Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Umar Burnt Narrations At His Time (Authentic)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

 

 

We read in: "Al-Tabqa'at Al-Kabe'er (الطبقات الكبير)": By: "Muhammad Bin Sa'ad Bin Man'eh Al-Zahri (محمد بن سعد بن منيع الزهري)": Investigated by: Ali muhammad umar (علي محمد عمر), Library: Al-Khana'aji (مكتبة الخانجي), Year of release: 1421. Volume #7, Page #188: 
 

 


قال : أخبرنا : زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد الدمشقي قال : ، أخبرنا : عبد الله بن العلاء قال : سألت القاسم يملي علي أحاديث فقال : إن الأحاديث كثرت على عهد عمر بن الخطاب فأنشد الناس أن يأتوه بها فلما أتوه بها أمر بتحريقها ، ثم قال : مثناة كمثناة أهل الكتاب قال : فمنعني القاسم يومئذ أن أكتب حديثاًًًً.

 

Said: Told us: Zay'd bin Yah'yah bin Ab'eed Al-Dimashqi said: Told us: Abdullah bin Al-Ala'a said: I asked Al-Qasim (*), to fill (in) on me narrations, (so) he said: The narration increased at the time during the reign of Umar so he asked the people to bring them (narrations) to him, so when they brought it (narrations) to him, he ordered to burn them. then he said: "Mathn'aat like the Mathn'at of the people of the book (**)" Said: So he Al-Qasim at that time did not allow me to write narrations.(***)(****)

 

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

(*) He is Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu bakr. In Siy'ar Al-Al'am Al-Nubala (سير أعلام النبلاء), Third section, from page #54: was one of the seven most famous jurists in Medina, and was considered as the most knowledgeable among them. He was highly influential in disseminating early traditions of hadith, fiqh (jurisprudence) and tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur'an, But according to some he did not engage in interpretation (Taf'seer). Aisha lived a very long time and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. Many Hadith are quoted through Qasim. (Link to Reference)

 

(**) The Word: (مثناة), according to the Mu'jam of Arabic, Could mean: Repeating, repeated,in time or in literature. Meaning:

"Ma'tha'an" (مثان), like the verses of the Qur'an that are recited and repeated. As we read in the Holy Qur'an The following verse: "And certainly We have given you seven of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran." 15:87. (link)

 

(***) This Narration is Sahih (Authentic). The First narrator is Zay'd bin Yah'ya bin Ab'eed, Al-Khuza'i Al-Dimiashqi (زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد), He is approved of, as Al-Dar'iqtini said: "Thiqah (Trusted)". And Ibn Khal'foon has mentioned him in his "Trustworthy persons", And Ibn-Habban, mentioned his narrations in his Sahih. He was also of those who release Islamic laws in Dimash'q (Read Ik'maal-Tah'theeb Al-Kamal, (إكمال تهذيب الكمال), Volume #5, Page #175, person #1796 (Link)'). In addition, Al-Albani, when grading a narration in his book: "Sil'silat Al-Ahad'eeth Al-Sah'iha (سلسلة الأحاديث الصحيحة)", volume #1, page #180, he was not able to identify between two narrators, since the names were similar, so in conclusion he stated both narrators are Trusted, and one of them was Zay'd bin Yah'ya bin Ab'eed (link). The Second narrator is Abdull'ah bin Al-Ala'a bin Zab'r (عبد الله بن العلاء بن زبر), He is Trusted by: Da'heem (دحيم), Ahmad bin Hanbal (أحمد بن حنبل), Ibn-Sa'ad (ابن سعد, Abu Daw'ud And Al-Darqitni (أبو داود والدارقطني). To revise, Read: Siya'ar A'alam Al-Nubala (سير أعلام النبلاء), By Imam Sham's Al-Deen Al-Dahabi, Section #7, Page #351. (link). 

 

(****) In Concerning with the "Connection" of this chain, It is Correct, and not cut. Qasim Bin Muhammad did not live at the time of Umar's Caliphate, Rather after it, by a few years. however the narration is not a narration that quotes from what one has said, it is simply the "Claim"of Muhammad bin Qa'sim, who is scholar in narration and highly trusted, and one of the rulers/judges, of the seven in his time, according to The Siy'ar By Imam Al-Dahabi. Thus, in terms of the statement that he has made, is therefore "True" and established.

 

 

 

 

post-83202-0-55854600-1411811172_thumb.jpost-83202-0-83683000-1411811156_thumb.j

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________




و السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

Checking on Narration is other books, The Investigators, have graded the narration as "San'ad Munqa'th", meaning that the Chain is cut. However this illogical, for the reason being, when looking at their definition of a "Cut chain":



  والمنقطع‏:‏ ما حذف من أثناء سنده راوٍ واحد، أو راويان فأكثر لا على التوالي‏.‏

 

 

And the "Cut" (in the chain): What has been removed from the chain, one narrator, or two narrators or more not On (in) continuance (Sequence).

 

____________


The Above chain of two narrators are connected, to Qasim bin Muhammad, At which he made a statement: That he holds as true. Thus, the chain of this narration is not Cut, and to claim so is false. If one doubts Muhammad Bin Qasim, that is also not reasonable, due to the status that he was given, as an Imam in Narrations. Including that he was Raised By "Aisha", and when one reads, we can see that he narrates frequently from Aisha, Thus his statement is reliable. He has also narrated from Aisha, that Abu bakr has also burnt some narrations, however this chain is weak. All in all, doubting the chain is unreasonable.

 

___________


(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

We read in: "Al-Tabqa'at Al-Kabe'er (الطبقات الكبير)": By: "Muhammad Bin Sa'ad Bin Man'eh Al-Zahri (محمد بن سعد بن منيع الزهري)": Investigated by: Ali muhammad umar (علي محمد عمر), Library: Al-Khana'aji (مكتبة الخانجي), Year of release: 1421. Volume #7, Page #188:

قال : أخبرنا : زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد الدمشقي قال : ، أخبرنا : عبد الله بن العلاء قال : سألت القاسم يملي علي أحاديث فقال : إن الأحاديث كثرت على عهد عمر بن الخطاب فأنشد الناس أن يأتوه بها فلما أتوه بها أمر بتحريقها ، ثم قال : مثناة كمثناة أهل الكتاب قال : فمنعني القاسم يومئذ أن أكتب حديثاًًًً.

Said: Told us: Zay'd bin Yah'yah bin Ab'eed Al-Dimashqi said: Told us: Abdullah bin Al-Ala'a said: I asked Al-Qasim (*), to fill (in) on me narrations, (so) he said: The narration increased at the time during the reign of Umar so he asked the people to bring them (narrations) to him, so when they brought it (narrations) to him, he ordered to burn them. then he said: "Mathn'aat like the Mathn'at of the people of the book (**)" Said: So he Al-Qasim at that time did not allow me to write narrations.(***)(****)

________________________________________________________________________________________

(*) He is Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu bakr. In Siy'ar Al-Al'am Al-Nubala (سير أعلام النبلاء), Third section, from page #54: was one of the seven most famous jurists in Medina, and was considered as the most knowledgeable among them. He was highly influential in disseminating early traditions of hadith, fiqh (jurisprudence) and tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur'an, But according to some he did not engage in interpretation (Taf'seer). Aisha lived a very long time and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. Many Hadith are quoted through Qasim. (Link to Reference)

(**) The Word: (مثناة), according to the Mu'jam of Arabic, Could mean: Repeating, repeated,in time or in literature. Meaning:

"Ma'tha'an" (مثان), like the verses of the Qur'an that are recited and repeated. As we read in the Holy Qur'an The following verse: "And certainly We have given you seven of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran." 15:87. (link)

