faqeerkhan's claim of dhahabi's comments on ghunya

abu hasan, looking forward to it, but hope it doesn't take ages like what happened with the answers to karim abdullah, and bringing the astray sunnis after what keller said about Imkane kidb.

 

Bismillah...

It seems like it is you who is rejoicing about the "close club mentality", when this is far from the reality. I am a Sunni, Ash`ari, Hanafi, with no other affiliations apart from considering ourselves a student of the Sufiyyah especially the Saddah al-Habaib. If this is what you mean, then I am proud.

Jazakum Allah Khayran for making that clear. It is important we make this clear with regards to these types of matters. Would you mind telling us the author? Baraka Allah Fikum, wa Ra`akum.

So you admit that al-Sayyid Murtada az-Zabidi Radhiyallah `Anh affirms the possibility of the work being tampered with, correct? If you agree with this, then what gives you the certainty that the rest has not been tampered with either? If you do not agree with this, why bring it up in the first place?

Although I am sure everyone here will agree with this, it has nothing to do with the discussion. Please try to be more coherent and systematic, just so that Fuqara like me can keep up with it, wa `Afwan.

Out of interest, who is doing the "covering up"? I hope you don't mean as-Sayyid Murtada Rahimahullah! It was his opinion, and this was shared by many other `Ulama. As for your assertion that "it can be used by other sects", what does that matter? The Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jama`ah are charecterized by correcting and refining the works of their peers, as opposed to the Rawafid and Khawarij.

What exactly are you arguing? Do you affirm that it is from Shaykh `Abd al-Qadir al-Jaylani Radhiyallah `Anh? If so, why don't you explain how this is not the case. If not, why don't you explain how this is the case?

Until you make clear what exactly you are saying, no one can reply. You seem confused.

 

it is not insult, but just clarifying the nonsense that you are peddling. if your ignorance is laid bare in the process, it is an unintended result.

---
now back to the issue, ghunya was written by the shaykh as ulama acknowledged it. there are strange statements in it and ulama have explained it by showing that these are insertions by tamperers. but those who are servants of their hawa will find anything and stick blindly to it, and try to find evidence for their fasid aqidah even if it is in the very books that soundly refute them.

---
given the choice between a person who cannot read a page and a pious scholar with a proven track record of knowledge and analysis, who would you trust? given the choice between a person who cannot understand the meaning of common words and a prestigious arabic lexicologist, who would you believe?

in both case, i would prefer imam zabidi's words to the other person. add ibn hajar al-haytami to zabidi's opinion. i have also other reasons and inshaAllah i will write them in a separate thread (where you will not be allowed to post).

you can read for yourself in sharH al-maqaSid vol.3 p20 - p456. also, read imam zabidi's sharH of iHya vol.2 p39-p433. also, in tarikh al-islam by al-dhahabi vol.39, p38-p409. if you don't understand something, you can come back and post your questions here. we might be able to help.

 

No, it was not my own research. It was from the biography of Shaykh Abdul Qadir written by someone and he lists the books of Shaykh Jilani and mentions the references.

If you notice Ghunya has attacks on Hanafis and Murtaza Zabidi is trying to refute those attacks and then he says it looks like or it appears ( dhahir ) that this argument or attack on Hanafis has been inserted by someone else.

Then again, who is in infallible ? neither the attacker or the attacked one, neither the reader or the writer... so to cover up 'mistakes' by saying tampered or inserted the same reason could be used by other sects.
what about the rest of the ghunya? what other passages are inserted ? may be some one can explain more..


insulting me if it makes someone rejoice, then rejoice more, because it only reflects the small closed club mentality.

 

`Ibarah is a noun. Madsusah is an adjective, so logically it is Madsusah that is being talked about. An adjective follows the noun in Arabic! What do you say it means? What does this mean:

ودسو في كتبهم ما ليس من كلامهم

Subhanallah! Out of interest, was it your own research? If not, please tell us where you got it from.

Was-salam

 

< insert >

ibarah madsuh means ghunya is tampered ? IBARAH means the tampered ?

in which arabic ?

 

so he goes... clueless and incoherent as ever.

yeah. all you have to do is pick it up from some goodforsaken forum and throw it on us to humor you. i request brothers to not answer this poor chap as it is a waste of time and energy.

so who underlined the zabidi text for you? did you bother to read it or just satisfied yourself with the underlined text provided to you (or you picked up somewhere)?

---
because if you had read even few lines below the underlined text, it is a rightful slap in your face. because you are just highlighting what the imam quoted as an objection and don't bother with what he had to comment:

it is obvious that this passage in ghunya is tampered with (falsely attributed to him) and it has happened with the books of other imams, as they were corrupted and (the imams) attributed with statements in their books that were not their own.
​

-----
i tried to look in the next few pages but i could not see of anything that supports your view. if i have missed it, please underline it for us as you have so kindly done in your previous post.

Allah ta'ala knows best.

 

Murtaza Zubaidi in his commentary of Ihya has this part which you can translate. see volume 2 page 242 till 250



I am uploading it.

 

Salamun 'Alaykum

I kindly ask for brothers not to excrete on a topic I have set up. I have always obtained what I needed to know by asking kindly.

JazakAllah khayr to brother Faqeer for the references, I will look them up as well as attempt to get hold of the original manuscripts of al-Ghunyah in photo format.

It is very important in this day of age to clarify the true beliefs of our Shaykh 'Abdul Qaadir al-Jilaani, as there seems to be some confusions. This should be the main objective right here.

Wa as-Salaam

 

faqeerkhan, are you on a jello only diet?

... and i'm also really curious who exactly YOUR PEOPLE are, mind sharing?

 

i wonder what the folks don't comment on what Shaykh GF Haddad has said about Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani's creed ? I hope he will be not thrown off the sunni-list like Keller, Faraz Rabbani and Tahir al-Qadiri.

anyway, going back to the topic,

1) Ibn Kathir affirmed Ghunyah to Shaykh ABdul Qadir Jilani. Bidayah 270 volume 12

But Ibn Kathir is "but certainly unpalatable to wahabi and taymiyyites and the modern hashwis, the albonites." oops Ibn Kathir the die hard student of Ibn Taymiyyah

2) Ibn Rajab affirmed Ghunyah to Shaykh Abdul Qadir see dhail tabaQat 296/1
oops Ibn Rajab is also non-ashari non-maturidi scholar

so according to the logic of the small closed club, let us throw these two off the sunni list.

let us also drop Dhahabi off the sunni-list cuz he is also Ibn Taymiyya die hard fan and student.

let us ask Abu Hasan "[do you]say that every word in ghunya is sacrosanct tampered that you (abu hasan) attests by an oath, that it is indeed the work of ghawth al-a'azam tampered without any shadow of doubt? "

you claim "ibn hajar al-haytami said that it was tampered. ibn hajar al-haytami is not an xyz or abc. he is an acknowledged imam of ahlu's sunnah and the shafiyi madh'hab." but can you prove to us that what Haytami said is authentic ( provide isnad for his book and prove it is authentic )

let us apply same standards across , no need for double standards.

 

Actually you are the one who needs comprehension courses.

you said PERSON 1 appears on TV and has the title 'sheke hadith' then one may simply ask who gave him this title ? sorry, but he might be your shaikh but not considered shaykh for many others. Remember recently how you people outcasted Tahir al Qadiri , keller, Faraz etc.. so again, that xyabc appearing on tv with whatever lofty title might not be actually considered a real scholar.
present his credentials here for everyone to examine. what works did he author etc...

PERSON 2: because he is direct descendent of Shaykh ABdul Qadir means nothing. Many Rafidi heretics also claim to be direct descendants.

please learn to have a scholarly discussion otherwise just drop it...

otherwise it will be anohter sunni dawate-islami and dawate-islami type many jokes.

 

Salaamun 'Alaykum

Please submit any research you may know about the text al-Ghunyah. I will look into this. I am going to ask my teachers where the manuscripts are available and will obtain clear photos in which we will able able to tell how it has been altered from the manuscripts to book form.

All manuscripts remain unaltered so I feel this could put the issue to rest. As for the mentioned Imaam who spoke against al-Ghunyah, I have to admit he does have a direct isnaad reaching back to the Ghawth, and I should imagine that such texts would have also been memorized and handed down orally.

As for the questions I have left unanswered, its due to lack of time, but I will get round to research some points that have been made and reply I have looked into these matters.

wa as-Salaam

 

some people have a habit of picking objections from here and there on the internet without themselves having ever seen either the originals nor the objections nor the ability to research themselves. these objections, they just throw it in the mix without any genuine desire to investigate or discuss.

----------------
however, coming back to the issue at hand, i would like to ask faqeerkhan (others may please ignore this).

can you please explain it to us what did hafiz dhahabi say about ghunya? it will be helpful if you can translate it yourself (or at least kindly, point us to the source of your translation, if done by others).

did he say it was tampered? or did he say that every word in ghunya is sacrosanct truth that he (dhahabi) attests by an oath, that it is indeed the work of ghawth al-a'azam without any shadow of doubt? what exactly did hafiz dhahabi say and in which book? (i believe hafiz dhahabi wrote more than one book).

the reason why i am asking this is, perhaps you already know what dhahabi said; otherwise, why single him out from hundreds of major scholars who came after ghawth al-a'azam?

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

imam ibn hajar al-haytami said that it was tampered. ibn hajar al-haytami is not an xyz or abc. he is an acknowledged imam of ahlu's sunnah and the shafiyi madh'hab. see here. but certainly unpalatable to wahabi and taymiyyites and the modern hashwis, the albonites.

 

you seriously need classes in reading comprehension.

let me say it again, in bold, and in easy to understand bullets

PERSON 1 -

senior subcontinental Sunni scholar;

very famous, appears on TV too;

not just a mufti but also carries the title of Sheikhul Hadith amongst others

NB: he probably knows better than you what Hafez dhahabi said, and in what context

definitely not a local masjid maulana

double definitely not an 'abc' friend of mine, although he did tell me directly, that as per his knowledge no chain has been recorded for the Ghuniya going back to the Ghawth

i am not divulging his name for mine and his privacy, but enough desis and arabs know him in the west too

PERSON 2 -

Senior Sheikh in one of the major wings of the Qadiri tariqa in the Arab world

direct descendant of the Ghawth

received knowledge of the Ghawth's teachings through direct transmission by his father and forefathers and other shuyukh and students of the tariqa who pass their knowledge on by word of mouth, as is the Muslim tradition - the chain reaching back to the blessed Ghawth

----

in response to your second question, they don't give opinions and whims, but rather state that the chain going back to the Ghawth is either broken and/or non-existent

----

now please do not bring any more straw men forward just for the sake of arguing.

I might find Abu Ibrahim's posts somewhat bizarre and maybe even unbelievable, but at least he is going about them in a decent manner, and I am genuinely asking him without trying to be argumentative or sarcastic...

 

As a side note, Ibn Taymiya mentioned that in his day, all/most of the Hanbalis were studying al-Razi's al-Arba'in in Aqida. This shows that eventually, the anthropomorphists among the Hanabila were silenced and the Ash'ari creed was dominant. In Imam Ibn Qudama's time however, there was quite alot of fitna and fighting between the two.

Ibn 'Asakir was not an "extreme" Ash'ari, and yes, I will submit that Ibn Qudama was not an "extreme" Hanbali (at least not by Salafi standards), but still, the both of them were at odds. In addition to the above mentioned book of his on 'uluw, he also has one on harf and sawt, and has some very harsh words for the Ash'aris.

May Allah have mercy upon him.

 

I think that in matters such as this, it is best to avoid the mujamalat and platitudes so commonly found. When it comes to matters of creed we can, and should, be clear about what we believe. Any critisism of a particular scholars creedal positions is not backbiting, but it is nasiha for Allah and His Rasul--sallaAllah 'alayhi was sallam.
I for one am not arguing with you brother Abu Ibrahim. I am only asking questions. Of course I have my own opinions on them but I am asking you that I may understand where exactly you are coming from.

You must excuse me (and others) for being a bit skeptical about this whole Athari business. I once thought that there was such a thing as a "dominant" Hanbali majority who were all Mufawwid Atharis who were just opposed to ta'wil. These days I am not so sure about that. Even an oustanding scholar such as Imam al-Safarini (may Allah have mercy upon him) who was none other than the senior student of the 'Arif Billah, Shaykh Abdul Ghani al-Nabulsi, has himself some positions in 'Aqida that are not exactly tafwid at all.

As for your question about who said that Imam Ibn Qudama was a mujassim, are you familar with the story about him and Imam Ibn 'Asakir? Are you not aware of the fitna between Banu Asakir and Ibn Qudama? What was that all about?

But let us forget scholars for second here. Abu Ja'far al-Hanbali told me in a private exchange that Hanbali Atharis do not affirm 'Uluw Hissi; however if you read Imam Ibn Qudama's book on the topic he affirms just that. If you are unsure about this you can read it here.

I do not deny that there are certain scholars who were not trained in Ilm al-Kalam (Ash'ari or Maturidi) yet still maintained sound faith and were mufawwida; I just see alot of inconsistency and takalluf when it comes to understanding the words of many Hanbalis. It really does seem like a stretch to make Imam Ibn Qudama out to be a pure Mufawwid (with the same type of tafwid as the Ash'aris and Maturidis) when he affirms sawt and harf and 'uluw hissi (and not just 'uluw makana/ma'nawi).

Having said that, I have the utmost respect for his amazing contributions to Hanbali fiqh, although I am not obliged to agree with his creed in those areas in which he erred.

There is a reason why Imam al-Subki said that Ahl al-Sunna are the Hanafis and Shafi'is that didnt fall into I'tizal, the Malikis, and the virtuous [fudala'] Hanbalis.

Brother, I realize you want to take a hands-off textual approach and dont wish to delve into kalam. But please understand the difference between Sunni beliefs and the ways in which some of those beliefs are defended and supported.

The difference between Ahl al-Sunna and others is that they mention was is for them and against them. This is why you will find Ash'ari scholars refuting other Ash'ari scholars when they feel they have erred. Just read the words of the 'Ulama about the "errors" as they perceive them in even minute issues: Sanusi, Razi, al-Iiji, and others.

Shaykh Sa'id Foudah said:

About the Salafis, he said:

 

it carries no weight what fulan some xyz or abc friend of yours or mine says regarding Ghunyah. Neither does anyone care if maulana of some local masjid says it is authentic or inauthentic.

what really matters is what the scholars of seerah/tarikh/biographers have said.

1) What does Hafiz Dhahabi ? does he say tampered ?

2) Whoever says tampered, on what basis they claim so ? personal opinions and mere whims are not good enough.