Blog closed

as-salamu `alaikum
This blog is no longer in use.
Please visit www.marifah.net

Allah Exists Without a Place

Imam al-Hafidh al-Bayhaqi said in his book, Al-Asma'u was-Sifat, on page 400 [Kawthari edition]:



والذي روي في اّخر هذا الحديث إشارة إلى نفي المكان عن الله تعالى، وأن العبد أينما كان فهو في القرب والبعد من الله تعالى سواء، وأنه الظاهر فيصح إدراكه بالأدلة، الباطن فلا يصح إدراكه بالكون في مكان. واستدل بعض أصحابنا في نفي المكان عنه بقول النبي صلّى الله عليه و سلّم أنت الظاهر فليس فوقك شىء، وأنت الباطن فليس دونك شىء، وإذا لم يكن فوقه شىء ولا دونه شىء لم يكن في مكان



".... What was mentioned towards the end of the hadith is an indication of denying Allah has a place and denying the slave is alike to Allah, wherever he was, in proximity or remoteness. Allah, the Exalted, is adh-Dhahir--hence, it is valid to know about Him by proofs. Allah is al-Batin--hence, it is invalid that He would be in a place."

He also said:

"Some of our companions used as a proof to refute the place to Allah the saying of the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam : 'You are adh-Dhahir and there is nothing above You, and You are al-Batin and there is nothing underneath You.' Therefore, if there is nothing above Him and nothing underneath Him, He is not in a place."



Similarly, regarding this same hadith [from Sahih Muslim]:


O Allah, You are the first: there is nothing before You; and You are the last: there is nothing after You. You are the Manifest (al-Zahir): there is nothing above You. You are the Hidden (al-Batin): there is nothing below You.



Al-Raghib al-Isfahani (d. 425 hegira) in his Mufradat al-Qur`an explained that Allah is the Manifest because His existence is intuitively evident to us through everything we see in the creation, while He is the Hidden because we can not comprehend the nature of His existence.

Mufradat al-Qur`an, (Damascus, Dar al-Qalam; and Beirut, Dar al Shamiyyah, 1992), p.131.



Imam Zayn ul-Abidin said:

وروى الحافظ اللغوي محمد مرتضى الزَّبيديُّ في شرح الإحياء بالإسناد المتصل أن الإمام عليًّا زين العابدين كان يقول: "سبحانك لا يحويك مكان" اهـ، وزين العابدين كان أفضل أهل البيت في زمانه

“glory be to you who has no place”

[documented in Imam Murtada Zabidis’s sharh al ihya ulum ud deen, with a mutasil isnad]





In Al-Farq Bayn al-Firaq under the chapter heading:


في بيان الاصول التى اجتمعت عليها اهل السنة



Imam Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi says:


واجمعوا على انه لا يحويه مكان ولا يجرى عليه زمان خلاف قول من زعم من الشهامية والكرامية انه مماس لعرشه وقد قال امير المؤمنين على رضي الله عنه ان الله تعالى خلق العرش اظهارا لقدرته لا مكانا لذاته وقال ايضا قد كان ولا مكان وهو الآن على ما كان



rough translation:

"Allah created al-'arsh as an indication of His Power and did not take it as a place for Himself. Allah existed eternally without a place, and He now is as He ever was" [i.e. without a place]




Imam Ali [RA] is reported to have said:

تفسير مدارك التنزيل وحقائق التأويل/ النسفي
قول علي رضي الله عنه: الاستواء غير مجهول والتكييف غير معقول والإيمان به واجب والسؤال عنه بدعة لأنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فهو على ما كان قبل خلق المكان لم يتغير عما كان.


[rough translation]

“al-Istiwa is not unknown, and the modality is altogether inconceivable. To affirm it is obligatory and to ask questions about it is an innovation, this is because Allah was, when there was nothing, and He created place before there was a place, and He is in no need for a place”.

[Reported in Tafsir Madaarik al-Tanzeel wa Haqaa’iq al-Ta’weel by an-Nasafi, under surah Taha (20) ayat (5)]


قال الإمام علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه :-" من زعم أن إلهنا محدود فقد جهل الخالق المعبود" ا.هـ رواه أبو نعيم في حلية الأولياء



Ali bin Abi Talib RA is also attributed by Hafidh Abu Nu'aym in his Hilyatul Awliya as saying:

[rough translation]

"He who a claims that our Lord is limited is ignorant about the Creator who is worshipped."



Imam Ash-Shaafi'i stated,

" إنه تعالى كان ولا مكان فخلق المكان وهو على صفة الأزلية كما كان قبل خلقه المكان لا يجوز عليه التغيير في ذاته ولا التبديل في صفاته " اهـ. [إتحاف السادة المتقين (2/ 24 ]


"Verily, He the exalted was, without makaan (station or place). He created Makaan and He was upon His attribute of eternality just as He was before he created makaan. It is not permitted upon Him to change his essence or to change in His attributes."

[It-Haaf As-Saadah Al Muttaqeen 2/24]

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan in his Thiqaat says,

"الحمد لله الذي ليس له حد محدود فيحتوى، ولا له أجل معدود فيفنى، ولا يحيط به جوامع المكان ولا يشتمل عليه تواتر الزمان". الثقات (1/ 1)


He also stated in his Saheeh,

"كان- الله- ولا زمان ولا مكان"

"Allah was - without time and without makaan (station)."

وقال الشيخ الإمام أبو منصور عبد القاهر بن طاهر التميمي البغدادي الإسفراييني (429 هـ) ما نصه : "وأجمعوا- أي أهل السنة- على أنه- أي الله- لا يحويه مكان ولا يجري عليه زمان " اهـ.

Ash-Shaykh Al Imaam Abu Mansur Abdul Qaahir ibn Taahir At-Tameemi Al Baghdaadi Al-Isfaraa-ini (died 429 AH) said, "They have consensus - meaning Ahlus Sunnah - upon the fact that Allah is not contained in a place (makaan) and time does not run upon him."

الفرق بين الفرق (ص/ 333)




وقال أبو محمد علي بن أحمد المعروف بابن حزم الأندلسي (456 هـ) : " وأنه تعالى لا في مكان ولا في زمان، بل هو تعالى خالق الأزمنة والأمكنة، قال تعالى: (وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَقَدَّرَهُ تَقْدِيراً)(سورة الفرقان/2)، وقال (خلقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا)(سورة الفرقان/59)، والزمان والمكان هما مخلوقان، قد كان تعالى دونهما، والمكان إنما هو للاجسام"


Ibn Hazm Al Andalusi said, "And He ta'alaa is not in a place and is not in time..."


[كتابه علم الكلام: مسألة في نفي المكان عن الله تعالى (ص/ 65)]



Al Qaadhi Ash-Shaykh Abul Waleed Muhammad ibn Ahmad Qaadhi Al Jama'ah in Qurtubah (cordoba), well known as Ibn Rushd Al Jadd (the grandfather - this is not the author of Bidaayatul Mujtahid - it is his grandfather) Al Maaliki stated,

"ليس- الله- في مكان، فقد كان قبل أن يخلق المكان

"Allah is not in a place. He is as he was before he created 'place'. "

[This is mentioned by Ibn Al Haaj Al Maaliki in his Madkhal.]



قال ابن حزم (وهو ممن يتكلم باسم السلف) قول تعالى يجب حمله على ظاهره ما لم يمنع من حمله على
ظاهره نصّ آخر أو إجماع أو ضرورة حس, وقد علمنا أن كل ما كان في مكان, فإنه شاغل لذلك المكان
ومالئ له ومتشكل بشلكه, ولا بدّ من أحد الأمرين ضرورة, وعلمنا أن ما كان في مكان فإنه متناه بتناهي
مكانه وهو ذو جهات ست أو خمس متناهية في مكانه وهذه صفات الجسم اه ثم قال:إن الأمة أجمعت على
أنه لا يدعو أحد فيقول يا مستو ارحمني, ولا يسمى ابنه عبد المستوي اه ثم قال إن معنى قوله تعالى على
العرش استوى أنه فعل فعله في العرش وهو انتهاء خلقه إليه, فليس بعد العرش شيء, والعرش نهاية جرم
المخلوقات الذي ليس خلفه خلاء ولا ملاء, ومن أنكر أن يكون للعالم نهاية من المساحة والزمان والمكان
لحق بقول الدهرية, وفارق الإسلام اه ثم ردّ على القائلين بالمكان وختم كلامه بقوله فإنه لا يكون في
مكان إلا ما كان جسما أو عرضا في جسم, هذا الذي لا يجوز سواه, ولا يتشكل في العقل والوهن غيره
ألبتة, وإذا انتهى أن يكون الله عز وجل جسما أو عرضا, فقد انتهى أن يكون في مكان أصلا وبالله نتأيد اه
فليعتبر بقول ابن حزم هذا أدعياء السلف من مشبّهة العصر. 3



Imam al-Kawthari RH says regarding Imam Ibn Hazm RH:

Ibn Hazm (who was a person wont to speak in the name of the salaf) said:

“One is required to take Allah’s word, exalted is He, literally as long as there is no text, or consensus, or empirical necessity, stops us from doing that. We know that everything that is in a place occupies that space and fills it and assumes its shape. One of the two things has to be. We know that whatever is in a place has to be limited by the limits of that place, as it has to be in limited by a finite limit in the six or five directions in its space, and these are the attributes of bodies.”

Then he said: “The ummah is agreed that no one should say ‘O, He who has ascended, have mercy on me’! just as no one should name his son ‘Slave of the One Who Ascended.’”

Then he said: “Truly, the meaning of His saying, exalted is He, ‘He made istiwà on the Throne’ is that He acted in some way on the Throne; namely, He ended His creation with it, for there is nothing after the Throne which is the end of creation; there is nothing after it, neither space, nor void. Anybody who denies that the creation has a finite limit in distance and time and space joins the materialists and leaves Islam.”

Then he refuted those who insist that Allah occupies space and he ended his discourse saying: “Nothing can be in space except what is a body or an accident [what occurs in a substance like heat, color and so on] in a body; there is no other possibility, for neither reason nor imagination can conceive of another possibility at all. Since it is concluded that Allah is neither a body nor an accident, it is concluded that He cannot occupy space absolutely. And Allah is our help.”

So let those claim to follow the salaf in our times likening Allah to His creatures consider carefully this proclamation of Ibn Hazm.


Reference:

الأسماء والصفات, ص 516 , تعليق رقم ( 1

Just to mention that I have updated the Hadith proofs for Tawassul blog:

TAWASSUL - Some Hadith Proofs

Introduction



Hadith 1: The Hadith of the Blind Man



Hadith 2: The Hadith of the Man in Need

Abdullah al-Ghumari's Reply to al-Albani & Follower's Attempted Weakening of Hadith 2

More Replies to al-Albani's Objections to Hadith 2


Hadith 3: Narration of Malik al-Dar

Response to al-Albani's Objections to Hadith 3


Hadith 4: Allah's Generosity to His Prophet After his Death

A Reply to "Salafi" Objections to Hadith 4

Dr. Tahirul-Qadri's Reply to the "Salafis" on Hadith 4


Hadith 5: After the Death of Fatima



Hadith 6: Whoever Goes Out of his Home to Pray

A Response to "Salafi" Crititicism of Hadith 6


Hadith 7: Deeds Presented to the Prophet After his Death



Hadith 8: Adam Seeks Intercession With the Prophet



Hadith 9: Adam Seeks Intercession With the Prophet's Name



Hadith 10: The Correct Understanding of the Tawassul of 'Umar through al-'Abbas



Hadith 11: O Slaves of Allah! Help Me

The Division of Tawhid

The following is a first draft translation by a dear brother at SF of the text:

نقد تقسيم التوحيد إلى ألوهية وربوبية - يوسف الدجوي الأزهري

If there are any errors in translation please inform us so that they can be rectified, inshaAllah.

Assessment of the Division of Tawhid (Oneness of Allah) into Uluhiyyah (Divinity) and Rububiyyah (Lordship)

Allamah Abu Mahasin Jamal Ad-Din Yusuf bin Ahmad Ad-Dijwi Al-Maliki Al-Azhari (d. 1365 H) said:


We have received many letters asking for the definition of Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah and Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah and also in regards (the principle according) to which they were arranged, who it was that differentiated between them and the proof of its validity or invalidity.

Our reply, with the assistance of Allah, is as follows:

The person who viewed such was Ibn Taymiyyah, who invented this, saying:

‘Indeed the Messengers were not sent save for the purpose of (teaching) Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah which means to single out Allah (alone) for worship; as for (the other,) Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah, which is to believe that Allah is the Lord of all existence and disposer of their affairs, none has disagreed with this, Muslim or polytheist, the proof for which is the Almighty’s statement “And if you were to ask them who fashioned the heavens and the earth they would reply Allah” (39:38)’

They also say:

Those who seek means (waseelah) through the Prophets and pious, intercede through them and call upon them during hardships are worshipping them. (The Arabs of jahailiyyah) rejected the belief of the Rububiyyah of statues, Angels and the Messiah but they did not become disbelievers because of disbelieving in the Rububiyyah of these statues and whatever is alongside it, rather by abandoning Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah by worshipping them – and this is the same for those who perpetually visit graves, seek means through the pious, call upon them, and seek their assistance, seeking from them that which Allah has not given them the ability to do.


Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhab said:

‘Indeed their disbelief is more distasteful than the disbelief of worshipping statues.’



If need be I could have presented his entire sorrowful and valiant discourse, but this is a summary of their views just for clarification and it contains a number of claims which we shall present again in brief and discuss them using both logic and text.



Their view that Tawhid divides into Uluhiyyah and Rububiyyah was unheard of before Ibn Taymiyyah and is unimaginable as you shall soon learn. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم did not say to anyone who accepted Islam ‘there are two Tawhids, and unless you single out Allah in Uluhiyyah you are not a Muslim’ and neither did he demonstrate this in a single discourse and this was not heard from a single member of the Salaf who they (the followers of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdil Wahhab) boast of following in everything.

This division makes no sense for the true God is the true Lord and the false god is the false lord. None is deserving of worship or being assumed as divine except one who is the Lord. This division makes no sense also because we do not worship except those who we believe to be a lord that benefits and harms and thus worship is but a result of lordship, as the Almighty says ‘The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, so worship Him and be patient in His worship. Do you know of any equal to Him?’ (19:65). Therefore Uluhiyyah is a consequence of Rububiyyah; for if we do not believe he is a lord who benefits and harms, then worship to him is illogical, as the Almighty says (about Sheba and her people) ‘That they do not prostrate to Allah, Who brings forth what is hidden in the heavens and the earth’ (27:25), indicating that prostration is unbefitting for any, other than those who possess ability and power, and it would bear no implication prostrating to any other. This is what is understood and is proven from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

As for the Qur’an it states ‘And (a prophet) will not instruct you to take the Angels and Prophets as lords.’ (3:80) which clarifies the great number of lords they possessed; despite the clarity of the Qur’an that they made the Angels lords, Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhab said ‘they are monotheists in Rububiyyah since they have only one lord but they commit shirk in Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah’! Yusuf عليه السلام said to his two companions in prison while inviting them to Tawhid ‘Are many lords better or Allah, the One, the Irresistible?’ (12:39) And Allah the Almighty says ‘They disbelieve in the Most Merciful; say (O Muhammad): “He is my Lord”’ (13:30) for they did not make him lord.

Another example is as Allah saysof the statement of a person ‘But he is Allah, my Lord’ (18:38) in response to one who denounced the Almighty’s Rububiyyah. Also consider their discourse on the Day of Rising ‘By Allah! Indeed we were in clear error when we made you equals to the Lord of all existence.’ (26:97-98) and observe the Almighty’s statement ‘When it is said to them “Prostrate before the Most Merciful!” they reply “What is the Most Merciful – should we prostrate before whom you instruct us to?”’ (25:60). Do you view the one to say this, a monotheist?!

Now consider the Almighty’s statement ‘And they argue about (the divinity of) Allah’ (13:13) as in many other verses which we shall not detail; but the point is that these Kuffar did not possess Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah as Ibn Taymiyyah claimed; and Yusuf عليه السلام was calling to nothing other than Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah because in reality there is no such thing as Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah and Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah according to Yusuf عليه السلام so are they more acquainted with Tawhid than him and will they say he has erred in his interpretation of ‘lords’ which should have been ‘gods’?!

In addition, Allah has said when he took the covenant from all people ‘“Am I not your Lord?” and they replied “Yes”’ (7:172) so if acceptance of Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah was insufficient and accepted by the polytheists, as Ibn Taymiyyah said, then taking this covenant would be unnecessary and they would not have to say on the Day of Rising ‘Indeed we were unaware of this’ (7:172); it would be necessary for Allah to change the conditions of the covenant to what they recognise and include Uluhiyyah since Rububiyyah is insufficient according to them – and all those other things which we would have to expand upon, which are not hidden from you. Anyway, Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah was sufficient for them and they were not required to accept Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah also.

Also the Almighty’s statement ‘He is the God in the Sky and the God on earth’ shows He is the God on earth even if he is not worshipped as shall be the case at the end of time so. If it is said this means he is worshipped in the sense that he is alone in deserving worship, then we reply there is no difference in this case between god and lord for the one deserving of worship is the Lord and no other. However the discussion of Pharaoh with Musa عليه السلام was regarding Rububiyyah ‘I am your lord, most high.’ (79:24) and then he said ‘If you take a God besides me I shall imprison you.’ (26:29) and nobody claims these are of the same meaning.

As for the Sunnah, there is the case of the two Angels asking the dead of the identity of one’s lord and not of one’s god because there is no distinction between lord and god – because they do not follow Ibn Taymiyyah and nor do they speak in a chaotic way; in the view of these people it would be necessary to ask ‘Who is your god?’ not ‘Who is your lord?’!!

Regarding the statement ‘And if you were to ask them who fashioned the heavens and the earth they would reply Allah’ (39:38) this is what they say with their tongues but do not believe in their hearts; they were forced to say this for the decisive proofs that were presented before them. Perhaps they spoke of something that wouldn’t even come near to settling in their hearts or reaching their souls, since they accompanied this statement with phrases showing they were lying because they believed the idols could benefit and harm. Also they became completely ignorant of Allah and attributed even the smallest of matters to other than him for instance when the people of Hud said to him ‘We say nought except that our Gods have afflicted you (with evil)’ (10:54) so how can Ibn Taymiyyah say that they believe their gods neither harm nor benefit?

Observe the claim of these people about their cattle ‘“This is for Allah” they claim “And this is for our associates”; whatever is for Allah reaches their associates and whatever is for their associates does not reach Allah’ (6:136) – they present their associates with even the smallest and most insignificant of things.

And Allah says, explaining their belief in statues ‘(On the Day of Judgement it would be said to them) We do not see with you those intercessors you claimed to be associates’ (6:94) showing they believed them to be their associates. Also Abu Sufyan said at Uhud ‘Superior is Hubal’ and the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم replied ‘Allah is the most High and Prominent’. So consider this and tell me what do you consider of the Tawhid that Ibn Taymiyyah was ascribing to them, saying ‘in this they are the same as the Muslims but they only differ in Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah’?!
This is also proven by the statement of Allah ‘Do not curse those whom they call on besides Allah lest they curse Allah out of enmity with no knowledge’ – do you think they believed in Tawhid after seeing this?!

The followers of Ibn Taymiyyah after all this say ‘they are monotheists in regards Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah and the Messengers did not fight them but for the purpose of Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah, and they disbelieved not except by abandoning this’!! I do not know the connotations of such restrictions, considering they denied the Messengers, refuted what was sent to them, made Halal the Haram, rejected life after death and the Afterlife, claimed that Allah has a wife and a son and the Angles are the daughters of Allah: ‘Know that they from amongst their inventions claim “Allah has bore a child” and they are liars’ (37:151-152) and for all these reasons the Messengers did not fight them according to these people but fought them for the absence of Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah and they are like the Muslims in regards to Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah!! Or the Muslims are greater disbelievers in the view of Muhammad bin Abdil Wahhab!





We do not agree with any of this, yet we say:





Upon the supposition there is a distinction between Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah and Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah as is claimed, Tawassul (seeking means to Allah) does not negate Tawhid Al-Uluhiyyah because it is not worship, neither linguistically, nor legally, nor customarily and none have said that to call upon and seek means through the pious is worship. The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم has not informed us of this and if it was worship or similar to it, it would not be permissible to do this for both the live and the dead.

If one insists that Allah is closer to us than our jugular vein so we need no intermediation we reply ‘you have learnt a thing but are ignorant of a thing’ for if your view is such it would be necessary for you to leave all means and intermediates in everything since this world is built on the wisdom that there are means and accessories to everything. It would be necessary for him to deny intercession on the Day of Rising and that Umar erred when he said ‘We seek means to you through the cousin of your Prophet, Abbas’ (Sahih Bukhari). They would have to close all doors to means and intermediates which is in opposition to the divine Sunnah (way). It is also necessary they fall under the same rule they place the Muslims under since it is impossible they leave all means and intermediates.

The difference between the live and dead in this context has no implication for the one seeking means does not ask of anything from the dead by principle but seeks from Allah alone through the means of the dead or the repute of the dead person in Allah’s eyes or His love for him or the like of this – is there any ascription of divinity to the dead in this, or is this worship? These people base their view on unverified conjecture – after all Muslims have permitted Tawassul, rather have considered it to be good.

Look into the books of the four Madhhabs and even the books of the Hanbaliyyah in the Adab (manners) regarding the visitation of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and you’d find they consider Tawassul through him recommended – this remained as consensus until Ibn Taymiyyah came and opposed the consensus and others persisted in the instability of this dissension, opposing both intellect and text.

Shaykh Muhammad al-Ya'qoubi and the purity and cure in the Prophet's Urine

The answer to an objection made on al-Seyyid Muhammad al-Ya’qubi’s Mawlid discourse on Monday 2nd May 2005, Wembley Arena, London

This article is written in defense of al-Seyyid Muhammad al-Yaqoubi’s subsequent statement which he expressed during his talk on the national Mawlid gathering in London,

‘I wish I was His urine which passed out of Him; pure and a cure’

Here are some narrations which explicitly mention the purity of His urine (May Allah shower peace and blessings on Him), and it as a cure.



Imam Suyuti’s narrations[1]

1. Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti reports from Tabarani and Bayhaqi who narrate from Hukaymah bint Umaymah (May Allah be pleased with her) with an authentic chain of transmission, she said, 'the Prophet (May Allah shower peace and blessings on Him) had a wooden bowl in which He used to urinate and was placed under His bed. One night, He searched for it but did not find it and asked for it saying, ‘where is the bowl?’ The members of the house replied ‘Umm Salamah’s slave girl Barrah drank from it’ who came from Habashah with her. The Prophet replied, ‘surely she has protected herself from the fire with a great wall’’'.

2. Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti reports from Abu Ya’la, Hakim, Dar Qutni, Tabarani and Abu Nu’aym from Umm Ayman May Allah be pleased with her, who said, ‘the Prophet got up one night and urinated in a bowl. During that night, I rose in the state of thirst so I drank whatever was in the bowl. In the morning I told Him what I had done to which He smiled and said, ‘surely you will never have pain in your stomach’’. Abu Ya’ala’s wordings are as follows, ‘you will never feel stomach pain as of today’.


