130).
Al-Zirikli says in his snippet on Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab:
'Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: the brother of the Shaykh and leader of the reformist revival Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. His brother opposed him in the Call (al-da`wah) and wrote epistles voicing this [opposition], among them _al-Radd `ala man Kaffara al-Muslimin bi-Sababi al-Nadhri li-Ghayr Allah_ ('Refutation of Him Who Pronounced Apostasy against the Muslims for Vows to Other than Allah') in Baghdad's Awqaf archives, manuscript 6805. Then he abandoned his position and proclaimed he was sorry. He authored an epistle to that effect, in print. [FOOTNOTE:] _Al-Kashif_ by Talas (p. 126-127) [a catalogue of manuscripts] which misattributes to him the book _al-Tawdih `an Tawhid al-Khallaq_. See also the periodical _al-`Arab_ (7:227).'
The latter is a sourcing mistake and elsewhere al-Zirikli shows that he means `Ali Jawad's book _Tarikh al-`Arab_ rather than the periodical, as the latter obviously requires a different type of sourcing than volume and page number.
There are many problems with the above claim in addition to its being rejeted by the Wahhabis themselves as already mentioned:
1. Why does the author of the claim not cite the title of the supposed pro-Wahhabi 'repentence epistle' of Sulayman and who printed it and where?
2. Why is there no record of this supposed pro-Wahhabi position of Sulayman even among the Wahhabis? If he had really authored such a book one would expect the many supporters of the Wahhabi movement to have made sure it never got lost to the Muslim world but, on the contrary, no one ever heard of it other than an Iraqi literary historian and the Syrian biographer who cites him.
3. Why does the great bio-bibliographer `Umar Rida Kahhala not mention any such pro-Wahhabi recanting in his entry on Sulayman ibn`Abd al-Wahhab in his much more detailed eight-volume _Mu`jam al-Mu'allifin_ ('Dictionary of Authors'), other than Sulayman's known anti-Wahhabi work?
4. The style of Sulayman's anti-Wahhabi epistle typifies staunchness and a systematic refutation style with complete mastery of the Usul and `Aqida literature that a Hanbali debater is expected to possess. He also states that he waited eight years before deciding to speak out against the deviations of his little brother's followers. It is unlikely that he would then back up and change his mind.
5. In 1995 the Jordanian Wahhabi, Mashhur Hasan Salman published in Ryadh a 2-volume work he titled _Kutubun Hadhdhara al-`Ulama'u Minha_ ('Books the Ulema [supposedly] Warned Against'), a 'Salafi' equivalent of the Vatican's _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, a guide listing books that the Roman Catholic Church forbade its members to read (except by special permission) because they were judged dangerous to faith or morals. He included Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's _Fasl/Sawa`iq_ in his pompous censorship manual. To us, of course, the fact that Salman includes Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's classic refutation in his index is in fact a thumbs-up and a proof that it is a Sunni book. The point, however, is that Salman makes no mention of a supposed repentence of Sulayman nor of his supposed pro-Wahhabi book. If there had truly been such a repentence and book he would have not missed it nor would he have omitted mentioning it.
The above are internal and external circumstancial evidence that Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab never changed his anti-Wahhabi position nor authored a pro-Wahhabi epistle.
A selected chronology of other early condemnations of Wahhabism in print:
1. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i al-Kurdi al-Madani, said to be one of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's former teachers, wrote a fatwa condemning the Wahhabi movement in general terms. It is reproduced at the end of Sayyid `Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad's Misbah al-Anam (1908 edition; see below) and is also found at the beginning of the Waqf Ihlas offset reprint of Sulayman IAW's _Sawa`iq_.
2. Al-San`ani (d. 1182) the famous author of _Subul al-Salam_ at first wrote Muhammad IAW a panegyric which he sent him. Then he changed his mind and wrote an epistle denouncing him titled _Irshad Dhawi al-Albab ila Haqiqat Aqwal Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab._ See on this Imam al-Kawthari's _Maqalat_ (article 'IAW and Muhammad `Abduh'), al-Shawkani's _al-Badr al-Tali`_, s.v. 'Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Yamani,' and Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qinnawji's _Abjad al-`Ulum_, introduction, and his _Taj al-Mukallal_.
3. Al-Habib `Alawî ibn Ahmad al-Haddad, _Misbah al-Anam fi Raddi Shubah al-Najdi al-Bid`i al-Lati Adalla biha al-`Awamm_ ('The Luminary of Mankind Concerning the Refutation of the Fallacies of the Innovator from Najd by which He Has Misguided the Common Public' written 1216/1801 but long out of print!) of which I translated and published the introduction [see outline in a separate post] together with the translation of al-Sayyid Yûsuf al-Rifa`i's _Advice to Our Brothers the Scholars of Najd_ (1420/1999);
4. Al-Sawi (d. 1241) in his _Hashiya `ala al-Jalalayn_ for Surat 35:6 mentions the Wahhabis and refers to them as Khawârij. NOTE that this phrase and the word 'Wahhabiyya' was excised from all present-day editions of this Tafsir!
5. Ibn `Abidin (d. 1243) said the same in his famous Hashiya, Book of Iman, Bab al-Bughât.
6. The Mufti of Makka, Sayyid Ahmad Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304/1886) with several works: _al-Durar al-Saniyya fî al-Radd alâ al-Wahhabiyya_ ('The Pure Pearls in Refuting the Wahhabis') (Cairo, 1319 and 1347), _Fitnat al-Wahhabiyya_ ('The Wahhabi Tribulation'), and _Khulâsat al-Kalâm fî Bayân Umarâ' al-Balad al-Harâm_ ('The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Holy Land,' whose evidence is quoted in full by al-Nabhânî in _Shawâhid al-Haqq_ p. 151-177), the last two a history of the Wahhabi movement in Najd and the Hijâz.
7. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (1272-1340) states in his _Fatawa al-Haramayn_ (Waqf Ikhlas offset ed. p. 11-12):
'As for the Wahhabis they are a misguided sect (firqa dalla) and volumes were compiled - both in Arabic and other languages - declaring them heretics. Among them is the book of our teacher in Hadith, our Master `Allama Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan al-Makki ' Allah sanctify his secret - titled _al-Durar al-Saniyya fi al-Radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya_. The best word ever said about them is that of the Mufti of al-Madinat al-Munawwara, Mawlana Abu al-Su`ud - Allah have mercy on all of them: {The devil has engrossed them and so has caused them to forget remembrance of Allah. They are the devil's party. Lo! is it not the devil's party who will be the losers'} (58:18-19).'
Al-Sawi al-Maliki adduced the same verse against them in his Hashiya on Tafsir al-Jalalayn. And Allah knows best.
GF Haddad
A. Bakr Abu Zayd and `Abd al-Rahman `Uthaymin, the two Wahhabi editors of Ibn Humayd al-Najdi's Hanbali bio-dictionary _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara'ih al-Hanabila_ (Risala ed. 2:679), consider the report of that repentence spurious and say there is no proof that Sulayman ever changed his mind.
What is agreed upon is that when his father died, Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman al-Tamimi al-Najdi (d. 1210?) succeeded him as qadi of Huraymila' in 1153. Twelve years later, in 1165, Sulayman led the people of that town and `Uyayna, another nearby town, in a rebellion against his brother Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab ibn Sulayman's (d. 1207) Wahhabi forces which lasted for three years. The towns were overrun in 1168 and Sulayman fled to Sudayr where he was left alone. Twenty years later he was brought against his will to Dir`iyya, the capital of his brother and `Abd al-`Aziz ibn Muhammad ibn Sa`ud, where Muhammad kept him under a sumptuous but strict house arrest until they both died.
Sources: Ibn Bishr, _`Unwan al-Majd bi-Tarikh Najd_ (years 1165 and 1168); _Tarikh Ibn La`bun_ (year 1190); Ibn Ghannam, _ Tarikh_ (1:142), all as cited in the marginalia of Ibn Humayd, _al-Suhub al-Wabila_ (2:678-679).
It is in the context of his losing battle against his brother that Sulayman wrote his famous book against the Wahhhabi sect titled:
_Fasl al-Khitab min Kitab Allah wa-Hadith al-Rasul (salla Allahu `alayhi wa-Sallam) wa-Kalam Uli al-Albab fi Madhhab Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab_ ("The Final Word from the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the Sayings of the Scholars Concerning the School of Ibn `Abd al-Wahhab"),
also known as:
_al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya_ ("The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School").
This book is among the first and earliest refutations of the Wahhabi sect in print, consisting in over forty-five concise chapters spanning 120 pages that aim to show the divergence of the Wahhabi school, not only from the Consensus and usûl of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jama`a and the fiqh of the Hanbali Madhhab, but also from their putative Imams, Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim on most or all the issues reviewed.
