|
Post by Zameel on Dec 13, 2016 11:29:17 GMT
To reiterate:
"Mawlid" as widely understood, i.e. as:
Marking a day, or some days, of the month of Rabi al-Awwal for extra acts of good deeds, carried out not as a spontaneous or personal practice, but as a public event done repeatedly every year, in a manner making it appear that this occasion has some ritual or religious significance (e.g. by calling it 'Id)
Is incorrect and should be avoided.
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 13, 2016 14:41:18 GMT
To reiterate: "Mawlid" as widely understood, i.e. as: Marking a day, or some days, of the month of Rabi al-Awwal for extra acts of good deeds, carried out not as a spontaneous or personal practice, but as a public event done repeatedly every year, in a manner making it appear that this occasion has some ritual or religious significance (e.g. by calling it 'Id)
Is incorrect and should be avoided. And to also reiterate, you've been asked to address numerous questions regarding your application of this principle to this mas'alah which you've conveniently ignored. As I mentioned before, the qawā`id are all known and have been known and likewise this mas'alah has been known and in practice across the lands and across the madhāhib for hundreds of years with full participation and support from scholars and commoners alike. Therefore, if you choose to differ then you bear the onus to explain why ALL of these individuals misapplied the principles and arrived at an erroneous hukm and why you haven't. You bear a tremendous burden to overcome and quoting from an obscure Mālikī scholar here and there or to quote the opinions of individuals (al-`izz ibn `Abd al-Salām, ibn al-Salāh, etc.) defining this principle and ignoring their own opinion on the mawlid is disingenuous to say the least! Whenever you find yourself perusing through Salafi sites looking for anti-Mawlid scholars then there should be an alarm sounding off inside of you. Please re-read my earlier post for the pointed questions you've been asked. I await your reply. Wa as-Salam AN
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 13, 2016 15:23:36 GMT
I quoted Izz ibn 'Abd al-Salam, but not Ibn al-Salah. But, what exactly is their opinion on the Mawlid?
And no, I do not believe the onus is on me to explain why some scholars of the later period may or may not have misapplied this accepted principle. Muqallids are bound to the principles and opinions of the mujtahid scholars within their school, not to the views of some muqallids of a later period, no matter how popular they may become. My objective was only to substantiate the principle and show that it applies to the Mawlid.
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 13, 2016 16:22:53 GMT
Then according to that logic, your own opinion will be dismissed for you're not from the mujtahidūn and so we have no reason to take your own application on this matter. You just shot yourself in the foot. Tell me why we should take your non-mujtahid self's opinion on this matter over the opinion of hundreds' of years worth of non-mujtahid scholars' opinions from across the lands and across the madhāhib? I don't recall reading any one of them say "this is against our usūl and our mujtahidūn but we're going to give jawāz for it due to XYZ reasons." Point it out to me if I'm mistaken. Rather, what is understood and put into practice is what the scholars who took from our mujtahidūn and in turn passed it onto others. We only know what the mujtahidūn said on account of them and through them. To say "we will take directly from only the mujtahidūn" while ignoring those in between is just another Salafi-reasoned argument but a notch or two lower. Your answer implies that for hundreds of years, scholars from across the madhāhib systematically misunderstood and misapplied this principle in relation to the practice of the mawlid in Rabī`, what a gross accusation that reeks of arrogance and obstinacy. Furthermore, you speak of taking directly from the mujtahidūn yet you yourself did not quote any statement regarding the mawlid from them, thus you yourself have not met the threshold you claim to be following or asking for! So for the nth time now, "to reiterate", the principle has been known for a century and so has the practice of the mawlid in Rabī` for hundreds of years, now you show to us who connected the dots between the two in the manner in which you have from amongst the "mujtahids". And no I will not accept your own Hukm, and neither should anyone else, on the grounds that you laid down because you're not a mujtahid. Now you will come to quickly realize that the discussion has turned to one non-Mujtahid's opinion over another. Both presumably claim to be following the usūl of the mujtahidūn. But one is alone on one side clinging to obscure non-Mujtahid hukms gleaned from Salafi sites posing under numerous monikers on different forums, while the other side represents the best of personalities this Ummah has heard of in the past 700+ years. I rest my case. Wa as-Salam AN
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 13, 2016 16:40:16 GMT
Moreover, there's a mighty difference between saying X is the hukm of the mujtahidūn versus saying X is the hukm *according to the usūl* laid out by the mujtahidūn. You definitely didn't substantiate the first even though you made it out as if you did. And as for the second, as mentioned above, we feel much safer to believe that the opinions of hundreds of years worth of scholars from across the lands and madhāhib have understood how to apply the usūl according to the mujtahidūn better than you have.
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 13, 2016 19:42:48 GMT
Application is different from a ruling or principle. Everyone must apply their judgement to certain specific cases, but the ruling itself is taken from the mujtahid scholars belonging to one's madhhab. For instance, if a person belonging to the Hanafi school suffers a cut, how will he determine whether the blood is flowing and hence breaks his wudu or is not flowing and thus does not break his wudu? He will do so by his own observation and judgement, although the ruling itself was taken from the mujtahid scholars of his school.
The point was that the principle that has been explained is proven from the early mujtahid scholars and is an accepted principle of Shari'ah, and that the principle does clearly apply to the Mawlid.
Since your statement implies that the Mawlid was supported by key transmitters of the famous madhhabs, can you give some examples of them showing their support for the Mawlid? Not merely scholars belonging to a madhhab, but indispensable key transmitters of the madhhabs?
The Mawlid itself was not around in the first several centuries for the imams that are depended on in the different schools to give a verdict on the practice itself. A new issue such as this demands an application of the principles and rulings expressed by the mujtahid scholars.
Has any scholar who promoted the Mawlid defended it against this principle, or are you simply assuming that they did? If they have not, then all you have is a clear ruling/principle of the Shari'ah that is violated by the Mawlid, and your refusal to accept it on the basis of the views of some later scholars - which is similar to what is reported about the Jews under the verse: "They treat their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah." (9:31)
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 14, 2016 16:50:43 GMT
“Application is different from a ruling or principle. Everyone must apply their judgement to certain specific cases, but the ruling itself is taken from the mujtahid scholars belonging to one's madhhab. For instance, if a person belonging to the Hanafi school suffers a cut, how will he determine whether the blood is flowing and hence breaks his wudu or is not flowing and thus does not break his wudu? He will do so by his own observation and judgement, although the ruling itself was taken from the mujtahid scholars of his school.”
First, you have not presented a single ruling opposing the mawlid in Rabi` from any “mujtahid scholar” thus far. As I’ve mentioned, you’re continuously trying to pass off your own application of principles laid down by mujtahid scholars as being equivalent to the actual “ruling” given directly by the “mujtahid scholars”.
Secondly, the example you gave is nonanalogous. Determining if a qaa`idah has been correctly applied to a mas’alah such as the mawlid cannot be dumbed down to how a 15-year old mukallaf does taharri in ascertaining if the najis on his body has broken his wudu or not. This comparison is incredulous and crude to say the least. Your example and answer would then suggest that any non-mujtahid can simply look into the books of qawa`id and then start the “application” of it himself because after all, if he can apply the qawa`id of taharah by himself then he should be capable of applying the qawa`id on other masa’il, such as the mawlid, and others like it. It’s for you to show the example you gave doesn’t suggest this because as it stands you haven’t shown a demarcation of when such “application” becomes impermissible by a non-mujtahid.
“The point was that the principle that has been explained is proven from the early mujtahid scholars and is an accepted principle of Shari'ah, and that the principle does clearly apply to the Mawlid.”
I’ve said it countless times now that the principle is indeed known and has been for a millennium and the practice of the mawlid in Rabi` has been prevalent for 700+ years with early historical documentation going as far back as nearly 825 years. If you claim the principle applies to the mawlid then it shouldn’t be difficult for you to produce who applied it to the mawlid from 825 years’ worth of scholarship. There weren’t any mujtahid scholars in the past 825 years? Yet, I’ve seen none from you so far except obscure non-mujtahids from outside your own madhhab, yet you’re claiming above that the “RULING itself is taken from the MUJTAHID SCHOLARS belonging to ONE’S MADHHAB”. So once again, you don’t apply your own standard to yourself since you neither took this opinion of yours concerning the mawlid from the “rulings” of the “mujtahid scholars” nor did you stick by references for it from your own madhhab.
“Since your statement implies that the Mawlid was supported by key transmitters of the famous madhhabs, can you give some examples of them showing their support for the Mawlid? Not merely scholars belonging to a madhhab, but indispensable key transmitters of the madhhabs?”
I’ll let you elaborate on what you mean by “key transmitters of the madhhabs” since you have shown little regard for the scholars I mentioned in my very first post.
Are not transmitters such as all of the Ottoman Hanafi “Shaykh al-Islams” who took part in the Grand Mawlid year after year with full participation and endorsement enough? Can you bring me one quote from the Hanafi scholars of the Levant and Caucuses who labeled the mawlid in Rabi` as “bid`ah”? Can you quote me one scholar prior to Isma`il Dihlawi in the Subcontinent who labeled the mawlid in Rabi` as “bid`ah”? Again, are Mulla `Ali al-Qari, `Allamah Mahmud Hamza al-Hanafi the erudite mufti of the Hanafis in Damascus after ibn `Abidin, Shah `Abd al-Haqq Dihlawi, Shah `Abd al-Rahim Dihlawi, Shah Waliyullah Dihlawi, Shah `Abd al-`Aziz Dihlawi, `Abd al-Hayy al-Laknawi, Mufti Bakheet al-Mutee`i al-Hanafi, etc. all not transmitters of the Hanafi school in your opinion? Are ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-`Iraqi, al-Suyuti, al-Subki, al-Zarqani not “key transmitters” of the Shafi`i school in your opinion? Is al-Dardir, Zarruq, etc. not transmitters of the Maliki school in your opinion? Is ibn Rajab not a transmitter of the Hanbali school in your opinion? I don’t know what you have in mind of who is a transmitter and who is not.
If none of these are transmitters in your opinion then whether you realize it or not and whether you want to own up to it or not, you’re not doing any tatbeeq here of any qawa`id or ahkam. Rather, you’re trying to take upon the role of tahqeeq. So come forth and prove to us you’re from the muhaqqiqun of all four schools and who has borne testimony to this esteemed rank you have given yourself of sifting through opinions of all the scholars across the madhahib to determine whose opinion is within the usul of the mujtahidun and whose opinion is not. IF you claim you’re not doing tahqeeq and this is just mere tatbeeq on your part, similar to how that kid determines if he has najis on his body, then you have accused an innumerable amount of scholars of being remiss in something so basic while you somehow were given protection and furthermore guidance and tawfeeq on figuring out what is actually the correct Hukm according to the principles of the mujtahidun. What’s interesting is that you mentioned above “INDISPENSABLE key transmitters”. So each and every time you turn to Radd al-Muhtar, do you not see that as being an “indispensable” transmission of the Hanafi school? Again, I don’t know what you have in mind when you state “indispensable key transmitters” and how that corresponds to the maratib of mujtahidun.
“The Mawlid itself was not around in the first several centuries for the imams that are depended on in the different schools to give a verdict on the practice itself. A new issue such as this demands an application of the principles and rulings expressed by the mujtahid scholars.”
825 years is not considered “new”. In such scenarios, what is required by the non-mujtahid muqallid is to take the ahkam from the muhaqqiqun of their school. You have NOT demonstrated that whatsoever. Instead you’ve demonstrated arrogance and a vigilante attitude by using Salafi-reasoning to go “straight to the mujtahids” for determining according to your own self on what is or isn’t according to the usul of the madhhab. If a mufti is required to determine on his own which masa’il are in accordance with the mujtahidun of his school then let him burn his copy of Radd al-Muhtar and never turn to it again as an “indispensable” reference for fatawa and instead let him go straight to al-Asl.
