Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can We Say 'Ya Muhammad'?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The Ruling on the Narrator who’s Memory Deteriorated or He became Forgetful

    Ibn as-Salaah (d.643H) said,

    “The ruling concerning such narrators is that the ahadeeth narrated by them before they started to forget are accepted and the ahadeeth they narrated after they started to forget are not accepted. Also concerning the narrators there are doubts about (is which ahadeeth of theirs) was narrated before or after they became forgetful are not accepted.” (Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah Fee Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.220)



    Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

    “The ruling concerning this is if the narration is before his memory deteriorated then it is accepted, if however this cannot be distinguished then there needs to abstinence….This depends and can be found out by the one’s this is to be taken from ie the narrators.” (Nazhatan-Nazhar Sharh Nukhbatul-Fikr (pg.82-83) Ta’leeq Wa Sharh Muhammad Awaidah, Nazhatan-Nazahr Fee Tawdheeh Nukhbatul-Fikr (pg.91) of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee.)


    Imaam Ibn Katheer said,

    “Whoever heard from them before their memories deteriorated then their narrations are accepted. Whoever heard from them after (their memories deteriorated) or if it is uncertain (when they heard from the narrator) then they are not accepted.” (Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.190) of Ibn Katheer Ma Sharh Wa Ta’leeq Muhammad Awaidah, al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth Sharh Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.229).


    Imaam’s Nawawee and Suyootee said,

    “And it is accepted that which has been narrated from them before their memory deteriorated, but their narrations are not accepted which were narrated after (memory deteriorated) or their narrations upon which there are doubts.” (Tadreeb ar-Raawee Fee Sharh Taqreeb an-Nawawee (2/896) in another edition (2/372).

    Shaikh al-Allaamah Haafidh bin Ahmad al-Hakamee (d.1377H) also mentioned the statement of Haafidh Ibn Hajr from Nazhatan-Nazhar. He also mentioned the statement of Imaam Nawawee from Sharh Saheeh Muslim on Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee of him being from amongst the narrators whose memory deteriorated. (See Daleel al-Falaah Lee Tahqeeq Fan al-Istilah (pg.152-153) of Haafidh al-Hakamee Question no.70 “…What is meant by bad memory? What is the ruling on the one who has bad memory? What is mentioned about some of the ones whose memories deteriorated? Checking by Abu Yaasar Khaalid bin Qaasim ar-Raddaadee.)



    Ustaadh Hammaad al-Ansaari said,

    “The hadeeth of the one who’s memory deteriorated is accepted when he heard before his memory deteriorated and those who heard after his Ikhtilaat (forgetfulness) are rejected.” (Yaan’e ath-Thamr Fee Mastalah Ahlil-Athar (1/48).


    Shaikh Dr. Mahmood at-Tahaan said,

    “1. The narrations they narrated before their memories deteriorated are accepted.

    2. The narrations narrated after their memories deteriorated are rejected.

    3. Those narrations in which it cannot be ascertained whether the narrations were narrated before or after their memories deteriorated, then there is abstinence upon them up until further clarity.” (Tayseer Mastalah al-Hadeeth (pg.124)


    See also

    Balgatul-Hatheeth Ilaal Ilm al-Hadeeth (pg.52) of Imaam al-Allaamah Jamaal ud deen al-Mahaasain Abdul-Haadee a-Maqdisee (d.909H).

    al-Taqayyid Wal-Aydah (pg.422-443) of Haafidh al-A’raaqee

    al-Maqna’a (2/662-667) of Ibn al-Mulqin

    al-Yawaaqiyat Wad-Darar (2/476-477) of Allaamah Minawee.

    Mu’ajam Mastalahaat al-Hadeeth (pg.112-113).


    The Allaamah ash-Shaikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Abbaad and Abdul-Kareem Muraad said,

    “The ruling concerning the narrations (of such people) that which is narrated from them before their memories deteriorated and if this is not known, it is accepted and that which was narrated after is not accepted. And those which cannot be distinguished are remained silent upon.” (Min Ateeb al-Minh Fee Ilm al-Mastalah (pg.44)


    Secondly

    Abu Ishaaq is also a Mudallis

    Haafidh Ibn Sabt al-Ajamee said,

    “A major Successor (tabi’ee) and famous for tadlees.” (at-Tabayyeen Fee Asmaa al-Mudalliseen (pg.9)


    Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

    “Famous for tadlees, he is a successor and trustworthy. Nasaa’ee and others have also said this.” (Ta’reef Ahlul-Taqdees Bi-Maraatab al-Mawsoofeen Bit-Tadlees al-Ma’roof beh Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen (no.91) pg.101 of the third level)


    Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said,

    “He is a mudallis.” (ath-Thiqaat (5/177), (2/2/64) Qalmee, Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/55)

    Hasan Karbeesee and Abu Ja’afar at-Tabaree mention him to be from amongst the mudalliseen narrators (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/55).


    Ibn Ma’an said,

    “A’amsh and Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee rendered the ahadeeth of the people of koofah to be corruptive due to tadlees.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/55)


    The Two Imaams Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah and Sufyaan ath-Thawree and Tadlees

    As indicated above from the words of the scholars of hadeeth the Sufyaan in the chain is Ibn Uyainah. No doubt it is difficult to ascertain which Sufyaan this is whether Thawree or Ibn Uyainah so then the scholars of hadeeth look at the student of the Sufyaan and by this they make ta’ayyun which Sufyaan this is. However the student in this narration is Abu Nu’aym, which is another problem as he was the student of again both Sufyaan’s.

    He narrated from Sufyaan ath-Thawree (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.2538 4/102) and from Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.2544 4/107).

    So for arguments if the Mukhaalifeen (opposers) say the Sufyaan in this chain is ath-Thawree and not Ibn Uyainah, then

    It is KNOWN Imaam, Ameer al-Mu’mineen Fil-Haadeth al-Hujjah al-Aabid, Sufyaan ath-Thawree was an Imaam of Ahlus-Sunnah and a preserver of hadeeth of the highest level yet still he was a mudallis

    Imaam Dhahabee said,

    “Sufyaan would to tadlees from weak narrators.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal (2/169), Siyaar A’laam an-Nabulaa (7/242, 7/274).

    Haafidh Ibn Hajr also said he was a mudallis. (Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen (p.32 no.51) and Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (no.2458 pg.394) in another ed. (p.197), an-Nukt (2/621).

    Imaam Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak also said Sufyaan ath-Thawree would do tadlees. (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (4/102)

    As well as the following Imaams.

    Imaam Bukhaari (al-Ellal al-Kabeer (2/966) of Tirmidhee and at-Tamheed (1/34).

    Imaam Nasaa’ee. (Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen (p.32 no.51))

    Yahyaa ibn Ma’een. (Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/357-358) and al-Kifaayah Fee Ilm ar-Riwaayah (p.361) of Khateeb al-Baghdaadee.

    Yahyaa ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan. (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (11/192)

    Khateeb al-Baghdaadee (al-Kifaayah(p.361)

    Haafidh Ibn as-Saalah (Muqaddimah pg.60)

    Abu Mahmood al-Maqdisee. (Qaseedah Fil Mudalliseen (p.47, second poem)

    Salaah ud deen al-Laa’ee. (Jaam’e at-Tahseel Fee Ahkaam al-Maraaseel (p.99)

    Haafidh Ibn Rajab. (Sharh Illal at-Tirmidhee (1/358)

    Imaam Nawawee and Imaam Suyootee (Tadreeb ar-Raawee Sharh Taqreeb (1/263) in another ed. (1/230).


    What is Tadlees

    A Mudallis is the one who commits Tadlees which is when a narrator narrates from someone he does not directly hear from and omits the person he really hears from (See al-Fiyyah (1/180) of Haafidh al-A’raaqee, see also Nazhatun-Nazhar (p.82), an-Nukt (2/614) of Ibn Hajr and Tayseer Mastalah al-Hadeeth (p.78) of Dr. Mahmood at-Tahhaan.


    The Ruling Concerning a Mudallis Narrator.

    Imaam Ibn as-Salaah (d.643H) said,

    “The ruling is that the only narration of a Mudallis that will be accepted is the one in which he clarifies who he heard it from, and this is upon every that individual who commits Tadlees once.” (Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah (p.60) another ed. (pg.99).

    Imaam Ibn as-Salaah said this was the position of Imaam Shaafi’ee. (see ar-Risaalah (pg.379-380), Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/353) and Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah (p.60)

    Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een (d.233H) said,

    “The Mudallis is not a proof in is Tadlees.” (al-Kifaayah (p.362) and Sharh Ellal at-Tirmidhee (1/353) and (1/357-358)


    Imaam Nawawee said,

    “If a Mudallis narrates with Ann then that narration with agreement will not be proof.” (al-Majmoo Sharh al-Muhazzab (6/212), Nasb ur-Raayah (2/34).

    Imaam Ibn Katheer has mentioned the same that a narration in which a mudallis clarifies he heard the narration, will be accepted, and thereafter brings the statement of Imaam Ibn as-Salaah. (See Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.46-48), al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.62-63).

    Similar has been mentioned by Imaams Nawawee and Suyootee. (Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/24).

    See also Daleel al-Falaah Lee Tahqeeq Fan al-Istilah (pg.109-111).

    Taqayyid Wal-Aydah (pg.78).

    Fath al-Mugeeth (1/179) of Sakhawee.

    Tawdheeh al-Afkaar (1/343).

    al-Waseet (pg.295).

    Asbaab Ikhtilaaf al-Muhaditheen (1/271).

    Min Ateeb al-Minh Fee Ilm al-Mastalah (pg.29)

    Tayseer Mastalah al-Hadeeth (pg.83).


    Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

    “If tadlees is established or proven from a trustworthy narrator then still his hadeeth will not be accepted, except the hadeeth in which he clarifies who he heard the hadeeth from.” (Nazhatun-Nazhar (pg.62) in another ed. (pg.66).

    Comment


    • #17
      Other Chain For This Hadeeth

      Ibn as-Sunnee mentions 3 more chains for this hadeeth they are as follows,

      The First Chain

      Muhammad bin Ibraaheem al-Anmatee and Amr bin Junaid bin Eesaa from Mahmood from Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash from Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee from Abu Shu’bah……

      The Second Chain

      Muhammad bin Khaalid Muhammad Barzaa’ee from Haajib bin Suleimaan from Muhammad bin Mus’ab from Israa’eel from Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee from Hushaim….

      The Third Chain

      Ahmad bin Hasan Soofee from Yahyaa bin Ja’ad from Zuhair from Abu Ishaaq from Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Sa’ad……

      Then since the incident mentioned at the end of these chains seems to be the same one, then Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee has performed Idhtiraab in the hadeeth.


      What is Idhtiraab

      Idhtiraab is when a narrator interchanges the names in a chain he sometimes narrates from person A and then sometimes narrates from Person B (the same incident). This is idhtiraab of the chain, there is also idhtiraab of the matn (text). There is a lot of variance in the statement of the scholars on its exact definition but it can be summarized as below.

      Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

      “If by changing the name of a narrator a trustworthy narrator is opposed, and none of them can be given precedence over the other, then such a hadeeth is mudhtarib.” (Nazhatun-Nazhar (pg.81).

      See also

      Tawdheh al-Afkaar (1/221) of Sana’anee.

      Muaqaddimah Ibn as-Saalah (pg.73).

      Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.54).

      al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.78).

      Taqayyid Wal-Aydah (pg.124).

      Fath al-Mugeeth (1/237).

      Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/308).

      an-Nukt (2/772-802).

      Bulgatul-Hatheeth Ilaa Imal-Hadeeth (pg.26).



      Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee and Idhtiraab.

      Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee used to do idhtiraab in his hadeeth and this is hadeeth is a prime example of that.

      (see al-Ellal (1/193) of Imaam Daarqutnee,

      al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.79),

      Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/312)

      and an-Nukt (2/772).

      So these three narrations are also weak from this angle. As well as Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee being a central narrator in all three chains the previous criticisms mentioned about him that his memory deteriorated in later life and that he was a mudallis, render all three narrations to be weak.

      Further Analysis of the First Chain of Ibn as-Sunnee.

      Firstly

      The chain contains Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash. Many scholars of hadeeth of eminent level graded him to be trustworthy and reliable, however a greater majority scholars of hadeeth declared him to be weak, having bad memory and one who made many mistakes.

      Imaam’s Bukhaari and Ibn Khuzaimah used him in a narration (s) they transmitted in their Saheeh’s. Abdullah ibn Mubaarak praised him. Yazeed bin Haaroon said, “Good and the learned.” al-Ejlee said, “Trustworthy who made mistakes.” And he also said, “He made mistakes.” Sufyaan ath-Thawree said, “There are errors in his hadeeth and there was something with his memory.”

      Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal said, “Trustworthy, made many mistakes.” Ibn Sa’ad said, “Trustworthy, truthful but made many mistakes.” Imaam Saajee said, “Truthful, but had mistakes.” Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said, “Would make mistakes in what he narrated.” (Imaam Ibn Hibbaan also included him in his book of trustworthy narrators (ath-Thiqaat)

      Ya’qoob bin Shaybah said, “His hadeeth contained idhtiraab.” Abu Umar said, “There are mistakes in his hadeeth and his memory had something in it.” Abu Ahmad Haakim said, “He is not a Haafidh according to me.” Muhammad bin Abdullaah bin Numair said, “He is weak.” (see Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (12/38-40) and Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal no.10024 7/337-338)

      Imaam Abu Dawood said he was trustworthy. There are two statements concerning him by Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een. Once he said he is trustworthy and another time he said weak. (See Taareekh Baghdaad.)

      Imaam Tirmidhee said, “Made many mistakes.” (Tirmidhee (2/84).

      Imaam Ibn Hazm said, “He is weak.” (al-Muhalla (7/485).

      Imaam Baihaqee said, “Not a Haafidh.” (Sunan al-Kubraa 4/12).

      Imaam Dhahabee said, “His hadeeth are incorrect and have errors.” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal no.10024 7/337-338).

      Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, “When he became old his memory went bad and deteriorated in later times, trustworthy and a worshipper, but his book is authentic.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.576), Fath ul-Baaree from Taujeeh al-Qaaree (pg.336).


      Secondly

      Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash and Ikhtilaat (forgetfulness)

      Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash’s memory deteriorated and he became forgetful as mentioned by the scholars of hadeeth as mentioned above.

      See al-Kawaakib an-Neeraat Fee Ma’arifah Min Ikhtilaat Min Rawaah ath-Thiqaat (pg.439-444) of Ibn Akyaal.

      al-Egtibaat Bi Ma’arifah Min Ramee Bil-Ikhtilaat (pg.26).

      Nasb ur-Raayah (1/409) of Zailaa’ee.

      Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned this more clearly in his book ath-Thiqaat he says,

      “When Ibn A’ayaash became old his memory deteriorated. When he would narrate he would make mistakes and became forgetful. The correct position is that which he forgot or made an error in it is to be abandoned and the narration without the errors will be used as evidence.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (12/39).

      A MAJOR OBJECTION

      The hanafee’s (by default) use Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash as double-edged sword in the following manner. They say Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash is a narrator of Saheeh al-Bukhaari and so if you bring criticism (ie he makes mistakes or he is weak) on him then you are criticizing Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Imaam Bukhaari and his expertise in the field of hadeeth as well indicating Imaam Bukhaari brought weak ahadeeth in is Saheeh. On the other hand if you do not mention the criticisms, they have an excuse (and a longing desire) to call upon other than Allaah by propagating this hadeeth is authentic.

      The more well known amongst them for distortion and figurative explanations just say, “Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash is a narrator of Bukhaari.” As has one hanafee author of our times in a book of prayer according to the hanafee madhab, which he has titled based upon a khaarijee tendency, “The Salah of the Believer According to the Qur’aan and Sunnah.” When in reality he has compiled this book on prayer according to the hanafee madhab and this is what he title’s Salah of the Believer, thereby indicating any method of praying in which the people pray which is not according to the hanafee madhab, are not believers. Wal-Ayaadhbillaah.

      Haafidh Ibn Hajr has answered this claim and said, “His (Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash’s) hadeeth in Saheeh al-Bukhaari are only used for support and not as the Usool (as the base or foundation).”(Haadee as-Saaree Muqaddimah Fath ul-Baaree (pg.456).

      Detailed Criticism Takes Precedence Over The General Praise.

      Someone may argue some of the scholars of hadeeth also praised Abu Bakr bin A’ayaash so why is the criticism taken over the praise. Then Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,

      “A group has always taken criticism over the praise but the correct position is that if there is both criticism and praise of a narrator then the criticism takes precedence. This is if the criticism is detailed over the praise when the one who is criticizing is aware of the reason for the criticism. If he is not aware and the criticism is not detailed then the criticism cannot be given precedence over the praise.” (Nazhatun-Nazhar (pg.113-114).


      See also

      Muqaddimah Ibn as-Saalah (pg.87+)

      Al-Baa’ith al-Hatheeth (pg.97-98).

      Bulgatul Hatheeth Ilaa Ilmal-Hadeeth (pg.28-29).



      Thirdly

      In the chain is a narrator who is Abu Shu’bah and it cannot be established who he is and what his status is.

      Comment


      • #18
        Further Analysis of the Second Chain.

        Muhammad bin Khaalid Muhammad Barzaa’ee from Haajib bin Suleimaan from Muhammad bin Mus’ab from Israa’eel from Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee from Hushaim….


        Muhammad bin Mus’ab would make many mistakes.


        Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,


        “Truthful but makes many mistakes.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.471)


        Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said,


        “He was from amongst those people who’s memories deteriorated to the extent that he would mix and confuse the chains and he would make the mursal narrations into Marfoo (ie raised to the Messenger of Allaah). So if he is alone (in reporting) then his narration is not to be used as evidence.” (Mukhtasar adh-Dhu’afaa (pg.106).


        Imaam Ibn Abee Haatim said,


        “I asked Abu Zur’ah about Muhammad bin Mus’ab al-Qursaanee? So he replied, “He is truthful in hadeeth but he narrates rejected narrations.” So I said, “Does this not make him weak.. He (Abu Zur’ah) replied, “I think he used to make mistakes in them.” I then asked my father (Imaam Abee Haatim) about him (ie Muhammad bin Mus’ab) so he said, “He is weak in hadeeth.” Then I told him what Abu Zur’ah had said, so my father said, “It is not like this according to me, he is weak as he narrates rejected narrations.” (al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel (4/102).


        Also another problem in this chain is that the teacher of Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee and a narrator in this chain is majhool (unknown) and that is Hushaim bin Hansh.


        Imaam Abu Bakr Khateeb al-Baghdaadee said,


        “The unknown according to the people of hadeeth (Ashaabul-Hadeeth) is the narrator who is not known to be a student of knowledge and nor do the scholars know him and they do not know his hadeeth except through one chain. Like Umarzee Murrah, Jabbaar Ta’ee, Abdullaah bin Aghar al-Hamdaanee, Hushaim bin Hansh, Maalik bin Aghar, Sa’eed bin Dheelawaan, Qais bin Karkam, Dhamr bin Maalik, from all of them Abu Ishaaq Sabee’ee is alone in reporting from them.” (al-Kifaayah Fee Ilm ar-Riwaayah (pg.88).


