This article is adapted from the book of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Zyad ibn ‘Umar At-Tuklah entitled “Difa’ ‘ani Nabi (saw) wa Sunnatihi Al-Mutaharah wa Kashf Tawatu ‘Isa Al-Hiymari wa Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh ‘ala Wad’il Hadith” (Defense of the Prophet (saw) and his noble Sunnah and unveiling the complicity of ‘Isa Al-Himyari and Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh in fabricating Hadith).
It is mentioned in Mutawatir Hadith: “Whoever lies upon me intentionally, he should prepare his place in hell.”
Sufiyan Ath-Thawri said: “If a man thinks about lying in a Hadith and he is in his house, Allah will make him apparent”
Sufiyan ibn ‘Uyaynah said: “Allah did not hide anyone who lied in Hadith”
Ibnul Mubarak was asked: “Are these Ahadith fabricated?” and he replied: “The experts will find it, Allah said: “We have sent down the Zikr and We will protect it.”
The “Musannaf” of AbdurRazaq
The “Musannaf” of ‘AbdurRazaq ibn Humam As-San’ani (d 211) is among oldest and greatest books of Sunnah, and it contains a lot of Marfu’ Ahadith and the narrations of Sahabah and Tabi’is are in greater number. This “Musannaf” was published by Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami from many manuscripts, and the book was beginning with the chapter of washing the hands in Wudhu in the book of purification, and it seemed that one or two pages were missing in the beginning.
Many Sufis like Al-Qastalani and others mentioned the Hadith of Jabir without Isnad about the light of the Prophet (saw) being created first from the light of Allah, and the creation was then created from this light. And they attributed this Hadith to Imam ‘AbdurRazaq. And none before ever mentioned such a Hadith from ‘AburRazaq. The heretic Sufi Ibn ‘Arabi mentioned it but without any reference to ‘AbdurRazaq.
And the people of innovations were not satisfied with this edition of Al-A’zami, as they could not find the Hadith of Nur from Jabir quoted by Al-Qastalani and others. So they hoped that maybe the first missing pages contained this Hadith.
And the Brawliyah from India claimed they found this lost Juzz and they sent it to Dr ‘Isa ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Muhammad ibn Mani’ Al-Himyari of Emirates who published it with his Tahqiq in 2005 with the name “Juzz Awal min al-Musannaf lil Hafiz al-Kabeer Abi Bakr ‘AbdurRazaq ibn Humam As-San’ani”
This little book with a total of 105 pages with 44 pages for the texts of the forty Ahadith was introduced by Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh Al-Misri.
Shaykh At-Tuklah said that whoever ponders over this book will see it is a lie and a calumny upon Hafiz ‘AbdurRazaq, and this was only invented to promote the creed of Nur Muhammadi (Prophetic light). The Sanads are clearly fabricated and any experts can see that at first glance, and the texts (Mutun) are opposing the Shari’ah and have non-Arabic style, meaning the words are not in a fluent Arabic.
Words on the description of this fabricated manuscript
Dr Al-Himyari is told by at-Tuklah to be a pure Quburi and Jahmi and he wrote some books accusing the Salafis of being Mujassimah (anthropomorphist) and he also wrote books to justify many innovations.
Dr Al-Himyari, who was working with the “Idarah Awqaf” in Dubai, said in the introduction (p 5-6) that he appointed people to search for this Hadith in Turkey and Yemen but could not find it. And Dr Sayid Muhammad Ameen Barkati Qadiri Bralwi from India claimed he found such a manuscript of the beginning with the Hadith of Nur, and he sent it to Dr Al-Himyari.
And then Dr Al-Himyari said he was convinced about the authenticity of this manuscript, and he said that it proved that the Prophet (saw)’s soul was created first and Adam (aley salam) was the first body, and Adam is a Mazhar (manifestation) among his (saw) Mazahir (manifestations), and the Prophet (saw) is the reality of realities, the lantern of east and west and the Hadith of Jabir is only but an explanation of the verse of niche, meaning “Allah is the light of the heavens and earth”.
And the details given about this manuscript in the introduction of al-Himyari are:
1) This manuscript was found by a Shaykh of the Qadiriyah Tariqah in India
2) Al-Humayri obtained this manuscript, and Mahmud Sai’d Mamduh saw it.
3) It is written on it that it was copied in Baghdad in 938 by Ishaq ibn ‘AbdirRahman As-Sulaymani.
4) This copyist is told to be precise according to Al-Himayari because he is more precise than the published edition.
5) Al-Himyari compared his style of writing with manuscripts of tenth century and told it to be close to them.
6) There is no Sima’ nor Isnad on the manuscript.
7) The manuscript contains ten more pages from the published version in the beginning, the first chapter being “Creation of the Nur of the Prophet (saw)” and nine others about Wudhu.
The golden testimony of Shaykh Al-Kamadani
Shaykh Adeeb Al-Kamadani is a specialist of the knowledge of Hadith and manuscripts in Damascus, and he is among most knowledgeable companions of Shaykh Farid Al-Baji At-Tunsi. He went since some years in Dubai as a searcher for the ‘Idarah Awqaf’, and he is also an Imam and Khatib in some of its mosque, and he had direct links with Al-Himyari about this manuscript.
Al-Himyari when he received the manuscript from the Bralwiyah of India was extremely happy and showed this manuscript to al-Kamadani and Al-Kamadani said this is fabricated by just looking at the recent paper and fresh writing. What about if we add these Isnads and texts (mutun)? Al-Kamadani said: “I do not give more than two years approximately”.
Al-Kamadani requested Al-Himyari to check this manuscript in the Markaz Jum’ah Al-Majid in Dubai to prove it is a fabrication.
Also seeing that this manuscript was recent, he asked Al-Himyari to request the people of India to tell about the original manuscript from which this one was copied, and Al-Himyari after a while replied that this manuscript was copied from a manuscript in a library of former Soviet Union and the library was burned during the war.
SO AL-HIMYARI KNEW THAT THIS MANUSCRIPT WAS RECENT AND WAS NOT WRITTEN IN 838H, AND THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT THAT IS TOLD TO BE WRITTEN IN 838H BY AS-SULAYMANI IS LOST. YET HE HIDED THIS IN HIS INTRODUCTION, AND MENTIONED THAT IT IS WRITTEN ON THE MANUSCRIPT THAT IT WAS COPIED IN BAGHDAD IN 838 BY ISHAQ IBN ‘ABDIRRAHMAN AS-SULAYMANI. HE EVEN SAID HE COMPARED HIS STYLE OF WRITING WITH MANUSCRIPTS OF TENTH CENTURY, AND IT WAS SIMILAR. SO HE DECEIVED PEOPLE MAKING THEM THINK THAT THE MANUSCRIPT THE BRAWLI SENT HIM WAS WRITTEN IN 838H, WHILE HE KNEW IT WAS RECENT AND ITS ORIGINAL, FROM WHICH IT WAS COPIED, WAS WRITTEN IN 838H AND IS LOST. (AND MAMDUH WAS ALSO AWARE OF THIS AS IT WILL COME LATER INSHA ALLAH, AND HE SAW THAT AL-HIMYARI DID NOT MENTION THIS CRUCIAL POINT IN HIS INTRODUCTION AND CLOSED HIS EYES LIKE A SHAMELESS CRIMINAL WANTING THE HIDE SUCH IMPORTANT DEFECT)
Furthermore, Al-Kamadani requested Al-Himyari to ask the people of India to send the rest of the manuscript, meaning containing the whole of the “Musannaf”, but the people of India did not sent it, also Al-Kamadani requested a photocopy of the manuscript Al-Himyari had in his hands but Al-Himyari refused. So this shows that the people of India did not have the complete manuscript of “Al-Musannaf”, and Al-Himyari even refused to give a photocopy of what he had, meaning the forty Ahadith.
And this happened in 2001, and after this Al-Himyari left the Idarah of Awqaf, and he only saw Al-Kamadani two or three times, Al-Himyari informed him that he would publish the book with his Tahqiq and al-Kamadani objected to such a matter, and he saw the book published in 2005.
So Al-Kamadani tried to prevent him from publishing such falsehood and warned him about the fabrication in this manuscript, but Al-Himyari carried on and he is thus a partner in the crime of fabricating this Hadith, as he knew the defects of this manuscript, rather he hided them and deceived people.
Al-Himyari and Mamduh’s clear collaboration to this treachery.
And the scholars of Hadith do not differentiate between the one who fabricates in the beginning and the one who steals this lie, and both are declared liars. So Al-Himayri is a accomplice in crime. This manuscript came from a suspect sect A-Brawliyah, and they are known to be involved in promoting such a creed, they are pure grave worshipers.
Moreover, Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh also is accomplice in this treachery. Al-Himyari needed someone to follow him in this evil action and he did not find anyone except Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh Al-Misri. He wrote the introduction p 3-4, said he had a look at the manuscript in Al-Himyari’s library and Al-Himyari described the manuscript in its Tahqiq in such a manner that it proves its reliability, and he thanked him for his efforts.
Both Al-Himyari and Mamduh knew that the manuscript they were publishing was not written in 838H, but Al-Himyari deceived people, mentioned the date written on the manuscript was 838H, and Mamduh who read the introduction of Al-Himyari did not object to Al-Himyari’s treachery and omission of the reality of this manuscript. And after this they dare to say they did not participate in fabricating this Hadith. Why did these shameless people hide this important detail about the manuscript and just told the date on the manuscript?
The gravity of lying on the Prophet (saw) is not hidden to Mamduh and his companions Al-Himyari, but desire increases people in misguidance, and we seek the refuge from Allah.
Arabic style of this manuscript is Indian
At-Tuklah gave clear signs about this manuscript being written by someone of India. Its style (Khat) is not from the tenth century, rather it is similar to the Indian manuscripts written in last century.
And the way the letters are written strengthens this like the “Ya” at the end of the word like in the word “Az-Zuhri”. Also the words “Tawus” and “Malaikah” are written in an Indian style and this appears in the photocopy of the first page shown by al-Himyari p 18.
And in the last page also shown by Al-Himyari p 22 one can see the “ha” (ه) at the end of words like Mithluhu, Al-Ayah, ‘Aleyhi” and the “Ha” (ح) at the end of words such as ‘Najih” and the “Ghayn” at the end of the word “Al-Firagh”, and this style is the one of Indians. And whoever has a copy of the Quran written in the style of people of Pakistan and India can see it.
When Shaykh Abdul Quddus Nadheer Al-Hindi saw the photocopy of first and last page given by Al-Himyari, he clearly said to At-Tuklah: “This is recent Indian style”. And the same was said to him by Shaykh ‘Umar ibn Sulayman Al-Hufayan, who has done a MA in the science of manuscripts in the institute of Manuscript in Egypt and other than these two scholars.
As for his claim of this style resembling those of tenth century, then At-Tuklah said he has many manuscripts of tenth century that are completely different from this.
The copyist’s reliability and Al-Himyari’s alteration in publishing the manuscript
As for the copyist being precise, then this claim is false, and we have two photocopies of this manuscript told to be reliable, its first and last page shown by Al-Himyari in the introduction, and forty published Ahadith.
In the first Hadith the copyist erred in writing the name of the famous Sahabi Saib ibn Yazid and he wrote instead Saib ibn Zayd.
In the second Hadith, he wrote: Ibn Jurayj said (and he is from Atba Tabi’in): Al-Bara informed me (Akhbarani). So where is the precision in the beginning of this manuscript? (as ibn Jurayj did not meet Al-Bara, how could he inform him of this?)
At-Tuklah showed that Al-Himyari is not reliable in reproducing the manuscript, and he alters from what is in the manuscript told to be reliable by him. In the first page of the photocopy of the manuscript provided by Al-Himyari it is written: “he prostrated five times, so these prostrations became worship for us (‘Ubiddat ‘aleyna…Fardan) as obligations”
And Al-Himyari wrote p 18 of the published version: “he prostrated five times, and these prostrations became obligatory for us (Sarat aleyna… Fardan)…”, and he did not indicate this change.
Anybody can see that the words “’Ubiddat “and “Sarat” are very far in letters, so it is not a mistake but an alteration on purpose of Al-Himyari, and he should indicate that the manuscript contained the words “’Ubiddat” and for this or that reason, they are an error, and the right words are “Sarat”.
And At-Tuklah concluded that this was probably to hide the non-Arabic style of this sentence. Anyway, this is a clear treachery in Tahqiq, and this is only in what he showed to us from photocopies of manuscripts, so what about what he did not show to us?
Also in the Hadith of Jabir, he made some changes from the so called precise manuscript and took the words of his model and example Muhiyudin ibn ‘Arabi Al-Hatimi. So one can see the precision of this manuscript!
Al-Himyari invented in the beginning of the book “Kitab ul Iman” and there is no basis for this neither from what happened nor by reason, when have you heard of a Kitab having only one chapter? So the manuscript only contained the name of chapter “Bab Takhliq Nur Nabi (saw)” and Al-Himyari invented this “Kitab ul Iman”.
Also At-Tuklah showed another clear proof that this manuscript is a recent fabrication: the copyist Ishaq ibn ‘AbdirRahman As-Sulaymani wrote that he copied it in Baghdad in the year 838 of Hijrah of the leader of the Messengers and the most complete of all creation (saw).
Now this was not the use to mention after the date that it was after the Hijrah except in the end of the Ottoman caliphate. Else before people used only to write the date without adding the words: of Hijrah, as this was understood. When the Christian calendar was propagated at the end of Ottoman rule, then people mention after Hijrah to clarify, else it was not needed before. So the copyist should have written 838 only, and there was no need of specifying 838 of Hijrah. And the scholars Taqi ud Din Al-Hilali, ‘AbdurRahman Albani, Mahmud Shakir and Bakr Abu Zayd informed of this matter.
Also what is also strange is that the copyist wrote this in Baghdad while at this time, the science of Hadith became very rare in Baghdad, rather since three centuries and the invasion of Baghdad, the majority of its libraries disappeared. And the lack of probability of finding a copy of the “Musannaf” here is that Siraj Al-Qazwini of Baghdad (d 750) did not mention it among his narrations, he only mentioned some narrations from Sunan ‘AburRazaq through At-Tabarani, and this is not “Al-Musannaf”, rather a book from the books of At-Tabarani as told in “Muntakhab lin Mu’jam Shuyukh” of As-Sam’ani (1/587) and Al-Qazwini narrated these Ahadith through Ijazah and not Sima’.