Imam Tabarani’s narrations[2]

Imam Tabarani narrates three hadith on this issue in His al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer, of which two are authentic and one is weak due to the narrator ‘Abu Malik Nakha’i’. However, it is strengthened by the other narrations on this issue which suggest that His SAW excess was pure, and a cure. Besides, it is narrated by other channels of transmission too.


Incident One. The Narration of Umaymah bint Ruqayqah about Barrah the slave girl of Umm Salamah, who drank from His Urine, is authentic.

Incident Two. The Narration of Umaymah bint Ruqayqah about Barakah the slave girl of Umm Habeebah (she is other than Umm Ayman who was also known as Barakah) is also authentic.

Incident Three. The Narration of Umm Ayman who herself mentions her incident, consists of Abu Malik al-Nakha’i, a weak narrator, but this hadith is transmitted by other chains too as we will see later, Insha Allah.



Detailed study of the Hadith



Hadith One.

Tabarani said: Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal informed us, who was informed by Yahya ibn Ma’een, who was informed by Hajjaj Bin Muhammad who narrates from Ibn Jurayj who narrates from Hukaymah bint Umaymah, who reports from her mother Umaymah who said, ‘the Prophet SAW used to have a wooden bowl in which he used to urinate and place under His bed. One night, He searched for it but did not find it and asked for it saying, where is the bowl? The members of the house replied ‘Umm Salamah’s slave girl Barrah drank it’ who came from Habashah with her. The Prophet replied, ‘surely she has protected herself from the fire with a great wall’.

This narration is authenticated by many scholars. Imam Nur al-Din al-Haythmi said, ‘it is narrated by Tabarani and its narrators are from the men of al-Sahih i.e. Bukhari except Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal and Hukaymah who are both trustworthy narrators’.[3]

Abdullah is the son of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, compiler and narrator of the Musnad, and from the Men of Sunan Nisa’i.

Hukaymah is from the major female successors ‘taabi’iyyaat’. Abu Dauwd, Nisa’i, Bayhaqi and others narrate from her.

Nasir al-Din Albani said, ‘a group of Hadith masters have authenticated this hadith’.[4]

Ibn Hibban narrates this very narration and authenticates it in His al-Saheeh.[5]

Hakim narrates this hadith in His Mustadrak and Dhahabi confirms it authenticity. 1:167, prnt.Tab Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi Beirut

Suyuti in two of His books authenticates this narration; Al-Jami al-Sagheer[6] and al-Khasa’is al-Kubra in which he has dedicated an entire chapter to this subject with this heading ‘babu ikhtisasihi sallalahu ta’ala alaiyhi wa sallam bi taharati damihi wa bawlihi wa gha’itihi’ ‘Chapter on His specialty in purification of His blood, urine and faeces May Allah send peace and blessings on Him’.



Hadith Two.

Tabarani said: Hussain bin Is’haq al-Tustari informed us, who was informed by Uthman bin Abi Shaybah, who was informed by Shababah bin Sawwar, who was informed by Abu Malik al-Nakha’i who narrated from Aswad bin Qays, who narrated from Nubayh al-Anazi, who narrated from Umm Ayman, who said: ‘‘One night the Prophet got up and went to a side to urinate in the bowl. During the night, I rose and was thirsty so I drank whatever was in it and I did not even realize what it was. In the morning, He said, ‘Oh Umm Ayman! Throw away whatever is in the bowl’. I replied, ‘I drank what was in the bowl’. He thereafter smiled as such that His teeth appeared and said, ‘Beware! You will never have stomach pain’’.

Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti reports from Abu Ya’la, Hakim, Dar Qutni, Tabarani, Abu Nu’aym from Umm Ayman (also known as Barakah) May Allah be pleased with her, who said, ‘the Prophet got up one night and urinated in a bowl. During that night, I rose in the state of thirst so I drank whatever was in the bowl. In the morning I told Him what I done and He smiled and said, ‘surely you will never have pain in your stomach’’. Abu Ya’ala’s wordings are as follows, ‘you will never feel stomach pain as of today’.

In Majam al-Zawa’id, Imam al-Haythami says, ‘in its channel of transmission is Abu Malik al-Nakha’I who is weak’.[7]

Qadhi Ayyadh considers this narration authentic on the basis that Dar Qutni authenticates it on the requisites of Bukhari and Muslim.[8]

Imam Nawawi authenticates this narration in Sharh al-Muhazzab as confirmed by Imam al-Zurqani in his commentary on al-Mawahib al-Ludunyah[9] Nawawi said it is hasan sahih. He based His opinion on the authentication of Dar Qutni and said ‘this is sufficient to take it as proof’.[10]

Mulla Ali Qari authenticates the narration of Umm Ayman, in His Jam al-Wasa’il, 2:3, Dar al-Marifah Beirut. Here are the wordings, ‘She said, ‘One night the Prophet got up and went to a side to urinate in the bowl. During the night, I rose and was thirsty so I drank whatever was in it and I did not even realize what it was. In the morning, He said, ‘Oh Umm Ayman! Throw away whatever is in the bowl’. I replied, ‘I drank what was in the bowl’. He thereafter smiled as such that His Teeth appeared and said, ‘Listen! I swear by Allah! You will never have stomach pain’’.

In the very same note, Mulla Ali Qari states, ‘Ibn Hajar said, many early scholars have upheld that His SAW excess was clean based on this narration’. Ibid.

The authentication of so many scholars of this hadith clearly indicates that there is more than one channel of transmission to Umm Ayman and not only through Abu Malik al-Nakha’i. Hence, the ruling of weakness cannot be generalized to all other transmissions and texts of hadith from Umm Ayman. Mulla Ali Qari states in the commentary of Qadhi Ayyadh’s forgoing statement, ‘its narrators are as the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim in uprightness and accuracy…the summary is that this hadith is of the rank of Bukhari and Muslim in its rigorous authenticity though not recorded by them’.[11]

Ibn Kathir narrates the hadith of Umm Ayman in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya[12] with the following channel of transmission. Hafiz Abu Ya’la said, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr al-Muqaddami informed me, who was informed by Ibn Qutaybah, who narrates from Hussain bin Harb, who narrates from Ya’la bin Ata, who narrates from Waleed bin Abd al-Rahman who narrates from Umm Ayman who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah May Allah send peace and blessings upon Him had a clay bowl in which he used to urinate and in the morning He used to say, ‘Oh Umm Ayman! Throw away what is in the bowl’. One night I woke up and was very thirsty so I drank whatever was in the bowl. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Oh Umm Ayman! Throw away what is in the bowl’. She replied, ‘Oh messenger of Allah! I got up and was thirsty so I drank what was in it’ to which He replied, ‘you will never have stomach pain anymore’’.

Notably, Imam Dhahabi is silent on the narration of Umm Ayman in Hakim’s Mustadrak which suggests that he had no concerns about the authenticity since he is well-known for His strictness in weakening hadith as is Imam Hakim in laxity in authenticating hadith. There are two possible reasons for his silence 1. His awareness of another chain to this text 2. Or the fact that this hadith is from the issues of excellence and requires no rigorously authentic narration, since a weak chain is sufficient here.

Hafiz Hassan bin Sufyan narrates this incident through Abu Malik al-Nakha’I in his Musnad.[13]

Hafiz Abu Ahmad al-Askari narrates this incident through Abu Malik.[14]

Hafiz Abu Nua’eem narrates this incident in His Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, Hilyat al-Awliya through Abu Malik[15]

Hafiz Abu Ali ibn al-Sukkan narrates this incident as recorded by Ibn Hajar in al-Isabah, thorugh a channel other than Abu Malik al-Nakha’i.[16]


Hadith Three.

Tabarani said: Ahmad bin Ziyad al-Haza al-Raqaiyy informed us, who was informed by Hajjaj bin Muhammad, who narrates from Ibn Jurayj who said: Hukaymah bint Umaymah bint Ruqayqah said, narrating from her mother: ‘the Prophet SAW used to have a wooden bowl in which he used to urinate and was placed under His bed. One night, He searched for it but did not find it and asked Barakah the slave girl of Umm Habeeba who came from Habsha with her, for it saying, ‘where is the urine in the bowl?’ She replied, ‘I drank it’ to which He uttered, ‘surely you have saved yourself from the fire’’. [17]

Imam Nisa’i and Abu Dawud narrate this narration of Umaymah in short version. Ibn Abd al-Barr completes the hadith of Nisa’i in his al-Isti’ab, as does Suyuti in his commentary on Sunan al-Nisa’i, with the following wording, ‘The Prophet urinated in the bowl and was placed under His bed. He asked Barakah who came from Habshah who used to serve Umm Habeebah, ‘where is the urine from this bowl?’ She replied, ‘I drank it oh messenger of Allah!’’ [18]

Suyuti narrates it in al-Jami al-Sagheer from Abu Dawud, Nisa’i and Hakim whilst marking its authenticity. Imam Manawi in its commentary adds the complete hadith, and says its narrators are from the narrators of al-Sahih (Bukhari).[19]

Note: The hadith scholars commonly take parts of a hadith and leave others out in respect to the topic or subject title in recourse. We find this quite common in Bukhari’s al-Sahih and many other works.

Imam Qurtabi narrates the very same incident as recorded by Ibn Abd al-Barr in al-Isti’ab. [20]

Bayhaqi narrates it in al-Sunan al-Kubra. He has an entire chapter dedicated to this issue entitled: ‘babu tarkihi al-Inkar ala man shariba bawlahu wa damahu’ ‘His concession to those who drank His urine and blood’.[21]

Suyuti also has an entire chapter on this issue in his al-Khasa’is al-Kubra in which he narrates this incident, entitled: ‘bab al-Istishfa bi bawlihi Sallalahu alaiyhi wa sallam’ chapter on seeking cure from His urine May Allah send peace and blessings upon Him.

Imam al-Asqalani narrates this incident in al-Isabah fi ma’rifat al-Sahabah under ‘Barakah al-Habshiyah’ and Talkhees al-Habeer.[22]

Hafiz Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani narrates this incident with a different wording from Ibn Jurayj who said: ‘I was told that the Prophet used to have a wooden bowl in which he used to urinate and was placed under His bed. Once, He searched for it but did not find it and asked Barakah the slave girl of Umm Habeeba who came from Habsha with her, for it saying, ‘where is the urine in the bowl?’ She replied, ‘I drank it’ to which He uttered, ‘Oh Umm Yusuf! You will be cured!’ This was her nickname or kuniyyah. She never became ill after that and died in good health’.

From this incident we understand that Umm Yusuf was also known as Barakah as well as Umm Ayman and these were two different incidents. Ibn Dihyah, authenticated both incidents as two separate ones as mentioned by Suyuti in al-Khasa’is, and al-Asqalani in Talkhees al-Habeer and al-Isabah.

Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani narrates it with His chain to Umaymah bint Ruqayqah.[23]

Ibn Mundah al-Asbahani narrates it in His Ma’rifat al-Sahabah.[24]




Finally, let me narrate two more incidents of the Sahabah on this issue.


Imam Abu Nu’aym narrates the practice of Anas RA, with his chain, who said: ‘The Messenger of Allah used to pray salah at his house and made it long. Once, He SAW urinated in the well, which was situated inside the house. Anas said: ‘there was no well in Madinah which tasted more cool and sweet than it’. He said: ‘when the sahabah come to my house I serve them with the sweet water of that well. In the era of jahiliyyah it was known as al-Barud, ‘the cool well’’’. [25]

Khateeb al-Baghdadi narrates a long hadith in ‘Ruwatu Malik’ on an incident which took place with the famous sahabi Jabir bin Abdullah. Imam Suyuti records it in His al-Khasa’is al-Kubra. The portion of this hadith is as follows: ‘Jabir said: ‘the Prophet SAW took some water for wudhu and saw two separate date trees. He SAW said to me: ‘Oh jabir! Go to them and tell them to get together’. They got together as if their roots were one. He then made wudhu as I brought the water to Him. I then thought in my head, only if Allah informs me to His SAW waste, so that I may consume it! I saw that the earth on which he sat was clean. So I asked, ‘Did you not make the toilet?’ to which he replied, ‘Yes, but the earth is ordered to hide away the excess of us prophets’. The date trees then separated…’’[26]


In the former narration we see that 1. The well of Anas became sweet, 2. He drank from it, 3. He used to serve the sahabah from it. In the latter narration we see that 1. The companion Jabir desired to consume the Prophet’s excess, 2. The earth is ordered to hide away His excess His. May Allah be pleased with them.


Three Principles of accepting these hadith narrations


The hadiths of Umm Ayman and Umaymah have more than one channels of transmission, from which only one chain of Umm Ayman is through Abu Malik al-Nakha'i. This explicitly shows that the hadith in this issue are authentic by various chains and weakness cannot be generalized to all narrations!

The chain which links through Abu Malik is only supporting the other narrations or mutabi hence an ancillary hadith.

Though the chain of Abu Malik is weak, it is accepted in issues of merits and excellence. The unanimity of Hadith Scholars concurs on the view that a weak hadith, unless forged, is accepted in such issues. See: Fat’h al-Mugheeth by al-Sakhawi, Tadreeb al-Rawi by Suyuti and others.





Final Word


The statement of al-Seyyid Muhammad al-Ya’qoubi is based on strong hadith evidence and rigorously authentic narrations from the Prophet SAW on the purity and cure of His urine as well as His blood (May Allah shower abundant peace and blessings on Him). Those who may object to His love for Sayyidi Rasulullah should bring forth their argument clearly so that a sound discussion is taken further.

One should be very careful of what they say about scholars through what THEY understand from scholarly statements. Commonly, people misunderstand and misinterpret the statements of the rightly guided scholars and end up facing shame due to their little knowledge and brief study.

May Allah enjoin us in Good and help us towards the truth.

Ameen, bijahi al-Nabiyy al-Karim

Munawwar Ateeq Rizvi

Notes and summary of Sheikh Ashraf al-Qadri’s epistle entitled ‘Hadeeth Shurb bawl-e-Nabawi’ (urdu)

03/05/05

Alhamdulillah, this article was completed today, 4th May 2005.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Al-Khasa’is al-Kubra 2:252, Matba’ah Da’irat al-Ma’arif, Hayder Abad.

[2] Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer

[3] (Majma’ al-Zawa’id 8: 270,271, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut).

[4] (al-Tahqeeq li Mishkat al-Masabeeh’, hadith no: 362, 1:117, Prnt Taba al-Maktab al-Islami Beirut)

[5] Hadith no: 1423, 3: 293, Prnt. Mu’assasat al-Risalah, Beirut.

[6] 2:111, prnt Tab al-Maktabah al-Islamiyah

[7] 8: 271,prnt. Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut

[8] al-Shifa, 1:41, prnt. Matba’ah Rustum Mustafa al-Halabi, Cairo

[9] 4:233, Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut.

[10] Sharh al-Muhazzab, 1:234, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut

[11] Sharh al-Shifa, 1:361, prnt. Al-Matba’ah al-Azhariyyah al-Misriyyah, Cairo

[10 ]Dhikru abeedihi wa imaa’ihi 5: 326, Maktabah al-Ma’arif Beirut

[13] See: Talkhees al-Habeer, Ibn Hajar Asqalani, 1:31, Maktabah Athariyyah, Sanghla Hill, Pakistan

[14] See: Ibid.

