debate v5

 

First: His words are a hadith in which the mother of the believers Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, cursed Amr ibn al-Aas, may Allah be pleased with him.

I say: We responded to these words in the fourth part and detailed them in the issue of the justice of the companions. We also showed that the companions, may Allah be pleased with them, are trustworthy in their transmission. We mentioned examples of this, and I will quote part of my response that I wrote in the fourth part.

No: Al-Munsir mentioned that the companions, may God be pleased with them, disbelieved, citing the words of Imam Al-Dhahabi, may God have mercy on him, and Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, from Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa. He said something to the effect that if they disbelieved some, then what prevents them from lying!!!
I do not know what the logical reason or necessary motive is for declaring some of them disbelievers to others would necessitate that they lied!!! So what is the necessity for the second to occur if the first occurred 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.”
Then 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 Allah - Glory be to Him and Most High - made it possible to have consensus on that because they were the transmitters of the Shariah, and Allah knows best. And

we read : From the book “The Method of Criticism 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:
Allah has distinguished the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, with a characteristic that is not for any class of people other than their 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: Allah the 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 saying: {Muhammad is the Messenger of God, and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating, seeking bounty from God and approval.}
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 Saeed Al-Khudri, which is agreed upon to be authentic (1), 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 gold equivalent to Mount Uhud, it would not reach the level of one of them or half of it.”
And it was transmitted from him, may God bless him and grant him peace, that he said: “The best 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 taken into account among the jurists .”
And Muhammad bin Al-Wazir Al-Yamani transmitted the consensus from the Sunnis and from the Zaidis and Mu’tazilites as well as Al-San’ani (4). And
Ibn Al-Salah (1) said: “ Then the nation is unanimous in the righteousness of all the Companions, and those of them who were involved in the seditions, so is it by the consensus of the scholars who are relied upon 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 Almighty made the consensus on that possible 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 in the ranks 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 told us, he said: Ma’mar told us, on the authority of Ibn (1) Tawus, on the authority of Abu Bakr bin Muhammad bin Amr bin Hazm, on the authority of his father, he said: When Ammar bin Yasir was killed, Amr bin Hazm entered upon Amr ibn al-'As said: Ammar has been killed, and the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had said: "The rebellious group will kill him." Amr ibn al-'As stood up in fear and kept repeating until he entered upon Mu'awiyah. Mu'awiyah said to him: What is the matter with you? He said: Ammar has been 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, And he said: “The rebellious group will kill him.” So Muawiyah said to him: “You were thrown into your urine, or did we kill him?” “It was Ali and his companions who killed him. They brought him until....”
The hadith was authenticated by Sheikh Shuaib al-Arna’ut in his investigation of Musnad al-Imam Ahmad and he 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), 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 Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) who were with Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) or with Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) or who withdrew from the fighting.
We read what Ibn Hajar (may Allah 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 An-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 it. 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 indicates the precision of his understanding and his deep knowledge of the causes of the hadiths. In this hadith, An addition that was not included in Al-Bukhari’s narration, and it is in Al-Ismaili and Abu Nu’aym in Al-Mustakhraj, on the authority of Khalid Al-Wasiti, on the authority of Khalid Al-Haddaa, and it is: 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. Ma’mar’s addition has also been mentioned in it. It is also beneficial. He narrated: Hadith: The rebellious group will kill Ammar. A group of the Companions, including Qatada 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, and Mu’awiyah, and 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 in it there are others from a group whose number would be long .

What is strange about this missionary is that he quoted the words of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, regarding the excommunication and fighting of some of the Companions by others. We ask here:

What is greater, their fighting each other based on interpretation or their cursing each other based on interpretation

? If the answer is their fighting, then where is the evidence for the disgrace of the Companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, if one of them cursed the other based on interpretation, even though their fighting each other based on interpretation does not necessitate their disgrace or their immorality, especially the fighting of sedition, because blood and money are lost in sedition .

We read from the book Minhaaj as-Sunnah by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah,
may Allah have mercy on him, Part Four, Chapter Two: ((It has been proven that these people killed a group of Muslims whom it is not permissible to kill, and despite this, the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not kill them, nor did he guarantee the slain person with retaliation, blood money, or expiation, because the killer was interpreting things in an erroneous manner. This is the opinion of most scholars, such as al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, and others. And among the people are those who… He says: Rather, they had converted to Islam but had not emigrated, so the sinful infallibility was established for them, not the guaranteeing one, in the same position as the women and children of the people of war, as Abu Hanifa and some of the Malikis say. Then the majority of scholars, such as Malik [and Abu Hanifa] (1) and Ahmad in the apparent view of his school, and al-Shafi’i in one of his two opinions: They say: If the people of justice and the rebels fight based on interpretation, these people do not guarantee what they destroy for these people of lives (2) and money during the fighting, and these people do not guarantee what they destroy for these people (3).

As Al-Zuhri said: The tribulation occurred and the companions of the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - (4) were in agreement, so they agreed that any blood or money that was lost due to the interpretation of the Qur’an is wasted, and they placed them (5) in the position of ignorance. He means by that that the killer did not believe that he had done something forbidden (6). And if it is said (7): It is forbidden in itself, then it has been proven by the continuous Sunnah of the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - and the agreement of the Muslims that if the infidel at war kills a Muslim or destroys his property and then converts to Islam, he is not liable for retaliation [or blood money] (1) or expiation, even though his killing of him was one of the greatest major sins; Because he was interpreting, even if his interpretation was corrupt.

Likewise, the apostates who refuse, if they kill some Muslims, are not liable for his blood if they return to Islam according to most scholars, as is the saying of (2) Abu Hanifa, Malik, and Ahmad, even if some of his later companions narrated it as a saying, such as Abu Bakr Abd al-Aziz (3) where Ahmad stated that the apostate is liable for What he destroyed after apostasy.

This text is about the apostate who is able to do so, and that is about the muharib who refuses to do so, just as a distinction is made between the dhimmi (4) infidel and the muharib, or there are two narrations on the issue, and al-Shafi’i has two opinions, and this is the correct one; The apostates whom Abu Bakr and the rest of the Companions fought were not held responsible by the Companions after their return to Islam for what they had killed from the Muslims and destroyed from their money, because they were interpreting things differently.

The interpreters of the Qur’an were not held responsible by the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). If this (5) applies to blood and property, even though whoever destroys it by mistake is responsible for it according to the text of the Qur’an, then how about honor (6)? Such as some of them cursing others and some of them declaring others infidels. ))

And we read from Al-Qurtubi’s interpretation, may God have mercy on him, of Surat Al-Hujurat:
((The sixth - the Most High’s saying: “But if they return, then make peace between them with justice.” And from justice in their peace is that they do not demand what happened between them of blood or money, because it is a loss according to interpretation. And in their requesting it is a deterrent to them from peace and a spread of “3” in transgression. And this is a principle in the interest. And the tongue of the nation has said: Indeed, the wisdom of God Almighty in The Companions’ war was their definition of the rules of fighting the people of interpretation, since the rules of fighting the people of polytheism had been known through the tongue of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, and his actions.... Tenth: It is not permissible to attribute to any of the Companions a definite error, since they all exerted themselves in what they did and wanted God Almighty, and they are all for us. Imams, and we have been commanded to refrain from what happened between them, and not to mention them except with the best mention, due to the sanctity of companionship and the prohibition of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, from insulting them, and that God forgave them and informed us of His pleasure with them. This is in addition to what has been reported from the news from different paths from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, that Talhah is a martyr walking on the face of the earth. So if what he went out to in the war was disobedience, he would not have been a martyr because of being killed in it. Likewise, if what he came to was an error in interpretation and a shortcoming in what was required of him, because testimony is only for killing in obedience, then it is necessary to interpret their matter according to what we have explained....If this is the case, then this does not necessitate cursing them, disavowing them, declaring them immoral, nullifying their virtues and their jihad, and their great wealth in religion. May God be pleased with them. Some of them were asked about the blood that was shed among them, so he said: “That was a people that has passed on. It shall have what it earned, and you shall have what you earn. And you will not be asked about what they used to do” [Al-Baqarah: 141]. Some of them also asked about it, so he said: That is blood from which Allah has purified my hands, so I will not stain my tongue with it. It means being careful not to make a mistake and to judge some of them in a way that they are not right about. Ibn Fawrak said: Some of our companions said that the disputes that took place between the Companions were like the disputes that took place between Joseph’s brothers and Joseph. However, they did not go beyond the limits of guardianship and prophethood, and so it is the case with what took place between the Companions. Al-Muhasibi said: As for blood, we are confused about the statement regarding it due to their differences. Al-Hasan Al-Basri was asked about their fighting, and he said: A fighting that the companions of Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, witnessed and we were absent, and they knew and we were ignorant, and they gathered and we followed, and they differed and we stopped. Al-Muhasibi said: “We say as Al-Hasan said, and we know that the people were more knowledgeable about what they entered into than us, and we follow what they agreed upon, and we stop at what they differed about and we do not innovate an opinion from us, and we know that they exerted themselves and wanted Allah, the Almighty, the Majestic, since they were not accused in religion, and we ask Allah for success.”

And we read from Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, Part Four, a chapter on the division of people regarding Yazid ibn Muawiyah:
((The second: That he committed what necessitated his injustice and immorality in his conduct; and the matter of Al-Husayn and the matter of the people of Al-Harrah. As for those scholars who cursed him, such as Abu Al-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi and Al-Ikiya Al-Harrasi and others: When he committed actions that permit his cursing, then they may say that he is immoral and every immoral person is cursed. And they may say that by cursing the companion of Disobedience, even if he does not rule that he is a sinner, just as the people of Siffin cursed one another in the Qunut, so Ali and his companions cursed specific men from the people of Ash-Sham in the Qunut of prayer; and likewise the people of Ash-Sham cursed, even though the fighters from the people of the permissible interpretation: the just and the rebels: not one of them is a sinner . He may be cursed for his major sins, even if he does not curse all the sinners, just as the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, cursed types of sinners and some sinners. Even if he did not curse all of them, these are (three grounds for his curse.))

And it is sufficient for us what Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, also said in Minhaaj
As-Sunnah, Part Four, Chapter Two: ((As for what he mentioned about cursing Ali, the mutual cursing occurred from the two groups just as the fighting occurred, and these were cursing the heads of those in their supplications, and those were cursing the heads of those in their supplications. And it was said: Each group was cursing the other. And fighting with the hand is greater than Cursing each other by tongue, and all of this, whether it was a sin or an effort: wrong or right, then Allah’s forgiveness and mercy include that with repentance, good deeds that erase sins, calamities that expiate sins, and other than that .

Second: The response to his objection regarding thinking well of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them.

I say: The lost supporter objected to us with the words of Imam al-Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, in interpreting the hadith ((Muawiyah ordered Sa`d to curse him)) criticizing our interpretation, and I say: Where is the obstacle as long as the context and language do not prevent that!!! Al-Mansir, of course, put a picture of the words of Imam al-Nawawi, may God have mercy on him, but he did not read the rest of his words on this issue, which is the criterion of interpretation that al-Nawawi, may God have mercy on him, referred to.

We read from Al-Minhaaj in the explanation of Sahih Muslim by Imam Al-Nawawi,

may God have mercy on him: ((His saying (Muawiyah said to Saad bin Abi Waqqas: What prevented you from cursing Abu Turab) The scholars said: The hadiths that were reported which on the surface indicate that he entered upon a companion must be interpreted. They said: And in the narrations of the trustworthy there is nothing except what can be interpreted. So this saying of Muawiyah does not contain an explicit statement that he ordered Sa`d was not pleased with his cursing, but he asked him about the reason that prevented him from cursing, as if he was saying: Did you refrain from cursing out of piety or fear or something else? If it was piety and respect for him from cursing, then you are correct and doing good. But if it was something else, then there is another answer for him. Perhaps Sa`d was in a group that was cursing, but he did not curse with them and was unable to denounce them, so he denounced them, so he asked him: This question, they said, and it is possible to interpret it in another way, that its meaning is what prevented you from finding him wrong in his opinion and effort and showing the people the goodness of our opinion and effort and that he made a mistake in his statement.

We read what Judge Iyad said in his book, Ikmal al-Mu’allim bi-Fawa’id Muslim:

((The Imam - may God guide him - said: The doctrine of the best scholars is that what has occurred of hadiths that criticize [the hadith] (2) the justice of [some] (3) of the Companions, and add to them what is not appropriate for them , then they are rejected and not accepted if their narrators are not trustworthy. If some scholars like to interpret them to cut off the confusion, then they are dismissed and gone, and if the trustworthy narrators narrated them, then they are interpreted in the correct manner. It is appropriate for them if interpretation is possible, and nothing occurs in the narrations of the trustworthy except what can be interpreted, and this statement of Muawiyah must be interpreted, so you say: It does not explicitly state that he ordered him to curse him, but rather he asked him about the reason that prevented him from cursing, and a question like this has been asked of someone who would permit cursing the one being asked about [and it has been asked about it] (4) by someone who does not inquire about him.

It may be that Muawiyah saw Sa`d among people who were cursing him, and it was not possible to denounce them, so he said: What prevented you from cursing Abu Turab? To extract from him the same as he extracted from what he narrated from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - so that he would have an argument against those who cursed him from among the rabble of his army who were added to him, and thus he would obtain what was intended on the tongues of others from the Companions. If he had not taken this approach and we had assumed that he intended the opposite of what would arouse [from him] (1) resentment and occur at a time of anger, it would be possible that he meant cursing which means changing the doctrine and opinion, and this has been called cursing in common parlance, and it is said about a group that it curses another if it is heard from them that they have erred in their doctrines, and have deviated from the truth, and have increased their denunciation of them. It is possible that Muawiyah meant from Sa`d by his saying: “What prevented you from cursing Abu Turab” that is, to show the people his error in his opinion, even though we see what we are on as more severe and more correct. This is something that no one can prevent from being possible in what he said, and we have mentioned what his saying could be interpreted as, and his opinion of it, whether it is good or bad, in these two answers. So a meaning like this should be followed in what happened in such cases.

