“Yes, among the breaches of trust and the violations of fairness is altering and tampering with the texts of the scholars, just as happens with some people of desires. And the last one I have come to know who has fallen into this pitfall is—
Ustādh ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Arnāʾūṭ, may Allāh have mercy on him. {¹}
This was in the book al-Adhkār by al-Imām al-Nawawī, in the edition he recently published in the year 1409 AH. For Imām al-Nawawī, may Allāh Almighty have mercy on him, said at the end of the Adhkār of the Book—
of Ḥajj {²}: “A section on visiting the grave of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ and the adhkār related to it,” and he spoke under it appropriately, repeating the phrase “visiting the grave” multiple times, and he mentioned the story of al-ʿUtbī. The aforementioned ustādh altered it—
to:– “Chapter on visiting the mosque of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.” And he altered everything beneath it that did not align with the changed title, and he deleted the story of al-ʿUtbī!!
And to understand the ugliness of what this man has done, two things must be observed:—
First: He altered and tampered with a book that fills every corner and gathering. There is hardly a Muslim household or public or private library without this book. So he tampered not with a rare book inaccessible except with difficulty, but with a widespread, accessible text.
Second: The aforementioned ustādh had previously edited the book al-Adhkār in the year 1391 AH and printed it at al-Mallāḥ Press in Damascus, and the statement of al-Imām al-Nawawī appeared in it as it originally was. Then behold, he now comes forth with this tampered edition,—
undermining himself by his own hand. We seek refuge in Allāh from that and from its likes.
And al-Kawtharī, may Allāh have mercy on him, said in the fifth article of his Maqālāt (1): “The first duty of a scholar is honesty in transmission.” So if this is the case, then what of—
presenting the author’s own text and editing his book, especially when he is an Imām whose words are relied upon and followed, such as al-Imām al-Nawawī, may Allāh Almighty have mercy on him!!”
Footnotes
¹) “I write this on the basis that he is the one who did that, and that he is the one responsible, since his name was printed on the book. And Allāh knows best what lies beyond that. Then I learned, based on correspondence between me and the Shaykh, and between me and—
the publishing house, that an official authority had requested that from the Shaykh, so that action was not initially from him by his own choice. Then it came from him by his approval, when he corrected the printing proofs with his own hand.”
²) And this book was not the only one from which that story was omitted; rather, it was also removed from the book al-ʿUddah Sharḥ al-ʿUmdah by [Bahāʾ al-Dīn] al-Maqdisī, in Ḥanbalī fiqh, page 209, you will see that after reflecting on the third footnote.
And such, then, is the (lack of) trustworthiness of these publishers and editors.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Shaykh al-ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ʿĀmūh al-Ḥanafī writes: “The author [i.e., Muqbil] does not know the science of Uṣūl al-Fiqh, even though knowledge of Uṣūl al-Fiqh is necessary for anyone who takes on the task of issuing fatwā. It is a means to understanding the Qur’ān
and the Sunnah. In audio tape “As’ilat Abū Ẓabī”no. 3, the Shaykh was asked about the best concise book in Uṣūl al-Fiqh. He referred the question to one of his students and then said: “As for me, I haven’t read in Uṣūl al-Fiqh except the notebook (mudhakkirah) of al-Shanqīṭī,
رحمه الله تعالى. In any case, what I advise is that these uṣūl (principles) themselves are not to be used to oppose the Qur’ān and the Sunnah.”
Shaykh al-‘Āmirī commented: “I do not know what kind of opposition the Shaykh means, how can Uṣūl al-Fiqh be a means of opposition,—
"As for the one who claims that his contemporary shuyūkh are from the Ahl al-Ḥadīth whom people must follow, we respond to him with the words of the Imām of the Ahl al-Ḥadīth, Imām—
Aḥmad, while not prohibiting taqlīd (blind following) of such scholars, but with the condition that they meet the prerequisites outlined by the scholars.
Imām Aḥmad said: “A man is not a faqīh until he has memorized four hundred thousand aḥādīth.” Ibn Shāqilā objected when—
this statement was narrated, so he (the narrator) replied: “Even if I do not memorize that amount, I give fatwā based on the opinion of those who memorized more than that.” Therefore, it is necessary for one to possess the tools of ijtihād to issue fatwā, or at least to follow—
Why have miracles (karāmāt) become more frequent in later times?
Dr. ʿAbd al-Ghaffār:
"al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, said: That is because the faith (īmān) of the Companions, may Allāh be pleased with them, was strong, so they had no need of any—
additional means to further strengthen their belief. Furthermore, the early period of Islām was full of light, and thus, they were not in need of extra signs. And even if such miracles did occur, they would not have been noticeable, because they would have faded in the radiance—
of the Prophetic light.
This is unlike those who came after them. Do you not see that the light of a lamp is not visible amongst other lamps, but in darkness, the stars themselves shine, whereas their light is not seen in the presence of the sun? For this reason, some of the—
A clear example of the Wahhābī’s disconnection from the chains of scholarly transmission, especially in matters of creed, and the impact this has had on them!
Sh Walīd Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ al-Shāfiʿī:
“The treatise al-Istiwāʾ wa al-Fawqiyyah wa al-Ḥarf wa al-Ṣawt attributed to Ibn—
Shaykh al-Ḥizāmiyyīn, a student of Ibn Taymiyyah, was distorted by some copyists who altered his name from Ibn Shaykh al-Ḥizāmiyyīn to Ibn Shaykh al-Ḥaramayn, and then it was further corrupted into Abī Shaykh al-Ḥaramayn.
Then came the Wahhābī-run Manārīyah Press, which, due
to their lack of scholarly connection, assumed the book was authored by the father of Imām al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī (d. 438 AH), and they printed it under his name, even though the text quotes ʿAbd al-Ghanī al-Maqdisī, who died in 600 AH – i.e., 162 years after the death of—
“Among the statements of the Ustādh whose outer appearance does not conceal its inner content is his saying about himself that he does not incline toward affirming that Imām Abū Ḥanīfah remained upon the opinion from which a narration of—
his retraction exists – namely, the permissibility of reciting (the Qur’ān) in Persian in ṣalāh for one capable of reciting in Arabic. Yet we find him striving to critique the narration of the retraction by saying: “For the narration of the retraction has been attributed at—
times to Abū Bakar al-Rāzī, and at times to Nūḥ ibn Maryam and ʿAlī ibn al-Jaʿd; and at other times it has been entirely omitted from the books of Imām Muḥammad, as well as in the Sharḥ al-Mabsūṭ of al-Sarakhsī, and in the books of Qāḍī Khān. So can we completely trust this—
diligent in upholding the Sacred Law and following the Sunnah. I read Al-Futūḥāt al-Makkiyyah under my shaykh, Sayyidī ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Shahāwī, and he fully understood Ibn ʿArabī’s words and intent. Anyone who examines the section Al-Waṣāyā (The Admonitions) will recognize—
the stature of Ibn ʿArabī and his firm adherence to the Sunnah and the Sharīʿah. The scholars have unanimously agreed on the necessity of condemning those who deviate from the Sharīʿah, affirming that the sword of the Sharīʿah takes precedence over everything. However, they have—