KR

Shah Abd 'l-Aziz

Shah Abd ‘l-Aziz on allowing praying behind people of other schools without qualification. He also alludes to the fact that people on the Haramayn at his time would routinely rest behind Imams of other schools despite having the option of praying behind the imam of their own school.

Every town/city/county in the UK needs to follow the lead of Preston. Great to see cooperation across previous sectarian divides.

A reference in the Shafi'i School for when a non-Arabic sermon for Friday is allowed. From حاشية الشرواني: (وَيُشْتَرَطُ كَوْنُهَا إلَخْ) وَجُمْلَةُ شُرُوطِ الْخُطْبَتَيْنِ اثْنَا عَشَرَ الْإِسْمَاعُ وَالسَّمَاعُ وَالْمُوَالَاةُ وَسَتْرُ الْعَوْرَةِ وَطَهَارَةُ الْحَدَثِ وَالْخَبَثِ وَكَوْنُهُمَا بِالْعَرَبِيَّةِ وَكَوْنُ الْخَطِيبِ ذَكَرًا وَالْقِيَامُ فِيهِمَا لِقَادِرٍ عَلَيْهِ وَالْجُلُوسُ بَيْنَهُمَا بِالطُّمَأْنِينَةِ وَتَقْدِيمُهُمَا عَلَى الصَّلَاةِ وَوُقُوعُهُمَا فِي وَقْتِ الظُّهْرِ وَفِي خِطَّةِ أَبْنِيَةٍ وَلَا يُشْتَرَطُ فِي سَائِرِ الْخُطَبِ إلَّا الْإِسْمَاعُ وَالسَّمَاعُ وَكَوْنُ الْخَطِيبِ ذَكَرًا وَكَوْنُ الْخُطْبَةِ عَرَبِيَّةً وَمَحَلُّ اشْتِرَاطِ الْعَرَبِيَّةِ إنْ كَانَ فِي الْقَوْمِ عَرَبِيٌّ وَإِلَّا كَفَى كَوْنُهَا بِالْعَجَمِيَّةِ إلَّا فِي الْآيَةِ It goes onto say: قَالَ ع ش قَوْلُهُ: م ر، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْهَا إلَخْ قَضِيَّتُهُ أَنَّ الْخَطِيبَ لَوْ أَحْسَنَ لُغَتَيْنِ غَيْرَ عَرَبِيَّتَيْنِ كَرُومِيَّةٍ وَفَارِسِيَّةٍ مَثَلًا وَبَاقِي الْقَوْمِ يُحْسِنُ إحْدَاهُمَا فَقَطْ أَنَّ لِلْخَطِيبِ أَنْ يَخْطُبَ بِاللُّغَةِ الَّتِي لَا يُحْسِنُونَهَا وَفِيهِ نَظَرٌ بَلْ الظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ الْخُطْبَةَ لَا تُجْزِي حِينَئِذٍ إلَّا بِاللُّغَةِ الَّتِي يُحْسِنُهَا وَقَوْلُهُ: م ر، فَإِنْ لَمْ يُحْسِنْ أَحَدٌ مِنْهُمْ التَّرْجَمَةَ أَيْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْ أَرْكَانِ الْخُطْبَةِ كَمَا تَقَدَّمَ عَنْ سم فِي قَوْلِهِ حَتَّى لَوْ لَمْ يُحْسِنْ الْخُطْبَةَ سَقَطَتْ كَالْجُمُعَةِ ع ش It's lawfulness/validity therefore is a discussion that is not exclusive to the Hanafi School.

