EVERY COIN HAS TWO SIDES!

The Ink of Scholars is superior to the Blood of Martyrs

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:39:00 +0000

On several different occasions a number of our scholars use to cite the following ḥadīth:

“The ink of the scholars is superior to the blood of martyrs.”

And every once in a while those who recite this ḥadīthencounter detractors who consider this ḥadīthto be weak (ḍa‘īf) or very weak (ḍa‘īf jiddan), if not fabricated (mawḍū‘).

I admit that, although this ḥadīth was narrated through multiple distinct chains of narrators (asānīd), almost all of them are extremely weak. However, as it has turned out, a second glance, away from judgments of pseudo-Salafīs like al-Munajjid or al-Albānī, has proven itself to be quite worthwhile.

Hereinafter I will put on record two asānīd through which the fact will be established that in truth this ḥadīth qualifies to bear the judgment (ḥukm) “good” (ḥasan).

The first ḥadīth was recorded by Imām as-Sam‘ānī (d. 562 AH) as follows:

أخبرنا أبو غانم المظفر بن الحسين بن المظفر المفصلي، ببروجرد، أنا أبو الفتح عبد الواحد بن إسماعيل بن عثمان النغاري، حدثني أبو نعيم أحمد بن عبد الله بن أحمد الحافظ، ثنا أبو بكر بن خلاد، ثنا الحارث بن أبي أسامة، ثنا روح بن عبادة، وإسحاق بن عيسى الطباع، قالا: ثنا مالك بن أنس، عن سهيل بن أبي صالح، عن أبيه، عن أبي هريرة، رضي الله عنه، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: "يوزن مداد العلماء يوم القيامة بدم الشهداء، فيرجح مدادهم على دماءهم أضعافا مضاعفة."

Isnād:

Abū Ghānim al-Muẓaffar ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Muẓaffar al-Mufaṣṣalī[1]– Abū al-Fatḥ ‘Abd al-Wāḥid ibn Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Uthmān an-Naghārī – Abū Nu‘aym Aḥmad ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Aḥmad al-Ḥāfiẓ – Abū Bakr ibn Khālid – al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Usāmah – Rauḥ ibn ‘Ubādah and Isḥāq ibn ‘Īsā at-Ṭabbā‘ – Mālik ibn Anas – Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ – His Father – Abū Hurayrah (ra) – The Holy Prophet (saw)

Matn:

Yūzanu midādu l-‘ulamā’i yawma l-qiyāmati bi-dami sh-shuhadā’i, fa-yarjaḥu midāduhum ‘alā dimā’ihim aḍ‘āfan muḍā‘afatan

Translation:

“The ink of the scholars will be weighed against the blood of the martyrs on the Day of Judgment and their ink will outweigh their blood manifold times.”[2]

Those narrators that are contested by the critics are just the last two. It is said that both of them would be of unknown integrity (majhūl al-ḥāl). [3]

The last narrator is Abū Ghānim al-Muẓaffar ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Muẓaffar ibn ʻUbayd Allāh al-Mufaḍḍalī al-Burūjirdī. Imām as-Sam‘ānī himself said about him that he was an elder (shaykh), a scholar (‘ālim), an eminence (fāḍil), virtuous (ṣāliḥ), of well-disposed character (sadīd as-sīrah), someone minding his own business (mushtaghilan bi-mā ya‘nīhi) and staying at his home (lāziman manzilahu).[4] Imām Ibn al-Athīr (d. 630 AH) said that he was an eminence (fāḍil), virtuous (ṣāliḥ) and an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh).[5] Imām as-Subkī (d. 771 AH) said that he studied Islamic jurisprudence under as-Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim ad-Dabūsī.[6]

That by now is the first indication whereby it has been found that al-Munajjid, al-Albānī and the likes have worked sloppily and have failed to do their homework properly. By no means is this narrator unknown, rather is he a highly respectable and trustworthy scholar.

The penultimate narrator is Abū al-Fatḥ ‘Abd al-Wāḥid ibn Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Naghārah an-Naghārī (al-Jabalī) al-Burūjirdī.

Now, before I put forward arguments in favour of his credibility, some words will be made disclosing a fundamental of the topic of obscurity (jahālah) which is less well-known to the laity.

Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463 AH) wrote:

المجهول عند أصحاب الحديث هو كل من لم يشتهر بطلب العلم في نفسه ولا عرفه العلماء به ومن لم يعرف حديثه إلا من جهة راو واحد. […] وأقل ما ترتفع به الجهالة أن يروى عن الرجل اثنان فصاعدا من المشهورين بالعلم.

“According to the adherents of ḥadīth (asḥāb al-ḥadīth) unknown (majhūl) is anyone whose acquiring of knowledge is not known of per se and neither do the scholars know about him and he whose ḥadīth is not known, except from the direction of a single narrator. […] And the least that cancels out their obscurity (jahālah) is that two or more men narrate from him which are known for knowledge.”[7]

Imām ad-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385 AH) said:

من روى عنه ثقتان فقد ارتفعت جهالته، وثبتت عدالته.

“Anyone of who two reliable (thiqah) people have narrated, his obscurity (jahālah) cancels out and his trustworthiness (‘adālah) is proven.”[8]

Among other scholars, Imām al-Aʻẓam Abū Ḥanīfah (d. 150 AH) [9], Imām al-Bazzār (d. 292 AH) [10], Imām Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH)[11]and Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 751 AH) [12]advocated this same opinion (madhhab).

I was unable to find any testimonies of specific scholars reviewing the probity of the narrator in discussion, but in an isnād recorded by Imām Ibn ʻAsākir he was characterized as an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh)[13] and in two different asānīd recorded by Imām as-Sam‘ānī he was characterized as a preserver [of narrations] (ḥāfiẓ).[14] In spite of everything, based on the aforementioned methodological principle it can be duly proven that he has to be considered as credible.

Apart from the above-mentioned al-Mufaḍḍalī al-Burūjirdī and others, the following two narrators reported from an-Naghārī:

Abū ‘Alī al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī ‘Alī al-Muqri’ al-Burūjirdī – Imām Ibn ʻAsākir described him as an elder (shaykh) and virtuous (ṣāliḥ).[15] Imām as-Sam‘ānī said he was from the people of the Qur’ān (ahl al-qur’ān), virtuous (ṣāliḥ), pious (dayyinan) and of decent character (hasan as-sīrah).[16]

Abū an-Najm Badr ibn Ṣaliḥ ibn ‘Abd Allāh aṣ-Ṣaydalānī al-Burūjirdī ar-Rāzānī – Imām Ibn ʻAsākir said he was an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh).[17] Imām as-Sam‘ānī decribed him as an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh), virtuous (ṣāliḥ) and moral (‘afīf).[18]Imām Ibn al-Athīr said that he was an expert of the Shāfi‘ī school of Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh Shāfi‘ī), virtuous (ṣāliḥ) and that he studied Islamic jurisprudence under Imām Abū Naṣr ibn aṣ-Ṣabbāgh (d. 477 AH).[19]Imām al-Ḥamawī (d. 626 AH) writes that he was from the people of Islamic jurisprudence (ahl al-fiqh).[20]Imām adh-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) said that he studied Islamic jurisprudence under Imām al-Kiyā al-Harrāsī (d. 504 AH) in Baghdad.[21]

Hereby the fact has now been unearthed that at least three reliable narrators have reported from an-Naghārī and no discrediting (jarḥ) whatsoever could be discovered, whereby he has to be acknowledged as a trustworthy narrator.

The second ḥadīth was recorded by Imām Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH) as follows:

وأما حديث النعمان: فأنا ابن ناصر، قال: أنا محمد بن إبراهيم، قال: أنا محمد بن الفضل، قال: أخبرنا ابن مردويه، قال: نا عبد الله بن إبراهيم الجرجاني، قال: نا إبراهيم بن يومرد، قال: نا أحمد بن بهرام، قال: نا سهل بن عبد الكريم، عن يعقوب القمي، عن هارون بن عنترة، عن الشعبي، قال: خطبنا النعمان بن بشير، فقال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، يقول: "يوزن مداد العلماء مع دم الشهداء يرجح مداد العلماء على دم الشهداء."

Isnād:

Ibn Nāṣir – Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm – Muḥammad ibn al-Faḍl – Ibn Mardawayh – ‘Abd Allāh ibn Ibrāhim al-Jurjānī – Ibrāhīm ibn Yawmard – Aḥmad ibn Bahrām – Sahl ibn ‘Abd al-Karīm – Ya‘qūb al-Qummī – Hārūn ibn ‘Antarah – ash-Sha‘bī – an-Nu‘mān ibn Bashīr – The Holy Prophet (saw)

Matn:

Yūzanu midādu l-‘ulamā’i ma‘a dami sh-shuhadā’i yarjuḥu midādu l-‘ulamā’i ‘alā dami sh-shuhadā’i

“The ink of the scholars will be weighed against the blood of the martyrs; the ink of the scholars will outweigh the blood of the martyrs.”[22]

Those narrators that are contested by the critics are Hārūn ibn ‘Antarah and Ya‘qūb al-Qummī. It is said that Ibn Ḥibbān weakened both of them.[23]

The narrator mentioned first is Abū‘Amr Hārūn ibn ‘Antarah ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ash-Shaybānī al-Kūfī. Even though the objection is valid that Ibn Ḥibbān at one place weakened him, but the fact is that he also mentioned him as being from amongst the trustworthy people (thiqāt).[24]Apart from that Imām Ibn Sa‘d (d. 230 AH), Imām Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn (d. 233 AH), Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH) and Imām al-‘Ijlī (d. 261 AH) said that he was trustworthy (thiqa). Imām Abū Zur‘ah (d. 264 AH) and Imām Ya‘qūb ibn Sufyān (d. 277 AH) said that there was no harm in him (lā ba’sa bihi), i.e. he was reliable, and Imām Abū Zur‘ah added that he was righteous (mustaqīm al-ḥadīth). Imām ad-Dāraquṭnī said that he was authoritative (yuḥtajju bihi).[25] Furthermore, Imam adh-Dhahabī declared him to be trustworthy (waththaqūhu)[26] and Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852 AH) was also of the opinion that he was reliable (lā ba’sa bihi).[27]

The second narrator is Abū al-Ḥasan Ya‘qūb ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sa‘d al-Ash‘arī al-Qummī. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him as being from amongst the trustworthy people (thiqāt).[28]Imām an-Nasa’ī (d. 303 AH) said that he was reliable (laysa bihi ba’s). Imām aṭ-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 AH) said that he was trustworthy (thiqa). Imam Muḥammad ibn Ḥamīd ar-Rāzī (d. 248 AH) said that both Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Imām Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn came to him to copy off his aḥādīth, wherefrom is apparent that both regarded him as reliable.[29] Imam ad-Dhahabī said that he was veracious (ṣadūq)[30] and good in his narrations (ṣāliḥ al-ḥadīth).[31] Even Imām al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH) mentioned him in a narration with an incomplete isnād (ḥadīth mu‘allaq).[32] ad-Duktūr Bashshār ʻAwwād Maʻrūf and ash-Shaykh Shuʻayb al-Arnaʼūṭ said that he was truthful and reliable (ṣadūq hasan al-ḥadīth).[33]

Hereby now both the former and the latter asānīd of this ḥadīth are proven to be valid, true and correct.

