| Posted By |
Topic: Dead Dont Hear - Radd Upon G.F.Haddad
|
|
 abdul.azeem
|
|
|
|
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een
(KSA/ Bangalore, India)
|
|
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
|
Ibn al-Qayyim Does Not Believe That The Prophet Hears Salam At His Grave
In Jalaa`ul-Af'haam (page 92), Imam Ibn al-Qayyim declares the narration of Abu ash-Shaykh as "Ghareeb Jiddan". He did not comment anything regarding the hearing of the Salam of the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam by either defending the matn of the hadeeth or the soundness of the chain. Nor did he rahimahullah support anything from this narration with any supporting witnesses or from linguistic point of view or qiyaas etc.
In contrast he had had no problems in passing a decisive verdict that this narration is very strange.
Earlier I have quoted Ibn al-Qayyim did not believe that the dead hear, nor do they benefit from recitation of the Qur'aan and that it is bidah. And now as the readers can clearly see that he did not believe rahimahullah that the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam hears Salam at his grave.
[See the links below]
>>> Dead Dont Hear - Reciting Qur'aan At The Grave Is Bidah <<<
[url=http://salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=6534&srow=19&erow=20]>>> Salaf-us-Saalih & Recitation Of Qur'aan At The Graves <<<[/url]
So if the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam cannot hear the Salam at his grave then how about those other than the Prophet? And the claim that they hear the speech of the living? Let alone the dead hearing Salam and the recitation of the Qur'aan!!!
|
|
| abdul.azeem
|
|
|
|
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een
(KSA/ Bangalore, India)
|
|
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
|
Why Did Manawee Refer To Al-Meezan?
Inspite of there being many Mawdoo narrations reported from Muhammad bin Marwaan Suddi Sagheer, Dhahabee in "al-Meezan" only quoted one fabricated narration that he reported upon A'mash (via Abu Saleh and Abu Hurairah) attributed to the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam.
This shows how well known this narration was amongst the Scholars of hadeeth as being fabricated. This is the very same narration in question!
G.F.Haddad and his crew need to ponder over why Dhahabee chose this specific narration out of all those narrations?
So Imam adh-Dhahabee rahimahullah said under his biography -
محمد بن مروان السدى الكوفى، وهو السدى الصغير.
يروى عن هشام بن عروة والاعمش.
تركوه واتهمه بعضهم بالكذب.
وهو صاحب الكلبى.
قال البخاري: سكتوا عنه، وهو مولى الخطابيين، لا يكتب حديثه البتة.
وقال ابن معين: ليس بثقة.
وقال أحمد: أدركته وقد كبر فتركته.
العلاء بن عمرو الحنفي، حدثنا محمد بن مروان، عن الاعمش، عن أبى صالح، عن أبى هريرة - مرفوعا:
من صلى على عند قبري سمعته، ومن صلى على نائيا بلغته.
What is noteworthy is the fact that al-Hafidh Ibn Hajr rahimahullah in Lisanul Meezan did not object to what Dhahabee said - neither regarding this individual nor regarding this narration.
I dont wish to go as far to claim that Ibn Hajar changed his opinion but those who rely upon this narration in the matter of aqeedah should be well aware that it is not a clear and decisive verdict of Ibn Hajar when you look at his other books.
So who is the one that misleads, betrays, gives partial information?
Wallahu Ta'aala A'lam!
|
|
| abdul.azeem
|
|
|
|
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een
(KSA/ Bangalore, India)
|
|
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
|
Why Al-Albaanee Made A Distinction Between Ibn Hajr's Mention & Suyoothi's Claim
 | quote: |
Along with the fact that this support is a partial/incomplete support,since this does not contain what is present in the narration of Muhammad bin Marwan: ý Sufficient with it is the affair of dunyaý.ý , similary al-Hafidh ibn Hajr and Sakhawee mentioned it from this perspective as opposed to the false impression that may come about from what as-Suyootee said: ýupon Aýmash, meaning with the chain and wording mentioned in the narration of Suddi as it is not hidden from those who are busy with this noble science
|
|
If you look at the context in which Ibn Hajr rahimahullah quoted this narration in his Fath, it is distinctly clear that he is defending the hayaath of Ambiyaa in al-Barzakh who infact are superior to the Shuhadaa about whom Allah has said:
Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allýh as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision. (Aali Imran 3:169)
If you examine all the narrations that al-Hafidh quoted to prove this are all with regards to the Salam being conveyed to the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam - The hadeeth of Abu Dawood on authority of Abu Hurairah, the narration of Nasa'ee & Abu Dawood authenticated by Ibn Khuzaymah with regards to the fadl of Jumu'ah upon the authority of Aws bin Aws. Then even further down Ibn Hajr quoted the narration of those who send Salam upon the Prophet, Allah returns his soul until he responds to it.
Pay attention to the narration of Abu ash-Shaykh that was brought in this particular context, only to show that the Ambiyaa are alive in al-Barzakh - and he derived directly from the fact that Salam is conveyed to him Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam with this particular narration and other narrations.
As for the first portion of the narration (من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته) al-Hafidh does not seem to strengthen it by quoting other mawdoo narrations from either Bayhaqee or Tabarani or other books that contain Muhammad Ibn Marwaan who is matrook.
Inspite of the fact that al-Hafidh erred in declaring the sanad to be jayyid, yet the context in which he quoted this narration is way different from what G.F.Haddad and crew want us to believe.
Al-Hafidh does not try to present shawahid to this narration to prove the first portion, nor does he object to Ibn al-Qayyim's saying that it is ghareeb, neither does he object to Uqaylee's massive statement that the hadeeth reported by Suddi has no basis, and he even does not comment on Ibn al-Jawzee's inclusion of it in Mawdoo'aat.
In summary, he has only used this narration as a proof for Salam being conveyed to the Prophet and consequently proving that Ambiyaa' are alive in al-Barzakh as they are better than Shuhadaa.
Wallahu A'lam!
So who is the one that is misleading? Lying? Betraying?
With Allah is the refuge sought!
|
|
| abdul.azeem
|
|
|
|
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een
(KSA/ Bangalore, India)
|
|
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
|
Why Al-Albaanee Made a Distinction of Sakhawee's Quote & Suyoothi's Claim?
Following the same quote above from our Shaykh al-Albaanee rahimahullah, Imam Sakhawee on other hand was much more in agreement with the massive statement of al-Uqaylee who said that there is no basis for this hadeeth and that it is not preserved. He also agrees with Ibn al-Jawzee for the inclusion of this narration in al-Mawdoo'at.
As Ibn Arraq himself stated in Thanzee-ush-Shar'eeah (see above), that Sakhawee quoted from his Shaykh that the chain is jayyid ( as Sakhawee clearly adds " Kamaa afaadahu Shaykhanaa " to his verdict) initially, but later on he agrees that it is mawdoo, it has no basis and is not preserved
after he quotes various chains from other books.
Wallahu A'lam!
So who is the one that is misleading? Lying? and giving partial information?
|
|
| abdul.azeem
|
|
|
|
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een
(KSA/ Bangalore, India)
|
|
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
|
Suyoothi Declares This Narration To Be Da'eef!!!
G.F. Haddad said -
| quote: |
al-Suyuti in al-La'ali' al-Masnu`a (1996 ed. 1:259 = 1:282-283) adduces Abu al-Shaykh's chain - among other narrations - as corroboration for the hadith, citing it in his commentary on al-Nasa'i's Sunan (4:110) and rejecting Ibn al-Jawzi's verdict of forgery in al-Mawdu`at (1:303)
|
|
Important Note:- In order to understand Shaykh Nasir's discourse on Suyoothi, know that the narration of al-Khateeb quoted by Ibn al-Jawzee and the narration of Abu ash-Shaykh are mutually exclusive with the wording " وكفي بها أمر دنياه.....". Ibn Sam'oon in "Al-maali" has this addition.
After combing the reality of his claims we find the following -
In al-La'aali' al-Masnou'a Suyoothi quotes the narration from al-Khateeb and follows it exactly with what Ibn al-Jawzee says in al-Mawdoo'aat along with the wording of Uqaylee. He then merely quotes that Abu ash-Shaykh has narrated this same wording (narration) with a good chain ( meaning that of al-A'raj) giving a false impression that Muhammad bin Marwan was followed by Aboo Mu'awiyah.
But in "al-Manaaqib" as Shaykh al-Albaanee has traced his words, that he explicitly states that Aboo Mu'aawiyah is a companion of Muhammad bin
Marwan in narrating this hadeeth from A'mash. Al-Albaanee refutes him with the fact that this mutaa'ba'a is not complete(taammah) as the narration reported by Abu ash-Shaykh does not contain in it " وكفي بها أمر دنياه.....".
What G.F.Haddad is trying to insinuate is - that Suyoothi's claim that Aboo Mu'aawiya has followed as-Suddi in narrating this hadeeth is correct and this is how Suyoothi rejected the verdict of Ibn al-Jawzee.
If this big change in the text of hadeeth is to be classified as Mu'taa'ba'a taammah let alone al-A'raj himself being maj'hool, then what do we say about the following narration which Suyoothi quotes in the following books -
a) Jaami' as-Sagheer
b) Sharh Of Nasaai`
c) Al-Haawi
d) Khasais al-Kubraa
e) Bushra al-Ka'ib
f) Sharh Sudoor
g) Fath-ul-Kabeer
h) Jaami' al-Jawaami'
i) Jaami' al-Ahadeeth
All of these books contain exactly the same narration. And to notify G.F.Haddad and his crew, Suyoothi has declared this to be Da'eef
in Jaami' as-Sagheer.
8812- من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته، ومن صلى علي نائيا أبلغته
- (هب) عن أبي هريرة
- (ض)
~ Meaning Da'eef
Suyoothi said in Jaami` al-Ahadeeth about this narration -
أخرجه البيهقى فى شعب الإيمان (2/218 ، رقم 158) . وأخرجه أيضًا : العقيلى (4/136 ، ترجمة 1696) وقال : لا أصل له من حديث الأعمش وليس بمحفوظ ولا يتابعه إلا من هو دونه .
| quote: |
Suyoothi had the books of Ibn Hajar & Sakhawee and he knew their verdict, yet he declared this da'eef!!! If Suyoothi declared this narration to be Da'eef then what about the narration of al-Khateeb, quoted by Ibn al-Jawzee in al-Mawdoo'aat that has a text which our friend G.F.Haddad also agrees that it is Mawdoo (forged)?
|
|
Wallahu A'lam!
Seems like its becoming more and more clear as to who is lying? Betraying? Giving partial information?
|
|
| abdul.azeem
|
|
|
|
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een
(KSA/ Bangalore, India)
|
|
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
|
Imam Bayhaqee's Declaration Of These Narrations As Ma'lool
Muhammad bin Darwaysh ash-Shaf'ee said in Asnaa' ul-Mataalib Fee Ahaadees Mukhtalafatil-Maraatib, that Bayhaqee declared this as Ma'lool -
1420- حديث من صلى علي عند قبري سمعته ومن صلى علي نائيا أبلغته
أعله البيهقي وابن مروان وقال العقيلي لا أصل له وقال ابن دحية موضوع تفرد به محمد بن مروان السدي وكان كذابا وأورده ابن الجوزي في الموضوع وفي الميزان محمد بن مروان السدي وترك واتهم بالكذب وأورد له هذا الخبر
Al-Bayhaqee narrated one narration via al-Asma'ee from Muhammad bin Marwaan with the wording that negates the hearing for the Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam near his grave and affirms its conveyance while the other narration via al-Alaa bin Amr al-Ju'fee from Muhammad bin Marwaan that affirms the hearing. The first narration has the wording " و كفى بهما أمر دنياه...".[as-Sarim al-Mankee, p.352-354, Shu'b al-Eeman #3156]
What strengthens the decisive declaration of Ibn Abdul Haadi in "Sarim al-Mankee" that the narration via Aboo Mu'aawiya is "Gross Mistake" is the fact that al-Bayhaqee neither records nor strengthens the narration via al-Alaa bin Amr al-Ju'fee with that of Abu ash-Shaykh.
G.F.Haddad stating that al-Bayhaqee has recorded corroborating chains is a mere wishful thinking. He cleverly deceives the readers with this allusion but the fact is al-Bayhaqee not only left them as Ma'lool but ignored the narration with the chain of Abu ash-Shaykh that fully qualifies to be a gross mistake for it was well known to be mawdoo upon A'mash.
G.F.Haddad would never reveal that al-Bayhaqee narrated several narrations via the route of Aboo Muhammad Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Jafar bin Hayyan well known as Abu ash-Shaykh [See Siyar for his biography] in his Sunan al-Kubra.[#1596, #2119, #9476, #12602 - al-Bayhaqee from Aboo Bakr bin Haarith al-Faqeeh from Abu ash-Shaykh...]
So isn't there is a Muta'ba'a with meaning and chain for this narration? Then G.F.Haddad and crew need to answer why al-Bayhaqee ignored this narration altogether?
As for the saying of Shaykh al-Albaanee rahimahullah that the first part has a Muta'ba'a that is hidden from Ibn Taymiyyah and his likes, then he is indeed referring to the same narration recorded by al-Bayhaqee. But Shaykh Nasir in Aayatul Bayyinat (p. 112-113) declared this very same part to be Mawdoo' and referred the readers to "ad-Da'eefah" #203. And he does not even mention about " و كفى بهما أمر دنياه...".
| quote: |
It does not matter to us whether this narration is declared as Mawdoo' ( by large group of earlier scholars) or Da'eef explicitly by Suyoothi and implicitly by Shaykh Nasir which is one of his saying above. What matters to us is that this indeed is NOT Saheeh!!
|
|
Wallahu A'lam!
|
|
| abdul.azeem
|
|
|
|
Abu Abd Ar Rahman Abd Al Adheem Ibn Faheem ibn Zia ibn Ma'een
(KSA/ Bangalore, India)
|
|
Member
Posts: 305
Joined: Nov 2002
|
Do Not Take The Deen Of Allah From Maj'hool
ولسنا نقبل دين الله تعالى عمن لا يعرفه أهل العلم بالحديث بالعدالة
Imam al-Bayhaqee rahimahullah said in "al-Qira'atu Khalful Imam":
| quote: |
We do not take the deen of Allah the Most-High from those who are unknown to the scholars of hadeeth with regards to their Adalah.
|
|
This is additional proof as to why al-Bayhaqee seems to have rejected this narration because al-A'raj is maj'hool.
|
|
27-08-2009 @ 2:36 PM
16-09-2009 @ 6:52 AM