[urbalatte]

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. Hafiz zubayr ali zai is the same guy who Has done isnad analysis, narrator criticism and hadith classification in darussalaams recent english editions of the sihah sitta. God knows what distortions he has put in there.

[Ggskbpbz]

Dr Ati - Did you know some people believe Imam Bukhari and Ibn al Madini are higher in terms of authority than Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal ra? Ibn al Madini is not just anybody.

So when Ibn al Madini praises Imam Shaybani, that holds more weight than any criticism from any hanbali. Also the fact that Imam Bukhari praises Ibn al Madini more than he praised anyone means that Ibn al Madini is mor than reliable, he is a senior authority on deen. Imam Bukhari is the author of the most saheeh book after the Quran. So suddenly his word doesnt count for anything?

Do not forget - this is praise from one of the highest ranking muhadith to have graced this earth - and what are we discussing here?? imam shaybani's reliability in hadith.

If i knew Arabic i would translate the sentence Imam Bukhari uses to describe Ibn al Madini. He hasnt used any sentence in any book to praise anyone more highly than what he used for Ibn al Madini.

[Ggskbpbz]

Hafiz zubayr ali zai is the same guy who Has done isnad analysis, narrator criticism and hadith classification in darussalaams recent english editions of the sihah sitta. God knows what distortions he has put in there.

It has been proved beyond doubt he is a liar!!

[poulaMahmah]

If i knew Arabic i would translate the sentence Imam Bukhari uses to describe Ibn al Madini. He hasnt used any sentence in any book to praise anyone more highly than what he used for Ibn al Madini.

Al-Bukhari said about Ibn al-Madini: "I did not think myself small in front of anyone besides 'Ali ibn al-Madini." (Tahdhib al-Tahdib 7:352)

Al-Bukhari also said about him in his book on raf' al-yadayn: "He was the most learned from the people of his time." (ibid, p. 356)

[Ggskbpbz]

Bhai Muzzammil

May Allah increase your knowledge.

Can a mod please pass on Bhai Muzzammils email address to me.

Brother your 90 posts are more valuable than a whole lifetimes posts from a jaahil like me. Pls continue the work. It's the first time ever I have seen in english pure academic answers against this idiotic slander that these ahle hadith throw at hanafis.

I have some more information for you that might be of help to prove Imam Abu Hanifah's scholarship beyond doubt. It's a small article Sheikh Yunus wrote about usul of Imam Bukhari in Hadith.



Y

[newspetty]

Dr Ati - Did you know some people believe Imam Bukhari and Ibn al Madini are higher in terms of authority than Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal ra? Ibn al Madini is not just anybody.

So when Ibn al Madini praises Imam Shaybani, that holds more weight than any criticism from any hanbali. Also the fact that Imam Bukhari praises Ibn al Madini more than he praised anyone means that Ibn al Madini is mor than reliable, he is a senior authority on deen. Imam Bukhari is the author of the most saheeh book after the Quran. So suddenly his word doesnt count for anything?

Do not forget - this is praise from one of the highest ranking muhadith to have graced this earth - and what are we discussing here?? imam shaybani's reliability in hadith.

If i knew Arabic i would translate the sentence Imam Bukhari uses to describe Ibn al Madini. He hasnt used any sentence in any book to praise anyone more highly than what he used for Ibn al Madini.

Got any common sense? Its typical hanafi hide and seek which you are doing. Imam Bukhari Ra came after Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani and he did not praise him at all so this fairy tale that Imam Bukhari praised Mr B and Mr B then praised Mohamad Bin hassan Al shaibani is meaningless.Give a direct proof of praise instead. 15 muhaditheens have deemed Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani to be Da'ef.The list included , Imam shafi ra , Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal ra , Imam Darqutni ra , Imam Yahya bin Mueen ra , Imam Nisai ra etc. How can u fight his case after the Jamhoor muhaditheen have deemed Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani to be daeef? I hope u shall be gathering some more irrelevant praise now.
All those interested in the arguments of Mohamad bin hassan Al shaibani reliabilty can watch the debate which took place between hanafis and Ahli Hadiths. Here is the link,plz follow it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_qB6Rp2Yg

[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).

I think you need to open the volume 13 of Tareekh e Baghdad or atleast read the commentary on "masnad e Imam Azam" printed by maktaba rehmania. I don't know what praise do u look for in tareekh e baghdad after this.
"Abu hanifa said that it is permissible for a person to worship a shoe to gain the Qurb of Allah"

Reported by Imam Yahya bin Hamza,Imam saeed Bin Abdul Aziz with authentic chain( tareekh e baghdad volume 13 page 374)
Plz do tell me that you follow Imam Abu hanifa ra in furu and this issue is related to his Aqeedah so its irrelevant.

[DioraMoostebeers]

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?

Imam Malik is specifically mentioned here because Imam Muhammad took the Muwatta' from him.

[DioraMoostebeers]

Got any common sense? Its typical hanafi hide and seek which you are doing. Imam Bukhari Ra came after Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani and he did not praise him at all so this fairy tale that Imam Bukhari praised Mr B and Mr B then praised Mohamad Bin hassan Al shaibani is meaningless.Give a direct proof of praise instead. 15 muhaditheens have deemed Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani to be Da'ef.The list included , Imam shafi ra , Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal ra , Imam Darqutni ra , Imam Yahya bin Mueen ra , Imam Nisai ra etc. How can u fight his case after the Jamhoor muhaditheen have deemed Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani to be daeef? I hope u shall be gathering some more irrelevant praise now.
All those interested in the arguments of Mohamad bin hassan Al shaibani reliabilty can watch the debate which took place between hanafis and Ahli Hadiths. Here is the link,plz follow it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_qB6Rp2Yg

Can those who are opposing you say that it is typical Ahl Hadith lying that you are doing?

[DioraMoostebeers]

It has been proved beyond doubt he is a liar!!

He should change his name to Zubair Ali Zaayaa, uski saari mehnatein zaaya ho gayin.

[newspetty]

Can those who are opposing you say that it is typical Ahl Hadith lying that you are doing?

Why does this Ahl hadith thingy come in? Better to say something objective than going for biased generalizations or silence is even better. Check out the references and call me a liar if u dont find them.

[DioraMoostebeers]

Why does this Ahl hadith thingy come in? Better to say something objective than biased generalizations. Check out the references and call me a liar if u dont find them.

The ahl hadith thingy came in because of the hanafi hide and seek thingy. So it would be better to be objective, non prejudiced and polite. That way the conversation can go on. Otherwise everyone can ask questions like, "Where's your common sense? or whatever"

[poulaMahmah]

15 muhaditheens have deemed Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani to be Da'ef.The list included , Imam shafi ra , Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal ra , Imam Darqutni ra , Imam Yahya bin Mueen ra , Imam Nisai ra etc. How can u fight his case after the Jamhoor muhaditheen have deemed Mohamad Bin Hassan Al shaibani to be daeef?

Please prove/show where Imam al-Shafi'i specifically said Imam Muhammad is weak in hadith as you claim here. There is no doubt al-Shafi'i had methodological and fiqh disagreements with Muhammad, but show an authentic statement from him where he said Muhammad is weak in hadith. You refuse to address your previous errors or the errors of those you link to, and you refuse to address the more important question of which principles of al-jarh wa l-ta'dil you use when favouring the jarh over the ta'dil, and yet you feel comfortable with posting more lies or unverified claims.

I don't know what praise do u look for in tareekh e baghdad after this.
"Abu hanifa said that it is permissible for a person to worship a shoe to gain the Qurb of Allah"

Reported by Imam Yahya bin Hamza,Imam saeed Bin Abdul Aziz with authentic chain( tareekh e baghdad volume 13 page 374)

Not everything transmitted by an authentic chain contains a reliable matn. In this case, there is no doubt the matn contradicts the established views of Imam Abu Hanifah on tawhid as transmitted in his own works on 'aqidah and by the commentators of his 'aqidah like al-Tahawi and al-Maturidi. Hence, this matn is munkar. Dr. Bashshar 'Awwad Ma'ruf says in his newer edition of Tarikh Baghdad in the footnote to this narration "Its chain is authentic but this statement cannot possibly issue from a layperson, let alone from Abu Hanifah. Moreover, Ya'qub ibn Sufyan al-Fasawi [one of the narrators in the chain] frequently narrates such [rejected] reports and narrations." (Tarikh Baghdad 15:509)

[newspetty]

Please prove/show where Imam al-Shafi'i specifically said Imam Muhammad is weak in hadith as you claim here.

Did u watch that debate?
" Imam Shafi said that i read the book of Mohamad Bin hassan Ahl ur Rayi.Everything in that book was wrong except Bismillah and i threw that book away" (Adab Al-Shafi'i)
Sheikh Ul Islam Ibn taymiyya ra has also refuted the claim that Imam shafi studied under Mohamad Bin hassan Al shaibani in minhaj us sunnah and Imam Dhahabi in Al mintiqaa.
What about Imam Nasai ra?
"Mohamad Bin hassan Al shaibani was Da'ef" ( 266 , Zuafa wa matroken e Nisae)

[newspetty]

Not everything transmitted by an authentic chain contains a reliable matn. In this case, there is no doubt the matn contradicts the established views of Imam Abu Hanifah on tawhid as transmitted in his own works on 'aqidah and by the commentators of his 'aqidah like al-Tahawi and al-Maturidi. Hence, this matn is munkar. Dr. Bashshar 'Awwad Ma'ruf says in his newer edition of Tarikh Baghdad in the footnote to this narration "Its chain is authentic but this statement cannot possibly issue from a layperson, let alone from Abu Hanifah. Moreover, Ya'qub ibn Sufyan al-Fasawi [one of the narrators in the chain] frequently narrates such [rejected] reports and narrations." (Tarikh Baghdad 15:509)

plz don't criticize the sanad after establishing that the sanad is authentic.You can reject the Matn according to your approach though.

[chujwduperjadzi]

plz don't criticize the sanad after establishing that the sanad is authentic.You can reject the Matn according to your approach though.

He didn't criticise the Sanad, he simply quoted someone criticisinig it. Do you read between the lines?

[poulaMahmah]

" Imam Shafi said that i read the book of Mohamad Bin hassan Ahl ur Rayi.Everything in that book was wrong except Bismillah and i threw that book away" (Adab Al-Shafi'i)

If you look at the section on "alfaz al-jarh" in works on Usul al-Hadith, you'll find a list of all the words used to declare a narrator weak in hadith including "weak" (da'if/layyin), "nothing" (laysa bishay'), "not strong" (laysa bi qawiyy) etc. but "his book contains errors" is not amongst the words of jarh unless the errors are specifically in regards to the narration of hadiths. So your claim that al-Shafi'i said Muhammad is weak in hadith remains unverified and is no doubt a lie.

Moreover, if you read the debate on Muhammad's book (al-Hujjah 'ala Ahl al-Madinah) in the book you mention Adab al-Shafi'i wa Manaqibuhu, which is downloadable here, the words you quote are not found. The debate can be found in two places, pages 81-2 and 123-6. In the second narration, al-Shafi'i mentions there are "errors" in your [i.e. Muhammad's] book, not that the whole book after bismillah is error, and then he lists a few fiqhi issues mentioned in Muhammad's book that he disagreed with. These are fiqhi differences of opinion, and in no way entail al-Shafi'i believed Muhammad was weak in hadith.

Sheikh Ul Islam Ibn taymiyya ra has also refuted the claim that Imam shafi studied under Mohamad Bin hassan Al shaibani in minhaj us sunnah and Imam Dhahabi in Al mintiqaa

Which I have shown to be false here but you repeat the same charges and claims even once they have been proven false. Al-Dhahabi's book al-Muntaqa is merely a summary of Ibn Taymiyya's book in which he made this claim, so he was quoting Ibn Taymiyya's view and was not stating his own view. Al-Dhahabi refers to al-Shafi'i as being from the students (ashab) of Muhammad in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala.

What about Imam Nasai ra?

I have mentioned repeatedly al-Nasa'i is a mutashaddid and his jarh is not always accepted, so it will not be accepted in the face of the ta'dil of Ibn al-Madini and al-Daraqutni mentioned in the first post.

Why do you not answer the most important question asked: On what basis, and based on which accepted principles of al-jarh wa l-ta'dil, do you favour and give precedence to the jarh on Imam Muhammad over the ta'dil?

[newspetty]

If you look at the section on "alfaz al-jarh" in works on Usul al-Hadith, you'll find a list of all the words used to declare a narrator weak in hadith including "weak" (da'if/layyin), "nothing" (laysa bishay'), "not strong" (laysa bi qawiyy) etc. but "his book contains errors" is not amongst the words of jarh unless the errors are specifically in regards to the narration of hadiths. So your claim that al-Shafi'i said Muhammad is weak in hadith remains unverified and is no doubt a lie.

Moreover, if you read the debate on Muhammad's book (al-Hujjah 'ala Ahl al-Madinah) in the book you mention Adab al-Shafi'i wa Manaqibuhu, which is downloadable here, the words you quote are not found. The debate can be found in two places, pages 81-2 and 123-6. In the second narration, al-Shafi'i mentions there are "errors" in your [i.e. Muhammad's] book, not that the whole book after bismillah is error, and then he lists a few fiqhi issues mentioned in Muhammad's book that he disagreed with. These are fiqhi differences of opinion, and in no way entail al-Shafi'i believed Muhammad was weak in hadith.


Which I have shown to be false here but you repeat the same charges and claims even once they have been proven false. Al-Dhahabi's book al-Muntaqa is merely a summary of Ibn Taymiyya's book in which he made this claim, so he was quoting Ibn Taymiyya's view and was not stating his own view. Al-Dhahabi refers to al-Shafi'i as being from the students (ashab) of Muhammad in Siyar A'lam al-Nubala.


I have mentioned repeatedly al-Nasa'i is a mutashaddid and his jarh is not always accepted, so it will not be accepted in the face of the ta'dil of Ibn al-Madini and al-Daraqutni mentioned in the first post.

Why do you not answer the most important question asked: On what basis, and based on which accepted principles of al-jarh wa l-ta'dil, do you favour and give precedence to the jarh on Imam Muhammad over the ta'dil?

Brother, It would be far better if you prove the Tashadud of Imam Nasai ra from the deobandi scholars that they have deemed Imam Nasai ra muthashadid.
Also provide the Tad'il of Imam Darqutni ra with authentic chain.

[TEFSADDERFISA]

Why does this Ahl hadith thingy come in? Better to say something objective than going for biased generalizations or silence is even better. Check out the references and call me a liar if u dont find them.

This is probably the funniest post you've made yet.

You just accused Imam Abu Hanifa of allowing the worship of a shoe, and you want to talk about objectivity?

Again, every post you make makes it more obvious that you never joined these forums to learn, but rather to argue against the Ahnaf by posting and regurgitating Ahle Hadeeth garbage.

[newspetty]

This is probably the funniest post you've made yet.

You just accused Imam Abu Hanifa of allowing the worship of a shoe, and you want to talk about objectivity?

Again, every post you make makes it more obvious that you never joined these forums to learn, but rather to argue against the Ahnaf by posting and regurgitating Ahle Hadeeth garbage.

You need glasses. When did i accuse Abu hanifa ra? I quoted Khateeb Al baghdadi ra who has reported this narration in Tareekh e Baghdad.Khateeb Al Baghdadi was an Ahli Hadith? "objectivity" is abstract for you probably.