Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Imam al-Mizzi a Ashari??

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Imam al-Mizzi a Ashari??

    The Ashariyyah brings this Zitat, to prove that Imam al-Mizzi a Ashari was one of them. Is this story true? Was he really a Ashariyah?

    Zitat:

    Imam as-Subki said:

    لما شغرت مشيخة دار الحديث الأشرفية بوفاة الحافظ المزي عين هو الذهبي لها فوقع السعي فيها للشيخ شمس
    الدين ابن النقيب وتكلم في حق الذهبي بأنه ليس بأشعري وأن المزي ما وليها إذ وليها إلا بعد أن كتب خطه
    وأشهد على نفسه بأنه أشعري 16

    „As it happens that Imam al-Mizz died, his place as the chief schaikh from Dar
    al-Hadith al-Aschrafiyya stays vacant. [My Father Taqiyy ad-Din as-Subki]
    make a propose for adh-Dhahabi as a new chief schakh. But Scheikh Schams ad-Din b. an-Naqib negate the propose and critises adh-Dhahabi for it,
    because he is no Aschari an that Imam al-Mizzi becomes the chief position in the school only when he declare with his own signature
    that he is a Aschariy.“ [Imam as-Subki 1992, 10/200.]

    can you please show based on the books of Imam al-Mizza that he was a Salafi?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Ibn Salah As-Salafi View Post
    The Ashariyyah brings this Zitat, to prove that Imam al-Mizzi a Ashari was one of them. Is this story true? Was he really a Ashariyah?

    Zitat:

    Imam as-Subki said:

    لما شغرت مشيخة دار الحديث الأشرفية بوفاة الحافظ المزي عين هو الذهبي لها فوقع السعي فيها للشيخ شمس
    الدين ابن النقيب وتكلم في حق الذهبي بأنه ليس بأشعري وأن المزي ما وليها إذ وليها إلا بعد أن كتب خطه
    وأشهد على نفسه بأنه أشعري 16

    „As it happens that Imam al-Mizz died, his place as the chief schaikh from Dar
    al-Hadith al-Aschrafiyya stays vacant. [My Father Taqiyy ad-Din as-Subki]
    make a propose for adh-Dhahabi as a new chief schakh. But Scheikh Schams ad-Din b. an-Naqib negate the propose and critises adh-Dhahabi for it,
    because he is no Aschari an that Imam al-Mizzi becomes the chief position in the school only when he declare with his own signature
    that he is a Aschariy.“ [Imam as-Subki 1992, 10/200.]

    can you please show based on the books of Imam al-Mizza that he was a Salafi?
    the story is most likely TRUE, but to use it to support the idea that al-Mizzi was an Ash'ari is nothing less than the deveils deception from two angles

    1. the ash'aris themselves were responsible for imprisoning Haafidh al-Mizzi because he read the Khalq Af'aal al-Ibaad of Imaam al-Bukharee in public. Due to the contents of the book, al-Bukharee was showing how the salaf actually made takfeer of those who held the views of the ash'aris of his time, which is why al-Mizzi read it demonstrating a point, which was that the book of al-Bukharee was aimed at repelling the kufr of the Jahmiyyah. Therefore, if the ash'aris of his time took issue with it, then that entails that they as well require the same hukm as those whom the book was directed simply because their aqeedah was synonymous with the originally intended people i.e. the jahmiyyah.

    2. More importantly, the report becomes further understandable considering one important fact that is representative of the political climate of that time. These gangsta Ash'aris managed to affect theocratic policy of the Khilafa at the time by converting government or established official jobs with the requirement that each scholars HAD TO PROFESS TO BE AN ASH'ARI in order to even be qualified to get the job.

    this is why we find Ibn Katheer also protesting to be an ash'ari so he can at least have a job, and then dedicated his time to refute their baatil once he got the post.

    Likewise, al-Mizzi, he also professed to be an ash'ari only to get the job. And what is ironic is that this was before his reading of the Khalq Af'aal al-Ibaad. Thus it demonstrates the fantastic manhaj of al-Mizzi of how he was forced, gangsta style, to profess being a heretic only to gain a government position and then to teach Imaam al-Bukharee's book as payback for being heretics and making him profess to be a heretic, and thus they had al-Mizzi imprisoned, for which Ibn Taymiyyah was the one who got him out of jail


    Moreover, the reason why they hated adh-Dhahabee, was because adh-Dhahabee was the ONLY Shafi'ee who did not buck at the gangsta style system the heretics among the ash'aris instituted. He was the only one who did not confess to be a heretic in order to get a job. Most of the other shafi'ees did, but it didn't mean they were ash'aris. According to their circumstance, it is okay under compulsion to do such an act, but what is more loftier is not to do so.

    so in conclusion, an ash'ari that tries to claim al-Mizzi as one of his own co-heretics is nothing less than a ding bat moron whose stupidness makes other people stupid for simply being around him. So it doesn't matter whether the story was true, if we take into consideration the entire climate that was narrated above.

    asalamu alaikum
    ابو نعيمة علي البريكي


    "I have debated with the Ash'aris
    and it has become clear to me that they believe that Allah does not exist"


    May Allah hasten the Muslims back to the path
    that granted victory to them before.


    http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

    http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/

    Comment


    • #3
      Brother al-boriqee barakalahu feek wa JazakAllahu kheir

      i know the story of imam al mizzi with the Ashariah, which locked him up

      Thanks

      Comment


      • #4
        Did anyone look at the Marifah article in response to this? They have it in PDF format.

        I will quote partially from it:

        What proof is there that Imam al-Mizzi hated the Ashari's in his city of Damascus?

        Further questions that arise are-

        Why did al-Mizzi read out Khalq Af'al al-Ibad of Imam al-Bukhari in public in the Umayyad masjid on that occasion? Have Harris and nasir looked into all the versions of this piece of history? Do all Ashari's reject Khalq af'al al Ibad of al-Bukhari?!

        According to Imam Tajud-Din al-Subki (d.771AH), Imam Jamalud-Din al-Mizzi was born in the year 654 AH and died in the famous Darul Hadith al-Ashrafiyya (An Ashari institute) in the year 724 AH, and he was buried in the Sufi graveyard. He was a colleague of the infamous Ibn Taymiyya (b.661 AH-d.728AH). The former influenced by the latter in some matters.

        In this regard, Imam Tajud-Din al-Subji said his Tabaqat al-Shafi'yya al-Kubra (6/254) in critique of Ibn Taymiyyah and his associates:

        "The group comprised of al-Mizzi, al-Dhahabi, al-Birzali and many their followers were clearly harmed by Abul Abbas ibn Taymiyyah, who led them to gross acts of no little consequence and drew them to things that they should have avoided."

        Ibn al-Subki was the direct student of al-Mizzi and al-Dhahabi and heard hadith from them both. Ibn al-Subki also said:

        Our time was graced with four hadith masters: al-Mizzi, al-Birzali al-Dhahabi and my father the Shaykh and Imam (Taqi al-Din al-Subki). As for our shaykh Abu `Abd Allah (Imam Dhahabi), he is an ocean without peer, a treasure and refuge in time of difficulty, the Imam of the living record, the gold of our time in spirit and letter. the shaykh of narrators discreditation and narrator-commendation (al-jarh wa al-ta'dil)...and the one who trained us in this science and brought us into the scholarly throng - may Allah Reward him greatly.

        On the very forum that Harris posted his initial piece, his colleague known as Abuz Zubair Saleem Beg mentioned the following quotation regarding al-Mizzi's affiliations to the Ashari school.

        Under post no. 36

        The historian Al-Fasi (d.832) writes in his Ta'rif Dhawil 'Ula ib the biography of al-Dhahabi:

        "It has reached me that al-Dhahabi refused to take the the teaching position at Dar al-Hadeeth al-Ashrafiyya in Damascus because he was not an Ashari. This is when the position was vacated due to the death of the previous teacher al-Hafidh Jamal al-Din al-Mizzi. Al-Mizzi himself did not attain the position until he testified for himself that he is an Ashari, for that was the stipulated condition for the teacher therein. This indicates the richness of al-Dhahabi's religiosity and piety, for it was also possible for him to testify for himself that he is an Ashari and take up the position, and that wouldn't have affected him, in that he does not have Ashari beliefs. (Page 50)

        The same was mentioned in the introduction to al-Dhahabi's Siyar a'lam al-Nubala (1/39) by the contemporary Iraqi Historian, Dr. Bashwar Awwad Ma`ruf


        The article goes on until it presents the account by another recognized Historian and Muhaddith, Imam Badrud-Din al-Ayni in his Iqd al-Jumam fi-Ta'rikh Ahlul Zaman (1/477)

        I've attached the PDF it's about 23 pages and it does present a very interesting alternative view.
        Attached Files

        Comment


        • #5
          Another piece of garbage produced by Abul Hasan.


          In his previous piece against the Hanaabilah, he tried his utmost to weaken the Athar of Mujahid vis-a-vis Makan, yet in the same piece he failed to condemn the Athar fabricated Athar against Ali bin Abi Talib and many of the Salaf vis-a-vis the negation of Makan from Allah:
          http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showt...8287#post48287


          Abul Hasan, if you're reading this (or if anybody from his ilk has the courage to convey this message to him), why not dedicate your next "23-page secured PDF" piece to why your Ash`ari ilk are continuously fabricating stuff against the Salaf and are failing to ceasing from doing so?


          Once I had read four pages of this latest secured PDF, I closed it. Abul Hasan is casting aspersions on Harris Hammam's integrity! Only an idiot who is well-positioned to humiliate himself would do that.


          If he scrolls down to post 7 of the IA thread, he would realise that I quoted Abu_Abdallah and admitted that he had already provided a better translation than mine before me. So why would I want to do that yet plagiarise from Nasir Muzaffar? Here is the IA thread:
          http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f...is-book-24751/


          Harris Hammam is actually the guy who exposes GFH's plagiarisms and Marifah's clandestine deletions.


          Abul Hasan dedicates a whopping five and a half pages comparing timestamps between Multaqa and IA forums, and asserts the possibility that Harris Hammam plagiarised this material from Nasir Muzaffar! He even goes to be precise enough to prove that Harris Hammam is not Nasir Muzaffar! What a waste of time and space.


          If he dedicated some of his time to legislated Dhikr of Allah instead of his most-recent ramblings, that would have benefited him more.


          All those 5 or 6 pages are based on Abul Hasan's laughable stupidity, whereby he failed to realise that IA forums use the British method of dating (16th May 2009), whereas the Multaqa uses the American method (09-04-2009 = September 4th 2009).


          So which one comes before, Abul Hasan? Harris Hammam's 16th May 2009 version, or Nasir Muzaffar's 4th September 2009 version? Does Abul Hasan pathetically think that Harris Hammam plagiarises material that is to be written in the future?



          This bit in red is my reply to at least one quarter of his obese article. So when Abul Hasan says:
          Now, the reader can clearly observe that what Harris quoted in Arabic with the translations are not actually his own efforts, but due to one called Nasir Muzaffar...
          I'll let the readers figure out who the clown here is.


          The Imam of the Ash`aris, Abul Hasan, even got my place of residence wrong. What is he up to? Who does he think he is? Some forensic detective?


          If I get the time to go through the rest of the PDF article, I'll do so - probably on IA. We don't have weeks and months - unlike Abul Hasan - to produce garbage 23-page secured anti-Hanbali PDFs.


          In the meantime, I'll let the deaf, dumb and blind Ash`aris of Marifah Forums proceed to rejoice with Abul Hasan's 23-page secured PDF, as they are immune from feeling the ramifications of their perpetual perpetrations of self-humiliation...
          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


          • #6
            Actually, it is more likely that al-Mizzi and ibn Kathir made Ta'wil that he was a follower of Ash'ari's creed from his last and third stage of life.

            In fact, al-Dhahabi has mentioned in a number of places in his writings that he did not agree with al-Mizzi and ibn Taymiyyah for delving into Kalam for the sake of refuting the Mu'attila (Ash'aris in particular).

            Obviously, it goes without saying that ibn Taymiyyah played a far greater role in that respect than ibn Taymiyyah, but nonetheless their views and methods (even those which al-Dhahabi had reservations about) were shared.

            Comment


            • #7
              rofl this is hilarious!

              Man wants to write a 23 page refutation and put on a site, secure it and stuff yet can't he stop rushing and get simple things like dates right?

              these plums are funny, its so bliming simple, if they are saying al-Mizzi was an 'Ash'ari then we have to ask why was he jailed? Because he made takfeer of other ash'aris by reading khalq af'al al-Ibaad.? why make takfeer of fellow creedites?
              How can we say al-Mizzi is an ash'ari when he can use a book which is clearly against them to make takfeer of them?

              As for his teaching in the partisan ash'ari institute then this has to be reconciled with his actual beliefs and actions, and if one of them is him making takfeer of ash'aris for having jahmi creed then we have to ask:

              1-What aspects of creed did he disagree with these ash'ari shafi' scholars?
              2-What context does he say he is 'ash'ari? i.e. we know that there was aspect of ta'weel with ibn kathir
              3-If al-Mizzi was such a famous 'ash'ari why did he have to testify to the fact that he was one to attain a position at the school? If this was standard procedure then fair enough, but if it was a special condition for al-Mizzi then we have to ask why?


              ps whats the date? is it 04-08-10? or 08-04-10? did I write this post before the thread came about?

              Comment


              • #8
                also note how he (abu'l hasan al-mix-up da datey) tries to make it "why the shafi' scholars were enraged with al-mizzi" no mate, it ain't about the fiqh it about the creed, so correct it to: "why the 'ash'ari scholars were enraged with al-Mizzi"

                what taqiyyah trying to give a differnt impression

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by abu imaan an-nepalee View Post


                  ps whats the date? is it 04-08-10? or 08-04-10? did I write this post before the thread came about?
                  I read the pdf fully, so since dates are a big issue to some, can you please tell me when was al-Mizzi jailed? as it 705 AH - or as the translator claimed by looking at Ibn Hajar's al-Durar - that it was apparently 712 AH ?!

                  Can you also tell me where does the name al-Mizzi appear in the line claimed to be in al-Sakhawi's ad-Daw al-Lami? Is it really about al-Mizzi or someone ele? If it is not abour al-Mizzi - then who is it in reference to?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by abu imaan an-nepalee View Post
                    also note how he (abu'l hasan al-mix-up da datey) tries to make it "why the shafi' scholars were enraged with al-mizzi" no mate, it ain't about the fiqh it about the creed, so correct it to: "why the 'ash'ari scholars were enraged with al-Mizzi"

                    what taqiyyah trying to give a differnt impression
                    Please provide just one authentic quote saying that al-Mizzi was anti-Asharite. Its clear from al-Ayni and al-Dawadari that those Shafi'ites had Mizzi locked up for believing they were a target of TAKFEER. I can't see any evidence that they despised the contents of the Khalq af'aal al-Ibaad - as their own Ashari predecessors like al-Bayahqee quoted from it...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Abu Zahra View Post
                      Please provide just one authentic quote saying that al-Mizzi was anti-Asharite. Its clear from al-Ayni and al-Dawadari that those Shafi'ites had Mizzi locked up for believing they were a target of TAKFEER. I can't see any evidence that they despised the contents of the Khalq af'aal al-Ibaad - as their own Ashari predecessors like al-Bayahqee quoted from it...
                      stop trying to rape our history

                      Abul-Layth is trying to do the same

                      he claims he will "prove" ibn Hajr as an ash'ari, and Im waiting until he performs this blunder so we can bash him on the head with our orthodox bat.

                      I never in my life said "Im anti-ash'ari". Is someone so imbecilic that they will not interpret my actions as antithetical to the ash'ari school.

                      al-Mizzi makes takfeer of ash'aris and is jailed by ash'aris for reading the Khalq, and yet you require a verbatim statement from him declaring his "anti-ash'ariness"

                      for a people who claim the mantle of "rationality and reason" you guys are sure enough numb in your cognitive thinking.

                      lets have a look at the extent of ash'ari intellectual prowess

                      Sunni Islamic creed
                      "Allah is above the Throne, whoever denies it is a kaafir"

                      Ash'ari heretic contention
                      "Allah is not above the throne for it entails "place" and "jiha" and whoever believes Allah is above the Throne is a kaafir (refer to the fatwa of Muftee al-Azhaar quoted by the Jahmi Abu Adam an-Nuriji in "sunnianswers" dot com)

                      al-Mizzi uses the Khalq to teach the pure sunni Islamic creed.

