Can you write coherent sentences or has your predicament made you forget English?
Al-Albaanee concludes his discussion in ad-Da`eefah by saying, “so we conclude with the words of adh-Dhahabee in ‘Siyar A`laam an-Nubulaa’ [5/288/1], ‘his being an Imaam in fiqh and its fine points is accepted and there is no doubt in this…’”
We aren't discussing what al-Albaani concludes. We were discussing your fuqahaa using weak hadith. Then, you went to Abu hanifah. Now we are discussing the quote I coped pasted and your allegation that I lied and am a Jaahil.
You can't seem to follow a discussion. Or maybe you need to resort to tangents to save your skin.
We were discussing about his fiqh and not as a narrator of hadith.
We weren't discussing him period! We were discussing your fuqahaa who deemed the narration of not praying the funeral prayer in the mosque until you brought in the Fiqh of Abu hanifah.
When muhaddidsin didn't take his hadith then what's the point of discussing this issue?
I don't know. You are the one who always goes off on tangents. I was discussing an issue about fuqahaa using weak hadith. You went off onto all sorts after that. Ask yourself. Don't ask me why you derailed the subject.
The subject was the difference between men's and women's prayer being based on weak hadith as attested by the masters of hadith but then you with your erroneous theories came in claiming the fuqahaa should be listened to as opposed to hadith masters.
Can you write coherent sentences or has your predicament made you forget English?
We aren't discussing what al-Albaani concludes. We were discussing your fuqahaa using weak hadith. Then, you went to Abu hanifah. Now we are discussing the quote I coped pasted and your allegation that I lied and am a Jaahil.
You can't seem to follow a discussion. Or maybe you need to resort to tangents to save your skin.
We weren't discussing him period! We were discussing your fuqahaa who deemed the narration of not praying the funeral prayer in the mosque until you brought in the Fiqh of Abu hanifah.
I don't know. You are the one who always goes off on tangents. I was discussing an issue about fuqahaa using weak hadith. You went off onto all sorts after that. Ask yourself. Don't ask me why you derailed the subject.
The subject was the difference between men's and women's prayer being based on weak hadith as attested by the masters of hadith but then you with your erroneous theories came in claiming the fuqahaa should be listened to as opposed to hadith masters.
You seem not to remember what you do.
Mizan al-I'tidal by Imaam al-Dhahabi.
With due respect to muhaddidsin I would like to say that they were misinformed or had misundetstanding about this greteast imam of fiqh and most knowledgable alim of Quran and hadith because a person of weak memory can't understand even basics of the Deen let alone being a faqih.
when I see people criticising hazrat imam Abu Hanifa rh, -I feel how great he was and how great his students were and great Muslims their followers were.-
Despite all opposition hanafi madhab spread across the globe. Ahnaf remained in power but they didn't try to decimate other groups.
3 groups of ummah were deprived of their rights.
Ansaar
Ahl ul bayat
Ahnaf
You only tried to prove him weak in hadith but I hope you believe following statements also.
NOW TELL ME IF IMAM HANIFA RH WAS A MUSLIM LET ALONE HIM BEING A FAQIH OR IMAM OR ALIM? ??,
Tell me your hidden feelings
About this poor man?-
"…Ahmad bin Hassan Tirmidhi quotes, 'I heard Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal say that Abu Hanifa is a liar". (Tarikh al Baghdad Volume 13 page 418)
Imam Malik condemned Abu Hanifa
Dr Islam Mahmood Misri, wrote an article "Shi'a aur Sunni" for the Egyptian magazine "Mukhthar al Islami" - issue 90, 8th edition, Jamadhi al Awwal 1406 Hijri. On page 13 (where the article is located) we read:
"Imam Malik said that Abu Hanifa was the worst of people and that it would have been easier for him to raise his sword against the Muslims".
In Tarikh al Baghdad Volume 13 page 392, we read:
"Imam Malik said that for the Muslims Abu Hanifa's Fitnah is more damaging than the Fitnah of Shaytan".
In the same book we read further comments by Imam Malik:
"Imam Malik bin Anas stated that in Islam, no one has damaged it more than Numan" (Tarikh al Baghdad Volume 13 page 396)
"Once Imam Malik asked Walid bin Muslim: 'do people listen to Abu Hanifa in your city? he said: 'yes.' Imam Malik replied 'its amazing that your city has not been destroyed….Imam Malik said Abu Hanifa mocked Allah's Deen, whoever does so is irreligious." (Tarikh al Baghdad Volume 13 page 400)
Imam Idrees Shafi'i condemned Imam Abu Hanifa
In Tarikh Baghdad Volume 13 page 398 we read:
"Imam Shafi'i said that no-one more mischievous has appeared in Islam than Abu Hanifa"
Again Baghdad records this:
Also in Tarikh Baghdad Volume 13 page 411 we read:
"Imam Shafi'i said that Imam Abu Hanifa's Fatwas are like a chameleon, they continually changes their colors"
When the news of Abu Hanifas death reached Sufyan al-Thawri he praised Allah (swt) who relieved Islam from the Fitnah of Abu Hanifa. Numan weakened every page of Islam. Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Uzay said on his death said That Numan was the most harmful thing to Islam. Tarikh Baghdad Volume 13 page 398
Abu Hanifa was born in 80 Hijri and died in 152 Hijri.
"Hasan Amara the Qadhi of Baghdad read his Janaza, someone dreamt that he was rapped in a black shrewd and was surrounded by Christian priests" Tarikh Baghdad Volume 13 page 422
Wait - are you implying he was a muqallid of Imam Ahmad?
You need to educate yourself on the differences between taqleed of an imaam, taqleed of a madhhab named after an Imaam, and studying and adopting the usool of a maddhab to derive rulings.
At best Imam Ibn Tamiyyah fell into the last category.
You need to follow the full discussion (which is not beneficial for anyone) - If you can manufacture differences from Imam and madhab then you clearly havent read the thread and where we decided to leave it.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Imaam Bukhaari is not a mujtahid because Ibn Taymiyyah said so, that was just an example.
He is one because he was, unless you want to say he wasn't.
Non of this actually makes any sense unless your stating things for the sake of argumentation.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Mujtahids have always been the minority in the ummah, the vast majority of people have generally been laymen.
So your rhetoric also applies to the era of the best generations, i.e the salaf, as laymen who were not mujtahids also existed in extremely high numbers during their time.
Yet, the concept of exclusive taqleed of one madhhab, a.k.a taqleed shakshi was not present among them.
It only started during the fourth century.
So if your argumentation was indeed correct, then thelaymen of the salaf would've surely done what you suggest, taqleed of one of the main schools. Sadly, no such thing happened, in fact those schools were formed later.
what??? salaf and common layman like me and You - there is a big difference between the two - big one.
we concluded that anyone to do Ijthaid had to be a mujtahiad - If your not one like me and You then you need to do taqeed or better still train to be one. Simple end of discussion.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
With due respect to muhaddidsin I would like to say that they were misinformed or had misundetstanding about this greteast imam of fiqh and most knowledgable alim of Quran and hadith because a person of weak memory can't understand even basics of the Deen let alone being a faqih.
This is where you were going to end up. All of the subcontinent Hanafi muqalliduun I have ever discussed issues with, either in real life or online, have eventually come to admitting they think of Abu Hanifah as the "greatest Imaam of Fiqh and most knowledgeable alim of Qur'aan and hadith" despite being shown evidences to the contrary.
You Hanafis do not live up to your word of respecting all the Imaams. It is the ahl al-hadith/Salafis who do. We live that respect. We know none of them was perfect. The scholars of the ahl al-Hadith/Salafis research the views. They study the Usuul and then come to conclusions. They do not accept verdicts based on whims or because they hold one Imaam more dear to them than any other. No, they accept verdicts based on the truth.
All this while you have preached to be open mind. You preached to move away from closed mentality. However, you have shown that you exhibit the closed Hanafi subcontinent mentality.
For one man, you will label all the muhaddithuun as "misinformed" and claim they "misunderstood" him. It is as if there was a giant conspiracy, a political vendetta against your Imaam. They labelled him weak not because he was but because they had a grudge against him. They were jealous of him. They were biased.
Is this really how your scholars brainwash you against the Muahddithuun in order to protect one man and his/their Madhab? Or this is something you layman coin to doge the intellectual discussions which you know you cannot answer?
when I see people criticising hazrat imam Abu Hanifa rh, -I feel how great he was and how great his students were and great Muslims their followers were.-
When you see the scholars of Hadith and the giant Fuqahaa of the past criticizing him you feel the need to accuse them of things you have no proof of but your mere conjecture.
People do not criticize him. Scholars of hadith and the Fuqahaa of the greatest generations which have passed are the ones who criticize.
Use proper terms. Know the difference.
Despite all opposition hanafi madhab spread across the globe. Ahnaf remained in power but they didn't try to decimate other groups.
You are unaware and ignorant of a lot of things. You have shown that over and over again in your discussions on any issue you have attempted to debate or discuss. You are once again ignorant on this matter.
All the Madhabs have shown enmity to one another in the past. If you are unaware of this fact, you need to learn. And if you think only the ahnaaf did not show enmity while others did, then you are a fanatic of your Madhab. A man who will close eyes to the actions of his Madhab, consider them to be angels, and accuse others.
3 groups of ummah were deprived of their rights.
Ansaar
Ahl ul bayat
Ahnaf
Subhaan Allaah. You have placed the ahnaaf with those regarding who no one can compare to? The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) spoke highly of the Ansaar and the ahl al-Bait. They had the approval of Allaah and His Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam).
Where did the 'ahnaaf get this approval. Or are you like Muhammad Ala' ad-Din Haskafi who put the following narrations in his book. Then he accuses Ibn al-Jawzi of being a fanatic when he speaks the truth and labels the narrations fabricated.
وعنه - عليه الصلاة والسلام - «إن آدم افتخر بي وأنا أفتخر برجل من أمتي اسمه نعمان وكنيته أبو حنيفة، هو سراج أمتي» وعنه - عليه الصلاة والسلام - «إن سائر الأنبياء يفتخرون بي وأنا أفتخر بأبي حنيفة، من أحبه فقد أحبني، ومن أبغضه فقد أبغضني»
وقول ابن الجوزي إنه موضوع تعصب
Indeed, Ibn Adam is proud of me and I am proud of a man from my Ummah whose name will be Nu'maan and his Kunya will be Abu Hanifah. He is the siraaJ of my Ummah. Indeed, all of the Prophets are proud of me and I am proud of Abu Hanifah. He who loves him has loved me and he who hates him has hated me. Reference(s):
Radd al-Mukhtaar
Page 52 Volume 1
Tell me. Muhammad ala' al-Diin Haskafi was an Imaam and Faqiih of your Madhab. He used those narrations. Are they weak and fabricated or will you live with your incorrect claim that the fuqahaa should be given precedence when accepting hadith? Do you accept and believe in those fabricated hadith he has placed in his book.
Do you want to see scanned copies of that as well or do you know full well I never speak without refernce and will back up anything I tell you?
The discussion was about the use of weak hadith by the Fuqahaa. You may go off on tangents. But I will remain on course even while rebutting your tangents.
You only tried to prove him weak in hadith but I hope you believe following statements also.
I haven't tried to prove anything. I wasn't even discussing him. I talked about the fuqahaa of your Madhab who used weak hadith for the funeral prayer to show you that fuqahaa use weak hadith since the discussion was about men's and women's prayer differences being based on weak hadith.
You brought him in. I did not. I have no need to discuss him. I only highlighted that when you called me a liar and jaahil it was the pot calling the kettle black because I had all the scanned copies. You, in contrast, have none. All you have is copy pastes from all over the web.
Tell me your hidden feelings
About this poor man?-
My hidden feelings? Poor man? Are you trying to win your case by calling upon sympathy?
Anyone who speaks about Diin opens himself up to criticism. Criticism by fellow Mujtahid Imaams and scholars of the disciplines of Diin.
You know why? Because it is not about protecting Abu Hanifah, or al-Shaafi'i, or Maalik. It is about protecting the Diin. The Diin comes first.
No one has any personal grudge against anyone. Everyone is out to protect the Diin. Remember that and act on it. Stop protecting individuals. Think of the Diin of Allaah.
"…Ahmad bin Hassan Tirmidhi quotes, 'I heard Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal say that Abu Hanifa is a liar". (Tarikh al Baghdad Volume 13 page 418)
You do not understand the language of the scholars of hadith. Hence, you think the word kadhdhaab means liar. It means, according to them, a liar, at times, and at other times one who makes mistakes.
It means the one who makes mistakes here. Once again please learn first.
As for the remaining quotes, once again you have placed them up without any scanned copies or chains of narrators. Unless you can do that there is nothing to discuss.
"Imam Malik said that Abu Hanifa was the worst of people and that it would have been easier for him to raise his sword against the Muslims".
"Imam Malik said that for the Muslims Abu Hanifa's Fitnah is more damaging than the Fitnah of Shaytan".
Alright, let's discuss it though this is not thread for it.
Do you have the chains for that? Do you have a copy of where it is written? Though I could find it, I do not have time especially when you need to discuss it. It's only logical you provide the chain or the page where you read it.
Alright, let's discuss it though this is not thread for it.
Do you have the chains for that? Do you have a copy of where it is written? Though I could find it, I do not have time especially when you need to discuss it. It's only logical you provide the chain or the page where you read it.
This thread has been derailed a long time back.
I heard a lecture of a Pakistani alhehadith scholar on YouTube. He quoted tarikh Baghdad (see post#122 almost same stuff was shared).
I simply want to know your opinion about these serious allegations.
I heard a lecture of a Pakistani alhehadith scholar on YouTube. He quoted tarikh Baghdad (see post#122 almost same stuff was shared).
I simply want to know your opinion about these serious allegations.
Remember, today the Ummah holds both Imaam Maalik and Imaam Abu Hanifah to be Mujtahid Imaams. That is a fact.
When one Mujtahid Imaam criticizes another, you cannot use the words "allegation" for that Mujtahid Imaam.
When you use the term allegation you say Imaam Maalik has alleged something to Imaam Abu Hanifah which is not true or is without proof.
Imaam Maalik, Imaam al-Shaafi'i, and Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal were known as the ahl al-Hadith at the time. They had severe differences with the ahl al-Ra'i.
Once you know this fact, you realize that these Imaams used strong terms against Abu Hanifah because he, in their view, opposed authentic hadith by means of his verdicts. Ibn Abd al-Barr clearly states this as follows:
وقد روي عن أبي حنيفة أنه كان يرد هذا الخبر، باعتباره إياه على أصوله، كسائر فعله في أخبار الآحاد: كان يعرضها على الأصول المجتمع عليها عنده، ويجتهد في قبولها أو ردها. فهذا أصله في أخبار الآحاد. وروي عنه أنه كان يقول في رد هذا الحديث: "أرأيت إن كانا في سفينة؟ أرأيت إن كانا في سجن أو قيد؟ كيف يفترقان؟ إذن فلا يصح بين هؤلاء بيع أبداً"! وهذا مما عيب به أبو حنيفة. وهو أكبر عيوبه وأشد ذنوبه عند أهل الحديث
[Paraphrase]
It has been narrated from Abu Hanifah that he would rebut this Hadith, like all the other single narrations, based on his reliance on his Usuul and would make Ijtihaad in accepting the single narrations or not accepting them.
It has been narrated from him [i.e. Abu Hanifah] that he would rebut this Hadith by saying: What do you think if they were in a ship or if they were in a prison. How will they separate. In that case the sale would not ever be permissible between them. And this is with what they found faults in Abu Hanifah and it is his biggest defect and most severe sin in the sight of the ahl al-Hadith.
So, you see the ahl al-Hadith had severe issues with him on the issue of single narrations ['akhbaar al-aahaad]. He rejected them if they went against his Usuul. They praised him where he deserved praise like his piety, honesty, and fiqh, but they were severe on him in regards to his weakness in hadith.
at-Tamhid Lima Fil-Muwatta Min al-Ma'ani Wal-Asanid
Volume 14 Page 13
Thus, these are not allegations. The Mujtahid Imaams had reasons and evidences to declare him weak in hadith.
But I do not see how this has any relevance to our topic at hand. You, like anyone else, know that a Madhab is not based on a single scholar. It is based on a host of scholars.
Abu Yusuf and Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybaani were his Companions who had a major say in the verdicts of the Madhab. They moved away from his sayings in a number of instances where they believed he went against a hadith. They sided with the majority in case of the 'asr prayer timing. They sided with the majority in case of the Witr being a Sunnah and not a Waajib.
But what this discussion shows is that die hard love for one individual never leads to objectivity. The Diin of Allaah has to be protected.
When you accuse the Imaams of Hadith like Imaam Maalik of making "allegations" or being "biased" what you are doing is saying that they toyed with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) when they said Abu Hanifah was weak in hadith because the moment you declare a narrator weak a hadith cannot be used in legislation. To say someone is weak merely on personal grudges would mean they caused a part of the Sunnah to be lost simply because they had jealous.
The Imaams of Hadith were above that. And to blame them for being misinformed, biased, or anything else over one man is just fanaticism and a lack of objectivity.
Last edited by ZeeshanParvez; 05-12-2017 at 04:55 PM.
Remember, today the Ummah holds both Imaam Maalik and Imaam Abu Hanifah to be Mujtahid Imaams. That is a fact.When one Mujtahid Imaam criticizes another, you cannot use the words "allegation" for that Mujtahid Imaam.When you use the term allegation you say Imaam Maalik has alleged something to Imaam Abu Hanifah which is not true or is without proof.Imaam Maalik, Imaam al-Shaafi'i, and Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal were known as the ahl al-Hadith at the time. They had severe differences with the ahl al-Ra'i.Once you know this fact, you realize that these Imaams used strong terms against Abu Hanifah because he, in their view, opposed authentic hadith by means of his verdicts. Ibn Abd al-Barr clearly states this as follows:وقد روي عن أبي حنيفة أنه كان يرد هذا الخبر، باعتباره إياه على أصوله، كسائر فعله في أخبار الآحاد: كان يعرضها على الأصول المجتمع عليها عنده، ويجتهد في قبولها أو ردها. فهذا أصله في أخبار الآحاد. وروي عنه أنه كان يقول في رد هذا الحديث: "أرأيت إن كانا في سفينة؟ أرأيت إن كانا في سجن أو قيد؟ كيف يفترقان؟ إذن فلا يصح بين هؤلاء بيع أبداً"! وهذا مما عيب به أبو حنيفة. وهو أكبر عيوبه وأشد ذنوبه عند أهل الحديث[Paraphrase]It has been narrated from Abu Hanifah that he would rebut this Hadith, like all the other single narrations, based on his reliance on his Usuul and would make Ijtihaad in accepting the single narrations or not accepting them.It has been narrated from him [i.e. Abu Hanifah] that he would rebut this Hadith by saying: What do you think if they were in a ship or if they were in a prison. How will they separate. In that case the sale would not ever be permissible between them. And this is with what they found faults in Abu Hanifah and it is his biggest defect and most severe sin in the sight of the ahl al-Hadith.So, you see the ahl al-Hadith had severe issues with him on the issue of single narrations ['akhbaar al-aahaad]. He rejected them if they went against his Usuul. They praised him where he deserved praise like his piety, honesty, and fiqh, but they were severe on him in regards to his weakness in hadith.at-Tamhid Lima Fil-Muwatta Min al-Ma'ani Wal-AsanidVolume 14 Page 13Thus, these are not allegations. The Mujtahid Imaams had reasons and evidences to declare him weak in hadith.But I do not see how this has any relevance to our topic at hand. You, like anyone else, know that a Madhab is not based on a single scholar. It is based on a host of scholars.Abu Yusuf and Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybaani were his Companions who had a major say in the verdicts of the Madhab. They moved away from his sayings in a number of instances where they believed he went against a hadith. They sided with the majority in case of the 'asr prayer timing. They sided with the majority in case of the Witr being a Sunnah and not a Waajib.But what this discussion shows is that die hard love for one individual never leads to objectivity. The Diin of Allaah has to be protected.When you accuse the Imaams of Hadith like Imaam Maalik of making "allegations" or being "biased" what you are doing is saying that they toyed with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) when they said Abu Hanifah was weak in hadith because the moment you declare a narrator weak a hadith cannot be used in legislation. To say someone is weak merely on personal grudges would mean they caused a part of the Sunnah to be lost simply because they had jealous.The Imaams of Hadith were above that. And to blame them for being misinformed, biased, or anything else over one man is just fanaticism and a lack of objectivity.