[15] Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, 2:380-381, prnt. Dar al-Baz, Makkah, Hilyat, ‘Trjimah 147 Umm Ayman’, 2:67, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut

[16] Biography no: 1145 ‘Umm Ayman mawlat al-Nabiyy wa hadhinatuhu’, 4:433, prnt, Maktabah al-Mathna, Baghdad

[17] al-Mu’jam al-Kebeer, Umaymah bint Ruqayqah Bint Sayfi, Hadith no: 477, 24:189, prnt. Makatabah Ibn Taymiyah, Cairo

[18] al-Isti’ab, 4:251, Matba’ah al-Sa’adah, Misr

[19] Faiz al-Qadeer, 5:177, prnt. Dar all-Ma’rifah, Beirut

[20] 4:251, Prnt. Maktabah al-Mathna, Baghdad

[21] 7:67 prnt. Matba’ah Majlis Da’irat al-Ma’arif al-Nizamiyah, HaiderAbad

[22] 1:31-32, prnt. Maktabah Athariyyah, Sanghla Hill, Pakistan)

[23] SEE: Usdl-Ghabah, Izz al-Din abn al-Atheer, 5:403, prnt. Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut

[24] See: Usd al-Ghabah, Izz al-Din abn al-Atheer, 5:403, prnt. Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut)

[25] Dala’il al-Nubuwwah, 2:381, Dar al-Baz, Makkah

[26] 2: 30, al-Maktabah al-Nuriyyahh al-Ridhwiyyah, Laiylpur.

Apples and Oranges

Part one of a series posted on Sunniforum by our brother Abu Junaydah al-Hanbali in exposition of the Creed of Imam as-Safarini al-Hanbali.


Apples and Oranges

A comparison between the Atharī creed as expounded by Imām as-Safarīnī and the Salafī creed


Bismillah,

This is not a refutation. Whoever agrees with this, then al-Hamdulillah. Whoever disagrees, then al-Hamdulillah. The purpose of this collection of quotes is not to prove who is right and who is wrong among the Muslim groups, but rather, it is to establish who is who among the Imāms of this Dīn.

Some have taken Imām Muhammad as-Safārīnī al-Hanbalī al-Atharī as a Salafi, whereas the reality is quite different. Some time ago, I said that whoever wants to see the real difference between the old Athari creed held by the non-Mujassim Hanābilah and the neo-Salafi Mujassim creed of yesterday and today, all they have to do is read Imām as-Safārīnī’s work and look for all of the salafi footnotes refuting him and even accusing him of lying.

This is not a research by any means. Some brothers requested that I make this information public and in the English language for general benefit, so here it is. My work in this is very insignificant. I did a cursory reading of Imām as-Safārīnī’a Lawāmi’ al-Anwār al-Bahiyyah wa Sawāti’ al-Asrār al-Athariyyah which is an explanation of his own poem in Atharī creed tittled: ad-Durrah al-Madiyyah fi Aqīdah al-Firqatil Mardiyyah. In this cursory reading. I highlighted the more obvious differences between the Atharī creed and Salafi creed of old and new. I have kept my comments to a minimum because I feel that the Imām’s words are enough. I didn’t bother to explain many of the Kalāmi terms used by Imām as-Safārīnī because, in all honesty, those who stand to benefit from his words already know what they mean, and those who don’t, probably shouldn’t be reading this in the first place until they learn those terms.

By no means have I gathered everything there is on this topic and by no means do I make the claim that there are no real differences between the Atharīs and their brothers from the Ashā’irah and Mātūrīdiyyah. But the time has come for us to mature and admit the valid diversity within Ahlus-Sunnah, they being all three together.

All Tawfīq is from Allāh. He is our Mawlā. May He unite the hearts of the believers and guide us to the path of true Tanzīh and remove us from the cesspool of Tajsīm and Tashbīh
.
al-Faqīr ila Mawlāhu
Abul Junaydah
4.4.06





PART ONE

Comments on issues pertaining to Allāh’s names and attributes



In the course of speaking of some of the deviated sects that have appeared in this Ummah, Imām as-Safārīnī said:

Six: The Mushabbihah; those who made Allāh to resemble His creation. They have differed regarding their methods of Tasbīh. From them there are the Musabbihah of the extreme Shi’ah as was mentioned earlier. From them are the Mushabbihah of the Hashawiyah who said that He the Exalted is from flesh and blood and that He posseses bodily limbs. Some of them said when asked by their companions: ‘leave the beard and private parts and ask me about anything besides them.’ And from them (the Mushabbihah) are the Karāmiyyah, the companions of Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Karām. They said that Allāh is upon the throne in the direction of Uluw (above) and that movement and descent is permissible for Him. It has been said (reported from them) that He fills the throne and they differed is that is the limit or is there something else besides it. From them (the Mushabbihah) are those who use the word Jism (corperal body) with regards to Him (Allāh the Exalted). In the Qāmūs it states: ‘And Muhammad ibn Karām like Shaddād the Imām of the Karāmiyyah who says that his object of worship (Ma’būduhu) is settled upon the throne (Mustaqirr, from the verbal noun Istiqrār) and that He is a Jawhar (matter), far exalted is He from that…(page 91)

Further on, Imām as-Safārīnī mentions the text of his poem in creed. He said:

so they (the Athariyyah) affirmed the Nusūs (the texts regarding the Divine Attributes) with Tanzīh

without Ta’til (denial of the attributes) or Tashbīh

so all that has come from the Ayāt or been authentically reported from the reliable ones

from the Ahādīth, we pass it on as it has come so hear my poem (Nadhm) and know.

In the course of explaining the meanings of his own words, he said:

from the Ahādīth- the authentic ones and the clear Athār that appear to imply Tashbīh or likeness (tamthīl), they are from the Mutashābih that none know but Allāh, so we believe in them and that they are from Allāh and (pass it on as it has come) from Allāh or from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi was sallam. (page 95-96)

He further said:

So the Madh’hab of the Salaf is that they describe Allāh the Exalted with what He described Himself and what the Messenger of Allāh sallallahu alayhi was sallam described Him with, without any altering (tahrīf) or ‘howness’ (Takyīf). And He the glorified there is nothing like unto Him-not in His Dhāt, not in His attributes, and not in His actions. All that necessitates deficiency or Hudūth (change), then Allāh is free from that in reality (Haqīqatan), for He, the Exalted is the one fully deserving perfection that is the peak (of perfection) having nothing beyond it. The Madh’hab of the Salaf is to not to delve into the likes of this (Ta’tīl and Takyīf), to remain quiet concerning it, and to relegate knowledge of it (Tafwīd Ilmihi) to Allāh the Exalted. (page 96-97)


speaking of the Madh’hab of the true Hanābilah regarding Allāh’s Divine attributes, Imām as-Safārīnī says:


“…and it is obligatory to affirm them for Him in the manner that they have appeared (in the texts- kama warad) and we entrust the meaning of it to al-‘Azīz al-Hakīm.” (page 107)


Speaking on the obligation upon every legally responsible person, Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“It is obligatory in the Sharī’ah on every legally responsible person to know Allāh the Exalted with the attributes of perfection and to explicitly declare (that He) the Exalted (is one) and that He is not composed of parts or divisible, He is one and absolute.”


On the Qur’ān, Imām as-Safārīnī says in his poem:

His speech, the Exalted is ancient (Qadīm)

He futher said:

“And it (speech-al-Kalām) is obligatory upon Him the Exalted, meaning; it is obligatory to explicitly believe that He the Exalted speaks with speech that is Qadīm (ancient), Dhātī (from His essence), Wujūdī (present with Him), not created or Muhdath (newly founded?) or Hādith.” (page 132-133)

He further said:

“The clarified position of the Salaf is that Allāh the Exalted is Mutakallim (speaks) as has proceeded, and that His speech is ancient (Qadīm), and that the Qur’ān is the speech of Allāh and that it is ancient (Qadīm) in both its letters and meaning.” (page 137)



Imām as-Safārīnī says in his poem:

and our Lord is not a Jawhar nor (is He) and ‘Ard or Jism exalted be He the possessor of grandeur.

