A
Scholarly Research
by Shaykh Albaani That Prayer Beads are a Bida’
Taken from
‘Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Daeefah’
1/83
A summary of the research
by the
Muhaddith, Shaykh, Allamaa’
Muhammad Nasiruddeen al-Albaani
‘Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Daeefah’
1/83
A summary of the research
by the
Muhaddith, Shaykh, Allamaa’
Muhammad Nasiruddeen al-Albaani
Translated
by
Abbas
Abu Yahya
Shaykh al-Albaani said in
‘Silsilah ad-Da’eefah’:
83 –
‘What a blessed reminder are prayer beads and indeed the best place to prostrate
on is the
earth and on that which the earth produces.’
Mawdoo
(Fabricated)
Narrated
by ad-Daylamee in ‘Musnad al-Firdaws’ (4/98); he said that Abdoos bin Abdullaah
informed us that Abu Abdullaah al-Hussain bin Funjoowayah a-Thaqafi informed us
that ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Nassrooweeyah narrated to us that Muhammad bin
Haroon bin Isa bin Mansoor al-Hashami narrated to us that Muhammad bin ‘Ali
bin Hamzah al-‘Alawee narrated to me that Abdul Samad bin Musa narrated to me
that Zainab bint Sulayman bin ‘Ali narrated to me that Umm al-Hasan bint Jafar
bin al-Hasan on the authority of her father on the authority of her grandfather
on the authority of ‘Ali marfoo’ (ascribed to the Messenger of Allaah -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam).
[Research of the
Isnad][1]
Suyooti
mentioned it in his book ‘al-Manha fee as-Subha’ (2/141) and Shawkani conveyed
it from him in ‘Nail-Awtaar’ (2/166-167) and they remained quiet about this
narration!
I say
(Albaani):
This chain has darkness upon darkness; the majority of the narrators are Majhool
(unknown) and some of them have been blamed:
I did
not find anyone who wrote a biography for Umm al-Hasan bint Jafar bin al-Hasan.
Al-Khateeb
wrote a biography for Zainab bint Sulayman bin ‘Ali in his ‘Tareekh’ (14/334)
and he said: ‘She was of the best of women.’
Al-Khateeb
wrote a biography for Abdul Samad bin Musa, he is al-Hashmi, (14/41) but he did
not mention anything about him either praising or criticizing him. However, Dhahabi conveyed in ‘al-Meezan’ on
the authority of al-Khateeb that he said regarding him: ‘Indeed they regarded
him as weak (Da’eef).’
Perhaps
that was in some of al-Khateeb’s other books, then I corrected that and
said: Rather
that is in another hadeeth which will be mentioned with no. 2898.
Then
Dhahabi said: ‘He narrates rejected narrations on the authority of his
grandfather Muhammad bin Ibraheem al-Imaam’
I say
(Albaani):
Perhaps he is the point of objection in this hadeeth.
As
for Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Hamza al-‘Alawee then al-Khateeb also wrote a
biography for him (3/63) and said: ‘Ibn Abee Haatim said: I heard from him and
he is Sadooq (truthful) who died in the year 286.’
Muhammad
bin Haroon,
he is Muhammad bin Haroon bin al-Abbas bin Abee Jafar al-Mansoor, and
al-Khateeb also mentioned him (3/356) saying: ‘He was from the people who had
intelligence, had excellence and was a lecturer. He held the post of an Imaam of the masjid
al-Madina in Baghdad for 50 years and he died in the year 308.’
As
for Abdullaah bin al-Hussain bin Funjoowayah at-Thaqafi then he is Thiqaah
(trustworthy), his biography is in ‘Siyaar alaam an-Nubala’ (17/383) and
‘Shadhrat ad-Dhaab’ (3/200).
Likewise with Abdoos
bin Abdullaah,
his biography is in ‘Siyaar alaam an-Nubala’ (19/98) and in ‘Lisaan al-Meezan’ (4/95).
[The
Explanation]
From
what has preceded it becomes clear to you that the Isnaad (chain) is Da’eef
(weak), so it cannot be used as evidence.
Now, in my
opinion,
this hadeeth is Baatil (false) due to its meaning for the following
reasons:
Firstly:
that prayer beads are a Bida’ which were not present at the time of the
Prophet -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam- and were
innovated after the Messenger -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam-[2], so how could it make
sense that the Messenger - alayhi asallam-
would encourage his Companions in a matter they did not know?!
The
evidence for this is what Ibn Waddah al-Qurtubi mentioned in ‘al-Bida’
wal-Nahee anhaa’
(p.12) on the authority of Saltt bin Bahraam who said: ‘Ibn Mas’ood passed by a
woman who had a Tasbeeh (prayer beads) and would count upon them, so he
broke it and threw it away. Then he
passed by a man who was counting upon pebbles, so he kicked him with his
leg. Then he said: You have preceded the
Prophet! You have carried out an oppressive Bida’! You have preceded the
Companions of Muhammad -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam- in
knowledge!’
The
chain up to Saltt is Saheeh, he is Thiqaah (trustworthy) from the Atbaa’
at-Tabi’een (followers of the successors of the Companions), so its chain
is broken.
Then
it was narrated on the authority of Abaan bin Abee ‘Ayaash who said: I asked
al-Hasan about a Nathaam (a thread with pearls etc. arranged upon it)
made from pearls and date stones etc, is Tasbeeh counted upon it?
So he
said: None of
the women of the Prophet -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam- or the
female emigrants did this.
However,
its chain is very weak.
Secondly:
that prayer beads oppose the guidance of the Messenger -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam:
Abdullaah bin ‘Amr said: ‘I saw the Messenger of Allaah -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam- counting the Tasbeeh with his
right hand.’
Narrated
by Abu Dawood (1/235), Tirmidhi (4/255) who graded it hasan, Ibn Hibban (2334),
Hakim (1/547), Bayhaqi (2/253) and its chain is Saheeh just as Dhahabi
said. I researched it in ‘Saheeh Abu
Dawood’ (1346).
[The Command of the Messenger]
Then
prayer beads oppose the command of the Messenger -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam-, when he said to some women:
‘You should
make Tasbeeh[3],
Tahleel[4],
Taqdees[5]
and do not be negligent and forget Tawheed (and in a narration: mercy), and
count them on your fingertips since they will be questioned and will respond.’
This
hadeeth is Hasan, narrated by Abu Dawood and other than him, Hakim and
Dhahabi authenticated it and an-Nawawi and al-Asqalani graded it as Hasan
as is mentioned in ‘Amali al-Adhkaar’ (1/84) and it has supporting evidence on
the authority of ‘Aeysha which is Mawqoof (the Isnad only goes back to
the Companion), see ‘Saheeh Abu Dawood’ (1345).
This is why a
group of scholars have made the hadeeth ‘What a blessed reminder are prayer beads…..’ Da’eef;
as is mentioned by Shaykh Muhammad Khaleel al-Qawooqjee in ‘Shawaariq al-Anwaar
al-Jaleela’ (1/113).
[Here
the Shaykh mentions technical information related to the Isnad of the
hadeeth]
[He
continues:]
It may be
said: Some of the Ahadeeth mention performing Tasbeeh
with pebbles and the Messenger -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam-
approved of it, therefore there is no difference between this and Tasbeeh
using prayer beads, as Shawkani said.
I say
(Albaani):
Perhaps
this would be acceptable if the Ahadeeth regarding this were authentic, however
this is not the case. Most of what is
narrated regarding this are two Ahadeeth which Suyooti brings in his booklet as we
indicated, so it is necessary to mention them and explain their mistakes:
Firstly
on the authority of Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas that he and the Messenger of Allaah -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam- entered upon a woman while she was
counting Tasbeeh on date stones or pebbles in front of her and the
Messenger -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam- said: ‘Shall I
inform you of
that which is easier upon you than this or better?’
He said: ‘SubhanAllaah
equivalent to the number of what Allaah created in the heavens….’
the hadeeth.
Narrated
by Abu Dawood (1/235), Tirmidhi (4/277-278), Ibn Hibban 92330 – in his book
‘Zawaid’, Doorqi in ‘Musnad Sa’ad’ (130/1), Mukhalas in ‘al-Fawaid’ (9/17/2),
and Hakim (1/547-548)[6] by way of ‘Amroo bin al-Harith that
Sa’eed bin Abi Halaal narrated to him on the authority of Khuzaimah on the
authority of ‘Aeysha bint Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas on the authority of her father.
Tirmidhi
said: ‘Hadeeth Hasan.’
Hakim
said: ‘Saheeh al-Isnad.’
