Fortifying the Sunni beliefs: Debunking the Fabricators who Repudiate Imam Abu Hanifa

The Falsehood attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa.

There have been many attempts to defame Imam Abu Hanifa- The Imam Al Azam of Sunni Islam, by attributing calumnies against him , one of the earliest attempts coming from the "Undisputed Traditionist of the Sunni Islam" Al Bukhari. Although, it was understood that the Traditionists and the Fuqaha of the time didn't get along- this bitter spat was not restricted between them. There was one another party who were staunch adversaries of Imam E Azam, the theologians of different schools of thought. Within the orthodox Sunnism, two schools of theologies were quite famous even in those times- The Asharri'yah and The Maturidi'yah. Now, if I am to say that the Asharris tried to defame the Imam, one would respond that the two schools of theologies didn't had much differences (as the traditionists and the Fuqaha had) and the Ashari's would never cross the line. But the most basic detail many fail to contemplate is the pattern found among the theologians. If one is to form a pattern, we see that the majority of the Ashari's were followers of Shafa'i School of Fiqh nad the Maturidis were Hanafis. The wise would understand that this dispute was not limited to the conflicting theologies. They were more likely "A War of Fiqh in the fascade of Theology."

The Ashari in discussion today is none other than the Founder of the Orthodox school of Theology, Imam Abul Hasan Al Ashari (d.324H). The fact that Imam Ashari didn't knew about the Maturidi school as they originated at nearly the same time at very far places, anything which Imam Ashari wrote against Imam E Azam wouldn't be considered as criticism on the grounds of the "Differences in Theology." I will discuss the text where Imam Ashari had attempted to criticize Imam Abu Hanifa. 

Imam Ashari wrote a famous book named, "Al Ibanah An Usul Ad-Diyanah" (The Elucidation of Islam's foundation) in which he has discussed the various heretical sects and their heretical believes and refuted them by citing traditions- a practice common among the followers of Imam Shafai. He also substantiated the difference between the Heretical beliefs and the Sunni beliefs. Under the chapter of  "Khalq Al Qur'an" (Creation of the Qur'an), he has refuted the heretical beliefs of the Mutazilah and the Jahamiyyah. In doing so, he has cited certain sayings of the contemporaries of Imam Abu Hanifa who accused him of believing in Khalq Al Quran. Some of those sayings are:  

Harun Ibn Ishaq cites the following tradition on the authority of Abu Nuaym who narrated it from Sulayman Ibn Isa (Al Sajazi) and he on the authority of Sufiyan Al Thawri, who said, Hammad bin Abi Sulayman said to me, "Go tell Abu Hanifa, The Polytheist, that I repudiate him! Said Sulayman. Sufiyan added, "because He was in the habit of Saying that the Qur'an is created."

This is a grave and critical accusation on Imam Abu Hanifa coming from an equally celebrated Imam, Sufyan Al Thawri- a contemporary of Imam E Azam. But, if one is to analyze the chain of this tradition, all his uncertainty would be eased. The narrator "Sulayman Ibn Isa Al Sajazi" was the one to fabricate this tradition. Lets see, what the scholars of Asma Al Rijal has to say about him:

1) Abu Ishaq Al Juzjani said: He (Sulayman) was the one who claimed to be the (writer of ) the "Etiquette's from Sufyan Al Thawri" was a Liar (Kazzab) [Al Hawl Al Rijal, Abu Ishaq Al Juzjani (d.259H), Pg 351, Narrator no 384].

2) Al Bukhari (d.256H) said he is "Munkar Al Hadith." [Tarikh Al Kabri, Vol 3, Pg  244, Narrator no 837. Al Dha'eef Al Sagheer, Pg 45, Narrator 110].

3) Abu Hatim as Razi (d.327H) said: His narrations are Fabricated and he is a Liar (Kazzab). [Al Jarah O Tadeel, Abu Hatim Al Razi (d.327H), Vol 4, Pg 134, Narrator no 586].

