SA: MJ, by ‘you guys’ I mean the people working with you such as that Deobandi brother and the people from Arab peninsula that you mentioned.

You insulted, publicly called us heretics then you went to ‘private message’ and tried to dodge the issue when I said clearly to you to bring this up in public and I will refute it. As I saw your dishonesty and you ran away.

As I always said in discussion with you guys I’m willing to do it only publicly since you have shown that you practice ‘Takiyah’ [not admitting to one’s true beliefs in public].

Your filthy language is also unbelievable: I will never call a person a ‘dog’. It’s embarrassing.

I’m ready to carry on the dialogue about these issues but first I ask for honesty and sticking to the point and you brining equivalent proof.

So I honestly begin:

My premise is that: I reject Hadith in Bukhari and as such I don’t believe that the Prophet was affect by magic.

Your premise: you accept all Hadith in Bukhari and as such do you accept the conclusion that Prophet lost his mind or was impotent?

Clearly, Ahmad is referring to previous campaigns of slander and anathematisation by the advocates of the position that the Prophet was affected by magic. These are easily seen online. Note that he has again translated the relevant passage verbatim and stated his and Imam Maturidi’s position clearly.

YA: It isn’t ‘guys’ calling those who adopt your opinion heretics it is Badr al-Din al-Ayni and others.

YA: It is weird that you advise brothers that they need nothing more to understand the science of hadith than one small book. While you completely disparage individuals who have spent significant portions of their live studying abroad and studying many books. If people should go study, then with who? You and your shaykh? Those who are obviously propagating opinions that the classical scholars said are innovation and heresy What does studying abroad here have to do with your rejection of hadith? Nothing.

I comment on this because this is a favourite tactic of Salafists and Deobandis who wish to market themselves as Hanafites or Sunnis: notice that he ignores Maturidi, who is in fact the ‘author’ of Hanafite creed and instead name drops a Salafi and Deobabandi favourite, the hadith scholar Badr al Din Al Ayni – the very same scholar who neglected Hanafite principles to make a compromise with the Muhaditheen. Note that Ahmad had already said that in contradistinction to the Hanafites, the muhaditheen, including those like Ayni who ‘sold out’ to Muhaditheen principles, accept that black magic was done on the Prophet, so what is the point of his opponent saying this?

It illustrates for us nicely that when Salafis wish to infiltrate the ‘madhabs‘, and especially the Maliki and Hanafi schools, they quote mine much later scholars who were advocates of abandoning Hanafi and Maliki creedal principles and hadith methodology and accepting the redaction of Bukhari and the other Muhaditheen uncritically. 

In essence, he is saying that you should learn the positions of Hanafis and others through the Muhaditheen, which is absurd as in most cases they were opponents.

YA: Why don’t you translate the first wajh Maturidi mentions:

بما علمه بالوحي أنه سحر  [he helpfully does not translate it either]

SA: Yaqub you’re not even smart enough to realise that there were two different threads [on Facebook]. So what if Badr Al-din al-Ayni said it, people who everyone considers untouchable scholars called Abu Hanifa heretic. That doesn’t prove anything. We know Ayni loved Bukhari.

People you quoted yourself insulted Ghazali too so that doesn’t prove anything.

This is a good point: people name drop scholars as if they were all some kind of monolithic mass. This is nonsense. Imams like Shafi and Malik insulted each other and we know that people until the time of Ghazzali (himself not excluded) were insulting the founders of rival schools (in his case he insulted Abu Hanifa due to his esteemed teacher Imam Al Juwayni’s conflict with the Hanafites). The point is that Ayni agrees with Bukhari against Maturidi, so is inadmissible as evidence for Maturidi’s positions.

YA: And highlight who is actually rejecting the hadith in this passage. It is Abu Bakr al-Asamm, the Mutazilite.

[again, no translation offered, despite the discussion taking place in English, a favourite Salafi tactic which you must be aware of. The reason for not translating will become obvious here too]

Maturidi is refuting Asamm who rejected the hadith. Hence the word ولكن.

SA: You are so dishonest it is unbelievable. When scholars say ‘Qeeela’ they mean it is ‘weak’, have you studied anything at all? Assam didn’t reject the Hadith he didn’t even mention which of the two Hadith he is rejecting

Stop wasting our time and snipping bits and being evil. Translate it all.

YA: I am not going to translate it. Anyone who comes can read it and judge for their own selves.

YA: When scholars say ولكن they are indicating to what comes after to be preferred.

YA: After that Maturidi confirms the sihr.

YA: If you have another place he denies it, or Imam Abu Hanifa for that matter, please share it.

YA: You can see also that Asamm’s line of argument is basically the same thing as yours.

Although Assam’s opinion is not given in the text anyway, and it is not even clear what Maturidi is attributing to him or which hadith Assam rejected, we have the ‘you are a Mu’tazzilite’ hurling to try and anathematise Ahmed in the eyes of the readers. Note again the brazen refusal to translate. And now he is asking for an opinion of Abu Hanifa as opposed to Maturidi – the whole idea is to get the inconvenient Maturidi out of the picture.

SA: Yaqub stop playing games and translate all of it. You’re taking snippets like a dodgy guy. You not translating shows your deception. No more snippets. Translate ALL THE TEXT, especially the bit where Imam Maturidi says (‘Thuma Al Asloo Inthana‘). If you refuse, then don’t come back.

YA: If you want the whole passage translated. Do it yourself.

Huh?! Then why argue?

SA: Lol too funny. You’re not willing to translate, only to take just snippets

MJ: Oh and Shaykh Hasan Hitu and others in aqidah islamiyyah also mentions what Marizi said when speaking of magic

Another interloper appears and immediately begins name dropping. Notice how no one is willing to engage with or even translate what Maturidi has said in plain Arabic – namely that he rejects that the Prophet was ever afflicted with black magic. The game here is to name drop and obfuscate to avoid having to openly reject Maturidi and hence anathematise one of the Imams of creed (Salafis true position vis-a-vis Asharis and Maturidis)

SA: Jamili, option to translate all of it is there for you too. But before you do, confirm your position. Again don’t post until you do this and you both confirm your position.

YA: Again, anyone who comes can review the passage from Maturidi and evaluate it themselves.

Tahawi confirms the sihr, ‘Ayni confirms it and calls those who reject the hadith innovators. ‘Ayni’s position is also what is taken by Hafiz Ibn Hajar and Maziri.

Do you have a clear statement from Maturidi in which he rejected this hadith? Do you have a clear statement from Imam Abu Hanifah in which he rejected this hadith?

Again, a bunch of guys who are not Maturidi (or even Hanafi in some cases) accept black magic – but the discussion is not on whether these hadith scholars accept it or not but rather what Maturidi said – which Ahmed’s opponents are unwilling to translate, even though they insist on conducting this charade in English, for the purpose of confusing English readers who can’t read the Arabic. Salafis love to ‘acquire’ as many English speakers as they can, thereby making it easier for them to spread their ideology in the dominant language and to the dominant region of the time.

Also, note that since the beginning, neither of the interlopers have stated their position on the Prophet suffering from insanity and impotence – the whole ‘discussion’ is a mere charade.

SA: Like I said don’t bring names of people as proof: I already said all these accepted magic.

Mushriks of Quraish (as Quran mentioned)
Orientalists
Muhaddiths
Salafis
Ash’aris
Deobandis
Brelawis  
Latest Maturidis
Some of Ja’faris

Both of you should confirm your position and translate all the text

YA: Wait, are you saying you do not accept sihr altogether? I would take the opinion of a great hadith scholar like Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani or Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni regarding who is a heretic over yours. We accept the opinion of the scholars of jarh and ta’dil regarding establishing innovation and ascribing that to individuals.

Again, an attempt to impugn and anathematise Ahmed, a Hanafite, as a Mu’tazzilite by attributing the Mutazzilite denial of Black Magic to him, a baseless diversion. Note again, that we are to name drop hadith scholars and ignore what Maturidi said (which is what is under discussion).

Another learning point here is that Salafis would like you to learn creed from the (late) scholars of hadith like Ibn Hajar or Ayni. But the Imams of creed are entirely different. This is like asking your doctor to fly a jumbo jet. In fact, this is the distinction between the Maliki and Hanafite versus the Salafist position – the latter would like to bin the opinions of the Imams of creed such as Maturidi, Tahawi, Ashari, Ghazali etc in favour of a literalist adoption of context-less hadith from muhaditheen. This is just the people of jurisprudence versus the people of hadith in a different guise, with the interlopers name dropping hadith scholars hoping you will be too naive to notice what is going on. Notice the peppering of Arabic terminology sans explanation or translation to try and impress the reader – again, standard Salafist operating procedure to show they have knowledge.