Dhahabi
agreed with him, however he was mistaken because this Khuzaimah is Majhool
(unknown) even Dhahabi himself said in ‘al-Meezan’: ‘Khuzaimah is unknown and
so is Sa’eed bin Abi Halaal.’
Hafidh said likewise in ‘Taqreeb’:
‘Indeed he is unknown.’
Even
with Sa’eed bin Abi Halaal being Thiqaah, as-Saajee mentioned on the authority
of Ahmad that he became confused and Yahya also described him as confused as in
‘al-Fasal’ by Ibn Hazm (2/95). Perhaps
what supports this argument is his narrating this hadeeth, because some of
the trustworthy narrators who narrated from Sa’eed do not mention Khuzaimah in
their chain, so the chain becomes broken. This is
why Hafidh al-Mizee did not mention ‘Aeysha bint Sa’ad amongst the shuyookh
(those who
were narrated from) of Ibn Abi Halaal, so this Isnad is not
without the defects
of Jahaala (a narrator being unknown) or Inqitaa’ (a break in
the chain), so how can this hadeeth be Saheeh or Hasan?!
Some
of those who authored works claiming Prayer Beads are from the Sunnah were ignorant of this
information or they pretended to be ignorant of it such as those of the present day who follow
their desires and blindly follow their Shaykh Abdullaah al-Ghamaari who
likewise pretended to be ignorant of this truth. He
mentioned this hadeeth in his ‘Kanz’ (103) so that he could make the Prayer Beads
permissible for his Mureeds (loyal followers) consequently making it permissible for them to
wear them
around their necks just as some of the Mushayikh (shaykhs) of the
Soofi orders
wear them.
See the
refutation against him in the introduction to volume three of this ‘Silsilah’
(p.37) and you will see the strangest of the strange.
The
second hadeeth is on the authority of Safeeyah who said:
‘The
Messenger of Allaah -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam-
entered upon me while I had 4,000 date stones in front of me and I would count Tasbeeh
upon them.
He
said: ‘O daughter of Huyaiya what is this?!’
She answered:
‘I am
counting Tasbeeh upon them.’
He
said: ‘I have said more Tasbeeh than this while I have been standing
here near you.’
She
requested: ‘Teach me O Messenger of Allaah!’
He
said: ‘Say SubhanAllaah equivalent to the number of what Allaah
created of things….’
Narrated
by Tirmidhi (4/274), Abu Bakr ash-Shafi’ee in ‘al-Fawaaid’ (73/255/1), Haakim
(1/547) by
way of Hashim bin Sa’eed on the authority of Kanana Maula (the freed slave of) Safeeyah, from her.
Tirmidhi
regarded it as weak by saying: ‘This hadeeth is Ghareeb (strange), we do
not know it except from this route of the hadeeth of Hashim bin Sa’eed al-Koofee and his Isnaad
is not well-known. Also, there is a
hadeeth on
this issue on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas.’
As
for Hakim then he said: ‘Saheeh al-Isnaad’ and Dhahabi[7] agreed with him and this is
strange coming from him, since he mentioned this Hashim bin Sa’eed in ‘al-Meezan’
and said: ‘Ibn Ma’een said: He is nothing. Ibn ‘Adee said: Whatever he narrated cannot have
supporting narrations.’
This
is why Hafidh said in ‘Taqreeb’: ‘He is weak’.
This Kanana’s
condition is unknown; no-one other than Ibn Hibban regarded him as trustworthy.
Then
I amended this and said: However a group of narrators have narrated from Kanana and
from them were Zuhayr and Hudayj, the two sons of Muwayyeeyah, Mohammad bin
Talha bin Musrif and Sa’adaan bin Basheer al-Juhani; all these four are trustworthy
and also included along with them is Yazeed bin Mughliss al-Bahilly, whom a
group regarded as trustworthy while others regarded him as weak. So the one from whom the likes of these
narrate is included in the group of those who are regarded as ‘Sadooq’;
just as I
recently researched in a uniquely detailed piece of study ‘Tamaam
al-Mina’ (p.204-206), so do not be deceived by some of the ignorant ones, like
Saqqaf and other than him; therefore the defect in this hadeeth is only
Hishaam.
What
indicates that
these two hadeeth are weak is that this story is mentioned on the
authority of Ibn Abbas without mentioning pebbles and its wording is as
follows:
Ibn
Abbas said: On
the authority of Juwayreeyah that the Prophet -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam- left her early when he went to pray the
morning prayer, while she was in her place of prayer, then he returned after he
had prayed Duha prayer and she was still sitting.
So he
said to her: Are you still in the same state that I left you in?
She
answered: Yes.
The
Prophet -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam- said:
‘I
have already said four statements after you, three times, and if they were weighed
against what you have said today then they would outweigh what you have
said. They are: SubhanAllaahi wa
bihamdihee, ‘adad Khalqihi,
wa ridha
nafsihi, wazeenat ‘arshihee, wa Midaad kalimaatihi.
(Allaah
is free from imperfection and praise is for him; to the amount of his creation, the pleasure of
His own Self, the beautification of His ‘Arsh and the extent of
His words.)
Narrated
by Muslim (8/83-84) and Tirmidhi (4/274) and he authenticated it. Also narrated by Nisa’ee in ‘Amal
al-Yawm wa Layla’ (161-165), Ibn Majah (91/23), Ahmad (6/325 & 429-430).
So
this authentic hadeeth indicates two matters:
The
first is that the person in the story is Juwayreeyah and not Safeeyah as was
mentioned previously
in the second hadeeth!
The
second matter is that the mention of pebbles in the story is rejected. What supports this is that Abdullaah ibn Mas’ood –RadhiAllaahu anhu-
rebuked those whom he saw counting Tasbeeh upon pebbles.
This
has been mentioned on the authority of Ibn Mas’ood via many chains, one of which has already
preceded. If the use of pebbles for counting
Tasbeeh was that which the Messenger -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam- had relayed then it would not have been hidden from
Ibn Mas’ood, inshAllaah.
Indeed
this rebuke was adopted by some of those who graduated from the school of Ibn Mas’ood,
including none other than Ibraheem bin Yazeed Nakhai, the scholar from Koofa,
who used to prohibit his daughter from helping women braid thread
together for prayer beads which they would use for Tasbeeh[8]!
Narrated
by Ibn Abi Shaybah in ‘al-Musannaf’ (2/89/2) with a good chain.
[The
Amount of Dhikr]
If
the Dhikr were a lot, a person might perhaps say: It is not possible to enumerate
exactly the amount counted upon fingers as is the way mentioned in the Sunnah.
The
reply is: indeed this matter of contempt came from another Bida’, which
is the act of performing the Dhikr (remembrance) of Allaah much more
than the limited amount - which Allaah the Most-Wise did not legislate. So this Bida’ necessitated another Bida’
which is the prayer beads since, as far as I know, the most that has been
mentioned in the authentic Sunnah is indeed one hundred and it is possible for
the one used to doing so to count this easily on one’s fingers.
As
for the hadeeth:
‘Whoever
says one hundred times a day: ‘Laa ilaaha illAllaah wahdahu la shareeka
lahu…..’ the hadeeth.
So
the intent is: one hundred in the morning and one hundred in the evening; as is
clearly mentioned in some of the authentic narrations and they have been
explained in ‘Saheehah’ (2762).
As
for what Ibn Abi Shaybah (2/391) narrated on the authority of Weeqa on the authority of
Sa’eed bin Jubayr who said: Umar bin al-Khattab saw a man counting Tasbeeh with prayer beads
he had, Umar said: What would be better than this would be for him to
say: ‘SubhanAllaah …..’
This
is rejected due to the following reasons: the disconnection between him and Sa’eed as well
as Weeqa being weak and he is Ibn Eyaas who is layin in hadeeth (he
is not discarded, he is upright in himself but his hadeeth are not precise).
If there was
only one resultant evil from the prayer beads which is that they have, or have
nearly, annihilated the Sunnah of counting on fingers - which they agree is
better - then this would have been sufficient evil since it is indeed rare that
I see an old person count the Tasbeeh on his fingertips!
Indeed
the people have also diversified innovating with this Bida’, so you see
some of those who ascribe themselves to one of the Soofi orders wearing
prayer beads around their necks![9]
Some
of the people use prayer beads while they are talking to you or while they are
listening to you talk! The last thing my
eyes fell upon a few days ago was a man going along some streets, busy with
people, on an ordinary bicycle and in one of his hands were prayer
beads!!
They make a pretence to
the people of not neglecting the remembrance of Allaah, even for the blink of
an eye! Many of these Bida’
become
the cause of the loss of an obligation.
It has happened to me – and to others – many a time that I have given my
Salaams to one of them and they have replied with just a signal, without
saying as-Salaam! The evils of these Bida’
are innumerable. How excellent was the saying of the
poet:
Every
good is in the following of the Salaf * and every evil is in the innovations of
the Khalaf[10]
A
Summary of what the Shaykh mentioned:
A- that
prayer beads are a Bida’ which were not present at the time of the
Prophet -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam-
and were innovated after the Messenger -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam-[11],
so how could
it make sense that the Messenger - alayhi asallam-
would encourage his Companions in a matter they did not know?!
B- That
prayer beads oppose the guidance of the Messenger -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam: Abdullaah bin ‘Amr said: ‘I saw the Messenger of
Allaah -sallAllaahu alayhi wa sallam-
counting the Tasbeeh with his right hand.’
C- Then
prayer beads oppose the command of the Messenger -sallAllaahu
alayhi wa sallam-, when he said to some women: ‘You should
make Tasbeeh, Tahleel, Taqdees and do not be negligent and
forget Tawheed (and in a narration: mercy), and count them on your fingertips
since they will be questioned and will respond.’
D- Ibraheem bin Yazeed
Nakhai, the scholar from Koofa, used to prohibit his daughter
from helping women braid thread together for prayer beads which they would use for Tasbeeh!
E- As far as I know, the
most that has been mentioned in the authentic Sunnah
is indeed one hundred and it is possible for the one used to doing so to count this easily on
one’s fingers.
F- If
there was only one resultant evil from the prayer beads which is that they
have, or have nearly, annihilated the Sunnah of counting on fingers - which
they agree is better - then this would have been sufficient evil since it is
indeed rare that I see an old person count the Tasbeeh on his
fingertips!
G- How excellent was the saying
of the poet: Every good is in the following of the Salaf * and every evil is in
the innovations of the Khalaf[12]
All Praise belongs to Allaah, may His peace
and blessings be upon our final
Prophet Muhammad, his
family, his companions
and all those who
follow his
guidance.
[1] Headings were added for clarity (T.N.)
[2] What supports that is the statement of
the scholars of language: ‘Indeed the words:
‘as-Subha’ (Prayer beads) is a newly created word, it was unknown
to the Arabs.’
[3] To say ‘SubhanAllaah’ (T.N.)
[4] To say ‘La illaha ill Allaah’ (T.N.)
[5] ‘To say ‘SubhanAllaah al-Malikul Quddoos;
or Subooh
Quddoos Rabb al-malaikatu war-Ruhu; and it is possible that Taqdees
means to say Allaahu Akbar’. (Mishkat al-Masabih (2/9) –Checked by shaykh
Albani) (T.N.)
[6] Suyooti attributed it in ‘al-Manha’ to
Nisa’ee and Ibn Majah and Shawkani followed him in that, however there is some speculation
about this due to two points:
a- That Ibn Majah did not relate this
narration at all.
b- That Nisa’ee narrated it in ‘al-Yawm wa
Layla’ as is mentioned in ‘at-Thufah’ (3/325), so it was necessary to qualify
it and I did not see this in the printed version.
[7] Suyooti followed him in this in
‘al-Manha’ & Shawkani was deceived by it.
[8] In this and what has preceded is a
clear refutation of Shaykh al-Habashee in his claim that no-one has preceded me
in rejecting prayer beads.
[9] Shaykh Abdullaah al-Ghamari, the shaykh of the
Darqaweeyah order and other orders, encourage them saying: ‘There is nothing
wrong with wearing prayer beads around the neck as it is the same as a writer
placing his pen on his ear!’ How amazing
it is when a Faqih makes a good analogy because this is
the most baseless
analogy on the face of this earth as it is built upon fabricated ahadeeth.
[10] The transliteration of which is: ‘Kullu khairin fee
ittiba’ man Salaf * wa Kullu Sharrin fee Ibtida’ man Khallaf’ (T.N.)
[11] What supports that is the statement of the
scholars of language: ‘Indeed the words:
‘as-Subha’ (Prayer
beads) is a
newly created word, it was unknown to the Arabs.’
[12] The transliteration of which is: ‘Kullu khairin fee
ittiba’ man Salaf * wa Kullu Sharrin fee Ibtida’ man Khallaf’ (T.N.)
No comments:
Post a Comment