Refutation of Usamah Muttakin, Yasir al-Hanafi, and Abu Al-Hasan on the issue of al-Maqam al-Mahmood

User Rating: Rating StarRating StarRating StarRating StarRating Star / 8
PoorBest 

 

Following is the response to Usamah Muttakin, Yasir al-Hanafi, and Abu Al-Hasan on the issue of al-Maqam al-Mahmood by our brother "Raza Hasan"

Article Contents

1. Introduction
2. Reply to Abul Hasan’s foreword
3. Reply to Muhammad Yasir’s foreword
4. What was the Discussion all about?
5. Our Aqeedah on the Issue of al-Maqaam al-Mahmood
6. What did Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah really say or believe in this regard?
7. Answer to the Introduction of the Author
8. Reply to Author’s reply of my opening statement
9. Reply to the Accusations and Slanders on Imaam al-Khallaal
10. Analysis of the Narration of Imaam Mujaahid
     a. The status of Layth bin Abu Sulaym according to Ibn Hajar
     b. The Status of Layth according to Al-Haythami
     c. The reality of Layth bin Abi Sulaym’s tadlees
     d. Did Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr weaken the narration of Mujaahid?
     e. The consensus of Ulama in accepting the narration of Mujaahid
11. The saying of Imaam Sa’eed al-Jurayree (Taabi’ee)
12. The stance of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullah)
     a. How some of the Major Hanbali Scholars understand the phrase “the story of Arsh”
13. The saying of Imaam ad-Daqeeqi
     a. Who is Haaroon bin al-Abbaas al-Haashmi”?
     b. Abu Bakr al-Khallaal clearly says that he HEARD Haaroon bin al-Abbaas asking Ad-Daqeeqi
14. The stance of Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof (157 – 231 AH)
15. The narration of Imaam Abdul Wahhaab al-Warraaq (D. 250 AH)
     a. Is this narration from Mujaahid (!?)
     b. Chain contains a narrator Ibn Abi Zakariyya who is Majhool?
16. The Narration of Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahuwayh (166 – 238 H) and the tajheel of Imaam Ibn al-Mundhir
17. The Narration of Muhammad bin Mus’ab Abu Ja’far Ad-Da’’a rahimahullah (D. 228 H)
18. The narration of Imaam Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani
19. The Narration of Imaam Abu Qilaabah
     a. This is from Mujaahid!!??
     b. Abu Qilaabah would make mistakes in NARRATING!
20. The saying of Imaam Ali bin Sahl al-Bazzaaz
21. The Narration of Imaam Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim bin Sallaam
22. The view of Imaam Abbaas ad-Dauri
23. The view of Imaam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani rahimahullah
24. The view of Imaam Abu Bakr al-Ajurri
25. Author’s conclusive remarks and his attack on Imaam al-Khallaal once more
     a. Imaam Khallaal brought nothing but “weak and fabricated” narrations to support this “preposterous” belief.
     b. He was so extreme that he accused Al-Tirmidhi of being a Jahmi and Khabeeth
     c. Author indirectly wants to say that Imaam al-Khallaal is not from the Ahl us-Sunnah 
26. The claimed “Contradiction” of mine
27. Conclusion
     a. Some names of the great Scholars and saints who held this belief


 

Introduction


All thanks and praise is due to Allah, we seek His help and forgiveness. We seek refuge in Allah from the evil within ourselves and the consequences of our evil deeds. Whoever Allah guides will never be led astray, and whoever Allah leads astray will never find guidance. I bear witness there is no God but Allah, alone without any partners, and I bear witness that Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is His servant and His Messenger.

To proceed.

This is a counter reply to the document produced by Muhammad Yasir al-Hanafi and his co-authors which is named, “Al-Qaul al-Mardood fi Tafseer al-Maqaam al-Mahmood” which was a reply to my small article.

► Before getting into the topic, I would like to apologize for a late reply. I had several reasons for not responding. First and foremost was the fact that I got very busy with my personal duties lately that I hardly got a chance to come online let alone replying to Yaasir and friends. The second reason was that the kind of reply I received was so rudimentary and entirely based on confusions and ignorance that I thought this is not even worth replying and why should I spend all that time in replying to this bulky document that is completely from a confused soul and the author himself seems to have forgotten what the topic of discussion was? Then some of my peers also suggested me not to waste my time on this and so all these reasons collectively put me off and I avoided the reply.

► But then I saw that my silence was being considered my inability to reply and hence this document started spreading over the internet. Not only that, they also got it formally published with the introductions of “Shaykh” Yasir al-Hanafi and “Shaykh, Dr” Abu al-Hasan Hussain Ahmad. Ironically, both are those who write themselves as “Shaykh” and want to be called so by their readers. In other words, “Self-Proclaimed Shaykhs” as we call them.

► Allaah (the Exalted) mentions such people in the Qur’aan saying "أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يُزَكُّونَ أَنفُسَهُم ۚبَلِ اللَّهُ يُزَكِّي مَن يَشَاءُ وَلَا يُظْلَمُونَ فَتِيلًا" 
“Have you not considered those who attribute purity/praise to themselves? Nay, Allah purifies whom He pleases; and they shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone.” [Soorah al-Nisaa (4:49)]

► And He (the most High) says, "فَلَا تُزَكُّوا أَنفُسَكُمْ ۖهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنِ اتَّقَىٰ"

“So do not ascribe purity to yourselves; He is most knowing of who fears Him.” [Soorah an-Najm (53:32)]

► And let me finally also mention a beautiful saying of Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim (rahimahullah) who said,

“From the signs of wellbeing and success is that whenever the slave is increased in his knowledge, he increases in humility and mercy; and whenever he is increased in action, he increases in his fear and caution; and whenever his age is increased, he decreases in eagerness; and whenever he is increased in wealth, he increases in his generosity and spending; and whenever his status and honor is increased, he increases in coming close to the people, in fulfilling their needs and being humble in (their presence).

And the signs of wretchedness are: Whenever he is increased in knowledge, he increases in pride and haughtiness; and whenever he is increased in actions, he increases in his boasting, mockery of the people and having a good opinion of himself; and whenever he is increased in his status and honor, he increases in pride and haughtiness. These affairs of (wellbeing and wretchedness) are a trial and a test from Allaah, by which He puts His slaves to trial. He brings about wellbeing and wretchedness to a people by way of these affairs.” [Al-Fawaaid (Pg. 228)]

► And the desire of Brother Abu al-Hasan, in particular, to be called a Shaykh and a Scholar is well known to us, as has been clarified by Brothers, Abu Khuzaymah and Abu Hibbaan in their 4 volume reply to Abu al-Hasan on the narration of Abu Ayyoob.

For more on this individual’s reality, see the book “Answering the lies of Abu al-Hasan Hussain Ahmed Gibril Fouad Haddad and their Muqallideen Pertaining to the Oft Quoted Narration of Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari (radiallah anhu)” (Vol. 1 P. 18-41) by Brothers Abu Khuzaimah and Abu Hibbaan.

► As for Muhammad Yasir al-Hanafi, then he is also an ignorant person who frequently attributes lies upon the Salaf. And like his “Guru and Shaykh” Abu al-Hasan, he also likes to be called a “Shaykh”! That is why he has named the Facebook page that he himself manages as nothing other than,

 

So the irony here is that these people are the first and foremost in saying that they are Muqallideen or in other words “Jaahils” who have nothing to do with Scholarship at all, and yet these are the very people begging to be called a Shaykh and a Scholar!

 

► As for the author named, “Usamah Muttakin” who is also known as “Ibn Nur al-Shanti” then there is not much to say about him, but the kind of reply he has given truly tells something about his knowledge about the sciences of Hadeeth. And the approval of such an undeveloped work by Muhammad Yasir and Abul Hasan tells even more about the ignorance of these two individuals. Had this reply come only from Usamah Muttakin, I would not have even bothered to reply to it but the fact that these two individuals who are the claimants of Scholarship and fan following have also approved this document is the only reason I am replying to this document that is filled with childish arguments.

► The complete lack of the knowledge of the very basics of Usool ul-Hadeeth of Brother Usamah Muttakin can be imagined by reading his response, wherein he imateurely declares any narrator that he finds unfamiliar as Majhool, so much so that he even went on to declare the people like Imaam Ibn al-Mundhir, Imaam Ibraaheem bin Mattuwayh al-Asbahaani and others as Majhool as well.

► Besides, I was shocked to see that he does not even know how to read an Isnaad. Simply because a far-end narrator of a chain is weak or Majhool, he would simply declare the comment of the person who narrated that chain to be weak based on that weak narrator or Shaykh that comes after him, even though he has nothing to do with people in the beginning of the chain. An example of this can be found under the saying of Imaam Sa’eed al-Jurayree, and the saying of Abdul Wahhaab al-Warraaq.

► Similarly, the epic of all was when he weakened the sayings of several Ulama, simply because he felt that the athar of Imaam Mujaahid is weak. Although the authenticity or weakness of the qawl of Mujaahid has absolutely nothing to do with what others said or believed.

► Likewise, his entire response is filled with the weirdest things imaginable, which tells a whole lot about his complete ignorance and lack of expertise in the topic and yet he bothered writing this refutation. It would have been much better for him that he did not write this at all.

► Anyway, let’s begin the response and head towards the comments of Abul Hasan first.

 

Reply to Abul Hasan’s foreword

Abul Hasan starts off by saying, I was forwarded this short epistle in repudiation of the claim that the Holy Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) will be seated upon the Throne (Arsh) with Allah subhana wa ta’ala, by the righteous Shaykh, Muhammad Yasir of Bradford, UK.
This is what happens when you start writing forewords to everything and anything without even glancing over it for once. “Shaykh” sahab’s start itself has gone to a wrong direction already. The point of discussion was not whether this claim is right or wrong, the main point was whether Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah was the only person to have claimed such a thing and thus giving people like you a justification of slandering and condemning him alone, as was done by your “righteous Shaykh”, Yasir. This will be discussed in some more details below.

Abul Hasan further says, What is most peculiar is that the named individual has betrayed his own screen name and has not bothered to scrutinize the very narrations he brought forth to propagate his belief in an analytical fashion as determined by sound principles connected to Ulum al-hadith.
The irony here is, the one who is accusing me of “not bothering to scrutinize the narrations” has himself not bothered to read this document nor did he take upon himself the pain to scrutinize the contents of the author, and yet he claims to name his site “Darul Tahqiq”! So let yourself be the judge as to who has betrayed his own screen name? Writing forewords to other people’s work here and there is an easy task but the real task is when you actually read the entire work and then give your comments.

And if you do claim to have read the entire document then I would feel even sorrier for you that you read the document and still have no idea about what the discussion is all about and still went on to write a foreword. And this would tell us even more about your utmost ignorance from the Usool ul-Hadeeth that you could not even point out some of the most obvious mistakes of the author which even a beginner student in this field could do.

He goes on, Indeed, this is not a novel matter, for those who know a little about Salafism in this age have noticed how their putative authorities of the past like ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab have all used rejected narrations to spread their ideologies and beliefs.
If you knew what Salafism is, you would not have even claimed such a thing, because we have always claimed to follow Qur’aan and Sunnah upon the understanding of Salaf as-Saaliheen. We do not blindly or fanatically restrict ourselves to the opinions of few individuals and we would not hesitate for once to ignore an opinion of a Scholar if it is not supported by Qur’aan and Sunnah. So judging us by any personality at all is sheer ignorance in itself.

Apart from that, I am truly disappointed to see such claimaints of ijazaat and scholarship to ridicule giants like Ahmad ibn taymiyyah (D. 728 A.H) and Ibnul Qayyum rahimahullah even when scholars of past and present, of their age and later have praised them heavily decorating their passages with the most beautiful of words. A short glimpse of it in the English language can be seen here: http://www.systemoflife.com/articles/refutation/2000073-life-of-ibn-taymiyyah-in-ibn-kathir-s-al-bidaya-wal-nihaya

While even the much cherished by these groups, Allaamah As-Sakhaawi (D. 902) rahimahullah pointed out that Ibn Taymiyyah was among those few scholars of Islam for whom the title of “Shaykh ul-Islaam” was used. And the same Allaamah Sakhaawi says in al-Jawahir wa ad-Durar (1/65-66), while defining the title "Shaykh ul-Islam" that it applies to those who adhere to the Qur'an and Sunnah and are aware of the principles of knowledge (qawa'id al ‘ilm), who have thoroughly studied the sayings of the scholars, are capable of extracting evidences from the texts and understand the rational (ma'qul) and narrated (manqul) proofs. In another place, Al-Sakhaawi writes, the description is applied to those who have attained the level of Wilaya and from whom people derive blessings both in life and death.

Also see the following links to know more about Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah 
·        http://www.systemoflife.com/articles/refutation/168-shaykh-ul-islam-ibn-tamiyah-ra#axzz3zDtP5VwS
·        http://arabic.islamicweb.com/books/taimiya.asp?book=366

And here we have modern day individuals ridiculing this giant as if he was garbage! Truly none hates a man of Sunnah but a Saahib ul-Bid’ah

In any case, it is very clear to anyone who is familiar with our methodology that we do not hold any individual above the Qur’aan and Sunnah, so you cannot simply attribute the sayings of any personality to the entire group just to express your hatred for them.

But as for the Aqaaid that we, Salafis, hold as a whole (not individuals) then they are all supported by Qur’aan and Sunnah. It’s an open challenge from us to point out a single aqeedah of ours that is against Qur’aan and Sunnah or is even based on Weak narrations! Wallaahi we will abandon all these Aqaaid and adopt Deobandism! This is an open invitation from us and a glden opportunity for you to do your Tableegh.

"فَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلُوا وَلَن تَفْعَلُوا فَاتَّقُوا النَّارَ الَّتِي وَقُودُهَا النَّاسُ وَالْحِجَارَةُ ۖأُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَافِرِينَ"

“But if you cannot do that – and certainly you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.” [Al-Baqarah (2:24)]

On the other hand, the fact that this statement is coming from a person whose entire madhab is based on false stories and fairy tales of its founders is the biggest irony in itself. The Aqaaid of Deobandi elders are not even supported by the fabricated narrations found at the most distant corners of any collection of ahadeeth, let alone weak narrations. Do you ever bother to explain those fairy tales!?

Here are a few glimpses of those fairy tales:
1)  
Haaji Imdaadullah Makki says that the Aqeedah of Wahdat ul-Wujood is true and correct and there is no dispute about it among our teachers and students. 
2)  
Dirty Pornographic stories from Al-Mathnawi translated and explained by Ashraf Ali Thaanwi Have you ever tried to read these “Eemaan-Refreshing” stories to your household women, to your mother, sister, father or children!? If not, why not!
3)    
The wonders of “Soofi Gaze” (Don’t miss reading this interesting thing)
4)   Haaji Imdaadullah calling upon other than Allaah for help.
5)   Some more of that crap! 
6)  
The Messenger of Allaah is the accountant of the Deobandis 
7)  
Ashraf Ali Thanwi teaching Magic 
8)  
Deobandi Elders Rashid Ahmad Gangohi and Ashiq Ilahi Meerthi – Divinty and Jahmi Kufr Taweelat of Allaahs Sifaat 
9)  
Haaji Imdaadullah lifts an entire ship on his back and saves it from drowning, and also see this being affirmed for Shaykh Abdul Qaadir Jeelaani [HERE
10) 
Qaasim Nanotwi returns from the death with physical body 
11)        
Ashraf Ali Rasoolullah (Na’uzubillah) 
12)        
The Uncle of Ashraf Ali wants his penis pulled out and anus fingered.  These are the signs of homosexuality. I hesitated while even mentioning this disgusting idea while they freely express it in their books.
13)        
Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi’s pen writes above and beyond Allaah’s arsh. 
14)        
Cure from the sand of Ya’qoob Nanotwi’s grave 
15)        
A strange incident about the great-grandfather of Ashraf Ali Thanwi
16)         Allaah sends down a letter for his pious slave guaranteeing his forgiveness.
17)         The gaze of a Tableeghi on a pregnant woman could deliver a wali
18)         Gangohi shows affection to Qaasim Nanotwi 
19)        
Falsehood in Fadhaail A’maal 
20)        
Gangohi never took a breath except after consulting the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) 
21)         A Mureed receives salary from his dead Peer every day [Imdaad ul-Mushtaaq P. 17]. 
22)         According to Zakariyah Kandhalwi, some people are those who are visited by the Ka’bah itself instead of them visiting the Ka’bah [Fadhaail Hajj (11/885)].

And much more. This is just the tip of the iceberg, there are even crazier ones to provide. If these are the Aqaaid that you think are supported by Qur’aan and Sunnah while those attributed to the Salaf are the ones to be seen as blasphemous and unacceptable then all we can say is, " تِلْكَ إِذًا قِسْمَةٌ ضِيزَىٰ" “That indeed is a division most unfair!” [An-Najm (53:22)] And  " هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ" “Produce your proof if you are truthful.” [Al-Baqarah (2:111), Al-Naml (27:64))]

He says, It is even more bewildering to note how **** ****** failed to provide a single authentic narration from Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) on this matter, and instead went out of his way to promote weak and rejected narrations collated by the Hanbali Shaykh, Abu Bakr al Khallal (d. 311 AH). Naturally, if **** ****** was capable of bringing forth just one Sahih hadith in line with his claims and belief, then his whole sarcasm filled attempt at promoting this view would have had a sounder basis of credibility.
This, again, seems to stem out of your complete and utter ignorance of the actual discussion. And looking at the reply, it seems that even the author Usamah Muttakin himself had hard time understanding the point of discussion and he just rushed to make a reply without even understanding a thing about the discussion. Due to this, I think it is important to explain this separately under a new heading somewhere below.

So we’ll just end the reply to Abul Hasan here and go to the next step. But before that there is still one more thing that needs to be addressed. In one of the footnotes, Abul Hasan says about Shaykh Zubayr Ali Za’ee rahimahullah,

See here what his fellow sect members had to say about him http://www.darultahqiq.com/zubair-ali-zaiexposed-by-yaser-et-al/

Well, I want to say that this had been answered by Shaykh Zubayr himself and here is the link to his talk in which he exposed the lies of this person named Yasir against him whom Abul Hasan is promoting. After all, what else could one deceiver do to another – promote him! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFF6yrWb3DQ&feature=youtu.be

I am sure even if Abul Hasan had seen this reply from the Shaykh, he would still not have bothered removing that lie upon him, as long as his audience does not get to know about it.

And as always, Abul Hasan did not forget to write himself as, (Shaykh Dr.) Abul Hasan,  London.  June 2nd 2014/5th Sha’ban 1435 AH

After all, this was the sole purpose behind the entire foreword i.e. gain some fame, which is why he wasted all this time writing the foreword without even reading the document properly. We seek Allaah’s refuge from such cheap tactics.

 

Reply to Muhammad Yasir’s foreword

Now the “Shaykh, the Maulaana” Mohammad Yasir al-Hanafi will come and entertain us with some of his jokes, saying:
This is a refutation written by my brother in Islam, Usamah Muttakin, in response to a Salafi brother who had written a refutation against me. It defended the anthropomorphic creed stated by Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah (R.A) in his Fatawa that Allah will make the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمsit next to Him on His throne. The opponent did not only try to defend Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah, but also attempted to falsely project this creed, which is nothing but anthropomorphism and corporealism (?), on to the pious salaf. We seek Allah's protection from such slanders and lies regarding our pious predecessors. Ameen.
 

This is the main point that I initially started the discussion with Yasir on, and here he has repeated that as well, but unfortunately Abul Hasan took the topic entirely somewhere else. As clearly evident above, the claim of Yasir was that this creed, which according to him is “nothing but anthropomorphism and ‘corporealism (?)’”, was only mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah and he is the one entirely blamed for it. So what I said was that even if Ibn Taymiyyah held this view, he was not alone in this but he was followed by numerous other Aslaaf and this is something Ibn Taymiyyah himself has expressed in the very statement used by Yasir the genius, so to say that Ibn Taymiyyah alone held this view is nothing but a lie because the Salaf before him also held this view. So criticizing Ibn Taymiyyah and slandering him means slandering numerous other pious predecessors, even though we, Salafis as a whole, may not support or hold this aqeedah!

And it was because of Yasir exclusively blaming and slandering Ibn Taymiyyah and considering the ascription of this aqeedah to the Salaf “a lie” that I was compelled to refute him and present all those narrations so as to inform him that it is you who indeed is a liar and slanderer of Salaf who speaks without knowledge. But Abul Hasan and Usamah (in some places) have both made their replies in a manner implying that as if this is the aqeedah of Ahl ul-Hadeeth.

What was the Discussion all about?

For the sake of reference and details, it is important that we explain the entire discussion once more here so that the reader may know what the discussion was all about?

So it starts with “Shaykh” Yasir’s helplessness with the aqaaid of his Akaabireen. When Ahl al-Hadeeth frequently question him about the fairy tale stories of their Akaabireen and their Aqaaid, they do not find any proper answer to give. So the tactic that Yasir adopted to counter this helplessness was to, somehow, prove the Salafi Aqaaid against Qur’aan and Sunnah if he cannot prove his Aqaaid from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. So he searched day and night for any small mistake or error desperately in the books of Ibn Taymiyyah and others to find something in the chapter of Aqeedah that is not supported by Qur’aan and Sunnah.

So one day, he finally came up with this quote (of course with the assistance of Shaykh Google) of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah where he is reported to have “quoted” the view that al-Maqaam al-Mahmood refers to Allaah making the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) sit on His Throne on the Day of Judgment. And there he went, shouting all over the internet saying, look! The Aqeedah of the Salafis is against Qur’aan and Sunnah. And for this, he put the entire blame on Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah that he alone held this view and started slandering him and on top of that, he also started ascribing this belief to the entire group of Ahl al-Hadeeth.

So we tried to explain to him, look, firstly you cannot attribute a weak ijtihaad or opinion of one particular Scholar to the entire group of Ahl al-Hadeeth. As I have explained above, it is foolishness to judge us by any personality at all. We do not hesitate to throw away the fatwa of an Imaam if it goes against Qur’aan and Sunnah, no matter it is Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Abu Haneefah, or Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah!

Secondly, even if we suppose Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah held this view, you cannot still blame him alone and hence this does not justify you slandering him with such foul tongue when in fact, this Aqeedah was also held by giant Imaams before Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and he was not, by any means, alone in this; rather he was followed by numerous other righteous people among the Salaf.

But instead of listening anything, he simply did what most other Muqallids do when confronted with difficult situation: delete/ban us! And we are not alone in this. It seems that the self-proclaimed Shaykh sahib deletes and bans everyone from his page who dares disagreeing with him or tries to correct him through evidences, no matter how sincere and decently you may behave. You can try this experiment as well and I am sure the result will be the same.

So when I tried to post my reply separately on my page giving references to other A’immah who also held the same view, they replied with this document in which the author tried to twist the entire discussion and assumed that I or we, Ahl ul-Hadeeth as a whole, hold this aqeedah and are defending it by giving all these references. While in fact, Yasir knew very well what the discussion was about and still he endorsed this reply, which is really strange. In fact, I also made this thing very clear in my first note but still the author could not see it and just in a hurry to reply came up with a reply that is nothing less than a joke with the sciences of hadeeth, and he declared all those over 15 references of A’immah weak and unproven in a single breath, out of which some were even reported from the very books of the ones who said them.

 

Our Aqeedah on the Issue of al-Maqaam al-Mahmood

Our Aqeedah in this issue is that there is nothing proven from the Prophet or his companions to support that Allaah will make the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) sit on His throne on the Day of Judgment, and the Tafseer of Imaam Mujaahid is not Hujjah in this regard because it is only the saying of a Taabi’ee.

As for the other Scholars who relied on this, then they did so due to their leniency as did Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah. So he alone is not to be blamed, rather this is something our giants like Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ishaaq bin Raahuwayh also opined for.

The best and detailed answer in this regard is given by Shaykh Saalih al-Munajjid (hafidhahullah) in the following link: http://islamqa.info/en/154636
Note: Although some things in this link are there that we may not agree with but the general “stance” of Ahl ul-Hadeeth as mentioned by the Shaykh is what we firmly believe.

So to ascribe this aqeedah to the entire group of Ahl al-Hadeeth is a lie, and they will never be able to present one single belief of ours that is against Qur’aan and Sunnah no matter how hard they try.

And to slander Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah for merely mentioning and quoting this belief of the Salaf is also a deception and an indirect slander upon the Salaf as many of them before Ibn Taymiyyah have also held the view. On the contrary, the ascription of this belief to Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah himself is ambiguous, as is explained in the next heading.

 

What did Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah really say or believe in this regard?

The saying of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah that “Shaykh, Maulaana” Yasir sahab used to create this controversy is itself subject to controversy.

The following is what Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah said. In the chapter, “Preference (Tafdeel) between the Angels and the Humans”, while discussing the preference of Human beings over the Angels, he said:

" إذَا تَبَيَّنَ هَذَا فَقَدْ حَدَثَ الْعُلَمَاءُ الْمَرْضِيُّونَ وَأَوْلِيَاؤُهُ الْمَقْبُولُونَ: أَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يُجْلِسُهُ رَبُّهُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ مَعَهُ. رَوَى ذَلِكَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فَضِيلٍ عَنْ لَيْثٍ عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ؛ فِي تَفْسِيرِ: {عَسَى أَنْ يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَحْمُودًا} وَذَكَرَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ وُجُوهٍ أُخْرَى مَرْفُوعَةٍ وَغَيْرِ مَرْفُوعَةٍ قَالَ ابْنُ جَرِيرٍ: وَهَذَا لَيْسَ مُنَاقِضًا لِمَا اسْتَفَاضَتْ بِهِ الْأَحَادِيثُ مِنْ أَنَّ الْمَقَامَ الْمَحْمُودَ هُوَ الشَّفَاعَةُ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْأَئِمَّةِ مِنْ جَمِيعِ مَنْ يَنْتَحِلُ الْإِسْلَامَ وَيَدَّعِيه لَا يَقُولُ إنَّ إجْلَاسَهُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ مُنْكَر - وَإِنَّمَا أَنْكَرَهُ بَعْضُ الْجَهْمِيَّة وَلَا ذَكَرَهُ فِي تَفْسِيرِ الْآيَةِ مُنْكَرٌ -. وَإِذَا ثَبَتَ فَضْلُ فَاضِلِنَا عَلَى فَاضِلِهِمْ ثَبَتَ فَضْلُ النَّوْع عَلَى النَّوْعِ أَعْنِي صَالِحَنَا عَلَيْهِمْ."

“….When this is evident then indeed fair Scholars and accepted Saints have narrated that: Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) will be seated by His Lord upon the Arsh with Him. This is narrated by Muhammad bin Fudayl from Layth from Mujaahid in the tafseer of the ayah, {It is expected that your Lord will raise you to a Praised Station} and that is mentioned through other routes from the Prophet and from other than him. Ibn Jareer said: “This does not contradict the nearly-mass-narrated narrations (ma istafâdat bihi al-ahâdith) whereby the Exalted Station is the Intercession as agreed upon by the Imams of all Muslims.” He (Ibn Jareer) does not say that the Prophet’s seating on the Throne is denounced as false – only some Jahmis held it so, nor did he (At-Tabari) mention in the tafseer of the verse any Munkar – hence if the superiority of our (i.e. Human Beings) most superior is proven over the most superior of them (i.e. Angels), the superiority of one type is thence proven over another type, meaning, the most righteous of us over them.” [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (4/374)]

First and foremost, what is apparent from this passage is that the entire controversy attributed to Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah as his own personal saying and opinion is not even his own view! This saying of Ibn Taymiyyah itself is enough to diminish the entire argument of Yasir and co according to which Ibn Taymiyyah alone is the proprietor of this belief, whereas if you look at his statement, he is simply and clearly quoting it as a view of the Ulama and specifically At-Tabari without ascribing it to himself. Not a single controversial wording which the author and Yasir al-Hanafi quoted as being of Ibn Taymiyyah is found to be from Ibn Taymiyyah.

But look at the cleverness of the author and his Shaykh, they have presented this saying as if Ibn Taymiyyah himself is saying it and not At-Tabari. Here is how they quoted it:

It was the belief of Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) that the interpretation of the “praised station” (al-maqaam al-mahmood) was that Allah azza wa jal would seat the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمwith Him on his throne. Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) writes; 

 إذا تبين هذا فقد حدث العلماء المرضيون وأولياؤه المقبولون: أن محمدا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يجلسه ربه على العرش معه.

“It has been narrated by accepted scholars and accepted saints that Allah will seat the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمon the throne with Him.”

Look at how confidently he is describing it to be a belief of Ibn Taymiyyah and yet presents as evidence a statement in which he is merely quoting the view of others!!!

In fact he is so restless in ascribing this belief to Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah that in his next statement, he completely omits the entire reference of Imaam Ibn Jareer at-Tabari and quotes it directly from Ibn Taymiyyah. He says,

On the next page he stated;  لا يقول إن إجلاسه على العرش منكر - وإنما أنكره بعض الجهمية “This has only been rejected by some Jahmiyyah"

Here any reference of At-Tabari is completely omitted nor has he even translated the first part. In fact, he did not even complete this very sentence, in which Ibn Taymiyyah continues,

"....لَا يَقُولُ (يعني: الطبري) إنَّ إجْلَاسَهُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ مُنْكَر -  وإنما أنكره بعض الجهمية ولا ذكره في تفسير الآية منكر"

So it is clear that what our dear friends are fighting over and with which they are slandering Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah is not even something he himself said as his own saying.

Amazingly, this (Muhtamal and dubious) quote of Ibn Taymiyyah is the one and the only one quote of Ibn Taymiyyah that they have in this regard among the entire encyclopedia of Ibn Taymiyyah’s books. And it is something which he did not even mention in its right place or heading, rather he only made a mention of it in a completely different topic (i.e. the preference of Human Beings over the Angels) wherein he discusses the topic from various different angles and this just happens to be one of the possible angles that this topic could be discussed as. And yet the three brothers present Ibn Taymiyyah as if he was a staunch proponent of this view like none other. As a brother rightly said, If merely transmitting these words is blasphemy, then you have to accuse other illustrious scholars who committed no crime but relaying this opinion of the same thing and amongst them is Ibn Hajr Al-‘Asqalaani (Fath: 11/435), Ibn Jareer At-Tabari (8/134-135), Adh-Dhahabi (Al-‘Uloo: 2/1180-1182) and others.

It is clear that Ibn Taymiyyah only quoted the view of others in this regard and that even only to take it as a mere support in a totally different topic, or simply to provide another angle to the arguments of that topic.

While some other evidences suggest that Ibn Taymiyyah’s own view in this regard was different.  As he says in another place,

" وفيها أشياء عن بعض السلف رواها بعض الناس مرفوعة كحديث قعود الرسول صلى الله عليه و سلم على العرش رواه بعض الناس من طرق كثيرة مرفوعة وهي كلها موضوعة وإنما الثابت أنه عن مجاهد وغيره من السلف وكان السلف والأئمة يروونه ولا ينكرونه ويتلقونه بالقبول وقد يقال : إن مثل هذا لا يقال إلا توقيفا لكن لا بد من الفرق بين ما ثبت من ألفاظ الرسول وما ثبت من كلام غيره سواء كان من المقبول أو المردود "

“And in it are things from some of the Salaf which some people have narrated as Marfoo’ such as the hadeeth of the seating of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) upon the Arsh. This has been narrated and ascribed to the Prophet by some people with many different chains of narration however they are all fabricated, and the only thing proven in this regard is that it is from Mujaahid and others from the Salaf. And the Salaf and A’immah used to narrate it and give it Talaqqi Bil Qabool, and indeed it is said that the likes of this is not said except Tawqeefan (i.e. through the revelation). However, it is incumbent to differentiate between what has authentically been reported from the words of the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and what has been authentically relayed from other than him no matter it is accepted or rejected.” [Dar’ Ta’arud al-Aql wal Naql (5/238)]

This is a clear indication that Ibn Taymiyyah does not consider any Marfoo hadeeth on this topic to be authentic and that the view of Scholars in this regard should not be considered or taken as an authority as we do the hadeeth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Moreover, in all of his other works and books, wherever Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah has mentioned al-Maqaam al-Mahmood, he does not even give a hint that al-Maqaam al-Mahmood refers to the seating of the Prophet upon the Arsh, rather each and every single time he proposes that it refers to Ash-Shafa’ah.

Here are some instances of it from his works, 

" كَانَ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ : إنَّ الْمَقَامَ الْمَحْمُودَ الَّذِي قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى { عَسَى أَنْ يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَحْمُودًا } هُوَ شَفَاعَتُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ "

“The people of knowledge say that al-Maqaam al-Mahmood concerning which Allaah ta’ala has said, {it is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station} refers to his Shafa’ah on the Day of Judgment.” [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (14/390)]

And

" وَلِهَذَا كَانَ مِنْ أَعْظَمِ مَا يُكْرِمُ بِهِ اللَّهُ عَبْدَهُ مُحَمَّدًا صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ هُوَ الشَّفَاعَةُ الَّتِي يَخْتَصُّ بِهَا . وَهِيَ الْمَقَامُ الْمَحْمُودُ الَّذِي يَحْمَدُهُ بِهِ الْأَوَّلُونَ والآخرون "

“And that is why it is among the greatest of things that Allaah has honored His slave Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) with. It is the Shafaa’ah (Intercession) that he is distinguished for, and this is Al-Maqaam al-Mahmood for which he has been praised by the early and later generations.” [Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (14/394)]

 

And

" فهذه هي الشفاعة العظمى، وهي المقام المحمود الذي يغبطه به النبيُّون، والذي وعده الله أن يبعثه إياه بقوله: { عَسَى أَن يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَّحْمُودًا} "

So this indeed is ash-Shafaa’ah al-Uzma (The great intercession) and it is this that’s referred to as Al-Maqaam al-Mahmood for which the Prophets have envied him and that which Allaah had promised him to be given, in His saying: {it is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station}” [Sharh Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah (1/152)]

After all this, there does not remain an iota of doubt that the actual belief of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah concerning Al-Maqaam al-Mahmood was that it is the Shafaa’ah, and whatever Yasir has deceitfully quoted in reference to him is simply not his own opinion rather Ibn Taymiyyah has merely quoted the opinion of others and tried to give an argument on a totally different topic based on that.

But even if we assume it to be the belief of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah, Yasir and co. would still not have an inch of space for them to lay their eggs on or justify their accusations of blasphemy, blame and criticism on Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) as he is not, by the farthest stretches of space, anywhere alone in this belief. Yet the genius minds of such people are made so dumb by the darkness of Taqleed that they have denied such an obvious and widespread thing to have ever occurred from any of the Salaf altogether. And this is what we will discuss further in this document.

 

Answer to the Introduction of the Author

The author says, There is a very little known fact that is now becoming apparent and clear to the masses. This fact is that a particular faction who lay claim to following Islam according to the salaf (first three generations of Islam) are in reality establishing and encouraging beliefs which are built upon spurious and fabricated narrations that cannot be taken into contention, whilst falsely projecting these beliefs onto the salaf.
As I said earlier, you have completely misunderstood the discussion here; you just rushed making the reply and forgot to use your brain in the process. The discussion is not whether we hold this aqeedah or not? And I have explained above that we don’t. The discussion here is whether Ibn Taymiyyah’s or anyone else’s belief alone can be attributed to the entire group of Ahl al-Hadeeth? And whether Ibn Taymiyyah alone is the one to be blamed for this aqeedah if he actually held this aqeedah? While in reality, even if we suppose he held this view, he was followed by a mass number of Salaf and Scholars before him, so does that justify your mile long tongue stretching against it?

And the part where you said, ….whilst falsely projecting these beliefs onto the salaf.
Is, hence, wrong and based on yours and your Shaykh’s complete lack of knowledge, as will be explained below, in-shaa-Allaah.

Further said, The beliefs in question are no doubt packed with tashbih (anthropomorphism) and tajseem (corporealism); that is to ascribe physical limbs/body parts to Allah azza wa jal as well as likening Him to His creation and we seek refuge in Him from such matters.
There are two false claims here. First the accusation of ascribing human physical limbs to Allah and the second accusation is to liken Allah with his own creation. Before I proceed, I’d like to remind the readers and the accusers of this:

The Messenger of Allah sallalahu `alayhi wa sallam said:
 
مَنْ خَاصَمَ فِي بَاطِلٍ وَهُوَ يَعْلَمُهُ لَمْ يَزَلْ فِي سَخَطِ اللَّهِ حَتَّى يَنْزِعَ عَنْهُ وَمَنْ قَالَ فِي مُؤْمِنٍ مَا لَيْسَ فِيهِ أَسْكَنَهُ اللَّهُ رَدْغَةَ الْخَبَالِ حَتَّى يَخْرُجَ مِمَّا قَالَ 
“…and whoever knowingly argues for falsehood, then he will never be free of Allah’s displeasure until he stops; and whoever says something about a believer that is untrue, then Allah will lodge him in a hole of mud until he repents from what he said.” [Ref: Sunan Abi Dawood 3597]

And he `alayhi salatu was-salaam also said: “…And if you committed a sin, follow it up with repentance – a secret (mistake to be repented) secretly; and an open (mistake to be repented) publicly.” [Ref: Reported by Imaam Ahmad in “al-Zuhd” (26) and Tabaraanee in “al-Mu`jam al-Kabeer” (20/159/331). Shaikh al-Albaanee classed it Saheeh in al-Saheehah (3320)]

Plus, look at how many Salaf and how many pious Scholars are you accusing of anthropomorphism and tajseem with this statement! Even if this belief was proven, none of the Salaf have likened the reality of this event to anything nor have they attributed limbs to Allaah by this belief. They simply believed in it without interpreting it and passed them as they are. While on the contrary, it is you who is giving this unseen matter an interpretation by saying that this must be tajseem and tashbeeh, when you yourself do not know their reality!? So how can you blame those who do not interpret this belief nor liken it to any creation while at the same time you give it an interpretation yourself?

Further said, What is it that has brought these people to accept such strange beliefs and falsely promote them as the beliefs of our pious predecessors?
I have explained this several times above now. Do I need to explain it one more time?
Firstly, to say that we, as a whole, accept this belief requires proof!
Secondly, your saying that this belief is “falsely” attributed to the Salaf, is itself a false statement, as shall be seen below, as this is the main topic of discussion.

Further said, The answer to this lies in the reality that these individuals are using a medieval scholar as the yardstick by which they measure up the salaf, thus this scholars every word is blindly followed and assumed to be the beliefs and practices of the salaf. The scholar in question is none other than Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah)
Your statement that, we measure up the Salaf by Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah also requires proof! If you can’t bring a proof, then you have lied upon us! 

Our aqeedah is well known to the world. Anyone or anything that contradicts with the speech of Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is like air to us. The one whose speech agrees and accords with the speech of Allaah and His Messenger is accepted no matter if it comes from the Shaytaan. And the one whose speech contradicts with the speech of Allaah and His Messenger is rejected no matter if it comes from Abu Bakr, Umar or any of the other most righteous and truthful people in the world.

Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah comes nowhere near. So to say that we blindly follow him is sheer mistake.
And I find this very strange coming from a person who himself blindly follows someone and is proud of it!

Further said, Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah), though he was a great scholar of his time
I can understand how hard you have to try to get these words come out of your mouth. Were it not for the high praises of many Hanafis and non Hanafi Scholars for Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah by which you are bounded, it would have been almost impossible to see these words because of the inner hatred and animosity for him. After all, the initial purpose of this discussion itself was to slander Ibn Taymiyyah!

Further said, It should also be noted that along with Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah), these individuals blindly follow his student Ibn Al Qayyim (Rahimahullah) who too had problematic beliefs and ideas.
As I said before, please provide a proof from a single statement or belief of any of the reliable Scholars of Ahl al-Hadeeth who said or practically demonstrated blindly following Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim. Otherwise, this is a straight lie upon us for which you will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment. So please think, ponder, and then give a statement. Don’t just write something in anger and then regret it later.

Further said, It is unfortunate that the authorities among them have taken up these problematic beliefs pioneered by Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) and have attempted to ascribe this to our pious predecessors, also encouraging the masses to take them up and further propagate them.
We’ll see later in this discussion, how this belief is indeed proven from the Salaf before Ibn Taymiyyah.
As for the last statement that we encourage the masses to take and propagate this belief, then this is another lie upon us.
The only purpose of us showing that the Salaf also held this belief was to inform you that Ibn Taymiyyah was not alone in having this belief if ever he held it. But where have we encouraged the people to take and propagate this belief is up to you to prove!

Further said, It was the belief of Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) that the interpretation of the “praised station” (al-maqaam al-mahmood) was that Allah azza wa jal would seat the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمwith Him on his throne. Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) writes; إذا تبين هذا، فقد حدث العلماء المرضيون وأولياؤه المقبولون: أن محمدا رسول الله يجلسه ربه علي العرش معه It has been narrated by accepted scholars and accepted saints that Allah will seat the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمon the throne with Him.”
This has been answered above under the heading, “What did Ibn Taymiyyah really believe in this regard?”

Now as for your previous statement that none of the Salaf ever held this view and that it is a lie upon the salaf, then if you had used 0.1 percent of your common sense and reasoning, you would have seen that Ibn Taymiyyah himself is quoting this belief from the Salaf before him, so you would have found this statement of your proven wrong right there and then and our discussion would have ended right there, but I figure that you did not believe in the words of Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah which is why you made this statement even though your own Scholars had gone so far as accepting the mere statement of Ibn Taymiyyah as hujjah in establishing Hanafi Madhab.

Hence, Allaamah Ibn Aabideen who is considered to be the anti-Hanbali scholar of Damascus who died in 1252 A.H. and is an authority in Hanafi law said the following about Ibn Taymiyyah: 
ورأيت في كتاب الصارم المسلول لشيخ الاسلام ابن تيمية الحنبلي ما نصه : وأما أبو حنيفة وأصحابه فقالوا : لا ينتقض العهد بالسب ، ولا يقتل الذمي بذلك ، لكن يعزر على إظهار ذلك كما يعزر على إظهار المنكرات التي ليس لهم فعلها من إظهار أصواتهم بكتابهم ونحو ذلك ، وحكاه الطحاوي عن الثوري، ومن أصولهم: يعني الحنفية أن ما لا قتل فيه عندهم مثل القتل بالمثقل والجماع في غير القبل إذا تكرر ، فللامام أن يقتل فاعله ، وكذلك له أن يزيد على الحد المقدر إذا رأى المصلحة في ذلك ، ويحملون ما جاء عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وأصحابه من القتل في مثل هذه الجرائم ، على أنه رأى المصلحة فذلك ويسمونه القتل سياسة.

وكان حاصله : أن له أن يعزر بالقتل في الجرائم التي تعظمت بالتكرار ، وشرع القتل في جنسها، ولهذا أفتى أكثرهم بقتل من أكثر من سب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من أهل الذمة وإن أسلم بعد أخذه ، وقالوا يقتل سياسة ، وهذا متوجه على أصولهم اهـ.

فقد أفاد أنه يجوز عندنا قتله إذا تكرر منه ذلك وأظهره، وقوله: وإن أسلم بعد أخذه ، لم أر من صرح به عندنا، لكنه نقله عن مذهبنا وهو ثبت فيقبل

“I saw in al-Saarim al-Maslool by Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah the following: As for Abu Hanifah and his disciples......

So Ibn Taymiyyah states that, according to us [i.e. Hanafis], it is permissible to kill him if he repeats that crime and does it openly.

 

As for Ibn Taymiyyah's statement: "... even if he accepted Islam after he was caught", then I have not seen this explicitly stated by anyone of us [Hanafis]. However, [Ibn Taymiyyah] reported it from our school of law, and he is trustworthy, therefore it is accepted [as our law].” [Ref: Vol. 6, Page 346, Haashiyah Ibn Aabideen, Dar Aalam al-Kutub special edition, 2003/1423.]

But I guess, either you considered Ibn Taymiyyah a liar which is why you did not believe his ascription of this belief to the Salaf, or you were too blind and angry while writing this that you did not even pay attention to such an obvious thing which the entire discussion revolves around. One of the two has to be correct.

Further on, It was this particular erroneous belief that my esteemed teacher Moulana Muhammad Yasir highlighted through his social network profile (Facebook) and unfortunately some individuals from the salafi group defended this and one individual went to the extent of writing a reply in defence of Ibn Taymiyyah’s (Rahimahullah) position on this.

What your “esteemed teacher Moulana” Muhammad Yasir highlighted or tried to highlight by this reference of Ibn Taymiyyah was the following,
First, that this is the belief of the entire group of Ahl al-Hadeeth.
Second, that Ibn Taymiyyah was the only one to hold this aqeedah and thus justifying “Maulaana” Muhammad Yasir’s slanders and accusations on him.
These two are the only points that I refuted him on and still currently am doing. So your saying that, we “defend” this belief is just another lie. And this has been explained above over and over again.

This is the end of my reply to the Introduction of the Author.

 

Reply to Author’s reply of my opening statement

He said, The author of the article unfortunately began his reply with a very peculiar insult, he says; 

“We, unfortunately, do not have the ability to fly and come to you to answer like your Haaji Imdaadullah Sahab. Nor do we have the super-heroic powers of Nanotwi Sahab to come to your dream and answer you.” 

Of course he is mocking a thing which he has no knowledge of, which is not surprising. There was no need for us to depend on our elders to aid us in our dreams, rather the one questioning may wonder whether Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) himself appeared in our dreams to inform us of his errors and help us.
It is very clever of you that you mentioned what I said but completely omitted the entire context of why I said this. I said the above quoted statement because after I tried to give an answer to “Maulaana” Muhammad Yasir on this issue, instead of listening anything, he simply blocked me along with some other brothers. And after that, he hypocritically, started questioning us again in his next status, telling us to answer him! Well, how could we possibly have answered when he himself blocked us! This is the method that such people use when they cannot reply back but still want to keep their image intact by acting as if they have silenced the mouth of their opponents

So this is when I said, “We, unfortunately, do not have the ability to fly and come to you to answer like your Haaji Imdaadullah Sahab. Nor do we have the super-heroic powers of Nanotwi Sahab to come to your dream and answer you

As it is well known from their books – and links to them are also given above under the heading “Reply to Abul Hasan’s foreword” – proving that their Awliyaa like Haaji Imdaadullah Makki and Qaasim Nanotwi had some super powers that surpass even the imagination of many of the Hollywood movies.

So as can be seen, the author has not even touched upon the main argument and simply jumped onto another matter, and neither do his words come anywhere near to replying what’s being said in the quoted statement. This is the exact same tactic that Yasir has used – ‘if you can’t defend your belief then change the topic and attack their belief.’

