Salafis quoting ibn Hajar al-Asqalani - S:28,v.88: “illa mulkahu” : saying of Mu’amar not al-Bukhari

Discussion in 'Refutation' started by muslim_student, Sep 28, 2019.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. muslim_student

    muslim_student New Member

    As-salam `alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

    Jazakum Allahu khairan
     
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    while reading my posts again, i noticed that i had made an error in transcribing imam farabri's name - which i have corrected now after double-checking with sam'ani's al-ansaab. posting it here - just in case someone may have any use for it. pro-tip for students: for names prior to 560 AH, sam'ani's al-ansab is a very good resource to ascertain pronunciation of unfamiliar names.

    farabri:

    ansab, v4p359.png

    ---
    also another correction:

    khattabi narrates most of al-jamiy of al-bukhari from al-khayyam from nasafi; some portion he narrates from muhammad ibn khalid from farabri. both nasafi and farabri narrate from bukhari [see a'alam of khattabi, 1/106]. both nasafi and farabri are among the famous narrators of bukhari. in my haste i had linked them both.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2019
  3. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    don't talk about albani. let it go.

    the concept of aali and nazil in sanad [more or less links in the chain of narration] can go fish in the dead sea.

    if you go to the next part of the fatwa, you will see that they won't believe it EVEN if bukhari said it himself and found in available manuscripts/copies of sahih al-bukhari!

    so the drama about not finding something in extant manuscripts is only a convenient excuse.

    ---
    in the second narration, imam bukhari apparently cites ma'amar [abu `ubaydah ibn al-muthanna 110-209 AH] in the heading of a chapter. take a look: see fat'h al-bari 10/472, #4889.

    fathbari v10p472.png


    according to salafi fatwa on islamqa:
    this could mean either way: that is, imam bukhari quoted it as an opinion he approves of, or as other opinions said in this issue without his own approval.

    islamqa110a.png
    ---
    but notice: ibn hajar - whose knowledge of bukhari and manuscripts etc is acknowledged and praised in the same fatwa; and upon whose comment they confidently brush it away as "ma'amar's opinion NOT bukhari's"...did he criticise it?

    surprise surprise - other than pointing out that ma'mar said it, ibn hajar added ANOTHER opinion to strengthen it. i.e. imam tabari has mentioned it in his tafsir. [tafsir-tabariy, v18p 353]

    taftabry, v18p353.png


    those are the only two opinions he has mentioned. far from clarifying that it is not bukhari's opinion, ibn hajar is supporting that view by adding another route. let us quickly check a few other hadith commentaries:

    ayni in umdat al-qari has no reservations. he explicitly affirms that imam bukhari has made that tafsir:

    umdatqari, v19p148.png


    "and he explained wajh as 'mulk' or dominion."

    ===
    kirmani in kawakib al-darari stated without objection

    kirmani, v18p36.png


    ibn mulaqqin in al-tawDiH also stated this without any objection.

    shbukhari ibnmulaqqin, v23p85.png


    [also suyuti has stated in his al-tawshih].

    qasTallani in his irshad al-sari:

    irshadsari, v7p281.png


    ===
    none of the commentators (to the best of my knowledge) took exception and said imam bukhari did not approve of it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2019
  4. muslim_student

    muslim_student New Member



    السلام عليكم ورحمة الله تعالى وبركاته



    JazakAllahu khayran sidi, this example help to understand some incoherences.

    I asked because i did not find any rebuttal regarding this claim, if you can detail inch'Allah the evidence about Imam al-Bukhari's taweel concerning S: 28, v.88.


    BarakAllahufikum


     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2019
  5. muslim_student

    muslim_student New Member

    -------------------------
     
  6. muslim_student

    muslim_student New Member

    Wa `alaykum as-salam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh


    Their refutation maybe is sourced from cheikh al-albani durus and fatawi :

    http://islamport.com/w/amm/Web/1482/514.htm


    On the contextual-integrity, you can read these two pages in this book inch'Allah : https://archive.org/details/waqfsamfo/page/n522

    Informations on this book : fatawi of al-Albani : https://waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=2395


    Audio part to listen begin at 38:22




    cheikh al-Albani even said :"Ya akhi, no muslim mu'min would say such a thing" (negating that al-Imam al-Bukhari did taweel of "illa wajhah" by "illa mulkah")







    Very useful, Jazakum Allahu khairan.
     
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    see? if the person who wrote it stopped to think, he would realise the patent contradiction and perhaps would be embarrassed at the display of his ignorance.

    ---
    who is khattabi? see here. [d.388 AH]

    who is bayhaqi? see here. [d. 458 AH]

    ---
    anyway, khattabi narrates [the book] sahih al-bukhari

    from
    khalaf ibn muhammad ibn isma'yil al-khayyam al-bukhari [d.361 AH] who narrates
    from qadi ibrahim ibn ma'aqil ibn al-Hajjaj abu is'Haq al-nasafi [d.295 AH]
    from abu abdullah muhammad ibn isma'yil al-bukhari, the author [d.256 AH].

    AND

    from muhammad ibn khalid ibn al-Hasan
    from
    abu abdullah muhammad ibn yusuf ibn matar al-farabri [231-320 AH]
    from abu abdullah muhammad ibn isma'yil al-bukhari, the author [d.256 AH].

    farabri says that he heard the whole of bukhari from the author himself TWO times. the first time in 248 AH and the second time in 252 AH. he is one of the routes of the sahih bukhari we have in our time.

    ----
    imam abu abdullah al-hakim is a contemporary of khattabi [abu sulayman Hamd] and as dhahabi says: 'contemporary [similar] in age and sanad'. yet al-Hakim has narrated from khattabi.

    bayhaqi has reported from al-Hakim; so it is highly probable that he might have quoted khattabi. after all khattabi is a thiqah and i think he was the first to write a commentary on bukhari [don't quote me, i will check first].

    ----
    compare this to imam ibn Hajar al-asqalani, who lived in the 8-9th century: 773-852 AH. born 385 years after al-khattabi.

    =====
    the answer QUOTES khattabi from his a'alam but it is not 'evidence' enough. there is no textual evidence. only hearsay and rumour:
    but...khattabi said it. who is khattabi? come let me tell you about ibn Hajar who is a full 385 years after khattabi and whose extensive knowledge of all extant manuscripts of bukhari outstrips khattabi's who claims only one link to farabri! besides we won't tell you that ibn hajar did not deny it outright - he only pointed out that HE HAS NOT SEEN. but why should we let such a small detail come in between our decision to reject bukhari's ta'wil?


    ====
    as for bayhaqi - this insinuation that he might have quoted khattabi is not proven - it is only to reduce the two narrators to one source (i.e. if bayhaqi narrates from khattabi, it is ONLY khattabi). even if it were true, what is the harm?

    isn't khattabi one of the towering hadith masters and considered a thiqah imam? then why is his statement not 'evidence' for you? just because YOU did not see it?

    is the chance of khattabi having seen it more than ibn Hajar or does ibn Hajar have better access than khattabi? where is your logic? of course imam ibn hajar is shaykh al-islam - but are al-khattabi and al-bayhaqi any lesser to him?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2019
    Unbeknown likes this.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    if the salafis have made up their mind about what their anthropomorphist bosses have said - they will do ta'wil of everything else.

    the problem with salafis is - sorry for being blunt - they are stupid. and blame ibn taymiyyah for it if you wish. he was against studying [formal] logic and modern salafis [probably..] took that literally and refuse to think logically. to prove this point i googled this term to get it from a proper salafi source (the english link appears to be a translation anyway) and here is the first result i got. (have added a screenshot in case the answer is changed or deleted):

    https://tinyurl.com/y6rwl8y6

    ----
    a quick approximate translation goes thus:

    the question asks whether imam bukhari did ta'wil of the words 'DiHk' and 'wajh'. [DiHk or DaHik]

    the answer:
    concerning the attribute of 'DiHk': there is no known textual evidence that proves that bukhari made ta'wil and considered it metaphor for 'Divine Mercy'. however, this ta'wil has been attributed to bukhari thus:

    1. al-khattabi in his "a'alam al-hadith fi sharh al-bukhari' 3/1921 and he said: "abu abdullah [i.e. bukhari] has said that the meaning of 'DiHk' is '[Divine] Mercy'.

    2. also, bayhaqi has attributed in his "al-asma'a wa's-sifat" 2/72 and he said: "farabri has narrated from muhammad ibn isma'yil al-bukhari raHimahullah that he said that the meaning of DiHk is Mercy.

    perhaps bayhaqi has taken from khaTTabi, as he usually transmits from him.

    the attribution [of this opinion/ta'wil] is doubtful - because ibn Hajar raHimahullah, whose extensive knowledge of manuscripts of sahih al-bukhari is legendary and he negates the existence of this text in any manuscript that he has come across.

    hafiz ibn Hajar raHimahullah said: "khattabi stated that abu abdullah [i.e. bukhari] has said that the meaning of DiHk here, is [Divine] Mercy. i say [i.e. ibn Hajar]: i have not seen in the manuscripts that we have of bukhari." fat'H al-bari [8/632].

    conclusion: it is not possible to say with conviction that imam bukhari made this ta'wil - because the manuscripts that have reached us and the reliable ones among them are devoid of this explanation.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.




    islamqa bukhari dihk fatwa.png
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2019
    Unbeknown likes this.
  9. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    wa 'alaykum as salaam

    sorry but it was just a quip.