So if this was the state of “Al-Musannaf” in the eight century while it has remnants of activity in Hadith, what about the tenth century? Majority of the book of Sunnah that reached us were written before this time.
About the copyist, we have no information about his condition. He wrote this manuscript in an esthetic style, and usually specialist copyists wrote famous poems, books of literature and famous books like Sahih Al-Bukhari and Muslim for rulers and rich people. Less important books were usually written by scholars and students of knowledge with a normal style.
It is clear that in reality “The Musannaf” of ‘AbdurRazaq begins with the chapters of purification (Taharah). The author of “Kashf Az-Zunnun” clearly told that this book is arranged according to chapters of Fiqh. When ibn Khayr Al-Ishbili mentioned in his “Fihrist” p 129 from Hafiz Abu ‘Ali Al-Ghasani the names of the chapters of “Al-Musannaf” in the narration of ibn ul ‘Arabi from Ad-Dabari, he mentioned first the book of purification (Taharah) and there is no book of Iman so there could be in it the chapter of the creation of Nur Nabi (saw).
Also Al-Himyari mentioned in this book his Isnad up to Imam ‘AbdurRazaq so that ignorant people like the people of Sufi Tariqah believe that this fabricated manuscript has a Sanad.
Words on the fabricated texts (Mutun) and Sanads.
The Shocking Hadith of the tree of certitude and the peacock.
The first Hadith of this fabricated Juzz tells a shocking Hadith, and Al-Himyari did not do Takhrij of it, seeing it is a ridiculous Hadith:
“Verily Allah (Ta’ala) created a tree having four branches and He called it the tree of certitude (Yaqeen), then He created the light of Muhammad (saw) in the veil (Hijab) of a white pearl like a peacock (Tawus), and He put him on this tree and he glorified on it (Allah) for 70 000 years. Then He created the mirror of life and He put it in front of it (Nur Muhammadi in the peacock) and when the peacock looked at it he saw his beautiful form and it became shy of Allah and he prostrated five times, and these prostrations became obligatory for us on time, So Allah ordered five prayers on the Prophet (saw) and his community.
Allah looked at this light, and he (Nur Muhammadi in peacock) sweated from shyness towards Allah, and from the sweat of its head the angels were created. From the sweat of his face were created the ‘Arsh, the Kursi, the Lawh, the Qalam, the sun, the moon, the Hijab, the stars and whatever is in the heaven. From the sweat of its chest were created the Prophets, Messengers, scholars, martyrs and saints. From the sweat of his eyebrows was created the community with its believer men and women, Muslim men and women. And from the sweat of his ears were created the souls of Jews, Christians, Majus and similar people. And from the sweat of his feet was created the earth from the west until what it contains.
Then Allah ordered the light of Muhammad (saw) to look in front of him, and the light of Muhammad (saw) looked in front of him and saw light, and behind him light, at its right light, at its left light, and they were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them).
Then he glorified (Allah) for 70 000 years, then the light of the Prophets were created from the light of Muhammad (saw), then he looked at this light and from it the souls of the Prophets were created and they said: La ilaha Ila Allah Muhammad Rasulullah…then the shape of Muhammad (saw) was created like his shape in the world…then the souls did Tawaf around the Nur of Muhammad (saw) and did Tasbih and Tahlil for 100 000 years.
Then he ordered them (the souls of the creation) to look at him (Nur Muhammadi), and they all looked at him, some saw his head and they became Caliphs and rulers in the world, some saw his face and became just rulers, some saw his eyes and became memorizers of the speech of Allah (Ta’ala)…some saw his cheeks and became good and intelligent, some saw his nose and became wise men, doctors and perfume sellers, some saw his lips and had beautiful faces and became ministers (Vizir), some saw his mouth and became fasting people, some saw his ears and had beautiful faces among men and women, some of them saw his tongue and became messengers of rulers…some saw his bird and became martyrs in the way of Allah, some saw his neck and became businessmen, some saw his shoulders and became archer and thrower of spears…some saw his right arm and became money changer, some saw his left arm and became people weighting, some saw his hands and became generous, some saw the nails of his right hand and became cloth dyers, those who saw the nails of his left hand and became woodcutters, some saw his fingers tips and became writers, Some saw the exterior of his fingers of the right hand and became tailors, those who saw the exterior of the fingers of his left hand became blacksmith, some saw his chest and became scholars, grateful people and Mujtahid…some saw his chin and became people of expeditions (Ghazi), some saw his stomach and became pious and abstinent, some saw his thighs and became people doing a lot of Sajdah and Ruku’, some saw his legs and became hunters…and some did not look at him and became people claiming lordship like pharaoh and others from the disbelievers, and some looked at him but did not see him became Jews and Christians and others from the disbelievers.” End of this shameless ridiculous Hadith.
At-Tuklah could only find some later Shi’ah mentioning a similar Hadith without Isnad, and this will come below.
The Hadith of the Prophet (saw) not having a Shadow
Hadith number four: ‘AburRazaq from ibn Jurayj: he said Nafi informed me that Ibn Abbas said that the Prophet (saw) did not have a shadow…,
And this text (Matn) does not have any basis. As-Suyuti in his “Khasais Kubra” (1/122 Ilmiyah) could not find anyone narrating this in his book except Al-Hakim At-Tirmidhi. And it is Mursal and its Sanad contains ‘AbdurRahman Az-Za’farani, and ibn Mahdi, Abu Zur’ah, Salih Jazarah declared him to be a liar and others abandoned him. And there is ignorance of the narrators between Al-Hakim At-Tirmidhi and Az-Za’farani. So As-Suyuti could only found this Hadith that is fabricated.
And in recent times some people invent another such Hadith who seems to be authentic, yet there is no authentic narration proven from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Abbas, rather it is among the particularities of this “Musannaf Al-Himyari”.
Some non Arabic and later words in the texts
In Hadith n°7 it is written that the Prophet (saw) had the most beautiful face among people and was the most luminous among them in colour (Anwar hum Lawnan). And the construction “Anwaru hum Lawnan” is not Arabic.
Likewise in the Hadith n°9, from Salim ibn ‘Abdillah from um Ma’bad, she described the Prophet (saw) as “Ahla Nasi” and this is not an Arabic construction as well.
And the fabricator did not know that Salim did not reach Um Ma’bad. And the Hadith of Umm Ma’bad does not come with this Sanad and its text is: “Ajmal Nasi” as one should say in Arabic.
In Hadith n°7 from ibn Jurayj, he said: Al-Bara would say: “O Allah send Salah on Muhammad (saw) and on his household according the Sea of Your lights, the Treasury of Your mysteries” And the fabricator took this from “Dalail ul Khayrat” of Al-Jazuli as it will come later (the words of “Dalail” are taken from the English translation of Aishah Bewley with slight changes).
In Hadith n°12: ‘AbdurRazaq: ibn ‘Uyaynah informed me from Malik that he would always (Daiman) say: “O Allah send Salah on Saydina Muhammad whose light preceded creation.”
And the words “Daiman” and “Sayduna” are Ghareeb in the first centuries, and the fabricator was influenced from the Sufis writings.
The words of Hadith n°13, their construction clearly shows it is fabricated.
“O Allah send Salah on the best one whose source is good and glory is exalted, and by the light of whose brow the moons are illuminated, and the clouds and seas seem small next to the generosity of his right hand”
And in the fake manuscript, there were word “Al-Bukhar” (vapour) and Al-Himyari corrected it to “An-Nujar”, also in this so called reliable manuscript, there was “Junud” (army) and Al-Himyari changed it in the published version into “Jud” meaning generosity. So Al-Himyari made two changes and he corrected this manuscript according to the words of “Dalail ul Khayrat”.
In Hadith n° 14, there is the words “Haqaiq” meaning “reality” and this is a philosophical term, not used by Salaf.
In Hadith n° 15, it is written that ibn ‘Awn said: My Shaykh told me to recite night and day….and At-Tuklah said it seems they made ibn ‘Awn as a member of the Qadiri Tariqah, and his Shaykh taught him an invocation (meaning these kinds of saying: “my Shaykh told me” did not exist in the Salaf).
In Hadith n°16 Salim said: Sa’id ibn Abi Sa’id taught me to say always (Dawman): “O Allah send Salah on the lifter of sorrow, the dispeller of darkness, the master of blessing, the master of mercy.”
And to say “always” (dawman) is also a term used by later people. (And this also comes from “Dalail ul Khayrat” as it will come later)
In Hadith n°17, it is written with a superb chain, that some considered as the most authentic: Ma’mar from Az-Zuhri from Salim from his father, he said: I saw the Prophet (saw) with these two eyes, he was all light, rather light from the light of Allah (Nur min Nurillah)…he who saw him many times would love him with greater love (Ashad Istihbab)
And the Indian fabricator did not notice that Allah said in the Quran: “The believers love Allah more (Ashad Hubban Lillah)”, so one in Arabic says Ashad Hubban not Ashad Istihbaban.
And Al-Himyari dared to say: Its Isnad is authentic!!!
The fabricated Hadith of Jabir
In Hadith n° 18, there is the Hadith of Jabir: from Ma’mar from ibn ul Munkadir from Jabir: (as translated by Murshid F. A. ‘Ali El-Senossi on a Sufi webpage)
“What is the first thing that Allah created?” The Holy Prophet replied ‘The first thing that Allah created was the Light of Your Prophet, Oh Jabir’. Then the Holy Prophet continued ‘Then He created within that light all goodness and after that, He created everything else. When He created that Luminous Light, He stood it before Him in the Station of Nearness (Maqam al Qurb) for 12,000 years.
This light He divided into 4 portions. From the first portion, He created the Throne. From the second portion He created the Pedestal. From the third portion, He created the Angels that carry the Throne and the Trustees of the Pedestal. The fourth portion He then stood before Him in the Station of Love (Maqam al Hubb) for 12,000 years.
From this fourth portion He created 4 more portions. From the first portion He created the Pen, from the second He created the Lawh (tablet), from the third He created Paradise. Then He stood the fourth portion before Him in the Station of Fear (Maqam al Khawf) for 12,000 years.
From this portion, He created 4 more portions. From the first portion He created the Angels, from the second He created the Sun, from the third He created the Moon and all the celestial bodies. Then He stood the fourth portion before Him in the Station of Hope (Maqam ar Rija’) for 12,000 years.
From this portion, He again created 4 more portions. From one He created the Intellect (‘Aql), from the second portion Knowledge and Gentleness, from the third, Tawfiq (success). The fourth portion He stood before Him in the Station of Shyness (Maqam al Haya’) for 12,000 years. After 12,000 years, Allah turned His glance upon this light. This look caused luminous beads of perspiration to appear upon it. From each of these 124,000 drops of light, Allah created the Spirit of a Prophet or Messenger. Then the Spirits of the Prophets exhaled. From this exhalation, Allah created all the Saints and the people who will be in perpetual happiness, the martyrs and those who are obedient from among the believers until the Day of Judgement.
(The Holy Prophet continued and said) ‘So the Throne and the Pedestal are from my light. Paradise and every enjoyment and perpetual bliss is from my light. The Angels of the Seven Heavens are from my light. The selected angelic beings are from my light. The Sun and the Moon and all the celestial bodies from my light. Knowledge, Gentleness and Success, from my light. The spirits of the Messengers and the Prophets, from my light. The martyrs and the conscious people from the result of my light.
Then Allah created 12 veils. That part of my light which is the fourth portion of the fourth portion, stood in every veil for 1,000 years. These veils are the veil of generosity, the veil of happiness, the veil of awe, the veils of mercy and kindness and knowledge, humbleness, dignity, gentleness (sakinah), patience and realisation, truthfulness. After worshipping Allah in every veil for a period of 1,000 years, Allah caused the light to emerge and He placed it upon the Earth. That light illuminates what is between the Easts and the Wests like a lantern in the darkness of the night.
Then Allah created Adam from the Earth, took from that light and placed it within his forehead. This light was transmitted to Seth and from him it passed from one pure soul to another – from goodness to goodness until Allah transferred it to the loins of Abdullah bin Abd al-Muttalib. From him, it passed into the womb of my mother, Aminah. Then He brought me forth into this world. He made me the Master of the Messengers (Sayyid al Mursalin), Seal of the Prophets (Khatm an Nabiyyin) and a mercy for all creations.
That is how the creation of your Prophet was accomplished, Oh Jabir. Thus said the Holy Prophet Muhamad (saw).” End of the Hadith of Jabir
(Note: generally people who declare this fabrication to be authentic do not dare to quote the full Hadith, as anyone having the least intelligence would clearly see it is a fabrication and contains the terminologies of the Sufis, the different Maqam and others)
And this Hadith is fabricated, may Allah curse his fabricator. It clearly opposes the Quran and the authentic Sunnah about the creation. And the beginning of this Hadith is found in the Batini Isma’ili literature as they want to say that the Prophet (saw) and ‘Ali came from the light of Allah, see the book “Usul Al-Isma’iliyah” of Dr Sulayman ibn Abdillah As-Salumi vol 2 p 459.
And the one who quoted a close Hadith is ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Walid Al-Isma’ili Al-Batini (d 612) in his book “Taj ul ‘Aqaid” p 54 but with the words of: Allah created me and ‘Ali from light…and we would do Tasbih of Allah before Adam creation from a thousand year…then my light and the light from ‘Ali gathered in Fatimah, and Al-Hasan and Al-Husayn came from it, and they are two lights from the light of the Lord of the universe.”
Then ibn ‘Arabi Al-Hatimi took this Hadith from the Batiniyah, and he has a similar creed to the Batiniyah as said by his student ibn Musdi, and ibn ‘Arabi quoted this Hadith in his “Talqih Al-Azhan”, in his “Futuhat Al-Makkiyah”.
‘Abdullah Al-Ghumari said in “Islah Abyat Al-Burdah” p 75: “The first one who made this Hadith famous is ibn ‘Arabi Al-Hatimi”
Then this Hadith became famous in the books of Shi’ah and Sufiyah, and they quoted it without Isnad. And the first one according to my knowledge who attributed to ‘AbdurRazq is Al-Qastalani in his “Mawahib Al-Laduniyah” vol 1 p 46.
Al-Ghumari said that As-Suyuti also attributed to AbdurRazaq in his “Khasais”, and they are both from tenth century, and both did not mention any Isnad.
Then ‘Ijluni in the 12 century attributed it to ‘AbdurRazaq in “Kashf ul Khafa” vol 1 p 311, and in “Arba’in” n°19, and he clarified in the last book that he did not find the Isnad and he followed Al-Qastalani.
And then the Brawliyah invented this fabricated manuscript.
And as the Sufis and people of Wahdat ul Wujud were making this Hadith famous, many people of knowledge warned against this Hadith, among them Salafis like ibn Baz, Al-Albani and also some Sufis.
Among them Shaykh ‘Abdullah Al-Ghumari, teacher of Sa’id Mamduh, in his “Murshid Al-Hair li Bayan Wad’ Hadith Jabir” and he said: “This Hadith is definitively fabricated, and it contains the terminologies (Istilahat) of Sufis…this is a fabricated Hadith that has no basis in the books of Sunnah”
He said in “Islah Abiyat Al-Burdah” p 75: “As-Suyuti said in his “Al-Hawi”: “It is not proven”, and this is an ugly Tasahul (being soft from As-Suyuti), rather it is clearly fabricated…there is in it the style of the Sufis, as there is mention of the station of Al-Haybah and the station of Khashiyah and other from Sufi terminologies”
He said in his “Irshad At-Talibin” p 9-10: “Among the most famous fabricated Ahadith is the Hadith; the first thing Allah created is the light of your prophet from His light O Jabir”
And At-Tuklah said that some people Al-Himyari and Mamduh respect like ‘Abdullah Al-Habashi and Hasan Saqqaf declared this Hadith to be fabricated, the same as Abdul Fattah Abu Ghuddah and ‘Abdullah At-Tulaydi, who is among the greatest companions of Ahmad Al-Ghumari.
The four basis of this fake manuscript
The fabricator of this Indian manuscript relied on four basis to invent his lost Juzz:
First basis: “Dalail ul Khayrat” of Al-Jazuli.
The words of Hadith n° 10 “the Sea of Your lights, the Treasury of Your mysteries” (Bahr Anwarika wa ma’din Asrarika) are taken from “Dalail”, second Hizb, Yawm Thalathah p 20 with exactly the same words.
The words of Hadith n°11 “The one from whose light the flowers were produced” (Man Tafataqqat min Nurihi Al-Azhar) are taken with same words p 23 of “Dalail”
The words of Hadith n°12: “O Allah send Salah on Saydina Muhammad whose light preceded creation” is in “Dalail” Hizb Thalith, Yawm Al-Arba’ah p 26.
The words of Hadith n°13 is also in “Dalail” Hizb Sabi’, Yawm Al-Ahad p 52.
“May Allah send Salah the best one whose source is good and glory is exalted, and by the light of whose brow the moons are illuminated, and the clouds and seas seem small next to the generosity of his right hand.”
The words Hadith n°14 is in “Dalail” Salah Mashishiyah p 56 with words “Asrar” instead of “Anhar” and some additions.
The words of Hadith n°16 are in “Dalail”, Hizb Thanni, Yawm Ath-Thalathah p 22 with words “Muti Rahmah” instead of “Mawla Rahmah”
In “Dalail”: “O Allah send Salah on the lifter of sorrow, the dispeller of darkness, the master of blessing, the one who brings mercy (“master of mercy” in the fake Hadith)”
And Al-Himayari failed to mention the resemblance of these words with that of “Dalail ul Khayrat” and he even corrected two words of this Juzz with the words of “Dalail”. So he knew about this resemblance, but refused to explain it.
Second basis: The books of the Sufi ibn ‘Arabi.
Al-Himyari took the words of the Hadith of Jabir from ibn ‘Arabi, who did not mention any Isnad of it and left the words of this so called reliable copyist.
Third basis of this fabricated Juzz: some books of late Shi’ah
And this is proven by the fact that the first Hadith about the tree of certitude, Agha Buzurk At-Tehrani Ash-Shi’i mentioned in his “Zari’ah ila Tasanif Shi’ah” v 5 p 163-164 of Shi’ah: “N°695: “Al-Jannah wa Nar” from someone from our companions, and he wrote in the beginning: “Allah created the tree and it had four branches and he called it the tree of certitude, then He created the light of Muhammad (saw) in the veil” and I saw its manuscript at Shaykh ‘Abdul Karim Al-‘Attar Ale Shaykh Radhi Al-Kazimi in Kazimiyah”
And in the magazine “Turathuna Ash-Shi’ah” 3/96 when mentioning the manuscripts of the library Al-Haj Hadayani in Qum, they mentioned a Majmu’ with many Rasail from the 11 and 12 century, and they mentioned the book “Kitab Khalq ul Ashya” and it had in first Hadith: “Al Hamdulilah Rabbi ‘Alamin…know that Allah created the tree and it had four branches, and it was called the tree of certitude…”
And both quoted the Hadith similarly as the “Musannaf Al-Himyari” and both without Isnad, and this Bralwi fabricator came and made up an Isnad for it. (This also shows that Shi’ah and Brawliyah share the same creed and read same kind of Batini material)
And the Hadith of Jabir is also taken through ibn ‘Arabi who was a clear Batini.
Fourth basis: the “Musannaf” of ibn Abi Shaybah
The fabricator took the texts (mutun) of the book of purification (Taharah) from “Musannaf” ibn Abi Shaybah and he invented other Isnads for them, and Al-Himyari remained silent on this.
The Hadith n°20 about saying Bismillah in Wudhu, its text (Matn) and a part of the Sanad is from “Musannaf” ibn Abi Shaybah with same words.
The Sanad in ibn Abi Shaybah is: Kathir ibn Zayd – Rubayh ibn ‘AbdirRahman ibn Abi Sa’id Al-Khudri from his father (‘AbdurRahmlan) from his great father (Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri)
And the fabricator on this Juzz wrote in his Sanad: Ma’mar- Az-Zuhri- Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri from his father from his great father.
So this fabricator maybe saw that the “Ibn” between AbirRahman and Abi Sa’id Al-Khudri was “’An” meaning from, so he thought it was Rubayh ibn ‘AbdirRahman from Abi Sa’id Al-Khudri.
And the narrator of this Hadith is the great son of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri, Rubayh, and he is famous for this Hadith. And scholars like Ahmad and ibn ‘Adi said that Kathir ibn Zayd is alone in narrating this from him. How can Az-Zuhri come as a follower of Kathir and he even does not narrate from Rubayh.
Likewise in Hadith n°21, he came with the same words as ibn Abi Shaybah from the Hadith of Sa’id ibn Zayd about reciting Bismillah, but he made up an Isnad up to Abu Hurayrah.
In Hadith n° 22, he came with the words of ibn Abi Shaybah from the Hadith of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri about the invocation after completing Wudhu, and he made up an Isnad of it from himself.
And the fabricator missed the fact the ‘AburRazaq mentioned in his real “Musannaf” this Hadith of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri in two places (1/186 and 3/378) but with a different Isnad from that of this invented Juzz.
As for Hadith n°23, he came with the text (Matn) of ibn Shaybah from Salim Abu Ja’d from the Prophet (saw) about the invocation after completing Wudhu, and he played with the Sanad.
And one should know that ‘AbdurRazaq mentioned this Hadith with same words from Salim in his real “Musannaf” (1/186)
In Hadith n°24, the fabricator quoted the same text from ibn Abi Shaybah from Hadith of ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir. And the fabricator made up an Isnad of Az-Zuhri from ‘Uqbah obn ‘Amir.
So all these Ahadith, their texts have been taken from Ibn Abi Shaybah, and new Isnads have been made up, while two of them, AburRazzaq narrated them in his real “Musannaf” with other Isnads than the fabricated Juzz.
Words on the fabrication of Isnads of this Juzz
In Hadith n°2: ibn Jurayj: Al-Bara informed me (Akhbarani), and this is a lie as ibn Jurayj did not meet Al-Bara, and despite this Al-Himyari said: “Ibn Jurayj is a Thiqah Hafiz, and he did some Tadlis, and here he clarified of Ikhbar (meaning he did hear directly and did not do Tadlis)”
How can anyone related to knowledge fail to mention that there is a problem here, and say such falsehood?
Why did Al-Himyari fail to tell Ibn Jurayj did not meet al-Bara?
The same in Hadith n°28, AbdurRazaq said: Az-Zuhri informed me (Akhbarani) and this is also a lie as ‘AburRazaq did not meet Az-Zuhri.
This is among clear mistakes, else there are other Isnads specialist of Hadith know that such narrator does not narrate from such one, as none narrated him narrating from the other.
In Hadith n°13, ‘AbdurRazaq said: Yahya ibn Abi Zaidah informed me.
And this is an invention, as ibn Abi Zaidah does not come among the teachers of ‘AburRazaq in the “Musannaf” neither in “Tahzib ul Kamal”.
In Hadith n°22: Malik informed me from Yahya ibn Abi Zaidah, and Malik does not narrate from ibn Abi Zaidah. And the same for n°34
Likewise in n°15, there is that Ma’mar narrated from ibn Abi Zaidah
In n° 10, the fabricator made Ma’mar narrating from ibn Jurayj
In n°15, the fabricator made Ma’mar narrating from ibn Abi Zaidah.
In n°19, the fabricator made Ma’mar narrating from Salim ibn ‘Abdillah.
In n°36, the fabricator made Ma’mar narrating from Al-Layth.
And all of these are lies as they are not among teachers of Ma’mar.
Also in n°19, there is Salim from Abu Hurayrah, and this association also does not come in books of Hadith.
(Shaykh ‘Abdullah As-Sa’d also mentioned other of these wrong Isnads:
In Hadith n° 24 from Az-Zuhri, he heard from ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir, this is a lie, none of the Imams of Hadith mentioned that Az-Zuhri heard from the Sahabi ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Amir.
In Hadith n°30, there is that Az-Zuhri from ibn ‘Uyaynah, and Az-Zuhri does not narrate from ibn ‘Uyaynah, rather ibn ‘Uyaynah is a student of Az-Zuhri.
In Hadith n°13 there is: from Sulayman ibn Yasar: he said Abu Qilabah taught me, and this is not correct because Sulayman ibn Yasar is not among students of Abu Qilabah, rather they are from same generation, and maybe Sulyaman is older, and they are both among the seven Fuqahah of Madinah)
A glimpse at Al-Himyari’s reply to At-Tuklah
Dr Al-Himyari wrote a reply to Shaykh At-Tuklah called “Ighlaq ‘ala Al-Mu’taridhin”,
And Shaykh At-Tuklah refuted him in his book “Izhaq Abatil Ighlaq”.
Al-Himayri failed to answer many crucial points of the precise accusations of At-Tuklah like the alteration of Al-Himyari of the words “’Ubiddat” to “Sarat” when reproducing the manuscript. And this alteration make one fall from integrity, as it is a pure fraud.
He failed also to answer from where he invented the Book “Kitab ul Iman”. He failed to explain why only Shi’ah and Batini quoted similar Ahadith, specially the Hadith of the tree of certitude. He failed to explain why ‘AburRazaq mentioned in his real Musannaf two Ahadith that are in this fabricated Juzz with different Isnad, and also the borrowing from Ibn Abi Shaybah. He failed to answer to these non Arabic constructions, except one (Anwaru hum Lawnan) and this will be shown. And Al-Himyari also ignored many other points.
Al-Himyari’s new shameless lie about this manuscript
As Al-Kamadani told the reality about this manuscript, that it was recent and its original from which this one was copied was in a library of former Soviet Union, and this library was in the war, and At-Tuklah showed this to the world, Al-Himyari could not explain his treachery of not telling this in his introduction, so he invented a lie, that he in fact mentioned this in his introduction.
Al-Himyari wrote in Iqhlaq: “I have made it clear in the Tahqiq that it came from a country from above the Caspian sea”
At-Tuklah replied that it is a pure lie, and the introduction is present in front of anyone, there is no mention of this neither any hint to countries above the Caspian sea, and there are more lies as sometimes he says that the original manuscript was in Afghanistan and sometimes in a country above the Caspian sea, meaning Turkmenistan and others.
Al-Himyari wrote: “What we have clearly affirmed in the introduction is our preference that this manuscript was copied from a manuscript that was written in the tenth century.”
At-Tuklah replied: THIS IS A PURE LIE, AND THINKING THE READERS ARE STUPID, AS IF HE BELIEVES THAT THE INTRODUCTION IS NOT IN FRONT OF PEOPLE, AND WHOEVER WANTS TO CHECK CAN DO IT. I CHALLENGE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CHECK THE INTRODUCTION AND QUOTE ANY LITTLE HINT TO THAT, WHAT ABOUT A CLEAR AFFIRMATION? THAT THIS MANUSCRIPT (OF THE BRAWLIYAH) IS COPIED FROM ANOTHER MANUSCRIPT (OF TENTH CENTURY)
Al-Himyari further wrote: “I asked the trustworthy people of knowledge from the country in which this manuscript was found (meaning Bralwiyah of India)…and they replied that the manuscript in front of us was copied from an old manuscript, and I asked about the original and how to find it, or a photocopy of it, and I was told that the original was lost in the war that occurred in recent times in Afghanistan”
OF COURSE THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT THE DETAILS OF THIS LIBRARY, HOW IT WAS DESTROYED, WHERE AND WHEN EXACTLY, AND WHO INFORMED THE BRAWLIYAH ABOUT THIS. (AND YET IF THEY TOLD THE EXACT TOWN AND THE LIBRARY, THEN PEOPLE OF KNOWLEDGE COULD ASK AFGHANI PEOPLE OF THIS TOWN IF THEY ARE AWARE WHETHER SUCH A LIBRARY EVER EXISTED AND WHETHER IT WAS REALLY BURNED, AND IF SOME MANUSCRIPTS WERE SAVED FROM THIS SO CALLED BURNING)
SO THESE ARE LIES UPON LIES TO HIDE THE TRUTH. AT-TUKLAH MOCKED AL-HIMYARI THAT MAYBE HE WILL SAY THAT THE ONE WHO INFORMED ABOUT THIS BURNING OF LIBRARY WAS KILLED IN GANTANAMO, SO WE HAVE NO REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS IMAGINARY LIBRARY.
The Bralwiyah why did they not informed of this imaginary Library in first place?
They only told about this imaginary Library when Al-Himyari asked them on Al-Kamadani’s request. And Al-Himyari hided the whole story in his introduction, so he deceived people just like the Bralwiyah.
Some other objections and the answers to them
Al-Himyari further wrote: “He pretends that the words “Tawus” and “Malaikah” are not from tenth century”
While At-Tuklah only mentioned that the style in which they were written was Indian, and not that these words are not Arabic or not from Tenth century.
Al-Himyari further wrote that the word Tawus, was written with a Hamza on the Waow (طاؤس), meaning with the Indian style, in the book “Ulum ul Hadith” of Al-Hakim and likewise in “Fath ul Mughith” of As-Sakhawi, so would these two people be non Arabic?
And Shaykh At-Tuklah answered him and asked Al-Humyari whether these published books where written by the hands of Al-Hakim and As-Sakhawi? Rather the Muhaqiq of these books were Indians, the Muhaqiq of Al-Hakim’s book is As-Sayd Mu’zam Husayn and the Muhaqiq of As-Sakahwi’s book is ‘Ali Husayn ‘Ali teacher at Jamiah Salafiyah Banaris in India, and they published it and wrote Tawus in their Indian style, while Arab Muhaqiq who published it wrote “Tawus” without the Hamza (طاوس) and at-Tuklah named some Arabic scholars who published them.
And At-Tuklah though that there was a Hamzah on the waow on Tawus, but looking at better photocopies then shown by Al-Himyari in his “Ighlaq”, it looked more like a Dhammah, so it is another defect. Also it showed the recent ink of this manuscript.
In Hadith n°2, ibn Jurayj said that Al-Bara informed him and in Hadith, AbdurRazaq said that Az-Zuhri informed him, while ibn Jurayj did not meet Al-Bara, neither did AbdurRazaq meet Az-Zuhri, and Al-Himyari did not mention anything about this problem in his Tahqiq.
In “Al-Ighlaq” Al-Himyari told that there was some omission in the manuscript and the copyist missed to narrators in between Ibn Jurayj and Al-Bara, and also between AburRazaq and Az-Zuhri, and he did not show it in the Tahqiq but only did a general presentation of the Isnad, as he said in his introduction that he will only do a full Tahqiq of Hadith not narrated in famous books, and these two were in famous books, so there was no need of a precise Tahqiq, but he just gave general information about narrators.
At-Tuklah replied that Al-Himyari wrote: “Ibn Jurayj is a Thiqah Hafiz, and he did some Tadlis, and here he clarified of Ikhbar (meaning he did hear directly and did not do Tadlis)”
And Ikhbar from who? When Al-Himyari tells ibn Jurayj clarified hearing, so there is no Tadlis in this Hadith, then everyone understand he heard from Al-Bara. (And if Al-Himyari mentioned that here there was Ikhbar, what was preventing him from saying that Ikhbar was from a narrator that is dropped from the manuscript?)
Also in Hadith forty in which there is: ‘AbdurRazaq from Az-Zuhri, Al-Himyari mentioned that there is Inqita’ between ‘AburRazaq and Az-Zuhri and here where there was Ikhbar, he failed to mention this important point, and that a narrator was missing.
Also one should remember that Al-Himyari insisted that this manuscript was more precise that published edition, so this was his argument to show that the Majhul copyist was precise. And such mistakes would undermine the copyist’s reliability.
Shaykh At-Tuklah mentioned after this that Shaykh Sa’d ibn Nasir Ash-Shathri said that he found a manuscript of “Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah” having in margin additions of ‘AburRazaq upon ibn Abi Shaybah, meaning narrations of ‘AburRazaq that ibn Abi Shaybah did not narrate, and there were some narrations in this “Zawaid” of AbburRazaq in the chapters of purification that are not in this fake manuscript, so it means that the real missing Ahadith are different from those of this fake manuscript.
AL-Himyari only told that Ma’mar narrated from Salim in “Tamheed” (11/111) of ibn Abdil Barr and “Muhalla” (10/8) of ibn Hazm.
As for the narration of ibn Abdil Barr it is not a proof, as ibn Abdil Barr clearly said that Ma’mar narrated from az-Zuhri from Salim, and then when he mentioned the Sanad, it was dropped from the published edition. The same for ibn Hazm, and Al-Himyari did not indicate the text (Matn) of this narration in “Muhalla” of ‘AbdurRazaq from Ma’mar from Salim, because if someone checks in “Musannaf AburRazaq” (8/484), one can see that there is Az-Zuhri in between Ma’mar and Salim. So the publisher of “Al-Muhalla” dropped by forgetfulness Az-Zuhri in between as it is in the “Musannaf”.
And al-Himyari could not reply to any other false Isnads like Az-Zuhri from ibn ‘Uyaynah and others he and Shaykh ‘Abdullah As-Sa’d mentioned, and here there could not be any omission in the manuscript from the copyist, rather these are particularities of this fabricated Juzz.
As for the words “Anwaru hum Lawnan” then al-Himyari mentioned from “Lisan ul ‘Arab” about the word Anwar, And At-Tuklah said he did not deny the word “Anwar” but the construction “Anwaru hum Lawnan” and Anwar does not come for Ism Tafdheel, meaning for comparison, one cannot say: this one is Anwar from this one (more luminous than). One should say Akthar Nuran or Ashad Nuran. For words of colours or defects like Aswad (black) or A’war (blind), one cannot say this one is A’war (more blind) from this one.
And if someone claims this construction (Anwaru hum Lawnan) came in a Hadith of ‘Aishah in Abu Nu’aym and Al-Bayhaqi, then this Hadith is Munkar and very weak, Al-Bayhaqi, ibn Kathir in his “Tarikh” and Al-‘Iraqi in his “Takhrij Ihya” criticized it. One of its narrators Al-Farghani came alone with these words opposing other who narrated this Hadith, and Ibn Hibban said he was not famous and Al-Khateeb said he narrates Manakir. And this non Arabic construction is another proof of the weakness of this Hadith.
So there is no authentic Hadith having the words “Anwaru hum Lawnan” and this is false in Arabic.
Al-Himyari also said that there are many books published and their manuscripts do not have Sima’, and At-Tuklah replied that one cannot compare them with this fake manuscript as there are a lot of details canceling it, its words and none of the Salaf quoting such Ahadith.
(Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay also answered this objection from some Bralwiyah of Pakistan who said: where are the Sima’ on “Tarikh As-Sagheer” and “Tarikh Kabeer” of Al-Bukhari and some other books?
And Shaykh Zubayr said these manuscripts were famous among people of knowledge, and we have many of them, and early up to late scholars would quote from them as we can see in their books, while many of these Ahadith of the lost Juzz, no scholars quoted them neither these different Salam on the Prophet (saw) similar to “Dalail ul Khayrat”, the ridiculous Hadith of the tree of certitude, neither the Ahadith of purification taken from ibn Abi Shaybah and having new Isnads and no Salaf quoted such Isnads)
Al-Himyari tried also to answer to the objection of the words being similar to Sufi literature and he quoted a Hadith in “Awsat” of At-Tabarani n°9089 and in “Tahzib ul Athar” of ibn Jarir At-Tabari, and this had similar kinds of Salam send on the Prophet (saw).
At-Tuklah said that this has nothing to do with the Ahadith of his lost Juzz, as six of his Ahadith have exactly the same words as that of “Dalail ul Khayrat” (and the Hadith he showed has a similar style and not exact words as “Dalail ul Khayrat”)
Also the Hadith of At-Tabarani and others he quoted is weak, as declared by Abu Hatim, Al-Mizzi, ibn Kathir, Al-Haythami and others.
So Al-Himyari should not be happy to show that a weak Hadith is in the same style as Sufi literature. And this Hadith has nothing to do with the debate, as the Ahadith of this fake manuscript had same words as “Dalail ul Khayrat” and there is a difference of having same style and exactly the same words.
Also Al-Himyari tried to show that the word “Sayd” was used in a Hadith of sending Salah on the Prophet (saw), and At-Tuklah showed its weakness, so there is not authentic Hadith having the words “Sayd” in sending the Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw).
And many other objections of Al-Himyari and their replies have been left for the purpose of being concise, yet for the main objections, their answers has been shown succinctly. So this was for At-Tuklah’s reply to Al-Himyari.
Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh freed himself from his introduction
Contrary to Al-Himyari, Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh declared this manuscript as unreliable, and he wrote a paper with his signature showing he frees himself from this introduction, and this paper was shown on the internet.
He said first when he saw the manuscript, he doubted about its authenticity as the paper was fine and the writing was fresh, and the manuscripts did not have Sima’ or marks.
Then Al-Himyari told him that this manuscript was in fact copied from another manuscript who is lost, according to what Al-Himyari was told (by the Brawliyah). And Al-Himyari told him that he sent this manuscript for checking to the center Jumah Al-Majid, and they told that this manuscript was written 50 or 60 years before.
He said he did not read the Tahqiq of the Ahadith in the book and has nothing to do with it, he only read the introduction of Al-Himyari, and the verdict in the manuscript should come from specialists of Manuscripts.
Also Mamudh said he did not authenticate in his introduction the Hadith of Jabir, as the specialists have clearly affirmed it to be fabricated, and among them his two teachers the Ghumari brothers, and it is not incumbent on the one who introduces a work to declare which Ahadith are fabricated in the book. So in fact, Mamduh said that he never authenticated the Hadith of Jabir, and it is weak for him, while his friend Al-Himyari still considers it as authentic.
He also wrote that based on many evidences, this manuscript is not reliable, and his introduction to it should not be mentioned anymore, and he frees himself from it.
He tried to defend himself saying that scholars who narrate fabricated and Munkar Ahadith are not declared fabricators, so accusing or Al-Himyari of fabricating is an ugly error.
But this defense is totally ridiculous, as Mamduh knew that this manuscript was not written in 838H in Baghdad, rather it was copied in recent years and the original was lost, as he himself acknowledged in the paper he signed.
AND AL-HIMYARI DID NOT MENTION ANY WORD ABOUT THIS IN HIS INTRODUCTION AND MENTIONED THAT DATE ON THE MANUSCRIPT BEING 838H, SO MAMDUH KNEW THAT AL-HIMYARI HIDED THE TRUTH AND DECEIVED PEOPLE, AND HE INTRODUCED THIS TREACHERY, SO HE SHARED HIM IN THE CRIME OF LYING AND HIDING THE TRUTH. HE IS A SHAMELESS CRIMINAL, WHO APPROVED OF THIS FRAUD. AND HIS FREEING HIMSELF WILL NOT CHANGE THAT HE KNEW THE REALITY, YET DID NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT THIS DEFECT. SO HE ALSO WANTED TO HIDE THIS DEFECT AND DECIEVE MUSLIMS.
Anyone fearing Allah would not introduce this and say to Al-Himyari: Why do you not say that the manuscript that was written in 838H is lost and this one is a recent copy?
So Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh knew all about this, and he agreed to deceive Muslims and hide these important defects.
Also who can believe any Muhadith would introduce a book of forty Ahadith and not have a glimpse at the Ahadith and their Sanad?
May Allah protect us from these Batinis Quburis Jahmis.
Note about the Hadith of the tree in this fake manuscript and ibn ‘Arabi
It has preceded that the first Hadith of this fabricated manuscript resembles some Ahadith quoted by Shi’ah in their books, and after searching on Internet, I saw that ibn Arabi had two books in English about tree:
First: “The universal Tree and the four birds” in Arabic (Ittihad Al-Kawn), and its translator Angela Jaffray wrote about its presentation:
“The Universal Tree and the Four Birds is one of Ibn ‘Arabi’s early works. A dazzling blend of poetry and rhymed prose, this short mystical treatise encompasses a number of themes that were of perennial concern to Ibn ‘Arabi, in particular the question of union with the Divine.
Beginning with a series of poems that depict the existential fluctuation of the human heart, the narrator goes on to describe his meeting with his Essential Self in a ‘place’ outside space and time. He then finds himself in a garden with the Universal Tree, symbolizing the Reality of Perfect Man, and four delightful birds: an Eagle, a Ringdove, a fabulous ‘Anqa’ (or Gryphon), and a Jet-black Crow. Each in turn regales the author with a tale of its origins and essential characteristics, but it is only in the end that their true natures are finally revealed.”
Second: “The tree of being, an ode to the perfect man” translated by Tosun Bayrak and its Arabic is “Shajarat ul Kawn”
It is written about this book in a webpage:
“The Tree of Being is an inspired description of the cosmos and the perfect man as microcosm, expressed in beautiful metaphysical and poetic imagery. Ibn Arabi’s devotion to the Prophet Muhammad as the perfect man provides instruction in Islam for the ones who are interested in learning the essence of this religion.”
So one can see that this tree has a secret meaning for ibn ‘Arabi and has some relation to the soul of the Prophet (saw), that Sufi also call Nur Muhammadi or other names. And this probably comes from Batini literature as Shi’ah also quote such Hadith about the tree of certitude and Nur Muhammadi. And the fabricator found this Hadith in this Sufi-Shi’a literature and put it in the manuscript in order to destroy the pure religion of Islam and replace it by the Batini-Greek religion. And the Batini were influenced by Greek philosophy like the Ikhwan Safa, ibn Sina’s father was a Batini, and the Shi’ah philosopher Nasir ud Din At-Tusi was a great follower of ibn Sina.
And the Brawliyah, Al-Himyari and Mamduh all wanted to propagate this Batini-Greek-Sufi religion under the name of Islam.
May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, companions and those who follow them.
Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan
Below are some scans provided by Shaykh At-Tuklah
The first and last page of this fake manuscript
Some pages of the published version by Dr Al-Himyari
The paper of Mahmud Sai’d Mamduh in which he frees himself from this book