imam ibn fuurak / error of mufti asif jalali

i think you have not read what i have written below - but simply trying to defend that slander against imam ibn furak...who knows, probably you are an admirer of mufti ashraf. [not accusing - but remember an accusation without any proof is enough to attribute a loathsome lie to an imam of ibn furak's standing]

according to you everybody among his contemporaries and his students did not know anything; and even the quote attributed to abu'l walid baji cannot be found anywhere except in dhahabi's tarikh without any attribution.

so al-bayhaqi, khatib, imam qushayri who were his students were are faithless according to you? and like devbandis? what an idiotic comment!

you need to fix your logic first.

the spurious story has no basis. you won't find that apocryphal story attributed to imam abu'l walid baji until dhahabi's tarikh. and dhahabi HIMSELF in his tazkiratu'l huffaz mentions ibn furak as "imam ibn furak".

----
secondly, devbandis were not two hundred years ago and alahazrat came after 200 hundred years and levelled the charges. one of their main culprits khalil saharanfuri (also ambethvi) was PRESENT in makkah during the husam episode and visited makkah many more times until his death. why didn't he get the likes of umar ibn Hamdan al-maHrisi to recant? (yasin fadani is his prominent student from whom the whole world takes sanad and prides in). shaykh umar ibn Hamdan al-maHrisi wrote not ONE but TWO attestations to husam.

so they were contemporaries. my question - which contemporary of ibn furak said the same?

----
thirdly, the arabs do not know what is in urdu. there is a language barrier and YET, the strict ones have said: "if it is indeed the case, it is kufr no doubt". besides we are talking about arabs not well-acquainted with devbandi nifaq in the subcontinent.

ibn furak was in nishapur and khorasan; bayhaqi and qushayri were his students. according to you they were upset with issues of aqidah which still remain as heresies and refuted them with all their might - but they did not care about such an outright kufr and they ignored ibn furak? rather kept narrating from him?

why do you think i translated the long biographies of baji and abu dharr al-harawi? to show you that they were not easy going ulama, like those in our time. they were pious, scrupulous and unrelenting.

you also don't seem to know ash'ari aqidah - and like ibn Hazm blindly accuse ash'aris of holding such aqayid.

----
fourthly, the devbandis have not denied writing it. they still print it and justify it. if you have been living in a cave for the past 20 years on the internet, you must go look at zameel's whining and lying on his blog.

we are not only contesting the spurious report but outright rejecting dhahabi's copying a false story. and you will see how stupid and irrational that made up story is. much like khalid mahmud's "student ran away from thanawi and instigated ahmad rida" kind of tripe.

----
fifthly, imam furak's own works are proof against this heinous slander.

again ignorance. imam barzanji not only wrote taqriz for husam, he repeated it in his purported refutation of alahazrat on ulum khamsah issue. khalil ahmad lied through his teeth in his "muhannad" and this is the advertisement version of deobandi aqidah.

the real version is the wahabi chamchagiri (bootlicking) which they dole out to their mindless followers. check out zameel's zaleel blog.

perhaps if you read TKM, you will be disabused of some false notions.


----

what an inane assumption!

you think in bayhaqi's time, people were churned out as 'muhaddithin' by merely sitting in 'dawrah e hadith' where few hadith from beginning, middle and end are read out. and people meet a muhaddith, get a sanad and claim "narrating from so and so". which would be a lie anyway unless you narrate from someone.

do you think those muhaddithin were as lax and generous in according titles, like speechmakers being dubbed as "imam" nowadays?


how egregious is your logic! let us take out names to make it simple for you.

a) ibn furak lived in 400 AH
b) Y, R, K, P, M all students of ibn furak do not say anything about the purported aqidah.
c) dhahabi comes in 700 AH. 300 years after ibn furak and finds a spurious story and includes it in his book.

d) in 1400 AH, a wahabi/salafi inclined researcher repeats it in his muqaddimah of ibn Hazm's work (who is himself a heretic)
e) some scholar reads out this to prove a point

f) now it has become 'ibn furak's aqidah'! according to you

first prove, HOW is it his aqidah?

