Refutation of Khawarij who try to weaken Kufr duna Kufr narration of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) #SuleimanUlwan
THE ROUTE OF TAAWOOS FROM ’ABDULLAAH IBN ’ABBAS (RADI ALLAAH ’ANHUMAA) AND A STUDY OF THIS ROUTE OF TRANSMISSION #کفردونکفر #KufrDunaKufr
From ’Abdullaah bin ’Abbaas (radi Allaahu ’anhumaa) in regards to Allaah saying: ((وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِ رُونَ))
“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are disbelievers.”
{al-Maa’idah (5): 44}
It is not the kufr that you are going towards (in your minds).
And in another narration:
It is not the kufr that you are going towards (in your minds), it is not the kufr that expels one from the religion,
“And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are disbelievers.”
{al-Maa’idah (5): 44}
...is kufr less than kufr.
This is reported by: Sa’eed bin Mansoor, Sunan, vol.4, p.1482, no.749; Ahmad, al-Eemaan, vol.4,
p.160, no.1419 via Ibn Battah in his al-Ibaanah, vol.2, p.736, no.1010; Muhammad bin Nasr al-
Marwazee, Ta’dheem Qadr us-Salaah, vol.2, p.521, no.569; Ibn Abee Haatim, Tafseer, vol.4, p.1143,
no.6434 (al-Baaz edition); Ibn ’AbdulBarr, at-Tamheed, vol.4, p.237; al-Haakim, vol.2, p.313; al-
Bayhaqee, vol.8, p.20. The chain of transmission is via Sufyaan bin ’Uyaynah from Hishaam bin
Hujayr from Taawoos from Ibn ’Abbaas.
Al-Haakim said: “This hadeeth has an authentic chain of transmission and Shaykhayn did not transmit it.” Adh-Dhahabee agreed with him.
Our Shaykh, the lion of the Sunnah, al-’Allaamah al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) stated in as-Saheehah, vol.6, p.113:
It would have been more deserving that they said: “...on the conditions of Shaykhayn” as the isnad is of this type. Then I saw that al-Haafidh Ibn Katheer transmitted in his Tafseer, vol.6, p.163 from al-Haakim that he said: “the hadeeth is Saheeh on the conditions of Shaykhayn.” It is apparent in the manuscript copy of al-Mustadrak that there is an error. Ibn Katheer ascribed the narration as being transmitted by Ibn Abee Haatim also yet with some abridgment.
The sanad is as has been mentioned yet there is some discussion over Hishaam bin Hujayr’s narration from Taawoos, yet this does not decrease the hadeeth below the level of hasan. The issue of Hishaam bin #Hujayr in this narration has been seized upon by the new-age #takfiri activists, yet #Faisal al-Jamaykee does not attack the narration of “kufr less than kufr” from this angle, due to his lack of knowledge of the controversy surrounding the sanad. However, other new-age takfiri activists, have tried to attack the sanad in following #Sulaymaan al-’#Ulwaan and others.
======
Let’s look at what the scholars stated about Hishaam bin Hujayr: Ibn Shabramah said: “there is no Sunnah.” Ibn Ma’een stated: “Saalih (acceptable in narrating)”, Aboo Haatim ar-Raazee said:
“his hadeeth are to be documented (i.e. accepted)”, Ibn Sa’d said: “he is thiqah and has narrated ahaadeeth.” Ibn Shaaheen said: “he is thiqah” and Ibn Hibbaan also deemed him to be thiqah. Zakariyyah bin Yahyaa as-Saajee (d.307 AH),
one in Makkah like him”, al-’Ijlee said: “he was thiqah (trustworthy) and a man of the one of the students of Imaam al-Muzanee, stated: “Sudooq (truthful and thus acceptable)” and adh-Dhahabee said: “he is thiqah” and al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: “he is Sudooq but he does have some errors.” Yahyaa al-Qattaan, Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Ma’een (in one narration) deemed Hishaam bin Hujayr to be weak. So it is stated:
A narrator whose condition is like this is not decreased below the level of hasan and Shaykhaan transmitted from him and utilised his narrations wherein he was not the only single narrator and where there were other narrators (who reported the hadeeth).
