Alhamdulillah for the ability given to us to research the claims of the pseudo-salafis for ourselves, and having the chains of serfdom to pseudo-salafi “Shaykhs” removed from our necks!
For our brethren shackled in pseudo-salafi Saudi Arabia do not have the ability to
May Allah 
free them from the oppression of the Wahhabi propaganda machine funded by oil dollars, Amin! All of us reading this article should thank Allah ta’ala for this ability!
free them from the oppression of the Wahhabi propaganda machine funded by oil dollars, Amin! All of us reading this article should thank Allah ta’ala for this ability!Several years ago we compiled statements of Imam Ash-Shafi’i (rahmatullah ‘alayh), the forefather of this Ummah that standardized Usul Al-Fiqh with his Risalah, in which he held that there existed good bida’ah and evil bida’ah.
We recently came upon some quotes from some
pseudo-salafi “Shaykhs”, particularly
Salim Al-Hilali
and
‘Ali Al-Halabi
students of
al-Albani who claimed these reports were weak.
In this article we will refute the baseless accusation and expose such ignorance in this science.
Imam Al-Bayhaqi, in what was called the greatest biographical work on Imam ash-Shafi’i by Taqiyud-Din As-Subki – Manaqib Al-Imam Ash-Shafi’i, narrates the following report from Imam Ash-Shafi’i:
Scan: Here
“It was narrated to us by Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl who had it narrated to him from Abul-Abbas Al-Asam who said Rabi’ ibn Sulayman narrated to us from Imam ash-Shafi’i that he said,
“Innovated matters in religion are of two kinds:
1) Whatever is innovated and is contradicts the Book, or the Sunnah, or a narration, or Ijma‘ (consensus) – then this is an innovation of misguidance.
2) Whatever is innovated of good and that does not contradict any of these – then this is a novelty which is not blameworthy. And ‘Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) said concerning the night-prayer in the month of Ramadan: ‘ni’matu bida’at hadhihi‘ what a good innovation this is’ meaning something new not previously present, and if done does not rebut anything which existed before.”
This clearly refutes the claim by the pseudo-salafis that Imam Ash-Shafi’i only meant bida’ah “linguistically”, as here he clearly uses it regarding an act of worship that was abandoned as well as not performed by
the Holy Prophet Muhammad
(Sallallahu Alaihe-e-Wa-Sallam) ;
we mean here:
a) He abandoned tarawih as the Sahih hadith states
b) he never gathered the people behind one Imam in doing this Salah,
c) he did not read the entire Qur’an throughout the month of Ramadan etc.
Furthermore, it proves that Imam Ash-Shafi’i utilized the statement of Umar ibn Al-Khattab to prove the existence of
“Good Bida’ah”.
So the question arises is this report Sahih from Imam ash-Shafi’i?
Claim of Weakness by Pseudo-Salafi:
The claim regarding this chain by Salim Al-Hilali and ‘Ali Al-Halabi, pseudo-salafi propagandists and students of Muhammad al-Albani is that Muhammad ibn Musa ibn al-Fadl is that he is somehow unknown as ‘he did not find a biography for him فإني لم أجد له ترجمة‘1 in the works of Jarh and Ta’dil.
The Sunni Response:
This chain is certainly Sahih by the standards of the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah.
We truly wonder if Salim al-Hilali and co. truly ever looked for the biographical information on Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl as-Sayrafi!
For it did not take long for a non-scholar, such as myself, to find his entry within the very well known work Siyar Al-’Alam An-Nubala’ of Imam Adh-Dhahabi.
The entry, in its entirety is as follows:
Scan : Here
“5901: Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan As-Sayrafi [died 412 A.H]
As-Sayrafi, The Shaykh, the Thiqah (trustworthy), The Ma’mun (the reliable), Abu Sa’id, Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan as-Sayrafi, ibn Abi ‘Amru An-Naysaburi. [He then mentions the narrating of him from al-'Asamm - the one who he is narrating this from in this athar under review] [Those who] Reported from him, Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Khatib, Abu Salih Al-Mu’adhdhin, Abu Isma’il Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Harawi [...] “
This is not the only well known work his biographical data is recorded in. In Kitab Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyat of Shaykh Salahud-Din as-Safadi we also find his biographical entry:
Scan: Here
[Excerpt taken from Vol. 5 page 59 of Al-Wafi bil-Wafiyat of Imam Salahud-Din Khalil ibn Aybak As-Safadi [764 A.H] published by Dar Al-Ihya At-turath al-Arabi]:
“Ibn Shadhan Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan, Abu Sa’id ibn ‘Amru An-Naysaburi As-Sayrafi, one of the well known trustworthy (thiqaat) scholars. Those who reported from him are al-Khatib, Al-Bayhaqi, and a large group [of scholars]. He died in the year 412 a.h.”
These are two well known works, available to the masses of Muslims by free download or by purchasing the multiple printed editions, and we thank Allah for allowing us the ability to find the truth!
for allowing us the ability to find the truth!The problem for Salim Al-Hilali and his cohorts in deception does not stop here however. For there is another completely different narration of this principle by Imam Ash-Shafi’i found in Hilyat al-Awliya:
Scan: Here
The difference here is the chain and the wording at the end the narration, “And he sought proof with the words of ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab regarding the prayer in Ramadan:
“This is a good bida’ah!”
Salim Al-Hilali says about this chain:
ففي سنده عبدالله بن محمد العطشي، ذكره الخطيب البغدادي في “تاريخه” والسمعاني في”الأنساب” ولم يذكرا فيه جرحاً ولا تعديلاً
“In its chain is Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-’Atshi, he was mentioned by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi in his “Tarikh”, and As-Sam’ani in Al-Ansaab, and no criticism or praise was mentioned regarding him!”
Therefore, he is “unknown” for no Jarh or ta’dil has been mentioned regarding him!
Imam As-Sam’ani in his Ansaab does mention him as the pseudo-salafis claim:
وأبو القاسم عبد الله بن محمد بن عبدوس العطشي المقرىء، من أهل بغداد، حدث عن إبراهيم بن عبد الله بن الجنيد، وحماد بن الحسن بن عنبسة الوراق، وعلي بن حرب الطائي، ومحمد بن إسحاق الصغاني. روى عنه أبو بكر محمد بن الحسين الآجري وأبو حفص بن شاهين، ويوسف بن عمر القواس وغيرهم. مات في ذي الحجة سنة سبع عشرة وثلاثمائة
…He was from the people of Baghdad…those that reported from him were Abu Bakr [..] Al-Aajuri, Abu Hafs ibn Shahin and Yusuf ibn ‘Umar al-Qawwas, and other than them.If the pseudo-salafis argue that he is “Majhul-Al-Haal“, for in such a case no one has criticized him nor has anyone praised him on record, then his unknowness (jahalah) is raised for there are more than two trustworthy narrators who narrate from him; Ibn Shahin and Abu Bakr Al-Aajuri and Yusuf ibn ‘Umar al-Qawwas. As for Yusuf ibn ‘Umar al-Qawwas then Al-Khatib said he was a Hafith and Thiqah, Dhahabi describes him as a “Master of Hadith, Thiqah!”
