Ahmad 7255

Its isnad is sahih. Abu Dawud narrated it, 380, 1:145–146 in Awn al-Mabud, and Tirmidhi, 1:137–138, both through Sufyan bin Uyayna, with this isnad. Tirmidhi said, "This is a hasan sahih hadith." It will come again slightly longer at 10540, through the narration of Muhammad bin Amr from Abu Salama from Abu Hurairah. From this same route, the route of Muhammad bin Amr, Ibn Majah narrated it, 1:98.Bukhari narrated it split into two places. He narrated the story of the supplication at 10:367, through the route of Shuayb from Zuhri from Abu Salama from Abu Hurairah. And he narrated the story of the urination in the masjid at 1:278–279, through the route of Shuayb from Zuhri from Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Utba from Abu Hurairah. The story of the urination in the masjid alone will come at 7786 and 7787, through the narration of Zuhri from Ubaydullah bin Abdullah, and Nasai likewise narrated it, 1:46–63, through this same route. Abu Dawud narrated, 1882, 329 in Awn al-Mabud, the story of the supplication alone, through the narration of Zuhri from Abu Salama bin Abdul-Rahman from Abu Hurairah. The story of the supplication alone, abridged, has already passed from the hadith of Abdullah bin Amr bin Aas at 6590, 6849, 7059.His saying, "You have confined what was vast," means you have narrowed what Allah made vast, and restricted it to two people, when the mercy of Allah encompasses all things. It is said, "hajarat al-ard" and "ihtajartuha," when you set up a marker over it to keep others away from it. "Ahriqu" means "pour it out," from "spilling." Ibn Athir said, The ha in "haraqa" is a substitute for the hamza in "araqa." It is said, "araqa al-maa yuriquhu" and "haraqahu yuhriquhu," with the ha vowelled with fatha, "haraqa." It is also said, "ahraqtu al-maa ahriquhu ihraqan," combining both the substitute and the original form. "Sajl," with fatha on the sin and sukun on the jim, means a bucket full of water, and its plural is "sijal."This hadith is clear in meaning in describing this rough, uncultured bedouin, who came from the desert with his ignorance and his lack of knowledge, and did what an ignorant fool does, until the teacher of goodness taught him ﷺ. No one who reads or hears this hadith doubts the roughness and ignorance of this man, whoever the reader or listener may be, whether learned or ignorant, sharp-witted or dull, Arab or non-Arab.Is it not astonishing, after all this, that whims should overpower a great orientalist and that hatred against Islam should stir him, a man we thought was among the orientalists most removed from the whims of missionaries and the propaganda of distorters? He is the orientalist Brockelmann, author of the useful and beneficial book, Tarikh Adab Arabi, in which he attempted to survey Arabic writings, especially the ancient ones, with reference to the location of the rare and manuscript copies among them.That orientalist, whom we imagined to be above what his fellow orientalist scholars fall into, wrote another book on the history of the Islamic peoples, translated by two professors from Beirut, Dr. Nabih Amin Faris and Professor Munir Baalbaki, in five volumes, printed in Beirut, its first volume printed in 1948 of the Christian era.This man, whom we thought sensible, says in the first volume of his book, page 16 of the Arabic translation, when speaking about the lands of the Arabs before Islam and about their social conditions in the north of the peninsula, he says word for word, "The bedouin is an individualistic being, excessively selfish above all else. Some hadiths still permit the Arab who enters Islam to say in his prayer, 'O Allah, have mercy on me and on Muhammad, and have no mercy on anyone else besides us!'"This is what this man says, a man widely read in Arabic books and Islamic writings, not ignorant of the speech of the Arabs, nor unaware of the meaning of what he reads. The hadith is before him in full in the books of sunnah, yet he quotes only a single fragment from it, and leaves out what comes before it and what comes after it! This man, whose words revealed that grudges and crusading bias fill his heart and cloud his sight and his reason.An isolated incident, from an ignorant bedouin, that did not pass without people condemning it and without the gentle teacher instructing him ﷺ, yet this lying slanderer turns it into a general rule for the character of the people of the desert, turning a single incident into a universal rule. This is the strangest kind of inference we have ever seen or known!I do not know why he spared the people of the desert from also drawing, out of this same isolated incident, another universal rule, that it is characteristic of the desert people, when they enter a masjid or attend a large gathering of people, to rush to urinate in the masjid or in front of the people, so that this orientalist would at least be consistent with himself. And the bedouin at the center of this incident did both things!This orientalist was not content with what he displayed of intelligence and honesty, so he fabricated an outright lie against Islam when he claimed that some hadiths still permit the Arab who enters Islam to make that supplication in his prayer. Is this true or false?And if one is to be amazed, it is truly amazing that Dr. Umar Faruq left without comment the words of this lying orientalist, and that the two professors who translated the book confined their commentary to merely pointing out the location of the hadith in some books of sunnah, copying from the indexes compiled by orientalists.Indeed, the two translators mentioned in the introduction to the translation, page 7, that if the book contains some opinions particular to the author which sometimes conflict with the Islamic point of view, "we have entrusted the commentary on them to our colleague Dr. Umar Faruq, professor of philosophy at Maqasid Islamic College in Beirut and member of the Arab Scientific Academy in Damascus," and that they need not say that this does not necessarily mean our agreement with the author on all his remaining views, since we aimed our commentary only at those views connected with the life of the Messenger and the teachings of Islam.Did the two translating professors not read this hadith in its sources, which they themselves referred to during translation and commentary? For I am almost certain they did read it, since they translated the text of the supplication accurately. Nor do I think they had memorized its text beforehand, and if they had, that would have left them even less excuse! Or did they, along with Dr. Umar Faruq, not know, from the very basics of their religion, that it is simply inconceivable that any hadith would still permit a person in Islam to make such a supplication?