What’s worse is that you tried to pass it all off as mere “application” when it is clearly not. If it were then you will have to explain why anyone else, aside from your honorable self, cannot do the same with other masa’il, similar to the mawlid. On the other hand, I’ve adhered to the protocol of taqleed and have relied upon rulings from the generations of scholars who passed on their verdicts in accordance to how they and their grandshaykhs leading back to the mujtahidun understood the usul of the madhhab. If you’re calling for a re-evaluation of the masa’il, as understood by generations of fuqaha and muhaqqiun across the madhhahib, then you will need to explain why you don’t do that with all other masa’il found in our texts today and why you’ve gained an amorous obsession with this one in particular to run after (we all know why, but you get the point). If calls for going back to the mujtahids is your da`wah in life, then present a practical and consistent approach of how it should be done. When all of the Hanafi muftis of today rely on Radd al-Muhtar for the muhaqqaq of their school without further investigating then you need to ask yourself how practical and suitable your approach is. Part of being a mufti is to present viable and sustainable opinions, not flippant ideas.
“Has any scholar who promoted the Mawlid defended it against this principle, or are you simply assuming that they did? If they have not, then all you have is a clear ruling/principle of the Shari'ah that is violated by the Mawlid, and your refusal to accept it on the basis of the views of some later scholars - which is similar to what is reported about the Jews under the verse: "They treat their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah." (9:31)”
This is outright laughable. Again, this is Salafi-reasoning and it goes like this: “Can you prove Abu Hanifah knew about this hadith, and gave his opinion based on factoring this hadith in mind? Or are you simply assuming that he did? If not, then all you have is a clear hadith that is violated by him and your refusal to accept it on the basis of him and some alter scholars - which is similar to what is reported about the Jews under the verse: “They treat their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah.” (9:31)”
Sounds familiar? Go ahead and point out the inaccurate comparisons, I dare you.
It’s not surprising that you’re resorting to Salafi usul (aka “no usul”) since you’ve been scouring their websites hunting for who made anti-mawlid remarks. Don’t you know that stuff surreptitiously rubs off on to you? What’s worse is that the Salafis’ use of this verse makes more sense than your use of it. Because when the Salafi uses this verse against a muqallid, in his own mind he’s thinking that he’s relying directly upon the words of Allah (“we take straight from the Qur’an akhi”) while the muqallid is taking from words of mortals (“they were men, and we are men”). But in your case, you’re taking from the words of men (“we take straight from the mujtahid scholars”) and your accusation against people like myself is that we’re taking from non-mujtahid, non-“indispensable-key-transmitters”, which nevertheless are the words of MEN, NOT Allah! So your use of the verse doesn’t even make sense and would apply to you just as much as you believe it applies to me, based on your use of it. Again, you just shot yourself again with your own daleel backfiring against you.
In short, your posts have been riddled with logical blunders, inconsistent usul, Salafi-reasoning, arrogance, obstinacy, and evading questions. I will not be posting anymore until you reply back to my very first post, point-by-point, since much of what you’re asking for from me now has been shown in that post but you chose not to answer. If I visit this forum again and see that you’ve answered all of them then I will entertain your request for who promoted the mawlid against this principle. Although you can find it yourself in works dedicated to the defense of the mawlid (jawahir al-bihar, al-mawrid al-rawi, maqsid of al-suyuti, fatawa of subcontinent scholars, when they speak about bid`ah and those muharramat that sometimes seep into it.
Wa as-salam
AN
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 14, 2016 23:12:43 GMT
Is it True that Abū Lahab’s Punishment is Lightened on Account of Having Expressed Happiness at the Birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)?
There is a popular belief that the staunch enemy of the Prophet and Islām, Abū Lahab, has his punishment lightened on Mondays on account of expressing happiness at the birth of his nephew, the Prophet Muḥammad (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). Many also believe that this is proven in the Ṣaḥīḥ of Imām al-Bukhārī and that it was seen in a dream by ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu).
However, the following points should be kept in mind:
1. The narration in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī only mentions that Abū Lahab was seen in a dream claiming that his punishment is lightened on account of freeing Thuwaybah. It does not mention Mondays, nor does it mention it was because of showing happiness at the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).
2. The additional details, of it being ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) who saw the dream, of the punishment being lightened on Mondays, and that it was because of showing happiness at the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), are all first found only in a much later source from the sixth century: al-Rawḍ al-Unuf of al-Suhaylī, without any chain of narration or mention of an earlier source.