(***) This Narration is Sahih (Authentic). The First narrator is Zay'd bin Yah'ya bin Ab'eed, Al-Khuza'i Al-Dimiashqi (زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد), He is approved of, as Al-Dar'iqtini said: "Thiqah (Trusted)". And Ibn Khal'foon has mentioned him in his "Trustworthy persons", And Ibn-Habban, mentioned his narrations in his Sahih. He was also of those who release Islamic laws in Dimash'q (Read Ik'maal-Tah'theeb Al-Kamal, (إكمال تهذيب الكمال), Volume #5, Page #175, person #1796 (Link)'). In addition, Al-Albani, when grading a narration in his book: "Sil'silat Al-Ahad'eeth Al-Sah'iha (سلسلة الأحاديث الصحيحة)", volume #1, page #180, he was not able to identify between two narrators, since the names were similar, so in conclusion he stated both narrators are Trusted, and one of them was Zay'd bin Yah'ya bin Ab'eed (link). The Second narrator is Abdull'ah bin Al-Ala'a bin Zab'r (عبد الله بن العلاء بن زبر), He is Trusted by: Da'heem (دحيم), Ahmad bin Hanbal (أحمد بن حنبل), Ibn-Sa'ad (ابن سعد, Abu Daw'ud And Al-Darqitni (أبو داود والدارقطني). To revise, Read: Siya'ar A'alam Al-Nubala (سير أعلام النبلاء), By Imam Sham's Al-Deen Al-Dahabi, Section #7, Page #351. (link).

(****) In Concerning with the "Connection" of this chain, It is Correct, and not cut. Qasim Bin Muhammad did not live at the time of Umar's Caliphate, Rather after it, by a few years. however the narration is not a narration that quotes from what one has said, it is simply the "Claim"of Muhammad bin Qa'sim, who is scholar in narration and highly trusted, and one of the rulers/judges, of the seven in his time, according to The Siy'ar By Imam Al-Dahabi. Thus, in terms of the statement that he has made, is therefore "True" and established.

tisaad00.jpg Pages from tisaad07.jpg

________________________________________________________

و السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

I'm finding it hard to understand your Arabic to English translation maybe if you could be a bit more clearer

Jazakallah

(Wasalam)

Edited by Wisdom007
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finding it hard to understand your Arabic translation maybe if you could be a bit more clearer

Jazakallah

(wasalam)

 

 

(wasalam),

 

 

Apologies if So, What part of the narration are you referring to that is not clear? Is it the " "Mathn'aat like the Mathn'at of the people of the book"? Because I worte under what it could mean...

______

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(wasalam),

Apologies if So, What part of the narration are you referring to that is not clear? Is it the " "Mathn'aat like the Mathn'at of the people of the book"? Because I worte under what it could mean...

______

(wasalam)

If Mathn'aat means repeat then it would translate

Mathn'aat like the Mathn'at of the people of the book (**)" Said: So he Al-Qasim at that time did not allow me to write narrations.(

Repeat like the repeat of the people of the book.

That doesn't make sense that is what I meant what you could be a bit more clearer about

Jazakallah

(Wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mathn'aat means repeat then it would translate

Mathn'aat like the Mathn'at of the people of the book (**)" Said: So he Al-Qasim at that time did not allow me to write narrations.(

Repeat like the repeat of the people of the book.

That doesn't make sense that is what I meant what you could be a bit more clearer about

Jazakallah

(wasalam)

 

 

(wasalam)

 

Meaning: Something that is off- repeated, the verses that are repeated. However This is to my limited knowledge. I will revise it for you, and If I find anything, Will post it here under the title: Update. Insha'Allah.

 

_________________

(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(wasalam),

Apologies if So, What part of the narration are you referring to that is not clear? Is it the " "Mathn'aat like the Mathn'at of the people of the book"? Because I worte under what it could mean...

______

(wasalam)

Salam

tnx for your informative contributions.

regarding this special term "Mathnaat" one point is worth mentioning.

By this term Umar refers to a book in Jewish tradition, called: Mishnah:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah

both Hebrew an Arabic words share the same root, as both languages are very close to each other and it's been said:

الفرق بین العربی و العبری ، کالفرق بین العربی و العبری

the difference between Arabi and Ibri is like the difference between the two words ( only a replacement of B and R)

anyhow, Umar here means if Muslims preserve the Sunna of the Prophet (s) in written documents, that will become a rival for the Holy Qur'an; exactly like the Jewish Mishnah (the second or oral Torah) became a rival for original Torah.

this in turn shows how much he was influenced by Jewish tradition (through people like Ka'b al-ahbar) and how he viewed the Sunna of the Prophet (s).

Umar equated the Sunna of the Prophet in (s) islam with the distortions and alterations made by Jewish Rabies!

Edited by mesbah
Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

tnx for your informative contributions.

regarding this special term "Mathnaat" one point is worth mentioning.

By this term Umar refers to a book in Jewish tradition, called: Mishnah:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishnah

both Hebrew an Arabic words share the same root, as both languages are very close to each other and it's been said:

الفرق بین العربی و العبری ، کالفرق بین العربی و العبری

the difference between Arabi and Ibri is like the difference between the two words ( only a replacement of B and R)

 

 

 

(wasalam)

Thanks for this Contribution. I was not aware of this till now.

 

________________________________

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

ts has been narrated on the authority of al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu bakr that

Umar after he had received news confirming that people started to hold (or write) books, denied and disliked the matter saying,

O people I have been informed that you have started to hold books. Allah’s most beloved its has been narrated on the authority of al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu baker that 
Books must be fairest and the straightest now I order all to bring me all books that you hold so that I will decide about them. 

Thinking that Umar wanted to correct and submit the books to certain criterion all people brought their books to him. Instead, he set them fire

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

^I would have mentioned the above narration if it were of authenticity. However a portion of the narrators are "Unknown (Majhool)", It is mentioned in "Tathkir'at Al-Hafith", But Al-Dahabi did not comment on it (Or May have, but not positively). While Yet, I do not doubt that Al-Qasim has narrated much from Aisha.

 

______________________

(wasalam) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inshallah and jazakallah

(wasalam)

 

 

(bismillah)

 

 

(wasalam)

 

Dear brother, Yes, What our Brother "Mesbah" has mentioned is correct with no doubts. I will explain simply by stating this narration: We read in: "Taqy'eed Al-Ilm (تقييد العلم), By: Ahmad bin Ali bin "Tha'abit Al-Khateeb Al-Baghdadi Abu bakr  (أحمد بن علي بن ثابت الخطيب البغدادي أبو بكر)", Investigated By: Sa'ad Ab'd Al-Ghafar Ali ( سعد عبد الغفار علي), Association: Da'ar Al-Istq'amah (دار الإستقامة), Page #49-51, Narration #69:

 

 

 

 فَأَخْبَرَنَاهُ أَبُو سَعِيدٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُوسَى بْنِ الْفَضْلِ الصَّيْرَفِيُّ , حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْمُزَنِيُّ , أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى الْجَكَّانِيُّ الْخُزَاعِيُّ , حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْيَمَانِ الْحَكَمُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ , أَخْبَرَنِي شُعَيْبٌ , عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ , أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ , أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَكْتُبَ السُّنَنَ فَاسْتَشَارَ فِيهَا أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ , صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ , فَأَشَارَ عَلَيْهِ عَامَّتُهُمْ بِذَلِكَ فَلَبِثَ عُمَرُ شَهْرًا , يَسْتَخِيرُ اللَّهَ فِي ذَلِكَ , شَاكًّا فِيهِ , ثُمَّ أَصْبَحَ يَوْمًا وَقَدْ عَزَمَ اللَّهُ لَهُ , فَقَالَ: «إِنِّي قَدْ كُنْتُ ذَكَرْتُ لَكُمْ مِنْ كِتَابِ السُّنَنِ مَا قَدْ عَلِمْتُمْ , ثُمَّ تَذَكَّرْتُ فَإِذَا أُنَاسٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ قَبْلَكُمْ قَدْ كَتَبُوا مَعَ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ كُتُبًا فَأَكَبُّوا عَلَيْهَا وَتَرَكُوا كِتَابَ اللَّهِ , وَإِنِّي وَاللَّهِ لَا أُلْبِسُ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ بِشَيْءٍ أَبَدًا» فَتَرَكَ كِتَابَ السُّنَنِ

 

 

Told us Abu-Sa'eed Muhammad bin Musa bin Al-Fath'el Al-Sayrafi,- Told us: Abu Muhammad Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-M'oz'niwi- Told us Ali bin Muhammad Bin Is'aa Al-Jak'ani Al-Khoza'i,-Told usL Abu Al-Yama'n Al-Hakim Bin Na'feh, - Told us Shu'aib, From Al-Zuh'ri-, Told us: Urw'a bin Al-Zubair: "That Umar bin Al-Khat'aab wanted to right the Sunan (Narrations), so he consulted the companions of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s), Everybody seconded the idea, so Umar remained for one month, seeking the best (good) from Allah about it, doubting in it, Then one mourning he woke, and Allah has determined for him, so he said: " I would have have remembered (mentioned) from the Books of the Sunan (Narrations) what you would know, then I remembered, the 'people of the book' before you, who wrote with the book of Allah, they wrote, so they devoted to it, and left the book of Allah, and I by Allah, Would not cover (mix) the book of Allah with anything at all."...So we left the books of the Sunan (Meaning Witting Narration) 

 

 

Grading: This Narration is Authentic (Sahih)

 

 

 

Here are the Three Narrations are (Sahih): (From the above reference):

 

post-83202-0-92188300-1411872347_thumb.jpost-83202-0-71253600-1411872363_thumb.j

 

post-83202-0-89222300-1411872447_thumb.jpost-83202-0-59372400-1411872463_thumb.j

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

We now know the following:

1. Umar in the narration that we first mentioned (Burning the Narration), he meant the "Misn'ah" of the Jewish people as he compared it with Sunan (narrations) of the Prophet (s) that will become a rival for the Holy Qur'an; exactly like the Jewish Mishnah (the second or oral Torah) became a rival for original Torah. 

 

2. Umar was Influenced By "Ka'ab Al-Ahba'ar", Whom was a Jewish at the time, and supposedly, became Muslim at the time of the Caliphate of Umar.

 

3. Umar used this excuse to cease people from writing narrations, and has burnt narrations, and we are not aware of their content. However it is no doubt that he disliked the narrations, which he sought to burn. Unjustifiably, without consulting the nation of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s).

 

4. How can he be afraid that the narrations would overtake the Qur'an? or get mixed up with? When the Quran itself speaks, that nor falsehood can approach it, and Allah is its protector. Was he not ware of these verses? And yet today we are filled with narrations and historical literature. The Qur'an was collected at the time of Uthman, however it was recited to the prophet (s.a.w.a.s) fully and knowingly, and the prophet (s.a.w.a.s) was pleased with it (as the narrations state). 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Book can be viewed in "Text" Here: http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-13089#page-80

Book can be read in Scanned form here: http://ia600406.us.archive.org/27/items/waq89033/89033.pdf

____________________________________________________________________________________________

(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

We read in: "Jam'eh Al-Bay'an Wa Fath'leh (جامع بيان العلم وفضله)", By: Ibn-Ab'd Al-B'ar (ابن عبد البر): Investigated by: Abu Al-Ashb'eel Al-Zahr'i (أبو الأشبال الزهيري), Association: Da'ar ibn Al-Jawz (دار ابن الجوزي), Volume #2, page #998, Narration #1904

 



حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ يَحْيَى، ثنا عُمَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ مَنْصُورٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ بَيَانٍ، عَنِ الشَّعْبِيِّ، عَنْ قَرَظَةَ بْنِ كَعْبٍ، قَالَ: خَرَجْنَا فَشَيَّعَنَا عُمَرُ، إِلَى صَرَارَ ثُمَّ دَعَا بِمَاءٍ فَتَوَضَّأَ ثُمَّ قَالَ: «أَتَدْرُونَ لِمَ خَرَجْتُ مَعَكُمْ؟» قُلْنَا: أَرَدْتَ أَنْ تُشَيِّعَنَا تَكَرُّمًا بِذَلِكَ، قَالَ: «إِنَّ مَعَ ذَلِكَ لَحَاجَةً خَرَجْتُ لَهَا، إِنَّكُمْ تَأْتُونَ بَلْدَةً لِأَهْلِهَا دَوِيٌّ بِالْقُرْآنِ كَدَوِيِّ النَّحْلِ فَلَا تَصُدُّوهُمْ بِالْأَحَادِيثِ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَنَا شَرِيكُكُمْ» قَالَ قَرَظَةُ: فَمَا حَدَّثْتُ بَعْدَهُ حَدِيثًا عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
 

 

Told us Abdull-Rahman bin Yah'yah, Told us Umr'u bin Muhammad said: Told us Ali bin Ab'd Al-Zazeez, Said: Told us Sa'eed bin Mans'oor, said, Told us Khalif bin Abdullah, told us Bay'an, from Al-Shu'abi, from Qurth'a bin Ka'ab, said: We went out, and Umar took us along with him, To Sir'ar, so he asked for water, and did ablution, then said: "Do you know why I went out with you?" We said: "You wanted us to accompany you, generosity for that." So he (umar) said: "With that I have a request that I went out for: You are coming to a village (town), where its people have a rumble in the Qur'an(*), like the rumbling of the bees, so do not approach them with narrations from the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s), and I am your partner.". Said Qurth'a: So after it, I never spoke of a narration from the messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s)."(**)(***)

 

___________________________________________________________________________________


(*): The sentence: " for its people have a rumble in the Qur'an", means that they are always reading the Qur'an and are always occupied with it, to the point, were they will only hear rumbling sounds.

 

(**): In the footnotes: "This narration is Authentic (Sahih)" Al-Hakim Released it: (1/102) from Suf'iyan Bin Ay'inah, from Bay'an and Al-Khat'ab in: "Shar'f Ash'ad Al-Hadeeth" page #88, from Khalid bin Abdullah, from Bay'an, and Ibn-Ma'ajah (27), from Ham'ad bin Zay'd from Mujalid, all from Am'r Al-Shu'abi. 

 

(***): Al-Hakim Al-Nisabu'ri Said:



هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد له طرق تجمع و يذاكر بها و قرظة بن كعب الأنصاري : صحابي سمع من رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم و من شرطنا في الصحابة أن لا نطويهم و أما سائر رواته فقد احتجا به 

 

This narration is Sahih (Authentic) in source (chain), it has pathways that come together, and it is consulted with, and Qarth'a bin Ka'ab Al-Ans'ari: Is the companion of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s), (.....)..till he says: "As for his narrations, they have been used as Hujja (evidence).


Sham's Al-Deen Al-Dahabi says:
 

 

تعليق الذهبي قي التلخيص : صحيح وله طرق

 

 

Comment of Al-Dahabi in Al-Takhlee's: Sahih (Authentic), and has other pathways.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

post-83202-0-00156400-1411876158_thumb.jpost-83202-0-90822400-1411876174_thumb.jpost-83202-0-01179300-1411876239_thumb.j


post-83202-0-76953600-1411876512_thumb.j

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)
(bismillah)

 

(*) He is Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu bakr. In Siy'ar Al-Al'am Al-Nubala (سير أعلام النبلاء), Third section, from page #54: was one of the seven most famous jurists in Medina, and was considered as the most knowledgeable among them. He was highly influential in disseminating early traditions of hadith, fiqh (jurisprudence) and tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur'an, But according to some he did not engage in interpretation (Taf'seer). Aisha lived a very long time and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. Many Hadith are quoted through Qasim. (Link to Reference)

 

Checking on Narration is other books, The Investigators, have graded the narration as "San'ad Munqa'th", meaning that the Chain is cut. However this illogical, for the reason being, when looking at their definition of a "Cut chain":

 

____________


The Above chain of two narrators are connected, to Qasim bin Muhammad, At which he made a statement: That he holds as true. Thus, the chain of this narration is not Cut, and to claim so is false. If one doubts Muhammad Bin Qasim, that is also not reasonable, due to the status that he was given, as an Imam in Narrations. Including that he was Raised By "Aisha", and when one reads, we can see that he narrates frequently from Aisha, Thus his statement is reliable. He has also narrated from Aisha, that Abu bakr has also burnt some narrations, however this chain is weak. All in all, doubting the chain is unreasonable.

 

___________

 

Brother, it is true, this narration is Munqati` (Broken Chain), therefore it is Da`eef (Weak). This is because al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr was born in the years of the Khilaafah of Imam `Ali (as). This means he was born 10+ years after `Umar died, so there is no way for him to know what happened during the "time of `Umar" (عهد عمر بن الخطاب). His birth date was mentioned by al-Dhahabi in the linked you provided.

 

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri
Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

(bismillah)

Brother, it is true, this narration is Munqati` (Broken Chain), therefore it is Da`eef (Weak). This is because al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abi Bakr was born in the years of the Khilaafah of Imam `Ali (as). This means he was born 10+ years after `Umar died, so there is no way for him to know what happened during the "time of `Umar" (عهد عمر بن الخطاب). His birth date was mentioned by al-Dhahabi in the linked you provided.

 

(salam)

 

 

(wasalam)

The "cut" is not with the Chain, rather with what he is saying. There are two options: (1) Either his lying, which then they would need to degrade his status. or (2) What he is stating is Correct. Since he is trusted and approved above, highly ranked. There is no " Munqati" in the chain to Al-Qasim bin Muhammad. Simply the statement that he made. 

 

There is a difference, between A "Chain" that is broken, and a Chain that is not broken, linked to a statement that one makes.

 

 

I am already aware of what you have stated before I posted. Which I found unreasonable. 

Examine:

 

 

قال : أخبرنا : زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد الدمشقي قال : ، أخبرنا : عبد الله بن العلاء قال : سألت القاسم يملي علي أحاديث فقال : إن الأحاديث كثرت على عهد عمر بن الخطاب فأنشد الناس أن يأتوه بها فلما أتوه بها أمر بتحريقها ، ثم قال : مثناة كمثناة أهل الكتاب قال : فمنعني القاسم يومئذ أن أكتب حديثاًًًً.

 

 

 

 

The chain to Al-Qasim, is Authentic (Sahih). He then the person at the end of the chain (Abdullah Bin Al'aa), simply asked/requested from Al-Qasim, so he simply Answered. His statement, which he holds as "True". Now, whether he was meant to say: "I heard from Aisha" or " I Heard from Muhammad bin Abu bakr", is not a prerequisite to accept what he states, because he answered in accordance to his knowledge, which by Ahlul-Sunnah, is most highly valued and approved of. Example: a Correct chain that is linked to Ahm'ad bin Hanbal, where he was asked and he answered based on his knowledge, and his status, is approved of, and what he says, is correct. Whether he was meant to mentioned an intermediate for his answer or not, that does no affect the statement that he holds as true.

    

_________________

(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)
(bismillah)

 

 

 فَأَخْبَرَنَاهُ أَبُو سَعِيدٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُوسَى بْنِ الْفَضْلِ الصَّيْرَفِيُّ , حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْمُزَنِيُّ , أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عِيسَى الْجَكَّانِيُّ الْخُزَاعِيُّ , حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْيَمَانِ الْحَكَمُ بْنُ نَافِعٍ , أَخْبَرَنِي شُعَيْبٌ , عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ , أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ , أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ أَرَادَ أَنْ يَكْتُبَ السُّنَنَ فَاسْتَشَارَ فِيهَا أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ , صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ , فَأَشَارَ عَلَيْهِ عَامَّتُهُمْ بِذَلِكَ فَلَبِثَ عُمَرُ شَهْرًا , يَسْتَخِيرُ اللَّهَ فِي ذَلِكَ , شَاكًّا فِيهِ , ثُمَّ أَصْبَحَ يَوْمًا وَقَدْ عَزَمَ اللَّهُ لَهُ , فَقَالَ: «إِنِّي قَدْ كُنْتُ ذَكَرْتُ لَكُمْ مِنْ كِتَابِ السُّنَنِ مَا قَدْ عَلِمْتُمْ , ثُمَّ تَذَكَّرْتُ فَإِذَا أُنَاسٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ قَبْلَكُمْ قَدْ كَتَبُوا مَعَ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ كُتُبًا فَأَكَبُّوا عَلَيْهَا وَتَرَكُوا كِتَابَ اللَّهِ , وَإِنِّي وَاللَّهِ لَا أُلْبِسُ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ بِشَيْءٍ أَبَدًا» فَتَرَكَ كِتَابَ السُّنَنِ

 

 

Told us Abu-Sa'eed Muhammad bin Musa bin Al-Fath'el Al-Sayrafi,- Told us: Abu Muhammad Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-M'oz'niwi- Told us Ali bin Muhammad Bin Is'aa Al-Jak'ani Al-Khoza'i,-Told usL Abu Al-Yama'n Al-Hakim Bin Na'feh, - Told us Shu'aib, From Al-Zuh'ri-, Told us: Urw'a bin Al-Zubair: "That Umar bin Al-Khat'aab wanted to right the Sunan (Narrations), so he consulted the companions of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.s), Everybody seconded the idea, so Umar remained for one month, seeking the best (good) from Allah about it, doubting in it, Then one mourning he woke, and Allah has determined for him, so he said: " I would have have remembered (mentioned) from the Books of the Sunan (Narrations) what you would know, then I remembered, the 'people of the book' before you, who wrote with the book of Allah, they wrote, so they devoted to it, and left the book of Allah, and I by Allah, Would not cover (mix) the book of Allah with anything at all."...So we left the books of the Sunan (Meaning Witting Narration) 

 

 

Grading: This Narration is Authentic (Sahih)

This chain is also Munqati` (Broken), because `Urwah b. Zubayr was born in the year 23AH, or some say afterwards. Which means even was either not born during the time of `Umar or was an infant when `Umar died. 

 

The "cut" is not with the Chain, rather with what he is saying. There are two options: (1) Either his lying, which then they would need to degrade his status. or (2) What he is stating is Correct. Since he is trusted and approved above, highly ranked. There is no " Munqati" in the chain to Al-Qasim bin Muhammad. Simply the statement that he made. 

 

There is a difference, between A "Chain" that is broken, and a Chain that is not broken, linked to a statement that one makes.

 

 

I am already aware of what you have stated before I posted. Which I found unreasonable. 


Examine:

 

 


قال : أخبرنا : زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد الدمشقي قال : ، أخبرنا : عبد الله بن العلاء قال : سألت القاسم يملي علي أحاديث فقال : إن الأحاديث كثرت على عهد عمر بن الخطاب فأنشد الناس أن يأتوه بها فلما أتوه بها أمر بتحريقها ، ثم قال : مثناة كمثناة أهل الكتاب قال : فمنعني القاسم يومئذ أن أكتب حديثاًًًً.

 

 

 

 

The chain to Al-Qasim, is Authentic (Sahih). He then the person at the end of the chain (Abdullah Bin Al'aa), simply asked/requested from Al-Qasim, so he simply Answered. His statement, which he holds as "True". Now, whether he was meant to say: "I heard from Aisha" or " I Heard from Muhammad bin Abu bakr", is not a prerequisite to accept what he states, because he answered in accordance to his knowledge, which by Ahlul-Sunnah, is most highly valued and approved of. Example: a Correct chain that is linked to Ahm'ad bin Hanbal, where he was asked and he answered based on his knowledge, and his status, is approved of, and what he says, is correct. Whether he was meant to mentioned an intermediate for his answer or not, that does no affect the statement that he holds as true.

I don't think you quite understand how this works. Brother, please research more on the terminology Munqati` and when and where it has been used. 

 

 

It doesn't matter that he "simply answered", he is talking about a specific situation that happened before he was born, so there is no way he was an eye-witness to this event. Therefore, there is at least one or maybe two people missing where he has gotten this information from. Since, this is the case, it is considered Munqati` (Broken). This is different than a personal opinion on a Fiqhi subject matter.

 

How does al-Qasim b. Muhammad know that there were a lot of hadith floating around during the time of `Umar. He must've been told by someone, right? Therefore, we are missing a link to how he has gotten this information. A connected chain should be:

 

"I asked al-Qasim b. Muhammad to dictate for me Ahaadith,  and He said: 'I was informed by Fulan b. Fulan that there were many hadith during the time of `Umar..."

 

Unfortunately, that is not how the narration is read, rather the middle man(s) is cut off, so it is weak.

 

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

 

 

This chain is also Munqati (Broken), because `Urwah b. Zubayr was born in the year 23AH, or some say afterwards. Which means even was either not born during the time of `Umar or was an infant when `Umar died. 

 

 

 

Authentic based on the different pathways it has (Revise the Scans uploaded).

 

 

 

 

 there is at least one or maybe two people missing where he has gotten this information from

 

Nothing is messing, in concern with the "Chain it self" as for Al-Qasim bin Muhammad answering, We must either state that he is "lying" or he as lied to whom asked him. Or we can discard his Trust.

 

 

 

 

This is different than a personal opinion on a Fiqhi subject matter.

 

 

Subject of a the content of a narration does not change or degrade what is being said by the person making the statement.

 

 

 

 

How does al-Qasim b. Muhammad know that there were a lot of hadith floating around during the time of `Umar. He must've been told by someone, right? 

 

 

Many ways, and One, is through Aisha. Again as I have said, That is not a perquisite for him to state so. Therefore to you, we must state that he has lied, unknowingly.  

 

 

 

 

 'I was informed by Fulan b. Fulan that there were many hadith during the time of `Umar..."

 

 

The narrator (person asking) would have stated this, if had said so, so now you must state:


(1) either the Narrator (person asking) has lied.

(2) Al-Qasim has lied.

(3) Ibn-Sa'ad has manipulated the narration.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, that is not how the narration is read, rather the middle man(s) is cut off, so it is weak.

 

 

 

Yes, weak for a weak premise, don't you say?

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(Salam)

(Bismillah)

The other paths all have `Urwah narrating this, there is one other chain that has `Urwah narrating from Ibn `Umar but this seems to be an `ilal in the Sanad.

Brother, it isn't a weak premise, it is a logical reason for weakening the narration. The issue with you is, you already have a preconceived belief and notion that `Umar burned narrations, so any narration you find that fits in with this belief and at first glance seems authentic to you, you will go at any attempt to authenticate it by any means.

I seriously believe you should ingratiate yourself with the books of Mustalahah al-Hadith, then the Mustalahah of jarh wa ta`did. While you are doing this also look at scholars gradings who are known for being strict in their way of breaking narrations down. This will give you a basic foundation of breaking down narrations in Sunni books.

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

 

The other paths all have `Urwah narrating this, there is one other chain that has `Urwah narrating from Ibn `Umar but this seems to be an `ilal in the Sanad.

 

 

In the reference mentioned, are only three narration, at which are correct in terms of trustworthy. Concerning the one I mentioned, you can state that there is a problem, but not a problem with the previous other two. At one, which is Authentic (sahih).

 

 

 

 

 it is a logical reason for weakening the narration.

 

 

You stated: It must be: " 'I was informed by Fulan b. Fulan that there were many hadith during the time of `Umar..."". I replied with the above. You are left with two: either choose from the above option or explain in detail, how this is possible, in accordance to logic that is realistic from the aspect of the closest possibility.  

 

 

 

 

I seriously believe you should ingratiate yourself with the books of Mustalahah al-Hadith, then the Mustalahah of jarh wa ta`did. While you are doing this also look at scholars gradings who are known for being strict in their way of breaking narrations down. This will give you a basic foundation of breaking down narrations in Sunni books. 

 

 

Insha'llah Khair. I have stated my actions concerning this to you before.

 

 

 

 

 The issue with you is, you already have a preconceived belief and notion that `Umar burned narrations, so any narration you find that fits in with this belief and at first glance seems authentic to you,

 

 

in History we know the following:

(1) In Umar's time he ceases the action of recording the Sunan.

(2) He ceased those travailing to narrate a narration from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s).

(3) This is very famous of him and known (Al-Bidayah Wa Al-Nihaya

(4) There are many times, we he was ordered by the prophet (s.a.w.a.s) to narrate something, where he refused (Abu-Hurraira being the messenger) 

 

(5) I see no reason why he would not. For you state that I have established by beliefs on mere notions (not proven), is a hasty judgement.

_______________________


(wasalam)

 

______________


(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

 

Another way you might approach this, is in terms of their "memory", or doubts by other scholars. However you will are unable to do this , because both of the narrators that link to Al-Qasim bin Muhammad are of high trust. And they have not been criticized for their memory or in recording narration. In fact, they have been approved of, in these qualities, and we see not negatives opposing this. As we read for both: (please read, the reference provided)


(1)  Zayd bin Yahya bin 'Ubaid (زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد) (link)

(2) 'Abdullah bin al-'Ala' (عبد الله بن العلاء بن زبر) (link)

 

 

We know now, that these two narrators are of high trust, and we cannot say, that Ibn-Sa'ad is a "Musal'is (distorter)", otherwise his book would be droped from the level of "it-ba'ar", in which they have (Ahlul-Sunnah) Depended Upon. 

 

 

So where does this leave us? When all the above are of trust, and have no criticism in their memory nor recording (narrations)? We now ask, how can Al-Qasim bin Muhammad know this information? Well as we have stated he was raised in the lap of Aisha, and she took care of him for a long period of time, knowing that he is of high trust and praised for his knowledge, we cannot say that is lying. Thus, he must have narrated it from and through Aisha, this has occurred in one or more narrations, as we read in: "Tah'fa Al-Ashr'aaf Be'mar'oof Al-Atraa'f (تحفة الأشراف بمعرفة الأطراف)" Narration/Person #17469:

 

 

 

.عبد الله بن العلاء بن زبر الربعي أبو العلاء الدمشقي، عن القاسم، عن عائشة

 

 

 

In conclusion: The reason you presented is objected by reality. A broken chain is only when a person, inside the chain itself is or has not witness the person whom he is narrating from. I understand some of the reasons to why they might "claim" its Broken, but as we have said, these claims are built on false premises, as we have proven above. 

_______________________________

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

Let me, Now explain exactly what a a "broken/Cut" narration is: So then we can judge, the narration in accordance to the ruling of narration set by Ahlul-Sunnah. We read in: " "Ith'a'ah Fe Ul'um Al-Hadeeth Wa Al-Istlia'ah (الإيضاح في علوم الحديث والاصطلاح)" By: Must;'afa Sa'eed Al-Khan, and Bas'ee'h Al-Sayed Al-Lah'aam (مصطفي سعيد الخن - بديع السيد اللحام), Association: "Da'ar Al-Kutub Al-Tayimah (دار الكلم الطيب), page #144: 

 

 

 

.تعريف: هو ما سقط من سنده قبل الصحابي راوٍ واحد في موضع واحد او اكثر, هذا هو التعريف المعتمد لدى المحققين من العلماء المحدثين

 

 

 

Introduce: It is what has been dropped from the San'ad before the Companion, one narrator in one place or more, and this is the definition  that is depended on by the investigators from the Ulam'aa (Scholars) of narrations. 

 

 

post-83202-0-30047600-1411997514_thumb.jpost-83202-0-60151000-1411997547_thumb.j

 

 

 

This is a universal understanding of a Dropped/cut chain. However when we examine our chain, Al-Qasim bin Muhammad did not state: "It was reported to me" or "I have been told", by a certain person, rather he answered in accordance to his knowledge on the subject that he was requested or asked about. And was "Not" reporting a "quote" or a Saying" from a companion or anyone else, thus the definition does no apply, in terms of the Content of the narration, and applying it to the "San'ad", we find the San'ad to be Sahih (Authentic), without any drops or weakenings. However if you insist to apply that it is a "Broken" chain, than no problem. What happens now? Well if the investigators (Muhaqiqeen), are unable to find or locate, the intermediate individual between the companion and the follower (Tab'e'ee), only then they would state, that the narration is a "Broken in Chain", and if they are able to find/locate the individual whom is the intermediate, then they can assure that the chain is correct authentically (Sahih), after investigating the different pathways. For you however there is a problem, and that is, in the chain, Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu bakr, is not narrating from anyone, nor is he claiming to report anyone, rather he was "Requested/asked, and he "Answered.", In these instances as we have said you cannot claim the following:

1- That there is a weakening in the memory of the first or second narrator.

2- That Al-Qasim bin Muhammad Lied.

3- That Ibn-Sa'ad is a liar and a Distorter (Mudal'ess

4- That the two narrators linking to Al-Qasim are liars.

 

 

To claim so, you claim with no evidence. So returning to our subject: We now look at how, or where Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu bakr could have narrated the narration, based on the last narrator of the chain Abdul'llah Bin Al'aa (عبد الله بن العلاء), and that can be through the following:  we read in: "Tah'fa Al-Ashr'aaf Be'mar'oof Al-Atraa'f (تحفة الأشراف بمعرفة الأطراف)": Volume #11, page #667
 



عبد الله بن العلاء بن زبر الربعي أبو العلاء الدمشقي، عن القاسم، عن عائشة
 

 

Abdull'ah bin Al-Al'aa bin Zab'r Al-Rab'e'e Abu Al-Al'aa Al-Dimashqi, from Al-Qasim (bin Muhammad), From Aisha

 

 

Narration: 17469#
 

17469- [س] حديث: أنهم ذكروا غسل يوم الجمعة عند عائشة فقالت: إنما كان الناس يسكنون العالية... الحديث. س في الصلاة (567: 1) عن محمود بن خالد، عن الوليد بن مسلم، عن عبد الله بن العلاء بن زبر به.
Narration: 17470#
 
17470- [س] حديث: «لا تنبذوا في الدباء و[لا] المزفت...» الحديث. س في الأشربة (الكبرى 24: 4) عن أبي داود سليمان بن سيف، عن محمد بن سليمان بن أبي داود الحراني، عن ابن زبر به- ولم يسمه.

 

 

 

 

post-83202-0-89739500-1411998572_thumb.j

 

 

 

However these do not hold much value, in concern that Al-Qasim has narrated from Aisha, because there are many more, many and many narration where Al-Qasim has narrated from Aisha, very, and highly frequently: (Reference to rest of narrations) Note, that A;-Qasim has narrated from his father (Muhammad bin Abu bakr), from Aisha, also frequently. In this you cannot simply present what you have presented (as you claimed).

 

 

You state:



 

 

 

The issue with you is, you already have a preconceived belief and notion that `Umar burned narrations, so any narration you find that fits in with this belief and at first glance seems authentic to you,

 

 

 

Before I say anything, did you ask how I established this? did you ask or even read carefully the premises laid? First of all, If you have read the history, authentically and famously Umar was known for ceasing the recording of narrations in his time, because of how he viewed (influenced), and compared it, with the Jewish Oral. In many narration that are authentically established, he has ceased his own companions from narrating narrations from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.s), and we find that the prophet (s.a.w.a.s) has ordered to write and record narrations, even at his last days, he ordered a pen and paper, which Umar and his group ceased the prophet (s.a.w.a.s) from witting, that which we would have had never gone astray. Second, note, that there are a couple of unauthentic narrations on this issue, which I did not quote, and that is why I quoted the one, that you argue against. To claim that I simply establish my beliefs on notions that are unproven and unauthentic, is a false judgement and a hasty criticism unworthy. Were as you have no proven how "Ful'aan from Ful'aan" can be possible under the authentic conditions that the narration is under. 
 

 

 

And lastly, I am not subjected to follow the guidelines or laws in Rija'al, concerning their ways of establishing, a weak or strong narrations, because in the first place, their system is fallible both in concern of "Tawtheeq (approving) and correcting (Tash'eeh)", based on a system that takes narrations from Ahlulbayt (a.s) as "Munk'ar" and weak, I won't waste time going through this, however certainly you have not proven their own "Guidelines" to start criticizing the narration above, even with the guideline of "broken narrations" does not apply.
  

 

_______________________

 

(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)
(bismillah)

 

I sometimes believe you reply just so you can reply and have the last word, and you think just because you replied you have now "proven" whatever your point was, as true. This isn't the way to conduct a debate. It is okay to admit your mistake or admit that you were wrong.

 

At the end of the day, it all hinges on the fact that there is no way from al-Qasim b. Muhammad to know what had happened during the time of `Umar, so the person(s) who informed him of what happened during that time is not there. There is no other way around it. That is like me knowing what happened during the time of my father, without anyone telling me what had happened, this is not possible.

 

I seriously think you should step away from the keyboard and spends months studying hadith sciences, it is obvious by your posts that you had no knowledge of hadith sciences when you started and you are just "learning as you go" as you are making your posts. This is a wrong methodology to employ when getting into hadith sciences, especially when your main concern is polemical topics. I love the fact that you are delving into all these books and research, and I don't want that passion or vigor to wither away, I am only advising you as a brother who sincerely cares for you. Right now, you are on Shiachat, so all your posts are "preaching to the choir", all Sunni members who know their hadith sciences aren't on SC.

 

(salam)

Edited by Nader Zaveri
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

 

 

, it all hinges on the fact that there is no way from al-Qasim b. Muhammad to know what had happened during the time of `Umar, so the person(s) who informed him of what happened during that time is not there. There is no other way around it. That is like me knowing what happened during the time of my father, without anyone telling me what had happened, this is not possible.

 

 

Guidelines of "Acceptance (Qub'ool) On "Connection (Its'aal) apply, and they are as I have stated above, if you are unable to provide evidence to reject these guidelines (Established by Ahlul-Sunnah), then you cannot make a comparison with your statement. Second, looking at Opinions of the oldest scholars on historical events From both Ahlul-Sunnah and Shia, you would have simply state, all are liars, since all what they state is Cut, which is illogical, however this does not apply to the above situation. Due to the reason of the authentic condition it thrives in.

 

  

 

 

I sometimes believe you reply just so you can reply and have the last word, and you think just because you replied you have now "proven" whatever your point was, as true. This isn't the way to conduct a debate. It is okay to admit your mistake or admit that you were wrong.

 

 

Don't even need to comment. 