Hilariously, Ibn Hajar is neither Hanafi nor Maturidi.

MJ: After he mentioned all three opinions he has adopted the first approach which is to teach. However, he is stating that the seeking refuge was revealed to teach and not because of something that occurred. So from this, he is stating that his opinion that the Sabab nuzool (the reason of revelation) was to teach and not because of an occurrence. This does not mean he negated that magic has its effect. This in usool is not a dhahir never mind a nass.

So, as Ibn Hajar says in Hadi Us-Sari, Bukhari is confirmed Sahih by ‘udool (trustworthy narrators) and the ummah has accepted it, so if you want to break this code, you need to bring a hujjah zahirah (a clear, absolute proof)!

Seeing that the ruse is in danger, this guy finally tries commentary and partial translation of Maturidis text, where he argues that Maturidi stated that the reason for the revelation of the verses of the Quran allegedly dealing with black magic was not because black magic occurred but to teach people about it (which is true). But he absurdly claims that even this does not constitute denial of black magic by Maturidi, since he is merely saying that the reason for the verses revelation is not black magic being done on the Prophet. But maybe he still believed that it had been done. Which I hope you realise is a stretch at best – so he then goes on to say that Maturidi must have accepted black magic…because the later non-Hanafi imams of hadith who came after him did. So the game is the same – a flimsy translation and the assertion as above that the final say on creed is not with the imams of creed such as Maturidi, but rather with muhaditheen such as Bukhari and his famous commentator (and non-Hanafite) Ibn Hajar Asqalani.

This could have been shortened to ‘it doesn’t matter what Maturidi says, go with the hadith and muhaditheen‘ – but that would have given the game away. Notice how he is confusing the audience in his first paragraph – where he basically admits what Ahmed has been saying all along – by once again dropping untranslated (and irrelevant) Arabic terms to show how clever he is. This is the same as a physicist turning up and saying things like ‘entanglement’, ‘black body radiation’ and ‘Scwarzchild radius’ without any context or explanation, hoping that this would cow you into being impressed with him.

But no physicist would ever act as stupidly as a Muslim scholar (though some have tried).

Also, a question for consideration: why is it SO important to believe that the Prophet was affected by black magic and became impotent and deluded? 

SA: This is not the first time your brought Ibn Hajar as proof. This time you are demanding absolute evidence because of the opinion of Ibn Hajar. Can you then confirm that Prophet revealed SATANIC VERSES as Ibn Hajar believes and stated it, and if you don’t believe this, can you bring absolute evidence to disprove the opinion of Ibn Hajar?

Ahmad is stating that since Ibn Hajar, the much later 15th century (died 1449 CE), who MJ is demanding be taken as an authority in Maturidi creed (despite his being not only an A’sharite but a mu’haddith and not a theologian), believes in the authenticity of the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident, does MJ accept this or is his offer of Ibn Hajar as a proof and an authority spurious?

MJ: I’m sorry Sulaiman but this is not how the religion works. You are the one that needs to bring evidence. As you should be aware of in fiqh, the hujjah is upon the one who wants to break what is set. So bring your hujjah zahirah forth.

This is how a debate works. Otherwise it’s just throwing things left, right and centre.

MJ: Also this is not the opinion of Ibn Hajar solely. This is in the fatwa of Ibn Salah and many others of Ahl Us -Sunna across all the schools. Anybody who has read on this topic will be aware of this.

I wouldn’t want to state my position either if I believed what this MJ ‘scholar’ does. Notice that Ibn Salah is another hadith scholar and partisan of Ibn Hajar, in the sense that he is the main person responsible for the popularisation of Bukhari’s redaction and advocating for the ‘abrogation’ of the Hanafi and Maliki as well as other hadith methodologies in favour of blind adherence to that of Muhaditheen as typified by Imam Bukhari. So we have the same game again – you can only learn about Maturidi creed from other people who were not of his school and did not even address it, and worse still were opposed to him. And even then, they can only be from the muhaditheen. And only some of them etc. 

Notice that the liberal dropping of Arabic terms, none of which are relevant, continues to show how learned and what a good ‘scholar’ MJ is. He is claiming that Ahmed needs to bring the proof ‘to break what is set’ – but it was ‘set’ by Ibn Hajar et al – so why can’t Ahmed mention that if they are the ones doing the setting, must we not also accept their other, err, ‘idiosyncratic’ stances such as that the Prophet accepted shirk (associating partners with God) in the ‘Satanic Verses’ incident (another issue rejected by Maturidi but accepted by others, especially the muhaditheen)? 

SA: Jamilli I will give you some credit, at least you admitted about the translation, unlike the other person.

Now my claim and premise was that Abu Mansoor rejected that black magic was done on the Prophet as per what the Hadith in Bukhari states.

He does this 3 times in the text.

Firstly, the Hadith in Bukhari is explaining the Asbab Nuzool [reason for] the revelation, Imam Maturidi rejected this explanation as he said it is to TEACH and NOT because Magic occurred. The Hadith in Bukhari is saying  the opposite – that magic occurred and this is the reason for the revelation.

Secondly, the position held by Bukhari is called by Imam Maturidi ‘Qeela’, i.e weak.

Thirdly, he narrates the verse in the Quran where it was states MUSHRIKS [Meccan pagans or polytheists] said Prophet (PBUH) was affected by MAGIC and he was INSANE. However, this is what the actual Hadith in Bukhari says, so God was wrong to insult them because according to the Hadith in Bukhari, Muhammad was affected by magic and he was insane.

Now as per the rules of Islamic debate please state your premise and claim and being the proof from the books.

This is merely what the text of Maturidi says and what was stated by Shukurov and Ahmed at the beginning – so what was the point of the profuse obfuscations by MJ and YA?

YA: Admitted what about what translation?

YA: In the passage, the only one who rejects the narration outright is the Mutazilite Abu Bakr al-Asamm.

SA: YA, I’ve been advised by brothers to keep patient and the truth will come out. As you have not made a single academic comment in the last week, if you post again you will be removed. I’m sorry but time is a precious commodity and I could be using it to help people.

As long as MJ remains honest and follows the rules of discussion, I will continue to respond to him.

Quite right. YA is simply unable or unwilling to read Arabic and indeed has been contradicted by his own side in MJ. It is tantamount to argue in front of someone who cannot read Chinese that something that says ‘right’ is saying ‘wrong’, on the assumption that the audience will fall for it due to not being Chinese. This is astonishingly banal in front of people who can speak Chinese however.

MJ First and foremost I do not see the reason for your blocking Shaykh YA. It is totally unnecessary.

On to the topic, Your claim is Abu Mansoor rejects the Hadith which is in Bukhari. I ask you, where does he say that? Abu Mansoor, Rahimahu Allah, has done tarjih (preference) and has stated clearly that he does not see the reason of revelation of this Surah to be because of an occurrence that happened. In أضواء البيان, [curiously, yet again selectively untranslated – see later] the author says the mufasiroon [Quranic commentators] are unanimous that this was revealed due to that. Furthermore, as Shaykh Yaqub stated previously, after that statement of Abu Bakr al-Assam, Abu Mansoor used ‘Lakin’ [Arabic for ‘but’] which is him making clear he DOES NOT take accept what Abu Bakr al-Assam said and then said the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was affected by magic and then explained this opinion in two ways. At the end of it, Abu mansoor clearly states that his opinion is that this Surah was revealed with the first opinion he mentioned which is to teach, but nowhere does he state that he rejects magic to have been done on the Prophet ﷺ. Rather, he affirms that this is an opinion but he sees this Surah to be revealed for teaching.

Secondly, the Hadith in Bukhari is not not under any title for the tafsir [exegesis, especially of Quran] or reason of revelation of this chapter. Rather, you will find it under the chapter of magic and whether a dhimmi [essentially a non-Muslim in a ‘Muslim’ land] is killed because of magic performance.

Finally, as is clearly stated in the books of aqidah and you may open any one you wish, you will find that magic cannot affect the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in his mind nor in revelation. Other than that, it may have affected him ﷺ just like any other illness and then passed and this was also mentioned by Abu Mansoor in that text.

Now I will relate to you who has narrated this Hadith and let the public be aware that this is not a joke to just play with Hadith and use your minds as you wish. Allah gave you an intellect and it is a tool which the law praises but it never ever rules what the shari’ah has stipulated:

This Hadith is in Bukhari in five chapters [Notice the trick here: he wants you to think it is five hadith or five chains. It is merely the same hadith and the same chain, repeated five times in Bukhari’s book. In an astonishing display of dishonesty, he admits this below while restating the alleged multiplicity while trying to conceal that all of the chains converge on the same narrator i.e the hadith is single chain and ahad]. In the narration of Ibn Namir, who is a trustworthy narrator which the scholars narrate from and so does Ahmad and Ibn Al-Madini (Tahdheeb, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Abi Hatim), Ahmad narrates from this Hadith in ‘Al-Musnad’ and so does Muslim in his ‘Sahih’ on the authority of Abu Kurayb. Ibn Maajah narrates this on the authority of Abu Bakr b. Shaybah and both narrators from Ibn Namir.

Also, many of the trustworthy narrators have narrated this on the authority of Hisham b. ‘Urwah, then his father and then Aishah, May Allah be Pleased with her. This chain is found in Musnad of Ahmad via Ma’mar and another chain via Abu Usama b. Hammad b. Usama. Bukhari and Muslim both narrate via Abu Usama. Ahmad and Ibn Sa’d narrate via Wuhayb. Bukhari narrates it again via Isa b. Younus, and via Ibn ‘Uyaynah, and via Anas b. ‘iyadh Abu Dhamrah. Then Bukhari also narrates it Mu’allaqan from the narration of Layth b. Sa’d. All of these narrated on the authority of Hisham b. Urwah, then his father and then ‘Aishah, May Allah be Pleased with her. Then Bukhari says after the narration of ‘Isa b. Yunus, “he heard it before that from Ibn Jurayh” and says, “the family of Urwah recited to me on the authority of ‘Urwah.” Also, Ibn ‘Uyaynah asked Hisham about him and he narrated it to him on the authority of his father and then ‘Aishah, May Allah be Pleased with her.

Ibn Kathir also narrated this in his tafsir of ‘Surah Falaq’.

A similar occurrence was also narrated in the Hadith of Zayd b. Arqam. Ahmad relates this in his Musnad 4:367 (Halabi) on the authority of Abu Mu’awiyah, ‘Amash, Yazid b. Hayyan then Zayd b. Arqam. And this is a sound chain. Yazid b. Hayyan Abu Hayyan at-Taymi is a trustworthy narrator and a tabi’i (tahdheeb, Al-Kabir of Bukhari, Ibn Abi Hatim).

Ibn Sa’d also related this on the authority of Musa b. Mas’ud, on the authority of Sufyan ath-Thawri, on the authority of Al-‘Amash, on the authority of of Thumamah Al-Muhallimi, on the authority of Zayd b. Arqam. This chain is also sound. All narrators in this are trustworthy (Thiqah).

Al-Haythami also narrates this in Majma’ az-Zawaid with two narrations. He said, “Nasa’i related it in short and then Tabarani did so with many chains and the narrators in one of those chains are sahih (sound).

As you all see, there are many narrators of this Hadith and many of the names will be famous and known to you. When a Hadith scholar says they are trustworthy, they test them vigorously before they pass a comment as this is sound or not.

We do not neglect the intellect, however how can your intellect neglect all of these trustworthy narrators and the ones I have mentioned is just a drop in the sea.

These people and many more prior to them which were refuted by the likes of Al-Marizi and others claim that such narration removes trust in legislating the religion because it is possible, if this is allowed, that they may say they met Jibreel but they actually didn’t. However, this is all rejected because evidence is established that the Prophet ﷺ is truthful by Qur’an in what he ﷺ relates from Allah and that he ﷺ is protected in propagating the message. And as is known in usool and logic, to make permissible that which is already established by evidence is nullified. Therefore, the claim they make at the start is already null.

In regards to your point of mushrikeen, the tafsir is rejecting the claim that they made regarding him ﷺ being affected by magic when he ﷺ recited upon them the Qur’an and that he ﷺ is the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. This is mentioned by Ahl us-Sunna as I just mentioned that he ﷺ is protected as is clearly mentioned by Qur’an in these regards.

The principle I mentioned at the end in Arabic is

تجويز ما قام الدليل على خلافه باطل

Here we see the game afoot. According to this scholar, the translation is wrong after all. But this is just the entrée (for now, he will come back to this), his main course, as you will see, is that: 

1. We have to accept the hadith because it is Bukhari, and I named dropped a bunch of narrators
2. Don’t use your intellect to question or reject hadith if they have ‘sound’ chains
3. Only my chosen Muhaditheenn have the right to define sound chains, not Malikis or Hanafis, and especially not the early pre-Bukhari ones

He then contradicts himself and applies and demands the ‘intellect and logic’ to stipulate how the black magic affected the Prophet and ignores the hadith of Bukhari which says his mind and sexual potency was affected. This is sadly typical of the scholars of today and especially the Salafists – literalists, but when challenged, suddenly rationalists.

Likewise, he has interpreted the Quranic injunction that only the Mushrikeen and dhalimoon accuse the Prophet of being affected by Black Magic as meaning that the Prophet will not be affected by magic when it comes to reciting the Quran but in other things (like sanity), he can be. And he claims this is known by ‘logic’. Leave aside that this is absurd since how can one be insane and yet be reliable in religious matters, but we can see there is no consistency – we are to accept the hadith based on narrators and yet reject what it says based on logic. I don’t even know what they call that, err, ‘epistemology’.

The idea of specifying or abrogating verses of the Quran, here seen in the example of the Quran saying that only ‘bad’ people accuse Muhammed of being affected by Black magic, by using the hadith is the methodology of Muhaditheen and Shafis as well. It is clearly rejected by Hanafites and again, Ahmad as a Hanafite is being compelled to reconcile a hadith with the Quran when that lack of concordance is the very basis in Hanafite methodology to not accept the hadith in the first place.

Notice once again, naming something in Arabic makes it automatically ‘true‘.

SA: I’ve responded to your points academically and I have numbered each point. Please respond to each number to keep on point.

a) “I do not see the reason for your blocking Shaykh Yaqub Abdurrahman.”

Here are the statements of YA:

“Why don’t you translate the first wajh Maturidi mentions” “He confirms the sihr in the passage brother” “I am not going to translate it. Anyone who comes can read it and judge for their own selves” “If you want the whole passage translated. Do it yourself.”

I blocked your Shaykh as he was making completely non-academic points, not willing to take the time to translate but instead posting snippets which I see as dishonest and a way of confusing people, he did this the last time and wasted all of our time for 2 days without bringing any proof, he posted after I warned him so I blocked him. Back on point please and let’s keep it academic.

1) “Your claim is Abu Mansoor rejects the Hadith which is in Bukhari. I ask you, where does he say that?”

Shaykh Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi states the word “Qeela” before he mentions the narration about the Jewish person performing black magic on the Prophet (PBUH). “Qeela” is “Seeghat al-Tamreedh” (Weakening Form) which I hope you know, “Seeghat al-Tamreedh” is used as a means of rejecting whatever comes after, which is the Jewish person performing black magic on the Prophet

2) “In Adhwaaul Biyaan, the author says the mufasiroon are unanimous that this was revealed due to that”

Shaykh Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi was a Mujtahid [highest level] Mufassir [commentator of Quran], Mujtahid Mutaqallim [theologian] and Mujtahid Faqhee [jurist]. Abu Bakr al-Jassas al-Hanafi was Mujtahid Mufassir, Mujtahid Usuli and Mujtahid Mujtahid Faqhee.

You quoted Ijma [consensus – basically saying that all Muslims agree on something] from “Adhwaaul Biyaan” a book written by “Muhammed Amin bin Mohammed Mukhtaar Shanqiti” who died in 1973. He is a Salafist-Mujassim [anthropomorphist]. I am a Hanafi and you refuted the position of a Mujtahid Hanafi Imam by narrating from a Salafist. I was not aware that this discussion was with a Salafist, anyway back to the Hanafi point.

So you admitted Shaykh Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi’s position was that the reason for revelation of Surah al-Falaq and Surah an-Nass was not due to Black Magic and yet you quoted Ijma from a Salafist to say the reason for revelation was Black Magic. He will most likely be narrating form Qurtubi and he is not Mujtahid [again, a high level or in some interpretations the highest level of Islamic scholarship]. So you either contradicted yourself by narrating both or you believe Shaykh Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi went against Ijma. Please check the rules of Ijma as you cannot have Ijma (= consensus} without Mujtahids agreeing on it. In fact, the two Mujtahids Mufassirs rejected black magic as a reason for revelation. For me these Mujtahid Mufassirs are well above all the other Mufassirs that you can even think about mentioning.