4) Ibn Adi said: The narrations of Sulayman Ibn Isa from Al Thawri are all weak and he also hijacked the narrations of Al Jarood. [Al Kamil fi Dh'aeef Al Rijal, Ibn Adi (d.365H), Vol 2, Pg 433, Dar ul Kutub Al Ilmiyyah].

5) Ibn Hibban (d.343H) mentioned him in his "Al Majroheen" (Book containing the names of the fabricators), Vol 1, Pg 291. He also mentioned that "Ahmed bin Hanbal said: He is a Liar".

6) Al Hakim (d.405H) in his Madqaal, Vol 1, Pg 135, Narrator 52 said, He is a Liar.

7) Al Khateeb Al Baghdadi (d.463H) said: He is Abandoned. He is a Liar (Kazzab) [Tarikh Baghdad, Al Khatib (d.463H), Vol 5, Pg 97, Narrator no 1288, Dar Al Arab Al Islamiyyah; Vol 4, Pg 280, Narrator no 1992, Dar Al Kutub Al Ilmiyyah].  Al Khatib said: "The book he wrote named "Al Aql" was sufficient proof to prove that he is not trustworthy." (indicating that he was a staunch Muta'zila).

8) Abu Nuaym (d.430H) said in his Dha'eef, Pg 78, Narrator no 61: Ahmed bin Hanbal and Al Bukhari said: He (Sulayman) is a Liar.

9) Ibn Jawzi (d.597H) mentioned him in his Dha'eef, Vol 1, Pg 267-268, Narrator 1168.

10) Abdullah Ibn Ahmed bin Hanbal: He is nothing. He doesnt know anything about the hadith.

Abbas Al Dawri narrated from Yahya Ibn Mae'en who said: He was a praiseworthy one, known to write Hadith. But he went in the company of some Mutazila who corrupted him. Otherwise, he was trustworthy. [Also mentioned in Tarikh Yayha, Vol 2, Pg 154].

Abu Zuhra in [Kitab Abu Zuhra Al Razi, Vol 2, Pg 343 {Single Vol Ed, Pg 615} in Chapter of the Weak Narrators] and Al Nasa'i said: Weak. Abu Hatim said: He detracted from (the path of) Hadith.

Al Daraqutni (d.385H) graded him "Abandoned in Hadith and He is nothing." [Al Dha'ef Al Daraqutni, Pg 53, Narrator no 116].

[These all can be found in Tarikh Al Islam, Al Dhahabi (d.742H), Vol 5, Pg 71, Narration 136].

11) Sulayman Ibn Isa al Sajazi: Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal said: I do not know about his hadith.

Ibn Al Madaini and Abu Hatim said: Detractor of Hadith, Not Trustwrothy. [Lisan Al Mizan, Ibn Hajr (d.852H), Vol 7, Pg 213].

12) Ibn Hajr again mentioned him in his Taqreeb, Pg 308, Narrator no 1820 and graded him "Matrook" i.e. Abandoned.

There is no need to further substantiate this Fabricated narration. There is no narration that defames Abu Hanifa except that, it is fabricated. This is what a Sunni Muslim beliefs. We, as muslims, must stop blind following the scholars and stop placing them at the position of the "Prophets". They were humans, as we all are, and sometime, did things, which satisfied their ego. I ask Allah to raise the position of Imam E Azam and forgive all scholars for their shortcomings through the intercession of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Amen.

To all the scholars who are mentioned in the above article, May Allah be Pleased with them All.

Correct Sunni Beliefs: Was Prophet Muhammad affected with Magic?

The Verses of Al Falaq Concerning Magic.

The following passages are taken from the works of Dr Ilyas Celebi, Approaches to Occultism in the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Al Sihr in the perspective of Qur'an:

In the Qur'an, the words from the root "shr, are cited 63 times, and three of them mean dawn time. The statements dealing with magic, more respectively, take place in the verses about Moses and Aaron (33 times), and then Prophet Muhammad (17 times) صلى الله عليه وسلم. Most of the verses which consist of magic include all the expressions said by deniers in order to reject the prophecies of the Prophets, or to declare that things to be shown as miracles to the peoples are deceitful. So, Qur'an informs us. that the people of Samud condemned the Prophet Saleh being charmed; People of Aykah made the same condemnation over the prophet Shuayb [1]. Pharaoh and his staff did say that to Moses, and even condemning him as being magician [2], and that lsraelites had claimed that Jesus Christ applied to perform the magic [3], and that Meccan pagans have condemned the Prophet Muhammad being magician or charmed one [4] all that, Qur'an continues to say, are just a calumny, and it states that the deniers have been behaving to the prophets by this manner.

The verses of Surah Falaq revealed to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم:

It is ordered in the Surah of al-Falaq that we have to seek refuge to Allah because of the evil-doings of who breathes over the knots [5] . The given surah mentions naffasat, meaning "blowers." In the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, there had been someone who were breathing the prayers which they recited over the strings, and knotting them, by this way, committing the magic. Ibn Haldun recorded that he passed by such persons in Egypt [6]. The expression " who blow over the knots", according to Kurayb bin Abu Muslim, must be also understood metaphorically as women who pervert, by various coquetry and amorous glances, the men's mind [7], therefore, basing on this meaning, it is also said that term naffasat could be meant who try to attempt to shake the will-powers of the peoples as well as the magicians. And these persons broke down the spirituality of the peoples by the means of false news, calumnies and gossips, and make them anxious and get them means for their desires. This kind of interpretation seems both in accordance with the classification of Fahruddin al-Razi [8] who considers the gossip within the limits of magic, and with the word "Hasid" Of the following verse of al-Falaq. Some interpreters criticized this kind of interpretation on the term naffasat, having suggested that because this is in contradiction with the reason of the occasion (sabab al nuzul) of al-Alaq and of al-Nas, and also with the reports concerning with the news that Muhammad was also charmed and they concluded that magic can also have somewhat truth. 

There have been two various reports one coming from Aisha [9], the other Zayd bin Arkam [10], which cited that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was charmed, in both of which is mentioned that some one, especially, naıned Labid bin A'sam charmed the prophet Muhammad, and as the result of this charm, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم started to imagine to having pretended of what he really did not do, and also cited that two angels had come to the prophet to  inform him that a charm committed against him and thrown in to a well named Zarwan. In a part of the report coming from Aishah, it is not stated that Labid was a Jew, is recorded that the Prophet of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم himself had gone to the well, having taking with some of his companions. On the other hand in the report of Zayd bin Arkam there is an information saying of that "some companions of the Prophet had been sent over there". In addition to these, in the report of Aisha while there are some expressions about the pretending of the prophet, it is not recorded in the report of Zayd; yet, in another variant of the report coming from Aisha as cited in Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal it is stated that the Prophet's صلى الله عليه وسلم sickness has lasted six months, however, in that of Zayd cited that when the string had been come out of the well and being undo the knots, the Prophet felt relieved as if he had been saved off his bonds and bandages.

The reports concerning of being charmed of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم can be criticized by the textual criticism in the methodology of the Hadith, as well as they can be considered by their contents in contradiction with the nature and the requirements of the Prophet's messages. Since, to assert that a prophet who gets revelations from Allah could be fell under the effects of the magic may be understood both to have an admission of that some human elements could be mixed within the divine revelation, and may justify the claims of the rejectors of Islam asserting that the Prophet of Allah has been charmed. However, in many verses of the Qur'an the Prophet is said of as he is under the protection of Allah, and recorded that the fact that the revelation had been gradually sent down in his heart has been taken into consideration [11]. Some early scholars such as Abu Bakr al-Asam, Jassas, Qadi Abdul Jabbar, and some late scholars such as Qasimi', Muhammad Abduh, Sayed Qutb and Muhammad Izzat Darwaza, considering these features, refused the report saying that the Prophet was charmed [12]. Some of them cited that so called charming over the Prophet might have been occurred in Medinah, however in some report coming from Hasan al-Basri:, Ata, İkrimah, Jabir bin Abdullah and Kurayb bin Abu Muslim, citing that these surahs were revealed in Makkah, they also recorded some reason, saying that with khabar al wahed, we could not perform in practice especially in the matters of the belief. On the contrary of this the most of the scholars regarded the reports as sound (saheeh) and said that the magic had influenced not the mind and the heart of the Prophet but his body, and this is not an obstacle to the idea of the protection of the Prophet by Allah, so in the result they concluded that he was charmed [13]. However in some of the verses under the subject, there cited some expressions that the Prophet imagined something to have pretended even though he did not do and this situation lasted at least six months. In fact, this is only an occasion directly related with his mind. Indeed, some of the scholars, following a conciliatory attitude, state that the Prophet might have been charmed, being related with the consideration of his enemies, but with the protection by Allah, he was not influenced by their magic. Never the less this interpretation also include some conclusions regarding that magic did not occur, as cited in the hadiths, and by this way the Prophet did not enter under any influence so, it is in unity with the first idea [14].

A prophet, according to the Abrahamic Religions, receives his revelations from Allah (God) and communicates it to the people, and he shows miracles to prove its truths. To get revelation (i.e., get information from the invisible world) and to show some miracles are two main features differing them from other people. As for divinator and magician, they are two persons, one asserting that he/she informs from the invisible world, and the other is in a position of being an alternate-one to the prophets, claiming that he can possess over the beings or on the events. For this reason, when dealt with the miracles in Islam, it is especially be taken into account that magic is not an alternate to the miracle.

Allah almighty completed his religion and this religion prohibited the divination along with many other things of pre-Islamic era (jahiliyyah /ignorant age). Since the revelation has come to the end by the Prophet's death, new requirements needed for the social life would be done, under the leading of the reason, by some methods like analogy (qiyas) and juridical opinions (ijtihad) from now on [15]. Therefore, Islam eliminates magic, fortune-telling, considering omen looking at the balls and all the divination. This attitude was kept also during the first four caliphs with a great sensitivity. For instance, the first caliph, Abu Bakr, of whose servant made him eat a food, having been bought by the money earned for the divination before his embracing Islam, was so much sensitive on the matter that he vomited all the food from his stomach by inserting his hand into his mouth [16]. The second caliph, Umar, too, sending a letter to the governor of Egypt, ordered him to follow all people who practice divination and magic in that area and to punish them all [17].

[1]  Al-Shuara', 153-154, 185-187.
[2]  Al-Isra, 101; Al-Naml, 13; AI-Qasass, 36,48; Ghafir, 24; AI-Zuhruf, 43/46-50; Al-Zariyat,39.
[3]  Al-Maidah, 110; A-Saff, 6
[4]  Al-An'am, 7; Yunus, 2; Hud, 7; AI-Hijr, 14-15; AI-Isra, 47; Al-Anbiya, 3; AI-Mu'minun, 89; Al          Furqan, 8; Saba, 43; Al-Saffat, 15; Sa'd,4; Al-Zuhruf, 30; Al-Zariyat, 52
[5]  Al-Falaq, 4.
[6]  Ibn Haldun, op.cit., III, 152.
[7]  Razi, op. cit., XXXII, 179.
[8]  ibid., III,  193.
[9]  Musnad, VI, 57,63, 96, Bukhari, "Tibb" 47; Muslim, "Salam" 43; Ibn Majah, "Tibb" 45.
[10] Musnad, IV, 367; Nasai, "Tahrim" 20.
[11] Al-Nisa',113; Al-Maidah, 42, 67; Al-Furqan, 32; Al-Shuara', 153, 185.
[12] Maturidi, Ta'wilat Al-Qur'an, (Istanbul) Hacı Selim Ağa Libr, nr. 40, fol., 907a; Jassas, op, cit.,
I, 60; Jamaladdin Al-Qasmi, Mahasin Al-Tawil, Beirut 1978, XVII, 304; Muhammad Abduh,
Tafsiru Juz'i Amma', Cairo 1904, s 181-183, Sayed Qutb, Fi Zhilal Al-Qur'an, Beirut 1985, VI,
4008; Darwazah, Al-Tafsi'r Al Hadis (trans., in Turkish Şaban Karatas), Istanbul 1997, I, 199.
[13] Ibn Qutaibah, Ta'wilu Muhtalif Al-Hadis, Cairo 1966, 178-186; Maturidi, fol. 907a; Qadi lyad,
Al-Shifa', Cairo 1977, Il, 865-868; Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, Tafsir Al-Muawwizatayn, (ed.
Dar Al-Hadis), undated,. 44-51.
[14]  Hadidi, lsmat Al-Anbiya, Cairo 1979, 100-104. For more information on this subject see; Ibn
Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, op. cit., 46-51; Mizzl, Tahzib Al-Kamal, Beirut 1992, XIX, 332-354; Ibn
Hajar, Fath Al-Bari, X, 226-227; Ali Osman Ates, Kur'an ve Hadisiere Göre Cin ve Büyü, Istanbul 1995, 274-277, 292-294.
[15]  Bukhari, "Manaqib Al-Ansar, 26; Ahmad b. Hanbal, op. dt., IV, 118.
[16]  Bukhari, op. cit., 26
[17] M. Hamidullah, Al-Wasaiq Al-Siyasiyyah, Beirut 1983, 509-510.

Refuting Yazeedi Wahhabi Apologist- The Exceptional Case of Salamah bin Shabib Al Nishapuri

A Puzzle of Asma' Al Rijal.

The Golden age of Islamic scholarship had its dawn in the early Fatimid Era and ended with the fall of Ottoman Caliphate. The Al Saud have not even aspired to maintain the set standards let alone improving them. The Golden age had seen many eminent scholars, some of them so great that their works are unmatched and irreplaceable till date. Some of these opuses were compilation of early periods- rare and unique works which required careful duplication. Although the scholars were very careful, manual duplication always led to some errors- probably due to the poor condition of the original script. This article discusses one such duplication error in the works of Ibn Kathir (Al Bidaya Wa'n Nihaya) and also aims to expose a Yazeedi apologist who has very cunningly tried to confuse the masses by exploiting it. We intend to make this article, an example of his treachery and inform the Muslims about the rising Fitna Al Yazeedi.

The narration in discussion is found in one of the books of Abu'l Faraj Ibn Jawzi (d.597 H) namely, " الرد علي المتعصب العنيد المانع من ذم يزيد." meaning " Refuting the bigot adamant who forbids from criticism of Yazeed". He quotes a narration on Pg 58 as:

قال ابن ابي الدنيا وثنا سلمة بن شبيب قال ثنا الحميدي عن سفيان قال سالم بن حفصة يقول قال الحسن جعل يزيد بن معاوية يظعن بالقضيب موضع في رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم واذلاه

Ibn Abi Dunya (d. 281 H) recorded from Salamah bin Shabib (d.247 H) from Al Humaydi from Sufyan from Salim bin Abi Hafsa from Hasan Al Basri saying: "Yazeed bin Muawiya was prodding (poked) with a stick on that place (lips of Hussain علية سلام) which was kissed by Allah's Messenger Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم, How shameful!

The rijal of this narration are trustworthy (dealt later). This was a most valuable risala'h which exposed the crimes committed by Yazeed, but unfortunately didn't draw much attention of the public. In mid 8th century Hijri, Ibn Kathir decided to reproduce some of the narrations of this risalah in his opus "Al Bidaya Wa'l Nihaya" in the section of the year 61-65 H. During this process, he committed an error and recorded this narration as

قال ابن ابي الدنيا وثنا مسلمة بن شبيب  قال ثنا الحميدي عن سفيان قال سالم بن حفصة يقول قال الحسن جعل يزيد بن معاوية يظعن بالقضيب موضع في رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم واذلاه

Here, Ibn Kathir has recorded the name of the narrator as "Muslimah" instead of "Salamah" in his work.

Al Raddu Ala Mutasab Al Nae'ed Al Manaa
 min Zam Yazeed, Pg 58.

Al Bidaya Wa Nihaya, Vol 8, Pg 192

To prove that this was a scribbling mistake by Ibn Kathir (d.774 H), we will quote some of the narrations from the books of Ibn Abi Dunya, where he has quoted from "Salamah >> Al Humaydi," and not "Muslimah". Some of them are:

حَدَّثَنِي سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، ثنا الْحُمَيْدِيُّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ مَسْلَمَةَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ، يَقُولُ

 (Pg 98, Narration 172-الهم والحزن)

حَدَّثَنِي سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا الْحُمَيْدِيُّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، قَالَ: سُئِلَ ابْنُ شُبْرُمَةَ عَنْ مسْأَلَةٍ، فَأَفْتَى فِيهَا فَلَمْ يُصِبْ

(Pg 148, Narration 90 -الإشراف في منازل الأشراف لابن أبي الدنيا) 

 حَدَّثَنِي سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي الْحُمَيْدِيُّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ مَسْلَمَةَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ، يَقُولُ

(Pg 137, Narration 311-الزهد لابن أبي الدنيا)

حَدَّثَنِي سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، ثنا الْحُمَيْدِيُّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ بْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ مَسْلَمَةَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ، يَقُولُ

(Pg 76, Narration 81-الفرج بعد الشده لابن ابي الدنيا)

Additionally, there are 99 chains of different narrations cited by Ibn Abi Dunya in his various books  which has Salamah bin Shabib as one of the narrators. Some of them are:

 حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ، ذَكَرَ سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، ذَكَرَ سَهْلُ بْنُ عَاصِمٍ، عَنْ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ أَبِي الدَّرْدَاءِ، قَالَ

حَدَّثَنِي سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَمْرُو بْنُ الْعَلَاءِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا صَالِحٌ الشَّنِّيُّ، مِنْ عَبْدِ الْقَيْسِ عَنْ   عِمْرَانَ بْنِ

(Narrated from Abu Dawud Al Tayalisi, Pg 148, Narration 91 -الإشراف في منازل الأشراف لابن أبي الدنيا) 

 حَدَّثَنِي سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، أَنَّهُ حَدَّثَ عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الْمُبَارَكِ، قَالَ: ثنا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ النَّضْرِ الْحَارِثِيُّ، قَالَ

 (Narrated from Abdullah Ibn Mubarak (d.181 H) -Pg 175, Narration no 388-الزهد لابن أبي الدنيا)

حَدَّثَنِي سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، حَدَّثَنَا مَعْمَرٌ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ

  (Narrated from Abdul Razzaq (d.211H), The Muhaddith-Pg 310, Narration no 344-الصمت لابن أبي الدنيا)

Ilham Wa'l Huzn, Pg 98.

Zuhd Ibn Abi Dunya, Pg 137.

Zuhd Ibn Abi Dunya, Pg 175.

The above examples undoubtedly proves that the name of the narrator from which Ibn Abi Dunya used to narrate is "Salamah" which was recorded wrongly as "Muslimah" by Ibn Kathir. This mistake was wielded as an opportunity by the Salafi/Yazeedi apologist Kifayat ullah Sanabali لعنه الله عليه, who argued in his disastrous book "Yazeed par ilzamat ka ilmi Jaiza", that there is no narrator by the name "Muslimah bin Shabib" and he is "Majhool". Hence they have declared this narration as a "Fabrication". Unfortunately for them, there are many other scholars who have noted this mistake and have explained it, making it clear. We will now quote some of the scholars who have recognized "Muslimah".

One of the famous salafi scholar of recent times, Abdul Razzaq bin Abdul Muhsin Al Badr in his book , "زيادة الإيمان ونقصانه وحكم الاستثناء فيه" i.e "Increase and Decrease in the Faith and the Exceptions," has graded a Hadith having "Muslimah bin Shabib" narrating from Abdal Razzaq Al Sinani (d.211 H) in the chain as "Sahih", meaning, All the narrators are trustworthy. We also know that "Salamah bin Shabib" used to narrate from Abdal Razzaq. This can be found in the takhreej of 27th narration, dealing with the different definitions of Iman provided by the scholars, Pg 145.

Ziyadah Al Iman Wa Nukhsana wa Hukm Astashna Fih, Pg 145.

Ibn Kathir himself in his another work "جامع المسانيد والسنن الهادي لأقوم سنن", Vol 7, Pg 467, Narration no 9539 has cited a hadith from Majmu'a Al kabir of Tabrani (d.360H)  with a chain 

رواه الطبراني، من حديث مسلمة بن شبيب، عن عبد الرزاق، عن ثور، عن خالد بن معدان، عن معاذ: ((لعن الله الملوك الأربعة جمداً، ومشرحاً، ومحوساً، وابضعاً واختهم العمردة) .

But when we see the original narration of Tabrani, the actual chain of narration is 

 حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْعَبَّاسِ الْأَصْبَهَانِيُّ، ثنا سَلَمَةُ بْنُ شَبِيبٍ، ثنا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ، أَخْبَرَنِي ثَوْرُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، عَنْ مُعَاذِ بْنِ جَبَلٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي دَارِنَا يَعْرِضُ الْخَيْلَ، قَالَ: فَدَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ عُيَيْنَةُ بْنُ حُصَيْنٍ فَقَالَ لِلنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ:

This can be found on Vol 20, Pg 98. This unquestionably proves that "Salamah bin Shabib" and "Muslimah bin Shabib" are the same person in discussion.

Jami Al Masaneed, Vol 7, Pg 467.

Majm'ua Al Kabir, Vol 20, Pg 98.

Imam Dhahabi in his work, "العبر في خبر من غبر ويليه ذيول العبر" (Book on the lessons taken from the narrations of Death), Vol 1, Pg 354 has named "Muslimah bin Shabib" under the chapter of those who died in 247 H. He names him as "Muslimah bin Shabib, Abu Abdul Rahman Al Nishapuri, passed away in the month of Ramazan, in Makkah. He narrated from Greatest of Imam's, Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal." If we see the biography of Salamah bin Shabib, which is of course, narrated in many books of Asma Al Rijal, we will find that his full name was also "Abu Abdul Rahman Al Nisaburi and he died in the month of Ramadan in 246-247 H in Makkah. He also narrated from Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal. [Refer Tadhib Al Kamal, Al Mizzi, Vol 11, Pg 288].

Hafiz Al Suyuti (d.911 H) in his book, "Tabaqat Al Huffaz", Vol 1, Pg 243, Narrator no 540, mentions the full name of  Muslimah bin Shabib as "Muslimah bin Shabib Al Nishapuri Abu Abdul Rahman Al Hajari Al Masmami." He also mentions that he was a resident of Makkah and passed away in the year 247 H. The biographical data of Muslimah, provided by Al Suyuti is exactly the same as that of "Salamah" provided by many other scholars of Rijal. Hence it is undoubtedly proven that both the names are of a same person.

Al Abr, Al Dhahabi, Vol 1, Pg 354.

Tabaqat Al Huffaz, Al Suyuti, Vol 1, Pg 243.

Finally, we will enlighten our readers about Salamah bin Shabib Al Nisaburi. The following details are taken from various books of Asma Al Rijal:

⇒ He is mentioned in the Tarikh Kabir of Al Bukhari, Vol 4, Pg 85, Narrator no 2054.

⇒ Abu Hatim Al Razi mentions him in his book, "Al Jarah wal Tadeel", Vol 4, Pg 164, Narrator no 722. He said, "Abu Zurah heard his father saying that he (Salamah) is truthful."

⇒ Ibn Hibban (d.343H) has mentioned him in his Thiqat, Vol 8, Pg 287-288.

⇒ He is also a Rijal (narrator) in Sahih Muslim. He is also one of the Shaykh's of Imam Abu Dawud Al Sijistani. 

⇒ Al Mizzi mentions him in his magnificeint "Al Kamal fi Asma Al Rijal, Vol 11, Pg 286". He further says, "Ahmed Al Marwazi said, He is a man of Sunnah wal Jamah and a man of Hadith (Muhaddith)"[Also See Tarikh Dimishq]. He also quotes Hafiz Abu Nuaym who said that he (Salamah) is "Thiqa" (Trustworthy).[See Akhbar Isbahan, Vol 1, Pg 336].

⇒ Al Dhahabi has mentioned him in his magnum opus, "Siyar Al Alam Al Nubala, Vol 12, Pg 256." He starts to describe him as, " Al Hafiz Al Imam Al Thiqa (trustworthy)". He further states that scholars like Muslim, Abu Zuhrah, Abu Hatim, Abdullah bin Hanbal etc used to narrate from him. Al Nasa'i said, "There is nothing wrong in him." He is also mentioned in other works of Al Dhahabi namely, "Tadhkirat Al Huffaz, Vol 2, Pg 543 and Al Kashf, Vol 1, Narrator no 2054."

Siyar Al Alam An Nubala, Vol 12, Pg 256.

Tadheeb Al Kamal, Vol 11, Pg 286.

⇒ Ibn Hajr graded him "Thiqa" (Trustworthy) in his Taqreeb, Single vol Ed, Pg 400, Narrator no 2507.

⇛ CONCLUSION: The original narrator of hadith from Ibn Abi Dunya is " Salamah bin Shabib Al Nisaburi." Ibn Kathir erred during the duplication of this narration. Both the names (Salamah and Muslimah) refers to the same person. Hence the narration is Sahih that Yazeed لعنه الله عليه poked the blessed lips of Imam Hussain علية سلام with a stick.

"To all the scholars of the right path mentioned in this article, May Allah be pleased with them."

Where is God (Allah)?- The way of Sunni Muslims

Doctrine of Ahlus Sunnah on the Divine Attributes.

Where is God?

“No thing is as His likeness.” (42:11)

This verse, which is the foundation for Sunnī doctrine concerning the oneness and uniqueness of Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā), expressly negates any and all similarity between Creator and creation. There are a few points to note about the verse:

1. The form of the sentence is “nafy (negation) in the context of nakirah (an indefinite noun).” Shay’ (thing) is an indefinite noun and it has been negated using the word laysa. It is an established principle of Nahw (Arabic grammar) that a nafy in the context of nakirah connotes total negation. In other words, the form of the sentence grammatically entails that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that resembles Allāh (subhānuhū wa ta‘ālā).

2. The terms used for resemblance in this verse are two: one particle (harf), ka (like), and one noun (ism), mithl (likeness). This compounding of terms used for resemblance negates the minutest possible similarity. For instance, if one were to say, “Zayd is not a lion” (laysa Zaydun asadan), this would negate only a gross resemblance. If one were to say, “Zayd is not like a lion” (laysa Zaydun ka asadin), this would negate similarity with a lion to a greater degree. And if one were to say, “Zayd is not as the likeness of a lion,” (laysa Zaydun ka mithli asadin) it would be to negate any similarity between Zayd and a lion.

Imām al-Bayhaqī (384 – 458 H)1 said: “When Allāh intended to negate tashbīh (making a resemblance between Allāh and His creation) in the most emphatic way that a negation can [possibly] be made, He put together in our recitation the particles of similitude (i.e. ka) with the noun of resemblance (i.e. mithl), so that the negation is emphasised to the utmost.” (Al-Asmā’ wa l-Sifāt, 2:34)

3. The word mithl (likeness) is the broadest term of equation. It incorporates similarity in every possible dimension, whether in appearance, qualities or actions. Other words of equation, like shakl, nidd and musāwī are narrower than mithl. Hence, this entails a negation of similarity in all respects, as it means, “no thing is as His likeness in any respect.”