r/AnsweringHaddaadiyyah

As you can see in the comments below, this underage boy whose age may or may not disallow him from this website, has sent a link to some mental health assessment organization implying that I am mentally ill

And today here he is making duaa to a god that does not exist that some aid from Afghanistan reaches Gaza safely

He does this while his mental illness prevents him from seeing the reality of the Afghan government that kills sunni Muslims (called salafis whom he alleges belonging to) that feels disheartened for enemies of Islam's death

It is questionable how he also says that Islam prohibits homosexuality while being an avid fan of the homoerotica author Jalal Suyuti

Calls people as ignorant of innovations while being a Jahmi Khariji himself

Evidence of him being a Khariji

Denying the Quraan

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

The Haddaadiyyah are known for their deliberate misuse and abuse of statements from the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah. They cite them selectively only to cast aspersions and support their unfounded, and rather deviant, disparagement of imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab. (Source)

Likewise, they manipulate anything that sounds extraordinary, as was addressed previously regarding imam as-Suyooti, where they accuse him of homosexuality despite having no precedent for this from any scholar who disparaged him. (Source)

In this, they have opposed imam Ahmad in principle, as reflected in his statement:

>إيّاك أن تتكَّلم في مسألة ليس لك فيها إمام

>"Beware of speaking on an issue in which you have no imam (precedent)."

(Source)

Their grave hypocrisy is evident in their inability to affirm, acknowledge, admit, or concede anything regarding the very person and scholarly standing of shaykh ibn Baaz when his words undermine their position. In reality, they do not treat him as truthful or trustworthy, nor do they accept his words when they go against what they want to portray.

The reason for this is their foundational deviation from the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah, the vileness and ugliness of their conduct, their lustful desires, and their carelessness. Rather, it is a clear indication of their hypocrisy.

Hence, they will not be able to cite how shaykh ibn Baaz spoke favorably of imam an-Nawawi.

Shaykh ibn Baaz was asked: "Question: Some students of knowledge are hesitant to say 'imam an-Nawawi' because an imam is someone who is to be followed. What is the ruling on this?"

>Answer: There's no problem. Yes, he made mistakes, but he is still called an imam because he is followed in his knowledge, virtue, and understanding of fiqh. He made mistakes, may Allah pardon him and us. He had errors, and rarely is there an imam without mistakes. Every son of Adam makes mistakes.

>Question: It’s said that ibn Hajar and an-Nawawi were Ash‘ari, is that correct?

>Shaykh: No. They engaged in some ta'weel, but they were not fully Ash‘ari. They had some ta’weel and made some errors.

(Source)

The deception, false projection, and their attempts to misuse the names of the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah are clearly evident when they have no explanation for why shaykh ibn Baaz spoke favorably of imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab:

>Do the Four Madhhabs Take from the Sunnah?

>Question:

>This questioner, who gave his initials as M. S. Sh., is Yemeni, from Jeddah, residing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He says: Do the well-known four madhhabs take from the Prophetic Sunnah, and is everything found in them in accordance with the noble Prophetic Sunnah? Please advise us in light of this question, your eminence shaykh.

>Answer:

>The four imams are among the best of the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them. They are Abu Haneefah an-Nu'man ibn Thaabit, Maalik ibn Anas, Muhammad ibn Idrees ash-Shaafi'ee, and Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal. These four are the four imams.

>There are also other imams in their time, before them and after them, such as al-Awzaa'ee, Sufyan ath-Thawri, Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah, 'Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, and others from the imams of Islam; Yahya ibn Sa'eed al-Qattaan, 'Abdur-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Ishaaq ibn Raahuwayh, and others.

>They are imams who sought the truth and sought the Sunnah. They paid great attention to that, and their fatwas revolve around the Book and the Sunnah: "Allah said" and "His Messenger said." They carefully sought the principles indicated by the Book and the Sunnah, and what is authentically established from the fatwas of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them.

>So the basis of their fatwas is the Noble Qur'an, the purified Sunnah, the principles derived from the Book and the Sunnah, and the fatwas of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them and make them pleased.

>Each one of them may err and may be correct. None of them is infallible. Each one may err and may be correct. Each one has mistakes and errors that did not conform to the Sunnah, just as other imams also have mistakes and correct positions.

>Therefore, what is obligatory is to present their statements, when they differ, to the Book and the Sunnah. As for when the scholars have consensus, then consensus is a proof, and consensus only occurs based on a text.

>So when they differ, it is obligatory upon the student of knowledge and the jurist to present the disputed issue to the Shar'i evidences, to strive, and to carefully seek what the evidence supports, then take it. He must carefully seek what the evidence gives preference to from the Noble Qur'an, the purified Sunnah, or the fatwas of the Companions, until he is confident regarding the stronger of the two views, or the strongest of the views, then he takes it.

>Yes.

>Presenter: May Allah reward you with good, your eminence shaykh.

(Source)

Even in another fatwa titled "The stance toward the followers of the four imams' madhhabs", after citing imam Maalik and imam ash-Shaafi'ee to show that precedence is given to following the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) shaykh ibn Baaz then said:

>Likewise, Ahmad and Abu Haneefah said the same in meaning as what Maalik and ash-Shaafi'ee said, may Allah have mercy on them all. Other imams said the same as well. All of them sincerely advised the people and instructed them to follow the Shar'i evidences from the Book, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Salaf of the Ummah, and not to give precedence to the statement of anyone among the people over the statement of Allah and His Messenger.

(Source)

This once again is a testament to the ill-will of the Haddaadiyyah sect, their willful manipulation, deliberate falsehood, and intentional deception. They take selective snippets from the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah that may appear, at first glance, to support what they are saying, when in reality those scholars do not conform to the false foundations of the Haddaadiyyah at all.

How reminiscent this is of taqiyyah. How else are they not resembling the Raafidhah, who are able to cite from imam al-Bukhaari's Saheeh regarding 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) while using such citations to cast aspersions against the other Sahaabah?

Exactly. When their hearts are diseased with arrogance, obstinacy, and lustful desires, they become blinded to the truth. Hence, they will never approve of what shaykh ibn Baaz himself stated: "... respecting the scholars, knowing their ranks, asking Allah to be pleased with them, and asking Allah to have mercy upon them." (Source)

The contrast is also quite evident: shaykh ibn Baaz showed respect for the madhhabs, unlike the way the Haddaadiyyah attempt to portray imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab with such vileness. (Source)

The hypocrisy of the Haddaadi is so ugly that it exposes the insolence behind his false attribution. In the very source where shaykh ibn Baaz spoke about Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa', there is no wording whatsoever that says, "Their statement is very dangerous." This is a false attribution to shaykh ibn Baaz.

There is a reason he did not provide the reference: it negates the very impression he intended to project from shaykh ibn Baaz's words. The source he used was from the explanation of al-'Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah, where shaykh ibn Baaz also speaks favorably regarding the madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah, consistent with everything I have referenced so far.

The audacity in their attempt to misuse the scholars is quite embarrassing. But once again, this taqiyyah is what the Haddaadiyyah are known for. When the scholars speak about Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa', they distinguish them from the general Murji'ah sect. The very term "Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa'" is itself a testament to this, as they were indeed fuqahaa'.

Certainly, the aspect of deviation in Irjaa' is not approved by Ahlus-Sunnah. However, the insolence of the Haddaadiyyah lies in their inability to represent the scholars' positions justly. For example, when shaykh ibn Baaz was asked whether Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa' still affirm punishment for sins, he answered:

>What is apparent, and Allah knows best, is that they do say this, because this is something necessarily known from the religion: whoever dies upon zina, whoever dies upon theft, and whoever dies upon slander without repenting deserves punishment.

>They should not say otherwise, meaning the Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa'. From this angle, it may be said that the disagreement is verbal. But in any case, excluding actions from eemaan is not a light matter.

(Source)

Consider how the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah explained this:

>They were called Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa' because they were from the jurists of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, and they were called Murji'ah because they fell into something of Irjaa', which is delaying actions from the definition of eemaan. Their innovation was not major, but it was the beginning of the innovation of the Murji'ah, which is among the greatest of repugnant innovations.

(Source)

The very clarification that should have settled this entire debacle with the Haddaadiyyah is how shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah described the Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa':

>"Most of them were from the people of Kufah... They said: actions are not part of eemaan. This innovation was the lightest of innovations, for much of the dispute concerning it is a dispute over the name and wording, not the ruling. This is because the jurists to whom this statement is attributed, such as Hammaad ibn Abi Sulayman, Abu Haneefah, and others, along with the rest of Ahlus-Sunnah, agreed that Allah punishes those whom He punishes from the people of major sins with the Fire, then brings them out through intercession, as the authentic hadiths have stated. They also agreed that eemaan must include speaking with the tongue, that the obligatory actions are obligatory, and that whoever abandons them deserves blame and punishment. So regarding actions, whether they are part of eemaan, and regarding making exception in eemaan, and matters like that, most of the dispute is verbal; for when eemaan is mentioned unrestrictedly, actions enter into it."

(Source)

See how despicable they are: they have no precedent from any scholar whatsoever in their attempt to cast aspersions against imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab. They wanted to lie so badly that they concocted a claim against Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa' that no one else made except the Haddaadiyyah, falsely attributing to shaykh ibn Baaz a statement he never said: "Murji'ah (Hanafis) have a false understanding of the definition of faith and it is very dangerous."

Yet shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah and other scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah stated that the error of Murji'ah al-Fuqahaa' was not major, but rather among the lightest of innovations!

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

The Celibate Haddaadi?

Celibacy is forbidden in Islam, and those who adopt it resemble Christian monks who chose never to marry. This may explain why some of the Haddaadiyyah, after choosing celibacy for themselves, begin exposing themselves through indecency, to the extent that foul speech becomes normal for them.

This may also explain why one Haddaadi chose to write a eulogy mourning the death of the Pope, dedicating an entire piece as a memorial tribute, perhaps due to an implicit fondness for their shared celibacy.

This is something that must be warned against, as they often repeat words like "pornography" and "homosexuality." One can only wonder whether this is the result of the self-harm of resorting to celibacy, until they develop some affinity with such indecency.

One who is likely a celibate Haddaadi even accused a fellow brother from Ahlus-Sunnah of being homosexual. When they lie so often, they eventually lose all shame in lying, to the point that they begin believing their own lies. This is the same vileness behind their accusation against imam as-Suyooti, where they accuse him of homosexuality despite having no precedent whatsoever from the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah for such an allegation.

In the Shari'ah, if the legal conditions are fulfilled, the one who makes such an unfounded accusation deserves to be flogged with eighty lashes due to qadhf. Imam ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni:

>Whoever accuses a man of the act of the people of Loot, whether as the doer or the one acted upon, then the hadd of qadhf is upon him.

(Source)

We are content if the Haddaadiyyah have chosen for themselves to leave no offspring. But that is besides the point.

Illiteracy in imam Ahmad and his madhhab

The Haddaadiyyah are actually illiterate regarding the Hanbali books, despite their claim of holding imam Ahmad in such high regard. Quoting imam ibn Qudaamah in this case is yet another testament to their misuse and pretentiousness. It is another evidence of their inconsistency, deviation, and hypocrisy. In reality, they have no respect for imam ibn Qudaamah; otherwise how could they be vile enough to speak ill of imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab in the same breath as quoting imam ibn Qudaamah?

Firstly, let us address the term "taqleed", as it is often misunderstood and mistranslated into something Ahlus-Sunnah scholars never intended. Taqleed does not simply mean "blind following". A major part of the problem lies in how translations are handled. Too often, people treat translations as definitive, relying on their surface meaning or interpretive gloss. When such translations are read literally without reflection, matters become "lost in translation" and serious misconceptions arise.

What many people overlook is that taqleed conveys the sense of following someone by entrusting them with responsibility. In other words, it involves trust. For this reason, reducing taqleed to "blind following" is inaccurate. While the Arabic definition may suggest "blind following" in the sense of accepting the statement of another without knowing his proof, the crucial point is from whom that acceptance is taken: namely, a scholar whom one trusts.

Thus, taking the gloss "blind following" too literally is irresponsible, as it misrepresents what is meant in usool al-fiqh. In fact, "blind following" more closely fits the understanding of the Dhaahiriyyah, who argued that only the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) should ever be followed blindly. Unfortunately, this very argument is often repeated by laypeople without realizing that they are simply regurgitating Dhaahiri arguments.

Secondly, let us quote what imam ibn Qudaamah said regarding taqleed:

>For this reason, taqleed is permissible in such matters; rather, it is obligatory upon the layperson.

>Some of the Qadariyyah held that the common people are also required to examine the evidence in matters of subsidiary fiqh. This is false by the consensus of the Companions, for they used to give fatwas to the common people and did not command them to attain the level of ijtihaad. This is known by necessity and through mass transmission from their scholars and common people.

>Also, consensus is established that the layperson is accountable for the rulings. Requiring him to reach the level of ijtihaad would lead to the disruption of cultivation and reproduction, and the abandonment of trades and crafts, which would lead to the ruin of worldly life.

>Then what is the layperson supposed to do if an incident occurs to him, if no ruling is established for it until he reaches the level of ijtihaad? How long would it take for him to become a mujtahid? Perhaps he may never reach that level, and thus the rulings would be lost.

(Source)

Alhamdulillah, imam ibn Qudaamah never called for celibacy. Perhaps the Haddaadiyyah require laypeople to examine the evidence in matters of subsidiary fiqh, thereby resembling the Qadariyyah and contradicting the ijmaa' of the Sahaabah!

Thirdly, there is no wisdom, no foresight, and no knowledge among the Haddaadiyyah in matters of fiqh. Pretentious people often attempt to quote from imam ibn Qudaamah's al-Mughni despite never having studied his books in stages as students of the madhhab of imam Ahmad. Al-Mughni is a fourth-level work, intended for students of knowledge who have already gone through al-'Umdah, al-Muqni', and al-Kafi.

This alone exposes their deception, as they try to give the impression that the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah are on their side in their disparagement of imam Abu Haneefah and his madhhab.

Imam ibn Qudaamah's Respect for imam Abu Haneefah

In al-Mughni, ibn Qudaamah frequently cites Abu Haneefah alongside Maalik, ash-Shaafi'ee, Ahmad, and other imams. For example, in the issue of repeated divorce wording, he says:

>If he had no intention, then two divorces occur. This was said by Abu Haneefah and Maalik, and it is the correct one of the two statements of ash-Shaafi'ee...

Here, he cites Abu Haneefah's view as part of the supported position. (Source)

In another passage from al-Mughni, regarding a man who had intercourse with a woman by shubha and she bore a child, ibn Qudaamah says:

>If a man had intercourse with a woman who had no husband, due to a shubha, and she bore a child, his lineage is attached to him. This is the statement of ash-Shaafi'ee and Abu Haneefah... and the correct view in the madhhab is the first.

So ibn Qudaamah did not merely mention Abu Haneefah's view; he cited it and then affirmed that this was the correct position in the Hanbali madhhab. (Source)

In al-Mughni, regarding someone forced to utter kufr, ibn Qudaamah says:

>Whoever is forced into kufr and utters a word of kufr does not become a disbeliever. This was said by Maalik, Abu Haneefah, and ash-Shaafi'ee.

This shows that he treats Abu Haneefah's position as a recognized position of the imams, not as something to be dismissed with contempt. (Source)

Speaking of being forced to utter words of disbelief, the taqiyyah of the Haddaadiyyah is exposed once again. Their deviation resembles both the Khawaarij and the Raafidhah, as they often attempt to slander imam Abu Haneefah by claiming that he repented twice from kufr.

Ahlus-Sunnah brothers have already addressed this before:

>Regarding the issue of him being asked to repent from kufr, the Hanafi imams refuted this slander. The Raafidhah, and those like them from the people of disbelief and misguidance, often attack imam Abu Haneefah an-Nu'maan (may Allah the Most High be pleased with him). Among the things they transmit is that he was asked to repent from kufr twice. We will clarify the falsehood of this story in the following lines, insha'Allah.

>The faqeeh muhaqqiq 'Ali ibn Muhammad al-Qaari, said in Manaaqib al-Imam (may Allah be pleased with him) that Abu'l-Fadl al-Karmaani said:

>>When the Khawaarij entered Kufah with ad-Dahhaak, and their view was to declare everyone who committed a sin to be a disbeliever, and to declare everyone who did not declare the sinner a disbeliever to be a disbeliever, it was said to them: "This is the shaykh of these people." So they seized imam Abu Haneefah, may Allah be pleased with him, and said to him: "Repent from kufr."

>>He said: "I repent from every kufr."

>>It was said to them: "He is repenting from your kufr." So they seized him again, and he said to them: "Did you say this based on knowledge or assumption?"

>>They said: "Based on assumption."

>>He said: "Indeed, some assumption is sin, and sin is a wrongdoing, so repent from kufr."

>>They said: "You too, repent from kufr."

>>He said: "I repent from every kufr."

>>So this is what the people of misguidance refer to when they say that the imam was asked to repent from kufr twice, and they have confused the common people with it. End quote.

(Source)

In Dhamm at-Ta'weel, ibn Qudaamah cites Abu Haneefah approvingly:

>Nuuh al-Jaami' narrated: I said to Abu Haneefah (may Allah have mercy on him): What do you say about what the people have newly introduced of speech concerning accidents and bodies? He said: "These are the statements of the philosophers. Hold fast to the Athar and the path of the Salaf, and beware of every newly introduced matter, for it is an innovation."

This is significant because ibn Qudaamah cites Abu Haneefah as an authoritative imam of Ahlus-Sunnah against kalaam. (Source)

Hijrah, Children, and Their Misrepresentation of al-Mughni

This ignorant Haddaadi attempted to disparage the madhhab of imam Abu Haneefah, while failing to realize that the Hanafi position closely resembles what imam ibn Qudaamah himself stated.

A later fiqhi encyclopedia summarizes the Hanafi position as follows:

>The jurists agreed on the dislike of marrying in dar al-harb for a Muslim who enters it with security, for trade or otherwise, even if [the woman] is Muslim, and the dislike is stronger if she is from the people of war. According to the Hanafis, the dislike is prohibitive regarding a harbi woman because it opens the door to fitnah, and mildly disliked regarding others, because it exposes the offspring to great corruption, since if the child grows up in their land, one cannot be safe from him growing up upon their religion. And if the wife is from them, she may overpower him regarding her child, so the child follows her religion.

(Source)

Before even discussing hijrah and having children, did imam ibn Qudaamah actually speak in such a blanket manner, as though there are no categories of hijrah, in the way this Haddaadi attempted to depict his words?

What imam ibn Qudaamah said is far more nuanced than what this liar claimed. Ibn Qudaamah said:

>Once this is established, people are of three categories regarding hijrah.

>The first: the one upon whom hijrah is obligatory. This is the one who is able to make hijrah, but is unable to manifest his religion and unable to establish the obligations of his religion while residing among the disbelievers. Hijrah is obligatory upon this person, due to the statement of Allah, Most High:

>>إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَوَفَّاهُمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ظَالِمِي أَنفُسِهِمْ قَالُوا فِيمَ كُنتُمْ ۖ قَالُوا كُنَّا مُسْتَضْعَفِينَ فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ قَالُوا أَلَمْ تَكُنْ أَرْضُ اللَّهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوا فِيهَا ۚ فَأُولَٰئِكَ مَأْوَاهُمْ جَهَنَّمُ ۖ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا

>>"Indeed, those whom the angels take in death while wronging themselves, they will say: 'In what condition were you?' They will say: 'We were oppressed in the land.' They will say: 'Was not the earth of Allah spacious enough for you to emigrate therein?' For those, their refuge is Hell, and evil it is as a destination."

>This is a severe threat which indicates obligation.

>Also, establishing the obligations of one's religion is obligatory upon whoever is able to do so, and hijrah is from the necessities and completion of that obligation. Whatever an obligation cannot be fulfilled without is itself obligatory.

>The second: the one upon whom there is no hijrah. This is the one who is unable to make hijrah, whether due to illness, being forced to remain, or weakness, such as women, children, and those similar to them. There is no hijrah upon this person, due to the statement of Allah, Most High:

>>إِلَّا الْمُسْتَضْعَفِينَ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ وَالنِّسَاءِ وَالْوِلْدَانِ لَا يَسْتَطِيعُونَ حِيلَةً وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ سَبِيلًا

>>"Except for the oppressed among men, women, and children who cannot devise a plan nor are they directed to a way. For those, perhaps Allah will pardon them, and Allah is ever Pardoning, Forgiving."

>Nor is hijrah described as recommended for them, because they are not capable of it.

>The third: the one for whom hijrah is recommended but not obligatory. This is the one who is able to make hijrah, but is able to manifest his religion and establish it in daar al-kufr. Hijrah is recommended for him so that he may be able to fight them, increase the number of Muslims and aid them, and free himself from increasing the number of disbelievers, mixing with them, and witnessing evil among them.

>But it is not obligatory upon him, because he is able to establish the obligations of his religion without hijrah. Al-'Abbaas, the uncle of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) remained in Makkah despite being Muslim.

(Source)

Attempting to alienate the Hanafis is not what imam ibn Qudaamah did. Rather, it is not blameworthy for them to adhere to their madhhab, as this is the position of ibn Qudaamah himself.

In Lum'at al-I'tiqaad, he says:

>As for affiliating oneself to an imam in the branches of the Deen, such as the four groups, then this is not blameworthy. Difference in the branches is mercy, and those who differ therein are praiseworthy in their differing, rewarded for their ijtihaad. Their differing is vast mercy, and their agreement is a decisive proof.

This includes the Hanafi madhhab, since it is one of the four madhhabs. (Source)

This debacle and embarrassing attempt at presenting what imam ibn Qudaamah said is, once again, a failure to properly address where the discussion of hijrah and children actually appears: in the chapter of jihaad!

It is truly astounding how he acts in the exact manner of the Ruwaybidah. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) described them as "the foolish person" and, in another narration, "the insignificant man who speaks about the affairs of the general public." Narrated by ibn Maajah (4036) and Ahmad (13/291).

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Ahlus-Sunnah Have Teachers, the Haddaadiyyah Have None

Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah is clear when it comes to how the earth is viewed: it is spherical. (Source) On the surface, relative to how we see the ground and the horizon, the earth may look flat, but this is because, which should have been quite obvious, we are not able to encompass the giant planet of our earth with the limited eyesight we have. (Relevant)

When it comes to the foundations of Ahlus-Sunnah, we base our beliefs upon revelation, namely the Qur'an and Sunnah. Then, what is related and connected to revelation is understood through consensus, and this is not confined to the consensus of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), but also extends throughout later generations of scholars.

This is the foundation of Ahlus-Sunnah, which should have been quite obvious. The basis of our beliefs is not by way of later writings, reports, or individual scholars. Rather, the basis of our belief is by way of infallible revelation, and the basis of interpretation is through usool al-fiqh. There may be words or phrases that are ambiguous, and for one to understand those ambiguous words, they return back to the apparent or clear words that clarify them. This is well known in the works of usool al-fiqh, and more specifically in the science of usool at-tafseer.

• The Importance of Arabic and Usool al-Fiqh

Hence, when a student of knowledge studies under scholars, they first learn the basics, then progress through the intermediate level to the advanced level. Scholars are known for their knowledge, status, and trustworthiness, and to this day, scholars receive tazkiyah in specific areas they have learned, whether by way of books, a specific field, or a topic. For example, one may be taught Tafseer ibn Jareer at-Tabari from a scholar who has an isnaad all the way to imam ibn Jareer at-Tabari. Hence, the tazkiyah may be given by the scholar to the student in this specific tafseer.

Alhamdulillah, scholars and students of knowledge may receive tazkiyah for the sciences of Shari'ah they are studying, and what they receive of tazkiyah does not necessarily mean that it is a specialization, but rather a specific level. This is similar to the modern way of studying in this day and age, where people receive Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees, though the modern way of studying has its limitations compared to the traditional way scholars studied.

Therefore, people who merely rely on transcribed books in digital formats will greatly miss the very purpose for which these books are taught under scholars. A rational person, and even a misguided person, will concede to this very concept in medical science: if one wants to become a medical doctor, it is only through a university. Therefore, learning the sciences of Shari'ah is only done under scholars.

When a person has no scholar he studies under, or no high-level student of knowledge who has been taught by an actual scholar, he will have no real means of grasping the concept of good character, manner of speech, and conduct. This is quite different from the manner of writing. When you see a person in real life, how he conducts himself, and the manner in which he delivers his speech, it is incomparable to how writing is communicated. This has resulted in many common Muslims misunderstanding how words are delivered by way of writing, especially online. A common Muslim may project notions onto the writer, as though it is comparable to delivering a speech, the behavior of the one who conveys knowledge, and how he teaches others.

The Salaf were aware of this to such an extent that they would teach their children to focus on the mannerism, conduct, and etiquette of how a scholar behaves when he teaches his students. How else are you to learn from those who have learned the narrations of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), except by example? Hence, one of the Salaf, Ibraaheem ibn Habeeb ibn ash-Shaheed, said: My father said to me: "My son, go to the fuqahaa' and the scholars, learn from them, and take from their manners, character, and guidance, for that is more beloved to me for you than a great deal of hadith." (Source)

How often have we seen people attempting to extract "knowledge" and "understanding" from the earliest books, especially the books of the Salaf, yet with no formal teachers from the scholars, nor from high-level students of knowledge who have been taught by scholars. Rather, they merely attempt to present citations, yet they even come with their own misinterpretations, or worse, project false notions onto the words of the scholars, despite the fact that the manner in which those very scholars presented them is not in line with how these pretentious people attempted to present them.

Al-Waleed said: Al-Awzaa'ee used to say, "This knowledge was once noble, passed directly between men. But when it entered the books, those who were not qualified entered into it." (Relevant)

'Abdullah ibnul-Mubaraak (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "I sought manners for thirty years and sought knowledge for twenty years. They (meaning the Salaf) used to seek manners before knowledge." (Source)

Sufyan ath-Thawri (may Allah have mercy upon him) said: "A man, when he intended to write hadith, would first cultivate manners and devote himself to worship for twenty years before that." (Source)

Az-Zuhri (may Allah have mercy upon him) said: "We used to go to a scholar, and what we learned from his manners was more beloved to us than what we learned from his knowledge." (Source)

Once again, when a person gets ahead of himself with the convenience of using technology, as though this technology has surpassed the knowledge of the scholars, or as though you no longer need a scholar to teach you, then this is a catastrophe whose harms cannot be emphasized enough. (Relevant) When a person attempts to read hadith on his own, he may become misguided. How many times have we seen people complaining or asking questions about hadith, saying that it has led them to doubt the very revelation itself? We as moderators have addressed these misconceptions countless times, and many brothers who call others to Islam have done so many times as well.

As one of the great Salaf, ibn 'Uyaynah, said: "Hadith is a cause of misguidance except for the fuqahaa'." If that is the case with the hadith of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then what about the narrations of the Salaf? That is why it is not strange to say that the Athar is also a cause of misguidance except for the fuqahaa'. As one of the Salaf, ibn Wahb, said: "Every companion of hadith who has no imam in fiqh is misguided. And were it not that Allah saved us by Maalik and al-Layth, we would have gone astray." (Source)

How then do you think a person who tries to get ahead of himself, thinking he has the ability to extract knowledge and understanding, has somehow surpassed the scholars, or is in no need of a living scholar to return to for understanding? Ibn Badraan stated in his book al-Madkhal: "Know that a student cannot become proficient in jurisprudence unless he has an understanding of the principles, even if he studies fiqh for years and years. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or obstinate."

Then imagine a person who claims to be at the forefront for the Aathar of the Salaf, while having no imam in fiqh, except that he is misguided. Yes, we have seen such people from the Khawaarij, Madkhaliyyah, and Haddaadiyyah sects. They do not have scholars. How many times have we seen them uphold imam Ahmad, rightfully so, yet they are not even living according to his principle: "Beware of speaking on an issue in which you have no imam."

No, there is no knowledge nor understanding in merely being able to cite from any field, whether hadith, narrations of the Salaf, or the great imams, if you do not have a scholar who teaches you. As shaykh Bakr Abu Zaid said:

>It has been said: "Whoever enters into knowledge alone, leaves it alone," meaning: whoever enters the pursuit of knowledge without a teacher leaves it without knowledge. Knowledge is a craft, and every craft requires a craftsman, so it is necessary in learning it to have a skilled teacher.

>This is almost a point of consensus among the people of knowledge, except for a few who deviated, such as 'Ali ibn Ridwan al-Misri, the physician (d. 453 AH). The scholars of his time and those after them refuted him. Al-Haafidh adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his biography of him: "He did not have a teacher. Rather, he occupied himself with learning from books, and he even authored a book on acquiring knowledge of the discipline from books, claiming that they are more suitable than teachers. This is a mistake." End quote. As-Safadi elaborated in al-Waafee in refuting him.

>The practical, observable proof of the invalidity of ibn Ridwan’s view is that you will find thousands of biographies and historical accounts, across different eras, lands, and fields of knowledge, filled with the mention of teachers and students, whether few or many.

The Haddaadiyyah sect are the very epitome of this example: having no teachers, teaching themselves, and blindly following pretentious individuals who claim to be able to give fatawa, while their qualifications are unknown. Instead, they rely on misguided innovators like Muhammad ibn Shams and Abu Ja'far al-Khulayfi. Alhamdulillah, we are not deprived of scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah and students of knowledge who have spent a great deal of effort dispelling the false notions spread by these diseased people, as well as the lies, manipulations, and hypocrisy they attempt to infect people with.

The Haddaadiyyah Belief That the Earth Rests on the Back of a Bull

This was only to make a prelude to the main point I wanted to convey, which is the insanity and obnoxious belief of how the Haddaadiyyah succumb to disseminating a belief as though the earth is resting upon a whale, or some unfounded notion that a giant bull, almost the size of the earth, is carrying the earth, and that under the bull there is another giant fish it stands upon. This is what the Haddaadiyyah believe to be an accurate depiction of the world. See from their own subreddit:

• Is this an accurate depiction of the world?

May Allah guide the youth away from these vile, sick, ignorant, and deviant individuals.

Alhamdulillah, we have scholars who have dispelled these false narrations:

>The editors of al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir (1/385) commented on this report, citing Dr. 'Abdullah ibn ‘Abdul-Muhsin at-Turki and Muhammad Rizwan 'Arqusoosi, saying: "This is an Israa’eeli report with no basis, and it would have been better for the author to have kept his book free of such material."

>Notice how the narrators added details and elaborated the story, yet it ultimately traces back to Ka'b al-Ahbaar, who is the source of many wonders attributed to this Deen.

>For this reason, al-Haafidh ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah (1/15), after mentioning a collection of strange reports including this one, noted that they are from the Israa'eeliyyaat, saying: "This chain mentions many strange things through as-Suddi, many of which appear to have been received from the Israa'eeliyyaat."

>Some fabricated marfoo' hadiths also exist in this context. For example, it is narrated from ibn 'Umar that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "The Earth is on water, water on a rock, the rock on the back of a whale whose fins meet the Throne, and the whale is on the shoulders of an angel whose feet are in the air."

>This is a fabricated hadith (see Silsilat ad-Da'eefah, no. 294).

>Since nothing of this sort is authentically established in the shar' (neither from the Book of Allah nor the Sunnah of His Messenger, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and at most there are traces from some of the early generations, which apparently all derive from the reports of the Banu Israa'eel, it is obligatory in such cases to refrain from asserting anything with certainty and to leave the knowledge to the Knower of the unseen.

>As the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) taught: Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "The People of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and explain it in Arabic for the Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: 'Do not believe the People of the Book, nor disbelieve them; say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us.'" (Al-Bukhaari 4485)

>Another narration explains the reason for refraining from believing or disbelieving such reports: "If it is false, do not believe it; if it is true, do not disbelieve it." (Abu Dawud 3644, Ahmad 16774; authenticated by al-Albani in Sahihah 2800)

>And Allah knows best.

(Source)

Relevant scholarly fatawa concerning these false narrations:

• False reports about the earth being placed on the back of a bull
• لا يثبت حديث أن الأرض العليا على ظهر حوت قد التقى طرفاه في السماء
• لا صحة للأحاديث المتعلقة بحمل الحوت للأرضين السبع

Consider the following inconsistencies and hypocrisies, which are a testament to them following their lustful desires, and rather evidence of their arrogance and obstinacy. They want to take from Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani in relation to Israa'eeliyyaat, but they will not take from him when it comes to Musnad al-Imam Abi Haneefah?

They have exposed themselves, and they will never recover from this debacle.

Regarding Hilyatul-Awliyaa' by Abu Nu'aym al-Asbahaani, scholars have said about it: "He may report some weak or fabricated narrations without clarifying their weakness." Rather, it is as imam adh-Dhahabi said: "... The author of Hilyat has included here absurd and shameless tales, the likes of which are shameful to mention." (Source)

The shameful Haddaadi saying, "Sahaba affirming what Kaab said" (source), is itself a false projection and misrepresentation of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them). Him saying this does not at all prove the false reports of the earth being placed on the back of a bull. Rather, this is once again the result of having no scholars among them to verify it, and lacking any methodological approach, as they were never taught how these reports should be understood in the science of hadith, as was already clarified by the scholars.

Al-Bukhaari mentioned him in the hadith of Humayd ibn 'Abdur-Rahman, who heard Mu'aawiyah speaking to a group of Quraysh in Madinah. He mentioned Ka'b al-Ahbaar and said: "Indeed, he was among the most truthful of those narrators who narrate from the Book, though despite that, we would still find falsehood in what he reported." (Source)

Even al-Haafidh ibn Katheer clarified this:

>This Torah which they disclose, while concealing much of it, contains, according to what they mention in it, distortion, alteration, change, and poor expression. This is known to anyone who examines it and reflects on what they said, what they revealed, and what they concealed, and how they formulate expressions that are corrupt in structure and composition, and false in meaning and wording.

>Ka'b al-Ahbaar was among the best of those who transmitted from them. He accepted Islam during the time of 'Umar, and he used to transmit some things from the books of the People of the Book. 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) would approve of some of what he transmitted because of the truth that confirmed it, and also to soften his heart.

>Then many people became too expansive in taking from what he had, and he himself also went far in transmitting those things, much of which is not even worth its ink; some of it is certainly false, and some of it is true because the truth that we possess bears witness to it.

(Source)

Ahlus-Sunnah Approach to Israa'eeliyyaat Compared to Haddaadiyyah Beliefs

It should be said that some of the deviation of the Haddaadiyyah sect has reached such a degree that they believe in Israa'eeliyyaat without any scholarly precedent or any established principles regarding them. It is one thing to narrate from them, which in and of itself is no harm, as imam adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) responded to this issue by saying:

>What is wrong with narrating Israa'eeliyyaat from the People of the Book, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Narrate from Banu Israa'eel, and there is nothing wrong with that” and he said: "If the People of the Book tell you something, do not believe them and do not disbelieve them"? This is Prophetic permission allowing us to listen to what they narrate in general, as some scholars listened to what they narrated concerning medicine. But none of that can be quoted as evidence; rather evidence is to be found in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

ميزان الاعتدال (6/58)

One of the foremost scholars in this field, Musaa'id at-Tayyaar, and likely to be considered a mujaddid in the science of the Qur'an, when discussing the matter of Israa'eeliyyaat, which is an excerpt from a larger discussion that preceded it, explained:

>First: Some reports from Banu Israa'eel have been authentically transmitted from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). There is no doubt that these are to be accepted, even if they concern matters that have no practical bearing on knowledge or action, such as the name of Moosa's companion, who was al-Khidr.

>Second: The reports from the Banu Israa'eel fall into three categories:

>1. That which we know to be true based on what we possess (i.e., from our own sources) that confirms its truth, this is accepted.

>2. That which we know to be false based on what we possess that contradicts it. The standard for acceptance or rejection here is the Shari'ah: whatever aligns with it is accepted, and whatever contradicts it is rejected.

>3. Reports that are neither confirmed nor denied fall into a neutral category. We neither affirm nor reject them.

>The third category: What is left unspoken about, neither clearly affirmed nor denied. For such reports, we neither believe them nor reject them.

>It is noted regarding this category that it is permissible to narrate such reports, and this was the practice of the Salaf in tafseer and other areas. There was no objection among them to this unless it involved excessive reliance on such reports or affirming them as true.

>It is also noted that the majority of reports in this category are of no religious benefit.

>These reports may be transmitted from the Sahaabah, in which case they are more readily acceptable, and they may also be transmitted from the Taabi'een, in which case their acceptability is lower for several reasons, including:

>1. That what is narrated from the Sahaabah is less than what is narrated from the Taabi'een.

>2. That a Sahaabi may have heard it from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or from someone who took it directly from him.

>3. That a Sahaabi’s certainty in reporting something makes it unlikely he would have taken it from the Banu Israa'eel.

>It should also be noted here that what is considered rational or strange is not something agreed upon universally.

I have highlighted only a few key points from this article by shaykh Musaa'id at-Tayyaar:

• رأي آخر في الإسرائيليات في كتب التفسير

There is another similar piece, presented in a question-and-answer format, on the same subject:

• الإسرائيليات في التفسير

However, it is more appropriate to begin with introductory works on the principles of tafseer, and the shaykh has authored books on the subject:

• المحرر في علوم القرآن
• التحرير في أصول التفسير
• مراجعات في الإسرائيليات

The English literature on this topic is not as rich or comprehensive as the works of shaykh Musaa'id at-Tayyaar:

• Usool at-Tafseer [PDF]

--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--

Before even addressing the screenshot, consider the principle in a simple worldly example. Imagine someone respected for wisdom, integrity, and guidance. A bystander says, "His lack of formal schooling does not mean he is unwise." Then another person, claiming to defend him, replies, "He is." Instantly, the leader's reputation is belittled, his wisdom is denied, and the one claiming defense has actually confirmed the insult.

This is exactly what Bashem did to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Worse still, the one making the correct clarification in that moment was a kaafir, while Bashem, the one pretending to defend Islam, replied in a way that reduced the Prophet's life, mission, and divinely granted wisdom to ignorance.

A screenshot preserved from a Discord discussion between Bashem, also known as Wild_Extra_Dip, and a kaafir, timestamped 03/25/2022 at 2:59 AM, shows this clearly. The kaafir said, "Mohammed's illiteracy does not mean he was ignorant," and Bashem replied, "It really does." So the kaafir, in that specific sentence, showed more restraint and basic decency than the one claiming to defend the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), while Bashem ended up labeling him ignorant.

The kaafir then continued, "Storytelling does not require revelation, it simply requires imagination," attempting to reduce the Qur'an and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to human invention. Bashem did not correct this falsehood. He did not affirm the Qur'an's divine source. He only said, "Stand up to your word then!"

At first glance, some might mistake this for a bold challenge, echoing the Qur'anic call to produce a Surah like it. In reality, it is far more damning. This is not a defense of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), nor is it a proper refutation of blasphemy. It is a failure to uphold tawheed and proper respect for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), while entertaining falsehood and abandoning scholarly principles.

How should Bashem have responded to the statement, "Mohammed's illiteracy does not mean he was ignorant"? The correct and simple response was, "You are correct." That response would have affirmed the truth and preserved the honor of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). By agreeing, we recognize that he was wise and knowledgeable despite being unlettered. His lack of reading and writing does not imply ignorance. Rather, it highlights the miraculous nature of his knowledge and guidance, granted by Allah. This proves that Allah preserved him, taught him, and endowed him with wisdom beyond human learning. This is what scholars have explained! (Source)

Ambiguity exists where the wording actually allows for it. But here, Wild_Extra_Dip's reply was not ambiguous. It was a direct affirmation of an insult. He was told, "Mohammed's illiteracy does not mean he was ignorant," and he replied, "It really does." There is no ambiguity in that belittlement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), especially when compared to his attempt to recycle Rabee' al-Madkhali's accusation against Sayyid Qutub over ambiguous wording, despite the existence of clear statements that clarify the matter. Shaykh ibn Baaz clarified that Sayyid Qutub did not intend a blasphemous statement. (Source) As for Bashem, he has not made any known public tawbah from this belittlement.

Are you still in doubt about whether it was actually an insult, despite the clarification that there is no ambiguity? Consider what the scholars have explained. Al-Qaadhi 'Iyaad stated:

>Know that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), criticizes him, attributes a deficiency to his person, his lineage, his religion, any of his attributes, or likens him to something in the manner of insult, belittlement, reviling, or diminution, he is deemed one who has insulted him, and the ruling concerning him is the ruling of an insulter.

(Source)

This early scholarly statement confirms beyond doubt that any language attributing ignorance, deficiency, or belittlement to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) constitutes a serious insult, leaving no room for justification or ambiguity.

• It is essential to respond to those who defame the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)