Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:08 pm Post subject:
Wa alaikum salam,
Thanks for the research provided, but I am still not convinced for the following reasons:
It was clearly quoted from your source (via email) about Hakkari:
“Ibn an-Najar said: ‘Most of his hadiths are ghareeb and munkar,and in his hadeeths there are some fabricated things. And I saw - in the writing of some of ashaab al-hadeeth that he would fabricate hadiths in Asbahaan.’
So the statement quoted from below: There are some fabricated things in his hadiths, which does not mean that he fabricated them, but narrated them. - Holds no weight.
Rather it was clearly said that he would fabricate Hadeeths in Asbahaan, and this is why he was listed amonst the forgers by Imam Sibt ibn al Ajami (see below).
Secondly, both chains seem to contain al Hakkari, so they do not strenghthen each other at all from the Usool of Hadeeth. Then, what about the narrator: al Hussain ibn Hisham al Baldi?
We are not talking about the contents of the Wassiyya, but rather is the Chain back to him Sahih and so is it really by the pen of Imaam al Shafi'ee?! I won't go on, but read Imam al Dhahabi's verdict below on this Wasiyya from his Siyar a'lam an Nubala.
I will finish with this:
Imaam Sibt ibn al Ajami (from the Ulama of Jarh wa Ta’deel, died in 841 AH) listed al Hakkari in his list of those accused of forging Ahadith as follows in his Kashf al Hatheeth:
[ 497 ] Úáí Èä ÃÍãÏ ÔíÎ ÇáÅÓáÇã ÃÈæ ÇáÍÓä ÇáåßÇÑí ÞÇá Èä ÇáäÌÇÑ ãÊåã ÈæÖÚ ÇáÍÏíË æÊÑßíÈ ÇáÃÓÇäíÏ ÞÇáå ÇáÐåÈí Ýí ÊÑÌãÉ ÚÈÏ ÇáÓáÇã Èä ãÍãÏ
Imaam al Dhahabi declared in Siyar A’lam an Nubala the following verdict in rejection of the Wasiyya attributed to Imam al Shafi’i:
æóßóÐóÇ æóÕíøóÉõ ÇáÔøóÇÝöÚöíøö ãöäú ÑöæóÇíóÉö ÇáÍõÓóíúäö Èäö åöÔóÇãò ÇáÈóáóÏöíøö ÛóíúÑõ ÕóÍöíúÍóÉò. (10/79)
Note in this rejection, al Dhahabi clarified specifically the Riwaya of: al Hussain ibn Hishaam al Baldi.
So it seems to me that the view of al Dhahabi is strong and al Hakkari is not reliable since he was accused of fabricating Ahadith and also inventing Isnads!!
My conclusion: As al Dhahabi said, it is not Sahih that this Wassiyya is by al Shafi'ee.
Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:07 pm Post subject:
I asked a brother about what you said and he replied by email to me with the following (which I hope will shed some clarity on the issue if Allah so wills):
Regarding your question, citing this quote:
“I recall reading that this Wasiyya attributed to Imaam ash-Shaafi’i is not Saheeh because the one in the sanad called Sheikh-ul-Islaam by his followers, Abu al-Hasan 'Ali bin Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Qurashi al-Hakkaari was declared a forger and liar I think as in Ibn Hajar's Lisan al-Mizan.”
Then the reply is the following, and with Allah is the facilitation to do what is right:
1. There is more than one chain.
2. In al-Mizan, ath-Thahabi quoted that Ibn `Asaakir said: “He is not trustworthy.” And he mentioned that in the biography of `Abdus-Salam bin Muhammad, in his Taareekh, Ibn an-Najar said: “Accused of fabricating and inserting chains.” In al-Lisan, which as you know is Ibn Hajar’s work on al-Mizaan, Ibn Hajar said: “The author (ath-Thahabi) did not see his biography in Taareekh Ibn an-Najaar. Ibn an-Najaar said ‘…He heard from the following in al-Mawsil….’”
I say: And among those he said he heard from he mentioned in al-Mawsil, Saeeda, Egypt, Makkah, and Baghdaad, that is, that he “heard” from (continuing the quote):
“Ibn an-Najar said: ‘Most of his hadiths are ghareeb and munkar,and in his hadeeths there are some fabricated things. And I saw - in the writing of some of ashaab al-hadeeth that he would fabricate hadiths in Asbahaan.’ Abu Nasr al-Yunaarati said: ‘Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Khaadabah was not pleased with him.’ Yahya bin Mandah said: ‘He was a person of salah, worship, and ijtihad, he died in the beginning of al-Muharram in the year 486.’ Ibn as-Sama‘aani traced his lineage to al-Waleed bin Abi Sufyan, and he said; ‘He was called Shaykh al-Islam…’ Then he narrated a chain to ‘Abdul-Ghafaar bin Muhammad bin Mansoor bin ‘Alaan who said: ‘I heard Abu al-Hasan `Ali bin Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Hakaari - and my eyes have not seen the like of him, in zuhd or virtue.’” End quote
So I say, based on this, what we have about him, the truth is the allegations against him are from what Ibn an-Najaar said:
There are some fabricated things in his hadiths, which does not mean that he fabricated them, but narrated them.
That Ibn an-Najaar observed that some of the people of hadith alledged that he would fabricate.
That others said he was a person of ijtihad, called him shaykh al-islam – among whom was ath-Thahabi as you can see below – and he was a person of virtue. Then in al-Wasiyat al-Kubra, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said about him:
“And indeed in the venerable shaykhs who were among you such as the one called Shaykh al-Islam Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali bin Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Qurshi al-Hakkaari...”
So I do not have any problem with someone saying that his narrations can not be accepted with this type of information. But his narration is not the only one, so perhaps one could say based upon his biography that has reached us, that his narration on this matter is good enough for a witness, since some of them have praised him, especially when what he reported is the same as what has been reported by others.
Some of this Wasiyah of Imam ash-Shafi`i is mentioned in ath-Thahabi’s al-`Uloo, under ash-Shafi`i: “Shaykh al-Islam Abu al-Hasan al-Hakaari, and, al-Haafiz Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, with their chains to Abu Thawr, and Abu Shu`aib, both of them from al-Imam Muhammad bin Idrees…” And he mentioned some of it and said: “…and he mentioned the rest of the creed.”
Then he said: “With a chain of whom I do not know, from al-Husain bin Hishaam al-Baladi who said…” “and he mentioned the wasiyah in entirety…”
That “I do not know person” is in the other chain.
And I do not want to bother looking for that for it is from one, from his grandfather, and the names do not tell me it will be a short search!
And before I finish with this topic, I would like to remind you, of the note we put with the “creed of Imam Ahmad” (as some call it) or, the letter of Ahmad to Musaddad, as you can see it on our website, here is the footnote we put there:
“Some have challenged the authenticity of attributing this treatise to Imaam Ahmad on the grounds that Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Burda'i at-Tameemi is unknown. However Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah has lifted any doubt surrounding its reliability: “As for the Letter of Ahmad ibn Hanbal to Musaddad ibn Musarhad, it is well known to the People of Hadeeth and Sunnah from amongst the companions of Ahmad and other than them, they took it with acceptance. And Abu Abdullaah ibn Battah mentioned it in his book al-Ibaanah and more than one has relied upon it such as al-Qaadhi Abu Ya'laa and he wrote it by his own hand.” Majmoo' al-Fatawaa , vol. 5, p. 396. For the full discussion surrounding this letter, see Majmoo' al-Fataawaa, vol. 5, pp. 375-377, 380-396.” Then, here is a summary of what Sa`d ad-Deen al-Kabbi said in his intro to the text published by al-Makab al-Islami, 1414, first edition:
What it includes is what is in agreement with the creed of the salaf and the Imam in question.
There are chains for the entire text.
Much of what is in that text, is quoted in other references as the creed of ash-Shafi`i ; points 4-7 mentioned by al-Bayhaqi in al-Manaqib (1:415) number 15 as well (1:433) nos. 25 and 16 were mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim in Ijtimaa `al-Juyoosh, and ath-Thahabi in al-`Uloo, and see al-Mamu` al-Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyah 4:181-183. Point 27 was mentioned by ath-Thahabi in as-Siyar, and in a;-`Uloo.
As-Suyooti quoted all of the wasiyah in al-Amr bil-Ittibaa‘.
5. THAT AL-BAIHAQI MENTIONED IN AL-MANAQIB THAT HE FOUND A TABLET ON THE GRAVE OF ASH-SHAFI`I AT ITS HEAD, WRITTEN ON IT WAS... The whole wasiyyah. (1:300-301)
and that tablet on the grave is another matter.
So this creed of Imam ash-Shafi`i, like many statements of creed reported from some imams, has disparagement for chains, but reason that the scholars attribute it to them are more than just analysis of those chains, like in the case of the chain for the letter to Musaddad from Ahmad, which only comes by way of one chain with a completely unknown in it. And Allah knows best. And I hope that no one thinks that because we did not research the chains for it, or, because we did not put a note for that when we published it, that we did some dis-service, if they do then they should look at the note that Shaykh al-Albani put for it in the reference in Mukhtasar al-`Ulu (none) and, it has been met with acceptance, even with the critical remarks about al-Hakaari.
And indeed Allah knows best.
|QUOTE (Abu Suhaylah)|
Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 1:11 am Post subject:
I received an email from the brother, and he said:
"I read this reply to what I said:
"So the statement quoted from below: There are some fabricated things in his hadiths, which does not mean that he fabricated them, but narrated them. - Holds no weight.
Rather it was clearly said that he would fabricate Hadeeths in Asbahaan, and this is why he was listed amonst the forgers by Imam Sibt ibn al Ajami (see below). So the statement quoted from below: There are some fabricated things in his hadiths, which does not mean that he fabricated them, but narrated them. - Holds no weight.
Rather it was clearly said that he would fabricate Hadeeths in Asbahaan, and this is why he was listed amonst the forgers by Imam Sibt ibn al Ajami (see below)."
And what is that? What was already mentioned as is clear from the statement I presented, "Ibn an-Najaar said this... ath-Thahabi said it in the biography of `Abdus-Salam bin Muhammad."
But rather, I quoted from Ibn Hajar: "Ibn Hajar said: 'The author (ath-Thahabi) did not see his biography in Taareekh Ibn an-Najaar.'" And that the source of what al-Ajami said is the quote from Ibn an-Najaar that is present in what I said. al-Ajami is only saying what he saw ath-Thahabi said in al-Mizaan, and if Ibn an-Najaar's saying: "I saw some people" who are majhool is good enough, than that is great! The issue is resolved.
And I quoted what ath-Thahabi said in al-`Uloo: "Shaykh al-Islam Abu al-Hasan al-Hakaari, and,
al-Haafiz Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi,
with their chains
to Abu Thawr, and Abu Shu`aib, both of them from al-Imam Muhammad bin Idrees…” And he mentioned some of it and said:
“…and he mentioned the rest of the creed.”
That is: "and, al-Haafiz Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, with their chains to Abu Thawr, and Abu Shu`aib."
And I mentioned what al-Bayhaqi said, that this wasiyah is on the grave of ash-Shafi`i.
So I do not have any problems with ath-Thahabi saying that the wasiyah reported through this al-Hakaari is not correct, he also stated that al-Hafiz al-Maqdisi reported it with a chain. And perhaps that one has someone weak in it as well! And I stated before that I was not intending to bother these other ambigiously named narrators.
As I stated before, at least for this one, we have more chains - even with the disparagments - than for the letter of Imam Ahmad to Musaddad. And, scholars have met both of these with acceptance, regardless of the precison of the chains. So if one holds to his view that this chain of al-Hakaari is weak, and that this chain of Abu `Ali al-Husain bin Haashim is weak, and that this chain of al-Maqdisi is weak, I do not have any problem with that. I do not rank al-Baihaqi among the liars from the view of narrations, and, I'm sure that someone could have falsely attributed this to ash-Shafi`i and put it on his grave (?) but, we really only know of it from the people of his math-hab, it was seen on his grave, and the creed is in accordance with what we know about him.
It is well known that many of these statements of creed are like this, that the chains reaching the statement have some problems, but if ath-Thahabi quoted it in al-`Uloo, Ibn Taymiyah in his Fatawa, al-Baihaqi, Ibn al-Qayyim, then there is no harm for us to quote it in that regard. And as I said, if some one has a problem with us not writting a complete research on these chains for this statement, then let him look at the likes of Shaykh al-Albani, and what he said about the part of it that is in al-`Uloo, which is, nothing, a whole lot less than what we have already said.
I have done the best that I can, and said all that I can say, in support of this wasiyah attributed to Imam ash-Shafi`i, seeking to support its content for the Face of Allah.
And, Allah knows best."
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:10 pm Post subject: The Wasiyyah of al-Shafi'i - in Ithbat Sifat al-Uluww
See also the book: Ithbat Sifat al-'Uluww of Imam al-Muwaffaq al-Din Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi, edited by Badr b. Abdallah al-Badr, p.132-134, where the full Wasiyyah is quoted, and p.135.
This is what I've posted on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radd_ashariyyah and
I've some time ago posted an translation of Imam al-Shafi'i's Aqidah known as al-Wasiyyah. I found also another one later, on http://www.dkh-islam.com/bdnews/news_view/news_id/25, by a brother in Islam. Since they've neglected some crucial facts surrounding this Aqidah I thought to mention it also here.
I wrote on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radd_ashariyyah :
Al-Wasiyyah (The Testament): The Aqidah of Imam al-Shafi'i
The Creed of Imam al-Shafi'i, may God be pleased with him.
And it is transmitted from him through chain by Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn
Hashim ibn `Amr ibn al-Baladi (who) said:
"This is the Testament (wassiyat) of the Imam Abu Abdallah Muhammad
ibn Idris al-Shafi'i, may God be pleased with him.
His last will is that he testifies that there is no [other] God than
God, the One with no partners, and that Muhammad is His Servant and
Messenger, peace be upon him.
And that he believes in God, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers,
(with) no distinction between any of His Messengers.
And that mine prayers, piety, life and death are for [the sake of]
God, the Lord of the Worlds, [with] no partners. And that I die, [as]
one of the Muslims.
And that God will resurrect the inhabitants of the grave.
And that Paradise is true. And that Hell-fire is true.
And that the Punishment of the Grave, the Account and the Scale are
true. And that God will repay men's works.
On this I live, die and resurrect, if God the Highest, wills.
And I witness that Faith (Iman) is word, action and knowledge with
the heart; it increases and decreases.
And that the Qur'an is God's Word, uncreated.
And that God, `azza wa-jall, will be seen in the afterlife, looked
upon clearly by the eyes of the believers, and hearing His Word.
And He is above His Throne.
And al-Qadar, [both] good and bad, is from God, `azza wa-jall, [and]
nothing happens unless God, `azza wa-jall, wills so, destined and
And that the best of all people after the Messenger of God, peace be
upon him, of this Ummah are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and `Ali, may God
be pleased with them. And I love them and ask God's forgiveness for
them, and [for those who participated in the battles of] the Camel
and Siffin; those who killed and were killed, and all the Companions
of the Prophet, peace be upon him.
And listening and obeying those in authority, as long as they pray.
And the ruler, we shall not go out against him with our sword.
And the Caliphate belongs to Quraysh.
And that a little quantity, from a great quantity of wine, and
temporary marriage forbidden is.
And I exhort with fear for God, `azza wa-jall, and holding fast on
the Sunnah and the traditions of the Messenger of God, peace be upon
him, and the Companions. And abondoning of innovations and
unsanctioned passions (al-ahwa').
And fear God, as He desires, and may you they as Muslims only.
So this is his Testament, the first and the last. And whoever fears
God, He shall make for him a way out, and gives him (life) provision,
with no account. So fear God, wherever you are.
And upon you is [to keep up] Friday prayers, and assemblies [of
congegration], and holding up the Sunnah, Faith and the study of
Whoever of you attends (my death), let him find me say: There's no
God than God, the One, without partners, and that Muhammad is His
Servant and Messenger, peace be upon him. And take care of [cutting
of the] nails and moustache before death, as God the Highest wills.
And if you attend my death, and there's with me a menstruating woman,
she may raise. And that you may parfume and smell around my resting-
(Then the texts says:)
There it stand (written) in the book of Ibn Hashim. And there's
another creed attributed to al-Shafi'i, may God be pleased with him,
longer than this one, which contains evidence. We have, however,
found this one enough, and with God lies succes!
And the source is Ibn Ahdal's work Kashf al-Ghita 'an Haqa'iq al-Tawhid wa-'Aqaid al-Muwahhidin. I think passages can also be found scattered in the written works of al-Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, since he refers to the composer of the work 'Aqidat al-Muttalibi, better known as I'tiqad al-Imam Abi Abdallah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i al-Muttalabi (see http://www.sunnipress.com/aqida.htm ) authored by Abu'l-Hasan Ali b. Ahmad b. Yusuf al-Hakkari (d.486). See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radd_ashariyyah/messages.
This 'Aqidah of Imam al-Shafi'i has been published by the editor of
Ithbat Sifat al-'Uluww, Badr ibn Abdallah al-Badr, a book by the Imam
Muwaffaq al-Din Ibn Qudamah. Actually Imam Muwaffaq al-Din mentioned it in his own book, and therefor he's the editor.
Imam Ibn Qudamah reports the following Isnad for the text:
Akhbarana al-Shaykh al-Zaki Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn Salama ibn Muhammad al-Harrani, qala.. Abu Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Nabhan al- Ghanuwayh al-Raqqi > al-Shaykh al-Islam Abu'l Hasan Ali ibn Ahmad (ibn) Yusuf al-Qurashi al-Hakkari > al-Zahid Ahmad ibn 'Asim al-Mawsili > Abu'l-Qasim Ali ibn al-Qasim al-Muqri, (who) said: I wrote from a book by Hisham al-Baladi:
Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim, Hadha ma wassa' bih Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i [then the Isnad continues, presumably the chain found by Ali b. al-Qasim in the book of al-Baladi, with] Abu Mansur Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Sahl ibn Khalifa ibn al-Sayyah al-Baladi > my grandfather Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn Sahl ibn Khalifa > Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Hisham (the text below says Hashim) ibn Amr al-Baladi, (who) said:
"hadha wassiyyatu Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i radiallahu 'anhu", see the text above.
According to the editor, Badr ibn Abdallah al-Badr, this supposedly reported testament of Imam al-Shafi'i is not transmitted by reliable men, quoting Ibn 'Asakir about al-Hakkari that he's:
"not being reliable in his transmission"
Imam al-Dhahabi says about this: "and so is al-Shafi'i's Testament from
the transmission of al-Husayn ibn Hisham al-Baladi not correct".
Because of these remarks I thought that the work is too weak to adduce it as proof, even though we all know that Imam al-Shafi'i's beliefs are as such in the Wasiyyah.
But Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, the Hafidh and most knowledgable in matters of Creed and Sects sai about this man:
"And indeed in the venerable shaykhs who were among you such as the one called Shaykh al-Islam Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali bin Ahmad bin Yusuf al-Qurashi al-Hakkari, and after him the exemplary learned Shaykh ‘Adi bin Musafir al-Umawi and those who follow their way. Among them are those of virtue and religion and benefit, following the Sunnah, as Allah honored them and gave them strength, illuminating their way" (see Wasiyyat al-Kubra of Ibn Taymiyyah in http://www.dkh-islam.com/bdnews/news_view/news_id/49 )
Ibn Taymiyyah, speaking about the pure Creed and its adherents includes in this discussion also Shaykh al-Islam al-Hakkari, which is a clear Tazkiyyah of Taqi al-Din.
He says further:
"These Shaykhs (among these al-Hakkari) did not leave the major fundamentals of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah, rather they were proponents of the fundamentals of Ahl as-Sunnah, they invited to them, they were active in its propagation, and eradicating those who contradicted that by their virtuous religious practice. By these great acts Allah raised their rank and illuminated and extended thier guiding way, as is said about them in the popular news of their lives. All of this is so, although in their statements and the statements of those who followed them there exists some blame-able issues, some weak evidences, like hadiths that are not confirmable, and analogies that were not yet refuted, as is known by the people of insightful knowledge,"
and this is probably a hint to their lesser excellence in transmission, education and teaching compared to their devotion, practice etc. and this is not contradicting Ibn 'Asakir or al-Dhahabi, both knowledgable scholars though the latter was for Ibn Taymiyyah a minor and his student.
Rather, Ibn Taymiyyah explains that they were examplary scholars and that their I'tiqad and call to it are the way of the Ahl al-Sunnah. Thus, know we see the sayings ascribed to Imam al-Shafi'i by al-Hakkari, al-Shaykh al-Islam in Ibn Taymiyyah's view, and we surely know that nothing of it opposes the Sunnah, nor al-Shafi'i's known 'Aqa'id, we are not afraid in ascribing this work to him. Rather, al-Hakkari may not be a 'Hafidh' or 'Thiqa', but just 'saduq' or 'laysa bi-qawi', then an ascription to al-Shafi'i may be justified in they eyes of the Ulama.
I hope I may have benefitted the brothers and sisters with this precious source of Imam al-Shafi'i's beliefs, in which he refutes not just the Jahmiyyah and Mu'tazilah, but also some Kullabi Ash'arites and others who oppose the Sunnah.
See also the Risalah of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah to the followers of Shaykh 'Adi b. Musafir al-Umawi (d.555) - rahimahullah - the 'Arif and Faqih (in Majmu' al-Fatawa vol. 11 or 12), in which he says that al-Hakkari is named Shaykh al-Islam, and that he possesses al-Fadl, wa'l-Din, wa'l-Salah, following the Sunnah - and that Allah, ta'ala, raised his station. And he speaks also about his correct beliefs.