3. Biographers of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) state that Thuwaybah was only freed some decades after his birth, which obviously contradicts the popular account.
The account in al-Bukhārī starts with a narration from the great imām amongst the Tābi‘īn, ‘Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, from Zaynab bint Umm Salamah from Umm Ḥabībah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā) that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is asked about marrying the daughter of his wife, Umm Salamah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhā), and he (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) responds: “Had she not been my step-daughter under my care, even still she would not be permissible for me. She is my milk-brother’s son. Thuwaybah nursed both me and Abū Salamah.” Then al-Bukhārī says: ‘Urwah said: “Thuwaybah is the freed-slave of Abū Lahab. Abū Lahab had freed her, upon which she nursed the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam). When Abū Lahab died, one of his family members was shown him [in a dream] in the worst condition. He said to him: “What did you find?” Abū Lahab said: “I found no good after you, although I was given drink from this [part of my hand] on account of freeing Thuwaybah.” (al-Bukhārī, no. 5101; Fatḥ al-Bārī, 9:175)
The same narration is also found in Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq (7:478). Ibn Sa‘d also reports it in his Ṭabaqāt with only the mursal portion from ‘Urwah. (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, 1:87)
This is all that is found in al-Bukhārī and the early accounts.
Taken at face value, the most that can be deduced from this report from ‘Urwah is that Abū Lahab’s suffering was lightened (perhaps only on one occasion) on account of freeing a slave. Freeing a slave is of course amongst the many meritorious deeds promoted by Islām. Hence, Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ says: “Abū Lahab was given to drink on account of freeing Thuwaybah, the wet-nurse of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).” (Ikmāl al-Mu‘lim, 1:596) Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ says this was a result of the blessing (barakah) of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself, as he was nursed by Thuwaybah, making the act of freeing her all the more blessed. He states nothing about showing happiness at the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), however.
The narration is a mursal report from ‘Urwah (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 9:182), and is thus not from the core ḥadīths of al-Bukhārī’s collection. Apart from being a mursal report, the notion that Abū Lahab’s suffering is lightened is based entirely on a dream. Dreams can give no certainty, as Ibn Ḥajar writes under the commentary of this ḥadīth (ibid); especially considering that the person who saw the dream may have not even been a Muslim at the time (ibid); and that too, on the authority of the avowed enemy of Islām, Abū Lahab, himself!
Ibn Ḥajar also points out that the apparent meaning of this narration in al-Bukhārī is that Thuwaybah nursed the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) after being freed, but “what is mentioned in the Sīrahs contradicts this, which is that Abū Lahab freed her before the Hijrah, which is a long time after the nursing.” (Fatḥ al-Bārī, 9:181) The version in the Sīrahs is reported by al-Wāqidī (130 – 207 H) transmitting “from several of the Ahl al-‘Ilm” (Ṭabaqāt Ibn Sa‘d, 1:88). Wāqidī’s transmission was then reproduced by several later biographers. If what al-Wāqidī transmitted is correct, Abū Lahab could not have freed Thuwaybah at the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), but would have done so several decades later.
Importantly, however, none of the early sources mention the punishment is lightened specifically on Mondays, that freeing Thuwaybah was as a result of being told the news of the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), or that it was ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) who saw the dream.
These additional details to the story are first found in the writing of Ḥāfiẓ Abu l-Qāsim ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Khath‘amī al-Suhaylī (508 – 581 H), a sixth century scholar from al-Andalus, who says after quoting the narration of Bukhārī: “In other than al-Bukhārī, it states that the one who saw him from his family was al-‘Abbās. He said: ‘I remained for a year after the death of Abū Lahab not having seen him in a dream; and then I saw him in the worst state, saying: “I did not find any relief after you, although the punishment is lightened from me every Monday.”’ And that is because the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was born on Monday and Thuwaybah had given him the good news of his birth, saying to him: ‘Did you realise that Āminah gave birth to a boy belonging to your brother ‘Abdullāh?’ He said to her: ‘Go for you are free’, and that benefitted him.” (al-Rawḍ al-Unuf, 5:191)
As can be seen, Suhaylī, in the sixth century of Hijrah, is quoting from an unknown source. This is the earliest source for the added details of the relief occurring specifically on Mondays, and it having been on account of freeing Thuwaybah in response to receiving the good news of the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).
As clarified earlier, the narration in Bukhārī only shows Abū Lahab benefitted because of freeing Thuwaybah, and there is no mention of showing happiness at the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam).
The popular belief that Abū Lahab’s suffering is lightened on Mondays for showing happiness at the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is, therefore, far from something proven or established, and should therefore not be presented as such.
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 15, 2016 3:44:51 GMT
“Importantly, however, none of the early sources mention the punishment is lightened specifically on Mondays, that freeing Thuwaybah was as a result of being told the news of the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), or that it was ‘Abbās (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu) who saw the dream…As can be seen, Suhaylī, in the sixth century of Hijrah, is quoting from an unknown source. This is the earliest source for the added details of the relief occurring specifically on Mondays, and it having been on account of freeing Thuwaybah in response to receiving the good news of the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)…The popular belief that Abū Lahab’s suffering is lightened on Mondays for showing happiness at the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) is, therefore, far from something proven or established, and should therefore not be presented as such.”
I’m aware of the differences regarding the incident and that’s precisely why I said in my initial post that this incident is true according to “a number of authorities.” I don’t recall saying it was mutawatir or basing my `aqidah off of it or deriving ahkam by it. When you look closer at what I used it for, it wasn’t to prove showing happiness, joy, enthusiasm, and fervor for the birth day of the Prophet (Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam). It was to show to you that your calls for forbidding “fervor” and “enthusiasm” is behavior that is lower than that expressed by Abu Lahab. If I wanted to prove showing enthusiasm and fervor for the birth day of the greatest ni`mah ever given by Allah, `azza wa jalla, then I can rely on numerous other verses and hadiths for that, I don’t need this incident to prove that. So let it be know, I never used this incident to prove any `aqidah or Hukm.
Furthermore, you concluded in the snippet above that this incident is “far from being something proven or established, and should therefore not be presented as such.” Presented as what? Presented as mutawatir? No one did that. Presented as an incident that has a basis according to huffaz of hadith and reputable historians? Consider the following: Al-Sālihī ash-Shāmī in his Subul al-hudā: وذكر السهيلي وغيره إن الرائي له أخوه العباس، وكان ذلك بعد سنة من وفاة أبي لهب بعد وقعة بدر: أن أبا لهب قال للعباس، إنه ليخفف علي في يوم الاثنين. قالوا: لأنه لما بشرته ثويبة بميلاد ابن أخيه محمد بن عبد الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أعتقها من ساعته، فجوزي بذلك لذلك. قال في الغرر: واختلفوا متى أعتقها. فقيل: أعتقها حين بشرته بولادة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. وهو الصحيح.
Hafiz ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah writes in his tuhfat al-mawdūd bi-ahkām al-mawlūd: ولما ولد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بشرت به ثويبة عمه أبا لهب وكان مولاها وقالت قد ولد الليلة لعبد الله ابن فأعتقها أبو لهب سرورا به.
Hafiz ibn Nāsir al-Dimashqi says the narration is correct and explains: وقد صح أن أبا لهب يخفف عنه عذاب في مثل يوم الإثنين لإعتاقه ثويبة سروراً بميلاد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
If the aforementioned huffaz of hadith and notable historians considered the incident to not only have a basis but be correct then I’m fully within bounds to rely on them. Again, I choose to depend on those who’ve gained prominence in the field of akhbar as opposed to those who haven’t. Therefore, I reject your above conclusion that it shouldn’t be presented on the grounds that those far greater than you in this field have done so and you’re out of line to think that your conclusion can definitively override theirs. Again, this is Albani-like takhreej. There goes that Salafi-reasoning again. Wa as-salam AN
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 15, 2016 3:53:23 GMT
Also, in addition to the above, one should note that it wasn't just al-Suhayli that they relied upon as the quotes clearly mention وغيره Lastly, what's your point in bringing all this to the table? You do realize that all that you're doing is trying to prove why Muslims shouldn't express happiness on the birthday of the Prophet (Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam)? What a lowly endeavor. Good luck with that.
|
|