[poulaMahmah]

Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (132 - 189), who was one of the foremost students of Imam Abu Hanifah, and an undisputed authority in fiqh (jurispudence) and lughah (language), was also a hafiz (memoriser of a large number) of hadith as mentioned by al-Daraqutni and as is apparent from his works on hadith like his Muwatta', Kitab al-Athar and Kitab al-Hujjah, all of which are in print. His reliability in hadith was transmitted from 'Ali ibn al-Madini (d. 235) and al-Daraqutni (d. 385):

1. 'Ali ibn al-Madini

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi narrates: ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Maliki informed us: ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Uthman al-Saffar reported to us: Muhammad ibn ‘Imran ibn Musa al-Sayrafi narrated to us: ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Madini narrated to us from his father: “I asked him about Asad ibn ‘Amr, al-Hasan ibn Ziyad al-Lu’lu’i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and he weakened Asad and al-Hasan ibn Ziyad, and said ‘Muhammad ibn al-Hasan is reliable (saduq).’” Tarikh Baghdad (Bashshar ‘Awwad ed. 2:572)

Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Maliki (350 - 437 H) is saduq (Tarikh Baghdad 13:584); ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Uthman ibn Muhammad al-Saffar (d. 382) is thiqah (Tarikh Baghdad 11:225-6); Muhammad ibn ‘Imran ibn Musa al-Sayrafi (d. 315) is thiqah according to Daraqutni (Tarikh Baghdad 4:226).

‘Ali ibn al-Madini was a strict (mutashaddid) critic of narrators and was not partial to the Hanafi Imams, so this statement from him strongly supports the view that Imam Muhammad is trustworthy in hadith.

2. Al-Daraqutni

Imam al-Zayla'i wrote in his Nasb al-Rayah (Muhammad ‘Awwamah ed. 1:408-9) while discussing the hadiths in favour of those who advocate raising the hands before and after ruku:

“Al-Daraqutni said in Ghara’ib Malik: ‘Malik did not mention [in his narration from Ibn ‘Umar] in al-Muwatta’ raising [the hands] before ruku', and he mentioned it in [his narrations] outside of al-Muwatta’. Twenty individuals from the trustworthy memorisers (al-thiqat al-huffaz) narrated it. From them are: Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Qattan, ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Mahdi, Ibn Wahb and others.’”

Al-Daraqutni refers to Muhammad ibn al-Hasan as a thiqah hafiz on par with such masters of hadith as Yahya al-Qattan, Ibn al-Mubarak and Ibn al-Mahdi. Al-Barqani (who is thiqah according to al-Khatib) narrated in his Su'alat (questions) from al-Daraqutni that he said about Muhammad ibn al-Hasan "according to me, he does not deserve rejection" ('indi la yastahiqq al-tark).

Hence, it is established that Ibn al-Madini and al-Daraqutni believed Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani was reliable or trustworthy in the narration of hadith.

-----------------------------------

Al-Khatib narrated: Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Khallal narrated to me: ‘Ali ibn ‘Amr al-Hariri reported to us that Abu l-Qasim ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Kas al-Nakha‘i narrated to them: ‘Abd Allah ibn al-‘Abbas al-Tayalisi narrated to us: ‘Abbas al-Duri narrated to us: I heard Yahya ibn Ma‘in say: “I wrote al-Jami‘ al-Saghir from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan.” Tarikh Baghdad (2:566)

The narrators in this chain are all 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), a Hanafi, and a shaykh of al-Daraqutni and Ibn Shahin, is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 13:540); ‘Abd Allah ibn al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Ubayd Allah Abu Muhammad al-Tayalisi (d. 308) is thiqah according to al-Khatib (Tarikh Baghdad 11:219-20); ‘Abbas ibn Muhammad ibn Hatim al-Duri (185 – 271) is a narrator of the Four (Tirmidhi, Nasa’i, Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah) and is thiqah as mentioned in al-Taqrib.

Yahya ibn Ma'in who was over thirty when Imam Muhammad died narrated al-Jam'i al-Saghir on fiqh from him. This is why the narration from him as mentioned in al-Du'afa by al-'Uqayli that Imam Muhammad was a "liar" (kadhdhab), although with an authentic chain, its matn is doubtful as it is very unlikely that Ibn Ma'in would narrate from somebody he believed to be a liar as pointed out by al-Kawthari in Ta'nib al-Khatib. The narrations from Abu Yusuf and Malik saying they believed Imam Muhammad a liar as narrated by al-Khatib have chains that are weak or fabricated. There are other narrations from Ibn Ma'in indicating he believed Imam Muhammad was weak in hadith, but such criticism from contemporaries are rejected.

However, it is authentically reported from Ahmad ibn Hanbal and al-Nasa'i that they believed Imam Muhammad was weak in hadith. Their crticism (jarh) however is unexplained (ghayr mufassar) and ambiguous (mubham) and therefore will not be given precedence over what was said by al-Madini and al-Daraqutni. Moreover, it is well-known Imam Ahmad was biased against Abu Hanifah and his companions as mentioned by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr (al-Intiqa, p. 179) and as is clear from his statements about them, so his criticism of them will not be accepted. Al-Nasa'i is also known to be strict in his criticism of narrators, so his assessment against a narrator is suspect while his assessment in favour of a narrator is reliable.

Imam al-Dhahabi after mentioning al-Nasa'i's weakening of Imam Muhammad, he said "he was from the oceans of knowledge and strong in his narrations from Malik." (Lisan al-Mizan 7:61) Imam Muhammad said: “I stood at the door of Malik for three and some years and I heard seven hundred hadiths directly from him.” Narrated with an authentic chain in Tarikh Bagdad (2:562) from al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali al-Tanajiri (351 – 439) who is thiqah, from the famous Ibn Shahin (297 – 385) who is thiqah from ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ib Ziyad (d. 324) who is thiqah from Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam (182 – 268) who is thiqah (as mentioned in al-Taqrib) from Imam al-Shafi‘i from Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani.

While he spent three years with Malik, Imam Muhammad spent over five years with Abu Hanifah, and even longer with Imam Abu Yusuf, which means that according to al-Dhahabi, his narrations from them should also be strong.

Based on al-Madini's and al-Daraqutni's unequivocal statements in support of Imam Muhammad's reliability in narrating hadith, and the ambiguous nature of the statements of those who criticised him like Ahmad and al-Nasa'i, and based on the principles of narrator-criticism, Imam Muhammad is either saduq (reliable) or thiqah (trustworthy) in the narration of hadith, particularly when he narrates from Abu Yusuf, Abu Hanifah or Malik.

[Ggskbpbz]

Assalamu Alaikum

If my ears have searved me right then i heard Sheikh Yunus Jaunpuri state that the sohbat Ali Ibn al-Madīnī had with Imam Bukhari no other person had. The words of praise Imam Bukhari had for Ibn al-Madīnī he didnt have for anybody else.

It was apparent from his talk that Imam Bukhari held Ali Ibn al-Madīnī in the highest esteem, quite possibly more than anyone else the Imam Sahib had come in contact with. He also said i could not find that level of praise for anybody else in any of the books i have read that Imam Bukhari had for Ibn al-Madīnī.

[newspetty]

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

[newspetty]

Imam al-Dhahabi after mentioning al-Nasa'i's weakening of Imam Muhammad, he said "he was from the oceans of knowledge and strong in his narrations from Malik." (Lisan al-Mizan 7:61)

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?

[Heclailia]

Lovely posts, keep them coming please.

[Tzqowwyt]

dr.ati,

Ramming horns against a mountain only damages the one who's ramming. And, as explained by Ulama, criticizing the salaf will only raise their rank in the Akhirah by taking the criticizer's hasanat. Also, Laymen have no business drawing their own conclusions in jarh wat ta'deel.




Muhammad ibn Samma’ah narrates: “Isa ibn Aban (a famous Muhaddith and a well known Hanafi scholar) used to perform Salah with us (in the Masjid where Imam Muhammad ibnul Hasan Rahimahullahu ta’ala-the student of Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimahullahu ta’ala and the third highest authority of the Hanafi Math-hab – used to perform Salah and thereafter have discussions on Fiqh). I used to invite him to come to Muhammad ibnul Hasan Rahimahullahu ta’ala (to learn from him). He would say in reply: “These are people who contradict Hadith”. Isa Rahimahullahu ta’ala was a scholar who had memorized a substantial amount of Hadith. One morning he performed Fajr Salah with us, and it happened to be the very same day Imam Muhammad Rahimahullahu ta’ala was going to conduct his discourse. I did not allow him to leave until he (also) sat in the gathering. At the close (of the discussion) I took him to Imam Muhammad Rahimahullahu ta’ala and said: “This is the son of your brother (in Islam) Aban ibn Sadaqah, the scribe. He is brilliant, and has the knowledge of Hadith. I invited him to you but he refused saying that we contradict Hadith”. Imam Muhammad addressed him and said: “O my son! What do see us contradicting in Hadith? Do not bear witness against until you hear from us. So Imam Isa Rahimahullahu ta’ala asked him questions relating to twenty-five chapters of Hadith, and in each chapter Imam Muhammad Rahimahullahu ta’ala answered (narrating to him the Ahadith of these subjects) and would inform him of all that was abrogated therein with proof and evidence. After we left, Isa ibn Aban Rahimahullahu ta’ala turned to me and said: “There was a barrier between myself and nur (divine light), which has now been lifted! I was not aware that there existed a man in Allah’s kingdom like this, whom He has disclosed for the people”. Isa Rahimahullahu ta’ala then accompanied Imam Muhammad Rahimahullahu ta’ala and did not separate from him, until he became a Faqih by him”.


http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...nd+a+muhaddith

[TEFSADDERFISA]

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

Thanks for proving my point that you're only here to attack the legacy you claim to have belonged to.

[Ggskbpbz]

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?

Simple - the fact that he is affiliated with the hanafi school, it serves no purpose mentioning something which is obvious. Would it be worth writing that he is hanafi and knows hanafi fiqh well?? Also what imam dhahabi might have intended could be that he is praising imam shaybani on a two fronts, having knowledge of two schools is better than one, and having knowledge about another school and being well versed in it can be nothing more than praise worthy. It would be futile to argue he was strong in Maliki but weak in hanafi but he remained hanafi.

You need to think out of the box, by mentioning he heard from imam Malik makes him more knowledgable because he was aware of the varying views between the two schools.

You also need to understand that if imam shaybani was aware of Maliki fiqh and heard directly from imam Malik and he is deemed reliable and strong by imam dhahabi on having heard from imam malik but why is he istill affiliated with hanafi fiqh??

[Ggskbpbz]

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

You totally ignored my other post. He was regarded sound by someone who received the highest praise from imam bukhari, more than any other person.

So you choose to deem that unworthy?

[poulaMahmah]

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.

[Precturge]

Maulana Muzzammil, you should definitively gather all these important contributions of yours in a dedicated blog or website; I'm sure the benefits would be higher than posting just on a forum.

[CHEAPSOFTOEMONLINE]

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?

You can't even pronounce jarḥ the right way and want to criticize the ʿulamāʾ of the Salaf?

Go home, boy.

[Ggskbpbz]

The difference between Muzammil and Dr Ati is that of a copy and paste jahil and one who has actually understood what he is writing about. (the latter being muzammil)

Dr Ati take this thread into the den and see if any refutations can be found and then start posting here... isnt that what you all do.

What i find repulsive is that these idiots who write these articles dont know their alphabet and then start to write articles and books and some ignoramus who has a deep hatred for anything hanafi then jumps on the bandwagon and starts to act that like he knows more than anyone on the face of this earth.

By Allah i am not lying - i had a gut feeling Zubiar Ali Zai was ahle hadeeth and pakistani!! There is a pattern if someone is following the trend.

The true face of Zubair Ali Zai -

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...ee-and-Taqleed

[RorieSorNearop]

You can't even pronounce jarḥ the right way and want to criticize the ʿulamāʾ of the Salaf?
Go home, boy.

Should we lol or sigh ?
in what times we are living...

[newspetty]

You can't even pronounce jarḥ the right way and want to criticize the ʿulamāʾ of the Salaf?

Go home, boy.

I am sure thats the best you could come up with.There is a zabar on R so i added an A for that. I will be replying to this thread soon.Its not me criticizing Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani,the salaf did it.This criticism is not about his person but its about his weakness in hadith and the views of some great Muhaditheen about him.Come out of the blanket.
@ Muzamil husayn. Would u be kind enough to tell me about the hanafi view of Tareekh e Baghdad and Khateeb AL Baghdadi ra?

[Ggskbpbz]

@ Muzamil husayn. Would u be kind enough to tell me about the hanafi view of Tareekh e Baghdad and Khateeb AL Baghdadi ra?

One think i have learnt is that these ignoramus fools have just one book which i think they refer to for all things hanafi related. Have you actually read the book? does the book not contain praise for Imam Abu Hanifah??? Is Khateeb al Bahdadi ra considered an authority on deen in the same way as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Imam Ahmed? So you prefer to take some of views from the book over everything and everyone else. (dont forget that Tareekh Baghdad isnt all negative about the imam).

Assalamu Alaikum

If my ears have searved me right then i heard Sheikh Yunus Jaunpuri state that the sohbat Ali Ibn al-Madīnī had with Imam Bukhari no other person had. The words of praise Imam Bukhari had for Ibn al-Madīnī he didnt have for anybody else.

It was apparent from his talk that Imam Bukhari held Ali Ibn al-Madīnī in the highest esteem, quite possibly more than anyone else the Imam Sahib had come in contact with. He also said i could not find that level of praise for anybody else in any of the books i have read that Imam Bukhari had for Ibn al-Madīnī.

You didnt answer that. So if Imam Bukhari praises Ali Ibn al Madini more than anyone else and Ali Ibn al Madini then praises Imam Shaybani, how is that not credible. You are talking about Imam Bukhari who is arguably the greatest muhaddith to have graced this earth, and his praise for someone doesnt count for anything?

[newspetty]

One think i have learnt is that these ignoramus fools have just one book which i think they refer to for all things hanafi related. Have you actually read the book? does the book not contain praise for Imam Abu Hanifah??? Is Khateeb al Bahdadi ra considered an authority on deen in the same way as Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Imam Ahmed? So you prefer to take some of views from the book over everything and everyone else. (dont forget that Tareekh Baghdad isnt all negative about the imam).



You didnt answer that. So if Imam Bukhari praises Ali Ibn al Madini more than anyone else and Ali Ibn al Madini then praises Imam Shaybani, how is that not credible. You are talking about Imam Bukhari who is arguably the greatest muhaddith to have graced this earth, and his praise for someone doesnt count for anything?

Why would u mention a book whose author according to many Hanafis is mutashadid and has tasub against Hanafis? Indeed Tareekh e Baghdad has so many other biographies as well.When did i say that Khateeb Al Baghdad ra has only criticized Imam Abu hanifa? The criticism of Imam Abu hanifa ra in Tareekh e baghdad is spread on 54 pages ( refer to Masnad e Imam Abu hanfia page 48 ptinted by Maktaba e Rehmaniya) .
Mr A praised Mr C and Mr C then praised Mr X so this means that Mr A must be having positive thoughts or praise for Mr X? Common sense is far better than hizzbiya. Where do u put the criticism of all those great Muhaditheens regarding Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani?
What do u mean by that highlighted portion of your post?

[poulaMahmah]

There is a zabar on R so i added an A for that

There is no "zabar" (fathah) on the ra', it is sakinah. The word is "jarh" not "jarah." Any matn on Usul al-Hadith with tashkil would have shown you this, but I'm guessing you have little to no familiarity with texts on Usul al-Hadith, yet you feel you have the right to make a judgement on the reliability of one of the greatest personalities from our salaf.

Its not me criticizing Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani,the salaf did it

If we define the salaf as the first three generations of Muslims (Sahabah, Tabi'in and Atba' al-Tabi'in) as they are specifically mentioned in hadith, which would mean Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma'in and al-Nasa'i are excluded, while Imam Muhammad is included, which of the salaf criticised Imam Muhammad for his reliability in hadith? Sufyan ibn 'Uyaynah? Malik ibn Anas? Waki' ibn al-Jarrah? Yahya ibn Sa'id al-Qattan? Shu'bah ibn al-Hajjaj? These giants of hadith were all present and interacted with Muhammad and were from the first three generations. Did they or their peers criticise Imam Muhammad for his hadith?

This criticism is not about his person but its about his weakness in hadith

On what basis or based on which principles do you accept the criticism and give it precedence over the opinions of Ibn al-Madini and al-Daraqutni supporting the view that Imam Muhammad was reliable in hadith? If it is not your bias and hatred against Imam Muhammad, who is from the salaf, or your blind adherence to those who are biased and hate Imam Muhammad, then what is it that makes you favour the criticism of al-Nasa'i and Ahmad over the praise of Ibn al-Madini and al-Daraqutni?

Would u be kind enough to tell me about the hanafi view of Tareekh e Baghdad and Khateeb AL Baghdadi ra?

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi was a Shafi'i Ash'ari historian, muhaddith and usuli. No 'alim in the field of rijal and in the field of Usul al-Hadith can do without his works. There is no single "Hanafi" view on al-Khatib. Hanafis follow the fiqh (and often the aqidah) taught by Imam Abu Hanifah who was one of the great scholars from the Tabi'in. They do not necessarily have a unified opinion on individual authors and scholars. Al-Khatib did have a bias against Abu Hanifah and this was recognised by Hanbali, Shafi'i and Hanafi authors, and it is no secret.

Shaykh Wahbi Ghawiji mentions a few works which were written in refutation of al-Khatib's biases particularly against Imam Abu Hanifah. E.g. al-Malik al-Mu‘azzam Abu l-Muzaffar ‘Isa ibn al-Malik al-‘Adil Sayf al-Din ibn Ayyub al-Hanafi's (578 – 624 Hijri) al-Sahm al-Musib fi Kabd al-Khatib; Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali's al-Sahm al-Musib fi l-Radd ‘ala l-Khatib, Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi's al-Intisar li Imami A’immati l-Amsar; Imam al-Suyuti al-Shafi'i's (d. 911) al-Sahm al-Musib fir Nahr al-Khatib; Shaykh Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari's Ta’nib al-Khatib ‘ala ma Saqahu fi Tarjamati Abi Hanifah min al-Akadhib. (See Wahbi Ghawiji, Imam Abu Hanifah al-Nu'man, pp. 219 - 20).

Al-Khatib's bias does not mean his reports cannot be relied upon when they come through authentic transmissions and they are not shadh.

The criticism of Imam Abu hanifa ra in Tareekh e baghdad is spread on 54 pages

Imam Abu Hanifah's biography in Tarikh Baghdad is one of the longest biographies in the entire biographical dictionary. About half is devoted to his praise and about half to his criticism. Much of the criticism which al-Khatib transmits is through weak and fabricated chains or with munkar and shadh matns. This has been mentioned by many scholars, e.g. al-Haythami in al-Khayrat al-Hisan (see ibid). But this does not mean Tarikh Baghdad is not a masterful work for which all scholars after al-Khatib are indebted to him.

Where do u put the criticism of all those great Muhaditheens regarding Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani?

Do you take the time to read? The criticism was explained in the first post: Yahya ibn Ma'in was a near-contemporary and contemporaries criticisms are not accepted; Ahmad ibn Hanbal was biased against the Hanafi Imams such that it is reported with an authentic chain in Tarikh Baghdad that he said "Abu Yusuf is reliable (saduq) but it is not appropriate to narrate anything from the companions of Abu Hanifah!" (Tarikh Baghdad 16:380); and al-Nasa'i was a mutashaddid whose criticism is taken with precaution (see Qawa'id fi 'Ulum al-Hadith, pp. 178-90); while Ibn 'Adi and Ibn Hibban had clear biases and bigotry against the Hanafi Imams.

[urbalatte]

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

Imam dhahabi has written a whole book on the three lions of hanafi fiqh - imam abu hanifa, abu yusuf and muhammad (rh). The book can be found here

http://www.archive.org/details/339_d...ib.abi.hanifah

Answers to many of the negative statements imam dhahabi brings up on all three imams are thouroughly dealt with in the footnotes of this book.

I recommend Ati goes and read it, then comes back over here and posts any remaining objections he has, so we can deal with them.

Of course, he can only do that if he actuAlly knows how to read Aabic. Or maybe he can get one of his salafi friends to provide him with a link so that he can copy and paste it here.

Wassallamm

[urbalatte]

Why would u mention a book whose author according to many Hanafis is mutashadid and has tasub against Hanafis? Indeed Tareekh e Baghdad has so many other biographies as well.When did i say that Khateeb Al Baghdad ra has only criticized Imam Abu hanifa? The criticism of Imam Abu hanifa ra in Tareekh e baghdad is spread on 54 pages ( refer to Masnad e Imam Abu hanfia page 48 ptinted by Maktaba e Rehmaniya) .
Mr A praised Mr C and Mr C then praised Mr X so this means that Mr A must be having positive thoughts or praise for Mr X? Common sense is far better than hizzbiya. Where do u put the criticism of all those great Muhaditheens regarding Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani?
What do u mean by that highlighted portion of your post?

you forgot to mention that khateeb baghdadi also has 70 pages in praise of imam abu hanifa. What a convenient ommission.

Of course, your salafi friends didnt tell you that, did they?

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...q83J-izPo3l_Gw

Above is a response to many salafi lies about one of the greatest salaf ever to have lived, imam abu hanifa. He was a true salafi, not like you twits.