Need a good English speaking Mufti for my queries

[mohtashims]

Assalamualikum,

Inorder to refute the claims of some half learned "Ghair Mukallideens" where they present a detailed article on refuting the mazhab of Imam Abu Hanifa r.e.h, I need [email contact] a learned Mufti / Scholar to respond to their claim and justify our (Hanafi) mazhab's stance.

I understand that askimam and Daruliftaa never works for me as they never respond to a details research against the mazhab as it looks more acedemic and streched for laymen. Also posting on them would be allowed only one fine day [The day you are lucky :) ].

I would appreciated if someone could volunteer or provide contacts for the same.

The current issue raised by them (Ghair Mukallideens) is regards to wudu breaking upon touching private part.

[al_Zayn]

Assalamualikum,

Inorder to refute the claims of some half learned "Ghair Mukallideens" where they present a detailed article on refuting the mazhab of Imam Abu Hanifa r.e.h, I need [email contact] a learned Mufti / Scholar to respond to their claim and justify our (Hanafi) mazhab's stance.

I understand that askimam and Daruliftaa never works for me as they never respond to a details research against the mazhab as it looks more acedemic and streched for laymen. Also posting on them would be allowed only one fine day [The day you are lucky :) ].

I would appreciated if someone could volunteer or provide contacts for the same.

The current issue raised by them (Ghair Mukallideens) is regards to wudu breaking upon touching private part.

:ws:

I think the 'Ulama and Muftis are very busy, this refutation thing takes alot of time, you cannot just overwhelm them with alot of mis-interpreted material. If you send in one question at a time that would be great.

Or you can just post here your queries and Insha-Allah if someone has the answer they will reply.

What exactly are they saying regarding the breaking of wudhu by touching the private parts?

[ImamGhazzaali]

Why are you so obsessed with ''ghayr muqallideen'' ? I suggest you to spend your time in more useful activities.

[mohtashims]

:ws:

What exactly are they saying regarding the breaking of wudhu by touching the private parts?

Brother its a huge article 8 pages long refutig the claims of the Ahnaf that the wudu does not break upon touching the private part.

It's like the post-mortem of the hadees around the subject.

Can I somehow email it to you ?

[AimeSi]

:salam:

This kind of issue is from the furu and not the ussul of the dîn. The scholars have differed on this since the earliest, I'm not sure it's useful to spend time in arguing about such issues where the imams have made ijtihad.

wAllâhu A'lam.

[Brotherr]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?89789-Mubarak-to-Ml-Abuhajira

There is a Mufti here.

[mohtashims]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?89789-Mubarak-to-Ml-Abuhajira

There is a Mufti here.

I understand Abu Hajira saheb is a Mufti but how can I contact him. I need to send the article for his review and comments.

I understand that some issues are disputed amongst imams, however we see only one side of the coin as shown to us by the Ghair Mukallideens, why can't we defend our mazhab based on the research of several muhaddiseen.

It needs attention no matter what you have to say. We work in IT / Software firms so let me explain you the nature of thousands of Muslim working in such firms is when you will understand why is it utmost neccessary for us to pay heed to my request.

1. Most engineers have little or no knowledge of deen, so they cannot make a broad and complete judgement upon recieving such articles from Ghair Mukallideens.

2. They spend most of the time working with little or none of them in contact personally with any Mufti.

3. They hardly visit mosques except for Friday prayers and pray within the company premises.

4. They are more bound to their "nafs" and the pick and choose concept of Ghair Mukallideens works in that direction.

5. They are located primarily outside the main cities and the quality of Alim in the mosques is often not good. They dont have any books of Hadees / Tafseer with them, they are at times half learned, they can't speak english and lastly they are lost to many issues pertaining to our job. Imagine asking an Aalim @ our local mosque about insurace, 401K plan, use of windows 98 pirated cd etc. I'm not saying that he should be able to answer these question, but upon blank response these egineers turn to internet for acquiring answers.

-Remember - These engineer becoz of their qualification and salary are looked upon by the many of their relatives as bieng smart and correct in thier approach hence by helping them we can help others.

[al_Zayn]

Brother its a huge article 8 pages long refutig the claims of the Ahnaf that the wudu does not break upon touching the private part.

It's like the post-mortem of the hadees around the subject.

Can I somehow email it to you ?

What you can do is post the first narration and their issues with that, and we'l take it from there, Insha-Allah we will do their post mortem, 'Ulama and other learned Brothers are welcome for the autopsy examination and give their valuable insights.

:jazak:
:ws:

[mohtashims]

What you can do is post the first narration and their issues with that, and we'l take it from there, Insha-Allah we will do their post mortem, 'Ulama and other learned Brothers are welcome for the autopsy examination and give their valuable insights.

:jazak:
:ws:

Assalamulaikum,

The article I have is formated in word with colors and bullet points which will disturb the formatting if I post the article in here.
Can you email me at ************@gmail.com (*********@gmail.com) or respond back with your email address.

I will share the article with you.

[Ansari]

The issue of touching the private parts and not breaking the wudu is very simple to defend. Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Uthaymin held the same opinion. Moreover, the hadith of Talq ("is it only a part of you?") is declared authentic by Albani but he interpreted it as touching with lust. There are other athar from Sahaba showing they held the same opinion as narrated in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba.

[Salman_Hanafi]

Is this the only ruling on which the AH have a seemingly stricter stance than the hanafis (apart from leaving the beard all together)?

[al_Zayn]

Assalamulaikum,

The article I have is formated in word with colors and bullet points which will disturb the formatting if I post the article in here.
Can you email me at ------- or respond back with your email address.

I will share the article with you.

:ws:

Im sorry brother i wouldn't want to take that. Nor do i have time. Just post it here one by one. Even Brother Ansari has an idea of what it maybe entailing, so let it be a collective effort rather than a one man.

:jazak:

[mohtashims]

:ws:

Im sorry brother i wouldn't want to take that. Nor do i have time. Just post it here one by one. Even Brother Ansari has an idea of what it maybe entailing, so let it be a collective effort rather than a one man.

:jazak:

Ok. I will post it to a blog and share the blog link.

Can you please remove my email address from your post ?

[Jadeed]

The issue of touching the private parts and not breaking the wudu is very simple to defend. Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Uthaymin held the same opinion. Moreover, the hadith of Talq ("is it only a part of you?") is declared authentic by Albani but he interpreted it as touching with lust. There are other athar from Sahaba showing they held the same opinion as narrated in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba.

:salam:

Exactly. As per usual, people who refuse to allow ikhtilaaf in the furu' of the deen will end up insulting all the scholars they pretend to respect.

[mohtashims]

:ws:

Im sorry brother i wouldn't want to take that. Nor do i have time. Just post it here one by one. Even Brother Ansari has an idea of what it maybe entailing, so let it be a collective effort rather than a one man.

:jazak:

I have uploaded the entire discussion that happened and Part 2 is the final reply we recieved from Ghair Mukallid regarding breaking of Wudu upon touching private part.

Right at the bottom of the link you can download Part 2 in word format file.

Find it here (http://mohtashims.wordpress.com/2012/06/27/wudu/)

[al_Zayn]

:salam:

I cannot understand that, it's like you uploaded both refutation and answers from someone??

[al_Zayn]

:salam:

(im going to use the rebuttal already used there with some additional stuff in my own words)

The author is Raza Hassan, this is person who tried to do the Tawtheeq of Mu'ammal Ibn Isma'eel.

The first issue:


The Aimmah and Muhadditheen have proposed two different tatbeeqs for this narration.

First: This hadeeth is regarding touching without desire. The saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that: “It is only a part of you” contains a good indication that the wudoo does not break if touched without desire. Because this is the condition which is compared with the remaining parts of the body.

There is no indication mentioned neither in words nor action. This is because Rasulullah :saw: clearly equated touching “the private parts” as being part of your body. Hence it is akin to indicate that just like you touch your feet your Wudhu would not be nullified, just like you touch your hands your Wudhu would not be nullified and just like you touch your face your Wudhu would not be nullified.

This is the real understanding, otherwise why would Rasulullah :saw: say “is it not a part of you".

Moreover this is their Analogy (Qiyas), without proof.


On the contrary, if it is touched with desire then it cannot be compared with the other parts of the body, because in the other parts of the body, sexual desire does not arise. This is such a clear fact that rejecting it is not possible. Therefore it is not at all the daleel of Hanafiyah, because according to them, the wudoo does not break in both the conditions (with desire or without desire).

What? has he done a survey with everyone to assume that it is only touching the private parts that can arise "Shahwah" (Desire)? Leave aside touching anything, simply "thinking" can arise sexual desire, which im sure no one would disagree.

To top it up he mentions two Tatbeeqs from the Muhadditheen, where im sure he knows very well there are more, it is clear Ta'ssaub from his side to say the least. Furthermore him placing "desire" as one of the Tabeeqs in that hadith is actually siding with Qiyas and not Nusoos, Otherwise the stronghold of his (supposed) 'Ulama (Saudi) are all in agreement even that touching the wife with or with desire DOES NOT break Wudhu, as is written on Islamqa:

وأرجح هذه الأقوال هو القول الثاني ، أن مس المرأة لا ينقض الوضوء مطلقاً سواء كان بشهوة أم بدون شهوة .

وهو اختيار شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية (12/222) واختاره من المعاصرين الشيخ ابن باز (10/134) والشيخ ابن عثيمين (1/286) وعلماء اللجنة الدائمة (5/266)

This view was of Ibn Taymiyyah, Bin Baaz, Ibn 'Uthaymeen and the 'Ulama of Lajnah.


The other condition of jama wa tatbeeq is also that, If the private part is touched and there is no barrior in between then it invalidates the wudoo and when there is a barrior or a cloth then the wudoo does not break. The following hadeeth supports this tatbeeq:

Sayyidunah Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) said the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “When any of you reaches his hand to the private part, while there is nothing in between them (the hand and the private part), then you should do Wudoo’.”
[Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan: 1115, Bayhaqi : Vol 1 Pg 130, 131, Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 147, Tabaraani Sagheer: H. 110, Tabaraani al-Awsat: H. 8829, 6664, 8904]

This Tatbeeq can be accepted if the hadith bought forward above was authentic, يَزِيدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ (Yazid Bin 'Abd al-Malik) has been criticised by the Scholars.

Taken from Tahzeeb al-Kamaal by al-Mizzi:

علماء الجرح والتعديل

قال الزبير بْن بكار: أمه أم عَبْد اللَّهِ بنت سعيد بْن نوفل بْن الحارث بْن عَبْد المطلب .

وقال 1 أَبُو حاتم، عَن أحمد بْن حنبل 1: 2 ضعيف الحديث 2 .

وقال 1 البخاري 1: 2 لينه يحيى 2 . وقال 1 أحمد 1: 2 عنده مناكير 2 .

وقال 1 معاوية بْن صالح، عَن يحيى بْن معين 1: 2 ليس حديثه بذاك 2 .

وقال 1 عثمان بْن سعيد الدارمي، عَن يحيى بْن معين 1: 2 ما كَانَ بِهِ بأس 2 .

وقال 1 غيره، عَن يحيى 1: 2 ضعيف 2 .

وقال 1 أحمد بْن صالح المصري 1: 2 ليس حديثه بشيء 2 .

وقال 1 أَبُو زرعة 1: 2 ضعيف الحديث 2 .

وقال 1 فِي موضع آخر 1: 2 واهي الحديث، وغلظ فيه القول جدا 2 .

وقال 1 أَبُو حاتم 1: 2 ضعيف الحديث، منكر الحديث جدا 2 .

وقال 1 البخاري 1: 2 أحاديثه شبه لا شيء
وضعفه جدا 2

وقال 1 النسائي 1: 2 متروك الحديث 2 .

وقال 1 فِي موضع آخر 1: 2 ليس بثقة 2 .

وقال 1 أَبُو أحمد بْن عدي 1: 2 لَهُ غير ما ذكرت من الحديث، وليس بالكثير، وعامة ما يرويه غير محفوظ 2 .

روى له ابْن ماجه حديثا واحدا، عَن يزيد بْن رومان، عَن أَبِي هريرة: " لسقط أقدمه بين يدي أحب إلي من فارس أخلفه خلفي "

Furthermore we Ahnaf do not totally disregard it, we apply both narrations and say it is from the Istihbaab to renew Wudhu'.


Secondly: Even if this tatbeeq is not accepted, there still is not any Ikhtilaaf, because the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) has the probability of being Mansookh, because the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) is ancient and the narration of Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) is the latest.

And according to the hanafiyah, if there are two contradictory ahadeeth, then the one which is ancient will be considered Mansookh. [Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 47]

Wow, he is teaching us the Hanafi Usool; according to the Hanafi Usool Mansukh (Abrogation) is not established where there is Ta’leel (reasoning in the hadith by Rasulullah :saw:). As clearly mentioned by Ibn Nujaym in Bahr al-Ra’iq Sharh Kanz al-Daqa’iq:

البحر الرائق شرح كنز الدقائق
http://www.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?bk_no=29&ID=3&idfrom=5&idto=331&bookid=29&startno=20

ولأن حديث طلق غير قابل للنسخ ; لأنه صدر على سبيل التعليل فإنه عليه الصلاة والسلام ذكر أن الذكر قطعة لحم فلا تأثير لمسه في الانتقاض ، وهذا المعنى لا يقبل النسخ كذا في معراج الدراية

Even If we accept that the narration of Talq Bin 'Ali :anhu: is 'Ancient' (despite no clear concrete proof) it does not prove anything because Rasulullah :saw:'s reasoning whether it is 'Ancient' or not is acceptable to us and binding according to our Usool, this is because he speaks not from his Hawaa.

As for the next few paragraphs stating there is Idhtirab in the narration then this is repudiated, Imam al-Tahawi says in his Sharh al-Ma'ani al-Athar:

شرح معاني الآثار للطحاوي
http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?indexstartno=0&hflag=1&pid=77708&bk_no=379&startno=16

فَهَذَا حَدِيثُ مُلازِمٍ ، صَحِيحٌ مُسْتَقِيمُ الإِسْنَادِ ، غَيْرُ مُضْطَرِبٍ فِي إِسْنَادِهِ ، وَلا فِي مَتْنِهِ

and then goes on to say:

وَلَقَدْ حَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي عِمْرَانَ ، قَالَ : سَمِعْتُ عَبَّاسَ بْنَ عَبْدِ الْعَظِيمِ الْعَنْبَرِيَّ ، يَقُولُ : سَمِعْتُ عَلِيَّ بْنَ الْمَدِينِيِّ ، يَقُولُ : حَدِيثُ مُلازِمٍ هَذَا ، أَحْسَنُ مِنْ حَدِيثِ بُسْرَةَ.

He says the hadith of Malazim is authentic and established and there is no Idhthirab in the Sanad or Matn, he then goes on to quote the Giant, al-Madini saying the hadith of Malazim is better than Busrah.

There is more that can be said, Nasb al-Rayah of al-Hafiz al-Zayla'i talks about the issue in detail. Ibn al-Humman the Mujthahid also talks about it extensively in his Fath al-Qadeer.

As for them trying to weaken Qays Bin Talq in the narration, then here is what al-Mizzi mentions in his Tahzeeb al-Kamaal:

تهذيب الكمال للمزي
http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=1857&pid=286555

روى عن أَبِيهِ طلق بْن علي 4 وله صحبة روى عنه أَيُّوب بْن عتبة وسراج بْن عقبة وعبد الله بْن بدر د ت س وعبد الله بْن النعمان السحيمي د ت وابْن ابْن أخيه عجيبة بْن عبد الحميد بْن عقبة بْن طلق بْن علي وعيسى بْن خثيم الحنفي ومُحَمَّد بْن جَابِر د ق اليماميون وموسى بْن عُمَيْر الثمالي وابنه هوذة بْن قَيْس بْن طلق الحنفي # قال عُثْمَان بْن سَعِيد الدارمي : سألت يَحْيَى بْن معين قلت : عَبْد اللَّهِ بْن النعمان عَن قَيْس بْن طلق : شيوخ يمامية ثقات # وقال أَحْمَد بْن عَبْد اللَّهِ العجلي ، قَيْس بْن طلق يمامي تابعي ثقة ، وأبوه طلق من أصحاب النَّبِيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم # وذكره ابْن حبان في كتاب الثقات.

Yahya Ibn Ma'een, al-'Ijli and Ibn Hibban considered him Thiqah.

Abu Hatim is alone in his saying as quoted by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajr, and others will take precedence of their Ta'deel and it is clear that al-Mizzi sided with his Tawtheeq.

Wallahu A'lam.

:ws:

[mohtashims]

JazakAllah Brother Zayn,

Yes. Part 2 is what I need a rebuttal for. Some Brother X whom I dont know was having a discussion with this Ghair Mukallid named "Omair Hanifa" who happens to write x-Deobandi in his signature :P

Not sue where he gets his materials from but he keeps posting from a technical angle regarding issues pertaining to the Hanafi Mazhab.

We had a to look out for help when he started posting on IBM Muslim software engineers email group of which I am a part of.

May Allah accept all your help and efforts in this regards.

[al_Zayn]

JazakAllah Brother Zayn,

Yes. Part 2 is what I need a rebuttal for. Some Brother X whom I dont know was having a discussion with this Ghair Mukallid named "Omair Hanifa" who happens to write x-Deobandi in his signature :P

Not sue where he gets his materials from but he keeps posting from a technical angle regarding issues pertaining to the Hanafi Mazhab.

We had a to look out for help when he started posting on IBM Muslim software engineers email group of which I am a part of.

May Allah accept all your help and efforts in this regards.

Wa Iyyak,

Part 2, the download on the blog? Brother that is 96 pages LONG! It's multi-colored and some words are capitalised. I can barely understand it, and again it seems like a refutation / answer session.

Like i originally said, get the specific hadith, which the GM's have objections to and post it here.

[mohtashims]

Wa Iyyak,

Part 2, the download on the blog? Brother that is 96 pages LONG! It's multi-colored and some words are capitalised. I can barely understand it, and again it seems like a refutation / answer session.

Like i originally said, get the specific hadith, which the GM's have objections to and post it here.

To make things easy

You can download part 2 in good word format by clicking here (http://mohtashims.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/exposing_the_deception1a.docx)

Part2 is a rebuttal by GM(Omair) to someone(Nu'man) who responded to his(Omair) original post.

I am not as an expert as yourself or other members may be, hence I can read and post specific hadees and explanation but I may get confused or fail to understand things at times.

[al_Zayn]

To make things easy

You can download part 2 in good word format by clicking here (http://mohtashims.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/exposing_the_deception1a.docx)

Part2 is a rebuttal by GM(Omair) to someone(Nu'man) who responded to his(Omair) original post.

I am not as an expert as yourself or other members may be, hence I can read and post specific hadees and explanation but I may get confused or fail to understand things at times.

I just had a brief look at it, it is refutation on a refutation upon another refutation, it's just hard to keep up Akhi. Best thing to do is post the specific hadith or issue and we'll look into it, i don't understand, this is easier and better for us all rather than looking through 96 page long essay back and forth.

Also i thought through it, i will not be answering their proofs because of the fact other valid Schools uphold these positions and these proofs, i will only help in proving the Hanafi stance, however i can.

[mohtashims]

Seventh Evidence:
It is narrated form Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallah anhu) regarding the touching of private part that he said: “I do not care if I touch my private part or the crner of my nose.” [Muwatta Imaam Muhammad Pg 52]

Reply:
Firstly: In its chain Ibraaheem Nakha’ee is present. Who is a tabi’ee with regards to ruwiyat (seeing the Sahabah) but he is not a tabi’ee with regards to riwayat (narrating from Sahabah). Meaning the samaa of Ibraaheem Nakha’ee is not proven from any Sahaabi.

Imaam Abu Haatim said: “The meeting of Ibraaheem Nakha’ee is not proven from any Sahaabi.” [Maraseel Ibn Abi Haatim: Pg 9].

Imaam Abu Zur’ah said: “The narration of Ibraaheem from Ali (radiallah anhu) is Mursal.” [Same: Pg 10]

Secondly, The Maraseel of Nakha’ee or anyone else’s are Da’eef and this is the principle of Muhadditheen. As for the Mursal of Nakha’ee then they have also been criticized specifically, especially when he narrates from Ibn Mas’ood and Ali!

Imam Dhahabi said in Mizaan al-I’tidaal Vol 1, Pg 35:
“Imam Shafa’ee said: If Ibraheem Nakha’ee narrates from Ali or Abdullah, then it won’t be accepted, because Ibraheem did not meet with any of them”.

So Imaam Shaafi’ee, and Imaam Dhahabi have done Jarh Mufassar on the Maraseel of Nakha’ee from Ali and Ibn Mas’ood, so there is no way out except a Ta’deel that refutes this Jarh!

Moreover, the Maraseel of Nakha’ee are Da’eef Mutlaqan without any exception, because Muhadditheen did not accept anyone’s Mursal narration. And Ibraaheem is still a minor Taabi’ee who did not narrate from any Sahaabi, how can his Maraseel be accepted?

Even the Sahabah did not accept the Mursal of a MAJOR Taabi’ee. It is narrated from the Companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Abdullah bin Abbaas (radiallah anhu) that he would not agree to even listen to the Mursal narrations.[See: Muqaddimah Muslim H. 21, & Al-Nakat ala Kitaab Ibn as-Salaah: 2/553]
Imaam Muslim said, "The Mursal narrations according to me and the saying of the people of knowledge is that it is not evidence."(Muqaddimah Saheeh Muslim (1/24), Imaam Nawawee agreed with this statement ofImaam Muslim, see his Irshaad (pg.81)

c) Imaam Ibn Abee Haatim said, "I heard my father (Abu Haatim) and Abu Zur'ah saying the mursal narrations are not evidence and evidence is only that which has an authentic and continuous/linked chain." (Kitaab al-Maraaseel (p.7).

d) Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadee said, "Muhammad ibn Idrees ash-Shaaf'iee and others amongst Ahlul-Ilm (People of Knowledge) said, it is not allowed to act upon them (ie Mursal narrations.)…" (al-Kifaayah Fee Ilm ar-Riwaayah (pg.384).

e) Imam Iraqi said:
"Most of the People of Hadeeth have rejected Mursal narrations because in it, a narrator (which is not been mentioned by tabiee or any other) is unknown [Al faqeeh al Iraqi page143 ma fath ul baqi, (Fath ul-Mugeeth (pg.69)]

So no Mursal is Hujjah, specifically the Mursal of Ibraaheem Nakha’ee as mentioned by Dhahabi and Imaam Shaafi’ee.

See this link for details:
http://systemoflife.com/fiqh/hadeeth/263-mursal-hadith-is-not-evidence

Moreover, besides doing Irsaal, Ibraaheem also used to do Tadlees. He was a Mudallis. [See: Tabqat al-Mudalliseen by Ibn Hajr 28, Jaami al-Tahseel fi ahkaam al-Maraseel by Hafidh Salah ud-deen Pg 104, Ma’rifat Uloom al-Hadith by Haakim Pg 108, Al-Mudalliseen by Abu Zu’rah ibn al-Iraqi Pg 2, Mudalliseen by Suyooti 1, and Al-Tabeyeen by al-Halabi 14]

Secondly: In its chain, Imaam Abu Haneefah is present. Who is weak with regards to memory.

Hafiz ibn Abdil Barr wrote in “Tamhid” v 11 p 48: Abu Hanifah narrated this Hadith from Musa ibn Abi ‘Aishah from Abdullah ibn Shaddad ibnul Hadi from Jabir ibn Abdillah from the Prophet (saw), and none mentioned this Hadith in a Musnad way (continuous chain) except Abu Hanifah and he has bad memory (Say ul Hifz) for Ahlul Hadith, and he opposed

Huffaz such as Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Shu’bah, ibn ‘Uyaynah, Jariri and others who narrated from Musa ibn Abi ‘Aishah from Abdullah ibn Shaddad in a Mursal way (meaning name of Sahabi is omitted)”

See this link for the details of weakness of Abu Hanefah:
http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user_pages/page.asp?art_id=153

Thirdly: The narrator Muhammad bin Hassan ash-Shaybaani is also presnt, who is a Kadhaab according to Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een.

In short this narration is absolutely Fabricated.

Coming to the fourth chain, this chain is a silsilah of Dhulumaat after Dhulumaat! There is no narrator in this chain which is not criticized.

The first is again, Muhammad ash-Shaybaani who is Kadhaab, I don’t why are you mentioning his chains again and again, when the author has already clarified his position.

Secondly, if there is no wasta of Abu Hanifah in between as you mentioned, then it is Munqati’, as Ash-Shaybaani did not narrated from Hammaad.

Thirdly, Hammaad bin Abi Sulemaan is Thiqah, but his memory got detreiorated at the end of his age. And this narration is narrated after his Ikhtilaat. [See books of Rijaal]

Fourthly, Hammaad is also Mudallis. [See: Fatthul Mubeen fi Tahqeeq Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen: 2/40]

Fifthly, Ibraaheem is also a Mudallis. [Same: 2/35]

Sixthly, Ibraaheem did not meet Ali.

In short, this chian is Fabricated.

As for the fifth chain, It contains Maimoon Abu Hamzah al-A’war, and he is Da’eef according to the Muhadditheen.

1- Imam Ahmed said: “He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth” [Al-Illal wa Ma’rifat ur-Rijaal: 2/170]
He also said: “He is Matrook ul-Hadeeth” [Ad-Du’afa by Ukaylee: 209]

2- Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is nothing, don’t write his narrations” [Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 8/1061]

3- Imaam Ibraaheem bin Ya’qoob al-Juzjaani said: “He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth” [Ahwaal ur-Rijaal: 87]

4- Imaam Daraqutni said: “He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth” [as-Sunan: 2/107, ad-Du’afa wal Matrokeen: 528]

5- Imaam Bukhaari said: “He is nothing” [Taareekh al-Kabeer: 7/1477]
He also said: “He is Da’eef, wasted in hadeeth (Dhaahib ul-Hadeeth)” [Al-Illal at-Tirmidhi: 34]

6- Imaam Abu Haatim said: “He is not strong, write his narrations” [al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 8/1061]

7- Imaam Tirmidhi said: “He is not strong according to Ahl al-Hadeeth” [al-Jaami: 985]

8- Imaam Nasaa’ee said: “He is not Thiqah” [ad-Du’afa: 581]

9- Abu Ahmed said: “His ahadeeth especially from Ibraaheem are not followed” [Al-Kaamil: 3/146]

10- Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said: “He commits grave mistakes, he is Katheer ul-Wahem…” [Al-Majroheen: 3/6]

11- Imaam Ibn Hazam said: “He is Saaqit Jiddan, not Thiqah” [al-Muhalla: 6/107]

12- Ibn Hajar said: “He is Da’eef” [Taqreeb]

Secondly, it again, contains Ibraaheem an-Nakha’ee, and it is his Mursal.
As for the chain of Hassan al-Basari, then you did not mention the full chain, Ofcourse you did not hear it directly from Hassan al-Basari, lol

Secondly, Hassan al-Basari is a Mudallis, and his narrations from Ali are also not proven, they are Mursal.


The first chain contains Abdullah bin Muhammad bin al-Mugheerah, who is not clarified. There are two students of Mis’ar with the same name. One’s Kuniyah is Abul Hassan and the other’s kuniyah is Abu Muhammad. If in this chain, it is Abul Muhammad then he is Majhool ul-Haal. And if it is Abul Hassan then he is accused to fabricating ahadeeth. [See: Meezaan ul-I’tidaal: 2/488]

And I don’t know who Muhammad bin al-Abbaas is. Either you need to clarify it or at least mention the source of this chain!!

The second chain again contains Muhammad ash-Shaybaani who is Kadhaab.

The third chain contains Qaboos who is not clarified, because there are two people named Qaboos among the teachers of Jareer. If it is Qaboos bin al-Mukhaariq then the chain is authentic, and if it is Qaboos, the son of Abu Dhibyaan, then the chain is Weak, because Qaboos Ibn Abi Dhibyaan is weak according to the Jumhoor.

1- Imaam Ahmed said: “He is nothing” [al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 7/108]

2- Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth” [Al-Illal wa Ma’rifat ur-Rijaal: 2/119]

3- Imaam Abu Haatim said: “Write his narrations and do not take evidence from him. He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth, Layyin” [Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 7/808]

4- Imaam Nasaa’ee said: “He is not strong” [Ad-Du’afa wal Matrokeen: 695]

5- Imaam Ibn Sa’d said: “There is weakness in him, don’t take evidence from him” [Tabaqaat al-Kubra: 6/339]

6- Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said: “He had bad memory, and he narrated such lone narrations from his father which had no basis, he used to elevate Maraseel (meaning, he would narrate the Mursal narrations as Marfoo)…” [Al-Majroheen: 2/216]

7- Imaam Daraqutni said: “He is Da’eef but not abandoned” [Sawalat al-Barqaani: 418]

8- Ibn Hajar said: “There is weakness in him” [Al-Taqreeb]
Note: If we follow the previous weak chain of Abdullah bin Muhammad bin al-Mugheerah that you mentioned, then the Qaboos mentioned in this chain would most likely be Qaboos Ibn Abi Dhibyaan, because he is the one who narrated this text in another chain. But that chain is Da’eef as well!! So we can’t say for sure.
So this chain is Da’eef due to the unclarification of Qaboos.


Eighth Evidence:
Baraa bin Qays said: I asked Khuzayfah bin Yamaan regarding a man who has touched his private part, so he replied: “This is like touching the head.” [Muwatta Imam Muhammad: Pg 55]

Reply:
This again is from Muhammad bin Hassan, who has been proven to be severely weak and Kadhaab.


Ninth Evidence:
Abu Darda (radiallah anhu) was once asked about touching the private part. So he replied: “It is only a part of your body.” [Muwatta Imaam Muhammad: Pg 58]
Reply:
Firstly: This naration is Mursal. Because the narrator narrating from Abu Darda is Habeeb bin Ubayd. And Imam Abu Haatim has affirmed that the narrations of Habeeb from Abu Darda are Mursal. [Kitaab al-Maraseel: Pg 29]

If someone says that in the published Nuskha of Muwatta, the words “Habeeb AN Ubayd AN Abu Darda” are present, then the answer to it is that it is Tasheef. In the reliable nuskhas, the words “Habeeb bin Ubayd AN Abu Darda” is present. For details see: [At-Ta’leeq al-Mumajjad: 58, 309, and Abkaar al-Munan: Pg 69]

And the author of Muwatta is also Majrooh. So this narration is severely weak.

[al_Zayn]

:salam:

Firstly this is not even an academic response to the narrations, rather this is a filthy attack on the Hanafi heritage. Calling Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani a liar, calling Imam al-A'dham weak, even trying to attack the likes of Ibrahim al-Nakha'i a Tabi'i.

Read these posts made by our Dear Brother Muzzammil Husayn:

Imam Abu Hanifah's Reliability in Narrating Hadith (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?68947-Imam-Abu-Hanifah-s-Reliability-in-Narrating-Hadith)

Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani's Reliability in Narrating Hadith (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?69010-Imam-Muhammad-ibn-al-Hasan-al-Shaybani-s-Reliability-in-Narrating-Hadith/)

As for Ibrahim al-Nakha'i then read Tahzeeb al-Tahzeeb, his narrations will become more clear:

تهذيب التهذيب/حرف الألف (http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA% D9%87%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%81_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81# .D9.85.D9.86_.D8.A7.D8.B3.D9.85.D9.87_.D8.A5.D8.A8 .D8.B1.D8.A7.D9.87.D9.8A.D9.85)

[325] ع الستة إبراهيم بن يزيد بن قيس بن الأسود بن عمرو بن ربيعة بن ذهل النخعي أبو عمران الكوفي الفقيه روى عن خاليه الأسود وعبد الرحمن ابني يزيد ومسروق وعلقمة وأبي معمر وهمام بن الحارث وشريح القاضي وسهم بن منجاب وجماعة وروى عن عائشة ولم يثبت سماعه منها روى عنه الأعمش ومنصور وابن عون وزبيد اليامي وحماد بن سليمان ومغيرة بن مقسم الضبي وخلق قال العجلي رأى عائشة رؤيا وكان مفتي أهل الكوفة وكان رجلا صالحا فقيها متوقيا قليل التكلف ومات وهو مختف من الحجاج وقال الأعمش كان إبراهيم خيرا في الحديث وقال الشعبي ما ترك أحدا أعلم منه وقال بن معين مراسيل إبراهيم أحب إلي من مراسيل الشعبي وقال الأعمش قلت لإبراهيم أسند لي عن بن مسعود فقال إبراهيم إذا حدثتكم عن رجل عن عبد الله فهو الذي سمعت وإذا قلت قال عبد الله فهو عن غير واحد عن عبد الله قال أبو نعيم مات سنة وقال غيره وهو بن سنة وقيل بن قلت وقال أحمد عن حماد بن خالد عن شعبة لم يسمع النخعي من أبي عبد الله الجدلي حديث خزيمة بن ثابت في المسح وفي العلل الكبير للترمذي سمع إبراهيم النخعي حديث أبي عبد الله الجدلي من إبراهيم التيمي والتيمي لم يسمعه منه وقال بن المديني لم يلق النخعي أحدا من أصحاب رسول الله فقلت له فعائشة قال هذا لم يروه غير سعيد بن أبي عروبة عن أبي معشر عن إبراهيم وهو ضعيف وقد رأى أبا جحيفة وزيد بن أرقم وابن أبي أوفى ولم يسمع من بن عباس وقال بن المديني أيضا لم يسمع من الحارث بن قيس ولا من عمرو بن شرحبيل انتهى ورواية سعيد عن أبي معشر ذكرها بن حبان بسند صحيح إلى سعيد عن أبي معشر أن إبراهيم حدثهم أنه دخل على عائشة فرأى عليها ثوبا أحمر وقال بن معين ادخل على عائشة رض ض وهو صغير وقال أبو حاتم لم يلق أحدا من الصحابة إلا عائشة ولم يسمع منها وأدرك أنسا ولم يسمع منه قلت وفي مسند البزار حديث لإبراهيم عن أنس قال البزار لا نعلم إبراهيم أسند عن أنس إلا هذا وقال أبو زرعة النخعي عن علي مرسل وعن سعيد مرسل وقال بن حبان في الثقات مولده سنة 5 ومات بعد موت الحجاج بأربعة أشهر سمع من المغيرة وأنس قلت وهذا عجب من بن حبان يذكر أنه سمع من المغيرة وأن مولده سنة 5 ويذكر في الصحابة أن المغيرة مات سنة 5 فكيف يسمع منه وقال الحافظ أبو سعيد العلائي هو مكثر من الإرسال وجماعة من الأئمة صححوا مراسيله وخص البيهقي ذلك بما أرسله عن بن مسعود

As regards to Imam Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, his integrity and his Riwayat of al-Muwatta' from Imam Malik, al-Dhahabi says: in his Mizan:

ميزان الاعتدال (http://www.kl28.net/knol3/?p=view&post=47389)

7374 - محمد بن الحسن الشيباني، أبو عبد الله.

أحد الفقهاء. لينه النسائي، وغيره من قبل حفظه. يروى عن مالك بن أنس وغيره. وكان من بحور العلم والفقه قويا في مالك

The problem is these Ahlul Hawa couldn't find defects in other narrations of al-Muwatta' (concerning this subject) so they vilify the Imam himself, but the quote of al-Dhahab refutes this.

Regarding Yahya Ibn Ma'een calling him a Kaddhab then this is answered by Brother Muzzammil, please read it.

As for the other narrations, some are weak (but exaggerated by the Ahlul Confused to be fabricated) can be used as Shawaahid.

One can see that was not even an honest Tahqeeq.

Wallahu A'lam.

[mohtashims]

:salam:

Firstly this is not even an academic response to the narrations, rather this is a filthy attack on the Hanafi heritage. Calling Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani a liar, calling Imam al-A'dham weak, even trying to attack the likes of Ibrahim al-Nakha'i a Tabi'i.

Read these posts made by our Dear Brother Muzzammil Husayn:

Imam Abu Hanifah's Reliability in Narrating Hadith (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?68947-Imam-Abu-Hanifah-s-Reliability-in-Narrating-Hadith)

Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani's Reliability in Narrating Hadith (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?69010-Imam-Muhammad-ibn-al-Hasan-al-Shaybani-s-Reliability-in-Narrating-Hadith/)

As for Ibrahim al-Nakha'i then read Tahzeeb al-Tahzeeb, his narrations will become more clear:

تهذيب التهذيب/حرف الألف (http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA% D9%87%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%81_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81# .D9.85.D9.86_.D8.A7.D8.B3.D9.85.D9.87_.D8.A5.D8.A8 .D8.B1.D8.A7.D9.87.D9.8A.D9.85)

[325] ع الستة إبراهيم بن يزيد بن قيس بن الأسود بن عمرو بن ربيعة بن ذهل النخعي أبو عمران الكوفي الفقيه روى عن خاليه الأسود وعبد الرحمن ابني يزيد ومسروق وعلقمة وأبي معمر وهمام بن الحارث وشريح القاضي وسهم بن منجاب وجماعة وروى عن عائشة ولم يثبت سماعه منها روى عنه الأعمش ومنصور وابن عون وزبيد اليامي وحماد بن سليمان ومغيرة بن مقسم الضبي وخلق قال العجلي رأى عائشة رؤيا وكان مفتي أهل الكوفة وكان رجلا صالحا فقيها متوقيا قليل التكلف ومات وهو مختف من الحجاج وقال الأعمش كان إبراهيم خيرا في الحديث وقال الشعبي ما ترك أحدا أعلم منه وقال بن معين مراسيل إبراهيم أحب إلي من مراسيل الشعبي وقال الأعمش قلت لإبراهيم أسند لي عن بن مسعود فقال إبراهيم إذا حدثتكم عن رجل عن عبد الله فهو الذي سمعت وإذا قلت قال عبد الله فهو عن غير واحد عن عبد الله قال أبو نعيم مات سنة وقال غيره وهو بن سنة وقيل بن قلت وقال أحمد عن حماد بن خالد عن شعبة لم يسمع النخعي من أبي عبد الله الجدلي حديث خزيمة بن ثابت في المسح وفي العلل الكبير للترمذي سمع إبراهيم النخعي حديث أبي عبد الله الجدلي من إبراهيم التيمي والتيمي لم يسمعه منه وقال بن المديني لم يلق النخعي أحدا من أصحاب رسول الله فقلت له فعائشة قال هذا لم يروه غير سعيد بن أبي عروبة عن أبي معشر عن إبراهيم وهو ضعيف وقد رأى أبا جحيفة وزيد بن أرقم وابن أبي أوفى ولم يسمع من بن عباس وقال بن المديني أيضا لم يسمع من الحارث بن قيس ولا من عمرو بن شرحبيل انتهى ورواية سعيد عن أبي معشر ذكرها بن حبان بسند صحيح إلى سعيد عن أبي معشر أن إبراهيم حدثهم أنه دخل على عائشة فرأى عليها ثوبا أحمر وقال بن معين ادخل على عائشة رض ض وهو صغير وقال أبو حاتم لم يلق أحدا من الصحابة إلا عائشة ولم يسمع منها وأدرك أنسا ولم يسمع منه قلت وفي مسند البزار حديث لإبراهيم عن أنس قال البزار لا نعلم إبراهيم أسند عن أنس إلا هذا وقال أبو زرعة النخعي عن علي مرسل وعن سعيد مرسل وقال بن حبان في الثقات مولده سنة 5 ومات بعد موت الحجاج بأربعة أشهر سمع من المغيرة وأنس قلت وهذا عجب من بن حبان يذكر أنه سمع من المغيرة وأن مولده سنة 5 ويذكر في الصحابة أن المغيرة مات سنة 5 فكيف يسمع منه وقال الحافظ أبو سعيد العلائي هو مكثر من الإرسال وجماعة من الأئمة صححوا مراسيله وخص البيهقي ذلك بما أرسله عن بن مسعود

As regards to Imam Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, his integrity and his Riwayat of al-Muwatta' from Imam Malik, al-Dhahabi says: in his Mizan:

ميزان الاعتدال (http://www.kl28.net/knol3/?p=view&post=47389)

7374 - محمد بن الحسن الشيباني، أبو عبد الله.

أحد الفقهاء. لينه النسائي، وغيره من قبل حفظه. يروى عن مالك بن أنس وغيره. وكان من بحور العلم والفقه قويا في مالك

The problem is these Ahlul Hawa couldn't find defects in other narrations of al-Muwatta' (concerning this subject) so they vilify the Imam himself, but the quote of al-Dhahab refutes this.

Regarding Yahya Ibn Ma'een calling him a Kaddhab then this is answered by Brother Muzzammil, please read it.

As for the other narrations, some are weak (but exaggerated by the Ahlul Confused to be fabricated) can be used as Shawaahid.

One can see that was not even an honest Tahqeeq.



I am yet to reach out to him, before that I would like to clarify the response.

You said, Your Quote:


Regarding Yahya Ibn Ma'een calling him a Kaddhab then this is answered by Brother Muzzammil, please read it.


Firstly I see no link there --> "please read it". Secondly, Can you point where is the Jarh on "Yahya Ibn Ma'een" regards calling him Kaddhab in my post ?

I do not get the same arabic font as yours. What needs to be done to have the same Arabic font as yours in my post ?

Also if you could translate the Arabic Quote to english for my sake.

Jazak Bro.

[al_Zayn]

Firstly I see no link there --> "please read it". Secondly, Can you point where is the Jarh on "Yahya Ibn Ma'een" regards calling him Kaddhab in my post ?

It is in the the link at the beginning

Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani's Reliability in Narrating Hadith (http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?69010-Imam-Muhammad-ibn-al-Hasan-al-Shaybani-s-Reliability-in-Narrating-Hadith/)



I do not get the same arabic font as yours. What needs to be done to have the same Arabic font as yours in my post ?

I just increase my size to no. 5.


Also if you could translate the Arabic Quote to english for my sake.

Jazak Bro.

The quote from Tahzeeb has three relevant quotes which i highlighted regarding Ibarhim al-Nakha'i. The first is Yahya Ibn Ma'een's, which says the mursal narrations of Ibrahim al-Nakha'i are beloved to him than the mursal narrations of Sha'bi. the next quote quotes Ibrahim al-Nakha'i himself saying when he narrates from Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud directly without mentioning the intermediate person in between (because he didn't meet Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud), it is because he heard this saying from more than one companions of Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud - so he gives his own Usool. The third saying is that of Hafiz Abu Sa'eed al-'Alaa'i who said that Ibrahim narrates many Mursal narration and the jamaa'ah from the A'immah accept / authenticate his mursal narrations.

As you can see the Ahlul confused will only quote that which suits themselves leaving out relevant material.

Wallahu A'lam

[mohtashims]

Fifth Evidence:
Qays said that a man asked Sa’d (radiallah anhu) about touching the private part, so he said: “If you think that it is an impure part of your body, then cut it off.” [Musannad Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 164]

This Athar is Da’eef because it contains Ismaa’eel bin Abi Khaalid, who is a Mudallis and is narrating with AN.

Imaam Nasaa’ee mentioned him in his book of Mudalliseen. [Pg 122]
Imaam al-‘Alaai mentioned him among the Mudallis narrators. [Jaami al-Tahseel: 105]
Moreover, Abu Zur’ah ibn al-Iraaqi (3), As-Suyooti (Pg 3), al-Halbi (Pg 14), Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, and ad-Dameeni have included him among the Mudallis narrators.

[al_Zayn]

Fifth Evidence:
Qays said that a man asked Sa’d (radiallah anhu) about touching the private part, so he said: “If you think that it is an impure part of your body, then cut it off.” [Musannad Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 164]

This Athar is Da’eef because it contains Ismaa’eel bin Abi Khaalid, who is a Mudallis and is narrating with AN.

Imaam Nasaa’ee mentioned him in his book of Mudalliseen. [Pg 122]
Imaam al-‘Alaai mentioned him among the Mudallis narrators. [Jaami al-Tahseel: 105]
Moreover, Abu Zur’ah ibn al-Iraaqi (3), As-Suyooti (Pg 3), al-Halbi (Pg 14), Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, and ad-Dameeni have included him among the Mudallis narrators.

:salam:

It seems this refutation to the narration wasn't in the original compilation translated by Raza Hassan, and someone later tried to clutch at straws! Otherwise this was their original argument:


Reply:

The narration on the invalidation of wudoo’ is also proven from Sa’d. His son, Mus’ab, said that: “I used to pick the Quraan up for Sa’d bin Abi Waqas to read from it. One day I itched, so Sa’d (radiallah anhu) said: I think you have touched your private part. I said: Yes! So Sa’d (radiallah anhu) said: Get up and do wudoo’. So I got up performed wudoo and came back.”
[Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Baab al-wudu min mas al-faraj, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 163].

This athar is also narrated by the Imaam of Ahnaaf, Muhammad bin al-Hassan in his al-Muwatta (Pg 50). Imam Tahawi has narrated the words “thus he ordered me to do wudoo” in Sharh Ma’ani ul-Athaar: Vol 1 Pg 58].

As you can see it's very lame.

Here is the narration in Sharh al-Ma'ani of al-Tahawi:

شرح معاني الآثار للطحاوي (http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?indexstartno=0&hflag=1&pid=77708&bk_no=379&startno=22)

رقم الحديث:298

(حديث موقوف) حَدَّثَنَا حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ خُزَيْمَةَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ رَجَاءٍ ، قَالَ : أَنْبَأَنَا زَائِدَةُ ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ أَبِي خَالِدٍ ، عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ أَبِي حَازِمٍ ، قَالَ : " سُئِلَ سَعْدٌ عَنْ مَسِّ الذَّكَرِ ، فَقَالَ : إِنْ كَانَ نَجِسًا فَاقْطَعْهُ لا بَأْسَ بِهِ "

The narrator إسماعيل بن أبي خالد (as mentioned) is from the 2nd Tabaqah which means his Tadlis is accepted, that is why Hafiz Ibn Hajr's entry of him in Tahzeeb is just full of praises for this person:

تهذيب التهذيب (http://ar.wikisource.org/wiki/%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA% D9%87%D8%B0%D9%8A%D8%A8/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%81_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%84%D9%81# .D9.85.D9.86_.D8.A7.D8.B3.D9.85.D9.87_.D8.A5.D8.B3 .D9.85.D8.A7.D8.B9.D9.8A.D9.84)

[543] ع الستة إسماعيل بن أبي خالد الأحمسي مولاهم روى عن أبيه وأبي جحيفة وعبد الله بن أبي أوفى وعمرو بن حريث وأبي كاهل وهؤلاء صحابة وعن زيد بن وهب ومحمد بن سعد وأبي بكر بن عمارة بن رويبة وقيس بن أبي حازم وأكثر عنه وشبيل بن عوف وابنه والحارث بن شبيل وطارق بن شهاب والشعبي وغيرهم من كبار التابعين وعن جماعة من أقرانه وعن إخوته أشعث وخالد وسعيد والنعمان وغيرهم وعنه شعبة والسفيانان وزائدة وابن المبارك وهشيم ويحيى القطان ويزيد بن هارون وعبيد الله بن موسى وهو آخر ثقة حدث عنه ويحيى بن هاشم السمسار أحد المتروكين وهو آخر من حدث عنه مطلقا قال بن المبارك عن الثوري حفاظ الناس ثلاثة إسماعيل وعبد الملك بن أبي سليمان ويحيى بن سعيد الأنصاري وهو يعني إسماعيل أعلم الناس بالشعبي وأثبتهم فيه وقال مروان بن معاوية كان إسماعيل يسمى الميدان وقال على قلت ليحيى بن سعيد ما حملت عن إسماعيل عن الشعبي صحاح قال نعم وقال البخاري عن علي له نحو ثلاثمائة حديث وقال أحمد أصح الناس حديثا عن الشعبي بن أبي خالد وقال بن مهدي وابن معين والنسائي ثقة وقال بن عمار الموصلي حجة وقال العجلي كوفي تابعي ثقة وكان طحانا وقال يعقوب بن أبي شيبة كان ثقة ثبتا وقال أبو حاتم لا أقدم عليه أحدا من أصحاب الشعبي وهو ثقة قال البخاري عن أبي نعيم مات سنة 146 وقال الخطيب حدث عنه الحكم بن عتيبة ويحيى بن هاشم وبين وفاتيهما نحو من مائة وعشر سنين قلت وروى أيضا عن أبي عمرو الشيباني سعد بن إياس وقال بن حبان في الثقات كان شيخا صالحا مات سنة خمس أو ست وأربعين وقال علي بن المديني رأى أنسا رؤية ولم يسمع منه ولم يسمع من إبراهيم التيمي ولم يرو عن أبي وائل شيئا وقال بن معين لم يسمع من أبي ظبيان وقال مسلم في الوحدان تفرد عن جماعة وسردهم وقال يعقوب بن سفيان كان أميا حافظا ثقة وقال هشيم كان إسماعيل فحش اللحن كان يقول حدثني فلان عن أبوه وقال الآجري سألت أبا داود هل سمع من سعد بن عبيدة قال لا أعلمه وقال بن عيينة كان أقدم طلبا وأحفط للحديث من الأعمش وقال العجلي كان ثبتا في الحديث وربما أرسل الشيء عن الشعبي وإذا وقف أخبر وكان صاحب سنة وكان حديثه نحو خمسمائة حديث وكان لا يروي إلا عن ثقة وحكى بن أبي خيثمة في تاريخه عن يحيى بن سعيد قال مرسلات بن أبي خالد ليست بشيء وقال أبو نعيم في ترجمة داود الطائي في الحلية أدرك إسماعيل أثنى عشر نفسا من الصحابة منهم من سمع منه ومنهم من رآه رؤية

(i will summarise it for you tomorrow)

Furthermore this narration has shawaahid (despite not needing it) mentioned in Kitab al-Aathar of Imam Muhammad with his chain from Imam Abu Hanifah, Hammad, Ibrahim (al-Nakha'i), from Ibn Mas'ud:

الآثار لمحمد بن الحسن الشيباني (http://www.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?indexstartno=0&hflag=1&pid=6195&bk_no=32&startno=1)

رقم الحديث: 21

(حديث موقوف) أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو حَنِيفَةَ ، عَنْ حَمَّادٍ ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، أَنَّ ابْنَ مَسْعُودٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ ، سُئِلَ عَنِ الْوُضُوءِ مِنْ مَسِّ الذَّكَرِ ، فَقَالَ : " إِنْ كَانَ نَجِسًا فَاقْطَعْهُ ، يَعْنِي : أَنَّهُ لا بَأْسَ بِهِ " .

Or are they going to say hurl the same deceit again? that Imam Muhammad is Kazzab etc etc etc? Such Ta'assub Subhan-Allah.

[mohtashims]

Jazak Brother Zayn,

Yes, his name is Omair Hanifa, he has some knowledge of hadith and he is linked to IRF / IRFC groups.

My i am naive in this field and all i try is to reach out to you guys for help. Haqforum entertains "Urdu" language more than "English".

This should be a one time effort inshallah and it would be preserved on sunniforum, however I would request you brother Al_Zayn and others to build a blog with such acedemics that is bieng discussed here.

As traversing a forum like this may have many unwanted posts in between.

Your help has been amazing so far. Also, if you could give me some book in english so that I can understand the words used in Hadith like "Tabaqah" & "Tadlis"

[The Fake Shaykh]

Jazak Brother Zayn,

Yes, his name is Omair Hanifa, he has some knowledge of hadith and he is linked to IRF / IRFC groups.

My i am naive in this field and all i try is to reach out to you guys for help. Haqforum entertains "Urdu" language more than "English".

This should be a one time effort inshallah and it would be preserved on sunniforum, however I would request you brother Al_Zayn and others to build a blog with such acedemics that is bieng discussed here.

As traversing a forum like this may have many unwanted posts in between.

Your help has been amazing so far. Also, if you could give me some book in english so that I can understand the words used in Hadith like "Tabaqah" & "Tadlis"

also known as "mohamed umair salafi"?

brother mohtasims are you linked to the "salafiya islamic centre kanpur"?

[al_Zayn]

Whoever this dude is, he lacks knowledge, and what is apparent is that he is a Muta'assib.

His hatred for the Ahnaf and their Imams is visible!

Br Mohtashim, to understand some of these technical terms get your hands on a basic book explaining these terminology, like "Introduction to al-Hadith" in English by Dr Rafiq Ahmed it's really basic and explains it well. There should be a translation of Ibn Hajr's Nukhbah on-line somewhere for download try searching for it (Nukhbah al-Fikr) that is really good too.

:ws:

[mohtashims]

also known as "mohamed umair salafi"?

brother mohtasims are you linked to the "salafiya islamic centre kanpur"?

There is a distribution email group called ""discuss_islam_the_religion@ yahoogroups.com" <discuss_islam_the_religion@yahoogroups.com>, " to which one of the Ghair Mukallid had subscribed me to inorder for me to get hidayat" :P. Members of this group often target professionals for they want the educated cream of the ummah to be of their manhaj.

The Ghair Mukallid brother's name is "omair.shafiuddin@gmail.com"

I often recieve anti-Deoband, anti-Tabligh Jamat and anti-Ahnaf emails from members of this email group.

That is when I ring "Sunniforum" and seek your help.

Do we have any such email distribution group that have technical guys (in terms of Quran and Hadees) ? If so, please share.

[al_Zayn]

There is a distribution email group called ""discuss_islam_the_religion@ yahoogroups.com" <discuss_islam_the_religion@yahoogroups.com>, " to which one of the Ghair Mukallid had subscribed me to inorder for me to get hidayat" :P. Members of this group often target professionals for they want the educated cream of the ummah to be of their manhaj.

The Ghair Mukallid brother's name is "omair.shafiuddin@gmail.com"

I often recieve anti-Deoband, anti-Tabligh Jamat and anti-Ahnaf emails from members of this email group.

That is when I ring "Sunniforum" and seek your help.

Do we have any such email distribution group that have technical guys (in terms of Quran and Hadees) ? If so, please share.

These guys are rookies. If your on FB there are a lot of brothers combating these pseudo "Salafis / Ahle Confused", Wallah even the "proper" Salafis don't want to associate themselves with them and run a mile, there are Alhamdulillah very knowledgeable brothers on FB.

[mohtashims]

Jazak Brother Zayn,
Can you give me the contact name on Facebook of our brother so i can even seek thier help. Also, I am awaiting your detailed response post which we will proceed with t he rest of the article.

[mohtashims]

These guys are rookies. If your on FB there are a lot of brothers combating these pseudo "Salafis / Ahle Confused", Wallah even the "proper" Salafis don't want to associate themselves with them and run a mile, there are Alhamdulillah very knowledgeable brothers on FB.

and


(i will summarise it for you tomorrow).

Can you please update us on these, post which I will inshallah proceed with the article.

You have been quiet a help !!!