If you want a quote from a non-Mujtahid then, Shaykh Muhammed Tahir ibn Ash’oor, a Maliki Ashari, in ‘Tafsir Al-Tahrir Wal Tanwir’, Vol 30, p. 631 also rejects magic as the reason for the revelation of the two verses. They are contemporaries but I will take the position of a Maliki over a Salafist.

Ijma can only be established by Mujtahid Mufassir, and if there is only one Mujtahid Mufassir then what he says is Ijma.

Can you name the Mujtahid Mufassir who created this ijma that your Salafist Shaykh is claiming? You will need to find these Mujtahid Mufassirs who followed what you said, Salafi-Mujasim Muqallids do not bring forth any weight to the argument. But the two Mujtahids I mentioned are giants and if they say no magic that’s ijma. But muqallids [basically, lower level scholar who have to follow the mujtahids] agreeing on something opposite to this is breaking ijma, and Ibn Hajar, Ibn Salah, Qadi Iyad, Maziri and Qurtubi are all Muqaallids, not Mujtahids

3) “that statement of Abu Bakr al-Assam”

Please can you quote Abu Bakr al-Assam verbatim please, what is he exactly rejecting?

4) “after that statement of Abu Bakr al-Assam, Abu Mansoor used ‘Lakin’ which is him making clear he DOES NOT accept what Abu Bakr al-Assam said”

‘Lakin’ does not support your position. On the contrary, he says ‘Lakin Intha’na fee ma QEELA’ which means “but according to us in terms of what was said, that the Prophet was affected by magic…” So once again he is not affirming but stating “Qeela” which once again is “Seegahtu al Tamreeb”. [see above]

5) “the Hadith in Bukhari is not not under any title for the tafsir or reason of revelation of this chapter. Rather, you will find it under the chapter of magic and whether a dhimmi is killed because of magic performance.”

You quoted from your Mujassim scholar that it was Ijma that the narration was for the two verses, so you according to you Bukhari is rejecting Ijma as he has not put it under the chapter of “Reason of Revelation”. Unless you are accepting Bukhari’s position and as such you are suggesting that the magic occurred twice. One for the two verses and another time as Bukhari never mentioned it in the chapter on reasons for the revelation of certain verses.

6) “is clearly stated in the books of aqidah and you may open any one you wish, you will find that magic cannot affect the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in his mind nor in revelation.”

This is what I am asking you to do. Your hadith in Bukhari clearly states the Prophet lost his mind and was imagining events occurring. Are you rejecting this bit of the hadith or do you accept it? If you accept it then you are contravening the books of Aqeedah [creed or religious dogma] which I am upholding, if you reject that he lost his mind then you are also rejecting selective passages of the hadith. Please explain.

7) “it may have affected him ﷺ just like any other illness and then passed and this was also mentioned by Abu Mansoor in that text.”

It is not mentioned in the text. Bukhari says the Prophet (PBUH) lost his mind, Qadi Iyaad [a later Maliki scholar inclined towards Bukhari and the muhaditheen] said the Prophet was sexually impotent for one year: as he approached his wives, he would lose his erection. Are you rejecting a part of the text in Bukhari and talking the position of Qadi Iyaad? Or are you rejecting both positions and creating a new position?

8) “We do not neglect the intellect, however how can your intellect neglect all of these trustworthy narrators and the ones I have mentioned is just a drop in the sea”

The drop in the sea you speak of, have narrated this hadith in many different contradictory manners, so which drop shall I take as they are not from the same sea. In some narrations it is an immature kid who performs the magic, in others it is a Jewish person, in yet another it is a lady who performs the magic. In some narrations it happened for three days and in others for forty days.

In terms of the intellect and it’s primacy over the single chain narrations, the Hanafis, Shafis, Malikis and some Hanbalis such Ibnul Jawzi apply the intellect on the text of ahad [broadly speaking, single chain narrations]

Also the narrations that you have mentioned are weak even according to the Muhaditheen, because they contain weak and unreliable narrators.

You mentioned that this was narrated by “Ibn Saad and other Thiqaa narrators”. Are you making this statement intentionally or by mistake? All of these are weak. If you narrated this and you didn’t know that’s bad but if you know then that is really scary. You will struggle to find any authentic narration even according to the Muhaditheen except the Aisha one – which is narrated to only Urwa, which is then narrated to only his son Hisham [i.e single chain]. You also said Laith bin Saad narrated it but did you know he narrated it from Hisham? So there is no need to mention a big list of names when the reality is quite different and they are all from the same source.

9) Please translate the verse about magic and Shaykh Abu Mansoor’s Tafseer.

The statements of the brother trying to attribute being under magic and insanity to the Prophet Muhammad as per the Hadith in Bukhari sure do sound like the same statement made by the Mushriks which were admonished by God in the Quran.

10. “Believing in possibility of opposite which was proven is void”

This principle is irrelevant except that I would say believing that the Prophet lost his mind/Impotent is batil (void).

11. Also, a Mujtahid quoting something does not mean he believes in it, as we know the famous incident of Imam Malik – when someone came to him to ask about why he put the hadith about buying and selling and having a choice to nullify the transaction (which is also contained in Bukhari) in his ‘Muwatta’, but he rejected it. Imam Malik replied that “it was to let the people know that he rejected not because he didn’t know it but he rejected knowingly”.

I have taken some time to respond to your points, I expect an academic response, which is on point addressing the points I made without deviating I expect complete honesty, if this does not happen I will end the discussion as I could have used this time to do work that open minded people would actually benefit from.

There is not much to be said here apart from the note that we can see that Ahmed is actually bothering to translate and refraining from name dropping. He is naive to expect an academic discussion though, as will soon become clear.

MJ: 1) Abu Mansoor said ‘Lakin’ and then ‘fi ma qeel’. So he does not accept Abu Bakr’s statement and neither does he see this opinion to be the correct stance according to his tarjih for the reason of revelation. To make it plain and clear as I have already done, ABU MANSOOR HAS REJECTED THAT THIS WAS REVEALED BECAUSE OF THAT INCIDENT. This does not mean he rejected the Hadith. Where is the dilalal iltizaam in this which you are making?

Continued use of obscurantist language and untranslated terms to hide the simple fact that there is no factual content to this statement at all, other than to hide that Imam Maturidi unambiguously rejected black magic being done on the Prophet. MJ, who I remind you, is an Islamic scholar of ‘note’, shamelessly continues to obfuscate by saying that Maturidi is not rejecting that the Prophet suffered from black magic but rather that he rejects that there are passages of the Quran revealed for this purpose. Assuming that is true, in this lengthy dialogue, we have not seen MJ or his cronies show Maturidi’s acceptance, other than by insisting that there is no way that Maturidi could have disagreed with Bukhari et al so it must be true.

2) I quoted from that book and the author said ‘ittafaq’. By ‘unanimous’ I did not mean ‘ijma‘. Furthermore now you are hiding being men and saying Abu Mansoor a mujtahid is my evidence. You still have no leg to stand on because he has not rejected that Hadith on magic as I have made absolutely clear.

I hope the readers can appreciate the rank hypocrisy here of Muslim scholars: having appealed to argument from authority ad-nauseum, he is nonetheless affronted when it is applied against him. Even to the extent that he is objecting to the authority of Maturidi being used to show Maturidi’s own opinion!

Note the astonishing dishonesty – he deliberately fails to address why he narrated the position of Maturidi’s from a 1970’s avowedly Salafi scholar’s book. As I have hopefully made clear – Salafis are modernists – 1400 years of learning and tradition go in the bin for the rants of their latter day 20th century scholars – yet Salafis decry ‘modernists’. That’s like a lesbian calling a gay man ‘homosexual’ in a derogatory manner.

3) Abu Bakr is stating that “there is a narration which they have mentioned which is not permissible, so I left it.” Who is they? And what is not permissible? If it’s because of what I have already mentioned, then Ahl us Sunna have already clarified the boundaries of magic with Qur’an and Hadith.

4) This has been addressed previously.

5) you are know only attempting to refute me because I quoted from ‘Adhwaa Bayaan’. This has not refuted my case about the sentence you are trying to refute here. Very academic indeed Sulaiman….

Notice the true colours of the alleged Hanafi authority here: he is crying foul because he has been criticised for narrating from Wahhabi scholars. He sees no issue with narrating the position of Maturidi through those who label him a heretic and are the antithesis of his theology. As I mentioned at the beginning, that is the whole game of Salafism: narrate the position of the classical schools falsely through the mouths of Wahhabi scholars for the purpose of appropriating the authority and following of the classical schools for their own nefarious modernism and heresy.

It is exactly the same as someone arguing that we should ask Martin Luther what the position of the Pope was on a particular matter.

6) I accept what the narration says. However it was, it was just like an illness which came upon him ﷺ and then he ﷺ was cured by Allah.

Remember, the narration in question asserts that the Prophet lost his mind and didn’t know what he was doing and became impotent. Perhaps for a period of three months. He is ashamed to say that he accepts this. This is a good thing.

7) again, Abu Mansoor states three opinions why these Surahs were revealed and the third he said is because he ﷺ was affected by magic. He does that take this stance for the reason of revelation but he does not reject the fact anywhere in that text that he rejects magic. He has only rejected that this was the reason for revelation.

8) I will struggle? Read again and look at the narrators and the hukm [command] given.

9) Abu mansoor has said that they are oppressors because they knew he was not crazy and not affected my magic and they said this to him and related to him whatever they did regarding magic and loss of mind and this is not the case.

I have mentioned what the mushrikeen did and how this relates to them and it’s context. You are now creating a new addition from your own mind and putting that Hadith into this where there is no correlation apart from the word. Look at the previous lines before he underlined part which says,

“They conspired between themselves that he is affected my magic and he is crazy and he is a sorcerer. Then Allah informed His Prophet ﷺ what they were hiding and conspiring in order to guide them to his message and for them to know that he ﷺ knows what has been conspired by Allah.”

Finally, in desperation, he is offering a translation. Why not start in this manner instead of offering untranslated technical terms to show his ‘scholarly’ credentials?

10) the principle stands and you are rejecting it based on Intellect and no textual evidence which is no hujjah zahirah at all. If you reject principles of usool and logic, what basis at you talking from?!?!?

I just want readers to note Wahhabi stupidity: in the first sentence he accuses Ahmad of rejecting a principle based on his use of intellect. He then, in the very next sentence chastises him for rejecting and not using ‘epistemology and logic’ i.e intellect. This is simply moronic but is in fact the style Wahhabis employ while debating non-Muslims, in which case they apply ‘science and logic’, which they promptly forget when it comes to hadith, which are to be judged on ‘chain only’, unless of course they wish to show us where clashing with reality or observation was a criteria for rejection of hadith. The inconsistency is galling and would put off any prospective ‘religious shopper’

Sulaiman Ahmed, not in one place have you academically refuted my argument against you. Rather you sit there and just curse one man after another and at the same time reject these trustworthy narrators. Did you know in fiqh to to ta’n (accuse) to a trustworthy person (‘adl) you need your hujjah zahirah otherwise you get whipped? You are doing ta’n to a great number of them such as Sufyan b. ‘Uyaynah, Sufyan ath-thawri, [these were hadith scholars who showed great enmity to Hanafites – recall that it is the Hanafi position that is being debated here, yet these people are being brought as ‘reliable witnesses’ – note the complete subterfuge; MJ is very obviously from the outset a Salafi posing as a Hanafi] Ibn Namir etc.

Violence threatened in a cowardly and veiled way – ‘you deserve to be whipped etc’. Salafi 101 again and more proof if it was needed that despite their denials, ISIS is an authentic ”Islamic State” – as far as Wahhabis go anyway

Imam Malik also rejected the fact that Awais Al-Qarni existed and this is in Sahih Muslim?!?!? The ‘ulama understand his to be that this Hadith with that chain didn’t reach him when he said that and then later on when his was related to him with the chain he did accept this.

So my argument as before still stands, where does Abu mansoor reject the Hadith of magic? (The answer is nowhere because he doesn’t and I have explained what he is rejecting. You are taking a snippet out of its context and then you accuse others of this. Have some dignity!). If the public don’t believe me, please take that copy to any learned scholar and ask them to explain it to you and if they said opposite to what i have said, let me know.

Since you cannot prove Abu mansoor said it, I ask you to prove how you make takhsees (specify) the verse that you quote “Allah will protect you from mankind” to only this Hadith and magic. Where is the evidence to say it is only for that and not any other harm? As you know, takhsees needs evidence otherwise the verse remains ‘aam (general) so it should mean no harm will come to him ﷺ in any form but it is known he ﷺ had rotten meat thrown on him and had stones thrown at him in ta’if and his ﷺ upper garment pulled such that it left a mark on his ﷺ blessed neck, may my mother and father be sacrificed for him ﷺ.

I love how he has suddenly decided to start translating technical terms! Bit late in the game. Notice the overly dramatic and unacademic offers to sacrifice his mum and dad for the Prophet. This is the kind of nonsense which makes the irreligious look down their nose at Muslim scholars.

If you have no script evidence for takhsees, then you only have the intellect to do takhsees. And you doing takhsees on a matter by YOUR intellect against Ahl us Sunna which you see to be the case which is totally flawed.

Note the famously inconsistent position on the intellect of not only Wahhabis but also Muslim scholars in general. He has variously chastised Ahmed for using it and not using it. Here we have anew bastardisation: He is accusing Ahmed of using his intellect instead of that of ‘Ahlus Sunnah‘. Leaving aside the impossibility of using anyone else’s intellect or indeed other mental components, this is just argument from authority and indeed, we saw who he means by ‘Ahlus Sunnah‘ – a Wahhabi and a couple of name-dropped Muhaditheen (Ibn Hajar and Ibn Salah)

Block me if you wish, but I hope the public can see the lies and deceit you guys are putting on the public platform and attempting to lead people astray.

Not once, and the public and academics can see, have you actually refuted my argument with textual evidence or support. You have just picked a name and decided to curse him and then use that against me throughout this whole thing.

جاء الحق و زهق الباطل. أن الباطل كان زهوقا

Allah says, “Truth has come and falsehood has perished. Indeed, falsehood is bound to be perished.”

The abuse of both Quran and hadith to insult ones opponent and play to the gallery is disgustingly common in encounters with Wahhabites.

That is the nature of these false claims which is in reality your opinion and Shaykh Atabek, not the Hanafi madhab.

This is very fresh coming from someone who demands that Hanafi madhab be taken from Salafis, Muhaditheen, Shafis, Hanbalis…in short, anyone but Hanafis!

And if you want more chains of that Hadith, Ibn Hajar [another muhaddith from the rival Shafi/A’shari school] in ‘Fath Al-Bari’ goes into significant detail about the turuq and different chains [just above he treated us to a lengthy passage about all the different chains of the hadith – but now when exposed that all of these amount to just one chain, he abstains from quoting again and merely tells us to ‘look it up’. So why not present the ‘different’ chains in his original one page post on ‘chains’ (plural) which was in fact just one chain? The answer is simple and ells you a lot about Muslim scholars – he assumes you can’t look it up in Arabic]

Be aware of these scholars, some of whom (the first two only) are indeed top scholars, that Salafis almost exclusively rely on: Ibn Hajar, Ibn Salah, Albani, Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyum, Uthaymeen and Ibn Baz. Most other they mention will be intimately connected to these. The Deoband school add Gangohi and the Thanwi’s amongst others. It always comes back to these very latter day guys. Presumably Islam did not exist until they came along, much like how Orientalists such as Tom Holland (too stupid to even be called an orientalist) assert.

SA: Wow. I don’t know what to say. I did in fact expect such a weak response without any research, academia and unscientific as your Shaykh Samir an-Nass calls it, but I was hoping for more. Sad times. In your post all you did was try to insult and rather than answer any of the points and in fact what frustrates me is that I wasted my time with someone who did not have the calibre nor the academic honesty to address this issue. The remaining responses from your side should be from Shaykh Samir an-Nass himself. At least, I hope, there will be a better and on point response.

1) Issue of ‘Qeela’ being ‘Seeghat al-Tamreedh’ NOT ADDRESSED

2) I quoted two mujtahid Mufassirs, you quoted your Salafi imam. I asked for mujtahid Mufassirs on your side. NOT ADDRESSED

3) Abu Bakr is stating that “there is a narration which they have mentioned which is not permissible, so I left it.” Who is they? And what is not permissible?

Rest of your statement is assumption. So we don’t know which position Abu Bakr al-Assam was in fact rejecting. How have you made this magical assumption? NOT ADDRESSED

4) After ‘LAKIN’ it says ‘QEELA‘, still NOT ADDRESSED

Ahmed still hasn’t realised the banality of the game being played against him: he simply is too inexperienced and naive to appreciate that the whole gambit of the Salafists rests on simply mistranslating the word ‘Qeela‘ refusing to admit that it is a sort of prefix which denies what comes after it (in its scholarly use by Muslims). He does not realise that the whole charade is about denying that ‘Qeela’ is used to reject something. He is soon to be disabused of his naiveté.

5) Did not answer if magic happened twice or once and why your points are contradictory. NOT ADDRESSED

6) You accept narration that the Prophet lost his mind but then have not shown why you contradictorily reject this and say it was an illness, and when you accept the Hadith in Bukhari why you are contradicting the books of aqeedah. NOT ADDRESSED

7) You accept the Hadith in Bukhari about the Prophet losing his mind. In the Hadith it does not say he had an illness. Where on earth did you get this information from? Again, NOT ADDRESSED

8) NOT ADDRESSED

9) “They conspired between themselves that he is affected by magic and he is crazy (lost his mind) and he is a sorcerer. Then Allah informed His Prophet ﷺ what they were hiding and conspiring in order to guide them to his message and for them to know that he ﷺ knows what has been conspired by Allah.”

The verse of the Quran matches up nicely with your views.

10) Saying the Prophet has lost his mind is ‘batil’ [iniquitous falsehood]

11) Imam Malik not knowing a) something exists and b) rejecting a Hadith and nonetheless placing it in his collection for illustration that he dares to reject it are in fact two different things. NOT ADDRESSED

12) The Question you ask about ‘Thasees’, there is an easy answer that a student who learns one basic book in Usul [epistemology] can answer and I will also address this once you do what I said.

At least Ahmed is not naive enough to jump from point to point as the Salafis would like him to do.

13) “That is the nature of these false claims which is in reality your opinion and Shaykh Atabek, not the Hanafi madhab”

No brother with my claim I have two giant Mufusareen [Quranic commentators] that the reason for revelation was not magic but instead was to teach.

On your side you have shown only a Salafist imam and if you work hard, which you didn’t, you may find opinions of Muqaallids.

In reality what it is that you are doing is forcing impotence on the Prophet so it matches up with your Salafi-Deobandi version of Islam. You can have that version of Islam but please don’t make it look like it is the original Hanafi position. We’ve seen this in arguments before where the Prophet (PBUH) is made lower than other creatures. I’m not being sectarian – people can follow any sect they wish but your slander needs to be addressed. In reality, the Deobandi and Salafist Muslims have been fixated with these Hadith to denigrate the Prophet (PBUH) and have influenced everyone. But now some do Mawlids [this is a celebration of the Prophet’s birthday and is hated by puritanical groups like the Wahhabis, Salafis, Deobandis etc]. I don’t accept this version of Islam.

You then quoted erroneous and emotional tripe about ‘truth coming’, this is why you were not given ijaza [permission to teach or the equivalent of a diploma or certificate of competence] by Shaykh Atabek in aqeedah [creed] and tajweed [Arabic pronunciation]. He was most likely concerned that you would place your Salafist-Deobandi version of Islam on it. Like I said, I have no problem with your sect but don’t make it out as though it is the position of the Hanafi giants of this ummah, who actually respected the Prophet (PBUH).

Back on point, you haven’t taken the time to address anything. I’m not being horrible but the rules to discussion are that you’re well versed in the field you are discussing and that does not mean collecting ijazas but studying intensively. So it means strong knowledge in Hanafi Usul, Hanafi and Shafi Mustalah, terminologies used by scholars, Hanafi Fiqh [jurispudence], Maturidi and Ashari aqeedah for this issue. I’m not confident based on the discussion you have expertise on this issue. I had many more points to make but my initial ones weren’t even addressed.

Brother, don’t take this personally. But as you have not addressed anything at all, I want you instead to relieve yourself, and take my points to your teacher, Shaykh Samir an-Nass [a famous ‘Hanafi’ scholar from Syria who is basically a Salafi] and let him address them. I hope his arguments will be on point and he will address each issue and will understand the points I have made and we can continue discussing this issue. Please don’t waste our time with a response that even a beginner student can make.

So your next post should be from Shaykh Samir an-Nass.

MJ: You haven’t read a word of what I have said. You claim to be behind Abu Mansoor when he doesn’t even mention what you say. So you don’t have a mujtahid. I’m not standing behind a salafi. Ibn Kathir mentions this in Surah Falaq tafsir with his chain, if only you read what I wrote.

Hilariously, Ibn Kathir is another ”go to” Imam of the Salafis: he is in fact well known for narrating anthropomorphisms and is a student of Salafi archfiend Ibn Taymiyya – next to whom he is buried. In any case, literally no one accepts Ibn Kathir as an Imam of Creed nor is he in any way qualified to challenge the opinion of Maturidi, even according to his not inconsiderable fan club. He is also, as per Salafist protocol, very late (after Ibn Taymiyya and so 15th century onwards)

I’m sorry Sulaiman. But you have shown no light of knowledge at all. Allah help you and all those that are falling for this.

I have told you the that hujjah [proof] is upon the muda’i (the claimer). You have your claim and it was flawed. So Abu Mansoor is not on your side. Abu Bakr opinion is not taken by Abu Mansoor. So at the moment you are behind a Mu’tazilte [the hated enemies of Muhaditheen and Salafis and the go to guys when trying to accuse someone of heresy. Salafist groups and sadly most A’sharis as well, condition their students from childhood to imagine the rationalist Mu’tazzila as the worst things ever, whereas the barbaric violent Khawarij, who ironically were also rationalists and hadith rejecters are given a ”pass”. We will ignore the foolishness of narrating hadith from people who don’t recognise the validity of hadith – namely the Khawarij] opinion. That’s your standing. And oh yeah, your own whim and intellect.

You see to try and respect the Prophet ﷺ, when in fact you disrespect his inheritors and disrespect him ﷺ.

Anybody who understands what I have written will know that you have addressed nothing and you have no leg to stand on. Abu Mansoor, Rahim Ullah, is free from your claims.

Salafist- Deobandi Islam? Name calling again and another conclusion from nothing. You can even make takhsees of my approach based on your intellect of putting snippets together and here we have a Salafist-Deobandi? Nice usool.

Anyway, it’s clear you don’t want to discuss academically. I leave you to know that Abu Mansoor does not support you and you are behind a mu’tazilte opinion. That is what we have gathered already.

Wa alaikum assalaam wa rahmat Ullahi wa barakaatoh.

Again, notice the typical Salafi Latin drama antics and the accusations of name calling…while himself name calling. Also notice the vile ‘Salafi Sin’ of not admitting that one is a Salafi – nor does he deny it though.

SA: You have not addressed one point. I even numbered them to make it easy for you. Please take them to your shaykh. I expect a better response after the time I have taken.

You keep saying I’m behind the Mutazalite Abu Bakr Al-Assam’s opinion yet you yourself established that we didn’t know his opinion. Complete dishonesty and frankly, deception and lying.

In reality at that time Hashwis (Salafists equivalents in the classical period), hated all Hanafis and called them ‘Mutazalite’. Even Abu Hanifa was called Mutazalite as he didn’t adhere to your Salafist version of Islam.

We have here an important point for the uninitiated: Muslims who are educated in or exposed to Deo-Salafi mosques or teachers are taught from an early age that Imam Ahmad was subjected to imprisonment and torture by the Mu’tazzilites under the reign of Caliph Ma’moun (or his successor). However, as has been made abundantly clear by orientalists and genuine scholars, this is half a story. Ahmad was imprisoned for maybe 18 moths or perhaps much less. He was not executed (unlike Malik and Abu Hanfia who were assassinated). After the time of the ‘minha‘ which was the inquisition up to assert whether Muslim scholars believed in the created-ness of the Quran (of which Ahmad fell foul since his position was that the Quran is uncreated in its written and recited form – incidentally, the wrong position, though students are never told this), which frankly was rather mild as seen by Imam Ahmad’s survival, there was a counter inquisition by the Muhaditheen and Hanbali mobs which led to the murder of countless Hanafites and Mu’tazillites – Ahmed has cottoned on to the fact that when Muhaditheen of old are talking about ‘mutazzilites’, they in fact mean all of their enemies, particularly Hanafis. The elevation of Imam Ahmad’s trial and the wilful ignorance of the genocide of his opponents that followed it (recently displayed by Jonathan AC Brown, a crypto-Salafist himself) is a standard trope of Deo-Salafists as they find it expedient to support the Muhaditheen and Salafis against the Hanafites, more galling in the Deobandi case given they claim to be Hanafis themselves.

In reality you have shown you are with the Salafist-Deobandi version of Islam. Ibn Kathir [as mentioned, a Quranic commentator again, inclined against Hanafis and a student of Salafi arch-fiend Ibn Taymiyyah] is a muqallid (you do know what that means right?).

‘Respecting knowledge’ is in fact tackling issues that you have studied intensively. So are you an expert in the Hanafi/Shafi school? From this discussion it seems neither.

If you are not addressing this academically and on point and are not able to analyse the points I have made, as you don’t know basic terminologies then at least look at it from the position of how disgusting your view is:

The Prophet (PBUH) is impotent is your position, and as related by Qadi Iyad [a Maliki jurist highly regarded, but again, a partisan of hadith and advocate of ignoring Maliki hadith methodology in favour of accepting reports willy-nilly] this was for one whole year, would you say the same about your own father or yourself? Disgusting.

The Prophet Muhammad lost his mind and didn’t know when he was having sex. Disgusting.

The Prophet Muhammad would approach his wife and he would become ‘limp’ as Qadi Iyad said. Disgusting.

These are what you mean by ‘physical illness’ which you convoluted yourself.

Indeed, Salafis often play to the gallery – MJ asserted the Prophet was suffering from physical illnesses, after the assertions of previous scholars such as Iyad – but he deliberately omitted what these ailments were, and they were indeed most foul, for the sake of masking the real difficulties with the ”gotta accept them all’ approach to the narrations of Bukhari

But then you guys say we ‘respect’ the Prophet Muhammad when it is time for Mawlid. £££ (ca – ching!) £££ [a reference to the donations which are made by Muslims on the Prophet’s birthday]

Like I said take my point to your Shaykh, Samir al-Nass as I had many more proofs waiting. And when he responds, I will respond.

Samir An Naas is a famous scholar and senior of MJ. He also claims to be a Hanafite but is indistinguishable form a Salafist.

I’m disappointed because unlike Shaykh Atabek, who knows nearly all of this from the top of his head, it takes me a long time to research, to make sure the point I narrate is relevant to the point, is strong, has basis and refutes the point of the other person. When this is not reciprocated, then it is terribly disappointing.

This shows how foolish Ahmed is – he is unaware of the epic time wasting strategies of Salafis. We saw this repeatedly on this site where they would refuse to translate, demand proofs and when proffered, would disengage.

MJ: Hang on, I’m a salafi, do I celebrate mawlid? (According to you)

As you can see, you are no longer fit to debate. You tell people to study and say you have so many points. You haven’t made one at all to engage the discussion. You hide behind your status of ‘shaykh’ [teacher, scholar or literally ‘old man’] which you gained in how many years sorry? And then say I don’t have time and I have a lot more but I wait.

It would be interested to hear you read one line in Arabic correctly. For a while you guys in Avicenna used to call ‘mustalah Hadith’ as ‘mustalal’…

Recall that MJ was complaining about ‘name calling’ previously. The ‘bad manners’ or adhab card is also inconsistently employed by all stripes of Islamic scholars.

This is the end of the so-called discussion.

I hope the public have seen your deceit and treachery. Hiding behind I could do this and that and not engage the points and rather just keep saying you don’t know this and don’t know that. Anybody with some idea, is aware of the points I made have basis in fiqh, usool and Hadith. And yours? Show me someone other than Avicenna who will give basis and backing to your approach and is not Mu’tazili.

If you didn’t get the idea from the get go, the game here is to repeatedly accuse Ahmed of being a Mu’tazzilte heretic, which the Muslims have suitably been conditioned to hate and switch off to for years.

Allah help you all.

SA: You have not addressed any of my points, since you know that they don’t match with your Salafi-Deobandi version of Islam. Hence why you hate the Hanafi way.

What made you ‘shaykh’ is that you happened to be born in Iran and as such can speak Arabic. I’m afraid, like many other claiming to be Sheikhs, that’s it. According to you Prophet is impotent and yet you want to celebrate his Mawlid. Odd.

It is sad that it takes Ahmed this long to realise that the only ‘knowledge’ that 90% of Muslim scholars have is the ability to read Arabic. If they even come across a layman with a little bit of knowledge and the ability to read Arabic they are nixed. That’s the whole game. It is also why Salafis immediately start teaching their adepts Arabic (poorly). To impress on the poor Muslims that they have ‘knowledge’. It is just as how some people in the Developing world lionise anyone who can speak English.

Look the last few posts – we are needlessly posting against each other.

Ask Shaykh Samir to respond to each numbered point I made with references and proof. If he does, then he has proven his point. If not, I have proven mine.

MJ: I am salafi but yet I celebrate mawlid according to you? I hate the Hanafi way? Some teachers of mine are Hanafi and senior Hanafi scholars.

So I was born in Iran and I speak Arabic and it makes me shaykh? Strange deduction again.

This discussion was over a long time ago. You must bring your evidence forth for you to reject Bukhari and it must be clear evidence. Abu Mansoor text is not supporting you. If Abu Bakr is all you have, then that has been flawed already. So what’s left? Your opinion based in your intellect and I think this is what you were getting at before where you feel you can do takhsees of that verse with your opinion and reach this conclusion and then remove the Nass.

Remember that a clear text right at the start where Imam Abu Mansooor Maturidi clearly says that he rejects the narrations of Bukhari (which had not been compiled then) where the Prophet Muhammad is affected by Black Magic? But MJ keeps pretending that this has not happened, or that the text does not exist. Once again, he is banking on showmanship to trump scholarship and on you not knowing Arabic or the meanings of the words ”qeela” and ‘lakin‘. It is just shocking and why I felt that readers have to see the depths that so – called Islamic scholars will go to for the ends of misleading people. They are no less than the most cunning baptist ministers.

Do not bring shaykh samir’s name into this conversation. If he wants to deal with you, he will. He already has dealt with you on that video, but if you want to bring this nonsense to him, then it is up to him how he wants to deal with you guys, May Allah Preserve him.

SA: If you are slandering me, I am okay with it but It is funny how you keep saying ‘you guys’. Don’t show any respect to your own teacher Shaykh Atabek? You have learnt and studied from him, grovelled for Ijaza [permission to teach], which was refused and then you insult him publicly. Is this you version of ‘Prophetic Knowledge’? Have a bit of shame.

If you post again without addressing the point I will keep posting the points that were not addressed. You can consult with Shaykh Samir and bring evidence to answer the question.

1) Issue of Qeela being Seeghat al-Tamreedh NOT ADDRESSED

2) I quoted two mujtahid Mufassirs [senior-most commentators on the Quran], you quoted your Salafi imam. I asked for mujtahid Mufassirs from your side. NOT ADDRESSED

3) Abu Bakr is stating that “there is a narration which they have mentioned which is not permissible, so I left it.” Who are ‘they’? And what is not permissible?

The rest of your statement is assumption. So we don’t know which position Abu Bakr al-Assam was in fact rejecting. How have you made the magic assumption? NOT ADDRESSED

4) After ‘LAKIN’ it says ‘QEELA’, still NOT ADDRESSED

5) You did not answer whether magic happened twice or once and why your points are contradictory. NOT ADDRESSED

6) You ‘accept’ narration that the Prophet lost his mind but then have not shown why you actually reject this and say it was an illness and why when you accept the Hadith in Bukhari why you are at the same time contradicting the books of aqeedah [creed]. NOT ADDRESSED

7) You accept the Hadith in Bukhari about the Prophet losing his mind. In the Hadith it does not say he had an ‘illness’. Where did you get that from? Again NOT ADDRESSED

8) NOT ADDRESSED

9) “They conspired between themselves that he is affected my magic and he is crazy (lost his mind) and he is a sorcerer. Then Allah informed His Prophet ﷺ what they were hiding and conspiring in order to guide them to his message and for them to know that he ﷺ knows what has been conspired by Allah.”

The verse of the Quran matches up nicely with your views.

10) Saying the Prophet has lost his mind is batil [false]

11) Imam Malik not knowing something exists and rejecting Hadith and placing it in his collection are two different things. NOT ADDRESSED

12) The Question you ask about Thasees, there is an easy answer that a student who learns one basic book in Usul [epistemic or juristic principles] can answer – and I will also address this, once you do what I said.

If these points a unequivocally refuted then my position is refuted.

Until then however, I have proven that Shaykh Abu Mansoor rejected that the verses were revealed due to the Prophet (PBUH) being affected by Black Magic. So I say Shaykh Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi was rejecting the black magic on the Prophet (PBUH).

When scholars use the word “Qeela” it is “Seeghat al-Tamreedh“.

What is “Seeghat Al-Tamreedh“?

MJ: How Maturidi uses lakn and qila can be seen in other places. Like:
(2.a) Maturidi said,
وقوله: (فِي الصور) قيل الصور هو القرن ينفخ فيه النفخة الأولى فيصعق من في السماوات ومن في الأرض إلا من شاء اللَّه، ثم ينفخ فيه مرة فإذا هم قيام ينظرون. ومنهم من يقول أي نفخ الروح في صور الخلق؛ لكن جمع الصورة الصور، بنصب الواو فلا يحتمل أن يكون المراد منه جمع الصورة
(2.b)
ومنهم من ذكر أن الكافور شيء جرى ذكره في الكتب المتقدمة فذكر كذلك في القرآن. ومنهم من قال إنه عين من عيون الجنة. ومنهم من صرفه إلى الكافور المعروف. لكن قيل إنه كناية عن طيب الشراب وقيل إنه كناية عن برودة الشراب لأنه ذكر أن ذلك الشراب في طبعه كالكافور لأن ألذ الشراب عند الناس البارد منه لا أن يكون في نفسه باردا وذكروا أن الكأس لا تسمى كأسا حتى يكون فيها خمر.
(3.b)
قيل فيه بوجهين وإلا فظاهر القصاص لا يكون حياة، لكن قيل من تفكره في نفسه قتلها إذا قتل آخر ارتدع عن قتله، فتحيا النفسان جميعا.

MJ: Also, Naysaburi makes basically the same point as Sahib Adwa’ al-Bayan:
وقال جمهور المفسرين إن لبيد بن الأعصم اليهودي سحر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في إحدى عشرة عقدة في وتر ودسه في بئر ذي أروان فمرض النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم واشتد ذلك عليه ثلاث ليال فنزلت المعوذتان وأخبره جبرائيل بموضع السحر فأرسل عليا بطلبه وجاء به وقال جبرائيل اقرأ السورتين فكان كلما يقرأ آية تنحل عقدة فيجد بعض الراحة والخفة حتى إذا أتمهما فكأنما أنشط من عقال. طعنت المعتزلة في هذه الرواية بأنها توجب تسلط الكفار والأشرار على الأنبياء.

MJ: From Tafsir al-Qurtubi,

مَعَ اتِّفَاقِ الْمُفَسِّرِينَ عَلَى أَنَّ سَبَبَ نُزُولِهَا مَا كَانَ مِنْ سِحْرِ لَبِيَدِ بْنِ الْأَعْصَمِ، وَهُوَ مِمَّا خَرَّجَهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ وَمُسْلِمٌ وَغَيْرُهُمَا عَنْ عَائِشَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا قَالَتْ: سَحَرَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَهُودِيٌّ مِنْ يَهُودِ بَنِي زُرَيْقٍ يُقَالُ لَهُ لَبِيَدُ بْنُ الْأَعْصَمِ، الْحَدِيثَ. وَفِيهِ: أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَمَّا حُلَّ السِّحْرِ: (إِنَّ اللَّهَ شَفَانِي). وَالشِّفَاءُ إِنَّمَا يَكُونُ بِرَفْعِ الْعِلَّةِ وَزَوَالِ الْمَرَضِ، فَدَلَّ عَلَى أَنَّ لَهُ حَقًّا وَحَقِيقَةً، فَهُوَ مَقْطُوعٌ بِهِ بِإِخْبَارِ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَرَسُولُهُ عَلَى وُجُودِهِ وَوُقُوعِهِ. وَعَلَى هَذَا أَهْلُ الْحَلِّ وَالْعَقْدِ الَّذِينَ يَنْعَقِدُ بِهِمُ الْإِجْمَاعُ، وَلَا عِبْرَةَ مَعَ اتِّفَاقِهِمْ بِحُثَالَةِ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ وَمُخَالَفَتِهِمْ أَهْلَ الْحَقِّ.

[none translated – and two of them are from A’sharis, which is a creed already accepting that the Prophet was affected by Black Magic – and this is not even under discussion – the issue is what did Maturidi say, since he disagrees with A’sharis on this. Nonetheless, notice the shocking dishonesty of Muslim scholars – bringing A’sharites as untranslated Arabic proofs of the Maturidi position. It’s like narrating form a Democrat and saying ‘this is the Republican position’].

He is again banking on your ability not to read Arabic – Arabic readers note that Maturidi is again using ‘qeela‘ to reject what comes after – MJ is simply to dishonest or foolish to understand this as he cannot fathom or allow you to see that Maturidi disagrees with Bukhari.

Finally, MJ gets to the point. But why was this not brought before? Remember, Muslims scholars, like hyenas, usually hunt in packs. He is no doubt being helped by his partisans such as Samir An Naas. See how we suddenly have ‘new’ evidence. It would have been useful to have this from the start.

SZH: Although The hadith of Prophet (صل الله عليه وسلم) being affected by magic is narrated by Bukhari, ibn sa’d but as per the Usool hadith, ”Riwayatan” this hadith is weak

-As per the Hadith 5765 of Bukhari ‘The comb and hairs etc were taken out from the well’ BUT at the same time, as per the hadith 5766 of Bukhari ‘these things were NOT taken out of the well’
-as per hadith 5765 of Bukhari due to magic Prophet (صل الله عليه وسلم) would think he had done a work but actually he wouldn’t have done it’.
-as per hadith from Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d vol 2 page 152
‘due to magic Prophet (صل الله عليه وسلم) when he looked at anything he would think it any other thing’ i.e his eyesight was affected.
-as per Hadith 19765 from Musannaf Abdr Razaq ‘Prophet (صل الله عليه وسلم) became impotent (العياذ بالله) for ONE year
-As per Hadith of ibn Sa’d vol 2 page 153, when 11 verse (of al-Falq and al-Naas [chapters of the Quran]) were recited, the threads/knots would open (from the thing on which magic spell was made)…but HERE it should be noted that These Suras are ‘Makki’ [Meccan period] whereas the magic incident is ‘Madni’ [Madinan period, i./e later in the Prophets life]

So as per Muhadiseen this Hadith is مضطرب
Similarly it opposes the Quran
Eg:

ولا يفلح الساحر حيث اتی
‘…. and wherever a magician may come, he will not be successful.’
Sura Taha verse 69.

So that is why it is best to reject this hadith.

Similarly the incident of Magic is narrated to be done after the Treaty of Hudaybia, and in that year the Prophet (صل الله عليه وسلم) was busy in achieving victory in many battles and many other things but this narration says that his mind/body/eyesight was affected. So it is not possible for a person who is affected by magic on mind/body to do these lots of victories.

MJ: I think you will find that if you read some tafsir books and Hadith books that this is not the case. Please reference the book you are quoting from when you say the Hadith is mudhtarib. Jazak Allahu khayra.

But this new interloper, yet another Muslim scholar, already explained it and gave the reasons for weakness. Instead of addressing the complaints against the hadith, he wants the book from which the interloper derived the complaints. Textualist when it suits, rationalist when it suits…

SA: Shaykh Syed Zahid Hussain, thank you for taking your time to being evidence about the weakness of the chains regarding point 7, from what I know you are Hanafi and well versed in the Hanafi school and as such your input will add only benefit to this thread.

But I want to take 1 point at a time. Because posting a lot of things causes too much dust and the issue is lost.

MJ, lets both of us keep on point and not take snipes at each other, even with back handed comments. Let’s bring honesty to the discussion.

1) You bought some texts from Asharis [theological group, related closely to the party of hadith], when I already that they believe in the sexual impotence of the Prophet. In terms of the Maturidi text you bought we can discuss that issue in a different thread BUT you still haven’t answered the question:

When scholars use the word “Qeela” it is “Seeghat Al-Tamreedh“

Ahmed has finally cottoned on to the ruse (very late in the game) – Salafis wish to deny that ‘qeela‘ is ‘seeghat al tamreedh‘- namely, a way of rejecting what follows the word ‘qeela‘. By denying that this is the case, Salafis can literally make ‘no’ into ‘yes’ and completely re-write all of Islamic scholarship.

Don’t believe me? Then keep reading.

What is ‘Seegah Al-Tamreedh‘?

Please answer this question as this is where we are disagreeing. I am saying Imam Maturidi is rejecting the hadith and you’re saying he is not.

Please let’s stay on topic.

When scholars use the word “Qeela” it is “Seeghat Al-Tamreedh“

What is ‘Seegah Al-Tamreedh‘?

RP: Please continue Shaykh Sulaiman…the proofs have been very convincing thus far and furthermore you are doing a great spiritual service to the honour of the Prophet by bringing to bear scholarly arguments, the very lack of which are the basis for well meaning supporters of the Prophets isma being maligned as opposers of the authentic traditions. Your task is in its very nature noble and the opposition’s can only be miserable.

Finally, someone intercedes on behalf of the Prophet. And it only took about 20 pages.

MJ: Here is Tahawi in Sharh Mushkil Athaar (vol 15 pg 180) speaking about magic. This is the narration of Zayd b. Arqam which states that the Prophet ﷺ was affected by magic by one of the Jews and the Falaq and naas were revealed.