Help IslamDunk with your generous contribution.

The haters are growing in numbers, Islam is being attacked every day by people working full time (as Shamoun claims). We as Muslims need to work even harder to let people know the truth of Islam. To do that we need your help. We need your contribution to this project. Donate towards our work and support our cause. Use the Donate Tab on your right hand side in the home window.

Teeth Breaking Responses To Those Who Want To Extinguish The Light Of Allah

TTT is our brother/sister site that deals with writing articles responding to the most common attacks on Islam. The articles are unarguable and most scholastic (in the English language) following a unique traditional style, giving explanations of scholars, expositions of commentaries and most important of all in a simple short and clear way that everyone can understand.

Help Us Spread The Message

In order to reach as many people as possible IslamDunk needs your help. Almost everyone has a facebook account, an email list or other social connections on the web. All you need to do is use one of our logos or post a link or post our articles and videos, favor them, rate them and keep doing that over and over. This work that we are doing needs to reach every corner of the Earth so that everyone will know the truth of Islam

Shamoun's Lowly Character

Sam thinks he can beat everyone in a debate and that he has already done so. Things have not even happened yet he can predict with certainty outcomes. He thinks no one can answer him. Check out a list of answers right here.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Refuting Wesley and Tariq on Complexion of the Prophet

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين

by Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani

This is a response to the falsehood being spread by Wesley Muhammad of the Nation of Islam cult, and Tariq Berry, a self styled amateur ‘scholar’. Please use the table of contents below for easy navigation in this rather long response.

Table of Contents

1. Prefatory remarks.
2. The complexion of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) according to his Companions
  2.1 Narrations with the description, white (abyad) imbued with redness (humrah).
    2.1.1 Narration of Abu Bakr (RA).
    2.1.2 Narration of ‘Umar (RA).
    2.1.3 Narration of Jabir bin ‘Abdullah (RA).
    2.1.4 Narration of Abu Hurayrah (RA).
    2.1.5 Narration of ‘Ali (RA).
    2.1.6 Narration of Abu Umamah (RA).
    2.1.7 Narration of Ibn Mas’ud (RA).
    2.1.8 Narration of Ibn ‘Abbas (RA).
    2.1.9 Findings from these reports and Wesley’s stupidities.
  2.2. Narration with the description white (abyad) or extremely white (shadid al-bayad).
    2.2.1 Narration of Anas (RA).
    2.2.2 Narration of Abu Tufayl (RA).
    2.2.3 Narration of ‘Aisha (RA).
    2.2.4 Narration of Abu Hurayrah (RA).
    2.2.5 Remarks on these narrations.
  2.3. Narrations with description using the words asmar/sumrah.
    2.3.1 Narration of Anas (RA).
    2.3.2 The narration of Anas is odd.
3. Meaning of key words.
  3.1. The meaning of “abyad”.
  3.2. The meaning of “azhar”.
  3.3. The meaning of “Asmar”/”Sumrah”.
    3.3.1 “Asmar” also refers to whiteness imbued with redness (bayad mushrab bi-humrah).  [IMP]
4. Calling the Prophet  black termed as disbelief: Significance and reasoning. 
  4.1. Ahmad bin Abi Suleman al-Maliki’s verdict.
    4.1.1 Explanation of the verdict.
 4.2 Verdict by al-Nawawi
 4.3. Important points on the verdict.
   4.3.1 Basis of the verdict: Denial of mutawatir (continuous) reports.
   4.3.2 Ahmad bin Abi Suleman was an early, not medieval, scholar.
5. Complexion of Prophet’s relatives.  [IMP]
  5.1 Can close relatives have manifestly different complexions?.
  5.2 Complexion of ‘Ali (RA).
  5.3 Complexion of Fadl bin ‘Abbas, the poet.
  5.4 Complexion of al-Nafs al-Zakiyya.
  5.5 Complexion of Ja’far al-Sadiq.
  5.6 Complexion of Musa al-Kazim..
  5.7 Complexion of ‘Ali al-Rida.
  5.8 Complexion of Muhammad al-Jawwad and ‘Ali al-Hadi
  5.9 Complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali (RA)- the one who resembled the Prophet the most.  [IMP]
6. Intake of al-Dhahbi and al-jahiz.
 6.1 Statement of al-Dhahbi
   6.1.1 First part of the statement.
   6.1.2 Second part of the statement.
   6.1.3 Significance of al-Dhahbi’s statement.
 6.2 What did al-Jahiz say?.
7. Summary.
8. Final Word.

1. Prefatory remarks

Wesley Muhammad and Tariq Berry have an obsession for life to make every revered person appear black. To achieve this end, they do not feel any hesitation in distorting the truth and picking up things from here and there to present to the world some unique and ‘profound’ research.

Wesley happens to be a more interesting but sad case. It is very sad that today anyone with a PhD can boast themselves and try to put others down based on their CV as if a piece of paper has anything to do with skill and ability of research, debate and exposition of fundamental truths.  Such is the case of Wesley PhD who in his shallow attempt to respond to our initial paper exposing the racist theology of NoI, has attacked the two of us based on what he could find about us on the internet.  Much like his qualifications and papers that has written in the past, the farthest Wesley will get is being a University of Michigan Orientalist, who tries to fool Muslim kids into believing that God is a black man, prophet Muhammad was a black man, and for that matter most of prophets and everyone that is of any importance was and is black.

As we have seen in his papers, Wesley shoots many arrows but none of them hits the target.  His PhD takes him as far as quoting the experiences of someone who has traveled and spoke to Sudanese villagers about the color of those who will enter paradise, as if such weighs any proof in our discussion.  If that was not enough he has gone to quote some scholars who have divided the geographical zones and colors of skins that pertain to such, as if that gives any proof for the point that we are debating.  But again such things are not proof, and the Quranic verses and Hadith narrations that we have quoted many times, and will once again document, practically kill such weak ‘scholarship’ disguised as PhD research. He has jumped up and down, but has never really touched the issue that we are discussing:  Was Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) a black man (black as African, black as Wesley)?

Same is true with Tariq Berry, whose seems to push people hard to buy his book, tantalizing, as he seems to suggest, just some of the information he has on the subject.

These guys, Wesley Muhammad and Tariq Berry, seem to forget that we are talking about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- and that we have the minutest details about him preserved in the Hadith narrations. Therefore, any research on the topic should focus on this primary evidence rather than quoting secondary, many times, irrelevant things. All these people seem to miss this simple plain fact, or is it something akin to a Freudian slip?

Both Wesley and Tariq refer to just one Hadith narration- the narration that we have already shown, is recognized as rather odd by the scholars of Hadith. Is the evidence that goes against their vicissitudes not worthy of consideration?

Earlier we did respond to one of Wesley’s deceitful articles. Wesley has attempted a refutation of our exposition of his lies. And Tariq has joined him to contend with us.

This paper not only aims at rebutting Wesley and Tariq’s responses to our initial refutation, but we have also made an effort at taking to task other arguments put forward by these two self acclaimed ‘scholars’.

Readers will notice that unlike these good-for-nothing scholars all the evidence we bring to table is directly related to the subject at hand. We shall take a special look at the complexion of the family and relations of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- after establishing the worth of such kind of evidence.

Our paper is based on clear, simple ahadith, which in context, in the light of the Arabic language, the situations which leave no doubt about meaning, and in the light of Qualified explanations, leave no doubt about the issue. Prophet Muhammad was not a black man. And this is what we shall uphold based objectively on evidence and not because we would have any issue if he would have been as other prophets and their companions who we love are described as black. One of us happens to be a European and other hails from South Asia and we are both sure that neither of us resembles the Holy Prophet in complexion, and certainly this does not matter.

Following are the main arguments of Wesley and Tariq.

1- When Arabs, at least of the past, said so and so is “Abyad” they did not mean complexion, rather this is how they referred to one’s character.

2- In the usage of the native Arabs “abyad” did not mean “white” or “fair” complexion, rather it referred to a shade of blackness.

3- Arabs have an idea of “addad” i.e. a word actually signifies the opposite of its first meaning. This is especially true for colors and the same is must be applied to narrations that describe the Prophet as “abyad” i.e. white. This is, to our knowledge, is the argument of Wesley alone.

4- Some of the family members and relations of the Holy Prophet like ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and certain people from his progeny were dark in complexion, it can, therefore, be suggested that the Holy Prophet was also dark complexioned.

While we shall show the absurdness of all these contentions below, the first three arguments and especially the way Wesley uses them is quite good a testimony to what these people are up to. Let us ask Wesley to explain if by his “addad” theory “the opposite of ‘abyad’” is black, how can then “abyad” itself signify dark complexion?

Unlike Wesley and Tariq, this subject is not our ultimate obsession of life, therefore we have made an effort to response to all their relevant assertions on the topic. We have also repeated things we earlier wrote as we intend to present this particular paper as a comprehensive rebuttal to their falsehood. Hope it enlightens many.

2. The complexion of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) according to his Companions

As the fundamental evidence in this discussion is only the Hadith narrations, we need consider as to how the Companions of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- have described his complexion.

2.1 Narrations with the description, white (abyad) imbued with redness (humrah)

Most of the narrations from the Companions describe the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- as white imbued with redness.

These narrations come from at least eight (8) companions.

2.1.1 Narration of Abu Bakr (RA)

On being questioned about the appearance of Holy Prophet (pbuh) by a monk, Abu Bakr (RA) said:

أبيض اللون، مشرب بحمرة

“White in complexion (abyad al-lawn), imbued with redness.”[1]

Now here the fact that ‘abyad’ is attached with the word ‘lawn’ (lit. colour) kills the idea that it is all about character.

2.1.2 Narration of ‘Umar (RA)

Ibn ‘Asaakir (d. 571 A.H.) quotes;

Bashir al-‘Abdi says, people came to ‘Umar bin al-Khattab and asked him about the appearance of the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him. He said:

كان نبي الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) أبيض اللون مشربا حمرة

“The Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was of white complexion (abyad al-lawn) imbued with redness (mushraban humrah).”[2]

Again here the usage is such that laughs at the suggestion to take “abyad” not to be about the complexion.

2.1.3 Narration of Jabir bin ‘Abdullah (RA)

In Tabqatul Kubra, also sometimes referred to as, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, we read:

عَنْ جَابِرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم أَبْيَضَ مُشْرَبًا بِحُمْرَةٍ

Jabir bin ‘Abdullah said: “The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).”[3]

2.1.4 Narration of Abu Hurayrah (RA)

Similarly Abu Hurayrah (RA) narrates that some Bedouins came and inquired about the Holy Prophet –peace be upon him, the Companions guided him. Saying this Abu Huraira (RA) describes how the Prophet appeared, saying:

وكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أبيض مشربا بحمرة

“The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was of white complexion imbued with redness (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).”[4]

2.1.5 Narration of ‘Ali (RA)

Another very close companion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ‘Ali (RA) described the complexion of the Holy Prophet in the following words:

كَانَ أَبْيَضَ مشرَّباً بَيَاضُهُ حُمْرَةً، وَكَانَ أَسْوَدَ الْحَدَقَةِ

“He had white complexion, his whiteness being imbued with redness (abyad musharraban bayaduhu humrah) and his iris was black (awsad).”[5]

Reports to this effect from ‘Ali (RA) are found in many works of Hadith.

2.1.6 Narration of Abu Umamah (RA)

Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat al-Kubra narrates from Abu Umamah that he described about the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, as:

رَجُلًا أَبْيَضَ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ

“A man of white complexion with red tinge in it (abyad ta’luhu humrah).” [6]

2.1.7 Narration of Ibn Mas’ud (RA)

Hafiz Ibn Kathir, on the authority of Abu Na’im al-Isfahani, quotes a narration in which Ibn Mas’ud (RA) also describes the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- using the words;

أَبْيَضُ تَعْلُوهُ حُمْرَةٌ

“White (abyad) with redness in it (ta’luhu humrah).”[7]

2.1.8 Narration of Ibn ‘Abbas (RA)

Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Salihi (d. 942 A.H.) quoting from Ibn Abi Khuthaymah and Abu Na’im gives us a narration from Ibn ‘Abbas that describes the Prophet’s complexion as;

أحمر إلى البياض

“Red leaning towards whiteness”[8]

Evidently this is just another way to put what is described in narrations from other companions.

2.1.9 Findings from these reports and Wesley’s stupidities

1- These reports cannot be twisted by arguing that here “abyad” is not about complexion but about the character for how is the “bayad” of character mixed with “humrah”? Plus, the narrations from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar –may Allah be pleased with them both- categorically use the words “abyad al-lawn” i.e. “whiteness of complexion.”

2- Mr. Wesley has already shown his true colors by rejecting these narrations. He wrote: “There are a few reports, however, generated no doubt by non-Arab converts to Islam like the Persians, which describe the Prophet as white-skinned, abyad al-lawn mushrab humra (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-tabaqat al-kabir, I/i,120, 121,122, 124, 129 (Ar.); Baladhuri,Ansab, I: 391 § 836; 394 § 848).”[9]

While we shall all wait for the evidence that these reports were “generated” by “non-Arab converts to Islam like the Persians” I wonder if he Mr. Wesley was in his senses when he called them “a few”. The fact, however, remains this is the most oft-repeated description of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- in Hadith narrations.

Mr. Wesley further wrote about these narrations, “I have shown the secondary nature of these reports. This description is absent from al-Bukhari and many of the early Classical texts. It becomes popular only in the later, medieval period when non-Arabs dominated the intellectual life of the Muslims.”

This is stupidity at its best. Just after putting the reference to Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabqat al-Kabir and Baladhuri’s Ansab [al-Ashraf] he says these reports became popular in “later, medieval period”. While anyone with some knowledge of history knows al-Baladhuri died in the year 279 A.H. while Ibn Sa’d lived from 168 A.H. to 230 A.H. and the period of al-Bukhari is 194-256 A.H.

And interestingly in his hap-hazard confused and rather cunning endeavor to seek evidence he uses the same [Imam] al-Bukhari as a bench mark against “Persian generated” reports whom he elsewhere dubs as “famed Persian traditionalist.”

Mr. Wesley must be a cause of great embarrassment to all the PhDs in the world.

2.2. Narration with the description white (abyad) or extremely white (shadid al-bayad)

There are some reports that describe his complexion solely as “abyad” i.e. white.

2.2.1 Narration of Anas (RA)

According to Sahih Bukhari Anas bin Malik (RA) reported that when a person inquired the companions about the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- they pointed towards him saying;

هَذَا الرَّجُلُ الأَبْيَضُ المُتَّكِئُ

"This white man (rajul al-abyad) reclining on his arm."[10]

2.2.2 Narration of Abu Tufayl (RA)

Similarly Abu Tufayl (RA) reports;

كَانَ أَبْيَضَ

“He was white (abyad)”[11]

2.2.3 Narration of ‘Aisha (RA)

The same is reported from ‘Aisha (RA) as well;

عن عائشة قالت أهدي للنبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) شملة سوداء فلبسها وقال كيف ترينها علي يا عائشة قلت ما أحسنها عليك يا رسول الله يشوب سوادها بياضك وبياضك سوادها

Narrated ‘Aisha: “A black turban (shimlatu sawda) was gifted to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he put it on and asked, ‘How do you see on me O ‘Aisha?” I said, “How beautiful it looks on you O the Messenger of Allah! Its blackness (sawaduha) suits on your whiteness (bayadak) and your whiteness (bayadak) on its blackness (sawaduha).”[12]

This narration once again mocks the application of “addad” idea which Wesley again and again shamelessly refers to without justifying or explaining the usage in all the texts under consideration.

2.2.4 Narration of Abu Hurayrah (RA)

In one narration Abu Hurayra (RA) described him as;

شَدِيد الْبيَاض

“Very white (shadid al-bayad)”[13]

The same was also reported from Bara’ bin al-‘Azib.[14]

2.2.5 Remarks on these narrations

These narrations do not contradict the narrations that say his complexion was white imbued with redness. Ibn Hajr al-Haithmi addresses this point saying;

لإمكان حمل شدة على الأمر النسبى فلا ينافى كونه مشربا بها

“For the possibility of taking the (mention of) extreme [whiteness as] a relative thing, it does not contradict that it was imbued [with redness].”[15]

This is especially true as we have earlier seen Abu Huraira –the narrator here- describing his complexion as “white imbued with redness” (abyad mushraban bi-humrah).

Another proof for the solitary mention of “abyad” in relative terms is the narration from ‘Abu Tufayl –may Allah be pleased with him- who reports the following about the Prophet;

فَمَا أَنْسَى شِدَّةَ بَيَاضِ وَجْهِهِ وَشِدَّةَ سَوَادِ شَعْرِهِ

“I shall not forget his very white (shiddah bayad) face and his very black (shiddah sawad) hair.”[16]

It plainly establishes that reports describing the Prophet’s complexion as “fair/white” or “very fair/white” are only descriptions in terms of relative contrast to blackness (sawad), and they do not go against the overwhelming evidence of his whiteness being imbued with redness.

2.3. Narrations with description using the words asmar/sumrah

Further there are narrations that use the word “asmar” and “sumrah” describing the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

2.3.1 Narration of Anas (RA)

Humayd said, he heard Anas (RA) saying:

وَكَانَ أَبْيَضَ بَيَاضُهُ إِلَى السُّمْرَةِ

“And he was white (abyad), his whiteness (bayad) leaning to be ’sumrah’.”[17]

And as per yet another narration

Humayd reports from Anas (ra) that he said:

أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ

“’Asmar’ in color”[18]

This last narration from Jami’ Tirmidhi is the only one that Wesley and Berry regularly quote, as if it is the only important narration on the subject. Against their behavior read the following comment by the scholars of Hadith on this particular narration.

2.3.2 The narration of Anas is odd

Ali bin Sultan al-Qari (d. 1014 A.H.) writes:

وَقَالَ الْعِرَاقِيُّ: هَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةُ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا حُمَيْدٌ عَنْ أَنَسٍ وَرَوَاهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ عَنْهُ بِلَفْظِ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ نَظَرْنَا إِلَى مَنْ رَوَى صِفَةَ لَوْنِهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم غَيْرَ أَنَسٍ فَكُلُّهُمْ وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا

And al-Iraqi said, “These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not ‘asmar’ complexion and they are fifteen companions who explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him.”[19]

Scholars of Hadith recognize this report as an odd one, and yet these people who have the obsession of dissipating their “truth” incessantly quote this and almost exclusively this one alone. This behavior itself says it all!

Not only Anas (RA) is unique in narrating this among all the companions, in fact not all narrations from Anas (RA) describe the Prophet’s –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- complexion as “asmar” or “leaning towards ‘asmar’” (See the narration from Sahih Bukhari above). And from Anas (RA), none but Humayd narrates this. In fact even Humayd does not always quote from Anas (RA) describing it as purely “asmar” as clear from the narration of Dala’il al-Nubuwwah given above. This adds much to the oddity of this narration. No reasonable person will bask on this narration alone, especially taking it on the face value.

However, we shall see in a while that even these narrations actually go in line with the most oft-repeated description of the Prophet’s –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- complexion in Hadith narrations.

3. Meaning of key words

3.1. The meaning of “abyad”

Now let us turn towards the meanings of the word “abyad”. Above we have translated it as white which is the simple plain meaning of the word in the Arabic language.

Wesley using the argument of Tariq Berry argues that in relation to the complexion “abyad” does not mean “abyad” rather it refers to a shade of blackness.

Before looking into usage of the word in hadith, let’s look into the relation between “bayad” and “sawad.”

Ahmad Ibn Faris al-Qazwayni (d. 395 A.H.) taking about “sawad” writes;

السِّينُ وَالْوَاوُ وَالدَّالُ أَصْلٌ وَاحِدٌ، وَهُوَ خِلَافُ الْبَيَاضِ فِي اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ يُحْمَلُ عَلَيْهِ وَيُشْتَقُّ مِنْهُ. فَالسَّوَادُ فِي اللَّوْنِ مَعْرُوفٌ

Al-Seen, wal-Waw, wal-Daal, form the gerund. And it is opposite to "bayad" in color. Then words are based on it and derived from it. And "sawad" in colors in well known.[20]

While we all agree “sawad” means “pure blackness”, so the above proves “bayad” does simply mean “pure whiteness.”

Now let’s see if the Hadith narrations about the complexion of the Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- support either of the contentions i.e. if “abyad” simply means white or it is a shade of blackness as Berry and Wesley contend.

The key in understanding this is the Hadith narrated by Anas –may Allah be pleased with him. He reports about the Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

وَلَيْسَ بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ

“And he was neither white as lime (abyad al-amhaq) , nor brown (adam).”[21]

it proves the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was far from being black in any shade for in that case there was no need to say it was not lime white - a sharp contrast to blackness.

It proves “abyad” used for the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- means simply white as in common use for had it been a shade of blackness there was no need of denying its being white as lime which looks ugly.

Infact “abyad al-amhaq” refers to pale white which is devoid of a reddish tinge.

Abu ‘Ubaid Qasim bin Salam (d. 228 A.H.) writes;

فالأمهق الشَّديد الْبيَاض الَّذِي لَا يخالط بياضه شَيْء من الْحمرَة وَلَيْسَ بنير وَلَكِن كلون الجّص أَو نَحوه

“’Amhaq’ is extreme whiteness (bayad) in which there is no mixture of redness (humrah), not is it radiant, but it is rather like the color of plaster/gypsum (al-jiss) or similar.”[22]

Ibn Battal (d. 449 A.H.) in his commentary to Sahih Bukhari writes;

أن المهق من البياض هو الذى لا يخالطه شىء من الحمرة

“’amhaq’ of ‘abayad’ is that in which there is no mixing of redness (humrah),”[23]

Ibn Abdul Barr (d. 463 A.H.) explains “amhaq al-abyad” saying;

الَّذِي بَيَاضُهُ لَا إِشْرَاقَ فِيهِ كَأَنَّهُ الْبَرَصُ لَا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيْءٌ مِنَ الْحُمْرَةِ

“[It is] that whiteness (bayad) in which there is no radiance like leprosy that is not mixed with anything of redness (humrah)”[24]

So “bayad” if devoid of redness (humrah) is like leprosy. Is leprosy related to anything but simple plain pure whiteness?

Similarly al- Tha’alabi wrote:

إذا كَانَ الرَّجُل أبْيَض لا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيء مِنَ الحُمْرَةِ وَلَيْسَ بنَيِّرٍ ولكنَّهُ كَلَوْنِ الجِصّ فَهُوَ اَمْهَقُ

“When a man is “abyad” (in complexion) without anything of redness (humrah) and it is not radiant but is of the color of plaster/gypsum (al-jiss) then it is “amhaq”. [25]

Quite clear! When a person is white (abyad) without any mixture of redness or radiance in it then his complexion is like the color of plaster/gypsum, termed as “amhaq.” A shade of blackness does not become “amhaq” (i.e. like gypsum/plaster) if devoid of redness.

Remember these scholars were all discussing the Hadith on the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Those who maintain the rather funny idea of “abyad” being a shade of dark complexion need to explain away this Hadith without forgetting the above elucidations by the scholars.

3.2. The meaning of “azhar”

A narration from Anas- may Allah be pleased with him- describes the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- using the word “azhar”.

Thabit narrated from Anas (RA) describing the complexion of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, as:

كَانَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ

“The Messenger of Allah –peace be upon him- was had bright white complexion (azhar al-lawn).”[26]

Abu ‘Ubayd Qasim bin Salam (d. 228 A.H.) explains the meaning of “azhar” in the following way;

الْأَزْهَر: الْأَبْيَض النيرِّ الْبيَاض الَّذِي لَا يخالط بياضه حمرَة

“Al-Azhar: Radiant white, whiteness (bayad), such that no redness mixes with it.”[27]

Abu Mansur al-Tha’labi (d. 429 A.H.) writes;

إذا كَانَ الرَّجُل أبْيَض لا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيء مِنَ الحُمْرَةِ وَلَيْسَ بنَيِّرٍ ولكنَّهُ كَلَوْنِ الجِصّ فَهُوَ اَمْهَقُ. فإنْ كَانَ أبْيَضَ بَيَاضاً مَحْمُوداً يُخَالِطُهُ أَدْنَى صُفْرَةٍ كَلَوْنِ القَمَرِ والدُرِّ فَهُوَ أزْهَرُ وفي حديث أَنس في صِفَةِ النبيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم: "كان أزْهَرَ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ أمْهَقَ"

“When a man is “abyad” (in complexion) without anything of redness (humrah) and it is not radiant but is of the color of plaster/gypsum (al-jiss) then it is “amhaq”. And if it is white (abyad), its whiteness (bayad) being pleasing with yellowish tinge (or radiance) in it like the color of moon and the gems then it is “azhar”. The narration of Anas in the description of the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- (states): He was “azhar” and not “amhaq”.[28]

Categorically maintains that even the “abyad” of complexion is sheer whiteness, which may be ugly looking like plaster or pleasing depending if it is mixed with redness (humrah) making it radiant, or not.

This is why Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) explained ‘azhar al-lawn’ saying;

أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ أَيْ أَبْيَضُ مُشَرَّبٌ بِحُمْرَةٍ

“Azhar al-lawn’, that is: white imbued with redness (abyad musharrab bi-humrah)”[29]

As regards the statement of our Imam, Abu Hanifa that “azhar” can relate to any complexion, it is true but while we are talking of a particular individual we need to keep other descriptions of him in mind. And our readers will observe unlike Wesley and Tariq, we stick to scholarly comments about the very person of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

3.3. The meaning of “Asmar”/”Sumrah”

As regards the meaning of “asmar”/”sumrah”, Ibn Mandhur (d. 711 A.H.) gives us the following definition;

َهُوَ لَوْنٌ يَضْرِبُ إِلى سَوَادٍ خَفِيٍّ

“It is the color that inclines towards hidden blackness (sawad khafiy).”[30]

This hits the bull’s eye and kills the idea of “asmar” referring to someone truly black. “Asmar” is very very slightly dark as if its blackness is hidden.

In the same way al-Tha’alabi (d. 429 A.H.) writes;

إذا عَلاَهُ أَدْنَى سَوَادٍ فَهُوَ أسْمَرُ

“When his/her complexion is mixed with slight blackness (adna sawad), he/she is ‘asmar’.”[31]

So this clearly shows, “asmar” is a very slight shade of blackness, as if its blackness is hidden.

Lest anyone say that in Maqayis al-Lugha the word “asmar” has been defined as;

السِّينُ وَالْمِيمُ وَالرَّاءُ أَصْلٌ وَاحِدٌ يَدُلُّ عَلَى خِلَافِ الْبَيَاضِ فِي اللَّوْنِ. مِنْ ذَلِكَ السُّمْرَةُ مِنَ الْأَلْوَانِ

We find that here “sumrah” is explained involving the words we saw were used for “sawad” i.e. خِلَافِ الْبَيَاضِ which we earlier translated as, “opposite to white.” Tariq, Wesley or the likes of them may try to use it to their purpose. We shall, therefore, explain it here.

The above statement properly translated goes as;

“Al-seen, wal-meem, wal-Raa, forms the gerund. It adduces to other than white (khilaf al-bayad) in color. And from it come the “sumrah” in colors.”[32]

One can clearly see that here the relation of the root of “asmar” with “bayad” is established using the word يَدُلُّ عَلَى خِلَافِ الْبَيَاضِ where emphasis is on يَدُلُّ عَلَى which means “to point to” or “adduce to” i.e. in an indirect way; whereas, as we earlier saw, the relation of “sawad” and “bayad” is established directly saying وَهُوَ خِلَافُ الْبَيَاضِ “and it is ….” This explains as to why we translated the phrase as “opposite to white” earlier and now we translate it as “other than white.” “Bayad” is directly opposite to “sawad” and “sumrah” is a slightly dark shade, which is different than “bayad.”

3.3.1 “Asmar” also refers to whiteness imbued with redness (bayad mushrab bi-humrah)

But Arabs used the words “sumrah” and “asmar” to signify “whiteness imbued with redness” as well. Carefully read the following;

Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) discussing various narrations writes;

وَتَبَيَّنَ مِنْ مَجْمُوعِ الرِّوَايَاتِ أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالسُّمْرَةِ الْحُمْرَةُ الَّتِي تُخَالِطُ الْبَيَاضَ وَأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالْبَيَاضِ الْمُثْبَتِ مَا يُخَالِطُهُ الْحُمْرَةُ وَالْمَنْفِيُّ مَا لَا يُخَالِطُهُ وَهُوَ الَّذِي تَكْرَهُ الْعَرَبُ لَوْنَهُ وَتُسَمِّيهِ أَمْهَقَ

And it is evident from all the narrations taken collectively that “sumrah” means redness (humrah) mixed with whiteness (bayad). And the pleasing look of whiteness (bayad) is that in which redness (humrah) is mixed and the displeasing look is that in which it is not mixed. It is the color the Arabs dislike and call “amhaq”.[33]

This evidently maintains that “abyad” is such a color which if devoid of redness becomes “amhaq” i.e. like plaster/gypsum or leprosy. This shows it is but pure white and if the same is mixed with redness it is also termed as “sumrah” (or “asmar”). Therefore in the narrations about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- “asmar” and “sumrah” do not signify a shade of blackness but whiteness imbued with redness.

Hafiz Ibn Hajr has based his assertion on the meaning of “asmar” on the study of Hadith narrations itself.

Same was also stated by Hafiz Zainuddin al-Manawi (d. 1031 A.H.)[34] and Ibn Hajr al-Haithmi.[35]

Hafiz Nuruddin ‘Ali bin Ibrahim al-Halabi (d. 1044 A.H.) in Insan al-‘Uyun commonly known as Sirat al-Halbiyya writes;

لأن العرب قد تطلق على ومن كان كذلك أي بياضه إلى حمرة أسمر

“For whoever is like that, i.e. whose whiteness (bayad) leans to be red (humrah) Arabs call him ‘asmar’”[36]

Long before them Abu Suleman al-Khattabi (d. 388 A.H.) wrote the following in his discussion on various narrations on the issue;

وفيه وجه آخر وهو أنه مُشرَبُ الحُمرة والحُمرةُ إذا أُشْبِعَت حَكَت سُمْرَة ويدُلّ عَلَى هذا المعنى قَولُ الواصِفِ له لم يكن بالأبيض الأمهق

"And on this matter there is another narration i.e. his complexion was imbued with redness. And when there is much redness (humrah) it is termed as 'sumrah' and this meaning is indicated to by his descriptor's words that he was not white as lime (abyad al-amhaq)."[37]

Here al-Khattabi perfectly summarizes what we are trying to make people understand.

The fact that it is Anas himself who gives the narration of Prophet’s not being “abyad al-amhaq” and “asmar” up holds the above. It is so, because had “asmar” meant a shade of blackness there was no need to testify against “abyad al-amhaq” thing, as already explained in detail.

4. Calling the Prophet  black termed as disbelief: Significance and reasoning

There is further strong evidence that Wesley runs from, and rather gives it a completely different color. It is the fact that scholars recognized that calling Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- black was simply not acceptable because it went against the huge well established evidence.

4.1. Ahmad bin Abi Suleman al-Maliki’s verdict

Those who have been reading Wesley must have read his rant about alleged anti-black racism among early scholars. He often quotes Ahmad bin Abi Suleman’s (d. 287 A.H.) statement from Al-Shifa of Qadi Iyad.

مَنْ قَالَ: إِنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ أَسْوَدَ، يُقْتَلُ

“One who says the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was back should be killed.”

4.1.1 Explanation of the verdict

‘Ali bin Sultan Muhammad al-Qari (d. 1014 A.H.) explains this statement saying;

بل كان أبيض كأنما صيغ من فضة رواه الترمذي في الشمائل عن أبي هريرة رضي الله تعالى عنه وفي رواية مسلم والترمذي عن أبي الطفيل كان أبيض مليحا وفي رواية البيهقي في الدلائل عن علي رضي الله تعالى عنه كان أبيض مشربا بالحمرة ... والحاصل أن بياض لونه ثابت في الأخبار الصحيحة والآثار الصريحة مختلفة في المبنى متواترة في المعنى فمن قال في حقه إنه كان أسود يكفر حيث وصفه بغير نعته الموجب لنفيه وتكذيبه لكن قد يعذر قائله إذا كان جاهلا بوصفه عليه الصلاة والسلام لا سيما إذا كان من العوام إلا إذا أراد به تنقصه واستهانته عليه الصلاة والسلام وهذا يختلف باختلاف العرف بين الأنام إذ السواد مرغوب بين الحبشة والهنود كما أن البياض مطلوب عند العرب والاعجام

“Because ‘he (the Prophet) was white (abyad) as if fashioned from silver’ –Narrated Tirmidhi in Shama’il from Abu Huraira- and as per the narration of Muslim and Tirmidhi from Abu Tufail, he was, ‘Beautifully White (abyad malihan)’ and according to Baihaqi’s narration in Dala’il from ‘Ali (RA) he was, ‘Of white complexion (bayad) imbued with redness (mushrab bil-humrah)’ … And the crux is whiteness (bayad) of his complexion is proved with authentic reports and categorical narrations that are different in wording but consistent and continuous (mutawatir) in meaning. Therefore anyone who says he was black becomes a disbeliever (kafir) when he describes him with other than what is expedient for his act of denying and belying the true description. But a person is excused if he does not know the description of the Prophet –on him be the peace and blessings- especially if he is from the common folk except when the motive is to show disrespect and disparage him. And this varies with the difference in custom among the nations as blackness (sawad) is preferred among the Abyssinians and the Indians like fairness (bayad) is liked by the Arabs and the Europeans (‘Ajam).”[38]

This is a detailed explanation of the ruling. It not only kills Wesley’s allegation of racist tendencies on the great scholars of Islam but also establishes that to the classical scholars based on solid academic evidence it was heretic to assert that Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was black (aswad) and not fair-skinned i.e. white (abyad).

The same was explained by Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Haithmi (d. 974 A.H.)[39]

Al-Zarqani (d. 1122 A.H) has also very important elucidation to it likewise. He writes;

من غيِّر صفته، كما لو قال قصيرًا أو أسودًا يقتل

“One who changed his characteristic, as if he said, [the Prophet was] short or black, he will be killed.”[40]

4.2 Verdict by al-Nawawi

Similarly al-Nawawi (d. 676 A.H.) wrote:

لَوْ قَالَ: كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَسْوَدَ، أَوْ تُوُفِّيَ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَلْتَحِيَ، أَوْ قَالَ: لَيْسَ هُوَ بِقُرَشِيٍّ، فَهُوَ كُفْرٌ ; لِأَنَّ وَصْفَهُ بِغَيْرِ صِفَتِهِ نَفْيٌ لَهُ وَتَكْذِيبٌ بِهِ

“If a person said, the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was black or that he died before his victory, or if he said that he was not from the Quraysh, then the person is a disbeliever (kafir) , for he has described him with other than his characteristic, denying and belying it.”[41]

Quite clear, leaves nothing to explain!

4.3. Important points on the verdict

There are two very important points here;

4.3.1 Basis of the verdict: Denial of mutawatir (continuous) reports

The reason for pronouncing one a disbeliever and declaring him subject to capital punishment like apostates is denial of what has been reported in mutawatir narrations.

This is very important to understand. In Islam what matters is not the “trivial” or “grand” nature of a thing as per some people’s thinking but the stature of the proof on which it rests. To the scholars of Islam it has always been, in the light of continuous (mutawatir) reports, that Prophet’s –may Allah bless him- complexion was not black but was rather white. Therefore anyone who contends for the opposite is actually denying mutawatir reports. And denial of such an enormous evidence amounts to outright disbelief.

This can be easily understood when we see Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi (d. 321 A.H.) in his well known treatise on the beliefs of the people of sunnah writes, “We agree with wiping over leather socks (in ablution).”[42] And al-Karkhi (340 A.H.) states “I fear disbelief (kufr) on the part of the one who does not agree with wiping on the leather socks.”[43]

The point to note here is, apparently wiping on the leather socks is a trivial issue, but as it is proved through mutawatir narrations, therefore scholars put it in their works on Aqidah (beliefs) and equated its rejection with disbelief.

In the same way, the characteristics of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- are proved through mutawatir narrations, so if anyone denies it he turns a disbeliever and due to his apostasy he is subject to capital punishment.

I hope Mr. Wesley understands the simple plain basis for such a verdict. I would bid Mr. Wesley to understand some basics of Islam when he likes to argue about Islamic texts. This is a fundamental requirement in the field of comparative religions, so a person following the creed of NoI must have some know how about Islam before he wishes to argue with Muslims.

4.3.2 Ahmad bin Abi Suleman was an early, not medieval, scholar

Another very important thing to note here is the fact that Ahmad bin Abi Suleman al-Qayrwani was an early scholar. As Al-Zarqani mentions, he died in the year 287 A.H.[44] This is a very significant point and kills the lie of Wesley that idea of Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- being white in complexion was a medieval concoction.

5. Complexion of Prophet’s relatives

Rejecting the loads of narrations directly about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- Wesley and Tariq try to seek evidence with narrations about the complexion of other individuals. In the first place, every reasonable person knows it makes absolutely no sense to reject the simple direct evidence and to seek for so-to-say the “secondary evidence.” In fact we will see this “secondary evidence” is actually no evidence at all.

5.1 Can close relatives have manifestly different complexions?

Before discussing the case of various individuals let us turn to hadith, a divine source, to find out if complexion of a son must be same as that of his father?

There is a very interesting Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other collections that put to sword the whole rant of Wesley and Tariq on this.

The wording in Sahih Muslim is;

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ أَعْرَابِيًّا أَتَى رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، إِنَّ امْرَأَتِي وَلَدَتْ غُلَامًا أَسْوَدَ، وَإِنِّي أَنْكَرْتُهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «هَلْ لَكَ مِنْ إِبِلٍ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: «مَا أَلْوَانُهَا؟» قَالَ: حُمْرٌ، قَالَ: «فَهَلْ فِيهَا مِنْ أَوْرَقَ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «فَأَنَّى هُوَ؟» قَالَ: لَعَلَّهُ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ يَكُونُ نَزَعَهُ عِرْقٌ لَهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «وَهَذَا لَعَلَّهُ يَكُونُ نَزَعَهُ عِرْقٌ لَهُ» ،

Abu Hurayrah reported: A desert Arab came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: My wife has given birth to a dark-complexioned child and I have disowned him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Have you any camels? He said: Yes. He said: What is their colour? He said? They are red. He said: Is there anyone dusky among them? He said: Yes. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: How has it come about? He said: Messenger of Allah, it is perhaps due to the strain to which it has reverted, whereupon the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: It (the birth) of the black child may be due to the strain to which he (the child) might have reverted.[45]
The same is reported by Ibn ‘Umar –may Allah be pleased with him- in Sunan Ibn Majah and there the narration adds that the man even said;

وَإِنَّا أَهْلُ بَيْتٍ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِينَا أَسْوَدُ قَطُّ

“And in our family there is no one black at all.”[46]

This is categorical evidence that to a couple neither of whom is black and who have no black person in their entire family, a black child may be born. If this can happen between a child and his parents, why can this not happen between cousins or persons generations apart?

5.2 Complexion of ‘Ali (RA)

Both Wesley and Tariq refer to the description of ‘Ali (RA) given in Tarikh al-Khulafa of al-Suyuti and Ansab al-Ashraf of al-Baladhuri i.e.

آدم شديد الأدمة

Adam Shadid al-Udma”, translated as; “very tawny complexioned” by Major S.H. Jarret [47]

Firstly, as already shown the complexion of ‘Ali (RA) cannot prove anything about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- as he was only his cousin. This is especially important as we read in Sahih Bukhari;

عَنْ عُقْبَةَ بْنِ الحَارِثِ، قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ أَبَا بَكْرٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، وَحَمَلَ الحَسَنَ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ: «بِأَبِي شَبِيهٌ بِالنَّبِيِّ، لَيْسَ شَبِيهٌ بِعَلِيٍّ» وَعَلِيٌّ يَضْحَكُ

It is related that 'Uqba ibn al-Harith said, "I saw Abu Bakr carrying al-Hasan on his shoulder, saying, 'By my father, he resembles the the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and does not resemble 'Ali,' and 'Ali was laughing.”[48]

i.e. Hassan resembled the Prophet, and not ‘Ali, means ‘Ali did not resemble the Prophet –may Allah bless them all.

We will see the description of Hassan bin ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, shortly.

Although narrations assert ‘Ali (RA) was relatively dark however a closer look clarifies he was not “shadid al-udma” in complexion. In fact not even purely “adam” but his complexion was “asmar”- “close to being ‘adam’”.
Al-Baladhuri (d. 279 A.H.) himself in Ansab al-Ashraf and before him Ibn Sa’d (d. 230 A.H.) in Kitab al-Tabqat al-Kabir give us an interesting narration;

Sa’id al-Dhabay said regarding ‘Ali (RA):

وَإِنَّ شِئْتَ قُلْتَ إِذَا نَظَرْتَ إِلَيْهِ: هُوَ آدَمُ، وَإِنِ تَبَيَّنْتَهُ مِنْ قَرِيبٍ قُلْتَ: أَنْ يَكُونَ أَسْمَرَ أَدْنَى مِنْ أَنَّ يَكُونَ آدَمَ

“And when you look at him you may say, “he is ‘adam’.” And if you clearly look at close, you may say, “ he is ‘asmar’ close to being ‘adam.’””[49]

The narration structure is quite clear to maintain the difference between “adam” and “close to being ‘adam.’”

Anyways, we have already shown, his complexion does not help Wesley and Tariq in twisting the simple plain fact given in loads of Hadith narrations. And how can this description of ‘Ali (RA) be taken as suggestive of the Prophet’s complexion when in sharp contrast to this “adam”/”udmah”, description of ‘Ali (RA) the very first narration of the most well known work on the Prophet’s physical characteristics clearly tells us;

وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ

“And he was not ‘adam’.”[50]

Wesley and Tariq are requested not to try fooling the people with their senseless verbosity!

5.3 Complexion of Fadl bin ‘Abbas, the poet

Next we dwell on the complexion of al-Fadl Ibn al-‘Abbas (d. 95 A.H.), a poet and the great grandson of Abu Lahab, the uncle of the Holy Prophet (saaw). In one of his own poetic verses he speaks of his dark complexion, which is recorded by Ibn Mandhur (d. 711 A.H.) in Lisan al-‘Arab (4/245). Tarqi Berry and Wesley Muhammad do not fail to quote this, and they will obviously refer to what Ibn Mandhur quotes from Ibn Barri (d. 582 A.H.). However the argument of Tariq and Wesley was answered long before these scholars.

Abu Al-Faraj ‘Ali bin Hussain al-Isfahani (d. 356 A.H.) has recorded the following about Fadl bin al-‘Abbas:

إنما أتاه السواد من قبل أمه : جدته ، وكانت حبشية

“Rather blackness reached him through his mother’s side. His grandmother was Abyssinian.”[51]

If Wesley and Tariq have a bit of honesty and objectivity left in them, they should cease to allude to complexion of Fadl bin Abbas after reading this categorical evidence.

And further Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 571 A.H.) gives us precise information on this, as he records;

ومن ولد عتبة بن أبي لهب الفضل بن العباس الشاعر وأمه آمنة بنت العباس بن عبد المطلب وهي لأم ولد سوداء

"And from the children of Utbah bin Abi Lahab was al-Fadl bin al-‘Abbas the poet and his mother was Aminah bint al-‘Abbas bin Abd al-Mutlib and she was (daughter) of a black umm-walad"[52]

Umm-walad” refers to a slave-woman who bears her master a child.

Having clarified this, let’s have a look at the trick of Wesley on this. Though he first asserts that Abu Lahab is “particularly important” in this discussion but instead of giving his description, contends:Abu Lahab’s importance for us here rather lies with his great grandson”[53]. We have shown the reason for blackness of his great grandson’s complexion, but what about his own?

According to Musnad Ahmad, Rab’ia bin ‘Ibad al-Daylami, described Abu Lahab as;

أحول ذا غديرتين أبيض الناس وأجملهم

“Luminous, with two braids; most fair-complexioned (abyad al-nas) and handsome of the people.”[54]

Now we get a clear picture, this grandson of the Prophet’s uncle was black owing his blackness to his maternal grandmother while his great grandfather, the Prophet’s uncle was actually very fair-skinned. Moreover, it tells us why not Abu Lahab but his great grandson became important to Wesley.

Although there is no need to turn to the complexion of Holy Prophet’s –may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- relations when we have so many narrations about his very own person, but just to show the cunningness of Mr. Wesley “the PhD” and his cohort Tariq, let’s have a look at the complexion of a namesake of the Fadl bin al-‘Abbas the poet i.e. al-Fadl bin ‘Abbas bin ‘Abd al-Mutallib (d. 18 A.H.), the cousin of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless them both. He has been described the following way;

وَكَانَ رَجُلًا حَسَنَ الشَّعْرِ أَبْيَضَ وَسِيمًا

“He was a man having beautiful hair, white (abyad) and handsome.”[55]

The above makes it quite clear that both Wesley and Tariq and just resorting to pathetic tricks to fool people into their “concocted truth”.

5.4 Complexion of al-Nafs al-Zakiyya

Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (d. 145 A.H.) was a noble descendant of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- who had a row with the rulers of his time and was subsequently martyred.

About him al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) records the following in his work on history;

كان محمد آدم شديد الأدمة، أدلم جسيما عظيما، وكان يلقب القاري من أدمته، حتى كان أبو جعفر يدعوه محمما

Wesley and Tariq both refer to this and Wesley translates it the following way in his article written using the “feedback” and “material contribution” of Tariq Berry;

“Muhammad (Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya) was black, exceedingly black, jet black (adam shadid al-udma adlam) and huge. He was nicknamed “Tar Face” (al-qari) because of his black complexion (udmatihi), such that Abu Jaffar used to call him “Charcoal Face” (al-muhammam).”[56]

Even withstanding his claim of “pure paternity, undiluted with non-Arab blood” it does not prove that Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was also of the same complexion. The evidence is manifolds;

Authenticity of this report

But before turning to the manifolds evidence, let us say a word about the authenticity of this report.

This quote about Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya is a solitary report of al-Tabari. And scholars have mentioned the weakness of it.

In Sahih Tarikh al-Tabari, research work of Muhammad bin Tahir al-Barzinji, Subhi Hassan Hallaq and others, under the heading of “Events of 144 A.H.” the rebellion of Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah bin Hassan (Al-Nafs Al-Zakaiyya) is mentioned but no narration including the above is given. And they have mentioned that none of the narrations about him quoted by al-Tabari is authentic. And even the weakness of various narrators involved with these narrations is given.[57]

Instead various narrations about Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya including the one under question, is included in Da’if wa Maskut Anh Tarikh al-Tabari (9/883)

If one says that same is mentioned in other works like Tajarib al-Umam of Ibn Miskawayh (d. 421 A.H.) and Al-Kamil fil Tarikh of Ibn Athir (d. 630 A.H.), then he ought to know that both of them quoted it from al-Tabari’s work, therefore it does not help.

It is known that Ibn Miskawayh heavily relied on al-Tabari’s work.[58]

And Ibn Athir himself in introduction (muqaddimah) to his work says that he has collected reports from various works on history and then writes, “So I started [gathering of historical records] with the huge work on history written by Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tabari”[59]

Neither of these has chain of narrations for their reports and both have heavily relied on al-Tabari leaving little doubt that their source is the very one we have already analyzed.

Lest, Wesley or Tariq, play the gimmick of alluding to the stature of al-Tabari, undoubtedly a great scholar, to assert that whatever he has quoted ought to be accepted, let us bid the readers to read al-Tabari’s foreword (muqadddima) to his work.

The narration hardly proves anything about Holy Prophet’s complexion

Now we come to the evidence that even if accepted this narration of al-Tabari hardly says anything about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

1- The account that he was nicknamed “al-Qari” i.e. “Tar Faced” itself proves his complexion was manifestly different from his people. Names are generally called for unique features.

2- Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya was a great grandson of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib –may Allah be pleased with him- and even if he was exactly like his great grand father, it does not relate to the complexion of the Holy Prophet as we have already seen ‘Ali (RA) did not resemble the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

3- A narration in Tabaqat al-Kubra of Ibn Sa’d describes him as;

كَانَ رَجُلا آدَمُ أَثَّرَ الْجُدَرِيُّ فِي وَجْهِهِ

“He was a brown colored (adam) man with the affects of smallpox on his face.”[60]

This narration is telling us that there were the scars of smallpox that made him look darker than he originally was. Assuming the narration of al-Tabari as true, this report helps us understand why he looked “jet black”. His own description i.e. “adam” was like that of ‘Ali (RA) who was “close to being ‘adam’”. cf. al-Baladhuri.

4- Even if we accept that Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya was originally “jet black” it still does not say anything about Holy Prophet’s complexion in face of multiple narrations that describe him in a very different way. All these narrations describe Naf al-Zakiyya’s complexion as “adam” /”udmah” etc. and we know from a Sahih Hadith that Holy Prophet was not “adam”[61]. This fact is enough to deflate this argument.

And we have seen the hadith from Sahih Muslim and Sunan Ibn Majah showing a black child of pure descent can take birth in a family in which there is no black person. This may be due to some of the great grand parents. And it is known that people of the Quraysh used to marry “habshiyat” (i.e. Abyssinian/black women). Ibn Jawzi (d. 597 A.H.) has named more than 30 men from Quraysh who were born to “habshiyat” [62]– clear evidence that it was not unusual for the people of Quraysh to marry Abyssinian women.

This provides an apt explanation for black complexion of some of the people of Quraysh. We have already seen a perfect example in the case of Fadl bin Abbas, the poet. We shall see more in the following lines.

5.5 Complexion of Ja’far al-Sadiq

Another holy man whose complexion Wesley refers to is, Ja’far al-Sadiq (d. 148 A.H.), the well known and reputed scholar from the family of ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with them both.

It is indeed true that just like ‘Ali –may Allah be pleased with him- his complexion has been described as Adam’ in Ibn Sabbagh’s (d. 855 A.H.) work on the Shiite Imams [63]. But we need to remember that it does not prove anything about the complexion of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, just as we have shown above.

Isn’t it funny of Wesley and Tariq to refer to a person whose complexion is described as “adam” to contend about the complexion of Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- about whom we have a categorical authentic narration telling us he was “not adam”?

5.6 Complexion of Musa al-Kazim

Another interesting case is that of Abu al-Hasan Musa al-Kazim (d. 183 A.H.), a revered personally and the Seventh Imam of the Shiites. He has been described as “Black (aswad) in complexion” in ‘Ali bin Hussain bin ‘Utbah’s (d. 828 A.H.) ‘Umdah al-Talib fi Ansab Aali Abi Talib (p.184)

Wesley, as expected, alludes to this. However, again as expected, he fails to mention some important details about this revered personality. In the very same book and on the very same page it is stated about Musa al-Kazim;

وأمه أم ولد يقال لها حميدة المغربية

“And his mother was a slave-woman and she was known as Humayda al-Maghribiyya.”[64]

This is to show that his mother was a slave-woman from al-Maghrib region. Further from al-Fusul al-Muhimmah (p. 222) we learn that she was a Berber.

Thus we know the reason for his black complexion. About Berbers Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) writes;

فَالنَّاسُ مِنْهُمْ بَرْبَرٌ وحُبُوش وطُمَاطم فِي غَايَةِ السَّوَادِ

“Among mankind there are Berbers, Ethiopians and (some) Barbarians who are very black.”[65]

5.7 Complexion of ‘Ali al-Rida

Tariq Berry refers to Abu al-Hasan Ali a-Rida’s (d. 203 A.H.) black complexion. But this was again due to his mother who was a Nubian slave-woman.[66]

Salahuddin Khalil al-Safdi (d. 764 A.H.) writes about him;

كَانَ أسودَ اللَّوْن لِأَن أمَّه كَانَت سَوْدَاء

“He was black in complexion (aswad al-lawn) because his mother was black.”[67]

After this al-Safdi gives the incident of bathhouse where a soldier pushed ‘Ali al-Rida aside and then said, “Pour water on my head oh black one!”

5.8 Complexion of Muhammad al-Jawwad and ‘Ali al-Hadi

Besides the fact that his father and grandfather were both born to black-women Abu ja’far Muhammad al-Jawwad (d. 220 A.H. ) was himself son of a Nubian slave-woman, named Sukyana.[68]

Likewise, Ali al-Hadi Abu al-Hasan al-‘Askari (d. 254 A.H.) who has been described as “asmar” in complexion was also a son of slave-woman from al-Maghrib.[69]

It is rather a well established fact that many among the progeny of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib –may Allah be pleased with him- were born to black slave-women so it makes absolutely no sense to mention them in this discussion. As recorded by Ibn Khaldun (d. 808 A.H.), when people asked Nasr bin Shabath al-‘Uqayli to make a pledge of allegiance with someone from the family of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib –may Allah be pleased with him- he replied;

والله لا أبايع أولاد السوداوات

“By Allah, I will not make pledge of allegiance with the children of the black women.”[70]

Besides the killing of argument of the de facto black racist contention of Wesley and Tariq, this fact also serves as a death blow to white racism as we find people from the noblest lineage marrying black women and their children rising to highly esteemed status. Alhamdulillah there is no place for any kind of racism in Islam.

5.9 Complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali (RA)- the one who resembled the Prophet the most

It is very important and interesting to note that while Wesley and Tariq refer to the complexion of so many people from amongst the progeny of the Prophet’s uncles, they do not mention the complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali, his grandson well known to have resembled the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless them both.

Ibn Sabbagh records the following;

كان الحسن عليه السلام ابيض اللون مشرباً بحمرة

“Hasan –on him be peace- was fair in complexion (abyad al-lawn) with redness imbued (mushraban bi-humrah) in it.”[71]

The very same is also recorded by Abu al-Hasan ‘Ali bin ‘Eisa al-Irbili (d. 693 A.H)[72] and others.[73]

This is very striking as there is hardly any work with basic information about him, which does not mention that fact of him resembling the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

Abu Juhayfa, the companion of the Prophet, said;

رَأَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَكَانَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ يُشْبِهُهُ

“I saw the Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Hasan bin Ali resembled him.”[74]

Similarly Anas- may Allah be pleased with him- said:

لَمْ يَكُنْ أَحَدٌ أَشْبَهَ بِالنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مِنَ الحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ

“No one resembled Allah’s Messenger more than Hasan bin Ali.”[75]

The same was also testified by ‘Ali[76], Ibn ‘Abbas[77] and ‘Abdullah bin Zubayr[78]- may Allah be pleased with them all.

We have earlier read the statement of Abu Bakr that Hasan bin ‘Ali resembled the Prophet and he did not resemble the ‘Ali, may Allah bless them all. Here is a similar testimony from none other than Fatima, the mother of Hasan, the wife of ‘Ali and the daughter of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless them all.

Once Fatima –may Allah be pleased with her- while pampering Hasan said in poetic fashion;

بِأَبِي شَبَهُ النَّبِيِّ ... لَيْسَ شَبِيهًا بِعَلِيٍّ

“By my father, he resembles the Prophet,
he does not resemble ‘Ali.”
[79]

Does it not tell us that ‘Ali did not resemble the Prophet?

This is for our readers to reflect. Tariq and Wesley refer to the complexion of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib who did not resemble the Holy Prophet, while we here show the complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali who had the closest resemblance with the Holy Prophet- may Allah bless them all. And we know Hasan’s complexion was white imbued with redness. We leave the conclusion on the common sense of the readers.

One wonders if Wesley did not read this all important description while he quoted about other people from the very same book –Ibn Sabbagh’s al-Fusul al-Muhimmah. And if he actually did, why he failed to share it with his readers who are otherwise sadly mistaken to consider him an honest “scholar”?

6. Intake of al-Dhahbi and al-jahiz

6.1 Statement of al-Dhahbi

Al-Dhahbi wrote the following in his work Siyar al-A’lam al-Nubala[80];

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ، فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ وَكَذَا كُلُّ مَنْ غَلَبَ عَلَيْهِ السَّوَادُ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ أَوْ شَدِيْدُ الأُدْمَةِ

Now we got to see who translated this statement rightly and who actually played with it.

In our initial exposition of Wesley Muhammad’s lies we translated it as;

“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda). And if it is the complexion the People of India they say, ‘asmar’ and ‘adam’. And if it is of Toucouleur Negroes (sawad al-Takrur) they say ‘aswad’ and likewise everyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black; they call, ‘aswad’ or ‘shadid-ul-udmah’.”

6.1.1 First part of the statement

First objection to this translation raised by both Wesley and Tariq is about the first phrase;

إِنَّ العَرَبَ إِذَا قَالَتْ: فُلاَنٌ أَبْيَضُ، فَإِنَّهُمْ يُرِيْدُوْنَ الحِنْطِيَّ اللَّوْنِ بِحِلْيَةٍ سَوْدَاءَ

“When Arabs say; So and so is ‘abyad’, they mean a wheatish complexion with slight darkness (hintiy al-lawn bi-hilyatin sawda).”

They have a problem with the word “slight” in the translation above and further that word “hilya” is not represented in the translation.

The fact however is, they are trying to play nasty with the language. Anyone reading the whole statement knows al-Dhahbi is moving from fair to dark, at least in relative terms.

His flows maintains “Abyad” is lighter than “asmar” and “adam” which are both lighter than “shaded al-udma” and “sawad.” While we have already seen “asmar” is a very slight shade of blackness as if the blackness is hidden. So if “asmar” itself signifies “slight blackness” why should anyone cry if the same is put with the word representing the hue even lighter than it?

And as to “hilya” thing, it’s a childish objection for there is never a need to put every word in its parallel in the other language and complexion is all about appearance.

In fact our translation is contextually true and solid, while the translation given by Wesley or Tariq may not be termed as literally wrong but is misleading nevertheless. It is misleading because they are running after the literal and in-isolation meaning of a word as they attempt to make people believe that “abyad” is not much different than “aswad”. Anyone with even a modicum of the understanding of Arabic –in fact of any language as such- will have to laugh his heart out at their stupid assertion.

6.1.2 Second part of the statement

Second part of the al-Dhahbi’s statement reads;

فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ، قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ

In his article that we originally refuted Wesley put this as;

“Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ādam), i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takrūr).”

He did not translate the words قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ

Now there can be two possibilities about such a translation of the text above.

1- Either zero knowledge of the Arabic language

2- Deceit and dishonesty

Anyone with slightest knowledge of the Arabic knows, it is just impossible to fathom a third possibility, unless we are told, Wesley does his “research” while asleep.

Here for the benefit of the readers we present the original text and Wesley’s initial translation. We shall see his attempted explanation thereafter.

فَإِنْ كَانَ فِي لَوْنِ أَهْلِ الهِنْدِ، قَالُوا: أَسْمَرُ، وَآدَمُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ فِي سَوَادِ التِّكْرُوْرِ،

“Like the complexion of the people of India, brown and black (asmar wa ādam), i.e. a clear, refined blackness (sawad al-takrūr).”

We all must wait and see by any farthest stretch of imagination what reasoning can lead anyone to translate “إِنْ كَانَ” as “like” or “i.e.”

No devil or saint can ever justify this. In his last article, response to our exposition, he says he actually misunderstood “al-takrur” and then pleads, “misreading this word caused a domino effect that caused me to mistranslate that whole sentence” and then reveals something interesting as he says; “Everyone who has struggled with a Classical Arabic text with an obscure word knows how this can happen.”

While it is true that misunderstanding a word can cause a ripple effect on the whole statement but this cannot possibly be the case here. Following is Mr. Wesley’s latest translation of the statement;

“and if they are speaking of the color of the people of India, they say: more or less dark brown (asmar wa ādam). And regarding the blackness of the people of Takrur they say aswad, intensely black …”

One thing to observe here is that this time he was forced to translate the last words of the phrase i.e. قَالُوا: أَسْوَدُ He did not translate these earlier for it would have thrown a spanner into his work. This alone speaks volumes about his “knowledge” and “credibility.”

This is important because the conditional statement that it is, without these words the sentence does not make any sense. Regardless of anything else, the fact that Mr. Wesley has come up with somewhat acceptable translation lately, proves that he was just trying to be smart with his readers, who he knows, have hardly got any access to the original work. This also says why this liar PhD never gives the full Arabic text of the quotes he brings.

Mr. Wesley now tries to justify his lie by alluding to “domino effect”, while we are sure Mr. Wesley can never explain how misunderstanding “al-takrur” made إِنْ كَانَ to mean “like” or “i.e.” we shall wait if any of his fans can do this.

To show people the real face of Wesley, the Liar, let us work a bit more. Following is the latest translation of the second part of al-Dhahbi’s statement by Wesley with his initial understanding of the word “al-takrur” inserted.

“and if they are speaking of the color of the people of India, they say: more or less dark brown (asmar wa ādam). And regarding the refined blackness they say aswad, intensely black …”

Now the above is a lot better than what Wesley initially made of this statement. The element of absurdity in the above is because in his initial translation Wesley did not even translate a sensibly full phrase. Actually his plea that it was only a “domino effect” of misunderstanding a single word is another lie – itself the “domino effect” of his earlier deceitful play with the statement.

As we mentioned earlier even, it is quite evident that Wesley did this to make people believe “asmar” , “adam”, “aswad” a part of the explanation of “abyad.” But he was caught red handed – and all praise be to Allah!

6.1.3 Significance of al-Dhahbi’s statement

We have already discussed the meaning of “abyad” in detail under a separate heading. Statement of al-Dhahbi must also be seen with the rest of the evidence. It thus, signifies that even a person with wheatish complexion and not just pale wheatish but with a tinge of shade is ALSO called “abyad.” And even with that slight shade, it remains far from qualifying to be termed as “black” for any common, fair-minded observer. We should neglect the cries of the White and the Black racists. And as al-Dhahbi himself clarified anyone whose complexion is overwhelmingly black, he is referred to as “aswad.”

6.2 What did al-Jahiz say?

In his response to our response, Wesley comes up with loads of quotes and much verbosity but hardly anything relevant to the topic at hand. Isn’t it striking to note that in his entire article he only speaks of one hadith, which is termed as odd by the masters of the science of hadith? In fact we have shown that even if accepted, it means exactly what the narrations, that Wesley says were fabricated by Persians, tell us.

We do not need to comment on the red herrings he throws, but just a few words of interest about something this Liar Dr. is too excited about.

The title of the monograph of al-Jahiz (d. 255 A.H.) he refers to is فخر السودان على البيضان “Fakh al-Sudan alaa l-Bidan.” Following are the points to note here;

1- The title, as Wesley puts it, means, “The Boast of the Black Race Over the White”

May we ask, what word has al-Jahiz used for “the White” here? It’s none other than “al-Bidan” of the same root as “abyad” and “bayad”

So what does it means here?

Does it relate to character instead of complexion?
Does it mean the opposite of its first meaning?
Does it mean a shade of blackness?

2- Whom does al-Jahiz quote? Is he quoting some established authority?

3- And the million dollar question is, in his dedicated work on the “Boast of the Black”- in which he does not fail to mention even the prominent of the Tabi’un (Successors) who were black and wherein “they” [the unknown boasting for the Black] even mention Abyssinian emperor for whom the Prophet prayed- is the Prophet –Allah’s blessings and peace upon him- himself counted among the Black? The answer is a big NO!

Even more than a millennium ago, the people boasting loud for the Black had no clue or obsession to somehow count the Prophet among the Black. More than 1400 years after the Prophet some people are remaking the evidence on his complexion.

This must be enough for the people to know Wesley’s “scholarship” is good for nothing. And Tariq is no better.

7. Summary

1- At least eight companions have described the Prophet’s complexion as white imbued with redness (abyad mushrab bi-humrah)

2- The narrations that describe him as “fair/white” or “very fair” prove he was far from being dark in complexion.

3- The very authentic narration from Anas that says he was not white as plaster or like the color of leprosy belies any notion of “abyad” meaning a shade of blackness, for in that case there was no need to deny the far end opposite of blackness.

4- The Arabs used to describe one with white complexion imbued with redness as “asmar.”

5- The narration from Anas (RA) that describes the Prophet’s complexion as “asmar” is odd in wording but actually means the same, “white with reddish imbue” complexion.

6- The narration of Abu Tufail (RA) that mentions fairness (bayad) of Prophet’s face and blackness (sawad) of his hair in one sentence and the narration of ‘Aisha (RA)in which she spoke of the fairness (bayad) of his face and blackness (sawad) of his turban in one breath, show the flimsiness of Wesley’s “addad” (i.e. opposite the first meaning) contention.

7- Almost every single narration that we have quoted kills the assertion that when a person is described as “abyad” it is about his character and not complexion. There are narrations that categorically relate to it “lawn” (complexion) and there are others that simply do not entertain this idea. Such an idea has absolutely no place at least within the scope of this discussion.

8- The fact that some of the greatest scholars have opined that anyone who says the Prophet was black in complexion is, because of denying continuous (mutawatir) reports, just a disbeliever, at least proves beyond all doubt that his complexion was far from being black.

9- An evidence as no less than a rigorously authentic hadith shows a black child can take birth to a couple neither of whom is black or even if there is no one black in the entire family.

10- There is clear evidence that ‘Ali (RA), whose complexion is described as “close to being ‘adam’” did not resemble the Prophet, as even an authentic hadith says the Prophet was NOT “adam” in complexion. Hope Tariq and Wesley will accept the plain truth.

11- Fadl bin ‘Abbas was black in complexion because his grandmother was an Abyssinian. His grandfather and prophet’s uncle, Abu Lahab, was fair-complexioned. It is hoped that Wesley and Tariq will apologize to their readers for using his case with proper research.

12- Ja’far al-Sadiq, Musa al-Kazim, Ali al-Rida and others from the progeny of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) were sons of black slave-women. This fact also upholds the fact that their complexion says absolutely nothing about that of the Holy Prophet. Justice demands both these guys stop referring to these people in this discussion. Let’s hope to find them editing their writings accordingly.

13- Hasan bin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, who resembled the Prophet the most, his complexion has been described as “white imbued with redness.”

8. Final Word

There is a lot more these two guys write. But not a bit of it is related to the Complexion of the Holy Prophet –Allah’s peace and mercy be upon him. What they quote from al-Mubarrad or the complexion of some other companions etc. has hardly anything to do with the topic here. However, various narrations and scholarly comments on those help us see what the truth is. We shall answer those twisting some other time in bits and pieces. The above lays to rest their falsehood on the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him. No doubt consistent and continuous (mutawatir) reports tell us that his complexion was white imbued with redness. All the great scholars have understood the narrations like it. And in this paper all the contentions of Wesley and Tariq related to the topic have been killed, Alhamdulillah.

We hope and wish that both Wesley and Tariq give up their ill contention, follow Islam and simple plain facts mentioned in the authentic sources without any twisting.

We pray this effort comes as guidance to all those dear innocent brothers and sisters who have been deluded away from the real contemporary issues i.e. spiritual and political revival of Islam, in the name of unveiling (read fabricating) the facts.

May Allah, the Almighty, make this a source of guidance and learning for all our readers!

Indeed Allah knows the best!


References:

[1] Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 18524

[2] Tarikh Damishq, No. 653, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1995 vol.3 p.264

[3] Tabqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1990 vol.1 p.321

[4] Kanzul Ummal, Hadith 18533

[5] Dalail al-Nubuwwah lil-Baihaqi, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah Beirut 1405 A.H. vol.1 pp.212-213

[6] Tabaqat al-Kubra,  vol.1 p.319

[7] al-Bidaya al-Nihaya, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1986 vol.6 p.18
Also see Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Sharah Nahaj al-Balagha, n.d. vol.13 p.226

[8] Subul al-Huda wal Irshad fi Sirat Khayr al-‘Ibad, Ministry of al-Awkaf,, Egypt 1997 vol.2 p.18

[9] ‘In Islam Does the Color of the Prophet(s) Matter?’ See HERE Last accessed on January 16, 2012 5:14 p.m. GMT

[10] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 63

[11] Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2340

[12] Tarikh Damishq, No. 705 vol.3 pp.310-311

[13] Musnad Bazzar Hadith 7789

[14] Kanzul ‘Ummal, Hadith 18547

[15] Ashraf al-Wasail ilaa Fahm al-Shama’il, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1998 p.42

[16] Tabaqat al-Kubra vol.1 p.321

[17] Dala’il al-Nubuwah vol.1 p.204

[18] Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 1754

[19] Jama’ al-Wasa’il fi Sharah al-Shama’il vol.1 p.14

[20] Maqayis al-Lugha, Dar al-Fikr, Beirut 1979 vol.3 p.114

[21] Shama’il Tirmidhi, Hadith 1

[22] Gharib al-Hadith, Da’ra al-Ma’arif, Hyderbabad, 1964 vol.3 p.27

[23] Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Makteba al-Rushd, Riyadh, 2003 vol.9 p.155

[24] al-Istizkar, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 2000 vol.8 p.327

[25] Fiqh al-Lugha, Ahya al-Turath al-Arabi, Beirut, 2002 vol.1 p.68

[26] Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2330

[27] Gharib al-Hadith vol.3 p.27

[28] Fiqh al-Lugha vol.1 p.68

[29] Fath al-Bari, Dar al-Ma’rifah, Beirut 1379 A.H. vol.6 p.569

[30] Lisan al-‘Arab, Dar Sader, Beirut 1414 A.H. vol.4 p.376

[31] Fiqh al-Lugha vol.1 p.72

[32] Maqayis al-Lugha. Vol.3 p.100

[33] Fath al-Bari vol.6 p.569

[34] Taysir bi-Sharah al-Jami’ al-Saghir vol.2 p.230

[35] Ashraf al-Wasail ilaa Fahm al-Shama’il, pp. 42-43

[36] Sirat al-Halabiyya, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1427 A.H. vol.3 p.467

[37] Gharib al-Hadith, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1982 vol.1 p.214

[38] Sharah al-Shifa, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1421 A.H. vol.2 p.431

[39] Ashraf al-Wasail ilaa Fahm al-Shama’il, p.43

[40] Sharah Al-Muwahib al-Ladunniyyah, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 1996 vol.5 p.531

[41] Rowdha al-Talibin, Makteba al-Islami, Beirut 1991 vol.10 p.70

[42] Aqidah al-Tahawiya, Makteb al-Islami, Beirut 1414 A.H., p.70

[43] Sharah Ghaznawi, Dar al-Karaz, Cairo, 2009 p.133

[44] Sharah Al-Muwahib vol.5 p.530

[45] Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1500

[46] Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 2003

[47] History of Caliphs –Translated from the Original Arabic, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta, 1881 p.171

[48] Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 3750

[49] Tabaqat al-Kubra vol.3 p.19

Also, Ansab al-Ashraf, Dar al-Fekr Beirut 1996 vol.2 p.126

[50] Shama’il Tirmidhi, Hadith 1

[51] Kitab al-Aghani No. 316, Dar Sader, Beirut 2008 vol.16 p.115

[52] Tarikh Damishq vol. 48 p.337

[53] The De-Arabization of Islam and the Transfiguration of Muhammad in Islamic Tradition, p.13

[54] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 16020. Al-Resala, Beirut 2001

[55] Sunan Abu Dawud Hadith 1900

[56] The De-Arabization of Islam and the Transfiguration of Muhammad in Islamic Tradition, p.14

[57] Sahih Tarikh al-Tabari, Dar Ibn Kathir, Beirut 2007 vol.5 p.75

[58] Tijarab al-Umam wa Ta’aqub al-Himam, Dar al-Kotob al-Imliyah, Beirut 2003 vol.1 p.50

[59] Al-Kamil fil Tarikh, Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut 1997 vol.1 p.6

[60] Tabaqat al-Kubra, vol.5 p.439

[61] Shamail Tirmidhi, 1

[62] Tanwir al-Habash fi Fadl al-Sudan wal Habash, Dar al-Sharif, Riyadh, 1998 pp.246-247

[63] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah fi Ma’rifah al-Ahwal al-‘Aimma, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut 1988 p.213

[64] Umdah al-Talib fi Ansab Aali Abi Talib p.184

[65] Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, Dar al-Taybah, Beirut 1999 vol.6 p.544

[66] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah p.234.

Tarikh al-Baghdad, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 1417 A.H. vol.19 p.135

Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, Dar al-Hadith, Cairo 2006 vol.8 p.115

[67] Al-Wafi bil Wafyat, Dar al-Ahya al-Turath, Beirut 2000 vol.22 p.156

[68] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah p.254

[69] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah, pp.265-266

[70] Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1988 vol.3 p.302

[71] al-Fusul al-Muhimmah, p.145

[72] Kashf al-Ghumma fi Ma’rifah al-Aimma, Dar al-Adwa, Beirut n.d. vol.2 p.148

[73] Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, Mo’assas al-Wafa, Beirut 1983 vol.44 p.137

[74] Jami’ Tirmidhi, Hadith 2827

[75] Sahih Bukharii, Hadith 3752

[76] Musnad Abu Dawud al-Tiyalsi, Hadith 132

[77] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 8508

[78] Tarikh Damishq, vol.13 p.176

[79] Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 26422.

Tarikh Damishq, vol.13 p.176
al-Bidaya al-Nihaya, vol.8 p.33

[80] Siyar A’lam al-Nubula, vol.1 p.39 & vol.3 p.448

204 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer›   Newest»
Infinite said...

Waqar Akbar Cheema & Gabriel Keresztes Abdul Rahman Al-Romaani Bare witness to the truth Dr. Wesley Has Blessed you with.

Infinite said...

It is very sad to see white supremacy has infected Islam Thank Dr. Wesley for speaking truth to power and making the blind see.

Save the True Arabs said...

I'm so surprised that it has taken you so long to respond and after all of this time that it has taken you, you come with nothing new. Waqar and JibreelK, your response is pathetic. You listed hadiths that describe the Prophet (SAWS) as abyad when I never said that there aren't hadiths that describe him (SAWS) as abyad. What I keep telling you is that you don't understand what abyad means in the hadiths. You also gave a definition of the color abyad when I never said that the color abyad isn't abyad. What I'm trying to make you admit to is the fact that the Arabs of the past meant something different when they described a person's COMPLEXION as abyad. THEY MEANT A MUCH DARKER COLOR. Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi made this very clear in his book Siyer Al-'laam Al-Nubalaa. Let me ask you this Waqar and JibreelK, if abyad meant abyad when talking about complexion, why did Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi take the time and effort to try to explain to you what the Arabs meant when they described someone's complexion as abyad??? This is what Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi said:

إن العرب إذا قالت : فلان أبيض ، فإنهم يريدون الحنطي اللون بحلية سوداء

"Verily, when the Arabs said that so-and-so was abyad (white), they meant that he had a hinti complexion with a black hilya."

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF HIS GIVING YOU THIS DEFINITION HERE??? It's to explain to you that the Arabs didn't mean abyad (white) when they described a person's complexion as abyad, but they meant a much darker complexion. This is what Imam Al Hafidh Al Dhahabi said and this is what I am saying. Imam Al Dhahabi spoke the truth and I'm trying to spread that truth that he spoke. YOU Waqar and JibreelK are obstinate deniers of the truth and I find your behavior totally unIslamic and sickening. Imam Al Hafidh Al Dhahabi said that the Arabs meant A HINTI COMPLEXION WITH A BLACK HILYA. What he said is very clear and he said it in a clear Arabic language. We don't need these games that you are playing now. A hinti complexion in itself is not a light complexion, let alone if you add a black hilya to it.
These people are simply hinti complexioned:

http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/images/quso1.jpe

http://www.alriyadh.com/2010/04/13/img/513193034297.jpg

At the beginning of your respose you said:

"Was Muhammad pbuh a black man (black as African, black as Wesley)?"

I suppose that it's safe for me to understand from this statement of yours that you consider Wesley "black", so I ask you to compare this picture below of Wesley to the two pictures of the hinti complexioned men above and tell me who is darker or whether they are the same complexion in your opinion:

http://drwesleywilliams.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Wes2.3184708.jpg

Remember that the people in the picture above are simply hinti complexioned and remember that abyad means hinti complexioned with a black hilya, so abyad is darker than hinti complexioned. In your statement above where you called Wesley black, you admitted that abyad means black today. Do you realize that this is what you have done? Yes or no?

Save the True Arabs said...

As I explained to you earlier, Ibn Mandhour says in Lisan Al-Arab that the hilya of a person is what is apparent in his/her color or appearance. Ibn Mandhour describes hilya (حلية) as:

والحلية هي ما يرى من لون الشخص وظاهرهِ وهيئتهِ

"A hilya is what is apparent in a person's color and his/her appearance and form."

Therefore a person with a black hilya has a black appearance and people described as abyad (white) by the Arabs of the past had a black hilya, so they had a black appearance.

َHilya is also described by Ibn Mandhour in Lisaan Al-Arab as:

قال ابن منظور في لسان العرب:

"والحِلْيَةُ الخِلْقة. والحِلْيَةُ: الصفة والصُّورة. والتَّحْلِيةُ: الوَصْف. وتَحَلاَّه: عَرَفَ صِفَته. والحلْية: تَحْلِيَتُك وجهَ الرجلِ إذا وصَفْته."

"Hilya is the outward appearance, the description, the image. "Tahallaahu" means he knew his description. "Tahliyatuka" the face of a man is said if you described him."

Look at how Al-Mubarrad uses the word hilya here in his book Al-Muqtadab:

فأما النعت فمثل: الطويل، والقصير، والصغير، والعاقل، والأحمق، فهذه كلها نعوتٌ جارية على أفعالها: لأن معنى الجاهل: المعروف بأنه يجهل، والطويل: المعروف بأنه طال. فكل ما كان من هذا فعلاً له أو فعلاً فيه فقد صار حلية له

"Concerning adjectives, words like tall, short, small, intelligent, stupid are all descriptions in accordance with their verbs because the meaning of ignorant is that the person is known to be ignorant (يجهل is verb for ignorant), the meaning of tall is that the person is known be tall (طال is verb for tall). So all of these descriptions are verbs that he has or verbs that are in him and they have become his hilya."

Save the True Arabs said...

This is not something difficult to understand, but as I said earlier, you are just obstinate deniers of the truth. Al-Shaikh Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Ali ibn Abdel Khaliq Shams Al-Din Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti gives an extremely precise explanation of the different complexions in humans in his book Jawaahir Al-Uqoud wa Mu’een Al-Qudaa wa Al-Mowqi’een wa Al-Shuhoud. Here's part of what he said:
“Complexions
If a person if very black-skinned, his complexion is called haalik.
If a person’s blackness is mixed with red, his complexion is called daghmaan.
If a person’s complexion is lighter than that, his complexion is called as-hamm.
If a person’s blackness is mixed with yellow, his complexion is called as-hamm (with saad).
IF THERE IS DARKNESS (KUDRA) IN HIS COMPLEXION, HIS COMPLEXION IS CALLED ARBAD.
IF A PERSON'S COMPLEXION IS LIGHTER THAN THAT, HIS COMPLEXION IS CALLED (ABYAD).

If a person’s complexion has less yellow and inclines more towards black, his complexion is called adam.

إذا كان الرجل شديد السواد

قيل: حالك.

فإن خالط سواده حمرة

قيل: دغمان.

فإن صفا لونه

قيل: أسحم.

فإن خالط السواد صفرا

قيل: أصحم.

فإن كدر لونه

قيل: أربد.

فإن صفا عن ذلك

قيل : أبيض.

فإن رقت الصفرة، ومال إلى السواد

قيل: آدمي اللون

Save the True Arabs said...

So abyad is described here as a complexion lighter than arbad. What is arbad? Ibn Mandhour says in Lisan Al-Arab:

"الربدة لون بين السواد والغبرة"

"Arbad complexion is a complexion between black and ghubra (dust-colored)"

Black means black and ghubra means dust-colored. This horse is considered dust colored:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9jr7tboJTaE/TCypU7ypRMI/AAAAAAAAAIc/t4yGHmgBtgA/s1600/Sammy.jpg

Now let's look at how Al-Tha'alabi describes abyad (white) in his book Fiqh Al-Lugha:

Imam Abu Mansour al-Tha'alabi says:

”Chapter Three

A Detailed Explanation of the Meaning of White

If a person’s complexion has ghubra (dust colored), his complexion is called a’afar or aghthar.”

فإنْ عَلَتْهُ غُبْرة فهو أعْفَر واغْثَرُ

Save the True Arabs said...

So a'afar complexioned was considered white to the Arabs of the past. And Al-Sheikh Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti says that if a person's complexion is lighter than arbad, he/she is abyad (white) and remember that arbad means between black and ghubra (dust colored) and remember that ghubra (dust colored) is also called a'afar and a'afar is considered a degree of abyad (white). This is why the Prophet's (SAWS) complexion was also described as a'afar. The hadith says:

" كأَني أَنظر إِلى عُفْرَتَيْ إِبْطَيْ رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم "

"It is as if I am looking now at the a’afar color of the armpits of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS)"

Quoting Abu Zaid and Al-Asma’ee, Ibn Mandhour says:

“A’afar is whiteness, but not extreme whiteness. It is like the color of the surface of the earth. It is mentioned in the hadith which says: ‘It is as if I am looking now at the a’afar color of the armpits of the Messenger of Allah (saws)’. From this word the ‘Afri Gazelles got their name - because their color is a’afar”.

قال ابن منظور:

أَبو زيد والأَصمعي: العُفْرَةُ بياض ولكن ليس بالبياض الناصع الشديد. ولكنه كلون عَفَر الأَرض و هو وجهها؛ ومنه الحديث: كأَني أَنظر إِلى عُفْرَتَيْ إِبْطَيْ رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم. ومنه قيل للظِّباء عُفْر إِذا كانت أَلوانها كذلك.

Here is a picture of an 'Afri gazelle (Dorcas gazelle):

http://www.seaworld.org/AnimalBytes/images/dorcas.jpg

If you saw a person today the color of this gazelle, what would you call him/her, black or white?

Save the True Arabs said...

Also, you mentioned in your response the hadith that says:

According to Sahih Bukhari Anas bin Malik (RA) reported that when a person inquired the companions about the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- they pointed towards him saying;

هَذَا الرَّجُلُ الأَبْيَضُ المُتَّكِئُ

"This white man (rajul al-abyad) reclining on his arm."

However, you failed to mention the fact that there is another version of the same hadith that says:


“While the Prophet (saws) was sitting with his companions, a nomad entered and said:

‘Which of you is the son of Abdel Muttalib (meaning the Prophet Mohamed (saws))?’


They said:

‘That man with an AMGHAR complexion who is reclining on his elbow …’

بينما النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مع أصحابه ، جاء رجل من أهل البادية ، قال : أيكم ابن عبدالمطلب ؟ قالوا : هذا الأمغر المرتفق ! قال حمزة [ راويه ] : الأمغر : الأبيض مشرب حمرة ، فقال إني سائلك فمشتد عليك في المسألة ! قال : سل عما بدا لك . قال أسألك بربك ورب من قبلك ، ورب من بعدك : آلله أرسلك ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فأنشدك به : آلله أمرك أن تصلي خمس صلوات ، في كل يوم وليلة ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فأنشدك به : آلله أمرك أن تأخذ من أموال أغنيائنا ، فترده على فقرائنا ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فأنشدك به : آلله أمرك أن تصوم هذا الشهر من اثني عشر شهرا ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فأنشدك به : آلله أمرك أن يحج هذا البيت من استطاع إليه سبيلا ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فإني آمنت وصدقت ، وأنا ضمام بن ثعلبة
الراوي: أبو هريرة المحدث: الألباني - المصدر: صحيح النسائي - الصفحة أو الرقم: 2093
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح


Amghar is another color that is classified as “white” by the Arabs. Ibn Mandhour says in Lisan Al-Arab:

“It is said that amghar is red, but not pure red. The hadith says: ‘A nomad entered to where the Prophet (saws) was and saw him with his companions and said:

‘Which of you is the son of Abdel Muttalib?’

And they said:

‘He is the amghar man who is reclining on his elbow.’

They meant by amghar, white complexioned. Red is also white. Ibn Al-Atheer said:

‘It means he is the red-skinned man reclining on his elbow. It (the word amghar) is taken from maghra, which is the red soil that is used for painting.’”

وقيل: المَغَرُ حمرة ليست بالخالصة. وفي الحديث: أَن أَعرابيّاً قدِم على النبي، صلى الله عليه وسلم، فرآه مع أَصحابه فقال: أَيُّكُم ابنُ عبد المطلب؟ فقالوا هو الأَمغرُ المرتَفِقُ؛ أَرادوا بالأَمغرِ الأَبيضَ الوجهِ، وكذلك الأَحمرُ هو الأَبيضُ؛ قال ابن الأَثير: معناه هو الأَحمرُ المتَّكِئُ على مِرْفَقِه، مأْخوذ من المَغْرَةِ، وهو هذا المدَرُ الأَحمرُ الذي يُصْبَغُ به.

Take a look at the color of maghra:

http://www.heritagemalta.org/museums/archaeologymalta/images/collection08.jpg

What would you call a person you saw today who had a complexion like this color of maghra, black or white? Maghra is taken from maghra, which is the red soil that is used for painting. Take a look at red soil here:

http://up.alriyadh1.com/files/7303.jpg

What would you call a person today who had a complexion like the color of this red soil, black or white?

Save the True Arabs said...

Do you understand the meaning of abyad now Waqar and JibreelK? Do you understand what red means here? Do you see the clear explanations given to you by the scholars of the past? Are you ready to stop playing games? Are you ready to stop being obstinate? Can't you see that abyad meant a dark complexion to the Arabs - a complexion close to the color asmar, which is an even darker color than abyad?

You said:

"Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not ‘asmar’ complexion and they are fifteen companions who explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him."

What you are failing to see or pretending to fail to see is the fact that the difference here (in the differing reports) is not what abyad means, but whether the Prophet (SAWS) was actually asmar or was he (SAWS) abyad. I've told you that asmar is a color even darker than abyad. So the disagreement is over whether he (SAWS) was abyad or asmar. The disagreement ISN'T OVER THE MEANING OF ABYAD. As I've shown you, abyad was a dark complexion near asmar, so it's normal for some to describe him (SAWS) as abyad and some to describe him (SAWS) as asmar. It makes perfect sense. However, if abyad had the meaning that you are pretending that it had, then some describing him (SAWS) as abyad and others describing him (SAWS) as asmar wouldn't make any sense and there would be a big contradiction in the two descriptions. Am I saying something difficult for you to understand???

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"He reports about the Messenger of Allah –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

وَلَيْسَ بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ

“And he was neither white as lime (abyad al-amhaq) , nor brown (adam).”[21]

it proves the complexion of the Holy Prophet –may Allah bless him- was far from being black in any shade for in that case there was no need to say it was not lime white - a sharp contrast to blackness."

First of all, the correct translation of "وَلَيْسَ بِالْأَبْيَضِ الْأَمْهَقِ وَلَا بِالْآدَمِ" would be:

"Not an unattractive bayaad (whiteness) and not very asmar"

Adam means very asmar. It doesn't mean simply asmar. So saying that he (SAWS) wasn't very asmar is not a contradiction to saying that he (SAWS) was asmar. Amhaq means a bayaad (whiteness) that is so light that it is unattractive. The hadiths that I mentioned above explain clearly what kind of bayaad (whiteness) he (SAWS) was.

You said:

"As regards the statement of our Imam, Abu Hanifa that “azhar” can relate to any complexion, it is true but while we are talking of a particular individual we need to keep other descriptions of him in mind."

Right. And the other descriptions confirm that Imam Abu Hanifa was correct when he said that azhar doesn't mean white, but a person could be described as azhar no matter what complexion he is. That's why you find Anas (RAA) describing the Prophet (SAWS) as asmar and at the same time describing him (SAWS) as azhar.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"As regards the meaning of “asmar”/”sumrah”, Ibn Mandhur (d. 711 A.H.) gives us the following definition;

َهُوَ لَوْنٌ يَضْرِبُ إِلى سَوَادٍ خَفِيٍّ

“It is the color that inclines towards hidden blackness (sawad khafiy).”[30]

This hits the bull’s eye and kills the idea of “asmar” referring to someone truly black. “Asmar” is very very slightly dark as if its blackness is hidden."

Your problem is that you have no idea what black means in "سَوَادٍ خَفِيٍّ". You said:

"In the same way al-Tha’alabi (d. 429 A.H.) writes;

إذا عَلاَهُ أَدْنَى سَوَادٍ فَهُوَ أسْمَرُ

“When his/her complexion is mixed with slight blackness (adna sawad), he/she is ‘asmar’.”[31]

So this clearly shows, “asmar” is a very slight shade of blackness, as if its blackness is hidden. "

Again, what do you mean by blackness? And remember that Al-Tha'aalabi wrote this in the section called "The Degrees of Blackness in Humans", so asmar is a degree of BLACKNESS. Al-Tha'aalabi says:

"Chapter 13 - The Degrees of Blackness in Humans


If there is a slight blackness in his/her complexion, he/she is asmar.

If his/her blackness is more intense with some yellow showing, he/she is asham (with Arabic letter saad) أصحم .

If his/her blackness is more intense than asmar, he/she is adam آدم.

If his/her blackness is more intense than that (adam آدم), he/she is asham (with Arabic letter seen) أسحم .

If he/she is is extremely black, he/she is adlam أدلم."










الفصل
الثالث عشر (في تَرْتِيبِ سَوَادِ الإنْسَانِ)


إذا
عَلاَهُ أَدْنَى سَوَادٍ فَهُوَ أسْمَرُ


فإنْ
زَادَ سَوَادُهُ مَعَ صُفْرَةٍ تَعْلُوهُ فَهُوَ أَصْحَمُ


فإنْ
زَادَ سَوَادُهُ عَلَى السُّمْرَةِ فَهُوَ آدَمُ


فإنْ
زَادَ عَلَى ذَلِكَ فَهُوَ أَسْحَمُ


فإنِ
اشْتَدَّ سَوَادُهُ فَهُوَ أدْلَمُ.

Remember that here we are talking about complexions darker than the abyad complexion that I mentioned above. Remember that the complexions a'afar and amghar, though they are dark complexions that are considered black today, are in the category of degrees of whiteness in Al-Tha'aalabi's Fiqh Al-Lugha. He mentioned these degrees of blackness after he mentioned the degrees of abyad.

Concerning what you said about what Al-Tabari said about the complexion of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia and your atempting to place doubts on the soundness of Al-Tabari's description, I inform you that Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi also described him as black-skinned in Al-'Ibar Fi Khabar Man Ghabar. Concerning other things that you said like Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia being black-skinned because of smallpox and other ridiculous statements, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to them.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Tariq Berry

Don't try to be smart.. read with open eyes

Meaning of "Abyad" ... read what we brought from scholars commenting on the narrations about the Prophet e.g.

///

“[It is] that whiteness (bayad) in which there is no radiance like leprosy that is not mixed with anything of redness (humrah)”[24]

So “bayad” if devoid of redness (humrah) is like leprosy. Is leprosy related to anything but simple plain pure whiteness?

Similarly al- Tha’alabi wrote:

إذا كَانَ الرَّجُل أبْيَض لا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيء مِنَ الحُمْرَةِ وَلَيْسَ بنَيِّرٍ ولكنَّهُ كَلَوْنِ الجِصّ فَهُوَ اَمْهَقُ

“When a man is “abyad” (in complexion) without anything of redness (humrah) and it is not radiant but is of the color of plaster/gypsum (al-jiss) then it is “amhaq”. [25]

Quite clear! When a person is white (abyad) without any mixture of redness or radiance in it then his complexion is like the color of plaster/gypsum, termed as “amhaq.” A shade of blackness does not become “amhaq” (i.e. like gypsum/plaster) if devoid of redness.

///

A shade of blackness does not become “amhaq” (i.e. like gypsum/plaster or leprosy) if devoid of redness.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Tariq Berry

You wrote:

//

You said:

"Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not ‘asmar’ complexion and they are fifteen companions who explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him."
//

Firstly this is not either of us, rather al-Iraqi the well known Muhaddith. And this is NOT complete quote... read it in full

It says the wording of that narration from Anas (RA) is ODD. and in this particular narration there is no contrast of "Asmar" and "Adam"

Also read what scholars said how Arabs understood "Asmar" ... "Asmar" itself referred to whiteness imbued with redness .... read what is quoted from al-Khattabi, al-Halabi and Ibn Hajr ...

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Tariq

Also you got to say if after reading the details we have given about Ali (RA), fadl bin Abbas, Shiite Imams etc., do you find yourself justified in alluding to their complexion in this discussion??

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

I have to step out of the house for a few hours. I'll respond to you when I return inshaAllah.

Waqar Akbar said...

@ Berry

You write

//
Concerning what you said about what Al-Tabari said about the complexion of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia and your atempting to place doubts on the soundness of Al-Tabari's description, I inform you that Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi also described him as black-skinned in Al-'Ibar Fi Khabar Man Ghabar. Concerning other things that you said like Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia being black-skinned because of smallpox and other ridiculous statements, I'm not even going to waste my time responding to them.
//

LOLZZZ .. I know you cannot understand that. You have no knowledge of how Muslims view and weigh the historical reports. Your mind starts and ends with finding blackness of people

1- Imam al-Dhahbi must have taken it from some earlier work as he himself was in times too late, and in that work we find no independent chain or authority. In early works its none other than al_tabari who brings this.

Tell me if you can contend this

2- Why is small pox thing ridiculous? Do small pox marks not make one look darker?

3- He was "adam". prophet (saaw) was not. So you make no sense in referring to him.

What about the hadith which shows even parents and children can have manifestly different complexion?

And by the way, before and After mentioning Nafs al-Zakiyya we wrote about many others as well. Won't you say about them?

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Don't try to be smart.. read with open eyes

Meaning of "Abyad" ... read what we brought from scholars commenting on the narrations about the Prophet e.g.

///

“[It is] that whiteness (bayad) in which there is no radiance like leprosy that is not mixed with anything of redness (humrah)”[24]

So “bayad” if devoid of redness (humrah) is like leprosy. Is leprosy related to anything but simple plain pure whiteness?

Similarly al- Tha’alabi wrote:

إذا كَانَ الرَّجُل أبْيَض لا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيء مِنَ الحُمْرَةِ وَلَيْسَ بنَيِّرٍ ولكنَّهُ كَلَوْنِ الجِصّ فَهُوَ اَمْهَقُ

“When a man is “abyad” (in complexion) without anything of redness (humrah) and it is not radiant but is of the color of plaster/gypsum (al-jiss) then it is “amhaq”. [25]

Quite clear! When a person is white (abyad) without any mixture of redness or radiance in it then his complexion is like the color of plaster/gypsum, termed as “amhaq.” A shade of blackness does not become “amhaq” (i.e. like gypsum/plaster) if devoid of redness.

///

A shade of blackness does not become “amhaq” (i.e. like gypsum/plaster or leprosy) if devoid of redness."

Waqar, you are not understanding at all. Al-Tha'aalabi explained to you all of the meanings of abyad. He started by giving you the normal meaning of abyad (white) and that is the complexion that you keep speaking about - amhaq. This is the abyad complexion (whiteness) that is considered unattractive. This is the meaning of al bayaad al amhaq, to distinguish it from the other bayaad (abyad complexion) which is considered attractive. Why are you ignoring the rest of Al-tha'aalabi's definition of abyad (white)??? Amongst these other abyad (white) complexions that Al-Tha'aalabi mentions are a'afar and aqhab. I've already shown you what a'afar complexion is like and I asked you if a person that complexion today is considered black or white, but you never answered me. Al-Tha'aalabi lists aqhab under an abyad (white) complexion. Do you know what aqhab complexion is like? Ibn Mandhour says:

“Aqhab is a color which inclines toward darkness (kudra) – white which inclines to black.”

قال ابن منظور: والأَقْهَبُ: ما كان لَوْنُه إِلى الكُدْرة مع البياض للسواد

Bear in mind that this word, aqhab, which is described as inclining to black is described as “white” by the Arabs of the past. Notice that Ibn Mandhour says that it is “whiteness which inclines to black”. This is further proof that what was meant by “white” to the Arabs of the past is not what is meant by white today. It is proof that when the Arabs of the past said “white”, they meant a dark color close to asmar and black. The complexion called white today cannot “incline to black”.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Also read what scholars said how Arabs understood "Asmar" ... "Asmar" itself referred to whiteness imbued with redness .... read what is quoted from al-Khattabi, al-Halabi and Ibn Hajr ..."

Waqar, the problem is that you don't understand what whiteness means nor do you understand what redness means. Please read everything that I've written carefully. This quote below from Al-Khattabi seems quite consistent with what I said earlier:

وفيه وجه آخر وهو أنه مُشرَبُ الحُمرة والحُمرةُ إذا أُشْبِعَت حَكَت سُمْرَة ويدُلّ عَلَى هذا المعنى قَولُ الواصِفِ له لم يكن بالأبيض الأمهق

"And on this matter there is another narration i.e. his complexion was imbued with redness. And when there is much redness (humrah) it is termed as 'sumrah' and this meaning is indicated to by his descriptor's words that he was not white as lime (abyad al-amhaq)."

Did you see the definition and explanation of maghra that I gave you earlier? Did you see the color of maghra? Can't you see how close this color is to asmar? Do you see the color of red soil? Do you see how close it is to the color asmar?

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"2.3.2 The narration of Anas is odd"

Odd how? What's odd about it? Imam Al-Tirmidhi didn't find it too odd to put in his book Al-Shamaail Al-Muhammadiya.

You said:

"آدم شديد الأدمة

“Adam Shadid al-Udma”, translated as; “very tawny complexioned” by Major S.H. Jarret"

I told you before that "very tawny complexioned" IS NOT the correct translation of shadid al-udma.

You said:

"Although narrations assert ‘Ali (RA) was relatively dark however a closer look clarifies he was not “shadid al-udma” in complexion. In fact not even purely “adam” but his complexion was “asmar”- “close to being ‘adam’”.
Al-Baladhuri (d. 279 A.H.) himself in Ansab al-Ashraf and before him Ibn Sa’d (d. 230 A.H.) in Kitab al-Tabqat al-Kabir give us an interesting narration;

Sa’id al-Dhabay said regarding ‘Ali (RA):

وَإِنَّ شِئْتَ قُلْتَ إِذَا نَظَرْتَ إِلَيْهِ: هُوَ آدَمُ، وَإِنِ تَبَيَّنْتَهُ مِنْ قَرِيبٍ قُلْتَ: أَنْ يَكُونَ أَسْمَرَ أَدْنَى مِنْ أَنَّ يَكُونَ آدَمَ

“And when you look at him you may say, “he is ‘adam’.” And if you clearly look at close, you may say, “ he is ‘asmar’ close to being ‘adam.’"

Why do you choose to leave what scholars say about the complexion of Ali ibn Abi Talib (RAA)and follow that hadith which is maqtou' instead. I really wonder why. Imam Al-Suyouti has given you the description of Ali's (RAA) complexion in his book Taarikh Al-Khulafaa. Imam Al-Suyuti described Ali ibn Abi Talib as follows:

و كان علي شيخا سمينا أصلع كثير الشعر ربعة إلى القصر عظيم البطن عظيم اللحية جدا قد ملأت ما بين منكبيه بيضاء كأنها قطن آدم شديد الأدمة

"Ali was a heavyset, bald, hairy man of average height which leaned toward shortness. He had a large stomach and a large beard which filled all that was between his shoulders. His beard was white as if it was cotton and he was a black-skinned man."

Ibn Abdel Barr says in Al-Istee'aab:

وسئل أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين عن صفة علي رضي الله عنه فقال: كان رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة، مقبل العينين عظيمهما ذا بطن
أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب.

"Abu Ja'afar Mohamed the son of Ali the son of Al-Husain was asked about the description of Ali ibn Abi Talib (RAA) and he said:

'He was an adam, very adam complexioned man with large eyes, a large belly, bald, and average height leaning toward shortness. He didn't dye his hair.'"

This Abu Ja'afar is Mohamed Al-Baqir the son of Ali Zein Al-Abidin the son of Al-Husain the son of Ali the son of Abi Talib. Here you have Ali's immediate family describing him as shadid al-udma. Why do you choose to ignore this? You don't like this description, do you? I wonder why.

You said:

"It is very important and interesting to note that while Wesley and Tariq refer to the complexion of so many people from amongst the progeny of the Prophet’s uncles, they do not mention the complexion of Hasan bin ‘Ali, his grandson well known to have resembled the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless them both.

Ibn Sabbagh records the following;

كان الحسن عليه السلام ابيض اللون مشرباً بحمرة

“Hasan –on him be peace- was fair in complexion (abyad al-lawn) with redness imbued (mushraban bi-humrah) in it.”"

Do I have to explain to you again what abyad means? And this translation of yours "fair in complexion" is incorrect because as I've shown, abyad was not a fair complexion to the Arabs of the past.

Also, Mohamed Al-Baqir, the eldest son of Ali Zein Al-Abidin and Fatima the daughter of Al-Hasan was nicknamed "He Who Resembles" because he looked so much like the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS). He was described as asmar complexioned, kinky-haired, and of average height.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Tariq

lemme tell you one thing first. I have debated the likes of you for many years and I know the ways you will try to seek to run away from real issues

What does "amhaq" mean?

Every single time you write of this, you try to take away from its scholarly definition and try to reduce it to much subjective "unattractiveness".

No doubt it is unattractive but as shown scholars have also said

Abu "ubaid Qasim bin Salam said about it

كلون الجّص أَو نَحوه

Similarly Ibn Abdul Barr said

كَأَنَّهُ الْبَرَصُ

And with this my question remains yet to be answered

*** Are you contending that a shade of blackness becomes “amhaq” i.e. like gypsum/plaster or leprosy if devoid of redness??

--

ON what scholars said about meaning of "asmar"

Try answering the above question and then re-read the following

Hafiz Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) discussing various narrations writes;

وَتَبَيَّنَ مِنْ مَجْمُوعِ الرِّوَايَاتِ أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالسُّمْرَةِ الْحُمْرَةُ الَّتِي تُخَالِطُ الْبَيَاضَ وَأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالْبَيَاضِ الْمُثْبَتِ مَا يُخَالِطُهُ الْحُمْرَةُ وَالْمَنْفِيُّ مَا لَا يُخَالِطُهُ وَهُوَ الَّذِي تَكْرَهُ الْعَرَبُ لَوْنَهُ وَتُسَمِّيهِ أَمْهَقَ

And it is evident from all the narrations taken collectively that “sumrah” means redness (humrah) mixed with whiteness (bayad). And the pleasing look of whiteness (bayad) is that in which redness (humrah) is mixed and the displeasing look is that in which it is not mixed. It is the color the Arabs dislike and call “amhaq”.[33]

This evidently maintains that “abyad” is such a color which if devoid of redness becomes “amhaq” i.e. like plaster/gypsum or leprosy. This shows it is but pure white and if the same is mixed with redness it is also termed as “sumrah” (or “asmar”). Therefore in the narrations about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- “asmar” and “sumrah” do not signify a shade of blackness but whiteness imbued with redness.

--

Earlier you wrote

// Your problem is that you have no idea what black means in "سَوَادٍ خَفِيٍّ". //

Very interesting! Will you like to explain the meaning of black here?

--

Again you are yet to have a word about other personalities discussed in our paper.

And as a "teaser" -as you my like to call it once again, let me tell u soon in-sha'Allah I'll expose you on the complexion of 'Umar bin Khattab (RA)as well

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Tariq

You write:

//Odd how? What's odd about it? Imam Al-Tirmidhi didn't find it too odd to put in his book Al-Shamaail Al-Muhammadiya.///

LOL.. i have to laugh, it shows how much learned are you in Islamic sciences

Read the statement of al-Iraqi, it explains what makes it odd. And we have shown how it even more odd than what al-Iraqi said

And do not every try to play with me saying so and so Scholar wrote it. There are narrations in Imam Trimidhi's works that have been graded extremely weak and by some even as fabricated.

Odd means something that is unique to someone and is against what is reported by others. its terrible to debate with someone who knows not even ABC of hadith sciences.

lolz about you saying that narration is maqtu'. even if so, did أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين see Ali (RA)?? the narration you use is no better

I have deflated your arguments on "abyad" ... time for work with me. will catch you soon.



Indeed Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Abu Al-Faraj ‘Ali bin Hussain al-Isfahani (d. 356 A.H.) has recorded the following about Fadl bin al-‘Abbas:

إنما أتاه السواد من قبل أمه : جدته ، وكانت حبشية

“Rather blackness reached him through his mother’s side. His grandmother was Abyssinian.”[51]

If Wesley and Tariq have a bit of honesty and objectivity left in them, they should cease to allude to complexion of Fadl bin Abbas after reading this categorical evidence.

And further Ibn ‘Asakir (d. 571 A.H.) gives us precise information on this, as he records;

ومن ولد عتبة بن أبي لهب الفضل بن العباس الشاعر وأمه آمنة بنت العباس بن عبد المطلب وهي لأم ولد سوداء

"And from the children of Utbah bin Abi Lahab was al-Fadl bin al-‘Abbas the poet and his mother was Aminah bint al-‘Abbas bin Abd al-Mutlib and she was (daughter) of a black umm-walad""

Who knows more about where Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas got his blackness from, Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas or Abu Al-Faraj Al-Asfahani??? Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas Al Lahabi was from the tribe of Quraish from his father's side of the family and his mother's side of the family. His mother was Amina the daughter of Abbas, who was the uncle of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH). So his mother was the Prophet's cousin. His great grandfather, Abi Lahab of course was the Prophet Mohamed's uncle. Al Fadl the son of Abbas the son of 'Utba the son of Abi Lahab the son of Abdel Muttalib the son of Haashim said:

"I am the green(black-skinned)one. I am well-known. My complexion is green (black). I am from the noble house of the Arabs. Whoever crosses swords with me will cross swords with one who is noble and strong.

"Verily the children of Abd Manaf (one of the ancestor's of the Prophet Mohamed's branch of Quraish) are jewels and the children of Abdel Muttalib (the grandfather of the Prophet Mohamed) embellished the jewels.

"We are a people whom Allah has built nobility for--above the noble houses of the Arabs. Through His Prophet and the Prophet's cousin (Ali ibn Abi Talib) and the Prophet's uncle Abbas the son of Abdel Muttalib."

Concerning these words of Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas ibn 'Utba ibn Abi Lahab, Ibn Mandour, of the 13th century AD, says in his well-known Arabic lexicon Lisan Al Arab, "He (Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas) says 'I am pure' because the color of the Arabs is dark". Ibn Mandour further says, "It is said that he (Al Fadl) meant that he is from the purest of the Arabs because most Arabs are black-skinned".

Ibn Berry, the well-known Arab grammarian of the 12th century AD, explains Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas's words by saying, "...He means by this that his genealogy is pure and that he is a pure Arab because the Arabs describe their color as black and they describe the color of the non-Arab Persians as red". Al-Mubarrad says, "What he means by 'I am the green one' is that he is the dark-skinned one - the black-skinned one. The Arabs used to take pride in dark skin - black skin and they used to despise light skin and they said that light skin is the color of the Persians."

READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY WAQAR AND JIBREELK.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Muhammad al-Nafs al-Zakiyya (d. 145 A.H.) was a noble descendant of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- who had a row with the rulers of his time and was subsequently martyred.

About him al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) records the following in his work on history;

كان محمد آدم شديد الأدمة، أدلم جسيما عظيما، وكان يلقب القاري من أدمته، حتى كان أبو جعفر يدعوه محمما

Wesley and Tariq both refer to this and Wesley translates it the following way in his article written using the “feedback” and “material contribution” of Tariq Berry;

“Muhammad (Al-Nafs al-Zakiyya) was black, exceedingly black, jet black (adam shadid al-udma adlam) and huge. He was nicknamed “Tar Face” (al-qari) because of his black complexion (udmatihi), such that Abu Jaffar used to call him “Charcoal Face” (al-muhammam).”[56]

Even withstanding his claim of “pure paternity, undiluted with non-Arab blood” it does not prove that Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- was also of the same complexion."

Who said that the Prophet (SAWS) was the same complexion as Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia?????

I ask you to show me a description of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia other than black-skinned. Am I asking too much? And bear in mind that his brothers were also described as black-skinned. Have you ever heard of his brother Musa Al-Jown? Do you know what al-jown means and why he was nicknamed al-jown? I don't think that you do. What's the description of his other brother Yahya? I bet you don't even know. And did they get their blackness from smallpox???

Save the True Arabs said...

you said:


"Odd means something that is unique to someone and is against what is reported by others. its terrible to debate with someone who knows not even ABC of hadith sciences."

Your choice of the word "odd" was a bad choice.

You said:

"
"

قال يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج المزي في كتابه تهذيب الكمال

وكان (عمر بن الخطاب (رضى الله عنه)) آدم شديد الأدمة طوالا كث اللحية أصلع أعسر يسر يخضب بالحناء والكتم...هكذا وصفه زر بن حبيش وغيره بأنه كان آدم شديد الأدمة وهو الأكثر عند أهل العلم بأيام الناس وسيرهم و أخبارهم

Yousef ibn Al-Zaki ibn Abdel Rahman Abu Al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi said in his book Tahdheeb Al-Kamaal:

"He (Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RAA) was shadid al-udma, tall, thick-bearded, bald, ambidextrous, and he dyed his hair with henna and katim...Zarr ibn Hubaish and others described him this way - they described him as shadid al-udma. This is the way that he was described by most scholars knowledgeable of the biographies and the stories of the people of the past and their news."

From your responses, it's clear to me that you aren't reading what I'm writing, so I'm not going to write anything else until you respond to my responses point by point. I don't have time for games. Look at everything that I wrote and respond point by point. and with proofs. Not with nonsense like "He must have gotten it from...".

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"And as a "teaser" -as you my like to call it once again, let me tell u soon in-sha'Allah I'll expose you on the complexion of 'Umar bin Khattab (RA)as well"

قال يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج المزي في كتابه تهذيب الكمال

وكان (عمر بن الخطاب (رضى الله عنه)) آدم شديد الأدمة طوالا كث اللحية أصلع أعسر يسر يخضب بالحناء والكتم...هكذا وصفه زر بن حبيش وغيره بأنه كان آدم شديد الأدمة وهو الأكثر عند أهل العلم بأيام الناس وسيرهم و أخبارهم

Yousef ibn Al-Zaki ibn Abdel Rahman Abu Al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi said in his book Tahdheeb Al-Kamaal:

"He (Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RAA) was shadid al-udma, tall, thick-bearded, bald, ambidextrous, and he dyed his hair with henna and katim...Zarr ibn Hubaish and others described him this way - they described him as shadid al-udma. This is the way that he was described by most scholars knowledgeable of the biographies and the stories of the people of the past and their news."

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Tariq

you say about fadl bin abbas

//Who knows more about where Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas got his blackness from, Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas or Abu Al-Faraj Al-Asfahani??? Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas Al Lahabi was from the tribe of Quraish from his father's side of the family and his mother's side of the family. His mother was Amina the daughter of Abbas, who was the uncle of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH). So his mother was the Prophet's cousin. His great grandfather, Abi Lahab of course was the Prophet Mohamed's uncle.//

How innocent! Or cunning? Who was his maternal grandmother?
Were you asleep when you read the two statements from al-asfahani and Ibn Asaakir?

Who was his maternal grandmother? Or do you mean to say grandmother could have not affected his genes?

Al-mubarrad did not say anything about fadl bin abbas being purely Arab from his mother's side as well. Do not put words in his mouth. neither did fadl himself challenge the fact of his grandmother being a slavewoman. (Btw, I'll expose you on the meaning of al-mubarrad's statement as well, sometimes soon in-sha'Allah)

al-Asfahani's contention is supported by the fact given by Ibn Asaakir. And this is further supported by the fact that his grandfather- Prophet's [saaw] uncle, Abu Lahab's description is much different than his.

I told you Berry, you cannot play these games with me!

--

On Nafs al-Zakiyya

I never challenged he was "adam"... and so may be anyone of his siblings but that won't prove anything or even give a hint to the prophet's complexion because of the very first hadith from Shamail al-Tirmidhi

His great grandfather Ali (RA) was close to being adam, but we know he did not resemble the Prophet [saaw]- something you don't wana address.

so Nafs al-Zakiyya does not matter at all, nor do his siblings. Berry you make no sense at all.

And yes indeed i do not know of his siblings' complexion because i never had any interest in that.

--

Regarding 'Umar (RA)

I can even give you another statement from otherwise a very learned scholar to make a contention, but I'll answer all that in the light of objective evidence through authentic narrations and simple reasoning.

Stay tuned! stay teased!

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar did you read what the scholars say is the reason Al-Fadl ibn Abbas said what he said? Let me show you again:

* Concerning these words of Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas ibn 'Utba ibn Abi Lahab, Ibn Mandour, of the 13th century AD, says in his well-known Arabic lexicon Lisan Al Arab, "He (Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas) says 'I am pure' because the color of the Arabs is dark". Ibn Mandour further says, "It is said that he (Al Fadl) meant that he is from the purest of the Arabs because most Arabs are black-skinned".

* Ibn Berry, the well-known Arab grammarian of the 12th century AD, explains Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas's words by saying, "...He means by this that his genealogy is pure and that he is a pure Arab because the Arabs describe their color as black and they describe the color of the non-Arab Persians as red".

* Al-Mubarrad says, "What he means by 'I am the green one' is that he is the dark-skinned one - the black-skinned one. The Arabs used to take pride in dark skin - black skin and they used to despise light skin and they said that light skin is the color of the Persians."

CAN YOU SEE THIS OR NOT? YOUR PREJUDICE IS BLINDING YOU WAQAR.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Regarding 'Umar (RA)

I can even give you another statement from otherwise a very learned scholar to make a contention, but I'll answer all that in the light of objective evidence through authentic narrations and simple reasoning.

Stay tuned! stay teased!"

Again you aren't reading what I am writing. Let me show you again:


قال يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج المزي في كتابه تهذيب الكمال

وكان (عمر بن الخطاب (رضى الله عنه)) آدم شديد الأدمة طوالا كث اللحية أصلع أعسر يسر يخضب بالحناء والكتم...هكذا وصفه زر بن حبيش وغيره بأنه كان آدم شديد الأدمة وهو الأكثر عند أهل العلم بأيام الناس وسيرهم و أخبارهم

Yousef ibn Al-Zaki ibn Abdel Rahman Abu Al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi said in his book Tahdheeb Al-Kamaal:

"He (Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RAA) was shadid al-udma, tall, thick-bearded, bald, ambidextrous, and he dyed his hair with henna and katim...Zarr ibn Hubaish and others described him this way - they described him as shadid al-udma. This is the way that he was described by most scholars knowledgeable of the biographies and the stories of the people of the past and their news."

Zarr ibn Hubaish and others described him this way - they described him as shadid al-udma. This is the way that he was described by most scholars knowledgeable of the biographies and the stories of the people of the past and their news.

Zarr ibn Hubaish and others described him this way - they described him as shadid al-udma. This is the way that he was described by most scholars knowledgeable of the biographies and the stories of the people of the past and their news.

Save the True Arabs said...

I WANT YOU TO STOP THIS NONSENSE AND ADDRESS WHA I WROTE ABOUT WHAT ABYAD MEANS. I MENTIONED A'AFAR, AQHAB, AMGHAR, ETC. I POSTED PICTURES OF WHAT THESE COLORS LOOK LIKE. I MENTIONED THE SCHOLARS DEFINITION OF ABYAD AND THE MEANING OF HILYA. I POSTED PICTURES OF PEOPLE HINTI COMPLEXIONED AND I POSTED A PICTURE OF WESLEY AND I ASKED YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. GO BACK TO THAT SECTION, READ EVERYTHING THAT I POSTED, AND RESPOND.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

My dear Berry

About Abyad the ball is in your court

Read the commentaries I brought to "abyad al-Amhaq" hadith and then answer one simple question

A YOU TELLING US THAT A SHADE OF BLACKNESS TURNS TO THE COLOR OF GYPSUM/PLASTER OR LEPROSY IF DEVOID OF REDNESS?

This was the argument raised in the original article. Try answer this!


--

REGARDING FADL BIN ABBAS

Just tell me one simple thing and I'll stop here. Was his maternal grandmother an Abyssinian or was she not? Bring me the evidence that he was not and I'll accept my mistake and will offer apology on the behalf of al-asfahani. done?

I repeat, WAS THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER OF FADL BIN ABBAS, THE POET, AN ABYSSINIAN OR NOT? If Not, who was she? Some facts please!

No matter what anyone says, such facts are never changed.

So no big deal, just answer the above. not that difficult I believe!

--

Regarding 'Umar (RA) ... I won't contend that description, will accept it in a context and still expose the fragility of your point.

And yes thanks, read that name time and again, Zarr ibn Hubaish; Zarr ibn Hubaish; Zarr ibn Hubaish (at least 10o times a day please until I share that narration)... the narration I'll bring will be on this authority alone ... for now stay teased :P

---

There are many things that you are running from, not answering ... I'll catch you on every single one of those .. remember I am not one of those simpletons on your forums that will say "great work" for every crap that you bring up ...

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

And hello mr. berry

do not ever dare to tell me "I want you to ..."

I am not prone to this tone. got it? certainly not from the likes of you

You will be chased, in-sha'Allah!

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Tariq Berry

Regarding the following narration about Ali (RA)

**********
وَإِنَّ شِئْتَ قُلْتَ إِذَا نَظَرْتَ إِلَيْهِ: هُوَ آدَمُ، وَإِنِ تَبَيَّنْتَهُ مِنْ قَرِيبٍ قُلْتَ: أَنْ يَكُونَ أَسْمَرَ أَدْنَى مِنْ أَنَّ يَكُونَ آدَمَ

“And when you look at him you may say, “he is ‘adam’.” And if you clearly look at close, you may say, “ he is ‘asmar’ close to being ‘adam.’"
***************

YOU SAID;

//
Why do you choose to leave what scholars say about the complexion of Ali ibn Abi Talib (RAA)and follow that hadith which is maqtou' instead.
///

**** MAY I KNOW HOW IS IT "MAQTOU""???

When i commented to it in the morning I was in a hurry for work, so I did not contend on this and just showed you the reality of the narration you quoted on the lines you criticized this report. And I know you won't reply to the fact I did show you about the narration your quoted ...

Now I ask to prove if the narration I quoted is actually "Maqtou"

here is the chain given by Muhammad Ibn Sa'd in Tabaqat al-Kubra

أَخْبَرَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ دُكَيْنٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا رِزَامُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ الضَّبِّيُّ قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يَنْعَتُ عَلِيًّا ...

About سَعِيدٍ الضَّبِّيُّ Imam Bukhari writes;

سَمِعَ عليا.

See Tarikh al-Kabir No. 1621, Da'ira al-Ma'arif al-Uthmania, Hyderbad Deccan n.d. vol.3 p.485

Rest of the links are well known to be valid.

You are caught once again!!!

Anonymous said...

Waqar Akbar Cheema,

During the course of this debate you have been very rude, insulting, and condescending in your language. I think you should reflect on the following:

O you who believe, do not let any people deride another people: who may be better than they are; nor let any women deride [other] women who may be better than they are. And do not defame one another, nor insult one another by nicknames. Evil is the name of immorality after faith! And whoever does not repent, those — they are the evildoers. [49:11]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) said: “No one will enter Paradise who has an atom’s-weight of arrogance in his heart.” (Narrated by Muslim)

Hell will say, “My share is the arrogant.” (Narrated by al-Bukhari & Muslim)

Yusuf al-Faruq

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"About Abyad the ball is in your court"

I just told you what abyad means and I gave you examples and now I want you to respond. And yes, I dare tell you what I want you to do. I want you to respond to what I said about what the scholars say that abyad means and I want you to stop trying to avoid this topic by trying to bring up other topics. That's what I want you to do.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"MAY I KNOW HOW IS IT "MAQTOU""???"

First of all, I have no problem with that description either because it also proves my point. My question to you is why do you choose this description of what all other descriptions of Ali (RAA) being shadid al-udma and the hadith where his own children described him as shadid al-udma and Imam Al-Suyouti describing him as shadid al-udma and Al-Tabaqaat also having the hadith that describes him as shadid al-udma. Why are you choosing this description over all of the others that say definitively that he was shadid al-udma??? You don't like the fact that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma, do you? The question is: why don't you??? You need to ask yourself that. But to answer your question, here's where it says that it is maqtou':

رقم الحديث: 2718
(حديث مقطوع) قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ دُكَيْنٍ ، قَالَ : أَخْبَرَنَا رِزَامُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ الضَّبِّيُّ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ أَبِي يَنْعَتُ عَلِيًّا ، قَالَ : " كَانَ رَجُلا فَوْقَ الرَّبْعَةِ ، ضَخْمَ الْمَنْكِبَيْنِ ، طَوِيلَ اللِّحْيَةِ ، وَإِنَّ شِئْتَ قُلْتَ إِذَا نَظَرْتَ إِلَيْهِ : هُوَ آدَمُ ، وَإِنِ تَبَيَّنْتَهُ مِنْ قَرِيبٍ قُلْتَ : أَنْ يَكُونَ أَسْمَرَ أَدْنَى مِنْ أَنَّ يَكُونَ آدَمَ " .

http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=82&pid=353449&hid=2718

Save the True Arabs said...

Correction:

My question to you is why do you choose this description of Ali (RAA) over all other descriptions of Ali (RAA) being shadid al-udma and over the hadith where his own children described him as shadid al-udma and over Imam Al-Suyouti's description of him as shadid al-udma and over the hadith in Al-Tabaqaat that also describes him as shadid al-udma.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"certainly not from the likes of you"

Tell me about the likes of me when you finish doing what I told you to do.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Read the commentaries I brought to "abyad al-Amhaq" hadith and then answer one simple question

A YOU TELLING US THAT A SHADE OF BLACKNESS TURNS TO THE COLOR OF GYPSUM/PLASTER OR LEPROSY IF DEVOID OF REDNESS?"

I said no such thing. It appears that you can't read Arabic. I said read the section of the degrees of abyad (white) in Al-Tha'aalabi's Fiqh Al-Lugha. If you can read Arabic, stop barking and sit down and read what I am telling you to read and read what I wrote above about what the Arabs of the past meant by an abyad complexion. And STOP TALKING ABOUT AMHAQ because it has already been established that the Prophet (SAWS) wasn't amhaq and he wasn't described as amhaq. Amhaq is a very light complexion that was considered unattractive by the Arabs of the past. I described to you above what the Arabs of the past meant by abyad (white). I told you what Imam Al-Dhahabi said. I told you what Al-Sheikh Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti said. I told you what Al-Tha'aalabi said. Go read what I wrote and respond to that and stop talking about amhaq. Amhaq is not our topic here.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"REGARDING FADL BIN ABBAS..."

I'll respond by asking you five questions:

1. Who has a more noble lineage Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas or you?

2. Who looks more like a pure Arab, Al-Fadl ibn Abbas with his extreme blackness or you?

3. Why didn't people open their mouths and dare suggest that he, with his extreme blackness, didn't look like a pure Arab when he said to them:

"I am the green (black-skinned) one. I am well-known. My complexion is green (black). I am from the noble house of the Arabs. Whoever crosses swords with me will cross swords with one who is noble and strong.

"Verily the children of Abd Manaf (one of the ancestor's of the Prophet Mohamed's branch of Quraish) are jewels and the children of Abdel Muttalib (the grandfather of the Prophet Mohamed) embellished the jewels.

"We are a people whom Allah has built nobility for--above the noble houses of the Arabs. Through His Prophet and the Prophet's cousin (Ali ibn Abi Talib) and the Prophet's uncle Abbas the son of Abdel Muttalib."

The people kept their mouths shut because they knew the reality of things. They knew what a true Arab looked like and they knew who Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas was. You too need to keep your mouth shut and have manners when talking about the family of the Prophet (SAWS).

4. Why would he say what he said if he thought that he got his black complexion from an Abyssinian grandmother??? Are you suggesting that he was crazy?

5. If Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas was black-skinned because of Abyssinian blood and not because of Arab blood, why did the scholars, who know what they are talking about, say the following:

Concerning these words of Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas ibn 'Utba ibn Abi Lahab, Ibn Mandour, of the 13th century AD, says in his well-known Arabic lexicon Lisan Al Arab, "He (Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas) says 'I am pure' because the color of the Arabs is dark". Ibn Mandour further says, "It is said that he (Al Fadl) meant that he is from the purest of the Arabs because most Arabs are black-skinned".

Ibn Berry, the well-known Arab grammarian of the 12th century AD, explains Al Fadl ibn Al Abbas's words by saying, "...He means by this that his genealogy is pure and that he is a pure Arab because the Arabs describe their color as black and they describe the color of the non-Arab Persians as red".

Al-Mubarrad says, "What he means by 'I am the green one' is that he is the dark-skinned one - the black-skinned one. The Arabs used to take pride in dark skin - black skin and they used to despise light skin and they said that light skin is the color of the Persians."

Whether Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas had an Abyssinian grandmother or not, he spoke about his black complexion to show that he was a noble Arab. What about Abdellah ibn Al-Abbas? He was Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas's uncle. Do you also think that Abdellah ibn Al-Abbas (RAA) was dark-skinned because of an Abyssinian grandmother too??? Ibn Abbas was described as dark-skinned and so was his son Ali ibn Abdellah ibn Al-Abbas. So stop trying to give the impression that Al-Fadl ibn Al-Abbas was dark-skinned because of an Abyssinian grandmother. Don't even try it.

Save the True Arabs said...

My response to Waqar and JibreelK:

http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=207

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Scholars of Hadith recognize this report as an odd one, and yet these people who have the obsession of dissipating their “truth” incessantly quote this and almost exclusively this one alone. This behavior itself says it all!"


Anas's hadith is a sound hadith. Your calling it odd shows that you either don't know what odd means or don't know what the Arabic word that you are translating as "odd" means or it just shows that you don't like the hadith and find it odd because you don't want the Prophet (SAWS) to be asmar. Anyway, as readers can see below, it is a sound hadith.

( صحيح )

وعنه قال : كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ربعة ليس بالطويل ولا بالقصير حسن الجسم وكان شعره ليس بجعد ولا سبط أسمر اللون إذا مشى يتكفأ


من مختصر الشمائل المحمدية
للإمام أبي عيسى محمد بن سورة الترمذي صاحب السنن
اختصار وتحقيق العلامة مجدد العصرمحمد ناصر الدين الألباني

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Mr. berry

--- ON ABYAD---

Its you who is responding to article co-authored by me. So how can you RESPOND to my article without answering the question raised therein?

I brought you one single question.

When e.g. Ibn Abdul Barr defines "amhaq" he says

الَّذِي بَيَاضُهُ لَا إِشْرَاقَ فِيهِ كَأَنَّهُ الْبَرَصُ لَا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيْءٌ مِنَ الْحُمْرَةِ

“[It is] that whiteness (bayad) in which there is no radiance like leprosy that is not mixed with anything of redness (humrah)

Clearly he is saying its "bayad" with no mixture of redness and looks like leprosy.

i.e. "bayad" when devoid of redness looks like leprosy

It leaves nothing ambiguous

tell me how you answer this and then we discuss anything else on this

-- REGARDING THE NARRATIONS ON THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) ---

Firstly its amazing that one who tends to give the impression of being a "scholar" "unearthing" great realities falls back to stray sites without any authority mentioned for what is given there. I know you have nothing to do with sciences of hadith

If that sites says about the narration I quoted that it is "maqtou", it says the very same about the one you brought

See here and enjoy
http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=82&pid=353449&hid=2719

However I see them using the term "maqtou" for every narration that ends with a Tabi'i no matter what its status, and which is actually right .. maqtou is graded dubious in matters related to aqeedah or of juristic importance, under certain conditions

And while I have shown you that سَعِيدٍ الضَّبِّيُّ did meet Ali (RA), the final narrator in the narration you brought i.e. أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين obviously did not even see Ali (RA). he was born in the year 56 (A.H.) long after the martyrdom of Sayyidina Ali (RA).

The narration you use is even "munqata" And muntaqa' is certainly a spurious narration. Do not cry that al-Suyuti quoted it. there are even much more weaker narrations in his works

SO which narration is more authoritative??

And do not ever tell me that the narration i brought is not well known. it might not be well known to you or your readers.

Besides Ibn Sa'd, it is given by al-Baladhuri, Abu Nai'm al-Asfahani, Ibn Asaakir and Ibn Athir at least

ALSO WILL YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE HADITH WHICH SHOWS EVEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN CAN HAVE MANIFESTLY DIFFERENT COMPLEXIONS.

AND ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT ALI (RA) DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

---

ABOUT FADL BIN ABBAS

I see you injured and hurt on being exposed big time

al-Asbahani was no less of an authority and his assertion is based on solid facts. or is only that anyone who helps expose you is not worthy of consideration?

unless you can show that his maternal grandmother was NOT an Abyssinian you make no point at all..

Why do you leave out reading Abu Lahab's description and that of Fadl bin Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib..

and indeed you are still to answer my questions i repeated above as to what you say about the hadith that tells us even parents and children can have manifestly different complexions ... regarding all these other individuals our sole objective is to show people your real face - cunning indeed!

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

-- REGARDING THE ASMAR NARRATIONS ---

///
Anas's hadith is a sound hadith. Your calling it odd shows that you either don't know what odd means or don't know what the Arabic word that you are translating as "odd" means or it just shows that you don't like the hadith and find it odd because you don't want the Prophet (SAWS) to be asmar.
///

LOLS ... do not ever think you can teach me a bit of hadith scienes. i can tell you, you must not ever heard the word hadith as many times i have dwelt on checking the details of authenticity of hadith narrations- Alhamdulillah

the narration simply put is "shaadh"

and here is what Ibn Salah wrote about "shaadh" hadith

“… the anomalous (shaadh) hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith p.57)

Isnaad of "shaad" narration is otherwise "sahih" but it remains anomalous

And read what hafiz al-Iraqi said

وَقَالَ الْعِرَاقِيُّ: هَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةُ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا حُمَيْدٌ عَنْ أَنَسٍ وَرَوَاهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ عَنْهُ بِلَفْظِ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ نَظَرْنَا إِلَى مَنْ رَوَى صِفَةَ لَوْنِهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم غَيْرَ أَنَسٍ فَكُلُّهُمْ وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا

Also note

وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ

you get الْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ

You wana challenge what hafiz al-Iraqi wrote, show us the narration where the same is reported from other than Humayd through Anas (RA) ....

Our aim was to break the ice which I am sure we have done. Allah choose us to expose you.

Berry, we'll obviously not give you undue importance and wont kill much of our time with you but as and when we do chase you, remember your "hey days" are over, in-sha'Allah!

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ tariq

You show your worth

//stop barking//

Alhamdulillah, nothing but an evidence that the game player is annoyed for being exposed!

إِنَّا إِذَا نَزَلْنَا بِسَاحَةِ قَوْمٍ فَسَاءَ صَبَاحُ المُنْذَرِينَ

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

What did I tell you I want you to do? And you didn't answer the five questions that I asked you. And you said here:

"And while I have shown you that سَعِيدٍ الضَّبِّيُّ did meet Ali (RA), the final narrator in the narration you brought i.e. أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين obviously did not even see Ali (RA). he was born in the year 56 (A.H.) long after the martyrdom of Sayyidina Ali (RA)."

Are you suggesting that Sa'eed Al-Dabbi knows what Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) looked like more than Ali ibn Abi Taalib's children??? What are you talking about???

You said:

"SO which narration is more authoritative??"

The one that says that Ali (RAA) was shadid al-udma because it is the one that scholars use like Imam Al-Suyouti and Ibn Abdel Barr and it is the way that Ali's children described him. That's enough for me and for any rationally thinking person not afflicted with the disease of satanic racism. But if you prefer the description that says that if you examined him (RAA) really closely, you will find that he is closer to asmar than to adam, that's find too because it also proves my point. But wait a minute... earlier, you said that adam means asmar, so you have a little more explaining to do.

Concerning the hadith that says that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar, do you accept the fact that it is a sound hadith? Yes or no?

You said:

"Also note

وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ

you get الْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ"

Yes, I get it but you don't. And the calamity is that you don't realize that you don't get it. You don't know what you are talking about and you don't realize that you don't know what you are talking about.

I want you to go and read what I told you to read and respond to it point by point. Why are you afraid to do this?

And explain to me and everyone else what it is that you are exposing besides your ignorance. But first go do what I told you to do.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Berry

-- COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA)----

Look above your shoulder, it seems you got your head missing

I AM TELLING YOU THAT A PERSON WHO MET AND SAW SAYYIDINA ALI (RA) CERTAINLY KNEW HIS APPEARANCE BETTER THAN A PERSON WHO WAS BORN SOME 16 YEARS AFTER HIS DEMISE. NEED I REITERATE WE ARE TALKING OF HIS PHYSICAL APPEARANCE NOT SOME FAMILY SECRETS?

Do not abuse common sense!!

By the way you were the one decided to question the authenticity of the narrations on this issue. You axed yourself! I am grateful!

To me it does not matter what his complexion was, I am just showing you, your arguments are very very weak. I never hated any description of his complexion, and just as I said it was none other than yourself who got shocked to see a description of him showing him lighter than what you wish people to know. If it comes down to it, it means you hated any lighter description of him and you have now decided to hesitantly accept seeing that you cannot run away

YOU ARE YET TO SAY ABOUT THE EVIDENCE ALI (RA) DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET (SAAW)

ALSO THE NARRATION THAT SAYS EVEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN CAN HAVE MARKEDLY DIFFERENT COMPLEXIONS.

HOW THEN YOU FIND YOURSELF JUSTIFIED IN ALLUDING TO THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS PROGENY TO ASSERT ABOUT THAT OF THE HOLY PROPHET (SAAW)?



You are also yet to say why dont you tell people the fact that many from family of the prophet [saaw]- i.e. grandchildren of Ali [ra] who were black were actually born to black slave-women and just read what is quoted form al-Safdi about Ali al-Rida in our paper

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Before discussing the case of various individuals let us turn to hadith, a divine source, to find out if complexion of a son must be same as that of his father?

There is a very interesting Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and other collections that put to sword the whole rant of Wesley and Tariq on this.

The wording in Sahih Muslim is;

عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ أَعْرَابِيًّا أَتَى رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَقَالَ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، إِنَّ امْرَأَتِي وَلَدَتْ غُلَامًا أَسْوَدَ، وَإِنِّي أَنْكَرْتُهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «هَلْ لَكَ مِنْ إِبِلٍ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ: «مَا أَلْوَانُهَا؟» قَالَ: حُمْرٌ، قَالَ: «فَهَلْ فِيهَا مِنْ أَوْرَقَ؟» قَالَ: نَعَمْ، قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «فَأَنَّى هُوَ؟» قَالَ: لَعَلَّهُ يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ يَكُونُ نَزَعَهُ عِرْقٌ لَهُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «وَهَذَا لَعَلَّهُ يَكُونُ نَزَعَهُ عِرْقٌ لَهُ» ،

Abu Hurayrah reported: A desert Arab came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: My wife has given birth to a dark-complexioned child and I have disowned him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Have you any camels? He said: Yes. He said: What is their colour? He said? They are red. He said: Is there anyone dusky among them? He said: Yes. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: How has it come about? He said: Messenger of Allah, it is perhaps due to the strain to which it has reverted, whereupon the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: It (the birth) of the black child may be due to the strain to which he (the child) might have reverted.[45]
The same is reported by Ibn ‘Umar –may Allah be pleased with him- in Sunan Ibn Majah and there the narration adds that the man even said;

وَإِنَّا أَهْلُ بَيْتٍ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِينَا أَسْوَدُ قَطُّ

“And in our family there is no one black at all.”[46]

This is categorical evidence that to a couple neither of whom is black and who have no black person in their entire family, a black child may be born. If this can happen between a child and his parents, why can this not happen between cousins or persons generations apart? "

First of all, the hadith says that the man said that his wife gave birth to a black-skinned child, not "dark-skinned" as you wrote. And he said this because neither he nor his wife was black-skinned. This is black-skinned:

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297710_10150317243678668_641228667_8229285_290281176_n.jpg


The problem is that you don't understand that the man and his wife could very well have been this person's complexion:

http://www.gpb.org/files/national/TavisSmiley-NationalProduction.jpg

You are understanding the hadith completely wrong because you have a wrong understanding of what the Arabs of the past looked like.

I really don't understand your point in mentioning this hadith. Is it because Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia was black-skinned??? But Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia is a descendant of Ali ibn Abi Taalib and Ali ibn Abi Taalib was also shadid al-udma, so what is your point??? Are you mentioning this to prove that the Prophet (SAWS) wasn't the same complexion as Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia and Ali (RAA)? I never said that he was. So what is your point??? I'm not the same complexion as some of my cousins either, but we all have Arab complexions. There are many prople that you call blacks today who don't have anyone in there family at all the complexion of the black-skinned person I posted above.

Do you understand what Miskeen Al-Darimi meant when he said:

لوني السمرة ألوان العرب

"My complexion is asmar - the complexions of the Arabs."

Notice that he used the word complexion in the plural to show that there are different degrees of asmar. Also bear in mind that he was described as black-skinned. Waqar, you have a lot to learn about the appearance of the Arabs of the past.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"To me it does not matter what his complexion was, I am just showing you, your arguments are very very weak. I never hated any description of his complexion, and just as I said it was none other than yourself who got shocked to see a description of him showing him lighter than what you wish people to know. If it comes down to it, it means you hated any lighter description of him and you have now decided to hesitantly accept seeing that you cannot run away"

Do you actually believe that that description is something new to me??? And explain to me why you feel that Sa'eed Al-Dabbi can describe Ali better than Mohamed Al-Baqir the son of Ali Zein Al-Abidin the son of Al-Husein the son of Ali ibn Abi Taalib? And I think you need to read more about Mohamed Al-Baqir to know who he is and how reliable and knowlegeable he was. Apparently you don't know, but the people of knowledge know. That's why when the describe Ali, they say that he was shadid al-udma. And where do you think that this knowledgeable and reliable Imam Mohamed Al-Baqir got his knowledge of what Ali ibn Abi Talib looked like??? Waqar, do you believe Mohamed Al-Baqir when he tells you that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma? If not, why don't you believe him. I BELIEVE HIM. DO YOU?

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"You are also yet to say why dont you tell people the fact that many from family of the prophet [saaw]- i.e. grandchildren of Ali [ra] who were black were actually born to black slave-women and just read what is quoted form al-Safdi about Ali al-Rida in our paper"

I mentioned to you Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia and he was black-skinned and he WAS NOT a descendant of a black slave-woman. He was nicknamed the Pure-Blooded Quraishi because no non-Arab blood ran through him. He said:

"We are in the right...Our father Ali was the Imam (leader). How did you inherit the rule which belongs to the children of Ali?! You know that no one who seeks this position (ruler) has a purer genealogy than I do or is more highborn than I am...You know that no one has as close relations or relations to anyone better than he whom I am very closely related to (He means the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS)). I am from the best of Banu Hashim in genealogy and the noblest of them both paternally and maternally. NO NON-ARAB BLOOD RUNS THROUGH MY VEINS!"

Save the True Arabs said...

I see that you are using Ibn Abdel Barr as a reference. You said:

"Ibn Abdul Barr (d. 463 A.H.) explains “amhaq al-abyad” saying;

الَّذِي بَيَاضُهُ لَا إِشْرَاقَ فِيهِ كَأَنَّهُ الْبَرَصُ لَا يُخَالِطُهُ شَيْءٌ مِنَ الْحُمْرَةِ

“[It is] that whiteness (bayad) in which there is no radiance like leprosy that is not mixed with anything of redness (humrah)”"

Ibn Abdel Barr also said:

سئل أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين عن صفة علي رضي الله عنه فقال: كان رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة، مقبل العينين عظيمهما ذا بطن
أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

"Abu Ja'afar Mohamed (Al-Baqir) the son of Ali (Zein Al-Abidin) the son of Al-Husein (the son of Ali ibn Abi Taalib)was asked about the description of Ali (RAA) and he said:

'He was a shadid al-udma complexioned man with large eyes, a large belly, bald, average height leaning toward shortness, and he didn't use dye.'"

Do you accept this description of Ali (RAA) that Ibn Abdel Barr used?

Concerning what Ibn Abdel Barr says about amhaq, he described it as a complexion with no redness in it like leprosy. Look at the picture below and observe that the picture on the left shows the girl without leprosy and the picture on the right shows the girl with leprosy. A complexion like the picture on the right is what the Arab considered an unattractive whiteness. They called it bayaad al-amhaq to distinguish it from the other dark colored bayaad which they considered attractive. Here is the picture of the girl without leprosy and with leprosy:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/2020/Desiree_Vitiligo_080327_ms.jpg

We all agree that the Prophet (SAWS) WAS NOT al-bayaad al-amhaq, so he was not the complexion the girl has on the right. OK? Are you following me? Now look here to see what the Arabs of the past meant by abyad - not bayad al-amhaq, but the praiseworthy bayaad (whiteness), as it was called by the Arabs of the past. Read this very carefully and look at the pictures very carefully:

http://savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=207

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"This quote about Al-Nafs Al-Zakiyya is a solitary report of al-Tabari. And scholars have mentioned the weakness of it. "

Show us where a scholar said that what Al-Tabari said here is weak:

Al-Tabari says:

كان محمد آدم شديد الأدمة، أدلم جسيما عظيما، وكان يلقب القاري من أدمته، حتى كان أبو جعفر يدعوه محمما

"Mohamed (Al-Nafs Al-Zakia) was tall, jet-black-skinned and huge. He was nick-named The Bituminous because of his blackness and Abu Ja'afar Al-Mansour used to call him Charcoal".

Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi, the Historian of Islam, describes Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia this way in his book Siyar A'alaam Al-Nubalaa:

وكان محمد أسود جسيما فيه تمتمة

"Mohamed was black-skinned, huge, and he stuttered."

Al-Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi describes Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia this way in his book Al-'Ibar Fi Khabar Man Ghabar:

وكان شديد الأدمة ضخمًا فيه تمتمة

"He (Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia) was shadid al-udma, huge, and he stuttered."

Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia's brother Musa Al-Jown was also black-skinned. That's why he was nicknamed Al-Jown, which means The Black-Skinned.

Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia's other brother Yahya was also adam complexioned.

So show us where and how someone said that there is a problem with what Al-Tabari said here:

كان محمد آدم شديد الأدمة، أدلم جسيما عظيما، وكان يلقب القاري من أدمته، حتى كان أبو جعفر يدعوه محمما

"Mohamed (Al-Nafs Al-Zakia) was tall, jet-black-skinned and huge. He was nick-named The Bituminous because of his blackness and Abu Ja'afar Al-Mansour used to call him Charcoal".

Save the True Arabs said...

READ THIS AND RESPOND TO IT POINT BY POINT:

http://savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=207

Jibreelk said...

Ok - first thing first
We do not insult anyone who is not worth it. Tarik has lied that he does not help Wesley. He helps Wesley and Wesley is very thankful to him. Read his articles in which he thanks him. Wesley is trying to promote an idea not only that Muhammad sas is black but that Alalh is black.
You deserve to be insulted if you every claim that.
Now stick to the points of the debate. You still did not respond to anything.
We have used ahadith and clear evidence and Tarik is still trying to tell us that we have nothing.
But he did not show anything yet.
Watch the next post please
I have found something interesting in one of the books

Jibreelk said...

Tarik listen here - you are in no position to make rules here - you did not respond to the points we have raised. You might think you did... but you did not .
Listen - we have asked you to apply very simple logic since you cannot accept the mutawatir ahadith and their clear texts that the prophet sas is described as white imbued with redness, how can you have black imbued with redness? A black person has a hard time even blessing, how about his complexion being described as dark or very dark imbued with redness?

Jibreelk said...

Tarik - you have shot many arrows I said this before but none hit the target. You did not prove directly even close, that prophet Muhammad was black. We have engaged your profs and Wesley's to show your distortions. Read our article clear.

Show us your proof man what's up

Jibreelk said...

One of our shuyukh was reading a story from Matlaih al budur fi manazil al surur by Ali ibn AbdiAllah al Ghuzuli Al Dimashqi

He says a story of a man that was related by Shujaudin Muhammad al Shirzi who was minister of Kahira at that point in the year 603 Hijrah.

He said - These kids of yours are all white - bayd - where as you are quite brown (sumrah)
Now if we read the context you might say well bayd here means addad so it means black but read man -
you see sumrah is there bayd is there and the two contrast - he is tilling the guy you are brown but you kids are white

It does not make sense to say YOUR KIDS ARE BLACK AND YOU ARE BROWN - it did would not incite the person to know why?

than he goes on to tell the story as to why his kids are white and he is brown.

The lady he married was a FRANGIA - she was a woman who was white and their kids became white
Now you might say that OOOOOO ONOOO THIS IS A DISTORTION - THE PERSIANS ARE CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE WORDS - BAYDAH MEANS BLACK ACTUALLY

BUT YOU ARE lying to yourself - the guy who is saying the story is brown himself

This is just a small simple of a story - WE HAVE PROVED BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT FROM AUTHENTIC AHADITH THAT THE PROPHET SAS is described as white imbued with redness

We have showed the hadith of the black turban contrasted to his white skin - when asking Aysha

I mean very simple evidence and you cannot comprehend ? WELL we don't really expect you to anyway

Now I would like to show you something Tarik - self righteous person - in one of our first discussions you have said that you don't help Wesley - try to make me look bad for accusing you of helping him in his evil scheme. But you do ... you tried to put me on the spot and quote verses about suspicion and blah blah...
but the reality is you are helping him to spread not only the false notion that Muhamamd is black but by doing so you are strengthening his argument and giving him credibility in his MAIN ARGUMENT AS WE ALL KNOW THAT ALLAH we seek refuge is a BLACK MAN A BLACK GOD. you can all read his THE SADOW OF GOD http://drwesleywilliams.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Sapphiric_Part_I.187113017.pdf

The shadow of God ??????? O YES YOU HEARD RIGHT - THIS GUY IS REALLY GONE

Here is what Wesley says in his paper WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO YOU
 I would like to thank Dana Marniche and Tariq Berry for their invaluable feedback and material contributions to this paper.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Tarik - you have shot many arrows I said this before but none hit the target. You did not prove directly even close, that prophet Muhammad was black."

First of all, let me make it clear to everyone that I never said that the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS) was black. This is black:

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297710_10150317243678668_641228667_8229285_290281176_n.jpg

http://sports.maktoob.com/imgs/News/106455/Feature.jpg

The above pictures are examples of black-skinned and I never said that the Prophet (SAWS) was black-skinned and you know this very well. You are just trying to change the subject and play dumb and pretend that you don't see what I am explaining to you about what the Arabs of the past meant by abyad (white).

What you are well aware of is the fact that I said that when the Arabs of the past described each other as abyad (white), they meant a color that is considered black today. Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi, Al-Tha'alabi, and Al-Sheikh Al-Minhaaji Al-Souyouti gave clear explanations of what the Arabs of the past meant by abyad (white), so there is no need for me to keep arguing back and forth with you and Waqar. You two refuse to respond to what they have said and frankly speaking I don't know why I am wasting my time with you two and asking you two to respond as if your response makes a difference. You two are not scholars nor are you anywhere near being scholars, so what sort of responses should I expect from you two? Your responses and opinions are irrelevant. The scholars have spoken and what I am doing here is trying to inform people of the truth about what the scholars have said that abyad (white) means. Here is what the scholars have said:

Save the True Arabs said...

This is what Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi said:

إن العرب إذا قالت : فلان أبيض ، فإنهم يريدون الحنطي اللون بحلية سوداء

"Verily, when the Arabs said that so-and-so was abyad (white), they meant that he had a hinti complexion with a black hilya."

A hinti complexion in itself is not a light complexion, let alone if you add a black hilya to it.

These people are simply hinti complexioned:

http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/images/quso1.jpe

http://www.alriyadh.com/2010/04/13/img/513193034297.jpg

At the beginning of his response Waqar said:

"Was Muhammad pbuh a black man (black as African, black as Wesley")

I suppose that it's safe for me to understand from this statement of his that he considers Wesley "black", so I ask you to compare this picture below of Wesley to the two pictures of the hinti complexioned men above and tell me who is darker or whether they are the same complexion in your opinion:

http://drwesleywilliams.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Wes2.3184708.jpg

Remember that the people in the picture above are simply hinti complexioned and remember that abyad means hinti complexioned with a black hilya, so abyad is darker than hinti complexioned. In Waqar's statement above where he called Wesley black, he admitted that abyad means black today. Right?

As I explained to you earlier, Ibn Mandhour says in Lisan Al-Arab that the hilya of a person is what is apparent in his/her color or appearance. Ibn Mandhour describes hilya (حلية) as:

والحلية هي ما يرى من لون الشخص وظاهرهِ وهيئتهِ

"A hilya is what is apparent in a person's color and his/her appearance and form."

Therefore a person with a black hilya has a black appearance and people described as abyad (white) by the Arabs of the past had a black hilya, so they had a black appearance.

َHilya is also described by Ibn Mandhour in Lisaan Al-Arab as:

قال ابن منظور في لسان العرب:

"والحِلْيَةُ الخِلْقة. والحِلْيَةُ: الصفة والصُّورة. والتَّحْلِيةُ: الوَصْف. وتَحَلاَّه: عَرَفَ صِفَته. والحلْية: تَحْلِيَتُك وجهَ الرجلِ إذا وصَفْته."

"Hilya is the outward appearance, the description, the image. "Tahallaahu" means he knew his description. "Tahliyatuka" the face of a man is said if you described him."

Look at how Al-Mubarrad uses the word hilya here in his book Al-Muqtadab:

فأما النعت فمثل: الطويل، والقصير، والصغير، والعاقل، والأحمق، فهذه كلها نعوتٌ جارية على أفعالها: لأن معنى الجاهل: المعروف بأنه يجهل، والطويل: المعروف بأنه طال. فكل ما كان من هذا فعلاً له أو فعلاً فيه فقد صار حلية له

"Concerning adjectives, words like tall, short, small, intelligent, stupid are all descriptions in accordance with their verbs because the meaning of ignorant is that the person is known to be ignorant (يجهل is verb for ignorant), the meaning of tall is that the person is known be tall (طال is verb for tall). So all of these descriptions are verbs that he has or verbs that are in him and they have become his hilya."

Save the True Arabs said...

That's Imam Al-Dhahabi's explanation of what the Arabs meant by abyad (white). Is it clear to you? Itis not something difficult to understand.

Al-Shaikh Mohamed ibn Ahmed ibn Ali ibn Abdel Khaliq Shams Al-Din Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti gives an extremely precise explanation of the different complexions in humans in his book Jawaahir Al-Uqoud wa Mu’een Al-Qudaa wa Al-Mowqi’een wa Al-Shuhoud. Here's part of what he said:

“Complexions

If a person if very black-skinned, his complexion is called haalik.

If a person’s blackness is mixed with red, his complexion is called daghmaan.

If a person’s complexion is lighter than that, his complexion is called
as-hamm.

If a person’s blackness is mixed with yellow, his complexion is called as-hamm (with saad).

IF THERE IS DARKNESS (KUDRA) IN HIS COMPLEXION, HIS COMPLEXION IS CALLED ARBAD.

IF A PERSON'S COMPLEXION IS LIGHTER THAN THAT, HIS COMPLEXION IS CALLED ABYAD.

If a person’s complexion has less yellow and inclines more towards black, his complexion is called adam.

إذا كان الرجل شديد السواد

قيل: حالك.

فإن خالط سواده حمرة

قيل: دغمان.

فإن صفا لونه

قيل: أسحم.

فإن خالط السواد صفرا

قيل: أصحم.

فإن كدر لونه

قيل: أربد.

فإن صفا عن ذلك

قيل : أبيض.

فإن رقت الصفرة، ومال إلى السواد

قيل: آدمي اللون

So abyad is described here as a complexion lighter than arbad. What is arbad? Ibn Mandhour says in Lisan Al-Arab:

"الربدة لون بين السواد والغبرة"

"Arbad complexion is a complexion between black and ghubra (dust-colored)"

Black means black and ghubra means dust-colored. This horse is considered dust colored:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9jr7tboJTaE/TCypU7ypRMI/AAAAAAAAAIc/t4yGHmgBtgA/s1600/Sammy.jpg

Save the True Arabs said...

That's Al-Sheikh Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti's explanation of what the Arabs meant by abyad (white). Is it clear to you? It is not something difficult to understand.

Now let's look at how Al-Tha'alabi describes abyad (white) in his book Fiqh Al-Lugha:

Imam Abu Mansour al-Tha'alabi says:

”Chapter Three

A Detailed Explanation of the Meaning of White

If a person’s complexion has ghubra (dust colored), his complexion is called a’afar or aghthar.”

فإنْ عَلَتْهُ غُبْرة فهو أعْفَر واغْثَرُ


So a'afar complexioned was considered white to the Arabs of the past. And Al-Sheikh Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti says that if a person's complexion is lighter than arbad, he/she is abyad (white) and remember that arbad means between black and ghubra (dust colored) and remember that ghubra (dust colored) is also called a'afar and a'afar is considered a degree of abyad (white). This is why the Prophet's (SAWS) complexion was also described as a'afar. The hadith says:

" كأَني أَنظر إِلى عُفْرَتَيْ إِبْطَيْ رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم "

"It is as if I am looking now at the a’afar color of the armpits of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS)"

Quoting Abu Zaid and Al-Asma’ee, Ibn Mandhour says:

“A’afar is whiteness, but not extreme whiteness. It is like the color of the surface of the earth. It is mentioned in the hadith which says: ‘It is as if I am looking now at the a’afar color of the armpits of the Messenger of Allah (saws)’. From this word the ‘Afri Gazelles got their name - because their color is a’afar”.

قال ابن منظور:

أَبو زيد والأَصمعي: العُفْرَةُ بياض ولكن ليس بالبياض الناصع الشديد. ولكنه كلون عَفَر الأَرض و هو وجهها؛ ومنه الحديث: كأَني أَنظر إِلى عُفْرَتَيْ إِبْطَيْ رسول الله، صلى الله عليه وسلم. ومنه قيل للظِّباء عُفْر إِذا كانت أَلوانها كذلك.

Here is a picture of an 'Afri gazelle (Dorcas gazelle):

http://www.seaworld.org/AnimalBytes/images/dorcas.jpg

Save the True Arabs said...

If you saw a person today the color of this gazelle, what would you call him/her, black or white?

Waqar mentioned in his response the hadith that says:

According to Sahih Bukhari Anas bin Malik (RA) reported that when a person inquired the companions about the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- they pointed towards him saying;

هَذَا الرَّجُلُ الأَبْيَضُ المُتَّكِئُ

"This white man (rajul al-abyad) reclining on his arm."

However, he failed to mention the fact that there is another version of the same hadith that says:

“While the Prophet (saws) was sitting with his companions, a nomad entered and said:

‘Which of you is the son of Abdel Muttalib (meaning the Prophet Mohamed (saws))?’

They said:

‘That man with an AMGHAR complexion who is reclining on his elbow …’

بينما النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مع أصحابه ، جاء رجل من أهل البادية ، قال : أيكم ابن عبدالمطلب ؟ قالوا : هذا الأمغر المرتفق ! قال حمزة [ راويه ] : الأمغر : الأبيض مشرب حمرة ، فقال إني سائلك فمشتد عليك في المسألة ! قال : سل عما بدا لك . قال أسألك بربك ورب من قبلك ، ورب من بعدك : آلله أرسلك ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فأنشدك به : آلله أمرك أن تصلي خمس صلوات ، في كل يوم وليلة ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فأنشدك به : آلله أمرك أن تأخذ من أموال أغنيائنا ، فترده على فقرائنا ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فأنشدك به : آلله أمرك أن تصوم هذا الشهر من اثني عشر شهرا ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فأنشدك به : آلله أمرك أن يحج هذا البيت من استطاع إليه سبيلا ؟ قال : اللهم ! نعم . قال : فإني آمنت وصدقت ، وأنا ضمام بن ثعلبة
الراوي: أبو هريرة المحدث: الألباني - المصدر: صحيح النسائي - الصفحة أو الرقم: 2093
خلاصة حكم المحدث: إسناده صحيح

Amghar is another color that is classified as “white” by the Arabs. Ibn Mandhour says in Lisan Al-Arab:

“It is said that amghar is red, but not pure red. The hadith says: ‘A nomad entered to where the Prophet (saws) was and saw him with his companions and said:

‘Which of you is the son of Abdel Muttalib?’

And they said:

‘He is the amghar man who is reclining on his elbow.’

They meant by amghar, white complexioned. Red is also white. Ibn Al-Atheer said:

‘It means he is the red-skinned man reclining on his elbow. It (the word amghar) is taken from maghra, which is the red soil that is used for painting.’”

وقيل: المَغَرُ حمرة ليست بالخالصة. وفي الحديث: أَن أَعرابيّاً قدِم على النبي، صلى الله عليه وسلم، فرآه مع أَصحابه فقال: أَيُّكُم ابنُ عبد المطلب؟ فقالوا هو الأَمغرُ المرتَفِقُ؛ أَرادوا بالأَمغرِ الأَبيضَ الوجهِ، وكذلك الأَحمرُ هو الأَبيضُ؛ قال ابن الأَثير: معناه هو الأَحمرُ المتَّكِئُ على مِرْفَقِه، مأْخوذ من المَغْرَةِ، وهو هذا المدَرُ الأَحمرُ الذي يُصْبَغُ به.

Take a look at the color of maghra:

http://www.heritagemalta.org/museums/archaeologymalta/images/collection08.jpg

Save the True Arabs said...

What would you call a person you saw today who had a complexion like this color of maghra, black or white? Maghra is taken from maghra, which is the red soil that is used for painting. Take a look at red soil here:

http://up.alriyadh1.com/files/7303.jpg

What would you call a person today who had a complexion like the color of this red soil, black or white?

As any sane person can see, the colors of the pictures that I am posting are all basically the same color. This color was called abyad (white) by the Arabs of the past. Do you understand the meaning of abyad now Waqar and JibreelK? Do you understand what red means here? Do you see the clear explanations given to you by the scholars of the past? NOW DO YOU SEE WHAT ABYAD MASHRAB HUMRA (WHITE WITH REDNESS)MEANS? As you can see, they are all dark colors and they are close to the color asmar.

Concerning the story that you related in English about something that supposedly happened in Egypt in the year 603 A.H., first of all I have no idea what the story really says because you wrote it in English and secondly, I don't see the relevance in mentioning something that happened in Egypt in the year 603 A.H. What does that have to do with what the Arabs during the Prophet's (SAWS) time meant by abyad (white)?

Save the True Arabs said...

You asked:

"how can you have black imbued with redness?"


Al-Tha’alabi says WHEN DESCRIBING ABYAD (WHITE):

“If a person or an animal has slight redness, his complexion is called aqhab”.

Let’s look at what Ibn Mandhour says about the word aqhab. Ibn Mandhour says in Lisan Al-Arab:

“Aqhab is whiteness mixed with redness and it is said that aqhab is that which has redness inclining to ghubra. It is also said that aqhab is WHITE WITH DARKNESS (KUDRA).

والأَقْهَبُ: الذي يَخْلِطُ بياضَه حُمْرة. وقيل: الأَقْهَبُ الذي فيه حُمْرَة إِلى غُبْرة؛ ويقال: هو الأَبيضُ الأَكْدَرُ

Ibn Mandhour also says:

“Aqhab is a color which inclines toward darkness (kudra) – WHITE WHICH INCLINES TO BLACK.”

قال ابن منظور: والأَقْهَبُ: ما كان لَوْنُه إِلى الكُدْرة مع البياض للسواد

Bear in mind that this word, aqhab, which is described as inclining to black is described as “white” by the Arabs of the past. Notice that Ibn Mandhour says that it is “whiteness which inclines to black”. This is proof that what was meant by “white” to the Arabs of the past is not what is meant by white today. It is proof that when the Arabs of the past said “white”, they meant a dark color close to asmar and black. The complexion called white today cannot “incline to black”.

Save the True Arabs said...

These explanations of the meaning of abyad given by the knowledgeable scholars are very clear and there is no need for me to continue wasting my time discussing this further with two people who are completely ignorant of what abyad meant to the Arabs of the past and who are completely ignorant of what the Arabs of the past looked like and who have no desire learn the truth.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Berry

You write;

//
I see that you are using Ibn Abdel Barr as a reference.
....
Ibn Abdel Barr also said:
...
//

And then

//
And where do you think that this knowledgeable and reliable Imam Mohamed Al-Baqir got his knowledge of what Ali ibn Abi Talib looked like??? Waqar, do you believe Mohamed Al-Baqir when he tells you that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma? If not, why don't you believe him. I BELIEVE HIM. DO YOU?
//

THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY- "APPEAL TO EMOTION"

IT IS SO BECAUSE I have shown you Imam Baqir never saw Ali (RA) and here his testimony is being questioned by someone who actually saw Ali (RA). In fact a closer look at the narration I presented shows, the narrator was actually trying to clarify about the subject after closely observing.

In Shu'b al-Iman Imam al-Baihaqi even graded a report narrated by Imam (1763) ‘Ali bin Hussain i.e. Zain al-‘Abidin from Ali (RA) as "Muntaqa" which is most certainly a dubious narration. If a narration from a person born in the year Ali (RA) died is not acceptable how can the one by a person born 16 years after him be accepted?

You truly have zero knowledge of hadith sciences.

And remember again,
WE ARE TALKING OF HIS PHYSICAL APPEARANCE NOT SOME FAMILY SECRETS?

Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr never claimed to have seen Ali (RA), he merely quoted it and we have already known the status of that report.

Do not make an APPEAL TO EMOTION.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Berry

Tell me in which grade are you? 4th or 5th? And also tell me in school are being "schooled"

You give me an image from here and there randomly. how without giving any evidence and coming up with some authoity you think I'll believe whatever you say is true in caption to random pics. You have no credibility in my eyes.

how interesting, all is chatter is based on the idea that people of past had different understanding of terms and now you give me what you believe or at the best you may say he, she or it believes. talk sense fellow, if it's possible anyway.

you make your self styled distinction between words, to run away from the evidence from hadith.

do not try it here. won't help!

masha'Allah how interesting, each one of your team is exposing himself big time by jumping into the discussion. First it was Wesley, then Berry and lately even Abdelkerim.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

And do not waste cyber-space by repeating things over and over again. Answer my simple question about the meaning of "abyad" that i have repeated over and over again.

And do not ever think, the issues you just "looked over" are off my mind as well. Your worst time is yet to come, if you do not turn to truth. And you know I mean what I say.

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our Help and Refuge!

Save the True Arabs said...

Do you realize how silly you sound when you suggest that Said Al-Dabbi knows more about what Ali looked like than Mohamed Al-Baqir? Do you realize how silly you sound ?
Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti [d.911H]
'Abd al-Rahman ibn Kamal al-Din Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Sabiq al-Din, Jalal al-Din al-Misri al-Suyuti al-Shafi'i al-Ash'ari, also known as Ibn al-Asyuti (d. 849-911), the mujtahid imam and renewer of the tenth Islamic century, foremost hadith master, jurist, Sufi, philologist, and historian, he authored works in virtually every Islamic science.
Born to a Turkish mother and non-Arab father and raised as an orphan in Cairo, he memorised the Qur'an at eight, then several complete works of Sacred Law, fundamentals of jurisprudence, and Arabic grammar; after which he devoted himself to studying the Sacred Sciences under about a hundred and fifty shaykhs. Among them the foremost Shafi'i and Hanafi shaykhs at the time, such as the hadith master and Shaykh al-Islam Siraj al-Din Bulqini, with whom he studied Shafi'i jurisprudence until his death; the hadith scholar Shaykh al-Islam Sharaf al-Din al-Munawi, with whom he read Qur'anic exegesis and who commented al-Suyuti's al-Jami' al-Saghir in a book entitled Fayd al-Qadir; Taqi al-Din al-Shamani in hadith and the sciences of Arabic; the specialist in the principles of the law Jalal al-Din al-Mahalli, together with whom he compiled the most widespread condensed commentary of Qur'an in our time, 'Tafsir al-Jalalayn'; Burhan al-Din al-Biqa'i; Shams al-Din al-Sakhawi; he also studied with the Hanafi shaykhs Taqi al-Din al-Shamni, Shihab al-Din al-Sharmisahi, Muhyi al-Din al-Kafayji, and the hadith master Sayf al-Din Qasim ibn Qatlubagha, may Allah be pleased with them all.
Imam Al-Suyuti described Ali ibn Abi Talib (RAA) this way:

و كان علي شيخا سمينا أصلع كثير الشعر ربعة إلى القصر عظيم البطن عظيم اللحية جدا قد ملأت ما بين منكبيه بيضاء كأنها قطن آدم شديد الأدمة

“Ali was a heavyset, bald, hairy man of average height which leaned toward shortness. He had a large stomach and a large beard which filled all that was between his shoulders. His beard was white as if it was cotton and he was a black-skinned man.”
As you can see if you have eyes and a brain to go with them, Al-Suyuti, the hadith master used Mohamed Al-Baqir’s description of Ali ibn Abi Taalib. He didn’t use Said Al-Dabbi’s description. Nor did Ibn Abdel Barr use Said Al-Dabbi’s description of Ali ibn Abi Taalib. Instead he used Mohamed Al-Baqir’s. Then Waqar Cheema, a nobody, comes along and says that their description of Ali ibn Abi Taalib isn’t correct and that they should say what Said Al-Dabbi said instead. And he doesn't even realize how silly he sounds.

Save the True Arabs said...

I answered your question about the meaning of abyad. If you don't have the brains to understand my answer, don't blame me. All of what I wrote about what the scholars said about the meaning of abyad is very clear and the pictures that I posted are clear and there is no place for personal interpretations. Everything is clear. Instead of running back to your so-called "suyukh" for answers, respond now to what I have written here about the meaning of abyad or tell your "suyukh" to come here now and respond to me.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

LOL ..

How ridiculous ... you are denying the testimony of an eyewitness for that of a person who was born 16 years after the death of the Ali (RA)

I told you a scholar as great as al-Baihaqi graded the narration of even Imam Zainel Abedin from Ali (RA) as weak and you are basking upon Imam Baqir's narration about Ali (RA) with no link in between mentioned. Go back and learn hadith sciences. You are done!

I do not need you to tell me the grand status of Imam Baqir, or Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr or Imam Suyuti or for that matter any other scholar of Sunnah. But we the people of sunnah know how Islam's objective science of narration works. It is more of a rational proposition than emotional. An eyewitness' account will most certainly take precedence without meaning any disrespect to anyone. This is the ABC of hadith science.

And do not run away from the real point. Will Ali's (RA) complexion suggest about that of the Prophet [saaw], When we have evidence that ALI (RA) DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET (SAAW)

Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"I told you a scholar as great as al-Baihaqi graded the narration of even Imam Zainel Abedin from Ali (RA) as weak"

Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi says in Siyar A'laam Al-Nubalaa:

وكان علي بن الحسين ثقة مأمونا كثير الحديث عاليا رفيعا ورعا روى ابن عيينة عن الزهري قال ما رأيت قرشيا أفضل من علي بن الحسين

"Ali the son of Al-Husein was a reliable, trustworthy authority, and he related many hadiths. He was high-ranking, exalted, and pious. Ibn 'Uyeena related that Al-Zuhri said: "I have never seen a Quraishi (person from the tribe of Quraish) better than Ali the son of Al-Husein."

You said:

"But we the people of sunnah know how Islam's objective science of narration works."

The People of the Sunnah know how it works, but you don't.

You said:

"I do not need you to tell me the grand status of Imam Baqir, or Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr or Imam Suyuti or for that matter any other scholar of Sunnah."

So why is your insanity telling you that you know more about hadith than the likes of Imam Al-Suyuti and Ibn Abdel Barr, who both described Ali ibn Abi Taalib the same way that Mohamed the son of Ali Zein Al-Abidin the son of Al-Husein the son of Ali the son of Abi Taalib described him??? Why is your insanity telling you that you know more about the description of Ali ibn Abi Taalib than they do and better than Mohamed Al-Baqir knows? Waqar, Imam Al-Suyuti said:


و كان علي شيخا سمينا أصلع كثير الشعر ربعة إلى القصر عظيم البطن عظيم اللحية جدا قد ملأت ما بين منكبيه بيضاء كأنها قطن آدم شديد الأدمة

“Ali was a heavyset, bald, hairy man of average height which leaned toward shortness. He had a large stomach and a large beard which filled all that was between his shoulders. His beard was white as if it was cotton and he was shadid al-udma.”

What does your mind tell you the reason Imam Al-Suyuti described him this way is??? Are you really so insane as to think that you know more about hadiths than Imam Al-Suyuti?

And why are you ignoring the above explanation of what the Arabs of the past meant by abyad (white)??? Why don't you either respond to it all here and now or explain to everyone why you have nothing to say about it. Or call anyone that you consider your "sheikh" to come here now and respond. I'm waiting inshaAllah and don't take too long because I don't have much time to waste on you.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Berry Berry

Are you insane or what?

Did I ever say the narration was graded as weak by al-Baihaqi due to the weakness of Imam Zainel Abideen?

Do you know what is required for a report to be sahih? It got to be an UNBROKEN chain of trustworthy narrators.

Imam Zainel Abideen was born in the very year Sayyidina Ali (RA) died, so he could not report authoritatively from him. How can one who was born 16 years after his demise to it then? Speak sense, if you may.

Do not try these tricks with me, dear amateur "scholar"! I'll take you to task in-sha'Allah!

One who cannot reply the simple questions from me, one who does not know the absolute basics of science of reporting, why should I bother my shuyukh for such a person. I dont wana mean disrespect to them.

Bye. You still have time. Turn to truth.

I cant do more than sharing the truth in objective way, rest is with Allah. for He says

فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيْكَ الْبَلَاغُ وَعَلَيْنَا الْحِسَابُ

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Jibreelk said...

Wow Tarik you are really something
Do you hear yourself thank you very much for agreeing with us

you said

First of all, let me make it clear to everyone that I never said that the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS) was black

Than you say

What you are well aware of is the fact that I said that when the Arabs of the past described each other as abyad (white), they meant a color that is considered black today.

than you help Wesley try to prove that Muhammad sas was black

Man you are confused
You need to quit man

Bottom line

Muhammad was not Black
Whatever you wanna call it, black as today, black as before - HE WAS WIHTE IMBUED WITH REDNESS as the ahadith describe him

You know you are wrong

You know you are supporting a SHAITANIC CREED

You should stop your support to Wesley as I have told you before if you consider yourself a good Muslim.
And Allah knows best.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"I told you a scholar as great as al-Baihaqi graded the narration of even Imam Zainel Abedin from Ali (RA) as weak and you are basking upon Imam Baqir's narration about Ali (RA) with no link in between mentioned. Go back and learn hadith sciences."

Ibn Kathir describes Mohamed Al-Baaqir as:

وهو تابعي جليل، كبير القدر كثيراً، أحد أعلام هذهِ الأمة عِلماً وعملاً وسيادة وشرفاً

"An great Tabi'ee, a person of very high standing, one of the eminent personalities of this ummah (Islam) in knowledge, deeds, supremacy, and nobility."

The opinion held by Imam Malik and all Maliki jurists is that the Mursal of a trustworthy person is valid as proof and as justification for a practice, just like a Musnad hadith. This view has been developed to such an extreme that to some of them, the Mursal is even better than the Musnad, based on the following reasoning: "the one who reports a Musnad hadith leaves you with the names of the reporters for further investigation and scrutiny, whereas THE ONE WHO NARRATES BY WAY OF IRSAL, BEING A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON HIMSELF, HAS ALREADY DONE SO AND FOUND THE HADITH TO BE SOUND. In fact, he saves you from further research."

Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150) holds the same opinion as Malik; he accepts the Mursal Hadith whether or not it is supported by another hadith.

You said:

"An eyewitness' account will most certainly take precedence without meaning any disrespect to anyone."

Who told you that and who told you that Sa'id Al-Dabbi's account takes precedence over Mohamed Al-Baaqir's mursal hadith? I've told you about Mohamed Al-Baaqir and who he is. What can you tell me about Sa'id Al-Dabbi?

You said:

"why should I bother my shuyukh"

You should bother them because you have failed to respond to my clear explanation (with illustrations) of what the scholars say abyad (white) means to the Arabs. If you don't need to bother them, stop running away from my explanation and respond to it here and now. Otherwise, call your "shuyoukh" here now and let them try to respond.

Save the True Arabs said...

JibreelK,

Do you really not have the intellect to understand that I am telling you that there is the true meaning of black-skinned, like the complexion of these two:

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/297710_10150317243678668_641228667_8229285_290281176_n.jpg

http://sports.maktoob.com/imgs/News/106455/Feature.jpg

and there is what people call black today. You know very well that I never said that the Prophet (SAWS) was black-skinned (like the people in the links above are). And you know very well that I told you that when the Arabs of the past called a person abyad (white), they meant a color that is considered black today. This is what I have always said and you know it, so stop playing dumb. Are you ready to stop playing games and admit that when the Arabs of the past called someone abyad (white), they meant a dark complexion as I've shown you in Imam Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Tha'aalabi, and Imam Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti's explanations of the meaning of abyad (white) to the Arabs of the past?

Save the True Arabs said...

Looking at the things Waqar and JibreelK are saying here about the family of the Prophet (SAWS) makes me remember what Abu Al-Hasan Ali ibn Al-Abbas ibn Jurayj, known as Ibn Al-Rumi, said. He said:

" و عيرتموهم ( آل البيت ) بالسواد ولم يزل من العرب الامحاض أخضر (أسود) أدعج
ولكنكم زرق يزين وجوهكم بنى الروم ، ألوان من الروم نعج"

"You insulted them (the family of the Prophet Mohamed) because of their blackness while there are still pure-blooded black-skinned Arabs. However, you are blue (eyed) - the Romans have embellished your faces with their color."

Notice that they said here about Ja'afar Al-Saadiq:

"It is indeed true that just like ‘Ali –may Allah be pleased with him- his complexion has been described as ’Adam’ in Ibn Sabbagh’s (d. 855 A.H.) work on the Shiite Imams. But we need to remember that it does not prove anything about the complexion of the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him, just as we have shown above."

Yes, Ja'afar Al-Saadiq was adam complexioned. What I don't understand is what they are suggesting when they try to distance his complexion from the complexion of the Prophet (SAWS). Ja'afar Al-Saadiq's mother was Umm Farwa, the great granddaughter of Abu Bakr Al-Saddiq (RAA) and his father was Mohamed Al-Baaqir. Mohamed Al-Baaqir himself was described as asmar complexioned and kinky-haired, so what are they suggesting? And Mohamed Al-Baaqir was also nicknamed "He Who Remembles" because he looked so much like the Prophet (SAWS). So why are they trying to distance the family of the Prophet (SAWS) from the Prophet (SAWS) and claim that they had drastically different looks and complexions from the Prophet (SAWS)? What are they up to?

Save the True Arabs said...

Then Waqar and JibreelK move on to Musa Al-Kaadhim and say the following about him:

"Another interesting case is that of Abu al-Hasan Musa al-Kazim (d. 183 A.H.), a revered personally and the Seventh Imam of the Shiites. He has been described as “Black (aswad) in complexion” in ‘Ali bin Hussain bin ‘Utbah’s (d. 828 A.H.) ‘Umdah al-Talib fi Ansab Aali Abi Talib (p.184)

Wesley, as expected, alludes to this. However, again as expected, he fails to mention some important details about this revered personality. In the very same book and on the very same page it is stated about Musa al-Kazim;

وأمه أم ولد يقال لها حميدة المغربية

“And his mother was a slave-woman and she was known as Humayda al-Maghribiyya.”

This is to show that his mother was a slave-woman from al-Maghrib region. Further from al-Fusul al-Muhimmah (p. 222) we learn that she was a Berber.

Thus we know the reason for his black complexion. About Berbers Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) writes;

فَالنَّاسُ مِنْهُمْ بَرْبَرٌ وحُبُوش وطُمَاطم فِي غَايَةِ السَّوَادِ

“Among mankind there are Berbers, Ethiopians and (some) Barbarians who are very black." "

As you can see here, they are suggesting that Musa Al-Kadhim got his blackness from a Berber slave mother. However, at the same time they just admitted that his father Ja'afar Al-Saadiq himself was adam complexioned. So I don't get what they are saying. Also notice that they just admitted that the Berbers were black-skinned. Before I relate the following, let me just bring to your attention that 'Ikrama, the slave of Ibn Abbas, was a Berber. Now watch Waqar and JibreelK flip-flop and either change their minds about Berbers being black-skinned or change their minds about accepting Al-Asfahaani's narrations when I relate to them what Al-Asfahaani said in his book Kitaab Al-Aghaani in the section called Khalid Ibn Abdellah and His Hatred Toward Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (RAA). Al-Asfahaani says:

ورأى (خالد بن عبدالله) يوماً عكرمة مولى ابن عباس، وعلى رأسه عمامة سوداء، فقال: إنه بلغني أن هذا العبد كان يشبه علي بن أبي طالب. وأني لأرجو أن يسود الله وجهه، كما سود وجه ذاك

"One day Khalid ibn Abdellah saw 'Ikrama, the slave of Ibn Abbas, and he was wearing a black turban. He (Khalid ibn Abdellah) then said: I have heard that this slave resembled Ali ibn Abi Taalib. I hope that Allah disgraces him like He disgraced the other."

This is what Al-Asfahaani says in Kitaab Al-Aghaani and I am only mentioning it to show how Waqar and JibreelK are going to flip-flop. Otherwise, I wouldn't even relate something like this.

Then they moved to Ali Al-Rida the son of Musa Al-Kaadhim . Here's what they said:

"Tariq Berry refers to Abu al-Hasan Ali a-Rida’s (d. 203 A.H.) black complexion. But this was again due to his mother who was a Nubian slave-woman.[66]

Salahuddin Khalil al-Safdi (d. 764 A.H.) writes about him;

كَانَ أسودَ اللَّوْن لِأَن أمَّه كَانَت سَوْدَاء

“He was black in complexion (aswad al-lawn) because his mother was black.”

After this al-Safdi gives the incident of bathhouse where a soldier pushed ‘Ali al-Rida aside and then said, “Pour water on my head oh black one!” "

But wait a minute! Didn't they just admit that Ali Al-Rida's father Musa Al-Kaadhim was black-skinned? So how was his son, Ali Al-Rida, black-skinned because of his mother???

What I see here is that the above-mentioned descendants of Ali ibn Abi Taalib were described the same complexion that their ancestor Ali ibn Abi Taalib was described. Is there anyone here who cannot see this???

Qasim said...

Teach Brother Tariq! I just finished reading your book. It is Awesome! ASA

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Berry

I am grateful for such a warm welcome that I find in your posts on my return after a few days. Please, it’s the time to RECALL my words,

“YOUR WORST TIME IS YET TO COME, IF YOU DO NOT TURN TO TRUTH. AND YOU KNOW I MEAN WHAT I SAY.”

Here is the last straw you could find, and Alhamdulillah I knew this is the most you can get to. It’s the battle of nerves and this is the perfect time to press you now, after you got the “much required” relief.

You write:

//
The opinion held by Imam Malik and all Maliki jurists is that the Mursal of a trustworthy person is valid as proof and as justification for a practice, just like a Musnad hadith. This view has been developed to such an extreme that to some of them, the Mursal is even better than the Musnad, based on the following reasoning: "the one who reports a Musnad hadith leaves you with the names of the reporters for further investigation and scrutiny, whereas THE ONE WHO NARRATES BY WAY OF IRSAL, BEING A KNOWLEDGEABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON HIMSELF, HAS ALREADY DONE SO AND FOUND THE HADITH TO BE SOUND. In fact, he saves you from further research."

Imam Abu Hanifah (d. 150) holds the same opinion as Malik; he accepts the Mursal Hadith whether or not it is supported by another hadith.
//

Now bear with me, on details with Mursal though the real short with a shock comes after that, in-sha’Allah.

WEAKNESS OF MURSAL NARRATION:

According to majority of well known Muhaddithin, Mursal is simply a kind of Da’if (spurious) narrations. Imam Muslim writes in the preface to “Sahih Muslim”;

وَالْمُرْسَلُ مِنَ الرِّوَايَاتِ فِي أَصْلِ قَوْلِنَا، وَقَوْلِ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِالْأَخْبَارِ لَيْسَ بِحُجَّةٍ

"The Mursal narrations, according to us and the saying of the people of knowledge of reports, are no evidence." (Sahih Muslim, Muqaddimah)

CONDITIONS FOR ACCEPTING MURSAL NARRATION:

Even the scholars who accept Mursal narrations speak of many conditions that must be considered before seeking evidence with it. The conditions are many, but more relevant one in our discussion here is that, it must NOT contradict a MUSNAD narration.

(See Sharah Sunan Ibn Majah by Maghaltai al-Hanafi (d. 762), Makteba Nazar Mustafa, KSA, 1999, vol.1 p.211)

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

MALIKIYYA AND MURSAL NARRATIONS:

As to the opinion of Malikiyya on Mursal narrations, it has too many details, like the truth about Mursal and even Munqata’ narrations in Muwatta, which were actually proven to Imam Malik at least in Musnad ways as well. (I can give concrete examples where he simply avoid giving Isnad at one place whereas elsewhere he does provide this.
And the opinion of giving mursal priority over musnad is a rare opinion of some malikiyya particularly. A student of hadith sciences unless he is but a strict follower of some tradition must go with the JAMHOOR. But with the likes of you, who generally have no such interest and will like to run from one place to another, it should not even be expected.

As Mursal were accepted by certain scholars of sunnah, albeit under some conditions which I fear you won’t like to understand, and because even the people with that rare (shaadh) opinion of preferring mursal over musnad were also other scholars of sunnah, I’ll not let you play in this field. The real issue with that narration is mentioned here.

The moment you start believing that you found a way out, comes the real shock, :P

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

*** AUTHENTICITY OF NARRATION ABOUT THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) THAT BERYY REGULARLY QUOTES ***

Now the report Tariq Berry often uses about the Ali (RA) goes like this. Here is the chain of the narrators as found in Ibn Sa’d’s tabaqat al-Kubra

قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عُمَرَ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي سَبْرَةَ عَنْ إِسْحَاقَ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي فَرْوَةَ قَالَ: سَأَلْتُ أَبَا جَعْفَرٍ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ قُلْتُ: مَا كَانَتْ صِفَةُ عَلِيٍّ؟ قَالَ: رَجُلٌ آدَمُ شَدِيدُ الأَدَمَةِ.

Chain is

Ibn Sa’d --> al-Waqidi --> Abu Bakr bin Abdullah bin Abi Sabrah --> Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abi Farwah --> Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir

Along with the irsal problem here –which makes it dubious according to most common opinion of muhaddithin, we turn to other narrators to bury the argument of Berry.

ISHAQ BIN ABDULLAH BIN ABI FARWAH:

The narrator before Imam Baqir is Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abi Farwah (d. 144 A.H.). Let’s see how the scholars view him;

In Tahdhib al-Kamal (vol.2 pp.451-452) we read about him;

و قال عمرو بن على و أبو زرعة و أبو حاتم و النسائى : متروك الحديث .
و قال أبو بكر بن خزيمة : لا يحتج بحديثه
و قال الدارقطنى و البرقانى : متروك .
و قال على بن الحسن الهسنجانى عن يحيى : كذاب .

So clearly, 1) Amr bin Ali 2) Abu Zar’ah 3) Abu Hatim 4) al-Nasai 5) al-Darqutni 6) al-Barqani call him “Matrook” i.e. REJECTED, whereas Yahya [bin Ma’in] even called him an outright LIAR, Ibn Khuzaima
said, “DO NOT SEEK EVIDENCE WITH HIS NARRATIONS”

This is enough to prove that report is no evidence at all.

Let’s not end the show here.

ABU BAKR BIN ABDULLAH BIN ABI SABRAH:

Abu Bakr Bin Abdullah Bin Abi Sabrah (d. 162 A.H.) was no better.

In Tahdhib al-Kamal (vol.33 p.105) we read about him;

و قال عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل ، عن أبيه : ليس بشىء ، كان يضع الحديث و يكذب

i.e. Ahmad bin Hanbal, the Imam, said he used to fabricate narrations and lie.

و قال الغلابى ، عن يحيى بن معين : ضعيف الحديث .
و قال النسائى : متروك الحديث
.
i.e. Yahya bin Ma’in graded him, weak, and al-Nasai called him “Matrook” i.e. Rejected

In Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (vol.12 p.28) Ibn Hajr records the following about him;

و قال ابن حبان : كان ممن يروى الموضوعات عن الثقات ، لا يجوز الاحتجاج به .
Ibn Hibban said: he was one of those who narrated fabricated narration ascribing them to trustworthy narrators; it is not allowed to seek evidence with his reports.

THIS SEALS THE FACT THAT THE REPORT IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

As regards the fact that some scholar like Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr and al-Suyuti has used it in their books, it must be noticed that they haven’t verified its authenticity and it is but well known that their books on history contain many weak narrations, and when we have objectively known such terrible issues with the chain, it no way becomes justified to seek evidence with these, come what may.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

And mind you, even elsewhere the chain for this report involves these narrators, See

Ma’rifah al-Sahaba of Abu Na’im,
Tarikh Damishq of Ibn Asaakir, and
Ansab al-Ashraf of Baladhuri

MR. BERRY IS REQUIRED EITHER TO US ANOTHER CHAIN FOR THIS REPORT, WHICH IS IN-SHA’ALLAH IMPOSSIBLE, OR SEEK THE HELP OF SOME DEVIL OR SAINT TO ASSERT THAT “MATROOK” AND LIAR NARRATORS MAY ALSO BE ACCEPTABLE, WHEN IT SUITS BERRY’S AGENDA.

GAME ON!

On the other hand, I invite Mr. Berry to make best use of his efforts to prove the weakness of any of the 3 narrators between Ibn Sa’d and Ali (RA) in the narration I brought for readers’ attention.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

-- ABOUT THE COMPLEXION OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE PROPHET --

LOL, berry .. you are too innocent, you highlight the issue when it is most pertinent but goes against you

Firstly mark the shift from "Adam" to "Aswad" between Ja'far al-Sadiq and Musa al-Kadhim and you get the point in mention of their slave-women mothers.

As regards their being "Adam" did you fail to notice how many times we are emphasized the fact that someone being "Adam" does not say anything about the Prophet [saaw] for two reasons.

1- Ali (RA), Nafs al-Zakiyya, Ja'far al-Sadiq were "adam", the Prophet (saaw) was NOT "adam" so it is insane to use their "adam" complexion to assert about the Prophet [saaw]. Need i reproduce the authentic narration explicitly saying the Prophet [saaw] was NOT "adam"

2- WHom we call the Family of the Prophet [saaw] were actually the children of Ali (RA) and he was himself "adam" (refer to point.1 above) and further we have clear evidence that ALI (RA) DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET.

IN THE LIGHT OF 1) AND 2) ABOVE PLEASE JUSTIFY YOUR ALLUDING TO THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS CHILDREN.

Prophet's own grandson, born to prophet's own daughter, Hasan resembled the Prophet [saaw] and he was not "adam" but "abyad mushraban bi-humrah". The other progeny you often quote had involved blood streams other than that of the prophet [saaw], which you failed to mention, because you knew this will destroy your plot to fool the innocent.

Down the lineage people getting darker is easily understood considering the facts we have given. Someone otherwise pure in lineage may also be dark as we have known through hadith it is not impossible. But such a thing cannot overwhelm the direct evidence about the Prophet [saaw].

What you quote from other people far down the lineage from Ali (RA) prove nothing- not even in the least.

The point to discuss all those people is to tell the innocent readers that Berry is at war with innocence and honesty, so be ware!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

I'll respond to everything you just said after you finish responding to everything I wrote above. Don't just pick and choose what you want to respond to. I respond to everything that you write and I want you to do the same. So carry on and don't forget to tell us what you know about Said Al-Dabbi.

Save the True Arabs said...

Also, when you continue responding, you can explain to me how, if it is a lie that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was described as shadid al-udma, how is it that the hadith that you are accepting says that if you want, you can say that he was adam, but if you examine him closely, you might say that he was closer to asmar than to adam??? If it's a lie that he (RAA) was described as adam, why would the hadith that you are accepting be saying that he is closer to asmar than to adam? Who said anything about adam if the hadith that says that he was shadid al-udma is a lie??? Can't you see that the hadith that you are accepting is saying that the hadith that Al-Suyuti and Ibn Abdel Barr used isn't a lie?

* َAl-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in his book Taarikh Al-Islaam:

وعن الشعبي قال: رأيت علياً أبيض اللحية، ما رأيت أعظم لحية منه، وفي رأسه زغبات. وقال أبو إسحاق: رأيته يخطب، وعليه إزار ورداء، أنزع، ضخم البطن، أبيض الرأس واللحية. وعن أبي جعفر الباقر قال: كان علي آدم، شديد الأدمة، ثقيل العينين، عظيمهما، وهو إلى القصر أقرب.

* Ibn Jawzi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma in his book Safwat Al-Safwa.

* Al-Balaadhari describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in his book Ansaab Al-Ashraaf:

وكان علي آدم شديد الادمة، ثقيل العينين، ضخم البطن، أصلع ذا عضلات ومناكب، في أذنيه شعر قد خرج من أذنه، وكان إلى القصر أقرب

* Al-Suyuti describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in Taarikh Al-Khulafaa:

‏‏"‏‏و‏ ‏كان‏‏ ‏علي‏ (بن‏ ‏ابي‏ ‏طالب )‏شيخا‏،‏ ‏سمينا،‏ ‏‏أ‏صلع،‏‏ ‏كثير‏ ‏الشعر،‏ ‏ربعة‏ ‏الى‏ ‏القصر،‏ ‏عظيم‏ ‏البطن،‏ ‏عظيم‏ ‏اللحية‏ ‏جدا،‏ ‏قد‏ ‏ملأت‏ ‏ما‏ ‏بين‏ ‏منكبيه،‏ ‏بيضاء‏ ‏كأنها‏ ‏قطن،‏ ‏آدم‏ ‏شديد‏ ‏الأدمة‏"‏.‏

* Ibn Abdel Barr describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

وسئل أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين عن صفة علي رضي الله عنه فقال: كان رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة، مقبل العينين عظيمهما ذا بطن
أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

* Ahmed ibn 'Amru ibn Al-Dahhaak Abu Bakr Al-Shaibaani describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) as shadid al-udma here:

ومن ذكر علي بن أبي طالب
ابن عَبْد المطلب بن هاشم بن عَبْد مناف بن قصي بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي يكنى أبا الحسن رَضِيَ الله تعالى عنه واسم أبي طالب عَبْد مناف بن عَبْد المطلب واسم عَبْد المطلب شيبة بن هاشم واسم هاشم عَمْرو بن عب مناف واسم عَبْد مناف المغيرة بن قصي واسم قصي زيد بن كلاب بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي وكان آدم شديد الأدمة ثقيل العينين عظيمها وقد قالوا أعمش ذا بطن سمنا أصلع دون الربعة عظيم اللحية رضوان الله عليه

* Al-'Allaama Mohamed ibn Talha Al-Shaafa'ie describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

كان عليه السلام آدم شديد الادمة، ظاهرة السمرة، عظيم العينين، أقرب إلى القصر من الطول لم يتجاوز حد الاعتدال في ذلك، ذا بطن كثير الشعر، عريض اللحية، أصلع أبيض الرأس واللحية

* Al-Safidi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

وكان رضي الله عنه رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة ثقيل العينين عظيمهما، ذا بطن أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

I COULD GO ON AND ON LISTING WELL-KNOWN SCHOLARS WHO DESCRIBED ALI IBN ABI TAALIB (RAA) AS SHADID AL-UDMA, BUT THIS ISN'T EVEN NECESSARY. EVERYTHING IS CLEAR FOR THOSE WHO HAVE EYES TO SEE.

Waqar Akbar said...

LOLZ ... you are dead now, i know

Show me a single report giving the full unbroken chain of trustworthy narrations which says Ali (RA) was "adam shadid al-udmah"??

Without any such narration, even a million quotes wont help. Learn ABC of ISLAMIC science of reporting.

There is a difference between "adam" and "shadid al-udmah" and then the narration i gave shows he was not purely "adam" even.

And you cannot run by saying first answer this or that. Because my points are already given in the original article you are trying to refute- but have failed till now, Alhamdulillah.

How many times does the article say, complexion of Ali (RA) or any of his descendants does not say anything about that of the Prophet [saaw] for Ali (ra)himself did not resemble the Prophet [saaw].

It's otherwise disgusting to repeat the same things over and over again, but I am forced to do so- thanks to the fact that you are averse to truth and hate it like anything.

RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS, and ONCE TALKING OF NARRATIONS DO NOT YUMBLE BUMBLE, TALKING OBJECTIVELY ABOUT THE RELIANCE OF NARRATORS AND CONTINUITY OF THEIR CHAINS, IF YOU CAN. OTHERWISE YOU ARE A GONE CASE AND I LET THE WHOLE WORLD KNOW HOW YOU FOOL PEOPLE. you will be chased!

P.S. case of 'Umar (RA) to be discussed soon. the world will see you dying once more. in-sha'Allah

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar, the Scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah describe Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma and I describe him the same way. The scholars who describe him as shadid al-udma like Al-Dhahabi, Al-Suyuti, Ibn Abdel Barr, Al-Balaadhari, Ibn Jawzi, Mohamed Al-Baaqir, and all the others all know about the science of hadith, but you don't. Even the Shiite scholars describe him as shadid al-udma. The only ones who have a problem with him being described as shadid al-udma are some Rawāfiḍ who claim that 'Amru ibn Al-'Aas (RAA) described Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA)as shadid al-udma because he was jealous of him! What you are doing is following the path of the Rawāfiḍ. I follow the path of Ahl Al-Sunnah and I describe Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) the way that my Sunni scholars described him and they know the science of hadith very well - better than you and me. You can describe him any way that you choose to describe him. And you still haven't told us anything about Sa'id Al-Dabbi.

If you choose to describe him as asmar complexioned close to adam complexioned, you don't seem to understand that that is a dark complexion too. So you can stop avoiding the topic and go back and respond to what I said about the meaning of abyad according to the scholars of the past. The scholars of the past have already said that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma, so there is no need for me to argue with you about this.

You said:

"There is a difference between "adam" and "shadid al-udmah" and then the narration i gave shows he was not purely "adam" even."

You don't even know what adam or shadid al-udma mean. Nor do you know what asmar means. And you don't know how the terms were used. You don't understand that a person who is shadid al-udma can also be described simply as adam. So does the person speaking in the hadith that you prefer mean shadid al-udma or what when he says if you look closely, you might call him asmar instead of adam. When he says adam here, does he mean shadid al-udma? And what does he mean by asmar? Remember that adam means very asmar, so what does he mean by "you might call him asmar instead of adam"? What does he mean by asmar and what does he mean by adam? You don't even know. Abu Dharr (RAA), for example, was described as black-skinned (أسود)and he was also described as adam. Al-Hasan the son of Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia was nicknamed The Father of the Tar because of "his extreme asmar complexion". Remember that Miskeen Al-Darimi, who was black-skinned, described his complexion as asmar. So what does the person in the hadith that you prefer mean when he says what he says? What does he mean by asmar and what does he mean by adam. And again, TELLS US SOMETHING ABOUT SAID AL-DABBI.

Why don't you first go back to what I wrote above about the scholars explanation of abyad and learn the meaning of abyad to the Arabs of the past so that you can better understand the meaning of asmar and adam.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"P.S. case of 'Umar (RA) to be discussed soon. the world will see you dying once more. in-sha'Allah"

The Rawāfiḍ also stab at Umar's (RAA) genealogy. Is that what you are getting ready to do? I've told you what the scholars say about the complexion of Umar (RAA). Here it is again:

قال يوسف بن الزكي عبدالرحمن أبو الحجاج المزي في كتابه تهذيب الكمال

وكان (عمر بن الخطاب (رضى الله عنه)) آدم شديد الأدمة طوالا كث اللحية أصلع أعسر يسر يخضب بالحناء والكتم...هكذا وصفه زر بن حبيش وغيره بأنه كان آدم شديد الأدمة وهو الأكثر عند أهل العلم بأيام الناس وسيرهم و أخبارهم

Yousef ibn Al-Zaki ibn Abdel Rahman Abu Al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi said in his book Tahdheeb Al-Kamaal:

"He (Umar ibn Al-Khattab (RAA) was shadid al-udma, tall, thick-bearded, bald, ambidextrous, and he dyed his hair with henna and katim...Zarr ibn Hubaish and others described him this way - they described him as shadid al-udma. This is the way that he was described by most scholars knowledgeable of the biographies and the stories of the people of the past and their news."

So why don't you stop wasting time and respond to what I said here about the meaning of abyad according to the scholars? Why don't you explain to everyone why you are afraid to respond to this?

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ berry

I am sorry for saying that you refer to the most pertinent, it seems you have taken it to heart and decided never to do it again

Firstly i take strong exception to your claim that you follow the scholars of sunnah, no you don't, you are the one who supports a person of perverted creed i.e. Wesley Muhammad, indulging innocent Muslims, the followers of sunnah, in a useless senseless discussion, instead of helping the bulldoze the cult of NoI. You are the one who helps him produce pages of senseless verbosity. No that what you help him with is true but causes a harm to the ummah in the most turbulent of times. you are standing for no cause and are just helping a cult, who will extrapolate the myth of "dark prophet" to Allah knows what lengths.

So do not abuse the scholars of sunnah by calling yourself their follower.

As to the fact that scholars have described Ali (RA) as "adam shadid al-udmah", any student of islamic history knows that Muslims generally do not take much pains in scrutinizing the reports of little or no importance, and as we the people of sunnah never had any issue with any description of any of the sahaba, scholars perhaps generally never felt the need to put those reports to rigorous test on the standards of science of narration.

But we also see whenever a narration of historic import is brought to limelight cause of any group of people making them grow important out of their due proportion than the people of sunnah, have their science of narration ready to take care of any cultist suggestions. And that is why chain of narrators is preserved. And your assertion is a novel one in a way that people generally were never obsessed with proving every person of note as dark as possible. But we have the real guns to take care of the culprits.

There is absolutely no doubt that when we discuss a point like this, we have no choice but to make a recourse to the objective science of narration except which the matter can never be resolved.

So now talk to me about the authenticity of chain of narrators with that description. How amazing you refer to baladhuri again, even though i have told you it has the same chain i discussed in extreme detail. Are you telling me, even after having objectively checked that people rejected by scholars of sunnah and called as liars are reporting something I should believe that? Wallahi I won't and nor will any person of reason, after being presented with such a detailed study of the reality of the reports.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

As regards Sa'id al-Dhabbi ... I'll prove you that he is reliable, you make a try first to find out about him, let the world see, how much this "rescuer of truth" knows about Islamic science of reporting.

And why is that you fail to comment about the chain of that narration anymore, no appeal to emotion please.

You have an obsession of saying that "you dont know this and that", you have some twist in your cranium. you claim that whole world does not know what "abyad" means, what "adam" means, what "asmar" means and as you said and are yet to explain what "aswad" means.

the narration I quoted simply means, Ali (RA) was short of being purely "adam". the narration structure is quite evident to maintain the difference between "adam" and "close to being adam".

AND THE REAL QUESTION THAT YOU AS ALWAYS AVERT I.E. HAVING KNOWN THAT ALI (RA) DID NOT RESEMBLE THE HOLY PROPHET (SAAW), HOW JUSTIFIED YOU FEEL IN REFERRING TO HIS AND HIS PROGENY'S COMPLEXION IN THIS DISCUSSION???

And the argument in the article is yet to find your kind attention while you have so much to chatter, "when you say "abyad" did not mean "white" are you then suggesting, that a darker shade when devoid of redness becomes white like gypsum/plaster or like the color of leprosy?"

Who is afraid to respond? how are you responding to the article without addressing the point made therein ??????

Answer if you may.

never dare to make guesses about me, you must have known i hit the way, you can't expect and cannot objectively respond. Without even in the least putting to question the noble lineage of Umar (ra) i'll kill your stupid assertion. Wallahi I'll and I'll chase you, unless I die, your cult dies or you return to the truth. In-sha'Allah fourth possibility is out of question, except when I give you respite and move to the front of open enemies of the ummah and the truth i.e. orientalists and missionaries.

Indeed Allah knows the best and He alone is our Refuge and Help!

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"I am sorry for saying that you refer to the most pertinent, it seems you have taken it to heart and decided never to do it again"

I don't understand what you are saying.

You said:

"As to the fact that scholars have described Ali (RA) as "adam shadid al-udmah", any student of islamic history knows that Muslims generally do not take much pains in scrutinizing the reports of little or no importance, and as we the people of sunnah never had any issue with any description of any of the sahaba, scholars perhaps generally never felt the need to put those reports to rigorous test on the standards of science of narration."

You don't have the knowledge to scrutinize the scholars.

You said:

"Firstly i take strong exception to your claim that you follow the scholars of sunnah, no you don't,"

I take exception to YOUR claim that you follow the scholars of sunnah because you DON'T. I've just shown you what the scholars of sunnah say about the complexion of Ali ibn Abi Taalib and you choose to differ with them and follow what some Rawāfiḍ say. Go and look at the description that the scholars of the sunnah give of Ali's complexion and see if you are following them or not. I've shown you what they say, but you don't seem to want to listen to what I am telling you, so go and look for yourself. You are the one who is abusing the scholars of the sunnah.

You said:

"So now talk to me about the authenticity of chain of narrators with that description. How amazing you refer to baladhuri again, even though i have told you it has the same chain i discussed in extreme detail. Are you telling me, even after having objectively checked that people rejected by scholars of sunnah and called as liars are reporting something I should believe that?"

If you are truly from Ahl Al-Sunnah, you should believe the scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah when they tell you that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma because they are scholars and you aren't. They know more about chains of narrations and rijaal (men) than you do. So what you need to try to discover is why the scholars of sunnah chose this description (shadid al-udma) of Ali. You are sitting there arguing about something that you don't even know.

You said:

"As regards Sa'id al-Dhabbi ... I'll prove you that he is reliable"

WHEN?????? Why not right now? Or are you arguing about something without knowledge?

You said:

"And why is that you fail to comment about the chain of that narration anymore, no appeal to emotion please."

Because my scholars (Al-dhahabi, Al-Suyuti, Al-Mizzi, Ibn Abdel Barr, Ibn Jawzi, Mohamed Al-Baaqir, etc) have already spoken and they are the ones who are knowledgeable of the chains of narration and men. They have spoken and they have said that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma and I say like they said. They are my scholars and I trust their knowledge and I have no problem with him being described as shadid al-udma.

You said:

"the narration I quoted simply means, Ali (RA) was short of being purely "adam". the narration structure is quite evident to maintain the difference between "adam" and "close to being adam". "

Does it mean short of being shadid al-udma or does it mean short of being adam. And what do you mean by "purely adam"? Shadid al-udma? And what does he mean by asmar there. You don't know and don't pretend that you know. Saying asmar alone doesn't say much because as I've shown you, even very black-skinned people are sometimes called asmar - like Hasan ibn Mohamed Al-Nafs Al-Zakia, who was called the Father of the Tar (أبا الزفت).

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"AND THE REAL QUESTION THAT YOU AS ALWAYS AVERT I.E. HAVING KNOWN THAT ALI (RA) DID NOT RESEMBLE THE HOLY PROPHET (SAAW), HOW JUSTIFIED YOU FEEL IN REFERRING TO HIS AND HIS PROGENY'S COMPLEXION IN THIS DISCUSSION???"

You are the one avoiding my discussion about the meaning of abyad and talking about the description of Ali's (RAA) complexion.

You said:

"And the argument in the article is yet to find your kind attention while you have so much to chatter, "when you say "abyad" did not mean "white" are you then suggesting, that a darker shade when devoid of redness becomes white like gypsum/plaster or like the color of leprosy?""

Your question here shows that you haven't even read my explanation to you about the meaning of abyad. I explained all of this to you clearly and with photos. You need to go and look at it carefully and look at the photos carefully and then respond. Look at the Arabs of the past's explanation of an ugly abyad (whiteness), which is amhaq, and an attractive abyad, which is what the Arabs generally meant when they said abyad. Look at the meaning of and color of a'afar, aqhab, amghar, etc, which were all abyad complexions. Read all of that carefully and then respond. RESPOND IF YOU AREN'T AFRAID.

You said:

"you are the one who supports a person of perverted creed i.e. Wesley Muhammad, indulging innocent Muslims, the followers of sunnah, in a useless senseless discussion, instead of helping the bulldoze the cult of NoI."

You didn't debate Wesley on the creed of the NOI, you told him that abyad didn't mean a dark complexion to the Arabs of the past. I came here to prove you wrong on that point and that is what I have done.

You said:

"Wallahi I'll and I'll chase you, unless I die, your cult dies or you return to the truth. In-sha'Allah fourth possibility is out of question, except when I give you respite and move to the front of open enemies of the ummah and the truth i.e. orientalists and missionaries."

You are funny. LOL. I think that you think that you are playing one of your video games, KID. And tell me about my cult.

Anonymous said...

i am grateful for this informative paper. thanks for exposing two important nation of islam members. the blessed prophet was indeed like the arabs are to this day. will try spread the word around. God bless you


Jayden, VA

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Berry

You write;

//You don't have the knowledge to scrutinize the scholars.//

Have you ever read e.g. tarikh al-khulafa or al-Istiyab more than finding darkness of complexions? Give me simple yes or no, answer if you will accept whatever is quoted in these books without any comment on their authenticity or chain of narrators?

Yes or No, answer and let me show the people who is the real rafidi around.

*** On Sa’id al-Dhabbi ***

You write:

//
WHEN?????? Why not right now? Or are you arguing about something without knowledge?
//

My goodness! Are you blind? Or perhaps too clever? So failing to prove his weakness which I know you are actually dying to prove but cannot do, you find this way only. You are telling that you have zero knowledge of science of reporting and the narrators and how cunning you appear when you put the question to me with great audacity;

// are you arguing about something without knowledge//

Sa’id al-Dhabbi is mentioned by Imam Bukhari in his work Tarikh al-Kabir, saying “he heard from Ali” and he did not criticize him. See Tarikh al-Kabir No. 1621, Da'ira al-Ma'arif al-Uthmania, Hyderbad Deccan n.d. vol.3 p.485

And scholars have said, narrators mentioned by Bukhari in his “Tawarikh” (3 works on narrators’ details) whom he does not criticize are “thiqah” i.e. reliable [unless explicitly criticized elsewhere] . See the statement of Abu al-Barkaat Ibn Taymiyya, (d. 652 A.H.), the grandfather of Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyya, recorded by Imam al-Shaukani. See Nayl al-Awtar, Dar al-hadith, Cairo 1993 vol.3 p.252

This must also not be hidden from those who have read Ibn Hajr Asqalani’s comments about various narrators in his “Ta`jil al-Munfa`ah”

The only way to challenge this is to show any comment that shows the weakness of Sa’id al-Dhabbi. And I and all the readers shall wait for Tariq Berry to show us some comment about the weakness of Sa’id al-Dhabbi.

having said about Sa'id al-Dhabby WHAT YOU ABOUT THE LIAR AND REJECTED NARRATORS IN THE NARRATION YOU OFTEN QUOTE?

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

You write;

//
I take exception to YOUR claim that you follow the scholars of sunnah because you DON'T. I've just shown you what the scholars of sunnah say about the complexion of Ali ibn Abi Taalib and you choose to differ with them and follow what some Rawāfiḍ say. Go and look at the description that the scholars of the sunnah give of Ali's complexion and see if you are following them or not. I've shown you what they say, but you don't seem to want to listen to what I am telling you, so go and look for yourself. You are the one who is abusing the scholars of the sunnah.
//

You got to be kidding! One who follows the methodology of scholars of sunnah and shows you the comments of none other than the likes of Imam Ahmad, yahya bin Ma’in, Darqutni etc etc. you tell him he is following rawafid? Inna lillah …

The fact simply is that you are unable to do anything now and you have nothing left to argue so you are running here and there, trying to bring as many names as you can, even of those (e.g. al-Buladhuri) who have told that they got the info from liars, by giving the chain of narrators.

See the flip-flops now. You read on some site that narration I quoted is “maqtou’” and you thought you’ll get away with it but you axed your ownself, Alhamdulillah, and now you are running away from the similar tests applied to the narration you quote.
----

In response to my question,

"AND THE REAL QUESTION THAT YOU AS ALWAYS AVERT I.E. HAVING KNOWN THAT ALI (RA) DID NOT RESEMBLE THE HOLY PROPHET (SAAW), HOW JUSTIFIED YOU FEEL IN REFERRING TO HIS AND HIS PROGENY'S COMPLEXION IN THIS DISCUSSION???"

You write

//
You are the one avoiding my discussion about the meaning of abyad and talking about the description of Ali's (RAA) complexion.
//

LOL, LIAR! WHO FIRST BROUGHT THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) INTO THIS DISCUSSION? YOU REMEMBER THE COMMENTS TO OUR LAST POST WHERE YOU CAME TO TRY RESCUE THE NATION OF ISLAM PREACHER? AND COUNTLESS TIMES YOU REFER TO THIS IN YOUR POSTS ON MANY PLACES ONLINE. YOU HAVE BUT NO CHOICE EXCEPT TO RUN AWAY FROM THIS QUESTION.

AND THIS IS A CENT PERCENT PROOF YOU FIND YOURSELF LOCKED AND KILLED ON THIS :)

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

You write;

// Look at the Arabs of the past's explanation of an ugly abyad (whiteness), which is amhaq, and an attractive abyad, which is what the Arabs generally meant when they said abyad.//

Amazing, so again you try to reduce the definition of “amhaq” to much subjective “ugly abyad". Were the scholars who said, it means white as gypsum/plaster or that it looks like “leprosy” wrong?

Why you just find yourself killed on this? Almost 100 comments down the road, you still RESORT TO the same gimmick of trying take something away from the definition of “amhaq” and avoid the question. Won’t work here, poor soul!

HOW INTERESTING, WHEN SCHOLARS SAY SOMETHING FROM THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LANGUAGE FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BRING CHAIN OF AUTHORITIES YOU AVOID REFERRING TO THEIR DEFINITIONS BUT WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BRING AUTHENTIC CHAINS FOR WHAT THEY REPORT YOU SPEAK OF THEIR STATURE. This attitude says it all, as to who is on what side.

May Allah bless you with brains.

You write;

// You are funny. LOL. I think that you think that you are playing one of your video games, KID. And tell me about my cult.//

Let’s see who wins the game then. Gone are the days when people wouldn’t find any response to your arguments in English at least. We will in-sha’Allah arm the Muslims against you. As I said, Game ON!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Sa’id al-Dhabbi is mentioned by Imam Bukhari in his work Tarikh al-Kabir, saying “he heard from Ali” and he did not criticize him. See Tarikh al-Kabir No. 1621, Da'ira al-Ma'arif al-Uthmania, Hyderbad Deccan n.d. vol.3 p.485

And scholars have said, narrators mentioned by Bukhari in his “Tawarikh” (3 works on narrators’ details) whom he does not criticize are “thiqah” i.e. reliable [unless explicitly criticized elsewhere] . See the statement of Abu al-Barkaat Ibn Taymiyya, (d. 652 A.H.), the grandfather of Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyya, recorded by Imam al-Shaukani. See Nayl al-Awtar, Dar al-hadith, Cairo 1993 vol.3 p.252"

Al-Bukhaari not criticizing a person mentioned in his Taarikh means no such thing. Read this and then translate it for readers (try to be honest in your translation) because I'm in a hurry now and do not have time to translate it:

فإذا تأملنا عبارة البخاري ، وجدنا أن البخاري يريد أن يبين لنا قسمين قسّم تراجم تاريخه باعتبارهما . فالقسم الأول هو الذي قال فيه : ( كلّ من لم أبيّن فيه جرحةً فهو على الاحتمال ) وهذا قِسمُ من لم يتكلم فيه البخاري بجرح ولا تعديل .
أما أنه قسم من لم يتكلم فيه بجرح : فهذا نص كلامه ، وأما أنه من لم يتكلم فيه بتعديل أيضاً : فهو المتبادر إلى الذهن ، ويقطع بصحة إرادته : أنه قال عن هذا القسم : ( إنه على الاحتمال ) فهل من قال عنه ( ثقة ، أو إمام حافظ ) يكون على الاحتمال ؟! ومن هنا ندخل في بيان معنى ( الاحتمال ) في هذا القسم ، ماهو هذا الاحتمال الذي سيكون من نصيب من ترجم له البخاري دون جرح ولا تعديل ؟ لا شك أن معناه : أنه لا يجزم فيه بحكم ، وأنه يُحتمل أن يكون مقبولاً ويُحتمل أن يكون مردوداً ، وأن البخاري لم يبيّن لنا من منـزلته في الجرح والتعديل شيئاً . إذن ( فالاحتمال ) في هذا النصّ ليس هو بمعنى الاحتجاج ، ولا هو بمعنى احتمال الاعتبار بحديثه .
فانتبه لهذا الأمر الواضح ، ولا تغْفل عن نتيجته

SO I ASK YOU AGAIN, WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT SA'ID AL-DABBI?????

Again, Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Suyuti, Imam Ibn Abdel Barr, Imam Al-Mizzi all described Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma. Do you know why????? Do you actually think that you know better than them????? Why didn't they use the hadith by Sa'id Al-Dabbi instead of declaring that he was shadid al-udma?????

You said:

"Amazing, so again you try to reduce the definition of “amhaq” to much subjective “ugly abyad". Were the scholars who said, it means white as gypsum/plaster or that it looks like “leprosy” wrong?"

It is the scholars of the language who said that it means an ugly abyad, not me. Concerning a whiteness like lebrosy, I spoke about that and I posted pictures for you. Why are you ignoring them??? And the Prophet (SAWS) wasn't described as abyad amhaq, so why do you keep talking about amhaq instead of addressing the real issue - that is, Imam Al-Haafidh Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Minhaaji Al-Asyouti, and Imam Al-Tha'aalabi's definitions of abyad??? I explained it all to you and posted pictures to make things clear to you, but you are avoiding this truth. Why???

Waqar Akbar said...

@ Berry

Have your complete say about Sa'id al-Dhabbi and then I tell you were you stand. Also make a comparison between the narrators of the narration you quote and the one I quote, there are two "matrook" narrators in what you bring, and irsaal which makes it dubious to the most of the scholars of hadith ... in the narration i bring, Ibn Sa'd, Fadl, and Rizam are all trustworthy narrators as categorically stated by scholars, whereas Sa'id al-Dhabbi according to Imam Bukhari did listen from Ali (RA) and the fact that he was not criticized by him and THERE IS NO CRITICISM ON HIM elsewhere makes his acceptable as well.

Make a comparison, if you can.

Also note the narration I bring did not come to me in a dream. It is also recorded by top scholars including

1) Ibn Sa'd,
2) al-Baladhuri,
3) Ibn Asaakir,
4) Ibn Athir and
5) Abu Na'im al-Asbahani

You write;

//Al-Bukhaari not criticizing a person mentioned in his Taarikh means no such thing. //

And are you challenging Abu al-Barkaat Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Hajr etc.?

Quite a bold claim without giving any authority. Also the way you bring quotes shows your source of learning is internet forums (filled by writings of random people), and not books of authentic scholars.

You will never make a case lest you show some comment about his weakness.

Also shows you have no objectivity in your ways, when it suits you, you just pick up one opinion and rest your case with it (like the acceptability of Mursal narrations) and when it suits you, you pick up something from some webpage and make your case on that. is that the methodology of scholars of sunnah? or will you just "over-look" this point as well. You are just a drawing room researcher who is reduced to his original ignorant self if there is no internet.

Also the real question that you always run from, "WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

Regarding the meaning of "abyad" and "amhaq" you know the big deal and that is why you run away from answering my simple question. Commenting on the very narrations about the complexion of the Prophet [saaw], scholars have said, "abyad" is such a color which if not mixed with redness appears like gypsum/leprosy/plaster.

And when did you address our point acutely? and photos, LOL, what photos? what is their authority and that of the caption with them? you? you are only a liar. any tom, dick or harry, including cunning people like you, can upload anything online, and you believe i'll even see them? come out of sleep berry. i am not one of those brainless fellows of yours on your forums who will be appreciating you for whatever non-sense you bring. i'll put to question whatever you bring according to Islamic science of reporting and presentation of evidence.

Your honey-moon time is over.

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Waqar Akbar said...

@ Jayden

Assalamo Alaikum brother

It's great that Allah chose us to help you against this heresy and its supporters. Please spread the word around and show our Afro-American brothers how these people are trying to fool them playing with their emotions. No matter what our complexions, we are one people. And complexions of people have never been the obsession of salaf, and we need to reject these people who are killing the time of ummah, helping the enemies of Islam. And while they do this, all they resort to is lies and non-sense.

Please spread the work around and do write to us about yourself.

Anonymous said...

" i'll kill your stupid assertion. Wallahi I'll and I'll chase you, unless I die, your cult dies or you return to the truth. In-sha'Allah fourth possibility is out of question, except when I give you respite and move to the front of open enemies of the ummah and the truth i.e. orientalists and missionaries."

Waqar, what are you talking about? What is the fourth option? Speak plainly.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Have your complete say about Sa'id al-Dhabbi and then I tell you were you stand."

I don't have anything to say about him because I don't know who he is and neither do you, which is why I can't understand why you are preferring his description over what all of the scholars say.

You said:

"Also make a comparison between the narrators of the narration you quote and the one I quote,"

I don't have to do that because the scholars of hadith have already done it and they chose the description that says shadid al-udma. However, you are pretending that you can't see this. This is because your intention is not to learn from the scholars. You just want idle disputing - and without knowledge.

You said:

"whereas Sa'id al-Dhabbi according to Imam Bukhari did listen from Ali (RA) and the fact that he was not criticized by him and THERE IS NO CRITICISM ON HIM elsewhere makes his acceptable as well."

This is not true and I posted something in Arabic for you to read and translate for others, but either you can't read Arabic or you don't want to translate it. Anyway, it says that if Bukhari didn't criticize a person, it means that the person could be reliable and he could be unreliable. And you need to read about what it means when Bukhari said that "someone heard someone". Read this and try to learn something if you can read Arabic:


المسألة الثالثة :
يقول البخاري في " تاريخه " في كثير من التراجم :
( فلان .. سمع فلاناً ) ، فهل هذا إثبات منه لسماعه ؟ أم
حكاية لما وقع في الإسناد من طريق ذلك الراوي قال :
( سمعت فلاناً ) وما في معناه ؟
قال البخاري في ( ثعلبة بن يزيد الحماني ) : " سمع علياً ، روى عنه حبيب بن أبي ثابت ، يعد في الكوفيين ، فيه نظر " (التاريخ الكبير ) .
فقال ابن عدي : " أما سماعه من علي ، ففيه نظر ، كما قال البخاري " (الكامل(2/323 ) .
قلت : فهو يفسر قول البخاري أنه أراد بقوله : " فيه نظر " سماعه من علي ، وهذا يعني أن البخاري لا يثبت سماعه من علي ، إنما أراد بقوله : " سمع علياً " مجرد حكاية ما وقع في الإسناد .
فهذا القول إن لم يظهر جلياً أن البخاري قصد به إنشاء العبارة في تثبيت السماع من جهة نفسه ، فإنه لا يصح الاستدلال به على أنه قول للبخاري ، إنما العمدة حينئذ لتصحيح السماع على ثبوت الإسناد الذي حكيت فيه تلك الصيغة .
وأما مثل قول البخاري في ترجمته ( عبد الرحمن بن عبد الله بن مسعود ) : " سمع أباه ، قاله عبد الملك بن عمير " ، فبين أن ذكر سماعه من أبيه جاء في رواية عبد الملك عنه .
وكثيراً ما يقول البخاري مثل هذا : ( فلان .. سمع فلاناً .. قاله فلان ) .
فهذا لو حكاه إنسان أنه قول للبخاري يكون قد أخطأ عليه

You said:

"You will never make a case lest you show some comment about his weakness."

I don't know anything about him, do you? For all I know, he could have been half blind. Tell me about him if you know anything about him. If you don't know anything about him, shut up about him.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Regarding the meaning of "abyad" and "amhaq" you know the big deal and that is why you run away from answering my simple question."

What's the real deal Waqar???

You said:

"Commenting on the very narrations about the complexion of the Prophet [saaw], scholars have said, "abyad" is such a color which if not mixed with redness appears like gypsum/leprosy/plaster."

Waqar, Can you read Arabic? Yes or no? Just tell me if you can't and I'll understand your problem.

You said:

"And when did you address our point acutely? and photos, LOL, what photos? what is their authority and that of the caption with them? you? you are only a liar. any tom, dick or harry, including cunning people like you, can upload anything online, and you believe i'll even see them?"

OK. YOU upload your own photos of maghra, red mud, and a Dorcas gazelle ('Afri) and tell me if you saw a person the same color as them if you would call them black or white. And tell me if the pictures of the two people I posted are hinti complexioned or not. And tell me if Wesley is the same color the are or not. This is not difficult to do.

Ibn Asaakir says in Taarikh Dimisq:

وقال زهير بْن معاوية : كَانَ علي يكنى أبا قاسم ، وكان رجلًا آدم شديد الأدمة ، ثقيل العينين عظيمهما ، ذا بطن ، أصلع ، وهو إلى قصر أقرب ، وكان أبيض الرأس واللحية ،

Zuhair ibn Muawia said:

"Ali had the kunya Abu Qaasim and he was shadid al-udma with big, heavy eyes, a big belly, bald, leaned toward shortness, and he had white hair and a white beard."

Who was this Zuhair ibn Muawia? Here's what scholars say about him:

Abu Bakr Al-Bazaar says: Reliable
Abu Haatim Al-Raazi says: Reliable, Prefect
Al-Nisaai says: Reliable, Firm
Al-Dhahabi says: Reliable, Proof
Sufyaan ibn 'Uyeena says: There is no one in Al-Kufa like him.

NOW GO AHEAD AND TRY TO FIND FAULT IN ZUHAIR IBN MUAWIA'S NARRATION.

Save the True Arabs said...

Imam Al-Dhahabi said that Zuhair ibn Muawia is reliable and that he is proof. Zuhair ibn Muawia said that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma, so that is my proof that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma. Why don't you just get over it! I'm tired of wasting my time on you. You have no desire to know the truth because you can't handle the truth. You are just here to argue and dispute without knowledge. You can go and play your games with someone else. I don't have time for you and what you think doesn't matter to me because you are irrelevant. The scholars have spoken. What you say or think doesn't mean anything because you are a nobody. Is what I'm saying clear to you Waqar?

Waqar Akbar said...

Berry

I told you you are cultist, you know no consistent methodology. you religion is proving blackness of people and in doing so if its suits you you'll accept the narration accepting one opinion in hadith sciences and if it does not you will reject what other scholars say.

What you quoted from forums, who said that? will you like to tell us? Are they greater or more knowledgeable than people I am quoting? And remember this is about a science where they do not need to give a chain of narrators.

-- Sa'id al-Dhabbi --

There are two issues we discuss here;

1- Was he reliable or not?

Scholars do not accept that any narrator be graded as da'if when Bukhari has not criticized them.

Imam Abu al-Barkaat Ibn Taymiyya contests against the gradation of narrator as weak saying;

البخاري " ذكره في تاريخه ولم يطعن فيه ، وعادته ذكر الجرح والمجروحين

See Nayl al-Awtar vol.3 p.252

And this principle has been rigorously applied by Hafiz Ibn Hajr in "Ta'jil al-Mafa'ah".

Also see Qawaid Uloom al-Hadith by Shaykh al-Thanwi p.223

Even if this is not accepted, it still makes him "mastoor", and still acceptable and much better than "matrook" narrators. EVEN IF "majhool" it'll be acceptable according to Imam Ibn Hibban at least. but there has never been a scholars of sunnah who said "matrook" narrators may also be accepted.

2- Did he meet Ali?

Firstly there is no solid basis to contend that what Bukhari said is not true, especially when there is no evidence elsewhere to doubt to Sa'id al-Dhabbi's contention of having seen him.

At the very best it can become Mursal which you have yourself accepted. In Irsal both the narrations become equal and so does their weakness according to the scholars who grade Mursal as Da'if, but this narration has no Matrook narrator in its chain.

-- ABC of hadith sciences --

Its not just about Sa'id al-Dhabbi and Imam Baqir, it also deals with people who narrate from them, and the narration you bring is from liars, we have seen.

Waqar Akbar said...

-- Saying of Zuhayr bin Muawiya --

Firstly he was born in 95 or 100 A.H. clearly Mursal at least, may even be Mu'adhal

And what is the chain of narrators from him down to Ibn Asaakir? can you even find it? It appears to be nothing better than hearsay. Doesnt help at all.


- My question and your rant about "amghar"--

we shall talk of amghar only when you answer the point made in the original article.


What is "abyad" when scholars say if it becomes devoid of redness it is as gypsum/plaster or leprosy?

-- The real question you don't want to answer--

WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Waqar Akbar said...

And yes before you tell me once again that so and so scholars said so and so about ALi (RA), let it be reiterated that it is known to objective minded students of islamic sciences that scholars were never much worries about the reports in history works except when some issue rose up as such needing to be contended.

read the following;

Ibn Salah writes the following

وَمِنْ أَحْلَاهَا وَأَكْثَرِهَا فَوَائِدَ كِتَابُ " الِاسْتِيعَابِ " لِابْنِ عَبْدِ الْبَرِّ، لَوْلَا مَا شَانَهُ بِهِ مِنْ إِيرَادِهِ كَثِيرًا مِمَّا شَجَرَ بَيْنَ الصَّحَابَةِ، وَحِكَايَاتِهِ عَنِ الْأَخْبَارِيِّينَ لَا الْمُحَدِّثِينَ، وَغَالِبٌ عَلَى الْأَخْبَارِيِّينَ الْإِكْثَارُ وَالتَّخْلِيطُ فِيمَا يَرْوُونَهُ.

"Had it not been for Ibn Abdul Barr's inclusion of large amount of material concerning the disputes that flared up between the Companions AND HIS REPORTING FROM THE ORDINARY REPORTERS (AKHBARIYIN), RATHER THAN [RELIABLE] TRANSMITTERS OF HADITH, his Kitab Al-Isti'ab would have been the most pleasant and useful works on the subject. PROXILITY AND CONFUSION PREVAIL IN WHAT THE ORDINARY REPORTERS RELATE."

See Muqaddima Ibn Salah, Dar al-Fekr, Beirut 1986 pp.291-292

Mark the fact that he even reported from ordinary reporters with no authority at all and related even disgusting things about the companions. And yet you want people to accept what all is mentioned therein and the works like it, even if it is know that it is reported from liars or with no chain of authority? WHO IS SPEAKING FOR THE RAWAFID BY SAYING ACCEPT EVERYTHING THEREIN EVEN ABOUT THE CONCOCTED REPORTS ABOUT DISPUTED AMONG COMPANIONS?

THIS IS WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE BEST BOOK ABOUT COMPANIONS, NEED NOT SAY ABOUT THE REST THAT GIVE PIECES OF INFO WITHOUT ANY CITING ANY AUTHORITY!

And do not try to assert that Sa’id al-Dhabbi’s narration came to me in some dream. It is reported by at least v5 scholars and that too with a chain of narrations hundred thousand times better than the one involving “matrook”, liar narrators.

And i repeat the most important question, raised even in the original article;

WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Anonymous said...

I am thankful jayden for showing this to me. great job done. gabirel and waqar know the reality of things brought up by tariq and wesley and i am loving it. the ice is broken. there is no alternative to study i infer.

Jada
VA

Save the True Arabs said...

If you had an ounce of sanity, you would notice that I am giving you example after example of reliable scholars of the past and scholars of hadith and scholars of history describing Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma and you have FAILED to give me one example of a scholar of Ahl Al-Sunnah saying that what they said about him being shadid al-udma is wrong. I have just shown you that Zuhair ibn Muawia was called by those knowledgeable of men RELIABLE and PROOF. I have just told you that he along with all of the others that I have mentioned, said that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma. So I, along with scholars of the Ahl Al-Sunnah, accept his and the other scholars' word when they say that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma. You can sit there and let your insanity make you think that you know more than them, but I don't have time for you. Anyone who wants to be so insane as to listen to you, a nobody, and ignore the scholars, let them go right ahead.

Concerning amghar and amhaq and a'afar and aqhab and the meaning of abyad, I've explained it all here for anyone who wants to know the true meaning of abyad. But for those who have a disease in their hearts, I don't have time for them.

Waqar Akbar said...

Goodness! I knew you will soon find yourself locked. You don't have time cause you do not have answers to questions.

What does "abyad" mean when scholars say it is a color which is like gypsum/plaster and leprosy if devoid of redness?

And what is your justification to use the complexion of Ali (ra) and his progeny when he did not resemble the prophet [saaw]?

And i have explained in extreme detail the reality of the report you use regarding Ali (ra) even though as shown it does not say anything about the prophet's [saaw] complexion. And your rant about quotations does not help as they have no chain of narrators and where there is a chain it involves known liars. regarding the rest the comment of ibn salah on al-isti'ab says it all.

Waqar Akbar said...

About "a'afar"

firstly it is only about the armpits and with this known, the following comment kills your excitement

Hafiz Zainuddin al-Iraqi (d. 806 A.H.) writes;

أَنَّ آثَارَ الشَّعْرِ هُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ الْمَكَانَ أَعْفَرَ وَإِلَّا فَلَوْ كَانَ خَالِيًا مِنْ بَنَاتِ الشَّعْرِ جُمْلَةً لَمْ يَكُنْ أَعْفَرَ

“It was the effect of the hair that made the place (i.e. armpits) “a’afar” (i.e. dusty-colored) and if it was devoid of any hair, it was not “a’afar”.”

See, Tarah al-Tathrib fi Sharah al-Taqrib, Dar al-Ahya al-Turath, Beirut, n.d. vol.2 p.81

The same is also mentioned in;

Mirqat al-Mafatih of Ali bin Sultan al-Qari (d. 1014 A.H.)

Faydh al-Qadir of al-Manawi (d. 1031 A.H.)

Dalil al-Falihin of al-Bakri al-Shafi’i (d. 1057 A.H.)

And many others …

I have written about it in quite detail here,

http://savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=218

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

Read my response here:

http://www.savethetruearabs.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=218

Waqar Akbar said...

Berry

There you said,

//
Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi disagree with what Al-Iraaqi says and they say that the Prophet's (SAWS) armpits were the same color as the rest of his body.
//

Can you give their complete statements and references please?

And my question that still needs an answer;

WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Anonymous said...

selam brother waqar

i want to learn the hadith sciences (science of reporting). from this discussion i have sensed how important and interesting it is. seems wonderful and rigorous and determines only genuine way to learn anything related to islam. any books? how about making lectures on it? i want to buy books on narrators? where to find? how many are translated?

Save the True Arabs said...

The following is found in شرح الزرقاني على موطأ الإمام مالك Sharh Al-Zarqaani 'Ala Muwatta Imam Maalik:

فقال الطبري : من خصائصه أن الإبط من جميع الناس متغير اللون ، إلا هو عليه الصلاة والسلام
ومثله للقرطبي ، وزاد : وأنه لا شعر عليه .

"Al-Tabari says:

'One of his (SAWS) special qualities is that, unlike other people, the color of his armpits are not different from the rest of his body.'

Al-Qurtubi says the same and he adds:

'and they have no hair on them.'"

It is wrong to suggest that the Prophet (SAWS) had armpits darker than the rest of his body because suggesting such a thing is suggesting that the Prophet (SAWS) had the disease called Acanthosis Nigricans! The Prophet (SAWS) had no such disease and his armpits were described the same complexion that the rest of his body was described, so stop suggesting that the Prophet's (SAWS) armpits were a different color from the rest of his body. This is an example of a person suffering from Acanthosis Nigricans:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vzMXlfzgosE/TPUNxaKkYMI/AAAAAAAADsQ/SF1DkP0YxtQ/s1600/skin%2Bdiscoloration%2Bpictures-Acan%20tosisnigricans.jpg

Save the True Arabs said...

Dark Underarms Causes

Some of the causes of dark underarms are as follows Friction due to tight blouses and tops that brush against the skin, Excessive sweating, Infections due to improper washing of underarms, Shaving, Dead skin buildup, Chemicals, alcohol and strong fragrance in deodorants. Body odor and darkened underarms often occur together as both can be caused by the presence of certain types of bacteria. Sweat does not have any odor but bacteria that thrive on perspiration are the root cause of the problem. One of the most common types of bacteria responsible for dark underarms and an unpleasant odor is called Corynebacterium. This type of bacteria is generally found in the areas under the arms and around the groin and they metabolize sweat and sebum which results in the formation of odorous compounds that are responsible for the foul smell. These bacteria also cause the skin to darken over a prolonged period of time.

http://www.home-remedies-for-you.com/remedy/Dark-underarms.html

Known causes, incidence, and risk factors of acanthosis nigricans

Acanthosis nigricans can affect anyone including otherwise healthy people, or it may be associated with certain medical problems. Certain cases are genetically inherited or transmitted. The problem is most generally seen among people of African descent, simply because it is simpler to determine in more dark skin.

Weight problems, often obesity, and some endocrine disorders can result in acanthosis nigricans. It’s more prevalent in individuals with obesity-related diabetes.

In some cases, certain types of drugs specially hormones like the human growth hormone or birth control pills can also cause AN.

Likewise, persons afflicted with lymphona or gastrointestinal or genitourinary tracts cancers are also prone and more like to develop severe cases of this skin disorder.

http://www.acanthosisnigricans.org/acant....and-prevention/

Acanthosis nigricans is a skin condition characterized by dark, thick, velvety skin in body folds and creases. Most often, acanthosis nigricans affects your armpits, groin and neck.

With acanthosis nigricans, you may naturally be concerned about the appearance of your skin. Some steps may help lighten the affected areas of your skin. There's no specific treatment for acanthosis nigricans — but treating any underlying conditions, such as diabetes and obesity, may cause the changes in your skin changes to fade

Characteristics of acanthosis nigricans include:

Skin changes. Skin changes are the only signs of acanthosis nigricans. You'll notice dark, thick, velvety skin in body folds and creases — typically in your armpits, groin and neck. Sometimes the lips, palms or soles of the feet are affected as well.
Slow progression. The skin changes appear slowly, sometimes over months or years.
Possible itching. Rarely, the affected areas may itch.

Acanthosis nigricans is often associated with conditions that increase your insulin level, such as type 2 diabetes or being overweight. If your insulin level is too high, the extra insulin may trigger activity in your skin cells. This may cause the characteristic skin changes.

In some cases, acanthosis nigricans is inherited. Certain medications — such as human growth hormone, oral contraceptives and large doses of niacin — can contribute to the condition. Other hormone problems, endocrine disorders or tumors may play a role as well. Rarely, acanthosis nigricans is associated with certain types of cancer

Acanthosis nigricans can begin at any age. It's most obvious in people who have dark skin.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091219150812AAEsdmE

Save the True Arabs said...

You then said:


And why don't you share what is written just next to it?

Al-Zarqani then writes;

وَنَازَعَهُ الْوَلِيُّ الْعِرَاقِيُّ، وَقَالَ: لَمْ يَثْبُتْ ذَلِكَ بِوَجْهٍ، وَالْخَصَائِصُ لَا تَثْبُتُ بِالِاحْتِمَالِ، وَلَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ ذِكْرِ أَنَسٍ وَغَيْرِهِ بَيَاضَ إِبْطَيْهِ، أَنْ لَا يَكُونَ لَهُ شَعْرٌ فَإِنَّ الشَّعْرَ إِذَا نُتِفَ بَقِيَ الْمَكَانُ أَبْيَضَ، .

"And this is contested by al-Iraqi and he said: This is not particularly proved. And characteristics are not proved through probability. And the report from Anas and others about the whiteness (bayad) of his armpits does not mandate that he had no hair (in armpits) for when the hair are removed it leaves the place 'abyad' (white) ..."

Then he gives the Hadith narrations and the statement earlier shared.

The point is; there is no direct evidence for the assertion of al-Tabari and the claim of al-Qurtubi who reached that conclusion from the narrations about the whiteness of armpits. And al-Iraqi makes a very valid point when he says;

"And characteristics are not proved through probability."

If you have some authentic hadith to prove that, please share.

And he then explains the thing in the last part of his quotation above.

Suggestion of the disease called Acanthosis Nigricans?

You got to be kidding.

The statement of al-Tabari you seek evidence with says;

Save the True Arabs said...

You said (continued):


The statement of al-Tabari you seek evidence with says;


Quote:

مِنْ خَصَائِصِهِ أَنَّ الْإِبْطَ مِنْ جَمِيعِ النَّاسِ مُتَغَيِّرُ اللَّوْنِ، إِلَّا هُوَ عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ.

'One of his (SAWS) special qualities is that, unlike other people, the color of his armpits are not different from the rest of his body.'


i.e. except the Holy Prophet -may Allah bless him- everyone's armpits are different in color than their bodies.

Are you then suggesting, everyone in this world suffers from this disease Acanthosis Nigricans?? :o

Give common sense a chance!


Indeed Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

I answered:


Quote:


And why don't you share what is written just next to it?



Because you have already written Al-Iraaqi's opinion. I wrote what I wrote to show you that Al-Tabari and Al-Qurtubi disagree with what Al-Iraaqi says. Why do I need to write Al-Iraaqi's opinion again?


Quote:


And al-Iraqi makes a very valid point when he says;

"And characteristics are not proved through probability."



Who's using probability, one who describes the complexion of the Prophet (SAWS) the same way his complexion was described in the hadith or one who says that the complexion of his (SAWS) armpits were some different color from the rest of his complexion? Do YOU have some authentic hadith to prove that the Prophet's armpits were a different complexion from the rest of his complexion? Does Al-Iraaqi have some authentic hadith to prove that the Prophet's armpits were a different complexion from the rest of his complexion?


Quote:

i.e. except the Holy Prophet -may Allah bless him- everyone's armpits are different in color than their bodies.

Are you then suggesting, everyone in this world suffers from this disease Acanthosis Nigricans??



What concerns me is what he said about the Prophet's (SAWS) armpits being the same complexion as the rest of his complexion. I don't know who he means has darker armpits than the rest of his body. I do know that my armpits aren't darker than the rest of my body (و لله الحمد) nor are the armpits of others that I know ( الحمد لله ). Nor are the armpits of these people darker than the rest of their body:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3123/3221539430_99116a2061_z.jpg?zz=1

http://wf360.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452408569e2013482cbbd2b970c-400wi

http://www.howtogetridofstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/armpithair.jpg

http://mediaoutrage.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/armpit.jpg

THERE IS NO REASON FOR ANYONE TO BELIEVE THAT THE COMPLEXION OF THE PROPHET'S (SAWS) ARMPITS WERE ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF HIS COMPLEXION!!!

Waqar Akbar said...

I RECALL there was some mention of HAIR here

***

1- Humans normally have hair in their armpits

2- Signs of hair, make the skin look a little dark

3- There is no evidence to maintain that Prophet (saaw) did not have hair in his armpits

***

So you make no case. AL-IRAQI DID NOT NEED ANY HADITH NARRATION TO ASSERT WHAT HE DID.


Indeed Allah knows the best!

Waqar Akbar said...

and yes, you still got to answer

WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"I RECALL there was some mention of HAIR here

***

1- Humans normally have hair in their armpits

2- Signs of hair, make the skin look a little dark

3- There is no evidence to maintain that Prophet (saaw) did not have hair in his armpits

***

So you make no case. AL-IRAQI DID NOT NEED ANY HADITH NARRATION TO ASSERT WHAT HE DID."

What are you talking about??? Do you really not see that you aren't making any sense and that you are just arguing without knowledge just to hear yourself talk? Are we talking about hair or the color of armpits? I just posted pictures of armpits with and without hair and you see with your own eyes that there is no change in the color of their armpits. I've posted information about the disease that causes darkening of armpits. I've also shown you the different meanings of the words that were used to describe the Prophet's (saws) complexion and I've explained to you what these words mean. I've also shown you examples of people and I've asked you to read and comment on all I've said. Instead of doing so, u keep making comments that make no sense. Instead of admitting that what I have said is right, you keep grasping at straws and disputing with me without knowledge. This behavior of yours is totally Satanic. Muslims don't behave the way you are behaving.

Waqar Akbar said...

Everyone knows how the hair and its signs affects the the look of the skin.

The comments of scholars never disputed common observation. al-Qurtubi said the Prophet [saaw] had no hair in his armpits. This was without any authentic proof. Even the scholars who differed with al-Iraqi never claimed hair do not affect the looks of skin color. its only you who lack the common sense.

i know what i say makes no sense to you because your arguments are getting killed and you are greatly frustrated. and the reason is for the first time somebody challenged you, at least in the english language and you now fear losing your sheep, Alhamdulillah!

The only Muslim and non-Satanic way in your books seems to be the one in which people agree with you and say you are doing "great". sorry you are not!

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Waqar Akbar said...

and yes, you still got to answer

WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar, I want you to read everything that I wrote here very carefully and to then admit that this man is abyad (white) complexioned according to the Arabs' definition of abyad:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.466097!/img/httpImage/image.jpg

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"The comments of scholars never disputed common observation. al-Qurtubi said the Prophet [saaw] had no hair in his armpits. This was without any authentic proof. Even the scholars who differed with al-Iraqi never claimed hair do not affect the looks of skin color. its only you who lack the common sense."

Why are you trying to change the subject (as usually)? We are not talking about hair or no hair. That's another subject. We are talking about the color of his (SAWS) armpits and they were described as a'afar and the rest of his body was described as colors the same as a'afar and darker, so WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????? Also, I've posted pictures of people's armpits, shaved and with hair, and you and everyone else can see clearly that the color of their armpits is the same color as the rest of their body! STOP GRASPING AT STRAWS, WAQAR, AND ACCEPT THE TRUTH!

Waqar Akbar said...

Berry berry berry

you write

//
Why are you trying to change the subject (as usually)? We are not talking about hair or no hair. That's another subject.
//

You got to be insane to say its another subject, how is it?

1- We are discussing the complexion of the Prophet (saaw)
2- Only his armpits have been described as "a'afar"
3- Humans generally have hair in their armpits
4- hair, and their signs, do affect the look of the skin, on which they grow
5- There is no evidence to maintain that Prophet's (saaw) never had any hair in his armpits
6- This is precisely what a great muhaddith, hafiz al-Iraqi simply say

Why are you then dying and trying every way to run from the real thing?

Don't be obstinate. Accept the truth.

Hope these are pics of humans only

http://www.truenaturalweightloss.com/files/armpit_5_troy.jpg

http://wikidoc.org/images/b/bf/Armpit_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

with these read the statements of al-Iraqi

-1-

“It was the effect of the hair that made the place (i.e. armpits) “a’afar” (i.e. dusty-colored) and if it was devoid of any hair, it was not “a’afar”.”

and

-2-

"when the hair are removed it leaves the place 'abyad' (white) ..."

tell me if you have some evidence to dispute this

*** Only his armpits have been described as "a'afar" ***

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Waqar Akbar said...

and yes, you still got to answer

WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Berry berry berry"

I say:

Waqar, Waqar, Waqar, try to remove that waqar (deafness) from your ears and listen to what I am telling you and don't be like these people that Allah spoke about here where He says:

وَقَالُوا قُلُوبُنَا فِي أَكِنَّةٍ مِمَّا تَدْعُونَا إِلَيْهِ وَفِي آذَانِنَا وَقْرٌ وَمِنْ بَيْنِنَا وَبَيْنِكَ حِجَابٌ فَاعْمَلْ إِنَّنَا عَامِلُونَ

And they say, "Our hearts are within coverings from that to which you invite us, and in our ears is waqar (deafness), and between us and you is a partition, so work; indeed, we are working."

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"Hope these are pics of humans only

http://www.truenaturalweightloss.com/files/armpit_5_troy.jpg

http://wikidoc.org/images/b/bf/Armpit_by_David_Shankbone.jpg

with these read the statements of al-Iraqi

-1-

“It was the effect of the hair that made the place (i.e. armpits) “a’afar” (i.e. dusty-colored) and if it was devoid of any hair, it was not “a’afar”.”

and

-2-

"when the hair are removed it leaves the place 'abyad' (white) ..."

tell me if you have some evidence to dispute this

*** Only his armpits have been described as "a'afar" ***"

Those pictures show clearly the color of the underarm hair of those people and they show clearly the color of their armpits. No one here is talking about the color of the hair. We are talking about the color of the armpits! The hadith says that the Prophet's (SAWS) armpits were a'afar complexioned. The hadith doesn't say anything about hair or traces of hair. IT SAYS A'AFAR COMPLEXIONED ARMPITS!!! Al-Iraqi cannot say that "it was the effect of the hair that made the place (i.e. armpits) a’afar”. How could he possibly know this??? The evidenve that I have to dispute this is the fact that the Prophet (SAWS) was also described as amghar, abyad, and asmar and they are all colors that are the same as a'afar or darker!!! Are you hearing me Waqar???

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?"

Before I answer that, I want you to admit that the description of Ali ibn Abi Taalib's complexion according to the scholars is shadid al-udma. Look at this again:

* َAl-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in his book Taarikh Al-Islaam:

وعن الشعبي قال: رأيت علياً أبيض اللحية، ما رأيت أعظم لحية منه، وفي رأسه زغبات. وقال أبو إسحاق: رأيته يخطب، وعليه إزار ورداء، أنزع، ضخم البطن، أبيض الرأس واللحية. وعن أبي جعفر الباقر قال: كان علي آدم، شديد الأدمة، ثقيل العينين، عظيمهما، وهو إلى القصر أقرب.

* Ibn Jawzi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma in his book Safwat Al-Safwa.

* Al-Balaadhari describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in his book Ansaab Al-Ashraaf:

وكان علي آدم شديد الادمة، ثقيل العينين، ضخم البطن، أصلع ذا عضلات ومناكب، في أذنيه شعر قد خرج من أذنه، وكان إلى القصر أقرب

* Al-Suyuti describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in Taarikh Al-Khulafaa:

‏‏"‏‏و‏ ‏كان‏‏ ‏علي‏ (بن‏ ‏ابي‏ ‏طالب )‏شيخا‏،‏ ‏سمينا،‏ ‏‏أ‏صلع،‏‏ ‏كثير‏ ‏الشعر،‏ ‏ربعة‏ ‏الى‏ ‏القصر،‏ ‏عظيم‏ ‏البطن،‏ ‏عظيم‏ ‏اللحية‏ ‏جدا،‏ ‏قد‏ ‏ملأت‏ ‏ما‏ ‏بين‏ ‏منكبيه،‏ ‏بيضاء‏ ‏كأنها‏ ‏قطن،‏ ‏آدم‏ ‏شديد‏ ‏الأدمة‏"‏.‏

* Ibn Abdel Barr describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

وسئل أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين عن صفة علي رضي الله عنه فقال: كان رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة، مقبل العينين عظيمهما ذا بطن
أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

* Ahmed ibn 'Amru ibn Al-Dahhaak Abu Bakr Al-Shaibaani describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) as shadid al-udma here:

ومن ذكر علي بن أبي طالب
ابن عَبْد المطلب بن هاشم بن عَبْد مناف بن قصي بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي يكنى أبا الحسن رَضِيَ الله تعالى عنه واسم أبي طالب عَبْد مناف بن عَبْد المطلب واسم عَبْد المطلب شيبة بن هاشم واسم هاشم عَمْرو بن عب مناف واسم عَبْد مناف المغيرة بن قصي واسم قصي زيد بن كلاب بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي وكان آدم شديد الأدمة ثقيل العينين عظيمها وقد قالوا أعمش ذا بطن سمنا أصلع دون الربعة عظيم اللحية رضوان الله عليه

* Al-'Allaama Mohamed ibn Talha Al-Shaafa'ie describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

كان عليه السلام آدم شديد الادمة، ظاهرة السمرة، عظيم العينين، أقرب إلى القصر من الطول لم يتجاوز حد الاعتدال في ذلك، ذا بطن كثير الشعر، عريض اللحية، أصلع أبيض الرأس واللحية

* Al-Safidi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

وكان رضي الله عنه رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة ثقيل العينين عظيمهما، ذا بطن أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

Ibn Asaakir says in Taarikh Dimisq:

وقال زهير بْن معاوية : كَانَ علي يكنى أبا قاسم ، وكان رجلًا آدم شديد الأدمة ، ثقيل العينين عظيمهما ، ذا بطن ، أصلع ، وهو إلى قصر أقرب ، وكان أبيض الرأس واللحية ،

Zuhair ibn Muawia said:

"Ali had the kunya Abu Qaasim and he was shadid al-udma with big, heavy eyes, a big belly, bald, leaned toward shortness, and he had white hair and a white beard."

Who was this Zuhair ibn Muawia? Here's what scholars say about him:

Abu Bakr Al-Bazaar says: Reliable
Abu Haatim Al-Raazi says: Reliable, Prefect
Al-Nisaai says: Reliable, Firm
Al-Dhahabi says: Reliable, Proof
Sufyaan ibn 'Uyeena says: There is no one in Al-Kufa like him.

Save the True Arabs said...

Let's take a close look at who Waqar has the gall to call wrong for saying that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma:

* َAl-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in his book Taarikh Al-Islaam:

وعن الشعبي قال: رأيت علياً أبيض اللحية، ما رأيت أعظم لحية منه، وفي رأسه زغبات. وقال أبو إسحاق: رأيته يخطب، وعليه إزار ورداء، أنزع، ضخم البطن، أبيض الرأس واللحية. وعن أبي جعفر الباقر قال: كان علي آدم، شديد الأدمة، ثقيل العينين، عظيمهما، وهو إلى القصر أقرب.

* Ibn Jawzi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma in his book Safwat Al-Safwa.

* Al-Balaadhari describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in his book Ansaab Al-Ashraaf:

وكان علي آدم شديد الادمة، ثقيل العينين، ضخم البطن، أصلع ذا عضلات ومناكب، في أذنيه شعر قد خرج من أذنه، وكان إلى القصر أقرب

* Al-Suyuti describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here in Taarikh Al-Khulafaa:

‏‏"‏‏و‏ ‏كان‏‏ ‏علي‏ (بن‏ ‏ابي‏ ‏طالب )‏شيخا‏،‏ ‏سمينا،‏ ‏‏أ‏صلع،‏‏ ‏كثير‏ ‏الشعر،‏ ‏ربعة‏ ‏الى‏ ‏القصر،‏ ‏عظيم‏ ‏البطن،‏ ‏عظيم‏ ‏اللحية‏ ‏جدا،‏ ‏قد‏ ‏ملأت‏ ‏ما‏ ‏بين‏ ‏منكبيه،‏ ‏بيضاء‏ ‏كأنها‏ ‏قطن،‏ ‏آدم‏ ‏شديد‏ ‏الأدمة‏"‏.‏

* Ibn Abdel Barr describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

وسئل أبو جعفر محمد بن علي بن الحسين عن صفة علي رضي الله عنه فقال: كان رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة، مقبل العينين عظيمهما ذا بطن
أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

* Ahmed ibn 'Amru ibn Al-Dahhaak Abu Bakr Al-Shaibaani describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) as shadid al-udma here:

ومن ذكر علي بن أبي طالب
ابن عَبْد المطلب بن هاشم بن عَبْد مناف بن قصي بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي يكنى أبا الحسن رَضِيَ الله تعالى عنه واسم أبي طالب عَبْد مناف بن عَبْد المطلب واسم عَبْد المطلب شيبة بن هاشم واسم هاشم عَمْرو بن عب مناف واسم عَبْد مناف المغيرة بن قصي واسم قصي زيد بن كلاب بن مرة بن كعب بن لؤي وكان آدم شديد الأدمة ثقيل العينين عظيمها وقد قالوا أعمش ذا بطن سمنا أصلع دون الربعة عظيم اللحية رضوان الله عليه

* Al-'Allaama Mohamed ibn Talha Al-Shaafa'ie describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

كان عليه السلام آدم شديد الادمة، ظاهرة السمرة، عظيم العينين، أقرب إلى القصر من الطول لم يتجاوز حد الاعتدال في ذلك، ذا بطن كثير الشعر، عريض اللحية، أصلع أبيض الرأس واللحية

* Al-Safadi describes Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma here:

وكان رضي الله عنه رجلاً آدم شديد الأدمة ثقيل العينين عظيمهما، ذا بطن أصلع ربعة إلى القصر لا يخضب

Ibn Asaakir says in Taarikh Dimisq:

وقال زهير بْن معاوية : كَانَ علي يكنى أبا قاسم ، وكان رجلًا آدم شديد الأدمة ، ثقيل العينين عظيمهما ، ذا بطن ، أصلع ، وهو إلى قصر أقرب ، وكان أبيض الرأس واللحية ،

Zuhair ibn Muawia said:

"Ali had the kunya Abu Qaasim and he was shadid al-udma with big, heavy eyes, a big belly, bald, leaned toward shortness, and he had white hair and a white beard."

Save the True Arabs said...

Who was this Zuhair ibn Muawia? Here's what scholars say about him:

Abu Bakr Al-Bazaar says: Reliable
Abu Haatim Al-Raazi says: Reliable, Prefect
Al-Nisaai says: Reliable, Firm
Al-Dhahabi says: Reliable, Proof
Sufyaan ibn 'Uyeena says: There is no one in Al-Kufa like him.

Who was this Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi:

Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn `Uthman ibn Qaymaz ibn `Abd Allah, Shams al-Din Abu `Abd Allah al-Turkmani al-Diyarbakri al-Fariqi al-Dimashqi al-Dhahabi al-Shafi`i (673-748), the imam, Shaykh al-Islam, head of hadith masters, perspicuous critic and expert examiner of the hadith, encyclopedic historian and biographer, and foremost authority in the canonical readings of the Qur'an. Born in Damascus where his family lived from the time of his grandfather `Uthman, he sometimes identified himself as Ibn al-Dhahabi - son of the goldsmith - in reference to his father's profession. He began his study of hadith at age eighteen, travelling from Damascus to Ba`labak, Hims, Hama, Aleppo, Tripoli, Nabulus, al-Ramla, Cairo, Iskandariyya, al-Qudus, Hijaz, and elsewhere to thirty different locations, after which he returned to Damascus where he taught and authored many works and achieved world renown. He lost his sight two years before he died, leaving three children: his eldest daughter Amat al-`Aziz and his two sons `Abd Allah and Abu Hurayra `Abd al-Rahman. The latter taught the hadith masters Ibn Nasir al-Din al-Dimashqi1 and Ibn Hajar, to whom he transmitted several works authored or narrated by his father.

Who was Al-Baladhuri:

ʾAḥmad Ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī Arabic (أحمد بن يحيى بن جابر البلاذري) was a 9th century Persian historian. One of the eminent middle-eastern historians of his age, he spent most of his life in Baghdad and enjoyed great influence at the court of the caliph al-Mutawakkil. He traveled in Syria and Iraq, compiling information for his major works. He is regarded as a reliable source for the history of the early Arabs and the history of Muslim expansion.

Who was Ibn Al-Jawzi:

Abu'l-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi (508 AH-597 AH) from Bagdad was an Islamic scholar whose family traces their lineage back to that of Abu Bakr, the famous companion of the prophet Muhammad and first caliph. He belonged to the Hanbali school of jurisprudential thought.

His full name was Abd al-Rahman ibn Ali ibn Muhammad (Arabic: عبد الرحمن بن علي بن محمد‎) ibn `Ubayd Allah ibn `Abd Allah ibn Hammadi ibn Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ja`far ibn `Abd Allah ibn al-Qasim ibn al-Nadr ibn al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn `Abd Allah ibn al-Faqih `Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Faqih al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr.

He was known for his works in exegesis of the Qur'an as well as his numerous hadith writings. One of the more famous of the latter is his "Tahqiq", a compendium of both the hadith evidences used by the Hanbali school of jurisprudential thought and a work of compartive law (Arabic: فقه Fiqh). He is said to have been a precocious child who allegedly made his first speech at the age of ten (attended by a crowd of 50,000), and authored his first book at the age of thirteen.

Save the True Arabs said...

Who was Ibn Abdel Barr:

Yûsuf ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muhammad Ibn `Abd al-Barr, Abû `Umar al-Namarî al-Andalusî al-Qurtubî al-Mâlikî (368-463). A major hadîth Master of the Mâlikî School. Ibn Farhûn says he was the greatest memorizer of the Sunna in his time and Ibn al-Subkî mentions him in the fifth synchronical layer of those who followed the School of al-Ash`arî in doctrine along with Abû al-Walîd al-Bâjî, Abû al-Hasan al-Qâbisî, Abû al-Qâsim ibn `Asâkir, Abû al-Hasan al-Murâdî, Abû Sa`d ibn al-Sam`ânî, Abû Tâhir al-Silafî, al-Qâdî `Iyâd, and al-Shahrastânî. He studied under Ibn al-Makwî, Ibn al-Fardî, Ahmad ibn `Abd al-Mâlik ibn Hishâm, and took hadîth from Sa`îd ibn Nasr, `Abd al-Wârith, Ahmad ibn Qâsim al-Bazzâr, Khalf ibn Sahl, Abû `Umar al-Talamankî, and many others Al-Qurtubî cites him about five hundred times in his Tafsîr. Of his book al-Tamhîd his friend Ibn Hazm said: "I do not know of anything like it with regard to the superlative understanding of hadîth, let alone better than it."

Who was Al-Suyuti:

Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti (Arabic: جلال الدين السيوطي‎) (c. 1445–1505 AD) also known as Ibn al-Kutub (son of books) was an Egyptian writer, religious scholar, juristic expert and teacher whose works deal with a wide variety of subjects in Islamic theology. He was precocious and was already a teacher in 1462. In 1486, he was appointed to a chair in the mosque of Baybars in Cairo. He adhered to the Shafi'i Madhab and is one of the latter-day authorities of the Shafi'i School, considered to be one of the Ashabun-Nazzar (Assessors) whose degree of Ijtihad is agreed upon...

He was born in the month of Rajab 849H [1445 AD] in Cairo (Egypt), and was raised as an orphan after his father died while he was only 5 years old. He memorized the entire Qur'an when he was barely eight. Then he went on to memorize Al-Umdah and Minhaaj Al-Fiqh wal-Usool and Alfiyyah Ibn Malik. He began to engross himself in religious knowledge starting from 864H, at the age of 15...

Al-Suyuti held various positions in his lifetime such as that of teacher of the Arabic language in 866H, he was authorized to give fatwa in 876H and he taught and dictated hadith at the University of Ibn Tuloon.

He was a prolific writer, and a well-known author of the latter times. He has left behind at least a book in every branch of Islamic science that include both short monographs of few pages and tomes spanning volumes. Some of his books are also first of their kind – and standards for those that were written after. Many of his books are published; they are easily and widely available.

The first book he wrote was Sharh Al-Isti'aadha wal-Basmalah in 866H, when he was seventeen years old.

Ibn Ímād writes: "Most of his works become world famous right in his lifetime. His ability to write was phenomenal. His student Dawudi says: "I was with the Shaykh Suyuti once, and he wrote three volumes on that day. He used to dictate annotations on ĥadīth, and answer my objections at the same time. He was the most knowledgeable scholar in his time of the ĥadīth and associated sciences, knowledge of the narrators including the uncommon ones, the text of the hadith matn, its chain of narrators isnad, the derivation of ruling from hadith. He has himself told me, that he had memorized a hundred thousand hadith."

Who was Ibn 'Asakir:

`Ali ibn al-Hasan ibn Hibat Allah ibn `Abd Allah, Thiqat al-Din, Abu al-Qasim, known as Ibn `Asakir al-Dimashqi al-Shafi`i al-Ash`ari (499-571), the imam of hadith masters in his time and historian of Damascus.

Ibn al-Najjar said: "He is the imam of hadith scholars in his time and the chief leader in memorization, meticulous verification, thorough knowledge in the sciences of hadith, trustworthiness, nobility, and excellence in writing and beautiful recitation. He is the seal of this science."

Anonymous said...

tarik:
i do not mean to offend, but this brother, waqar, seems to take the better of you. his arguments are more streamlined and objective. and you avoid many of his questions making your case weak.

overall, besides the quality of arguments, these guys seem to cause a serious setback to your cause. not many people will even like to believe what you say and their arguments provide reasonable footings to doubt your intake.

i have followed the discussion ever since it started. i like your commitment to your cause, while the other fellow seems to me more versed in debating, presenting arguments and playing with nerves.

waqar:
only if your tone was not too high.

--
dying2learn

Save the True Arabs said...

Anonymous,

I'm not sure what you mean when you say: "waqar, seems to take the better of you. his arguments are more streamlined and objective". Why don't you explain what you mean and tell me which arguments you are referring to? I have said what the scholars say that abyad means. What part of what they said don't you understand? I have also said what the scholars say Ali ibn Abi Taalib looked like and what his complexion was. What part of what they said don't you understand? You said that I "avoid many of his questions". Please tell me which question of his I avoided. Also tell me his response to my explanation of abyad that I gave him from Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Minhaaji Al-Suyuti, and Imam Al-Tha'aalabi. I don't see a response from him despite my constantly asking him to respond. Do you see a response from him? Kindly guide me to it because I don't see it.

Save the True Arabs said...

Anonymous/Dying2learn/?,

I really do hope that you answer my questions that I asked above. I'd also like to know how/why you feel that there is some "setback to my cause"? What is it that was said here that makes you think that? You can't possibly be serious. Let me ask you a question. After reading the above, what complexion would you describe Ali ibn Abi Taalib and what did the Arabs of the past mean when they called someone abyad? According to Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Minhaaji Al-Suyuti, and Imam Al-Tha'aalabi, what does abyad mean to the Arabs? Do you find anything unclear about their definition of abyad? And my final question is, what's your opinion about a person who disregards what Imam Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Minhaaji Al-Suyuti, and Imam Al-Tha'aalabi say that abyad means and listens to what Waqar says instead? What would you say about such a person? Honestly. I really want to know.

Wesley Muhammad said...

So after all of this time, this is what you produce Waqar and Jibril? I take it this is the best you have to offer? This is even more desperate than your first attempt. Like you did then, you ignore most of the evidences presented. When I finished reading this, a sense of victory came upon me: not personal victory, but the victory of truth against pathetic attempts of White Supremacy. You two have no idea how your efforts here have benefited the cause to dismantle the White Supremacist lie that converted the Holy Prophet into a 'ruddy-white'. I am preparing full document, point by point response to your two documents. Of all of the debates I have had, engaging you two is the most fun and the most satisfying.

I truly thank you two for your efforts. You best show the weakness of the foundation upon which the 'lil white lie' is founded.

Till then

Anonymous said...

Waqar and Jibril, you want to turn this into a racial debate when it is not. It is a simple debate over the meaning of terms. Both Tariq and Wesley have provided ample information along with references for the meaning of Abyad from classical lexicons and other sources. Also, no one ever said the Prophet was not Abyad, the issue is what does Abyad mean. To say that we imply that the Prophet "was a black man (black as African, black as Wesley)" shows a deep seated ignorance and racial prejudice. Furthermore, who uttered those words other than you? What exactly is "African black" Africa is the most diverse continent on the planet with many different phenotypes. Was Haile Selassie "African Black?" You sound like the typical ignorant racist who thinks all black people look alike. You also come with this condescending tone as if black people were gullible and stupid and don't have the intelligence to understand for themselves. Waqar is full of empty threats of chasing people and other than that. The internet is full of people like you with big talk as you hide safely behind your computer somewhere in cyber land. Like I said before, you guys have been insulting, condescending, and lack any semblance of etiquette of any kind. You do not exemplify Islamic scholarship or any other type of scholarship, prophetic character, or Islamic character You are indicative of a generation brought up on action movies and video games. Also, what is with your preoccupation with Dr. Wesley's PHD. You remind me of those who criticize black men for lack of education and then criticize them when they do. It sounds like jealousy and envy to me and the Prophet, peace be upon him and his family said that envy consumes good deeds like fire does wood. You should reflect on the following words of the Creator because even if you were right you would turn people off with your rudeness and lack of character. Even your supporter said, "waqar: only if your tone was not too high" and that was putting it mildly.

Reflect:

فبما رحمة من الله لنت لهم ولو كنت فظا غليظ القلب لانفضوا من حولك فاعف عنهم واستغفر لهم وشاورهم في الأمر فإذا عزمت فتوكل على الله إن الله يحب المتوكلين
So by mercy from Allah , [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah . Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]. 3:159

Yusuf al-Faruq

Anonymous said...

tarik

i am not debating you but telling you my understanding of the things. i searched and found that many of these things were presented to you on arabic forums as well. you never answered the points there, and now instead of answering the points raised in the original article by two of our brothers who have been on the forefront defending islamic ideals against polemic attacks from outside and from splinter groups within, you raise new points not specifically answering the points made by them.

Also one important difference is that they refer to texts and explanation directly about the Prophet (pbuh) while you refer to dictionaries mostly- a source every student of languages would know is not too objective as words keep changes connotations/nuances in different contexts.

About Ali [Allah be pleased with him (abpwh)] it is clear his complexion was wheatish (adam) though its not fully certain of what degree, "shadid al-udmah" or "adna min an-yakun adam". i tend to understand waqar's point on this issue.

he has shown and you have neglected what Ibn Salah said about spanish muslim scholar ibn abdul barr's work 'al-istiyab'. if this is correct -and i cannot doubt waqar's credibility in citation at least- this speaks a lot. if that could-have-been best book on companions includes reports from ordinary narrators of stories then this can well be the case with any other work. to get rid of this "may well be" thing we need to turn to isnaad and the isnaad of that report from al-Baqir al-imam is not sound, there is no doubt as it involves rejected ruwaat.

as to zuhayr bin muawia, i don't have ibn asakir's book with me but if waqar's contention that there is no chain from zuhayr down to ibn asakir is true then it again does not help. so your excessive writing about zuhair's reliability is not even the subject here.

and i do not think waqar ever put to question the authority of any of these scholars to doubt. he only says their works on history cannot be taken as without anything not fully authentic, and his quote from Ibn Salah about al-istiab supports him fully. and while we know the terrible issue with the isnaad of reports you use, i think his argument is more sound.

also narrations from abu bakr [abpwh] and fatima [abpwh] show ali [abpwh] was not like prophet [pbuh] in appearance so, i see a very important question getting neglected by you over and over again. and this is sure to have an impact on those following the discussion closely.

--
dying2learn

Anonymous said...

Anonymous

What a strange response!....so now you are casting doubt on the scholars/lexicographers of the Arabic language?...you are not being impartial here...you are clearly siding with Waqar...that is quite obvious...and i'll put you to the test to prove it.......Can you please show me a reference where the term Adam means a 'wheatish' complexion/colour?

Bilal ibn Rabah was also described as shadid al-udmah does this mean that he too was of a wheatish complexion?...why is he always refrred to as 'black'?

Also WHere did Tarik say that the Prophet( saws ) was the same complexion as Ali?....Please show us

Save the True Arabs said...

Dying2learn,

You said:

"Also one important difference is that they refer to texts and explanation directly about the Prophet (pbuh) while you refer to dictionaries mostly"

The Prophet (SAWS) was described as abyad and he was described as asmar. Do you know what the Arabs of the past meant by abyad? Apparently you don't. The SCHOLARS who wrote these dictionaries, wrote them for you to have the correct understanding of the words that the Arabs used. How could you possibly believe that their explanation of the Arabic language is unimportant? Do you realize that without knowledge of the Arabic language, there is no other knowledge? Why do you think that Al-Dhahabi took the time to explain to you what the Arabs meant by abyad? Why did Al-Tha'aalabi explain what abyad means? What did Al-Minhaaji Al-Suyuti explain what abyad means. They explained it for you to have a correct understanding of the meaning of the word. What I don't understand is why you don't want to have a correct understanding of the meaning of the word.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"About Ali [Allah be pleased with him (abpwh)] it is clear his complexion was wheatish (adam) though its not fully certain of what degree, "shadid al-udmah" or "adna min an-yakun adam"."

First of all, why are you calling adam "wheatish"??? Why don't you go ahead and explain to us where you got that definition of adam. Adam doesn't mean wheatish and it never meant wheatish, so stop attempting to change the meaning of the word because these description have come out in the open. Now that it is known who was described as adam, many people with a disease in their hearts are now going to make weak attempts at changing the meaning of adam, but of course they won't succeed. You said "its not fully certain of what degree, "shadid al-udmah" or "adna min an-yakun adam". Look above at how the scholars described him and tell me if you think that they are lying or do you think that they are just talking nonsense. Do you believe that they are really scholars and know what they are talking about or not? Answer this question directly. Look carefully at the names and read more about who they are because apparently you don't know.

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"he has shown and you have neglected what Ibn Salah said about spanish muslim scholar ibn abdul barr's work 'al-istiyab'. if this is correct -and i cannot doubt waqar's credibility in citation at least- this speaks a lot."

I have neglected what Waqar said about what Ibn Salah said because I don't see where what he (Ibn Salah) said says anything about Ibn Abdel Barr's mentioning, like all the other scholars have said, that Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) was described as shadid al-udma. All Ibn Salah says in essence is that Ibn Abdel Barr's book Al-Istee'aab is a great book and is one of the best books for knowledge about the Companions of the Prophet (SAWS) other than it containing stories about disputes between the Companions (RAA)and it containing stories related by akhbaariyeen instead of muhadiththeen. Nowhere does he say that Ibn Abdel Barr is wrong about the description of Ali ibn Abi Taalib. Ibn Salah says that the book is one of the best books for knowledge about the Companions (RAA) and Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) was a Companion and Ibn Abdel Barr mentioned his description as shadid al-udma in this great book about the Companions of the Prophet (SAWS).

Waqar Akbar said...

@ berry

about a'afar thing, you are just rambling ignorantly now ... don't waste my time

1- Al-Iraqi clearly related it to hair and their effects .. you have no one to challenge him
2- al-Tabari and al-Qurtubi were suggestive of something not proved from any authentic source so they do not count on this
3- i have already shown you how ridiculous is your disease idea on this issue. the affect we are talking of is for all humans and even al-Tabari accepted it. are you suggesting all humans suffer from that disease or after al-Iraqi now you will put to question the al-Tabari's understanding of simple thing?

regarding the rest fellow "dying2learn" has very well summarized my contention.

and you have once again decided to turn a deaf year to all that, i.e. case of the books with no chain of authorities with al-istiyab as a test case. read Ibn Salah's statement. same was also mentioned by Ibn Kathir in Bahth al-Khathith

And its interesting you refer to Ibn Asakir, Baladhuri etc. as well, who have not only given full chain of narrators and that chain has liars and further both of these along with Ibn Sa'd and al-Asbahani have given the other narration that you have tried hard to put to question but ended up throwing yourself in further abyss.

you failed to mention any chain from zuhayr down to ibn asakir and repeat the things over and over again which i never contested i.e. the stature of those scholars.

do you suggest that all the narrations in those books e.g. those about hatred and discord among the companions given in the works like al-Istiyab etc should be accepted? or refusing to accept them would tantamount to argue against the stature of Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr?
as i say, give common sense a chance please

Also once again you avoid the simple question;

WHAT IS YOUR JUSTIFICATION OF USING THE COMPLEXION OF ALI (RA) AND HIS OFFSPRING IN THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT HE DID NOT RESEMBLE THE PROPHET?

Waqar Akbar said...

@ wesley

Welcome mr. "PhD"

The fact that you need to announce your feelings is quite suggestive here. i find nothing more than an attempt to boast the spirits of your sheep after you have been taken to task, Alhamdulillah

respond if you like, but do not expect us to respond to what sudanese villagers think and believe bla bla

the simple evidence on the complexion of the Prophet [saaw] is hadith narrations. if you do not use that or reject them and instead waste 30 pages on coming up with useless arguments like sudanese villagers and al-jahiz etc. than obviously we are not so free to make a 90 page response to all that crap. talk about main evidences and come up with valid arguments, you will be entertained

else we do not mind the efforts to do to keep the flock from dispersing

indeed Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

"we need to turn to isnaad and the isnaad of that report from al-Baqir al-imam is not sound, there is no doubt as it involves rejected ruwaat."

Dying2learn,

Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi was an expert in the science of hadith and he knew who was weak and who wasn't. He also knew what was said about the people in the isnaad of the hadith that you are referring to. Waqar is assuming a lot when he assumes 1.) that Al-Dhahabi and the others mentioned above don't know about the sanad of the hadith that he keeps mentioning and 2.) that Al-Dhahabi and the others mentioned above based what they said about Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) being shadid al-udma on the hadith that he keeps mentioning.

Dying2learn, the sooner you and Waqar realize that the learned men mentioned above KNOW and you two DON'T KNOW, the better it will be for you two. Have you bothered to ask yourselves why it is that all of the learned men above described Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma??? I really don't understand how you are thinking.

You said:

"as to zuhayr bin muawia, i don't have ibn asakir's book with me but if waqar's contention that there is no chain from zuhayr down to ibn asakir is true then it again does not help. so your excessive writing about zuhair's reliability is not even the subject here."

We're not talking about a chain. We are talking about what a reliable scholar of the past said without mentioning a chain. He said that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma. Now do you agree with the scholars when they say that he is reliable and that he is proof? Yes or no? You call yourself Dying2learn, but you don't seem like you are dying to learn because people who are dying to learn listen to and learn from the learned. The people mentioned above are learned men and they said that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma and they know everything AND MORE about that hadith that you keep mentioning and they still say that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma.

You said:

"and i do not think waqar ever put to question the authority of any of these scholars to doubt. he only says their works on history cannot be taken as without anything not fully authentic,"

He DID put to question their authority because they said that Ali ibn Abi Taalib (RAA) was shadid al-udma and he (Waqar, who is not anywhere near being a scholar) said that what they say is not true. And the problem is that he doesn't even know all of the proof they have of what they say about Ali ibn Abi Taalib being shadid al-udma. He is just assuming that he knows more about hadith and the Companions (RAA) than all of the learned men mentioned above. Whoever can't see the ludicracy of this has serious problems.

You said:

"also narrations from abu bakr [abpwh] and fatima [abpwh] show ali [abpwh] was not like prophet [pbuh] in appearance so, i see a very important question getting neglected by you over and over again. and this is sure to have an impact on those following the discussion closely."

You need to first understand the meaning of abyad. Then you will see my point in mentioning the description of Ali (RAA). Let me help you understand abyad first. Then we can talk about why I mentioned Ali inshaAllah. Respond to my questions to you about the Imams' explanation of the meaning of abyad. Don't do what Waqar did and run away from respoding.

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

You said:

"about a'afar thing, you are just rambling ignorantly now ... don't waste my time"

I'm going to "waste your time" until you face the issue and stop running away from it by trying to change the subject to hair or whatever other straw you could try to cling to. WAS THE PROPHET (SAWS) DESCRIBED AS AMGHAR AND ASMAR OR NOT? ARE AMGHAR AND ASMAR LIGHTER THAN A'AFAR? Answer these questions now and stop running away from them!!! And IS AL-DHAHABI'S DEFINITION OF ABYAD A LIGHT COMPLEXION???

Waqar Akbar said...

@ tariq

you said

//I'm going to "waste your time" until you face the issue and stop running away from it by trying to change the subject to hair or whatever other straw you could try to cling to//

Its not about hair?

Read what al-Iraqi said and while you are right that i am not a scholar, don't assume yourself to be one and reject al-Iraqi without evidence. this is not something for which he was required to give a chain of narrators.

there is one way for you to challenge al-Iraqi making some sense i.e. show us a narration where the Prophet's (saaw) face or complexion per se is described as "a'afar". if its only about his armpits then mark the fact that al-Iraqi ripped you apart- may Allah have mercy on him.

And in this discussion there can never be more ridiculous argument than the disease thing you brought in and seemingly you have sensed how insane you appeared with that, as you do not dare bask on it anymore. Alhamdulillah!

About "asmar" I have already shown you the reality

in its normal use, its a very light dark, as if the blackness is hidden.

هُوَ لَوْنٌ يَضْرِبُ إِلى سَوَادٍ خَفِيٍّ

“It is the color that inclines towards hidden blackness (sawad khafiy).

however it has another meaning i.e. whiteness mixed with redness as explicitly stated by Ibn Hajr, al-Halabi and al-Khattabi. And students of hadith and not "blackness of complexions" know when dealing with ikhtilaaf al-hadith it only demands to go by this meaning.

Also do not forget that fact that scholars of hadith have graded the narration that describes the Prophet [saaw] as "asmar" as a "shaadh" one where one narrator goes against many others.

As to what al-dhahbi says. his statement clearly maintains "abyad" is lighter than "asmar" and we have seen even "asmar" is a very light shade so much so as its blackness being hidden, so "abyad" is even more light. your clinging to it and rejecting the rest of evidence and scholarly interpretations is the lightest straw ever.

Waqar Akbar said...

you further said;

//
Dying2learn, the sooner you and Waqar realize that the learned men mentioned above KNOW and you two DON'T KNOW, the better it will be for you two. Have you bothered to ask yourselves why it is that all of the learned men above described Ali ibn Abi Taalib as shadid al-udma??? I really don't understand how you are thinking.
//

and

//
We're not talking about a chain. We are talking about what a reliable scholar of the past said without mentioning a chain. He said that Ali ibn Abi Taalib was shadid al-udma. Now do you agree with the scholars when they say that he is reliable and that he is proof? Yes or no?
//

all this was simply answered by Ibn Salah's statement about Hafiz Ibn Abdul Barr's work al-Isti'ab.

ARE YOU THEN SUGGESTING THAT WHATEVER THAT, OTHERWISE UN-DISPUTABLY GREAT, SCHOLAR HAFIZ IBN ABDUL BARR WROTE SHOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTED EVEN ABOUT THE ALLEGED DISCORD BETWEEN THE COMPANIONS?

And Ibn Salah said this al-isti'ab is perhaps the best book on companions otherwise. if this is the fact about the best book what can be said of the others.

So you make no case. Need i show some narrations from al-ist'iab about the alleged discord among the companions, will you accept them?

Indeed Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

OK. Let's take these last responses of yours slowly, step by step. First you said:

"there is one way for you to challenge al-Iraqi making some sense i.e. show us a narration where the Prophet's (saaw) face or complexion per se is described as "a'afar". if its only about his armpits then mark the fact that al-Iraqi ripped you apart- may Allah have mercy on him."

OK. Here's is my response to this part. Listen and then respond to what I say:

He (SAWS) was described as amghar and he was described as asmar and don't try to suggest that the hadith that described him as asmar is not a sound hadith. It's a SOUND hadith. Al-Albaani said that it is SOUND. I guess next you are going to say that you know more about hadiths than Al-Sheikh Al-Albaani too, right. Of course you will say that. You have already said that you know more than the learned men that I mentioned above. The hadith is SOUND, so stop trying to wiggle your way out of facing this hadith. The Prophet (SAWS) was described as amghar complexion and he (SAWS) was described as asmar complexion and they (the two complexions amghar and asmar) are like a'afar and darker. So that is why saying that he was described as a'afar "is referring to hair" doesn't make any sense.

I have shown you what abyad means and as you can see, it's a color that is close to asmar. Asmar is a color even darker than abyad. This is why some are saying that there is a contradiction between being described as abyad and being described as asmar. Ibn Al-Athir says that they way to put the two together is to say that what was exposed was asmar complexioned and the part of his body that was covered abyad complexioned. Look again at the explanation of the meaning of abyad and you will see how close the complexion is to asmar and you will see how a person could be described by some as abyad and by others as asmar.

RESPOND TO THIS FIRST. THEN WE'LL SPEAK ABOUT THE OTHER THINGS.

Save the True Arabs said...

This man is abyad:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.466097!/img/httpImage/image.jpg

Waqar Akbar said...

Do you think I'll allow you to moderate the discussion when you fail to respond to the essential points?

remember it's you who is trying to refute a paper co-authored me so it's you who needs to address points made by me first before any further discussion

and your above statements are flawed too to the limit.

-- regarding asmar --

firstly that hadith on its wording is indeed "shaadh", even though its "isaad" is sahih, but if you have even minuscule understanding of hadith you would know that it is not enough for a report to be sahih.

the great classical hadith scholar Hafiz Al-Iraqi said,

وَقَالَ الْعِرَاقِيُّ: هَذِهِ اللَّفْظَةُ انْفَرَدَ بِهَا حُمَيْدٌ عَنْ أَنَسٍ وَرَوَاهُ غَيْرُهُ مِنَ الرُّوَاةِ عَنْهُ بِلَفْظِ أَزْهَرَ اللَّوْنِ، ثُمَّ نَظَرْنَا إِلَى مَنْ رَوَى صِفَةَ لَوْنِهِ صلّى الله عليه وسلم غَيْرَ أَنَسٍ فَكُلُّهُمْ وَصَفُوهُ بِالْبَيَاضِ دُونَ السُّمْرَةِ وَهُمْ خَمْسَةَ عَشَرَ صَحَابِيًّا

And al-Iraqi said, “These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not ‘asmar’ complexion and they are fifteen companions who explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him.

it is therefore "shaadh" and i have shown you already what Ibn Salah about this type of narrations.

you can easily contend against this if you show us this narration from a narrator other than humayd narrating from Anas (ra)

Further you are perhaps "forgetting" the words of Ibn hajr, al-halabi and al-Khattabi about the meaning of "asmar".. and if you have known hadith science issue "ikhtilaf al-hadith" you must know it got to be understood as whiteness imbued with redness. this will deflate you.

-- Regarding abyad itself --

scholarly comments say "abyad" if devoid of redness becomes like gypsum/plaster or leprosy.

this kills your point about attaching black shade to "bayad"

Talk sense and we move forward.

To begin with, you got to answer 2 questions at least

1- when "abyad" is such a color which if devoid of redness becomes "amhaq" i.e. like gypsum/plaster or leprosy, how do you justify your assertions with this fact?

2- what is your justification to use the complexion of Ali (ra) and his progeny when it is known he did not resemble the prophet [saaw]?

indeed Allah knows the best!

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

Stop trying to insult the intelligence of the readers here. You know that you aren't fooling me with that nonsense that you are talking, but stop trying to insult the intelligence of others here who may not know any better. That hadith is sahih (sound) and that's all there is too it and I want you to admit to everyone here that it is a sound hadith and stop trying to play with their minds. Anas ibn Malik, who lived with the Prophet (SAWS) and saw him every day, said that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar complexioned. Stop playing your games with that nonsense that you are talking about "a sahih hadith is not enough for it to be sahih"! Just cut it out! Do you think that you are speaking to fools or what? Anas ibn Malik said in a sahih (sound) hadith that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar complexioned and I want you to admit this right now in front of everyone here. Say it! It won't kill you! Say it! And after you say it, we'll talk about abyad inshaAllah. I see exactly how you are trying to fool readers here, but I'm not going to let you do it. First admit to everyone here that Anas ibn Maalik (RAA) said in a sahih (sound) hadith that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar complexioned. If you don't say it, you will be proving to everyone here that you are a big dajjaal.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

Tariq Berry

do not weep dear

I thought you must have learnt by now that these dramas won't work with me and i like to press the likes of you even more when you behave like this.

so now enjoy the following

SCHOLARLY COMMENTS ABOUT THE HADITH THAT DESCRIBES THE PROPHET AS "ASMAR" IN COMPLEXION

i reproduce the statements of Hafiz al-Iraqi and Hafiz Ibn Salah once again, if you have "forgotten" that

-- HAFIZ AL-IRAQI --

Hafiz al-Iraqi said about that narration;

"These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not ‘asmar’ complexion and they are fifteen companions who explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him."

And Hafiz Ibn Salah, quoting from Imam al-Shafii, has defined "shaadh" narration as

إِنَّمَا الشَّاذُّ أَنْ يَرْوِيَ الثِّقَةُ حَدِيثًا يُخَالِفُ مَا رَوَى النَّاسُ

“… the anomalous (shaadh) hadith is the one which a RELIABLE transmitter relates and which is in CONFLICT with what other people relate.”
(Muqaddima Ibn Salah, Section 13)

mark the words in capital.

is this not cent percent true about the narration? read al-Iraqi's comment above

**** IMAM IBN JAWZI ***

now a special gift

Following is the testimony of from Imam Ibn Jawzi.

قَالَ بن الْجَوْزِيِّ هَذَا حَدِيثٌ لَا يَصِحُّ وَهُوَ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْأَحَادِيثِ كُلِّهَا

"Ibn al-Jawzi said, this hadith is NOT sahih, and it is against all the ahadith on this issue."
(Tuhfa al-Ahwazi, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut n.d. vol.10 p.68)

....

with the above in mind, go back and read who were al-Iraqi, al-Shafii, and reconsider what you wrote about Ibn Jawzi.

Frankly I have started valuing you, for you help me find more and more stuff to crush this stupid movement of yours.

still, you got time, turn to truth

Were al-Shafii, al-Iraqi, Ibn Salah, Ibn al-Jawzi insulting people's understanding?

yes indeed they are even now insulting the false understanding of yours and your team.

so if you can dare call Hafiz al-Iraqi, and Ibn al-Jawzi and those giving the principles of the science weakening this narration i.e. Imam al-Shafii and Hafiz Ibn Salah each a "big dajjal" then i wont mind you calling me the same. I feel a lot comfortable with them I and never get impressed by your meaningless shouts.

anxious to listen from you, but do not weep please

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Save the True Arabs said...

I tell you what Anas ibn Maalik, the prominent Companion of the Prophet (SAWS), said and you tell me what Al-Iraaqi said! What is that???!!! Listen again. Anas ibn Maalik (RAA) said:

Bear in mind that Anas ibn Maalik (RAA) lived with the Prophet from the age of ten and served him every day. This is what he said about the complexion of the Prophet (SAWS):

عن يعقوب بن سفيان، حدثني عمرو بن عون وسعيد بن منصور قالا: حدثنا خالد بن عبد الله عن حميد الطويل، عن أنس بن مالك قال: كان رسول الله أسمر اللون.


Ya'qoub ibn Sufyan related that 'Amru ibn 'Awn and Said ibn Mansour said that Khalid ibn Abdella related from Hamid Al-Tawil that Anas ibn Maalik said:

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) was asmar complexioned."

As I told you before, this hadith is sound. Al-Tirmidhi judged it sound and so did Al-Albaani. Concerning what Ibn Jawzi said, it is known that the hadith scholars criticize him when it comes to the field of hadiths and being a muhaddith. HE WAS CRITICIZED FOR JUDGING SOUND HADITHS WEAK. You can read this and translate it for the others because I don't have the time to translate it:

http://www.nationalkuwait.com/vb/showthread.php?t=36269

http://www.islamww.com/books/GoPage14-2697-10657-130.html

Again! This is a sound hadith and I want you to admit to everyone here that it is a sound hadith. THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO FIRST:


عن يعقوب بن سفيان، حدثني عمرو بن عون وسعيد بن منصور قالا: حدثنا خالد بن عبد الله عن حميد الطويل، عن أنس بن مالك قال: كان رسول الله أسمر اللون.


Ya'qoub ibn Sufyan related that 'Amru ibn 'Awn and Said ibn Mansour said that Khalid ibn Abdella related from Hamid Al-Tawil that Anas ibn Maalik said:

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) was asmar complexioned."

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

hello mr. this is not about al-Iraqi vs. Sayyidina Anas (RA)

This is about a narration attributed to Anas (RA) by one narrator which goes against what is narrated from loads of other companions and even other narrators reporting from Anas (RA)

So before you copy much more text from wikipedia let me tell you that this is not about doubting the testimony of Anas (RA) but what is attributed to him that goes against what is narrated from the likes of ABU BAKR, UMAR, ALI, ABU HURAYRA, ABU UMAMAH, JABIR BIN ABDULLAH, IBN MASUD, ABU TUFAYL, and even AISHA -may Allah be pleased with them all.

and yes, its not even about doubting the reliability of Humayd. so lest you quote what scholars said about his reliability, mark the definition of "shaadh" i gave you from none other than our imam, al-Shafii;

نَّمَا الشَّاذُّ أَنْ يَرْوِيَ الثِّقَةُ حَدِيثًا يُخَالِفُ مَا رَوَى النَّاسُ

“… the anomalous (shaadh) hadith is the one which a RELIABLE transmitter relates and which is in CONFLICT with what other people relate.”
(Muqaddima Ibn Salah, Section 13)

then read what al-iraqi said.

As to Ibn al-Jawzi, even though it is known he was rather strict in his analysis, but it does not mean you can reject his weakening of reports whenever you like.

here he agrees with what al-iraqi said, and his analysis is perfectly according to the principle given by Imam al-Shafii quoted and accepted by Ibn Salah and jamhoor muhaddithin.

mark his statement

هَذَا حَدِيثٌ لَا يَصِحُّ وَهُوَ مُخَالِفٌ لِلْأَحَادِيثِ كُلِّهَا

"this hadith is NOT sahih, and IT IS AGAINST ALL THE AHADITH on this issue."

mark the capitalized words

so he is not shooting in air like you, he is only following the principle given by al-Shafii, ibn Salah and accepted by Jamhoor.

So as always you make no case at all.

Let me remind you, you got to answer the following

1- when "abyad" is such a color which if devoid of redness becomes "amhaq" i.e. like gypsum/plaster or leprosy, how do you justify your assertions with this fact?

2- what is your justification to use the complexion of Ali (ra) and his progeny when it is known he did not resemble the prophet [saaw]?

indeed Allah knows the best!

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

and yes thanks, i have been rather too busy these days and perhaps will be, was not finding time to make new research for my regular readers. i can now simply collect the statements of scholars about this "asmar" narration and scholarly comments about the meaning of "asmar" and make a new post in-sha'Allah. you make things easy for me :)

thanks dear for helping me fight this stupid assertion of your kind. providence is telling you even not willingly you are helping our cause, so why not join us? remember Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari was himself a mu'tazali and then he joined mainstream muslims to fight them. so join us please :)

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar. Stop playing games and aanswer my question directly with a yes or a no: Is the hadith that I mentioned above where Anas ibn Maalik, who lived with the Prophet (SAWS) and saw him every day, said that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar complexioned a sound hadith or not? Did Sheikh Al-Albaani that it is sahih (sound) or not? At this point, this is all I want you to say. Later inshaAllah if and when you ever understand what abyad means, then we can discuss why he (SAWS) was also described as abyad. All I want you to do at this point is to admit in front of everyone here that Imam Al-Tirmidhi mentions in his Shamaail Al-Mohamedia this hadith by Anas ibn Maalik (RAA) whi says that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar complexioned and he says that it is a sahih (sound) hadith and that Al-Sheikh Al-Albaani also says that it is a SAHIH (SOUND) hadith. Why are you afraid to say this. I want you to fear the day that you stand in front of Allah and are asked about why you attempted to mislead people because of some disgusting disease in your heart. Fear that day and stop these games that you are playing. This is not one of your video games. This is something serious and you are going to be asked about what you are trying to do now. Some innocent people here might be unaware of what you are doing here and the seriousness of what you are doing, but I'm telling you that you need to think seriously about whether you want to continue to try to mislead people here or not. Now answer my question with a yes or a no.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Berry,

Do not be nasty with the hadith sciences.

You have read what al-Iraqi wrote.

Referring to al-Iraqi’s comment, Muhammad al-Zarqani (d. 1122 A.H.) writes about this narration:

وَإِنْ صَحَّ إِسْنَادُهَا فَقَدَ أَعَلَّهَا الْحَافِظُ الزَّيْنُ الْعِرَاقِيُّ بِالشُّذُوذِ

“AND [EVEN] IF ITS ‘ISNAAD’ IS SAHIH, AL-IRAQI HAS SHOWN ITS DEFECT OF BEING ANOMALOUS (BIL-SHUDHUDH).”

See Sharah ‘ala Muwatta, Mekteba al-Thaqafa al-Diniya, Cairo, 2004 vol.4 p.441

Al-Zarqani in no ambiguous words tells us that even though its “isnaad” is sahih, the report is defective. For the rather naive in hadith sciences this should establish the principle that even if a report’s chain is sahih, it can still have a defect (‘illah), making it spurious.

Secondly, al-Zarqani explicitly tells us that al-Iraqi’s comment means the narration is “shaadh” and there is no doubt that “shaadh” is a kind of weak narrations.

And now read the definition of a "Sahih Hadith" from Ibn Salah;

أَمَّا الْحَدِيثُ الصَّحِيحُ: فَهُوَ الْحَدِيثُ الْمُسْنَدُ الَّذِي يَتَّصِلُ إِسْنَادُهُ بِنَقْلِ الْعَدْلِ الضَّابِطِ عَنِ الْعَدْلِ الضَّابِطِ إِلَى مُنْتَهَاهُ، وَلَا يَكُونُ شَاذًّا، وَلَا مُعَلَّلًا.

“The sahih (sound) hadith is a hadith with isnaad, the isnaad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its origin. The sound hadith can be NEITHER ANOMALOUS (SHAADH) not defective (mu’allal),”

*** So clearly the words "asmar in complexion" are "shaadh" and thus NOT SAHIH ***

Now before you start yelling abuses at me, be mindful who all will you be abusing this way. Try if you may!

As regards the comments of Imam al-Tirmidhi and Shaykh Albani, you got to remember the report that has these words has much more as well, and that "much more" is proven from other narrations as well. Their comments are more general in nature, while the scholars I have mentioned precisely commented on reality of the words "asmar in complexion." And I have fair amount of evidence to maintain that their comments are general in nature and do not cater for these particular words not narrated by anyone else. And further I have evidence that these particular words are really strange from an authority no less than Imam al-Darqutni.

And yes, before you yet again copy from wikipedia or somewhere else about the knowledge of the two great scholars, al-Tirmidhi and Albani, do not forget I also quoted from much knowledgeable people. And I have even explained the comments of Albani and Tirmidhi that they commented on the narration overall, the rest of which is proved through other chains as well from other companions.So their comments do not contradict what I quoted.

Can you reconcile all the comments we have yet seen?

Remember what Ibn al-Jawzi said?

In a while I'll publish my detailed paper on this narration. This will give further details on the subject.

Please help me learn playing video games. I like some action and thrill. Anyway we will have some thrill here in-sha'Allah :)

and yes, do not weep please!

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Save the True Arabs said...

I'll respond when I return home inshaAllah.

Save the True Arabs said...

It's clear to me that Waqar has chosen the path of error and deception over the path of truthfulness and true guidance. He has chosen the path of Shaitan over the Straight Path. And only HE will suffer the consequences of the path that he has chosen. Anyone who follows him in this choice of the Path of Shaitan will also suffer the consequences of his/her choice. Allah says in surat Al-Baqara:

إن الذين يكتمون ما أنزلنا من البينات والهدى من بعد ما بيناه للناس في الكتاب أولئك يلعنهم الله ويلعنهم اللاعنون ( 159 ) إلا الذين تابوا وأصلحوا وبينوا فأولئك أتوب عليهم وأنا التواب الرحيم (160

Indeed, those who conceal what We sent down of clear proofs and guidance after We made it clear for the people in the Scripture - those are cursed by Allah and cursed by those who curse, (159)

Except for those who repent and correct themselves and make evident [what they concealed]. Those - I will accept their repentance, and I am the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful. (160)

These verses were revealed for those who conceal the description of the Prophet Mohamed (SAWS).

This is just a warning from Allah for those who will take heed.

Concerning the hadiths that describe the Prophet (SAWS) as asmar, they are true, sound hadiths in spite of Waqar's distaste for the fact that the Prophet (SAWS) was described as asmar. What Waqar doesn't understand is that Islam is not in need of people who only follow the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) if he isn't asmar complexioned.

Imam Al-Tirmidhi relates in his Jaami'i Al-Tirmidhi:

حَدَّثَنَا حُمَيْدُ بْنُ مَسْعَدَةَ ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ الثَّقَفِيُّ ، عَنْ حُمَيْدٍ ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ، قَالَ : " كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ رَبْعَةً لَيْسَ بِالطَّوِيلِ وَلَا بِالْقَصِيرِ ، حَسَنَ الْجِسْمِ ، أَسْمَرَ اللَّوْنِ ، وَكَانَ شَعْرُهُ لَيْسَ بِجَعْدٍ وَلَا سَبْطٍ ، إِذَا مَشَى يَتَوَكَّأُ "

قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى : حَدِيثُ أَنَسٍ حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ، مِنْ حَدِيثِ حُمَيْدٍ .

Humaid ibn Mas'ada related that Abdel Wahhaab Al-Thaqafi related that Humaid related that Anas (ibn Maalik) said:

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) medium height - not tall and not short - , well-built, ASMAR COMPLEXIONED, his hair was not kinky and not lank, and when he walked, he leaned forward."

Abu'Isa (Al-Tirmidhi) then said:

This hadith of Anas' is hasan (good), sahih (sound), ghareeb (different) in this wording from Humaid's hadith.

حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ مِنْ هَذَا الْوَجْهِ ، مِنْ حَدِيثِ حُمَيْدٍ

When Al-Tirmidhi says hasan (good), sahih (sound), he means that the hadith has all of the conditions of being sound. When he (Al-Tirmidhi) describes a hadith as ghareeb, he simply means that the particular hadith has just one path. Or he could call a hadith ghareeb for any of the reasons listed below. Saying that a hadith is ghareeb is not saying that it is weak nor does it mean that the hadith is shaadh.

Gharib

A gharib, (غَرِيْب), hadith is one conveyed by only one narrator. Al-Tirmidhi's understanding of a gharib hadith, concurs to a certain extent with that of the other traditionists. According to him a hadith may be classified as gharib for one of the following three reasons:

Firstly, a hadith may be classified as gharib since it is narrated from one chain only. Al-Tirmidhi mentions as an example a tradition from Hammad ibn Salamah from Abu 'Usharai on the authority of his father who enquired from the Prophet whether the slaughtering of an animal is confined to the gullet and throat. The Prophet replied that stabbing the thigh will also suffice.

Save the True Arabs said...

Secondly, a tradition can be classified as gharib due to an addition in the text, though it will be considered a sound tradition, if that addition is reported by a reliable reporter. The example cited by al-Tirmidhi is a tradition narrated through the chain of Malik (d. 179 A.H.) from Nafi' (d. 117 A.H.) on the authority of Ibn 'Umar (d. 73 A.H.) who stated that the Prophet declared alms-giving at the end of Ramadan obligatory upon every Muslim, male or female, whether a free person or slave from the Muslims. However, this tradition has also been narrated by Ayyub Sakhtiyani and 'Ubaid Allah ibn 'Umar, without the addition "from the Muslims", hence the above mentioned example due to the addition of "from the Muslims" in the text is classified as gharib.

Thirdly, a tradition may be declared gharib since it is narrated through various chains of transmitters but having within one of its chains an addition in the isnād.

Al-Imam Al-'Allaama Mohamed Naasir Al-Din Al-Albaani also says that the above-mentioned hadith is sound (sahih) when he says in his Mukhtasir Al-Shamail Al-Mohamedia:

( صحيح )

وعنه قال: كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ربعة ليس بالطويل ولا بالقصير حسن الجسم وكان شعره ليس بجعد ولا سبط أسمر اللون إذا مشى يتكفأ

SAHIH (SOUND)

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) medium height - not tall and not short - , well-built, ASMAR COMPLEXIONED, his hair was not kinky and not lank, and when he walked, he leaned forward."

Ibn Kathir mentions in his book Al-Bidaaya Wa Al-Nihaaya the hadith mentioned by Al-Baihaqi which says:

قال البيهقي رحمه الله: أخبرنا أبو الحسين ابن بشران، أنا أبو جعفر البزار، ثنا يحيى بن جعفر، ثنا علي بن عاصم، ثنا حميد سمعت أنس بن مالك يقول، فذكر الحديث في صفة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: كان أبيض بياضه إلى السمرة

Al-Baihaqi (RA) says:

Abu Al-Husain Ibn Bashraan informed us that Abu Ja'afar Al-Bazaar said that Yahya ibn Ja'afar said that Ali ibn 'Asim said that Humaid said that he heard Anas ibn Maalik (RAA) say... and he mentioned the hadith with the description of the Prophet (SAWS) saying "He had an ABYAD COMPLEXION THAT LEANED TOWARD ASMAR."

Also, Ibn Hajar says in his book Fath Al-Baarih Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari:

جاء في حديث أنس عند أحمد والبزار وابن منده بإسناد صحيح وصححه ابن حبان

" أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كان أسمر "

"Hadith Anas, which is found with Ahmed (ibn Hanbal), Al-Bazaar, and Ibn Munda with a SOUND ISNAD and which Ibn Habban judged SOUND, says:

'The Prophet (SAWS) was ASMAR.'"

Let's look again at what Ibn Hajar is referring to:

Yaqoub ibn Sufyan said: Amr ibn al-Awn and Said ibn Mansur told me: Khalid bin Abdullah narrated that Humaid Attawil told us that Anas ibn Maalik said:

"The Messenger of Allah was ASMAR".

Thus narrated this Hadith al-Hafez Abu Bakr al-Bazzar on the authority of Ali on the authority of Khalid Ibn Abdullah on the authority of Humaid on the authority of Anas. Also, Mohammed bin Muthanna related: Abdel Wahab narrated that Humaid reported that Anas said:

"The Messenger of Allah (SAWS) wasn’t tall nor short, and when he walked, he leaned forward, and he was ASMAR".

Then Bazzaar said: We do not know of anyone relating it from Humaid except Khaled and Abdul Wahab.

Then Al-Bayhaqi (blessings of Allah be upon him) said: Abu Husain ibn Bashraan told us that Abu Jaafar Bazzaar related that Yahya ibn Jaafar related that Ali ibn 'Asim related that Humaid - making reference to the Hadith about the description of the prophet - said: "He had an abyad complexion that leaned toward ASMAR".

Save the True Arabs said...

Also, it is related by 'Auf that Yazid Al Farsi said :

عن يزيد الفارسي قال‏ رأيت النبي في النوم زمن ابن عباس‏ وكان يزيد يكتب المصاحف‏ قال‏ فقلت لابن عباس‏ إني رأيت رسول الله في النوم‏ قال ابن عباس‏ إن النبي كان يقول‏ ‏‏إن الشيطان لا يستطيع أن يتشبه بي فمن رآني في النوم فقد رآني‏‏‏ فهل تستطيع أن تنعت لنا هذا الرجل الذي رأيت‏ قال‏ نعم‏ رأيت رجلا بين الرجلين جسمه ولحمه أسمر إلى البياض حسن المضحك أكحل العينين جميل دوائر الوجه قد ملأت لحيته من هذه إلى هذه حتى كادت تملأ نحره قال عوف‏ لا أدري ما كان مع هذا من النعت‏ قال‏ فقال ابن عباس‏ لو رأيته في اليقظة ما استطعت أن تنعته فوق هذا‏
الراوي: عبدالله بن عباس - خلاصة الدرجة: رجاله ثقات - المحدث: الهيثمي - المصدر: مجمع الزوائد - الصفحة أو الرقم: 8/275

"I saw the Prophet in a dream during the time of Ibn Abbas (Yazid used to write the Koran) and I said to Ibn Abbas that I saw the Messenger of Allah in my sleep. Ibn Abbas said that the Prophet used to say that the Shaitan cannot imitate me, and whoever saw me in his sleep, then he has really seen me, so can you describe to us the man you saw. He said: yes, I saw a man between the two men, his body and flesh were ASMAR close to abyad, he had a nice smile, black eyes, a beautifully shaped face, his beard filled from here to here until it almost filled the upper portion of his chest. 'Auf then said: I don't know what was with that part of the description. Then ibn Abbas said: If you were to see him awake, you couldn't describe him any better than that".

Al-Sheikh Al-Albaani mentions this hadith in his Silsalat Al-Ahadith Al-Sahiha (Book of Sound Hadiths).

So there is no need whatsoever for me to argue back and forth with Waqar to prove to him something that the scholars of hadith have already said. The hadiths that describe the Prophet (SAWS) as asmar are sound hadiths. What I am out to prove is the fact that there is not a big contradiction between the Prophet (SAWS) being described as asmar and his being described as abyad because what is meant by abyad is a much darker complexion than most people today understand. What is meant by abyad is a complexion that is very close to asmar and that is why you have the Prophet (SAWS) being described as asmar, abyad, and asmar leaning toward abyad. This is what I am saying and I think that what I am saying is clear and there is no contradiction between what I am saying and what these sound hadiths are saying. What Waqar and any others like him is not understanding and is refusing to understand is the true meaning of abyad to the Arabs of the past. What I said here is clear and there is no need for me to sit here and argue with Waqar about something that the scholars have already said. So Waqar and anyone who chooses to follow him in his misguidance and foolishness can sit here and play scholar all they want, but he is must understand that he deceiving no one but himself.

يخادعون الله والذين آمنوا وما يخدعون إلا أنفسهم وما يشعرون

They [think to] deceive Allah and those who believe, but they deceive not except themselves and perceive [it] not.

في قلوبهم مرض فزادهم الله مرضا ولهم عذاب أليم بما كانوا يكذبون

In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

@ Berry

Nice,

Berry whose lies have been buried says

//
It's clear to me that Waqar has chosen the path of error and deception over the path of truthfulness and true guidance. He has chosen the path of Shaitan over the Straight Path. And only HE will suffer the consequences of the path that he has chosen. Anyone who follows him in this choice of the Path of Shaitan will also suffer the consequences of his/her choice.
//

And As Waqar only followed by what al-Iraqi, al-Zarqani and Ibn al-Jawzi and others said, so it means according to Tariq Berry, they all had disease in their hearts, they all followed shaitan and what not?

Really berry .. i am happy you showed your true colors. From your real worth by saying "stop barking" to abusing Qur'an in your hatred for me (when you put "waqar" in place of "waqr"), and now practically hurling abuses at the scholars of Islam, whom I followed and whose writings i merely quoted, you are crying out loud to people that in reality you are no better than Nation of Islam cultists. you creed is proving blackness of the people.

As I said you are a cultist, when it suits you you pick up the most rare opinion of preferring mursal over musnad and when it suits you, you reject the most widely established principle of "shaadh" hadith being weak. you have no manhaj, no creed except paining everything black. Wallahi this is not Islam. And i know even birth times again you won't be able to justify this approach of yours, perhaps you won't even comment to this.

But do you think, I will let you run away by citing few scholars of sunnah. or do you think i'll abuse them to chase you? Nopes, not at all. al-Tirmidhi and Albani were the scholars of Sunnah, I won't ever say a word of disrespect for them for an evil monger, Tariq Berry, the buried. It suits on a cultist like Tariq to hurl abuses at those who refer to the works of scholars of sunnah.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

-- IBN HAJR, TIRMIDHI, ALBANI classified it as SAHIH --

So what? I never denied the "isnaad" of the report is sahih. But there is something scholars of sunnah said, which Tariq Berry don't want people to see.

وَإِنْ صَحَّ إِسْنَادُهَا فَقَدَ أَعَلَّهَا الْحَافِظُ الزَّيْنُ الْعِرَاقِيُّ بِالشُّذُوذِ

“AND [EVEN] IF ITS ‘ISNAAD’ IS SAHIH, AL-IRAQI HAS SHOWN ITS DEFECT OF BEING ANOMALOUS (BIL-SHUDHUDH).”

See Sharah ‘ala Muwatta, Mekteba al-Thaqafa al-Diniya, Cairo, 2004 vol.4 p.441

mark the fact, "isnaad" is sahih, the report still remains defective.

And I have given the definition of sahih hadith from Ibn Salah;


أَمَّا الْحَدِيثُ الصَّحِيحُ: فَهُوَ الْحَدِيثُ الْمُسْنَدُ الَّذِي يَتَّصِلُ إِسْنَادُهُ بِنَقْلِ الْعَدْلِ الضَّابِطِ عَنِ الْعَدْلِ الضَّابِطِ إِلَى مُنْتَهَاهُ، وَلَا يَكُونُ شَاذًّا، وَلَا مُعَلَّلًا.

“The sahih (sound) hadith is a hadith with isnaad, the isnaad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its origin. The sound hadith can be NEITHER ANOMALOUS (SHAADH) not defective (mu’allal),”

So a SAHIH hadith not only must have a chain of reliable narrators, it also must NOT be SHAADH.

So, let's first stop here, and ask Berry if he accepts this principle? Readers have my word, everything he raised in last comment will be answered. In fact the narration of yazid and Ibn Abbas (RA) is a wonderful thing to discuss.

Berry, do you accept the principle that a "shaadh" hadith is "da'if"?

we shall talk of the comments of albani and al-tirmidhi in extreme detail thereafter. ANSWER IF YOU MAY!

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Save the True Arabs said...

I told you that I have no more time to waste on you! I've given you far more of my time than you deserve. The scholars have already spoken and there is no need for me to argue back and forth with you. But to answer your question:

You said:

"And I have given the definition of sahih hadith from Ibn Salah;

أَمَّا الْحَدِيثُ الصَّحِيحُ: فَهُوَ الْحَدِيثُ الْمُسْنَدُ الَّذِي يَتَّصِلُ إِسْنَادُهُ بِنَقْلِ الْعَدْلِ الضَّابِطِ عَنِ الْعَدْلِ الضَّابِطِ إِلَى مُنْتَهَاهُ، وَلَا يَكُونُ شَاذًّا، وَلَا مُعَلَّلًا.

“The sahih (sound) hadith is a hadith with isnaad, the isnaad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its origin. The sound hadith can be NEITHER ANOMALOUS (SHAADH) not defective (mu’allal),”

So a SAHIH hadith not only must have a chain of reliable narrators, it also must NOT be SHAADH.

So, let's first stop here, and ask Berry if he accepts this principle? Readers have my word, everything he raised in last comment will be answered. In fact the narration of yazid and Ibn Abbas (RA) is a wonderful thing to discuss.

Berry, do you accept the principle that a "shaadh" hadith is "da'if"?"

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

Al-Haafidh Al-Iraaqi said in his Al-Taqyeed Wa Al-Iydaah Sharh Muqaddamat Ibn Salah:

الخليلى يجعل تفرد الراوى الثقة شاذا صحيحا وتفرد الراوى غير الثقة شاذا ضعيفا

"AL KHALILI SAYS THAT THE SOLE NARRATION OF A TRUSTWORTHY NARRATOR IS A SOUND (SAHIH), SHAADH HADITH AND THE SOLE NARRATION OF AN UNRELIABLE NARRATOR IS AN UNSOUND (DA'EEF), SHAADH HADITH."

Also, Al-Hakim doesn't consider a hadith being described as shaadh a contradiction to that hadith being sahih (sound) and used as proof. In his book Al-Madkhal Ila Al-Iklil, Al-Hakim described one type of sahih (sound), agreed upon hadith as follows:

هذه الأحاديث الفراد والغرائب التي يرويها الثقات العدول ، تفرد بها ثقة من الثقات ، وليس لها طرق مخرجة في الكتب

"These are hadiths with sole narrators and ghareeb hadiths which are related by reliable trustworthy people - a trustworthy person amongst the trustworthy people is the sole narrator and the hadith doesn't have any other chains of narration in the books."

Waqar Akbar said...

You are hell bent on making a mockery of yourself.

You can never play these games of using different definition of different things and get away with it.

Scholars who said that "shaadh" hadith is acceptable it is in the sense of "gharib" i.e. otherwise a unique or strange report but when it goes against what is narrated from other narrators, it is "shaadh da'if" indeed. I am at work place now, I will give you -oh i mean to the other readers here- the detailed references.

For now your assertion means al-Iraqi contradicted himself?

And that al-Zarqani was mistaken when he said a narration with "sahih" chain may be defective?

And what did Ibn Salah mean by adding the extra condition about not being "shaadh" after speaking of connected chain of RELIABLE narrators?

The things you brought do no talk of the unique reports contradicting the other reports, as clearly asserted by al-Iraqi, al-Zarqani, Muhib al-Tabari and yes Ibn al-Jawzi.

One way is to put all these definitions into context and other is to accuse the scholars of contradicting their own selves. It depends what way you are following, that of scholars of sunnah or that of Nation of Islam (read Wesley).

And yes, you will always remain short of time to argue with me i assure you because the layers of your lies will be exposed one after the other. And while we debate, the documentation goes on and a dedicated document answering even the minutest details of your deceitful ways getting exposed is being prepared. not long from now, anyone reading your propaganda will only need to google things to find to the point exposition, in-sha'Allah.

I told you, I am gona follow you till I die, you die or you give up your "all is black" religion.

Do not be in any hurry, 8 hours from now, when I read back my place, will help people understand your gimmick on "shaadh" now. And yes, I said I'll even explain the comments of al-tirmidhi and albani even though i did it already briefly.

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar, No one needs you to explain anything because you can't. The scholars have already spoken. I have just told you what they say about shaadh and I've told you many times that they said that the hadiths that say that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar are sahih (sound) hadiths. That's all that I want people to know and they should know it because they have seen what the scholars say with their own eyes here. Like I said earlier, whoever wants to follow you in your misguidance and deception is free to do so and he/she alone will suffer the consequences of doing so. Again, I don't have time for your nonsense. Go play! And you say that you are going to follow me. Yalla! Follow me! Come! Follow me!

Anonymous said...

Your insults and use of slanderous language are getting worse by the response.......Waqar are you really a Muslim?

Anonymous said...

@ tariq

while waqar is yet to respond tariq what will you say about the comments of iraqi, zarqani and ibn jawzi? were they racists? followers of devil?

ibn salah's definition of sahih hadith is wrong?

@ anonymous

waqar is a real muslim and has been defending islam for years. his website is evidence for this. he has been defending islam, quran and the prophet. tariq is all about blackness. tariq is a devil only a follower of nation of islam, doing taqiyya. we have seen him asking to accept whatever ibn abdul barr wrote which includes the narrations rawafid concocted. he is only a kind of rafidi- one turning away from real islam.

read the whole debate and you will have to agree.

@ waqar

great work as usual brother. this cult was not responded to before brother jibreel and you challenged them and usual crushed the lie. tariq and wesley will both end up as sam shamoun, james white and ali sina etc.

- Abd-Allah bin Abd-Allah
Madina-tul-Nabi [saaw]

Save the True Arabs said...

Abdallah bin Abdallah,

You can save all of that rhetoric you are talking and answer one question for me. Are the hadiths that I mentioned that say that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar complexioned and that Imam Al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Hajar, and Sheikh Al-Albaani to name a few all said are sahih (sound) hadiths, are they sound hadiths in your opinion? Just answer me with a yes or a no.

Another question I have for you is this: What gives you the gall to sit there with your ignorant self and criticize the likes of Ibn Abdel Barr??? You are the epitome of what I meant when I said that anyone following Waqar in his choice of the path of Shaitan will also suffer the consequences of his/her choice. This is what Al-Hafidh Al-Dhahabi says about Ibn Abdel Barr:

"The Imam, the allama (learned one), the memorizer of the Maghrib (the west), Sheikh Al-Islam, the possessor of great literary works... people traveled to see his writings, the learned people of the time humbled themselves before his knowledge."

Why don't you, Abdallah bin Abdallah, humble yourself before his knowledge and shut your ignorant mouth?

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

Let's bury yet another lie of Berry

Without saying a word about what al-iraqi, al-Zarqani, Ibn al-Jawzi etc. said and the established principle I quoted from Ibn Salah who in turn quoted it from Al-Shafi'i, the Imam, he tries to escape by coming up with few quotes. I am sure he will never say a word about what these scholars said, and will never try to reconcile their views while it is quite easily possible but yes doing the same, his assertion meets it end.

The sole problem with those quotes is they do not help Berry if considered by anyone well versed in hadith sciences or a student of such.

Let me help the other readers here, for Berry is now clearly abusing everything to superimpose the blackness in his mind to all the people of note.

continued in the following comments

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

-- Al-KHALILI, AL-HAKIM AND AL-SHAFII'S INTAKE ON "SHAADH" (anomalous) NARRATIONS --

Now its that scholars used the term "shaad" is slightly varying senses.

Earlier I gave the definition from al-Shafi'i, and here Berry talks of what al-Khalili and al-hakim said.

Now unlike Tariq Berry who signally ignored what our Imam al-Shafi'i said, I will not let him use the quotes from scholars of sunnah to his end.

Following comment from Hafiz Ibn Hajr puts everything clear.

الحاصل من كلامهم أن الخليلي يسوي بين الشاذ والفرد المطلق، فيلزم على قوله أن يكون [في] الشاذ الصحيح وغير الصحيح، فكلامه أعم، وأخص منه الكلام الحاكم؛ لأنه يقول: إنه تفرد الثقة، فيخرج تفرد غير الثقة فيلزم على قوله أن يكون في الصحيح الشاذ وغير الشاذ، وأخص منه كلام الشافعي، لأنه يقول: "إنه تفرد الثقة بمخالفة من هو أرجح منه"

"And the gist of their discussion is that al-Khalili equated "shaadh" and solitary report as such. And regarding his comment it is a must that there be among the "shaadh" that which is sahih and that which is not sahih. And his words are too general. And more particular than his is the intake of al-Hakim for he said, "When a reliable narrator is unique." So he left out solitary reporting of the unreliable. And regarding his comment it is a must that there be among the "shaadh" that which is sahih and that which is not sahih. And even more particular (on this issue) is the word of al-shafi'i as he said, "When a reliable narrator contradicts anyone preferable to him."

See An-Nukat 'Ala Kitab Ibn Salah, Imada al-bahth al-'Ilmi, Madina al-Munawwara, 1986 vol.2 pp.652-653

Now this puts the thing very clear and kills berry's point. I put it it here in tabular form for the benefit of readers. How Ibn Hajr's puts the intake of various scholars on what "shaadh" means and his comments thereon.

1- To al-Khalili every unique report is "shaadh"
Ibn Hajr says it can be sahih or otherwise

2- al-Hakim gave a more particular definition saying, it is the unique/solitary report of a reliable narrator.
Ibn Hajr says even this can be sahih or not sahih.

[Mark the fact, even though al-hakim restricted it to reliable narrators, Ibn Hajr still says it can be other than sahih]

3- al-Shafi'i gave a more precise definition when he said, it is a solitary report of a reliable narrator contradicting people more authoritative than him.

Having known this, it leaves nothing for Berry to contend.

Now we have everything reconciled here. Alhamdulillah. Read al-Shafi'i definition of "shaadh" and with it the comments of al-Iraqi, al-Zarqani and Ibn al-Jawzi and salute the master deceitfulness of Tariq Berry, the cohort of Nation of Islam.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

-- ACCORDING TO AL-KHALILI, CAN A SOLITARY NARRATION OF A RELIABLE NARRATOR BE TAKEN AS A PROOF? --

Answer is a big NO!

al-Khalili's intake on this is quoted by Ibn Salah in his work's section of "shaadh" narrations. He quotes al-Khalili as saying;

الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ حُفَّاظُ الْحَدِيثِ أَنَّ الشَّاذَّ مَا لَيْسَ لَهُ إِلَّا إِسْنَادٌ وَاحِدٌ، يَشِذُّ بِذَلِكَ شَيْخٌ ثِقَةً كَانَ أَوْ غَيْرَ ثِقَةٍ. فَمَا كَانَ عَنْ غَيْرِ ثِقَةٍ فَمَتْرُوكٌ لَا يُقْبَلُ، وَمَا كَانَ عَنْ ثِقَةٍ يُتَوَقَّفُ فِيهِ وَلَا يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ.


"The view of the experts in hadith is that the anomalous (shaadh) hadith is one haging only a single isnaad which a single teacher, reliable or not, is 'anomalous' (yashidhadhu) in transmitting. An anomalous hadith from an unreliable transmitter is rejected and may not be accepted; ONE FROM A RELIABLE TRANSMITTER IS LEFT IN ABEYANCE AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS A PROOF."

See, Muqaddima Ibn Salah, Dar al-Fekr, beirut 1986 p.77

Did you berry mark what al-Khalili said;

[A "SHAADH" REPORT] FROM A RELIABLE TRANSMITTER IS LEFT IN ABEYANCE AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS A PROOF."

let's repeat

"MAY NOT BE CITED AS A PROOF."

Where are you berry, speak out now!

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Anonymous said...

wow ma shaa Allah akhi waqar
i see you in 'jalaal' once more :) barak Allah feek
Abdullah just told me we have you in action once more. will read whole discussion and spread the word in shaa Allah
i pity this guy but yes --no mercy-- :P

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

If only you could realize how silly you sound. You are so phony! Whoever can't see through you has ZERO insight.

And I have no idea why you are trying to confuse readers with talk about shaadh hadiths and things like that. You know that even the scholars of hadith have different opinions about what a shaadh hadith is and when a hadith should be called shaadh. Why are you pretending to master something that you don't even understand? Why are you attempting to confuse readers here with something that scholars of hadith can write volumes on? Have you ever heard of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid)? Ask yourself a simple question: Why is it that Al-Tirmidhi, who mentioned the hadiths that say that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar and the hadiths that say that he (SAWS) was abyad, why didn't he say that the hadiths that say that the Prophet (SAWS) was asmar are shaadh??? Doesn't your mind tell you that apparently he (Al-Tirmidhi) didn't consider them shaadh? Also ask yourself why it is that he didn't consider the hadiths shaadh. Doesn't the first rule say that when two texts contradict each other that you are supposed to find a possible way to combine them/make them meet. That's exactly what I am doing by trying to make people understand the true meaning of abyad. Al-Hafidh Ibn Hajar said in his book Hady Al-Saari:

وأما المخالفة وينشأ عنها الشذوذ والنكارة فإذا روي الضابط والصدوق شيئا فرواه من هو أحفظ منه أو أكثر عددا بخلاف ماروي بحيث يتعذر الجمع علي قواعد المحدثين فهذا شاذ

"Contradictions result in shudhoudh and nakaara. If an upright, trustworthy person relates something and a person who is a better memorizer or a greater number of people relates it in a contradictory way IN SUCH A MANNER THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMBINE THE TWO (NARRATIONS)/BRING THE TWO (NARRATIONS) TOGETHER according to the rules of the muhadditheen, then it is shaadh."

This is why Ibn Al-Athir said when speaking about the hadiths that describe the Prophet (SAWS) as asmar and the ones that describe him (SAWS) as abyad said:

قال ابن الأثير وجه الجمع بينهما: أن ما يبرز إلى الشمس كان أسمر اللون وما تواريه الثياب وتستره فهو أبيض

"The way of combining the two/bringing the two together is that the part of his body that was exposed to the sun was asmar complexioned and the part of his body that was covered by clothing was abyad."

Save the True Arabs said...

You said that Al-Iraaqi said:

And al-Iraqi said, “These words are the solitary report of Anas through Humayd and reports of others from him (Anas) come with the word ‘azhar al-lawn’. Further we see reports from (Companions) other than Anas, all of them describe it with whiteness (bayad) and not ‘asmar’ complexion and they are fifteen companions who explain his complexion like this –peace and blessings be upon him.”

Does Al-Iraaqi say this with the understanding that abyad meant during the time of the Prophet (SAWS) a hinti complexion with a black hilya or did he say it with the understanding that abyad meant during the time of the Prophet (SAWS) what it means today??? You REALLY need to ask yourself this question. Also, did Al-Iraaqi say what he said with the understanding that a person can be described as azhar complexioned no matter what his complexion is - as Imam Abu Hanifa said - or did he say it with the understanding that azhar means a specific complexion or a light complexion? Do you think that if Al-Iraaqi understand that abyad meant to the Arabs of the past a hinti complexion with a black hilya that he would have thought that there was a contradiction??? If you understood the true meaning of abyad to the Arabs of the past, would YOU see a contradiction? Do you want to see a way for the two hadiths to be brought together as you are supposed to or do you prefer to search for contradictions in Islam and in the words of the Companions of the Prophet (SAWS) just because of some disease in your heart? Would you leave the fold of Islam if it became clear to you that the Prophet (SAWS) was not the color you always thought he was or would you love him (SAWS) whether he was asmar or any other color? These are questions you need to sit down and seriously ask yourself.

You can try playing that game of trying to disparage what I am saying by accusing me of belonging to some cult or to the NOI all you want, but you must understand that it won't work and you must understand that the GAME of trying to prevent people of color from discussing the true appearance of the Prophet (SAWS) is OVER. What color he (SAWS) was makes no difference, but the truth about the way he was described and what was meant by the words that were used to describe him must and will be told inshaAllah.

وقل اعملوا فسيرى الله عملكم ورسوله والمؤمنون وستردون إلى عالم الغيب والشهادة فينبئكم بما كنتم تعملون

And say, "Do [as you will], for Allah will see your deeds, and [so, will] His Messenger and the believers. And you will be returned to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you of what you used to do."

9:105

Waqar Akbar said...

So that's it Berry?

Deflated? That's your worth! I told you, you have zero knowledge of hadith sciences.

The words are indeed "shaadh" and as such cannot be sought evidence with. This is what al-Iraqi said, al-Zarqani said and Ibn Jawzi clearly declared.

There is no contradiction or conflict between what the scholars said, some were using the terms in more general sense and some in more particular sense. And even the one using it in most general sense has clarified that such a report cannot be sought evidence with. So do not try to run away when you are exposed big time.

-- RECONCILING --

Even if we try to reconcile this, we find you ditched.

Firstly as I have given number of narrations above that show the Prophet [saaw] was "abyad" and it's evidently about his face.

The reconciliation is given by Ibn Hajr that we have already quoted. And its wording is amazing masha'Allah, kills your possible twisting in advance.

He wrote:

وَتَبَيَّنَ مِنْ مَجْمُوعِ الرِّوَايَاتِ أَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالسُّمْرَةِ الْحُمْرَةُ الَّتِي تُخَالِطُ الْبَيَاضَ وَأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ بِالْبَيَاضِ الْمُثْبَتِ مَا يُخَالِطُهُ الْحُمْرَةُ وَالْمَنْفِيُّ مَا لَا يُخَالِطُهُ وَهُوَ الَّذِي تَكْرَهُ الْعَرَبُ لَوْنَهُ وَتُسَمِّيهِ أَمْهَقَ

And it is evident from all the narrations taken collectively that “sumrah” means redness (humrah) mixed with whiteness (bayad). And the pleasing look of whiteness (bayad) is that in which redness (humrah) is mixed and the displeasing look is that in which it is not mixed. It is the color the Arabs dislike and call “amhaq”.

This evidently maintains that “abyad” is such a color which if devoid of redness becomes “amhaq” i.e. like plaster/gypsum or leprosy. This shows it is but pure white and if the same is mixed with redness it is also termed as “sumrah” (or “asmar”). Therefore in the narrations about the complexion of the Holy Prophet –peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- “asmar” and “sumrah” do not signify a shade of blackness but whiteness imbued with redness.

Simple.

"Abyad" if devoid of redness becomes "amhaq" i.e. like gypsum/plaster. [itself proves "abyad" is no shade of blackness]

"Abyad" if mixed with redness becomes "sumrah"

I am sure, readers must have known your worth seeing your gimmicks and gymnastics.

explanation of the comment of al-tirmidhi and albani once back at my place, in-sha'Allah

All praise be to Allah, who helps us exposes the liars.

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Anonymous said...

Salam Tarik

They accused you saying that the Prophet (saws) was black
You NEVER said he was black
They accused you of being in the NOI
You are not in the NOI
They accused you of co-authoring Wesley Williams
YOU have NEVER co-authored anything with Wesley
They accused you of not answering their Questions
YOU answered their questions...they just REFUSED to acknowledge the answers given
They accused you of not providing references for the what they claimed were Hadith
You provided the references refuting that
They said you should provide evidence for abiyud being a shade of ‘black’ or darkness
You did provide the evidence...over and over again
They accused you of claiming that Ali ibn Au Talib did not resemble the Prophet (saws)
YOU NEVER said that he did
They accused you of insulting the scholars
You provided references to support what those same scholars had said
They said that Adam means a wheatish complexion
You asked for the evidence of that....THEY HAVE NOT RESPONDED
They said that abiyud in reference to the Prophets (saws) description means a fair complexion mixed with redness
You explained to them what abiyud is and what redness is...over and over again

You posted images of people as an example of abiyud...
They refused to make any comment on those images

Tariq...you are really wasting your time here

Save the True Arabs said...

You are right Anonymous. That's why I have decided to stop wasting my time here and just leave it to the readers who really want to know the truth to read what I have written. Like you said, there is no need for me to continue wasting my time here with Waqar, JibreelK, and any others like them. I think that what I said is clear. And after all that I said about what amhaq means and what abyad means, Waqar is still talking about amhaq as if he can't understand that amhaq, which is an unattractive very light complexion which was compared to leprosy, is one color and abyad is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COLOR. Like you said, I've already explained this here and there is no need for me to explain any further. I've made it clear that there is nothing shaadh about the Prophet (SAWS) being described as asmar because all of the descriptions of him say basically the same thing. Anyone who understands what abyad really means, will see this. He (SAWS) was described as asmar, he was described as abyad, he was described as abyad leaning toward asmar, and he was described as asmar leaning toward abyad. If Waqar knew and understood and accepted the FACT that abyad means a hinti complexion with a black hilya, he would see clearly that there is nothing shaadh about the Prophet (SAWS) being described as asmar. However, the disease in his heart is preventing him from seeing and accepting the clear truth.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

Yes indeed tariq is wasting his time, my time, his energies, my energies and in fact time and energy of the whole Ummah by trying to fabricate a "truth" ... and diverting the attention of the people from attacks from outside by launching attacks from within. But let him and his cohorts know, we who have been doing their bit to defend Islam from outside will take care of the same from within, at least the growing heresies, in order to nip the evil in the bud.

Only an ignorant would deny, Tariq Berry has been helping Wesley Muhammad of Nation of Islam in his articles. And for the misguidance and aversion of Wesley there is no need to say anything here.

In-sha'Allah I am updating my article on "asmar" hadith and its reconciliation. the article will not only include the points which lead to Berry's running away from points he himself highlighted here, but will also explain the comments from scholars of sunnah that Berry attempts to use to his end.

All that has been put in comments here will be arranged and put on multiple sites, so that at least in the cyber world this cult finds no space, in-sha'Allah

Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Save the True Arabs said...

Also I forgot to mention, Waqar says here when talking about shaadh hadiths:

"There is no contradiction or conflict between what the scholars said"

Waqar doesn't seem to realize that according to Al-Khalili's definition of shaadh, the hadith "إِنَّمَا الأَعْمَالُ بِالنِّيَّاتِ Verily actions are according to intentions" is a shaadh hadith and this is the first hadith found in Sahih Al-Bukhari. I wonder if Waqar believes that this hadith can be used as evidence or not.

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar,

How can you write an article on asmar or abyad when you don't even know what the terms mean? If you had anything to say about the terms, you would say it here and now. Imam Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Minhaaji, and Imam Al-Tha'aalabi defined abyad very clearly. WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO WHAT THEY HAVE SAID THAT ABYAD MEANS??? Answer this question here and now if you have anything to say. And do you actually think that you know better than them what abyad means? Answer this question. It's a simple question. There is no need for an article. You said that adam means a wheatish complexion. EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE HERE AND NOW WHERE YOU GOT THIS DEFINITION OF ADAM FROM. Am I asking too much of you??? Just answer these simple questions here and now. And why was the Prophet (SAWS)described as amghar complexioned? And what color is a person who has a complexion like maghra? Answer these SIMPLE QUESTIONS. And you can write whatever you want and put it out in cyber space and anyone who wants to believe your nonsense is free to do so. Cyber space is full of nonsense and your nonsense adding to that nonsense will make no difference. Educated, unbiased people with insight and no disease in their heart will be able to distinguish clear truth from nonsense inshaAllah. Again:

وقل اعملوا فسيرى الله عملكم ورسوله والمؤمنون وستردون إلى عالم الغيب والشهادة فينبئكم بما كنتم تعملون

And say, "Do [as you will], for Allah will see your deeds, and [so, will] His Messenger and the believers. And you will be returned to the Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, and He will inform you of what you used to do."

9:105

Save the True Arabs said...

Waqar if you are really here to "teach" people and to "spread the truth", respond to what Anonymous just wrote point by point. Can you do that for him/her?

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

Subhan Allah ...

anyone reading with open eyes knows what is the outcome of the discussion on "shaadh" ... your point about al-hakim and al-khalili is killed and as expected you have nothing to say on it. when you find things randomly from online forums this is a foregone conclusion.

I am not here to obey you to do this and that, when the very basic questions in the article you are trying to refute are not answered.

It's like when presented with arguments, one says, "no, no, i am not gona answer, i have more red herrings"

I have repeated my questions over and over again and they are the very questions we raised in the article, so you make no point. in scores of comments you havent answered anything but have exposed yourself more and more

regarding what mr. anonymous said

Is it not a fact that Wesley of Nation of Islam wrote his article with your "material help" or have you ever questioned his claim? yes same wesley who would not refrain from accusing muslims scholars of everything that comes to his filthy mind.

he says you never said Ali (ra) resembled the prophet [saaw], you may not have written that in direct words but what on earth is your justification to use him in the discussion on the complexion of the prophet [saaw]? hope you remember your comments to our earlier article

he says you brought evidence for "abyad" being a shade of black or darkness. but you never did. . as regards al-Dhahbi's statement its explained in the article and your objection of me using "slight" in its translation is killed. "asmar" in its first meaning is a so slight a shade as if hidden and "abyad" is even more so it clearly means its in opposition to pale white only and not what may ordinarily be understood as black of any degree.

and similarly all he says makes no sense. you and your cult are no more my addressee, my audience are my people who stick what is well known and established to the scholars of sunnah of both past and the present. All i am doing is to arm them against your cult, just as i arm them against christians, atheists and qadianis. We are the custodians of sunnah and we will expose you. from the discussion on authenticity of narrations about Ali (ra) to the meaning of "a'far" and to the reality of "shaadh" and that "asmar" narration, it is evident that in things where scholarly writing are required to be tested for authenticity according to rules of report [again based on scholarly comments only] when they themselves never gave its status, you talk of their knowledge and status and when their writings expose you, you fail to comment on that as if they never said anything like that.

How on earth someone so childish and cunning as you claim that i or for that matter anyone of students of the scholars of sunnah, does not know what the terms mean? you have to answer the points raised in the original article directly before asking for your questions to be answered. supplementary questions are supplementary only.

and never imagine i would do what a person of your kind me will "want" me to do. You are not worth that. First answer questions in the original article.

Waqar Akbar Cheema said...

though as expected you have refused to accept the truth even after continuously getting exposed on one issue after than other, i'll keep writing off and on on my blogs to expose your points. and as i said in the beginning you will find much tough time to try explain your lies to the brain-using people who read your stuff.

the article is indeed needed, people must know the worth of tariq berry, the buried and all those whom he helps and who help him.

The thing is clear. One can see any Muslim scholar from Indonesia to India to Middle East to Mauritania, everyone says Prophet was white in complexion with tinge of redness, we stand for that and speak for this scholarship.
There is a cult across the atlantic that says the prophet [saaw] was black, tariq berry provides the cult with material support.

as regards evidences, it is clear berry has failed to answer simple questions and points in the article. his games on revered and loved personalities with dark complexion have been exposed. he has been proved to be a man with zero knowledge of hadith sciences- thanks to his obsession with blackness.

And lately he finds himself dead when presented with the reconciliation of narrations by Hafiz Ibn Hajr


Indeed Allah knows the best and He Alone is our refuge!

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

" Is it not a fact that Wesley of Nation of Islam wrote his article with your "material help" or have you ever questioned his claim? yes same wesley who would not refrain from accusing muslims scholars of everything that comes to his filthy mind. "

Wesley asked me questions and I answered him honestly like i would answer anyone else who asked me. I am not one who hides knowledge. You sid:

" you never said Ali (ra) resembled the prophet [saaw], you may not have written that in direct words but what on earth is your justification to use him in the discussion on the complexion of the prophet [saaw]?
If you know that i didn't say that, why did you say that I said it? Doesn't that make you a liar?

You said:

"e says you brought evidence for "abyad" being a shade of black or darkness. but you never did. . as regards al-Dhahbi's statement its explained in the article and your objection of me using "slight" in its translation is killed. "asmar" in its first meaning is a so slight a shade as if hidden and "abyad" is even more so it clearly means its in opposition to pale white only and not what may ordinarily be understood as black of any degree.""

I told you Imam Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Minhaaji, and Imam Al-Tha'aalabi's explanation of what abyad means and I then asked you what a oerson the complexion they described as abyad would be called today. You didn't answer my question nor did you respond to the above-mentioned imams's explanation of abyad. Why didn't you respond??? Isn't this our topic here???

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

" Is it not a fact that Wesley of Nation of Islam wrote his article with your "material help" or have you ever questioned his claim? yes same wesley who would not refrain from accusing muslims scholars of everything that comes to his filthy mind. "

Wesley asked me questions and I answered him honestly like i would answer anyone else who asked me. I am not one who hides knowledge. You said:

" you never said Ali (ra) resembled the prophet [saaw], you may not have written that in direct words but what on earth is your justification to use him in the discussion on the complexion of the prophet [saaw]?"

If you know that i didn't say that, why did you say that I said it? Doesn't that make you a liar?

You said:

"he says you brought evidence for "abyad" being a shade of black or darkness. but you never did. . as regards al-Dhahbi's statement its explained in the article and your objection of me using "slight" in its translation is killed. "asmar" in its first meaning is a so slight a shade as if hidden and "abyad" is even more so it clearly means its in opposition to pale white only and not what may ordinarily be understood as black of any degree."

I told you Imam Al-Dhahabi, Imam Al-Minhaaji, and Imam Al-Tha'aalabi's explanation of what abyad means and I then asked you what a oerson the complexion they described as abyad would be called today. You didn't answer my question nor did you respond to the above-mentioned imams's explanation of abyad. Why didn't you respond??? Isn't this our topic here???

Save the True Arabs said...

You said:

" rWe are the custodians of sunnah and we will expose you. "

You are the custodian of the path of Shaitan. That's what you are the custodian of.

You said:

"from the discussion on authenticity of narrations about Ali (ra) "

All you have done concerning the description of Ali (RAA) is called the prominent scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah liars and differed with them, which proves your insanity. The prominent scholars of Ahl Al-Sunnah have described Ali (RAA) as shadid al-udma and I believe them and also descrrhe him the same way. How you describe him doesn't matter. I just want readers to know how the prominent scholars described him and I've made it clear here.

You said:

" to the meaning of "a'far" and to the reality of "shaadh" and that "asmar" narration"

All you did concerning a'afar was talk about hair and avoided the discussion when I asked you why the Prophet (SAWS) was also described as amghar complexioned if his underarms were a darker complexion than the rest of his body. I also showed you how suggesting that his underarms were darker than the rest of his body is insinuating that he had some sort of disease and I showed you examples of that disease. I also explained to you that the hadith doesn't say anything about hair. It talks about the complexion of his underarms.

I've said what I have to say about shaadh and I asked you a question above about Al-Khalili's definition of shaadh and the hadith found in Sahih Al-Bukhari, but you pretended not to see my question - like you do so often.

Concerning the hadiths that describe the Prophet (SAWS) as asmar, all you have done is rejected SOUND HADITHS, which shows how insane you are and ho are are following the path of Shaitan.

Beautiful said...

Imam Shafi'i and That Early Black Islam
Abū ʿAbdullāh Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafiʿī (d. 820), or Imam Shafiʿī, is the eponym of the Shafiʿī madhhab or School of Law, one of the four orthodox schools of law in Sunni Islam. He is the founder of classical Islamic jurisprudence or fiqh. Imam Shafiʿī was a pure Qurayshi Arab from the Banu Muttalib, the sister clan of the Banu Hashim to which the Holy Prophet Muhammad belonged. He was thus described as "tall and black skinned (asmar)," which is the standard description of Arabs in that day. And like most dark-skinned Arabs of that era, Imam Shafiʿī did not like white-skinned folks, as the following anecdote reveals:
روى أحد تلامذة الشافعي أنه إشترى له طيبا بدينار ، فسأله الشافعي : ممن إشتريت ..؟؟ ، فقال : من الرجل العطار الأشقر الأزرق .. فقال الشافعي : أشقر وأزرق ..؟؟ ، إذهب ورد العطر ، ماجاءني خير قط من أشقر
"One of Al-Shafa'i's students related that he bought some scents for Al-Shafa'i for a dinar. Al-Shafa'i asked him (the student) who he bought the scents from. The man replied, 'From that blue-eyed, white-skinned (أشقر) perfumer.' Al-Shafa'i said, 'Blue-eyed, white-skinned (أشقر)?! Take it back! Nothing good has ever come to me from a white-skinned (أشقر) person!'"
In the Periods of Pre-Quran, During Prophet Muhammad Period and during the period of the (Black) Umayyad Empire, Most of the slaves were white.
The Persian/Romans Corruption: 750-1258
If the hadith books were part of Islam, the last Prophet could of left mansucripts of hadith books behind along with the Holy Quran, but he did not leave any hadith books.
The white Persian Zoroastrain Super-Power Empire was finally defeated in the field of Qadsia by the Black Arab military Generals. For this crushing defeat, Persians felt deep humiliation. They made plans on how to harm Islam. During 750-1258 AD in the time of Abbasids, Perian ruled/hijacked practically the Black Islamic Empire and during that 500 years; they took revenge against Islam by fabricating 2 million reports, naming them "hadiths" and connected their fabricated lies to the name of the Prophet. These so called 2 million invented hadiths by Persians 250-400 years after the prophet were in fact never said by the Prophet because it was forbidden in the time of the Prophet and in the time of the Four guided Caliphs to write/record any of the personal sayings of the Prophet [His true hadith] except the Holy Quran. These hadiths that contradicted the Quranic laws, insult the Prophet and Allah, ridicule common human intelligence were designed by Perian leaders [disguised pro-Zoroastrians] to harm Islam and to disable the Holy Quran. These (Persian) Mullahs or leaders have been preaching these Persian-If lies called hadiths to Muslims from 1150 years. Majority of Muslims like Pauline Christians are blind followers.

Beautiful said...

Black Arabia:
1. What were the colour of the Arabs?
All the tribes of Arabia were black-skinned.
2. What were the colour of the Romans and the Persians?
They were all white-skinned.
3. The First Four (holy) Black Caliphs and the Black Umayyad Empire defended themselves against the attacks from both Super White Power Empires! They were able to defeat and destroy both evil Empires.
4. The First Four (holy) Black Caliphs with their Black Generals and the Black Umayyad Empire folllowed the Holy Quran only! They mastered the Arabic Language of the Holy Quran and understood all its grammar and definitions of each word in it! (Classical Arabic)!
5. The First Four (holy) Black Caliphs with their Black Generals and the Black Umayyad Empire were very virtuous, (honorable), (noble), and peaceful practing the (beautiful) principles and teachings of the Holy Quran! When they ruled, they ruled with fair-dealings and equity with harmonic-balance enjoining good (beautiful) virtues and forbidding corruption!
6. What was the colour of the Prophet Muhammad?
The Prophet Muhammad had a (beautiful) black complexion that was llumunious!
7. The Romans and the Persians were two Super White Power Empires ruling the vast lands! Both Romans and the Persians were very racist towards the black skinned peoples of the planet. The Black Arabs Liberated Black Egypt from the Roman Aggressive oppression. The Black Arabs and the Black Egyptian Copts were kith and kin.
8. The Black Arabs expelled the Romans out of Egypt!

Beautiful said...

Prophet Muhammad:
The Prophet Muhammad taught:
1. Allah is the Loving-Nurturer of both (black and white) human-beings!
2. Alllah is the Beautifier of both (black and white) human-beings!
3. Allah is the Cherisher of both (black and white) human-beings!
4. Allah is the Nourisher unto perfection of both (black and white) human-beings!

Beautiful said...

In the (Beautiful) Majesty of Allah,
The Infinite Good (of unbounded Love & Generosity),
The Most Beautiful-(Loving).

And of His (beautiful) wonderful symbols or evidence is this, that He created you in various-stages with new additions from soil minerals (organic-matter), then lo! you are mortals (who) scatter far and wide. (30:20)
And of His (beautiful) wonderful symbols or evidence is the evolution of the Universes (with its galaxies) and the physical world of matter and the diversity of your tongues and colours. Surely there are (beautiful) symbols of wonder in this for the learned. (30:22)
He created the Universes with its (cosmic-systems) and the physical world of matter with true (perfect) harmonic dimensions of (beauty), (goodness), (equity) & (wisdom), and He sculptured you, then made you into (beautiful) colours and (beautiful) shapes; and to Him is the ultimate resort. (64:3)
And He it is Who created in various-stages with new additions the Universes and the physical world of matter in six evolutionary long periods; and His (Majestic) Throne of Power & (Control) is ever on water that He might manifest the (beautiful) goodly qualities or (attributes) in you, whoever of you is best and most excellent in deeds. And if thou say, You shall surely be produced after death, those who are ungrateful will say: This is nothing but clear deceit. (11:7)

The Nature of every single human-being:
So set thy face morally sound with integrity upon the Natural Divine System of Code of Life, Government and Constitution, this is the (beautiful) virtuous innocent (good) natural state in which Allah has evolved humanity. There is no altering change in the evolution of Allah. This is the (correct) Natural Divine System of Code of Life, Government and Constitution, but most among humanity do not use their intellect and reasoning to understand. (30:30)
Allah created all human-beings out of love:
Read and study in the (Beautiful) Majesty of the Loving-Nurturer, the Beautifier, the Evolutioner and the Nourisher unto perfection Who creates things in various-stages with new additions, He created the human-being in various-stages with new additions out of (love), a (beautiful) living-cell (Zygote), a leech-like substance which clings, Read and study that your Loving-Nurturer, Beautifier, Evolutioner and Nourisher unto perfection is full of (majesty) and very (loving) & (generous) in (giving)-gifts, Who taught by the pen for development of (reading), (studying), (researching), (science) & (wisdom),Taught the human-being (various-subjects) which he knew not. (96:1-5)
O humanity, surely We have created you in various-stages with new additions from a male and a female, and made you into families and nations that your may know and understand the (wisdom) & (intelligence) of one another and that you may (cherish) and do acts of kindness to one another. Surely the most (honorable) & (noblest) of you in the sight of Allah is one who is most superior in fulfilling (his or her) duty of guarding against evil and doing (virtuous-loving) deeds to keep (his or her) innate (good) pure innocent virtuous nature clean. And Allah is the All-Knowing, the All-Aware. (49:13)
And the soul and its (harmonic-dimensions), (order) & (perfection)! So He enlightened the (soul) to keep it free from corruption and He enlightened the (soul) to keep it in its innate (good) pure innocent (virtuous) state, He is indeed successful of attaining to the happy state of bliss who (nourishes) his soul with (beauty) & (goodness), And he indeed fails who corrupts or seduces it. (91:7-10)
Does the human-being think that he will be left aimless without (meaning) & (purpose)? Was he not a (beautiful) intelligent living-cell from a sperm emitted? Then he was a leech-like substance which clings; so He created (him) in various-stages with new additions, then made (him) with (true) perfect dimensions, then He made of him a sexual pair, the male and the female. Is not He Powerful to give life to the dead? (75:36-40)

Beautiful said...

Majestic Qur'an:

Certainly We created the human-being in various-stages with new additions in the most (beautiful) virtuous nature & design with the best and most (beautiful) dimensions with unlimited levels for an all round advancement to attain to the highest perfections. Then We render him the lowest of the low, except those who are devoted (with gratitude) and do good deeds (for) their (beautification) & (excellence); so theirs is a reward never to be cut off. So who can give the lie to thee after (this) about the Judgment? Is not Allah the Best of the Judges? (95:4-8)
And surely thy Loving-Nurturer, Beautifier, Cherisher and Nourisher unto perfection is Full of (love), (goodness), (kindness) & (generous-gifts) to humanity, but many of them are very ungrateful. (27:73)
And thy Loving-Nurturer, Beautifier, Cherisher and Nourisher unto perfection would not destroy the towns for wrong devotions, while their people acted virtuously. (11:117)
In that period (of Account) when it comes, no soul will speak except by His permission; so (some) of them will be unhappy and (others) happy. Then as for those who are unhappy, they will be in the Fire; for them therein will be sighing and groaning —Abiding therein so long as the Universes and the physical world of matter endure, except according to the laws and selections of thy Loving-Nurturer, Beautifier, Cherisher and Nourisher unto perfection. Surely thy Loving-Nurturer, Beautifier, Cherisher and Nourisher unto perfection is the sure Accomplisher of what He plans and designs. And as for those who are made happy, they will be in the (Beautiful) Blissful Garden of Paradise abiding therein so long as the Universes and the physical world of matter endure, except according to the laws and selections of thy Loving-Nurturer, Beautifier, Cherisher and Nourisher unto perfection — a (beautiful) gift never to be cut off. (11:105-108)
Say: If you love Allah, follow me: Allah will have a special warmth love and affection towards you, and grant you Divine (help) & (protection) from the consequences of your (errors) or (mistakes) and supply you with nourishments for further growth. And Allah is Very (Helpful) in supplying nourishments for further growth, The Most Beautiful-(Loving) Who out of His nurturing-love rewards all your good actions in manifolds. (3:31)

Beautiful said...

In the (Beautiful) Majesty of Allah,
The Infinite Good (of unbounded Love & Generosity),
The Most Beautiful-(Loving).
I, Allah, am the Best Knower. This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who fulfill their duty of guarding against evil and doing (virtuous-loving) deeds to keep their innate good (pure) innocent virtuous nature clean, who are devoted (with gratitude) to the Great Unseen (Who is beyond the imaginations) and keep up devotional meditation and spend virtuously out of the provisions and gifts We have given them, and who are devoted (with gratitude) to that which has been revealed to thee and that which was revealed before thee, and of the Hereafter they are sure. These are on a correct course from their Loving-Nurturer, Beautifier, Cherisher and Nourisher unto perfection and these it is that are successful of attaining to the happy state of bliss for achieving full (perfect) development. (2:1-5)

Stolen Legacy of Black Arabia:

The Prophet Muhammad had to remove the racist and prejudice attitudes out of the black Arabs mind set towards the white-skinned people if they wanted to be the torch bearers to the rest of humanity of following the principles of the Holy Quran!
If the Persians were to follow the teachings of the Holy Quran, it would have removed their racist and prejudice attitudes of their mind set towards the black-skinned people. But instead, they wrote false hadiths about black-skinned people attributing their racist remarks to the Prophet Muhammad.
These Persians even went further and made Prophet Muhammad into a white-skinned man and stole the identity of the original Arabs making Black Arabia into a white Arabia in their made-up hadiths.

Beautiful said...

Classical Arabic color classification:

Arab=Pure Black!

Dalham: Pitch black!

Akhdar: green! In the classical Arabic when the Arabs referred to
(someone) as green they mean one who has a black complexion!

Adam: Dark brown; black mortal, (intelligent), polite, honest,
(virtuous); one who has mutual understanding, love and affection; one who is evolved from different substances; one who is in possession of different powers, one who enjoys the comfort of life;
_________________________________________________

Ahmar: red! In the classical Arabic when the Arabs referred to someone as red they mean one who has white skin.

Azraq: blue! In the classical Arabic when the Arabs referred to someone as blue they mean one who is blue-eyed with (white) skin.
_________________________________________________

Abyad: white! In the classical Arabic when the Arabs referred to someone as white they do not mean one with white skin, but one who is pure, clean, innocent, faultless integrity and has a noble virtuous character.
When the Arabs say so and so is white they also referred to someone who has a golden brown complexion with a black embellishment or someone who has a light-brown undertone with black skin.
Abyad: clear, lumunosity!

Beautiful said...

Classical Arabic classification colour codes:

Arabia: The People of Arabia was of a (adam) or (aswad) black complexion!

Persia: The People of Persia was of a (ahmar) white complexion!

Romans: The People of Rome was of a (azraq) white complexion!

Turks: The People of Turkey was of a (ahmar) white complexion!
________________________________________________

The Ancient Black Arabs prided themselves with their blackness of skin! They referred to people who had white skin as the non-Arabs.
Most of the slaves in Ancient Black Arabia were of white skin!
All the hadiths, commentaries & auto-biographies of the Prophet Muhammad are forgeries by the Persians, Romans and Turks! These forgeries were written almost 300 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad!
The Prophet Muhammad was of the People of Ancient Black Arabia!
He was describe as (abyad) and (hasan al-jism asmar al-lawn)!
1. Abyad (white): a virtuous character, innocent, pure and clean having a golden brown complexion with a black embellishment or a light brown undertone with black skin!
2. Hasan al-jism asmar al-lawn: a beautiful, dark brown complexion!

Beautiful said...

Ibn al-Rumi stated: (Abbasid) era of Persian and Roman Aranization:
You insulted (the family of the Prophet Muhammad) because of their blackness, while there are still deep black, pure blooded Arabs. However, you are blue-eyed with white skin- the Romans (Byzantines) have embellished your faces with their color.
Al-Jahiz stated:
The Arabs pride themselves in their black color.
Muawiya the Umayyad Caliph of the (Umayyad) Dynasty: Stated to two of his advisers:
I see that these white folks have become very numerous and are saying bad things about those who have passed. I can envision a daring enterprise from them against the authority of the Arabs. I am thinking of killing half of them and leaving half of them [to be slaves] to set up markets and to build roads.

Beautiful said...

Dana Reynolds said...

I would think more important is understanding the documented appearance of the Hijaz families and clans in that period. We know from European colonial writings that towns like Mecca and Jidda have been in the last few centuries inundated with foreign peoples ranging from all over the Islamic world.
In the time of Ibn Mudjawir the region from Mecca southward to the Yemen including Tihama - according to Jan Retso - was apparently considered Kush. (The Arabs in Antiquity 2003 p. 231.)
By the 14th century in Chinese accounts the the region extending from from Mecca to Medina and Yanbu and southward 300 miles to Djizan is said to be inhabited by people of "a very dark purple color". (Mancall, P. Travel Narratives in the Age of Discovery, 2006, p.126; Waley-Cohen, J. The Sextants of Beijing, 2000 p. 28)
We also know that in the 14th century, Syrian el-Dhahabi speaks of fair skin or "ahmar" or "red" complexion being "rare" in the Hijaz. We know that Dhahabi says the ahmar or fair-skinned people were the Syrians, Persians and Rum., and that in that century in Arabia these people were considered to be what was most representative of the slave population. In this same time period Tunisian/Egyptian Ibn Manzur states most Arabs were "dark brown" with "kinky hair" in Lisaan al Arab, and "the Arabs attribute white skin to the slaves".
Is dark brown that the same thing as off white or "wheatish" tan?
We know that the early Quraish, Khazraj, Sulaym, Kinanah and Hudhail ((Hatheyl) Makhzumi and al-Mugira are described with words that can only mean black and even "extremely black" in the classical Arab dialect while as late as the 18th century Charles Doughty in Travel in Arabia Deserta vol 2 notes the "black and shining" skins of the ancient Hudheyl ( which he writes Hatheyl) p. 535 extending between Medina and Taif. He calls them and the Quraish "blackish" elsewhere and "a kind of tropical Arab".
Of course Quraish, Hatheyl and Harb are known to have practiced endogamy and kept their blood purer being considered of closer relation to the prophet's ancestry. The appearance of the Quraish in modern Israel today is similar.
These are just a few of the things which run counter to the view that modern Arabs of tan, yellow or bronze appearance native to parts of the Syrian desert and modern Arabia are what early Arabians who were most commonly designated Khudr, Sumr and Sud, looked like.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 204   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Click and Order Today

 
IslamDunkTV © 2010 Design by New WP Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premiumbloggertemplates.com
Powered by Blogger