Lies, distortions, and slanders by GF Haddad


As some of you are probably aware, brother Muzammil Husayn has written a number of posts on sunniforum refuting Shaykh GF Haddad, during which clear slanders, distortions and lies have surfaced. I have gathered a few of these statements into one post as an example of the deception perpetrated by this tradionalist scholar who exercises some degree of influence online, to the extent that many brothers have fallen for his slanders against certain righteous ulama. The sample below should be enough to alert brothers to the fact that this scholar is not a reliable source of information. If anyone here has contact with the Shaykh, then he is requested to bring this sample to the Shaykh’s attention:

1. GF Haddad said: “It is also a remarkable revision of history to represent Ismā.īl Dihlawī as a reviver of jihād. In reality, he was a rebel bāghī who opposed the jihād against the British declared by the last Mughāl Sultan of India.”

The last Mughal sultan of India was Bahadur Shah who came to power in 1837 several years after the death of Shah Isma‘il. Shah Isma‘il did not oppose any jihad.

2. GF Haddad said: “[Taqwiyat al-Iman of] Ismā.īl Dihlawī was also immediately opposed by a host of Indian Sunnī Ulema beginning with his own family and the Ulema of Delhi such as his two paternal uncles Shāh .Abd al-.Azīz Muh.addith Dihlawī (d. 1239/1834) (the son of Shāh Walī Allāh and one of those considered a Renewer of the thirteenth Hijrī century) and Shāh Raf.ī al-Dīn Muh.addith Dihlawī in his Fatāwā””

Shah Rafi‘ al-Din passed away in 1233 H/1818 AD before Taqwiyat al-Iman was even written, so it is not possible he wrote a refutation. Also Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz died in 1824 not 1834.

3. GF Haddad said: “Ismā.īl Dihlawī wrote Taqwiyat al-Īmān in the wake of his H.ijāz years (1236-1239), at which time he had come under the tutelage of Wahhābī missionaries.”

In the period Shah Isma’il went to perform Hajj (“his Hijaz years”), the followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab had already been expelled from the Hijaz, and it was under Ottoman rule when the followers of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab were vilified, and they held no sway in these lands. Besides this clear historical indication that Shah Isma’il most probably had no contact with “Wahhabi missionaries,” scholars of his movement find no evidence of any relation or connection between them.

Harlan O. Pearson an academic researcher on Sayyid Ahmad Berelwi’s movement (called Tariqah Muhammadiyyah) wrote while discussing Shah Isma‘il and the Tariqah Muhammadiyyah’s pilgrimage: “The Indian Muhammadi [i.e. the movement of Sayyid Ahmad Shahid and Shah Isma’il] had no apparent connection with the Arabian Wahhabi movement. By performing the pilgrimage, they were performing a basic religious duty in preparation for their later activities.” (Islamic Reform and Revival in Nineteenth Century India, Yoda Press,2008, p. 39)

Muhammad Hedayatullah wrote in his Masters thesis for McGill University on Sayyid Ahmad Barelwi: “His [Sayyid Ahmad’s] relation with the Arabian Wahhabis is not historically proved.” (A Study of the Religious Reform Movement of Sayyid Ahmad of Rae Bareli, p. 26)

4. GF Haddad said: “The night of the Mawlid Sharif is of greater significance and merit than Laylat al-Qadr which is the position of some of the Maliki Imams as cited by Abu al-`Abbas al-Wansharisi (d. 914) in his encyclopdia of Maliki fatwas titled _al-Mi`yar al-Mu`rab wa al-Jami` al-Mughrib fi Fatawa Ahl Ifriqya wa al-Andalus wa al-Maghrib (11:280-285).”

“Some” normally means “more than one,” but this encyclopaedia only cites one person stating this view.

5. GF Haddad said: “Secondly, it is patently false that the origin of the two `Eids cannot be attributed to any particular event of history that had happened on these dates as the books of Tafsir are replete with the story of the sacrifice of Ibrahim (as) with his son Isma`il (as) on the occasion of which was offered a huge ram as stated in the Holy Qur’an.”

There is no proof that the sacrifice of Ibrahim (‘alayhi salam) happened on the day of ‘Id (10th Dhu l-Hijjah).

6. GF Haddad said: “As for death anniversaries, the Prophet definitely visited his wife and uncle’s graves on a regular basis as well as his mother’s.”

No such rigorously authentic narration exists which state he visited any of these relatives on a regular basis.