 

He said, His prominent student and disciple Hafiz Ibn Al Qayyim (Rahimahullah) writes;

وقد حدثنى غير واحد ممن كان غير مائل إلي شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية أنه رآه بعد موته وسأله عن شيء كان يشكل عليه من مسائل الفرائض وغيرها فأجابه بالصواب وبالجملة فهذا أمر لا ينكره إلا من هو أجهل الناس بالأرواح وأحكامها وشأنها وبالله التوفيق

“Indeed more than one had narrated of who were not inclining to the Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, that they saw him after his death, and asked him about things which they doubted about of the cases of the obligations and other than it and he answered them with the right thing. In the entirety, this is a matter that is not denied but the one who ignores mostly with the souls, its judgement and affair. And by Allah the success.”8

There is no room for him to deny the attribution of this book to Ibn Al Qayyim (Rahimahullah) as some from among the authors same ideology try to claim that this book was written before Hafiz Ibn Al Qayyim (Rahimahullah) met Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah), however anyone with sense can clearly see from the above that this was written long after the death of his  teacher. Also, the great Imam of this particular ideology; Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen (Rahimahullah) defended this book and praised it in two of his fatawa, he says….

Hold you horses right here! Where are you taking this to!? The context I have said the quoted statement is very clear, and yet instead of remotely touching on that, you are completely gnoring the answer and starting your own little topic!

If you could not answer to what I said, then you could simply have done yourself and me a favor by not mentioning it at all. Why this beating around the bush!?

As for seeing a deceased person in one’s dream, it is not a strange phenomenon, rather this is something being reported from our Salaf since the beginning and neither does this fact has anything to do with what’s being discussed here! However, you should also look at the difference between the dreams of the Salaf and the dreams of your Akaabireen. The reason I mentioned Haaji Imdaadullaah in the quoted statement because in one of the stories, he is said to have the power to travel to the middle of the ocean in a split second and lift an entire ship on his back and save it from drowning (and this was not in a dream). While Qaasim Nanotwi had the power to control his dreams and he could show the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to the people whenever he wanted and in fact even while in the state of consciousness. Similarly, among the fairy tales that I have linked above under the reply to Abul Hasan’ foreword, have hardly any of them related to a dream, rather those were stories that are said to have occurred in real life. So based on that I said, we don’t have super powers like your Akaabireen that we should reply to you despite having being banned by your own eminence. But instead of answering these beliefs, and instead of even answering the reason I said this, you just were too full of anger and hatred that you lost all your senses and completely failed to comprehend my point and went on your own way!

 

He said, The one opposing then says; “We had previously written a few articles in answer to your questions, but you were the one who never answered us back.”

The previous articles were so poorly constructed, built upon fabricated narrations that I was capable of demolishing them in a matter of minutes in a simple comment, I am still waiting for a response to that.
The previous articles that we have written in refutation of Muhammad Yasir do not even have a hadeeth mentioned in them; they only have the sayings of the Salaf and one article that I did write only contained ahadeeth of Saheeh Bukhaari and Muslim; so what articles are you talking about that were built upon “fabricated narrations” and you could demolish them in a matter of minutes?? This just goes to show that you are shooting arrows in thin air hoping that one of them will hit something.

He said, Then came the biggest slander and lie from this misinformed person, the heinous slander and accusation against the salaf. He dares to say; 

“Anything that Ibn Taymiyyah has or may have said was preceded by many giant Scholars and the righteous Salaf in every single word he said.”

Let’s note down the words:
1)   “biggest slander”,
2)   “lie”,
3)   “heinous slander”, 
4)   “accusation”
All these words for saying that Ibn Taymiyyah was not alone in this belief!
We’ll refer to them after we prove this belief from the Salaf, in-shaa-Allaah.

He said, One should bear in mind before they witness the debilitating deconstruction of false claims, that these merciless people attack our brothers and sisters for narrating weak ahadith in fadha’il (virtues) which is permissible and agreed upon by all muhaditheen yet they use weak and fabricated ahadith in order to support vile and putrid matters in aqa’id (belief)!
It is still upon you to prove that we hold this aqeedah. And that any of our Aqeedah that we do hold is supported only by weak and fabricated ahaadeeth.

As for you using “weak” ahaadeeth in “fadhaail”, then let me tell you that what you call “weak” is in fact “fabricated” and what you call “fadhaail” does in fact also include ahkaam and numerous Aqaaid which you silently hide under the banner of Fadhaail. While many of your aqaaid are not even proven from a fabricated hadeeth let alone a weak hadeeth. On top of that, do you even have a slightest of idea that even using weak ahaadeeth in fadhaail demands some prerequisites which you neither follow nor perhaps have any idea of.

This is the end of reply to his reply of my opening statement.

 

Reply to the Accusations and Slanders on Imaam al-Khallaal

The author said, We must remember that all the evidences used by the author except his last are from one book, Al-Sunnah by Al-Khallal.
Yes, I gave all those references from one book alone. Imagine how many others could have been given had I used other books as well.

He said, It should be known that Al-Khallal has not brought a single authentic narration in the chapter of AlMaqaam Al-Mahmood to defend this creed, instead he has given this an anthropomorphic interpretation which sadly the objector is defending. He also ignored all the authentic narrations regarding Al-Maqaam Al-Mahmood which Imam Al-Bukhari et al have narrated in their authentic books.
Apart from your usual disrespectful addressing of Imaam Khallaal rahimahullah, how many authentic narrations from the Salaf Imaam al-Khallaal has narrated will be dealt with below in-shaa-Allaah.

But before that, you have already given your very first fatwa by calling Imaam al-Khallaal an anthropomorphic!

For the readers who do not know why it is saddening to see such modern day lay Muslims who perhaps don’t even know the basics of this deen hurling such direct and indirect insults upon the giants of this earth, it is well known that Imaam Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Haaroon al-Khallaal is an Imaam from the era of Imaam Ahmad and a student of many of his kibaar Students. He was born in 234 AH and died in 311 AH. Imaam Dhahabi said about him,

" الإِمَامُ، العَلاَّمَةُ، الحَافِظُ الفَقِيْهُ، شَيْخُ الحَنَابِلَةِ وَعَالِمُهُم.... وُلِدَ: فِي سَنَةِ أَرْبَعٍ وَثَلاَثِيْنَ وَمائَتَيْنِ، أَوْ فِي الَّتِي تلِيهَا، فيجوزُ أَنْ يَكُوْنَ رَأَى الإِمَام أَحْمَد، وَلَكِنَّهُ أَخذ الفِقْه عَنْ خلقٍ كَثِيْرٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابه، وَتلمذ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ المَرُّوْذِيّ.... وَأَلف كِتَاب (السُّنَّة، وَأَلْفَاظ أَحْمَد، وَالدليل عَلَى ذَلِكَ مِنَ الأَحَادِيْث) فِي ثَلاَث مُجَلَّدَات، تَدُلُّ عَلَى إِمَامته وَسَعَة عِلْمِهِ.... "

“He is al-Imaam, al-Allaamah, al-Haafidh, al-Faqeeh, The Shaykh of Hanbalis and their Aalim…. He was born in the year 234 or a year after that, so it is possible that he saw Imaam Ahmad, but he took Fiqh from a huge number of his (i.e. Imaam Ahmad’s) companions and adopted the studentship of Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi….. and he has authored Kitaab as-Sunnah and the words of Ahmad and the ahaadeeth that support his words in three volumes, which indicates his Imaamate and vastness of knowledge….” [Siyar A’laam al-Nubala (14/297-298)]

Imaam Abu Bakr bin Shahriyaar said about him, " كُلُّنَا تبعٌ لأَبِي بَكْرٍ الخَلاَّل، لَمْ يسبِقْهُ إِلَى جمع علم الإِمَام أَحْمَد أَحَد " “All of us follow Abu Bakr bin al-Khallaal, no one has ever preceded him in compiling the knowledge of Imaam Ahmad.” [Ibid]

Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi said, " جَمَعَ الخَلاَّل عُلُوْمَ أَحْمَدَ وَتَطَلَّبَهَا، وَسَافَرَ لأَجلهَا، وَكَتَبَهَا، وَصَنَّفَهَا كتباً، لَمْ يَكُنْ - فِيْمَنْ يَنْتحل مَذْهَب أَحْمَد - أَحَد أَجمعَ لِذَلِكَ مِنْهُ. " “Al-Khallaal has compiled and sought the Uloom of Ahmad, and for this purpose he has traveled, written them down, and compiled them in books. No one – among those who have adopted the Madhab of Ahmad – has compiled that more than him.” [Taareekh Baghdaad (5/112-113) and Siyar]

So it is known that Imaam al-Khallaal is one of the well-known and reliable Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah. And no one has ever called him an anthropomorphic before, or that he is not one of the reliable A’immah of Ahl us-Sunnah.

And he also came much before Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah, so before criticizing this Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah, if the author had just looked at the fact that Al-Khallaal himself is one of the Scholars who came much earlier than Ibn Taymiyyah, he would not have to write this entire response, and he would not have said that Ibn Taymiyyah was alone to have this Aqeedah and that NONE of the “Scholars and Salaf before him held this Aqeedah”!

This one reference alone was enough to prove his entire response of 26 pages as invalid.

He said, Al-Khallal has not only used weak and fabricated narrations to prove this creed, rather he has also used DREAMS to prove that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمwill be seated with Allah on his throne on the day of Qiyamah (Naoozubillah).
Once again the utter disrespect towards the earliest of salaf is very disappointing from such modern day Facebook Maulanas.

Reminds me of this: Al-Baihaqee recorded in al-Madkhal ilas-Sunanil-Kubraa (no.679): 

“Abu ‘Aasim said: A youth from the people of knowledge was present in the gathering of Sufyaan Ath-Thawree (d. 161H); so the youth put himself forward at the head of the gathering, and started talking and boasting with his knowledge in front of those who were older than him. So Sufyaan (rahimahullaah) became angry, and said:

“The Salaf were not like this! One of them would not claim leadership for himself and he would not sit in the forefront of the gathering until he had sought knowledge for thirty years! And you display arrogance in front of one who is older than you. Get up from me and don’t come near my gathering.”

If this is the case of one who merely spoke in front of senior scholars then what about the brother here who is ridiculing not only Ibn Taymiyyah but also someone far superior and earlier to him, Imaam al-Khallal!!

And Imaam Ahmad rahimahullah once said to a disrespectful person: What is the matter with you?! Woe on to you for saying (such disrespectful things) about the Imams!”

Ibn ‘Asakir (rahimahullah) once heard one of his teachers being disrespectful towards the scholars of the past. He said to his teacher: “I will only respect you as long as you maintain respect for the Imams!” [Ref: Adab ul-Ikhtilaf]

As for the objection that Imaam Khallaal has mentioned dreams to prove this aqeedah, then you should know that he has mentioned some dreams only after he mentioned his main evidences and sayings of Salaf just as a follow up. Now if he had only based his opinion on the dreams, then you would have sounded a little reasonable to say that.

It has also been proven from the Salaf that they mention dreams of Scholars only to make their point stronger or merely to mention it as a virtue not as an evidence. And before any dreams, they would mention their evidences from ahaadeeth and athaar. So it is not the dreams that they base their opinion on, rather dreams are only followed up as a virtue not as evidence.

So your expression of astonishment here is very strange and your criticism of Imaam al-Khallaal merely for narrating dreams – by overlooking his actual evidences – is also invalid as if dreams are the only things he narrated in this chapter!

However, if I had used those dreams as evidence in my article then you would have been justified to show your astonishment – on me alone – not on him! But even that is not the case here!

Have you forgotten the special place of “Dreams” in your own Madhab!? Do I need to mention some examples!?

 

He said, Thus, the reputable scholar of the salafi ideology who has edited and written the footnotes to this book, Atiyyah Al-Zahrani, has acknowledged on page 210 that Al-Khallal has gone against the authentic narrations and used DREAMS to prove this creed, they are several in number. These individuals accuse our brothers and sisters of shirk and kufr for stating the narrations of dreams in regards to fadha’il (virtue) yet find it completely acceptable in aqa’id (creed) when it suits them! I advise this individual and any others who read this not to quote the books of creed which have beliefs based on dreams. I would also like to say that the value of this book of creed (which has dreams and fabrications) according to the neo-salafi editor is like that of Ibn Taymiyyah…
You are mistaken again to state that Al-Khallaal has used dreams alone to support his belief.

And still how can you reject the entire book because the book contains some dreams which are only a small aspect of a small portion of the book, by saying “not to quote the books of creed which have beliefs based on dreams”? And if you are true to your claim then why haven’t you rejected so many of your books which have more of dreams in comparison to actual saheeh narrations?!

As I said above, Imaam Al-Khallaal has not based his belief on dreams. If he had to “base” his belief on dreams alone then he would only have narrated dreams in that chapter and nothing else. The fact that he has mentioned the main evidences first and foremost means these are also the things – and the main things – that he is basing his belief on. The way you exclusively mention of “Dreams” only, which is merely a small aspect, while overlooking the other main things he based his belief on, is a form of deception as if this is the only thing he is using in the chapter.

To give you an example, many Muhadditheen who have written biographical evaluations of the narrators of hadeeth, first mention the main sayings and comments of Scholars concerning that narrator and then they might follow it up with a dream or two in which that narrator is praised or discredited. Now can any sane person reject the entire book or criticize that author by saying, look! He is basing the praise of this narrator on dreams!? Even though, dreams are only a part of the actual evidence? Can any person overlook all those sayings and criticisms and exclusively mention “dreams” as if that is the only thing he narrated or based the entire biography on!? If not, and certainly not, then fear Allaah and refrain from such deception!

Secondly, just because al-Khallaal mentioned some dreams, how can you even get that courage to say “not to quote the book” and reject it in entirety!? Did Dhahabi who praised this book of al-Khallaal or any other Scholar ever said that since Khallaal has narrated dreams, so reject him and his book and do not quote it at all!??

Fear Allaah and do not find ways to malign the A’immah of Ahl us-Sunnah and lower their status based on your limited understanding and knowledge.

As for your saying, “These individuals accuse our brothers and sisters of shirk and kufr for stating the narrations of dreams in regards to fadha’il (virtue) yet find it completely acceptable in aqa’id (creed) when it suits them!”
Then let me first warn you not to portray as if all the kufr and shirk found in Deobandi Aqaaid is confined to your “Dreams”!

Secondly, if you had paid attention to the difference between the dreams of your Akaabireen and the dreams of the righteous Salaf, you would not have complained as to why we criticize you. The dreams of the Deobandi akaabireen are much too real (in literal sense) and they hold the status of “certain belief” among them.
For some of the strange dreams of Deobandi Akaabireen see the following blog, http://deobandhikaramaat.blogspot.com/ 
So all of your self-made criticisms on Imaam al-Khallaal are baseless and invalid for which your own limited understanding and ignorance is to be blamed.

 

He said, The following is a point by point answer to each evidence provided by the opposer.
Ah! Finally, you come to the main point!

Analysis of the Narration of Imaam Mujaahid

The athar of Imaam Mujaahid in this regard is narrated from a number of routes all of which support and strengthen one another. The First Route – from Layth bin Abi Sulaym

Imaam Abu Bakr al-Khallaal has narrated from a number of routes from: ابْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ لَيْثٍ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ: {عَسَى أَنْ يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَحْمُودًا} [الإسراء: 79] قَالَ: «يُجْلِسُهُ مَعَهُ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ»

“Ibn Fudayl, from Layth (bin Abi Sulaym), from Mujaahid: concerning the verse, {it is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station} Mujaahid said, ‘He will make him sit with Him upon the Arsh.’” [As-Sunnah lil Khallaal: Chapter Dhikr al-Maqaam al-Mahmood]

This report is narrated from Layth by numerous people other than Ibn Fudayl and from Ibn Fudayl, it is narrated by many others. This chain is authentic and its narrators are all reliable except for Layth bin Abi Sulaym!

Now even Layth bin Abi Sulaym was Sadooq fi Nafsih and an upright person and a well-known faqeeh, the only reason he was declared weak was because of his memory and the only reason of his weak memory was his Ikhtilaat at the later age. Imaam Dhahabi said about him,

" محدث الكوفة، وأحد علمائها الأعيان، على لين في حديثه، لنقص حفظه.... قلت: بعض الأئمة يحسن لليث، ولا يبلغ حديثه مرتبة الحسن، بل عداده في مرتبة الضعيف المقارب، فيروى في الشواهد والاعتبار، وفي الرغائب، والفضائل، أما في الواجبات، فلا."

“He is the Muhaddith of Koofah and one of their notable Scholars, despite some mildness in his hadeeth due to his deficient memory…. I say: some A’immah have praised Layth and his hadeeth does not go beyond the level of Hasan, rather counting it in the level of Da’eef is closer. Hence his narrations are to be narrated in Shawaahid and I’tibaar and in Virtues and Targheeb, as for in obligatory matters, then no.” [Siyar A’laam al-Nubala (6/179, 184)]

So it is known that his weakness is not severe, rather his hadeeth is accepted if supported by another. Not to forget the fact that Imaam Dhahabi said that about his Marfoo’ narrations, while this is still a saying of his Shaykh that he is narrating, which does not even require a whole lot of dhabt neither does it require one to pass the strict test of Muhadditheen for his “Marfoo’” narration to be accepted. Rather, if a Sadooq and Aadil person narrates a saying of his Shaykh, this is enough for it to be accepted and it does not require a person to be a Thiqah person of very high caliber.

Note: Layth bin Abi Sulaym is not proven to be a Mudallis! The reference of Al-Haythami is of no use because he is not a Naaqid and neither has anyone before him followed him in that. Perhaps he said so based on Layth narrating from the book of Ibn Abi Barzah but that is a kind of Tadlees in which a person’s an’anah is not of any harm to the narration as long as the author of the book is Thiqah, such kind of Tadlees is proven from Abuz-Zubayr, Hasan al-Basri and even “Imaam al-A’dham” Abu Haneefah!

This brings us to the fact that Layth bin Abi Sulaym’s narrations specifically from Mujaahid in the topic of Tafseer are authentic because Layth bin Abi Sulaym used to narrate Mujaahid’s tafseer from the book of Ibn Abi Bazzah and he is Thiqah. Moreover narrating from the book does not even require one to be a Haafidh or have a strong memory so that objection is also resolved. Hence, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan states:

"لم يسمع التَّفْسِير من مُجَاهِد أحد غير الْقَاسِم بْن أبي بزَّة وَأخذ الحكم وَلَيْث بْن أبي سليموَابْن أبي نجيح وَابْن جريج وَابْن عُيَيْنَة من كِتَابه وَلم يسمعوا من مُجَاهِد"

“No one has heard Tafseer from Mujaahid except Al-Qaasim bin Abi Bazzah, and it was from his book that Al-Hakam, Layth bin Abi Sulaym, Ibn Abi Najeeh, Ibn Jurayj, and Ibn Uyaynah took while they did not hear directly from Mujaahid” [Ath-Thiqaat (7/331)]

So it is crystal clear that every single report of tafseer that Layth narrated from Mujaahid is taken from the book of Al-Qaasim bin Abi Bazzah, and narrating from the book does not require any hifdh or dhabt at all, so criticizing him for that is not going to help in this case. That is why the A’immah have unanimously accepted his narrations of Tafseer from Mujaahid and no one has ever objected on them as being weak. In fact, Scholars have specifically mentioned a unanimous consensus of the elder Scholars in accepting this particular report of Layth from Mujaahid in the tafseer of this verse.

Now on top of that, it is proven that Layth bin Abi Sulaym is also not alone in narrating it from Mujaahid, rather he is supported by other narrators which raise the level of this narration to at least “Hasan” if not Saheeh.

 

The Second Route – from Ataa bin as-Saa’ib
Imaam al-Khallaal narrates,ثنا محمد بن بشر، قال: ثنا عبد الرحمن بن شريك يعني عمه، قال: ثنا أبي، قال: ثنا عطاء بن السائب، يقول: سمعت مجاهدا: وسئل عن قول الله، عز وجل: {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} [الإسراء: 79] قال: «يقعده على العرش»

Muhammad bin Bishr narrated to us, he said: Abdur Rahmaan bin Shareek i.e. his uncle narrated to us, he said: my father (Shareek) narrated to us, he said: Ataa bin as-Saa’ib narrated to us that I heard Mujaahid while he was asked about the saying of Allaah Azza wa Jalla: {it is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station} and he said, “He will make him sit upon the Arsh.” [As-Sunnah (1/250, 252)]

This chain is Hasan. All its narrators are Thiqah and Hasan ul-Hadeeth, except for Muhammad bin Bishr. Following is the introduction to each of its narrators
1-    Ataa bin as-Saa’ib is one of the Thiqah Taabi’een. He is only criticized for his Ikhtilaat and his memory got deteriorated when he went to Basrah as explained by Imaam Abu Haatim, while the one narrating from him here is Shareek who is a Koofi and Ataa himself is also a Koofi and Shareek is also counted among one of the Qadeem Narrators, so his narration from Ataa is therefore acceptable.
2-    Shareek bin Abdullah al-Qaadhi is also Sadooq and Hasan ul-Hadeeth and he is specifically praised in his narrations from the people of Koofah (as in this case Ataa al-Koofi). For his detailed biography, see the following link: http://asmaur-rijaal.blogspot.com/2013/06/shareek-bin-abdullah-al-qaadhi_30.html 
3-    His son, Abdur Rahmaan bin Shareek is also Sadooq Hasan ul-Hadeeth. Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat and Ibn Hajar has called him “Sadooq Yukhti” which means Hasan ul-Hadeeth. 
4-    Lastly, Muhammad bin Bishr bin Shareek is the only narrator that has been called Da’eef by Dhahabi. And he is the only weakness in the chain and hence, he is a very good candidate to be a support for the narration of Layth bin Abi Sulaym. Moreover, his matter is strengthened by the fact that he has narrated this hadeeth from his book not from his memory as explained by Khallaal!

The Third Route – from Abu Yahya al-Qattaat

Imaam al-Khallaal narrates,ثنا محمد بن بشر، قال: ثنا عبد الرحمن بن شريك، قال: ثنا أبي قال: ثنا أبو يحيى القتات، عن مجاهد: {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} [الإسراء: 79] قال: «يقعد محمدا على العرش» 
“Muhammad bin Bishr narrated to us, Abdur Rahmaan bin Shareek narrated to us, he said my Father narrated to us, he said Abu Yahya al-Qattaat narrated to us from Mujaahid concerning the verse {it is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station} that he (Mujaahid) said, ‘He will make Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) sit upon the Arsh’” [As-Sunnah (1/252)]

This chain is similar to the previous chain except that in it Ataa bin as-Saa’ib and Layth bin Abi Sulaym are supported by Abu Yahya al-Qattaat, who is differed upon among the Muhadditheen but overall, he is Sadooq fi Nafsih and his hadeeth is suitable to strengthen its likes especially in this case where each of them are narrating it from their Shaykh, Mujaahid.

Similarly, each three of them are also supported by Jaabir bin Yazeed al-Ju’fi who is too severely weak to be mentioned here, so I have omitted him.

So as can be seen here, this saying of Mujaahid is narrated from him by:
1-    Layth bin Abi Sulay
2-    Ataa bin as-Saa’ib &
3-    Abu Yahya al-Qattaat
And all three of them have very slight weaknesses due to which they strengthen each other to become at least Hasan, keeping in mind this is still a saying of their Shaykh that they are narrating, and is not a Marfoo narration which requires more strictness.                                                                                           

Moreover, all the early Scholars and Muhadditheen have unanimously agreed upon in accepting this narration as is mentioned in some of the references provided of as-Sunnah; this fact alone was enough to take this narration, while now on top, we have proven this narration to be Hasan from the perspective of transmission as well, wa-lillaahil-hamd.