A reference in the Shafi'i School for when a non-Arabic sermon for Friday is allowed. From حاشية الشرواني: (وَيُشْتَرَطُ كَوْنُهَا إلَخْ) وَجُمْلَةُ شُرُوطِ الْخُطْبَتَيْنِ اثْنَا عَشَرَ الْإِسْمَاعُ وَالسَّمَاعُ وَالْمُوَالَاةُ وَسَتْرُ الْعَوْرَةِ وَطَهَارَةُ الْحَدَثِ وَالْخَبَثِ وَكَوْنُهُمَا بِالْعَرَبِيَّةِ وَكَوْنُ الْخَطِيبِ ذَكَرًا وَالْقِيَامُ فِيهِمَا لِقَادِرٍ عَلَيْهِ وَالْجُلُوسُ بَيْنَهُمَا بِالطُّمَأْنِينَةِ وَتَقْدِيمُهُمَا عَلَى الصَّلَاةِ وَوُقُوعُهُمَا فِي وَقْتِ الظُّهْرِ وَفِي خِطَّةِ أَبْنِيَةٍ وَلَا يُشْتَرَطُ فِي سَائِرِ الْخُطَبِ إلَّا الْإِسْمَاعُ وَالسَّمَاعُ وَكَوْنُ الْخَطِيبِ ذَكَرًا وَكَوْنُ الْخُطْبَةِ عَرَبِيَّةً وَمَحَلُّ اشْتِرَاطِ الْعَرَبِيَّةِ إنْ كَانَ فِي الْقَوْمِ عَرَبِيٌّ وَإِلَّا كَفَى كَوْنُهَا بِالْعَجَمِيَّةِ إلَّا فِي الْآيَةِ It goes onto say: قَالَ ع ش قَوْلُهُ: م ر، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَعْرِفْهَا إلَخْ قَضِيَّتُهُ أَنَّ الْخَطِيبَ لَوْ أَحْسَنَ لُغَتَيْنِ غَيْرَ عَرَبِيَّتَيْنِ كَرُومِيَّةٍ وَفَارِسِيَّةٍ مَثَلًا وَبَاقِي الْقَوْمِ يُحْسِنُ إحْدَاهُمَا فَقَطْ أَنَّ لِلْخَطِيبِ أَنْ يَخْطُبَ بِاللُّغَةِ الَّتِي لَا يُحْسِنُونَهَا وَفِيهِ نَظَرٌ بَلْ الظَّاهِرُ أَنَّ الْخُطْبَةَ لَا تُجْزِي حِينَئِذٍ إلَّا بِاللُّغَةِ الَّتِي يُحْسِنُهَا وَقَوْلُهُ: م ر، فَإِنْ لَمْ يُحْسِنْ أَحَدٌ مِنْهُمْ التَّرْجَمَةَ أَيْ عَنْ شَيْءٍ مِنْ أَرْكَانِ الْخُطْبَةِ كَمَا تَقَدَّمَ عَنْ سم فِي قَوْلِهِ حَتَّى لَوْ لَمْ يُحْسِنْ الْخُطْبَةَ سَقَطَتْ كَالْجُمُعَةِ ع ش

I think it is high time for every single mosque, Islamic seminary, and Maktab in the UK to be trained to defend their lives and places of worship and education. It’s a ticking time bomb before - God forbid - something like Christchurch happens again.

https://fxtwitter.com/I_amMukhtar/status/1983971224695849069 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gj927l64qo

"Whoever leaves my way (sunnah) will not receive my intercession (on Judgement Day)." As popular as this report may be, it is not authentically attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and certainly cannot be used to obligate actions labelled 'Sunnah Mu'akkadah'. A few points here: 1) As noted by Sh. Abu Ghuddah (d. 1997), the wording of this report actually appears to be an inaccurate paraphrasing of another (authentic) hadith, without properly capturing its actual meaning. That hadith is the famous: "Whoever turns away from my way (sunnah) is not from me," (Bukhari and Muslim) which, as I've explained previously, has nothing to do with obligating Sunnah Mu'akkadah acts, nor is it related to intercession. 2) The wording of this report contradicts other authentic hadiths which extend the intercession to even those who commit grave violations (like the hadith of Anas ibn Malik mentioned by Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and others) - and it is in God's hands whether to accept it. This is in addition to the fact that missing a Sunnah Mu'akkadah is not a grave violation to warrant a consequence that even strong obligations do not. 3) The term 'sunnah' in hadith literature is used in its linguistic sense, not the technical juristic definition that developed later - as noted by the likes of Ibn al-Daqiq (d. 702 AH) and Sh. Abu Ghuddah (d. 1997) in a dedicated treatise. In other words, it is anachronistic to impose the later technical definition and legal category of 'sunnah' on any hadith; it is simply not being used that way, and therefore incorrect to use such reports to claim leaving Sunnah Mu'akkadah is a sin. The linguistic definition of 'sunnah' is simply a path or a way, and therefore includes obligations just as it includes any non-obligatory act, as this is all from the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him). I pray God keeps us steadfast on His guidance and the way demonstrated by His Messenger (peace be upon him), and I pray people understand that it is possible to encourage non-obligatory Sunnah acts without having to guilt-trip people into performing them, and without having to create pseudo-obligations in the name of God.

'Does Leaving an Emphasised Sunnah (Sunnah Mu'akkadah) Constitute Sin?' - from Sh. Abu Ghuddah (d. 1997) https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SuK-F54w_o8 This is a popular question which I've also discussed here in the past. Several people also messaged to say they benefited from the post and that it's offered important clarification. Always glad to hear that! 🙏❤️

People often message me to say how much they benefitted from my old post on the emphasised sunnah (sunnah mu'akkadah), and whether leaving it actually constitutes sin. 🙏😊 I spoke about this in a lot more detail in yesterday's Usul al-Fiqh lesson (along with a ton of other important topics!). I mentioned numerous examples in the lesson to make things all the more relevant & practical, so feel free to check it out! 🙏❤️ _ Lesson 3 - Sunnah, Mubah, Makruh, Haram (Ahkam Taklifiyyah) https://youtu.be/EYNwfisWKK0 Timestamps: 00:00 - Introduction to the chapter 02:35 - What exactly is 'sunnah' and how can you identify it in revelation? 07:00 - How to properly understand the difference between emphasised sunnah & non-emphasised sunnah 10:45 - How to actually understand the terms 'nafl' and 'mustahabb'? 15:45 - Ibn Daqiq al-'Id's important quotes on the grades of recommendation 23:40 - Does missing an emphasised sunnah (sunnah mu'akkadah) actually constitute sin? 38:50 - Sh. Abu Ghuddah arguing that missing sunnah mu'akkadah does not constitute sin 43:40 - Is it considered discouraged (makruh) to leave a general sunnah? 46:15 - The common confusion in the term 'sunnah' and its different definitions across different sciences 49:40 - Sh. Abdullah al-Judai on how to actually understand the sunnah of customs 59:15 - What is 'mubah' and how can you identify neutral permissible actions in revelation? 01:04:20 - What is the 'Principle of Permissibility' (everything is permitted unless proven otherwise) and why is this principle actually so important? 01:16:15 - Sh. Ali al-Tantawi's fatwa on whether clapping is permitted, and his application of the 'Principle of Permissibility' 01:23:05 - What is 'makruh' and how exactly can you identify discouraged actions in revelation? 01:30:05 - Sh. Abdullah al-Judai on not labelling a prophetic action as being discouraged (makruh) 01:33:30 - Imam Abu Yusuf's quote on expressing caution in one's personal view 01:34:35 - What is 'haram' and how exactly can you identify prohibited actions in revelation? 01:36:20 - The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic prohibitions, and why this distinction is so significant 01:41:10 - Q&A 01:49:55 - Does missing an emphasised sunnah constitute sin? (part 2)

Is missing an emphasised sunnah sinful? This is an important question, not only to determine one's obligations but also due to its long list of consequences. If missing an emphasised sunnah (sunnah mu'akkadah) is sinful, then we're not simply talking about one or two actions, but a long list of acts that fall under this category and therefore constitue sin. In other words, the difference between arguing that missing an emphasised sunnah is sinful and arguing otherwise is the difference in obligating the performance of hundreds of actions. Not only does a new convert or newly practicing believer now feel he must perform five prayers a day, but you have now increased that to ten with the additional emphasised sunnahs being pseudo-obligations. Therefore, this question of emphasised sunnahs is clearly important and must be addressed. So, is it sinful? It is very common to hear that missing an emphasised sunnah constitutes sin when done so 'habitually'. However, there are several problems with this claim. Firstly, to say that it is sinful if missed 'habitually' is to say the sin is not intrinsic to the act of missing a sunnah, because were it intrinsic to the act of missing sunnah, it would be sinful irrespective of whether it was missed once or ten times. If one were to argue that it is sinful, they could only do so for a reason extrinsic to the act of missing the sunnah itself, and they must highlight what that reason is. One may respond by citing the hadith narrated by Anas ibn Malik in the Sahihayn: من رغب عن سنتي فليس مني. "Whoever turns away from my way (sunnah) is not from me." But there are two problems with this argument: 1) The term 'sunnah' in the hadith literature -- as highlighted by Imam Ibn al-Daqiq (d. 702 AH) in his Ihkam al-Ahkam and Sh. Abu Ghuddah (d. 1997) in his short treatise on the issue -- is not used in the technical definition of later jurists that contrasts the term with 'fard' and 'wajib', but it rather takes its linguistic meaning (i.e. a 'path' or 'way'). This linguistic definition includes obligatory actions just like any recommended action, because these are all from the 'path' and 'way' of the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is therefore incorrect to argue that because a hadith says 'sunnah' that it must be referring to the later juristic definition of 'sunnah' (let alone the subset 'sunnah mu'akkadah'), as this is anachronistic. The claim that missing a sunnah habitually is sinful is therefore an inaccurate reading of the hadith. 2) The hadith mentions 'turning away/being displeased' (الرغبة عنه) with the prophetic way (sunnah) which, as Sh. Abu Ghuddah argues, is not the same as simply 'leaving' (الترك) an act. A person can leave an act without turning away and being displeased with it. Therefore, this hadith is not a strong argument to declare the habitual leaving of an emphasised sunnah a sin. Furthermore, there is no way to determine what exactly is meant by 'habitual'. For example, is missing a sunnah once in a week habitual? What about once every two weeks? A month? Six months? A year? What if a person consistently performs a sunnah but leaves it twice consecutively? What if he misses a different sunnah act each day? The absence of any parameters indicates that 'habit' is a loose stipulation for sin, in addition to the fact that one would have to explain why they believe their definition of 'habit' is in any way consequential to the claim of sin when leaving the act. It is for some of the reasons above that Sh. Abu Ghuddah (in his 'Fath Bab al-'Inayah') argued that missing an emphasised sunnah does not constitute sin. A person is rewarded for performing the sunnah and is not sinful for leaving it. This is in no way to belittle the status of a sunnah, but to simply understand and accurately position the emphasised sunnah in relation to obligations appropriately. Missing an emphasised sunnah should be seen as missing an opportunity for great reward, but based on the arguments above (and a lot more which I can't fit into this post), it does not constitute sin.

"Whoever leaves my way (sunnah) will not receive my intercession (on Judgement Day)." As popular as this report may be, it is not authentically attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and certainly cannot be used to obligate actions labelled 'Sunnah Mu'akkadah'. A few points here: 1) As noted by Sh. Abu Ghuddah (d. 1997), the wording of this report actually appears to be an inaccurate paraphrasing of another (authentic) hadith, without properly capturing its actual meaning. That hadith is the famous: "Whoever turns away from my way (sunnah) is not from me," (Bukhari and Muslim) which, as I've explained previously, has nothing to do with obligating Sunnah Mu'akkadah acts, nor is it related to intercession. 2) The wording of this report contradicts other authentic hadiths which extend the intercession to even those who commit grave violations (like the hadith of Anas ibn Malik mentioned by Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and others) - and it is in God's hands whether to accept it. This is in addition to the fact that missing a Sunnah Mu'akkadah is not a grave violation to warrant a consequence that even strong obligations do not. 3) The term 'sunnah' in hadith literature is used in its linguistic sense, not the technical juristic definition that developed later - as noted by the likes of Ibn al-Daqiq (d. 702 AH) and Sh. Abu Ghuddah (d. 1997) in a dedicated treatise. In other words, it is anachronistic to impose the later technical definition and legal category of 'sunnah' on any hadith; it is simply not being used that way, and therefore incorrect to use such reports to claim leaving Sunnah Mu'akkadah is a sin. The linguistic definition of 'sunnah' is simply a path or a way, and therefore includes obligations just as it includes any non-obligatory act, as this is all from the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him). I pray God keeps us steadfast on His guidance and the way demonstrated by His Messenger (peace be upon him), and I pray people understand that it is possible to encourage non-obligatory Sunnah acts without having to guilt-trip people into performing them, and without having to create pseudo-obligations in the name of God.