7. Translating a passage from Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’, GF Haddad quotes al-Dhahabi as follows: “As for his celebration of the Noble Mawlid al-Nabawi, words are too poor to describe it. The people used to come all the way from Iraq and Algeria to attend it. Two wooden dais would be erected and decorated for him and his wife… the celebration would last several days, and a huge quantity of cows and camels would be brought out to be sacrificed and cooked in different ways… Preachers would roam the field exhorting the people. Great sums were spent (as charity). Ibn Dihya compiled a ‘Book of Mawlid’ for him for which he received 1,000 dinars. He [Muzaffar] was modest, a LOVER OF GOOD, AND A TRUE SUNNI who loved scholars of jurisprudence and scholars of hadith, and was generous even to poets. He was killed in battle according to what is reported.”

The original passage of al-Dhahabi’s Siyar does not say “a true Sunni” (sunniyyun haqqan), but just “Sunni”. In the deliberately placed ellipsis, al-Dhahabi said: “In them [i.e. the pavilions erected for the mawlid celebration] were musicians and men of play, and he [i.e. al-Malik al-Muzaffar] would come down everyday at ‘Asr and stand at every pavilion and watch/take enjoyment from (the music and play).” (wa fiha jawq al-maghani wa al-la’ib, wa yanzilu kulla yawmin al-‘asra fayaqifu ‘ala kulli qubbatin wa yatafarraj). This was not translated amidst the remainder of the passage for obvious reasons.

8. GF Haddad said regarding the narration in which the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) prayed at Bethlehem during the Night Journey: “and al-Bazzar [narrated it] with a sound chain as indicated by al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa’id”

On the hadith in question, al-Haythami says in Majma’ al-Zawa’id: “Al-Bazzar and al-Tabrani in al-Kabir narrated it…In it is Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn al-‘Ala, considered trustworthy by Yahya ibn Ma’in and weakened by al-Nasa’i.”

رواه البزار والطبراني في الكبير ، إلا أن الطبراني قال فيه : ” قد أخذ صاحبك الفطرة ، وإنه لمهدي . وقال في وصف جهنم كيف وجدتها ؟ قال : مثل الحمة السخنة ” . وفيه إسحاق بن إبراهيم بن العلاء ، وثقه يحيى بن معين ، وضعفه النسائي

And this Haddad claims is an indication of its soundness from al-Haythami though he makes no such judgement.

9. GF Haddad said: “Secondly, the prescription of the commemoration of the birth of Christ *was* prescribed in the early Christian Church, even if its chronological proximity to the pagan commemoration of the winter solstice was co-opted by the political authorities as a means to recycle prevalent social customs in certain regions including those of pagan origins.”

In exact contradiction to this statement, the Catholic Encyclopaedia states: “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the “birthdays” of the gods.” The Encyclopaedia goes on to mention that the first time it was celebrated was two centuries after Christ. It seems, Haddad’s assertion that the commemoration of the birth of Christ was prescribed in the early Church, is simply fabricated and has no basis in fact.

10. GF Haddad said in his review of Kitab al-Tawhid: “Citing another weak narration that “a Companion” said: “Let us all go seek the help of the Messenger of Allâh (qûmû binâ nastaghîthu birasûlillah) against this hypocrite [`Abd Allâh ibn Ubay ibn Salûl who challenged Abû Bakr to ask the Prophet for a major miracle],” whereupon the Prophet said: “Innahu lâ yustaghâthu bî innamâ yustaghâthu billâh * “Help is not sought with me, it is sought only with Allâh.” Ibn `Abd al-Wahhâb references it to al-T.abarânî. [10]
First neither the wording nastaghîthu birasûlillah nor innahu lâ yustaghâthu bî innamâ yustaghâthu billâh is found in any book of h.adîth and there is no chain for them! The reference to “al-T.abarânî” shows blind imitation of Ibn Taymiyya’s incorrect referencing of these wordings to al-T.abarânî’s al-Mu`jam al-Kabîr in al-Radd `alâ al-Bakrî and Majmû` al-Fatâwâ.”

In fact, the exact narration as quoted by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab was narrated by al-Tabrani. In Majma’ al-Zawa’id (Kitab al-Ad’iyah, Bab Fima Yustaftah bihi al-Du’a…vol 10, page 246 Darwish ed.), al-Haythami said:

عن عبادة بن الصامت قال قال أبو بكر قوموا نستغيث برسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من هذا المنافق فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم انه لا يستغاث بى إنما يستغاث بالله عزوجل
رواه الطبراني ورجاله رجال الصحيح غير ابن لهيعة وهو حسن الحديث

After narrating it with the wording presented by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab with “Help is not sought from me, it is only sought from Allah,” al-Haytami says: “Al-Tabrani narrated it and its men are the men of the Sahih besides Ibn Lahi’ah whose hadiths are hasan.”

Source:  http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?86196-Warning-Lies-distortions-and-slanders-by-Shaykh-GF-Haddad

Advertisements

7 Responses to Lies, distortions, and slanders by GF Haddad

  1. Spiritsofar says:

    I don’t understand why you had to go public with this post. Why couldn’t you have contacted the shaykh privately and addressed these issues with him in person? This stuff you’ve come up with is entirely polemical.

  2. regarding point 6
    “No such rigorously authentic narration exists which state he visited any of these relatives on a regular basis.”

    This statement is refuted by ibn Abideen in Radd al-Mukhtar regarding Visiting Graves:

    انظر الي الحاشية رد المحتار على الدر المختار
    محمد أمين بن عمر (ابن عابدين):
    مسألة: الجزء الثاني التحليل الموضوعي
    وبزيارة القبور ولو للنساء لحديث { كنت نهيتكم عن زيارة القبور ألا فزوروها } ويقول : السلام عليكم دار قوم مؤمنين ، وإنا إن شاء الله بكم لاحقون

    الحاشية رقم: 1
    مطلب في زيارة القبور

    ( قوله وبزيارة القبور ) أي لا بأس بها ، بل تندب كما في البحر عن المجتبى ، فكان ينبغي التصريح به للأمر بها في الحديث المذكور كما في الإمداد ، وتزار في كل أسبوع كما في مختارات النوازل . قال في شرح لباب المناسك إلا أن الأفضل يوم الجمعة والسبت والاثنين والخميس ، فقد قال محمد بن واسع : الموتى يعلمون بزوارهم يوم الجمعة ويوما قبله ويوما بعده ، فتحصل أن يوم الجمعة أفضل . ا هـ . وفيه يستحب أن يزور شهداء جبل أحد ،

    ***لما روى ابن أبي شيبة : { أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يأتي قبور الشهداء بأحد على رأس كل حول فيقول : السلام عليكم بما صبرتم فنعم عقبى الدار }***
    and it is recommended to visit the Martyrs of Jabal Uhud per what was related by ibn Abi Shayba: “the Prophet (s) used to come to the Martyrs at Uhud and the head of every new year and say: ‘peace be upon ye for what you bore patiently, and what a favored ending your abode.'”
    والأفضل أن يكون يوم الخميس متطهرا مبكرا لئلا تفوته الظهر بالمسجد النبوي . ا هـ .

    • Ibn ‘Abidin rahimahullah was a scholar of fiqh, not hadith. In order to demonstrate that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) visited any of these family members on a regular basis *definitely* – as Gibril Haddad asserted – you have to show clear and authentic hadiths on this. None such hadith exist.

      If you contest this, look for the above narration in the printed Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah with Sh. Muhammad ‘Awwamah’s tahqeeq, and see if it exists and if so, if it is sound according to the principles of hadith.

      • It is an elementary fact of mustalah al-hadith that two or more hasan hadiths on the same issue constitute sahih status.

        Here are three graded hasan:

        Here is the narration in `Abdur-Razzaq’s Musannaf, which you purported not to exist:

        الكتب » مصنف عبد الرزاق » كِتَابُ الْجَنَائِزِ » بَابٌ فِي زِيَارَةِ الْقُبُورِ
        رقم الحديث: 6545
        (حديث مرفوع) عَنْ رَجُلٍ ، مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ ، عَنْ سُهَيْلِ بْنِ أَبِي صَالِحٍ ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ التَّيْمِيِّ ، قَالَ : كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَأْتِي قُبُورَ الشُّهَدَاءِ عِنْدَ رَأْسِ الْحَوْلِ ، فَيَقُولُ : ” السَّلامُ عَلَيْكُمْ بِمَا صَبَرْتُمْ ، فَنِعْمَ عُقْبَى الدَّارِ ” ، قَالَ : وَكَانَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، وَعُمَرَ ، وَعُثْمَانَ ، يَفْعَلُونَ ذَلِكَ .

        Ibn Abi Shaybah:
        الكتب » تاريخ المدينة لابن شبة
        رقم الحديث: 350
        (حديث مرفوع) قال أَبُو غَسَّانَ : حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ عِمْرَانَ ، عَنْ مُوسَى بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ الزَّمْعِيِّ ، عَنْ عَبَّادِ بْنِ أَبِي صَالِحٍ ، ” أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَأْتِي قُبُورَ الشُّهَدَاءِ بِأُحُدٍ عَلَى رَأْسِ كُلِّ حَوْلٍ ، فيقول : سَلامٌ عَلَيْكُمْ بِمَا صَبَرْتُمْ فَنِعْمَ عُقْبَى الدَّارِ سورة الرعد آية 24 ، قال : وَجَاءَهَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، ثُمَّ عُمَرُ ، ثُمَّ عُثْمَانُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ ، فَلَمَّا قَدِمَ مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ ، حَاجًّا ، جَاءَهُمْ قال : وَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا وَاجَهَ الشِّعْبَ ، قال : ” سَلامٌ عَلَيْكُمْ بِمَا صَبَرْتُمْ فَنِعْمَ أَجْرُ الْعَامِلِينَ ” .
        And:
        الكتب » موضح أوهام الجمع والتفريق للخطيب
        رقم الحديث: 303
        (حديث مرفوع) أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو الْحُسَيْنِ عَلِيُّ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ بِشْرَانَ الْمُعَدَّلُ ، أَخْبَرَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الصَّفَّارُ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْكَرِيمِ بْنُ الْهَيْثَمِ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى الطَّبَّاعُ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ عِمْرَانَ ، عَنْ مُوسَى بْنِ يَعْقُوبَ ، عَنْ عَبَّادِ بْنِ أُبَيِّ بْنِ صَالِحٍ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ : ” كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَأْتِي الشُّهَدَاءَ ، فَإِذَا تَفَوَّهَ الشِّعْبُ ، يَقُولُ : السَّلامُ عَلَيْكُمْ بِمَا صَبَرْتُمْ ، فَنِعْمَ عُقْبَى الدَّارِ ، ثُمَّ كَانَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ بَعْدَ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَفْعَلُهُ ، وَكَانَ عُمَرُ بَعْدَ أَبِي بَكْرٍ يَفْعَلُهُ ، وَكَانَ عُثْمَانُ بَعْدَ عُمَرَ يَفْعَلُ ذَلِكَ ” .

        There are other shawahid as well…

  3. […] is an answer that was written sometime back to the discredited liar, Gibril Haddad, who attempted to support this false Barelwi accusation that Shah Isma’il Shaheed denied […]

  4. @ Taher Mateen Siddiqui:
    There are a number of mistakes in your last post.

    1. Nowhere was it claimed the narration of ‘Abdur Razzaq doesn’t exist. In fact, in the original refutation of Haddad, Abdur Razzaq’s narration was discussed [ http://friendsofdeoband.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/part-4-critical-review-of-haddads-refutation-of-mufti-taqi-the-prophet-and-observing-anniversaries/ ]

    2. The second narration you quote is not from Ibn Abi Shaybah as you stated, but Ibn Shabbah – two different authors

    3. The narration of Khatib does not include the mawdi’ al-shahadah (the point requiring evidence), which is that this visit was made on a regular basis – so is not admissible as evidence. No one contests that he (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) visited graves. It is only contested that he *definitely* visited the graves of his mother, wife and uncle *on a regular basis* as claimed by Haddad.

    4. Neither of the first two narrations have a hasan isnad as you claimed. Both are weak:

    The first contains an unknown narrator (the shaykh of ‘Abdur Razzaq) and the final narrator is a Tabi’i who met very few of the Sahabah. Hence, it is certainly da’if.

    The second is da’if jiddan. (A da’if jiddan narration cannot be used for support, so you cannot raise this to the level of hasan even.) Musa ibn Ya’qub al-Zam’i is da’if, weakened by Ibn al-Madini who said “Munkar al-Hadith”, Nasa’i, Daraqutni. Some praised him, however. (Tahrir al-Taqrib, 3:441). ‘Abdullah/’Abbad ibn Abi Salih is also weak, and he did not meet any of the Sahabah, so the narration is munqati’. And most importantly, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ibn ‘Imran is Matruk in hadith as stated by Asqalani.
    [page 130: http://ia700603.us.archive.org/4/items/waq12506/01_12506.pdf ]

    To sum up: There is no way you can make a definite assertion from these two narrations that the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) would visit the graves of Uhud on a regular basis.

    Finally, do you agree Haddad was wrong on the other two: that he visited his mother/wife *definitely* *on a regular basis*?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: