A few Introductory Points: This reply is from the translator not the Author. The author might have given a better reply.

ASSALAMUALAIKUM WARAHMATULLAHI WABARAKATUH.HOPEFULLY, YOU ARE FINE.

ANYWAY, I WILL TRY TO EXPOSE THE DECEPTION EVEN IN THIS REFUTATION ARTICLE OF YOURS… UNFORTUNATELY IT SEEMS THERE IS NOTHING BUT DECEPTION WITH YOU… MAY ALLAH FORGIVE YOU. .

I am just a translator; I did not do my own tahqeeq when I translated it. You can say, I was just a narrator.THIS SHOWS THAT UNLESS POINTED OUT YOU BLINDLY SPREAD THINGS WITHOUT TEHQEEQ. WHICH, I FEEL IS NOT A SIGN OF A SINCERE STUDENT OF HADEETH.

During the process of doing tahqeeq, I found out many things which the author did not mention, and I have included those in my reply.SO MAYBE YOU HAVE GIVEN A BETTER REPLY THAN HIM!!!

After doing tahqeeq, I found many things of the author with which I do not agree myself, that’s why I either deleted them, or didn’t give their reply.

No opinion of the author should be imposed on me, unless I agree with him.THE ABOVE TWO POINTS GIVE US SOME IMPORTANT INSIGHT. THE AUTHOR PREPARED AN ARTICLE AND YOU BLINDLY TRANSLATED IT. NOW WHEN YOU DID “TEHQEEQ”, YOU CAME TO KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY THINGS WHICH YOU DON’T AGREE YOURSELF… WHICH MEANS THE AUTHOR DECIEVED YOU TOO??? I DON’T UNDERSTAND THIS PROBLEM. THIS IS POSSIBLE WITH OTHERS, BUT WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU, WHO HAVE NOTHING BUT “DALAAIL”, THESE PROBLEMS SHOULDN’T BE OCCURRING… KHAIR.BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT HAD YOU MENTIONED THE POINTS IN WHICH YOUR RESPECTED AUTHOR ERRED AND WHICH YOU DON’T AGREE YOURSELF… A SINCERE STUDENT OF HADEETH WOULDN’T HAVE HESITATED TO DO THIS… BUT YOU “DELETED” THEM OR “DIDN’T GIVE THEIR REPLY”-WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS HOW “CUNNING” AND “SMART” YOU ARE…

I have also omitted the reply to those arguments which were unncessary, out of topic, or based on personal attack.PERSONAL ATTACK??? LET PEOPLE READ AND DECIDE WHETHER I HAVE DONE PERSONAL ATTACK OR NOT… AND THOSE POINTS WHICH YOU CONSIDER PERSONAL ATTACKS, HAVE YOU RESPONDED THEM WITH YOUR PERSONAL REMARKS OR NOT???!!!

All the opinions of Jarh wa ta’deel are taken from the original books of muhadditheen. If, after this reply, the refuter wants to give a counter response then he must refute the reply as

a whole without omitting any important points, and he must reply to all the arguments.YOU HAVE IMPOSED THIS CONDITION ON ME, BUT HAVE NOT FOLLOWED IT YOURSELF! AMAZING!!! YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO MY RESPONSE AS A WHOLE, INSTEAD YOU HAVE PICKED UP ONLY SOME POINTS OF YOUR INTEREST… I DON’T MIND THIS, BUT YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE IMPOSED THIS CONDITION, FOR I RESPONDED TO YOUR ARTICLE AS A WHOLE IN THE

FIRST PLACE… EXCEPT THAT WHEN I COPY PASTED FROM THE MAIL, THE FONTS WERE SIMPLIFIED…

If he attempts to refute this reply then he must provide full references of everything he says and quotes.

If the reply is without any references then I would not like to write a counter-reply. That’s all.

REGARDING THE REFERENCES, I HAVE SAID RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING “. IF NOT MENTIONED, THEN THE INFORMATION IS FROM “AMANIYUL AHBAR” OF YUSUF KANDHLAWI OR “ILAA USSUNAN” (BUT I HAVE CROSS CHECKED THE INFORMATION WITH THE SOURCES, WALHUMDULILLAH). THE OPINIONS OF JARH AND TADEEL ARE FROM “TEHZEEBUL KAMAL”, “TEZHEEB TEHZEEBUL KAMAL”, “TEHZEEBUT TEHZEEB”, “MEEZANUL E’TEDAAL”, “IKMAL TEHZEEBUL KAMAL”.”

I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON’T ACCEPT THE BOOKS OF “JARH” AND “TADEEL” AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION. I AGREE THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE MUHADDITHEEN IS ALSO RIGHT OFCOURSE AND ACCEPTABLE, BUT EVERY MUHADDITH MAY NOT GIVE THE COMPLETE DETAILS… AND SO THE OPINIONS OF OTHER MUHADDITHEEN CAN BE EASILY CHECKED IN THE BOOKS OF “JARH” AND “TADEEL”.

Bismisllahi Rehmaan ir-RaheemTHE FIRST THING I MENTIONED WAS PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF MY ARTICLE, WHICH YOU HAVE NOT INCLUDED HERE. I SAID:

AT THE BEGINNING ITSELF I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SINCE THIS ISSUE IS OF DIFFERENCE AMONG THE UMMAH, WE DON’T CRITICISE THE OPINION OF “WUDU BEING NECESSARY BY TOUCHING THE PENIS”… BUT WE, THROUGH THIS SMALL ARTICLE, WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO NOTICE THE WRONGS AND MISQUOTES AND QUOTES OUT OF CONTEXTS and the “ILMI KHIYANAH” OF THIS PERSON WHO HAS WRITTEN THIS ARTICLE, EXPOSING HIS OWN JIHALATH…

MY INTENTION WAS CLEAR THROUGH THIS. BUT YOU HAVE PRESENTED ME AS THOUGH I DON’T CONSIDER ANYTHING THE SAYINGS OF MUHADDITHEEN, AND AM A STRICT MUQALLID AND AM INFACT CRITICISING THEM…

According to the Hanafi Fiqh book - Fataawa Alamgheeri, it states that..

"If any man was to touch his own private part or that of another person then according to us his wudu is not broken" [Alamgheeriy Tahaara/13]

Following is the first part of the series, providing authentic evidences that go against the Hanafi Fiqh Rulings on this issue...

YOU HAVE NOT REPLIED TO MY OBJECTION HERE. I SAID AT THIS POINT:

FIRSTLY, JUSTICE DEMANDS THAT THIS AUTHOR SHOULD HAVE (IF HE REALLY INTENDED “TEHQEEQ”) MENTIONED THE OPINION OF THE AHNAF AS A WHOLE AND NOT JUST OPINION FROM ONE BOOK.

LATER ON DURING THE DISCUSSION, IT WILL BE CLEAR THAT THE OPINION OF THE AHNAF IS NOT BASED ON “GHULU”, INSTEAD THEIR OPINION TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE AHADEETH…

THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM BROTHER. IT IS FORCED UPON THE PEOPLE THAT THESE HANAFIS ARE DOING “GHULU” AND GOING TO EXTREMES IN THEIR MAZHAB… THIS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED. AND YOU MUST APPRECIATE THIS POINT, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH THEM. THE TATBEEQ MAY NOT BE RIGHT ACCORDING TO YOU, BUT IT SHOULD BE APPRECIATED AS LONG AS THE INTENTION IS TO FOLLOW HADEETH… BUT DECEPTION?

Touching the Private Part Invalidates the Wudoo (Part 1)

He said: The heading is mashaallah very attractive and provocative…

The translator should know that private part is not the correct translation of “zakr”…

Lol, well private part is the correct translation; in fact I do not need to prove that I am right, because the Muqallid himself has translated it as “Private Part” at the end of this document (See Pg 57), lol

THE CORRECT TRANSLATION REMAINS “PENIS”. AND IN THIS REFUTATION OF YOURS YOU HAVE CORRECTED YOURSELF AT MANY OF THE PLACES… OFCOURSE “PRIVATE PARTS” IS NOT WRONG, BUT “PENIS” IS MORE ACCURATE. THERE WAS NO NEED TO FUME OVER THE ISSUE. FOR IT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION. IF YOU CHOOSE “PRIVATE PARTS” THERE IS NO HARM OBVIOUSLY.

He said:the opinions of jarh and tadeel are from “tehzeebul kamal”, “tezheeb tehzeebul kamal”, “tehzeebut tehzeeb”, “meezanul e’tedaal”, “ikmal tehzeebul kamal”.

I say:It would have been better if you had mentioned the opinions of Jarh and ta’deel from the original books of Muhadditheen where the opinions are mentioned with chains. Because many of the sayings in these books of later muhadditheen are without any chain or narrated with weak chains. That’s why, in this reply, I have tried my best to give all the references of Jarh wa Ta’deel from the original books, so that people can know the authenticity themselves!

PEOPLE CAN ALHUMDULILLAH KNOW THE OPINIONS OF “JARH” AND “TADEEL” FROM THE BOOKS OF IT. OFCOURSE THE OPINIONS OF MUHADDITHEEN IN THEIR OWN BOOKS ARE ALSO AUTHENTIC SOURCE, BUT A MUHADDITH MAY SOMETIMES NOT GIVE THE COMPLETE INFORMATION. SPECIALLY THOSE GIVEN BY OTHER MUHADDITHEEN. SOMETIMES A MUHADDITH MAY NARRATE A HADEETH, AND SOMEONE ELSE MAY DO “JARH” OR “TAUSEEQ”. THIS CAN BE KNOWN FROM THE BOOKS OF “JARH” AND “TADEEL”.

The Salafi Proofs and their Authentication

The Author said:First Evidence:

Sayyidah Busrah bint Safwaan (radiallah anha) narrated that:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying that, If any of you touches his private part should do Wudoo”.

[Refs: Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Chapter on doing wudoo after touching the private part, Musnad Ahmed Vol 6 Pg 406, 407, Sunan Daarimi: Kitaab at-Taharah: Chapter on doing wudoo after touching the private part: Vol 1: Pg 199: H. 724 725, Abu Dawood: Kitaab at-Taharah: Chapter on doing wudoo after tuching the private part: H. 181, Tirmidhi: Kitaab at-Taharah: Chapter on doing wudoo after touching the private part: H. 82, Sunan Nasaa’ee: H. 163, 164, Ibn Maja: Kitaab at-Taharah: Chapter on doing wudoo after touching the private part H. 479, Ibn Hibbaan: H. 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, Ibn Khuzaymah: H. 33, Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 146, 147, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 128]

Imam Bukhaari said: “This narration is the most authentic among all the narrations narrated in this issue.” Imaam Tirmidhi, Imaam Ahmed, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imaam Haakim, Imaam Daraqutni, Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een, Imaam Bayhaqi, Imaam Dhahabi, Imaam Ibn Hajar and Imaam Albani (rahimahumullah) have all authenticated this narration.

[Al-Talkhees al-Habeer: Vol 1 Pg 122, Irwa ul-Ghaleel: Vol 1 Pg 150, Masaa’il al-Imaam Ahmed Pg 309]

Among the Hanafi Scholars: Shok Naimwi (Athaar as-Sunan: Pg 42), Maulana Taqi Uthmaani (Darse Tirmidhi Vol 1 Pg 305), Maulana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi: (As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 267), Maulana Binnori (Ma’arif as-Sunan: Vol 1 Pg 295), Ibn Hummaam, and Mulla Ali Qaari (Mirqaat: Vol 1 Pg 341) have accepted the authenticity of the hadeeth of Busrah (radiallah anha).

His refutation: The author forgot to mention that the hadeeth of busrah is also narrated with the addition of “unsayain and rafghain” (meaning the testicles and the upper end of the thighs)!

)as in darqutni – hadeeth no.536, 539)

But does he believe in wudhoo on touching these parts???

And if it is said regarding the “unsayain and rafghain”, as imam darqutni said that… this is how abdulhameed bn ja’far narrated from hisham and was mistaken (wahama), whereas what is mahfooz is that this (other parts) is the saying of urwah, then the reply is what allamah turkamani has said in “jawharunnaqi”, that this abdulhameed has been authenticated by the muhadditheen and imam muslim

has argued with his narrations, …moreover the hadeeth is followed up by other chains as well like (as in darqutni) from juraij from hisham (thru his father from marwan from busrah from prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam) and in it is mentioned “unsayain”… there are other shawahid and mutabe’aat as well… also in another narration of tabarani (thru muhammad bn dinar from hisham from his father from busrah) the saying of prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam starts with “rafgh and uns”… and so the question of mixing up and wahm does not arise… so take heed and do not present this as a reply…!

I say:No! The Author did not forget anything!! Instead Mr. Nu’man is forgetting the important rules of the science of hadeeth!!

First of all, Brother Nu’man has mentioned the argument of Ibn al-Tarkamaani (Hanafi) as compared to the Jarh Mufassar of Muhadditheen who are way higher in status than him. The status of Ibn al-Tarkamaani is zero in front of the Giant Muhadditheen and Mujtahideen like: Imaam Daraqutni, Imaam Dhahabi, and others.

I TAKE EXCEPTION TO SUCH WORDS AGAINST THE MUHADDITHEEN, WHOEVER THEY ARE. SOMETIMES YOU LABLE HAKIM AS SUPERIOR TO IBN HAJAR AND HERE YOU MADE IBN TURAKAMANI “ZERO”!!! YOU MUST AVOID SUCH LANGUAGE AND FEAR ALLAH. ALL ARE RESPECTED SCHOLARS. NOT TO FORGET THAT IBN TURKAMANI IS NOT ALONE IN THIS… IBN DAQEEQ ALEID AND HAFIZ ERAQI HAVE ALSO DENIED IDRAAJ HERE…

MOREOVER AS I SAID, IF THE MUHADDITHEEN SAY SOMETHING, THERE IS NO HARM IN DOING SOME “TEHQEEQ” REGARDING THE ISSUE AT HAND. TO SAY THAT SO AND SO OPINION IS CORRECT BECAUSE SO AND SO MUHADDITH SAID, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT’S THE END OF “TEHQEEQ”. OR TO SAY THAT OFCOURSE THEY MUST HAVE DONE “TEHQEEQ” BEFORE REACHING THIS OPINION IS ALSO NOT A SAYING OF A PERSON DOING “TEHQEEQ”.

Secondly, the Muhadditheen have done Jarh Mufassar on these wordings, while Ibn al-Tarkamaani has only proven the tawtheeq of the narrator, which does not benefit at all!!

THE “JARH” MUFASSAR WHEN SEEN DEEPLY IS ACTUALLY INCORRECT. THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED. I DIDN’T SAY THAT THE MUHADDITHEEN DIDN’T KNOW THE USOOL THEREFORE MY OR IBN TURKAMANI’S OPINION IS RIGHT… I JUST MENTIONED THE DETAILS THAT CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL WORDINGS AS "WAHM” OR “IDRAJ” IS INCORRECT BECAUSE OF THE USOOL. NOT JUST BECAUSE I HAVE TO FOLLOW MY WHIMS AND DESIRES…

Thirdly, The wordings “Rafghaihi” and “Unthayaihi” are not Marfoo’. They are Mudraj in the text, as affirmed by the Muhadditheen!!

Imaam Daraqutni said: “These wordings are the wordings of Urwah and they are not Marfoo” [Sunan al-Kubra: 1/137]

Imaam Dhahabi said: “It is Munkar for verily this Ziyaadah is from the sayings of Urwah.” [Meezaan ul-I’tidaal: 3/492]

Imaam Nawawi said: “It is Baatil, Mawdoo (Fabricated), it is from the sayings of Urwah” [Al-Majmoo’: 2/40]

Imaam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said: “Our Shaikh, Daraqutni mentioned the additional wordings of “Al-Unthayain in the narration of Ibn Jurayj from Hishaam, and it is as he said, it is Mudraj”” [Al-Nakat: 2/830]

Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi mentioned this narration in his book of compilation of narrations containing Idraaj called “Al-Fasal Lil-Wasal al-Mudraj fil Naqal”, he narrated this narration in it and said: “He mentioned (the words) Al-Unthayain and Rufghain, they are not from the Kalaam of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and they are from the saying of Urwah bin Zubayr, thus the narrator has done idraaj in the text of this hadeeth, and Hammaad bin Zayd and Ayyoob Sakhtiyaani have proved it in their narrations from Hishaam” [H. 276]

Shaikh Ahmed Shaakir said: “This additional wording is Mudraj” [Al-Baa’ith ul-Hatheeth: 1/226]

After the affirmations of these giant Muhadditheen, All Brother Nu’man did was prove the reliability of the narrator or provide its Shawahid. Lol. While we ourselve agree that the narrator is reliable. However, the argument is not whether the narrator or the chain is authentic or not.

Brother should have known that there is a huge difference between the Ziyaadah of a Thiqah narrator, and the Idraaj of a Thiqah narrator.

Ziyaadah of a thiqah is when he narrates additional wordings of the Prophet, in the hadeeth, which no one else narrates. This is acceptable according to the Jumhoor of Scholars.

Whereas the Idraaj of a thiqah narrator is when he narrates a wording which is not from the Prophet (peace be upon him) rather he has added it from himself!! And this can be known by looking at other narrations where his saying and the Prophet’s saying are clearly separated from each other. And it is not acceptable at all!

If this problem could only be solved by providing the tawtheeq of narrator, as Ibn al-Tarkamaani and Br. Nu’maan have mistakenly done, then Muhadditheen would also have accepted all the Mudraj narrations of Imaam Zuhri, as he was a Thiqah also.

In this narration, one of the narrator has done Idraaj and it is proven, first, through the affirmations of Muhadditheen, and second, through the other routes of this narration.

I have already provided the affirmations of Muhadditheen. As for its evidence from other routes, then it is as follows:

Imaam Daraqutni narrated with a Saheeh chain through the route of Abul Asha’th from Yazeed bin Zuray’ from Ayyoob Sakhtiyaani from Hishaam from Urwah from Busrah who said, I heard the

Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) saying, “The one who touches his Zakar should do Wudoo”, The narrator said, Urwah bin Zubayr said : “When he touches Rafghaihi or Unthayaihi or Zakarahu, then he should perform wudoo” [Sunan: 1/270, Imaam Daraqutni said, this wording is Saheeh]

As you can see very clearly that in this narration, the narrator has separated the wording of Urwah from the wording of the Prophet (peace be upon him), which proves that, someone has done idraaj in the previous narration.

And Similarly, Imaam Daraqutni also narrated from Hammaad bin Zayd from Hishaam, who said, My Father (Urwah) said: “When he touches Rafghaihi or Unthayaihi or Zakarahu, then he should not pray until he performs wudoo” [Sunanihi: 1/270, Daraqutni said, All the narrators are Thiqaat]

This, again, very clearly proves the previous narration being a Mudraj, in addition to the affirmations of Muhadditheen.

Thus, it is extremely foolish of Br. Nu’man to criticize such Giant Muhadditheen based on his whims and desires, while all the evidences are also against him.

ALHUMDULILLAH, I HAVE NOT CRITICISED ANY MUHADDITH- GIANT OR SMALL. I THANK ALLAH FOR GIVING ME THIS INSTINCT OF RESPECTING THE SCHOLARS.

REGARDING THE “IDRAJ” ISSUE AS I HAVE SAID THERE IS NO IDRAJ INFACT! JUST BECAUSE URWAH’S OPINION IS MENTIONED SEPARATELY, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT CANNOT BE “MARFU’OO”. A NARRATOR MAY NARRATE A HADEETH AND AT ANOTHER MOMENT MAY GIVE HIS OWN OPINION AS WELL.

YES IF ABDUL HAMEED BN JA’FAR WAS ALONE IN DOING THE SO CALLED “IDRAJ”, IT WOULD BE ACCEPTED . BUT AS I HAVE MENTIONED THERE ARE MANY NARRATIONS WITH THE ADDITIONAL WORDINGS. INFACT THE ADDITIONS ARE EVEN IN THE STARTING. MOREOVER “IDRAJ” IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE WORDINGS OF THE HADEETH ITSELF.

EVEN IF THE IDRAJ IS ACCEPTED IN THE PRESENT NARRATION, BECAUSE THE EXTRA WORDINGS ARE MUDRAJ, THEN WHAT WILL WE SAY ABOUT OTHER NARRATIONS? NOW AS YOU HAVE MENTIONED IT IS NARRATED REGARDING URWAH THAT HE SAID: “When he touches Rafghaihi or Unthayaihi or Zakarahu, then he should perform wudoo” [Sunan: 1/270, Imaam Daraqutni said, this wording is Saheeh] AND ALSO: “When he touches Rafghaihi or Unthayaihi or Zakarahu, then he should not pray until he performs wudoo” [Sunanihi: 1/270, Daraqutni said, All the narrators are Thiqaat]

NOW THE SAME IS NARRATED IN DARQUTNI (HADEETH NO.539):

“… THE PROPHET SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM SAID: IF ANY OF YOU TOUCHES HIS “ZAKARAHU” OR “UNSAYAYHI” THEN HE SHOULD NOT PRAY TILL HE PERFORMS WUDHU.”

SO NOW SINCE THE WHOLE HADEETH IS NARRATED AS A SAYING OF URWAH, THEN IF WE ACCEPT THE IDRAJ HERE, THEN THIS MEANS THE ENTIRE SAYING IS IDRAJ! AND THERE IS NO SAYING OF PROPHET

SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM HIMSELF!!! WHERE IS THE HADEETH OF PROPHET SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM WITH THE LAST SANAD, IN WHICH IDRAJ HAS BEEN DONE? BECAUSE THE ENTIRE MATN IS REPORTED FROM URWAH, SO THE ENTIRE HADEETH IS MUDRAJ??? THAT IS WHY WE SAY THAT THE IDRAAJ ARGUMENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. AND SO TAKE HEED AND BE MORE SINCERE IN YOUR TEHQEEQ.

I DIDN’T WANT TO GO TO DEPTH IN THIS, AS I WAS NOT INTENDING A REFUTATION BUT JUST EXPOSING THE DECEPTION, BUT SINCE THIS IS AN ILMI DISCUSSION, I WISH TO DWELL MORE INTO THE DETAILS OF THIS HADEETH AND ITS CHAINS ALLAH WILLING…

- YOU SEE, IN IBN HIBBAN THE CHAINS ARE: 1. HUSSEIN BN IDREES ALANSARI- AHMED BN ABI BKR-MALIK-ABDULLAH BN ABI BKR BN

MUHAMMED BN AMR BN HZM-URWAH BN ZUBAIR—I ENTERED UPON MARWAN BN ALHKM AND WE DISCUSSED ABOUT THINGS WHICH MAKE WUDHU NECESSARY, SO MARWAN SAID:

“BUSRAH BNT SAFWAN TOLD ME THAT SHE HEARD THE PROPHET SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM SAY : IF ANY OF YOU TOUCHES HIS PENIS, HE SHOULD DO WUDHU.”

NOW AFTER NARRATING THIS, ABU HATIM SAYS: WE SEEK ALLAH’S REFUGE IN TAKING HUJJAH FROM THE HADEETH NARRATED BY MARWAN BN HKM…”

THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT URWAH HEARD THIS FROM BUSRAH HERSELF AFTER HE DIDN’T ACCEPT THE SAYING OF MARWAN… NOR THE SAYING OF THE SECURITY SERVICE…

THIS PROVES THAT ACCORDING TO URWAH THE HADEETH OF MARWAN WAS NOT SAHEEH, WHICH IS WHY HE DIDN’T ACCEPT IT AND INFACT HE DENIED IT…

2. NOW THE NEXT HADEETH ABOUT URWAH HIMSELF HEARING FROM BUSRAH IS THRU FOLLOWING SANADS:

AHMED BN KHALID BN ABDULMALIK BN UBAIDULLAH BN MUSARRAH ALHIRANI ABU BADR …-HIS FATHER-SHUAYB BN ISHAQ-HISHAM BN URWAH-HIS FATHER-MARWAN BN HAKM. THEN AFTER THE HADEETH, URWAH’S CONFIRMATION FROM BUSRAH IS MENTIONED…

IN THIS CHAIN THERE ARE TWO DEFECTS: AHMED BN KHALID BN ABDULMALIK IS “DHAEEFUL HADEETH”. IMAM DARQUTNI SAYS: “DHA’EEF”. NOTHING. I HAVEN’T SEEN ANYONE PRAISE HIM.

SECONDLY HIS FATHER HAS BEEN AUTHENTICATED ONLY BY IBN HIBBAN. AND AS YOU KNOW, HIS TAUSEEQ ALONE IS “PRONE” FOR HIS TASAHUL… (YOU HAVE DECLARED ONE NARRATOR MAJHOOL SAYING THAT IBN HIBBAN IS ALONE IN HIS TAUSEEQ, EVEN THOUGH IBN HAJAR HAS DONE HIS TAUSEEQ!!!). YOUR AUTHOR SAID :

“The narrator Al-Baraa bin Qays is also presnt in its chain. He is mentioned by Imam Abu Haatim in Kitaab al-Jarh wal Ta’deel (Pg 399 Vol 1) without any Jarh or Ta’deel. However, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned him in his Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (Vol 4 Pg 77). But Ibn Hibbaan is Mutasaahil. He is famous in

declaring Majhool and Da’eef narrators to be Siqah. Therefore, when he is alone in the tawtheeq of a Majhool narrator then it is not accepted.”

EVEN IF ACCEPTED AUTHENTIC IN THE ABSENCE OF JARH, AHMED REMAINS DHAEEF AND SO THE HADEETH WITH THIS SANAD BECOMES DHA’EEF…

- THE SECOND SANAD IS ALFADL BN ALHUBAB ALJUMAHI-MUSLIM BN IBRAHEEM-ALI BN ALMUBARK-HISHAM BN URWAH-HIS FATHER-BUSRAH…

IMAM NISAI SAYS: HISHAM BN URWAH DIDN’T HEAR THIS HADEETH FROM HIS FATHER… AND SO THERE IS “INQITAA”.

- THE THIRD SANAD IS ABDULLAH BN MUHAMMED BN SULM-ABDULLAH BN AHMED BN ZAKWAN ADDIMSHQI-WALEED BN MUSLIM-ABDURREHMAN BN NMR ALYAHSUBI-ZUHRI-URWAH-BUSRAH…

IN THIS CHAIN ABDURREHMAN BN NMR IS DHA’EEF. YAHYA BN MA’EEN, ABU HATIM AND OTHERS HAVE WEAKENED HIM. AS ALSO IMAM ZUHRI IS A MUDALLIS… AND IS KNOWN FOR IRSAL… AND AS PER YOUR USOOL, MURSAL AND TADLEES, BOTH ARE UNACCEPTABLE…

SO THE NARRATION ABOUT URWAH HEARING HIMSELF FROM BUSRAH IS NOT THROUGH SAHEEH CHAIN AND REGARDING THE NARRATION OF MARWAN, THEN THE JARH OF IBN HIBBAN HIMSELF IS ENOUGH…

The Author said:Second Evidence:

Imaam Ishaaq bin Rahwayh narrated from al-Haytham bin Humayd, From al-‘Alaa bin al-Haarith, From Makhool, From Anbasah bin Abi Sufyaan, that:

Umm ul-Mu’mineen Sayyidah Umm Habeebah (radiallah anha) narrated that: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying that the one who touches his private part should do wudoo’.”

[Musnad Ishaaq bin Rahwayh: 1860, Ibn Maja: H. 481, Abu Ya’la: Vol 6 Pg 336, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 130, Tahawi: Vol 1 Pg 45]

Imaam Abu Zur’ah, Imaam Haakim, Imaam Ahmed, and others have graded it to be Saheeh.

Imaam Ibn al-Sikan said: “I do not know any defect in it.” [Al-Talkhees al-Habeer: Vol 1 Pg 124, Al-Tamheed: Vol 17 Pg 192]

Allaamah Albaani also graded it Saheeh. [Irwa al-Ghaleel: 117]

His Refutation:

In any tehqeeq, the objections to the hadeeth and its response should also be given, so that the issue becomes very clear.

Now in this sanad is makhool, who is “thiqah”, but regarding whom ibn ma’een, imam nisaie and abu mishar said that he did not hear from anbasah. tirmizi said: muhammed (i.e.-bukhari) said: makhool did not hear from anbasa… and makhool narrated from someone from anbasa other than this hadeeth… and as if he (imam bukhari) did not consider this hadeeth saheeh… and so there is “inqitaa’” in the chain.

ibn ma’een also said :”this is the weakest of all the ahadeeth in the issue”!!!

.also makhool al dimashki is mudallis and is narrating thru ‘an.

so does the hadeeth remain reliable…?!!!

I say:I agree that this chain does have weakness in it. However, the author himself has clarified that there are some ahadeeth which contain weakness but they have authentic shawaahid and mutaabi’aat. So refuting on something which the author has himself clarified is not correct, and it is not fair to consider him a decieving or lying person, because he has already clarified his tahqeeq.

I AM SORRY. THE AUTHOR HAS PRESENTED THE HADEETH AND MENTIONED ITS AUTHENTICATION… HE DID MENTION AT THE END OF THE ENTIRE PRESENTATION THAT THERE ARE “SOME WEAKNESS”, BUT AFTER QUOTING THIS HADEETH HE HAS NOT MENTIONED THE WEAKNESS. THIS IS WHAT I WAS SPEAKING OF. A SINCERE MUHAQQIQ WHEN WRITING AN ARTICLE ON SUCH ISSUES SHOULD MENTION THE ENTIRE “TEHQEEQ” AND NOT JUST WHAT SUITS HIM MOST. IF WE SEE WITH THIS HADEETH, THERE IS ONLY AUTHENTICATION, NO “JARH” AT ALL! IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD IF THE AUTHOR HAD DISCUSSED THE ENTIRE DETAIL HERE. AFTER ALL IT IS THE ISSUE OF HADEETH AND A DETAILED DISCUSSION ON SOME ISSUE DEMANDS A DETAILED PRESENTATION. KHAIR I STILL FEEL IT WAS DECEIVING TO PRESENT JUST THE AUTHENTICATION.

How many so-called Hanafi Scholars are ready to do the same? When Hanafi Muqallideen write on some issue, they would narrate everything what is narrated in that topic without distinguishing between Saheeh and Da’eef, and many a times they do not even feel hesitant in quoting Fabricated ahadeeth, and they portray to the common public as if all the narrations presented by them are authentic; while the Author here, has not portrayed anything like that, he has clearly mentioned the truth!!

So, I would suggest Br. Nu’man to first look for the speck of sawdust in your own eye, only then will you be able to see clearly the sawdust in your Brother’s eye.