 

well, in fact your reasoning isn't correct at all, there is no match between these two cases. arab ulama did not endorse deobandiyyah on their kufr, they endorsed them for presenting correct sunni aqidah to them.

deobnadi kufriat are present in their books to date; where is any evidence on the incidence that dhahabi mentioned about imam ibn furak rahimahullah without any reference? it is a clear fabrication as sidi abu Hasan noted. when great hadith masters are the students of imam ibn furak and they don't mention anything, then what is the basis to take it from dhahabi or ibn hizm who came many many years later. if ibn furak's rahimahullah execution was a true story then his disciples would have known that very well, it is not something that could have gone unnoticed, or if they had brushed it under the carpet- al iy'azu billah.

 

mawlana abu hasan, jzk while i agree with you imam ibn furak was a great ashari scholar however i don't agree with your line of reasoning or logic. it is same way deobandis say about their imams
how could arab scholars like imam barzanji and imam muhammad alawi maliki and several others endorse deobandis and four elders who held kufric aqida.

merely narrating hadith doesn't mean anything. was imams who narrate hadith were aware of all his beliefs? so this should be our question.
hadith narration could be just in one sitting or two sitting. doesn't prove that those who narrate were aware of the beliefs just like many arab scholars from sham & hijaz narrate from deobandis.

 

just a small point to note that imam abu bakr al-bayhaqi has narrated from ibn furak in

- sunan al-kubra
- shu'ab al-iyman
- dala'il an-nubuwwah
- al-aadab
- kitab al-da'awat al-kabir
- al-zuhd
- kitab al-sunan al-saghir
- ma'arifatu's sunan wa'l aathaar
- al-ba'ath wa'n nushur
- al-asma wa'l sifat
- al-iytiqad
- faDa'il al-awqat

isn't it strange that he narrates from a man accused of such a grievous aqidah who was executed for kufr (al-iyadhu billah)? and these are not merely one or two but hundreds of narrations; it could be well over a thousand.

just to remind once again imam al-bayhaqi is among imam ibn furak's prominent students.

dhahabi should himself answer how can he say "righteous imam" along with narrating an apocryphal story in which ibn furak is executed for kufr? (al-iyadhu billah).

dhahabi made an error, may Allah forgive him for his lapse of judgement - but should others keep repeating that vile story even after this has been pointed out?

nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

 

now imam abu'l-walid baji -> takes from imam abu dharr al-harawi (ibn al-sammak) -> who takes from ibn furak.

not a word from anyone about the apocryphal story mentioned by dhahabi in his tarikh about ibn furak.

none of the historians, imams had said anything close to it.

where did dhahabi find it 300 years later, attributing it to ibn furak? you may say - abu'l walid baji as he has mentioned in tarikh.

the point is - where? if you say vide ibn Hazm, i will show you ibn Hazm (presently) and it is not there. even turkmani acknowledges that.

and such a grave accusation that nobody else knows of it? yet, dhahabi himself keeps praising ibn furak as a righteous imam?

we will see that the evidence of its being a lie is present in the story itself.

let us see now what dhahabi said in his notice on ibn furak in his tarikh.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

imam abu dharr al-harawi aka ibn al-sammak (- AH) [siyar a'alam al-nubala, 17/554, #370]

the hafiz, the imam, the tajwid master, the great scholar, the shaykh of the sanctuary (shaykh al-Haram) abu dharr

abd ibn ahmad ibn muhammad ibn abdullah ibn ghufayr ibn muHammad; he was known in his land as "ibn sammaak" al-anSari, al-khurasani, al-harawi, al-maliki.

prolific author and the narrator of sahih (al-bukhari) from three narrators:

- mustamli
- Hamwi
- kushmihani

(see this thread here for bukhari narrators)

he has said: i was born in the year 355 or 356 AH.

among those he heard hadith from, are:

muhammad ibn abdullah al-khamiruwayh
bishr ibn muhammad al-muzani and many others in herat (in today's afghanistan)

abu bakr hilal ibn muhammad ibn muHammad
shayban ibn muhammad al-Duba'yi
ubaydullah ibn abdu'l raHman al-zuhri
abu umar ibn Hayyuwayh
ali ibn umar al-sukkari
abu'l Hasan al-daraqutni (and others in his grade from baghdad)

abdu'l wahhab al-kilabi and others like from damascus

abu muslim the writer and others in his grade from egypt

zahir ibn aHmad, the jurist from sarakhs

abu is'haq ibrahim ibn ahmad al-mustamli from balkh

abu is'haq ibrahim ibn muHammad ibn aHmad ibn uthman al-dinawari and others in makkah.

