The Ghumari brothers: Opinions of the Ulema?

[Sunni_Student786]

As salaamu alaykum.

I have read various opinions from the Ulema regarding the Ghumari family of scholars hailing from Morocco who are known for their excellence in a variety of Islamic disciplines, but particularly hadith.

Shaykh Nuh, in the biographies section of the Reliance of the Traveler, seems to have nothing but praise for their excellence in the field of hadith, while Gibril Haddad has written some criticisms about the brothers, particularly because of some aspects of their aqeedah, their claims to ijtihaad, and views on Hadhrat Muawiyah (ra). What have other Ulema said about them, particularly as regards their scholarship in the field of hadith?

Would it be considered "safe" to study hadith under some of the LIVING Ghumaris schoars despite some of their controversial stances in Aqeedah and fiqh? I know that the late scholar Muhammad ibn Alawi al Maliki (ra) had ijaza through them, although I am not sure if it was simply to narrate hadith on their authority or if he actually spent any appreciable amount of time studying under them.

Furthermore, does anyone know the opinions of the scholars on any of the Ghumari scholars who are living and whether or not they are defered to as authorities in the field of hadith in the way that the deceased Ghumari brothers were?

If anyone could shed light on this issue, I would appreciate it.

Jazakallahu khair.

Wa'salaam.

[muslim786]

As salaamu alaykum.

I have read various opinions from the Ulema regarding the Ghumari family of scholars hailing from Morocco who are known for their excellence in a variety of Islamic disciplines, but particularly hadith.

Shaykh Nuh, in the biographies section of the Reliance of the Traveler, seems to have nothing but praise for their excellence in the field of hadith, while Gibril Haddad has written some criticisms about the brothers, particularly because of some aspects of their aqeedah, their claims to ijtihaad, and views on Hadhrat Muawiyah (ra). What have other Ulema said about them, particularly as regards their scholarship in the field of hadith?

Would it be considered "safe" to study hadith under some of the LIVING Ghumaris schoars despite some of their controversial stances in Aqeedah and fiqh? I know that the late scholar Muhammad ibn Alawi al Maliki (ra) had ijaza through them, although I am not sure if it was simply to narrate hadith on their authority or if he actually spent any appreciable amount of time studying under them.

Furthermore, does anyone know the opinions of the scholars on any of the Ghumari scholars who are living and whether or not they are defered to as authorities in the field of hadith in the way that the deceased Ghumari brothers were?

If anyone could shed light on this issue, I would appreciate it.

Jazakallahu khair.

Wa'salaam.
Shaykh Syed Muhammad bin Yahya Al Ninowyi Al Hanafi has dispelled the allegations against the ghumaris.

[Sunni_Student786]

Which allegations bro? And where can one find Shaykh Syed Muhammad bin Yahya Al Ninowyi Al Hanafi's statements wherein he dispels allegations against the Ghumaris?

[muslim786]

Which allegations bro? And where can one find Shaykh Syed Muhammad bin Yahya Al Ninowyi Al Hanafi's statements wherein he dispels allegations against the Ghumaris?
allegations against their aqeedah etc. this can all be found on the ghumari yahoo group:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/al-ghumari/
in particular take a look at this message: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Ghumari/message/183
and also this http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Ghumari/message/144

[muslim786]

I hope that InshAllah that answers your question. In short some of the Ghumari brother views might not be everyones cup of tea, but from their small amount of differences these all preety much on smaller issues. They are definately proper sunni etc. Naturally due to their emmense work against the wahabi fitnah many people of these wahabis have forged stuff against them and this has crept into the hands of innocent sunnis. The best people to ask about the Ghumari family is people that have studied with them, eg such as Shaykh Ninowyi they can give u first hand information. The Ghumari group should have many questions answered, also new ones can be posed there.

[talib al-habib]

salams

despite Shaykh Gibril's criticisms of the Ghumari brothers, he still has enough respect for them to teach one of their works on the superlative merits of Rasulullah (S) - a collection of 40 hadith - as recently as one month ago at the Faizan-e-Rasool institute in Birmingham.

As I recall, he referred to him as, 'the muhaddith of the maghrib' and praised his excellence in the science of hadith.

was salam

[Sunni_Student786]

allegations against their aqeedah etc. this can all be found on the ghumari yahoo group:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/al-ghumari/
in particular take a look at this message: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Ghumari/message/183
and also this http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Ghumari/message/144

As salaamu alaykum.

I read the links the Shaykh's response was very helpful, although I'm still a little unclear on some things.

Did the shaykh mean his statement that the Ghumaris were mujtahids, that they were "Mujtahid Mutlaq", i.e. Absolute Mujtahids?

And is it true that the Ghumaris held a negative view about Hadhrat Muawiyah (ra) and that they considered Hadhrat Ali (karamallahu wajha) to be the best among the Sahaba?

[muslim786]

As salaamu alaykum.

I read the links the Shaykh's response was very helpful, although I'm still a little unclear on some things.

Did the shaykh mean his statement that the Ghumaris were mujtahids, that they were "Mujtahid Mutlaq", i.e. Absolute Mujtahids?

And is it true that the Ghumaris held a negative view about Hadhrat Muawiyah (ra) and that they considered Hadhrat Ali (karamallahu wajha) to be the best among the Sahaba?
send an email to the ghumari newgroup, i am sure if you pose your question in a nice unaccusative manner you will get some good feedback. Its best to ask people associated with a certain group or scholar directly than getting questions answered by some random 3rd party. InshAllah the group should help you answer your questions.

[Sunni_Student786]

Thanks bro. I am already subscribed to the group. I guess I will ask, hopefully I'll actually get a response.

[faqir]

Please post the response here.

[muslim786]

Thanks bro. I am already subscribed to the group. I guess I will ask, hopefully I'll actually get a response.
Any feedback?

[Sunni_Student786]

Any feedback?

I haven't asked yet bro. I will soon though insha'allah. I've been rather busy lately.

And Salman, thanks for the info, but I had already gleaned that from the article of GF Haddad. But thank you anyway since reminders are great.

[Muawiyah]

From Muhammad al-Ninowy regarding Ahmad al-Ghumari:

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Ghumari/message/154

tafdheeli shi'aism:


Sidi Ahmad, as many Ahlul Bayt Sunni Scholars, and many other Sahaba, and Bani Hashem in general ( look in Al-Isti'aab by imam Ibn Abdul Barr) favor Sayyidina Ali over all the Sahaba including the 3 khulafa before him

bughdh of Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan Radhi Allahu `anhu:


Of course, the opinion of Sidi Ahmad from Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan, is not very favorable. His opinion, however, is not based on his own thoughts, but on Sahih Ahadith that came in Mu'awiya.

[muslim786]

From Muhammad al-Ninowy regarding Ahmad al-Ghumari:

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Ghumari/message/154

tafdheeli shi'aism:



bughdh of Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan Radhi Allahu `anhu:
It is better brother if you quote the whole passage of shaykh ninowyi so that readers can see what is said in context, and also realise that the view of Shaykh Ghumari are not necessarily those of shaykh ninowyi, shaykh ninowyi just has a lot of respect for the ghumaris as do other scholars of the ahle sunnah wal jammah, he doesn't however support all their views however he does defend them.

here it is:

Bismillah,
There are a few hundred books by Sidi Ahmad bin Assidiq Al-Ghumari, radiya'Allah anhu. Most of which are printed. many are not, i still have hand written booklets by him and by Sidi Abdullah, radiya'Allahu anhum.

Sidi Ahmad specifically has been a target by the Wahhabi's as he exposed them and destroyed their devious thoughts.
Hence, they -as per sidi Abdullah- forged a couple of letters and published them, as his. His remaining brother Sidi Hasan is still alive, and over 80 years old, and anyone can go and ask him to verify this info. Furthermore, there are a bunch of his students that remain, among them Sidi Abdullah Tlidi, and others.
The Wahhabi's unfortunately, have been able -as appears- to buy out one of the sunni scholars who converted to Wahhabism in Morocco, and convinced him to publish ugly things and attribute them to Sidi Ahmad, to blemish him.
They only blemished the Liar.

Sidi Ahmad, as many Ahlul Bayt Sunni Scholars, and many other Sahaba, and Bani Hashem in general ( look in Al-Isti'aab by imam Ibn Abdul Barr) favor Sayyidina Ali over all the Sahaba including the 3 khulafa before him, WITHOUT degrading them or attributing to them any bad or evil or non-suitable attributes. It is a feeling ( Suyuti also elaborated on that) that some of the Sahaba had, many of Ahlul Bayt ( from Ahlus SUnnah) and many others.
2- Sidi Ahmad, considers -as all Sunni Muslims- the four Khulafa are teh Pious Khulafa, and are the Khulafa Ar-Rashidun, radiya'Allahu anhum ajma'in.
3- The mere belief that Sayyidina Ali is favored over Sayyidina Umar or Abu Bakr, does not take Sidi Ahmad out of Ahlus Sunnah, as Imam Ibn Hajr and Ibn Abdul Barr mentioned Sahaba who believed that.
Besides, you can't really blame the sons of Sayyidina Ali for loving their father, more than someone else, especially when they love the other almost as much, and respect him,and know his high esteemed position in Islam.

4- Of course, the opinion of Sidi Ahmad from Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan, is not very favorable. His opinion, however, is not based on his own thoughts, but on Sahih Ahadith that came in Mu'awiya.
These things are topics for scholars and learned people to indulge into, and Sidi Ahmad did not differ from the Sunni scholars in much at all.
He also, did not hide his overwhelming love for Sayyidina Ali, and he never hid his Tasawuff.
He always mentioned Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Sayyidina Umar, as equals and close friends and relatives of Sayydina Ali.

wassalam,
mhmd

[faqir]

4- Of course, the opinion of Sidi Ahmad from Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan, is not very favorable. His opinion, however, is not based on his own thoughts, but on Sahih Ahadith that came in Mu'awiya.

wassalam,
mhmd[/I]


What exactly was his position of Hadhrat Muawiyah RA?

[Muawiyah]

This Mubtadi believed that Muawiyah Radhi Allahu `anhu died on kufr

He did not even stop at Sayyidina Muawiyah but also attacked Sayyidina `Amr ibn al `Aas and Sayyidina Samurah bin Jundub Radhi Allahu `anhum. He declared that Sayyidina Samurah was in hellfire "ان سمرة بن جندب في النار"

La Hawla wa La Quwwata Ila Billah

Those who cannot see the the innovations of this man are blind. Ninowy so boldly defended the Fisq of this man under the guise that he was an "absolute Mujtahid" if a Wahabi were to say the above these people would be all over them. So why the double standards when it comes to Ghumari? Shaykh Bin Baz also considered himself a Mujtahid and was condemned for it so let us see these biased people condemn al-Ghumari on the same grounds.

[faqir]

:salam:

That is absolutely outrageous!

Are you sure about this Akhi? Presumably you are referring to Ahmad al-Ghumari, and what hadith did he base this disgusting view upon?

[Muawiyah]

Sayyid Ninowi says that he believed this

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Ghumari/message/155

[faqir]

1- Yes Sidi Ahmad, radiya'Allahu anhu............

2- His position on Mu'awiya is tough. Based on the Ahadith that he found, which are authentic according to him, those ahadith mentioned Mua'wiya with a bad end (i.e. not on Islam). Hence, Sidi Ahmad, practiced these Ahadith and believed in them.
( thats the biggest reason why some hate Sidi Ahmad). If one disagrees with the Ahadith that sidi Ahmad considered authentic, then that hadith should consitute an excuse for sidi Ahmad to come to such conclusion, as it was not merely based on "hawa" desire and personal opinion. To him, it is based on authetic hadiths by the Prophet himself, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam.
Now, as you know, most scholars of Ahlus Sunnah disagree with what Sidi Ahmad concluded about Mu'awiya. This is the safer way. Therefore, seek a knowledgable teacher, and do not indulge in the topic of Sahaba (radiya'Allah anhum Ajma'in) unless supervised by a knowledgable scholar who can lead you to the right way.
The topic of the Sahaba is very delicate, and their high status should be preserved. Remember, that nobody is impeccable after the Prophets, and we all are vulnerable to make mistakes. Hence, one should not take a mistake and magnify it, but take a mistake and learn from it.

Now, having said that, there is no disagreement between the intellectual scholars of Ahlus Sunnah that Mu'awiya was a "Baghiya from Bughaat" which means transgressor. But transgression itself, though is a big sin, but should not eject its person out of Islam. Though Sidi Ahmad considers the Ahadith the basis for his conclusion, not only the transgression.
Again, this is a senstive topic, and one should learn it from authrorized, knowledgable, and trustworthy scholars of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'a, and should NOT indulge in it without proper knowledge, understanding, and guidance, and Allah knows best.



see:

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5240&highlight=Muawiyah

Which Hadith could he possibly be talking about?!?!



How do you defend a man who said the Ashaab of the Prophet was a Kafir - audhubillah!

Not only that, but why do these people refuse to say "Radhialahu Anhu" after the name of Sayyidina Muawiyah although it is known that saying the phrase for one Sahaba and not the other in a single menion is disliked and shows a lack of Adab.

Exactly Akhi, I was thinking the same. What do the YaNabi crowd think about this? Surely they would not stand for this and would ask the shaykh why he has done so.... the only other people I have seen this from are the Ahbash.

[faqir]

Salamu Alaikum Br. Faqir

You know what the oddest thing is? Shaikh Ninowy uses Radhialahu Anhu after Sidi Ahmad but not after the Companions? La hawla wa la quwwata!


Wa alaykum asalam, thats what I meant bro! I was shocked to say the least! It seems as though the shaykh has singled out Hadhrat Muawiyah RadiyAlahu anhu for special treatment :(

[faqir]

I've forgotten my password at yanabi... might make a new account and see if I can ask the Shaykh for clarification

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

قال القاضي في الشفا قال مالك رضي الله تعالى عنه من شتم احدا من اصحاب النبي (ع ) ابا بكر , او عمر ,او عثمان , او عـليا , او معاوية , او عمرو بن العاص , فان قال : كانوا على ضلال وكفر , قتل ,وان شتمهم بغير هذا من مشاتمة الناس , نكل نكالا شديدا

[Yahya]

:salam:

I am not very knowledgable on the subject. But it is not surprising that
scholar of hadith would have this opinion of Mu'awiyah. I heard that there
is a section of Sahih Muslim dedicated to Sahaba whom the Prophet :saw:
dispraised, and that Mu'awiyah is dispraised somewhere among those
ahadith.

I also heard that there is a mutawaatir hadith (interestingly, I heard that
Mu'awiyah is one of the narrators!) that Rasoolullah :saw: said that Ammar
would be killed by the aggressors. And it is known that Ammar was killed
by Mu'awiyah's men. I also heard that Mu'awiyah tried to use this hadith
to say Ali (radiyallahu anhu wakarrama wajhah) was the aggressor-
claiming that Ali killed him by bringing him out to battle. Ali then replied that
by that logic the Prophet :saw: killed his uncle Hamza, and Mu'awiyah
withdrew his accusation.

I also heard that Imam al-Ash'ari himself said that Mu'awiyah's rebellion was an enormous sin.

Lastly, I heard that many scholars, such as an-Nawawi, say radiyallahu anh
after Mu'awiyah's name, because they assume that he repented from this
enourmous sin, not because they deny that it was an enormous sin.
However, given that he actively took steps to ensure that his son would
succeed him, some scholars hold the opinion that he did not repent from his sin.



As for those scholars who have said that Mu'awiyah erred in his ijtihad and
that he did not sin. I like to see how they justify going against their Imam
(al-Ash'ari) in this issue, and I'd like to see how they consider killing 20,000
Muslims an "error in ijtihad." How can a person make ijtihad and conclude
that it's ok to kill 20,000 Muslims!!!

[Yahya]

Salamu Alaikum

Im sorry to say this Br. Yahya - but are you just copy pasting mere rabble or is this a product of your own research?No, what I said is not the result of my own research. Rather, it is a collection of things that I have heard from various Muslims.


And which section might that be? On the contrary, both Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari have a section on the merits of the Sahaba, and they include Sayyidina Muawiyah within it.Well perhaps he mentioned another of the famous 6 books of hadith. And no one is denying that Mu'awiyah had merits as well... But again, I didn't check this myself. It's what I heard.


Does it matter if Sayyidina Muawiyah was one of the narrators? Yes Sayyidina Ammar was killed by Sayyidina Muawiyahs men, the same way people like Muhammad ibn Talha Al Sajjad were killed by Sayyidina Ali's men.But the issue here is that the Prophet :saw: called those who killed Ammar (radiyallahu anh) "aggressors" or the like.


Secondly, the hadith have been explained.

In Fath Al Bari of Shaikhul Islam Ibn Hajar, he states:

??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????

Imam Nawawi states in his Sharh Sahih Al Muslim:

??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? -??? ???? ???- ??? ????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???

Qadhi Iyad states in his Al Shifa from Imam Malik:

??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ????? (? ) ??? ??? , ?? ??? ,?? ????? , ?? ????? , ?? ?????? , ?? ???? ?? ????? , ??? ??? : ????? ??? ???? ???? , ??? ,??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? , ??? ????? ???

I was not able to view this text for some reason. I'll read them later :insh:



No, Imam Ash'ari did not say this. What some have ascribed to Imam Ash'ari is a textual distortion, intentionally done to make it seem like he did. Shaikh Amjad Rashid has a treatise on this where he explains the position of Imam Ash'ari.
:insh: I'll check out all of the quotes that you provided. I just don't have access to the texts at my current location. This is not a subject that I have studied, and I'm operating on hearsay at the moment. But I'd really like to check it out once I get a chance....

[YaNabi]

salaam...i just want to clarify ....on YaNabi many topics regarding Ameer Muawia has been discussed in the past both with shia's and by sunnis themselves...i have personally talked to few brothers who work very closely under Sheikh Sayyid Muhammed bin Yahya al-Ninowy

for some reason there is an unfortunate misunderstanding...let me clear that...YaNabi will not promote or endorse any individual whose aqeeda/beleifs are not inline with Ahlus Sunnah...Ameer Muawiya was a Sahabi, Katib ul Wahi and first King of Islam...one should remember that it was Ameer al Momineen Hasan ibn Ali who handed over power and accepted his status as a Ameer....though his ijtahad against Ali was wrong, though he was still a Sahabi and in the end as Peer Sayyid AbdulQadir al-Jilani said we oughta love Sahaba, not judge them...

we r not in any where close to the position of Judging Sahaba iqraam r.a, and judging is not our job.... its Allah's swt task...we r to love and truly respect them....after all ...respecting them is nothing but respecting RasoolAllah (uncountable peace and blessings be upon him, his family and pure progeny)

wa^assalaam

[faqir]

:salam:

Perhaps you could ask the Shaykh specifically what his stance is on Hadhrat Muawiyah RadiyAllahu anhu so that any misonceptions as regards his views on this issue which would be based on his manner of writing his defence of Ahmad al-Ghumari could be cleared up.

JazakAllah khair.

[Yahya]

Yes he did - but the fact remains is that is "aggression" or "rebellion" a basis for labelling one a "disbeliever"? If so then the Khawarij should be disbelievers - but they are not and their hadith are accepted by the Ahly Sunnah Wa'l Jamaah.:salam:
Just to clarify. I do NOT agree that Mu'awiyah was a kaafir. I mentioned that hadith to support the opinion that his rebellion was a sin. NOT that it was kufr, nor that he died on kufr.


I dont think you should bother with such a thing. It serves no benefit what so ever, and as the Ulema say "Be avid for that which benefits you."I agree 100%. This is not a priority for me. However, I would like to look up Sh. Amjad's explanation of Imam al-Ash'ari's text, and also read the original work. This is for another reason, not because I think Mu'awiyah's status is vital.


I find it odd that people are ready to defend and overlook Ahmad ibn Siddiq Al Ghumari mistakes who [1] Called a Sahabi a Kafir [2] Did not accept that Abu Bakr wa Umar were the greatest after the Prophet [3] Claimed that Ikhtilaaf was not a mercy [4] Claimed he was a Mujtahid Mutlaq etc. but are not willing to overlook the mistakes of the Companions of the Prophet - Allah bless him and grant him peace -.
As for this, I have no knowledge about #4. But I reject items 1-3, no doubt.

[Omar HH]

Wasn't the gate to Ijtihad closed by the ijma' of the Ummah before this Shaykh was born?

[YaNabi]

:salam:

Perhaps you could ask the Shaykh specifically what his stance is on Hadhrat Muawiyah RadiyAllahu anhu so that any misonceptions as regards his views on this issue which would be based on his manner of writing his defence of Ahmad al-Ghumari could be cleared up.

JazakAllah khair.

brother Faqir..inshaAllah Sheikh will be visiting Toronto this July inshaAllah...i will definetly try asking him his own personal view and why is he defending Shaykh Sayyid Abdullah bin Siddiq al-Hasani...i am in touch with brother Salmaan as well....:)

salaam

[tazkiyyah]

I am not very knowledgeable in islam to enter this sort of discussion

But i would reccomend my brothers to find ulema who hold orthodox views and not go into these strange views.

If anybody says anything negative about the sahaba, distance yourself from him. They are not on the way of ahlus sunnah
We love all the sahaaba and ahlul bayt.

Khalas

[faqir]

brother Faqir..inshaAllah Sheikh will be visiting Toronto this July inshaAllah...i will definetly try asking him his own personal view and why is he defending Shaykh Sayyid Abdullah bin Siddiq al-Hasani...i am in touch with brother Salmaan as well....:)

salaam

:salam:

It is Shaykh Ahmad al-Ghumari that is being referred to above.

JazakAllah khair for clarifying this in any case :)

[saalikulilm]

Assalamu `alaykum:

This topic has interested me for a long time, and unfortunately I have not found too many satisfactory answers for my questions. I have some trouble believing that Mu'awiya was *completely* sinless based upon the fitna that ensued, but also I have some trouble holding that he was a kafir (if we were to take the Sunni position that people who commit major sins are not kafir as long as they don't think what they did was lawful).

As for some who were wondering what Sidi Ahmed may have based his judgment on, then it is as follows:

(a) MU'AWIYA CURSED `ALI

Imam Ibn Majah narrates in his Sunan (Introduction [muqaddima], virtues of `Ali ibn Abi Talib):

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ. حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ. حَدَّثَنَا مُوْسَى بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ ابْن سَابِطٍ، وَهُوَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ سَعْد بْنُ أَبِي وَقَّاص؛
قَالَ: قَدِمَ مُعَاوِيَةَ فِي بَعْضِ حَجَّاتِهِ، فَدَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ سَعْد، فَذَكَرُوا عَلِيُّاً. فَنَالَ مِنْهُ. فَغَضِبَ سَعْد، وَقَالَ: تَقُولُ هَذَا لِرَجُلٍ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسلَّمْ يَقُولُ (مَنْ كُنْت مَوْلاَهُ فَعَلِيُّ مَوْلاَهُ) وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ (أَنْتَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوْسَى إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ لاَ نَبِيَّ بَعْدي) وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ (لأُعْطِيَنَّ الرَّأَيةَ الْيَوْمَ رَجُلاً يُحِبُّ اللَّه وَرَسُولَهُ)؟

>ش< فنال منه:
أي نال معاوية من علي, ووقع فيه وسبه - كما في شرح السندي على سنن ابن ماجة

I've had a hard time finding someone who disputed the authenticity of the hadith.

(b) WHOEVER CURSES 'ALI, CURSES THE PROPHET

Imam Ahmad relates in his Musnad

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي حدثنا يحيى بن أبي بكير قال حدثنا إسرائيل عن أبي إسحق عن عبد الله الجدلي قال دخلت على أم سلمة فقالت لي: أيسب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فيكم قلت معاذ الله أو سبحان الله أو كلمة نحوها قالت: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول:
-من سب عليا فقد سبني ومن سبني فقد سب الله

Umm Salama told `Abdullah al-Jadali: Do any of you curse the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace? He replied, "I seek refuge in Allah!" or "May Allah be glorified!" or something like that. She then said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - say: "Whoever curses `Ali, has cursed me, and whoever curses me, curses Allah."

Sidi Ahmed probably thought this hadith was authentic. If this is the case, then he concluded that: Mu'awiya cursed `Ali, cursing `Ali is like cursing the Prophet, cursing the Prophet is kufr, therefore Mu'awiya is a kafir.

Since many muhaddithin have thought the above hadiths were authentic, the only possible defense that I see against asserting that Mu'awiya was a kafir, is that the above hadiths are ahad, and one can only declare someone kafir based upon a mutawatir hadith.

Wasallam.

[godilali]

It is most disturbing to hear that those who consider themselves Ahlus Sunnah would accuse the Sahaba of kufr or even trangression. You will find many people condemning (rightfully so) Mawdudi or Sayyid Qutb for being implicitly insolent toward the Sahaba (claiming Sayyidina Uthman ra had weak leadership ability,etc.) , so can we honestly ignore explicit statements against Sayyidina Muawiyah ra, who Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wa sallam loved, and whom the vast majority of the Ulama considered to be an upright person?

"We love the Companions of the Messenger of Allah but we do not go to excess in our love for any one individual among them; nor do we disown any one of them. We hate anyone who hates them or does not speak well of them and we only speak well of them. Love of them is a part of Islam, part of belief and part of excellent behavior, while hatred of them is unbelief, hypocrisy and rebellion."-Aqidah at-Tahawiyyah

(I am not making any accusations towards the Ghumaris or Sayyid Ninowi, but I feel that I should distance myself from anyone who speaks ill of any Sahabi)

Inshallah the Haq is found on the path of moderation, not that of the Shiah or the Khwarij.

May Allah tabaraka wa t'aala guide us all to the way of the Prophet and his Companions

[saalikulilm]

Wa `alaykum assalam:

(1) As I said before, I do not believe Mu'awiya is a kafir. Rather, I hold that basing his kufr on such a hadith (which is not only ahad, but there is a difference of opinion on its authenticity) is skating on thin ice.

(2) There is an ikhtilaf about the kufr of the deviated sects, including the Khawarij. A minute look into even the most basic books of 'aqida (i.e. Sharh Jawharat at-Tawhid) would point out this fact.

(3) "As Imam Ash'ari says, we disassociate ourselves from those who speak against the Companions." What about Mu'awiya, who spoke evil about an even greater companion?

(4) "I find it odd that people are ready to defend and overlook Ahmad ibn Siddiq Al Ghumari mistakes who [1] Called a Sahabi a Kafir [2] Did not accept that Abu Bakr wa Umar were the greatest after the Prophet [3] Claimed that Ikhtilaaf was not a mercy [4] Claimed he was a Mujtahid Mutlaq etc. but are not willing to overlook the mistakes of the Companions of the Prophet - Allah bless him and grant him peace -."

Sidi Ahmad is not responsible for the death of Sayyiduna 'Ammar ibn Yassir. Mu'awiya is. Then, Mu'awiya went ahead and tried to blame Sayyiduna 'Ali (ra) of his death!

Sidi Ahmad never cursed *any* member of the Ahl al-Bayt, whom the Prophet (s) recommended that we follow (i.e. the righteous knowledgeable scholars amongst them), Mu'awiya did.

Sidi Ahmad never refused bay'a to the Imam of his time. Mu'awiya did. This alone is a *major* sin (kabira).

The list can go on and on.

[Muawiyah]

A look at basic books of 'aqidah would show that speaking against any of the companions is not the way of the Sunni. The tactic of the Habashi firqah is that they first claim that it is an Ash`ari position to ascribe fisq to those of the companions who opposed `Ali Radhi Allahu `anhu, then when this deviated firqah is shown the statements of the Aima clearing these companions of fisq they pull a "la-madhabi" routine on you and claim that it's against the primary sources. There have been whole books written by Ash`ari `ulama defending Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan Radhi Allahu Ta'ala `anhu.

So, if this firqah bases its claims on Ash`arism, we can bring the statements of the ash`ari aima to refute them and if it bases its claims on "primary evidences" we can bring primary evidences.

[Yahya]

Also I might add here, that these ahadith serve a purpose. Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim did not narrate them with the purpose of smearing the names of various Sahaba. Rather, they recognized that they have a religious obligation to warn the Muslims against ALL prohibited actions. And mentioning these ahadith serves that purpose.

[saalikulilm]

Salman:

Mu'awiya spoke ill of one of the Companions (i.e. `Ali), as narrated in Sunan ibn Majah. There is no way to interpret the wording figuratively (i.e. the Arabic language does not have a figurative meaning that fits in with the siyaq of the hadith). as-Sandi tried to say that "cursing him" actually meant "disagreed with his ijtihad", but this does not make sense as Sa'd became angry and began to quote a few hadiths in favor of `Ali. If this were all a matter of ijtihad, there would be no reason for Sa`d to be angry, much less mention hadiths that indicate that `Ali loves Allah and His Messenger. What relevance does the latter have to ijtihad, unless Mu'awiya was detracting from `Ali's status?

[Yahya]

But isn't there a difference between mentioning a mistake of a Sahabi, and harboring spite towards them? That's my point. Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim (rahimahumallah) did not harbor spite towards the Sahaba. They did not question their validity as narrators.

They narrated what was said about events involving them, including some where the Prophet :saw: said a Sahabi would be in hellfire. Clearly, in such an instance, the Sahabi in question committed a sin. However, mentioning this episode without cursing the Sahabi, nor degrading him, and recognizing that his excellence is FAR superior to ours, and acknowledging with tears the FACT that they have seen Habibullah :saw: while we could only dream of such a thing, is not necessarily what Imam Malik (rahimahullah) and the others were talking about.


Ladtly, there is a difference between what Imam Bukhari narrated and what the modern day Habashis and Ghumaris do i.e. intentionally seek out the faults of the companions to prove a point!

And, having studied a little bit with some students of al-Habashi, I can personally attest that when they mention the "faults" of some Sahaba, they do with the purpose of distinguishing, in terms of aqida, what the difference is between a prophet and a wali. They never fail to acknowledge the high status of the Sahaba, the fact that they are awliya', the fact that many of them were mujtahids, and to mention some of the karamaat associated with them. I assure you, they do not seek to disgrace the Sahaba.

Rather they bring this subject up in order to address one of the problems that we face as an Ummah nowadays. Namely, there are false Sufis out there who claim that they are protected from sin (ma'soom). In reality, this is an attribute of a prophet, and it is not attainable by a non-prophet. This is when they mention that the highest awliyaa' known in this ummah, namely the Sahaba, were not protected from sin, and they were chosen by Allah. Again, I assure you, they do not mention these sins except in a way that confirms their high status, and it is only to protect the aqidah of ahlus-sunnati wal-jamaa'a.

[saalikulilm]

brother yahya, i must disagree with you. `Abdullah al-Harari's al-Dalil al-Shar'i 'ala ithbat 'isyan man qatalahum `Ali had nothing to do with false Sufis claiming `isma. It was totally, as the title indicates, to point out that Mu'awiya was sinful in fighting `Ali, and not just mistaken in doing so.

[Omar HH]

Ustadha Aisha Beweley wrote a good book about Mu'awiyah (RA).

I love Mu'awiyah, I love Ali, and I love Hasan and Husyan (Radi Allahu 'Aynhum)

[Mujib]

As-Salamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah

The thread should be closed. We should ask these questions of scholars and then obey.

[Usman]

Love of Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) is Rahmatullah,
Bughz(Hatred) of Muawiyah (Radhi Allahu Anh) is La'anatullah.
May Allah's La'nah be upon those who have "any" kind of hatred towards Syyidina Muawiyah (Radhi Allahu Ta'ala Ahn)....... aameen

[Yahya]

brother yahya, i must disagree with you. `Abdullah al-Harari's al-Dalil al-Shar'i 'ala ithbat 'isyan man qatalahum `Ali had nothing to do with false Sufis claiming `isma. It was totally, as the title indicates, to point out that Mu'awiya was sinful in fighting `Ali, and not just mistaken in doing so.I stated in another thread that the one exception to this claim is the issue of rebellion against the Caliph. They do affirm that it was an enormous sin.

[Yahya]

And for the record, I do not hate Mu'awiyah. I recognize that he is a far better Muslim than I. I recognize that he saw Rasoolullah :saw: repeatedly, and I am left wishing for a glimpse of his face (alayhiSSalaatu wassalaam). I know of only a few of his merits, yet even those are awe-inspiring.

However, I do not exceed the bounds in my respect for him. I do not claim that he was perfect. I claim that he was a sahabi, and there is no higher designation than that for a non-prophet.

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum

Insha'Allah a detailed article is in the works regarding the Sahaba, their rank, merits, their differences etc from reliable classical sources.

Wasalam

[Yahya]

:insh: I will be awaiting that article... >smile<

But just to clarify, cuz I just noticed my last post was unclear, I DO acknowledge that there are differences in rank among the Sahaba. When I said that there is no higher designation for a non-prophet, I meant "as a group." Of course, there are sub-groups of Sahaba who are of higher rank than others.

[Taalibul ^ilm]

Having also had a relatively brief opportunity to study with some of the students of Shaykh ^Abdullaah Al-Harariyy. I found his students mentioning the issue of Amir Mu^awiyyah on I think 3 occasions. The first was when they were going through the book of Shaykh ^Abdullah on aqeedah in which he mentions that unlike the prophets, the awliyaa` are not free from committing mistakes even sinful ones and then he mentioned as an example that which took place between Imam ^Aliyy raDiyallaahu ^anhu and Amir Mu^awiyyah.
The second time was in refutation of some of the claims and statements of بغض (hatred) mentioned by ibn Taymiyyah against Imam ^Aliyy. And on this issue ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in his Minhaaj that the fighting of Imam ^Aliyy was neither an obligation nor mustaHab (recommended). I was told that Shaykh ^Abdullah wrote in refutation of ibn Taymiyyah’s statements against Imam ^Aliyy and that in this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah it implied that if the fighting done or commanded by Imam ^Aliyy was not an obligation nor was it a recommended matter that Imam ^Aliyy was playing with the blood of the Muslims, that he waged a war in which 20,000 Muslims were killed on his side alone even though there was no clear religious text to support his fighting! How would he consider waging such a war because of an issue where there is a possibility for a difference in the type of ijtihaad that even if one is mistaken there is a reward?? He also wrote in refuting those who say that it would be permissible to rebel against a righteous caliph on the basis of ijtihaad, even though there is a case of consensus (ijmaa^) prohibiting this matter. If a group of people rebelled against Sayyidinaa Abu Bakr radiyallaahu ^anhu would we say that this was a mistaken, but a rewardable ijtihaad on their part?? If a group of people said that alcohol was not haram based on an ijtihaad, would we accept this from them?? Sayyidinaa ^Umar radiyallaahu ^anhu did not accept it, even though linguistically this may be termed a sincere ijtihaad. Because even if an ijtihaad is carried out with sincerity, if it is done in a situation where there are explicit texts, then such an ijtihaad is mistaken, invalid and rejected. So yes, it might be pertaining to an issue in which two rulers make an ijtihaad and one of them is sincerely mistaken, but nevertheless in this particular situation the ijtihaad of Amir Mu^awiyyah was as Imam Abul Hassan Al-Ash^ariyy said: an ijtihaad, but that it was Khat`an, BaaTilan, Munkaran and Baghyan.
So this was the third occasion on which I heard the Habashis mention this issue of Mu^aawiyyah, i.e. when they were explaining the impermissibility of making ijtihaad when there is a religious text that explicitly mentions the judgement of something. And this probably explains their so-called “laa madh-Habi stance”. In these issues one needs to go back and follow the rules of the religion rather than getting emotional or following the mistake of another scholar.
I will also add that I heard from a student of Shaykh ^Abdullah warning the people against excessively talking about the mistakes of Amir Mu^awiyyah without a religious need and not to make it a “wirD” as some people do. I also heard from another of the students of Shaykh ^Abdullaah Al-Harariyy that those who use excessively harsh words against Amir Mu^awiyyah should not forget that after all he was a companion, may Allah have mercy upon him.
Having said all of that, I thought I had understood this whole issue that took place between the companions, but some of the threads in this forum have raised some interesting questions for me. Inshaa’Allaah I will try to ask the students of Shaykh ^Abdullaah Al-Harariyy and others and then present the answers to some of the questions that have been raised. May Allah grant us the sincere intentions.

[athari]

salaams,

It is weird to witness the double standards of some of the People of Ahl al-Tanzih.

I mean could someone tell me what Madhhab in Fiqh did the Ahmad Ghumari and his brother Abdullah al-Ghumari followed ? Because I heard they were anti-Taqlid and they were LaMadhabis. Strange isn't it. Ghumaris are supposed to be one the great Sufi Shadhilli scholars who run a zawiya in Morocco but Lamadhabis Sufis ? Something new !

Also, someone translated an article of the lamadhabi shadhilli sufi Ahmad al-Ghumari and Masud Khan has posted it "A Demonstration of Why the Wahhabis are the Khawarij" by Ahmed al-Ghumari http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/wahhabi.htm ; I wonder who translated it? Some say on the ahya forum that the translator is Ahmed ibn Muhammad or affiliated to him. Wallahu Alam. May be Abul Hasan can shed some light on it. Since he is also some how involved in this debate with Ahmed ibn Muhammad , Salafist , Karim Abdullah.

But still I don't understand that how hardcore Muqallids use an article of a Lamadhabi / anti-Taqlid sufi shadhilli and ANTI-ASHARI scholar to support their views ?

I also don't understand why Abul Hasan or other Ghumari fans failed to comment on the article posted by Salafist ( who denies any link with Abul Hasan of this forum, please give them Husn Dhann)


Inshallah let us hope that Abul Hasan comments about Ahmad al-Ghumari and Abdullah al-Ghumari and their
1. Lamadhabism
2. Anti-Asharism of Ahmad al-Ghumari
3. Defaming certain Sahaba of Prophet of Allah - salallahu alayhi wa salam -
4. Accusing certain scholars of Islam of something gross
5. Ahmad al-Ghumari refuting and exposing Zahid al-Kawthari

http://www.********************/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3181
Salafist wrote:


Assalamu alaikum

Here follows some excerpts on the disgraceful statements emanating from Ahmad al-Ghumari - the enemy of Salafiyya in his age, Muta'assib in Tasawwuf, vehemently anti-Ibn Taymeeya, anti-Muhammad Ibn Abdal Wahhab, anti-Albani, enemy to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra). This Ghumari is admired by Mr Ali Rida Qadri here but it seems that even some contemporary Asharee's like: GF Haddad have problems with this Ghumari and his brothers of which there were 7 in total, with one alive in Tangiers, Morocco. This is the school spread by the likes of the Mubtadee: Hasan Ali al-Saqqaaf of Amman!

The excerpts where mentioned by various Salafee authors, and most recently by our learned Shaykh: Khaalid al-Ansaree, hafidhahullah.
-----------------------------------------------------



Ahmad al-Ghumari the Soofee who spread Quburi based Khurafat


يقول الحسن بن علي الكتاني في معرض ترجمته للغماري في " توجيه

الأنظار " ( ص 18 ) , مانصه :

[ وهو صوفي يؤمن بالخرافات من الكرامات المزعومة , وما لايصدقه عقل مع دفاعه عن القبورية وأصحابها وسائر مراسيمها من توسل واستغاثة وسائر مظاهر الشرك .
ولذلك أكثر من الوقيعة في الأكابر أحياءً وأمواتاً ـ سامحه الله تعالى ـ .
وقال عنه العلامة تقي الدين الهلالي رحمه الله تعالى بعد أن مدحه بمحاربة التقليد :


" أما عبادة القبور والرقص واعتقاد وحدة الوجود وتقديس زنادقة الصوفية كابن عربي الحاتمي , وتعاطي الأوراد المبتدعة والاستمداد من الشيوخ والاستغاثة بهم فقد ترك كل ذلك على حاله ولم يغير منه شيئاً "
ـ انظر كتاب " الدعوة إلى الله في أقطار مختلفة " للهلالي ( ص 32

Ahmad al-Ghumari on Muhaddith al-Asr: al-Albaani


قال في إحدى رسائله التي بعث بها إلى صؤابته التليدي ؛ المسماة بـ : " در الغمام الرقيق " ( ص 191 ) , مانصه :


وناصر الدين الألباني قدم إلى دمشق وهو لا يعرف العربية , فتعلمها وأقبل على علم الحديث فأتقنه جداً جداً , وأعانه مكتبة الظاهرة المشتملة على نفائس المخطوطات في الحديث , وهو ممن رتبها بيده , حتى أني لما زرتها في العام الماضي , كان هو الذي يأتيني بما أطلبه ويعرفني بما فيها .
ولولا مذهبه وعناده , لكان من أفراد الزمان في معرفة الحديث , مع أنه لا يزال فاتحاً دكان الساعات .
وقعت لنا معه مناظرة يطول ذكرها ...

Ghumari praising the heretic Soofee al-Hallaj

الغماري يمتدح الحلاج ويدافع عنه



وذكر أيضاً في " الجواب المفيد " ( ص 51 ) , مانصه :


أما الحلاج : فكلام التنوخي المعتزلي فيه غير غريب ؛ بل الأغرب منه كلام مثل الخطيب ـ صاحب التاريخ ـ , فقد أطال فيه جداً .... وكل ذلك باطل .

والرجل كان من كبار الصوفية ؟!

ومن لايخالط كتب القوم لا يعرف مقامه .

ومن يقرأ ترجمته من " تاريخ الخطيب " يكاد يجزم بأنه دجال .

فاعرف هذا على سبيل الاختصار .

Ghumari saying Imaam ibn Taymeeya was a Nasibi (hater of Ali)

ذكر في " جؤنته " ج 2 : ل 20 ـ مخطوط ـ , مانصه :



غريبة


زعم ابن كثير تلميذ ابن تيمية الناصبي أن علياً عليه السلام لم يكن من أهل البيت ـ ذكر ذلك في تاريخه ـ , فخرق الإجماع بذلك , وبرهن على أنه إما جاهل بالحديث والفقه والأنساب ـ كما قال فيه الحافظ في " معجمه " : أنه كان حافظاً على طريقة الفقهاء لا على طريقة المحدثين !!

وإما على أنه خبيثٌ مجرم وقح كذاب , ولو كان معنا تاريخه حاضراً لنقلنا نصه وتنزلنا له , ولعلنا نعود إليه فيما بعد ذلك إن شاء الله تعالى .


Ghumari’s attack on Imaam al-Dhahabee

وذكر في 1 / ص 250 - 251 من " المداوي " , ما نصه :
هذه غلطة شنيعة من الشارح وغفلة عظيمة راج عليه معها نصب الذهبي , فهل أنت يا مناوي مجنون تعلل الحديث بجعفر الصادق أحد كبار الأئمة وسادات الأمة وبحور العلم والمعرفة من آل البيت الأطهار ؟! وتجعله في مصاف الضعفاء والمتروكين الذين يردُّ بهم الحديث .

وقال أيضاً : وهو صادق _ يعني الذهبي _ في هذا ولكنه كذاب في قصده , بل غرضه الأكيد هو جلب الطعن فيه من إخوانه النواصب , وإدراج هذا الإمام _ يعني جعفر الصادق _ في دفتر الضعفاء والمتروكين , فإنه ذكر فيه أيضاً جميع الأئمة المشاهير المتبوعين من سادات أهل البيت رضي الله عنهم ............ إلخ .


Ghumari’s vicious attack on the Way of Shaykh al-Islaam Muhammad ibn Abdal Wahhab

ذكر الغماري في " الأجوبة الصارفة " ( ص 56 ) , ما نصه :

فقد ظهر في أواخر القرن الثاني عشر في جزيرة العرب قرن الشيطان النجدي , ونشر مذهبه الخارجي , وكفر المسلمين , وعاث في الأرض فساداً , ونهب وسفك الدم الحرام , وهتك حرمات الحرمين الشريفين , إلى أن كان تطهيرها منه على يد العجم حكام مصر الأتراك , ثم أعادوا الكرة في هذه المائة وعاثوا فساداً , وسفكوا الدماء , وأهانوا الحرمين الشريفين , وملؤوها فسقاً وفجوراً كما هو معروف من سيرتهم , ولا يزالون بالحجاز ـ طهره الله منهم ـ .

وقد ذكر محقق الكتاب ـ ( عدنان زُهّار ) في الحاشية , مانصه :

قد كان حصل هذا على أيدي الوهابية , وهذا الذي ذكره المؤلف رحمه الله بعض من كثر أنواع الفساد الذي جاهد له بعض دعاة السلفية في بلاد الحجاز , ولسنا نتهم بالخيانة والإفساد .. محمد بن عبد الوهاب لأننا نعتقد أنه ممن كذب عليه ونسب إليه مالم يقل وما لم يفعل , وإن كنا نرى أنه ممن أفرط في حركته الإصلاحية بهدم قبور أضرحة الصحابة والتابعين وأولياء هذه الأمة .

- وذكر الغماري أيضاً في " الزواجر المقلقة " ( ص 55 ) , ما نصه :

أما بعد , فإن بعض الجهلة البلداء ممن ينتمي إلى مذهب القرنيين الخوارج ....... إلخ

وقد ذكر محقق الكتاب وهو أيضاً ( عدنان زُهّار ) في الحاشية , مانصه :

عادة ما كان المؤلف ينعت بعض خصومه بالقرنيين والخوارج , إشارة بالأولى إلى حديث ابن عمر قال : " استند النبي إلى حجرة عائشة فقال : " إن الفتنة هاهنا , إن الفتنة هاهنا من حيث يطلع قرن الشيطان " وزاد بعضهم : وهو مستقبل المشرق , وفي رواية , قال الرسول : " اللهم بارك لنا في شامنا وفي يمننا , قالوا وفي نجد , قال منها يطلع قرن الشيطان " , وغيرها من الأحاديث , وكان يرى أن محمد بن عبدالوهاب النجدي ومن تبعه هو المقصود بقرن الشيطان , فسماهم قرنيين , وأشار بالخوارج إلى كون هؤلاء من أكثر الناس استباحة لتكفير المسلمين بأدنى ذنب أو حتى شبهة , وهو ما عرف عن الخوارج الذين كفروا حتى علياً عليه السلام , ومذهب القرنيين لا زال إلى اليوم يحكم على أغلب الأمة بالكفر والفسق والشرك , وأخفهم حكماً من يبدع السواد الأعظم من المسلمين , والله حسبنا ونعم الوكيل .


Ghumari saying Muawiya drank Wine:

ذكر في " الجؤنة " ( ص 2 ـ طريفة 2 ) , مانصه :

دليل على شرب معاوية للخمر :

قال أحمد في " مسنده " : حدثنا زيد بن الحُباب , حدثني حسين , ثنا عبدالله بن بريدة , قال :

دخلت أنا وأبي على معاوية فأجلسنا على الفرش ثم أتينا بالطعام فأكلنا , ثم أتينا بالشراب ؛ فشرب معاوية , ثم ناول أبي , ثم قال : ما شربته منذ حرّمه رسول .

قلت ـ الغماري ـ : في هذا دليل على أن معاوية كان يشرب الخمر , لأنه من بيت كان يشربه في الجاهلية , فقد كان والده أبوسفيان شريباً للخمر , وأخباره في ذلك كثيرة .. وقوله ما شربته منذ حرمه رسول الله تعليل مكشوف , فإنه إذا لم يستطع الصبر عنه حتى بمحضر الناس الذين يستتر منهم خوف الفضيحة والعار وإشاعته بين الناس , فكيف يتركه قبل ذلك ؟
ولا يخفى ما في قوله منذ حرمه رسول الله من النكتة التي يعرض بها ؛ إذ لم يقل منذ حرمه الله تعالى .


Ahmad al-Ghumari on the state of Muawiya's Grave:

وذكر أيضاً في " الجؤنة " ( ص 9 _ لطيفة 8 ) , ما نصه :

حالة معاوية في قبره :

لما ملك بنو العباس كانوا يحفرون قبور بني أمية , ويخرجون منها عظامهم وأجسامهم فيحرقونها ؛ فحفروا قبر معاوية فلم يجدوا فيه إلا خيطاً أسود كالهباء , وما ظهر أحد من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله تعالى عليه وآله وسلم ورضي عنهم , من قبره إلا وجد كما هو يوم مات , بل وكذلك الصالحون من أمة النبي إلى وقتنا هذا , فإن الأرض لا تأكل أجساد الأنبياء كما في الحديث الصحيح ولا ورثتهم من العلماء العاملين , وهم العلماء بالله والعارفون بجلاله وإن كانوا أميين لا يقرأون ولا يكتبون , كما أن الفجرة خلفاء إبليس ولو جمعوا علم الأولين والآخرين .

More attacks on Muawiya (ra):

في رسائله مع تلميذه بوخبزة، المطبوعة باسم "الجواب المفيد للسائل المستفيد"، بعناية الشيخ: بدر العمراني، ط1، 1423 دار الكتب العلمية، بيروت، فإنها تجلي حقيقة الرجل ومعتقداته وأخلاقه:

* قال (ص30) عن معاوية رضي الله عنه: "هو كذاب، كذب على هذا الحديث [يعني الطائفة المنصورة] في أول الأمة، كما كذب عليه التجاني في آخرها".
ثم طوّل (ص56-60) في الطعن على معاوية رضي الله عنه، وقال إن معاوية بناء على ما أورده (ص59): "يطلع منه أنه منافق كافر"!! عامله الله بما يستحق!
وانظر تشيعه (ص83) عند كلامه على نهج البلاغة لابن أبي الحديد.

Ahmad al-Ghumari praising the Sufi: Muhiuddin ibn Arabi as Shaykh al-Akbar:

وذكر أيضاً في " الجؤنة " ( ص 29 ـ 30 / طريفة 47 ) , ما نصه :

ـ تفسير الشيخ الأكبر لقوله تعالى : وإذا سألك عبادي عني فإني قريب :

ذكر الشيخ الأكبر في " الفتوحات " ـ في معنى قوله تعالى : وإذا سألك عبادي عني فإني قريب أجيب دعوة الدعي إذا دعاني :

أن الله تعالى أخبرفي هذه الآية بأنه يجيب دعوة الداعي , ومعنى الإجابة لغة وعرفاً تلبية النداء بالقول , وإسماع المنادي أنك لبيته بقولك : لبيك أو ما يقوم مقامها بحسب اللغات والأعراف .
فالحق سبحانه وتعالى مع عباده كذلك يخبر أنه جار معهم على ماهو الجاري بينهم وأن العبد إذا دعاه فقال : يارب ... أجابه سبحانه في الحال بقوله : لبيك عبدي ... فهذا معنى الآية وعليه تدل مطابقة ...
أما كونه يعطي السؤال بذلك النداء , فلا تعرض للآية فيه لأنه تعالى لم يقل : أجيب دعوة الداعي وأعطيه ما سأل ... ومن هنا دخل الغلط على الناس فاستشكلوا كونهم يدعون فلا يعطون أحياناً , مع أنه تعالى يقول : أجيب دعوة الداعي إذا دعاني ...

هذا مضمن كلام الشيخ , وقد أمليت عليه جزء أول دخولي إلى المعتقل , ولعلي أنشط بعد هذا , فنذكره بتمامه ...


Ghumari on Ibn Abi Dawud, Muawiya (ra), Samura ibn Jundub (ra) etc:

وذكر في " الجؤنة " أيضاً ( ص 33 ـ طريفة 53 ) , ما نصه :

ـ تحريف النواصب للأحاديث الواردة في مخازي بني أمية :

روى أبوسعيد الخدري , عن النبي , أنه قال : ( إذا رأيتم معاوية على منبري فاقتلوه ... ) , فقامت قيامة النواصب وشرعوا في الاحتيال لرد هذا الحديث كما فعلوا في غيره , فادعى بعضهم أنه محرّف وأن صوابه ( فاقبلوه ) ـ بالباء الموحدة ـ !
وأما أبوبكر بن أبي داود فأقره على روايته ـ بالتاء المثناة من فوق , ولكنه قال : هذا معاوية بن تابوه رأس المنافقين , حلف أن يتغوط فوق المنبر !! .

( قال الغماري ) : وأشهد بالله إن هذا لكذب من ابن أبي داود , فإنه كان مشهوراً بالنصب وبالكذب معاً .
وقد كان والده أبوداود صاحب السنن يكذبه ويحذر أصحاب الحديث منه , ويقول لهم : : إن ابني كذاب فلا ترووا عنه " .
وهو الذي زعم قبحه الله , أن علياً ـ عليه السلام ـ حفيت أظفاره من كثرة التسلق على أزواج النبي !!
وهكذا فعلوا في الحديث المخرج في " مسند أحمد " : سمع النبي عمراً ومعاوية يتغنيان , فقال : ( اللهم اركسهما في الفتنة ركساً , ودعهما في النار دعاً ) , فقالوا : هاذان عمرو ومعاوية آخران لا معاوية بن أبي سفيان وعمرو بن العاص .
وكذلك فعلو في أخبار النبي : ( ان سمرة بن جندب في النار ) , فلفقوا أنه كان يحرك قدراً فسقط فيها فمات في النار !!
ولما رأى آخرون أن هذا غير معقول , لأن سمرة رجل لا ذبابة , رووا أنه كان يصطلي بنار فاحترق فمات ؛ مع أن سمرة كان من أعداء آل البيت ومن أنصار بني أمية , وولي ولايات لمعاوية ويزيد , وسفك دماء كثيرة ظلماً وعدواناً ...
قال عامر بن أبي عامر : كنا في مجلس يونس بن عبيد في أصحاب الخز , فقالوا : ما في الأرض بقعة نشفت من الدم , ما نشفت هذه البقعة ـ يعنون دار الإمارة ـ , قتل بها سبعون ألفاً , فجاء يونس بن عبيد , فقلت : إنهم يقولون كذا وكذا , فقال : نعم , من بين قتيل وقطيع , قيل له : ومن فعل ذلك يا أباعبدالله ؟ قال : زياد , وابنه عبيدالله , وسمرة ! .
وقال الذهبي : قتل سمرة بشراً كثيراً .

قال ( الغماري ) : فهل من صنع هذا , يكون قوله : ( آخركم موتاً في النار ) لجماعة ماتوا كلهم , وتأخُرْ سمرة إنما أراد به أنه سيحترق في الدنيا , أو يقع في قدر فيموت !!؟
وقد أخبر الله تعالى أن من قتل مؤمناً واحداً متعمداً فجزاؤه جهنم خالداً فيها , فكيف بمن قتل الآلاف , إن هذا لعجب عجاب !! .


Ahmad Ghumari and Wahdatul Wujud:

وذكر في " الجؤنة " ( ص 39 ـ طريفة 64 ) , مانصه :

ـ فإنّ القو ما قال والدي :

لما كنت بالقاهرة , ورد عليها رجل من بعض كبار مشايخي , ونزل ضيفاً عليّ , فاستدعاني بعض العلماء المتصوفة لتناول طعام الإفطار عنده في رمضان , فلما كنا بمنزله في جماعة من أصحابي , سألني عن ( وحدة الوجود ) ؟ وقال لي : " أحب أن أعرف رأيك فيها ؟ وكيف يمكن إثباتها ؟
فقبل أن أتكلم ؛ بادرني الرجل , وقال : إنّ والدي , قال : لا يتكلم في وحدة الوجود إلا كبار العارفين !!
فقلت : نعم , ولكن نحن لا نريد الكلام في حقيقتها التي لا تفهم إلا بالذوق , ولكن في كيفية إثباتها, وأن المتكلمين فيها على حقّ ...
فقال : هو ما أقول لك , إنّ والدي منع من الكلام فيها , فإما أنْ تسكت , وإما أنْ أقوم !!!
فسكتُّ مراعاة لضيفي ...

Ahmad Ghumari's attack on Imaam al-Dhahabee and Imaam ibn Katheer:

وذكر في " جؤنته " أيضاً ( ص 27 ـ 28 ) , مانصه :

ـ النواصب يبطلون حديث الطير المتواتر :

يكاد النواصب من الحفاظ تتفق كلمتهم على بطلان حديث الطير , بل بالغوا حتى جعلوه علامة على ضعف الراوي , فكل من رواه جرحوه بروايته , وكذلك فعل الذهبي في " الميزان " , الذي ظهر فيه نصبه بأجلى معانيه , ولكنه مال إلى الإعتدال في " تاريخ الإسلام " , فذكر الحديث , ثم قال : ( وله طرق كثيرة عن أنس متكلم فيها , وبعضها على شرط السنن , من أجودها حديث قطن بن نسير شيخ مسلم يعني في " الصحيح " : ثنا جعفر بن سليمان , ثنا عبدالله بن المثنى , عن عبدالله بن أنس بن مالك , عن أنس قال : أهدي إلى رسول الله حجل مشوي , فقال : " اللهم ائتني بأحب خلقك إليك يأكله معي , فجاء علي فأكله معه " .
فهذا سند على شرط الصحيح وإن أنف الذهبي من التصريح بذلك فعدل إلى قوله جيد , وهو مرادف للصحيح في اصطلاحهم ...
وبعد , فإذا لم يكن حديث الطير صحيحاً ؛ فلا يصح في الدنيا حديث البتة , ولا يقع تواتر بخبر بالمرة .
فقد رواه عن أنس ( سبعة وتسعون راوياً ) مائة إلا ثلاثة بأعدادها مضاعفة من الطرق عنهم , وورد مع ذلك عن جماعة من الصحابة منهم ( علي ـ نفسه ـ , وعائشة , وابن عباس ) وتمام سبعة من الصحابة فيما يحضرني الآن , بحيث أفرد طرقه الإمام محمد بن جرير الطبري في مجلد ضخم , ومن بعده جماعة منهم الحافظ ابن القا الذي أملى مجلساً فيه ببغداد فقاموا إليه وأخرجوه من المسجد وغسلوا الكرسي الذي كان يملي عليه بالماء .
ولما وقف الباقلاني شيخ الأشعرية والنواصب في عصره على المجلد الذي جمعه ابن جرير في طرق هذا الحديث ؛ رد على ابن جرير بعقله , وأبطل الحديث بكاسد رأيه وفاسد نصبه ... فإلى هذا الحد بلغ تعصب النواصب على عليّ ـ عليه السلام ـ ...
والمقصود اعتراف الذهبي بصحة الحديث مع أنه جمع هو أيضاً طرقه في جزء , وضعف جميع تلك الطرق , لكن يحكي هذا ابن كثير في " تاريخه " ؛ وابن كثير جربنا عليه الكذب في هذا الباب .
أما نحن فلم نقف على الجزء المذكور , نعم ذكره الذهبي في أزيد من عشرين ترجمة من " الميزان " , وضعف جميعها بل ضعف أولئك الرواة لمجرد رواية هذا الحديث , ومع ذلك فلا نصدق ابن كثير فإنه كذاب ...

[Ibn_Abi_Yala]

Wasalam

al-Salam,

Do you know who's the earliest scholars who - reportedly - made this claim originally on Samurah b. Jundub, radiallahu'anhu?

wa-Salam.

[salman]

al-Salam,

Do you know who's the earliest scholars who - reportedly - made this claim originally on Samurah b. Jundub, radiallahu'anhu?

wa-Salam.

Salamu Alaikum

No, I do not - Alhamdulilah!

[faqir]

salaams,

It is weird to witness the double standards of some of the People of Ahl al-Tanzih.

I mean could someone tell me what Madhhab in Fiqh did the Ahmad Ghumari and his brother Abdullah al-Ghumari followed ? Because I heard they were anti-Taqlid and they were LaMadhabis. Strange isn't it. Ghumaris are supposed to be one the great Sufi Shadhilli scholars who run a zawiya in Morocco but Lamadhabis Sufis ? Something new !

Also, someone translated an article of the lamadhabi shadhilli sufi Ahmad al-Ghumari and Masud Khan has posted it "A Demonstration of Why the Wahhabis are the Khawarij" by Ahmed al-Ghumari http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/wahhabi.htm ; I wonder who translated it? Some say on the ahya forum that the translator is Ahmed ibn Muhammad or affiliated to him. Wallahu Alam. May be Abul Hasan can shed some light on it. Since he is also some how involved in this debate with Ahmed ibn Muhammad , Salafist , Karim Abdullah.

But still I don't understand that how hardcore Muqallids use an article of a Lamadhabi / anti-Taqlid sufi shadhilli and ANTI-ASHARI scholar to support their views ?

I also don't understand why Abul Hasan or other Ghumari fans failed to comment on the article posted by Salafist ( who denies any link with Abul Hasan of this forum, please give them Husn Dhann)


Inshallah let us hope that Abul Hasan comments about Ahmad al-Ghumari and Abdullah al-Ghumari and their
1. Lamadhabism
2. Anti-Asharism of Ahmad al-Ghumari
3. Defaming certain Sahaba of Prophet of Allah - salallahu alayhi wa salam -
4. Accusing certain scholars of Islam of something gross
5. Ahmad al-Ghumari refuting and exposing Zahid al-Kawthari

http://www.********************/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3181
Salafist wrote:


^ cheap point scoring tactics me thinks! :$

Maybe Sidi Mas'ud Ahmad Khan is employing the principle employed by [some of] the Salafis of "taking the good and leaving the bad" :lol:

A fair analysis of the Ghumari brothers by Sh. G.F. Haddad can be found here:

http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/f/Shaykh%20Al-Ghumari.htm

.

[Abul Hasan]

Assalam ala man ittiba al Huda



salaams,


It is weird to witness the double standards of some of the People of Ahl al-Tanzih.

In Aqeeda or fiqh or what? You say you are Hanafi so it seems you are anti-Ash’ari/Maturidi?


I mean could someone tell me what Madhhab in Fiqh did the Ahmad Ghumari and his brother Abdullah al-Ghumari followed ? Because I heard they were anti-Taqlid and they were LaMadhabis. Strange isn't it. Ghumaris are supposed to be one the great Sufi Shadhilli scholars who run a zawiya in Morocco but Lamadhabis Sufis ? Something new !

Ask their students who are alive, like: Ahmad Darwish, Muhammad Ninowy, Hasan Saqqaf, Muhammad Bu Khubza, al-Talidi and others. I know that Sayyid Abdullah al-Ghumari wrote a Sharh on a Maliki text, but I have never read he was anti-Taqleed or anti-Ash’ari or ever maligned the Sahaba – if you know otherwise then quote a source.

I can't answer what I don't know, especially since I have never met any of the Ghumariyun. Today, one of the brothers is alive, and he is Sayyid Hasan al-Ghumari, who used to live in Brussels and now i think he is in Tangiers. I know for a fact that Dr Ninowy and Muhammad Umar Budally know him and took from him - so if you want the truth then ask them and that is very easy to do - as they have a yahoo group devoted to the Ghumari's - so go ask them if you are sincere.


Also, someone translated an article of the lamadhabi shadhilli sufi Ahmad al-Ghumari and Masud Khan has posted it "A Demonstration of Why the Wahhabis are the Khawarij" by Ahmed al-Ghumari http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/wahhabi.htm ; I wonder who translated it? Some say on the ahya forum that the translator is Ahmed ibn Muhammad or affiliated to him. Wallahu Alam. May be Abul Hasan can shed some light on it. Since he is also some how involved in this debate with Ahmed ibn Muhammad , Salafist , Karim Abdullah.

But still I don't understand that how hardcore Muqallids use an article of a Lamadhabi / anti-Taqlid sufi shadhilli and ANTI-ASHARI scholar to support their views ?
Well, once again this is conjecture from a person who claims to be Hanafi fiqh and is it Athari in aqeeda? Why do you mock these “hardcore Muqallids.” You say you are “Hanafi” so if you are not a Muqallid then what are you when it comes to being linked to the Ahnaf?

May I ask in diametric language: Why do the anti-Madhhabi/claimants to the Salaf of this time – criticise the Aqeeda of Imam ibn Hajar al Asqalani and Imam al-Nawawi – but then on many other occasions they quote things from them in their books today when it suits them?! Same applies with Ibn al-Jawzi – who spread Ta’wil of the Sifat in his books but I never saw a single “Salafi” scholar call him an outright Jahmi, rather we see them quote from his books when it suits there need! Who is showing double standards here?!

Why hide your name if you are on the Haqq? Masud Khan is accessible via email on his website - so it is very easy to ask him who translated that article from the pen of Ahmad al-Ghumari - will you do that if you are sincere and want the Haqq? And what is this baseless allegation on my name that I am “some how involved in this debate with Ahmed ibn Muhammad, Salafist, Karim Abdullah" – Wallahi, i don't know these people you named, nor met them and so what is your proof O claimant to this kalam?

Strange thing is that these so called Athariyya of this age seem to have nothing better to do in life than spreading rumours without much concrete evidence – this I mentioned recently when another Salafi claimant calling himself Zulfiqaar Ali made some outright bogus claims about me and Dr GF Haddad on the issue of talking about “exchanging Ijazat” – then he fled from my challenge to bring his proof if he was telling the truth. I am still awaiting his proof – and I promise this – if he can bring forward his witnesses who claimed what they claimed – then I call them to a Mubahala - in front of Allah and anyone from the Insan and Jinn-kind to see who the liars really are!

You say you are Athari by name – then bring forward the Athar to establish this claim with a sahih Muttasil sanad, I mean the one about me involved with those 3 names above. Bring it forward if you are sincere for all to see. Indeed, thus far all I have seen from you is how virulent the innuendo and impudence your claims contain - as emanating from your pen in the very few posts that have been put up by you today on this forum.

If you are sincere you can email me via the brother’s forum and I am willing to give you my telephone number to discuss matters that you claim you are failing to get answers for. Are you sincere for that? Answer with a simple yes or no... I wish to also know if you post at ah-ya.org – and if so what is your screen-name there. I asked the same to another “Athari”, known here as: Abu Taymiyya – but he failed on that simple request also.

About Ahmad al-Ghumari, i knew of these types of allegations surrounding him back in the mid 90’s, when a good friend of mine had a biography on him by his student who is still alive by the name of: Abdullah al-Talidi. This man is alive and I know for a fact that he is a friend to Dr Ninowy. I hear that al-Talidi considers himself to be the successor of Ahmad al-Ghumari.

How do I know some of this one may ask? I asked him. So read what I have from him via email in another post below Insha’allah. I don’t doubt that Sayyid Ahmad was controversial but there are few Hadith scholars today who would deny that he lacked mastery of Hadith. I am not a promulgator of the teachings of Sayyid Ahmad. Note also, that not all the Ghumari brothers were the same in every issue, and I know for a fact that one of their own brothers: who was their half-brother: Ahmad al-Zamzami who debated al-Albani in the 1970’s in Tanja and apparently defeated him turned against Tassawuf and other things in his last years.

Are you aware that Sayyid Ahmad edited a book on Maliki fiqh that is in print now by the title:


مسالك الدلالة في شرح مسائل الرسالة في فقه الإمام مالك

So was he totally anti-Madhhabi or did he know enough of Maliki fiqh to write such a book? Ask his students what Sayyid Ahmad’s last position on Taqleed was. May be he thought himself to be a Mujtahid fil Madhhab?! It appears to be so from the way some of his defenders talk about him.

Do you know this fact: I saw Sayyid Ahmad’s tahqeeq to Musnad al-Quda’i known as:


فتح الوهاب بتخريج أحاديث الشهاب

recently and do you know who edited it? Of all people I saw the name of one of al-Albani’s eldest surviving students from Iraq by the name of Hamdi Abdal Majeed “al-Salafi” being its editor! So why did this “Salafi” edit this work of Ahmad al-Ghumari? Oddly enough, this Hamdi was refuted alongside his Shaykh: al-Albani, by Sayyid Abdullah al-Ghumari – on the issue of a narration connected to Tawassul.

Listen a bit more: Do you know who published and edited the attack by Ahmad al-Ghumari on al-Kawthari? It was none other than another student of al-Albani’s known as: Ali Hasan al-Halabi! A man who these days is accused of lying and plagiarising and not to mention even this very week I saw someone say that a clarification from a “Salafi” kingpin in Saudi: Salih al-Fawzan said that al-Halabi lied against him! So why do these pseudo-Salafi’s edit and print the works of Ahmad al-Ghumari if they are at the same time his enemies? What are these double dealing games they are playing? Or is it that they agree he had some knowledge of Hadith and his attack on al-Kawthari was 100% Sahih?!





I also don't understand why Abul Hasan or other Ghumari fans failed to comment on the article posted by Salafist ( who denies any link with Abul Hasan of this forum, please give them Husn Dhann)


Inshallah let us hope that Abul Hasan comments about Ahmad al-Ghumari and Abdullah al-Ghumari and their
1. Lamadhabism
2. Anti-Asharism of Ahmad al-Ghumari
3. Defaming certain Sahaba of Prophet of Allah - salallahu alayhi wa salam -
4. Accusing certain scholars of Islam of something gross
5. Ahmad al-Ghumari refuting and exposing Zahid al-Kawthari

http://www.********************/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3181
Salafist wrote:

Now your words seem to imply that I am personally a “fan” of Ahmad al-Ghumari. Tell me, why is it that I am named specifically and not the real admirers of these Sayyids, like: Dr. Ninowy and his compatriots in the UK and elsewhere? What are you trying to stir up if you are sincere?

I don’t know how long you have been visiting here, but recently I posted something in reply to AR Qadri from Karachi which answers much of what you are alluding at. Since you also brought up this issue of defaming the Sahaba, then may be you care to tell us what your position is on Ibn Taymiyya being attributed by one of his associates; the Hanbali Usuli: al-Tufi (d. 716 AH). Let me quote what Shaykh al-Islam ibn Hajar al-Asqalani mentioned from al-Tufi without him saying that al-Tufi spread “lies or distortions”, let alone deny that Ibn Taymiyya said these things about certain Sahaba. The claim that ibn Taymiyya attacked some of the Sahaba is also re-iterated by Shaykh ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his Fatawa al-Hadithiyya al-Kubra. Al-Haytami was the direct student of Shaykh Zakariyya al-Ansari – who was in turn the student of al-Hafiz ibn Hajar.

Ibn Hajar in Durar al-Kamina quoting al-Tufi mentioned (trans. By GF Haddad):




He became convinced that he was a scholar capable of independent reasoning (mujtahid). Henceforth he began to answer each and every scholar great and small, past and recent, until he went all the way back to `Umar (r) and faulted him in some matter. This reached the ears of the Shaykh Ibrahim al-Raqi who reprimanded him. Ibn Taymiyya went to see him, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. He also spoke against `Ali (r) and said: "He made mistakes in seventeen different matters."... Because of his fanatic support of the Hanbali school he would attack Ash'aris until he started to insult al-Ghazzali, at which point some people opposed him and would almost kill him.... They ascertained that he had blurted out certain words, concerning doctrine, which came out of his mouth in the context of his sermons and legal pronouncements, and they mentioned that he had cited the tradition of Allah's descent (to the nearest heaven), then climbed down two steps from the minbar and said: "Just like this descent of mine" and so was categorized as an anthropomorphist. They also cited his refutation of whoever uses the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- as a means or seeks help from him (aw istaghatha).... People were divided into parties because of him. Some considered him an anthropomorphist because of what he mentioned in al-`Aqida al-Hamawiyya and al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya and other books of his, to the effect that the hand, foot, shin, and face are litteral attributes of Allah and that He is established upon the Throne with His Essence. It was said to him that were this the case He would necessarily be subject to spatial confinement (al-tahayyuz) and divisibility (al-inqisam). He replied: "I do not concede that spatial confinement and divisibility are (necessarily) properties of bodies," whereupon it was adduced against him (ulzima) that he held Allah's Essence to be subject to spatial confinement. Others considered him a heretic (zindiq) due to his saying that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- is not to be sought for help and the fact that this amounted to diminishing and impeding the establishing of the greatness of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- .... Others considered him a dissimulator (munafiq) because of what he said about `Ali:... namely, that he had been forsaken everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the caliphate and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that "he loved authority while `Uthman loved money." He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while `Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy's Islam is not considered sound upon his mere word.... In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet's -- Allah bless and greet him -- saying (to `Ali): "None but a hypocrite has hatred for you."


May be an “Athari” cares to mention what al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said in his Lisan al-Mizan about ibn Taymiyya and Hadrat Ali (ra) – under the biography of the Rafidi: al-Hilli.

So how do the admirers of ibn Taymiyya clear his name from these horrendous attacks on the cream of the Sahaba?! The usual diversion tactic I’ve seen in the past from his sympathizers is to quote him praising the Sahaba from some of his works. Then others may say that Durar al-Kamina has been tampered with, or even that al-Tufi wasn’t saying this directly but summarizing the allegations raised by the detractors of ibn Taymiyya! What does that mean? Let them bring their proof for these types of claims. These attacks by ibn Taymiyya are not in his writings that have reached us, but appear to be verbal outbursts by him – so why do those caught defending one shown to be a slanderer of some Sahaba fudge and fumble?! I never saw Imam ibn Hajar deny that ibn Taymiyya slandered the Sahaba after he quoted al-Tufi – whom he considered trustworthy enough to substantiate these claims against ibn Taymiyya!

It is easy for them to talk about some of today’s contemporaries attacking some Sahaba like Mu’awiya (ra) – but then when cornered they turn a blind eye with every excuse under the sun they can churn out to save their hero, their father in the misinterpretation of Tawheed and anti-Ash’ari claims – Ibn Taymiyya al-Harrani!

Will they also use the same principle to some of the Thiqa narrators of Hadith who are on record as slandering some of the Sahaba? Can you tell us O claimants to the Salaf - if al-Hafiz Abdar Razzaq al-San’ani did not say something derogatory about Mu’awiya, or how about Imam al-Bukhari’s Shaykh: Ali ibn al Ja’d?! Or will you fumble and then bring in Mustalah al-Hadith to justify the real reason why some of those who had innovatory beliefs or even slandered some of the Sahaba – from the early Salaf – still had a number of their narrations retained in the famous books of Hadith?! These claimants to the Salaf lack direction and lack real scope to claim to be on the manhaj of al-Salaf.


Do not misinterpret or misrepresent us: We believe the Sahaba are all adul, Thiqa and we love them and honour them all. Allah is the one who will judge them, not us. These types of summaries are in works like Aqeeda al-Tahawiyya.


This is what I said in response to AR Qadri:



Continuing on the last name, let it be known to the bare faced liars amongst the Asaghir who visit this forum that I do not acknowledge or personally endorse the views of anyone who contradicts soundly established fundamentals in aqeeda, be it from: Abdullah al-Habashi, M.S.R. al-Bouti, Hasan al-Saqqaf, Hisham Kabbani, GF Haddad, Nuh Keller, Hamza Yusuf or before them all: Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, Ahmad al-Ghumari etc etc. These are recent contemporaries and are not our major Imams in aqeeda, and they are men who can make mistakes and may hold Shadh views that we need not follow, endorse, let alone acknowledge. Patently, we do not recognise them as Imams whose words establish the Hujja of a creedal doctrine on us. Rather, those named usually quote those before them in their personal aqa’id.

Out of the names listed above, by far the most controversial was Ahmad al-Ghumari – and this is someone that AR Qadri from Karachi admires and holds in high esteem! It is his like who also spread the news that al-Ghumari refuted al-Kawthari, and then Ali Hasan al-Halabi (a thief and plagiarist according to some pseudo-Salafiyya) went ahead and printed the work of al-Ghumari! As for Hasan al-Saqqaf, most Sunni’s have stayed clear of him for over 10 years now, including Shaykh Nuh Keller who told me this himself back in 1994. Al-Saqqaf is closer to the teachings of Ahmad al-Ghumari than AR Qadri would like to admit!

What these people who rejoice all to hastily forgot or didn’t realise to mention was that Abdullah al-Talidi from Tangiers, Morocco, who is from the main students of Ahmad al-Ghumari mentioned that al-Ghumari took back his work against al-Kawthari (as mentioned by Shaykh Muhammad Rashid in his compilation of the Thabat in Hadith of his late Shaykh Abdal Fattah Abu Ghudda, directly from al-Talidi)! So let the reader see the games that AR Qadri plays when it comes to the likes of al-Ghumari, his aqeeda and his very vitriolic attacks on Ibn Taymiyya and the Wahhabiyya! If AR Qadri wants to use another tactic that al-Ghumari renounced his attacks on ibn Taymiyya – then let him prove it, as another one of his students known as Bu Khubza from Morocco has also affirmed what we have said in brief regarding Ahmad al-Ghumari. Let the Asaghir dare ask AR Qadri why he hides all this in his esteem for al-Ghumari!

Where the Haqq is found, that should be the priority. The Haqq is known by the soundness of its evidence and its detailed explanation by the Imams of Huda whose status is esteemed and uncontroversial to the bulk of the major Ulama. Our major Imams are from the earlier part of Islamic history, and there remnants in status, knowledge or similar rank have appeared amongst the Mujaddidin, Mufassirin, Muhaddithin and Fuqaha via the centuries, as Allah has willed. The Ta’ifatul Mansura is a reality, and it’s the group known as al-Sawad al-A’zam in other Ahadith. This group and its men are known and their aqeeda is closest to the way of the Qur’an and Sunna. Those who lack Muttasil Asanid back to these higher authorities are not genuine defenders of sound Islamic creed, but are usually the exponents of batil and on other occasions they mix the Haqq with Batil to spread their claims further to the unwitting masses.

Our aqeeda is not something that is new or formulated afresh - but it is what has reached us from al-Salaf al-Salih via Mutawatir and Muttasil Asanid. We need not make Taqleed in aqeeda like the Asaghir do in many positions fanatically from the likes of ibn Taymiyya. The Asaghir claim the way of the Salaf, but in many issues they contradict the Salaf and it is rare to find one amongst them who took aqeeda with a Sanad back to the Aimmatus-Salaf. Even the likes of al-Albani had little authority when it came to possessing the Isnad like the great Ulama of the past did. The Asaghir today are mere parrot fashioned callers to the findings of their so called Kibar Ulama like: Ibn Baz, ibn Uthaymin, al-Albani et al... In Aqeeda, fiqh and even the grading of Ahadith into sound and false... They are the worst example of Taqleed, something they warn most people to avoid. With them, this maxim holds most true:

"Do as I say not as I do!"

Take note O Asaghir, that the Shaykh who gave al-Albani an Ijaza Aama (a general Ijaza for the sake of Baraka alone) was Shaykh Muhammad Raghib al-Tabbakh al-Halabi. O Asaghir - do you know who he was? Have you seen his Thabat in Hadith and what he transmitted? He was Hanafi in Madhhab, Ash'ari in Aqeeda according to his surviving student from Halab: Dr Ibrahim al-Salqini, as Allah is my witness. Shaykh Raghib al-Tabbakh was a friend to your enemy: Shaykh al-Kawthari. The latter wrote a brief and praiseworthy article on the death of Shaykh al-Tabbakh in his Maqalat. Shaykh Raghib called Shaykh al-Kawthari: "Al-Alim al-Fadil" in his notes to Hafiz al-Iraqi's Sharh on ibn al Salah's Muqaddima. Shaykh Raghib's true successors are his late student, the fellow Halabi: Abdal Fattah Abu Ghudda (d. 1997) and the currently alive: Dr Nurud-Din Itr al-Halabi then Dimashqi. These men are also Hanafi and have no problem with the way of Asha'ira and Maturidiyya. Hence, when these Asaghir attack, they should not forget that there own "Muhaddith al-Asr" also took from a Hanafi/Ash'ari!

AR Qadri based was also devastatingly humiliated when his own Imam: Ahmad al-Ghumari and his aqeeda and manhaj were shown up as indicated above. This individual also failed to respond adequately when Shaykh Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut was attacked by a pseudo-Salafi called: Khalid al-Shaya from Riyadh. Most surprisingly, his pseudo-Salafi associates at the forum he posts at (and who visit here and post crass comments after departing from here) failed to challenge the Karachi based one on the allegations that Shaykh Shu’ayb made Ta’wil on the Sifat narrations! Now, if it weren't for one calling himself "Salafist" - I wouldn't have hesitated to label them all with hypocrisy for their shrieking silence on this affair alone! Hiding the truth is their manhaj and shouting with snipped quotes is their way today. May Allah save us from their Fitna and guide them to their senses, for they are also notorious for attacking each other with slanderous slurs and refutations, to the extent of physical fisticuffs on the streets and Masjids of all places.

So, what “Salafist” – who said on oath that he, is not me (nor am I him as some lying souls claimed) and claimed to be known in reality as: Abu Adam Sadiq posted about Ahmad al-Ghumari is for AR Qadri specifically to answer point by point. The fact is: AR Qadri has admitted in the past that he is an admirer of Ahmad al-Ghumari – so why is it that I did not see him explain himself and how he explains all these Arabic quotes posted by “Salafist” from one “Khalid al-Ansari” and his findings?!

Why is it that the folk who suck upto AR Qadri did not come to his absolute defence on this Ghumari issue, or even come out and attack him personally on the fact that it is he (al-Qadri) who is most connected to Ahmad al-Ghumari more than anyone else at that site of Fitna known as ah-ya.org! The fracas and farce that has become known as ah-ya is to me a site of Ahwa and Amwat in knowledge, adab, akhlaq, tadlis, ta’assub and the list goes on. Are you aware that Ah-ya merchants are called thieves and plagiarisers by their sworn pseudo-Salafi rivals: spubs.com?!

I hope this answers what you want, and like I said if you really want more on the Ghumariyun, then contact their students directly.


Wa akhirid-Da’wana anil hamdulillahir-Rabbil-Alamin

Abul Hasan

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

This is an email that i received after enquiring about some allegations on the personality of Sayyid Ahmad al-Ghumari, dated: 4/2/05:




Bismillah,
Dear brother Abul Hasan,
Assalamu Alaykum,

Know, may Allah bless you, that As-Sayyed Al-Hafeth Ahmad bin Assidiqq Al-Ghumari, rahimahu'Allah wa radiya anhu, was the wonder of his time, and a few people understood him intellectual and knowledge level.

1- Those who saw in him a firm love towards Ahlul Bayt attributed him to Shi'sm.

2- Others -in Aqida- who wanted him to stick strictly to what Al-Imam Al-Ash'ari (ra) said, were not too pleased because he took some and left some, so they attributed him to denouncing the Ash'ari's!!!!

3- Others who wanted to see him strictly take from Imam Malik (ra), were also disappointed, as he took some and left some.

4- Those -sufi claimers- who had the sufi looks but lacked the deeds, were not happy with him either, as he not only didn't enorse the, but exposed them.

To make matters worse, he fought the Spanish, French and British occupation to Northern Morocco, which also recruited lots of people ( including Sultan Scholars!!) against him.

Sidi Ahmad (ra) haa two kinds of enemies:

1- Those who are strictly narrow-minded, blind imitators and think using someone else's brain and thoughts, and who lacked the real scholarly knowledge and the tools to research and expand..

2- Those who knew the capacities and vast oceans of knowledge of Sidi Ahmad, and hated him out of Jelousy and competitiveness.

Unfortunately or Fortunately, Sidi Ahmad was not a man that would easily change his position to please the crowd or to appeal to the majority's opinion. He was a scholar who, after firm research, conviction, and analysis based on the Qur'an and Authentic Sunnah, if he reached something, No power in the world could shift him, no matter what kind of damage this could bring him personally.

You can see from all that the kind of vicious enemies that was awaiting him, and still is. Some of his enemies, despite all that narrow-mindedness find themselves having to admit his vast knowledge and his premier status.

Now, as in the previous message, Sidi Ahmad was a Mujtahed. A Mujtahed in Tawheed and Fiqh. He has his own ways, which if you examine it carefully, is sunni to the core. (with a few exceptions - i assume-, as we don't believe anyone is perfect after the Prophets, alayhem assalam).

The mind puzzling thing about Mawlana Sidi Ahmad bin Assidiqq Al-Ghumari, radiya'Allahu anhu, is that he was ( RIGHTFULLY SO-in his status) a strict and committed follower of the Book and Sunnah as he saw them, nothing else. He did not imitate. That itself, made some people hate him.

Therfore, his style seems to some as "salafi" style. Well, Sidi Ahmad was a Salafi in action. He could do that as he acquired the tools of Ijtihad. Here, of course, I must make a big distinction between Salafi and Wahhabi.

Most people who call themselves Salafi's nowadays, are actually following the Khawarej.

His methodolgy intimidated people, while angered others who expected him to strictly follow the understanding of their local or older Scholars.
Well, for Sidi Ahmad, when he saw a Hadith that is Sahih, that , for him, what what he needed to follow and stand for, regardless of what people think.

Three things you brought in your e-mail:

1- What he " alledgedly wrote about Ibn Khuzayma.
2- What he "allegedly wrote about As-Sayyed Al-Kittani (ra).
3- What he "allegedly" wrote about al-Imam Shaykhul Islam wal Muslimin Muhammad Zahed Al-Kawthari Al-Hanafi, radiya'Allah Anhu wa ardah.


Know, may Allah guide me and you, that the Wahhabi's sophicated and choked to death with Sidi Ahmad's unchallengeable, unequivical, and relentless exposure and unmasking.

His arows struck the heart of the radical wahhabi' sect and drained it. They, as always, could not fight with proof and logic. But instead, went to their usual tactics of injecting some poison in people's books, or blemish their personality, in an effort to discredit them.

They figured, he does not deserve any break, as they dont even have the slightest thing in common with him.

1- In fiqh, they are extreme hanbali wing, while he is Mujtahed.
2- In Aqida, they are "Mujassimah" Anthropomorphists, while he is Mawahhed " monotheist".
3- In Islamic History and Sirah, they are " Yazidi's" ( die hard yazid fans and defenders), while he considered him and his family to be closer to Kufr than anything.
4- They hate tasawuff, and he was a Sufi Master.
5- He has standards and morals, they dont..

So the list goes on.

Those injections you mentioned ( all three) are not totally true about him, nor should they be attributed to him.

Here is why.

1- About Ibn Khuzayma, well everybody knows, That the Tawheed book by Ibn Khuzaymah is the core of anthropomorphism, Tashbeeh, and Tajseem. It is one of the main books usued by the Wahhabi cult to indoctinate their people. Of course, not to forget the book of "sunna" by Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal, in which he explicitly calls Al-Imam Al-Atham Abu Hanifah, radiya'Allah anhu, a zindiq, Kafer, jew, ....etc....

Furthermore, it is known that Shaykhul Islam Al-Kawthari calls the Tawheed book of Ibn Khuzaymah: " Kitabu Shirk" ( the book of blasphemy), because of all what is contained in it.

Contemplate this, then know, for a fact, that is above any doubt, that Sidi Ahmad, as all know, was a pure "Munazzeh" to the core. He believed in "Tafweedh" which means total Submission in the Ayahat Mutashabihaat, and did not like the method of "Ta'wil" which means interpreting them according to the language or the possible.

His Math'hab in this is not new. In fact, most of the early scholars, were like that. All that is based on Tanzih ( clearing Allah from non-suitable attributes).

Please remember that it is impossible for Sidi Ahmad to say that the source of Wahhabi aqidah is great, while calling the wahhabi's : as he put it : " the dogs of Jahannam". that is in his book "Ju'nah al-attar". Not only that, in the same book, he refers to the "shaykh of wahhabi's" Ibn taymiyya as not only a Kafer, but those who read his books and follow him as well.!!! Ibn taymiyya urged his followers to hold sacred the book of Ibn Khuzayma, believe in it and teach it..

To make things more clear to you, Sidi Ahmad is the one who is attributed to having found the first accurate name to Wahhabi's after being Khawarej. He calls them " Qarniyun" which means the people of the horn (of Shaytan).

Below is a small preview to one of the pages of his book about Qarniyin/Qarniyun..

Finally, his books are overwhelmed with attributing Allah Ta'ala with Tanzeeh, thus being in 100% harmony with Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'a.

2- His alleged comments that you brough about As-sayyed al_kittani (ra), are a flat out forgey. This was verified by Sidi Abdullah (his brother) when he was alive. You can ask his Brother SIdi Hasan now, and Sidi Ahmad's Students. In fact, the Kittani's were his teachers.

3- His alleged comments about Al-Imam Al-Kawthari, radiya'Allah anhu, are an absolute fabrication.

Yes, there was a point of time where there was a disagreement. Mind you, both are the most prominent Hadith scholars in the whole World last century. That disagreement did not go this far, and Sidi Abdullah said that al-imam Al-Kawthari asked him for Ijaza, and he asked al-Imam Al-Kawthari for Ijaza to narrate Hadith. Sidi Abdullah said only wonderful things about Al-Imam Al-Kawthari, such words did not come out of Sidi Ahmad's mouth.

Now, who benefits out of crashing the two Heavy Weight Crushers of Wahhabism...!! Wahhabi's themselves. They cunningly, did this to have people confused and to soften the effect of teh firm grip that both honorable masters had on them. This is a cheap tactic.


Remember, that very few books were printed when Sidi Ahmad was still alive. Now, all of a sudden, you have 100's. The problem is, check and control. In other words, everyone that received a few letters by Sidi Ahmad, goes and publishes them, and attributes to himself a book, on the cost of slandering Sidi Ahmad, this was he can appear, and of course, "wahhabi" publishers would just love to take it from there and make sure it spreads...

Dear brothers, what you need to know, which is a fact, not fiction. Fact that is verifiable through his eldest student and blood brother Sidi Hasan, hafithahu'Allah, is that Sidi Ahmad was a Mujtahed. Who was a pure Sunni in Aqidah, Fiqh, Tasawuff, and Hadith.

We must remember, though, that no one is perfect, and even the most knowledgable of scholars and Awliya of Allah, are not impeccable and vulnerable to making mistakes, except those whom Allah willed not to. Therfore, one should not take knowledge from books, but from the mouths of scholars who are knowledgable, authorized and trustworthy.

Sidi Ahmad was like an ocean of Knowledge that has no shore, a sea that knows no depth, and a sky that knows no limit.

May Allah shower his with His Mercy, assemble us with him and his grandfather the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, in the day of Judgement, and give us the shafa'a of his grandfather then,
wassalam,

Muhammad bin Yahya

A Demonstration that the Wahhabis are Khawarij (heretics of this era) taken from the book 'Ihya al-Maqbur' pages 59-60. by the late Muhaddith of the Age, the Faqeeh of the Era Imam Abu'l-Fayd Ahmad ibn Abi Abdallah al-Siddiq al-Ghumari al-Hasani, may Allah bless his soul.

As for the Qarniyyun (those of the Devil's Horn), their land has not been blessed by Allah with any wali or salih since the beginning of Islam down to the present day. Instead, he only gave it the Qarn al-Shaytan ['the Devil's Horn'], whose followers were the Khawarij of the thirteenth and subsequent Islamic centuries. So fear God, and do not be like he who is beguiled by them, and supports their corrupt sect and worthless opinion, and their state of misguidance which was explicitly described by the Prophet (upon whom be blessings and peace), who characterized them as the 'Dogs of the Fire' [kilab al-nar], and informed us that they are the 'worst of all who dwell beneath the sky', and that they 'swerve from the religion as an arrow swerves away from its target,' and that they mouth among the best of sayings in the form of their prattling about Tawhid, and implementing the Sunna, and combating bid'as - and yet, by Allah, they are drowning in bid'a; in fact, there is no bid'a worse than theirs, which causes them to 'swerve from the religion as an arrow swerves away from its target', in spite of their superficial efforts in worship and adherence to the religion. It is as the Prophet (upon whom be blessings and peace) declared: 'one of you would despise the prayer he says among them, and the fasting he completes with them; they recite Koran but it goes no further than their collarbones.'

It is for this reason that he refrained (upon him be blessings and peace) from making du'a for Najd in the way that he had prayed for the Yemen and for Syria, for he said: 'Allahumma bless us in our Yemen; bless us in our Syria' - and they said, 'And in our Najd, o Messenger of Allah?' (upon him be blessings and peace), but he repeated his prayer for the Yemen and for Syria; and they repeated their utterance; until he said, the second or the third time round, in order to explain why he would not pray for Najd:

'That is the place of earthquakes, and fitnas, and from it the Devil's Horn shall rise.' [Narrated by Bukhari.] And nothing has emerged from there to bring about earthquakes and fitnas in the religion like Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who was astray and led others astray. Hence he was the Devil's Horn foretold by the Messenger (upon him be blessings and peace), and he abstained from offering prayer for Najd because of him, and because of the fitnas which would flow from his demonic da'wa. Whoever adheres to that da'wa has committed unambiguous kufr, and is destined for apostasy and 'swerving from the religion', as is visible in the case of the other mulhids [heretical unbelievers] of the age who are notorious for their ilhad, for in every case they began by holding fast to the sect of the Devil's Horn, as is well-known to scholars of experience and insight.
Wa-salla'Llahu 'ala sayyidina Muhammadin wa-'ala alihi wa-sahbihi kullama dhakaru a-dhakirun wa-ghafala 'an dhikrihi al-ghafilun.
wa'l-hamdu li'Llahi rabbi'l-'alamin”

-------------------------------END OF EMAIL---------------------------------------


Next I will post another email dated 6/2/05 - which was also forwarded to: Muhammad Umar Budally and someone calling himself "Umar Farooq" - below Insha'allah.

[Abul Hasan]

:salam:

After asking a few more questions/suggestions, the following email dated 6/2/05 was received by me and others:




Bismillah,
Dear brother Abul Hasan,
Assalamu Alaykum,

Hope this finds you in the best of iman and health.

JAzakum Allahu khayran for your suggestion, I think it is the best suggestion, however, the technicalities of it, is hard at this time. For many reasons:

1- THe enemies of Sidi Ahmad allege that they have personal letters from him, which constituted teh basis of their claim.

2- You would need an expert in a Moroccan style hadn writing to verify whether a couple of statements were simply injected wrongly in the middle of an authentic letter.

3- Time, logistics dont permit,a s those who claim to have some of his letters, will not furnish the originals.

Now, Sidi Abdullah Al-Talidi ( I spoke to him 3 days ago last), and spoke earlier today to Sidi Murtada, brother of Sidi Hasan bin Assidiqq, etc. (speaking to them was not about this mater), but all agree that these allegations:

1- are highly exagerated, and 2- are not Sidi Ahmad's known position on those people.

AS you can tell -yourself- without any witnesses, SIdi Ahmad's aqida was as clear as crystal with tanzih, which totally contradicts Ibn Khuzayma'a book, to the core.!!
2- Yes did have a little difference with Shaykh Mashayekhna Muhammad Zahed Al-Kawthari, but it was exagerated, and Sidi Abdullah said many times in many occasions that Sidi Ahmad's position of Shaykh Zahed was one of appreciation and understanding. Sidi Abdulah, used to complents Shaykh Muhammad Zahed Al-Kawthari, All the time, and described him often as a great scholar.

3- My solution is not simply to ask his brother Sidi Hasan. But to verify his books that are agreedly attributed to him. You will be be directly facing a contradition between those " fast food" letters printed lately about Sidi Ahmad, and Sidi Ahmad's original books.

That should lead you to the right conclusion, after all, even the Prophet himself, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, people injected things in his hadith afterwards.

4- Sidi Abdullah, has affirmed many times, and I have a letter from him, saying that some of the things said in the book " dar al-ghamam" are not as his original letters state..

And Sidi Abdullah is alive and every one can verify that from him..go to the source.

5- Bu Khubza, is the the unfortunate one. All his lies and fabrications about sidi Ahmad, ended up helping him to get some good position and money, but i doubt that in the Akhira. Unfortunately, he is -indirectly- related to Sidi Ahmad.!!!

6- You may view Sidi Ahmad as not a Mujtahed Mutaq.. and that is your opinion, that I respect and appreciate. Sidi Ahmad, did not think so, and as you know, closure of the door of Ijtihad is a contraversial issue, and I doubt we could reach a solid resolution on that.

However, To him and many other scholars -other than his 6 brothers- he was.

7- the most contraversial issue about Sidi Ahmad is Mua'wiya.
Of course, sidi Ahmad did not simply base his opinion on his own "hawa" desire. There are many ahadith in Mu'awiya that are authentic in Sidi Ahmad's scholastic view, and many of them, are in what Al-balathiri narrated, one with " Imam Muslim" chain of narrators. I think thats the one Sidi Ahmad considered not only Sahih, but that the Ummah was afraid to mention what the Prophet mentioned and urged!!

Now, if he was saying these things without evidence of hadith, we would all abandon him, because he was defaming a sahabi. But, I believe, he is excused, cuz he depended on ahadith. More than one for that.

8- Sidi Ahmad's problem with the Ash'ari's was their ( some of them) insistence on Ta'wil. Sidi Ahmad was a strong believer of Tafweed ( submission fo the Mutashabeh) to Allah.

Though this is also the old math'hab of the Ash'ari, radiya'Allah anhu, as they consitute the talking power of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'a.

9- Both scholars, Shaykh Muhmood Sa'ed and Sayyed Hasan Saqqaf, are people who studied on the hands of Sidi Abdullah. Shaykh Mahmood, is a wonderful and moderate scholar. Sayyed Hasan is extremely knowledgable, and I think he is facing problems because of his position on Mu'awiya, and because he is leaning towards mu'tazilah.

By the way, Sidi Ahmad, used to be a strong oponent of Mu'tazilah..

So, there is the situation.

Barakallahu feekum,
wassalam,
your brother
Muhammad



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

Wassalam

Abul Hasan

[Taalibul ^ilm]

Maa`shaa Allaah a lot of useful information brother Abul Hasan, may Allaah protect you.

I can remember asking one of the students of Shaykh ^Abdullaah Al-Harariyy about some of the accusations against Shaykh Ahmad Al-Ghummaariyy and Shaykh ^Abdullaah Al-Ghumaariyy, may Allaah have mercy upon them and they too said that Shaykh ^Abdullaah Al-Harariyy said that these statements attributed to them were forgeries.

[Taalibul ^ilm]

I don't know which posts you just read brother Salman, but I felt that it mentioned some important points.
In summary what I took from it was a confirmation that the Ghummaariy brothers like other scholars are not free from committing mistakes. Just as has been narrated about Imam Ash-Shaafi^iyy that he said, “I did all I could to avoid committing mistakes in my books, but there are mistakes, (but I don’t know where)”. Secondly, it gave some explanation about the accusations made against the Ghummaaries, citing individuals who can corroborate what has been mentioned in defence of the two Shaykhs.

Finally just out of interest do you know what was the stance of Shaykh Badr-ud-Din al Hasaniyy, may Allaah have mercy upon him, about Mu^aawiyah may Allaah have mercy upon him?

May Allaah grant us the sincere intentions, the ability to understand and the reward in the Hereafter.

[Sunni_Student786]

I started this thread and after reading through its 7 pages, the questions that bro Salman has raised have still been left unanswered in my mind. I hope that some of my more knowledgeable brothers/sisters can answer them in a CONCISE and to the point manner.

[faqir]

:salam:

Umm, Akhi, the issue was that of Ahmad al-Ghumari considering Hadhrat Muawiyah RA to be a Kafir [Allah's refuge is sought from such a deviant statement].

From all that you have posted I do not see any justification for this ridiculous view!

Furthermore, I think even from that which you have mentioned there is much that can be contested but it would be good if you can specifically answer the issue of Kufr being claimed of one of the noble Sahabah and the proofs for this erroneous view.

JazakAllah khair.

Wasalam.

[Yahya]

Maybe I missed something... but have we confirmed that Ahmad al-Ghumari made this claim? (that it is not one of the fabrications against him).

[faqir]

Yes bro, it was confirmed by the statement of Sh. Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy [see above].

[Hamood]

His rejection of taqlid, Ikthilaf is enough to place him in the same category as that of the Wahabis, for if this is not done, then it is pure prejudice on our part.


Could not agree more with you.

The thing that really puts him out of the traditional spectrum is defamation of our noble sahaba. Unbelievable.

[Taalibul ^ilm]

I am relatively new to this forum, but what happened to my posting. It seems to have disappeared. I appreciate that if one presents fabrications or lies or personal insults that these probably warrant removing. If somebody disagrees with something that I have written, then why can't they post something themselves correcting what I have written. I thought that was the point of these forums that we discuss things in an appropriate manner.
May Allaah grant us the sincere intentions, the ability to understand and the reward in the Hereafter.

[Taalibul ^ilm]

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, the One Who protects the Religion by scholars who implement their knowledge, who are humble and who are knowledgeable about Allah. May Allah raise the rank of Prophet Muhammad, his kind Aal, Companions and those who genuinely follow them. May Allah protect the nation of Prophet Muhammad from what Prophet Muhammad fears for it. Thereafter:

Brother Faqir I read your post and wrote the following reply this morning, but have not been able to post it because of a few technical problems. Anyway, I have been disheartened by my previous posting have been completely removed. I hope this was for a technical problem rather than something else. I appreciate and support the removing of personal insults and lies etc, but if I maintain a good thought about those who are present on this forum, I am finding it difficult to find a plausible reason.
It is known that the truth is stronger than falsehood, so if there is a disagreement, then enter my post again and present a refutation, so that I and others might benefit. Inshaa'Allaah I will renew my intention and post the following which I wrote this morning.