    We still haven't established the authenticity and contextual-integrity of the first post. There's no point moving to the next before that.

    Having said that, the second post it still amusing for the obvious desperation - all to no end.

    Even if someone "proves" that Imam Bukhari did not do ta'weel, they achieve exactly nothing, for the ahlussunnah wal jama'ah do not hold ta'weel as a necessity for soundness of aqeedah.

    I am sure there are tons of articles on the internet (some may be available on our forums too, as well as on sunnianswers.wordpress.com) where the subject of ta'weel vs tafweed is discussed. Do look them up.

    ---

    For a handy reference see Bad'il Amali translated by Mawlana abu Hasan here.

    In footnote#32 the sunni position is explained in brief:

    upload_2019-9-29_22-6-25.png
     
  10. muslim_student

    muslim_student New Member

    السلام عليكم ورحمة الله تعالى وبركاته



    But to prove this, they quote Ibn Kathir and ibn Battal : https://umabdullah.wordpress.com/20...-means-mulk-dominion-thus-making-tawil-of-it/


     
  11. Unbeknown

    Unbeknown Senior Moderator

    just going by their own quotes:

    this does not prove this:

     
  12. muslim_student

    muslim_student New Member

    السلام عليكم ورحمة الله تعالى وبركاته


    Sahih al-Bukhari :


    Salafis are quoting ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) about - S:28,v.88: that “illa mulkahu” : is a saying of Mu’amar not of al Imam al-Bukhari (rahimahullah)


    Is there an answer to that claim ?


    Their refutation maybe is sourced from cheikh al-albani durus and fatawi :

    http://islamport.com/w/amm/Web/1482/514.htm



    Quoting :



    • الكتاب : دروس للشيخ محمد ناصر الدين الألباني
      المؤلف : محمد ناصر الدين الألباني (المتوفى : 1420هـ)
      مصدر الكتاب : دروس صوتية قام بتفريغها موقع الشبكة الإسلامية
      http://www.islamweb.net
      [الكتاب مرقم آليا، ورقم الجزء هو رقم الدرس - 46 درسا]

    بيان قول البخاري في تفسير: (كل شيء هالك إلا وجهه)


    السؤال
    لي عدة أسئلة، ولكن قبل أن أبدأ أقول: أنا غفلت بالأمس عن ذكر هذه المسألة، وهي عندما قلت: إن الإمام البخاري ترجم في صحيحه في معنى قوله تعالى: { كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ } [القصص:88] قال: إلا ملكه.
    صراحة أنا نقلت هذا الكلام عن كتاب اسمه: دراسة تحليلية لعقيدة ابن حجر ، كتبه أحمد عصام الكاتب ، وكنت معتقداً أن نقل هذا الرجل إن شاء الله صحيح، ولازلت أقول: يمكن أن يكون نقله صحيحاً، ولكن أقرأ عليك كلامه في هذا الكتاب.
    إذ يقول: قد تقدم ترجمة البخاري لسورة القصص في قوله تعالى: { كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ } [القصص:88]، أي: إلا ملكه، ويقال: (إلا) ما أريد به وجه الله، وقوله: إلا ملكه، قال الحافظ في رواية النسفي وقال معمر فذكره، و معمر هذا هو أبو عبيدة بن المثنى ، وهذا كلامه في كتابه مجاز القرآن ، لكن بلفظ (إلا هو)، فأنا رجعت اليوم إلى الفتح نفسه فلم أجد ترجمة للبخاري بهذا الشيء، ورجعت لـ صحيح البخاري دون الفتح ، فلم أجد هذا الكلام للإمام البخاري ، ولكنه هنا كأنه يشير إلى أن هذا الشيء موجود برواية النسفي عن الإمام البخاري ، فما جوابكم؟