he has compiled a list of all his teachers/shaykhs in a "mujam" .

he narrated hadith in khurasan, baghdad and in the Haram (of makkah).​

===

those who narrate from him are:

his son, abu makrum yisa
musa ibn ali al-Siqali
ali ibn muHammad ibn abi'l hawl
qadi abu'l walid al-baji
abu imran musa ibn abu Haajj al-farisi
abu'l abbas ibn dil-hath
muhammad ibn shurayh
abu abdullah ibn manZur
abdullah ibn al-Hasan al-tinnisiy
abu Salih aHmad ibn abd al-malik al-mu'azzin
ali ibn bakkar al-Suri
aHmad ibn muhammad al-qazwini
abu't Tahir ismayil ibn sayid al-naHwi
abdullah ibn sayid al-shantajaliy
abdu'l Haq ibn harun al-sahmi
abu'l Hasan ibn al-muhtada billah
ali ibn abdu'l ghalib al-baghdadi
abu bakr ahmad ibn ali al-Turaythithiy
abu shakir ahmad ibn ali al-uthmani.

he has some fard reports.


those who report from him by permission are (bi'l ijazah):

abu umar ibn abd al-Barr
abu bakr al-khaTib
ahmad ibn abdu'l Qadir al-yusufi
abu Abdullah aHmad ibn muHammad ibn ghalbun al-khawlani (d. 508 AH).

--
he passed away in the year 434 AH.​

dhahabi then says:

he took kalam according to the creed of abu'l Hasan (i.e., al-ash'ari) from qadi abu bakr ibn Tayyib (al-baqillani) and spread it in makkah. north african scholars took it from him and carried it to maghreb (north-west africa morocco, algiers, etc), andalus (spain). and prior to this the scholars of maghreb (north-west africa) would not involve themselves in kalam; rather they would master jurisprudence (fiqh) and hadith and arabic sciences - they would not get into rational sciences.

thus were: al-aSiliy, abu'l walid ibn al-faraDi, abu umar al-Talamanky, makki al-qaysi, abu amr al-dani, abu umar ibn abd al-barr and other scholars.


ismayil ibn sayid the grammarian has written an ode praising abu dharr.

---
abu'l walid baji said in his book: ikhtiSar firaq al-fuqaha mentioning qaDi ibn al-baqillani:

shaykh abu dharr informed me and he was inclined towards his madh'hab (i.e. ash'ari). i asked him: 'why do you do so?"

he said: "i was walking with hafiz al-daraqutni in baghdad and we met abu bakr ibn al-Tayyib (al-baqillani). shaykh abu'l hasan (al-daraqutni) was very respectful towards him, he kissed his face and his eyes.

when we parted, i asked him: who is this person with whom you behaved in such a manner; and i didn't think you would do this with anyone as you are the imam of your time (the foremost scholar of your time).

he said: "he is the imam of muslims; the defender of religion; this is qaDi abu bakr muHammad ibn al-Tayyib (al-baqillani).

abu dhar said: "from that time, i began to visit him with my father. every city or town that i have visited in khurasan or elsewhere - they do not consider someone from ahl al-sunnah, except if they are in agreement with his (baqillani's) school and way (madh'hab and tariqah)."​

====

abdu'l ghafir ibn ismayil has said in "tarikh nisabur"

abu dhar was an ascetic (zahid), extremely scrupulous scholar; very generous and would not retain anything. he was among the foremost scholars of haram - a noted personality among sufis. he compiled a mustakhraj, which is a good work. he was a hafiz and had many teachers.​

=========================
dhahabi has made a glaring omission. because hafiz abu dharr had two prominent shuyukh among asha'ri imams. one is qaDi abu bakr al-baqillani, the second is none other than ibn furak.


tartib al-madarik of qadi iyad, vol.2 p.276: [older versions: 4/697]

abu dharr took plenty from abu bakr al-baqillani and abu bakr ibn al-furak from the two foremost kalam scholars of ahl al-sunnah.

​

 

imam abu'l walid sulayman al-baji (403-474 AH) [siyar a'alam al-nubala, 18/535, #274]

the imam, the great scholar, the hafiz, the versatile genius, the judge (al-qadi) abu'l walid sulayman ibn khalaf ibn sa'ad ibn ayyub ibn warith al-tujaybiy al-andalusi, al-qurtubi, al-baji, al-dhahabi - author of many works.

he was originially from the city of badajoz (arabic: batal-yaws) and his grandfather relocated to bajah, a small town near seville (ar: ishbiliyyah) and hence carries the demonym "baji". he was not from bajah in north africa (beja in today's tunisia).


abu'l walid baji was born in 403 AH.​

among his teachers are yunus ibn mughith, makki ibn abi Talib, muHammad ibn ismayil, abu bakr muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn abd al-warith.

he went on pilgrimage in the year 423 and then proceeded to iraq and asbahan (isfahan) and he met shuyukh and obtained shorter chains.

he stayed in the company of hafiz abu dharr for three years and travelled with him to al-sarah; he was in his service (for 3 years) and learned plenty from him especially hadith, fiqh and kalm.

[check follow up post on abu dharr al-harawi]

then he travelled to damascus and heard (hadith) from: abu'l qasim abdu'l rahman ibn al-Tubayyaz, Hasan al-simsar, Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn juma'y and muhammad ibn awf al-muzani.

he then went to baghdad and heard from umar ibn ibrahim al-zuhri and abu Talib muhammad ibn muHammad al-ghaylan, abu'l qasim al-az'hari, abdu'l aziz ibn ali al-azji, muHammad ibn ali al-Suri, the hafiz; and remained in the company of al-Suri for a long time.

he also heard from muhammad ibn abdu'l waHid ibn rizmah and Hasan ibn Muhammad al-khallal - and many others.

in fiqh, he studied under: qaDi abu Tayyib al-Tabari, qaDi abu abdullah al-Saymari and abu'l faDl ibn `amrus al-maliki

he then went to mosul: and stayed there for a year in the company of qaDi abu ja'afar al-simnani (the kalam scholar) and student of ibn al-baqillani and became an expert in hadith, fiqh, kalam, usul and adab.

he then returned to andalus (spain) after 13 years having gained immense knowledge - which he earned enduring poverty, hardship and very little worldly means.​

---
those who narrate from him. [imam dhahabi gives a list of names]


---

many imams learned under him and his name became famous; he has written many books.


---
among the books [cited from qadi iyad's madarik]

al-istiyfaa

al-iymaa'a in five volumes on maliki fiqh

al-siraj fi'l khilaf (which he couldn't complete)

mukhtaSar al-mukhtaSar fi masa'il al-mudawwanah

a book on variations of muwaTTa copies

a book on jarh and ta'dil (narrator criticism)

al-tasdid ila ma'rifati't tawHid

al-isharah fi usul al-fiqh

iHkam al-fuSul fi aHkam al-uSul

al-Hudud (penal law)

sharH al-minhaj

sunan al-SaliHin wa sunan al-abidin

subul al-muhtadin

firaq al-fuqaha

tafsir (which he didn't complete)

sunan al-minhaj wa tartib al-Hijaj​

====

his grave is in maria, spain (arabic: mariyyah).

thereafter dhahabi quotes imam qadi iyad about his return to andalus and refutation of ibn hazm.

when he returned to andalus he found that ibn Hazm's speech was attractive, except that he was out of the madh'hab (of ahl as sunnah or ashayirah). there was no one in andalus who could engage with him; the tongues of scholars had floundered in debating him and countering his arguments; a group of ignorant people began following him.

he took residence in the isle of mallorca (or majorca; arabic: mayuriqah) and became prominent there, and the people there began following him.

when abu'l walid returned, people complained about him and so he went to ibn Hazm and debated him, he refuted his false ideas successfully and held many meetings (for debate).

---
thereafter qaDi iyad mentions the issue of sayyiduna RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam 'writing' in the hadith of bukhari. and that some people deemed it kufr to believe so and imam abu'l walid baji considered it possible as a miracle.​

qaDi iyad also affirms that it is not at all contradictory to our belief.


====
dhahabi:

abu ali ibn sukkarah said that abu'l walid passed away in maria on the 19th of rajab in the year 474 AH. he was 71 years (a few months less).​

====
summary imam abu'l walid al-baji was a prominent ash'ari imam and his master in kalam is abu dharr al-harawi.

who is abu dharr al-harawi?

