Brief Response to the Claim: “Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was a Muhaddith & not a Faqih

Just like the post yesterday where we gave a short response on the claim that Imam Abu Hanifah was not a Muhaddith, an opposite claim is usually made upon Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahmatullahi alayh), some claimed that he was not a Faqeeh (Jurist) but only a Muhaddith (Hadith Narrator), the following is the testimony of the scholars who refute such contention.

Imam Abu Ubaid Qasim Bin Salam (rahimahullah) [d.224H] said:

“The knowledge of Hadith went to its apex in four scholars and Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) is the most learned Faqeeh of them.”

Imam Abu Thaur Ibraheem bin Khalid (rahimahullah) said:

“Imam Ahmad (rahimahullah) was more learned Faqeeh than Sufyan Ath-Thauri (rahimahullah).” [Imam Adh-Dhahabi (rahimahullah), Tazkirat-ul-Huffaz, 2/16]

Ibn ‘Aqeel said:

“One of the most surprising thing that I have heard from the young and ignorant folk is their saying that Ahmad (bin Hanbal) is not a scholar of fiqh, but a scholar of hadeeth. And this is the limit of ignorance, since he had preferred sayings which he based upon Ahadeeth and are not known by most people, and he had things that were extra to that which the greater scholars had.”

Brief Response to the Claim: “Imam Abu Hanifah was not a Muhaddith”

By Abdul Wahab Saleem

It’s appalling to hear that some believe that Abū Hanīfah was not a muḥaddith (traditionist). He has *at least* 15 different musnads which were all collected by al-Khawārizmī in the seventh century in his book Jāmi‘ al-Masānīd.

He wrote this book when he heard some comments from some ignorant people in his time in which they belittled Abū Hanīfah’s abilities in ḥadīth saying, ‘He barely reported any prophetic traditions.’ To correct this misconception he gathered 15 of the musnads which had collected Abū Hanīfah’s reports.

It should also be noted that Abū Hanīfah didn’t permit reporting a prophetic tradition by meaning as opposed to the majority of the scholars of ḥadīth. This did decrease the number of traditions he narrated as unless he could remember the words verbatim he wouldn’t permit himself to narrate, but despite that decrease, al-Khawārizmī was able to find and collect 15 different musnads tracing back to him during the seventh century!

THE FALLACY OF IMAAM ASH’ARI’S ALLEGED “RETRACTION”

By Mujlisul Ulama

The coprocreep echoing the ghutha (rubbish) of his Salafi mentors, claims that Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) had on his deathbed forsaken his mission of defending the Ahlus Sunnah, and had adopted the way of the deviates masquerading as Hanaabilah. Copro-Salafis are at pains to enlist Imaam Ash’ari as a supporter of their Hashwiyyah religion of vulgar anthropomorphism. In the parlance of our age, the Salafi Hashwiyyah are referred to as Copro-Salafis.

Several centuries after the initiation of the Mujassimah/Hashawi sect of copro-anthropomorphists, Ibn Taimiyyah in the 7th century of the Islamic era undertook the satanic task of reviving the anthropomorphism preached by his predecessors – Ibn Hamid, Abu Ya’la and Zaaghooni who have been exposed by Allaamah Ibnul Jauzi Al-Hambali for their beliefs of tajseem..

The first copro-anthropomorphist (Hashawi) who had attempted to portray Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) as a supporter of Taimiyyi tajseem was Ibn Taimiyyah himself. In history he was the very first copro-anthropomorphist to claim that Kitaabul Ibaanah, a kitaab allegedly authored by Imaam Ash’ari supported the math-hab of the copro-anthropomorphists. The attempt of the Copro-Salafis, inspired by Ibn Taimiyyah, has been to create the idea that Kitaabul Ibaanah was Imaam Ash’ari’s final book. Ibn Taimiyyah and his legion of Hashwis – the Copro-Salafis of our age – have latched on to Kitaabul Ibaanah to bolster their anthropomorphic math-hab despite the fact that Ibn Taimiyyah and the Copro-Salafis in general are in vehement criticism of Imaam Ash’ari.

As far as the book, Kitaabul Ibaanah is concerned, there appears this Copro-Hashawi, Ibn Taimiyyah, four centuries after Imaam Ash’ari to claim that this treatise was his last work whereas no one before Ibn Taimiyyah held the view that Kitaabul Ibaanah was Imaam Ash’ari’s final work. His final work was in fact Kitaabul Luma. There even exists sharp disagreement among Ash’aris regarding the author of Kitaabul Ibaanah. They are not agreed on authorship of the book, whether Imaam Ash’ari was at all its author.

There is a strong view that the Copro-Anthropomorphists (Hashawis) had fabricated this kitaab to create the impression that Imaam Ash’ari too was in support of their copro-beliefs. Nothing is furtherst from the truth than this contemptible fallacy and falsehood fabricated by Ibn Taimiyyah, the reviver of the Hashwiyyah religion in the 7th century. Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) was an implacable foe of anthropomorphism. If Kitaabul Ibaanah, assuming it is the work of Imaam Ash’ari, if it was his final kitaab, there would have been Ash’aris from amongst his close followers as well as contemporaries who would have confirmed this contention. But there is not a single Ash’ari who maintains that Kitaabul Ibaanah was his final work. It was the anthropomorphist reviver, Ibn Taimiyyah who had made this preposterous claim in the seventh century, four centuries after Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh).

The Math-hab of Imaam Ash’ari (rahmatullah alayh) is what is asserted in Kitaabul Luma and what the Ash’ari Ulama have propagated over the centuries. If Imaam Ash’ari had retracted his position at the end of his life as the Copro-Salafis and their Copro-Imaam claim, then surely such retraction would not have remained hidden for four centuries, and it would not have been left for an anthropomorphist 4 centuries later to proclaim the hallucinated retraction. Any retraction by Imaam Ash’ari would most assuredly have been adopted by at least a handful of Ash’aris, if not by the majority. But not a single Ash’ari has followed his Imaam in the supposed retraction hallucinated by Ibn Taimiyyah. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support the copro-contention of Ibn Taimiyya and his legion of Copro-Salafis. There is absolutely no support for the Hashwi doctrines which Ibn Taimiyyah and the Copro-Salafis propound.

Debunking Ibn Taimiyyah’s allegation pertaining to Kitaabul Ibaanah and the hallucinated retraction of Imaam Ash’ari, and even rejecting the claim of Imaam Ash’ari even being the author of the book, the following appears in the book, The Attributes of God:

“A number of scholars of the past and the present have rejected the idea that Kitaab al-Ibaana was written by Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari. Amongst them is a contemporary by the name ‘Isaa ibn `Abd Allah Maani` alHimyari. This is what he says in his book, Tashih al-Mafaahim: ‘As for Kitab al-Ibaana ascribed to Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, may God show his mercy, there is debate about that (ascription) for a number of reasons:

First: Ibn Furak and others of the companions of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari did not mention this book as being one of his works. Likewise, the rest of his pupils have not mentioned it to our knowledge;

Second: There is much discrepancy between the [different] copies and there is conflict in their texts; something that confirms the Hashwiyya’s meddling with this book;

Third: There are expressions in Kitaab al-Ibaana that contradict the apparent meanings of the texts of Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari that he mentions in his other books, especially Kitaab al-Luma’ `al-Saghir and al-Kabir, which is the last of what he wrote. Likewise, it contains expressions that contradict the words of his pupils and the Imaams of his madhhab while they are those who have transmitted the madhhab from him;

Fourth: Some of the Mutamaslifa (“Salaf-s”) attempted to attribute the ‘aqida of anthropomorphism (tajsim) to Imaam al-Ash’ari but they were not able to, and I knew that one of the students of an esteemed Islamic university undertook this task but failed.’”

The explanation pertaining to Kitaabul Ibaanah is in reality superfluous to the topic of our current Refutation of the coprocreep in view of the fact that the stupid diatribe of the Hashwi coprocreep is directed at the Ulama of Deoband and Imaam Maturidi.

Whether Kitaabul Ibaanah is the work of Imaam Ash’ari or not, or whether it was his first kitaab or his last kitaab, germane to the dispute between the Ahlus Sunnah and the Copro-Salafis, it is a peripheral factor which is not the determinant for any of the issues of dispute between the Ahl-e-Haqq (Imaam Maturidi and his followers) and the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and Baatil (the Copro-Salafis and their Imaam Ibn Taimiyyah).

Seven Messages For Those Who “Leave Islam”

image

There is an Arabic expression along the lines of, “aslamat Sāra, lā zād al-Muslimūn wa lā qalat al-nasārā”, which literally means: “Sara has converted (to Islām), neither increasing Muslims nor reducing Christians”. The expression is sometimes said when a person leaves Islām, as an idiomatic “who cares?”. In any case, it is not an entirely sensible expression. Entering or leaving Islām is not a matter to be taken lightly.

However in recent times, where boasting about leaving Islām is construed by pseudo-Islamic mannequins (called ‘think-tank’) as ‘very brave’,[1] even in a society beleaguered by Islamophobia and piled on anti-Islamic rhetoric, maybe there is some space for an aslamat Sāra attitude. So, if that bob of Īmān shakes at the news of pop stars no longer ‘convinced’ by an afterlife, below are seven points to help it settle.

I. Islām does not depend on its adherents, unlike other faiths and systems

Islām is not a reality that needs human validation. It is a reality that transcends above the universe and governs everything within it. In fact, there was a time when a single Muslim was called the ‘community’ all by himself,

“Ibrāhīm was a community (Ummah) in himself…”[2]

The message stood firm against the odds. Ibrāhīm ‘alayhi al-Salām did not see his singleness as an existential threat to the message of Islam as he knew his Lord was preserving it. Islam survived through the 11th century Crusades, the 13th century Mongolian campaigns and the 15th century Spanish inquisition. Numerous political doctrines, religions and strains died out with the demise of their adherents, save unadulterated, Abrahamic monotheism that remarkably survives.

In fact, there will be a time when there will be no Muslim on the face of the earth at all. This will come, as far as the age of the earth goes, moments before its end (the Day of Judgement). But the non-existence of Muslims who believe in the afterlife prior to the Day of Judgement will not stop it from happening. Even without adherents, the universal system of Islām endures.

II. Islām’s ‘Golden Era’ was when its adherents were fewest in number

Having many people on your side cannot be a bad thing, and Islām far from disparages huge numbers. In fact, the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam) says:

“Marry the one who is fertile and loving, for I will boast of your great numbers.”[3]

But quality has always been centralised in the few. It was a few who followed Nūh ‘(‘alayhī al-Salām), a few who crossed the river with Tālūt to meet Jālūt’s forces, and a few who were persecuted alongside ‘Īsā the son of Mary (‘alayhimā al-Salām). The Battle of Badr is by agreement the greatest battle of Islām, yet prior to the confrontation, the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam), supplicated,

“O Allāh! Bring about what You promised for me. O Allāh! If you destroy this band of adherents to Islām, you will not be worshiped alone upon the earth…”[4]

Here is Abu Bakr al-Siddīq (radiy Allāhu ‘anhu) with Iman weighing more than the Ummah’s masses combined,[5] Abū ‘Ubaydah b. al-Jarrāh (radiy Allāhu ‘anhu), whom ‘Umar later wished that everyone  would resemble, and al-Qa’qa’ b. ‘Āmr, whose voice and military contribution were more effective than 1000 men.[6]

In fact, ‘many’ has almost never been mentioned in the Qur’ān except with a form of dispraise. “Many of the People of the Book would love it if they could make you revert to being disbelievers after you have become believers.”[7] “Many of mankind are deviators.”[8] “Surely many  people are heedless of Our Signs.”[9] The list goes on.

It was when the ‘Ummah’ comprised of handfuls, not hundreds of millions, when the empires of the east and west bowed and surrendered. It was that small collective who heard the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam) saying to them:

“The best of mankind are my generation, then those that follow them, then those that follow them.”[10]

III. Our happiness when people convert is for them, not for us

Seeing someone ‘take their Shahādah’ is extraordinary. We push and shove to set our eyes on the spectacle. But in many cases, we may never see the brother or sister again. And though seeing someone embrace Islām often increases or reinforces our own Īmān, our happiness is primarily unselfish. It is for them. It is their past slate that is wiped clean, their life that has taken a momentous turn for the better and their hereafter that has been salvaged.  It is their ability to see past the centuries of sustained myths and propaganda required to keep them away from the otherwise irresistible Islām in the first place, that we admire about them.

We love it when people become Muslim not just because we desire to see in them what we failed to see in ourselves, but because one more person has saved  themselves from hell and absolved us from their complaints on the Day of Resurrection. In fact, materialistically, there is little in it for us but a duty to give long lessons in Ghusl and Wudū’,  along with a thought of that ‘student’ one day replacing us for our inadequacies, as Allāh says:

“If you turn away, He will replace you with a people other than yourselves and they will not be like you.”[11]

Seeing someone leave only hurts for precisely the opposite; that they failed at a hurdle, sold themselves short and flushed a long life down the drain; that they gave precedence to transient gratification over long-term success. It reminds us of the statement of Hudhayfah b. al-Yamān:

“The thing I fear most for this Ummah is that they give preference to what they see over what they know; and are thus misguided without realising.”[12]

IV. Challenges garble out the worst Muslims

Exams separate the best students from the worst. Difficulties bring out the real nature of people, those who can weather the storm and those who crack under the strain. The idea that leaving Islām is a ‘very brave’ thing to do is simply farcical. British Muslims face more than a thousand hate crimes a year, are lambasted by some 500 posts a day and are three times less likely to be considered for a job.[13]

Most challenges and difficulties in the world today are faced by Muslims. Muslim vilification has become the international media’s staple diet and the fad of new-age populists. ‘Very brave’ is to be a self-assured Muslim, not someone who acquiesces and attempts to join the ranks of the “dominant” race or class.