[1] correctly “al-Mufaḍḍalī” with aḍ-ḍād

[2] Kitāb Adab al-imlā’ wa-l-istimlā’ by Abū Sa‘d ‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad at-Tamīmī as-Sam‘ānī al-Marwazī, ed. Max Weisweiler, 1401 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, p. 162

[3] For example refer to: http://islamqa.info/en/11920or http://foodiefahoodie.blogspot.com/2012/11/weakness-of-hadeeth-ink-of-scholar-is.html

[4] al-Ansāb by Abū Sa‘d ‘Abd-al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad at-Tamīmī as-Sam‘ānī al-Marwazī, 1408 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Jinān, vol. 5, p. 357

[5] al-Lubāb fī tahdhīb al-Ansāb by Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ‘Izz ad-Dīn ibn al-Athīr ash-Shaybānī al-Jazarī, n.d., Baghdad: Maktabat al-Muthannā, vol. 3, p. 243

[6] Ṭabaqāt ash-Shāfi‘iyyah al-kubrāby Tāj ad-Dīn ʻAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʻAlī as-Subkī, ed. Maḥmūd Muḥammad aṭ-Ṭanāḥī; ʻAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad al-Ḥulw, 1396 AH, Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʼ al-Kutub al-ʻArabiyyah, vol. 7, p. 300

[7] Kitāb al-kifāyah fī ʻilm ar-riwāyah by Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn ʻAlī al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, 1357 AH, Hyderabad Deccan: Idārat Jamʻiyyat dāʼirat al-Maʻārif al-ʻUthmāniyyah, p. 88

[8] Fatḥ al-mughīth sharḥ Alfiyyat al-ḥadīth li-l-ʻIrāqī by Muḥammad ibn ʻAbd ar-Raḥmān as-Sakhāwī, 1403 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, vol. 1, p. 322

[9] Sharḥ Sharḥ Nukhbat al-fikar fī muṣṭalaḥāt ahl al-athar by al-Mulla Alī ibn Sulṭān Muḥammad al-Harawī al-Qārī, ed. Muḥammad Nizār Tamīm; Haytham Nizār Tamīm, n.d., Beirut: Dār al-Arqam, p. 518

[10] an-Nukat ʻalā Muqaddimat Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ by Muḥammad ibn Bahādur az-Zarkashī, ed. Zayn al-ʻĀbidīn ibn Muḥammad Bilā Furayj, 1419 AH, Riyadh: Aḍwāʼ al-Salaf, vol. 3, p. 376

[11] Muqaddimat Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ wa-Maḥāsin al-iṣṭilāḥ by ʻUthmān ibn ʻAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ ash-Shahrazūrī; Sirāj ad-Dīn ʻUmar ibn Raslān al-Bulqīnī, ed. ʻĀʼishah ʻAbd al-Raḥmān, 1411 AH, Cairo: Dār al-Maʻārif, p. 297

[12] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzīyah wa-juhūduhu fī khidmat as-sunnah an-Nabawiyyah wa-ʻulūmuhā by Jamāl ibn Muḥammad as-Sayyid, 1424 AH, Medina: ʻImād al-Baḥth al-ʻIlmī bi-l-Jāmiʻat al-Islāmiyyah, vol. 1, p. 478

[13] Muʻjam ash-shuyūkh by ʻAlī ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʻAsākir, ed. Shākir al-Faḥḥām; Wafāʼ Taqī ad-Dīn, 1421 AH, Damascus: Dār al-Bashāʼir, p. 1214

[14] al-Muntakhab min muʻjam shuyūkh as-Samʻānī by Abū Sa‘d ‘Abd-al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad at-Tamīmī as-Sam‘ānī al-Marwazī, ed. Muwaffaq ibn ʻAbd Allāh Ibn ʻAbd al-Qādir, 1417 AH, Riyadh: Dār ʻĀlam al-Kutub, vol. 1, p. 653, 1122

[15] Muʻjam ash-shuyūkh, ibid., p. 262

[16] al-Muntakhab min muʻjam shuyūkh as-Samʻānī, p. 652

[17] Muʻjam ash-shuyūkh, ibid., p. 184

[18] al-Ansāb ibid., vol. 3, p. 23

[19] al-Lubāb fī tahdhīb al-Ansāb ibid., vol. 2, p. 6

[20] Muʻjam al-buldān by Shihāb ad-Dīn Abī ʻAbd Allāh Yāqūt ibn ʻAbd Allāh al-Ḥamawī ar-Rūmī al-Baghdādī, 1397 AH, Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, vol. 3, p. 13

[21] al-Mushtabih fi-r-rijāl: asmā’ihim wa-ansābihim by Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qaimāz adh-Dhahabī, ed. ʻAlī Muḥammad al-Bajāwī, 1381 AH, Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʼ al-Kutub al-ʻArabiyyah, vol. 1, p. 296

[22] al-ʻIlal al-mutanāhiyah fi l-aḥādīth al-wāhiyah by Abū al-Faraj ʻAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʻAlī ibn al-Jawzī at-Taymī al-Qurashī, ed. ash-Shaykh Khalīl al-Mays, 1403 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, vol. 1, p. 81

[23] Refer anon to: http://islamqa.info/en/11920or http://foodiefahoodie.blogspot.com/2012/11/weakness-of-hadeeth-ink-of-scholar-is.html

[24] Kitāb ath-Thiqāt by AbūḤātim Muḥammad ibn Ḥibbān ibn Aḥmad at-Tamimī ad-Dārimī al-Bustī, ed. Ad-Duktūr Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Mu‘īd Khān, 1393 AH, Hyderabad Deccan: Idārat Jamʻiyyat dāʼirat al-Maʻārif al-ʻUthmāniyyah, vol. 7, p. 578

[25] Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb by Abī al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ḥajar Shihāb ad-Dīn al-‘Asqalānī ash-Shāfi‘ī, ed. Ibrāhīm az-Zaybaq; ʻĀdil Murshid, 1416 AH, Beirut: Mu’assasat ar-Risālah, vol. 4, p. 255

[26] al-Kāshif fī maʻrifat man la-hu riwāyah fī al-Kutub as-sittahby Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qaimāz adh-Dhahabī, ed. Muḥammad ʻAwwāmah; Aḥmad Muḥammad Nimr al-Khaṭīb, 1413 AH, Jeddah: Dār al-Qiblah li-th-Thaqāfah al-Islāmiyyah; Muʼassasat ʻUlūm al-Qurʼān, vol. 2, p. 330

[27] Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb by Abī al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ḥajar Shihāb ad-Dīn al-‘Asqalānī ash-Shāfi‘ī, ed. Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah, 1406 AH, Aleppo: Dār ar-Rashīd, p. 569

[28] Kitāb ath-Thiqāt, ibid., vol. 7, p. 645

[29] Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb by Abī al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ḥajar Shihāb ad-Dīn al-‘Asqalānī ash-Shāfi‘ī, ed. Ibrāhīm az-Zaybaq; ʻĀdil Murshid, 1416 AH, Beirut: Mu’assasat ar-Risālah, vol. 4, p. 444

[30] al-Kāshif fī maʻrifat man la-hu riwāyah fī al-Kutub as-sittah, ibid., vol. 2, p. 394

[31] ‪Man tukullima fīhi wa-huwa muwaththaq aw ṣāliḥ al-ḥadīth by Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qaimāz adh-Dhahabī, ed. ʻAbd Allāh ibn Ḍayf Allāh ar-Ruḥaylī, 1426 AH, Medina, p. 558

[32] al-Jāmi‘ aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ by Abū ʻAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Ismāʻīl al-Juʻfī al-Bukhārī, ed. Muḥammad Zuhayr ibn Nāṣir an-Nāṣir, 1422 AH, Beirut: Dār Ṭawq al-Najāh, vol. 7, p. 122

[33] Taḥrīr Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb by ad-Duktūr Bashshār ʻAwwād Maʻrūf; ash-Shaykh Shuʻayb al-Arnaʼūṭ, 1417 AH, Beirut: Muʼassasat al-Risālah, vol. 4, p. 126

Time of death of the Holy Prophet (saw)'s father

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 21:54:00 +0000

Allegation

Opponents of the Promised Messiah (as) make the charge that the Promised Messiah (as) allegedly would have made a mistake in the indication of the time of death of the father of the Holy Prophet (saw). The following passages are concerned. The Promised Messiah (as) said:

آنحضرت صلی اﷲ علیہ وسلم کو والدین سے مادری زبان سیکھنے کا بھی موقعہ نہیں ملا کیونکہ چھ ماہ کی عمر تک دونوں فوت ہو چکے تھے۔

“The Holy Prophet (saw) did not even have the possibility to learn the mother tongue from his parents, as both had died when he had reached the age of six months.” (Ayyām aṣ-ṣulḥ, Rūḥānī khazāʼin, vol. 14, p. 396)

Original Scan

And he also said:

تاریخ کو دیکھو کہ آنحضرت صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم وہی ایک یتیم لڑکا تھا جس کا باپ پیدائش سے چند دن بعد ہی فوت ہو گیا۔

“Have a look at history; the Holy Prophet (saw) was that one orphaned boy whose father died just a few days after his birth.” (Paig̲hām-i ṣulḥ, Rūḥānī khazāʼin, vol. 23, p. 465)

Original Scan

Response

Below several primary sources will be quoted which establish the fact that the father of the Holy Prophet (saw) may have died after his birth.

Ibn Isḥāq (d. 768 AD) writes in as-Sīrah an-nabawiyyah:

ويقال : إن عبد الله هلك والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ابن ثمانية وعشرين شهرا.

“And it is said: Certainly, ‘Abdu llāh died while the Prophet (saw) was twenty-eight months of age.”

Original Scan

Ibn Sa’d (d. 845 AD) writes in Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-kabīr:

أخبرنا هشام بن محمد بن السائب الكلبي، عن أبيه، وعن عوانة بن الحكم، قالا: توفي عبد الله بن عبد المطلب بعدما أتى على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثمانية وعشرون شهرا، ويقال: سبعة أشهر.

“Hishām ibn Muḥammad ibn as-Sā’ib al-Kalbī told us from his father and from ‘Awānah ibn al-Ḥakam, they both said: ‘Abdu llāh ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib died after twenty-eight months had gone by upon the Apostle of Allāh (saw), and it is said: Seven months.”

Original Scan

Muḥammad ibn Ḥabīb al-Baghdādī (s. 859 AD) writes in al-Muḥabbar:

وتوفي عبد الله، أبوه، بعد ما أتى له ثمانية وعشرون شهراً.

“And ‘Abdu llāh, his father, died after twenty-eight months had gone by upon him.”

Original Scan

al-Quḍā’ī (d. 1062 AD) writes in ‘Uyūn al-ma’ārif wa-funūn akhbār al-khalā’if:

وقال الطبري: ومات أبوه بعد ولادته بثمانية وعشرين شهرا.

“And aṭ-Ṭabarī said: And his father died after his birth by twenty-eight months.”

Original Scan

al-Bayhaqī (d. 1066 AD) writes his Dalā’il an-nubuwwah:

ويقال: إن عبد الله هلك، والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ابن ثمانية وعشرين شهرا. […] وقال بعضهم: مات أبوه وهو ابن سبعة أشهر.”

“And it is said: Certainly, ‘Abdu llāh died while the Prophet (saw) was twenty-eight months of age. […] And some said: His father died while he was seven months of age.”

Original Scan

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 1071 AD) writes in al-Istī’āb fī ma’rifat al-aṣḥāb:

وقيل : بل توفي أبوه بالمدينة والنبي صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ ابن ثمانية وعشرين شهرًا […] وقيل: بل خرج به إلى أخواله زائرًا وهو ابن سبعة أشهر، وقيل: بل توفي أبوه وهو ابن شهرين، […] وقد قيل: إن عَبْد الله ابن عَبْد المطلب توفي والنبي صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ ابن ثمانية وعشرين شهرًا.

“And it was said: Rather, his father died in al-Madīnah while the Prophet (saw) was twenty-eight months old. […] And it was said: Rather, he went out with him to his maternal uncles for a visit while he was seven months old, and it was said: Rather, his father died while he was two moths old. […] And it has been said: Certainly, ‘Abdu llāh ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib died while the Prophet (saw) was twenty-eight months old.”

Original Scan

Ibn ‘Asākir (d. 1176 AD) writes in Ta’rīkh madīnat Dimashq:

توفي عبد الله بن عبد المطلب بعدما أتى على رسول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ثمانية وعشرون شهرا وَيُقَالُ سبعة أشهر. […] عن ابن خربوذ، قال: توفي عبد الله بن عبد المطلب بالمدينة، ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من شهر.

