Satanic verses Fabrication, The story of cranes

 In response to this slander, we say:

First: This narration is weak according to the testimony of the preservers and investigators of the people of knowledge.

Imam Ibn Kathir said in his interpretation:
(( Many commentators have mentioned here the story of the cranes, and the return of many of the emigrants to the land of Abyssinia, thinking that the polytheists of Quraysh had converted to Islam. But they are all through mursal chains, and I have not seen them attributed to a sound chain of transmission , and Allah knows best. )) End of Ibn Kathir’s words .


Imam Al-Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his interpretation:
((Third: The hadiths narrated about the revelation of this verse, none of which are sound . And among the things that the infidels used to deceive their common people was their saying: The right of the prophets is that they are not unable to do anything, so why does Muhammad not bring us punishment when we have exaggerated in our enmity towards him? They also used to say: They should not be subject to forgetfulness and error; so the Lord, glory be to Him, made clear that they are human beings, and the One who brings punishment is Allah, the Most High, according to what He wills, and it is permissible for humans to forget, forget, and make mistakes until Allah establishes His verses and abrogates the tricks of Satan.... And Judge Iyad said in the book Al-Shifa after mentioning the evidence of the truthfulness of the Prophet - may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him - - And that the nation has unanimously agreed in its path of transmission that he is infallible in reporting something other than what it is, neither intentionally, nor deliberately, nor by mistake, nor by mistake: Know, may Allah honor you, that we have two points of view in speaking about the problems of this hadith:
One of them is to weaken its origin, and the second is to accept it.
As for the first point of view, it is sufficient for you that this hadith was not narrated by any of the people of authenticity, nor narrated by a sound, connected, trustworthy chain of transmission; rather, the commentators and historians who are fond of everything strange, who pick up from the pages everything that is sound and weak, are fond of it and its like. Abu Bakr al-Bazzar said : We do not know of this hadith being narrated from the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - with a connected chain of transmission that is permissible to mention; except what was narrated by Shu`bah, from Abu Bishr, from Sa`id ibn Jubayr, from Ibn Abbas, as I think, the doubt in the hadith is that the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - was in Mecca... and he mentioned the story. And no one narrated it fromShu`bah except Umayyah ibn Khalid, and others who send it back from Sa`id ibn Jubayr. It is only known from Al-Kalbi, from Abu Salih, from Ibn Abbas; Abu Bakr, may God have mercy on him, has shown you that it is not known from a path that is permissible to mention other than this, and it contains the weakness that we have pointed out along with the doubt that we mentioned about it, which is not trustworthy and has no truth to it. As for the hadith of Al-Kalbi,it is not permissible to narrate from him or mention it due to its strong weakness and falsehood; as Al-Bazzar, may God have mercy on him, indicated.What is from it in the Sahih is that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited (By the star) in Mecca and prostrated and the Muslims, polytheists, jinn and humans prostrated with him; this is its weakness from the path of transmission.

As for the second source, it is based on accepting the hadith if it is authentic.And God has protected us from its authenticity However, in any case, the Imams of the Muslims have answered it with answers, some of which are good and some bad. What appears and is most likely to be interpreted as being accepted is that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, was, as his Lord commanded him, reciting the Qur’an in a measured manner, and detailing the verses in his recitation, as narrated by trustworthy people from him. It is possible that Satan was watching those pauses and inserting into them what he had fabricated of those words, imitating the tone of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, so that whoever approached him from the disbelievers would hear him, so they thought that it was the words of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and they spread it. This did not detract from the Muslims’ belief that they had memorized the surah before that as God revealed it, and they were certain of the Prophet’s state, may God bless him and grant him peace, in denouncing and criticizing idols, as was known from him. Thus, what was narrated about the Prophet’s sadness, may God bless him and grant him peace, over this spread and suspicion and the cause of this tribulation, and God Almighty said: And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet… verse.

I say: This interpretation is the best that has been said about this . Sulayman ibn Harb said: “Indeed, (in) means with him; that is, Satan cast into the hearts of the infidels when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) recited; like the words of Allah the Almighty: And you remained among us , meaning with us.” This is the meaning of what Ibn Atiyyah narrated on the authority of his father, on the authority of the scholars of the East, and Judge Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi referred to it, and said before him: This verse is a clear statement of our purpose, evidence of the correctness of our doctrine, and a basis for the innocence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from what is attributed to him that he said ; and that is because Allah the Almighty said: And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he desired, Satan cast into his desire, meaning into his recitation. So Allah the Almighty informed us that it is part of His way with His messengers and His conduct with His prophets that if they said something on behalf of Allah the Almighty, Satan added to it from himself, as he does with all other sins. You say: I was cast into such and such a house, or I was cast into such and such a bag; this is a clear statement that Satan added to what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, not that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spoke it. Then he mentioned the meaning of Ayyad’s words until he said: No one was guided to this except al-Tabari, due to his great stature, the purity of his thought, the breadth of his knowledge, and the strength of his arm in contemplation. It is as if he pointed to this purpose, and aimed at this goal, and wrote after he mentioned many narrations in that, all of which are false and have no basis. If your Lord had willed, no one would have narrated them or written them down, but He is the doer of what He wills. ))

And Imam Al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, said in Fath Al-Qadir:
(( None of this is authentic, nor has it been proven in any way. Despite its being not authentic, rather false, the investigators have refuted it with the Book of God Almighty . God said: And if he had fabricated against Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would have cut from him the aorta [Al-Haqqah: 44-46] [p. 970] and His saying: Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination [An-Najm: 3] and His saying: And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined toward them [Al-Isra’: 74]. So He denied the proximity of inclination, let alone inclination.
Al-Bazzar said: This is a hadith that we do not know of, narrated from the Prophet - may God bless him and his family and grant them peace - with a connected chain of transmission.
Al-Bayhaqi said: This story is not authentic in terms of transmission, then he began to speak that the narrators of this story are questionable. And
the Imam of Imams Ibn Khuzaymah said : This story is a fabrication of the heretics . Judge Iyad
said : In Al-Shifa: The nation has unanimously agreed that he is infallible in reporting something other than what it is, neither intentionally nor deliberately nor by mistake nor by mistake.
Ibn Kathir said: Many commentators have mentioned here the story of the cranes, and what happened with the return of many of the immigrants to the land of Abyssinia, thinking that the polytheists of Quraysh had converted to Islam, but it is from all paths that are mursal, and I have not seen it attributed from a sound source .

And we read in the interpretation of Al-Bahr Al-Muhit by Athir Al-Din Al-Andalusi, may God have mercy on him:
(( And the commentators mentioned in their books Ibn Atiyyah and Al-Zamakhshari and those before them and after them what is not permissible for the occurrence of individuals of the believers attributed to the infallible one, may God’s prayers be upon him, and they went on at length about that and in explaining it, a question and answer. It is a story about which Imam Muhammad bin Ishaq, the compiler of the biography of the Prophet, was asked, and he said: This is from the fabrication of the heretics, and he wrote a book about that. And Imam Al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Al-Hussein Al-Bayhaqi said : This story is not proven in terms of transmission, and he said something to the effect that its narrators They are accused of lying, and there is nothing in the Sahihs or in the hadith compilations that they mentioned, so it must be discarded . That is why I have cleared my book of mentioning it. It is surprising that this was transmitted while they recite the Book of Allah the Most High : { And the star when it goes down . Your companion has not strayed, nor has he erred . Nor does he speak from [ his own] inclination. It is only a revelation revealed to him. } And Allah the Most High said, commanding His Prophet: { Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me .} And Allah the Most High said: { And if you had fabricated against Us some sayings } And Allah the Most High said: { And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined toward them } So strengthening is real and comparison is negated. Allah the Most High said: { Thus do We strengthen your heart thereby } And Allah the Most High said: { We will make you recite, and you will not forget } And these are texts that testify to his infallibility. As for from the rational perspective, that is not possible because permitting it leads to permitting it in all rulings and Shari’ah, so there is no guarantee of change and alteration in them, and the impossibility of that is known. )) And Imam Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, narrated in Fath Al-Bari, a commentary on Sahih Al-Bukhari, in the book of Tafsir Al-Qur’an, the saying of Al-Qadi Iyad, may God have mercy on him: (( Al-Karmani said : The polytheists prostrated with the Muslims because it was the first prostration that was revealed, so they wanted to oppose the Muslims by prostrating to their deity, or it happened from them unintentionally, or they feared in that gathering that they would oppose them. I said: The three possibilities are questionable, and the first of them is from Iyad, .... , he said: And what was said that it was because of Satan’s whispering during the recitation of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, is not sound, rationally or by transmission. End. )) And Al-Baydawi said in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj , ((Except when he wished falsely in his soul what he desired. Satan cast into his wish in his desire what would cause him to be occupied with the world, as he, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “And indeed, my heart is veiled, so I seek forgiveness from God seventy times a day.”))








Then Allah abrogates what Satan casts, nullifying it and removing it with its protection from relying on it and guiding it to what removes it. Then Allah perfects His verses and confirms His verses calling for immersion in the matter of the Hereafter. And Allah is Knowing of the conditions of the people. Wise in what He does with them. It was said that he thought of removing the poverty, so this was revealed. It was said that he wished, out of his eagerness for the faith of his people, that something would be revealed to him that would bring them closer to him, and he continued to do so until he was in their assembly, and Surah Al-Najm was revealed to him, and he began to recite it. When he reached “And Manat, the third, the other,” Satan whispered to him until his tongue slipped inadvertently until he said: “Those are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is to be hoped for.” So the polytheists rejoiced at him until they joined him in prostrating when he prostrated at the end of it, so that there was no believer or polytheist left in the mosque who did not prostrate. Then Gabriel, peace be upon him, alerted him, and he was saddened by that, so God consoled him with this verse.
It is rejected by the investigators, and if it is true, then it is a test that distinguishes the one who is steadfast in faith from the one who is wavering in it . It was said that he wished to read, like his saying:
He wished for the Book of God on the first of his night... David wished for the Psalms to the messengers,
and his wish to read it and for Satan to cast it into it was that he spoke about it raising his voice so that the listeners thought that it was from the reading of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. It was also responded that it undermines trust in the Qur’an and is not refuted by His statement: “Then Allah abrogates what Satan casts in, then Allah perfects His verses” because it is also possible for it to happen. The verse indicates that it is permissible for the prophets to be forgetful and for whispers to come to them .

Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Zaad al-Masir
: “The Almighty’s statement: And We did not send before you any messenger… the verse.
The commentators said: The reason for its revelation is that when Surat al-Najm was revealed to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, he recited it until he reached the statement: Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other? Then Satan put on his tongue: Those are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is indeed hoped for. When the Quraysh heard that, they rejoiced, so Gabriel came to him and said: What did you do?
You recited to the people what I did not bring to you from Allah, so the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was deeply saddened, so this verse was revealed to comfort his heart and inform him that something similar had happened to the prophets. The established scholars said: This is not correct, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is infallible from such a thing. Even if it were correct, the meaning would be that some of the devils among mankind said those words “2”, because when he recited, they would make noise, as Allah, the Almighty, said: “Do not listen to this Qur’an and speak noisily during it” “3”.
He said: There are two sayings regarding the meaning of “wish”: “4” The first is: he recited, as most said, and they recited:
He wished for the Book of God at the beginning of his night… and at the end of it he encountered the doom of destiny.
Another said:
He wished for the Book of God at the end of his night… David wished for the Psalms on messengers.
The second is that it is from the wish, and that is because the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, wished one day that nothing would come to him from God that would make his people turn away from him, so Satan put it on his tongue because of what he had wished for, as Muhammad ibn Ka’b al-Qurazi said.
Allah the Almighty says: “Then Allah abrogates what Satan casts” meaning: He nullifies it and eliminates it. Then Allah perfects His verses. Muqatil said: He perfects them from falsehood. Allah the Almighty says: “So that He may make” The lam is connected to His saying: Satan casts. The trial here means affliction and trial. The disease means: doubt and hypocrisy. And the hardness of their hearts means: the harshness of faith. Then he informed him that they are unjust and that they are in constant discord, and discord is the ultimate enmity.

Abu Al-Su`ud said in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj
: “The dream {except when he desires} meaning he prepares in his soul what he desires {Satan casts into his desire} in his desire for what requires him to be occupied with the world, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “And indeed my heart is veiled, so I seek forgiveness from Allah ninety times a day {then Allah abrogates what Satan casts} and nullifies it and takes it away with His protection from relying on it and guiding him to what removes it {then Allah establishes His verses} meaning He establishes His verses that call for immersion in the affairs of truth. The present tense in both verbs is to indicate the continuous renewal and to show the majesty in the place of The implication is to increase the report and to indicate that divinity is one of the requirements of the rulings of His dazzling verses. {And Allah is All-Knowing} He is exaggerating in His knowledge of everything that is meant to be known, including what the servants have said and separated intentionally or by mistake. {Wise} in everything He does. The manifestation here is also for what was repeated with what it contains of confirming the independence of the appendix objection. It was said that he told himself about the removal of poverty, so it was revealed. It was also said that he wished, out of his eagerness for the faith of his people, that something would be revealed to him that would bring them closer to him. He continued to do so until he was in their assembly, so Surat An-Najm was revealed to him. He began to recite it, and when he reached Manat, the third, the other, Satan whispered to him until his tongue slipped inadvertently until he said, “Those are the lofty cranes, and their intercession is indeed hoped for.” So he rejoiced. The polytheists followed him in prostrating when he prostrated at the end of it, such that there was no believer or polytheist left in the mosque except that he prostrated. Then Gabriel, peace be upon him, alerted him, so he seized the opportunity, so Allah, the Almighty, consoled him with this verse. #It is #rejected by the investigators. Even if it is authentic, then it is a trial by which the one who is steadfast in faith is distinguished from the one who is wavering in it. It was said that Surat Al-Hajj (53-55) wished means read, like his saying [He wished for the Book of Allah on the first night, when David wished for the Psalms to the messengers, and his wish was to read it and Satan threw it into it, so that he would speak about it, raising his voice so that the listeners thought that it was from the reading of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. It was rejected because it also undermines trust in the Qur’an and is not refuted by the Almighty’s saying: “Then Allah abrogates what The devil throws and then Allah rules over his verses because he also tolerates it. In the verse there is evidence of the permissibility of forgetfulness from the prophets, peace be upon them, and the intrusion of whispers to them. Ibn

Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Al-Fasl fi Al-Milal wa Al-Nihal, Part Four, Discussing Moses, peace be upon him, and his mother:
(( As for the hadith in which it says that they are the exalted cranes and that their intercession is hoped for, then it is a pure lie and fabrication because it has never been authenticated through transmission, and there is no point in engaging in it since the fabrication of lies is something that no one is incapable of. As for the statement of Allah, the Most High: {And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he wished}, the devil threw in his wish, so Allah abrogates what he threw. The devil is the verse, so they have no argument in it because the wishes that occur in the soul have no meaning.The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, wished for his uncle Abu Talib to convert to Islam, but God Almighty did not will that to be the case. These are the wishes that God Almighty mentioned, and nothing else. God forbid that a prophet would wish for disobedience. And God Almighty is the Grantor of success. What we have said is the apparent meaning of the verse, without any additional effort. It is not permissible to contradict the apparent meaning except with another apparent meaning. And God Almighty is the Grantor of success. Al

-Baqa’i said in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj:
“Except when he wishes” meaning he recites to the people what God has commanded him to do or tells them about it and desires in his soul that they accept it out of his eagerness for their faith and compassion for them. {Satan cast into his wish} meaning what he recited or spoke about and desired to be accepted, from the doubts and imaginations that his followers receive from him and argue with them the people of obedience to lead them astray. Ibn Adel

said

(( Ibn Al-Khatib said: As for the people of investigation, they said: This narration is false and fabricated for reasons from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and reason. As for the Qur’an, the Most High said: {And if he had invented about Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would have cut from him the aorta} [Al-Haqqah: 44-46], and His saying: {Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me} [Yunus: 15], and His saying: {And what {He speaks from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.} [An-Najm: 3-4]. If he had read after this verse the words: “Those are the exalted cranes,” then the lie of God would have been immediately apparent, and no Muslim would say that. And His statement: {And indeed they almost tempted you away from that which We have revealed to you, so that you might invent about Us something else. And then they would have taken you as a friend} [Al-Isra’: 73]. The word “almost” is considered by some to be close to the matter being like that, although it did not happen. And His statement:
{And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined toward them} [Al-Isra’: 74]. The word “lawla” indicates the absence of something due to the absence of something else, so that indicates that the slight inclination did not happen. And His statement: {So that We may strengthen thereby your heart} [Al-Furqan: 32], and His statement: {We will make you recite, and you will not forget} [Al-A’la: 6] As for the Sunnah: It was narrated on the authority of Muhammad ibn Ishaq that he was asked about this story and he said: This is from the fabrications of the heretics and he wrote a book about it.
Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqi said: This story is not proven in terms of transmission. Then he said: The narrators of this story are criticized. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih that he - peace be upon him - recited Surat al-Najm and the Muslims, polytheists, jinn and humans prostrated in it, but there is no mention of the cranes. This hadith was narrated through many chains of transmission, but there is no mention of the cranes in it at all. As for the rational, there are several aspects:
First: Whoever allows the Messenger to glorify idols has committed blasphemy, because it is known by necessity that his greatest effort was in denying idols.
Second: He - peace be upon him - was not required at first to pray and recite the Qur’an at the Kaaba to be safe from the harm of the polytheists to him, to the point that they might have extended their hands to him. Rather, he used to pray at night or in private if they were not present, and that invalidates their statement.
The third: Their enmity towards the Messenger was greater than for them to acknowledge this amount without knowing the truth of the matter. How could they agree that he glorified their gods to the point that they fell down in prostration, even though it did not appear to them that he agreed with them?
Fourth: His statement: {Then Allah abrogates what Satan suggests, then Allah perfects His verses}. This is because perfecting the verses by removing what Satan suggests from the Messenger is stronger than abrogate them with these verses that leave doubt about them. So if Allah the Most High wanted to perfect the verses so that the Qur’an would not be confused with anything else, then it is more appropriate for Satan to be prevented from doing so at all.
Fifth: If we were to permit that, then security would be lifted from His law, and we permit it in all laws, and His statement the Most High would be invalidated: {Convey that which has been revealed to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people} [Al-Ma’idah: 67], because there is no difference in reason between a decrease in the revelation and an increase in it.
By these aspects we know in general that this story is fabricated. Most of what is in this chapter is that a group of commentators mentioned it, but they did not reach the level of mutawatir, and the report of one person does not contradict the rational and transmitted evidence that is mutawatir .

We read in the great interpretation of Imam al-Razi
: ((This is a narration of the general literalist commentators. As for the people of investigation, they said: This narration is false and fabricated, and they argued for it with the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and reason. As for the Qur’an, there are aspects:
One of them is the saying of God Almighty: {And if he had fabricated against Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would have cut from him the aorta} [Al-Haqqah: 44-46]. The second is His saying: {Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me} [Yunus: 15]. The third is His saying: {Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is only a revelation revealed} [An-Najm: 3-4]. If he had read after this verse those lofty cranes, it would have been Allah's lie was immediately revealed, and no Muslim would say that. Fourth: His statement, the Most High: {And indeed they almost tempted you away from that which We revealed to you, so that you might invent something else about Us. And then they would have taken you as a friend} [Al-Isra': 73]. The word "almost" according to some of them means that the matter was close to being like that, although it did not happen. Fifth: His statement, {And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little} [Al-Isra': 74]. The word "lawla" indicates the absence of something due to the absence of something else, so it indicates that this little inclination did not happen. Sixth: His statement, {Thus do We strengthen thereby your heart} [Al-Furqan: 32]. Seventh: His statement, {We will make you recite, and you will not forget} [Al-A'la: 6]. As for the Sunnah, it is what was narrated from Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah that he was asked about this story, so he said: This is a fabrication by the heretics, and he wrote a book about it. Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Al-Hussein Al-Bayhaqi said: This story is not proven in terms of transmission. Then he began to speak about the fact that the narrators of this story are questionable. Also, Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih that the Prophet, peace be upon him, recited Surat An-Najm and the Muslims, polytheists, humans and jinn prostrated during it, but there is no Hadith of the cranes in it. This Hadith was narrated through many chains of transmission, but there is no Hadith of the cranes in it at all. As for what is reasonable, it is from several aspects:
One of them: Whoever allows the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, to glorify idols has committed blasphemy; because it is known with certainty that his greatest effort was in denying idols. The second: He, peace be upon him, could not have prayed and read the Qur’an at the Kaaba [p. 45] in the beginning, feeling safe from the harm of the polytheists to him, to the point that they might have stretched out their hands to him. Rather, he would pray if they did not attend it at night or in private times, and that invalidates their statement. The third: Their enmity towards the Messenger was greater than for them to acknowledge this amount of reading without knowing the truth of the matter. So how did they agree that he glorified their gods until they fell down in prostration, even though it did not appear to them that he agreed with them? Fourth: His statement: (Then God abrogates what Satan casts, then God establishes His verses) This is because establishing the verses by removing what Satan casts from the Messenger is stronger than abrogate them with these verses that leave doubt about them. So if God wants to establish the verses so that what is not the Qur’an is not confused with the Qur’an, then it is more appropriate for Him to prevent Satan from doing that at all. Fifth: And it is the strongest of the aspects, if we allow that, then security is removed from His law, and we allow in every one of the rulings and laws that it is like that, and the saying of Allah the Almighty is invalidated: {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people} [Al-Ma’idah: 67], for there is no difference in reason between a decrease in the revelation and an increase in it. So by these aspects we know in general that this story is fabricated. Most of what is in this chapter is that a group of commentators mentioned it, but they did not reach the level of mutawatir, and the report of one person does not contradict the transmitted and rational evidence that is mutawatir .

Al-Razi also says:
(( These aspects mentioned in His saying: “Those are the lofty cranes” have been proven to be false. All of this is if we interpret the wish as recitation. As for if we interpret it as the thought and the wish of the heart, then the meaning is that when the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, wishes for some of the things he wishes for, Satan whispers falsehood to him, and calls him to what is not appropriate, then Allah the Almighty abrogates that and nullifies it and guides him. To ignore his whispers, then they differed in the manner of that whispering in aspects:
One of them: That he wished for something to bring him closer to the polytheists by mentioning their gods with praise. They said: He, peace be upon him, loved to win them over, and he used to repeat that to himself, and when drowsiness overtook him, he increased that increase from where it was in his soul, and this also [p. 48] is a departure from the religion, and its explanation is what preceded. The second: What Mujahid said, that he, peace be upon him, wished for the revelation to be sent down to him quickly without delay, so Allah abrogated that by informing him that sending that down is according to interests in incidents and calamities and other things. The third: It is possible that when the revelation was sent down, peace be upon him, he was thinking about its interpretation if it was general, so Satan would throw into its generality what he did not intend, so Allah, the Most High, explained that He abrogates that by nullifying and decrees what Allah, the Most High, intended with His evidence and verses. Fourth: The meaning of the verse: If he wishes, if he wants an action that brings him closer to God Almighty, Satan puts in his mind something that contradicts it, so he returns to God Almighty regarding that, and it is like the saying of God Almighty: {Indeed, those who fear God - when an impulse touches them from Satan, they remember [God] and at once they have insight.} [Al-A’raf: 201] and like His saying: {But if an evil suggestion comes to you from Satan, then seek refuge in God.} [Al-A’raf: 200] Some people said: It is not permissible to interpret a wish as a wish of the heart; Because if that were the case, what came to the mind of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would not have been a trial for the disbelievers, and this is invalidated by the words of Allah the Most High: {So that He may make what Satan casts a trial for those in whose hearts is disease and whose hearts are hardened}. The answer: It is not far-fetched that if the wish becomes strong, the mind becomes preoccupied with it, and forgetfulness occurs in outward actions because of it, and this becomes a trial for the disbelievers. This is the final statement on this issue.
The third issue: The gist of the research goes back to the fact that the purpose of this verse is to clarify that the messengers whom Allah the Most High sent, even though He protected them from error with knowledge, He did not protect them from the permissibility of forgetfulness and the whisperings of Satan. Rather, their situation with regard to the permissibility of that is like the situation of all other human beings. So it is obligatory that they should not be followed except in what they do with knowledge, for that is the decisive statement . Ibn Ashour (may Allah have mercy on him )

said in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj (at-Tahrir wa at-Tanwir
): { And the meaning of Satan casting into the wish of the Prophet and Messenger is casting what contradicts it, like someone who He plots and puts poison in the fat. Satan’s insinuations are: he orders people to deny and disobey, and he puts in the hearts of the leaders of disbelief accusations that they spread among their people, and he promotes doubts by casting suspicions that divert the mind’s attention from remembering the proof. And God Almighty repeats the guidance and repeats the guidance upon The tongue of the Prophet, and exposes the whispers of Satan and his evil deeds with clear explanation, such as the Most High’s saying: O children of Adam, let not
Satan tempt you as he removed your parents from Paradise
[Al-A’raf: 27] and His saying: Indeed, Satan is an enemy to you, so take him as an enemy [Fatir: 6]. So Allah, with His guidance and clarification, abrogates what Satan casts, that is, He removes the doubts that Satan casts with Allah’s clear clarification, and He increases the clarity of the signs of the call of His Messengers. This is the perfection of His signs, that is, their verification, the confirmation of their meaning, and their clarification in a way that leaves no doubt after it except for those whose hearts are clear. The meaning of the decisive verses in Al Imran has already been mentioned. It is possible that the meaning is that if the Prophet wishes to guide his people or is keen on that, but encounters stubbornness from them, and wishes to obtain their guidance by every means, Satan casts into the Prophet’s soul the thought of despair of guiding them, perhaps the Prophet will fall short out of his keenness or he will make him bored. These are thoughts that appear in the soul, but infallibility prevents them, and that thought soon disappears and the duty he was charged with is established in the soul of the Messenger, which is to persevere in calling to Islam and to be keen on guidance. Thus, the meaning of the verse in this way is an allusion to the Most High’s saying: “And if their aversion is hard for you, then if you are able to seek a tunnel into the earth or a ladder into the sky and bring them a sign. And if Allah had willed, He could have gathered them upon guidance. So never be among the ignorant.” [Al-An`am: 35] ..... based on what you have received in the interpretation of this verse from The clear, evident, independent system of meaning, the one whose deficiencies are not to be overlooked, and the one free from the affectations and the need to include stories. You will see that the verse is isolated from what the adherents and the weak in the sciences of the Sunnah have attached to it, and what a group of commentators have received from them out of love for strange and unusual things without contemplation or scrutiny. That the verse was revealed in a story related to Surat An-Najm, and they were not satisfied with what they corrupted of the meaning of the verse until they went beyond this connection to corrupting the meanings of Surat An-Najm, so they mentioned in that regard narrations
from Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Ibn Shihab, Muhammad ibn Ka`b Al-Qurtubi, Abu Al-`Aliyah, Ad-Dahhak and the like. Narrated on the authority of Ibn Shihab, Ibn Jubayr and Ad-Dahhak: The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, sat in a gathering... It is a story that the listener finds to be a bunch of camels on a camel’s back, but the reader does not pay attention to it. What was narrated
Except with weak chains of transmission and its end with the mention of a story, and in none of its chains of transmission is there any Companion hearing anything in the company of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and its chain of transmission to Ibn Abbas is a weak chain of transmission. However, Ibn Abbas, on the day Surah An-Najm was revealed, did not attend the gatherings of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. These are individual reports that contradict the principles of religion because they contradict the principle of the infallibility of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, and there is no confusion regarding his receiving revelation. It is sufficient to refute them with the words of God Almighty: “Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination” [An-Najm: 3] and in knowing the angel. If trustworthy people narrated it, it would have been necessary to reject it and interpret it, so how can it be, when it is weak and flimsy? How can it be possible for anyone with a modicum of intelligence to combine in one statement the denigration of the polytheists in their worship of idols with the words of the Most High: “Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza?” [An-Najm: 19] to His words: “Allah has sent down no authority for them.” [An-Najm: 23], and then in the midst of that, he would praise them as “the exalted cranes and that their intercession is hoped for.” Is this not just words that curse one another? The judges agreed that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited the entire Surah An-Najm until its end, “So prostrate to God and worship Him” [An-Najm: 62], because they only prostrated when the Muslims prostrated. This indicates that they heard the entire Surah, and between the verse “Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza” [An-Najm: 19] and the end of the Surah are many verses refuting Idols and other idols of the polytheists, and many falsifications of the beliefs of the polytheists. How can it be true that the polytheists prostrated in order to praise their gods ?

Al-Qasimi, may Allah have mercy on him, said in his interpretation:
(( And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he wished, that is, desired the spread of his call and the rapid elevation of his law, Satan cast into his wish, that is, something that would turn him away from it and divert those called from answering it, so Allah abrogates what Satan casts, i.e., he nullifies and obliterates it. Then Allah establishes His verses, i.e., He confirms them. As for the foam, it vanishes, being cast aside, but that which benefits mankind remains on the earth. [13:17] And Allah is All-Knowing. He knows the satanic castings and the way to abrogate them from the face of His revelation. He is All-Wise. He establishes His verses with His wisdom . Then He indicated that one of the requirements of His wisdom is that He makes satanic casting a trial for the doubting hypocrites and those whose hearts are hardened against accepting the truth, a test for them so that they may increase in sin. And mercy for the believers, so that they may increase in steadfastness and righteousness, .... The pronoun refers to the Qur’an or to God Almighty: “And indeed, God guides those who believe to a straight path,” meaning to the path of truth and righteousness, so their feet do not slip by accepting what Satan suggests, and their hearts accept nothing but what the Most Merciful suggests, due to their purity.This is the correct interpretation of the verse. It has parallels that clarify what is meant by it, as we have indicated, if they needed a parallel. But it is clear in itself, and does not need a long interpretation, were it not for the need for investigators to refute the falsehoods that some narrators have inserted here. We will cite what has been said about it, then we will follow it with the criticism of the investigators, so that there will be no need in the mind of the one who is standing .))

​​​​​​​Al-Samīn al-Halabi said in his interpretation, Ad-Durr Al-Masūn
: (( And the Almighty’s saying: {When he wishes}: The pronoun was only used alone, even if two things preceded it, one of them is connected to the other with the waw; because there is an omission in the speech, the meaning of which is: And We did not send before you any messenger except when he wished, nor a prophet except when he wished, like His saying: {And Allah and His Messenger are more worthy that they should please Him} [At-Tawbah: 62]. The omission is either from the first or the second.
The pronoun in “his wish” has two opinions, one of them: And it is those who should be that it is the pronoun of Satan. The second: That it is the pronoun of the Messenger, and they narrated in that Interpretations of Allah are most knowledgeable about their authenticity )) Al-Tha’labi , may Allah have mercy on him,

said in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj:
((( And the words of Allah, the Most High: {And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he made a wish, Satan cast into his wish...} the verse. I said: Judge Abu Al-Fadl Iyad said: Some of the critics have directed questions here, including what was narrated from “that when the Prophet, may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him, recited Surat Al-Najm and said: {Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?} [An-Najm: 19, 20], he said: Those are the exalted cranes, “And her intercession is hoped for.” ‘Iyad said: Know (may Allah honor you) that we have two points of view regarding the problematic aspects of this hadith: One of them is that its origin is weak. The second is that it is accepted. As for the first point of view, it is sufficient for you that this hadith was not narrated by any of the people of authenticity, nor was it narrated by a trustworthy person with a sound, connected chain of transmission. Rather, it and similar hadiths were fond of by the commentators and historians who are fond of everything strange, and who pick up everything sound and weak from the newspapers. And the judge Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Ala’ al-Maliki (may Allah have mercy on him) spoke the truth when he said: People have been afflicted by some people of whims and interpretation. Then ‘Iyad said: Abu Bakr al-Bazzar said: We do not know of this hadith being narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with a connected chain of transmission that is permissible to mention. It is only known from Al-Kalbi. Iyad said: Al-Kalbi is one of those from whom it is not permissible to narrate or mention, due to his extreme weakness and lying, as Al-Bazzar indicated. The Ummah has agreed upon his infallibility, may God bless him and grant him peace, and his purity from such a thing. End quote. Something similar to this is from Ibn Atiyyah, who said: This hadith which says: They are the gharaniqa, was mentioned in the books of interpretation and the like, and neither Al-Bukhari nor Muslim included it, nor was it mentioned - as far as I know - by any famous author. Rather, the doctrine of the people of hadith requires that Satan cast it, and they do not specify this reason or any other. *A.* said: My father (may God Almighty have mercy on him) told me that he met in the East from the elders of scholars and theologians who said: This is not permissible from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and he is infallible in conveying the message . Rather, the matter means, if it is true, that Satan uttered a word that the infidels heard when the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: {Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza? And Manat, the third, the other?} [An-Najm: 19-20].




He brought his voice close to the voice of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) until the matter became confusing to the polytheists, and they said: Muhammad recited it. This is assuming that it is correct. A similar interpretation was narrated from Imam Abu al-Ma’ali.
I said: ‘Ayyad said: Allah has restored its correctness to us . Musa ibn ‘Uqbah narrated something similar to this in his “Maghāzih” and said: The Muslims did not hear it, but rather the devil put it in the ears of the polytheists. The meaning of the Almighty’s statement: {wishes} is: recited. And from this is the statement of the Almighty: {They do not know the Book except in wishful thinking} [al-Baqarah: 78]. That is: recitation. {Then Allah abrogates what Satan suggests} that is: He removes it, removes ambiguity from it, and perfects its verses. Al-Bukhari’s statement: Ibn Abbas said: {When he makes a wish, Satan casts into his wish} that is: when he speaks, Satan casts into his speech, so Allah nullifies what Satan suggests and perfects its verses. It is said: {His wish}: his recitation. End.
Ayyad said: It was said: The meaning of the verse is what happens to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him ) of forgetfulness when he recites, so he becomes aware of it and returns from it. End quote.

Al-Naysaburi said in his interpretation of Gharayeb al-Quran, Surat al-Hajj:
(( The scholars objected to this narration with the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and reason. As for the Qur’an, it is like His saying: {And if he had fabricated against Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would have cut from him the aorta} [Al-Haqqah: 44-46] and His saying: {Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination} [An-Najm: 3] and His saying: {And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined} [Al-Isra’: 74] He denied the proximity of inclination, so how about it? As for the Sunnah, it is what was narrated from Ibn Khuzaymah that he was asked about this story and he said: This is a fabrication by the heretics. He wrote a book about it and Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqi said: This story is not proven in terms of transmission, then he began to speak that the narrators of this story are questionable. Al-Bukhari narrated in his Sahih That he (peace be upon him) recited Surat An-Najm and the Muslims and the polytheists, both humans and jinn, prostrated in it, and there is no hadith about the cranes in it. As for the reasonable view, it is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent to banish idols, so how could he establish them? Also, in Mecca he was not able to recite or pray at the Kaaba, especially in a crowded gathering. Also, their hostility towards him was greater than for them to be deceived by this amount and prostrate before they knew the truth of the matter. Also, preventing the devil from his origin is more appropriate than enabling him to cast it and then abrogating it. Also, if we allow that, then security would be removed from the Shariah, and it would contradict His statement {Convey that which has been revealed to you} [Al-Ma’idah: 67]. The state of an increase in revelation is like the state of a decrease in it. If you know this, then the Imams have two opinions regarding the interpretation of the verse: The first is that wishing means reading, as was mentioned previously in Surat Al-Baqarah in His statement: {And among them are unlettered people who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking} [verse: 78]. What is meant by this reading has two aspects: The first is that it is possible that the Prophet forgot about it and the reader was confused, unlike what they narrated of his statement: “Those are the exalted cranes.” The second is that it is the reading of this word and that it occurred exactly as it was.

Abu Hayyan Al-Andalusi said in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj, Al-Bahr Al-Muhit: (
(The commentators mentioned in their books, Ibn Atiyyah, Al-Zamakhshari, and those before and after them, what is not permissible to have occurred from individual believers, attributed to the infallible one, may God’s prayers be upon him. They elaborated on that and in its report, a question and an answer. It is a story that Imam Muhammad ibn Ishaq, the compiler of the Prophet’s biography, was asked about, and he said: This is from… The situation of the heretics, and he wrote a book about that. And the Imam and Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Al-Hussein Al-Bayhaqi said: This story is not proven in terms of transmission, and he said something to the effect that its narrators are questionable and there is nothing in the Sahihs or in the modern books of what they mentioned, so it must be discarded, and for that reason I cleared my book of mentioning it in it. It is amazing that this was transmitted while they recite in the Book of Allah the Most High: “By the star when it goes down. Your companion has not strayed, nor has he gone astray, nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.” And Allah the Most High said, commanding His Prophet: “Say: It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me.” And Allah the Most High said: “And even if he had invented about Us some sayings.” The verse: And the Most High said:
And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined toward them. “4” The verse. So the strengthening is real and the comparison is negated. And the Most High said: “Thus, to strengthen your heart thereby.” And the Most High said: “We will make you recite, and you will not forget.” And these are texts that testify to his infallibility. As for the rational aspect, this is not possible, because permitting it leads to permitting it in all rulings and the Shari’ah, so there is no assurance in it of change and alteration, and the impossibility of that is known . ))

Al-Khazin said in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj:
(((( If you say: The evidence has been established for his truthfulness and the nation has agreed in what was his way of conveying that he is infallible in reporting anything of it other than what he is, neither intentionally nor deliberately nor by mistake nor inadvertently. God Almighty said: {Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination} [An-Najm: 3] and God Almighty said: {Falsehood cannot come to him from before him or from behind him. It is sent down by One Who is Wise, Praiseworthy} [Fussilat: 42]. So how is it permissible for the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, to make a mistake in the recitation while he is infallible from it? I said: The scholars mentioned answers to this problem: One of them: Weakening the origin of this story, because no one from the people of health narrated it nor did a trustworthy person support it with a sound or sound chain of transmission that is connected. Rather, it was narrated by the commentators and historians who are fond of everything strange and who fabricated from the pages everything that is sound and weak. What indicates the weakness of this story is the confusion of its narrators, the interruption of its chain of transmission, and the difference in its wording. One says that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, was praying, another says that he recited it while he was in the company of his people, another says that he recited it when he was afflicted with a sleepless night, another says that it occurred to himself and it came out of his mouth, and another says that Satan said it on behalf of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and that when the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, presented it to Gabriel, he said: “This is not how I recited it to you,” and other differences in its wording. What came in the Sahih from the hadith of Abdullah bin Masoud is that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited Surat An-Najm and prostrated in it, and those who were with him prostrated, except that an old man from Quraysh took a handful of pebbles or dirt and raised it to his forehead. Abdullah said: “I saw him after he was killed as a disbeliever. ”

Al-Shanqeeti, may God have mercy on him, said in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj, Adwaa Al-Bayan:
“The Most High’s saying: And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he wished for something, he said: ‘I have not sent before you any messenger or prophet except that when he wished for something,’” Satan casts into his wish, but Allah abrogates what Satan casts, then Allah establishes His
verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise. The meaning of His statement, “He wished” in this noble verse has two well-known interpretations among scholars: The first: That “he wished” means: he read and recited. From this is the statement of Hassan about Uthman ibn Affan - may Allah be pleased with him -:
He wished for a book. Allah, the beginning of his night... and the end of it, he met the dove of destiny.
And the saying of the other: He wished for the Book of Allah at the end of his night... David wished for the Psalms on the messengers. So the meaning of wished in the two verses is he read and recited. In Sahih Al-Bukhari, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, he said: When he wishes, Satan casts into his wish: When he speaks, Satan casts into his speech. The fact that wishing means reading and reciting is the opinion of most of the commentators. The second statement: That he wished in the verse is from the well-known wish, which is his wish for the Islam of his nation and their obedience to Allah and His Messengers, and the object of Alqa is omitted, so that he wished in the meaning: he loved the faith of his nation and pinned his hope on that, so the object of Alqa appears to be from the type of whispers, and turning away from the religion of Allah so that it is not completed for the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - or The Messenger did not wish for it. The meaning of the casting in his wish in this manner is that the devil casts his whispers and doubts to divert with them from what the Messenger or Prophet wished for, so the casting became as if it was actually happening in it by diverting from its completion and preventing it. And since the word “wish” means “read,” then there are two interpretations for the object of “cast.” One of them is of the same type as the first, meaning that Satan cast doubts and whispers into the recitation of the Messenger (may God bless him and grant him peace) or the Prophet, in order to prevent people from following what he reads and what the Messenger or Prophet recites. According to this interpretation, there is no problem.







As for the second interpretation: it is that Satan cast into his wish, that is, his recitation, something that is not from it, so that the disbelievers would think that it is from it.
And His statement, “Then Allah abrogates what Satan casts,” is used as evidence for this interpretation.
Many commentators have mentioned the story of the cranes in their interpretation of this verse. They said: The reason for the revelation of this noble verse is that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited Surat An-Najm in Mecca. When he reached: “Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?” [53:19-20], Satan put into his tongue: “Those are the cranes.” The Most High, and their intercession is hoped for. So when he reached the end of the surah, he prostrated, and the polytheists and Muslims prostrated with him. The polytheists said: He did not mention our gods with goodness before today. It became widespread among the people that the people of Mecca had converted to Islam because of their prostration with the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, until the emigrants returned from Abyssinia, thinking that their people had converted to Islam, but they found them still in disbelief.
We have already mentioned in this blessed book that one of the types of explanation that it contains is that some scholars say something about the verse, and there is evidence in the verse that indicates the invalidity of that statement. We have given examples of that with multiple examples. This statement that many of the commentators have claimed is that Satan has put on the tongue of… The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: This is the greatest polytheism and blatant disbelief, which is their saying: “These are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is indeed hoped for.” They mean: Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat, the third other. There is no doubt that it is false in the context of the verses of “Al-Najm” in which the alleged Satan casts a Qur’anic clue. Clearly, this statement is false. Because the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, read shortly after the alleged casting, God Almighty’s saying, regarding Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat, the third other: “They are only names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which God has sent down no authority.” [53:23] It is not reasonable that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, would curse their gods in this way. The great curse in Surat An-Najm came after mentioning it with the alleged good, except that they became angry and did not prostrate, because the lesson is in the last words.Although Qur’anic verses have proven the invalidity of this statement, and these are the verses that indicate that Allah did not give Satan authority over the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his brothers among the Messengers, and their sincere followers, such as the Most High’s statement: Indeed, he has no authority over those who believe and rely upon their Lord. His authority is only On those who take him as a guardian and those who associate others with him [16:99-100] and His Most High’s saying:
Indeed, My servants - you have no authority over them, except for those who follow you of the deviators [15:42] and His Most High’s saying: And he had no authority over them except to test who believes in the Hereafter [34:21] and His saying: And I had no authority over you [14:42] 22] And according to the alleged statement, Satan put that blatant disbelief on his tongue - may God bless him and grant him peace - so what authority is greater than that?
Among the verses that indicate the falsehood of this alleged statement are the words of the Most High about the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace: “Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is only a revelation revealed.” [53:3-4], and His words: “Shall I inform you upon whom the devils descend? They descend upon every slanderer and sinner.” [26:221-222], and His words in the Noble Qur’an: “Indeed, We are…” We have sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will be its guardian. [15:9] And the Most High says: “And indeed, it is a mighty Book. Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it. It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of Praise.” [41:41-42] These Qur’anic verses indicate the falsehood of the alleged statement.
Question.
Know that the issue of the cranes, despite its being impossible according to Islamic law, and the Qur’an indicating its invalidity, has not been proven through a valid chain of transmission for argumentation. Many scholars of hadith have stated that it has not been proven, as is correct. The commentators narrate this story from Ibn Abbas through al-Kalbi, from Abu Salih, from Ibn Abbas, and it is known that Al-Kalbi is abandoned, and Al-Bazzar - may God have mercy on him - explained: It is not known from a path that is permissible to mention except the path of Abu Bishr from Saeed bin Jubair, with the doubt that occurred in connecting it, and Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar admitted, with his support, for the proof of this story, that all of its paths are either interrupted or Weak except through Saeed bin Jubair.
When you know this, then know that no one narrated it through Saeed bin Jubair in a continuous manner except Umayyah bin Khalid, and even though he was trustworthy, he doubted its connection.
Al-Bazzar and Ibn Mardawayh narrated on the authority of Umayyah ibn Khalid, on the authority of Shu’bah, on the authority of Abu Bishr, on the authority of Sa’id ibn Jubayr, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, as I think, then he cited the hadith of the aforementioned story. Al-Bazzar said: It is not seen to be connected except through this chain of transmission. Umayyah ibn Khalid is the only one who connected it, and he is a well-known trustworthy person. Al-Bazzar said: It is only narrated through Al-Kalbi, on the authority of Abu Salih, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, and Al-Kalbi is rejected.
It was concluded that the story of the cranes was not transmitted in a connected manner except through this source whose narrator doubted the connection. It is known that something like this cannot be used as evidence due to its apparent weakness. Therefore, Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir said in his interpretation: He did not see it transmitted in a correct manner.
Al-Shawkani said about this story: None of this is authentic, nor is it proven in any way. Despite its being unauthentic, or even false, the scholars have refuted it with the Book of God. Such as his saying, “And if he had fabricated against Us some sayings” [69:44], and his saying, “Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination” [53:3], and his saying, “And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined toward them a little” [17:74]. So he denied the similarity to inclination, let alone inclination. Then Al-Shawkani mentioned on the authority of Al-Bazzar that it is not narrated with a chain of transmission. Connected, and on the authority of Al-Bayhaqi that he said: It is not proven in terms of transmission, and he mentioned on the authority of the Imam of Imams Ibn Khuzaymah: That this story was fabricated by the heretics and was invalidated by Ibn Al-Arabi Al-Maliki, Al-Fakhr Al-Razi and many groups, and his recitation - may God bless him and grant him peace - of Surat Al-Najm and the prostration of the polytheists is proven in the Sahih, Nothing was mentioned in it about the story of the cranes, and according to this correct opinion, which is that it is false, there is no problem.
As for the authenticity of the story, as is the opinion of Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, he said in Fath Al-Bari:
This story is confirmed by three chains of transmission, all of which meet the conditions of authenticity. They are mursal hadiths, and those who use mursal hadiths as evidence can use them, as can those who do not use them as evidence, because some of them support others. Because when the paths are many and their exits are different, this indicates that they have a basis. The scholars have many answers to this, the best and closest of which is that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, used to recite the surah in a measured recitation with pauses in between. So when he recited “And Manat the third, the other” [53:20], Satan, may God curse him, said, imitating his voice: Those high cranes... The polytheists thought that the voice was his voice - may God bless him and grant him peace - and he was innocent of that, as the sun is innocent of touch. We have explained this issue in our journey with a complete explanation, and we have summarized it here, and in our book: “Repelling the Implication of Confusion about the Verses of the Book.” The conclusion is that the Qur’an indicates its invalidity, and it has not been proven from Regarding transmission, it is impossible for it to be attributed to him - may God bless him and grant him peace - because of what was mentioned in the Sharia. Whoever confirms this attributes the utterance of that disbelief to Satan. It became clear that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) uttering such blasphemy, even inadvertently, is impossible according to the Shari’ah. The Qur’an has proven its invalidity, and it is absolutely invalid in any case. The gharaniq are the well-known white birds, the singular of which is gharnuq like zanbur and firdaws. There are other dialects for it, and they claim that idols ascend to Allah. Like white birds, so they intercede with Him for those who worship them. May God curse them, how ungrateful they are! And even if we mention that His statement, “Then God abrogates what Satan casts,” is used as evidence for the statement of those who said: The deleted object of casting is estimated to be:
Satan cast into his recitation what is not from it; Because abrogation here is linguistic abrogation, and its meaning is nullification and removal from their saying: The sun abrogated the shadow, and the wind abrogated the trace. This is as if it indicates that God abrogates something that Satan cast, not from what the Messenger or Prophet reads. So what appears to us is that it is correct, and that the Qur’an indicates it clearly, even if… What the commentators who spoke about the verse did not pay attention to is that what Satan casts into the Prophet’s recitation are doubts and whispers that prevent belief and acceptance of it, such as casting upon them that it is magic or poetry, or myths of the ancients, and that it is fabricated against God and not revealed by Him.
The evidence for this meaning is that God made clear that the wisdom behind the aforementioned casting is to test creation, because He said, “That He may make what Satan casts a trial for those in whose hearts is disease.” [2:53] Then He said, “And that those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord, so they may believe in it and their hearts may submit to it.” [22:54] So His statement, “And that He may know” Those who have been given knowledge that it is the truth. The verse indicates that Satan is insinuating to them that what the Prophet recites is not the truth, so the wretched believe him, and that is a trial for them, and the believers who have been given knowledge deny him, and they know that it is the truth and not a lie. As Satan claims to them in his casting: This test does not suit anything that Satan has added from himself in the recitation, and knowledge is with Allah the Most High.
According to this statement, the meaning of abrogating what Satan casts is: removing it and invalidating it, and not having any effect on the believers who have been given knowledge.
The meaning of “He perfects His verses” is that He perfects them with perfection, thus showing that they are revelation sent down from Him in truth, and the devil’s attempt to turn people away from them by his aforementioned suggestion does not affect that. What He mentioned here about Him giving power to the devil to insinuate into the recitation of the Messenger and Prophet is a trial for the people so that their believers may be distinguished from their disbelievers by that test. It came explained in many verses that we presented repeatedly, such as His saying: “And We have not made the companions of the Fire except angels, and We have not made their number except as a trial for those who disbelieve - that those who were given the Scripture would be certain and those who believe would increase in faith and those who were given the Scripture and the believers would not doubt and that those in whose hearts is disease and the disbelievers would say, ‘What does Allah intend by this?’” For example, thus does Allah misguide whom He wills and guides whom He wills. Verse [74:31] And His Most High’s saying, “And We did not make the Qiblah which you used to face except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels.” Verse [2:143] And His saying, “And We did not make the vision which We showed you except as a trial for the people.” And the accursed tree in the Qur’an, meaning: because it A trial, as He said: “Is that better as a lodging, or the tree of Zaqqum? Indeed, We have made it a trial for the wrongdoers. Indeed, it is a tree that emerges at the bottom of Hellfire.” Verse [37:62-64]; Because when this verse was revealed, they said: The lie of Muhammad - may God bless him and grant him peace - has become apparent, because trees do not grow in dry places, so how can a tree grow at the bottom of Hellfire ? And other verses, as has been explained repeatedly, and knowledge is with God Almighty.

And I present to you what Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, mentioned in the introduction to his book Nasb Al-Majaniq to destroy the story of the cranes, showing the weakness of the story in all its ways:
(( In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Praise be to God who chose our Prophet over all other human beings and protected him from Satan inspiring evil to him. God Almighty said, addressing the cursed Iblis: (Indeed, My servants - you have no authority over them, except for those who follow you of the deviators) [Al-Hijr: 42]. Rather, God Almighty gave him authority over his devil, his companion, so how about those who were banished from Him? As indicated by the saying of His noble Messenger: “There is not one of you but that a companion from the jinn has been assigned to him.” They said: “And you, O Messenger of God?” He said: “And me, except that God helped me against him, so he submitted and he only commands me to do good.” (1) And may God’s prayers be upon Muhammad, whom God Almighty enabled over Satan until he almost strangled him and he wanted to tie him to a pillar of the pillars of the mosque of Medina (2), and upon his family and companions and those who follow his guidance until the Day of Judgment.
And after that, it has been written: On 7/14/1952 AD, some of the professors from the dear brothers from Pakistan, where he was sent for a scientific purpose, asked me about my opinion on the hadith of the cranes, about which the opinions of two great hadith scholars differed: Ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi and Ibn Hajar al-Misri. The first denied it and the other strengthened it. He asked me not to be stingy with answering him, so I waited for a few months waiting for an opportunity in which I could answer his request. Then one of my beloved ones met me after the Eid al-Adha prayer of this year 1371 AH and asked me also about the hadith of the cranes, so I answered him that it is not authentic, rather it is false and fabricated . He mentioned to me that one of the young men who have a disease in their hearts used it as evidence that the Prophet, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, God forbid, used to speak in a way that would please the polytheists in order to attract them to him, because according to his false claim, he was not a true prophet, but rather he was pretending to do so in order to rule over them, as some of the atheists have been raving about in the past and present. This prompted me to seize the opportunity of the aforementioned Eid, so I began, relying on God the Forgiving, to collect the chains of transmission of that story from the books of interpretation and hadith, and I explained its defects in terms of text and chain of transmission. Then I mentioned the statement of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar in strengthening it and I followed it up with what would clarify, and it is what he went to. Then I followed that by mentioning some research and quotations from some of the eminent imams who are experts in the branches and principles that support what we went to regarding the strangeness of the story and its falsehood and the necessity of rejecting it and not accepting it in confirmation of the saying of God Almighty: (So that you may believe in God and His Messenger. And you support Him and honor Him and glorify Him morning and evening (Al-Fath: 9 ).

This letter of Imam Al-Albani is very valuable, as he mentioned all the narrations that mention the story of the gharaniq and showed the reasons for their weakness in chain of transmission and text in each narration separately. It contains what the student of hadith and tafsir can benefit from,

and what is more wonderful than that is what he devoted in this letter of his to responding to the issue of Ibn Hajar’s (may Allah have mercy on him) authentication of the original story

. Based on this, I refrained from mentioning the reasons for weakening the narrations of the gharaniq and sufficed with the scholars’ weakening of them. Whoever wants to know the reason for the weakness of each narration separately should refer to the letter of Imam Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) and read it.

Link to the book of Imam Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him): Nasb Al-Majaniq to Destroy the Story of the Gharaniq
http://islamport.com/d/1/alb/1/84/681.html#

And as Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, said in Nasb Al-Majaniq that not a single chain of transmission is authentic from the narration and that all of its mursals are not authentic to the narrator except the mursal of Abu Al-Aaliyah and the mursal of Abu Bakr bin Abdul Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham and the mursal of Saeed bin Jubair and Qatada, and all of them are from the same generation who died in approximately the same period, so it is not far-fetched that they all took the narration from one unknown source or from an unknown group, so it is not possible to be certain of the authenticity of the narration.

Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, said in Nasb Al-Majaniq:
(( If we were to look at the narrations of this story, we would find them all mursal, except for the hadith of Ibn Abbas, but all of its chains of transmission are weak and extremely weak, and those mursals cannot be strengthened by them. So it remains to look at these mursals, and as you know, there are seven, the chain of transmission of four of them is authentic, and they are the mursal of Saeed bin Jubair, Abu Bakr bin Abdul Rahman bin Al-Harith and Abu Al-Aaliyah (No. 1-3) and the mursal of Qatada No. (5). They are mursals that are rejected by one of the two previous possibilities because they are from the same generation: the death of Saeed bin Jubair in the year (95) And Abu Bakr bin Abd al-Rahman in the year (94) and Abu al-Aaliyah - whose name is Rafi` in the diminutive form - in the year (90) and Qatada in the year a few dozen and a hundred and the first is from Kufa and the second from Medina and the last two are from Basra, so it is possible that their source from which they took this story and narrated it from him was one person and no one else and he is unknown and it is possible that it was a group but they are all weak, so with these possibilities the soul cannot be reassured in accepting their hadith, especially in such a great event that touches the noble position, so it is no wonder that the scholars followed one another in denying it and even denouncing its invalidity and there is no reason for that from the aspect of the narration except what we mentioned, even though I did not find anyone who stated that as I mentioned earlier. ))

As for those who cling to these mursals from the critics, they are obligated to accept the mursal of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, may God have mercy on him, because even if it is a weak mursal, his mursal is less weak, since even if Urwah is in the same class as the previous four, he is an imam in the battles and the marches, and he, may God have mercy on him, spoke in his letter to Abdul Malik ibn Marwan about the beginning of the call of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, in Mecca and the migration to Abyssinia and the return of some of the migrants to Abyssinia, and he did not mention the story of the cranes at all, which weakens the story and increases its weakness, since his not mentioning the story despite his imamate in the battles and their arguing with us with the mursal is sufficient to reject the story and prove the weakness of those who argue with something like it.

We read from the interpretation of al-Tabari, may God have mercy on him, of Surat al-Anfal:
((16083 - Abd al-Warith ibn Abd al-Samad told me: My father told us: Aban al-Attar told us: Hisham ibn Urwah told us, on the authority of his father: That Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan wrote to him asking him about some things, so Urwah wrote to him: "Peace be upon you, for I praise to you God, there is no god but Him. As for what follows, you wrote to me asking me about the departure of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, from Mecca, and I will inform you about it, and there is no power or strength except with God. The reason for the departure of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, from Mecca was that God gave him prophethood, so what a good prophet! What a good master! What a good clan! So God rewarded him with goodness, and made us know his face in Paradise, and made us live according to his religion, and caused us to die according to it, and sent us upon it. And when he called his people to what God sent him of guidance and light that He sent down upon him, they did not distance themselves from him at the beginning of what he called them to, (57) and they almost listened to him, (58) until he mentioned their tyrants. And people came from The people of Taif from Quraysh, they had wealth, some people denied that and were harsh with him, (59) and they hated what he said, and they incited against him those who obeyed them, so the majority of the people turned away from him and left him, (60) except for those whom God preserved from among them, and they were few. So he remained like that for as long as God had decreed that he should remain, then their leaders conspired to tempt those who followed him from the religion of God from among their sons, brothers and tribes, so it was a severe earthquake (61), so those who were tempted were tempted, and God protected whomever He wished from them. So when that was done to the Muslims, the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, ordered them to go out to the land of Abyssinia. And in Abyssinia there was a righteous king called “the Negus”, no one was wronged in his land, (62) and he was praised for that [righteousness], (63) and the land of Abyssinia was a market for the Quraysh, they traded there, and the dwellings of their merchants (64) where they found abundance of provisions, security and good trade, (65) so the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, ordered them to go there, and most of them went there when they were oppressed in Mecca, and he feared for them sedition. (66) And he stayed and did not leave. And that continued for years, they were harsh on those of them who converted to Islam. (67) Then Islam spread there, and men from their nobles and their strength entered it. (68) When they saw that, they relaxed with the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and with his companions. (69) The first tribulation was when those of the Companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, who had left, went to the land of Abyssinia, fearing it and fleeing from the tribulations and earthquakes they were in. When relief was granted to them, and those of them who had entered Islam, it was reported that they had been relieved. (70) This reached those of the Companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, who were in the land of Abyssinia: that relief had been granted to those of them who were in Mecca, and that they would not be tempted. So they returned to Mecca, and they almost felt safe there.(71) And they began to increase and multiply. And many of the Ansar in Medina converted to Islam, and Islam spread in Medina, and the people of Medina began to come to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, in Mecca. When the Quraysh saw that, they conspired to tempt them and be harsh with them, (72) so they seized them, and they were keen to tempt them, and they were afflicted with great hardship. And there was the last temptation. And there were two: A temptation that drove those of them who had gone out to the land of Abyssinia, when the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, ordered them to do so, and gave them permission to go out to it = and a temptation when they returned and saw those of the people of Medina coming to them. Then seventy leaders came to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, from Medina, (73) the leaders of those who had converted to Islam, and they met him during the Hajj, and they pledged allegiance to him at Al-Aqabah, and gave him their covenants that we are from you and you are from us, (74) and that whoever of your companions comes or you come to us, we will protect you from what we protect ourselves from. Then the Quraysh became more severe towards them. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered his companions to go out to Medina, which was the last tribulation in which the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out with his companions, and he went out, and it was the one in which Allah revealed: “And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is all for Allah.” Sheikh

Ahmad Shakir, may Allah have mercy on him, authenticated it in his investigation of the interpretation of al-Tabari, may Allah have mercy on him, and he said:
(( (75) The trace: 16083 - “Aban al-Attar”, he is “Aban bin Yazid al-Attar”, and the explanation of this chain of transmission has been previously mentioned: 15719, 15821, and others, a sound chain of transmission.
And the letter of Urwah to Abdul Malik bin Marwan was narrated by Abu Ja`far in separate parts in his interpretation and in his history, so what he narrated in his interpretation above is number: 15719, 15821, but in his history, he narrated it in separate parts in places, these are 2: 220, 221, 240, 241, 245, 267-269 then 3:117, 125, 132, and I hope that I will be able to gather the fragments of this book of interpretation and history, so that I can extract from it the book of Urwah to Abdul Malik in full, as it is one of the first books written about the biography of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace. This

same report is scattered in two places in History 2:220, 221 as I indicated on p. 443, Comment: 1 then 2:240, 241. Ibn Kathir transmitted it from this place in the interpretation in his interpretation 4:61, 62.

As I said previously, we do not cite mursal hadiths , but we oblige whoever wants to use them as evidence against us to mursal hadith of Urwah, may God have mercy on him. As for the reason for not citing the mursal of Urwah, may God have mercy on him (like other mursals), despite the fact that some scholars have strengthened it, it is what Sheikh Abdullah Al-Judaie mentioned in his book Tahrir Ulum Al-Hadith, Part Two, Chapter Two, The Rejected Hadith, Chapter One, Titles of the Weak Hadith Due to Lack of Connection, Section Four: Issues in Interruption and Irsaal, Issue Two: Comparison between the mursals:
(( And among the mursals that a group of imams strengthened are the mursals of Urwah ibn Al-Zubayr, and that is because he said: “I hear the hadith and I like it, and what prevents me from mentioning it is only my dislike that a listener hears it and follows its example. I hear it from a man I do not trust who narrated it from someone I trust, and I hear it from a man I trust who narrated it from someone I do not trust ” (1).
Ibn Abd Al-Barr said: “What do you think of the mursal of Urwah ibn Al-Zubayr, when what we mentioned has been authenticated from him? Hasn’t that saved you the trouble?” (2).
I said:There is no doubt that this text from Urwah indicates his great caution and care, but knowledge of the caution of the follower alone is not enough to use his mursal as evidence without support, because it is possible that he transmitted it from someone who is not trustworthy in the eyes of others, and having a good opinion of the one whose chain of transmission is not mentioned is not enough to validate the transmission unless a witness testifies to it .

As we mentioned previously, none of the mursals - which include the story of the cranes - have been authenticated to their narrators other than four, which is what was attributed to Qatadah, Abu al-Aaliyah, Saeed bin Jubayr, and Abu Bakr bin Abd al-Rahman bin al-Harith. We have responded to the statement of those who said that these mursals support each other with what we have transmitted from Imam al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, that the four are from one generation, so it is not unlikely that they transmitted from each other, and also the contradiction of the text of their narration with the authentic hadith and what was authenticated from Urwah bin al-Zubayr, may God have mercy on him, in his letter to Abd al-Malik bin Marwan. However, in addition to all of this, another reason has been added, which is that the people of knowledge have spoken about the mursals of some of these .

As for the mursal of Abu al-Aaliyah, may God have mercy on him:
We read from Jami’ al-Tahsil by al-Ala’i, Chapter Four: “Ibn Abd al-Barr narrated from the group that the mursal of Muhammad ibn Sirin is authentic, like the mursal of al-Nakha’i, and that the mursal of Ata’ and al-Hasan al-Basri are not to be relied upon because they used to take from everyone, and likewise the mursal of Abu Qilabah and Abu al-Aaliyah.
I said that Ibn Sirin was mentioned earlier that he weakened the mursal of al-Husayn and Abu al-Aaliyah, and he said that they believed everyone who narrated to them, and Ibn ‘Awn narrated it from him.”

And we read from the same source, Chapter Two
: “And from it is that some of the mursal were narrated from multiple mursal sources, and the followers differed in them, so it is thought that their sources are different and that each of them is supported by the other, then upon investigation their source is one and they all go back to one mursal. An example of this is the hadith of the laughter mentioned above, which was narrated mursal from the path of al-Hasan al-Basri, Abu al-Aaliyah, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, and al-Zuhri with multiple chains of transmission, and upon investigation they all depend on Abu al-Aaliyah.
Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi said that this hadith was not narrated except by Hafsah bint Sirin from Abu al-Aaliyah from the Prophet May God’s prayers and peace be upon him. Hisham bin Hassan heard it from Hafsah, so he narrated it to Al-Hasan Al-Basri, with Al-Hasan sending it and he said: The Messenger of God, may God’s prayers and peace be upon him, said: Sulayman bin Arqam used to go to Al-Hasan and Al-Zuhri, so he heard it from Al-Hasan,
, said: Ibn Mahdi said: Sharik narrated to us from Abu Hashim, he said: I narrated it to Ibrahim, meaning Al-Nakha’i, from Abu Al-Aliyah, so Ibrahim sent it from the Prophet, may God’s
prayers and peace be upon him. Al-Bayhaqi said: When the listener hears this hadith, he finds that it was sent by Al-Hasan, Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i, Al-Zuhri, and Abu Al-Aliyah, so he thinks that it has multiple chains of transmission, but when he examines it, its connection to Abu
Al-Aliyah becomes clear. I said: The sent hadiths of Abu Al-Aliyah are weak. Ibn Adi narrated from Ibn Sirin, he said: There were three here who believed everyone who told them: Al-Hasan and Abu Al-Aliyah, and he named another. We

read what Ibn Rajab narrated in his book Sharh Ilal Al-Tirmidhi from Imam Al-Tirmidhi in the first part:
((Hammad narrated from Ibn Awn, from Ibn Sirin, he said: There were three here who believed everyone who told them, and he mentioned Al-Hasan and Abu Al-Aliyah. Al-Aliyah and another man.
Jarir narrated on the authority of a man on the authority of Asim Al-Ahwal, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, who said: Do not tell us about Al-Hasan, nor about Abu Al-Aliyah, for they do not care from whom they took the hadith .

Ibn Sirin’s statement here is general in all of Abu Al-Aaliyah’s mursals and is not specific to the hadith of the laughter only, as some of the Nuqi Christians have gone to, otherwise he would not have linked it to the mursal of Al-Hasan. Al-Ala’i, may God have mercy on him, relied on this in weakening Abu Al-Aaliyah’s mursal among the Salaf.

As for the mursal of Qatada, may God have mercy on him:
We read from the book of mursals by Ibn Abi Hatim, may God have mercy on him:
((- Chapter on what was mentioned in the mursal chains of transmission that they do not establish evidence with them
1 - Ahmad bin Sinan told us that Yahya bin Saeed Al-Qattan did not see the mursal of Al-Zuhri and Qatada as anything and he said that it is Like the wind, and he says, “These are a people who memorize, when they hear something, they hang it up.”

As for the mursal of Saeed bin Jubair, may God have mercy on him:
We read from the book Al-Kafiyah by Al-Khatib, the chapter on discussing the mursal of the hadith:
“Abu Nu’aim Al-Hafiz informed us, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Al-Hasan told us, Muhammad bin Uthman bin Abi Shaybah told us, Ali bin Abdullah bin Al-Madini told us, he said: Yahya bin Saeed said: “The mursal of Mujahid is much more beloved to me than the mursal hadiths of Ata’. Ata’ used to take from every type. Yahya said: The mursal hadiths of Ibn Abi Khalid are nothing, and the mursal hadiths of Amr ibn Dinar are more beloved to me. Yahya said: Shu’bah used to weaken Ibrahim from Ali. Yahya said: Ibrahim from Ali is more beloved to me than Mujahid from Ali. Ibn Al-Madani: I heard him say: The first thing I sought in hadith was a book that contained mursal hadiths from Abu Mijlaz, so I did not desire them, and I was a young boy at that time. I heard him say: Malik from Saeed bin Al-Musayyab is more beloved to me than Sufyan from Ibrahim . He said: And both are weak . He said: I heard him say: Sufyan from Ibrahim is a doubt, not a doubt. Something, because if there was a person in it who shouted at him, and Yahya said: The mursal hadiths of Saeed bin Jubair are more beloved to me than the mursal hadiths of Ata’. I said to Yahya: What about the mursal hadiths of Mujahid? He said: Saeed is more beloved to me. I said to Yahya: Are the mursal hadiths of Mujahid more beloved to you or the mursal hadiths of Tawus? He said: How close they are! I heard Yahya say: “The mursal hadiths of Abu Ishaq are similar to me, nothing, and Al-A’mash, At-Taymi, and Yahya ibn Abi Katheer. Yahya said: The mursal hadiths of Ibn Uyaynah are similar to the wind. Then Yahya said: Yes, by God, and Sufyan ibn Sa’id. I said to Yahya: What about the mursal hadiths of Malik ibn Anas? He said: They are more beloved.” To me, then Yahya said: There is no one among the people with a more authentic hadith than Malik. Al-Khatib said: What we choose from this sentence is that the obligation to act upon mursal hadiths is invalid, and that mursal hadiths are not acceptable.What indicates this is that sending a hadith leads to ignorance of the identity of its narrator, and it is impossible to know his justice while being ignorant of his identity. We have previously explained that it is not permissible to accept a report except from someone whose justice is known, so it is necessary for this reason that it is not acceptable. Also, if a just person were asked about the one who sent a hadith from him, If he did not consider him just, then it is not necessary to act upon his report, if his justice is not known from the side of others. Likewise, if he began to refrain from mentioning him and considering him just, because with refraining from mentioning him, he is not justifying him, so it is necessary that the report from him not be accepted.

I say: The statement of Imam Yahya bin Saeed that the mursal hadiths of Saeed bin Jubair are more beloved to him than the mursal hadiths of Ata’ does not contain evidence for Yahya bin Saeed al-Qattan, may God have mercy on him, to rely on the mursal hadiths of Saeed bin Jubair, since his statement falls under Chapter on the difference between the weak and the weaker. The evidence for that is that he stated that Malik’s narration from Saeed bin Al-Musayyab is more beloved to him than Sufyan’s narration from Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i, and both of them are weak. Then he concluded all of this by stating that Malik’s mursal hadiths are the most authentic mursal hadiths. Al-Khatib, may God have mercy on him, proceeded on this, as he stated that this sentence from Yahya means that the mursal hadiths should not be used

.

Note :

I found a chain of transmission for the story that goes back to Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, that Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, did not mention in Nasb Al-Majaniq. This chain of transmission is not without weakness, as we will explain, and it is not authentic from Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him.

We read from the interpretation of Al-Samarqandi Bahr Al-Ulum, Surat Al-Hajj:
(( He said: Al-Khalil bin Ahmad told us, he said: Ibrahim bin Muhammad told us, he said: Jaafar bin Zaid Al-Tayalisi told us, he said: Ibrahim bin Muhammad told us, he said: Abu Asim told us, on the authority of Ammar bin Al-Aswad, on the authority of Saeed bin Jubair, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, he said: “The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited: And Manat, the third, the other, then he said: Those are the exalted cranes, and intercession from them is hoped for. The polytheists said: He has mentioned our gods in the best mention, so the verse was revealed. ))

Verification:
The narration is weak due to a reason: Jaafar bin Zaid Al-Tayalisi is unknown and there is no biography for him .

The strange thing is that the narrator on his authority is Ibrahim bin Muhammad, who is Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Amara bin Hamza.

We read from the classes of hadith scholars in Isfahan and those who came to it by Abu al-Sheikh al-Isfahani, Part Four, Class Nine:
(( 631 - Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Hamza ibn Umara was one of the hadith memorizers and one who was concerned with the Musnad and the sheikhs. No one like him was seen after Ibn Muzahir. He died in the year three hundred and fifty-three in the month of Ramadan. ))

He is the same Ibrahim ibn Muhammad who narrated from Abu Bakr al-Muqri Muhammad ibn Ali ibn al-Hasan al-Majhool the narration of al-Gharaneeq as al-Dhiya al-Maqdisi included it in his book al-Ahadith al-Mukhtarah, quoting Ibn Mardawayh:
(( 247 - Abu al-Qasim ibn Ahmad ibn Abi al-Qasim al-Khabbaz informed us that Abu al-Khair Muhammad ibn Raja ibn Ibrahim informed them, on the authority of Ahmad ibn Abd al-Rahman, on the authority of Ahmad ibn Musa ibn Mardawayh, who narrated to me from Ibrahim ibn Muhammad, who narrated to me from Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ali al-Muqri’ al-Baghdadi, who narrated to us from Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Tayalisi, who narrated to us from Ibrahim ibn Muhammad. Ibn Arara narrated to us, Abu Asim al-Nabil narrated to us, Uthman ibn al-Aswad narrated to us, on the authority of Saeed ibn Jubayr, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, recited {Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?} Those are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for. So the polytheists rejoiced at that and said, “He has mentioned our gods.” Then Gabriel came to him and said, “Recite to me what I have brought you.” He said: So he recited {Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?} Those are the exalted cranes and their intercession is hoped for. So he said: I have not brought you this. This is from Satan. Or he said: This is from Satan. I have not brought it to you. So Allah revealed: {And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he made a wish, Satan cast into his wish} until the end of the verse .

This opens the possibility that Ja`far ibn Zayd Al-Tayalisi is the same. Jaafar bin Muhammad bin Jaafar Abi Uthman al-Tayalisi!!!! This puts us between two options:
First: Jaafar bin Zaid is not Jaafar bin Muhammad bin Abi Uthman al-Tayalisi, and this means that the chain of transmission is weak due to the unknown identity of Jaafar bin Zaid.
Second: Jaafar bin Zaid is the same as Jaafar bin Muhammad bin Abi Uthman al-Tayalisi, and this means that the chain of transmission is confused in two respects:

1. The typo that made Jaafar bin Muhammad Jaafar bin Zaid!!!
2. The occurrence of a mistake in the chain of transmission due to the omission of Abu Bakr al-Maqri, who is the intermediary between Ja`far ibn Muhammad al-Tayalisi and Ibrahim ibn Muhammad!!!

According to the first possibility, the chain of transmission is weak due to the ignorance of Ja’far bin Zaid al-Tayalisi, as there is no biography for him.

According to the second possibility, the chain of transmission is also weak due to the ignorance of Abu Bakr al-Maqri, as there is no criticism or praise of him. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi mentioned him in Tarikh Baghdad, and he did not mention any criticism or praise of him.

We read from Tarikh Baghdad by Al-Khatib, mentioning someone named Muhammad, letter Ayn:
(([1294 - Muhammad bin Ali bin Al-Hasan Abu Harb Al-Muqri]
narrated from Mahmoud bin Khidash, and Muhammad bin Amr bin Abi Madh’ur.
Ahmad bin Kamil Al-Qadi, and
Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya Al-Atashi narrated from him. (875) -[4: 116] Ahmad bin Abi Ja’far Al-Qati’i informed us, he said: Abu Ali Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Yahya Al-Atashi informed us, he said: Abu Harb Muhammad bin Ali bin Al-Hasan Al-Muqri informed us, he said: Muhammad bin Sulayman Abu Abdullah bin Abi Madh’ur said: Al-Mu’tamir bin Sulayman narrated to us, he said: I heard Humayd mention on the authority of Anas bin Malik, he said: When the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, greeted someone, he would say: “Peace be upon you.” Ahmad said: Al-Atashi told us: This Abu Harb died in Shawwal in the year three hundred.this

is what Imam Al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Nasb Al-Majaniq to refute the doubt. Al-Gharaniq:
((I said: This is a chain of transmission whose men are all trustworthy and all of them are men of “Al-Tahdheeb” except for Ibn Arara.There is no one among them who should be looked into except Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ali Al-Muqri Al-Baghdadi. Al-Khatib mentioned him in “Tarikh Baghdad” and said (3/68-69): “Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Al-Hasan Abu Bakr Al-Muqri, he narrated on the authority of Mahmoud ibn Khidash, Muhammad ibn Amr, and Ibn Abi Madhur. Ahmad ibn Kamil al-Qadi and Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Atashi narrated from him. Then he cited one hadith in which he was called “Abu Harb.” I do not know whether it is another nickname for him or was distorted by the copyist or the printer. Then al-Khatib narrated from al-Atashi that he said: “He died in the year 300.”He did not mention any criticism or approval in it, so he is unknown in his case, and he is the defect in this connected chain of transmission. He is not Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ali ibn Asim al-Isfahani, known as Ibn al-Muqri’, the trustworthy hafiz, for he came after him by about a century, and he is one of the teachers of Ibn Mardawayh. He died in the year 381, three hundred and eighty-one. In “al-Tadhkirah: 3/172” it says “two hundred,” which is a mistake. So
it is proven from the above that what we were certain of before looking at the chain of transmission of Ibn Mardawayh is correct: “that the defect in it is in those below Abu Asim al-Nabil.”

Add to this that the narration was narrated in a mursal from Saeed ibn Jubayr, may God be pleased with him, in other sources and from the same source. The path of Uthman bin Al-Aswad:

1. We read from the interpretation of Al-Tabari, may God have mercy on him, Surat Al-Hajj:
((Ibn Bashar told us, he said: Muhammad bin Jaafar told us, he said: Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Abu Bishr,on the authority of Saeed bin JubairHe said: When this verse was revealed: “Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza?” the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, recited it and said: “Those are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is to be hoped for.” So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, prostrated. The polytheists said: “He did not mention your gods with anything good before today.” So the polytheists prostrated with him, and Allah revealed: “And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he made a wish, Satan cast into his wish.”... until His saying: “The punishment of a barren Day.” Ibn Al-Muthanna told us, he said: Abd Al-Samad told us, he said: Shu’bah told us, he said: Abu Bishr told us, on the authority of Saeed bin Jubayr , he said: When the following verse was revealed: Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza? Then he mentioned something similar. ))

2. We read from the reasons for revelation of Surat Al-Hajj by Al-Wahidi:
(( (1) - Abu Bakr Al-Harithi informed us, he said: Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Hayyan informed us, he said: Abu Yahya Al-Razi informed us, he said: Sahl Al-Askari informed us, he said: Yahya informed us, on the authority of Uthman bin Al-Aswad, on the authority of Saeed bin Jubair, he said: The Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - recited.... ))

Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, said: In Nasb al-Majaniq:
(( I said: This is with the knowledge that the aforementioned amount of the connected chain of transmission of Ibn Mardawayh has trustworthy men, men of the two sheikhs, but the defect must be in those below Abu Asim al-Nabil, and that is strengthened, I mean the fact that its chain of transmission is defective, that I saw this narration brought out by al-Wahidi in “Asbab al-Nuzul”: p. 233, on the authority of Sahl al-Askari, who said: Yahya informed me - I said: He is al-Qattan - on the authority of Uthman ibn al-Aswad, on the authority of Saeed ibn Jubayr, who said: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited: {Have you considered al-Lat and al-Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other?} [An-Najm: 19-20], so Satan put on his tongue: {Those are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for.} So the polytheists rejoiced at that, and they said: He has mentioned our gods. So Gabriel, peace be upon him, came to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and said: Present to me the words of God. So when he presented Upon him, he said: As for this, I did not bring it to you. This is from Satan. Then Allah the Most High revealed: {And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet} [Al-Hajj: 52]. So the hadith returned to being - from Uthman bin Al-Aswad from Saeed - mursal, and this is correct, because it agrees with this narration of Uthman, the narration of Abu Bishr from Saeed . ))

What is proven from Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, is the prostration of the Muslims and the polytheists at the end of An-Najm, and he did not mention anything about the story of the cranes.
We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Interpretation of the Qur’an 4581: Abu Muammar narrated to us, Abdul-Warith narrated to us, Ayoub narrated to us, from Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas, who said: The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, prostrated at An-Najm, and the Muslims, polytheists, jinn, and mankind prostrated with him. Ibrahim bin Tahman followed him from Ayoub, and Ibn Ulayyah did not mention Ibn Abbas.

Al-Tabarani, may Allah have mercy on him, agreed with Al-Bukhari in his narration of the narration in an abbreviated form in his great dictionary, chapter on the letter Ayn.
11866 - Muhammad ibn Ali al-Sa’igh al-Makki narrated to us, Hafs ibn ‘Umar al-Juddi narrated to us, H, and Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Baghawi narrated to us, Ja’far ibn Mihran al-Sammak narrated to us, they said: ‘Abd al-Warith narrated to us, Ayyub narrated to us, on the authority of ‘Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, “prostrated while he was in Mecca at al-Najm, and the Muslims prostrated with him. ” And the polytheists, the jinn, and mankind .” Hafs ibn Umar said in his hadith: “The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, prostrated in Mecca, and the Jews, Christians, and polytheists prostrated with him.”

What Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, said here also agrees with what Ibn Mas’ud, may God be pleased with him, said, and he is an eyewitness.

We read from Sahih al-Bukhari, Chapters on Prostration in the Qur’an, Chapter on Prostration in the Star:
1070 - Hafs ibn Umar narrated to us, he said: Shu’bah narrated to us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of al-Aswad, on the authority of Abd al- Allah, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “ The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, recited Surat An-Najm and prostrated with it. There was no one among the people who did not prostrate. Then a man among the people took a handful of pebbles or dirt and raised it to his face and said: This is enough for me .” Abdullah said: “I saw him later killed as a disbeliever.”

The narration was weakened by the researcher of the book Tafsir As-Samarqandi.

Note 2 :
Some people have mentioned that Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, confirmed the story of the cranes, but this is incorrect. Sheikh Al-Islam, may God have mercy on him, neither confirmed nor denied the incident, but rather he conveyed the opinions of those who confirmed and those who denied it, and the argument of each of them .
To clarify this point, I will quote what Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, said about this incident and his transmission of the opinions of the two groups in his book Minhaaj Al-Sunnah and in Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa, then I will point out the part that proves that he, may God have mercy on him, was merely a transmitter.

We read from the curriculum of the Prophetic Sunnah, the second chapter, that the doctrine of the Imamiyyah is obligatory to be followed. The section on the words of Ibn al-Mutahhar after the introduction. The obligation to follow the doctrine of the Imamiyyah for the reasons for responding to his statement about the Imamiyyah that they say that God is capable of all that is possible. The comment on his statement that the prophets are infallible from error and forgetfulness. The comment on his statement that this negates trust and necessitates alienation.
(([And what clarifies this is that no one is known to have questioned the prophethood of any of the prophets or cast doubt on trust in him based on what is indicated by the texts from which he repented, and the Muslims did not need to interpret the texts in a way that is of the same kind as Distorting it, as is done by those who do that. The Torah contains a part of this, and I do not know that the Children of Israel slandered any of the prophets by repenting in any matter. Rather, they slandered them by slandering them, just as they used to harm Moses, peace be upon him. Otherwise, Moses had killed the Copt before prophethood and repented. From the question of vision and other things after the prophecy, and I do not know of anyone from the Children of Israel who was accused of something like this.
And what happened in Surat An-Najm, from His saying: “Those are the exalted cranes, and indeed their intercession is hoped for,” according to what is well-known among the early Muslims and later Muslims, that this happened on his tongue, then Allah abrogated it and nullified it, is one of the greatest fabrications according to the saying of these people, and for this reason many of the people used to deny this, even though he permitted them to do something else: either Before or after the prophecy, because he thought that there was an error in conveying the message , and he is infallible in conveying the message by consensus. The agreed upon infallibility is that he does not acknowledge a mistake in conveying the message by consensus. From this, it is not known that any of the polytheists were repelled by his retraction from this, and his saying: This is from what Satan has cast, but it was narrated that they were repelled when he returned to criticizing their gods after they thought that he had praised them, so their retraction was due to his persistence in He blamed her, not because he said something and then said: The devil cast it. And if this did not repel, then it is more appropriate that it does not repel.

And from the same source, the first chapter of Minhaaj al-Karamah, a general presentation of the opinion of the Imamis and the Sunnis regarding the Imamate, continuing the discussion of Ibn al-Mutahhar’s claims, the chapter responding to the Rafidi’s saying that they say that the prophets are not infallible:
((And this is the purpose of the message, for the Messenger is the one who conveys from Allah His command, prohibition, and news (2), and they are infallible in conveying the message (3) by agreement of the Muslims, such that it is not permissible for any error to remain in that.
And they disputed whether it is permissible for what Allah the Most High corrects and clarifies to him to precede his tongue, such that he does not He acknowledges his mistake . As it was reported that it was cast on his tongue [may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him] (4): Those are the high cranes, and their intercession (5) is hoped for; then Allah the Most High abrogated what Satan cast and perfected His verses. Some of them did not permit that and some of them permitted it since there is no objection in it ; for Allah the Most High (6) abrogates what He casts. Satan, and Allah establishes His verses, and Allah is Knowing and Wise, {That He may make what Satan casts into a trial for those in whose hearts is disease and those whose hearts are hardened. And indeed, the wrongdoers are in extreme dissension.} [Surat Al-Hajj: 53] (7))

And we read from Majmu` Al-Fatawa, Volume 21, Book of Purification, Chapter on Invalidators of Wudu:
((Ibn Battal objected to Al-Bukhari’s argument that it is permissible to prostrate without Wudu. On the authority of Ibn Abbas: “The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited An-Najm and prostrated, and the Muslims, polytheists, jinn, and mankind prostrated with him.” This prostration is mutawatir among the people of knowledge. Also in Sahih, on the authority of Ibn Mas`ud, he said: “The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited An-Najm in Mecca and prostrated, and those with him prostrated, except for an old man who took a hand.” From pebbles or dirt, he raised it to his forehead and said: This is enough for me. He said: Then I saw him killed as an unbeliever. Ibn Battaal said:There is no argument in this; Because the prostration of the polytheists was not in the form of worship and glorification of Allah, but rather it was due to what Satan put on the tongue of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, of mentioning their gods in his statement: {Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza?} {And Manat, the third, the other?} So he said: Those are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for. So they prostrated when They heard of the glorification of their gods. When the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, knew what Satan had put on his tongue, he felt sorry for him and was saddened by it. So God Almighty revealed, to comfort him and console him for what had happened to him: {And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he recited, Satan cast into his recitation} until His saying: {And God is Knowing and Wise} meaning when he recited, Satan cast into his recitation. It cannot be inferred from the prostration of the polytheists that it is permissible to prostrate without ablution, because the polytheist is impure and his ablution and prostration are not valid except after the contract of Islam. It is said: This is weak, because the people only prostrated when the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited: “Are you then amazed at this statement?” “And you laugh and do not weep?” “And you are heedless.” “So prostrate to God and worship Him.” So the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and those with him prostrated in compliance with this command, which is prostration to God, and the polytheists followed him in Prostration to Allah. And what was mentioned about the wish, if it was correct , then it was the reason for their agreement with him in prostrating to God, and for this reason, when this happened, the Muslims in Abyssinia heard about it, so a group of them returned to Mecca, and the polytheists did not deny the worship of God and His glorification, but they worshipped other gods with Him, as God informed us about them about that, so it was This prostration is part of their worship of Allah, and He said: “The Muslims, the polytheists, the jinn, and mankind prostrated with him.”

This last quote clearly indicates that Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) did not authenticate the story, as he quoted the words of Ibn Battaal (may Allah have mercy on him) and then followed it with “and what was mentioned about the wish, if it was authentic.” This is a statement that indicates his lack of certainty about the authenticity of the narration, rather it indicates his hesitation, as he neither authenticated it nor denied it, but he was hesitant about whether it was authentic or not .

We read from the collection of fatwas, part 10, chapter on the science of behavior, the chapter on the proof of infallibility for the prophets, through which the purpose of the message is achieved:
((But will something come forth that God will make up for, which will abrogate what Satan casts, and God will perfect His verses?There are two opinions on this. What is narrated from the Salaf agrees with the Qur’an in this regard. Those who denied this from the later scholars criticized what is transmitted of the addition in Surat An-Najm with His saying: “Those are the exalted cranes, and indeed their intercession is hoped for.” They said: This has not been proven. Whoever knows that it has been proven says: This was cast by Satan into their ears and the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not utter it. However, the question is directed to… This is also the estimation . And they said about his statement: {Except when he wishes, Satan casts into his wish} that it is a self-talk. As for those who affirmed what was transmitted from the Salaf, they said: This is transmitted with a proven transmission that cannot be criticized, and the Qur’an indicates this with His statement: {And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he made a wish, Satan cast into his wish. Then Allah nullifies what Satan casts into it, and then Allah confirms His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.} {That He may make what he cast into it a reality.} {Satan is a trial for those in whose hearts is disease and for those whose hearts are hardened. And indeed, the wrongdoers are in extreme dissension.} {And that those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from your Lord, and believe in it, and their hearts may submit to it. And indeed, Allah is the Guide of those who believe to a straight path.} So they said: The traces in the interpretation of this verse are well-known and established in the books of Interpretation, hadith and the Qur’an agree with this, for Allah’s abrogation of what Satan casts and His perfection of His verses is only to remove what has occurred in His verses and to distinguish truth from falsehood so that His verses are not mixed with other verses. Making what Satan has cast a trial for those in whose hearts is disease and whose hearts are hardened only happens when it is apparent and heard by people, not hidden in the soul. The trial that occurs with this type of abrogation is of the same kind as the trial that occurs with the other type of abrogation. ))

Notice how Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah conveyed the arguments of both groups and was satisfied with responding to this doubt assuming the story is true. This supports what we said previously, that his position on this story is not confirmation or denial, but rather suspension.

Note 3:
What some Hanafis and Malikis said about citing the mursal absolutely without restriction is only in relation to the science of branches of rulings, not in relation to the science of principles of beliefs. According to their school of thought, the narration of Al-Gharaneeq is also invalid.

We read from the evidence of prophethood by al-Bayhaqi, may God have mercy on him, the first part, the chapter on mursal:
((Every hadith that one of the followers or followers sent, and narrated it from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and did not mention who transmitted it from him, is of two types: (One of them): That the one who sent it is from the senior followers who, when they mention who they heard from, they mention just people whose news is trustworthy. So if he sends a hadith, his mursal is examined, and if something is added to it that confirms it from another mursal, or the statement of one of the companions, or to it the majority of the people of knowledge go -We accept his mursal in the rulings ))

and we read from what Al-Amidi said in his book Al-Ahkam fi Usul Al-Ahkam, Part Two, the second rule in explaining the legal evidence and its rulings:
((As for the followers, it was their habit to send the news, and what is indicated by that is what was narrated from Al-A’mash that he said: I said to Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i: If you narrate to me, then attribute it, so he said: If I say to you, so-and-so narrated to me from Abdullah, then he is the one who narrated to me, and if I say to you, he narrated to me, then I say to you, so-and-so narrated to me from Abdullah ... Abdullah, a group of people told me about him, and also what was narrated from Al-Hasan that he narrated a hadith, and when it was reviewed, he said: (Seventy Badri people told me about it, and what is indicated by what is well-known about the sending of Ibn Al-Musayyab and Al-Sha’bi and others, and that has not ceased to be well-known among the Companions and the Followers without any denunciation, so it was a consensus (3) and as for Reasonable is that if a just and trustworthy person says: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said such-and-such, expressing certainty about that, then it appears from his condition that he would not permit that unless he knew or thought that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said that.
For if he thought that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not say it, or he was doubtful about it, he would not have considered it permissible in his religion to transmit it definitively, because of what it contains of lying and deception of the listeners. This necessitates the justification of the one from whom it was narrated, otherwise he would not have been knowledgeable nor would he have thought that he was truthful in his report (1). If it is said that we do not accept the consensus, and its evidence from the perspective of generality and detail : As for generality, it is that the issue is a matter of ijtihad, and consensus is conclusive, so it does not help in matters of ijtihad. As for the details, the most that was mentioned is the fate of some of the Companions or the Followers to send, and there is nothing in that that indicates the consensus of all.))

The researcher of the book, Abd al-Razzaq Afifi, said in his commentary on footnote No. 3:
(((3) I say that either he means that they agreed on the permissibility of narration in the form of sending, or he means that they agreed on acting upon what was indicated by The mursal hadiths are among the rulings. If it is the first, it is said that we do not accept that their silence is in agreement with many matters, the most important of which is the possibility that it is because the issue is a matter of ijtihad, and everyone can act in it according to what his ijtihad leads him to, and the speech in such a matter between the mujtahids is only for the purpose of research and debate, not Denial, even if we accept that their silence is agreement, it is a consensus in a place other than the place of dispute.Since the dispute here is about the ruling on acting upon what the mursal hadith indicates of rulings, then it is a tacit consensus that is disputed in terms of using it as evidence, and if it is the second, then the dispute is ongoing, and there is nothing in what has been mentioned of the hadiths that indicates its being lifted.

We read from Nasb al-Rayah by Imam al-Zayla’i, may God have mercy on him, the first part:
((And in the “Musnad” of al-Shafi’i himself there are many mursal hadiths, in the general sense. Which is well-known among the Salaf, and in “Muwatta Malik”, there are about three hundred mursal hadiths, and this amount is more than half of the chains of transmission of “Muwatta”. And what is in the rulings of mursal by Al-Salah Al-Ala’i of researches in irsal is a small part of what the people of the matter have to accept and reject in that, and in what we have commented on the conditions of the five imams, the way to reconcile between the saying of the jurists in authenticating the mursal, and the saying of the later narrators of the weak, with a kind of expansion in the argument of the mursal, Rather, you see Al-Bukhari himself using mursal hadiths in his books as evidence, as does Muslim in the introduction and in Juz’ Ad-Dabbagh, and this place does not bear the need to elaborate on this matter in more detail than this. Among the conditions for accepting reports according to the Hanafis, whether they are connected or not, is that they should not deviate from the principles that they agree upon. This is because these jurists went to great lengths to investigate the sources of texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah, and the rulings of the Companions, until they referred the similar texts that were mentioned and accepted to a principle from which they branched, and a rule under which those similar texts fall. This is what they did with other similar texts, until they completed their examination and induction. They gathered together principles - the subject of their explanation, the books of principles and differences - and they presented the individual reports to them. If the reports were rare and deviant from those principles, they considered them to be in opposition to what is stronger in proof than them, and this is the established principle of following the resources of the Shari’ah that runs in the course of the report of the whole. At-Tahawi often took this principle into account in his books, and those who do not have experience think that this is his preference for some narrations over others by analogy.

Note 4: There were those among the first hundred of the Salaf who rejected the use of mursal as evidence, and this is a response to What Al-Tabari and Abu Dawood, may God have mercy on them, said, that the mursal was used until Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him, came.

1. Ibn Sirin, may God have mercy on
him. We read from the introduction to Sahih Muslim, may God have mercy on him:
((Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn al-Sabbah told us, Ismail ibn Zakariya told us, on the authority of `Asim al-Ahwal, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, who said: “ They did not ask about the chain of transmission, but when the tribulation occurred, they said: Name your men for us, so that the people of the Sunnah would be looked at and their hadith would be taken, and the People of innovations, their hadith should not be accepted“Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanthali narrated to us, ‘Isa, who is the son of Yunus, narrated to us, al-Awza’i narrated to us, on the authority of Sulayman ibn Musa, who said: I met Tawus and said: So-and-so narrated to me such-and-such. He said: ‘If your companion is intelligent, then learn from him.’”

2. Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, may
God have mercy on him. We read from al-Kifaya fi ‘Ilm al-Riwayah by al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, the chapter on what was used as evidence by those who accepted the mursal hadiths
: “Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Abd al- Al-Aziz Al-Hamadhani narrated to us, Salih bin Ahmad Al-Hafiz narrated to us, Abd Al-Rahman bin Hamdan narrated to us, Hilal bin Al-Ala’ said: I heard my father say: “The companions of Hadith attacked Ibn Uyaynah one day, so he climbed up to his room, and his brother said to him: Do you want them to disperse from you? Narrate to them without a chain of transmission. So he said: Look at this man, he is ordering me to He ascended above the house without steps. Salih said: This means that a hadith without a chain of transmission is nothing, and that the chain of transmission is the level of the texts, by which they are connected. 3. Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, may God have mercy on him

.
We read from the same previous source:
((Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar al-Dinawari informed me, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Muzaki told us, Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah told us: I heard Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Muqri’ saying: I heard Ibrahim ibn Ma’dan saying: Ibn al-Mubarak said: “The example of the one who

4. Ali ibn al-Madini, may God have mercy on him. We read from the same previous source: Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl al-Qattan informed us, on the authority of Abu
‘
Isa Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Muhammad ibn Shadhan al-Jawhari, on the authority of my grandfather, who said: I asked ‘Ali ibn al-Madini about the chain of transmission of a hadith that had slipped my mind, so he said: Do you know what he said? Abu Saeed Al-Haddad? He said: “ The chain of transmission is like a staircase and like a ladder, so if your foot slips from the ladder you fall, and the opinion is like a meadow. ”

Al-Ala’i, may God have mercy on him, responded to the claim of consensus that Al-Tabari, may God have mercy on him, mentioned and Ibn Abd Al-Barr, may God have mercy on
him, approved . We read from Jami’ Al-Tahsil by Al-Ala’i, may God have mercy on him, Chapter Three:
“As for consensus, a group of them claimed it, until Muhammad ibn Jarir Al-Tabari said: People continued to act upon and accept mursal hadiths until after the two hundredth year, the opinion to reject them occurred, referring to Imam Al-Shafi’i, may God be pleased with him. They said: As for the era of the Companions, there is no doubt that mursal hadiths were widespread among them, even if no one from the Companions, may God be pleased with them, was denounced at all for mursal hadiths from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.
This, and may God’s prayers and peace be upon our master Muhammad, his family and companions... As for the followers, their sending of hadiths that are not included in the list is well-known and widespread among them, such as Ibn al-Musayyab, Saeed bin Jubayr, al-Hasan and those whose mention would take too long. Their narration of them was only for the sake of acting upon them. Otherwise, if it were futile and not beneficial at all and could not be used as evidence, the scholars would have denied it to them and explained that their sending of the hadith necessitates weakening it and not using it as evidence. Their peers and those above them did not deny that to them, but rather those who came after them denied it.
They said, and there is no objection to this that it necessitates that the disagreement in that be rejected and cast aspersions on the one who disagrees because it violates the consensus, and that is invalid because the disagreement in the mursal is acceptable and heard from its speaker. We do not respond to it by saying that the rejected disagreement that necessitates casting aspersions is only a violation of the definitive consensus. As for the inferential or conjectural consensus, it does not cast aspersions on its breach, and here it is in this position because it is a silent consensus.
The answer to all of that is that the claim of consensus in that is absolutely invalid except in the era of the companions, the time of the prophethood and a little after it when it did not mix with The Companions are not like them, and this does not apply to those who do not rely on the mursal, as well as the mursal of the young Companions, for what was mentioned above, that such a thing is acceptable according to the well-known and preferred opinion that the majority of scholars agree upon, and that it did not contradict... As for after the followers became numerous and their narrations spread among the later Companions and others, it is not possible to claim a tacit consensus on accepting the mursal, let alone others. The story of Ibn Abbas with Bashir bin Kaab and his not accepting the mursal narrations at all has been mentioned, except for those who are known, and it is proven in Sahih Muslim from the two aspects mentioned above, and likewise the saying of Ibn Abbas also, we used to memorize the hadith and the hadith is memorized from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, but if you ride the difficult and the easy, then it is impossible. And the saying of Ibn Sirin, they did not ask about the chain of transmission until the tribulation occurred, so when the tribulation occurred, they said, name your men for us.
I said, because the heretic has lied, many hadiths that she uses to support her heresy, Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, said when he was informed of what the Rafidah of Kufa fabricated against Ali, may God fight them, what knowledge have they corrupted? Muslim also narrated in the introduction to his Sahih.
Imam Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him, said, Ibn Sirin, Urwah bin Al-Zubayr, and Tawus And Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and more than one of the followers are of the opinion that they do not accept the hadith except from a trustworthy person who knows what he narrates and memorizes, and I have not seen anyone from the people of hadith who disagree with this school of thought. And we have already mentioned al-Zuhri’s denial of Ishaq ibn Abi Farwa’s sending of the hadith and his saying, “May God kill you, O son of Abi Farwa, you told us hadiths that he has no nose or reins,” meaning the chains of transmission. And al-Zuhri was one of those who sent the hadith, so his statement indicates that his sending of the hadith was not to be acted upon, perhaps it was for discussion or something similar, or he saw that Ibn Abi Farwa might send it from someone who was not trustworthy, so he denounced him for that.
If it is said, how did al-Zuhri send it from Sulayman ibn Arqam and others until a group of imams weakened his mursals absolutely?
We say, it is possible that he did not know about the weakness of Sulayman ibn Arqam and thought well of him, and al-Shafi’i said the same about him, al-Zuhri, meaning Sulayman ibn Arqam, saw him as a man of chivalry and reason, so he accepted it from him and thought well of him, so he remained silent about his name, either because he was younger than him or for some other reason.
And the result is that the denial of the people of that era of sending and their rejection of the mursal is found in many forms, so there is no consensus in that case.The agreement of the first generation of companions cannot be expelled after that, because of what Ibn Abbas, Ibn Sirin, and others indicated about the difference between them and those who came after them due to the existence of whims and lies after the first generation. Then this statement of claiming agreement is opposed to what Muslim transmitted in the introduction to his Sahih from others, confirming his words of the mursal of the narrations in the origin of our statement and the statement of the people of knowledge of the news is not an argument and the statement of Muhammad bin Jarir that the work of the mursal and its acceptance did not cease until it happened after the two hundred. The statement of its rejection is rejected by the statement of those who rejected it before the two hundred like Al-Awza’i, Shu’bah, Al-Layth bin Sa’d, Abd Al-Rahman bin Mahdi, Yahya bin Sa’id Al-Qattan and others. And success is from God))

Second: The contradiction of the narrations of Al-Gharaneeq with the authentic narration established in the two Sahihs in terms of text:

In Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Interpretation of the Qur’an
4581, Abu Muammar narrated to us, Abdul-Warith narrated to us, Ayoub narrated to us, on the authority of Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn Abbas , who said: The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, prostrated at An-Najm, and the Muslims, polytheists, jinn, and humans prostrated with him. Ibrahim bin Tahman followed him on the authority of Ayoub, and Ibn Ulayyah did not mention Ibn Abbas.

In Sahih Muslim, Book of Mosques and Places of Prayer
4582, Nasr bin Ali narrated to us, Abu Ahmad narrated to us, Israel narrated to us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Al-Aswad bin Yazid, on the authority of Abdullah, may God be pleased with him, who said: The first surah in which prostration was revealed was An-Najm. He said: So the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, prostrated, and those behind him prostrated, except for a man whom I saw take a handful of dirt and prostrate on it. I saw him after that he was killed as a disbeliever, and he was Umayyah bin Khalaf.

The differences between the narration of Al-Gharaneeq and the authentic narration in Sahih Al-Bukhari, may God have mercy on him
: 1. The prostration of the polytheists in the two Sahihs was at the end of Surat An-Najm, while in the narration of Al-Gharaneeq, their prostration was at the beginning after the Almighty said: ((And Manat, the third, the other))
2. The reason for the prostration of the polytheists in the two Sahihs is that it occurred The verses in Surat An-Najm about them and what they heard of the power of expression and eloquence of speech,
while in the narration of Al-Gharaneeq the reason for prostration is the Prophet’s praise of their gods, God forbid, and may my father and mother be far removed from Him
. 3 The narration in the two Sahihs does not mention that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, mentioned Al-Gharaneeq at all in his recitation, nor that he asked for intercession from them, unlike the weak narration of Al-Gharaneeq.

Third: The response to a Christian who argues with us by strengthening the story with all the chains of narration and claims that all the predecessors acted upon the mursal hadith.
The Christian who argues with the mursal hadith and that it rises to the level of hasan has fallen into many fallacies.
First: Among the predecessors who weakened the mursal hadith and indicated that it should not be acted upon is
Imam Muslim in the first part of his Sahih in the introduction, saying:
((If he claims the statement of one of the scholars of the Salaf, with what he claimed of introducing the condition in confirming the news, he will be asked about it, and neither he nor anyone else will find a way to find it. If he claims in what he claimed evidence to argue with, it will be said to him: And what Is that the proof? If he said: I said it because I found the narrators of the hadiths, old and new, one of them narrating the hadith from the other, and he did not witness it, nor did he ever hear anything from him, so when I saw them, they considered it permissible to narrate the hadith among themselves like this on the basis of mursal without hearing it, and the mursal is from the narrations in the origin of our statement, and the statement of the people of knowledge of the hadiths is not With an argument, I needed, for what I described of the reason, to search for the narrator of every report hearing from its narrator, so if I, I attacked his hearing from him for the slightest thing that was proven from him to me, with that is all that he narrates from him after, so if I did not know that, I stopped the report, and I did not have a place of argument for the possibility of sending in it , so it is said to him: If the reason for your weakening the report and not using it as evidence is the possibility of sending it, then you must not confirm a chain of transmission

with a chain of transmission that is not connected until you see that it was heard from beginning to end. The two imams Abu Zur’ah al-Razi and Abu Hatim in the book of mursal, part one, page seven, chapter on what was mentioned about mursal chains of transmission that they do not establish evidence:
((- I heard my father and Abu Zur’ah saying that mursal chains are not used as evidence and evidence is not established except with With the authentic, connected chains of transmission, and this is what I say .

Al-Nawawi, may God have mercy on him, also mentioned that the mursal hadith is not considered a proof by the majority of hadith scholars, in the book Taqrib al-Nawawi, Part One, Type Nine:
(( Then the mursal hadith is a weak hadith according to the majority of hadith scholars, al-Shafi’i, and many of the jurists and scholars of the principles of jurisprudence.Malik and Abu Hanifa, among a group, said: It is authentic. If the source of the mursal hadith is authenticated by its coming from another source, with a chain of transmission, or as a mursal hadith transmitted by someone who took it from someone other than the men of the first, then it is authentic. This shows the authenticity of the mursal hadith and that they are both authentic if they are contradicted by an authentic hadith from a chain of transmission, we give preference to them over it if it is impossible to combine them. This is it. All of it is in the non-Muslim hadith of the Companion. As for its Mursal hadith, it is considered authentic according to the correct school of thought. And it was said: It is like the mursal of others, unless he clarifies the narration from a companion.

Second: Whoever made the mursal a proof from the hadith scholars stipulated conditions for that, and among those is Imam al-Shafi’i,
may God have mercy on him , as we read in the book Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah, Part One, the second type: Knowing the hasan of the hadith:
((And if that is considered unlikely by the Shafi’i jurists, we mention to him the text of al-Shafi’i, may God be pleased with him, in the mursals of the Tabi’in: that the mursal of them is accepted if it came in a similar manner with a chain of transmission, and likewise if Another mursal agreed with him, sent by someone who took knowledge from other than the men of the first Tabi’i in a statement of his in which he mentioned aspects of the evidence for the authenticity of the source of the mursal because it came from another source .

Ibn al-Salah commented saying that this rule is not general and does not apply in all cases, as he said in the same source:
((Second: Perhaps the researcher with understanding says: We find hadiths that are judged to be weak, although they have been narrated. With many chains of transmission from many aspects, such as the hadith: “The ears are part of the head” and the like. Why don’t you consider this and similar hadiths to be of the type of good, because some of it supports some of it, as you said about the type of good, as mentioned above.
The answer to that is that not every weakness in a hadith is removed by its coming from various sources, rather that varies:
Some weaknesses are removed by the weakness arising from the weakness of the memory of its narrator, even though he is one of the people of truthfulness and religiousness. So if we see that what he narrated came from another source, we know that it is something that he had memorized and that his control of it was not flawed. Likewise, if its weakness is due to its being transmitted by a hadith master, it is removed in a similar manner, as in the case of a hadith transmitted by a hadith master, as it contains a slight weakness that is removed by his narration from another aspect.
And from that is a weakness that is not removed in a similar manner, due to the strength of the weakness and the inability of this person to correct it and resist it. This is like the weakness that arises from the narrator being accused of lying, or the hadith being anomalous.
This is a sentence whose details can be understood directly and through research, so know that, for it is one of the precious and valuable things. And Allah knows best. So note

the words of Ibn al-Salah, may Allah have mercy on him:
((And from that is a weakness that cannot be removed by something like that, due to the strength of the weakness and the inability of this compeller to compel it and resist it. And that is like the weakness that arises from the narrator being accused of lying, or the hadith being #shaadh.))

And without a doubt the hadith of the cranes is from this category, as Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, said on page 38 in response to those who thought that the hadith was good due to its many chains of narration:
(( First: The rule that he referred to, which is strengthening the hadith due to the many chains of narration, is not absolute, and more than one of the verified scholars of hadith have pointed this out, including Al-Hafiz Abu Omar bin Al-Salah, where he said, may God have mercy on him, in Introduction to the Sciences of Hadith: pp. 36-37: ..... LT: And he spoke the truth, may God have mercy on him, for neglecting this precious matter has caused many scholars, especially those who are engaged in jurisprudence, to make a blatant mistake, which is to authenticate many weak hadiths, being deceived by the large number of their chains of transmission, and being oblivious to the fact that their weakness is of the type that does not make up for the hadith’s weakness, but rather only increases its weakness upon weakness. And of this type is the hadith of Ibn Abbas in this story, for all of its chains of transmission are very weak, as mentioned above, so it is not strengthened by them at all.
But it remains to consider the other chains of transmission of the hadith, can the hadith be strengthened by them, or not?
Know that they are all mursal, and despite their mursal they are flawed by weakness and ignorance as previously detailed, except for the first four paths of them “No. 1, 2, 3 and 5” which are the ones that deserve consideration, because Al-Hafiz, may Allah have mercy on him, made them his mainstay in authenticating this story and strengthening it with them, and this is something that we disagree with him on, and we do not agree with him on, and explaining that requires a brief and useful introduction, God willing, and it is… The second matter: Knowing the reason for the hadith scholars not relying on the mursal hadith, so know that the reason for that is the ignorance of the intermediary from whom the mursal narrated the hadith , and Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi explained that in “Al-Kifaya fi Ilm Al-Riwayah” where he said (p. 287) after he narrated the disagreement with the mursal work:
“And what we choose is the fall of the obligation to work with the mursal, and that the mursal is not acceptable, and what indicates that is that the mursal hadith leads to ignorance of the identity of its narrator, and it is impossible to know his justice with ignorance of his identity, and we have previously explained that it is not permissible to accept the report except from someone whose justice is known… I said: If it is known that the mursal hadith is not accepted, and that the reason is ignorance of the condition of the deleted hadith, then it is responded to that the statement that it is strengthened by another mursal hadith is not strong #because #it is possible that #everyone who sent it #took it #from #one #narrator, and then the possibilities mentioned by Al-Hafiz are rejected, and it is as if Imam Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him, noticed the occurrence of this possibility and its strength, so he stipulated in the other mursal hadith that its sender took knowledge from other than the men of the first Tabi’i, as Ibn Al-Salah narrated (p. 35) and it is as if that is to make it more likely that what is deleted in one of the mursals is not the same in the other mursal hadith ))

Third: The doctrine of the people of hadith that has settled on is, as I said, not to act on the mursal hadith unless it is supported, and this is not done except with conditions, so it is not a general rule but rather a specific one, and some have even limited it to the mursal being supported by a chain of transmission, and this in itself makes the hadith an argument for it being a chain of transmission and not a mursal hadith, and this does not apply to the hadith of Al-Gharaneeq.
We read from the introduction of Ibn Al-Salah, Part One, the ninth type in knowing the mursal:
(( Then know that the ruling on a mursal hadith is the ruling on a weak hadith, unless its chain of transmission is authenticated by its coming from another source.As previously explained in the category of hasan. For this reason, al-Shafi’i, may Allah be pleased with him, used as evidence the mursal hadiths of Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab, may Allah be pleased with them both, as they were found in chains of transmission from other sources, and this is not specific to him in the mursal hadiths of Ibn al-Musayyab, as previously mentioned.
And whoever denies this, claiming that reliance then falls on the musnad and not the mursal, and thus it is superfluous and unnecessary, then his answer is that with the musnad the authenticity of the chain of transmission in which there is mursal becomes clear, so that it is ruled for it with its mursal that it is a sound chain of transmission with the likes of it that the proof is established, based on what we paved the way for in the second type. This is only denied by those who have no taste in this matter.
What we have mentioned about the invalidity of citing mursal hadiths as evidence and the ruling on their weakness is the school of thought that the majority of hadith memorizers and critics of athar have settled upon, and they have discussed it in their writings .
In the beginning of Sahih Muslim: “A mursal hadith, in our opinion and the opinion of the people of knowledge of hadith, is not a proof.”
Ibn Abd al-Barr, the preserver of the Maghreb, is among those who narrated this from a group of hadith scholars.
And citing it as evidence is the school of Malik, Abu Hanifa and their companions [may Allah have mercy on them] in a group, and Allah knows best.

Fourth: What the Christian narrated from Imam al-Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, in his book contains forgery and truncation (and he quoted part of it to show that citing the mursal is the school of al-Suyuti).
Imam al-Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, says in his book about the mursal:
138 - The mursal is the one that is raised by a follower, or ... of old age, or a narrator who has fallen short, and they have narrated
139 - The most famous of them is the first, then the evidence ... is by it The three imams saw
140 - and its rejection is the strongest, and the saying of the majority ... like al-Shafi’i, and the people of knowledge of hadith
141 - yes, it is used as evidence if it is supported ... by another mursal or a musnad
142 - or the saying of a companion or the majority or ... Qays and among its conditions as they saw
143 - is that the one who sent it is one of the elders ... even if he walks with a hafiz who is followed
144 - And none of his sheikhs were weak... such as the prohibition of selling meat in principle

. Imam al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, tends towards the weakness of the response of the mursal in his statement:
(( And its rejection is the strongest , and the saying of the majority... such as al-Shafi’i and the people of knowledge of hadith))

Al-Athiopian said in his explanation of al-Suyuti’s Alfiyyah in the first part:
((( And its rejection is the strongest) is a subject and a predicate, meaning the rejection of the argument with the mursal is the strongest opinion due to the strength of its evidence (and) it is (the saying of the majority) of the verified scholars.And that (like) the imam, the role model, the head of the jurists and hadith scholars, Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris ibn al-Abbas ibn Uthman ibn Shafi’i (al-Shafi’i), for he - may God be pleased with him - was the first to reject the mursal on what was said, except that he rejects what was transmitted from Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab and Malik in a narration from him, even though the well-known opinion is the opposite, and what was transmitted from al-Zuhri, Ibn Sirin, Ibn Mahdi, and Yahya al-Qattan, except that it may be said that it was specifically attributed to al-Shafi’i for further investigation into it, (and the people of knowledge of the news) in the accusative case, in apposition to al-Shafi’i, meaning and like the people of knowledge of the hadith as Muslim narrated from them in the beginning of his Sahih and Ibn Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid, and al-Hakim narrated it from Ibn al-Musayyab and Malik, and it is the opinion of many of the jurists, scholars of the principles of jurisprudence, and people of insight.
And they argued that the condition of the omitted one is unknown because it is possible that he is not a companion, and if that is the case then it is possible that he is weak, and it is possible that he is trustworthy, and in the second case it is possible that he was carried from another follower and so on, so the possibility returns))

And Imam Al-Suyuti himself, may God
have mercy on him, says in his book Tadrib Al-Rawi in explaining Taqrib Al-Nawawi, the ninth type, the mursal: (((If the source of the mursal is authenticated by its arrival) or something similar (from another source, with a chain of transmission or mursal, transmitted by someone who took) knowledge, (from other than the men) of the mursal (the first one, it is authentic) This is how Al-Shafi’i stated it in The message, restricting it to the mursal of the great followers, and whoever names the one who sent from him, he calls him trustworthy, and if the reliable memorizers participate with him, they do not contradict him, and he added in support that it agrees with the saying of a companion, or the majority of scholars issue a fatwa based on it, so if one of the conditions mentioned is missing, his mursal is not accepted.
If it was found before, (and this becomes clear (The authenticity of the sender), (and that they) i.e. the sender and what supported him, (are both authentic. If they are opposed by an authentic hadith from a single path) one way, (we give preference to them over it) due to the multiplicity of paths, (if it is impossible to combine) them.))

And the question for this Christian, which is a challenge:
1. How do you know that the one from whom Saeed took is not the same as Abu Al-Aaliyah, meaning that the source of the first sender is the same as the source of the second sender??? According to the condition ((, from other than the men of the sender))
2. The hadith of Abdullah bin Masoud and Ibn Abbas did not mention the cranes, but rather the narration of Ibn Masoud, may God be pleased with him, mentions that the prostration was at the end of the star and not at its beginning.

We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Chapter on the Prostration of the Star. Ibn Abbas said on the authority of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant
him peace 1020 Hafs bin Omar told us, he said, Shu’bah told us, on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Al-Aswad, on the authority of Abdullah, may God be pleased with him, that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited Surat Al-Najm and prostrated with it, and no one remained from the people except that he prostrated, so a man from the people took a handful of pebbles or dirt and raised it to his face and said, “This is sufficient for me.” Abdullah said, “I saw him after he was killed as a disbeliever .”

Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Interpretation of the Qur’an
4581 Abu Muammar narrated to us, Abdul-Warith narrated to us, Ayoub narrated to us, on the authority of Ikrimah, on the authority of Ibn Abbas,  who said: The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, prostrated at the star, and the Muslims, polytheists, jinn, and humans prostrated with him. Ibrahim bin Tahman followed him on the authority of Ayoub,

and Ibn Ulayyah did not mention Ibn Abbas. This contradicts the second condition (And when the trustworthy guardians join him, they do not contradict him.)
3. Is the narration of Al-Gharaniq authentic from any of the companions?? No, if this contradicts the third condition (and he added to the support that it agrees with the statement of a companion, or that most scholars issue a fatwa based on it)

if according to the conditions of Imam al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, then these mursals do not constitute evidence
and two reasons were added:
1. The conflict of texts in the narrations as explained by Imam al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, and others.
2. The agreement of a group of scholars on the weakness of this trace.

Also, a final gift was added to the Christian who was very happy with the mursal of Abu al-Aaliyah, even though his mursal is nothing according to the standard of those who compare mursals.
We read in Jami` al-Tahsil, Chapter Four, Page 89:
(( I said that it was mentioned previously from Ibn Sirin that he weakened the mursals of al-Husayn and Abu al-Aaliyah and said that they believed everyone who narrated it to them, and Ibn Awn narrated it from him ))
and therefore this contradicts the condition that some have set that it is known about the Tabi’i that he does not narrate except from Trust

and I end by weakening a group of scholars for this false story:
Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj
: ((Many of the interpreters have mentioned here the story of the cranes, and what happened from the return of many of the emigrants to the land of Abyssinia, thinking that the polytheists of Quraysh had converted to Islam. But it is from all paths that are mursal, and I have not seen it attributed from a sound source , and God knows best.))

Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him, in his interpretation of Surat Al-Hajj, and he transmitted with him the weakening of Judge Abu Bakr Ibn Al-Arabi and Judge Iyad:
((Third: The hadiths narrated about the revelation of this verse, and none of them are sound . And among the things that the infidels used to deceive their common people was their saying: The right of the prophets is that they are not unable to do anything, so why does Muhammad not bring us punishment when we have exaggerated in our enmity towards him? They also used to say: They should not be subject to forgetfulness and error; The Lord, glory be to Him, made it clear that they are human beings, and the one who brings the punishment is Allah, the Most High, according to what He wills, and it is permissible for humans to be careless, forgetful, and mistaken until Allah establishes His verses and abrogates the tricks of Satan.... And Judge Iyad said in the book Ash-Shifa after mentioning the evidence of the truthfulness of the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - and that the nation agreed in what is transmitted that he is infallible in reporting something other than what it is, neither intentionally, nor deliberately, nor by mistake, nor by mistake: Know, may Allah honor you, that we have two points of view in speaking about the problems of this hadith: The first is to weaken its origin, and the second is to accept it . As for the first point, it is sufficient for you that this hadith was not narrated by any of the people of authenticity, nor was it narrated with a sound, connected, trustworthy chain of transmission; rather, the commentators and historians who are fond of everything strange, who pick up everything sound and weak from the pages, were fond of it and its like. Abu Bakr Al-Bazzar said: We do not know of this hadith being narrated from the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - with a connected chain of transmission that is permissible to mention ; Except what Shu'bah narrated, on the authority of Abu Bishr, on the authority of Sa'id bin Jubair, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, as I think, the doubt in the hadith is that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was in Mecca... and he mentioned the story. And no one attributed it to Shu'bah except Umayyah bin Khalid, and others send it back on the authority of Sa'id bin Jubair. Rather, it is known on the authority of Al-Kalbi, on the authority of Abu Salih, on the authority of Ibn Abbas; Abu Bakr, may Allah have mercy on him, has shown you that it is not known through a chain of transmission that is permissible to mention other than this, and it contains the weakness that we have pointed out, along with the doubt that we mentioned about it, which is not trustworthy and has no truth to it. As for the hadith of Al-Kalbi, it is not permissible to narrate it on his authority, nor to mention it due to its strong weakness and falsehood, as Al-Bazzar, may Allah have mercy on him, indicated.What is in the Sahih is that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited “By the Star” in Mecca and prostrated, and the Muslims, polytheists, jinn, and humans prostrated with him. This is its weakening by way of transmission . ))

And Al-Shawkani, may God have mercy on him, weakened it and transmitted the weakening of Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Bazzar and Ibn Khuzaymah in Fath Al-Qadir Surah Al-Hajj:
(( And none of this is authentic, nor has it been proven in any way, and despite its not being authentic, rather its invalidity, the investigators have refuted it with the Book of God Almighty, God said: And if he had fabricated against Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would have cut from him the aorta [Al-Haqqah: 44-46] and His saying: Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination [An-Najm: 3] and His saying: And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined toward them [Al-Isra’: 74], so He denied the proximity of inclination, let alone inclination.
Al-Bazzar said: This is a hadith that we do not know of, narrated from the Prophet - may God bless him and his family and grant them peace - with a connected chain of
transmission. Al-Bayhaqi said: This story is not authentic in terms of transmission, then he began to speak that the narrators of this story are questionable.
And the Imam of Imams Ibn Khuzaymah said: This story is from the fabrication of the heretics ))

and Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, weakened it in His book, “Half of the Cranes in Blowing Up the Story of the Cranes,” responded to Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, who improved the narration with all its chains of transmission and explained its mistakes.
http://islamport.com/d/1/alb/1/84/681.html#

Note:
Imam al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, weakened all the mursals in this story except the mursal of Saeed bin Jubayr, may God have mercy on him, and he followed it with Ibn Hajar’s commentary on it, may God have mercy on him, in Lubab al-Nuqul in Surat al-Hajj, where he said:
“ They all have one meaning and they are all either weak or disconnected except for the first chain of transmission of Saeed bin Jubayr . Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said, but the large number of chains of transmission indicates that the story has a basis, even though it has two authentic mursal chains of transmission that Ibn Jarir included, one of them via al-Zuhri on the authority of Abu Bakr bin Abd al-Rahman bin al-Harith bin Hisham and the other via Dawud bin Hind on the authority of Abu al-Aaliyah. No attention should be paid to the statement of Ibn al-Arabi and Iyad: These narrations are invalid and have no basis. ))

And note the statement of Al-Suyuti, may God have mercy on him, before he mentioned the statement of Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him:
((They all have one meaning and they are all either weak or interrupted except for the first chain of transmission of Saeed bin Jubair))

We have previously mentioned the response of Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, to Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, and we follow it with the comment of Al-Sawi in his commentary on the interpretation of Al-Jalalain, Part Four, and he said after quoting the statement of Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him:
(( The truth is with Iyad and Ibn Al-Arabi and other investigators in their statement that this narration is invalid because belief depends on certainty or something close to it in the chain of transmission ))

Fourth: The correct interpretation of the verse, as it appears from its context, is that Satan casts whispers in what the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, desires, so God Almighty abrogates that, that is, removes it from the heart of His Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and from the hearts of the believers. As for the disbelievers, the whispers of Satan are a trial for them .
We read from the interpretation of Al-Qurtubi, may God have mercy on him
: (God Almighty said: (And We did not send before you any messenger) meaning the one to whom Gabriel comes with revelation in person, (nor prophet) meaning the one whose prophethood is inspiration or a dream, and every messenger is a prophet, but not every prophet is a messenger (except when he wished) some of them said: meaning: he loved something and desired it and spoke to himself about it unless he was commanded to do it. (Satan cast into his wish) meaning: his desire.
And on the authority of Ibn Abbas, he said:: When he spoke, Satan would cast into his speech and find a way to it. There was no prophet but that he wished that his people would believe in him. No prophet wished for that but Satan cast upon him what would please his people, so Allah abrogates what Satan cast .

And we read from the interpretation of Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, al-Bahr al-Muhit:
(( ( ( When Allah the Almighty mentioned that He defends those who believe and that He the Almighty permitted the believers to fight and that they had been expelled from their homes and mentioned the consolation of His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, by the denial of the nations who came before them of their prophets and what their affair led to of destruction as a result of the denial and after the respite, and He ordered him to call the people and inform them that he is a warner to them after they hastened the punishment, and that He does not have the power to advance the punishment or delay it, Allah the Almighty mentioned to him a second consolation in consideration of the messengers and prophets who had passed away, which is that they were keen on the faith of their people, wishing for that and persevering in it, and that there was not one of them but that Satan would spite him by beautifying disbelief for his people and spreading that to them and casting it into their souls, just as he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was One of the people who was most eager for the guidance of his people, and among them were devils like Al-Nadr ibn Al-Harith, who cast doubts on his people and those who came to him, discouraging them from Islam. That is why before this verse came ( And those who strive to frustrate Our verses ) and their striving to cast doubts in the hearts of those they attracted, and this was attributed to Satan because he is the seducer and the one who motivates the devils of mankind to seduce, as He said (I will surely lead them astray). It was said that (Satan) here is a type that refers to the devils of mankind. The pronoun in (his wish) refers back to (Satan), meaning in his wish, meaning because of his wish. The object of (cast) is omitted to understand the meaning, which is evil and disbelief, and disobeying the Messenger or Prophet, because Satan does not cast good. The meaning of ( Allah will abrogate what Satan casts ) is that He will remove those doubts little by little until people submit, as He said ( And you will see people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes ) and ( Allah establishes His verses ) meaning His miracles, He will show them as clear and unambiguous ( that He may make what Satan casts ) of those doubts and embellishments of speech (a trial) for the sick of heart and the hard-hearted (and that He may know) whoever has been given knowledge that what the Messenger and Prophet wished for of the guidance of his people and their faith is the truth. This verse does not attribute anything to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, but rather it includes the state of those who came before him from the messengers and prophets when they wished .

And we read from the interpretation of Al-Baydawi, may Allah have mercy on him:
((( Except when he wishes, he deceives himself with what he desires. Satan casts into his wish in his desire what requires him to be occupied with the world, as he, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “And indeed, my heart is veiled, so I seek forgiveness from Allah seventy times a day.”
So Allah abrogates what Satan casts, invalidates it, and takes it with its protection from relying on it and guidance to what removes it. Then Allah perfects His verses, then confirms His verses that call for immersion in the matter of the Hereafter . And Allah is All-Knowing of the conditions of people. Wise in what He does with them. It was said that he told himself to remove the poverty. So it was revealed .

Fifth: The context of the verses in Surat An-Najm belies the story .
God Almighty said: ((Is it for you the male and for Him the female? (21) That is indeed an unfair division. (22) They are not but names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which God has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what their souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance. (23))
How can we believe that the polytheists hear the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saying, “Those are the exalted cranes, and their intercession is hoped for,” and then he follows it up with the words of Allah the Almighty: “Is it for you the male and for Him the female? (21) That is indeed an unfair division. (22) They are not but names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow
not except assumption and what their souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance.” (23) And they consider this to be praise for their gods??? Rather, they rejoice at this and extol it with joy, and none of them asks, and they are the most moderate, most eloquent, and most articulate Arabs: How does the beginning of the statement contradict its end?? And what is worse is that they prostrate with the Muslims in joy and jubilation!!!!! And the verses that follow it state clearly that Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat are nothing but mere names, nothing more and nothing less!!!

Sixth: His biography, peace and blessings be upon him, before and after the mission, which indicates his rejection of idols and his hatred of them, including Al-Lat and Al-Uzza .
Before the mission:
We read from Musnad Al-Imam Ahmad, Musnad Al-Shamiyyin, the hadith of Jarir for Khadija bint Khuwaylid
17947 - Abu Usamah Hammad bin Usamah narrated to us, Hisham, meaning Ibn Urwah, narrated to us, on the authority of his father, he said: A neighbor for Khadija bint Khuwaylid narrated to me that he heard the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, saying to Khadija: “O Khadija, by God I do not worship Al-Lat, by God I do not worship Al-Uzza forever. He said: Khadijah will say: Leave Al-Lat, leave Al-Uzza . He said: It was their idol that they used to worship and then lie down. (2) The investigator Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut, may God have mercy on him,
commented (( Its chain of transmission is authentic, its men are trustworthy men of the two sheikhs except for the neighbor of Khadijah, for no one other than the author narrated this single hadith from him, and he is a companion, and his ignorance does not harm .)) As for after the mission: We read from the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, the Musnad of the Medinans, the hadith of a sheikh from Banu Malik bin Kinanah 16603 - Abu Al-Nadr told us, he said: Shaiban narrated to us, on the authority of Ash'ath, who said: An old man from Banu Malik ibn Kinanah narrated to me, saying: I saw the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in the market of Dhu'l-Majaz, walking through it and saying: "O people, say, 'There is no god but Allah,' and you will be successful." He said: And Abu Jahl was throwing dirt on him and saying: O people, do not let this man deceive you about your religion, for he only wants... To abandon your gods, and abandon (1) Al-Lat and Al-Uzza. He said: And the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not pay attention to him. He said: We said: Describe the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, to us. He said: “Between two red cloaks, square, with much flesh, a handsome face, very black hair, very white, with long hair.” (2) The investigator Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut, may God have mercy on him, commented on the hadith in His investigation of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, may God have mercy on him: (((2) Its chain of transmission is authentic, its men are trustworthy men of the two sheikhs.








Abu Al-Nadr: He is Hashim Ibn Al-Qasim, and Shaiban: He is Ibn Abd Al-Rahman Al-Nahwi, and Ash’ath: He is Ibn Abi Al-Sha’thaa Sulaym Ibn Al-Aswad.
Al-Haythami mentioned it in “Majma’ Al-Zawa’id” 6/21-22, and said: It was narrated by Ahmad, and its men are the men of Sahih.
And something similar to it will come in an abbreviated form 5/371, and it will be repeated 5/376 in chain of transmission and text, and see (16020))

And therefore the famous writer Muhammad Hussein Haykal denied the story in his book The Life of Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace, and attributed the reason for the return of some of the immigrants from Abyssinia to the Islam of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Hamza Ibn Abdul Muttalib (I will suffice with presenting the pictures)

) 














And in the words of Muhammad Hussein Haykal there is a beautiful point that only the clever and perceptive person can notice, as he attributed the reason for the return of the immigrants from Abyssinia to the Islam of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab and Hamza, and no wonder, as this agrees with what is proven from the Sunnah, as the Muslims after that only increased in honor after honor.
We read from Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues of the Helpers, Chapter on the Islam of Omar bin Al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him
3863 - Muhammad bin Katheer told me, Sufyan told us, on the authority of Ismail bin Abi Khalid, on the authority of Qais bin Abi Hazim, on the authority of Abdullah bin Masoud, may God be pleased with him, who said: “ We have not ceased to be honorable since Omar embraced Islam .”

And we read in Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra by Ibn Saad, Part Three, First Class:
((He said: Abdullah bin Numayr, Ya’la, and Muhammad bin Ubayd said: Ismail bin Abi Khalid informed us on the authority of Qais bin Abi Hazim who said: I heard Abdullah bin Masoud say: We have not ceased to be strong since Umar embraced Islam. Muhammad bin Ubayd said in his hadith: I saw us and we were not able to pray in the House until Umar embraced Islam. So when Umar embraced Islam, he fought them until they let us pray .)
Dr. Muhammad Al-Suwayyan authenticated it in his book Sahih Min Hadiths of the Prophet’s Biography, Chapter on the Islam of Omar,

and we read from the biography of Ibn Hisham, Part One:
((Ibn Ishaq said: Nafi’, the freed slave of Abdullah bin Omar, told me, on the authority of Ibn Omar, who said: When Abu Omar converted to Islam, he said: Which of the Quraysh is the best at transmitting hadiths? So it was said to him [4]: ​​Jamil bin Ma’mar Al-Jumahi. He said: So he went to him the next morning. Abdullah bin Omar said: So I went out in the morning to follow his footsteps and see what he was doing, and I was a young boy who understood everything I saw, until he came to him and said to him: Did you know, O Jameel, that I have become a Muslim and entered the religion of Muhammad? He said: By God, he did not return to him until he stood up dragging his cloak, and Umar followed him, and I followed my father, until when he stood at the door of the mosque, he cried out at the top of his voice:
O people of Quraysh, while they were in their clubs around the Kaaba [1], beware, Umar ibn al-Khattab has become an apostate.
He said: (And) [2] Omar said from behind him: He lied, but I have become Muslim, and I testify that there is no god but God, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. And they rose up against him,He kept fighting them and they kept fighting him until the sun rose over their heads. He said: And he came out [3], so he sat down and they stood over his head and he said: Do whatever you want, so I swear by God that if we had been three hundred men (we would have) [2] left it for you, or you would have left it for us. He said: While they were like that, an old man from Quraysh came, wearing a red cloak [4] and an embroidered shirt, until he stood over them and said: What What is your matter? They said: Omar has become a young man. He said: What is it? A man has chosen a matter for himself, so what do you want? Do you think Banu Adi bin Ka'b will surrender their companion to you like this? Leave the man alone. He said: By God, it is as if they were a garment that has been removed. He said: So I said to my father after he migrated to Medina: O my father, who is the man who warned the people against you in Mecca on the day I converted to Islam, and they were fighting you? He said: That, my son, is Al-Aas bin Wa’il Al-Sahmi.))
And the narration was transmitted by Ibn Kathir, may God have mercy on him, in Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, Part Three, Chapter on the Migration of Those Companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, Who Migrated from Mecca to the Land of Abyssinia, Fleeing for Their Religion:
(( And this is a good, strong chain of narration , and it indicates that Umar’s conversion to Islam was delayed because Ibn Umar was exposed on the day of Uhud when he was fourteen years old, and Uhud was in the third year of the Hijra, and he was discerning on the day his father converted to Islam, so his conversion to Islam was about four years before the Hijra, and that was about nine years after the mission, and Allah knows best.

And from here we can say that this analysis - regarding the reason for the return of some of the immigrants from Abyssinia - is closer to reality and is in accordance with the context of the words of Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, may Allah have mercy on him, in his letter to Abdul Malik ibn Marwan when they heard of Hamza’s conversion to Islam. And Omar and what happened to the Muslims from their ability to pray in the sanctuary openly and Omar’s fighting against them, encouraged them to return to Mecca .

Seventh: We hold the Christians accountable for what the Holy Book attributed to some of the prophets of worshipping idols and statues and associating partners with God, God forbid.
1. Aaron, peace be upon him, made the golden calf for the children of Israel to worship, God forbid, and Aaron, peace be upon him, was far removed from that, my father and mother be his ransom!!!!
We read in Exodus 32
:1 When the people saw that Moses delayed in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered around Aaron and said to him, “Arise, make us gods who will go before us. For as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.”
2 Then Aaron said to them, “Take off the gold earrings that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.”
3 So all the people took off the gold earrings that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron.
4 So he took it from their hand and fashioned it with a chisel and made it a molten calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.”
5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.”
6 So they rose early in the morning and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink, and then they rose up to play.

2. Solomon, peace be upon him, worshipped idols and made altars to them. God forbid, and God forbid that his father and my mother would do so!!!!
We read in the First Book of Kings, Chapter 11
:4 And it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father.
5 So Solomon followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
6 So Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done.
7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the mountain that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the children of Ammon.
8 And so he did to all his foreign wives who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods.
9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon , because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel , who had appeared to him twice .
10 And he had commanded him concerning this matter, that he should not go after other gods, but he did not keep what the LORD had commanded.

3. Paul, their teacher, describes the devil as the god of this age!!!!! There is no power nor strength save with Allah
. 2 Corinthians 4:
4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine on them.

4. Jacob, peace be upon him, God forbid, according to the Holy Bible, stipulated that God Almighty protect him from harm in order to worship Him and take Him as a god!!! This means that before this, God Almighty was not his god according to the Holy Bible!!!
We read from Genesis 28:
“10 Then Jacob went out from Beersheba and went toward Haran.
11 And he came to a certain place and spent the night there, because the sun had set. And he took one of the stones of the place and put it under his head, and lay down in that place. 12
And he had a dream: and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold, the angels of God were ascending.” And it is descending upon her.
13 And behold, the LORD stood over it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you
and to your descendants. 14 And your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants all the families of the earth will be blessed.
15 And behold, I am with you, and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land; for I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you.”
16 Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it!”
17 And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.”
18 And Jacob rose early in the morning, and took the stone which he had put under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil on the top of it.
19 And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of the city at first was Luz.
20 And Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear,
21 and I return to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord will be my God.
22 And this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, will be the house of God; and of all that you give me, I will give you a tenth.”

5. The Lord allows the spirit of deception to speak lies through the prophets!!!
1 Kings 22:18
Then the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?” 19 Then he said, “Hear now the word of the LORD: ‘I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right and on his left.
20 Then the LORD said, “Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And this one said thus, and that one said thus.
21 Then the spirit went out, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said to him, How?
22 And he said, I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, You will entice him, and you will prevail; go out, and do thus.
23 But now, behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets, and the LORD has spoken evil against you.
24 Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, “Where did the Spirit of the LORD depart from me to speak to you?”
25 Then Micaiah said, “You will see on that day when you will go from one inner room to another to hide yourself.”

6. A prophet deceives another prophet by fabricating a revelation of his own. God forbid that such a thing befalls the prophets of God!!!
We read in the First Book of Kings, Chapter 13:
8 Then the man of God said to the king, “Even if you give me half of your house, I will not come in with you, nor will I eat bread or drink water in this place.
9 For thus I have been commanded by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘You shall not eat bread or drink water or return by the way you came.’”
10 So he went another way, and did not return by the way he came to the house of the king .
11 Now there was an old prophet living in Bethel, and his sons came and told him all the work that the man of God had done that day at Bethel, and they told their father the words that he had spoken to the king. 12 And
their father said to them, “Which way did he go?” For his sons had seen the way that the man of God who came from Judah had gone.
13 Then he said to his sons, “Saddle me a donkey.” So they saddled him a donkey,
and he sat on it. 14 Then he went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak. And he said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?” And he said, “I am.”
15 Then he said to him, “Come with me to the house and eat some bread.”
16 And he said, I cannot go back with you, nor can I go in with you, nor can I
eat bread or drink water with you in this place. 17 For it was said to me by the word of the Lord, ‘You shall not eat bread or drink water there, nor return by the way you came.’”
18 Then he said to him, “I am also a prophet like you, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘Take him back with you to your house, that he may eat bread and drink water.’” He lied to him.
19 So he returned with him, and he ate bread in his house and drank water.
20 And while they were sitting at the table, the word of the LORD came to the prophet who had brought him back.
21 And he cried out to the man of God who had come from Judah, saying, Thus says the LORD: Because you have disobeyed the word of the LORD and have not kept the commandment which the LORD your God commanded you,
22 and have returned and eaten bread and drunk water in the place of which he said to you, ‘Do not
23 And when he had eaten bread and drunk, he saddled the donkey for himself, that is, for the prophet who had brought him back,
24 and set out. But a lion met him on the road and killed him. 25 And behold, some passed by and saw the body lying in the way, and the lion standing beside the body
; and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt.
26 And when the prophet who had brought him back from the way heard it, he said, “This is the man of God who has disobeyed the commandment of the LORD. The LORD has delivered him to the lion, which has torn him up and killed him, according to the word of the LORD which he had spoken to him.”
27 And he said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me.” So they saddled it.
28 So he went and found his body lying in the way, and the donkey and the lion standing by the body. But the lion did not eat the body or tear the donkey to pieces.
29 So the Prophet lifted up the body of the man of God and placed it on the donkey and returned with it. The old Prophet entered the city to mourn him and bury him.
30 So he placed his body in his grave and they mourned over him, saying: “Oh, my brother.”

to participate














-----




...

The second aspect: The most likely opinion among scholars is that the mursal is not an argument.

The explanation of this is as follows:
The mursal hadith is the one that the hadith scholar narrates with chains of transmission connected to the Tabi’i, and the Tabi’i says: The Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - said. (3)
Its ruling: The mursal hadith is weak and cannot be used as evidence according to the majority of hadith scholars and many of the jurists, scholars of principles and theorists, due to ignorance of the status of the one who is missing from the chain of transmission, as it is possible that he is not a Companion, and if that is the case then it is possible that he is weak, and if it happens that the mursal only narrates from a trustworthy source, then authentication with ambiguity is not sufficient. (1)
Some of the imams said that the mursal hadith is authentic and can be used as evidence, and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr restricted this to the case where the mursal was not someone who does not take precautions and transmits from untrustworthy sources, and if that is the case then there is no disagreement in rejecting it.
Abu Dawud said in his letter to the people of Mecca: As for the mursal hadiths, scholars in the past used them as evidence, such as Sufyan al-Thawri, Malik, and al-Awza’i, until al-Shafi’i came and criticized them, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others followed him in that. If there is no musnad other than the mursal hadiths, and the musnad is not found, then the mursal hadiths are used as evidence, and they are not like the connected hadiths in strength.
Al-Tabari said: The followers unanimously agreed to accept the mursal hadiths, and no one from them denied it, nor did any of the imams after them until the beginning of the two hundredth year.
Ibn Abd al-Barr said: It seems that he means that al-Shafi’i was the first to reject it.
Some have criticized the statement of those who said that al-Shafi’i was the first to abandon the mursal hadiths as evidence, as it was reported that Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab abandoned the argument, and he was one of the great followers, and he was not the only one who said that, but Ibn Sirin and al-Zuhri said it among them. 2)
Muslim narrated in the introduction to his Sahih on the authority of Ibn Sirin that he said: They did not ask about the chain of transmission, but when the tribulation occurred, it was said: Name your men for us, so that the people of the Sunnah may be looked at and their hadith may be accepted, and the people of innovation may be looked at and their hadith may not be accepted.
Ibn Mahdi, Yahya al-Qattan, and more than one of those before al-Shafi’i abandoned the use of mursal hadiths as evidence, and what can be attributed to al-Shafi’i in the matter of mursal hadiths is the increase in research into them and investigation into them. In al-Hilyah, he narrated on the authority of Ibn Mahdi, on the authority of Ibn Lahi’ah that he heard a sheikh from the Khawarij say after he repented: These hadiths are religion, so look from whom you take your religion, for if we liked a matter, we would make a hadith for it.
Ibn Hajar said: By God, this is the backbreaker for those who cite mursal hadiths, because the innovation of the Khawarij was at the beginning of Islam and the Companions were abundant, then in the era of the Tabi’een and those who came after them. When these people approved of something, they would make it a hadith and spread it. Perhaps a man heard something and narrated it without mentioning who narrated it to him, in order to make things seem good, so someone else would carry it from him. Then the one who cites munqati’at would come and cite it, even though its origin was what you mentioned.
As for the mursal hadiths of the Companions, their ruling is the ruling of mursal hadiths according to the well-known view adopted by the majority. Ibn al-Salah said: Then we did not count among the types of mursal hadiths and the like what is called in the principles of jurisprudence mursal hadiths of the Companions, such as what Ibn Abbas and others narrated of the hadiths of the Companions from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and they did not hear it from him, because that is in the ruling of mursal hadiths with a chain of transmission, because their narration is from the Companions, and ignorance of the Companion is not a flaw, because all the Companions were trustworthy.
Al-Hafiz al-‘Iraqi said: In his statement: because their narration is from the Companions, there is a problem, and the correct thing to say is because most of their narrations, as a group of the Companions heard from some of the Tabi’een. 2)
Ibn al-Salah did not mention any disagreement regarding the mursal of the Companion, and in some books of principles, there is no disagreement regarding citing it as evidence, and it is not good, as Professor Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini said that it is not to be cited as evidence, and what was mentioned above regarding citing it as evidence is correct.
As for the mursal of someone who was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and was not distinguished, such as Ubayd Allah ibn Adi ibn al-Khayyar, it cannot be said that they are acceptable like the mursal of the Companions, because the narration of the Companions is either from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) or from a Companion, and both are acceptable. The possibility that the Companion who met and heard narrated from the Followers is remote, unlike the mursal of these people, which are from the Followers in large numbers, so the possibility that the one who was omitted is not a Companion is strong, and the possibility that he is not trustworthy has come. (3)
Ibn Hazm said: The mursal of the hadith is the one in which one or more transmitters are omitted between one of its narrators and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and it is also the munqati’, and it is not acceptable, and no proof is established from it because it is from an unknown person. We have already mentioned that if we do not know the status of someone whose condition we are ignorant of, then it is obligatory for us to stop accepting his report and his testimony until we know his status. Whether the narrator says “the trustworthy one told us” or does not say so, we must not pay attention to that, because there may be someone trustworthy with him who does not know who criticized him as others know, and we have already mentioned that criticism is more important than approval.
Sufyan al-Thawri authenticated Jabir al-Ju'fi, and Jabir was known for what he knew about his situation, but his matter was hidden from Sufyan, so he said what was apparent to him from him, and the mursal of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyab, the mursal of al-Hasan al-Basri, and others are the same, and nothing is taken from them.
Then he said: It is obligatory upon everyone not to accept except from someone whose name is known and whose trustworthiness and memory are known, so no one who advises himself trusts a mursal hadith at all. 1)
Ibn Taymiyyah said: People have disputed over accepting and rejecting mursal hadiths. The most correct of the opinions is that some of them are acceptable, some are rejected, and some are mawquf. Whoever knows from its condition that it is not transmitted except from a trustworthy source, accepts its transmitter. Whoever knows that it transmits from a trustworthy source or someone who is not trustworthy, then his transmission is a narration from someone whose condition is not known, so this is mawquf. Whatever mursal hadith contradicts what was narrated by the trustworthy sources is rejected. If the mursal hadith was transmitted from two sources and each of the narrators had taken knowledge from someone other than the sheikhs of the other, then this indicates its truthfulness. Whoever narrates something similar to what the other narrators had reported, knowing that neither of them benefited from the other, then he knows that the matter is thus. 2)
In the letter of al-Shafi’i, he was asked: Does a munqati’ hadith constitute evidence against someone who knows it?
And is the munqati’ different? Or is it the same as others?
He said: The disconnected hadith is different. Whoever witnessed the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) from the followers and narrated a disconnected hadith from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then he should be considered for several reasons:
1 - Among them: that he should look at the hadith that
was transmitted by mistake. If trustworthy hadith masters shared it with him and attributed it to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with a meaning similar to what he narrated, then this is evidence of the authenticity of what was accepted from him and his memorization. If he is the only one who transmitted a hadith by mistake and no one who attributed it to him shared it with him, then what he transmitted by mistake is accepted and he should be considered for it by:
1 - Looking at whether it is agreed upon by another hadith transmitted from whom knowledge was accepted from other than the men from whom it was transmitted, then if he finds that, then this is evidence that strengthens his transmitted hadith, and it is weaker than the first.
2 - If that is not found, then he should look at some of what is narrated from some of the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) as a statement of his. If he finds that it agrees with what he narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), then this is evidence that he did not take his transmitted hadith except from a source, Allah willing.
3 - Likewise, if he finds common people among the people of knowledge issuing fatwas with a meaning similar to what he narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
4 - Then it is considered upon him that if he names the one from whom he narrated, he does not name someone unknown or someone whose narration is not desired, and this is evidence of the authenticity of what he narrates from him.
5 - And if he associates one of the preservers of hadith with him, he does not contradict him, but if he contradicts him and finds something deficient, then this is evidence of the authenticity of the source of his hadith.
And whenever it contradicts what I have described, it harms his hadith to the point that none of them can accept his mursal. He said: Even if we find evidence for the authenticity of his hadith as I have described, we would like to accept his mursal, and we cannot claim that the proof is proven by it as it is proven by the connected hadith, because the meaning of the munqati’ is absent, and it is possible that it was carried by someone who would not like to narrate from him if he was named, and some of the munqati’, even if a mursal like him agrees with it, it is possible that their chain of transmission is one from the hadith of someone who would not be accepted if he were named.

And the statement of some of the companions of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - if he said his opinion if he agreed with him does not indicate the authenticity of the chain of transmission of the hadith with strong evidence if he looks into it, and it is possible that he only made a mistake in it when he heard the statement of some of the companions of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - who agreed with him, and the same is possible for those who agreed with him from some of the jurists.
He said: As for those after the great followers who frequently saw some of the companions of the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - I do not know of any of them who accepts his mursal for several reasons:
One of them is that they are more extreme in their exaggeration in those they narrate from.
And the other is that there is evidence against them in what they mursal with the weakness of its chain of transmission.

The other: Frequent referrals in the news, and if there are frequent referrals, it is possible for confusion and weakness of those who accept it. End quote.
Then, the omission from the chain of transmission may be clear and many people of the art share in knowing it and it is not hidden from them, and this is in the case of an example where the narrator was not a contemporary of the one he narrated from, and it may be hidden and only the skilled imams who are familiar with the methods of hadiths and the reasons for the chains of transmission can understand it. The first is understood by knowing history because it includes defining the times of the narrators’ births and deaths, their seeking and traveling, and other things. Some
people have claimed to narrate from sheikhs, and history has shown the falsehood of their claim in this regard, and for this reason the hadith scholars have paid a lot of attention to history.
The chain of transmission in which the omission is clear is called the clear mursal, and the chain of transmission in which the omission is hidden is called the mudallis with the fat-ha if the omission was made by someone who is known to have met the one from whom he narrated, and the hidden mursal if the omission was made by someone who is known to have been his contemporary but is not known to have met him. This is according to the opinion of those who differentiate between them and make them different. As for those who include the hidden mursal within the mudallis, then the mudallis is defined as the chain of transmission in which the omission is hidden. (2)
Al-Nawawi said: The doctrine of Al-Shafi’i and the scholars is that if a mursal hadith is narrated from another source in a connected manner, it is used as evidence and is authentic, and we prove by the narration of the connectedness the authenticity of the narration of the mursal, and they are both authentic. 3)
Al-Nawawi said: The mursal hadith is not used as evidence according to us, the majority of hadith scholars, a group of jurists, and the majority of scholars of principles and reasoning. Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah bin Al-Bay’ narrated it on the authority of Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, Malik, a group of the people of hadith, and the jurists of the Hijaz. Abu Hanifa and Malik, according to the well-known view, said on his authority, and Ahmad and many of the jurists, or most of them, said it is used as evidence. Al-Ghazali narrated it on the authority of the majority. Abu Omar bin Abdul-Barr and others said, and there is no disagreement that it is not permissible to act upon it if its mursal is not cautious and is transmitted on the authority of someone who is not trustworthy.
Our evidence for rejecting the mursal absolutely is that if the narration of the unknown person named is not accepted due to the ignorance of his condition, then the mursal narration is more appropriate because the one narrated from is omitted and unknown in identity and condition. Then what we mean by mursal here is that whose chain of transmission has been interrupted, so one or more of its narrators have been omitted, and most of the hadith scholars disagreed with us in defining it, and they said: It is the narration of the Tabi’i from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace -. Al-Shafi’i said: And I use as evidence the mursal of the great Tabi’in if it is attributed from another source or it is mursal from someone who took it from other than the men of the first one from whom knowledge is accepted or it agrees with the statement of some of the Companions or most of the scholars issued a fatwa based on it. He said: I do not accept the mursal of other than the great Tabi’in or their mursal except with the condition that I have described. This is the text of Al-Shafi’i in Al-Risalah and others, and the imams who are investigators from our companions, the jurists and hadith scholars, such as Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi and others, have also transmitted it from him. And there is no difference in this for him between the mursal of Sa’id bin Al-Musayyab and others. This is the correct view that the investigators have adopted.

Al-Ghazali said: And the preferred view is to reject it, and the evidence is that if he mentioned his sheikh and did not consider him equal and it remained We do not accept him as unknown to us. If he does not name him, then ignorance is complete. If someone does not know his identity, how can you know his justice? 1)
Al-Tirmidhi said: Among the weaknesses of the mursal is that these imams narrated from trustworthy and untrustworthy people. So if one of them narrated a hadith and mursal it, perhaps he took it from someone untrustworthy. Al-Hasan al-Basri spoke about Ma’bad al-Juhani, then he narrated from him. Bishr bin Mu’adh al-Basri told us. Marhum bin Abdul Aziz al-Attar told us. My father and uncle told me. They said: We heard al-Hasan say: Beware of Ma’bad al-Juhani, for he is a misguided and misguiding person. Abu ‘Isa said: It is narrated from al-Sha’bi. Al-Harith al-A’war told us, and he was a liar. He narrated from him, and most of the obligatory duties that you see from ‘Ali and others are from him. Al-Sha’bi said: Al-Harith al-A’war taught me the obligatory duties, and he was one of the most knowledgeable people. He said: I heard Muhammad bin Bashar say: I heard ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi say: Are you not amazed by Sufyan bin ‘Uyaynah? I left out Jabir al-Ju’fi’s saying when he narrated from him more than a thousand hadiths, then he narrated from him. Muhammad bin Bashar said: And ‘Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi left out the hadith of Jabir al-Ju’fi.
Some scholars have also used the mursal hadith as evidence. Abu Ubaidah ibn Abi al-Safar al-Kufi told us, Saeed ibn Amir told us, on the authority of Shu’bah, on the authority of Sulayman al-A’mash, who said: I said to Ibrahim al-Nakha’i: Give me a chain of transmission on the authority of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud. Ibrahim said: If I tell you on the authority of a man on the authority of Abdullah, then it is the one you named, and if I say Abdullah said, then it is on the authority of more than one person on the authority of Abdullah.
Ibn Hajar said: The limit of mentioning the mursal in the types of rejected hadith is: (It was only mentioned in the category of rejected hadith due to ignorance of the state of the omitted hadith, because it is possible that he was a companion, or a follower, and according to the second, it is possible that he was weak and trustworthy, and according to the second, it is possible that he was transmitted from a companion, or a follower, and according to the second, the previous possibility returns, and it is multiple, either by rational permissibility, to infinity, or by induction, to six or seven, and this is what is found most in the narration of some of the followers on the authority of others). 2)
And whoever among the people of knowledge said that it should be acted upon stipulated a condition, which is that there should be nothing in the chapter that would refute it. Ibn al-Qayyim said in mentioning the principles of Imam Ahmad: The fourth principle is to accept the mursal and weak hadith if there is nothing in the chapter that would refute it. 3)
And in the beginning of (Sahih Muslim): The mursal in our principle and the opinion of the people of knowledge of the reports is not an argument. Ibn Abd al-Barr - the preserver of Morocco - is one of those who narrated that from a group of the people of hadith and the argument based on it is the school of (Malik) and (Abu Hanifa) and their companions - may God have mercy on them - in a group and God knows best. 4)

The summary of this research:
The most correct opinion that is acted upon by the majority of the hadith scholars is that the mursal is a type of weak hadith and the disagreement in arguing with the mursal is only in the rulings of the branches.
It cannot be current in the principles of belief,
because it is not proven except by sound evidence,
and its strengthening requires conditions that were previously mentioned by Imam Al-Shafi’i, and these conditions do not agree with what is authentic from the transmitted chains of transmission for this story.

As for the first condition: that the mursal is attributed from another source, this does not agree with this story because the attributed narration is anomalous in its most authentic chains of transmission,
and the rest of the chains of transmission are extremely weak . The anomalous
and that which was not narrated are the same because the narrator made a mistake in it,
and it is clear that the reason for the scholars’ rejection of the anomalous is that its error became apparent due to the aforementioned contradiction, and that which was proven to be an error, it is not reasonable that another narration with the same meaning would be strengthened by it. So it is proven that the anomalous and the rejected are not to be relied upon or cited as evidence, rather its existence or nonexistence is the same.
As for the extremely weak, the weak only increases in weakness, like the case of a sick person who seeks help from a dying person, so does he help him?
If the first condition is not met, then it is accepted with conditions. As for the first:
it is that it comes as a mursal from someone who took knowledge from other than the men of the first. The following are authentic mursals of this story:
1 - Mursal of Saeed bin Jubayr 2 - Mursal of Abu Al-Aaliyah 3 - Mursal of Abu Bakr bin Abd Al-Rahman 4 - Mursal of Al-Zuhri 5 - Mursal of Musa bin Uqbah 6 - Mursal of Qatadah.
As for the mursal of Abu Al-Aaliyah: Al-Ala’i said: The mursal of Abu Al-Aaliyah is weak. Ibn ‘Adi narrated on the authority of Ibn Sirin who said: There were three here who believed everyone who narrated to them, Al-Hasan and Abu Al-‘Aaliyah, and he named another. With this and similar things, the status of the mursal falls short, even if it is supported by others.
As for the mursal of Al-Zuhri and Qatadah: Al-Qattan said: The mursal of Al-Zuhri is worse than the mursal of others because he is a hafiz, and whenever he is able to name, he names, and he only leaves out those whom he does not consider permissible to name. Abbas Al-Duri narrated on the authority of Yahya bin Ma’in who said: The mursal of Al-Zuhri is nothing. Yahya bin Sa’id Al-Qattan did not consider the mursal of Al-Zuhri and Qatadah to be anything, and he said: It is like the wind.
As for the mursal of Musa bin ‘Uqbah: This is problematic and not just mursal.
As for the mursal of Sa’id: He is from the third group and died in the year 95 AH. ‘Ali bin Al-Madini said: I heard Yahya bin Sa’id say: The mursal of Sa’id bin Jubayr is more beloved to me than the mursal of ‘Ata’. 1) This does not mean that they are authentic because the mursal narrations of Ata’ are weak in their view. Ibn al-Madini said: Ata’ used to take from every type. 2)
Accordingly, this is from the category of weak and weaker. And Allah knows best.
As for the mursal narration of Abu Bakr ibn Abd al-Rahman, it is from the third year (94 AH), so he is from the same class as Sa’id ibn Jubayr, so it is not far-fetched that their sheikh was one and the same. With this possibility, the condition of al-Shafi’i that the mursal took knowledge from other than the sheikhs of the first is not fulfilled.


As for the rest of the conditions: None of them are in agreement like that, and here they are:
1 - If that is not found, then one should look at some of what is narrated from some of the companions of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - as a saying of his. If it is found that it agrees with what was narrated from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - then this is evidence that he did not take his mursal narration except from a source, God willing.
I say: Nothing is authentic from any of the companions in this matter, so where were they regarding such a story despite its great danger, to the point that only the followers narrated it, and it is not correct to name a single companion in it, and Ibn Abbas, despite the weakness of the narration from him and its oddity, was not born when the surah was revealed.
2 - Likewise, if there are common people of knowledge issuing fatwas with a similar meaning to what was narrated from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - I say: What is found is the opposite of that, as most of the people of knowledge have denied it, as will come from them.
3 - Then it is considered that if he names the one from whom he narrated, he does not name an unknown person or one whose narration is not desired, so that it is proven by that that what he narrates from him is authentic .
I say: And nothing like this is found in anyone who transmitted this story, as was previously explained. 3 -
Then Al-Shafi’i said after these conditions: And whenever it contradicts what I have described, it harms his hadith, so that none of them can accept his transmitted hadith.
He said: If we find evidence of the authenticity of his hadith as you have described, we would like to accept his mursal, and we cannot claim that the proof is proven by it as it is proven by the connected hadith. This is because the meaning of the munqati’ is absent, and it is possible that it was attributed to someone who would not be disliked to narrate from him if he was named, and some of the munqati’ hadiths - even if a mursal like it agrees with him - it is possible that their source is one, such that if he was named, it would not be accepted, and the statement of some of the companions of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - if he said his opinion if it agreed with him - indicates the authenticity of the source of the hadith with a strong indication if it is examined, and it is possible that he made a mistake in it when he heard the statement of some of the companions of the Prophet who agreed with him, and the same is possible for those of the jurists who agreed with him. (1)
Al-Suyuti said after these conditions: If a condition of what was mentioned is missing, his mursal is not accepted, but if it is found, it is accepted. 2)
While accepting that this condition is met in the mursal hadith: This is not an easy matter, for if we were to ascertain its existence, another problem might arise, which is that it is possible that each of the two intermediaries or more is weak, and accordingly it is possible that their weakness is of the first type, which is strengthened by the hadith, as was previously transmitted from Ibn al-Salah, and it is possible that it is of the other type, which is not strengthened by the multitude of its chains of transmission. With the occurrence of these possibilities, the use of the mursal hadith as evidence is invalidated, even if its chains of transmission are multiple. 3)
Al-Albani said: In short, the obstacle to using the mursal hadith as evidence, whose mursals have multiple mursals, is one of two possibilities:
The first: That the source of the mursals is one.
The second: That they are a group, but they are all extremely weak.
Accordingly, if we were to look at the narrations of this story, we would find them all mursal, except for the hadith of Ibn Abbas, but all of its chains of transmission are extremely weak and cannot be used to support those mursal narrations. So it remains to look at these mursal narrations, and as you know, there are seven, the chain of transmission of four of them is authentic, and they are the mursal narrations of Sa`id ibn Jubayr, Abu Bakr ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith, and Abu al-`Aliyah, and the mursal narrations of Qatadah. They are mursal narrations that one of the two previous possibilities rejects, because they are from the same generation: the death of Sa`id ibn Jubayr was in the year 95, and Abu Bakr ibn `Abd al-Rahman was in the year 94, and Abu al-`Aliyah - whose name is Rafi`, diminutive - was in the year 90, and Qatadah was in the year a few hundred and ten, and the first was from Kufa, the second from Medina, and the last two were from Basra.
It is possible that their source from which they took this story and narrated it from him was one person and no one else, and he is unknown. It is possible that it was a group, but they are all weak. With these possibilities, one cannot be reassured about accepting their hadith, especially in such a great event that touches on the noble status. It is no wonder that the scholars followed one another in denying it, and even denouncing its invalidity. There is no reason for that from the perspective of the narration except what we have mentioned. 1)
Finally, we emphasize a delicate issue in accepting the mursal, even for those who accept it if its chain of transmission is authentic, which is that the scholars stipulated that it should not contradict the agreed-upon principles of religion. This is a defect in the text that can only be reached after researching the texts of the chapter and thoroughly researching what was mentioned in the issue.

Al-Zayla’i said, after he preferred his school of thought in accepting the mursal: Among the conditions for accepting the mursal reports according to the Hanafis, whether they are mursal or isnad, is that they should not deviate from
the principles agreed upon by them. This is because these jurists went to great lengths in thoroughly examining the sources of the texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah and the rulings of the Companions until they referred the explicitly stated and accepted counterparts to a principle from which they branched and a rule under which those counterparts fall.
They did the same with other counterparts until they completed the examination and induction, and they gathered principles - the subject of their explanation is the books of rules and differences - to which they present the individual narrations.
If the reports are different from those principles and are deviant, they are considered to be in opposition to what is more firmly established than them, which is the established principle of following the sources of the Shari’ah that is the same as the report of all. Al-Tahawi often takes this rule into account in his books, and those who do not have experience think that this is his preference for some narrations over others by analogy. The defect of this semantic deviation is usually the narrators’ frequent boldness in narrating by meaning, such that it distorts the original meaning. This is a precise rule by which those skilled in jurisprudence recognize the weak and protruding points in many narrations, so they return the truth to its proper place after double-examining it. They also have other insights into the causes of the hadith that are precise and that the common narrators do not pay attention to, and the inherited practice among them is a matter by which the authenticity of many narrations is tested. (1)
In the introduction to the explanation of Musnad Abi Hanifa, he mentioned among his principles the acceptance of the mursals of trustworthy people if they are not contradicted by something stronger than them. 2)
Ibn al-Lahham said: Al-Shafi’i considered in the text that the trustworthy hadith masters of the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him) should narrate from another source the meaning of that mursal, or that someone else sends it and their sheikhs differ, or that it is supported by the statement of a companion or the statement of most scholars. Ahmad’s words about the mursal are close to those of al-Shafi’i. 3)
Ibn Taymiyyah said: Whatever mursal hadith contradicts what was narrated by trustworthy people is rejected. 4)
If the matter is thus, then it is appropriate for us to mention the legal texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah that contradict this mursal hadith, which is the third aspect.

The third aspect: Evidence from the Qur’an that this story is false.
One of them is the Almighty’s saying: “And if he had invented about Us some sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, and then We would have cut from him the aorta” [Al-Haqqah 44-46].
The second is His saying: “Say, ‘It is not for me to change it of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me’” [Yunus 15].

The third: His statement: “Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.” [An-Najm 3-4] If he had read those lofty cranes after this verse, then the lie of God Almighty would have been immediately apparent, and no Muslim would say that.
Fourth: The Almighty’s saying: {And indeed they almost tempted you away from that which We have revealed to you, so that you would invent about Us something else. And then they would have taken you as a friend.} [Al-Isra’ 73] The word “almost” according to some of them means that the matter was close to being like that, although it did not happen. Iyad said: The narrators of this case mentioned that it was about this that the two verses were revealed. These two verses reject the report that they narrated because Almighty God mentioned that they almost tempted him until he fabricated a lie, and that if He had not strengthened him, he would have almost relied on them. So the meaning and implication of this is that Almighty God protected him from fabricating a lie and strengthened him until he did not rely on them a little, so how much, when they see in their weak reports that he went beyond reliance and fabrication. By praising their gods and that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - said: “You have fabricated against God and said what He did not say.” This is against the meaning of the verse and it weakens the hadith if it is authentic, so how is it that it is not authentic? This is like the saying of Allah the Almighty in the other verse: {And had it not been for the grace of Allah upon you and His mercy, a party of them would have resolved to mislead you. But they mislead not except themselves, and they do not harm you at all.} It was narrated from Ibn Abbas that everything in the Qur’an that is almost is what will not happen. Allah the Almighty said: {The flash of its lightning almost takes away the sight.} And it did not go away, and I almost hid it and he did not do it. Al-Qushayri the judge said: And the Quraysh and Thaqif demanded that he, when he passed by their gods, turn his face towards them and promised him to believe in him if he did, but he did not do it and he was not going to do it. Ibn al-Anbari said: He did not approach the Messenger nor did he lean. I have mentioned other interpretations regarding the meaning of this verse. What we mentioned from the text of Allah on the infallibility of His Messenger, it repels its trivialities, so nothing remains in the verse except Allah the Almighty bestowed His protection and steadfastness upon His Messenger in the face of the infidels’ plots and attempts to tempt him. What we mean by that is to declare him free and infallible - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - and this is the meaning of the verse. As for the second objection, it is based on accepting the hadith if it is authentic, and Allah has protected us from its authenticity.
6/140
. The fifth: His statement: {And had We not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a little.} [Al-Isra’ 74]. The word “lawla” indicates the absence of something due to the absence of something else, so it indicates that this little inclination did not occur because He denied the proximity to inclination, let alone inclination.
The sixth: His statement: {Thus do We strengthen thereby your heart.} [Al-Furqan 32].
Seventh: His statement: “We will make you recite, and you will not forget.”
Eighth: One of the clearest Qur’anic proofs of its invalidity is that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, recited after that in Surat An-Najm the statement of God Almighty: “They are only names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which God has sent down no authority.” So if we suppose that he said those are the exalted cranes, then he invalidated that by saying: “They are only names which you have named,” how can the polytheists rejoice after this invalidation and complete condemnation of their idols, that they are names without names? This is the last, and his, may God bless him and grant him peace, recitation of Surat An-Najm in Mecca and the prostration of the polytheists is proven in the Sahih, and nothing is mentioned in it about the story of the cranes.
The ninth: “Indeed, he has no authority over those who believe and rely upon their Lord. His authority is only over those who take him as an ally and those who associate others with him.” [An-Nahl 99, 100] And the Almighty’s saying: “Indeed, My servants - you have no authority over them, except those who follow you of the deviators.” [Al-Hijr 42] And the Almighty’s saying: “And he had no authority over them except to make evident who believes in the Hereafter.” [Saba’ 21] And His saying: {And I had no authority over you} [Ibrahim 22] the verse. According to the alleged view that Satan put that blatant blasphemy on his tongue - may God bless him and grant him peace - then what authority does he have greater than that? More than


one person mentioned that it is necessary, according to the view that the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - spoke that because of the Satan who was disguised as an angel, things would follow. Among them is Satan’s control over him, and he - may God bless him and grant him peace - is unanimously protected from Satan, especially in matters such as this regarding revelation, conveying the message, and belief.
Tenth: His statement: {Shall I inform you upon whom the devils descend? They descend upon every slanderer and sinner.} [Ash-Shu’ara 221, 222].
6/141

Eleventh: And His saying in the Noble Qur’an: “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an and indeed, We will be its guardian.” [Al-Hijr 9].
Twelfth: And the Almighty’s saying: “Indeed, it is a noble Book. Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind it: a revelation from One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of Praise.” [Fussilat 41-42] These Qur’anic verses indicate the falsehood of the alleged statement.
Thirteenth: That God Almighty informed that the explanation of the Qur’an on the tongue of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - is entrusted to God Almighty, as He Almighty said: {And do not move your tongue with it, to hasten it. Indeed, upon Us is its collection and its recitation. So when We have recited it, then follow its recitation. Then indeed, upon Us is its clarification.} And on the authority of Ibn Abbas - may God be pleased with him - his saying: {And do not move your tongue with it, to hasten it.} He said: When Gabriel came down with the revelation and it was among the things that he moved his tongue and lips with, it would be difficult for the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - and he would recognize it from him, so God revealed the verse in {I swear by the Day of Resurrection I ... (1) Do not move your tongue with it to hasten it. Indeed, upon Us is its collection and its recitation. (2) He said, “It is upon Us to collect it in your chest. (3) So when We recite it, follow its recitation. (4) So when We reveal it, listen. (5) Then indeed, upon Us is its clarification.” (6) It is upon Us to clarify it with your tongue. He said, “So when Gabriel came to him, he lowered his head, and when he left, he recited it as Allah had promised.” (2)
If the clarification is entrusted to Allah, the Most High, then this makes the authenticity of this story impossible.
Al-Shanqeeti said: The bottom line is that the Qur’an indicates its falsehood, and it has not been proven by transmission, along with the impossibility of it being on his tongue - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - as mentioned in the Shari’ah
. And whoever confirmed it attributed the utterance of that disbelief to Satan.
It is clear that the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) utterance of this blasphemy, even inadvertently, is impossible according to Islamic law.
The Qur’an has indicated its invalidity, and it is definitely invalid in any case. (3)

The fourth aspect: Evidence from the Sunnah of the invalidity and impossibility of this story.
1 - On the authority of Abu Hurayrah: On the authority of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who said: “Call yourselves by my name and do not use my kunya. Whoever sees me in a dream has seen me, for Satan does not appear in my form. Whoever lies about me intentionally, let him take his seat in Hellfire.” (1)
And Satan was prevented from taking his form in his creation so that he would not lie on his tongue in his sleep, just as God Almighty broke the habit of the prophets, peace and blessings be upon them, with the miracle, and just as it was impossible for Satan to take his form in his waking state.
So his statement, “And Satan does not take my form,” Al-Qastalani said: It is like completing the meaning and explaining the ruling, meaning that Satan does not take the form of my form nor does he resemble me. Just as God prevented Satan from taking his form in his noble form in waking state, likewise He prevented him in his dreams so that truth would not be confused with falsehood.
Al-Alusi said: If he does not take his form in a dream, then it is more appropriate that he does not take his form in wakefulness, and the commentators explained this by the necessity of confusing truth with falsehood. I said: If
Satan is prevented from taking his form, then this includes his voice and his recitation in conveying the revelation to the people. If it happened, it would be the greatest deception for the people, so it is more appropriate that Satan is prevented from doing that, and God knows best.
2 - On the authority of Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas - may God be pleased with him - that the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - said to `Umar ibn al-Khattab - may God be pleased with him -: “By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, Satan never meets you taking a path except that he takes a path other than yours.”
The hadith is to be understood at face value, that whenever Satan sees `Umar taking a path, he flees in awe of `Umar, leaves that path, and goes to another path because of his intense fear that `Umar’s might might do something to him
. Al-Qadi said: It is possible that he gave an example of Satan’s distance and his temptation from him, and that `Umar in all his affairs takes the path of righteousness contrary to what Satan commands. 1)
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: There is a great virtue in Umar that requires that Satan has no way over him, but that does not require the existence of infallibility, since there is nothing in it except Satan fleeing from him, so that he does not participate with him in a path that he takes, nor does that prevent him from whispering to him according to what his ability reaches. If it is said that he does not have control over him with whispering, it is taken by way of the concept of agreement, because if he is prevented from taking a path, then it is better for him to accompany him in such a way that he is able to whisper to him, so it is possible that he is protected from Satan, and it does not necessitate the establishment of infallibility because it is obligatory in the case of the Prophet and possible in the case of others. It was mentioned in the hadith of Hafsa in al-Tabarani in al-Awsat with the wording that Satan does not meet Umar since he converted to Islam except that he falls on his face, and this indicates his steadfastness in religion and the continuation of his state of pure seriousness and pure truth. 2)
I said: If this was for Umar - may God be pleased with him - and he is not infallible, then the Messenger of God is more deserving of it because he is infallible from God - may God be pleased with him -, and God knows best.
3 - And what confirms this is this hadith on the authority of Abu Hurairah - may God be pleased with him - on the authority of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - that he prayed a prayer and said: “The devil appeared to me and attacked me to interrupt my prayer, but God gave me power over him, so I was frightened by him and I intended to tie him to a pillar until morning so that you could look at him, but I remembered the words of Solomon - may God be pleased with him -: {He said, “My Lord, forgive me and grant me a kingdom such as will not belong to anyone after me.”} So God turned him back humiliated. 3)
And if God gave him power over him in prayer, then it is more deserving of His protection from him in conveying the revelation.

4 - On the authority of Abdullah bin Masoud, he said: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “There is no one among you but has a companion from the jinn assigned to him.” They said: “Even you, O Messenger of Allah?” He said: “Even me; except that Allah helped me against him, so he became Muslim and he only commands me to do good.”
Al-Nawawi said: “So he became Muslim” with the raising of the “mim” and the opening of it, and these are two well-known narrations. Whoever raised it said that its meaning was that I was safe from his evil and temptation, and whoever opened it said that the companion became Muslim from Islam and became a believer and only commands me to do good. 1
If the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was safe from his evil, then this is from him and it is inevitable.

The fifth aspect: The rational evidence of the invalidity of the story.
Here it is from the aspects:
One of them: Whoever allows the Messenger - may God bless him and grant him peace - to glorify idols has committed kufr, because it is known with certainty that his greatest effort was in denying idols.
The second: He - may God be pleased with him - could not have prayed and read the Qur’an at the Kaaba in the beginning, safe from the harm of the polytheists to the point that they might have stretched out their hands to him. Rather, he used to pray at night or in private if they were not present, and that invalidates their statement.
The third: Their enmity towards the Messenger was greater than for them to acknowledge this amount of reading,
without knowing the truth of the matter. How could they have agreed that he glorified their gods until they fell down in prostration, even though it did not appear to them that he agreed with them?
Fourth: His statement: “Then Allah abrogates what Satan throws in, then Allah perfects His verses.” This is because perfecting the verses by removing what Satan throws in from the Messenger is stronger than abrogate them with these verses that leave doubt about them. So if Allah wants to perfect the verses so that what is not the Qur’an is not confused with the Qur’an, then it is more appropriate for Him to prevent Satan from doing so in the first place.
Fifth: And it is the strongest of the views, if we allow that, then security would be lifted from His law, and we allow for every one of the rulings and laws to be like that, and the saying of Allah the Almighty would be invalidated: {O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people} [Al-Ma’idah 5:67], for there is no difference in reason between a deficiency in the revelation and an increase in it. So with these views we know in summary that this story is fabricated.


Sixth: It is forbidden for the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - to wish for something from the Qur’an to be revealed to him in praise of gods other than Allah, because that is disbelief. Just as it is forbidden for Satan to dominate him and make the Qur’an seem like something to him until he puts in it what is not from it, and for the Prophet to believe that there is something in the Qur’an that is not from it until Gabriel makes it clear to him.
Seventh: The Indian scholar Muhammad Ali says: Reading the verses in sequence shows that it is not reasonable to include verses that contradict them in the origin of the Islamic faith. And the core of Muhammad’s call - may God bless him and grant him peace - is the call to monotheism. (2)
Eighth: The impossibility of this story in theory and in common usage, because if this speech were as it was narrated, it would be far from coherent, contradictory in parts, mixed with praise and blame, weak in composition and organization, and since the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - and those in his presence from the Muslims and the leaders of the polytheists are among those from whom this is not hidden, and this is not hidden from the slightest contemplative person, so how about someone whose patience is sound and whose knowledge is broad in the field of eloquence and eloquent speech.
Ninth: It is known that it is the habit of the hypocrites, the opponents of the polytheists, the weak-hearted, and the ignorant among the Muslims to be averse at first sight, and to confuse the enemy against the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - for the slightest trial, and to taunt the Muslims and gloat over them from time to time, and the apostasy of those in whose hearts is sickness from those who showed Islam for the slightest doubt. No one has narrated anything about this story except this weak-based narration. If that were the case, the Quraysh would have found it difficult to confront the Muslims, and the Jews would have established proof against them through it, as they did in defiance in the story of the Night Journey, until it was considered apostasy for some of the weak. Likewise, what was narrated in the story of the case. There is no trial greater than this calamity if it existed, and no disturbance of the enemy at that time was more severe than this incident if possible. No word was narrated from an opponent about it, nor from a Muslim because of it, so that it indicates its invalidity and the uprooting of its origin. There is no doubt that some of the devils of mankind or the jinn introduced this hadith to some of the narrators to confuse the weak Muslims with it. (3)
And the tenth: There is something in the text itself that excludes the possibility that the reason for the revelation of the verse was something like this, and that its meaning was a single incident that happened to the Messenger - may God bless him and grant him peace - for the text states that this rule applies to all messages with all messengers: “And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he made a wish, Satan threw into his wish. Then God abrogates what Satan threw into it. Then God confirms His verses.” So what is meant must be a general matter based on a characteristic in the innate disposition shared by all messengers, as they are human beings, which does not contradict the infallibility established for the messengers. 1)


The sixth aspect: In mentioning some of the words of the investigators on this story:
1 - Ibn Kathir said: Many of the commentators have mentioned here the story of the cranes, and what happened from the return of many of the emigrants to the land of Abyssinia, thinking that the polytheists of Quraysh had converted to Islam. But it is from all of the chains of transmission that are mursal, and I have not seen it attributed from a sound source, and Allah knows best. 2
- Al-Alusi said: Many of the investigators have denied this story.
Al-Bayhaqi said: This story is not proven in terms of transmission. And
Judge Iyad said in Al-Shifa: It is enough for you to weaken this hadith that no one from the people of authenticity narrated it nor did a trustworthy person narrate it with a sound, connected, sound chain of transmission, but rather the commentators and historians who are addicted to everything strange and who pick up everything sound and weak from the newspapers have become fond of it and its like.
Sheikh Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi mentioned in his book Hassat Al-Atqiya Al-Sawab that his saying: “Those are the lofty cranes” is part of the inspiration of Satan to his followers from the heretics so that they may cast doubt on the soundness of the religion and the presence of the message, which is innocent of such a narration.
More than one person mentioned that it is necessary to say that the one who spoke that, the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - was due to the casting of Satan disguised as an angel, several things.
1 - Among them is the control of Satan over him - may God bless him and grant him peace - and he - may God bless him and grant him peace - is unanimously infallible from Satan, especially in such matters of revelation, conveying the message and belief. God Almighty said: {Indeed, My servants - over them you have no authority} [Al-Hijr 42] and He Almighty said: {Indeed, he has no authority over those who believe} [An-Nahl 99] and other than that.
2 - Among them is his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) addition to the Qur’an of things that are not from it, which is impossible for him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) due to his infallibility.
3 - Among them is the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) belief that something that is not the Qur’an is the Qur’an, despite it being far from being coherent, contradictory, and mixing praise with blame, which is a heinous error that should not be taken lightly in attributing it to him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
4 - Among them is that either he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was believing what the polytheists believed in when he said that, which is kufr that is impossible for him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), or he was believing in another meaning that was contrary to what they believed and contradictory to the apparent meaning of the phrase, and he did not explain it to them, despite their joy and claim that he praised their gods, so he would be approving of their falsehood, and Allah forbid that he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would approve of that.
5 - And from it is that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - confused what the devil suggested to him with what the angel suggested to him, which requires that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - was not aware of what was revealed to him, and it also requires the permissibility of imagining the devil in the form of an angel deceiving the Prophet, and that is not correct, as he said in Al-Shifa, neither at the beginning of the message nor after it, and the reliance in that is evidence of the miracle.
Ibn Al-Arabi said: Imagining the devil in the form of an angel deceiving the Prophet is like imagining him in the form of a prophet deceiving the creation, and God Almighty empowering him to do that is like His empowerment in this, so how can it be permissible in a sound mind to permit that?



6 - Among them is attributing falsehoods to Allah, the Most High, either intentionally, by mistake, or inadvertently. All of that is impossible with regard to him - may God bless him and grant him peace - and the nation has agreed on what Qadi Iyad said about his infallibility - may God bless him and grant him peace - in what was conveyed in terms of sayings about news that were contrary to reality, neither intentionally nor inadvertently.
7 - Among them is undermining trust in the Qur’an, as it is not safe from alteration or change, and it is not prevented, as Al-Baydawi said, with the words of God Almighty: {Then God abrogates what Satan casts. Then God confirms His verses} [Al-Hajj 52] because it also includes other possibilities. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar considered it to be authentic. 6/148 1 - As for the first, the authority denied to the sincere servants is seduction, I mean
deception that undermines the matter of religion, and it is what there is consensus that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, is infallible from. As for that which is not destructive, there is no evidence to deny it nor consensus on infallibility from it. What is here is not destructive because it does not contradict monotheism, as will be explained, God Almighty willing. Rather, it contains discipline, purification, and elevation for the Greatest Beloved, peace and blessings be upon him, because he, peace and blessings be upon him, wished for the guidance of all, and that was not what God Almighty intended. The most perfect thing in servitude is the annihilation of his will in the will of the Truth, glory be to Him. So he, peace and blessings be upon him, did not have to cast a spell in the state of wishing for the guidance of all, which conflicts with fate and contradicts what is most perfect, so that he may ascend to the most perfect. And that happened this time, and therefore deception did not occur again, but rather he was sent after him from before him and behind him to watch. So that he may know that they have conveyed the message of his Lord, the Most High, and in the arrangement of the casting on the wish there is what is understood as a reproach for it! As for the second: it is that what is impossible and contradicts infallibility is that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - would add to it of his own accord, that is, he would add to it what he knows is not from him, and what is here is not like that because he - may God bless him and grant him peace - only followed the casting that confused him in a special case only as a discipline so that he would not return to such a case. As for the third: It is possible that the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - uttered it with the understanding that it was a rhetorical question from which the hamza was deleted or a narration from them by deleting the statement, and in that case it would not be far-fetched, nor contradictory, nor a mixture of praise and blame, and one of the two matters must be adhered to, assuming the authenticity of the report due to the infallibility, and the point in the expression is also to mislead those in whose hearts is disease and whose hearts are hardened that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - praised their gods, and that is what God Almighty intended, referred to in His saying, the Most High: {So that He may make} [Al-Hajj 53] etc. As for the fourth: We choose the second part based on the fact that it is a question from which the hamza was deleted or a narration by deleting the statement, and in both cases he - may God bless him and grant him peace - would be believing in a meaning that is contrary to what they believed; It does not necessitate that they be declared false, because He has made clear the falsehood of their belief by saying, “They are only names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority.” [An-Najm: 23] For that for which Allah has not sent down any authority, there is no hope for intercession, since there is no intercession except after divine permission, as Allah, the Most High, says, “And how many an angel is there in the heavens whose intercession will not avail at all except after Allah has given permission to whom He wills and is pleased with.” [An-Najm: 26] As for the fifth: This confusion in a specific case of discipline does not necessitate that he, peace and blessings be upon him, be without insight into what was revealed to him in other than that case.











As for the statement of Judge Iyad: It is not correct to imagine Satan in the form of an angel and deceive him - may God bless him and grant him peace - if he meant by that that it is not correct to deceive him in a way that is detrimental, then it is accepted, but it did not happen. If he meant it in general, even if it was not detrimental, then there is no evidence for it. The evidence of the miracle only negates the confusion that detrimental to the matter of prophethood, which contradicts monotheism and detrimental to infallibility. What was mentioned is not detrimental, but rather it is discipline that includes purification and advancement to the most perfect in servitude. As for what Ibn al-Arabi mentioned, it is an analogy with a difference, because imagining Satan in the form of a prophet in general is denied by the authentic text, and imagining him in his form deceiving people is a general seduction and is a power denied by the text from the sincere ones. As for imagining him in the form of an angel in a specific case deceiving the prophet in a way that is not contrary to monotheism, because God Almighty intends by that as discipline and to make him think otherwise than intended is a trial for a people, then it is not from the denied power nor from the forbidden imagination because it does not detract from the status of prophethood.



As for the sixth: that saying something is a burden to say something, and whoever follows only what is conveyed to him from God Almighty in truth or belief arising from deception that is not harmful, there is no burden to say something with him, so do not say anything about God Almighty at all; How similar is this story to what is included in the hadith of Dhi al-Yadayn, for deceiving him - may God bless him and grant him peace - in the recitation in a state of wishful thinking is a form of discipline, like causing him - may God bless him and grant him peace - to forget in prayer, believing that it is complete, as a form of legislation, and uttering what the devil uttered in a special state that does not contradict monotheism, as if it were the Qur’an, based on the belief that the one who was uttered was an angel, as a form of discipline, like uttering the greeting of peace, then saying “I did not forget,” believing that it was in accordance with reality, based on the belief that it was complete, as a form of deception, and the occurrence of the statement on the tongue of Gabriel - may God be pleased with him - then abrogation and confirmation, like the occurrence of the statement on the tongue of the companion, then making up for it and prostrating for forgetfulness. Just as forgetfulness is for the purpose of legislation, it does not invalidate the position of prophethood, likewise confusion in the recitation for the purpose of discipline is not invalid. Just as uttering “I did not forget,” when it became clear that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - had forgotten, is true, based on the belief that it was complete, as a form of legislation, likewise uttering what the devil uttered in that state as if it were the Qur’an, based on the belief
6/150
that the one who was uttered was an angel, and there is nothing of truth in making it up, so there is nothing of Saying what Satan instills in him in that situation, and what was mentioned about Judge Iyad regarding the story of the consensus on the impermissibility of forgetfulness entering into the statements of communication, as Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said, is a follow-up.
As for the seventh: It does not violate the trust in the Qur’an for those who were given knowledge and those who believed, because the trust of each of them is dependent on the trust of their truthful and trustworthy follower. So if he asserts something that it is such and such, they assert it, and if he retracts something after asserting it, they retract it, as is their case in the abrogation of other verses that are the words of God Almighty in wording and meaning, since before the abrogation of what was abrogated in wording, they were certain that they were obligated to recite it, and after the abrogation, they were certain that they were not obligated to recite it, and what its ruling was abrogated, they were certain that they were charged with its ruling, and after the abrogation, they were certain that they were not charged with it. So Al-Baydawi’s statement: That is not refuted by the statement of God Almighty: {Then God will abrogate} [Al-Hajj 52] etc. because he also assumes it is nothing, and his explanation is that if he meant that it is possible for the four groups mentioned in the verses, and they are those in whose hearts is disease and whose hearts are hard, and those who were given knowledge and those who believed, then it is forbidden due to the indication of the statement of God Almighty: {And that he may know} [Al-Hajj 54] on the absence of possibility for two of the four groups after abrogation and confirmation, and if he meant that it is possible in general, that is, for some and not for others, then it is permissible and not harmful because it does not undermine trust in the Qur’an for those who were given knowledge and those who believed, and as for its being flawed with respect to the other two groups, then it is what God - the Most High - intended.

The sixth aspect: The confusion in the text of the narration
, as indicated by Judge Iyad in his previous statement,

and also by Al-Albani, and the quotation from them has been previously made. If the weakness of the narration in its chain of transmission is proven and it is rejected in terms of the text due to the confusion, then there is no need for interpretation.





------

Al-Suyuti says about the mursal hadith :
140 - And its rejection is the strongest, and the saying of the majority … like Al-Shafi’i, and the people of knowledge of the news,

and it is clear that when they accepted it, they accepted it with conditions, and they accepted it in the hadiths of rulings

… and none of his sheikhs were weak… like the prohibition of selling meat in principle, and

it came in the explanation of Alfiyyah “Explanation of Alfiyyah Al-Suyuti in the hadith called “Is’af Dhu Al-Watar bi Sharh Nazm Al-Durar fi Ilm Al-Athar” ( and its rejection is the
strongest) subject and predicate, meaning rejecting the argument with the mursal is the strongest opinion due to the strength of its evidence (and) it is (the saying of the majority) of the verified scholars, and that is (like) the imam, the role model, the head of the jurists and hadith scholars, Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris ibn Al-Abbas ibn Uthman ibn Shafi’ (Al-Shafi’i)
, for he - may God be pleased with him - was the first to reject the mursal on what was said, except that It is refuted by what was transmitted from Saeed bin Al-Musayyab and Malik in a narration from him, although the well-known opinion is the opposite, and by what was transmitted from Al-Zuhri, Ibn Sirin, Ibn Mahdi and Yahya Al-Qattan, except that it may be said that it was specific to Al-Shafi’i for further investigation into it,
(and the people of knowledge of the news) in the accusative case is in apposition to Al-Shafi’i, that is, and like the people of knowledge of the hadith as narrated from them by Muslim in the beginning of his Sahih and Ibn Abd Al-Barr in Al-Tamhid, and Al-Hakim narrated it from Ibn Al-Musayyab and Malik, and it is the opinion of many jurists, scholars of the principles of jurisprudence and people of insight.
They provided evidence for the ignorance of the state of the omitted word because it is possible that he is not a companion, and if that is the case then it is possible that he is weak, and it is possible that he is trustworthy, and according to the second, it is possible that he was carried from another follower and so on, so the aforementioned possibility returns and multiplies either by rational permissibility, then to an infinite extent, or by induction, then to six or seven, which is the most that was found from the narrations of the followers from one another, as Al-Hafiz stated.
If it happens that the sender only narrates from a trustworthy source, then authentication with ambiguity is not sufficient, as will come. And because if the unknown person named is not accepted until he is authenticated, then the one who is unknown in person and condition is more deserving, as he benefited from in training. Then what was mentioned about rejecting the sender is not absolute, but rather it has cases in which it is acted upon, as he indicated by saying:

... Then he mentioned an example of the Mu'tamid who fulfilled the conditions, saying (like the prohibition of selling meat) as news of something omitted, the meaning of which is that it is like the prohibition of selling meat (in the original), meaning the animal


------------------------------

It came in Al-Hawi by Al-Suyuti
“What Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Bayhaqi narrated in “Shu’ab Al-Iman” on the authority of Al-Zuhri, who said: The handkerchief was disliked after ablution because the water of ablution is weighed. Al-Zuhri - who is one of the followers - wanted to explain the legal ruling - which is not drying after ablution - for a reason that can only be taken from the hadiths that are traced back to the Prophet, because the weight of the water of ablution cannot be understood except by revelation, because it is one of the conditions of the Day of Resurrection. So when he mentioned the hadith as a source of explanation, he mentioned it as a mursal with the companion omitted from it.

It was stated in Jami’ al-Ahadith by al-Suyuti: “No one will believe after me while sitting (Abd al-Razzaq and al-Bayhaqi - and he weakened it - on the authority of al-Sha’bi, without a chain of transmission). It was narrated by Abd al-Razzaq and al-Bayhaqi, who said: No one narrated it except Jabir al-Ja’fi, and he is rejected . The hadith is without a chain of transmission, and it cannot be used as evidence. 👉👉👉

Al-Suyuti mentioned in Al-Khasais Al-Kubra talking about a hadith and see how they deal with it and differentiate between the mursal in belief and in the Maghariz and rulings. A group said that one of his characteristics, peace and blessings be upon him, is that he, peace and blessings be upon him, prayed with the people while sitting, as in the hadith of the two Sahihs, and he forbade
that. Al-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi narrated in Al-Sunan on the authority of Jabir Al-Ja’fi on the authority of Al-Sha’bi, who said that the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “No one believes after me while sitting.” Al-Daraqutni said, “No one narrated it except Jabir Al-Ja’fi, and he is rejected.” 👈 The hadith is mursal and cannot be used as evidence. 👉

Al-Suyuti mentioned in Al-Shama’il Al-Sharifa that he talks about a mursal hadith and whether it is acceptable? Because it is mursal “in the meaning of rain, so they said, ‘Allah has granted us many conquests’ when the rains continue and the land of Banu so-and-so is victorious, meaning covered. Al-Zamakhshari mentioned it all, on the authority of Umayyah Ibn Khald, Abdullah Ibn Asad Al-Umawi, raising it as a symbol of its goodness. Al-Mundhiri said, its narrators are the narrators of Sahih, and it is mursal.” Al-Haythami said, Al-Tabarani narrated it with two chains of transmission, one of which has men who are men of Sahih. But the hadith is mursal. Al-Baghawi also narrated it on his authority in Sharh Al-Sunnah. Ibn Abd Al-Barr said, “It is not authentic in my opinion, and the hadith is mursal.” And Umayyah was not narrated by any of the six, and in the history of Ibn Asakir said that Umayya was a trustworthy follower whom Abd al-Malik appointed over Khurasan. Al-Dhahabi said in his Mukhtasar: The hadith is mursal. Ibn Hibban said: Umayya narrates mursal hadiths. Whoever claims that he was a companion has made a mistake. He said in al-Isti’ab: His companionship is not authentic in my opinion. In Usd al-Ghabah it is sahih: He was not a companion, and the hadith is mursal.

It was stated in Al-Itqan li-Ulum Al-Quran by Al-
Suyuti that there are different opinions regarding the first verse of the Quran to be revealed:
One of them, and it is the correct one, is: “Read in the name of your Lord.” The two Shaykhs and others narrated on the authority of Aisha ... The third opinion: Surat Al-Fatihah... until it reached: “And not of those who have gone astray.” This hadith is mursal and its men are trustworthy. The fourth opinion: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful .

Al-Bayhaqi al-Shafi’i said
: “Every hadith that was sent by one of the Tabi’in or the Tabi’in, and he narrated it from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, without mentioning who transmitted it from him, is of two types:
The first: That the one who sent it is from the senior Tabi’in who, when they mentioned who they heard from, mentioned just people whose reports are trustworthy.
So if he sends a hadith, his mursal is examined, and if something is added to it that confirms it from another mursal, or the statement of one of the Companions, or the majority of the people of knowledge agree with him,
then we accept his mursal in rulings. The second
: That the one who sent it is from the later Tabi’in who are known for taking from everyone, and the weakness of the sources of what they sent became clear to the people of knowledge of hadith . So this type of mursal is not accepted in rulings, but is accepted in matters that do not relate to a ruling, such as supplications, virtues of deeds, battles, and the like. ”

If a follower sends a hadith, 4, 5, or 6 may be omitted between him and the Prophet. Therefore, a hadith sent by trustworthy followers does not mean its authenticity.
It was mentioned in Sunan al-Nasa’i, Part No. 2, Page No. 171
996. Muhammad ibn Bashar informed us, saying: Abd al-Rahman informed us, saying: Za’idah (followers of the followers) informed us,
on the authority of Mansur (follower), on the authority of Hilal ibn Yasaaf (follower),
on the authority of Rabi’ ibn Khuthaym (follower), on the authority of Amr ibn Maymun (follower)
, on the authority of Ibn Abi Layla (follower),
on the authority of
A woman
( (
(
...​Al-Shafi'i, although the saying of rejecting the mursal narrations is attributed to Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, and some of the followers with him, so can Saeed be ignored in relation to the followers? Who is the best of them according to Imam Ahmad? I mean, does Saeed bin Al-Musayyab's rejection of the mursal narrations apply to the consensus and agreement that Al-Tabari transmits from the followers, or not? Does his consensus be invalidated by Saeed; why? Yes? Yes? Yes, we consider the saying of the majority to be a consensus, and this is well-known, and it was circulated in the books of Usul: that Al-Tabari sees consensus as the saying of the majority, and his behavior in his interpretation indicates this, when he transmits a ruling, or a meaning, or a reading, he transmits the saying of the majority, then he mentions the opponent, and he prefers the saying of the majority, and the correct view in this according to us is thus; because of the consensus of the reading on that, and he cited the same disagreement but he considers the saying of the majority to be a consensus, he considers the saying of the majority to be a consensus Al-Tabari: 👈👈👈👈And the readers differed in the reading of that. The majority of the reciters of Hijaz and Iraq, and the majority of the reciters, read it as: (except for a present trade) in the nominative case. Some of the Kufians recited it in the accusative case. 1) And this is even though it is permissible in Arabic, since the Arabs used to put indefinite and qualified nouns in the accusative with “kana,” and imply with them in “kana” an unknown noun, so they say: “If it is a good food, bring it to us,” and they would raise it, so they would say: “If it is a good food, bring it to us,” so the indefinite noun follows its predicate with the same syntax = then what I chose from the reading, and I do not permit reading with anything else, is raising in “present trade,” 👈👈👈👈 ))) for the consensus (((of the reading on that,!!! He mentioned the disagreement and said consensus, so this is the method of al-Tabari, according to him, the majority are consensus, like Imam al-Nawawi, for example, also, he said about the triple washing of the body: “If it is recommended in it - ablution - three times, then in washing it is more appropriate, and we do not know of any disagreement in this; except what was unique to the Imam, the most important judge, Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi, the author of “al-Hawi” from our companions, as he said: It is not recommended to repeat in Washing, and this is an anomalous and abandoned matter.” (4)












It is clear from al-Nawawi’s words that he meant the absence of disagreement, i.e. in the Shafi’i school of thought, and this is confirmed by the fact that he did not mention anything of that when he discussed the issue in al-Majmu’, rather he said: “The correct and well-known school of thought that the majority have decided upon…” (5), then he mentioned our issue, and this is an explicit statement of the existence of disagreement, then he began to quote from the jurists of the Shafi’i school of thought, and did not touch upon anyone else, except that Ibn Hajar (6) and al-Shawkani (7) did not pay attention to this meaning, and did not see this statement of his, and they quoted the denial of disagreement on the issue, and Allah knows best. Consensus according to al-Nawawi,
the book: Encyclopedia of Consensus in Islamic Jurisprudence,


and see the issue: (Water that is less than two qullas is not purified by taking some of it) (3), where he narrated the agreement on the issue, and the majority disagreed with him. He
denied disagreement on the issue in Sharh Muslim, then I found that in al-Majmu’ he quotes disagreement on it, which confirms that he meant the school of thought only.

#Consensus according to #Al-Nawawi,

Two additions:

The first: The mursal of Urwah, may Allah have mercy on him, which mentions the story of Al-Raniq is not authentically attributed to him, as in its chain of transmission is Ibn Lahi’ah, and its narration from him other than through the path of the Abbadids is invalid and not authentic .

We read from the installation of the catapults in blowing up the story of the cranes by Imam Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, the sixth narration:

((6- On the authority of Urwah - meaning Ibn Al-Zubayr - in naming those who went out to the land of Abyssinia the first time, “I said and in it:” “The polytheists said: If this man spoke well of our gods, we would have approved of him and his companions, for he does not speak ill of anyone who opposes his religion from the Jews and Christians with the same insults and evil with which he speaks of our gods. So when God - the Almighty - revealed the surah in which he mentions: {By the star} and recited: {Have you considered Al-Lat and Al-Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other?} [An-Najm: 19-20], Satan then threw into it the mention of the tyrants and said: “And indeed, they are among the exalted cranes, and indeed, their intercession is hoped for.” This is from the rhyme of Satan..... . It was narrated by At-Tabarani in this manner, as in “Al-Majma’: 6/32-34 and 7/70-72”1 and he said: “It includes Ibn Lahi’ah, and this is not acceptable from Ibn Lahi’ah.” The

second: There were those among the first hundred of the Salaf who refused to use the Mursal as evidence, and this refutes what At-Tabari and Abu Dawud, may Allah have mercy on him, said that the Mursal was used until Ash-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, came .

1. Ibn Sirin, may Allah

have mercy on him. We read from the introduction to Sahih Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him:

((Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn As-Sabbah narrated to us, Ismail ibn Zakariya narrated to us, on the authority of ‘Aasim Al-Ahwal, on the authority of Ibn Sirin, who said: “ They did not ask about The chain of transmission: When the tribulation occurred, they said: Name your men for us, so that the people of the Sunnah may be looked at and their hadith may be accepted, and the people of innovation may be looked at and their hadith may not be accepted. “Ishaq ibn Ibrahim al-Hanthali narrated to us, ‘Isa, who is the son of Yunus, narrated to us, al-Awza’i narrated to us, on the authority of Sulayman ibn Musa, who said: I met Tawus So I said: So-and-so told me such-and-such. He said: “If your companion is intelligent, then take from him.”

2. Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, may God

have mercy on him . We read from Al-Kafiyah fi Ilm Al-Riwayah by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi, Chapter on what was used as evidence by those who accepted the mursal hadiths

. ((Muhammad ibn Isa ibn Abd Al-Aziz Al-Hamadhani informed us, Salih ibn Ahmad Al-Hafiz narrated to us, Abd Al-Rahman ibn Hamdan narrated to us, Hilal ibn Al-Ala’ said: I heard my father say: “The companions of One day, the hadith was narrated to Ibn Uyaynah, so he climbed up to his room. His brother said to him: Do you want them to disperse from you? Tell them something without a chain of transmission. He said: Look at this man. He is ordering me to climb up to the top of the house without steps. Salih said: He means that a hadith without a chain of transmission is nothing, and that the chain of transmission is the level of the texts, by which they are connected

. Abdullah bin Mubarak, may God have mercy on him.

We read from the same previous source:

((Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar al-Dinawari informed me, on the authority of Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Muzaki, on the authority of Imam Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah, who said: I heard Ahmad ibn Nasr al-Muqri’ saying: I heard Ibrahim ibn Ma’dan saying: Ibn al-Mubarak said: “The example of the one who seeks a matter is His religion without a chain of transmission is like the example of someone who climbs a roof without a ladder. ”

4. Ali ibn al-Madini, may God

have mercy on him . We read from the same previous source:

“Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Fadl al-Qattan informed us, on the authority of Abu ‘Isa Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Muhammad ibn Shadhan al-Jawhari, on the authority of my grandfather, who said: I asked ‘Ali ibn al-Madini about the chain of transmission of a hadith that had slipped my mind, so he said: Do you know what Abu Sa’id said? Al-Haddad? He said: “ The chain of transmission is like a staircase and like a ladder, so if your foot slips from the ladder you fall, and the opinion is like a meadow. ”

Al-Ala’i, may God have mercy on him, responded to the claim of consensus that was mentioned by Al-Tabari, may God have mercy on him, and Ibn Abd Al-Barr, may God

have mercy on him, approved of it . We read from Jami’ Al-Tahsil by Al-Ala’i, may God have mercy on him, Chapter Three:

((As for consensus, a group of them claimed it, until Muhammad ibn Jarir Al-Tabari said: People continued to act upon and accept the mursal until after the two hundredth year, the opinion to reject it occurred, referring to Imam Al-Shafi’i, may God be pleased with him. They said: As for the era of the Companions, there is no doubt in the prevalence of mursal from them, even if there was no denunciation at all against any of the Companions, may God be pleased with them, who mursalized the hadith from the Prophet, may

God bless him and grant him peace. May God bless our master Muhammad and upon Allah and his companions, peace and blessings be upon them... As for the followers, their sending of hadiths that are not included in the list is well-known and widespread among them, such as Ibn al-Musayyab, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, al-Hasan, and those whose mention would take too long. Their narration of them was only for the sake of acting upon them. Otherwise, if it was idle talk that did not benefit anything and could not be used as evidence, the scholars would have denounced them and explained that their sending of the hadith necessitates weakening it and not using it as evidence. Their peers and those above them did not denounce them for that, but rather those who came after them denied it.

They said, and there is no objection to this that it necessitates that the disagreement in that be rejected and cast aspersions on the one who disagreed because it violates the consensus, and that is invalid because the disagreement in the mursal is acceptable and heard from its speaker. We do not respond to it by saying that the rejected disagreement that necessitates casting aspersions is only a violation of the definitive consensus. As for the inferential or conjectural consensus, it does not cast aspersions on its breach, and here it is in this position because it is a silent consensus.

The answer to all of that is that the claim of consensus in that is absolutely invalid except in the era of the Companions, the time of the Prophethood, and a little after that when the Companions did not mix with anyone other than them, and that does not respond to those who did not use it as evidence. By the sender and also the sending of the young companions for what was mentioned above, such a thing is acceptable according to the most likely and well-known opinion that the majority of scholars hold, and it was not contradicted... As for after the followers became numerous and their narrations spread among the later companions and others, it is not possible to claim a tacit consensus on accepting the sent one, let alone others.The story of Ibn Abbas with Bashir bin Kaab and his not accepting the mursal hadiths at all, except for those who know, has been presented, and it is proven in Sahih Muslim from the two aspects mentioned above. Likewise, the saying of Ibn Abbas also, “We used to memorize the hadith and the hadith is memorized from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. But if you ride the difficult and the easy, then it is far from us.” And the saying of Ibn Sirin, “They did not ask about the chain of transmission until the tribulation occurred. When the tribulation occurred, they said, ‘Name your men for us.’

I said, ‘Because the heretic has lied about many hadiths that support her heresy.’ Ibn Abbas, may God be pleased with him, said when he heard what the Rafidah of Kufa had fabricated against Ali, may God kill them. What knowledge have they corrupted?” Muslim also narrated in the introduction to his Sahih.

Imam Al-Shafi’i, may God have mercy on him, said, “Ibn Sirin, Urwah bin Al-Zubayr, Tawus, Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i, and more than one of the followers used to hold the view that they would not accept the hadith except from a trustworthy person who knows what he narrates and memorizes. I have not seen anyone from the people of hadith who disagreed with this view.” And the denial of Al-Zuhri of Ishaq bin Abi Farwah’s mursal hadith and his saying, “May God kill you, O son of Abi Farwah, you told us.” With hadiths that he did not have a nose or a rein, meaning the chains of transmission, and Al-Zuhri was one of those who sent the hadith, so his statement indicates that his sending the hadith was not to be acted upon, perhaps it was for discussion and the like, or Ibn Abi Farwah saw that he might send it from someone who was not trustworthy, so he denounced that.

If it is said, how did Al-Zuhri send it from Sulayman ibn Arqam and others until a group of imams weakened his mursals absolutely?

We say, it is possible that he did not know about the weakness of Sulayman ibn Arqam and thought well of him, and Al-Shafi’i said the same about him. Al-Zuhri, meaning Sulayman ibn Arqam, saw him as one of the people of chivalry and reason, so he accepted it from him and thought well of him, so he remained silent about his name, either because he was younger than him or for some other reason

. The result is that the denial of the people of that era of sending and their rejection of the mursal is present in many forms, so there is no consensus then, and it is not possible to expel the agreement of the first generation of the Companions after that, due to what Ibn Abbas, Ibn Sirin, and others indicated about the difference between them and those after them due to the existence of whims and lies after the first generation. Then this statement of claiming agreement is opposed by what Muslim transmitted in the introduction to his Sahih from others, confirming his statement of the mursal narrations in the origin of our statement, and the statement of the people of knowledge of the news is not On the authority of Muhammad ibn Jarir, the practice of sending and accepting it continued until it happened after the two hundredth year. The statement of rejecting it was rejected by the statement of those who rejected it before the two hundredth year, such as Al-Awza’i, Shu’bah, Al-Layth ibn Sa’d, Abd Al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Yahya ibn Sa’id Al-Qattan, and others. And success is from God.

We know the difference between citing a mursal in rulings, beliefs, and the fundamentals of religion.
There is no argument for those who cite a mursal as valid according to some “jurists.”
As al-Bayhaqi said about a mursal hadith that meets the conditions: Al-Bayhaqi al-Shafi’i said
: “Every hadith that was sent by one of the followers or followers, and he narrated it from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and did not mention who transmitted it from him, is of two types:
One of them: That the one who sent it is from the senior followers who, when they mention who they heard from, mention just people whose news is trustworthy.
So if he sends a hadith, his mursal is examined, and if something is added to it that confirms it from another mursal, or the statement of one of the companions, or the common people of knowledge go to it,
🤗 then we accept his mursal in 👈 rulings
. 👉 Al-Hafiz al-‘Iraqi said in his explanation of his Alfiyyah
: His saying: (and their followers) means: their followers. (And they made it a religion) meaning: they made it a religion that they adhere to. Most of the scholars of hadith are of the view that the mursal hadith is weak and cannot be used as evidence. Ibn Abd al-Barr narrated this in the introduction to “al-Tamhid” on the authority of a group of scholars of hadith. Muslim said at the beginning of his book “al-Sahih”: “The mursal hadith, in our basic opinion and the opinion of scholars of hadith, is not an evidence.” Explanation (Al-Tabsira and Al-Tadhkira = Alfiyyah Al-Iraqi)

Al-Nawawi said: “In any case: the imams do not narrate anything from the weak ones that they use as evidence for his isolation in rulings ; for this is something that no imam from the imams of the hadith scholars would do, nor any scholar from other scholars would do. As for the action of many of the jurists or most of them and their reliance on it: it is not correct, rather it is very ugly. This is because if he knows its weakness, it is not permissible for him to use it as evidence; for they agree that the weak one is not used as evidence in rulings . And if he does not know its weakness, it is not permissible for him to rush to use it as evidence without researching it, by searching for it if he knows, or by asking the people of knowledge about it, if he does not know, and Allah knows best.”
“Imam Ibn Khuzaymah and the mursal in the creed:
Ibn Khuzaymah talks about a mursal hadith and says: “Mursal….. and this report is not from our conditions, because it is not connected. ” The chain of transmission: We do not use this type of knowledge as evidence for the disconnected narrations.
-----
As for the weak narration of Al-Gharaniq that some of the people of the biography and the commentators narrate, they said
in Al-Hafiz Al-Iraqi’s Alfiyyah:
And let the seeker know that the biography… collects what is authentic and what has been denied
, and the purpose is to mention what the people of the biography have brought… even if its chain of transmission is not considered
. -------
Sheikh of the commentators Al-Tabari : So whatever is in this book of mine of news that we have mentioned from some of the past that its reader finds objectionable, or its listener finds abhorrent, because he did not know its face in authenticity, nor its meaning in reality, then let him know that it was not brought to us in that, but rather it came from some of its transmitters to us, and we only conveyed that in the manner in which it was conveyed to us.
-------
Al-Qurtubi, the commentator:My condition in this book is to attribute the sayings to their speakers, and the hadiths to their authors, because it is said: It is a blessing of knowledge that a saying is attributed to its speaker. The hadith often appears in books of jurisprudence and interpretation in an ambiguous form, and no one knows who narrated it except those who have consulted books of hadith. Thus, the one who has been informed of it remains confused, not knowing what is authentic from what is weak. Knowing this is a great deal of knowledge, so it is not acceptable to use it as evidence or to use it as proof until he attributes it to those who narrated it from the eminent imams and the trustworthy and famous scholars of Islam. Al-Manawi
said : Ibn al-Kamal said: The books of interpretation are filled with fabricated hadiths, and the greatest of them are… The jurists in the early generation of the followers of the mujtahids did not care about controlling the graduation and distinguishing the authentic from the non-authentic, so they fell into asserting the attribution of many hadiths to the Prophet and based many rulings on them despite their weakness, and perhaps the subject entered them. Among those who made mistakes in this regard and preserved his errors were Asad bin Asad al-Karrar al-Farrar, who was unanimously agreed upon by all who agreed and disagreed with him, and his fame spread in the East and the West, the great teacher, the Imam of the Two Holy Mosques, and he was followed in this by the architect of the rules, the dehqan of the strongholds and the contracts, whose general and specific nation was recognized by our master, the proof of Islam, in many of the greats of the four schools of thought. This does not detract from their majesty, nor from the ijtihad of the mujtahids, since it is not a condition for the mujtahid to be fully aware of the situation of every hadith in the world . Al-Hafiz al-Zayn al-Iraqi said in the sermon of his great graduation of Ihya: The habit of the predecessors was to remain silent about the hadiths they included in their classifications and not to state who narrated them and to state the authentic from the weak except rarely. Fayd al-Qadir 1/17 - Dr. Munqidh al-Saqqar’s new episode on al-Gharaneeq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PszAcOPVe4

Ibn Sa`d narrated in “Al-Tabaqat” (2/308), on the authority of Al-Thawri, on the authority of Al-A`mash, on the authority of Ibrahim Al-Nakha`i ,
who said: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: Every prophet lives half the life of the one before him, and Jesus, son of Mary, remained among his people for forty years.

This is a mursal


and he also brought out
: “And there was no prophet but he lived half the life of his brother who was before him,” Jesus, son of Mary, lived one hundred and twenty-five years and this is sixty-two years and he died in half the year .”


Ibn Hajar said in “An-Nukat ‘ala Ibn Al-Salah” (2/557): “Al-Bayhaqi said: “It is known that Ibrahim Al-Nakha’i did not hear from any of the Companions, so if he narrated from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - there would be two or more people between him and him, so his acceptance is questionable from this perspective.
Ibn Hajar says: “I searched many mursals and found from non-trustworthy people, rather many of them were asked about Their sheikhs, so they mentioned them with the wound, like the saying of Abu Hanifa: “I have not seen anyone who falsifies more than Jabir al-Ja’fi8 and his hadith from him is available” and the saying of al-Sha’bi: “Al-Harith al-A’war told me and he was a liar, so how can the ruling (on the narrator that he does not send except from someone he trusts absolutely) be valid?”
Ibn Hajar also says: “In the introduction to Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Sirin, he said: “They did not ask about the chain of transmission, but when the tribulation occurred, they asked about it in order to avoid the narration of the people of innovation.”2
And in it - also - on the authority of Ibn Abbas - may God Almighty be pleased with them both - that he denied Bashir ibn Ka’b4 one of the followers for hadiths that he sent and said:
“We used to accept hadith from the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - from everyone, but when people embarked on the difficult and the easy, we did not accept from him5 except what we knew.”
Likewise, al-Zuhri denied hadiths from Ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Wafrah6 for hadiths that he sent and said: “You come to us with hadiths that have no bridle or rein, do you not support your hadith?” 7. And

Ibn Hajar says: “It is authentically reported on the authority of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i that he said: ‘Whatever I have told you on the authority of Ibn Mas’ud - may God be pleased with him - I have heard it from more than one person, and whatever I have told you and named is from whom I have named.’”


Ibn Hajar weakens the hadith due to the omission of the intermediary between the Tabi’i and the Prophet, and he quotes the statement of al-Bayhaqi: “ So if he - meaning al-Nakha’i - narrated on the authority of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - there are two or more people between him and him, then his acceptance is questionable from this perspective. ”

This hadith is mursal and its chains of transmission are multiple,
as it has been narrated on the authority of more than one person. “The first chain of transmission: on the authority of Aisha - may God be pleased with her. The second chain of transmission: on the authority of Zayd ibn Arqam - may God be pleased with him. The third chain of transmission: on the authority of Hudhayfah ibn Asid - may God be pleased with him. The fourth chain of transmission: on the authority of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i, mursal.”
And with your adherence, O Christian, to the statement of Ibn Hajar: “And the multiplicity of chains of transmission indicates that the story has a basis,”
does this hadith become authentic?

Not only that,
not all Hanafis accepted the mursal hadith. Here is Abu Hanifa’s student Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, who does not accept some of the mursal hadiths. Here is Abu Yusuf, the pillars of Hanafi jurisprudence, the students of Abu Hanifa.
Here is al-Tahawi, who is who he was, the leadership of Abu Hanifa’s companions in Egypt ended with him, rejecting it.


Not everyone who accepted the mursal hadith accepted it in all rulings,
and they all agreed that they did not use it as evidence in “the creed,” as we have reported.
Al-Shafi’i says : The hadith of Malik from Amrah is mursal and the people of hadith, and we do not confirm #mursal hadiths.
Although Malik… If the trace comes, Malik is the star .
He said: If the scholars are mentioned, Malik is the star . Al-Shafi’i
did not give precedence to anyone over Malik in hadith,
and he said about him: If a hadith comes to you from Malik, then hold on to it. He said about him, “The Commander of the Faithful in Hadith.”
However, he says, “ The Hadith of Malik from Amrah is mursal , and so are the people of Hadith. We do not confirm mursal. ”
(Al-Shafi’i said) And mursal Hadiths have been narrated from the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - regarding punishments and their timing. We left them because they were cut off.
And in a mursal Hadith regarding blood money


, Al-Shafi’i said: Then someone said to me: What prevents you from taking the Hadith of Ibn Bujaid? I said: I do not know that Ibn Bujaid heard from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and if he did not hear from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then it is mursal, and neither you nor I confirm the mursal
------------------
Abu Yusuf, a student of Imam Abu Hanifa and the mursal:


------------------
Al-Tahawi and the mursal and

Even al-Tabari, who was very strong in defending the mursal, weakens the mursal of al-Hasan in Tahdhib al-Athar,
and did not consider his mursal (al-Zad wa al-Rahila in his interpretation).

He says in Tahdhib al-Athar Musnad Ali (113): “Most of the mursal of al-Hasan are copies not from hearing, and if the news reaches us, most of his narrations are from unknown people who are not known, and whoever is like that in what he narrates of news, it is obligatory for us to verify his mursal.”
1429 - Ibn Hamid told us, he said: Yahya ibn Wadhih told us, he said: Abu Hamza told us, on the authority of Jabir, he said:A man said to Umar ibn al-Khattab: May God make me your ransom, he said: “Then God will humiliate you.”It was said: These are narrations with weak chains of transmission, and no proof like them can be established in religion ,because most of the mursal of al-Hasan are copies not from hearing, and if the news reaches us, most of his narrations are from unknown people who are not known. And whoever is like that in what he narrates of news, then it is our duty to verify his mursal.

We have narrated from a group of the companions of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, with chains of transmission that do not resemble the chains of transmission of the report of al-Hasan in authenticity, that they said to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace: May God make us your ransom. He did not denounce that to them, nor did he change it. We mention from that what we are present to mention

Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, says : “However, some defects in the hadith may be hidden from the hafiz, so he judges it to be authentic based on what appears to him, and someone else finds out about them and rejects the report based on them. After them, the skilled critic has the right to weigh between their two statements with the scale of justice , and to act in accordance with what fairness requires. The matter returns to the examination and investigation that the author tries to close the door to, and God Almighty knows best .”

*************************

Page 346 of the book of jokes on Ibn al-Salah by Ibn Hajar... Ibn Hajar quotes al-Hafiz al-Ala’i as saying: “He said: I have not seen anyone who explicitly accepted it in its entirety - meaning accepting the mursal absolutely -
except some of the later extremist Hanafis, and this is an unsatisfactory expansion because it necessitates invalidating the consideration of the chain of transmission, which is one of the characteristics of this nation, and abandoning consideration of the conditions of the narrators , and the consensus in every era is contrary to that, so the appearance of its corruption is sufficient to extend it.”
Then Ibn Hajar said: “I said: And it is supported by the statement of Professor Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini in his book on the principles of the mursal of the narration of the Tabi’i from the Prophet or the Tabi’i of the Tabi’i from the Companion. But if the Tabi’i of the Tabi’i or one of us says the Messenger of God said, then it is not considered anything and there is no preference for it, let alone citing it as evidence ... This is also apparent in the statement of Ibn Burhan.”

-----------------------------------------------------
...​​
​
​​​​​
******
... ​

​​​​​​​​​Ibn Al-Mulaqqin said: The hadith, “Whoever memorizes forty hadiths for my nation will be written down as a jurist, ” is narrated through about twenty chains of narration, all of which are weak. Al-Daraqutni said: All of its chains of narration are weak and none of them are proven. Al-Bayhaqi said: Its chains of narration are weak. “Khulasat Al-Badr Al-Munir” (2/145). Al-Bayhaqi said: This is a well-known text among the people, but it does not have a sound chain of narration. “Shu’ab Al-Iman” (2/270). Al-Nawawi said : The hadith scholars agreed that it is a weak hadith, even though its chains of narration are many. “Introduction to Al-Arba’in An-Nawai

Example : Ali bin Khashram: Ibn Uyaynah told us on the authority
of Al-Zuhri. So it was said to him: Did you hear it from Al-Zuhri? He said: No, nor from those who heard it from Al-Zuhri. Abdul -Razzaq told me on the authority of Muammar on the authority of Al-Zuhri (Al- Hakim in the Knowledge of the Sciences of Hadith, p. 130) ===== ...

​​​​​​​​​Ibn Al-Mulaqqin said: The hadith, “Whoever memorizes forty hadiths for my nation will be written down as a jurist, ” is narrated through about twenty chains of narration, all of which are weak. Al-Daraqutni said: All of its chains of narration are weak and none of them are proven. Al-Bayhaqi said: Its chains of narration are weak. “Khulasat Al-Badr Al-Munir” (2/145). Al-Bayhaqi said: This is a well-known text among the people, but it does not have a sound chain of narration. “Shu’ab Al-Iman” (2/270). Al-Nawawi said : The hadith scholars agreed that it is a weak hadith, even though its chains of narration are many. “Introduction to Al-Arba’in An-Nawawi”

question came to my mind and the response is that
if someone said, why don’t you make the mursal hadiths of the Tabi’een in this chapter as al-Suyuti says: “
A note
that what was mentioned above is from the category of the musnad from the companion if it was from a Tabi’i then it is also marfu’ but it is mursal so it may be accepted if the chain of transmission to him is authentic and he was from the imams of tafsir who took from the companions like Mujahid, Ikrimah and Sa’id ibn Jubayr or he supported it with another mursal hadith and the like .”

I said: The conditions that Al-Suyuti mentioned briefly are: 1- The authenticity of the chain of transmission. 2- That this follower be one of the imams of interpretation who took directly from the Companions. 3- The mursal is supported by the mursal of another.
Of course, Al-Suyuti did not mention all the conditions , so of course it is not permissible for this one to contradict the words of this one,
and it is not permissible for his words to contradict a sound chain of transmission hadith from a Companion,
and it is not permissible for it to be in the chapter of belief in all its chapters.
If you would like me to give you an example from the words of Al-Suyuti himself,
he says: “... Ibn Jarir narrated from Mujahid who said: When the verse: {Call upon Me, I will respond to you} was revealed, they said: To where? So it was revealed. Mursal .
And he narrated from Qatadah that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: A brother of yours has died.” So they prayed over him and said: He did not pray towards the Qiblah, so this was revealed . This is a very strange and problematic narration.
These are five different reasons, the weakest of which is the last one due to its being
problematic , then what preceded it due to its being mursal
, then what preceded it due to the weakness of its narrators.
The second is authentic, but he said: It was revealed regarding such and such,
and he did not state the reason. The first has an authentic chain of transmission, and he stated the reason in it, so it is the reliable one. The first
is meant . Al-Hakim and others narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar who said: “The verse: {So wherever you turn, there is the Face of Allah} was revealed, meaning that you should pray wherever your mount takes you in voluntary prayer.” From this we understand that if a mursal contradicts a hadith with a chain of transmission, it is rejected, even if it was from Qatadah, Mujahid, and Saeed bin Jubayr. Here is al-Suyuti who rejects Qatadah’s mursal because it is weak, and Mujahid’s mursal because it contradicts the authentic chain of transmission. Likewise the story of al-Gharaneeq, in which there is Qatadah’s mursal, and something weaker than Qatadah’s mursal as well.

•