                      Because of that, al-Mizzi was jailed

                      and yet you say

                      I can't see any evidence that they despised the contents of the Khalq af'aal al-Ibaad
                      he was put to jail for reading the book, because it indriectly made takfeer bil-wasf on whover held the doctrine of the jahmiyyah, and since they saw themselves as the targets of that takfeer, due to them being jahmi and not ash'ari, then he was put to prison, which Ibn taymiyyah is the one who got him out, not the ash'aris.

                      you guys can make people laugh with such preposterous ideas
                      ابو نعيمة علي البريكي


                      "I have debated with the Ash'aris
                      and it has become clear to me that they believe that Allah does not exist"


                      May Allah hasten the Muslims back to the path
                      that granted victory to them before.


                      http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

                      http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ibn Abbas View Post

                        Ibn al-Subki was the direct student of al-Mizzi and al-Dhahabi and heard hadith from them both. Ibn al-Subki also said:

                        Our time was graced with four hadith masters: al-Mizzi, al-Birzali al-Dhahabi and my father the Shaykh and Imam (Taqi al-Din al-Subki). As for our shaykh Abu `Abd Allah (Imam Dhahabi), he is an ocean without peer, a treasure and refuge in time of difficulty, the Imam of the living record, the gold of our time in spirit and letter. the shaykh of narrators discreditation and narrator-commendation (al-jarh wa al-ta'dil)...and the one who trained us in this science and brought us into the scholarly throng - may Allah Reward him greatly.
                        this is a perfect example of tajj-udeen as-subkis ultimate and unfathomable bigotry for none of the imaams of ahlu-sunnah gave this dissection.

                        RATHER, the Imaams of sunnah have interpreted that the top two Imaams, the hujjat of hadeeth were Haafidh al-Mizzi and Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah.

                        they relegated al-Mizzi as the Imaam of 'Rijaal, in Hadeeth for his specialty was the rijaal, hence his monumental contribution "Tahdheeb al-Kamaal fi asmaa'i Rijaal" which was a condensed version of the Imaam of Rijaal of the Ummah Haafidh Abdul-Ghanee al-Maqdisee's "al-Kamaal fi tareekh" where al-Mizzi only focused on the narrators of the six books instead of al-Maqdisees focus on everyone who narrated.

                        the second Imaam was Haafidh Ibn Taymiyyah who they relegated as the Imaam of "M'ani" or "sharh"
                        which is why no one reaches the ankle of his shurooh of the hadeeth as him.

                        while he was proficient all of the mustalah, and the rijaal, his specialty was in explaining them just as al-Mizzi's specialty was in the rijaal.

                        as for as-Subki, it is customary of his bigoted nature to only think of shafi'ee's, he is like the prehistoric al-Kawthari. we shall name him Majnoon ash-Shafi'ee

                        actually he is majnoon Aristotle, not shafi'ee for he defecates upon his name

                        asalamu alaikum
                        ابو نعيمة علي البريكي


                        "I have debated with the Ash'aris
                        and it has become clear to me that they believe that Allah does not exist"


                        May Allah hasten the Muslims back to the path
                        that granted victory to them before.


                        http://islamthought.wordpress.com/

                        http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Harris Hammam View Post
                          Another piece of garbage produced by Abul Hasan.


                          In his previous piece against the Hanaabilah, he tried his utmost to weaken the Athar of Mujahid vis-a-vis Makan, yet in the same piece he failed to condemn the Athar fabricated Athar against Ali bin Abi Talib and many of the Salaf vis-a-vis the negation of Makan from Allah:
                          http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showt...8287#post48287

                          Let's be just akhi, and leave aside the personal hate and grudges that is oft seen in many forums these days. I haven't seen any prestigious scholarly language from your reply on this thread so far but mere emotiveness.


                          Can i also see you condemn Ibn Qayyim and ibn Uthaymeen - two of the Hanaabila who transmitted a forged wording to establish Allah's alleged sitting upon the throne, by means of disemminating a narration alleged to be in the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra)? This was mentioned by Abul Hasan in his article on Mujahid and the Makaan months back - but you have remained awfully silent.

                          Originally posted by Harris
                          Once I had read four pages of this latest secured PDF, I closed it. Abul Hasan is casting aspersions on Harris Hammam's integrity! Only an idiot who is well-positioned to humiliate himself would do that.

                          If he scrolls down to post 7 of the IA thread, he would realise that I quoted Abu_Abdallah and admitted that he had already provided a better translation than mine before me. So why would I want to do that yet plagiarise from Nasir Muzaffar? Here is the IA thread:
                          http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f...is-book-24751/
                          Yes, and i just read the pdf and Abul Hasan also knew that as he said:


                          Originally posted by Abul Hasan
                          Harris Hammam has also posted a lengthy quote from his colleague “Abu Abdallah” under the same thread, post no. 7 – where the latter has mentioned correctly that the incident with al-Mizzi and the Fuqaha occurred in the year 705 AH.
                          OK, you didn't plagiarise - so lets get some points straight:

                          i) You did translate those initial quotes? Yes or no?

                          ii) So Nasir Muzaffar is the one who plagiarised as he didn't give his source as YOU the original translator?! Yes or no?


                          Originally posted by Harris


                          If he dedicated some of his time to legislated Dhikr of Allah instead of his most-recent ramblings, that would have benefited him more.
                          You also said:

                          Originally posted by Abul Hasan
                          All those 5 or 6 pages are based on Abul Hasan's laughable stupidity, whereby he failed to realise that IA forums use the British method of dating (16th May 2009), whereas the Multaqa uses the American method (09-04-2009 = September 4th 2009).


                          I don't see him posting on marifah . net any more (his last post was last year) or the other forum he used to post on - sunni forum . com - so how do you know that the man is not spending time doing legislated Dhikr of Allah? I see you have had time to spread more than 3000 posts - on islamicawakening - and you joined in Sept. 2008 - SUBHANALLAH akhi - where do you get time to make Dhikr and Fikr?!

                          You then poked at dates:

                          Originally posted by Harris
                          So which one comes before, Abul Hasan? Harris Hammam's 16th May 2009 version, or Nasir Muzaffar's 4th September 2009 version? Does Abul Hasan pathetically think that Harris Hammam plagiarises material that is to be written in the future?
                          Originally posted by Harris


                          This bit in red is my reply to at least one quarter of his obese article. So when Abul Hasan says:

                          I'll let the readers figure out who the clown here is.


                          The Imam of the Ash`aris, Abul Hasan, even got my place of residence wrong. What is he up to? Who does he think he is? Some forensic detective?


                          If I get the time to go through the rest of the PDF article, I'll do so - probably on IA. We don't have weeks and months - unlike Abul Hasan - to produce garbage 23-page secured anti-Hanbali PDFs.


                          In the meantime, I'll let the deaf, dumb and blind Ash`aris of Marifah Forums proceed to rejoice with Abul Hasan's 23-page secured PDF, as they are immune from feeling the ramifications of their perpetual perpetrations of self-humiliation...


                          OK, now you know the man didn't know that Multaqa ahlalhdeeth uses one format for dating and the islamicawakening forum uses another format - so if that makes one a CLOWN - for making a very trivial mistake - then I want to know who is the bigger "CLOWN" on the next point you haven't addressed is:


                          You mentioned:

                          "In Rajab 712 A.H., al-Mizzi read a chapter from al-Bukhari's Khalq Af'aal al-Ibaad in the Umayyad Mosque. Some Shafi'is [i.e. Ash'aris] heard him and became vexed. They remarked: "We are the ones being targeted by this". They took him to court by a Shafi'i [Ash'ari] judge and he ordered for him to be jailed. News reached Ibn Taymiyyah, so he proceeded to the prison and had him released with his own hands... "

                          Abul Hasan said:

                          Originally posted by Abul Hasan
                          Nasir Muzaffar has also mistakenly claimed that al-Hafiz ibn Hajar claimed that this event occurred in Rajab 712 AH! Ibn Hajar was quoted as saying in his Durar al-Kamina: في ثاني عشر رجب

                          Which means that it occurred on the 12th day of Rajab and not that it meant in the year 712 AH, as Nasir claimed and this also went unchecked by Harris and his supporters!


                          Indeed, the Ash’ari Imam they quoted, namely, al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has mentioned in another place that this event regarding al-Mizzi occurred in the year 705 AH -

                          Durar al-Kamina (6/230) of Ibn Hajar al Asqalani:

                          وأوذي مرة في سنة 705 بسبب ابن تيمية لأنه لما وقعت المناظرة له مع الشافعية وبحث مع الصفي الهندي ثم ابن الزملكاني بالقصر الأبلق شرع المزي يقرأ كتاب خلق أفعال العباد للبخاري وفيه فصل في الرد على الجهمية فغضب بعض وقالوا نحن المقصودون بهذا فبلغ ذلك القاضي الشافعي يومئذ فأمر بسجنه فتوجه ابن تيمية وأخرجه من السجن فغضب النائب فأعيد ثم أفرج عنه وأمر النائب
                          So tell me and everyone here and on islamicawakening was it not you and then Nasir who claimed it was 712 AH? Which Imam said that?! Or will you admit that a "CLOWN" couldn't read the arabic quote properly and he should have typed 705 AH as Abu Abdallah got right in his post no. 7 that you told others to look at?!

                          You said that you don't have time like Abul Hasan allegedly has to right up 23 page PDF's - but i am surprised that you could make so much time to post more than 3000 posts on IA in under 2 years...

                          I'd also like a quote with evidence that Abul Hasan is an Ash'ari in the first place, and an Imam at that!


                          Finally, please tell us all the answer to Abul Hasan's challenge to you and Nasir:

                          Originally posted by from the pdf, page 15

                          Both Nasir and Harris have also claimed:

                          ------------------
                          Al-Sakhawi said in al-Daw' al-Laami':

                          وامتحن بسبب قراءته خلق أفعال العباد للبخاري

                          "... al-Mizzi was tested due to his reading out of al-Bukhari's Khalq Af'aal al-Ibaad..."


                          Reply:

                          For some unknown reason both of them failed to give the exact volume/page reference to Imam al-Sakhawi's 12 volume al-Daw al-Lami. In the translation, Nasir has gone out of his way to insert the name of al-Mizzi as being apparently the one being tested for reading out of the Khalq Af'al al-Ibad, though the short Arabic line quoted by him doesn't mention the name of al-Mizzi in the sentence.

                          If both of them care, one would like to propose that they produce the exact reference from al-Daw al-Lami and explain if it is regarding al-Mizzi or not?! If it turns out that it is not regarding al-Mizzi then one would be grateful for their explanation.
                          As for your residence - Harris - correct me if i am wrong but on IA forum - did you not mention under your avatar in the past that you were from PALMYRA, NEW YORK state?!

                          Take a pill chill is my recommendation to all those who are emotive and not looking at the data and quotes properly. Harris, you seem to have a very bad temper, please help yourself before you try to convince others.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by al-boriqee View Post
                            stop trying to rape our history


                            That's more emotive propaganda from one who humiliated himself a few months back:

                            http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showp...7&postcount=42

                            I advise you to think before you write emotive and unscholarly jibes. Provide evidence from the Imams that al-Mizzi was specifically jailed for reading the Khalq - your opinion and Harris' count for nowt if you can't produce a single quote. The real rapists are those who misresd history books and even get dates like 705 AH for Mizzi's imprisonment and make out it was 712 AH. SUBHANALLAH. May be you can help Harris find the exact quote from Daw al-Laami of al-Sakhawi also - to see who is raping who. Lahawla wala quwwata illa billah.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by al-boriqee View Post
                              this is a perfect example of tajj-udeen as-subkis ultimate and unfathomable bigotry for none of the imaams of ahlu-sunnah gave this dissection.

                              And is it not this same Tajud Deen who was praised by his own Shaykh - al Dhahabee? May be you can look at history and see what al-Dhahabee has to say about Taqiud Deen as-Subki as well.

                              Rather the two biggest Imams were al-Mizzi for Rijaal and then al-Dhahabee - who is known as one of the Ahlul Istiqraa...

                              Is this a lie from al-Suyuti?!



                              Al-Suyuti said: "Hadith scholars today depend on four figures in the field of narrator-criticism and other related fields: al-Mizzi, al-Dhahabi, al-`Iraqi, and Ibn Hajar." (http://www.sunnah.org/history/Schola...habi.htm#NOTES)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X