And it is surprising that the foolish donkey when he reads the words of al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) “And nothing occurs in the narrations of the trustworthy except what can be interpreted” as an absolute interpretation. So look at the ignorance of the speaker, as he does not know that al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) prevented the impossibility of interpretation in the narrations of the trustworthy, and it is an indication and a hint that is not noticed by someone like this Anook al-Munsar, as the one who follows the authentic narrations knows the possibility of interpreting the narration according to the context and language.

Third: In response to the point that he spoke about in a previous section, which is “the issue of disagreement over the companionship of the narrator or not,”

I say: We have previously shown the weakness and stupidity of citing evidence in this case to dismiss the science of hadith and the criteria for authenticating hadiths or not. The basic principle, as we have already explained, is the establishment of correct evidence to prove the companionship of the narrator or not, and its proof according to one scholar and its denial according to another does not mean the abandonment of the science of hadith and chain of transmission, as most of the narrations from the companions unanimously agree on their companionship,

so would anyone deny the companionship of Abu Hurairah, Aisha, Ibn Abbas, Jabir, Abu Saeed Al-Khudri, Abdullah bin Omar, Abdullah bin Amr, Ibn Masoud, and others from the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace!!!

I wonder how refuted and trivial his argument is!!

He cited a master’s thesis called “The Observations of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani in his Book Al-Isabah on Abu Naim Al-Isfahani in his Book Ma’rifat Al-Sahaba” - and of course the source is a contemporary one, just a Google search like most of his sources! - and he quoted from page 19 the disagreement over the companionship of Ziyad bin Jariyah Al-Tamimi Al-Dimashqi, but he excerpted the author’s words on page 20 and the reason or evidence that made Ibn Hajar reject the companionship of Ziyad and include him among the followers:
((And it is most likely that Ziyad bin Jariyah was a follower, he was mentioned among the companions by mistake, because he sent a hadith, and his narration from Habib bin Masmamah Al-Firy proves that he was a follower, and God Almighty knows best .))

And this is what the forger excerpted to prove that Ziyad was not a companion, in addition of course to the fact that we are dealing with “Ibn Kanisa par excellence” because he is proficient in the language of forgery and certainty, and this is one of the arts of forgery and lying as his religion taught him .

Fourth: The response to his words regarding the disagreement of some scholars regarding the methodology of determining who had companionship or not .

Al-Mansour cited an article (by a contemporary from Google!) entitled “Methodology of distinguishing between those whose companionship is disputed” to mention the disagreement of scholars over the companionship of a single narrator, as there were cases in which the dispute was between two levels, with no third, companionship or weakness. Al-Mansour objected to the ruling on the companionship of a narrator whose companionship was not proven by a single authentic narration

. The truth is that his citation here is rejected by Al-Mansour for more than one reason:

First: This does not include any criticism of the chains of transmission of the Qur’an or even of most of the hadiths whose authenticity is agreed upon, so where is the evidence in his words!

Second: Many scholars did not stipulate the existence of a sound narration, but rather added to the soundness of the chain of transmission other ways by which it is possible to know whether a person is a companion or not.

We read from the book Al-Isabah fi Tamyiz Al-Sahabah by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, Part One, Chapter on What a Companion is Known By:
((A companion is known by one of the following evidences:

First: Tawatur, which is the narration of a group from a group who would normally not collude to lie, such as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, and the rest of the ten who were promised Paradise - may God 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’labah 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 God bless him and grant him peace, rule that he was a martyr. This is how Abu Na’im mentioned it. In “The History of Isfahan”.

Fourth: That one of the followers should say that he is a companion based on accepting the recommendation of one just person, which is the most likely opinion.

Fifth: That he should say about himself that he is a companion after his justice and contemporary status have been established, then after that his claim that he saw the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, or heard him is not accepted,

because of his saying, may God bless him and grant him peace, in the authentic hadith: “What do you think of this night of yours? After a hundred years from it, no one on the face of the earth will remain…” [(1)].

He meant by this the end of that century, and the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said that in the year of his death, and from this point of view the imams did not accept the statement of someone 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 narrations:

First: That they did not appoint anyone as commanders 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, may God bless him and grant him peace, and he prayed for him, and there is also a lot of this.

Third: That there remained in Medina, Mecca, Taif, or any of the A’raf areas between them except those who converted to Islam and witnessed the Farewell Pilgrimage, so 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 how do you know what Rattan is?!” A false sheikh, without a doubt, appeared after the six hundredth year and claimed to be a companion, and the companions do not lie. This is bold towards Allah and His Messenger, and I have written a part about his matter . ”

And we read in the book “Al-Usul” by Abu Al-Sa’adat Ibn Al-Athir, the first part:
“The term companionship, in terms of its status, applies to whoever accompanied the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - even for an hour, but custom specifies the name for whoever accompanied him for a long time, and there is no limit to that long time by estimation, but rather by approximation.

It was said: He is the one in whom two things are combined. One of them is this. The other is that his companionship was prolonged with him in order to learn from him and follow him, because the one who sat with the scholar for a long time, not in order to benefit from him and follow him, is not included in the group of his companions (1). And there

are two ways to know the companion:

One of them is that which requires knowledge, which is the mutawatir report, that he is the companion of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him

peace. The other is that which requires suspicion, which is the report of the trustworthy and the correct transmission.

This is the ruling on the justice of the companions - may God be pleased with them - with the people’s differences about them.

As for those who came after them, the discussion about them is long, and no people are free from justice or immorality, and justice is little, and the causes of immorality are many, so whoever is stripped of one of the conditions of narration or testimony that were mentioned above, is wounded and his statement is not accepted. ))

And we read from the introduction of Ibn al-Salah, Part One, Type Thirty-Nine:
(( Then, the fact that one of them is a companion is sometimes known by continuous transmission, and sometimes by widespread transmission that is short of continuous transmission, and sometimes by it being narrated from individual companions that he is a companion, and sometimes by his saying and reporting about himself - after his justice has been proven - that he is a companion, and God knows best ))

I said: So it becomes clear here that a group of people of knowledge have set other criteria, and we, even if we were We tend to believe that the authenticity of the chain of transmission is the first and last path (as we did with Abd al-Rahman ibn Udays), but what al-Munsir did is considered a scientific betrayal because he made the reader believe that the scholars ruled that the narrator was a companion - even if the narration is not proven - in vain and did not set controls for that!!! This is the very definition of lying and deception.

Rather, from the same research that he brought, we read


fifthly: Clarifying al-Munsir’s ignorance of the ruling on the rejected hadith and establishing its rejection and clarifying his deception of Imam Ibn Abd al-Hadi.

Al-Munsir quoted from Ibn Abdul Hadi’s book, which is a commentary on the causes of Ibn Abi Hatim, may God have mercy on him, to try to say, “Look how they weakened the narrator for his narration and weakened his narration for the weakness of the narrator.” He quoted words from Imam Ibn Abdul Hadi in the hadith of Qays bin Talq. The truth is that this Al-Munsir is not without two things: ignorant or a liar. This is because Ibn Abdul Hadi did not mean what Al-Munsir mentioned, and Al-Munsir did not say what he said except out of ignorance or disregard for the rule of a hadith whose text is rejected.

The gist of the matter is that if a narrator is unique in narrating something whose text is rejected, where he is not known except for this hadith and this hadith is not known except for it, he is judged weak, provided that the text of the hadith contradicts what was narrated by trustworthy people, or that he narrates a narration whose chain of transmission contradicts the known chain of transmission, knowing that this chain of transmission cannot be as the narrator described it, and this is what Al-Munsir was ignorant of or disregarded .

We read from the training of the narrator, the explanation of the approximation of al-Nawawi, the first part, the fourteenth type:
(( And with this we say: The reprehensible is of two types, based on what we mentioned in the anomalous, for it is in its meaning.

An example of the first: which is the singular that contradicts what the trustworthy narrated , the narration of Malik, on the authority of al-Zuhri, on the authority of Ali ibn al-Husayn, on the authority of Umar ibn Uthman, on the authority of Usamah ibn Zayd, on the authority of the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - who said: “No A Muslim does not inherit from an infidel, but an infidel does not inherit from a Muslim.

Malik differed from other trustworthy narrators in his statement: ‘Umar ibn ‘Uthman’ with a damma on the ‘ayn. Muslim mentioned in al-Tamyiz that everyone who narrated it from al-Zuhri’s companions said: with a fatha on it, and that Malik made a mistake in that.

Al-Iraqi said: There is a consideration in this example, because the hadith is not munkar, and no one has called it munkar, as far as I have seen. The most that can be said is that the chain of transmission is munkar, or shadh, because the trustworthy narrators contradict Malik in that. The munkar and shadh of the chain of transmission does not necessarily mean that this description is present in the text. Ibn al-Salah mentioned in the type of The reason is that the reason in the chain of transmission may or may not affect the text, as will come.

He said: The correct example of this section is what the four Sunan compilers narrated from Hammam ibn Yahya, from Ibn Jurayj, from al-Zuhri, from Anas, who said: “When the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, entered the toilet, he would put down his ring.” Abu Dawud said after narrating it: This is a rejected hadith, and it is only known from Ibn Jurayj, from Ziyad ibn Sa`d, on the authority of Al-Zuhri, on the authority of Anas, that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, “took a ring of silver,” then threw it away.

He said: The mistake in this is from Hammam, and no one narrated it except Hammam.

Al-Nasa’i said after narrating it: This is an unauthenticated hadith.

Hammam bin Yahya is trustworthy and the people of Sahih have used him as evidence, but he differed from the people, as he narrated this text from Ibn Jurayj with this chain of transmission, and the people only narrated from Ibn Jurayj the hadith that Abu Dawud referred to, so for this reason he was judged to be strange.

An example of the second: which is the individual whose narrators are not trustworthy or reliable enough to warrant his being unique, is what was narrated by Al-Nasa’i and Ibn Majah on the authority of Abu Zakir Yahya ibn Muhammad ibn Qays, on the authority of Hisham ibn Urwah, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Aishah, with a chain of transmission traceable to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace: “Eat dates with fresh dates, for when a son of Adam eats them, Satan becomes angry.” The hadith.

Al-Nasa’i said: This is a rejected hadith.

It was narrated by Abu Zakir alone, and he is a righteous sheikh. Muslim included it in his Mutaba’at, but he did not reach the level of someone who could possibly be alone. Rather, the imams have called it a weak hadith. ...

Notes

: First: It has been known from what has been mentioned above, and even from the explicit words of Ibn al-Salah, that the strange and the reprehensible have the same meaning.

Sheikh Al-Islam said: The anomalous and the reprehensible come together in requiring opposition, and they differ in that the anomalous is the narration of a trustworthy or truthful person, and the reprehensible is the narration of a weak person.

He said: Whoever equates them has forgotten.

Then he gave an example of the reprehensible with what Ibn Abi Hatim narrated on the authority of Habib - with a damma on the ha’ and a shaddah on the ta’ between two unified letters, the first of which is open - Ibn Habib - with a fatha on the ha’ with the weight of kareem - the brother of Hamzah al-Zayyat, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of al-Ayzar ibn Hurayth, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, on the authority of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace. He said: “Whoever establishes prayer, pays zakat, performs Hajj, fasts, and hosts guests will enter Paradise.”

Abu Hatim said: It is rejected, because other trustworthy narrators narrated it on the authority of Abu Ishaq as a narration that ends with the Prophet, and this is the well-known view.

Then the hadith in which there is no contradiction, and its narrator is accused of lying, in that it is not narrated except from his source, and it is contrary to the known rules, or it is known for it in other than the prophetic hadith, or it is full of mistakes, immorality, or negligence, is called the abandoned, and it is an independent type mentioned by Sheikh al-Islam.

Such as the hadith of Sadaqah ad-Daqeeqi, on the authority of Farqad, on the authority of Murrah, on the authority of Abu Bakr, and the hadith of Amr ibn Shimr, on the authority of Jabir al-Ju'fi, on the authority of al-Harith, on the authority of Ali.

The second: The statement of Sheikh al-Islam in "al-Nukhbah": If the narrator is contradicted by a more reliable narration, then the more reliable narration is called: al-Mahfuz, and its opposite is called: al-Shadh.

If the contradiction occurs with weakness, then the stronger is called: the well-known, and its opposite is called: the rejected. You have learned from that the interpretation of the preserved and the well-known, and they are from the types that Ibn al-Salah and the author neglected, and they deserve to be mentioned, just as the connected was mentioned with what is opposite to it from the mursal, the munqati’, and the mu’dal. ))

And we read from the notes on the introduction of Ibn al-Salah by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, Part Four, Chapter Fourteen:
((101- His saying (peace be upon him): “And the general ruling on the individuality of rejection or strangeness or anomaly is found in the speech of many of the people of hadith”1.

I said: And this should be taken into account, for Imam Ahmad, al-Nasa’i, and more than one of the critics have applied the term “unreliable” to the mere individuality, but where the individual is not in the same weight as the one whose hadith is judged to be authentic without support to support it.

As for the author’s saying: And the correct thing is the detail that we explained earlier in the explanation of the anomalous2, there is nothing in his expression that separates one of the two types from the other. Yes, they share in that each of them is in two categories, and their difference is only in the ranks of the narrators. So the truthful3 if he is the only one who reports something with no follower4 or witness and he does not have the precision required for the definition of the authentic and the good, then this is one of the two categories of the anomalous, for/ (Y 206) he is contradicted by someone of this description/ (B p. 246) despite that he is more severe in his anomaly, and perhaps some of them called him A denier, even if he reached that level of accuracy, but he differed from someone who was more reliable than him/ (R109/A) in trustworthiness and accuracy, so this is the second type of the anomalous, and it is the one relied upon in naming him .

As for what the concealed one or the one described as having a poor memory or weak narration is unique to some of his sheikhs and not others, with something that has no follower or witness, then this is one of the two types/ (?122/a) of the rejected, which is what is found in the generality of many of the people of hadith.

And if there is disagreement in1, then it is the second type and it is the one relied upon according to the opinion of the majority.

Thus, it is clear that the rejected is separated from the anomalous and that both of them are two types that are united by absolute uniqueness or with the condition of disagreement3 - and Allah knows best.

Muslim mentioned in the introduction to his Sahih the following text: “ The sign of the rejected in the hadith of the hadith scholar is if his narration of the hadith is presented to the narration of others from the people of memorization and approval, and his narration contradicts their narration, or hardly agrees with it. If most of his hadith is like this, then his hadith is abandoned, not accepted or used.”

I said: The narrators described in this are the abandoned.

Based on this, the narration of the abandoned according to Muslim is called rejected6. This is the chosen one - and God knows best.))

And we read from Al-Minhaaj in the explanation of Sahih Muslim, Part One:
(( He said, may God have mercy on him (and the sign of the rejected in the hadith of the innovator is if his narration of the hadith is presented to the narration of others from the people of memorization and satisfaction, his narration contradicts their narration or almost does not agree with it) This that he mentioned, may God have mercy on him, is the meaning of the rejected according to the hadith scholars, meaning the rejected rejected, for they may use the term rejected to refer to the trustworthy person alone in a hadith, and this is not rejected rejected if the trustworthy person is precise and proficient. And his saying or almost does not agree with it means it does not agree with it except in a little. The people of language said that “almost” is used for comparison, and if it is not preceded by a negation, it is for the comparison of the action and he did not do it, like the saying of God Almighty: The lightning almost snatches away their sight, and if it precedes a negation, it is for the action after a delay, and if you wish, you can say for the comparison of the lack of action, like the saying of God Almighty: So they slaughtered it, and they were almost able to do it))

And we read from Fath Al-Mughith by Al-Sakhawi, may God have mercy on him, Part One:
((The rejected)

167 - And the individual Munkar is like this Al-Bardiji... he released and the correct thing in the graduation

168 - Conducting a detail when the anomaly passed... so it has the same meaning as this Sheikh mentioned

169 - such as: “Eat dates with dates” the news... and Malik called Ibn Uthman Omar

170 - I said: So what is the hadith (he took off... his ring when he was in the toilet and put it down.

[Definition of Munkar and its types] (The Munkar) is the (individual) hadith, which is the one whose text is not known from other than its narrator, so there is no follower for him in it, nor even a witness, (thus) Al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Harun (Al-Bardiji said it in general, and the correct way in the graduation) means the one narrated in this way (conducting a detailed explanation with) i.e.: with (The anomaly passed) so that it is also in two parts.

(It) i.e. the munkar (in its meaning) i.e. the shadh (this is what Sheikh) Ibn al-Salah (mentioned) without distinguishing between them. As for al-Dhahabi’s combining them in his ruling on some hadiths, it is possible that it is due to the lack of difference between them, and it is possible otherwise. Our Sheikh has established the distinction with regard to their difference in the ranks of the narrators, so al-Saduq If he is unique in that he has no follower or witness, and he does not have the precision required for what is acceptable, then this is one of the two types of the anomalous. If

someone with this characteristic is contradicted in addition to that, then his anomalousness is even more severe, and some of them may call him an outcast, even if he has reached that level in precision, but he contradicted someone who is more trustworthy and precise than him.

This is the second category of the anomalous, and it is the one that is relied upon as we have mentioned in its name. However, if the one who is concealed is alone, or the one who is described as having a poor memory, or the one who is weak in some of his sheikhs in particular, or someone like them, whose hadith is not deemed acceptable without a supporter who supports it, with something that has no follower or witness - then this is one of the two categories. The reprehensible, which is what many hadith scholars use to describe as reprehensible, such as Ahmad and al-Nasa’i.

And if there is a disagreement with that, then it is the second section, and it is the one that is relied upon in the opinion of the majority in naming it. Thus, the separation of the munkar from the shadh has become clear, and that each of them is two sections that come together in absolute singularity or with the condition of disagreement, and they differ in that the narrator of the shadh is trustworthy or truthful but not precise, and the munkar has a weak narrator. Due to his poor memory, ignorance, or something similar, and in the explanation of An-Nukhbah he differentiated between them, but in each of them he limited himself to the section of opposition. So he said about the shadh: It is what the acceptable narrated in opposition to someone who is more deserving than him, and about the munkar: It is what the weak narrated in opposition. The opposite of the munkar is the well-known, and the shadh has the same He came forward, he is the one who is preserved.

He said: He who equates them has forgotten. He added in another hadith: Muslim mentioned in the introduction to his Sahih the following: The sign of the reprehensible in the hadith of a narrator is that if his narration of the hadith is compared to the narration of someone else from among the people of memorization and satisfaction, his narration contradicts their narration, or it hardly agrees with it. If the majority of his hadith is… Likewise, his hadith was abandoned, not accepted, and not used.

I said: This last one that he went to is what some of those who weakened Qais bin Talq, may God have mercy on him, went to, such as Ibn Abi Hatim and Abu Zur’ah, may God have mercy on them, as they went to weaken Qais based on his narration contradicting the narration of the trustworthy, and they did not establish his trustworthiness, so they took him on the general rule that he is a concealed person who narrated a strange hadith in which he contradicted the trustworthy, and Ibn Abdul Hadi corrected them with two matters :

The first: Qais was trusted by the people of knowledge and he has other well-known and proven hadiths.

The second: The text of the hadith does not contradict what the trustworthy narrated, but its ruling may be that it was abrogated by the hadith of Abu Hurairah, may God be pleased with it, if it is authentic.

This is exactly what Al-Munsir forged, as he transmitted a sentence from Ibn Abdul Hadi about the lack of authority in weakening Qais with this hadith, and he did not mention the rest of what he transmitted of the trustworthiness of the people of knowledge for him, and then the lack of his narration contradicting the narration of the trustworthy.

We read from the commentary of Ibn Abdul Hadi, may God have mercy on him, on the causes of Ibn Abi Hatim, may God have mercy on them both, the chapter on the hadith of a man who touched his penis during prayer? He said: “Is it anything but a piece of it - or a part of it?
” Al-Tahawi said: “A consistent hadith with a sound chain of transmission, not confused in its chain of transmission or in its text. So it is more appropriate in our view than what we narrated at first from the narrations with confused chains of transmission. Ibn Abi Imran told me: I heard Abbas ibn Abd al-Azim al-Anbari say: I heard Ali ibn al-Madini, He says: This hadith of Mulaazim is better than the hadith of Busra.

Ibn Mandah mentioned in his book that Amr ibn Ali al-Fallas said: The hadith of Qays is more authentic to us than the hadith of Busra.

Ibn Abi Hatim said: I asked my father and Abu Zur’ah about a hadith narrated by Muhammad ibn Jabir, on the authority of Qays ibn Talq, on the authority of his father, that he asked the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace: Is there ablution required for touching the penis? He said: “No.”

They did not confirm it, and said: Qais ibn Talq is not one of those who can be used as evidence, and they weakened him.

This is the end of what Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned, on the authority of his father and Abu Zur’ah.

What appears is that the hadith of Qais is good or authentic, and no one who weakened it came with an argument. Rather, what he spoke about was because of his narration of this hadith, and he only spoke about this hadith because of his narration of it, and this is a circle.

Qais Yahya bin Ma’in documented him - in the narration of Uthman bin Saeed Al-Darimi - and Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-Ajli said: Qais bin Talq, a Yamami, a follower, trustworthy, and his father Talq was one of the companions of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. An-Nasa'i cited the hadith of Qais, on the authority of his father, and Abu Hatim al-Busti authenticated it, and at-Tirmidhi classified it as hasan

.

His hadith on the authority of his father was narrated by the authors of Sunan and Musnad, and his hadiths are well-known, and there is nothing in them that is objectionable .

Even if he was the best of them, he did not differ from them in his narration of this hadith from Qays, because his saying: (from Qays that Talq) is understood as connected according to the majority of scholars, and there is no difference between: (from Talq) and (that Talq) according to the correct view, because letters and words are not taken into consideration, rather what is considered is the meeting, sitting, and hearing. And observation, and Qais is known to have heard from his father, and narrated from him more than one hadith, and we do not know anyone who accused him of forgery, and God knows best.

Al-Bayhaqi said: As for Qays ibn Talq, Al-Za’farani narrated on the authority of Al-Shafi’i that there is a viewpoint on it from several aspects: One of them is that what he mentioned on the authority of Yahya ibn Ma’in (that he spoke about Qays) in its authenticity from him is a viewpoint, and the narration of Uthman ibn Sa’id Al-Darimi on the authority of Yahya in the authentication of Qays is more authentic, and if that was proven from him, that would not be a flaw. In Qays, because he did not mention the reason for the wound, and more than one

of the imams disagreed with him on that. Second: He mentioned the hadith of Muhammad ibn Jabir, on the authority of Qays, using it as evidence that the story was when the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, first arrived in Madinah at the time of building the mosque, so the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, which came after that, abrogates it. Muhammad ibn Jabir was weakened by more than one of the imams, including him, as mentioned above. The hadith of Abu Hurairah was narrated by him from the hadith of Yazid bin Abdul Malik Al-Nawfali, and Imam Ahmad and Yahya bin Ma’in spoke about it.

This blatant deception and lying resulting from the teachings of the church, which this missionary committed, along with mixing the words with some ridiculous phrases and images, is nothing but what Abu Al-Atahiya said about those who were like him:

Beware of the lies and slander of the liar, for perhaps he mixes certainty with his doubt

, and perhaps the liar laughs forcefully and weeps over something that he did not know. He makes him cry

, and perhaps the liar is silent out of pretense and complains about something he did not complain about

, and perhaps a person lies with his words, silence, crying, and laughter.

Sixth: The response to his crooked statement regarding the readers’ choice of their readings and exposing his lie .

Al-Munsir is ignorant of or ignores the term “choice” for the reader, as he thinks that if the reader chooses from the reading of his sheikhs, then that means that the proof of the chain of transmission is false!!!!

And I say: Where is the face of the heroes in his claim!!!??? The reader’s choice is based on what he received from his sheikhs with a chain of transmission back to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the research from which he cited testifies to that, so it is proof against him, not for him .

This is what is mentioned in the research (contemporary as usual from Google) from which he cited and which is called Imam Al-Ja’bari and his selection in the readings:




It is known that the ten readings, as some scholars have stated, are part of other correct readings whose chain of transmission is sound and which agree with the Uthmanic script and Arabic, even if only in one way (such as the reading of Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Asim Al-Jahdari, and Ibn Muhaisin). Rather, the nation settled on these ten readings. What is strange is that what Al-Munsir mentioned previously (and what we responded to) refutes what he claims now, which is the disagreement of the narrators regarding one reader, since their disagreement regarding one reader is evidence of the reader collecting the readings of many of his sheikhs, even if he made a choice in them.

I say: Rather, the choice was based on controls, including what Nafi’, may God have mercy on him, mentioned, which is his choice of the reading that the majority follow with the correct chain of transmission to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace.

We read from Al-Murshid Al-Wajeez, Part One, Chapter Four:

((He said: “People have mentioned in their books more than seventy imams who are of a higher rank and more noble status than these seven, although a group of scholars have left out some of these seven in their books on readings and omitted them: ... .. Then Makki, may God have mercy on him, said:

“If someone asks: What is the reason for which there is so much disagreement about these imams, and each one of them has a reading that he chose from what he read to his imams?”

He said: “The answer is: Each one of the imams read to groups with different readings and transmitted that based on what he read, so they were in a period of their lives, reading to people what they read, so whoever read to them with whatever letter it was, they did not reject it from him; since it was from what they read to their imams.”

“Do you not see that Nafi’ said: He read to seventy of the followers, so whatever two agreed upon, I took, and whatever one doubted, I left. He means - and God knows best - from what he disagreed with The Mushaf. And whoever recited to him what two of his Imams agreed upon, he did not object to that.

"It has been narrated from him that he used to teach people everything he recited until it was said to him: We want to recite to you according to your choice from what you narrated."

"And this is Qalun (1) his protégé and the one closest to him, and Warsh (2) is the most famous of the people who bore [60] to him. They differed in more than three thousand letters of qata', hamza, takhafif, idgham and the like."

"And none of the narrators from Nafi' agreed with Warsh's narration from him, nor did anyone transmit it from Nafi' except Warsh. Rather, that is because Warsh recited to him what he learned in his country, so it agreed with a narration that Nafi' recited to some of his Imams, so he left it like that. And likewise what Qalun and others recited to him. " (1)

And we read from An-Nashr fi al-Qira'at al-'Ashr by Ibn al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him, Part One:
((And everything that is authentically reported from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - regarding this matter must be accepted, and no one from the Ummah can reject it. It is obligatory to believe in it, and all of it is revealed from God, since each reading of it with the other is like a verse with a verse. It is obligatory to believe in all of it and to follow what it contains of meaning in knowledge and action. And It is permissible to abandon the obligation of one of them for the sake of the other, thinking that this is a contradiction. Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him, referred to this when he said: “Do not differ in the Qur’an and do not dispute over it, for it does not differ or fall into discord. Do you not see that the Shari`ah of Islam is one in it, its limits, its recitation, and the command of Allah in it?” One, and if one of the two letters was a letter that commanded something that the other forbade, that would be the difference, but it encompasses all of that, and whoever recites according to a recitation should not abandon it out of a desire for it, because whoever disbelieves in one letter of it disbelieves in all of it.”

(I said): The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, referred to this when he said to one of the disputants: “Well done.” In another hadith: “You are right.” In another: “This is how it was revealed.” The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, approved the reading of each of the different scholars, and he was certain that it was revealed from God in this way. Thus, the differences of the reciters were distinguished from the differences of the jurists, for the differences of the reciters are all true and correct and were revealed from God, and they are His words, without doubt. The differences of the jurists are differences of opinion based on ijtihad. The truth in the matter itself is one , so every school of thought in relation to the other is correct but may be wrong, and every reading in relation to the other is correct and right in the matter itself. We are certain of that and believe in it, and we believe that the meaning of adding every letter of the letters of difference to whom it was added to from the Companions and others, is only It is because he was more precise in it, more knowledgeable in it, more devoted to it, and more inclined towards it, and nothing else. Likewise, adding the letters and readings to the imams of reading and their narrators means that that reader and that imam chose the reading in that way of the language according to what he read, so he preferred it over others, and persisted in it and adhered to it until it became famous and known for it, and it was sought after, and it was taken from him. Therefore, it was added to him and not to any other reader, and this addition is an addition of choice, permanence, and necessity, not an addition of invention, opinion, or effort .

The funny and strange thing about Al-Mansir is that he quotes from the book Sharh Al-Shatibiyyah by Imam Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, edited by Farghali Sayed Arabawi, on page 62, the same words that we responded to above (his ignorance or disregard of the meaning of selection and the reason for that and the lack of conflict between that and the many narrations from one reader and his collection of the readings of his sheikhs), except that he forgot to tell the listener that the words are the words of the researcher, not the words of Imam Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him!!

And what Al-Mansir cited as evidence is the reading of Abu Abd Al-Rahman Al-Salami on Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, and he denied it based on what was narrated on the authority of Asim, may God have mercy on him:

He read from the book “Ghayat Al-Nihaya fi Tabaqat Al-Qurra” by Ibn Al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him, part one, page 254:

((1158- “A” Hafs bin Sulayman bin Al-Mughira Abu Omar bin Abi Dawud1 Al-Asadi Al-Kufi Al-Ghadiri Al-Bazzaz and is known as Hafis, he took the reading by presentation and we received it from “A” Asim and he was his stepson, his wife’s son, he was born in the year ninety,

Al-Dani said that he is the one who took Asim’s reading from the people by recitation, and he settled in Baghdad and taught there and lived in Mecca and also taught there,

and Yahya bin Ma’in said the correct narration that was narrated on the authority of Asim’s reading is the narration of Abu Omar Hafs bin Sulayman,

and Abu Hashim Al-Rafa’i said that Hafs was the most knowledgeable of them about Asim’s reading,

and Al-Dhahabi said that as for the reading, he is trustworthy, reliable, and precise in it, unlike his situation in the hadith. I said that he is referring to him from the aspect of the hadith,

Ibn Al-Munadi said that he read on Asim many times and the first ones considered him in memorization above Abu Bakr bin Ayyash They describe him as having mastered the letters that he read to Asim, and he taught people for a long time, and the reading that he took from Asim was traced back to Ali, may God be pleased with him. I said: He is referring to what we narrated on the authority of Hafs, who said: I said to Asim: Abu Bakr disagrees with me, so he said: I taught you what Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami taught me on the authority of Ali ibn Abi Talib, and I taught him what Zur ibn Hubaish taught me on the authority of Abdullah ibn Masoud .

I said: This is according to the most famous opinion, but it is not absolute, as it has been proven that Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami, may God have mercy on him, read to Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him.

We read from the ultimate end of the classes of reciters by Ibn al-Jazari, may God have
mercy on him, the first part, the chapter on the letter Ain: ((1755- “A” Abdullah bin Habib bin Rabi’ah Abu Abdul Rahman al-Salami al-Dharee, the reciter of Kufa, was born during the life of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and his father was a companion of his. The recitation was completed in terms of intonation and control. He took the recitation by presentation from “T S” Uthman bin Affan and “T S” Ali bin Abi Talib and “T S” Abdullah bin Masoud and “T S” Zaid bin Thabit and “T S” Ubayy bin Ka’b, may God be pleased with them. He took the recitation by presentation from him “A” Asim and Ata bin al-Sa’ib and Abu Ishaq al-Subai’i and Yahya bin Wathab and Abdullah bin Isa bin Abi Laila and Muhammad bin Abi Ayoub and Abu Awn Muhammad bin Ubaid Allah al-Thaqafi and “J” Amer al-Sha’bi and Ismail bin Abi Khalid and al-Hasan and al-Husayn - -))

And we read from the book of the seven by Ibn Mujahid, may God have mercy on him, the chapter on Kufa:
((Ahmad bin Mansour told us Al-Ramadi said: Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi told us: Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Alqamah ibn Murthad, on the authority of Sa’d ibn Ubaydah, that Abu Abd al-Rahman taught the people the Qur’an during the caliphate of Uthman, may God Almighty be pleased with him, until he died during the caliphate of al-Hajjaj. He had learned

the Qur’an from Uthman, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, and Ubay ibn Ka’b, may God Almighty be pleased with them.

He used to say: I read the Qur’an to the Commander of the Faithful, Ali, may God Almighty be pleased with him, a lot, and I held the Mushaf for him, so he read to me, and I read to Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn, may God Almighty be pleased with them, until he read the Qur’an to me. They used to study with the Commander of the Faithful, Ali, may God Almighty be pleased with him, and he would sometimes take it word for word...

And they told us on the authority of Yahya bin Abi Katheer on the authority of Ata bin Al-Sa’ib, who said: Abu Abd Al-Rahman told me, who said: Those who used to teach us told me. Uthman bin Affan, Abdullah bin Masoud and Ubayy bin Kaab, may Allah be pleased with them, said that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to teach them the ten, and they would not go beyond them to another ten until they learned what was in them of deeds. So we learned the Quran and deeds together. This

is what Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, also transmitted, as we read from the Biographies of the Nobles, Part Five, First Class:
((465- Abu Abdul Rahman Al-Sulami 1: “A”

The reciter of Kufa, the Imam, the scholar, Abdullah bin Habib bin Rubai’ah Al-Kufi. From the children of Companions, he was born during the lifetime of the Prophet, may God

bless him and grant him peace. He read the Qur’an, recited it well, and was skilled in it. He presented it to Uthman - as far as we know - and to Ali, and Ibn Mas’ud.

He narrated on the authority of: Umar, Uthman, and a group.

Abu Amr al-Dani said: He took the recitation by way of presentation from Uthman, Ali, Zaid, Ubayy, and Ibn Mas`ud .

This statement that Asim, may God have mercy on him, said is interpreted to mean that this was before Hafs taught him the recitation of Abu Abd al-Rahman to Ibn Mas`ud, may God be pleased with him.

We quote from al-Dani’s book Jami` al-Bayan fi al-Qira`at al-Sab`, Chapter on the Men of Asim:
((545 - Abu Amr said: For this same meaning, disagreement also occurred among the companions of Abu Bakr al-A`lam and it varied; because it is possible that he narrated all of that - despite its differences - from Asim by hearing at different times, and took it from him by way of performance in scattered presentations, according to what he transmitted from his predecessors, and heard from his imams. For this same reason also, disagreement arose between the narrators from the imams, and between their companions; because each one of The Imams of Recitation, he presented it to a group of the Salaf in his country, and in other countries, and he witnessed them, and heard from them, and narrated the letters from them, and they undoubtedly differed in it, in the manner in which they were taught and received and conveyed to them, and he permitted them in it from the different aspects, languages ​​and different recitations. So sometimes he recites with one of those letters, and sometimes he recites with both of them together «1»; because they are correct in his view in the trace and they are widespread «2» with him in usage, so they are all - despite their difference and agreement, and the difference in their words and the difference in their meanings - transmitted from the Salaf, taken from the Companions, heard from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and revealed from Allah, the Almighty and Majestic . The way of the difference of the Imams who transmitted it is the way of the narrators who are below them, and similar to what we mentioned and explained its authenticity, and success is from God))

And it has been proven that Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Salami, may God have mercy on him, heard from Abdullah bin Masoud, may God be pleased with him,

he read in al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Page 155

((Hafs and Abu Bakr read on the Imam of Kufa and its reciter Abu Bakr Asim bin Abi Al-Najoud bin Bahdalah Al-Asadi, their client from Kufa. That is one hundred and twenty-eight paths for Asim. Asim read on Abu Abd Al-Rahman Abdullah bin Habib bin Rabi’ah Al-Sulami Al-Dareer and on Abu Maryam Zirr bin Hubaysh ibn Habasha al-Asadi and Abu Amr Sa`d ibn Ilyas al-Shaybani. These three read on `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud, may Allah be pleased with him. As -Sulami and Zirr also read on `Uthman ibn `Affan and `Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with them both. As-Sulami also read on Ubayy ibn Ka`b and Zayd ibn Thabit, may Allah be pleased with them both. May Allah be pleased with them - and Ibn Masoud, Uthman, Ali, Ubayy and Zaid read to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.))

It is surprising that Al-Munsir leaves what is proven by the chain of transmission here, saying that the chains of transmission are a myth and the basis of his words is the aforementioned narration transmitted by the chain of transmission that he attacks!!! Have you seen the ordeal of circular reasoning and how he falsely accused us of it before and here he is falling into the same trap that he set for himself!! You threw your disease at me and slipped away.

Seventh : Re-stating his ignorance in differentiating between the Mutawatir, the Ahad and the Shadh and the scholars’ disagreement over the Mutawatir of each of the ten readings according to two schools of thought.

He conveyed the same words with all lies and impudence, which we responded to previously, namely his citing the words of someone who limited the validity of the reading to three conditions: the validity of the chain of transmission, conformity with the script, and Arabic, to prove that the reading of some readings is anomalous because they were not transmitted to us with continuous chains of transmission!!! I wonder how much this preacher is lying, and he knows that he is lying, since these people did not stipulate continuous chain of transmission to say that the reading is valid, and we explained that the matter is between two groups, and that both of them have argued with these ten readings, and that they are not anomalous in any way.

I will not prolong, but I will repeat quoting what I mentioned previously in the first part of my response so that you can see the amount of ignorance and deliberate confusion that he is heading towards.

1. The statement that the Qur’an is transmitted by continuous transmission does not necessarily mean that the chain of transmission of each of the ten readings from the reciter to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, is continuous. This is because we find - as some scholars have said - that the chains of transmission of some readings are transmitted by continuous transmission to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and some are not transmitted by continuous transmission.

We read from Al-Murshid Al-Wajeez by Abu Shamah, Part One, Chapter One:

((Whenever something of the Qur’an was revealed, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, ordered it to be written down and would say in the individual verses: “Put this in such-and-such Surah,” and he would present it to Gabriel in the month of Ramadan every year, and he presented it to him twice in the year of his death. Likewise, Gabriel would present it to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, every year once, and he presented it to him twice in the year of his death. A group of his companions memorized it during his lifetime, and every part of it was memorized by a large group, the least of whom reached the level of tawatur, and he permitted them to recite it in seven letters as an extension for them))

We read from Al-Burhan fi Ulum Al-Quran by Al-Zarkashi, Part One, Type Thirteen:
((Chapter: In explaining who among the companions collected the Qur’an by heart during the time of the Messenger of God May

God’s prayers and peace be upon him, a group of the Companions memorized it during his lifetime, and every part of it was memorized by a large group, the least of whom reached the level of tawatur. There are confirmed reports about this in al-Tirmidhi, al-Mustadrak, and others from the hadith of Ibn Abbas, who said: The time would come upon the Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, while the surahs with a number of surahs were being revealed to him, so whenever something was revealed to him, Some of those who used to write called and said: Put these verses in the surah in which such and such is mentioned. At-Tirmidhi said: This is a good hadith. Al-Hakim said: It is authentic according to the conditions of the two sheikhs, but they did not include it.

We read from the interpretation of Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him, the first part, the chapter on how to recite the Book of God Almighty:
((Abu al-Hasan provided evidence for the Shafi’i school of thought, saying: The problem with this issue has been removed by what Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated. He said: Zayd ibn al-Hubab narrated to us. He said: Musa ibn Ali ibn Rabah narrated to us, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Uqbah ibn Amir. He said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Learn the Qur’an, sing it, and write it down. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, it is more capable of being revealed.” “3” From the labor pains of the mind. Our scholars said: Even if the chain of transmission of this hadith is authentic, it is refuted by what is known with certainty and certainty about the recitation of the Qur’an that has reached us in a continuous manner from all the sheikhs, generation after generation, up to the noble era of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and in which there is no grammatical irregularity or melody, despite the large number of those who are deeply versed in the points of articulation of letters and in prolongation and assimilation. And the manifestation and other than that from the manner of readings. Then in the tarji` and tatrib there is the hamza of what is not hamzated and the elongation of what is not elongated, so the tarji` of one alif is alifs and one waw is waws and the similarity of one is doubtful, so that leads to an increase in the Qur’an and that is forbidden, and if that coincides with the place of a stress and a hamzah, they make it stresses and hamzas, and the stress is wherever it occurs from the letters It is only one hamza for others, either extended or shortened.

And we read from the collection of fatwas of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, the seventh part, the book of the Great Faith:
(((Fifth): If it is assumed that they said this, then they are individuals whose transmission does not establish continuous transmission. One of the conditions of continuous transmission is the equality of the two parties and the middle. Where is the continuous transmission that existed from all the Arabs before the revelation of the Qur’an? They did not know any meaning for faith other than belief. If it is said: This casts doubt on knowledge. In the language before the revelation of the Qur’an; it was said: So be it. And we do not need, with the Messenger’s explanation of what Allah sent him with from the Qur’an, to know the language before the revelation of the Qur’an. The Qur’an was revealed in the language of Quraysh, and those who were addressed by it were Arabs, and they understood what was intended by it, and they were the Companions. Then the Companions conveyed the wording of the Qur’an. Its meaning is to the followers until it reached us, so we no longer have any need for that language to be transmitted to us in any way other than through the transmission of the Qur’an. However, when the Qur’an was transmitted in wording and meaning and we knew that it was revealed in their language; We know that in their language there were the words heaven, earth, night, day, sun, moon, and the like, according to their meaning in the Qur’an. Otherwise, if we were tasked with transmitting continuously the individual instances of these words from other than the Qur’an, we would not have been able to do so. 2. There are two schools of thought regarding the ten readings being transmitted

by the later scholars, and each of the supporters of the two schools of thought attributed his statement to the earlier scholars. The one who is ignorant of the latter is that he does not know that this is a controversial issue. This controversy was mentioned by Dr. Abdul Aziz Qari in his book Hadith al-Ahruf al-Sab’ah,

where he said on page 127:


The reason for the transmission of the ten readings by Dr. Abdul Aziz Qari, despite the lack of transmission of all their chains of transmission, is that each of the ten readers committed to recording what each of their countries reads. So the matter was mutawatir among them as he mentioned on page 121


, and therefore the difference among the later scholars is based on two doctrines:

The first: Not every reading of the ten readings is mutawatir with widespread chains of transmission, rather it is not necessary for the reading to be mutawatir with chains of transmission in order for it to be acceptable, rather the authenticity of the chain of transmission and its agreement with the Uthmanic script and Arabic are sufficient, even in one way, and whenever one of the three conditions is violated, it becomes anomalous or weak.

We read from Al-Ibanah by Imam Makki bin Abi Talib, may God have mercy on him, the chapter on why the readers who were chosen for the reading were made seven?
((Ibn Jubayr al-Muqri, who was before Ibn Mujahid, wrote a book on the readings, and called it: The Book of the Eight, and Ya`qub al-Hadrami added to these seven. This is a broad topic.

The principle that is relied upon in this is that whatever has a sound chain of transmission, and its face is correct in Arabic, and its wording matches the script of the Mushaf, then it is from the seven that were explicitly stated, even if it was narrated by seventy thousand, separately or together. This is the principle upon which it was built in accepting the readings from seven or seven thousand, so know it and build upon it.))

Abu Shamah, may God have mercy on him, agreed with him in al-Murshid al-Wajeez, Part One, Chapter Five:
((I said: This Sunnah that he referred to is what was proven from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, explicitly that he read it and permitted it according to what was authentically reported from him: “The Qur’an was revealed in seven letters.” For this reason, differences in reading increased during his time, may God bless him and grant him peace, and after him until the copies of the Qur’an were written, with the agreement of the Companions in Madinah on that, and they were sent to the regions and they were ordered to follow it and leave what was other than it, so the people took it and left from those readings everything that contradicted it, and they kept what agreed with it explicitly [67 D] like the reading of {al-Sirat} with a sad (2), and possibly like the reading of {Maliki} with an alif (3); because the copies of the Qur’an agreed to write “Malik” in them without an alif, so it is possible that he meant what was deleted from “al-Rahman” and “Ishmael” and “Isaac” and others.

And what leads to believing that is the proof of that reading through the authentic transmission from the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, and it is not suspected of being a continuous narration, rather the authentic individual narrations are sufficient with the abundance and agreement with the script of the Mushaf, meaning that it is not contradicted by the absence of those who deny it in terms of transmission and interpretation from the linguistic point of view. So every reading that is supported by the script of the Mushaf with the correct transmission in it and its coming in the eloquent language of the Arabs, then it is a correct and valid reading.

If these three pillars are missing, then that reading is called anomalous and weak. This was indicated by the words of the earlier imams, and Sheikh Al-Qari Abu Muhammad Makki bin Abi Talib Al-Qayrawani stated it in a separate book (1) that he wrote on the meanings of the seven readings and ordered it to be attached to "The Book of Revelation of the Faces of the Readings" from his writings, and it was mentioned previously in what we quoted from his words in the fourth chapter before this chapter (2).

Our Sheikh Abu Al-Hasan, may Allah have mercy on him, also mentioned it in his book "Jamal Al-Qurra" in the chapter on the levels of the principles and the strange chapters, saying: [68 and]

Some people chose the reading of Asim and Nafi’ in what they agreed upon and said: The reading of these two imams is the most authentic reading in terms of chain of transmission and the most eloquent in Arabic, and after them in eloquence is the reading of Abu Amr and Al-Kisa’i.

“If the letter combines its strength in Arabic, its agreement with the Mushaf, and the consensus of the general public on it, then it is the chosen one according to most of them. And if they say: the reading of the general public, then they mean what the people of Medina and Kufa agreed upon. For them, it is a strong reason that necessitates the choice. And perhaps they chose what the people of the two sanctuaries agreed upon, and they also called it the general public.” (3)

Ibn al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him, said in al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Introduction:

“Then the reciters after those mentioned increased in number and dispersed in the lands and spread out, and after them came nations after nations, their classes were known, and their characteristics differed. Among them were those who mastered recitation and were famous for narration and knowledge, and among them were those who limited themselves to one of these descriptions. And among them were many differences, and control was reduced, and the breach widened, and falsehood almost became confused with truth. So the great scholars of the nation and the leaders of the imams rose up, and they exaggerated in their ijtihad and clarified the intended truth, and they collected the letters and readings, and attributed the aspects and narrations, and distinguished between the famous and the anomalous, and the correct and the unique, with principles that they established.” And the pillars they separated, and here we point to them and rely on them as they relied on them, so we say:

Every reading that agrees with Arabic, even in one way, and agrees with one of the Ottoman copies of the Qur’an, even if only possibly, and its chain of transmission is sound, is the correct reading that cannot be rejected or denied. Rather, it is one of the seven letters in which the Qur’an was revealed and people must accept it, whether it is from the seven imams, or from the ten, or from other accepted imams. Whenever one of these three pillars is missing, it is called weak, anomalous, or invalid, whether it is from the seven or from someone greater than them. This is what is correct according to the imams of investigation from the early Muslims and later Muslims. Imam al-Hafiz Abu Amr Uthman ibn Sa’id al-Dani stated this explicitly, and Imam Abu Muhammad Makki ibn Abi Talib stated it in more than one place, as did Imam Abu al-Abbas Ahmad ibn Ammar al-Mahdawi. Imam al-Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Abd al-Rahman ibn Ismail, known as Abu Shamah, verified it, and it is the doctrine of the early Muslims, from which no one is known to have disagreed. ))

He also said in Al-Nashr, Part One, Introduction:
(((And our saying) and its chain of transmission is authentic, we mean by it that the just and precise narrator narrates that reading from someone like him so and so until it ends, and it is with that well-known among the imams of this matter who are precise about it and is not considered by them to be a mistake or something that some of them have deviated from. Some of the later scholars have stipulated that it be mutawatir in this. The pillar, and he was not satisfied with the authenticity of the chain of transmission, and he claimed that the Qur’an is not proven except by continuous transmission, and that what came as a single transmission does not prove the Qur’an, and this is something that is not hidden in it, because if continuous transmission is proven, there is no need for the last two pillars of the script and other than it, because what was proven from the letters of disagreement is continuous transmission from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace. - It must be accepted and it is certain that it is the Qur’an, whether it agrees with the script or not. If we stipulate the mutawatir in every letter of the letters of disagreement, then many of the letters of disagreement that are proven from these seven imams and others will be negated. I used to lean towards this opinion before, but then its corruption and its agreement with the imams of the early and later generations became apparent. ))

And we read from the book “Mabahith fi Ulum al-Quran” by Mana’ al-Qattan, in the chapter on the types of recitations, their rulings and their controls:
((Some scholars mentioned that the recitations are: Mutawatir, Ahad, and Shadh. They made the Mutawatir seven, and the Ahad three that complete ten of them, then what is from the recitations of the Companions, and what remains is Shadh. It was said: The ten are Mutawatir. It was said: The reliance in that is the controls, whether the recitation is from the seven recitations, or the ten, or other than them. Abu Shamah said in “al-Murshid al-Wajeez”: “One should not be deceived by every recitation that is attributed to one of the seven and is called authentic and that it was revealed thus unless it falls within that control, and then it is not transmitted by a single author from another, and that is not specific to its transmission from them, but if it is transmitted from other than them from the reciters, that does not remove it from authenticity - for the reliance is on the collection of those descriptions, not on the one to whom it is attributed, for the recitation attributed to each reciter from The Seven and others are divided into those that are agreed upon and those that are anomalous. However, because of these seven’s fame and the abundance of the correct, agreed upon readings, the soul is inclined to what is transmitted from them over what is transmitted from others.”1

The standard for correct reading is as follows:

1- The reading should conform to Arabic in some way: whether it is more eloquent or more eloquent, because reading is a followed Sunnah that must be accepted and adopted by chain of transmission, not by opinion.

2- That the reading should conform to one of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an, even if it is a possibility: because the Companions, when writing the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an, exerted great effort in writing according to what they knew of the languages ​​of reading, so they wrote “as-Sirat” for example in the verse of Allah the Almighty: {Guide us to the straight path} 2, “with a ‘Sad’ replaced by a ‘Sin’ - and they departed from the ‘Sin’ which is the original, so that the reading of “sin” would be “as-Sirat” and even if it differed from the writing in some way, it came to the known linguistic origin, so they are balanced, and the reading of ishmām is possible for that.

What is meant by probable agreement is something like this, such as the reading: {Master of the Day of Judgment} 1, for the word "Malik" is written in all copies of the Qur’an without the alif, so it is read as "Malik" which actually agrees with the script, and it is read as "Malik" which probably agrees with it, and so on in other examples.

An example of what exactly agrees with the different readings with the script is: {Ta'alumuna} with the ta' and the ya', and {Yaghfir lakum} with the ya' and the nun, and so on, which indicates that it is free of dots and diacritics in its deletion and its confirmation of the great merit of the Companions - may Allah be pleased with them - in the science of spelling in particular, and a keen understanding in the investigation of every science.

It is not a condition for the correct reading to be in agreement with all the copies of the Qur’an. It is sufficient to agree with what is proven in some of them, such as the reading of Ibn ‘Amir: “By the scriptures and by the Book”2, by proving the letter “ba” in both of them, as this is proven in the Mushaf of Ash-Shami.

3- And that the reading be with a correct chain of transmission: because the reading is a followed Sunnah in which the soundness of transmission and the correctness of narration are relied upon. Often the people of Arabic reject a reading from the readings because it is outside the analogy, or because of its weakness in the language, and the imams of the readers do not care about their rejection at all.

These are the rules of the correct reading. If the three pillars are met:

1- Conformity with Arabic. 2- The script of the Mushaf.

3- The correctness of the chain of transmission, then it is the correct reading. Whenever one or more pillars are missing, it is called weak, or anomalous, or invalid.

Second: What some of the later scholars also said, that each reading of the ten readings is mutawatir, and this is a condition for accepting the reading.

In response to Al-Mansir, the two schools of thought agreed on the establishment of the seven readings, except that the first group did not stipulate the mutawatir in every chain of transmission of every reading, and the second group went to the mutawatir of every reading of the seven readings.

We read from Al-Burhan fi Ulum Al-Quran by Al-Zarkashi, Part One, Type Twenty-Two:
((The Shafi’i Sheikh said: It is a condition that what is recited be transmitted by continuous transmission from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, as the Qur’an, and its transmission has become widespread in this regard, and the nation has accepted it, like these seven recitations, because what is considered in this is certainty and conviction based on what has been established and paved the way in the fundamentals. So as for what is not found in it, except for The ten. So, whoever is forbidden from reciting it is forbidden, not forbidden, out of dislike, in prayer and outside of prayer. And whoever is aware of the sources and meanings is forbidden from it, and whoever does not know that is obligated to do so. And it is obligatory upon whoever is able to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong to do so. And whoever transmitted it from the scholars transmitted it for benefits, some of which are related to the knowledge of Arabic, not reading it. This is the way of whoever His path was straightened, then he said: “The deviant reading is that which was transmitted as a Qur’an without continuous transmission and widespread acceptance from the Imams, as is included in Al-Muhtasib by Ibn Jinni and others.”

Then Al-Mansir maliciously deceived Dr. Abd Al-Ali, the responsible one, as he quoted from page 63 his words in detailing the words of the supporters of the second school of thought who say that the seven readings are continuous and that continuous transmission is a condition for accepting the reading, but he deceived and betrayed academic integrity, and his impudence reached a level that reached the level of filth, as:

1. He presented the words as an opinion of Dr. Abd Al-Ali, while the doctor was presenting the point of view of the supporters of the second school of thought and what is entailed by their words.

2. He concealed that the doctor opposed the supporters of this school of thought and said that the reading is valid with the sufficiency of the authenticity of the chain of transmission and the writing of the Qur’an and its agreement with the eloquent without the need for the recitation of the Qur’an in succession.

3. He concealed that the doctor presented the disagreement on the issue and the doctor was certain of the existence of one opinion and what is more amazing than this is that he made the doctor one of the supporters of the second opinion although he refuted their claims!!!!

4. Al-Mansir’s ignorance of what we mentioned previously which is the difference between the recitation of the Qur’an as a whole and the recitation of each of the ten recitations.









Then Al-Safaqi also falsified in his book Ghayth Al-Nafi’ in the Seven Recitations in the following ways:

1. He presented what Al-Safaqi transmitted from the school of thought of the fundamentalists regarding the condition of recitation of each recitation as if it were also the words of Al-Safaqi and concealed his response to the supporters of this school of thought.

We read from the book Ghayth al-Nafi’ fi al-Qira’at al-Sab’ al-Muqaddimah:
((The second: The doctrine of the scholars of the principles of jurisprudence, the jurists of the four schools of thought, and the modern reciters is that mutawatir is a condition for the validity of the recitation, and it is not proven by a correct chain of transmission other than mutawatir even if it agrees with the script of the Uthmanic and Arabic Qur’ans. Sheikh Abu Muhammad Makki said: The correct recitation is that which has a correct chain of transmission to the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - and its face is permissible in Arabic and agrees with the script of the Qur’an .

Some of the later scholars followed him in this, and Ibn al-Jazari followed it in his Nashr and Tayyiba. He said in it:

So everything that agrees with the face of… and the script has a possibility that includes it

and its chain of transmission is correct is the Qur’an… So these three are the pillars,

and whenever a pillar is missing, I prove… Its anomaly is if it is in the seven.

This is an innovated statement that cannot be relied upon and leads to equating other than the Qur’an with the Qur’an. The difference in recitation does not undermine the establishment of mutawatir, as the recitation may have been mutawatir among some people and not others, so each of the reciters did not recite according to the recitation of another because it did not reach him by way of mutawatir. Therefore, none of them criticised the recitation of another because the condition of its validity was established for him, even if he did not recite according to it because the condition was missing for him. The anomalous is that which is not mutawatir, and everything that is now more than the ten recitations is not mutawatir. Ibn al-Jazari said: The statement of the one who said that the mutawatir recitations have no limit, if he meant in our time, is incorrect because there is no mutawatir recitation today beyond ten, and if he meant in the first generation, then it is possible. Ibn al-Subki said: It is not permissible to recite according to the anomalous, and the correct thing is that it is beyond ten. He said in Mana’ al-Mawani’: The statement that the three recitations are not mutawatir is extremely invalid and it is not correct to say it from someone whose statement is considered in religion.

2. Al-Munsir was ignorant of what we mentioned previously, that those who say that mutawatir is a condition did not deny the seven and ten recitations. Rather, they said that it was transmitted by mutawatir, and this is what is common between those who stipulated the mutawatir of the reading and those who did not stipulate it, as they agreed that the ten readings were correct according to their standards.

We read from Al-Murshid Al-Wajeez by Abu Shamah, may God have mercy on him, Part One, Chapter Five:
((It has become widespread on the tongues of a group of later reciters and others from the imitators that all the seven readings are mutawatir, meaning every individual individual that was narrated from these seven imams. They said: And it is obligatory to be certain that it was revealed from God.

And we say this, but in what the paths agreed upon to transmit from them and the groups agreed upon without any objection to it, even though it became widespread, famous, and widespread, then the least that is required is if the mutawatir does not agree on some of them. For the seven readings are what was narrated from the seven imams, the famous reciters, and that which was narrated from them is divided into what was agreed upon from them and the paths did not differ in it, and into what was differed in it in the sense that its attribution to them was denied in some of the paths. So the compilers of the books of readings differ greatly in this, and whoever browses their books in this regard and examines their words in it will know the correctness of what we mentioned))

As for the argument of those who say that every reading is mutawatir, they argued that the chains of transmission of some of the readings, even if they did not reach mutawatir, except that The consensus of the people of all Egypt, from all classes, generation after generation, on this reading indicates that it is transmitted in a moral sense.

We read from the book, The Specialized Quranic Encyclopedia, Part One, Chapter on Mutawatir and Single Source of Narrators:
(([Mutawatir and Single Source of Narrators:]

Mutawatir of the ten readings is not through what was recorded in the chains of transmission, because it goes back to a limited number, but if you look at the fact that this limited number was not specific to them, rather this narration of his was read by others who are countless - the point is that the recorders were limited to these to control and edit what they recorded - then you know with certainty that it was Mutawatir and it continues to be Mutawatir. So the readings are not like the hadith, its source is like its source if it is based on one person then it is Single Source - this is not the case - but it was only attributed to that imam technically, otherwise the people of every town used to recite it, they took it from people to people, and if one person was alone with a reading without the people of knowledge of the readings, no one would agree with him on that, rather they would avoid it and order its avoidance))

And likewise, he deceived Imam Ibn al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him. We have previously mentioned that Ibn al-Jazari considered the reading that met the condition of a sound chain of transmission and conformity with the language and the Uthmanic script to be a sound reading that is neither irregular nor weak. What al-Mansir did here by quoting from the research on the objections of linguists and grammarians to the seven readings is only to make the reader think that Ibn al-Jazari said that some readings were irregular, and this is a lie, since as we have repeatedly explained, the term irregularity is not applied to a reading that met the three pillars of soundness - even if it did not reach the level of mutawatir in the chains of transmission - even among those who did not stipulate mutawatir.

Ibn al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him, said in al-Nashr fi al-Qira’at al-‘Ashr, Part One, Introduction:

“Then the reciters after those mentioned increased in number and dispersed in the lands and spread out, and after them came nations after nations. Their classes were known, and their characteristics differed. Among them were those who mastered recitation and were famous for narration and knowledge, and among them were those who limited themselves to one of these descriptions. Because of this, differences increased among them, and control decreased, and the breach widened, and falsehood almost became confused with truth. So the great scholars of the nation and the leaders of the imams rose up, and they exaggerated in their efforts and clarified the intended truth, and they collected the letters and readings, and attributed the aspects and narrations, and distinguished between the famous and the anomalous, and the correct and the unique, with principles that they established and pillars that they separated. And here we are pointing to it and relying as they relied on it, so we say:

Every reading that agrees with Arabic even in one way, and agrees with one of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an even if it is possible and its chain of transmission is sound, then it is the correct reading that it is not permissible to reject it and it is not permissible to deny it. Rather, it is one of the seven letters in which the Qur’an was revealed.” It is obligatory for people to accept it, whether it is from the seven imams, or from the ten, or from other accepted imams. Whenever one of these three pillars is missing, it is called weak, anomalous, or invalid, whether it is from the seven or from someone greater than them. This is what is correct according to the imams of investigation from the predecessors and successors. Imam al-Hafiz Abu Amr Uthman ibn Sa`id al-Dani stated this, and Imam Abu Muhammad Makki ibn Abi Talib stated it in more than one place, as did Imam Abu al-`Abbas Ahmad ibn `Ammar al-Mahdawi. It was verified by Imam al-Hafiz Abu al-Qasim `Abd al-Rahman ibn Ismail, known as Abu Shamah. It is the doctrine of the predecessors, and no one is known to have disagreed with it. ))
Then he mentioned an incident from the book Al-Mi’yar Al-Mu’arrab and Al-Jami’ Al-Maghrib in the Fatwas of the People of Africa, Andalusia and Morocco, Part Twelve, Page 76, the gist of which is that a person denied the continuity of the seven readings, so he was killed by slaughtering him, as if he wanted to mislead people, “Look how sensitive the situation is with you.” But the problem is that on the same page there is something that refutes his words, as the author says a few lines later:
((And our Sheikh Abu Abdullah bin Al-Habbab told me the story and told me that his nephew slaughtered him to hasten his inheritance.))

This is funny because this incident has nothing to do with proving that saying that some readings are not continuity indicates that the Qur’an is not continuity, and that the continuity of some readings, despite fulfilling the three conditions, indicates that they are abnormal. Here Al-Munsir is throwing in anything to make his words seem more beautiful, but no way, because on the same page we find that the killing of this man actually went back to his nephew’s greed for his money!!!

Then Al-Mansour quoted a statement from Ayman Baqla in his book “Tashil Ilm Al-Qira’at” page 212. The reality of the matter is:
1. The Sheikh was commenting on the statement of Al-Zarqani, may God have mercy on him, and it was not his statement.
2. The Sheikh said this comment in the context of explaining that the predecessors did not stipulate the continuity of the recitation when receiving the recitation from their Sheikhs, but rather their concern was the authenticity of the chain of transmission, its conformity with the Arabic language, and its conformity with the writing of the Uthmanic copies of the Qur’an.
This is indicated by what he mentioned on page 212, and we will provide you with the full context of the speech in the pictures below.






After that, he deceived several sources based on his ignorance, which we explained above, regarding the difference between the two groups regarding the continuity of the recitation being a criterion for accepting the authenticity of the recitation, while they agreed that the ten recitations are correct and acceptable.
Among these sources is the book “The Science of Readings: Its Origins, Its Phases, and Its Impact on Islamic Sciences” by Dr. Nabil Al-Ismail.

As for the deception that shows that Al-Mansour was indeed a traitor in transmitting what he deceived Al-Zarkashi in Al-Burhan, we have previously explained - above - that Al-Zarkashi says that the Qur’an as a whole is mutawatir and that some of the readings are not mutawatir and some are mutawatir. On top of that, Al-Zarkashi stated in another place in his book that the seven readings met the conditions of authenticity, contrary to what Al-Mansour wanted to make us believe, which is the equation that only a fool would do:
some of the readings are not mutawatir, as Al-Zarkashi said. So Al-Zarkashi denies the authenticity of these readings because they are not mutawatir. So the Qur’an is not mutawatir and not preserved!!!
We read what Al-Munsir excerpted from what Imam Al-Zarkashi said in Al-Burhan, Part One, the twenty-second type:
((The twenty-second type: Knowing the difference in words by addition or subtraction or changing the vowel or confirming one word instead of another,


and this is mutawatir and ahad, and this aspect of the science of recitation is found, and the best subject for the seven recitations is the book At-Taysir by Abu Amr Al-Dani, and Abu Muhammad Al-Qasim organized it. Ash-Shatibi in his Lamiyyah, which was widely used, and the book Al-Iqna’ by Abu Ja’far ibn Al-Badish, and in the ten readings, the book Al-Misbah by Abu Al-Karm Al-Shahrzouri.

Know that the Qur’an and the readings are two different realities. The Qur’an is the revelation sent down to Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, for clarification and miracle, and the readings are The difference in the words of the aforementioned revelation in the writing of the letters or their manner of lightening and heavyening and other things. Then here are matters:

One of them: That the seven readings are mutawatir according to the majority, and it was said that they are well-known, and no attention should be paid to al-Mubarrad’s denial of Hamza’s reading of {and the wombs} and {my two brothers}, nor to the denial of the western grammarians like Ibn Usfur of Ibn Amir’s reading of {killing their children, their partners}. The truth is that they are mutawatir from the seven imams. As for their mutawatir from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, then in it is Consider that the chain of transmission of the seven imams with these seven readings is found in the books of readings, and it is the transmission of one person from another, and it does not fulfill the conditions of tawatur in the equality of the two sides and the middle, and this is something found in their books, and Sheikh Shihab al-Din Abu Shamah has indicated something of that in his book al-Murshid al-Wajeez. ))

And we read Al-Zarkashi’s statement on the correctness of the readings from the same previous source:
((And this is an exaggeration, and there has been consensus on the correctness of the reading of these imams and that it is a followed Sunnah and there is no room for ijtihad in it. For this reason, Sibawayh said in his book regarding the Almighty’s statement: {This is not a human being} and Banu Tamim raise it except for those who know how it is in the Mushaf.
And it was only like that because the reading is a Sunnah. Narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the recitation cannot be other than what was narrated from him. End quote

. And with the same logic and failed deception, it was narrated from Al-Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him) in Nayl Al-Awtar, although Al-Shawkani says that the recitations whose chain of transmission is authentic and are in accordance with Arabic and the Uthmanic script are correct. Therefore, he quoted the same words of Ibn Al-Jazari and Abu Shamah, whom I quoted above.
It was narrated from Nayl Al-Awtar by Imam Al-Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him), Part Two, Book of Clothing, Chapter on the Chapters of Prayer:
((Chapter on the proof in prayer based on the recitation of Ibn Mas`ud and Ubayy)]
The hadith of Abu Hurairah was also narrated by Abu Ya’la and al-Bazzar, and it includes Jarir ibn Ayyub al-Bajali, who is rejected. However, it was narrated with this wording by al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Kabir and al-Awsat from the hadith of Ammar ibn Yasir. He said in Majma’ al-Zawa’id: The men of al-Bazzar are trustworthy. His saying: (Ibn Umm Abd) is Abdullah ibn Mas`ud. It has been narrated that none memorized the entire Qur’an during his time - may God bless him and grant him peace - except these four. The author - may God have mercy on him - devoted this chapter to refuting those who say that nothing is sufficient in prayer except the recitation of the seven famous reciters. They said: Because what was transmitted individually is not the Qur’an, and only the seven were transmitted mutawatir, not others. So there is no Qur’an except what they include. This condition was refuted by the Imam of the recitations, Al-Jazari, who said in An-Nashr: Some of the later scholars claimed that the Qur’an is not proven except by continuous transmission, and what is in it is not hidden, because if we stipulate continuous transmission in every letter of the letters of disagreement, many of the letters of disagreement that are proven from these seven and others will be negated. He said: I used to lean towards this statement, then its corruption became apparent, and the imams of the Salaf and Khalaf agreed on it. The opposite. He said: The recitation attributed to each reciter from the seven and others is divided into the agreed upon and the anomalous. However, because of these seven’s fame and the abundance of the authentic, agreed upon recitation in their recitation, the soul is inclined to what was transmitted from them above what was transmitted from others. End quote.

Look at how he made the condition of tawatur a statement of some of the later scholars, and made the statement of the imams of the Salaf and Khalaf to be contrary to it. He also said in An-Nashr: Every reading that agrees with Arabic, even in one way, and agrees with one of the Uthmanic copies, even if it is a possibility, and its chain of transmission is authentic, then it is the correct reading that cannot be rejected and it is not permissible to deny it. Rather, it is one of the seven letters in which the Qur’an was revealed, and it is obligatory upon the people to accept it, whether it was from the seven imams. Or from the ten or from other accepted Imams? And whenever one of these three pillars is missing, it is called weak, or anomalous, or invalid, whether it is from the seven or from someone greater than them. This is what is correct according to the Imams of verification from the Salaf and Khalaf. This was stated explicitly by the Madani, the Makki, the Mahdawi, and Abu A mole, and this is the doctrine of the Salaf, from whom no one is known to have disagreed.

We also read what Al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, said in Irshad Al-Fuhool, Part One, Objective One, Chapter Two:
((A group of reciters have transmitted the consensus that these recitations include what is mutawatir and what is ahad, and none of them said that each one of the seven is mutawatir, let alone the ten. Rather, it is a statement made by some of the scholars of the principles, and the scholars of the art are more knowledgeable about their art.
The conclusion is that what the Noble Qur’an contains and what is agreed upon is The famous reciters have agreed upon it, so it is the Qur’an. And whatever they differed upon, if the script of the Mushaf accepts the reading of each of the different reciters, while it conforms to the grammatical aspect and the Arabic meaning, then it is the entire Qur’an. And if it accepts some of it but not others, then if the chain of transmission of what it does not accept is correct, and it is in accordance with the aspect, The Arab and the Arabic meaning, then it is the anomalous, and it has the ruling of the individual narrations in indicating its meaning, whether it is from the seven readings or from others.
As for that which is not authenticated in its chain of transmission, which the script does not bear, then it is not the Qur’an, nor is it given the status of individual narrations.

Then Al-Munsir made an effort to explain what the people of the first school of thought said (those who did not stipulate the continuity to accept the validity of the reading) about the fact that every reading in reality is from the aspect of the chain of transmission It is transmitted by the reciter to whom the reading is attributed, and although this is correct, it does not negate the transmission of the Qur’an, as we have previously explained, in view of the difference between the transmission of the Qur’an as a whole and the transmission of each reading. The supporters of the second school responded to the supporters of the first school with what we have quoted and we repeat it again.
We read from the book, The Specialized Qur’anic Encyclopedia, Part One, Chapter on Transmission and Single Source of Narrators:

(([Transmission and Single Source of Narrators:]

The transmission of the ten readings is not through what was recorded in the chains of transmission, because they go back to a limited number, but if you look at the fact that this limited number was not specific to them, rather this narration of his was recited by others who are countless - the point is that the recorders limited themselves to these in order to control and edit what they recorded - then you know with certainty that it was transmitted and it remains transmitted. The readings are not like the hadith, their source is like its source, if it is based on one person, it is singular - this is not the case - but it is attributed to that imam technically, otherwise the people of every town used to recite it, they took it from people from people, and if one person was alone with a reading without the people of knowledge of the readings, no one would agree with him on that, rather they would avoid it and order its avoidance))

and this is what al-Zarqani himself said, may God have mercy on him, after al-Munsir mentioned his words, but as usual - forgery, truncation and cutting off so that the glory of the Lord may increase. We read from Manahil al-Irfan by al-Zarqani, may God have mercy on him, the first part, the twenty-second type:
((I said: This is from the same type as the previous words. I stopped it from our Sheikh, the imam, the one of his time, Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Khatib Baybroud al-Shafi’i, and he said to me: Abu Shamah is excused, since the readings are like the hadith, their source is like its source, if it is based on one person, they are singular, and it was hidden from him that it was attributed to that imam technically, otherwise every people of a town used to recite it, they took it from people from Nations. If one person read it alone without the people of his country, no one would agree with him on that. Rather, they would avoid it and order others to avoid it.

I said: He is truthful. And what indicates this is what Ibn Mujahid said: Qanbal told me: Al-Qawwas said in the year two hundred and thirty-seven: Meet this man, meaning Al-Bazzi, and say to him: This letter is not from our recitation. He means {And he is not dead} with a lightened vowel. And only the dead is lightened for the one who has died, and the one who has not died is doubled. So I met Al-Bazzi and told him, and he said to him: I have gone back on it. And Muhammad ibn Salih said: I heard a man say to Abu Amr: How do you recite {No one can punish with his punishment. And no one can bind his bond}? He said: {No one can bind with his bond} with a kasra. The man said to him: How? And it was narrated from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, that he does not punish with a fatha. So Abu Amr said to him: If you named the man who said: I named the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, I would not have taken it from him. Or do you know what that is? Because I accuse the odd one if he is contrary to what the general people have come with. Sheikh Abu al-Hasan al-Sakhawi said: The reading of al-Fath is also proven by continuous narration. I said: It is true because it is the reading of al-Kisa’i. Al-Sakhawi said: The report has been transmitted continuously among some people, but not others. Abu Amr rejected it because it did not reach him by continuous narration.

Eighth: The response to what he transmitted about the permission of Ibn Asakir, may God have mercy on him, as transmitted by Ibn al-Jazari, may God have mercy on him, and the clarification of his ignorance or lie regarding the terminology of hadith .

The ignorant Munsir quoted this statement from a book (contemporary of course!!) The Plague of the Highest Chains of Transmission


and cited it as evidence that they were inventing chains of transmission and claiming that they heard from each other at the age of three or less. By God, such statements only come from an ignorant person


who does not know his elbow from his toe. The author of the book placed this type of reception under the heading of authorization in the entire Qur’an with some of the Qur’an. Of course, Munsir here fell into this ridiculous ignorance because he does not know the meaning of the term authorization - and this is natural at his level because these terms are too big for him -


we read from the introduction of Ibn al-Salah, may God have mercy on him, the first part, the twenty-fourth chapter:
((The third section
of the sections of the methods of transmitting and accepting hadith: authorization
, which is of various types:
The first: that he authorizes For a specific person in a specific place, such as saying: “I have authorized you to have such-and-such a book, or: what my index contains,” then this is on the types of authorization that are devoid of transmission. Some of them claimed that there is no disagreement about its permissibility , and the people of the apparent meaning did not disagree about it, and their disagreement is only in other than this type. Judge Abu al-Walid al-Baji al-Maliki added, denying any disagreement, and said: “There is no disagreement regarding the permissibility of narrating with permission from the predecessors and successors of this nation.” He claimed consensus without elaborating, and he narrated the disagreement regarding acting upon it, (and God knows best).

I said: This is false, because groups
of hadith scholars, jurists, and scholars of the principles of jurisprudence have disagreed with the permissibility of narrating with permission, and this is one of the two narrations from Al-Shafi’i, may God be pleased with him. It was narrated on the authority of his companion, Al-Rabi’ bin Sulayman, who said: “Al-Shafi’i did not see permission in the hadith. Al-Rabi’ said: I disagree with Al-Shafi’i in this.

A group of Shafi’is have said that it is invalid, including the two judges, Husayn bin Muhammad Al-Marwarrudhi and Abu Al-Hasan Al-Mawardi, and Al-Mawardi has concluded with this in his book.” (Al-Hawi), and he attributed it to the Shafi’i school of thought, and they both said: “If the permission were permissible, the journey would be invalidated.” This statement was also narrated from Shu’bah and others.

Among those who invalidated it from the people of hadith are Imam Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al-Harbi, and Abu Muhammad Abdullah ibn Muhammad al-Asbahani, nicknamed Abu al-Shaykh. And the Hafiz Abu Nasr Al-Waili Al-Sijzi. Abu Nasr narrated its corruption from some of those he met. Abu Nasr said: I heard a group of people of knowledge saying: The saying of the narrator: I have permitted you to narrate from me means: I have permitted you to do what is not permissible in the Shari’ah;Because the Sharia does not permit narrating what has not been heard.
According to the Hanafi school, whoever says to someone else: “ I permit you to narrate from me what you have not heard,” it is as if he is saying: “I permit you to lie about me.”

Then, what has been established in practice, and what the majority of scholars of hadith and others have said, is the statement that it is permissible to grant permission and to narrate with it.

And in the argument for that there is ambiguity, and it is appropriate to say: If he permits him to narrate his narrations from him, and he has informed him of them in general, then it is as if he informed him of them in detail, and informing him of them is not dependent on explicit speech as in reading to the sheikh as previously mentioned, and rather the purpose is to obtain understanding and comprehension, and that is achieved. By the intelligible permission, and Allah knows best.))

So permission, O master of your time, does not require direct reception. If you had completed reading the same book that you cited, you would have found the following on pages 30 and 31.




Ninth: His citation from the book Fihrist al-Faharis with a chain of transmission that includes people from the jinn.

I say: The throne was established and then engraved, since the chains of transmission of this narration do not go back to those whose names were mentioned from the jinn, and this is what the book Fihrist al-Faharis itself stated.
We read from the book “Fihrist Al-Fiharis” by Abdul Hayy Al-Kattani, Part One, Letter B:
((And he narrated the hadith in a chain of transmission with the recitation of Al-Fatihah as follows: “The chain of transmission with the recitation of Al-Fatihah, I read it to our Sheikh Al-Jaziri, Al-Amir, Al-Bili, Murtada, Al-Arousi, Al-Jawhari, and Al-Shabrawi, and they read it to Al-Adwi, and he read it to Aqila, and he read it to Ahmad Al-Nakhli, and he read it to the scholar Abu Mahdi Issa Al-Tha’alibi, and he read it to Sheikh Ali Al-Ajhouri. H: He said: And I read it to our Sheikh Al-Jaziri mentioned, he said I read it to my uncle, he said I read it to my master Abdul-Rahman Ammar, he said I read it to my master Muhammad Al-Maqri, he said I read it to my master Ali Al-Ajhouri, and he read it to the judge of the jinn, the companion of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, Shamharoush Al-Jinni, he said I read it to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. H: And I read it to our Sheikh Murtada, and he read it to Omar bin Aqil, and he read it to Abdullah bin Salem Al-Basri, and he read it to Al-Burhan, the children’s tutor, Sheikh Al-Jan, and he read it to Judge Shamharoush, he said I read it to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. H: And I read it to Al-Arousi, and he is to Sidi Muhammad bin Al-Tayeb Al-Madani, and he is to Sidi Muhammad bin Abdul Qadir Al-Fasi, and he is to Abdullah bin Muhammad Al-Dayri Al-Dimyati, and he is to Al-Za’tari, and he is to Shamharoush, the companion of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. Then he said after these chains of transmission: “In this chain of transmission there is a narration from the jinn, and it is weak, but it is acted upon in such a case to seek blessings from being close to the Master of Mankind. Our Sheikh Murtada said in his book:
And the like of it, if it is not considered... but it is mentioned so that they may look for

blessings from the strange chain of transmission... and it is not defective in the context. Then he quoted the words of Al-Suyuti in “Luqat Al-Marjan fi Akhbar Al-Jan” on the subject))

Dr. Abdullah Hassan Barakat denounced those who used such false chains of transmission from the jinn and hinted at their invalidity (and this is clearly evident from the context of his words, as I will state, God willing) in his book Ifat Ulu Al-Asaneed (the same contemporary that this nobleman used as evidence)




As for what Al-Munsir narrated from the book “Refuting the Invalid and Misleading Proofs” by Sayyid bin Ahmad bin Abdul Rahim, what he narrated about readings from the jinn was only intended to denounce the later reciters who took licenses lightly, while praising the earlier reciters. So
read the context of the author’s words, how his entire speech is a denial, not an affirmation.



Here is his speech in the introduction, where he states that this matter is limited to some of the later reciters, not the earlier ones, due to the precision with which the chains of transmission of the readings were investigated.


This is his speech on page 145 after he finished mentioning examples of the imams of recitation from the jinn, as a way of denouncing those who did that in order to seek a higher chain of transmission



. So look at how Al-Munsir wanted to delude the listener into thinking that these chains of transmission are approved by the people of investigation, and that this method was followed by all the reciters, early and later, and this is the height of deception!!!!

Tenth: She accused me of her disease and slipped away .

First: The disasters of the introduction to the Gospel of Luke: The ignorance of the writer and the catastrophe of composing stories!!!
The missionary spoke about the difference in determining whether the narrator was a companion or not, so what about his book!!! Anyone looking at his book will find that the Gospel of Luke was composed by a man named Luke as a letter to an unknown person named Theophilus.
The disaster is not in the ignorance of Theophilus, the disaster is in two other matters:

1. The context of the introduction to the Gospel of Luke suggests that there are other gospels that were lost and did not reach us and that everyone was composing stories as they came and went without any control!!! To know the historical reason for this, we will go back a little .

