Discussion Over Good/Evil Sunnah Hadith And Matters Which Branched From It.

[MuhammedAli]

Introduction:

Originally my plan was to target the key points of discussion regarding the Hadith of; whoever introduces good/evil Sunnah in Islam. I didn’t want to chase these issues down to their logical ends in discussion and even in the first article solely because they undermine the integrity/standing of Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) with his Peer and people sitting. It has been practice of Sufia to lead a Talib/Seeker to door of guidance and allow the Talib to realize where he has been brought and give him the decision to enter it on his own accord. My objective never was to debate but to educate and best way education is without humiliation and embrassing. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) considered himself to be my equale and wanted to DEBATE as an equale. And I saw Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) nothing more then misguided seeker and needing guidance and better understanding of Deen. As such point attempt was made to educate through questions and answers by slowly nudging and prodding Shaykh (hadfidha-ullah) toward making him realize his error. Hope was if there is enough respect from Shaykh for me it would be settled within half an hour like it was sorted with mini-Shaykh (hafidha-ullah), a day before our discussion. But lack of respect for prophetic teaching and elders got in the way. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Ibn Abbas narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "He is not one of us who does not have mercy upon our young, respect our elders, and command good and forbid evil." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B1, H1921] And where Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) gave bit of respect as mini-Shaykh pointed out he gained the goodness through it at the end of discussion. Anyhow after much thinking I have decided there were many things said by Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) which need to be checked because they are heretical and silence upon them will only strengthen heresy. Originally I felt silence was better and let the issues die and people will forget all the misguidance of Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) especially on the issues which none disputes. There has been this nagging thought in my mind that I initiated the discussion and even if one person take his misguidance then I am responsible. Therefore I will address all he said that was incorrect or atleast all the misguidance of his I can recall. My objective is not to embrass the Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) rather to perserve the true teaching of Islam and refute the distortions. And I pray to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that Shayh (hafidha-ullah) sees errors of his way and repents. I devoted then and I devote my time now as an act of mercy/compassion for young Shaykh (hafidha-ullah). I see where his misguidance will take him and the most compassionate/merciful act I can do for Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is spend my time pointing out his errors so he repents and adopts what is right. It would be cruel and heartless thing to do to not to strive for his guidance when I have the knowledge and time to invest. And sign of righteous Muslim is that he desires for his brothers what he desires for himself and I desire nothingless then guidance for all and myself. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: Religion is Naseehah (i.e. sincerity/advice, or sincere advice). And this article is nothing more then sinere and genuine effort for Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) to realize his errors and repent. How our Shaykh (hafidha-ulla) takes it is entirely up to him. My reward is with my Lord and ultimately all is for His pleasure and defence of His Deen.

Siwak, Muswak Is Part Of Deen:

During our discussion Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said Mawlid is innovation in deen it is misguidance. And when it was told that everything is part of Deen. He resorted to and said; x, y, z are not part of Deen. Call it tactical move or genuine issue of lack of knowledge. Tactical move meant he was able to say Siwak is not part of Deen. And this was a shocking statement because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) repeated instructed the companions to use Siwak: “It was narrated that Hudhaifah said: "We were commanded to use the siwak when we got up to pray at night." [Ref: Nisai, B20, H1624] “Narrated Anas: Allah's Messenger said, "I have told you repeatedly to use the Siwak.” [Ref: Bukhari, B13, H13] “Abu Ayyub narrated that:The Messenger of Allah said: "Four are from the Sunan of the Messengers: Al-Hayat, using Attar, the Siwak, and marriage." [Ref: Tirmadhi, B6, H1080] Can a believer imagine Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) put extra emphasis on something which is not Deen. And a Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) who is living Tafsir of Quran and the best of examples and a Nabi who speaks Wahi (i.e. revelation) that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) extra emphasis on something which is not Deen and using it regularly himself: “Your companion has neither gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only a Revelation revealed.” [Ref: 53:62] “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.” [Ref: 33:21] And Hadith states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was walking/living Tafsir of Quran then how can his Siwak usage not be part of Deen! May Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) give Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) taufeeq for repentance, ameen.

Everything Is Part Of Islam Or Not:

The reason why Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said Siwak is not part of Deen is because he was asked you say we should practice prophetic Sunnah and leave what is permissible (i.e. Mawlid). Yet you yourself leave the prophetic Sunnah of Siwak and you use tooth paste/brush. Having no place to hide he said; Siwak is not part of Deen therefore the use of tooth paste/brush is not a problem. We already established that Siwak is part of Deen. Hadith of Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha) establish Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was living Quran. Which naturally would mean everything Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was connected with Deen. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said: “Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud said, “Verily, Allah looked at the hearts of the servants and He found that the heart of Muhammad, was the best among them, so He choose him for Himself and He sent him with His message. Then He looked at the hearts of His servants after Muhammad, and He found that the hearts of his companions were the best among them. Thus He made them into the ministers of His Prophet, fighting for the sake of His religion. And whatever the Muslims view as good is good in the sight of Allah, and whatever they view as evil is evil in the sight of Allah. And the Companions unanimously chose to take Abû Bakr – Allâh be pleased with him – as the successor (to lead the Muslims after the Prophet).” [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Mukthireen, Ibn Mas’ud, H3589] In other words whatever innovated matter the Fitrah of [majority of] Muslims deems good is good in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And whatever innovated matter the [majority of] Muslims consider to be evil is in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). How can what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) deems good/evil is not part of Deen of Islam! Is he not the legislator of religion! Here the only difference is that his judgement becomes apparent via understanding of majority of Muslims. Note even though the above Hadith did not say majority but majority is to be understood due to the following: “One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah.” [Ref: Muslims, B20, H4559] “I heard the Messenger of Allah (subhanhu wa ta’ala) say: ‘My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, Vol.1, B36, H3950] “Abu Dharr (Allah be pleased with him) reported from the Prophet (Peace be upon him) that,"Two are better than one, and three better than two; so stick to the Jama'ah for verily Allah, Most Great and Glorious, will only unite my nation on guidance." [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Kitab Al-Ansar, Abu Zar Al Ghaffari, Hadith 20776] So understanding of majority is guidance and what the majority see good/evil it is good/evil in judgment of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). And what He sees good/evil is religion even though its not directly established from Quran/Hadith.

Kissing The Four Corners Of Kabah:

Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) attributed Hadith to Sahih of Imam Bukhari. He said Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) kissed four corners of Kabah and Umar Ibn al-Khattab (radiallah ta’ala anhu) rebuked him for going against prophetic Sunnah and for introducing an innovation into religion. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) also said; Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) stopped his practice. I have not found this Hadith any where in Sahih al-Bukhari but in Musnad of Imam Ahmad (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): "Ibn Abbas said he did tawaf of Baytullah with Muawiyah. Muawiyah kissed all the corners of the Kabah. Ibn Abbas said: Why are you kissing these corners when Prophet did not kissed? Muawiyah replied: Nothing in Baytullah should be left. Ibn Abbas replied The life of Prophet is best moral for you. Muawiyah said: You are truthful." [Ref: Msnd Imam Ahmad, H1880] And the grading of Hadith is questionable; Hassan li-ghayrihi (i.e. good due to others). Implications of which is; Hadith itself is weak but others contribute and make it Hassan (i.e. good). Also it was pointed out Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) abandoned the practice, if he did, then it was because prophetic Sunnah is better/superior. Which precisely argument of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is. In other words Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) didn’t object to it due to it being innovation but due to a superior/better option of prophetic Sunnah being left. Therefore even though the action of Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was permissible it was not Sunnah.

Ijtihad Point Not Made In Discussion:

In the starting of discussion with Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) issue of Ijtihad of Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) came up. And objective was to use it to prove innovation in Deen is permissible but point got tangled and subject changed due to details branching off to new discussions. Even though there are tons of points that can be made and were made during discussion but I want to make the point of Ijtihad in here because it never made. It would have only taken thirty second with a sincere person but it couldn’t be made in two hours of discussion due to insincerity and lack of co-operation from opposition. Even though what I wanted to say would have been means of his guidance Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) proved to be his own worst enemy. And Shaykh (hadfidha-ullah) tried to debate where as my objective was to educate without humiliation and causing embrassment to him in presence of his peers.

Issue Of Ijtihad And Its Reality:

Prophetic teachings are part of Islam and what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed in Quran is already part of Islam. Ijtihad is done on issues which are not teaching of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in Quran and what is not already prophetic Sunnah. Therefore Ijtihad is way of introducing innovation into teaching of Islam. If Ijtihad is invalid [Mujtahid will get no sin] then Ijtihad of Mujtahid erroneous [Ijtihadi] innovation. And if Ijtihad of Mujtahid is valid then by default then Mujtahid’s Ijtihad is correct/good [Ijtihadi] innovation in Islam. In this light Ijtihad of Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was innovation. Not getting involved in, if it was valid/invalid, point is his Ijtihad establishes he believed innovations can be introduced. Note if we say no innovation can be made into Islam then teaching of Ijtihad fundamentally would contradict with every innovation is misguidance. Ijtihad teaches introducing innovation and if literalism of; every innovation is misguidance isn’t restricted then Ijtihadi innovations are misguidance as well. In other words two teaching of Prophet (sallallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) contradict. And rule is when there is ambiguity follow what is clear and emphatic and leave what is ambiguous for rasikhoon fil-ilm (i.e. people of understanding) to interpret the ambigous. Ijtihad and its teaching are clear. Ambiguity is in Hadith of; every innovation is misguidance. Note Muslims and Wahhabis/Salafis believe in Ijtihad our understanding of innovation perfectly compliments Ijtihad because we Muslims believe; good/valid innovations via Ijtihad can be made part of Islam. The understanding of Wahhabis/Salafis on subject of innovation [because they believe there can no innovation] contradict with teaching of Ijtihad [because it teaches there has to be innovation]. Therefore those who oppose the Muslims should fear Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and instead of arguing with Muslims should attempt to reconcile the contradiction within their own belief. If they feel their understanding on subject of innovation is correct than they should argue with Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) for underminding them by teaching of Ijtihad.

Discussion On Haram And Halal And Mawlid:

Sometime in the beginning of discussion with Shaykh (hafidha-ullah). He said Mawlid is an innovation and therefore not permissible. Islamic position was it is permissible because nothing HARAM in it and in support of Islamic understanding following Ahadith were quoted: “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] “Allah has prescribed certain obligations for you, so do not neglect them; He has defined certain limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things do do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning about other things out of mercy for you, and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them.” [Ref: Sunan Darqutni, Vol2, Page137] “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] To establish permissibility in the light of Ahadith it was pointed out Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are silent (i.e. not declared Haram or Halal) on Mawlid therefore it can be celebrated because there is no sin for it. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) presented the following Hadith to undermine what I stated: “What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things is liable to indulge in unlawful things, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a reserve will soon pasture them in it. [Ref: Bukhari, B10, H3882] Focus of discussion changed because trying to establish detail of Hadith of Bukhari and I was unable to point out so here it goes: Mawlid is not doubtful because it is composed of all that it permissible and good of Islam. Mutashabihat mentioned in the Hadith of Bukhari are those modern inventions and some old regarding which have no specific injunction of Haram/Halal in in Quran and Sunnah i.e. eating elephant, prawns and modern sexual fads. All aspects which make up Mawlid are from prophetic Sunnah. Walking, talking, smiling, food, zikr, Quran recitation, religious sermons, giving charity, flags, and marches are all from prophetic Sunnah. Hence nothing in it is doubtful in it. And to refute permissibility of Mawlid through the Hadith of Mutashabihat is proof that Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) has very shallow understanding of texts he has read.

Wahhabi And Sunni Way Of Establish Permissibility:

When Muslims and Wahhabis/Salafis dispute over on permissibility of a practice typical Wahhabi/Salafi tactic is to demand evidence from prophetic Sunnah. Their argument goes something like this; prove Mawlid from Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). The fact is permissibility of a practice is not dependent upon practice being prophetic Sunnah. Rather if parts of a practice are from prophetic Sunnah even if the wholistically the practice isn’t prophetic Sunnah then practice is permissible. Suppose there is a practice called Mehfil. In practice of Mehfil people gather they all recite Surah each, perform 4 Nawafil, are fasting, they all give charity to poor, they all give food to poor persons, and they all gift clothes to poor people, and they all clean the Masjid, they learn about Tawheed, Ibadah, Shirk, Biddah, etc and all strive to bring one new person every week on Mehfil day so new person can do good deeds and get reward. Even though this practice of Mehfil is not prophetic Sunnah but it is composed of all that is Islamic and prophetic Sunnahs. Therefore it doesn’t come into category of Mutashabihat (i.e. doubtful). Permissibility is judged via parts and not by whole. In other words when the Muftis of Islam judge something which has not been adressed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or by His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) they see if the juzz (i.e. parts) of it are from Sunnah. And if a practice is established via parts as from prophetic Sunnahs then it is deemed permissible because its parts are from prophetic Sunnah even though the whole practice itself is not prophetic Sunnah.

Permissible Is Fine But Sunnah Is Better:

Earlier with in the discussion point was made that prophetic Sunnah is best but non-prophetic practices are permissible and there is reward for them. We came to agreement on part of it but Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) contiued to say; then act of Sunnah. It was pointed to him that if Sunnah is better then why do you use tooth brush and tooth paste? His best fall back was because it is not part of Deen. Later on he himself acnowledged everything is connected with Deen and therefore Deen but few minutes later went back on his words. Near the end Shaykh al-Akbar forced him to agree with everything being part of Deen. In other words Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) agrees tooth paste and brush are part of Deen. The question is; Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) why do you leave the Awla/superior for innovation of infidels of West? OK! Point of lizard eating came into discussion some how but I will connect it here. Hadith records: “It was narrated from Khalid bin Walid that a grilled mastigure was brought to the Messenger of Allah and placed near him. He stretched out his hand to eat (some of it), then those who were present said: “O Messenger of Allah, it is the flesh of a mastigure.” He took his hand away, and Khalid said to him: “O Messenger of Allah, is a mastigure unlawful?” He said: “No, but it is not found in my land and I find it distasteful.” He said: “Then Khalid bent over the mastigure and ate some of it, and the Messenger of Allah was looking at him.” [Ref: Bukhari, B28, H3241] “Narrated Ibn Umar: The Prophet said: "I do not eat mastigure, but I do not prohibit its eating." [Ref: Bukhari, B67, H444] Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was and is surely best and superior no doubt. But despite this Khalid Bin Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did what was permissible and did not act on prophetic Sunnah. This proves even though Sunnah is superior but one engages in what is permissible without incurring blame. Now if the prophetic Sunnah was the only way to achieve success in here after then Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have prevented Khalid Bin Walid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) but he allowed him to engage in what is halal without objection. Yet the Salafis/Wahhabis object to all that is HALAL in various innovated practices by Muslims. In fact it is recorded in Ahadith that a companion altered the Tasbih of Salah: “One day we were praying behind the Prophet. When he raised his head from bowing, he said, "Sami`al-lahu liman hamidah." A man behind him said, "Rabbana wa laka l-hamdu, hamdan kathiran taiyiban mubarakan fihi" When the Prophet completed the prayer, he asked, "Who has said these words?" The man replied, "I." The Prophet said, "I saw over thirty angels competing to write it first." Prophet rose (from bowing) and stood straight till all the vertebrae of his spinal column came to a natural position.” [Ref: Bukhari, B12, H764] Normally the Imam would say; sami al-lahu liman hamidah. And the Muqtadi’s (i.e. performing Salah behind Imam i.e. follower) response would be; rabbana wa lakal hamd. Companion changed the prophetic Sunnah not just silently but loudly which even the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) heard. Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is surely the best and superior to all but companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced an innovation which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) loved and the angels loved also. The Nabi of mercy was alive can you imagine if that happened if the Wahhabis were in the Masjid. They would have killed that companion by just telling him, qullu biddatan dhalalah, qullu biddatan dhalalah. But the Nabi of mercy (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was alive and well. Who had the more right to tell the companion that; qullu biddatan dhalalah, Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) or Nabi Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? But he didn’t. If the companions and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were following understanding of innovation which the Wahhabis/Salafis follow then what would have happened? It didn’t happen because they didn’t follow Wahhabi/Salafi understanding of Biddah. If companions had, then companion wouldn’t have innovated, other companions wouldn’t have remained silent, the angels would have been upset/angry, and the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have been angry with the companion. This wasn’t the case then question is: What does that prove? That Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and companions were following Salafi/Wahhabi understanding of innovation? Does this incident not prove Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), his companions, angels, and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) taught the methodology of innovation which is now held by Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah i.e. Barelwi? Leaving this aside; we agree prophetic Sunnah is better then everything yet the companion innovated. Note his innovation wasn’t out side of Deen. He altered Tasbih of Salah which would be innovation in Deen even according to Wahhabi/Salafi understanding. So what basis did the companions added his Tasbih into Deen? Let me answer it with the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] He made Ijtihad and via which introduced a good innovation/practice into Deen. One thing is clear that it was good innovated Sunnah of companion but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) approved of it and therefore it became a prophetic Sunnah. This refutes notion that Xpractice has to be prophetic Fehli Sunnah (i.e. Prophet’s Sunnah in action) or Qawli Sunnah (i.e. Prophet’s Sunnah in speech) for it to be permissible. It also sheds light on Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) issue. For sake of argument if lets suppose Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed there can be no innovation with regards to what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did i.e. kissed two corners. This incident of changing the Tasbih and adding to it in presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) establishes Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was wrong because innovation was made in his presence and he approved of it. But the fact was made clear even during our discussion; Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) argued his point from perspective of prophetic Sunnah being superior to Ijtihad.

Sunnah Taraweeh And Innovation In Taraweeh:

When Hadith of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) saying; Taraweeh was excellent innovation. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said he said this in linguistic sense because Taraweeh was prophetic Sunnah. There is no denial Taraweeh was/is prophetic Sunnah but for only three days. He then out of mercy abandoned it. To abandon Taraweeh was better because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) abandoned it after three days. Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) revived a Sunnah which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) abandoned. Note he wasn’t reviving a forgotten Sunnah he was reviving a abandoned Sunnah. Forgotten can be revived because it was not suppose to be forgotten. Abandoned can’t be revived cause Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) didn’t want to practice it. So reviving that was innovation but if someone wants to argue I can let that go. Three day Taraweeh was prophetic Sunnah but 26/27 additional days wasn’t so he innovated into Taraweeh. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) could not have read entire Quran in three days during Taraweehs in our Taraweehs entire Qurans are finished which is innovation number two. It would only be linguistic innovation if nothing of Sunnah was altered. I mean he revived Taraweeh of three days and he said its excellent innovation. If this was the case then no innovation would be made into prophetic Sunnah and statement would have been understood in linguistic sense. Abdullah says: Surah Ikhlas is excellent innovation. We know Abdullah believes its part of Quran and revealed by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). We interpret his statement in light of his belief and come to conclusion his statement only means revelation of Surah Ikhlas was excellent new Surah. Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) added extra 26/27 days to Taraweeh, and entire Quran is recited in it, yet it is still linguistic innovation.

Linguistic Innovation And Its Reality And Correct Understanding:

Following discussion would be according to Hanbali/Wahhabi definition of innovation. So Shar’ri innovation should be interpreted to mean evil [shar’ri] innovation from Sunni definition perspective. I believe Hajj is part of Islam. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) instructed it and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught it. I say: Hajj is innovation. Did I mean Hajj is linguistic innovation or Shar’ri innovation? My saying Hajj is innovation is linguistic sense because in Shar’ri sense I don’t believe it is innovation because for it to be Shar’ri innovation I have to believe it is not prophetic Sunnah and it is not what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) commanded in His Book. Suppose I believe Hajjd is innovation but also believe neither Allah nor His Messenger instructed it but it was innovated in 3^rd century. Now if I say Hajj is innovation. Have I made the shar’ri judgment or not? You would be right Shar’ri judgment because Hajj is form of worship not legislated from my perspective. Similarly Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) knew very well that what he has issued is not linguistic innovation it was Sunnah for three days but he innovated entire month Taraweeh and entire and more Quran is recited in it. And his statement is in accordance with Hadith of Good Sunnah in Islam: “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466]

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

[MuhammedAli]

Following Addition Has Been Made.
-----------------------------------------------

What Is Part Of Islam And What Is Not Part Of Islam:

Shaykh believes certain prophetic Sunan including Siwak/Miswak are not part of Deen. Yesterday I was sitting down and thinking: Imam Bukhari (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) collected over around ten thousand Ahadith and so did many other Muhadditheen. Why would Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) travel throughout Islamic world to learn Ahadith and record them in His collection. Picture this: I know Yoga has nothing to do with Islam but I walk it, camel it, horse it, all the way to India to learn Yoga so I can write a manual of Yoga in FIQH section of my book and make it part of my TAFSIR of Quran. Can you imagine a sane individual doing this? Why would Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) labour so pains takingly traveling all over the Islamic world to gather … verify … write … teach … something which was not part of Islam?  Its obvious Imam Bukhari (rahimullah) and Imam Muslim (rahimullah) and all the Muhaditheen were crazy and our Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) knows the true Islam. That was sarcasm. Our Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is reviver of Islam. Again: Sarcasm! Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) follows simple rule; whenever caught out, say its not part of Islam, cite your self as proof of your position. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is upon this methodology: We follow the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Salaf; the pious predecessors. But when a Muslim says; Jihad is part of Islam and prophetic Sunnah is to take part in Jihad with sword, spear, shield, horse, camel etc … therefore AK47, RPG, Grenades, are innovation and not way of Salaf and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Then say: Weapons are not part of Islam therefore AK47 is fine. O Muslims reason with them: Salah is part of Islam and the method was taught by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Jihad is part of Islam and method and the equipment to be used in it were taught by him through his example and example of his companions. If method is not part of Deen then Ruku, Sujud, Qiyam, etc … are not part of Salah and not part of Islam. Also where do you draw line in something not being part of Islam and being part of Islam. Islam was perfected and completed. So where did Allah or his Prophet give us a teaching/rule via which we can judge something to be part of Islam and not part of Islam. Clearly if something was part of Islam and other was not part of Islam then wasn’t it important for Allah and His Messenger to define boundary. What if I say Qiyam is Salah is not part of Islam/Salah. How do we judge if it is part of Islam/Salah or not? There is no such instruction because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and his companions, Imam Bukhari, and other Muhaditheen, never distinguished between prophetic Sunnah being Islam and not Islam. There is not a single scholar who ever took a prophetic Sunnah and said this is not Islam. Our Shaykh (hadfidha-ullah) is minion of Iblees and spawn from group of Satan of Najd (i.e. Khawarij) and he like his kind will continue to undermine the unity and agreements - Ijmah - of Ummah like his ancestors.

