Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names Of Allah And Their Meaning

format_quote Originally Posted by OmAbdullah

Whatever I have written is based on correct knowledge of the Quraan and Sunnah. The wisdom accepts it. What you have written is base less. For example, verification of a hadeeth by the sanad (a chain of narrators) which is actually a chain of names about whom no student or teacher can say that these are truly the narrators of the hadeeth. Every sincere wise Muslim can decide and judge whether my words are correct or not.

Yes, I will let the knowledgeable ones decide about you based on what you have said.

Had I known you believed what you just wrote I would never have wasted my time. The sanad is the specificity of our Diin.

I have nothing more to say about you or to you.


يقول عبد الله بن المبارك: إن الإسناد من الدين، ولولا الإسناد لقال من شاء ما شاء

فإذا قال أهل البدع إن أحاديثهم صحيحة أو مسندة إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم! فلنقل لهم: أين أسانيدكم؟ ومن روى هذه الأحاديث؟

Abd Allaah bin al-Mubaarak says: Indeed the Sanad is a part of Diin. Had it not been for the sanad he who willed would have said what he willed.

So, when the innovators say that there hadiith are authentic or connected to the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) we say to them. Where are your sanads [for the reports]? And who is it who narrated these hadiith?


Reference(s):

لولا الإسناد لقال من شاء ما شاء

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

When Quran corroborates the hadith of tirmidhi, what is wrong in accepting this hadith even declared as dhaeef by a few scholars. Hadith being weak doesn't mean it's baseless or fabricated.

Did Tirmidhi classify this Hadith as weak? If he didn't, then why do others classify it as weak?

The link given about the Hadith states that some scholars consider the Hadith as weak while others consider it as sahih. Accordingly, a person can take any of the views and it is not right for Zeeshan or Ibn uthaymeen to force their view on those who consider the Hadith as sahih /hasan. Or even insist that the Hadith is definitely weak. Are we going to disregard those scholars who consider the Hadith as authentic because some other so-called scholars consider it weak?

Another thing is that the scholars who compiled the books of Hadith classified ahadith as sahih or hasan or weak and based on Sanad (chain of narrators) . But the Hadith in question is not being classified as weak because of sanad or character of any of the narrators but because of some people's assumptions that one of the narrators must have compiled the list of names of Allah himself because other books of Hadith don't give the list of names (according to the fatwa given). But when was it required for some Hadith to be in all of the six sahih books or two of the most authentic books to be regarded as sahih? Should we throw out or doubt other Hadith in any of the authentic Hadith books if it's not present in sahih al Bukhari or Muslim?

Just my thoughts.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

Did Tirmidhi classify this Hadith as weak? If he didn't, then why do others classify it as weak?

The link given about the Hadith states that some scholars consider the Hadith as weak while others consider it as sahih. Accordingly, a person can take any of the views and it is not right for Zeeshan or Ibn uthaymeen to force their view on those who consider the Hadith as sahih /hasan. Or even insist that the Hadith is definitely weak. Are we going to disregard those scholars who consider the Hadith as authentic because some other so-called scholars consider it weak?

So called scholars? Now Ibn Kathiir and Ibn al-'arabi are so called scholars?

Have you read the detailed analysis of the chain of narrators of the hadith? That was just a Fatwaa at a glimpse. Do you want a complete 5 page analysis?

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

So called scholars? Now Ibn Kathiir and Ibn al-'arabi are so called scholars?

Have you read the detailed analysis of the chain of narrators of the hadith? That was just a Fatwaa at a glimpse. Do you want a complete 5 page analysis?

You did not answer all the points I raised

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

You did not answer all the points I raised

You had a point in the first paragraph and lost me when you started naming giants like Ibn Kathiir and Ibn al-'arabi as so called scholars. That is disrespect of the scholars.

Are you willing to admit that that was uncalled for?

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

You had a point in the first paragraph and lost me when you started naming giants like Ibn Kathiir and Ibn al-'arabi as so called scholars. That is disrespect of the scholars.

Are you willing to admit that that was uncalled for?

Is this about personal pride?

I did not name Ibn Kathir a so called scholar. I didn't give any names.

Fear Allah, ZeeshanParvez.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

Is this about personal pride?

I did not name Ibn Kathir a so called scholar. I didn't give any names.

Fear Allah, ZeeshanParvez.

Personal pride?

You have two people here who can't tell the difference between two different scholars.

You jump into this and use the disrespectful phrase "so called scholars." Wait, I know you were saying that about Ibn Uthaymiin (may Allaah have mercy on him) weren't you?

You disrespect a scholar and now you find yourself in a predicament. You don't want to admit your mistake so you tell me to fear Allaah?

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

Personal pride?

You have two people here who can't tell the difference between two different scholars.

You jump into this and use the disrespectful phrase "so called scholars." Wait, I know you were saying that about Ibn Uthaymiin (may Allaah have mercy on him) weren't you?

You disrespect a scholar and now you find yourself in a predicament. You don't want to admit your mistake so you tell me to fear Allaah?

I see you don't want to have a proper discussion and resort to personal attacks.

Just answer the points in my first post and we can discuss this point afterward, if necessary.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

Did Tirmidhi classify this Hadith as weak? If he didn't, then why do others classify it as weak? The link given about the Hadith states that some scholars consider the Hadith as weak while others consider it as sahih. Accordingly, a person can take any of the views and it is not right for Zeeshan or Ibn uthaymeen to force their view on those who consider the Hadith as sahih /hasan. Or even insist that the Hadith is definitely weak. Are we going to disregard those scholars who consider the Hadith as authentic because some other so-called scholars consider it weak? Another thing is that the scholars who compiled the books of Hadith classified ahadith as sahih or hasan or weak and based on Sanad (chain of narrators) . But the Hadith in question is not being classified as weak because of sanad or character of any of the narrators but because of some people's assumptions that one of the narrators must have compiled the list of names of Allah himself because other books of Hadith don't give the list of names (according to the fatwa given). But when was it required for some Hadith to be in all of the six sahih books or two of the most authentic books to be regarded as sahih? Should we throw out or doubt other Hadith in any of the authentic Hadith books if it's not present in sahih al Bukhari or Muslim? Just my thoughts.

valid point. Sahih ahadith aren't confined to sahihen only but some of us differ in this matter.

Now for the serious onlooker I suggest you read this.

It is the online version of the book معتقد أهل السنة والجماعة في أسماء الله الحسنى

For starters many incorrect statements have been made in this thread. The Hadith is not Mutawaatir. The link references Ibn Hajar and shows where he says it is not Mutawaatir.

Then it tells you that the two who declared it authentic were Haakim and Ibn Hibbaan. Scholars of hadiith have condemned both for being lax when grading hadith.

Learn something. And when you make a mistake don't tell others to fear Allaah to get out of a predicament. Fear Him yourself first.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

I see you don't want to have a proper discussion and resort to personal attacks.

Just answer the points in my first post and we can discuss this point afterward, if necessary.

Let me know when you have read it. It addresses all your points.

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

Now for the serious onlooker I suggest you read this.

It is the online version of the book معتقد أهل السنة والجماعة في أسماء الله الحسنى

For starters many incorrect statements have been made in this thread. The Hadith is not Mutawaatir. The link references Ibn Hajar and shows where he says it is not Mutawaatir.

Then it tells you that the two who declared it authentic were Haakim and Ibn Hibbaan. Scholars of hadiith have condemned both for being lax when grading hadith.

Learn something. And when you make a mistake don't tell others to fear Allaah to get out of a predicament. Fear Him yourself first.




Let me know when you have read it. It addresses all your points.

I see you are not open to discussion. I didn't come here to be sent to some other site. If you are so knowledgeable in the topic, then you can provide your reasoning and evidence here to what I wrote.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

I see you are not open to discussion. I didn't come here to be sent to some other site. If you are so knowledgeable in the topic, then you can provide your reasoning and evidence here to what I wrote.

Ill take that as a you cannot read Arabic and want me to translate a whole book for you. Feel free not to discuss if you cannot find and read the related pages.

And the serious onlookers should also refer to this page of the book where they will find a number of scholars who made Ijtihaad in collecting the Names of Allaah because they knew the Hadith of Jaami' al-Tirmidhi was weak.

The chapter is titled جهود أهل العلم في جمع الأسماء الحسنى
The effort of the scholars in collecting the Beautiful Names of Allaah.

You will also learn about Names of Allaah which cannot be said alone:

المطلب الخامس: الأسماء المزدوجة
ضابط الأسماء المزدوجة هو ما لا يطلق على الله بمفرده، بل مقروتا بمقابله؛ لأن الكمال في اقتران كل اسم منها بما يقابله.

[Paraphrase] These Names are not used for Allaah alone but are used with the Name which is the opposite because perfection lies in combining the two Names

Examples include

الضار النافع
المعطي المانع
المحيي المميت

format_quote Originally Posted by ZeeshanParvez

Ill take that as a you cannot read Arabic and want me to translate a whole book for you. Feel free not to discuss if you cannot find and read the related pages.

We are discussing the religion of Allah. This is a serious thing, not something a person can have personal views on.

I presented some valid points and I'd like you to respond to them with quoted evidence and reasoning and without throwing around personal attacks. This is why I said to you to fear Allah when you write a post.

I won't respond to personal attacks any more. If you want to have a proper discussion, then respond with reasoning.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

We are discussing the religion of Allah. This is a serious thing, not something a person can have personal views on.

I presented some valid points and I'd like you to respond to them with quoted evidence and reasoning and without throwing around personal attacks. This is why I said to you to fear Allah when you write a post.

I won't respond to personal attacks any more. If you want to have a proper discussion, then respond with reasoning.

You want me to translate the whole book for you?

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

We are discussing the religion of Allah. This is a serious thing, not something a person can have personal views on.

I presented some valid points and I'd like you to respond to them with quoted evidence and reasoning and without throwing around personal attacks. This is why I said to you to fear Allah when you write a post.

I won't respond to personal attacks any more. If you want to have a proper discussion, then respond with reasoning.

I can't read paragraphs. Put out your points in bullet form. It is 12:38 am in the morning. I am going to return tomorrow and reply to your points before I leave forums for a while which I was supposed to do today.

And one more thing before I return tomorrow. I have met many people like you in real and on forums. I find it ironic that when you are put under the microscope you claim that the other has attacked you personally while you yourself are bold enough to throw out disrespectful remarks like "so called" scholar for someone else.

Learn to take heat if you want to disrespect a scholar.

Let's address your first inaccurate point.

You said:

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

Another thing is that the scholars who compiled the books of Hadith classified ahadith as sahih or hasan or weak and based on Sanad (chain of narrators) . But the Hadith in question is not being classified as weak because of sanad or character of any of the narrators but because of some people's assumptions that one of the narrators must have compiled the list of names of Allah himself because other books of Hadith don't give the list of names (according to the fatwa given).
Just my thoughts.

You think that the science of hadiith when it deals with the sanad is restricted to the character of the narrator only. This is wrong.


When scholars of hadith look at a sanad they do not only look at the character of the narrators. Your assumption is inaccurate and highlights you have not studied mustalah al-Hadith.


Let me give you a glimpse of the science as I do not have time to teach you the entire science of hadith.



Let's resort to a classical book on the subject. The book is named مقدمة ابن الصلاح


Ibn Salaah gives you the definition of a Sahih Hadiith

أما الحديث الصحيح‏:‏ فهو الحديث المسند، الذي يتصل إسناده بنقل العدل الضابط عن العدل الضابط إلى منتهاه، ولا يكون شاذاً، ولا معللاً‏

As for the Sahiih Hadiith it is a connected Hadiith the chain of which is connected until the end being transmitted from one al-'adl al-DaabiT to another and it is not shaadha nor is it mu'allal.


Just from there you can see that having reliable narrators is not the only criteria.


The chain has to be connected until the end


It should not be Shaadha which means that the Hadith narrated by a narrator [who is reliable] should not go against another hadith which is narrated by a narrator who is more reliable than him


It should not be mu'allal


If you turn the pages of the book you will reach a chapter which Ibn Salaah titles

معرفة المضطرب من الحديث

Recognizing المضطرب من الحديث which he explains is when a narration is narrated in different manners which conflict with one another.

He then says

ثم قد يقع الاضطراب في متن الحديث، وقد يقع في الإسناد

الاضطراب occurs in the Matn of the hadiith and in the sanad.


From that line alone you can see that the chain of a hadith has much more to it than just reliable narrators narrating it. You need to learn the science to understand this. Scholars of hadith look at both the sanad and the matn.

For you to say that this is someones assumption about the hadith when we talk about الاضطراب in the matn highlights your ignorance of the science.

Ibn Salaah goes on to say


والاضطراب موجب ضعف الحديث

الاضطراب necessitates that the hadith is weak.


Continue on in the book and you will reach a chapter titled معرفة المدرج في الحديث

Recognizing المدرج في الحديث

This is when something is inserted into the Hadiith of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) by one of the narrators. At times it is done without separation and in a manner which makes it seem like it is the words of the Prophet (sallallaahua alayhi wa sallam) when it is not.


Again you said this is an assumption on the part of those who weakened the hadith. It is not an assumption. It is a complete science where the scholars look to make sure if something has been inserted into the Hadith by a narrator or not. If it has then it does not get the same standing as something the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) said.



It was wrong of you to allege that scholars assume. They do not assume. They work based on a science adhered to by the ahl al-Sunnah.


Ibn Hajar explains in Fath al-Baari Volume 11 Page 215 why Imaam al-Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim did not include the hadith of الوليد بن مسلم

وليست العلة عند الشيخين تفرد الوليد فقط بل الاختلاف فيه والاضطراب وتدليسه واحتمال الإدراج

The reason for not including this hadith in the sight of the two Sheikhs was not only that al-Waliid was alone in narrating it but because of

الاضطراب
تدليس
احتمال الإدراج


You have three problems here as Ibn Hajar points out. The first is الاضطراب

This hadith has been narrated by other narrators and the Names of Allaah in them are different. There is extreme differences in the Names.


Ibn Hajar points out

ولم يقع في شيء من طرقه سرد الأسماء إلا في رواية الوليد بن مسلم عند الترمذي وفي رواية زهير بن محمد عن موسى بن عقبة عند بن ماجه وهذان الطريقان يرجعان إلى رواية الأعرج وفيهما اختلاف شديد في سرد الأسماء والزيادة والنقص على ما سأشير إليه


There are two routes in which the Names have been mentioned. One hadith is in Jaami al-Tirmidhi from الوليد بن مسلم and the other is in Ibn Maajah from زهير بن محمد on the authority of موسى بن عقبة and there is extreme differences in them regarding the list of the Names of Allaah.

Here is the Hadith in Ibn Maajah which Ibn Hajar refers to


It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that :

the Messenger of Allah (saas) said: "Allah has ninety-nine names, one hundred less one, for He is One and loves the odd (numbered). Whoever learns them will enter Paradise. They are: Allah, Al-Wahid (the One), As-Samad (the Self-Sufficient Master who all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks), Al-Awwal (the First), Al-Akhir (the Last), Az-Zahir (the Most High), Al-Batin (the Most Near), Al-Khaliq (the Creator), Al-Bari (the Inventor of all things), Al-Musawwir (the Bestower of forms), Al-Malik (the King), Al-Haqq (the Truth), As-Salam (the One free from all defects), Al-Mu'min (the Giver of security), Al-Muhaymin (the Watcher over His creatures), Al-'Aziz (the All-Mighty), Al-Jabbar (the Compeller), Al-Mutakabbir (the Supreme), Ar-Rahman (the Most Gracious), Ar-Rahim (the Most Merciful), Al-Latif (the Most Subtle and Courteous), Al-Khabir (the Aware), As-Sami' (the Hearing), Al-Basir (the Seeing), Al-'Alim (the All-Knowing), Al-'Azim (the Most Great), Al-Barr (the Source of goodness), Al-Muta'al (the Most Exalted), Al-Jalil (the Sublime One), Al-Jamil (the Beautiful), Al-Hayy (the Ever-Living), Al-Qayyum (the One Who sustains and protects all that exists), Al-Qadir (the Able), Al-Qahir (the Irrestible), Al-'Ali (the Exalted), Al-Hakim (the Most Wise), Al-Qarib (the Ever-Near), Al-Mujib (the Responsive), Al-Ghani (the Self-Sufficient), Al-Wahhab (the Bestower), Al-Wadud (the Loving), Ash-Shakur (the Appreciative), Al-Majid (the Most Gentle), Al-Wajid (the Patron), Al-Wali (the Governor), Al-Rashid (the Guide), Al-'Afuw (the Pardoner), Al-Ghafur (the Forgiver), Al-Halim (the Forbearing One), Al-Karim (the Most Generous), At-Tawwab (the Acceptor of Repentance), Ar-Rabb (the Lord and Cherisher), Al-Majid (the Most Glorious), Al-Wali (the Helper), Ash-Shahid (the Witness), Al-Mubin (the Manifest), Al-Burhan (the Proof), Ar-Ra'uf (the Compassionate), Ar-Rahim (the Most Merciful), Al-Mubdi' (the Originator), Al-Mu'id (the Restorer), Al-Ba'ith (the Resurrector), Al-Warith (the Supreme Inheritor), Al-Qawi (the All-Strong), Ash-Shadid (the Severe), Ad-Darr (the One Who harms), An-Nafi' (the One Who benefits), Al-Baqi' (the Everlasting), Al-Waqi (the Protector), Al-Khafid (the Humble), Ar-Rafi' (the Exalter), Al-Qabid (the Retainer), Al-Basit (the Expander), Al-Mu'izz (the Honorer), Al-Mudhill (the Humiliator), Al-Muqsit (the Equitable), Ar-Razzaq (the Providor), Dhul-Quwwah (the Powerful), Al-Matin (the Most Strong), Al-Qa'im (the Firm), Ad-Da'im (the Eternal), Al-Hafiz (the Guardian), Al-Wakil (the Trustee), Al-Fatir (the Originator of creation), As-Sami' (the Hearer), Al-Mu'ti (the Giver), Al-Muhyi (the Giver of life), Al-Mumit (the Giver of death), Al-Mani' (the Withholder), Al-Jami' (the Gatherer), Al-Hadi (the Guide), Al-Kafi (the Sufficient), Al-Abad (the Eternal), Al-'Alim (the Knower), As-Sadiq (the Truthful), An-Nur (the Light), Al-Munir (the Giver of light), At-Tamm (the Perfect), Al-Qadim (the Earlier), Al-Witr (the One), Al-Ahad (the Lone), As-Samad [(the Self-sufficient Master, Who all creatures need, (He neither eats no drinks)]. He begets not, nor was He begotten. And there is none co-equal or comparable unto him."(One of the narrators) Zuhair said: We heard from more than one of the scholars that the first of these (names) should begin after saying: La ilaha illallahu wahdahu la sharika lahu, lahul-mulku wa lahul-hamdu, bi yadihil-khair wa Huwa 'ala kulli shay-in Qadir, la ilaha illallahu lahul-asma'ul-husna [None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, with no partner or associate. His is the dominion and all praise is His. In His Hand is (all) goodness, and He is Able to do all things, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and His are the (Most) Beautiful Names].






Second, الوليد بن مسلم was known for tadliis

Third, there is the possibility of الإدراج


The fact that the two narrations conflict one another means that it was the narrator who enumerated the Names and not the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam).


In Bulugh al-Maram Ibn Hajar says

والتحقيق أن سردها من إدراج الرواة

And research shows that the Names listed in the Hadith are from the narrator [and not from the Prophet of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam)].


'Abd ar-Razzaq al-San'aani says:


اتفق الحُفَّاظ من أئمة الحديث أن سردها إدراج من بعض الرواة

The HuffaaZ from among the Imaams of Hadith are united [on the fact] that the Names mentioned in the Hadith were inserted into the Hadith by a narrator.


Scholars of hadith do not work on assumptions as you have alleged. They work based on a science. The science of Hadith which prevents people from attributing sayings and deeds to the Prophet of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam).

You need to be careful with the words you use. As you correctly stated:

format_quote Originally Posted by Muhaba

We are discussing the religion of Allah. This is a serious thing, not something a person can have personal views on.

format_quote Originally Posted by azc

You're right.

I wish to understand this issue of muqayyad or mutlaq and how it affects.

When a Name is muqayyad it means it has been used in combination with something. It is not stand alone. Without the combination it does not impart perfection in meaning. It does not impart praise.

Take the word Mudhhib [مُذهِب]

You cannot add an alif laam to it, make it المذهب and claim it is the Name of Allaah.

We have in a hadith:


Narrated `Abdul `Aziz:

Thabit and I went to Anas bin Malik. Thabit said, "O Abu Hamza! I am sick." On that Anas said, "Shall I treat you with the Ruqya of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)?" Thabit said, "Yes," Anas recited, "O Allah! The Lord of the people, the Remover of trouble! (Please) cure (Heal) (this patient), for You are the Healer. None brings about healing but You; a healing that will leave behind no ailment."

[Sahih al-Bukhaari Hadith No. 5742]

Look at the phrase The Remover of trouble.

mudhhib means Remover. Can you based on this Hadith add an Alif Laam to mudhhib and make it al-Mudhhib [the Remover] and say this Name belongs to Allaah?

No, because the Qur'aan and Sunnah do not use it in that way. Instead, it is muqayyad with trouble. The Remover of trouble. This form is what imparts perfection in meaning. It imparts praise.

مُذهِب البأس

You use it like that in the muqayyad form because the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) used it like that.


The same applies to muntaQim.

Look at the Verses which use the word. Do they use it alone? Or do they use it in conjunction with the wrongdoers?

Let me help you. Consider the following Verse


And who is more unjust than one who is reminded of the verses of his Lord; then he turns away from them? Indeed We, from the criminals, will take retribution.

[Qur'aan 32:22]


Allaah takes retribution from the criminals. You have to use it like this. Does He take retribution from someone who is not a criminal?

It is muqayyad. It is not stand alone like al-Rahmaan. It is not stand alone like al-Rahiim. It is not stand alone like al-Waduud.

Has Allaah said anywhere in the Qur'aan that he is al-Muntaqim? No.

He has used it in muqayyad form.


Do you understand muqayyad now or are you still confused?

قال الحافظ ابن حجر: "ولم يتواتر عن أبي هريرة أيضا، بل غاية أمره أن يكون مشهورا"1.
ثالثا: الروا
@ZeeshanParvez
Will you elaborate?