deabte v4

 

• . First: A statement of Al-Mansir’s deception of sources that commented on the Orientalists’ praise of Islamic civilization.
  
  It is clear from Al-Mansir’s words that he is very angry about the praise of some Orientalists for the methodology of Muslims and Islamic civilization, so he tried to discredit all of this based on a conspiracy theory that says that the Orientalists praised Islam and Muslims in order to build bridges between Western civilization and Islam, and to flatter and take into account the feelings of Muslims!!!
  
  Imagine that all of those writings become worthless based on a theory that assumes a psychological reality that can only be verified by splitting open the hearts of those writers and entering the depths of their chests and thoughts!!!!
  
  While if you ask Al-Mansir, what if we applied this standard to the Orientalists who attacked Islam??!!! He will be silent and shut up or use double standards and say they are neutral. Then we will have this ridiculous equation:
  
  any orientalist who criticizes Islam is neutral.
  
  Any orientalist who praises Islam, even with one passing compliment, is a flatterer or is taking the feelings of Muslims into consideration or... or... etc.
  
  Let us begin by mentioning the deceptions of the missionary. The missionary
  
  quoted from page 108 of Muhammad Muhammad Hussein’s book, which gives the impression that all the glorification mentioned for Islamic civilization in Western books is a type of drumming up support for rapprochement between Muslims and the West. This is a deception because he returned on page 109 to say that what they wrote contains correct information that concerns Muslims, and this is what the missionary omitted.
  
  
  Al-Mansir then quoted words from the book The Sad Muslim's Guide, page 108. In fact, if you look at the pages that precede it, you will find that the author criticizes the neutral stance of Orientalist writers towards Islam, not the emotional stance. For example, on pages 65-68, he quotes Montgomery Watt's neutrality and his statement that he will adhere to the standards of respect for Islam and Muslims while writing his book "Muhammad in Mecca." Although we do not agree with him on many of the details he mentioned in his book, what he said in the introduction represents the Western academic standard for the historian who writes and analyzes the materials he has, whether we agree with his analysis or not.
  
  He is not concerned at all with the truth of Islam, but rather he is concerned with presenting his analysis in neutral words and expressions. When quoting from the Quran, he does not say, "Muhammad said," nor does he say, "God said," but rather he says, "It is written in the Quran." I do not know where the sympathy is in such phrases!!!!
  
  
  
  As for what Al-Mansir cited on page 69, as below, we do not argue with the praise of the Westerners for the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and fly with joy over it, as this is something that does not concern us and we do not need it, but we oblige others who are cited as evidence, and the fact that you do not understand the difference between this and that is something that expresses a severe weakness in understanding the logic of argumentation and obligation, and no wonder, as you are graduates of the church!!!
  
  
  
  Come, dear reader, with me to see why this Al-Mansir said this and why he is angry with the Orientalists’ praise of us, as I will present to you two examples of Orientalists who praised the methodology of the science of hadith and narrative investigation among Muslims.
  
  

  1. The testimony of Mergoliouth.
  We read from the book of Mergoliouth, Lectures on Arabic Historians, page 20:
  But though the theory of Isnad has occasioned endless trouble owing to the inquiries which have to be made into the trustworthiness of each transmitter and the fabrication of traditions was a familiar and at times easily tolerated practice, its value in making for accuracy cannot be questioned and the Muslims are justified in taking pride in their science of tradition .
  https://archive.org/details/in.ernet...e/n31/mode/2up
  
  
  
  2. Bernard Lewis’s testimony,
  reading from Bernard Lewis’s book Islam in History, page 104 - 105:
  From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence of false doctrine and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. "Traditional science" as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical sources and criticism, and modern scholarship has often disagreed with the evaluations to tradition scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful examination of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arab historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meager, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth . For Sunni Muslims - The Shia' take a different view- God's community was the embodiment of God's design for mankind, and its history providentially guided, revealed the working out of God's purpose. An accurate knowledge of history was therefore supremely important, since it could provide authoritative guidance in both the profoundest problems of religion and the most practical matters of law.
  

  Second: The farce of the missionary mind in protest, obligation and logic!!! A disaster by all standards!!!
  
  Imagine, brothers, that in addition to the fact that Al-Mansour evaded quoting from the books of the ancients (and this is noticeable in him as he quotes some contemporary research here and there to pick a word or two and cut them out of context and falsify them), he went to take from the words of Dr. Haitham Talat, who criticized the method of induction among physicists in the field of quantum physics, to say, “Look, induction is flawed and cannot be used in the science of hadith!”
  
  This is a disaster by all standards because the controls of physics and the nature of physics are not the controls of the science of hadith and the nature of the science of hadith, and this is known by those who do not know the alphabet!!! So look at the degree of absurdity we have reached with this Al-Mansour citing a clip on YouTube talking about the physics of speech to try to apply it to the science of hadith!!!!!
  
  Every disease has a cure except for stupidity, which has exhausted those who treat it!!!
  
  Third: His talk about the companions, may God be pleased with them, and the mental failure in reasoning!!!
  
  Al-Mansir cited the comments of Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, in Al-Isabah on Ibn Abd al-Barr in Al-Isti’ab on the subject of disagreement over the companionship of some of those who attributed this to him, to say that this strikes at the methodology of induction of the hadith scholars!!! I wish I knew how stupid I can describe to you the foolishness in this ridiculous logic!!!
  
  I will first give you a brief definition of who a companion is?
  
  We read from the rules of updating from the arts of the terminology of the science of hadith by Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi, Chapter Five:
  ((19- Explaining the meaning of a companion:
  
  “ He is the one who met the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - believing in him, even for an hour, whether he narrated from him or not. Although the language requires that a companion is the one who was frequently in his company, there has been evidence of the establishment of virtue for the one who did not count from him except a short meeting, and seeing him, even once. And puberty is not a condition because there were many companions who lived during the era of the Prophet, and narrated and did not reach puberty until after his death, nor seeing him because someone who was blind like Ibn Umm Maktum, and there was agreement that he was from the companions, and his being a companion is known by continuous transmission, and prevalence and by being from the immigrants or from the helpers” ))
  
  This is the definition of a companion. As for the difference in whether someone is a companion or not, its reality is due to not relying on what is authentic from the narrations and being satisfied with the sayings of the newsmen whose narration is authentic or not, and this is a defect that was made clear in the book Al-Isti’ab by Ibn Abd al-Barr, may God have mercy on him. So
  
  we read from the introduction of Ibn al-Salah May Allah have mercy on him. Part One, Type Thirty-Nine:
  ((He had great knowledge about which people have written many books, and among the most beautiful and beneficial of them is the book “Al-Isti’ab” by Ibn Abd al-Barr, were it not for the defect in it of bringing up much of what happened between the Companions, and his stories from the Akhbaris, not the Muhaddithin, and the Akhbaris are mostly prone to exaggeration and confusion in what they say. They narrate it .
  
  As for the methods of determining whether or not the narrator was a companion, they are as Ibn al-Salah, may God have mercy on him, reported from the same previous source:
  ((Then, the fact that one of them was a companion is sometimes known by continuous transmission, sometimes by widespread transmission that is short of continuous transmission, sometimes by it being narrated from individual companions that he is a companion, and sometimes by his own statement and information about himself - after his justice has been proven - that he is a companion, and Allah knows best .
  
  And we read from the book Al-Isabah fi Ma’rifat Al-Sahaba, Part One:
  ((The companion is known by one of the following proofs:
  
  First: Continuous transmission, which is the narration of a group from a group that is usually impossible. Their collusion in lying, such as Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Ali and the rest of the ten who were promised Paradise - may Allah be pleased with them.
  
  Second: Fame or widespread transmission that falls short of the level of tawatur, as in the case of Dhimam bin Tha’laba and Ukasha bin Muhsin.
  
  Third: That it is narrated from individual companions that he is a companion, as in the case of Hammah bin Abi Ahmamah Al-Dawsi who died in “Isfahan” with a stomach ache, and Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari testified that he heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, rule that he was a martyr, as Abu Nu’aym mentioned in “The History of Isfahan”.
  
  Fourth: That one of the followers informs that he is a companion based on accepting the recommendation from one just person, which is the most correct opinion.
  
  Fifth: That he informs about himself that he is a companion after his justice and contemporary status have been proven, because after that his claim that he saw the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or heard him is not accepted, because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace,
  
  said : And peace be upon him in the authentic hadith: “Have you seen this night of yours? For in a hundred years there will be no one left on the face of the earth…” [(1)].
  
  He meant by this the end of that century, and the Prophet, peace be upon him, said that in the year of his death. From this standpoint, the imams did not accept the statement of those who claimed companionship after the aforementioned goal.
  
  Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned in “Al-Isabah” - here - a rule from which it is beneficial to know a large group of companions, and it is sufficient for them to have a description that includes that they are companions, and it is taken from three traces:
  
  First: That they did not command in the battles except the companions, so whoever follows the reports that came from the apostasy and the conquests will find a lot of that.
  
  Second: That Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf said: No child was born to anyone except that he brought him to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and he prayed for him, and there is also a lot of this.
  
  Third: There remained in Medina, Mecca, Taif, and the A’raf areas among them, except for those who converted to Islam and witnessed the Farewell Pilgrimage. Whoever was present at that time was included among them, because they saw the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, even if he did not see them.
  
  Al-Dhahabi said in “Al-Mizan” in the biography of “Ratan” 2/45: “And what do you know about Rattan?! He is an old impostor, without a doubt, who appeared after the six hundredth year and claimed to be a companion, and the companions do not lie. This is bold towards God and His Messenger, and I have written a part about his matter.”
  
  And this supporter’s citing of this as evidence to invalidate the science of hadith is of no use for two reasons:
  
  The first reason: Most of the narrations came to us from companions whose companionship we know and are certain of, and most of those narrations are limited to twenty or more than twenty. We found one hundred of the companions, may God be pleased with them, whose narrations are few. As for those whose companionship is disputed, they are less than that .
  
  We read from the Ethiopian’s explanation of Al-Suyuti’s Alfiyyah, may God have mercy on him, Part Two:
  ((665 - And after them are those who are very few in it... Twenty after a hundred have been counted.
  
  (And after them) meaning after these twenty (of those who are few in it) meaning in the fatwas, and it would have been better to say less because less is not appropriate here. It is said: something is few, and less of something is to make it little like he said little, he encountered it little, and he brought little he benefited from it in “Qaf”, so the appropriate meaning here is to bring little of the fatwas, so if he had said instead of the half, and after those who are very little of it, it would have been better (very) with the kasra, meaning exaggeration, it is said: So-and-so is very good, meaning extreme and exaggerated, as he said in Al-Misbah.
  
  The meaning is: after the twenty companions, companions whose fatwas are very few, and nothing is narrated from each of them except one issue, and two issues, and three, (twenty) is the predicate of something omitted, meaning they are twenty companions, or the subject of its predicate is counted. (After one hundred) is a state of twenty, meaning the state of the twenty after one hundred of the companions, meaning: they are one hundred and twenty companions, like Ubayy ibn Ka’b, Abu al-Darda’, Abu Talhah, and al-Miqdad, and he listed the rest in al-Tadrib, this is what he said, but what Ibn Hazm mentioned in Ihkam al-Ahkam is that they are one hundred and twenty-four, so let him reflect. (He counted) in the passive form, meaning he mentioned their number according to the scholars.
  
  The second aspect: The basis for knowing who there is a difference of opinion about his companionship is studying the authenticity of the narrations that were used as evidence for his companionship, so if they are weak, it becomes clear to us that the companionship of the narrator is not proven, and we have previously quoted what Ibn al-Salah, may God have mercy on him, said about those mentioned by Ibn Abd al-Barr, may God have mercy on him, in al-Isti’ab and the reason for the confusion .
  
  Fourth: The response to al-Munsir on the issue of reading by meaning .
  
  Before I mention Al-Mansir’s evidence here, we should mention that the permission of the seven letters never includes that the Companion, may God be pleased with him, read with the meaning, as this is not correct. Rather, every letter that the Companion read with and was included among the seven letters is a reading that he received from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and this is what is indicated by the apparent meaning of the hadiths of the seven letters .
  We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an, Chapter on the Revelation of the Qur’an in Seven Letters
  4706 Saeed bin Ufair narrated to us, Al-Layth narrated to me, Aqeel narrated to me, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, Urwah bin Az-Zubayr narrated to me that Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Abd Al-Rahman bin Abd Al-Qari narrated to him that they heard Umar bin Al-Khattab say: I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the life of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. I listened to his recitation, and he was reciting in many letters that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had not taught me. I almost tried to wrestle with him during the prayer, but I was patient until he finished the prayer. I embraced him by his cloak and said: Who taught you this surah that I heard you recite? He said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, taught it to me. I said: You have lied, for the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, taught it to me in a different way than I recited it. I went with him, leading him to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said: I heard this man reciting Surat Al-Furqan in letters that you did not teach me. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: Send him, recite, O Hisham. So he recited to him the recitation that I had recited. I heard him recite, so the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “It was revealed thus.” Then he said: “Read, O Umar.” So I recited the recitation that he had taught me. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “It was revealed thus. This Qur’an was revealed in seven letters, so recite whatever is easy for you of it .
  
  ” We read from Sahih Muslim, Book of the Prayer of Travelers, Chapter: Explaining that the Qur’an is in seven letters and explaining its meaning:
  ((273 - (820) Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Numayr narrated to us, my father narrated to us, Ismail ibn Abi Khalid narrated to us, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Isa ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Laila, on the authority of his grandfather, on the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka`b, who said: I was in the mosque, and a man entered praying, and he recited a recitation that I disapproved of him for, then another entered and recited a recitation. Except for the recitation of his companion. When we finished the prayer, we all entered upon the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and I said: This one recited a recitation that I disapproved of him for. Another entered and recited a recitation other than that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered them to recite, and they recited. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, approved of their conduct, so I no longer felt any doubt about the denial. When I was in the Age of Ignorance, when the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw what had befallen me, he struck my chest, and I sweated profusely, and it was as if I was looking at Allah, the Almighty, with fear. Then he said to me: “ O Ubayy, I was sent to recite the Qur’an with one harf, so I told him to make it easy for my nation. Then he told me the second time to recite it with two harfs, so I told him to make it easy.” On my nation, so return it to me the third time and recite it in seven letters, and for every time I return it to you, you will have a question to ask me. So I said: O God, forgive my nation, O God, forgive my nation, and I delayed the third time for a day when all of creation will turn to me, even Abraham, may God bless him and grant him peace.”
  
  Their difference in recitation was a difference that stemmed from the recitation of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. This is the opinion of the majority of the nation in its report on this, and it has not been proven that what is meant by it is the permission of the Prophet, may
  
  God bless him and grant him peace, to recite according to the meaning, as the people of knowledge have said. We read from Mushkil al-Athar by Imam al-Tahawi, may God have mercy on him, the chapter on explaining the problematic aspects of what was narrated regarding letters that agree in writing but differ in pronunciation.
  ((Then their difference in pronunciation was assumed to be due to these letters.That one of them was present when the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) recited it, so he took it from him as he heard him recite it. Then Gabriel (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) presented the Qur'an to him and changed some of it. Then the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) recited to the people the recitation from which Gabriel (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) returned what he had been reciting from it before that to... He did not recite it to him after that, so some of his companions were present, and some of them were absent from him, so whoever was present read what he recited from those letters according to the second recitation, and whoever was present for the first recitation and was absent from the second recitation did not know about that, so he adhered to the first recitation, and that was from him like what was from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. In the rulings that Allah the Most High abrogated after that on his tongue with what he abrogated it with, and from what some of them stopped at the first ruling and the second ruling, so he turned to the second ruling, and some of them were absent from the second ruling from those who were present at the first ruling and knew it, so he remained steadfast on the first ruling, and each group of them was on his assumption and on what is taken into account. Thus, it is like those letters that we mentioned, and we mentioned their differences in them from the Qur’an on this meaning, and each group of them is praiseworthy for what they are upon from it, and all the readings, from Allah the Most High, it is not necessary to rebuke whoever reads something from it and differs from what is other than it, and we ask Allah the Almighty for success .))
  
  This is also indicated by the fact that the Qur’an relied during its copying during the time of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, on the ardha. The last .
  In Al-Mustadrak Al-Hakim, Part Two, Book of Interpretation
  2857 - Ja`far bin Muhammad bin Nasir Al-Khaldi told us, on the authority of Ali bin Abdul Aziz Al-Baghawi, in Mecca, on the authority of Hajjaj bin Al-Munhal, who said: Hammad bin Salamah told us, on the authority of Qatada, on the authority of Al-Hasan, on the authority of Samurah, may God be pleased with him, who said: “ The Qur’an was presented to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, in presentations.” They would say: Our recitation is the last presentation .
  Hassan Isnad of the narration Imam Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, in Fath Al-Bari, Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Qur’an, Chapter: Gabriel used to present the Qur’an to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. He said: ((Its chain of narration is good.))
  
  Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, said in Al-Itqan, Part One
  : ((Ibn Ashtah narrated in Al-Masahif and Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Fadha’il, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, on the authority of Ubaydah Al-Salmani, who said: The recitation that was presented to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, in the year in which he died is the recitation that people recite today.
  Ibn Ashtah narrated on the authority of Ibn Sirin, who said: Gabriel used to argue with the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, once every year during the month of Ramadan.When the year in which he was arrested came, he opposed him twice, so they think that our reading should be on the last opposition .
  Al-Baghawi said in his commentary on the Sunnah:
  It is said that Zayd ibn Thabit witnessed the last presentation in which what was abrogated and what remained was explained, and he wrote it for the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and read it to him, and he used to teach the people with it until he died. For this reason, Abu Bakr and Umar relied on him in collecting it, and Uthman appointed him to write the copies of the Qur’an. We
  
  read from the book Al-Burhan fi Ulum Al-Quran, Part One, Type Thirteen: The History of the Qur’an and its Differences. The Mushafs:
  ((Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Salami said: The recitation of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Zaid bin Thabit, the Muhajireen and the Ansar was one; they used to recite the general recitation, which is the recitation that the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - recited to Gabriel twice in the year in which he died, and Zaid had witnessed the final presentation and he used to recite it to the people until he died, and for this reason Abu Bakr relied on him in his collection, and Uthman appointed him as the scribe of the Mushaf ))
  
  Imam Ibn al-Jazari - may God have mercy on him - said in his book An-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Introduction:
  ((And their agreement on one letter was easy for them, and it was more suitable for them. They agreed on the letter that was in the final presentation, and some of them say that it abrogated what was other than that; Therefore, many scholars have stated that the letters that were reported from Abu and Ibn Masoud and others that contradict these copies of the Qur’an are abrogated .
  
  
  Every reading that a companion recited was based on hearing it from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. As for the difference in pronunciation that came out to express a single word due to the difference in the dialects of the Arabs, this difference - as some scholars have stated - is the only one that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, approved without him reciting it. It is a difference in the pronunciation of the word, not in the word’s nullification. There is a great difference between this and what Al-Munsir intended. An example of this is the reading of the Hudhaylites of the word “hatta” as “‘ata” and also the pronunciation of the hamza, as most of the Arabs, including Quraysh, did not pronounce the hamza, while we find that Tamim and Asad pronounce the hamza and did so a lot. As for the difference that resulted from changing a word or adding or subtracting from it, it has no basis except by hearing it from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace .
  We read from Fath Al-Bari, a commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, Part Nine, Chapter: The Qur’an was revealed in seven letters:
  ((His saying: (So recite what is easy for you from it) meaning: from what was revealed. And in it is an indication of the wisdom in the mentioned multiplicity, and that it is to make it easy for the reader, and this strengthens the statement of those who said: What is meant by letters is conveying the meaning with the synonymous wording even if it is from one language, because the language of Hisham is the language of Quraysh and so is Umar, and despite that their recitation differed. Ibn Abd Al-Barr pointed this out, and he quoted from most of the people of knowledge that this is what is meant by the seven letters. The gist of what these people have gone to is that the meaning of his saying that the Qur’an was revealed in seven letters is that it was revealed expanded for the reader to recite it in seven ways, meaning: he recites with any letter he wants from them instead of its companion, as if he said: It was revealed according to this condition or this expansion, and that is to make it easy to recite, because if they took it to recite it in one letter, it would be difficult for them as mentioned above. Ibn Qutaybah said at the beginning of his “Tafsir Al-Mushkil”: It was from the facilitation of Allah that He commanded His Prophet to recite each People in their languageAl-Hudhali reads: ‘Ata hin, meaning: “until a time.” Al-Asadi reads: You know, with a kasra on the first letter. Al-Tamimi adds a hamza, and Al-Qurashi does not add a hamza. He said: If each group of them wanted to abandon their language and what their tongues were accustomed to as children, teenagers, and adults, it would be extremely difficult for them, but He made that easy for them by His grace. If what was meant was that each word of it is read in seven ways, He would have said, for example: He revealed seven letters. What is meant is that one, two, three, or more, up to seven, come in the word. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: Most of the scholars denied that the meaning of letters is languages, due to the previous differences between Hisham and ‘Umar, and their language is one. They said: Rather, the meaning is seven ways of meaning that are agreed upon in the different words, such as ‘aqbal’, ‘ta’al’, and ‘hulhum’. Then he cited the previous hadiths indicating that... Abu Shamah narrated from some of the sheikhs that he said: The Qur’an was first revealed in the language of the Quraysh and those of the eloquent Arabs who lived near them. Then it was permitted for the Arabs to recite it in their languages, which they were accustomed to using, despite their differences in pronunciation and grammar. None of them was required to switch from their language to another language. Because of the hardship, because of the zeal they had, and because of the desire to facilitate understanding of what was intended, all of that with the agreement of the meaning. And on this is based their difference in the recitation, as mentioned above, and the approval of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, of each of them. I said, and the completion of that is to say that the mentioned permission did not occur with desire, meaning that everyone changes The word with its synonym in his language, rather what is taken into consideration in that is hearing from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and this is indicated by the statement of both Umar and Hisham in the hadith of the chapter, “The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, taught me to recite.” However, it has been proven from more than one of the Companions that he used to recite with the synonym even if he did not hear it. Hence, Umar disapproved of Ibn Mas`ud’s recitation for a time, meaning: Until a time, and he wrote to him: “The Qur’an was not revealed in the language of Hudhayl, so teach the people in the language of Quraysh and do not teach them in the language of Hudhayl.” This was before Uthman united the people on one reading.
  
  Today, we find that some non-Arabs find it difficult to pronounce the letter ‘ayn, so they pronounce it with a hamza, as in the Almighty’s saying in Surat Al-Fatihah: “The path of those upon whom You have bestowed favor.” This does not harm their prayer in the least, as they are not able to pronounce the letter ‘ayn because of their non-Arabness.
  
  As for what Al-Mansir used as evidence, quoting from the book of Abd Al-Sabur Shaheen on the authority of Ibn Al-Jinni in the anomalous reading narrated on the authority of Anas, may God be pleased with him, “they jump,” we quote directly from the book of Al-Muhtasib by Ibn Jinni. We
  read from the book of Al-Muhtasib by Ibn Jinni, the first part:
  “And from that is what Al-A’mash narrated, he said: I heard Anas2 reading: “They turned to him while they were jumping,” it was said to him: What is “they jump”? It is “they jump,” so he said: They jump, they jump, and they are intense, one and the same.
  
  
  Abu al-Fath said: The apparent meaning of this is that the Salaf used to recite the letter in place of its counterpart without the recitation being preceded by that; but it is because it agrees with its companion in meaning. This is a point where the one who challenges it, if it is like this in the recitation, finds a challenge, and says: Not all of these letters are from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. If they were from him, it would not be permissible to replace one word with another, since it was not proven that he had the option to do so, and he would not have also criticized him for saying: “Yajmuzun.” However, having a good opinion of Anas calls for believing that the recitation precedes these three letters, which are: “Yajmuhun,” “Yajmuzun,” and “Yashtidun.” So he says: Read with whichever one you want, for all of them are a recitation heard from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, because he said: The Qur’an was revealed in seven letters, each of which is sufficient and healing.
  
  If it is said: If all of these letters were recited, then the transmission of that would have reached us, and it is said: Is it not sufficient for you that Anas conveyed them to us? If it is said: Anas did not narrate it as a recitation; Rather, he combined them in meaning, and he based the permissibility of the reading on that, not on the fact that he narrated it as an earlier reading. It was said: What was mentioned about good opinion has already been mentioned, which is an answer to this.
  
  And something similar to this story “71z” is what is narrated from Abu Mahdiyyah3 that when he wanted to make the call to prayer, he would say: Allahu Akbar twice, I bear witness that there is no god but Allah twice like that until the end of the call to prayer, he would pronounce that once, and then he would say: Twice as you see, and it would be said to him: This is not the call to prayer, rather it is like this, so he would say: The meaning is the same, and you know that repetition is a defect. ))
  
  The response to this has several aspects:
  
  The first aspect: Ibn Jinni, may God have mercy on him, was the only one to narrate this narration of Al-A’mash from Anas, may God be pleased with him, and he did not mention his chain of transmission to Al-A’mash, and I did not find the narration reported with a connected chain of transmission in any book, so the argument for this narration is invalid due to the break between Ibn Jinni and Al-A’mash.
  
  The second aspect: This is not equivalent - if the narration is correct - to being one of the seven letters that we mentioned, and this means that it is a reading received by hearing from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the claim that its apparent meaning contradicts this is false, since the context does not bear the meaning being limited to that, so his saying that they rush and rush is one, it is possible that it is one because it is one of the seven letters, but he chose from the two readings what his tongue found easy .
  We read from Al-Itqan fi Ulum Al-Quran by Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, Part Two, Type Forty-One:
  ((Then Ibn Ushtah said: Abu Al-Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub told us, Abu Dawud told us, Ibn Al-Aswad told us, Yahya bin Adam told us, on the authority of Abd Al-Rahman bin Abi Al-Zinad, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Kharijah bin Zaid, who said: They said to Zaid: O Abu Saeed, have you made a mistake! It is only “eight” pairs of “Sheep, two by two, goats, two by two, camels, two by two, and cows, two by two.” He said: “Because God Almighty says: {Then He made from it the two mates, the male and the female}. So they are two mates, each one of them is a pair: the male is a pair and the female is a pair.”
  Ibn Ushtah said:This hadith indicates that the people chose the letters that best conveyed the meanings, were the most fluent on the tongues, were the closest in origin, and were the most famous among the Arabs for writing in the Qur’an, and that the other was a reading known to all of them, and so on . End quote. The third aspect
  
  : The reading of our copies of the Qur’an on the final presentation - as we explained above - and that it combined the reading of the majority of the Muhajireen and Ansar, and even agreed with the copies of the Qur’an of the majority of them, so the reading of Anas, may God be pleased with him - assuming the authenticity of the narration - does not harm, since it is from those letters that were read before the final presentation and was considered abrogated .
  We read in the explanation of the Sunnah by Imam Al-Baghawi,
  may Allah have mercy on him, in the book of the virtues of the Qur’an. It was narrated on the authority of Suwayd ibn Ghaflah, who said: I heard Ali ibn Abi Talib say: “Fear Allah, O people. Beware of extremism regarding Uthman and your saying: ‘He burned the Qur’an.’ By Allah, he did not burn it except in front of a group of us, the companions of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, all of us.” So he said: “What do you say about this recitation about which there is a difference of opinion?” The people in it? A man will meet a man and say: My recitation is better than your recitation, and my recitation is better than your recitation. This is similar to disbelief. So we said: What is the opinion, O Commander of the Faithful? He said: I think that the people should agree on one Mushaf, because if you differ today, those after you will differ even more. So we said: What an excellent opinion you have made. So he sent to Zaid bin Thabit and Saeed bin Al-Aas and said: Let one of you write and the other dictate, and if you differ about something, then bring it to me, for we did not differ about anything in the Book of Allah except about one letter in Surat Al-Baqarah. Saeed said: The Ark, Surat Al-Baqarah, verse 248, and Zaid said: The Ark, so we brought it to Uthman, and he said: Write it as the Ark , Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 248. Ali said: If I had been in charge of the one who was in charge of Uthman, I would have done as he did.
  
  We read in the book of the Mushafs by Ibn Abi Dawud Al-Sijistani, may God have mercy on him, the first part, the chapter on Uthman’s collection of the Mushafs, may God have mercy on him
  . Al-Zuhri said: They differed on that day about the Ark and the Taboo. The Quraysh group said: the Ark, and Zaid said: the Taboo. Their difference was brought to Uthman, who said: Write it as the Ark, for it is in the language of Quraysh. Abdullah told us: Muhammad bin Yahya told us: Yaqub bin Ibrahim bin Saad told us: My father told us, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Anas, with this: “
  
  The investigator Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut says in the margin of his investigation of the Biographies of the Nobles, the second part, in the biography of Zaid bin Thabit, may God be pleased with him
  ((Hafs: He is the son of Sulayman al-Asadi Abu Omar al-Bazzaz al-Kufi, the companion of Asim, and he is an imam in recitation, abandoned in hadith, and in the chapter on the authority of Suwaid bin Ghafla, he said: I heard Ali bin Abi Talib say: Fear Allah, O people, and beware of exaggeration in Uthman and your saying that he burned the Qur’ans, for by Allah he did not burn them except in the presence of all of us, the companions of Muhammad. And in it, that Uthman sent to Zayd bin Thabit and Saeed bin al-Aas, and said: Let one of you write and the other dictate, and if you differ about something, then bring it to me, for we did not differ about anything in the Book of Allah except for one letter in Surat al-Baqarah, Saeed said “the coffin” and Zayd said “the taboo,” so we brought it to Uthman, and he said: Write it “the coffin.” Ali said: “And if I had succeeded the one who succeeded Uthman, I would have done the same as he did.” Al-Baghawi mentioned it in “Sharh al-Sunnah” 4/524, 525, and Ibn Abi Dawud narrated it in “al-Masahif”: 22, 23, and its chain of transmission is authentic, as he said. Al-Hafiz in “Al-Fath” 9/16 . The fourth aspect: Ibn Jinni’s denial, may God have mercy on
  
  him, of reading according to the meaning is clear evidence that the majority of scholars of the nation are categorical about the invalidity of the saying of reading according to the meaning and preventing it from being issued by the Companions and that it is not included among the seven letters except for what was a difference in pronunciation of a single word according to the dialects of the Arabs due to its difficulty as we mentioned previously and quoted from Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, and in this there is a response to Abd al-Sabur Shahin himself .
  
  The fifth aspect: A narration similar to what Ibn Jinni, may God have mercy on him, mentioned was reported, but it is weak, and the details are below from a previous research of mine in response to the anomalous reading “and the most correct saying.” We note Ibn al-Anbari’s, may God have mercy on him, weakening of this narration and the response to those who used such weak narrations as evidence to show the permissibility of the Companions, may God be pleased with them, reading the Qur’an according to the meaning .
  
  

  
  Tafsir al-Tabari, may God have mercy
  on him: Yahya bin Dawud al-Wasiti told me, he said: Abu Usamah told us, on the authority of al-A’mash, he said: Anas recited this verse: “Indeed, the rising of the night is most effective for concurrence and most correct for speech.” Some of the people said to him: O Abu Hamza, it is (and most upright for speech). He said: Upright, correct, and prepared are one.
  
  Musa bin Abd al-Rahman al-Masruqi told me, he said: Abd al-Hamid al-Hammani told us, on the authority of al-A’mash, he said: Anas recited (and most upright for speech) and most correct for speech. It was said to him: O Abu Hamza, it is (and more upright). Anas said: More correct, more upright, and more prepared.
  
  The narration is weak
  
  and the reason is:
  the sending of Al-A’mash, so even though he saw Anas, may God be pleased with him, he did not transmit it from him. It was
  narrated in Tahdhib Al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi, may God have mercy on him, in the biography of Al-A’mash, Part Four:
  ((Abdullah bin Ali bin Al-Madini said, on the authority of his father Al-A’mash, he did not transmit it from Anas, rather he saw him dyeing his hair, and he saw him praying, and he only heard it from Yazid Al-Raqashi, and Aban from Anas.
  Yahya bin Ma’in said: Everything that Al-A’mash narrated from Anas is mursal .))
  
  And Imam Abu Bakr Al-Anbari weakened it, as Al-Qurtubi transmitted in his interpretation, Part Ten:
  ((We read in the interpretation of Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him:
  ((Abu Bakr Al-Anbari said: Some of these deviants went as far as to say: Whoever recites a letter that matches the meaning of a letter from the Qur’an is correct, if he did not It contradicts the meaning and did not come with anything other than what Allah wanted and intended for him. They used as evidence the statement of Anas. It is a statement that should not be paid attention to and its speaker should not be paid attention to . Because if he recited with words that contradicted the words of the Qur’an, if their meanings were close and included their generality, it would be permissible to recite in place of “Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds”: “Thanks be to the Creator, King of the creation.” The matter expands in this to the point that the wording of the entire Qur’an would be invalidated , and the one who recites it would be slandering Allah, the Almighty, and lying about His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. They have no evidence in the statement of Ibn Mas’ud: “The Qur’an was revealed in seven letters. It is like one of you saying: Come, come, and approach.” Because this hadith requires that the authentic readings transmitted with authentic chains of transmission from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, if their wording differs but their meanings agree, then that is like the difference in “halam,” “ta’al,” and “aqbal.” As for what the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, his companions, and those who followed them, may God be pleased with them, did not recite, then whoever includes a letter of it in the Qur’an is slandering, deviating, and deviating from the correct path. Abu Bakr said: The hadith that they made their basis for this misguidance is a hadith that is not authentic from any of the people of knowledge. Because it is based on the narration of Al-A’mash from Anas, it is disconnected and not connected, so it is taken from the fact that Al-A’mash saw Anas but did not hear from him .
  
  And another narration was mentioned in which Al-A’mash explicitly stated that he heard from Anas, may God be pleased with him,
  in the ninth part of Al-Baghdadi’s history with this chain of transmission:
  Ahmad bin Ali Al-Abar from Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Imran Al-Tha’labi, from Abu Yahya Al-Hammani, from Al-A’mash: I heard Anas.
  And the explicit statement of Al-A’mash here about hearing is not correct because the one who transmitted it from him is Abu Yahya Al-Hammani,
  and therefore the investigator Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut said in his graduation of Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’, sixth part, page 244, in the biography of Al-A’mash, may God have mercy on him:
  ((Al-Baghdadi included it in his history 9/4 on the authority of Ahmad bin Ali Al-Abar from Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Imran Al-Tha’labi, from Abu Yahya Al-Hammani, from Al-A’mash: I heard Anas.. So in this narration there is an explicit statement that Al-A’mash heard from Anas and the men of the chain of transmission are trustworthy.However, Abu Yahya Al-Hammani, whose name is Abdul Hamid bin Abdul Rahman, makes a mistake, as stated in “Al-Taqreeb,” and others have disagreed with him, as he did not mention that Al-A’mash heard it from Anas .
  

  The sixth aspect: It is proven that reading can only be done through oral transmission. What the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, read, the Companions read. Therefore, it is proven from Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, that he said, “Read as you have been taught . ”
  We read from the book “The Virtues of the Qur’an” by Al-Qasim bin Salam, Part One:
  “Abu Mu’awiyah narrated to us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority of Abu Wa’il, on the authority of Abdullah, who said: ‘I have heard the recitation and found them to be close together, so recite as you have learned, and beware of disagreement and exaggeration, for it is like one of you saying: Come and go .’”
  
  Thus, the invalidity and absurdity of what Abdul Sabur Shahin went to regarding the possibility of some of the letters of the seven letters being completed in a way other than the recitation of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and that if it was from the recitation of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, May God’s prayers and peace be upon him, it is permissible to read the Quran with its meaning before the copies of the Quran were copied!!! I wonder how abhorrent and false this statement is!!!
  This is not the first of Abdul Sabour Shaheen’s mistakes, as Al-Mansour chose a person against whom we have many legal observations that have made him deviate from the Sunnah, and he is not qualified to hold us accountable for anything. Among this, and it is sufficient, is his book “Abu Adam” in which he said that Adam is the father of man and not the father of mankind, and that there were humans before Adam, peace be upon him, and he adhered to Darwin’s theory!!! Is
  Al-Mansour obligating us to do this???
  
  Fifth: The response to his deception of Ibn al-Qayyim and his accusation of the proponents of the reading of Yazid ibn al-Qaqa’, may God have mercy on him, of inventing a reading of his own .
  
  Here, Al-Mansir committed a dirty scientific betrayal, as he quoted the words of Ibn Al-Qayyim in a truncated form while talking about the reading of Abu Jaafar (may Allah have mercy on him) of the Almighty’s saying in Surat Al-Furqan: (They said, “Glory be to You! It was not for us to take other protectors besides You. But You gave them and their fathers enjoyment until they forgot the message and were a people who were lost.”) where he read “we take” with a damma on the “nun” and a fatha on the “ta.” This is because Ibn Al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), as you will see, mentioned the problem in the first and second readings, then mentioned the grammarians’ answers to the first and second readings, then quoted the grammarians’ statement after that that the reading with the “damma” is the reading of a group of those who are not doubted, such as Zayd ibn Thabit and Abu Al-Darda .
  
  By Allah, this is truly shameful for a person to resort to such a lie, thinking that he can fool people, as if no one would check his back. If you say, “Who?” I say to you, “The one who would not check his back is the herd that believes the likes of this liar!!
  
  The poet said:
  A person does not lie except out of humiliation, or a bad habit, or out of lack of manners. For
  some, the smell of a dog’s carcass is better than a person’s lie in seriousness or in play.
  
  We will read what Ibn al-Qayyim, may God have mercy on him, said in Igathat al-Lahfan, Part Two, Chapter Thirteen:
  ((There are two readings in it: The most famous of them is - natakhdhu - with the fatha on the noon and the kasra on the kha, in the active form, and it is the reading of the seven. The second is - natakhdhu - with the damma on the noon and the fatha on the kha, in the passive form. It is the reading of al-Hasan and Yazid ibn al-Qaqa’. There is
  a problem with each of the two readings.
  As for the reading of the majority, Allah the Almighty only asked them: Did they lead the polytheists astray by ordering them to worship them, or did they go astray by their own choice and whims? How can this answer be consistent with the question? He did not ask them: Did you take protectors other than Me? So that they would say: {It is not befitting for us to take protectors other than You} [Al-Furqan: 18].
  Rather, He asked them: Did you order these servants of Mine to associate with Allah, or did they associate with Him of their own accord? So the consistent answer is for them to say: We did not order them to associate with Allah, but they preferred it and were pleased with it, or did we not order them to worship Us, as He said about them in the other verse: {We declare ourselves innocent to You that they used to worship Us} [Al-Qasas: 13].
  When the proponents of the other reading saw that, they turned to the passive voice. They said: The answer is correct and consistent with that. The meaning is: It is not right for us to worship and take gods, so how can we command them to do what is not right for us and is not good for us?
  But another problem arose for these people, which is His statement: {Of allies} [Al-Furqan: 18].
  The addition of “of” is not good except with the intention of generality, as you say: What a man stood up. And what a man struck. If the negation is directed at a specific thing, then it is not appropriate to add “from” to it, and they only negated from themselves what was attributed to them from the claim of the polytheists: that they ordered them to polytheism. So they negated that from themselves by saying that it is not appropriate from them, and it is not appropriate for them to be worshipped, so how can we call your servants to worship us? So it was obligatory on this: to read: {It was not appropriate for us to take allies other than You or allies other than You}. So
  the proponents of the first reading responded with aspects:
  One of them: that the meaning is: It was not appropriate for us to worship other than You, and to take other than You as a guardian and a deity, so how can we call anyone to our worship? That is, if we do not worship other than You, then how can we call anyone to our worship? That is, if we do not worship other than You, then how can we call anyone to worship us? The meaning is: that if they do not see for themselves the worship of God Almighty, how do they call others to worship them? This is Al-Farra’s answer.
  Al-Jurjani said: This gradually becomes an answer to the apparent question, which is that whoever worships something has taken it as his guardian, and if the worshipper takes it as his guardian, the worshipped becomes a friend of the worshipper. This is indicated by the Almighty’s statement:
  {And the Day He will gather them all together, then He will say to the angels, “Was it these you that they used to worship?” They will say, “Glory be to You! You are our protector rather than them.”} [Saba’: 40-41].
  This indicates that the worshipper becomes a friend of the worshipped.
  The meaning becomes as if they said: It was not appropriate for us to order others to take us as protectors, and to take someone other than You as a friend to worship us. This is an expansion of Ibn Abbas’ statement regarding this verse.
  He said: They say: We did not take them as allies, nor did we like to worship them. He said: It is possible that their saying: {It is not befitting for us to take protectors other than You} [Al-Furqan 25:18] means
  that they mean the group of slaves, not themselves: meaning we and they are Your slaves, and it is not befitting for Your slaves to take protectors other than You, but they added that to themselves out of humility. Just as a man says to someone who has committed an evil act: It was not befitting for me to do such a thing: meaning you are like me, a slave who is held accountable, so if it is not befitting for someone like me to do this, it is not befitting for you either.
  He said: Because of this problem, those who read nutakhada read it with a damma on the nun. This reading is closer in interpretation.
  But Al-Zajjaj said: This reading is wrong, because you say: I have not taken anyone as a guardian, and I have not taken anyone as a guardian is not permissible, because “min” is only included because it negates one of the meaning of all. You say: There is no one standing, and there is no man loving what harms him, and it is not permissible: There is no man loving what harms him.
  He said: We have no basis for this at all, and if this were permissible, it would have been permissible in {So there is not one of you who can prevent Him} [Al-Haqqah: 47].
  There is not one of the two who can prevent Him. So if “min” had not been included, this reading would have been correct.
  The author of Al-Nazm said: The reason for the omission of this reading is that “min” is only used on a direct object, not an object below it. So if there is an object other than it before the direct object, it is not appropriate for “min” to enter, like His statement: {It is not for Allah to take a son} [Maryam: 35].
  His saying “from a son” has no object other than Him. If he had said: It was not for Allah to take anyone from a son, it would not have been good to include “from” because the act of taking is occupied with “from.”
  Others have corrected this reading in wording and meaning, and they have applied it to the rules of Arabic.
  They said that it has been read by those whose eloquence is not doubted. So Zaid bin Thabit, Abu al-Darda’, Abu Ja’far, Mujahid, Nasr bin Alqamah, Makhul, Zaid bin Ali, Abu Raja’, al-Hasan, Hafs bin Humayd, and Muhammad bin Ali read it, contrary to what some of them mentioned, as mentioned by Abu al-Fath Ibn Jinni. Then he explained it by making “from the guardians” in the place of the state: meaning it was not appropriate for us to take guardians other than You. And “from” was added as an extra particle for the sake of negation. Like you say I took Zaid as a representative, so if you negate you say: I did not take Zaid as a representative. And likewise I gave him a dirham and I did not give him a dirham. And this is in the object in which.
  I said: It means that its increase with the state is like its increase with the object.
  Similar to that is that you say: It is not appropriate for me to serve you while you are sluggish. If you emphasize, you say: From sluggish.
  If it is said: Both readings are correct in wording and meaning, so which is better?
  I say: The reading of the majority is better and more expressive in the intended meaning and innocence from what is not befitting for them, because according to the reading with the dammah: they have denied the goodness of the polytheists taking them as allies, and according to the reading of the majority: they have informed that it is not befitting for them, and it is not befitting for them to take a guardian other than Him, rather You alone are our guardian and our object of worship, so if it is not befitting for us to associate anything with You, then how is it befitting for us to call Your servants to worship us instead of You? This meaning is more sublime and greater than the first, so ponder it.
  The point is that according to both readings: this answer is from the angels and from those who are worshipped other than Allah from among His allies. As for it being from the idols, this is not apparent.
  It may be said: Allah the Almighty made them say that, as a denial of them, a response to them, and an innocence from them, as He said:
  {When those who were followed disassociated themselves from those who followed} [Al-Baqarah: 166].
  And in the other verse: {We disavow to You that they used to worship us} [Al-Qasas: 63].
  
  So look at the deception, my brother reader, and such deception shows you the type of person we are dealing with, as someone like him does not hesitate to support his religion with lies. And it is unlikely, for there are, by Allah’s permission, men who expose his lies and tricks, and their arrows are the arrows of truth.
  
  This reading was also corrected in language, wording, and meaning by the grammarian Imam Ibn Jinni, may Allah
  have mercy on him. We read from Al-Muhtasib in Clarifying the Faces of the Anomalous Readings and Clarifying Them, Part Two:
  ((As for yaf`ulu, its root - as mentioned above - is fa`ul, like sharf yashruf. The root fa`ul is intransitive, so what is most likely to be derived from the root fa`ala is that it is not transitive, like qa`ada yaq`ud. Just as daraba yadrudu is more correct than qatala yaqtulu, so too qa`ada yaq`ud is more correct than jalas yajlis. We have explained this in our book called al-Munsif.
  And from that is the reading of Zayd ibn Thabit, Abu al-Darda`, Abu Ja`far, Mujahid - with a difference - and Nasr ibn Alqamah4 and Makhul5 and Zayd ibn Ali6 and Abu Raja` and al-Hasan - and there are differences of opinion from them - and Hafs ibn Hamid4 and Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ali: “nuttakhadh”8, with a dammah on the nun. Abu al-Fath said: As for if the nun is dammah, then his saying: “from the allies” is in the position of a state, meaning: it was not appropriate for us to take allies other than You. "Min" is added to the place of negation, like when you say: I took Zayd as a representative. If you negate, you say: I did not take Zayd as a representative. Likewise, I gave him a dirham, and I did not give him a dirham. This is in the object .
  
  Here is the chain of transmission of Abu Ja`far’s reading as transmitted by Ibn al-Jazari, may Allah have mercy on him,
  in al-Nashr fi al-Qira`at al-`Ashr, Part One, Chapter on Mentioning the Chain of Transmission of These Ten Readings from These Paths and Narrations:
  “And al-Duri and al-Hashimi read to Abu Ishaq Ismail ibn Ja`far ibn Abi Katheer al-Madani, and Sulayman ibn Muslim ibn Jammaz al-Zuhri, their client from Madani, read to Abu al-Rabi`. The completion of the twelve paths of Ibn Jammaz. Ibn Jammaz and Ibn Wardan read on the imam of the recitation of Medina, Abu Ja`far Yazid ibn al-Qa`qa` al-Makhzumi al-Madani. It was said that Ismail ibn Ja`far read on Abu Ja`far himself. Some of our memorizers confirmed this. So that is fifty-two paths of Abu Ja`far. Abu Ja`far read on the authority of his client, `Abdullah ibn `Ayyash ibn Abi Rabia al-Makhzumi, and on the authority of the learned scholar, `Abdullah ibn `Abbas al-Hashimi, and on the authority of Abu Hurayrah, `Abd al-Rahman ibn Sakhr al-Dawsi. These three read on the authority of Abu al-Mundhir, `Ubayy ibn Ka`b al-Khazraji, and Abu Hurayrah and Ibn `Abbas read. Also on the authority of Zayd ibn Thabit, and it was said: Abu Ja`far read on Zayd himself, and that is possible, because it is authentic that he was brought to Umm Salamah, the wife of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - may God be pleased with her - so she wiped his head and supplicated for him, and he prayed with Ibn `Umar ibn al-Khattab, and he was the most knowledgeable of the people before al-Harrah, and al-Harrah was the year of Sixty-three, and Zaid and Ubayy recited to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
  
  Sixth: The response to the evidence used as evidence that Al-Zuhri, may Allah have mercy on him, permitted the recitation of the Qur’an by meaning .
  He cited from the book Al-Wad’ fi Al-Hadith by Dr. Muhammad Al-Du’ailij (as usual, a contemporary) this narration attributed to Imam Al-Zuhri,
  may Allah have mercy on him: ((Yunus bin Muhammad told us: Abu Uways, I asked Al-Zuhri about advancing and delaying in the hadith, and he said: This is permissible in the Qur’an, so how about in the hadith? If the meaning of the hadith is achieved, and it does not make permissible what is forbidden by it, nor does it make permissible what is forbidden by it, then there is no problem, and that is if its meaning is achieved.))
  
  Dr. Muhammad referred it to Al-Madkhal ila Sunan Al-Bayhaqi, may God have mercy on him, but I did not find it there. It seems that he transferred this reference from the book Qawa’id Al-Tahdheed fi Funun Mustalah Ilm Al-Hadith by Al-Qasimi, may God have mercy on him. Then I went back to Fath Al-Mughith by Al-Sakhawi, Tadreeb Al-Rawi by Al-Suyuti, and Seerah A’lam Al-Nubala by Imam Al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, and I found that they did not refer it to Al-Madkhal by Al-Bayhaqi, may God have mercy on him, nor to any other book
  . It became clear that there was an interruption, as we do not know who transmitted this from Yunus bin Muhammad, and there is no proof in something like this.
  
  The scholars have stated that reading by meaning is not permissible and that it is not authentic. We have previously quoted the hadith of Ibn Masoud (may Allah be pleased with him) in this regard, and what Al-Anbari (may Allah have mercy on him) said, and what Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Al-Fath. Whoever wishes, let him refer to Al-Ala. We will mention some of the statements of the scholars:
  
  We will read what Imam Ibn Al-Jazari (may Allah have mercy on him) said about Ibn Masoud (may Allah be pleased with him) in his book Al-Nashr fi Al-Qira’at Al-‘Ashr, Part One:
  ((As for the one who says : Some of the Companions, such as Ibn Masoud, permitted reading by meaning, he has lied about him. Rather, he said: I looked at the readings and found them close, so read as you have learned. Yes, they would sometimes include interpretation in the reading as clarification and explanation because they were verifying what they had received from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) as a Qur’an, so they were safe from confusion, and perhaps some of them would write it with him. However, Ibn Masoud (may Allah be pleased with him) disliked that and forbade it. Masruq narrated from him that he disliked interpretation in the Qur’an, and others narrated from him: “Strip the Qur’an and do not mix with it what is not from it.” ))
  
  And we read in Manahil Al-Irfan by Al-Zarqani, Part One:
  (( It indicates that everything was revealed from God Almighty, the saying of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, to each of the disputing and differing companions in the recitation: “This is how it was revealed,” and the saying of each of the disputing companions to his companion: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited it to me, and the saying of God Almighty to His Messenger in response to the one who asked him to change the Qur’an: {Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed, I fear, if I disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day.} And there is no speech after the words of God and His Messenger. The Ummah also agreed that no human being had any role in the organization of this Qur’an, neither in terms of its style nor its wording, nor even in terms of the law of its performance. Whoever deviates from this consensus and follows a path other than that of the believers, Allah will give him what he has chosen and will send him to Hell, and evil is his destination.
  And here we have seen the Qur’an in that verse absolutely forbidding the Messenger from attempting that, accompanied by a severe threat and accompanied by painful punishment. So it is not right for Ibn Mas’ud or anyone greater than Ibn Mas’ud after this to replace a word of the Qur’an with a word of his own. See what we have decided in the two witnesses: the fourth and seventh of this topic.))
  
  Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him, said in his interpretation of the Almighty’s saying ((Indeed, the tree of Zaqqum is food for the sinful)):
  (( And there is no argument in this for the ignorant people of deviation, that it is permissible to replace a letter from the Qur’an with another, because that was only from Abdullah to make it easy for the learner, and to prepare him to return to the truth, and to use the truth and speak the letter according to the revelation of God and the narration of the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace ))
  
  Seventh: Al-Munsir’s deception of Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, in what we have mentioned above.
  The lying Al-Munsir transmitted the statement of Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, which we detailed above, which is that every reading of the seven letters was issued by the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, in pronunciation, but as for the reading by meaning, it is not correct. Al-Munsir maliciously cut off the words of Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, when he was talking about the difference in how to pronounce a single word according to the ability of each Arab governed by the dialect of his tribe (the Hudhali does not pronounce the letter Ha, so he says ‘Ata instead of Hatta), so that the reader understands that Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, said that the reading was based on meaning among the Companions, may God be pleased with them!!!
  
  Here is the full text of Ibn Hajar’s words, may God have mercy on him, which we repeat:
  
  We read from Fath al-Bari, commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, part nine, chapter on the Qur’an being revealed in seven letters:
  ((His saying: (So recite what is easy of it) meaning: of what was revealed. And in it is an indication of the wisdom in the mentioned multiplicity, and that it is to make it easier for the reader, and this strengthens the statement of those who said: What is meant by letters is conveying the meaning with the synonymous wording even if it is from one language, because the language of Hisham was in the language of Quraysh and so was Umar, and despite that their recitation differed. Ibn Abd al-Barr pointed this out, and he quoted from most of the scholars that this is what is meant by the seven letters... The gist of what these people have gone to is that the meaning of his saying that the Qur’an was revealed in seven letters is that it was revealed expanded for the reader to recite it in seven ways, meaning: he reads with any letter he wants from them instead of its companion, as if he said: It was revealed with this condition or with this expansion, and that is to make it easier to recite, because if they were to recite it in one letter, it would be difficult for them as mentioned above. Ibn Qutaybah said at the beginning of his “Tafsir al-Mushkil” It was from the facilitation of Allah that He ordered His Prophet to recite every people in their language . The Hudhali recites: ‘Ata hin, meaning: “until a time,” and the Asadi recites: Ta’alamunu with a kasra on the first letter. The Tamimi adds a hamza and the Qurashi does not add a hamza. He said: If every group of them wanted to abandon their language and what their tongues were accustomed to as children, teenagers, and adults, it would have been extremely difficult for them, but He made that easy for them by His grace. If what was meant was that every word of it be recited in seven ways, He would have said, for example: He revealed seven letters. What is meant is that one, two, three, or more, up to seven, come in a word. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: Most of the scholars denied that the meaning of letters is languages, due to the previous differences between Hisham and ‘Umar, and their language is one. They said: Rather, the meaning is seven ways of meaning that are agreed upon in the different words, such as ‘aqbal’, ‘ta’al’, and ‘hulhum’. Then he cited the previous hadiths indicating that... Abu Shamah narrated from some of the sheikhs that he said: The Qur’an was first revealed in the language of the Quraysh and those of the eloquent Arabs who lived near them. Then it was permitted for the Arabs to recite it in their languages, which they were accustomed to using, despite their differences in pronunciation and grammar. None of them was required to switch from their language to another language. Because of the difficulty, because of the zeal they had, and because of the desire to facilitate understanding of what was intended, all of that with the agreement of the meaning. And on this is based their difference in the recitation, as mentioned above, and the approval of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, of each of them.I said: The completion of that is to say that the mentioned permissibility did not occur due to desire, meaning that everyone changes the word to its synonym in his language, rather what is taken into consideration in that is hearing from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. This is indicated by the statement of both Umar and Hisham in the hadith of the chapter: The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, taught me to recite, but it was proven from more than one of the The companions said that he used to recite in a synonymous way even if it was not heard . Then Omar denounced Ibn Masoud’s recitation for a while, meaning until a while, and wrote to him: The Qur’an was not revealed in the language of Hudhayl, so recite to the people in the language of Quraysh and do not recite to them in the language of Hudhayl. This was before Uthman united the people on one recitation.
  
  Have you seen anyone more lying than this missionary!!!
  
  Eighth: His words about the companions and their declaring some of them infidels, may Allah be pleased with them.
  First: Al-Munsir mentioned that the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, declared some of them infidels, citing the words of Imam Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, and Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, from Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa, and he said something to the effect that if they declared some of them infidels, then what prevents them from lying!!!
  I do not know what is the logical reason or necessary motive that declaring some of them infidels would necessitate that they lied!!! So what is the necessity for the second to happen if the first happened in the first place!!!
  
  Ibn al-Salah says in his introduction, Part One, Type Thirty-Nine:
  ((The second: The Companions as a whole have a special characteristic, which is that no one among them is asked about the justice of any one of them. Rather, this is a matter that is taken for granted, because they are absolutely just according to the texts of the Book and the Sunnah and the consensus of those who are considered in the consensus of the Ummah.
  God Almighty said: (You are the best nation produced from the heavens and the earth. (for mankind) for a verse. It was said: The commentators agreed that it was mentioned about the companions of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace -
  and Allah the Most High said: (And thus We have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people). This is addressed to those who were present at that time.
  And Allah the Most High said: (Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are strong against the disbelievers) the verse.
  And in the texts of There are many Sunnahs that bear witness to this, including the hadith of Abu Saeed, which is agreed upon to be authentic, that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “Do not curse my companions, for by the One in Whose Hand is my soul, if one of you were to spend the equivalent of Mount Uhud in gold, it would not reach the level of one of them, or even half of it.
  ”Indeed, the Ummah is unanimous in the justice of all the Companions, and those of them who were involved in the tribulations, and so is the consensus of the scholars who are considered in the consensus, out of good opinion of them, and in view of the achievements that were paved for them, and it is as if God - Glory be to Him and Most High - made it possible to agree on that because they were the transmitters of the Shari’ah, and God knows best .
  
  And we read from the Book: The Critical Approach in the Sciences of Hadith Chapter Two: On the Sciences of the Narrators of Hadith Chapter One: On the Sciences Knowing the Status of the Narrator:
  ((The Justice of the Companions:
  God has distinguished the Companions, may God be pleased with them, with a characteristic that is not for any class of people other than their own class, which is that they are not asked about the justice of any of them, for they are all just and their justice has been proven in the strongest way that the justice of any person is proven, for it has been proven by the Book, the Sunnah, by consensus, and by reason.
  As for the Qur’an: God Almighty says: {You are the best nation produced for mankind} and His saying: {And thus We have made you a just community that you will be witnesses over the people and the Messenger will be a witness over you}.
  This applies to all the Companions, because they are the ones directly addressed by this text.
  And likewise His statement: {Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating, seeking bounty from Allah and approval.}
  And there are many other verses about the virtue of the Companions and the testimony to their justice.
  As for the Sunnah: its texts testifying to that are abundant, including:
  the hadith of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, whose authenticity is agreed upon (1), that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Do not curse my Companions, for by the One in Whose Hand is my soul, if one of you were to spend the equivalent of Mount Uhud in gold, it would not reach the level of one of them or even half of it.”
  It was narrated from him, may God bless him and grant him peace, that he said: “The best of people are my generation, then those who come after them” (2)… As for consensus: Abu Omar bin Abdul Barr says in Al-Isti’ab (2): “We have been spared the need to research their circumstances due to the consensus of the people of truth among the Muslims, who are the people of the Sunnah and the community, that they are all just.”
  Al-Khatib said in Al-Kifaya (3): “ This is the doctrine of all scholars and those whose words are relied upon among the jurists .”
  Muhammad bin Al-Wazir Al-Yamani transmitted the consensus from the people of the Sunnah and from the Zaidis and Mu’tazilites as well, and so did Al-San’ani (4)
  . Ibn Al-Salah (1) said: “ Then the nation is in agreement on the justness of all the Companions, and those of them who were involved in the tribulations, and so is the consensus of the scholars who are relied upon in consensus, out of good opinion of them, and in view of the great deeds that were prepared for them, as if God Almighty made it possible for consensus on that because they were the transmitters of the Sharia .” ))
  
  And from the manifestations of their truthfulness is that we find that Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-Aas, may God be pleased with him, in the Battle of Siffin, while he was on the side of Muawiyah, may God be pleased with him, narrating the hadith, “Woe to Ammar, the rebellious group will kill him.” And neither Amr nor Muawiyah denied that.
  We read from the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, the Musnad of the Shamiyyin, the Musnad of Amr bin Al-Aas, may God be pleased with him.
  ((17778 - Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, he said: Ma`mar narrated to us, on the authority of Ibn (1) Tawus, on the authority of Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn `Amr ibn Hazm, on the authority of his father, he said: When `Ammar ibn Yasir was killed, `Amr ibn Hazm entered upon `Amr ibn al-`As and said: `Ammar has been killed, and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, had said: “The rebellious group will kill him.” Amr ibn al-'As stood up in fear and started to groan until he entered upon Mu'awiyah. Mu'awiyah said to him: What is the matter with you? He said: Ammar was killed. Mu'awiyah said: Ammar has been killed, so what? Amr said: I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say: "The rebellious group will kill him." Mu'awiyah said to him: You were thrown into your urine. Did we kill him? Indeed, Ali and his companions killed him. They brought him until....
  Sheikh Shuaib al-Arna’ut authenticated the hadith in his investigation of Musnad al-Imam Ahmad and said:
  (( Its chain of transmission is authentic . Ibn Tawus: He is Abdullah. The hadith is in “Musannaf” by Abd al-Razzaq (20427), and from his chain of transmission it was narrated by Abu Ya’la (7175) and (7346), and al-Hakim 2/155-156, and al-Bayhaqi in “al-Dala’il” 2/551.))
  
  This hadith was transmitted by a group of the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, who were with Mu’awiyah, may God be pleased with him, or with Ali, may God be pleased with him, or who withdrew from the fighting.
  We read what Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, said in Fath al-Bari, a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Prayer, Chapter on Cooperation in Building the Mosque
  : ((In Muslim and al-Nasa’i, on the authority of Abu Salamah, on the authority of Abu Nadrah, on the authority of Abu Sa’id, he said: I was told by someone who is better than me, Abu Qatada, and he mentioned him. Al-Bukhari limited himself to the amount that Abu Sa’id heard from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, without others. This is indicative of the precision of his understanding and his deep knowledge of the causes of Hadiths: In this hadith there is also an addition that was not in the narration of Al-Bukhari, and it is with Al-Ismaili and Abu Nu`aym in Al-Mustakhraj on the authority of Khalid Al-Wasiti on the authority of Khalid Al-Hadha’, and it is: So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: O Ammar, why don’t you carry as your companions carry? He said: I want the reward from Allah, and the addition has already been mentioned. Ma'mar also has a benefit in it. A group of the Companions narrated the hadith, "The rebellious group will kill Ammar," among them Qatadah ibn al-Nu'man, as mentioned above, and Umm Salamah according to Muslim, and Abu Hurayrah according to al-Tirmidhi, and Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As according to al-Nasa'i, and Uthman ibn Affan, and Hudhayfah, and Abu Ayyub, and Abu Rafi', and Khuzaymah ibn Thabit, Muawiyah, Amr ibn al-Aas, Abu al-Yusr, and Ammar himself, and all of them are with al-Tabarani and others, and most of their chains of transmission are authentic or good, and it includes others from a group whose enumeration would be too long .
  
  
  Second: His talk about Busr ibn Abi Artah and his filthy fabrication .
  Al-Munsir transmitted the words of Ibn Al-Humam in his book Fath Al-Qadir, which he transmitted on the authority of Yahya bin Ma’in that Busr is a bad man, and what Al-Bayhaqi mentioned that the narration is not valid because he agreed to fight the people of Al-Harrah. In response to this:
  1. There is disagreement about Busr’s companionship, and this is what Al-Munsir cut off, as the people of Medina denied hearing him from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. In addition to that, Ibn Al-Humam transmitted disagreement about his companionship.
  We read from Fath al-Qadir by Ibn al-Humam, Part Five, Book of Punishments:
  ((Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasa’i narrated on the authority of Busr ibn Arta’ah who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say: “Hands are not cut off while traveling.” End quote. Al-Tirmidhi’s wording is: “During military campaigns.” Al-Tirmidhi said: It is a strange hadith, and some scholars, including al-Awza’i, act upon it. They see that… That the punishment should not be carried out during a raid in the presence of the enemy for fear that the one against whom the punishment is carried out will join the enemy. So when the imam returns to the land of Islam, he carries out the punishment on him.
  Know that with Al-Awza’i are Ahmad and Ishaq, and their school of thought is to delay the punishment until the return, and Busr ibn Artah, and it is said Ibn Abi Artah, there is a difference of opinion about His company. Al-Bayhaqi said in Al-Ma’rifah: The people of Madinah deny that Busr heard from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. Yahya ibn Ma’in used to say: Busr ibn Artah is a bad man. Al-Bayhaqi said: This is because of his well-known bad deeds in fighting the people of Al-Harrah.
  If he heard it from him - may God’s prayers and peace be upon him - the narration of someone who was satisfied with what happened in the year of al-Harrah and was one of its supporters would not be accepted. The truth is that if these narrations were proven in a way that requires action, they would be explained by the fear that the one who was arrested would join the people of war, and that he would be arrested if he went out, and the fact that he arrested him if he went out to the land of Islam is contrary to the doctrine. ))
  
  This is what Al-Munsir cut off and did not reveal. What Al-Bayhaqi, may God have mercy on him, said about the people of Medina denying his companionship was the main thing they relied on for those who denied his companionship.
  As for the hadith “Hands should not be cut off during travel,” its authenticity is disputed, as Al-Albani authenticated it in his Takhreej of Al-Mishkat, and Al-Nasa’i denied it in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra.
  As for what Ibn Al-Humam, may God have mercy on him and forgive him, said about not accepting the narration of those who were satisfied with what happened from the people of Al-Harrah, it is rejected, and Al-Tahanawi rejected it and answered it in his book “I’la’ Al-Sunan.”
  We read from the book “I’la’ Al-Sunan” by Al-Tahanawi, Part Six, Book of Punishments
  
  . Third, his forgery of Muhammad Abu Zuhu in the issue of the hadith “Whoever lies about me, let him take his seat in Hellfire.”
  Al-Mansir quoted Muhammad Abu Zaho to hint to the reader that the Companions were lying in the hadiths since the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and this is a form of deception, as the author indicated the caution of the Companions, may God be pleased with them, from fabricating hadiths, and that during the time of the caliphs no one dared to do that until the year 41 AH came, but he only indicated that lying about the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, began since his time, and the context of the speech denies that this continued, but rather it was linked to some incidents, and the author indicated an incident that he used as evidence, which was transmitted by Ibn Adi, may God have mercy on him .
  We read from the book of Hadith and Hadith scholars:
  ((9- Knowing the fabrications and exposing the state of the fabricators:
  The emergence of fabrication in Hadith and the beginning of its appearance:
  The Prophetic Sunnah during the era of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - was protected from the sayings of liars, preserved from the deception of the hypocrites, because he - may God bless him and grant him peace - was among the Muslims. He eliminated superstitions and lies, because the revelation continued to descend upon him, and he often exposed the secret of the hypocrites, so no one dared to fabricate against the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - during his life. So when it was the time of the two sheikhs, they took great precautions regarding the Hadiths, and terrified the hypocrites and the Arabs from exaggerating in them as you have previously explained. And when Uthman - may God be pleased with him - took office, and the sedition occurred during his time, he found lying against the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - from the followers of Abdullah bin Saba’ the Jew, who ignited the fires of sedition, and incited the people against the Caliph of the Muslims until they killed him unjustly. Then when Ali - may God honor his face - took office The Caliphate, and what happened between him and Muawiyah in Siffin, people were divided into Shiites, Khawarij, and the majority as you have seen, and here the lie against the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, appeared, and his matter became severe from the Shiites, Khawarij, and the preachers of the Umayyads, so the scholars consider the beginning of the emergence of fabrication in the hadith from this time “the year 41 AH”, and this specification is only for the emergence of fabrication in the hadith, otherwise the lie against the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was found before that even in his time, may God bless him and grant him peace, and for that reason he says, may God bless him and grant him peace: “Whoever lies about me intentionally, let him take his seat in the Fire”, so the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not say that except for an incident that occurred in his time in which he was lied about, and evidence for that is what Ibn Adi narrated in his Kamil on the authority of Buraidah, who said: “There was a tribe of Banu Laith one mile from Medina, and a man had proposed to them in the pre-Islamic period, but they did not marry him, so he came to them wearing a garment and said: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, clothed me in this and ordered me to rule over your wealth.” And your blood, then he went and descended upon that woman whom he had proposed to, so the people sent to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and he said: The enemy of God has lied, then he sent a man and said: If you find him alive, strike off his neck, and if you find him dead, burn him with fire, so he came and found that a snake had bitten him and he died, so he burned him with fire, and for that reason, the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “Whoever lies about me intentionally, let him take his seat in the Fire,” and Al-Suyuti mentioned in Tahdheer Al-Khawass a group of narrations with this meaning, but as we said: This was rare and rare in the era of the Prophet .))
  
  And we read from Fath Al-Bari, Explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhari, Part One, Chapter on the Sin of Whoever Lies about the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace
  ((Al-Darimi narrated it through another chain of transmission on the authority of Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr with the wording: “Whoever narrates a lie from me” and did not mention intentionally. Al-Zubayr’s adherence to this hadith based on what he went to regarding the preference for few narrations is evidence for the most correct view that lying is reporting something in a way that is contrary to what it is, whether it was intentional or by mistake. And the one who makes a mistake, even if he is not sinful by consensus , but Az-Zubayr feared that he would fall into error by repeating it frequently without realizing it, because even if he did not sin by repeating it frequently, he might sin by repeating it frequently, since repeating it frequently is a source of error. And if a trustworthy person narrates a mistake, then it is attributed to him, and he does not realize that it is a mistake that is always acted upon. To trust his transmission, it is a reason for acting on what the Lawgiver did not say. So whoever fears that he will fall into error by narrating too much, he is not safe from sin if he intentionally narrates too much. Hence, Al-Zubayr and others among the Companions refrained from narrating too much. As for those among them who narrated too much, it is understood that they were confident in themselves by verifying or Their lives were long, so what they had was needed, so they were asked, but they could not conceal it, may Allah be pleased with them .
  
  Fourth: The lack of proof of the authenticity of Ibn Udays.
  Al-Munsir cited a hadith that included Ibn Lahi’ah, and in the book “Arrangement of the Fabrications,” he indicated that the defect of the hadith was from Ibn Lahi’ah, or that it was a lie from Ibn Udays. Al-Munsir was overjoyed at this point,
  
  and I say:
  1. The origin of the narration that Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned in the fabrications is not authentic because it is from the path of Ibn Lahi’ah, so it is not authentic from Ibn Udays in the first place, in addition to being authentic from Abu Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, or the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace .
  Ibn Lahi’ah became confused at the end of his life, and nothing can be taken from his narrations except the narrations of the ‘Abbadids from him.
  We read in his biography in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, Part Five
  : ((Nuaim bin Hammad said: I heard Ibn Mahdi say: I do not consider anything I heard from the hadith of Ibn Lahi’ah except the hearing of Ibn al-Mubarak and the like,
  and Abdul-Ghani bin Saeed al-Azdi said: If the ‘Abbadillah narrated from Ibn Lahi’ah, then it is authentic, Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn Wahb and al-Muqri’.))
  
  Al-Daraqutni said: The Weak and Abandoned, Part Two, Chapter Ain:
  ((319 - Abdullah bin Lahi’ah bin Uqbah, and perhaps he was attributed to his grandfather, what is considered is what the ‘Abbadillah narrated from him, Ibn al-Mubarak, al-Muqri’ and Ibn Wahb.))
  
  We read in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ by Imam al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, Part Eight, Seventh Class in the biography of Ibn Lahi’ah:
  ((Abu Zur’ah said: He is not to be relied upon. It was said: So what about the hearing of the ancients? He said: Its beginning and end are the same, except that Ibn Wahb and Ibn al-Mubarak used to trace its origins and write from them.
  Abu Hatim bin Hibban al-Busti said: Some of our companions used to say: The hearing of whoever heard from Ibn He heard it before his books were burned, such as the Abdallahs: Ibn al-Mubarak, Ibn Wahb, al-Muqri’, and Abdullah ibn Muslimah al-Qa’nabi. Their hearing is correct. And whoever heard it after his books were burned, his hearing is nothing.
  
  We also read in Mizan al-I'tidal by Imam al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, part 2, page 477, chapter on the letter Ain
  : ((Al-Fallas said: Whoever wrote about him before it burned, such as Ibn al-Mubarak and al-Muqri', [then his hearing] is more authentic.))
  
  2. If we take this hadith as it is, it does not prove that Ibn Udays was a companion, and this is what appears to be what al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, is inclined towards, since Ibn Udays did not narrate directly from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, rather he narrated it from Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him .
  
  3. The companionship of Abd al-Rahman ibn Udays is not proven, and the statement of those who said that he was a companion is based on a single narration whose chain of transmission is not authentic .
  We read from Al-Isabah by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, in the biography of Abd al-Rahman ibn Udays:
  ((And Harmalah said in the hadith of Ibn Wahb: Ibn Wahb informed us “3”, Amr ibn Yazid ibn Abi Habib informed me, he told him on the authority of Ibn Shamasah, on the authority of a man who told him that he heard Abd al-Rahman ibn Udays say:
  I heard the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, say: “People will emerge who will depart from the religion as an arrow departs from its target, and they will be killed in Mount Lebanon and Hebron.”
  Ibn Lahi’ah followed him on the authority of Yazid ibn Abi Habib, and Ya’qub ibn Sufyan and al-Baghawi narrated it on the authority of al-Nadr ibn Abd al-Jabbar on the authority of Ibn Lahi’ah. Abdullah ibn Yusuf narrated it on the authority of Ibn Lahi’ah, and he named the unknown person and said: on the authority of al-Muraisi’ al-Himyari - instead of saying on the authority of a man.
  Al-Baghawi and Ibn Mandah narrated it on the authority of Na’im ibn Hammad on the authority of Ibn Wahb, and he omitted the intermediary.))
  
  The first chain of transmission contains an unknown man, and this is considered unknown.
  The second chain of transmission contains Ibn Lahi’ah, and I have explained the weakness of
  the chain of transmission. The third contains Ibn Lahi’ah and Al-Marisi’ Al-Himyari, who is unknown and has no biography
  
  . Based on this, the statement of those who said that he was a companion is not valid at all.
  
  Fifth: Al-Munsir’s statement about what took place between Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, and Urwah ibn Al-Zubayr, may God have mercy on him, regarding the enjoyment of Hajj .
  We say that Al-Mansir tried to exaggerate an issue of ijtihad that occurred between Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, and Urwah ibn Al-Zubayr, may God have mercy on him, in the issue of the enjoyment of Hajj, which the consensus of the nation was on its permissibility. Urwah’s statement, may God have mercy on him, misled the people. What was meant by it was his fatwa on the permissibility of the enjoyment of Hajj. The truth here was with Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, since the enjoyment of Hajj to Umrah is proven, but the disagreement occurred among the people, which is the origin of Urwah’s objection and his description of this as misguidance, and that is due to the people’s disagreement on the issue.
  
  We read from Nukhbat Al-Afkar by Al-Aini, Part Nine, Book of Hajj Rituals:
  ((Sh: A: This is a chapter on the ruling of someone who enters ihram for Hajj, and performs tawaf for it before standing at Arafat. He meant that after he performs tawaf, he becomes free before standing at Arafat.
  P: Muhammad ibn Khuzaymah told us, he said: Uthman ibn Al-Haytham told us, he said: Ibn Jurayj told us, he said: Ata’ told me, that Ibn Abbas used to say: “No one, whether a pilgrim or otherwise, circumambulates the House except that he becomes free of it.” I said to him: Where was he from? Ibn Abbas took that? He said: From before the saying of Allah the Most High: {Then its place of sacrifice is at the Ancient House} (1), so I said to him: That is after the definite article, he said: Ibn Abbas saw it before the definite article and after it, he said: Ibn Abbas took it from the command of the Prophet - peace be upon him - to his companions to be released during the Farewell Pilgrimage, he said it to me more than once. Rabi
  
  ’ al-Mu’adhin narrated to us, he said: Asad narrated to us, he said: Hammad ibn Salamah narrated to us, on the authority of Ayoub, on the authority of Ibn Abi Malekah, that Urwah said to Ibn Abbas: “You have led the people astray, O Ibn Abbas.” He said: What is that, O Uriyah? He said: You issue fatwas to the people that if they circumambulate the House, they have been released, and Abu Bakr and Umar -- They come in the state of ihram for Hajj and they remain in the state of ihram until the Day of Sacrifice?! Ibn Abbas said: You have gone astray with this. I tell you about the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and you tell me about Abu Bakr and Umar. Urwah said: Abu Bakr and Umar knew more about the Messenger of Allah than you.
  
  Sulayman ibn Shu`ayb told us: Abd al-Rahman ibn Ziyad told us: Shu`bah told us: Qatada told us: I heard Abu Hassan al-Raqashi: “A man said to Ibn Abbas: O Ibn Abbas, what is this fatwa that has been revealed to you that whoever circumambulates the House has become ihram?!” He said: “The Sunnah of your Prophet, even if you are reluctant.” .....
  His saying: “And Ibn Abbas used to take it from the command of the Prophet - peace be upon him -” until the end. He meant by it the abrogation of Hajj in Umrah, and this is not permissible according to the majority of scholars from the Companions and others.
  Ibn Abd al-Barr said: I do not know of any Companions who permit that except Ibn Abbas, and Ahmad, Dawud, and the rest of the jurists followed him, and all of them said that the abrogation of Hajj in Umrah was specific to the Companions of the Prophet - peace be upon him - .....
  His saying: “Qad taqsha’at ‘anka” is on the weight of tafa’alat with qaf, shin, and ‘ayn, and its meaning is that it has spread and spread from you. It is said to him: the children have become numerous and widespread, and its meaning may be: you have discouraged people from pleasure. Al-Farra’ said: taqsha’ and qasha’ are laziness, and its meaning may be: you have spoiled the condition of the people by the occurrence of disagreement among them , from qasha’, which is a plant that twists around the fruits. ))
  
  Sixth: His citing of a hadith in which he wanted to criticize Abu Hurayrah, may God be pleased with him .
  The truth is that al-Munsir began The delirium of a blind, homeless man lost in the middle of the desert!!! Look at the narrators and judge whether there is a conscience and condemnation in it or a virtue and innocence for Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him.
  We read from Al-Hakim’s Mustadrak, the Book of Interpretation
  ((3327 - Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Muzaki informed me in Marw, on the authority of Abdullah ibn Rawh Al-Madaini, on the authority of Yazid ibn Harun, on the authority of Hisham ibn Hassan, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Sirin, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, who said: Umar said to me: O enemy of Allah And the enemy of Islam has betrayed the wealth of Allah. He said: I said: I am not the enemy of Allah, nor the enemy of Islam, but I am the enemy of those who are hostile to them, and I have not betrayed the wealth of Allah, but it is the prices of my camels and arrows that have gathered. He said: So he repeated it to me and I repeated these words to him. He said: So he fined me twelve thousand. He said: So I stood up for the morning prayer and said: O God, forgive the Commander of the Faithful. Then, after that, he wanted me to do the work, but I refused him. He said: Why, when Joseph asked for the work and he was better than you? I said: Joseph is a prophet, the son of a prophet, the son of a prophet, the son of a prophet, and I am the son of Umaimah and I fear three and two. He said: Why don’t you say five? I said: No. He said: What are they? I said: “I fear that I may speak without knowledge, that I may issue a fatwa without knowledge, that my back may be beaten, that my honour may be insulted, and that my money may be taken by beating.” This is a hadith with a saheeh isnad according to the conditions of the two shaykhs, but they did not narrate it. (3327 - according to the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim)
  
  Isn't Omar's request to work again a statement of his innocence of what was attributed to him the first time!!
  
  Every disease has a cure except for stupidity, which has exhausted its treatment
  
  . What does all this have to do with the chains of transmission of the Quran??? What does everything he mentions now have to do with the subject of his clip?
  What nonsense and what talk to deceive the readers with, because his religion is the religion of bankruptcy!!!
  
  Seventh: A statement of Al-Munsir's terrible ignorance when he cited the book "Al-Wadu' Fi Al-Hadith" by Dr. Omar Fallatah to try to hint at the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them .
  Al-Munsir cited the book to honor us with information that we did not know before, which is that there are those who fabricate hadiths about the virtues of deeds, thinking that by doing so they will receive a reward, as if the people of hadith never knew this, nor did they understand it, nor did they include it among the reasons for weakening it!!!
  It is clear then that Al-Munsir is either ignorant or thinks that he is addressing a segment of the ignorant followers of the church!!
  We read in the introduction to the book of fabrications by Ibn al-Jawzi, may God have mercy on him:
  ((Third: The liars seized the opportunity of the large number of authentic hadiths narrated by people like Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace - and they are very many - so they fabricated many fabricated hadiths that they falsely attributed to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, through Abu Hurayrah, so that their many fabricated hadiths would be lost in their many authentic ones, and so that it would be difficult to distinguish their authentic hadiths from their weak ones.
  And that was the case.
  And he lived in the company of the hateful fabricators, and other fabricators of a different type. Their affair is more astonishing, and their behavior is stranger.
  They are righteous and zealous for Islam.
  They fabricate hadith and attribute to the Messenger what he did not say,
  seeking to draw closer to Allah, the Most High, and to curry favor with Him.
  It is not as if they have sinned.
  Nor have they committed any injustice in speech or falsehood .
  This is Abu Usmah Nuh bin Abi Maryam, tracing the surahs of the Qur’an one by one, attaching a virtue to each surah, arranging a benefit for it, and placing in it a hadith that he attributes to the Messenger falsely after making a chain of transmission for it that ends in most of what he fabricated. Ibn Abbas, then to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, through Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl.
  As he sometimes used to raise it to Ubayy bin Ka'b or someone else. What is
  amazing about him and his likes.
  He does not see that he has fallen into sin by what he did! Listen to him defending himself from blame when he was rebuked, saying: When I saw that people were busy with the jurisprudence of Abu Hanifa and the battles of Muhammad bin Ishaq, and that they turned away from the Qur'an, I composed these hadiths for the sake of Allah Almighty.
  Likewise , Wahb ibn Munabbih.
  He converted to Islam after being a Jew, and he used to fabricate hadiths about the virtues of deeds.
  Abdul Malik ibn Abdul Aziz, who converted to Islam after becoming a Christian, did the same thing. Other fabricators were active.
  They fabricated and attributed what they fabricated to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, falsely.
  
  These are the ones that Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattan, may Allah have mercy on him, meant when he said, as the author of the book quoted him and al-Munsir cited as evidence, since what was meant by them was not the scholars of hadith or the righteous predecessors, but rather a group of ignorant ascetics who fell into this sin.
  Some of them thought that this would bring them closer to Allah, the Most High, but the scholars of hadith exposed those hadiths and demonstrated their falsehood and went into great detail in criticizing those who dared to fabricate hadiths to support the religion or for the virtues of deeds.
  
  Read from the book Sharh Naqd Matun as-Sunnah by Ad-Dumaini, written by Sheikh Muhammad Hasan Abd al-Ghaffar, Part One, Chapter on Recording the Sunnah:
  ((When the Sunnah was recorded, many weak hadiths entered it, so the Sunnah was not preserved completely. Rather, Allah, the Most High, decreed that weak hadiths would enter, and that intruders would enter the hadiths of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Weak hadiths were found that were fabricated, so that Allah would raise some people and lower others . The great scholars who sold their souls to Allah, the Most High, took it upon themselves to preserve the Sunnah, so all their time was for Allah, by Allah, with Allah, and with the Sunnah of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We mention among the contemporaries Sheikh Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him. If you knew how he spent his time, you would be amazed, and you would know that Allah had enlisted an army to preserve the Sunnah of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Peace be upon him, Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, used to study at least eighteen hours a day to memorize the Sunnah of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
  
  We read from the same source, the second part, the reasons for fabricating the hadith:
  (( When the scholars looked at the hadith of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, purifying and refining it, criticizing it and correcting it, they looked at the chain of transmission and the text. Therefore, you find that when a scholar says: This is a sound hadith, five conditions must be met, because a sound hadith is one whose chain of transmission is connected by the transmission of a just and precise person from his like to its end without any anomaly or defect.
  These five conditions are specific to the text and the chain of transmission.
  Look at the precision of the view of our scholars in the science of hadith. They may say: This is a sound hadith, and this hadith has a sound chain of transmission, and this hadith has trustworthy men. So what is the difference between the three? This is not an easy issue for those who learn the science of hadith to delve into, so you see Ibn Hajar al-Haythami always saying: The men of this hadith are trustworthy. So if the scholars of hadith say: This is a saheeh hadith, that is: it meets the five conditions, which are: its chain of transmission is continuous from a just and precise person from his like until the end without any anomaly or defect.))
  
  This is what Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, said repeatedly in his book al-Mawdu’at,
  where we read from the second part of Ibn al-Jawzi’s Mawdu’at, the Book of Fasting:
  ((Chapter on the mention of ‘Ashura’. Some ignorant people have adopted the school of thought of the people of the Sunnah, and they intended to spite the Rafidah, so they fabricated hadiths about the virtue of ‘Ashura’, and we are innocent of both groups. It has been authenticated that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, commanded the fasting of ‘Ashura’, When he said: It is an expiation for a year, they were not satisfied with that until they prolonged and turned away and advanced in lying.
  
  We also read from the fabrications of Ibn al-Jawzi, Part Two, Book of Virtues and Flaws:
  ((A chapter on the mention of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan. Some people who claim to be Sunnis were fanatical and fabricated hadiths about his virtues in order to anger the Rafidah, and some people from the Rafidah were fanatical and fabricated hadiths about his blame, and both groups are in a shameful error. ))
  
  And we read from the introduction to Sahih Muslim, in the chapter on uncovering the faults of the narrators of hadith:
  ((Uthman bin Abi Shaybah told us, Jarir told us, on the authority of Raqaba, “that Abu Ja`far al-Hashimi al-Madani,He used to fabricate hadiths that were true and not from the hadiths of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and he used to narrate them from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. And
  
  some of the others were just words that came out of his mouth without intending to lie.
  
  We read from the introduction to Sahih Muslim, in the chapter on uncovering the faults of the narrators of hadith:
  “Muhammad ibn Abi ‘Attab told me, he said: ‘Affan told me, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan, on the authority of his father, he said: ‘We have not seen the righteous in anything more lying than them. In the hadith -[18]- Ibn Abi Attab said: I met Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattan, so I asked him about it, and he said: On the authority of his father, “You have not seen the people of goodness in anything more lying than them in hadith.” Muslim said: “He says: Lies flow on their tongues, and they do not intentionally lie.”
  
  Note: What the researcher of the book of topics said about Wahb ibn Munabbih, we do not agree with him on it, since most of his narrations are originally attributed to him.
  
  Have you seen the boldness of al-Munsir when He compares these people to the companions to say, “Look at what prevents the companions from lying.”
  
  Then the missionary grasped at a straw weaker than a spider’s web, which is the interpretation and justification of these people for fabricating hadiths when they were confronted with the hadith of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, “Whoever lies about me, let him take his seat in the Fire.” They only lie about the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, not about him. By God, by my life, this is ridiculous. No one from the Salaf, neither from the people of hadith nor from the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said that this
  Therefore, Imam Ibn al-Jawzi, may God have mercy on him, responded to this foolishness in his book “Al-Mawdu’at.” I will not go far, but I will provide evidence from the margin of the page from which this deceitful missionary was quoting
  
  
  
  . Eighth: The most ridiculous thing!! He quotes from a book, most of which is a response to his problems!
  Al-Mansir cited a research entitled “The Reasons for the Superiority of the Companions, may God be pleased with them, in Memorizing Hadith” (of course, by contemporary authors, as usual), where he quoted in the introduction a text by Ibn Hibban, who criticized the authors of the book for his shortcomings in responding, and therefore they wrote this research and filled it with an explanation of the reasons for the superiority of the Companions, may God be pleased with them.
  So how can Al-Mansir cite a book that contains clear and obvious details on his problems to oblige us to do so!!!????
  Wouldn’t he have been brave enough to read the book and respond to what is in it??
  This is not his goal, but rather his goal is to throw out any “dangerous” words he picks up from any research by a contemporary person published on the internet to make fun of the common people who listen to him.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  https://books.islamway.net/1/uhad_al...lnajdi_549.pdf
  
  Then he quoted a clip of Sharif Hatem Al-Aouni talking about this book, but the audio was intermittent, so I did not understand what he said.
  
  Ninth: The response to his quotation from the book “Refutation of the Principles of Hadith Sciences” by Sheikh Badi’ al-Din al-Rashidi al-Sindi, against Imam al-Tahnawi al-Hanafi in his book “Principles of Hadith Sciences”.
  Al-Mansir cited the book “Refutation of the Principles of Hadith Sciences” by Sheikh Badi’ al-Din al-Rashidi al-Sindi (also a contemporary!) to try to demonstrate through it that the Hanafis attacked Abu Hurayrah, may God be pleased with him!!!!
  I say that Al-Sindi responded to Al-Tahnawi because the latter was a Hanafi who required imitation, while the former did not require imitation (and this is correct, since if the evidence is proven, we follow it, whatever it may be, because the truth is not known by men, but know the truth and you will know its people). This is a field of discussion that is far above the level of Al-Munsir.
  Al-Thanawi did not say that Abu Hurairah, may God be pleased with him, was not a jurist. Rather, Al-Sindi transmitted this from some fanatical Hanafi scholars, and the just Hanafi scholars responded to them with this statement, including Ibn Al-Humam, may God
  have mercy on him . We read what Ibn Amir Al-Hajj Al-Hanafi transmitted from Ibn Al-Humam in his book Al-Taqreer wa Al-Tahbeer ala Tahrir Al-Kamal Ibn Al-Humam, Part Two, Article Two, Chapter Three, Sunnah:
  (( And Abu Hurairah was a jurist) He did not lack any of the reasons for ijtihad, and he issued fatwas during the time of the Companions, and no one issued fatwas during their time except a mujtahid, and more than eight hundred men narrated from him, between companions and followers. Among them are Ibn Abbas, Jabir and Anas. This is the correct view. We
  
  read what Al-Mubarakfuri said in Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi Sharh Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Part One, Chapters on Purification, in response to the fanatic Hanafis and some of those who accused Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) of not having knowledge of jurisprudence:
  (( Some Hanafi jurists have said that Abu Hurairah was not a jurist, and their statement is false and should be rejected. The most eminent Hanafi scholars have stated that he (may Allah be pleased with him) was A jurist. The author of Al-Si’ayah, a commentary on the commentary on Al-Wiqayah, who is one of the Hanafi scholars, said in response to those among them who said that Abu Hurayrah was not a jurist: The statement that Abu Hurayrah was not a jurist is not correct. Rather, what is correct is that he was one of the jurists who issued fatwas during the time of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, as stated by Ibn Al-Humam in Tahrir Al-Usul and Ibn Hajar in Al-Isaba fi Ahwal Al-Sahabah. It ended,
  and in some of the notes of Noor Al-Anwar, that Abu Hurairah was a jurist, as Ibn Al-Humam stated in At-Tahrir. How could he have done so when he did not act on the fatwa of others? He used to issue fatwas during the time of the Companions, may God Almighty be pleased with them. He used to oppose the terms of the Companions, such as Ibn Abbas, for he said that the waiting period of a pregnant woman whose husband has died is the longer of the two terms. Abu Hurairah rejected this and issued a fatwa. That her
  waiting period is the delivery of the pregnancy. This is what was said. It ended. I said: Abu Hurairah, may God be pleased with him, was one of the jurists among the Companions and one of the great imams of fatwa. Al-Hafiz Al-Dhahabi said in Tadhkirat Al-Huffaz: Abu Hurairah Al-Dawsi Al-Yamani, the hafiz, the jurist, the companion of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was one of the vessels of knowledge and one of the great imams. Fatwa with majesty, worship and humility
  Al-Hafiz Ibn Al-Qayyim said in I’lam Al-Muwaqqi’in: Then he issued the fatwa after the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: The blessing of Islam, the band of faith, the army of the Qur’an, and the soldiers of the Most Merciful. Those are his companions, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. They were between those who did a lot of it, those who did little, and those who were moderate. The ones who did a lot of it were seven: Umar ibn Al-Khattab, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah bin Masoud, Aisha, the mother of the believers, Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Umar, and the middle ones among them, in what was narrated from them of fatwas, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umm Salamah, Anas bin Malik, Abu Saeed al-Khudri, Abu Hurairah,
  etc. So there is no doubt that Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, On his authority, he was a jurist from the jurists of the Companions and one of the great imams of fatwa
  . If it is said that Ibrahim al-Nakha’i also said that Abu Hurayrah was not a jurist, and al-Nakha’i was from the jurists of the Tabi’een,
  I say that Ibrahim al-Nakha’i was criticized for saying that Abu Hurayrah was not a jurist. Al-Hafiz al-Dhahabi said in al-Mizan in his biography: He did not make a sound judgment. Perhaps he made a mistake and they resented him for saying that Abu Hurairah was not a jurist. End of
  a lesson. Judge Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi said in Aridhah al-Ahwadhi in his discussion of the hadith of al-Musraat narrated on the authority of Abu Hurairah and Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them. Some of them said that this hadith is not acceptable because it was narrated by Abu Hurairah and Ibn Umar, and they were not jurists. They were both righteous, so their narrations are only accepted in sermons, not in rulings. This is an audacity towards Allah and a mockery of the religion when its bearers are gone and its support is lost. Who is more knowledgeable than Abu Hurayrah and Ibn Umar? Who is more knowledgeable than them, especially Abu Hurayrah? He spread out his cloak and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gathered it and held it to his chest, so he never forgot anything. We ask Allah for protection from a doctrine that is not proven except by attacking the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. I was in the Al-Mansour Mosque in Madinah Al-Salam in the council of Ali bin Muhammad Al-Damaghani, the Chief Justice, and some of our companions informed me about it. This issue was mentioned and some of them spoke about it one day and mentioned this. Abu Hurairah was stabbed, so a huge snake fell from the ceiling in the middle of the mosque and began to stab the speaker. The people fled and rose up, and the snake went under the pillars. He did not know where it went, so he was afraid after that from this slander. End.
  
  I wonder what the connection is between the knowledge of the companion and his narration of the hadith and his accuracy in reading!!!!
  Entering Shaaban into Ramadan!!!! The issue was in one valley and now it has entered another valley, so Al-Mansour is going to extremes with anything to embellish his lies!!
  
  Tenth: His citing a hadith in Sahih Muslim, may God have mercy on him, to attack Abu Hurairah, may God be pleased with him .
  We read from Sahih Muslim, Book of Clothing and Adornment, Chapter: If one puts on his shoes, he should start with the right, and if he takes them off, he should start with the left
  ((69 - (2098) Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah and Abu Kurayb narrated to us, and the wording is from Abu Kurayb, they said: Ibn Idris narrated to us, on the authority of Al-A’mash, on the authority of Abu Razin, he said: Abu Hurayrah came out to us, and he struck his hand on his forehead, and said: Do you not say that I lie about the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace? And I testify that I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say: “If the shoelace of one of you breaks, he should not walk in the other until he repairs it.”
  
  Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, directed his words to a group of the followers who were present in his assembly, but no one responded to him after he denied the accusation against himself.
  We read from Fath al-Mun'im in his explanation of Sahih Muslim, Part Eight:
  (((I lie about the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, so that you may be guided and I may go astray) meaning that the result, if what you are saying is true, is that you will be among those who are guided and I will be among those who are astray.
  
  (I bear witness that I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say...) meaning I bear witness by Allah, meaning I swear by Allah, and the lam in “I heard” is in response to the oath.
  Al-Tirmidhi narrated on the authority of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, that she said: “Perhaps the strap of the Messenger of Allah’s sandal broke, so he would walk in one sandal until he fixed it.” It appears that Aisha said this hadith when she heard what Abu Hurairah said about the ruling on walking in one sandal, wanting to declare her disagreement with what he said. Al-Tirmidhi has a sahih chain of transmission on the authority of Aisha that “she used to say, ‘I will differ from Abu Hurairah, so that he will walk in one sandal.’” Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: It is possible that she heard that Abu Hurairah swore that he disliked that, so she wanted to exaggerate in His opposition . ))
  
  Eleventh: Al-Munsir’s objection to us regarding the hadith of Fatima bint Qais, may God be pleased with her .
  Al-Munsir pointed to the Companions’ denial of Fatima bint Qais, may God be pleased with her, regarding the issue that a divorced woman has no housing or maintenance, and the truth is that they did not call her a liar. As for the possibility of forgetfulness, Al-Munsir’s basis is what Imam Muslim included in his Sahih.
  
  We read from Sahih Muslim, the Book of Divorce:
  ((46 - (1480) And Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Jabalah narrated to us, Abu Ahmad narrated to us, Ammar ibn Ruzayq narrated to us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, who said: I was with Al-Aswad ibn Yazid sitting in the Great Mosque, and with us was Al-Sha’bi, so Al-Sha’bi narrated the hadith of Fatimah bint Qays, “That the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not make for her “Neither housing nor maintenance,” then Al-Aswad took a handful of pebbles and threw them at him, saying: “Woe to you! You speak of such things.” Umar said: “We will not abandon the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) for the sake of the words of a woman. We do not know whether she has memorized them or forgotten. She has housing and maintenance. Allah, the Almighty, the Majestic, said: {Do not turn them out of their houses, nor should they leave their houses except in the company of their wives.} Except that they commit a clear immorality} [At-Talaq: 1]))
  
  The truth is that the reason for their rejection of the hadith of Fatima, may God be pleased with her, is that they saw the ruling being specific to her, since she was in a frightening, terrifying place, so the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, allowed her to return to her family.
  We read from Sunan Abi Dawood, may God have mercy on him, the Book of Divorce, the chapter on what was denounced about Fatima bint Qais:
  ((2292 - Sulayman bin Dawood told us, Ibn Wahb told us, Abd al-Rahman bin Abi al-Zinad told me, on the authority of Hisham bin Urwah, on the authority of his father, who said:
  Aisha, may God be pleased with her, strongly criticized that - meaning the hadith of Fatima bint Qais - and said: Fatima was in a wild place, and there was fear for her, so the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, gave her permission (1).))
  We read what Sheikh Shu`ayb al-Arna’ut said in his graduation of Sunan Abi Dawood, may God have mercy on him:
  (((1) A sound hadith, and this is a good chain of transmission because of Abd al-Rahman bin Abi al-Zinad, but Hafs bin Ghiyath followed him. Ibn Wahb: he is Abdullah al-Qurashi.
  Al-Bukhari narrated it as a mu’allaq (5326), and Ibn Majah. (2032) On the authority of Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad, with this chain of transmission.
  Muslim (1481), Ibn Majah (2033), and al-Nasa’i in al-Kubra (5710) narrated something similar on the authority of Hafs ibn Ghiyath, on the authority of Hisham ibn Urwah, with the same wording: I said: O Messenger of Allah, my husband divorced me three times, and I fear that he will attack me. He said: So he ordered her to turn away.
  We said: It has been reported on the authority of Sulayman ibn Yasar with a sound chain of transmission to him in the compiler (2294) that the reason for Fatimah leaving her house during her waiting period was due to bad character. And it was also proven on the authority of Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab, also in his opinion (2296) that she had a tongue that tempted people, so she was put in the hands of Ibn Umm Maktum. We said: And the tongue has bad character, and it does not prevent both matters from being proven, for her house was inhospitable and she was afraid for it.
  See what will come (2293-2295).
  Her saying: “In a wild place,” is with the opening of the waw and the sukoon of the ha’, meaning: empty, uninhabited, desolate, and barren.
  
  And Imam al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, classified it as hasan in Sahih and Da’if Sunan Abi Dawud, may God have mercy on him.
  
  And we read from Fath al-Bari, commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Divorce, Part Nine:
  ((His saying: Did you not hear the saying of Fatima? It is possible that it was Fa’il. He said: It is Urwah. His saying: She said: Indeed, there is no good for her in mentioning this hadith in the narration of Muslim on the authority of Hisham bin Urwah on the authority of his father: Yahya bin Saeed bin Al-Aas married the daughter of Abd Al-Rahman bin Al-Hakam, then he divorced her and expelled her, so I came Aisha, so I informed her, and she said: There is no good in Fatima mentioning this hadith, as if she was referring to what came before, and that a person should not mention anything about himself in which there is shame. His statement: And Zaad bin Abi Al-Zinad added, on the authority of Hisham, on the authority of his father, that Aisha severely criticized him and said: Fatima was in a deserted place, so there was fear for her side, and for that reason The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, gave her permission. Abu Dawud connected it on the authority of Ibn Wahb on the authority of Abd al-Rahman Ibn Abi al-Zinad with the wording: “She has found fault.” He added, meaning Fatimah bint Qais. His saying “Wahsh” with a fathah on the waw and a sukoon on the silent letter after it is an emphatic letter, meaning an empty one with no companion. This narration of Ibn Abi al-Zinad has a witness from the narration of Abu Usamah on the authority of Hisham. Ibn Urwah, but he said on the authority of his father, on the authority of Fatimah bint Qais, she said: I said, O Messenger of Allah, my husband divorced me three times, and I fear that he will force his way into me. So he ordered her, and she moved. Al-Bukhari took the translation from the entirety of what was reported in the story of Fatimah, so he based the permissibility on one of two matters: either fear of being forced into her, or that she will fall upon The people of her divorcer said obscene words, and he did not see any contradiction between the two matters in the story of Fatima, due to the possibility of their occurrence together in her case. Ibn al-Munir said: Al-Bukhari mentioned two reasons in the biography, and he mentioned only one in the chapter, and it was as if he hinted at the other, either because it came without a condition, or because the fear for her if it required her to go out, then it is the same. Fear of it, but perhaps it is more appropriate in the permissibility of its expulsion. When the meaning of the other reason was confirmed to him, he included it in the translation and followed up with the fact that limiting some of the paths of the hadith to some of it does not prevent the acceptance of some of the other if its path is confirmed, so there is no objection to the origin of her complaint being what was mentioned previously about the independence of the maintenance and that it happened that it appeared from her. Because of that, it was evil for her in-laws, and the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, found out about it from them and feared that if she continued there they would leave her without a companion, so she was ordered to move .
  
  Al-Mansour cited his words from a contemporary source (as usual), which is a study called “The Methodology of Criticizing Narrations Among the Companions: An Analytical Inductive Study” in the two Sahihs, page 65, although page 66 mentions what we said from the hadith of Aisha, may God be pleased with her, thus negating the possibility of her forgetting and it became clear that it was a ruling specific to her. Look at the impudence and deception of Al-Mansour, how he concealed the rest of the words!!!! I
  
  
  
  say that there is no problem with the Companions forgetting, as we explained previously, but their forgetting does not affect the Qur’an and its transmission, as we previously explained and clarified in the third part of the response. Whoever objects, let him review it .
  I do not know what the connection is between the possibility of a female Companion forgetting a hadith that turned out to be a ruling specific to her and the preservation of the Qur’an and the soundness of its chains of transmission!!!!
  
  Twelve: Al-Mansour’s ignorance of the rulings on the mursal of the Companion.
  Al-Mansour expressed his astonishment at us because one of the rules of the science of hadith is that the mursal of the Companion is always accepted, even if that Companion did not hear it from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. The foolishness of the missionary in his claim stems from his ignorance that if a companion transmits a hadith from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, then he does not transmit it except from another companion, and since all the companions are trustworthy, their transmitters are absolutely acceptable.
  We read from the introduction of Ibn al-Salah, Part One, the tenth type:
  ((Then we did not count among the types of mursal and the like what is called in the principles of jurisprudence the mursal of the companion, such as what Ibn Abbas and others narrate from the events of the companions from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and they did not hear it from him ; because that is in the ruling of the connected musnad, because their narration is from the companions, and ignorance It is not a denial of the companion, because all the companions are trustworthy, and Allah knows best.
  
  We read from Tadrib al-Rawi by al-Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, Part One, Type Ten: ( (
  All of this is in the non-mursal hadith of the companion. As for his mursal hadith, such as his reporting of something that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did, or something similar to it, which it is known that he did not attend due to his young age or the delay in his conversion to Islam, (it is ruled to be authentic. According to the correct school of thought, which the majority of our companions and others have agreed upon, and which the hadith scholars who stipulate the authentic hadith and those who say that the mursal hadith is weak have agreed upon. There are countless examples of this in the two Sahihs. Because most of their narrations are from the Companions, and all of them are trustworthy, and their narrations from others are rare, and when they narrate them, they clarify them. In fact, most of what the Companions narrated from the Successors are not hadiths that are attributed to the Prophet, but rather are Isra’iliyyat, or stories, or Mawqoof narrations.
  (And it was said: It is like the mursal of others) it is not used as evidence, (unless the narration is explained, from a companion), the author added it to Ibn al-Salah, and he narrated it in the explanation of al-Muhadhdhab, from Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini, and he said: The first is correct. ) )
  
  And we read from the notes on the book of Ibn al-Salah by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, the second part, the fourth chapter, the eleventh type:
  ((And despite that, Judge Abu Bakr Ibn al-Baqillani said:If the Companion - may God be pleased with him - said: The Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - said such-and-such, or on the authority of the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - that he said such-and-such, or that the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - (R84/A) said such-and-such, this is not explicit that he heard it from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - it is possible because he heard it from him or from someone else on his authority.
  A group of the Companions - may God be pleased with them - narrated hadiths from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - and then it became clear that they heard them from some of the Companions - may God be pleased with them - "2.
  I said: This is exactly the research into the mursal of the Companion3 - may God be pleased with them - and I have presented what is in it4, and that the majority are on making it an argument.
  Rather, the discussion here is whether/ (Y162) the an’anah, even if it was from someone other than the mudallis, does it require hearing or not? The words of the judge support what Al-Harith Al-Muhasibi narrated from the people of the first opinion - and God knows best))
  
  And of course he cited a contemporary source (and it is not strange, as this is his habit) The Method of Criticism Among the Hadith Scholars by Muhammad Mustafa Azami and he quoted from page 59 and as usual he cut out the speech about the reason for accepting the mursal of the Companion and not accepting the mursal of the Tabi’i, as we read on the same page the emphasis on the credibility of the Companions - may God be pleased with them -
  
  
  
  and it is not surprising that he cut out the speech, as tadlis is a “distinctive characteristic” of the missionaries in general, and this missionary has excelled in it, and it seems that the reason His frequent quotations from contemporary sources, or let us say unknown contemporary research, is his belief that they are far from the Muslim interlocutor who will respond, since he knows that the mainstay of our speech is the ancient sources in the discussions of the science of readings and the sciences of hadith, and as for the contemporaries, we take from the elders. Al-Mansir thought that such a fabrication would pass without notice, and no way.
  