    الجواب
    جوابي تقدم سلفاً.
    السائل: أنا أردت أن أبين هذا مخافة أن أقع في كلام على الإمام البخاري .
    الشيخ: أنت سمعت مني التشكيك في أن يقول البخاري هذه الكلمة؛ لأن تفسير قوله تعالى: { وَيَبْقَى وَجْهُ رَبِّكَ ذُو الْجَلالِ وَالْأِكْرَامِ } [الرحمن:27] أي: ملكه، يا أخي! هذا لا يقوله مسلم مؤمن، وقلت أيضاً: إن كان هذا موجوداً فقد يكون في بعض النسخ، فإذاً الجواب تقدم سلفاً، وأنت جزاك الله خيراً الآن بهذا الكلام الذي ذكرته تؤكد أنه ليس في البخاري مثل هذا التأويل الذي هو عين التعطيل.
    السائل: يا شيخنا! على هذا كأن مثل هذا القول موجود في الفتح ، وأنا أذكر أني مرة راجعت هذه العبارة باستدلال أحدهم، فكأني وجدت مثل نوع هذا الاستدلال، أي: أنه موجود وهو في بعض النسخ، لكن أنا قلت له: إنه لا يوجد إلا الله عز وجل، وإلا مخلوقات الله عز وجل، ولا شيء غيرها، فإذا كان كل شيء هالك إلا وجهه، أي: إلا ملكه، إذاً ما هو الشيء الهالك؟!! الشيخ: هذا يا أخي! لا يحتاج إلى تدليل على بطلانه، لكن المهم أن ننزه الإمام البخاري عن أن يؤول هذه الآية وهو إمام في الحديث وفي الصفات، وهو سلفي العقيدة والحمد لله.
    وسبحانك الله وبحمدك، أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت، أستغفرك وأتوب إليك .

    (43/6)


    ---------------------------

    The refutation from the salafi site : https://umabdullah.wordpress.com/category/replying-to-false-accusations/replying-to-gibril-f-haddad/




    Evidence that al Bukhari rahimahu Allah did not have the opinion that “Wajh” in ayah [28:88=Everything will perish save His Wajh (face)] means “His Mulk \ dominion”

    1_ al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar rahimahu Allah says in explanation of this section in sahih al Bukhari:

    قَوْله : ( إِلَّا وَجْهه : إِلَّا مُلْكه )
    فِي رِوَايَة النَّسَفِيِّ ” وَقَالَ مَعْمَر ” : فَذَكَرَهُ . وَمَعْمَر هَذَا هُوَ أَبُو عُبَيْدَة بْن الْمُثَنَّى ، وَهَذَا كَلَامه فِي كِتَابه ” مَجَاز الْقُرْآن ” لَكِنْ بِلَفْظِ ” إِلَّا هُوَ “

    Translation:

    His saying: ( illa wajhah: except His mulk)
    In the narration of an-Nasfi (check note below in red): “and Mu’mar said“: then he mentioned it (the opinion above).
    and Mu’amar is Abu Ubaidah bin al-Muthanna, and this is his saying in his book “majaz al-Quran” but with the lafth (illa huwa).

    so it means that in the narration of an-Nasfi the words “and Mu’amar said:” were before the word “illa Mulkah”.
    and in this narration, in this book of sahih al-Bukhari, these words were left out.

    so this means that the saying “illa mulkahu\except His mulk\dominion” is the saying of Mu’amar not al-Bukhari rahimahu Allah.

    2_ Hafidh Ibn Kathir rahimahu Allah said in his tafsir regarding opinion of Bukhari in his sahih in this same ayah:
    وقال مجاهد والثوري في قوله: { كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلا وَجْهَهُ } أي: إلا ما أريد به وجهه،
    وحكاه البخاري في صحيحه كالمقرر له.

    Rough translation:
    Mujahid and ath-Thawri said regarding His (Allah’s) saying: (Everything will perish save His Face [Wajh]=28:88), meaning: except what is done for sake of Allah.
    and al Bukhari mentioned it in his sahih like being his opinion regarding its tafsir
    As for evidance that he confirmed the attribute of Wajh (face) and didn’t do ta’wil to it:

    1_ He mentioned this same ayah (28:88) in the Chapter of (Tawheed – which includes tawhid of sifat\attributes) :

    (1) بَاب قَوْلِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى
    { كُلُّ شَيْءٍ هَالِكٌ إِلَّا وَجْهَهُ }
    حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ عَنْ عَمْرٍو عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ
    لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الْآيَةُ
    { قُلْ هُوَ الْقَادِرُ عَلَى أَنْ يَبْعَثَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابًا مِنْ فَوْقِكُمْ }
    قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَعُوذُ بِوَجْهِكَ فَقَالَ
    { أَوْ مِنْ تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِكُمْ }
    فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَعُوذُ بِوَجْهِكَ قَالَ
    { أَوْ يَلْبِسَكُمْ شِيَعًا }
    فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ هَذَا أَيْسَرُ
    chapter: Allah’s saying: (he mentions same ayah above).
    narrate Qutaiba … etc. (chain of narration)
    when this ayah came down (Say: He is able to send punishment upon you from above you [6:65])
    The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: I seek refuge with Your face (bi wajhika)
    (or from beneath your feet )
    so the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said: i seek refuge with Your face
    (or to bewilder you with dissension and make you taste the tyranny one of another.)
    so the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa salam said: this is easier

