Joined: Oct 2002
Alhamdulillaah was-Salaatu was-Salaamu Alaa Rasoolihi, Wa Ba'ad: |
Name of the book:
|An-Nukat alaa Nuzhat in-Nadhar Fee Tawdeeh Nukhbat il-Fikr Lil-Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani|
|Alee Hasan bin Alee bin Abdul Hameed|
|First edition 1412H, latest edition (6th print) 1422H, corresponding to 2001CE|
|The position concerning Khabarul-Waahid without supporting factors (qaraa'in), Does it amount to certain knowledge or not?|
|Its relationship to the position of Ahl ush-Shaam on Abul-Hasan al-Misree, the Innovator, who came to cast doubts about the Sunnah of al-Mustafaa, and to cast doubts the rulings of Ahl us-Sunnah upon the Innovators who depart from the Sunnah|
Quotes and Observations:
Concerning al-Mutawaatir, Ibn Hajar says, "...and that is the Mutawaatir, and all of it is accepted, due to it providing certainty, by way of the truthfulness of the one who narrated it, as opposed to other than it from the Akhbaar ul-Aahaad." (pp.71-72)
Alee Hasan comments:
|And the truth is "That the khabar al-waahid of an 'adl (upright trustworthy person) from someone like him, up until the Messenger of Allaah (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) necessitates knowledge and action together", just as Ibn Hazm said in "Ihkaam ul-Ahkaam" (1/119). And whoever claimed other than that, then without any evidence. And al-Allaamah Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullaahu ta'aalaa has a comprehensive investigation in "as-Sawaa'iq al-Mursalah alaa al-Jahmiyyah wal-Mu'attilah" (2/232-442), affirmation of the khabar ul-waahid, and that it amounts to knowledge and action together, and of the obligation of seeking proof by way of it in aqeedah. And our Shaykh, Al-Albaani - may Allaah bring benefit through him - has two printed risaalahs (small works) on this issue". (pp.72)|
1) So does Abul-Hasan al-Misree have any evidence for his position? The answer is no, in light of the above. If not, then what is most befitting. Defending him in falsehood, or supporting and aiding the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel
2) When the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel quoted the whole passage from as-Sawaa'iq of Ibn al-Qayyim (in the third of his three part refutation of Abul-Hasan on the subject of khabarul-waahid), the same one alluded to above by Alee Hasan, then was it more befitting to support him and announce that the truth is with him, and his observations are correct and that he defended the Sunnah from the one who wanted to cast doubt about it, or was it more befitting to defend Abul-Hasan al-Misree in falsehood?
3) When the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel said to Abul-Hasan al-Misree "Don't try to rub your filth on Shaykh al-Albaani" and explained (in the course of his three part refutation of Abul-Hasan concerning khabar ul-waahid) that Imaam al-Albaani has two separate complete works on the subject, and that Abul-Hasan was deceptive, then was it more befitting for Ahl ush-Shaam to corroborate this, and to acknowledge it, and to announce it, and to promote it, and to support the one who said it, or was it more befitting to defend Abul-Hasan al-Misree, the one who casts doubts about the Sunnah of al-Mustafaa, the one who reviles Moosaa and Daawood (alaihimaa as-salaam), the one who reviled the Sahaabah, and showed no remorse and fought against those who advised him, up until, his arrogance could survive no longer?
Then on the next page (p.73) Ibn Hajr speaks about the khabar that does not have any factor which associates it either with the category (of akhbaar) in which the characteristic of truthfulness is found or the category in which the characteristic of lying is found - that such a khabar, therefore, is one that is not acted upon, and hence it becomes like the rejected (al-mardood). So Alee Hasan comments:
|(Meaning) from the angle of not acting by it. And I have already just mentioned that the khabar ul-waahid whose sanad is authentic, that it necessitates both knowledge and action together, and whoever distinguished (i.e. between it necessitating knowledge and it necessitating action), then he does so without any support (i.e. any evidence).|
1) So does Abul-Hasan al-Misree have any support for his distinction? The answer is no, in light of the above. If not, then what is most befitting. Defending him in falsehood, or supporting and aiding the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel.
2) And if this was a tahqeeq of the correct position, and a mountain such as the likes of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani can have his words commented upon in this manner, then by Allaah, what about an Ikhwaani Innovator, such as the likes of Abul-Hasan al-Misree? So where are the scales, and where is the defence of the truth?
Then on the same page, Ibn Hajr speaks about about the issue of khabar ul-waahid that has supporting factors providing investigative knowledge (al-ilm an-nadharee), and in Ibn Hajr's sharh of his own words, he says that the difference on this issue is in wording, saying that the one who applied the label of "knowledge" to the khabar ul-waahid that is surrounded by supporting factors, did so but he meant investigative knowledge (meaning that it only amounts to knowledge after research and investigation, to the one who has researched and investigated). And that the one who did not apply the label of "knowledge" to khabar ul-waahid, applied it specifically and only to the mutawaatir, and that in the view of such a one, whatever is besides mutawaatir is "dhannee". However, that such a one at the same time does not negate that whatever from the khabar ul-waahid is surrounded by supporting factors, is to be deemed more stronger (arjahu) than that which does not have these supporting factors (whilst still remaining in the domain of "dhann").
So commenting upon this paragraph, Alee Hasan says:
|But what is the fruit (i.e. result) of this arjahiyyah? Istidlaal and Ihtijaaj with respect to the Sharee'ah in general? Or this Istidlaal and Ihtijaaj being restricted to some parts of it as opposed to others? And then does it also amount to knowledge and action together or one of them as opposed to the other? |
What is correct is what has already been mentioned. Yes, supporting factors make it stronger from the point of view of having greater satisfaction and contentment with it, not from the point of view of rejecting it when these factors are not present.
1) Here Alee Hasan's comments have the meaning that the presence of supporting factors only strengthens the narration, in the sense it adds to its certainty, and correctness, and that the absence of supporting factors does not mean that now the khabar is mardood. So the role of suppporting factors for the khabar ul-waahid is only to give a person further conviction in this khabar, and to increase the khabar in strength. Alee Hasan was kind of refuting the viewpoint contained in the words of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee.
2) Abul-Hasan al-Misree said that without supporting factors, khabar ul-waahid is dhannee (amounts only speculation). So if what has been quoted above was a tahqeeq of the correct position according to Alee Hasan, and a mountain such as the likes of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani can have his words commented upon in this manner, then by Allaah, what about an Ikhwaani Innovator, such as the likes of Abul-Hasan al-Misree? So where are the scales, and where is the defence of the truth? So was it more befitting that the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel should be supported and defended, or was it more befitting to cause splits in the ranks of Ahl us-Sunnah by further dividing their word and claiming "al-Irhaab al-Fikree"?
Then on the next page (p.74) Ibn Hajr lists some of the supporting factors what add strength to the khabar ul-waahid (but without removing it from dhann), and amongst them is that the khabar is narrated in the two Saheehs of al-Bukhaaree and Muslim, since the Ummah has taken them with acceptance (a factor), and these two are specialists in the field (another factor) and they have precedence and are at the forefront of distinguishing the Saheeh from other than it (a third factor), and that the factor of "the Ummah having taken these akhbaar with acceptance (at-talaqqiyy)" is actually a stronger factor in showing that these akhbaar necessitate knowledge, than the mere chains of narration of the akhbaar themselves.
Alee Hasan comments on this last statement as follows:
|Our Shaikh, Shaikh al-Albaanee (hafidhahullaah) in his notes to "an-Nuzhah", and I quote from his own handwritten script, "And many people in the current times have neglected this "at-talaqqiyy" (taking with acceptance) and its importance, those who everytime a hadeeth whose isnaad is saheeh causes them a problem, they resort to rejecting it by the argument that it does not amount to certainty and definitiveness! So these people do not truly give the true scales of balance to the sayings of the Specialist Imaams, those who restrict their saying that the hadeeth al-aahaad amounts to dhann (speculation) by numerous restrictions. And amongst them is that this is when there is difference of opinion as to its acceptance (qubool). But as for when it has been taken with acceptance by the Ummah, especially when it is in the two Saheehs, in accordance with what the author has explained - rahimahullaah (i.e. Ibn Hajr) -, then it provides knowledge and certainty in their view. This is because the Ummah is free from making a mistake (at a collective level), due to his (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam's) saying, "My Ummah will not unite upon misguidance". Thus the authenticity of that in which there is speculation, but acting upon which is obligatory, then it is necessary so that it is also saheeh (authentic) at the same time, just as al-Allaamah Abu 'Amr Ibn as-Salaah said in his Muqaddamah (p.29), and al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer and others followed him..."|
1) Abul-Hasan al-Misree casts doubt even about these supporting factors that are mentioned by the scholars.
2) Abul-Hasan al-Misree has nothing that is of use or benefit to him from the positions of Shaikh al-Albaani, except that in which he lied and twisted and clipped.
3) Ahl ush-Shaam have left the way of Shaikh al-Albaani in evidence and proof and speaking the truth and defending it, and supporting it, and allying on account of it. This issue is a clear example.
4) The position of Abul-Hasan al-Misree is "the most false of falsehoods" exactly as the scholars have mentioned.
5) Thus, was it more befitting that the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel should be supported and defended, or was it more befitting to cause splits in the ranks of Ahl us-Sunnah by further dividing their word and claiming "al-Irhaab al-Fikree"?
These are some serious issues that arise and which are very clear from the quotes from just this one book. My version printed by Daar Ibn al-Jawzee, Dammaam, Saudi Arabia.
1. Shaikh Rabee' is the Imaam of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel. Like Imam al-Albaanee said, "The carrier of the flag of al-Jarh wat-Ta'deel, in our times, is, and in truth, our brother, Dr. Rabee. And those who refute him do not do so on the basis of knowledge, rather with him is all the knowledge". Thus, it was more befitting for the affair to be left in his hands, and that he not be contended with. Let alone reviled and spoken ill of, as occurred from some of them!
2. Abul-Hasan al-Misree is an Innovator who deceives and lies, and he most probably refuted Shaikh Rabee' knowing that he was upon falsehood - as some of the Scholars have expressed.
3. Those who defended Abul-Hasan al-Misree did so upon lack of knowledge, or lack of understanding, or due to defending Abul-Hasan in order to defend his manhaj, or due to placing themselves at a level they are not actually at to begin with.
Salaat and Salaam upon our Noble Messenger, his family and companions.
This message was edited by naasir.ud-deen on 11-2-02 @ 7:37 PM