[Siyar Al-'Alam An-Nubala': entry 6843]
Therefore his “majhul al-haal” is lifted from him.
We have compiled many statements from the scholars of hadith who held this position to be sound; namely Ibn Abdul Barr, Ibn As-Salah, Al-Qastalani, Ad-Daraqutni, Ibn Hibban, Imam Al-Bazzar, Imam An-Nawawi and many others.
What further strengthens the standing of Shaykh Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-’Atshi is the fact that this is corroborated authentically through the chain of Imam Al-Bayhaqi that we mentioned above.
Conclusion and Warning
This text from Imam Ash-Shafi’i is preserved and Sahih. The Shafi’is have utilized this text as proof throughout their works defining bida’ah, and they have upheld the view of Imam Ash-Shafi’i throughout the ages.
Even Ibn Taymiyyah
–
an arch enemy to the Sunni creed who died in Ahlus Sunnah’s prison for his deviance –
held this text to be authentic in his
Majmu’ Al-Fatawa [20/163] with the words:
رواه البيهقي باسناده الصحيح
“It is reported by Al-Bayhaqi with a Sahih chain!”
I call upon all of the pseudo-salafis to recant their position
that this is not authentic upon Imam Ash-Shafi’i, and such includes the pseudo-salafis on the internet such as Sahab, Ahlul-Hadith, and in English the distorter Umm Abdullah on her devious blog
who wrote a misleading article quoting her deviant and deceptive Imam, Salim Al-Hilali claiming these narrations were weak!
All of this shows that the deviant pseudo-salafi cult, as we have shown many times on SeekingIlm.com, will go to any means necessary to distort the Sunni understanding of Bida’ah. They will lie, cheat, and deceive the masses in their works labeling men who are established as trustworthy, weak, and those weak as trustworthy. We warn you all from their deviance and treachery and ask Allah to save you all from their propaganda Amin!
to save you all from their propaganda Amin!May Allah bless the Prophet Muhammad
bless the Prophet Muhammad(sallallahu ta`ala alaihi wa aalihi wa`sallam)
“5901: Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan As-Sayrafi [died 412 A.H]
As-Sayrafi, The Shaykh, the Thiqah (trustworthy), The Ma’mun (the reliable), Abu Sa’id, Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan as-Sayrafi, ibn Abi ‘Amru An-Naysaburi.
[He then mentions the narrating of him from al-'Asamm - the one who he is narrating this from in this athar under review]
[Those who] Reported from him, “Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Khatib, Abu Salih Al-Mu’adhdhin, Abu Isma’il Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Harawi [...] “”5901: Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan As-Sayrafi [died 412 A.H]
As-Sayrafi, The Shaykh, the Thiqah (trustworthy), The Ma’mun (the reliable), Abu Sa’id, Muhammad ibn Musa ibn Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan as-Sayrafi, ibn Abi ‘Amru An-Naysaburi.
[He then mentions the narrating of him from al-'Asamm - the one who he is narrating this from in this athar under review]
[Those who] Reported from him, “Abu Bakr Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Khatib, Abu Salih Al-Mu’adhdhin, Abu Isma’il Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Harawi [...] ”
- In the horrible work labeled “al-Bida’ah” of Hilali and Usul Al-Bid’ah by Al-Halabi, a work full of lies and distortions indeed!
Compiled by Abu Layth
(edited by ADHM)
-------
Quote comments:
Quote: Um Abdullah M.
Says:"I don’t know what you mean by “distorter”,
but all I did was transmit what al-Hilali said
since at the time I didn’t have much sources to check the authenticity of the narration like I do today, so I couldn’t do my own research on it at the time, so since it is apparent to me now that it is authentic,
I have no problem removing al-Hilali’s comment on it from my blog …
as for the meaning of the statement of al-Shafi’i -rahimahullah-, that is another issue which I don’t wish to discuss here."
(Why Not?)
"I forgot to say that I will remove the part regarding the chain of narration (isnad), but leave the part related to the meaning of the narration, because to me it is the correct interpretation of his statement."
Answer/Response:
Salamu ‘alaykum Um Abdullah,
Firstly, we are happy that you have decided to take down the lies of Hilali and Halabi. By doing so, the masses will no longer doubt these aathaar being from Imam Ash-Shafi’i (rahimahullah), and victory is for the Sunnis!
Secondly, I meant by distorter, one who takes an individuals’ words and manipulates them away from what was intended. This is exactly what you have done with the words of Imam Ash-Shafi’i here. Your interpretation, as you labeled it, of his words does not come from any of his students or any of those with isnaad back to him.
Instead, the Shafi’is, those authorized from him to preserve his school, and therefore those having chains back to him, including here Imam Al-Bayhaqi in this chain – being taught through the Sunni method, have clearly stated that this athar does not mean what you folk interpret it as.
There are two refutations within the linguistic usage of this hadith to show that he meant this is in the Shari’i sense, which you and your cohorts in distortion continue to ignore:
1) “Innovated matters in religion are of two kinds”
He clearly states “min al-umur” which is an allusion to the religion itself; the law! If you reject this premise of ours, then you must reject your own utilization of the many ahadith of the Nabi 
‘alayhis salam who said “min amrinaa” from this din [affair] of ours…as such an interpretation of “man ‘amila amalan laysa ‘alayhi amrunaa’ or man ahdatha fi amrina hadha, ma laysa minhu’, would also not be “shari’i” but linguistic. In other words, Imam ash-Shafi’i is using the same terminology of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam to convey his intent. This point is clear and can be seen from the aathaar from him.
‘alayhis salam who said “min amrinaa” from this din [affair] of ours…as such an interpretation of “man ‘amila amalan laysa ‘alayhi amrunaa’ or man ahdatha fi amrina hadha, ma laysa minhu’, would also not be “shari’i” but linguistic. In other words, Imam ash-Shafi’i is using the same terminology of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam to convey his intent. This point is clear and can be seen from the aathaar from him.2) The very fact that he recognizes in this athar that ‘Umar’s act was “new” from the religion. Look carefully at his words:
And ‘Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) said concerning the night-prayer in the month of Ramadan: ‘ni’matu bida’at hadhihi’ what a good innovation this is’ meaning it was innovated without having existed before and, even so, there was nothing in it that contradicted the above.
and he is saying this within the context of the first point; that this is a bida’ah from within the religion (min al-umur) – that it is an act of WORSHIP that did not EXIST – which is counter to what ever pseudo-salafi argues. He is refuting your own argument by saying it was an act that did not exist within the religion, whereas you and your comrades are saying “it did exist”.
And what shows that this act specifically did not exist is:
a) He ‘alayhis salam abandoned tarawih as the Sahih hadith states b) he never gathered the people behind one Imam in doing this Salah, c) he did not read the entire Qur’an throughout the month of Ramadan in Qiyam etc. d) He (‘alayhis salam) did not specify a certain amount of raka’aat in this affair as Taqi As-Subki, Zarkashi, and As-Suyuti stated ‘nowhere in the Sahih is the number of raka’as prayed by the Prophet (saaws) in the first three nights of Ramadan, before he stopped, specified…’ [Suyuti's Masabih pps 9 and 19]
Furthermore, the very narrator of this athar, Shaykhul-Islam, Al-Hafith, Imam Al-Bayhaqi says right after narrating this athar from Rabi’ in his Manaqib,
“Similarly, debating with the people on innovations – when they make public their innovations or bing up their insinuations – to refute them and expose their fallacies: even if this is an innovation, nevertheless, it is a praiseworthy one because it consists in refuting what we just mentioned. The Prophet (saaws) was asked about Qadar and so were the Sahabah, and they replied with the answers that reported from them. At that time, they contented themselves with the words of the Prophet (saaws) and, thereafter, with the reports to that effect. However, in our time, the innovators do not content themselves with such reports nor do they accept them. Therefore, it is necessary to refute their insinuations – when they make them public – with what they themselves consider proofs. And success is through Allah 
!”
!”He clearly understood from this, just as he understood from the one who narrated it from him, that this view of Imam Ash-Shafi’i justifies the bida’ah of refuting in detail the people of misguidance. And in Al-Bayhaqi’s view, as you can see further down in his commentary on this, this extends to his time with the revival of Sunni Kalaam to refute the people of deviation – i.e. the Mu’tazilah etc. Even ash-Shafi’i himself used Sunni Kalaam to refute the insinuations waged upon Al-Muzani by a Mu’tazili.
So this athar, and Halabi and Hilali know it, cannot be interpreted differently than what Shafi’i said. His words are clear, and your distortions of his words go down in flames when his words are analyzed carefully!
Quote
Um Abdullah M. says:
You said:
<> End quote
In the hadith, amr is mudafah: amruna = “our amr/matter”, so it is very clear it means religion, while Imam Ash-Shafi’i rahimahullah said “umoor” (matters), it was not mudafah, so it is not as clear as the hadith about innovating, so it could matters in general."
Response:
Well, it is possible though it seems that it is an allusion to the ahadith and such would make more sense as he is discussing Bida’ah from a legal perspective, and that is more probable in our view. Nevertheless, his utilization of ‘Umar’s statement and what he extracted from it is even clearer that the shari’ah was intended – as prayer in the month of Ramadan is an act of worship, governed by the laws of the shari’ah.
------
... for those who may be wondering, who the heck is this “distorter” ?
--------------------------------
Wahabi says:
^ Quote:
"It’s ‘ajeeb indeed that you would skip an authentic hadith from the Messenger of Allah that states ‘all bida’h are misguided’ for an interpretation which you do not even fully understand!!
that states ‘all bida’h are misguided’ for an interpretation which you do not even fully understand!!Next point, the type of bida’h ‘Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) was referring to was in its linguistic sense not in its legislative sense, because the act of praying qiyam layl in ramadan in Jama’ah was already done by the Messenger of Allah . In other words, it is not bid’ah or a novelty.
. In other words, it is not bid’ah or a novelty.You said: “Well, it is possible though it seems that it is an allusion to the ahadith and such would make more sense as he is discussing Bida’ah from a legal perspective, and that is more probable in our view.”
Quote Wahabi:
^Quote: "My friend now I am sure that you religion is based on assumption. And Allah ta’ala said:
ta’ala said:“And most of them follow not except assumption. Indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what they do.” [10:36]
is Knowing of what they do.” [10:36]Answer/refutation
Well Abu Zayd in refutation of you and your batilism:
"It’s ‘ajeeb indeed that you would skip an authentic hadith from the Messenger of Allah
The only thing “ajib” is your ignorance of “kull” in the language of the arabs. There are many examples of it not meaning “all” or “every”, but you are too blind to see!
We have already refuted your view elsewhere:
Allāh ta’alā says,
تُدَمِّرُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ بِأَمْرِ رَبِّهَا فَأَصْبَحُوا لَا يُرَى إِلَّا مَسَاكِنُهُمْ كَذَلِكَ نَجْزِي الْقَوْمَ الْمُجْرِمِينَ“
Everything (kulla) will it destroy by the command of its Lord!”
Then by the morning they – nothing was to be seen but (the ruins of) their houses! Thus do We recompense those given to sin!” (46:25)
The exceptions to the “everything” being The Mountains, the heavens, the angels etc.
Another example is the story of the hoopoe and the Nabi Sulaymān (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam).
Sulaymān (Sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa Sallam). Read: “But the Hoopoe tarried not far: he (came up and) said:
“I have compassed (territory) which thou hast not compassed, and I have come to thee from Saba with tidings true. “I found (there) a woman ruling over them and provided with every requisite (وَأُوتِيَتْ مِن كُلِّ شَيْءٍ); and she has a magnificent throne…”
Yet, Saba (Sheba) was not provided with every shay (thing). Rather, she did not have the throne of Sulaymān.”
Other examples:
{ We opened unto them the gates of all (kull) things } (6:44) except the gates of divine mercy.
* { Destroying all (kull) things by commandment of its Lord } (46:25) except the dwellings, and also the mountains, the heavens, and the earth;
* { And that man has only that for which he makes effort } (53:39)
although there are proofs that reach the level of mass transmission in meaning (tawâtur ma’nâwî) whereby the Muslim can benefit from the deeds of others among his brethren and the supplication of the angels, in evidence of which Ibn Taymiyya gathered over twenty proofs which were quoted by al-Jamal in his supercommentary on Tafsir al-Jalalayn for this verse.
* { Those unto whom men (al-nâs) said: Lo! the people (al-nâs) have gathered against you. } (3:173),
in which case both mentions of al-nas patently refer to a limited number and not to the totality of human beings.
* { Lo! you (idolaters) and that (ma) which you worship beside Allah are fuel of hell } (21:98)
are fuel of hell } (21:98) but ‘Isa (a.s.), his mother, and the angels, although they were all worshipped beside Allah , are not meant by this verse.
