atabek the donkey and mudraj

apparently, all forgeries.

the above is from an article posted by one of his minions. i will not link it here. this is a clique of deranged babblers.

 

just to point out that in hadith #4712 of bukhari, there is something which can be called mudraj. but certainly not the part atabek claims to be mudraj.



wAllahu a'alam.

 

i think we must end it here.

and take up the other comments of atabek the donkey.

 

in three well known compendiums of mutawatir hadith:

jalaluddin suyuti in az'har al-mutanathirah and the longer qaTf al-az'har mentions this hadith:







kattani in nazm al-mutanathir min al-hadith al-mutawatir




and murtada zabidi in laqT al-la'ali

 

going back to the hadith of bukhari and muslim, the portion which atabek claims to be mudraj is:

a) clearly a quotation; there is no way it can be misunderstood to be an interpretation or explanation by the narrator. unless you suspend your intelligence and blindly accept "shaykh" atabek's claim, there is no way you can say that this portion is "added by later tabei narrators" or whatever.

RasulAllah SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is quoting the five prophets: hazrat aadam, hazrat nuH, hazrat ibrahim, hazrat musa and hazrat yisa. and these are words of THOSE prophets sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam.

in one fell swoop, atabek is saying the words of these great prophets salawatullahi wa salamuhu alayhim - not to mention the one citing it alayhi afDalu's salatu wa's salam:

[al-iyadhu billah:] "silly lies" "idiotic insults to God".

let us recall - that a SaHiH Hadith means that it is handed down by trustworthy narrators; thus the probability of being said by RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam, is very high. where the ulama of hadith advise that if one encounters a narration that doesn't have a proper sanad, one should not be hasty in calling it a lie - rather one should say: "i don't know of this" "this is not proven near me" unless, imams of hadith and researchers have identified as a lie. because, there is a peril in it that you may label the saying of RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam as a lie, al-iyadhu billah.

then what about a muttafaq alayhi hadith?

=====
b) the description of mudraj is that it is an inadvertent addition; but in this hadith, the same sentence is repeated FIVE times AND as a citation.

there is no doubt that it is deliberate - and a deliberate [mudraj] introduction is Haram.

isn't it a miracle that all the hadith imams are oblivious of this great discovery made by atabek [the .....] making him even more perspicuous than qaDi iyad, nawawi, ibn Hajar and ayni, not to speak of the rest of the muhaddithin - indeed, imam bukhari himself!

sub'HanAllah!

 

secondly, we have learned that usually inadvertent additions, by way of comments or explanations of later narrators, said without a pause or punctuation is known as mudraj. the narrator might not have intended to include it in the text, but during narration, he said something by way of explanation or an extraneous comment - which was confused by later reporters as part of hadith.

====
since even the claimants of mudraj, will have to acknowledge that if this is indeed mudraj, it is mudraj in the middle [as it is neither in the beginning of the hadith, nor in the ending - obvious? but we live in an age the obvious needs to be made apparent.]

an example of this kind of mudraj, is the hadith of sayyidah aayishah raDiyallahu anha, explaining that RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam used to retreat to the cave of Hiraa; in which zuhri adds: "that is, for worship"

sahih bukhari, hadith #3:

in the middle of sayyidah's narration, zuhri adds a word [the mudraj] to explain what "yataHannath" means. this is what suyuti said is permissible, when it meant to explain. however, if it is added without that intention, and as an integral part of the hadith - AND if it is done deliberately, it is a lie.

 

as for dirayah; there are two glaring and obvious signs in the hadith itself that indicate that the portion of hadith atabek claims as "silly lies" and "idiotic insults to God" - this portion of the hadith is consistent with the rest of the hadith.

----
firstly, notice the first part of the hadith:

on the day of judgement, i am the leader of all men [sayyidu'n naas] - and do you know why is that so?

the first and the last of them will be gathered on one plain - such that everyone can hear the caller, and will be able to see the entire plain*

and the sun will have come very close.

and people will be suffering and will be in intense agony and distress, anguish - such that it is beyond their strength to bear and they cannot bear.

people will tell each other: "do you not see the situation you are in [today]? do you not see what [terror and calamity] has befallen you? don't you think that you should seek an intercessor, who can intercede with your Lord Almighty [to lessen this agony]?​

----
clearly, the hadith says that on that day - people will be in such a state of terror, anguish and anxiety - apart from the other signs mentioned in qur'anic verses: "when the sun and moon will be joined..." "man will say: 'where shall i flee'.

doesn't this clearly indicate that in this context, the answer of other Prophets, hazrat aadam, hazrat nuH, hazrat ibrahim and hazrat musa alayhimu's salam : "this day my Lord Almighty [displays] such Anger, that neither did He [display] such [Anger] before, nor will He do after."

it is clearly in sync - and the accusation of this being a spurious addition, is the hallucination of an ignorant idiot.




*wa yanfudhuhumu'l baSar: both ibn Hajar and ayni say that it means those who are in that gathering (meaning all men) will be able to see everywhere and nothing is concealed. furthermore, ibn Hajar disagrees with abu ubaydah who suggested that it refers to Rahman; ibn Hajar says: "nothing is hidden from Rahman, ANYTIME; whether in that plain or otherwise."

nafadhu'l baSar - means 'eyesight can reach there and beyond [jawazahu]' nafaadh means to go beyond [jawaaz]; and therefore it is said: nafadh al-sahm when it pierces the [hunted] animal and goes across. [in urdu aar-paar hona].


bukhari, kitab al-tafsir, surah bani israyil,



muslim, kitab al-yiman. #368.

 

now, that mudraj - i assume - clear to everyone, let us read atabek's comments again:

i pity the man. he doesn't know the difference between mudraj and a variant. if the hadith of abu hurayrah raDiyallahu anhu was narrated exactly the same by OTHER narrators, and some had additional wording and some didn't, then the ones with additional wording COULD be deemed mudraj.

"COULD" because, merely additional wording doesn't make a hadith mudraj; there are other aspects as well. but if you go by atabek's rule: "any hadith with additional wording - regardless of being narrated by other SaHabah and route, regardless of the entire hadith being different is mudraj."

apparently, khatib baghdadi's compilation of mudraj was either unnecessary or woefully deficient. because any variant with additional wording becomes a mudraj according to atabek - thus huge swathes of hadith will become mudraj.

 

there are still many things that i have to say - about the meaning of the wording itself which the donkey didn't understand. frankly, cannot blame him for that. and other pseudo-maturidi name-dropping. we will also see his "maturidiness". in sha'Allah wa bi tawfiqihi.

he is a phony. just nobody bothered to knock him to see how hollow he is.

 

firstly, if we go by atabek's summary decision on mudraj, then you need to omit everything "extra" in the lengthier hadith.
going by atabek's standards - he will call those: 'lies, fabrications, etc."

hadith principles according to atabek is "make-it-up-as-you-go-and-never-bother-to-look-back-even-once"

----
according to his own principles, the lengthier hadith should be discarded; if not, why? and yes, why then should the additional wording stay in the other narration?

----
secondly, atabek is a donkey. he cannot read. in the very hadith it is mentioned that hazrat anas narrated it lesser than what he used to narrate earlier.

briefly, in the lengthier hadith: #7510,the narrators say that they went to hazrat anas and heard the hadith from him; and then they went to to see hazrat Hasan [baSri] and told him about this. he said, 'we have this and additional portion of the hadith; and wasn't sure whether he had forgotten or didn't narrate the rest of it'.

-----
i strongly suggest that if he can read the commentary of shaykh al-islam ibn Hajar in fat'H al-bari of #6565. [unless the donkey thinks he knows better than ibn Hajar himself, which is not surprising anyway]. ibn Hajar discusses all the variants and explains the whole thing.

yet, alas! he does not consider the additional wording as "lies, fabrications, and idiotic insults to God". nor does he call it mudraj or dismiss it as tafarrud of abu hurayrah.

-----
consider: atabek is greater than ibn Hajar in hadith knowledge. wow!

 

if you have read until now, you should be clear that this additional wording, which atabek accuses of being "lies, fabrications, idiotic insult to God" and also claims to be mudraj at the same time. [i wonder at his command of hadith terminology - makes my head dizzy].

obviously, this particular "addition" does not contradict other narrations.

----
now atabek, helpfully mentioned hadith of anas in bukhari that does not have this addition; i don't know which hadith he actually mentioned (as it is not mentioned in the screenshot posted by aqdas);

there are at least two narrations in this topic. one lengthy and one brief. here we go, without further ado.

bukhari, hadith #6565 in sifat al-jannah wa'l nar;




and bukhari, hadith #7510 in kitab al-tawHid.

 

imam nawawi in taqrib: #17

the knowledge of afraad [pl. of fard/unique, isolated report]

fard is of two types:

the first is uniquely reported distinctly different to all other narrators. this was discussed previously.

the second: is by relation to some specific aspect; as they say: "the people of makkah and levant [shaam] are the only ones [tafarrada] who reported this."

or "fulan ibn fulan"

or "the people of baSra are the only ones compared to the people of kufa" etc.

this does not necessitate that it is weak; except when it is meant that one among the people of madinah has a unique report;* in which case, it is like the first.
​

==================
so this is tafarrud.

suyuti: 'for example'.

 

imam nawawi in taqrib: #16

this is an elegant topic, and it is highly recommended to give it due consideration.

the majority of jurists and hadith scholars accept it absolutely. [madh'habu'l jumhur mina'l fuqaha'a wa'l muHaddithin]

and it is also said: it is absolutely not acceptable.

it is also said: that it is acceptable when the supplement is given by those narrators who are different than those narrators who have narrated without the supplement [naqiS]; and it is not acceptable if it is narrated by the same narrator, once without the supplement and once with the supplement.

the shaykh has categorised them

first: supplement that contradicts [other] trustworthy narrators; in which case it is rejected. as mentioned earlier.

second: supplement which does not contradict [others]; such as uniquely reported [tafarrud] by trustworthy narrator in its entirety; this is accepted. khatib said: "this is so, by the agreement of all scholars".

third: additional word that no other narrators have mentioned.

like the hadith: "the entire earth was made permissible for me to pray, and was made pure/clean [for me]". this is uniquely [infarada] narrated by abu malik al-ashja'yi and he said: "its soil/earth [turbah] was made clean". now this report falls in both the first and second categories.* thus the shaykh [ibn al-SalaH] has said.

but, the validated position is that this latter [report] is accepted.

another example given by the shaykh is the supplement [ziyadah] of malik in the hadith of nature [fiTrah]: [the supplement:] "among muslims". however, this example is incorrect because umar ibn nafiy [has a report that] agrees with malik; and so also DaHHak ibn uthman.​

*suyuti explains: first category, because it opposes all other trustworthy narrators; second category as well, because it does not actually contradict other narrations, even after this additional wording.

 

so what is tafarrud? before tafarrud, let us understand "ziyadaat al-thiqat"

----
shaykh abdullah sirajuddin in sharh bayquniyyah:

ziyadatu al-thiqah - supplement by trustworthy narrators. that is, two trustworthy narrators, and both accomplished scholars [Hafiz] narrate the same hadith, such that one of them narrates with supplemental information not narrated by the other.

OR

a trustworthy narrator himself narrates a hadith twice - such that in one of his narration, there is supplemental information.

scholars have various opinions concerning whether to accept or reject such supplemental information:

first opinion: it is absolutely acceptable;
regardless of whether this was by those who narrated the hadith sans [the supplement/ziyadah] or others.
regardless, whether it is related to a legal ruling [sharayi hukm] or not.
regardless, of it changes an established ruling or not.
regardless, that contradicts rulings established by reports in which this is present or not.

this is the madh'hab of majority [jum'hur] fuqaha and muHaddithin.

second opinion: absolutely inadmissible.

third opinion: it is acceptable if the supplement is reported by someone other than those who have reported it sans the supplement [naqiSan]; and it is not accepted when it is the same narrator who has narrated once with the supplement and another time without it.

fourth opinion: this is the preferred position of ibn SalaH and some others; that the supplement is of three types:

a) that the supplement does not negate the hadith which is reported without supplement [meaning, it shouldn't be mutually contradicting]

its ruling: it is accepted. as it takes the place of a separate hadith, reported uniquely (yanfaridu) by a trustworthy narrator such that no one else narrates it from his shaykh other than himself.

----
b) that the supplement contradicts and negates other narrations by trustworthy narrators.[thiqat]

its ruling: rejected.

----
c) that the supplement falls between these two states; and that is such that contradicts the hadith without supplement, such that it introduces a restriction, where it was absolute [in the report without supplement].​

[suyuti] in tadrib al-rawi says: an example of this is the hadith narrated by shaykhayn [bukhari and muslim] from ibn mas'ud raDiyAllahu anhu: "i asked RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam: which is the most superior deed? He replied: "prayer [Salat] in its time" [as-salatu li-waqtiha]

Hasan ibn mukrim and bundar, both in their respective reports supplemented: "in the earliest time" [fi awwali waqtiha]. this was supplement was verified as SaHiH by Hakim and ibn Hibban.

---
and the hadith of shaykhayn [bukhari and muslim] from anas raDiyallahu anhu: "bilal was ordered to say the adhan twice each* [shafa'a] and say the iqamah once each."

simak ibn aTiyyah added: "except iqamah" Hakim and ibn Hibban verified this as SaHiH as well. this supplemental information is accepted according to the validated opinion.​

*each phrase repeated twice. ​

 

so we know that it was neither clarified by the narrator or by other imams of hadith; let us examine other ways to recognise a mudraj

is it impossible that RasulAllah sallALlahu alayhi wa sallam might have said that?

certainly not - because, as we have already demonstrated in another thread, there are qur'anic verses to this effect; so there is certainly nothing that contradicts established aqidah. sub'HanAllah, this particular statement is emphatically proven by qur'anic verses of similar meaning - though not verbatim.

according to atabek, all of that is "lies, fabrication, idiotic insult to God".

----
i hope people can now see how grave the issue is; atabek is calling the words of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam as: lies, fabrication, idiotic insult to God.

astaghfirullahi'l azeem. na'udhu billah.

because brothers, this is a hadith narrated by thiqah, trustworthy narrators; it is muttafaq alayh - and atabek in his haughtiness and slavery of the atheist ideas, ridicules the hadith. actually, this has other routes as well as ayni documents in umdat al-qari:

1. this hadith is also narrated by bukhari in tafsir via muhammad ibn muqatil

2. muslim in kitab al-iman, via abu bakr ibn abi shaybah and ibn numayr

3. tirmidhi in zuhd, via suwayd ibn naSr AND in aTyimah [book about food] via waSil ibn abd al-a'ala

4. nasayi in walimah via waSil ibn abd al-a'ala, briefly; and in its entirety via ya'qub ibn ibrahim in kitab al-tafsir

5. ibn majah in aTyimah via abu bakr ibn abi shaybah AND ali ibn muhammad.


none of them knew that it was mudraj. bravo atabek, bravo!

---
so the only other way remains - which atabek tried to forcibly push: tafarrud of abu hurayrah and hence it is mudraj.
btw, that makes atabek the most knowledgeable hadith imam in the past 1200 years - nobody found out what atabek did! and they simply kept forwarding these 'lies' as atabek calls them. نسأل الله العافية

 

is this mudraj as atabek claims?

i checked a few commentaries of bukhari:

1. fat'h al-bari of ibn Hajar

2. umdat al-qari of ayni

3. irshad al-sari of qaSTallani


and commentaries of muslim:

1. ikmal al-mu'lim of qaDi iyaD

2. minhaj of imam nawawi

3. dibaj of suyuti

4. al-muf'him of qurtubi


-----------
i didn't see anyone mentioning that it is mudraj. maybe in my haste, i have missed it - atabek and co. are free to help correct it. even others, please do look up an help me find whether it is mudraj.

 

a recap of atabek's original insulting statement

and his attempt to slither away, by throwing mudraj in the mix:

-----

so let us get this straight once more:

according to atabek, the portion of hadith:

"In the day of Judgement God will be so angry as he never was before!" is

a) idiotic insult against God

b) silly lie

c) fabrication

d) mudraj [addendum introduced in the text] by later tabiyin​

-----
now, it is all very fine to shoot blindly in the dark. but there is no getting away from the fact that this hadith is musnad. meaning it has a chain of narrators and those narrators ARE known.

brothers, pay attention: vague "later tabiyin" WON'T work. atabek should say which of the narrators - whether one or ALL of them are:

liars, fabricators, deliberate mudrijers [introducing extras in text of hadith deliberately]​

-----
so you see, people get upset that i call atabek a donkey. and you will see how only a donkey can manage to make so many mistakes in one small sentence. thanks for being with us so far, just tarry a little more. wa billahi't tawfiq.

there are many problems here. one of the problems is that it is a muttafaq alayh hadith. meaning, this hadith is found in both SaHiH bukhari and SaHiH muslim. if you don't mind, let me take a very brief digression.

imam nawawi in his taqrib:

the SaHiH narration is of a few types [rigorously authenticated narration]

1. the highest is the one which is agreed upon by both bukhari and muslim.

2. then those hadith found only in bukhari

3. then those hadith found only in muslim

4. then those hadith that are SaHiH according to the conditions of both bukhari and muslim [meaning those hadith that meet the conditions of both bukhari and muslim]

5. then those hadith that are SaHiH according to bukhari's conditions

6. then those hadith that are SaHiH according to muslim's conditions

7. then those hadith which are SaHiH near other than these two imams.​

------
now, if a hadith is found in both bukhari and muslim, it is deemed of the highest authentication.
according to atabek - these are "lies, fabrications, idiotic insults to God" then he came up with a lame excuse: "mudraj"

first, let us check the narrators of bukhari; imam bukhari narrates this hadith in two places from two routes.

in ahadith al-anbiya, #3340, bukhari narrates from:

1. is'Haq ibn naSr narrating from

2. muHammad ibn ubayd narrating from

3. abu Hayyan narrating from

4. abu zur'ah narrating from

5. abu hurayrah. raDiyallahu anhu.​

in kitab al-tafsir, #4712, bukhari narrates from:

1. muHammad ibn muqatil al-marwadhi narrates from

2. abdullah ibn al-mubarak al-marwadhi from

3. abu Hayyan [yaHya ibn sayid ibn Hayyan al-taymi] from

4. abu zur'ah [harim ibn amr ibn jarir ibn abdullah al-bajali al-kufi] from

5. abu hurayrah raDiyallahu anhu​

----
imam muslim in kitab al-iman, #327, narrates from:

1. abu bakr ibn abi shaybah AND muHammad ibn abdullah ibn numayr

both approximately the same hadith, though one or two words are found in either narration not found in the other.

2. muhammad ibn bishr from

3. abu Hayyan from

4. abu zur'ah from

5. abu hurayrah raDiyallahu anhu.
​

============================
a few questions to atabek, on this issue:

1. which of these narrators introduced the "lies, fabrications, idiotic insult to God"?

2. in all there are 10 narrators - apart from bukhari and muslim themselves. who should be accused of doing the idraj and why?

3. which imam of hadith mentioned that it was mudraj? or is it just atabek - the greatest living authority on hadith in the western hemisphere?

-----
remember, deliberately, intentionally, introducing words in the hadith is Haram. such a narrator will be deemed a liar and a fabricator. [atabek has already accused one or more of them in the above of fabricating lies].

now that atabek claims that the adjunct/mudraj is a lie and that it is a fabrication, it clearly falls in the category of Haram. because, according to suyuti, idraj is excusable, as long as it only explains the text of hadith. which means:

1. either this additional words [mudraj according to atabek] is 'explaining the text of hadith'.

2. or it is not.

in which case, this mudraj is Haram/impermissible and the person who made this mudraj is a liar and a fabricator.

----
sub'HanAllah! a blundering idiot in the 15th century whose loose tongue has no control, knows more about hadith and its narrators than bukhari, muslim and others. very fine indeed!

anyway, let us be more practical as it is too lengthy to examine all the 10+2 narrators; however, if you normalise all these narrations, you will notice that they converge at: abu Hayyan.

so the idraj (according to atabek) should be made by either: abu Hayyan OR abu zur'ah.

so according to atabek: either abu Hayyan or abu zur'ah are "liars, fabricators, those who utter idiotic insults to God".

sub'HanAllah!

as for you, dear muslim: you can either consider atabek a liar and a donkey who has no manners or adab; OR consider two of the famous and trustworthy narrators relied upon by bukhari and muslim as liars.

---
and we have not yet examined whether it is mudraj!

wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

what did we learn from this so far?

1. mudraj is addition to the original text of the hadith - which is originally not part of the hadith, but added by a narrator.

2. this addition could be inadvertent, unintentional;

3. or deliberate addition.

4. if the addition [i will call it mudraj/idraj henceforth] is meant to clarify or explain a difficult/arcane phrase, it is permissible.

5. if done unintentionally, it is excusable.

6. if idraj is done deliberately it is Haram, and whosoever makes this addition loses his adalah [status of being trustworthy].

7. idraj is known by the narrator himself clarifying it, or by knowledgeable scholars identifying that a certain part is adjunct/mudraj.

8. or it is known by the plausibility - that it is impossible that such a thing could have been said by RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam [such as anachronism etc. examples mentioned below].

9. or by other narrations that do not contain this particular portion.

i hope this much is clear to now analyse atabek's claim of mudraj.

------
oh and btw: we have not mention the 'tafarrud', atabek threw in. according to him, this tafarrud [he means, only narrated by abu hurayrah - no one else did so]. oh, dear. this will take longer... anyway, we will talk of tafarrud and ziyadaat al-thiqat shortly. wa billahi't tawfiq.

 

if i remember well, in one video i saw some time ago, atabek was very fond of a book called qafw al-athar, [p.194] by raDiyuddin muhammad ibn ibrahim al-Halabi al-Hanafi famously known as ibn al-Hanbali.

or by merging the speech of the companion [mawquf] with the speech of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam [marfu'u] - whether in the beginning, end or middle of the hadith: this is mudraj al-matn. adjunct to the actual text of the hadith.

this is known by the clarification of the narrator [himself] or by other means.​

 

in nuz'hatu'l nazar, shaykh al-islam ibn Hajar says:

as for mudraj al-matn [addendum in the text]: that is [things] found in the text [matn of hadith] that which is [originally] not from it. sometimes, [this addition] is in the beginning [of the hadith]; sometimes, in the middle of the hadith; sometimes, in the end and this is in most of the cases, and because one sentence follows another - [and appears as if it is continuation of the hadith].

or by merging the speech of the companions [mawquf] or those after them who mention [this along with] the speech of the Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam [marfu'u] continuously without a break; this is mudraj fi'l matn - adjunct to the actual text of the hadith.​