 

i will return to the discussion, but i couldn't pass turkmani's wild justifications of imam dhahabi's unjust treatment of ibn furak.

he says with a confidence that could put rumsfeld to shame:



translation of above (turkmani's words):

thereafter dhahabi raHimahullah returned to mention this report* probably because he found another source. and said:

"in spite of being pious and religious, he was aberrant and heretic"

abu'l walid sulayman al baji said: when ibn furak pursued the karramites, they wrote to mahmud ibn subuktikin, the ruler of khorasan and they told him: "this man who instigates you against us, professes things which according to you are bigger heresies and kufr than what we say. ask him about Muhammad ibn abdullah ibn abd al-muTTalib (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) - is he a Messenger of Allah, even today or not?"

this caused mahmud immense consternation and he said: "if this is certainly the case, then i will execute him."

and then he summoned him and asked him and he said: "he WAS the Messenger of Allah; as of today, he is not."

so he commanded that he be executed. some folk interceded for him and they said: "he is an old man"

so he commanded them to execute him by poison, and thus he was poisoned. [/end of dhahabi's citation ]
​

i [turkmani] say: abu muhammad ibn hazm has narrated this event from the shaykh of ash'aris in andalus, abu'l walid al-baji (d.474 AH)

and dhahabi mentioned it reporting from abu muhammad (i.e. ibn hazm) and THEN from abu'l walid in a different manner that is not found in abu muhammad's report (i.e. ibn Hazm's book).

this proves that dhahabi had found a difference source; and he could not ignore it, nor mention it; nor mention it and refute it as false because it proven and one cannot criticise it.

therefore the allegation of subki that this anecdote is false is thrown back at him. (i.e. rejected).
​

====
la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah. these researchers have neither deen nor aql. and they are blind in their animosity of ash'aris, where headless rumours are circulated as if they were mutawatir hadith!

do they not fear Allah? (i imagine years from now, someone scribbling under my name this man has no adab about scholars.)

===
when dhahabi narrated the spurious story of the purported execution of ibn fuurak, what was his proof? where did he bring it from?

turkmani's explanation above trying to "refute" imam subki's rightful allegations on imam dhahabi's unfair reporting:

1. apparently, dhahabi copied it from ibn Hazm;

2. who apparently got it from abu'l walid al-baji.

3. but then he reported from abu'l walid baji in words and the details that ibn Hazm did not mention.

4. this proves that dhahabi must have had a different source that he couldn't ignore, NOR mention it;

5. or mention it

6. and then without any evidence explicit or implied turkmani simply says: "it is proven, no one can question it".

7. and therefore according to turkmani: subki's slamming dhahabi's quotation as false is rejected.
​

sub'HanAllah, it is these people who act holier than thou and slander imam subki for questioning dhahabi's unjust reporting.

----
in addition to dhahabi, turkmani adds his own talbis and distorts the issue further.

the hard facts are:

1. ibn Hazm DID NOT REPORT THE above spurious story - neither himself, nor via abu'l walid baji. he only said that mahmud ghaznawi executed him in that mas'alah and he falsely attributed an aqidah to all the asha'irah.

2. there is no reliable source in the world that mentions that abu'l walid baji narrated this loathsome and false story.

3. turkmani and others like him (enemies of ash'airah) falsely try to present to unsuspecting readers that abu'l walid baji indeed narrated this.

4. turkmani agrees that the story attributed to abul walid al-baji VIA ibn hazm is not found in ibn Hazm's books.

5. BUT, he assumes that dhahabi might have got it from some unknown source and he couldn't let it go.

6. according to turkmani - the truth of the story is a foregone conclusion (how? turkmani has ilm ghayb? or is dhahabi a prophet that he cannot be questioned?) and hence dhahabi did not refute it as false.

7. apparently the rule is: a spurious report without any attribution is to be trusted and the opinions of the likes of bayhaqi and qushayri and ibn Salah are to be rejected!
​

===========

​

THIS ACTUALLY RAISES A BIG QUESTION ON DHAHABI:

1. if indeed, the story was true and received through reliable source - why did he not name the source? (imam subki asks this)

2. and if it was a false or some report without any attribution, why did dhahabi include it without commenting or clarifying about it?

3. if dhahabi believed that it was true, then why did he praise ibn furak as a person who was greater and better than ibn Hazm in both prominence as a scholar and his belief was better than ibn Hazm.​

----
we will see what ibn Hazm said, what dhahabi said in his tarikh and of course, imam subki's defence and refutation of dhahabi's indiscretion.

but before that: who is abu'l walid baji?

 

we have to look for izz, qadi and kinani who is a contemporary of sakhawi.

so we look up al-Daw al-lamiy li ahli'l qarn al-tasi'y, vol.1 p.205 and find:

ahmad ibn ibrahim ibn naSrullah ibn ahmad ibn muhammad ibn abi'l fatH ibn hashim ibn isma'yil ibn ibrahim ibn naSrullah ibn aHmad; the qaDi, izzuddin abu'l barakat ibn al-burhan ibn naSiruddin al-kinani al-asqalani; originaly from cairo; al-SaliHi al-Hanbali.

he was born in 800 AH and passed away in 876 AH.




====

suyuti in his Husn al-Muhadarah mentions the name without kinani but as a hanbali qadi:



---
so it was another izzuddin: a Hanbali qadi and his criticism of an ash'ari has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

if subki says something he is "ill mannered" but if qadi izzuddin says the same thing - there is no blame upon him!

firstly, qadi izzuddin was born 29 years after the passing of imam subki (d. 771 AH). so there is no way he could have first hand information about the 'manners' of imam subki. in fact, in the above citation he says so based on the purported statement of subki.

which other contemporary and later historian or imam said the same thing about imam subki?

====

ta'aSSub - fanaticism or partisanship makes people say things. such epithets said or written in a fit of anger or as a retort cannot be deemed to be THE truth and that the author/speaker believed in it.

what made qadi izzudin write that retort?

it is in sakhawi's al-iylan itself:







imam subki had supposedly written this refuting hanbalis: "o muslim! have some shame in the Presence of Allah! how long will you risk your faith? how long will you disparage the ahl al-sunnah and they are the ash'aris. since when were they hanbalis? is there any hanbali who is worthy of raising his head?"

where did sakhawi see this? it is not found in any of imam subki's book (to the best of my knowledge) and suppose imam subki had written notes in another work where salamah ibn sayyad was mentioned, how did sakhawi identify imam subki's hand?



let us assume he did and it was subki's comment without any doubt. but still, is this such a grave statement? just pick up books of ibn abdu'l hadi and some others who rave against the subki father and son.

what is amusing is that qadi izzuddin thinks that the statement indicates imam subki's poor manners, but he said the same thing about ash'aris and worse - he berated them as deniers of sifat calling them 'muattilah'.

---
if everything written by every scholar is taken as naSS of the qur'an, then sakhawi's attacks on imam suyuti resulted in his acerbic retorts in al-kawiy li dimagh al-sakhawi; so everyone who writes a biographical notice on sakhawi should include this parting line from suyuti's al-kawi:



---

all those who disparage imam al-subki and his criticism of dhahabi only resort to ad hominems; whereas, imam subki has given examples to justify his criticism of dhahabi which no one can deny.

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

Dr GF Haddad:

https://www.livingislam.org/n/shf_e.html

 

the editor turkmani seems to be inimical to ash'aris and vents his spleen upon imam tajuddin subki as is the wont of the wahabi/taymiyyites.



in the footnote, this turkmani vituperates imam taj al-subki and attributes a quote to sakhawi, wherein he says:

ibn al subki was a tough ash'ari fanatic who was extremely prejudiced and sakhawi has cited in his "al iylan bi't tawbikh" that izzuddin ibn jama'ah al-kinani (d. 767 AH) that he said about imam ibn al-subki (i.e. tajuddin): "he was a man with little adab, bereft of justice. ignorant of the ahl al-sunnah and their rank".​

and he attributes this citation to dr. bash'har awwad ma'ruf.

======
the world is full of such shoddy and lazy 'researchers'.

the above quote is cited by turkmani --->
from preface of siyar by one dr. bash'shar --->
who apparently cites from sakhawi in iylan --->
who apparently cites from izzuddin ibn jama'ah al-kinani (d. 767 AH)

---
i was flabbergasted at turkmani's footnote, because it beggars belief, and is obviously false. anyone with some experience with ulama biographies would know this. but one needs to get to the root of this matter, so i dug up both bash'shar's preface and sakhawi's iylan.

in dr. bash'shar's preface - vol.1 p.130 of siyar a'alam al-nubala as cited by turkmani:



notice something?

dr. bash'shar says:

sakhawi accused subki of ash'ari fanaticism and cited the statement of izzuddin al-kinani (d. 819 AH) about subki that he was: "a man with poor manners (bad etiquette), bereft of justice and ignorant of ahl al-sunnah and their rank".​

the izzuddin kinani mentioned is without ibn jama'ah and that he passed away in 819 AH.

clearly, when turkmani saw "izzuddin" he assumed it was the well known izzuddin ibn jama'ah, who passed away in 767 AH and is a highly respected hadith master. he didn't even bother to think whether it was possible.

because when ibn jama'ah is a shafi'yi and an ash'ari himself; how could he say that about tajuddin subki is a contemporary shafiyi and a student of his father who was a critic of ibn taymiyyah? yet, it is not impossible. ibn jama'ah could have criticised ibn al-subki.

but that is not the case here. dr. bash'shar provides the hint that the izzuddin al-kinani passed away in 819 AH.

---
so let us look up sakhawi's statement in al-iylan:

and it is therefore, that under his (subki's) handwriting, the qadi of our time, the shaykh of hanbalis, al-izz al-kinani wrote thus:
"and so also, by Allah, no denier of attribute has ever raised his head"

then he described taj (al-subki) thus: "he was a man of poor manners, bereft of justice, and ignorant of the ahl al-sunnah and their ranks; his speech is enough evidence of this.." ​

====

obviously, this izz is a hanbali and according to dr. bash'shar passed away in 819 AH. so clearly izzuddin ibn jam'ah is not the shaykh.

but, wait a minute - this izz passed away in 819 AH and sakhawi was BORN in 831 AH. then how could sakhawi say that "the qadi of our time and shaykh of the hanabila, izz al-kinani" ?

it gets curioser and curioser.


----
so we searched the prominent ulama who passed away in 819 AH. we look up shadharat al-dhahab of ibn imad al-Hanbali: 9/204



izzuddin muhammad ibn sharafuddin abi bakr ibn izzuddin abdu'l aziz ibn badruddin muhammad ibn burhanuddin ibrahim ibn sa'adullah ibn jama'ah al-shafi'yi

clearly he is the great grandson of ibn jama'ah the grandmaster. so let us quickly recap the dates:


izzuddin muhammad ibn sharafuddin abi bakr ibn jama'ah [741-819 AH]; author of daraj al-ma'ali sharh bad' al amali.

is the son of sharafuddin abu bakr, who is the son of:

izzudin abdu'l aziz ibn badruddin ibn jama'ah [d. 767 AH]

shaykh al-islam badruddin muhammad ibn burhanuddin ibrahim ibn jama'ah [d. 733 AH]; author of many works, tazkiratus samiy, idah al-dalil, sharh kifayatu ibn hajib etc.


---
turkmani's note that izzuddin ibn jama'ah passed away in 767 AH is right - but he is not the izz mentioned by sakhawi.

bash'shar's note that izzuddin ibn jama'ah passed away in 819 AH is right - but he is not the izz mentioned by sakhawi either.

certainly sakhawi did not say "ibn jama'ah", these were assumptions by the authors above.

so we need to search for izz who is a hanbali qadi and a contemporary of sakhawi.

wa billahi't tawfiq

 

what's more surprising is that the quote cannot be found in al-durrah of ibn Hazm at all.

i spent a couple hours quickly scanning ibn Hazm's work (i had an older version) but the quote couldn't be found. and the style/theme of the book also doesn't lend to such anecdotes. thankfully, mufti sahib had mentioned the page number and since i couldn't locate it in my copy (the actual book starts at p174; total 514 pages), i thought it could probably be found in another edition. and i had a hunch that it could be in the editor's preface.

the first search result landed me here: https://archive.org/details/tkng5

true enough, the passage as translated by mufti sahib is certainly there, but it is disappointing to note that he has messed the citation. in summary:

1. the quote is not in the book "al-durrah"

2. it is certainly found on p113 of the edition of al-durrah.

3. these are citations by the editor al-turkmani

now the editor is very unfair and is inclined to lend credence to the rumour circulated by dhahabi. and to justify dhahabi and ibn hazm, he talks about "unknown unknowns" as proof of his argument to support dhahabi and reject subki. i will come back to his clutching at straws and burning them, presently. which will also be a good example of text criticism.