, are not meant by this verse.* { And consult with them upon the conduct of affairs } (3:159).
Ibn ‘Abbas said: “That is: in some of the affairs.” The Prophet did not consult them for law-giving and legal rulings.
* { That every (kull) soul may be rewarded for that which it strives (to achieve) } (20:15), “every soul” in the sense of what Allah does not forgive, but as for what He forgives, it is excluded from the expression of universality.
does not forgive, but as for what He forgives, it is excluded from the expression of universality.* The Prophet said: “Every human being shall be consumed by the earth but for the coccyx [1] (‘ajbal-dhanab).”7
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “The letter of this hadith and its general meaning necessitate that human beings are all undifferentiated in this case, except that it was narrated that the earth does not consume the bodies of Prophets and martyrs.”
* The Prophet said: “Truly, this black seed (al-habba al-sawda’) is a cure for every (kull) disease except death.”11
The consensus of the commentators is that the universal was named in the sense of the specific in this hadith to mean that many diseases are cured by the black seed, although an all-inclusive wording was used.
Wahabi says:
"Next point, the type of bida’h ‘Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) was referring to was in its linguistic sense not in its legislative sense, because the act of praying qiyam layl in ramadan in Jama’ah was already done by the Messenger of Allah
Where did he recite the entire Qur’an in qiyam al-Layl in ramadan?
Where did he gather the Muslims behind an Imam and do this act throughout ramadan?
In fact, in your blindness and defiance of the truth you fail to see that even the ahadith refute you.
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith
Hadith 3.227 Narrated by Abu Huraira
Hadith 3.227 Narrated by Abu Huraira
Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah ’s Apostle said, “Whoever prayed at night the whole month of Ramadan out of sincere Faith and hoping for a reward from Allah , then all his previous sins will be forgiven.”
’s Apostle said, “Whoever prayed at night the whole month of Ramadan out of sincere Faith and hoping for a reward from Allah , then all his previous sins will be forgiven.” Ibn Shihab (a sub-narrator) said, “Allah ’s Apostle died and the people continued observing that (i.e. Nawafil offered individually, not in congregation), and it remained as it was during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and in the early days of ‘Umar’s Caliphate.” ‘Abdur Rahman bin ‘Abdul Qari said, “I went out in the company of ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab one night in Ramadan to the mosque and found the people praying in different groups. A man praying alone or a man praying with a little group behind him.
’s Apostle died and the people continued observing that (i.e. Nawafil offered individually, not in congregation), and it remained as it was during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and in the early days of ‘Umar’s Caliphate.” ‘Abdur Rahman bin ‘Abdul Qari said, “I went out in the company of ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab one night in Ramadan to the mosque and found the people praying in different groups. A man praying alone or a man praying with a little group behind him. So, ‘Umar said, ‘In my opinion I would better collect these (people) under the leadership of one Qari (Reciter) (i.e. let them pray in congregation!)’. So, he made up his mind to congregate them behind Ubai bin Ka’b. Then on another night I went again in his company and the people were praying behind their reciter.
On that, ‘Umar remarked, ‘What an excellent Bid’a (i.e. innovation in religion) this is; but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.’ He meant the prayer in the last part of the night. (In those days) people used to pray in the early part of the night.”
From this hadith you can see that the Nabi ‘alayhis salaam DID NOT HAVE ONE JAMA’AH for this Salah, as the sahabah continued praying it singularly – not within Jama’ah as the athar of Abu Hurayrah above attests to!
‘alayhis salaam DID NOT HAVE ONE JAMA’AH for this Salah, as the sahabah continued praying it singularly – not within Jama’ah as the athar of Abu Hurayrah above attests to!In fact, the Nabi ‘alayhis salam abandoned the act of jama’ah entirely, and so literally the sunnah would be abandonment of jama’ah and not establishment of this act!
‘alayhis salam abandoned the act of jama’ah entirely, and so literally the sunnah would be abandonment of jama’ah and not establishment of this act!Hence Umar’s LEGAL understanding that this was an act that the Prophet DID NOT establish – as the Sahabah would have been doing it prior if it had been!
the reason why Imam Ash-Shafi’i divided Bida’ah into two types, a fact you and your lying cohorts have tried to deny that he said repeatedly with your deceitful weakenings and attempts in vain to explain this as “linguistic”, when in fact it is shari’atic!
wahabi says:
You said: “Well, it is possible though it seems that it is an allusion to the ahadith and such would make more sense as he is discussing Bida’ah from a legal perspective, and that is more probable in our view.”
Grammatically, and legally, the possibility can be either way. So you too are following a probable meaning, and so by your own standards are upon conjecture.
You have been squelched, have a nice day!
Abu Zayd, Wahabi says:
“I actually understand ‘كل’ much better than you to be honest. This, if it is used with indefinite noun denotes the meaning of ‘each’ and ‘every.’ Hence, ‘each and every bid’ah.’
Allah said:
said: كُلَّ يَوْمٍ هُوَ فِي شَأْنٍ
“Every day He is bringing about a matter.” [55:29]
Next, you need to provide substantial evidence that the ‘كل’ mentioned in the hadith is not referring to each, every, and all types of bid’ah, otherwise, you should not waste your time. The best approach in this matter is to take the thahir and leave-off all this nonsense.
Secondly, with regards to what ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘anhu) said, it is very clear that he was not talking about something totally new, but he was referring to something which was being revived while it had been gone i.e.the issue was proceeded by a clear evidence. In other words, he used it in its linguistic meanings.
عن نافع عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما قوله: “كل بدعة ضلالة وإن رآها الناس حسنة” وذكره محمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة بسند صحيح’
From Nafi’ who narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘Anhumaa) his saying:
“Every bid’ah is misguidance even if the people deem it to be good.” [It was mentioned by Muhammad b. Nasr al-Marwazi in Kitab as-Sunnah with authentic chain]
And May Allah have mercy on al-Imam Malik who said:
have mercy on al-Imam Malik who said:وخير أمور الدين ما كان سنة *** وشر الأمور المحدثات البــدع
And it was indeed al-Imam Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) who said:
be pleased with him) who said: “And the best affairs in the deen is what was Sunnah, and the worst of affairs is newly invented innovations.”
[end of quote]
Answer/Refutation
Quote:
“Next, you need to provide substantial evidence that the ‘كل’ mentioned in the hadith is not referring to each, every, and all types of bid’ah, otherwise, you should not waste your time. The best approach in this matter is to take the thahir and leave-off all this nonsense.”