  Rather, from the same mentioned research, I give him a gift, as long as he spoke a lot about Abu Hurairah, may God be pleased with him. Here is the thirteenth gift
  
  : His disapproval of the narration of the elders from the younger ones (the companion from the follower from the companion) .
  I say: Where is the problem??? As long as the name of the follower from the companion from the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, was stated, then where is the problem??? And this Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, narrated from Tamim bin Aws al-Dari, may God be pleased with him, the hadith of al-Jassasah.
  Then do you have in the chains of transmission of the Qur’an one of the companions who did not hear directly from the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, and took it from an unknown follower or stated that he took it from a follower???
  Shaaban enters Ramadan, that's all nonsense!!!
  We read from Fath Al-Mughith by Al-Sakhawi, may God have mercy on him, Part Four:
  ((832 - Or in them and from it, taking the companions... from a follower like several from Ka`b
  (the elders) who narrate (from the younger ones), and it is an important type that high aspirations and pure souls call for doing; and for this reason it was said, as was mentioned in its place: A man is not a narrator of hadith until he takes from those above him, like him, and below him. The benefit of verifying it is to avoid the suspicion of a change in the chain of transmission, along with what it contains of acting upon the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): “Settle people in their proper places.”
  Ibn al-Salah referred to this by saying: “And among the benefits of it is that it is not suspected that the one narrated from is greater and better, given that the one narrated from is most likely to be like that.” Thus, their status is unknown.
  The basis for this is the narration of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in his sermon of the hadith of al-Jassasa on the authority of Tamim al-Dari as in Sahih Muslim , and his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in his letter to Yemen: “And Malik - meaning Ibn Murarah - told me such and such,” and he mentioned something else. It was narrated by Ibn Mandah. And his saying also: (“Umar told me that he never preceded Abu Bakr in doing good except that he preceded him”), Al-Khatib included it in his history and Al-Daylami. And other than that....(And from it); that is: and from this type, (taking from the companions); that is: the companions, (from a follower) of theirs; (Like) the narration of (several) of the Companions, including the four Abdillah, Umar, Ali, Anas, Muawiyah, and Abu Hurairah, may God be pleased with them, (on the authority of Ka’b) the rabbis, in similar narrations. Al-Khatib singled it out in the section on the narration of the Companions on the authority of the Followers, and I have arranged it and our Sheikh has summarized it in what I have taken from him. Among its examples is what Al-Tirmidhi narrated in his Jami’ from the hadith of Salih ibn Kaysan, on the authority of Al-Zuhri, on the authority of Sahl ibn Sa’d, on the authority of Marwan ibn Al-Hakam, “on the authority of Zayd ibn Thabit, on the authority of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - who dictated to him: {Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), other than those who are disabled, and those who strive and fight in the cause of God} [An-Nisa’: 95]. He said: “Then Ibn Umm Maktum came to him,” the hadith.
  And he said after it: This hadith is narrated by a man from the Companions, and he is Sahl, from a man from the Followers, and he is Marwan.
  This is related to what is in Sahih al-Bukhari from the narration of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan from Malik ibn Yukhamir from Muadh, with the addition of (and they are in Ash-Sham) in the hadith: (“A group of my nation will always prevail upon the truth”). So the aforementioned Malik, as Abu Nu`aym said, is not proven to have been a companion. And the narration of the Companions from the Followers, and likewise the fathers from the sons, and the Sheikh from the student, even if it is from the issues of this type, it is more specific than its generality. ))
  
  And instead of tiring himself out by going to contemporary research on Google, Al-Mansir could have referred to the book “Nuzhat Al-Sami’in fi narration of the Companions from the Followers” ​​by Imam Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, but no way, he loves Google and the contemporary sources in it to pass his deception on it!!
  
  We would like to mention that Al-Mansir forgot to quote the conclusion of the research of Professor Abdul Aziz Mukhtar Ibrahim, where he concluded that the confirmed hadiths of the Companions from the Followers are only eleven hadiths between authentic and good!!!
  
  
  
  The funny and strange thing about this preacher is that he accused the consensus on accepting the mursal of the companion as a lie, even though the source from which he quoted states that the correct thing is to accept his mursal. What is even more amazing is that he contradicted his words, as he cited the book Al-Fawa’id Al-Ilmiyyah ala Al-Durus Al-Baziyyah, that this is the statement of Ibn Hazm and Abu Ishaq Al-Israfini, and it is nothing, and that the consensus today is on accepting the mursal of the companion.
  This is what we also quoted from the words of Al-Suyuti, may God
  have mercy on him, in Tadrib Al-Rawi, and the most amazing thing is that he brought self-evident information that condemns him, which is that most of the hadiths of Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, are from the great companions, may God be pleased with them, and that he did not hear them!!! So, may God curse you! Is knowing that the mursal of Ibn Abbas is in fact a narration from a companion from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, a problem for us or an argument for us!!!!!
  
  
  
  
  We have previously said that there are only eleven authentic hadiths from a companion from a follower from a companion, and this breaks his back when he said: How do we know that the mursal of a companion could be from a follower? Moreover, there is a difference that no seeker of knowledge in hadith is ignorant of between the mursal of a companion and the narration of the great ones from the young ones, but this foolish person applies to him the proverb:
  Every disease has a cure that can be treated with it, except for foolishness, which has exhausted those who treat it.
  
  To be continued
  
  

  Keywords: None
• 

  Mohammed Sunni

  Member of the Scientific Committee of the Forum

  
  Member of the Scientific Committee
  

  • Registration date: November 19, 2018
  • Posts: 223
  • Religion: Islam

  • sharing
  • Tweet

  #2

  12 Jul, 2021, 11:40 PM

  
  Ninth: She threw her disease at me and slipped away.
  Why do people throw stones at this missionary, whose house is made of glass? In fact, his house is weaker than a spider’s web.
  
  First: The disciples of Christ and Paul, who are supported by the Holy Spirit, are quarreling with each other!!!
  Christ describes Peter as the rock on which he builds his church, then describes him as the devil.
  We read from the Gospel of Matthew 16:
  ((16 Then Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
  17 Then Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
  18 And I say to you again, that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of my house. Hell will not prevail against it.
  19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
  20 Then he charged his disciples that they should tell no one that he was Jesus Christ.
  21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that they must He will go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests
  and scribes and will be killed and will be raised on the third day.
  22 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it, Lord! This shall not happen to you!”
  23 But he turned and said to Peter, “ Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not mindful of the things that belong to God, but of the things that belong to men.
  24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
  25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ))
  
  The disciples are given the Holy Spirit from the Book of Acts, Chapter Two
  ((1 And when the day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place,
  2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting,
  3 And there appeared to them cloven tongues as of fire, and they sat upon each one of them.
  4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, And they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
  
  Paul also had the Holy Spirit with him (or at least from the text he thinks).
  We read from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 7:40. But it is more blessed if it continues thus, in my judgment. And I think that I also have the Spirit of God .
  
  But we read how Paul describes Barnabas and Peter as hypocrites and deceivers. Imagine someone who has the Holy Spirit accusing two people of hypocrisy and deception, even though they also have the Holy Spirit!!
  We read Paul’s letter to the Galatians, chapter two:
  ((10 Except that we mention the poor. This is what I intended to do.
  11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blameworthy.
  12 For before some came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came, he held back and separated himself, fearing those who were of the Gentiles. Circumcision.
  13 And the rest of the Jews also showed themselves to him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy ! ))
  
  Rather, we find the difference, severe quarrel, and eternal boycott between Barnabas and Paul!!!
  We read from the Book of Acts, Chapter 15:
  ((35 Now Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also. 36 And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit our brothers in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, to see how they are doing.”
  37 So Barnabas indicated to take John with them also .
  38 But Paul thought it good not to take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there arose a contention between them, so that they departed one from the other. And Barnabas
  took Mark and sailed to Cyprus .
  40 But Paul chose Silas and departed, having been committed by the brothers to the grace of God. God.
  41 And he passed through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches. ))
  
  I pity the state of this missionary, as the intelligent Christian is confused by these texts, wondering who the Holy Spirit was with at that time, and why the quarrel occurred if the Holy Spirit was with both of them. Of course, any fair-minded person will not accept the empty patchworks that the missionaries will present, empty of content and devoid of evidence, as he will not surrender his mind to those who try to twist the texts!!!
  
  Second: The Qumran manuscripts demolish the myth of the majority text and prove the loss of Old Testament texts between the differences of the Septuagint, the Masoretic, and the Samaritan .
  I quote from an article by Daniel Wallace, which I consider a gift for those who use the majority reading method, as he states that the Qumran manuscripts in some places were against the majority reading, and he says that there are many of these readings that depended on the revisionist sense (guessing) that were confirmed by the Qumran manuscripts, but not all of them.
  So what confirms to us the correctness of these speculative readings in the places that were not supported by Qumran???
  We read what Daniel Wallace said on page THE MAJORITY! TEXT THEORY: HISTORY, METHODS AND CRITIQUE 203- 204:
  (( It is demonstrable that the OT text does not meet the criteria of preservation
  By rule—nor, in fact, of preservation at all majority in some places. A
  number of readings that only occur in versions or are found only in one or
  two early Qumran MSS have indisputable claim to authenticity over
  against the errant majority.114
  Moreover in many places all the extant
  witnesses are so corrupt that conjectural emendation has to be employed 11
  Significantly, many (but not all) such conjectures have been vindicated
  by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls.116
  Hence because of the necessity of conjectural emendation the doctrine of preservation is inapplicable
  for the OT—a fact that, ironically, illustrates even more boldly the
  illegitimacy of the proof texts used for this doctrine, for they all refer to
  the OT. (5) ))
  
  
  https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...15_Wallace.pdf
  
  My peace becomes upon Paul’s words when he says in the Second Epistle to Timothy, chapter three
  . 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
  
  Yes, inspiration has become a guess!!
  
  Third: The ignorance of the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and Eusebius throws the testimony of Polycarp to the wall and says about him he was a simple man .
  
  The Gospel of Matthew is the first of the Gospels The New Testament, however, has an unknown author, and its attribution to Matthew is merely a passing attribution made late. Most likely, by reading the Gospel and noting the many quotations from the Old Testament, we can say that the writer was a Christian of a Jewish background whose identity we do not know, and that he was, as we mentioned previously, quoting from the Gospel of Mark and from other sources such as source Q. What was said that Papias attributed this The Gospel of Matthew itself is rejected for several reasons:
  1. Papias lived in the second century and did not give us the source of his words or his evidence that this Gospel collected Matthew’s sayings.
  2. Papias mentioned that Matthew collected the sayings of Christ in the Hebrew language and never said that he wrote the Gospel of Christ or the biography of Christ. Christ.
  Attributing the Gospel to Matthew is just a late church tradition for which there is no evidence!!
  3. Papias attacked Eusebius (as we will mention later, God willing).
  We read from the Introduction to the Bible by Father Habib Saeed, page 222:
  ((As for Matthew, there is no consensus that he is the author of the Gospel that bears his name - because the author of this Gospel was an unknown Jew, perhaps from the city of Antioch, who wrote the biography of Jesus in the Greek language and incorporated into it many parts of the Gospel of Mark and from other sources that we have previously referred to. However, the title Gospel of Matthew cannot have been given to this book without the Apostle Matthew having a connection with it. We have said previously that Matthew - in the opinion of Bishop Papias - wrote the sayings (i.e. the sayings of Christ) in the Hebrew language. It is very likely that this Gospel was known - traditionally - as the Gospel of Matthew because it included those sayings that Matthew, one of the original apostles, had collected. This custom of naming books, like the custom of quoting from another author without indicating that - was a common phenomenon in the first centuries. However, the fact that Matthew was not the author of this first Gospel does not affect the authenticity of this book, its contents, or its historical value. It is absurd to raise doubts about it because tradition has given it a title other than the name of the author. The real one.)) ​​​​​​[
  ATTACH=CONFIG]n811153[/ATTACH] And the last statement of Father Habib Saeed - that the ignorance of the author does not affect the credibility of the Gospel and that it is ridiculous to challenge the tradition because we do not know who the writer is - is a patchwork or a sentence he says to throw dust in the eyes!!!! Because if he is not Matthew, then who is he??? And how do we know that his doctrine was the same as Matthew's doctrine!!!. And how do we build our doctrine on a book with an unknown author?? And how do we know the degree of its reliability??? Especially since he quoted from Mark and did not admit to quoting from him, as Father Habib Saeed mentioned and admitted, so how can we believe him or be assured of his reliability as a writer??? And if the tradition was wrong and relied on guesswork, then on what basis do we believe this tradition after that??? And we read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 34:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  “It was simple in the view of the ancient fathers that the apostle Matthew wrote the first Gospel “for the believers of Jewish origin” (Origen). This is also what many people of our time believe, although modern criticism is more attentive to the complexity of the problem. There are many factors that enable us to determine the location of the first Gospel. It is clear that the text as it is now reflects Aramaic or Hebrew traditions, including the vocabulary of Palestine (binding and loosing 16/19 and taking up the yoke and the kingdom of heaven), the phrases that Matthew does not explain to his readers, and the various customs (5/23 and 12/5 and 23/5 and 15 and 23). On the other hand, it does not seem to be a mere translation from the Aramaic original, but there is evidence that it was written in Greek. Although it is mixed with Jewish traditions, there is no way to prove its Palestinian origin. It is usually believed that it was written in Syria, perhaps in Antioch (Ignatius cites it in the early second century), or in Phoenicia, and there were a large number of Jews living in these countries.... Therefore Many authors date the first Gospel between the year 80 and 90, and perhaps a little earlier.... As for the author, the Gospel does not mention anything about him. The oldest church tradition (Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, first half of the second century) attributes him to the Apostle Matthew-Levi. Many of the Fathers (Origen, Jerome and Epiphanius) hold this opinion.... But research into the Gospel does not confirm these opinions without nevertheless refuting them decisively. Since we do not know the name of the author with precise knowledge, it is better for us to be content with some of the features drawn in the Gospel itself, for the author is known from his work. He is well-versed in the science of the Bible and Jewish traditions, knows the religious leaders of his people and respects them, even calls them harshly, is skilled in the art of teaching and bringing Jesus closer to his listeners, and emphasizes the practical results of his teaching: all these qualities are consistent with the qualities of an educated Jew who became a Christian ((and a householder who brings out from his treasure everything new and old (13/53))).
  [
  ATTACH=CONFIG]n811154[/ATTACH]
  
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811155[/ATTACH]
  
  
  
  The objection of those who object to what Papias said is rejected for the three reasons mentioned above, including, as we said, Eusebius of Caesarea’s attack in his book History of the Church on Papias’s memorization and understanding of the texts and his lack of awareness, describing him as having limited awareness,
  as Eusebius says in his book History of the Church, Chapter Thirty-Nine under the title Writings of Papias, pages 175-177:
  (((2) As for Papias himself, in the introduction to his research, he does not He does not by any means declare that he was a hearer or an observer of the blessed apostles, but he shows in his words that he received the instruction of the faith from their friends, for he says: ....
  (11) The same writer records other narratives which he says came to him from unwritten tradition, and parables and strange teachings of the Savior and mythical things.
  (12) Among these is his statement that there will be a period of a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be founded on this same ground in a material manner. I think that he arrived at these opinions through his misunderstanding of the apostolic writings, not realizing that their sayings were figurative.
  (13) For he seems to have had a very limited understanding, as his researches show. And to him is attributed the reason that many of the Church Fathers after him adopted the same opinions, based on the antiquity of the time in which he lived, such as Irenaeus and others who called for similar opinions.))
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811156[/ATTACH]
  
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811157[/ATTACH]
  
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811158[/ATTACH]
  It's ruined, it's ruined, the testimony is ruined!!!
  
  Fourth: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the conflict and confusion of the Church Fathers regarding the identity of its author!!! Oh God, no gloating .
  It is a letter from the New Testament letters that is famous for being attributed to Paul, but the dispute over the identity of the author is old and goes back to the Church Fathers themselves, including Clement of Alexandria, who attributed it to Luke. Some tend to consider it to be the work of one of Paul's disciples - guesswork - but all of these opinions are conflicting and there is no conclusive evidence for any of them. What
  is even more surprising is that you find that some of them, like Origen, admit that they do not know who this unknown disciple of Paul is who wrote the letter in their opinion, and what is even more surprising is that - in addition to his sanctification of a text with an unknown author - he raises his guess to the level of certainty - in his opinion - that the author must be one of Paul's disciples because the ideas in the letter are befitting of Paul!!!!!
  
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 684-685:
  “The position on the Epistle to the Hebrews underwent many fluctuations in the first four centuries. There is an apparent difference between the churches of the East and the churches of the West on this subject.
  The churches of the East have always considered the Epistle to the Hebrews to be a letter of Paul. However, this tradition, despite its strength, did not prevent them from noticing the differences between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the rest of Paul’s letters.
  Clement of Alexandria wanted to clarify the reason for these characteristics, so he described it as a Greek adaptation of a text that Paul had composed in Hebrew (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History). He saw in its composition the composition of Luke. A little later Origen clearly indicated this difference, saying that the ideas were worthy of the Apostle, but it was clear that the composition was not his: the Epistle to the Hebrews is the work of some of Paul’s disciples, expressing faithfully, but in a way that was his own, the teaching of his Master. Who was that disciple? Origen admitted that Eusebius does not know it (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History), but his ignorance of it does not affect his acceptance of this text from the Bible. There are other Eastern commentators, less concerned than Origen with the literary problem, who contented themselves with affirming that the letter goes back in its source to Paul as included in the tradition of their churches.
  As for the West, the situation was different from that in the East. The letter was known since the end of the first century, and the letter of Clement of Rome to the Church of Corinth made explicit use of it. However, it was not accepted without reservation. Doubts about the authenticity of its attribution to Paul led to hesitation that it was an inspired author, and the sects used it, which resulted in a doubling of doubts about it.... ))
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811140[/ATTACH]
  
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811141[/ATTACH]
  
  
  As for the question of when it became known among people that the epistle was a Pauline epistle, this was in the fourth century when the tables of the canon of books were established, where it was explicitly included with Paul’s epistles. In the Middle Ages, most commentators tended to accept the statement of Clement of Alexandria, so they concluded that the epistle was Paul’s in Hebrew and was translated and transcribed by Luke into Greek. All of this is a conjectural conclusion for which there is no conclusive evidence.
  
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 685:
  ((When the tables of books were created at the end of the fourth century, they put an end to all hesitation because they explicitly mentioned the Epistle to the Hebrews. However, these tables included the Epistle with the Epistles of Paul, and the result was that they helped the trend that attributed the Epistle to Paul. In the Middle Ages, interpretation took a position similar to that of Clement of Alexandria, namely that the Epistle to the Hebrews is a letter of Paul, which Luke faithfully transmitted after the death of the Apostle.))
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811142[/ATTACH]
  
  
  And we read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 686:
  ((There is no doubt that the evidence that refutes the authenticity of attributing the Epistle to Paul is abundant. This is because the general style of the Epistle to the Hebrews does not at all match the nature of the Apostle Paul. The composition is calm, the flow is regular, and the personality of the writer is excessively hidden (2/3). Many differences are noted in the words and structures used, and even in the way of understanding the mystery of Christ.... Some of them went so far as to deny any connection between the content of the Epistle and Paul’s thought. This is a clear exaggeration: one can One can see a very clear kinship between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the teaching of Paul in several main matters....
  But a clearer identification of the author is impossible to seek. The ancient tradition has since that time oscillated between several hypotheses, suggesting the names of Luke, Clement of Rome, or Barnabas, but none of these attributions is sufficiently supported. Commentators in our time have therefore sought other attributions. The most plausible of these is undoubtedly that which goes back to Luther, and suggests Apollos. His Jewish origin, his Hellenistic education received in Alexandria, his knowledge of the books, and his reputation for eloquence (Acts 18:24-28; 1 ​​Corinthians 3:6) are characteristics which agree perfectly with the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and his language has some connection with that of Philo of Alexandria. But the lack of all ancient testimony to this and the impossibility of making any comparison between this Epistle and another author who is certainly Apollos, make this attribution a possibility which cannot be verified. Finally, we must acknowledge that we do not know the name of the writer.))
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811143[/ATTACH]
  
  
  And we read in The International standard Bible Encyclopedia:
  ((Certain coincidences of language and thought between this epistle and that of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians justify the inference that Hebrews was known in Rome toward the end of the 1st century AD (compare Heb. 11:7,31 and 1:3 ff with Clement ad Cor 9,12,36). Clement makes no explicit reference to the book or its author: the quotations are unacknowledged. But they show that Hebrews already had some authority in Rome. The same inference is supported by similarities of expression found also in the Shepherd of Hermas. The possible marks of its influence in Polycarp and Justin Martyr are too uncertain and indefinite to justify any inference. Its name does not appear in the list of New Testament writings compiled and appreciated by Marcion, nor in that of the Muratorian Fragment. The latter definitely assigns letters by Paul to only seven churches, and so inferentially excludes Hebrews.
  
  When the book emerges into the clear light of history toward the end of the 2nd century, the tradition as to its authorship is seen to divide into three different streams.
  .....It seems therefore certain that the first epistle became generally known as an anonymous writing. Even the Alexandrian tradition implies as much, for it appears first as an explanation by Pantaenus why Paul concealed his name. The idea that Paul was the author was therefore an Alexandrian inference. The religious value of the epistle was naturally first recognized in Alexandria, and the name of Paul, the chief letter-writer of the church, at once occurred to those in search for its author. Two facts account for the ultimate acceptance of that view by the whole church. The spiritual value and authority of the book were seen to be too great to relegate it into the same class as the Shepherd or the Epistle of Barnabas. And the conception of the Canon developed into the hard-and-fast rule of apostolicity. No writing could be admitted into the Canon unless it had an apostle for its author; and when Hebrews could no longer be excluded, it followed that its apostolic authority must be affirmed. The tradition already existing in Alexandria supplied the demand, and who but Paul, among the apostles, could have written it?
  
  The Pauline theory prevailed together with the scheme of thought that made it necessary, from the 5th to the 16th century. The Humanists and The Reformers rejected it. But it was again revived in the 17th and 18th centuries, along with the recrudescence of scholastic ideas. It is clear, however, that tradition and history shed no light upon the question of the authorship of Hebrews. They neither prove nor disprove the Pauline, or any other theory.))
  https://www.internationalstandardbib...le-to-the.html
  
  .
  
  Fifth: The Gospel of John and the demolition of the myth of Polycarp's testimony .
  
  The Gospel of John is the most controversial of the Gospels from a theological perspective. As for the composition, church traditions attribute it to John, son of Zebedee, one of the twelve disciples. However, after examining this attribution, we find that the first to mention this claim was Irenaeus at the end of the second century.
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 287:
  ((And at the end of the second century, Irenaeus was very clear when he wrote: ((Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on his chest, he also issued a Gospel during his stay in Ephesus)) (Replying to Heretics 3, 1/1). In the view of Irenaeus, while he knows himself to be a disciple of Polycarp ((who was talking about his relationship with John and the rest of the disciples of the Lord (Eusebius, History of the Church 5, 20/6-8), he meant the son of Zebedee))
  
  , but this matter is a support and Logically rejected evidence for several reasons:
  1. Irenaeus was writing at the end of the second century and what he attributed to Polycarp is rejected because Polycarp never mentioned this matter in his letters and it is unlikely that he did not write or declare something of this importance during his lifetime.
  2. There is originally a difference in who he relied on. On the lap of Jesus and who was the disciple whom Jesus loved
  3. He was It is known at that time that they attributed to the twelve apostles the legal writings.
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 287, after citing the words of Irenaeus above:
  ((At that time, they tended, although some hesitated, to attribute it to one of the twelve canonical works))
  Then he mentioned the consensus of the Church Fathers to attribute this Gospel to John.
  
  However, after analysis and scrutiny, we find in reality that the Gospel has no relation in terms of composition to John, but rather that the Gospel was composed in several stages instead of all at once, and it even contained additions such as Chapter 21. The Jesuit monastic translation suggests that the work goes back to some of John’s disciples and not to John himself.
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 286:
  ((All these observations lead to the assertion that the Gospel of John is not merely an eyewitness testimony written down all at once on the day following the events, but rather everything suggests otherwise, that it came as a result of a long maturation... It is likely that the Gospel as it is in our hands was issued by some of the author’s disciples, who added Chapter 21 to it...
  As for the author and the date of writing the Fourth Gospel, we do not find any clear evidence of them in the author himself))
  
  and this is a response Whoever cites verse 21:24 to say that the author of the Gospel is John, son of Zebedee, since, as the Jesuit monastic translation says, the Gospel of John was written by disciples - without specifying their names - of John, and they are the ones who later added chapter 21.
  Therefore, this phrase does not add anything of authenticity to the attribution of the text to John himself
  . Gospel of John 21:
  ((23 Then this saying spread among the brothers, “That disciple will not die.” Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
  24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote these things. And we know that his testimony is true.))
  
  And in the text there is an attempt - rejected - to combine the author of the Gospel with the disciple whom Jesus loved. Likewise, the church traditions in the second century tried to combine Haddin with John the son of Zebedee (starting with Irenaeus) and they provided evidence for this with a text cited by Paibas, but this text is rejected for the following reasons:
  1. Paibas cited this text in the year 140 AD and he did not witness John or any of the twelve apostles
  . 2. Paibas in the context of his speech was talking about sayings about the disciples and not the Gospels or a historical account of the life of Christ
  . 3. Paibas is challenged in his transmission, as Eusebius described him in his book, Church History - as we mentioned above - as very simple to understand
  . 4. Paibas during his speech mentioned two characters named John, one of them John the son of Zebedee, one of the disciples, and another John whom he described as old.
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, pages 286 - 287:
  ((The church tradition calls him John since the second century and identifies him with one of the sons of Zebedee, one of the twelve. There is a fragment of a work by Bybas, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, dating back to the year 140, in which there is this sentence that leaves room for hesitation on this matter: ((I will not hesitate to include among the interpretations those things which I once learned very well from the ancients... and I have memorized them very well in my memory, after I have verified their truth... and if anyone who was a follower of the ancients came to me, I would inquire from him about the sayings of the ancients: what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples said, or what Aristion and John the Old, two disciples of the Lord, said)) (Eusebius, History of the Church 3, 39/3-4). They were thus distinguishing between John the Apostle and one of the twelve from John the Old, another disciple of the Lord. Bybas does not refer to works because he was particularly interested in (the living and established word). ))
  
  The truth then is that whether the words of Bybas (140 AD) or the statement of (Irenaeus - end of the second century) do not indicate that John, son of Zebedee, is the writer of the Gospel of John. This is the opinion of the majority of critics today who see the impossibility of John, son of Zebedee, being the writer of this Gospel.
  Therefore, some have gone so far as to say that this Gospel was written in Greek at the end of the first century by a Christian belonging to one of the churches of Asia Minor, and some see that he is the old John of whom Bybas spoke, and some - as the Jesuit monastic translation suggested - see that he is one of John's disciples or one of those who are in close contact with the tradition associated with John. In any case, the two common factors are: 1. We cannot be certain of the correctness of any opinion. 2. It is most likely that John, son of Zebedee, did not write this Gospel.
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 287:
  “It must be noted that the publication of a part of the Fourth Gospel (18/31, 33, 37-38) found in Egypt and dating in the opinion of the best experts to the years 110-130, has forced the critics to return to a traditional matter, which is the issuance of the Fourth Gospel at the end of the first century. It is also very likely that its location will be determined in one of the churches of Hellenistic Asia (Ephesus). We cannot completely exclude the assumption that John the Apostle is the one who composed it. However, most critics do not adopt this possibility. Some of them leave the author’s name and describe him as a Christian who wrote in Greek at the end of the first century in one of the churches of Asia, where intellectual currents were clashing between the Jewish world and the East, which had embraced Greek civilization. Some of them mention the ancient John of whom Bybas spoke. Some of them add that the author was in contact with a tradition connected with John the Apostle.” It is no wonder that (the disciple whom Jesus loved) has such a high status. He united him with John, son of Zebedee. It is strange that John is the only apostle whose name is never mentioned in the Fourth Gospel.
  
  The prevailing opinion growing today among critics is that the Gospel is considered a work dating back to the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century and was not completed by a single author, but rather the work of a group of Christian authors and editors who belong to the Church of Ephesus in Central Asia. However, this remains a mere possibility like other possibilities, and the writer or writers of the Fourth Gospel remain unknown or unknown.
  We read from the International Standard Bible Encylopedia:
  ((As to the time of the appearance of the Johannine literature, apart from the question as to the authorship of these writings, there is now a growing consensus of opinion that it arose at the end of the 1st century, or at the beginning of the 2nd century. This is held by those who assign the authorship, not to any individual writer, but to a school at Ephesus, who partly worked up traditional material, and elaborated it into the form which the Johannine writings now have by those also , as Spitta, who disintegrate the Gospel into a Grundschrift and a Bearbeitung (compare his Das Johannes-Evangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu, 1910. Whether the Gospel is looked on as a compilation of a school of theologians, or as the outcome of an editor). who utilizes traditional material, or as the final outcome of theological evolution of certain Pauline conceptions, with few exceptions the appearance of the ...Johannine writings is dated early in the 2nd century
  Thus, the appearance of the Johannine writings at the end of the 1st century may safely be accepted as a sound historical conclusion. Slowly the critics who assigned their appearance to the middle of the 2nd century, or later, have retraced their steps, and assign the emergence of the Johannine writings to the time mentioned. This does not, of course, settle the questions of the authorship, composition and trustworthiness of the Gospel, which must be determined on their merits, on the grounds of external, and still more of internal, evidence, but it does clear the way for a proper discussion of them, and gives us a terminus which must set a limit to all further speculation on matters of this kind.))
  https://www.internationalstandardbib...gospel-of.html
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811150[ /ATTACH]
  
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811151[/ATTACH]
  
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811152[/ATTACH]
  . Oh God, no gloating!!!!
  
  Sixth: The Gospel of Mark and the straw of the late testimony of Bybas, which is neither fattening nor satisfying, and a scandal. A Gospel writer lived in Palestine and made mistakes in its geography!!!
  It is the oldest of the four Gospels and is attributed to Mark, that is, John, who was called Mark, the companion of Paul, Barnabas, and Peter, as in the following texts:
  First Epistle of Peter, Chapter 5:13
  She who is in Babylon, who is chosen with you, greets you, and so does Mark my son.
  14 Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace be with you all who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.
  
  Acts 12:11
  Then Peter, coming to himself, said, “Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent his angel and delivered me from the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the Jewish people.”
  12 And when he had considered it, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark, where he was . Many gathered together and prayed.
  13 Now when Peter knocked at the door of the vestibule, a
  servant girl named Rhoda came to listen. 14 But when she recognized Peter’s voice, she did not open the door for joy, but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the door.
  15 They said to her, “You are mad!” But she insisted that it was so. “It is his angel,” they said.
  
  It is also said that Mark took the Gospel and wrote it according to what he received from the Apostle Peter. However, there is no conclusive evidence for this attribution, and we can doubt its validity, since the first to mention and testify to this attribution was also Baybas.
  
  We read from the introduction to the New Testament by Aziz Serial, page 218:
  ((As for the Gospel of Mark, Eusebius in his church history quotes what Baybas said: ((And the sheikh also said that Mark, who became an interpreter for Peter, wrote with all accuracy everything he remembered of the sayings and deeds of the Lord, but not in order because he did not hear the Lord and did not follow Him. But as I said before about Peter, who mentioned from the teachings of the Lord what suited the listeners’ need without aiming to write everything the Lord said and did, and thus Mark separated, that he did not make a single mistake in everything he mentioned and wrote....)) And this is the oldest testimony about Mark, who took from Peter everything he knew and remembered of the sayings and deeds of the Lord, and it is a testimony that almost all scholars have accepted, and in the modern era scholars have not found anything to object to attributing this book to Mark.))
  
  As for his saying that almost all scholars They took this testimony as a way to throw dust in the eyes, and we will see the objections to this testimony and what makes us doubt the validity of such a statement
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811144[/ATTACH]
  
  
  and the truth is that we cannot be certain of the validity of attributing the Gospel to Mark and that Mark in turn took it from Peter based only on the testimony of Pybas for several reasons:
  1. Pybas mentioned this statement in the year 150 AD, as the Jesuit monastic translation mentions on page 123:
  ((About the year 150 Pybas, Bishop of Hierapolis, confirmed the attribution of the second Gospel to Mark ((the mouthpiece of Peter)) in Rome))
  and this is a statement without support because Pybas did not meet Mark and he did not tell us from whom he took this statement, and if we take into consideration that the Gospel of Mark was written after the persecution of Nero in the year 64 AD (i.e. in the first century), then we are talking about an interruption of about 80 years or more!
  
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, pages 123 and 124:
  ((There is almost a consensus that the book was written in Rome after the persecution of Nero in the year 64. This may be indicated by some Latin words in Greek form and some Latin structures. It is estimated that the book was directed to non-Jews outside Palestine...There is nothing to prevent us from saying that the Second Gospel was written between the years 65 and 70))
  2. Bybas is criticized for his transmission, as Eusebius described it in his book History of the Church - as we mentioned above - as being very simple to understand.
  
  The truth is that if this is the case with the attribution to Mark, then the case with its attribution to Peter in terms of the source of the teaching is much more difficult. This means that this Mark is not John, who is called Mark, the companion of Peter, mentioned in the First Epistle of Peter, chapter 5. Rather, he may be another Mark, if we assume that the title of the introduction to the Gospel is fixed (The Gospel according to Mark).
  We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 124:
  ((As for the connection of the book to the teaching of Peter, it is difficult to determine. The phrase “Peter’s state of mind” is not clear. However, the place occupied by Peter indicates the words of an eyewitness. Only James and John stand out from the group of the Twelve, as if they were guarantors of Peter’s testimony. However, he is not praised, and if he is not given the best position, this is not evidence of an attack on him.))
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811145[/ATTACH]
  [ATTACH=CONFIG]n811146[/ATTACH]
  
  
  The truth of the matter is that, at best, this Gospel goes back to an unknown person named Mark, who has no relation to John Mark, the companion of Paul and Barnabas in the Book of Acts. This, in fact, makes no difference!!!
  If we want to delve deeper into the identity and characteristics of the unknown writer, we will find that:
  1. He is fluent in speaking and writing in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic.
  2. He makes many mistakes in Palestinian geography, especially the north near Tiberias.
  
  We read from the New World Encyclopedia:
  ((However, within the text the identity of the writer is not revealed and the gospel is anonymous (Kummel, 95). Yet, while the identity of the author remains obscure, some hints about the author come forward within the gospel itself. The author confuses Palestinian geography by describing a traveling route in MK. 7:31, “Then he returned from the region of Tire, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. 12:42, and 15:39,44-45, and defines Aramaic words in 14:36 ​​suggesting the author was multi-lingual (i.e., able to speak and write Greek, Latin, and Aramaic).))
  
  https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...ark,_Gospel_of
  
  This and may God’s prayers and peace be upon our master Muhammad and his family