        Abu Ishaaq Juzjaanee said,


        “Abu Ishaaq used to narrate from unknown people and their narrations did not spread amongst the people of knowledge, except that Abu Ishaaq is the only one who narrates them. According to me it is better to abstain from them. (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (8/67).


        Further Analysis of the Third Chain.

        Ahmad bin Hasan Soofee from Yahyaa bin Ja’ad from Zuhair from Abu Ishaaq from Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Sa’ad……


        Zuhair bin Mu’awiyyah is in the third chain and he heard from Abu Ishaaq as-Sabee’ee after he started to forget and when his memory deteriorated.


        Haafidh Ibn Hajr said,


        “Thiqatun-Thabt (affirmed trustworthy), except that he heard from Abu Ishaaq at the end.” (Taqreeb ut-Tahdheeb (pg.167)


        The likes of this has also been mentioned in Tadreeb ar-Raawee (1/263) and Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (3/351-352).


        Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal said about his hadeeth from Abu Ishaaq,


        “Weak and he heard from him at the end (when his memory faded).”


        Imaam Yahyaa ibn Ma’een said,


        “He heard from Abu Ishaaq after he started to forget.”


        Abu Haatim said,


        “Zuhair is beloved to us in everything from the Israa’eel (narration’s), except the hadeeth of Abu Ishaaq.” (Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (3/351-352).


        Lastly

        In some of the manuscripts the words ‘Yaa’ is not present just the name of the Messenger of Allaah. (Fadhallaa us-Samad Sharh Adaab al-Mufrad (2/429).


        Also this hadeeth is not Marfoo (raised) it is mawqoof ie stops at a successor. So in this regard Imaam Shawkaanee said,


        “It is not in this (ie hadeeth) that the command was Marfoo (raised).” (Tuhfatul-Dhaakireen (pg.239).


        Source: Sunnipress

        Comment


        • #19
          The narration regarding Hazrat Isa with the addition "Ya muhammed" is not found in Bukhari or muslim or both rather it is found without this addition! The narration with this wording i.e "Ya muhammed and the rest" is found in Abu ya'laa and hakim! The chain of Abu ya'laa contains Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes and he contradicts what is narrated in the sahih! So this addition is shaadh! The same addition is in haakim and the chain of haakim contains muhammed bin ishaq who is a mudallis and narrates with "an" so again the narration of Hakim is weak!

          Allah knows best!

          Comment


          • #20
            Assalam O Alaikum!
            This is what is found in Bukhari regarding Hazrat Isa:

            Narrated Abu Huraira(RA) that the Prophet of Allah(SAW) said:


            By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, Son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizyah (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no one will accept charitable gifts.
            (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 34, No. 425)


            Narrated Abu Huraira(RA) that hazrat Muhammad(SAW) said:


            The Hour will not be established until the Son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizyah tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).
            (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Book 43, No. 656)


            Both of them are without the addition "Ya Muhammed"!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MarijWasti View Post
              The narration regarding Hazrat Isa with the addition "Ya muhammed" is not found in Bukhari or muslim or both rather it is found without this addition! The narration with this wording i.e "Ya muhammed and the rest" is found in Abu ya'laa and hakim! The chain of Abu ya'laa contains Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes and he contradicts what is narrated in the sahih! So this addition is shaadh! The same addition is in haakim and the chain of haakim contains muhammed bin ishaq who is a mudallis and narrates with "an" so again the narration of Hakim is weak!

              Allah knows best!


              Assalamu alaikum

              The claimant did not say that it was in the Sahihayn with the wording "Ya Muhammad". This is what al-Haythami said in his Majma:

              13813- وعن أبي هريرة قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
              "والذي نفس أبي القاسم بيده، لينزلن عيسى بن مريم إماماً مقسطاً وحكماً عدلاً، فليكسرن الصليب، ويقتلن الخنزير، وليصلحن ذات البين، وليذهبن الشحناء وليعرضن المال فلا يقبله أحد، ثم لئن قام على قبري فقال: يا محمد، لأجبته".
              قلت: هو في الصحيح باختصار.
              رواه أبو يعلى ورجاله رجال الصحيح.


              He declared the narrators to be that of the Sahih and the narration in the Sahih of al-Bukhari is an abridged version of what is in the Musnad of Abu Ya'la. So what do you mean that Abu Sakhr contradicts that in the Sahih when he is a narrator found in Sahih Muslim? How is his narration Shadh? Which Muhaddith said so?

              Abu Sakhar is Humayd ibn Ziyad and Ibn Hajar said in al-Taqreeb (no. 1546) that he is Saduq yahim and he was opposed by Shaykhs Shu'ayb Arna'oot and Bashhar Awwad who said he is Saduq Hasan al-Hadith.

              In Musnad Abu Ya'la, the one who took from Abu Sakhr was Ibn Wahb, and in Sahih Muslim there are examples of Ibn Wahb narrating from him:

              - (1187) حدثني هارون بن سعيد الأيلي. حدثنا ابن وهب. حدثني أبو صخر عن ابن قسيط، عن عبيد بن جريج. قال:
              حججت مع عبدالله بن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنهما. بين حج وعمرة. ثنتين عشرة مرة. فقلت يا أبا عبدالرحمن ! لقد رأيت منك أربعة خصال. وساق الحديث، بهذا المعنى. إلا في قصة الإهلال فإنه خالف رواية المقبري. فذكره بمعنى سوى ذكره إياه.


              70 - (2815) حدثني هارون بن سعيد الأيلي. حدثنا ابن وهب. أخبرني أبو صخر عن ابن قسيط. حدثه؛ أن عروة حدثه؛ أن عائشة، زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حدثته؛
              أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خرج من عندها ليلا. قالت فغرت عليه. فجاء فرأى ما أصنع. فقال "مالك؟ يا عائشة! أغرت؟" فقلت: وما لي لا يغار مثلي على مثلك؟ فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم "أقد جاءك شيطانك؟" قالت: يا رسول الله! أو معي شيطان؟ قال "نعم" قلت: ومع كل إنسان؟ قال "نعم" قلت: ومعك؟ يا رسول الله! قال "نعم. ولكن ربي أعانني عليه حتى أسلم".

              As for al-Hakim's version it does contain an-ana of Ibn Ishaq as you said and hence it is ma'lul in the sanad:

              4162 / 172 - أخبرني أبو الطيب محمد بن أحمد الحيري، حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب، حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق، عن سعيد بن أبي سعيد المقبري، عن عطاء مولى أم حبيبة قال:
              سمعت أبا هريرة يقول:
              قال رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم -: (ليهبطن عيسى بن مريم حكما عدلا، وإماما مقسطا، وليسلكن فجا، حاجا أو معتمرا، أو بنيتهما، وليأتين قبري حتى يسلم، ولأردن عليه).
              يقول أبو هريرة: أي بني أخي، إن رأيتموه فقولوا: أبو هريرة يقرئك السلام.
              هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد، ولم يخرجاه بهذه السياقة.



              It looks like the ziyada from Abu Sakhr is a Ziyada thiqa and i will scan up the opinion of the Salafi Muhaddith, Husayn Salim Asad from his tahqeeq of the Musnad of Abu Ya'la declaring the said sanad to be Sahih below:





              NB - Shaykh Asad mentioned under no. 5877 all the other routes he knew for the alternate version in Bukhari etc, and he didn't say that the above version in the scan is Shadh or munkar with the Ziyada.

              Wassalam

              Comment


              • #22
                Assalam O Alaikum brother Abu Maryam!

                Firstly, Haithami saying narrators are of two sahih does not mean much as it is mistakenly taken by some contemporaries to mean that the narration itself has been authenticated by Al-Haithami rahimahullah. But this is incorrect. Infact Imam Al-Zaila'ee Al-Hanafi rahimahullah said:

                لا يلزم من كون الراوي محتجا به في الصحيح انه اذا وجد في اي حديث كان ذالك الحديث علي شرطه

                "If a narrator has been used by (Imam Al-Bukhari) in Al-Sahih, it does not mean that if that narrator is found in any other (outside the Sahihs of Imams Al-Bukhari and Muslim) hadith, that that hadith itself becomes authentic fulfilling the strict condotions of Shahi Al-Bukhari" (Nasb Al-Raiyah v1 p 342)

                A narrator can be from the sahihs but at the same time be a mudallis and narrates with the mode "an" outside sahih or the two sheikhs have only relied on him for support.

                Secondly, Abu Sakhr Humayd bin Ziyad with all due respect to Arnaut is not without ambiguity. Imam Darmi narrated from Ibn Ma'een that he is "Thiqa". Ahmed bin said bin Abi maryam narrated from him that Abu Sakhr is "weak in hadith". Ishaq bin mansoor narrated from yahya that he is "weak"!
                Likewise Imam Ahmed in one narration from Abdullah bin ahmed said "no harm in him" elsewhere Uqaili in his duafa mentioned from Muhammed bin esa from Hamdan bin Ali from Imam Ahmed that Abu Sakhr is "weak"! Imam Nisai said "he is not strong"! Ibn Adi said that he is Salih in hadith and elsewhere he said that " I heard Ibn al-Hammad say that Abu Sakhar, the one from whom Hatim Ibn Isma‘il narrates is "weak". Infact Ibn Adi pointed out the mistakes from the same route i.e. Abu Sakhr from Saeed from Abu Hurairah and said:In some of his hadeeths are things he was not followed up in narrating. al-Mizzi said: another one of his strange hadeeths is as follows. Then he pointed out that at-Tabaraani said: no one narrated it from Kurayb except humayd bin ziyaad abu sakhr. Imam Dhahabi spoke about him saying "People have disagreed abt him" Now consider the narration in the Sahihs and consider the narration with same matan with the addition "Ya Muhammed". No one narrates it except Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes!

                Thirdly speaking, according to my knowledge Muslim has only narrated his narrations as a support(Shawahid) and not when he is alone in narrating them! He has not used them as evidence! If that is so then plz enlighten me!

                Fourthly, the narration of Hakim is with the same text but with slight difference in the addition not found in the sahih and it chain contains Muhammed Ibn Ishaq a well known mudallis and narrates with mode "an" from his preceding authority! This is all with respect to Sanad! With respect to matn, even if this narration is authentic then it does not in anyway either proof tawassul nor does it prove that we can say "Ya Muhammed"!

                Allah knows best!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Here is a discussion from another forum :


                  The Nabi (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa Sallam) also stated that when ‘Īsā (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa Sallam) comes back at the end of time, he will stop at the Nabi (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa Sallam)’s grave and greet him, and the Nabi (Sallallāhu 'alayhi wa Sallam) said "and I will answer him".

                  This is an addition to the matn in authentic versions . It is reported by Abu Ya'laa and Hakim with slight variation in text but both with a weak sanad .
                  Discussion follows :


                  مجمع الزوائد. الإصدار 2.05 - للحافظ الهيثمي
                  المجلد الثامن >> كتاب فيه ذكر الأنبياء، صلوات الله تعالى وسلامه على نبينا وعليهم أجمعين. >> 15. باب ذكر الأنبياء صلى الله عليهم وسلم.

                  13813- وعن أبي هريرة قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
                  "والذي نفس أبي القاسم بيده، لينزلن عيسى بن مريم إماماً مقسطاً وحكماً عدلاً، فليكسرن الصليب، ويقتلن الخنزير، وليصلحن ذات البين، وليذهبن الشحناء وليعرضن المال فلا يقبله أحد، ثم لئن قام على قبري فقال: يا محمد، لأجبته".
                  قلت: هو في الصحيح باختصار.
                  رواه أبو يعلى ورجاله رجال الصحيح.

                  You can see he said it is in the Saheeh (either al-Bukhaari or Muslim or both) in summarized fashion (i.e. without the shirk part)It was reported by Abu Ya'laa and its narrators are the narrators of the Saheeh.The hadeeth was not graded saheeh by al-Haythami in al-Majma' .Saying the narrators are of the saheeh does not make them thiqah (because they could be mentioned in the saheeh as supporting narrators and they dont have to be thiqah to give support to another narrator's hadeeth).Also, saying that the narrators are thiqah does not make the hadeeth saheeh because the hadeeth could have an 'illah. even thiqah narrators make mistakes.


                  The great thing about hadeeth sciences is that its very rigorous so we can figure out who made the mistake. In this case its obvious that the shirki addition only found with Abu Ya'laa is a mistake and the established and most authentic version is obviously the shorter one found with Bukhaari or Muslim or both with complete tawheed.In general I could say these hadeeths all contradict what is known from the rest of Islaam and they are obvious additions to well-known hadeeths. When they are only found in obscure books that is an immediate give away.I dont mean that those two musnads are unknown or worthless but the 9 books hold a special place in Islaam for a reason.

                  Now about the sanad . It also contain the same weak reporter mentioned in previuos hadith ie Abu Sakhr who report from Sa'eed al-Maqburi from Abu Hurayrah.

                  So we have the same narrator who is known for having mistakes (in fact ibn 'Adi pointed out a number of mistakes from this same route: Sa'eed al-maqburi from Abu Hurayrah ) narrating an even more bunk matn.

                  Now we have the same type of addition (which contradicts tawheed) by the same messed up narrator, from the same companion, which contradicts hadeeths in the Saheehayn (because it is an addition to what the thiqaat narrated).

                  This one can not strengthen that other for two reasons:

                  1) its the same narrator!

                  2) munkar narrations (those that contradict the thiqaat) can not be used to strengthen anything because they are very very weak. Only hadeeths that have a little weakness can strengthen other hadeeths that have a little weakness.

                  Now about al-Hakim's version :

                  أخبرني أبو الطيب محمد بن أحمد الحيري، حدثنا محمد بن عبد الوهاب، حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق، عن سعيد بن أبي سعيد المقبري، عن عطاء مولى أم حبيبة قال:
                  سمعت أبا هريرة يقول:
                  قال رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم -: (ليهبطن عيسى بن مريم حكما عدلا، وإماما مقسطا، وليسلكن فجا، حاجا أو معتمرا، أو بنيتهما، وليأتين قبري حتى يسلم، ولأردن عليه).
                  يقول أبو هريرة: أي بني أخي، إن رأيتموه فقولوا: أبو هريرة يقرئك السلام.
                  هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد، ولم يخرجاه بهذه السياقة.

                  al-Haakim himself tells us that it is not found in the Saheehayn with this addition (although he says that the isnaad is saheeh).

                  Again a saheeh isnaad isnt all that, but even the isnaad has problems. You have to excuse al-Haakim in his book al-Mustadrak because he made tons of mistakes. Its so bad that adh-Dhahabi said: 'If only he didnt write that book.'

                  The mistake is a glaring one:Muhammad ibn Ishaaq is a world renowned mudallis. He will say ''an' 'from' so and so but he actually heard it from another person from that so and so. So the person not mentioned could be really weak. In his case (i.e. Muhammad bin Ishaaq) he would narrate like that and not mention people who really were weak. He did that alot.

                  Here he didnt say: 'I heard,' or 'He narrated to me,' he said 'from.' So al-Haakim should have caught that.

                  In addition, not only does this version contradict the version in the Saheehayn (because of the bunk addition) it also has a change in the isnaad that is not found in the version of Abu Ya'laa. Now, supposedly its from Sa'eed al-Maqburi from 'Ataa, the Mawlaa of Umm Habeebah, from Abu Hurayrah??
                  I have no clue who the mawlaa of umm habeebah is (on top of the fact that his presence makes the hadeeth even weaker because it shows that the weak narrators couldnt even keep the isnaad straight. sometimes they narrate it with this guy in the chain other times without him). I looked through Tahdheeb al-Kamaal and couldnt find this 'ataa'.
                  Also in the bio of Sa'eed al-Maqburi the only 'Ataa's al-Mizzi mentions as the shuyookh of 'Ataa' are as follows:
                  When people can't keep a narrators name straight that probably means that that narrator is an unknown. otherwise, if this is his correct name its just as bad that we can not find him in the 6 books because that means he is not a well-known narrator
                  If its 'Ataa' the mawlaa of Umm Sabiyyah then it seems the narrators couldnt keep his name straight. Also if you look at his bio he is not very well known except for narrating a hadeeth that has much differing in the way its sanad was narrated:
                  The only thing good we can say about him is that ibn Hibbaan put him in his book of Thiqaat but thats not so great considering ibn Hibbaan says that unknown narrators are thiqah even if he doesnt know anything about them. It seems this is a 'case in point.' I got it right this time
                  If he is Mawlaa ibn Abee Ahmad then the same exact stuff is true. They couldnt keep his name straight and he's not that well known except for narrating one hadeeth (both of these so far narrate from Abu Hurayrah and as you know al-Maqburi narrates from both of them. The last guy even had Muhammad bin Ishaaq in his chain like in the hadeeth of al-Haakim. This one doesnt though) at-Tabaraani said about his one hadeeth: it is not known with this isnaad except from this route. Thats really terrible if you are the only guy narrating a famous hadeeth a certain way (its the hadeeth of the one who recites qur'aan is like this and the one who doesnt is like that) How about when you are hardly even a known narrator. Plus the wording of that hadeeth is changed and not the way the thiqaat narrate it:

                  If he is 'Ataa' bin Maynaa' the mawlaa of ibn Abee Dhi'aab, then once again the narrators cant keep his name straight and his bio shows that he's not that well known although he is doing a bit better than the last two. Other than ibn Hibbaan someone said he was a righteous man and ibn 'uyaynah said he is a known companion of Abu Hurayrah. Being known doesnt make you good in memory, and being righteous doesnt make you good in memory either, and we know about ibn Hibbaan.

                  So we dont have any real matches so we are left with a few options:

                  1) this narrator is unknown

                  2) this narrator is known but we cant find his narrations in the six books (so we would have to check some more jarh wa ta'deel books I dont have on hand)

                  3) this narrator is in reality one of these three that I mentioned

                  None of those options is very good because it doesnt make this narrator thiqah. So its another cause for hesitation in accepting the hadeeth.

                  The best case is no. 3 and we cant even decide which of the 3 it is. The best of the three is the last one and even he isnt doing so well.

                  In the sciences of hadeeth we dont leave anything to chance. We would reject the hadeeth before accepting it if we have a doubt.

                  So we have an addition that contradicts what is found in the Saheehayn by well-known thiqaat, its only found in other than the 9 books, it only comes from routes that have problems (one with a dha'eef narrator and the other with tadlees and an unknown narrator), and it doesnt even come in a consistent manner (chain-wise) or with a consistent wording. So once again, these hadeeths are proven to be false.

                  Another interesting observation:
                  Regarding the Abu Ya'laa one. The original route was weak because of Abu Sakhr Humayd bin Ziyaad who narrates from Sa'eed al-Maqburi. Interestingly enough Muhammad bin Ishaaq is narrating from Sa'eed al-Maqburi with the word 'from.' So it is highly possible that Muhammad bin Ishaaq narrated this hadeeth from Abu Sakhr from Sa'eed al-Muqburi without explicitly stating that fact. This would mean that we have another case of just another route with the same weak narrator (which can not strengthen anything at all).

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by MarijWasti View Post

                    Secondly, Abu Sakhr Humayd bin Ziyad with all due respect to Arnaut is not without ambiguity. Imam Darmi narrated from Ibn Ma'een that he is "Thiqa". Ahmed bin said bin Abi maryam narrated from him that Abu Sakhr is "weak in hadith". Ishaq bin mansoor narrated from yahya that he is "weak"!
                    Likewise Imam Ahmed in one narration from Abdullah bin ahmed said "no harm in him" elsewhere Uqaili in his duafa mentioned from Muhammed bin esa from Hamdan bin Ali from Imam Ahmed that Abu Sakhr is "weak"! Imam Nisai said "he is not strong"! Ibn Adi said that he is Salih in hadith and elsewhere he said that " I heard Ibn al-Hammad say that Abu Sakhar, the one from whom Hatim Ibn Isma‘il narrates is "weak". Infact Ibn Adi pointed out the mistakes from the same route i.e. Abu Sakhr from Saeed from Abu Hurairah and said:In some of his hadeeths are things he was not followed up in narrating. al-Mizzi said: another one of his strange hadeeths is as follows. Then he pointed out that at-Tabaraani said: no one narrated it from Kurayb except humayd bin ziyaad abu sakhr. Imam Dhahabi spoke about him saying "People have disagreed abt him" Now consider the narration in the Sahihs and consider the narration with same matan with the addition "Ya Muhammed". No one narrates it except Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes!
                    Wa alaikum salam


                    Brother,

                    With due respect i am not sure if you are on the level of a Muhaddith to give a final judgement on the narration in question or anyone else on this forum for that matter. I haven't seen anyone mention a single Muhaddith declaring this specific narration from Musnad Abu Ya'la to be da'eef.

                    On the contrary we have seen the Salafi Muhaddith of Syria, Shaykh Husayn Asad declaring the sanad to be SAHIH. On top of this i have also discovered from the Salafi Shaykh, Dr Sa'd ibn Nasir al-Shithari that he too had not weakened this very narration in his editing of Ibn Hajar's Matalib al-Aliyya which has this narration in it with Ibn Hajar's silence. Rather, Dr Shithari said the Hadith is Hasan with this sanad (in Abu Ya'la) and the narrators are all trustworthy! SEE the attatched file where he also said that Abu Sakhr is Saduq.

                    Even Shaykh al-Albani has declared in his editing of Jami al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Ibn Majah a narration via Abu Sakhr to be Hasan.

                    The following is a notice on Abu Sakhr in Ibn Hajar's Tahdhib (vol. 3):


                    [ 69 ] بخ م د ت عس ق البخاري في الأدب المفرد ومسلم وأبي داود والترمذي والنسائي في مسند علي وابن ماجة حميد بن زياد وهو بن أبي المخارق المدني أبو صخر الخراط صاحب العباء سكن مصر ويقال حميد بن صخر وقال أبو مسعود الدمشقي حميد بن صخر أبو مودود الخراط ويقال أنهما اثنان رأى سهل بن سعد وروى عن أبي صالح السمان وأبي حازم سلمة بن دينار ونافع مولى بن عمر وكريب ومكحول وأبي سعيد المقبري ويزيد بن قسيط وشريك بن عبد الله بن أبي نمر وسعيد المقبري وغيرهم وعنه سعيد بن أبي أيوب وحيوة بن شريح وابن وهب ويحيى القطان وهمام بن إسماعيل وحاتم بن إسماعيل وغيرهم قال أحمد ليس به بأس وقال عثمان الدارمي عن يحيى ليس به بأس وقال إسحاق بن منصور وابن أبي مريم عن يحيى ضعيف وكذا قال النسائي وقال بن عدي بعد أن روى له ثلاثة أحاديث وهو عندي صالح وإنما أنكر عليه هذان الحديثان المؤمن يألف وفي القدرية وسائر حديثه أرجو أن يكون مستقيما ثم قال في موضع آخر حميد بن صخر وعنه حاتم بن إسماعيل ضعفه النسائي وأخرج له بن عدي أحاديث غير تلك الأحاديث وقال وله أحاديث وبعضها لا يتابع عليه قلت وكذا فرق بينهما بن حبان وبين البغوي في كتاب الصحابة أن حاتم بن إسماعيل وهم في قوله حميد بن صخر وإنما هو حميد بن زياد أبو صخر وهو مدني صالح الحديث وقال الدارقطني ثقة وذكره بن حبان في الثقات وقال أبو إسحاق الصريفيني مات سنة 89 وقيل سنة 192 رأيت ذلك بخط مغلطاي وفيه نظر

                    You've mentioned some Jarh and Ta'deel on Abu Sakhr - but what you did not proove is if the Jarh is Mufassar and are all Abu Sakhr's narrations outrightly weak or not?! Did you see how Ibn Adee didn't reject all of Abu Sakhr's narrations and accepted others?


                    Note also that Shaykhs Arna'ut and Bashhar Awwad said in Tahrir al-Taqrib (no. 1546) that the most authentic (as-sah al-riwayat) report from Ibn Ma'een is his Tawtheeq and i didn't see you mention that al-Daraqutni (sawalat al-Barqani: 93), al-Ijli and Ibn Hibban all made tawtheeq on Abu Sakhr as well.

                    Originally posted by MarijWasti
                    Thirdly speaking, according to my knowledge Muslim has only narrated his narrations as a support(Shawahid) and not when he is alone in narrating them! He has not used them as evidence! If that is so then plz enlighten me!
                    How do you know that and what Qawa'id is used to say that when i recall some 8 chains with Abu Sakhr in Sahih Muslim?!

                    Originally posted by MarijWasti
                    Fourthly, the narration of Hakim is with the same text but with slight difference in the addition not found in the sahih and it chain contains Muhammed Ibn Ishaq a well known mudallis and narrates with mode "an" from his preceding authority! This is all with respect to Sanad! With respect to matn, even if this narration is authentic then it does not in anyway either proof tawassul nor does it prove that we can say "Ya Muhammed"!

                    Allah knows best!

                    I know and agree with this point on Ibn Ishaq and the narration is not a proof for Tawassul or does it imply Shirk. It merely mentions what Isa (alaihi salam) may say at the Qabr. The point in the Hadith:

                    Then he shall stand at my graveside and say: Ya Muhammad! and I will answer him."


                    If this portion is Hasan or Sahih, it is exclusively for Isa (alaihis salam) and why do people think here it is a "Shirki" narration when such contemporary Salafi Muhaddithin like Dr Shithari and Shaykh Husayn Asad didn't bring such a notion up, and nor did they come off with claims of Abu Sakhr is outright weak - but rather they both accepted the narration!

                    To cut out the arguments please try to give a judgement from a recognised Muhaddith that Abu Ya'la's narration is Munkar.

                    Wassalam
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Dear All,

                      Are the versions found in the summarized from in the Saheehahyn with the same Isnaad from Abu Saqr or a different one ?

                      Can anyone provide me the Isnaad from Bukharee /Muslim for these Rivayath?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        and the scholars who sited it didn't necessarly understand it to mean that he was making duaa to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, they could have understood it to mean like I explained above, so unless he has clear evidence that they understood from it what Haddad understood from it, then he can't say that they don't consider making duaa to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to be shirk.
                        Yeah you are right the scholars udnerstood it in the way you mentioned:

                        ما فهمه النووي من الرواية
                        وليس فيه ما يدل على جواز الاستغاثة بغير الله فإنه ذكر اسم المحبوب وليس دعاء له. وانظر قول النووي « وإذا طنت أذنه صلى على النبي e وقال ذكر الله بخير من ذكرني وإذا خدرت رجله ذكر من يحبه» (المجموع 4/524). ما قال: استغاث به أو توسل به.

                        فالنووي يستعمل كلمة (ذكر) ثلاث مرات كلها متعلق بمجرد التذكر والاستحضار. وليس بمعنى الاستغاثة أو التوسل أو طلب الحاجة.

                        ومما يؤكد أن فهم النووي كان مجرد ذكر اسم المحبوب وليس الاستغاثة. ما قاله بعدما روى رواية ابن عمر:

                        « وروينا فيه عن إبراهيم بن المنذر الحزامي أحد شيوخ البخاري الذين روى عنهم في صحيحه قال: أهل المدينة يعجبون من حسن بيت أبي العتاهية: وتخدر في بعض الأحايين رجله فإن لم يقل يا عتب لم يذهب الخدر» (الأذكار للنووي ص210).

                        مما يؤكد أن النووي لم يفهم من الأثر أن له علاقة بالتوسل لأنه أورد ما يقوله أبو العتاهية في شعره مما ثبت عن العرب في الجاهلية فعل مثله من ذكر اسم المحبوب عند خدر الرجل .

                        مما يؤكد أن النووي جرى في الرواية على فهم ما كان عليه العرب من تذكر اسم المحبوب وليس طلب الحاجة منه.

                        ولهذا قال: « وإذا طنت أذنه صلى على النبي e وقال ذكر الله بخير من ذكرني وإذا خدرت رجله ذكر من يحبه» (المجموع 4/524).

                        ما فهمه ابن علان من الرواية
                        وذكر اسم الحبيب عند الخدر كان أمراً شائعاً عند العرب، وجاءت أشعارهم بهذه العادة الشائعة في استعمال ياء النداء عند تذكر الحبيب، ويطلب به استحضار المنادى في القلب، يستشفون بذكر الحبيب لإذهاب خدر الرجل، فيقال لمن خدرت رجله تذكر أحب الناس إليك فيذكر اسمه لا على سبيل الاستغاثة به كما قال ابن علان: « من حيث كمال المحبة بهذا المحبوب بحيث تمكن حبه من الفؤاد حتى إذا ذكره ذهب عنه الخدر» (الفتوحات الربانية6/200).



                        ولهذا أن الرجل قال لابن عمر: « اذكر أحب الناس إليك » فأمره بتذكره ولم يقل له: استغث بأحب الناس إليك. فقال "محمد" أو "يا محمد" أي يا محمد أنت أحب الناس إلي. فكانت إجابة ابن عمر مطابقة لسؤال من أمره بتذكر أحب الناس إليه. وأما أن تكون استغاثة فجواب ابن عمر يكون غير مطابق لمن سأله أن يذكره ولم يسأله أن يدعوه مع الله.

                        ما فهمه ابن الجوزي
                        وقال ابن الجوزي (زاد المسير4/344).

                        « إذا خدرت رجلي تذكرت من لها ... فناديت لُبنىَ باسمها ودعوت».

                        تأمل قوله (تذكرت) ثم ذكر النداء باسمها.

                        ما فهمه ابن السني
                        وذكر ابن السني في عمل اليوم والليلة (ص321) قول الوليد بن يزيد بن عبد الملك في حبابة :

                        أثيبي مغرما كلفا محبا .......... إذا خدرت له رجل دعاك

                        ومن هذا الباب أوردها البخاري وابن تيمية والنووي وابن علان وابن السني على فرض ثبوت لفظ النداء. فلم يبن النووي ولا ابن علان ولا البخاري على رواية ابن عمر جواز الاستغاثة بغير الله، وإنما كان شرح ابن علان لرواية دليلاً على بطلان تمويهاتكم.
                        www.call-to-monotheism.com

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Our opponents try to argue that in the narration where Shu'ba narrates from Abu Ishaaq, that this is fine because Shu'ba said that he didn't have the problem of tadlees with Abu Ishaq:
                          كفيتكم تدليس ثلاثة : الأعمش ، وأبي إسحاق ، وقتادة
                          However, as shown here http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=71149, one would see that this is not the full picture because Shu'ba illustrates that his narrations from Abi Ishaaq are not ALWAYS "tadlees free".
                          www.call-to-monotheism.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            and that is Hushaim bin Hansh
                            Haytham bin Hansh.
                            www.call-to-monotheism.com

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Imaam Abu Bakr Khateeb al-Baghdaadee said,


                              “The unknown according to the people of hadeeth (Ashaabul-Hadeeth) is the narrator who is not known to be a student of knowledge and nor do the scholars know him and they do not know his hadeeth except through one chain. Like Umarzee Murrah, Jabbaar Ta’ee, Abdullaah bin Aghar al-Hamdaanee, Hushaim bin Hansh, Maalik bin Aghar, Sa’eed bin Dheelawaan, Qais bin Karkam, Dhamr bin Maalik, from all of them Abu Ishaaq Sabee’ee is alone in reporting from them.” (al-Kifaayah Fee Ilm ar-Riwaayah (pg.88).
                              Akhi, I think Al Khateeb made a mistake here.

                              A Sufi actually wrote a refutation to this in a book called Al Qawl Al Fasl Al Musadad fi Sihhat Hadeeth Ya Muhammad, pages 70 onwards. It appears that a problem resulted with some writing errors where Al Haytham bin Hubaish was mistakenly said instead of Al Haytham bin Hunsh.
                              www.call-to-monotheism.com

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Assalamualaykum Bassaam

                                Would appreciate if you could translate or give a just brief of what Imaam Nawawi in Majmoou and Ibnul Jowzi in Zaad ul Maseer told abt the narration of Ya Muhammad of Ibn Umar

                                Jazakkallahu khairan

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X