I have never heard of an authentic statement in which Shaykh AHmad is reported to have said that Amir Mu^aawiyah, may Allaah raise his rank was a kaafir. I personally don't even want to entertain the question, IF Shaykh Ahmad said this then….
However, because this issue has come up on several occasions, then I will answer, the one who says such a statement has surely gone astray from Ahlus-sunnah (refer to summaries mentioned above by HaafiDH Abu Mansoor and Imam Al-Jurjaaniyy) and in this regard the following hadeeth of the Prophet sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam should be enough:

عَلَيْكُمْ بِالْجَمَاعَةِ وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَالْفُرْقَةَ فَمَنْ أَرَادَ بُحْبُوحَةَ الْجَنَّةِ فَلْيَلْزَمِ الْجَمَاعَةَIn this hadeeth the Prophet sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam commanded us to stay with the jamaa^ah and the jamaa^ah refers to the companions and those who followed them. . IF Shaykh Ahmad ever said such a statement and then never repented from it, then at the very least he is mistaken and at worst this is something that could itself be kufr. [See details given below]. There is nothing authentic in the religious texts that supports such an abhorrent claim. Maybe he mistakenly relied upon fabricated statements of the shee`a. And since it is not an intellectual impossibilty that a companion have committed blasphemy then he himself would not necessariyl be judged as a blasphemer. However the one who says such a thing is at the very least massively ignorant about the religion and this is not something Shaykh AHmad is known for. This is what makes me seriously doubt that he would say something which contradicts that which is so well known amongst the scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah.The rules of the religion apply to Shaykh AHmad himself, just as they applied to the companions. SubHaan Allaah I remember the famous narration about Imam ^Aliyy in which he saw a Jew with a shield that belonged to the Imaam. Imam ^Aliyy radiyallaahu ^anhu said to him, this shield in your hand is mine and I never sold it nor gave it as a gift to anybody. The Jew said, but it is in my hand . So Imam ^Aliyy said I will take the case to the Qaadiy. Imaam ^Aliyy who was the Khaleefah at the time, took the Jew to the Qaadiy and presented his case. The Qaadiy asked Imam ^Aliyy if he had any witnesses. Imam ^Aliyy said, yes my son and my servant. The Qaadiy responded to him, well in this case, as you know, in our religion the testimony of the son cannot be accepted for his father. When the Jew saw this he was shocked. He said, the Khaleefah of the Muslims, takes my to the court of the Muslims and they rule against him, and he professed the shahadatayn and said verily this shield in my hand is Imam ^Aliyy’s. Sayyidinaa ^Aliyy raDiyallaahu ^anhu said to him and now I give it to you, so keep it. This was the way of the pious and knowledgeable companions. The rules of the religion applied to them and others. SubHaan Allaah Imam ^Aliyy was very just.
I want to address two other issues one is the meaning of ijtihaad and the second about calling a Muslim a kafir. Some of the details that I mention will inshaa’Allaah also clarify other matters that have been discussed in other “threads”.
If a Muslim calls another Muslim a blasphemer (kafir), [I]bilaa ta`weel, , so without relying on any such reason he called him, ‘O blasphemer’ such a person himself blasphemes because he called Islam blasphemy. This is evidenced by the famous hadeeth narrated by Imam Bukhariyy in his saheeh and by those other than him from the Prophet sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam that he said what means: “He who calls a Muslim a kafir or says to him, ‘O enemy of Allah’, then one of the two is a blasphemer; either the one who he called a blasphemer is truly a blasphemer or else it returns to the one who called him a blasphemer”. So in this hadeeth the Prophet Sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam warned us about calling a Muslim a blasphemer or the enemy of Allah, and he told us that the one who calls a Muslim as such, then the badness entailed in such a statement goes back on to him. As for the one who says to another Muslim yaa ^aduwwallaah or anta ^aduwwallaah, because of a religiously valid reason, then he is not even sinful, literally this means the enemy of Allah. Also if he calls another Muslim a blasphemer and he did it for a reason that he thought would take that other person out of Islam when in actuality it doesn’t take that person out of Islam, then in this case the one who called the person a blasphemer doesn’t blaspheme just as the one who was called a blasphemer does not blaspheme. An example of that is if a person heard that another person committed suicide, and he said, maata kaafiran, which means: he died as a blasphemer. The one who makes such a statement if he made it out of ignorance, because he thought that committing suicide in itself is blasphemy, he did not know that committing suicide in itself is not blasphemy, he does not blaspheme, because he has a reason upon which he relied on to make such a statement. So it is not any reason, for example if someone saw another using as-siwaak and he said it was blasphemy, then this is blasphemy. Hence, there must be a justified reason.
Another reason that would save the person from falling into blasphemy for declaring another Muslim as a blasphemer is if he saw that Muslim do an act which is similar to the acts of the blasphemers, so he believed that he does not love Islam or that he does not believe in Islam, so he declared him as a blasphemer based on that thought, i.e. because of what he saw from his ill doings or very bad sayings.
[B]A very important case, which deserves to be clarified:
Not everyone who does not declare someone who fell into blasphemy as a blasphemer becomes a blasphemer. Rather there are certain types of blasphemy that if a person does not declare the one who fell into that blasphemy then he himself blasphemes, because blasphemy is of 2 types, there is an apparent blasphemy wherein there is no difference of opinion amongst the scholars that it is blasphemy and the one who does it blasphemes, in such a case the one who does not declare that one who commits it as a blasphemer then he himself falls into blasphemy. An example of such type of blasphemy is if someone cusses Allah, or he cusses one of the prophets or he degrades the religion of Islam, so such a person if someone doubts about his blasphemy then that person himself blasphemes. The other type of blasphemy is the blasphemy which is blasphemy, but if a person does not declare the one who does it as a blasphemer he does not blaspheme, despite the fact that what this person did is blasphemy, still the one who does not declare this person a blasphemer does not blaspheme.

[I]The mistaken ijtihaad in the presence of a nass (an explicit religious text) is of two types, one of them might render a person outside of the fold of Islaam and the other renders the person sinful. However, in either case the invalid ijtihaad although it has some things in common with the type of ijtihaad in which the Mujtahid gets one reward if he is mistaken, is itself not rewadable. Hence, an interpretation (ta’weel / ijithaad) or an understanding that is contradictory to the rules of the religion, does not necessarily render a person as a blasphemer, except if he made an interpretation in some of the definite things, so he made a mistake in it, then he is not excused. The definite matters are things which are not based upon anybody's personal ijtihaad per se, it is a matter that is known by the ignorant and the scholars amongst the Muslims. An example of those who MADE AN IJTIHAAD in a definite thing and they are not excused, but rather that they are declared as blasphemers are the ones that said that the world is eternal, such as Ibn T********, an example of the ones whose interpretation does not reach the level of blasphemy is the ones who refused to pay zakah at the time of Sayyidina Abu Bakr radiyallaahu ^anhu. Their interpretation, i.e. ijtihaad lead them to saying, zakah was obligatory only at the time of the Prophet sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam, because the Prophet sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam’s prayer for them was a mercy and a comfort and by his death this was interrupted, so the companions did not declare them as blasphemers. The reason why Sayyidinaa Abu Bakr radiyallaahu ^anhu fought them just as he fought the apostates, the ones who followed Musaylimah al-kadhdhaab, the one who claimed prophethood is because he was unable to take Zakah from them without forcing them to pay, because they grouped together and they had strength, so the only option he had was to fight them. [Amongst the proofs that the companions did not declare them as blasphemers is that originally when they were talking about it, ^Umar, may Allah raise his rank, he suggested that Abu Bakr not fight them, he told them do you fight them and they say, laa ilaaha illallaah muhammadur rasoolullaah, had this been a matter where the companions declare them as blasphemers, Sayyidinaa ^Umar would not have said that].
Similarly the ones who interpreted the saying of Allah in part of ayah 91 in Surat Al-Maa`idah (S5), which is a rhetorical question that means: ‘will you not abstain? i.e. abstain from alcohol because it is haraam’. Some people thought it was an option that was given to them and it was not a prohibition of drinking khamar (wine), this is what they thought it meant, even though the language does not truly bear that meaning. So they drank it based upon an ijtihaad, and again ^Umar did not declare them as blasphemers, rather he said, whip them 80 lashes, then if they insist kill them , this was narrated by Ibn Abiy Shaybah.
Note: As for our times there is no excuse made for the one who denies the unlawfulness of khamar (wine), that is for the one who lives amongst the Muslims. Because in our days the fact that khamar is prohibited is widespread amongst the Muslims and it is not hidden to anyone that lives amongst them, so it is a matter that has become known by necessity amongst the rules of the religion.

Hence the fighting of the companions against those who interpreted that they do not have to pay zakah anymore, was in such a way to take the right that is due on their money/property. This is similar to fighting the ones who were "aggressors"; that means that they were not fought because they were declared as blasphemers, rather they were fought to return them to the rule of the Caliph, such as the ones who Sayyidinaa ^Aliyy fought in the 3 battles, ([I]waq^atul jamal, waq^atu siffeen against Mu^awiyyah, and waq^atun-nahrawaan, which was fought against the khawaarij, this is despite the fact that some of the khawaarij are truly blasphemers, these have a specific judgement pertaining to them).
To give some examples of a mistaken ijtihaad that renders a person a blasphemer is the one who claims prophethood after prophet Muhammad sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam. Such a person is a blasphemer for belying the saying of Allah ta^ala wa khaataman-nabiyeen even if his ijtihaad has lead him into thinking that khaatam (seal or last) means a ring. Because amongst other proofs, the Prophet sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam said wa khutima biyyan-nabiyyoon, which was narrated by Muslim, and it again means that our prophet is the last of the prophets.

In summary the unjust aggressors who rebelled against the righteous Khaleefah ^Aliyy ibn Abi Talib, such as those who rebelled against him in these three famous battles, they do NOT have the judgement of apostates.


Imam Shamsud-deen Ar-Ramliyy in his commentary on minhaaj-uT-Taalibeen, in the beginning of the chapter pertaining to apostasy while he was explaining the saying of An-Nawawiyy: ar-riddatu qat^ul Islam biniyyatin `aw qawli kufrin which means: apostasy means interrupting Islam, with an intention or a blasphemous statement. So the commentator who is Shams-ud-deen Ar-Ramliyy he said, so a slip of the tongue or being threatened or an ijithaad [an interpretation as we have mentioned] or narrating blasphemous statements of another, they don’t have an effect, i.e. they do not make the person fall into blasphemy. However, the commentary on the commentary of Shamsud-deen Ar-Ramliyy, written by Noor-id-deen ^Aliyy Ash-Shabramallasiy, who died the year 1087, he commented when Ar-Ramliyy said, ijtihaad, he said, “ay laa mutalqan which means: not in an unrestricted sense, (so not any interpretation prevents a person from falling into blasphemy), he said, as is apparent. There is also another commentator on the same commentator whose name is AHmad ibnu ^Abdur-Razaaq who is known as Al-Maghrabiyy Ar-Rasheediy, who died the year 1096, when he came to the saying of Ar-Ramliyy: wa ijtihaad, he said, “that is in things that there was no contradictory -definite proof as is evident by the blasphemy of such as those claimed that the world is eternal despite that they based it on their interpretation”.
In fact the Muslims came to consensus (ijmaa^) that they are blasphemers, as was mentioned by al-muhaddith Al-faqeeh Badr-ud-deen Az-zarkashiyy in sharh jam^ul jawaami^ he said after having mentioned both groups, that is the group that said that the world is eternal in kind and sooratihi and the other group that believe the world is eternal in kind only, he said, the Muslims are agreed to declare them misguided and blasphemers.

From this it known that not everyone who makes an interpretation, a mistaken ijtihaad or mistaken ta’weel this prevents him from falling into blasphemy. Because making an interpretation despite there being a definite proof against it, then it does not prevent the judgement of blasphemy for that person.

In summary when the scholars in these contexts mentioned ta’weel and ijtihaad, it means that a person wanted to get to the truth but he made a mistake, this is what ijtihaad and ta’weel refer to, thus he would not be declared a kafir except if it was in the definite matters, so the one who makes ijtihaad in the definite matters and he makes a mistake then he is not exempted. Hence, ijtihaad in this context means that the person wanted to know the truth and to get the truth, so he said a deviant statement such as the ones who said the zakat was obligatory only at the time of the Prophet sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam. Such an ijtihaad in what is not amongst the definite matters, it is said that he is mistaken, but he does not blaspheme, the reason Abu Bakr fought them is because they refrained from paying the obligatory right due upon them and they were a group which had strength. However, it is not always the case that we don’t judge those who made a sincere mistake as blasphemers. Otherwise it would then be the case that we would have to leave out declaring the Christians as blasphemers, because according to them they made ijtihaad, similarly Buddhists made ijtihaad according to their claim and they thought that what they believed in was truthful, so they took it up as a religion. So the one who believes that everyone who makes an interpretation is excused regardless of his interpretation then in this case it is as if he is trying abolish our religion.

Note the fact that one of the companions might commit blasphemy is not from the things which are intellectually impossible, but rather it is an intellectual possibility as is evidenced by the authentic hadeeth of the Prophet sallallahu ^alayhi wa sallam that mention some companions having committed apostasy. Hence, in this case one cannot just use their mind or personal reasoning to pass judgement on this case, one needs to always return back to the rules of the religion.
In conclusion: it is not valid to say, Amir Mu^aawiyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him, committed blasphemy and if somebody is saying this they need to be warned and stopped. However, if somebody is saying something wrong, this does not mean that in trying to correct them, we ourselves pervert the rules of the religion. The sincere ijtihaad is not always rewardable, in fact sometimes it does not even excuse a person from kufr, then how about that which is less than this.
Finally, many scholars made mistakes. Maa`shaa Allaahu kaan. It has been mentioned about Imaam An-Nawawiyy that he mistakenly said that it is an obligation for the female to cover his face and then he even said, it is an obligation for the male to cover what the female is obligated to cover in front of him! There are some details about this issue, but if someone of the rank of HaafiDh Imaam An-Nawawiyy may Allaah have mercy upon him can commit such mistakes then how about others like Shaykh AHmad.

May Allaah grant us the sincere intentions, the ability to understand and the reward in the Hereafter.

[faqir]

I have never heard of an authentic statement in which Shaykh AHmad is reported to have said that Amir Mu^aawiyah, may Allaah raise his rank was a kaafir. I personally don't even want to entertain the question, IF Shaykh Ahmad said this then….

Please see what was mentioned by Shaykh Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy [see above]

[And, I have no idea why your previous post was removed but I guess it may be because it was not relevant to the question at hand]

[Taalibul ^ilm]

Allaah knows best, but it dealt with the issue that we were discussing mentioning some of the proofs for what the mass body of Ahlus-sunnah relied upon for their position on Amir Mu^aawiyah.
I have read all the previous posts, but don't seem to be able to find any reference of Shaykh MuHammad having quoted any of the two Ghummaariy brothers as having claimed Amir Mu^aawiyah, may Allaah have mercy upon him as having been a kaafir. Brother can you please copy and paste the exact reference for this.