It is very common for us to receive questions from confused people about references or sources that they have been exposed to by Wahhabis/Salafis. In 90% of cases, this is due to the recipients inability to read Arabic (incidentally, a lot of so-called radicalisation proceeds in this manner also, with people being groomed to join ISIS etc based on fatwas, hadith and opinions which they cannot even read in the original Arabic). I have long known that Wahhabis employ certain stereotyped fraudulent and academically bankrupt techniques to mislead people, so I was very happy when Nikita submitted the article on which this one builds: https://asharisassemble.com/2015/10/05/muslims-proudly-display-academic-standards/
That piece employed the popular ‘ internet debunking’ style, using a book review by a Wahhabi propagandist as a jumping off point to expose the strategies and techniques Wahhabis employ in general. Judging from the number of views and reactions, it had a utility and benefit far beyond the simple premise of its author. Providentially, the purveyors of the original misinformation piece circulated a defence of it (amongst themselves only this time though, presumably fearing further embarrassment), allowing our writer to reproduce it here and with even greater exposition of Salafi heterodoxy and academic fraud. I can honestly say that this is a master-class and can suffice to defend oneself against Wahhabi, err, ‘mind rape’ on campus, in the mosque or indeed the internet.
However, it is necessary to read the original article to be ‘fully armed’, to have context and to see just how deep their rabbit hole goes…
By Suede Nikita
I recently had to educate an errant ‘student of ‘knowledge’ on his absolutely lamentable ‘review’ of Atabek Shukurov and Sulaiman Ahmed’s highly educational book ‘Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith‘:https://asharisassemble.com/2015/10/05/muslims-proudly-display-academic-standards/
It seems that this piece was in fact a group effort, making the errors even more egregious. To add further embarrassment, Cheeba almost immediately altered his review – without admitting this on his site – to change ‘the language and a couple of issues…and to use the full name of the author’. Hilariously, he tried to copy my style of referencing and repeated his gaffe of being unable to read Maturidi’s Kitab Ut Tawhid. Although that’s ignominious in and of itself, the hastily erected ‘defence’ he suffered at the hands of an individual named ‘Bassam Zawadi’ was even worse – and for entertainment and illustration, I thought I would cause this couplet further embarrassment by dissecting this even more banal waffle here (although Zawadi/Cheeba, henceforth ‘Cheewadi’, did not make it public, somewhat understandable after the response to their, errr, scholarship).
What one has to remember is that when these people are exposed as charlatans, they at the very least need to respond to their fan base, so although they for instance did not dare to engage Shukurov or Ahmed, who are all over Facebook and the internet like white on rice, but rather circulated their ramblings to their own ‘followers’, when my article caused understandable negative exposure, they embarked on this hasty face saving measure, which actually makes things worse, again demonstrating that they have absolutely no credentials or talents.
These internet personalities have two strategies, whether Wahhabis or their Evangelical Christian near cousins: firstly, they accrue status amongst their even more obtunded followers in the West by pretending to be competent in Arabic. And amongst their Arabic fans they score points by pretending to be competent in English. They never bother to study anything such as Fiqh, Usool or Tafseer but instead pretend that they have by quoting Arabic that their fans can hardly even read (they are basically looking it up as they go along – but they don’t even know which books to look it up in as will become clear soon). In addition, despite being Salafis, they take it upon themselves to narrate the positions of the orthodox schools – which they usually do by using Salafi sources, as I pointed out in my last article.
In short, Salafi Islam-spamming in both the internet and real life consists merely of the following:
- Never admit your Wahhabism
- Act like you are the caretakers of the Arabic language/Islam and are the only ones who can understand them
- Quote Arabic without explaining anything correctly
- Narrate the positions of the other schools inaccurately/through Salafi sources
- Narrate hadith through Albani
- Don’t give references but keep asking for them, when you get them, ignore them
- Mistranslate and misquote at will
- Use the above steps to accept and reject what you want
Wonderfully for them, this can be generalised in Dawah and apologetics. So notice that they went to great effort to denigrate the hadith grading of Abu Dawood for the sake of modern scholars in the issue of wife beating, which they find embarrassing. But then their Muftis and scholars such as Ibn Baz (and all others) accept the beating of one’s wife anyway. And then they claim to follow the Salaf. It is merely absurd.
BTW, after seeing this gross incompetence in Islam and Arabic language, I am not interested in further exhibitions of Cheewaadi’s foolishness. I want to hear from someone qualified to have dialogue – a scholar, even if they are Salafi. It is a waste of time to throw peals before swine and I am only inclined to do so because I enjoy showing up dirty tricks, whether by Islamophobes or their Salafi friends.
Without further ado, let us drive a stake through the beating heart of the vampire and finish him off!
This is a comment on this article by brother Bassam Zawadi: “A “response” has been written to brother Waqar’s critical review of Atabek’s book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith”.
Keeping aside the author’s lack of maturity and manners (which are not fruits of someone who is sincere and knowledgeable) and the fact that the author didn’t academically address many of the points made which are obvious to anyone reading and paying attention carefully, let me highlight some of the key points…
Look who’s talking!
It’s funny how all of these guys discover ‘adab’ when they get a few intellectual chastisements – yet Cheeba, who insults senior scholars such as Imam Ahmad and Abu Dawood (a tradition about to be continued and expanded on by Zawadi) as being incompetent in hadith, insists on calling Atabek Shukurov ‘Atabek’ and labels him a ‘heretic’ is still a ‘brother’! ‘Insulting’ is only what is done by others according to Wahhabis!
Here check out Zawadis ‘adab’ or manners here:
I hope he applies the same level of ‘adab‘ his colleague/alter ego Cheeba and his disdain for the English language (clearly seen from the opening sentence of his original article, and to which he admitted above)…and to famous Wahhabi scholars who affront the Queens English like Haitham ‘Yani’ Haddad:
Rock solid English on display there, I’m sure you’ll agree!
I mean this poor guy can’t even speak Arabic, his native tongue, properly. So I hope these guys will be chastising him for causing them ‘headaches’ as well as poor ‘Atabek’.
Also, note the awesome Salafi technique deployed in this ‘response’ of ignoring 99.99998% of what was written and trying to make themselves look clever by trying to highlight a few points in random order… Which they also fail to do! While we are complaining of shoddy scholarship…
1) Cheeba’s disdain and denigration of Ahmad’s hadith scholarship – Not addressed
2) His disdain and correction of Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah in hadith – Not Addressed
3) Use of Albani who also ‘corrected’ Bukahri, not by Hanafi principles but by himself – Not Addressed
4) Absolute lack of qualifications for Cheeba – Not addressed
5) Cheeba’s failure to understand written Arabic – not addressed
6) Cheeba’s misrepresentation of modern sources (while setting them up against the classical ones) – not addressed
7) Cheeba’s modernism – not addressed
8) Cheeba’s implicit takfir and inability to write or read English to a book review level – not addressed
9) Flagrant misquote from Shukurov’s book – Not addressed
10) Apostasy killing a ‘must’ and anathematisation due to this of Shukurov – not addressed
11) Niqaab – not addressed
12) Black Magic – not addressed
13) Lying about Maturidi creed – Not addressed (*in fact repeated in his new ‘version’)
14) Inability to read basic Arabic terms like ‘lakin qeela‘ – not addressed (*repeated in his new ‘version’)
15) Possible total illiteracy in Arabic – not addressed
16) Accusing Imams of creed of ‘making it up’ – not addressed
17) Significance of Baidawi being Shafi – Not Addressed
18) Cheeba and Salafi acceptance of wife beating and then putting Hadith in doubt nonetheless – Not Addressed
19) Denigration of Tarikh Baghdad (and its author) – Not Addressed
20) Twisting the beard – Not Addressed
21) 15 pages of Arabic sources from classical books – Not Addressed/Not Read
22) What hadith methodology do they follow? – Not Addressed
23) Which school of jurisprudence do they follow? – Not Addressed
24) Which Usool of Tafseer ? – Not Addressed
25) Tahawi being the greatest Hanafi in hadith? Source? – Not Addressed
26) Cheeba claiming that Imams such as Al-Sarakhsi and ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari academically incompetent and failed to supply ‘chains’ – Not Addressed
27) Similarities with modernists and Evangelical Christians – Not Addressed
28) Use of Al Turkmani as a source of Hanafi madhab – Not Addressed
30) Use of Albani and Salafis as a source of Hanafism – Not Addressed
31) Issue of studying Islam while high on Crack cociane – Not Addressed
You get the idea.
No doubt Chewaadi will argue that their response was ‘not meant to be academic or rigorous’ (as if we need to be told this) but this is just like someone who’s impotent saying he wasn’t actually trying to have sex. Then why take off your pants dear? In reality, this is a hastily constructed panic ‘patch’ to try and reassure their fans who were ‘shook’ by the response (as they get by anyone who can name scholars and read the Arabic), while they await support from their senior Wahhabi captains such as Haddad and Co. who are hiding behind the scenes. I have already asked Haddad, Nadwi and many others for a dialogue, debate, munazara, fist fight, whatever, but they are unwilling and indeed use any excuse, such as they will not debate women/Muslims (depends on the week) – even if the women are scholars! Even the offer of wearing a niqaab or debating a male colleague does not bring these people out of their bolt holes. Yet their students and familiars are infesting the internet like paedophiles in Disneyland.
You see the same cowardice when it comes to Shukurov, since they boldly and publicly called him a heretic, why not post their reviews on his Facebook and blog (he hardly seems to do anything other than be messing around on-line anyway)? That tells you all you need to know. They not only don’t want to have a discussion face to face but even dialogue with the heretics online is haraam now? Then why write the review? To misguide their own followers only, who they fear may start asking difficult questions if they read the book, hence the goal is to stop their zombie fan club from picking it up in the first place. Prevention, as they say, is better than cure.
It’s funny because that was one of the learning points I mentioned in the original article – like Cheeba trying to dismiss 60 pages of references due to one of them not having a publication date. This actually works on extremely stupid people, so Zawadi will try it here again because his (very small it seems) fan club was obviously shaken by his vigorous endorsement of Cheeba’s horrendously poor ‘review’.
Readers will see that this is a failed face-saving exercise that fails to respond to a lengthy article or engage with the classical references (I’m pretty sure this guy can’t read Arabic well either) and doesn’t actually mandate any kind of response. But I’m going to do it anyway, since I am quite sadistic.
Also, if anyone knows who ‘Zawadi’ is, please let me know, I’m worried from a quick online search that he’s twelve or something from the evidence here so I don’t want to be accused of bullying.
– The author makes the claim that the Hanafi position is that the niqaab is not recommended. Any citations or evidence pointing to that? Nope, none.
Notice that Zawadi, a Wahhabi, is asking for references for the well-known Hanafi position – yet found no qualms about reposting Cheeba’s completely unreferenced comments on the very same topic. Asking for a reference from Hanafis for the issue of niqaab, which is basically not mandated in any of their classical books, opinions from Zahiri Riwayat etc, is like asking a Salafi for a reference on wife beating or enslaving female captives (i.e unnecessary).
Also, it is totally cool how he has saved me from having to prove Cheeba’s Salafist affiliation.
And again, see how he has references for basically nothing he says! Because referencing is also something, like ‘adab’ only non-Salafis need to do!
– Regarding the weakening of the Abu Dawud hadith, the author doesn’t get the point that brother Waqar is making. Brother Waqar is refuting the false generic claim that this hadith is “Sahih’ (according to Shafi’is and Salafis)” making it seem like this is the official position of Shafis and Salafis (by the way it doesn’t make sense to really make a distinction here, since there are many Salafis who are Shafis), while this is completely false and that this is a matter of Ijtihaad and difference of opinion, JUST AS HOW there are Hanafis who have disagreed with each other regarding the authenticity of ahaadith at times. SECONDLY, how come there is no regard for the interpretation that Shafi scholars gave to this hadith and that it’s only to be understood in light of the conditions set out by Islam (e.g. darban ghayra mubarrih, etc.)? I wonder why. I mean isn’t their UNDERSTANDING more important than their GRADING of these ahaadith?
Uhh, the issue under discussion was their grading, as in ‘accepted’ or not. If Zawadi/Cheeba has/have suddenly converted to ‘matn’ criticism (which they denigratingly refer to as ‘textual criticism’, as if ‘isnads‘ or chains of hadith are not also found in texts) then let them do it publicly. This is wonderful because it further demonstrates what I wanted readers to see – Salafi tricks, quote mining and the assumption that the readers can’t read Arabic correctly (like themselves). What is really funny is that below you will see ‘Cheewaadi’ insist we take the grading not the meaning. And then switch again.
It’s also funny that after being outclassed, he has suddenly become really liberal in hadith. But it was clear that Bassam and Cheeba were arguing for ‘Atabek’ and Co. lying about the hadith’s authenticity. The hadith was authentic – yet they wanted us to take latter day authorities (notably Salafi hadith fraudster and all round heretic Albani, see:http://www.livingislam.org/alb_e.html) as opposed to Abu Dawood and many others as covered in detail in my article. Hilariously, Zawadi not only does not exonerate Cheema from the allegation of having accused Abu Dawood and others of inserting inauthentic hadith (sans explanation) but makes it worse.
The fact is simple, if these hadith are ‘weak’ according to Shafis or Muhaditheen or whoever: why did muhaditheen narrate them and grade them as ‘not weak’ or ‘Sahih’? Why didn’t they explain themselves instead of relying on Albani 1200 years later? What happened to ‘following the earlier generations’? And if it is their ‘UNDERSTANDING’ (in capitals!) that’s ‘important’, then where is it and why didn’t Cheeba or Zawadi (Cheewadi? Zaweeba?) present it.
Rather, they have their own principles of hadith, made up ad hoc – which is Salafism in a nutshell.
Also, he’s saying that all there is no point distinguishing between Shafis and Salafis because some of them are Salafis? I don’t know how Shafis feel about this but to me that’s like saying its fine to say that all men are rapists since some are so why distinguish.
– The ignorant author then presents a hadith declared Saheeh by adh-Dhahabi in his talkhees, while it’s known that we are not to take adh-Dhahabi’s rulings from his talkhees since it was a book he authored earlier on and was lenient during grading. He disagrees with some of his judgments in this book such as Meezaan Al-‘Itidaal. If we refer to adh-Dhahabi’s Meezan (see here https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=woFg3SuRa74C&pg=PT331&lpg=PT331&dq=%D9%84%D8%A7+%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%A3%D9%84+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%84+%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%85+%D9%8A%D8%B6%D8%B1%D8%A8+%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A3%D8%AA%D9%87+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%87%D8%A8%D9%8A&source=bl&ots=HGCFwXKlev&sig=ttoX8AGJLN8FHrbVOFXuPO570no&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCGoVChMI6Imq99uyAIVyVkUCh0bKQo7#v=onepage&q=%D9%84%D8%A7%20%D8%AA%D8%B3%D8%A3%D9%84%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%AC%D9%84%20%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%85%20%D9%8A%D8%B6%D8%B1%D8%A8%20%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%A3%D8%AA%D9%87%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D9%87%D8%A8%D9%8A&f=false) we see that he in fact declares the hadeeth from Abu Dawud to be weak due to Abdul Rahman Al-Mosli being an unknown narrator. Even Ibn Hajar declared this narrator weak in his Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb. In the other narration that the author provides, you see the name as Abdulrahman bin Abdullah Al Makki, however this is the same Abdul Rahman (i.e. Al-Mosli) (see المنتخب من مسند عبد بن حميد تحقيق مصطفى العدوي). So in reality, adh-Dhahabi would have viewed this narration to be weak as his final position. But, the author is ignorant and isn’t qualified to access these classical sources directly. So once again, no one is disputing that there are scholars who authenticated this hadith, but for the author to portray it as if it’s the generic position of all Shafis is completely misleading and brother Waqar’s point was to demonstrate that this is false.
Wow, that’s a lot of waffle just to admit that I was right and Cheeba was wrong!
But…since neither of you know the main position or methodology of Shafis, by your own admission here, how do you know what is and is not the ‘generic position’? And just as I said, if the hadith is accepted by Abu Dawood or a classical authority, why does Cheeba repeatedly bring up Albani, and now had to ask Zawadi to get him a different source? Cheeba didn’t bring Dhahabi – he brought Albani and God knows what other latter day scholars. So Zawadi is not even bothering to defend Cheeba, who he praised so highly, but offering new references – making my point for me. He just wants to look clever.
A useful tip is that if you have nothing to say…then don’t say it!
Now if you like, you can skip this next section of proofs for the summary below, but I would advise you stick with it and be forewarned when Salafis try to manipulate you in this manner next time.
We need to clear this up, because Cheewadi is impugning one of the most used books; the ‘Talkhees‘ of Imam Dhahabi. I brought a narration from this (as well as from Imam Nawawi, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar and numerous others which Zaweeba just ignored because he can’t reply back to them) to show that the narration of Abu Dawood was authentic according to most senior non-Hanafis (on the issue of wife beating, where Cheezaadee accused Shukurov of bringing ‘weak and fabricated reports to emphasise textual criticism‘) In ‘Talkhees‘ Imam Dhahabi comments on the authenticity of the ‘Mustadrak‘ of Imam Hakim. Thus Muhaddiths coming after him, if they wish to use the ‘Mustadrak‘ of Imam Hakim, look at what Dhahabi said in ”Talkhees”…which Zaweeba is occultly rejecting.
This is in fact, you guessed it, ANOTHER BRAND SPANKING NEW INNOVATION by Albani, the Salafi hadith failure we encountered before. Essentially, all of the biggest classical scholars accept the narration of Hakim if and when confirmed by Imam Dhahabi – and by scholars I mean giants such as Ibn Hajar (who he dared to claim as support for his modernist position), Sayuti and numerous others – I will reproduce their comments for all to see.
I’ve presented the relevant sections instead of the whole page – of course this will not help people who cannot read Arabic nor understand the scholars terminologies like Chewaadi.
Here are quotes from Abdul -Rauf al-Munawi another great ‘muhaddith’ from about 400 years ago. Some are not in order, but you have the page numbers – and if you can actually read Arabic, unlike these guys, it won’t be a problem!
If they were able to understand, these resources would teach them everything they need to know. But they think just sending links to random ‘edited’ books without showing the relevant passages is ‘academic’.
Here is Ahmad Shakir:
Here Laknawi is setting it up as a principle of Hadeeth that we don’t trust Mustadrak of Hakim…unless we check it in Talkhees of Dhahabi. WordPress keeps flipping the images – I can’t be bothered to keep adding them individually.
Zafar Thanawi is also setting it as a principle in his I’la Sunan book: Even Deobandis are not agreeing with Cheewadi’s rampant hadith distortion:
The thing is that Chawaadi himself accepts narrations from Hakim via Imam Dhahabi when trying to support his naked Evangelical-style anthropomorphism:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=3661 (if you can stomach it, you can see more of his anti-Sunni rants here, and yet we are expected to take his word for the Hanafi and Matruridi position despite his hateful and anthropomorphist stance:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=15833) .
Also notice how when it comes to his anthropomorphism, Zaweeba now wants you just to take the hadith scholars grading as opposed to their understanding, in contradistinction to his stated position above (‘we need to look at their understanding blah blah’) i.e. bald lies. Also notice how Ibn Hajr is, according to Zawadi/Cheeba/Legion an As’harite heretic – but he nonetheless uses him as a proof here (debunked below).
As I said, absolutely no consistency – rejecting the classical books when he wants to, taking bits of them when feels like it. In fact this is Wahhabism to a ‘t’ – each Salafist has his own religion, identical to the situation in Protestantism in Christianity (which goes towards explaining the parasitic/symbiotic relationship between ‘dawah‘ wanabee celebrities such as Zareeba and Christian Islamophobes like David Wood and company).
So merely to defend Cheba, Zawadi wants us to destroy Dhabhi, Sayuti, Ibn Hajar, Hakim, in short, everything he wants, for the sake of the brand new position of Albani/Zawadi/Cheeba that Hakim as presented in Dhahabi’s ‘Tadlees‘ is not reliable. He is also trying to tell Dahabi what he should have done in the issue of narrations from Mosli – even though no one knows if this is the first or second Mosli (apart from of course, Albani – see below). Furthermore, Zawadi and Albani understood this but none of the other giants of hadith did so. So much for ‘classical’ principles – these guys are as brazenly modern as Quiliam but under a more sinister guise. BTW, they also made it possible to reject whatever you want based on this rubbish methodology. And then they accuse Shukurov of rejecting narrations. Absurdly ironic.
If you can stomach any more of Zaweeba’s abject lies, he says that Ibn Hajar regards Mosli as ‘weak’, but if this is the same Mosli, how come Ibn Hajar graded the hadith of Abu Dawood as ‘Sahih’ (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ithaf al-Mahara Vol 12, P106)? So after teaching hadith sciences to all those other Imams such as Dhahabi, they are teaching Ibn Hajar how he should have graded the hadith, since he accepted and ‘unacceptable’ narrator!
The inescapable fact that Zaweeba never studied hadith or Islam formally at all is within this very lie he is telling: a narrator being weak does not necessitate a hadith being weak anyway – the hadith may have another chain or narrator. And we don’t take the opinion of Dhahabi nor Ibn Hajar from their biography books but rather their books which they have written to explain the ‘hukm‘ of the hadith (which ironically Baseeba was demanding above that we take their ‘understanding’ and not their narration – of course, he is utterly clueless). It is essential, nay, compulsory for students of Islam and hadith to know this! It is a totally new principle set up by Albani and his followers (like Zaweeba) to take ‘hukm’ from the history books and ignore the actual books where the author is ‘testing’ the narration. They employ this Bi’dat Munkara (reprehensible innovation) and modernism when the hadith opposes them – otherwise they stay with the standard procedure. Vile, I’m sure you will all agree.
I know it is a lot to follow for non-specialists, but I hope you see now that it was worth it: literally everything they claimed was a lie. What separates them from the non-Muslims and others who lie about religion in order to misguide people? In fact, people who claim to do ‘dawah‘ such as Baseeba are doing a service only in that they give non-Muslims an excellent excuse before God on the day of judgement for not accepting Islam – they can just ask God if he expects them to take the religion of such flagrant perjurers seriously. If Muslims lie in religion too, so people are somewhat now justified in dismissing all religion aren’t they?
As I said, I uploaded a lot of evidence from authoritative books before, and I got no response. I assume this is because they are unable to read and understand these sources. So now the response should be from one of their scholars, who is on a level to debate, not someone who did the equivalent of GCSE Arabic, got a D and happens to have a laptop. I don’t want a response from these Haddad and Co. ‘backup dancers’ as so far we did not see any proof that they can understand or assimilate the information.
– The foolish author says that just because Ahmad Shakir may have changed his mind later on regarding the grading of the narration that this would imply that he is either being deceptive or ignorant. What a foolish remark! As if scholars can’t make mistakes (something the author ironically acknowledges in the article) and then later on correct themselves!
No, it implies that Cheeba is being fatuous by showing only one opinion of Shakir’s (classic Salafi tactic). Zawadi struggles in his (?native) tongue of Arabic so we can forgive him for failing to read English properly. In any case, he once again for validates my point. But if you know of Cheeba’s crass errors, why did you approve of and share his post!?
– Absolute foolish remarks from the author regarding Tarikh Baghdad. The author refers to Tarikh Baghdad as a hadith book! Can someone please tell the author what Tarikh means! Secondly, the foolish and ignorant author makes the claim that the implications of taking a modern editors comment (based on referring to classical books of rijal!) on grading a narration in a classical book somehow shows that everyone thought that the narration is authentic until a 20th century editor came along and said otherwise. I mean… how do you respond to such stupidity? Really? What could be said to this UTTER STUPIDITY?
Nowhere in my article did I call ‘Tarik Baghdad‘, which I actually had to read unlike Cheeba and Zawadi, a ‘hadith’ book. I did say Cheeba rejects it, like other classical texts such as Bukhari, Abu Dawood etc and then calls Atabek Hadith rejector!
By now, does anyone even believe Cheeba that this is what the editor even said? In fact, by accepting this statement of the editor we are in fact agreeing that ‘Tarikh Bagdad’, a rather classical work, is in fact weak and Muslim scholars are stupid as they did not realise this till the ‘editor’ and Cheeba came along. He is in fact saying that Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi basically sucks and the editor is better than a thousand years’ worth of scholars. Like his other cowardly insinuation of course, Cheeba lacks the testicular fortitude to say what he wants, but his poor language make it easy to see that for even a basic reader.
If anyone had insinuated this about Imam Bukhari’s collection, Cheeba would be calling for blood. But he did just that in the cases of Tarikh Baghdad, Sunan Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah and even Imam Ahmad…and yet Sheikhs Sulaiman and Atabek are the hadith rejecters?!
Is it a case of ‘can’t read’ or ‘won’t read’? We saw in the case of Cheeba that sadly it is both.
So when unable to find a mistake, make one up…and then write a long paragraph about it. This is about as rigorous as me saying Zawadi is a Satan Worshipper and then refuting Satan worship and how dumb it is…without him actually ever having said or done anything to indicate that he was i.e mental.
As for the issue of riijal, they likewise don’t have sufficient English reading comprehension to even read what I said. Or are just lying. But people who can read above 9th grade already know that. Obviously, I can’t now start teaching ‘ZawaChee’ English.
Funny how modern day editors applied the ‘principles in the classic books of rijal’ better than the classical people themselves, who presumably were idiots for 1000 years until Zaweeba came along. Another typical Salafi trope.
Also, Does CheeBassam know any other insults apart from ‘foolish’? Isn’t it getting a bit, like, repetitive?
– Anyone can see the dishonesty of the author in terms of not properly engaging with brother Waqar’s critical point that Hanafis using ta’wil to interpret some ahaadith as opposed to taking them literally does not amount to them rejecting the hadeeth. I mean just read the author’s response to Waqar’s comment regarding at-Tahawi on the illegitimate child hadeeth and see how that the foolish and ignorant author can’t be taken seriously at all on an academic level. Same thing regarding the abrogation of the “killing the drunkard” hadith and how the author confuses adopting a view of abrogation with adopting a view of rejection. What lack of poor understanding of fiqh and hadeeth sciences!
I mean I can’t even reply to this non-argument. This guy has in effect written an information free paragraph here. That’s actually an impressive skill. Notice how neither Cheeba nor Zawadi have ever told us what ‘fiqh and hadith sciences’ they follow, not where they learnt them (i.e none and nowhere, as you saw, Cheeba just makes it up: Aqeeda from no-one, hadith from Albani, Tafseer from, err, himself etc).
In fact all Wahhabis are like this because they are a heretical sect who can best be described as Haswee mujassims in aqeeda and Neo-Hanbali/Albani in hadith – have their own modern and novel ‘principles’, but if they come out of the closet then it’s a problem for them.
– Even if Ikrima was from the Khawarij, it’s known that you can accept ahaadeeth from trustworthy innovators not known for lying to spread the views of their sect! This is something known.
Who said you can’t accept hadith from Khawarij? Even Sulaiman Ahmed said in the book that he accepts Ikrima as a narrator.
Hah! Didn’t really read the book did you? Just like I said.
The issue under discussion was whether Ikrima was or was not Khawarij since Cheeba was trying to make it appear this was some kind of lie to insinuate that some said he was, and even naming scholars like Imam Ahmad and baldly lying about their opinion (thoroughly debunked in the article and a point which ‘CheeWaadi’s’ lack of scholarly Arabic probably doesn’t allow them to engage with – there were over six pages of references just on this topic in the main article). Zawadi has just come down on the side of ‘Atabek’.
BTW, interesting…people who ‘innovate’ in religion and are murderous towards the Sahaba such as the Khawarij can be ‘trustworthy’?
So here Zawadi is telling us that the narrators need only be ‘trustworthy’, not good Muslims or good people, or at least not murderers. We look forward to his ‘make it up as you go along’ hadith methodology. And don’t let your Christian fans know that Khawarij stuff please or they’ll Google it!
Also, Khawarij don’t even accept hadith themselves and are basically ‘hadith rejecters’ as most of the Sahabah are kaafir according to them. So how is Zareebas explanation any use? Wahhbais are in love with Khawarij for obvious reasons which again, you can see on the nightly news.
In fact, Imam Bukhari narrates from Khawarij and the reason given by Ibn Hajar and others is that Khawarij believe that lying is kufr so it’s fine.
Shukurov said in his book that the Mu’tazilla believe the same (which is true), but they are hardly ever narrated from as opposed to the Khawarij, but at least Ibn Hajar has consistency and ‘Atabek’ has references, what has Zawadi got? He was just demanding references for everything from the author’s having visited the dentist to Hanafis denying niqaab but now he’s just said that totally psycho sects like Khawarij can narrate (and indeed they can) but no explanation or reference! In fact, I had to help him out!
– The “Al-Nakhai not taking from Abu Hurayra” claim is addressed here http://bayanelislam.net/Suspicion.aspx?id=03-01-0077 for those interested
Errr…no it isn’t. It’s addressed in these books such ‘Tareekh Dimashq’, ‘Bidaya wa Nihaya’ and many others which you have not read – Dhahabi also mentioned it in ‘Siyar A’lam’ so no one can deny it. Stop trying to ‘spin’ and displaying other people’s ‘knowledge’ which you can’t even understand – go and learn and get some consistent methodology instead of responding with ‘links’. My own article is an excellent primer for you. But it’s not my job to teach them the basics. It is however unsurprising – does this guy have any qualifications or degrees or ijazas or is he just like Cheeba? Being an amateur is fine – after thirty years teaching I still consider myself one. But you have to show some knowledge, like I did by dissection your friend’s embarrassing rant.
What do we get in response? Lies, links and waffle.
Maybe I should debate with the people who wrote the links then. I brought classical references and scans from the scholars of hadith, and this is my reward?!
Well, I might as well start acting like a Salafi and posting Arabic and name dropping scholars. But unlike this fellow, I can do it properly…because I can read at a level above a 6th grader!
And they tried the same trick on Shukurov, despite the fact that he is a professional in Arabic. It’s actually implicit racism, Cheewadi (who I am told by ‘Facebook’ works for the Saudi Government) need not prove that he can read Arabic (when it seems he quite obviously can’t, at least not at the required level) but scholars can be impugned at will! Actually, this racism is evolved in the teachings of their Imam and true representative, Ibn Taymiyya, who made nakedly xenophobic statements about non-Arabs (he was a Kurd himself, so go figure), which gives Wahhabis like Cheewadi a warm feeling when their government executes Africans or rapes Filipino maids.
Reading classical Arabic and knowing the scholarly terminology as opposed to merely being ‘Arab’ (like, all ‘white people’ can understand Shakespeare right!?) are two different things. This won’t help poor Cheewadi, who has no scholarship background to understand classical texts anyway. He could only manage two modern internet sites, choc full of untruths, in response to the dozens of primary sources in my article. We see how Cheewadi has gone outright sceptic about traditional Islam, which is what Salafism is anyway.
In a nutshell, not only does the author lack proper adab, but also basic fundamental knowledge in the hadeeth sciences (or likely any other Islamic science for that matter).”
As the kids say nowadays, LOL!
Is this really all that Cheeba and the Salafis can conjure up? And where on Earth did they post this? In secret to their fans on Facebook!
These Sulaiman Ahmed and Shukurov guys are all over Facebook like a rash, but instead of taking on the ‘heretics’ so that everyone can benefit from their huge Salafist knowledge, Baseema rather tries to circulate his ‘responses’ amongst each other like young boys do with dirty magazines. I guess that’s apt then.
I must admit, this type of cowardice is usually due to sour grapes – the two Hanafis publish a handsome 300 page book and started a bit of a quiet revolution with it. CheeWadi brings what? A couple of irrelevant internet links and badly constructed lies. Shamelessly, they even put this review on Amazon.
Dear Reader, could we wish for a better demonstration of the tricks used by Salafis and indeed all kinds of dishonest people in any kind of belief system in life?
They assume three things only: that you are stupid and lazy and won’t read, that you are unable to read Arabic and finally that they can fool you with rhetoric and lying. But rhetoric and even lying is ultimately a function of intellect, which according to Wahhabis is ‘haraam‘ or ‘forbidden’, so they can never get you on the last one, but be sure not to let them get you on the first two either!
Update: Just as I had been hoping, Cheewaadi has ‘reassured’ his followers with the following response (in private of course). I had been wanting this desperately since it would removes doubts from readers who might have a niggling feeling that the Wahhabis could reply and that maybe this argument was above their heads – by no means, as is clear here.
I had also laid a few ‘traps’ in my article since I suspected that Zaweeba can’t understand Arabic enough to read my sources. It also helps to decimate his ‘reputation’ amongst his poor misguided followers even more. Let’s embarrass him again (even though he was unable to respond to literally everything – and this time had to admit it and ask his followers for help!).
Clearly, he thinks he’s the teacher here! Since neither he nor Cheeba provided references for any of his claims, literally not a single reference, by what authority does he ask for references for Hanafi positions? This is another classic Salafi tactic – when outclassed ask for ‘references’, giving none yourself. Amusingly, he himself stays true to character and provides nothing for his claim about the Shafi position (which they have never stated nor referenced – this is the third time) and not even the Salafi one! The endgame here for them is to try and say that the niqaab is ‘recommended’ or ‘mustahab‘ in the Hanafi school – and it isn’t even that! But look it up yourself you brats! You’ve provided a grand total of three fake internet links and I’ve carpet-bombed you with dozens of pages of classical books. And they dare to ask for references? The Chutzpah here is almost worth respecting. Almost.
It’s also funny how they find a few pages to be ‘extremely’ long – so we know they have never read a book of, say, a few hundred pages then, which by their estimation must be ‘infinitely long’. In fact, I had to cut my article in half – so profligate were their mistakes.
I also like how he has to copy my language and complains about personal attacks – after calling Shukurov and Co a heretic, and peppering his articles with insults, though he only knows two: ‘foolish’ and ‘ignorant’ – someone buy this kid a Thesaurus. In fact these guys suck badly at insulting as well. When someone insults them properly, like a bully who gets slapped, they go running to their proverbial mommys and complaining about ‘adab’, as I predicted.
Check out some of Cheebama Bin Laden’s fan clubs ‘adab’ here:
If that’s the right position regarding the ‘Talkhees‘ of Dhahabi then how come only Bassam and this Bashaar Awad (who is so famous that no one has ever heard of him) know it and Ibn Hajar, Sayuti, Abdul – Rauf al-Munawi, Laknawi and Deobandis as well as Imam Dhahbi himself are ignorant of it?!
Absolutely dreadful comeback and totally proves the modernism – had to resort to a modern ‘non-Salafi’ scholar (says Baseema) to refute classical giants. Wahhabism 101.
BTW, he baldly did the same trick as last time – where he linked to a book which linked to another ad infinitum with no classical sources in site. This time we have degenerated to ‘wordpress’ sites as a reference – but the ignominy doesn’t stop there – the wordpress has as its reference… you guessed it another wordpress site:https://islamclass.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/contemporary-scholars-on-al-dhahabis-talkhis-of-al-hakims-al-mustadrak/
Hilariously, even in the wordpress reference that this modern day ‘authority’ Awad is used for, there is no reply or mention about Ibn Hajr, Sayuti, Laknawai blah blah declaring the narration of Hakim via Dhahabi being reliable. In fact Awad bizarrely asserts that he does not know where this notion came from i.e he is ignorant of the confirmations of Ibn hajar et al.
Flummoxed, Baseema literally just did the same thing he was chastised so badly for twice before – he just hoped you would not check the ‘reference’!
It’s fine to believe such nonsensical modernist things if you want, but then don’t pretend to be supporting classical Islam – just as stated, this is a modern position and a contradiction of the giants of hadith. This is just ‘Wahhabi Quilliam’ in action.
The worst thing is, he is so deranged and hateful of the classical scholars (like a good Salafi) that he can’t even bring himself to say ‘Ibn Hajar is not a heretic’, which would be a good way of defending himself from the accusation that he claims this – all he can say is Ibn Hajar is not ‘necessarily’ a heretic. Imagine Cheewadi being accused of being a rampant homosexual and then denying it when asked by saying ‘not necessarily’ and you get an idea about what kind of language is being used here.
Ibn Hajar is A’shari according to himself and everyone else apart from Zaweeba – who is all over the ‘ahlalhadeeth’ site declaring A’sharis to be heretics, as I mentioned. You do the math (let me guess, according to Wahhabis and only them, Ibn Hajar is not A’shari. Ohh wait, he actually just tried that!).
Still angling for the cheap shot – and still failing. After telling people to ‘read’ the quote, he deliberately leaves out the lines of the article preceding, where his own friend Barack Cheebama states that the narration from ‘Tarikh‘ is also found in Sahih Bukhari as well:
Along with the hadith reports from the Messenger of Allah, there is similar oblivion with regards to a narration from Imam Abu Hanifa. On p.11 the author refers to a report from Tarikh Baghdad wherein it is alleged that Abu Hanifa called a hadith (which is narrated in Sahih Bukhari as well) a “delusion”. However, as clarified by the editor of the referenced edition the report is dubious as it is related on the authority of a weak narrator.
Again, the message is ‘don’t you dare read the book of hadith, instead look at what the editor said about it instead – 1000 years later!’
Or is ‘Sahih Bukhari‘ not a hadith book? And why do we need to reject the hadith of Bukhari because a modern editor of Tarikh finds it to have a weak narrator in that book?
So why is it that Cheezadi is telling us it’s in Bukhari but we should reject it based on what the modern editor of Tarikh said? Isn’t this exactly what I said about Wahhabi methodology, rejecting the narrations of classical hadith books and histories for the sake of selected modern ‘editors’? An absolutely lame attempt to make it look like I don’t understand what tarikh means after I decimated poor Cheewadi with an avalanche of classical references… that they once again showed no evidence that they could read. In fact they proved they couldn’t see here:
Apart from the fact that now we have the commentary of the article from Chewaadi, this is just another lie – but one that allows me to conclusively show that he does not know Arabic! Witness this screen capture, from the very article that he used to ‘defend’ the issue of Nakhai not narrating from Abu Huraira:
In any case, the idea that the chain was disconnected or non-existent were both refuted – Chewaadi is simply unable to respond to the chain analysis (from Dhahabi’s ‘Siyar‘ and Imam Ahmad). Also notice yet again, the only trick they have – a modern scholar against Dhahabi and Imam Ahmad and God knows who else? What is the point of engaging with such people and presenting them the authoritative books when they believe Islamic scholarship started with Salafist internet sites? And then can’t even read their own salafist articles!
In fact, he shows his reading age = 6 again by talking nonsense about the ‘Ilal‘ of Imam Ahmad (he can’t read it anyway) and not understanding the story from the references I gave about Nakhai and A’mash. They all tell the same story – that A’mash used to narrate stories from Abu Huraira to Nakhai and Nakhai used to get annoyed and basically tell him to be quiet, because ‘we’ reject all of that. Baseema Bin Laden is trying to say that When Nakhai says ‘we’ he means the Kufi scholars and not himself! Apart from the fact that this makes things worse since he will be narrating from scholars even more senior to him (and from the salaf), humiliatingly, Zaweeba doesn’t even understand the sources – his Arabic is just not there:
This is the most honest bit – where he admits he actually is too much of a lightweight to respond to anything and asks for their help.
Sad, but at least now we know that they are simply unable to respond, so we can rest assured that our recent schooling on avoiding Wahhabi heresies and distortions was adequate to show up the utter impotence of Wahhabi propagandists when faced with even very basic scholarship or academia.
Schooled x3! (Or ‘Cubed’ if you prefer)
[Notice how their scholars are still too scared to step forward, despite their followers being drubbed all over the internet. But we know how Wahhabis really like to spread their ‘scholarship’ i.e. when your arguments and knowledge are so poor, you can almost excuse them for resorting to violence!]
IMPORTANT: It is critical for young British Muslims to understand the standard Wahhabi tactics displayed by these ‘dawah’ guys – I understand that most people on campus don’t have time to learn Arabic and Islamic scholarship – they just want to get on with their lives – and that’s fine. But this makes it all the more important to be forewarned and forearmed against Salafi deceptions – since it is these exact same steps they use to radicalise youth and get them to join jihadi movements like ISIS. ‘Hadith’ here is interchangeable for ‘Islamic fatwas’, ‘the Islamic position’, ‘ijma’ (consensus), ‘what the Salaf said’ and even the Quran:
- Use ahad hadith (single chain narrations) to persuade people that this is what the Prophet said (most of ISIS ‘fatwas’ from raping Yazidis to killing people are extracted from ahad hadith)
- Use these ahad hadith in the way you want with no regard for how classical authorities understood them
- Pretend things are Muttawatir (mass transmitted like the Quran) and Ijma (agreed) when they are not – if challenged give evidence without translating or mistranslate. If cornered, use Salafi sources (Ibn Taymiyya etc) to ‘prove’
- Decry anyone who disagrees as a modernist or heretic
- Mistranslate these hadiths (and everything else) at will – Allah will reward you, it’s for a good cause etc.
- Use modern scholars, specifically Albani to reject any hadith from Bukhari on down when it doesn’t suit you
- Never allow an open debate with non-Wahhabi/Salafi scholars where our authorities can be discredited
Remember, it is these very same ‘dawah’ people who are usually doing the radicalisation too:
(he says ‘whether you make jihad peaceably or you defend you brothers and sisters’ -clearly indicating milatary jihad…and then shames himself by lying about it in his defence video):
Don’t let yourself or your family become victims.
 Learn more about Zareeba and companies lammentable creed in their own words here:http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=3661