Post by Zameel on Oct 30, 2016 23:26:47 GMT
Abu Layth has been made aware of some of his errors, distortions and misrepresentations previously. For example, in the following two pieces:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/436/reply-abu-layth-joining-excuse
theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/
The following link also highlighted some of his extreme and unacceptable views:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/497/avoid-abu-layth
Naturally, a person will be excused for some mistakes he might have made, as nobody is free from mistakes. However, both early and late scholars have clarified that a transmitter of knowledge will be discredited as an authority of religious knowledge if he obstinately remains on mistakes he has made despite those mistakes having been made clear to him. [1]
Far from accepting his mistakes, Abu Layth has obstinately persisted on the misattribution to Ashhab, and has not retracted from either this or his other mistakes.
Here we will highlight another of his misrepresentations.
Casting doubt on the authenticity of the famous ḥadīth:
“Whoever resembles a people is from them.”
Abu Layth says:
“The Hadith which isn't even accepted as authentic by certain scholars like imam Zarkashi and Hafidh Sakhawi, nevertheless moving beyond that…let’s momentarily accept its validity.”
Neither Imam al-Sakhāwi nor Imam al-Zarkashī stated that they do not regard the ḥadīth as authentic.
Al-Sakhāwi’s exact words are:
‘The ḥadīth, “whoever resembles a people is from them,” Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd and al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr narrated it from the ḥadīth of Abū Munīb al-Jurashī from Ibn ‘Umar with this [wording], traced [to the Prophet (SAW)]. There is weakness in the chain, although there is support for it with al-Bazzār from the ḥadīth of Hudhayfah and Abū Hurayrah, with Abū Nu‘aym in Tārīkh Aṣbahān from Anas, and with al-Quḍā‘ī from the ḥadīth of Ṭāwūs as a disconnected report. It has preceded under the entry, “Knowledge is only via learning” under the letter hamza, from al-Ḥasan in a report [from him]: “Rarely does a man resemble a people except he is from them,” and also with another wording.’ (al-Maqāṣid al-Ḥasana, p. 407)
The full discussion clearly suggests that according to al-Sakhāwī the ḥadīth is authentic on account of its multiple sources. Hence, in the summary of al-Sakhāwī’s work by Shaykh al-Zurqānī al-Mālikī, he concludes the ḥadīth is ‘ḥasan li ghayrihi.’ (Mukhtaṣar al-Maqāṣid al- Ḥasana, p. 215)
Al-Zurqānī explicitly states in the introduction to this book that when he gives the grading ‘ḥasan lighayrihi’, he is conveying the meaning of what al-Sakhāwī wrote (حيث قلت: حسن لغيره، فذلك حكاية لمعناه). (ibid. p. 48)
Hence, according to al-Zurqānī and according to the clear implication of al-Sakhāwī’s discussion, the ḥadīth is authentic according to him.
As regards to al-Zarkashī, his only comment on the ḥadīth is:
‘Abū Dāwūd transmitted it with a chain in which there is some weakness.’ (al-La’ālī al-Manthūrah, p. 102)
Notice, al-Zarkashī does not say the ḥadīth is weak. He says there is some weakness in the chain of one particular source of this ḥadīth. This does not mean he does not regard the ḥadīth as authentic, as it may be sound on account of other supporting chains. Merely pointing out weakness in a chain does not amount to weakening the ḥadīth, as Ibn al-Ṣalāh and others have stated.
Regarding this ḥadīth, Ḥāfiẓ al-‘Irāqī, the grand-teacher of al-Sakhāwī, said the sanad of Abū Dāwūd is ṣaḥīḥ (Takhrīj Aḥādīth Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, no. 797). Ibn Ḥajar, Sakhāwī’s teacher, said in Fatḥ al-Bārī that it is ḥasan, also saying that the ḥadīth is “established” (thabata). And Ibn Taymiyyah said it has an excellent (jayyid) chain. (Iqtiḍā’ al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm)
Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythamī said of one of the supporting narrations (which shares the same words as the narration of Abū Dāwūd): ‘Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in al-Awsaṭ. ‘Alī ibn Ghurāb is in it, considered reliable by some and unreliable by others. The rest of the narrators are trustworthy.’ (Majma‘ al-Zawā’id, no. 17959)
According to Ibn Ḥajar, one of the supporting mursal narrations (from Ṭāwūs) has a ḥasan chain. (See: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, no. 19783)
Al-Sakhāwī referred to these supporting narrations and more. It is hard to see how after citing these supporting narrations al-Sakhāwī can be said to have not regarded the ḥadīth as authentic.
The questions that must be asked of Abu Layth therefore are:
On what basis does he make the claim that “the hadith is not accepted as authentic by al-Zarkashi and al-Sakhawi”? Is there any clear quote from them where they state that they do not regard the ḥadīth as authentic? Does he accept that in fact the reverse is true for al-Sakhāwī, that the clear implication of his discussion and the conclusion of al-Zurqānī from it is that he believes it is authentic? If he has nothing concrete to back up his assertion, will he take it back? Or will he remain obstinately on it as he did with the clearly proven misattribution to Ashhab previously?
If these questions are not answered satisfactorily, this will serve as another warning to those who take Abu Layth as a serious source of religious knowledge.
------------------------
With regards to how this ḥadīth was understood, a great Mālikī scholar, Ibn al-Ḥājj, explained the meaning of the ḥadīth as follows:
“Its meaning is to drive the Muslims away from imitating the disbelievers in everything exclusive to them.”
That is, a Muslim should avoid those practices or traits exclusive to non-Muslims.
[1]
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/436/reply-abu-layth-joining-excuse
theislamiclens.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/comments-on-classical-islamic-views-on-the-punishment-for-apostasy/
The following link also highlighted some of his extreme and unacceptable views:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/497/avoid-abu-layth
Naturally, a person will be excused for some mistakes he might have made, as nobody is free from mistakes. However, both early and late scholars have clarified that a transmitter of knowledge will be discredited as an authority of religious knowledge if he obstinately remains on mistakes he has made despite those mistakes having been made clear to him. [1]
Far from accepting his mistakes, Abu Layth has obstinately persisted on the misattribution to Ashhab, and has not retracted from either this or his other mistakes.
Here we will highlight another of his misrepresentations.
Casting doubt on the authenticity of the famous ḥadīth:
من تشبه بقوم فهو منهم
“Whoever resembles a people is from them.”
Abu Layth says:
“The Hadith which isn't even accepted as authentic by certain scholars like imam Zarkashi and Hafidh Sakhawi, nevertheless moving beyond that…let’s momentarily accept its validity.”
Neither Imam al-Sakhāwi nor Imam al-Zarkashī stated that they do not regard the ḥadīth as authentic.
Al-Sakhāwi’s exact words are:
حديث من تشبه بقوم فهو منهم، أحمد وأبو داود والطبراني فى الكبير من حديث أبي منيب الجرشي عن ابن عمر به مرفوعا وفي سنده ضعف ولكن شاهده عند البزار من حديث حذيفة وأبي هريرة. وعند أبي نعيم في تاريخ أصبهان عن أنس، وعند القضاعي من حديث طاوس مرسلا، وتقدم في: إنما العلم بالتعلم من الهمزة عن الحسن في أثر: قلما تشبه رجل بقوم إلا كان منهم، وبلفظ آخر (المقاصد الحسنة ص٤٠٧
The full discussion clearly suggests that according to al-Sakhāwī the ḥadīth is authentic on account of its multiple sources. Hence, in the summary of al-Sakhāwī’s work by Shaykh al-Zurqānī al-Mālikī, he concludes the ḥadīth is ‘ḥasan li ghayrihi.’ (Mukhtaṣar al-Maqāṣid al- Ḥasana, p. 215)
Al-Zurqānī explicitly states in the introduction to this book that when he gives the grading ‘ḥasan lighayrihi’, he is conveying the meaning of what al-Sakhāwī wrote (حيث قلت: حسن لغيره، فذلك حكاية لمعناه). (ibid. p. 48)
Hence, according to al-Zurqānī and according to the clear implication of al-Sakhāwī’s discussion, the ḥadīth is authentic according to him.
As regards to al-Zarkashī, his only comment on the ḥadīth is:
أخرجه أبو داود بإسناد فيه ضعف
‘Abū Dāwūd transmitted it with a chain in which there is some weakness.’ (al-La’ālī al-Manthūrah, p. 102)
Notice, al-Zarkashī does not say the ḥadīth is weak. He says there is some weakness in the chain of one particular source of this ḥadīth. This does not mean he does not regard the ḥadīth as authentic, as it may be sound on account of other supporting chains. Merely pointing out weakness in a chain does not amount to weakening the ḥadīth, as Ibn al-Ṣalāh and others have stated.
Regarding this ḥadīth, Ḥāfiẓ al-‘Irāqī, the grand-teacher of al-Sakhāwī, said the sanad of Abū Dāwūd is ṣaḥīḥ (Takhrīj Aḥādīth Iḥyā’ ‘Ulūm al-Dīn, no. 797). Ibn Ḥajar, Sakhāwī’s teacher, said in Fatḥ al-Bārī that it is ḥasan, also saying that the ḥadīth is “established” (thabata). And Ibn Taymiyyah said it has an excellent (jayyid) chain. (Iqtiḍā’ al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm)
Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythamī said of one of the supporting narrations (which shares the same words as the narration of Abū Dāwūd): ‘Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it in al-Awsaṭ. ‘Alī ibn Ghurāb is in it, considered reliable by some and unreliable by others. The rest of the narrators are trustworthy.’ (Majma‘ al-Zawā’id, no. 17959)
According to Ibn Ḥajar, one of the supporting mursal narrations (from Ṭāwūs) has a ḥasan chain. (See: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, no. 19783)
Al-Sakhāwī referred to these supporting narrations and more. It is hard to see how after citing these supporting narrations al-Sakhāwī can be said to have not regarded the ḥadīth as authentic.
The questions that must be asked of Abu Layth therefore are:
On what basis does he make the claim that “the hadith is not accepted as authentic by al-Zarkashi and al-Sakhawi”? Is there any clear quote from them where they state that they do not regard the ḥadīth as authentic? Does he accept that in fact the reverse is true for al-Sakhāwī, that the clear implication of his discussion and the conclusion of al-Zurqānī from it is that he believes it is authentic? If he has nothing concrete to back up his assertion, will he take it back? Or will he remain obstinately on it as he did with the clearly proven misattribution to Ashhab previously?
If these questions are not answered satisfactorily, this will serve as another warning to those who take Abu Layth as a serious source of religious knowledge.
------------------------
With regards to how this ḥadīth was understood, a great Mālikī scholar, Ibn al-Ḥājj, explained the meaning of the ḥadīth as follows:
ومعنى ذلك تنفير المسلمين عن موافقة الكفار في كل ما اختصوا به
“Its meaning is to drive the Muslims away from imitating the disbelievers in everything exclusive to them.”
That is, a Muslim should avoid those practices or traits exclusive to non-Muslims.
[1]
قال ابن حبان: إن من بين له خطؤه وعلمه، فلم يرجع عنه وتمادى في ذلك كان كذابا بعلم صحيح (من تعليق مقدمة ابن الصلاح، ص١٢٠
وورد عن ابن المبارك وأحمد بن حنبل والحميدي وغيرهم أن من غلط في حديث وبين له غلطه فلم يرجع وأصر على رواية ذلك الحديث سقطت رواياته ولم يكتب عنه...وهو غير مستنكر إذا ظهر أن ذلك منه على جهة العناد (مقدمة ابن الصلاح، ص١٢٠