“‘Abdu llāh ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib died after twenty-eight months had gone by upon the Apostle of Allāh (saw). […] Ibn Kharrabūdh said: ‘Abdu llāh ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib died in al-Madīnah while the Aposte of Allāh (saw) was one month old.”

Original Scan

And in another passage he writes:

ويُقَالُ : إن عبد اللَّه هلك والنبي ابن ثمانية وعشرين شهرا

“And is it said: Indeed, ‘Abdu llāh died while the Prophet was twenty-eight months of age.”

Original Scan

as-Suhaylī (d. 1185 AD) writes in ar-Rawḍ al-unuf fī tafsīr mā shtamala ‘alayhi aḥādīth as-sīrah an-nabawiyyah:

وأكثر العلماء على أنه كان في المهد. ذكره الدولابي وغيره، وقيل ابن شهرين ذكره ابن أبي خيثمة. وقيل: أكثر من ذلك، ومات أبوه عند أخواله بني النَّجار. ذهب ليمتار لأهله تمراً، وقد قيل: مات أبوه، وهو ابن ثمانٍ وعشرين شهراً.

“And most of the scholars consider that he was in the cradle. ad-Dūlābī and others have expressed this and it is said that that he was two months old, how Ibn Abī Khaythamah reports it. Furthermore, it is said that he was older and that his father died at his maternal uncles, the Banū an-Najjār. He went to provide his family with dates. In addition, is said that his father died when he was twenty-eight months old.”

Original Scan

Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1201 AD) writes in al-Muntaẓam fī sulūk al-mulūk wa-l-umam:

وروي لنا: أن عبد الله توفي بعد ما أتى على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثمانية وعشرين شهرا، وقيل: سبعة أشهر.

“And it has been reported to us that ‘Abdu llāh died after twenty-eight months had gone by upon the Apostle of Allāh (saw), and it was said: Seven months.”

Original Scan

And in Talqīh fuhūm ahl al-athar fī ‘uyūn at-ta’rīkh wa-s-siyar he writes:

وقيل: لم يمت حتى أتى على رسول الله شهران، وقيل:سبعة أشهر، وقيل: ثمانية وعشرون شهرا.

“And it was said: He did not die until two months had gone by upon the Apostle of Allāh, and it was said: Seven months, and it was said: Twenty-eight months.”

Original Scan

And in Ṣifat aṣ-ṣafwah he writes:

وقد روي عن عوانة بن الحكم أن عبد الله توفي بعد ما أتى على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثمانية وعشرون شهرا، وقيل سبعة أشهر.

“And it was related from ‘Awānah ibn al-Ḥakam that ‘Abdu llāh died after twenty-eight months had gone by upon the Apostle of Allāh (saw), and it was said: Seven months.”

Original Scan

an-Nawawī (d. 1277 AD) writes in Tahdhīb al-asmā’ wa-l-lughāt:

قال الحاكم أبو أحمد: يقال: مات عبد الله والد رسول الله – صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – ولرسول الله – صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – ثمانية وعشرون شهرًا، وقيل: تسعة أشهر، وقيل: سبعة أشهر، وقيل: شهران.

“al-Ḥākim Abū Aḥmad said: It is said: ‘Abdu llāh, the father of the Apostle of Allāh (saw), died while the Apostle of Allāh (saw) was twenty-eight months old, and it was said: Nine months, and it was said: Seven months, and it was said: Two months.”

Original Scan

Ibn Sayyid an-Nās (d. 1334 AD) writes in ‘Uyūn al-athar fī funūn al-maghāzī wa-sh-shamā’il wa-s-siyar:

إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان في المهد حين توفي أبوه. رويناه عن الدولابي، وذكر ابن أبي خيثمة أنه كان ابن شهرين، وقيل: ابن ثمانية وعشرين شهرا. […] وقيل : بل خرج به إلى أخواله زائرا ، وهو ابن سبعة أشهر.

“Verily, the Apostle of Allāh (saw) was in the cradle when his father died. This was reported to us from ad-Dūlābī, and Ibn Abī Khaythamah expressed that that he was two months old, and it was said: He was twenty-eight months old. […] And it was said: Rather, he went out with him to his maternal uncles for a visit while he was seven months old.”

Original Scan

al-Mizzī (d. 1341 AD) writes in Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmā’ ar-rijāl:

ومات أبوه عَبد الله بن عبد المطلب وقد أتى له ثمانية وعشرون شهرا، وقيل: أقل من ذلك.

“And his father, ‘Abdu llāh ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib, died while twenty-eight months had gone by on him, and it was said: Less that that.”

Original Scan

adh-Dhahabī (d. 1348 AD) writes in Siyar a’lām an-nubalā’:

وتوفي عبد الله أبوه وللنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ثمانية وعشرون شهرا. وقيل: أقل من ذلك.

“And ‘Abdu llāh, his father, died while the Prophet (saw) was twenty-eight months old, and it was said: Less that that.”

Original Scan

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 1350 AD) writes in Zād al-ma’ād fī hady khayr al-’ibād:

توفي بعد ولادته بسبعة أشهر .

“And the second [opinion] is that he died seven months after his birth.”

Original Scan

‘Izz ad-Dīn ibn Jamā’ah al-Kinānī (d. 1366 AD) writes in al-Mukhtaṣar al-kabīr fī sīrat al-Rasūl:

وقيل: توفي وله شهران، وقيل: سبعة أشهر، وقيل: ثمانية وعشرون شهرا.

“And it was said: He died while he was two months of age, and it was said: Seven months, and it was said: Twenty-eight months.”

Original Scan

Ibn Kathīr (d. 1373 AD) writes in al-Bidāyah wa-n-nihāyah:

قال محمد بن سعد: وقد أنبأنا هشام بن محمد بن السائب الكلبي عن أبيه، وعن عوانة بن الحكم قالا: توفي عبد الله بن عبد المطلب بعدما أتى على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ثمانية وعشرون شهرا، وقيل: سبعة أشهر. […] وقال الزبير بن بكار، حدثني محمد بن حسن، عن عبد السلام عن، ابن خربوذ، قال: توفي عبد الله بالمدينة، ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ابن شهرين. […]

ويقال : إن عبد الله هلك والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ابن ثمانية وعشرين شهرا.

“Muḥammad ibn Sa’d said: And Hishām ibn Muḥammad ibn as-Sā’ib al-Kalbī told us from his father and from ‘Awānah ibn al-Ḥakam, they both said: ‘Abdu llāh ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib died after twenty-eight months had gone by upon the Apostle of Allāh (saw), and it was said: Seven months. […] And az-Zubayr ibn Bakkār said, Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan related to me from ‘Abd as-Salām, from Ibn Kharbūdh, he said: ‘Abdu llāh ibn ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib died in al-Madīnah while the Aposte of Allāh (saw) was two month old. […]

And it is said: Certainly, ‘Abdu llāh died while the Prophet (saw) was twenty-eight months of age.”

Original Scan

al-Maqrīzī (d. 1442 AD) writes in Imtā’ al-asmā’ bi-mā li-n-nabī min al-aḥwāl wa-l-amwāl wa-l-ḥafadah wa-l-matā’:

وقيل: مات بعد ولادته بثمانية وعشرين يوما، وقيل: بسبعة أشهر، وقيل: بسنة، وقيل: بسنتين، وقيل: بشهرين.

“And it was said: He died twenty-eight days after his birth, and it was said: Seven months after, and it was said: One year after, and it was said: Two years after, and it was said: Two months after.”

Original Scan

al-’Aynī (d. 1453 AD) writes in ‘Umdat al-qārī fī sharḥ ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī:

وقال مقاتل: بعد ولادته بثمانية وعشرين شهرا، وقيل : بعد ولادته بسبعة أشهر.

“And Muqātil said: Twenty-eight months after his birth, and it was said: Seven months after his birth.”

Original Scan

al-Qasṭallānī (d. 1517 AD) writes in al-Mawāhib al-laduniyyah bi-l-minaḥ al-Muḥammadiyyah:

وقيل: توفى وهو فى المهد، قاله الدولابى. وعن ابن أبى خيثمة: وهو ابن شهرين. وقيل: وهو ابن سبعة. وقيل: وهو ابن ثمانية وعشرين شهرا.

“And it was said: He died while he was in the cradle, ad-Dūlābī said this. And from Ibn Abī Khaythamah: While he was two months old. And it was said: While he was seven. And it was said: While he was twenty-eight months old.”

Original Scan

aṣ-Ṣāliḥī ash-Shāmī (d. 1536 AD) writes in Subul al-hudā wa-r-rashād fī sīrat khayr al-’ibād:

وقيل: إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان في المهد حين توفي أبوه. وعليه فقيل: وله شهران. وقيل: ثمانية وعشرون شهراً. وقيل: تسعة أشهر.

“And it was said: Surely, the Apostle of Allāh (saw) was in the cradle when his father died. And it is said: He was two months of age. And it is said: Twenty-eight months. And it is said: Nine months.”

Original Scan

My View on the "Age" Debate

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:19:00 +0000

Disclaimer
One thing should be clear beforehand. My intention is not to tread on anybody’s toes or to offend anyone, au contraire my intent is to take part in a healthy and constructive, but critical disputation.

Clarification of some realities
In my humble opinion, some Ahmadi Muslims who have been influenced by a Western type of cultivation tend to assume that the structures and restrictions according to which the West is operating and living are some kind of summit which would make these unsurpassable.

However, what is overlooked is that these rules and regulations which have steeped their perception have at the very most been installed in the last century, so only a small fraction of the total time since the mental evolution of man has found its conclusion in Islam. What that means is that these laws are totally experimental; they have experienced no empirical probation whatsoever.

On the other hand, we have Islam, the laws of Allah, about which Allah says that they are valid timelessly and even the Promised Messiah (as) did not come to improve or alter these laws, but to revert them to their original state.

So, instead of diluting our view of things by newfangled phenomena, we should think back to what Islam and our role models have taught us.

Role Models
Let us see how our role models have conducted themselves in this regard:

	Birth	Nikah	Rukhsati	First Child
‘A’ishah (ra)	4 Nabawi	10 Nabawi	2 AH
‘A’ishah (ra)		Aged 7	Aged 12
The Promsied Messiah (as)	May 13, 1835			1853
The Promsied Messiah (as)		aged 15		aged 17/18
Khalifatu l-Masih II. (ra)	Jan 13, 1889	Oct 2, 1902	Oct 11, 1903	1906
Khalifatu l-Masih II. (ra)		aged 13	aged 14	aged 17
Mirza Bashir Ahmad M.A. (ra)	Apr 20, 1893	Sept 12, 1902	May 10, 1906
Mirza Bashir Ahmad M.A. (ra)		aged 9	aged 13
Mirza Sharif Ahmad (ra)	May 24, 1895	Nov 15, 1906	May 9, 1909
Mirza Sharif Ahmad (ra)		aged 11	aged 13

The age gap between the Holy Prophet (saw) and ‘A’ishah (ra) was 44 years and the age gap between the Promised Messiah (as) and Hadrat Amman Jan (ra) was 30 years.

The argument that these people had another spiritual status or were of a different time and age must not be applied, because otherwise all things that these people did become doubtful and could no longer be regarded as being worthy of imitation and people would start cherry-picking things they want and declare them legally permissible resp. impermissible.

Giving an example Khalifatu l-Masih V. (aba) said that there would be absolutely no concern whatsoever, if, the age gap between the girl and the boy would e.g. be 9 years.

Some Statistics
Teen sexuality
According to the "Youth Risk Behavior Survey" a study of Centers for Disease Control, which is an authority subordinate the Ministry of Health of the United States, in year 1995 9% of American teenagers had sexual intercourse before the age of 13. According to a study which was published in the September 1997 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, there are 17% of 12 to 13 year olds, who already had sexual intercourse. That means that nearly one in five people aged 12 years had sexual intercourse. So the need for legally valid sexual intercourse exists.

Age of consent
Now let us look at the age of consent. The age of consent is that age at which a person is legally considered as capable of giving consent regarding sexual acts. Sexual acts with persons who have reached that age of consent are regarded as absolutely legal. The age of consent in Germany is 14. By 1929, the age of consent in Italy was at the age of 12. In Spain the age of consent of 12 was increased to 13 years in 1999. Sir Edward Coke, an eminent English judge and politician in the 17th century England had made it clear that the marriage of girls less than 12 years was normal. In the 1880s, in most states of the USA the age of consent has been 10-12 years.

Teen births
The US Department of Health & Human Services writes that in 2013, there were about 26,6 births for every 1000 adolescent females ages 15-19 and nearly 89 % of these births occurred outside of marriage. In 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 & 1994 the birth rate for 10-14 year old girls was 1,4 births for every 1000.

Fiqh
Islam is a religion the laws and regulations of which are intended by Allah to be for all times and the entire world population. So, Islam has not specified any undue culturally biased constraints. It just has given the universal requirement that the sexual maturity must be achieved. So, according to Islamic jurisprudence the minimum age for a boy or a girl to marry is after reaching sexual maturity. Mental maturity is nugatory, as it is a self-created, impractical and unnatural precondition for marriage.

Adequate financial means are a requirement for marriage. But one must consider this injunction from the Islamic point of view. The Holy Prophet (saw) has taught contentedness. He even once said to a companion who had nothing that if he would give a ring of steel as dowry, he could be married, but this companion did not even have that, so the Holy Prophet (saw) asked him to teach his bride some verses from the Holy Qur’an, which were then considered his dowry. It is on the husband, how he ensures the financing. If the parents take a favourable view of the marriage of their child and want to contribute to the success of the marriage financially, then there is nothing to say against it. And if not, then the Holy Prophet (saw) said to be patient and to fast.

Conclusion
To sum it up, there is no compulsion for anyone to marry at any specific age, but this equally gives no one the right to look with crooked eyes at anyone who is marrying while keeping him or herself within the limits of the above mentioned legal framework.

‘Ā’ishah (ra), “khātam an-nabiyyīn” and "lā nabiyya ba‘dī”

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Fri, 16 May 2014 17:24:00 +0000

An often cited statement of ‘Ā’ishah (ra) regarding the issue of khātam an-nabiyyīn quite often becomes the target of undue criticism. Her statement is as follows:

حدثنا حسين بن محمد، قال: حدثنا جرير بن حازم، عن محمد، عن عائشة، قالت: قولوا: خاتم النبيين، ولا تقولوا: لا نبي بعده.

“Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad told us, he said: Jarīr ibn Ḥāzim told us from Muḥammad, who narrated from ‘Ā’ishah, she said: ‘Say: [He is] the Seal of the Prophets and do not say: There will be no prophet after him.”[1]

الربيع بن صبيح، عن محمد بن سيرين، عن عائشة، قالت: لا تقولوا: لا نبي بعد محمد، وقولوا :خاتم النبيين

“ar-Rabī‘ ibn Ṣubayḥ narrated from Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn, who narrated from ‘Ā’ishah, she said: ‘Do not say: There will be no prophet after Muḥammad, instead say: [He is] the Seal of the Prophets.”[2]

Adversaries argue that, as Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn, who appears as a narrator in both āthār, never heard anything directly from ‘Ā’ishah (ra), as Abū Ḥātim[3], al-Bukhārī[4] or others said, these statements would supposedly be munqaṭi‘, and so this athar would be weak (ḍa‘īf).

This, however, is a deception, whether intentional or negligent. One would expect from so-called ‘ulamā’ that they would be a bit more acquainted in the sciences of ḥadīth. What you see here, is called an irsāl, not an inqiṭā‘, so this hadīth is mursal and not munqaṭi‘.

The distinguishing factor between a ḥadīth mursal and a ḥadīth munqaṭi‘ is that a ḥadīth mursal is the statement of a tābi‘ī who directly attributes a statement or deed to the Holy Prophet (saw), regardless of whether this tābi‘ī took his knowledge from the ṣaḥāba or from other tābi‘ūn.[5]

Three of the al-A’immah al-Arba‘ah, namely al-Imām Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Imām Mālik und al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal were unanimously of the opinion that all mursal narrations are authoritatively binding (ḥujjah), provided that the mursil, i.e. the transmitting tābiʿī is thiqah.[6] And Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn was undoubtedly thiqah.[7]

The following two statements shed some more light on this matter:

al-Imām Ibn Qutaybah ad-Dīnawarī (d. 276 AH) said:

وأما قول عائشة رضي الله عنها: قولوا لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: خاتم الأنبياء، ولا تقولوا لا نبي بعده؛ فإنها تذهب إلى نزول عيسى عليه السلام، وليس هذا من قولها ناقضا لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: لا نبي بعدي؛ لأنه أراد: لا نبي بعدي، ينسخ ما جئت به.

“So far as it concerns the statement of ‘Ā’ishah (ra): ‘Call the Apostle of Allāh (saw): The Seal of the Prophets and do not say: There will be no prophet after him’; it is directed to the descent of ‘Īsā (as) and this statement of her does not contradict the statement of the Prophet (saw) ‘There will be no prophet after me’, because he meant: ‘There will be not prophet after me who will abrogate that with which I came.”[8]

ash-Shaykh Muḥammad Ṭāhir al-Ḥanafī (d. 986 AH) said:

وعن عائشة: قولوا أنه خاتم الأنبياء، ولا تقولوا لا نبي بعده. وهذا ناظر إلى نـزول عيسى، وهذا أيضا لا ينافي حديث "لا نبي بعدي"، لأنه أراد لا نبي ينسخ شرعه.

“And it is narrated from ‘Ā’ishah: ‘Say that he is the Seal of the Prophets and do not say: There will be no prophet after him’. This aims at the decent ‘Īsā, and this also does not contradict the ḥadīth ‘There will be no prophet after me’, because he meant that no prophet will abrogate his sharī‘ah.”[9]

[1] al-Muṣannaf by al-Imām Abū Bakr ‘Abd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Shaybah (d. 235 AH), ed. Muḥammad ʻAwwāmah, 1427 AH, Jeddah: Dār al-Qiblah, vol. 13, p.566

[2] Tafsīr by Yaḥyā ibn Sallām at-Taymī al-Baṣrī al-Ifrīqī al-Qayrawānī (d. 200 AH), ed. Hind Shalabī, 1425 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, vol. 2, p. 723

[3] Kitāb al-Marāsīl by ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī Ḥātim (d. 327 AH), ed. Shukr Allāh ibn Ni‘mat Allāh Qūzhānī, 1418 AH, Beirut: Mu’assasat ar-Risālah, p. 188

[4] Jāmi‘ al-taḥṣīl fī aḥkām al-marāsīl by Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Abū Sa‘īd Khalīl ibn Kaykaldī ad-Dimashqī (d. 761 AH), ed. Ḥamdī ‘Abd al-Majīd Salafī, 1407 AH, Beirut: ‘Ālam al-Kutub, p. 264

[5] Miftāḥ al-wuṣūl ilā binā’ al-Furū‘ ‘ala l-uṣūl by Abū ‘Abd Allāh ash-Sharīf at-Tilimsānī (d. 771 AH), ed. Muḥammad ‘Alī Farkūs, 1419 AH, Mecca: al-Maktabah al-Makkiyyah, p. 349 & 353

[6] Sharḥ ‘ala l-manẓūmah al-bayqūniyyah fi l-muṣṭalaḥ by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdu l-Bāqī az-Zurqānī (st. 1122 AH), ed. Ṣalāḥ Muḥammad ‘Uwayḍah, 1425 AH, Beirut, Libanon: Manshūrāt Muḥammad ‘Alī Bayḍūn, Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, p. 144

[7] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani writes about him in Taqrīb at-Tahddhīb „thiqah thabt“. This indicates the highest possible form of reliability used by Ibn Hajar in this work.

[8] Taʼwīl mukhtalaf al-ḥadīth wa-r-radd ʻalā man yurību fi l-akhbār al-muddaʻ ʻalayhā al-tanāquḍ by Abū Muḥammad ʻAbd Allāh ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah ad-Dīnawarī, ed. Salīm Hilālī, 1430 AH, Riyadh: Dār Ibn al-Qayyim, p. 360

[9] Takmilah Majmaʻ biḥār al-anwār fī gharāʼib at-tanzīl wa-laṭāʼif al-akhbār by al-‘Allamah ash-Shaykh Majd ad-Dīn Muḥammad Ṭāhir ibn ʻAlī aṣ-Ṣiddīqī al-Hindī al-Fattanī al-Ghujratī al-Ḥanafī, ed. 1314 AH, Lucknow: Munshī Naval Kishor, p. 85

Selbstverständnis

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:19:00 +0000

Momentan ist zwar der Himmel noch fast blau,
zu vernehmen ist noch des Geistes Geruch,

aber ich werde aus mir selbst nicht mehr schlau,

versteh' nicht mal mehr mein selbst verfasstes Buch,

zertrümmer' all das, was ich mir selbst aufbau',
finde in mir selbst nicht jenen, den ich such',

vielleicht kommt's auch bald zum innern' Super-GAU,

es ist wie ein mir selbst auferlegter Fluch,

doch ein Glaube ist da und sagt mir: Vetrau'!
Hoffnung ist gerade bei mir zu Besuch.

Die religiöse Tendenz des Okzidents und die Verantwortung der Muslime

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 15:01:00 +0000

Während man in der Postmoderne, also in den 50er und 60er Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts, noch von einem vermeintlich atheistischem Grundtenor der Gesellschaft ausging und das modernisierungstheoretische Narrativ des Niedergangs der Religion die Prämisse des alltäglichen Diskurses bildete, werden in jüngster Zeit vor allem akademische Stimmen laut, welche massive Kritik an der Säkularisierungsthese üben und darlegen, dass die sogenannte Postpostmoderne bereits angebrochen sei und dass diese, den von Habermas ins Spiel gebrachten Begriff des Postsäkularimus mit sich bringe, also ein Wiedererstarken des Glaubens.

Ergo ist die Hypothese, dass die Gesamtgesellschaft sich vom Gottesglauben distanzieren würde, ein uns willentlich von gewissen Meinungsbildnern suggeriertes Gaukelspiel. In Entsprechung zu einer Umfrage von Emnid aus dem Jahr 2010 glauben im Westen der Bundesrepublik annähernd drei Viertel der Befragten an einen Gott.

Doch dies ist lediglich eine der beiden Seiten der postpostmodernen Medaille. Die Andere impliziert das Prosperieren des Antitheismus, welcher sich unlängst im „New Atheism“ religionsähnlich organisiert hat, mit provokatorischen Vorzeigeprotagonisten wie Richards Dawkins und Michael Schmidt-Salomon.

Was sich fernerhin konstatieren lässt, ist die rapide Talfahrt, die die kirchlichen Mitgliederzahlen erfahren. Wenn es im Jahr 2007 noch knapp über 90.000 Austritte aus der katholischen Kirche gab, waren es im Jahr 2010 bereits über 180.000, also nahezu doppelt so viele.

Es lässt sich somit eruieren, dass die westliche Gesamtbevölkerung sich von den althergebrachten religiösen Weltanschauungen abwendet, gleichwohl jedoch die durch das Christen-, respektive Judentum ungestillte Gottsuche und das Verlangen nach einer ganzheitlich erfüllenden Grund- und Lebenseinstellung nach wie vor unterminiert ist. Sonach entsteht ein ideologisches Vakuum, welches die Anhänger des neuen Atheismus versuchen missionsartig durch ihre Denkungsart auszufüllen.

Hieraus erschließt sich die den Muslimen auferlegte Verantwortung, nämlich die im Qurʾān als balāġ, tablīġ oder daʿwa signifizierte Verkündigung der Botschaft Allāhs bzw. der Aufruf zu Seinem Wege.

Dabei muss das Augenmerk darauf liegen an zwei Linien gleichzeitig zu agieren, zum Einen die Mitwelt zum Islam zu bitten, indem die subjektiven Relevanzen der islamischen Lehre auf jede nur denkbare Art und Weise dargelegt werden, auf dass vonseiten der Muslime ein saturierendes Substitut für die regressiven anachronistischen Mentalitäten offeriert werden kann und zum Anderen der islamophoben Lobby Schach zu bieten, welche in Pars-pro-toto-Manier versucht das von marginalen ultrakonservativen Extremisten propagierte Gedankengut dem Islam in seiner Gänze aufzustülpen.

al-Imām Mālik & the Death of Jesus (‘as)

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 08:08:00 +0000

One of great al-a’immah al-arba‘ah, al-Imām Abū ʻAbd Allāh Mālik ibn Anas al-Aṣbaḥī (d. 179 AH), commonly known as al-Imām Mālik, who founded the Mālikī school of Islamic law (madhhab), was of the opinion that Jesus (‘alayhi ṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salām) had died a natural death. Listed below now are four conclusive and significant references on that note:

1. al-Imām Abū al-Walīd Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Rushd al-Jadd al-Qurtubī (d. 520 AH) states in al-Bayān at-taḥṣīl wa-t-tawjīh wa-t-taʻlīl fī masā’il al-mustakhrajah, his commentary on al-‘Utbī's al-Mustakhrajah[1]:

”ويحتمل أن يكون معنى قوله: {بل رفعه الله إليه} أي رفع روحه إليه بعد أن مات ويحييه في آخر الزمان فينزله إلى الأرض على ما جاءت به الآثار، فيكون قول مالك على هذا ’ومات وهو ابن ثلاث وثلاثين سنة‘ على الحقيقة لا على المجاز.“

“And it is likely that the meaning of ‘On the contrary, Allāh exalted him to Himself’[2] is the exaltation of his soul to Him after he had died and He will revive him in the latter days. Thus, He will cause him to descend to the earth according to what the traditions (āthār) came along with. The statement of Mālik on this ‘and he died when he was 33 years old’ is literal and not a metaphor.”[3]

Original Scan

2. al-Qāḍī Abū Muḥammad ʻAbd al-Ḥaqq ibn Ghālib ibn ʻAṭīyah al-Andalusī al-Muḥāribī (d. 542) writes in his Qurʼān exegesis (tafsīr) al-Muḥarrir al-wajīz fī tafsīr al-Kitāb al-ʻazīz:

”وقال مالك في جامع العتبية: مات عيسى وهو ابن ثلاث وثلاثين سنة.“

“And Mālik said in Jami‘ al-‘utbiyyah[1]: Jesus died when he was 33 years old.”[4]

Original Scan

3. al-Imām Abī ʻAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Khalīfah al-Washtānī al-Ubbī al-Mālikī (d. 827 AH), writes in his Kitāb Ikmāl ikmāl al-mu‘allim, which is a commentary (sharḥ) of the Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj al-Qushayrī an-Nīsābūrī (d. 261 AH):

”وفي العتبية قال مالك: مات عيسى ابن ثلاث وثلاثين سنة. قال ابن رشد: يعني موته: خروجه من عالم الأرض إلى عالم السماء. قال: ويحتمل أنه مات حقيقة، ويحيا في آخر الزمان، إذ لا بدّ من نزوله لتواتر الأحاديث بذلك.“

“And it is in al-‘Utbiyyah[1] that Mālik said: Jesus died when he was 33 years old. Ibn Rushd [al-Jadd] said: By this he meant his death: His emergence from the earthly world to the heavenly world. He said: And it is likely that he died a proper death and that he will be revived in the latter days, for there is no doubt about his descension (nuzūl), because of the successiveness (tawātur) of the traditions (ahādīth) on it.”[5]

Original Scan

4. ash-Shaykh Muḥammad Ṭāhir ibn ‘Alī aṣ-Ṣiddīqī al-Fattanī al-Hindī al-Kujrātī (d. 986 AH) writes in his work Majmaʻ biḥār al-anwār fī gharāʼib al-tanzīl wa-laṭāʼif al-akhbār, which is a dictionary of the terms (ghāraʼib) of the Qurʼān and the Aḥādīth:

”وقال مالك: مات وهو ابن ثلاث وثلاثين سنة. ولعله أراد رفعه إلى السماء، أو حقيقته ويحيى آخر الزمان لتواتر خبر النزول.“

“And Mālik said: He died when he was 33 years old. And He may have intended to raise him to the sky or [He may have caused] his proper [death] and he will be revived in the latter days, because of the successiveness (tawātur) of the traditions (khabar) on the descension (nuzūl).”[6]

Original Scan

Wa-llāhu A‘lamu bi-ṣ-ṣawāb wa ilayhi l-marji‘u wa-l-maʼāb![7]

[1] A book of Mālikī Fiqh, known as al-‘Utbiyyah or al-Mustakhrajah, by Abū ʻAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Umawī as-Sufyānī al-‘Utbī al-Qurṭubī (d. 255 AH), only available in commentaries today, e.g. by al-Imām Abū al-Walīd Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn Rushd al-Jadd al-Qurṭubī in his al-Bayān at-taḥṣīl wa-t-tawjīh wa-t-taʻlīl fī masā’il al-mustakhrajah

[2] Sūrat an-Nisāʼ 4:159

[3] al-Qurtubī, I. R. (1988). al-Bayān at-taḥṣīl wa-t-tawjīh wa-t-taʻlīl fī masā’il al-mustakhrajah. Bayrūt, Lubnān: Dār al-Gharb al-Islamī, p. 449.

[4] al-Andalusī, I. ʻA. (2002). Tafsīr Ibn ʻAṭīyah, al-Muḥarrir al-wajīz fī tafsīr al-Kitāb al-ʻazīz. Bayrūt: Dār Ibn Ḥazm, p. 308.

[5] al-Ubbī, M. (1909). Ikmāl ikmāl al-muʻallim. Miṣr: Maṭbaʻat al-Saʻādah, p. 265.

[6] Fattanī, M. T. (1897). Majmaʻ biḥār al-anwār fī gharāʼib at-tanzīl wa-laṭāʼif al-akhbār. Lakʹhnaw: Nawal Kishawr, p. 286.

[7] And Allāh knows best what is right and to Him is the final return and the last resort!

Islam means peace!

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Sun, 27 Oct 2013 00:41:00 +0000

Biased scholars, esp. western Orientalists, tend not to recognize facts, when they run counter their own conceptions. One of these facts is that Islām means peace.

When one visualizes some of the leading Arabic dictionaries of utmost authenticity, it becomes manifest that Islām can also mean peace.

Islam is the Maṣdar, i.e. the verbal noun, of the verb aslama.

Abū Naṣr Ismāʻīl ibn Ḥammād al-Jawharī (d. 1003 AD) writes in his notable Arabic dictionary Tāj al-Lughah wa-Ṣiḥāḥ al-ʻArabiyyah, better known as aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ fī al-Lughah or just aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ:

وأسلم، أي دخل في السلم

“And aslama means he entered into as-Salm”

Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Muqrī al-Fayyūmī (d. 1368 AD) writes is his al-Miṣbāḥ al-Munīr fī Gharīb ash-Sharḥ al-Kabīr li-r-Rāfiʻī, a dictionary of Islamic legal terms:

وأسلم دخل في السلم

“And aslama means he entered into as-Silm”

And it is an established fact that the known Arabic dictionaries altogether, may it be Tāj al-ʻArūs, Lisān al-ʻArab, Lane or Hans Wehr, say that both as-Salm and as-Silm mean “peace”.

So that would consequently imply that aslamameans “to enter into peace”. Thus, Islammeans “entering into (the state of) peace”.

Salvation

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 18:11:00 +0000

When we look at the Qur'an from the aspect of salvation for non-Muslims, we see that it is impossible to find salvation in another religion while consciously and knowingly rejecting Islam.

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

There are three types of verses in the Holy Qur'an in this regard:

First those passages of the Holy Qur'an, which prove that today solely the Islam is the one true religion, which is accepted byAllah as such:

وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ ٱلْإِسْلَمِ دِينًۭا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِى ٱلْءَاخِرَةِ مِنَ ٱلْخَسِرِينَ

„And whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers.” (Surah Al 'Imran 3:86)

إِنَّ ٱلدِّينَ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلْإِسْلَمُ

“Surely, the true religion with Allah is Islam.” (Surah Al 'Imran 3:20)

ٱلْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ وَأَتْمَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ نِعْمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلْإِسْلَمَ دِينًۭا

This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion. (Sura al-Ma'idah 5:4)

In these verses the term “al-Islam” is used with Alif and Lam, so it cannot just mean submission, because the surrounding verses criticize aspects of the faith of the Jews and the Christians and then these verses command them to accept “al-Islam” replacing their actual religions. With this in mind, consider:

فَإِنْ ءَامَنُوا۟ بِمِثْلِ مَآ ءَامَنتُم بِهِۦ فَقَدِ ٱهْتَدَوا۟ ۖ وَّإِن تَوَلَّوْا۟ فَإِنَّمَا هُمْ فِى شِقَاقٍۢ

“And if they believe as you have believed, then are they surely guided; but if they turn back, then they are only creating a schism.” (Sura al-Baqarah 2:138)

The verses of the second category are those that equate the rejection of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) with the rejection of Allah:

وَإِذْ أَخَذَ ٱللَّهُ مِيثَقَ ٱلنَّبِيِّۦنَ لَمَآ ءَاتَيْتُكُم مِّن كِتَبٍۢ وَحِكْمَةٍۢ ثُمَّ جَآءَكُمْ رَسُولٌۭ مُّصَدِّقٌۭ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِۦ وَلَتَنصُرُنَّهُۥ ۚ قَالَ ءَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَىٰ ذَلِكُمْ إِصْرِى ۖ قَالُوٓا۟ أَقْرَرْنَا ۚ قَالَ فَٱشْهَدُوا۟ وَأَنَا۠ مَعَكُم مِّنَ ٱلشَّهِدِينَ

“And remember the time when Allah took a covenant from the people through the Prophets, saying: ‘Whatever I give you of the Book and Wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger, fulfilling that which is with you, you shall believe in him and help him.’ And He said: ‘Do you agree, and do you accept the responsibility which I lay upon you in this matter?’ They said, ‘We agree;’ He said, ‘Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.’” (Sura Al 'Imran 3:82)

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ يَكْفُرُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِۦ وَيُرِيدُونَ أَن يُفَرِّقُوا۟ بَيْنَ ٱللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِۦ وَيَقُولُونَ نُؤْمِنُ بِبَعْضٍۢ وَنَكْفُرُ بِبَعْضٍۢ وَيُرِيدُونَ أَن يَتَّخِذُوا۟ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ سَبِيلًا ‏أُو۟لَٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْكَفِرُونَ حَقًّۭا ۚ وَأَعْتَدْنَا لِلْكَفِرِينَ عَذَابًۭا مُّهِينًۭا

“Surely, those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messengers and desire to make a distinction between Allah and His Messengers, and say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in others,’ and desire to take a way in between, these indeed are veritable disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers an humiliating punishment.” (Sura an-Nisa' 4:151-152)

هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَرْسَلَ رَسُولَهُۥ بِٱلْهُدَىٰ وَدِينِ ٱلْحَقِّ لِيُظْهِرَهُۥ عَلَى ٱلدِّينِ كُلِّهِۦ وَلَوْ كَرِهَ ٱلْمُشْرِكُونَ

“He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over every other religion, even though the idolaters may dislike it.” (Sura at-Taubah 9:33)

رَحْمَتِى وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَىْءٍۢ ۚ فَسَأَكْتُبُهَا لِلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ وَيُؤْتُونَ ٱلزَّكَوٰةَ وَٱلَّذِينَ هُم بِـَٔايَتِنَا يُؤْمِنُونَ ٱلَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ ٱلرَّسُولَ ٱلنَّبِىَّ ٱلْأُمِّىَّ ٱلَّذِى يَجِدُونَهُۥ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِى ٱلتَّوْرَىٰةِ وَٱلْإِنجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِٱلْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَىٰهُمْ عَنِ ٱلْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ ٱلطَّيِّبَتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ ٱلْخَبَٓئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَٱلْأَغْلَلَ ٱلَّتِى كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ ۚ فَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ بِهِۦ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَٱتَّبَعُوا۟ ٱلنُّورَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُۥٓ ۙ أُو۟لَٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْمُفْلِحُونَ

“My mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it for those who act righteously, and pay the Zakat and those who believe in Our Signs — ‘Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet, the Immaculate one, whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel which are with them. He enjoins on them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful for them the good things and forbids them the bad, and removes from them their burden and the shackles that were upon them. So those who shall believe in him, and honour and support him, and help him, and follow the light that has been sent down with him — these shall prosper.’” (Sura al-A'raf 7:157-158)

وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ ٱلرَّسُولَ مِنۢ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ ٱلْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِۦ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِۦ جَهَنَّمَ ۖ وَسَآءَتْ مَصِيرًا

“And as to him who opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, and follows a way other than that of the believers, We shall let him pursue the way he is pursuing and shall cast him into Hell; and an evil destination it is.” (Sura an-Nisa' 4:116)

The third category includes those verses which state that the rejection of the Holy Qur'an is tantamount to a denial of Allah:

وَإِن كُنتُمْ فِى رَيْبٍۢ مِّمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَىٰ عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا۟ بِسُورَةٍۢ مِّن مِّثْلِهِۦ وَٱدْعُوا۟ شُهَدَآءَكُم مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَدِقِينَ فَإِن لَّمْ تَفْعَلُوا۟ وَلَن تَفْعَلُوا۟ فَٱتَّقُوا۟ ٱلنَّارَ ٱلَّتِى وَقُودُهَا ٱلنَّاسُ وَٱلْحِجَارَةُ ۖ أُعِدَّتْ لِلْكَفِرِينَ

“And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a Chapter like it, and call upon your helpers beside Allah, if you are truthful. But if you do it not — and never shall you do it — then guard against the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, which is prepared for the disbelievers.” (Sura al-Baqarah 2:24-25)

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

There is also a logical argument there: the claim that more than one religion is simultaneously valid is illogical because each religion has tenets that would be deemed blasphemous by the other. Put simply, they cannot all be right at once.

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

The Qur'anic verses mentioned below indicate that being a Christian or a Jew is not what guarantees salvation, what matters is one’s adherence to Abrahamic monotheism:

وَقَالُوا۟ كُونُوا۟ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَرَىٰ تَهْتَدُوا۟ ۗ قُلْ بَلْ مِلَّةَ إِبْرَهِۦمَ حَنِيفًۭا ۖ وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ

“And they say, ‘Be ye Jews or Christians that you may be rightly guided.’ Say: ‘Nay, follow ye the religion of Abraham who was ever inclined to God; he was not of those who set up gods with God.’” (Sura al-Baqarah 2:136)

وَقَالُوا۟ لَن يَدْخُلَ ٱلْجَنَّةَ إِلَّا مَن كَانَ هُودًا أَوْ نَصَرَىٰ ۗ تِلْكَ أَمَانِيُّهُمْ ۗ قُلْ هَاتُوا۟ بُرْهَنَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَدِقِينَ بَلَىٰ مَنْ أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُۥ لِلَّهِ وَهُوَ مُحْسِنٌۭ فَلَهُۥٓ أَجْرُهُۥ عِندَ رَبِّهِۦ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

“And they say, ‘None shall ever enter Heaven unless he be a Jew or a Christian.’ These are their vain desires. Say, ‘Produce your proof, if you are truthful.’ Nay, whoever submits himself completely to Allah, and is the doer of good, shall have his reward with his Lord. No fear shall come upon such, neither shall they grieve.” (Sura al-Baqarah 2:112-113)

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

Now let us come to one of the key passage that the pluralist camp often invokes:

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ وَٱلَّذِينَ هَادُوا۟ وَٱلنَّصَرَىٰ وَٱلصَّبِـِٔينَ مَنْ ءَامَنَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْءَاخِرِ وَعَمِلَ صَلِحًۭا فَلَهُمْ أَجْرُهُمْ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ وَلَا خَوْفٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَلَا هُمْ يَحْزَنُونَ

“Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians — whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds — shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve.” (Sura al-Baqarah 2:63)

The Promised Messiah (as) says about this verse:

واضح ہو کہ قرآن شریف میں ان آیات کے ذکر کرنے سے یہ مطلب نہیں ہے کہ بغیر اس کے جو رسول پر ایمان لایا جائے نجات ہو سکتی ہے بلکہ مطلب یہ ہے کہ بغیر اس کے کہ خدائے واحد لاشرؔ یک اور یوم آخرت پر ایمان لایا جاوے نجات نہیں ہو سکتی۔* اور اللہ پر پور اایمان تبھی ہو سکتا ہے کہ اُسکے رسولوں پر ایمان لاوے۔

“These verses of the Holy Qur'an do not mean that salvation can be achieved without believing in the Holy Prophet (saw). They lay down that salvation cannot be achieved without believing in God—Who has no associate—and in the Last Day; and that belief in God cannot be perfect without belief in Prophets.” (Haqiqatu l-Wahy, Ruhani Khaza'in, vol. 22, p. 173)

Hadrat Khalifatu l-Masih II. (ra) says in his Tafsir-e Kabir under this verse:

اس آیت کے معنے کرنے میں بعض لوگوں کو یہ دھوکا لگا ہے کہ چونکہ اس جگہ صرف ایمان باللہ اور ایمان بیوم آخر کے ساتھ خوف و حزن سے نجات کو وابستہ کیا ہے۔ پس معلوم ہوتا کے کہ قرآن کریم اس قوم کو جو اللہ اور یوم آخر پر ایمان لانے والی ہو۔ نجات یافتہ قرار دیتا ہے مگر یہ درست نہیں۔ ایمان باللہ و یوم آخر میں اسلام کے سب اصول شامل ہیں۔ […] اللہ تعالی پر ایمان کے اندر ہی رسولوں پر ایمان لانا بھی شامل ہے اور رسولوں پر ایمان لانے میں اگر وہ کوئی کتاب لایا ہو تو اس پر ایمان لانا بھی داخل ہے۔

“Some people have fallen victim to a misunderstanding in understanding this verse, that is that because here the talk is merely of the belief in Allah and the belief in the Last Day, and since the release of fear and sadness was associated therewith, that would mean that those people who believe in God and the Last Day would be redeemed. However, this is not right. In believing in Allah and the Last Day all the basics of Islam are included. [...] In the belief in Allah, the belief in the prophets is included in the faith of the prophets the belief in the books which they have brought is also included.” (Tafsir-e Kabir, vol. 1, p. 489)

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

I hope and pray that this compilation may answer your question. Allahumma Amin.

What is the Islamic Ruling on greeting non-Muslims?

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:47:00 +0000

The foremost source of our Fiqh is the Holy Qur’ān and according to the doctrine of al-Jamā‘a al-Aḥmadiyya al-Islāmiyya all Aḥādīth are to be rejected, which are opposed to manifest commandments of the Holy Qur’ān. The Fatāwā of some ‘Ulamā’ that say that one should not be the first to greet a non-Muslim or that one should only greet back with „Wa ‘alaykum“ are based on Aḥādīth that blatantly contradict the Holy Qur’ān.

What does the Holy Qur’ān say?

وَإِذَا حُيِّيتُم بِتَحِيَّةٍۢ فَحَيُّوا۟ بِأَحۡسَنَ مِنۡهَآ أَوۡ رُدُّوهَآ

“And when you are greeted with a prayer, greet ye with a better prayer or at least return it.” (Sūra an-Nisā’ 4:87)

Accorrding to this Āya one shall return the greeting, if being greeted, preferably with an even more beautiful greeting. Here there is no mention of the fact that this law would apply only to Muslims. Ibn Qaiyim al-Jauziya (d. 751 AH) writes is his work „Aḥkām Ahl adh-Dhimma“, that this commandment extends to both Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

وَعِبَادُ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَمۡشُونَ عَلَى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ هَوۡنًۭا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ ٱلۡجَٰهِلُونَ قَالُوا۟ سَلَٰمًۭا

“And the servants of the Gracious God are those who walk on the earth in a dignified manner, and when the ignorant address them, they say, ‘Salām!’” (Sūra al-Furqān 25:64)

In accordance with this Āya the true ‘Ibād ar-Raḥmān (servants of the Most Gracious) are those, who, when addressed by the ignorant and foolish disbelievers, say „Salām“ to them, hence as-Salāmu ‘alaykum.

فَٱصۡفَحۡ عَنۡهُمۡ وَقُلۡ سَلَٰمٌۭۚ فَسَوۡفَ يَعۡلَمُونَ

“Therefore, turn aside from them, and say, ‘Peace’; and soon shall they know.” (Sūra az-Zukhruf 43:90)

Corresponding to this Āya, Allāh commands that one should turn away from the disbelievers and say „Salām“.

وَإِذَا سَمِعُوا۟ ٱللَّغۡوَ أَعۡرَضُوا۟ عَنۡهُ وَقَالُوا۟ لَنَآ أَعۡمَٰلُنَا وَلَكُمۡ أَعۡمَٰلُكُمۡ سَلَٰمٌ عَلَيۡكُمۡ

“And when they hear vain talk, they turn away from it and say, ‘Unto us our works and unto you your works. Peace be to you.’” (Sūra al-Qaṣaṣ 28:56)

After this Āya, when one hears vain, empty and meaningless talk of the disbelievers, he should turn away and say “Salām ‘alaykum”.

قَالَ سَلَٰمٌ عَلَيۡكَۖ

“Abraham said, ‘Peace be on thee.’” (Sūra al-Maryam 19:48)
And in this Āya it is written that, when the father of ’Ibrāhīm (as), who was a Mushrik, expelled him from the house, ’Ibrāhīm (as) said “Salām ‘alayk” to him.

The Aḥādīth

Now some ‘Ulamā’ rely on Aḥādīth from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, according to which the Holy Prophet (saw) said that one should not greet the Jews and the Christians at first. The Holy Prophet (saw) said:

لا تبدءوا اليهود ولا النصارى بالسلام

“Don’t initiate salutations to the Jews or the Christians” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Kitāb as-Salām, Bāb an-Nahyi ‘an ’Ibdtidā’i Ahl al-Kitāb bi-’s-Salām, No. 4037)

However, this Ḥadīth is associated specifically to a state of hostilities against the Muslims, which has prevailed at the time of the campaign against the Banū Qurayza and so it can not be applied universally. This is evident from a second authentic Ḥadīth according to which the Holy Prophet (saw) said:

إنَّا غَادُونَ إِلَى يَهُودَ ، فَلَا تَبْدَءُوهُمْ بِالسَّلَامِ

“At dawn we go against a group of Jews, so do not initiate the greeting of peace with them!“ (Musnad Aḥmad, Min Musnad al-Qabā’il, Ḥadīth Abī Baṣra al-Ghifārī, Nr. 26695; al-Mu‘jam al-Kabīr li ’ṭ-Ṭabarānī, Bāb al-Jīm, Bāb man Ismuh Jābir bin Samura, Nr. 2120; Al-Adab Al-Mufrad li ’l-Bukhārī, Bāb Lā yabda’ Ahl adh-Dhimma bi ’s-Salām, Nr. 1087)

And there is another Ḥadīth which clears up the situation.

أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم [...] مر في مجلس فيه أخلاط من المسلمين والمشركين [...] واليهود [...] فسلم عليهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم

According to this Ḥadīth the Holy Prophet (saw) once passed by a mixed gathering of Muslims, Mushrikūn and Jews and said Assalāmu ‘alaykum to them. (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Kitāb al-’Isti’dhan, Bāb at-Taslīm fī Majlis fīhi Akhlāṭ min al-Muslimīn wa ’l-Mushrikīn, No. 5899)

So this should be evidence enough for the Muslims that even, if they assume somebody to be a Kāfir, they are meant to greet him with as-Salāmu ‘alaykum.

And Allah knows best!

‘Ulamā’, Murabbis and a rather strong Ḥadīth

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:18:00 +0000

In his blog letmeturnthetables Mr. Waqar Akbar Cheema tries to undervalue a famous Ḥadīth which is often presented by the scholars of the Aḥmadiyya Muslim Jamā‘at. It was narrated with some slightly different notations and asānīd, i.e. chain of narrators, by many authentic Muḥaddithūn:

عن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه، قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم:” يوشك أن أو سيأتي على الناس زمان لا يبقى من الإسلام إلا اسمه، ولا يبقى من القرآن إلا رسمه، مساجدهم يومئذ عامرة وهي خراب من الهدى، علماؤهم شر من تحت أديم السماء، منهم أو من عندهم خرجت أو تخرج أو يمدح الفتنة وفيهم تعود“

‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib (ra) narrates that the Messenger of Allāh (sa) said: “A time will come in the near future when there will be nothing left of the Islam except its name. And there will be nothing left of the Holy Qur’ān except its words. The mosques of that age will apparently be full of people, but will be empty of righteousness. Their ‘Ulamā’ will be the worst creatures under the heaven. Discord will rise from them and will come right back to them.”

(Shu‘ab al-Īman by Imām Al-Bayhaqī (d. 1066), Ḥadīth No. 1766/1767; al-Mujālasa wa Jawāhir al-‘Ilm by Aḥmad ibn Marwān Dīnawarī (d. 895/896), Ḥadīth No. 526; al-‘Uqūbāt by Ibn Abī ad-Dunyā (d. 894), Ḥadīth No. 8; as-Sunan al-Wārida fī al-Fitan by Abū ‘Amr ‘Uthmān bin Sa‘īd bin ‘Uthmān al-Umawī ad-Dānī (d. 1052), Ḥadīth No. 239; Kanz al-‘Ummāl by al-Muttaqī al-Hindī (d. 1567) , Ḥadīth No. 44217)

The first objection Mr. Cheema brings forth is the ostensible inauthenticityof the narrator ‘Abdullah ibn Dukayn al-Kūfī which occurs in some asānīd. Let us examine what several noble scholars of ‘Ilm ar-Rijāl, viz. the biographical evaluation of Ḥadīth narrators, had to say about ‘Abdullah ibn Dukayn:

Yūsuf ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān al-Mizzī (d. 1341) in his book Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmā’ ar-Rijāl, which in fact served as the model for the Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb of his student adh-Dhahabī (d. 1348), says that:

an-Nasā’ī (d. 915), the author of the Sunan aṣ-Ṣughrā, one of the al-Kutub as-Sitta, said about ibn Dukayn: Laysa bihī Ba’s
Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn (d. 847) , a teacher of Imām Bukhārī and a famous Muḥaddith, said about ibn Dukayn: Lā Ba’sa bihī [Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn uses the terms Laysa bihī Ba’s / Lā ba’sa bihī to refer to someone who is thiqa, i.e. trustworthy and reliable. (Al-Khulāsa fī ‘Ilm al-Jarḥ wa at-Ta‘dīl by ‘Alī ibn Nāyif)]
Abū Dāwūd (d. 888), the author of the Sunan Abū Dāwūd, also one of the al-Kutub as-Sitta, said that Shaykh al-Islām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal told him about ibn Dukayn to be thiqa.

Based on these handful of examples it is clearly evident that ibn Dukayn can in no way be considered to be inauthentic regardless of what later scholars havesaid, for contemporary and higher-level scholars said the total opposite.

Another demur of Mr. Cheema is the authenticity of Muhammad ibn Maslama al-Wāsṭy who appears in another isnād as a narrator. al-Ḥākim an-Nīsābūrī (d. 1012), known as Imām al-Muḥaddithīn, narrates about Abū al-Ḥassan ad-Dāraquṭnī (d. 995) that he said Lā Ba’sa bihī about ibn Maslama. (Siyar A‘lām an-Nubalā’ by Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān adh-Dhahabī (d. 1348))

The point brought up by Mr. Cheema that some asānīd of this Ḥadīth are Mawqūf is entirely insignificant, because there are other asānīd which obviously are Marfū‘.

And the putative liars of which Mr. Cheema is talking are also negligible, because there are asānīd of which they are not part of.

The inqiṭā‘ between ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib and his grandson ‘Alī ibn Ḥusayn is insofar irrelevant as there exist many different asānīd. This consequentially raises the authenticity of this Ḥadīth.

Apart from this there are available many other Ahadith which deal with the very same subject.

أخبرنا يزيد أخبرنا العوام عن إبراهيم التيمي قال : بلغ بن مسعود أن عند ناس كتابا يعجبون به فلم يزل بهم حتى أتوه به فمحاه ثم قال إنما هلك أهل الكتاب قبلكم أنهم أقبلوا على كتب علمائهم وتركوا كتاب ربهم

Yazīd told us: al-‘Awām told us that Ibrāhīm at-Taymī said: Ibn Mas‘ūd was informed that the people have (other) books that they admire, so he stayed with them until they brought such a book to him and he destroyed it. Then he said: The people of the book before you were destroyed because they turned to the books of their scholars and left the book of their Lord. (Sunan ad-Dārimi by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ad-Dārimi (d. 869), Ḥadīth No. 471, resp. 470)

Ḥusayn Salīm Asad ad-Dārānī said in his edition of Sunan ad-Dārimī of 2000 that the isnād of the above Ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ.

حدثنا قتيبة بن سعيد حدثنا جرير عن هشام بن عروة عن أبيه سمعت عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص يقول: سمعت رسول الله يقول:”إن الله لا يقبض العلم انتزاعا ينتزعه من الناس ولكن يقبض العلم بقبض العلماء حتى إذا لم يترك عالما اتخذ الناس رؤسا جهالا فسئلوا فأفتوا بغير علم فضلوا وأضلوا“

Qutayba ibn Saī‘d told us: Jarīr told us: Hisham ibn ‘Urwa narrated from his father: I heard ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās saying: I heard Allāh's Messenger (May peace be upon him) saying: “Verily, Allāh will not take away knowledge by snatching it from the people but He will take away knowledge by taking away the scholars, so that when there will be left no learned person, people will make the ignorant their leaders and will ask them (for guidance in matters of religion). Then these (leaders) will issue fatāwā (i.e. religious verdicts) without any knowledge. They will themselves be misguided and will lead others astray.” (as-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muslim, by Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj (d. 875), Book 34: The Knowledge, Chapter 5: Knowledge would be taken away, and Ignorance would prevail upon People and the Turmoil at the End of the World, Ḥadīth No. 2673)

حدثنا عبد الرحمن، حدثنا حماد بن زيد، عن أيوب، عن أبي قلابة، عن أبي أسماء، عن ثوبان، قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم :” إنما أخاف على أمتي الأئمة المضلين “

‘Abd ar-Raḥmān told us: Ḥammād ibn Zayd told us from Ayyūb, from Abū Qilāba, from Abū Asmā’, from Thaubān, he said: Allāh's Messenger (May peace be upon him) said: “What I truly fear for my Umma are misguided scholars!”(Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 855) by Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥanbal, Ḥadīth No. 21803)

حدثنا أبو بكر الآجري، حدثنا جعفر بن محمد الفريابي، حدثنا هشام بن عمار، حدثنا صدقة بن خالد، حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن يزيد بن جابر، قال: سمعت مكحولا يقول: ”لا يأتي على الناس ما يوعدون حتى يكون عالمهم فيهم أنتن من جيفة الحمار“

Abū Bakr Al-Ājurrī told us: Ja‘far ibn Muḥammad al-Firyābī told us: Hishām ibn ‘Ammār told us: Ṣadaqa ibn Khālid told us: ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Yazīd ibn Jābir told us, saying: I heard Makḥūl saying: “What was promised to people will will not come upon them until a scholar from amongst them will be worse than a carcass of a donkey.” (Ḥilyat al-Awliyā’ wa Ṭabaqāt al-Aṣfiyā by Abū Nu‘aym al-Iṣfahānī (d. 1038), Ḥadīth No. 6957)

Prior to concluding my remarks I will provide evidence that the above mentioned prophecies have been fulfilled.

Imām al-Ghazālī (d. 1111) writes:

وقد استحوذ على أكثرهم الشيطان واستغواهم الطغيان. وأصبح كل واحد بعاجل حظه مشغوفاً فصار يرى المعروف منكراً والمنكر معروفاً. حتى ظل علم الدين مندرساً ومنار الهدى في أقطار الأرض منطمساً. ولقد خيلوا إلى الخلق أن لا علم إلا فتوى حكومة تستعين به القضاة على فصل الخصام عند تهاوش الطغام. أو جدل يتدرع به طالب المباهاة إلى الغلبة والإفحام. أو سجع مزخرف يتوسل به الواعظ إلى استدراج العوام

Satan has overpowered most of them (i.e. the ‘Ulamā’). Their transgressions have led them astray. Every one of them is so obsessed with his material advantage that for them a virtue becomes an evil, and an evil becomes a virtue. Religious knowledge has disappeared, and the lighthouses of guidance have fallen. These ‘Ulamā’ have convinced people that there are only three types of knowledge. First is the ‘knowledge’ of the directives issued by the government that judges use to settle disputes among thugs. Second is the ‘knowledge’ of argumentation, by which a conceited person subdues his opponent and renders him speechless. [Not through logic but through sheer arrogance.] Third, the rhymed and poetic oration by which a preacher tries to entice the general public. (Kitāb al-Imlā’ fī Ishkālāt al-Iḥyā’ by Imām al-Ghazālī (d. 1111))

And Shaykh ‘Uthmān ibn Fūdī (d. 1817) says:

كثيراً من علماء هذه الأمة وعبادهم يأكلون أموال الناس بالباطل، ويصدون عن سبيل الله، وبسبب هؤلاء العلماء والعباد شاع الفساد في جميع البلاد والعباد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ”هلاك أمتي عالم فاجر وعابد جاهل “وقال صلى الله عليه وسلم ”أنا من غير الدجال أخوف عليكم من الدجال“ فقالوا: ”ممن يا رسول الله“ قال: ”من علماء السوء “

Many of the so-called scholars and worshippers in this Umma devour the wealth of the people unjustly and bar them from the path of Allāh. And by means of these scholars and worshippers corruption has spread throughout the lands. The Messenger of Allāh, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, said: “My Umma will be destroyed by the corrupt scholars and the ignorant worshippers. And he, may Allāh bless him and grant him peace, also said: “I am not the Dajjāl and I am more fearful for you from something other than the Dajjāl.” They said: “From whom O Messenger of Allāh?” He said: “From the evil scholars.” (Sirāj al-Ikhwān fī Ahamm wa Yuḥtāj ilayhi fī hādhā az-Zamān by Shaykh ‘Uthmān ibn Fūdī (d. 1817))

Then Abū al-A‘lā Mawdūdī (d. 1979), one of the most strident opponents of the Aḥmadiyya Muslim Jamā‘at, writes:

مگر افسوس کہ علماء (الا ماشاء اللہ) خود اسلام کی حقیقی روح سے خالی ہو چکے تھے۔ ان میں اجتہاد کی قوت نہ تھی، ان میں تفقہ نہ تھا، ان میں حکمت نہ تھی، ان میں عمل کی طاقت نہ تھی، ان میں عمل کی طاقت نہ تھی، ان میں یہ صلاحیت ہی نہ تھی کہ خدا کی کتاب اور رسول خدا کی علمی و عملی ہدایت سے اسلام کے دائمی اور لچکدار اصول اخذ کرتے اور زمانہ کے متغیر حالات میں ان سے کام لیتے۔ ان پر تو اسلاف کی اندھی اور جامد تقلید کا مرض پوری طرح مسلط ہو چکا تھا جس کی وجہ سے وہ ہر چیز کو ان کتابوں میں تلاش کرتے تھے جو خدا کی کتابیں نہ تھیں کہ زمانے کی قیود سے بالاتر ہوتیجں۔ وہ ہر معاملہ میں ان انسانوں کی طرف رجوع کرتے تھے جو خدا کے نبی نہ تھے کہ ان کی بصیرت اوقات اور حالات کی بندشوں سے بالکل آزاد ہوتی۔ پھر یہ کیونکر ممکن تھا کہ وہ ایسے وقت میں مسلمانوں کی کامیاب رہنمائی کر سکے جب کہ زمانہ بالکل بدل چکا تھا اور علم و عمل کی دنیا میں ایسا عظیم تغیر واقع ہو چکا تھا جس کو خدا کی نظر تو دیکھ سکتی تھی، مگر کسی غیر نبی انسان کی نظر میں یہ طاقت نہ تھی کہ قرنوں اور صدیوں کے پردے اٹھا کر ان تک پہنچ سکتی۔

It is sad that all but a few of the ‘Ulamā’ had lost the true spirit of Islam. They lacked the power of Ijtihād. They had forgotten the ability to acquire knowledge. They had no wisdom. They had lost the strength to do anything. They totally lacked the capability to extract lasting and adaptable principles of Islam from the Book of God or the verbal and practical guidance provided by the Messenger of God. They could not apply these principles to the changed times. They were overwhelmed by the disease of blindly following the traditions of their forefathers. Because of this, they looked for all their answers in the writings of their forefathers rather than the Books of God—which transcend the limitations of time. In every instance they turned to the people who were not prophets of God—whose vision is free from the constraint of time and situation. Therefore, how was it possible for the ulema to guide the Muslims successfully when the times had changed and a great transformation had occurred in the world of science and technology that only God could have known, but a person who is not a prophet could not have revealed what lay ahead in the centuries to come. (Daur-e-Jadīd kī Bīmār Qaumeyṅ by Abū al-A‘lā Mawdūdī (d. 1979) in Tarjumān al-Qur’ān, Oct. 1935)

And Allah knows best!

The 'Last Mosque' argument still intact - Updated!

noreply@blogger.com (iftiswelt) — Mon, 21 May 2012 21:56:00 +0000

In his blog letmeturnthetables Mr. Waqar Akbar Cheema alleges that Ahmadis would quote the following Ḥadīth to confuse the idea of Khātam an-Nabiyyīn (Seal of the Prophets). The Ḥadīth is from the as-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muslim and is as follows:

قال رسول الله : فإني آخر الأنبياء وإن مسجدي آخر المساجد

Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the last of the Apostles and my mosque is the last of the mosques. (as-Ṣaḥīḥ al-Muslim, by Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj (d. 875), Book 7: The Pigrimage, Chapter 90: The Merit of Praying in the two mosques at Mecca and Medina, No. 1394)

After mentioning this Ḥadīth, he quotes the inference of unsurpassed logic, which the Ahmadis generally deduce of this Ḥadīth, namely that by the fact that the Holy Prophet's mosque was not the last one on earth, it is clearly proven that the word ākhir is used here in a figurative sense.

Without any doubt the al-Masjid al-Nabawī is the Ākhir al-Masājid and the Khātam al-Masājid. But it is the last of all the mosques regarding new ways and methods of worship. Thereafter it would be unlawful to build a mosque in terms of a new way or kind of worship. Not even in the least does that mean that it would be irregular to build a mosque wherein the way of worship of the Prophet's Mosque is being practiced. In view of that, all the mosques that were built after the al-Masjid al-Nabawī are its ẓill, viz. shadow. In the exact same manner an-Nubuwwa, i.e. prophethood, was not cut off absolutely and ultimately after the advent of Khātam an-Nabiyyīn , but only the legislative (tashrī‘iyya) and indepepent (mustaqilla) prophethood were finalized through the person of his Holiness . The non-legislative (ghair tashrī‘iyya), the non-independent (ghair mustaqilla), a.k.a. the shadowy (ẓilliyya) prophethood is still unspoilt.

Thus ash-Shaikh al-Akbar Muḥyī ad-Dīn ibn ʿArabī (d. 1240), one of the most prolific Ṣūfīs write:

فما إرتفعت النبوة بالكلية ولهذا قلنا إنما إرتفعت نبوة التشريع فهذا معنى لا نبي بعده

Prophethood was not lifted off entirely. Therefore, we rather say that the legislative prophethood was put to an end. This is the meaning of “there is no prophet after him”. (Futūḥāt al-Makkiyya, Vol. 2, Chap. 73)

And the well-known Shāfiʿī scholar Abd al-Wahhab al-Sha‘rani (d. 1565) confirms him by saying:

إعلم أن النبوة لم ترتفع مطلقا بعد محمد، وإنما إرتفع نبوة التشريع فقط

Be aware that prophethood has not been abolished absolutely after Muhammad, but only the legislative prophecy has been put to an end. (Kitāb al-Yawāqīt wa-l-Jawāhir fī bayān ‘Aqā‘id al-Akābir, Vol. 2, p. 3)

Through sordid rhetoric he then tries to ascertain the reader that anyone who has acquired even a fundamental knowledge about the Aḥādīth, could not have overlooked the following Ḥadīth:

أنا خاتم الانبياء و مسجدي خاتم مساجد الانبيا و أحق المساجد أن يزار و يشد إليه الرواحل مسجد الحرام و مسجدي، و صلاة في مسجدي أفضل من ألف صلاة فيما سواه إلا المسجد الحرام

I am the seal of the prophets and my mosque is the seal of the mosques of the prophets. And the mosques which deserve mostly to be visited and towards which the mounts should be driven are the mosque of Mecca and my mosque. The prayer in my mosque is better than a thousand prayers in any other mosque except that of Mecca. (Kanz al-‘Ummāl, by al-Muttaqī al-Hindī (d. 1567), Chapter Faḍl al-Ḥaramain wa-l-Masjid al-Aqsā min al-Akmāl, Vol. 12, p. 270, No. 34999)

The first step to examine the reliability of this Ḥadīth is to have a look at the book itself where this tradition has been narrated, i.e. the Kanz al-‘Ummāl. Regarding this book, Sheikh Muhammad al-Turkī, professor at the King Sa‘ūd University in Riyāḍ, says that definately not all Aḥādīth in it are authentic and that it is full of weak and false Aḥādīth. It is, in fact, a rearrangement of the al-Jāmi‘ al-Kabīr of Jalāl al‐Dīn al‐Suyūṭī. When he wrote his book, his intention was to gather together all the Aḥādīth that he knew, whether they were authentic or not and he openly admitted that there were some false Aḥādīth in it. Therefore, when al-Muttaqī al-Hindī rearranged al‐Suyūṭī's book, it was obvious that his book would also contain a number of weak and false Aḥādīth, since the original work on which it was based contained the same. (http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1169)

However, Mr. Cheema provides us with another source, which probably is meant to serve as a substantiation of the Ḥadīth he presented. The source is the Ḥadīth No. 1175 of the book al-Targhīb wa-l-Tarhīb by Muḥammad Nāṣir ad-Dīn al-Albānī. What Mr. Cheema does not seem to know is, is that Al-Albānī is considered to be the chief innovator of our time and that most of the contemporary Sunni scholars warned of his heresy and many of them wrote articles or full-length works against him. (http://www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/al_albani.htm)

Nevertheless, there is also another source to a hadith that is similar to the one that Mr. Cheema has put forth:

حدنا حسين بن حسن, قال: حدثنا عبد العزيز بن أبي عثمان، عن موسى بن عبيدة، عن داود بن مدرك، عن عروة بن الزبير، عن عائشة رضي الله عنها, قالت: قال رسول الله : أنا خاتم الأنبياء، ومسجدي خاتم المساجد، وأحق المساجد أن يزار وتركب إليه الرواحل المسجد الحرام، ومسجدي هذا، وصلاة في مسجدي أفضل من ألف صلاة فيما سواه من المساجد إلا المسجد الحرام

Ḥussain ibn Ḥassan told us, he said: ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn Abī ‘Uthmān told us from Mūsā ibn ‘Ubaida, from Dāwūd ibn Mudrik, from ‘Urwa ibn az-Zubair, from ‘Āisha (may Allah be pleased with her), she said: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the seal of the prophets and my mosque ist the seal of the mosques. And the mosques which deserve mostly to be visited and towards which the steeds should be ridden are the mosque of Mecca and this my mosque. The prayer in my mosque is better than a thousand prayers in any other mosque except that of Mecca. (Akhbār Makka, by Muḥammad Ibn Isḥāq al-Fākihī (d. 892), Chapter of the mentioning of the virtue of praying in the Holy Mosque, No. 1140)

This Ḥadīth is charaterized as marfū‘. In fact all the Aḥādīth of this book have been regarded as being at least ḥasan.

But even if the Ḥadīth stated in the Kanz al-‘Ummāl is regarded as authentic, it does not conflict with the Aḥmadiyya point of view at all. In fact it totally clarifies our perspective. In this Ḥadīth the Holy Prophet declares that after the mosques of all the prophets who passed before him the al-Masjid al-Nabawī is the last mosque. And declaring the al-Masjid al-Nabawī as being the last of the mosques implicates that henceforth by no prophet may a mosque be erected for any new ways of worship until the day of resurrection, but rather all of the mosques that may be built after the al-Masjid al-Nabawī shall be built to adopt the way of worship exemplified by the al-Masjid al-Nabawī, only then their construction would be acceptable, because all those mosques would then be ẓilāl, that is to say shadows, of the al-Masjid al-Nabawī. Similarly, the concept of the declaration of the Holy Prophet as Khātam al-Anbiyā in juxtaposition to Khātam al-Masājid is this, that the Holy Prophet is the last prophet to bring new laws and that after him there can be no prophet who brings a new law. Whosoever may appear, will have to be from his Umma and appear as his shadow (ẓill) and will have to be subject to his very law. Hence, as it is permitted to build ẓillī mosques of the al-Masjid al-Nabawī after it, in exactly the same way the coming of a ẓillī prophet after the Khātam al-Anbiyā is unaffected by it. The mosque which will be permissible to build in future will be that which will be according to the way of worship of the al-Masjid al-Nabawī, notwithstanding whether the builders of it are Anbiā Ummatī (prophet of the Umma) or ordinary people.

At a glance we may notice the following:

The first Ḥadīth brought forth by the Ahmadis is from al-Muslim, which is the second one of the so called Ṣaḥīḥān. All followers of the Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jamā‘a are muttafiq ‘alai thereon that this is the second most authentic book of Aḥādīth. Here, the word al-Anbiyā’ is not mentioned after al-Masājid.
Ibn ‘Arabī and al-Sha‘rani both support the Ahmadiyya standpoint.
The second Ḥadīth, which is presented by Mr. Cheema, is from Kanz al-‘Ummāl. The authenticity of this tradition is more than questionable, because there is not even given an isnād and al‐Suyūṭī, who is the original compiler of the book, himself admits that even non-authentic Aḥādīth were also collected in his work.
The so called scholar who verifies this Ḥadīth, i.e. al-Albānī, is viewed by most of the Sunni scholars as a falsifier and heretic.
The next Ḥadīth which my humble self presents is from al-Fākihī and has almost the exact same wording as the Ḥadīth of al-Muttaqī al-Hindī, except for the non-existent word of al-Anbiyā’. Furthermore al-Fākihī's work was praised by Ibn Ḥajar and Taqī ad-Dīn al-Fāsī.
Even if the Ḥadīth brought forth by al-Muttaqī al-Hindī is genuine, it does not oppose our idea of Khātam an-Nabiyyīn.

Finally, one can say with some certainty that the narration of the Kanz al-‘Ummāl is faulty and even if not there is nothing to dispute on.

And Allah knows best!