AFTER ALL WE ARE “MUQALLIDS”!!! SO DON’T COMPARE US WITH YOU. THERE IS A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND YOU. A HANAFI SCHOLAR FROM THE AHLUSSUNNAH, IF HE DOES THIS,

WILL IMMEDIATELY CORRECT HIMSELF RATHER THAN BEING ADAMANT AS YOU SEEM TO BE DEFENDING YOUR AUTHOR! ANYWAY THAT’S OUT OF THE TOPIC SO I LEAVE IT…

Secondly, this hadeeth is absolutely authentic according to the Usools of Ahnaaf, because according to the Ahnaaf, Irsaal or Tadlees does not affect the authenticity of hadeeth in the period of Khair ul-Quroon, and Imaam Makhool is definitely one of the Imaams of Khair ul-Quroon, so this hadeeth is absolutely authentic according to Hanafi Usools. [See: Inhaa us-Sikan by Zafar Ahmed Thanvi]

I THINK THERE IS SOME HITCH HERE. YOU SEE YOU MUST PRESENT YOUR DALAAIL AND PROVE THEIR AUTHENTICITY WITH YOUR OWN USOOL… WE KNOW OUR USOOLS, BUT WE NEVER IMPOSE THEM ON THOSE WHO DON’T ACCEPT… THIS IS A CIVILISED BEHAVIOUR. WHEN THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN USOOL THEN I HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE WHAT I FEEL IS CORRECT, WHICH YOU FEEL IS WRONG.

Thirdly, in the above refutation also, Br. Nu’man has made a mistake. He said:

“Also makhool al dimashki is mudallis and is narrating thru ‘an.”

I say: It is not proven that Makhool is a Mudallis. [See: Fathul Mubeen: 3/108]

Only Ibn Hibbaan and Dhahabi have declared him Mudallis, and Ibn Hajar followed these two. But they both used to consider Irsaal also to be Tadlees. [See: At h-Thaqaat by Ibn Hibbaan: 98/6, Al-Mawqazat by Adh-Dhahabi: Pg 47, Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 326/2]

Therefore, until another Muhaddith does their Mutabi’ah, or until there is clear evidence, the accusation of tadlees will not be accepted from them.

MASHAALLAH. THIS IS AN OLD GAME. WHEN YOU DON’T WANT TO ACCEPT HIM AS A MUDALLIS, EVEN IF THE WHOLE WORLD OF MUHADDITHEEN SAY THAT HE HAS DONE TADLEES, YOU WON’T ACCEPT IT. IF THE SAME CASE WAS AGAINST US, YOU WOULD HAVE THROTTLED US SAYING THAT “GIANTS LIKE IBN HIBBAN, DHAHABI AND IBN HAJAR HAVE DECLARED HIM TO BE MUDALLIS AND YOU ARE NOT READY TO ACCEPT???”

I AM SORRY BUT I THINK THIS IS HEIGHTS… IT SPEAKS MUCH ABOUT THE TYPE OF MENTALITY YOU HAVE GOT. FALA HAWLA WALA QUWWATA ILLA BILLAH.

NOT TO FORGET THAT EVEN HAFIZ IRAQI HAS INCLUDED HIM IN HIS “KITABUL MUDALLISEEN” (PG.94)!!!

IF HE WAS NOT A MUDALLIS THEN WHY DID IMAM ZAHABI MENTION SO? AND HE MENTIONED THIS APART FROM HIS IRSAL. I QUOTE IMAM ZAHABI FROM HIS MEEZAN:

“HE IS A MAN OF TADLEES (“SAHEBU TADLEES”) AND WAS ALLEGED OF “QADR”. AND ALLAH KNOWS BEST. HE NARRATED WITH “IRSAL” FROM UBAYY AND UBADAH BN SAMIT AND AYESHA AND ABI HURAYRAH.”

AS FOR IBN HIBBAN’S SAYING “RUBAMA DALLAS” (HE WOULD SOMETIMES DO TADLEES), THEN THIS IS DEFINITELY APART FROM HIS IRSAL, BECAUSE IT IS WELL KNOWN AMONG THE MUHADDITHEEN THAT

HE WAS FAMOUS IN “IRSAL” (AS CLEARLY MENTIONED BY IBN HAJAR IN TAQREEB “KASEERUL IRSAL”). AND SO IBN HIBBAN WON’T SAY “SOMETIMES”!!! THIS IS JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE.

IMAM NISAAI SAYS: “HE NEVER HEARD FROM ANBASAH BN ABI SUFYAN.” (TEHZEEB UL KAMAL 28/469)

YAHYA BN MA’EEN SAYS AS NARRATED FROM ABBAS ADDORI IN HIS TAREEKH (2/584) : “ABU MISHAR SAID: MAKHOOL NEVER HEARD ANYTHING FROM ANBASAH BN ABI SUFYAN AND I DON’T KNOW IF HE MET HIM OR NOT.”

IMAM IBN ABI HATIM SAYS: “ABU ZUR’AH WAS ASKED ABOUT THE HADEETH OF UMM HABEEBAH REGARDING THE TOUCHING OF PENIS, HE SAID: MAKHOOL NEVER HEARD FROM ANBASAH BN ABI SUFYAN ANYTHING EVER.”

SO WHETHER IT IS IRSAL OR TADLEES EITHER WAY, ACCORDING TO YOUR PRINCIPLES THE HADEETH IS DHA’EEF. THEN WHY ARE YOU FORCING HARD TO SOMEHOW PROVE THAT THE HADEETH IS SAHEEH???!!!

Secondly, According to Ahnaaf tadlees is not harmful in Khair ul-Quroon.

TRY TO PROVE THE HADEETH SAHEEH THROUGH THE PRINCIPLES ACCEPTED BY YOU. DON’T THROW THE ARGUMENT JUST TO TURN THE TABLES IN THE ARGUMENT. TADLEES OR IRSAL IS ACCEPTED AMONG SOME MUHADDITHEEN, BUT IT HAS ITS USOOL…

The Author said:Third Evidence:

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan narrated: Ali bin al-Hussain bin Suleman al-Mu’addal, and Imraan bin Fadalah ash-Sha’eeri informed us, they said: Ahmed bin Sa’eed al-Hamdaani narrated to us, he said: Asbagh bin al-Faraj narrated to us, he said: Abdur Rahmaan bin al-Qaasim (Saahib e Imaam Malik) narrated to us, From Yazeed bin Abdul Malik, and Naafi bin Abi Nu’aym al-Qaari, From al-Maqburi that:

Sayyidunah Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) said the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “When any of you reaches his hand to the private part, while there is nothing in between them, then you should do Wudoo’.”

[Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan: 1115, Bayhaqi : Vol 1 Pg 130, 131, Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 147, Tabaraani Sagheer: H. 110, Tabaraani al-Awsat: H. 8829, 6664, 8904]

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Haakim, and Allaamah Dhahabi have graded it Saheeh. And Ibn Abdul Barr said its chain is Saalih. [Al-Tamheed: Vol 17: H. 195]

His Refutation:Again simply relying on someone’s tehqeeq is not enough…

Secondly a complete tehqeeq should be presented and not just what suites the author…

In this sanad is yazeed bin abdulmalik…

Following are the jarh (from tehzeebut tehzeeb) over him:

imam ahmed said:”dhaeeful hadeeth” and he once said:”indahu manakeer” ahmed bin saleh said: “laisa hadeethuhu bishay” (his ahadeeth are nothing) abu zur’ah and abu hatim said:”dhaeeful hadeeth” and abu hatim added:”munkirul hadeeth”.

abu zur’ah also said:”waahiyul hadeeth” nisaai said:”matrookul hadeeth” and also said:”laisa bithiqah” dar qutni said:”dhaeef” saji said:”feehi dh’uf wa manaakeer” bukhari said:”layyinuhu yahya” infact imam ibn abdul barr himself said :”ajma’a ala tadhe’eefihi”

And if it is said that the hadeeth is also narrated thru naf’e bn abi na’eem, then the reply is why didn’t you mention this chain? and the hadeeth of yazeed as a shahid… so this exposes the ignorance of the author. and moreover the wordings of the hadeeth thru naf’e is different. it does not contain the specification of “nothing between them”!!!

Moreover regarding naf’e muhadditheen have differed. some have approved his narrations whereas some have approved him only for “qiraah” and not “hadeeth”.

This is specifically the opinion of imam ahmed bn hanbal. following are the opinion of scholars:

ibn adi aljurjani: i don’t see in his ahadeeth anything “munkar” and i hope there is no harm in him.(that is in his ahadeeth).

abu hatim razi: “sudooq”, salehul hadeeth. ibn hibban: was the imam of the people of madeenah in “qiraah” nisai: there is no harm in him. ahmed aljili: siqah. ibn hajr asqalani: sudooq, firm in “qiraah”. zahabi: one of the scholars. laith bn sa’ad: i met the people of madeenah and they would say “qiraah” of nafe is sunnah. ibn almadeeni: he was with us without any problem. malik bn anas: imam of the people in “qiraah”. alwaqdi: sabat. yahya bn ma’een: siqah. saji: “sudooq” ahmed and yahya differed. ahmed said: munkirul hadeeth. and yahya said:

siqah.. ahmed bn hanbal: he would take from him in “qiraah” but nothing in hadeeth. he also said:

munkirul hadeeth. at another point he said: “leen” (weak).

and so the hadeeth is itself not without fault. but as i said, if the intention of the author was really “tehqeeq”, he should have presented the whole discussion….

I say:In the above arguments, Br. Nu’maan has pushed very hard to prove this narration weak, but instead he has only shown us his ignorance of the knowledge of hadeeth. lol

He said, in its chain, the narrator Yazeed bin Abdul Malik is weak and then he showed the sayings of bunch of Muhadditheen regarding him. Well, I do not disagree with him. I agree that he is a Weak narrator. But if he would have pondered even a little upon the chain of this hadeeth, all his questions would be answered.

Let’s see the chain again:

Ali bin al-Hussain bin Suleman al-Mu’addal, and Imraan bin Fadalah ash-Sha’eeri informed us, they said: Ahmed bin Sa’eed al-Hamdaani narrated to us, he said: Asbagh bin al-Faraj narrated to us, he said: Abdur Rahmaan bin al-Qaasim (Saahib e Imaam Malik) narrated to us, From Yazeed bin Abdul Malik,

and Naafi bin Abi Nu’aym al-Qaari, From al-Maqburi, From Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu)

By looking at the chain, it becomes as clear as the brightness of the sun that Imaam Abdur Rahmaan bin al-Qaasim has narrated this hadeeth with this wording from both Yazeed and Naafi’. So how much truth does the following saying of Br. Nu’maan holds:

“And if it is said that the hadeeth is also narrated thru naf’e bn abi na’eem, then the reply is why didn’t you mention this chain? and the hadeeth of yazeed as a shahid… so this exposes the ignorance of the author. And moreover the wording of the hadeeth thru naf’e is different. it does not contain the specification of “nothing between them”!!!”

Somebody tell this man, whose Aql lies in his knees, that the chain of Naafi’ and Yazeed are no different or separate. They both are the same chain, which is this. When a narrator says I narrated this narration from Person ‘A’ AND Person ‘B’, then he is trying to say that they both have narrated this narration with the same chain and with the same matn. If there was some difference in their Matn or Isnaad, then he would mention both their narrations separately, and it would be considered a separate narration. So this very well explains who is exposing his ignorance and who’s not!!

If you still have any doubts, then ask your Scholars, they will tell you the same. Nu’maan has proved to be an Ignorant Layman from this argument. lol Truly What a Lame Argument!!! I feel like laughing out loud!!

JAZAJKUMULLAHU KHAIRN FOR POINTING OUT THE MISTAKE. OFCOURSE I AGREE THAT I AM NOT A HAFIZ OF HADEETH. UNFORTUNATELY, I MADE THIS MISTAKE BECAUSE OF YOUR DECEPTION!!! AND YOU HAVE CONTINUED WITH THE SAME DECEPTION EVEN HERE! EVEN AFTER YOUR “TEHQEEQ”!!!

YOU SEE AFTER THE HADEETH THE REFERENCES YOU HAVE GIVEN ARE [Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan: 1115, Bayhaqi : Vol 1 Pg 130, 131, Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 147, Tabaraani Sagheer: H. 110, Tabaraani al-Awsat: H. 8829, 6664, 8904]

SO I WAS DECIEVED!!! BECAUSE WHEN I CHECKED DARQUTNI AND SUNAN BAIHAQI AND MUSTADRAK HAKIM WHICH WERE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO ME, I DIDN’T FIND THE HADEETH WITH THE SAID CHAIN AND MATN! I DIDN’T GO ON TO CHECK IBN HIBBAN AND TABARANI, AND THOUGHT THAT PERHAPS THERE WAS A TYPING ERROR AND “AND NAFE’” WAS ADDED BY MISTAKE. SO INSTEAD OF CRITISICING THE TYPING ERROR, I CRITICISED THE SANAD OF YAZEED. AND THE OTHER HADEETH OF NAFE’ WHICH WAS PRESENT IN “MUSTADRAK”, THE ADDITIONAL WORDS OF “NOTHING IN BETWEEN” WERE NOT THERE. I AGREE THAT IT WAS MY MISTAKE. BUT NOW WHEN I CHECKED THE HADEETH WITH THE SAID MATN AND SANAD IT IS THERE IN IBN HIBBAN!!!

YOU MAY SAY THAT IN THE BEGINNING IMAM IBN HIBBAN’S NAME IS CLEARLY MENTIONED, SO YOU SHOULD HAVE CHECKED IT FIRST. THAT’S RIGHT, BUT AS I SAID IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH ME IMMEDIATELY, SO I CHECKED THE OTHER REFERENCES. THE MISTAKE WOULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED IF THE DECEPTION IN GIVING THE REFERENCES WERE NOT MADE. IF IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE WORDINGS OF THESE REFERENCES ARE DIFFERENT FROM IBN HIBBAN’S, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY EASY. THAT IS WHY I SAID, AND I HAVE REPEATEDLY MENTIONED THAT A COMPLETE “TEHQEEQ” SHOULD BE PRESENTED, SPECIALLY SO WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN UP THE ISSUE OF TELLING THE PEOPLE AND SPREADING THE SUNNAH AND SEPARATING THE WEAK FROM THE STRONG.

ONE THING I LEARNED IS THAT I SHOULDN’T HAVE RELIED ON YOUR REFERENCE. INSTEAD I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CAREFUL. NEXT TIME I WILL MAKE SURE NOT TO BE DECIEVED BY YOU INSHAALLAH.

NOW OFCOURSE YOU MUST BE LAUGHING… BETTER WEEP ON THIS HORRIBLE STATE OF DECEPTIVENESS AND IGNORANCE. MAY ALLAH FORGIVE YOU, BUT YOU AREN’T READY TO EVEN CORRECT YOURSELF AFTER THE “TEHQEEQ”.

ONE THING THAT HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND IS MY FIRST POINT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH THE OPINION OF THE WUDHU BREAKING ON TOUCHING THE PENIS. I CANNOT “PUSH VERY HARD” TO PROVE THAT THE AHADEETH OF THIS OPINION ARE DHA’EEF. I CANNOT PROVE THE HADEETH OF BUSRAH FOR EXAMPLE AS DHA’EEF. I CANNOT AND DON’T WANT TO LIKE WISE PROVE THAT THE HADEETH OF IBN HIBBAN IS WEAK (THOUGH IMAM NISAAI HAS SAID REGARDING ONE OF THE NARRATORS AHMED BN SA’EED ALHIMDANI: “LAISA BIL QAWI”!!! AND THE JARH OF IMAM AHMED OVER NAF’E IS CLEAR!!!). AND SO THE HADEETH DOES NOT REMAIN WITHOUT DEFECT AS ALSO WILL BE CLEAR BELOW!!!

Secondly, the narration of Naafi which does not contain the specification of “nothing between them” is a separate narration, narrated from a separate chain!! While this narration along with its chain is totally separate!!

Furthermore, Nu’maan has unsuccessfully tried to prove that Imaam Naafi is weak in hadeeth, and said:

“Moreover regarding naf’e muhadditheen have differed. some have approved his narrations whereas some have approved him only for “qiraah” and not “hadeeth”.”

Muhadditheen!!!??? Another deception!! Lol

Muhadditheen is a plural form, which means he is trying to say that many Muhadditheen have declared him weak in hadeeth. While in support of his claim, he only mentioned the criticizm of Imaam Ahmed. What a Pity!!

PITY? MAY ALLAH GIVE YOU PROPER UNDERSTANDING. I NEVER SAID THAT THE “MUHADDITHEEN” HAVE DECLARED HIM WEAK… I SAID THE MUHADDITHEEN HAVE DIFFERED. AND SOME HAVE APPROVED HIS NARRATIONS WHEREAS SOME HAVE APPROVED HIM ONLY FOR QIR’AAH. AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN THIS. THERE ARE MUHADDITHEEN WHO HAVE DECLARED HIM RIGHT ONLY IN QIRAAH WITHOUT MENTIONING ANYTHING ABOUT HIS POSITION IN HADEETH. SO THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE “MUHADDITH” WHO HAVE ACCEPTED HIM IN QIRAAH WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING OF HIS HADEETH. SO MY CHOOSING “MUHADDITHEEN” (PLURAL) IS CORRECT AND YOUR LAUGHING AT IT MAKES YOU ONLY A LAUGHING GAS!!!

I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU ARE “PUSHING VERY HARD” TO ACCUSE ME OF SAYING THAT THE “MUHADDITHEEN” HAVE DECLARED HIM WEAK!!!??? PLEASE DON’T EXTRACT YOUR OWN MEANINGS OUT OF SOMEBODY’S WORDS.

THE AHADEETH OF IMAM NAFE ARE OF HASAN STATUS INSHAALLAH. THAT IS WHY SHEIKH SHUAYEB ARNAUT HAS GRADED THE HADEETH IN IBN HIBBAN AS HASAN. THE SAME HAS BEEN DONE BY ALLAMAH SHAUKANI IN NEEL UL AWTAR...

Let’s find out the status of Imaam Naafi according to the Muhadditheen.

Opinions of Ahl ul-Jarh wat Ta’deel regarding Naafi bin Abdur Rahmaan Ibn Abi Nu’aym

Mu’addaleen:

1- Imaam Ibn Abi Aasim declared him Thiqah in as-Sunnah [2/468 # 967]I DON’T KNOW IF IN THE COPY OF ASSUNNAH YOU HAVE, IT IS MENTIONED IF HE IS THIQAH OR NOT, BUT THE COPY THAT I HAVE DOES NOT MENTION THIS.

2- Imaam Abul Hassan al-Ijlee mentioned him in his book of Thiqah narrators. [1/447]

IMAM IJLEE IS KNOWN TO BE “MUTASAHIL” (LENIENT) IN TAUSEEQ OF NARRATORS. HIS MERE MENTIONING WITHOUT ANY TAUSEEQ FROM HIS SIDE GIVES US NO SPECIAL INFORMATION REGARDING HIS OWN TAUSEEQ OR TA’DEEL.

3- Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is Thiqah” [Taareekh Ibn Ma’een: 3/171, Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 8/457, Chain Saheeh]

4- Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazi said: “He is Sudooq (truthful) Saalih ul-Hadeeth” [Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 8/457 by Ibn Abi Haatim]

“SUDOOQ”-THIS IS THE GRADE TWO ACCORDING TO IBN ABI HATIM HIMSELF AND FOURTH AS IN “TADREEBURRAWI”, WHEREIN THE HADEETH OF THE NARRATOR CAN BE WRITTEN BUT IT WILL BE SEEN FURTHER, TO TAKE EVIDENCE OR NOT.

“SALEHUL HADEETH”- GRADE FOUR AS PER IBN ABI HATIM AND SIXTH AS PER TADREEB, THE HADEETH CAN BE WRITTEN ONLY FOR “ETEBAR”.

5- Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: “There is nothing wrong in him (this is a high form of tawtheeq)” [Swalaat Ibn Abi Shaybah Li Ibn al-Madeeni: 1/141]ALLAMAH ERAQI HAS CLARIFIED THAT IBN MAEEN DIDN’T SAY THAT MY SAYING “THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN HIM” IS SAME AS MY SAYING “SIQAH” TO THE EXTENT OF BOTH BEING SIMILAR. RATHER WHAT HE SAID WAS THAT IF HE SAID THIS REGARDING SOMEONE THEN HE IS “SIQAH” AND “SIQAH” HAS ITS OWN LEVELS… (THIS IS MENTIONED IN TADREEB). SO IT IS AUTHENTICATION BUT GRADE LOWER THAN “SIQAH”.

6- Imaam Haakim al-Nisaaburi authenticated one of the narrations narrated by Imaam Naafi and said: “Its chain is Saheeh”. Remember, the authentication of Chain is considered the authentication of all the narrators present in it, which means Imaam Naafi was Thiqah according to Imaam Haakim. [Al-Mustadrak al-Haakim: 2/256]IMAM HAKIM WAS KNOWN TO BE MUTASAHIL!

7- Imaam Ibn Adee has also praised Imaam Naafi’ with Mufassar Ta’deel, as Br. Nu’man has also mentioned he said, “I don’t see in his ahadeeth anything munkar and i hope there is no harm in him (La Ba’sa bihi)” [Al-Kaamil by Ibn Adee: 8/310]THIS IS NOT MUFASSAR TA’DEEL.! IN FACT THE WORDS CLEARLY SHOW THAT HE IS NOT SURE ABOUT HIS BEING AUTHENTIC. AS PER TADREEB THE LEVEL IS SIXTH WITH THE ADDITIONS OF ALLAMAH IRAQI.

8- Imaam Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in his book of Thiqah narrators [7/533], and he also took narrations from him in his Saheeh. He also said, under this hadeeth, that:“We took evidence from this hadeeth because of Naafi bin Abi Nu’aym, instead of Yazeed bin Abdul Malik…” [3/402]

9- Imaam Abu Hafs Ibn Shaaheen also mentioned him in his book of Thiqah narrators and narrated the tawtheeq of Ibn Ma’een. [1/240]

10- Imaam Juzqaani authenticated him in his book al-Abateel wal Manakeer [1/155]11- Haafidh Ibn al-Jazri said: “He is Thiqah Saalih” [Ghayat un-Nihayah fi Tabaqaat ul-Qurra: 2/330]

THIS IS A BOOK OF “QURRA”. HE IS OBVIOUSLY WITHOUT ANY DIFFERENCE SIQAH AND SALIH IN QIRAAH! IF YOU HAVE IBN JAZARI’S TAUSEEQ IN HADEETH, PLEASE PRESENT IT…

12- Imaam Dhahabi called him Hasan ul-Hadeeth. [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 7/338]حسنا حديثه قلت : ينبغي أن يعد

THESE ARE THE WORDINGS IN SIYAR. WHICH MEANS THAT HIS AHADEETH SHOULD BE OF HASAN STATUS. THIS IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM SAYING “HASANUL HADEETH”!!!MOREOVER BEFORE THIS ON THE SAME PAGE HE HAS MENTIONED “WALAYYINUHU AHMED…” (AND AHMED HAS WEAKENED HIM THAT IS IN HADEETH)

13- Imaam Ibn Hajar said: “He is Sudooq” [Taqreeb: 558]THE WORDS IN TAQREEB ARE “SUDOOQN SABATUN FIL QIRAAT”. AS I SAID THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE ABOUT HIS BEING SABIT IN QIRAAH. THE ISSUE IS HIS POSITION IN HADEETH. HAFIZ HAS NOT CLARIFIED IN HIS TAQREEB REGARDING THIS. IN FACT IN “TALKHEES ALHABEER” AFTER MENTIONING THE AUTHENTICATION OF IBN HIBBAN AND IBN SAKAN AND IBN ABDUL BARR, HE HAS ALSO MENTIONED THE JARH OF IMAM AHMED BN HANBAL! THIS IS THE “MUKHLIS” AND “ILMI” WAY. TO PRESENT THE DETAILS AS THEY ARE.

14- One of the Famous Hanafi Scholars, Badr ud-Deen Aynee Hanafi mentioned him in one of his books and narrated the praises of Muhadditheen upon him, and he did not narrate a single criticizm upon him, which means that he agrees with the praises, and he considers him Thiqah. [Maghani ul-Akhyaar fi Sharh Asaami Rijaal Ma’aani ul-Athaar: 3/109]

15- Look at another deception of Br. Nu’maan, he mentioned the criticizm of Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr regarding Yazeed above, that there is consensus on his weakness, but he did not mention the full saying of Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr, which again points how he is trying to mislead people. Following is the saying of Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr in context. After narrating the same narration mentioned above, Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr said: “This hadeeth was not known except through Yazeed bin Abdul Malik al-Naufali, and there is consensus upon his weakness, until Abdur Rahmaan bin al-Qaasim narrated it from Naafi bin Abi Nu’aym and that Isnaad is Saalih, in-sha-Allaah” [Al-Tamheed: 17/195]

So even though Ibn Abdul Barr criticized the narrator Yazeed in its chain, but he also said that this hadeeth is also narrated by Naafi and that chain is Saalih [meaning, Naafi is reliable according to Ibn Abdul Barr also]!! But Br. Nu’maan totally ignored the part which contains the answer to his lie. Is this not a clear deception? And still he wishes to accuse us of deception! lolYOU SEEM TO HAVE BEEN BLINDED BY YOUR LAUGHTER AND YOUR FURY! OFCOURSE YOUR AQL MUST BE IN THE SKULL ITSELF. DEAR BROTHER I DIDN’T MENTION THE CRITISISM OF IBN ABDUL BARR UNDER THE DISCUSSION OF THE HADEETH. I MENTIONED IT UNDER THE CRITISISERS OF YAZEED AS IS CLEAR. PLEASE CHECK MY ARTICLE AGAIN. THERE WAS NO NEED TO MENTION THE ENTIRE THING THERE. BECAUSE I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT THE JARH OF MUHADDITHEEN OVER YAZEED. AS FOR DECEPTION, THEN IT SEEMS YOU HAVE DONE IT AGAIN!!! FOR CONTINUING A LITTLE LATER IBN ABDULBARR SAYS:“… AND THIS HADEETH IS NOT NARRATED FROM HIM FROM NAFE BN ABI NUAYEM AND YAZEED BN ABDULMALIK EXCEPT BY ASBAGH BN ALFARJ. AS FOR SAHNOON, THEN HE NARRATED FROM IBN ALQASIM FROM YAZEED ALONE AND MENTIONED FROM IBN ALQASIM THAT HE CONTINUED WITH HIS OPINION OF NOT RETURNING THE SALAH BY ONE WHO TOUCHED HIS PENIS AND OFFERED IT. NEITHER IN ITS TIME NOR AFTER THAT. AND THIS WAS ADOPTED BY SAHNOON AS WELL.” (YOU HAVE SWALLOWED THIS!!!) THIS DETAIL PUTS SOME QUESTION MARK REGARDING THE ADDITION OF NAFE! FOR IMAM IBN ALQASIM AND SAHNOON WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY ACTED ON THIS HADEETH AND WOULD HAVE LEFT THEIR OPINIONS AFTER KNOWING THIS NARRATION. BUT HE DIDN’T BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF YAZEED. OR IF HE KNEW THE ADDITION OF NAFE THEN IT MEANS HE DIDN’T ACCEPT HIM AS SIQAH IN HADEETH!!! THIS IS THE REASON WHY IMAM IBN ABDUL BARR HAS HIMSELF GRADED

THIS HADEETH TO BE HASAN!!! AND SAYS “THAT ISNAAD IS SAALIH INSHAALLAH.”. THIS WORDING IS NOT A COMPLETE AUTHENTICATION. RATHER ITS AN ASSUMPTION BASED ON QIYAS. AND NOT FIRM INFORMATION. Jaariheen:

There is no criticizm of any Muhaddith narrated upon Imaam Naafi except Imaam Ahmed. As for the criticizm of Imaam Ahmed upon Imaam Naafi, then it is rejected due to two reasons:

First: It is against the tawtheeq of Jumhoor MuhadditheenSecond: This criticizm itself is not proven from Imaam Ahmed with an authentic chain.

The criticizm of Imaam Ahmed is narrated in Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel, and Al-Kaamil, with two chains.

In the first chain, the narrator Muhammad bin Hamwiyah bin al-Hassan is not proven to be Thiqah.And in the second chain, the narrator, Ibn Abi Asmah, is Majhool ul-Haal as well.

So this criticizm is not even authenticaly proven from Imaam Ahmed.UNFORTUNATELY ALL THE SCHOLARS OF JARH AND TA’DEEL DIDN’T KNOW THAT THIS JARH TO IMAM AHMED IS NOT PROVEN!!! ALL OF THEM HAVE MENTIONED IT IN THEIR BOOKS… MIZZI, IBN HAJAR, ZAHABI AND THE LIKES DIDN’T GET THE WIND OF WHAT THE PSEUDOSALAFI’S HAVE GOT NOW… INFACT, IMAM SAJI HAS MENTIONED BOTH THE JARH AND THE TA’DEEL WITHOUT SPECIFYING THAT IT IS NOT PROVEN TO IMAM AHMED…IF THE SANAD IS TO BE SEEN, THEN SINCE THERE ARE TWO SANADS, IT BECOMES HASAN (IF BOTH ACCEPTED AS DHA’EEF)… BUT I SAY THE JARH OF IMAM AHMED IS NARRATED BY SO MANY MUHADDITHEEN IN THEIR BOOKS, WITHOUT OBJECTION, THAT IT SHOULD REACH TAWATUR!!!MOREOVER IMAM

Conclusion:Thus Imaam Naafi’ is Thiqah wa Sudooq in Hadeeth as well as Qira’at. There is no criticizm proven upon him. He is thiqah with consensus. Those who criticize him should bring their proof if they are truthful!

So we come to know that the chain of this narration is absolutely authentic. Those who criticize it are ignorants!

I DON’T KNOW WHAT IGNORANCE MEANS ACCORDING TO YOU…???

This hadeeth proves two things to us:

First: It proves the tatbeeq of ahnaaf that Br. Nu’maan mentioned, to be Baatil and rejected. He said that Ahnaaf say that the command of performing wudoo’ is based on Istihbaab (not on wujoob), while the text of this hadeeth clearly proves that performing wudoo upon touching the zakar is Waajib (not Mustahab), see the Arabic text of this hadeeth (the wording is from Al-Tamheed and Al-Istadhkaar):

فقد " ، حجاب دونه ليس فرجه إلى بيده أفضى عليه من الله الوضوء "وجب رسول ان قال وسلم، عليه الله :صلي

[Ref: Al-Tamheed: H. 2808, & Al-Istadhkaar: Kitaab Waqoot us-Salaah: H. 69, Chain Saheeh]

This wording clearly proves that:

1- Doing Wudoo after touching zakar is Waajib (not Mustahab)BUT THE NARRATOR IMAM IBN ALQASIM DID NOT SEE THIS WUJOOB, FOR HE CONTINUED THE OPINION OF ONE NOT RETURNING THE SALAH OFFERED AFTER TOUCHING THE PENIS.