The biographer of the Hanbali School, Ibn Humayd al-Najdi (1236-1295) said in _al-Suhub al-Wabila `ala Dara'ih al-Hanabila_ (2:675-679 §415):
<<`ABD AL-WAHHAB ibn Sulayman ibn `Ali ibn Musharraf al-Tamimi al-Najdi. He read fiqh with his father the author of the famous _Mansak_ and with others. He obtained learning and fiqh, taught, and wrote excellent epistles on various legal issues. He died in the year 1153. He is the father of MUHAMMAD, the founder of the Da`wah whose evil has spread to / every horizon, but there is a vast difference between the two of them.... / He was angry with his son Muhammad because he would not study fiqh as his predecessors and peers did. His premonition concerning him was that he would bring upon a calamity. He would say to the people, 'One day you will see Muhammad cause evil.' Then Allah decreed that whatever happened happened.
Similarly his son, SULAYMAN, the brother of Shaykh Muhammad, opposed the latter and his Da`wah and refuted him with a fine refutation with Qur'anic verses / and reports, since the one being refuted put no credence in anything else and lent no ear to the discourse of any of the Ulema whether old or late, whoever they may be, except Shaykh Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya and his student Ibn al-Qayyim. He considered their words uninterpretable scripture and would hammer the people on the head with it / even if what they said differed from his understanding. Shaykh Sulayman titled his refutation of his brother _Fasl al-Khitab fil-Radd `ala Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab_.>>
The Fasl/Sawa`iq received the following editions:
1st edition: Bombay: Matba`a Nukhbat al-Akhbar, 1306/1889. 2nd edition: Cairo (date?). 3rd edition: Istanbul: Ishik reprints at Wakf Ihlas, 1399/1979. 4th edition: (Annotated) Damascus, 1420/1999.
The claim that Sulayman repented apparently originates under the pen of the contemporary literary historian of Arabia, `Ali Jawad Tahir in his eight-volume history published in Baghdad in the Fifties, _Tarikh al-`Arab qabl al-Islam_ ('Pre-islamic History of the Arabs') 7:227. What gave this claim circulation is its endorsement by the Syrian historian Nur al-Din al-Zirikli (d. 1410/1990) in his much more famous biographical dictionary _al-A`lam_ (3:130).
Al-Zirikli says in his snippet on Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab:
'Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab: the brother of the Shaykh and leader of the reformist revival Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab. His brother opposed him in the Call (al-da`wah) and wrote epistles voicing this [opposition], among them _al-Radd `ala man Kaffara al-Muslimin bi-Sababi al-Nadhri li-Ghayr Allah_ ('Refutation of Him Who Pronounced Apostasy against the Muslims for Vows to Other than Allah') in Baghdad's Awqaf archives, manuscript 6805. Then he abandoned his position and proclaimed he was sorry. He authored an epistle to that effect, in print. [FOOTNOTE:] _Al-Kashif_ by Talas (p. 126-127) [a catalogue of manuscripts] which misattributes to him the book _al-Tawdih `an Tawhid al-Khallaq_. See also the periodical _al-`Arab_ (7:227).'
The latter is a sourcing mistake and elsewhere al-Zirikli shows that he means `Ali Jawad's book _Tarikh al-`Arab_ rather than the periodical, as the latter obviously requires a different type of sourcing than volume and page number.
There are many problems with the above claim in addition to its being rejeted by the Wahhabis themselves as already mentioned:
1. Why does the author of the claim not cite the title of the supposed pro-Wahhabi 'repentence epistle' of Sulayman and who printed it and where?
2. Why is there no record of this supposed pro-Wahhabi position of Sulayman even among the Wahhabis? If he had really authored such a book one would expect the many supporters of the Wahhabi movement to have made sure it never got lost to the Muslim world but, on the contrary, no one ever heard of it other than an Iraqi literary historian and the Syrian biographer who cites him.
3. Why does the great bio-bibliographer `Umar Rida Kahhala not mention any such pro-Wahhabi recanting in his entry on Sulayman ibn`Abd al-Wahhab in his much more detailed eight-volume _Mu`jam al-Mu'allifin_ ('Dictionary of Authors'), other than Sulayman's known anti-Wahhabi work?
4. The style of Sulayman's anti-Wahhabi epistle typifies staunchness and a systematic refutation style with complete mastery of the Usul and `Aqida literature that a Hanbali debater is expected to possess. He also states that he waited eight years before deciding to speak out against the deviations of his little brother's followers. It is unlikely that he would then back up and change his mind.
5. In 1995 the Jordanian Wahhabi, Mashhur Hasan Salman published in Ryadh a 2-volume work he titled _Kutubun Hadhdhara al-`Ulama'u Minha_ ('Books the Ulema [supposedly] Warned Against'), a 'Salafi' equivalent of the Vatican's _Index Librorum Prohibitorum_, a guide listing books that the Roman Catholic Church forbade its members to read (except by special permission) because they were judged dangerous to faith or morals. He included Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's _Fasl/Sawa`iq_ in his pompous censorship manual. To us, of course, the fact that Salman includes Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's classic refutation in his index is in fact a thumbs-up and a proof that it is a Sunni book. The point, however, is that Salman makes no mention of a supposed repentence of Sulayman nor of his supposed pro-Wahhabi book. If there had truly been such a repentence and book he would have not missed it nor would he have omitted mentioning it.
The above are internal and external circumstancial evidence that Sulayman ibn `Abd al-Wahhab never changed his anti-Wahhabi position nor authored a pro-Wahhabi epistle.
A selected chronology of other early condemnations of Wahhabism in print:
1. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Sulayman al-Shafi`i al-Kurdi al-Madani, said to be one of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab's former teachers, wrote a fatwa condemning the Wahhabi movement in general terms. It is reproduced at the end of Sayyid `Alawi ibn Ahmad al-Haddad's Misbah al-Anam (1908 edition; see below) and is also found at the beginning of the Waqf Ihlas offset reprint of Sulayman IAW's _Sawa`iq_.
2. Al-San`ani (d. 1182) the famous author of _Subul al-Salam_ at first wrote Muhammad IAW a panegyric which he sent him. Then he changed his mind and wrote an epistle denouncing him titled _Irshad Dhawi al-Albab ila Haqiqat Aqwal Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab._ See on this Imam al-Kawthari's _Maqalat_ (article 'IAW and Muhammad `Abduh'), al-Shawkani's _al-Badr al-Tali`_, s.v. 'Muhammad ibn Isma`il al-Yamani,' and Siddiq Hasan Khan al-Qinnawji's _Abjad al-`Ulum_, introduction, and his _Taj al-Mukallal_.
3. Al-Habib `Alawî ibn Ahmad al-Haddad, _Misbah al-Anam fi Raddi Shubah al-Najdi al-Bid`i al-Lati Adalla biha al-`Awamm_ ('The Luminary of Mankind Concerning the Refutation of the Fallacies of the Innovator from Najd by which He Has Misguided the Common Public' written 1216/1801 but long out of print!) of which I translated and published the introduction [see outline in a separate post] together with the translation of al-Sayyid Yûsuf al-Rifa`i's _Advice to Our Brothers the Scholars of Najd_ (1420/1999);
4. Al-Sawi (d. 1241) in his _Hashiya `ala al-Jalalayn_ for Surat 35:6 mentions the Wahhabis and refers to them as Khawârij. NOTE that this phrase and the word 'Wahhabiyya' was excised from all present-day editions of this Tafsir!
5. Ibn `Abidin (d. 1243) said the same in his famous Hashiya, Book of Iman, Bab al-Bughât.
6. The Mufti of Makka, Sayyid Ahmad Zayni Dahlan (d. 1304/1886) with several works: _al-Durar al-Saniyya fî al-Radd alâ al-Wahhabiyya_ ('The Pure Pearls in Refuting the Wahhabis') (Cairo, 1319 and 1347), _Fitnat al-Wahhabiyya_ ('The Wahhabi Tribulation'), and _Khulâsat al-Kalâm fî Bayân Umarâ' al-Balad al-Harâm_ ('The Summation Concerning the Leaders of the Holy Land,' whose evidence is quoted in full by al-Nabhânî in _Shawâhid al-Haqq_ p. 151-177), the last two a history of the Wahhabi movement in Najd and the Hijâz.
7. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan (1272-1340) states in his _Fatawa al-Haramayn_ (Waqf Ikhlas offset ed. p. 11-12):
'As for the Wahhabis they are a misguided sect (firqa dalla) and volumes were compiled - both in Arabic and other languages - declaring them heretics. Among them is the book of our teacher in Hadith, our Master `Allama Ahmad ibn Zaini Dahlan al-Makki ' Allah sanctify his secret - titled _al-Durar al-Saniyya fi al-Radd `ala al-Wahhabiyya_. The best word ever said about them is that of the Mufti of al-Madinat al-Munawwara, Mawlana Abu al-Su`ud - Allah have mercy on all of them: {The devil has engrossed them and so has caused them to forget remembrance of Allah. They are the devil's party. Lo! is it not the devil's party who will be the losers'} (58:18-19).'
Al-Sawi al-Maliki adduced the same verse against them in his Hashiya on Tafsir al-Jalalayn. And Allah knows best.
GF Haddad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)