So you think that imam malik rh opined that his fitnah (?) was more damaging than fitnah of shaytan..???...
Since shaytan is the worst in creation so the imam surpassed even shaytan in spreading fitnah..???
All of the 4 Imams were great scholars. :-) We all should follow Qur'aan and Sunnah ONLY, and we all know that the 4 madhabs, all of them, have the Correct Aqeedah of belief in Allah's Unity (Tawheed) and that worship is only for Allah.
The madhabs are not sects. Not all laymen can extract laws from the Qur'aan, that is why we have madhabs.
Meaning of Shirk according to The Qur'an
" Worshipping anyone or anything besides Allah " or " distributing anything exclusive to Allah, to anyone or anything else "
Meaning of Tawheed according to The Qur'an Worshipping none but Allah. Affirming whatever is exclusive to Him, Him alone.
All of the 4 Imams were great scholars. :-) We all should follow Qur'aan and Sunnah ONLY, and we all know that the 4 madhabs, all of them, have the Correct Aqeedah of belief in Allah's Unity (Tawheed) and that worship is only for Allah. The madhabs are not sects. Not all laymen can extract laws from the Qur'aan, that is why we have madhabs.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrates: ‘Abd al Rahman ibn Yahya narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Sa‘id narrated to us: Abu Sa‘id ibn al-A‘rabi narrated to is: ‘Abbas ibn Muhammad al-Duri narrated to us: I heard Yahya ibn Ma‘in say: “Our companions have gone overboard in [their bias] against Abu Hanifah and his companions.” It was said to him: “Would Abu Hanifah lie?” He said “He was nobler than that.” (Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa Fadlih, Abu al-Ashbal al-Zuhayri ed., p. 1081) The editor Abu al-Ashbal al-Zuhayri says “It’s isnad is sahih.” This indicates the muhaddithun had a bias against Abu Hanifah and his students due to what they perceived as excessive issuance of rulings based on opinion, so their criticism should be taken with precaution. Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 H) wrote: “Those who narrated from Abu Hanifah, and declared him trustworthy, and praised him, are more than those who criticised him; and those who criticised him from the scholars of hadith, most of what they blamed him for is immersion in juristic opinion, analogy and irja’ [all of which are invalid criticisms].” (Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa Fadlih, quoted in the footnotes to al-Intiqa’ fi Fada’il al-A’immat al-Thalathah, p. 185)
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrates: ‘Abd al Rahman ibn Yahya narrated to us: Ahmad ibn Sa‘id narrated to us: Abu Sa‘id ibn al-A‘rabi narrated to is: ‘Abbas ibn Muhammad al-Duri narrated to us: I heard Yahya ibn Ma‘in say: “Our companions have gone overboard in [their bias] against Abu Hanifah and his companions.” It was said to him: “Would Abu Hanifah lie?” He said “He was nobler than that.” (Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa Fadlih, Abu al-Ashbal al-Zuhayri ed., p. 1081) The editor Abu al-Ashbal al-Zuhayri says “It’s isnad is sahih.” This indicates the muhaddithun had a bias against Abu Hanifah and his students due to what they perceived as excessive issuance of rulings based on opinion, so their criticism should be taken with precaution. Hafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463 H) wrote: “Those who narrated from Abu Hanifah, and declared him trustworthy, and praised him, are more than those who criticised him; and those who criticised him from the scholars of hadith, most of what they blamed him for is immersion in juristic opinion, analogy and irja’ [all of which are invalid criticisms].” (Jami‘ Bayan al-‘Ilm wa Fadlih, quoted in the footnotes to al-Intiqa’ fi Fada’il al-A’immat al-Thalathah, p. 185)
Sheikh Muhammad al-'Amiin has already dealt with what you have mentioned. As a matter of fact, he has said that the ahnaaf actually hide the narrations from Yahyaa bin Ma'iin in which he declared Abu Hanifah weak in hadith.
وقد جاء عن ابن معين وابن المديني تضعيفها لأبي حنيفة، وهو ما يخفيه الأحناف ولا يذكرونه! وإليكم كلامهما:
You, my dear, have proved him right by quoting only the quote which suits you. Let me add balance to the discussion by quoting the other quotes.
Why do you ahnaaf hide the facts?
قال ابن أبي مريم –كما في الكامل لابن عدي (8|236)–: سألت يحيى بن معين عن أبي حنيفة، فقال: «لا يكتب حديثه»
I asked Ibn Ma'iin about Abu Hanifah: He said: His hadith are not to be written
وقال محمد بن عثمان بن أبي شيبة –كما في الضعفاء للعقيلي (4|285)–: سمعت يحيى بن معين وسئل عن أبي حنيفة، قال: «كان يضعف في الحديث»
I heard Yahyaa bin Ma'iin and he was asked Abu Hanifah: He said: He was weak in hadith
وقال محمد بن حماد المقرئ –كما في تاريخ بغداد (13|445)–: وسألت يحيى بن معين عن أبي حنيفة، فقال: «وإيش كان عند أبي حنيفة من الحديث حتى تسأل عنه؟!»
I asked Yahyaa bin Ma'iin about Abu Hanifah thereupon he said: What did Abu Hanifah have of hadith that you ask about him?
The Marfu‘ Narrations of Abu Hanifah from the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah
1. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates: ‘Abbad ibn al-‘Awwam narrated to us from Abu Hanifah from Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn al-Muntashir from Anas ibn Malik: He said: “No one ever sat with Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and then stood up until he stood up.” (no. 26182, vol. 13:169-70)
2. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrates: Abu Mu‘awiyah narrated to us from Abu Hanifah from ‘Alqamah ibn Marthad from Ibn Buraydah from his father, he said: When Ma‘iz was stoned, they said: “O Messenger of Allah! What shall we do with him?” He said: “Do with him as you do with your dead, of bathing, shrouding, perfuming and praying over him.” (no. 11124, vol. 7:115)
You didn't even check up the chain of narrators. Did you do this to put Imaam Maalik in bad light? Or did you do it in your zeal to defend your Imaam by diverting the audiences attention?
Or do you simply lack the tools for research and just like to type out whatever you can get your hands on?
Here is a screen shot of the quote and the commentary about the chain of narrators by the MuhaQQiQ.
Quite clearly you cannot discuss a subject intellectually because you do not have the skills to research. I will not be taking any part in any discussion with you from now on given that you have no idea what you talk about. And the worst part is that you take things from Shia websites without verifying them and then attribute them to the ahl al-Hadith saying they say it all the while wanting unity with a sect which hates your Imaam.
You didn't even check up the chain of narrators. Did you do this to put Imaam Maalik in bad light? Or did you do it in your zeal to defend your Imaam by diverting the audiences attention?
Or do you simply lack the tools for research and just like to type out whatever you can get your hands on?
Here is a screen shot of the quote and the commentary about the chain of narrators by the MuhaQQiQ.
Quite clearly you cannot discuss a subject intellectually because you do not have the skills to research. I will not be taking any part in any discussion with you from now on given that you have no idea what you talk about. And the worst part is that you take things from Shia websites without verifying them and then attribute them to the ahl al-Hadith saying they say it all the while wanting unity with a sect which hates your Imaam.
Astagfirullah .
Yes, it's good for you if you keep on saying "astaghfirullah"
See other link I've given , if you wish.
In sha Allah, I WIll take care not to waste my time with you in future
I am sorry to break it to you, but he has been declared weak in hadeeth by the majority of muhadditheen. If you so want we can discuss this and I can prove what I have said.
sure bro please provide proof
here is an explanation of the 'weak hadith' in hanafi madhab
it is not necessary that the saheeh (authentic) ahadith are found only in bukhari and muslim.the authenticity of a hadith depends on its line of transmission and the principles of ahadith.hundreds of scholars have collected ahadith apart from bukhari and muslim and every hadith that meets the standard is authentic. sometimes, a hadith in any other book outranks the standard of bukhari and muslim, like ibn majah which is otherwise ranked sixth among the saheeh six books. ...
the differences of opinion that we see among the mujtahids is primarily because the mannerof deduction of each of them varies. some rely on the sanad when they have to choose from ahadith of different apparent conclusions. some others reconcile the ahadith while some mujtahids choose the hadith on which the sahabah conducted themselves. so, every mujtahidhas a different approach and none of them can be accused of neglecting the authentic ahadith. generally, imam abu hanifah tried to reconcile the ahadith and to observe all of them as far as possible. he even relied on weak ahadith if there was no conflicting report, notwithstanding disagreement with qiyas, for example, ablution is nullified by laughing, obligatory nature ofzakah on honey, and so on.(3) there is ijtihad on deciding whether a hadith is sound or weak. and different imams havedifferent results. thus, imam abu hanifah may regard a hadith worth following while another mujtahid may c1assifi it as weak.(4) often a hadith was received by imam abu hanifah with a sound line of transmission, but a narrator after him may turn out to be weak, so the mujtahids after him who get the hadith may reject it. hence, he cannot be blamed for that.(5)
imam abu hanifah & knowledge of hadith
he is also accused of having few ahadith, or a weak knowledge of hadith. this baseless accusation follows from lack of proper knowledge and prejudice. in fact, greatscholars agreed that he was excellent in the science of fiqh and the science of hadith too. theyare not only the hanafi ulama but also ulama of other schools of thought. we present remarks of some of them.
1. ibn jurayj was a great scholar of hadith and fiqh. imam shafee’s mazhab derives mostly fromhim. ibn hajar said about him that when he learnt of imam abu hanifah’s death he was greatly pained and saidwhat a knowledge has departed!) (tahzeeb al-tahzeeb v1 450)
2. makki ibn ibrahim was a teacher of imam bukhari he was a student of imam abu hanifah.his words about him are quoted by hafiz muzzi in tahzeeb ul-kamal:“he was the greatest scholar of his times.” (marginal notes tahzeeb al-tahzeeb v1 451) we must remember that the predecessors spoke of ilm (knowledge) to imply knowledge of hadith. so these testimonies are concerning his knowledge of hadith.
3. sha’bah ibn al-hujjah was called the ameer ul-mu’mineen in hadith. he was the first imamknown for examining the ahadith narrators critically. he said:“by allah! he was the most understanding and of an excellent memory.”when he learnt of imam abu hanifah’s death, he said:“the light of knowledge from kufah has extinguished. these people will not find a man likehim.” (al-khayrat ul-hasanat p32)
4. imam abu dawood said:“indeed abu hanifah was an imam!” (tazkirat ul-huffaz v1 p160)
5. yahya ibn mu’een was an imam of critical examination, he said:further, he quotes yahya ibn sa’eed al-quttan as saying:“we acted on many of imam abu hanifah’s sayings.” (tahzeeb at-tahzeeb v10 p450)to a question he said once:“yes, he is trustworthy, yes, trustworthy.” (manaqib al-imam al-azam v1 p192)
brother i will urge you to go into that link and read last two chapters on this issue; there is far more evidences that the great scholars have verified imam abu hanifa and he was not weak in hadith
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Zeal liked this post
what a knowledge has departed!) (tahzeeb al-tahzeeb v1 450)
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks