I discovered that there is two statements of Ibn 'Abd Al-Barr on the topic
Here is al-tamhīd and al-istiẕkār :
Here is al-tamhīd and al-istiẕkār :
What lead me to the conclusion is what I read in al-istiẕkār (where he does not identify Najd with 'Iraq) (I did not read in al-tamhīd); he clearly says :
ومثل هذا حديث بن عُمَرَ فِي الْمَوَاقِيتِ وَقَّتَ لِأَهْلِ الشَّامِ الْجُحْفَةَ وَلِأَهْلِ نَجْدٍ قَرْنًا
ومثل هذا حديث بن عُمَرَ فِي الْمَوَاقِيتِ وَقَّتَ لِأَهْلِ الشَّامِ الْجُحْفَةَ وَلِأَهْلِ نَجْدٍ قَرْنًا
So he speaks of the hadith of fitna in which the prophet is saying : this is from where tribulations are coming, and then Ibn 'Abd Al-Barr says (al-istiẓkār) : this is like the hadith of mawāqīt of ḥajj ...
in which Ibn 'Umar says that the prophet fixed [...] aljuḥfa for people of şām and qarn as mīqāt of najd.
And here (hadith of mawāqīt), clearly, najd means the najd of Arabia, without a single doubt.
Not only that but
وفي حديث سُفْيَان الثوري عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ دِينَارٍ أنه قِيلَ لابْنِ عُمَرَ: الْعِرَاقُ؟ قَالَ: لَمْ يَكُنْ يَوْمَئِذٍ عِرَاقٌ.
[البخاري]
Not only that but
وفي حديث سُفْيَان الثوري عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ دِينَارٍ أنه قِيلَ لابْنِ عُمَرَ: الْعِرَاقُ؟ قَالَ: لَمْ يَكُنْ يَوْمَئِذٍ عِرَاقٌ.
[البخاري]
Ibn 'umar was questionned, after mentioning the mawāqīt the prophet fixed, about the mīqāt of people of 'IRaq and Ibn 'Umar answered back : *there was no 'iraaq at that time*
It seems Ibn 'Abd Al-Barr changed his interpretation of the hadith, because in al-tamhīd (which predates al-istiẕkār) he does not refer to the hadith of mawāqīt while interpreting Najd and Şām in the context of the hadith of fitna
And in al-istiẕkār, he explicitely refers to the unequivocal hadith of mawāqīt in the context of interpreting the ḥadīṯ of fitna coming from Najd
In short, the ahādīṯ are crystal-clear :
1) fitna will come from the *East* of madīna (which is where Najd of Arabia is situated, among others, 'Iraq is not in the direction of maşriq)
1) fitna will come from the *East* of madīna (which is where Najd of Arabia is situated, among others, 'Iraq is not in the direction of maşriq)
2) Prophet was asked by some Arabs to ask for blessings for "our najd" (ie clearly the Arabian najd, unless you want to claim that people of 'Iraq came and referred to their country as Najd)
3) Fitna, kufr, having harsh manners, having a solid hearth, etc is related to bedouins, etc, while īmān, good manners and hikma is for people of Ḥijāz and Yemen.
(I did not quote everything in the chapter)
(I did not quote everything in the chapter)
What led people into thinking Najd is Iraq are spurious versions of the same hadith.
If you want more details, the research of al-mas'ari is enough and it really OBLITERATES wahhabi apologetics
mediafire.com
If you want more details, the research of al-mas'ari is enough and it really OBLITERATES wahhabi apologetics
mediafire.com
(I initially read it in 2015, verified pretty much everything he said later, I don't recall seeing any error in what he said)
Addendum :
The idea that somehow Sālim can’t misinterpret a ḥadīṯ is really something no Muslim would ever entertain. Maşriq means east/place of sunrise. The maşriq, relative to madīna, from where the prophet spoke, does not include ‘Irāq.
The idea that somehow Sālim can’t misinterpret a ḥadīṯ is really something no Muslim would ever entertain. Maşriq means east/place of sunrise. The maşriq, relative to madīna, from where the prophet spoke, does not include ‘Irāq.
No. Here it speaks of maşriq, not Najd, and Ibn 'Abd Al-Barr explicitely includes in the maşriq that is source of fitna the Najd of Arabia.
You are literally quoting an argument in my favor.
You are literally quoting an argument in my favor.
There’s no doubt that maşriq (East of madīna) and Najd include the Najd of Arabia. Does it include Iraq? It’s based on no legitimate textual argument. If you can provide one, then I am open to including ‘Iraq in a broader definition of maşriq.
The most authentic version of Sālim is: maşriq. Which is what ibn dīnār and nāfi’ report from Ibn ‘Umar. Maşriq is the original term and ‘Irāq is a latter transformation that resulted from the process of transmission/interpretation.
But better than that: there’s no actual argument for excluding Najd of Arabia from the hadith, which is what you are desperately trying to prove, as it clearly could indicate/include the deviated sect of MIAW.
When Ibn ‘Umar said : the prophet sent a troop to Najd, it’s supposed to mean “toward ‘Irāq”, right? No. It means toward Najd of Arabia.
If I understand well, the hadith of Ibn Mājah contains Ibrāhīm ibn Yazīd Al-Khawzī who's abandonned + other versions exist with other terms. Just compare Muslim and Ibn Mājah here.
As for the hadith of Al-Ṭaḥāwiyy, contains Ya'qūb ibn ḥumayd who is weak + other potential problems of irsāl in the sanad + other more authentic versions exist and clearly, there’s no question of the mīqāt of ‘Irāq in the ḥadīṯ of Ibn ‘Umar
+ I already quoted, Ibn ‘Umar was asked about the mīqāt of Iraq and he said “there was no ‘Irāq at that time”
@zh7n577 I am pretty sure the correct nisba, in arabic, to ibn 'abd al-wahhab is : wahhabi.
@Ibn_badran1 But that does not invalidate my point about this lafẓ being from the narrator and not the original of the ḥadīṯ, thus rendering the lafẓ unsuitable as a proof.
@Ibn_badran1 Here is the statement of Al-Ḥāfiẓ al 'Irāqi :
islamweb.net
Btw, you got to be particularly incompetent in hadith to believe this ziyāda is authentic.
islamweb.net
Btw, you got to be particularly incompetent in hadith to believe this ziyāda is authentic.
Loading suggestions...