After the above was circulated on social media an unknown person affiliated to Salafism attempted to dismiss the narration recorded by al-Silafi and al-Sahmi, via social media. Since his reply reached us, it is only fair that a retort is provided. See it all below:
Assalamu alaikum
Here follows my reply with the objector quoted in full.
He said:
"I advise the brothers to PLEASE be careful when forwarding messages. As per the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam:
“It is enough lying for a man to speak of everything that he hears.” Narrated by Muslim in al-Muqaddimah, 6; Saheeh al-Jaami, 4482.
Reply: The unknown Salafi who attempted to respond to the 150 page work on 20 rak’ats Taraweeh brought up needlessly the above Hadith as if someone had invented a Hadith with regard to 20 rak’ats Taraweeh, and circulated it in our time to refute the 8 rak’at followers! Instead of academically reading and attempting to respond to the work the shallowness in his methodology and undeserved digressive tactics have been witnessed.
He said:
“With due respect to the brother who posted the previous message, may Allah bless him, it astonishes me how we can use a "newly discovered hadeeth" as evidence in 2016. Especially when it has been recorded by two individuals who died in the year 576 AH and 427 AH, which are both AFTER the lives of the 4 imams, may Allah have mercy on them.”
Reply: It only astonishes those who have not studied the famous books on Mustalah al-hadith or know the ways of the Muhaddithin to come off with such a shallow answer. What is meant by “newly discovered” is the fact that the narration from Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra) has been lying dormant for hundreds of years in al-Mashyakha al-Baghdadiyya of al-Hafiz Abu Tahir al-Silafi and the Ta’rikh Jurjan of al-Hafiz Hamza al-Sahmi, and that Allah has allowed us in this age to read these narrations and transmit them once again in our time. If this person was to check who edited and published Ta’rikh Jurjan he may be more qualified to talk about such matters. The Ta’rikh Jurjan was published for the first time by the late Yemeni “Salafi” scholar – Abdur Rahman al-Muallimi. We didn’t see him attack anyone when he published this work with some narrations in it not quoted as evidence by most Muhaddithin or Fuqaha of the past, let alone attack anyone who quoted the narration of Jabir (ra) from the Ta’rikh Jurjan.
What counts is not when it was recorded after the Salaf but if the reports are fully connected back from al-Silafi and al-Sahmi back to the noble Sahabi, Jabir (ra). This is indeed the case for this report and it may be used as evidence if authenticated. If this person found this astonishing to understand then he would have to dismiss the whole of the Hadith collection known as al-Mukhatara by the Hanabli Shaykh – Diyauddin al-Maqdisi – who died in the year 643 AH. This being much later than al-Silafi and al-Sahmi. On the contrary, one can see how their late Muhaddith, al-Albani, himself not only quoted from al-Mukhatara, but he also quoted ahadith from a number of relatively unknown short Hadith collections (ajza) found in many instances as just unique manuscript copies in the Majami al-Umariyya collection in the Zahiriyya manuscript library (now known as Maktaba al-Asad) in Damascus, Syria. Indeed, if this person was to read al-Albani’s Silsila al-Ahadith al-da’eefa or Silsila ahadith al-Sahiha, he would witness this very fact of al-Albani quoting ahadith form these somewhat obscurely known ajza collections which most Muhaddithin had no access or knowledge of over the centuries outside Syria.
Let us mention another recent example. Just last year (2015) the work known as al-Khilafiyyat by Imam al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH) had been published in a fuller format in 8 volumes by a team of “Salafi” editors. It contains thousands of narrations. Prior to this, Mashhur Hasan Salman (a student of al-Albani’s from Jordan) published the Khilafiyyat incompletely in 3 volumes. Within this work there are actually a few narrations that are only recorded in al-Khilafiyyat and provide evidence for the stances of the Hanafi Madhhab (as well as some other Madhahbs), but were not quoted or known by many Hanafi scholars after the time of al-Bayhaqi. Is this person going to dismiss the whole of al-Khilafiyyat as there are a number of technically “newly discovered” ahadith for our age from this work, though known to al-Bayhaqi and some Muhaddithin who had access to his work (like al-Mughultai in his Sharh on Sunan ibn Majah)?!
Al-Bayhaqi, al-Silafi and al-Sahmi are all known and trustworthy Muhaddithin so their works should not be dismissed so flippantly. Hence, anything extracted from their works and used as proof by scholars in our time can be said to be “newly discovered” if not quoted in other hadith collections already.
He said:
“Amazing how Imam Ahmad, Imam Abu Haneefah, Imam Shafi' and Imam Malik ALL missed this hadeeth but it was somehow discovered by al-Hafiz Abu Tahir al-Silafi (d. 576 AH) and al-Hafiz Abul Qasim Hamza Ibn Yusuf al-Sahmi (d. 427 AH). Allah's help is sought.”
Reply: This is just clutching at straws. The narration was recorded by al-Silafi with his sanad back to Jabir ibn Abdullah (ra), so it was known to every rawi in the sanad going all the way back to Jabir (ra). There is no evidence to even suggest that the 4 Mujtahid Imams may have missed it, but one could surmise that some of them may have known of it but they didn’t record it directly in their works or were recorded by their direct students. The Salaf is not limited to just the 4 Mujtahid Imams. Besides, what evidence is there to suggest that every single hadith must have been known by the 4 Mujtahid Imams on an individual basis? It is possible that they could have not known some narrations that were known to other Imams from the Salaf.
He said:
“It grieves us deeply that we find in the Muslim ummah a group which differs concerning matters in which differences of opinion are acceptable, and they take these differences as a means to cause division. Differences within the ummah existed at the time of the Sahaabah, yet they remained united. The youth in particular and to all those who are committed to Islam must remain united, because they have enemies who are laying in wait.”
