he narrates it from Ábdullāh ibn Salamah ibn Aslam. Jaáfarī is munkar al-ĥadīth, said by Abū Ĥātim, and Dār Quţnī weakened Ábdullāh ibn Salamah, and Abū Nuáym said: [he is] matrūk.”
Úmdatu’l Qārī, 7/198.
Thus, this narration is not accepted.
b. The chain of this report contains two Qadarīs, i.e. those who denied the Qadar, namely Shibl ibn Ábbād, and Ábdullāh ibn Abī Nujayh. The latter was even suspected of tadlīs.
Imām Ibn Ĥajar al-Shāfiýī al-Ásqalānī writes:
“Shibl ibn Ábbād al-Makkī, al-Qārī, thiqah, he is accused of being a Qadarī, from the fifth generation, it is said he died in the year 48, and it is said after that.”
Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, pg. 430.
He writes regarding the latter:
“Ábdullāh ibn Abī Najīh Yasār al-Makkī, their Mawlā was Abū Yasār al-Thaqafī, thiqah, he was accused of being a Qadarī and perhaps he would do tadlīs, from the sixth generation, he died in the year 31, or after it.”
Ibid, pg. 552.
Thus, the narrators are not completely free from blemish, but even if it is authentic to Mujāhid, there is no mention of this being reported from RasūlAllāh ﷺ or from a companion such as Ibn Ábbās.
Moreover, the report itself does not explicitly and unambiguously affirm makān [place] for Allāh. The term used is “his place”, and it does not make sense if the pronoun is understood to be referring to Allāh.
It says:
“When he saw his place and heard the squeaking of the pen, he said, ‘My Lord! Show me Yourself, so that I may see You.’”
Now, if this was referring to the place of Allāh, how could he have seen the place of Allāh without seeing Allāh?
It makes more sense to understand it to mean the place of Sayyidunā Musā; that he saw his own place and to where he had reached, it is also possible it refers to the Throne.
Further, in the report of Mujāhid quoted in Tafsīr al-Tabarī does not include the part about makān at all
Additionally, Imām Bayhaqī also records this narration in his book Asmā'a wa'l Sifāt, whilst he himself holds the belief Allāh is not in a makān.
He writes, pg. 1013:
“That which is narrated in the final part of the hadīth is an indication of negating makān for Allāh táālā,
and that wheresoever the slave is, he is equal in closeness and distance to Allāh táālā, and that He is The Żāhir, thus it is correct to know Him by proofs, and The Bātin, thus it is not correct to consider Him to be in a makān.
Some of our companions deduced by the statement of Nabī ﷺ, the negation of place for Him:
You are the Żāhir, so there is nothing above You, and you are the Bātin, so there is nothing beneath You.
When there is nothing above Him and nothing beneath Him, He is not in a makān.”
This demonstrates that Imām Bayhaqī did not consider the report of Mujāhid to be affirming a makān for Allāh.
Therefore we can conclude that there is nothing explicit and unambiguous regarding this report in which Mujāhid attributes makān to Allāh.
Ábdullāh ibn Abī Najīh*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“The distinctinction between our fasting and the fasting of the people of the Book is the eating of suhūr.”
[Muslim]
See, may Allāh have mercy upon you, that the Most Beloved ﷺ differentiated between us and them even in fasting.
How, much more necessary is it to then differentiate ourselves in the rest of our affairs? If even our fasting is not to be as their fasting, then how can it be conceived that our ideologies and morals be the same as theirs?
Should we then be ashamed of our religion before them and deny parts and alter others in order to please them and make our own beliefs and ideas in line with theirs?
No, rather we must submit fully and maintain our difference with them.
It has become common for Muslims to accuse men of rape without sufficient evidence, and to then spread such among society. Some imagine that a mere claim of a woman, without the necessary proof,
is a satisfactory criterion by which a Muslim can be accused of a major sin. To the extent that we have such statements being said, and people are liking and pleased with them:
In the sharīáh, rape is a coerced form of zinā, and so is established only by what causes zinā to be established; testimony of four upright Muslim witnesses, or confession. Besides this, it is not permissible to accuse someone of any form of zinā, including rape.
In Ĥanafī Fiqh rape is, “istikrāh ála al-zinā”, coercion upon zinā.
In Mukhtaşar Ikhtilāfi'l Úlamā authored by Imām Abū Jaáfar al-Ţaĥāwī al-Ĥanafī [239-321 AH / 843-933 CE] is the section, “Regarding the one who is coerced upon zinā”:
if he coerces a woman and commits zinā with her, then upon him is the Ĥadd, and there is no Mahr upon him. And this is the saying of Ibn Shubrumah and Thawrī.”
Vol. 3, pg. 298.
Imām Qudūrī al-Ĥanafī [362-428 AH / 973-1037 CE] writes in Tajrīd in the section, “The man's coercion of a woman upon zinā.”:
“Our companions have said that if the man coerces a woman upon zinā, then upon him is the Ĥadd, but there is no Mahr upon him.”
There is no such principle in Islām. Rather, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and any claim cannot be accepted unless there is valid proof.
RasūlAllāh ﷺ said:
“If the people were given by their claims, they would claim the lives of people and their properties”
“This hadīth represents a great principle of the principles of the rulings of the sharīáh. In it, is that the word of a person is not taken in what he claims by his lone claim,
rather it requires clear proof or affirmation of the defendant”
12/3
Just as a person is not considered guilty of murder or theft, or any other crime based merely on a claim, likewise a person cannot be accused of rape/sexual abuse without proof.
Yesterday an article was published by the New York Post which informs us of the wishes of certain individuals to decriminalise consensual incest and the arguments put forth.
Let us have a read and analysis of this.
Here we see that appeal is made to the argument of them being consenting adults.
According to modern-day secular, and mostly western, belief, for a relationship/marriage to be acceptable, it must be according to their ideas of:
1. Consent
2. Adulthood
This are the reasons why same-sex relationships/marriages are completely acceptable according to such a belief system and worldview, as both are in fact present in same-sex relationships/marriages as both partners are adult and consenting.