 

it is fine. but i don't want to just post screenshots. i hope to make notes for students so they too can learn how to analyse quotes - and 'think' - rather than just quote what one finds in a book.

when one comes across a negative comments or a superlative praise of someone, one should naturally make mental notes to ask:

- was he a contemporary and/or a rival
- if so, is the rivalry well known
- has he criticised the same person in other books; if so, are there other books?
- have others criticised them? what did they say?
- is the critic citing from second hand sources?
- if so, what could be his sources (this would require knowledge of the author, his predilections or antipathy towards the person in question or his beliefs; and the common sources he might quote from - apart from explicit mention by some authors that they have used x,y,z resources)
- and if so, can you look up those other sources?
- if not, what could be the justifications (for or against)
- assuming the author is mistaken, what could be the reasons owing to which he might have said it
- could he have changed his position later?

and many more.

---
wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

and then ibn hazm and his book durrah. every muslim should be warned of ibn hazm and his deranged rambling against ahl al-sunnah. his books are impermissible for commoners to read. only scholars who are well-acquainted with aqayid and the aberrations of ibn hazm can look in them for reference and to learn about HIM; not learn FROM him. nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

i fail to understand why mufti sahib had to resort to ibn Hazm's books of all the books in the world! ibn Hazm's durrah is teeming with heretical beliefs.

for example: ibn Hazm says that one who considers Allah does not have power upon zulm (oppression) deems Him weak and whoever deems Allah ta'ala is weak (al iyadhu billah) is a kafir. see durrah p. 320 (my copy is obviously different than the one mufti ashraf is reading from).



it is an inane argument which devbandis also keep regurgitating. ibn Hazm's reasoning was incredibly stupid, irrespective of his learning. and this just only glaring example of his incompetence in kalam/aqayid. no wonder such people were enemies of ash'ari mutakallimun. a thousand ibn Hazms cannot hold a candle to one student of ibn furak, let alone the ustaz himself! raDiyAllahu anhu.

 

this clip also highlights the fact that the aligations by the Karramiyya were false and the poisoning was carried out by the Karramiyya because things didn't work out the way they'd planned.

 

even wikipedia offers a more generous account:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Furak

the Arabic wiki also says:

https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ابن_فورك#محنته_مع_الكرامية

Arabic wiki page citing Tabaqat of Imam Tajuddin Subki

will let brother @abu Hasan get back to his analyses. sorry, i couldn't hold back from linking this.

 

look at dhahabi himself introducing the imam:

will a righteous scholar profess such an odious belief?

and who are his students?

al bayhaqi! not a word from him about ibn furak being executed for kufr. al iyadhu billah.

i am surprised at ashraf jalali sahib who was reading out from the siyar citation and did not notice that bayhaqi and qushayri narrate from him. we will see more about this in subki's comments in sha'Allah. even if one has not seen exonerations of the imam, mere mention of bayhaqi qushayri should make one to look up whether THEY had anything to say.

and dhahabi himself says:

al-Hakim narrates from him. since when is it permissible for one to narrate from a heretic who does not believe in finality of prophethood?

since when did "destruction of souls" become an ash'ari belief?

--
the truth is imam dhahabi KNEW the truth. but his animosity of ashayirah got the better of him and he simply kept quiet.

then we see how abu ali daqqaq who is imam al-qushayri's shaykh respect imam ibn furak. how could anyone attribute such ugly beliefs to him?

nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.

 

i saw that video of Jalali saab some weeks/months back and it struck me too, and i felt that anecdote needed a more detailed research unless perhaps if he didn't refer to THE Imam Ibn Furak!

 

it is very unfair of dhahabi to cite reports without clarifying them whether they were lies.

for example he says:

this is a clear insinuation and may Allah forgive imam dhahabi, his antagonism towards ashairah.

in both ibn asakir's tabyin and imam subki's tabaqat, the story is narrated by imam ibn furak himself.

he says: i was arrested and taken to shiraz on account of the strife (in religion). so when we reached the door of the city by dawn, and i was very sad. when it was bright daylight, my eyes fell on the niche of a mosque that was near the door of the city and it was written:

أ ليس الله بكاف عبده
is Allah not sufficient for His slave?

i realised that i would be comforted soon, and thus it happened.

[and in ibn asakir:] they released me with respect.​

====
so just mentioning part of it is a half-truth and misleading.