Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Refuting the sanctity of 15th Shaban (looking for resources)

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

  • #46
    By your language and your mistranslation of texts and misinterpreting them I got an idea of who you are Mr. Ahlus Sunnah.

    Without any doubt you are Amir Ibrahim, the one who always comes up with half texts of Shaikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (Rah) and Sh Nasiruddin Albani (rah) in your effort to EXPOSE WAHHAABBIIs

    Comment


    • #47
      I have this quote: [is it authentically attributed to Shaykh al-Albani?]:

      "Allah's Messenger (saw) said: "Allah, the Blessed and Most High, turns to His creation on the middle night of Sha'ban and forgives all of His creation except for the one who ascribes partners to Him and the one who shows enmity."

      Abu Bakr al Siddiq: Recorded in al Lalika'i's al Sunna (1/99), Abu Nu'aims Akhbar Isbahan (2/2) and elsewhere

      Aisha: Al Tirmizi (1/143), Ibn Majah (1389) and elsewhere

      Mu'az ibn Jabal: Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (1980), al Bayhaqi in Shu'ab al Iman (2/288/2), Tarikh Ibn Asakir (15/302/2), al Sunna Ibn Abi Asim (512)

      Abu Tha'laba: Al Lalika'i's al Sunna (1/99), Ibn Abi Asim (p.42) and elsewhere

      Abdullah ibn Amr: Musnad Ahmed (#642)

      Abu Musa al Ashari: Ibn Majah (1390)

      Abu Huraira: Musnad al Bazzar (245)

      Awf bin Malik: Musnad al Bazzar (245)

      After listing the above reports along with their various chains of transmission, AL ALBANI concluded: "This hadith by virtue of its various routes of transmission [all supporting one another] is authentic without a doubt." (Silsila al Sahiha, 1144).
      Hanafi Fiqh Mutaqaddimun Movement

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Harris Hammam View Post

        We aren't blind Muqallids of S. al-Albani when there is sufficient evidence against his stance.

        Take further heed of the other opinion:

        حَدَّثَنا هَارُونُ بنُ سَعِيدٍ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا ابنُ وَهْبٍ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَبْدُ الرَّحمن بنُ زَيْدِ بنِ أَسْلَم قالَ: لَمْ أُدرك أَحَداً من مشيختنا ولا فقهائنا يَلْتَفِتُونَ إلى ليلةِ النِّصْفِ من شَعْبَانَ، ولَمْ نُدْرِك أَحَداً منهم يَذْكُرُ حديثَ مَكْحُولٍ ولا يَرى لَهَا فَضْلاً على سِوَاها من اللّيالي. أخرجه ابن وضاح بإسناد صحيح في ما جاء في البدع رقم 119
        Abdurrahman bin Zayd bin Aslam sais: I have not met any Sheikh or jurist of ours pay any attention to the 15th of Sha'ban. I have not met anyone of them mention the Hadith of Makhul (which supposedly gives preference to this night over others), nor did they consider any preference for this night over other nights.
        (Narrated bin Ibn Waddah with an authentic chain.)

        who is Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam ?
        SunniPress
        www.sunnipress.com
        Disclaimer: Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) said, “Everyone after the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam will have his sayings accepted and rejected - not so the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.” [Irshaad al-Saalik 227/1, Jami Bayaan al-Ilm 91/2]

        Comment


        • #49
          As far as i know, Shaykh Al-Albani was of the opinion that this night has something with it due to multiplicity of narrations on the topic, but he did not support making 'ibadah particularly in this night as all traditions do not specify praying in it.



          --*--

          المشبه يعبد صنما والمعطل يعبد عدما

          Comment


          • #50
            Abdur Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam is said to be narrating fabricated hadeeth and mixing up and making mistakes






            والشيخان رضي الله عنهما لم يحتجا بعبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم

            وقال ابن حبان : كان يقلب الأخبار وهو لا يعلم حتى كثر ذلك في روايته من رفع المراسيل وإسناد الموقوف ، فاستحق الترك .
            وقال أبو نعيم نحوما سبق عن الحاكم : روى عن أبيه أحاديث موضوعة .

            وعبدُ الرحمَن بنُ زَيْدِ بنِ أسْلَمَ ضَعِيفٌ في الحَديثِ، ضَعفَهُ أحمدُ بنُ حَنْبَلٍ وعليّ بنُ المَدِينيّ وغيْرُهُما مِنْ أهلِ الحَديثِ


            زيد بن أسلم فهو ضعيف غير محتج به عند أهل الحديث ، قال الفلاس : لم أسمع عبد الرحمن بن مهدي يحدث عنه ، وقال أبو طالب عن أحمد بن حنبل : ضعيف ، وقال عباس الدوري عن يحيى بن معين :ليس حديثه بشيء ، وقال البخاري وأبو حاتم الرازي ضعفه علي بن المديني جداً ؛ وقال أبو داود وأبو زرعة والنسائي والدارقطني : ضعيف ، وقال ابن حبان : كان يقلب الأخبار ؛ وهو لا يعلم حتى كثر ذلك في روايته من رفع المراسيل وإسناد الموقوف فاستحق الترك( ) .
            وقال الحاكم أبو عبد الله : روى عن أبيه أحاديث موضوعة لا يخفى على من تأملها من أهل الصنعة أن الحمل فيها عليه ، وقال ابن خزيمة : عبد الرحمن بن زيد ليس ممن يحتج أهل الحديث بحديثه ؛ وقال الحافظ أبو نعيم الأصبهاني : حدث عن أبيه لا شيء ، وقال محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد الحكم سمعت الشافعي يقول : ذكر رجل لمالك حديثاً فقال : من حدثك عن أبيه نوح .
            وقال الربيع بن سليمان سمعت الشافعي يقول :؛ سأل رجل عبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم ، حدثك أبوك عن أبيه عن جده أن سفينة نوح طافت بالبيت وصلت ركعتين ؟ قال : نعم فقد تكلم في عبد الرحمن بن زيد جماعة آخرون غير من ذكرنا وسيأتي الكلام عليه مستوفي في موضع آخر إن شاء الله تعالى



            Originally posted by Harris Hammam View Post
            Strawman.

            We aren't blind Muqallids of S. al-Albani when there is sufficient evidence against his stance. Besides, the nature of this night is a matter of difference of opinion and we won't hold anyone to task for considering it virtuous per se, without getting involved in innovation or severely weak/fabricated Hadith.


            Take further heed of the other opinion:

            حَدَّثَنا هَارُونُ بنُ سَعِيدٍ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا ابنُ وَهْبٍ قالَ: حَدَّثَنا عَبْدُ الرَّحمن بنُ زَيْدِ بنِ أَسْلَم قالَ: لَمْ أُدرك أَحَداً من مشيختنا ولا فقهائنا يَلْتَفِتُونَ إلى ليلةِ النِّصْفِ من شَعْبَانَ، ولَمْ نُدْرِك أَحَداً منهم يَذْكُرُ حديثَ مَكْحُولٍ ولا يَرى لَهَا فَضْلاً على سِوَاها من اللّيالي. أخرجه ابن وضاح بإسناد صحيح في ما جاء في البدع رقم 119
            Abdurrahman bin Zayd bin Aslam sais: I have not met any Sheikh or jurist of ours pay any attention to the 15th of Sha'ban. I have not met anyone of them mention the Hadith of Makhul (which supposedly gives preference to this night over others), nor did they consider any preference for this night over other nights.
            (Narrated bin Ibn Waddah with an authentic chain.)


            Now if a fanatic like you doesn't want to accept this opinion, then that's fine. But when you go around like a warrior bashing others for holding legitimate opinions, you deserve all what you get.

            Exercise some humility.
            so how does Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam become a prove ? Can you please explain ?
            SunniPress
            www.sunnipress.com
            Disclaimer: Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) said, “Everyone after the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam will have his sayings accepted and rejected - not so the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.” [Irshaad al-Saalik 227/1, Jami Bayaan al-Ilm 91/2]

            Comment


            • #51
              Abdur-Rahman bin Zaid was weak in hadith but he was a scholar of his time and when he says something of his experience with his shuyukh or his personal opinions then it cannot be rejected just because he was weak while narrating hadith. Same goes with all scholars like him, like Ibn Lahee'ah, Ibn Abi Laila, Laith bin Abi Sulaim etc.



              --*--

              المشبه يعبد صنما والمعطل يعبد عدما

              Comment


              • #52
                He is not narrating a Hadith. He is reporting the state of affairs in Madinah.

                The Isnad up to him is authentic.
                And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Harris Hammam View Post
                  He is not narrating a Hadith. He is reporting the state of affairs in Madinah.

                  The Isnad up to him is authentic.
                  so why did the scholars of hadeeth said that he was weak ? can you explain, certainly scholars of hadeeth had a reason to say Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam was weak was it due to him accused of making up stuff and reporting fabrications or making many mistakes or like having defective memory or some other reason ?

                  What is the guarantee that he is reporting the state of affairs correctly since we already saw his reliability concerning what he reports regarding sayings of the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ?
                  SunniPress
                  www.sunnipress.com
                  Disclaimer: Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) said, “Everyone after the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam will have his sayings accepted and rejected - not so the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.” [Irshaad al-Saalik 227/1, Jami Bayaan al-Ilm 91/2]

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    learn how to pretend that you know what you are talking


                    قال ابن الجوزي: أجمعوا على ضعفه وهو متهم بالوضع، رماه بذلك الحاكم نفسه ، فقد قال في كتاب "المدخل إلى معرفة الصحيح من السقيم": (عبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم روى عن أبيه أحاديث موضوعة ، لا تخفى على من تأملها من أهل الصنعة أن الحمل فيها عليه).

                    وقد أورد الحاكم أيضا عبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم في كتابه "الضعفاء" وقال في آخره: (فهؤلاء الذين قدمت ذكرهم قد ظهر عندي جرحهم، لأن الجرح لا يثبت إلا ببينة، فهم الذين أبين جرحهم لمن طالبني به، فإن الجرح لا أستحله تقليداً، والذي أختاره لطالب هذا الشأن أن لا يكتب حديث واحد من هؤلاء الذين سميتهم، فالراوي لحديثهم داخل في قوله: من حدث بحديث وهو يرى أنه كذب فهو أحد الكاذبَيْن).

                    قال الترمذي: (وعبدُ الرحمَن بنُ زَيْدِ بنِ أسْلَمَ ضَعِيفٌ في الحَديثِ، ضَعفَهُ أحمدُ بنُ حَنْبَلٍ وعليّ بنُ المَدِينيّ وغيْرُهُما مِنْ أهلِ الحَديثِ، وهو كَثِيرُ الغَلَطِ.)

                    وقال ابن حبان: (كان يقلب الأخبار وهو لا يعلم حتى كثر ذلك من روايته من رفع المراسيل، وإسناد الموقوف، فاستحق الترك).

                    وقال أبو نعيم: (روى عن أبيه أحاديث موضوعة).

                    SunniPress
                    www.sunnipress.com
                    Disclaimer: Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) said, “Everyone after the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam will have his sayings accepted and rejected - not so the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.” [Irshaad al-Saalik 227/1, Jami Bayaan al-Ilm 91/2]

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Akhee al-kareem Abu Turab, I remind you (as I remind myself and the other brothers) to always uphold the proper manners and maintain proper respect when discussing with each others, barakah Allah feek

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        On a related note:
                        Originally posted by محمد الأمين

                        ما المشكلة؟ الأعمش كان ثبتاً في الحديث لكن فيه ضعف في القراءة. وهذا عاصم الذي نقرأ اليوم على قراءته، كان ثبتاً في القراءات لكن فيه ضعف في حفظ الحديث.

                        وهناك من كان فقيهاً، ولم يكن يحفظ الحديث. وكان من العلماء من يحفظ الشعر ويتقن علوم اللغة، وما يستطيع حفظ الحديث. فالأمر موهبة أولاً وكذلك اختصاص.
                        Originally posted by أبو خالد السلمي

                        بل إن المحدث أحيانا يكون ثقة في أحاديث شيخ معين وضعيفا إذا روى عن شيخ آخر ، أو يكون ثقة في أحاديث أهل بلد معين ضعيفا إذا روى عن أهل بلد آخر .
                        وهذا يرجع كما ذكر شيخنا محمد الأمين حفظه الله إلى الموهبة والتخصص ، فمن العلماء من عرف بطول الملازمة وشدة العناية بفن معين أو مرويات معينة ، فبعض الرواة يكون قد لازم شيخا معينا سنين طويلة ، ومرويات هذا الشيخ ألف حديث مثلا ، فظل يرددها ويسمعها من شيخه مرارا حتى حفظها وأتقنها ، بينما شيوخه الآخرون لقيهم في أيام معدودات ولم يعتن بحفظ مروياتهم وإتقانها ، وهكذا فيمن يروي قراءة معينة للقرآن ويظل يرددها سنين عديدة حتى يتقنها ويحفظها كما يحفظ اسمه ، بينما حفظه للحديث ضعيف لأنه لم يتفرغ لترديده وإتقانه ، فعلى سبيل المثال حفص روى القرآن بروايته المعروفة عن شيخه عاصم ، وذكر أن عاصما لقنه القرآن كما يلقن الصبي في المكتب (الكُتّاب) ، وظل ملازما لشيخه عاصم عشرات السنين ، يسمع منه هذه القراءة ، ويقرؤها عليه ، حتى حفظها وأتقنها ، بينما هو ضعيف إذا روى الحديث لأنه لم يكن متفرغا لحفظ الحديث وإتقانه فلا يعتمد على روايته للحديث ، بينما هو حجة فيما يرويه من القرآن ، هذا تقريب أرجو أن تتضح به المسألة
                        Reference: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=49187