2- The hadeeth of Talq is Mansookh.HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE HADEETH OF TALQ IS MANSOOKH??? IN FACT I HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE SUPPOSITION THAT THE ISLAM OF TALQ IS BEFORE ABU HURAIRAH (WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF NASKH) IS ITSELF WRONG. INFACT IF WE ACCEPT THIS TO BE THE EVIDENCE FOR NASKH, THEN IT IS THE HADEETH OF TALQ THAT WILL BE NASIKH BECAUSE THE ISLAM OF TALQ IS AFTER THE ISLAM OF ABU HURAIRAH. BUT AS IT IS CLEAR THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DECIDE NASKH! UNLESS WE KNOW EXACTLY THE DATING OF THE NARRATIONS. ASSUMPTIONS DON’T YEILD ANYTHING.

3- Even if we consider the hadeeth of talq to be unabrogated, then its tatbeeq would be to touch it with a barrier. And the tatbeeq of ahnaaf would become baatil!!WHY SHOULD ONE TOUCH HIS PENIS WITHOUT BARRIER?!! IN THE ARTICLE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IF IT IS TOUCHED WITH DESIRE THEN WUDHU BECOMES NECESSARY… WHAT IF SOMEONE TOUCHES WITH BARRIER AND WITH DESIRE??? SO TO PROVE ONE HADEETH, YOU BRING ONE TATBEEQ, AND TO PROVE ANOTHER ANOTHER TATBEEQ, NOT KNOWING HOW TO COMBINE THE TWO TATBEEQS… AND WHAT IF SOMEONE TOUCHES WITHOUT BARRIER AND WITHOUT DESIRE…?THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE TATBEEQ OF AHNAF IS THE BEST. FOR IT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE NARRATIONS-THOSE RECOMMENDING WUDHU EVEN IF WITH THE WORDS OF WUJOOB AND THOSE NOT RECOMMENDING IT.

Note: Even though the command of the Prophet means that the ruling is Waajib, but I mentioned this hadeeth (with clear words specifying its Wujoob) in order to satisfy the hearts of the people of desire, so that they do not have any other excuse after that.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT LEVEL YOU HAVE IN THE TERMINOLOGIES. WORDS OF WUJOOB CAN ALSO BE SAID FOR ISTEHBAB! THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES IN THE SHAREE’AH WHEREIN WORDS OF WUJOOB ARE TAKEN AS ISTEHBAB. OFCOURSE THERE ARE USOOL FOR IT AND IS NOT BASED ON JUST HAWA AND NAFS!

One single hadeeth proved us a lot of things and one single hadeeth refuted all the arguments of Br. Nu’maan. Walhamdulillah!

MASHAALLAH. IF WE START BASING THE AHKAM ON JUST ONE SINGLE HADEETH, THEN PERHAPS THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF HADEETH. THE CHAPTERS AND THE JARH AND TA’DEEL.

The Author said:Fourth Evidence:

Imaam Ibn Maja said: Ibraaheem bin al-Mundhir al-Hizaami narrated to us, Ma’b ibn Eesa narrated to us, (Ibn Maja said) and Abdur Rahmaan bin Ibraaheem ad-Dimashqi narrated to us, Abdullah bin Naafi’ narrated to us, From Ibn Abi Zi’b, From Uqbah bin Abdur Rahmaan, From Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Thawbaan, that:

Sayyidunah Jaabir bin Abdullah (radiallah anhu) narrated that: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “When anyone of you touches his private part, it is necessary for him to do Wudoo’.” [Ibn Maja: Kitaab at-Taharah: Baab al-Wudoo’ min mass az-Zikr: 48]

Ibn Abdul Barr said that Its chain is Saalih. Allamah Zaya said: I don’t see any harm in its chain. [Al-Tamheed: Vol 17, Pg 193, Al-Talkhees: Vol 1 Pg 124]

His Refutation: there was no harm in researching more into the hadeeth, even after these statements of these scholars. but that is possible if the tehqeeq is sincere.

imam bukhari says that uqbah bn abdurrehman narrated mursal hadeeth from ibn thauban in the issue of touching the penis and abdullah bn naf’e added in the isnad jabir and this is not correct.

imam shaf’ie after narrating the hadeeth says:… and i heard many “huffaz” narrating this, but they don’t mention in it jabir.

ibn abi hatim says: i asked my father regarding the hadeeth narrated by duhaim from abdullah bn naf’e (and then narrated the hadeeth), so my father said: this is the mistake of the people. they (the huffaz) narrate it from ibn thoban from prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam “mursaln” and they don’t mention jabir.

Moreover uqbah is majhool as stated by ali bn almadeeni. and ibn abdul barr said: this uqbah is not famous in knowledge..

My point is a research should not be to fool the common masses. if these points were mentioned it would have been easy for the readers to make the correct decision.

I say:Yes the chain of this hadeeth is Da’eef, but is the hadeeth Da’eef? The answer is No!

This hadeeth has Saheeh Shawaahid including the hadeeth of Busrah bint Safwaan, Abu Hurayrah, and others. These authentic shawaahid make it Hasan Lighairihi! So any criticizm on its chain is of no avail!

THIS IS INDEED RIDICULOUS… IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR YOU TO SAY THAT THIS IS AN “EXTREMELY WEAK”(!!!) NARRATION BUT I HAVE PRESENTED IT TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE AUTHENTIC NARRATIONS. BUT INSTEAD YOU (OR THE AUTHOR AND HERE YOU ARE DEFENDING HIM!) HAVE PRESENTED JUST THE TASHEEH AND DID NOT PRESENT THESE DETAILS. THIS IS WHY I SAID ITS DECEPTION. HAD YOU PRESENTED THE ENTIRE DETAILS AND CLARIFIED REGARDING ITS WEAKNESS THERE WASN’T ANY PROBLEM.

The Author said:Fifth Evidence:

Abdul Jabbaar bin Muhammad al-Khattaabi narrated to us, Baqiyyah narrated to us, From Muhammad bin al-Waleed az-Zubaydi, From Amr bin Shu’ayb, From his Father (Shu’ayb bin Abdullah), From his Grand father (Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas) radiallah anhu.

Sayyidunah Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas (radiallah anhu) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “The man who touches his private part should do wudoo, and the woman who touches her private part should do wudoo’.” [Musnad Ahmed: Vol 2 Pg 223, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 132, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 147]

Imaam Tirmidhi narrated from Imaam Bukhari in Kitaab al-Illal that this hadeeth is Saheeh according to me. [with reference to Al-Talkhees al-Habeer: Vol 1 Pg 124]

Baqiyyah is a Mudallis, but he has affirmed his hearing in Sunan Daraqutni: Kitaab at-Taharah: H. 474.

His Refutation: again an incomplete tehqeeq.

not just baqiyyah, amr bn shu’aib has not specified that he heard it from his father. he has narrated with “a’n”. and we know about him that he would narrate with a’n from his father by reading in a book left by him. in other words he didn’t hear it from his father. ofcourse this doesn’t mean he didn’t hear anything from his father, but rather he would do tadlees and so unless its not specified that he heard it from his father, the hadeeth will not remain saheeh.

I say:lol, so the little boy is now trying to challenge his own Imaam ul-A’dham Abu Haneefah whose taqleed he is boasting about, lol.

I DON’T KNOW WHERE I HAVE BOASTED ABOUT IMAM ABU HANEEFAH’S TAQLEED. AS FOR ME BEING A LITTLE BOY IN FRONT OF THE GREAT IMAMS THEN YES I AM EVEN SMALLER THAN THAT!!!

Br. Nu’maan has himself proven his so-called “Mujtahid Faqeeh Siraaj ul-Ummah” Imaam to be wrong, and proven himself to be superior than Abu Haneefah, Muhammad ash-Shaybaani, and many Hanafi Fuqaha. I can’t stop my laugh over here!! lol

YOU SEEM TO BE A LAUGHING GAS INDEED. PERHAPS YOU MUST BE IN SOME COMEDY TEAM!!! OR YOU FEEL THAT THIS HADEETH DISCUSSION IS LIKE A COMEDY SHOW… BE SERIOUS MAN. THIS MENTALITY OF YOURS PROVES YOUR SERIOUSNESS IN THE FIELD OF HADEETH.

Imaam Abu Haneefah and Amr bin Shu’ayb:

Imaam Abu Haneefah himself used to take evidence from the chain of Amr bin Shu’ayb from his Father from his Grandfather.

When Imaam Abu Haneefah was asked that: “Can a Merchant put condition [on transaction]?”, so he replied “No!” when he was asked for its Daleel, so he replied:

أخبرني عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن شرط

وبيع[Akhbaar ul-Qudhaat by Wakee: 3/46, Ma’rifat Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 128,

Uqood ul-Jawahir: 2/33, and others]So he himself is taking evidence from this chain, then who are you to reject it? And its Haraam for you to contradict the statement of your Imaam according to your Madhab.

For the detailed authenticity of this chain, download this document from here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?j9qal19x ho5kamg

But I would say that this chain is still Da’eef, because Baqiyyah bin al-Waleed used to practice Tadlees Taswiyyah, may be the author did not know about it! However, there are other ahadeeth in support of this issue!! E.g. Hadeeth of Busrah, Abu Hurayrah, Zayd bin Khaalid and others.SO YOU ACCEPT THAT THIS CHAIN IS still DHA’EEF… ALHUMDULILLAH!!!!

The Author said:Sixth Evidence:

Sayyidunah Zayd bin Khaalid Al-Juhni narrated that I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “The one who touches his private part should do Wudoo’.” [Musnad Ahmed: Vol 5 Pg 194, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 163, Tabaraani Kabeer: Vol 5 Pg 243, H. 5221, 5222, Musnad Bazzar: with reference to Majma az-Zawaid Vol 1 Pg 245, Bayhaqi in Al-Khilafiyaat and Ishaaq bin Rahwayh in his Musnad, Al-Talkhees al-Habeer Vol 1 Pg 124]

Haythami said: All its narrators are Saheeh, except Ibn Ishaaq and he is a Mudallis but he has affirmed his hearing here. Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: Its chain is Saheeh.

His Refutation: again an incomplete tehqeeq.

the problem is not just his tadlees you see.

all others, other than ibn ishaq have narrated the hadeeth through ‘urwah from busrah, and he is the only one to narrate from zaid bn khalid. imam ahmed was asked if ibn ishaq narrated a hadeeth with “infirad”(i.e. being alone in narrating the hadeeth), should it be accepted? he answered no….

imam zahabi says at the end of his “trjama” in meezan:”… so what is evident to me is that ibn ishaq is “hasanul hadeeth”, “salehul haal”, “sudooq”, and that in which he is alone then it has “nakarah” as there was something wrong with his memory.”

ibn almadeeni says:”i didn’t get any hadeeth of ibn ishaq except two “munkr” narrations and then mentioned this hadeeth.

I say:The Jurooh on Imaam Muhammad bin Ishaaq bin Yasaar are rejected by many Scholars. In fact some Muhadditheen have even called him Ameer ul-Mu’mineen fil Hadeeth, which is the highest title a person can get. This title is given only to the people of the level of Imaam Bukhaari etc.

In fact, a Muhaddith like Imaam Shu’bah bin al-Hajjaaj (the Imaam in the field of Jarh wat Ta’deel) said: “Muhammad bin Ishaaq is Ameer ul-Muhadditheen” [Kitaab al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 7/192, Chain Hasan]

Imam Shu’bah also said: “He is Ameer ul-Muhaddithen because of his Memory” [Al-Taareekh al-Kabeer: 1/40]

Imaam Shu’bah also said: “Ibn Ishaaq is Sayyid ul-Muhadditheen because of his Memory” [Tareekh Baghdad: 1/228, Chain Saheeh]

Imaam Shu’bah also said: “Muhammad bin Ishaaq is Ameer ul-Mu’mineen fil Hadeeth” [Tareekh Baghdaad: 1/228, Chain Saheeh]

Such a high praise from Imaam Shu’bah refutes the claim of Imaam Ahmed who said that he is not hujjah when narrating alone.

Imaam Yahya Ibn Ma’een said: “Muhammad bin Ishaaq is Thabat in Hadeeth” [Kitaab ath-Thiqaat: 7/383, Chain Saheeh] [Note: Thabat is even higher praise than Thiqah]

Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: “Ibn Ishaaq is Thiqah according to me, and according to me nothing put him down except his narrating from the people of Book” [Kitaab al-Qira’at by Bayhaqi: 1/19, Chain Saheeh]

YOU HAVE PRESENTED TAUSEEQ AND I HAVE PRESENTED JARH MUFASSAR!!! YOU DECIDE ACCORDING TO USOOL WHICH HAS TO BE GIVEN PRECEDENCE…

OFCOURSE NOT TO FORGET THAT THERE ARE OTHER JARH ON HIM AS WELL! FOR EXAMPLE:

IMAM MALIK SAID: DAJJAL AMONG THE DAJJALS (THIS WAS BECAUSE HE WAS ALLEGED OF QADR)

MUHAMMED BN ABDULLAH BN NUMAIR: IF HE NARRATES FROM THOSE FROM WHOM HE HEARD FROM THE WELL KNOWN THEN HE IS SUDOOQ HASANUL HADEETH, AND HE HAS BROUGHT FORTH BATIL AHADEETH IF HE NARRATES FROM MAJHOOLEEN.

AHMED BN HANBAL: - LAISA BIHUJJAH (NOT TO BE TAKEN EVIDENCE WITH)- HE WOULD WRITE HIS NARRATIONS IN MUSNAD AND WOULD NOT

DENY THEM, BUT HE WOULD NOT TAKE THEM HUJJAH IN SUNAN.- ALSO THE ABOVE SAYING OF REJECTING HIS TAFARRUD.

YAHYA BN MA’EEN: - LAISA BIHI BAS- (WHEN HE WAS ASKED AGAIN SO HE REPLIED) LAISA BIZAK. DHA’EEF.- SAQEEM. LAISA BIL QAWI.- DHA’EEF .- SIQA AND NOT HUJJAH - LAISA BIHI BAS. DHAEEFUL HADEETH THROUGH ZUHRI.- DON’T GET ENTANGLED BY WHAT HE NARRATES, FOR HE IS NOT

STRONG IN HADEETH IMAM NISAIE: LAISA BIL QAWI ABI HATIM: ACCORDING TO ME NOT STRONG IN HADEETH. WEAK IN HADEETH DARQUTNI: NOT TO BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE. CAN BE MENTIONED FOR E’TEBAAR. IMAM ZAHABI: (APART FROM HIS FINAL OPINION IN MEEZAN ABOVE) HE HAS BEEN

AUTHENTICATED BY MORE THAN ONE AND OTHERS HAVE DEGRADED HIM. HE IS SALEHUL HADEETH. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIM IN MY SIGHT EXCEPT THAT THERE ARE SOME MUNKAR AND MUNQATE THINGS IN SEERAH AND SOME FABRICATED POETRY. HE AGAIN SAYS IN “SIYAR”:… AS FOR AHADEETH AND AHKAM, THEN HIS AHADEETH FALL FROM THE GRADE OF SAHEEH TO HASAN, EXCEPT THAT IN WHICH HE IS “SHAAZ”, FOR IT HAS “MANAKEER”

WITH THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT HIS AHADEETH ARE NORMALLY OF HASAN STATUS BUT WHEN HE IS ALONE, THEN THEY ARE EVEN LOWER. THIS CLEARS THE DECEPTION YOU HAVE TRIED TO PLAY BELOW IN CLEARING HIM FROM IMAM ZAHABI’S JARH MUFASSAR! WALHUMDULILLAH.

The saying of Ibn al-Madeeni that Br. Nu’maan mentioned is as follows:

ibn almadeeni says:”i didn’t get any hadeeth of ibn ishaq except two “munkr” narrations and then mentioned this hadeeth.

This saying of Ibn al-Madeeni is narrated by Bukhaari in Kitaab al-Qira’at and it is not a criticizm at all, rather it is a proof of his thaqaahat. The wording of Ibn al-Madeeni is as follows:

وقال لي علي بن عبد الله: نظرت في كتاب ابن إسحاق فما وجدت عليه إلا في حديثين ويمكن أن

.يكونا صحيحينAnd Ali ibn Abdullah (ibn Ja’far al-Madeeni) told me: I looked into the book of (Muhammad) Ibn Ishaaq, and there are (only) two ahadeeth which are objectable, and it is possible that these two ahadeeth may also be Authentic. [Juzz al-Qira’at by Bukhaari: H. 148]

Imaam Ibn al-Madeeni is saying that all the narrations of Ibn Ishaaq are authentic, and only two narrations are such which can be objected, but they too can be authentic [he did not even weakened these two ahadeeth]. So Ibn al-Madeeni is doing ta’deel of Ibn Ishaaq not tajreeh. So on what basis did Nu’maan mentioned it as a Jarh upon Ibn Ishaaq?

Ibn al-Madeeni only said that they can be objected, not that they are Da’eef. And he said that they might also be authentic. And yes they are authentic, as they have shawaahid which make these two authentic!

THERE ARE TWO SAYINGS OF IBN MADEENI WITH REGRADS TO THE TWO AHADEETH. THE ONE YOU HAVE MENTIONED, THAT THEY MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE AND HE HOPED EVEN THEY ARE SAHEEH, BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF WHICH TWO AHADEETH. BUT THE OTHER SAYING IS WHAT I MENTIONED FROM TEHZEEBUT TEHZEEB:

“ : : : النبي عمرعن ابن عن نافع منكرين حديثين الا اسحاق لابن اجد لم علي قال سفيان بن يعقوب وقال (: ) ( : مس اذ خالد بن زيد عن عروة عن والزهري الجمعة يوم احدكم نعس اذا قال وسلم عليه الله صلى

: - - ) حدثنا فيه هذا ولاكن فلان ذكر يقول احاديثه المناكيرفي يعني والباقي فرجه .احدكم

NOW THERE IS NO MENTION OF “IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THEY ARE SAHEEH”. INFACT AT THE END IT MENTIONS THAT IN THE OTHER AHADEETH THE MANAKEER IS HIS SAYING “SO AND SO MENTIONED” BUT IN THIS IT IS “HADDATHANA” (AND YET IT IS MUNKR !)

THERE IS ANOTHER SAYING OF ALI IBN AL MADEENI IN TAREEKH BAGHDAD:

ليس "“ وبعضه منه بعضه ان ظننت احاديث اربعة الا منه انكرت فما شيء اسحاق ابن حديث من الي وقعمنه

NOW HERE FOUR AHADEETH ARE MENTIONED!!! THIS CLEARLY MEANS THESE ARE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS. AND HE WOULD MENTION HIS RESEARCH ON SEEING THE VARIOUS WORKS OF IBN ISHAQ. SO SOMETIMES THERE WERE FOUR MUNKAR NARRATIONS AND SOMETIMES TWO SPECIFIED AND SOMETIMES TWO UNSPECIFIED, BUT HE EXPECTED THEM TO BE RIGHT.

Br. Nu’maan mentioned the criticizm of Imaam Ahmed upon him, which is rejected due to two reasons:

First: It is against the Jumhoor.

BUT IT IS MUFASSAR!!!

Second: It is contradictory to the tawtheeq of Imaam Ahmed himself.

Imaam Ahmed said: “He is Hasan ul-Hadeeth” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 1/223, Chain Saheeh]

YES HE IS HASANUL HADEETH, BUT WITH THE JARH MUFASSAR, WHEN HE IS ALONE THEN HUJJAH IS NOT TO BE TAKEN. YOU SEE A MUHADDITH MAY CONSIDER A NARRATOR TO BE SIQAH, BUT MAY REJECT HIS SOME NARRATIONS DUE TO SPECIFIC REASONS. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING ODD. I DON’T KNOW WHY YOU ARE TRYING SO HARD TO PROVE THIS HADEETH TO BE RIGHT.

He also said: “He is Saalih ul-Hadeeth, take evidence from his narrations” [Sharh Al-Ilaal by Ibn Raja: 1/412]

Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim said: “Imaam Ahmed declare his chain to be Saheeh and declared himself to be Hasan” [I’laam al-Mawqa’een: 2/25]

And there are many other praises narrated from Imaam Ahmed regarding him.

According to the Hanafi Scholars, if a Muhaddith does Jarh on a narrator, and then he himself praises him, then the praise (ta’deel) will be given precedence. [Inhaa us-Sakan: Pg 105]

YOU SEE THE JARH OF IMAM AHMED IS NOT A GENERAL JARH. HIS JARH ON HIM IS SPECIFIC TO THOSE NARRATIONS IN WHICH HE IS ALONE AND SO IT IS NOT RIGHT TO SAY THAT HE IS DHAEEF OR MATROOK OR MUNKIRUL HADEETH ACCORDING TO HIM. BUT WITH THE CONDITIONS APPLIED HIS AHADEETH ARE MUNKAR. SO ACTUALLY THERE IS NO COMBINATION OF JARH AND TADEEL FROM IMAM AHMED SO AS TO GIVE PRECEDENCE OF ONE OVER THE OTHER… RATHER THERE IS TAUSEEQ, BUT WITH SOME REASONS THE HADEETH IS REJECTED.

As for his Munfarid narrations then they are authentic too, as long as he affirms his hearing! Many Muhadditheen have accepted his lone narrations such as Imaam Dhahabi, Imaam Haakim, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Ibn al-Jarood, Imaam Ibn Hajar, Imaam Bayhaqi, Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imaam Abu Awaanah, and many others.

IMAM ZAHABI HAS ALSO REJECTED HIS LONE NARRATIONS AS I HAVE ALREADY CLARIFIED ABOVE.

In fact, Imaam Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah said: “I sat with Ibn Ishaaq for more than 70 years, and no one from the People of Madeenah ever criticized him, and neither did they do any kalaam regarding him.” [Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 7/192, Chain Saheeh]

THERE IS ANOTHER NARRATION WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PEOPLE OF MADEENAH (FOLLOWING IMAM MALIK) DID NOT NARRATE AT ALL FROM HIM AND DIDN’T APPROVE OF HIS NARRATIONS.

Imaam Ibn Hibaan said: “Thus if he affirms his hearing in his narration then he is thiqah, and hujjah is taken from his narrations”

The Munfarid narrations of narrators who are Thiqah are not harmful!!

Secondly, while narrating the words of this narration under discussion, Ibn Ishaaq is not alone at all! Many people have done his Mutaabi’ah. Some of its Shawaahid are the hadeeth of Busrah, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Umar and others.

I WILL BE GLAD TO KNOW HIS “MUTABEH” WITH A SAHEEH SANAD… PLEASE

Br. Nu’maan mentioned the saying of Imaam Dhahabi which is as follows:

imam zahabi says at the end of his “trjama” in meezan:”… so what is evident to me is that ibn ishaq is “hasanul hadeeth”, “salehul haal”, “sudooq”, and that in which he is alone then it has “nakarah” as there was something wrong with his memory.”

In this saying of Dhahabi, having some “Nakarah” does not mean at all that the hadeeth would become Da’eef. Rather Nakarah can at most drop a hadeeth from the level of Saheeh to the level of Hasan. It cannot become Da’eef merely because of some Nakarah!!

FIRSTLY IT IS NOT “SOME NAKARAH” AS YOU HAVE PUT IT… SECONDLY IF A NARRATOR IS GENERALLY “SUDOOQ” AND “HASANUL HADEETH” AND THEN THERE IS NAKARAH BECAUSE OF SOME REASON, THEN THIS FALLS BELOW HASAN, WHICH IS DHA’EEF…!!!

Secondly, Imaam Dhahabi never declared the hadeeth of Ibn Ishaaq as Da’eef, which is a proof that Nakarah does not mean Da’eef according to him. In fact, In Talkhees ul-Mustadrak Haafidh Dhahabi has authenticated many narrations of Ibn Ishaaq, and at many places he even declared his narrations to be upon the conditions set by Imaam Muslim. [Talkhees: 379, 1039 etc…]

YES BROTHER, HIS AHADEETH ARE HASAN STATUS, BUT WITH THE JARH MUFASSAR, IT IS NOT… IF YOU CAN TELL ME IF IMAM ZAHABI HAS DECLARED HIS “MUNFARID” NARRATION TO BE SAHEEH OR HASAN, I WILL BE VERY MUCH PLEASED… JAZAKUMULLAHU KHAIRN…

At one place, Imaam Dhahabi mentioned that some of his narrations contain Gharaaib and Nakarah, but still he said that his narrations are Hassan. [Al-Kaashif: 3/18]

This, again, is a strong proof that Nakarah of Ibn Ishaaq does not mean Da’eef according to Dhahabi, rather only Hasan!!

Moreover, Imaam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said about his Munfarid narrations, whose summary is that the narrations which he narrated alone are not Saheeh but they do not also drop from the level of Hasan. [Fath ul-Baari: 1/163]

So in short, the ahadeeth of Ibn Ishaaq are Saheeh, and when he narrates alone they become Hasan, but not Da’eef!!

So this chain is also Hasan, and becomes Saheeh because of its authentic Shawaahid and Mutaabi’aat!!

In fact, many Hanafi Ulama have also authenticated the ahadeeth of Ibn Ishaaq.

So this hadeeth is absolutely Saheeh!!!

WITH THE CLARIFICATIONS ABOVE IT IS CLEAR AS TO WHAT IS THE POSITION WALHUMDULILLAH…

The Author said:Seventh Evidence:

Sayyidunah Ubay Ayyub Al-Ansaari (radiallah anhu) narrated that, I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying that: “The one who touches his private part should do wudoo.” [Ibn Maja: H. 482]

His Refutation: there was no need to bring this dha’eef hadeeth, when the above ahadeeth have proven the point. or is the author intending to increase the number of ahadeeth just to impress the unwary reader…??? more surprisingly he has not presented its sanad!!!

in ibn majah, immediately after the hadeeth it is clearly mentioned:”in its sanad is ishaq bn abi farwah. they (the muhadditheen) are united in his being dha’eef.”

this is why i say that the author’s intention is to decieve the unwary reader.

may allah protect all of us from such acts.

I say:This hadeeth is Saheeh with its Shawaahid, though the chain may be da’eef! So saying that the author is decieving is a lie. Chain is not the only thing to look for in a hadeeth. Nu’maan should learn the Usool ul-Hadeeth.

MASHAALLAH… YOU PEOPLE ARE THE SAME ONES WHO KEEP SAYING “SHOW THE SANAD”…”WHERE IS THE SANAD”…”THE SANAD IS ABSOLUTELY WEAK”… AND NOW YOU ARE SAYING “CHAIN IS NOT THE ONLY THING TO LOOK FOR”!!!

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I WISH TO ASK HOW THIS HADEETH OF ABU AYYUB ALANSARI BECOME SAHEEH???

IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT THE MATN, THEN OFCOURSE AS I SAID “there was no need to bring this dha’eef hadeeth, when the above ahadeeth have proven the point.”… THERE WAS NO NEED FOR TAKING SUPPORT FROM SUCH WEAK NARRATIONS WHEN THE ISSUE IS PROVEN FROM AUTHENTIC AHADEETH… THIS IS WHAT I WAS SAYING. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT YOUR MAZHAB TO TAKE SUPPORT OF DHAEEF AHADEETH… ANYWAY AFTER ALL YOU HAVE TO DEFEND YOUR AUTHOR AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF AHADEETH ON YOUR SIDE!!!

The Author said:Eighth Evidence:

Sayyidunah Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) narrated that: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “The one who touches his private part should do wudoo’.” [Musnad Bazzar, and Tabaraani Kabeer with reference to Majma az-Zawaaid: Vol 1 Pg 245, Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 146]

His Refutation: again no sanad!

in its sanad is ishaq bn muhammad abi farwah.

following are the sayings of ulemaa about him apart from being mentioned by ibn hibban in his “thiqaat”:

abu hatim said: was “sudooq” but he lost his sight so he would be lectured and his books are “saheeh” at another occasion he said: “mudhtarib” (confused).

abu bakr al buzzar said: “dha’eeful hadeeth” abu hatim ibn hibban albusti said: “yaghribu wa yatafarradu” (i.e. his narrations are “ghareeb”

and they are lonely) abu daud sajistani “wahahu jiddan” nisai said: “laisa bisiqah” (not among the authentic) ibn hajar asqalani- “sudooqn kaffa fasaa hifzuhu” he also said- wahahu abu daud and nisai…

and as if bukhari took in his book before he lost his sight darqutni said- dha’eef. and he also said la yatruk. dhahabi said- sudooq fil jumlah, sahibul hadeeth. saji said- feehi leen…

these analysis show that atleast the hadeeth is not saheeh. and there was no harm in presenting the sanad and the tehqeeq thereof for the readers.

I say:Ishaaq bin Muhammad bin Abi Farwah is Da’eef, but Sadaqah bin Abdullah has done his Mutaabi’ah who is Da’eef also. And it also has other shawaahid!!

Moreover, I found a Hasan chain for this narration as well, which is narrated by Imaam Ukaylee in his ad-Du’afa. The chain is as follows:

Imaam Ukaylee said: Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Naajiyah narrated to us, he said: Ahmed bin Sayyaar al-Marwazi narrated to us, he said: Sulemaan bin Wahab al-Ansaari narrated to us (one of the sons of Anas bin Maalik), he said: Sakhar bin Juwariyyah narrated to us, From Naafi (the servant of Ibn Umar), from Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) who said: Verily the Apostle of Allaah (peace be upon him) said: “The one who touches his penis, needs to do wudoo’” [Ad-Du’afa al-Kabeer: 2/143]

All its narrators are Thiqah except Sulemaan bin Wahab al-Ansaari, who is criticized by Imaam Ukaylee, who said: “He opposes his ahadeeth” [Ref: Same]

But this narrator is Thiqah. The opinion of Imaam Ukaylee is against the Jumhoor.

Imaam Bukhaari said:

“He is Thiqah” [Taareekh al-Kabeer: 4/40]

Imaam Abu Haatim said:

“He does not oppose his hadeeth” [Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 4/148]

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in his book of Thiqah narrators. [Ath-Thiqaat: 6/390]

So this chain is atleast Hasan if not Saheeh.

SULEYMAN BN WAHB ALANSARI’S THIS HADEETH HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CONDEMNED. AND THE OPPOSING FACTOR IS THAT IT SHOULD BE MAUQOOF TO IBN UMAR AND NOT MARFOO’. THE SAME IS IN MEEZAN OF ZAHABI AND LISANUL MEEZAN OF IBN HAJAR. AND SO THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. IMAM UQAYLI IS NOT AGAINST JAMHOOR… IF YES PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHERE THE JAMHOOR HAVE SAID THAT THIS HADEETH IS CORRECT AS MARFO’O AND NOT MAUQOOF?

OR SHOW ME ANY HADEETH OF HASAN STATUS WHICH IS MARFOO THROUGH IBN UMAR IN THIS ISSUE…

SO NOW YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TO COMBINE TWO DHAEEF NARRATIONS AND MAKE THEM HASAN!!! BUT WHEN THE SAME WE DO, YOU HAVE SOME EXCUSE… YOU MAKE SOME NARRATOR MAJHOOL… OR BRING SOME TATBEEQ… I WISH YOU COULD LOVE HADEETH MORE AND MORE…

The Author said:Ninth Evidence:

Umm ul-Mu’mineen Siddeeqah Aisha (radiallah anha) narrated that: “Woe to those who touch their private part and then perform Salaah without renewing their Wudoo’.” [Daraqutni: Vol 1 Pg 148]

His Refutation: again no sanad!!! why??? because in the sanad is abdurrehman alumari regarding whom darqutni himself says:”dhaeef”… ahmed said “kazzabn”(he was a liar), nisaai and abu hatim and abu zura’a said “matrook” (left by the muhadditheen), abu hatim added “kana yakzibu”(he used to lie)!!! what is the need to support the above narrations with such fabricated ones????

may allah give all of us proper understanding…

I say:I agree that this narration is Weak. The author shouldn’t have mentioned it. But this behavior should not amaze the muqallideen since it is their usuall practice to quote and follow the weak and even fabricated ahadeeth without showing to public their reality and authenticity.

LOOKING AT YOUR “BACKGROUND” OF PSEUDO SALAFISM AND YOUR MENTALITY, YOU SHOULD HAVE BLASTED YOUR AUTHOR FOR DOING THIS BLUNDER OF QUOTING A FABRICATED NARRATION… BUT IF YOU HAVE OUR MENTALITY OF ACCEPTING DHAEEF AHADEETH, THEN PLEASE SAY SO… WE ARE NOT AMAZED AT THE DHAEEF HADEETH… WE ARE AMAZED BECAUSE IT IS BEING PRESENTED FROM SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE FOLLOWING ONLY SAHEEH AHADEETH… THAT IS THE DECEPTION I WAS TALKING ABOUT…

The Author said:Tenth Evidence:

This hadeeth, with the similar words, is narrated by Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas in Mustadrak Haakim, Abdullah bin Abbas in Bayhaqi, Nu’maan bin Bushayr, Anas, Ubay bin Ka’b, Mu’awiyah bin Haydah, in Ibn Mandah, and Sayyidah Arwi bint Anees in Bayhaqi. [Al-Talkhees al-Habeer Vol 1 Pg 126, and As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 264, 265]

Of couse, in some of the ahadeeth mentioned, there are some weaknesses, but they become Hassan due to Shawaahid.

His Refutation:

allahu akbar!!! i say there is no need to present such fabricated narrations in support of saheeh… and when the issue is clear by saheeh narrations why do you want dhaee’f and mawdoo’ narrations??? when the ahnaf take support of even mursal saheeh, they are victimized of being muta’’ssib in their madhhab to the extent of using dhaeef narrations…

and here mashaallah fabricated narrations are also presented!!!

moreover for the information of the author, fabricated narrations can neither be used as shawahid, nor can they become hasan by the shawahids…!!! note the deception in “some weaknesses”…. the unwary reader is lead to believe in the author’s own way of thinking… for the simple reader has neither the time nor the books, nor the ability to go thru the original books and clarify the issue…

may allah give us his fear in our hearts…

My Rebuttal:Note: I only translated the work of Author without doing any of my own tahqeeq. So what the author said and did should not be attributed to me.

I NEVER ATTRIBUTED TO YOU? DID I? PLEASE TELL ME WHERE DID I SAY THAT ALL THIS WORK IS THE WORK OF THE TRANSLATOR? BUT THEY SAY :’KHISYANI BILLI KHAMBA NOCHE’!

I agree that we do not need Weak narrations against the Saheeh narrations, and I condemn the author for doing that. May Allah forgive him and me!

I WISH YOU COULD SPEAK TO YOUR AUTHOR INSTEAD OF CONDEMNING HIM. MAYBE HE CAN GIVE A BETTER REPLY!!! DEFINITELY, AS YOU HAVE MENTIONED…

But I doubt the intention of Muqallid, who does not criticize any of his own Imaams who openly quote and spread Lies and Fabrications upon the Prophet and the Noble Scholars of this Ummah, but here he is criticizing us for using not Weak ahadeeth!!

I DIDN’T CRITICISE. YOU ARE MISSING MY POINT. OR … DECEPTION? WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT YOUR EFFORT IS TO FOLLOW JUST THE SAHEEH NARRATIONS. AND YOU HAVE CRITICISED THE DALLAIL OF AHNAF BECAUSE THEY ARE DHAEEF. SO IT IS MURDERING JUSTICE FROM YOUR SIDE TO BRING WEAK NARRATIONS IN YOUR SUPPORT. I DIDN’T CRITICISE. I AM ASKING JUST FOR JUSTICE!

I’d suggest him, go and read his books like Fadhaail A’maal, Fatawa Alamgeeri, Al-Hidayah and other Hanafi books first, which are filled with filthy lies and fabrications!! Then come and talk to me!!

INSHAALLAH WE CAN TALK (BECAUSE I HAVE READ THEM!!!). BUT LOOKING AT YOUR LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE AND SPECIALLY YOUR ATTITTUDE GIVES US A FEELING THAT YOU AREN’T A SINCERE STUDENT OF HADEETH. WERE YOU SO, WE WOULD HAVE DISCUSSED. MOREOVER I WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU FACE TO FACE!!! THIS IS NOT A CHALLENGE BUT AN OFFER!!! PLEASE. WHENEVER YOU COME TO MAKKAH, GIVE ME A CALL (YOU HAVE MY NUMBER!!!)

The Author said:Athaar of Sahaabah (radiallah anhum):

SINCE THE AUTHOR HAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE DALAIL OF AHNAF “whereas the sayings of Sahaabah are not Hujja in this issue from the very root,…”, THERE WAS NO NEED TO PRESENT THESE AATHAR. OR IS HE AGAIN TRYING TO IMPRESS THE READER??.

I say:The athaar of Sahabah are hujjah when they are supported by the sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but if their sayings oppose the sayings of the Prophet then they are not hujjah!

BUT YOU HAVE STATED “whereas the sayings of Sahaabah are not Hujja in this issue from the very root”

IF THIS DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU SAY THEN I AM SORRY, I FAILED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEANT!

ATLEAST ALHUMDULILLAH NOW YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THE AATHAAR OF SAHABAH ARE HUJJAH WHEN…

(1) Umm ul-Mu’mineen Sayyidah Aisha Siddeeqah (radiallah anha) said: “When a woman touches her private part, should do Wudoo’. [Mustadrak Haakim: Vol 1 Pg 138, and Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131]

Imaam Haakim and Dhahabi have graded this athar to be Saheeh.

(2) Sayyidnah Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) said: “When any of you touches his Dhikr (Private part), it is obligatory upon him to do Wudoo’.” [Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Baab al-Wudoo min mas al-furaj]

Ibn Umar’s son, Saalim said: “I saw my father, Abdullah ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) that he was doing wudoo after ghusl. I asked him, ‘Oh Father! Doesn’t ghusl suffice wudoo?’ so he replied: Yes, but sometimes it happens I touch my private part after ghusl, so that’s why I do wudoo’.” [Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Same Baab, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131, Abdur Razzaq: Vol 1 Pg 115]

Imaam Saalim narrates another incidance of his father, Sayyidunah Ibn Umar (radiallah anhu) that, we were in a journey, he performed the prayer after the sun had risen, I said to him: ‘I have never seen you praying such a prayer before’, so he replied: ‘I performed wudo’ for the morning prayer, but my hand got touched by Dhikr (Private Part), and I could not remember, and prayed the morning prayer in that condition, so now I have reperformed the prayer after doing wudoo’.’ [Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Chapter same, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131]

Imaam Haazmi said in his book “an-Naasikh wal Mansookh” that: “Ubay Ayyub al-Ansaari, Zayd bin Khaalid, Abu Hurayrah, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aas, Jaabir bin Abdullah, Umm Habeebah, and Busrah

bint Safwaan (radiallah anhum) were of the view that wudoo’ is obligatoey after touching the private part.” [with reference to Ghayat ul-Maqsood: Vol 2 Pg 105]

Imaam Tirmidhi said that several Sahabah and Tabi’een held the same view. Imaam Awzaa’ee, Imaam Shafi’ee, Imaam Ahmed, and Imaam Ishaaq had the same view. [Tirmidhi ma’a Tuhfah: Vol 1 Pg 85]

Imaam Ibn Hazam after mentioning the names of some of the Sahabah said that: “Imaam Ata bin Abi Ribaah, Imaam Urwah, Imaam Sa’eed bin al-Musayyab, Abaan bin Uthmaan, Ibn Jurayj, Imaam Awzaa’ee, Imaam Layth, Imaam Shafi’ee, Imaam Dawood, Imaam Ishaaq, Imaam Ahmed, and others had the same view that touching the private part breaks the wudo’.” [Al-Muhalla: Vol 1 Pg 222]

The confesssion of Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Al-Hanafi:

Maulana Abdul Hay has given the long discussion of almost 12 pages in As-Say’ah to this issue. Therefore, after mentioning the evidences of both the sides, he said:

“I say that this tahqeeq (that the narration of Talq bin Ali is Mansookh) is desrving to be accepted, because after seeing the evidences of both the sides, we come to know that the ahadeeth which affirm breaking of wudoo’ are more in number and stronger than those which say that the wudoo does not break, and the ahadeeth which say that the wudoo does not break are from the old times.” [As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 267]

After that he refuted the muta’assib behaviour of Allamah Tahawi and Aynee, and at the end he has written very clearly that:

“The summary is that in this issue the view of those who say that the Wudoo breakes, is stronger. And the view of the other group is not equal in acceptance to this group. However, the opinion of those who say that touching the women does not break wudoo is stronger in light of the Akhbaar and Athaar. Know well, that we have discussed both these issues in great detail so that the Haqq becomes apparent and the batlaan of baatil becomes apparent. Even though the dislikers may dislike it, but I trust in Allah, and the people should only put their trust upon him.” [As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 268]

Wa Billaahi Tawfeeq,

Defender of Sunnah..

Abu Haneefah..

Quran & Sunnah according to the Understanding of Sahaabah... Good

Desires, Innovations & Blind-Following of madhabs (Taqlid Shakhsi).. Baad

Assalaam-Alaikum, Dear Muslims,

Part 2 – Analyzing the Proofs of AhnaafFollowing is the second part of the series analyzing all Proofs given by the Ahnaaf and a complete refutation of their so-called proofs...

His Refutation:i fail to realize why has the author mentioned “so called proofs”. does he believe that these ahadeeth are fabrications and concoctions? or does he believe that these ahadeeth do not prove that touching does not break wudhu?

i say this is enough to prove his ignorance and his muta’ssib behaviour.

I say:Saying “so-called” does not mean what you asserted!!

In fact, it was intended to be “So-called Proofs – meaning, proofs which they think are Saheeh and Authentic” but in reality they are not authentic but weak and fabricated!! Proofs wasn’t intended for mere any proof. Proof, here, is intended to be the proofs which you think of as Authentic!! That’s all!!

‘Saying “so-called” does not mean what you asserted!!” BUT THE EXPLANATION YOU HAVE GIVEN IS SAME AS I “ASSERTED”!!! YOU ARE SAYING NOW “in reality they are not authentic but weak and fabricated!!” THIS IS WHAT I SAID!!! “does he believe that these ahadeeth are fabrications and concoctions?”

YOU WANT TO “REFUTE” BUT YOU CAN’T… PLEASE KEEP LAUGHING…

The Author said:Touching the Private Part Invalidates the Wudoo (Part 2) The Hanafi Proofs and their Refutation

The Evidences of those who say that touching the private part does not break wudoo and their refutation:

First Evidence:

Mulazim bin Amar narrates from Abdullah bin Badar, from Qaiys bin Talq bin Ali, from his father (Talq bin Ali), from the Prophet (sallalahu alaiyhi wa sallam): 'he was once asked about a person who touches his male organ during prayer to which he replied: it is only a part of your body'

This hadeeth is recorded by Imam Ahmed, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, and Ibn Maja. Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has declared it Saheeh, and Ibn al-Madeeni said that this hadeeth is better than the hadeeth of Busrah.

His Refutation: again incomplete tehqeeq.

in “talkhees alhabeer”: amr bn ali alfallas said its saheeh, and said it is for us “athbat” (more strong) than the hadeeth of busrah and also it was rated saheeh by ibn hazm.

there was nothing wrong in presenting the complete tehqeeq as above. but maybe the author has chosen to decieve the common people

I say:When he already has provided the saying of some Scholars that they say it is authentic then what is the use of mentioning the hukm of every single Scholar??? Like this, according to your definition of “Full Tahqeeq”, he should also have provided the ahkaam of those Muhadditheen who have weakened this hadeeth and rejected it!! Would you be happy with that??!!

IT IS NOT THE ISSUE OF BEING HAPPY… YOU SEE WHEN THE EVIDENCES IN YOUR SUPPORT WERE PRESENTED COMPLETE “TASHEEH” WAS GIVEN. EVERY SINGLE SCHOLAR’S SAYING WAS MENTIONED WITHOUT OFCOURSE THE “JARH”… AND NOW HERE JUST A REFERENCE OF ONE OR TWO SCHOLARS AND FOLLOWED BY A DETAILED “REFUTATION”…!!!! THIS IS THE WAY OF DECEPTIVENESS. YOU HAVE PRESENTED A BIASED STUDY…

The Author said:Reply:

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

His Refutation: there are other tatbeeqs as well which the muhadditheen have proposed, but since they don’t go with the mazhab of the author, he hasn’t mentioned them. which proves, that this author is a blind muqallid of a particular mazhab. may allah guide him.

I say:

The only other tatbeeq is the tatbeeq of some Ahnaaf, who say that the Hukm of doing wudoo is based on Istihbaab not on Wujoob!! Well, this tatbeeq is already proven to be Baatil by the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah above, where the clear word of Waajib has been narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him). Walhamdulillah! [See my answer under Evidence Three, in part 1]

I HAVE MENTIONED THAT THE WORD OF “WUJOOB” IS TAKEN TO BE WAJIB, EXCEPT WHEN THERE ARE OTHER CONDITIONS. IN THE PRESENCE OF THE AHADEETH WHICH DON’T MENTION WUDHU, THE WORD OF WUJOOB IS TO BE TAKEN AS ISTEHBAB…

The Author said:First: This hadeeth is regarding touching without desire.

His Refutation:again this is “qiyas”. there is no right to insert our own meanings in the hadeeth or then the author must claim that his mazhab is that of “qiyas”.

I say:The Muqallid should have known that Ijtihaad is one of the four and the last legal evidence of Sharee’ah!! And it is proven from the Quraan-o-Hadeeth!! So doing Ijtihaad where needed is permissible! But at the same time, it is the last resort not the first! When there is clear Nusoos then doing Ijtihaad in that Mas’ala is not permissible but some ahnaaf do Qiyaas even in those mas’alas that’s why they are called People of Qiyaas or People of Desire!!

YOU HAD TO GIVE THIS RESPONSE BECAUSE THIS TATBEEQ OF YOURS GOES AGAINST THE TATBEEQ WHICH YOU HAD GIVEN PREVIOUSLY!!! WHAT WILL YOU SAY REGARDING TOUCHING WITH DESIRE AND WITHOUT BARRIER??? THERE IS NO HADEETH TO PROVE THIS. WE WANT YOU TO PRESENT CLEAR NUSOOS FIRST WHICH GIVES THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION OF MINE. DO IJTEHAD AND QIYAS IN THE END. FIRST PRESENT THE NUSOOS. TAKE IT PLEASE AND DO SOME RESEARCH. ASK YOUR SCHOLARS AND PUT THIS QUESTION IN FRONT OF THEM AND TELL THEM TO GIVE THE NUSOOS FIRST. IF THIS ISSUE IS SUCH THAT THERE ARE NO CLEAR NUSOOS, BECAUSE OF WHICH YOU HAVE DONE QIYAS, THEN THIS IS THE REASON WHY THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE ISSUE!!! THIS IS THE POINT WHICH I HAVE ASSERTED RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING AND AM ASSERTING EVEN NOW. THE ISSUE IS OF DIFFERENCE INDEED, SO WHY GO TO SUCH EXTREMES OF REFUTING THE AHADEETH?

As for doing tatbeeq between two seemingly contradictory ahadeeth, then it is a Sunnah!!! And not a Bid’ah!!

I HAVEN’T DISAGREED WITH THIS POINT AND SO THERE WAS NO NEED TO FUME OVER IT! BUT OFCOURSE YOU HAVE TO “RESPOND”!!!

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

As for there being two clear saheeh hadeeths that contradict one another in all aspects without one of them abrogating the other, this does not exist in the first place. Allah forbid that such a contradiction should be found be in the words of the most truthful one (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), from whose lips nothing but the truth came. 

Zaad al-Ma‘aad, 4/149 

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) also said: 

Blessings and peace of Allah be upon the one whose words confirmed one another and testified to one another. Any conflict or confusion can only stem from misunderstandings, not from the words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). What every believer must do is confirm his beliefs in the words of the most truthful one (i.e., the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)), and he should realise that above every man of knowledge, there is someone more knowledgeable.

Miftaah Dar as-Sa‘aadah, 3/383 

Ash-Shaatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Anyone who is well versed in the fundamentals of sharee‘ah would realize that the shar‘i texts could hardly contradict one another and anyone who examines the basis of different shar‘i issues would see any confusion therein, because there are no contradictions at all in sharee‘ah. So the one who is well versed in it is aware of the subtle differences between one text and another, he will never find any contradiction. Therefore you can never find two texts that all Muslim scholars agree contradict one another. But because the scholars are not infallible, it is possible that there may be a contradiction between texts in the opinion of some of them. 

Al-Muwaafaqaat, 4/294. 

There are some scholars who challenged those who claimed that there are contradictions between the texts of the revelation, such as Imam Ibn Khuzaymah (may Allah have mercy on him) who used to say – as we see in Tadreeb ar-Raawi, 2/176: I do not know of any two hadeeths that contradict one another; if anyone has two hadeeths that contradict one another, let him bring them to me so that I may reconcile between them. 

So if you believe that the tongue of the Messenger (peace be upon him) or the Hukm of Allaah can contradict itself, then you have wronged because there is something in your mind which you didn’t understand, not that there is contradiction in the deen! So reconsiling between two seemingly, but not, contradictory ahadeeth is a masnoon act!! It is not something taken from outside of Sharee’ah!!

YES. BUT TO DO TATBEEQ THAT DOES NOT ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS… AND TO ANSWER THEM BRING SOME OTHER TATBEEQ, WHEN ANOTHER BETTER TATBEEQ CAN ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS AND CAN

RECONSILE BETTER BETWEEN THE SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTORY AHADEETH, THEN YOU MUST CHOOSE WHICH RECONSILATION????

Note: I didn’t answer the arguments of “touching with and without desire” because I myself do not follow that tatbeeq. So going ahead!

THEN WHY DID YOU DEFEND THE POINT ABOVE???!!! OR MAYBE YOU WANTED TO “RESPOND”!!!???

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

His Refutation: this is again the authors ignorance and deception. he says”the narration of talq… is ancient…”. there is no evidence in the ahadeeth to prove the timings of the narrations per se. this information is not from hadeeth itself, but from the scholars and we know they can make mistakes. whether its imam ibn hibban or imam bukhari or imam abu haneefah. all can be mistaken. they say following blindly the opinions of imam abu haneefah is haram, but amazing how they blindly follow other scholars, just because its according to their mazhab!!!

I say:Well, First of all! I agree that any Muhaddith can be mistaken, but at the same time, I would say that how can we accept the saying of a Muqallid like you against all the other Muhadditheen!!?? Ofcourse you do not even have a drop of knowledge out of the oceans of knowledge of Muhadditheen! So on what basis do you say that all those Muhadditheen are wrong and only you are right!!?? Lol

ALHUMDULILLAH. SO DO YOU CONSIDER THE MUHADDITHEEN WHO CONSIDER THE HADEETH OF ABU HURAYRAH TO BE OLDER THAN TALQ AS MA’SOOM? MAN, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM IN DOING MORE TEHQEEQ IN THE ISSUE? OR YOU WANT TO SAVE YOUR AUTHOR AGAIN?!

YOUR CLAIM THAT I HAVE GONE AGAINST ALL THE OTHER MUHADDITHEEN IS BASED ON YOUR FURY AND LAUGHTER. I KNOW THERE ARE MUHADDITHEEN WHO HAVE SAID THIS, BUT TO SAY THAT ALL THE MUHADDITHEEN HAVE SAID THIS IS GOING TOO MUCH. IT WILL MAKE YOU A LAUGHING GAS!!!

Provide at least 2 or 3 names of reliable Muhadditheen who said what you are saying right now!!??

Even the Hanafi Scholars say that the hadeeth of Talq is older than the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah, such as: Badr ud-Deen Aynee, Mughaltaai Hanafi, Abdul Hay Lakhnawi, Zayla’ee Hanafi, and all others.

SINCE YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN THE REFERENCE, I COULDN’T CROSS CHECK…

Secondly, that face that the hadeeth of talq is older is not only proven from the saying of the Muhadditheen but also from the solid proofs and evidences which will be given below.

ANOTHER DECEPTION??? WE WILL SEE.

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

YES. IF IT IS PROVEN TO BE ANCIENT!

Therefore according to the principle of hanafiyah, the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) is mansookh.

NO! BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE ANCIENT.

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said: “The narration of Sayyidunah Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) is Mansookh, because Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the beginning of the first year of Hijrah when the Muslims were building Masjid Nabwi, while the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah for the obligation of wudoo (is from later time). As we have mentioned before that Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) embraced Islaam in 7 Hijri. So this indicates that the narration of Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) was narrated seven years after the narration of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu).” [Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan under H. 1119]

After this Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has written the incidance when Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu) accepted Islaam with a Saheeh chain, which took place in the beginning of the first year of Hjrah, and it is during that time when he heard the hadeeth of wudoo not breaking after touching the Dhikr, from the Prophet (peace be upon him), as is proven from Sunan Nasa’ee: H. 165: Baab Tark al-Wudoo min Zaalik.

His Refutation:talq bin ali had come to madeenah with the delegation of banu haneefah. and as per books of seerah (ibn ishaq, raheeq al makhtoom etc.) the delegation of banu haneefah had come in the ninth century. imam ibn hibban has not mentioned the hadeeth or the narration which specifies that talq bn ali came in the first century, and so it is not binding upon us to follow his opinion. as for the objection about building of the masjid, then again it must be known that the masjid e nabawi in the time of prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam was constructed twice. once in the beginning and second after winning khaibar (around the ninth century).

therefore i say, don’t just blindly follow someone just because its according to your own mazhab. think. do some research. look into the facts.

I say:First of all, what is the proof that there was no other delegation before the one in 9 Hijri??

IF ANY BOOK OF SEERAH OR TAREEKH MENTIONS THIS PLEASE LET ME KNOW SO THAT I CAN INCREASE MY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE. CLAIMS WITHOUT PROOFS IS NOT ENOUGH BROTHER. DON’T YOU FEEL LIKE LAUGHING AT THIS POINT THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED? I FEEL LIKE CRYING. FOR A MAN LIKE YOU DOING TEHQEEQ AND NOT TAQLEED IS GIVING SUCH EXPLANATIONS JUST FOR ESCAPING FROM HADEETH… FALA HAWLA WALA QUWWATA ILLA BILLAH.

Secondly even if we agree with you, then according to your own points mentioned above, it is still not possible for Talq to come with the delegation of the one in 9 hijri!

The ahadeeth say that when Talq came to Madeenah, he helped prophet with building the Masjid al-Nabawi. And it is only possible for him to help with building the Mosque if he came in First Hijri. Because, as you yourself said, the second delegation from Banu Haneefah came in 9 th Hijri! While the rebuilding of Masjid al-Nabawi was done immidiately after the invasion of Khayber, at 7 th Hijri [See: Taareekh Ma’aalim al-Madeenah al-Munawwarah, Pg 35]

So how could he possible come in 9th hijri and help build the mosque which was already done 2 years back???!! Lol

I DIDN’T SAY AS YOU HAVE PUT : “Because, as you yourself said, the second delegation from Banu Haneefah came in 9th Hijri!”

IF IT IS TRUE PLEASE QUOTE ME… AND IF YOU KNOW THAT THIS WAS THE SECOND DELEGATION OF BANU HANEEFAH THEN PLEASE GIVE REFERENCE AS TO WHEN DID THE FIRST DELEGATION COME… OR SHOULD I SAY… ANOTHER DECEPTION????

I SAID : as for the objection about building of the masjid, then again it must be known that the masjid e nabawi in the time of prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam was constructed twice. once in the beginning and second after winning khaibar (around the ninth century).

THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BOOKS OF TAREEKH. BUT YOU ARE FLYING IN THE AIR AS IF EVERYTHING IS CLEAR OFF!!!

So the only possibility is that he came in first century as affirmed by the consensus of Muhadditheen!!

CONSENSUS??? PLEASE… I PLEAD… PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHERE IS THIS CONSENSUS MENTIONED???

SECONDLY, PLEASE GIVE ME ONE REFERENCE FROM THE BOOKS OF TAREEKH OR SEERAH OR HADEETH WHICH MENTION HIS COMING IN THE FIRST CENTURY…

IT IS MORE FUNNY TO ASSUME THAT HE CAME IN 9TH HIJRI AND TOOK PART IN BUILDING THE MASJID IN THE 1ST HIJRI THAN SAYING THAT HE TOOK PART IN THE SECOND BUILDING WHICH WAS AFTER KHAIBAR AND ACCORDING TO SOME REPORTS AFTER FATH MAKKAH. THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE ABU HURAYRAH WAS ALSO INVOLVED IN BUILDING THE MASJID AND HE TOO EMBRACED ISLAM AFTER KHAIBR. AS ALSO MUA’WIYAH AND AMR BN ALAAS AND HIS SON ABDULLAH BN AMR BN ALAAS WERE ALSO INVOLVED IN BUILDING THE MASJID. AND MUAWIYAH EMBRACED ISLAM AFTER KHAIBR. AS ALSO AMR BN ALAAS EMBRACED ISLAM BEFORE FATH MAKKAH BY 6MONTHS (AS CLARIFIED BY IBN KATHEER IN “BIDAYAH WANNIHAYAH”).

MOREOVER TALQ BN ALI HAS ALSO NARRATED ANOTHER HADEETH:

“WHEN YOU SEE THE MOON, FAST AND WHEN YOU SEE IT THEN DON’T FAST.”

AND WE KNOW VERY WELL THAT FASTING IN RAMADHAN BECAME OBLIGATORY IN THE SECOND CENTURY HIJRAH (AFTER THE 1ST BUILDING). WHICH MEANS HIS COMING WAS AFTER THE FIRST AND NOT BEFORE THAT.

AFTER THIS AS WELL IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE THAT HE CAME IN THE FIRST CENTURY AS WELL, PLEASE GIVE ME THE REFERENCE AND I AM READY TO ACCEPT IT…

Thirdly, Even if the hadeeth of Talq is not abrogated then its tatbeeq would be to touch the penis with a barrier, and the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah (mentioned above) is the best proof for that!! No other tatbeeq should be done when a clear hadeeth (of Abu Hurayrah) is present.

Fourthly, Another evidence to prove that the hadeeth of Talq is talking about touching it with a barrier is as Imaam 'Nawawi (in Sharh al-Muhazzab) mentions that the hadith of Talq is based on touching over a veil since the person who asked the Prophet specifically mentioned 'touching in prayer' and that would obviously be over a veil (hence touching bare handed would nullify wudhu).

MASHAALLAH. NOW YOU CATCH IMAM NAWAWI TO HIDE BEHIND HIM. COME OUT MAN. “OBVIOUSLY”??? AGAIN YOU HAVE FALLEN PRAY TO “QIYAS”!!! JUST TO FORCE THE TATBEEQ FOR YOUR OPINION OF WUJOOB…

So whichever way you go, there is no evidence, whatsoever, for you in the hadeeth of Talq (radiallah anhu), walhamdulillah!

The Author said:Maulaana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi said:

“The probability that Talq (radiallah anhu) heard this hadeeth from the Prophet (peace be upon him) after Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) embaced Islaam, is Mardood because of the narration in Sunan Nasa’ee because that hadeeth affirms that Talq (radiallah anhu) heard this hadeeth from the Prophet (peace be upon him) on the very day he came to the Prophet in Madeenah and emraced Islaam.” [As-Sa’ayah: Vol 1 Pg 260]

This is the reason he has written openly that:

“The justice in this issue is that if we use the way of Naskh, then the hadeeth of Talq is what will be consiered Mansookh not the other way around.” [At-Ta’leeq al-Mumajjad: Pg 55]

His Refutation: as i said there is no need to blindly follow a scholars opinion. inshaallah i will expose the deception in quoting abdul hay lucknawi, that this author has done.

allamah lucknawi has discussed both the opinions in detail.

under the discussion in “attaleeq al mumajjad” of “not performing wudhu” at the beginning itself he notes:

“i.e. its not wajib. but yes it is mustahab taking into consideration the ikhtilaf.”

so this is his opinion. but this author has quoted him as if he is strictly against the hanafi opinion! whereas in reality this is the correct hanafi opinion as is mentioned in “ruddul muhtar” (shami) and also in “ilaa us sunan”

the quotation that this author has quoted above “the justice in this issue…”” is itself wrong and misquoted completely. what he says is:

“and justice in this issue is to say: there is no way to specify the “naskh” in this issue on either side…, but if there was naskh then it would be closer for the hadeeth of talq and not the other way round.”

a little later after discussing evidences of both the sides, he says:

“and justice in this issue is that if the way of “naskh” is taken, then what is evident is “naskh” of hadeeth of talq and not the other way round. and if the way of “tarjeeh” is taken, then the ahadeeth of breaking the wudhu are more and stronger. and if the way of “jam’a” is taken, then it is better to consider the command as “azeemah”(better) and the other opinion (of not breaking) as something of need.”

there was no harm in quoting this completely so that the correct opinion of abdul hayy lucknawi was clear. but those who have devoted their lives for telling lies, they can only be prayed upon that may allah give them guidance.

again later explaining the meaning of the hand having other works, he says:

“i.e. not to touch the penis but as needed.”

this is an opinion with which no one can do any ikhtilaf and this proves that it is the aim of the ahnaf to avoid as far as possible strong differences and there are various instances where the opinion of ahnaf, despite the dalaail on their side, has been moderated just keeping into consideration the “ikhtilaf”. this

is something which should be praised, but those who have disease in their hearts and whose eyes are blinded by “andhi taqleed” don’t understand the importance of this.

I say:Ok let’s see who the real deciever is!

Before, going ahead I would like to make clear that the opinion of Allaamah Lakhnawi holds no position for us. It is only mentioned because he is considered an authority in the Hanafi Madhab!

HMMM.

Otherwise, saying that we are the Muqallideen is like: “Ulta chor kotawal ko dantay” lol

Muqallid Nu’maan said:

“under the discussion in “attaleeq al mumajjad” of “not performing wudhu” at the beginning itself he notes: “i.e. its not wajib. but yes it is mustahab taking into consideration the ikhtilaf. ”

Before declaring it a personal opinion of Allaamah Lakhnawi, you should first know that in what condition and what context he said this? He said this, not as his personal opinion, but as a footnote in explaination to the saying of Muhammad ash-Shaybaani. [See: al-Ta’leeq al-Mumajjad: 1/200 under the footnote # 3]

THE FOOTNOTE WAS HIS OWN. IF YOU WANT TO FORCIBLY HAVE US BELIEVE THAT THE FOOTNOTE (THE “TALEEQ”) IS NOT HIS OWN, RATHER HE WAS JUST WRITING FOR SOMEONE ELSE WITHOUT MENTIONING HIM, THEN I THINK YOU HAVE GONE TOO FAR IN SAVING YOURSELF. PLEASE DON’T MAKE YOURSELF A LAUGHING STALK. TOO SAD ABOUT YOUR CONDITION. A PERSON WRITES A FOOTNOTE AS HIS OWN OPINION AND NOT AS SOMEONE ELSES UNLESS HE CLARIFIES SO.

As for his personal opinion then this is what he said – After mentioning the dalaail of both the side, he concluded by saying:

قلت هذا تحقيق حقيق بالقبول فانه بعد ادارة النظر من" الجانبين يحتقق ان احاديث النقض اكثر و اقوي من احاديث

"الرخصة وان احاديث الرخصة متقدمة “I say, this tahqeeq (of Allaamah Haazimi) more deserves to be accepted, because after looking at the dalaail of both the sides it is proven that the ahadeeth of wudoo being invalidated are more and stronger than the ahadeeth of wudoo not being invalidated, and the ahadeeth of wudoo not breaking are old.” [As-Sa’ayah: 1/267]

Now, this is his personal opinion because he said “Qultu” in the beginning.

ANOTHER DECEPTION. TO COVER ONE DECEPTION YOU HAVE TO TAKE HELP OF ANOTHER DECEPTION… TO COVER ONE LIES, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK ANOTHER LIE…!

YOU SEE THE OPINION OF ANYONE ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE CANNOT BE JUDGED BY ONE OR TWO STATEMENTS, RATHER ALL HIS SAYINGS ON THE ISSUE WILL BE CHECKED, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAYBE IN DIFFERENT BOOKS.

IMMEDIATELY AFTER WHAT YOU HAVE QUOTED FROM SA’AYAH HE SAYS: “… EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT CERTAIN BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE HADEETH OF ABU HURAYRAH BEING AMONG THE MARASEEL OF SAHABAH AS HAS BEEN CLARIFIED…”. YOU HAVE SWALLOWED THIS!!! MOREOVER WHAT I HAVE MENTIONED FROM “TALEEQ ALMUMAJJAD” IS ALSO HIS OWN OPINION WHICH YOU HAVE COMPLETELY IGNORED...

““AND JUSTICE IN THIS ISSUE IS TO SAY: THERE IS NO WAY TO SPECIFY THE “NASKH” IN THIS ISSUE ON EITHER SIDE…, BUT IF THERE WAS NASKH THEN IT WOULD BE CLOSER FOR THE HADEETH OF TALQ AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.””

AND

““AND JUSTICE IN THIS ISSUE IS THAT IF THE WAY OF “NASKH” IS TAKEN, THEN WHAT IS EVIDENT IS “NASKH” OF HADEETH OF TALQ AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND. AND IF THE WAY OF “TARJEEH” IS TAKEN, THEN THE AHADEETH OF BREAKING THE WUDHU ARE MORE AND STRONGER. AND IF THE WAY OF “JAM’A” IS TAKEN, THEN IT IS BETTER TO CONSIDER THE COMMAND AS “AZEEMAH”(BETTER) AND THE OTHER OPINION (OF NOT BREAKING) AS SOMETHING OF NEED.””

IF THIS DOESN’T MEAN WHAT IS MENTIONED, THEN WE MUST CHANGE THE DICTIONARY PERHAPS!!!

After saying this, he strongly refuted the claims of Allaamah Tahaawi and Allaamah Aynee, and said clearly at the end:

“The summary is that in this baab, the saying of those who say that wudoo invalidates is stronger, and the saying of the other group is not in equal to the saying of this group in acceptance. However, the saying of those who say that wudoo does not break after touching a woman, is stronger in light of the Athaar and Akhbaar, know well that we have discussed both these issues in detail, so that the truth becomes apparent and the batlaan of baatil becomes apparent, even if the people dislike it. I put my trust on Allaah and the trusters should also put their trust upon Him.” [As-Si’ayah: 1/268]

This clearly proves what his position was on this issue!

I AGREE THAT HIS POSITION WAS NOT THAT OF REFUTING THE EVIDENCES OF THOSE WHO CONSIDER WUDHU UPON TOUCHING THE PENIS, BUT HIS POSITION WAS NOT AS WAS PRESENTED IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. AND SPECIALLY HIS CLARIFICATION AGAIN IN TALEEQ ALMUMAJJAD MAKES IT VERY

CLEAR THAT HIS POSITION WAS TO NO EXTREMES, SINCE BOTH THE SIDES ARE DALAAIL. BUT AS I SAID AND AS YOU HAVE ACCEPTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE WAS A HANAFI SCHOLAR, IT GOES TO PROVE THAT THIS IS THE HANAFI OPINION!!! BUT YET YOU WANT TO FORCIBLY CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT THE AHNAF ARE STRICTLY AGAINST HADEETH AND FOLLOW JUST HAWA AND NAFS!!!

AFTER MENTIONING ABDULHAY’S OPINION, I MENTIONED :

“THERE WAS NO HARM IN QUOTING THIS COMPLETELY SO THAT THE CORRECT OPINION OF ABDUL HAYY LUCKNAWI WAS CLEAR. BUT THOSE WHO HAVE DEVOTED THEIR LIVES FOR TELLING LIES, THEY CAN ONLY BE PRAYED UPON THAT MAY ALLAH GIVE THEM GUIDANCE.”

THIS IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO… SOMEONE READING THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE OF THE AUTHOR WILL BE LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT ABDUL HAYY LUCKNAWI WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE HADEETH OF TALQ IS MANSOOKH… BUT WITH THE COMPLETE DETAILS IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT SO…

As for the wrong translation, then that is the mistake of Author!

I AM CONFUSED. YOU ARE THE TRANSLATOR AND SO THE TRANSLATION MISTAKE WILL BE YOURS, UNLESS THE AUTHOR WROTE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE IN URDU(I THOUGHT HE WAS AN ARAB!!! SO NOW ITS CLEAR THAT THE AUTHOR IS NOT ARAB.)

BUT I AM STILL MORE CONFUSED!!! BECAUSE I NEVER SAID THAT THERE IS A TRANSLATION MISTAKE!!! PLEASE QUOTE ME WHERE I SAID THAT THERE IS A TRANSLATION MISTAKE…

His Refutation:ANOTHER TATBEEQ AS I HAVE MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THE ULEMAAE AHNAF HAVE ADOPTED, WHICH IS THE BEST TATBEEQ AS IT MAKES POSSIBLE PRACTISE ON BOTH THE TYPES OF AHADEETH, THAT THE AHADEETH MENTIONING WUDHU ON TOUCHING THE PENIS ARE FOR RECOMMENDATION AND “ISTEHBAB” AND “NUDUB” AND NOT FOR FARDH OR WUJOOB. THIS I FEEL IS MORE BEING AHLE HADEETH THAN ANY ONE ELSE, BECAUSE PRACTISE ON BOTH THE TYPES OF AHADEETH BECOMES POSSIBLE WITH THIS TATBEEQ AND IS FREE OF ANY GHULU. BUT SINCE THE AUTHOR PERHAPS DOES NOT WANT THE UMMAH TO PRACTISE ON THE AHADEETH OR HE IS AFRAID THAT THE AHNAF CAN THEN BE LABELLED AS PEOPLE OF THE SUNNAH, SO HE HAS NOT MENTIONED THIS TATBEEQ. EVEN THOUGH PROMINENT HANAFI FIQH BOOKS HAVE MENTIONED THIS!

SO WE PRAY TO ALLAH TO GUIDE ALL OF US TO THE RIGHT PATH AND HELP US TO THINK FREE FROM GHULU AND “MAZHABI TA’SSUB”

I say:As I said before that this tatbeeq is not correct! Because the word indicating its wujoob is narrated in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah which makes it very clear that it is not Mustahab, but waajib. Secondly, even if the word waajib wasn’t narrated clearly in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah, still this tatbeeq should not have been done because of the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah. That hadeeth provides the tatbeeq of this hadeeth from the Prophet himself, so what is the need of concocting your own tatbeeq??!!

WE HAD TO “CONCOCT” OUR OWN TATBEEQ SO THAT ALL THE AHADEETH OF THE PROPHET SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM CAN BE WITH RESPECT FULFILLED, RATHER THAN CRITISICING ONE TYPE OF HADEETH, JUST TO CLAIM THE OTHER TYPES CORRECT. MOREOVER THE TATBEEQ WAS NOT A CONCOCTION, BUT BASED ON HADEETH ITSELF…

MOREOVER I WISH TO POINT OUT ANOTHER DECEPTION OF YOURS HERE… HERE YOU HAVE MIXED UP THE “TARTEEB” OF REFUTATION…

I MENTIONED BEFORE THIS REFUTATION YOU HAVE PASTED A RESPONSE UNDER THE HADEETH OF TALQ TO THE THIRD AND FOURTH REFUTATION OF YOUR AUTHOR THAT THE HADEETH IS MUDTARIB AND CHAIN IS CRITICISED…

“Thirdly: The hadeeth of Talq (radiallah anhu) is Mudtarib. Imaam Tabaraani has narrated the narration of Talq (radiallah anhu) with the following words:

“The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: The one who touches his private part should do wudoo’.” [Tabaraani Kabeer: Vol 7 Pg 334 H. 8252] Its chain is Da’eef.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: The narration of Talq is Mudtarib. [Dirayah: Vol 1 Pg 42]

LOOK AT THE BLINDNESS. THE AUTHOR HAS MENTIONED ITS CHAIN IS DHA’EEF, THEN HOW CAN THE CLAIM OF “IDTIRAB” BE CORRECT? MOREOVER, NONE HAVE NARRATED THIS WORDING IN THE HADEETH OF TALQ EXCEPT HAMMAD BN MUHAMMAD AND EVEN HE IS DHA’EEF.

Fourthly: It chain is also criticized. The narration of Talq (radiallah anhu) is narrated through four chains, and they depend upon the narrator Qays bin Talq. Qays is a Sudooq narrator as is mentioned in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb (Pg 283), and the narrations of such a narrator are not accaptable without Mutab’iat. Imaam Abu Haatim said: He is not one of those whose narrations are taken as evidence. [Tahdheeb: Vol 7 Pg 399]

Imaam Shafi’ee, Imaam Abu Haatim, Imaam Abu Zur’ah, Imaam Daraqutni, Imaam Bayhaqi, Imaam Ibn Jawzi and others have graded this hadeeth to be Da’eef. [Al-Talkhees al-Habeer: Vol 1 Pg 125]

AGAIN AN INCOMPLETE AND DECIEVING RESEARCH.

A COMPLETE ANALYSIS REVEALS TAUTHEEQ AS FOLLOWS:

IBN MAEEN SAYS: “SHUYUKHN YAMAMIYATUN THIQAAT” IJLI SAYS: “YAMAMIYYUN, TABEIYYUN, THIQATUN, AND HIS FATHER IS A SAHABI IBN HIBBAN HAS MENTIONED HIM IN “ALTHIQAAT”. AHMED SAYS: OTHERS ARE MORE STRONGER THAN HIM.

NOW THE REALITY OF JARH(NOTE ABOVE THAT THE AUTHOR HAS JUST GIVEN HIS OWN SUMMARY THAT SO AND SO SCHOLARS HAVE MENTIONED HIM DHA’EEF, WITHOUT ANY DETAILS):

IBN ABI HATIM NARRATES FROM HIS FATHER: QAYS IS NOT OF THOSE WITH WHOM EVIDENCE IS TAKEN.

AHMED SAYS: OTHERS ARE MORE STRONGER THAN HIM. IMAM SHAFE’ SAYS: WE DIDN’T FIND ANYONE WHO KNEW QAYS SO THAT WE CAN ACCEPT HIS

NARRATIONS

NOW THESE JARAH ARE WITHOUT ANY DETAILS (AHMED’S SAYING IS NOT EVEN A JARH!!!). IMAM SHAFE’I SAID I DIDN’T FIND ANYONE WHO KNEW QAYS. THIS TOO IS NOT A JARH, FOR WE KNOW HIM THROUGH OTHERS.

AND SO THE AUTHENTICATION WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE JARH.”

YOU SWALLOWED IT WHOLE!!! ATLEAST YOU SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THIS AND CRITICISED YOUR AUTHOR’S IGNORANCE OR DECEPTION… BUT YOU HAVE SWALLOWED IT… MASHAALLAH.

The Author said:Second Evidence:

Salaam at-Taweel narrated from Ismaa’eel bin Raafi, From Hakeem bin Salamah, he narrated from a man of Bani Hanifah who is called Jari that: A man came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and said: “Oh Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)! Sometimes, I am in the prayer and my hands strucks by my private part?” He (peace be upon him) said: “Keep performing your prayer.”

[Narrated Ibn Mandah in Ma’rifat is-Sahabah with reference to A’laa as-Sunan: Vol 1 Pg 116]

Reply:

In its chain, the narrator Salaam at-Taweel is Da’eef and Matrook.

Imaam Bukhaari said: “Muhadditheen have abandoned him.”

ANOTHER DECEPTION UNCOVERED!

WHAT IS MENTIONED IN MEEZAN REGARDING BUKHARI’S SAYING IS:

“SALAM BN SLM ASSA’DI ATTAWEEL FROM ZAID ALAMMI- THEY (THE MUHADDITHEEN) HAVE ABANDONED IT”

YOU HAVE SWALLOWED “AN ZAID ALA’MMI”!!!

IN “ALKAMIL” OF IBN UDAYI ANOTHER SAYING OF BUKHARI IS MENTIONED:

“ SALAM BN SLM ATTAWEEL ASSA’DI ALMADAINI FROM ZAID AL AMMI : THEY (THE MUHADDITHEEN) HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT IT (MEANING THEY HAVE WEAKENED).

SO ACCORDING TO IMAM BUKHARI THE AHADEETH OF SALAM THROUGH ZAID ALAMMI IS “MATROOK”.

Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is nothing.”

Imaam Ahmed said: “He is Munkir ul-Hadeeth.”

Imaam Nasaa’ee said: “He is Matrook ul-Hadeeth.”

[Meezaan ul-I’tidaal: Vol 1 Pg 175]

IN MEEZAN ITSELF UNDER THE DISCUSSION OF SALLAM ATTAWEEL, IMAM ZAHABI REPORTS A HADEETH AND THEN SAYS: “TABA’HU” (IT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED UP) BY ABDURRAHEEM BN ZAID ALAMMI.

IBN ALJAROOD HAS CLEARLY SPECIFIED THAT HE IS “SIQAH”.

IN ALKAMIL AFTER MENTIONING THE WEAK NARRATIONS OF HIS, IBN UDAYI SAYS:

“AND FOR SALAM THERE ARE OTHER AHADEETH “SALEHA” (BETTER) THAN WHAT I HAVE MENTIONED, AND WHAT IS GENERALLY NARRATED FROM HIM FROM THE WEAK AND THE SIQAH NO ONE FOLLOWS THEM UP.”

AGAIN MIND YOU I AM NOT FORCING TO SAY THAT HE IS SIQAH, BUT I FEEL THE HADEETH SHOULD BE GRADED HASAN GHAREEB, AND NOT “EXTREMELY WEAK”!!!

The second narrator is Ismaa’eel bin Raafi’. Besides Imaam Ahmed and Imaam Yahya, a Jama’ah of Muhadditheen have declared him Da’eef. Daraqutni said: “He is Matrook ul-Hadeeth.” Ibn Adee said: “All his narrations are criticized.” [Meezaan ul-I’tidaal: Vol 1 Pg 227]

THERE WAS NO HARM IF YOU HAD MENTIONED THE COMPLETE DETAIL FROM “MEEZAN”. THIS IS WHAT IS MY POINT OF STRESS. SINCE YOU ARE NOT A MUQALLID, YOU SHOULD BE PRESENTING A COMPLETE TEHQEEQ. ATLEAST THE COMPLETE TEHQEEQ FROM THE SAME BOOK!!! IMAM ZAHABI AFTER MENTIONIGNG THE TAZ’EEF SAYS:

“AND AMONG THE TALBEES OF TIRMIZI IS THAT HE SAID: SOME OF THE PEOPLE OF KNOWLEDGE HAVE WEAKENED HIM. AND HE SAID: AND I HEARD MUHAMMAD-MEANING ALBUKHARI-SAYING: HE IS “SIQAH” MUQARIBUL HADEETH . WHY DID YOU SWALLOW THIS?

Haafidh Ibn Hajar in Al-Isaabah (Pg 234 Vol 1, Under the tajumah: 1139) and Molvi Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi in as-Sa’ayah (Pg 258 Vol 1) have declared this narration to be Da’eef.

YES. NOT FABRICATED AS YOU HAVE TRIED TO TO PROVE!

His Refutation:YES THE HADEETH IS DHA’EEF, BUT IT CAN BE PRESENTED AS A SHAHID FOR THE HADEETH OF TALQ! SO THERE ISN’T ANY PROBLEM IN IT.

I say:Oh Muqallid, why did you forget that the hadeeth of Matrook and Munkar narrators do not support each other!!

THANKS FOR THAT. GENERALLY YES. BUT WHEN THERE IS BASIS FOR THE HADEETH, IT CAN BE PRESENTED AS I HAVE MENTIONED ABOVE THE FOLLOWING UP BY IMAM ZAHABI. SO YOU CAN SAY THAT THE SANAD IS DHAEEF, BUT THE HADEEETH IS HASAN.

Secondly, when the author mentioned da’eef ahadeeth in shawaahid, you criticized them as if they were the worst form of fabricated ahadeeth narrated in that issue. But now when it came to the ahadeeth supporting your taqleedi madhab, you immidiately turned sides!??

NO. NO. YOU SEE I KNOW THAT IT IS YOUR MAZHAB NOT TO TAKE SUPPORT FROM DHAEEF AHADEETH AT ALL. (I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ARTICLE I RECEIVED FROM BHAI UMAIR CLARIFYING THIS ISSUE AND FULL OF DECEPTION! I HAVE RESPONDED IT ALHUMDULILLAH.) THIS IS WHY I CRITISISED. IF YOU WERE LIKE ME ACCEPTING DHAEEF AHADEETH, I WOULDN’T HAVE EVER CRITISISED YOU. BUT SINCE YOU CRITICISE THOSE WHO ACCEPT DHAEEF AHADEETH, I THOUGHT WHY YOU ARE ACCEPTING DHAEEF? SO INFACT IT WAS ANOTHER DECEPTION FROM YOUR SIDE…! IT WAS YOU WHO HAVE TURNED SIDES.

Thirdly, even if this hadeeth was authentic, then it is talking about touching the penis with a barrier, since the penis is always covered during prayer.

AGAIN YOU HAVE RESORTED TO QIYAS!!! OFCOURSE THE PENIS (SO YOU AGREE THAT THE CORRECT TRANSLATION IS PENIS!!!) IS ALWAYS COVERED IN PRAYER, BUT WHY CAN’T IT BE TOUCHED WITHOUT BARRIER? I MEAN IS IT IMPOSSIBLE? IS IT EVEN DIFFICULT? BUT QIYAS??? YES…

The Author said:

Third Evidence:

Arqam bin Sharjeel said: During the prayer I itched my body , so (the hand) reached to the private part. I told this to Abdullah ibn Mas’ood (radiallah anhu), he said while laughing: “Cut it off! Where will you take it after taking it apart from you? This is only a part of your body.” [Narrated Tabaraani in Al-Kabeer, Majma az-Zawaaid: Vol 1 Pg 244]

Reply:

Firstly: This proof and the coming all the proofs are the sayings of Sahabah, whereas the sayings of Sahaabah are not Hujja in this issue from the very root, because this mas’la was differed upon among the Sahabah. And the Masaail in which Sahabah differ then the sayings of Sahabah are not Hujjah in that issue.

His Refutation:THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS STATEMENT INDEED. AND A “USOOL” WHICH HAS NO BASIS IN “NAQL” OR “AQL”. MAY ALLAH SAVE ALL OF US FROM THESE DANGEROUS THOUGHTS WHICH HAVE DESTROYED THE UMMAH.

I say:Would you kindly like to inform us how is this a dangerous statement??!

The sayings of Sahaabah are not Hujjah against the Marfoo ahadeeth of Prophet (peace be upon him), and this is even agreed upon by the Hanafi Scholars, so how is this dangerous!!??

NOW YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR USOOL… NOW YOU ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT HUJJAH AGAINST THE MARFOO HADEETH!!! OFCOURSE THAT IS RIGHT… BUT WHAT YOU MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY WAS

“…whereas the sayings of Sahaabah are not Hujja in this issue from the very root,.”

INFACT YOU HAVE GIVEN THE REASON AS WELL:

“because this mas’la was differed upon among the Sahabah. And the Masaail in which Sahabah differ then the sayings of Sahabah are not Hujjah in that issue.”

SEE THE CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR PREVIOUS STAND AND THE PRESENT STANCE!!! YOU HAVE NOW CHANGED SIDES…

If every saying of Sahaabah is to be accepted then why don’t you follow the following sayings of Sahabah:

I NEVER SAID EVERY SAYING OF SAHABAH HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED AS HUJJAH, BUT I WAS DEFENDING YOUR GENERALISED SWEEPING STATEMENT DENYING THEIR ACCEPTABILITY IN THE ISSUE FROM THE VERY ROOT. THE SAYINGS OF SAHABAH ARE DEFINITELY HUJJAH AS SUPPORTING NARRATIONS TO MARF’OO NARRATIONS OR TO STRENGHTHEN SOME WEAK AHADEETH.

1- Abu Hurayrah ordered for his muqtadi to read Surah Faatihah even if the Imaam is reciting. [See: Juzz al-Qira’at]

2- Hassan Basri narrated that he saw the Sahabah doing Rafa al-Yadain in Salaan [Juzz Rafa al-Yadain]3- Abdullah bin Mas’ood did not consider the last two surahs to be the part of Qur’aan4- Ibn Mas’ood also used to put his hands in between the knees during ruku, which was Mansookh!

And many others.

So you don’t even follow the Ijmaa of Sahabah on the issue of Rafa al-Yadain, and still you are trying to say that the sayings of Sahabah are Hujjah in all conditions!

Go learn some fiqh child!

JAZAKALLAHU KHAIRN FOR THE “PERSONAL” ATTACK… IN YOUR FURY PERHAPS YOU DON’T REALISE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING… YOU HAVE QUOTED SOME SAYINGS OF SAHABAH IN ISSUES IN WHICH THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AMONG THE SAHABAH THEMSELVES AND AMONG THE SCHOLARS BASED ON QURAN AND THE SUNNAH. THROUGH THESE SAYINGS WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE? WHAT HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD? I RETURN TO YOU YOUR OWN STATEMENT THAT THE SAYINGS OF SAHABAH ARE NOT HUJJAH FROM THE VERY ROOT… WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? WHOM ARE YOU TRYING TO DECIEVE?

DEAR BROTHER THIS IS AN ISSUE OF DEEN… PLEASE DON’T PLAY WITH IT. I SAY PLEASE DON’T CRITICISE ANY FIQH OPINION JUST BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST YOUR MAZHAB… DON’T FORCE YOUR OWN OPINIONS… BECAUSE OF WHICH YOU ARE FORCED TO FRAME SUCH RULES THAT THE SAYINGS OF SAHABAH ARE NOT HUJJAH FROM THE VERY ROOT… RUBBISH.

YOU SEE THERE ARE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR EVERYTHING. THERE ARE SAYINGS OF SAHABAH ON BOTH THE SIDES. THERE ARE MARFOO NARRATIONS ON BOTH THE SIDES. BOTH THE OPINIONS HAVE TO BE RESPECTED. THERE IS NO NEED TO INFLAME THE ISSUE AND BLAME ONE OR THE OTHER FOR FOLLOWING HIS WHIMS AND DESIRES.

MAY ALLAH GIVE US HIS FEAR.

The Author said:Secondly: In its chain the narrator Abu Ishaaq is present [Tabaraani Kabeer: Vol 9 Pg 2447 H. 9214]. And Abu Ishaaq is a Mudallis narrator.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: “He is famous I doing Tadlees as affirmed by Imaam Nasaa’ee and others.” [Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen: Pg 42]

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Karabeesi, Imaam Tabari, and Imam Shu’bah etc have declared him Mudallis. [Tahdheeb : Vol 7 Pg 66] And this narration is narrated by ‘AN’.

The narrator narrating from Abu Ishaaq is Sufyaan ath-Thawree, and he is a Mudallis too. Imaam Dhahabi said: “He commits tadlees from Weak narrators.” [Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: Vol 1 Pg 169], and Imaam Sufyaan ath-Thawree has also not affirmed his hearing. If it be said that Israa’eel is present as a Muttabi’ of Sufyaan, so I would say that Abu Ishaaq is Mukhtalat too. And the narrations of Israa’eel from Abu Ishaaq are from after the Ikhtalaat of Abu Ishaaq. [Nihayat ul-Aghtabaat Pg 287]

Moreover, there is the probability of tadlees in this hadeeth at two places

Fourthly: If it be said that in Tabaraani, there is another Mutaabi’ of Sufyaan and Israa’eel, which is Ma’mar, then the answer to it will be that after the name of Ma’mar the letter “wa” is a Tasheef, in reality it should be “AN”. The evidence for it is that Imaam Tabaraani has narrated this narration through the chain of Imam Abdur Razzaaq. And in Musannaf Abdur Razzaaq (Vol 1 Pg 118 H. 430), its silsilah sanad is like this: “Narrated Abdur Razzaq, From (AN) Ma’mar, From (AN) Ath-Thawree and (wa) Israa’eel”, and this is correct.

His Refutation: i don’t know the level of knowledge that this author has, but i feel he needs to study some hadeeth. the opinion of abdullah bn mas’ood has been narrated by various other narrations through various chains. for example:

abdullah bn mas’ood said: “there is nothing wrong if i touch my penis in salah or my ear or nose.”

1. through abu bakrah from yahya bn hammad from abu a’wwanah alwazzah alyshkari from suleiman bn mehran al’amash from almnhal bn ‘amr from qais bn sakn…(the above hadeeth)

2. through bakr bn idrees from adam bn abi ayas from sh’ubah bn alhajjaj from abu qays alawadi who said he heard hazeel narrate from abdullah bn masood…(the above hadeeth)

3. through saleh bn abdurrehman alansari from sa’eed bn mansoor from hasheem bn basheer from a’mash…(then continue as in 1)

4. through saleh from sa’eed from hasheem from suleiman ash shaibani from abu qays…(then continue as in 2)

now these are saheeh chains, then why didn’t the author present them???

as regards his saying that sufyan was a mudallis, then again the author has done “khiyana”. imam dhahabi says:

“alhujjah. assbt. muttafaqun alaihi.”

then he says about the tadlees from weak narrators, but then says immediately thereafter:

“but he had the critique and the taste (that is he knew the right from wrong) and there is no consideration of those who say: he would do tadlees and would write from liars.”

i didn’t want to expand more on what all titles have the scholars of hadeeth given to this great imam of hadeeth. but since this author does not seem to have basic knowledge of hadeeth imams, i wish to present some details:

abu hatim razi: “faqeeh”, “hafiz”, “zahid”, imam of the people of iraq… abu hatim ibn hibban: among leaders of the people in fiqh, piety and fear of allah. characters of

his piety and righteousness are more famous than mentioning it!!! abu daud sajstani: “ahfaz” (more hafiz) than abi muawiyyah. imam hakim: imam, hafiz. and said in “questions of masood bn ali: more hafiz than darawardi. hammad bn usama: hujjatun. ahmed bn hanbal: one of the forty firm huffaz. no one precedes him in my heart, he is the

imam. ahmed nisai: he is more than being called “siqah”. he is one of the imams. ayyub sakhtyani: i didn’t see any kufi raising over sufyan. ibn hajar asqalani: siqatun (authentic), hafiz, faqeeh, a’abid, imam, hujjat and would sometimes

do tadlees. khateeb baghdadi: imam among imams of muslims and flag among the flags of deen. dhahhak: ameerul mumineen in hadeeth. bishr alhafi: sufyan was among us leader of people. and sufyan was in his times as abi bakr and

umar in their times. zayda bn qudamah: most learned of the people in ourselves. sufyan bn uyaynah: none in iraq had learned hadeeth except sufyan. i didn’t see anyone more

knowledgeable in haram and halal (than sufyan). ameerul mumineen in hadeeth. ashabul hadeeth are three: ibn abbas in his time, shu’bi in his time and thauri in his time. i sat with fifty shaykhs of madeena and then mentioned abdurrehman bn qasim, safwan bn saleem and zaid bn aslam, but didn’t see anyone in them like sufyan.

shu’bah bn hajjaj: ameerul mumineen fil hadeeth. sufyan is more learned (in hadeeth) than me. if sufyan opposes me in hadeeth then his hadeeth is the hadeeth.

saleh jazrah: none precedes him in my sight in the whole world. abdurrehman bn hakm: i didn’t hear after tabi’een like sufyan. abdullah bn daud: i didn’t see anyone “afqahu” than sufyan. bukhari: i don’t know tadlees of sufyan from habeeb bn abi sabit, nor from salmah bn kuhail,

nor from mansoor, and mentioned many of his teachers and then said: i don’t know sufyan’s tadlees from them.

muhammed bn sa’ad: authentic, safe and a firm reghteous. muhammed al makhrami: i wrote from thousand and hundred shaykh. i didn’t write from

someone better than him. i didn’t see anyone more knowledgeable than sufyan. yahya bn sa’eed alqattan: sufyan is over malik in every thing. no one is dearer to me than

shu’bah… but if sufyan opposed him, i took the saying of sufyan. and i was least bothered of

sufyan saying about those above him (in the sanad) i heard so and so, but rather it was more important to me for him to say : he narrated to us.

yahya bn ma’een: ameerul mumineen in hadeeth. no one opposed sufyan in anything, but the saying (the correct one) was of abu sufyan…

yahya alujli: he was ameerul mumineen in hadeeth. yunus bn ubaid: i didn’t see anyone better than sufyan. abdullah bn mubarak: i wrote from thousand and hundred shaykh. i didn’t write from someone

better than sufyan. baraa bn rustam says: i heard yunus bn ubaid say: i didn’t see anyone better than sufyan. so a

man said to him: o abu abdullah: you have seen sa’eed bn jubair and ibrahim and a’taa and mujahid, and you say this? he said: i didn’t see anyone better than sufyan.

abdurrehman bn mehdi: my eyes didn’t see like the four. i didn’t see anyone more learned than sufyan in hadeeth… waheeb would prefer sufyan over malik in hifz.

warqa bn umar: verily thauri didn’t see anyone like himself.

yet if someone has to follow his own whims and desires, nothing can be done about him!!!

I say:Most of the stuff is truly a waste of time, and discussion totally out of topic! He is trying to mislead by providing things off-topic to put the impression that he is right! Lol

ALLAHU AKBAR. THE DISCUSSION IS “TOTALLY OUT OF TOPIC”??? I AM TRYING TO “MISLEAD”??? MASHAALLAH. I SUPPOSE WE MUST CHANGE THE DICTIONARY!!!

Without addressing some of his Jahalah, we will first go ahead and observe all the chains mentioned above one by one, which are as follows:

“ abdullah bn mas’ood said: “there is nothing wrong if i touch my penis in salah or my ear or nose.”

1. through abu bakrah from yahya bn hammad from abu a’wwanah alwazzah alyshkari from suleiman bn mehran al’amash from almnhal bn ‘amr from qais bn sakn…(the above hadeeth)

2. through bakr bn idrees from adam bn abi ayas from sh’ubah bn alhajjaj from abu qays alawadi who said he heard hazeel narrate from abdullah bn masood…(the above hadeeth)

3. through saleh bn abdurrehman alansari from sa’eed bn mansoor from hasheem bn basheer from a’mash…(then continue as in 1)

4. through saleh from sa’eed from hasheem from suleiman ash shaibani from abu qays…(then continue as in 2) “

First of all, even if this athar is Saheeh, it is talking about touching the penis in Salaah (which is always over the barrier) as explained above!

WHICH HAS BEEN CLARIFIED ABOVE!!!

As for the first chain: It contains Sulemaan al-A’mash, who is a Mudallis, narrated with AN [See: Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen and others]

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD IF YOU HAD MENTIONED THE TABAQAH AS WELL!!! IT IS SECOND!!!

JUST TO SAY IT WILL BE ENOUGH, THAT MU’AN’AN NARRATIONS OF A’MASH ARE PRESENT IN SAHEEH BUKHARI!!!

As for the second chain: The narrator Bakr bin Idrees is Majhool ul-Haal.

MAJHOOL? MASHAALLAH…

YOU SEE A NARRATOR MAYBE MAJHOOL ACCORDING TO SOME MUHADDITH, BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE REMAINS MAJHOOL!!! FOR EXAMPLE IMAM IBN HAZM RATES IMAM HAKIM AS MAJHOOL! BUT OFCOURSE WE KNOW IMAM HAKIM VERY WELL!!

NOW THIS BAKR BN IDREES IS

BAKR BIN IDREES BN ALHAJJAJ BN HAROON, SERVANT OF HAJR FROM AZDEKN (AZDI). HIS KUNNIYAH IS ABAL QASIM, WAS FAMOUS AS ALMUQRI AND ALFAQEEH. ONE OF THE

TEACHERS OF IMAM TAHAWI, FROM WHOM HE NARRATED AND WROTE AHADEETH. HIS TEACHERS WERE ADAM BN ABDURREHMAN BN MUHAMMED BN SHUAYEB ABUL HASAN

ALMUROOZI, HAFS BN UMAR ABU UMAR ALBASRI, ABU ABSURREHMAN ABDULLAH BN YAZEED ALMAKKI ALQURASHI AND ABU ABDURREHMAN ALMUQRI.

HIS STUDENTS WERE IMAM TAHAWI, IMAM MUHAMMED BN AHMED ALRAZI AND IMAM MUHAMMED BN ISHAQ BN KHUZAIMAH.

HE DIED ON FRIDAY SHABAN 267A.H.

BHAI HASAN, WHAT ELSE YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT HIM BEFORE YOU CLEAR HIM FROM BEING “MAJHOOL”??? IF YOU HAD JUST CHECKED “MAGHANIYUL AKHYAR” (ABOUT WHICH YOU HAVE GIVEN REFERENCE WITH REGARDS TO AINI’S OPINION ABOUT NAFE BN ABI NUAYM… SO YOU MUST BE HAVING IT) YOU WOULDN’T HAVE MADE THIS MISTAKE OF LABELLING HIM AS “MAJHOOL”.

As for the third chain: the narrator Hushaym bin Basheer used to commit a lot of Tadlees and Irsaal Khafi. And the narrators A’mash is also Mudallis as explained above.

REGARDING A’MASH IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED ABOVE. UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE TRYING SO HARD TO SOMEHOW PROVE THE HADEETH TO BE WEAK… BUT WHAT CAN BE SAID!!!

REGARDING HUSHAYM, IBN UDAYI HAS CLARIFIED REGARDING HIS TADLEES ISSUE IN HIS ALKAMIL:

، التدليس رجل مشهور وقد كتب عنه الأئمة، وهو في نفسه لا بأس به إلا أنه نسب إلىوربما يؤتى ويوجد ، ، وإذا حدث عن ثقة فلا بأس بهوله أصناف وأحاديث حسان وغرائب

، وقد روى عنه شعبة والثوري في بعض أحاديثه منكر إذا دلس في حديثه عن غير ثقةومالك وابن مهدي وابن أبي عدي

NOTE THE WORDS “IF HE NARRATES THROUGH SIQAH THEN THERE IS NO HARM AND SOMETIMES HE BRINGS AND THERE ARE MUNKAR IN SOME OF HIS NARRATIONS, IF THE TADLEES IN THE HADEETH IS FROM GHAIR SIQAH ”

I THINK THAT CLEARS THE ISSUE. AGAIN NOT TO FORGET THAT THERE ARE MUAN’AN NARRATIONS OF HUSHAYM IN SAHEEH BUKHARI AS WELL.

MOREOVER AS IBN RAJAB HAS CLARIFIED IN HIS “ILAL” THAT

فحديثه عنهم يدلس شيوخ له وكان بالتدليس عرف من ذكر

حصين عن يدلس يكاد لا أنه أحمد ذكر بشير، بن هشيم منهم متصل عنهم

السلمي

“MENTION OF THOSE WHO ARE KNOWN FOR TADLEES AND HE (THE MUDALLIS) HAD SHUYUKH FROM WHOM HE WOULD DO TADLEES, THEN HIS HADEETH THROUGH THEM IS “MUTTASIL”AND AMONG THEM IS A’MASH...”

As for the fourth chain: Hushaym again is Katheer ut-Tadlees.

SAME REPLY AS ABOVE.

Are these your “Saheeh” chains?? Lol

YOU SEEM TO BE IN YOUR OWN FANTASY WORLD. AFTER THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION IT IS CLEAR BASED ON PRINCIPLES OF HADEETH THAT THE HADEETH TO IBN MAS’OOD IS PROVEN. EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IF WE AGREE THAT EVERY HADEETH IS DHA’EEF, THEN TOO BY THE USOOLS IT WILL BE GRADED HASAN!!! (BUT AS I HAVE CLARIFIED YOUR PRESSING HARD TO MAKE THE AHADEETH DHAEEF HAS GONE WASTE WALHUMDULILLAH).

BUT FOR THOSE WHO HAVE CHOSEN THE PATH OF DECEPTION AND OPPOSING THE AHADEETH NOTHING CAN BE DONE.

After mentioning the name of Imaam Sufyaan ath-Thawree, you narrated the sayings of Muhadditheen on his Adalah, Dhabt, and Status in Hadeeth, whereas these things don’t have anything to do with Tadlees!! It was nothing but waste of time and display of your Jahalah.

YOUR DECEPTIVE CRITIQUE HAS PERHAPS NO LIMITS!!! THE VERY FIRST SAYING OF IMAM ZAHABI THAT I HAVE MENTIONED IS ABOUT HIS TADLEES… BUT YOU WANT TO PERHAPS FOOL YOURSELF OR CLOSE YOUR EYES AND KEEP FIRING IN THE AIR WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. I MENTIONED:

“AS REGARDS HIS SAYING THAT SUFYAN WAS A MUDALLIS, THEN AGAIN THE AUTHOR HAS DONE “KHIYANA”. IMAM DHAHABI SAYS:

“ALHUJJAH. ASSBT. MUTTAFAQUN ALAIHI.”

THEN HE SAYS ABOUT THE TADLEES FROM WEAK NARRATORS, BUT THEN SAYS IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER:

“BUT HE HAD THE CRITIQUE AND THE TASTE (THAT IS HE KNEW THE RIGHT FROM WRONG) AND THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION OF THOSE WHO SAY: HE WOULD DO TADLEES AND WOULD WRITE FROM LIARS.””

NOTE AGAIN “BUT HE HAD THE CRITIQUE AND THE TASTE”… I DON’T KNOW IF YOU UNDERSTAND THIS!!! AS FOR HIS TADLEES, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE UPON IT. BUT TO WHICH TABAQA DOES HE BELONG TO? HE BELONGS TO THE SECOND CATEGORY… AND SO HIS TADLEES WILL BE ACCEPTED. THAT WAS MY POINT. AS FOR MENTIONING HIS GREATNESS, THEN I HAD TO DO THAT BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU DIIDN’T KNOW HIS LOFTY POSITION IN HADEETH! FOR IF YOU KNEW IT YOU WOULDN’T HAVE DISCARDED HIS HADEETH JUST BECAUSE OF TADLEES…

We all know about the High status of Imaam Sufyaan, but he used to do tadlees and that is proven from many Scholars including his contemporaries (the sayings of Contemporaries hold more weight than anyone else’s saying). Here are a few proofs:

1- Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: “People used to reply on Yahya al-Qattaan with regard to the ahadeeth of Sufyaan ath-Thawree, because he only used to narrate those of his narrations in which he affirmed his hearing” [Al-Kifayah: 362, Chain Saheeh]

This saying proves two things:First: The narrations of Yahya al-Qattaan from Sufyaan are affirmed with his samaa.Second: According to Imaam Ibn al-Madeeni, Sufyaan used to commit tadlees that’s he relied on Imaam Yahya to follow his ahadeeth.

2- Imaam Yahya al-Qattaan said: “I only narrated those narrations from Sufyaan ath-Thawree in which he said “Haddathani” or “Sami’tu”…” [Kitaab al-Illal: 1/207, Chain Saheeh]

This also proves that the ‘An’Ana of Thawree was not acceptable according to his own student Imaam Yahya al-Qattaan. And he considered him Mudallis

3- Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said a similar saying regarding Imaam Sufyaan. [al-Majroheen: 1/92]

4- Imaam Haakim al-Nibaahuri mentioned Imaam Sufyaan among the third level of Mudalliseen.

5- Imaam Nawawi rejected the narration of Imaam Sufyaan narrated with AN. [See: Sharh Saheeh Muslim: 1/136]

6- Even Aynee (Hanafi) rejected the narration of Thawree with AN. [See: Umdat ul-Qaari: 3/112]

7- Ibn al-Tarkamaani also rejected the narration of Thawree with AN. [See: Al-Jawahir al-Naqi: 8/262]

8- Even your modern day Hanafi, Deobandi, and Brailwi Muqallideen have rejected the narrations of Thawree narrated with AN, such as: Sarfaraz Khan Safdar, Ameen Okarvi, Muhammad Shareef Kotli Brailwi, Muhammad Abbaas Rizwi Brailwi, Sher Muhammad Mamati Deobandi, Naymwi Taqleedi, Muhammad Taqi Uthmaani, Hussain Ahmed Madani Tandawi Deobandi, Ahmed Raza Khan Brailwi, and many others. [Proofs will be provided when asked]

9- Besides these, there are also narrations in which Imaam Sufyaan has himself confessed that he does Tadlees!!

10- Imaam Dhahabi said: “Sufyaan used to commit tadlees from Da’eef and unknown narrators” [Meezaan & Siyar]

AGAIN YOUR QUOTATIONS ARE FULL OF KHIYANAH SPECIALLY THE LAST QUOTE OF IMAM ZAHABI. YOU REPEATED THE SAME KHIYANAH AGAIN!!! THAT’S WHY I SAID YOU SEEM TO HAVE NOTHING BUT DECEPTION.

Now, look at the deception of this Muqallid, he said:

“bukhari: i don’t know tadlees of sufyan from habeeb bn abi sabit, nor from salmah bn kuhail, nor from mansoor, and mentioned many of his teachers and then said: i don’t know sufyan’s tadlees from them.”

This is an extent of his khiyanah. Imaam Bukhaari, here, is not saying that Sufyaan did not tadlees at all, rather he is saying that Imaam Thawree did not do tadlees from the above mentioned narrators. That’s all!

MY DEAR WHAT ELSE DID I MENTION? DID I SAY THAT IMAM BUKHARI SAID THAT HE NEVER COMMITTED TADLEES? IF THIS IS THE WAY YOU WILL EXTRACT MEANINGS OUT OF SOMEONE SAYINGS THEN MAY ALLAH BE WITH YOU AND MAY ALLAH PROTECT THE UMMAH FROM YOUR DECEPTIONS. THIS IS “BUHTAN” ON ME FOR WHICH YOU WILL HAVE TO REPLY ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT!!!

I MENTIONED IMAM BUKHARI’S SAYING AS ONE OF THE SCHOLARS SPEAKING ABOUIT HIS POSITION IN HADEETH… HAD I MENTIONED THAT I AM MENTIONING THIS SO AS TO PROVE THAT HE NEVER COMMITTED TADLEES, THEN DEFINITELY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT KHIYANAH. JUST AS YOU HAVE MENTIONED REPEATEDLY IMAM ZAHABI’S SAYING REGARDING HIS TADLEES BUT SWALLOWED THE REST OF THE SENTENCE AND THE NEXT SENTENCE WHICH MAKES HIS TADLEES ACCEPTABLE… THESE ARE YOUR WAYS… WELCOME TO PSEUDO SALAFISM…

Tadlees of Imaam Sufyaan is known and famous. The Jumhoor has rejected his AnAn narrations.

ALHUMDULILLAH WITH THE ABOVE CLARIFICATION IT IS CLEAR, AS TO WHAT POSITION HIS TADLEES HAS.

The Author said:Fourth Evidence:

Hassan Basri said: Five companions among the companions of Muhammad (peace be upon him): Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallah anhu), Abdullah bin Mas’ood (radiallah anhu), Khuzayfah (radiallah anhu), Imran bin Hussain (radiallah anhu), and one more Sahaabi (had a discussion about the issue of touching the private part), one of them said: I do not care if I touch the Dhikr (sexual organ) or the nose, second one said: Or my thigh, and the third one said: Or my knees. [Narrated Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, Majma az-Zawaaid: Vol 1 Pg 244]

Reply:

Firstly: Right after this narration, Haythami has written that “Verily Hassan is a Mudallis and has not affirmed his hearing”

Secondly: This narration contains Inqita (disconnection). Because the samaa of Hassan Basri is not proven from any Badri Sahaabi (and Ali and Ibn Ma’sood are both Badri). Similarly, his samaa is also not proven from Imraan bin Hussain (radiallah anhu) [Maraseel Ibn Abi Haatim: Pg 31, 38].

In Mustadrak al-Haakim (Vol 4 Pg 567), a narration is narrated through the route of Al-Hassan from Imraan bin Hussain (radiallah anhu). While commenting on this hadeeth, Sarfaraaz Khaan Safdar Hanafi Deobandi said: Taking evidene from this hadeeth is Baatil and Mardood, firstly because in its chain Hassan al-Basri is narrating from Imraan bin Hussain. Imam Abu Haatim, Yahya ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan, Ali ibn al-Madeeni, and Ibn Ma’een etc have affirmed that the samaa of Hassan is not proven from Imraan bin Hussain, see (Tahdheeb Vol 2 Pg 268), and Haafidh Ibn Hajr said: Hassan used to do a lot of Tadlees and Irsaal. Allaamah Dhahabi said: He is a Mudallis, when he narrates from a person from whom his meeting is not proven then his narration is not Hujjah [Tadhkirah Vol 1 Pg 7]. When his sama’at is not saheeh and the severe accusation of Irsaal and Tadlees is also ben laid upon him, then how can this narration be Saheeh in light of Usool ul-Hadeeth [Izalat ar-Rayb: Pg 237]. In short, this narration is Da’eef due to Tadlees and Inqitaa.

His Refutation:according to usool tadlees of hasan al basri is saheeh!!!

for he falls in the second group in the “tabaqaat ul mudalliseen” of ibn hajar and it is from the third group wherein the specification of hearing is stated. imam ibn hajar asqalani says:

“and they are divided into five groups:

1. the first: who (don’t do) tadlees except rarely for example :yahya bn sa’eed alansari.2. second: those whose tadlees has been accepted by the imams and they took hadeeth from

them in saheeh and this is because of their imamite (their greatness) and little tadlees… like sauri, or that they won’t do tadlees except from “siqah” like ibn uyaynah.

3. third: those who exceeded in tadlees, then the imams don’t accept from their ahadeeth except that in which they specify their hearing…”

so as is clear, the specification of hearing is for the third category.

and hasan albasri falls under the second category.

moreover it is sufficient to quote below the sayings of scholars regarding his tadlees as well as his excess praise by them:

hajjaj bn artat says: i asked ‘ataa bn abi rabah (regarding him) so he said to me: you must hold on to him- i.e hasan- for he is a great imam who is to be followed.

bakr almuzni: whoever wants to see the most learned scholar we met in his time, then let him see hasan, for we didn’t meet anyone more knowledgeable than him.

qatadah says: …no by allah no one hates hasan except a huroori (a khawarij). mua’az bn mua’az says: i said to ash’as-you met ataa and you had “masaail”, you didn’t ask

him? he said: i didn’t meet anyone after hasan but he was small in my sight. ali bn zaid says: i heard from sa’eed bn musaib, qasim bn muhammed, salim bn abdullah, urwah

bn zubair, yahya bn ja’dah,… but i didn’t see in them anyone like hasan, even though they may have met the prophet’s companion.

awwam bn hawshab says: hasan resembellled a prophet among his people calling them towards allah for sixty years!

abi ja’far albaqar: he is the one whose saying is like the saying of prophets.! humaid bn hilal says: abu qatadah told us: hold strongly this sheikh, because i haven’t seen

anyone’s opinion similar to the opinion of umar bn khattab like that of hasan. abu zra’ah says: all that hasan says- said the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam- i found firm

evidence for all of them except four ahadeeth. anas bn malik (a sahabi!!!) was once asked some question, he replied ask our maulana (leader)

hasan! they said: o father of hamza, we are asking you and you are saying ask hasan our maulana? he said: ask our maulana hasan, for verily he heard and we heard, and he byhearted and we forgot!!!

the clinching point is what ibn al madeeni says: the “mursal” narrations of hasan if narrated from “siqah” narrators is “sihah”…

i had to mention these points (i have deliberately ommitted other points of his “tauseeq”), to let it be known that all tadlees is not to be rejected. so take some lessons in hadeeth before dealing with issues of differences.

I say:

First of all, the division of mudalliseen into five levels by Ibn Hajar is not something which is agreed upon by the Ummah. Haafidh Ibn Hajar could be wrong as well. We can differ from him based on tahqeeq.

OFOCURSE WE CAN DIFFER FROM ANY MUHADDITH IN ANY ISSUE THROUGH TEHQEEQ. JUST AS WE DIFFERED SAYING THAT “UNSAYAYIN AND RAFAGHAIN” IS NOT IDRAAJ. AND JUST AS WE DIFFERED SAYING THAT TALQ BN ALI CAME TO MADEENAH WITH THE BANU HANEEFAH IN THE NINTH CENTURY. BUT THERE YOU WERE FUMING AND YOU WERE SHOUTING

“First of all, Brother Nu’man has mentioned the argument of Ibn al-Tarkamaani (Hanafi) as compared to the Jarh Mufassar of Muhadditheen who are way higher in status than him. The status of Ibn al-Tarkamaani is zero in front of the Giant Muhadditheen and Mujtahideen like: Imaam Daraqutni, Imaam Dhahabi, and others.” AND

“I would say that how can we accept the saying of a Muqallid like you against all the other Muhadditheen!!?? Ofcourse you do not even have a drop of knowledge out of the oceans of knowledge of Muhadditheen! So on what basis do you say that all those Muhadditheen are wrong and only you are right!!?? Lol” AND

“Ofcourse you do not even have a drop of knowledge out of the oceans of knowledge of Muhadditheen!”

BUT NOW WE CAN SEE HOW YOU ARE BEHAVING!!!

As for the Mudalliseen of Second Level, Haafidh Ibn Hajar said that they are those Mudalliseen who used to do a little tadlees that’s why there ahadeeth are accepted. However, this whole mas’la of little or abundant tadlees did not exist among the Mutaqaddim Salaf as-Saaliheen. Haafidh Ibn Hajar has done tasaahul in the issue of tadlees. According to the Mutaqaddimeen, if a person is proven to be a Mudallis then all his Mu’an’An narrations will be Da’eef until its affirmation is proven or there is an authentic shaahid for it! They did not discuss this whole issue of Qaleel or Katheer ut-Tadlees! They rejected the Mu’an’An narrations of all those narrators from whom tadlees is proven even once in lifetime!!

THIS IS GREAT… SO THE TABAQAAT OF IBN HAJAR IS JUST A WASTE OF TIME… A WASTE OF PAGES… WHEN THE SAYINGS OF MUTAQADDIMEEN ARE PRESENT WHY DO WE NEED MUTAAKHIREEN’S BOOKS? THROW THEM AWAY FOR THEY ARE OF NO USE… FALA HAWALA WALA QUWWATA ILLA BILLAH… HOW FAR HAVE YOU GONE TO PROVE YOURSELF RIGHT…

YOU SEE IF YOU DON’T WANT TO FOLLOW SOMETHING DON’T DO, BUT WHY ALL THIS “PUSHING HARD” TYPE OF BEHAVIOUR… AND THIS IS YOUR TEHQEEQ…

The evdences of this tahqeeq are as follows:

1- Imaam Shaafi’ee said: “If we get to know about someone that he has done tadlees once then he has displayed his hidden secret to us. [Ar-Risalah: 1033]”

After this, Imaam Shaafi’ee said: “Thus we say that we do not accept any narration from any Mudallis until he says ‘Haddathani’ or ‘Sami’tu’ (meaning, until he affirms his hearing)” [Ar-Risalah: 1035]

From the Usool mentioned by Imaam Shaafi’ee, we come to know that the narrator from whom tadlees is proven once in a lifetime, then all his narrations with ‘An will not be accepted until it fulfills the conditions.VERY WELL… BUT WHAT IMAM SHAFIE HAS MENTIONED AS YOU HAVE QUOTED ““Thus we say that we do not accept any narration from any Mudallis until he says ‘Haddathani’ or ‘Sami’tu’ (meaning, until he affirms his hearing)” [Ar-Risalah: 1035]”AND WHAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED IS “From the Usool mentioned by Imaam Shaafi’ee, we come to know that the narrator from whom tadlees is proven once in a lifetime, then all his narrations with ‘An will not be accepted until it fulfills the conditions . ”LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE. ACCORDING TO YOU ALL HIS NARRATIONS WITH ‘AN WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTILL IT FULFILLS CONDITIONS. AND ACCORDING TO IMAM SHAF’EI IT WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTILL HE SAYS “HADDATHANI” OR “SAMITU”… THIS IS IT… HIEGHTS OF DECEPTION…

2- Haafidh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali said: “And Shaafi’ee did not look for whether the narrator committed tadlees again and again, nor did he look whether tadlees is dominant on the narrator or not; rather he looked for (just) the establishment of tadlees from the narrator, even if he might have done it only once.” [Sharh Illal al-Tirmidhi: 1/353]YES… BUT THE MEANING YOU HAVE EXTRACTED ABOVE FROM HIS SAYING IS NOT IN LINE WITH IT.Zarkashi said that: “The opinion of Imaam Shaafi’ee is Ghareeb..”. This saying of Zarkashi is wrong because Imaam Shaafi’ee is not alone in this Usool, rather his opinion is held by the Jumhoor of Scholars. JAMHOOR? ACCORDING TO YOU PEOPLE THE JAMHOOR HAVE REJECTED DHAEEF AHADEETH EVEN IN FAZAAIL. NOW YOU ARE SAYING ZARKASHI IS WRONG IN SAYING THAT THE OPINION OF IMAM SHAF’EI IS GHAREEB… OFCOURSE AFTER ALL ANYONE CAN MAKE MISTAKES!!!Some of the examples are as follows:

3- Imaam Bayhaqi mentioned the opinion of Imaam Shaafi’ee regarding tadlees in his book, and he did not oppose it, rather accorded this opinion by keeping silent. [Ma’rifat us-Sunan wal Athaar: 1/76]Moreover, Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Bahadur az-Zarkashi said: “The one who does tadlees even once, then Bayhaqi has ruled that his (Mu’an’an) narrations are unacceptable” [Al-Nakat Ala Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah: Pg 191]YES. BUT ACCORDING TO YOU THERE ARE CONDITIONS WITH WHICH IT WILL BE ACCEPTED!!!

4- Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah said: “And the ruling is that the narration of a Mudallis is not accepted without the affirmation of hearing, Shaafi’ee put this ruling on everyone who, according to our knowledge, did tadlees once.” [Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah: Pg 99]

5- Imaam Nawawi said: “Thus he (Mudallis) narrates with words which contain doubt, the narration in which the affirmation of hearing is not present is Mursal (meaning, Da’eef)….. And this ruling is also for those who commit tadlees once.” [Al-Taqreeb by Nawawi: Pg 9]

NO DOUBT ACCORDING TO IMAM NAWAWI TOO ALL MUAN’AN NARRATIONS ARE WEAK. BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM ALL MURSAL ARE WEAK.(THIS IS NOT MY OWN CLARIFICATION BUT IS PRESENT IN TADREEBURRAWI-“ AND THE AUTHOR HAS MENTIONED CONSENSUS IN “SHARH MUHAZZAB” REJECTING THE AHADEETH OF ANANA FOLLOWING BAIHAQI AND IBN ABDULBARR, KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO REJECT MURSAL”)

6- Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said: “….Thus, until a Mudallis, though thiqah, narrates a hadeeth with Hadathani or Sami’tu, it is not permissible to take evidence from those narrations, and this is the Asal (Usool) of Abu Abdullah Muhammaf bin Idrees ash-Shaafi’ee, and our teachers have followed him in this issue.” [Kitaab al-Majroheen: 1/92]

Haafidh Ibn Hibbaan has also discussed this issue in detail in Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan [1/161]

7- Abu Bakr as-Seerfi said in Kitaab ad-Dalaail wal A’laam that: “Every narrator whose tadlees is proven from un-reliable narrators, then his narrations are not accepted until he says Haddathani or Sami’tu.” [Al-Nakat Ala Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah: Pg 184]YES. YOU SEE THESE ARE THE MUHADDITHEEN WHO HAD THIS OPINION. BUT WHEN THE LATTER MUHADDITHEEN SAW THAT THERE ARE MUDALLISEEN WHO ARE AMONG THE LEADERS OF THE FIELD OF HADEETH AND THERE TADLEES EVEN THOUGH THROUGH AN’ANA IS PROVEN TO BE RIGHT THROUGH SOME CONDITIONS, THEN THERE AN’ANA SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.YOU SEE THIS IS WHAT THE LATTER MUHADDITHEEN DID. THEY DIDN’T CONCOCT THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY TO FULFILL THEIR WHIMS AND DESIRES..

And it is proven from Imaam Hassan Basari that he used to do tadlees from Weak narrators. Imaam Dhahabi said: “Hassan is famous with his tadlees and he used to do tadlees from weak narrators…” [As-Siyar: 4/588].

And there are many other proofs to present, but I don’t want this to be too long, so I think this much is enough for a wise person!

Moreover, The Hanafi Scholars which Nu’maan follows also weaken the ahadeeth of Imaam Hassan al-Basari because of his Tadlees, then what is the problem here? Is he trying to be a Mujtahid here? Lol. First he tried to prove his Mujtahid Imaam and Muqallad, Abu Haneefah to be wrong, and now he is trying to prove his Scholars also to be wrong. I think he is trying to prove that he is a Mujtahid Mutlaq, lol!! Even though he claims to be a mere Muqallid!!

Furthermore, besides this whole discussion of Katheer/Qaleel ut-Tadlees, Imaam Hassan al-Basari is also proven to be a Katheer ut-Tadlees narrator!!

Imaam Salaah ud-Deen Al-‘Alaa’ee said: “Al-Hassan bin Abil Hassan al-Basari….. He is Katheer ut-Tadlees and does a lot of Irsaal” [Jaami’ ut-Tahseel: 1/162]

Moving on, in this narration, the issue is not just the tadlees of Imaam Hassan al-Basari, rather Imaam Hassan has also done Irsaal in this narration. As it is famous among the Muhadditheen that Imaam Hassan was also a Katheer ul-Irsaal narrator, and Haafidh Ibn Hajar has also agreed with it in al-Tahdheeb.

And the meeting of Imaam Hassan is not proven from any of the Sahaabi mentioned in this hadeeth. So this hadeeth is definitely Da’eef!!

Muqallid Nu’maan then mentioned the sayings of Scholars regarding Imaam Hassan al-Basari, which have nothing to do with the topic, which again proves his Jahalat!!!

THE FOLLOWING POINTS THAT I MENTIONED HAVE DEFINITELY “SOMETHING” TO DO WITH THE TOPIC. UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME OTHER TOPIC IN MIND…

abu zra’ah says: all that hasan says- said the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam- i found firm evidence for all of them except four ahadeeth.

the clinching point is what ibn al madeeni says: the “mursal” narrations of hasan if narrated from “siqah” narrators is “sihah”…

BUT SINCE YOU ARE ADAMANT, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY BE DONE? THESE MUHADDITHEEN AND THE RULES THEY DEVELOPED HAVE NO VALUE IN YOUR SIGHT… MAY ALLAH PREVENT US FROM SU CH FITNAHS…

The Author said:Fifth Evidence:

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

Reply:

The narration on the invalidation of wudoo’ is also proven from Sa’d. His son, Mus’ab, said that: “I used to pick the Quraan up for Sa’d bin Abi Waqas to read from it. One day I itched, so Sa’d (radiallah anhu)

said: I think you have touched your private part. I said: Yes! So Sa’d (radiallah anhu) said: Get up and do wudoo’. So I got up performed wudoo and came back.”

