What's new

Whatever

The Holy Qur'an is the only source whose authenticity is undisputed.
All other secondary sources are written by men, and their authenticity is debatable.

This is an unpopular opinion and not mainstream, but we can agree to disagree here.

Hope everything is going well for you.

Yes, Salafi sources, when it comes to Hadith, are generally stricter than the Sunni ones (but not always).

You mentioned that one Ghazwa e Hind Hadith has been graded 'Sahih' by a twentieth-century Muhaddith, Naseeruddin al-Albani (d. 1999). Well, al-Albani, although considered reliable by 'some', has been criticized and questioned by several other contemporary scholars for his applied methodology as it resulted in authentication of many Ahadith previously considered unauthentic by Classic scholars (and vice versa) and several books have been published by well-known scholars to refute the lies, falsehoods, fabrications, and innovations of Albani. (in their own words)... But without going into those details, let's discuss this specific Hadith, its chain of narrators, and al-Albani's comments on it. Posted it in the other thread (that got deleted), posting it here again.


"God shall save two groups of people from amongst my followers from hellfire. One, which shall fight in “Al-Hind” and the other, which shall accompany Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus) [on his return]." (Sunan An Nisai, Vol 4, Book of Jihad, Ch: 41)


This text has been narrated by the following chain of narrators:

Mohammad ibn Abd Allah ibn Abd Al-Rahim --> Asad ibn Musa -–> Baqiyyah -–> Abu Bakr Al-Zubaidi -–> Muhammad ibn Al-Walid Al-Zubaidi -–> Luqman ibn `aamir -–> Abd Al-a`laa ibn `adiy Al-bahraaniy -–> Thauba’n -–> The Prophet (PBUH)



1. Asad ibn Musa
The full name of Asad ibn Musa is “Asad ibn Musa ibn Ibraheem ibn Al-waleed ibn `abd Al-malik ibn Marwaan ibn Al-hakam” . Ibn Hajar , in his book “Tehzeeb al-tehzeeb” has quoted sayings of Ibn Yunus , Ibn Hazam and `abd Al-Haq , besides a number of others’ regarding Asad
ibn Musa . Ibn Yunus says that Asad ibn Musa has narrated a number of abominable (Munkar) narratives. According to Ibn Hazam , Asad ibn Musa is abominable in his narratives and is a weak narrator. `abd Al-Haq says that he does not hold Asad ibn Musa’s narratives as
acceptable to be presented as a basis for arguments


2. Baqiyyah
Asad ibn Musa has narrated this text from “Baqiyyah” . The full name of Baqiyyah is: “Baqiyyah ibn Al-Waleed ibn Al-Sa’id” .

Al-Dhahabi, in his book “ Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal ” writes that more than one person has stated that Baqiyyah ascribes his narratives to such people from whom he has not heard these narratives. Al-Dhahabi has also quoted Ibn Habban as saying that Baqiyyah ascribes to reliable narrators such sayings which he heard from weak and unacceptable narrators. Al-Dhahabi has also cited similar comments (given below) of Abu Haatim , Abu Mus’har , Abu Is’haq Al-juzjaniy , Ibn Khuzaimah , Ahmad ibn Hanbal , `abd Al-Haq and Abu Al-Hasan ibn Al-Qattaan .

Abu Haatim says: “His ( Baqiyyah’s ) narratives are not acceptable to be presented as a basis of an argument”. Abu Mus’har gave his opinion about Baqiyyah in the form of a poetic verse, which means: “Narratives of Baqiyyah are not clean, so guard yourself against them”. Abu Is’haq Al-juzjaniy says: “May God have mercy on Baqiyyah , he quoted worthless narratives without caring to check who was he taking such narratives from”. Ibn Khuzaimah says: I do not hold Baqiyyah’s narratives as acceptable to be presented as a basis of an argument. Ahmad ibn Hanbal is narrated to have said: “I thought that Baqiyyah only narrated acceptable narratives by ascribing them to unknown people. But then I found that he also narrates unacceptable narratives by (wrongly) ascribing them to known and reliable narrators”. `abd Al-Haq says: “ Baiyyah’s narratives cannot be presented as a basis of an argument”. Abu Al-Hasan ibn Al-qattan says: “ Baiyyah (wrongly) ascribed his narratives to people and did not see any harm in doing so. If this is correct, it renders him unacceptable”. Al-Dhahabi , commenting on this statement of Abu Al-Hasan writes: “By God, this is definitely correct”.

Al-`uqailiy in his book “Dhu`afaa Al-`uqailiy” quotes Waqee` as saying: “I have not heard any person who was more daring than Baiyyah in ascribing something to the Prophet (pbuh). Al-`uqailiy has also quoted Ibn Al-Mubarak as saying: “He (Baqiyyah) would accept a saying from just about anyone [without checking his reliability]”. Al-`uqailiy has also cited Ahmad ibn Hanbal as saying: “ Baqiyyah did not care much about whom he was quoting from”.

Al-hafiz Al-Mazi in his book “Tehzeeb Al-Kamaal fi Asma’ Al-rijaal” has cited Yahya ibn Mu`een as saying: “He (Baqiyyah) would narrate a hundred narratives from weak and unacceptable narrators before he would quote one from a reliable narrator”. He has also quoted Ya`qoob as saying: He (Baqiyyah) narrates from people whose narratives have been dropped and also from people who are weak and unacceptable in their narratives”.

Ibn Hajar in his book “ Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb ” has cited Abu Ahmad Al-Haakim as saying: He (Baqiyyah) has quoted narratives from Al-Awza`iy , Al-Zubaidiy and `ubaid Allah Al-`umariy narratives that seem to be lies”. Ibn Hajar has also quoted Khateeb as saying: “Among his narratives are abominable ones”. He has also quoted Al-Baihaqiy as saying: “There is a consensus regarding the fact that Baqiyyah is not fit to be presented as a basis of an argument”.


3. Abu Bakr Al-Zubaidi
The full name of Abu Bakr was “Abu Bakr ibn Al-Waleed ibn `aamir Al-Zubaidiy” .

Not much could be found about Abu Bakr in books about the lives of people who have narrated sayings of the Prophet (pbuh). The little that was found is not very encouraging. Ibn Hajar in his book “Taqreeb Al-tehzeeb” writes: His life and character is not known”.

Al-Hafiz Al-Mazi’ in his book “Tehzi’b Al-Kamaal fi Asma’ Al-Rijaal” and Ibn Hajar in his book “Tehzeeb Al-tehzeeb” write: Only Baqiyyah has narrated from him”. This fact renders the narrator quite unreliable.


4. Muhammad ibn Al-Walid Al-Zubaidi:
Hafiz Ibn Hajar in his book Tehzeeb Al-tehzeeb has cited Al-Khalili as saying: “His (Mohammad ibn Al-Waleed Al-Zubaidiy’s) narratives are reliable, if they are reported by a reliable narrator”. This really means that the narratives of Muhammad ibn Al-Waleed have generally been accepted by the experts of the field. However, the case of the particular narrative under consideration is quite different. This narrative has been reported from Muhammad ibn Al-Waleed , by his brother, Abu Bakr ibn Al-Waleed , who is not even a known person. Thus the condition of acceptability of Muhammad ibn Al-Waleed’s narrative, given by Al-Khalili (i.e. His narratives are reliable, if they are reported by a reliable narrator) is not fulfilled in this particular narrative of Muhammad ibn Al-Waleed

5. Abd Al-A`laa ibn `adiy Al-Bahraaniy:
The comments regarding Abd Al-A`laa ibn `adiy Al-Bahraaniy although are generally quite positive, as he has generally been termed as a reliable and truthful person. But authorities like Ibn Al-qattaan have also said that “his (Abd Al-a`laa’s) position as a narrator is not well known” (As reported in Ibn Hajar’s “Tehzeeb Al-tehzeeb” )

-
---

So, out of the five people in this chain of narrators, two, as per classic Hadith scholars, are not acceptable as the basis of an argument, one is completely unknown, and the remaining two are either conditionally acceptable or not well-known.


But as per al-Albani, this is a Sahih narration. He says the narrators are trustworthy, except Abu Bakar Al-Zubaidi, who is unknown (Majhool). But as Abdullah Ibn Saalim has narrated from him elsewhere (and Ibn Saalim himself is a trustworthy narrator), this narration can be accepted. However, a number of authorities contradict him, and according to them, no one other than Baqiyyah has reported from Al-Zubaidi. Albani, however, concedes that Baqiyyah has been a known 'Mudallis' who may have repented.

Interestingly, Hafiz Zubair Alizai of Dar-us-Salam has used exactly the same argument as al-Albani (less the supposed repentance of Baqiyyah) and graded the Hadith as 'Hasan'.

If anyone still believes that this Hadith is totally authentic and reliable, then it's his own choice.

As for 'Hasan' vs 'Sahih', they are not the same. Hasan Ahadith were originally a part of Da'if (weak) Ahadith later separately categorized for legal purposes. Will post details later.

Can you post the website for this?
 
This is an unpopular opinion and not mainstream, but we can agree to disagree here.

This is a fact and not an opinion.
Muslims, regardless of what sect they are, agree only on the undisputed authenticity of the Quranic text.
The secondary sources vary with various sects of Islam and schools of jurisprudence

Can you post the website for this?

For the chain of narrators and their credibility?:
The Hadith of Ghazwa-e-Hind- An analysis

Hope everything is going well for you.

Alhamdulillah,
what about you?
 
The Holy Qur'an is the only source whose authenticity is undisputed.
All other secondary sources are written by men, and their authenticity is debatable.

Not everything important can be written in a single book & the Prophet SAW knew that. That's why he spoke in detail about a lot of different matter & the Companions R.A. wrote them down or memorized it, especially Abu Hurayrah R.A. They then wrote down the material in later periods of their lifetime & different Companions verified the content so you know it's not "made out of thin air". If no Companion agreed on the authenticity of the words being written down, they were not simply written down.

That's why we have the various books on Hadiths. Your right in saying that "authenticity is debatable" but there are many Sahih hadith that refer to the coming of the False Messiah, i.e Dajjal & the coming of the Isa ibn Maryam R.A.

If no one believes in the Hadiths then just look at Christianity, they have a similar concept of "the Beast", 666 whatnot. Are they lying or falsifying too?

Surely Hazrat Isa R.A. told them about Dajjal too. And we cannot deny the concepts in Christianity either since they are the people of the book & they had received a book in the past. Belief in other prophets, their nations & their books is one of the pillars of Islam...
 
Islamic question(s)...

Which bird is most likely Ababeel?
Are elephants native to Saudi Arabia?
What were they doing there?
Who owned them?
What is most likely mud clay stone in your interpretation?

Thanks for your commentary.

@I.R.A , @M. Sarmad , @Pan-Islamic-Pakistan , @Taimur Khurram , @Retired Troll , @Mentee , @Tps43

This is purely my understanding ..... nobody is required to agree with me.

Ababeel basically can have more than one meaning in this case. It weren't necessarily some birds, it can also be catapults. I am sorry I cannot find the reference document right now where it was mentioned that those were catapults used by Arabs in defense, however, I remember I have posted that once here in PDF.

Saudi Arabia didn't exist at that time :) ..... Hijaz can be a better name to refer to that area. The Elephants were used by attacking force that weren't native to Hijaz hmmmmm may be from Ethopia (we will have to confirm that)

They were under the command of Abraha al-Ashram who had marched to attack Makkah and Kabah.

Even if you look at current day Makkah's surrounding you can see mountains there, those catapults were positioned by Arabs of those times at the mountains and they rained stones on the attacking Abraha's army, which was overcome and destroyed being at the lower altitude.
 
Not everything important can be written in a single book & the Prophet SAW knew that. .

Now compare it with what the Holy Qur'an itself says:


"Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) book, fully explained? ... (6:114)

"There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end" (6:38)

"For We had certainly sent unto them a Book, based on knowledge, which We explained in detail,- a guide and a mercy to all who believe. (7:52)

"In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe." (12:111)

That's why he spoke in detail about a lot of different matter & the Companions R.A. wrote them down or memorized it, especially Abu Hurayrah R.A. They then wrote down the material in later periods of their lifetime & different Companions verified the content so you know it's not "made out of thin air". If no Companion agreed on the authenticity of the words being written down, they were not simply written down.

No, the prophet PBUH forbade his companions to write down anything from him other than Qur'an.
No one wrote down any Hadith until the time of Umar bin Abdulaziz of Banu Umayya
The extant authentic Hadith collections that we have with us today were compiled at least two hundred years after the demise of the Holy Prophet PBUH

That's why we have the various books on Hadiths. Your right in saying that "authenticity is debatable" but there are many Sahih hadith that refer to the coming of the False Messiah, i.e Dajjal & the coming of the Isa ibn Maryam R.A.

Yes, there are. But as none of this has been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, believing in it is not an essential part of belief/Iman/Faith.

To quote a Saudi scholar:

What we need to know is that the raising of Jesus Christ alive to Heaven is not an article of Islamic faith. This means that if a person denies it he is not an unbeliever. A person is not considered to be an unbeliever for preferring a reasonable and valid interpretation of a Quranic verse. Had the Quranic verse been of the sort that cannot admit more than one interpretation, then denying its meaning could easily land the person who makes such a denial in the class of non-believers. This means that a person may adopt the view he prefers, but when he does so, he should arrive at the conclusion he prefers after carefully studying the matter and considering the evidence each group of scholars supply in support of their view. Dr. Umar has made a choice to which he is certainly entitled. I chose the other view and I am equally entitled to it.
 
Now compare it with what the Holy Qur'an itself says:


"Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) book, fully explained? ... (6:114)

"There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end" (6:38)

"For We had certainly sent unto them a Book, based on knowledge, which We explained in detail,- a guide and a mercy to all who believe. (7:52)

"In their history verily there is a lesson for men of understanding. It is no invented story but a confirmation of the existing (Scripture) and a detailed explanation of everything, and a guidance and a mercy for folk who believe." (12:111)

Simple question...why do we have a tafsir then if everything is explained in the Quran? Why do people spend years upon years if there is already a detailed explanation?

Why not just read the Quran without commentary or scholarly support?

I'll leave it at that...

No, the prophet PBUH forbade his companions to write down anything from him other than Qur'an.

That's the first time I have read that. Then what was written upon the stone tablets & the camel bones?

No one wrote down any Hadith until the time of Umar bin Abdulaziz of Bannu Umaya

I can agree on that. But Hazrat Uthman R.A. also had a extensive library so we can argue that the initial process had started much earlier while the official call for it came during the khilafah of Hazrat Umar R.A.

The extant authentic Hadith collections that we have with us today were compiled at least two hundred years after the demise of the Holy Prophet PBUH

The key word is "compiled". It was written during, soon after & after the life of Prophet SAW but it was compiled much later on. Doesn't mean they were written 100, 150 or 200 years after the passing of Prophet SAW.
 
Simple question...why do we have a tafsir then if everything is explained in the Quran? Why do people spend years upon years if there is already a detailed explanation?

Why not just read the Quran without commentary or scholarly support?

I'll leave it at that...

I have just quoted what the Holy Qur'an itself says.
Accepting it, or accepting something else, of course, is a matter of choice.

That's the first time I have read that. Then what was written upon the stone tablets & the camel bones?

Only Quranic verses.


I can agree on that. But Hazrat Uthman R.A. also had a extensive library so we can argue that the initial process had started much earlier while the official call for it came during the khilafah of Hazrat Umar R.A.

No, we cannot argue that until and unless we have any evidence/primary source to back up such an assertion. Hadith was reportedly first written down by Ibn e Shihab Zuhri on the Command of Umayyad Calip Umer II around 70-80 years after the demise of the Holy Prophet PBUH, but no collection from that time exists today


The key word is "compiled". It was written during, soon after & after the life of Prophet SAW but it was compiled much later on. Doesn't mean they were written 100, 150 or 200 years after the passing of Prophet SAW.

No, Hadith Collections, as we have with us today (Sihah Sitta), were compiled (into a Book form) after being orally transmitted by first 8 generations (i.e. almost for two centuries) of Muslims
 
But as none of this has been mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, believing in it is not an essential part of belief/Iman/Faith.

One of the 6 articles of Faith (Faith in God, the Angels, Revelations, Prophets & Sunnah, Divine Will) is belief in the Day of Resurrection & the unseen.

Dajjal will come just right before Qiyamah & is part of the Unseen. Not believing in him won't make you a Kaffir but I won't say anything more. Belief in him is essential from what I have been told/read/heard from various scholars from all over the world, not just mullahs.

To quote a Saudi scholar:

What we need to know is that the raising of Jesus Christ alive to Heaven is not an article of Islamic faith. This means that if a person denies it he is not an unbeliever. A person is not considered to be an unbeliever for preferring a reasonable and valid interpretation of a Quranic verse. Had the Quranic verse been of the sort that cannot admit more than one interpretation, then denying its meaning could easily land the person who makes such a denial in the class of non-believers. This means that a person may adopt the view he prefers, but when he does so, he should arrive at the conclusion he prefers after carefully studying the matter and considering the evidence each group of scholars supply in support of their view. Dr. Umar has made a choice to which he is certainly entitled. I chose the other view and I am equally entitled to it.

Not correct, belief in previous Prophets & their conditions is part of Islam. Saying that Isa R.A. died on the cross (Nauzubillah) or that he won't be coming back is...you know what it is. I won't go there.

Either way, it has been said in great detail that he'll return. The Christians believe in it, Jews believe in it (but think it'll be someone else) & we Muslims believe in it too.

I won't trust Saudi scholars much, they seem to issue fatwas like they're falling from trees or it depends who is telling to issue them. They also change their stances faster than a human blinks if some pressure is applied on them by their own government. Not someone whose words I would trust.

But you know who I would trust? Well surely the words Al-Ghazali, Ibn Kathir, Al-Bukhari & Ibn Khuzaymah. I'm sure you know some of these people.

@M. Sarmad

You'll like these.



 
One of the 6 articles of Faith (Faith in God, the Angels, Revelations, Prophets & Sunnah, Divine Will) is belief in the Day of Resurrection & the unseen.

Dajjal will come just right before Qiyamah & is part of the Unseen. Not believing in him won't make you a Kaffir but I won't say anything more. Belief in him is essential from what I have been told/read/heard from various scholars from all over the world, not just mullahs.



Not correct, belief in previous Prophets & their conditions is part of Islam. Saying that Isa R.A. died on the cross (Nauzubillah) or that he won't be coming back is...you know what it is. I won't go there.

Either way, it has been said in great detail that he'll return. The Christians believe in it, Jews believe in it (but think it'll be someone else) & we Muslims believe in it too.

I won't trust Saudi scholars much, they seem to issue fatwas like they're falling from trees or it depends who is telling to issue them. They also change their stances faster than a human blinks if some pressure is applied on them by their own government. Not someone whose words I would trust.

But you know who I would trust? Well surely the words Al-Ghazali, Ibn Kathir, Al-Bukhari & Ibn Khuzaymah. I'm sure you know some of these people.

@M. Sarmad

You'll like these.




Some nice shares, brother.
 
One of the 6 articles of Faith (Faith in God, the Angels, Revelations, Prophets & Sunnah, Divine Will) is belief in the Day of Resurrection & the unseen.

Dajjal will come just right before Qiyamah & is part of the Unseen. Not believing in him won't make you a Kaffir but I won't say anything more. Belief in him is essential from what I have been told/read/heard from various scholars from all over the world, not just mullahs.

Only Allah has the knowledge of the unseen. And the Qur'an does not mention Dajjal, (or Esa or Mahdi) as a part of unseen. Not sure what you are even trying to say here.


Not correct, belief in previous Prophets & their conditions is part of Islam. Saying that Isa R.A. died on the cross (Nauzubillah) or that he won't be coming back is...you know what it is. I won't go there.

No one says that Jesus died on the cross as the Qur'an clearly mentions that he did not.
As for him coming back, or bodily ascension, the Holy Qur'an does not mention it.
How can you compare something that is mentioned clearly and categorically in the Qur'an with something that is not, and then say that denying both of them is equally wrong??
 
As for him coming back, or bodily ascension, the Holy Qur'an does not mention it.

So if he didn't die on the cross then where did he go lol?

The only logical solutions are that he's either on Earth or in the Heavens?

By the way, are you a Quranist? Your arguments seem like that. A Quransit is someone that believes only in the Quran & rejects the religious authority, reliability & authenticity of the Hadith. They believe that you only ever need the Quran, no scholars, no tafsir, no explanation or whatever.

They also believe that the Hadiths came into being 300 years after the death of the Prophet SAW.....but you're being more lenient in saying that they into being 200 years :D

Some nice shares, brother.

I can write a 10 page essay on this but if there's only one or two persons reading it & no $$ then what's the point. :D

@Pan-Islamic-Pakistan @M. Sarmad curious thing came up while I was looking back at my bookmarks regarding Qiyamah & Dajjal.....one of the minor signs of the coming of the Qiyamah is the rejection of the Hadith. Well what do you know ;)
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom