Archive for the ‘History and Biographies’ Category

Did Ibn Katheer contradict himself? [In defense of Companions of the Prophet PBUH]

October 12, 2010 Leave a comment


All praises due to Allah, and may His peace and blessings be upon Messenger of Allah, his family and companions.

This is in reply to an extremist Rafidhi who consider himself “guided” while he is actually a misguided person. [Rafidhi article] He was known as “toyibonline” on shiachat but he unregistered that id for some unknown reason, but his lies and deceptions are spreaded around shiachat. Now he post at under the id “guided”, but here I’ll refer to him as “misguided” as a title really deserving to him.

This “misguided” thinks that there is a verse in the Qur’an which destroys the sunni concept of “infallibility of Sahaba”. He states:

There is a verse in the Qur’an that destroys the Sunni doctrine of the de facto infallibility of all the Sahabah.

Firstly there is no doctrine of “infallibility of all the Sahaba”, not even of single companion. Sunni simply say that there is not any proof where some companion ever lied while reporting from the beloved Prophet [SAW]. We have companions like Waleed bin Uqbah who is said to have drunk wine, but he never reported any narration which support him or which defends him. Look at Marwan bin Al-Hakam, who was known to commited some crime, he never reported any report which praises him, although he narrated several reports on other topics. Then we have several junior companions who could have narrated some reports which praises them but there is not such thing, except in some cases where the praise actually existed and the meaning did not raise them above their real status. Scholars of Islam analyzed those reports and compared it with other narrations and simple human logic, and finally they concluded that all the companions were truthful while narrating from Prophet [SAW]. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah said:

“None of the companion is known to have attributed a lie, deliberately, to the Messenger of Allah [SAW], even though among them were those who had sins, but in this case Allah saved them from it.” See “Al-Anwar Al-Kashifah” of Allamah Al-Mu’allimi for further on this.

Then the Rafidhi goes on to quote the verse which, according to him, destroys the sunni doctrine of “infallibility of companions”,

[Shakir 48:29] Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are firm of heart against the unbelievers, compassionate among themselves; you will see them bowing down, prostrating themselves, seeking grace from Allah and pleasure; their marks are in their faces because of the effect of prostration; that is their description in the Taurat and their description in the Injeel; like as seed-produce that puts forth its sprout, then strengthens it, so it becomes stout and stands firmly on its stem, delighting the sowers that He may enrage the unbelievers on account of them; Allah has promised THOSE AMONG THEM who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward.

If all the Sahabah were righteous, Allah would simply have promised ALL of them, rather than only those AMONG them who believed and did righteous deeds.

It is sad that this “misguided” Rafidhi has very less comprehension skills. This verse is a proof against them, not us. Even the highlighted part is in contrast with them. Here Allah [SWT] was promising them that if they remained believers and keep on doing good works, THEN ALLAH [SWT] WILL FORGIVE THEIR SINS AND WILL GRANT THEM GREAT REWARDS.

According to scholars of Tafsir the “min” used in the verse is not “tab’eedhiyah” (partitive) rather it is an indicator of genus, as said by Al-Qurtubi, Ibn Taymiyyah in “Minhaj As-Sunnah”, Ibn Katheer etc in the commentary of this verse. In simple words all those, who were praised in the verse earlier, are included in it. It is like the verse 30 of Surah Al-Hajj where the same “min” has been used for genus.

فاجتنبوا الرجس من الأوثان

“So avoid the uncleanliness from Idols (worship)”. This is how the meaning of the verse looks like, if we consider “min” to be “tab’idhi”. But here, just like 48:29, it implies the genus i.e., avoid all that which belongs to the category (genus) of idols.

Similarly when one says, ثوب من حرير then it simply means “cloth of silk” and not “cloth from silk” and likewise there are several examples. Refer to Tafsir Al-Qurtabi (16/296) and “Minhaj As-Sunnah” (2/19). In short all those who are being described in the verse are included in the verse.

But even if we accept that “min” there is meant for “tab’eedh”, as considered by Shia mufassir At-Tabtabai, then also it doesn’t contradict sunni concept of “infallibility” of all the companions.  By that it would mean, Allah has promised forgiveness and rewards only to those who (1). would be a believer (2).  and would do righteous deeds. The question arises now: How this “destroys” the sunni concept of de facto “infallibility of Sahaba”? To see the real point one should remember the sunni definition of Sahaba.

Firstly, the term “Sahaba” linguistically includes all those who met him [SAW].

Secondly, in Islamic (or better say Sunni) terminology it means “the one who meet our Prophet (S) while he was a muslim, and he died as muslim” [refer to the books of Mustaleh]. So by this is is clear there are three condition for someone to be included among companions:

  1. He must have found [including blind] Prophet (S) alive [this exclude all those who saw him in dream].
  2. And that should be in state of belief [this exclude all those disbelievers and hypocrites who saw him while they were not actually muslim].
  3. He must have died in the state of Islam [this exclude all those who became apostate later on]

Hence this definition excludes all those who were hypocrites, including all those who tried to kill Prophet [SAW], during his return from Tabuk. So how does it destroy the sunni concept of “infallibity” of Sahaba? But this type of deception isn’t only restricted to this Najis Rafidhi, rather it is the characteristic of most of their scholars.

Then the misguided Rafidhi quotes the statement of Imam Malik, quoted by Ibn Katheer in which he declared, “according to this Ayah, he who is enraged by the Companions is a disbeliever”. And Ibn Katheer, further said that this was the view of several other scholars. Then on, the “misguided” Rafidhi goes on to show the supposed contradiction of Ibn Katheer on this. He quotes narrations talking about the incident when some hypocrites tried to kill the Prophet [SAW] when he was returning from Tabuk but they failed. He consider this to be a fatal contradiction of Ibn Katheer. But we have already provided the proof that Munafiqun aren’t considered among Sahaba at the first place, so I don’t see any need to stretch this more.

The Rafidhi says:

This is a horrible self-Takfir by Ibn Kathir. If you asked Shi’as, they would tell you that they hate ONLY the hypocrites among the Sahabah. Now, does Ibn Kathir love those hypocrites?

Had it been the case there wouldn’t have been such a disagreement among Shia and Sunnis. To sunnis a ‘hypocrite’ (the type which we are discussing here) is the one who is out of the fold of Islam and according a verse of Qur’an he is even worse than a Mushrik. So how can we include them in the category of Sahaba? Yes they are, linguistically, Sahaba but that is not what we mean when we use this term. Just like linguistically, “Hadith” means “a talk” or “new thing”, but when we use this term generally it means “the statement, action, agreement, incident or anything related to Prophet (S)”. Now, another cult known as “Hadith Rejectors” use the verses, where the term “Hadith” has been used in linguistic sense, to discredit authenticity of Hadith. So both these cult possess similar disease.

“Their hearts are all alike” [2:118]

Then this Rafidhi “misguided” made a sub-heading “WHO WERE THOSE TWELVE HYPOCRITES?”. As though after such a long time Hz Hudhaifa [RA] exposed the secret, which was told to him by Prophet [S]. Any sane person would think that he is going to provide a solid evidence to prove his point. But the only thing he did was to quote Ibn Hazm and he totally relied on Ibn Hazm, even though Ibn Hazm said what he said to show the fabrication in the report.

First let me quote the Rafidhi, he said:


This is where the main issue lies. Ibn Hazm, a recognized Sunni scholar, in his Muhalla 11/224 states:

وأما حديث حذيفة فساقط لأنه من طريق الوليد بن جميع وهو هالك ولا نراه يعلم من وضع الحديث فإنه قد روى أخبارا فيها أن أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان وطلحة وسعد بن أبي وقاص رضي الله عنهم أرادوا قتل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وإلقاءه من العقبة في تبوك وهذا هو الكذب الموضوع

Al-Walid ibn Jami’ narrated many reports, some of which state that Abubakr, Umar, Uthman, Talha, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqas, may Allah be pleased with them, attempted to murder the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, by pushing him over from al-Aqabah during Tabuk. This is a fabricated lie.

