Al-Boriqi
11th March 2006, 14:08
The matter of Praise and criticisms according to usoolu-ruijaal and contrasted with praise and criticisms according to the virtues of men, a clarification against how the Imaams of sunnah, fiqh, and righteousness view the matter and how the Imaams who were tested by Allah with extremism, ta'assub, and dhulm
ABU HANEEFAH
started 16/12/02
Caller2islam - know that Imam Abu Hanifah was vindicated from the claims of Irjaa made against him, unlike the claims made also by some Salafi's that al-Albani himself had Irjaa! As for your claims on Abu Hanifah being disparaged, please reply to the following article. By the way, it is by al-Kabbbani - and i am not on his path for the man has his fair share of problems, but how is it that no one has been able to respond to this research:
The vindication of the Imam from the claim of Salafis whereby Abu Hanifa was da'if (weak in Hadith) Shaykh Hasan al-Saqqaf wrote in his book about Albani's attacks on the great scholars entitled Qamus shata'im al-Albani [Dictionary of Albani's Insults of the Scholars]: "He [Albani] says of Imam Abu Hanifa: "The imams have declared him weak for his poor memorization" (in his commentary of Ibn Abi `Asim's Kitab as-Sunna 1:76) although no such position is reported, see for example Ibn Hajar `Asqalani's biography of Abu Hanifa in "Tahdhib al-tahdhib".
ANSWER
As a person having knowledge of the sciences of hadeeth and of rijaal, a narrator does not become trustworthy or reliable if Imaam Dhahabee mentions him Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb nor does one become weak if they are not mentioned in a particular book of narrators. Hence it is incorrect to single out Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb as it is not necessary that his weakness is mentioned in that book only, ie it may be in other books of narrators.
SOME HISTORY
Shaikh Kawthari and his stauch blind followers from them his well know student Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah (and those upon their way like Hasan as-Saqqaf, Muahmmad Awaamah and the newcomer Hishaam Kabbaanee) have been for a very long time spreading lies and false propaganda against the noble Muhaddith Allaamah Muhammad Naasir ud deen al-Albaanee. In this false propaganda and hatred for the Shaikh. These individual's did not stop at any length in attacking Ahlus-Sunnah Wal Jama'ah and their Imaams. So we wish to mention their injustices, lies distortions and their enmity for the Scholars of Hadeeth and then answer the claim of Muhammad Imraan "...but how is it that no one has been able to respond to this research:
Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah said about Allaamah al-Albaanee, "So in this time raising objections on Imaam Abu Haneefah (by the man Naasir ud deen al-Albaanee) and declaring ahadeeth narrated from him to be weak due to his memory is contrary to a persons trustworthiness, honesty and justice with the people of knowledge. If he has relied and trusted the statements of Imaam Bukhaari and other Imaams who agreed with him in his objections on him (ie Abu Haneefah) then as this statement is not correct it is not right to rely upon it as i have indicated. And on page.379 the reason will be mentioned due to which Imaam Bukhaari made such a critical objection on Imaam Abu Haneefah.
If for arguments sake if the criticism of Imaam Bukhaari is accepted witout any objections then still in the scholarly world the level of trustworthiness and justice was that al-Albaanee should have mentioned the statements of the people praising and declaring him (Abu Haneefah) to be trustworthy, who were greater in number and they were well versed in the subject of Rijaal (narrators) and they had more fame in terms of their knowledge and virtues.
Like for example Shu'bah bin Hajjaaj who testified Abu Haneefah having good memory on page 325. Further more two illustrious teachers of Imaam Bukhaari, (Yahyaa ibn Ma'een and Alee ibn al-Madeenee) who preceedd Imaam Bukhaari in the subject of narrators, they also testify him (Abu Haneefah) being good in memory. Page 323 also mentions the trustworthiness of Imaam Abu Haneefah." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth pg.319)
So the according to Abu Guddah the mistake of Imaam al-Albaanee was that he only mentioned criticism and not praise of Imaam Abu Haneefah.
THE WORDS OF IMAAM AL-ALBAANEE REGARDING IMAAM ABU HANEEFAH
The words of Imaamanah, Muhaddith al-Asr in Kitaab as-Sunnah Lee Ibn Abee Aasim are, ".........He was grand in fiqh, however the Imaams have declared him weak due to his poor memory, and I have mentioned the names of these Imaams in Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Da'eefah (5/76)......" (Kitaab as-Sunnah Of Imaam Ibn abee Aasim (pg.91 no.173, al-Maktab al-Islaamee, fourth Ed. 1419H-1998) as will be mentioned later
Imaam al-Albaanee said, "Imaam Abu Haneefah was a great Faqeeh but due to his memory, the likes of Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Nasaa'ee, Ibn Adiyy and other scholars of hadeeth declared him to be weak." (Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Da'eefah Wal-Mawdoo'ah (no. 397 pg.78)
Imaam al-Albaanee further said, "The scholars of hadeeth have delared hadeeth narrated by him to be weak as I have already mentioned in hadeeth no.397... " (Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Da'eefah (5/76 no.458)
Imaam al-Albaanee under this hadeeth mentions the statements of praise and criticism of the scholars of hadeeth
Allaamah al-Albaanee said, "We have no doubt Imaam Abu Haneefah was a good person but him being good is not sufficient that we just accept the hadeeth narrated by him up until we do not examine his hifdh (memorising abilities) and dhabt (precision in narrating). However his hifdh and dhabt is not established but contrary to this the Imaams of Jarh wa-Ta'deel (Criticism and praise) have mentioned their thoughs which we have mentioned. It must be remembered the Imaams of Jarh Wa-Ta'deel are at such levels that however accepts their testifications and statements then he will not go astray and by no means does the postion of Imaam Abu Haneefah is degraded in anyway because he was at a high level due to his taqwaa and in terms of his fiqh.
However some later scholars due to Mutassub hold an opinion contrary to this. It is well established that how many a faqeeh, qadhee's and pious people have passed who were declared weak due to their memories and precision but by this nor os their honour defamed nor is their character criticised. This reality is apparent on the people of knowledge who are involved in the narrators of hadeeth.
So this is correct that the level of justice and with it the heavens and the earths are established. Being righteous, a worshipper and a faqeeh is one attribute and narrating ahadeeth with memory and precision is another attribute, and men before have passed with one attribue only. So by this there is no disparagement on Imaam Abu Haneefah that he was weak due to his memory and precision. when he is counted amongst the Saadiqeen furthermore he was an illustrious faqeeh and a man with understanding. It is sufficient for his virtue that Allaah had granted him with the treasures of knowledge and understanding..." (Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Da'eefah Wal-Mawdoo'ah (5/79)
Imaam al-Albaanee further said, "it is not permissible to insult him for it, as some ignorant people have done. In fact, it is obligatory to respect him, for he is one of the imaams of the Muslims through whom this Deen has been preserved and handed down to us, in all its branches; also, for he is rewarded under any circumstance: whether he is correct or wrong. Nor is it permissible for his devotees to continue sticking to those of his statements which contradict the authentic ahaadeeth, for those statements are effectively not part of his Madhhab, as the above sayings show. Hence, these are two extremes, and the truth lies in between. "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith; and leave not, in our hearts, any rancour against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." (Al-Hashr 59:10) (Sifah Salaahtun-Nabee pg.23, 14th Ed 1408H, 1987, al-Maktab al-Islaamee.)
A blind follower of Albani replied: The statement that no such position is reported is a lie, it was the position of Muslim (al-Kunaa wal Asmaa), Nasaa'ee (ad-Du'afaa) ibn Adee (al-Kaamil 2/403), ibn Sa'd (Tabaqaat 6/256), al-Uqailee (ad-Du'afaa p.432), ibn Abee Haatim (al-Jarh wat Tadil), Daaruqutnee (as-Sunan p132), al-Haakim (Ma'rifa Ulum al-Hadeeth), Abdul Haqq al-Ishbelee (al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa q.17/2), adh-Dhahabee (ad-Du'afaa q. 215/1-2), Bukharee (at-Taareekh al-Kabeer), ibn Hibbaan (al-Majrooheen)
Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani replies: Our reliance is on Allah.
Shaykh Albani has shown enmity towards scholars, of a kind that passes all bounds and is unbefitting of a person with knowledge in Islam.
ANSWER
We say it is unbefitting for you to lie as claimants of knowledge. Your perception is the mistake of Imaam al-Albaanee is that he declared Imaam Abu Haneefah to be weak and as a result all tongues go open and loose upon him. If your point is that he has spoken about an illustrious Imaam then we say why do you accuse others what you practice and preach yourselves.
Any person with a sound intellect from the statements of Imaam al-Albaanee would deduce Imaam Abu Haneefah was not abused or cursed in anyway however contrary to this the likes of Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah and his teacher the one known for his enmity toward the scholars of hadeeth, bigoted in blind partisanship, Shaikh Zaahid al-Kawthaari were known to curse the Imams of Hadeeth openly. What follows is a brief glimpse of the way and the path these individuals adopted.in Islaam.
SHAIKH ZAAHID HUSSAIN AL-KAWTHAARI
He is also known as Majnoon Abee Haneefah. This is inorder to defend one Imaam Abu Haneefah he has shunned, disparaged, abused and cursed many like Imaam Shaafi'ee, Imaam Humaidee, Imaam Ibn Abee Haatim, Imaam Daarqutnee, Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muhammad ibn Bishaar Bandaar, Imaam Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazee, Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah, Imaam Ibn Adiyy, Imaam Uthmaan bin Sa'eed ad-Daarimee, Imaam Waadeh bin Abdullah, Imaam Abu Awaanah, Imaam Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imaam Muhammad ibn Yoosuf Faryaabee, Imaam Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Mausalee and many more. He said Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and Haafdih Ibn Qayyim were misguided, idol worshippers to the extent of saying they were mushriks (polytheists)
His lying deceit and distortions in the books of Islaam became so well know that the intended publishers one of his books, 'al-Intiqaa Fee Fadhail ath-Thalaathal-Ai'mah al-Fuqaha' on which he had added some footnotes were forced to say after seeing his reality after halting his work, "We do not want to be part of his sins and we make clear dissociation from him, he is an extremely mutassub (bigoted) individual." (al-Intiqaa pg.3)
IMAAM AL-ALBAANEE ON KAWTHAARI AL-HANAFEE
Imaam al-Albaanee said, "And Kawthari had knowledge of hadeeth and the rijaal but I have to say his knowledge is evidence against him. As after having knowledge of hadeeth it was not sufficient to guide him in the principles or the subsidiary issues.He was an individual who possesed a Jahmee Aqeedah, a denier of the attributes, an extreme hanafee, a bitter enemy of the scholars of hadeeth of the past and present and he would curse and abuse them. In his speaking ill of the Ahlul-Hadeeth he would say these people attribute a body to Allaah (Na'oozoobillah) and they do tashbeeh (likening Allaah to the creation)
He (Kawthaari) said, "Ahlul-Hadeeth are the Hashwiyyah, the foolish ones and he said the book of Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah, Kitaab at-Tawheed, "It is Kitaab ush-Shirk" and he makes Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah the target of insult and abuse, (see Ta'neeb al-Khateeb Ala ma Saqahu Fee Tarjamat Abee Haneefah Min al-Akadheeb (p.19) of Ustaadh Kawthaari, and also at-Tankeel Bimaa Ta'neeb al-Kawthaari Minal-Abaateel (1/426-427), al-Maktabah al-Ma'arif, Riyaadh, 2nd Ed. 1406H)
and he said, "He held the belief of tajseem (attributing a body to Allaah) and he was totally unaware of the principles of Islaam." (see his book as-Sayf as-Saqeel (pg.5)
He said the Ahlul-Hadeeth had no understanding of issues of fiqh. He further said the Ahlul-Hadeeth carry around greek books.
In the field of hadeeth he cursed and abused (unjustly) over 300 narrators of which most were trustworthy and 90 of them memorisers (Haafidh's) and from them were the likes Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi'ee and Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He also clearly said he had no reliance and trust in Imaam Ibn Hibbaan and Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadee. (See at-Tankeel of Allaamah Mu'allimee al-Yamaanee)
He called the narrator of Musnad Ahmad, who was the son of Imaam Ahmad, Abdullah, a Kadhaab (a Liar) (I think because Imaam Abdullah refuted Abu Haneefah from every angle in his book as-Sunnah) and this may be the reason why he does refer to Musnad Ahmad as one of the Masaneed to refer to.
So he says, "Musnad Ahmad with its many single narrations is not a compilation of authentic hadeeth." (Ashfaaq Ala Ahkaam at-Talaaq (pg.23)
He also says, "The usage of (An -from) instead of Same'tu (I heard) or Hadathana (narrated) is implying it is not preserved (ie Musnad Ahmad). So we find from this the single narrator (ie Imaam Ahmad's son, Abdullah the Imaam)of the book was not precise (Ashfaaq Ala Ahkaam at-Talaaq (pg.24)
He did not stop here he went onto to say Haafidh al-Uqailee was a mutshadid (extreme and firm) and unsuccesful. so in essence very few people were saved from his tingue. Also from the books he spoke against were the book of Imaam Ibn Adiyy, al-Kaamil and ash-Sharee'ah of Imaam al-Aa'jurree.
(See Sharh Aqeedah Tahawiyyah (pg.50) with Allaamah al-Albaanee's checking and introduction, al-Maktab al-Islaamee, 1408H-1988)
KAWTHAARI AL-HANAFEE AND HIS TANEEB
The author of this ridiculous treatise said (later on) the late `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, to take pen to paper to oppose such aberrations in his book Radd `ala abatil wa iftira'at Nasir al-Albani wa sahibihi sabiqan Zuhayr al-Shawish wa mu'azirihima." So Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah attempted to refute Imaam al-Albaanee however have you forgotten so easily when our Shaikh al-Allaamah ash-Shaikh Abdur Rahmaan bin Yahyaa al-Mu'allimee al-Yamaanee (d.1386H) wrote two books against Kawthaari al-Hanafee
(1) at-Tilyatah tal-Tankeel, and
(2) at-Tankeel Bimaa Ta'neeb al-Kawthaari Minal-Abaateel.
He attacked
(1) Imaam Abu Dawood
He attempted to establish he was a Naasibee (a sect who hated the Prophets Family). a Muajassim (the one who held Allaah had a body) and that he was Khabeeth (See Ta'neeb (pg.68).
(2) Imaam Abdullah bin Zubair Abu Bakr al-Humaidee.
Kawthaari said, "He was a liar... and he had extreme partisanship." (See Ta'neeb (pg.36).
(3) Imaam Abdullah bin Adiyy Abu Ahmad al-Jurjaanee al-Haafidh.
Kawthaari said, ".. he had a long tongue about Abu Haneefah and his companions." (See Ta'neeb (pg.169).
(4) Imaam Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Udtaadh Kawthaari said, "He did not know the science of Rijaal, and similarly he was not truthful about Abu HAneefah and he brought lies (about him)." (See Ta'neeb (pg 151).
(5) Imaam Abul-Qaasim Baghawee was declared weak by Ustaadh Kawthaari. (See Ta'neeb (pg.54).
(6) Imaam Abu Abdullah ibn Battah al-Ukbaree, ustaadh Kawthaari said he was a fool. (See Ta'neeb (pg.148).
(7) Imaam Uthmaan bin Sa'eed ad-Daarimee, the Haafidh. Ustaadh Mutassub al-Kathaari said, "the Mujassim (the one who attributes a body to Allaah)." (See Ta'neeb (pg.16).
(8) Imaam Alee ibn al-Madeenee. Ustaadh Kawthaari did not even spare him. (See Ta'neeb (pg.168, 170).
(9) Imaam Daarqutnee. The Ghalee Kawthaari also attacked him for the beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah.(See Ta'neeb (pg.168, 178).
(10) Imaaam Maalik bin Anas, (See Ta'neeb (pg.100), (11) Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah (See Ta'neeb (pg.19), and (12) and Imaam Bukhaari (See Ta'neeb (pg.48).
and many more, these were some quick example for people to refer to.
Imaam al-Albaanee wrote the introduction to at-Tankeel Bimaa Ta'neeb al-Kawthaari Minal-Abaateel, he said, "Alhamdulllah Wasaltu Wasalaam Ala Rasoolullah (SAW) and upon his companions and the brothers.
To proceed:-
I present to the readers this book, 'at-Tankeel Bimaa Ta'neeb al-Kawthaari Minal-Abaateel' of Allaamah al-Muhaqqiq ash-Shaikh Abdur Rahmaan ibn Yahyaa ibn Alee al-Yamaanee. In which he makes clear with conclusive evidences that Ustaadh Kawthaari declared scholars of hadeeth and narrators of hadeeth criminals and attributed then with the defects of Tajseem (ie that they attributed a body to Allaah) and Tashbeeh (and they liken Allaah to creation- The Ahlul-Hadeeth are free of this) and he abused them due to his desires and his partisanship to his madhab (of hanafiyyah) to the extent that his abuse reached the companions and he also clearly said even Abu Haneefah refrained from taking the ahadeeth of these companions.
In addition to this he attacked the knowledge of some of these Imaams and scholars, for example he said Imaam Maalik was not of Arab origin rather he was a slave and similarly he said Imaam Shaafi'ee was not of Arab origin and that he was not wellversed in Arabic and he was not strong in fiqh. He also said Imaaam Ahmad was not a faqeeh and his son Abdullah was a Mujassim. Similarly Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah, Uthmaan ad-Daarimee, Ibn Abee Haatim and Daarqutnee and those with them were blind and misguided in their ideas and they were followers of their desires.
He further said Imaam Haakim was a Shee'ah and he was forgetful and his forgetiing was obscene. No one was free from his abuse to the extent that Humaidee, Saaleh ibn Muhammad al-Haafiz, Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazee, Ibn Adiyy, Ibn Abee Dawood and Dhahabee and others were attacked by him
THE REALITY OF ABU GUDDAH
Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah as mentioned previously had continously engaged in hurling abuse upon Imaam al-Albaanee and expressing his enmity for the Sunnah and Ahlus-Sunnah, so some well wishers decided to organise a meeting between Imaam al-Albaanee and Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah so that the objections and allegations of Abu Guddah could be answered, however Abu Guddah would decline every invitation and If both ever accidently met at some place then Abu Guddah would always decline to entertain any discussion.
Then it was wished that they both sit and discuss the issues during the Hajj of 1391H. Even Doctor Ameen Misree upon the request of Imaam al-Albaanee attempted to organise a sitting between the two but Abu Guddah declined. So this was the reality of Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah that he was ranting and raving abuse and curses at Imaam al-Albaanee continuouly from his minbar yet he was not willing to sit and discuss the issues.
The reason for this vile behaviour of Abu Guddah towards Imaam al-Albaanee was due to him declaring Imaam Abu Haneefah a weak narrator due to his poor memory. So even in this incorrect understanding of Abu Guddah as will be made apparent he continued to make ta'an (disparaging remarks) on Imaam al-Albaanee and the Imaams of Hadeeth of the past from them Imaam Ameer al-Mu'mineen Fil-Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa'eel al-Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Imaam Abu Bakr Khuzaimah and many others for the very same reason of declaring Imaam Abu Haneefah weak in hadeeth.
Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah in his notes to the book entitled Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth, which was originally authored by another bigoted individual and also known for his enmity for the Sunnah, Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee Thanwee (the uncle of the infamous maulana Yateem al-Ummat Ashraf Alee Thanwee). He titled his book 'Inhaa as-Sakan' which was originally the introduction of his so called monumental book in defence of the Hanafee fiqh, "E'laa as-Sunan'. In the notes Abu Guddah censures the Imaams of hadeeth like Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others because they declared Imaam Abu Haneefah weak in hadeeth. So this by definition follows Abu Guddah was at war with all the Imaams and scholars of hadeeth who either declared Abu Haneefah weak or spoke about him. (See Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg..318).
Abu Guddah says, "(Imaam Nasaa'ee) was a Mutashadid (extremist) man." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.344, Idaarah al-Qur'aan Wal-Uloom al-Islaamiyyah, Karatashee Baakistaan).
Allaamah al-Albaanee said in his introduction to the checking of sharh Aqeedah Tahawiyyah, "He (Abu Guddah) changed the name of the book to Qawaa'id Uloom-al-Hadeeth, then would it not have better for you have named it Ala Madhab Hanafiyyah (ie The Principes of the Knowledge of Hadeeth According to the Hanafee Madhab)." (Sharh Aqeedah Tahaawiyyah..XXX)
SHAIKH ABDUL FATTAH ABU GUDDAH'S ABHORENT MISTAKES
It is all very well in the hanafees like Hasan as-Saqaaf and Hishaam Kabbaanee claiming mistakes for Imaam al-Albaanee but would it not be better to look at what your own house hold has been getting up to.
EXAMPLE ONE (1)
As mentioned before Shaikh Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee Thanawee wrote Inhaa as-Sakan which Abu Guddah edited and added notes to it. So Shaikh Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee on page 118 of Inhaa as-Sakan whilst declaring the hadeeth of Israa wal-Me'raaj in SAHEEH MUSLIM to be weak he says in the footnotes, "In this narration is Shareek al-Qadhee, and Shareek has weak memory (sa'ee al-al-Hifdh." (Inhaa as-Sakan pg.118)
However this narration is not from Shareek bin Abdullah al-Qadhee but rather from Shareek bin Abdullah bin Abee Namr. However Shareek al-Qadhee was weak in memory without doubt but no scholar of hadeeth has ever attributed such a weakness to Ibn abee Namr. Shareek al-Qadhee could not have been the narrator as the companion narrating this hadeeth is Anas (Ra) and he was in Madeenah, when Shareek al-Qadhee was a Koofee but Shareek ibn Abee Namr was also a Madanee.
What further proves the narrator from Anas (Ra) was Ibn Abee Namr is that he was a narrator of the fifth level whereas Shareek al-Qadhee was a narrator of the eigth level, so there would have most definitely been in'qitaa (disconnection) in the chain which would have rendered the narration weak. (See Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
So this was a bad mistake of Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee, and the significance of this will be made clearer later. So Abu Guddah offering his services as a respectful student rather than clearing his teacher from this mistake he taints his shaikhs name further and disgraces the hanafee madhab and exposes his lack of understanding of the sciences of hadeeth.
Abu Guddah in his edited edition of Inhaa as-Sakan corrects the footnote and changes Shareekh al-Qadhee to Shareek ibn Abdullah ibn Abee Namr, but leaves the words Sa'ee al-Hifdh (weak memory) in the footnotes. (See Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg..366).
The reader may think at least he has corrected the mistake of the narrator and he may have forgotten to take the words Sa'ee al-Hifdh out. Then know no scholar of hadeeth has declared Shareek ibn Abdullah ibn Abee Namr to have been weak, so the hanafee muqallideen cannot argue that he may also have been weak. Abu Guddah goes ne step further and look at the level of his dhulm, he says,
"I say his statement (ie of Shaikh Zafar Uthmaanee) are in agreement that he makes many mistakes as you can see in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (4/334-337) and Ibn Hajr said in Taqreeb, "He is truthful but makes many mistakes (Sadooq Yakhtaa Katheeran)." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg..366), Footnote no.1).
This is also Abu Guddah's big mistake and error. No scholarof hadeeth said Ibn Abee Namr makes Many mistakes (Katheer al-Khata). So we look at the statements of the Imaams of Jarh Wa-Ta'deel in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb to establish his claim of "...are in agreement that he makes many mistakes..."
Imaam's Nasaa'ee and Ibn Ma'een said, "Laisa Ba Baas." Imaam Ibn Sa'ad said, "Thiqaah Katheer al-Hadeeth." (trustworthy, has many hadeeth), Imaam Abu Dawood said, "Thiqah (trustworthy)." Imaam Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in his ath-Thiqaat and said he makes mistakes sometimes. Imaam Nasaa'ee said, "He is not strong." and Ibn al-Jarood said, "He is not strong, and la Baas." (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (4/338).
Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah said, "...Imaam Bukhaari and those who hold a similar opinion to his were born after a long time after his death (ie of Abu Haneefah's) so there statement will not be accepted at all. Their approach to to Abu Haneefah was very low and degrading which is indicative of their partisanship..." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth pg.318)
The only criticism here is by Imaam Nasaa'ee he is not strong, but Abu Guddah himself says, "This is weak criticism." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg..394-403)
So where has he substantiated his claim that Ibn Abee Namr makes many mistakes and where are his statements that show the scholars were agreed upon him making mistakes. This was a great lie by Abu Guddah.
So you wouldexpect Abu Guddah to fabricate one lie in 3 lines, but with no shame or fear he fabricates another lie on Ibn Abee Namr and a Second lie on Haafidh Ibn Hajr and committed a major teachery. He narrated from Haafidh Ibn Hajr from Taqreeb, ""He is truthful but makes many mistakes (Sadooq Yakhtaa Katheeran)" however these clearly are not the words of Haafidh Ibn Hajr
One version of Taqreeb was checked by Shaikh Abdul Wahhaab with many older versions of Taqreeb, from which one version was handwritten by Haafidh Ibn Hajr himself, and all contain the words, "Sadooq Yakhtaa" (Truthful, makes mistakes.) (the word Katheeran (many) was added by Abu Guddah himself)
Recently a thoroughly checked version of Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb was printed with the checking of Abul Ishbaal Sagheer Ahmad Shaagif al-Baakistaanee, which he checked with three (3) manuscipt versions and seven (7) printed versions. This highly checked version also does not contain the words "Katheeran (Many)". Shaikh Abul Ishbaal also said this was an addition by Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah and he took this defective path (of adding ie distorting) from his Shaikh al-Kawthari al-Jarkasee and such additions are absolutely unlawful and there is not a single addition like it. (Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (pg.30 and pg.436), Printed Daar ul-Aasimah, as-Saudia, First ed.).
This is the reality of the scholarly level of Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah, that he knowing firstly attemps to declare a narration from Saheeh Muslim to be weak, secondly he lies upon Shareek ibn Abdullah ibn Abee Namr and thirdly he lies upon Haafidh Ibn Hajr and in doing so he distorts the books of Ahlus-Sunnah which is indeed treachery. So how can such a man be trusted with the affaisrs of the religion.
As we mentioned in the first volume, Saqqaf has documented in his book an instance where Albani compares Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel in respect to distance from Qur'an and Sunna, and this would be unacceptable coming from a Christian, how then could it be accepted from a Muslim? Albani and his following have pushed even the gentlest of scholars, the late `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, to take pen to paper to oppose such aberrations in his book Radd `ala abatil wa iftira'at Nasir al-Albani wa sahibihi sabiqan Zuhayr al-Shawish wa mu'azirihima (Refutation of the falsehood and fabrications of Nasir al-Din Albani and his former friend Zuhayr al-Shawish and their supporters). This book received two editions recently.
ANSWER
Read the above reality of Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah for his abberations.
In addition to this Our Shaikh Rabee bin Hadee Umair al-Madkhalee authored a book titled, "Taqseem al-Hadeeth Ilas-Saheeh, Wa-Hasan Wad-Da'eef, Bayna Waaq'eh al-Muhadditheen Wa-Mugaalataat al-Muta'ssibeen, Radd Ala Abee Guddah Wa Muhammad Awaamah." (Maktabah Daar us-Salaam First Ed. 1411H)
This book refutes the Abu Guddah and his student Muhammad Awaamah and their teacher Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee Thanwee, and this book ha also had several editions.
The claim by Albani's supporter whereby "The statement that no such position is reported is a lie" is itself a lie. None of the references he adduces contains a single authentic proof for Albani's claim that "the imams have declared him weak for his poor memorization." For such a claim to be remotely true it would have to be modified to read: "He was graded weak by some scholars but this grading was rejected by the Imams." The proof for this is that the positions reported against Abu Hanifa in the references given are all weak and rejected, and often inauthentic in the first place, in the end amounting to nothing: therefore, even though there is criticism reported, it comes to nothing and does not constitute any "declaration of weakness by the Imams" as asserted by Albani!
The example given as proof by Saqqaf, namely Ibn Hajar `Asqalani's notice on Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib al-tahdhib, confirms that the Imams of hadith never declared Abu Hanifa weak,
ANSWER
So Kabbaanee or the author makes another fatal of mistake by assuming Ibn Hajr not mentioning weakness of Abu Haneefah confirms the Imaams of hadeeth did not declare him weak is narrow mindedness more so lack of knowledgeof the book of rijaal and lack of research and looking at all the texts related to the subject before making these statements
KALAAM FAARIG
A summary of this whole article is an attempt to answer the criticism's raised on Imaam Abu Haneefah and similarly defending him. Then we say even Imaam Abu Haneefah refutes your positions and he himself agrees with the position of the scholars of hadeeth
So a student of Abu Haneefah, Abu Abdur Rahmaan Abdullah bin Yazeed Maqree narrates from Abu Haneefah and says, "I heard Abu Haneefah saying, "The hadeeth in general that I narrate are incorrect." (Taareekh Baghdaad (13/402), al-Kaamil (7/2473)
AUTHENTICITY OF THIS STATEMENT FROM THE IMAAM.
This statement from Imaam Abu Haneefah has an authentic chain from him.
(1) Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadee has narrated via, "Akhbaranee Ibn al-Fadhal, Akhbaranee Da'laj bin Ahmad, Akhbarana Ahmad bin Alee al-Abaar, Hadathana Mahmood bin Gheelaan, Hadathana Ibn al-Maqree, Qaal Same'atu Abaa Haneefah."
All the narrators of this chain are trustworthy and reliable.
Ibn Maqree Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Yazeed. Haafidh Khaleelee said, "Thiqaah, Muttafaq Alayhi.( He is trustworthy with agreement)" (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (9/284), Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (pg.456)
Muhammad bin Gheelaan is also trustworhty (thiqaah) and is a narrator of Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim. (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/64), Siyaar A'laam an-Nabula (12/223), Tadhkirratul Huffaadh (2/475) and he there according to you must have been a preserver of hadeeth as dhabaee has included in tadhkirrah
Ahmad bin Alee al-Abaar is also trustworthy (thiqaah) and a Haafidh. (see Taareekh Baghdaad (4/306), as-Siyaar A'laam an-Nabula (13/443), Tadhkiratul-Huffaadh (2/639).
Da'laj bin Ahmad. He was a famous trustworthy scholar of hadeeth and a faqeeh (jurist). Imaam Haakim said about him he in his time was the Shaikh of the Ahlul-Hadeeth.(as-Siyaar (16/30), Taareekh Baghdaad (8/387), Tadhkiratul-Huffaadh (3/881).
Ibn Fadhal, Muhammad bin al-Hussain bin Muhammad bin al-Fadhal al-Baghdaadee al-Qattaan. He was from the famous teachers of Imaam Baihaaqee and Imaam Khateeb. Imaam Dhahabee said,"His trustworthy with agreement." (as-Siyaar (17/331), Taareekh Baghdaad (2/246)
So all the narrators are trustworthy. It has also been said Ibn al-Maqree's hearing from Abu Haneefah is objectionable. So if this the case then
(2) Imaam Adiyy has also narrated this from Abdullah bin Abdul Azeez from Mahmood bin Gheelaan from al-Maqree. So Mahmood bin Gheelaan narrates from Ibn al-Maqree's father, who is Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Maqree, and Abdullah bin Yazeed is a teacher of the Famous Muhaddith Imaam Bukhaari and he is a Thiqah (trustworthy) Imaam. (See Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (6/83), as-Siyaar (10/166).
(3) Imaam Ibn Adiyy brings another chain for this narration from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa'eed from Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Suleimaan from Salamah bin Shayb, and this chain is also authentic ie Hasan.
Salamah bin Shayb al-Neesabooree is thiqah (trustworthy) (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (4/146).
Muhammad ibn Abdullah bin Suleimaan was the famous thiqah scholar of hadeeth (Muhaddith) from Koofah. (as-Siyaar (14/41)
Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa'eed ibn Aqdah is a famous Haafidh (preserver) of hadeeth. Some have spoken about him and some have said he is Thiqah (trustworthy). (as-Siyaar (15/340), Taareekh Baghdaad (5/14), Leesaan (1/263).
So this report from al-Maqree is established authentically.
for Ibn Hajar would have had to report such a weakening if it held true.
ANSWER
It is not necessary for Ibn Hajr to mention it. A major defect in this sentence is that it follows by default that whatever Ibn Hajr mentions concerning a narrator
Rather, he states the reverse, as seen from the translation of Ibn Hajar's notice excerpted below. This shows that Saqqaf's statement is correct, since Ibn Hajar undoubtedly represents the opinions of the Imams of hadith criticism and methodology concerning the weakness or poor memorization of any given narrator or scholar. Moreover, Ibn Hajar in Taqrib al-tahdhib (1993 ed. 2:248 #7179) calls Abu Hanifah al-Imam, and al-faqih al-mashhur (the well-known jurisprudent),
ANSWER
So the saying of Imaam Ibn Hajr in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb, " al-Imaam, al-Faqeehun Mashoor, from the sixth level..." (Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (pg.494 no.7153), ar-Resalah Publishers First Ed.)
This is no praise, Imaam Ibn Hajr has merely stated a fact as he was a famous jurist as is and was well known throughout the Muslim Ummah. However this was not the point of contention, who can say they do not know the name of Abu Haneefah who was considered a great jurist. The point of discussuion was his memory and is authenticity as a narrator. We say this is criticism on Abu Haneefah by Imaam Ibn Hajr as he avoids intentionally to mention the trustworthiness and reliabilty of Abu Haneefah and he free's himself from the blind exaggeration of the hanafee muqallids by using the words of Faqeehum Mashoor therby elluding them in thinking he has praised him. Yet how blind are the muqallideen they do not see that Imaam Ibn Hajr has totally avoided the whole purpose of mentioning Abu Haneefah in his book, which was to make a judgement on his reliability.
In order to understand this point we need to look at the biographies of two narrators directly after Abu Haneefah in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb. Ibn Hajr says,
no. 7154: "Nu'maan ibn Raashid al-Jazree, "Sadooq Sa'ee al-Haafidh..." (Truthful, but poor memory.) (Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb pg..494 no.7154)
no. 7155: "Nu'maan bin Saalim at-Ta'fee, "Thiqaah." (Trustworthy.) (Taqreeb pg..494 no.7155)
So here we see Ibn Hajr mentions the authenticity of the narrators and makes a judgement, owever in the biography of Abu Haneefah he totally avoids it. So if he held him to be weak he refrained from mentioning it as he would have had to face and deal with the thousand of stauch and bigoted hanafee muqallids and if he said he said he was trustworthy when he did not hold him to be then he would have been lying. This seems to have been position that he did not hold him to be reliable as he would have had no reason not to mention it as the Imaams of hadeeth ahd proceeded him in declaring Abu Haneefah to be weak. Rather Ibn Hajr with great wisdon totally avoids the point of discussion.
Yet we have people here with little intelligence and insight who are trying to use the very same words of Ibn Hajr as words of praise and trustworthiness of Abu Haneefah when the very same words were used by Ibn Hajr to avoid the question of Abu Haneefah's trustworthiness.
Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal would also take care in not to mention the name of Abu Haneefah, Ishaaq ibn Yoosuf said, "Imaam Ahmad would say Abu Fulaan and he would not use the name Abu Haneefah most of the time."(Musnad Imaam Ahmad (5/357).
This is because Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal also held Abu Haneefah to be weak. (see adh-Dhu'afaa of Imaam Uqailee (4/258), Taareekh Baghdaad (13/418) of Imaam Khateeb).
and Dhahabi includes him among the hadith masters in his Tadhkirat al-huffaz [Memorial of the Hadith Masters]. These titles are not given to anyone who is declared weak in hadith. And Dhahabi before Ibn Hajar, and al-Mizzi before Dhahabi, all concurred that no position purporting Abu Hanifa's weakness should be retained,
ANSWER
Imaam Dhahabee mentioning Abu Haneefah in Tadhkirratul-Huffaadh is no big deal as he mentions many other narrators, yet he mentions criticism on Abu Haneefah, his son and his grandson from Imaam Ibn Adiyy.
Imaam Dhahabee on the other hand in the biography of Abu Haneefah in Meezaan says, "Nu'maan bin Thaabit bin Zawtaa, Abu Haneefah al-Koofee, Imaam Ahlur-Ra'ee. Nasaa'ee dcelared him weak due to his memory and Ibn Adiyy also. Khateeb has mentined hid biography under two chapters in his Taareekh and he has brought the statements of two groups who have praised him and declared him weak." (Meezaan al-Ei'tidaal (7/37-38), Daar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut Lebanaon, First Ed. 1416H-1995), see also Imaam Dhahabee's al-Kaashif (3/205) and his Deewaan adh-Dhu'afaa (no.763)
So then how has Imaam Dhahabee on one hand said he was a preserver of hadeeth and then at the same time he brings the statement of Imaam Nasaa'ee who said he had a weak memory, and one can only be a preserver of hadeeth if the memory is good. We say Imaam Dhahabee mentioned Abu Haneefah in Tadhkirratul Huffaadh for Maslahah.
The hanafees cannot arugue here that Imaam Dhahabee just mentioned this criticism but he did not hold it to be true. Se say according to your own usool you said Ibn Hajr did not report any jarh as he did not hold it to be true, your words are, "for Ibn Hajar would have had to report such a weakening if it held true." so then likewise we say Imaam Dhahabee held the criticism to be true and hence he mentioned it.
There is another inconspicious criticism and that is Imaam Dhahabee says Abu Haneefah was the Imaam of Ahlur-Ra'ee ie of the people of opinion
ADD JARH for the above
BENEFIT
Ustaad Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah attacked and criticised and attributed treachery to Allaamah al-Albaanee just because he failed to mention the praise of Abu Haneefah, when in reality he did. So we say according to this usool of Abu Guddah Imaam Dhahabee also needs to be attacked, critcised and characterised of the attribute of teachery as he also just brings crticism of Abu Haneefah. (See the Tarjamah above).
as Dhahabi said in Tadhhib al-tahdhib (4:101): "Our shaykh Abu al-Hajjaj [al-Mizzi] did well when he did not cite anything [in Tahdhib al-kamal] whereby he [Abu Hanifa] should be deemed weak as a narrator."
ANSWER
Error after error. the author fails to even get the authors correct for the books never mind his understanding of Rijaal and criticism. Imaam Dhahabee did not write Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, but Imaam Ibn Hajr did. The above statement could not be found at the stated referece nor on the ten (10) pages ahead nor before with all possible combinations. (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, Daar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beiroot Lebanon, First Ed. 1415H;1994)
The remainder of the "Salafi"'s references are therefore irrelevant and over-ruled,
ANSWER
The above statement is baatil first and foremost as this is an individual opinion and right of al-Mizzi which firstly to be established and it does not overule any of the references as Salafi references are the statements of the Imaams of Hadeeth of their times.
especially in view of Ibn `Abd al-Barr's statement that "Those who narrated from Abu Hanifa, who declared him trustworthy (waththaquhu), and who praised him, outnumber those who criticized him" as related by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his book al-Khayrat al-hisan fi manaqib Abi Hanifa al-Nu`man (p. 74).
ANSWER
The author has attempted to play a clever trick here with his mastery skills and grammer of the english language and his poor translation. there should be no comas as it denotes a number of things. It says, ""Those who narrated from Abu Hanifa," The coma after Hanifa should not be here as it indicates the next part of the sentence is a separate part ie, "who declared him trustworthy (waththaquhu)," here Kabbaanee tries to show those who narrated from abu Haneefah and those who declared him trustworthy ad those who praised him all are from different categories. However this is not the case as the comas should not be there as all narrators from Abu Haneefah, those who declared him trustworthy and those who praised him all are one group of people, ie his students.
So It does not mean different people declared him trustworthy, so it does not matter if his students outnumbered those who critcised him it is about evidences and open mindedness. In order to invalidate this point we will mention the trustworthiness of those who narrated from Abu Haneefah and declared him to be trustworthy.
Also it is an established principe in the sciences of hadeeth and in the criticism of narrators that if you get detailed criticism and praise of a narrator then the criticism will take precednce even if the people praising outnumber the others. (See Tadreeb ar-Raawee pg.204).
So this renders the part of the statement "...and who praised him, outnumber those who criticized him" is baseless and invalid.
Secondly: Imaam Ibn abdul Barr continues and says, "Waladheena Qad Takalamu Feehee Min Ahlul-Hadeeth, then most from amongst them said he (Abu Haneefah) indulged and deeply involved in Qiyaas (analogical reasoning) and opinion (Ra'ee)." (Khayrat al-Hisaan pg.158)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx), Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm Wa-Fadhlihee (2/1084)XXXX
POINT
Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr from his statement concludes Abu Haneefah was not from the people (Ahlul-)Hadeeth.
Nevertheless we shall examine the sources that he brings up to show the extent to which these sources all suffer from various problems, as it is the wont of "Salafis" seen time and again to adduce false or weak evidence to promote their opinion. Hafiz Ibn Hajar's Notice of Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib From Tahdhib al-tahdhib, 1st ed. (Hyderabad: Da'irat al-ma`arif al-nizamiyya, 1327) Vol. 10 p. 449-452 #817 (10:45f. of the later edition) Al-Nu`man ibn Thabit al-Taymi, Abu Hanifa, al-Kufi, mawla Bani Taym Allah ibn Tha`laba. It is said that he was Persian. He saw Anas.
He narrated hadith from `Ata' ibn Abi Rabah, `Asim ibn Abi al-Nujud, `Alqama ibn Marthad, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, al-Hakam ibn `Utayba, Salama ibn Kuhayl, Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Ali, `Ali ibn al-Aqmar, Ziyad ibn `Alaqa, Sa`id ibn Masruq al-Thawri, `Adi ibn Thabit al-Ansari, `Atiyya ibn Sa`id al-`Awfi, Abu Sufyan al-Sa`di, `Abd al-Karim Abu Umayya, Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Ansari, and Hisham Ibn `Urwa among others.
From him narrated: his son Hammad, Ibrahim ibn Tahman, Hamza ibn Habib al-Zayyat, Zafr ibn al-Hadhil, Abu Yusuf al-Qadi, Abu Yahya al-Hamani, `Isa ibn Yunus, Waki` (ibn al-Jarrah al-Kufi),* Yazid ibn Zuray`, Asad ibn `Amr, al-Bajali, Hakkam ibn Ya`la ibn Salm al-Razi, Kharija ibn Mus`ab, `Abd al-Majid ibn Abi Rawad, `Ali ibn Mus-hir, Muhammad ibn Bishr al-`Abdi, `Abd al-Razzaq [one of Bukhari's shaykhs], Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, Mus`ib ibn al-Miqdam, Yahya ibn Yaman, Abu `Usma Nuh ibn Abi Maryam, Abu `Abd al-Rahman al-Muqri, Abu Nu`aym, Abu `Asim,
ANSWER
Nooh Ibn Abee Maryam
The scholars of hadeeth have criticised him. Imaam Daarqutnee, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Saajee, Imaam Daulaabee and Imaam Abu Haatim said he is "Matrook al-Hadeeth (Rejected in hadeeth)."
Imaam Bukhaari and Abu Ahmad al-Haakim said his hadeeth are not to be accepted.
Imaam Nasaa'ee said, "His hadeeth are worthy to be written."
Imaam Abu Alee Neesaabooree said, "he is Kadhaab." (Liar).
Imaam Sufyaan ibn Uyainah said, "He is a liar."
Imaam Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak said "He was accused of fabricating hadeeth."
Haafidh Khaleelee said, "There is unanimous agreement on his weakness." (see Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/487-488)
Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, "He was good in the sciences but in hadeeth the scholars of hadeeth declared him to be a liar and Ibn al-Mubaarak said he would fabricate hadeeth. (Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (pg.360)
and others [such as `Abd Allah Ibn al-Mubarak and Dawud al-Ta'i: see al-Mizzi's Tahdhib al-kamal 12 and al-Dhahabi in Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p. 20). al-Mizzi's list is about one hundred strong.]...
ANSWER
THE REALITY OF THE STUDENTSHIP OF ABDULLAH IBN AL-MUBAARAK OF ABU HANEEFAH
Imaam Abdullaah ibn Mubaarak during the latter part of his life left Abu Haneefah. Imaam Ibn abee Haatim said, "Ibn Mubaarak abandoned him in later life, I heard my father (is Abu Haatim) say this." (al-Jarh Wa-'Ta'deel (4/450)
Qadhee Ayaadh also admitted this he says, "At first he was considered to be from the students of Abu Haneefah but then he left him and he recaned and from his madhab and Ibn Waddah said he (Ibn al-Mubaarak) crossed out the narrations from Abu Haneefah in his books and he would not narrate his narrations to the people." (Tarteeb al-Madaarik (1/300).
Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr narrates from Ma'ala bin Asad that he asked Imaam Ibn al-Mubaarak, "People are saying you refer to the statements of Abu Haneefah?" he replied, "The people do not always speak the truth, when we did not know him we used to go to him but when we found about him we left him." (al-Intiqaa Fee Fadhail ath-Thalaathal-Ai'mah al-Fuqaha pg.151)
ABU HANEEFAH
started 16/12/02
Caller2islam - know that Imam Abu Hanifah was vindicated from the claims of Irjaa made against him, unlike the claims made also by some Salafi's that al-Albani himself had Irjaa! As for your claims on Abu Hanifah being disparaged, please reply to the following article. By the way, it is by al-Kabbbani - and i am not on his path for the man has his fair share of problems, but how is it that no one has been able to respond to this research:
The vindication of the Imam from the claim of Salafis whereby Abu Hanifa was da'if (weak in Hadith) Shaykh Hasan al-Saqqaf wrote in his book about Albani's attacks on the great scholars entitled Qamus shata'im al-Albani [Dictionary of Albani's Insults of the Scholars]: "He [Albani] says of Imam Abu Hanifa: "The imams have declared him weak for his poor memorization" (in his commentary of Ibn Abi `Asim's Kitab as-Sunna 1:76) although no such position is reported, see for example Ibn Hajar `Asqalani's biography of Abu Hanifa in "Tahdhib al-tahdhib".
ANSWER
As a person having knowledge of the sciences of hadeeth and of rijaal, a narrator does not become trustworthy or reliable if Imaam Dhahabee mentions him Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb nor does one become weak if they are not mentioned in a particular book of narrators. Hence it is incorrect to single out Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb as it is not necessary that his weakness is mentioned in that book only, ie it may be in other books of narrators.
SOME HISTORY
Shaikh Kawthari and his stauch blind followers from them his well know student Shaikh Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah (and those upon their way like Hasan as-Saqqaf, Muahmmad Awaamah and the newcomer Hishaam Kabbaanee) have been for a very long time spreading lies and false propaganda against the noble Muhaddith Allaamah Muhammad Naasir ud deen al-Albaanee. In this false propaganda and hatred for the Shaikh. These individual's did not stop at any length in attacking Ahlus-Sunnah Wal Jama'ah and their Imaams. So we wish to mention their injustices, lies distortions and their enmity for the Scholars of Hadeeth and then answer the claim of Muhammad Imraan "...but how is it that no one has been able to respond to this research:
Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah said about Allaamah al-Albaanee, "So in this time raising objections on Imaam Abu Haneefah (by the man Naasir ud deen al-Albaanee) and declaring ahadeeth narrated from him to be weak due to his memory is contrary to a persons trustworthiness, honesty and justice with the people of knowledge. If he has relied and trusted the statements of Imaam Bukhaari and other Imaams who agreed with him in his objections on him (ie Abu Haneefah) then as this statement is not correct it is not right to rely upon it as i have indicated. And on page.379 the reason will be mentioned due to which Imaam Bukhaari made such a critical objection on Imaam Abu Haneefah.
If for arguments sake if the criticism of Imaam Bukhaari is accepted witout any objections then still in the scholarly world the level of trustworthiness and justice was that al-Albaanee should have mentioned the statements of the people praising and declaring him (Abu Haneefah) to be trustworthy, who were greater in number and they were well versed in the subject of Rijaal (narrators) and they had more fame in terms of their knowledge and virtues.
Like for example Shu'bah bin Hajjaaj who testified Abu Haneefah having good memory on page 325. Further more two illustrious teachers of Imaam Bukhaari, (Yahyaa ibn Ma'een and Alee ibn al-Madeenee) who preceedd Imaam Bukhaari in the subject of narrators, they also testify him (Abu Haneefah) being good in memory. Page 323 also mentions the trustworthiness of Imaam Abu Haneefah." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth pg.319)
So the according to Abu Guddah the mistake of Imaam al-Albaanee was that he only mentioned criticism and not praise of Imaam Abu Haneefah.
THE WORDS OF IMAAM AL-ALBAANEE REGARDING IMAAM ABU HANEEFAH
The words of Imaamanah, Muhaddith al-Asr in Kitaab as-Sunnah Lee Ibn Abee Aasim are, ".........He was grand in fiqh, however the Imaams have declared him weak due to his poor memory, and I have mentioned the names of these Imaams in Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Da'eefah (5/76)......" (Kitaab as-Sunnah Of Imaam Ibn abee Aasim (pg.91 no.173, al-Maktab al-Islaamee, fourth Ed. 1419H-1998) as will be mentioned later
Imaam al-Albaanee said, "Imaam Abu Haneefah was a great Faqeeh but due to his memory, the likes of Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Nasaa'ee, Ibn Adiyy and other scholars of hadeeth declared him to be weak." (Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Da'eefah Wal-Mawdoo'ah (no. 397 pg.78)
Imaam al-Albaanee further said, "The scholars of hadeeth have delared hadeeth narrated by him to be weak as I have already mentioned in hadeeth no.397... " (Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Da'eefah (5/76 no.458)
Imaam al-Albaanee under this hadeeth mentions the statements of praise and criticism of the scholars of hadeeth
Allaamah al-Albaanee said, "We have no doubt Imaam Abu Haneefah was a good person but him being good is not sufficient that we just accept the hadeeth narrated by him up until we do not examine his hifdh (memorising abilities) and dhabt (precision in narrating). However his hifdh and dhabt is not established but contrary to this the Imaams of Jarh wa-Ta'deel (Criticism and praise) have mentioned their thoughs which we have mentioned. It must be remembered the Imaams of Jarh Wa-Ta'deel are at such levels that however accepts their testifications and statements then he will not go astray and by no means does the postion of Imaam Abu Haneefah is degraded in anyway because he was at a high level due to his taqwaa and in terms of his fiqh.
However some later scholars due to Mutassub hold an opinion contrary to this. It is well established that how many a faqeeh, qadhee's and pious people have passed who were declared weak due to their memories and precision but by this nor os their honour defamed nor is their character criticised. This reality is apparent on the people of knowledge who are involved in the narrators of hadeeth.
So this is correct that the level of justice and with it the heavens and the earths are established. Being righteous, a worshipper and a faqeeh is one attribute and narrating ahadeeth with memory and precision is another attribute, and men before have passed with one attribue only. So by this there is no disparagement on Imaam Abu Haneefah that he was weak due to his memory and precision. when he is counted amongst the Saadiqeen furthermore he was an illustrious faqeeh and a man with understanding. It is sufficient for his virtue that Allaah had granted him with the treasures of knowledge and understanding..." (Silsilah Ahadeeth ad-Da'eefah Wal-Mawdoo'ah (5/79)
Imaam al-Albaanee further said, "it is not permissible to insult him for it, as some ignorant people have done. In fact, it is obligatory to respect him, for he is one of the imaams of the Muslims through whom this Deen has been preserved and handed down to us, in all its branches; also, for he is rewarded under any circumstance: whether he is correct or wrong. Nor is it permissible for his devotees to continue sticking to those of his statements which contradict the authentic ahaadeeth, for those statements are effectively not part of his Madhhab, as the above sayings show. Hence, these are two extremes, and the truth lies in between. "Our Lord! Forgive us, and our brethren who came before us into the Faith; and leave not, in our hearts, any rancour against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful." (Al-Hashr 59:10) (Sifah Salaahtun-Nabee pg.23, 14th Ed 1408H, 1987, al-Maktab al-Islaamee.)
A blind follower of Albani replied: The statement that no such position is reported is a lie, it was the position of Muslim (al-Kunaa wal Asmaa), Nasaa'ee (ad-Du'afaa) ibn Adee (al-Kaamil 2/403), ibn Sa'd (Tabaqaat 6/256), al-Uqailee (ad-Du'afaa p.432), ibn Abee Haatim (al-Jarh wat Tadil), Daaruqutnee (as-Sunan p132), al-Haakim (Ma'rifa Ulum al-Hadeeth), Abdul Haqq al-Ishbelee (al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa q.17/2), adh-Dhahabee (ad-Du'afaa q. 215/1-2), Bukharee (at-Taareekh al-Kabeer), ibn Hibbaan (al-Majrooheen)
Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani replies: Our reliance is on Allah.
Shaykh Albani has shown enmity towards scholars, of a kind that passes all bounds and is unbefitting of a person with knowledge in Islam.
ANSWER
We say it is unbefitting for you to lie as claimants of knowledge. Your perception is the mistake of Imaam al-Albaanee is that he declared Imaam Abu Haneefah to be weak and as a result all tongues go open and loose upon him. If your point is that he has spoken about an illustrious Imaam then we say why do you accuse others what you practice and preach yourselves.
Any person with a sound intellect from the statements of Imaam al-Albaanee would deduce Imaam Abu Haneefah was not abused or cursed in anyway however contrary to this the likes of Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah and his teacher the one known for his enmity toward the scholars of hadeeth, bigoted in blind partisanship, Shaikh Zaahid al-Kawthaari were known to curse the Imams of Hadeeth openly. What follows is a brief glimpse of the way and the path these individuals adopted.in Islaam.
SHAIKH ZAAHID HUSSAIN AL-KAWTHAARI
He is also known as Majnoon Abee Haneefah. This is inorder to defend one Imaam Abu Haneefah he has shunned, disparaged, abused and cursed many like Imaam Shaafi'ee, Imaam Humaidee, Imaam Ibn Abee Haatim, Imaam Daarqutnee, Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muhammad ibn Bishaar Bandaar, Imaam Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazee, Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah, Imaam Ibn Adiyy, Imaam Uthmaan bin Sa'eed ad-Daarimee, Imaam Waadeh bin Abdullah, Imaam Abu Awaanah, Imaam Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal, Imaam Muhammad ibn Yoosuf Faryaabee, Imaam Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Mausalee and many more. He said Shaikh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah and Haafdih Ibn Qayyim were misguided, idol worshippers to the extent of saying they were mushriks (polytheists)
His lying deceit and distortions in the books of Islaam became so well know that the intended publishers one of his books, 'al-Intiqaa Fee Fadhail ath-Thalaathal-Ai'mah al-Fuqaha' on which he had added some footnotes were forced to say after seeing his reality after halting his work, "We do not want to be part of his sins and we make clear dissociation from him, he is an extremely mutassub (bigoted) individual." (al-Intiqaa pg.3)
IMAAM AL-ALBAANEE ON KAWTHAARI AL-HANAFEE
Imaam al-Albaanee said, "And Kawthari had knowledge of hadeeth and the rijaal but I have to say his knowledge is evidence against him. As after having knowledge of hadeeth it was not sufficient to guide him in the principles or the subsidiary issues.He was an individual who possesed a Jahmee Aqeedah, a denier of the attributes, an extreme hanafee, a bitter enemy of the scholars of hadeeth of the past and present and he would curse and abuse them. In his speaking ill of the Ahlul-Hadeeth he would say these people attribute a body to Allaah (Na'oozoobillah) and they do tashbeeh (likening Allaah to the creation)
He (Kawthaari) said, "Ahlul-Hadeeth are the Hashwiyyah, the foolish ones and he said the book of Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah, Kitaab at-Tawheed, "It is Kitaab ush-Shirk" and he makes Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah the target of insult and abuse, (see Ta'neeb al-Khateeb Ala ma Saqahu Fee Tarjamat Abee Haneefah Min al-Akadheeb (p.19) of Ustaadh Kawthaari, and also at-Tankeel Bimaa Ta'neeb al-Kawthaari Minal-Abaateel (1/426-427), al-Maktabah al-Ma'arif, Riyaadh, 2nd Ed. 1406H)
and he said, "He held the belief of tajseem (attributing a body to Allaah) and he was totally unaware of the principles of Islaam." (see his book as-Sayf as-Saqeel (pg.5)
He said the Ahlul-Hadeeth had no understanding of issues of fiqh. He further said the Ahlul-Hadeeth carry around greek books.
In the field of hadeeth he cursed and abused (unjustly) over 300 narrators of which most were trustworthy and 90 of them memorisers (Haafidh's) and from them were the likes Imaam Maalik, Imaam Shaafi'ee and Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal. He also clearly said he had no reliance and trust in Imaam Ibn Hibbaan and Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadee. (See at-Tankeel of Allaamah Mu'allimee al-Yamaanee)
He called the narrator of Musnad Ahmad, who was the son of Imaam Ahmad, Abdullah, a Kadhaab (a Liar) (I think because Imaam Abdullah refuted Abu Haneefah from every angle in his book as-Sunnah) and this may be the reason why he does refer to Musnad Ahmad as one of the Masaneed to refer to.
So he says, "Musnad Ahmad with its many single narrations is not a compilation of authentic hadeeth." (Ashfaaq Ala Ahkaam at-Talaaq (pg.23)
He also says, "The usage of (An -from) instead of Same'tu (I heard) or Hadathana (narrated) is implying it is not preserved (ie Musnad Ahmad). So we find from this the single narrator (ie Imaam Ahmad's son, Abdullah the Imaam)of the book was not precise (Ashfaaq Ala Ahkaam at-Talaaq (pg.24)
He did not stop here he went onto to say Haafidh al-Uqailee was a mutshadid (extreme and firm) and unsuccesful. so in essence very few people were saved from his tingue. Also from the books he spoke against were the book of Imaam Ibn Adiyy, al-Kaamil and ash-Sharee'ah of Imaam al-Aa'jurree.
(See Sharh Aqeedah Tahawiyyah (pg.50) with Allaamah al-Albaanee's checking and introduction, al-Maktab al-Islaamee, 1408H-1988)
KAWTHAARI AL-HANAFEE AND HIS TANEEB
The author of this ridiculous treatise said (later on) the late `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, to take pen to paper to oppose such aberrations in his book Radd `ala abatil wa iftira'at Nasir al-Albani wa sahibihi sabiqan Zuhayr al-Shawish wa mu'azirihima." So Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah attempted to refute Imaam al-Albaanee however have you forgotten so easily when our Shaikh al-Allaamah ash-Shaikh Abdur Rahmaan bin Yahyaa al-Mu'allimee al-Yamaanee (d.1386H) wrote two books against Kawthaari al-Hanafee
(1) at-Tilyatah tal-Tankeel, and
(2) at-Tankeel Bimaa Ta'neeb al-Kawthaari Minal-Abaateel.
He attacked
(1) Imaam Abu Dawood
He attempted to establish he was a Naasibee (a sect who hated the Prophets Family). a Muajassim (the one who held Allaah had a body) and that he was Khabeeth (See Ta'neeb (pg.68).
(2) Imaam Abdullah bin Zubair Abu Bakr al-Humaidee.
Kawthaari said, "He was a liar... and he had extreme partisanship." (See Ta'neeb (pg.36).
(3) Imaam Abdullah bin Adiyy Abu Ahmad al-Jurjaanee al-Haafidh.
Kawthaari said, ".. he had a long tongue about Abu Haneefah and his companions." (See Ta'neeb (pg.169).
(4) Imaam Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
Udtaadh Kawthaari said, "He did not know the science of Rijaal, and similarly he was not truthful about Abu HAneefah and he brought lies (about him)." (See Ta'neeb (pg 151).
(5) Imaam Abul-Qaasim Baghawee was declared weak by Ustaadh Kawthaari. (See Ta'neeb (pg.54).
(6) Imaam Abu Abdullah ibn Battah al-Ukbaree, ustaadh Kawthaari said he was a fool. (See Ta'neeb (pg.148).
(7) Imaam Uthmaan bin Sa'eed ad-Daarimee, the Haafidh. Ustaadh Mutassub al-Kathaari said, "the Mujassim (the one who attributes a body to Allaah)." (See Ta'neeb (pg.16).
(8) Imaam Alee ibn al-Madeenee. Ustaadh Kawthaari did not even spare him. (See Ta'neeb (pg.168, 170).
(9) Imaam Daarqutnee. The Ghalee Kawthaari also attacked him for the beliefs of Ahlus-Sunnah.(See Ta'neeb (pg.168, 178).
(10) Imaaam Maalik bin Anas, (See Ta'neeb (pg.100), (11) Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah (See Ta'neeb (pg.19), and (12) and Imaam Bukhaari (See Ta'neeb (pg.48).
and many more, these were some quick example for people to refer to.
Imaam al-Albaanee wrote the introduction to at-Tankeel Bimaa Ta'neeb al-Kawthaari Minal-Abaateel, he said, "Alhamdulllah Wasaltu Wasalaam Ala Rasoolullah (SAW) and upon his companions and the brothers.
To proceed:-
I present to the readers this book, 'at-Tankeel Bimaa Ta'neeb al-Kawthaari Minal-Abaateel' of Allaamah al-Muhaqqiq ash-Shaikh Abdur Rahmaan ibn Yahyaa ibn Alee al-Yamaanee. In which he makes clear with conclusive evidences that Ustaadh Kawthaari declared scholars of hadeeth and narrators of hadeeth criminals and attributed then with the defects of Tajseem (ie that they attributed a body to Allaah) and Tashbeeh (and they liken Allaah to creation- The Ahlul-Hadeeth are free of this) and he abused them due to his desires and his partisanship to his madhab (of hanafiyyah) to the extent that his abuse reached the companions and he also clearly said even Abu Haneefah refrained from taking the ahadeeth of these companions.
In addition to this he attacked the knowledge of some of these Imaams and scholars, for example he said Imaam Maalik was not of Arab origin rather he was a slave and similarly he said Imaam Shaafi'ee was not of Arab origin and that he was not wellversed in Arabic and he was not strong in fiqh. He also said Imaaam Ahmad was not a faqeeh and his son Abdullah was a Mujassim. Similarly Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah, Uthmaan ad-Daarimee, Ibn Abee Haatim and Daarqutnee and those with them were blind and misguided in their ideas and they were followers of their desires.
He further said Imaam Haakim was a Shee'ah and he was forgetful and his forgetiing was obscene. No one was free from his abuse to the extent that Humaidee, Saaleh ibn Muhammad al-Haafiz, Abu Zur'ah ar-Raazee, Ibn Adiyy, Ibn Abee Dawood and Dhahabee and others were attacked by him
THE REALITY OF ABU GUDDAH
Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah as mentioned previously had continously engaged in hurling abuse upon Imaam al-Albaanee and expressing his enmity for the Sunnah and Ahlus-Sunnah, so some well wishers decided to organise a meeting between Imaam al-Albaanee and Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah so that the objections and allegations of Abu Guddah could be answered, however Abu Guddah would decline every invitation and If both ever accidently met at some place then Abu Guddah would always decline to entertain any discussion.
Then it was wished that they both sit and discuss the issues during the Hajj of 1391H. Even Doctor Ameen Misree upon the request of Imaam al-Albaanee attempted to organise a sitting between the two but Abu Guddah declined. So this was the reality of Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah that he was ranting and raving abuse and curses at Imaam al-Albaanee continuouly from his minbar yet he was not willing to sit and discuss the issues.
The reason for this vile behaviour of Abu Guddah towards Imaam al-Albaanee was due to him declaring Imaam Abu Haneefah a weak narrator due to his poor memory. So even in this incorrect understanding of Abu Guddah as will be made apparent he continued to make ta'an (disparaging remarks) on Imaam al-Albaanee and the Imaams of Hadeeth of the past from them Imaam Ameer al-Mu'mineen Fil-Hadeeth Muhammad bin Ismaa'eel al-Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Imaam Abu Bakr Khuzaimah and many others for the very same reason of declaring Imaam Abu Haneefah weak in hadeeth.
Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah in his notes to the book entitled Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth, which was originally authored by another bigoted individual and also known for his enmity for the Sunnah, Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee Thanwee (the uncle of the infamous maulana Yateem al-Ummat Ashraf Alee Thanwee). He titled his book 'Inhaa as-Sakan' which was originally the introduction of his so called monumental book in defence of the Hanafee fiqh, "E'laa as-Sunan'. In the notes Abu Guddah censures the Imaams of hadeeth like Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others because they declared Imaam Abu Haneefah weak in hadeeth. So this by definition follows Abu Guddah was at war with all the Imaams and scholars of hadeeth who either declared Abu Haneefah weak or spoke about him. (See Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg..318).
Abu Guddah says, "(Imaam Nasaa'ee) was a Mutashadid (extremist) man." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg.344, Idaarah al-Qur'aan Wal-Uloom al-Islaamiyyah, Karatashee Baakistaan).
Allaamah al-Albaanee said in his introduction to the checking of sharh Aqeedah Tahawiyyah, "He (Abu Guddah) changed the name of the book to Qawaa'id Uloom-al-Hadeeth, then would it not have better for you have named it Ala Madhab Hanafiyyah (ie The Principes of the Knowledge of Hadeeth According to the Hanafee Madhab)." (Sharh Aqeedah Tahaawiyyah..XXX)
SHAIKH ABDUL FATTAH ABU GUDDAH'S ABHORENT MISTAKES
It is all very well in the hanafees like Hasan as-Saqaaf and Hishaam Kabbaanee claiming mistakes for Imaam al-Albaanee but would it not be better to look at what your own house hold has been getting up to.
EXAMPLE ONE (1)
As mentioned before Shaikh Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee Thanawee wrote Inhaa as-Sakan which Abu Guddah edited and added notes to it. So Shaikh Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee on page 118 of Inhaa as-Sakan whilst declaring the hadeeth of Israa wal-Me'raaj in SAHEEH MUSLIM to be weak he says in the footnotes, "In this narration is Shareek al-Qadhee, and Shareek has weak memory (sa'ee al-al-Hifdh." (Inhaa as-Sakan pg.118)
However this narration is not from Shareek bin Abdullah al-Qadhee but rather from Shareek bin Abdullah bin Abee Namr. However Shareek al-Qadhee was weak in memory without doubt but no scholar of hadeeth has ever attributed such a weakness to Ibn abee Namr. Shareek al-Qadhee could not have been the narrator as the companion narrating this hadeeth is Anas (Ra) and he was in Madeenah, when Shareek al-Qadhee was a Koofee but Shareek ibn Abee Namr was also a Madanee.
What further proves the narrator from Anas (Ra) was Ibn Abee Namr is that he was a narrator of the fifth level whereas Shareek al-Qadhee was a narrator of the eigth level, so there would have most definitely been in'qitaa (disconnection) in the chain which would have rendered the narration weak. (See Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX)
So this was a bad mistake of Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee, and the significance of this will be made clearer later. So Abu Guddah offering his services as a respectful student rather than clearing his teacher from this mistake he taints his shaikhs name further and disgraces the hanafee madhab and exposes his lack of understanding of the sciences of hadeeth.
Abu Guddah in his edited edition of Inhaa as-Sakan corrects the footnote and changes Shareekh al-Qadhee to Shareek ibn Abdullah ibn Abee Namr, but leaves the words Sa'ee al-Hifdh (weak memory) in the footnotes. (See Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg..366).
The reader may think at least he has corrected the mistake of the narrator and he may have forgotten to take the words Sa'ee al-Hifdh out. Then know no scholar of hadeeth has declared Shareek ibn Abdullah ibn Abee Namr to have been weak, so the hanafee muqallideen cannot argue that he may also have been weak. Abu Guddah goes ne step further and look at the level of his dhulm, he says,
"I say his statement (ie of Shaikh Zafar Uthmaanee) are in agreement that he makes many mistakes as you can see in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (4/334-337) and Ibn Hajr said in Taqreeb, "He is truthful but makes many mistakes (Sadooq Yakhtaa Katheeran)." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg..366), Footnote no.1).
This is also Abu Guddah's big mistake and error. No scholarof hadeeth said Ibn Abee Namr makes Many mistakes (Katheer al-Khata). So we look at the statements of the Imaams of Jarh Wa-Ta'deel in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb to establish his claim of "...are in agreement that he makes many mistakes..."
Imaam's Nasaa'ee and Ibn Ma'een said, "Laisa Ba Baas." Imaam Ibn Sa'ad said, "Thiqaah Katheer al-Hadeeth." (trustworthy, has many hadeeth), Imaam Abu Dawood said, "Thiqah (trustworthy)." Imaam Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in his ath-Thiqaat and said he makes mistakes sometimes. Imaam Nasaa'ee said, "He is not strong." and Ibn al-Jarood said, "He is not strong, and la Baas." (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (4/338).
Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah said, "...Imaam Bukhaari and those who hold a similar opinion to his were born after a long time after his death (ie of Abu Haneefah's) so there statement will not be accepted at all. Their approach to to Abu Haneefah was very low and degrading which is indicative of their partisanship..." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth pg.318)
The only criticism here is by Imaam Nasaa'ee he is not strong, but Abu Guddah himself says, "This is weak criticism." (Qawaa'id Uloom al-Hadeeth (pg..394-403)
So where has he substantiated his claim that Ibn Abee Namr makes many mistakes and where are his statements that show the scholars were agreed upon him making mistakes. This was a great lie by Abu Guddah.
So you wouldexpect Abu Guddah to fabricate one lie in 3 lines, but with no shame or fear he fabricates another lie on Ibn Abee Namr and a Second lie on Haafidh Ibn Hajr and committed a major teachery. He narrated from Haafidh Ibn Hajr from Taqreeb, ""He is truthful but makes many mistakes (Sadooq Yakhtaa Katheeran)" however these clearly are not the words of Haafidh Ibn Hajr
One version of Taqreeb was checked by Shaikh Abdul Wahhaab with many older versions of Taqreeb, from which one version was handwritten by Haafidh Ibn Hajr himself, and all contain the words, "Sadooq Yakhtaa" (Truthful, makes mistakes.) (the word Katheeran (many) was added by Abu Guddah himself)
Recently a thoroughly checked version of Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb was printed with the checking of Abul Ishbaal Sagheer Ahmad Shaagif al-Baakistaanee, which he checked with three (3) manuscipt versions and seven (7) printed versions. This highly checked version also does not contain the words "Katheeran (Many)". Shaikh Abul Ishbaal also said this was an addition by Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah and he took this defective path (of adding ie distorting) from his Shaikh al-Kawthari al-Jarkasee and such additions are absolutely unlawful and there is not a single addition like it. (Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (pg.30 and pg.436), Printed Daar ul-Aasimah, as-Saudia, First ed.).
This is the reality of the scholarly level of Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah, that he knowing firstly attemps to declare a narration from Saheeh Muslim to be weak, secondly he lies upon Shareek ibn Abdullah ibn Abee Namr and thirdly he lies upon Haafidh Ibn Hajr and in doing so he distorts the books of Ahlus-Sunnah which is indeed treachery. So how can such a man be trusted with the affaisrs of the religion.
As we mentioned in the first volume, Saqqaf has documented in his book an instance where Albani compares Hanafi fiqh to the Gospel in respect to distance from Qur'an and Sunna, and this would be unacceptable coming from a Christian, how then could it be accepted from a Muslim? Albani and his following have pushed even the gentlest of scholars, the late `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, to take pen to paper to oppose such aberrations in his book Radd `ala abatil wa iftira'at Nasir al-Albani wa sahibihi sabiqan Zuhayr al-Shawish wa mu'azirihima (Refutation of the falsehood and fabrications of Nasir al-Din Albani and his former friend Zuhayr al-Shawish and their supporters). This book received two editions recently.
ANSWER
Read the above reality of Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah for his abberations.
In addition to this Our Shaikh Rabee bin Hadee Umair al-Madkhalee authored a book titled, "Taqseem al-Hadeeth Ilas-Saheeh, Wa-Hasan Wad-Da'eef, Bayna Waaq'eh al-Muhadditheen Wa-Mugaalataat al-Muta'ssibeen, Radd Ala Abee Guddah Wa Muhammad Awaamah." (Maktabah Daar us-Salaam First Ed. 1411H)
This book refutes the Abu Guddah and his student Muhammad Awaamah and their teacher Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmaanee Thanwee, and this book ha also had several editions.
The claim by Albani's supporter whereby "The statement that no such position is reported is a lie" is itself a lie. None of the references he adduces contains a single authentic proof for Albani's claim that "the imams have declared him weak for his poor memorization." For such a claim to be remotely true it would have to be modified to read: "He was graded weak by some scholars but this grading was rejected by the Imams." The proof for this is that the positions reported against Abu Hanifa in the references given are all weak and rejected, and often inauthentic in the first place, in the end amounting to nothing: therefore, even though there is criticism reported, it comes to nothing and does not constitute any "declaration of weakness by the Imams" as asserted by Albani!
The example given as proof by Saqqaf, namely Ibn Hajar `Asqalani's notice on Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib al-tahdhib, confirms that the Imams of hadith never declared Abu Hanifa weak,
ANSWER
So Kabbaanee or the author makes another fatal of mistake by assuming Ibn Hajr not mentioning weakness of Abu Haneefah confirms the Imaams of hadeeth did not declare him weak is narrow mindedness more so lack of knowledgeof the book of rijaal and lack of research and looking at all the texts related to the subject before making these statements
KALAAM FAARIG
A summary of this whole article is an attempt to answer the criticism's raised on Imaam Abu Haneefah and similarly defending him. Then we say even Imaam Abu Haneefah refutes your positions and he himself agrees with the position of the scholars of hadeeth
So a student of Abu Haneefah, Abu Abdur Rahmaan Abdullah bin Yazeed Maqree narrates from Abu Haneefah and says, "I heard Abu Haneefah saying, "The hadeeth in general that I narrate are incorrect." (Taareekh Baghdaad (13/402), al-Kaamil (7/2473)
AUTHENTICITY OF THIS STATEMENT FROM THE IMAAM.
This statement from Imaam Abu Haneefah has an authentic chain from him.
(1) Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadee has narrated via, "Akhbaranee Ibn al-Fadhal, Akhbaranee Da'laj bin Ahmad, Akhbarana Ahmad bin Alee al-Abaar, Hadathana Mahmood bin Gheelaan, Hadathana Ibn al-Maqree, Qaal Same'atu Abaa Haneefah."
All the narrators of this chain are trustworthy and reliable.
Ibn Maqree Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Yazeed. Haafidh Khaleelee said, "Thiqaah, Muttafaq Alayhi.( He is trustworthy with agreement)" (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (9/284), Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (pg.456)
Muhammad bin Gheelaan is also trustworhty (thiqaah) and is a narrator of Saheeh al-Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim. (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/64), Siyaar A'laam an-Nabula (12/223), Tadhkirratul Huffaadh (2/475) and he there according to you must have been a preserver of hadeeth as dhabaee has included in tadhkirrah
Ahmad bin Alee al-Abaar is also trustworthy (thiqaah) and a Haafidh. (see Taareekh Baghdaad (4/306), as-Siyaar A'laam an-Nabula (13/443), Tadhkiratul-Huffaadh (2/639).
Da'laj bin Ahmad. He was a famous trustworthy scholar of hadeeth and a faqeeh (jurist). Imaam Haakim said about him he in his time was the Shaikh of the Ahlul-Hadeeth.(as-Siyaar (16/30), Taareekh Baghdaad (8/387), Tadhkiratul-Huffaadh (3/881).
Ibn Fadhal, Muhammad bin al-Hussain bin Muhammad bin al-Fadhal al-Baghdaadee al-Qattaan. He was from the famous teachers of Imaam Baihaaqee and Imaam Khateeb. Imaam Dhahabee said,"His trustworthy with agreement." (as-Siyaar (17/331), Taareekh Baghdaad (2/246)
So all the narrators are trustworthy. It has also been said Ibn al-Maqree's hearing from Abu Haneefah is objectionable. So if this the case then
(2) Imaam Adiyy has also narrated this from Abdullah bin Abdul Azeez from Mahmood bin Gheelaan from al-Maqree. So Mahmood bin Gheelaan narrates from Ibn al-Maqree's father, who is Abdullah bin Yazeed al-Maqree, and Abdullah bin Yazeed is a teacher of the Famous Muhaddith Imaam Bukhaari and he is a Thiqah (trustworthy) Imaam. (See Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (6/83), as-Siyaar (10/166).
(3) Imaam Ibn Adiyy brings another chain for this narration from Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa'eed from Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Suleimaan from Salamah bin Shayb, and this chain is also authentic ie Hasan.
Salamah bin Shayb al-Neesabooree is thiqah (trustworthy) (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (4/146).
Muhammad ibn Abdullah bin Suleimaan was the famous thiqah scholar of hadeeth (Muhaddith) from Koofah. (as-Siyaar (14/41)
Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa'eed ibn Aqdah is a famous Haafidh (preserver) of hadeeth. Some have spoken about him and some have said he is Thiqah (trustworthy). (as-Siyaar (15/340), Taareekh Baghdaad (5/14), Leesaan (1/263).
So this report from al-Maqree is established authentically.
for Ibn Hajar would have had to report such a weakening if it held true.
ANSWER
It is not necessary for Ibn Hajr to mention it. A major defect in this sentence is that it follows by default that whatever Ibn Hajr mentions concerning a narrator
Rather, he states the reverse, as seen from the translation of Ibn Hajar's notice excerpted below. This shows that Saqqaf's statement is correct, since Ibn Hajar undoubtedly represents the opinions of the Imams of hadith criticism and methodology concerning the weakness or poor memorization of any given narrator or scholar. Moreover, Ibn Hajar in Taqrib al-tahdhib (1993 ed. 2:248 #7179) calls Abu Hanifah al-Imam, and al-faqih al-mashhur (the well-known jurisprudent),
ANSWER
So the saying of Imaam Ibn Hajr in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb, " al-Imaam, al-Faqeehun Mashoor, from the sixth level..." (Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (pg.494 no.7153), ar-Resalah Publishers First Ed.)
This is no praise, Imaam Ibn Hajr has merely stated a fact as he was a famous jurist as is and was well known throughout the Muslim Ummah. However this was not the point of contention, who can say they do not know the name of Abu Haneefah who was considered a great jurist. The point of discussuion was his memory and is authenticity as a narrator. We say this is criticism on Abu Haneefah by Imaam Ibn Hajr as he avoids intentionally to mention the trustworthiness and reliabilty of Abu Haneefah and he free's himself from the blind exaggeration of the hanafee muqallids by using the words of Faqeehum Mashoor therby elluding them in thinking he has praised him. Yet how blind are the muqallideen they do not see that Imaam Ibn Hajr has totally avoided the whole purpose of mentioning Abu Haneefah in his book, which was to make a judgement on his reliability.
In order to understand this point we need to look at the biographies of two narrators directly after Abu Haneefah in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb. Ibn Hajr says,
no. 7154: "Nu'maan ibn Raashid al-Jazree, "Sadooq Sa'ee al-Haafidh..." (Truthful, but poor memory.) (Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb pg..494 no.7154)
no. 7155: "Nu'maan bin Saalim at-Ta'fee, "Thiqaah." (Trustworthy.) (Taqreeb pg..494 no.7155)
So here we see Ibn Hajr mentions the authenticity of the narrators and makes a judgement, owever in the biography of Abu Haneefah he totally avoids it. So if he held him to be weak he refrained from mentioning it as he would have had to face and deal with the thousand of stauch and bigoted hanafee muqallids and if he said he said he was trustworthy when he did not hold him to be then he would have been lying. This seems to have been position that he did not hold him to be reliable as he would have had no reason not to mention it as the Imaams of hadeeth ahd proceeded him in declaring Abu Haneefah to be weak. Rather Ibn Hajr with great wisdon totally avoids the point of discussion.
Yet we have people here with little intelligence and insight who are trying to use the very same words of Ibn Hajr as words of praise and trustworthiness of Abu Haneefah when the very same words were used by Ibn Hajr to avoid the question of Abu Haneefah's trustworthiness.
Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal would also take care in not to mention the name of Abu Haneefah, Ishaaq ibn Yoosuf said, "Imaam Ahmad would say Abu Fulaan and he would not use the name Abu Haneefah most of the time."(Musnad Imaam Ahmad (5/357).
This is because Imaam Ahmad ibn Hanbal also held Abu Haneefah to be weak. (see adh-Dhu'afaa of Imaam Uqailee (4/258), Taareekh Baghdaad (13/418) of Imaam Khateeb).
and Dhahabi includes him among the hadith masters in his Tadhkirat al-huffaz [Memorial of the Hadith Masters]. These titles are not given to anyone who is declared weak in hadith. And Dhahabi before Ibn Hajar, and al-Mizzi before Dhahabi, all concurred that no position purporting Abu Hanifa's weakness should be retained,
ANSWER
Imaam Dhahabee mentioning Abu Haneefah in Tadhkirratul-Huffaadh is no big deal as he mentions many other narrators, yet he mentions criticism on Abu Haneefah, his son and his grandson from Imaam Ibn Adiyy.
Imaam Dhahabee on the other hand in the biography of Abu Haneefah in Meezaan says, "Nu'maan bin Thaabit bin Zawtaa, Abu Haneefah al-Koofee, Imaam Ahlur-Ra'ee. Nasaa'ee dcelared him weak due to his memory and Ibn Adiyy also. Khateeb has mentined hid biography under two chapters in his Taareekh and he has brought the statements of two groups who have praised him and declared him weak." (Meezaan al-Ei'tidaal (7/37-38), Daar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut Lebanaon, First Ed. 1416H-1995), see also Imaam Dhahabee's al-Kaashif (3/205) and his Deewaan adh-Dhu'afaa (no.763)
So then how has Imaam Dhahabee on one hand said he was a preserver of hadeeth and then at the same time he brings the statement of Imaam Nasaa'ee who said he had a weak memory, and one can only be a preserver of hadeeth if the memory is good. We say Imaam Dhahabee mentioned Abu Haneefah in Tadhkirratul Huffaadh for Maslahah.
The hanafees cannot arugue here that Imaam Dhahabee just mentioned this criticism but he did not hold it to be true. Se say according to your own usool you said Ibn Hajr did not report any jarh as he did not hold it to be true, your words are, "for Ibn Hajar would have had to report such a weakening if it held true." so then likewise we say Imaam Dhahabee held the criticism to be true and hence he mentioned it.
There is another inconspicious criticism and that is Imaam Dhahabee says Abu Haneefah was the Imaam of Ahlur-Ra'ee ie of the people of opinion
ADD JARH for the above
BENEFIT
Ustaad Abdul Fattah Abu Guddah attacked and criticised and attributed treachery to Allaamah al-Albaanee just because he failed to mention the praise of Abu Haneefah, when in reality he did. So we say according to this usool of Abu Guddah Imaam Dhahabee also needs to be attacked, critcised and characterised of the attribute of teachery as he also just brings crticism of Abu Haneefah. (See the Tarjamah above).
as Dhahabi said in Tadhhib al-tahdhib (4:101): "Our shaykh Abu al-Hajjaj [al-Mizzi] did well when he did not cite anything [in Tahdhib al-kamal] whereby he [Abu Hanifa] should be deemed weak as a narrator."
ANSWER
Error after error. the author fails to even get the authors correct for the books never mind his understanding of Rijaal and criticism. Imaam Dhahabee did not write Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, but Imaam Ibn Hajr did. The above statement could not be found at the stated referece nor on the ten (10) pages ahead nor before with all possible combinations. (Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, Daar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beiroot Lebanon, First Ed. 1415H;1994)
The remainder of the "Salafi"'s references are therefore irrelevant and over-ruled,
ANSWER
The above statement is baatil first and foremost as this is an individual opinion and right of al-Mizzi which firstly to be established and it does not overule any of the references as Salafi references are the statements of the Imaams of Hadeeth of their times.
especially in view of Ibn `Abd al-Barr's statement that "Those who narrated from Abu Hanifa, who declared him trustworthy (waththaquhu), and who praised him, outnumber those who criticized him" as related by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in his book al-Khayrat al-hisan fi manaqib Abi Hanifa al-Nu`man (p. 74).
ANSWER
The author has attempted to play a clever trick here with his mastery skills and grammer of the english language and his poor translation. there should be no comas as it denotes a number of things. It says, ""Those who narrated from Abu Hanifa," The coma after Hanifa should not be here as it indicates the next part of the sentence is a separate part ie, "who declared him trustworthy (waththaquhu)," here Kabbaanee tries to show those who narrated from abu Haneefah and those who declared him trustworthy ad those who praised him all are from different categories. However this is not the case as the comas should not be there as all narrators from Abu Haneefah, those who declared him trustworthy and those who praised him all are one group of people, ie his students.
So It does not mean different people declared him trustworthy, so it does not matter if his students outnumbered those who critcised him it is about evidences and open mindedness. In order to invalidate this point we will mention the trustworthiness of those who narrated from Abu Haneefah and declared him to be trustworthy.
Also it is an established principe in the sciences of hadeeth and in the criticism of narrators that if you get detailed criticism and praise of a narrator then the criticism will take precednce even if the people praising outnumber the others. (See Tadreeb ar-Raawee pg.204).
So this renders the part of the statement "...and who praised him, outnumber those who criticized him" is baseless and invalid.
Secondly: Imaam Ibn abdul Barr continues and says, "Waladheena Qad Takalamu Feehee Min Ahlul-Hadeeth, then most from amongst them said he (Abu Haneefah) indulged and deeply involved in Qiyaas (analogical reasoning) and opinion (Ra'ee)." (Khayrat al-Hisaan pg.158)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXxx), Jaami Bayaan al-Ilm Wa-Fadhlihee (2/1084)XXXX
POINT
Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr from his statement concludes Abu Haneefah was not from the people (Ahlul-)Hadeeth.
Nevertheless we shall examine the sources that he brings up to show the extent to which these sources all suffer from various problems, as it is the wont of "Salafis" seen time and again to adduce false or weak evidence to promote their opinion. Hafiz Ibn Hajar's Notice of Abu Hanifa in Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib From Tahdhib al-tahdhib, 1st ed. (Hyderabad: Da'irat al-ma`arif al-nizamiyya, 1327) Vol. 10 p. 449-452 #817 (10:45f. of the later edition) Al-Nu`man ibn Thabit al-Taymi, Abu Hanifa, al-Kufi, mawla Bani Taym Allah ibn Tha`laba. It is said that he was Persian. He saw Anas.
He narrated hadith from `Ata' ibn Abi Rabah, `Asim ibn Abi al-Nujud, `Alqama ibn Marthad, Hammad ibn Abi Sulayman, al-Hakam ibn `Utayba, Salama ibn Kuhayl, Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Ali, `Ali ibn al-Aqmar, Ziyad ibn `Alaqa, Sa`id ibn Masruq al-Thawri, `Adi ibn Thabit al-Ansari, `Atiyya ibn Sa`id al-`Awfi, Abu Sufyan al-Sa`di, `Abd al-Karim Abu Umayya, Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Ansari, and Hisham Ibn `Urwa among others.
From him narrated: his son Hammad, Ibrahim ibn Tahman, Hamza ibn Habib al-Zayyat, Zafr ibn al-Hadhil, Abu Yusuf al-Qadi, Abu Yahya al-Hamani, `Isa ibn Yunus, Waki` (ibn al-Jarrah al-Kufi),* Yazid ibn Zuray`, Asad ibn `Amr, al-Bajali, Hakkam ibn Ya`la ibn Salm al-Razi, Kharija ibn Mus`ab, `Abd al-Majid ibn Abi Rawad, `Ali ibn Mus-hir, Muhammad ibn Bishr al-`Abdi, `Abd al-Razzaq [one of Bukhari's shaykhs], Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, Mus`ib ibn al-Miqdam, Yahya ibn Yaman, Abu `Usma Nuh ibn Abi Maryam, Abu `Abd al-Rahman al-Muqri, Abu Nu`aym, Abu `Asim,
ANSWER
Nooh Ibn Abee Maryam
The scholars of hadeeth have criticised him. Imaam Daarqutnee, Imaam Muslim, Imaam Saajee, Imaam Daulaabee and Imaam Abu Haatim said he is "Matrook al-Hadeeth (Rejected in hadeeth)."
Imaam Bukhaari and Abu Ahmad al-Haakim said his hadeeth are not to be accepted.
Imaam Nasaa'ee said, "His hadeeth are worthy to be written."
Imaam Abu Alee Neesaabooree said, "he is Kadhaab." (Liar).
Imaam Sufyaan ibn Uyainah said, "He is a liar."
Imaam Abdullah ibn al-Mubaarak said "He was accused of fabricating hadeeth."
Haafidh Khaleelee said, "There is unanimous agreement on his weakness." (see Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/487-488)
Haafidh Ibn Hajr said, "He was good in the sciences but in hadeeth the scholars of hadeeth declared him to be a liar and Ibn al-Mubaarak said he would fabricate hadeeth. (Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (pg.360)
and others [such as `Abd Allah Ibn al-Mubarak and Dawud al-Ta'i: see al-Mizzi's Tahdhib al-kamal 12 and al-Dhahabi in Manaqib Abi Hanifa (p. 20). al-Mizzi's list is about one hundred strong.]...
ANSWER
THE REALITY OF THE STUDENTSHIP OF ABDULLAH IBN AL-MUBAARAK OF ABU HANEEFAH
Imaam Abdullaah ibn Mubaarak during the latter part of his life left Abu Haneefah. Imaam Ibn abee Haatim said, "Ibn Mubaarak abandoned him in later life, I heard my father (is Abu Haatim) say this." (al-Jarh Wa-'Ta'deel (4/450)
Qadhee Ayaadh also admitted this he says, "At first he was considered to be from the students of Abu Haneefah but then he left him and he recaned and from his madhab and Ibn Waddah said he (Ibn al-Mubaarak) crossed out the narrations from Abu Haneefah in his books and he would not narrate his narrations to the people." (Tarteeb al-Madaarik (1/300).
Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr narrates from Ma'ala bin Asad that he asked Imaam Ibn al-Mubaarak, "People are saying you refer to the statements of Abu Haneefah?" he replied, "The people do not always speak the truth, when we did not know him we used to go to him but when we found about him we left him." (al-Intiqaa Fee Fadhail ath-Thalaathal-Ai'mah al-Fuqaha pg.151)