|
Haassaan ISLAM
University of Essex Islamic Society
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Alee as-Saqqaaf - al-Kadhdhaab al-Muftaree - Undressed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a collection of some email messages received on Hassan Alee Saqqaaf and some of his deceptions and lies - contained in the book al-Albani Unveiled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As salaam u alaikum
What follows is a presentation of my findings after going through 'al-Albaanee Unveiled' point by point.
The way it is presented,is a summary of the point in AU preceded by "S:" meaning the claims of Saqqaaf. This followed by an "A:" meaning what Shaikh Naasir actually said. Then a conclusion stating whether or not the criticism was correct or not.
was salaam
Rafi
No's 1-7: cf Shaikh Alis comments. This discussion of whether all the hadeeth in Bukhari and Muslim are authentic or not is best left to the scholars. What I would like to point out, however is that Saqqaaf himself has weakened hadeeth in B&M. As for the hadeeth of Muslim it is the hadeeth of the Slave Girl as mentioned by shaikh Naasir in his introduction to 'Daeef Adab al-Mufrad'. As for the hadeeth of Bukhari, I remember reading about 2 years ago, the book, 'Saheeh Sifah as-Salaah' of Saqqaaf. In this book when he comes to the hadeeth of ibn Masud in Bukhaari, stating that the sahaabah changed the tashahud to 'as salaam alan nabiyy'. He states that this addition (ie as salaam alan nabiyy) is shaadh (ie a category of daeef). This quote needs to be verified as I read this 2 years ago!!
No's 9-10: I could not check as I do not have the necessary sources
No.11: cf Shaikh Alis reply to this CONCLUSION: this is one of Saqqaafs lies
NO. 17:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself regarding the hadeeth, 'Is he playing with Allaahs Book whilst I am still amongst you?....' in Mishkaat 2/981 he says it is da'eef in Ghayatul Maraam no.261 pg 164 he says it is saheeh.
----------------------------------------
A: Mishkaat 2/981 fn1: "it's narrators are trustworthy, but it is from the narration of Mukhrima from his father, and he did not hear from him." (A: does not say the hadeeth is da'eef! and neither does he give a verdict to the hadeeth)
:Ghayatul Maraam no.261: "Saheeh....I say it's narrators are trustworthy despite the difference over the hearing of Mukhkrima from his father...." (and there occurs a footnote: 'Shaikh Naasir retracted this saying and declared it weak as in Da'eef Sunan an-Nasa'ee no.221, pg122)
----------------------------------------
Conclusion: The verdict of saheeh is retracted by the Shaikh himself so no contradiction.
NO. 18:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself about the hadeeth, 'If one of you was sleeping under the sun, and the shadow covering him shrank....' by saying Saheeh in Saheeh al-Jaami 1/266/761 and saying da'eef in Mishkaat 3/1337 no.4725
-----------------------------------------
A: Saheeh al-Jaami no.748 (not 761): "Saheeh, related by Abu Dawwod from Abu Hurayra" and refers it to as Saheehah 737.
: Mishkaat no.4725: "it's isnaad (ie of Abu Dawood) is weak." (note does not declare the hadeeth weak, between declaring an isnaad weak and a hadeeth weak is a big difference as explained by Shaikh Ali)
:as-Saheehah no.837 (not 737): "This isnaad (ie of Abu Dawood) is saheeh were it not for the unnamed man." Then he mentions the same hadeeth in Ahmad with is sanad, which names the unnamed man and then declares this sanad saheeh according to the criteria of the 2 shaikhs....
-----------------------------------------
Conclusion: There is no contradiction between the two statements as in as-Saheehah Shaikh Naasir merely reiterates what he states in Mishkaat and adds to it, and then gives the verdict of Saheeh.
NO.19:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth, 'Friday prayer is obligatory upon every Muslim' saying Da'eef in Mishkaat 1/434 and says, 'it's narrators are discontinuous as is indicated by Abu Dawood' saying saheeh in al-Irwaa no.592
----------------------------------------
A: Mishkaat 1/434: "it's narrators are trustworthy being the narrators of Muslim, except that Abu Dawood indicated it's being Munqati'..." (nowhere does he give a verdict to the hadeeth!)
: Irwaa no.592: "Saheeh....Abu Dawood said, (1067), ...'Taariq bin Shihab saw the Messenger but did not hear anything from him.' az-Zaylai said, 'an-Nawawee said: this does not make it unauthentic, for it is the mursal of the sahaabee...'"
----------------------------------------
Conclusion: again no contradiction as A: merely reiterates what he stated briefy in Mishkaat (and he explains that Mishkaat was a case of hurried notes as stated by Ali), and adds to it in al-Irwaa and then gives a verdict.
NO's 21-25 are answered by Shaikh Ali.
NO 26:: S:al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth, 'leave the Ethiopians alone as long as they leave you...' by weakening the hadeeth in Mishkaat 3/1495 no.5429 saying, 'the sanad is da'eef' by authenticating in as-Saheehah no.772
-----------------------------------------
A: Mishkaat 4/1495 no.5429: "....with a weak sanad" (no verdict on hadeeth!)