The sad reality for Sunnis is that Walid is trustworthy, and is one of the narrators of Sahih Muslim! Ibn Ma’in has declared him thiqah while other rijalists like Imam Ahmad and Abu Hatim said there was no problem with him.

So, the reports are authentically transmitted.

Apparently, Sunnis love these very hypocrites who attempted to murder the Holy Prophet (pbuh).

Even more than themselves.

Recently I saw the article of bro Abu Ali Effendi refuting this particular claim of this “misguided” Rafidhi. The brother said:

Hadith would be accepted as saheeh, if it suits to some conditions. Best and shortest definition was given by ibn Salah (rahimuhullah) which said: “A sahih hadith is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from any irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e. in the isnad).”

From the very beginning we would ask. Where the chain of this hadith? Ibn Hazm only said that this hadith came from the way of Walid ibn Jamia. He didn’t recorded complete chain in his book. Walid ibn Jamia, that’s Walid ibn Abdullah ibn Jamia al-Koofe az-Zuhre. He narrated from Ibrahim Nakhai, which was born in 50 year h. Let us accept that this Walid died in second age of hijra. Ibn Hazm himself died in 456 h. There are hundred years between ibn Hazm and Walid ibn Jamia. In brief this hadith has no chain, not from Walid till someone who would be witness of that alleged attempt of assassination, neither from Walid till ibn Hazm.

Second. Even if this narration would have connected chain from anyone from companions till ibn Hazm, it still would be rejected. And the reason is very simple, no matter how this dajal guided accused us  (in his other article, see screen shot), that we depend only on authenticy of chain, we also looking for text of hadith. And this one would be extremely odd and rejected, because it’s contradicts to mutawater ahadeth regarding Islam and merits of mentioned companions.

Source: Claim: Companions tried to kill prophet (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam)

There is another point which should be considered. Ibn Hazm was not accusing Al-Waleed bin Jami’ of fabrication, rather he was notifying that Ibn Jami’ was not even aware of the one who fabricated it. This part was not translated by the Rafidhi even though it exists in the same line he quoted.

The gist of the matter is:

  1. This particular report indicated by Ibn Hazm doesn’t exist in any book, according to my knowledge, and even bigoted Rafidhis couldn’t find this.
  2. Ibn Hazm knew this type of narration, but in what exact form, we do not know. In any case, he declared this to be a lie and fabrication and cursed the one who fabricated it. (He didn’t accuse Ibn Jami’ of fabricating it).
  3. It is also possible that Ibn Hazm was so satisfied of the text being lie that he didn’t even bother to do in-depth study of the Isnad. Therefore it is possible that there existed liar or unknown narrators below Ibn Al-Jami’. We cannot  be certain unless we see the full Isnad of the narration.
  4. Regardless of Isnad, the text remain a lie. This is because when a text, even if narrated by good narrators, contradicts established facts through Tawatur (Ma’nawi or Lafzi) then it is rejected unless there remains a way of reconciliation between both. There are abundant reports praising Abu Bakr and Umar, many of them were said by our beloved Prophet (SAW) before his death.

و صلي الله و سلم علي نبينا محمد و علي اله و صحبه

Scholars with similar names and titles

October 9, 2010 Leave a comment

Download: Scholars with similar names and titles


In the name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Most Merciful.

All praises due to Allah, and may His salutation and blessings be upon the Last and Final Prophet, Muhammad, and upon his family and companions, and all those who followed them in good till the Last Day.

It has been noted nowadays that many people, especially those who are not much aware of history of scholars, mix up between different personalities because of the similarity between their names or titles. Sometimes this happen with even scholars, and many a times printing mistakes play a good role in it.

Besides that, there are some peoples who take advantage of this. For example, using Ibn Al-Jawzi instead of Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi to support shi’ism, while we know Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi had shi’ism in him. Similarly, saying Ibn Hajar to make as though he is Al-Asqalani, while in fact is Al-Haytami. And Al-Haytami’s status in grading Hadith doesn’t come near Al-Asqalani. Similarly in past, people confused between Rafidhi Ibn Jareer At-Tabari and Sunni Ibn Jareer Tabari.

This led me to compile a list of most of the famous personalities who had similar names or titles. Although there could be thousands of people with similar names, but this list only include those scholars who are quite famous, particularly among English readers, and people normally do not distinguish between them. This list may be expanded later on. Also note that the footnotes provided below the page doesn’t contain any comments, except the references to the biographies.

Muhammad Moin


October 9, 2010

Abu Bakr/Abu Bakrah

  1. Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq (d. 13H) [1]: Abdullah bin Abi Qahafa Uthman The best of this Ummah, Successor of the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and his companion in the cave. His virtues require books.
  2. Abu Bakrah Ath-Thaqafi (d. 51H or 52H) [2]: Nufai’ bin Al-Harith. He was hanged down at Ta’if, then he ran away from there and accepted Islam on the hand of the Messenger of Allah (SAW). He was a slave, hence Prophet (S) freed him.


  1. Ma’roof Al-Karkhi (d. 200H)[3]: Ma’roof Al-Karkhi, Abu Mahfooz Al-Baghdadi. The great Zahid of Baghdad and Wali of Allah, who was praised by scholars like Ahmed bin Hanbal and Sufiyan bin Uyaina. Among his beautiful saying is, “when Allah intends evil for his servant, He close the door of ‘amal, and open the door of arguments for him”. Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi compiled his virtues in four volumes.
  2. Abul Hasan Al-Karkhi (260 – 340 AH)[4]: Ubaidullah bin Al-Husain bin Dallal, Abul Hasan Al-Karkhi. Mufti of Iraq, Imam of Hanafiyyah, Zahid. It is said that he was Mu’atazali in beliefs. Abul Hasan ibn Al-Furat accused him of being a Mu’atzali. Dhahabi said that he was Mu’atazali. Khateeb also said that he was innovator Mu’tazali. He has also been listed in Tabaqat of Mu’tazalite scholars. WAllahu A’alam.


  1. Muqatil bin Suleiman (d. after 150 AH)[5]: Muqatil bin Suleiman, Abul Hasan Al-Balkhi. Well known Mufassir, who was also accused of having anthromorphic deviant beliefs. He has narrated from the likes of Mujahid, Dhahhak, Ataa, Ibn Sireen and others. Baqiyyah, Sa’d bin Salt, Abdur-Razzaq and others narrated from him. His commentary, in most cases, considered good except that he was weak in narrations.
  2. Muqatil bin Hayyan (d. around 150 AH)[6]: Muqatil bin Hayyan bin Dawal, Abu Bistaam An-Nabti Al-Balkhi. Imam, Scholar, the Hadith master, Trustworthy.


  1. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi (195 – 277H) [7]: Muhammad bin Idrees bin Al-Mundhir, Abu Hatim Al-Hanzali Ar-Razi. One of the great scholar of Hadith and Rijal, and a contemporary of Imam Al-Bukhari.
  2. Abu Zar’ah Ar-Razi (d.264H) [8]: Ubaydullah bin Abdul Karim bin Yazid bin Farrukh. Imam and a great Hafiz. He and Abu Hatim Ar-Razi are famous as ‘the two Razis’, and both are frequently quoted in the books of Jarh wa Ta’deel. However, Imam Dhahabi considered Abu Zar’ah to be moderate one and Abu Hatim to be strict in Jarh wa Ta’deel[9] .
  3. Fakhrud-Deen Ar-Razi (543 – 606H) [10]: Muhammad bin Umar bin Al-Husain At-Taimi Al-Bakri Ash-Shafa’i, Fakhrud-deen bin Khateeb Ar-Raiy. Imam of Mutakallimeen, Shafa’I Faqeeh. Leader in the field of logic and intellect, but bare with regard to narrations. He wrote several books like At-Tafseer Al-Kabeer, Al-Mahsul fi Usul Al-Fiqh, Mutalib Al-‘Aaliyah (which was his last book), As-Sirr Al-Maktum, Asaas At-Taqdees, Al-Arba’een fee Usul Ad-Deen etc. There are some serious things in his books, as stated by Imam Dhahabi, but he died in a good condition. WAllahu A’alam


  1. Abu ‘Isa At-Tirmidhi (d. 279H) [11]: Muhammad bin ‘Isa bin Sawrah, Abu ‘Isa At-Tirmidhi. Imam, Hafiz and the author of one of the four Sunan. Agreed upon his trustworthiness. As for the statement of Ibn Hazm that he was Majhool unknown, then it is not something to be bothered about. Besides Al-Jami’, he also authored Ash-Shama’il, Kitab Al-‘Ilal etc.
  2. Al-Hakeem At-Tirmidh[12]i: Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Al-Hasan bin Bishr, Abu Abdullah Al-Hakeem At-Tirmdhi. Muhaddith, Ascetic, Sufi, the author of “Nawadir Al-Usul”. As-Sulami said: He was expelled from Tirmidh because of his books Khatm Al-Wilayah and ‘Ilal Ash-Sharee’ah. They say, “he assume that Awliyah also have ending, just as Prophets had. And he prefer Wilayah over Prophethood”. As-Sulami also said: “He was boycotted because of his books “Khatm Al-Wilayah” and “Ilal Ash-Sharee’ah”, and there was not anything like that to boycott him, but it was only that they couldn’t understand him.” There are other wrong things in his books as notified by Dhahabi and Ibn Taymiyyah.

Abu Hatim

  1. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi (195 – 277H): Mentioned earlier in the “Ar-Razi” section.
  2. Abu Hatim Al-Busti (d. 354H) [13]: Muhammad bin Hibban bin Ahmed, Abu Haatim Al-Busti At-Tameemi, famous as “Ibn Hibban”. Imam, Allamah, Hafiz, author of several famous books, student of Imam Ibn Khuzaimah. Abu Isma’eel Al-Ansari said, I heard Yahya bin ‘Ammar Al-Wa’iz, and I asked him regarding Ibn Hibban. He said, “we expelled him from Sijistaan. He had great knowledge but he had not good belief. He came to us and negated Hadd (limit) for Allah, so we expelled him.” Imam Dhahabi said: “And your rejection to him was also Bid’ah…” At another place Dhahabi said, “they both were wrong, as the evidence does not affirm it nor negates it.”[14] He wrote several books including Saheeh, Al-Majrooheen, Ath-Thiqaat etc. Like Abu Hatim Ar-Razi he was also strict in criticism, even more than him, infact he was the most strict among the scholars of Jarh and Ta’deel. However He was lenient with regards to unknown narrators. He would consider all those narrators regarding whom there exist no criticism or praise, and only one narrator narrates from him, to be trustworthy. However, according to well accepted view of Hadith scholars, it requires two narrators narrating from that narrator to raise him above the category of unknown.
  3. Ibn Abi Hatim (240H – 327H) [15]: Son of Abu Hatim Ar-Razi. Abdur-Rahman bin Muhammad bin Idrees, Abu Muhammad. Imam, Hafiz, Zahid, the author of famous “Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’deel”, student of Abu Hatim and Abu Zar’ah Ar-Razi. Besides “Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’deel” he also authored “Ar-Radd ‘alal Jahmiyyah”, “Tafseer” in several volumes, “Al-‘Ilal”, “Al-Kuna” etc.


  1. Abu Muhammad Ad-Darimi (181H – 255H) [16]: Abdullah bin Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Fadhl bin Bahram, Abu Muhammad Ad-Darimi. Great Scholar, Imam, Hafiz, Sheikh Al-Islam. He was the author of famous Sunan known as “Sunan Ad-Darimi”.
  2. Uthman bin Sa’eed Ad-Darimi (d. 280H) [17]: Uthman bin Sa’eed bin Khalid, Abu Sa’eed Ad-Darimi. Imam, Allamah, Hafiz, the author of refutations of Jahmites. Student of great scholars like Ahmed, Ibn Mu’een, Ibn Al-Madeeni etc. He authored “Ar-Radd ‘alal Jahmiyyah”, “Ar-Radd ‘ala Bishr Al-Marreesi” and questions from Ibn Mu’een on Jarh wa Ta’deel. Recently he became famous as anthromorphist among Ash’aris after the criticism of Shaykh Zahid Al-Kawthari.


  1. Ibn Jareer At-Tabari (d. 310 AH)[18]:  Muhammad bin Jareer bin Yazeed bin Katheer, Abu Ja’far At-Tabari. Imam, Mujtahid, Mufassir, Muhaddith, the author of several unmatched works. He was accused of Rafdh (shi’ism), which he was free from. Some might have been confused him with Ibn Rustam coming next. Muhammad bin Ali bin Sahl said: I heard Muhammad bin Jareer, and he was talking to Saleh Al-A’lam, he said, “who is the one who said that Abu Bakr and Umar were not Imams of guidance”. He replied, “Innovator”. To that, Ibn Jareer said, “Innovator! Innovator! This should be killed”. –End Qoute –   Besides his books also prove his strict sunni views. WAllahu A’lam. There was some problem between Ibn Jareer and Ibn Abi Dawud, and Hanbalis, at that time, were the group of Ibn Abi Dawud. This hate between them ended when some Hanbalis beat him so harshly that he died. May Allah have mercy on him.
  2. Ibn Jareer At-Tabari[19]: Muhammad bin Jareer bin Rustam, Abu Ja’afar At-Tabari Al-Aamili. Rafidhi, the author of “Ar-Ruwat an Ahl Al-Bayt” and “Al-Mustarshid fil Imamah”.
  3. Muhibb At-Tabari (615 – 694 AH)[20]: Ahmed bin Abdullah bin Muhammad, Muhib Ad-Deen Abul Abbas At-Tabari, then Al-Makki, Ash-Shafa’i. Imam, Muhaddith, Mufti, Shaykh Al-Haram, the author of famous “Ar-Riyadh An-Nadhirah”, book on the virtues of the ten companions who had been given glad tiding of Jannah. He also author “Al-Ahkam Al-Kubra” in six volumes, “As-Samt Ath-Thameen” in virtues of Prophet’s (S) wives, and some other books.


  1. Abu Muhammad Al-Juwaini[21] (d. 438 AH):  Abdullah bin Yusuf bin Abdullah, Abu Muhammad Al-Juwaini. The jurist, Shaykh of Shafi’iyyah, Mufassir, Nahwi, and the father of Imam Al-Haramain Abul Ma’ali. He has authored books like At-Tabsirah, At-Tadhkirah, Al-Mukhtasar etc. He also has a book on the topic of Al-Istawa, which was published under “Majmoo’ Ar-Rasa’il Al-Muneeriyyah” at Cairo. Also published with tahqeeq of Ahmed Ma’adh Al-Haqqi. This book indicates his retraction from his well known Kalami tendencies.
  2. Imam Al-Haramain Abul Ma’ali Al-Juwaini (419 – 478 AH)[22]: Abdul Malik bin Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Yusuf, Abul Ma’aali Al-Juwaini Ash-Shafa’i. Imam Al-Haramain, Shaikh of Shafa’iyyah, Faqih, the author of several works. He authored  Ash-Shaamil fi Usul Ad-Deen, Al-Burhan fi Usul Al-Fiqh, Al-Irshad, Al-Aqeedah An-Nizamiyyah and several other books. His book “Mugheeth Al-Khalq fi Ikhtiyar Al-Ahaqq” was written to prove superiority of Shafi’i fiqh over other three madhhab, specially Hanafi madhhab. This was refuted by Shaykh Zahid Al-Kawthari in his book “Ihqaq Al-Haq”.

Ibn Al-Jawzi

  1. Abul Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi (509H – 597H) [23]: Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Ali bin Muhammad, Jamalud-Deen Abul Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi Al-Hanbali. Sheikh Al-Islam, Allamah, Imam, Proud of Iraq. His lineage goes back to Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq through Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr. Author of over 200 books including “Zaadul Maseer”, “Al-‘Ilal Al-Mutanahiyah”, “Al-Mawdhu’aat”, “At-Tahqeeq fi Ahadeeth Al-Khilaf”, “Al-Muntazim”, “Talbees Iblees” etc. Besides his staunch anti-Ash’ari attitude, he also goes against standard Hanbali position in the issue of Allah’s names and attributes. This was notified by scholars like Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Rajab etc. Ibn Al-Jawzi was highly influenced by Ibn Aqeel in this regard.
  2. Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi (581H – 654H) [24]: Yusuf bin Quzghuli, Abul Muzaffar Sibt Ibn Al-Jawzi Al-Hanafi. Grandson of Imam Abul Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi. Scholar, Historian, famous for his speech. He was Hanbali but later on became Hanafi for worldly cause. He authored the history book “Mir’aatuz Zamaan” and tafseer “Ma’adin Al-Ibreez” in 29 volumes and several other books. He also authored a book “Tadhkirah Al-Khawwas” in which he talks about great scholars of Ahlul Bayt and Imams of shia sect. He had shi’ism in him as indicated by Imam Dhahabi and his book “Tadhkirat Al-Khawwas Al-Ummah” is also a proof for that wherein he talks bad about some companions and goes into extreme with regard to Ahlul Bayt. Also he was quite irresponsible in his history book, as indicated by Imam Dhahabi at several place in his “As-Siyar” and “Tarikh Al-Islam”.

Ibn Qudamah

  1. Muwaffaqud-Deen Ibn Qudamah (541 – 620 AH)[25]: Abdullah bin Ahmed bin Muhammad, Muwaffaqud-Deen Ibn Al-Qudamah, Al-Maqdisi, As-Salihi, Al-Hanbali. The author of famous “Al-Mughni”, regarding which Imam Izzud-Deen Ibn Abdussalam said, “I have not seen from among the books of Islam comparable, in knowledge, to Al-Muhalla of Ibn Hazm and Al-Mughni of Ibn Qudamah”[26]. Imam, Allamah, Sheikh Al-Islam, Mujtahid, the author of several valuable works. Dhiya’ad-Deen Al-Maqdisi compiled his biography in two volumes. Besides “Al-Mughni”, which is the commentary on the Hanbali fiqh manual Al-Khiraqi, he has compiled several other works which includes Al-Kafi, Umdah Al-Fiqh, Al-Muqni’, Dhamm At-Ta’weel etc.
  2. Shamsud-Deen Ibn Qudamah (597 – 682 AH)[27]: Abdur-Rahman bin Muhammad bin Ahmed, Shaikhul Islam Shams Ad-Deen Abu Muhammad Ibn Shaikh Abu Umar. Imam, Faqeeh, Shaikh Al-Islam. He was the some of Shaikh Abu Umar and nephew of Al-Muwaffiq Ibn Qudamah. Dhahabi said regarding him, “the tongues are agreed upon on his virtue”. And it is famous that Hafiz Al-Mizzi never wrote “Shaikh Al-Islam” for anyone except for Ibn Taymiyyah, Taqi As-Subki and Ibn Abi Umar. Those who studied or heard from him includes the likes of Nawawi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Mizzi etc. He is the author of “Ash-Shaafi” or “Tasheel Al-Mutlab fi tasheeh Al-Madhhab”, nowadays famous as “Ash-Sharh Al-Kabeer”. This is actually the sharh of “Al-Muqni’” by Muwaffaqud-Deen.

Ibn Al-‘Arabi

  1. Abu Bakr Ibn Al-‘Arabi (468 – 543 AH)[28]: Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad, Abu Bakr Ibn Al-‘Arabi Al-Maliki Al-Ishbeeli Al-Mu’afiri. Imam, Allamah, Maliki Jurist, Historian. It is said that he reached the status of a Mujtahid. He authored several valuable books which includes “Al-Awasim min Al-Qawasim” famous book in refutation of shia, “Aaridhah Al-Ahwadhi” commentary on Tirmidhi, “Anwar Al-Fajr” commentary on Quran which he, as he said, completed in twenty years, “Ahkam Al-Qur’an” etc.
  2. Muhyud-Deen Ibn ‘Arabi[29]: Muhammad bin Ali bin Muhammad, Abu Bakr Muhyud-Deen Ibn ‘Arabi Al-Hatimi Ad-Dimashqi. He was of Zahiri madhhab in fiqh, and Imam of the people of Ittehad (unity among creator and creation). He authored several books most famous of them are “Fusus Al-Hikam” and “Al-Futuhaat Al-Makkiyyah”. With regards to the former, Dhahabi said, “if there exists no kufr in it, then there is no kufr in this world”. Several scholars declared him to be a heretic and a disbeliever. This include  Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah,  Qadhi Badrud-Deen Ibn Jama’ah, Qadhi Abul Hasan As-Subki, Nurud-Deen Al-Bakri, Sheikh Al-Islam Al-Balqeeni, Ibn Al-Khayyat, Qadhi Shihab Ad-Deen An-Nashiree etc. His contemporaries who criticized him with harsh words necessitating takfeer were Al-‘Izz Ibn Abdus-Salaam and Al-Ja’bari. Some scholars made takfeer on those who held those belief mentioned in Ibn Arabi’s books, without making explicit takfeer on him specifically. See, the treatise of Taqiyud-Deen Al-Faasi on Ibn Arabi [published separately, Ali Hasan Al-Halabi ed., Maktaba Ibn Al-Jawzi] which is present in his book “Al-Uqd Ath-Thameen”.

Ibn Taymiyyah

  1. Majdud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah (590 – 653 AH)[30]: Abdussalam bin Abdullah bin Khadhir, Abul Barakaat Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Harrani Al-Hanbali. Imam, Jurist of his time, Sheikhul Hanabilah. He was the grand-father of Sheikhul Islam Taqiyud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah. He is considered from among the authorities in Hanbali madhhab. His books include “Al-Ahkam Al-Kubra”, “Al-Muntaqa”, “Al-Muharrar fil Fiqh” etc.
  2. Taqiyud-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah (661 – 728 AH)[31]: Ahmed bin Abdul Haleem bin Abdussalam, Abul Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah. Imam, Jurist, Hadith Master, Sheikh Al-Islam, Mujtahid, Mufassir, wonder of his time. Probably, there is no other personality of Islam, after Prophet (S) and his companions, who has been studied in such a detail, both by his opponents and supporters. The books compiled in his biography and his defence include “Al-‘Uqud Ad-Duriyyah” by Ibn Abdul Hadi (d. 744H), “Ar-Radd Al-Wafir” by Ibn Nasirud-Deen Ad-Dimashqi (d. 842H), “Al-A’alam Al-‘Aliyyah” by Abul Hafs Al-Bazzar Al-Hanbali (d. 749 H), “Al-Kawakib Ad-Durriyyah” and “Ash-Shahadah Az-Zakiyyah” both by Mara’i bin Yusuf Al-Hanbali (d. 1033 H), “Al-Qawl Al-Jali” by Safiyud-Deen Al-Bukhari (d. 1200 H), “Jala’ Al-Aynayn” by Nu’man bin Muhmud Shukri Al-Aalusi etc numerous works. His books include “Al-Istiqamah”, “Al-Iman”, “Bayan Talbees Al-Jahmiyyah”, “Qa’idah Jaleelah”, “Al-Wasitiyyah”, “A-Istiqamah”, “Minhaj As-Sunnah”, “As-Sarim Al-Maslool” etc.


  1. Taqiyud-Deen As-Subki (683 – 756 AH)[32]: Ali bin Abdul Kafi, Abul Hasan As-Subki Al-Ansari Ash-Shafa’i Al-Misri Ad-Dimashqi. Hafiz, Allamah, Faqih, Mujtahid, the senior judge of Damascus. The author of famous “Ash-Shifa As-Siqaam” written in refutation of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah on the topic of visiting the Prophet’s grave. His books include “At-Tahqeeq fi mas’alah At-Ta’leeq”, “As-Saif Al-Maslool”, “Al-Ibhaj fi sharh Al-Minhaj”.
  2. Tajud-Deen As-Subki (728 – 771 AH)[33]: Abdul Wahhab bin Ali bin Abdul Kafi,  Qadhi Abu Nasr bin Qadhi Abil Hasan As-Subki. Hafiz, Faqih, Scholar, the one who authored famous “Tabaqat Ash-Shafa’iyyah Al-Kubra” and others. He was harsh and insultive in his speech and writings, and hence he was criticized for this by scholars. Scholars of his time went into extreme against him, and hence accused him of disbelief, and permitting wine. He was died because of plague. Besides “Tabaqat” he authored several other books like, “Jama’ Al-Jawame’”, Sharh on Mukhtasar Ibn Al-Hajib, Sharh Al-Minhaj Al-Baidhawi etc.
  3. Mahmud Khattab As-Subki (1274 – 1352 AH): Mahmud bin Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Khattab, Abu Muhammad. Maliki scholar of Al-Azhar, Egypt. He authored several books which includes Ad-Deen Al-Khalis, Irshad Al-Khalq, Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud etc.

Ibn Abdul Hadi

  1. Ibn Abdul Hadi Al-Maqdisi (704 – 744 AH)[34]: Muhammad bin Ahmed bin Abdul Hadi bin Abdul Hameed bin Abdul Hadi, Shamsud-Deen Abu Abdullah Al-Maqdisi Al-Hanbali. Allamah, Hafiz, Muhaddith, Faqih, Nahwi, Mufassir. He did not live over fourty years, but in this short span he compiled in almost all major fields of knowledge. His compilation exceeded over seventy. He studied under great scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Mizzi, Al-Dhahabi etc. His status can be assumed by just looking at the statement of his teachers and elders regarding him. Interestingly, Dhahabi narrates from Al-Mizzi from As-Sarooji from Ibn Abdul Hadi. Dhahabi listed him amongst his Shuyukh in the end of “Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz”. I left at that, hopefully, I can compile a separate article in his biography and defence. His books include “As-Sarim Al-Munki” (incomplete), “Al-Ahkam Al-Kubra” in seven volume (incomplete), “Al-Muharrar fil Fiqh”, “Al-Uqud Ad-Durriyyah”, “Tanqeeh At-Tahqeeq” etc.
  2. Yusuf Ibn Abdul Hadi (840 – 909 AH)[35]: Yusuf bin Hasan bin Ahmed bin Hasan bin Ahmed bin Abdul Hadi bin Abdul Hameed bin Abdul Hadi, Jamal Ad-Deen Abul Mahaasin Ad-Dimashqi As-Salihi Al-Hanbali, famous as “Ibn Al-Mabrid”. Imam, Allamah, Muhaddith, Hanbali Jurist, Historian, author of several valuable works. His student Ibn Tuloon has compiled his biography in separate book titled “Al-Haadi ila tarjamah Ibn Abdul Haadi”. His books include “At-Tabyeen bi Tabaqat Al-Muhadditheen” in seven volumes, “Mughni dhawil afham”, “Alfiyyah Al-Muneerah” in two volumes, “Jama’ Al-‘Adad”, “As-Sarim Al-Mughni” and numerous other books.


Al-Haythami = الهيثمي

Al-Haytami = الهيتمي

  1. Noorud-Deen Al-Haythami (735 – 807 AH)[36]: Ali bin Abu Bakr bin Suleiman, Noorud-Deen Abul Hasan Al-Haythami Al-Misri Ash-Shafa’i. Hafiz, the author of several books on Zawa’id like Zawaid of Mu’jams of Tabarani, Musnad Ahmed, Musnad Abu Ya’la, Musnad Harith, Musnad Al-Bazzar etc. Later on he collected them, without Isnad, in a single book titled “Majma’ Az-Zawa’id”.
  2. Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami (909 – 917 AH): Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Hajar, Shihabud-Deen Abul Abbas Al-Ansari. Shafa’i jurist, Allamah of Egypt, the author of several valuable works. His books include “As-Sawa’iq Al-Muharriqah” in refutation of Shia, “Tuhfat Al-Muhtaj” in shafa’i fiqh, “Tatheer Jinan wal Lisan” in defence of Mu’awiyah (RA) written on the request of Indian emperor Humayun son of Babar, “Sharh Al-Arba’een An-Nawawiyyah”, “Az-Zawajir” etc. He held some bitter views with regards to Shaykh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, and in this regard Allamah Nu’man Al-Aalusi wrote “Jalaa Al-‘Aynayn bi muhakamah Ahmadain”.

Ibn Hajar

  1. Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (773 – 852 AH)[37]: Ahmed bin Ali bin Hajar, Abul Fadh Shihabud-Deen Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani. Sheikhul Islam, Muhaddith, Dhahabi of his time, Hafiz to the extent that when it is said “Hafiz said” then it, by default, means “Ibn Hajar said”. He authored several unmatched works like “Fath Al-Bari” commentary on Sahih Bukhari, “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” summary of Tahdheeb Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, and its summary “Taqreeb At-Tahdheeb”, “Lisan Al-Meezan”, “Ad-Durar Al-Kaminah” etc. His student Hafiz As-Sakhawi has written a book on his biography titled “Al-Jawahir wa Ad-Durar”. Regardin his commentary on Sahih Bukhari, i.e. Fathul Bari, Hafiz Suyuti said, “no one from the earlier and later people has compiled the like of it”. Imam Shawkani, when he was asked to write a commentary of Bukhari, said, “there is no option (Hijrah) after Al-Fath”.
  2. Ibn Hajar Al-Haytami (909 – 917 AH): Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Ali bin Hajar, Shihabud-Deen Abul Abbas Al-Ansari. Preceded under “Al-Haythami/Al-Haytami”.


  1. Abul Hasan As-Sindi (d. 1138 AH)[38]: Muhammad bin Abdul Haadi, Abul Hasan Noorud-Deen Al-Hanafi, As-Sindi, then Al-Madani. Allamah, Muhaddith, Imam. He was the one who authored footnotes on Kutub Sittah and Musnad Ahmed, which are famous as “Hashiyah As-Sindi”. He also authored some other books. He was the teacher of Shaykh Muhammad Hayat As-Sindi.
  2. Muhammad Hayaat As-Sindi (d. 1163 AH)[39]: Muhammad Hayaat bin Ibrahim As-Sindi Al-Madani. Allamah, Muhaddith of Madeenah. He authored commentary on At-Targheeb wa At-Tarheeb of Al-Mundhiri, “Tuhfah Al-Muhibbeen”, “Sharh Hikam Al-Ata’iyyah” etc. He also authored “Fath Al-Ghafur” in which he preferred keeping the hands on chest during Salah, and he was refuted by his contemporary Allamah Hashim As-Sindi, to that he wrote a counter refutation and then Hashim As-Sindi wrote another one. This process is still going on in sub-continent.
  3. ‘Aabid As-Sindi (d. 1257 AH)[40]: Muhammad ‘Aabid bin Ahmed bin Ali bin Ya’qoob, As-Sindi Al-Ansari. Hadith scholar and master in Hanafi fiqh. He authored “Hashr Ash-Sharid”, “Mawahib Al-Lateefa”, “Tawali’ Al-Anwar”, “Sharh Bulugh Al-Maraam”, “Minhat Al-Bari”, “Jawaz Al-Istighatha wa At-Tawassul” etc. He died in Madina.

Sayyid Ahmed

  1. Sayyid Ahmed Shaheed (1201 – 1246 AH)[41]: Ahmed bin ‘Irfan bin Noor, As-Sayyid Al-Barelavi. Mujahid, Zahid, Sufi, Aalim. He studied under Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, and later on turned towards Jihad and died as a Shaheed, Insha Allah. There were several works written on his life which includes, “As-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem” in persian by Shaykh Isma’eel Shaheed and Abdul Hayy Al-Burhanvi both of whom were his students in Sufi tareeqat, “Makhzan e Ahmedi” by Muhammad Ali Tooki, “Sawaneh Ahmedi” by Muhammad bin Ja’far Thanesari and many others.
  2. Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan (1232 – 1315 AH)[42]: Ahmed bin Muttaqi bin Haadi bin ‘Imad bin Burhan, Al-Husaini An-Naqwi Ad-Dehlavi. He was the one through whose effort Ali Garh Muslim University (India) started. He was quite knowledgeable with regards to logic and was a very intelligent person. He was citicised, and even declared Kafir (by some), by scholars for is modern views of Islamic concepts. His compilation include “Al-Khutubat Al-Ahmediyya fi As-Seerat An-Nabawiyah”, “Sharh Aqeedah Al-Islami”, and a refutation of orientalist Sir William Muir. He also initianted “Tahdheeb Al-Akhlaq” an Islamic magazine. He also authored a commentary on Bible, which he did not complete, in which he tried to fill up the gap between Christians and Muslims. Because of his too much trust in nature, he considered that the intelligence is sufficient to know the God and to differentiate between Kufr and Islam. He considered that the laws of nature never contradicts and hence denied the Physical Me’raj and Physical Shaytaan and Jinn. He did not consider Ijma to be hujjah. And lots of his belief which were cause of nothing but some modernist principles.

Abdul Hayy

  1. Abdul Hayy Al-Lucknavi (1264 – 1304 AH)[43]: Abdul Hayy bin Abdul Haleem, Abul Hasanaat Al-Ansari Al-Lucknavi Al-Hanafi. Imam, Allamah, Muhaddith, Faqeeh, Soofi. He did not live for too much time, but in that short time he left numerous works specially in the field of Hadith and fiqh. His books include “At-Ta’leeq Al-Mumajjad ala Mu’atta Imam Muhammad”, “Al-Fawa’id Al-Bahiyyah”, “Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa”, “Ar-Rafa’ wa At-Takmeel”, “Al-Aathaar Al-Marfoo’ah”, “Zafar Al-Amaniyy” etc. One of his best quality was that he was very much unbiased in his study and would often conclude his verdict based on proofs, and would prefer it over Hanafi madhhab. He went into several written debates with his contemporaries like Allamah Siddiq Hasan Khan Al-Qannauji and Allamah Muhaddith Basheer As-Sahsawani, Allamah Abdul Haq Khairabadi etc.
  2. Abdul Hayy Al-Hasani (1286 – 1341 AH)[44]: Abdul Hayy bin Fakhrud-Deen bin Abdul ‘Ali, As-Sayyid Al-Hasani, from the descendents of Hasan bin Ali (RA). Adeeb, Historian of Sub-continent. He was the father of Shaykh Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi (also famous as Ali Miya Nadvi). He authored famous “Nuzhat Al-Khawatir” which is based on the biography of muslim scholars of Indian subcontinent.  He also authored “Ma’arif Al-‘Awarif”, “Jannat Al-Mashriq”, “Tadhkirah Al-Abrar” in Persian etc.

[1] Tadhkirah (1/2) etc

[2] As-Siyar (3/5) etc

[3] As-Siyar (9/339), Hilyah Al-Awliya (8/360)

[4] As-Siyar (15/426), Tarikh Baghdad (10/353), Lisan Al-Meezan (4/98), Tabaqat Al-Mu’tazilah [referenced on Hashiya of As-Siyar] (130).

[5] As-Siyar (7/201)

[6] As-Siyar (6/340), Tahdheeb Al-Kamaal (28/430)

[7] Siyar (13/247), Tahdheeb (9/28), Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah (11/68)

[8] Siyar A’lam An-Nubala (13/65), Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (7/28)

[9] Siyar (13/81)

[10] Meezan Al-E’itedal (3/340), Lisan Al-Meezan (4/226), Al-Bidayah (13/66), Siyar (21/501)

[11] Siyar (13/270), Al-Meezan (3/678), Al-Bidayah (11/77)

[12] As-Siyar (13/439), Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz (2/645), Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah (2/222) & (13/267-268)

[13] As-Siyar (16/92), Al-Bidayah (11/293), Al-Ansaab (1/349), Tadhirah Al-Huffaz (3/920)

[14] Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz(3/921)

[15] As-Siyar (13/263), Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz (3/829)

[16] As-Siyar (12/224), Tadhkirah (2/534)

[17] As-Siyar (13/319), Tadhkirah (2/621)

[18] As-Siyar (14/267), Lisan Al-Meezan (5/100)

[19] Lisan Al-Meezan (5/103), As-Siyar (14/282)

[20] Tarikh Al-Islam (52/210), Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz (4/1474)

[21] As-Siyar (17/618)

[22] As-Siyar (18/468), Al-Bidayah (12/157)

[23] As-Siyar (21/365), Tadhkirah (4/1342), Tasheel As-Saabilah (no.1003), Dhail Tabaqat Al-Hanabilah

[24] As-Siyar (23/296), Meezan Al-E’itedal (4/471)

[25] As-Siyar (22/165)

[26] As-Siyar (18/198)

[27] Tarikh Al-Islam (51/106), Dhail Tabaqat Al-Hanabila (4/172)

[28] Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz (4/1294)

[29] As-Siyar (23/48)

[30] As-Siyar (23/291)

[31] Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz (4/1497)

[32] Fahris Al-Faharis (2/1033)

[33] Fahris Al-Faharis (2/1037), Al-A’lam (4/184)

[34] Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz (4/1508), Al-A’lam (5/326)

[35] Al-A’alam, Fahris Al-Faharis (2/1141), As-Suhb Al-Wabilah (3/1165), Tasheel As-Sabilah

[36] Al-A’lam (4/266)

[37] Al-A’lam (1/178), Fahris Al-Faharis (1/321)

[38] Al-A’alam (6/253), Nuzhat Al-Khawatir (6/685)

[39] Al-A’alam (6/111)

[40] Al-A’lam (6/179)

[41] Nuzhat Al-Khawatir (7/899)

[42] Ibid (8/1175)

[43] Al-A’lam (6/187), Fahris Al-Faharis (2/728)

[44] Al-A’alam (3/290), Muqaddima of Nuzhat Al-Khawatir by Abul Hasan Ali Nadvi

Aqeeda of Imam Al-Mizzi

August 20, 2010 3 comments


Few days back, Abul Hasan of Marifah forum published a pdf article in which he tried to portray as though Al-Mizzi was Ash’ari. The main argument was that he himself testified in written that he was an Ash’ari and that was the pre-requisite for the professorship at Daaru Hadith Ashrafiyya. The pdf article of Abul Hasan can be downloaded from here.  He has discussed some other issues related to bro Haris Hammam. This has been discussed here and here. The original article which Abul Hasan has ‘refuted’ is here.

This issue can easily be divided into two parts..
1. What was the aqeeda of Al-Mizzi
2. Why did Al-Mizzi confessed to be an Asha’ari

Aqeeda of Al-Mizzi

Imam Dhahabi said in Tadhkirat Al-Huffaz (no.1176)[1]:

وكان يقرر طريقة السلف في السنة ويعضد ذلك بمباحث نظرية وقواعد كلامية

rough transl. “And he used to hold the way of Salaf in ‘Sunnah’ and supported it with knowledgeable statements and rules of Kalam”

Now all of us know, Imam Dhahabi was NOT an Asha’ari, and his views, in major issues of Sifat, were similar to Ibn Taymiyya, and that he was rejected as a teacher in the Daar Al-Hadith where being an Asha’ari was must to get hold to the job.
Therefore, him saying someone to be ‘on Aqeedah of Salaf’ that means ”aqeeda of salaf, according to Dhahabi’s understanding of salaf’s aqeeda” not like what Asha’aris consider to be the ‘aqeeda of salaf’. In short, Al-Mizzi was of the same view as Dhahabi on the issues of Sifat and other major issues related to belief.

Some bigot Asharis, like Abul Hasan of Marifa, can reject Dhahabi’s view. So let us go back to Tajud-Deen Ibn As-Subki,

Taaj As-Subki said[2]:

وله مشاركة في الفقه ويخوض في شيء من مسائل الصفات في أصول الديانات ليته برئ منها

Look at the statement of Allama Ibn Subki, he is saying that Al-Mizzi involved in some issues of Sifat, and he wished he wouldn’t have involved in those issues.
So why Ibn Subki disliked him having opinions in Sifat, when Al-Mizzi was an Asha’ari. The points derived from above statement are,
1. Mizzi had only few comments in the matters of Sifat.
2. That too were disliked by Ibn Subki who was among staunchest Asha’ari of his time.

Abul Hasan in his pdf article states on page.7 :

“He [Al-Mizzi] was the colleague of the infamous Ibn Taymiyya (b. 661 AH – d. 728 AH). The former was influenced by the later in some matters“.

Look how Abul Hasan is trying to fool the people. Who told him that Al-Mizzi was influenced by Ibn Taymiyya in only ”some matters”. Can he suggest us one statement from trustworthy sources of history which indicates his contradiction with Ibn Taymiyya (except his confession to be an Asha’ari which we’ll see soon) in major issues of Sifaat??
Atleast Ibn Subki was sincere enough to admit that these three (Al-Mizzi, Dhahabi, Barzali) great scholars were ‘harmed’ by Ibn Taymiyya in serious issues.
Ibn Subki said[3]:

واعلم أن هذه الرفقة أعني المزي والذهبي والبرزالي وكثيرا ما أتباعهم أضر بهم أبو العباس ابن تيمية إضرارا بينا وحملهم على عظائم الأمور أمرا ليس هينا وجرهم إلى ما كان التباعد عنه أولى بهم وأوقفهم في دكادك من نار المرجو من الله أن يتجاوزها لهم ولأصحابهم

[Translation of Abul Hasan] “The group comprised of Al-Mizzi, Al-Dhahabi, Al-Birzali and many of their followers were clearly harmed by Abul Abbas Ibn Taymiyya, who led them to gross acts of no little consequence and drew them to things that they should have avoided.”

Abul Hasan tried to dilute the ”gross acts of no little consequences” with ”some matters”.

As for Ibn Subki’s praise for Dhahabi and Al-Mizzi then it was regarding Jarh and Ta’deel and Hadith related issues, but in matters of Usul they both were ignorant and nobody according to Ibn Subki[4]. Ibn Subki mentioned[5] a discussion happened between Dhahabi and Al-Mizzi on some issue of belief (without mentioning the actual issue), after mentioning this Ibn Subki insulted them by saying that they both were nobody in this field to discuss the matter (see, footnote 4). He also criticised Dhahabi for saying that Al-Mizzi had knowledge of logic.

After knowing the that Al-Mizzi had the aqeeda of salaf according to Dhahabi (the Salafi), and Al-Mizzi had serious aqeeda issues according Ibn Subki (Al-Asha’ari), let us go back to other part of Al-Mizzi Issue…

Why Al-Mizzi confessed to be an Asha’ari?

The answer to this is: he simply considered himself on the aqeeda of Imam Al-Asha’ari based on his Al-Ibana, which was even discussed by his close friend Ibn Taymiyya. His confession was similar to Ibn Katheer’s confession of being an Asha’ari. People of their time were aware of the fact that it was only ta’weel to get the job.

Although Al-Mizzi confessed that he was an Asha’ari, on a written paper, but his contemporaries were aware of the fact that it was just a Ta’weel[6], and some even tried to sack him from his position because of his aqeeda.
Ibn Subki mentioned an incident in this regard.

Ibn Subki said[7]:

ولقد حكى لي فيما كان يحكيه من تسكين فتن أهل الشام أنه عقب دخوله دمشق بليلة واحدة حضر إليه الشيخ صدر الدين سليمان بن عبد الحكم المالكي وكان الشيخ الإمام يحبه قال دخل إلي وقت العشاء الآخرة وقال أمورا يريد بها تعريفي بأهل دمشق
قال فذكر لي البرزالي وملازمته لي ثم انتهى إلى المزي فقال وينبغي لك عزله من مشيخة دار الحديث الأشرفية قال الشيخ الإمام فاقشعر جلدي وغاب فكري وقلت في نفسي هذا إمام المحدثين والله لو عاش الدارقطني استحيي أن يدرس مكانه
قال وسكت ثم منعت الناس من الدخول علي ليلا وقلت هذه بلدة كبيرة الفتن
فقلت أنا للشيخ الإمام إن صدر الدين المالكي لا ينكر رتبة المزي في الحديث ولكن كأنه لاحظ ما هو شرط واقفها من أن شيخها لا بد وأن يكون أشعري العقيدة والمزي وإن كان حين ولي كتب بخطه بأنه أشعري إلا أن الناس لا يصدقونه في ذلك
فقال أعرف أن هذا هو الذي لاحظه صدر الدين ولكن من ذا الذي يتجاسر أن يقول المزي ما يصلح لدار الحديث والله ركني ما يحمل هذا الكلام

(rough translation in brief): “and he (my father) told me a story…….He (Taqi As-Subki) was with Shaykh Sadrud-Deen Al-Maliki, and Ash-Shaykh Al-Imam used to love him…… Taqi Subki said, “then he (Al-Maliki) mentioned Al-Birzali and his service to me, then he talked about Al-Mizzi and said that I should remove him from the position of teacher in Daarul Hadith Al-Ashrafiyyah”…..(on that Taqi as-Subki became angry, and mentioned some virtues of Mizzi in hadith field)……. On hearing that incident, I (Subki the son) said to Shaykh Imam (Taqi Subki): Indeed Shaykh Sadrud-Deen Al-Maliki was not denying the status of Al-Mizzi in the field of Hadith but it was like he knew the condition that it was necessary to be an Ashari to become teacher (in Daaru Hadith). And Al-Mizzi even though he wrote, when he was given hold to the position of teacher, with his handwriting that he was an Ashari, but people do not trust him on his claim.
To that he (Taqi Subki) said: I knew that was the intend of Sadrud-deen, but how one can have guts to claim that Al-Mizzi was not suitable for Daar Ul-Hadith.” —End Qoute—

So here we have some famous scholars who acknowledged that even though Al-Mizzi wrote that he was an Asha’ari but his aqeeda was not in line with what was famous as ”Asha’ari aqeeda”. Following are those scholars:

1. Sadrud-Deen Al-Maliki, 2. Taqi As-Subki, 3. Taaj As-Subki.
None of them in the qoute defended Al-Mizzi for his writing. Taqiyud-Deen only supported him because of his status in Hadith and there wasn’t anyone like him in field of Rijal. He could have contradicted Al-Miliki or Ibn Subki by saying that Al-Mizzi was consistent in his claim and he was a good Asha’ari but he never said so.

Statement of Taqi Al-Faasi

Abul Hasan then tried to misrepresent the statement of Al-Fasi. He quotes brother Abuz Zubair’s post where he translated a statement of Taqiyud-Deen Al-Faasi from his “Ta’reef dhawil ‘Ula”[8]. Following is what he quoted,

The historian Al-Fasi (d. 832) writes in his Ta’rif Dhawil ‘Ula in biography of al-Dhahabi:

It has reached me that al-Dhahabi refused to take up the teaching position at Dar al-Hadeeth al-Ashrafiyya in Damascus because he was not an Ash’ari. This is when the position was vacated due to the death of the previous teacher al-Hafidh Jamal al-Din al-Mizzi. Al-Mizzi himself did not attain the position until he testified for himself that he is an Ash’ari, for that was the stipulated condition for the teacher therein. This indicates the richness of al-Dhahabi’s religiosity and piety, for it was also possible for him to testify for himself that he is an Ash’ari and take up the position, and that wouldn’t have affected him, in that he does not have Ash’ari beliefs.” (page 50)

Regarding this Abul Hasan states,

“No matter how the likes of Abuz Zubair and his cohorts hope to explain away this quotation that Al-Mizzi was not an Ash’arite in the strictest sense, the question still remains that Al-Mizzi did testify by his own pen that he was an Ash’ari and that was the pre-requisite to attain the Professorship in Hadith at Darul Hadith Al-Ashrafiyya in Damascus.”

But he totally failed to understand the quotation from Al-Faasi. The reason that Al-Faasi compared Dhahabi’s case with Al-Mizzi’s one, was because of their identical Salafi belief. Let me explain it one by one:

  1. Dhahabi and Al-Mizzi both had salafi belief.
  2. Dhahabi and Al-Mizzi both were invited for the professorship of Daarul Hadith.
  3. Dhahabi denied to call himself Ash’ari while Al-Mizzi wrote that he was an Ash’ari[9] to fulfill the condition of Professorship at Daar Al-Hadith.
  4. By that, Al-Faasi said that Dhahabi could also have testified just like Al-Mizzi and that would not have affected the Salafism of his just as it did not affect the Salafism of Al-Mizzi.

Actually all those who mention Al-Mizzi while speaking about Dhahabi was because of similarity in both of them with regards to aqeedah. WAllahu A’alam


[1] (1176/7/21) Daar Ihya At-Turath Al-Arabi

[2] Tabaqaat (10/399)

[3] (10/400)

[4]See pg. 399,400. For ex.


[5] By quoting from Dhahabi’s Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz. Dhahabi didn’t mention the actual matter on which they discussed.

[6] Or in more clear term, it was ‘Tawriyyah’.

[7] See, Tabaqaat Ash-Shafa’iyyah (10/397-398)

[8] “Ta’reef Dhawil ‘Ula bi man lam yadhkurahu Adh-Dhahabi fi An-Nubla” (pg.50) Daar Sader, Beirut.

[9] Ash’ari of Al-Ibana, whom Hasan As-Saqqaf consider Mujassim and said that today’s Ash’aris follow Al-Ghazali not Al-Ash’ari.

Was Ibn Taymiyyah a Hafiz? [Refuting NHM Keller]

July 22, 2010 3 comments

Blatant lie from NHM Keller

Nuh Keller said:
“In scholarship, Ibn Kathir was a hadith master (hafiz, someone with at least 100,000 hadiths by memory), while Ibn Taymiya was not: his name does not appear in any of the works of tabaqat al-huffaz
Re-Formers of Islam: The Mas’ud Questions – IBN TAYMIYA AND IBN KATHIR

This is what he claimed, and probably he has not opened any book on Tabaqat of Hadith Scholars. Dhahabi in “Tadhkirah Al-Huffaz” (4/288), and in Mu’ajam Ash-Shuyukh” (1/56), in treatise special for hadith scholars (pg.25) and in other books mentioned his specialization in hadith. Ibn Shatti in his “Mukhtasar Tabaqat Al-Hanabila” (pg.61) call him a Muhaddith and a Hafiz. Allama Dhahabi in “Dhail Tarikh AL-Islam” (pg.324) call him Hafiz and Muhaddith. Al-Maqreezi called him a Muhaddith in his Tarikh. Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali mentioned him in “Dhail Tabaqat Al-Hanabla” (vol.4, pg.494) also attributed to him the status of Muhaddith and Hafiz. Similarly, As-Safdi in “Al-Wafi” (7/15) and “A’ayan Al-Asr” (1/136). Ibn Abdul Hadi in listed him in “Tabaqat Ulama AL-Hadith” (4/279) and said that Ibn Taymiyya was Sayyid Al-Huffaz (Leaders of all Huffaz). Ibn Shakir Al-Kutbi in “Fawat Al-Wuffiyat” (1/74) also said that he was a Hafiz and a Muhaddith. In short all those who wrote about Shaykh Ul-Islam they mentioned his excellence in the field of hadith, in fact they mentioned his specialization in all the fields, and that is why he was called a Mujtahid.
And more than that there wasn’t anyone comparable with him when it comes to memorizing narrations. This was explicitly mentioned by many scholars.

Here are some qoutes from scholars proving his excellence in hadith,
Ibn Katheer quotes Hafiz Barzali –

“and with regards to Ahadith, then he was the flag bearer of it, Hafiz of it, one who can distinguish between authentic and unauthentic of hadith, knower of its Rijal and skilled in it.” [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah (14/157)]

Dhahbi said, as quoted by Ibn Rajab in Tabaqat, regarding Ibn Taymiyya,
“He had complete knowledge regarding narrators, regarding their criticism (Jarh) and praise (Ta’deel), and their category (Tabaqat), and knowledge of sciences of Hadith, and ‘Aali and Naazil, and Authentic and unauthentic, with his specialization in Hifz of texts, so no one reaches his status during his time, not even near him………….such that It would be true if said “every narration which Ibn Taymiyyah does not know, is not a Hadith”. [Tabaqat Al-Hanabala (4/500)]

Dhahabi said,
“Ibn Taymiyya. Shaykh, Imam, Allamah, Hafiz, Critic, Jurist, Mujtahid, Mufassir, Skilled (in Knowledge), Shaykh Al-Islam…….He studied from Ibn Abdul Daa’im, Ibn Abil Yusr, Kamaal ibn Abd, Ibn As-Sayrafi, Ibn Abul Khair and many others. And he looked into hadith and wrote many treatises, and companied with teachers, and mastered in the field of Hadith Narrators, Ilal of Hadiths and its fiqh, and in other subjects of Islam, Logic (Ilm Al-Kalaam) and in other fields. ” [Tadhkir Al-Huffaaz p.1496]
This also refutes the section of GF Haddad aticle where he tried to portray, by qouting Allama Taqi As-Subki, that Ibn Taymiyya mostly studied without a teacher.

And there many qoutes but I think all what qouted above sufficient to prove academic dishonesty (or Ignorance) of NHM Keller.