The salaf us salih created many actions IN WORSHIP that were never done by the Prophet Muhammad 
(saaws), innovating into the religion of Islam what was never found before! I will give you one example shortly, but your claim of literalism with this hadith is also ridiculous considering, as we have shown, that the literal meaning could be “most” and not “all”, as shown in previous comments. To continue:
(saaws), innovating into the religion of Islam what was never found before! I will give you one example shortly, but your claim of literalism with this hadith is also ridiculous considering, as we have shown, that the literal meaning could be “most” and not “all”, as shown in previous comments. To continue:"Secondly, with regards to what ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘anhu) said, it is very clear that he was not talking about something totally new, but he was referring to something which was being revived while it had been gone i.e.the issue was proceeded by a clear evidence."
Clear? Only clear to someone who refuses to analyze the aathaar pertaining to this issue such as your cohorts in crime! Certainly this act of Umar’s had never been done by the Nabi Muhammad ‘alayhis salam for several reasons, including the following, and we demand that you answer the following two points if you are truthful:
Muhammad ‘alayhis salam for several reasons, including the following, and we demand that you answer the following two points if you are truthful:a) Where did he recite the entire Qur’an in qiyam al-Layl in ramadan?
b) Where did he gather the Muslims behind one Imam and do this act throughout the entirety of ramadan?
But of course this matter is clear! The Nabi ‘alayhis salam never had done this act prior and thus Imam Ash-Shafi’i knew very well the legal import of ‘Umar’s words and actions!
‘alayhis salam never had done this act prior and thus Imam Ash-Shafi’i knew very well the legal import of ‘Umar’s words and actions!As for Ibn ‘Umar’s words that you quote:
عن نافع عن ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما قوله: “كل بدعة ضلالة وإن رآها الناس حسنة” وذكره محمد بن نصر المروزي في كتاب السنة بسند صحيح’
From Nafi’ who narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘Anhumaa) his saying:
“Every bid’ah is misguidance even if the people deem it to be good.” [It was mentioned by Muhammad b. Nasr al-Marwazi in Kitab as-Sunnah with authentic chain]
We wonder if Ibn Umar (radiya allahu anhu) held this view authentically. We request an isnad. However, even if he did say this he clearly contradicted the rightly guided Caliphs. For example, he (radiya Allahu anhu) seemingly called the adhaan innovated by Uthman ibn ‘affan a “bida’ah” for ‘Uthman (rh) invented an adhaan of the Jumu’ah!
Narrated As-Saib bin Yazid: In the life-time of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar, the Adhan for the Jumua prayer used to be pronounced when the Imam sat on the pulpit. But during the Caliphate of ‘Uthman when the Muslims increased in number, a third Adhan at Az-Zaura’ was added. Abu ‘Abdullah said, “Az-Zaura’ is a place in the market of Medina.”
and:
Narrated As-Saib bin Yazid: The person who increased the number of Adhans for the Jumua prayers to three was Uthman bin Affan and it was when the number of the (Muslim) people of Medina had increased. In the life-time of the Prophet there was only one Muadh-dhin and the Adhan used to be pronounced only after the Imam had taken his seat (i.e. on the pulpit).
[both in the book of Jumu'ah Salah in Sahih Al-Bukhaari]
Imam az-Zuhri is authentically to have said that Uthman “INNOVATED” this action:
حدثنا ابن علية عن برد الزهري قال كان الاذان عند خروج الامام فأحدث أمير المؤمنين عثمان على الزوراء ليجتمع الناس .
Ibn Abi Shaybah authentically narrates from Ibn Umar that he said:
حدثنا شبابة قال حدثنا هشيم بن الغاز عن نافع عن ابن عمر قال الاذان الاول يوم الجمعة بدعة
“The first adhan on the day of Jumu’ah is a Bida’ah!”
As well as the following athar:
حدثنا وكيع قال حدثنا بن الغاز قال سألت نافعا مولى ابن عمر الاذان الاول يوم الجمعة بدعة فقال ابن عمر بدعة
“Ibn Al-Ghaz said that Nafi’ the mawla of Ibn Umar asked Ibn Umar regarding the first adhaan for the day of Jumu’ah being a bida’ah. Ibn Umar said: “Bida’ah!”
From what we have just shown you from both ‘Umar and ‘Uthman (radiya Allahu ‘anhum), they believed that there was a good innovation in religion! It is their interpretation we follow as the Nabi ‘alayhis salam said :
‘alayhis salam said : “….and be upon the sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs!”
So we ask you, Did Ibn Umar mean to disparage this established act by Uthman, an act that was implemented by the Muslims and established by them? Or did he mean that this innovation (bida’ah) was acceptable and good?
We hope you can answer our demands!
Also, as stated before, the tabi’in innovated into the religion many actions that the Nabi ‘alayhis salam did, some of them being:
‘alayhis salam did, some of them being:-Sa’d ibn Ibrahim Az-Zuhri fasting and reciting the entire Qur’an in one day every day, not the Sunnah of the Nabi (’alayhis salaam).
(’alayhis salaam).[’Ibar of Adh-Dhahabi, Yaaf’i in Mira’t Al Janan, and others]
-Sulaym At-Tujibi reciting the entire Qur’an 3 (some say 4) times in a day inside and outside of Salah. [An Nawawi in his Tibyaan, Ibn Kathir in his Bidayah and others]
-Zaynul ‘Aabideen making 1000 raka’at daily until his death. Bida’ah! – [Imam Adh-Dhahabi in his ‘Ibar]
-Uways Al-Qarani saying “This is the night of ruku’” and making ruku’ until the end of the night. Or “this is the night of sajdah” and making sajdah until the end of the night. [Abu Nu’aym in his Al-Hilya]
-Masruq ibn Al-’Ajda’ (saahib ibn mas’ud) sleeping only in his sajdah in Salah: Dhahabi in his ‘ibar and many others as well.
-Sa’id ibn Jubair (and then Abu Hanifa) reciting the entire Qur’an in one raka’ah. Bida’ah! [An Nawawi’s tibyaan]
And lastly, further proof that the Nabi meant “most” and not “all” comes from his words:
meant “most” and not “all” comes from his words:فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَنْ سَنَّ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً فَعُمِلَ بِهَا بَعْدَهُ كُتِبَ لَهُ مِثْلُ أَجْرِ مَنْ عَمِلَ بِهَا وَلَا يَنْقُصُ مِنْ أُجُورِهِمْ شَيْءٌ وَمَنْ سَنَّ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ سُنَّةً سَيِّئَةً فَعُمِلَ بِهَا بَعْدَهُ كُتِبَ عَلَيْهِ مِثْلُ وِزْرِ مَنْ عَمِلَ بِهَا وَلَا يَنْقُصُ مِنْ أَوْزَارِهِمْ شَيْءٌ
“Whoever institutes a good practice in Islam has its reward and the reward of all those who practice it until the day of judgement without lessening the rewards of the latter. And whoever institutes a bad practice in Islam beards its onus and the onus of all those who practice it until the Day of Judgment without lessening the onus of the latter.”