Shaykh’s Objection To My Usage Of Word Sunnah:

During discussion whenever I quoted the Hadith of Good Sunnah (i.e. practice) the word Sunnah was used in original language instead of its English quivlent i.e. practice, precedent, tradition. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) continously interferred and questioned usage of word Sunnah while I quoted the Hadith. In past during my discussions when I used the word practice instead of Sunnah. The idiots argued O you were being deceptive by using word practice when in reality it says Sunnah and they argued O it means prophetic Sunnah. So experience taught me to anounce the actual word so there is no arguing over what word is being used. Its one less point to argue over if word Sunnah is anounced while quoting the Hadith. Little did I know there are idiots I was yet to encounter. After his consistent pestering I switched to practice instead of Sunnah. But Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) had another plan.

Shaykh Uses Sunnah To Mean Action:

Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) originally wanted me to use practice and I did. Realizing that Shaykh (hadfidha-ullah) had no reason to betty bicker he thought of novel way: He said Sunnah means action. Anyone who knows Arabic knows Sunnah does not mean action but amal means action. The reason Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) resorted to this was because Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) wanted to limit/restrict the application of word Sunnah to action of companion who gave bag of silver as Sadaqah. And if one takes it to mean; whoever introdcues good action in Islam … even then nothing of Islamic belief would be refuted because then good action being introduced into Islam would be innovated good action could not have been part of Islam. And this too establish that there is rewared for innovated good actions in Islam even though if the actions are not part of Islam already. Coming to meaning of Sunnah. Sunnah has been used for a single action such as smile of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). As well as multiple actions, four Rakat Sunnat Salah/Namaz is Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) yet it is composed of many actions. It is absolutely fine to apply Sunnah upon a action but to say it means action isn’t because the generality of Sunnah will be negated then with action. Better fit would be plural form i.e. actions but that would be wrong because Sunnah is singular and Sunan is plural. It would be wrong to translate a singular (i.e. Sunnah) to a plural (i.e. actions). Shaykh tried to distort the natural meaning of Hadith to perserve his heretical and Wahhabi beliefs but batil will never be victorious over Islam.

Significance Of Sunnah Meaning Practice V.S. Action:

By distorting the word Sunnah to mean action Shaykh’s (hafidha-ullah) primary objective was to restrict the prophetic statement into the context but it also worked for his position in another way. I cannot say with hundered percent confidence that Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) thought of this but it is something which could have gone through his mind. Mawlid and various innovated innovated good Sunnahs are amalgamation of prophetic actions/Sunan. By translating it to mean action Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) would be underhandedly preventing its application innovated good Sunnahs such as Mawlid, Geeyarweenh, and other practices because all are fusion of acts of worship, charity, education, etc. This seems to be very real motive why Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) would go to lengths to distort the meaning of Sunnah to mean action.

Edited 8 دسمبر 2017 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

Earlier while writting account from memory I had confused some details and forgot others over the time I have tried to recall accurately as possible in what sequence the events transpired. After much thinking following section has been revised. I just wish the discusion was recorded in its entirity. It would have been a great way of dealing with all relevent issues. Best of my articles and research has been in produced after debates/discussions because it opens up so many topics to write about. And provides such a wealth of material from opponent it makes it s much more easier to churn out material but unfortunately time and opportunity was wasted which I am  doing best to capitalise on as best as my memory serves.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion On Haram And Halal And Mawlid:

He was asked: Is mawlid permissible or prohibited? He said it is Haram. I quoted the following Hadith: “It was narrated that Salman Al-Farisi said: “The Messenger of Allah was asked about ghee, cheese and wild donkeys. He said: ‘What is lawful is that which Allah has permitted, in His Book and what is unlawful is that which Allah has forbidden in His Book. What He remained silent about is what is pardoned.’” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B29, H3367] “Allah has prescribed certain obligations for you, so do not neglect them; He has defined certain limits, so do not transgress them; He has prohibited certain things do do not do them; and He has kept silent concerning about other things out of mercy for you, and not because of forgetfulness, so do not ask questions concerning them.” [Ref: Sunan Darqutni, Vol2, Page137] “What Allah has made lawful in His Book is halal and what He has forbidden is haram, and that concerning which He is silent is allowed as His favor. So accept from Allah His favor, for Allah is not forgetful of anything. He then recited, "And thy Lord is not forgetful." [Ref: Musnad Al Bazzar] I said to Shaykh (hafidha-ullah): The Haram and Halal have been clearly stated by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And I said to him Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said burden of evidence is upon claimant. Therefore give me evidence which establishes it is Haram. He said Mawlid is an innovation and therefore not permissible. Islamic position was; it is permissible because nothing HARAM in it. It would be Haram if it was composed of Haram. Secondly the Haram/Halal are said to be stated clearly and emphaticly and not implied; like you have implied Haram-ness of Mawlid. And there is no Hadith which prohibits Mawlid celebration, or commemoration. To establish permissibility in the light of Ahadith it was pointed out Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) are silent (i.e. not declared Haram or Halal) on Mawlid therefore it can be celebrated because there is no sin for it. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) presented the following Hadith to undermine what I stated: “What is lawful is evident and what is unlawful is evident, and in between them are the things doubtful which many people do not know. So he who guards against doubtful things keeps his religion and honour blameless, and he who indulges in doubtful things is liable to indulge in unlawful things, just as a shepherd who pastures his animals round a reserve will soon pasture them in it. [Ref: Bukhari, B10, H3882] Focus of discussion changed because trying to establish detail of Hadith of Bukhari and I was unable to point out his incorrect understanding of Hadith. So here it goes: Mawlid is not doubtful because it is composed of all that it permissible and good of Islam. Mutashabihat mentioned in the Hadith of Bukhari are those modern inventions and some old regarding which have no specific injunction of Haram/Halal in in Quran and Sunnah i.e. eating elephant, prawns and modern sexual fads. All aspects which make up Mawlid are from prophetic Sunnah. Walking, talking, smiling, food, zikr, Quran recitation, religious sermons, giving charity, flags, and marches are all from prophetic Sunnah. Hence nothing in it is doubtful in it. And to refute permissibility of Mawlid through the Hadith of Mutashabihat is proof that Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) has very shallow understanding of texts he has read. Therefore the mutashabih Sunnah would be which is composed of all that is new and has no connection with prophetic Sunnah in part or as whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[MuhammedAli]

Distorting Sneezing Hadith And Statement Of Abdullah Ibn Umar:

Today for the first time I had opportunity to sit down and listen to entire recorded discussion with Shaykh ul-Islam, al-Imam Faisal (hafidha-ullah). Near the end of discussion, while discussing with Shaykh al-Akbar, Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said and I quote: “Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) stopped kissing four corners of Kabah. Why? Because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kissed only two. When the other Sahabah sneezed ... when the companions sneezed [and said; al-hamdu-lillah was-salatu was-salamu ala rasool-lillah]. Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta'ala anhu) said: RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) only use to say: Al-hamdulillah! Not; al-hamdu-lillah was-salatu was-salamu ala rasool-lillah. And other companions stopped doing it. The evidence of companions was uswatun hasanah." I then remembered in the beginning of the discussion Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) employed same point against me. Please note none of his referrences were verified/checked during the discussion because I could not think someone may distort the Hadith. Also I had good opinion of Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) and believed in his academic integrity due to it.

Possible Response To His Sneezing Argument:

It has been four and half months roughly and I cannot recall what my response was but educated/programed response would have been as it follows. Hadith records: “Mujahid reported: I and 'Urwah b. Zubair entered the mosque and found 'Abdullah b. 'Umar sitting near the apartment of A'ishah and the people were observing the forenoon prayer. We asked him about their prayer, and he said: It is an innovation.” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H2883] “…and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation." [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] He believed it not just an innovation but it was a fine/excellent innovation: “Ibn Ulayyah narrated to us, Jarir narrated, al-Hakim bin A'raj narrated; I asked Ibn Umar Muhammad[1] about Salat ad-Duha, while he was sitting near the house of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He said: It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, H3] In another Hadith he said it was most beloved innovation to him: "Narrated Muamar, narrated al-Zuhri, narrated [by Ibn Umar’s son] Sa'lim, [that his father] Ibn Umar said: At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer." [Ref: Musannaf Abd ar-Razzaq, Book Of Salat (No.2 ), Chapter al-Duha, H4868] Al-Hasil it is established he believed innovations can be good and not literally every innovation is evil. Playing it safe I would likely have said; if he prohibited saying, al-hamdulillah was-salatu was-salamu ala rasool-lillah, it must have been because Sunnah is better then innovated good practice not because he deemed it was part of every innovation taking to hell-fire. Note I presented the very same position (i.e. Sunnah is better then innovation) on issue of Amir Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) being prevented from kissing the four corners of Kabah so it was likely repeated. If I didn’t say something along these lines then at the very least this would have been the course of action if I had got oppurtunity to express it. This way I would have muted his point and established Islamic understanding of good innovations from companion in addition to it.

Hadith Of Sneezing And Abdullah Ibn Umar:

Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said: "When the other companions sneezed ... when the companions sneezed [and said; al-hamdu-lillah was-salatu was-salamu ala rasool-lillah]. Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta'ala anhu) said: (i) RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) only use to say: Al-hamdulillah! Not; al-hamdu-lillah was-salatu was-salamu ala rasool-lillah. (ii) And other companions stopped doing it. The evidence of companions was uswatun hasanah." And following is Hadith which Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is referring to during discussion: "Narrated Hadrami, the freed slave of the family of Al-Jarud: From Nafi: ‘A man sneezed beside Ibn Umar and said: 'al-hamdulillah was-salamu  ala rasulillah.’ So Ibn Umar said: 'I too say; al-hamdulillah was-salamu ala rasulillah.’ But this is not what the Messenger of Allah taught us. He taught us to say: 'Al-Hamdulillah Ala Kulli Hal.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B41, H2738] He claimed that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said: “RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam) only use to say: Al-hamdulillah! Not; al-hamdu-lillah was-salatu was-salamu ala rasool-lillah.” Yet Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had attributed following to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “… the Messenger of Allah taught us. He taught us to say: 'Al-Hamdulillah Ala Kulli Hal.’” Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) claimed companions stopped saying it what he attributed to them after interjection of Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “And other companions stopped doing it.” Yet the reality is Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) says: “So Ibn Umar said: 'I too say; al-hamdulillah was-salamu ala rasulillah.’” And Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) follows it up with following: “But this is not what the Messenger of Allah taught us. He taught us to say: 'Al-Hamdulillah Ala Kulli Hal.’" In other words Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is aware; al-hamdu-lillah was-salamu ala rasool-lillah, is an innovation but despite this he engages in it and is also aware what Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught.

Lies And Deception Of Shaykh Exposed:

Number one I can put down to confusing information of Ahadith because there is a Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has intructed to say; al-hamdu-lillah in response to a sneeze. After all he by mistake inserted was-salatu when there was none: ”… al-hamdulillah was-salamu ala rasulillah.”  Number two is not mistake it is deliberate attempt to misguide. He said: “Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) stopped kissing four corners of Kabah. Why? Because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) kissed only two.” There is no proof that Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) stopped kissing the four corners of Kabah after Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) pointed out Sunnah is better. At the very least not in the Hadith. He invented Muawiyah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) stopping part because it would helped his position that every innovation is evil. He deceptively invented that companions stopped saying, al-hamdulillah was-salamu ala rasoolillah, after Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said what Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) attributed to him because it would help his postion that every innovation is evil and it would make it appear that companions had his Wahhabi Minhaj. He also distorted the meaning of Sunnah to mean Amal and consistently omitted the translation of fil’Islam (i.e. in Islam) in order to restrict phrase; whoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam … to action of giving Sadaqa with silver coins. Please note these are main points … there are other nitty gritty details which all can help to paint a very accurate picture about dubious character and academic morals of our DIY Shaykh ul-Islam Wal Imam ul-Fuqaha which I am not getting into.

When Conversation Is Recorded. Eventually Your Lies Will Catch-up To You.

Wama ilayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi

FootNote:

- [1] The apartment of Aishah (radiallah ta’ala anha) is house of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and sittin near it was Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu): 'Abdullah b. 'Umar sitting near the apartment of Aishah and the people were observing the forenoon prayer. We asked him about their prayer, and he said: It is an innovation.” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H2883] And in the following Hadith one being asked is Muhammad and he too is said to be sitting near to house of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam):  Ibn Ulayyah narrated to us, Jarir narrated, al-Hakim bin A'raj narrated; I asked Muhammad about Salat ad-Duha, while he was sitting near the house of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He said: It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" ) but the narrator confused the name.radiallah ta’ala anhu] Details match therefore it was Ibn Umar (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, H3Ref:

 

Edited 11 مارچ 2018 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

Deception And Example Of Do As I Say Not As I Do:

Attempt was made to revisit/recall the discussion and then remembered during at some point of discussion, my argument was the meaning of first part of Hadith is same as the part which followed. In other words, meaning of following part of Hadith: “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Is same as understanding of following part of Hadith: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this ..." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] In order to explain this latter part and then to fit the - innovation - understanding for good Sunnah part of Hadith I quoted a Hadith from Tirmadhi to explain quoted Hadith:“And whoever introduces an innovation (Bid'ah) that is acted upon, will have a burden of sins equivalent to that of those who act upon it, withot that detracting from the burden of those who act upon it in the slightest.'"[1] [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H209] I quoted the Hadith for first time with some ‘hiccups’ (i.e. unclarity) and decided to repeat the words for smoothness Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) interjected; Sahih Bukhari is only authentic book of Hadith. Maybe holds the same view about Sahih Muslim but do not recall him attesting to Sahih Muslim. Maybe he does because the Hadith of good Sunnah is from Sahih Muslim. Any how I had initiated the discussion by asking him for the source of following Hadith: "Ibn Abbas said he did tawaf of Baytullah with Muawiyah. Muawiyah kissed all the corners of the Kabah. Ibn Abbas said: Why are you kissing these corners when Prophet did not kissed? Muawiyah replied: Nothing in Baytullah should be left. Ibn Abbas replied The life of Prophet is best moral for you. Muawiyah said: You are truthful." [Ref: Msnd Imam Ahmad, H1880] He said it was recorded in Sahih of Imam Bukhari (rahimullah). Mini-Shaykh just one day before the dicussion with Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) tole me that his Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) believes in Ahadith of Sahih Bukhari. So when I asked him he lied about the source of Hadith to perserve his ‘scholarly’ clout. He had been telling them the Hadith is from Sahih Bukhari and being trusting sheeps they believed him. Now he could not tell the truth in presence of his peers so he lied about where Hadith was. Shaykh’s (hafidha-ullah) rule like typical Wahhabiyyah is end justifies means. When I quoted the Hadith he interjected saying it isn’t from authentic book of Hadith but for himself he quoted Musnad of Imam Ahmad (rahimullah). Had he told me the truth he would have exposed his double standard methodology to his peers; that when he wants to convince the gulliable idiots of his point of view is correct then whatever proves his point even in books which he deems invalid he would quote from and say: This is from Sahih Bukhari. Note: His source was a Wahhabi website dedicated to ‘refuting’ Islamic understandings and rather does spectacular job of establishing Ahlus-Sunnah’s understanding in garb of refuting it. And even that Wahhabi website attributed the Hadith to commentary of Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari of Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani (rahimullah) and not to Sahih of Imam Bukhari (rahimullah).

Distorting And Lieing Hadith Of Good Sunnah:

Shaykh quoted prophetic words as: ‘Whoever does good practice in Islam …‘ Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) was distorting Hadith so I interjected with correction: ‘Not does in Islam, who introduces in Islam, man san’na fil islami sunnatu hasanah (i.e. He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam).’[2] He replied: You’re playing on the grammar. I replied: Of course it is (issue of grammar). He said: ‘You’re interpreting it as you want to interpret it. The narration how the scholars interpreted it was: Whoever does good action in Islam. If your interpretation is better then Imam Shafi (rahimullah) according to you then fair be it I will go with Imam Shafi (rahimullah).’” [Ref: Audio recording, 0:2:45 onwards] Readers should note in the beginning of discussion Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) was employing same translation as mine but once Islamic point was made he started to distort the Hadith. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) repeatedly in the entire discussion deliberately and knowingly presented distorted translation. He changed introduces to does, practice to action, and had the discussion gone longer he would likely had changed in to of: Whoever does good action of Islam. Coming to what he said. Please note I trusted his word when he attributed his understanding to Imam Shafi (rahimullah). I abandoned the discussion because his claim needed verification. Secondly I abandoned the discussion on this point after his statement because I felt it was his word against mine and the audience will not be able to decide. So if the word Sunnah was translated to mean practice and san’na to mean practices the Hadith would have read: ‘Whoever practices good practice in Islam.’ Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) translated san’na to mean does, which denotes meaning of practices. Shaykh is patently lieing; the word san’na has been explained, here. And you will note it does not mean practice it means to introduce, to prescribe, to enact, to insitute, to form, to mold. Therefore to translate it to mean does/practices is Ibleesiyat of worst kind.

Attributing Distortion To Imam Shafi (rahimullah):

Coming to what he attributed to Imam Shafi (rahimullah). As far as internet is concerned, I am confident there is not a single statement of Imam Shafi (rahimullah) in which he commented on Hadith of; whoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is once again was patently lieing and doing what he does best lie and decieve. Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is under burden of Shariah to prove his claim because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “’On the authority of Ibn Abbas; the Messenger of Allah said: Were people to be given everything that they claimed, men would (unjustly) claim the wealth and lives of (other) people. But, the onus of proof is upon the claimant, and the taking of an oath is upon him who denies.’A hasan hadeeth narrated by al-Baihaqee and others in this form, and part of it is in the two Saheehs.” [Ref: Forty Ahadith – Nawavi, Hadith 33] If he cannot, and insha’Allah he will never be able to, then he should accept he lied but to expect demonstration of moral spine from Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) is too much to ask. And Imam Shafi (rahimullah) is reported to have clasified innovation in religion is of two types, good and bad: “It was narrated to us by Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl who had it narrated to him from Abul-Abbas Al-Asam who said Rabi’ ibn Sulayman narrated to us from Imam ash-Shafi’i that he said: “Innovated matters in religion (min Al-Umur) are of two kinds: 1) Whatever is innovated and contravenes the Book, or the Sunnah, or a narration, or Ijma (consensus) – then that is an innovation of misguidance. 2) Whatever is innovated of [any and all good things [min al-khayr] and that does not contradict any of these – then this is a novelty which is not blameworthy.  And ‘Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) said concerning the night-prayer in the month of Ramadan: ‘ni’matu bida’at hadhihi‘ what a good innovation this is’ meaning it was innovated without having existed before and, even so, there was nothing in it that contradicted the above.” [Ref: Manaqib al-Imam al-Shafi, Vol1, Pages468/469, here.] The very point which Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) contended such as permissibility and concept of good innovation and evil innovation is proven from Imam al-Shafi (rahimullah). And Imam al-Shafi (rahimullah) contradicting the very basis of his mentioned position would be counter productive for him. Meaning understanding Hadith of good Sunnah contrary to following; whoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam establishes concept and permissbility of introducing good innovations in Islam would undermine Imam al-Shafi’s (rahimullah) own belief. Therefore it is unthinkable that Imam al-Shafi (rahimullah) would have believed what Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) attriubted to him but challenge is still out there for Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) to prove his lie and deception.

Going With Imam al-Shafi (rahimullah) Or Is Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) Going Solo:

Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) had perfectly staged Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) humiliation. While lieing about Imam al-Shafi’s (rahimullah) understanding Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said: “If your interpretation is better then Imam Shafi (rahimullah) according to you then fair be it I will go with Imam Shafi (rahimullah).” Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) are you going to believe as Imam al-Shafi (rahimullah) believed and understand the subject as he did? Or as your deviant and Najdi group of Satan does. For me is way of Imam al-Shafi (rahimullah) and you be upon the path of Ibleesi group of Najd. Praise be to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) who had magnificantly exposed an enemy of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), and exposed who distorts religion of Islam for little gain of wordly respect of his friends and peers.

Imam al-Nawavi (rahimullah) Commented On Hadith Of Good Sunnah In Islam:

The only classical era scholar whose writing on Hadith of good Sunnah in islam available on internet in my knowledge is of Imam Nawawi (rahimullah). He is wrote the following in his commentary of Sahih Muslim: “His saying: "Whoever enacted starts a good Sunnah in Islam will have its reward ..." to the end of (the hadeeth). This contains encouragement to initiate Hasanaat (i.e. plural of Hasanah; good) and to enact the good Sunnahs and a warning from inventing falsehoods and repugnant things (mustaqbahaat). And the reason behind this statement in this hadeeth is that he (the narrator) said at the beginning of it, "Then a person came there with a money bag which his hands could scarcely lift; in fact, they could not (lift). Then the people followed continuously (in giving)..." So the great virtue was for the one who began this goodness and the one who opened the door to this benevolence. And within this hadeeth is the [evidence of] Takhsees (i.e. restriction/specification) of his [Mutliq/Unrestricted] saying: "Every newly-introduced matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misguidance" And that the intent behind it is the newly introduced matters and blameworthy innovations. And the explanation of this has already preceded in Kitab al-Salat al-Jumu'ah and we mentioned there that innovations are of five types: obligatory, recommended, unlawful, disliked and permitted.” [Ref: Sharh Of Sahih Muslim, by Imam Nawawi rahimullah, Kitab al-Zakah, 7/104] And I have explained this statement in detail in the following article, here, please referr to following response: MuhammedAli [25^th Oct 2017 20:05]. A Salafi brother with name of Aamir Iqbal quoted this statement of Imam al-Nawavi (rahimullah) and it spectacularly failed on him. And I can say: Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) I will stand with Imam al-Nawavi (rahimullah).  What about you: Will you still stand with Ibleesi group of Najd?

Coins Example - Shaykh Making Up Understanding As He Went:

I quote: “So the narration was; whoever does a good practice in Islam will be rewarded for it. In Islam. It is already in Islam. Whoever does good practice in Islam will be rewarded for it and whoever does bad action and people follow it. It will be blameworthy. The context was Sahabah giving charity. Charity is already in Islam. Whoever does good practice … Afterwards Sahabah gave coins to poor people. Afterwards lots of people came and they gave coins. This giving coins was already in Islam. Sadaqah is already in Islam. He did it. The words he is using is Sunnah and he is confusing the word Sunnah with action (with diferent kinds of Sunnah). When he says Sunnah why does he deliberately …” [Ref: Audio recording 00:10:25 onwards to 00:11:52] Even though here Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said giving (silver) coins was already part of Islam (as prophetic Sunnah or approved prophetic Sunnah). He later went on to say that this was introduced newly by companion. No one ever gave charity with coins before this incident. And he went to explain that if he was to give charity with modern notes it would be a new practice in Islam: “Evil action in islam is action is one that is not established (in Islam). Sadaqah is established (practice in Islam). Sadaqah is in Islam, already. Prophet had told us to give, the Quran said give Sadaqah. Its all there (in Islam).‘Whoever introduces good practice in Islam.’ Meaning there could be different variations.[3] So he started going (silver) coins. This wasn’t specifically done before to for the poor people. He got it from the Sunnah. He did a good action in Islam. Then people started giving silver coins. So today, the context would be I give (money) notes to a poor person. No one specifically gave (money) notes before. No Sahabah specifically gave ten pound note to a poor person. So I am giving Sadaqah. I am introducing a action of giving ten pounds. I give ten pound note to next man over there. He needs it. You follow me give ten pound. You follow me give ten pound. We are doing something that is already established from religion (i.e. giving Sadaqah).” [Ref: Audio recording 00:16:05 onwards to 00:17:08] This establishes Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) was evolving his understanding as discussion was progressing.

Shaykhs’s Silver Coins Expose Shaykh (hafidha-ullah):

Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) states: “So he started going (silver) coins. This wasn’t specifically done before to for the poor people.” On the face value Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) has just confirmed a innovation, a unheard of good Sunnah was introduced by companion who started to give silver coins. And this established Islamic understanding that statement of Hadith of good Sunnah, whoever introduces good Sunnah/practice in Islam, was regarding things which were not already part of Islam.

Shaykh Throws In A Damage Control Statement:

He then damage controls by saying: “He got it from the Sunnah.” Question is if none had specifically done this before the companion who initiated the practice of giving silver coins for poor bedouins then how could he get it from (prophetic) Sunnah? If  you say; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) gave silver coins in Sadaqah but not to poor people and the companions was giving Sadaqah with coins to poor people. Then my question to you is: Who did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) give Sadaqah to; rich and affluent Muslims? If you say no he didn’t give Sadaqah to rich and afluent but he gave to poor people. This will mean you believe giving Sadaqah to poor persons with silver coins is prophetic Sunnah. Then why would you say about the companion the following: “So he started going (silver) coins. This wasn’t specifically done before to for the poor people.” The reason is simple Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) you were inventing stuff and attempting to plug holes you created yourself with caveats. Your lie doesn’t stand to criticism Shaykh (hafidha-ullah). You have to either acknowledge giving Sadaqah to poor people was prophetic Sunnah. Or believe companions started the practice of giving Sadaqah with silver coins to poor people. You can’t have both, ya Shaykh (hafidha-ullah). Knowing you, ya Shaykh (hafidha-ullah), you will make up something that you didn’t mean companion started new practice of giving Sadaqah to poor persons with silver coins. I want to check mate you with your own words. You yourself explained what you meant, regarding companions action, by giving modern example: “So today, the context would be I give (money) notes to a poor person. No one specifically gave (money) notes before. No Sahabah specifically gave ten pound note to a poor person. So I am giving Sadaqah. I am introducing a action of giving ten pounds. I give ten pound note to next man over there. He needs it. You follow me give ten pound. You follow me give ten pound. We are doing something that is already established from religion (i.e. giving Sadaqah).” In another time Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said: “The good practice here (in the Hadith) was specifically the silver or the gold coins. That was the good practice. [His friend interjected: ‘The companion introduced new way of giving Sadaqah.’] Exactly! No one gave to these specific people before. Do you understand? No one gave coins to the people. So it was new action but it was from Shari’ah.” [Ref: Audio recording from 00:48:55 onwards to 00:49:22] From this it becomes clear that you meant companions introduced something which no one did before in his time. So why would you say following, “He got it from the Sunnah.”, simply because you’re erecting walls of correct understanding and then making holes in them and then attempting to plug the holes to make it look there is no fault/contradiction in your understanding. Bottom line is Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) you already conceded what we the Muslims wanted you to agree to; Hadith of good Sunnah in Islam means a newly invented practice, not a prophetic Sunnah, but it is good practice, which was not done before but agreed with teaching of Islam, and for this type of innovated good practice there is reward.

Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) Stabs Himself In Head:

Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) said: “The good practice here (in the statement of Hadith) was specifically the silver or the gold coins. That was the good practice. [His friend interjected: ‘The companion introduced new way of giving Sadaqah.’] Exactly! No one gave to these specific people before. Do you understand? No one gave coins to the people. So it was new action but it was from Shari’ah.” [Ref: Audio recording from 00:48:55 onwards to 00:49:22] This is precisely what we wanted him to acknowledge and believe. When a practice even though is new but when it accords with teaching of Islam it is rewardworthy and it is not effected by every innovation is misguidance.

A Deception Of Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) And He Leaves Imam Shafi (rahimullah):

Note Shaykh (hafidha-ullah) will now use my translation of Hadith: “Evil action in islam is action is one that is not established (in Islam). Sadaqah is established (practice in Islam). Sadaqah is in Islam, already. Prophet had told us to give, the Quran said give Sadaqah. Its all there (in Islam). ‘Whoever introduces good practice in Islam.’ Meaning there could be different variations. So he started going (silver) coins. This wasn’t specifically done before to for the poor people. He got it from the Sunnah. He did a good action in Islam. Then people started giving silver coins. So today, the context would be I give (money) notes to a poor person. No one specifically gave (money) notes before. No Sahabah specifically gave ten pound note to a poor person. So I am giving Sadaqah. I am introducing a action of giving ten pounds. I give ten pound note to next man over there. He needs it. You follow me give ten pound. You follow me give ten pound. We are doing something that is already established from religion (i.e. giving Sadaqah).” [Ref: Audio recording 00:16:05 onwards to 00:17:08] This is the same translation which he had been at odds with until then. But why the change? Because the point he is making and position he was about to adopt requires change of translation. Until then his position was; giving charity with silvers coins was already part of Islam, hence he required following translation, Whoever does good practice in Islam, but here he was about to change goal posts. So he went for my translation which incidently ‘allegedly’ was understanding of Imam Shafi (rahimullah) ten minutes before his change of heart. And, FAIR BE IT, he now has left Imam Shafi (rahimullah) for a man’s understanding about whom he indirectly alleged considers his understanding better then Imam al-Shafi (rahimullah): “‘You’re interpreting it as you want to interpret it. The narration how the scholars interpreted it was: Whoever does good action in Islam. If your interpretation is better then Imam Shafi (rahimullah) according to you then fair be it I will go with Imam Shafi (rahimullah).” [Ref: Audio recording, 0:2:45 onwards]

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.

Foonotes:

- [1] Hadith of every innovation is misguidance and the above quoted Hadith; one who introduces innovation and those who act on it will be equally responsible; is explained by following Ahadith: "Whoever introduces an innovation with which Allah and his Messenger are not pleased, he will have a (burden of) sin equivalent to that of those among the people who act upon it, without that detracting from their sins in the slightest.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H210] A Hadith which does not please Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and his Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is said to be evil innovation in another Hadith: “And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation which Allah is not pleased with, nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it, without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2677]

- [2] I wrongly ‘quoted’ Arabic rendering of phrase in dispute. I have quoted the actual quote of Sahih Muslim in the above. In the heat of moment I quoted; man san’na sunnatah hasanah (i.e. whoever introduces good Sunnah), and even this I got wrong. Please note I was not being deceptive because the phrase I wrongly quoted didn’t have, fil islam (i.e. in Islam), and that would have been his advantage. The only words holding him accountable for proper understanding were these two words without which he could have argued introducing good Sunnah means prophetic Sunnah: man san’na sunnatah hasanah (i.e. whoever introduces good Sunnah). So it was to his advantage therefore I could not have been distorting Hadith to benefit him. If I was attempting to distort a Hadith it would have been for my own gain not his gain.

- [3] He could mean: “Meaning there could be different variations (in translation of Hadith).” The reason for this is maybe he realized I just changed the translation so he made that vague statement to cover-up. His explanation agrees with the translation. Or he could have meant:“Meaning there could be different variations (in understanding of this Hadith).” If he inteded the second then even then his explanation supports his translation. Whatever he intended out of two in both cases translation and his explanation are partners.

 

Edited 8 اپریل 2018 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

Why Hadith of Good Sunnah Wasn’t About Prophetic Sunnah Of Giving Sadqah:

Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said about innovated good Sunnahs that they will earn reward for iniator and actor: “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Faisal said this Hadith is about prophetic Sunnah of Sadaqah. Later he changed the goal post and said it was about silver coins being used for the first time and not about good innovation. And while explaining his position he said the statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is about employing new money denomination i.e. notes to give Sadqah. Even though Faisal’s coin point is unfounded and basless because it is established Prophet and his companions used coins to give Sadqa before this event. Anyhow his point was coins were new thing like using notes would be new at present. In light of this what he was arguing that companion introduced an innovation like he would be introducing a innovation by giving Sadqah with money notes. This is besides the point. Lets get to my explanation and refutation of his argument that this Hadith referrs to prophetic Sunnah of giving Sadqah. He said: companions had forgotten Sadqah was Prophetic Sunnah and only one companion remembered and he gave Sadqah. And the statement was about him because he started it. Note the following is part of audio discussion. Right in the beginning of it.

Companions Forgot And Prophet Said About Companion Who Re-introduced It:

My first point to counter him -which I intended to make was but I didn’t get to complete was – I had to change course; if all the companions forget a prophetic Sunnah and just one companion remembers it is a Sunnah and he acts on it. Has he then introduced that prophetic Sunnah into Islam? Thinking person will realize that answer is, NO, because forgetfull and reviving a prophetic Sunnah is one thing but introducing a Sunnah in Islam is another. It can be said Sahabi was reviving a Sunnah but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would not say he was introducing into Islam a Prophetic Sunnah. Introducing into Islam means what is not part of Islam. And how can a companion introduce a prophetic Sunnah into Islam which Prophet has already introduced into Islam. Therefore the words of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) were not about prophetic Sunnah but good Sunnah which is not already part of Islam. My other point was … I give greet everyone with, As-salamu alayqyum, and introduce everyone to prophetic Sunnah of greeting. My    question was to Faisal. Have I introduced a good Sunnah into Islam? Faisal pretended to not to understand it. And arrogantly and ignorantly refused to listen to my response. Luckily near the end I had oppurtunity to make the same point. I explained just if a group of people doesn’t know Islamic method of greeting and me teaching them doesn’t prove mean that I have introduced a good Sunnah in Islam because it was introduced in Islam by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Here the words of Hadith are anyone who introduces good Sunnah in Islam. This indicates the reward being told for something which is not already part of Islam. And something which isn’t part of Islam and being made of Islam is INNOVATION. Therefore your Taweel is false and invalid.

Contextual Relevance Argument: Prophetic Words Are Connected With Context Of Event:

His argument boils down … Prophetic statement is connected with historical event. My counter argument was if the first part i.e. good Sunnah part of Hadith is connected with context and precisely to Sadqah then what does the following part referr to: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this ..." [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] Did Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) introduced an evil Sunnah in Islam? And which evil Sunnah was that? At first he pretended not to understand the question being asked but my nephew Kamran joined to simply what I was demanding an answer for. Being stuck he resorted to it reffers to every innovation is misguidance.  Lol! I called that monoply game rule … land on Hadith of good/evil Sunnah … do not understand evil Sunnah instead go straight every innovation is misguidance. This was igenious but was new level of his stupidity. Any how my point was … if second part of Hadith was not connected to context then and you make Taweel of it because the detail of second part doesn’t first into context … then detail of first part don’t fit into context either … therefore there is no reason to limit it to context … because good Sunnah in Islam was not introduced in the event. This prompted Faisal to revise his position and brought in the silver coin being new things … and notes … lol and with these two examples he hanged himself because he established what I wanted him to confess. I had told my nephew Rizwan that remind me about the coins and notes example of his cause I will explain to him how his buddy refuted himself. Note his coin notes point was made after I stopped giving him the respect he didn’t not deserve i.e. I stopped discussing with him. On the same day or on the day after I went through implications of Faisal’s point and how it supports Islamic understanding. And with grace of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) he agreed with Islamic point.

Faisal The Fake Wana Be Academic Debater And StrawMan:

During discussion with Faisal I said number of times … position of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah is … he interjected nearly every time … you mean Barelwi ... he termed my statement as … STRAWMAN tactic. This was laughable because he fancied himself of some what of debater. And thought by using such termonology he would portray himself to be academicly achieved person. But I had to keep the discussion on important topic so I ignored his stupidity. Straw-man is … while quoting position of opposition person adds a weakness so he can nock the misrepresented position …  Abdullah believes Allah is absolutely the One and undivisible but Amr says Abdullah believes Allah is three-in-one and this is wrong … and goes on to refute Abdullah via verse , do not say trinity (4:171), that’s StrawMan, here. Called STRAWMAN because it easy to knock out … olden times dummys were made with straw and swordsmen trained using them. So saying was … I am not strawman. Meaning I am not going to stand and get hit … I will fight back. I hope you see why strawman was used to indicate this logical fallacy. So Faisal was being smart even though I knew too well he is exposing his ignorance and revealing his fake-ness.

Accusing Me Of Ad-Hominem Attack In Reality:

Ad-Hominem attack is attempt to undermine person by discrediting character integrity and standing of person either overtly or covertly. My saying we Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah … can be misconstrued as covert form of ad-hominem attack … because when I claim to be from Ahlus Sunnah and claim this is position of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah … he and his understanding is being excluded from Ahlus Sunnah … so this can be misconstrued form of ad-hominem. Is that truly a ad-hominem attack? Its utter rubbish … he just doesn’t have the intelligence to understand why it wasn’t ad-hominem. Suppose there is Wahhabi, Deobandi, Shia, and Sunni. They all present different beliefs but they all claim these are teachings of Islam. Does that mean when Shia, or Wahhabi, or Deobandi, lists his belief and says this is Islam he is saying others are not following Islam? And others guilty of ad-hominem attack? No because their definition of Islam is different … they share core teachings … and they have another defintion of Islam. Each of these has claimed to be following Islam according to their own definition of Islam. When I said this is the teaching of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah … the definition of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah … was of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah. When Wahhabi says … we Ahlus Sunnah … he is using Wahhabi definition to judge who is and what beliefe is part of his version of  Ahlus Sunnah. See what ad-hominem actually is, here.

Ad-Hominem Attack But So What Then:

To confuse Ad-Hominem with StrawMan is patently stupid. Its even more stupid when you consider that there was no need to employ these terminologies because disucssion was taking place in front-room of a house. And audience was few taxi drivers, few school and college drop-outs [I am in this class], few who couldn’t speak English, between two to three with university degrees ... so the setting wasn’t university debate hall. Where social academic pressure demands professional and academic language to impress listeners. OK! If he had employed it correctly the embrassment was survivable. Even then it would have come out as … he is trying too hard to impress … He got the term wrong but what if he had got the terminology right, ad-hominem, then what? Would I have been refuted? Like I pointed out Faisal didn’t understand why it was an Ad-Hominem attack. And I don’t blame him because it requires some degree of knowledge to understand why it wasn’t Ad-Hominem. OK! Lets suppose I actually did truly use AD-HOMINEM attacks. Then do I loose the debate? Does Faisal win? No! Is Ad-Hominem attack a sin, or a crime in Islam? Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) discredits the character of a Khabees who insulted Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “And do not obey every worthless habitual swearer/abuser. Scorner, going about with malicious gossip. A preventer of good, transgressing and sinful. Cruel, moreover, and an illegitimate pretender. We will brand him upon the (nose which looks like pigs) snout.” [Ref: 68:10/13, and 16] Would that be a AD-HOMINEM attack, Mr Faisal? Now what? Are you going to argue Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) committed logical fallacy? Yes Ad-Hominem is logical fallacy. Save your moral rage and sit down dude before you hurt faith in Islam. There were many times he employed Ad-Hominem attacks against me … few have been recorded in audio. If he denies them I will post the transcript of and referrence the time he was guilty of it.

Logical Fallacies Committed By Faisal:

Faisal the was guilty of following logical fallacies: Ad-Hominem, here, Appealing To Authority, here, Special pleading, here, Ambiguity, here, False Cause, here. Each of these logical fallacies were committed AT THE VERY LEAST once. Some of the logical fallacies mentioned and not mentioned are absolutely fine in sight of Islamic law. Appeal to authority, and bandwagon are legitimate Islamicly. Bandwagon, going with majority, appealing to authority of senior scholars such as Mujadideen, Mujtahideen etc an so is ad-hominem, infact ambiguity is also fine … When Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) were immigrating to Madinah … Mushrikeen stopped them outside to question who was with Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and he said: he is going to guide me to straight path … they assumed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was guide … in reality he meant straight path of Islam. So even though Faisal is guilty of these logical fallacies in modern academic sense apart from False-Cause and special pleading. None of these, apart from mentioned negatively, if employed legitimately are unethical or sinful in sight of Islamic law.Yet the reality is Faisal employed them deceptively. He accused me of StrawMan … and he didn’t even know what it meant. In reality he was alledging of an Ad-Hominem attack which in reality wasn’t so because definition of Ahlus Sunnah I ascribe to excludes omits his Wahhabi understanding. He appealed to authority of Imam Shafi (rahimullah) … arguing his, i.e Faisal’s, understanding is in accordance with Imam Shafi (rahimullah) … yet truth was established against him. Imam Shafi (rahimullah) ascribes to understanding of Biddah which the Jamhoor/majority ascribe to, which is position what I hold to. And there is no record available on internet where Imam Shafi (rahimullah) explained the Hadith. He was guilty of special pleading … which is changing goal posts … and entire debate is proof of this one. False cause … he assumed the context of Hadith was connected with prophetic statement and evidence and common sense is clearly against it. Ambiguity … he said companion gave silver coins in Sadqah which none had done before … then he said its new but from Shari’ah: “The good practice here (in the statement of Hadith) was specifically the silver or the gold coins. That was the good practice. [His friend interjected: ‘The companion introduced new way of giving Sadaqah.’] Exactly! No one gave to these specific people before. Do you understand? No one gave coins to the people. So it was new action but it was from Shari’ah.” [Ref: Audio recording from 00:48:55 onwards to 00:49:22] There are two meanings here … one that it was part of Islam as prophetic Sunnah. Or a Ijtihadi innovation introduced into Shariah i.e. Islam as part of its law. Both interpretations are problematic for him. If he said it means first then he would negate his claim that it was new thing and if he said second then he would establish the point innovated things can become part of Islam. This would refute him. So instead of saying clearly either of the two … he said it in between so he can make Taweel if need be … not realising no Taweel will allow him to escape, as I have established.

Undeniable Fact: An Observation About Faisal’s Goal Changing:

In the beginning Faisal said Mawlid and all innovated practices of Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah are misguidance and those who practice them go to hell-fire due to them. I quoted Hadith in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) celebrated Mawlid every Monday by fasting. He replied it was fasting on Monday what you do is yearly. I replied; Hadith establishes that celebration of Mawlid is Sunnah, it indicates a day on which it is to be celebrated, and it shows how it is to be celebrated. I said celebrating the Mawlid is Sunnah and you cannot object and will cannot legitimately object to idea of celebrating Mawlid. What you can object to is the day it is celebrated and the way it is celebrated but not to the idea of celebrating Prophet’s Mawlid because itself is Sunnah. He said it is innovation because the way it is celebrated. So I asked him if Mawlid is Haram due to not being Sunnah? He said it is Haram. I asked him if something had to be Sunnah for it to be permissible? He replied in affirmative. Then I argued even though you say this but you use tooth brush and paste … how is that Halal because it is not part of Sunnah. At that time he agreed … even though it was not Sunnah it is permissible. And I concluded just as abandoned Sunnah of Miswak/Siwak and you use tooth brush and paste even though these are not Sunnah but you said both – brush paste - are permissible. Please referr to following link to see other evidences were used. In the same way celebrating Mawlid concept is Sunnah but the way and the day we celebrate it isn’t but it is still permissible because it is not composed of Haram, Kufr, and Shirk. He said but Prophet did it on Monday by fasting. I said: Yes! Monday and via fasting. And this is Sunnah and Sunnah is the best way to celebrate it. He said: Then its fine. I said: Do you agree non-Sunnah way of celebrating is fine also but best way is prophetic way? He acknowledged this he agrees with. It was some time after this … between 2 and 5 minutes after I said: I wish this was recorded. Because Faisal agreed to it and then went on to deny everything he agreed to. And that comment of mine prompted Rizwan to record. Note all discussion on Mawlid was before this. Discussion came to conclusion but he asked how was this discussion connected with Hadith of good/evil Sunnah. And while I was sumarising in choronological order … the development of discussion … and why and what lead to this discussion and how it is connected … he interjected and this resulted the discussion to continue even after resolution.  The audio recorded account misses the summary … and starts at a time when he was arguing to regain lost ground.

Real Reason Why I Discussed With Faisal:

Day before my nephew Rizwan used all the arguments which Faisal brought into discussion day after. And al-hamdulillah he listened and argued his point of view. And my methodology of teaching is through question and answer. I ask a crucial question and expect answer to the question. And using that answer I continue my response. In this way both, questioner and answerer, are fully aware and focusing, discussion quickly comes to end. My nephew listened more and talked less, there was a degree of respect in this. As a result I got to completely present my position. Points were fairly simple and precise he could not argue against the sound rationale so he said he agrees but he will make final decision after his friend Faisal is defeated in discussion. I told him there is no chance of me engaging him in discussion because I know he will not listen and he has ego problem. He is the leader of pack of idiots and as such he will not give up even when he knows he is wrong simply because it will become matter of prestige. And there is no point talking to Faisal and waisting my and your time. But over the night I thought about the issue ,and came to conclusion that friends shape social and religious understandings, and Rizwan needs to see reality of his buddy, so I decided to engage with his friend. Al-hamdulillah! A awsome unveiling of liar and deceptive Iblees it was.

Advice For Those Who Discuss Deen With Faisal:

My advice for anyone who engages Faisal in any religious discussions is to always demand he quote HADITH OR VERSE directly from book. And demand interpretation of scholars of Islam who pre-dated 1750 AD. And not just one … but understanding of few … always go to different publishers to make sure Wahhabis have not omitted anything deliberately. Wahhabis, especially the ones running, Darus Salam Publishers, always edit books of classical scholars and remove and insert bits which go against their belief and insert their own teachings in it. There is entire book published exposing this fraud of Wahhabis. I have more faith in integrity and honesty and truthfulness of Kafirs then of Faisal. They attack Islam but do not distort texts of Islam they only put their own stories on that text. Faisal is far worse then these people … not only he distorted the meaning of Hadith like all the Wahhabis … he went a step ahead of Wahhabis … he distorted the text of Hadith. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) says about Christians … they write the book with their own hands and say this is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Faisal changes wording of Hadith … practically invents a Hadith … and says this is from Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Any how people do not trust him.

Edited 15 اگست 2018 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

Information About Debate And About This Written Account Of Debate:

Please note actual discussion tool place in first week of November 2017 and following account is being written in june 2018, that’s roughly 7 months after the discussion. Brief notes were made to help guide the memory on the same day of discussion. With aid of these notes my response would be written. Unfortunately I did not write chronology of discussion but rather his Daleel with notes how I responded. And it has been too long to accurately remember how this discussion developed. So instead I am going to write it as a response while trying to keep to original notes. Another point worth remembering is that recorded discussion is missing first 40 to 60 mins of discussion. My nephew, Rizwan aka mini-Shaykh, started recording after I had said: I wish this was recorded. Just before this comment of mine Faisal was forced to agree to Islamic understanding that Mawlid can be celebrated. And I wished that it is recorded so he doesn’t back track or claim he didn’t say that.

Every Innovation Is Misguidance Even If People See It As Something Good:

Even though in the initial speech he said it was innovation and it takes to hell-fire. Faisal began with Hadith every newly invented matter is innovation, every innovation is misguidance, every misguidance takes to fire: “It was narrated from Abdullah bin Mas'ud that the Messenger of Allah said: "Verily there are two things - words and guidance. The best words are the words of Allah, and the best guidance in the guidance of Muhammad. Beware of newly-invented matters, for every newly-invented matter is an innovation and every innovation is a going-stray.” [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H46] He gave Mawlid as an example of innovation which takes to fire. He emphacised the Kull/Every in Hadith to argue. Every means every, and is not subject to exclusions. In other words he argued everything not Sunnah and but practiced by Muslims is innovation therefore evil, and takes to hell-fire. I cannot recall if he employed the following statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) in his first turn. Or if it was in in response to my saying; Mawlid is composed of acts of Ibadaat and Sunnahs and Muslims consider it as good therefore it is good: “Then He looked at the hearts of His servants after Muhammad, and He found that the hearts of his companions were the best among them. Thus He made them into the ministers of His Prophet, fighting for the sake of His religion. And whatever the Muslims view as good is good in the sight of Allah, and whatever they view as evil is evil in the sight of Allah. And the Companions unanimously chose to take Abû Bakr – Allâh be pleased with him – as the successor (to lead the Muslims after the Prophet).” [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Mukthireen, Ibn Mas’ud, H3589] Faisal quoted the following statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu): "Every innovation is misguidance, even if the people see it as something good." [Ref: Related by al-Bayhaqee in al-Madkhal ilas-Sunan (no.191) and also Ibn Nasr in as-Sunnah (p.24). ‘Its isnaad (chain of narration) is as authentic as the sun’] And he ended proudly with, KHLAS! Which means, finished! An expression which Arabs employ to denote there is nothing to add to what was said and everything that needed to be said has been said. Implying that he won the war without even fighting a battle.

Response Already Given But Account Of Discussion Has To Be Written:

Logically speaking the answer to this Hadith was already given in, here, because the explanation of it is exactly same. But I wanted to write it as seperate acount. This Hadith was explained in my following article in Feb 2013, here, that would be roughly four years before the discussion. In another article this statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was comprehensively addressed. And it was dedicated to refuting literalism of Hadith from Sahih Ahadith of Bukhar, here, in June 2014.  Notes on this Hadith read; broke literalism via Ibn Umar fine innovation statement, and via Abdullah Ibn Masoud Hadith Muslims consider good is good, kull linguistic argument, takhsees Tirmadhi erroneous innovation, Takhsees via Ahadith of Aysha … principle, sanction, harmony. Please take note following is not be exact representation but explanation of how I deconstructed his argument, presented here in form of detailed response.

Prophetic Words And Statement Of Ibn Umar:

It would be unthinkable to assume Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made a statement about innovation proof of which wasn’t in prophetic Sunnah. It is logical to assume he formed his statement based on prophetic teaching and in this context Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said: "Every innovation is misguidance, even if the people see it as something good." [Ref: Related by al-Bayhaqee in al-Madkhal ilas-Sunan (no.191) and also Ibn Nasr in as-Sunnah (p.24). ‘Its isnaad (chain of narration) is as authentic as the sun.’] In this light I would assume Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made his statement in light of following and similar: “The truest of word is the Book of Allah and best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. The worst of things are those that are newly invented; every newly-invented thing is an innovation and every innovation is going astray, and every going astray is in the Fire.'” [Ref: Nisai, B19, H1579] So one way of understanding it would be to understand the prophetic words and then interpret Ibn Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) statement in that light. Other is to see what Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) himself practiced and taught. Note I will insert bits and bobs which were not part of my response then.

Abdullah Ibn Umar Innovating And Practicing Good Innovations:

Hadith of Bukhari states person sitting against the wall was Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and he was asked and he said it was innovation: “… and I entered the Mosque (of the Prophet) and saw Abdullah bin Umar sitting near the dwelling place of Aisha and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation.” [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] In the following Hadith, it was recorded that Muhammad was asked, but it seems narrator got confused with and said Muhammad, in actuality it was Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) like previous Hadith establishes:“Ibn Ulayyah narrated to us, Jarir narrated, al-Hakim bin A'raj narrated; I asked Muhammad about Salat ad-Duha, while he was sitting near the house of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). He said: It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, H3] In another Hadith Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said [out of many innovations Salat al-Duha] is most beloved [Nawafil] prayer to him: "Narrated Muamar, narrated al-Zuhri, narrated [by Ibn Umar’s son] Sa'lim, [that his father] Ibn Umar said: At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer." [Ref: Musannaf Abd ar-Razzaq, Book Of Salat (No.2), Chapter al-Duha, H4868] Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said: "Narrated Hadrami, the freed slave of the family of Al-Jarud: From Nafi: ‘A man sneezed beside Ibn Umar and said: 'al-hamdulillah was-salamu ala rasulillah.’ So Ibn Umar said: I too say: ‘al-hamdulillah was-salamu ala rasulillah.’ But this is not what the Messenger of Allah taught us. He taught us to say: 'Al-hamdulillah ala kulli hal.’" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B41, H2738] In words Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) acts of innovated form Hamd to sneezing. Another Hadith establishes that Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anh) introduced innovation into Talbiyah. Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) tells of Talbiyah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Abdullah Ibn Umar reported that the Messenger of Allah entered upon the state of Ihram near the mosque at Dhu'l-Hulaifa as his camel stood by it and he said: Here I am at your service, O Lord; here I am at your service: here I am at Thy service. There is no associate with you. Here I am at your service. All praise and grace is due to you and the sovereignty (too). There is no associate with you. They (the people) said that Abdullah Ibn Umar said that that was the Talbiya of the Messenger of Allah.” Then narrator adds that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made following additions to it: “Nafi said: 'Abdullah made this addition to it: Here I am at your service; here I am at your service; ready to obey Thee. The Good is in Thy Hand. Here I am at your service. Unto Thee is the petition and deed (is also for Thee).” [Ref: Muslim, B7, H2668] Note the addition is innovated form of Talbiyah which isn’t prophetic Sunnah.

Companions Of Prophet Introducing And Practicing Good Innovations:

i) Ibn Umar’s father, Umar Ibn al-Khattab (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have said about entire month of Taraweeh [remember Sunnah is three days]: “On that, 'Umar remarked نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ  (i.e. what an excellent innovation this is) but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.” [Ref: Bukhari, B32, H227] ii) Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is reported to have said: “Thus He made them into the ministers of His Prophet, fighting for the sake of His religion. And whatever the Muslims view as good is good in the sight of Allah, and whatever they view as evil is evil in the sight of Allah. And the Companions unanimously chose to take Abû Bakr – Allâh be pleased with him – as the successor (to lead the Muslims after the Prophet).” [Ref: Musnad Ahmad, Mukthireen, Ibn Mas’ud, H3589] This statement cannot be about things already taught in Quran or Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because in them we find what is goodness and evilness. And if we Muslims declare something Haram and it is Halal Quran and Hadith… it will never be good in sight of Allah. Similarly if we the Muslims, as whole, say a Halal is Haram, then our saying it is Haram will not make it evil. Therefore this statement of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud is about innovated practices regarding which we have no clear instruction and the majority of Ummah has deemed to be Halal/Haram, or good/evil. iii) In another Hadith a companion innovates a new hamd in presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and angels loved it: “One day we were praying behind the Prophet. When he raised his head from bowing, he said: ‘Sami`al-lahu liman hamidah.’ A man behind him said, "Rabbana wa laka l-hamdu, hamdan kathiran taiyiban mubarakan fihi" When the Prophet completed the prayer he asked: ‘Who has said these words?’ The man replied: ‘I.’ The Prophet said: ‘I saw over thirty angels competing to write it first.’ Prophet rose (from bowing) and stood straight till all the vertebrae of his spinal column came to a natural position.” [Ref: Bukhari, B12, H764] Note angels only do what Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) commands them. And angels competing to write it down indicates it was so good and approved by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that they all wanted to write it. iv) In another Hadith it is recorded third Adhan was introduced by Uthman (radiallah ta’ala anhu) which was not part of Jummah during time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu), nor during Khilafat of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu): “Narrated Az-Zuhri: I heard As-Saib bin Yazid, saying: "In the lifetime of Allah's Messenger, and Abu Bakr and Umar, the Adhan for the Jumua prayer used to be pronounced after the Imam had taken his seat on the pulpit. But when the people increased in number during the caliphate of Uthman, he introduced a third Adhan (on Friday for the Jumua prayer) and it was pronounced at Az-Zaura' and that new state of affairs remained so in the succeeding years.” [Ref: Bukhari, B13, H39] This establishes third Adhan was an innovation which did not exist during the life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). In a Hadith, which details matyrdom of Khubaib (radiallah ta’ala anhu), establishes that he introduced the tradition/innovation of performing two Raka’at Nawafil before a Muslim is killed: “They allowed him and he prayed two Rak`at and then said: "By Allah! Had I not been afraid that you would think I was worried, I would have prayed more." Then he (invoked evil upon them) saying: "O Allah! Count them and kill them one by one, and do not leave anyone of them"' … Abu Sarva, 'Ubqa bin Al-Harith went up to him and killed him. It was Khubaib who set the tradition [of praying two Raka’at before execution] for any Muslim to be martyred in captivity. The Prophet told his companions of what had happened (to those ten spies) on the same day they were martyred.” [Ref: Bukhari, B59, H325] “They allowed him and he offered Two rak`at and then said, "Hadn't I been afraid that you would think that I was afraid (of being killed), I would have prolonged the prayer. O Allah, kill them all with no exception." (He then recited the poetic verse): … Then the son of Al Harith killed him. So, it was Khubaib [who set the tradition] for any Muslim sentenced to death in captivity, to offer a two-rak`at prayer [before execution]. Allah fulfilled the invocation of `Asim bin Thabit on that very day on which he was martyred.” [Ref: Bukhari, B52, H281] Hadith makes it clear that Khubaib (radiallah ta’ala anhu) introduced this good Sunnah/Biddah and others followed him.

Concluding Statement Of Ibn Umar Cannot Be Taken Literally:

In light of all this; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) saying Salat al-Duha is fine innovation, and it is most beloved Nawafil prayer to him out of all innovated practices. And he himself saying Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught following response to sneez: 'Al-hamdulillah ala kulli hal.’ Yet despite this he practices innovated form of response, which is: ‘al-hamdulillah was-salamu ala rasulillah.’ His practice and statements make it clear Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not mean his statement literally. In addition to this Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud said what ever [innovated things] which Muslims consider good are good in sight of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Umar Ibn al-Khattab (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said about innovated form of Taraweeh – of entire month, in which entire Quran is recited – is excellent innovation. A companion in presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) innovated Tasbih and it was approved. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not censore or rebuke him if he had stopped him physically, or spoke out and prevented the companion, we could have said it was evil innovation from companion because Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not approve of it. The lowest degree of Iman is to say in heart it is wrong … who expects Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) acted on third option? No Muslim! From all these, and much more, it can be seen that statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) could not been about absolutely every innovation. Otherwise it would be to blame him, companions, and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) of doing evil. All these innovations/practices are in agreement with following prophetic saying: “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466]

Kullu Does Not Mean Absolutely Everything But Evrything Of A Type:

In language every/kullu is never used in its haqiqi meaning when it is used for creation and their affairs … to mean absolutely everything, without exclusion … rather it is limited by context envoriment. If father says to son, give me all the water, we will take it to in context, of either water of jug, or glass, or bucket, but never would we assume he asked for entire water on earth … or entire water of universe in form of ice on other planets. Kullu/Every is limited restricted by some factor even if this factor is not mentioned explicitly in the sentence.

A Possible Taweel Of Statement Of Ibn Umar:

It was established Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed innovations are fine/excellent and he himself acted on innovations which he deemed good. Therefore naturally it must be that his following statement is about EVIL/REPREHENSIBLE innovations: "Every [sinful, evil, reprehensible] innovation is misguidance, even if the people see it as something good." [Ref: Related by al-Bayhaqee in al-Madkhal ilas-Sunan (no.191) and also Ibn Nasr in as-Sunnah (p.24). ‘Its isnaad (chain of narration) is as authentic as the sun.’] If we do not make this Taweel then alternative is a companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was misguiding people … he said something else and practiced the opposite of what he said … and this is simply not attainable. Or that companion of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was confused about what true Islam is. Nor is this option reasonable. We the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah follow methodology of bringing reconciliation between what may seem apparently contradictory. And we have the best opinion of companions of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) therefore the best and only viable option is Taweel mentioned above. Finally kullu/every used in statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is limited to a particular context … and we have established Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed in excellent/fine innovations and acted on them … therefore his statement must be in context of evil/reprehensible innovations … this is to say that Takhsees of kullu/every limits it to sinful, evil, reprehensible, blameworthy, innovations and not absolutely every innovation.

Understanding Ibn Umar Via Prophetic Statements:

In following Hadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is reported to have said that a erroneous innovation [is] which does not please Allah and Messenger [because it would be composed of sinful, Kufr, Shirk activities] and one who innovates a erroneous innovation and those who act on it will be equally sinful: “And whoever introduces an erroneous innovation, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger, then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it, without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.'" [Ref: Tirmadhi, B39, H2677] Therefore the following prophetic is to be understood in context of erroneous innovation, which does not please Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (subhanahu wa ta’ala): “The truest of word is the Book of Allah and best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. The worst of things are those that are newly invented; every newly-invented thing is an innovation and every innovation is going astray, and every going astray is in the Fire.'” [Ref: Nisai, B19, H1579] And if the implication of Hadith of Tirmadhi are inserted as further explanation of prophetic words found Hadith of Nisai then it would read as follows: “The truest of word is the Book of Allah and best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. The worst of things are those that are newly invented [which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger]; every newly-invented thing is an [erroneous] innovation and every [erroneous] innovation is going astray, and every going astray is in the Fire.'” [Ref: Nisai, B19, H1579] In light of this explanation statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is to be understood as following: "Every [erroneous] innovation [which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger] is misguidance, even if the people see it as something good." [Ref: Related by al-Bayhaqee in al-Madkhal ilas-Sunan (no.191) and also Ibn Nasr in as-Sunnah (p.24). ‘Its isnaad (chain of narration) is as authentic as the sun.’] In addition to this, entire statement of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) that, every innovation is misguidance, can be understood in light of following prophetic statement narrated by Umm ul-Momineen Aysha (radiallah ta’ala anha): “Narrated Aisha: Allah's Messenger said: "Whoever introduces into our matter that which is not a part of it, will have it rejected.” [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861] “… he (Qasim bin Muhammad) said: All of them could be combined in one house; and then said: 'A'isha informed me that Allah's Messenger said: He who does an action which is not from us that is to be rejected.” [Ref: Muslim, B18, H4267] In other words entire prophetic statement, every innovation is misguidance, is about innovations which are composed of rejected amr (i.e. matter) and amal (i.e. action). If this is understanding is inserted into text of every innovation is misguidance Hadith it would read as follows: “The truest of word is the Book of Allah and best of guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. The worst of things are those that are newly invented [but composed of rejected matters and actions]; every newly-invented thing is an innovation and every  innovation [composed of rejected matters and actions] is going astray, and every going astray is in the Fire.'” [Ref: Nisai, B19, H1579] And this understanding if inserted into statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) will result his statement meaning: "Every innovation [composed of rejected matters and actions] is misguidance, even if the people see it as something good." [Ref: Related by al-Bayhaqee in al-Madkhal ilas-Sunan (no.191) and also Ibn Nasr in as-Sunnah (p.24). ‘Its isnaad (chain of narration) is as authentic as the sun.’] Note both interpretations of Prophetic words and Ibn Umar’s statement are valid. And in reality boil down to same thing. Thus it would be absolutely correct to combine both interpretation into one and it would reas as follows: "Every [erroneous] innovation [composed of rejected matters and actions, which Allah is not pleased with nor His Messenger] is misguidance, even if the people see it as something good." [Ref: Related by al-Bayhaqee in al-Madkhal ilas-Sunan (no.191) and also Ibn Nasr in as-Sunnah (p.24). ‘Its isnaad (chain of narration) is as authentic as the sun.’]

Concluding And Contextualizing The Point:

Note Faisal quoted the Hadith to argue and establish absolutely every innovation is misguidance and takes to hellfire. Therefore no innovation can be good. Using this statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he attempted to refute the natural implications of following saying of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “He who introduced some good Sunnah (i.e. practice, way, tradition, precedent) in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it ...” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] It has been established Ibn Umar’s (radiallah ta’ala anhu) statement does not mean what he claimed it means, as it is evidenced above. And it was already established that the prophetic statement about reward for introducing good Sunnah in Islam means reward for introducing good innovation in Islam because what is part of Islam me/you cannot introduce in it. And if we introduce in Islam then it must be first not part of Islam and that is innovation therefore his refutation and proof for his defintion of innovation does not exist. And Islamic definition stands established. From practice and teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), companions, likes of Imam Shafi (rahimullah), Imam Nawavi (rahimullah) and other luminaries of Islam. All he and his Wahhabi kind have is; Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (rahimullah) distorted version of his defintion of Biddah, emphasis on DISTORTED.

Usage Of Title Shaykh And Warning Against Using It For Heretic:

Recently, June 2018, a brother read account of discussion with Faisal aka Shaykh (hafidha-ullah), here. He enquired if the person being called Shaykh was actually a Shaykh and I told him I called, the mubtadi, Shaykh in sarcasm. He quoted me Hadith and referrenced it to Mishkat ul Masabih, in which Abu Ishaq is reported to have said, one who shows respect to Ahlul Biddah has helped the mubtadi destroy Islam.  Note I haven’t been able to find exact referrence nor entire Hadith, if it is Hadith. Even if its not Hadith these words have wisdom.  He said, that you calling him Shaykh even though in sarcasm, is giving him degree of respect, and unknowingly you’re helping him destroy Islam. I made Tawbah and I seek refuge in Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) from misguidance of Iblees. To set the record straight. Person who discussed with me is named Faisal. He is spawn of Satan of Najd and is a elequent liar. His best trait is that he is from people who invent lies with their mouths and say; this is from Prophet of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), or this is from a Sahabi. He is a distorter of Ahadith and omitter whose habbit is not to quote parts of Ahadith which expose him. He is all-out, total, absolute jahil mutliq who didn’t even know difference between, singular, Sahabi, and plural Sahabah. He was using plural form of word for a Sahabi i.e. sahabah. He is far from being a Shaykh. I have met Qadiyanis and Christians with more academic worth, integrity, and upright moral campus then Faisal. Insha Allah! Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) will humiliate and degrade him amongst his peers. All his lies/distortions were for sake of respect and upholding standing amongst his peers while knowing too well he is lieing and distorting Hadith. And I pray to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) that He degrades him in sight of his peers if he does not become a upright Muslim. I will not again address him as Shaykh not even sarcasticly and what I can amend I will. After much thought I remembered the verses of Quran: “And Allah would not let a people stray after He has guided them until He makes clear to them what they should avoid. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of all things.” [Ref: 9:115] Faisal is from a nation (qawm) whom Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) showed the path of Islam and he followed it briefly but Allah misguided him back to Wahhabism. Hence the verse applies to him. In another verse Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: "What is with you two groups concerning the hypocrites? While Allah has made them fall back (into error and disbelief) for what they earned. Do you wish to guide those whom Allah has sent astray? And he whom Allah sends astray - never will you find for him a way (of guidance).They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper." [Ref: 4:88/89] Even though he left Wahhabism and accepted Islam he chose its misguidance over Islam.

Edited 16 اگست 2018 by MuhammedAli

[MuhammedAli]

Bump.