Post by Zameel on Jan 7, 2018 8:06:08 GMT
Did al-Jaṣṣāṣ say the Dajjāl was a Historical Pagan Army? Response to Atabek Shukurov
From previous analyses/critiques of Atabek Shukurov’s writings, it was demonstrated that he is far from honest and competent. For clear examples of this in one particular case, see:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/499/response-atabek-ikrimah-mawl-ibn
Atabek has not responded to this detailed refutation on his claims about ‘Ikrimah (raḥimahullāh).
More recently, he has made the outlandish claim that the early Ḥanafī faqīh, Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ, believed the pagan armies in the Battle of Khandaq was the Dajjāl the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) foretold – and thus according to al-Jaṣṣāṣ, the Dajjāl has come and gone!
Atabek says:
“Some of the Hanafi jurists, Abu Bakr Al-Razi d980 AD presented a potential interpretation of the arrival of the Dajjal. He denied the arrival of Dajjal after the death of the Prophet PBUH and the rest of the magical and mythical details of the story. Instead he stated that this incident had already taken place during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as he states this was the army of the Pagans (approximately 100,000 in number) that tried entering Madinah. He further references this incident of Dajjal to the battle of the trench that took place in 5AH and that the incident lasted a month approximately (Book Fusul, V3, P326). Therefore, based on his position, Dajjal has already come and gone. So, according to Abu Bakr Al-Razi Dajjal has already arrived in the time of the Prophet PBUH and his case is already closed by the Prophet PBUH himself!”*
Note the tall claims Atabek makes: “[Al-Jaṣṣāṣ] denied the arrival of Dajjal after the death of the Prophet PBUH and the rest of the magical and mythical details of the story,” “he states [the Dajjāl] was the army of the Pagans,” “based on his position, Dajjal has already come and gone.”
The truth is that al-Jaṣṣāṣ said nothing of the sort. In all probability, al-Jaṣṣāṣ believed in the common understanding of the Dajjāl as documented in ḥadīths. In his Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (a work written after his al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl), he quotes a narration stating the Dajjāl will appear towards the end of time close to the time when the sun will rise from the west. (Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, 5:248-9)
In the passage Atabek Shukurov references from al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl, the discussion is not about the Dajjāl. It is about an issue of Uṣūl al-Fiqh, over whether the unanimous opinion of the inhabitants of Madīnah is a proof in Sharī‘ah and must be followed or not. (al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl, 3:321-6) Al-Jaṣṣāṣ mentions a small group of scholars believed this to be so, while the majority believed that the views of the people of Madīnah do not hold any intrinsic distinction to the views of those outside of Madīnah. He lists, and rebuts, several arguments made by those holding the minority position. It is the last of these arguments that Atabek is referring to.
The argument that al-Jaṣṣāṣ responds to is as follows: a ḥadīth states that the Dajjāl will not enter Madīnah and that the openings leading to Madīnah are guarded by angels; this shows that the people of Madīnah have a distinction over others and thus must be followed. He responds that just because the city is physically guarded, this does not mean its inhabitants are spiritually/religiously protected from error/misguidance. He further states that it may be that the “guarding” referred to in this ḥadīth occurred only at the time when the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) made this statement, which al-Jaṣṣāṣ speculates to be at the incident of Khandaq. Nowhere does al-Jaṣṣāṣ suggest that the Dajjāl has come and gone! The first part of the ḥadīth al-Jaṣṣāṣ discusses mentions the Dajjāl, but his argument has nothing to do with this part of the ḥadīth.
Here is al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s statement:
“If it is argued that it has been reported from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said: ‘Indeed the Dajjāl will not enter Madīnah, and indeed there is an angel displaying its sword at every opening from its openings,’ and this proves Allāh’s protection of them, and that He has distinguished them thereby from other than them, and thus it must be that they have a distinction in the necessity to follow them.
“It will be said in response: There is nothing in this entailing what you state. Why is it not possible that it is guarded regardless of its inhabitants going towards misguidance or staying firm on truth? – just as the inhabitants of Makkah were protected from the people of the elephant, and yet they were idolaters. And it is possible that the description of it that there are angels at its openings was [said] at the time when the idolaters had surrounded it on the Day of Khandaq, and thus the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) informed [his companions] that Allāh is protecting it by means of the angels and that they will not enter it, and thus the purport of the report is limited to this occasion.” (al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl, 3:325-6)
Note that the ḥadīth al-Jaṣṣāṣ is discussing has two parts, both with regards to Madīnah: one that Dajjāl will not enter it, and the other that there are angels posted as guards at its openings. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ is discussing this second part of the ḥadīth and explains that the guarding is a physical guarding and thus does not guarantee that the people of Madīnah will be on truth; furthermore, it may be that the guarding only applied to the time in which the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) made this statement. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ is not in any way claiming that the idolaters at Khandaq were the Dajjāl! He knew far better than to believe or say something so ridiculous.
Finally, as an example of Atabek’s incompetence/carelessness, he mentions the number of fighters from the pagans in the Battle of Khandaq as “approximately 100,000”. The actual figure is approximately 10,000.
---------------------------
A few further examples of Atabek's lies/blunders are given below:
• Atabek said: “As for the price not being fixed [in a sale] but differing based on the time of paying it back, as we said, it is permissible according to the two students of Abu Hanifa without any conditions. It is also permissible according to Abu Hanifa with the condition that I explained above (i.e. for the late payment he has to pay a ‘standard price’, and the ‘standard price’ is what is known by custom).”
This is false. According to all the imāms of the Ḥanafī madhhab, if the price in a sale is not fixed at the time of the transaction, it is impermissible.
• Atabek said: “We know that [‘Ikrimah] is “fine” according to later scholars who never met him, but the Salaf who actually met him do not consider him authentic at all.”
This is false. Several of those who met ‘Ikrimah regarded him to be reliable, like Ibn ‘Abbās and Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī.
• To explain that the word “Sunnah” means “way”, Atabek quotes a ḥadīth using this word as follows: “The Messenger of Allahﷺ said: "Marriage is my way (in opposing to living an unmarried life) and he who dislikes my way, he is not with me". (Bukhari, p 1292, Dar Ibn Kathir, 2002, Muslim, p 1233, Dar Taybah, 2006).”**
Notice Atabek references the ḥadīth to Bukhārī and Muslim. The ḥadīth with this wording, i.e. “marriage is my way (al-nikāḥu min sunnatī)” is not found in Bukhārī or Muslim, but rather the wording in Bukhārī and Muslim is: “I marry women (atazawwaj al-nisā’)”, without the word “sunnah” (way). The wording “marriage is from my way/sunnah” is found in other collections.
• Atabek said: “[T]he Prophet ﷺ said; ''I left with you two thing! You won't be misguided if you grab on them; Book of God and Ahl Bait''. (Mustadrak, v 1 p 171, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, 2002, Muslim, p 631, Dar Taybah, 2006, Sunan Tirmidhi, v 6 p 124, Dar Al-Gharb Al-Islami, 1996).”**
Notice Atabek references the ḥadīth to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. This ḥadīth is not found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Although there is a narration found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim mentioning the Qur’ān and Ahl al-Bayt, it does not mention about the Ahl al-Bayt that “you won't be misguided if you grab onto them.” It only exhorts holding firmly onto the Qur’ān, and to be mindful of the Ahl al-Bayt i.e. by treating them well and showing them compassion – not “grabbing onto them.”
Someone who displays such obvious dishonesty and incompetence should obviously not be trusted, especially in matters of dīn.
* www.maturidi.co.uk/l/dajjal-between-myth-and-reality/
shaykhatabekshukurov.com/2017/09/29/dajjal-between-myth-and-reality/
** www.maturidi.co.uk/l/ahl-sunnah/
From previous analyses/critiques of Atabek Shukurov’s writings, it was demonstrated that he is far from honest and competent. For clear examples of this in one particular case, see:
ahlussunnah.boards.net/thread/499/response-atabek-ikrimah-mawl-ibn
Atabek has not responded to this detailed refutation on his claims about ‘Ikrimah (raḥimahullāh).
More recently, he has made the outlandish claim that the early Ḥanafī faqīh, Abū Bakr al-Jaṣṣāṣ, believed the pagan armies in the Battle of Khandaq was the Dajjāl the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) foretold – and thus according to al-Jaṣṣāṣ, the Dajjāl has come and gone!
Atabek says:
“Some of the Hanafi jurists, Abu Bakr Al-Razi d980 AD presented a potential interpretation of the arrival of the Dajjal. He denied the arrival of Dajjal after the death of the Prophet PBUH and the rest of the magical and mythical details of the story. Instead he stated that this incident had already taken place during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as he states this was the army of the Pagans (approximately 100,000 in number) that tried entering Madinah. He further references this incident of Dajjal to the battle of the trench that took place in 5AH and that the incident lasted a month approximately (Book Fusul, V3, P326). Therefore, based on his position, Dajjal has already come and gone. So, according to Abu Bakr Al-Razi Dajjal has already arrived in the time of the Prophet PBUH and his case is already closed by the Prophet PBUH himself!”*
Note the tall claims Atabek makes: “[Al-Jaṣṣāṣ] denied the arrival of Dajjal after the death of the Prophet PBUH and the rest of the magical and mythical details of the story,” “he states [the Dajjāl] was the army of the Pagans,” “based on his position, Dajjal has already come and gone.”
The truth is that al-Jaṣṣāṣ said nothing of the sort. In all probability, al-Jaṣṣāṣ believed in the common understanding of the Dajjāl as documented in ḥadīths. In his Aḥkām al-Qur’ān (a work written after his al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl), he quotes a narration stating the Dajjāl will appear towards the end of time close to the time when the sun will rise from the west. (Aḥkām al-Qur’ān, 5:248-9)
In the passage Atabek Shukurov references from al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl, the discussion is not about the Dajjāl. It is about an issue of Uṣūl al-Fiqh, over whether the unanimous opinion of the inhabitants of Madīnah is a proof in Sharī‘ah and must be followed or not. (al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl, 3:321-6) Al-Jaṣṣāṣ mentions a small group of scholars believed this to be so, while the majority believed that the views of the people of Madīnah do not hold any intrinsic distinction to the views of those outside of Madīnah. He lists, and rebuts, several arguments made by those holding the minority position. It is the last of these arguments that Atabek is referring to.
The argument that al-Jaṣṣāṣ responds to is as follows: a ḥadīth states that the Dajjāl will not enter Madīnah and that the openings leading to Madīnah are guarded by angels; this shows that the people of Madīnah have a distinction over others and thus must be followed. He responds that just because the city is physically guarded, this does not mean its inhabitants are spiritually/religiously protected from error/misguidance. He further states that it may be that the “guarding” referred to in this ḥadīth occurred only at the time when the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) made this statement, which al-Jaṣṣāṣ speculates to be at the incident of Khandaq. Nowhere does al-Jaṣṣāṣ suggest that the Dajjāl has come and gone! The first part of the ḥadīth al-Jaṣṣāṣ discusses mentions the Dajjāl, but his argument has nothing to do with this part of the ḥadīth.
Here is al-Jaṣṣāṣ’s statement:
فإن قيل: قد روي عن النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - في أنه قال: «إن الدجال لا يدخل المدينة، وإن على كل نقب من أنقابها ملكا شاهرا سيفه» وهذا يدل: على حراسة الله عز وجل إياهم، وأنه قد أبانهم بذلك من غيرهم، فوجب أن تكون لهم مزية في لزوم اتباعهم.
قيل له: وما في هذا ما يوجب ما ذكرت، ولم لا يجوز أن تكون محروسة سواء صار أهلها إلى الضلال، أو ثبتوا على الحق؟ كما حرس أهل مكة من أصحاب الفيل، وكانوا مشركين، وجائز أن يكون وصفها بأن على أنقابها الملائكة في الوقت الذي حصرها المشركون يوم الخندق، فأخبر النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - عن حراسة الله تعالى إياها بالملائكة، وأنهم لا يدخلونها، فيكون حكم الخبر مقصورا على تلك الحال
“If it is argued that it has been reported from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said: ‘Indeed the Dajjāl will not enter Madīnah, and indeed there is an angel displaying its sword at every opening from its openings,’ and this proves Allāh’s protection of them, and that He has distinguished them thereby from other than them, and thus it must be that they have a distinction in the necessity to follow them.
“It will be said in response: There is nothing in this entailing what you state. Why is it not possible that it is guarded regardless of its inhabitants going towards misguidance or staying firm on truth? – just as the inhabitants of Makkah were protected from the people of the elephant, and yet they were idolaters. And it is possible that the description of it that there are angels at its openings was [said] at the time when the idolaters had surrounded it on the Day of Khandaq, and thus the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) informed [his companions] that Allāh is protecting it by means of the angels and that they will not enter it, and thus the purport of the report is limited to this occasion.” (al-Fuṣūl fi l-Uṣūl, 3:325-6)
Note that the ḥadīth al-Jaṣṣāṣ is discussing has two parts, both with regards to Madīnah: one that Dajjāl will not enter it, and the other that there are angels posted as guards at its openings. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ is discussing this second part of the ḥadīth and explains that the guarding is a physical guarding and thus does not guarantee that the people of Madīnah will be on truth; furthermore, it may be that the guarding only applied to the time in which the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) made this statement. Al-Jaṣṣāṣ is not in any way claiming that the idolaters at Khandaq were the Dajjāl! He knew far better than to believe or say something so ridiculous.
Finally, as an example of Atabek’s incompetence/carelessness, he mentions the number of fighters from the pagans in the Battle of Khandaq as “approximately 100,000”. The actual figure is approximately 10,000.
---------------------------
A few further examples of Atabek's lies/blunders are given below:
• Atabek said: “As for the price not being fixed [in a sale] but differing based on the time of paying it back, as we said, it is permissible according to the two students of Abu Hanifa without any conditions. It is also permissible according to Abu Hanifa with the condition that I explained above (i.e. for the late payment he has to pay a ‘standard price’, and the ‘standard price’ is what is known by custom).”
This is false. According to all the imāms of the Ḥanafī madhhab, if the price in a sale is not fixed at the time of the transaction, it is impermissible.
• Atabek said: “We know that [‘Ikrimah] is “fine” according to later scholars who never met him, but the Salaf who actually met him do not consider him authentic at all.”
This is false. Several of those who met ‘Ikrimah regarded him to be reliable, like Ibn ‘Abbās and Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī.
• To explain that the word “Sunnah” means “way”, Atabek quotes a ḥadīth using this word as follows: “The Messenger of Allahﷺ said: "Marriage is my way (in opposing to living an unmarried life) and he who dislikes my way, he is not with me". (Bukhari, p 1292, Dar Ibn Kathir, 2002, Muslim, p 1233, Dar Taybah, 2006).”**
Notice Atabek references the ḥadīth to Bukhārī and Muslim. The ḥadīth with this wording, i.e. “marriage is my way (al-nikāḥu min sunnatī)” is not found in Bukhārī or Muslim, but rather the wording in Bukhārī and Muslim is: “I marry women (atazawwaj al-nisā’)”, without the word “sunnah” (way). The wording “marriage is from my way/sunnah” is found in other collections.
• Atabek said: “[T]he Prophet ﷺ said; ''I left with you two thing! You won't be misguided if you grab on them; Book of God and Ahl Bait''. (Mustadrak, v 1 p 171, Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah, 2002, Muslim, p 631, Dar Taybah, 2006, Sunan Tirmidhi, v 6 p 124, Dar Al-Gharb Al-Islami, 1996).”**
Notice Atabek references the ḥadīth to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. This ḥadīth is not found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Although there is a narration found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim mentioning the Qur’ān and Ahl al-Bayt, it does not mention about the Ahl al-Bayt that “you won't be misguided if you grab onto them.” It only exhorts holding firmly onto the Qur’ān, and to be mindful of the Ahl al-Bayt i.e. by treating them well and showing them compassion – not “grabbing onto them.”
Someone who displays such obvious dishonesty and incompetence should obviously not be trusted, especially in matters of dīn.
* www.maturidi.co.uk/l/dajjal-between-myth-and-reality/
shaykhatabekshukurov.com/2017/09/29/dajjal-between-myth-and-reality/
** www.maturidi.co.uk/l/ahl-sunnah/