Sunni Dawate Islami
Public Relation Office
Under the spiritual Guidence of:
Hazrat Allama Maulana Hafiz v Qari Maulana Mohammed Shakir ali noorie
( AMIRE SUNNI DAWATE ISLAMI )
Center:- SDI-MARKAZ Ismail Habib Masjid 126-Kambekar Street MUMBAI-3 MS INDIA
More Info plz call Brother Javed : (022)23451292 / 23434366/
Web:- www.sunnidawateislami.net / www.prosdi.blogspot.in
Monday, December 28, 2015
Risalat An-Noor Fee Noori Nabiyyil Mabroor
As-Salaatu was salaamu `alaa Sayyidil anbiyaayi wal mursaleen. wa qaala fee haqqihi rabbunallaha rabbul `aalameen. wa qad jaa-akum minallahi nuurunw wa kitaabunm mubeen. wa `ala aalihit taHireen. tanawwaruu bi nuuri jaddihim fa aDaa-ul Haalikeen. wa aS-Habihee ajma`een. na`am, akhadhuu min nuuri nabiyyinaa wa hum kan nujuumi ashraqul `aalameen.
Wahhabis/'Salafis' and other Sects attack at the very basis of religion – be it the exalted rank of the Rasul `alayhis salaam or that of his true followers the Awlia Ridwanullahi `alayhim ajma`een, they come to create discord. they, the mischief makers.
I have displayed their makr – deception in the past. but the only answer we get is, that i am misquoting them or that i am an ignoramus. I wouldn’t mind being called an ignoramus, but then all my arguments are mere quotes of the knowledgeable! But they will never desist.
We have seen the so called ‘Salafis’ praise Ibn Taymiyyah. Shiekh ul-Islaam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami al-Makki’s quotes are present. We have seen them oppose the Mawlid Sharif. And truth has to be told, no matter who feels bad about it.
Among the much carping of the Wahhabis/'Salafis' and Tableegis are the following problems :
1. Was Rasul `alayhis salaam Nuur?
2. Was Rasul `alayhis salaam the first of creation?
3. Does Rasul `alayhis salaam know the unseen (ghayb)?
4. Is Rasul `alayhis salaam HaaDHir and naaDHir?
What we see is the fallout of these arguments.
One more thing we need to ask is, why do the Wahhabis spend their entire time trying to diminish the ranks of the Anbiya [Prophets] and Awliyaa [Saints]`alayhimut tasleemaat? We have been told that in Fadaayil [Virtues] even a Da`eef [Weak] Hadeeth is considered, and if a Da`eef Hadeeth is related by so many chains, it reaches the grade of Hasan. This is the Usuul of Hadeeth by the aimmah of Hadeeth.
A quick note is that the Wahhabis accuse us, Sunnis that we do not consider Rasul `alayhis salaam as bashar – human. ma`aadhallah. We have NEVER said that. we only say that :
MuHammadun basharun laa kal bashar (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) // yaaqutu hajarun laa kal Hajar.
MuHammad `alayhis salaam is a man, but unlike any other man // a diamond is a stone, unlike any other stone.
(i have read it in another book, bal huwa yaaquutun baynal Hajar. and i would call it a diamond rather’n a ruby)
In the same way, we try to hold on to even a frail proof to prove the greatness and the exalted ranks of Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam. whereas the Wahhabis HOLD ON TO A FRAIL PROOF to disprove these Fadaayil. It is only the jealousy in their hearts that make them do so. And yet, unashamedly claim to love the Prophet `alayhis salaam!
But it should be known, that the greatness of Rasulallah is proved emphatically, not the excuses the Wahhabis give to disprove his ranks. Inshaa Allah we will also see what Qaadi `IyaD says about those who diminish the glory of Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam.
I am someone who is constantly beleaguered with accusations of ‘out of context’. Hence i will first post the entire 3 part article of Mr. Karim, and then we will examine his examination. wa billahit tawfeeq. wa tawakkaltu `alayh. innallaha waliyyul hudaa wat tawfeeq.
Note here that there are two issues here. first, whether Rasulallah is Nuur or not. And two, whether Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam was the first of creation or not. We have to keep this in mind else we will easily be misled.
I will first refute Karim al-Wahhabi and then produce proofs for examination.
The sentences of Kareem’s article are in quotes.
“Sometime ago we were all given information by an individual by the name of: Ghulam Ghawth al-Azam, that the first of Created beings was the Nur of Hadrat Muhammad -sallallahu alaihi wa sallam. In doing so he provided certain quotes from previous eminent scholars. We rejected all such quotes because the alleged "proof" that was provided has many defects:
1) “It has no chain of transmission (sanad)”
observer : Ibn Hajar gives us the sanad of `abd ar razzaq. and so also many scholars. brother Ghulaam Ghawth al-Azam has given us the list of all who have said `Abdur Razzaq quotes with his sanad. now, is Karim a Hafiz of Hadeeth to dare say – it has no chain of transmission? or has any HaafiDH been quoted in that manner? let him elaborate.
“2) It is not found in any works of Abdur Razzaq al-San'ani - neither his Musannaf or his Ja'mi (printed with the Musannaf and edited by the late Shaykh Habibur Rahman al-Azami of India, d. 1992 CE, rahimahullah. Shaykh al-Azami was the Shaykh of Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah, rahimahullah, and Dr. Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami - who has a number of books in English).”
Observer : Can we conclude that your shaykh Habeebur Rahman is so prejudiced that he is lopping of Hadeeth from books? O muslims! These dishonest people are heralded as the ‘great muhaddithun!’. Can you imagine what they might have done in places where ‘they find contradicted’?
“3) It is a Khabar al-Ahaad - that is it is a single narration which contradicts many sound hadith below and therefore inadmissible in aqeedah, as scholars like al-Hafiz Khateeb al-Baghdadi and Imam al-Nawawi have mentioned.”
Observer : What did al-Khateeb and an-Nawawi say? Can you quote them? And for all your pompousity, I have the books at-Taftazani, an-Nasafi, Khayali on an-Nasafi, at-Tahaawi, Bad-al amaali, Bayjuuri on Jawhara, Fiqh al akbar of Imam Abu Hanifa and Isfarayni on Taftazani, `Aqeedat al `Awam. Where have they mentioned this in their books of `aqeedah? You see, if you could direct me to where, under which head this Bahath comes under i will look there. In sharh of Imaam at-TaHaawi by Abil `Izz al-Hanafi there is a brief discussion, but i am skeptikal about this print; it has lots of ‘ilHaaqaats’ by Wahhabis. I am doubtful whether this too has been ‘edited’. Oh! I will tell you what muHaddithun say regarding such aHaadeeth in matters of faDaayil. and you throw around iStilaaHat unnecessarily just to cheat the unknowing public.
“4) It was not recorded in any of the six soundest books of hadith, not even in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (the largest collection of hadith available today).”
Observer : You mean, if a Hadeeth is not recorded in Sihaah it should be disbelieved. Whoever taught you Hadeeth? Imaam al-Bukhari knew more than 600 thousand Hadeeth, yet he reported only 2300 plus. Does that mean anything Imam al-Bukhari did not report was not known to him? or that whatever he didn’t report is not Saheeh?
“5) It is significant to note that had it been Sahih (the alleged hadith of Sayyiduna Jaabir ibn Abdullah) it would have been recorded in at least one other collection of Hadith. It was not known to Imam Ahmad despite him being a well-known student of Imam Abdur Razzaq.”
Observer : I ask you. is your heretic Habeebur raHmaan a better scholar of Hadeeth or Imaam Ahmed al-Qastalaani? al-Qastalaani writes in 'mawaahib al-ladunniyyah' reporting from Imaam `Abdur Razzaq, and Imaam Qastalaani has written a Sharh of al-Bukhari, ' Irshaad as saari'. Can you blame him for not reporting correctly? And all these scholars did not know this Usuul of Hadeeth; they should have come to learn it under Habeeb ar-raHmaan `ajami.And your audacity! if an Imaam doesn’t report one Hadeeth – ‘it is not known to him’. Did Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal say so? That ‘i don’t know this Hadeeth’? If yes, where? I have Musnad Imaam Ahmed. Tell me where to look for it.It is in at-Taftazaani’s book of `aqeedah that something not mentioned IS NO PROOF of being negated. I will quote this later. Withthat Usuul, if our friend here will start talking sense, he can burn all his arguments in a single go. but the haughty never learn.
“6) It is not found in any of Abdur Razzaq's teacher's work: like that of his teacher Ma'mar ibn Rashid.”
observer : earlier imams say there is. and Habeebur raHman censors this. very honest reports of Hadeeth. i should say. that should prove that Habeebur raHman was khaayin in reporting Hadeeth. shadeedut ta`aSSubi wa munkirul Hadeeth. can we add that in jarH of this man? well, if he were in those times, he would definitely earn this title. and karim? at best he could be given the title muftaree kadhdhab by the jarH scholars. you have seen his slander and lies.
“7) It is not the reported belief of Imam Abdur Razzaq al-San'ani's teacher, and he is our Imam, The Mujtahid Mutlaq, Faqih, Muhaddith and Aqeedah specialist, Abu Hanifah Numan ibn Thabit al-Kufi, rahimahullah.”
observer : where has THIS been reported? tell me which book to look into (as you have shown your gross inability to reproduce the passages/references. tell me the name of the book and i will). where has it been written that they believed otherwise? quotes will follow later. do you not fear Allah on blaming someone they haven’t said? did you know that Imam al-A`dham Abu Hanifa has written a book on `aqeedah? alHamdulillah, i have it. can you tell me where to find the imams words.
the rule is if it is not said, it is not attributed to those who remain silent. then according to you imam a`aDHam raDiyallahu `anhu said kaafir to yazeed? because he chose to remain silent. (he said neither kaafir nor muslim.) if a scholar hasn’t mentioned something you impose on him its opposite? that’s a very good way of reasoning.
Taftazani and khayali and isfarayni have said that when there is no mention, it is no proof of negating the position. (`adamith thubuuti laa yanfi ash-shayy) whereas if there is an express denial, the affirmative doesn’t hold. these are all discussions which come under kalaam, and they are not necessary for the common man. but karim forces us to quote these. (see `aqeedah an nasafi and its sharH by taftazaani. pg. 21; also Hashiyah on taftaazani by khayaali; also Haashiyah on taftaazani by isfaraayni. on the same page)
“8) It is not the belief recorded in any of the books of the four Mujtahid Imam's, Abu Hanifah, Malik, Shafi'i or ibn Hanbal, not even their main students.”
observer : where has he got the proof to say ‘it is not the belief’? at best he should a shut his stupid mouth, shrugging ‘lack of proof’. he cleverly as is the case with all heretics tries to hide the truth in a pile of misleading arguments.
“9) It was not the belief of the aqeedah specialists like Imam Abul Hasan al-Ashari, Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi or even Imam Abu Jafar al-Tahawi - all from the Salaf us-Salihin. Hence it can not be proven to be the belief of anyone of the Imams of the Salaf.”
observer : have they written other wise? give us the proof. i am coming to this soon.
“10) After them amongst the Khalaf it is not the belief of the Imam's of aqeedah like: Abu Bakr ibn al-Furak, al-Isfaraini, Ibn Asakir, Bayhaqi, Bakillani, al-Ghazali, al-Iji, al-Juwayni (Imam al-Haramain), the three Nasafi's, Taftazani, al-Sabuni; not even one of the Ashari's listed by Ibn Asakir in his Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari. There are other reasons but this is enough to disprove the baselesness of the alleged Nur hadith from Jaabir. In fact, al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his Fath al-Baari (6/289) discussed the views on what was the first of creation and he did not give any preference to the alleged hadith of Sayyiduna Jaabir ibn Abdullah, nor did he produce its text as an argument while discussing the various positions.”
observer : why don’t you add Hasan al baSri, ibn seereen, and khulafa e rashideen? and then resoundingly write, ‘it was not a belief of abu bakr’. ‘it was not a belief of `umar’ ‘it was no proof of ibn `abbas’ and go ahead and tell a lie on Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam ‘it was not a belief of Rasulallah’. Going by this logic, we can say : there is no proof that imam abu bakr raDiyallahu `anhu going in a jam`ah. nor `umar, nor `uthman, nor `ali, nor Hasanayn, nor any SaHabi, nor imam a`aDHam, nor shafi`yi, nor any other scholar to this day. raDiyallahu `anhum. hence it is a bid`ah. (which anyway is)
11) “Our brother, Shaykh Jabir Ahmed had previously posted a reply to why the Nur hadith was rejected as ascribed to Abdur Razzaq. I will repost what was said by him in another article below, insha'Allah. The people of Bid'ah on this forum, not realising that the great Imam's have forbidden taqleed in matters of belief continued to incessantly push the same old message and quotes blindly. This is not allowed in aqeedah.”
observer : once he says taqleed in `aqeedah is forbidden. the other he says imams have said so. i well know its meaning and inshaa Allah, i will post this for the benefit of my brothers/sisters. but can karim tell me what it means? if he is not following anyone in `aqeedah, then why all this fuss? he can just say – i don’t believe it. We will show how great a liar your ‘shaykh’ jabir is. nowhere has he given the proof that this Hadeeth of nuur is ‘rejected’ by scholars. all he gives is the debate whether the Pen was created first or the `arsh. it is YOU who have rejected the Hadeeth. As to this matter, any scholar of kalaam will tell you that it is not a matter of `aqeedah that will make you a bid`yi. it is in the faDaayil of Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam. and if for the sake of argument we are mistaken, it is yet more better than making a mistake where one stands to diminish the ranks of Rasul `alayhis Salaatu was salaam. if it were such an important matter, why then didn’t imam al a`aDHam write it in his fiqh al akbar?
Shameless Deobandis! They openly go out against these books by claiming Allah can lie; and blame it on our pure predecessors that they differed on this matter. but yet, when faced with something to do with the greatness of Rasul they can’t stomach it.
“Aqeedah is such a fundamental issue that if you get it wrong then the punishment in the hereafter is dire. Aqeedah is based only on the Qur'an and Sahih Hadiths, not the sayings of Ulama! Ghulam Ghawth al-Azam claimed that the hadith of Jabir ascribed to Abdur Razzaq has been accepted by all the Ulama! This is not true as we shall see below. In fact we have to be honest and say that there is no agreement amongst the Ahl-us-Sunnah that the first of creation was amongst the following possibilities: Pen, Arsh, the Nur of Hadrat Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam), Lahw al-Mahfuz (as Kisai held in his Sirah - see quote later) or even light and darkness (see Ibn Ishaq's statement which is not traced back to the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).”
observer : i know the logic of kareem. it is the same always. he first creates a wrong premise. and then goes on prattling on the permissibilty and forbidding at length. first let him show us that this is a matter of `aqeedah differing on which one will become a kafir or even a mubtad`iy. let him first prove this. we can go ahead later with the consequences which we all know. karim needn’t tell us. Go tell this to your scholars who did dire mistakes in `aqeedah and differed from the ahlus sunnah. the quotes are in another post.
“We say that the most soundest view is that of Imam al-Tabari (d. 310 AH), and that the first of creation was the PEN, because :
1) He was an Imam of the Salaf who knew most of the Ikhtilafi questions amongst the Sunni Imam's (he has a book on this issue)
2) He was an aqeedah specialist (he has a book on aqeedah),
3) He knew the Tafsir of all the ayat's comprehensively,
4) He was a great Historian,
5) He was a Hafiz of hadith (he has a hadith collection known as Tahdhib al-Athar)
6) He was a Mujtahid Mutlaq (absolute Mujtahid with his own Madhhab) - despite some not agreeing with this, he did have a following (e.g. al-Qadi Ibn Kaamil, the Muhaddith) but the school he founded died out in time (refer to books on the History of Usul al-Fiqh and Madhahib).”
observer : the perfidiousness of the deobandit is obvious. if there is ONE Hadeeth regarding nuur it is not believed and labeled as ‘khabar aaHaad’. even if it is reported by a SaHabi; even if it’s sanad is given by an imam. when it comes to his proofs. he dwells on ONLY ONE scholar. is it okay? your list of credentials to imam Tabari raHimahullah is not at all debated by us. we ourselves acknowledge him. may Allah make us benefit from his knowledge. do you debate the narrators of ‘nuur’ Hadeeth? don’t they have the credentials imam Tabari has? then why only imam Tabari? can’t you quote others? Unfortunately, i don’t have the asnaad of this Hadeeth; my only references are in books of seerah and the fatwa by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, and I believe that Ibn Hajar Haytami is more reliable than Karim and co. And do you follow Imam Tabari in one matter? and brand the opposite position as bid`ah? don’t you see the differences inashaa`yirah and maaturidiyyah? yet, the tafseeq and taDleel of each other is not permitted. my point is that by showing imamTabari’s ikhtilaaf you cannot label the other position as bid`ah as long as there are accepted scholars in the other group too.What is bid`ah is when people go opposing the ijmaa`a. show us first that this is an ijmaa`yi mas-alah. has anyone, includingimam Tabari said that an Ijmaa`a has reached that Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam is not nuur? or that this Hadeeth nuur is not to be believed?
“The Imam al-Tabari who represents the early beliefs of the Ahl-us-Sunnah did not know of the baseless narration attributed to Abdur Razzaq, and nor did he accept such a belief. Had he known it he would not have failed to have mentioned it! Mr. Ghulam Ghawth al-Azam accused me of lying against Imam al-Tabari without any proof or shame. He quoted something from al-Tabari's tafsir but it had nothing to do with proving his point. As we will see the quote below amply demonstrates the true belief of Imam al-Tabari.”
observer : see? the level of intelligense is extremely low. if a Hadeeth scholar doesn’t report a Hadeeth he does not know it. and he has told karim about that. or karim has `ilm ghayb which he is disproving for Rasul. and imam Tabari has told karim that he did not accept such a belief. and he blames brother ghulaam ghawth al a`aDHam, of shamelessness. may Allah bless ghulaam ghawth al-a`aDHam with more `ilm for the excellent service he has rendered in collecting the narrations on nuur. I have demonstrated the lies and shamelessness of karim all thru’ last month. yet unabashedly he strives to attack the sunnis. said Rasulallah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam. ‘when you have no shame, do whatever you want’