1. The text of the New Testament after the ascension of Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, depended on oral transmission, but it was characterized by two great negatives: The first: the lack of chains of transmission, which in turn led to the second negative, which is: the emergence of many different stories and narratives of unknown origin about the actions, sayings, and even the biography of Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, which caused great randomness that produced for us many gospels in a very early period of the first century after the ascension of Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, dating back to the time of the apostles themselves and before the eyes of Paul until he was forced to admit the distortion of the Gospel of Christ
as in his letter to the Galatians, chapter one
((6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from him who called you in the grace of Christ to another gospel!
7 It is not another, but there are some They trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach
any gospel other than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say now again, if anyone preaches any gospel other than what you received, let him be accursed.
10 For am I now appealing to men, or to God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11 And I make known to you, brothers, the gospel which I preached, that it is not after man.)) The

reason for this randomness in oral transmission, the lack of control in transmission, and the lack of the writing factor in this period - as we mentioned previously - is due to the belief of the Christians at that time that the second return of Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, would be very soon within a few years!
We read from the introduction to the New Testament by Fahim Aziz, page 106-107:
((The student can find two important reasons why the early Christians did not rush to write down this testimony. The first reason is that they believed that Christ was coming quickly and the end of the world was near.... As for the second reason, it is the belief of the early Christians that the spoken word is much greater than the written word. As long as the apostles who were eyewitnesses are still present and have the certain news, there is no need to write, as their word is greater than any written word. This opinion remained prevalent even after the Gospels were written and spread.))

2. This period of oral transmission was followed by the period of writing the Gospels, which was characterized by the abundance of compositions based on that uncontrolled, random, and unsupported oral transmission. Several Gospels were written, which in turn were also characterized by the loss of their chains of transmission, which led to ignorance on the part of the author. It is not possible to determine the writer of this or that Gospel or some of those letters except by conjecture, intuition, and assumption!!!
We read from the book Introduction to the Bible by Pastor Habib Saeed, page 215-216:
((. And Jesus himself did not write anything, nor did his followers think of recording a written story about their Master and handing it down to later generations. And since there is no direct evidence to guide us, we are forced to resort to intuition and guesswork. It is very likely that some of Jesus’ disciples collected for their own use collections of Christ’s sayings and incidents that they saw as of serious importance.))

3. With this and that, the result was gospels of unknown authorship that collected some of those random stories and narratives, and some of those other narratives and stories were lost!!
Here we put the confession of the interpreter Adam and Clarke, where he says that at that time there were gospels and other stories circulating about Christ, perhaps some of them talk about adherence to the law!!! Adam Clarke refers here to Luke 1:1.
We read the words of Adam Clarke
((Another gospel - It is certain that in the very earliest ages of the Christian Church there were several spurious gospels in circulation, and it was the multitude of these false or inaccurate relations that induced St. Luke to write his own. See Luke 1:1. We have the names of more than seventy of these narratives still on record, spur and in ancient writers many fragments of them remain; these have been collected and published by Fabricius, in his account of the apocryphal books of the New Testament, 3 vols
8vo

. In turn, he explains to us why the writer of the Gospel of Luke said at the beginning of his Gospel
: “1 Since many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,
3 it seemed good to me also, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it down for you in an orderly manner, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the truth of the The words which you were taught.))

4. After that, the text of the New Testament was transmitted in writing (on papyrus until the fourth century when the large manuscripts such as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus appeared to us). However, this writing was characterized by many negatives: First, the loss of the original writings, or rather the original copies. Second, the loss of the chains of transmission proving the authenticity of what was transmitted, the trustworthiness, reliability, and control of the transmitter. Third, the absence of a standard or criterion for transmitting the text in writing.
So, the result of all that we mentioned (about the text of the New Testament) was a few papyri from the second to the fourth century, then manuscripts from the fourth century, we do not know the identity of their writer, nor the trustworthiness, reliability, or control of the transmitter, nor do we know from which copy it was copied, with the differences between the manuscripts and between today’s copies of the New Testament with its translations!!!! Taking into consideration the absence - today - of any papyrus or manuscript of the text of the New Testament from the first century!!!

2. The ignorance of the author of the Gospel of Luke and the proof of the invalidity of attributing it to himself, Luke the physician mentioned in the Book of Acts .

Critics have agreed, based on the way the text was written, that they are both addressed in their introduction to the same person (Theophilus), and other reasons, that the author of the Gospel of Luke is the same author of the Book of Acts.
We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 179:
“The Gospel of Luke is the only Gospel that has an introduction like many Greek writings of those days. This introduction is addressed to a man named Theophilus, who seems to be a man of some importance. The Book of Acts also has an introduction addressed to that same man and refers the reader to the first book where the author mentions “all that Jesus did and taught” (Acts 1:1-2). It was concluded from the days of the ancient Church that the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the apostles. Critics in our time have proven this opinion based on the homogeneity of language and thought in the two books and on the homogeneity of what they aim at.”

Evidence indicates that the Gospel was written between the years 80 and 90, and although it is addressed in the introduction to Theophilus, it is also addressed to a Christian community with a Greek culture. Christians have asserted that the writer is Luke, due to the testimony of Irenaeus, and because the writer appears to be a doctor, and Luke was a doctor. However, this is rejected for two reasons:
The first reason: Irenaeus mentioned this statement without evidence, and he mentioned it at the end of the second century
. The second reason: The information mentioned in the Gospel was known to any doctor in the first century.

We read from the Jesuit monastic translation, page 184-185:
“Critics often place its composition between the years 80 and 90, and some of them give it an earlier date.
The book is attributed to Theophilus, but it is addressed especially through this man to Christians with a Greek education.... It also seems that the author himself belongs to the Hellenistic world in his language and with a number of the characteristics mentioned above. Critics often found that he did not know the geography of Palestine and many of the customs of this country.
There is an older tradition, witnessed by Irenaeus, who lived at the end of the second century. Tradition says that the writer of this third gospel is Luke, the physician mentioned by Paul in his saying 4/14 and 24 and 2 Timothy 4/11. Many have found evidence of the medical profession of the writer of the third gospel in the accuracy of his description of diseases, but this evidence is not conclusive, because the vocabulary he uses does not differ from the vocabulary used by any educated person at that time. As for his relationship with Paul, we do not find in the Gospel anything that helps us to discover it except for some words. Therefore, to decide on this subject, we must search for evidence in the Acts of the Apostles. ))
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n811147[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n811148[/ATTACH]


Some have tried to use the texts of the Acts of the Apostles to prove that the Acts of the Apostles was written by one of Paul’s disciples, and that the only candidate for that is Luke the Physician. However, this is doubtful for several reasons:
1. The difference between the ideas of the writer of the Acts of the Apostles and the ideas of Paul in his letters
. 2. The neglect of the writer of the Acts of the Apostles of some incidents mentioned by Paul, which it is impossible that they were not mentioned by a disciple of Paul.

Read the Jesuit monastic translation, page 372:
((But who is the author? The presence of parts in the form “we” suggests that the author belonged to Paul’s circle. In addition, the moderation in the suggestion that the writer gives to Paul’s letter and the close agreement between the author’s ideas and Paul’s ideas are two things that call us to search for the identity of the author, from this point of view, so that “Luke the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14 and 24) is the only possible candidate. But there are matters that must be considered. The agreement between the ideas of the Book of Acts and the ideas of Paul remains, to say the least, uncertain in matters of some importance, such as the meaning of the letter, for example (13:31) and the status of the law. Likewise, the emphasis of the Book of Acts on some things or its neglect of others is surprising. How could a companion of Paul, known, as mentioned in other documents, for his great interest in the question of the conversion of the pagans, remain silent about the Galatian crisis? There is no doubt that these matters have their place. But can it be concluded from this that it is not possible to The author of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles was a companion of Paul and the suggestion of the name Luke is completely ruled out? The least that can be said is that this matter is open to investigation))
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n811149[/ATTACH]


The truth of the matter is that Luke being the author of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles is a questionable matter and a mere inference, even if the Church Fathers approved of it. This is because the statement of this name only came in the second century AD and none of those who stated it have a continuous chain of transmission to Luke to prove that the writer is Luke the physician! Rather, the hypothesis that the writer was one of Paul’s companions is also a questionable matter!

We read from the Standard International Bible Encyclopedia:
(( The first writers who definitely name Luke as the author of the Third Gospel belong to the end of the 2nd century. They are the Canon of Muratori (possibly by Hippolytus), Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria. We have already seen that Julicher (Introduction, 330) admits that the ancients Universally agreed that Luke wrote the Third Gospel. In the early part of the 2nd century the writers did not, as a rule, give the names of the authors of the Gospels quoted by them. It is not fair, therefore, to use their silence on this point as proof either of their ignorance of the author or of denial of Luke's authorship. ))
https://www.internationalstandardbib...gospel-of.html

And although the writer tries to justify and says that it is unfair to use this delay in naming to deny that Luke is the author of the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts, the equation can be reversed By saying:
It is also unfair to assert and assert that Luke the physician is the author of the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts just because the Church Fathers in the second century mentioned that.

The best they can give is that the author of the Gospel and the Book of Acts was a companion of Paul - if we ignore the problems mentioned by the Jesuit monastic translation - and with that the identity of the author remains unknown.

As for the insistence that the companion of Paul mentioned is Luke the physician, it is rejected:
1. Because the terms mentioned in the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are general terms known to any educated person at that time and are not limited to doctors only
. 2. Because Luke the physician is not the only one who accompanied Paul
3. Because it cannot be asserted that Luke was the only physician among Paul’s companions or acquaintances (if we say that the writer of the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles was a physician).

Second: The superstition in the belief of the Church Fathers and its effect on their judgment of the sanctity of some books or not, with a statement of the contradiction and absurdity in their evidence .

We read what Augustine said in his book The City of God, Part Two, page 269:
((Let us leave aside the legends of those books called apocryphal, because they derived their origins from our fathers, from whom we received the authority of the true books, through a known and certain tradition. Although those apocryphal books contain some truth, the many errors they contain strip them of all legal authority. And if Enos, the seventh descendant of Adam, wrote under divine inspiration, that is something we cannot deny, as long as the apostle Jude testifies to it in his canonical letter . And the absence of the books of Enos from the canonical books preserved in the Jewish temple and under the care of their priests was not an absence without cause....))

And he says on page 236, quoting the accusation of some against the Jews of distorting the Hebrew version in order to degrade the Septuagint among the Christians:
((The supporters of this opinion, fearing that they will affect the faith in the holy books to which the Church gives all authority, attribute this error to For the Jews, not on the translation of the interpreters and they attribute it to the original translated into Greek. Because they say that the Septuagint version, whose copyists agreed on understanding the text as well as on the duration of their work, cannot be the result of a mistake on their part or fraud in which they had no interest. Isn’t it more likely that the Jews, who were jealous of seeing the books of the Law and the Prophets transmitted to us, distorted their books to weaken the authority of our books? Let everyone who wants take the opinion or assumption that pleases him))

So we conclude two things from this statement:
First: The Apocrypha books (and I do not mean here the second canonical books) contain a lot of truth and falsehood. Whatever of them agrees with the quotations of the New Testament is true and whatever contradicts it is false - and this is exactly what we say about the relationship of the Holy Qur’an to the previous distorted books!!!

Second: Saint Augustine does not rule out the opinion that says that the Jews directly had a hand in distorting the books of the Law and the Prophets and introducing superstition into them to attack the books of the Christians!!!

This opinion is confirmed by Mahbub bin Constantine Al-Manbiji, Bishop of the city of Manbij, and his accusation of the Masoretic Jews of deliberately distorting the Masoretic Hebrew text.
We read from the history of Mahbub bin Constantine, page 581-582:
((So that is seven hundred and ninety-five years, and from the birth of Mahalalel, Adam completed nine hundred and thirty years, which is the length of his life. As for what is in the Torah in the hands of the Jews, according to what they corrupted and subtracted from it of years, I mean the years that they subtracted from their lives before they had children, which is calculated for a period of the history of the years of the world, and the Torah of the Syriacs from the Torah because the Syriac Torah from the Hebrew was transferred after Christianity and after corruption, it is written in it that Adam lived to the ninth generation of his son’s son, and that is to the year fifty-six from the birth of Lamech, son of Enoch, because they subtracted from the years of Adam and other fathers a hundred years before they had children and added them to the years of their life after they had children, they meant the priests of the Jews. Hanan and Caiaphas are the heroes of the coming of Christ, and he did not reach the period in which he came, as they mentioned .




The strange thing is that if we go back to Augustine’s words in his book The City of God Part II, we will be surprised that he attributed the difference in ages between the Septuagint and the Hebrew not to the malice of the Jews and their deliberate distortion, but to the error of the original copyist while copying the text in the library of Ptolemy!!!


We have the right to ask Augustine about the evidence for his words, but we know for sure that these words cannot be verified, for Augustine says any word and any claim without attributing it to a document or historical evidence!!!

And among the wonders that Augustine brought us in the same book is that although he denies the occurrence of sexual intercourse between angels and human women and their giving birth to giant giants (as in the apocryphal Book of Enoch, and see Genesis, Chapter 6, Verses 1-4), he does not deny the existence of giants with the aforementioned descriptions and tells us a funny story about a giantess who lives with her parents!!

Do you see where the myth is???



May God bless our master Muhammad, his family