بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Inshallah this post will be exposing the absolute deception of the Salafs where they try to bring a fabricated narration on Authority Sayyidna Abdullah Ibn Masud and Hassan Al Basri, In an attempt to prove their reprehensible belief that Allah Sits on the Throne (Arsh)!!!!!

Abu Bakr Al Dashti: إثبات الحد لله عز وجل وبأنه قاعد وجالس على: Pg 65 – 66

“I found in a book, “I have been informed that it was copied from a copy in the handwriting of Al-Jamal Ibn Al-Hafiz Abdul-Ghani Al-Maqdisi: Al-Hakam bin Ma’bad mentioned in The Book of Ruya (Vison) Musa narrated to us, Ruh bin Ubadah narrated to us, on the authority of Hammad bin Salamah, on the authority of Ata’ bin Al-Sa’ib, on the authority of Al-Sha’bi, on the authority of Abdullah, that he said: “The Most Merciful is upon the Throne.” (Istiwa) He said: “Sitting”

ووجدت في كتاب بَلَغَنِي أنَّهُ نُسِخَ مِنْ نُسْخَةٍ بخط الجمال ابن الحافظ عبدالغني المقدسي: أن الحكم بن معبد ذَكَرَ في كتابِ الرؤية قال: ثنا موسى ثنا روح بن عبادة عن حماد بن سلمه عن عطاء بن السائب عن الشعبي عن عبدالله أنه قال: {الرحمن على العرش استوى} قال: «جالس» .

Now let’s expose This straight lie and fabrication, at first glance it may look to be authentic but when You really read it you will find major issues

“I found in a book,I have been informed that it was copied from a copy in the handwriting of Al-Jamal Ibn Al-Hafiz Abdul-Ghani Al-Maqdisi”

Which book? What is it called? Where did he find it?

Then he says that the Book that He had found (Something that none else before him could find) states that It was copied from a copy of the handwriting of Al-Jamal Ibn Al-Hafiz Abdul-Ghani Al-Maqdisi. Anyone can come and claim I found a book and it said such and such, with no one else verifying and no information about it there is no way that it can be used as evidence in regards to core doctrinal beliefs. Then he says

Al-Hakam bin Ma’bad mentioned in The Book of Ruya (Vison)

Al-Hakam bin Ma’bad is an imam who died in the year 295 AH, all we have of his works is a Short poem on the sunnah. Note the name of the book that he is quoting from ….. The book of Ruya, not the book of Istiwa, not the book of Sifat, it’s the book of Ruya which means it deals with the issue of seeing Allah in the hereafter not about Istiwa

Also, the narration is on the authority of Sayyidna Abdullah Ibn Masoud one of the top-ranking companions who is speaking about the Sifat of Allah, it’s extremely rare to have a narration from a Tabi or a Taba Taba’i speaking about Istiwa let alone one of the top ranking companions. Also, he is doing a tafsir of the Quran so why did no commentator of the Quran narrate it ????

The reason for mentioning this is why did no other Imam narrated this. Not one, Not a single one except from someone who came in the 600’s AH. Anyway, let’s give the benefit of the doubt and say Al-Hakam bin Ma’bad did mention this, why did no contemporary narrate this and How did such an important narration go unnoticed for 300 years. Not even Ibn Taymiyah mentions this

Even after all this, is anyone seriously going to take Aqeedah from a book that says:

إثبات الحد لله عز وجل وبأنه قاعد وجالس على Pg 83

Ash’arism is the misguidance of the zanadiqa (Hertics) and brothers… Of those who worship Abd al-Uzza with al-Lat

الأشعرية ضلال زنادقة إخوان … من عَبَدَ العُزَّى مع الَّلات

إثبات الحد لله عز وجل وبأنه قاعد وجالس على Pg 36

The one who says Allah has no Direction (Jiha), and He is not in a place (Makan); He apostatized from the religion of Islam, joined the polytheists, and disbelieved in Allah

أو ليس لله جهة، ولا له مكانٌ؛ فقد ارتد عن دين الإسلام، ولحق بالمشركين، وكفر بالله

Plus the book is filled with Mawdu (Fabricatied) narrations that the author (whoever he is) says is authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim 😭

We don’t even need to go through the chain as this is enough to disprove the authentication of this Athar but in any case, we will

We will be focusing on two Narrators Ata’ bin Al-Sa’ib and Hammad bin Salamah

let’s look at what the scholars said about Ata’ bin Al-Sa’ib

Imam Al Dhahabi:كتاب ذيل ديوان الضعفاء Pg 48

Ataa bin Al-Saeb: Muqareb Al-Hadith, and Al-Daraqutni said: They left it

عطاء بن السائب: مقارب الحديث، وقد قال الدارقطني: تركوه

Imam Ibn Sa’ad: كتاب الطبقات الكبرى Vol 6 Pg 328 – 329

Ataa bin Al-Saeb: .. His memory changed and he became mixed up at the end of his life. Ibn Aliyah said: He is weaker in my opinion than Layth. And al-Laith is weak

وقد كان تغير حفظه بآخره واختلط في آخر عمره. وقال ابن علية: هو أضعف عندي من ليث. والليث ضعيف

Imam Burhan al-Din al-Halabi: كتاب الاغتباط بمن رمي من الرواة بالاختلاط Pg 241

Ibn al-Salah said: “Among them is Ata’ ibn al-Sa’ib, who became confused at the end of his life“

ابن الصلاح فقال: “قوله فمنهم عطاء بن السائب اختلط فى آخر عمره

Imam Ibn Adi: كتاب الكامل في ضعفاء الرجال Vol 7 Pg 73

Ibn Abi Esma told us, Abu Talib told us, he said: I asked Ahmed bin Hanbal about Ata bin Al-Saeb, he said “whoever heard from him in the past (Before he changed) is authentic“

حَدَّثَنَا ابن أَبِي عصمة، حَدَّثَنا أبو طالب، قالَ: سَألتُ أحمد بن حنبل عن عطاء بن السائب قَالَ من سمع مِنْهُ قديما كَانَ صحيحا،

Also:

Ibn Hammad told us, he said: Abdullah bin Ahmad told us, I asked Yahya bin Mu’in, about Ata’ bin Al-Sa’ib, he said: He had mixed, so whoever heard from him before the mixing was good, and whoever heard from him after the mixing is nothing.

حَدَّثَنَا ابن حماد، قَال: حَدَّثَنا عَبد اللَّهِ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ، سألتُ يَحْيى بْنَ مَعِين، عَن عطاء بن السائب، قَال: كَانَ قد اختلط فمن سمع مِنْهُ قبل الاختلاط فجيد، ومَنْ سمع مِنْهُ بعد الاختلاط فليس بشَيْءٍ.

Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani: كتاب تهذيب التهذيب Vol 7 Pg 205

An-Nasa’i said he was trustworthy in his old hadith, but it has changed

وقال النسائي ثقة في حديثه القديم الا أنه تغير

So it is very clear and evident that Ataa bin Al-Saeb was trustworthy and a great memoriser but unfortunately towards the end of his life, his memory decreased, and mixed up hadiths and became confused and therefore became an untrustworthy narrator.

Now let’s see if Hammad bin Salamah heard from him before or after he became confused, Note that whether Hammad Ibn Salamah heard before Ata became mixed is a big difference of opinion

One group of Imams said Hammad Ibn Salamah heard before the mixing :

Imam At Tahawi: كتاب الكواكب النيرات في معرفة من اختلط من الرواة الثقات Pg 325

The hadith of Ata’, before his change, is taken from four people and not from anyone else: they are Shu’bah, Sufyan al-Thawri, Hammad bin Salamah, and Hammad bin Zaid

وقال الطحاوي وإنما حديث عطاء الذي كان منه قبل تغيره يؤخذ من أربعة لا من سواهم وهم شعبة وسفيان الثوري وحماد بن سلمة وحماد بن زيد

Another group said Hammad Heard after the mixing:

Imam Al-Uqaili: كتاب تهذيب التهذيب Vol: 3 Pg: 105

“And Hammad bin Salamah heard after the mixing”

وقال العقيلي أيضا: وسماع حماد بن سلمة بعد الاختلاط

Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani harmonizes the difference and says:

Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani: كتاب تهذيب التهذيب Vol: 3 Pg: 105

I say: From the sum of their (The Imams) words, it appears to us that Sufyan al-Thawri, Shu`bah, Zuhair, Zaida, Hammad bin Zaid, and Ayyub are authentic on his authority, and everyone agrees except with Hammad bin Salamah, so their sayings differed, and it appears that he heard from him twice: Once with Ayyub, as he the words of Al-Daraqutni, and once after that when he entered Basra and heard from him with Jarir and his family, and God knows best.