Those who weaken this route of the narration allegedly do so on the basis of what was stated about Hishaam bin Hujayr by Imaam Ahmad who said “he is not strong” and “laysa bi dhaak” (a criticism of a narrator); and they also utilise the tad’eef of Hishaam bin Hujayr by Ibn Ma’een and Yahyaa al-Qattaan. However, the wording “he is not strong” is not necessarily deeming the narrator to be weak and rejected, as what the Muhadditheen intend by this is that: his memory and acumen became weak and it is also a negation of complete strength. The statement “he is not strong” is not however a complete negation of a narrator’s basis.
What indicates this is what was stated by Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) in regards to Iqaamat ud-Daleel [Establishing the Evidence] as found in al-Fataawaa al-Kubraa, vol.3, p.243, in discussing ’Utbah bin Humayd ad-Dabbee al-Basree:
It has been relayed from Imaam Ahmad that he said: “he is weak and he is not strong” however, the intent of this term of expression (for a narrator) is that: his hadeeth are not saheeh but rather is hadeeth are hasan. So they (some of the early scholars) would name such hadeeth as being “da’eef” yet still utilise them because they were hasan.
May Allaah reward Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullaah) with good for this beneficial point. Imaam al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabee stated in al-Muqaddimat ul-Muqidhah (p.319) that:
“It has been stated about a group of narrators that “he is not strong” yet they have been utilised.” An-Nasaa’ee stated about many narrators “he is not strong” and clarified his use of this by mentioning in his Kitaab that: “Our use of ‘he is not strong’ is not a negative disparagement.” He also said (p.322):
What is established when Aboo Haatim says: ‘he is not strong’ is that he intends by this that:
this Shaykh (narrator) does not reach the (top) level of strong verification.
The adh-Dhahabee of his time, Shaykh al-Mu’allimee al-Yamaanee (rahimahullaah) stated in at-Tankeel
(vol.1, p.240):
The words ‘he is not strong’ negates absolute strength even if absolute weakness is not affirmed; and the words “he is not strong” only negates a complete level of strength.
Imaam al-Albaanee stated in (p.183):
Aboo Haatim’s statement: “he is not strong” does not mean that the narrator is weak because weakness is not the meaning of the terms “he is not strong”. So between both (i.e. saying “he is not strong” and deeming a narrator as weak) is a manifest difference according to the people of knowledge.
Imaam al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) also said (p.254):
The statement of Ahmad and an-Nasaa’ee: “he is not strong” does not negate the narrator as only absolute strength is negated from a narrator described with this as is apparent to those with understanding of this science.
This very clearly indicates that Imaam Ahmad did not absolutely weaken a narrator when he described such a narrator with the words: “he is not strong” (“laysa bi Qawi’”). Rather, the hadeeth of such a narrator are considered to reach the level of hasan not saheeh and this agrees with what was mentioned by Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Furthermore, ’Abdullaah bin Ahmad reported from his father in al-’Ilal (vol.1, p.130) that his father said: “Hishaam bin Hujayr Makkee is da’eef” and then he transmitted from Ibn Shabramah: “there is no one in Makkah who has
more understanding than him.” So this has to be understood in light of what Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) mentioned previously so there is nothing problematic here and all praise is due to Allaah. There is also a shubhah that people refer to which is that ’Abdullaah bin Ahmad said: “I asked Yahyaa bin Ma’een about him and he said that he is very weak.”
Yet this has been cut, for the remainder of Yahyaa bin Ma’een’s words on Hishaam reveal that Yahyaa bin Ma’een had different views about him. For ’Abdullaah bin Imaam Ahmad said:
“I asked Yahya ‘Is Hishaam bin Hujayr more beloved to you than ’Amru bin Muslim?’ Yahya replied: ‘Na’am (‘yes’).’”