: Saheehah no.722: "related by Abu Dawood...al-Haakim said, 'saheeh sanad' and adh-Dhahabee agreed. I say this is an error for Zaheer (a narrator) has weakness, and Abdul Haqq endorsed this in 'al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa'...." (Then A: authenticates the hadeeth due to witnesses)
-----------------------------------------
Conclusion: Again no contradiction as A: reiterates what he states in Mishkaat in as-Saheehah.
N0. 27: answered by Shaikh Ali
NO. 32:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth, 'let each one of you ask Allaah for all his needs...' saying Hasan in Mishkaat no. 2251,2252 saying Da'eef in al-Jaami no.4947, 4948
------------------------------------------
A: Mishkaat no.2252 fn.3: "and it is a hasan hadeeth"
: Da'eef al-Jaami no. 4945, 4946 (not 4947, 4948): "Da'eef" and refers the reader to ad-Da'eefah no.1362
: ad-Da'eefah no.1362: "Da'eef, related by at-Tirmidhee.....and I declared this hadeeth hasan in my checking to Mishkaat (2251, 2252), and the checking was hurried due to little time....and Allaah is the One that is asked to forgive me my mistake, and all of them are from me!"
------------------------------------------
Conclusion: A: himself retracts the saying in Mishkaat so no contradiction
NO. 33:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the hadeeth of Abu Dharr, 'if you want to fast, then fast in the white shining nights of the 13th, 14th and 15th' saying Da'eef in Daeef an-Nasa'ee pg.84 and his notes upon ibn Khuzaimah no.2127 - saying Saheeh in Saheehul Jaami no.1448 and also Saheeh an-Nasaa'ee no.4021
(the author states: nb al-Albanee mentioned this hadeeth in Saheeh and Da'eef an-Nasa'ee, which proves he is unaware of what he is classifying, how inept!)
------------------------------------------
A: Saheeh an-Nasaa'ee no.4021: "from Umar (RA), (transliteration), 'fa ayna anta 'anil beedi al-Uzzi thalaatha ashrata....'...."
: Da'eef an-Nasaa'ee pg84 no.145 "from ibn Hawtaqiyyah from his father, (transliteration), 'in kunta saa'iman fa 'alayka bil uzzil beedi, thalaatha ashrata...'.." (refers to his footnote upon ibn Khuzaimah no.2127)
: Da'eef an-Nasaa'ee pg84 no.146 "from Musa bin Talha, (transliteration),' fa hallaa thalaatha al-beedi, thalaatha ashrata...'...."
------------------------------------------
Conclusion: these three hadeeth in Saheeh and Da'eef an-Nasaa'ee are three different texts, with three different isnaads from three different companions (and not one of them Abu Dharr!). Also the context surrounding this statement are worded very differently in all three hadeeth!
NO. 38:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the narrator Qanaan bin Abdullaah an-Nahny saying in as-Saheehah 3/481, 'Qanaan is hasan' saying in ad-Da'eefah 4/282, 'there is weakness in him.'
-----------------------------------------
A: ad-Da'eefah 4/282: ".....and this isnaad is weak, Abu Ubaidah did not hear from his father.
And in this Qanaan is weakness." (so what is clear is that A: did not use Qanaan as the (sole) reason for declaring the sanad weak)
: as-Saheehah 3/481: "....and Qanaan is hasan."
-----------------------------------------
Conclusion: No contradiction as Hasan means that there is weakness. And A: did not use Qanaan as the (sole) reason for declaring the sanad weak in ad-Da'eefah.
NO. 40,41: similar criticism to above and again no contradiction
NO. 43:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself about the narrator Ali bin Sa'eed al-Raazi, saying in Irwaa 7/13, 'they have said nothing good about al-Raazi' saying in as-Saheehah about a sanad containing al-Raazi, 'this is a good sanad and the narrators are trustworthy.'
-----------------------------------------
A: Irwaa 7/13: "I say: and as for al-Raazi they have spoken about him (takallamoo feehee), and between him and al-Munkadir (a narrator) are three people for whom I have not found a biography." (and for this reason declares the sanad weak)
: as-Saheehah 4/25: "...and this sanad is hasan, it's narrators are trustworthy, and Ali al-Raazi has speech (kalaam) about him from the direction of his memorisation." (he uses this as a support for the main hadeeth and says), "in conclusion the hadeeth is affirmed by the gathering of the two routes and it's least state is hasan, and Allaah knows best."
-----------------------------------------
Conclusion: no contradiction as A: states about al-Raazi in Irwaa the same as he states from him in as-Saheehah. S: quotes only half the statement in as-Saheehah.
NO. 47:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself about the narrator al-Ijlaa bin Abdullaah al-Kufi saying in al-Irwaa 8/7, 'ibn Abdullaah al-Kufi who is truthful' saying in ad-Da'eefah 4/71, 'ibn Abdullaah has a weakness' and made him the reason for declaring the sanad weak.
-----------------------------------------
A: ad-Da'eefah 4/71: "Ijlaa ibn Abdullaah has a weakness and in at-Taqreeb, 'he is truthful'...." (A: mentions him as one of 3 reasons for declaring the sanad weak) : al-Irwaa 8/7: "ibn Abdullaah al-Kufi who is truthful" -----------------------------------------
Conclusion: A: does not contradict himself as he states the same for al-Kufi in Irwaa as he does in Da'eefah. S: does not quote the full quote from Da'eefah, also lies saying that A: made al-Kufi the reason for declaring the sanad weak, when he was only one of three!!
NO. 48:: S: al-Albaanee contradicts himself over the narrator Abdullaah ibn Saalih. saying in Da'eefah 4/302, 'How could ibn Saalih be alright and his hadeeth be good, even though he made many mistakes and is of little awareness, which also made some fraudulent ahaadeeth enter his books, and he narrates them without knowing about them!'. He did not mention Ibn Ma'een trusted him, or that he is one of Bukhaaris men. saying in as-Saheehah 2/406, 'a good sanad in....' to a sanad containing ibn Saalih. saying in as-Saheehah, 3/229, '...ibn Saalih has said things which are unharmful with Allaahs help' saying in as-Saheehah 4/647, 'he is a proof with continuity'
------------------------------------------
A; ad-Da'eefah 4/302: Quote is correct. Does mention Ibn Ma'een trusted him on same page and explains it!!
: as- Saheehah 2/406: "a good sanad with followups, (fee al-mutaabi'aat), for it's narrators are of Bukhaari" (so mentions that ibn Saalih is a narrator of Bukhaari!!)
: as-Saheehah 3/229: "...and about Abdullaah ibn Saalih are words (said about him) that do not affect it (i.e hadeeth) in this case insha'allaah" (compare with above quote!!)
: as-Saheehah 4/647: "Abdullaah bin Saalih is from the Shuyukh of Bukhaari and he is a proof with followups (huwa hujjah 'inda al-mutaabi'a)"
------------------------------------------
Conclusion: I cannot see a contradiction??? S: lies at least twice, once regarding ibn Ma'een and once about Bukhaari.
The others that i have left out i have not yet researched these i will Do after ramadaaan insha'allaah.
Rafi
as salaam u alaikum,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yet another mistake or lie in al-Albaanee Slandered:
It states:
Al-Albani claimed in his book: Salat ul-Taraweeh:[2] "Imam Muhammad ibn Isma'il as-San'ani has said that 20 rak'ahs of taraweeh is a bid'ah in Subul as-salam, and no bid'ah is praiseworthy, but all bid'ahs are misgidance..."
After looking up this quote in Subul as-salam[3], we noted that as-San'ani[4] did not declare 20 rak'ahs of taraweeh to be a bid'ah as al-Albani claimed! Al-San'ani actually said:
"From the Hadith evidence for the virtues of standing (qiyam) in Ramadan, it appears to be 11 rak'ahs with the witr, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to do in Ramadan; and other than Ramadan he used to do the same as narrated in the Hadith of Aisha[5]. But the Taraweeh that people are performing now did not take place in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but Umar (radiallahu anhu) conformed with this in his Caliphate, and he ordered Ubayy (ibn Ka'b) to gather the people[6]. There is a difference of opinion on the number of rak'ahs that he (Ubayy) used to lead. It was said that he used to lead them with eleven rak'ahs[7], and there is a narration for twenty one[8], and it was also said twenty and twenty three (including three rak'ahs of witr) as well as being said otherwise.">
The reader can clearly see from the above words of as-San'ani that no where does he declare 20 rak'ahs of Taraweeh to be a bid'ah. It is rather just another example from a minimum of 7000 contradictions, mistakes or intentional lies that have been amassing against his credibility in the eyes of the sagacious believers.
I do not know which 'Subulus Salaam' by Amir as-Sana'aani the author, 'the sagacious believer', was referring to, but it definitely was not the one he wrote! Imaam Muhammad bin Ismail al-Amir as-Sana'aanee writes in 'Subulus Salaam' on page 22 (my copy has takhreej of Muhammad Ahmad Ataa, printed by Daar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah):
"....and Imaam al-Bayhaqi relates from ibn Abbas via the route of ibn Abi Shaybah, then he said that the narration is weak, that ' Umar ordered Ubayy and Tameemud Daaree to establish (the prayer) with 20 raka'ahs.' And in a narration, 'that they used to established 20 rak'ahs in the time of Umar.' and in a narration 23 rak'ahs. And in a narration 'that Ali used to lead the people with 20 rak'ahs and then pray 3 witr.' And he said (i.e. Bayhaqi) 'and in it is strength.' So when you realise this, you will know that there is not a hadeeth from the Messenger, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, which establishes 20 rak'ahs, rather there is in the hadeeth of Aaishah, 'that he (SAW) did not increase in Ramadaan or any other month upon 11 rak'ahs.' So you will know from all of this, THAT THE TARAAWIH PRAYER IN THIS MANNER UPON WHICH THE MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS AGREE TO IS AN INNOVATION, (anna salaatat taraawih 'alaa haadha al-Usloob alladhee ittafaqa al-akthar bid'ah). Yes the standing of ramadaan is a sunnah, upon which there is no difference, and congregating for nawaafil is not rejected....."
This is what as-Sana'aanee, rahimahullaah, said as quoted correctly by al-Albaanee, hafidhahullaah.
was salaam
rafi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assalamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullah, brothers.
After the brief 20-page reply to Saqqaf which we produced last year & put on the Internet, the Sufis & others accused us (& Ali al-Halabi) of lying about Saqqaf's statements about Mu'awiyah;
The following is an article by the sufis ... after much persuasion, Masud Ahmad Khan, who regularly writes on the net (esp. SRI) & Q-news pushing Nuh Keller & attacking Salafiyyah, finally sent photocopies of Saqqaf's statements about Mu'awiyah RAA to Rafi, here at Imperial College.
The photocopies are incomplete, only two pages with two pages in the middle missed out, but even so there is enough to show that the article below is a major distortion of the truth;
The posting which will follow is Rafi's translation of the two pages we received, they are enough to expose Saqqaf's deviancy.
Of course, many of the brs. know all this, the intention of this is to provide material for web pages etc. to counter the intense internet propaganda of the Sufis, more will follow inshaAllah.
Those who can do so, please circulate the material wisely in web pages, SRI, etc.
wassalam,
Usama
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Hasan Saqqaf Really Said About Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him)
Sayyid Saqqaf in his footnotes to Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali's[30]
book Daf' Shubah at-Tashbih[31] had actually related an abridged
chronicle of a historical incident recorded by the greatest master
of Qur'anic exegesis: al-Imam al-Hafiz Muhammad Ibn Jarir
al-Tabari,[32] from his monumental book on History known as Ta'rikh
al-rusul wa'l muluk (The History of Prophets and Kings) or usually
referred to as al-Ta'rikh al-Tabari,[33] and from the famous sixth
century Historian, al-Imam al-Hafiz Ali ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Athir al-
Jazari,[34] on the authority of his al-Kamil fi't-Ta'rikh.[35]
The account from Imam al-Tabari is available to all inquisitive
students of knowledge in an English translation entitled: The History
of al-Tabari.[36]
We will provide below a full translation of the actual incident that
as-Saqqaf referred to, and abridged in his notes to Ibn al-Jawzi's
book.
Under the title: The Events of the Year 46 AH (March 13, 666 - March
2, 667 C.E.), the Imam al-Tabari said:
"Amongst these events was the winter raid of Malik b.Ubaydallah
against Byzantine territory. According to alternative accounts this
raid was led by Abdal Rahman b. Khalid b. al-Walid or by Malik b.
Hubayrah al-Sakuni. During this year, Abdal Rahman b. Khalid b.
al-Walid departed from Byzantine territory to Homs.[37] Ibn Uthal
al-Nasrani[38] is said to have slipped him a poisoned drink, and when
he drank it, it killed him.
The Death of Abdal Rahman ibn Khalid ibn al-Walid[39]
The reason for that was what I was told by Umar - Ali - Maslamah b.
Muharib[40] : Abdal Rahman b. Khalid b. al-Walid had become great
in Syria and the Syrians favoured him because of the reputation among
them of his father, Khalid b. al-Walid, and because of his usefulness
to the Muslims in Byzantine territory, as well as his bravery. They
favoured him so much that Mu'awiyah feared him. He was afraid for
himself with regard to Abdal Rahman, because of the affection of the
people for him. So he ordered Ibn Uthal to plot to kill him and
guaranteed to Ibn Uthal that, if he did so, his tax (kharaj) would be
revoked for as long as he lived and that he would be put in charge of
the collection of the tax revenues (kharaj) of Homs.
As a result, when Abdal Rahman b. Khalid reached Homs, returning from
Byzantine territory, Ibn Uthal slipped him a poisoned drink with some
of his slaves. He drank it and died at Homs. Mu'awiyah then
fulfilled for Ibn Uthal what he had guaranteed to him. He put Ibn
Uthal in charge of (collecting) the tax revenues (kharaj) of Homs and
revoked his own tax.
Khalid b. Abdal Rahman b. Khalid b. al-Walid[41] came to
al-Madinah, and one day he sat with Urwah b. al-Zubayr. When Khalid
greeted him, Urwah asked him who he was. When he replied, 'I am
Khalid b. Abdal Rahman b. Khalid b. al-Walid', Urwah asked him,
'What did Ibn Uthal do?' At that, Khalid got up from his presence and
departed, heading for Homs.
Then he lay in wait for Ibn Uthal there. When he saw Ibn Uthal riding
one day, Khalid b. Abdal Rahman stood in his way and struck with his
sword, killing him. When he was brought to Mu'awiyah, the latter
imprisoned him for several days and fined him Ibn Uthal's blood price,
so that no one retaliated against Khalid for killing him.
When Khalid returned to al-Madinah, he came to Urwah and greeted him.
When Urwah asked him, 'What did Ibn Uthal do?' he replied, 'I took
care of Ibn Uthal for you, but what did Ibn Jurmuz do?' At that,
Urwah became silent. When Khalid b. Abdal Rahman struck Ibn Uthal,
he said:
I am the descendent of the Sword of God, so know me. Only my noble
descent and my religion last, and a trenchant sword with which my
right hand assailed." [42]
After relating this historical detail, Hasan Saqqaf then merely asked
the reader (p. 237):
"Is it permissible to kill a Muslim when Allahu ta'ala has said in
his mighty book: 'Whoso slayeth a believer of set purpose, his reward
is Hell forever. Allah is wroth against him and He hath cursed him
and prepared for him an awful doom?!"[43]
As for the allegation made by al-Halabi that Hasan Saqqaf was presumed
to have accused Mu'awiyah (radiallahu anhu) of hypocrisy (nifaaq), due
to Mu'awiyah's alleged hatred for Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)
in his footnotes to Ibn al-Jawzi's above named book (pp. 241) - then
this is another example of al-Halabi's conjectural distortions; for
Saqqaf does not declare anyone to be guilty of nifaaq by name.
What Hasan Saqqaf actually related was a Hadith recorded by Imam
Muslim (rahimahullah) in his Sahih,[44] with the following words:
"Zirr (ibn Hubaish) reported: Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)
observed:
'By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the
Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that
no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would
nurse a grudge against me.'"
It seems that al-Halabi has intentionally indicted Hasan Saqqaf for
allegedly applying this tradition to Mu'awiyah (radiallahu anhu) -
although Sayyid Saqqaf did not apply this narration to him by any
direct indictment. Rather, it may be conceived from what he said in
his footnotes to Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi's Daf Shubuh at-Tashbih,[45] that
the people he was trying to direct the above narration to were those
mentioned in the Hadith quoted by him on the authority of Imam Muslim
in his Sahih.[46] This narration has also been recorded by Imam
al-Bukhari in his Sahih[47] :
"Sahl ibn Sa'd (radiallahu 'anhu) reported that a person from among
the offspring of Marwan (ibn al-Hakam) was appointed the governor of
Madina. He called Sahl ibn Sa'd (radiallahu anhu) and ordered him to
abuse 'Ali (radiallahu anhu), Sahl refused to do that. He (the
governor) said to him: 'If you do not agree to it (at least) say:
May Allah curse Abu Turab (radiallahu 'anhu).'
Sahl said: 'There was no name dearer to 'Ali than Abu Turab (for it
was given by the Holy Prophet - peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him - himself) and he felt delighted when he was called by this name.'
He (the governor) said to him: 'Narrate to us the story of his being
named as Abu Turab.'
He said: 'Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to the house
of Fatima (radiallahu anha) and he did not find 'Ali (radiallahu anhu)
in the house', whereupon he said: 'Where is your uncle's son?' She
said: '(There cropped up something) between me and him which had
annoyed him with me.' He went out and did not rest here. Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to a person to find out where
he was. He came and said: 'Allah's Messenger, he is sleeping in the
mosque.'
Allah's messenger (may peace be upon him) came to him and found him
lying in the mosque and saw that his mantle had slipped from his back
and his back was covered with dust and Allah's Messenger (peace be
upon him) began to wipe it away from him (Ali) saying: 'Get up,
covered with dust (Abu Turab); get up, covered with dust.'"
It is a sufficiently recognized point recorded in the annals of
Islamic History, that during the reign of the Umayyad dynasty, certain
people had become accustomed to abusing Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (may
Allah be pleased with him), some from even the pulpits of mosque's.
For this reason Hasan Saqqaf said after mentioning the Hadith narrated
by Zirr ibn Hubaish:
"So what is the ruling of this - who orders the abusing and cursing of
the master of the believers (Ali) by the testimony of the Prophet
(peace be upon him) of the Lord of the Worlds, upon the pulpits?!!
And what is the ruling on one who tests his subjects by (making them)
curse Sayyidina Ali, radiallahu anhu, and to dissociate from him, and
killing whoever doesn't abuse and curse him?!!"
Another similitude to Sahl's (radiallahu anhu) Hadith has also been
recorded by Imam Muslim (rahimahullah) in his Sahih:[48]
Amir bin Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas reported on the authority of his
father that Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan (radiallahu anhu) appointed Sa'd
(bin Abi Waqqas - radiallahu anhu) as the Governor, and said: "What
prevents you from abusing Abu Turab (Hadrat Ali - radiallahu anhu),"
whereupon he said: "It is because of three things which I remember
Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) having
said about him that I would not abuse him and even if I find one of
those three things for me, it would be more dear to me than the red
camels. I heard Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) having said
(this) about Ali as he left him behind in one of his campaigns (that
was Tabuk)."
Ali said to him: "Allah's Messenger, you leave me behind along with
women and children." Thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings
be upon him) said to him: "Aren't you satisfied with being unto me
what Harun (peace be upon him) was to Musa (peace be upon him) but
with this exception that there is no prophethood after me."
And I heard him say on the Day of Khaibar: "I would certainly give
this standard to a person who loves Allah and His Messenger and Allah
and His Messenger love him too."
He (the narrator) said: "We have been anxiously waiting for it", when
he (the Holy Prophet) said: "Call Ali." He was called and his eyes
were inflamed. He applied saliva to his eyes and handed over the
standard to him, and Allah gave him victory. (The third occasion was)
when the (following) verse was revealed: "Let us summon our children
and your children.[49] Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) called
Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Hussain, and said: "O Allah, they are my
family."
After mentioning these narration's with regard to Mu'awiyah
(radiallahu anhu), Sayyid Saqqaf has ended his findings by recalling
the following Hadith in connection to the Companions,[50] as recorded
by Imam Muslim[51]:
"None should revile my Companions, for if one amongst you were to
spend as much gold as Uhud, it would not amount to as much as one mudd
of one of them or half of it."
What Imam Hasan al-Basri has been ascribed to have said about Amir
Mu'awiya
If one was to endure on the belief and "interpretation" that Ali
al-Halabi has insinuated, without giving any of the background detail
we have provided above and below, as well as in its correct context -
then what would one say about what the great successor (tabi'i), the
pious Imam and grand admirer of Amir al-mu'minin Ali ibn Abu Talib
(radiallahu anhu) - Hasan al-Basri (rahimahullah),[52] has been
recorded to have said about Amir Mu'awiya (radiallahu 'anhu); as
mentioned by the prominent historian that we have mentioned
previously: Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari.
It has been noted by him in his famous book on Islamic History:
al-Kamil fi't Ta'rikh,[53] that Imam Hasan al-Basri said:
"There were four traits present in Mu'awiya, and if only one of
them was found in him it would have been a grave offence: His
hastening towards evil by the sword against this Ummah, until he took
the command (caliphate) without consultation although there remained
Companions and those of moral excellence. His making of his son
(Yazid) a Caliph after him, who was (i.e. Yazid) a heavy drinker and
a drunkard, who would wear silk, and beat the musical instruments
(tanabir), and his claim to Ziyad (ibn Sumayah),[54] and indeed the
Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: 'The child belongs to
the bed, and the fornicator is stoned', and his killing of Hujr[55]
(ibn Adi) and the companions of Hujr, so woe be to him for what he did
to Hujr! And woe be to him for what he did to the companions of
Hujr!" [56]
And what would they say about the following narration's recorded by
the Imam of Hadith, Muslim bin al-Hajjaj al-Nisaburi[57] in his
Sahih[58] :
Ibn Abbas (radiallahu anhu) reported that Mu'awiya (radiallahu anhu)
had said to them:
"Do you know that I clipped some hair from the head of Allah's
Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) at al-Marwa with the help
of a clipper?" I said: "I do not know it except as a verdict against
you."
Ibn Abbas (radiallahu anhu) also reported:
I was playing with children then Allah's Messenger (peace be upon
him) happened to pass by (us). I hid myself behind the door. He (the
Holy Prophet) came and he patted (me) upon my shoulders and said: "Go
and call Mu'awiya." I returned and said: "He is busy in taking
food." He again asked me to go and call Mu'awiya to him. I went (and
came back) and said that he was busy in taking food, whereupon he
said: "May Allah not fill his belly!" [59]
By Allah, we have not recalled these narration's to traduce or slander
Amir Mu'awiya (radiallahu anhu), lest those with a contorted
imagination accuse us of having antipathy for him, and proclaim us to
have Shi'ite sympathies; but merely to recollect and recount the life
and times of Amir Mu'awiyah (radiallahu anhu) - as recorded by some of
the most creditable and bona fide scholars of Hadith and Islamic
History.
Insha'Allah, we will show later that the indisputable defamers of the
Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all and increase their
honourable rank) - were the likes of Ibn Taymiyya, Abu'l 'Ala Maududi,
Wahid al-Zaman and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani. All four of whom
are regarded as being leaders of Salafiyyism - by certain groups
around the world.
[10/10]
======================================================================
NOTES:
[30] He died in 597 AH. Rahimahullah.
[31] The book: Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih bi akaff al-tanzih (Rebuttal of
the insinuations of anthropomorphism at the hands of transcendence)
was written to exonerate Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and his Madhhab from
the heresy of anthropomorphism. It is an excellent rebuttal of many
of the tenets of belief held by a certain proportion of today's
extreme "Salafi" sects around the world.
[32] This great Imam was originally a Shafi'i, but later founded his
own shortlived Madhhab. He passed away in the year 310 AH,
rahimahullah. His biography can be found in the first volume of the
English edition of his Ta'rikh al-Tabari.
[33] 3/202 - Arabic edn.
[34] His biography has been recorded by al-Dhahabi in Tadhkhirat
al-Huffaz (4/185), with the praiseworthy title: al-Imam al-Allamah
al-Hafiz Fakr al-Ulama. He passed away in the year 630 AH. He also
had two other scholarly brothers by the name Ibn al-Athir.
Rahimahullah.
[35] 3/543.
[36] The History of al-Tabari, vol. 18, pp. 88-9, trans. Morony, M.
State University of New York Press, 1989, ISBN: 0-88706-692-5. The
incident has been mentioned on p. 237 of Sayyid Saqqaf's footnotes to
Ibn al-Jawzi's named book.
[37] A place in northern Syria.
[38] Al-Nasrani means: The Christian in Arabic.
[39] He was the son of the great companion and commander of the Muslim
army: Khalid ibn al-Walid (May Allah be pleased with them both).
[40] This is the chain of transmission (Isnad) that Imam al-Tabari
mentioned to verify this story.
[41] That is, the son of the martyred Abdar Rahman ibn Khalid ibn
al-Walid.
[42] End of quote from The History of al-Tabari (18/88-9).
[43] Surah al-Nisa: 93. Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall`s translation
of the Qur`an.
[44] Chapter on Iman (no. 78 - Arabic edition), or see the English
edition of Sahih Muslim (1/46, no. 141).
[45] P. 236
[46] 4/1874, no. 2409 - Arabic edition; or see the English edition
(4/1287, no. 5924). Quoted by Hasan Saqqaf on p. 236 of his notes
to Ibn al-Jawzi's book.
[47] 5/44, no. 53 (Muhsin Khan edn.) or p. 63 (Muhammad Asad edn.).
This narration establishes the fact that Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (may
Allah ennoble his countenance) used to be abused from the pulpits of
Madinah al-Munnawarah. The wording used above is Imam Muslim's.
[48] 4/1284-5, no. 5915: Chapter on the Merits of Ali bin Abi Talib
(radiallahu anhu).
[49] Qur'an 3:61.
[50] Footnotes to Daf Shubuh at-Tashbih (p. 243).
[51] Sahih Muslim (4/1349, no. 6168) - English edition; or no. 2540
(Arabic edition). A similar narration has been recorded by the
Shafi'i Muhaddith, Hafiz Nurud-Din al-Haythami (d. 807 AH,
rahimahullah) in Majma' al-Zawa'id (10/15).
[52] This pious Imam whose narration's have been accepted by all Sunni
scholars of Hadith died in the year 110 AH in Basra, rahimahullah.
Imam al- Ghazali said of him, "His speech was the closest of any to
that of the Prophets, and his guidance closest of any to that of the
Companions." (see al-Zirkily's al-Alam, 2/226).
[53] 3/487.
[54] See what a leading "Salafi" - Abu'l Ala Maududi said about him
later.
[55] The killing of Hujr ibn Adi (radiallahu anhu) at a place called
Maraj Adhraa has been recorded by Hafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Isaba fi
tamyiz as-Sahaba (1/314).
[56] The Orientalists have recorded a similar narration from Imam
Hasan al- Basri, without verifying their source in the Encyclopaedia
of Islam (3/620), E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1936; in the following words:
"Mu'awiyah committed four crimes - one of them alone would suffice to
cover him with dishonour: he abandoned the nation to men of no
repute, deprived it without consulting it [by the bai'a (allegiance)
of Yazid] of the control of its destinies and that in the life-time of
numerous Companions and virtuous individuals. He chose as his
successor an incorrigible drunkard, robed in silk and playing the
harp. He adopted Ziyad. Lastly he condemned Hujr ibn Adi to death."
[57] He passed away in the year 261 AH; rahimahullah.
[58] 2/633, no. 2870 (English edition).
[59] See Sahih Muslim: Chapter MLXXV: He upon whom Allah's Apostle
(may peace be upon him) invoked (a) curse, whereas he in fact did not
deserve it, it would be a source of reward and mercy for him (4/1373,
no. 6298). It is said that this Hadith was used by Imam al-Nasa'i,
the author of one of the six most recognised collections of Hadith, to
censure Amir Mu'awiya (radiallahu anhu). Please refer to the
appropriate section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Alee Saqqaaf al-Mal'oon - his Slander of Mu'aawiyyah (ra)
The Prophet (sas) said: "Whoever abuses my Companions, upon them is the curse of Allaah, the angels and the people." Reported from Ibn Abbaas and Ibn Umar by at-Tabaraanee. The hadeeth is hasan.
Al-Laalikaa'ee (d. 418H) reports in as-Sunnah (no.2359) that Imaam Ahmad said: "If you see anyone speaking ill of the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sas), doubt his Islaam."
Imaam al-Barbahaaree (d. 329H) said in his Sharh us-Sunnah: "If you see a man criticising the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sas) know that he is a person of wicked speech and desires, since the Messenger of Allaah (sas) said: "When my Companions are mentioned then withhold." [Reported by at-Tabaraanee from Ibn Mas'ood and it is Saheeh. See Silsilatul Ahaadeethis-Saheehah (no.34) of Shaikh al-Albaanee]
Below is an excerpt of Saqqaafs book dafa' Shubah which was translated by a brother to expose Saqqaaf's hatred towards Mu'aawiyah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rafi As salaam u alaikum
I thought today, I would quickly translate the sections you sent me from Dafa' Shubah.....what happened to pages 238-240?
pg237:
I say: and Mu'aawiyah killed a group of righteous people from the Sahaabah and other noble personalities, for the sake of gaining sovereignty. And from those was Abd ar-Rahmaan bin Khaalid bin Waleed. Ibn Jarir said in his 'Taareekh' (3/202) and ibn Atheer in 'al-Kaamil' (3/453) and the wording is his,
"and the reason for his - Abd ar-Rahmaan bin Khaalid bin Waleed - death was that he became prominent in the eyes of the People of Shaam, and they inclined towards him due to his possessing characteristics of his father, and due to his usefullness (to the muslims) in the Land of the Romans, and due to his great courage. So Mu'aawiyah became afraid and apprehensive of him, and commanded ibn Uthaal, the Christian, that he plan his murder. And Mu'aawiyah guaranteed him exemption from his tax for as long as he lived and that he would be placed in charge of the tax revenues of Homs (a land in central Syria). So when Abd ar-Rahmaan returned from Rum, ibn Uthaal slipped him a poisoned drink through the means of his servants. So he drank it and died at Hums, and Mu'aawiyah fulfilled what he had guaranteed ibn Uthaal."
I say: is it permissible to kill a muslim, and Allaah says, "and whosoever kill a believer deliberately, then his reward is Hellfire, to remain in there forever. And the Anger of Allaah is upon him and His Curse, and a great punishment is prepared for him" (4/93)?! And it was due to this that Hasan al-Basri said, with regards to Mu'aawiyah, as in 'al-Kaamil'(3/487),
"there were four characteristics in Mu'aawiyah, and any one of them would have been a grave offense: His hastening towards evil by the sword against this ummah until he took the matter (Khilaafate) without consultation, and amongst them were the remaining Sahaabah and other notable people. His passing the rule onto his son, an alcoholic, wearer of silk, and player of musical instruments. His claim to Ziyaad, and the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) said, 'the child is for the bed, and for the fornicator is stoning.' And he killed Hujr and the companions of Hujr, so woe to him for what he did to Hujr! And woe to him for what he did to the companions of Hujr!"
[This I am told is a related without an isnaad, so I will check it up]
I say: so when the life of Mu'aawiyah is like this!! There does not occur anything from the Prophet (SAW) with regards to his virtues, and al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee quotes in 'Siyar A'laam an-Nubalaa' (3/132) from Ishaaq bin Raahaway that he said, "there is nothing authentic from the Prophet (SAW) on the virtue of Mu'aawiyah"
And it is established in the Saheeh of Muslim (3/2010 no.2604) from ibn Abbaas that he Prophet (SAW) said to him. "go and call Mu'aawiyah." He said, "so I returned and said, 'he is eating'" so the Messenger (SAW) said, "may Allaah not fill his belly"
on page 241:
So is an ijtihaad correct which allows killing muslims, believing in the Oneness of Allaah.....?! And is an ijtihaad permissible when there occurs a text (on the point in question)?! And it is mutawaatir from him (SAW) that he said about our Master Ammaar who fought alongside the Leader of the Believers, our Master Ali: 'you will be killed by the aggressive party' as is established in Bukhaaree and Muslim.
So is an ijtihaad valid despite the occurence of many authentic texts (against it), from amongst them his saying (SAW), with regards to our Master Ali (RA), " the one to whom I am the mawlaa then Ali is his mawlaa. O Allaah love the one who loves him, and show enmity to the one who shows enmity to him." And al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee said in 'Siyar A'laam an-Nubala' (8/335) about this hadeeth, "mutawaatir". And in the saheeh of Muslim (no.78 in al-Eemaan) about our Master Ali (RA) from him that he said, "indeed the promise of the unlettered Prophet (SAW) to me was, 'none save a believer will love you, and none save a hypocrite will hate you.'"
I say: so what is the ruling on the one that commands abusing and cursing our Master Ali the mawlaa of the believers by the testimony of the Messenger of the Lord of the Universe upon the pulpits?!! And what is the ruling of the one who tests his subjects by cursing our Master Ali (RA) and to disassociate from him, and kill the one who does not abuse and curse him?!!
And from the strange, truly laughable things after this is that you find ibn Katheer saying in the chapter on Covenants (Aqd) in his taareekh (8/20) about the virtue of Muaawiyah,
"he is Mu'aawiyah bin Abee Sufyaan....uncle of the believers, and the writer of the revelation of the Lord of the Universe, he embraced Islaam and his father and mother were hindus(?)....on the Day of the Conquest." Then he said after that, "and the intention here is to show that Mu'aawiyah used to write the revelation alongside others...."
[This proves that all that has preceded is with regards to Mu'aawiyah]
I say: No, by Allaah other than Whom there is none worthy of worship, your words are not correct O ibn Katheer, and not what you depend upon or what you think. As for your saying, "uncle of the believers", then this is not correct at all, and that is because this does not occur in any authentic sunnah or narration. And (building) upon your saying that Mu'aawiyah is the Uncle of the believers - then Habee bin Akhtab, the Jew, would be the grandfather of the believers, because he is the father of Sayyida Safiyyah, the wife of the Messenger (SAW), and this is not so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of translation of what you sent me....now I am not going to waste my time refuting the points contained in this excerpt....Just wish to show you the clear hatred that Saqqaaf does show to a companion. What happened to the advice of all those early scholars that order us to keep silent about the companions? What happened about having Good opinion of our predecessor, especially the sahaabah? etc etc ....
Enough of a virtue is it for Mu'aawiyah that Allaah chose him to be a writer of His revelation!
Was salaam
Rafi 15
CAMÄ° RESMÄ°
|
|