The term Sanna (translated here as institutes) means to start an act without precedent. Proof that the word means such is found within the Sunnah as well:
وكان خبيب هو سن لكل مسلم قتل صبرا الصلاة
Translated at the above link as: “So, it was Khubaib who set the tradition without prior precedent for any Muslim sentenced to death in captivity, to offer a two-rakat prayer (before being killed).”
And so our Nabi ‘alayhis salam encouraged encouraged creating acts that are “good”, that do not contradict his established Sunnah or the Ijma’ of the Muslims etc. Such was the understanding of the salaf as well as we have shown throughout this site.
‘alayhis salam encouraged encouraged creating acts that are “good”, that do not contradict his established Sunnah or the Ijma’ of the Muslims etc. Such was the understanding of the salaf as well as we have shown throughout this site.was-salam
Abu Layth
Quote:
Abu Zayd, wahabi says:
“Brother you have not brought anything new at this point because you have not showed any credible sources that bid’ah which is referred in the hadith is only talking about some bid’ah and not all bid’ah. Stop beating around the bush and come to terms with yourself.
The extra adhan which is done in Jum’ah was an ijtihad of ‘Uthman (radiya Allahu ‘Anahu) and Ibn ‘Umar did point out the fact that it is a bid’ah (cf: musnaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah). And just in case you are to cite the hadith which says, “be upon my sunnah and the sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs,” than the best explanation is given by Abu Muhammad (Ibn Hazm) when he said:
إما أن نأخذ بسنن الخلفاء الراشدين كلها فهذا لا سبيل إليه لأنهم قد اختلفوا، وإما أن نردها كلها فهذا ضلال مبين، لأن من سننهم ما هو موافق لسنة رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم -، وإما أن نأخذ من سننهم ما كان موافقا لكتاب الله ولسنة رسول الله – صلى الله عليه وسلم- وهذا هو قولنا
“..Be it that we take all of the sunan of the right guided caliph, then there is no way of achieving this this as they differed. And if we rejected all of it, then this is clear misguidance because from their sunan is that which is in accordance with the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu ‘alayhi wa salam). Or we take from their sunan that is in agreement to the book of Allah and to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu ‘alayhi wa salam)…and this is our saying.”
(sallalahu ‘alayhi wa salam). Or we take from their sunan that is in agreement to the book of Allah and to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu ‘alayhi wa salam)…and this is our saying.”In other words, I have a hadith telling me to stay away from ‘kull’ bid’ah and you are running around with statements of the fallible, this is not going to help you proof your case.
May Allah reward Abu Muhammad (Ibn Hazm) when he stated:
reward Abu Muhammad (Ibn Hazm) when he stated:“It is not lawful to abandon what has been reported in the Qur’an nor what has been confirmed from the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu ‘Alayhi Wa Salam) on a account of a saying of a companion or other than him, be he the narrator of the hadith, or not.” (issue 93 in Kitab al-Usool of al-Muhalla)
(Sallalahu ‘Alayhi Wa Salam) on a account of a saying of a companion or other than him, be he the narrator of the hadith, or not.” (issue 93 in Kitab al-Usool of al-Muhalla)[end of quote]
Answer/Refutation
Brother Abu Zayd,
I want to thank you for accepting the fact that you do not follow the Rightly guided Caliphs and their understanding of Bida’ah. We have shown to you that bida’ah can be good, and that as long as it does not contradict any of the principles of the law it is acceptable. The Khulafa’ Ar-Rashidin understood it as such and they implemented it, hence the labeling an act of Tarawih a bida’ah – as the Nabi ‘alayhis salam had never done this SPECIFIC act with all of its characteristics, and hence the creation of a totally new adhaan by Imam ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) – described as a bida’ah and an innovation, yet done by the Sahabah thereafter.
‘alayhis salam had never done this SPECIFIC act with all of its characteristics, and hence the creation of a totally new adhaan by Imam ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) – described as a bida’ah and an innovation, yet done by the Sahabah thereafter.What you still do not seem to understand is that the law reconciles itself. You see it is a contradiction – mainly that Uthman innovated into the deen without precedent, whereas the Sunnis see his understanding as one of reconciliation between all of the actions and statements of the Prophet Muhammad
(Sallallahu Alaihe-e-Wa-Sallam)
1) That he condemned MOST bida’ah.
2) That he recommended creating bida’ah which were hasanah. As proven by the hadith ‘man sanna fil islami sunnat hasanah‘
3) That the rightly guided Caliphs, who we are obliged to follow, understood the proofs as a whole not in a singular fashion as yourself.
So the only one who needs to “come to terms with their self” is you, as you have decided quite literally abandon the way of the rightly guided caliphs and by extension the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad
(Sallallahu Alaihe-e-Wa-Sallam)
Imam Ash-Shafi’i did make this matter clear for the Muslims, and it goes to show that the pseudo-salafis are upon a different religion than the righteous Salaf!
was-salam
Quote:
Abu Zayd, wahabi says:
“Abu Layth, you requested for the isnad on that athar from Ibn ‘Umar (ra) then you can find it at:
البيهقي في المدخل إلى السنن
Answer/Refuation:
Imam al-Bayhaqi does report it in his Madkhal athar 191 in adwa As-Salaf print. The chain is strong, Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaydullah Al-Munadi is Saduq according to Abu Hatim and Hafith Ibn Hajr in his Taqrib. Abu Dawud rejected one of his hadith as stated by Hafith Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut in his tahrir. Shababah ibn Sawwar was weakened by some – and said to have no support in his narrations by Abu Hatim – because he seems to have been a Murji’i – delved into irja’ that is; I certainly have seen such types rejected by the pseudo-salafis for much less! – though declared thiqah and a Hafith by Ibn Hajar in his Taqrib.
I think the stronger chain for this is reported by Muhammad ibn Nasr Al-Marwazi in his Sunna from Ishaq from Waki’ from Hisham ibn al-Ghaazz. Its chain is certainly Sahih.
So the upshot is the athar of Ibn Umar must be understood as “most bida’ah are misguidance, even if the people think they are good” for if it were “all” he would be contradicting the very words of his father Umar ibn al-Khattab who said ‘what a good bida’ah this is!’ He would also be contradicting the words of the Nabi ‘alayhis salam, ‘man sanna fil Islam sunnatin hasanah’ as explained in the previous comments.
‘alayhis salam, ‘man sanna fil Islam sunnatin hasanah’ as explained in the previous comments.Radiya Allahu ‘anhu amin!
Abu Zayd were you able to find an isnaad for the poetry you quoted from Imam Malik?
Quote:
Abu Zayd, wahabi says:
“Abu Layth,
It is up to you if you’ve decided to reinterpret the words of Ibn ‘Umar even though they are very precise in their meaning.
With regards to the piece of poetry which is attributed to Imam Malik than I took it directly from my copy of (al-’tisam, Pg. 66, Published by Dar al-Hadith al-Qahira) and it does not mention a sanad for it from what I can see.
I used this because this illustrated the point that I was making; since it is poetry I was relying more on the meaning than the sanad, but whatever the case, I will have to find the sanad for it insha’Allah .
.Syid Nawaz says:
Quote “@ Aby Zayd:
“Next point, the type of bida’h ‘Umar (radiya Allahu ‘anhu) was referring to was in its linguistic sense not in its legislative sense, because the act of praying qiyam layl in ramadan in Jama’ah was already done by the Messenger of Allah . In other words, it is not bid’ah or a novelty.”
. In other words, it is not bid’ah or a novelty.”I really failed to understand what you were trying to say there. So something that is sunnah, can be considered LINGUISTICALLY bida?! That’s very confusing to me!
Quote:
Abu Zayd Wahabi says:
“Mr. Nawaz, maybe this issue is over your head if you cannot understand what I wrote. And Allah knows best.”
knows best.”Syid Nawaz says:
So, this is how wahabis respond when asked to clarify? I was actually trying to understand your point, but it seems you have some ego problems, Allah knows best.
knows best.@ Abu Layth
Brother, you brought a quote:
“Ibn Al-Ghaz said that Nafi’ the mawla of Ibn Umar asked Ibn Umar regarding the first adhaan for the day of Jumu’ah being a bida’ah. Ibn Umar said: “Bida’ah!”
So tell me brother, do the wahabis give the first adhaan in their jummah? I am asking you this, as we don’t have any wahabi Mosque where I live so I could go and find out, and secondly, zayd, the wahabi representative here, wouldn’t like to answer a question from people not as brilliant as he is!
Answer/Reply:
Brother Syid Nawaz please forgive the delusions of Abu Zayd. Let me see if I can get your answer for you from him…[though such is impossible really - for whatever he says will be a run-away argument]…but I will not be as kind and compassionate as you were towards him. Instead, let me not allow him to save face and manifest to the masses his treachery and deceit!
Mr. Nawaz, maybe this issue is over your head if you cannot understand what I wrote. And Allah knows best.
knows best.He understood it better than you, may Allah bless this brother with firdaws for having to deal with your utter stupidity and complete tuck of tail and run from his honest question! He simply wants to know how you can say that the institutionalization of tarawih is a bida’ah lughawi when you are saying that it was already Sunnah. Bida’ah in the language, as you know, denotes something “new”.
bless this brother with firdaws for having to deal with your utter stupidity and complete tuck of tail and run from his honest question! He simply wants to know how you can say that the institutionalization of tarawih is a bida’ah lughawi when you are saying that it was already Sunnah. Bida’ah in the language, as you know, denotes something “new”.Okay let me quote you:
Secondly, with regards to what ‘Umar (radiyallahu ‘anhu) said, it is very clear that he was not talking about something totally new, but he was referring to something which was being revived while it had been gone i.e.the issue was proceeded by a clear evidence. In other words, he used it in its linguistic meanings.
How is this act “new” if it was already, according to your baatil understanding, in practice by the Nabi ‘alayhis salam? But wait…you are saying it is “revived” – in other words this act already existed which brings us to the points you and your comrades of bida’ah dalalah continue to MISS or more so dodge:
‘alayhis salam? But wait…you are saying it is “revived” – in other words this act already existed which brings us to the points you and your comrades of bida’ah dalalah continue to MISS or more so dodge:a) show us where the Nabi ‘alayhis salam gathered the masses behind one imam for this salah throughout the entire month of Ramadan, to be prayed specifically after ‘Isha’, and specifically recite one juz’ a day.
‘alayhis salam gathered the masses behind one imam for this salah throughout the entire month of Ramadan, to be prayed specifically after ‘Isha’, and specifically recite one juz’ a day.b) show us where the Nabi ‘alayhis salam recited the entire qur’an throughout the month of Ramadan in Jama’ah, institutionalizing such…
‘alayhis salam recited the entire qur’an throughout the month of Ramadan in Jama’ah, institutionalizing such…Both of these acts are shari’i acts, not done by the Nabi ‘alayhis salam, and hence Umar’s saying “ni’matu bida’atu hadhihi!” But of course somehow bida’ah – in your mind – means “revive”… so show us where Umar “revived” points a and b … if you are truthful!
‘alayhis salam, and hence Umar’s saying “ni’matu bida’atu hadhihi!” But of course somehow bida’ah – in your mind – means “revive”… so show us where Umar “revived” points a and b … if you are truthful!You keep telling us that bida’ah lughawi – just as your cohorts in crime who claim to be “Salafis” – while knowing nothing of the way of the salaf, yet we do not find “revive” as a definition or meaning of bida’ah within the language:
Here:
The above is from the masterpiece “lane’s lexicon” which includes the entry “bida’ah”.
What we find as the linguistic usage is:
“An innovation; a novelty; anything originated, invented, or innovated; anything made,
done, produced, caused to be or exist, or brought into existence, newly, for the first time, it not having been or existed before, and not after the similitude of anything pre-existing:…”
So the brother asked you a very reasonable question which apparently YOU do NOT understand. How is it that you can claim all of these actions to already have been established from the Nabi , while still agreeing with Umar’s words that it was a good bida’ah? As bida’ah linguistically is that which is new – not done prior.
, while still agreeing with Umar’s words that it was a good bida’ah? As bida’ah linguistically is that which is new – not done prior. You are saying these actions were not new, so in fact to you, Umar must have been mistaken in his usage of the word bida’ah! Why don’t you tell us what you really believe – maybe it is you and your cohorts who are the real revilers of the companions! Maybe it is you who demean the intelligence of Imam Umar and Imam Uthman (radiya Allahu anhuma) by thinking you understand the words of the Prophet Muhammad
(Sallallahu Alaihe-e-Wa-Sallam)
better than they!
This question you did not answer in your comments above, so man-up and stop running away from this poor man’s simple question which you cannot seem to handle! Just as you could not handle the fact that Uthman ibn ‘Affan INNOVATED an entirely new adhaan, as well as the Sahabah and other than them innovating all types of new acts of worship…where is your principle that everything must explicitly be proven in “worship” before it can be acted upon? Where does it stand in the face of these Khulafa’ who squelch your pathetic argumentation and your idiotic rejection of this noble principle of good bida’ah!
Let us not forget as well that you still are to
c) show us an isnaad for this shi’r from Imam Malik.
Bottom line, you can’t answer this question without admitting that you are not upon the manhaj of the rightly guided Caliphs as you stated before. All this while you pseudo-salafis vomit your deceitful claim that you follow their understanding and manhaj! You are the modern-day shi’is, as you demean the intelligence of the Khulafa’ who were rightly guided – while masking your supposed respect and allegiance to them!
Come to Islam and follow the way of the Sunnis so you may achieve eternal salvation!
Leave the dark side and accept the way of light, the way of the Sahabah and the tabi’in, those who emulated the Messenger (‘alayhis salam) better than you and I, the way of intense dhikr where your very soul falls in love with the Divine splendor! Leave the ways of idiocy and anthropomorphism to find the religion of Islam that is one of submission and say “we believe in these based upon the intent of Allah and His Messenger” and remain silent – refusing to delve into the heresy of wading in the pools of created meanings! Just do it!
and His Messenger” and remain silent – refusing to delve into the heresy of wading in the pools of created meanings! Just do it!And the curse of Allah is upon the liars!
is upon the liars!was-salam
Abu Layth on behalf of brother Nawaz who is much better than Abu Layth for having the patience and fortitude to deal with such pseudo-salafi irrationality and !
Ahmed says:
Jazakallah
Also readily waiting for the isnaad for the quote from imam malik.
Also the quote you (bro abu layth) gave from al ittisam just mentions that the worst acts are bidahs etc. I was talking about this one Imam Malik stated that ”he who innovates something in Islam while deeming it to be a good innovation has alleged that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was unfaithful in disseminating his message as Allah Almighty says: “This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you Al-Islam as religion.”
Almighty says: “This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you, and have chosen for you Al-Islam as religion.”May Allah reward you
reward youReply:
Salamu ‘alaykum Brother Ahmed,
I have found this report from Imam Malik in the ‘Itisam of Ash-Shatibi [no shock there!].
The actual athar that you have quoted is:
من ابتدع في الإسلام بدعة يراها حسنة فقد زعم أن محمداً خان الرسالة؛ لأن الله يقول {اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم} فما لم يكن يومئذ ديناً فلا يكون اليوم ديناً
“he who innovates something in Islam while deeming it to be a good innovation has alleged that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was unfaithful…”
This athar does not come with a chain and it simply says “reported from Ibn al-Majishun”, the scan is here.
But notice also that the editor tries to claim that this is reported further down in volume 2 page 368 – see the scan for proof.
The athar does not say that at all. Instead it says,
“Tathweeb is misguidance. [as to what tathweeb is there is disagreement as mentioned by Tirmidhi] whoever innovates in this Ummah anything in which cannot be found for it [precedent] from what came before it then he is claiming that Muhammad was unfaithful …”
Shatibi, relied upon heavily by the pseudo-salafis with regards bida’ah – too bad not regarding creed! – is in the habit of quoting narratives from Imam Malik without chain, or without connection to the one who he is quoting from to Imam Malik. Do those who utilize this athar have a chain from Malik mentioning rejection of “good bida’ah!?” It is not in the sources they quote!
Wallahu ‘Alim
This is what I could find, if someone can produce a chain for this we would be more than willing to see it! I may make this into an article later insha’Allah with more references and scans if need be.
with more references and scans if need be.Hope that helps Ahmed.
was-salam,
Abu Layth
Ahmed says:
May Allah reward you,
reward you,That helps alot. That has been bugging me for some time. And it is recorded in all salafi books in regards to bidah. And in every lecture but never seen a sanad for it.
Salam
Syid Nawaz says:
Jazakallah brother Abu Layth for your response. I need to tell you that all of your posts under this article dealing with this issue of good bida are really good, and I have decided to save it . Moreover, I would like to state my view on this subject, which you have already elaborated.
First of all, the statement from a companion regarding the night prayer of ramadan as “good innovation” is sufficient to prove that the concept of ‘good bidah’ is indeed legitimate; therefore, if someone comes and says that it was actually not bidah but sunnah but bidah “linguistically” , then it only makes the whole thing confusing and nothing is clarified . Then, the wahabis will say that it was a sunnah that was revived, and hence it’s not a bidah, and at the same time agree that it’s linguistically bidah! So, a question for them: is a revival of sunnah considered linguistically bidah? But as bro Abul Layth wrote in the comment above : “yet we do not find ‘revive’ as a definition or meaning of bida’ah within the language”; I think this should be enough to prove the wahabi view on bidah wrong.
Was salam.
Reply:
Salamu ‘alaykum,
That helps alot. That has been bugging me for some time. And it is recorded in all salafi books in regards to bidah. And in every lecture but never seen a sanad for it.
I’m glad it does help insha’Allah . I looked elsewhere for a chain and was still unable to find such. You should go on pseudo-salafi websites and demand a chain. They will either ban you or you will get the silent treatment lol. I do it on the pseudo-salafi arabic sites and they just ban me at the first hint that I am questioning their batilistic views.
. I looked elsewhere for a chain and was still unable to find such. You should go on pseudo-salafi websites and demand a chain. They will either ban you or you will get the silent treatment lol. I do it on the pseudo-salafi arabic sites and they just ban me at the first hint that I am questioning their batilistic views. Jazakallah brother Abu Layth for your response. I need to tell you that all of your posts under this article dealing with this issue of good bida are really good, and I have decided to save it . Moreover, I would like to state my view on this subject, which you have already elaborated.
First of all, the statement from a companion regarding the night prayer of ramadan as “good innovation” is sufficient to prove that the concept of ‘good bidah’ is indeed legitimate; therefore, if someone comes and says that it was actually not bidah but sunnah but bidah “linguistically” , then it only makes the whole thing confusing and nothing is clarified . Then, the wahabis will say that it was a sunnah that was revived, and hence it’s not a bidah, and at the same time agree that it’s linguistically bidah! So, a question for them: is a revival of sunnah considered linguistically bidah? But as bro Abul Layth wrote in the comment above : “yet we do not find ‘revive’ as a definition or meaning of bida’ah within the language”; I think this should be enough to prove the wahabi view on bidah wrong.
Was salam.
I love this argument bro. I always ignored this argument because I felt that the ahadith and aathaar on the topic were enough to dismantle their heresy. However, questioning the very premise of their bida’ah lughawiy claim is does seem to stump them, or atleast they give non-answers in response.
was-salam
Abu Layth
---
Wahabi
