Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Question to Abul Hassan about his post "Tawassul according to Shawkani..."

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    None
    Posts
    116

    Default Question to Abul Hassan about his post "Tawassul according to Shawkani..."

    I saw that the Hanafi member of this forum, Abul Hassan has put some scans on Shawkani, Nawab Sahib, Waheedu Zaman, and Sahsawani and others, so I would like to ask him the names of authors of these books quoting them, if he would havd kindness to, that would be very usefull to know authors ?

    Also just to tell people, for Ahlul Hadeeth, there is no taqleed of Qadhi Shawkanee or others, and there saying are not hujjah only Shar'i daleel are Hujjah, but for Muqalid, the saying of their Imam is wajib on them and they cannot leave it.

    So one can wonder why in Bahisti Zewar it is said 'Aqeeqah is Sunnah, and in Alamgiri it is said Abu Haneefah rejected 'aqeeqah saying it was a tradition of Jahiliyah ?

    So why do they leave the saying of their Imam that is a hujjah for them ?

    Secondly, which Ahlul Hadeeth said that Tawassul with actions was shirk or kufr ?


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    None
    Posts
    116

    Default

    I saw that the majhool author for the moment of paper put by Abul Hassan attributes that Tawassul on grave is shirk for ibn Utheymeen and others.

    First, I would just like to know the author of this book who said that this is the madhab of Ghayr Muqalideen. And it is well known that position of three or four scholars of Ahlul Hadeeth fro India is not the madhab of all scholars, Allamah Mubarakpuree in Tuhfatul Ahwazee after quoting Shawkanee on Tawassul with dhat of someone rejected this and followed Shaykhul Islam, and Allamah Ropuree has a risalah called " Du'a bi Haqq Fulan" where he also rejects that.

    So quoting one or two scholar from Ahlul Hadeeth and saying it is their madhab, then is it fair ?

    If Ahlul Hadeeth said we are muqalid of Shawkanee or Nawab, then it would be fair, but you can see in their books how they reject some of their opinions, it is even said in 'Awn Ma'bood that saying of Shawkani of someone who does not pray Jumu'ah should pray two Rak'ah and not four is Batil.

    So where is fairness and impartial criticism gone ?

    Same way, A deobandi Mufi Mahdi Hassan some years later wrote a risalah against Ahlul Hadeeth and by quoting some fatawa of Nawab or Ghazipuree said it is the madhab of ghayr Muqalideen, while on these cases, it is in many cases only their opinion, and not madhab of Ahlul Hadeeth.

    If we were to quote some wrong fatawa from some Hanafi books ( writing Fatihah with urine for cure) and we said that it is the madhab of Ahnaaf, would it be fair ?

    And yet Mahdi Hassan balmed Ahlul Hadeeth for some of them say to pray Jumu'ah before Zawal, and it is madhab of Ahmad, some of them say about nikah with daughter of Zina and that is madhab of Shafii, some said about purity of Khamr ( not Halal) and it is madhab of Layth ibn Sa'd, and many other attacks like there is no Zakah on jewels that is madhab of Jumhoor and they even have some narrations of Aishah and ibn Umar...

    And same time Deobandi say all Imam are bar Haqq, so what is the crime of Ahlul Hadeeth.

    Is following any Imam from Salaf a crime ?

    About the majhool author of this paper on Tawassul and ghayr Muqalideen, then who is he ?

    And it is known that generally muqalidoon from India and Pakistan call Ahlul Hadeeth ghayr Muqalid, so is the author of the book Hanafi or Deobandi ?

    Is he a thiqqah scholar, why was his identity hidden ?


  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    None
    Posts
    116

    Default

    The Majhool man whose scanned were put on this forum.

    And the Sayid Muhammad Basheer Sahsawani said in his book Syanatul Insan min Waswasati shaykh Dahlan and he was talking about permissible and non permissible forms of Tawassul :

    Third : That one does tawassul with the Prophet saw with his tasdeeq on his risalah.

    Sixth : That one does tawassul with Salah on Nabi saw

    Eighth : That one asks Allah near graves of Saliheen believing that Dua near graves is answered

    This is the Tawassul of Ghayr Muqalideen


    And this Majhool man said in note of point eight : And these three forms of Tawassul are permissible for him ( Sahsawani)


    While when one opens Syanatul Insan, one can read :

    Eighth : That one asks Allah near graves of Saliheen believing that Dua near graves is answered

    Ninth : That one says near grave of a Nabi or a Salih : Ya Saydi Fulan, invoke Allah or similarly.

    And these two categories, there is no doubt for scholars that it is not permissible, and they are from innovations that Salaf did not do, although Salam on graves is permissible

    So Allamah Sahsawani placed eighth category among innovations, and he said at the end "although Salam on graves is permissible", so it means that asking near grave or Sahib of grave, this is not permissible, only Salam is.

    One can see that even for seven point, that is Dua with Haqq of somebody and Jah, then Sahsawani said it was better to avoid it, quoted from Jala ul Aynayn and others from Hanafi scholars to say Abu Haneefah was against that, and Sahsawani answered to daleel of Qadhee Shawkanee.

    So his answers to Qadhee Shawkanee are clear that this kinds of tawassul is not proven for him.

    So after point seven, it was beginning of forbidden forms of Tawassul.

    As for Tawassul with Tasdeeq on Prophet saw and Salah on him, then it is Tawassul with ones actions so there is nothing wrong in it and Salafee agree to it.

    And Basheer Sahsawanee is famous for his three Risalah written against Luknawee and Basheer Qanooji, and they had books written against each other on topics of Zyarah of grave of Prophet saw and Istishfa there.

    Basheer Sahsawanee wrote Mathab Al Mathoor and Luknawee under name of Sa'ee Mashkoor gave an answer.

    And these books are in urdu...

    And Syanatul Insan is available for any body on the net to check, Sahab.org or Saiid.net


    About Taqleed also, what is shoking for Muqaliddon is they say tha leaving saying of their Imam is tawheen of him, he might know that hadeeth we do istidlal with to leave is madhab are abrogated, his nadhar is Wasee, so we should not leave his saying.

    Then why do you do tawheen of you Imam by doing 'aqeeqah. Maybe the ahadeeth of 'aqeeqah are abrogated.

    Luknawee said that these ahadeeth on 'aqeeqah might not have reached Imam Abu Haneefah.

    So why do these people do tawheen of their Imam ?

    Why do they turn to saying of Saheebayn as for Musaqat as told in Hidayah that qawl muftee bihi is that of Saheebayn ?

    Maybe the ahadeeth used by Saheebayn are abrogated ?

    May Allah save us from blind taqleed.


  4. #4
    Scholar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Ya Abu Alqama, O debased Abuser who calls me a Quburi and al-Marisi - as a saying goes - Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. So let the reader beware that this Lahori12 is none other than one who has posted here before under various screen names with the same old broken and gramatically flawed english. He was banned here before and he has been allowed to post again - unlike us - who once banned from his ah ya.org forum are banned for life after no warning!

    Anyway, those scans are not by my handiwork but someone else copied them and sent them via email. I have no knowledge of the so called majhul author who quoted them in his book.

    Besides, i never said that Tawassul is approved by all Ghayr Muqallid Ulama - all it was intended to show was that some of those from your pathless school of thought had approved of Tawassul in the past.


    As for the Siyana of Sahsawani - i don't have a copy at hand so if you think that he has been misquoted or distortion has taken place then quote in arabic and english everything he said from point no. 1 right down to the last point of the various categories he discussed. I don't trust some of these dodgy download copies from pseudo-Salafi sites for I have seen them tamper with classical works when they uploaded some works. So make sure it is a printed original copy. If you can show that he has been misquoted - I will take down that scan as fairness and justice is our best policy bi-idhnillahi ta'ala.


    And I did see at your forum of fitna and fasad the claim of one of your people who you think is a fake - "Salafist" say in politeness to you the following:

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

    What you pointed out does not make much sense or show what Shaykh Basheer intended - especially since you did not quote what Shaykh Basheer said exactly. What did he say in point 4,5 and 7 precisely?

    As for this point above from your translation:


    ---------
    Sixth : That one does tawassul with Salah on Nabi saw

    Eighth : That one asks Allah near graves of Saliheen believing that Dua near graves is answered

    -----------

    Did the Shaykh say clearly that no. 6 and 7 is not allowed? What is point no. 7 about?


    You then also quoted:


    Eighth : That one asks Allah near graves of Saliheen believing that Dua near graves is answered

    Ninth : That one says near grave of a Nabi or a Salih : Ya Saydi Fulan, invoke Allah or similarly.

    And these two categories, there is no doubt for scholars that it is not permissible, and they are from innovations that Salaf did not do, although Salam on graves is permissible

    ------

    Point 9 seems to show his mention of TWO POINTS: "Nabi or Salih" - meaning his refereence that the style of Tawassul in point no. 9 is not permissible and from innovations. I can't see how that last quote is then linked to no. 8 - which doesn't mention Tawassul but merely coming to the graves of the pious and that one asks Allah alone with the hope that the du'a is accepted in those places where the Salihin are buried.

    Now, i can't see why that majhul author whose scan was placed by Abul Hasan is wrong in his claim that Shaykh Basheer had no problem with no. 8. Unless you can quote Shaykh Basheer clearly saying no. 8 is shirk/haram/bid'a etc. It is as I can see that point. 8 and no. 9 are not related and Shaykh Basheer when he spoke of the two categories was referring to the two categories he mentioned specifically in point no. 9 alone.

    The whole picture can only be clarified if points 1 right down to the end are mentioned in english and arabic for all to see.

    Looking at point no. 8 again:


    ------
    Eighth : That one asks Allah near graves of Saliheen believing that Dua near graves is answered


    ----------

    If this is shirk and a bid'a that no one from al-Salaf did then why did Imaam al-Dhahabee say this in his Siyar a'lam an-Nubala -



    المُجَلَّدُ السَّابِعَ عَشَرَ >> الطَّبقةُ الثَّانِيَةُ وَالعِشْرُونَ >> 41-ابْنُ لاَلٍ، أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَحْمَدُ بنُ عَلِيِّ بنِ أَحْمَدَ الهَمَذَانِيُّ

    الشَّيْخُ، الإِمَامُ، الفَقِيْهُ، المُحَدِّثُ، أَبُو بَكْرٍ أَحْمَدُ بنُ عَلِيِّ بنِ أَحْمَدَ بنِ مُحَمَّدِ بنِ الفَرَجِ بنِ لاَلٍ الهَمَذَانِيُّ، الشَّافِعِيُّ.
    حَدَّثَ عَنْ:أَبِيهِ، وَالقَاسِمِ بن أَبِي صَالِحٍ، وَعَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ الجَلاَّب، وَعَبْدِ اللهِ بن أَحْمَدَ الزَّعْفَرَانِيّ، وَإِسْمَاعِيْل الصَّفَّار، وَعَلِيِّ بن الفَضْلِ السُّتُوْرِي، وَأَبِي سَعِيْدٍ بنِ الأَعْرَابِيّ، وَأَبِي نَصْرٍ مُحَمَّدِ بن حَمْدُوَيْه المَرْوَزِيّ، وَحَفْصِ بن عُمَرَ الأَرْدَبيلِيّ، وَعَبْدِ اللهِ بن عُمَرَ بنِ شَوْذَب، وَخَلْقٍ كَثِيْر.
    وَلَهُ رحلَةٌ وَحفظٌ وَمَعْرِفَةٌ.
    حَدَّثَ عَنْهُ:جَعْفَرُ بنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الأَبْهَرِيّ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بنُ عِيْسَى الصُّوْفِيّ، وَحُمَيْدُ بنُ المَأْمُوْنِ، وَأَبُو مَسْعُوْد أَحْمَدُ بنُ مُحَمَّدٍ البَجَلِيّ، وَأَحْمَدُ بنُ عِيْسَى بنِ عَبَّاد، وَأَبُو الفَرَجِ عَبْدُ الحَمِيْدِ بنُ الحَسَنِ، وَآخَرُوْنَ.
    وَكَانَ إِمَاماً مُفَنّناً.
    قَالَ شِيْرَوَيْه:كَانَ ثِقَةً، أَوْحَدَ زمَانِهِ، مُفْتِي البَلَد، وَلَهُ مُصَنَّفَاتٌ فِي علومِ الحَدِيْثِ، غَيْر أَنَّهُ كَانَ مَشْهُوْراً بِالفِقْه.
    قَالَ:وَرَأَيْتُ لَهُ كِتَاب(السُّنَن)، وَ(مُعْجَم الصَّحَابَة)، مَا رَأَيْتُ أَحْسَنَ مِنْهُ، وَالدُّعَاءُ عِنْد قَبْرِهِ مُسْتَجَابٌ وُلِدَ سَنَةَ ثَمَانٍ وَثَلاَثِ مائَةٍ، وَمَاتَ فِي رَبِيْعٍ الآخِرِ، سَنَة ثَمَانٍ وَتِسْعِيْنَ وَثَلاَثِ مائَةٍ.(17/77)
    وَقَالَ الحَسَنُ بنُ عَلِيِّ بنِ بُنْدَار الرَّنْجَانِيّ الفَرَضِيّ:مَا رَأَيْتُ قَطُّ مِثْلَ ابْنِ لاَل-رَحِمَهُ اللهُ-.
    قُلْتُ:وَالدُّعَاءُ مُسْتَجَاب عِنْد قُبُوْر الأَنْبِيَاء وَالأَوْلِيَاء، وَفِي سَائِر البِقَاع، لَكِن سَبَبُ الإِجَابَة حُضُورُ الدَّاعِي، وَخُشُوعُهُ وَابتِهَاله، وَبلاَ رَيْبٍ فِي البقعَةِ المُبَارَكَة، وَفِي المَسْجَدِ، وَفِي السَّحَر، وَنَحْوِ ذَلِكَ، يَتَحَصَّلُ ذَلِكَ للدَاعِي كَثِيْراً، وَكُلُّ مُضطر فَدُعَاؤُه مُجَابٌ


    Also-

    Siyar alam an Nubala 9/343-344

    وقد استجيب دعاء معروف في غير قضية، وأفرد الامام أبو الفرج بن الجوزي مناقب معروف في أربع كراريس قال عبيد بن محمد الوراق: مر معروف، وهو صائم بسقاء يقول: رحم الله من شرب، فشرب رجاء الرحمة. وقد حكى أبو عبد الرحمن السلمي شيئا غير صحيح، وهو أن معروفا الكرخي كان يحجب علي بن موسى الرضى، قال: فكسروا ضلع معروف، فمات، فلعل الرضى، كان له حاجب اسمه معروف، فوافق اسمع اسم زاهد العراق. وعن إبراهيم الحربي قال: قبر معروف الترياق المجرب. يريد
    إجابة دعاء المضطر عنده لان البقاع المباركة يستجاب عندها الدعاء، كما أن الدعاء في السحر مرجو، ودبر المكتوبات، وفي المساجد، بل دعاء المضطر مجاب في أي مكان اتفق، اللهم إني مضطر إلى العفو، فاعف عني.


    What is your verdict on Imaam al-Dhahabee?


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

    And "Salafist" did corner you when you failed to declare Imam al-Nawawi a QUBURI - when you failed to respond to this bit adequately:

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Abu Alqama
    This is taken from former question asked by a brother on this forum, and brother Abu Khuzaymah Imran Ma'soom ansered it.

    Allamah Nawawi [ra] has mentioned that from among the etiquettes of visiting the grave of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] one should make Tawassul through Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam] to Allah Taala to accept his Duaas. Thereafter, Allamah Nawawi states, and one of the best things that one should do is what has been related by Allaamah al-Mawardi [ra], al-Qaadhi Abu Teeb [ra] and all our Ulama and they have all regarded it as commendable, and that is the incident of Imaam al-Utbi [ra] that he said, I was once seated by the grave of Rasulullah [sallallaahu alayhi wasallam], when a Bedouin came and said, Peace be upon you, oh, Messenger of Allah. O Messenger of Allah, I have heard Almighty Allah say in the Quraan And if they, when they had been unjust to themselves, had come to you (Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and begged Allahs forgiveness and the messenger had begged forgiveness for them, indeed they would have found Allah All-Forgiving. Most merciful.(Al-Nisaa:64) hence, I have come to you in a state that I seek forgiveness of my sins by seeking your intercession by my Lord, thereafter he recited a few couplets and departed. Imaam al-Utabi [ra] states, I then fell asleep and I saw Rasulullah [sallallahu alayhi wasallam] instructing me by the words, O Utbi, go to that Bedouin and give him the glad tidings that Almighty Allah has forgiven him. (Refer al-Majmoo vol.8 pg.456 Cairo and Manaasikul-Imaam-Al-Nawawi pg.498-499 Maktabah Salafia).


    "Salafist" cornered you by saying:

    --------

    Ajeeb Jiddan Ya Abu Alqama. Even though the narration has no sound sanad what was presented from al-Nawawi shows clearly as i highlighted that all of the Shafi'i Ulama said it was commendable to act on such a practice attributed to al-Utbi!

    Now i can't see what is your objective in just showing the weakness of this narration alone - when it is clear that al-Nawawee has no problem with what you have declared absolutely a form of Grave worship. With fairness, is not al-Nawawee a Quboori? Doesn't Ibn Qudama have a similar line of argument as al-Nawawee in al-Mughnee?

    That's the only conclusion i can gather from your previous posts.


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

    So it is clear to me that Abu Alqama/Lahori 12 has no choice except that he must affirm that Imam al-Nawawi was a Quburi! As well as other classical Ulama. Unless he shows why it shouldn't be the case for him!

    BTW - Abu Khuzayma/Abu Hibban distorted against al-Haythami as I showed about a year ago when you posted here before - and you didn't attack them for that! Just as they lied against Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal by claiming that the Imam placed his hands on the chest in Salah! Subhanallah.

    Lahawla wala quwwata illa billah.
    Last edited by Abul Hasan; 13-07-2006 at 01:10 PM.




  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    None
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Allamah Basheer Sahsawani said p 172 of dowloaded version :

    I say : The maqsood from dua forbidden at graves is the dua that one does Zyarah for it and he thinks that Dua at grave is answered

    So Sahsawani Sahib clearly said that this kind of dua is forbidden.

    P 178, he answered some doubts of some Malikiyah

    I say : I knew from what has preceded that Imam Malik said in narration of ibn Wahb : When he does Salam on the Prophet saw and he does dua and stands while his face is towards the grave not the Qiblah then his saying in this narration : he does Salam and dua then Dua can mean the dua of Prophet saw like dua at zyarah of graves and all believers, and it is dua for them with Qasdand for himself follwing thatthis is not denied by any Muslim as it has preceded.

    If the meaning of Malikiyah is that kind of dua, then there is no conflict, but if it is dua that one does zyarah for it, and he belives that dua at grave is answered, and that it is better than dua in mosquesthen it is opposing what is narrated from their Imam with Saheeh Sanad : I do not see to stay on grave and do dua, one should give Salam and leave it is quoted by Simail ibn Ishaq in Mabsoot

    So this is a clarification of Sahsawani's position.

    As for Abul Hassan, then I will give me identity if he tells his full name and wether he is the author of Albani unveiled, as well wether he is from India or Bangladesh.


  6. #6
    Scholar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lahori12

    As for Abul Hassan, then I will give me identity if he tells his full name and wether he is the author of Albani unveiled, as well wether he is from India or Bangladesh.
    It is not required for us to know your identity further unless you deny that you are Abu Alqama Hassan Ali Khan of Lahore. As for your question about my bio-data then this is known already to those who have followed some of my pdf attachments here. Anyway, i have an even better suggestion to show who I am and what is my background etc:

    Tell your friend Zulfiqaar Ali at ah ya.org who thinks he knows me and claims to have pictures of the said author against al-Albani to contact me, then arrange a meeting with myself and my students in London. Let him bring those pictures he claims to possess with his witnesses so that i can show him my birth certificate and then he can tell you if I am from whatever country he claims I am from and so on. This will cut out for sure all the guess work and lies that your friends have portrayed at ahwa.org against me with the most childish thread headings in the section attacking Asha'ira.

    You people are a serious disgrace to the so called Salafi sect - because i never saw the likes of al-Albani, Bin Baz et al play these low life games - How for your likes. Truly, you have become a laughing stock just as Zubair Ali has become to a section of those pseudo-Salafiyya in the UK who now despise him.

    Of course, if you fail on that request - then get some other friends of yours to establish contact with me so they can see my face and credentials. You can then stop your guesswork if you have any shred of decency and fairness in your bones when you care to take up this simple request. Or do you wish to keep guessing with further lies?

    ------

    Anyway, let us move on a little. Abu Alqama took as a reference in expose of al-Kawthari - the Moroccan Sayyid - Ahmed al-Ghumari (d. 1960) - who is admired by your colleage AR Qadri of Karachi. I have already said this:

    It is also bewildering to see how this Hashwi Abu Alqama attempted to use the work of Ahmed al-Ghumari in radd to al-Kawthari, but also failed to mention that Abdullah al-Talidi one of the surviving students of Ahmed al-Ghumari mentioned that his Shaykh took back his earlier radd on al-Kawthari. Then how is it that al-Ghumari is a witness for the likes of Abu Alqama when the same Ahmed al-Ghumari also defended Tawassul and his work has recently been printed?! On top of that, Ahmed al-Ghumari was anti-Muawiya, anti-Ibn Taymiyya and declared the Wahhabiyya to be the Khawarij of the time! Let the reader see how desperate this Hashwi really is in the low depths he has tripped into, in order to blacken the names of anyone he thinks is a Quburi or Madhhabi or Ashari! O Hashwi isnt Ahmed al-Ghumari a Quburi to you?

    Let us see how one of your associates, Shamsud-Din al-Afghani - a student of al-Albani's attacked this same Ahmed al-Ghumari that the shameless slanderer - Abu Alqama - utilised in expose of al-Kawthari. Indeed, the scans below from this foul penned abuser - al-Afghani - who called many people from the Ulama of the past as being Quburi (graveworshipper), Khurafi (spreader of superstition) mentioned the following about Ahmed al-Ghumari in his published doctorate:









    So how is it Ya Abu Alqama that you spread the words of al-Ghumari - who is said to be a Sufi/Quburi/Mufawwid on the Sifat by one of your own Shuyukh?! Look at what al-Albani and Bakr Abu Zayd thought of your reference - al-Ghumari. Subhanallah.


    Those who want to know more about this Shamsud-Din al-Afghani may look at the following link:

    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7222




  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    None
    Posts
    116

    Default

    Where did Dr Allamah former Deobandi Shamsudeen Afghanee told it was forbidden to quote good sayings of Ghumari ?

    And I do not deny that Ghumari has innovations.

    But what do you make of his claims against Zahid AL Kawthari who revbiled Sahabah, insulted Imams, like telling Ahmad is ghayr faqih, a criminal should not be followed in his crimes ( talking about Imam Malik), trying to strrenghten fabricated hadeeth aginats Imam Shafii that he is more harmful than Shaytan, quoting stories reviling Shafii like a styudent of Shafii being asked : is there a doubt about Allah, and his student to say : there are two sayings from Shafii

    And his saying that Khateeb was drinking wine and Ibn Hajar follwoing prostitutes

    Or his saying that book of IBn Khuzaymah " Kitab Tahweed" is book o shirk.

    Personnaly I would rather be from people criticising Kawthari even with Ghumari, than people defending him.

    And yet no Hanafi scholars, as far as I know criticised him for his attacks on Aimah...


  8. #8
    Scholar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lahori12
    Where did Dr Allamah former Deobandi Shamsudeen Afghanee told it was forbidden to quote good sayings of Ghumari ?

    And I do not deny that Ghumari has innovations.
    Question is - Is Shamsud-Din reliable? Wasn't Shaykh Amin Okarwi a former "Salafi" who became a Deobandi?! That's what someone told me.

    Did you read the link and the pdf file appended about him here or not:

    http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7222

    ?!

    On the cover of his work known as Juhud Ulama al-Hanafiyya - he said that he was an Afghani - but on the official Madina University website linked here it said he was from Pakistan:

    http://www.iu.edu.sa/Arabic/daleel/r.../Doctor/23.Htm

    It mentions his name as:شمس الدين محمد أشرف

    Shamsud-Din Muhammad Ashraf from Pakistan and that the work is in 1 volume in 1657 pages. Now i have the printed edition as i scanned below and it is in 3 volumes with 1861 pages.

    Where did those extra 200+ pages come from? Did this author not add extra pages which were not in the original thesis?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lahori12

    But what do you make of his claims against Zahid AL Kawthari who revbiled Sahabah, insulted Imams, like telling Ahmad is ghayr faqih, a criminal should not be followed in his crimes ( talking about Imam Malik), trying to strrenghten fabricated hadeeth aginats Imam Shafii that he is more harmful than Shaytan, quoting stories reviling Shafii like a styudent of Shafii being asked : is there a doubt about Allah, and his student to say : there are two sayings from Shafii

    And his saying that Khateeb was drinking wine and Ibn Hajar follwoing prostitutes

    Or his saying that book of IBn Khuzaymah " Kitab Tahweed" is book o shirk.

    Personnaly I would rather be from people criticising Kawthari even with Ghumari, than people defending him.

    And yet no Hanafi scholars, as far as I know criticised him for his attacks on Aimah...

    Let us get one thing straight before you start digressing onto insults at ah ya.org against us - Shaykh al-Kawthari is not our Hujjah or a Mujtahid that all Ahnaf utilise for fiqh or aqeeda positions. He was a man who like others greater than him could have made mistakes. We do not need to defend him as he has been defended by his admirers and students for years.

    As for the points you raised above - I have seen similar claims in years gone by. The question is - who do you rely on when asserting those claims about al-Kawthari?

    Is it Ahmed al-Ghumari?

    If it is then as i have mentioned already - he took back that radd against al-Kawthari and I know for a fact that this same Ahmed took Ijaza from al-Kawthari. In fact, so did Abdullah al-Ghumari - who also said that his brother Ahmed and al-Kawthari were the two foremost scholars in their time. But would that please you? On top of that, their younger brother - Abdal Aziz al-Ghumari also took Ijaza from al-Kawthari. Not one of these were Ahnaf but they still regarded him as their Shaykh in Ijaza.

    Proof that Ahmed al-Ghumari took Ijaza from al-Kawthari:





    If Ahmed al-Ghumari still believed in what he wrote about his own Shaykh in Ijaza - why would he still list him in his Thabat?!

    Now, if you can - then quote from al-Kawthari's original books in full context every point you said that he apparently mentioned what you claimed about him above. Then, we can see what the true followers of al-Kawthari say here and there on some Arabic forums, and who is truly telling the truth or distorting for all to see.

    Anyway, here are some posts answering similar claims that were made by your likes in the past - and if i recall the objector answered below by GF Haddad was Ali Rida Qadri back in early 2002 - so if you care then respond to these counter claims with fairness and justice by recoursing to the original works of al-Kawthari:

    -------



    Those Who Attack Al-Kawthari

    By GF Haddad

    A word about those who attack one of the most recent Renewers of Islam and Friend of God in our history.


    Zahid al-Kawthari is well-known

    This is Imam Muhammad Zahid ibn Hasan al-Kawthari al-Hanafi al-Ash`ari al-Naqshbandi (1296-1371), the adjunct to Mustafa Sabri Basha (the last Shaykh al-Islam of the Ottoman Dawla) and a major Hanafi jurist praised by Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra as a Reviver (mujaddid) of the fourteenth Islamic century. He studied under his father as well as the scholar of Qur'an and hadith Ibrahim Haqqi (d. 1345), Shaykh Zayn al-`Abidin al-Alsuni (d. 1336), Shaykh Muhammad Khalis al-Shirwani, al-Hasan al-Aztuwa'i, and others. When the Islamic Caliphate fell thanks to the combined efforts of Zionists, Wahhabis, and the Republican Turks he moved to Cairo, then Sham, then Cairo again until his death, where the late Shaykhs `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda and `Abd Allah al-Ghumari became his students.

    A tireless scholar, there is apparently no field of the Islamic sciences in which al-Kawthari did not have a well-founded claim to authority. He edited and brought back into circulation countless classical books of fiqh, hadith, and usul after he moved to Cairo. A staunch Ash`ari, he held an extremely critical view of literalists and considered Ibn Taymiyya an unmitigated anthropomorphist.


    for reviling Sahaba, for he accused Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik, the great Sahabi, of senility

    Al-Kawthari never reviled the Sahaba.

    The charge that he imputed senility to our Master Anas ibn Malik Allah be well-pleased with him! - is true. He said in Ta'nb al-Khat.b (orig. ed. p. 80=1990 ed. p. 158-159=1998 ed. p. 129): "The narration of the braining [of the young girl by a Jewish robber who was then brained in requital] is related [by al-Bukhr and Muslim] from Anas alone in the time of his senility, just as he is alone to relate the drinking of the urine of the camels in Qatda's narration [in S.ah.h. Muslim] and the account of the punishment of the 'Uraniyyn [by mutilation and blinding in S.ah.h. Muslim]."

    This imputation of senility specifically to Anas is not baseless and the scandalized reaction of the "Salafi" al-Mu`allim in al-Tankl (1:63-64) seems overdone and disingenuous (as is his blind imitation by the internet revivers of those dead and buried debates). Al-Khat.b narrated in his Jmi' li Akhlq al-Rw (2:474 #1999), chapter 46 entitled "Ceasing Narration in Old Age Lest Memory is Affected and the Mind Becomes Confused": "Ab Muh.ammad al-H.asan ibn `Abd al-Rah.mn ibn Khalld said: 'If the h.adth scholar lives a long life, I find it preferable that he stop transmitting narrations at the age of eighty, for it is the period of senility.'"

    Yet Imam al-A`zam Ab H.anfa - Allah be well-pleased with him - did narrate from Anas - who died at the age of 103 - a full twenty h.adths in his Musnad according to al-Qr in Sharh. Musnad Ab H.anfa through the following Tbi'n: H.ammd ibn Ab Sulaymn (1), al-Zuhr (3), Muh.ammad ibn al-Munkadir (1), Yah.y ibn Sa'd (2), al-Haytham and Rab'a (1), Ibrhm al-Nakha' (2), Yazd ibn 'Abd al-Rah.mn (2), Sufyn ibn Talha (1), 'Abd al-Karm ibn Umayya (1), al-Haytham ibn Habib (1), Muslim ibn Kaysan (2), 'Abd al-Rah.mn ibn H.azm (1), and al-Qsim ibn 'Abd al-Rah.mn (2).

    As al-Kawthar said in his response to al-Tankl entitled al-Tarhb bi Naqd al-Ta'nb (1990 ed. p. 415=1998 ed. p. 337-338): "All I did concerning Anas (ra) was convey the method of Ab H.anfa in selecting some of his narrations [i.e. those which he is not alone to narrate]. This is well-known in the books of the people of learning, and does not constitute an aspersion against Anas." So the real reason for al-Kawthar's remark on Anas is not "for relating a h.adth that contradicts the school of Ab H.anfa" as claimed by al-Ghumr - Allah forgive him!-, but because the method of Ab H.anfa in h.adth narrators was primarily precaution (al-ihtiyt).

    Furthermore, Anas's narration of the braining conveys a ruling that is contradicted by the sound h.adth "No capital requital except by the sword" (l qawad ill bil-sayf) narrated from five Companions - Ab Bakrah, al-Nu`mn ibn Bashr, Ibn Mas`d, Ab Hurayra, and `Al ibn Ab T.lib - Alah be well-pleased with them - so that the ruling of the retributive braining not only "contradicts the school of Ab H.anfa" but also that of al-Sha`b, al-Nakha`, al-H.asan al-Bas.r, and Sufyn al-Thawr as pointed out by al-`Ayn in in his commentary on al-Bukhr's S.ah.h. entitled 'Umdat al-Qr (9:597-598) (Kitb al-T.alq, Bb al-Ishra f al-T.alq). And Allh knows best.


    al-Kawthari, the flagbearer of Ash'arites, also attacked on Sayyiduna Amir Mu'awiya, another great Sahaba, (a major rawi). (see Kawthari's footnote on Asma wa sifat 421-423, Tabdeed al-Dhalaam p. 94-96, Maqalaat al-Kawthari page. 349)


    This is another three lies. In the first and second references Imam al-Kawthari was not speaking of Mu`awiya ibn Abi Sufyan but Mu`awiya ibn al-Hakam and he never "attacked" him but only said that there is great discrepancy in the wordings of his narration of the black slave-girl hadith. As for the third reference there is no mention of any Mu`awiya on that page but only a discussion on the evil of Qadyanis, Isma`ilis, and other Batini sects.


    Who does al-Kawthari defend ?
    al-Kawthari is a staunch defender of Jahm ibn Safwan ( the founder of the heretical sect: Jahmis , who was executed ) ( al-Kawthari in Intro to Tabyin al-Kadhib al-Muftari page 12 )



    Another transparent lie. Al-Kawthari said that Jahm was a person of many innovations, among them the belief that the Qur'an is created and that Hellfire will not be eternal. (Note that the latter was also the belief of Ibn Taymiyya.) Then al-Kawthari remarked that beyond these two specific heresies and the fact that he exaggerated in refuting the anthropomorphist Muqatil ibn Sulayman, not everything that was attributed to Jahm is actually true. To call this correct precision a "staunch defense of Jahm" is reminiscent of the Ahl al-Kitab's childish attempt at hiding the verse of stoning when the Prophet summoned them to read it.


    He attacked on the noble lineage of Imam Shafi ( al-Ghumari in Bida` al-Tafasir p. 180-181)


    Al-Ghumari only said that al-Kawthari cast an aspersion and gave as his reference al-Kawthari's Ihqaq al-Haqq. It is true that al-Kawthari cast an aspersion although he never "attacked the lineage of Imam al-Shafi`i" but only said: "The fact that he is from Quraysh according to his followers...." This last clause, "according to his followers," is unworthy of al-Kawthari and may Allah reward al-Ghumari for bringing it to his attention. But note the reply of al-Kawthari: "A fanatic rebutting a fanatic." As al-Ghumari said: al-Kawthari acknowledged being guilty of fanaticism in this matter. This is a good point and may Allah reward him, and He would have probably rewarded him more if he had shown remorse and not just acknowledged his mistake.

    Who was the second fanatic in al-Kawthari's phrase? Imam al-Haramayn Ibn al-Juwayni in his pro-Shafi`i and anti-Hanafi/anti-Maliki tract "Mugheeth al-Khalq" which is one of the books that ought to disappear forever for its sectarianism and meanness. I felt sick the day I read it and sped up until I felt relief that it was behind me. May Allah forgive him. Truly, "a Scholar never adorned him/herself with a better trait than fairness." In this respect, as well as in hadith Mastership and perhaps fiqh also, I wonder whether al-Kawthari necessarily comes second to Imam al-Haramayn although the latter was considered a second al-Shafi`i (dare I say "by his admirers") but may Allah have mercy on all of them. The droplets of their defects disappear in the Niagaras of our mediocrity.


    He attacked Imam Ahmed Bin Hanbal ( Ta'nib page 206)


    Never. He only remarked that there were more mistakes of Arabic in the texts reported from Imam Ahmad by Abu Dawud, al-Kawsaj, and `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad than there are in the texts reported from Imam Abu Hanifa although certain critics claimed to detect linguistic mistakes only in the latter's discourses. Al-Kawthari concludes: "Why then do they focus so much on the supposed linguistic mistakes of Abu Hanifa except out of blameworthy fanaticism??" May Allah reward him.

    Furthermore, the objector means page 26, not page 260. Evidently - unless he tries to add tadlees of the pages to lying outright - all this unworthy material he took from books of vulgarization and hasn't the faintest idea of the original works being discussed. But {the devils do inspire their minions to dispute with you} (6:121).


    He attacked Imam al-Bukhari (ta'nib of al-Kawthari page 76)

    Al-Kawthari never attacked Imam al-Bukhari but only his characterization of Imam Abu Hanifa in al-Tarikh al-Kabir - it is known that al-Bukhari profoundly disagreed with the Imam in fiqh and refers to him in many passages of his Sahih under the terms "a certain person" (ba`du al-nas). See the long detailed discussion on the attackers of the Imam and the biases of their attacks in our "Vindication of the Imam Abu Hanifa" posted on the internet.


    He attacked Imam Darqutni ( ta'nib page 244)

    A lie, he only attacked Amir al-Mu'minin fil-Hadith Imam al-Daraqutni's outright weakening of Abu Hanifa. May Allah forgive al-Daraqutni, he showed bias for the Shafi`i School in this issue. The hadith Master al-Badr al-`Ayni, author of `Umdat al-Qari, a massive commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, said in his commentary of al-Marghinani entitled al-Binaya Sharh al-Hidaya (1:709):

    "From where does he [Daraqutni] take the right to declare Abu Hanifa weak when he himself deserves to be declared weak! For he has narrated in his Musnad [i.e. his Sunan] narrations that are infirm, defective, denounced, strange, and forged."

    This is a serious charge made against al-Daraqutni as a narrator and other authorities have stated the same concerning him. Another hadith master, al-Zayla`i, said in Nasb al-Raya (1:356, 1:360): "al-Daraqutni's Sunan is the compendium of defective narrations and the wellspring of strange narrations... It is filled with narrations that are weak, anomalous, defective, and how many of them are not found in other books!" While the Maliki hadith Master Imam Muhammad ibn Ja`far al-Kattani said in al-Risala al-Mustatrafa (p. 31): "Daraqutni in his Sunan... has multiplied the narrations of reports that are weak and denounced, and indeed forged."

    Ibn `Abd al-Hadi al-Hanbali wrote a large volume still unpublished on the merits of Abu Hanifa entitled Tanwir al-Sahifa bi-Manaqib al-Imam Abi Hanifa in which he said: "Among those who show fanaticism against Abu Hanifa is al-Daraqutni." It is quoted in Ibn `Abidin's Hashiyat Radd al-Muhtar (1:37). `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda in his commentary of Abu al-Hasanat al-Lacknawi's al-Raf` wa al-ta`dil (p. 70 n.1) also said: "al-Daraqutni's fanaticism against Abu Hanifa is well-known" and he gives several sources listing the scholars who held the same opinion.


    He is teaching hafidh Ibn Qudamah that the truth is with Mutazilites ( maqalaat of al-Kawthari 75-85)

    Another sad lie, probably no-one in his time was harder on the Mu`tazili-philosophical wave at al-Azhar than Imam al-Kawthari.



    al-Kawthari attacks numerous well-known scholars, Dhahabi, ibn Kathir, Ibn Abdul Hadi, etc....the list is very big one. I am writing a seperate article on the attacks of al-Kawthari on Sunni Scholars.



    Al-Hamdu lillah for His continuously giving His Friends such as Imam al-Kawthari, in addition to the added rewards for their beneficial works after their deaths, the good deeds of their ignorant detractors and malicious slanderers.


    Shaykh al-Allamah Mustafa al-Sabiri had a debate with Zahid al-Kawthari and concluded in his book mawquf al-Ilm 392/3 that Zahid al-Kawthari was a Qadriyya (Mutazilite Qadriyya)


    And that the moon is made of blue cheese. Shaykh Mustafa Sabri Basha was the last Shaykh al-Islam of the Ottoman Caliphate (d. 1954 CE) - rahimahullah - and he appointed Imam al-Kawthari as his deputy, then was exiled with him to Cairo (where Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah took hadith and fiqh from both of them) where they both died. It is on his request that Imam al-Kawthari wrote many articles and refutations on various issues at that time and one mught say that there was no one alive on the face of the earth whom he trusted more for `ilm and haqq. But the business of Shaytan is to represent haqq as batil and vice versa.


    The Position of Ahlussunnah is: QUR'AAN IS GHAYR MAKHLUQ !!! Those who claim Qur'aan is created, are mostly Jahmis & Mutazila. This is well known to everyone.


    It shows a lack of knowledge to mention what defunct groups believed "is well-known to everyone" while failing to mention what is far more timely, namely, that the Shi`is believe this.


    Shaykhul Islaam Sakhawi said concerning Ibn Subki: as-Sakhaawee endorsed the following words about him, following his statement, "did any of the Hanbalees raise their heads (i.e. become prominent)": "This is from the strangest of things, and the most sectarian/partisan of attitudes, and this is why the Qaadee of our time, and Shaykh of the madhab al-Izz al-Kanaanee wrote under this statement, 'and likewise Allah did not raise the heads of the Mu`attila' and then he said about Taaj ad-Deen Subki, 'he is a man having little manners, lack of scholarly integrity, ignorant of Ahl as-Sunnah and their ranks.'" [ 'al- I`laan bi at-Tawbeekh liman Dhamma at-Taareekh' (94-95) of as- Sakhaawee]


    It is ironic to say the least that the above passage is actually being quoted inside a text that all in all displays little integrity and less knowledge.

    The passage in question in Imam al-Sakhawi's al-Tawbikh (p. 56-57 of the Dar al-Kitab al-`Arabi ed.) is about criticism by Imam Taj al-Din Ibn al-Subki of his teacher Imam al-Dhahabi. It is inside a series of excerpts from Ibn al-Subki's Tabaqat al-Shafi`iyya al-Kubra, one of the truly great masterpieces of Islamic literature. Al-Sakhawi considers that Ibn al-Subki exaggerated in his criticism of al-Dhahabi and cites al-`Izz al-Kinani's violent comments to show the counter-effect of those exaggerations. This never means that he approved of - even less endorsed - al-Kinani's comments.

    Shaykh al-Islam, Qadi al-Qudat Ibn al-Subki may have gone too far against al-Dhahabi, but he is unanimously respected, especially in the fields of usul, Arabic, and hadith. Ibn Hajar himself said: "To realize Ibn al-Subki's high rank in hadith Mastership one only has to look at his Tabaqat." To call him ignorant or a "mu`attil" is no doubt a slip or a mark of ignorance and disrespect that does not speak well for the accuser.

    Similarly, al-Sakhawi does not approve of all of Ibn al-Subki's criticism of al-Dhahabi or the excessive, sweeping barb against the Hanbalis ("Did any Hanbali ever merit to raise his head?...") at which al-Kinani took offense, but al-Sakhawi did approve of some of it as he states further down (p. 76): "He [Ibn al-Subki] went too far in his anti-Hanbali fanaticism as I showed before... although I do not exonerate al-Dhahabi from some of the charges he [Ibn al-Subki] brought against him." Al-Sakhawi probably quotes Ibn al-Subki as a historian more than anyone else in al-Tawbikh.

    As for Qadi `Izz al-Din Abu al-Barakat Ahmad ibn Ibrahim ibn Nasr Allah al-Kinani al-`Asqalani al-Misri (800-876) he was perhaps the top Hanbali authority in Egypt at the time and a dear friend of al-Sakhawi. He was a student of al-`Iraqi and Ibn Hajar like al-Sakhawi. By the words "Shaykh of the Madhhab" al-Sakhawi means no other than the Hanbali madhhab since the context is the discussion of al-Dhahabi's enamoured stance towards the Hanbalis. And Allah knows best.

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

    So if the above was an answer to your colleague - AR Qadri - then where is his counter reply with proofs from the original works?! As i said, get us the original claims against al-Kawthari with scans if possible so that the true admirers of al-Kawthari can see and reply if need be.

    You are quick to attack the likes of al-Kawthari who you allege defamed Sahaba, then you hypocritically over looked the case of Ahmed al-Ghumari attacking Mu'awiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra) and then also the mention of Ibn Taymiyya - your Shaykh al-Islam - demeaning the status of the cream of the Sahaba. Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned from al-Tufi al-Hanbali - who was associated with ibn Taymiyya that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibn Hajar's Durar al-Kamina, trans. GF Haddad
    A time came when his companions took to over-praising him and this drove him to be satisfied with himself until he became conceited before his fellow human beings. He became convinced that he was a scholar capable of independent reasoning (mujtahid). Henceforth he began to answer each and every scholar great and small, past and recent, until he went all the way back to `Umar (r) and faulted him in some matter. This reached the ears of the Shaykh Ibrahim al-Raqi who reprimanded him. Ibn Taymiyya went to see him, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. He also spoke against `Ali (r) and said: "He made mistakes in seventeen different matters."... Because of his fanatic support of the Hanbali school he would attack Ash'aris until he started to insult al-Ghazzali, at which point some people opposed him and would almost kill him.... They ascertained that he had blurted out certain words, concerning doctrine, which came out of his mouth in the context of his sermons and legal pronouncements, and they mentioned that he had cited the tradition of Allah's descent (to the nearest heaven), then climbed down two steps from the minbar and said: "Just like this descent of mine" and so was categorized as an anthropomorphist. They also cited his refutation of whoever uses the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- as a means or seeks help from him (aw istaghatha).... People were divided into parties because of him. Some considered him an anthropomorphist because of what he mentioned in al-`Aqida al-Hamawiyya and al-`Aqida al-Wasitiyya and other books of his, to the effect that the hand, foot, shin, and face are litteral attributes of Allah and that He is established upon the Throne with His Essence. It was said to him that were this the case He would necessarily be subject to spatial confinement (al-tahayyuz) and divisibility (al-inqisam). He replied: "I do not concede that spatial confinement and divisibility are (necessarily) properties of bodies," whereupon it was adduced against him (ulzima) that he held Allah's Essence to be subject to spatial confinement. Others considered him a heretic (zindiq) due to his saying that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- is not to be sought for help and the fact that this amounted to diminishing and impeding the establishing of the greatness of the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- .... Others considered him a dissimulator (munafiq) because of what he said about `Ali:... namely, that he had been forsaken everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the caliphate and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that "he loved authority while `Uthman loved money." He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while `Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy's Islam is not considered sound upon his mere word.... In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet's -- Allah bless and greet him -- saying (to `Ali): "None but a hypocrite has hatred for you."
    Why the double standards Ya Abu Alqama al-Lahori?! On top of that - you failed to admit that Imam al-Nawawi must have been a Quburi to you as he promoted the narration from al-Utbi?! Subhanallah. Your double dealing contradictions are very easy to spot even to the untrained masses.

    May be Abu Alqama can tell us what is the rank of a man who rejects a Mutawatir Hadith? Is he a Mubtadi or what?



    You also mentioned that al-Kawthari said that Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal was ghayr faqih - suppose that is the verdict of al-Kawthari - are you telling us that no one else said this about Imam Ahmed? Can you tell us if this was not the position of the great Mujtahid and Mufassir - al-Tabari, and others. May be you can refute GF Haddad on his claim:

    Quote Originally Posted by GF Haddad on al-Tabari
    In Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha' al-Tabari mentions the differences of opinion between Malik, al-Awza`i, Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Shafi`i, Abu Hanifah, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, and Abu Thawr. He mentions some of the jurists among the Companions, the Successors, and their Followers until the second century. When he was asked for the reason why he did not mention Imam Ahmad in his book he replied that Ahmad was not a jurist (faqih) but a hadith scholar (muhaddith). The followers of the Hanbali school disapproved of this and reportedly roused the people against him, preventing visitors and students from visiting him in the daytime, and he died and was buried in his house.

    Al-Tabari's reply is neither new nor unique of its kind. Several of those who wrote about the differences among jurists did not mention Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Among them: Al-Tahawi, al-Dabbousi, al-Nasafi, `Ala' al-Din al-Samarqandi, al-Firahi al-Hanafi (one of the scholars of the seventh century) in his book Dhat al-`Uqdayn, and others of the Hanafis who wrote on the subject, all omitted him. Ibn al-Fardi said in his chronicle of the scholars of al-Andalus, upon mentioning Abu Muhammad `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Asili al-Maliki, that the latter wrote a book concerning the differences of Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Abu Hanifa called al-Dala'il fi Ummahat al-Masa'il ("The Proofs For The Paramount Questions"). He states:

    The author of Kashf al-Zunun said that Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahman al-Samarqandi al-Sakhawi5 who died in Mardin in 721 in `Umdat al-Talib li Ma`rifa al-Madhahib ("The Reliance of the Student of the Knowledge of the Schools") mentioned the differences among jurists and said in the end: `I placed in my book the views of al-Nu`man [Abu Hanifa], Ya`qub [Abu Yusuf], Muhammad [ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani] and their excellent companions, also Shafi`i, Malik, and all in which they differed with the Shi`as. May Allah give them life and every reward.' Therefore the position of Ahmad in his view is lesser than the Three, and similar to that of Dawud al-Zahiri and the Shi`a.6

    Nor did al-Ghazzali, who also wrote about ikhtilaf, mention Ahmad in his Wajiz; nor did Abu al-Barakat al-Nasafi in his al-Wafi. As for the authors of books of history and geography, Ibn Qutayba did not mention Ahmad in Kitab al-Ma`arif; al-Maqdisi does mention him in Ahsan al-Taqasim fi Ashab al-Hadith, but he does not include him among the Ashab al-Fiqh, while he includes Dawud al-Zahiri. Ibn `Abd al-Barr wrote al-Intiqa' fi Fada'il al-Thalatha al-Fuqaha' ("The Hand-Picked Excellent Merits of the Three Great Jurisprudent Imams: Malik, Shafi`i, and Abu Hanifa"). The anonymous `Umda al-`Arifin ("Reliance of the Knowers") mentions as the fourth of the Four Imams not Ahmad, but Sufyan al-Thawri. Al-Ghazzali said: "He and Ahmad were of the most famous Imams for their strong fear of Allah, and for the small number of their followers. As for now, the School of Sufyan is abandoned, and the consensus of the Muslims is around the four known schools." Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his biographies of the scholars of Baghdad, similarly reserves the highest level of jurisprudence for al-Shafi`i, while he names Ahmad "the master of hadith scholars" (sayyid al-muhaddithin).





    Below is another article i saved on al-Kawthari dated 1998 defended by one of his admirers...


    ----------

    Abul Hasan




  9. #9
    Scholar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Gender
    Brother
    Madhhab
    Hanafi
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Continued from the last post is the following i had saved a few years back:


    -----------
    In defence of Imam Kawthari

    From: m.aftab(from the web)
    Date: 9/22/98
    Time: 4:07:39 AM
    Remote Name: 134.225.16.2

    Comments

    Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari

    (May Allah have mercy upon him, reward him well for his good deeds and
    sufferings, and pardon his faults, mistakes and shortcomings.) Biography
    Publications A Reply to Accusations

    Shaykh Mawlana Muhammad Yusuf al-Binnawri, a member of the Majlis `Ilmi (a scholarly council for revival of classical Islamic works) and a professor
    at the Islamic University in Dabhel, Surat (India), described al-Kawthari
    as,

    "The keen-eyed verifying scholar, the experienced and erudite, the great
    teacher, the shaykh, Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari - may his life be long in
    good health." [Preface to Nasb al-Rayah, 1/17]

    The Shaykh and Imam, the Mujtahid and Usuli, the Muhaddith of Morocco,
    Abu'l-Fadl `Abdullah ibn Siddiq al-Ghumari (may Allah have mercy upon him)
    says,

    "There was a firm relationship between myself and the teacher al-Kawthari,
    in spite of the striving of the jealous to ruin it. He used to respect me a
    great deal, so much so that when I asked him for ijazah a year before his
    death, he asked me for ijazah. He used to ask me about the ahadith which
    some people would ask him about. Our relationship continued as it was until
    his death. May Allah have mercy upon him and reward him with His pleasure." [Iqamat al-Burhan `ala Nuzul `Isa fi Akhir al-Zaman, by al-Ghumari, with an introductory word by al-Kawthari, p.7]

    His Biography

    The Imam and distinguished Shaykh, former head of the School of Law and
    Professor of Shari`ah at Cairo University, Muhammad Abu Zahrah (may Allah
    have mercy upon him) wrote a glowing seven-page tribute to Imam al-Kawthari after the latter's death, from which I have summarized the following :

    "Islam has lost one of the Imams of the Muslims, who worked alone [away]
    from the trivialities of this life, and devoted themselves to knowledge
    with the devotion of a believer in the worship of his Lord. That is because
    he knew that knowledge is one of the worships, whereby the scholar seeks
    the pleasure of Allah and not of anyone besides Him. He does not seek
    thereby loftiness [of station] on the earth, nor corruption, nor standing
    out on account of distinction and reputation. Nor does he seek any of the
    fleeting things of this world. He seeks only to bring victory to the truth,
    in order to please [Allah], the Truth, the Majestic. That is Imam
    al-Kawthari. May Allah make his resting place pleasant, be pleased with him
    and make him pleased.

    I do not know of any scholar who has departed and left his position vacant
    [behind him] in these years such as the position of Imam al-Kawthari has
    been left vacant, for he was the Remnant of the Pious Predecessors, who did not take knowledge as a source of income, nor [as] a stepping-stone to a [worldly] goal.

    That distinguished Imam was not an adherent of a new school of thought, nor was he an inviter to a novel matter with no precedent, nor was he of those whom people label nowadays as reformers. Nay, he used to shy from that, for he was a follower (muttabi`) and not an innovator. Yet, in spite of that, I say that he was one of the reformers, in the true meaning of a reformer, for reform . . . . . is returning to the religion its splendor and
    dispelling the confusions [which exist] over it. That is true and sincere
    reform, and Imam al-Kawthari undertook the revival of the Prophetic sunnah.

    Imam al-Kawthari was a true scholar; the scholars knew his knowledge. I
    knew him [many] years before meeting him. I knew him through his writings
    in which the light of truth shone forth. I knew him through his annotations
    on manuscripts which he undetook to publish. By Allah! My amazement at the manuscript was not as much as my amazement at the annotations of the annotator. It could not occur to the mind of the reader that [al-Kawthari] was a non-Arab writer and not a manifest Arab. Yet, it is not astonishing [really], for he was Turkish by ancestry and rearing, and in his human life, but, as for his scholarly life, it was purely Arabic, for he read
    nothing but Arabic, and nothing filled his head but the shining light of
    Muhammadan Arabic.

    A passing glance at the life of this distinguished scholar shows us he was
    the sincere scholar, the striver, perseverant in adversity and affliction.
    . . . . He was from a family in the Caucasus [which was reflected in] his
    vigor, strength, handsome body and spirit, and [in] the quality and depth
    of his thought . . . . He was born [in a house] of guidance and truth. He
    studied Islamic knowledge until he attained the highest rank at around
    eighteen years of age. Then, he ascended the ladder of teaching [positions]
    until he reached its highest level at a young age. Until, when he was
    confronted by those who wanted to separate the world from religion in order to rule the world by other than what Allah has revealed, he stood in ambush for them. He chose his religion over their world, and chose to defend the Islamic relics rather than to have a delightful life.

    He strove with all his might and effort - may Allah be pleased with him -
    on the loftiest paths until he became the Head of the Council of Mashayikh
    of Islam in Turkey (i.e. the Ottoman Empire). He was among those known to
    give his post its due . . . . [until eventually] he accepted to step down
    from his post for the sake of good, for it is better to step down for the
    sake of truth than to [remain and] implement falsehood.

    Then, the scholar is put to the severest test when he sees his dignified
    country - the Great Land of Islam - overshadowed by atheism and taken over by those who do not wish any honor for this religion. Then, the one
    clinging to his religion becomes like one clasping a burning coal. Then, he
    finds himself targeted by persecution, such that were he not to escape, he
    would be cast into the depths of the prisons, and prevented from his
    knowledge and teaching. At that point, the Imam finds himself faced with
    three choices : Either, he must be cast as a fettered prisoner [into
    prison], whereby his knowledge would be extinguished, or he must flatter
    [the authorities] and assist them, or he must emigrate, and the lands of
    Allah are expansive. He emigrated to Egypt, and then moved to Syria. He
    then returned to Cairo, and then went back to Damascus again, until he
    finally settled in Cairo.

    That noble man, who was put to trial with severities, but conquered them,
    was also afllicted by the loss of loved ones, for he lost his children
    during his own lifetime, death taking them one after the other. By virtue
    of his knowledge, he was able to be patient, uttering the statement of
    [Prophet] Jacob, "Patience is beautiful, and Allah's help is to be
    entreated." He went on to his Lord, perseverant, thankful and praiseful, as
    the sincere and righteous pass on. May Allah be pleased with him and make
    him pleased." [From a foreword by written by Abu Zahrah to Ibn al-Jawzi's
    "Daf`u Shubah al-Tashbeeh" with annotations by al-Kawthari.]

    His Publications

    Imam al-Kawthari produced numerous works, in the way of his own books, as well as annotations of classical works. Among them are:

    In Doctrine: - Al-Juwayni's "Al-`Aqidah al-Nizamiyah" - Al-Bayhaqi's
    "Al-Asmaa' wa al-Sifat" - Al-Baghdadi's "Al-Farq bayn al-Firaq" - Ibn
    al-Jawzi's "Daf` Shubah al-Tashbeeh" - Ibn Qutaybah's "Al-Ikhtiliaf fi
    al-Lafz wa al-Radd `ala al-Jahmiyyah wa al-Mushabbihah" - al-Baqillani's,
    "Al-Insaf fi-ma Yajib I`tiqaaduh" - Nazrah `Aabirah fee Mazaa`im Man
    Yunkiru Nuzool `Isa Qabla al-Akhirah ( a profound scholarly refutation of
    heretic beliefs which denied Jesus' second coming) - Qawaid `Aqaa'id
    al-Batiniyah - Kashf Asraar al-Baatiniyah wa Akhbaar al-Qaraamitah -
    al-Tabseer fi al-Din wa Tamyeez al-Firqah al-Najiyah - al-Tanbeeh wa
    al-Radd `alaa Ahl al-Ahwaa' wa al-Bida`

    In Hadith and its sciences: - Al-Qaysarani's, "Shuroot al-A'immah
    al-Sittah" and al-Hazimi's "Shuroot al-A'immah al-Khamsah" - al-Qasim ibn
    Qutlubgha's, "Bughyat al-Alma`i fi-ma Faata min Takhreej Ahadith al Hidayah lil-Zaylai"

    In Jurispridence: - Imam al-Shafi`is "Ahkaam al-Qur'an" - Fiqh Ahl al-`Iraq
    wa-Hadeethuhum - Al-Ishfaq `alaa Ahkaam al-Talaaq - Ibn Hazm's "Maratib
    al-Ijma`"

    In History and Biographies: - Kitab Baghdad - Bulugh al-Amaanee fee Seerat
    al-Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani - Al-Hawi fee Seerat al-Imam Abi Ja`far al-Tahawi - Husn al-Taqadi fee Seerat al-Imam Abi Yusuf al-Qadi -
    Al-Imta` bi Seerat al-Imaamayn al-Hasan ibn Ziyad wa Saahibihi Muhammad ibn Shuja` - Lamahat al-Nazar fee Seerat al-Imam Zufar - Al-Dhahabi's "Manaqib al-Imam Abi Haneefah wa Saahibayhi Abi Yusuf wa Muhammad

    Others: - Maqaalaat al-Kawthari - Tahreer al-Wajeez fima Yabtagheehi
    al-Mustajiz

    Reply to accusations



    Those who have read thus far with a clear mind will obviously have a
    markedly different picture of al-Kawthari than that portrayed by some of
    his enemies. While al-Kawthari was not perfect, and he did have faults,
    nevertheless accusations against him were often motivated by certain
    biases, and by way of illustration, we respond below to some of the
    accusations for those who may have heard them - those who have not need not read any further.

    On the fanaticism / partisanship of al-Kawthari Consider the following, and
    then re-evaluate the 'extreme fanaticism' of al-Kawthari:

    1 He wrote a forward to Imam al-Shafi`i's "Ahkam al-Qur'an" (which was
    collected by Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad al-Bayhaqi). This was published by Dar
    al-Qalam, Beirut in 1989. He also wrote a forward to Imam al-Shafi`i's
    "Musnad," and this has been published by Dar al-Fikr, Beirut, in 1997. If
    he really considered Imam al-Shafi`i to be "more harmful than Iblees" (BTW,
    if you are intent on pursuing this subject (which I hope you are not) then
    please furnish an exact reference for this, I would very much like to
    verify the allegation) then why would he promote al-Shafi`i's works!

    2 He annotated Ibn al-Qaysarani's "ShurooT al-a'imah al-sittah" ("The
    Criteria of the Six Imams [of Hadith]") (Maktabat al-Quds, 1357 AH),
    although it is well-known that none of the authors of the Sihah Sittah were
    Hanafi (Bukhari and Muslim were actually Shafi`i, and Abu Dawud was Hanbali (and Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was a student of Imam al-Shafi`i).) How do we reconcile this with the allegation that he considered Imam al-Shafi`i 'more harmful that Iblees' ? Remember, al-Kawthari could just as easily have chosen a Hanafi work to annotate, such as, for example, al-Khawarizmi's "Jami` Masanid al-Imam Abi Hanifah al-Nu`man," which includes biographical notes on its narrators, and could use a decent editing.

    3 In spite of the scathing attacks on Imam Abu Hanifah by Imam Ibn Qutaybah (may Allah forgive him for his misunderstandings) in his "Ta'weel Mukhtalif al-Hadeeth," we find that al-Kawthari has also published one of Ibn Qutaybah's books, "al-Ikhtilaf fi al-Lafz," (Published by Maktabat al-Quds, Cairo, 1349 AH) evidently because he recognized the book's value, aside from his feelings towards the author. Fanaticism, anyone?

    4 He contradicted his Imam, Abu Hanifah, in a regulation related to
    endowments (awqaf), as I have already mentioned. (I can dig out the exact
    reference, inshaAllah, if anyone really wants it). He said clearly that if
    Abu Hanifah had known of the hadith here, he too would have changed his
    verdict. Fanaticism would have been for al-Kawthari to find some
    far-fetched way to discredit the hadith.

    5 He contradicted the majority of the scholars of his madhhab by being
    Ash`ari rather than Maturidi. It is well-known that Imam Abu Mansur
    al-Maturidi was strongly influenced by Imam Abu Hanifah in his formulation
    of the Islamic Doctrine, whereas Imam Abu'l-Hasan al-Ash`ari was more
    inclined to Imam al-Shafi`i. If al-Kawthari contradicted his Imam in
    something as fundamental as `aqidah, one cannot help but wonder as to the extent of his 'fanaticism'.

    6 The exact expression and context of al-Kawthari's alleged attack on Anas
    ibn Malik also needs to be investigated. In the Musnad of Abu Hanifah is a
    narration from Anas ibn Malik via Abu Hanifah. If al-Kawthari was really so
    fanatical to Abu Hanifah, would he really discredit his own Imam by
    insinuating that he narrated from a 'weak and feeble-minded' narrator? And,
    if he would do this, how strong can his 'fanaticism' have been? Reflect, O
    people of insight!

    7 His statement 'a sectarian refuting a sectarian' need not be taken
    literally. It can be taken as 'fighting fire with fire,' and is a
    well-known technique of debate - holding an adversary to his own
    principles. Furthermore, your own message acknowledged that he was actually quoting the words of someone else, who could be the sectarian whom al-Kawthari was using to 'refute' what he perceived as sectarianism. Of course, this is aside from his considering the scholar in question a
    fanatic Shafi`i - if he was wrong in that, may Allah forgive him. And, may
    Allah forgive those who attack al-Kawthari himself, and guide all to the
    truth.

    8 Imam `Abdullah Al-Ghumari was an Ash`ari who openly subscribed to
    ta'weel, and I would guess that according to you, this classifies him as a
    'propagating innovator' (mubtadi`un da`in). The popular opinion in the
    books of Hadith science is that a propagating innovator is not an
    acceptable narrator. How, then, can you accept his narration?!

    Even if you concede that being Ash`ari is not a jarH, (or if you take by
    the less popular view that the narration of a propagating innovator is
    acceptable), the narration you quote from al-Ghumari (viz. the one
    criticizing al-Kawthari) is still not decisive, because its apparent import
    is contradicted by the action of the narrator (`amal al-raawee bi-khilaafi
    maa-rawaa) - al-Ghumari himself did not consider what he mentioned about
    al-Kawthari to render him an unreliable reference, as evidenced by the fact
    that al-Ghumari asked al-Kawthari for ijazah.

    Furthermore, it is well-known that al-Ghumari and al-Kawthari had
    significant differences in their approach to fiqh - al-Kawthari was a more
    conservative 'madhhabi', whereas al-Ghumari - although this may come as a
    surprise to some - was strongly opposed to taqleed, (as I was told by one
    of his students to whom he gave ijazah, and as is also clear to anyone who
    has some familiarity with his writings). In such circumstances, there is
    likely to be some element of bias, and hence, the criticism of one party by
    the other is not directly accepted - a principle well-established among the
    scholars of JarH and Ta`deel (Accreditation and Disreputation). Hence, if
    possible, the report should be verified from an unbiased source; otherwise
    it is better left aside.

    The enmity and accusations between such distinguished pairs of scholars as
    Imam al-Awza`i and Imam Abu Hanifah, Imams Malik ibn Anas and Ibn Abi
    Dhi'b, (may Allah forgive them all) is well-known, and does not make any of
    these personages worthless. Bias can sometimes be unintentional and
    subconscious, inhibiting one's ability to understand what one's adversary
    means, or preventing one from looking for alternate interpretations,
    excuses, etc. This is well-known and established among the scholars of the
    science, and I need not dwell further upon it, since it seems that those
    disputing with us herein have transcended the basics of the major Islamic
    sciences, which is why they find themselves compelled to dwell on issues
    such as that which we are discussing.

    9 Accusations of partisanship/fanaticism are often subjective. Imam
    al-Qaffal, a Shafi`i scholar, would say,"We did not blindly follow
    al-Shafi`i, but our ijtihad agreed with his."

    10 Please do not force me to mention the names of other prominent scholars who have been accused of ta`aSSub (partisanship/fanaticism). I hope that the above points do not leave any need to do so.

    These, then, are at least ten points in reply to the accusations, and they
    should be sufficient for one imbued with a sense of fairness - we may note,
    in passing, that Imam al-Suyuti, in "al-Azhar al-Mutanathirah," considered
    ten to be the minimum number of narrations for tawatur. As for those intent
    on demonizing their opponents, picking on their every error and
    shortcoming, and slandering them, even entire volumes will not suffice
    them.

    To conclude, we reiterate that we are not claiming that Imam al-Kawthari
    was sinless (ma`Soom). May Allah forgive his faults, accept his righteous
    deeds, and grant all the wisdom and fairness to take from him what is good,
    and to leave aside and remain silent over anything which transpires to be
    wrong.

    I leave you with the following:

    "That is a nation which has passed away. For them is what they have earned, and for you is what you earn. And, you will not be asked about what they used to do." [Surah al-Baqarah]

    The Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and his Household and grant
    them peace) said, "O assembly of those who have believed by their tongues, but into whose hearts faith has not reached! Do not backbite the Muslims, nor seek out their hidden [faults], for indeed, whoever seeks out the secrets of his brother, Allah will seek out his secrets, and whoever has
    Allah seeking out his secrets, [Allah] will expose him, even if in the
    depths of his house." [or as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said it;
    Abu Dawud]

    And, it is reported that Jesus, son of Mary (peace be upon them both) said,
    "Do not look at the faults of others as if you are lords; rather look at your own faults, for you are slaves."

    I close with the same words with which Imam Muslim closed his introduction
    to his "SaHeeH", "Allah is to be entreated for help in opposing that which
    contradicts with the ways of the scholars, and in Him is reliance to be
    placed."

    And peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, the Final Prophet, and upon his Purified Household, and honorable companions.

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





Similar Threads

  1. Shaykh Abul Hasan's new "An Introduction to the Science of Hadith" MP3 CD
    By sunnicourses in forum Islamic Media Reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-02-2010, 01:56 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 16-02-2007, 04:53 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 17-06-2006, 11:26 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25-09-2005, 09:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •