Allah has Loins Says the Old-School Hanbali
By Abul Layth on Dec 28, 2007 in Aqeedah (Creed), Heteredoxy | 2,081 article views
In a hadith found in the Sahih of Imam Al-Bukhari we find a hadith in the Book of Tafsir (commentary) under the chapter of Surat Muhammad, the first hadith that reads:
حَدَّثَنَا خَالِدُ بْنُ مَخْلَدٍ حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ أَبِي مُزَرِّدٍ عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ خَلَقَ اللَّهُ الْخَلْقَ فَلَمَّا فَرَغَ مِنْهُ قَامَتْ الرَّحِمُ فَأَخَذَتْ بِحَقْوِ الرَّحْمَنِ فَقَالَ لَهُ مَهْ قَالَتْ هَذَا مَقَامُ الْعَائِذِ بِكَ مِنْ الْقَطِيعَةِ قَالَ أَلَا تَرْضَيْنَ أَنْ أَصِلَ مَنْ وَصَلَكِ وَأَقْطَعَ مَنْ قَطَعَكِ قَالَتْ بَلَى يَا رَبِّ قَالَ فَذَاكِ قَالَ أَبُو هُرَيْرَةَ اقْرَءُوا إِنْ شِئْتُمْ
فَهَلْ عَسَيْتُمْ إِنْ تَوَلَّيْتُمْ أَنْ تُفْسِدُوا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَتُقَطِّعُوا أَرْحَامَكُمْ
Translation:
Narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (’alayhis salaam) said, “Allah
created the creation and upon finishing, the Rahim (womb) got up and took hold of the loins of Ar-Rahman (i.e. The Merciful - Allah
This is the exact wording found in the Sahih of Imam Al-Bukhari. To see the online version click here. This is the exact wording found in Fat-hul-Baari of Hafith Ibn Hajr Al-’Asqalaani as well. That means that the Imam, upon receiving his ijaaza (certificate) of memorization with a chain back to Imam Al-Bukhari saw this same wording in the manuscripts of his time, and that he also memorized it this way from his teachers. In fact, in his explanation of this hadith he mentions:
وفي رواية ابن السكن ” فأخذت بحقو الرحمن ” وفي رواية الطبري ” بحقوي الرحمن ” بالتثنية
“And in the report of Ibn As-Sakn [are the words] ‘and seized the loins of Ar-Rahmaan’ and in the report of At-Tabari ‘[and seized] the haqwi of ar-rahmaan’.”
The point of clarifying that the phrase “bi-haqwi ar-rahmaan” is in Sahih Al-Bukhari is due to the fact that Dar-us-Salaam’s print of Sahih Al-Bukhari has totally left the word out. You can see for yourself in Volume 6 page 307, narration number 4830. One wonders why this was left out of the Wahhabi manuscript!
Now, we ask that the reader put himself in the mindset of the common pseudo-salafi. Here we go:
“We must affirm whatever Allah and His Messenger (’alayhis salaam) affirmed for Him. We must take the attributes upon the literal, without describing the howness.”
Employing this principle, we must then affirm for Allah “loins - haqw”. Now some of you are thinking that this was never done before, and that no sane individual would dare affirm for Allah ta’alaa “loins”. I wish you were right, but you’re not! The old-school Hanbali, the Imam of the Atharis, the father of the modern literalist creed, Ibn Haamid stated,
يجب التصديق بأن لله حقوا فتأخذ الرحم بحقوه
“It is obligatory to believe (or affirm) that Allah does have a loin and that the womb actually attaches itself to it.”1
Allah has a loin that attaches itself to a womb? Note here that we must take this all upon the literal meaning, as Ibn Haamid did! In the words of Ibn Al-Jawzi, “This man is utterly bereft of understanding!”
There is a perfectly acceptable metaphorical meaning that the scholars turn to in the language. Ibn Al-Jawzi states that the reference to the womb’s clinging to the ‘loin’ of Ar-Rahmaan is to be construed metaphorically to mean a request for aid and protection. This comes from a hadith in the two Sahihs reported from ‘Aa’ishah that the Nabi 
(’alayhis salaam) said, “The womb (rahim) is suspended (mu’allaqa) from the throne (’arsh), and it says, ‘Those who strengthen me, Allah will strengthen them, and those who weaken me Allah will weaken them!” Imam Al-Bayhaqi states, “The loin (haqw) is equated with the loin-cloth (izaar), so the hadith means that the womb is attached to Allah ’s ‘izz (power and might).
In what follows is the rest of the words of Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi regarding this narration:
Ibn Hamid said: “It is obligatory to believe (or affirm) that Allah does have a loin and that the womb actually attaches itself to it. We also believe that Allah has a side (janb), for the Qur’an states:
أَن تَقُولَ نَفْسٌ يَا حَسْرَتَى علَى مَا فَرَّطتُ فِي جَنبِ اللَّهِ وَإِن كُنتُ لَمِنَ السَّاخِرِينَ
‘Alas for me, for I have neglected Allah ’s side (janb), and was amongst those who mocked!’2
This man is utterly bereft of understanding! How can one be neglectful of someone’s literal ’side’? He then went on to maintain that attachment (ta’alluq) implies proximity and even contact (mumaassa) with [Allah 's] loin, since it is reported in a tradition that Allah permitted Dawud to draw near enough to be able to touch a part of Him. The Qaadhi [Abu Ya'laa] went even further [in his commentary] on this saying, but he added the caveat: [the reference to Allah 's loin] does not mean that he [literally] possesses such an organ or that He is made up of parts; the womb’s taking hold of [Allah 's loin] does not imply bodily organ or a multiplicity of parts, nor does it imply union (ittisaal) or contact (mumaassa). He then went on to contradict these confused comments by adding: “The expression rahim (womb) is an ellipsis that stands for dhur-rahim (one devoted to kinship); it is the womb who clings to the loin of Ar-Rahman. Thus, in the text of the tradition, the mudaaf (governing word) of the construct phrase is suppressed and the object of the phrase (mudaaf ilayh) stands by itself, for it makes no sense to attribute an act of ‘clinging to’ or ‘attaching oneself (ta’alluq)’ to the womb. Rather, what is meant is that the person devoted to kinship (dhur-rahim) attaches himself to the loin [of Allah ].
Ibn Al-Jawzi comments upon this saying, “This is an addition to the tashbeeh (anthropomorphic) and tajseem (corporealist) interpretations! Discussion with such people is vain, for as the addage goes: ‘Without reason (’aql) there can be no meeting of minds [qiraan].” If the one possessing rahim-being a body-is attached, then to what is it attached to? We seek in Allah refuge from this evil understanding! [end quote from Kitaab Akhbaar As-Sifaat]
And peace and blessings upon the Nabi Muhammad, His family, and followers, Amin!
On Dec 28, 2007, Ibn Ahmad said:
All the possible meanings are covered here:
http://lexicons.sakhr.com/idrisidic_1.asp?Sub=%cd%de%e6
On Dec 29, 2007, jinnzaman said:
Astaghfirullah ul adheem!
How could they believe such things??!!!
On Dec 29, 2007, Ahmed said:
From Abuz-Zubair:
Firstly, this ignorant layman neither knows Arabic nor English…
Haqwu in Arabic is better translated as ‘waist’ and NOT ‘loin’. The word loin itself refers to the area between the lower ribs and pelvis, and it is most commonly understood as the groin. This blaspheming idiot translated the word Haqwu as ‘loin’, even though it explicitly states in the Arabic lexicons that Haqwu means the waist where the waist-wrapper is bound. But obviously, this DIY Jahmi is ignorant of English and hence cannot be expected to reach out to Arabic lexicons. May Allah
give this Jahmi what he deserves.
Secondly, we all affirm that Allah
literally sees everything and hears everything. He has knowledge, will, and many other attributes that are also shared by the humans, although these differ with the humans in terms of modality. We also agree with the early Ash’aris, such as al-Baghdadi, al-Baqillani, al-Bayhaqi and others that Allah 
literally has hands, eyes, face, etc. It is only the later Ash’aris and the Mu’tazila Jahmiyya who denied such. Why should we then have any problems in accepting a waist as an attribute of Allah 
, just as we have already affirmed two eyes, two hands, a face, a shin, a foot, etc?
Thirdly, al-Marrudhi said that once he was reading a book to Abu Abdullah (Ahmad b. Hanbal) where there was a mention of the Hadeeth of Abu Hurayra from the Prophet - SallAllahu ‘alayhi wa-sallam: “Allah
created the womb, until when He was done, it grabbed hold of the waist of al-Rahman”, then a traditionist raised his head and said: ‘I fear that you have committed kufr!’ Upon this Abu Abdullah [Ahmad b. Hanbal] said: H-e—i-s—a—J-A-H-M-I.
So here is another confirmation for this ignorant idiot that he is a die hard follower of Jahm b. Safwan, may Allah
resurrect him with Jahm.
Fourthly, both Ibn Hamid and al-Qadhi Abu Ya’la affirmed the hadeeth and said that there is absolutely no problem with the dhahir of this hadeeth. Because they were Arabs and they knew that this is referring to the waist and not groin! Also, Ibn al-Jawzi is no match for either of the two in the madhab.
Fifthly, al-Hafidh Abu Musa al-Madini says in al-Majmu’ al-Mughith (1/405): “It is more preferable to let it pass in accordance with its apparent meaning”
وإجراؤه على ظاهره أولى
Sixthly, Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi mentions in his ‘Ilal al-Hadeeth:
سألت أبي عن تفسير حديث النبي e الرحم شجنة من الرحمن وأنها آخذة بحقو الرحمن فقال قال الزهري على رسول الله e البلاغ ومنا التسليم قال أمروا حديث رسول الله e على ما جاء وحدثت عن معمر بن سليمان عن أبيه أنه قال كانوا يكرهون تفسير حديث رسول الله e بآرائهم كما يكرهون تفسير القرآن برأيهم وقال الهيثم بن خارجة سمعت الوليد بن مسلم يقول سألت الاوزاعي وسفيان الثوري ومالك بن أنس والليث بن سعد عن هذه الاحاديث التي فيها الصفة والرؤية والقرآن فقال امروها كما جاءت بلا كيف
Ibn Abi Hatim asked his father Imam Abu Hatim about the hadeeth, to which he replied that al-Zuhri said that the Prophet’s responsibility is to convey and our obligation is to believe, and he further said: pass them on as they have come. He also mentions the principle of passing these ahadeeth on as they have come, and the examples he gives are a) general attributes of Allah
, b) Allah 
’s vision on the last day and c) the Quran… all of these things we believe in literally. The Ash’aris specially believe in the vision literally. the point of this is to prove that Amirruha kama ja’at did not refer to tafweedh, for they did NOT make tafweedh of Allah 
’s vision. And ALL of this is being said in the context of Allah 
’s waist! This is the Madhab of Ahl al-Sunnah.
Seventhly, grabbing on to someone’s waist, in Arab culture, is a gesture for a man seeking refuge and protection from someone. If Zayd wants to seek protection from Ali, he would kneel down and grab on to his waist as if begging him for his protection. Arabs do not grab hold of each others’ loins! So Abul-Layth, if you ever go to your Sufi Shaykh and decide to seek his refuge, make sure you do not grab his loins, for if you do, you would certainly not receive his protection. Yes, he might skin you alive! No human being would like you grabbing hold of his loins except Freddie Mercury!
Eightly, this is very similar to the verse about being mindful of Allah
’s rights, and we have already dealt with it previously:
Quote:
’s side (i.e. His right), and I was indeed among the scoffers!
‘Blasphemy’ #6: Lest any soul should say: Alas, my grief that I was unmindful of Allah
The vast majority of the scholars from the Salaf did not understand this verse to be pertaining to Allah
’s Attributes, which is the correct opinion, as al-Imam al-Darimi states in his rebuttal of one of your ancestors, al-Marrisi.
Yet, some Salaf did affirm a side for Allah
and that is not at all problematic for someone who affirms all the Attributes of Allah 
such as a face, two hands, two eyes, a shin, etc.
This is because a person cannot do wrong in Allah
’s Attribute. One can only do wrong with respect to Allah 
’s right, and this is what is meant by Janb here, and surely, this is the first thing that comes to mind.
He should try harder to keep silent for the more he speaks the deeper he digs his own grave and the more ridiculous he looks. This loin fiasco has to be the most hilarious!
On Dec 29, 2007, aarij said:
SeekingIlm.com needs to be renamed to SeekingFasaad.com
Coz that’s all you are seeking - fasaad. In almost everything (excluding fiqh perhaps), you have to somehow portray those who you affectionately call “Wahhabis” as devils, the worst thing to have happened to the Muslims since Hajjaj ibn Yusuf AlThaqafi and the root cause of all the problems of the Muslim ummah.
And your agony is multiplied by people like br. Abuz Zubair who repeatedly shoot your arguments down.
Enough, brother. Give it a rest.
On Dec 30, 2007, Ibn Ahmad said:
Salaams
Firstly, I’m not taking any sides on this issue.
Secondly, I have to agree with the Salafis here that raising this issue is of little to no benefit.
Thirdly, I will say that the Salafis have no one but themeselves to blame because this McCarthyistic tradition of smearing the opposition was started by the salafis. This is a classic case of the chickens coming home to roost.
I respect all of my brothers and sisters in Islam, be they sufi, salafi, sunni, shi’i, or ibaadi. (I don’t respect the Qur’aani. A man’s gotta draw the line somewhere). So I don’t mean to disrespect anyone with my opinions.
Having said that, I did a little research of the word haqw.
Hans Wehr: Loin, Groin. Hans Wehr gives the expression: شدد حقويه - Shaddada Haqwaihi meaning “To Gird One’s Loins.” Gird means to tie a belt around.
Al-Qamoos by Dr. Roohi Balba’kee: Loin, Groin
E.W. Lane: The waist; synonym خصر : the place where the waist-wrapper called إزار is bound; i.e., the flank; another synonym is called خاصرة or كشح which is composed of two parts collectively called حقوان .
Lisan-al-Arab
حقا: الحقو: الكشح، وقيل: معقد الإزار، والجمع أحق وأحقاء وحقي وحقاء، وفي الصحاح: الحقو الخصر ومشد الإزار من الجنب. يقال: أخذت بحقو فلان. وفي حديث صلة الرحم قال: قامت الرحم فأخذت بحقو العرش. لما جعل الرحم شجنة من الرحمن استعار لها الاستمساك به كما يستمسك القريب بقريبه والنسيب بنسيبه، والحقو فيه مجاز وتمثيل
Al-Haqw: The Waist. It was said that (it is) that which the Arab kilt (or the LOINcloth as some would have it) wraps around. Its plural forms are Ahqin, Ahqaa’, Hiqiyy, and Hiqaa’. And in the Saheeh Narrations, the Haqw is the waist and the lateral aspects of the pelvic girdle upon which the Arab kilt is dawned. It is said: He clung to the coattails of so-and-so (Literally: He took hold of the waist of fulaan). And in the hadith pertaining to the ties of the womb, it was said: The womb/kinship came to pass and it took hold of the flank of The Throne. When God made the womb anxious (regarding the mercy) of The Most Merciful; He eased (that anxiety) by willing that the womb/kinship be (forever) neigh onto Him, as He has willed that relatives and kinsman remain loyally bound to one another. Therefore, in this circumstance, Haqw is to be understood upon its allegorical and metaphorical meanings.
So we can’t say that Abul Layth doesn’t know Arabic based on his translation of Haqw as loin. To make this claim would mean that Hans Wehr didn’t know Arabic. And that would just be a funny claim. The most you can say is that the translation was not contextually the best, but even then, it’s a matter of opinion until a decisive word comes from a scholar of translation.
On Dec 30, 2007, Abul Layth said:
Hehe…
The pseudo-salafis are upset because we have translated the word upon the thaahir meaning! An opinion apparently the mujassim Abuz Zubayr clings to.
It is interesting however that Abuz-Zubayr, the liar upon Ibn Hajr and neo-muqaatili mujassim, states, just as Ibn Al-Jawzi did:
I am happy that he admits the majaazi meaning has relevance. If you reread the article originally posted you will find that this is the meaning the scholars affirm. However, this bigot mujassim affirms the thaahir - loins or in his preferred translation: waist!
On Dec 31, 2007, Islam Blog said:
SeekingIlm.com needs to be renamed to SeekingFasaad.com
:D
On Dec 31, 2007, Abul Layth said:
Aarij and others are entitled to their illegitimate opinions. Fact: You affirm a body part for Allah
by affirming the LITERAL meaning of haqw. We say that you are no different than Muqaatil. Your creed is the same creed as the christians regarding Allah 
- that he has body parts.
As for us seeking fasaad, it the neo muqaatiliyya who seek fasaad by ascribing to Allah
loins, hands, and other body parts, upon their LITERAL and REAL meanings. You have made Allah 
into an entity of parts and divisions, having place, and thus - He ta’alaa is free from what you liars ascribe to him in the words of Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalaani: ‘Exalted be Allah 
from what they say regarding him!’
On Jan 1, 2008, Ibn Umer said:
My dear brother, where is the justice?
When Sheikh Yasir Qadi brought up the intricate issues of Aqida and censured some of our great imams in front of jahils (the Al-Maghrib class @ Toronto), did you make the remark that it should be renamed the ‘Darkness of Misguidance’?
The fact is that this website is dedicated to preserving and defending the manhaj of our mainstream imams. Just as Al-Maghrib and other Saudi-oriented institutions are dedicated to upholding their own opinions.
Can’t we just get over these facts???
May Allah
preserve and bless Sheikh Abuz-Zubayr, Sheikh Yasir Qadi, and all the other shuyukh I tend to disagree with over certain issues. And may he make them sources for the guidance of many.
How old are we all again…?
Wassalam.
On Jan 1, 2008, Ansar al Hujjah said:
loin, waist, hands or legs whats the difference the essence of the argument is anthromorphism debating the body of the god of Wahabees is a ridiculous argument it would be like having an argument about the number of arms of Ganesha the hindu God. “oh our god has a waist,hands,legs but astaghferallah how can you say he has loins” lol
On Jan 1, 2008, Ibn Umer said:
^ Sh. Abuz-Zubair made his stance clear above.
What you should be more concerned about is your own creed. In Nahjul-Balagha, we find:
Subhanallah.
!
is not Al-Sami’? Allah 
is not Al-Basir? etc..
Aside from the fact that the fabricated nature of this report is SO blatant (speculative theology of this nature did not exist during the time of the sahaba), what is worrying is that it is telling one to deny the Attributes of Allah
Sooo… Allah
The Quran suggests otherwise.
On Jan 2, 2008, Ansar al Hujjah said:
I dont see nothing contradictory to Tawheed in the above statement ibn Umar, it just says that Allah
(swt) is not divided into his attributes.
Post partially edited out due to disparaging of the words of the Beloved {saws}.
On Jan 2, 2008, Ibn Umer said:
The contradiction is that the Quran gives Allah
attributes, and Nahj Al-Balagha is denying them here (although elsewhere the self-contradictory text affirms attributes!)
The Quranic way is: affirming transcendency, then affirming the Attributes. Not just affirming transcendency alone.
لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ
On Jan 6, 2008, Usooli said:
Anyone who sees the language of Abu Zubayr finds nothing but arrogance and bad manners expressed while talking to fellow muslims, as if they are pharaohs or muharib kuffars, indicating through this clear hallmarks of a semi khariji attitude in himself. As Imam al Qurtubi mentions in his tafseer, tafakhour causes Allah
’s anger and makes the person disliked amongst the masses. Dont let your knowledge make you proud and arrogant leading to belittling your fellow muslim brothers, for the hearts are in between the fingers of Ar-Rahman, and tomorrow he can change the heart of the proud/boastful who are trodding the path of kharijism to being full blown ones, making them leave Islam just as the arrow leaves a bow, and take from the situation of your different past and present neo salafi groups an example as to what has become of them.
On Jan 20, 2008, Dawud Israel said:
Kwaja Abdullah Ansari was one of the rare personalities in this Ummah who was a Hanbali and also Sufi. If you haven’t I suggest you read up on him.
On Jan 23, 2008, Ali said:
The allegation about Darussalam maliciously altering/omitting words was serious since tahrif of scripture in this manner is probably an act of kufr. I have darussalam books and took a look at my edition of fath-al-Bari hadith 4830 as cited above (in my edn: vol.8 p.737). The phrase bi haqwi-Rahman IS THERE.
furthermore, it is footnoted that this is from naskh ‘qaaf’. Manuscripts no doubt differ very slightly in a few areas and darussalam has preserved the addition in naskh ‘Qaaf’
Perhaps before making a serious allegation - you should investigate further. The omission in Bukhari you saw may be because that wasn’t a critical edition & was based on one particular manuscript only.
i hope even ‘wahhabis’ would not be so audacious as to deliberately alter scripture - on this occasion you are the wrong
On Jan 24, 2008, Abul Layth said:
Firstly, I was addressing the english translation (hence the numbering). What I said is true, it is not there and left out in the English translation. If the translators were academically honest, THEY would have been the ones to check the manuscripts, as they are the ones producing the “impeccable”, unadulterated, translation.
Secondly, As for your assertion that we stated it was “malicious”, then re-read what we said! I said, “One wonders why this was left out of the Wahhabi manuscript!” I did not assert anything save “wonder”. Get your facts straight before stating that we said something that we did not say. You are in the wrong sir, and manipulation of our pointing this fact out only shows your maliciousness.
On Jan 26, 2008, Ali said:
Brother Abu Layth assalamualaikum,
i understand that you must reply to hundreds of posts, but your aggressive & rude tone is not very ’sufi’ is it? - reminds me of the wahhabis - no?
Your referencing was at best poor - the numbering is identicle in arab & english prints, so you didnt make clear whether it was english/arab txts you were referring to; you didnt cite edition or year of publication and you never alluded to language - you had only talked of arabic text till that reference. How was i to know which edn/language you were talking about?
furthermore…every nuance in the writing of this website is flowing with anti-salafi/wahhabi sentiment - you are clearly on some sort of crusade. Even in your post above you are unable to hide your sarcastic disdain towards darussalam (’impeccable, unadulterated…’). Malificience, Abu Layth, is & continues to be implied strongly in your writings - and Allah
knows best. Keller made similar unsubstantiated accusations against darussalam; your language above merely echoes those.
The translation you read was most likely based on a single manuscript and not a critical edition. When sufis do this - should we ‘wonder’ about their intentions? The fact is that nothing was ‘left out’- the phrase you refer to was not there in all manuscripts. You dont need to ‘wonder why’on this occasion.
I shall continue to buy darrussalam books - they continue to do an excellent job.
As for me you have made no implications - to you i am indeed ‘malicious’. I complain to Allah
about this. And may Allah 
make me benevolent. If i am actually wrong in anything i have said i ask Allah 
’s forgiveness and apologise to you. But as yet i still believe your language bears sufficient evidence against you; and i still believe you should be more careful in your accusations, implied or otherwise. wassalam
On Jan 26, 2008, Abul Layth said:
Wa’alaykum Salaam Brother ‘Ali,
I honestly do not want to waste my time or energy responding to your original “malicious” comment you made. However, I will attempt to point out to you what YOU said, illiciting a stern response from me.
You said in your first comment:
You made an unsubstantiated claim, mainly, that I claimed that Dar-us-Salam MALICIOUSLY altered or omitted words from this hadith. I NEVER made such a claim, nor was it my intent to. I simply said: “One wonders why this was left out of the Wahhabi manuscript!” I simply expressed my wonder. In fact, if they would have put it in their english version, it would have only added another literal body part to Allah
, a cause the pseudo-salafis will never cease promoting. It would have benefited them, not harmed them. So how then could ommission affect them negatively?
Your ill attempt to manipulate my words to mean other than what they meant is your problem, not mine. I did not say, or intend, what you claim I said. I was clarifying that if one look to the english translation of this hadith one will see that the phrase was left out of the translation. So I linked the hadith to a (pseudo)SALAFI website, al-islam.com (ran by the Saudi Wahhabi صالح بن عبدالعزيز بن محمد آل الشيخ) to clarify that this hadith was in fact present in the acceptable versions/prints of Sahih Al-Bukhari.
You are correct however, that I did not make it entirely clear that I was referencing the english edition, as I thought that would have been understood. You are also correct that I am anti-dar us salam, as they are the printing agency of the neo-muqaatili madh-hab, a spiritual disorder plaguing the Ummah.
There are several reasons why I do not trust the “salafi” publishers. One example of text tampering that I came across personally:
http://seekingilm.com/archives/189
Another example of mistranslating:
http://seekingilm.com/archives/3
There have been several recent treatises written on the misquotes and text tampering of the pseudo-salafis of our era with the works of the scholars of old.
A good english read for those interested is Dr. Gibril Haddad’s article on “Salafi” Forgeries / Manipulations:
http://www.livingislam.org/n/slfm_e.html
Also see the G.F. Haddad’s post on Sunnipath regarding their manipulation of riyaadh us saaliheen:
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=154&CATE=91
Shaykh Mahmud has, througout his works, pointed out the many textual alterations, deletions, etc of the pseudo-salafis attempting to spread their da’wah in the name of the scholars of old.
It bothers me not that you like to purchase from dar-us-salam. I have several of their works in arabic, particularly fiqh works. However, I will only buy their works that compare manuscripts in the footnotes or within the text itself, which should have been done in the english VERSION.
Lastly, I ask Allah
ta’alaa to bless our Sayyid Muhammad and to forgive both of us for any of our shortcomings. Amin!