[Muwatta Imaam Maalik: Baab al-wudu min mas al-faraj, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 163].

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

His Refutation: this is not at all a reply!!! if there are various wordings narrated from the same sahabi about the same hadeeth, then we must go for jam’ and tatbeeq!!!

now this is what is narrated by his son (through ibrahim bn marzooq from abu amir from abdullah bn ja’far from isma’eel bn muhammad), “that i was carrying the qur’an to my father when i had to scratch and on doing so, i touched my penis. so he said did you touch your penis? i replied yes. so he asked me to put my hand into sand and did not ask me to do wudhu”. and in another narration, he asked his son to wash his hands.

sa’ad bn abi waqqas was himself asked regarding wudhu from touching of penis so he replied that if it is impure then cut it off! there is no harm in it (i.e. in touching the penis){the sanad is like this- muhammed bn khuzaimah from abdullah bn rajaa from zaaidah from ismaail bn abi khalid from qais bn abi hazim}

another same type of narration from another sanad- saleh bn abdurrehman from sa’eed bn mansoor from hasheem from ismaeel bn abi khalid from qais bn abi hazim.

so now it is clear that the word “wudhu” will have to be taken in the sense of washing and not the wudhu of salah. or else we ask these people to solve the contradiction in the riwayat!!!

but yes!!! for people who don’t consider sahabah’s saying as hujjat, for them there is no use of any arguments!!!. we should just pray for their islah.

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

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

Imaam Nasaa’ee mentioned him in his book of Mudalliseen. [Pg 122]

Imaam al-‘Alaai mentioned him among the Mudallis narrators. [Jaami al-Tahseel: 105]

Moreover, Abu Zur’ah ibn al-Iraaqi (3), As-Suyooti (Pg 3), al-Halbi (Pg 14), Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, and ad-Dameeni have included him among the Mudallis narrators.

HIS TABAQAH TOO IS SECOND SO NO HARM OF HIS TADLEES… WALHUMDULILLAH.

Nu’maan said:

“now this is what is narrated by his son (through ibrahim bn marzooq from abu amir from abdullah bn ja’far from isma’eel bn muhammad), “that i was carrying the qur’an to my father when i had to scratch and on doing so, i touched my penis. so he said did you touch your penis? i replied yes. so he asked me to put my hand into sand and did not ask me to do wudhu”. and in another narration, he asked his son to wash his hands.”

First of all, everything you have said in this whole document is without any references, which makes it very difficult for the other person to find it. So either mention references or not mention at all!

I HAVE MENTIONED THE REFERENCE RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DOCUMENT… PLEASE READ IT THERE…

Secondly, this athar is still not about touching the penis without a barrier. It is regarding touching it over a barrier. Of course, Ismaa’eel bin Muhammad would not have been carrying the Qur’aan naked (Na’uzubillah), so it is obvious that he would have scratched over his garment, so how is this a proof of touching the penis without a barrier. In fact, this athar is against Ahnaaf. Because despite having scratched over the barrier, Sa’d ordered him to wash his hands. This proves his strictness in the issue.

He said:

“sa’ad bn abi waqqas was himself asked regarding wudhu from touching of penis so he replied that if it is impure then cut it off! there is no harm in it (i.e. in touching the penis){the sanad is like this- muhammed bn khuzaimah from abdullah bn rajaa from zaaidah from ismaail bn abi khalid from qais bn abi hazim}”

This is the same narration that is mentioned by the Author, and I have already clarified that Ismaa’eel is Mudallis in it and is narrating with AN.

BUT HERE THE CHANCE OF “BARRIER” IS NOT THERE!!! HE WAS ASKED GENERALLY ABOUT TOUCHING THE PENIS AND NOT SPECIFICALLY OVER A BARRIER… SO???

He said:

“another same type of narration from another sanad- saleh bn abdurrehman from sa’eed bn mansoor from hasheem from ismaeel bn abi khalid from qais bn abi hazim.”

This is basically the same route. Except that it has another weakness in it, lol

Besides, Ismaa’eel, Hushaym is also a Mudallis in its chain!

REGARDING HUSHAYM’S TADLEES ALSO IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED ABOVE WALHUMDULILLAH… KEEP LOLLING AT YOUR OWN IGNORANCE…

“but yes!!! for people who don’t consider sahabah’s saying as hujjat, for them there is no use of any arguments!!!. we should just pray for their islah.”

Then you would be the first person to be included among those people. Because you don’t follow most of the Sahabah in most of the issues!!

As for us, then we follow the Sahabah in the issues which are not differed upon. As for the issues which are disputed among the Sahabahs themselves then we follow the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the opinion of Sahabah whose opinions matched with the saying of Prophet (peace be upon him).

BUT HERE MY DEAR, THERE ARE SAYINGS OF PROPHET SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM AND SAHABAH ON BOTH THE SIDES… SO YOU WILL HAVE TO GO FOR RAJEH AND MARJOOH… BUT THEN AGAIN IN IT THERE TOO WILL BE DIFFERENCE!!! BECAUSE IF YOU BASE ONE HADEETH AND TAKE OTHERS UPON IT, YOU WILL GET ONE RESULT… IF YOU TAKE THE OTHER AS THE BASIS AND TAKE OTHERS UPON IT, YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER RESULT… AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING BASED ON HAWA AND NAFS… RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING THERE HAS BEEN DIFFERENCE… ITS NOT JUST THE AHNAF WHO ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE…

The Author said:Sixth Evidence

Abul Awaam Basri said that a man asked Ataa bin Abi Ribaah saying, Oh Abu Muhammad! A man touched his private part after performing the wudoo. A man among the people said: Abdullah ibn Abbas (radiallah anhu) used to say that if you think its impure then cut it off. Ataa bin Abi Ribaah said: “By Allah this is the saying of Ibn Abbaas.” [Muwatta Imam Muhammad: Pg 52]

Reply:

Firstly: Muhammad bin Hassan ash-Shaybaani is alone in narrating this narration. And he has been severely criticized by the Muhadditheen. In fact Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is Kadhaab (Liar)” [Lisaan ul-Mizaan: Vol 5 Pg 122].

His Refutation: i don’t wish to deal on the issue of muhammed bn hasan asshaybani, but it will be sufficient for me to say what abdulhayy lucknawi has said (he wrote a commentary on a “liars” book???!!!!) in “taleeq al mumajjad” after mentioning his praises by the ulemaa:

i say: by these sayings of affirmation and other praises with firm wordings of “siqaat” which we have left fearing the length, becomes evident his greatness and beautiful position. so those who objected him, it

seems their ears didn’t hear these words and their eyes didn’t reach upto the books of “siqaat”. and it is enough for you the praise of shafe’i with beautiful words and lofty quotes…”

secondly the narration of ibn abbas on not performing wudhu on touching the penis is narrated through other chains as well:

“it doesn’t bother me if i touch my penis or my nose.”

from abu bakrah bakkar bn qutaibah from yaqoob bn ishaq from ikramah bn ammar from ataa from ibn abbas

from abu bakrah from abu aamir from ibn abi zib from shu’bah (servant of ibn abbas) from ibn abbas

from saleh bn abdurrehman from saeed bn mansoor from hasheem from a’mash from habeeb bn abi thabit from saeed bn jubair from ibn abbas that he didn’t see wudhuu upon touching the penis.

so why didn’t this author mention these??

I say:Again, no References!! This person does not even bother to mention the names of the books!! This is also a proof of his sheer Jahalat and deception!!

YOU SHOULD HAVE SOME BASIC COMMON SENSE BEFORE FUMING AT ME. I HAVE SAID RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING

“IF NOT MENTIONED, THEN THE INFORMATION IS FROM “AMANIYUL AHBAR” OF YUSUF KANDHLAWI OR “ILAA USSUNAN””

DIDN’T YOU READ THIS AT THE BEGINNING ITSELF??? OR …ANOTHER DECEPTION???

As for Muhammad ash-Shaybaani, then he is weak and Kadhaab. There is no proof of tawtheeq proven regarding him. I challenge you to prove him thiqah!!

I HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED HIS TAUSEEQ ABOVE… PLEASE READ IT AGAIN…

Read this for the details of the weakness of Ash-Shaybaani:

http://docs.umm-ul-qura.org/Shaybani.pdf

Let’s observe your chains one by one.

In the first chain, Ikrimah bin Ammaar is a Mudallis from the third level even according to Ibn Hajar. [See: Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen: 3/88]

SO NOW “TABAQAAT” OF IBN HAJAR IS GOOD… NOW YOU TAKE ITS REFERENCE… KHAIR…

Note: SO THE ONLY WEAKNESS IN THIS CHAIN HERE IS TADLEES… THE HADEETH IS SAHEEH ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS OF MUSLIM!!!

As for the second chain then it is weak also, because Shu’bah bin Deenaar is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth. His ahadeeth are criticized especially when he narrates from Ibn Abbaas.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY SPECIALLY WHEN HE NARRATES FROM IBN ABBAS… IF WHAT YOU MEAN IS ALL THAT HE HAS NARRATED FROM IBN ABBAS IS TO BE REJECTED, THEN THIS IS WRONG… WHAT IBN HIBBAN HAS MENTIONED IS THAT HE WOULD NARRATE FROM IBN ABBAS THINGS WHICH HAVE NO BASIS. THIS OFCOURSE IS DIFFERENT FROM SAYING ALL THAT HE NARRATED FROM IBN ABBAS IS REJECTED…

1. Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “Don’t write his narrations” [al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 4/1604]2. Imaam Maalik bin Anas al-Madani said: “He is not Thiqah” [Taareekh al-Kabeer by Bukhari: 4/2671]3. Ibraaheem bin Ya’qoob al-Juzjaani said: “He is not strong” [Ahwaal ur-Rijaal: 223]4. Imaam Nasaa’ee said: “He is not strong” [Ad-Du’afa wal Matrokeen: 291]5. Imaam Ukaylee mentioned him in his book of weak narrators. [90]6. Imaam Abu Haatim said: “He is not strong” [Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 4/1604]7. Imaam Abu Zur’ah said: “He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth” [Same Ref]8. Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said: “He narrated such narrations from Ibn Abbaas which had not basis…” [AL-

Majroheen: 1/361]9. As-Saaji said: “He is Da’eef” [Tahdheeb: 4/347]10. Ibn Hajar said: “Sudooq, Weak in Memory” [Taqreeb]

I WILL GIVE SOME “TAUSEEQ” AS WELL TO CORRECT YOUR DECEPTION OR MISTAKES… APART FROM THE LAST SAYING OF IBN HAJAR WHICH IS “TAUSEEQ” AND NOT JARH… AND THE JARH ON HIM IS GHAIR MUFASSAR…

AHMED BN HANBAL: I DON’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH HIM. YAHYA BN MAEEN (APART FROM SAYING DON’T WRITE HIS HADEETH): LAISA BIHI BAS.THEN

HE WAS ASKED AS TO WHAT MALIK USED TO SAY REGARDING HIM? HE REPLIED HE USED TO SAY :NOT AMONG THE QURRAA.

IBN UDAYY MENTIONED HIM IN HIS “DHUAFAA”, BUT AT THE END SAYS: “I DON’T SEE ANY MUNKAR NARRATIONS FROM HIM SO AS TO WEAKEN HIM AND I HOPE THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIM.

NOTE:SO THIS CHAIN IS ATLEAST OF HASAN STATUS…

As for the third chain then it contains three Mudalliseen in a row one after another. (1) Hushaym, (2) A’mash, (3) Habeeb bin Abi Thaabit. Thus this chain contains weakness upon weakness!!

THE THIRD CHAIN IS NOT “WEAKNESS UPON WEAKNESS”. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS TADLEES OF HABEEB BN ABI THABIT. AS FOR HUSHYAM AND A’MASH THEN I HAVE CLARIFIED ABOVE REGARDING THEIR TADLEES AND THAT IT IS ACCEPTABLE.

NOTE: SO ATLEAST THE HADEETH GOES DOWN TO HASAN. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT IT DHA’EEF, THEN ALL THREE CHAINS COMBINED PROVE THAT THE ISSUE OF WUDHU NOT BREAKING BY TOUCHING THE PENIS IS PROVEN TO IBN ABBAS… WALHUMDULILLAH.

The Author said:Secondly: The narration on the contrary to this narration has also been narrated from Sayyidunah Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhu). Imaam Ataa bin Abi Ribaah said: “Ibn Umar and Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhum) used to order such person to do wudoo’ who had touched his private part.” [Tahawi: Vol 1 Pg 58, Bayhaqi: Vol 1 Pg 131, and Musannad Ibn Abi Shaybah: Vol 1 Pg 64]

His Refutation: this is not at all a reply as i said earlier. a narration with different wordings does not mean that it has to be discarded. the author should solve the difference in the wordings and the difference in opinion.

I say:I have proven above that the athar of Ibn Abbaas regarding wudoo not breaking is weak. And this is the only narration proven from him, so this is to be considered the Madhab of Ibn Abbaas, not anything else!

MAY ALLAH GIVE ALL OF US PROPER UNDERSTANDING. I DIDN’T WANT TO COMMENT, BUT SINCE AGAIN YOU HAVE PLAYED DECEPTION, I WISH TO EXPOSE THIS…

YOU HAVE SAID : “And this is the only narration proven from him, so this is to be considered the Madhab of Ibn Abbaas, not anything else!”

YOUR AUTHOR HAS NOT GIVEN THE SANAD, NOR HAVE YOU PRESENTED NOW AFTER THE SO CALLED “TEHQEEQ”.

THE SANAD IN SUNAN KUBRA OF BAIHAQI IS: THROUGH TAHAWI FROM SULEIMAN BN SHUAYIB FROM ABDURREHMAN BN ZIYAD FROM SHU’BAH FROM QATADAH FROM ATAA FROM IBN UMAR AND IBN ABBAS…THIS CHAIN CONTAINS ABDURREHMAN BN ZIYAD WHO HAS BEEN DECLARED DHA’EEF BY ALQATTAN, IBN MEHDI, IBN HANBAL AND IBN MA’EEN AS MENTIONED BY BAIHAQI HIMSELF.

THE SANAD IN MUSANNF IBN ABI SHAYBAH IS: FROM SHABABAH FROM SHU’BAH FROM QATADAH FROM ATAA FROM IBN ABBAS AND IBN UMAR…HERE SHABABAH IS ALTHOUGH “SUDOOQ” BUT THERE ARE JARH OVER HIM: -ABU HATIM ARRAZI SAID: “SUDOOQ. HIS HADEETH CAN BE WRITTEN BUT NO EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN.

-AHMED BN HANBAL SAID: “TARAKTUHU” (I LEFT HIM). I WON’T WRITE FROM HIM BECAUSE HE WAS A CALLER TO “IRJAA”. AT ANOTHER MOMENT HE WOULD “YUNKIRU” (DENY) HIS AHADEETH.

OFCOURSE THE MUHADDITHEEN HAVE CLARIFIED THAT HE RETURNED FROM HIS OPINION OF “IRJAA”, BUT THE JARH MUFASSAR REMAINS AND DOWNS THE STATUS OF HIS HADEETH TO HASAN…

SECONDLY IN THIS SANAD IS SHU’BAH BN HAJJAJ REGARDING WHOM THE MUHADDITHEEN LIKE AHMED BN HANBAL (IN HIS “ILAL”) AND ABUL FARJ ANNAHRWANI (IN HIS “ALJALEES ASSALEH”) AND KHATEEB BAGHDADI (IN HIS “ALFASL LILWASOOL”) HAVE MENTIONED HIS “TADLEES” AND “IRSAL KHAFI”. THOUGH SOME HAVE TRIED TO CLEAR HIM OFF THIS ACCUSATION BASED ON HIS STRONG OPPOSITION OF TADLEES, BUT SHEIKH HATIM BN ARIF AL’URNI HAS CLARFIED THAT THIS ACCUSATION IS CORRECT EXCEPT THAT SHU’BAH “DIDN’T INTEND TADLEES”!

MOREOVER THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT NARRATORS NARRATING ABOUT IBN ABBAS’S OPINION OF NOT DOING WUDHU INCLUDING ATAA HIMSELF IN ONE OF THE NARRATIONS, THEN OFCOURSE THAT WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE… UNLESS OFCOURSE WE “TRY HARD” TO PROVE THE OTHER WAY ROUND!!!

The Author said:Seventh Evidence:

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

Reply:

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

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

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

His refutation: yes, but the maraseel of ibraheem nakh’ie are saheeh according to the usool.

for he too falls under the category two of the “tabaqaat almudalliseen”.!!!

moreover ijli says:

“… and mursal of shu’bi is saheeh. his irsal has to be saheeh.”

and yahya bn ma’een says:

“the maraseel of ibraheem are dearer to me than the maraseel of sh’ubi.”

which means if sh’ubi’s mursal is saheeh, then ibraheem’s mursal are more saheeh!!!

I say:This is what is called deception! lol

He presented the saying of one Muhaddith regarding the Mursal of Sha’bi, and the saying of another Muhaddith regarding the Mursal of Nakha’ee, and proving the opinion of one Muhaddith from the opinion of another Muhaddith!! Lol. This is pure deception!

THIS ISN’T DECEPTION. THIS IS TO SHOW THE “CRITIQUE” AND THE “BALANCE” THE MUHADDITHEEN HAD. SO ACCORDING TO IJLI SHUBI’S MURSAL ARE SAHEEH. AND SINCE IMAM NAKHE’I’S MURSAL ARE BETTER THAN SHUBI’S ACCORDING TO YAHYA BN MA’EEN, WE CAN SEE THAT IMAM NAKHI’E’S MURSAL ARE ACCEPTABLE. THIS IS SIMPLE COMMON SENSE.

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

Imam Dhahabi said in Mizaan al-I’tidaal Vol 1, Pg 35:

“Imam Shafa’ee said: If Ibraheem Nakha’ee narrates from Ali or Abdullah, then it won’t be accepted, because Ibraheem did not meet with any of them”.

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

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

Even the Sahabah did not accept the Mursal of a MAJOR Taabi’ee. It is narrated from the Companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him), Abdullah bin Abbaas (radiallah anhu) that he would not agree to even listen to the Mursal narrations.[See: Muqaddimah Muslim H. 21, & Al-Nakat ala Kitaab Ibn as-Salaah: 2/553]

Imaam Muslim said, "The Mursal narrations according to me and the saying of the people of knowledge is that it is not evidence."(Muqaddimah Saheeh Muslim (1/24), Imaam Nawawee agreed with this statement ofImaam Muslim, see his Irshaad (pg.81)

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

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

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

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

See this link for details:

http://systemoflife.com/fiqh/hadeeth/263-mursal-hadith-is-not-evidence

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

AS FOR HIS TADLEES, I HAVE CLARIFIED THAT HE FALLS UNDER CATEGORY TWO…

REGARDING HIS IRSAL, I THINK YOU NEED SOME BASIC STUDY…

IF YOU HAD READ JUST “ILAL” OF IBN RAJAB YOU WOULDN’T HAVE MADE THIS MISTAKE…

IBN RAJAB SAYS IN “ILAL”:

“…AND THIS MEANS GIVING PRECEDENCE TO MURSAL OVER MUSNAD, SPECIALLY SO WITH ANNAKH’EI, SPECIALLY HIS IRSAL TO IBN MAS’OOD.

- IMAM AHMED WOULD SAY REGARDING MARASEEL OF NAKHI’EI: “LA BASA BIHA” (NOTHING WRONG WITH IT).

- IBN MA’EEN SAYS: “THE MURSAL OF IBRAHEEM ARE SAHEEH EXCEPT THE HADEETH ABOUT THE MERCHANT OF BAHRAIN AND THE HADEETH ABOUT LAUGHING IN SALAH.”

- HE ALSO SAID: “THE MURSAL OF IBRAHEEM ARE MORE DEARER TO ME THAN SALIM OR QASIM OR SA’EED BN MUSAYIB.” (1/294,295)

The Author said:

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

Hafiz ibn Abdil Barr wrote in “Tamhid” v 11 p 48: Abu Hanifah narrated this Hadith from Musa ibn Abi ‘Aishah from Abdullah ibn Shaddad ibnul Hadi from Jabir ibn Abdillah from the Prophet (saw), and none mentioned this Hadith in a Musnad way (continuous chain) except Abu Hanifah and he has bad memory (Say ul Hifz) for Ahlul Hadith, and he opposed Huffaz such as Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Shu’bah, ibn ‘Uyaynah, Jariri and others who narrated from Musa ibn Abi ‘Aishah from Abdullah ibn Shaddad in a Mursal way (meaning name of Sahabi is omitted)”

His Refutation: again this exposes the ignorance and “ta’ssub” of this author. he has labelled imam abu haneefah as dhaeef in hadeeth without making any research.

i challenge him for a detailed discussion on this topic if he is ready for it.

allah willing i will prove to him that even imam ibn abdul barr has accepted his authenticity!!!

I say:This is not an answer to the Jarh. Imaam Abu Haneefah is Da’eef according to the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen.

I accept your challenge as well. I challenge you just prove to me the clear words of tawtheeq regarding Abu Haneefah from the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen!!

As for Ibn Abdul Barr’s authenticity, then I know very well what you are talking about and what you are going to quote in answer to this, but I too have the answers ready for that! lol

See this link for the details of weakness of Abu Hanefah:

http://www.umm-ul-qura.org/info/user_pages/page.asp?art_id=153

WELCOME… PLEASE START OFF. YOU HAVE ACCEPTED, THEN PLEASE START…

I DON’T WANT TO RESPOND TO THE ARTICLE BECAUSE, I DON’T WANT YOU TOMORROW TO COME UP SAYING THAT “I DIDN’T WRITE THE ARTICLE”… “I DON’T MYSELF AGREE WITH MANY THINGS IN THE ARTICLE”…

SO PLEASE, MUHAQQIQ SAHB, PRESENT YOUR OWN STUDY…

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

In short this narration is absolutely Fabricated.

His Refutation:this author should stop lying or fear for his iman.

regarding the opinion of ali radhiallahu anhu, then there are the following narrations about ali’s opinion:

muhammed bn alabbas from abdullah bn muhammed bn almugheerah from mis’ar from qaboos from abi dhibyan from ali

imam muhammed from mis’ar (then continue as in 1) ibn abi shaybah from jareer from qaboos from his father from ali imam muhammed thru hammad from nakhie from ali ibn abi shaybah from ibn ulayyah from abi hamza from ibrahim… the opinion of ali from hasan albasri (the refutation of which has been responded above)

the above five narrations of ali, even if all of them are accepted to be dha’eef will strenghthen each other to atleast reach the level of “hasan”. even if there were two dha’eef narrations, they would have been enough!

moreover ali’s opinion is not reported against this by any chain equal in strength to this, leave alone being better than this!!! and so this is the only acceptable opinion of ali..

I say:Let’s observe your chains:

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

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

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

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

1- Imaam Ahmed said: “He is nothing” [al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 7/108]2- Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth” [Al-Illal wa Ma’rifat ur-Rijaal: 2/119]

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

4- Imaam Nasaa’ee said: “He is not strong” [Ad-Du’afa wal Matrokeen: 695]5- Imaam Ibn Sa’d said: “There is weakness in him, don’t take evidence from him” [Tabaqaat al-Kubra:

6/339]6- Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said: “He had bad memory, and he narrated such lone narrations from his father

which had no basis, he used to elevate Maraseel (meaning, he would narrate the Mursal narrations as Marfoo)…” [Al-Majroheen: 2/216]

7- Imaam Daraqutni said: “He is Da’eef but not abandoned” [Sawalat al-Barqaani: 418]8- Ibn Hajar said: “There is weakness in him” [Al-Taqreeb]

Note: If we follow the previous weak chain of Abdullah bin Muhammad bin al-Mugheerah that you mentioned, then the Qaboos mentioned in this chain would most likely be Qaboos Ibn Abi Dhibyaan, because he is the one who narrated this text in another chain. But that chain is Da’eef as well!! So we can’t say for sure.

So this chain is Da’eef due to the unclarification of Qaboos.

YOU ARE GOING TOO FAR TO PROVE THINGS TO BE ON YOUR SIDE…

THE NON FABRICATED DHA’EEF (EVEN IF WE AGREE THAT THE “UNCLARIFIED” PEOPLE ARE THOSE WHO ARE DH’AEEF!!!) WILL STRENGHTHEN EACH OTHER AND RAISE THE STATUS OF HADEETH TO HASAN ATLEAST. SO THE NARRATION TO ALI GETS PROVEN EITHER WAY… TRY AS HARD AS YOU CAN AND YOU CAN’T…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sixthly, Ibraaheem did not meet Ali.

In short, this chian is Fabricated.

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

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

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

3- Imaam Ibraaheem bin Ya’qoob al-Juzjaani said: “He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth” [Ahwaal ur-Rijaal: 87]4- Imaam Daraqutni said: “He is Da’eef ul-Hadeeth” [as-Sunan: 2/107, ad-Du’afa wal Matrokeen: 528]5- Imaam Bukhaari said: “He is nothing” [Taareekh al-Kabeer: 7/1477]

He also said: “He is Da’eef, wasted in hadeeth (Dhaahib ul-Hadeeth)” [Al-Illal at-Tirmidhi: 34]6- Imaam Abu Haatim said: “He is not strong, write his narrations” [al-Jarh wat Ta’deel: 8/1061]7- Imaam Tirmidhi said: “He is not strong according to Ahl al-Hadeeth” [al-Jaami: 985]8- Imaam Nasaa’ee said: “He is not Thiqah” [ad-Du’afa: 581]9- Abu Ahmed said: “His ahadeeth especially from Ibraaheem are not followed” [Al-Kaamil: 3/146]10- Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said: “He commits grave mistakes, he is Katheer ul-Wahem…” [Al-Majroheen:

3/6]11- Imaam Ibn Hazam said: “He is Saaqit Jiddan, not Thiqah” [al-Muhalla: 6/107]12- Ibn Hajar said: “He is Da’eef” [Taqreeb]

Secondly, it again, contains Ibraaheem an-Nakha’ee, and it is his Mursal.

As for the chain of Hassan al-Basari, then you did not mention the full chain, Ofcourse you did not hear it directly from Hassan al-Basari, lol

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

I NEVER SAID I HEARD FROM HIM… INFACT I HAVE HINTED THAT THE SANAD HAS ALREADY BEEN MENTIONED ABOVE. I SAID “the opinion of ali from hasan albasri (the refutation of which has been responded above)”…

MAYBE YOU WERE LAUGHING AND SO MISSED IT…

HE IS FROM SECOND TABAQAH, SO NO HARM FROM HIS TADLEES… AND AS FOR HIS IRSAL, THEN I HAVE CLARIFIED:

“the clinching point is what ibn al madeeni says: the “mursal” narrations of hasan if narrated from “siqah” narrators is “sihah”…”

Thus, it is proven that all the chains provided by you are Weak and some even fabricated.

And then you said that these chains strengthen each other. But I would say that these are not strong enough to support each other.

“NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT EACH OTHER”??? THIS IS BECAUSE IT GOES AGAINST YOUR MAZHAB…

Secondly, this athar goes against the Marfoo ahadeeth and the athaar of Sahabah which makes it more weak and unreliable.

Thus it does not become Hasan.

HMMM. BUT THIS ALSO GOES IN LINE WITH MARFOO NARRATIONS AND OTHER AATHAAR OF SAHABAH FAVOURING THIS OPINION!!! SO DEFINITELY IT MAKES IT HASAN… WALHUMDULILLAH

When Muhadditheen can reject the hadeeth of THIQAH narrator because it goes against the Awthaq or many thiqah narrators, by declaring it to be Shaadh; then the weak narration which also goes against the ahadeeth of Prophet and Sahabah, would be more deserve to be rejected. Thus it would not support itself.

MASHAALLAH… SO YOU HAVE BECOME A MUHADDITH FINALLY!!!

ANY HOW THE ISSUE OF SHAADH AND MUNKAR IS DIIFERENT BROTHER… THE WEAK NARRATION IS ALSO IN LINE WITH THE OTHER AHADEETH AND AATHAAR…

OFCOURSE SINCE YOU HAVE THE “INSTINCT” OF REJECTING ALL THAT IS AGAINST YOUR “WAY”, THIS IS EXPECTED OF YOU…

AND OFCOURSE THERE IS NO OPINION OF ALI AGAINST THIS BY ANY SANAD- SAHEEH OR DHA’EEF… SO THIS IS THE ONLY KNOWN OPINION… THEREFORE EVEN IF WEAK, THIS IS THE ONLY ONE …

The Author said:Eighth Evidence:

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

Reply:

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

His Refutation:

the ignorance of this fellow knows no limits. the opinion of huzayfah bn yaman radhiallahu anhu of not performing wudhu on touching the “zakr” is narrated from following chains:

1. abu bakrah from abu daud from ubaidullah bn iyad bn laqeet from his father from baraa bn qais…

2. abu bakrah from abu aamir from sufyan from iyad bn laqeet from baraa bn qais…3. abu bakrah from abu daud from abu shu’bah from mansoor from sudoosi…4. suleiman bn shuayb from khaseeb from humam from qatadah from makhariq from…5. muhammed bn khuzaimah from hajjaj from hammad from qatadah then as in 46. ibn abi shaibah from ibn fuzail from hussain from sa’ad bn ubaidah from abi abdurrehman…7. the opinion of huzaifah through hasan basri

so its not only muhammad bn hasan who has narrated it!!!

I say:Chains number 1, 2, & 3 contain the same Baraa bin Qais, who is Majhool ul-Haal.

I HAVE CLARIFIED THAT HE IS NOT MJHOOL UL HAAL… AND SO THESE THREE CHAINS ARE ALHUMDULILLAH SAHEEH…

Chains number 4 & 5 contain Qatadah who is Mudallis.

QATADAH’S TADLEES WILL DOWN THE STATUS OF THE HADEETH TO HASAN, BECAUSE THE ATHAR IS ALREADY PROVEN THROUGH SAHEEH NARRATIONS ABOVE 1, 2 AND 3… AND BY THE 6TH AUTHENTIC CHAIN AS ACCEPTED BELOW BY YOU…

Chain # 6 is authentic.

The athar of # 7 is already proven weak above.

However, this is a Ghareeb opinion and it is against the Marfoo Ahadeeth, and the Athaar of majority of Sahabah.

FOR EVERY ATHAR OF SAHABAH YOU ARE REJECTING SAYING THAT IT GOES AGAINST THE MARFOO NARRATIONS AND AGAINST THE OPINION OF SAHABAH!!! I PITY… REALLY PITY YOUR STATE… I CAN ONLY MAKE DU’AA FOR YOU AND THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE PATH YOU ARE TRAVERSING…

EVEN THE MARFOO NARRATIONS YOU ARE REJECTING BY THE SAME RULE AND BY SOME “TATBEEQ” WHICH MAKES YOU A CONFUSED LOT!!!

MOREOVER, YOUR AUTHOR HAD DECIEVED HERE… ISN’TD? HE NEVER MENTIONED THESE CHAINS AND JUST MENTIONED THE CHAIN OF IMAM MUHAMMAD…

The Author said:

Secondly: The narrator Al-Baraa bin Qays is also presnt in its chain. He is mentioned by Imam Abu Haatim in Kitaab al-Jarh wal Ta’deel (Pg 399 Vol 1) without any Jarh or Ta’deel. However, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned him in his Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (Vol 4 Pg 77). But Ibn Hibbaan is Mutasaahil. He is famous in declaring Majhool and Da’eef narrators to be Siqah. Therefore, when he is alone in the tawtheeq of a Majhool narrator then it is not accepted.

His refutation: first of all in all the narrations baraa bn qais is not present.

secondly, in his “tautheeq” ibn hibban is not alone. ibn hajar has clearly mentioned that he is “sudooq” from the third group. and so this author should fear allah and stop lying. he is abu kabshah baraa bn qays assukooni albasri alsudoosi. his teachers are:

sahl bn amr bn adi shu’bah bn amr abdullah bn qays abu musa alashari

his students:

khaleel bn murrah rabee’ah bn yazeed aasim bn suleiman

i don’t know why this author has labelled him as majhool!!!!!

I say:Astaghfirullah!!! If you can show me the word “Sudooq” from any book of Ibn Hajar regarding this narrator, I will give you a million dollar!!! Lol Don’t try to decieve people. This is an utter lie on Imaam Ibn Hajar.

YES. UNFORTUNATELY PERHAPS I HAD TWO PAGES OF TAQREEB OPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY ON MY WINDOW WHICH CAUSED THE CONFUSION. BUT UNFORTUNATELY AGAIN FOR YOU, THE BOOK MENTIONS IBN HAJAR’S SAYING AS “MAQBOOL” FROM THE SECOND GROUP…(TAQREEB PG. 1196)

SO EITHER WAY IBN HIBBAN IS NOT ALONE IN HIS TAUTHEEQ…!!! KEEP LOLLING BABY…

INSTEAD OF CORRECTING YOUR MISTAKE AND TAKING BACK YOUR STATEMENT THAT IBN HIBBAN IS ALONE IN THE TAUSEEQ, YOU ARE FUMING AT MY MISTAKE SWALLOWING YOUR OWN “JIHALAH”.

The Author said:

Ninth Evidence:

Umayr bin Sa’d Nakha’ee said: I was present in a Majlis (Company) where Ammar bin Yaasir was also present, so the touching of private part was mentioned to him, He said: “It is only a part of your body. However, your palm also has other places apart from it.” [Muwatta Imaam Muhammad: Pg 55]

Reply:

Firstly: Certainly this athar is Saheeh with its chain. Even though the author of Muwatta Muhammad, Muhammad bin Hassan is Majrooh. But in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (Vol 1 Pg 164), Muhammad bin Fudayl and Imam Wakee’ are his Siqah Mutaabi’. But this narration is not Hujjah, because the Sahaabah have differed upon this issue. And the Masaail in which Sahaabah differ , then the sayings of Sahaabah are not Hujjah.

His Refutation: this is not at all a reason. this is a very serious issue with which this author must make taubah. if sahabah’s sayings are not hujjah in issues in which they have differed, then who else will be hujjah???!!! as allama lucknawi has mentioned that …”since there is difference in the dalaail, we look into the sahabah’s saying, but there too we find difference.” but this does not mean that their sayings are not hujjah. i don’t know why this author keeps repeating this point. maybe he has some grudge against the sahabah???!!!

I say:Yes, we do follow Sahabah in matters of dispute, but in the issues where they are supported by the sayings of Prophet. For example, some Sahabah believed that Mut’ah marriage is allowed, but we have the hadeeth of the Prophet where he forbade and abrogated the permissibility of Mut’ah, but this news did not reach some sahabah and they continued practicing it even after the death of the Prophet. So we do not follow the opinions of those sahabahs in this issue, because the saying of the prophet is against it. We follow the view of those sahabah who prohibited it, because they knew the command of prophet.

Similarly, it is possible that in this issue as well, some Sahabah did not get the news of the abrogation of this hadeeth, and that’s why they continued following the older view. So we should not follow that view and we should rather follow the hadeeth of the prophet and sahabah who knew that touching the penis breaks wudoo, since they preserved it.

SO NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ABROGATION… YOU ARE SURE THAT THE HADEETH OF TALQ IS ABROGATED? WHERE ARE ITS EVIDENCES? SO YOU KEEP SHIFTING YOUR STANCE. AT TIMES ONE TATBEEQ. AT ANOTHER ANOTHER TATBEEQ. AND HERE SINCE NO TATBEEQ WORKS, YOU GO ON TO TAKE SUPPORT OF ABROGATIONS. HIEGHTS. IF YOU COULD CONTINUE WITH YOUR OPINION WITHOUT GOING TO SUCH EXTREMES, IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR YOU. AND THE SAME RULE CAN BE REVERSED!!!

THOSE SAHABAH WHO NARRATED DOING WUDHU MIGHT NOT HAVE HEARD OF THE HADEETH NOT MENTIONING WUDHU ON TOUCHING!!!

That’s why we say that the individual opinion of a Sahaabi is not hujjah especially if it is against the saying of the prophet.

YES BUT WHEN THE SAYING OF THE PROPHET SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM IS PRESENT THEN DEFINITELY THE OPINIONS OF SAHABAH WILL ALSO BE PRESENTED AS HUJJAH. IN THIS ISSUE, JUST AS THERE ARE OPINIONS OF SAHABAH SUPPORTING THE AHADEETH FOR PERFORMING WUDHU ON TOUCHING, SIMILARLY THEIR ARE OPINIONS OF SAHABAH SUPPORTING THE AHADEETH NOT MENTIONING WUDHU… WHAT IS THE PROBLEM IN ACCEPTING SUCH A SIMPLE FACT? WHY SHOULD WE GO TO SUCH EXTREMES TO DENY SUCH CLEAR FACTS??

Note: Why don’t you then follow the sayings of the Sahabah who said that touching the penis invalidates the wudoo??!! You can either follow this group of Sahabah or that group of Sahabah, you cannot follow both. So like this, whichever group you follow, you too, will be rejecting the opinions of other Sahabah! Is this not a contradiction in your own saying?? Lol

YOU SEE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING I HAVE STATED THAT IN THIS ISSUE THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING AND BOTH THE SIDES THERE ARE AHADEETH OF P[ROPHET SALLALLAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM AND SAYINGS OF SAHABAH AND TAB’EEN. WHEN PRESENTING THE ISSUE A SINCERE STUDENT OF HADEETH SHOULD PRESENT BOTH THE SIDES WQITH DUE RESPECT AND WITHOUT GIVING A DECIEVING OPINION. WITHOUT FORCING ONE UPON THE OTHER. THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY.

The Author said:Secondly: There is no evidence for Hanafiya in this hadeeth because the words “However, your palm also has other places apart from it” points towards the Karahat (dislikness).

His Refutation: karahat of what? of touching the private parts? then ofcourse there is no problem!! how does that effect the issue of wudhu????!!! does the author mean that doing something “makruh” (disliked) breaks wudhu???

I say:What the author is trying to say is that the athar of Ammaar bin Yaasir indicates that touching the penis without neccessity is Makrooh, while the Madhab of Ahnaaf say that it is permissible Mutlaqan to touch

the penis with or without neccesity! That’s why he is saying this athar is even against the madhab of Ahnaaf!

THE ISSUE UNDER DISCUSSION IS THE BREAKING OF WUDHU. ITS BEING KARAHAT OR NOT IS NOT BEING DISCUSSED HERE. SO TO MENTION THIS REFUTATION HERE WAS UNNESECCARY.

The Author said:Maulaana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Al-Hanafi, in his Haashiah of Muwatta, has explained the meaning of this hadeeth as: “It should not be touched without necessity” [At-Ta’leeq al-Mumajjad: Pg 55]

His Refutation: ofcourse!!! and this no sane human being will deny!!! why should one touch his penis without necessity unless he is out of his senses? again i ask what has this to do with the question of breaking wudhu?

I say:So what the Muqallid is trying to say that only an insane person would touch his penis without neccessity! Well, I would say then there are many insane people in this earth! And according to Hanafi Madhab it is Mutlaqan permissible to touch the penis with or without neccessity!

I SUPPOSE YOUR AQL IS IN YOUR SKULL (MINE IS IN MY KNEES!!!). WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH BREAKING OF WUDHU? AGAIN THE POINT MENTIONED HERE IS THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE TOUCHED WITHOUT NESECCITY… THAT’S ALL. BUT HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE ISSUE OF BREAKING WUDHU?

TOUCHING THE PENIS WITH OR WITHOUT NECESSITY IS DIFFERENT AND BREAKING OF WUDHU BY IT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE…

The Author said:Now the meaning of necessity is only that the condition of a human is impulsive. And touching with a necessity is not the view of Hanafiyah.

His Refutation: i wish to know the source of the hanafi opinion where it is mentioned “that the penis should not be touched even with necessity”. this is a challenge for the author.

even ahnaf books like tahawi’s “amaniyul ahbar” and “ilaa ussunan” mention this.

then how can this author make such claims?

and if it is said that what this means is that if touched with necessity then wudhu becomes wajib, then i say this is a far fetched and stretched explanation. and this is too much of qiyas!!!

I say:I think the Muqallid phrased his sentence incorrectly. It should rather be “Where it is mentioned that the penis can be touched even without neccessity”, because this is what the Author has tried to prove above that According to Ahnaaf it is permissible to touch the penis in all conditions with and without neccessity, while the athar of Ammaar indicates that it is makrooh to touch it without neccessity! So this Athar goes against their Madhab also! That is all what the author is trying to say!

Note: By the way, Tahawi did not write any book named “amaniyul ahbar”. Where did you read this book from?? Lol As far as I know you are trying to say “Ma’ani ul-Athaar” lol!!

YES. YOU ARE RIGHT. THAT WAS A TYPING ERROR. AMANIYUL AHBAR IS ITS SHARH. NUKHABUL AFKAR IS ALSO ITS SHARH..

As for the evidence that Ahnaaf permit touching the penis in all conditions (with and without neccessity), then it is as follows:

Ibn Nujaym al-Hanafi said: “Touching the penis, and similarly the buttock, and Al-Farj does not invalidate wudoo mutlaqan (in absolute sense – with or without necessity)” [Al-Baher al-Raqaiq: 1/45]

Similarly, Muhammad bin Hassan ash-Shaybaani said: “Abu Haneefah said, the one who touches his penis and he is in wudoo, that does not invalidate his wudoo” [Al-Hujjah ala Ahl ul-Madeenah: 1/59]

Abu Haneefah did not put any condition to touching the penis which means it is permissible according to him to touch the penis in absolute sense without any karahat!

So as you can see that according to Hanafi Madhab it is permissible to touch the penis in absolute sense with or without necessity, which means that they do not also follow the Athar of Ammaar which indicates that touching the penis without necessity is makrooh!

Moreover, if you pay attention to this Athar, it is not at all talking about wudoo!! The word wudoo is not even mentioned in it. Ammaar (radiallah anhu) is just talking about touching the penis in general with or without wudoo! He is saying that it is permissible to touch the penis in necessity but makrooh without necessity, and this ruling is not specifically for wudoo’. How can this be a proof for wudoo not breaking by touching the penis, while this athar does not even talk about wudoo’. Lol!

It’s like asking a person “What’s your name?” and he replies “The sky is blue” lol

This athar has nothing to do with Ahnaaf!

THIS SHOWS HOW FAR YOU CAN GO TO PROCLAIM YOUR CLAIMS… AFTER ALL THE DETAILED ARGUMENTS, THIS IS THE END… IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AHNAF… THEN WHY DID YOU GO INTO THE DETAILED REFUTATION??? WAS ALL THIS A WASTE OF TIME???

AS FOR THE ATHAR OF AMMAR, THEN DEFINITELY IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH WUDHU…

BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS MAKROOH TO TOUCH IT WITHOUT NECESSITY, BUT AS PER THE NARRATION IT IS NOT, BECAUSE IT IS LIKE NOSE AND EAR… OFCOURSE IT IS NOT MAKROOH TO TOUCH THE NOSE AND EAR WITHOUT NECESSITY!!!

AND IF WE ACCEPT THAT THERE IS INDICATION OF ITS KARAHAT AS YOU HAVE PUT IT, THEN THE ONLY MEANING OF IT BEING LIKE THE EAR AND THE NOSE IS WITH REGARDS TO BREAKING OF WUDHU… IF THERE IS ANY OTHER EXPLANATION YOU CAN GIVE, THEN PLEASE DO SO…

MOREOVER THE MUHADDITHEEN HAVE INCLUDED THIS ATHAR UNDER THE DISCUSSION OF BREAKING OF WUDHU WHICH IS ANOTHER EVIDENCE OF ITS BEING RELATED TO WUDHU…

The Author said:This evidence is as if someone declares the meet of Pig to be permissible, and when he is asked for evidence so he recites the verse which is for a person who is forced. No wise person would denote it with evidence.

His Refutation:i say no sane person will accept the example quoted above for the issue of wudhu on touching the private part…

the daleel is clearly against the author, but he has tried too much to twist it towards his own “mazhab”. this is what we term “ta’ssub”. when there is no other way to find fault with the athar, they find some odd explanation which only confuses the unwary innocent reader.

may allah save all of us from such fitnahs.

I say:Well, the daleel is not against the author, it is against you! This athar has nothing to do with wudoo at all!! So this cannot be accepted as a proof from you!! Moreover, even if this is about wudoo (which is not) then it still says that it is makrooh to touch the penis without necessity, while ahnaaf do not put any such condition; they say that it is permissible in all conditions to touch it! So it is very clear who is twisting it towards his Madhab!!

AGAIN THE ISSUE IS BREAKING OF WUDHU AND NOT ITS PERMISSIBILITY… YOU ARE MIXING THE TWO AND TRYING TO CONFUSE YOURSELF AND THE OTHERS… GOOD TWISTING WORK…

And that is what is taught in Hanafi Madrassahs that if you find a daleel against your madhab then twist it to make it according to your madhab!! This is what we deem Ta’assub!! The other name of taqleed is Ta’assub!!

ALHUMDULILLAH, WE HAVEN’T LEARNED THIS FROM OUR HANAFI ULEMAAS… THEY HAVE TOLD US TO RESPECT ALL THE OPINIONS… THEY HAVE THAUGHT US TO HOLD DUE RESPECT TO THE AHADEETH AND AATHAAR AGINST THE AATHAAR SUPPORTING THE MAZHAB, INSTEAD OF REFUTING THEM UNNECESSARILY…

May Allaah save us from the sharr of devil taqleed and the Muqallideen!!

YOU BEING A “MUHAQQIQ” HAVE BEHAVED WORST THEN A MUQALLID… OR YOU ARE ALSO A MUQALLID???

The Author said:Ninth Evidence:

Abu Darda (radiallah anhu) was once asked about touching the private part. So he replied: “It is only a part of your body.” [Muwatta Imaam Muhammad: Pg 58]

Reply:

Firstly: This naration is Mursal. Because the narrator narrating from Abu Darda is Habeeb bin Ubayd. And Imam Abu Haatim has affirmed that the narrations of Habeeb from Abu Darda are Mursal. [Kitaab al-Maraseel: Pg 29]

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

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

His Refutation: regarding the narration of ismaeel bn ayyash (one of the narrators in the chain), then his narrations from “shamie” narrators is “siqah”. and in this narration, he is narrating from hareez bn uthman , a shami narrator…. but any way since the issue is clear above and since the author has proclaimed above that the sayings of sahabah are not hujjah in this issue, we leave the issue for the sincere people to decide. as i think the issue is clear by the above narrations. walhumdulillah.

I say:

Wow! Amazing! Mind Blowing! What else can we call it if it is not deception!? lol

The author is criticizng the narration because of Irsaal and this Muqallid is answering something else! Lol

Since he could not find any answer so he had to write something to decieve people, that’s why he wrote anything that came in his mind, lol

I THOUGHT YOU WERE SOMEONE HAVING “ILM”… BUT THIS RESPONSE PROVES YOUR ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOUR AND YOUR SINCIERETY AS A STUDENT OF HADEETH… AND PERHAPS THE AUTHOR FORGOT TO MENTION THIS CRITICISM, SO I WISHED TO CLARIFY IT…

YOU SEE I CANNOT FORCE YOU TO ACCEPT MY OPINION OF MURSAL MAUQOOF BEING ACCEPTABLE, AS WELL AS REGARDING IMAM MUHAMMAD… SINCE YOU DON’T ACCEPT HIM AS SIQAH, DESPITE THE CLARIFICATION… AND SO I THOUGHT OF SHARING SOME MORE POINTS ABOUT THE HADEETH… THERE WASN’T ANY DECEPTION IN IT… THIS IS ALHUMDULILLAH OUR WAY… THIS WAS NOT CHANGING THE TOPIC, IT WAS CLARIFYING SOMETHING YOU DIDN’T MENTION, BUT PERHAPS IT COULD BE IN YOUR MIND (THIS OBJECTION IS MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS REFUTING THIS HADEETH). INSTEAD OF APPRECIATING AN ILMI DISCUSSION YOU ARE FUMING…

That is another lesson taught in the Taqleedi Madrassahs that if you do not know the answer to something then try to change the topic to something else. And Ahnaaf are expert in this trick, lol

THE WHOLE WORLD KNOWS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN DECEPTION… THE AUTHOR DECIEVED YOU… YOU TRANSLATED AND SHARED AND DECIEVED OTHERS… AND NOW YOU HAVE COME DOWN TO DEFEND THE SAME AUTHOR AND COVER YOUR DECEPTION… WE DON’T COVER UP… WE ARE AS OPEN AS THE BLUE SKY… WALHUMDULILLAH..

The Author said:The Inconsitency of Hanafiyah:

According to the Hanafiyah “Mubaasharatul Faahishah” (Laying down with each other completely naked) invalidates the wudu. Whereas according to their Fiqh and Usool, this should not be invalidated.

His Refutation:since this author has not mentioned the details i don’t wish to dwell into the issue. but every one understands the difference between touching the penis and coming together of private parts (or two people lying together)!!!! i don’t need to explain further the difference between the two, but i wish the author can stop forcing rules on us. we are not blind followers of any opinion. and i can discuss with the author this topic in detail with evidences inshaallah, if he wishes to do so. but again i say he has no right to frame “usool” for the ahnaf.

I say:Lol, what else detail do you need when it is made very clear, even a child can understand this!! Lol

He said: “Everyone understands the difference between touching the penis and coming together of private parts”

Well, There is no difference in Hanafi Madhab! Since according to you, a penis is just a part of your body like nose and head etc, then what is the difference if a person touches his hand with the hand of another person; and a person touches his penis with his wife’s private part??!! There is not difference at all in Hanafi Madhab!!!

So where is the difference? Either prove the difference or accept that your Madhab contradicts itself!!

YOU NEED SOME BASIC TEACHING… WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS THERE IS DIFFERENCE… A HELL OF DIFFERENCE… WE DON’T GIVE THE OPINION OF WUDHU BREAKING UPON THE TOUCHING OF TWO PRIVATE PARTS BASED ON QIYAS, BUT BASED ON HADEETH… AS PER QIYAS, THEN YES, WE WOULD HAVE DONE THE QIYAS BASED ON THESE AHADEETH ABOVE AND RULED THAT WUDHU WILL NOT BREAK… BUT WHEN THERE ARE SPECIFIC CLEAR AHADEETH ABOUT ITS BREAKING AND NO OTHER AHADEETH AGAINST IT , THEN THERE IS NO WAY BUT THE HADEETH… THIS WAS SOMETHING TO BE APPRECIATED, BUT SINCE THE MIND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED IN SUCH A WAY THAT YOU HAVE TO REJECT ANYTHING THAT IS HANAFI… EVEN IF ACCORDING TO QUR’AN AND HADEETH, YOU HAVE TO REJECT IT… THIS IS “TA’SSUB”… THIS IS BLIND FOLLOWING…

The Author said:Because in this, the most that can be said is that it causes their private parts to be touched with each other. And when the wudoo’ does not invalidate by touching it with hands then how does it break if it is touched with other parts of the body. Just as the wudoo’ does not break by touching head, nose, etc, and there are athaar narrated by Ahnaaf which say that the penis of a man and nose, knees etc are the same in ruling. So if their ruling is the same, then explain the reason for difference that if the wudoo does not break if a person touches his head with another person, then how does it break if a person touches his private part wih another person’s private part????

His Refutation: YES. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUE IF WE HAD FOLLOWED PURELY QIYAS. BUT FOLLOWING THE DALEEL IS PREFERRED IN OUR FIQH AND SO WE WISH TO LEAVE THIS QIYAS.! AND SO PLEASE DON’T BLAME US FOR THIS.

I say:

Yes, you have followed nothing but qiyaas. You have no daleel for this contradiction! If you accept that penis is just like any other part, and touching your own or anyone else’s private part, does not break wudoo. Then how does it break if you touch a private part with another private part!!?? This is total contradiction!!!

IT BREAKS BECAUSE OF HADEETH… AND TOUCHING WITH HAND DOES NOT BREAK IT BECAUSE OF HADEETH… IF THIS SIMPLE THING YOU ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND THEN WEEP AT YOUR WRETCHEDNESS AND YOUR HARDNESS OF HEART AND BLINDNESS OF SIGHT… SORRY, BUT SUCH A SIMPLE THING IS SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND??? YES, IF IT WAS PURELY QIYAS THE SITUATION WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT…

YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY HERE “DON’T FOLLOW THE HADEETH TALKING ABOUT BREAKING ON COMING TOGETHER OF PRIVATE PARTS”… YOUR ENEMITY WITH HADEETH IS WELL EVIDENT HERE… HIDDEN BUT EVIDENT…

His Conclusion:i repeat again, the intention is not to refute the dalaail of those who say wudhu is necessary, but it is to prove that the author needs to do some study in hadeeth and needs to be careful before dealing with issues. and must learn some basics of discussion in fiqh issues.

I say:This is very funny. What else is your intention!?? Lol

NOT AS YOUR INTENTION!!!

MOREOVER YOU HAVE CUT MY CONCLUSION AGAIN!!! I SAID BEFORE TALKING ABOUT MY INTENTION THAT YOU HAVE PASTED:

“THE ABOVE ARTICLE HAS BEEN PREPARED TO SHOW THE AUTHOR THAT HE NEEDS TO CORRECT HIS VIEWS IN ISSUES OF FIQH. MOREOVER, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPREADING THIS NEED TO BE CAREFUL IN SPREADING THE MATTER WITHOUT “TEHQEEQ”. AND MAY ALLAH GIVE ALL OF US PROPER UNDERSTANDING AND SAVE US FROM “GHULU” AND “TA’SSUB”. AMEEN.”

BUT YOU HAVE SWALLOWED THIS… TO PRESENT THE READERS THAT WE ARE MUTA’SSIB, GHALI AND NOT FOLLOWING THE HADEETH…

After refuting all their dalaail, you are now saying that I do not intend to refute their dalaail!! Lol

“Noso chuhey kha ker billi hajj ko chali” lol

YES… I DON’T INTEND TO REFUTE THE WAY YOU HAVE DONE… I WISHED TO EXPOSE THE UNJUST “TEHQEEQ” THAT WAS PRESENT… I NEVER “REFUTED” AS YOU HAVE DONE IN THIS ARTICLE AND YOUR AUTHOR HAD DONE IN THE ORIGINAL ONE!!!

From the answers given above, what is proven is that it is you who needs to pay attention to the study of hadeeth! Lol

DEFINITELY I SHOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO STUDYING HADEETH… BUT I THINK WITH THE WAY YOU HAVE RESPONDED, YOU MUST FIRST LEARN HOW TO STUDY HADEETH AND PRESENT IT…PLEASE BE MORE SINCERE… AND SEE THE DIFFERENCE WITHIN YOU…

I hope you will do so in the future, lol

{{ dr. nu’man salafi }}

Your name does not suit your personality. Your name itself is decieving! Lol

ALHUMDULILLAH IT IS NOT DECIEVING… I AM A SALAFI AND NOT A “PSEUDO SALAFI”… SO THERE IS NO DECEPTION… YES IF I HAD LABELLED MYSELF SALAFI BUT BEHAVED LIKE YOU – A “PSEUDO SALAFI”- THEN DEFINITELY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DECEPTION… BUT ALHUMDULILLAH… I THANK ALLAH FOR HAVING CORRECTED ME FOR I WAS LIKE YOU BEFORE… OR MORE STRONGER THAN YOU IN SPREADING THIS DECEPTION… UNTILL I PAID SOME LITTLE ATTENTION TO STUDYING A I REALISED THE DECEPTION I WAS FOLLOWING THINKING IT WAS RIGHT…

You claim to be a Salafi but reject all the Salaf us-Saaliheen, and follow only Abu Haneefah as if he is your prophet! (Na’uzubillah)!

THIS IS AN ALLEGATION FOR WHICH YOU WILL HAVE TO ANSWER ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT… INSHAALLAH…

A Salafi cannot be a Muqallid! Salafi is the one who follows the righteous Salaf but you only follow your desires!!

ANOTHER ALLEGATION FOR WHICH YOU WILL ANSWER ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT…

{{makkah al mukarramah}}

You live in the city of Ghair Muqallideen and here you are refuting those Ghair Muqallideen, lol

THIS IS THE CITY OF HANBALIS AND NOT GHAIR MUQALLIDEEN… PLEASE COME TO MAKKAH AND I WILL PROVE IT TO YOU!!!

IN BOTH THE INSTITUTIONS “DARUL HADEETH” AND “MA’HAD AL HARAM”, IT IS THE HANBALI BOOKS WHICH ARE THAUGHT… MEET THE QAZI AND HE WILL BE GIVING DECISIONS BASED ON HANBALI BOOKS… COME TO THE CITY OF HANBALIS…

{{0530814518}}

What would I do with your number? Lol

THE NUMBER WAS MEANT FOR SOMEONE WHO WOULD WISH TO CONTACT AND CLARIFY OR MEET… IT WAS NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO KNOW ONLY HOW TO LOL… SO PLEASE DON’T MIND THE NUMBER!!!

NOT TO FORGET THAT THESE REMARKS ARE ALL “PERSONAL ATTACKS”….

Conclusion:At the end I would say that the opinion of invalidation of wudoo after touching the penis is stronger and the ahadeeth proving it are more in number.

THE CONCLUSION- I LEAVE IT OPEN FOR THE READERS TO DECIDE… IS THE OPINION OF WUDHU NOT BREAKING UPON TOUCHING THE PENIS, WRONG AND BASED ON HAWA AND NAFS AND THE SAYING OF IMAM??? OR IS IT BASED ON HADEETH???

The Authentic marfoo’ ahadeeth in this issue are as follows:

The Hadeeth of Busrah bint Safwan (radiallah anha) The hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu) The hadeeth of Zayd bin Khaalid al-Juhni (radiallah anhu) The hadeeth of Abdullah bin Umar (radiallah anhu) The hadeeth of Sayyidah Umm Habeebah is weak but it is authentic according the Hanafi Usool.

The sayings of Sahabah in accordance to this issue are as follows:

The Athar of Umm ul-Mu’mineen Aisha Siddiqah (radiallah anha) The Athar of Abdullah bin Umar (radiallah anhu) The Athar of Sa’d bin Abi Waqqaas (radiallah anhu) And many others

The Aimmah in favor of this issue are as follows:

Imaam Awzaa’ee Imaam Shaafi’ee Imaam Ahmed Imaam Ishaaq And Many others [Jaami Tirmidhi: 1/85]

As for the proofs of those who say that touching the private part does not break wudoo are as follows

Among the authentic Marfoo’ ahadeeth they have only one hadeeth, which is:

The hadeeth of Talq bin Ali (radiallah anhu)

This is the only authentic marfoo’ hadeeth they have in favor of their view. But this hadeeth is abrogated according to most of the Muhadditheen and the evidences. Even if it is not abrogated still, the wording of this hadeeth indicates that the questioner asked about his condition in prayer. And we all know that prayer is prayed in clothes (not naked) and prophet answered accordingly. This hadeeth does not talk about touching the penis without barrier. And the marfoo’ hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah is an excellent support for this tatbeeq. The hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah clearly proves that it is waajib to repeat wudoo after touching the penis if there is no barrier in between.

The other marfoo’ hadeeth they provide is severely weak, which is:

The hadeeth of Hakeem bin Salamah

This hadeeth is severely weak and contains matrook and munkar narrator.

Among the sayings of Sahabah, they have the following athaar:

The Athar of Abdullah bin Mas’ood (radiallah anhu)

This athar is weak as proven above.

The Athar of Hasan al-Basari from five Sahabah

This athar is weak as proven above.

The Athar of Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (radiallah anhu)

This athar is weak as proven above.

The Athar of Ibn Abbaas (radiallah anhu)

This is weak as proven above.

The Athar of Ali bin Abi Taalib (radiallah anhu)

This athar is weak as proven above.

The Athar of Khuzayfah bin al-Yamaan (radiallah anhu)

This is the only athar which is proven to be authentic, however, it goes against the marfoo ahadeeth and the sayings of the majority of the Sahabah, and it is proven above that the individual sayings of Sahabah are not hujjah, when they are opposed by marfoo ahadeeth and sayings of other sahabah.

The athar of Ammaar bin Yaasir (radiallah anhu)

This athar is also authentic, but as is proven above, it has nothing to do with this issue. This athar is general while the claim of ahnaaf is specific! There is no mention of wudoo in this athar!

The athar of Abu Darda (radiallah anhu)

This athar is weak as proven above.

May Allaah give us the tawfeeq to accept and follow the truth, Ameen

ALHUMDULILLAH THAT THE “WEAKNESS”… THE “MAJHOOL” NARRATORS… THE “WEAKNESS NOT STRENGHTHENING EACH OTHER”… HAVE BEEN PROVEN BOGUS… AND ANOTHER DECEPTION EXPOSED!!!

Raza Hassan

wassalam