|
Post by DarulTahqiq on Jan 28, 2015 10:15:04 GMT
Praise be to Allah that is due from all grateful believers, a fullness of praise for all his favours: a praise that is abundantly sincere and blessed. May the blessings of Allah be upon our beloved Master Muhammad, the chosen one, the Apostle of mercy and the seal of all Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all); and upon his descendants who are upright and pure: a blessing lasting to the Day of Judgment, like the blessing bestowed upon the Prophet Ibrahim (alaihis salam) and his descendants. May Allah be pleased with all of the Prophetic Companions (Ashab al-Kiram). Indeed, Allah is most worthy of praise and supreme glorification!
I was forwarded this short epistle in repudiation of the claim that the Holy Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) will be seated upon the Throne (Arsh) with Allah subhana wa ta’ala, by the righteous Shaykh, Muhammad Yasir of Bradford, UK. It being the compilation of the noble brother and student of knowledge, Usamah Muttakin, who I have met in the recent past. His riposte is directed at an individual using the screen name – “Ahlul-Isnaad”, also known as Raza Hassan. A simple internet search lead to the conclusion that he seems to be closely associated with the methodology of the late Zubair Ali Za’i (1) of Pakistan when it comes to their understanding of the principles connected to Hadith. He is also linked with similar minded disseminators in England and Pakistan that have been the subject of a few responses from this pen.
What is most peculiar is that the named individual has betrayed his own screen name and has not bothered to scrutinize the very narrations he brought forth to propagate his belief in an analytical fashion as determined by sound principles connected to Ulum al-hadith. Indeed, this is not a novel matter, for those who know a little about Salafism in this age have noticed how their putative authorities of the past like ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya and Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab have all used rejected narrations to spread their ideologies and beliefs. This has also despondently continued to be seen in the writings of their modern day writers like the late Muhammad ibn Salih al-Uthaymin (2) et al. Indeed, this is a gross contradiction of their shrill claim to follow only the Qur’an and Sahih ahadith.
It is even more bewildering to note how Raza Hassan failed to provide a single authentic narration from Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) on this matter, and instead went out of his way to promote weak and rejected narrations collated by the Hanbali Shaykh, Abu Bakr al-Khallal (d. 311 AH). Naturally, if Raza Hassan was capable of bringing forth just one Sahih hadith in line with his claims and belief, then his whole sarcasm filled attempt at promoting this view would have had a sounder basis of credibility.
Since this was not witnessed from him as the counter response has demonstrated with succinct brevity and light humour, the onus is on him to show why and how he came to accept the narrations predominantly from Imam Mujahid ibn Jabr (3) (ra) on this matter using the principles of narrator disparagement (jarh) and accreditation (ta’dil). In order for him to do this he is advised to also answer the editor of Kitab al-Sunna of al-Khallal named within this retort by the compiler, who has also weakened these types of narrations promoted by the detractor.
The counter reply is thus of value to the students of aqida (creed) who wish to know where the truth lies, and we ask Allah subhana wa ta’ala to accept this work that was written to defend the real way of the Salaf, and its accepted creed emanating from Allah’s Messenger (sallallallahu alaihi wa sallam), as well as those who imitated his path in strict adherence on such tenets of beliefs as noted by the recognised scholars of Ahlus Sunna wal Jama’a via the ages.
Peace and blessings be upon our Master Muhammad
(Shaykh Dr.) Abul Hasan
London
June 2nd 2014/5th Sha’ban 1435 AH
Footnotes:
1 See here what his fellow sect members had to say about him - www.darultahqiq.com/zubair-ali-zai-exposed-by-yaser-et-al/
2 See here for his aqida and fiqhi positions that are at odds with those from his sect, like the late Bin Baz and Nasir al-Albani: www.darultahqiq.com/differences-between-al-albani-ibn-uthaymin-and-ibn-baz-in-fiqh-and-aqida/
See here for some other matters related to Imam Mujahid - www.darultahqiq.com/the-makan-narration-attributed-to-imam-mujahid/
Download the response HERE
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Feb 14, 2016 17:14:44 GMT
Despite your painstaking and I'm sure arduous efforts in compiling this red-herring filled reply, you will not be getting a response from any of the brothers that you have mentioned within this "refutation" for a number of reasons other than the fact that the doors on this issue were sealed almost two years ago and you are now attempting to beat a dead horse. The proof that your attempted reply is full of red-herrings and nonsensical ramblings of no relevance is evident in your opening words wherein you attempted to accuse Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmad of giving himself the title of "shaykh" and claiming that he likes to be called as such. Let us make it clear here that it was us that added this title and further proof of that is that we placed it in brackets, it doesnt take anybody of great intelligence to understand that this was added after and not by him himself but I suppose we over-estimated your intelligence, and the rest of your attempted reply is further filled with these ludicrously weak irrelevancies. The only reason why you have responded is as you have yourself stated, a matter of pride in that you wanted to answer those who were taunting you and saying that you were unable to reply, so you were not embarking on this endeavour out of sincerity. Apart from the above mentioned, here are a few reasons why you are not worthy of being answered other than this short reply; 1. You have claimed to have obtained a preface from Abu Hibban and Abu Khuzayma when in reality, Abu Hibban whose real name is Kamran Malik, was jailed for 5 years over a £2.5 million mortgage fraud in 2014. (see here: www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-solicitor-struck-over-52-7749947). To make it worse, he then coerced witnesses in order to avoid jail (see here: www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/solicitor-coerced-witness-bid-avoid-6700881)So how is it that you have come to attain a preface from this individual whilst he sits in a jail cell? Kamran Maliks accomplace Abu Khuzayma has been lying for some time now claiming that his buddy is still writing articles with him when we know this is far from truth. In defence of his partner in crime, he stated that Kamran's conviction does not count because he was convicted in a kafir court. If this is the case then why was Kamran working as a solicitor in a kafir court/legal system? It is bad enough that you sought a preface from a criminal who is dishonest but you have gone further and lied stating that he has provided you with a preface. This is sufficient enough to reject your entire attempt at a reply and anything else that you have produced or will produce. In fact, here is a challenge; show to the world whether Kamran Malik did actually co-author the preface from his jail cell signed and witnessed by two people or give likewise proof on whether he is or is not still languishing in a jail cell. 2. You have diverted the topic from addressing whether this particular creed which you appear to be defending, is truth or falsehood, to arguing whether it has been related from scholars of the salaf and yet still you couldnt answer our closing challenge. Anyway, this was not the issue, the issue was on whether this creed is acceptable and since you have diverted from the issue at hand it is pointless responding to you. 3. You, just as before, have contradicted yourself very severely. You claim that the creed in question is one that you are not partial to or in agreement with, you have stated that your own opinion and that of your ilk is not that of which you are defending yet interestingly you are here defending it as though it is your belief. You have made an attempt to show that this creed was accepted by many of the salaf yet you are not willing to take it as an acceptable belief for yourself, this shows that you are not confident in your own research and on that basis neither can anybody else take confidence in what you have attempted to present. Either you do hold this creed to be truth but you are ashamed to express it, or it is false and you are defending something you don't agree with, something that is absurd to any sound mind. 4. You have stated in many places in your "reply" in reference to the creed in question, "maqam al-mahmood" when in fact it should be "al-maqam al-mahmood". The state of a person who does not know basic arabic grammar and the difference between mawsuf-sifa' and mudhaf-mudhaf ilayh but then attempts to boast about their knowledge in usul al-hadith is highly laughable. Due to the above reasons we do not see it befitting that your obfuscations should be graced with a reply from us. As I have mentioned, the chapter on this is closed but we implore you to respond to the several other challenges that have been put forward by Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan such as Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyims fabrication of the word "jalis" in the hadith of Musnad Ahmad which has not been answered for 7 years now. You may also take it upon yourself to answer an upcoming challenge by Shaykh Mohammad Yasir on the pseudo-salafi anthropomorphic belief that "istiwa" means sitting or settling. If you are so eager for the truth and not so much in defending your pride, we are sure you will take up these challenges but this particular topic, as it stands, is over. P.s If you'd like lessons on arabic grammar then we will be more than happy to assist in arranging a few lessons for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 21:31:29 GMT
{{Despite your painstaking and I'm sure arduous efforts in compiling this red-herring filled reply, you will not be getting a response from any of the brothers that you have mentioned within this "refutation" for a number of reasons other than the fact that the doors on this issue were sealed almost two years ago and you are now attempting to beat a dead horse.}}
Ma-sha-Allah, instead of even remotely feeling embarrassed for your blunders, you are still persistent in them and are still defending them!? Instead of saying, "you will not be getting a response", you should have said, "I am unable to admit my blunders in public, hence I will play arrogant and never admit my mistakes"! How is it a dead horse, when your zulm with Usool ul-Hadeeth and the Salaf us-Saaliheen is still found in that document? {{The proof that your attempted reply is full of red-herrings and nonsensical ramblings of no relevance is evident in your opening words wherein you attempted to accuse Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmad of giving himself the title of "shaykh" and claiming that he likes to be called as such. Let us make it clear here that it was us that added this title and further proof of that is that we placed it in brackets, it doesnt take anybody of great intelligence to understand that this was added after and not by him himself but I suppose we over-estimated your intelligence, and the rest of your attempted reply is further filled with these ludicrously weak irrelevancies. }}
Bravo, my reply is full of nonsensical ramblings because I showed your blunders. As if, your attempt to call this belief completely alien to any of the Salaf was not nonsensical. Your attempt to declare every other narrator Majhool because you could not find an answer was not nonsensical. Your inability to even read an Isnaad properly was not nonsensical. And all of the other absolute utter lies and fabrications were not nonsensical! Instead of admitting your mistakes and feeling embarrassed for attempting to indulge into something you have absolutely no knowledge of, your stubbornness is really amazing! Is this what you call your "sincerity" that you are criticizing me for? As for Abul Hasan's desire to be called a Shaykh is well known, see the linked book I gave in the book and you will know the reality. I know the bracketed words were not his but his indirect approvals of this are countless, which even you cannot deny! So do not try to cover it with your feeble replies as it will only make it worse. Let's hear your excuses now, why you would not reply and admit your mistakes (And I found them to be very funny): First Reason:
{{Apart from the above mentioned, here are a few reasons why you are not worthy of being answered other than this short reply;
1. You have claimed to have obtained a preface from Abu Hibban and Abu Khuzayma when in reality, Abu Hibban whose real name is Kamran Malik, was jailed for 5 years over a £2.5 million mortgage fraud in 2014. (see here: www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-solicitor-struck-over-52-7749947). To make it worse, he then coerced witnesses in order to avoid jail (see here: www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/solicitor-coerced-witness-bid-avoid-6700881)
So how is it that you have come to attain a preface from this individual whilst he sits in a jail cell? Kamran Maliks accomplace Abu Khuzayma has been lying for some time now claiming that his buddy is still writing articles with him when we know this is far from truth. In defence of his partner in crime, he stated that Kamran's conviction does not count because he was convicted in a kafir court. If this is the case then why was Kamran working as a solicitor in a kafir court/legal system? It is bad enough that you sought a preface from a criminal who is dishonest but you have gone further and lied stating that he has provided you with a preface. This is sufficient enough to reject your entire attempt at a reply and anything else that you have produced or will produce.
In fact, here is a challenge; show to the world whether Kamran Malik did actually co-author the preface from his jail cell signed and witnessed by two people or give likewise proof on whether he is or is not still languishing in a jail cell. }}
Thanks for the information. But for your information, this foreword has nothing to do with the reply. It was only added after the reply had completed. So to say that you will not reply because of this foreword even though it has nothing to do with the reply is absolutely baseless. As for whether they both authored it or not, I have no idea. It was only given to me and I posted it in the reply just thinking that they are Abul Hasan's friend so he might like to pay attention to it due to this. If what you said is correct, you will find me the first person to condemn it. And I have even removed his name. In any case, for you to present this as an excuse of not replying is nothing more than an excuse! Second Reason:{{ 2. You have diverted the topic from addressing whether this particular creed which you appear to be defending, is truth or falsehood, to arguing whether it has been related from scholars of the salaf and yet still you couldnt answer our closing challenge. Anyway, this was not the issue, the issue was on whether this creed is acceptable and since you have diverted from the issue at hand it is pointless responding to you. }}
Subhaanallah, I have diverted from the topic! The issue since the very beginning has been on the fact whether Ibn Taymiyyah was alone to have held this aqeedah (if he really held it). And I don't have to do anything to prove this, because it is very clear in all the replies from me and from your and Yasir! Now it is you who is conveniently trying to divert the topic to run from accepting the mistakes. I can send you the screenshots of discussion between me and Yasir. I can even send you the original reply I wrote to Yasir clearly stating the topic of discussion. On top of that, you yourself abode by this topic while writing your document in the first place. So now for you to say that the topic was something else is really nonsense. It was you who clearly said and I quote your exact words, "Then came the biggest slander and lie from this misinformed person, the heinous slander and accusation against the salaf. He dares to say;
“Anything that Ibn Taymiyyah has or may have said was preceded by many giant Scholars and the righteous Salaf in every single word he said.” "
Subhaanallah! not only you affirmed my words clearly stating the reason I shared those 15 references, you on top of that, also tried to disprove it and call it a lie and what not. The biggest proof still yet is that you actually tried to prove this by your actions by attempting to weaken every single attribution of this belief to any of the Salaf! And that is what your entire response was based on! And now that you are replied to, you are conveniently changing the topic to something we never disagreed on in the first place, ma-sha-Allah!! Third Reason:{{ 3. You, just as before, have contradicted yourself very severely. You claim that the creed in question is one that you are not partial to or in agreement with, you have stated that your own opinion and that of your ilk is not that of which you are defending yet interestingly you are here defending it as though it is your belief. You have made an attempt to show that this creed was accepted by many of the salaf yet you are not willing to take it as an acceptable belief for yourself, this shows that you are not confident in your own research and on that basis neither can anybody else take confidence in what you have attempted to present. Either you do hold this creed to be truth but you are ashamed to express it, or it is false and you are defending something you don't agree with, something that is absurd to any sound mind. }}
Ma-sha-Allah, you have said this in your previous reply as well to which I have replied already. But since you had to find some excuse so why not this. It does not take a whole lot of brain to understand my argument, but I guess, you are struggling with this. It's ok. I can help: As I also have made very clear in my document, if you had read it properly, my belief on this topic is that it is not proven from the Qur'aan or Sunnah or the Sahaabah hence we do not affirm this belief. But then you and another genius and self-proclaimed "Shaykh" Yasir were criticizing and blaming Ibn Taymiyyah of blasphemy and what not for "quoting" this belief from the Salaf. And to that I replied, if you have to disrespect and blame him for this then you should know it was something held by your Aslaaf centuries before him, so the first fatwa goes to them! But you both were stubborn enough to say that this is not proven from a single of the Salaf and it is a lie and fabrication upon them. That is when I gave these references. So for anyone reading, it is clear that the contradiction is in your brain, not us. It is clear to anyone that I am not defending this belief, rather I am only showing you the other side of the picture and the difference of opinion among the Ulama, which you are blindly denying even though you would be the first two in the entire History of Islaam to deny such a thing, which in turn means, the nation of Islaam has not seen such genius mentality before! Fourth Reason:{{ 4. You have stated in many places in your "reply" in reference to the creed in question, "maqam al-mahmood" when in fact it should be "al-maqam al-mahmood". The state of a person who does not know basic arabic grammar and the difference between mawsuf-sifa' and mudhaf-mudhaf ilayh but then attempts to boast about their knowledge in usul al-hadith is highly laughable. }}
Allaahu Akbar, you have finally found a "valid" reason of why you will not give a reply because I did not put an "AL" and hence the entire document and arguments are invalid! You've got to win the genius of the century award! This is what we call in true sense, running away from replying! Even though you are right about, and I have corrected myself, alhamdulillah, how in the world, this has anything to do with you not replying!? In fact, at some places, I had even put a double "AL" like this: "Al-al-Maqaam" so don't you think due to this double AL you have double the reason to reply!? lol If you can reject the entire document due to this, which essentially is only because you cannot admit your blunders, then why not reject Imaam Abu Haneefah entirely? As al-Ghazzaali says, [وأما أبو حنيفة فلم يكن مجتهدا لأنه كان لا يعرف اللغة]? Please at least find a valid excuse of why you are running away. This will not do. {{ Due to the above reasons we do not see it befitting that your obfuscations should be graced with a reply from us. }}
Subhaanallah! Which clearly means you still abide by your blunders and fabrications even when the truth has been shown to you! Inna Lillaahi wa Innaa Ilayhi Raaji'oon! Truly, a man's pseudo-pride and honor, which prevents him from accepting the truth, drowns him to the dark realm of evil! May Allaah not make us among those, Ameen. {{ As I have mentioned, the chapter on this is closed but we implore you to respond to the several other challenges that have been put forward by Shaykh Dr. Abul Hasan such as Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyims fabrication of the word "jalis" in the hadith of Musnad Ahmad which has not been answered for 7 years now. You may also take it upon yourself to answer an upcoming challenge by Shaykh Mohammad Yasir on the pseudo-salafi anthropomorphic belief that "istiwa" means sitting or settling. If you are so eager for the truth and not so much in defending your pride, we are sure you will take up these challenges but this particular topic, as it stands, is over. }}
You have not yet replied to this reply yet and you are asking us to replying to your other similar futile challenges? They have long been answered by us, but then those answers might not be "graced with a reply from you" for centuries to come, what then can we do!? You can remain happy with the idea that your challenges remain standing as long as you keep avoiding the replies to those challenges! This is a convenient way to satisfy oneself.
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Feb 14, 2016 23:24:22 GMT
We, unlike yourself, do not feel obliged to answer out of pride or for the sake of giving an answer, especially not to some of the silly and laughable responses you've given. Nobody has removed your comments, I assure you they'll stay there so that people can see your arrogance, lack of respect and childlike-amateurish behaviour. Dig your heels in the ground and sulk as much as you like, this issue was done and dusted two years ago whether you like it or not
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 23:30:50 GMT
ok Brother as you wish. It does not matter whether you reply or not, because your blunders are already out for everyone to see. And then your attempt to still defend those serious mistakes despite knowing them to be wrong, is also out to the public. It will not do any harm but to you, so good luck with running away!
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Feb 14, 2016 23:53:08 GMT
No problem, let it stay public inshaAllah because I highly doubt that anyone, even from your own ilk has bothered to read your nonsense. Last we checked you were on 13 likes on your Facebook post, what is it now, 14? How nice it is to see that your cronies got out in full force behind you masha'Allah lol. We understand that you're very desperate for attention and free publicity so that you can at least try to redeem yourself from the embarrassment that you suffered first time around. We get it, you're trying your best to invoke a response to yourself so that you can attract some attention to what you have written. We're not running, we don't even need to say anything, your every reply just keeps demonstrating how childish you are and you're exposing yourself with every comment so keep going, be our guest
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 0:27:15 GMT
Alhamdulillah, if the number of likes had any effect, I would not have written this. My Lord knows what I intend.
It is about speaking lies upon the Salaf and indulging in something you completely have no knowledge of. The main purpose was only to make you realize of your mistakes. I was not even going to publish this until you yourself requested me to, and it was then that I told you I will try to review it and give it to you as soon as possible. I even sent it to you before publishing it out, and I clearly told you if you realize your mistake after reading it, I will not publish it. But you were not sincere enough to even leave a reply. Had it been for publicity, then wallaah, I would not have bothered keeping it in my documents for two years and sending it to you first!
Wallah, I am amazed at your insincerity that despite knowing everything you are trying all the very best to defend your tail! If you think you are sincere in this then say for once that, "Whatever you have written in your document, after reading my reply, you still abide by every single one of your claims, and you were not wrong in any aspect whatsoever" - then wallaah, I will not bother you ever after! It will only tell me how sincerely you take your deen and being questioned on that Day!
Just say it for once! This is not about showing it to others. This is about you and your sincerity towards the Deen. Even if you then say it silently in my inbox, I will never say a word! If you cannot say it, then you really need to question yourself and your integrity!
|
|
|
Post by DarulTahqiq on Feb 15, 2016 17:14:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by IbnNurAlShanti on Feb 18, 2016 9:01:15 GMT
Alhamdulillah, if the number of likes had any effect, I would not have written this. My Lord knows what I intend. It is about speaking lies upon the Salaf and indulging in something you completely have no knowledge of. The main purpose was only to make you realize of your mistakes. I was not even going to publish this until you yourself requested me to, and it was then that I told you I will try to review it and give it to you as soon as possible. I even sent it to you before publishing it out, and I clearly told you if you realize your mistake after reading it, I will not publish it. But you were not sincere enough to even leave a reply. Had it been for publicity, then wallaah, I would not have bothered keeping it in my documents for two years and sending it to you first! Wallah, I am amazed at your insincerity that despite knowing everything you are trying all the very best to defend your tail! If you think you are sincere in this then say for once that, "Whatever you have written in your document, after reading my reply, you still abide by every single one of your claims, and you were not wrong in any aspect whatsoever" - then wallaah, I will not bother you ever after! It will only tell me how sincerely you take your deen and being questioned on that Day! Just say it for once! This is not about showing it to others. This is about you and your sincerity towards the Deen. Even if you then say it silently in my inbox, I will never say a word! If you cannot say it, then you really need to question yourself and your integrity! You must be the master of contradictions, now you're claiming you did it for me yet here you are posting and promoting it publicly. I'm glad you did reply, you've proven to the world that you salafis do believe in this anthropomorphic creed and thats why I didn't object to you making it public. If you assume yourself to be correct just because I don't feel the need to respond to your nonsense then you're deluded. Shaykh Abul Hasan has already demonstrated in two places where your reply contained ridiculous errors which you can't reply to. I suggest you go read them carefully rather than being cocky here. This is my last reply to you, you're more than welcome to keep talking to yourself
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2016 5:19:44 GMT
It's ok. I got my reply.
|
|