قلت: فيحصل لنا من مجموع كلامهم أن سفيان الثوري، وشعبة، وزهيرا، وزائدة، وحماد بن زيد، وأيوب، عنه صحيح، ومن عداهم يتوقف فيه إلا حماد بن سلمة، فاختلف قولهم، والظاهر أنه سمع منه مرتين: مرة مع أيوب كما يومئ إليه كلام الدارقطني، ومرة بعد ذلك لما دخل إليهم البصرة وسمع منه مع جرير وذويه، والله أعلم.

As a result, Imam Ibn Hajar harmonizes the difference of opinion by stating that Hammad Ibn Salamah heard both before and after the mixing

However, this doesn’t really solve our problem because how can we tell when he heard before or after the mixing. Generally speaking, when narrations have issues like these, the Imam’s gather the variants and other external evidence to see if it all matches up and thus come to a conclusion on the grading. Even Al Albani mentions this

Al Albani: كتاب السنة لابن أبي عاصم ومعها ظلال الجنة للألباني Vol 1 Pg 249

“The hadith is hasan, all of its men are trustworthy, the men of Sahih, except that Ata’ ibn al-Sa’ib was mixed up, and Hammad narrated from him in his case that he was mixed up as well, so it is not clear to us whether he received it from him in that case or before it. But I improved the hadith (graded it hassan) because it has other evidence“

٥٦٩- حديث حسن رجاله كلهم ثقات رجال الصحيح غير أن عطاء بن السائب كان اختلط وقد روى عنه حماد في حالته اختلاطه أيضا فلم يتميز لنا هل تلقاه عنه في الحالة أو قبلها. وإنما حسنت الحديث لأن له شواهد كما

Here Al Albani is grading a hadith that appears in the Sunan of Imam Abi Asim, with a transmission on authority of Hammad bin Salamah to Ata’ bin Al-Saib. He relies on external evidence from other chains to grade this hadith and there are many examples that we can provide

Therefore we need to get the other chains and variations of this Athar to see if it has been preserved

Oh wait there isn’t any…

Hence we can know that anyone with a brain would not use this narration in Aqeedah let alone to prove an entire reprehensible Sifat to Allah like sitting, Again Sayyidna Ibn Masoud is doing a tafsir of the Quran so why did none of the commentators of the Quran narrate this.

Therefore we can conclude that this narration is absolutely baseless and has no grounding

The next narration we will refute is from the same book as the author continues with the fabrications after the narration of Sayyidna Abdullah ibn Masoud and brings an Athar on the authority of Hassan Al Basri and Ikrimah

Abu Bakr Al Dashti: إثبات الحد لله عز وجل وبأنه قاعد وجالس على: Pg 67

“And in it: On the authority of Abbad bin Mansour, he said: I asked Al-Hasan and Ikrimah about his saying: {The Most Merciful has ascended upon the Throne} and they said: “He is sitting”

وفيه: عن عباد بن منصور قال: سألت الحسن وعكرمة عن قوله: {الرحمن على العرش استوى} قالا: «جالس» .

The one and only narrator Abbad bin Mansour is extremely weak when narrating from Ikrimah 😭

Imam Ibn Abi Shayba: كتاب تهذيب التهذيب Vol 2 Pg 282

Ibn Abi Shaybah said: “On the authority of Ayoub and Ikrimah. He was attributed to being Qadari (Deviant creed not the tariqa). He narrated Munkar hadiths“

وقال ابن أبي شيبة: [روى] عن أيوب، وعكرمة. وكان ينسب إلى القدر، روى أحاديث مناكير

Imam Ibn Abi Hatim Al Razi: كتاب الجرح والتعديل لابن أبي حاتم Vol 6 Pg 86

“And in his narration on the authority of Ikrimah and Ayyub, there is weakness“

وفى روايته عن عكرمة وايوب ضعف

Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani: كتاب تهذيب التهذيب Vol 2 Pg 282

“He does Tadlis when narrating on authority of Ikrimah“

عنه فدلسها عن عكرمة

Aside from the massive issues when he narrates on the authority of Ikrimah, Abbad bin Mansour dies in 152 AH. Al-Hakam bin Ma’bad who is supposedly the “collector” of this narration dies in the year 295 AH lets assume Al-Hakam was born around 200 AH which is still a 50-year gap between Abbad bin Mansour and Al-Hakam.

Thus it renders this Athar disconnected and weak, Again they are doing Tafsir of the Quran and NO OTHER IMAM HAS MENTIONED THIS ATHAR. This is another blow to the Mujasima who try to use this narration

Imam Al Dhahabi: كتاب الكبائر للذهبي Pg 157

If Someone says that Allah sat do justice or stood to do justice, he would be a disbeliever (Kafir)

ولو قال إن الله جلس للإنصاف أو قام للإنصاف كفر

Imam Ibn Asakir: تبيين كذب المفتري فيما نسب إلى الأشعري Pg: 150

“Al-Hashwiyya and Al-Mujsama (Anthropomorphits)said: He, Glory be to Him, is upon the Throne, and that the Throne is a place (Makan) for Him and He is sitting upon it“

الحشوية والمجسمة إنه سبحانه حال في العرش وإن العرش مكان له وهو جالس عليه

Imam Al Nawawi: كتاب روضة الطالبين وعمدة المفتين Vol 10 Pg 66 – 67 Chapter on apostasy

If he said: Allah Almighty sat to do justice, he would be a disbeliever (Kafir)

  ولو قال: إن الله تعالى جلس للإنصاف، كفر

Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani: كتاب الغنية لطالبي طريق الحق Vol 1 Pg 124

In his explanation of Istiwa the imam says:

“Not in the sense of sitting and touching, as Al-Majsimah and Al-Karamiyah said”

ا على معنى القعود والمماسة كما قالت المجسمة والكرامية

Also, he says in كتاب الغنية لطالبي طريق الحق Vol1 Pg 190 

Under his list of deviant sects he lists the Mujasima as 3 groups, one of them he says is the Hishamiyah

“They maintain that Allah is a body (Jism)  with the dimensions of length, breadth, and depth a brilliant light having a definite, measurable quantity like a pure ingot; capable of moving and of being at rest, of standing up and of sitting down.”

 أما الهشامية: فمنسوبة إلى هشام بن الحكم زعم أن الله تعالى جسم طويل عريض عميق نور ساطع له قدر من الأقدار كالسبيكة الصافية يتحرك ويسكن ويقوم ويقعد

Note the Salafis love quoting this book so they can’t deny it, also inshallah will have a post on the Creed of Sheikh Abdul Qadir Al Jilani

Imam Al Razi: كتاب تفسير الرازي Vol 22 Pg 8, Surah 20:5

“The Anthropomorphists cling to this verse (Surah 20:5) to prove that Allah is sitting on the Throne this invalid according to both Aql and Naql…

 المشبهة تعلقت بهذه الآية في أن معبودهم جالس على العرش وهذا باطل بالعقل والنقل

Imam Ibn Al Jawzi In دفع شبه التشبيه بأكف التنزيه, Daf Shubah al-Tashbih: Pg 69

“The saying of the people “when he sits down” and “when he sits up” is a result of their own tampering with the words of the reports and from expressing what they believed to be the case just as those who said about Allah’s saying “Then he ascended (Istiwa) to the Throne” (surah 7:54), To be he sat. We object to this because it is not permissible with respect to the Creator, Exalted is he to be characterized as sitting down because this is for the characteristic of bodies”

قول الرواة: إذا قعد وإذا جلس من تغييرهم أو من تعبيرهم بما يظنونه من المعنى، كما قال القائل: ثم استوى على العرش قعد، وإنما قلنا هذا لأن الخالق سبحانه وتعالى لا يجوز أن يوصف بالجلوس على شئ فيفضل من ذلك الشئ، لأن هذه صفة الأجسام.