    If he believed that wajh does not mean the attribute of Allah (an attribute of the essence) “al wajh” (face), he would not have narrated this hadith specifically in this section, because he mentions hadiths in which the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam seeks refuge with Allah’s wajh, stressing it means “wajh” and not anything else, and if he believed it meant “mulk” or anything else (doing ta’wil to it) and didn’t believe that face is one of Allah’s attributes, he would have brought a hadith pointing to that (about mulk or whatever one believes he considers “wajh” to mean), not hadiths mentioning the word “wajh”.

    Also, Imam al-Bukhari rahimahu Allah would narrate hadiths that are relevant to chapter heading, in which this chapter’s heading was the ayah (28:88) showing what it means.
    He would bring hadiths that have tafsir of the ayah in chapter of tafsir, but in chapter of tawhid he puts ayat and hadith related to it, and this is included in tawhid of sifat, because it is evidence for the attribute of face.
    so, in addition to his opinion about tafsir of the ayah (everything perishes except what is done for His sake), he also believed it is evidence that wajh (face) is one of Allah’s attributes of the essence.

    2_ also, Ibn Battal (A.H. 400s ) said, in his sharh of sahih al-Bukhari of the chapter in kitab at-tawhid in sahih al-Bukhari:

    [فيه: جَابِر، لَمَّا نَزَلَتْ على النَّبِىّ – صلى الله عليه وسلم – : {قُلْ هُوَ الْقَادِرُ عَلَى أَنْ يَبْعَثَ عَلَيْكُمْ عَذَابًا مِنْ فَوْقِكُمْ} [الأنعام: 65]، قَالَ – صلى الله عليه وسلم – : « أَعُوذُ بِوَجْهِكَ » ، فَقَالَ: {أَوْ مِنْ تَحْتِ أَرْجُلِكُمْ}، قَالَ عليه السّلام: « أَعُوذُ بِوَجْهِكَ » ، قَالَ: {أَوْ يَلْبِسَكُمْ شِيَعًا}، قَالَ النَّبِىُّ – صلى الله عليه وسلم – : « هَذَا أَيْسَرُ » .
    استدلاله من هذه الآية والحديث على أن لله تعالى وجهًا هو صفة ذاته

    Translation of the part in blue:
    “His using of this ayah and hadith as evidence that Allah has a wajh (face), that is an attribute of the essence”.
    Then he explains about the attribute of face and that it is confirmed without likening it to creation saying “so it is confirmed that he has a face that is not like faces

    also, the ayah used in title of the chapter after this one, mentions “bi-a’yonina” and ” ala ‘ayni” he mentions under it hadiths about dajjal, and Allah’s not being “a’war”
    which shows that he confirms ‘ayn (eye) as being an attribute, and Ibn Battal rahimahu Allah explains that.
    and in chapter after that in kitab at-Tawhid, Imam al-BUkhari has the ayah which mentions “bi-yaday” (with my 2 hands) and he puts under it hadiths that talk about Allah’s hands.

    so all those chapters have ayat the mentions attributes of dhat, and it is in the book of tawhid of sahih al-Bukhari rahimahu Allah.
    now if he didn’t believe these were attributes of dhat he wouldn’t have put these specific ayat with those hadiths in book of tawhid and put them right after each other, choosing those ayat specifically.
    and if he made ta’wil to them he would have mentioned so in those places, or he would have put hadiths indicating that he believed that it meant other than the dhahir meaning or if he believed they weren’t attributes of Allah, and something else, he wouldn’t have mentioned them in book of Tawhid.

    Note:

    The book “sahih al Bukhari” was narrated by a number of narrators, including al Nasfi (Ibrahim bin Ma’qal an Nasfi), so their is more than one narration of the book of sahih al Bukhari.

    Ibn Hajar mentions in different places in his sharh (explanation) if their is an addition in a narration (of sahih al Bukhari) that is not in the narration he used for his sharh and so on.
    In the narration used in the book that is found with us, of sahih al Bukhari, the part “and ma’mar said” before “illa Mulkahu” is not mentioned, but it is mentioned in the narration of an Nasfi, so the narration of sahih al Bukhari by an Nasfi clearifies for us who said “illa Mulkahu“, which is Ma’mar and not al Bukhari
    and al Bukhari was mentioning Ma’mar’s tafsir of this ayah.

     

Share This Page