The Quraysh of Makkah thought they had outsmarted the Prophet (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam) when, in the Tready of Hudaybiyah, they stipulated that Makkah-bound leavers from Madīnah will not be sent back to the Prophet. They forgot that when weathering a challenge, a leaver is precisely who you could do without. On another occasion, in the Battle of Uhud, a contingent of soldiers led by the hypocrite Abdullāh b. Ubay b. Salūl left the Prophet and the companions, heading home. Later, during the campaign of Tabūk, the hypocrites stayed behind altogether. But rather than outlining the vulnerability of what became a much smaller contingent of Muslims headed into the depths of Roman lands, Allāh said:

“If they had gone out among you, they would have added nothing to you but confusion.”[14]

They say “sometimes more is less”. The very word ‘Fitnah – yuftan’ comes from applying heat to an ore to bring out a base metal, removing impurities and purifying the precious metal. Like when Allāh says,

“Do people imagine that they will be left to say, ‘We have Īmān,’ and will not be tested (yuftanūn)?”[15]

It is this heat which particularly knocks off those Muslims sitting on the fence, very ready to blame their ineptitude on their dwindling religiosity, neither addressing the real causes of their failures nor ending up winning anything in the hereafter.

“Among the people there is one who worships Allāh right on the edge. If good befalls him, he is content with it, but if a trial befalls him, he reverts to his former ways, losing both this world and the Next World. That is indeed sheer loss.”[16]

Leavers of Islām should know full well that they leave behind nothing but a purer base, a surer assembly, and a firmer, better bonded core, ready to weather whatever dreary day or turn of fortune awaits ahead.

V. Being Muslim is not supposed to be a walk in the park

Altruism, charity, nurturing children properly, checking on your neighbour, resisting temptations, speaking out against wrong—the list goes on—is what a Muslim is first, and is hard work second. Islām is neither a fashion, mere identity, nor a material possession that assents to any of our ways and desires. It was sent to guide to what we know, and to what the distortions of an era have made us forget.

Some leave Islām after feeling they bit off more than they can chew. But what is better, to find a truth you voluntarily chose to follow difficult, or to capitulate to the very lusts that you left behind? Every Muslim finds one thing or another difficult, but why do some assume that Allāh’s greatest commodity, Paradise, is cheap and easy to attain?

A champion does not enter a ring intending to throw in the towel but insists on getting up after every knockout. Allāh says:

“O Mankind! You are toiling laboriously towards your Lord, but meet Him you will!”[17]

We boast about ‘keeping our noses in the grindstone’, ‘blood, sweat and tears’ and ‘burning the candle at both ends’[18] to save for a package holiday that could turn out boring and stressful. Why then do we think we can pioneer Islām, around our own tastes and fashions when it is our deliverer to eternal bliss and ultimate enjoyment?

VI. The majority of leavers do not leave Islām on ideological grounds

History and the contemporary have shown that there are no ideologies that can rationally compete with Islām. Islamophobes will happily jibe, mock and defame, but come a civilised debate and what a pity.

As such, the majority of leavers, observably leave due to some sort of bad experience either unrelated to the ideological framework of Islām, or fail to rationalise an Islamic teaching with a different ideology, a cultural norm, practice or premeditated craving of their own, many a time carnal. Those will validate what they long craved by ‘reforming’ Islām to follow suit or raise doubts about the religion itself. Let us get real, was it 15-billion-year-old observable evidence that made that leaver question the Qur’ān’s account of creation, or a new boyfriend?

The Shaytān knew it was Allāh’s order he disobeyed but wanted to validate a premeditated superiority complex, paying attention to what he thought validated that complex, “I am better than him, You (Allāh) made me from fire, and made him from clay.” But he (conveniently) paid no attention to the fact the order to prostrate came from Allāh himself. His intellectual gaffs were because he had no ideological leg to stand on. The reason he left was because his continued arrogance blighted his ability to be true to his fault of refusing to prostrate in the first place.

It is useful to remember this hierarchy of disagreement when considering the bulk of the attacks levelled against Islām’s foundations.

image

VII. Being a Muslim is not a favour to anyone but yourself

Imagine if I were to give you a pen. The following week I call asking for your help towing my car, “because I gave you a pen”, then I text you needing help with my shopping “because I gave you a pen”. Soon, I will find my pen in an envelope with a note reading “with thanks.” Imagine then if the receiver—youwas instead the person demanding favours and gratitude. It is madness. Imagine then if the gift was far better than a pen—Islām itself.

Some Bedouins embraced Islām near the 10th year of the Hijrah, long after the severe persecution of Makkah, the Hijrah, the Battle of Badr, Uhud, the startling Battle of the Trench and the testing pledge to avenge the blood of ‘Uthman rady Allahu ‘anhu they took with the Prophet under the tree (al Ridwan). Despite those latter Bedouins taking part in nothing of this, they felt that their Islām deserved the appreciation of the Messenger (sall Allāhu ‘alayhī wa sallam), forgetting that it is them that ought to have shown gratitude to Allāh for His inimitable gift that came to them on a silver platter in far more comfortable days:

“They think they have done you a favour by becoming Muslims! Say: ‘Do not consider your Islām a favour to me. No indeed! It is Allāh who has favoured you by guiding you to Īmān, if you are telling the truth.’”[19]

Likewise, leavers should know that nobody felt that your Islām was disruptive, ground-breaking or a monumental rift in a Da’wah that is divinely preserved and administered by men and women who struggle against desires and weaknesses, for your departure to be disruptive.

A person’s Islām does not benefit Allāh for their departure to harm Him. Likewise nothing that Allāh obligated upon us benefits Allāh in the slightest. He was the Almighty, the Wise, the All-Powerful before everything in existence and our obedience did not increase Him in any of this.

Any individual obligation is likewise an obligation on the rest of society. Just as Allāh commanded you not to steal and to lower your gaze, He likewise commanded millions of others. So who ends up benefiting? You yourself. You, being the beneficiary—whether you realise it or not—of what is Halāl and what is Harām is enough a payment. So Allāh, through His rulings gave you and then rewarded you on top of what He gave.

When the messengers called their people to Allāh’s worship, did their people generally accept or reject their call? They rejected it. Almost all the prophets we have been informed about, however, told their people: “I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds.”[20] This is despite knowing well that their people were less than willing to pay for something they rejected to begin with! It is as if the prophets are telling them, ‘Since I am calling you to what is entirely your benefit, I would otherwise instinctively deserve to be paid for it, but the magnitude of that benefit I am bringing you is so great that none, save Allāh, can pay for it.’[21]

Islām is an inimitable privilege and blessing, and supreme way of life and salvation that attracts for every leaver, thousands of entrants. What is ‘supreme’, stays so, even if a person is as deprived and naïve as to throw it away for whatever petty return. Likewise, what is already supreme cannot be made better by its followers. It is entirely a privilege to them that they should fear losing, the same way as they would fear to be thrown into fire.

“Our Lord, do not make our hearts swerve aside after You have guided us. And give us mercy from You. You are the Ever-Giving.”[22]

Source: www.islam21c.com

Posted by: Ahmed Hammuda

Notes:

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6393821/Zayn-Malik-reveals-no-longer-identifies-Muslim.html

[2] Qur’an 16:120

[3] Sunan an-Nasa’I on the authority of Ma’qil bin Yasar

[4] Jami` at-Tirmidhi on the authority of ibn ‘Abbas

[5] Bayhaqi, Mawquf on ‘Umar rady Allāhu ‘anhu

[6] Ibn al-Atheer – Asad al-Ghaabah

[7] Qur’an 2:109

[8] Qur’an 5:49

[9] Qur’an 10:92

[10] Muslim on the authority on Abdullah ibn Mas’oud rady Allāhu ‘anhu

[11] Qur’an 47:38

[12] Recorded in Hilyat al-Awliyā’, Abū Nu’aym al-Asbahānī0

[13] https://mend.org.uk/resources-and-publications/factsheets/

[14] Qur’an 47:47

[15] Qur’an 29:2

[16] Qur’an 22:11

[17] Qur’an 84:6

[18] Meaning to get little sleep

[19] Qur’an 49:17

[20] See chapter 26

[21] Reflections based on Sheikh al-Sha’rawi’s Tafsir of al-Hujuraat

[22] Qur’an 3:8

Brief History of the Shi’ite Safawid Dynasty

[By Hadhrat Muhammad Ishaq Sindhelwi (Rahimahullah)]

It is an established fact that Iran was a Sunni nation until the tenth century of the Hijri calendar. During this period, Iran produced thousands of scholars in every discipline; the most salient of these facts is that the six most authentic Hadith books (i.e. Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Nasai, Ibn Majah & Tirmidhi) were written by scholars from Iran, or scholars who received their education in Iran.

However, when the Safawid Shi’ites took control, they established their government on the skulls of the Sunni scholars and jurists. This was one of the reasons for the evacuation of the large cities that were the foremost centres of the Islamic sciences, such as Tabriz, Isfahan, Ray and Tus. Many Sunni Muslims were murdered, forced into Shi’ism and compelled to flee to the mountains, leaving Iran as a centre for conspiracies against Islam and the Muslims.

Ferdinand, the ambassador to the Austrian King, remarked, “Had it not been for the Safawids in Iran, we would have been reading the Qur’an this day like the Algerians,” meaning that his nation would have been introduced to Islam by the Ottomans. However, the Safawids conspired with the crusaders and the imperialists to halt the Islamic expansion into France and Vienna.

The rise of the Safawid dynasty started in 905 A.H in Iran and Khurasan. While under the rule of the Mongols, in the 1200s (596 A.H), the Persians had given up on politics and militarism and had submerged themselves in ibaadah. During this time, Iran was constantly visited by Mongol and Turkish immigrants who adopted the Persian language and Persian customs. In the 1300s (699 A.H), a dynasty founded by a grandson of Genghis Khan, Halaku Khan, ruled in Iran. Meanwhile a heretical Shi’ite order, the Safawids, appeared with their homebase at Ardebil – west of the Caspian Sea.

By 1500 C.E (905 A.H), the Safawids had implemented the Dogmas of the Ithna Ashari Shi’ite sect. Safawid males wore red headgear for identification (representing their beliefs in the twelve Imams), and they were eager to advance Shi’ism by any possible means.

In the year 1500 C.E (905 A.H), the thirteen-year old son of a recently deceased Safawid leader set out to conquer territory. By 1501 C.E (906 A.H), the Safawids seized Tabriz and made it their capital. They also butchered their way into Armenia, Azerbaijan & Khorasan. The Safawids became the strongest force in Iran, and their leader, Isma’il (905 A.H – 930 A.H) now fifteen, was declared “Shah” (King).

Shah Isma’il descends from the lineage of Shaykh Safiuddin 1334 C.E (734 A.H), the student and son-in-law of Shaykh Zaahid Gilani 1300 C.E (699 A.H). Amongst the primary teachings of Shaikh Saifuddin was the notion of fanatical love for the ‘Ahlul Bayt’. They believed that the Ummahatul Mu’mineen, the noble wives of Nabi are not included in the ‘Ahlul Bayt’. On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah firmly believe that respect and love for all the family members of Nabi  is an integral part of Imaan.

In the Shi’ite terminology love for the ‘Ahlul Bayt’ is termed as ‘Tawalla’ and hatred for the Ummahatul Mu’mineen and the Sahaaba (whom the Shi’ite consider the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt) is termed as ‘Tabarra’.

It was this very spark of ‘pretentious love for the Ahlul Bayt’ that established the foundation of Shi’ism. There were also seven Turkish tribes (Istaajilo, Turklo, Biharlo, Dhul Qadr, Shaamilo, Qaachar and Afshaar) who assisted the Safawids in their ascent to kingship. These tribes were influenced and brainwashed by the Safawid fake Sufis, who indoctrinated their beliefs with Shi’ism.

When the Safawids established their rule, they realised that their own beliefs with regards to the hidden Imam will become an unnecessary impediment. They needed to find a ruse to allow their governors to rule upon the masses as the Imams would have as the Shi’ites believed that only the Imams were innocent and were lawmakers.

Once, Isma’il went out of Tabriz with his ministers and friends. Upon reaching a stream he ordered his companions to wait for him whilst he entered the cave. A few hours later he emerged from the cave and announced that he met with the hidden Imam of the Shi’ites who had granted him permission to become his representative on earth and the time for his (the hidden Imam) appearance is near.

Thereafter, he declared that he saw Sayyidina Ali bin Abi’ Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) in a dream who ordered to gather his followers in the Grand Masjid of Tabriz. They should all be armed  and ready to oppose those who are against Shi’ite ideologies and the establishment of a Shi’ite state. After these declaration he began oppressing the Sunnis, forcing the to accept Shi’ism.

In 1510 C.E (915 A.H), Isma’il Safawi waged war against Shaybani Khan who was a sunni ruler. A bloodbath ensued at Merv where unfortunately Shaybani Khan was defeated. Isma’il Safawi severed his head and filled it with jewels.

Thereafter, Isma’il Safawi began to instigate his followers to crush the Ottoman Empire. Eventually, Sultan Selim I responded to this mischief. A great war ensued near Tabriz where by the grace of Allah Ta’ala, Isma’il Safawi was defeated. It is mentioned no one ever saw Isma’il Safawi smiling after his disgraceful defeat by Sultan Selim I.

Evil Habits and Traits of the Safawids

⚫ The Safawids believed that the Persians were the chosen people of Allah 7000 years prior to Islam. The basis for them believing that they were the most noble of people is because, Sayyidina Hussain ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu Anhu) married the daughter of Yazdgerd (a Persian), from whom Sayyidina Zainul Abideen (rahimahullah) whom the Shi’ites regard as one of their Imams was born. This is why, Isma’il Safawi declared himself as the representative of Allah, the Khalifah of the twelve Imams and the representative of the hidden Imam on earth.

⚫ The grandfather of Isma’il Safawi had married his daughter to Zaahid Kasaani, an individual who had claimed prophethood.

⚫ The Safawid kings consumed alcohol, punished whomsoever they wanted whenever they wanted and were involved in all sorts of wrongdoings.

⚫ Isma’il Safawi enforced the ritual and compulsory cursing of the first three Khulafah, Sayyidina Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu Anhu), Sayyidina ‘Umar (radhiyallahu Anhu) and Sayyidina Uthman (radhiyallahu Anhu) as usurpers, from all the Masajid, disbanded Sunni groupsand seized their assets, used state patronage to develop Shia shrines, institutions and arts and imported Shia scholars to replace Sunni scholars.

⚫ They introduced the statement Ashhadu Anna Aliyyan Waliyallah (I bear witness that Ali is the delegate of Allah) in the Adhan.

⚫ The Safawis shed Sunni blood and destroyed and desecrated the graves and Masajid of the Sunnis. The Ottoman Sultan Bayazid II advised and asked Isma’il Safawi to stop the anti-Sunni actions. However, Isma’il was strongly anti-Sunni, ignored the Sultans warning and continued to spread the Shia faith by the sword.

⚫ In 1512 C.E (917 A.H) all the Sunni scholars of Iran who opposed the imposed dogmas of the Safawids were slained and butchered. Two-thirds of the population of Tabriz was forced into Shi’ism. Over one million Sunnis were slained and butchered. Streams of blood ran along the streets of Tabriz.

⚫ As soon as Isma’il Safawi has established his kingdom he ordered his clerics to educate the masses with one belief only, and that is Ashhadu Anna Aliyyan Waliyallah, whilst every other important beliefs of Islam should be discarded.

⚫ No Sunni scholar was allowed to lecture or deliver a Khutbah on the day of Jumu’ah. The Ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah were slaughtered, so much so that the bones of great scholars who had passed away (such as Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimahullah), Qadhi Hamdani (rahimahullah and Allamah Nasruddeen Baydawi (rahimahullah), were dug from their graves and burnt in public.

⚫ Islamic literature, books and manuscripts with authentic Islamic sciences were seized and burnt.

⚫ The Safawid dynasty destroyed all existing Islamic literature and encouraged the propagation of Shi’ism forcefully because prior to the rise of the Safawid dynasty the majority in Iran were Hanafi Sunni Muslims.

⚫ With the establishment of the Safawid rule, there was a raucous and colourful, almost carnival-like holiday on the 26th of Dhul-Hijjah exhibiting their happiness for the martyrdom of Sayyidina Umar (Radhiyallahu Anhu). The highlight of the day was making an effigy to be cursed, insulted and finally burned.

⚫ In 1501 C.E (906 A.H), Isma’il invited all Shi’ite adherents livinh outside Iran to settle in Iran and be assured of protection from the Sunni majority.

⚫ The early Safawid rulers took a number of steps against the Sunni Ulama’ of Iran. These steps included giving the Ulama the choice of conversion, death or exile.

Coalition of the Safawid Dynasty and the Imperialists against the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire had established a true Islamic Nation. Sultan Muhammad Fatih had conquered Constantinople. His conquest and valour had overawed the hearts of the Europeans. Upon his demise, the grand pope declared that the Roman Catholics should celebrate thanksgiving for three continous days. 

The Safawi Shi’ites were known for conspiring against the Ottoman Empire, with the aim of hindering the progress and expansion of Islam. The Shi’ites had signed an agreement with the disbelievers that they will assist them against the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah, that is the Ottoman Empire.

A German historian, Brookman writes: “From 1588 C.E to 1619 C.E (996 A.H – 1038 A.H) the Safawid dynasty was expanding exponentially. Shah Abbas Safawi had received all the assistance he needed from the British to expand his tyrannical conquest. The British fervently assisted the Safawids in their efforts to destroy the Ottoman Empire; and the Safawids returned the favour by comimg to their aid against the Austrians.

A coalition between the Safawids and the Crusaders was created during the lifetime of Isma’il Safawi. Isma’il met with Leo, Maximillan and King Charles the fifth and made an agreement to assist them against the Ottoman Empire.

Innovations and Mischief of the Safawids

⚫ Isma’il Safawi declared that he is sinless and that there is no difference between him and Hadhrat Mahdi (alayhis salaam)

⚫ He claimed that Sayyidina Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was a Nabi and he would prostrate to Sayyidina Ali

⚫ Sultan Tehmasep Safawi was a drunkard whose son was in love with a young lad. He passed away in the house of the same lad.

⚫ It was compulsory to celebrate the martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain bin Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)

⚫ Christian rituals were introducted it their religious gatherings

⚫ They introduced the sentence ‘Hayya Alaa Khayril Amal’ in the Adhan

⚫ Performing Sajdah on tablets of sand (dedicated to the land of martyrdom of Sayyidina Hussain radhiyallahu anhu)

⚫ Performing Sajdah to their leaders and clerics

⚫ Changing the Qiblah of the Masjid in Iran

⚫ Burying their dead in coffins and caskets

⚫ The Safawid Shi’ite clerics toom possession of the Awqaf system. They believe that they have the right to make that which is haraam, as halal whenever it suited them. For example, when the Moghul king Khudabanda issued three divorces to his wife, Ibn Mutahhir Halli (a Safawid Shi’ite cleric) stated that such a divorce is baseless.

⚫ The Safawid clerics went to the extent of stating that only Sayyidatuna Fatima (radhiyallahu anha) was the daughter of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The other daughters of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) from Sayyidatuna Khadijah (radhiyallahu anha) were from her previous marriage.

⚫ They also negated Sayyidatuna Aisha and Hafsa (radhiyallahu anhuma) as being the noble wuves of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam.

⚫ The Safawids would celebrate the 10th of Muharram as a day of mourning for Sayyidina Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Abbas Safawi would wear black clothing only and he would apply mud on his face to express his grief.

⚫ The Shi’ites would lash and cut themselves with daggers on the day of Ashurah. Such actions have no basis in Islam. Even their British and Western allies have commentated that they have not seen such animosity and ignorance anyone else.

Mulla Baqir Majlisi

Muhammad Baqir Ibn Muhammad Taqi Ibn Mansur al-Majlisi, also known as Mulla Baqir Majlisi is considered as the most renown and reliable scholar of the Shi’ite faith. He was the grand cleric of the Safawid Dynasty.

He is the same person who invented and promoted the beliefs regarding Mut’ah, Raj’at and reincarnation. He has fabricated numerous accusations against the first three Khulafah, the Sahabah and the Umaahatul Mu’mineen and he promoted these fabrications as authentic Ahadith. An example of his heresy as he writes in his book ‘Jila al-Uyun’:

Ali (alayhis salaam) narrates that Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “There is a coffin in Jahannum in which twelve individuals are imprisoned. Six of them are from the previous nations and six are from my nation. This coffin is at the bottom of a well filled with lave and fire. It has been closed with a huge boulder. When Allah will intend to set Jahannum ablaze, he will order the Angels to remove this huge boulder and the lava and fire of this well will consume Jahannum.

The narrator then asked Sayyidina Ali (alayhis salaam) ‘who are these twelve individuals?’ And he answered, “the six accursed individuals from the previous nations are:

1. Qabil
2. Namrud
3. Fir’awn
4. The person who killed the Camel of Nabi Salih (alayhis salaam)
5. The two individuals who misguided the Bani Isra’eel after the demise of Nabi Musa (alayhis salaam)

And the six individuals from this Ummah are:

1. Dajjal
2. Abu Bakr
3. Umar
4. Abu Ubaidah al-Jarrah
5. Saalim Mawla Hudhaifah
6. Sa’d al-‘Aas

May Allah Ta’ala protect us from such utterances.

In another narration, he states that Iblis said, “When Allah cursed me and I was driven out of Jannah, I asked Allah if there is anyone more accursed than me. The angel in-charge of Jahannum was ordered to take me to the farthest section of Jahannum where I was shown those who are more accursed than me. The fire and punishment of that place was of such an extent that I thought I would die. I saw two individuals who were shackled and were being punished. I asked the angel, “Who are they?” He replied, “Didn’t you read what was written on the Arsh 2000 years ago before the creation of Adam. Iblis said, “It is written “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger and I (Allah) assisted Muhammad through Ali”. These two, who ae shackled in flames are the enemies of Ali, they are Abu Bakr & Umar.”

These are the some of the beliefs and teachings that were promoted by the Safawid Shi’ite clerics. Even the Shi’ite scholars have attested that the Safawids have drifted against humanity, reason and Islam.

Today, the same ideologies have been implemented by the stooges of Khomeini who regard every Sunni to be a disbeliever. These sons of the Safawids have picked up exactly where their forefathers left off. Chastising the Ummahatul Mu’mineen and noble Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) is a part of their religion.

Did you Know?

⚫ Although there are around 2 million Sunnis living in Tehran, there is not a single Masjid where they can perform their Jumu’ah but Tehran is home to 40 Christian Churches and a cemetry for the Baha’is.

⚫ The publication of Sunni books are illegal in Iran.

⚫ A third of the population of Iran are being deprieved of their most basic rights.

⚫ Sunnis living in Iran are not allowed to name their children as they like. There is a book of permitted names at civil registers, and no one can pick up a name that is not in this book. For instance, Iranian authorities do not allow people to name their children Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman or Aisha. Civil registers will not put these names on ID cards.

⚫ On the day of the martyrdom of Sayyidina Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the Shi’ites hold a ceremony called Jashn-e-Umar Koshan (the celebration of the killing of Umar). An effigy is erected. Dirt and other filthy things are thrown on it. This ceremony is still held in the south of Tehran and other parts of the country.

⚫ Schools in predominantly Muslim regions teach Shi’ite beliefs.

Today, Muslims in Iran number approximately 15 million. The above facts clearly prove that in the past centuries and currently there is ongoing oppressive Shi’ite sectarian discrimination in Iran against the Muslims.

May Allah Ta’ala guide us all and protect the Ummah from the scrouge of Shi’ism and other mischiefs. May Allah Ta’ala elevate the status of the Sahabah in this world and the hereafter.

Demolishing the Stupid Claim of “Saheeh Hadeeth” by the Ahle Hadees / Salafi Group

By Maulana Abu Huzaifa bin Adam

The foolish claims and statements made by the “Ahle Hadees” sect are many, but in this article we shall briefly refute just one.

Since the time of al-Albaani and his botched, miserably failed attempt at re-grading the Sihaah Sittah and other Kutub of Hadeeth, an attempt in which he ended up contradicting himself several times in the grading of just a single Hadeeth, sometimes declaring it to be Saheeh, other times declaring it to be Hasan, other times declaring it to be Dha`eef, Dha`eef Jiddan, etc., his ventures in the field of Hadeeth and Jarh wat-Ta`deel and the books written by him in those subjects, which in subsequent years were made available online, on websites, available for download as programs, and later on available as apps for mobile, led to the rise of Juhhaal in contemporary times who reject Ahaadeeth on the basis that, “It’s not in Saheeh Bukhaari”, or “It’s not a Saheeh Hadeeth” (and by that they mean it was not graded as Saheeh by al-Albaani, even if illustrious Muhaddithoon of the past had graded it to be Saheeh), and in this manner they reject great Kutub of Deen with contempt, averring: “It’s filled with Dha`eef Hadeeths”. Most of these people are not even aware of the meaning of those terms and have not even heard of Mustalahul Hadeeth or Jarh wat-Ta`deel. They are happy to blindly follow (make Taqleed of) al-Albaani whilst hypocritically condemning those who follow the Four Madhaahib of Haqq.

In this brief article, what we would like to clarify is: “Are all Dha`eef Ahaadeeth to be rejected? Are Dha`eef Ahaadeeth to be treated as Mawdhoo` (fabrications)? When can Dha`eef Ahaadeeth be accepted and quoted?”

We shall therefore be presenting some statements from the illustrious `Ulamaa of the past on this topic so that the readers may understand what the correct stance has been for over a thousand years.

Imaam `Ali al-Halabi said in Insaan-ul-`Uyoon fee Seeratil Ameenil Ma’moon: “It is not hidden that the (books) of biographies (history) encompasses that which is Saheeh, that which is Saqeem, that which is Dha`eef, that which is Mursal, that which is Munqati` and that which is Mu`dhal, but not that which is Mawdhoo` (fabricated). Imaam Ahmad and others from the A’immah had said: ‘When we narrate concerning Halaal and Haraam, we are strict (severe), but when we narrate concerning Fadhaa’il (virtues) and such matters, we are lenient.”

This statement is also narrated by al-Khateeb al-Baghdaadi in al-Kifaayah.

Mulla `Ali al-Qaari رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Hazzhul Awfar fil Hajjil Akbar, after mentioning the Hadeeth: “The most virtuous of days is the Day of `Arafah. When it falls on the Day of Jumu`ah, then it is better than 70 Hajj.” (After quoting this, he says) “It is reported by Razeen. As for what the Muhadditheen have mentioned regarding the Isnaad of this Hadeeth, that it is Dha`eef, then, even if it is so, it does not harm the objective, because a Dha`eef Hadeeth is accepted when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (the virtues of deeds), and this is so according to the majority of the `Ulamaa.

He also writes in “al-Mawdhoo`aat“, after mentioning the Hadeeth: “Masah (wiping) of the neck is a protection from shackles (i.e. from being shackled on the Day of Qiyaamah).” (He says) “A Dha`eef (Hadeeth) is acted upon when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (virtues of deeds), and this is according to Ittifaaq (consensus). For this reason, our A’immah (of the Hanafi Madh-hab) have said that Masah of the neck is Mustahabb or Sunnah.”

Imaam as-Suyooti writes in at-Ta`zheem wal-Minnah fee Anna Abawayi Rasoolillaahi صلى الله عليه وسلم fil-Jannah: “I gave the Fatwaa that the Hadeeth mentioning that Allaah brought back to life the mother of (Rasoolullaah صلىالله عليه وسلم) is not Mawdhoo` despite what a group among the Huffaaz (of Hadeeth) had claimed; rather, it is from the category of Dha`eef, and there is permission to narrate (Dha`eef Ahaadeeth) when it comes to Fadhaa’il (virtues).”

Speaking on this same issue of the Hadeeth that mentions that the parents of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم were brought back to life and accepted Islaam, Imaam as-Suyooti رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Maqaamatus Sundusiyyah fin Nisbatish Shareefatil Mustafiyyah: “The people of `Ilm and Hadeeth, both in the times of old and now, they narrate this report and place it amongst the specialities and Mu`jizaat (of Rasoolullaah صلى الله عليه وسلم), and they count it as being from his Manaaqib (virtues) and honours, and they held that the Dhu`f (weakness) present in the Isnaad (of this Hadeeth) is forgiven, and that it is accepted to narrate that which is not Saheeh when it comes to Fadhaa’il and Manaaqib.”

Haafiz al-`Iraaqi رحمة الله عليه writes in Sharh Alfiyyatil Hadeeth: “As for those narrations which are not Mawdhoo` (i.e. those that are Dha`eef), then they (the `Ulamaa) have permitted leniency in its Isnaad and also narrating it without explaining its Dhu`f (weakness), when it is not with regards to issues of Ahkaam (rulings) or `Aqaa’id (beliefs), but rather in issues of encouraging people (to do good), warning them, admonishing them, stories, virtues of deeds, etc. As for when it is with regards to Ahkaam of the Sharee`ah such as Halaal and Haraam, or with regards to `Aqaa’id such as the Sifaat of Allaah Ta`aalaa, etc., then they did not permit leniency in that. From the `Ulamaa who explicitly mentioned this are `Abdur Rahmaan ibn Mahdi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, `Abdullaah ibn al-Mubaarak and others.”

Imaam an-Nawawi writes in at-Taqreeb: “According to the people of Hadeeth (i.e. the Muhadditheen) it is permissible to have leniency with regards to the Asaaneed that are weak and to report that which is not Mawdhoo` (fabricated), and acting upon it without explaining its Dhu`f (weakness) when it is not (Ahaadeeth) pertaining to the Sifaat of Allaah or Ahkaam.”

Imaam al-Kamaal ibn al-Humaam رحمة الله عليه writes in Kitaab-ul-Janaa’iz in Fat’hul Qadeer: “Istihbaab (something being Mustahabb) is also established from that which is Dha`eef, but not from that which is Mawdhoo` (fabricated).”

Imaam an-Nawawi رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Adhkaar: “The Muhadditheen and the Fuqhaa have stated that it is permissible – in fact, Mustahabb – to make `amal (act) upon a Dha`eef Hadeeth when it comes to issues of Fadhaa’il (virtues), exhortations, warnings, as long as it is not Mawdhoo` (fabricated). As for when it comes to Ahkaam such as Halaal and Haraam, business, marriage, divorce, etc., then in such cases one does not act except upon a Hadeeth that is Saheeh or Hasan, unless it is out of precaution in one of those issues (i.e. if there is a Dha`eef Hadeeth urging caution regarding something, so one abstains as a precautionary measure).”

Imaam ibn Hajar al-Makki al-Haytami رحمة الله عليه writes in al-Fat’hul Mubeen: “The `Ulamaa have Ittifaaq (consensus) regarding the permissibility of acting upon Dha`eef Ahaadeeth when it comes to Fadhaa’il-ul-A`maal (the virtues of deeds), because if the Hadeeth is Saheeh in and of itself, then it has been given its right by us acting upon it, and if it is not (Saheeh) then too in practicing upon it no harm has ensued such as Halaalizing something which is Haraam or prohibiting something that is Halaal, nor the loss of any person’s Haqq.”

It is mentioned in al-Qowlul Badee` and elsewhere that the Madh-hab of Imaam Abu Haneefah رحمة الله عليه is that a Dha`eef Hadeeth is better than Ra’i (opinion) and Qiyaas (analogy), when a (Saheeh) Hadeeth is not found regarding that particular issue.

Imaam ibn Mahdi رحمة الله عليه said, as is narrated from him by Imaam al-Bayhaqi رحمة الله عليه in al-Madkhal: “When we narrate from Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم regarding Halaal and Haraam and the Ahkaam, then we are severe with regards to the Asaaneed (chains of narrations) and in criticising the Rijaal (narrators), but when we narrate regarding virtues, reward and punishment, then we are lenient regarding the Asaaneed and the Rijaal (narrators).”

The Muhaddithoon have also stated that when the Ummah has accepted a particular Dha`eef Hadeeth and acted upon it all the years (meaning, all the years the Fuqahaa had accepted a particular Hadeeth and acted upon it), then we will act upon that Hadeeth as though it is Saheeh (i.e. the fact that the Fuqahaa had accepted it all the years raises it to this level).

We shall suffice with this amount from the quotations of the A’immah. For those with some knowledge of the history of Islaam, they will know that the names of the A’immah we have mentioned above are not lightweights; these were all giants in the Deen.

This should be sufficient to debunk the ridiculous claim that if a Hadeeth is not found in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, it must be rejected. Many of these people are ignorant of even Masaa’il pertaining to Istinjaa, but they are bold in throwing forward their views when they are entirely devoid of any `Ilm of Deen, some of them being unable to read even a single word of Arabic. Thus, you will hear them making ridiculous statements such as, “The book‘Hayaatus Sahaabah’  must be rejected because it’s filled with Dha`eef Ahaadeeth.” Any person who has actually studied Hadeeth even to a minute extent would know how laughable their claims are.

We would like to end this article by listing some important points:

When it comes to the grading of Ahaadeeth, we follow the illustrious Muhadditheen of the past, not a person who passed away in 1999 like al-Albaani. The Ahaadeeth have already been graded long ago by such Muhadditheen whom Allaah Ta`aalaa has honoured and elevated, that for all the years of Islaam their Kutub have been taught and accepted by the entire Ummah at large.

It is the height of hypocrisy to condemn a person for following one of the Four Madhaahib of Haqq, and then blindly follow a man who passed away the other day. Addressing these people, we say: “Yes, you are making Taqleed of him regardless of your denial. When it comes to Hadeeth grading, why do you blindly believe that a Hadeeth is Saheeh, or Hasan, or Dha`eef, or Mawdhoo`, simply because he said so? Have you studied Hadeeth yourself, studied Mustalahul Hadeeth, Jarh wat-Ta`deel, `Ilm-ur-Rijaal, Usool-ul-Hadeeth, etc., and thereafter analysed the Asaaneed of those Hadeeth to know whether or not they are Saheeh? The majority of those who quote him today quote him from English translations because they are not even capable of reading the original Arabic texts.

The `Ulamaa have cited Ittifaaq (consensus) on the permissibility of quoting and acting upon Dha`eef Ahaadeeth when it comes to Fadhaa’il (virtues). Thus, to reject a Kitaab like Fadhaa’il-e-A`maal on the basis that, “It’s filled with weak Hadeeth”, is stupid. The author, Hadhrat Shaykh Zakariyya رحمة الله عليه, was an `Aalim with greater knowledge and understanding of Hadeeth than these “Ahle Hadees” would have even if they lived several times over.

May Allaah Ta`aalaa grant us the correct understanding, Aameen.

والله تعالى أعلم وعلمه أتم وأحكم

“Abrahamic” Religions – My Retraction

Few days back I had post an article: What is Eschatology?, my respected friend had an issue about the term “Three Abrahamic Faiths” in the aforementioned post, he had inquired about “what does the phrase Abrahamic Faith means?” As a commoner I had replied that:

“As far as I understand, the term “Abrahamic Faiths” refers to Judaism, Christianity & Islam. The common reason is maybe because Judaism, Christianity & Islam rever Nabi Ibraheem Khalilullah (alayhis Salaam).

But it is only Islam which not only respects Nabi Ibraheem (alayhis salaam) and his progeny, it represents his (alayhis Salaam) beliefs &; monotheism in every way.

This has been discussed in the following:- Millat-e-Ibrahim: The Abrahamic Way & The Deviation Of Christians & the Jews from his Path – http://wp.me/p6igBr-qi

If there is some error in my understanding then I am eager to be corrected in this regard.” (End Quote)

The brother had replied me and corrected my misunderstanding of this term and after reading it I felt that this should be shared in a post so that this phrase in understood in its reality.

Here I am going to share an eye-opening explanation of the brother about this phrase “Abrahamic Faith:

Abrahamic Religions

As salaamu alaikum

When I see or hear the term Abrahamic religions I cringe. If Ibrahim (alayhis salaam) was the father of three religions who were the mothers? The trinity keeps repeating itself. Below is from the Wikipedia regarding the meaning.
At the end I bring two ayaats from the Quran that show it’s bull-shit what the Muslims are saying along with the kufaar. Allah says the the only religion with Allah is Islam. And if you seek another religion other than Islam it will not be accepted from you. 

When the Christians came to the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) they claimed to be believers before us (the muslims). They were told they worshipped the cross, ate the pig, and said Allah had a son, so they could not be believers. Now it’s clear Ibrahim (alayhissalaam) was not the father of that rubbish.

It is the biggest lie told on that great prophet the one the Qur’an says named us Muslims.

I don’t know why the Muslims in the West rely on this principle of interfaith dialog by telling a lie on prophet Ibrahim (alayhis salaam). I couldn’t read more of that article after I read these words. Take a look:

The Abrahamic religions, also referred to collectively as Abrahamism, are a group of Semitic-originated religious communities of faith that claim descent from the Judaism of the ancient Israelites and the worship of the God of Abraham. The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic. The term derives from patriarch Abraham, a major biblical figure from The Old Testament, which is recognized by Christians, Muslims, and others.[1]

Abrahamic religion spread globally through Christianity being adopted by the Roman Empire in the 4th century and Islam by the Islamic Empires from the 7th century. Today the Abrahamic religions are one of the major divisions in comparative religion (along with Indian, Iranian, and East Asian religions).[2] The major Abrahamic religions in chronological order of founding are Judaism (the base of the other two religions) in the 7th century BCE,[3] Christianity in the 1st century CE, and Islam in the 7th century CE.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are the Abrahamic religions with the greatest numbers of adherents.[4][5][6] Abrahamic religions with fewer adherents include the faiths descended from Yazdânism (the Yezidi, Yarsani faiths), Samaritanism,[7] the Druze faith,[8] Bábism,[9][self-published source] the Bahá’í Faith, and Rastafari.[10][11]

Quran 3:65

O People of the Scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Then will you not reason?

67. Abraham was not a Jew, nor a Christian; but he was one pure of faith and Muslim (who submitted to God with a sound heart). He was never of those who associate partners with God.

13. The Jews claimed that their religion was the true religion and, therefore, Abraham, upon him be peace, was considered to be a Jew, whereas the Christians claimed that their religion was the true one and, therefore, Abraham, upon him be peace, was considered to be a Christian. Naturally this is impossible. While they could not agree on several matters contained by their Books and matters like that of Jesus, upon him be peace, it was completely senseless that they would make claims and dispute about matters about which they had no knowledge. It is impossible that Abraham, upon him be peace, should be a Jew or a Christian, because both the Torah and Gospel were revealed centuries after Abraham, upon him be peace. Historically, Judaism and Christianity are the names given to the religions revealed to Moses and Jesus, upon them be peace, respectively by either their followers or opponents centuries later. So, Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but a Muslim, one who submitted to God wholly or who followed Islam – the Religion of submission to God.

Heeding the brother’s opinion, I hereby retract from my comment about Abrahamic Faiths.