Hence, the ruling of some contemporary Scholars like Shaykh Albaani against the giant Muhadditheen mentioned in books will not be accepted.

As for saying that this saying of Mujaahid contradicts with another one of his saying where he said, al-Maqaam al-Mahmood is Shafaa’ah, then it should be known that both sayings are proven from him and they do not contradict each other, rather there is nothing preventing these two things to occur simultaneously, and this is what Imaam Ibn Jareer has also said. So calling it a contradiction requires the proof that one thing cannot coexist with the other, hence a contradiction!

So there should not remain any doubt that this saying is actually proven from Imaam Mujaahid (rahimahullah) and hence once again, the author is proven to be wrong in his saying that “No one before Ibn Taymiyyah held this belief” and Yasir’s saying that, “Ascription of this belief to the Salaf is a lie”!

Now let’s observe some examples of the author’s “Doctorate-level” knowledge of Uloom al-Hadeeth on this narration.

 

He says, Some others like to mention that Imam At-Tabari cited and defended this narration in his commentary, we however would like to state that Imam At-Tabari narrated this from Abbad ibn Ya‘qub, Abu Sa‘id al-Asadi al-Rawajini al-Kufi (d. 250) whom regarding Ad-Dhahabi said; “One of the ‘extremists’ (ghulat) of the Shi‘a and one of the heads of innovation – however, he is truthful in hadith”15 Ibn Hibban said of him: “He deserves to be abandoned [as a narrator].”

Ignorance # 1: According to him, Imaam Tabari did NOT defend this narration because he narrated it from a weak chain!
Well, even if he narrated it with a weak chain, how does that suggest even remotely that Tabari did not consider this narration authentic!? How do you know that even Tabari considered this chain weak and hence could not have defended it!?

On the contrary, Imaam Tabari has mentioned this narration several times with the expression of certainty and on top he said, "فإن ما قاله مجاهد من أن الله يُقعد محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم على عرشه، قول غير مدفوع صحته، لا من جهة خبر ولا نظر"
“Indeed what Mujaahid has said about Allaah seating Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) over the throne, is a position that is by no means unsound whether from the perspective of narration or from that of reason.”[Tafseer at-Tabari (17/531)]

And he goes further on to defend this narration. So merely because one of the narrators in his chain of Mujaahid is weak according to your finding, does not mean Tabari did not defend the narration. How do you even call this an argument let alone a valid one!?

On the contrary, your beloved Gibril Fouad Haddad himself is compelled to say, “However, far from rejecting Mujahid’s narration, he (Tabari) returns to discuss it and defends its authenticity” [Article: “Prophet’s seating on the throne”]

And neither does Gibril Fouad defends the position that Ibn Taymiyyah was alone to have held this aqeedah or that he was not followed by anyone before. The Author, Yasir, and Abu al-Hasan are the only ones to claim this joke of the century.

Note: As for the story that the author mentions that Tabari rejected this narration at the end of his life, is not true and its truthfulness needs evidence. Just narrating something from a book that came centuries later is not enough.

Ignorance # 2: The author reveals his utmost ignorance of Ilm ul-Hadeeth when he criticizes the chain of this narration due to some far away narrator named, “Abbaad bin Ya’qoob al-Asdi” in the following chain of Imaam at-Tabari, حدثنا عباد بن يعقوب الأسدي، قال: ثنا ابن فضيل، عن ليث، عن مجاهد، في قوله (عَسَى أَنْ يَبْعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ مَقَامًا مَحْمُودًا) قال: يُجْلسه معه على عرشه.

Although, Abbaad bin Ya’qoob is Sadooq Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to the Jumhoor Muhadditheen, but still let’s suppose as the author says that he is weak, even then this chain cannot be declared weak because of him because he is not the only one to narrate it from Ibn Fudayl.

In fact so many people have narrated this narration from Ibn Fudayl other than Abbaad that it would not be invalid to say that it is Mutawaatir from Ibn Fudayl and yet the author is very happy just by criticizing Abbaad, who is only of the numerous narrators narrating it from Ibn Fudayl.

Some of the people who narrated it from Ibn Fudayl other than Abbaad include:
·        Ali bin al-Hasan bin Sulemaan Abu ash-Sha’tha
·        Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahuwayh
·        Imaam Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah.
·        Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah
·        Ibraaheem bin Moosa ar-Raazi
·        Al-‘Alaa bin Amr
·        Muhammad bin Mus’ab al-Aabid
·        Muhriz bin Awn
·        Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof
·        Abu Hammaam
·        Abu al-Hudhayl
·        Imaam Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numayr
·        Waasil bin Abdul A’la
·        Ubayd bin Ya’eesh
·        Ja’far bin Muhammad al-Haddaad
·        Yahya bin Abdul Hameed
·        Diraar bin Surad
·        Muhammad bin Bukayr
·        Yahya bin Hassaan
·        Shareek al-Qaadhi
·        Abu Maalik an-Nakha’ee
·        Zawwaad bin Ulbah
·        Al-Mutlib bin Ziyaad
·        Ja’far al-Ahmar
·        Imaam Amr bin Ali al-Fallaas
·        Khallaad bin Aslam
·        Muhammad bin Umar al-Masseesi
And others. And all these references are still of one book alone, i.e. As-Sunnah.

All these people listed above have narrated this narration of Mujaahid from Ibn Fudayl which clearly proves that Abbaad bin Ya’qoob is nowhere nearly alone in narrating it from Ibn Fudayl.

So the author’s attempt to criticize this chain due to Abbaad bin Ya’qoob is a huge ignorance from Uloom al-Hadeeth, rather I would say this is a deception because the author himself has been well aware of all these references since he read As-Sunnah of Abu Bakr al-Khallaal and As-Sunnah of Ibn Abi Aasim (from which he quoted Shaykh Albaani) and yet he criticizes the chain based on a single reference of Tabari!!!

Is this your “mastery” in Uloom al-Hadeeth that you are able to “diminish in a matter of minutes”!!?

Is this what “Shaykh Dr.” Abu al-Hasan defends in the name of “Uloom al-Hadeeth”!!?

 

The status of Layth bin Abu Sulaym according to Ibn Hajar:

The author goes on to further criticize the chain, saying, Next the narrator that claimed to have taken this from Imam Mujahid is Al-Layth Ibn Abi Sulaym ibn Zunaym al-Qurashi (d. 148). Ibn Hajar said that he was abandoned as a hadith narrator due to the excessiveness of his mistakes. 17 He is also declared weak (da’if) and a concealer of his sources (mudallis) by al-Haythami.18 We question those who cite this as evidence claiming it to be from Imam Mujahid whether it is acceptable or not, the reader will now be capable of deciphering for themselves what is correct and what is not.

It should be noted that the word “Abandoned” which in Arabic is said for “Matrook” is a strong word and Ibn Hajar has not meant it in its technical meaning. On the contrary, it is proven from several Muhadditheen that he was Sadooq and reliable and was only criticized for his memory or Ikhtilaat. Now even Ibn Hajar did not intend to call him a “Matrook (Abandoned)”. The actual words of Imaam Ibn Hajar concerning Layth are as follows: " صدوق اختلط جدا و لم يتميز حديثه فترك" 
“He is truthful, his memory got severely deteriorated and distinction could not be made between his narrations (before Ikhtilaat and after Ikhtilaat), which is why, he was rejected” [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (5685)]

In this saying of Ibn Hajar, “Faturika” is not synonymous to saying “Matrook”. There is a big difference between the two as is well known to anyone who studies the science of Jarh wa Ta’deel. In reality, what he intends to do here is mention the Illah or reason by which his hadeeth is weakened, which is, severe ikhtilaat. Otherwise, he himself has called him Sadooq.

Note: It amazes me how the author only mentioned the part of Ibn Hajar’s saying related to criticism and did not even bother to mention the word “Sadooq” that he said right before, fearing that it might have lessened the weakness of the narrator. This is clearly done to deceive his readers!

Not to forget that Imaam Muslim has narrated from Layth bin Abi Sulaym Maqroonan and Imaam Bukhaari has narrated from him in Ta’leeq form, so it is incumbent that he is relied upon in Mutaaba’aat and Shawaahid. It is also important to note that no one has ever called Layth bin Abi Sulaym a “Matrook” so how is it possible that Ibn Hajar would call him a Matrook in its technical meaning.

At the end, here is an explicit proof from Ibn Hajar himself that Layth bin Abi Sulaym is suitable in Shawaahid and Mutaaba’aat. In Fath ul-Baari, he said:
" وليث وإن كان ضعيف الحفظ فإنه يعتبر به ويستشهد " “Although Layth had weak memory, he is certainly (relied upon) for I’tibaar and Istishhaad” [Fath ul-Baari (1/347)]

So presenting the saying of Ibn Hajar as if it is a severe Jarh is nothing but a deception.

 

The Status of Layth according to Al-Haythami:

Further on, the author says,He is also declared weak (da’if) and a concealer of his sources (mudallis) by al-Haythami

To take the decisions of Jarh and Ta’deel from Al-Haythami is another deception, for Al-Haythami is not a Naaqid rather he is only a Naaqil of late 7th century and one of the Shuyookh of Ibn Hajar.

Moreover, Al-Haythami has also declared Layth bin Abi Sulaym Thiqah at several places in al-Majma’ but why on earth would the author bother to mention that!? In fact, wherever he called him a Mudallis, he has followed it by calling him Thiqah or simply mentioning that he is Mudallis without mentioning that he is weak.

Some of his sayings are as follows:
·       وفيه ليث بن أبي سليم، وهو ثقة ولكنه مدلس(2/16)
·       فيه ليث بن أبي سليم وهو ثقة مدلس. (2/144)
·       وفيه ليث بن أبي سليم وهو مدلس وهو ثقة. (2/243)

And numerous other places. Yes, however, he did also call him Da’eef in some places, such as the following:
·       وفيه ليث بن أبي سليم، وهو ضعيف

It should also be noticed that the number of times he called him Thiqah in his book is much more than the number of times he called him Da’eef. And by compiling all his sayings and comparing them together reveals that Al-Haythami considered Layth bin Abi Sulaym Thiqah fi Nafsih and considered his narrations authentic as long as he was followed by another narrator. This is supported by the following sayings of al-Haythami other places,
·       وفيه ليث بن أبي سليم، وهو ضعيف، وقد يحسن حديثه(6/279)
And similarly, he said:·       وفيه ليث بن أبي سليم وهو حسن الحديث على ضعفه(7/179)
And, ·       وفيه ليث بن أبي سليم، وهو ثقة إلا أنه ينسب إلى التخليط والغلط(1/212) 
And,·       وفيه ليث بن أبي سليم، وقد ضعفه جماعة، ويعتبر بحديثه(7/158)

These sayings clearly seem to reconcile between both his sayings. In any case, what al-Haythami does believe, at the very least, is that Layth bin Abi Sulaym is suitable for I’tibaar, which is why he said in his last comment, “Yu’tabaru Hadeethuh” meaning his hadeeth is reliable for I’tibaar (i.e. Mutaaba’aat and Shawaahid) even though a group of people have weakened him.

Therefore, the author is once again deceiving the readers by implying as if “Tad’eef” is the only saying narrated from Al-Haythami concerning Layth, even though he has called him Thiqah more than he has called him Da’eef!

 

The reality of Layth bin Abi Sulaym’s tadlees

Next thing that the author claims is that Layth bin Abi Sulaym was a Mudallis even though none of the earlier scholars have called him so.
In reality Al-Haythami has based his opinion on the fact that Layth bin Abi Sulaym used to narrate Mujaahid’s tafseer from the book of Al-Qaasim bin Abi Bazzah. And this is a form of Tadlees in which the source of the narrator is no longer hidden, therefore, as long as that “known” source is reliable, such tadlees would not harm the narrator’s narrations in the least bit. On the contrary, Layth’s narrating from the book of Qaasim is a means of rather more strength to his narration, as explained above.

The author might feel disappointed to hear that his own Imaam al-A’dham, Abu Haneefah rahimahullah used to commit such form of Tadlees, as he took the book of Muhammad bin Jaabir al-Yamaami and started narrating it from Hammaad bin Abi Sulemaan, while Muhammad bin Jaabir said that he stole the books of Hammaad from him! [See, Al-Jarh wat-Ta’deel by Ibn Abi Haatim (8/450)] In any case, this is indeed Tadlees.

The author says after this, We question those who cite this as evidence claiming it to be from Imam Mujahid whether it is acceptable or not, the reader will now be capable of deciphering for themselves what is correct and what is not.
In fact, we should question you for showing such ignorance with the principles and Uloom of Hadeeth. And who do you think are you questioning? Is it Imaam Ahmad, Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een, Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahuwayh, Imaam Sufyaan, Imaam Awzaa’ee and all those giant Scholars of Islaam who accepted this narration!? If you are then all you are doing is spitting at the sun which will only fall back on you.

Layth bin Abi Sulaym is well proven to be Sadooq and suitable for I’tibaar by the Scholars; while here, he is in fact narrating directly from the book which makes his narration even more reliable and Hasan on its own (Lidhaatih). Yet on top of that he has been supported by three more mutaa’biaat. If this was a Marfoo’ narration, even that might have become “Hasan Lighayrih” due to that, while this is still just the saying of a Taabi’ee which is being narrated by his direct student, Layth.

 

Did Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr weaken the narration of Mujaahid?

Next up, the author claims,Now an exposure of the lies that these people present is rightly due!
He next claimed that; “there is a consensus of Ulama on the acceptance of this narration”

The truth is that this narration has been refuted by the people of knowledge, thus Imam Ibn Abd AlBarr Al-Maliki has stated that Mujahid has two statements which have been refused by the people of knowledge, one is this (i.e Allah will make the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمnext to him). 22 At-Tabri has also authenticated in his tafseer that this relates to intercession as mentioned previously.

So Imam Ibn Abd Al-Barr Al-Maliki states that the people of knowledge have rejected it but the opposer says that the ulema have accepted it, is he accusing the ulema of not being from among those with knowledge? It becomes quite clear who the one without knowledge is.

Subhaanallaah! The author has completely twisted the meaning. I mentioned the consensus of Ulama on accepting the attribution of this qawl to Mujaahid, while he is presenting the saying of Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr concerning the validity of the opinion itself with respect to Sharee’ah.

Let’s see what Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr really said?
Here are the actual words of Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr,

" وليس من العلماء أحد إلا وهو يؤخذ من قوله ويترك إلا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ومجاهد وإن كان أحد المقدمين في العلم بتأويل القرآن فإن له قولين في تأويل اثنين هما مهجوران عند العلماء مرغوب عنهما أحدهما هذا والآخر قوله في قول الله عز وجل عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا"

“There is none among the Scholars except that his saying can be taken and it can be rejected except for the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). And Mujaahid, even though, he was one of the foremost in knowledge of the interpretation of Qur’aan, he had two sayings in interpretation of two verses which are rejected by the Ulama and they are incorrect. One of them is this (i.e. the tafseer of ayah: ‘Ilaa Rabbihaa Naazirah’) and the other one is his saying concerning the saying of Allaah Azza wa Jalla, ‘It is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station’ (that it refers to his seating on the throne)” [Al-Tamheed (7/157)]

This saying of Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr is absolutely correct and we also agree with it hundred percent. This saying is, on the contrary, testifying against you!

You see – may Allaah help you – there are two things:
1-    Imaam Mujaahid’s opinion being wrong and rejected with respect to the Sharee’ah and the Daleel.
2-    And the “attribution” of the opinion itself to Imaam Mujaahid.
In other words, it’s not about ‘what he said is right or wrong?’ it’s about ‘whether he said it or not?’

These two things are different. What Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr is talking about is the first thing: that Imaam Mujaahid’s tafseer is inaccurate and rejected by the Ulama, not that this opinion itself is not proven from Imaam Mujaahid!

Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr is calling two of Imaam Mujaahid’s opinions to be wrong and that is why he said, even though he is a great Scholar, anyone’s saying can be rejected and accepted! His saying is so clear that anyone would easily be able to understand.

If he was talking about this saying itself not being proven from Imaam Mujaahid, he would not have blamed the human nature of Imaam Mujaahid to commit mistake, because in that case the mistake would not be from Mujaahid but from those who narrated it from Mujaahid!

And this, necessarily proves, that Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr himself considered the attribution of this opinion to Imaam Mujaahid as valid or authentic, which goes directly against you and you proved it yourself!

Moreover, Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr has called two of Imaam Mujaahid’s opinions to be rejected. The other one he talked about is concerning the tafseer of Mujaahid concerning the Ayah: “Ilaa Rabbiah Naazirah” [Surah Qiyamah: 23] which he himself said is narrated from Mujaahid through the chain of Sufyaan ath-Thawree from Mansoor from Mujaahid. Now it is evident for even the students of Hadeeth that this chain is absolutely authentic and its chain contains A’immah and Huffaadh of Hadeeth whose reliability is agreed upon. So how is it possible that by calling these two opinions “rejected”, Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr is talking about them being “un-proven” from Imaam Mujaahid!?

Hence, this saying of Ibn Abdil Barr is rather against you as Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr himself does not question the authenticity of this narration from Imaam Mujaahid. On the contrary, he only questions the nature of this saying, which we also agree with. Because the main point of our discussion was whether anyone before Ibn Taymiyyah ever said this or not? And you said that its “attribution” to the Salaf is a lie, a fabrication and what not and you blamed it all on Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah as if he was the originator of this saying. So all we needed to do was prove the “attribution” of this saying to any of the Salaf before Ibn Taymiyyah, but when did bring the proof of attribution you completely twisted the meaning and brought a saying of Ibn Abdil Barr which only seems to criticize the validity of the saying not its attribution to Imaam Mujaahid.

 

The consensus of Ulama in accepting the narration of Mujaahid

Now coming to my point that this narration is widely accepted by the Ulama (with regard to its “attribution” to Imaam Mujaahid). The following are some of the sayings of Ulama testifying to that:

1-    Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (D. 241) His student, Imaam Abu Bakr al-Marwazi said, 
سألت أَبَا عبد اللَّه عَن الأحاديث الَّتِي تردها الجهمية فِي الصفات والرؤية والإسراء وقصة العرش، فصححها أَبُو عبد اللَّه وَقَالَ [قد تلقتها الأمة بالقبول تمر الأخبار كَمَا جاءت]
“I asked Abu Abdullah (Imaam Ahmad) about the ahaadeeth that refute the Jahmiyyah concerning the Sifaat, the Sight (of Allaah), Israa, and the story of Arsh, so Abu Abdullah authenticated them and said, [The Ummah has unanimously accepted them, pass the reports as they have come]”

This saying is mentioned by Imaam al-Marwazi in his book he wrote concerning this very athar, “Ar-Radd Ala man radda Hadeeth Mujaahid” as mentioned by Abu Ya’la in “Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat” (1/479) and from him it is narrated by his student, Imaam Abu Bakr al-Khallaal in As-Sunnah (1/246 # 283)

And the phrase “the story of Arsh”, refers to this athar of Mujaahid as explained by the questioner himself, i.e. Al-Marwazi and his student Abu Bakr al-Khallaal in As-Sunnah.

 

2-    Imaam Abu Daawood as-Sijistaani, the author of as-Sunan

Imaam al-Khallaal said in As-Sunnah, 
وسمعت أبا داود يقول: من أنكر هذا فهو عندنا متهم، وقال: ما زال الناس يحدثون بهذا، يريدون مغايظة الجهمية، وذلك أن الجهمية ينكرون أن على العرش شيئا 
“I heard Abu Daawood saying: Whoever rejects this athar then he is Muttaham (blamed) according to us. And he said: The people always continued to narrate this narration intending to refute the Jahmiyyah and that is because Jahmiyyah used to reject that anything is over the Arsh.” [As-Sunnah (1/214)]

The phrase to be noticed is highlighted in red, which gives the benefit of the popularity of this athar and the acceptance of A’immah for it without any objection among them.


3-    Imaam Ibraaheem bin Mattuwayh al-Asbahaani rahimahullah (D. 302)

He said," هذا الحديث صحيح ثبت، حدث به العلماء منذ ستين ومائة سنة، لا يرده إلا أهل البدع "
“This hadeeth (of Mujaahid) is Saheeh Thabat; the Ulama have been narrating it for one hundred and sixty years, and no one rejected it except the people of Bida’” [As-Sunnah (1/217, 250)]

4-    Imaam Abu Bakr bin Ishaaq as-Saaghaani (D. 270)
He said,
 
" لا أعلم أحدا من أهل العلم ممن تقدم، ولا في عصرنا هذا إلا وهو منكر لما أحدث الترمذي من رد حديث محمد بن فضيل، عن ليث، عن مجاهد في قوله {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} [الإسراء: 79] قال: «يقعده على العرش» "
“I do not know anyone from the people of knowledge neither among those who have passed nor in our era, except that he rejects what (Al-Hakeem) At-Tirmidhi has invented of rejecting the hadeeth of Muhammad bin Fudayl from Layth from Mujaahid in His saying {It is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station} [Al-Israa: 79] that he will seat him over the Arsh.” [As-Sunnah (1/232)]

5-    Imaam Abu Bakr al-Aajurri the author of Ash-Sharee’ah (D. 360)

He said, 
 " حديث مجاهد في فضيلة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ، وتفسيره لهذه الآية : أنه يقعده على العرش ، فقد تلقاها الشيوخ من أهل العلم والنقل لحديث رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ، تلقوها بأحسن تلق ، وقبلوها بأحسن قبول ، ولم ينكروها ، وأنكروا على من رد حديث مجاهد إنكارا شديدا " 
“Hadeeth of Mujaahid concerning the virtue of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his tafseer for this ayah that He will seat him upon the Arsh, is widely accepted by the Shuyookh among the people of knowledge and the people who transmit the hadeeth of Allaah’s Apostle (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam); they have admitted it with the best admission, and accepted it with the best acceptance, and they did not reject it; rather they rejected those who reject the hadeeth of Mujaahid with a strict rejection.” [Ash-Sharee’ah (4/1612)]

 

6-    Imaam Abu Bakr an-Najjaad (D. 348)
He said, " لزمنا الإنكار عَلَى من رد هَذِهِ الفضيلة الَّتِي قالتها العلماء وتلقوها بالقبول " 
“It is necessary for us to refute the one who rejects this virtue which is said by the Ulama and they have widely accepted it.” [Narrated Ibn Battah in al-Ibaanah with reference to Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat of Abu Ya’la (1/485 # 457)]

These and many other narrations, some of which were mentioned by me as well, all prove that there is a consensus among the Ulama in the authenticity of this narration from Mujaahid.
And once it is proven that this athar has achieved talaqqi bil qabool then even if it was narrated with a weak chain, it does not matter anymore.

After this the following saying of the author,
Imam Ibn Abd Al-Barr Al-Maliki states that the people of knowledge have rejected it but the opposer says that the ulema have accepted it, is he accusing the ulema of not being from among those with knowledge?

It becomes quite clear who the one without knowledge is turns out against him. Now we ask, do you accuse the Ulama of not being from among those with knowledge?