Reply: The groups that do this primarily are sadly the so called Salafis and their subdivisions, whose late Imam, al-Albani couldn’t always tolerate difference of opinion and the proofs used by other scholars. The objector can look at al-Albani’s work on Taraweeh and tell the world if al-Albani considered praying more than 8 rak’ats to be a BID’A or not?! To say that it is bid’a to pray more than 8 is an insult and assault on all those Imams who prayed and accepted the dala’il for 20 rak’ats.
Here is one example of al-Albani’s intolerance on the issue of where the hands should be placed in Salah from his mistake ridden work on Salah:
Link to al-Albani's Salah work - www.qss.org/articles/salah/footnotes/06_fn.html#fn77
Quote from fn. 78:
NOTE: To place them on the chest is what is proved in the Sunnah, and all that is contrary to it is either da`eef or totally baseless.* In fact, Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawaih acted on this sunnah, as Marwazi said in Masaa'il (p. 222): "Ishaaq used to pray witr with us _he would raise his hands in qunoot, and make the qunoot before bowing, and place his hands on his breast or just under his breast." Similar is the saying of Qaadi `Iyaad al-Maaliki in Mustahabbaat as-Salaah in his book al-I`laam (p.15, 3rd edition, Rabat): "the right arm is to be placed on the back of the left, on the upper part of the chest." Close to this is what `Abdullaah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal related in his Masaa'il (p. 62): "I saw that when praying, my father placed his hands, one on the other, above the navel." See Appendix 4.
Reply:
Note how al-Albani dismissed the evidences used by other Imams allowing placing the hands under the navel or slightly above it but below the chest. Secondly, we ask these defenders of al-Albani to bring the original Arabic quote from the Masa'il of al-Marwazi and show us if Imam Ishaq ibn Rahawayh really used to place his hands on the breast or just under it as al-Albani claimed so boldly. This is an open challenge as it will show who lied against a great Imam of Hadith. Similarly, it has been shown years ago that al-Albani also cut up the actual words of Qadi Iyad. To see more on the real Hanbali position on this issue, see our work here -
www.darultahqiq.com/the-hanbali-position-of-placing-the-hands-below-the-navel-in-salah/
As for his talking about ikhtilaf – then he should take a look at the massive khilaf within modern day Salafism in not only fiqhi issues but Aqida related issues as well. See here for a whole book by a “Salafi” author who showed the differences between al-Albani, Ibn ‘Uthaymin and Ibn Baz – In Fiqh and Aqida - www.darultahqiq.com/differences-between-al-albani-ibn-uthaymin-and-ibn-baz-in-fiqh-and-aqida/
He said:
“Ibn Uthaymeen, Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 4/225
Whatever the case, a person should not be strict with people with regard to a matter that is broad in scope. We have even seen some brothers who are strict on this matter accusing the imams who pray more than eleven rak’ahs of following bid’ah, and they leave the mosque, thus missing out on the reward of which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever stands with the imam until he finishes (the prayer), the reward of qiyaam al-layl will be recorded for him.” (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 806; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi, 646).
The other group does the opposite. They sternly denounce those who pray only eleven rak’ahs and say that they have gone against scholarly consensus.
Ibn Uthaymeen, Al-Sharh al-Mumti’, 4/73-75"
Reply: The above quote should also be applied to al-Albani who said it was a bid’a to exceed 8 rak’ats Taraweeh! On top of this, al-Albani also attacked those who refold their arms in Salah after the ruku (which was the position of the likes of Bin Baz and Badiuddin Sindi). See al-Albani’s attack here where he declared this act to be also a bid’a – footnote 76 here - www.qss.org/articles/salah/footnotes/10_fn.html#fn55
The objector also relied on Ibn Uthaymin, and since he had a problem with our quoting from a narration from al-Silafi and al-Sahmi and questioning its validity etc., then he would do well to concentrate and respond to his own late Imam, ibn Uthaymin for circulating the following batil claim to substantiate his own personal creed:
*al-Istawa' as Julus – sitting*
Ibn al-Uthaymin in his Majmu Fatawa (vol. 1, no. 57) quoting Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
وأما تفسيره بالجلوس فقد نقل ابن القيم في الصواعق 4/1303 عن خارجة بن مصعب في قوله تعالى
الرحمن على العرش استوى((1) قوله: "وهل يكون الاستواء إلا الجلوس". ا.هـ. وقد ورد ذكر الجلوس في حديث أخرجه الإمام أحمد عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما مرفوعاً. والله أعلم.
Rough translation:
“With respect to the explanation of sitting (al-Julus), Ibn al-Qayyim has reported in As-Sawaaiq 1303/4 from Kharijah bin Mus'ab with respect to the saying of Allah the Exalted: Ar-Rahmanu Alal Arshi Istawa,How can the Istiwa be anything other than sitting (julus)?" And the mention of sitting has been reported in the Hadith from Imam Ahmad from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both, in a Marfu' fashion. And Allah Knows best”
Reply: No such Hadith from Ibn Abbas exists in the Musnad of Imam Ahmed affirming that Allah is sitting on the Arsh!! It is a forgery spread by Ibn al Qayyim and Ibn Uthaymin.
The objector should answer where did Ibn Uthaymin and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya get this “new narration” from in attempting to establish that Allah is sitting on his Arsh and then said it is to be found in the Musnad of Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal!
Peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad
Abul Hasan
الرحمن على العرش استوى((1) قوله: "وهل يكون الاستواء إلا الجلوس". ا.هـ. وقد ورد ذكر الجلوس في حديث أخرجه الإمام أحمد عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما مرفوعاً. والله أعلم.