DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani's Reliability in Narrating Hadith

**poulaMahmah** · 02-18-2011, 07:40 AM

Here is a detailed analysis of Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani's unreliability in Hadiths

Its a Jarah in itself.What he heard from Imam Malik is not relevant for u.He being the core narrator of fiqh Hanafi from Imam Abu Hanifa ra,why did not Imam Dhahabi term his hearing from Abu Hanifa ra mentionable here?

I looked at the first five pages of the articles you attached and it is riddled with errors and misjudgements, and the author "Hafiz Zubayr Ali Zai" does not hide his severe bias against Imam Muhammad and the Hanafi Imams in general. I will list some of his errors and misjudgements in those five pages, and I will address your question while listing them:

1. On the first page he translates what Imam al-Dhahabi says as “sirf imam malik se is ki riwayat qawi hey” (he is strong only in his narration from Malik), and concludes in the next sentence that according to al-Dhahabi therefore he would not be strong if he narrates from Abu Hanifah. By adding the word "only" in brackets, the author is clearly putting words in al-Dhahabi’s mouth. Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah wrote in explaining al-Dhahabi's statement "he was strong in his narration from Malik," "He stated his strength in narrating from Malik because his fame in narrating from him is not like his fame in narrating from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf and the mashayikh of Kufa, for he is undoubtedly stronger in his narration from them." (Qawa'id fi 'Ulum al-Hadith, p. 344, footnote) So the reason al-Dhahabi did not mention Imam Muhammad's shaykhs from Kufa is because the strength of his narration from them is obvious and does not need mentioning. Imam Muhammad by his own testament spent just over three years in the company of Malik, while he was in the company of Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf for much longer than this period, so if we were to understand al-Dhahabi's comment as excluding Imam Muhammad's strength in narrating from all other narrators, it would be an arbitrary and meaningless judgement from al-Dhahabi.

2. Then he quotes what al-Nasa’i actually said which is that Muhammad is “weak” without any mention of "memory". But the author does not mention that al-Nasa’i is mutashaddid (strict) in criticising narrators as mentioned by al-Dhahabi and al-Asqalani (in his Hady al-Sari and other works). Al-Nasa’i even weakened some of the narrators of the Sahihayn. This is why his weakening is taken with precaution.

3. In the second footnote on page 2 he mentions Ibn Taymiyya's statement that al-Shafi'i was not a student of Imam Muhammad which is in clear opposition to the authentic reports from al-Shafi'i, and Ibn Taymiyya was refuted by later scholars. Yet, this author suffices with Ibn Taymiyya's statement and approves of it without mentioning its error.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrated: Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad al-Khallal narrated to me: ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr al-Hariri reported to me that ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Nakha‘i narrated to them: Ahmad ibn Hammad ibn Sufyan narrated to us: I heard al-Muzani say: I heard al-Shafi‘i say: “The most fortunate of people upon me in fiqh was Muhammad ibn al-Hasan.” (Tarikh Baghdad 2:567) All the narrators in the chain are thiqat: Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali Abu Muhammad al-Khallal (352 – 439) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 8:454); ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr ibn Sahl Abu l-Husayn al-Hariri (292 - 380) is thiqah according to al-‘Atiqi (Tarikh Baghdad 13:470); ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn Abu l-Qasim al-Nakha‘i known as “Ibn Kas” (d. 324) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 13:540); Ahmad ibn Hammad ibn Sufyan (d. 297) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Misbah al-Arib 1:86).

This narration clearly states Imam al-Shafi'i acquired fiqh directly from Imam Muhammad. Moreover, Imam al-Shafi'i narrated from him in his Musnad as stated by al-'Asqalani in Ta'jil al-Manfa'ah (no. 930). Al-Hafiz al-Laknawi said: "Ibn Taymiyyah denied...that al-Shafi‘i was his student, while those before him like al-Nawawi, al-Khatib, al-Sam‘ani and others refuted him and they were more knowledgeable than him of the condtion of their Imam (i.e. al-Shafi‘i)." (al-Ta‘liq al-Mumajjad 1:117)

4. In footnote 3 on page 3, the author mentions the narration from Imam Muhammad stating "I stood at the door of Malik for three and some years and I heard seven hundred hadiths directly from him" is rejected because al-Khatib narrated it with two chains: one sahih (which I showed above in the first post) and the other weak, and al-Khatib narrated it with the wording (lafz) of the latter. Based on this, the author claims the narration is rejected! Despite a difference in wording, the reason al-Khatib put both chains together is because the meaning (ma‘na) of both is the same; hence, the least that can be said is the wording is unsound but the meaning is authentic. Instead, this author says the narration is completely rejected. This is pure fanaticism.

Dr. Bashshar Awwad Ma'ruf, the editor of Tarikh Baghdad notes in his footnote to this narration (2:562) that this narration is in fact consistent with the printed Muwatta' of Imam Muhammad which does contain around seven hundred hadiths from Malik.

Now I will mention a couple of obvious mistakes:

5. In footnote five on page five he mentions Ahmad ibn Ali ibn 'Umar ibn Hubaysh is "unknown," i.e. majhul. Yet, if you check Tarikh Baghdad (5:510), al-Baghdadi said of this very narrator he is thiqah.

6. In footnote 2 on page 5, he justifies his distortion of a passage from Lisan al-Mizan (7:62) where instead of "munsif" (balanced) he puts "muda'af" (weakened) by saying al-Khatib erred in his narration with this wording, whereas he offers no proof for this distortion (tahrif). Abu Ghudda's edition of Lisan al-Mizan says "munsif" and Bashshar Awwad's edition of Tarikh Baghdad says "munsif." Baghdadi's is the only source for this narration, so this claim of his is clearly a concoction of his own corrupt mind.

7. He repeatedly mentions the narrator Muhammad ibn Sa'd al-'Awfi on page 5 as Muhammad ibn Sa'd al-Sufi, with a sad instead of an 'ayn.

8. He also mentions Muhammad ibn Sa'd al-'Awfi is weak, referring to Tarikh Baghdad, while al-Baghdadi also says in his biography of al-'Awfi that al-Daraqutni said "there is no harm in him." So he is either weak (which is al-Khatib's opinion) or saduq.

This should be enough to show "Hafiz Zubayr Ali Zai" for what he is, a hater of the salaf, and a jahil who propogates his falsehoods and lies.

02-18-2011, 07:40 AM	#10
poulaMahmah Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 478 Senior Member	Here is a detailed analysis of Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani's unreliability in Hadiths Its a Jarah in itself.What he heard from Imam Malik is not relevant for u.He being the core narrator of fiqh Hanafi from Imam Abu Hanifa ra,why did not Imam Dhahabi term his hearing from Abu Hanifa ra mentionable here? I looked at the first five pages of the articles you attached and it is riddled with errors and misjudgements, and the author "Hafiz Zubayr Ali Zai" does not hide his severe bias against Imam Muhammad and the Hanafi Imams in general. I will list some of his errors and misjudgements in those five pages, and I will address your question while listing them: 1. On the first page he translates what Imam al-Dhahabi says as “sirf imam malik se is ki riwayat qawi hey” (he is strong only in his narration from Malik), and concludes in the next sentence that according to al-Dhahabi therefore he would not be strong if he narrates from Abu Hanifah. By adding the word "only" in brackets, the author is clearly putting words in al-Dhahabi’s mouth. Shaykh 'Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah wrote in explaining al-Dhahabi's statement "he was strong in his narration from Malik," "He stated his strength in narrating from Malik because his fame in narrating from him is not like his fame in narrating from Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf and the mashayikh of Kufa, for he is undoubtedly stronger in his narration from them." (Qawa'id fi 'Ulum al-Hadith, p. 344, footnote) So the reason al-Dhahabi did not mention Imam Muhammad's shaykhs from Kufa is because the strength of his narration from them is obvious and does not need mentioning. Imam Muhammad by his own testament spent just over three years in the company of Malik, while he was in the company of Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf for much longer than this period, so if we were to understand al-Dhahabi's comment as excluding Imam Muhammad's strength in narrating from all other narrators, it would be an arbitrary and meaningless judgement from al-Dhahabi. 2. Then he quotes what al-Nasa’i actually said which is that Muhammad is “weak” without any mention of "memory". But the author does not mention that al-Nasa’i is mutashaddid (strict) in criticising narrators as mentioned by al-Dhahabi and al-Asqalani (in his Hady al-Sari and other works). Al-Nasa’i even weakened some of the narrators of the Sahihayn. This is why his weakening is taken with precaution. 3. In the second footnote on page 2 he mentions Ibn Taymiyya's statement that al-Shafi'i was not a student of Imam Muhammad which is in clear opposition to the authentic reports from al-Shafi'i, and Ibn Taymiyya was refuted by later scholars. Yet, this author suffices with Ibn Taymiyya's statement and approves of it without mentioning its error. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrated: Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad al-Khallal narrated to me: ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr al-Hariri reported to me that ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Nakha‘i narrated to them: Ahmad ibn Hammad ibn Sufyan narrated to us: I heard al-Muzani say: I heard al-Shafi‘i say: “The most fortunate of people upon me in fiqh was Muhammad ibn al-Hasan.” (Tarikh Baghdad 2:567) All the narrators in the chain are thiqat: Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali Abu Muhammad al-Khallal (352 – 439) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 8:454); ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr ibn Sahl Abu l-Husayn al-Hariri (292 - 380) is thiqah according to al-‘Atiqi (Tarikh Baghdad 13:470); ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn Abu l-Qasim al-Nakha‘i known as “Ibn Kas” (d. 324) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 13:540); Ahmad ibn Hammad ibn Sufyan (d. 297) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Misbah al-Arib 1:86). This narration clearly states Imam al-Shafi'i acquired fiqh directly from Imam Muhammad. Moreover, Imam al-Shafi'i narrated from him in his Musnad as stated by al-'Asqalani in Ta'jil al-Manfa'ah (no. 930). Al-Hafiz al-Laknawi said: "Ibn Taymiyyah denied...that al-Shafi‘i was his student, while those before him like al-Nawawi, al-Khatib, al-Sam‘ani and others refuted him and they were more knowledgeable than him of the condtion of their Imam (i.e. al-Shafi‘i)." (al-Ta‘liq al-Mumajjad 1:117) 4. In footnote 3 on page 3, the author mentions the narration from Imam Muhammad stating "I stood at the door of Malik for three and some years and I heard seven hundred hadiths directly from him" is rejected because al-Khatib narrated it with two chains: one sahih (which I showed above in the first post) and the other weak, and al-Khatib narrated it with the wording (lafz) of the latter. Based on this, the author claims the narration is rejected! Despite a difference in wording, the reason al-Khatib put both chains together is because the meaning (ma‘na) of both is the same; hence, the least that can be said is the wording is unsound but the meaning is authentic. Instead, this author says the narration is completely rejected. This is pure fanaticism. Dr. Bashshar Awwad Ma'ruf, the editor of Tarikh Baghdad notes in his footnote to this narration (2:562) that this narration is in fact consistent with the printed Muwatta' of Imam Muhammad which does contain around seven hundred hadiths from Malik. Now I will mention a couple of obvious mistakes: 5. In footnote five on page five he mentions Ahmad ibn Ali ibn 'Umar ibn Hubaysh is "unknown," i.e. majhul. Yet, if you check Tarikh Baghdad (5:510), al-Baghdadi said of this very narrator he is thiqah. 6. In footnote 2 on page 5, he justifies his distortion of a passage from Lisan al-Mizan (7:62) where instead of "munsif" (balanced) he puts "muda'af" (weakened) by saying al-Khatib erred in his narration with this wording, whereas he offers no proof for this distortion (tahrif). Abu Ghudda's edition of Lisan al-Mizan says "munsif" and Bashshar Awwad's edition of Tarikh Baghdad says "munsif." Baghdadi's is the only source for this narration, so this claim of his is clearly a concoction of his own corrupt mind. 7. He repeatedly mentions the narrator Muhammad ibn Sa'd al-'Awfi on page 5 as Muhammad ibn Sa'd al-Sufi, with a sad instead of an 'ayn. 8. He also mentions Muhammad ibn Sa'd al-'Awfi is weak, referring to Tarikh Baghdad, while al-Baghdadi also says in his biography of al-'Awfi that al-Daraqutni said "there is no harm in him." So he is either weak (which is al-Khatib's opinion) or saduq. This should be enough to show "Hafiz Zubayr Ali Zai" for what he is, a hater of the salaf, and a jahil who propogates his falsehoods and lies.
	Quote