Then the author says, “Imam Dhahabi said regarding some of the statements from Mujahid which Sheikh GF Haddad translated, he writes;
“Mujahid has certain strange sayings pertaining to knowledge and commentary of Qur’an which are rejected and condemned...”2
So how have the ulema come to a consensus on accepting this? In reality Imam Ibn Abd Al-Barr AlMaliki has stated that this narration has been rejected by the people of knowledge”

Again, all this is about the validity of Imaam Mujaahid’s saying and none of it has anything to do with the athar itself being proven from Imaam Mujaahid!

If you agree that Mujaahid had some strange sayings in the tafseer of qur’aan, then it is inevitable that those things are proven from him which is why Mujaahid is being blamed here.

Keep in mind, the discussion here is not whether the saying of Imaam Mujaahid is valid or not. The discussion in this entire response and the previous original article was whether Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah is alone to have held this aqeedah and thus becoming the object of your slanders, which in fact would be a slander on the Salaf. But the kind of statements you are providing are dealing with the validity of the nature of this saying, instead of the validity of the proof of this saying.

 

And the author says after quoting this invalid argument, “We have now given sufficient proof that the narration from Imam Mujahid cannot be used as evidence, from henceforth the next evidences will be like a little raft against the beating ocean.”
Subhaanallah, in this entire discussion on the narration of Imaam Mujaahid, you have only given a two or three arguments related to the discussion i.e. the proof of this saying from Imaam Mujaahid which have been answered with much details above. The remaining all your arguments were concerning the validity of Imaam Mujaahid’s saying, to which even we don’t disagree. So what you call “sufficient proof” is in fact “beating around the bush”!

Hence, it is proven that Imaam Mujaahid’s saying is absolutely authentic and proven from him through several routes; while on top, it has also achieved Talaqqi Bil Qabool of the Ulama after which there should not remain any doubt in this saying being proven from Mujaahid.

Remember what the author said in the beginning? Let me remind you. He said:Then came the biggest slander and lie from this misinformed person, the heinous slander and accusation against the salaf. He dares to say;
“Anything that Ibn Taymiyyah has or may have said was preceded by many giant Scholars and the righteous Salaf in every single word he said.”

While Muhammad Yasir al-Deobandi said, The opponent did not only try to defend Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah, but also attempted to falsely project this creed, which is nothing but anthropomorphism and corporealism (?), on to the pious salaf. We seek Allah's protection from such slanders and lies regarding our pious predecessors. Ameen.

I said that whatever Ibn Taymiyyah said concerning this aqeedah was preceded by many giant Scholars and the righteous Salaf. And to this, the author called it “the biggest slander”, “lie”, “the heinous slander”, and “accusation against the Salaf”!!

While Yasir considered the ascription of this belief to a single Salaf a “lie”, “slander”, and “anthropomorphism”!

After the fact that Imaam Mujaahid said the same thing and the several other Ulama mentioned in this response ahead also did the same, what should we think of both of their comments? It’s either that they do not consider Imaam Mujaahid to be among the Salaf or they do not consider him a Scholar at all! If not, and certainly not, then please accept all these attributes you both listed above for yourself. And make sincere Tawbah to Allaah from ascribing a lie to the Salaf and slandering them with your slanderous tongue!! And accusing Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah of, essentially, “lying” and “inventing” this opinion on his own!

 

The saying of Imaam Sa’eed al-Jurayree (Taabi’ee)

The author claims, 
“He next claims;
“Imaam Sa’eed bin Iyaas al-Jurayree (rahimahullah) – the minor Taabi’ee said: “Yes, He will make him sit over his throne with Him” [As-Sunnah (1/257)]

Yaa “Shaykh ul-Google” what is your Fatwa on this noble Taabi’ee?”

Regarding this statement of Saeed bin Iyaas Al-Jurayree's statement, it has a narrator, Saif AlSudoosi, who is unknown, i.e. Majhool Al-Haal. 25 Even Al-Albani has weakened him. This person should research the ISNAAD before using it, and refer to his scholars who can aid him.”

Truly, this is a display of utmost ignorance ever possible from someone claiming to have the knowledge of Usool al-Hadeeth (as he says himself in another place). I am completely shocked at such arrogance that he confidently claims to know the Usool al-Hadeeth and yet makes this childish mistake. I don’t think that even a beginner student of knowledge can be expected to say such a thing!

 For those who are wondering why! Here is the reason:

This narration is narrated as follows: " أخبرنا أبو بكر بن صدقة، قال: ثنا محمد بن أبي صفوان الثقفي، قال: ثنا يحيى بن كثير العنبري، قال: ثنا سلم بن جعفر البكراوي من ولد أبي بكرة، قال: ثنا سعيد الجريري، قال: ثنا سيف السدوسي، قال: سمعت عبد الله بن سلام قال: «إذا كان يوم القيامة جيء بنبيكم صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى يجلسه بين يديه» ، قال: فقلت: يا أبا مسعود (سعيد الجريري)، فإذا أجلسه بين يديه فهو معه، قال: ويلك، ما سمعت حديثا قط أقر لعيني من هذا الحديث، حين علمت أنه يجلسه معه. "

“Abu Bakr bin Sadaqah informed us, he said: Muhammad bin Abi Safwaan ath-Thaqafi narrated to us, he said: Yahya bin Katheer al-Anbari narrated to us, he said: Salm bin Ja’far al-Bakraawi from the offspring of Abu Bakrah narrated to us, he said: Sa’eed al-Jurayree narrated to us, he said: Sayf as-Sadoosi narrated to us, he said: I heard Abdullah bin Salaam (radiallah anhu) say: ‘On the Day of Judgment, Allaah will bring your Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) until He seats him besides Him.’

He (i.e. Salm bin Ja’far) said (after narrating this hadeeth): I asked, O Abu Mas’ood (Sa’eed al-Jurayree), when He seats him besides Him, would he be with Him? Sa’eed replied: ‘Woe to you, I have not heard a hadeeth more pleasing to my soul than this, wherewith I know that Allaah will seat him with Him.’” [As-Sunnah (1/211)]

Even if a Student of the knowledge of Hadeeth looks at this chain, he will immediately point out and say that Sayf as-Sadoosi is not the narrator of the chain leading up to Imaam Sa’eed al-Jurayree. He is only the narrator of Sa’eed al-Jurayree’s narration from Abdullah bin Salaam!

The chain up to Imaam Sa’eed al-Jurayree is absolutely authentic. Sayf as-Sadoosi is the teacher of Sa’eed al-Jurayree from whom he narrated the hadeeth of Abdullah bin Salaam. So although, it can be said that this narration is not proven from Abdullah bin Salaam (radiallah anhu) because of As-Sadoosi, but to say that it is not proven from Al-Jurayree is the most ridiculous thing that can be said by anyone, because as-Sadoosi is not the one narrating from Al-Jurayree, but it is Al-Jurayree who is narrating from As-Sadoosi, so the weakness comes after Imaam Al-Jurayree not before him.

 

The chain leading up to Imaam Sa’eed al-Jurayree is as follows: أخبرنا أبو بكر بن صدقة، قال: ثنا محمد بن أبي صفوان الثقفي، قال: ثنا يحيى بن كثير العنبري، قال: ثنا سلم بن جعفر البكراوي، قال: ثنا سعيد الجريري

And a brief introduction to each of its narrators is as follows:
1-    Abu Bakr bin Sadaqah is Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Sadaqah al-Baghdaadi.
Haafidh Dhahabi said about him, " الإمام الحافظ المتقن الفقيه " 
“He is al-Imaam al-Haafidh al-Mutqin al-Faqeeh” [Siyar A’laam al-Nubala (14/83)]

And Imaam Abu al-Hasan ad-Daaraqutni said, " ثقة، ثقة "
“Thiqah, Thiqah (twice to emphasize his utmost reliability)”[Su’aalaat al-Haakim (38)]

 

2-    Muhammad bin Uthmaan Abi Safwaan ath-Thaqafi  
Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazi said, " بصري صدوق "
“Basri, Truthful”[Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel (8/25)]

Imaam Nasaa’ee said, " لا بأس به "
“There is nothing wrong in him” [Masheekhah an-Nasaa’ee (1/51)]

While Haafidh Ibn Hajar called him Thiqah in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb.

 

3-    Yahya bin Katheer bin Darham al-Anbari 
He is the narrator of Bukhaari and Muslim along with the four Sunan and is agreed upon to be Thiqah.

Haafidh Dhahabi said, " ثقة "
“Thiqah” [Al-Kaashif (6232)]

And Haafidh Ibn Hajar said, " ثقة " 
“Thiqah”  [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (7629)]

 

4-    Salm bin Ja’far al-Bakraawi, Abu Ja’far al-A’mi
Imaam Ali bin al-Madeeni said, "ثقة "
“Thiqah” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (4/127)]

And Haafidh Ibn Hajar said, "صدوق تكلم فيه الأزدى بغير حجة"
“He is Truthful, Al-Azdi has criticized him for no reason” [Taqreeb (2463)]

And he narrates directly from Imaam Sa’eed bin Iyaas al-Jurayree rahimahullah. So there is no question of “Sayf as-Sadoosi” being in the chain, as he is only a narrator from whom Sa’eed narrates and that does not have any effect on the chain up to Sa’eed.

Now we ask Mr. Abu al-Hasan, our “Shaykh ul-Hadeeth” to comment on this! Is this what you promote!? If you do, then you don’t know the A B C of Ilm ul-Hadeeth and I would advise you to get an admission in a basic hadeeth course.

After such a blunt mistake, the author even has the audacity to say.
This person should research the ISNAAD before using it, and refer to his scholars who can aid him.

Innaa Lillaahi Wa Innaa Ilayhi Raaji’oon!

 

The stance of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullah)

The author says, 
“3. His next evidence;

Imaam Ahl us-Sunnah, Ahmed bin Hanbal (rahimahullah); Imaam Abu Bakr al-Marwazi narrates: “I asked Abu Abdullah about the ahaadeeth that the Jahmiyyah reject concerning the Sifaat, the Ru’yah, Israa, and the story of Arsh (i.e. the sitting of the Prophet on Arsh), so Abu Abdullah authenticated them and said: ‘The Ulama have unanimously accepted them, we accept the narrations as they have come. I said to him, ‘Indeed a person objects in some of these reports as they reached so Imaam Ahmed said’ ‘he has shunned.’’” [As-Sunnah by Abi Bakr al-Khallaal (1/246)]

O pseudo-Shaykh, what are you in front of Ahmed? What is your worth in front of Ahmed? Indeed you are not even a dust of the feet of Ahmed! Before you object on Ibn Taymiyyah based on your limited mind, Ahmed has objected on your delicate and feeble Madhab, so take it if you have the strength. Now dare accuse Imaam Ahmed of what you accused Ibn Taymiyyah, and see how quickly you will loose your pseudo-honor which you care about a lot.

In Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal's statement, it states qissah al-arsh (the story of the arsh) so how did this befuddled individual deduce this anthropomorphic creed from this text? And he dared attributing it to the great Imam. Even the Salafi editor has stated in the footnotes, that the story of Al-Arsh is referring to "Istiwaa of Al-Rahman above His throne"26 On the same page the Salafi scholar has stated in his footnotes: "I haven't found any statement of Imam Ahmed where he has said that Allah will make the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمsit next to him." Alhamdulillah, in the YouTube series by Maulana Muhammad Yasir on the true creed of the Salaf, Imam Ahmed's creed has been proven to be sound and free from such allegations, insha’Allah I am currently working on rendering this into a book for the benefit of all.

Subhaanallah, who would have thought that a person from 21st century having minute knowledge of hadeeth would come up to challenge the great Imaams with his own interpretations! This is only one of the signs of the Day of Judgment.

We will first discuss what “the story or incident of Arsh” means. A story or an incident is something that comes to pass in a certain time period. The author says that the “story of arsh” refers to Allaah’s being over the Arsh, while this is a fact not a story; and no one ever has called it an incident or a story. Moreover, this comes under the “Sifaat” of Allaah because “Uluw” is one of the Sifaat of Allaah, so there is no chance that he would mention it separately to mean “Istawa Ala al-Arsh” and as something other than the Sifaat of Allaah!

On the contrary, this incident of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) being seated over the Arsh is something that is more worthy of being called “the incident of Arsh”!

In any case, neither of the explanations will be accepted without evidence. So bring your evidence for saying that, here, Imaam Marwadhi is referring to “Istawa” and not “Iq’aad un-Nabi Ala al-Arsh” by saying the phrase “Qissat ul-Arsh”! On the contrary, we have abundant and explicit evidences to suggest that this refers to “Iq’aad un-Nabi Ala al-Arsh”.

Let’s see how some of the Major Hanbali Scholars understand the phrase “the story of Arsh”, especially when this is the well-known position of the Hanbali Madhab:

1-   Qaadhi Abu Ya’laa al-Hanbali (D. 458) named a whole chapter in his book, “Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat” as, " في المقام المحمود لنبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم" 

“(Chapter) concerning al-Maqaam al-Mahmood for our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)” [1/476]

And in this chapter, he mentions this very narration of Imaam Ahmad, taking evidence from the fact that “story of the arsh” refers to the seating of the Prophet on the Arsh.

Should we take Abu Ya’la’s explanation who is one of the pillars of Hanbali Madhab or should we take the self-made explanation of the author or the editor of As-Sunnah which is also without any evidence?

2-   Imaam Abu Bakr al-Khallaal, the direct student of the questioner who asked this question to Imaam Ahmad, brought this narration under the chapter named, 
ذكر المقام المحمود 
“Mention of Al-Maqaam al-Mahmood” [As-Sunnah (1/209)]

Now does the narrator, who himself is an Imaam, knows his narration and its meaning better or our pseudo Shaykh Yasir and his disciple? And the narrator is also the one who directly heard this from the questioner. So should he be aware of the intent and meaning of what is being said here, or our self-made Faqeeh?

3-   Now we step even further and see what the questioner, Imaam Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi, the student of Imaam Ahmad who asked this question and received the answer from his Shaykh, himself says about this narration!?

Can you imagine that Imaam Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi (rahimahullah) has written a whole book in refutation of those who reject the hadeeth of Mujaahid!?

 

Imaam Abu Bakr an-Najjaad introduces his book in the following words,

" نظرت في كتاب أحمد بن الحجاج المروزي وهو إمامنا وقدوتنا والحجة لنا في ذلك فوجدت فيه ما قد ذكره من رد حديث عبد الله بن سلام ومجاهد وذكر أسماء الشيوخ الذين أنكروا على من رد ذلك أو عارضه"

“I looked into the book of Ahmad bin al-Hajjaaj al-Marwazi and he is our Imaam, our ideal and authority in that matter. Hence I saw in this book of what he has mentioned of those who rejected the hadeeth of Abdullah bin Salaam and Mujaahid and he mentioned the names of those Shuyookh who refuted the one who rejects these narrations or contradicts them.” [Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah (2/10)]

And it is in this very book that he has mentioned the saying of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal of which he himself asked him about.

Hence, Qaadhi Abu Ya’la rahimahullah writes, 

وذكر أبو بكر المروذي في مختصر كتاب الرد على من رد حديث مجاهد، سألت أبا عبد الله عن الأحاديث التي تردها الجهمية في الصفات والرؤية والإسراء وقصة العرش، فصححها أبو عبد الله وقال: قد تلقتها الأمة بالقبول تمر الأخبار كما جاءت

Abu Bakr al-Marwazi mentioned in Mukhtasar ‘Kitaab ar-Radd Ala Man Radda Hadeeth Mujaahid’ that, I asked Abu Abdullah (Ahmad bin Hanbal) about the ahaadeeth….. And the story of Arsh….. So he authenticated them and said that the Ummah has given them Talaqqi Bil Qabool, pass the reports as they come.” [Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat (1/479)]

So when the questioner himself refers to the “story of Arsh” as the story of Iq’aad un-Nabi Ala al-Arsh, then who are you to suggest otherwise? Do you know the intent of Imaam Abu Bakr al-Marwazi more than himself, or do you claim to know Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal more than his own Students!?

4-   Now the next evidence should not leave behind even an atom of doubt for this narration’s meaning, because we are now going to look into a narration in which Imaam Ahmad is explicitly asked about this incident to which he replied with the same thing.

Imaam Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi narrates in the same book,

" عن إبراهيم بن عرفة سمعت ابن عمير سمعت أحمد بن حنبل سئل عن حديث مجاهد يقعد محمدا على العرش فقال: قد تلقته العلماء بالقبول، نسلم الخبر كما جاء "

“From Ibraaheem (bin Muhammad) bin Arafah who said I heard (Ahmed bin Abdul Jabbaar bin Muhammad) Ibn Umayr who said, I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullah) being asked about the hadeeth of Mujaahid concerning the seating of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) upon the Arsh, so he said, ‘The Ulama have given it Talaqqi Bil Qabool, we accept the report as it came.’” [Ibtaal al-Ta’weelaat (1/480) & Al-Uluw Lil Aliyy il-Ghaffaar of Dhahabi (1/170)]

Note: This chain is mentioned in Al-Uluw of Dhahabi but the full text was not mentioned, only the saying of Ahmad was mentioned without the question. However, Abu Ya’la has mentioned the full text with the question in his Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat. So they both were combined here.

So as clearly seen here, Imaam Ahmad is explicitly asked about this very incident under discussion to which he replied the same thing.

A brief introduction of the narrators of this chain is as follows, 
I)                 Ibraaheem bin Muhammad bin Arafah

Imaam Dhahabi said about him,
" الإمام الحافظ النحوي العلامة الأخباري "
“He is al-Imaam al-Haafidh, the grammarian, Al-Allaamah, Al-Akhbaari” [Siyar A’laam al-Nubala (15/75)]

Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadi said," وكان صدوقا وله مصنفات كثيرة منها كتاب كبير في غريب القرآن وكتاب التاريخ وغيرهما "
“He was Sadooq, and he has authored numerous books which include Kitaab Kabeer fi Ghareeb al-Qur’aan and Kitaab at-Taareekh and others” [Taareekh Baghdaad (7/93)]

 

As for the saying of Imaam Daaraqutni about him that, " لم يكن بالقوي في الحديث "
“He is not the strongest in Hadeeth”[Su’aalaat as-Suhmi (61)]

Then this is the least form of criticism which does not even necessitate weakness, rather it only negates the highest rank of Thiqah from the narrator, as said by Al-Lakhnawi in Ar-Raf’ wal Takmeel.

This is why, Daaraqutni, in another place, said about him," لا بأس به "
“There is nothing wrong in him” [Su’aalaat as-Sulami (27)]

Hence Ibn Arafah is at least Sadooq Hasan ul-Hadeeth if not Thiqah Saheeh ul-Hadeeth.

II)             Ahmed bin Abdul Jabbaar bin Muhammad bin Umayr al-Ataardi

He has been criticized in hadeeth but his narrations in Seerah and Maghaazee are reliable as said by Ibn Hajar in Taqreeb, which means that he is Sadooq in Riwayah. Hence his saying he narrates from his Shaykh would be relied upon.

Imaam Dhahabi said, " ومما يقوي أنه صدوق في باب الرواية أنه روى أوراقا من المغازي بنزول عن أبيه عن يونس بن بكير وقد أثنى عليه الخطيب وقواه واحتج به البيهقي في تصانيفه " 
“And from what strengthens (his matter) is that he is Sadooq in the field of narration. He has narrated some pages about al-Maghaazee with nuzool (i.e. lengthened chain) from his father from Yoonus bin Bukayr, and Al-Khateeb has praised it, while Al-Bayhaqi has authenticated it and taken evidence from it in his books.”[Siyar A’laam al-Nubala (13/57)]
Note: Ibn Umayr has affirmed his sama in this narration.

Hence, it is proven that this chain is absolutely authentic.

 

5-   Moreover, we also have several other evidences to support the view that Imaam Ahmad’s stance on this issue was not any different than any of his contemporaries and students.

·        For example, his own son, Imaam Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal said,

"سمعت هذا الحديث من جماعة، وما رأيت أحدا من المحدثين ينكره، وكان عندنا في وقت ما سمعناه من المشايخ أن هذا الحديث إنما تنكره الجهمية، وأنا منكر على كل من رد هذا الحديث، وهو متهم على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم"

“I heard this hadeeth (of Mujaahid) from a group of people (including his own father as mentioned in another place), and I have not seen anyone from the Muhadditheen rejecting it, and according to us, from the time we heard this hadeeth from the Mashaaykh, this hadeeth has not been rejected but by the Jahmiyyah. And I reject/refute everyone who rejects this hadeeth; he is a slanderer of Allaah’s Apostle (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).” [As-Sunnah (1/244)]

Can you imagine, Abdullah bin Ahmad rebuking his own father, had he held a different view? In fact he says that no Muhaddith has ever rejected this hadeeth! So do you think, he does not consider his own father a Muhaddtih who was in fact the leader of all Muhadditheen in his time?! Do you think he would call his own father a Jahmi!? Put some mind in it for yourself and ponder!

 

·        Imaam Ahmad’s own student, Imaam Abu Bakr as-Saaghaani said,

" لا أعلم أحدا من أهل العلم ممن تقدم، ولا في عصرنا هذا إلا وهو منكر لما أحدث الترمذي من رد حديث محمد بن فضيل، عن ليث، عن مجاهد في قوله {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} [الإسراء: 79] قال: «يقعده على العرش» ، فهو عندنا جهمي، يهجر ونحذر عنه "

“I do not know anyone from the people of knowledge neither among those who have passed nor in our era, except that he rejects what (Al-Hakeem) At-Tirmidhi has invented of rejecting the hadeeth of Muhammad bin Fudayl from Layth from Mujaahid in His saying {It is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station} [Al-Israa: 79] that he will seat him over the Arsh. Hence he (the rejector), according to us, is a Jahmi who is to be left alone and warned against” [As-Sunnah (1/232)]

Now isn’t Imaam Ahmad one of the people of knowledge of his time whom he knew very well and learned from? If Ahmad held a view any different, how can he even say such a thing!?

·        Imaam Abu Bakr al-Marwazi who himself wrote a whole book in refutation of those who rejected the hadeeth of Mujaahid, said in response to the one who rejected the hadeeth of Mujaahid, saying,

"عليكم بالتمسك بهدي أبي عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه"

“It is necessary upon you to stick to the guidance of Abu Abdillaah Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal radiallah anhu” [As-Sunnah (1/232)]

Imagine, Al-Marwazi is advising the one who rejects these ahaadeeth to follow the guidance of Imaam Ahmad, so what does that suggest about the position of Imaam Ahmad, so much so that it is being presented as an example to be followed!!???

·        His student and the author of As-Sunan, Imaam Abu Daawood as-Sijistaani rahimahullah said after narrating the hadeeth of Mujaahid, 

" من أنكر هذا فهو عندنا متهم "

“Whoever rejects this then he, according to us, is Muttaham (slanderer)” [As-Sunnah (1/214)]

Do you think that Imaam Abu Dawood would accuse and slander his own teacher, Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal, if he held a belief contrary to that?

There are many more examples to provide but time and length does not permit me to do so.

Even after this if you have any doubt about the stance of Imaam Ahmad on this issue then nothing in the world can be clearer than that to make you understand!

 

Now we ask you,
·        Isn’t Imaam Ahmad one of our righteous Salaf?
·        Isn’t he one of the greatest Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah!?
·        Didn’t he come much before Ibn Taymiyyah and held the same view!?

So who now is ascribing “a heinous lie”, “the biggest slander” and what not to the righteous Salaf? And who now is a liar and slanderer on Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah!?

If only you pondered a little!

 

The saying of Imaam ad-Daqeeqi

The author goes on and says,
4. He continues with his claims;
Imaam Muhammad bin Abdul Malik ad-Daqeeqi (rahimahullah); This great Imaam was asked about those who reject the Athar of Mujaahid (mentioned above), he replied: “The ruling of the one who rejects this hadeeth is to negate him; no one rejects this hadeeth but Heretics” [As-Sunnah by al-Khallaal (1/247)]

Yaa “Shaykh ul-Slander”, kindly put some Fatwa on this Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah!

This narration is weak due to somebody named Haroon in the chain, whose situation is unknown, can the Ahl Ul-Isnaad (as he calls himself) please give the authentic sanad for this. Who is this Haroon? Does he live in Pakistan?

Here is that narration with its chain and text,

"قال: أبو بكر: وسمعت هارون بن العباس الهاشمي، يسأل أبا جعفر الدقيقي محمد بن عبد الملك الرضا العدل حين قدم إلى بغداد في مجلسه على رءوس الناس: ما تقول في هذا الترمذي الذي رد فضيلة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، حديث ابن فضيل، عن ليث، عن مجاهد. قال: حدثناه عثمان بن أبي شيبة منذ خمسين سنة، «حكم من رد هذا الحديث أن ينفى، لا يرد هذا الحديث إلا الزنادقة»"

“Abu Bakr (al-Khallaal) said, I heard Haaroon bin al-Abbaas al-Haashmi asking Abu Ja’far Ad-Daqeeqi Muhammad bin Abdul Malik ar-Rida al-Adl when he (i.e. Ad-Daqeeqi) came to Baghdaad in his gathering with the heads of people, ‘What do you say about this Tirmidhi who rejects the virtue of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) – the hadeeth of Ibn Fudayl from Layth from Mujaahid?’

He (Ad-Daqeeqi) replied: ‘It is narrated to us by Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah since 50 years, the ruling of the one who rejects this hadeeth is to deny him; no one rejects this hadeeth except the heretics.’” [As-Sunnah (1/247)]

 

The author has made two serious mistakes here:
1-    He calls Haaroon bin al-Abbaas a Majhool and mocks him just because he, being the pseudo Muhaddith ul-Asr, could not find him.
2-    He has forced Haaroon to be the narrator of this saying when in fact, Imaam Abu Bakr al-Khallaal has narrated it directly from Ad-Daqeeqi.

Let me clarify the first mistake first: “Who is Haaroon bin al-Abbaas al-Haashmi”?

He is “Haaroon bin al-Abbaas, Abu al-Abbaas al-Haashmi”. He was born in 208 AH and died in 275 AH. He was the Imaam of a masjid in Baghdaad.

And Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi said,
" وكان ثقة " “He was Thiqah” [Taareekh Baghdaad (14/27)]

So as explicitly said by Imaam Khateeb, Haaroon al-Haashmi was Thiqah. Had the author a little knowledge of Asmaa ur-Rijaal, he would not have mocked a Thiqah narrator based on his own ignorance.

Anyway, I hope the answer to the following question is now very clear to you,

 

Can the Ahl Ul-Isnaad (as he calls himself) please give the authentic sanad for this. Who is this Haroon?

As for your saying, Does he live in Pakistan?

Then the answer is, no! He lived in Baghdaad and died in Baghdaad but later his grave was transferred to Madeenah! I hope that answers your ignorantly sarcastic question!

Let me give you an advice now, just because you did not find a narrator based on your limited knowledge, does not mean that he does not exist and then on top, being confident over it and mocking his existence is ignorance and pride at its peak. So kindly do not indulge into the complex issues of Asmaa ur-Rijaal, if you have no idea about it and end up embarrassing yourself.

Secondly, another big mistake that the author has made is he said that Haaroon bin al-Abbaas is the narrator of this saying from Ad-Daqeeqi. Whereas, if you had read the text itself (assuming you know Arabic), you would not have said this.

Imaam Abu Bakr al-Khallaal clearly says that he HEARD Haaroon bin al-Abbaas asking Ad-Daqeeqi!

Now tell me, when you hear someone asking something to another person, are you not present there at that moment? If you are not present there, how is it possible for you to hear him ask!?

Hence, it is known that Imaam ad-Daqeeqi is the teacher of Imaam Abu Bakr al-Khallaal and he heard this from him on his own while Haaroon asked him about this! So Haaroon is only the QUESTIONER not the NARRATOR. Moreover, in another place, Imaam Abu Bakr al-Khallaal has narrated this hadeeth of Mujaahid directly from Ad-Daqeeqi, as he says:
 
" أخبرنا محمد بن عبد الملك الدقيقي، قال: ثنا عثمان عبد الله بن محمد بن أبي شيبة، قال: ثنا ابن فضيل، عن ليث، عن مجاهد: {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} [الإسراء: 79] قال: «يجلسه معه على العرش»"  [As-Sunnah (1/213)]

And this saying of Ad-Daqeeqi itself, in another place, is narrated by Al-Khallaal directly from him, as he says:" وقال أبو جعفر الدقيقي: من ردها فهو عندنا جهمي، وحكم من رد هذا أن يتقى" 

“Abu Ja’far ad-Daqeeqi said: Whoever rejects these ahaadeeth then he is a Jahmi according to us, and the ruling of the one who rejects this is to avoid him.” [As-Sunnah (1/217)]

So there is no chain at all. It is only the author of As-Sunnah i.e. Al-Khallaal narrating directly from his Shaykh, Ad-Daqeeqi. And even if Haaroon was the narrator of this saying, he is still Thiqah.

 

So the author has no chance here rejecting this saying, hence that leads us to our question:
1-    Isn’t “Al-Imaam al-Muhaddith al-Hujjah” Ad-Daqeeqi one of the Scholars of Islaam?
2-    Didn’t he come many centuries before Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and held the same aqeedah? (He was born in 180’s).
3-    Who lied and slandered upon the righteous Salaf and Scholars!?

 

The stance of Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof (157 – 231 AH)

The author says,
5. His next proof; 
Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof – the teacher of Imaam Ahmed (rahimahullah); This great Imaam said about this hadeeth of Mujaahid: “This hadeeth is rejected by the Heretics” [As-Sunnah (1/247)]

Yaa “Shaykh ul-Facebook”, keep catching!!
In this chain there is a person called Ahmed bin Abu Zuhair, according to the salafi editor he is unknown. Oh “people of isnaad” why are you using narrations in AQEEDAH which have narrators that are unknown? Can you give this persons halaat? “Keep catching”

Just because you found one unknown narrator in just one of the sayings of Imaam Haaroon does not prove that he did not hold this aqeedah. There are several sayings of Imaam Haaroon narrated from him on this issue, some of which are much harsher than this. In fact, these very words are also narrated from him in other places which means this narration is also authentic.

Here are some of the sayings of Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof rahimahullah – the teacher of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal and other Kibaar Muhadditheen and Fuqaha:

1-    Imaam Khallaal narrates, " قال إبراهيم الحربي: حدثنا هارون بن معروف، وما ينكر هذا إلا أهل البدع، قال هارون بن معروف: هذا حديث يسخن الله به أعين الزنادقة "

“Ibraaheem al-Harbi said, Haaroon bin Ma’roof narrated to us that, no one rejects this (hadeeth of Mujaahid) except the people of Bida’. And Haaroon bin Ma’roof also said: ‘Allaah burns the eyes of Heretics by this hadeeth.’” [As-Sunnah (1/217)]

Note: Imaam Ibraaheem al-Harbi, the narrator of this saying from Haaroon bin Ma’roof, is a well-known and reliable Imaam who does not need any introduction.

Look at this, you were rejecting the previous narration, and here we have Haaroon talking about the same thing with some more spice!

 

2-    Imaam Khallaal narrates, " وسمعت أبا بكر بن صدقة، يقول: حدثنا أبو القاسم بن الجبلي، عن إبراهيم الزهري، قال: سمعت هارون بن معروف، يقول: «ليس ينكر حديث ابن فضيل عن ليث، عن مجاهد إلا الجهمية» "

“I heard Abu Bakr bin Sadaqah saying, Abu al-Qaasim bin al-Jabali narrated to us, from Ibraaheem az-Zuhri, he said: I heard Haaroon bin Ma’roof saying,

‘No one rejects the hadeeth of Ibn Fudayl from Layth from Mujaahid, except the Jahmiyyah.’” [As-Sunnah (1/219)]

·        Abu Bakr bin Sadaqah is Thiqah and his introduction has passed before under the hadeeth of Imaam Sa’eed al-Jurayree.
·        Abu al-Qaasim is Ishaaq bin Ibraaheem al-Baghdaadi al-Jabbuli and he is Thiqah, [See, Taareekh Baghdaad (7/407) and Siyar A’laam al-Nubala (13/343)]
·        Ibraaheem Az-Zuhri, if it refers to “Ibraaheem bin Abi Ishaaq al-Anbas az-Zuhri” then he is Thiqah. And if it refers to Ibraaheem bin Muhammad Abu Ishaaq az-Zuhri then he as well is Thiqah. In either case, the chain is Saheeh.

 

3-    Imaam Khallaal narrates, 
" حدثنا هارون بن معروف، عن ابن فضيل، عن ليث، عن مجاهد {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} [الإسراء: 79] قال: يقعده على العرش " وإني لأرجو أن تكون منزلته عند الله تبارك وتعالى أكثر من هذا، ومن رد على مجاهد ما قاله من قعود محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم على العرش وغيره، فقد كذب "

“Haaroon bin Ma’roof narrated to us……. (Haaroon said), I hope that the status of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is much more than this near Allaah Tabaarak wa Ta’aala; and whoever rejects what Mujaahid has said about the seating of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) upon the Arsh etc, then he has lied.” [As-Sunnah (1/233)]

 

Al-Khallaal has narrated this directly from Imaam Haaroon, so there is no chain.
Besides there are some other indirect evidences as well that point towards the stance of Imaam Haaroon which I will leave out, as these sayings are more than enough!
Do you still have any doubt about the stance of Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof on this? Just because you can criticize a narrator in one of the sayings does not mean that you have answered all the narrations! Is this your “expertise” in Usool ul-Hadeeth that you boast about?

 Now,

·        Isn’t Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof one of the Kibaar Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah and a teacher of Imaam Ahmad, Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu Dawood and other giant Muhadditheen!?
·        Didn’t he come centuries before Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and held the same aqeedah?

 

The narration of Imaam Abdul Wahhaab al-Warraaq (D. 250 AH)

The author says,
6. So he gives more baseless proofs;
Imaam Abdul Wahhaab al-Warraaq – one of the close companions of Imaam Ahmed (rahimahullah): Look what he says: “Whoever rejected this hadeeth is a Jahmi” [As-Sunnah (1/247)]
Yaa “Sharia-Thief”, go ahead and slander this Imaam before you slander Ibn Taymiyyah!
Firstly, this is from Mujahid (refer to above criticism) and number two it has a narrator in the chain who is Ibn Abi Zakariyah, can the opposer help us in finding out who this is? Did you “thief” the sharia from him perhaps? Let us know, shukran.

The author brings two “evidences” to prove this saying inauthentic:
1: His first evidence is that this narration is from Mujaahid (!?)
2: And his second evidence is that its chain contains a narrator Ibn Abi Zakariyya who is Majhool.

Answer to the first evidence: 
As for the first evidence, this is the most foolish argument that one can hear on this! What, on earth, does Mujaahid’s narration have anything to do with what Abdul Wahhaab al-Warraaq says or believes!? And how, by far, is this a proof of the inauthenticity of the saying of Abdul Wahhaab!? This remains a mystery which perhaps only the genius author can explain!

If Abdul Wahhaab takes evidence from the saying of Imaam Mujaahid for his belief, it still is his belief. Just because you or anyone feels that Mujaahid’s narration is inauthentic, does not mean that Abdul Wahhaab could not have considered it authentic and hence formed his belief likewise. Regardless of the authenticity or weakness of Mujaahid’s narration, how does this effect the attribution of this belief to Imaam Abdul Wahhaab in any way possible!?

If you hold the belief that NOT doing Raf’ ul-Yadayn is a Sunnah. Now can we come and say that since the narrations of NOT doing Raf’ ul-Yadayn are all weak, hence, you do not hold this Aqeedah!!? This is what your statement is trying to convey!

How is this even logical from any angle you see it! Look at what your hatred and rush to reply done to your sense of argument!

More than you, blame is on them who approved and wrote prefaces to this work and were much confident to spread it!

Abu al-Hasan blames me for betraying my screen name, when he could not carry his own and continues to call his website, “Darul Tahqiq (The House of Verification)” and posts this very document there!

This is something the author has done to the other narrations coming ahead as well.

 

Answer to the second evidence:
As for the claim of the author that the chain of this narration contains a narrator named, “Ibn Abi Zakariyya” due to whom this saying is not proven from Imaam Abdul Wahhaab, then this once again is an ignorance whose precedence is not to be found anywhere.

Here is how this saying is narrated in As-Sunnah, 
" قال أبو بكر: قال عبد الوهاب الوراق: ثنا ابن أبي زكريا المقرئ، قال: ثنا محمد بن بكير، قال: ثنا محمد بن فضيل، عن ليث، عن مجاهد: {عسى أن يبعثك ربك مقاما محمودا} [الإسراء: 79] قال: «يقعده على العرش» ، قال عبد الوهاب: «من رد هذا الحديث فهو جهمي»"

“Abu Bakr said: Abdul Wahhaab al-Warraaq said: Ibn Abi Zakariyya narrated to us, he said: Muhammad bin Bukayr narrated to us, he said: Muhammad bin Fudayl narrated to us, from Layth, from Mujaahid: {It is expected that your Lord will raise you to a Praised Station} [Al-Israa: 79] Mujaahid said: It means, he will seat him upon the Arsh.”

(After this) Abdul Wahhaab said: “Whoever rejects this hadeeth, is a Jahmi” [As-Sunnah (1/247 # 286)]

The author has made the same mistake here as he did in the narration of Imaam Sa’eed al-Jurayree. He is criticizing this narration based on a narrator who is not even in the chain up to Abdul Wahhaab!

Imaam Khallaal has narrated this saying of Abdul Wahhaab directly from him, so there is no question of a chain here. While Ibn Abi Zakariyya is the narrator FROM WHOM ABDUL WAHHAAB NARRATES, and not the other way around. Abdul Wahhaab narrates the narration of Mujaahid through Ibn Abi Zakariyya and after narrating, he comments on the hadeeth saying whoever rejects this is a Jahmi!

By Allaah, what amazes me is the confidence of the author in openly expressing such blunders and the likes of Abul Hasan happily spreading it!!

Even a student of knowledge looking at this chain would easily be able to extract this ignorance!

 

Now please tell us,
·        Isn’t Imaam Abdul Wahhaab al-Warraaq one of the Kibaar Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah and one of the close companions and peers of Imaam Ahmad and a teacher of the likes of Imaam Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and Nasaa’ee, Ibn Khuzaymah, Baghawi and Sarraaj?
·        Didn’t he come centuries before Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and held the same aqeedah?

 

The Narration of Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahuwayh (166 – 238 H) and the tajheel of Imaam Ibn al-Mundhir

The author says,
7. And then he gives as evidence;
Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahwayh – the owner of an independent Madhab (rahimahullah); “Whoever rejected this hadeeth is a Jahmi” [As-Sunnah (1/248)]
Yaa “Shaykh ul-Copy & Paste”, do you have the guts to accuse Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahwayh with your slanderous filthy tongue?
In this chain there's a Muhammad bin Ibrahim, who is this? Can the one in question kindly give us his authenticity? Or is he getting narrators from Pakistan?

La Hawla Wala Quwwata Illa Billaah! I don’t understand, how do you even get the courage to first speak without knowledge about a narrator and then on top mock him based merely on your such limited knowledge that does not even surpass a beginner student of knowledge!??

Scholars say that declaring someone Majhool is the most difficult task, more even than calling someone Thiqah or Da’eef, yet the author seems to be distributing this title to everyone on whole sale.

If you had known Muhammad bin Ibraaheem even a little, you would tremble before even opening your mouth about him! He is a man whom neither you nor your forefathers combined could ever reach the rank of, and yet you have the audacity to make fun of such A’immah of Islaam!

He is, “Muhammad bin Ibraaheem bin al-Mundhir Abu Bakr an-Neesaaboori” famously known as Imaam Ibn al-Mundhir.

 

Imaam Dhahabi says about him, " الحافظ العلامة أبو بكر النيسابوري، صاحب التصانيف، عدل صادق فيما علمت"

“He is al-Haafidh al-Allaamah Abu Bakr an-Neesaaboori, the author of several books, upright and truthful according to what I know” [Meezaan al-I’tidaal (3/450)]

 

In another place, he said: " الْإِمَام أبو بَكْر النَّيْسابوريّ الفقيه.... صنَّف كُتُبًا لم يُصنَّف مثلها في الفقه، وغيره، لَهُ كتابٌ " المبسوط في الفقه " وهو كتاب جليل، وكتاب " الإشراف في اختلاف العلماء " وهو مشهور، وكتاب " الإجماع " وكان عَلَى نهايةٍ من معرفة الحديث والاختلاف، وكان مجتهدًا لَا يُقَلِّد أحدًا"

“He is Al-Imaam Abu Bakr an-Neesaaboori al-Faqeeh (the Jurist)….. He has authored books, the likes of which were not authored (by anyone) on the topic of fiqh and other than that. He has a book called, ‘Al-Mabsoot fil Fiqh’ and it is a mighty book. And a book called, ‘Al-Ishraaf fi Ikhtilaaf il-Ulama’ and it is famous. And a book called ‘Al-Ijmaa’. And he was at the peak of the knowledge of Hadeeth and Ikhtilaaf. He was a Mujtahid who did not do the Taqleed of anyone.” [Taareekh al-Islaam (7/344)]

 

And Imaam Abu al-Hasan Ibn al-Qattaan al-Faasi said: " فَقِيه ، مُحدث ، ثِقَة ، وَلَا يلْتَفت إِلَى كَلَام الْعقيلِيّ فِيهِ"

“He is a Faqeeh, Muhaddith, Thiqah, and the speech of Al-Uqaylee about him is not to be paid attention to.” [Bayaan al-Wahem wal-Ayhaam (5/640)]

He is also the author of the most famous books on fiqh like, “Al-Awsat fis-Sunan wal-Ijmaa wal-Ikhtilaaf” and “Al-Iqnaa” along with “Al-Ijmaa”.

So do you mean to say that this great Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah was Majhool???

May Allaah save us from such modern Muftis and Shaykh ul-Hadeeths who do not feel shy to declare great A’immah and Mujtahideen of Islaam to be Majhool!!

I don’t understand why this author even took this strenuous task of writing a response upon himself when his level of knowledge is such!

This saying is absolutely authentic from Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahuwayh.

Now, Imaam Ishaaq bin Raahuwayh rahimahullah is another great Imaam who once had his own Madhab in Fiqh that was followed by people! And he was a close companion of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal rahimahullah.

 

Now we ask the author, Yasir, and Abu al-Hasan together:
1-    Didn’t Ishaaq bin Raahuwayh come centuries before Ibn Taymiyyah?
2-    Didn’t he hold the same belief as him?
3-    So do you follow double standards and blame and slander Ibn Taymiyyah alone and not him!?
4-    Didn’t you tell lie upon lie when you said none of the Scholars and Salaf before Ibn Taymiyyah held this belief and also belied Ibn Taymiyyah based on that?

If only you pondered yourself!
 

The Narration of Muhammad bin Mus’ab Abu Ja’far Ad-Da’’a rahimahullah (D. 228 H)

He says
8. Next objection;

Imaam Muhammad bin Mus’ab (rahimahullah). He recited this verse [17:79] and said: “Yes, he will make him sit over the Arsh on the Day of Judgment to let the creations see his status” [As-Sunnah (1/249)]
Yaa “Shaykh ul-Kadhib”, the matter has gone way above Ibn Taymiyyah!

About this statement, again it's from Mujahid. Please prove Mujahid's statement to be authentic, and remember, we are talking about creed here, not stories in Kitaab Al-Rooh. Also there is a narrator in the chain, Abu Abdillah Al-Khaffaf, who is he? From Karachi?

The author has used the same argument here as he did in the narration of Abdul Wahhaab, and our answer is the same. What does the saying or belief of Muhammad bin Mus’ab has anything to do with the narration of Mujaahid being proven or not!? Muhammad bin Mus’ab held this belief no matter you or anyone thinks that the narration of Mujaahid is not proven. These two are completely independent things.

 

It is clear that you do not have a reasonable excuse to reject this statement so you are giving such childish responses.

As for your claim that there is a narrator named, “Abu Abdullah al-Khaffaaf” who is Majhool then I request you again, not to indulge in things you have absolutely zero idea of.

If you had bothered to look just one narration above this narration in the same page, Imaam Khallaal has narrated the exact same narration with the exact same words with a different chain which is absolutely authentic.

 

He says,
" وحدثنا أبو بكر، قال: ثنا زكريا بن يحيى، قال: سمعت محمد بن مصعب، ذكر حديث ابن فضيل، عن ليث، عن مجاهد، قال: «يجلسه على العرش ليري الخلائق كرامته عليه»"

“Abu Bakr (al-Khallaal) narrated to us, he said: Zakariyya bin Yahya narrated to us, he said: I heard Muhammad bin Mus’ab mentioning the hadeeth of Ibn Fudayl from Layth from Mujaahid and he (Muhammad bin Mus’ab) said: ‘Allaah will seat him upon the Arsh to let the creations see his blessing upon him.’” [As-Sunnah (1/249)]

Even if this narration was narrated a few pages before or after, it would have been reasonable to think that you did not see the narration, but this narration is narrated on the very same page and just before that narration and yet the author conveniently ignores it and judges it based on the chain of the second narration! What a great “Muhaqqiq”!

In this chain, Zakariyya bin Yahya has supported Al-Khaffaaf and he is, “Zakariyya bin Yahya bin Abdul Malik bin Marwaan Abu Yahya an-Naaqid”.

 

Imaam Daaraqutni said about him
" ثقة فاضل"
“He is Thiqah Faadil” [Taareekh Baghdaad (8/462)]

 

And Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadi said,
" كَانَ أحد العباد المجتهدين، وَمن أثبات المحدثين"
“He was one of the Mujtahid worshippers and among the (most) reliable Muhadditheen” [Ibid]

Hence this narration is absolutely authentic.

And all our questions that we asked before remain the same here!

 

The narration of Imaam Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani

The author says,
9. He goes on lying;
Imaam Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani (rahimahullah). He said about the hadeeth of Mujaahid: “This hadeeth is Saheeh Thabat, the Scholars have been narrating it since 160 years. No one rejects it but the People of Innovation, and he criticized those who reject it.” [As-Sunnah (1/250)]
Yaa “Shaykh ul-***”, please declare these Ulama as Mujassim!
Ibraheem Al-Asbahani's statement, his situation is not mentioned.27 Ya “ahl al-isnaad” its easy taking names for yourself, why don’t you live up to your name and give us authentic asaneed?

Subhaanallaah! After saying that his condition is not mentioned (i.e. he is Majhool), the author gives the reference of Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah (1/96) in which his name is mentioned as, “Ibraaheem bin Muhammad bin al-Haarith al-Asbahaani”!

Now we may ask the genius author, what makes him think with certainty that the “Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani” mentioned by Al-Khallaal is this Ibraaheem bin Muhammad?

Identifying ambiguous narrators also requires proofs and has certain principles which the author does not seem to take into account, nor do I think that he would have any idea of what they are!? Rather he is simply shooting an arrow in the air and assumes that this Ibraaheem al-Asbaahaani is the one whom he identified as!

On the contrary, this Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani refers to the famous Imaam Ibraaheem bin Mattuwayh al-Asbahaani rahimahullah.

One way of identifying the narrators is by looking into those who narrate from them [i.e. their Shuyookh] and those through whom they narrate from [i.e. their students]!

And by reading As-Sunnah of Al-Khallaal, we come to know that this “Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani” is the one who narrates from Abbaas al-Anbari as mentioned by Al-Khallaal in As-Sunnah (1/256).

And among the students of Abbaas al-Anbari, there is only one Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani and he is,

“Ibraaheem bin Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Nasr bin Uthmaan bin Zayd bin Mazyad Abu Ishaaq al-Asbahaani” famously known as “Ibraaheem bin Mattuwayh al-Asbahaani”!

And he is a Thiqah Imaam. Imaam Dhahabi said about him, 
" إمام جامع إصبهان. كان من العُبّاد والسّادة. يصوم الدَّهْر. وكان حافظًا، ثقة" 
“He was the Imaam of Jaami’ Asbhaan. He was among the worshipper gentlemen, and used to observe continuous fasting. He was a Haafidh, Thiqah” [Taareekh al-Islaam (7/47)]

 

In another place, he said:
" الإِمَامُ، المَأْمُوْنُ، القُدْوَةُ، أَبُو إِسْحَاقَ إِبْرَاهِيْمُ بنُ مُحَمَّدِ بنِ الحَسَنِ بنِ مَتُّوَيْه الأَصْبَهَانِيُّ، إِمَامُ جَامِعِ أَصْبَهَان، كَانَ مِنَ العُبَّادِ وَالسَّادَةِ، يَسْرُدُ الصَّوْمَ، وَكَانَ حَافِظاً، حُجَّةً، مِنْ مَعَادِنِ الصِّدْقِ "
“He is al-Imaam al-Ma’moon al-Qudwah, Abu Ishaaq Ibraaheem bin Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Mattuwayh al-Asbahaani, Imaam of Jaami’ Asbahaan. He was among the worshippers and noblemen. He used to observe continuous fasting. He was a Haafidh and Hujjah among the minerals of Sidq” [Siyar A’laam al-Nubala (14/142)]

 

And Imaam Abu Sa’d as-Sama’aani said,
" من أهل أصبهان، إمام الجامع، كان ثقة فاضلا "
“He was from the people of Asbahaan, the Imaam of the Jaami’. He was Thiqah Faadil” [Al-Ansaab (11/351)]

He died in 302 AH.
Hence, Imaam Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani is well known and Thiqah.

 

Even if it is Ibraaheem bin Muhammad al-Asbahaani?
But wait a second, here comes a shock to the author:
Even if we suppose that Ibraaheem al-Asbaahaani here refers to “Ibraaheem bin Muhammad bin al-Haarith al-Asbahaani” then you should know that even he is Thiqah.
The author should have known that Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah is not the only book in the world.
Ibraaheem bin Muhammad bin al-Haarith al-Asbahaani is Katheer ul-Hadeeth many major books of ahaadeeth contain his narrations while Imaam Dayaa al-Maqdisi and Imaam Haakim have authenticated his narrations.

And Imaam Abu Sa’d as-Sama’aani explicitly said about him, 
" أبو إسحاقإبراهيم بن محمد بن الحارث بن ميمون المديني النايلي، من أهلأصبهان، يعرف بابن نايلة، أحد الثقات "
“Abu Ishaaq Ibraaheem bin Muhammad bin al-Haarith bin Maymoon al-Madeeni an-Naa’ili, from the people of Asbahaan famously known as Ibn Naa’ilah is one of the Thiqah narrators” 
[Al-Asnaab (12/355)] 
He died in 291 AH.

So no matter where you go, you have no choice but to accept this saying as authentic and Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani as reliable.

 

As for your saying, Ya “ahl al-isnaad” its easy taking names for yourself, why don’t you live up to your name and give us authentic asaneed?
Then yes, Alhamdulillah, we have lived up to our name. But have you? And has Abu al-Hasan lived up to his title of “House of Verification”!?? I will wait for your answer on this!

 

The Narration of Imaam Abu Qilaabah

He says,
10. And he errs again;
Imaam Abu Qilaabah ar-Riqaashi. He said: “No one rejects this hadeeth but the people of Innovation and the Jahmiyyah” [As-Sunnah (1/254)]
Again this is from Mujahid and secondly Abu Qilaabah would make mistakes in narrating and his memory had changed.28 I notice no following insult here, did you run out of steam after realising that you’re a great liar?

I ran out of words because the amount of ignorance and deception found is too much to be addressed individually.
Let’s look what you say here. So, the narration of Imaam Abu Qilaabah is weak and unproven because:
1-    This is from Mujaahid!!??
2-    And Abu Qilaabah would make mistakes in NARRATING!

Answer to First Point:
Well, as I said several times above – please enlighten us with this mystery: “What has the personal saying of Imaam Abu Qilaabah anything to do with the narration of Mujaahid?” The point is, Abu Qilaabah did hold this aqeedah no matter it is proven from Mujaahid or not, while you had said that not a single of the Salaf before Ibn Taymiyyah ever held this aqeedah. Please keep in mind, we are talking about who among the Salaf held this belief before Ibn Taymiyyah and not whether this belief is valid or not! Simply saying anything that comes in mind to something you cannot come up with an answer to, is not necessary. You can simply accept your blunder and move on. It’s that simple.

 

Answer to the Second Point:
The author declares this personal saying of Imaam Abu Qilaabah weak because he used to make mistakes in NARRATING!
Dear Dr. Genius! At least Abu Qilaabah was an Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah and here we are talking about his personal saying NOT HIS NARRATION!!

And even in NARRATION, he was reliable but just because he made some mistakes in HADEETH or became Mukhtalat at the end, does not mean he is automatically kicked out of the list of the A’immah of Ahl us-Sunnah!

How many Fuqaha of Ahl us-Sunnah are there who have been declared weak in Hadeeth but are considered Imaams and Reliable Authorities in the matter of DEEN including Imaam Shareek bin Abdullah al-Qaadhi, Imaam Abdullah bin Lahee’ah, Imaam Ibn Abi Layla, Imaam Abu Haneefah and numerous others.

How many Qurraa of Qur’aan are there who have been criticized in Hadeeth but are still considered authorities in the Qira’at of Qur’aan?

How many Grammarians are there who have been criticized in Hadeeth but are considered A’immah in Lughat and Arabic!?

Being criticized for mistakes in HADEETH, does not render his Adaalah invalid by any means!

How many great A’immah have become Mukhtalat at the end, would you throw all of their sayings in the bin as well!? Not to forget they include the likes of Imaam Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee, Imaam Hammaad bin Salamah, Imaam Sa’eed bin Iyaas al-Jurayree, Imaam Abdur Razzaaq bin Hammaam as-Sana’aani, Imaam Ataa bin Abi Rabaah, Imaam Hishaam bin Urwah and many others.

Don’t go far, even the teacher of your Imaam, Hammaad bin Abi Sulemaan had become Mukhtalat at the end. Do you cease to accept his fiqh? What would that tell us about the studentship of Imaam Abu Haneefah from him?

Let me ask the author, what does being Thiqah or Da’eef have anything to do with what you believe in? Does that mean if your memory gets a little weaker, you would forget what your aqeedah is?

Either speak with knowledge or remain Silent!

 

The saying of Imaam Ali bin Sahl al-Bazzaaz

He says,
11. He doesn’t stop slandering the salaf;
Ali bin Sahl; He said: “This is the virtue of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) so whoever rejects the virtue of the Prophet then he is a KAAFIR” [As-Sunnah (1/255)]
Yaa “Shaykh ul-Jahmiyyah”, what do you say about this?
Regarding Ali Bin Sahl's statement, look at what your own scholar's statement is: that the virtuous of Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمis established from (authentic) texts and this narration of Mujahid is weak.29 can the pious salaf call someone a KAFIR based on such nonsense? We’ll see who truly is a jahmi very soon!

Look at this, even you now have nothing to say against the authenticity of this saying from Imaam Ali bin Sahl. So how can you call it “slandering the Salaf” when it is authentically proven from Ali bin Sahl! While slanderer of Salaf is in fact you three who despite knowing that several Salaf also held this view still only slander and malign Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah and say that he was alone to hold this aqeedah!

You agree that Imaam Ali bin Sahl did in fact say this statement, but what you said after is only related to the VALIDITY of this saying which we are not even talking about here. We are simply and plainly talking about whether he said this or not!

Because according to you Ibn Taymiyyah was alone to hold this Aqeedah and attributing it to anyone before him is a slander and a lie according to you. But here, you have yourself have proven it to be opposite, and you yourself have confessed against your lie.

 

The Narration of Imaam Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim bin Sallaam

He said,
12. He keeps digging himself a hole;
Imaam Abu Ubayd al-Qaasim bin Sallaam (rahimahullah). He said: “These ahaadeeth are true, there is no doubt in them. They are narrated by the Thiqah people through other thiqah people until it reached us. We testify to it and believe in it as they have reached” [As-Sunnah (1/258)]

Abu Ubayd Al-Qaasim bin Salaam's statement has the words "هذه" (i.e these ahadith), which is general and NOT referring to what the opposing is trying to imply. Thus Atiyya Al-Zahrani has stated in the footnotes which this person forgot to read: قوله "هذه" عام في األحاديث الواردة في صفات هللا عموما مثل اإلستواء والنزول ونحوالذلك i.e the saying of "هذه" (these) is general in the hadith regarding the attributes of Allah azza wa jal such as the istiwa and the nuzul etc.
What you nor the editor of As-Sunnah realized is that the student knows the intent of his teacher better than anyone else.

Imaam al-Khallaal has mentioned this saying of Imaam Abu Ubayd under the chapter, “Dhikr al-Maqaam al-Mahmood”, so it is clear that Imaam Khallaal is trying to say that when Imaam Abu Ubayd said “Haadhih”, it also included the narration of al-Maqaam al-Mahmood!

Now, should we take your self-assumed interpretation or the well-informed fact of Imaam Khallaal who narrated this narration!?

This is rather a hole, you dug yourself, and fell into it all by your own!

 

The view of Imaam Abbaas ad-Dauri

He says,
13. He digs further;
Imaam Abbaas bin Muhammad ad-Dauri – the Companion of Imaam Yahya bin Ma’een and Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal (rahimahullah), he says; “We say about these ahaadeeth what Ahmed bin Hanbal said, following him and his Athaar in that matter.” [As-Sunnah (1/258)]
Abbas bin Muhammad Ad-Dauri's statement also has the word “هذه” (these) which is referring to the general Sifaat and NOT the anthropomorphic creed. Please refer to your scholars before doing your own homemade Ijtihaad.

We did indeed refer to some of the greatest Scholars of Islaam, but where did you refer to in saying that this saying of Imaam ad-Dauri does not include this narration!?

Do you know the intent of Imaam Ad-Dauri better than his very own student who narrated this narration??

His student, Imaam Khallaal has narrated this saying of Imaam Abbaas ad-Dauri under the chapter “Dhikr al-Maqaam al-Mahmood” so it is evident that his “Haadhih” refers to these narrations!

Similarly, in another place in the same chapter, Imaam Khallaal says while specifically referring to these narrations, 
" وقال عباس الدوري: لا يرد هذا إلا متهم" 
“And Abbaas ad-Dauri said: No one rejects it but a slanderer.” [As-Sunnah (1/217)]

Similarly, Imaam Dhahabi also confirms that Imaam Abbaas ad-Dauri is referring to these narration of al-Maqaam al-Mahmood. Imaam Dhahabi said,

" فممن قال أن خبر مجاهد يسلم له ولا يعارض عباس بن محمد الدوري الحافظ ويحيى بن أبي طالب المحدث ومحمد بن إسماعيل السلمي الترمذي الحافظ وأبو جعفر محمد بن عبد الملك الدقيقي وأبو داود سليمان بن الأشعث السجستاني صاحب السنن وإمام وقته إبراهيم بن إسحاق الحربي والحافظ أبو قلابة عبد الملك بن محمد الرقاشي وحمدان بن علي الوراق الحافظ وخلق سواهم من علماء السنة"

“So among those who say that the narration of Mujaahid is to be accepted and not contradicted is: Abbaas bin Muhammad ad-Dauri al-Haafidh, Yahya bin Abi Taalib al-Muhaddith, Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel as-Sulami at-Tirmidhi al-Haafidh, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Abdul Malik ad-Daqeeqi, Abu Dawood Sulemaan bin al-Asha’th as-Sijistaani the author of As-Sunan, the Imaam of his time Ibraaheem bin Ishaaq al-Harbi, Haafidh Abu Qilaabah Abdul Malik bin Muhammad ar-Riqaashi, Hamdaan bin Ali al-Warraaq al-Haafidh and a nation of other people from the Ulama of Sunnah.” [Al-Uluw (1/194)]

So tell us now, who referred to his scholars and who did not? What is the value of your self-concocted saying against these giant A’immah one of which is the very student of Imaam Abbaas ad-Dauri who narrated this narration from him!

 

The view of Imaam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani rahimahullah

He says,
14. He draws near to his end;
Imaam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani – the author of As-Sunan, he (rahimahullah) said: “Whoever rejects this then he is a muttaham according to us” [As-Sunnah (1/214)]
Imam Abu Dawood's statement is again from Mujahid. Please prove Mujahid's statement to be authentic, and we remind you, we are talking about creed here please provide authentic statements. I'm surprised at the audacity of this person, how dare he attribute such blasphemy to the pious Salaf without an iota of research. Also there is Layth in the chain, Ya “Ahlal Isnaad”! Where is the authenticity of this person? Even Atiyya Al-Zahrani says that the hadith is weak so go look it up oh so called “Ahlal Isnaad”!

 

I don’t know whether to laugh at his stupidity or mourn at his ignorance.
According to the author, I committed a blasphemy by attributing this saying to Imaam Abu Daawood because centuries old narration of Imaam Mujaahid is weak!?
How many times have I asked, what does the saying of Imaam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani has anything to do with what Imaam Mujaahid said centuries earlier? And how does the authenticity of Imaam Mujaahid’s narration effect the saying of Imaam Abu Dawood being proven from him!?
Amazingly, for the saying of Imaam Abu Dawood, he is criticizing Layth bin Abi Sulaym who is the narrator of Mujaahid’s narration!!!!

 

The two are completely independent reports.
I want to ask this person how he manages to maintain his genius brain! Perhaps, it is the blessing of reading too much Fadhail A’maal.
As for Abu al-Hasan, then he should change his title from “House of Verification” to “House of Vilification” after this!

Meanwhile, here are some more sayings of Imaam Abu Daawood on this issue, he said, 
" أرى أن يجانب كل من رد حديث ليث، عن مجاهد: يقعده على العرش "، ويحذر عنه، حتى يراجع الحق" 
“I think whoever rejects the hadeeth of Layth from Mujaahid that Allaah will seat him on Arsh should be parted from and warned against until he returns to the Haqq” [As-Sunnah (1/233)]

 

Similarly, Imaam Abu Daawood said,
" من رد حديث مجاهد فهو جهمي" 
“Whoever rejects the hadeeth of Mujaahid is a Jahmi” [Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah (2/10)]

 

Similarly, Imaam Dhahabi said, 
" فممن قال أن خبر مجاهد يسلم له ولا يعارض عباس بن محمد الدوري الحافظ ويحيى بن أبي طالب المحدث ومحمد بن إسماعيل السلمي الترمذي الحافظ وأبو جعفر محمد بن عبد الملك الدقيقي وأبو داود سليمان بن الأشعث السجستاني صاحب السنن وإمام وقته إبراهيم بن إسحاق الحربي والحافظ أبو قلابة عبد الملك بن محمد الرقاشي وحمدان بن علي الوراق الحافظ وخلق سواهم من علماء السنة"

“So among those who say that the narration of Mujaahid is to be accepted and not contradicted is: Abbaas bin Muhammad ad-Dauri al-Haafidh, Yahya bin Abi Taalib al-Muhaddith, Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel as-Sulami at-Tirmidhi al-Haafidh, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Abdul Malik ad-Daqeeqi, Abu Dawood Sulemaan bin al-Asha’th as-Sijistaani the author of As-Sunan, the Imaam of his time Ibraaheem bin Ishaaq al-Harbi, Haafidh Abu Qilaabah Abdul Malik bin Muhammad ar-Riqaashi, Hamdaan bin Ali al-Warraaq al-Haafidh and a nation of other people from the Ulama of Sunnah.” [Al-Uluw (1/194)]

 

Hence it is known that Imaam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani held this belief and the author has nothing to prove otherwise except beating around the bush.
And Imaam Abu Dawood is well known to be a Mujtahid Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah who came centuries before Ibn Taymiyyah!

 

The view of Imaam Abu Bakr al-Ajurri

He says,
15. On his exiting proof he says;
Imaam Abu Bakr al-Ajurri (rahimahullah), he said: “As for the hadeeth of Mujaahid…. Then indeed the Shuyookh among the People of Knowledge and Narration of Allaah’s Messenger have unanimously accepted it with a strong acceptance, and they did not reject it. And (on the contrary) they rejected those who rejected the hadeeth of Mujaahid with a strong rejection and they said: ‘Whoever rejects the hadeeth of Mujaahid is an evil person’” [Ash-Sharee’ah (4/1604)]
Imaam Abu Bakr al-Ajurri's statement is regarding Mujahid so again please prove that first. Is this person so desperate of proving such an aqeedah where there is NO authentic narration from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. Did the salaf base their creed on such narrations? The claim has to be proven by the claimer! Oh 'Sanad Ka Ashiq', bring your authentic Sanad to the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمto prove this absurd CREED!

 

Again, what does the authenticity of Imaam Mujaahid’s saying have anything to do with what his own belief of it is!!?

Al-Ajurri and other A’immah hold this belief because they consider the narration of Mujaahid and others to be authentic, now even if they are weak in reality, that does not affect their belief and it cannot be said that they did not hold this belief.

 

Even after all these narrations from the Salaf, you say, Did the salaf base their creed on such narrations? The claim has to be proven by the claimer!

Well, all the sayings given above – what are they then!? They are all the sayings of the Salaf who held this belief based on this narration and they all, as proven above, are proven from them!

 

You said,
Oh 'Sanad Ka Ashiq', bring your authentic Sanad to the prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمto prove this absurd CREED!

As I said several times above, we are not proving whether this belief is proven from the Prophet or not? Nor are we talking about whether this belief is valid or not? All we are talking about is whether the Salaf and the Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah before Ibn Taymiyyah held this belief or not? And we have proven that with several narrations above and this is what the intent of the entire response was and still is. So your saying that Ibn Taymiyyah alone held this belief is a lie. And your saying that none of the Salaf before Ibn Taymiyyah held this belief is also a lie on our righteous Salaf!

It is funny how he criticized the authenticity of every single of the mentioned aqwaal with much arrogance and confidence and yet he could not disprove a single one of them. What a waste of time and energy!

 

Author’s conclusive remarks and his attack on Imaam al-Khallaal once more

He says,
“So we see as we have shown that Abu Bakr Al-Khallal brought nothing but weak and fabricated narrations to support this preposterous belief, he was so extreme in his belief that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم would sit on the throne with Allah azza wa jal that on page 234 of his As-Sunnah he accused Al Tirmidhi (who is unknown to us) of being a jahmi, khabeeth who doesn’t deserve to be buried in the graveyard of the Muslims for rejecting this narration. Is this the belief of ahlus sunnah?”

 

Here, again, the author thinks he has the right and ability to criticize a giant Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah whom our Scholars have unanimously praised and took evidence from. This act of the author is only an indication of his averseness from the Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah.

In this passage, he has accused Imaam al-Khallaal of the following things:
1-    Imaam Khallaal brought nothing but “weak and fabricated” narrations to support this “preposterous” belief.
2-    He was so extreme that he accused Al-Tirmidhi of being a Jahmi and Khabeeth. And yet the author says, “Al-Tirmidhi is unknown to us.”
3-    And by adding the rhetoric question at the end, “Is this the belief of Ahl us-Sunnah”, the author indirectly wants to say that Imaam al-Khallaal is not from the Ahl us-Sunnah (Na’oozubillah).

 

Answer to First Point:
According to the author every single narration that Imaam Khallaal has narrated is “weak and fabricated” and yet when we analyzed his “genius” remarks on all the narrations provided in this article above, he could not prove a “single” one of them to be “weak” let alone “fabricated.” Instead, his remarks on those narrations only proved his utmost and pure ignorance from the very basics of Uloom ul-Hadeeth. Any reader of this response can identify this by reading his completely misinformed and ridiculous arguments which even a student of knowledge would not make.

And yet he has the audacity to not only comment on them with his ignorance but also accuse other giant A’immah with his slanders. The person who does not hesitate to declare “Imaam Ibn al-Mundhir” and other great A’immah “Majhool” and a person who does not even know the beginning and the end of an Isnaad, what do you expect from him?

In short, it is enough as a reply to the author’s first point that he should prove any of these narrations “weak” or “fabricated” and we will accept his claim. Otherwise, he must remain silent about the Ulama lest he harms himself by doing that.

 

Answer to Second Point:
At one place the author says, Al-Tirmidhi is unknown to us and yet he has the audacity to accuse Imaam Khallaal for calling him a Jahmi who knew him, after all.
Moreover, the claim by which the author is slandering Imaam Khallaal is itself something Imaam Khallaal did not say, rather he narrated from another Scholar.

Here is the full passage from As-Sunnah, 
" قال أبو بكر الخلال : وقال علي بن داود القنطري: أما بعد ، فعليكم بالتمسك بهدي أبي عبد الله أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رضي الله عنه ، فإنه إمام المتقين لمن بعده ، وطعن لمن خالفه ، وأنّ هذا الترمذي الذي طعن على مجاهد برده فضيلة النبي ص مبتدع ، ولا يرد حديث محمد بن فضيل عن ليث عن مجاهد : ) عسى أنْ يبعثك ربك مقاماً محموداً ( [الإسراء : 79] قال : يقعده معه على العرش ، إلا جهمي ، يهجر ولا يكلم ، ويحذر عنه وعن كل من رد هذه الفضيلة ، وأنا أشهد على هذا الترمذي أنه جهمي خبيث، لقد أتى علي أربع وثمانون سنة ، ما رأيت أحداً رد هذه الفضيلة إلا جهمي ، وما أعرف هذا ولا رأيته عند محدث قط ، وأنا منكر لما أتى به من الطعن على مجاهد ، ورد فضيلة النبي ص : يقعد محمداً ص على العرش ، وأنه من قال بحديث مجاهد فهو جهمي ثنوي لا يدفن في مقابر المسلمين؟! ، وكذب عدو الله ، وكل من قال بقوله فهو عندنا جهمي يهجر ولا يكلم وحذر عنه ...الخ "

“Abu Bakr al-Khallaal said, that Ali bin Dawood al-Qantarisaid: To proceed: Upon you is to hold firm to the guidance of Abu Abdullah Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal (radiallah anhu) for indeed he is the Imaam of Muttaqineen for those who came after him and the blame is on the one who opposes him. And this At-Tirmidhi who slandered Mujaahid with his rejection of the virtue of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is a Mubtada’ (innovator). No one rejects the hadeeth of Muhammad bin Fudayl from Layth from Mujaahid concerning the ayah {It is expected that your Lord will raise you to a praised station} [Al-Isra: 79] that He will seat him with Him upon the Arsh, except a Jahmi. He is to be left alone nor to be spoken with and he should be warned against and from all those who reject this Fadeelah. And I bear witness that this Tirmidhi is a Jahmi Khabeeth. I completed 84 years and I did not see anyone rejecting this fadeelah except a Jahmi. Neither do I know this person (At-Tirmidhi) nor have I ever seen him sitting with a Muhaddith and I am a Munkar (of him) due to the slander upon Mujaahid and the rejection of Prophet’s fadeelah that he has come up with which is that Allaah will seat Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) upon the Arsh. And that whoever said (against) the hadeeth of Mujaahid is a Jahmi dualist who should not be buried in the graveyard of the Muslims!The enemy of Allaah has lied and whoever says what he said then he is a Jahmi according to us who is to be left alone nor to be spoken with and he should be warned against.” [As-Sunnah (1/232)]

So it turns out that what the author accused Imaam Khallaal with is something he did not even say, rather he quoted it directly from Imaam Al-Qantari as he did with all other sayings in his book. This is what happens when you judge anyone in a hurry without even looking into the context and yet the author feels that he is the Muhaqqiq ul-Asr who can accuse and slander anyone based on his misinformation.

Moreover, other Muhadditheen have also accused At-Timidhi with even strict words. Those who criticized At-Tirmidhi and warned against him or called him a Jahmi include: Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof (1/233), Imaam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani (1/233), Imaam Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal (1/234), Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel as-Sulami (1/233), Imaam Ismaa’eel bin Ibraaheem al-Haashimi (1/233), Imaam Muhammad bin Yoonus al-Basri (1/234), Imaam Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Abdul Malik ad-Daqeeqi (1/247), Imaam Ibraaheem al-Asbahaani (1/250), and many others.

Besides, numerous narrations from the Scholars have been mentioned in this very article itself where Imaam Ad-Dauri, Ishaaq bin Raahuwayh and other giant A’immah said that whoever rejects this hadeeth is a Jahmi, Muttaham, while others have issued the fatwa of Kufr upon him.

Similarly, Abu Abdur Rahmaan as-Sulami has said that At-Tirmidhi has also been ruled with Kufr by his own people in Tirmidh from where he was kicked out due to his suspicious books like “Khatm al-Wilaayah” (in which he proposed that just like Anbiyaa, the Awliyaa also have a Khaatim) and the book “Ilal ash-Sharee’ah” and that he used to prefer Wilaayah over Nabuwwah. Due to these and many other kufriyah aqaaid, he was expelled from his own town.

So even if this was something that Imaam Khallaal said, still he would not be alone in his saying as he is followed by many Scholars, but the truth is, he is not the one who said this.

In any case, the author has attributed a lie upon Imaam Khallaal and slandered him with something he himself did not know! Such is the level of “academics” they abide by! So the one who really deserves to be called extremist is not Imaam Khallaal but the author himself.

 

Answer to the third point:
The author is so open mouthed in his opposition to Imaam Khallaal and his numerous slanders and accusations on Imaam Khallaal that it is apparent, he does not consider him an Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah and holds much hatred for him.

Well, Imaam Khallaal is not the one who needs to be proven from Ahl us-Sunnah here, rather by criticizing this great Imaam, the author has instead given us the proof of him being out of Ahl us-Sunnah. Because no one criticizes or holds hatred for Ahl us-Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah except an innovator.

 

Indeed Imaam Ahmad bin Sinaan al-Qattaan said for such people, 
" ليس في الدنيا مبتدع إلاَّ وهو يبغض أهل الحديث " 
“There is no innovator in the world except that he holds hatred for Ahl al-Hadeeth” [Aqeedat us-Salaf by As-Saabooni (116)]

 

And Imaam Abu Zur’ah ar-Raazi said, 
" علامة أهل البدع الوقيعة في أهل الأثر " 
“A sign of Ahl ul-Bida’ is their slandering the Ahl ul-Athar.” [Aqeedat us-Salaf by As-Saabooni (118)]

Hence, after this, there is no doubt left that the author including Yasir and Abu al-Hasan are from the Ahl ul-Bida’ due to their slander on an Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah.
To know the status of Imaam al-Khallaal among the “real” Scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah, see the heading, “Reply to the Accusations and Slanders on Imaam al-Khallaal” above.

 

The claimed “Contradiction” of mine

The author says,
Now that we have exposed his academic dishonesty in quoting fabrications we will point out indiscretions committed by himself that even we felt second hand embarrassment for.

 

You have repeated the word “fabrications” several times in this response and yet you could not point a single one out until now. The most you could do in this entire response is declare any unfamiliar name “Majhool” and move on with it. Please point out the “fabrications”, if you even know what this word means! You could not even prove a single narration weak let alone a fabrication, so what academic dishonesty are you talking about? On the contrary it is you who has shown all kinds of dishonesties in this reponse by declaring well known Thiqah Imaams, Majhool, and doing all those things explained above.

 

The author says,
He says in his conclusion;
“Ibn Taymiyyah believes that all the ahadeeth about this topic are fabricated and that we should not treat scholarly opinions like we do hadeeth of the Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).”
So after giving a long list of fabricated ahadith in order to prove the belief of his master, Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah), the opposer admits himself that all the narrations are fabricated! There’s not much for us to say now as he has exposed his own confusion.

As I said earlier, you were too engulfed in anger while writing this response that you did not even properly understand what you were reading. Show this to a 5th grader and he will be able to explain what my statement is supposed to mean.

How many times have I told you that I did not mention those aqwaal of Ulama to prove or disprove the belief of Ibn Taymiyyah! The purpose of those “fabricated” aqwaal, of which you could not prove a single one to be fabricated, was that even if we suppose Ibn Taymiyyah held this belief, he was clearly not alone in this. Hence it is not correct for you to criticize him alone as if he is the inventor of this aqeedah. And after mentioning those aqwaal, I clearly explained, now that we know this aqeedah is not something ibn Taymiyyah alone is to be blamed for, let me now tell you that in reality Ibn Taymiyyah did not hold this aqeedah, and for this I gave that statement of Ibn Taymiyyah in which he denied the ascription of this belief to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

It was as simple as that but you still are having hard time grasping this and instead presenting it as my, or Ibn Taymiyyah’s, contradiction!! You are only trying to attribute your own confusion of something you don’t understand, to someone else. We can’t help you about that, it is Allaah who gives Aql to people.

 

He goes on to say,
But we continue as he then says;
“As highlighted by Ibn Taymiyyah this statement is ascribed to Mujaahid, the famous scholar of Tafseer but there is no authentic hadeeth to support this. So do they accuse Mujaahid, the famous Taab’iee Mufassir, who the actual statement was meant to have emanated from, of Blasphemy as well?”
Here we see the next contradiction, he admits that the ascription to Mujahid has no authentic hadith to support it and then questions whether we are accusing him of blasphemy, yet he entertains the possibility of it being from him, ascertaining that Mujahid went against Qur’an and Sunnah! We reject it for we hold the best opinions of our salaf and we won’t accuse them of going against Qur’an and Sunnah unlike those that throw people off their “manhaj” when they feel like it.

Subhaanallah, I am amazed at such intelligence. Statements like these make me wonder why I wasted all that time in writing this response. I feel ashamed of having to even exaplain what I wrote.

The author thinks that I have contradicted myself in one single line. Meaning, He thinks that I would be dumb enough to contradict myself on the very same line. I am sorry but you have just reserved that title for yourself.

I mentioned in the most clear and explicit words that, this statement is ascribed to Mujaahid, the famous scholar of Tafseer but there is no authentic hadeeth to support this

Now I ask the reader to read this line and decide whether this is a contradiction in any way you read it. After you understand what this means, now compare it with what the author thinks this statement means, he says: “he admits that the ascription to Mujahid has no authentic hadith to support it”

I hope you see the difference, but unfortunately, I am going to have to explain this to our intellectually challenged author. In the first statement I am saying and I paraphrase, “This statement is said by Mujaahid, but there is not authentic hadeeth (from the Messenger of Allaah sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) to support what Mujaahid said.”

Nowhere am I saying that this statement is not proven from Mujaahid! Now if even still you see a contradiction here, then you are in a strong need of medical help.

The problem is since you have absolutely no idea of how to reply to Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement against this belief, which essentially means he did not hold this aqeedah, which in turn means you absolutely screwed yourself by criticizing him in the first place, so you are making such foolish blunders because you have no idea what to say here.

 

The author then says,
Moving on, he blunders again, he says quoting from Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah);
“...This has only been authentically relayed from Mujaahid and others from the scholars of the past.”
So after admitting that there is no authentic narration to prove this belief he then stumbles on himself again and goes back to quoting Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) who believed it was authentically attributed to Mujahid.

This once again is due to your previous misunderstanding. What I admitted to was that there is not authentic narration i.e. from the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and not that the narration of Mujaahid is not proven. This is the mistake on your part because you could not even read a simple statement correctly, and simply rushed to call your own confusion, my contradiction.

 

You continue in your confusion by saying,
But then he goes on as he quotes from Imam Dhahabi’s Kitab Al Uluww’;
“whether the statement of Mujaahid –about the Prophet sitting on the throne-is authentic or not and some scholars state that it is not, it is impermissible to take this as part of the religion or creed because there is no proof for this in the Qur’aan or the Sunnah. (Mukhtasir Al-‘Uloo: 19-21).”
Subhan’Allah! So now he goes back on himself again and takes the view of Imam Dhahabi that this is not authentically from Mujahid.

 

What you’re constantly seeing as contradiction is nothing but the conjecture of your own mind. I didn’t know that people with such level of intelligence can even attempt to write a whole refutation without anyone stopping them from doing so. I now think why I even bothered writing this reponse.

I will explain this one last time, Dear Br. Muttakin, please understand, and if you are having trouble doing so then let someone in charge near you have you understand, that I never in my entire response tried to say that the athar of Mujaahid is weak or un proven. All I said was this is only the qawl of Mujaahid and it is not supported by the hadeeth of Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). So before accusing Ibn Taymiyyah of anything, you should know that this was originally said by Imaam Mujaahid centuries before him, so would you accuse and slander Imaam Mujaahid the way you are doing with Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah? While on the contrary, Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah did not even hold this aqeedah as he said that it is incumbent to differentiate between the sayings of Ulama and the Hadeeth of the Prophet. And this is exactly what the statement of Imaam Dhahabi is saying, that, this is the saying of Imaam Mujaahid and nothing is proven from the Qur’aan and Sunnah on this topic.

So please, do not ever write a refutation again, because the level of your intelligence really suggests that you need help more than you need a refutation.

 

Some more dose of that when he said,
Oh “ahlul isnaad” make up your mind! If there is no proof for this from Qur’an and Sunnah why is he insisting that this belief was held by the salaf before Hafiz Ibn 19 Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah), isn’t this a slanderous accusation against the salaf?

 

Ma-sha-Allah, and yet I have to make up my mind! He is even clearly saying with his own words what I meant up there and yet he is accusing me of confusion.

It clearly says above and you said it yourself that I said, there is no proof for this belief from QUR’AAN & SUNNAH, not that there is no proof for this from the aqwaal of Salaf. Is Qur’aan and Sunnah the same as the aqwaal of salaf to you?

If not, then what does something’s not being proven from Qur’aan and Sunnah have anything to do with, it also not being proven from the Salaf? Because you are saying, “If it is not proven from Qur’an and Sunnah then why are you saying that it’s proven from the Salaf!”

 

You can only say this if you:
·        Believe that the “Salaf” and “Qur’an wa Sunnah” are the same thing.
·        Or you believe that not being proven from Qur’aan and Sunnah automatically means that no Salaf also said it!
·        Or you are mentally disable.
To me the third one seems to be the most likely case.
I feel like skipping all this stupidness but I have to bare all this,

next he says,

He also shows that this belief to him is impermissible even after defending his master Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) with so many fabricated narrations. We’d like to remind the flummoxed brother that his master said only some from the deviant Jahmiyyah sect rejected this, so according to his masters own fatwa wouldn’t that make him a jahmi?

 

Let me make it easy upon myself and reply in small points:
·        Show me one single fabrication. Even in your own reply you did not present any evidence of their fabrication, and yet you are using this word freely throughout the document. This just shows your sheer ignorance about the basic Usool and yet you wish to write refutations.
·        Firstly Ibn Taymiyyah did not even hold this belief, so there is no point defending it. Secondly, this belief is invalid not only according to us but also according to Ibn Taymiyyah as I have repeatedly shown here and in my original reply as well. And those aqwaal of the Salaf were only presented to make you realize of your lie upon the salaf when you said that not a single salaf ever held this aqeedah. And that Ibn Taymiyyah is the first one to claim this.
·        As for the saying that Jahmiyyah rejected this belief, then this statement was said by many other A’immah as shown in the reply above and when Ibn Taymiyyah said it, he did not say it on his own, he only quoted it from Ibn Jareer at-Tabari.

 

He says,
He knows very well that every narration regarding this is baseless hence why he is trying to cast doubt upon whether Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) really believed this

 

Ma-sha-Allaah, go on.

But we will bring more proofs to show that he contradicts himself and this was actually the belief of his master. The person should look up Al Asmaa Wa Sifaat on page 99 where he has mentioned that Allah azza wa jal is sitting on His Throne and he deduced this anthropomorphic creed from a Qur’anic verse! Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi relates the same about Ibn Taymiyyah in his Tafsir that:

“I have read in a book by our contemporary Ahmad ibn Taymiyya written in his own hand and which he entitled Kitab al-`arsh (The Book of the Throne):

“Allah the Exalted sits (yajlisu) on the kursi, and He has left a space vacant for the Prophet to sit with Him.” Taj al-Din Muhammad ibn `Ali al-Barnibari tricked him into thinking that he was supporting him until he obtained that book from him and we read this in it.

 

The reference of Abu Hayyaan that you have brought is itself a fabrication. Allaamah Abu Hayyaan’s tafseer “An-Nahr al-Maad” is well known and published. And when it was later published by Daar al-Janaan they added this statement from an unreliable manuscript while they themselves said at the end, that this part i.e. the reference of Ibn Taymiyyah is not present in the published nuskha.

And the manuscript that they took it from is the nuskha of Halb which was written by Al-Ashmooni as late as 1197 AH. Beside this great lapse of time that it was written in and this fabricated addition that was added to it, the editors of this publication themselves said in the Muqaddimah,
 
“  ولسنا ندعي أن هذه النسخة مضبوطة..."
“And we do not claim that this manuscript is strong…”

And compare this with what the first publisher of the book (which did not have this addition said), 
" وأحضرنا أصولا معتمدة معولا عليها ، مأثورة عن فحول علماء الغرب والشرق ، مقابلة على نسخ موثوق بها بالكتبخانة الخديوية المصرية "

We leave the decision up to the readers.

Now this is what we call fabrication. The entire reference of Ibn Taymiyyah was fabricated and added into the book of Abu Hayyaan to defame him.

Moreover, the book of Ibn Taymiyyah on Al-Arsh that this quote talks about is found here [https://archive.org/details/resala_archiya]. Please read through the entire book and I dare you find the said statement.

Even if this reference was authentic, it would still not be considered valid due to many other reasons, along with the fact that it simply contradicts the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah in his own books as mentioned above.

As for whatever you said after this, then I omitted it because it was irrelevant to the topic as well as Ibn Taymiyyah, so you can discuss that in another place. But as a matter of fact, we have written another article on the word “sitting” used for Allaah, in which also, we have shown that numerous other A’immah from the Salaf had held the same belief about it, who came much before Ibn al-Qayyim or Ibn Taymiyyah. You can ask for that.

But for now, it turns out you really do not have a single point against Shaykh ul-Islaam Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah on this topic. On the contrary, you only showed us your utmost ignorance and foolishness that you possibly could, in the name of a refutation.

 

 

Conclusion

Alhamdulillah, this is the end of the response to the ignorance of the author on all the narrations we provided and it turns out that every single one of them was authentic. All the author did in his response is show his ignorance of the Uloom al-Hadeeth throughout, slander the A’immah of Ahl us-Sunnah, and behave as if his verdict is the final and conclusive verdict that there can ever be, while analyzing them reveals that his so called “responses” and “logical arguments” do not even go beyond the intellect of a child or a Jaahil Aami, let alone a student of knowledge.

The original argument of the author, and Muhammad Yasir al-Hanafi to which we replied was that the belief that Allaah will make Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) sit on His throne on the Day of Judgment is something that Ibn Taymiyyah was alone to have held (even though he did not) and none of the Salaf and Scholars before him held this aqeedah.

It was enough to prove this statement wrong just by giving a single such reference from one of the Salaf as they negated this belief in its totality from any Salaf whatsoever before Ibn Taymiyyah, which we did, Alhamdulillah. But look at the genius of the author and Yasir al-Hanafi that throughout this response they criticized Imaam al-Khallaal for having this belief which is a clear contradiction of their original claim. Their own claim was enough to prove them wrong as Imaam Khallaal himself is a Scholar and a Salaf of Ibn Taymiyyah who held this Aqeedah! So they hammered their foot on their own and proved themselves liars by contradicting their own statement.

 

Here is what Yasir al-Hanafi said, and I quote again,

“It defended the anthropomorphic creed stated by Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah (R.A) in his Fatawa that Allah will make the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمsit next to Him on His throne. The opponent did not only try to defend Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah, but also attempted to falsely project this creed, which is nothing but anthropomorphism and corporealism (?), on to the pious salaf. We seek Allah's protection from such slanders and lies regarding our pious predecessors. Ameen.”

 

And the following is what the author said,What is it that has brought these people to accept such strange beliefs and falsely promote them as the beliefs of our pious predecessors?

And he said, 

Then came the biggest slander and lie from this misinformed person, the heinous slander and accusation against the salaf. He dares to say;
“Anything that Ibn Taymiyyah has or may have said was preceded by many giant Scholars and the righteous Salaf in every single word he said.”

 

In fact the author even goes on to challenge us saying, 
“His master claimed that the belief that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمwill be seated on the throne with Allah azza wa jal is the belief of “great scholars and saints and only rejected by some jahmi’s” it is upon him to bring evidences since he is the claimer, bring forth authentic narrations from three scholars that held this belief and three authentic narrations from saints otherwise put your hands up and state clearly that this belief held by your master was incorrect and upon deviance!”

 

Why do I need to answer this challenge when the author himself has done that for us!

But still, here are some names of the great Scholars and saints who held this belief:
1-    Imaam Mujaahid bin Jabr al-Makki (A Major Taabi’ee).
2-    Imaam Sa’eed bin Iyaas al-Jurayree (A Minor Taabi’ee).
3-    Imaam Ahl us-Sunnah, Ahmad bin Hanbal.
4-    Imaam Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Abdul Malik ad-Daqeeqi
5-    Imaam Haaroon bin Ma’roof – the teacher of Imaam Ahmad.
6-    Imaam Abdul Wahhaab al-Warraaq – a companion of Imaam Ahmad.
7-    Imaam Ishaaq bin Raahuwayh – Mujtahid Faqeeh Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah.
8-    Imaam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani – the author of As-Sunan.
9-    Imaam Muhammad bin Mus’ab – One of the Abbaad Allaah and Awliyaa of his time.
10-          Imaam Ibraaheem bin Mattuwayh al-Asbahaani.
11-          Imaam Abu Qilaabah ar-Riqaashi
12-          Imaam Ali bin Sahl al-Bazzaaz.
13-          Imaam Abu Ubayd Al-Qaasim bin Sallaam – Mujtahid Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah.
14-          Imaam Abbaas bin Muhammad ad-Dauri.
15-          Imaam Abu Bakr al-Ajurri.
16-          Imaam Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal.

And here are some additional references that were not mentioned in the original article:
17-          Imaam Abu Bakr al-Marwadhi – the student of Imaam Ahmad and a great Imaam of Ahl us-Sunnah – he wrote a whole separate book on this issue.
18-          Imaam Yahya bin Abi Taalib
19-          Imaam Ahmad bin Asram al-Muzani
20-          Imaam Abu Bakr bin Hammaad al-Muqri
21-          Imaam Muhammad bin Ali Hamdaan al-Warraaq
22-          Imaam Ibraaheem al-Harbi
23-          Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel as-Sulami
24-          Imaam Abu Bakr bin Ishaaq as-Saaghaani.
25-          Imaam Ali bin Daawood al-Qantari.
26-          Abu al-Abbaas Haaroon bin al-Abbaas al-Haashmi
27-          Ismaa’eel bin Ibraaheem al-Haashmi
28-          Imaam Muhammad bin Uthmaan bin Abi Shaybah.
29-          Imaam Aswad bin Saalim al-Baghdaadi al-Aabid.

And following are some references from outside of As-Sunnah,
30-          Imaam Abu Muhammad Yahya bin Muhammad bin Saa’id [Ash-Sharee’ah (4/1616)]
31-          Imaam Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Sulemaan an-Najjaad [Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah (2/10-11) and Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat (1/490, 491)]
32-          Zakariyya bin Yahya Abu Yahya an-Naaqid [Ibid]
33-          Imaam al-Barbahaaree [Tabaqaat al-Hanaablah (2/43)]
34-          Ibn Battah [Ash-Sharh wal Ibanah (P. 61)]
35-          Qaadhi Abu Ya’la Muhammad bin al-Husayn Ibn al-Faraa – the author of Tabaqaat al-Hanaabilah. He has dedicated an entire chapter in affirmation of this belief in his “Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat”.
36-          Ameer ul-Mu’mineen fil Hadeeth Imaam Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Umar ad-Daaraqutni – he has written a poem in affirmation of this belief [Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat (1/492), Chain Saheeh]
37-          Imaam Abu Abdullah Ibn Battah [Ibtaal at-Ta’weelaat (1/485)]

Do I need to go on or should I suffice with this. After all you only asked us for three references and you are now given thirty seven references altogether. All these people and giant A’immah of Ahl us-Sunnah held this belief and they all came centuries before Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah. So how true does your claim remains that Ibn Taymiyyah was alone to have held this Aqeedah and that the ascription of this aqeedah to anyone before him is a “LIE” and “Slander” and what not.

 

After this, the rightful candidate of all those attributes is the author Mr. Muttaqin, Yasir al-Deobandi and Mr. Abul Hasan, who happily wrote the preface.

At the end, the author leaves a mark of his utmost hatred for Shaykh ul-Islaam by presenting a statement attributed to Imaam Dhahabi from a fabricated book named “Al-Naseehah”. This quote simply shows how much he hates Shaykh ul-Islaam and only barely his hands agreed to write the word ‘Hafiz’ by his name along with ‘rahimahullah’. Were it not for the high praises of other great Ulama for Ibn Taymiyyah which include his own Scholars, he would, most certainly, not have written that as well. As for whether An-Naseehah is even proven from Imaam Dhahabi or not, then that is a separate topic on which several books have already been written, so let the author read those if he really is sincere.

May Allaah guide us all to the straight path – Ameen!

If I said anything correct, then it is from Allaah (subhanahu wa taa'ala), and if I erred, then that is from me and the shaytan and I seek Allaah’s forgiveness for that, Ameen.

 

 
 
 

↓↓↓Prophet(saw) said: Convey (knowledge) from me even if it is just one ayah[Bukhari 3461]. Share↓↓↓

FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditLinkedinMixxRSS Feed