_______________________

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

 

Don't even need to comment. 

_______________________

(wasalam)

 

You are doing the great work of research and educating the people on the chatforum, although some people are confused on this issue or they do not dare to face the truth exposed from the history. 

 

May Allah .improve your knowledge further to the level of an unmatched scholar.  

 

Ameen

.

Edited by skamran110
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

We read in: "Al-Tabqa'at Al-Kabe'er (الطبقات الكبير)": By: "Muhammad Bin Sa'ad Bin Man'eh Al-Zahri (محمد بن سعد بن منيع الزهري)": Investigated by: Ali muhammad umar (علي محمد عمر), Library: Al-Khana'aji (مكتبة الخانجي), Year of release: 1421. Volume #7, Page #188: 

 

 

قال : أخبرنا : زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد الدمشقي قال : ، أخبرنا : عبد الله بن العلاء قال : سألت القاسم يملي علي أحاديث فقال : إن الأحاديث كثرت على عهد عمر بن الخطاب فأنشد الناس أن يأتوه بها فلما أتوه بها أمر بتحريقها ، ثم قال : مثناة كمثناة أهل الكتاب قال : فمنعني القاسم يومئذ أن أكتب حديثاًًًً.

 

Said: Told us: Zay'd bin Yah'yah bin Ab'eed Al-Dimashqi said: Told us: Abdullah bin Al-Ala'a said: I asked Al-Qasim (*), to fill (in) on me narrations, (so) he said: The narration increased at the time during the reign of Umar so he asked the people to bring them (narrations) to him, so when they brought it (narrations) to him, he ordered to burn them. then he said: "Mathn'aat like the Mathn'at of the people of the book (**)" Said: So he Al-Qasim at that time did not allow me to write narrations.(***)(****)

 

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

(*) He is Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu bakr. In Siy'ar Al-Al'am Al-Nubala (سير أعلام النبلاء), Third section, from page #54: was one of the seven most famous jurists in Medina, and was considered as the most knowledgeable among them. He was highly influential in disseminating early traditions of hadith, fiqh (jurisprudence) and tafsir (exegesis) of the Qur'an, But according to some he did not engage in interpretation (Taf'seer). Aisha lived a very long time and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr. Many Hadith are quoted through Qasim. (Link to Reference)

 

(**) The Word: (مثناة), according to the Mu'jam of Arabic, Could mean: Repeating, repeated,in time or in literature. Meaning:

"Ma'tha'an" (مثان), like the verses of the Qur'an that are recited and repeated. As we read in the Holy Qur'an The following verse: "And certainly We have given you seven of the oft-repeated (verses) and the grand Quran." 15:87. (link)

 

(***) This Narration is Sahih (Authentic). The First narrator is Zay'd bin Yah'ya bin Ab'eed, Al-Khuza'i Al-Dimiashqi (زيد بن يحيى بن عبيد), He is approved of, as Al-Dar'iqtini said: "Thiqah (Trusted)". And Ibn Khal'foon has mentioned him in his "Trustworthy persons", And Ibn-Habban, mentioned his narrations in his Sahih. He was also of those who release Islamic laws in Dimash'q (Read Ik'maal-Tah'theeb Al-Kamal, (إكمال تهذيب الكمال), Volume #5, Page #175, person #1796 (Link)'). In addition, Al-Albani, when grading a narration in his book: "Sil'silat Al-Ahad'eeth Al-Sah'iha (سلسلة الأحاديث الصحيحة)", volume #1, page #180, he was not able to identify between two narrators, since the names were similar, so in conclusion he stated both narrators are Trusted, and one of them was Zay'd bin Yah'ya bin Ab'eed (link). The Second narrator is Abdull'ah bin Al-Ala'a bin Zab'r (عبد الله بن العلاء بن زبر), He is Trusted by: Da'heem (دحيم), Ahmad bin Hanbal (أحمد بن حنبل), Ibn-Sa'ad (ابن سعد, Abu Daw'ud And Al-Darqitni (أبو داود والدارقطني). To revise, Read: Siya'ar A'alam Al-Nubala (سير أعلام النبلاء), By Imam Sham's Al-Deen Al-Dahabi, Section #7, Page #351. (link). 

 

(****) In Concerning with the "Connection" of this chain, It is Correct, and not cut. Qasim Bin Muhammad did not live at the time of Umar's Caliphate, Rather after it, by a few years. however the narration is not a narration that quotes from what one has said, it is simply the "Claim"of Muhammad bin Qa'sim, who is scholar in narration and highly trusted, and one of the rulers/judges, of the seven in his time, according to The Siy'ar By Imam Al-Dahabi. Thus, in terms of the statement that he has made, is therefore "True" and established.

 

 

 

 

attachicon.giftisaad00.jpgattachicon.gifPages from tisaad07.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________

و السلام عليكم و رحمة الله

Report is weak. Cut in the chain. Al qasim narrator was born after the death of Umar. So he could not be a witness of such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Yahya ibn Ju`dah is reported to have said, "`Umar ibn al-KHATTAB had wanted to write down the (Holy) Sunnah but he changed his mind afterward. He then wrote a missive to all the Islamic provinces ordering them to erase any written item of the Sunnah."

The words of "had wanted", "changed his mind", and "wrote a missive to all the Islamic provinces" clearly indicate that `Umar ibn al-KHATTAB had done so out of his personal desire and private volition.

The following is quoted from the book of Dala'il al-Tawthiq al-Mubakkir:

"All those who stood against recording the Hadith had actually had their personal reasons. Moreover, even al-Faruq (i.e. `Umar) who is considered the head of those who objected to the recordation of the Hadith had not presented even a single report from the Holy Prophet to support his viewpoint that opposed the recording."

Dala'il al-Tawthiq al-Mubakkir 239 as mentioned in Sayyid Muhammad Rida al-Jalaliy: Tadwin al-Sunnah al-Sharifah 288

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You are doing the great work of research and educating the people on the chatforum, although some people are confused on this issue or they do not dare to face the truth exposed from the history.

May Allah .improve your knowledge further to the level of an unmatched scholar.

Ameen

.

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You are doing the great work of research and educating the people on the chatforum, although some people are confused on this issue or they do not dare to face the truth exposed from the history. 

 

May Allah .improve your knowledge further to the level of an unmatched scholar.  

 

Ameen

.

 

Mr Nader Zaweri has barely challenged the Nawasib on their Nasibi Forum with all that Rijali knowledge. 

 

The thing is, brother Nader is right whether you like it or not. The chain is clearly broken. I have made enough mistakes to know that no sunni will take a munqati' chain as reliable. He is doing you a favour.

 

 

(1) either the Narrator (person asking) has lied.

(2) Al-Qasim has lied.

(3) Ibn-Sa'ad has manipulated the narration.

 

But that is not the case. Did al-Qasim explicity state he was a witness?

 

إن الأحاديث كثرت على عهد عمر بن الخطاب فأنشد الناس أن يأتوه بها فلما أتوه بها أمر بتحريقها

 

No he didn't. Therefore, assuming he is a truthful narrator, he did not mention the narrator who told him this. Think about it. If someone asks me about something during the time of my grandfather, and I say what he told me without saying that he narrated it to me, it does not mean I'm lying.

Edited by Ali al-Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, brother Nader is right whether you like it or not. The chain is clearly broken. I have made enough mistakes to know that no sunni will take a munqati' chain as reliable. He is doing you a favour.

 

 

 

But that is not the case. Did al-Qasim explicity state he was a witness?

 

إن الأحاديث كثرت على عهد عمر بن الخطاب فأنشد الناس أن يأتوه بها فلما أتوه بها أمر بتحريقها

 

No he didn't. Therefore, assuming he is a truthful narrator, he did not mention the narrator who told him this. Think about it. If someone asks me about something during the time of my grandfather, and I say what he told me without saying that he narrated it to me, it does not mean I'm lying.

 

 

(bismillah)

 

 

Yo have now stated a couple of things:

(1) That you have told someone a piece of information.

(2) You mentioned this piece of information.

(3) You said this, without mentioning the "Link", which is your grandfather.

 

We assume the following:

(1) You are Truthful.

(2) Your Grandfather is truthful.

(3) The friend you are transmitting to, is Truthful.

 

We State the possible Scenario:

(1) you made a statement that you hold as "True", assuming your position is that of Al-Qasim, (an, Imam, Hafiz, Judge/Governor), and you are telling this, when one has asked you (an, Imam, Hafiz, Judge/Governor) this question, however you have not mentioned whom you got this piece of information from. But, does your position allow you to make false statements? At any case, We look....

 

 

In this case we must address whom Al-Qasim, (an, Imam, Hafiz, Judge/Governor) narrates from. Upon examining whom he narrates from: In "Kam'al Al-Tath'eeb", Volume #24 Page #427 He narrates mostly from: (1) Companions, (2) Sons of Companions, (3) Ashia, and other Trusted women. Examining this, you will not find any liars between them, or any accuse of being "Shi'ee".

 

 

(1) If Al-Qasim does not narrate from liars, can he make a false statement?   

 

(2) If All the individuals are put in the chain, you find, they are Trusted and approved of.

 

(3) Because "Al-aa", is whom narrates, it is highly possible from Aisha, looking at other narrations, nevertheless, how can you decisively judge a chain, when the narrator is ranked has a trustee of his time? With his position, and whom he takes his information from, is reliable, approved, and of trust.

__________________

(wasalam)  

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(1) If Al-Qasim does not narrate from liars, can he make a false statement?  

 

This is exactly the point. Someone who is thiqah can narrate from a liar, or a majhool, making a chain weak. This is extremely common and can be found in our literature as well. Therefore, we cannot make the assumption that al-Qasim is narrating from someone who is thiqah. Assuming you are correct, and he narrated from "sons of companions", would the narration still be considered reliable to you if he narrated this from Umar ibn Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas? You cannot assume that he narrated from someone reliable, thus the break in the chain makes the hadeeth dha'eef.

Edited by Ali al-Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

 

 

 

This is exactly the point. Someone who is thiqah can narrate from a liar, or a majhool, making a chain weak.

 

I stated: All the narrators he narrates from are "Thiq'at". Refer to the previous reference. Rethink: The authentic narrations of the companions at the time of Umar, Whipping narration our of text, and comparing it, to the Oral Torah. I can provide an authentic transmission of this, however in the previous page, we have stated a narration where Umar has stated this himself (Authentic). The narration is strengthened by historical events that have taken place. Sadly the "Members" on the previous page, forgot that I am not stating that what Al-Qasim has stated is 100% correct, rather the chain (Which is Not broken) that links to Al-Qasim, is Authentic, thus making his statement to be an authentic statement in terms that he has claimed so. Meaning he is one of those who have claimed that Umar, indeed has stopped, whipped, narrations from from texts in during the time of his ruler "Ship". Perhaps you can read on the issue, before taking the twisted assumptions made previously against the issue I am quoting.    

 

 

 

 

"sons of companions", would the narration still be considered reliable to you if he narrated this from Umar ibn Sa'ad ibn Abi Waqqas?

 

 

This is not my headache friend. If he is approved by the particular "Sect", then they must approve the narration.

 

 

 

 

 thus the break in the chain makes the hadeeth dha'eef.

 

 

Unproven assumption. You seem to have missed the previous page. The Context of the post is that The writing of "narrations", was stopped at his time. And he did not allow it. This proven given the amount of reliable narrations, and he is famous for it. he compared the Sunan, to that of the Oral Torah, thus discarded/ceased the recording of narrations, Washed or burnt some of them.

 

 

The more likely person who would have narrate this from, is either Aisha, Companions, or their sons, and not someone that is a complete stranger to him. Do you know why? Read the last words of the narrations, and read about his status/position that he was in. 

 

__________________________

(wasalam)

Edited by TheIslamHistory
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

The chain is munqati'.  And it doesn't have to be that al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abi Bakr lied; he could simply heard from someone who misunderstood 'Umar's command.

Or it could have been as you said that he got this from 'A'isha.  We don't know so these are two possibilities.  

 

We would have to see from whom al-Qasim got this narration from and what the original command was before we can use this as a clear proof.

 

 

 

Example: a Correct chain that is linked to Ahm'ad bin Hanbal, where he was asked and he answered based on his knowledge, and his status, is approved of, and what he says, is correct.

That's not true; quite often their Imams are refuted.  Heck, in the Musannaf of ibn Abi Shaybah, he has a whole chapter dedicated to refuting the fiqh of Abi Hanifah, using hadiths.

And quite often you'll see authentic narrations going back to ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (one of the major Imams of the tabi'een) where he says something that the Prophet (pbuh) did or something that happened in Islamic history and it's not always accepted unless they can find an authentic chain saying so.  And he was bigger than al-Qasim in terms of status, yet even his statements as such are not always accepted.

They don't take their Imams like how we take our Imams.

They even sometimes refute the statements of sahaba.

 

As for this:

And lastly, I am not subjected to follow the guidelines or laws in Rija'al, concerning their ways of establishing, a weak or strong narrations, because in the first place, their system is fallible both in concern of "Tawtheeq (approving) and correcting (Tash'eeh)", based on a system that takes narrations from Ahlulbayt (a.s) as "Munk'ar" and weak, I won't waste time going through this, however certainly you have not proven their own "Guidelines" to start criticizing the narration above, even with the guideline of "broken narrations" does not apply.

 

If you don't care about Sunni rules of rijal then why say that it's authentic a/c to their rules?  :huh:

Just say hey, this is an interesting narration that agrees with what we believe or w/e or this is an authentic statement of the grandson of Abi Bakr.

 

And brother you know that they take narrations from Ahlil Bayt(as) as there are literally thousands of such narrations in their books.

Indeed, every single Sunni who is in Hajj right now relies on the hadith of Hajj related by Imam al-Sadiq (as) in Sahih Muslim.

 

 

The Context of the post is that The writing of "narrations", was stopped at his time.

Yes this is a stronger and more accurate statement wallahu a'lam

 

wallahu a'lam

Edited by ImamAliLover
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

The thing is, brother Nader is right whether you like it or not. The chain is clearly broken. I have made enough mistakes to know that no sunni will take a munqati' chain as reliable. He is doing you a favour.

 

The history indicates that the 3 caliphs forbade the writing of narrations of the prophet saww in their rule. You can check the following link for this:

 

http://www.al-hadi.us/religion/research/hadith/1b.html

 

Even if there is broken link in the chain of narrators the history proves the intentions of 3 caliphs forbidding the writing of the narrations of the holy prophet saww. In this manner it is inferred that burning would be the means of it.

 

The mutawatir hadith  thaqlayn (Quran and Ahl albayt ) present in the 6 sahiheen is not regarded for following by the sunna instead they rely on hadith thaqlayn version of Quran and sunna which is even not present in their 6 sahiheen books.

 

Similarly the mutawatir hadith of Ghadeer (man kunto mola fahaza Ali mola) narrated by more than 110 companions is disregarded by the sunni just saying that Ali is the friend. (instead of the words of prophet whom I am Mola/master  Ali is his Mola / master).

 

The history also mentions the incidents of pen and paper, and others alike even classified as sahih are disregarded to save so called leaders.

 

Then the broken chain may be taken as excuse but the intentions of 3 caliphs of forbidding the narrations of the prophet saww cannot be denied. 

 

Regards.

Edited by skamran110
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...