Re: Is this true?
Brother ZeeshanParvez
I’m having a bit of trouble with the translation of post #79](http://www.paklinks.com/gs/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=79) matching what was said earlier about it … I’m coming up with a different translation. Please break it down for me.
Re: Is this true?
Here is a good YouTube link on the subject, from the perspective of its cautious permissibility.
Re: Is this true?
**أنه كان في زمنِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ منافقٌ يؤذي المؤمنين فقال بعضُهم: قوموا بنا نستغيثُ برسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ من هذا المنافقِ فقال النبيُّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ: إنه لا يستغاثُ بي، **وإنما يستغاثُ باللهِ
** كان في زمنِ النبيِّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ منافقٌ يؤذي المؤمنين
Kaana = Verb which means to be, exist
Munaafiq = Subject of Kaana which means hypocrite
Together taken to mean There was a hypocrite
Fee = Preposition which means in, during
Zaman = Noun means time is in genitive because it is coming after fee which is the preposition
Al-Nabi = The Prophet is in a construct with Zaman and is in genetive since it is the second member of the construct while Zaman is the first
The phrase Fee Zaman Al-Nabi means During the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sllam)
This phrase has been interjected between Kaana and its subject and when they are taken together we can transalate with the English appositive.
There was, during the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam), a hypocrite
**يؤذي المؤمنين
'adhaa = is the past tense verb of يؤذي while it is the present tense but due to Kaana heading the clause will be translate in conjunction with it****
Munaafiq is its subject. Munaafiq is nakrah, indefinite hence there is no allaadhi and **يؤذي with it forms our relative clause but is looked upon by the Arabs as a noun with its verb which is acting as an adjective
Al-Mu’minoon = means the believers but is in the genetive Al-Mumineen since it is the object of **يؤذي
Thus, the translation A Munaafiq (who) used to abuse, insult the believers
فقال بعضُهم: قوموا بنا
Faa = conjunction which means here so or and so
Qaala = to say
Ba’duhum = composed of ba’d meaning some, a portion of, and the pronoun hum meaning some of them
It is the subject of Qaala hence
Some of them said
Qumoo = From Qaama which means to stand, it is the imperative order of command here used to say get up lets go
Now the fun part
**نستغيثُ برسولِ اللهِ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ من هذا المنافقِ فقال النبيُّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ
Nas’tagheethu = the tenth form of the verb ghaatha with Noon attached to signify we acting as a verbal modifier for Qumoo, and means to appeal for help, seek the aid of someone
When taken as the verbal modifier of Qumoo means lets go (the purpose of our going is) to ask the help, aid of the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) - who is the object of this verb.
The verbal modifier signifies the purpose of a previous verb, indicates the state in which it was done, etc.
Min = Preposition meaning from
Hazaa = Mabni so its genitive has to be assumed means This
Munaafiq = hypocrite
Taken together means **lets go (the purpose of our going) to ask the help, aid of the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) from this Munafiq (since he was annoying them)
**فقال النبيُّ صلَّى اللهُ عليهِ وسلَّمَ
There upon the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said:
إإنه لا يستغاثُ بي، وإنما يستغاثُ باللهِInna = indeed (why the hu is attached after it is beyond the scope of this discussion as the Arabs themselves have differing theories regarding its attachment in this case which would require a whole chapter to discus and does affect our discussion in any way)
Laa = Negation of a verb, not, none, no
yustaghaathu = same verb as mentioned before but now in the passive voice and singular mean help is sought
Bi = preoposition by means of
Yaa = Pronoun me
Together taken to mean No help is sought from me (which the translation in post 79 has should in it since that is another possible understanding of a negative present tense verb and was not my translation and hence a more lenient one)
Wa = and
Innamaa = only
yustaghaathu = help is asked passive
bi = with, by means of
Allah = in genitive since it is the governed by preposition before it
Means *And help is ONLY sought with, by Allah
Don’f forgot to read the post about what Istigathaa means according to the Arabs. When you make istigathaa from someone he is the object from whom you are asking help thus differentiating it from Tawasul
*I now see why you had trouble with the earlier translation, since it was from another website. On closer inspection they totally forgot the most important part - TO TRANSLATE INNAMAA = Only
Which other part troubled you my friend?
**
Re: Is this true?
What does cautious permissiblity mean? And I can’t watch youtube in Pakistan. sorry.
Re: Is this true?
My translation comes out like this:
"In the time of the Prophet Blessings of Allah on him, there was a hypocrite. He hurt the Believers.
Where some of them said:
Rise brothers! We are seeking the help of the Messenger, Blessings of Allah on him, from this hypocrite. Thereupon, the Prophet, Blessings of Allah on him, said:
Surely, I am not being asked to help, rather Allah is being asked to help."
For me to translate with a command there needs to be majzoom on the verb ‘seeking help’ … Just like there was a hazf of the nun on the verb Rise. furthermore, it is in majhool state which makes it even less like a command and more like a clarification.
That although they say they are asking me for help they are really asking Allah for help.
Re: Is this true?
You did not read the above carefully did you? The only command in that entire Hadith is when they say Qumoo.
Istigathaa has never been in the state of a command.
**
Edit:** I think I follow your train of thought now. Where did you get your translation from by the way? All the Arabic websites have understood as I have presented it but if you have a reliable source which is using it in the way you present it do give me the reference.
Re: Is this true?
Here is an anti Wahabi Page on Facebook which has understood it as exactly as I have presented it but has added to refute this, as I have already stated in my previous post, that it is a weak Hadith. You can give it a read to see why you are not understanding it as everyone else has understood it.
**رد على شُبُهات في تحريم الوهابية للتوسل والإستغاثة
تكملة
ثم إن هناك حديث ضعيف يتشبـثـون به لتحريم الاستغاثة وتكفير المستغيث برسول الله وبسائر الأنبياء والأولياء،هذا الحديث رواه الإمام أحمد في مسنده بإسناد فيه راو ضعيف عند أهل الحديث يقال لـه ابن لهيعة هذا الحديث أن أبا بكر رضي الله عنه قال: قوموا بنا إلى رسول الله نستغيث به من هذا المنافق فذهبوا فقالوا لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: إنه لا يستغاث بي إنما يستغاث بالله عزَّ وجل هذا الحديث هم يتشبثون به لتكفير من يستغيث بالرسول أو بغيره من الأنبياء أو بولي من أولياء الله أي يُكفرون من يقول يا رسول الله ,يوردون هذا الحديث الضعيف الذي لا يُحتج به لتكفير المستغيث. هذا الحديث ليس له إسناد صحيح ومع هذا هم يوردونه لتكفير المستغيث برسول الله أي الذي يقول يا رسول الله أغثنا يريدون بإيرادهم لهذا الحديث الضعيف أن يُكفروا المسلم الذي يستغيث برسول الله أو بغيره من أنبياء الله أو بولي من أولياء الله**
Re: Is this true?
Finally, I have found a Sharh for you where you can read that it is understood exactly as I have presented to you from this book here
وهنا قول («لا يستغاث بي») هذا نفيٌ في معنى النهي كأنه قال لا تستغيثوا بي وإنما استغيثوا بالله تعالى
It should also help you understood where you have erred. Let me know if you need any more help.
Edit: May I remind the audience that the Hadith is weak, and despite the fact that we Tawheedis, would love to use it we do not since we stick to our methodologies and principles unlike some. The discussion around this Hadith has taken of for a different reason as vroom was asking for the Arabic of it.
Re: Is this true?
Finally, here is a very famous book of Usool Al-Fiqh written by a Shaafi, I believe, which will help you understand that in Islam, a Nafi is used for Nahi.
I have linked to the chapter **يجيء **النفي في معنى النهي
Re: Is this true?
And while you are at it, here is another Hadith in which there is a negation but it is understood as a prohibition. This usage of negation whether with a masdar or passive is used in lots of works
لا ضرر ولا ضِرار
That is a very famous Hadith. Note there is negation of masdar but it is actually a prohibitive command meaning
لا يضر الرجل أخاه بأن ينقصه شيئا من حقوقه
Source
**حمل النفي على النهي
معنى نفي الضرر ومحامل حمل النفي
معنى الضرار](http://arabic.tebyan.net/index.aspx?pid=31143&BookID=24616&PageIndex=109&Language=2)**
Re: Is this true?
Interesting … I see the word darara as f’il maadiy mubniyyun … Fee mahallie jazmin bi laa… whereas this source is calling the word Al-dararu an ism … I.e. The masdar.
You see I thought if the laam-Alif takes the prohibitive meaning it should be putting the verb into majzuum, otherwise it takes the negating meaning … In the case of the Hadith you mentioned the verb is past tense and it does not show 'iraab.
Can you find an example of a mudaari’ verb being used with LA and not taking majzuum but still meaning prohibitive? Please correct me where I am wrong …
Re: Is this true?
The ‘hadith’ these guys are quoting is fabricated, its only mentioned in sheikh an najds kitab to make his case stronger
and they know it is fabricated! so good of bin baz to say it was weak, if indeed he did say that as zeeshan says
its mentioned here between 2 mins - 3.30 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-fzFLVsulI
Re: Is this true?
The Istigathaa Hadith is your example. All the Arabs understand it to be prohibitive. Here is another book معارج القبول بشرح سلم الوصول إلى علم الأصول](إسلام ويب - معارج القبول بشرح سلم الوصول إلى علم الأصول - شرح منظومة سلم الوصول - فصل تعريف العبادة وذكر بعض أنواعها وأن من صرف شيئا لغير الله فقد أشرك - من أنواع العبادة الاستغاثة به والذبح له- الجزء رقم2) which has a chapter on Istigathaa by Allah being a form of worship and uses and presents this Hadith exactly as mentioned in the posts.
If you want to find this rule I would suggest that book I gave you last time. W.Wright. I remember reading about this rule but you will have to find it in Volume 2.
Re: Is this true?
Would you like me to provide you proof of that as well?!
Re: Is this true?
But, vroom, we always have this Hadith in Jaami' Al-Tirmidhi which is Hasan!!
**
يَا غُلاَمُ إِنِّي أُعَلِّمُكَ كَلِمَاتٍ احْفَظِ اللَّهَ يَحْفَظْكَ احْفَظِ اللَّهَ تَجِدْهُ تُجَاهَكَ إِذَا سَأَلْتَ فَاسْأَلِ اللَّهَ وَإِذَا اسْتَعَنْتَ فَاسْتَعِنْ بِاللَّهِ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ الأُمَّةَ لَوِ اجْتَمَعَتْ عَلَى أَنْ يَنْفَعُوكَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ يَنْفَعُوكَ إِلاَّ بِشَيْءٍ قَدْ كَتَبَهُ اللَّهُ لَكَ وَلَوِ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَى أَنْ يَضُرُّوكَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ يَضُرُّوكَ إِلاَّ بِشَيْءٍ قَدْ كَتَبَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ رُفِعَتِ الأَقْلاَمُ وَجَفَّتِ الصُّحُفُ**
Part in red reads:
*When you ask, the Ask Allah
And when you seek aid ('ista'ana) seek aid from Allah *
:D
This is what the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) told Ibn Abbaas (Allah is pleased with him) and further added
**وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ الأُمَّةَ لَوِ اجْتَمَعَتْ عَلَى أَنْ يَنْفَعُوكَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ يَنْفَعُوكَ إِلاَّ بِشَيْءٍ قَدْ كَتَبَهُ اللَّهُ لَكَ
Know that if the entire creation were to gather together to do something to benefit you- you would never get any benefit except that Allah had written for you
Dude the dead ain't gonna do ya any good I tell ya!!
**
Re: Is this true?
Would you like me to provide you proof of that as well?!
Zeeshan there is a site called ytpak just copy my yt link there, and watch between 2 min and 3 and a half minutes.
This is disturbing
Re: Is this true?
ok let me give it a shot
is this the video
http://tune.pk/video/3909882/qazi-mati-ullah-wwwyoutubecomhafizwasim99
Re: Is this true?
But, vroom, we always have this Hadith in Jaami' Al-Tirmidhi which is Hasan!! ** يَا غُلاَمُ إِنِّي أُعَلِّمُكَ كَلِمَاتٍ احْفَظِ اللَّهَ يَحْفَظْكَ احْفَظِ اللَّهَ تَجِدْهُ تُجَاهَكَ إِذَا سَأَلْتَ فَاسْأَلِ اللَّهَ وَإِذَا اسْتَعَنْتَ فَاسْتَعِنْ بِاللَّهِ وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ الأُمَّةَ لَوِ اجْتَمَعَتْ عَلَى أَنْ يَنْفَعُوكَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ يَنْفَعُوكَ إِلاَّ بِشَيْءٍ قَدْ كَتَبَهُ اللَّهُ لَكَ وَلَوِ اجْتَمَعُوا عَلَى أَنْ يَضُرُّوكَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ يَضُرُّوكَ إِلاَّ بِشَيْءٍ قَدْ كَتَبَهُ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ رُفِعَتِ الأَقْلاَمُ وَجَفَّتِ الصُّحُفُ**
Part in red reads:
*When you ask, the Ask Allah And when you seek aid ('ista'ana) seek aid from Allah *
:D
This is what the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) told Ibn Abbaas (Allah is pleased with him) and further added
**وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ الأُمَّةَ لَوِ اجْتَمَعَتْ عَلَى أَنْ يَنْفَعُوكَ بِشَيْءٍ لَمْ يَنْفَعُوكَ إِلاَّ بِشَيْءٍ قَدْ كَتَبَهُ اللَّهُ لَكَ
Know that if the entire creation were to gather together to do something to benefit you- you would never get any benefit except that Allah had written for you
Dude the dead ain't gonna do ya any good I tell ya!! **
It does not say just dead people, its says everyone
Living people are not gonna do you any good either
Re: Is this true?
VROOM!!! Not another coconut you have quoted. That coconut accuses Muhammad ibn Abd Al-Wahhab of including this Hadith in his book and then saying that Tabraani narrated it but he didn’t???
Has the “Maulana” coconut forgotten that **Nur al-Din Ali ibn Abi Bakr ibn Sulayman, Abu al-Hasan al-Haythami (735AH 1335 – 807AH 1404) was a [Sunni](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni) [Shafii](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi`i) Islamic scholar from Cairo, whose father had a shop on a desert road. He was born in the month of Rajab in 735 H. corresponding to 1335 CE. He learned the Qur’an and memorized it, and when he was a teenager, he became a disciple of a highly renowned scholar of Hadith, Abd Al-Raheem ibn Al-Hussain ibn Abd Al-Rahman, who was better known as Zain Al-Deen Al-Iraqi
also included it in his book Majma’ al-Zawa’id wa Manba’ al-Fawa’id ???
Download the book from here Volume 10**
And then turn to page 179 in your PDF and the Hadith with those wording is there glaring at you…
Was Al-Haythami who came like 400 years before Muhammad bin Abd Al-Wahhaabalso giving wrong attributions to Tabarani???
See why I tell you these sources of yours are so unreliable. First, wrong translations now this coconut?
I would have put up a screnshot but I don’t know how to add pictures here…oh boy I am soooo tired of these wrong sources…I am going to sleep…
Re: Is this true?
Brother ZeeshanParvez
I’ve searched and searched and keep finding prohibition on mudaari’ with jussive verbs and references to negation is prevalent when the mudaari’ is mutaharrik. Both Volume 2 and Madinah book 3 say this … I understand that in various Sharh books they may “interpret” the above to prohibition but that would be interpretation and not translation.
Like I can say … “It is not from Islam to get angry quickly and remain like that” and I could interpret that to “We should not get angry quickly and remain in that state if we do” … But by translation the meaning is open for other understandings.
Certainly the Hadith being weak cannot be a criterion for ruling in Aqeedah and secondly until you show otherwise I don’t even read it’s direct translation as prohibition anyway.