*Locating heritage within an Islamic framework* ‘Knowing where we come from is not an act of pride or nostalgia but one of accountability. It calls us to remember not only the names of our ancestors but the values they carried.’ Mogammad Tahier Kara https://muslimviews.co.za/remembrance-and-lineage-tracing-the-kara-family-through-memory-and-archive/

IP: Just to be clear, I employed some creative licence here with the generalisation, but it actually refers to those who want to defend Nanotwi without any reference to the status of the narration. Re: Laknawi, that’s the point of citing from Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah from Zafr. I also made reference to Laknawi’s Zajr at the end of that citation. Mufti Abdul Malik said the same, أفاده الكندي صاحب ريح الشرق WK: ذكره في أماليه على مقدمة ابن الصلاح بالأردية، وقد طبعت بعنوان محاضرات علوم الحديث WK: [Thanwi’s] idea of a khabar being a result of extrapolation from the Quran's text is very important, and it seems to be a major issue in sirah reports. Many narrations seem to just have been assumptions based on the nass IP: I just find the situation absurd WK: Yes, these ideas from ml Kashmiri and ml Thanwi aside, it does seem the overwhelming idea was to just go with it. Not sure if we can expect all that much better in India, in any case. SS: It's sad, as Moulana Qasim Nanotwi just provided the response in private correspondence and Moulana Ahsan Nanotwi took it and published it. Moulana Qasim always regretted it.

@IsmailIbrahimMS Don't know which chat group this was from, so shared it here, as I wanted to share some thoughts on your comment. Moulana Qasim Nanotwi may have done Tashih of the narration but he was not alone in this. A Muhaddith of the calibre of Allamah Abdul Hayy Lucknowi - for those unfamiliar, was not part of either the Barelwis or Deobandis - yet he wrote a number of Rasa'il to defend the authenticity of Athar Ibn Abbas. As for the attitudes of other Akabir of Deoband, then the likes of Allamah Kashmiri and Moulana Thanwi were reluctant to accept the authenticity of Athar Ibn Abbas. So, it is not wholly true that Deobandis were not willing to re-examine the Hadith. Below are the references to Faydh-ul-Bari and Bayan-ul-Qur'an, respectively:

Imagine the gross hadith incompetence in both camps that they have been fighting over the above narration for a century, which has been proven to be an outright fabrication at worst, or a severely weak mawquf narration, or at the very best an Isra'ili narration. One group, supposedly the more mature of the two, doesn't have the fortitude to re-examine this hadith for what it is, and move away from the research of their particular scholar in light of new research that he may not have had access to. On the other hand, the other group is too looney and incompetent to call out the obvious hadith error in the target of their refuation, and instead resorted to his Takfir. They wanted it all, oddly enough - it wasn't sufficient for them to point out his error in hadith, which can only be explained by the fact that they themselves were in the same error. Just let that sink in. A century of Takfir and self-defence against Takfir over this narration. You are both idiots. It is the theological equivalent of the Dahis and al-Ghabra - and you idiots are the living embodiment of it.

كذا صحّح الحاكمُ الروايتين جميعاً مع أنَّ في سند الرواية الأولى عطاءً بنَ السَّائب، وكان قد اختَلَط بأخَرَة، ولا يُدرَى أنَّ شريكاً متى أَخَذ عنه، بل شريكٌ نفسُه متكلَّمٌ فيه من جهةِ حفظه، وخاصةً في أواخر حياته، ولا يُدرَى أنَّ عليَّ بن حكيم متى سَمع منه، فتصحيحُ الروايةِ الأولى بعيدٌ جدّاً، وأما الروايةُ الثانيةُ فلا تشهدُ للرواية الأولى إلاَّ في جزء منها، على أنها مضطربةٌ متناً فقد رَوَى ابنُ جرير الطبري في (تفسيره)) قال: «حدثنا عَمْرو بنُ علي ومحمد بنُ المُثَنَّى قالا: حدثنا محمد بنُ جعفر، ثنا شعبةُ، عن عَمْرو بن مُرَّة، عن أبي الضُّحَى، عن ابن عباس في هذه الآية {اللَّهُ الذي خَلَق سَبْعَ سَمواتِ ومن الأرضِ مثلَهُنَّ)، قال عَمْرو: قال: ((في كلّ أرضٍ مِثلُ إبراهيم ونحوُ ما على الأرض من الخلق»، وقال ابنُ المثنى في حديثه: ((في كلّ سَمَاءِ إبراهيم) . فعلى رواية الحافظ ابنِ المثنى لم يبق للخبر أيُّ علاقةٍ برواية عطاء بن السائب عن أبي الضُّحى. هذا من جهةِ السندِ والمتن، وأما من جهة المعنى ففيه شذوذٌ شديدٌ... وقولُ المؤلّف تعليقاً في ص ٣٣٢ إنَّ هذا الأثرَ موقوفٌ في حكمِ المرفوعِ أي لأنه مما لا مجال للرأي فيه، ففيه أنّ ذلك فرعُ ثبوته سنداً ومتناً، والأثرُ المذكور لم يَسَكم من الجرح في سندِهِ ومتنِهِ ومعناه، على أن قولَ الصحابي بما لا مجال للرأي فيه إنما يُعدّ في حكم لمرفوع إذا لم يَحتمِل أن يكون مأخوذاً عن الإسرائيليات، ومتنُ هذا الأثر يُنادِي بأنه مأخوذٌ عنها، ولذلك قال الحافظ ابنُ كثير في ((البداية والنهاية» ٢١:١ : (وهو محمولٌ - إن صحّ نقلُه عنه - على أنه أخذه ابنُ عبّاس رضي اللّٰه عنهما عن الإسرائيليات). وقولُ المؤلَّف هنا إنّ ابن عباس رضي اللّٰه تعالى عنهما كان لا يأخذ عن الإسرائيليات، مُسْتَنِداً في ذلك إلى قول السخاوي المذكور في المتن: (وأصرَحُ منه مَنْعُ أبن عباس بقوله : ولو وافق كتابَنا، وقال: إنه لا حاجة لنا بذلك)، فيه نظر، فإن الإسرائيليات رُويت بكثرةٍ عن ابنِ عباس رضي اللّٰه عنهما بأسانيدَ ثابتة في كتب التفاسير والتواريخ، فإن صَحَّ ما نَقَلَه عنه السخاوي فهو محمولٌ على ما يتعلّق بتبيين الأحكام الشرعية في الأصول أو الفروع، وحاشا ابن عباس أو غيره من الصحابة أن يأخذ ذلك عنهم، وأما الحوادثُ الواقعةُ في أهل الكتاب والأخبارُ المتعلّقة بالأكوان ونحوِ ذلك من الأعاجيب فليس ذلك مراداً في منع أبن عباس رضي اللّه عنهما، فإنه ممن يأخذ ذلك عنهم كما سبق، والأثرُ المبحوثُ عنه ليس من الشرعياتِ في شيءٍ، فهو - كما قال ابنُ كثير - مأخوذٌ من الإسرائيليات، والله أعلم... ابنُ الجوزي في «زاد المسير) ٣٠٠ :٨ بعد نقل الأثرِ المذكور: (فهذا الحديثُ - يريدُ الأثر - تارةً يُرفَع إلى ابن عباس، وتارةً يُوقَفُ على أبي الضُّحَى، وليس له معنى إلاَّ ما حكى أبو سُليمان الدمشقي، قال: «سمعتُ أن معناه: إن في كل أرض خلقاً من خلق اللّٰه لهم سَادَة، يقومُ كبيرُهم ومتقدِّمهم في الخلق مقامَ آدمَ فينا، وتقومُ ذريتُه في السن والقِدَم كمقامٍ نوحٍ، وعلى هذا المثالِ سائرُهم). وأفاد قولُ ابن الجوزي أن من الرواةِ من يُوقفُه على أبي الضُّحَى، فهذا - إن صحّ - اضطرابٌ آخر في سندِه، وأما المعنى الذي ذكرَه أبو سليمان فإنما يُصارُ إليه بعد ثبوت صحة الأثر ووجودِ دليلٍ على ما ذكَرَه من المعنى، وكذا ما قاله العلامةُ الآلوسي في ((روح المعاني)» ١٤٣:٢٨ : «لا مانع عقلا ولا شرعاً من صحتِه، والمرادُ أن في كلِّ أرض خلقاً يَرجعون إلى أصلٍ واحدٍ، رُجُوعَ بني آدم في أرضنا إلى آدم عليه السلام، وفيه أفرادٌ ممتازونِ على سائرهم كنوح وإبراهيمَ وغيرِهما فينا)). فهذا المرادُ الذي ذكره يَحتاج إلى الثبوت أيضاً، فافهم ذلك والله يرعاك. ومن النكارة والشذوذ الصارخ في هذا الأثر أنه يُخالِفُ ظاهر كتاب اللّٰه تعالى، فإن الكتاب يدلّ على وحدة الأنبياء الذين ذُكِرُوا فيه، ولو كان ما في هذا الأثر من تعدُّدهم صحيحاً لأشير إليه في الكتاب أو السنّة المشهورة، فإنه أمرً جَلَلٌ ذو بالٍ، لا يكفي في ثبوته مثلُ هذا الأثر الشاذ المنكر المجروح سندُه، وهذا أبينُ من أن يبيَّن)). - عبد الفتاح أبو غدة في تعليقه على ظفر الأماني ويتضمن ردا على كلام اللكنوي في ظفر الأماني وأيضا كتابه زجر الناس

قلت لأبي عبد اللَّه: حديث عطاء بن السائب فيه: "محمد كمحمدكم، وآدم كآدم، وإبراهيم كإبراهيم"؟ قال: ليس حديثه في هذا بشيء، اختلط عطاء بن السائب، ليس فيها شيء من آدم كآدم، ولا نبي كنبيكم - مسائل الإمام أحمد برواية ابن هانئ وَأَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ، أنا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْقَاضِي، ثنا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ، ثنا آدَمُ بْنُ أَبِي إِيَاسَ، ثنا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي الضُّحَى، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا فِي قَوْلِهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ: {اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ وَمِنَ الْأَرْضِ مِثْلَهُنَّ} قَالَ: فِي كُلِّ أَرْضٍ نَحْوَ إِبْرَاهِيمَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ. إِسْنَادُ هَذَا عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا صَحِيحٌ، وَهُوَ شَاذُّ بِمُرَّةَ، لَا أَعْلَمُ لِأَبِي الضُّحَى عَلَيْهِ مُتَابِعًا وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ - البيهقي في الأسماء والصفات أخبرني أَحْمَدُ بْنُ أَصْرَمَ الْمُزَنِيُّ، أَنَّ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ سُئِلَ عَنْ حَدِيثِ شَرِيكٍ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ السَّائِبِ، عَنْ أَبِي الضُّحَى، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فِي قَوْلِهِ تَعَالَى: {وَمِنَ الأَرْضِ مِثْلَهُنَّ يتنزل الأمر بينهن}. قَالَ: "بَيْنَهُنَّ نَبِيٌّ كَنَبِيِّكُمْ، وَنُوحٌ كَنُوحِكُمْ، وَآدَمُ كَآدَمَكُمْ". قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ: هَذَا رَوَاهُ شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي الضُّحَى، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، لا يَذْكُرُ هَذَا، إِنَّمَا يَقُولُ: "يَتَنَزَّلُ الْعِلْمُ وَالأَمْرُ بَيْنَهُنَّ"، وَعَطَاءُ بْنُ السَّائِبِ اخْتَلَطَ، وَأَنْكَرَ أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الحديث. - ابن قدامة في المنتخب من علل الخلال وَعَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، مَنْ رِوَايَةِ الْوَاقِدِيِّ الْكَذَّابِ، قَالَ: فِي كُلِّ أَرْضٍ آدَمُ كَآدَمَ، وَنُوحٌ كَنُوحٍ، وَنَبِيٌّ كَنَبِيِّكُمْ، وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ كَإِبْرَاهِيمِكُمْ، وعيسى كعِيسَى، وَهَذَا حَدِيثٌ لَا شَكَّ فِي وَضْعِهِ - أبو حيان الأندلسي في البحر المحيط وَهَذِهِ بَلِيَّةٌ تُحَيِّرُ السَّامِعَ كَتَبْتُهَا اسْتِطْرَادًا لِلتَّعَجُّبِ - الذهبي في العلو، كما أغرب بعد ذلك بقوله "فهو من قبيل اسمع واسكت" وَهَكَذَا مَا يَذْكُرُهُ كَثِيرٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ، وَتَلَقَّاهُ عَنْهُمْ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ عُلَمَائِنَا مِنْ أَنَّ هَذِهِ الْأَرْضَ مِنْ تُرَابٍ، وَالَّتِي تَحْتَهَا مِنْ حَدِيدٍ، وَالْأُخْرَى مِنْ حِجَارَةٍ مِنْ كِبْرِيتٍ، وَالْأُخْرَى مِنْ كَذَا. فَكُلُّ هَذَا إِذَا لَمْ يُخْبَرْ بِهِ وَيَصِحَّ سَنَدُهُ إِلَى مَعْصُومٍ فَهُوَ مَرْدُودٌ عَلَى قَائِلِهِ. وَهَكَذَا الْأَثَرُ الْمَرْوِيُّ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: فِي كُلِّ أَرْضٍ مِنَ الْخَلْقِ مِثْلُ مَا فِي هَذِهِ الْأَرْضِ حَتَّى آدَمَ كَآدَمِكُمْ، وَإِبْرَاهِيمَ كَإِبْرَاهِيمِكُمْ. فَهَذَا ذَكَرَهُ ابْنُ جَرِيرٍ مُخْتَصَرًا، وَاسْتَقْصَاهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ فِي الْأَسْمَاءِ وَالصِّفَاتِ، وَهُوَ مَحْمُولٌ إِنْ صَحَّ نَقْلُهُ عَنْهُ عَلَى أَنَّ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ أَخَذَهُ عَنِ الْإِسْرَائِيلِيَّاتِ - ابن كثير في البداية والنهاية وما يروى عن ابن عباس على ما رواه البيهقي: "أن في كل أرضٍ منها نبيًّا كنبيكم وآدم كآدم ونوحًا كنوح مخالف للإجماع وصريح الآيات - أحمد بن إسماعيل الكوراني في الكوثر الجاري هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ رَوَاهُ الحاكم فِي الْمُسْتَدْرَكِ وَقَالَ: صَحِيحُ الْإِسْنَادِ، وَرَوَاهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ فِي شُعَبِ الْإِيمَانِ وَقَالَ: إِسْنَادُهُ صَحِيحٌ وَلَكِنَّهُ شَاذٌّ بِمَرَّةٍ، وَهَذَا الْكَلَامُ مِنَ الْبَيْهَقِيِّ فِي غَايَةِ الْحُسْنِ؛ فَإِنَّهُ لَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ صِحَّةِ الْإِسْنَادِ صِحَّةُ الْمَتْنِ كَمَا تَقَرَّرَ فِي عُلُومِ الْحَدِيثِ؛ لِاحْتِمَالِ أَنْ يَصِحَّ الْإِسْنَادُ وَيَكُونُ فِي الْمَتْنِ شُذُوذٌ أَوْ عِلَّةٌ تَمْنَعُ صِحَّتَهُ، وَإِذَا تَبَيَّنَ ضَعْفُ الْحَدِيثِ أَغْنَى ذَلِكَ عَنْ تَأْوِيلِهِ؛ لِأَنَّ مِثْلَ هَذَا الْمَقَامِ لَا تُقْبَلُ فِيهِ الْأَحَادِيثُ الضَّعِيفَةُ - الحاوي للفتاوى للسيوطي قُلْتُ: وَلِعُسْرِهِ لَمْ يُفْرِدْهُ أَحَدٌ بِالتَّصْنِيفِ، وَمِنْ أَوْضَحِ أَمْثِلَتِهِ مَا أَخْرَجَهُ فِي " الْمُسْتَدْرَكِ " مِنْ طَرِيقِ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ غَنَّامٍ النَّخَعِيِّ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ حَكِيمٍ، عَنْ شَرِيكٍ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ السَّائِبِ، عَنْ أَبِي الضُّحَى، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَال: فِي كُلِّ أَرْضٍ نَبِيٌّ كَنَبِيِّكُمْ، وَآدَمُ كَآدَمَ وَنُوحٌ كَنُوحٍ، وَإِبْرَاهِيمُ كَإِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَعِيسَى كَعِيسَى، وَقَالَ صَحِيحُ الْإِسْنَادِ. وَلَمْ أَزَلْ أَتَعَجَّبُ مِنْ تَصْحِيحِ الْحَاكِمِ لَهُ - السيوطي في تدريب الراوي