Glorified is He, He has (performed the act of) Istiwā as it has appeared (in the text) without a ‘how’ indeed exalted and far removed is He from being confined by a limit (Yuhadd)



On Istiwā

Imām as-Safārīnī said:

“It has been narrated from ash-Sha’bī that he was asked about al-Istiwā. He replied: ‘This is from the Mutshābih of the Qur’ān. We believe in it and we do not delve into its meaning’.”

He further said:

“So the meaning of the statement of Umm Salamah radia Allah Anha in the Hadīth and those who traversed her path from the Imāms is that: Istiwā is known; meaning His description that He the Exalted is upon the throne (‘ala al-‘Arsh), (Istiwā) : meaning Istiwā that is known by way of textual evidence that is established by Tawātur (multiple chains of transmission)” (page 200)

Imām as-Safārīnī said in his poem:

so all that has come in the evidence is established without any resemblance
from the likes of, mercy and His Wajh, His Yad and all things like this.
His ‘Ain and the attribute of Nuzūl and His (act of) creation so beware of descending (into Tashbīh)
For the rest of the attributes and actions are Qadīmah (ancient) for Allāh the possessor of grandeur
however it is without ‘howness’ or resemblance despite (the opposition) of the people of deviation and Ta’tīl
so pass them on as they have appeared in the reminder (the Qur’ān) without any Ta’wīl and without any Fikr (thought).

Imām as-Safārīnī says in explanation of his own words:

al-Hāfidh al-Bayhaqī said: ‘ the earlier generation of scholars (the Mutaqqadimūn) of this Ummah did not explain what appeared in the Ayāt of Akhbār (the Sifāt not known without textual affirmation) in this area, all the while they possessed belief that Allāh is One and that it is not permissible that He be divisible…’


Imām as-Safārīnī went on to quote the famous words of Imām an-Nawawī concerning the Hadith that affirm the word Yad (lit. Hand):

“This is from the narrations pertaining to the Divine attributes. So we either believe in them and we do not speak with Ta’wīl of them and believe that the apparent (meanings-the primary meaning for the words used in the Arabic language) are not intended and that they possess meanings that befit Allāh, or they are interpreted in such fashion that it is said that what is intended by them both being right (the Hadith stating that both of His Yads are right) is that it means in a good condition or high rank. In his statement that both of His Yads are right contains a notice that what is intended is not that they are limbs and that His two Yads the Exalted possess that attribute of perfection without any deficiency in either of the two because the left is deficient when compared to the right.

Here Imām as-Safārīnī quotes Imām an-Nawawī without any opposition, rather, this quote indicates support for his words.

In the section affirming belief in the attribute of al-‘Ain, Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“…rather, we assent and submit and comply and believe in all of that and affirm it with the affirmation of existence and not the affirmation of ‘howness’ or Tahdīd (giving it a precise meaning).”

Imām as-Safārīnī does not say explicitly “Without giving it a precise meaning”, but this is what is understood from the word Tahdid. This word comes from Haddada, Yuhaddidu Tahdīd which means to give a Hadd to something. Hadd, in the nomenclature of the scholars means meaning given to something.

The logician and grammarian, Imām Ibn Sabban said in a line of poetry about the introduction to sciences:

Inna Mabadi’a Kulli Fannin Ashara
al-Haddu wal Mawdu’u Thumma ath-Thamara…

Indeed the basics of every subject are ten
(from them) al-Hadd (the definition), the subject matter, and the fruit…

In affirmation of the attribute called ‘Ain, as taken from the Hadith of the Dajjāl being blind in one eye, Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“…al-Bayhaqī, al-Qurtubī and others mentioned: ‘in this narration there contains the negation of Awr (blindness) from Allāh the Exalted and affirmation of al-‘Ain for Him as an attribute. We know from His words: “There is nothing like unto Him.” that it is not an organ.”

Imām as-Safārīnī states:

Our scholars say:
“The divine texts have established an attribute for Him the Exalted that is called al-‘Ain, so it is passed on just like (the attribute) of hearing and seeing. By affirming the Ain, it is not (affirming what is) a bodily organ whose description is a piece of flesh because that Ain (eye) is a body that has a beginning and Allāh is far removed from that. As for the Ain that the Creator-the Mighty and Exalted- is described with, it is one that is befitting His essence in that it is not a Jism, a Jawhar, nor an‘Ard. So there is not known for it a how nor reality (the Māhiyah of it- i.e. the actual essence of it in the Haqīqah).”

Speaking of Nuzūl, he quoted Imām al-Bayhaqī saying:

“The safest position is Imān in it without ‘how’, and remaining quiet about what is intended by it unless expounded upon by the truthful and confirmed one (i.e. the Messenger of Allah) sallallahu alayhi was sallam whereby we could hold to that…and from the evidence for that, is their agreement that the particular Ta’wīl is not obligatory, so in that case, Tafwīd is safer.”

Again, Imām as-Safārīnī quoted without anything but tacit approval and acceptance.


Imām as-Safārīnī quoted al-Qādī (I suppose he is referring to Qadī ‘Iyād, although there is a possibility that he means Qādī Abdul Wahhāb) in explanation of the Hadith of Nuzūl:

“We do not affirm a Nuzūl (that means a Nuzūl) from a high position to a lower one, rather, (we affirm) a Nuzūl whose meaning is not comprehended and it is not comprehended in reality.” (page 250)

In this same page, Imām as-Safārīnī explicitly affirms Nuzūl without movement (Harakah) or relocation (Intiqāl)

He goes on to quote the words of Shaykh ‘Imād ad-Dīn al-Wāsitī who said:
“His (Allāh’s) Nuzūl is established and known and not Mukayyaf (given a ‘how’) with movement and relocation that is fitting for something created. Rather, His Nuzūl is as befits His Grandeur and Might. So His attributes, the Exalted, are known in general and affirmed, not comprehended in terms of ‘howness’ and Tahdīd. So the believer sees them (understands them) from one angle, and is blind from another. He sees (understands) in the sense of affirming their existence, and he is blind in the sense of ‘howness’ and Tahdīd and by Allāh is all strength.” (page 250)

In this text quoted above, it is clearly shown that Tahdīd is not synonymous with a new fangled term called Tafwīd al-Kayf.

On page 252, Imām as-Safārīnī shows that the Athariyyah are in agreement with the Māturīdiyyah in affirming the attribute of Takhlīq (creation).

On page 257, Imām as-Safārīnī affirms that the Atharī position is that the attributes of action such as Istiwā, Nuzūl, Majī, Khalq, ect are Qadīmah, i.e. they are ancient according to the Salaf of this Ummah and the Imāms of the Dīn. He says:

“Nothing of them are Muhdath, otherwise (if that were so) He would be subject to change and what is subject to change is created and Allāh is Exalted above that.”

The Salafi editors of this edition of Imām as-Safārīnīs book saw fit to place a footnote under his above mentioned words. They said after quoting a Salafi response from ibn Sahmān:

“So if you know this, it will become clear to you that the statement of the explainer (i.e. Imām as-Safārīnī) concerning Allāhs actions of Ikhtiyār (choice) that: ‘Nothing of them are Muhdath, otherwise (if that were so) He would be subject to change and what is subject to change is created and Allāh is Exalted above that’ -is not from the words of the Salaf and its Imāms, rather it is from the words of the people of innovation who are opposed to the Salaf.”



Explaining the line of poetry wherin he says ‘Without any Fikr (thought), Imām as-Safārīnī says:

“(without any Fikr) concerning its meanings for that is not within the capability of human beings for them to be responsible for that nor is it within their ability to know it. And upon that method, thus traversed the Imāms of the Salaf and the truth who passed

Concerning the Hadith mentioning the Isba’ (translated as finger), Imām as-Safarīnī quoted Imām ibn al-Hammām:

“The Isba’ and Yad are attributes of His, the Exalted, not with the meaning of a bodily part, rather, in a manner that befits Him and He the Glorified knows best.”

Imām as-Safārīnī went on to quote from Hujjatul Islam, Imām Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī’s monumental tract on creed, called Iljām al-‘Awām ‘an Ilm al-Kalām wherein he said:

“Know, that the correct truth that contains no doubt therein according to the people of insight is the Madh’hab of the Salaf, and I mean the Companions and the Tābi’ūn, may Allāh be pleased with all of them…”

Then he said:

“The reality of the Madh’hab of the Salaf- and it is the truth according to us- is that all who reach them a Hadith from the Hadith of the Akhbār (the attributes) from the general body of the people, it is obligatory upon that person to (hold to) seven things;

1. at-Taqdīs (declaring Allāh far removed from having a Jism)
2. at-Tasdīq ( believing in what was said)
3. al-‘Itirāf bil ‘Ajz (admitting that one cannot comprehend)
4. as-Sukūt (remaining silent)
5. al-Imsāk (the hold back from altering the words used)
6. al-Kaff (holding back from thinking deeply and pondering its reality)
7. at-Taslīm li Ahlil Ma’rifah (submitting to the people of knowledge)…”

Imām as-Safārīnī quoted Imām al-Ghazālī and supported his words, so what can be said about this in comparison to the Salafi creed?



Part two: Qadr, Kasb, at-Tahsin and at-Taqbīh al-Aqli

coming soon in sha Allah.


waAllahu Alam.

Ibn Kathir on Ayah 4:64 and Tawassul through our Nabi

وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللَّهَ تَوَّاباً رَّحِيماً

[4:64]



Before discussing the Imam's tafsir of the Ayah cited above let us remind ourselves what Imam Ibn Kathir says in al Bidaya wal Nihaya (7/106) regarding the following authentic hadith:


وقال الحافظ أبو بكر البيهقي: أخبرنا أبو نصر بن قتادة، وأبو بكر الفارسي قالا: حدثنا أبو عمر بن مطر، حدثنا إبراهيم بن علي الذهلي، حدثنا يحيى بن يحيى، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن الأعمش، عن أبي صالح، عن مالك قال: أصاب الناس قحط في زمن عمر بن الخطاب، فجاء رجل إلى قبر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
فقال: يا رسول الله استسق الله لأمتك فإنهم قد هلكوا.
فأتاه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في المنام فقال: إيت عمر، فأقرئه مني السلام، وأخبرهم أنه مسقون، وقل له عليك بالكيس الكيس.
فأتى الرجل فأخبر عمر، فقال: يا رب ما آلوا إلا ما عجزت عنه.وهذا إسناد صحيح.

al-Bayhaqi relates.......:

It is related from Malik al-Dar, `Umar's treasurer, that the people suffered a drought during the successorship of `Umar, whereupon a man came to the grave of the Prophet and said: "O Messenger of Allah, ask for rain for your Community, for verily they have but perished," after which the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and told him: "Go to `Umar and give him my greeting, then tell him that they will be watered. Tell him: You must be clever, you must be clever!" The man went and told `Umar. The latter said: "O my Lord, I spare no effort except in what escapes my power!"


Ibn Kathir cites it thus from Bayhaqi in al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya and says: isnaduhu sahih.

Ibn Kathir in his recently published: Jami al-Masanid (1/223) - Musnad Umar - declared it as: "Isnaduhu Jayyid Qawi: ITS CHAIN OF TRANSMISSION IS GOOD AND STRONG"

Let the Salafiyya take note - that this is the ruling of ibn Kathir in 2 places.

[quotes from sidi Abul Hasan]



Did Ibn Kathir RH claim the action in this Sahih Hadith was tantamount to Shirk or a means to Shirk as some contemporary Salafis dare?



On to the subject of this thread - Ayah 4:64:



وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذ ظَّلَمُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ جَآءُوكَ فَاسْتَغْفَرُواْ اللَّهَ وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمُ الرَّسُولُ لَوَجَدُواْ اللَّهَ تَوَّاباً رَّحِيماً




"...If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful"



Imam Ibn Kathir cites a famous "story" regarding this ayah in his glorious TAFSIR [which surprisingly you will not find in the "abridged" Darus-Salam translation!!]:


وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ جَمَاعَة مِنْهُمْ الشَّيْخ أَبُو مَنْصُور الصَّبَّاغ فِي كِتَابه الشَّامِل الْحِكَايَة الْمَشْهُورَة عَنْ الْعُتْبِيّ قَالَ :
كُنْت جَالِسًا عِنْد قَبْر النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَجَاءَ أَعْرَابِيّ فَقَالَ : السَّلَام عَلَيْك يَا رَسُول اللَّه سَمِعْت اللَّه يَقُول " وَلَوْ أَنَّهُمْ إِذْ ظَلَمُوا أَنْفُسهمْ جَاءُوك فَاسْتَغْفَرُوا اللَّه وَاسْتَغْفَرَ لَهُمْ الرَّسُول لَوَجَدُوا اللَّه تَوَّابًا رَحِيمًا " وَقَدْ جِئْتُك مُسْتَغْفِرًا لِذَنْبِي مُسْتَشْفِعًا بِك إِلَى رَبِّي ثُمَّ أَنْشَأَ يَقُول : يَا خَيْر مَنْ دُفِنَتْ بِالْقَاعِ أَعْظُمه فَطَابَ مِنْ طِيبهنَّ الْقَاع وَالْأَكَم نَفْسِي الْفِدَاء لِقَبْرٍ أَنْتَ سَاكِنه فِيهِ الْعَفَاف وَفِيهِ الْجُود وَالْكَرَم ثُمَّ اِنْصَرَفَ الْأَعْرَابِيّ فَغَلَبَتْنِي عَيْنِي فَرَأَيْت النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَآله وَسَلَّمَ فِي النَّوْم فَقَالَ : يَا عُتْبِيّ الْحَقْ الْأَعْرَابِيّ فَبَشِّرْهُ أَنَّ اللَّه قَدْ غَفَرَ لَهُ


"And a group from amongst them including Shaikh Abu Nasrin Al-Sabbagh in his book Ash-Shamil, have mentioned the famous (Mashhur) story of/from al-Utbi' who said:

"As I was sitting by the grave of the Prophet, a Bedouin Arab came and said: "Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah! I have heard Allah saying: "If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful" (4:64), so I have come to you asking forgiveness for my sin, seeking your intercession with my Lord." Then he began to recite poetry:

O best of those whose bones are buried in the deep earth,

And from whose fragrance the depth

and the height have become sweet,

May I be the ransom for a grave which thou inhabit,

And in which are found purity, bounty and munificence!

Then he left, and I dozed and saw the Prophet in my sleep. He said to me: "O `Utbi, run after the Beduin and give him glad tidings that Allah has forgiven him.""




Take Note: The above Mashur [famous] story has been related by many Ulema, including Imam Nawawi in his al-Adhkar, Ibn Qudamah RH and many others.


I am not citing this report of Utbi as a proof for Tawassul..... so you can argue about its matn or isnad or whatever as much as you like but you will be missing the point!

What one should ask themselves is this: why would Ibn Kathir [RH] cite this story in his Tafsir of the Ayah 4:64 if there was even an ounce of danger of the practice being shirk or even leading to shirk?

It is clear that what is found in this famous story is not shirk according to Ibn Kathir.... no where near it!

And you can see a similar report cited by Imam al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir which I can provide if needed.


The proof for the action cited in these stories? See the Hadith of Malik al-Dar posted above which was explicitly declared Sahih by Ibn Kathir RH in two places.

wa Allahu Alam.