                        And Allah knows best

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          And from Imam Malik, regarding Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam


                          و قال الساجى : حدثنا الربيع ، حدثنا الشافعى ، قال : قيل لعبد الرحمن بن زيد : حدثك أبوك ، عن جدك : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم قال : إن سفينة نوح طافت بالبيت ، و صلت خلف المقام ركعتين ؟ قال : نعم .

                          قال محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد الحكم : سمعت الشافعى يقول : ذكر رجل لمالك حديثا فقال : من حدثك ؟ فذكر إسنادا له منقطعا ، فقال : اذهب إلى عبد الرحمن بن زيد ، يحدثك عن أبيه ، عن نوح عليه السلام


                          SunniPress
                          www.sunnipress.com
                          Disclaimer: Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) said, “Everyone after the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam will have his sayings accepted and rejected - not so the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.” [Irshaad al-Saalik 227/1, Jami Bayaan al-Ilm 91/2]

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Abu Turab View Post

                            قال ابن الجوزي: أجمعوا على ضعفه وهو متهم بالوضع، رماه بذلك الحاكم نفسه ، فقد قال في كتاب "المدخل إلى معرفة الصحيح من السقيم": (عبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم روى عن أبيه أحاديث موضوعة ، لا تخفى على من تأملها من أهل الصنعة أن الحمل فيها عليه).

                            وقد أورد الحاكم أيضا عبد الرحمن بن زيد بن أسلم في كتابه "الضعفاء" وقال في آخره: (فهؤلاء الذين قدمت ذكرهم قد ظهر عندي جرحهم، لأن الجرح لا يثبت إلا ببينة، فهم الذين أبين جرحهم لمن طالبني به، فإن الجرح لا أستحله تقليداً، والذي أختاره لطالب هذا الشأن أن لا يكتب حديث واحد من هؤلاء الذين سميتهم، فالراوي لحديثهم داخل في قوله: من حدث بحديث وهو يرى أنه كذب فهو أحد الكاذبَيْن).

                            قال الترمذي: (وعبدُ الرحمَن بنُ زَيْدِ بنِ أسْلَمَ ضَعِيفٌ في الحَديثِ، ضَعفَهُ أحمدُ بنُ حَنْبَلٍ وعليّ بنُ المَدِينيّ وغيْرُهُما مِنْ أهلِ الحَديثِ، وهو كَثِيرُ الغَلَطِ.)

                            وقال ابن حبان: (كان يقلب الأخبار وهو لا يعلم حتى كثر ذلك من روايته من رفع المراسيل، وإسناد الموقوف، فاستحق الترك).

                            وقال أبو نعيم: (روى عن أبيه أحاديث موضوعة).

                            This is all to do with Hadith particulars.

                            The report from Ibn Zayd is more of a historical account of what happened in Madinah. Besides, he is the end of the chain reporting a Matn, not reporting from someone else who was stating the Matn.

                            Hadith verification and criticism isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be. A few quotes in Arabic regarding the Jarh of a narrator is not enough.

                            By the standards you are laying down, a weak narrator reporting something about even himself or his own family would not be taken into consideration.
                            And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                            he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                            because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                            and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                            (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Harris Hammam View Post
                              This is all to do with Hadith particulars.

                              The report from Ibn Zayd is more of a historical account of what happened in Madinah. Besides, he is the end of the chain reporting a Matn, not reporting from someone else who was stating the Matn.

                              Hadith verification and criticism isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be. A few quotes in Arabic regarding the Jarh of a narrator is not enough.

                              By the standards you are laying down, a weak narrator reporting something about even himself or his own family would not be taken into consideration.
                              Was this historical event related to Deen or not ? and do you accept historical events from those who have been criticized by scholars of Islam for their reliability ? How did you come to the conclusion that whatever you quoted from Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam is infact a historical even and not made up stuff ? blindly followed someone or as you have stated "We aren't blind Muqallids of S. al-Albani"

                              your claims don't have any standing. If you have have blindly followed Hatem Awni and now you say "A few quotes in Arabic regarding the Jarh of a narrator is not enough" but were few quotes from Hatem Awni's article is enough for you to reach a conclusion and advice others ? I am not really interested in how you paint or interpret things, point is you may not blindly follow scholars of jarh and tadeel in their grading and assessment of Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam , that's your own personal way to discredit others as you have clearly demonstrated in your post. You can easily disprove me by showing that indeed there are Sunni Scholars who subscribed your style and methodology.......That would be also something new which could be learned.

                              The point is simple, you failed to explain the reasons why Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam was declared weak by scholars of Islam but rather you continued with your rhetoric "A few quotes in Arabic regarding the Jarh of a narrator is not enough. " , not enough for you, but why should anyone worry, if it is enough for you --

                              May be:- people accused of making up stuff and lying upon the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam could be hujjah , evidence and proof for you , but not for others. Just like you advised someone "Take some translation lessons pal." I think you should also take some lessons in manhaj ;

                              I find it really strange , the absurd reasoning, a person accused of making mistakes and even accused for making up stuff but this is regarding religion - deen - hadith but for everything else , he is expected to be honest, and truthful because "Hadith verification and criticism isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be" ?

                              So, basically a person could be truthful, honest about other religious matters but the most serious religious matters which is ascribing statements to Prophet ( sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ) it really doesn't matter if he was truthful or liar ?

                              for example, few people lie upon the sahaba, but their lies have nothing to do with fiqh, they can lie upon sahaba but when it comes to fiqh, they become authority ? weird reasoning..... i have yet to find scholars who subscribed to such absurd methodology , Harris Hammam can you help me out ?



                              Originally posted by Harris Hammam

                              This is all to do with Hadith particulars.

                              The report from Ibn Zayd is more of a historical account of what happened in Madinah. Besides, he is the end of the chain reporting a Matn, not reporting from someone else who was stating the Matn.

                              Hadith verification and criticism isn't as black and white as you are making it out to be. A few quotes in Arabic regarding the Jarh of a narrator is not enough.

                              By the standards you are laying down, a weak narrator reporting something about even himself or his own family would not be taken into consideration.
                              instead of rhetoric Harris Hammam could have answered why was Abdur Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam declared weak,
                              and then he could have demonstrated if the Matn ( text ) is authentic even if it is reported from someone who is accused of making up stuff.


                              what do you understand from this



                              و قال الساجى : حدثنا الربيع ، حدثنا الشافعى ، قال : قيل لعبد الرحمن بن زيد : حدثك أبوك ، عن جدك : أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم قال : إن سفينة نوح طافت بالبيت ، و صلت خلف المقام ركعتين ؟ قال : نعم .

                              قال محمد بن عبد الله بن عبد الحكم : سمعت الشافعى يقول : ذكر رجل لمالك حديثا فقال : من حدثك ؟ فذكر إسنادا له منقطعا ، فقال : اذهب إلى عبد الرحمن بن زيد ، يحدثك عن أبيه ، عن نوح عليه السلام

                              SunniPress
                              www.sunnipress.com
                              Disclaimer: Imam Malik (d. 179 AH) said, “Everyone after the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam will have his sayings accepted and rejected - not so the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam.” [Irshaad al-Saalik 227/1, Jami Bayaan al-Ilm 91/2]

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Abu Turab, can you please analyse for us the reports on 15th Sha`ban from the following personalities:

                                1. `Umar bin `Abd 'l-`Aziz
                                2. `Abd 'llah bin `Umar
                                3. `Ata' bin Yasar

                                These three have been touted as potential Madani people who supported the virtues of the night. Any research on this would be much appreciated. If you can think of anyone else, please let us know.

                                This is so we can verify or criticise the report from AR bin Zayd bin Aslam from a Dirayah viewpoint.
                                And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nu`aym [bin Hammad] is his returning to the truth whenever
                                he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself

                                because returning to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood,
                                and the one who remains in falsehood will increase only in remoteness from the truth

                                (29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X