Shaykh Burhaanuddeen Ibraaheem bin Moosaa bin Ayyoob al-Abnaasee as-Safee, 577-643 AH,
(rahimahullaah) stated in ash-Shadhah al-Fayyaah min ’Uloom Ibn is-Salaah (vol.1, p.268)23: “The phrase
“Saalih ul-Hadeeth (acceptable in hadeeth)” is one of the levels of commendation.” So this is the condition of Hishaam bin Hujayr, for he was deemed credible and trustworthy by Ibn Sa’d, al-’Ijlee, Ibn Hibbaan, Ibn Shaaheen and adh-Dhahabee who stated in al-Kaashif: “Hishaam bin Huajyr is thiqah (trustworthy).” Al-Qattaan weakned him and al-Haafidh (Ibn Hajar) stated about him: “Sudooq, yet he has some errors.” Therefore, there is a difference of opinion over him with some deeming him weak and more deeming him credible and trustworthy, so what are we to do? Are we to annul his credibility and give the jarh precedence? Or are we to reach an agreement between the two? Is the one about whom it is said: “Sudooq” or “his station is that of sidq (truthfulness)” or “there is no problem with him” – mentioned among the Du’afaa?! Glory be to Allaah from the sinful falsifiers! Ibn Abee Haatim stated in al-Jarh wa’t-Ta’deel, vol.2, p.37:
If it is said about a narrator: “Sudooq”, “his level is that of sidq (truthfulness)” and “there is no problem with him” – then his hadeeth are documented and looked at and this is of the second level. If it is said about a narrator “Shaykh” then he reaches the third level and his hadeeth are to be documented and investigated except for that it is lesser than the second level. If it is said about a narrator “Saalih ul-Hadeeth” then his hadeeth are to be documented with consideration (of other transmissions).
So you see here that Ibn Abee Haatim considers the terms and phrases: “Sudooq”, “Shaykh” and “Saalih ul-Hadeeth” as that which renders a narrator as having his hadeeth documented and recorded. So are those who have their hadeeth documented and recorded to be considered “da’eef” and the likes?!
=============
Hishaam bin Hujayr is not the only one via whom reports “kufr less than kufr”, rather ’Abdullaah
bin Taawoos also transmits it and he is thiqah (trustworthy), for he reported via his father:
Within him is kufr, but it is not like the kufr of one who disbelieves in Allaah and the Last Day.
This is reported by Sufyaan bin Sa’eed ath-Thawree (d.161 AH) in his Tafseer (vol.101, p.241) via at-Tahaawee in Mushkil ul-Aathaar, vol.2, p.317. The chain of transmission is authentic and the narrators are thiqaat and are utilised by Shaykhayn and deemed authentic based on the conditions of Shaykhayn. Sa’d bin ’Abdullaah Aal Humayd, in his edit of Sunan Sa’eed bin Mansoor (vol.4, p.1484), has claimed that this narration has a defect due to a severance of the narrations between ath-Thawree and Ibn Taawoos. Yet this is an error because ath-Thawree heard from ’Abdullaah bin Taawoos and ath-Thawree narrated from him as documented in a hadeeth in Saheeh Muslim! So how can it be said that ath-Thawree did not hear from ’Abdullaah bin Taawoos?! This error is due to the fact that ath-Thawree one time narrated via Ma’mar from Ibn Taawoos. Yet this is not a problem as ath-Thawree narrated from Ibn Taawoos directly on one occasion and on another occasion via Ma’mar, so this would be considered an additional narration as is apparent to those who work in this field. This narration is from: Wakee’ and Aboo Usaamah both from ath-Thawree from Ma’mar bin Raashid from ’Abdullaah bin Taawoos:
Within him is kufr, but it is not like the kufr of one who disbelieves in Allaah, His angels, His Books and His Messengers.
The chain of transmission is Saheeh and was documented and reported by:
Imaam Ahmad in al-Eemaan, vol.4, pp.158-159, no.1414; Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwazee, Ta’dheem Qadr us-Salaah, vol.2, p.521, no.571, p.522, no.572; al-Fareeyaabee, Tafseer as documented in ad-Durar al-Manthoor, vol.3, p.87 and at-Tahaawee also records it via him, vol.2, pp.317-318; at-Tabaree, Jaami’ ul-Bayaan, vol.6, p.166; Ibn Battah, al-Ibaanah, vol.2, p.734, no.1005; Imaam al-Albaanee (rahimahullaah) also authenticated it in his commentary on the book al-Eemaan (p. 307) by Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah. Another narration is from Ma’mar from ’Abdullaah bin Taawoos: “it is kufr”, Ibn Taawoos said:
It is not like the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Allaah, His Angels, His Books and His Messengers.
This is reported by Imaam Ahmad in al-Eemaan, vol.4, p.160, no.1420; Ibn Nasr al-Marwazee, Ta’dheem Qadr us-Salaah, vol.2, p.521, no.570; at-Tabaree, Jaami’ Bayaan, vol.6, p.166; Ibn Abee Haatim, Tafseer, vol.4, p.1143, no.6435; Qaadee Wakee’, Akhbaar ul-Qudaat, vol.1, p.41; Ibn Battah, al-Ibaanah, vol.2, p.736, no.1009 – and all of them from ’AbdurRazzaaq in his Tafseer, vol.1, p.1, no.191. Imaam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (rahimahullaah) in his Hukm Taarik us-Salaah (p.74) mentions the narration of Ibn ’Abbaas via the narration of ’AbdurRazzaaq:
Within them is kufr and it is not like the kufr one who disbelieves in Allaah, His Angels, His Books and His Messengers.
And in another narration: “It is the kufr which does not expel one from the religion.”
As for those who try to throw doubt on transmission of Sufyaan ath-Thawree from Ma’mar bin Raashid then the following questions have to be asked: what is the evidence that ath-Thawree heard from Ma’mar in other than Yemen (as is claimed by some)? What is the proof that Ma’mar’s narrations in other than Yemen are not accepted (as is claimed by some)? All of these academic questions have to be asked and there also have to be answers from those who deny “kufr less than kufr” via this narration. For the narration of Sufyaan ath-Thawree from Ma’mar is well-known and acceptable within the books of Sunnah, like for example:
9 Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, hadeeth nos. 4749, 5944 and 7083
9 Saheeh Muslim, hadeeth nos. hadeeth 977, 979, 1628
9 Sunan at-Tirmidhee, hadeeth nos.140, 858, 1346, 1444
9 Sunan an-Nasaa’ee, hadeeth no.5381
9 Sunan Abee Daawood, hadeeth no.1576
9 Sunan Ibn Maajah, hadeeth no 3797
9 Musnad Imaam Ahmad, vol.1, p.220, vol.3, p.185 and vol.6, pp.38, 40 and 387
Al-Haafidh al-’Ijlee stated in Taareekh uth-Thiqaat (p.435, no.1611, Daar ul-Kutub il-’Ilmiyyah print):
Ma’mar bin Raashid Aboo ’Urwah, a Basree who lived in Yemen and was a righteous man who reported from Ibn ul-Mubaarak. He lived in Sanaa’ and got married there, Sufyaan ath-Thawree travelled to him and heard from him there and he heard from Sufyaan.
This is a clear text from this Imaam that Sufyaan ath-Thawree heard from Ma’mar in Yemen and that Imaam ath-Thawree travelled to him. So he is of Saheeh hadeeth, and for this reason his narrations were depended upon in the books of the Sunnah, particularly Sufyaan ath-Thawree from Ma’mar.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق