Post by DarulTahqiq on Feb 15, 2016 17:12:24 GMT
Ibn Abi Raza (Raza Hassan) relied on a convicted fraudster (Abu Hibban Kamran Malik) and his associate (Abu Khuzaymah Imran Masoom) in the preface to his 'al-Qawl al-Mubin" where the latter two said (on p. 7):
“Abū Hanīfa said that if one were to worship the shoe in order to get closer to Allāh then I see no issue with this.” [Tārikh Baghdad [13/374], Kitāb al-Marifah Wat Tārīkh [2/784], Kitāb al-Majrūhīn [3/73].
They then bragged and demanded by saying:
"So where is the Deobandi Jahmi Yasir’s critique of this belief regardless of whether it is ascribed correctly to the Imām or not so? InshaAllah we give husn al-dhan to Imām Abu Hanīfah over such statements and hold him in high esteem but sufficient it is to say that the likes of Yasir Deobandi Murji have never refuted or explained such statements but yet lie on other scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah."
Reply:
Any unbiased reader can notice that the convicted one and his friend both failed to deal with the authenticity of the demeaning narration attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa (ra), and it had nothing to do with the actual issue of al-Maqam al-Mahmud. They brought this narration forth merely as an indirect way to disrespect and demean the great Imam Abu Hanifa and his Madhhab, as is evident from their very next words (on p. 8) when they said with their slanderous lies:
"We say, the books of the Hanafis are no better and have put the Ummah to trial and tribulation. You will see that the Hanafīs are only interested in preserving their madhab even if this means twisting meanings of the book and Sunnah as well as defaming the scholars."
This narration also had nothing to do with those they tried to refute, and their language, plus rudeness is a testimony of their ill intent and unscholarliness. Nevertheless, this issue has been laid to rest way back in the 7th Islamic century by Imam ibn al-Najjar. This was demonstrated by Br. Waqar Akbar Cheema as quoted - HERE
Full quote from the last link:
Here is the response of Al-Imam al-Hafiz Muhibuddin Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Mahmud ibn al-Hasan bin Hibat Allah bin Mahaasin a.k.a. Ibn al-Najjar al-Baghdadi (d. 643 AH) to the Khatib al-Baghdadi’s narration about Abu Hanifa tolerating worship of a shoe.
He writes:
وأما ما نقله عن محمد بن الحسين بن الفضل القطان إلى يحيى بن حمزة أَنَّ أَبَا حنيفة قَالَ: لو أَنَّ رجلا عبده هذه النعل يتقرب بها إلى الله لم أر بذلك بأسا. فَقَالَ سَعِيد: هَذَا الكفر صراحا
فهذا لم ينقله أحد من أصحاب أبى حنيفة واعلم أن أصحاب الإنسان أعرف به من الأجنبى، ثم اعلم أن مذهب أبى حنيفة له أصول وقواعد وشروط لا يخرج عنها، فأما أصول مذهبه رضى الله عنه فإنه يرى الأخذ بالقرآن والآثار ما وجد وقواعده أن لا يفرق بين الخبرين أو الآي والخبر مهما أمكن الجمع بينهما إلا إن ثبت ناسخا أو منسوخا وشروطه أن لا يعدل عنهما إلا أن لا يجد فيهما شيئا فيعدل إلى أقوال الصحابة الملائمة للقرآن والسنة وإن اختلفوا تخير ما كان أقرب إلى الكتاب والسنة. فهذا عليه إجماع أصحاب أبى حنيفة وهو إذا عددت المدرسين منهم في عصر واحد وجدتهم أكثر من إسناد الخطيب منه إلى أبى حنيفة رحمه الله.
واعلم أن أخبار الآحاد المروية عن النبي صلّى الله عليه وسلّم توجب العمل لأجل الاحتياط في الدين ولا توجب العلم. وأخبار التواتر توجب العلم والعمل معا فكيف بك عن أخبار الخطيب هذه التي لا تكاد تنفك عن قائل يقول فيها، فإذا نازلنا الأمر وساوينا قلنا أخباره أخبار آحاد وأخبار أصحاب أبى حنيفة متواترة والعمل بالمتواترة أولى؛ وقد ثبت مذهب أبى حنيفة وأصوله وقواعده فإذا ثبت أن هذه أصول أبى حنيفة فكيف يسوغ له أن يقول هذا مع علمه بقوله تعالى: ما نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفى
فهذا لا يصح عن أبى حنيفة
“As to what is narrated from Muhammad bin al-Hussain bin al-Fadl al-Qatttan through Yahya bin Hamza that Abu Hanifa said: ‘If a man were to worship this shoe to get closer to Allah I do not find anything objectionable with this.’ Sa’id said: This is clear disbelief.
This is not narrated by any of the companions of Abu Hanifa and know that a person’s companions know him better than the strangers. Further, remember that the madhhab of Abu Hanifa has its rules and principles that it does not divorce with. And the principles of his madhhab is to first seek evidence with whatever one finds in Qur’an and Sunnah. And [his] madhhab‘s principle is not to see variance between two reports or an ayah or a report when reconciliation between the two is possible except when proof of one being abrogated and other the abrogator is established . Their principle in (science of seeking evidence) is not to turn away from Qur’an and Sunnah except when nothing is found in these two sources in which case the sayings of the Companions that are closest to Qur’an and Sunnah are to be referred to and if they differ then the one closest to Qur’an and Sunnah is to be adopted. This is something on which the companions of Abu Hanifa have agreed and when I counted the teachers among them at a given time I found them to be more than the links of al-Khatib back to Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him.And know that the isolated reports (akhbar al-ahaad) narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, necessitate practice by the way of cautiousness in religion but they do not give certain knowledge whereas continuously reported narrations (akhbaar al-tawatur) lead to certain knowledge and mandate practice as well. Then how can you refer to the narrations of al-Khatib (al-Baghdadi) that you will hardly ever find someone saying. Therefore, when it comes to it we say his narrations are isolated and the reports of the companions of Abu Hanifa are continuously reported (mutawatir) and going by what is continuous is the best, and the principles, rules and essentials of the madhhab of Abu Hanifa are established and when these principles of Abu Hanifa are proven how is it possible for him to say so with his knowledge of the word of Allah, “(the mushrikin say) We worship them for no other reason but because they would bring us near to Allah closely”?
The report, therefore [we say], is not proven from Abu Hanifa.”
In other words the report is one of isolated reports (akhbaar al-ahaad) and simply contradicts what is known through continuous reports (mutawatir) about the creed (aqeedah) of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah’s mercy be upon him. Such “munkar” and “shaadh” reports are no evidence for any purpose whatsoever.
See,
Ibn an-Najjar al-Baghdadi, Kitab ar-Radd ‘alaa Khatib al-Baghdadi, (included in) Tarikh al-Baghdad wa Zuyulihi, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, 1417 AH), vol.22 pp.46-47. Translated by Waqar Akbar Cheema
-------------------------
How ibn Abi Raza allowed himself to spread such anti-Hanafi lies is an evidence to show the level of his own intent and sincerity. If he is not going to accept the above reply from ibn al-Najjar, then the following is a reply on this same narration from a "Salafi" site. Quote:
Response:
Criticism on chain of narrators:
a) One of the narrator Abdullah bin Jafar is disputed over he is trustworthy according to Ibn Mandah and Khateeb on the other hand he is weak according to Imam Lalkaai and Burqani
b) Shaykh Muhammad Harathi said Yahya bin Hamza was a famous qadhi and he is Damishqi, He did not met Abu Hanifa because he never came to Koofa and neither Abu Hanifa went to ash-Shaam.
c) Shaykh Muhammad Harathi mentioned another narration of this type and said:
وهاتان الروايتان المضطربتان تنطقان بالكذب الواضح والافتراء من الذي لا يخشى الله
These two narrations are Mudhtarib and clear lies and slanders by whom who does not fear Allah." Makanatul Imam Abi Hanifa Bayn al Muhadditheen" [see also Islamweb Arabic Fatwa no. 214978]
islamweb.net/ramadan/index.php?page=ShowFatwa&lang=A&Id=214978&Option=FatwaId
(After quoting Ibn al-Najjar as above):
In fact Dr Bashar Awad said the chain is authentic But this saying cannot be issued from Abu Hanifa and Yaqub b. Sufyan al-Fasawi, because it is contrary to the principles of Abu Hanifa and its branches [Tareekh Madeenatul Islam vol 15 page 509]
Note that when the chain is authentic that does not mean hadith or saying is also authentic as I have mentioned in many of the articles. Secondly according to Shaykh Muhammad Harathi even chain is weak.
Imam Abu Hanifa was against asking help from dead, how can he say things like worshiping the shoe?
-----------------------------------
“Abū Hanīfa said that if one were to worship the shoe in order to get closer to Allāh then I see no issue with this.” [Tārikh Baghdad [13/374], Kitāb al-Marifah Wat Tārīkh [2/784], Kitāb al-Majrūhīn [3/73].
They then bragged and demanded by saying:
"So where is the Deobandi Jahmi Yasir’s critique of this belief regardless of whether it is ascribed correctly to the Imām or not so? InshaAllah we give husn al-dhan to Imām Abu Hanīfah over such statements and hold him in high esteem but sufficient it is to say that the likes of Yasir Deobandi Murji have never refuted or explained such statements but yet lie on other scholars of Ahl us-Sunnah."
Reply:
Any unbiased reader can notice that the convicted one and his friend both failed to deal with the authenticity of the demeaning narration attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa (ra), and it had nothing to do with the actual issue of al-Maqam al-Mahmud. They brought this narration forth merely as an indirect way to disrespect and demean the great Imam Abu Hanifa and his Madhhab, as is evident from their very next words (on p. 8) when they said with their slanderous lies:
"We say, the books of the Hanafis are no better and have put the Ummah to trial and tribulation. You will see that the Hanafīs are only interested in preserving their madhab even if this means twisting meanings of the book and Sunnah as well as defaming the scholars."
This narration also had nothing to do with those they tried to refute, and their language, plus rudeness is a testimony of their ill intent and unscholarliness. Nevertheless, this issue has been laid to rest way back in the 7th Islamic century by Imam ibn al-Najjar. This was demonstrated by Br. Waqar Akbar Cheema as quoted - HERE
Full quote from the last link:
Ibn Najjar’s Response to Abu Hanifa & Shoe Worship Narration
Here is the response of Al-Imam al-Hafiz Muhibuddin Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Mahmud ibn al-Hasan bin Hibat Allah bin Mahaasin a.k.a. Ibn al-Najjar al-Baghdadi (d. 643 AH) to the Khatib al-Baghdadi’s narration about Abu Hanifa tolerating worship of a shoe.
He writes:
وأما ما نقله عن محمد بن الحسين بن الفضل القطان إلى يحيى بن حمزة أَنَّ أَبَا حنيفة قَالَ: لو أَنَّ رجلا عبده هذه النعل يتقرب بها إلى الله لم أر بذلك بأسا. فَقَالَ سَعِيد: هَذَا الكفر صراحا
فهذا لم ينقله أحد من أصحاب أبى حنيفة واعلم أن أصحاب الإنسان أعرف به من الأجنبى، ثم اعلم أن مذهب أبى حنيفة له أصول وقواعد وشروط لا يخرج عنها، فأما أصول مذهبه رضى الله عنه فإنه يرى الأخذ بالقرآن والآثار ما وجد وقواعده أن لا يفرق بين الخبرين أو الآي والخبر مهما أمكن الجمع بينهما إلا إن ثبت ناسخا أو منسوخا وشروطه أن لا يعدل عنهما إلا أن لا يجد فيهما شيئا فيعدل إلى أقوال الصحابة الملائمة للقرآن والسنة وإن اختلفوا تخير ما كان أقرب إلى الكتاب والسنة. فهذا عليه إجماع أصحاب أبى حنيفة وهو إذا عددت المدرسين منهم في عصر واحد وجدتهم أكثر من إسناد الخطيب منه إلى أبى حنيفة رحمه الله.
واعلم أن أخبار الآحاد المروية عن النبي صلّى الله عليه وسلّم توجب العمل لأجل الاحتياط في الدين ولا توجب العلم. وأخبار التواتر توجب العلم والعمل معا فكيف بك عن أخبار الخطيب هذه التي لا تكاد تنفك عن قائل يقول فيها، فإذا نازلنا الأمر وساوينا قلنا أخباره أخبار آحاد وأخبار أصحاب أبى حنيفة متواترة والعمل بالمتواترة أولى؛ وقد ثبت مذهب أبى حنيفة وأصوله وقواعده فإذا ثبت أن هذه أصول أبى حنيفة فكيف يسوغ له أن يقول هذا مع علمه بقوله تعالى: ما نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفى
فهذا لا يصح عن أبى حنيفة
“As to what is narrated from Muhammad bin al-Hussain bin al-Fadl al-Qatttan through Yahya bin Hamza that Abu Hanifa said: ‘If a man were to worship this shoe to get closer to Allah I do not find anything objectionable with this.’ Sa’id said: This is clear disbelief.
This is not narrated by any of the companions of Abu Hanifa and know that a person’s companions know him better than the strangers. Further, remember that the madhhab of Abu Hanifa has its rules and principles that it does not divorce with. And the principles of his madhhab is to first seek evidence with whatever one finds in Qur’an and Sunnah. And [his] madhhab‘s principle is not to see variance between two reports or an ayah or a report when reconciliation between the two is possible except when proof of one being abrogated and other the abrogator is established . Their principle in (science of seeking evidence) is not to turn away from Qur’an and Sunnah except when nothing is found in these two sources in which case the sayings of the Companions that are closest to Qur’an and Sunnah are to be referred to and if they differ then the one closest to Qur’an and Sunnah is to be adopted. This is something on which the companions of Abu Hanifa have agreed and when I counted the teachers among them at a given time I found them to be more than the links of al-Khatib back to Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him.And know that the isolated reports (akhbar al-ahaad) narrated from the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, necessitate practice by the way of cautiousness in religion but they do not give certain knowledge whereas continuously reported narrations (akhbaar al-tawatur) lead to certain knowledge and mandate practice as well. Then how can you refer to the narrations of al-Khatib (al-Baghdadi) that you will hardly ever find someone saying. Therefore, when it comes to it we say his narrations are isolated and the reports of the companions of Abu Hanifa are continuously reported (mutawatir) and going by what is continuous is the best, and the principles, rules and essentials of the madhhab of Abu Hanifa are established and when these principles of Abu Hanifa are proven how is it possible for him to say so with his knowledge of the word of Allah, “(the mushrikin say) We worship them for no other reason but because they would bring us near to Allah closely”?
The report, therefore [we say], is not proven from Abu Hanifa.”
In other words the report is one of isolated reports (akhbaar al-ahaad) and simply contradicts what is known through continuous reports (mutawatir) about the creed (aqeedah) of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah’s mercy be upon him. Such “munkar” and “shaadh” reports are no evidence for any purpose whatsoever.
See,
Ibn an-Najjar al-Baghdadi, Kitab ar-Radd ‘alaa Khatib al-Baghdadi, (included in) Tarikh al-Baghdad wa Zuyulihi, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, 1417 AH), vol.22 pp.46-47. Translated by Waqar Akbar Cheema
-------------------------
How ibn Abi Raza allowed himself to spread such anti-Hanafi lies is an evidence to show the level of his own intent and sincerity. If he is not going to accept the above reply from ibn al-Najjar, then the following is a reply on this same narration from a "Salafi" site. Quote:
Response:
Criticism on chain of narrators:
a) One of the narrator Abdullah bin Jafar is disputed over he is trustworthy according to Ibn Mandah and Khateeb on the other hand he is weak according to Imam Lalkaai and Burqani
b) Shaykh Muhammad Harathi said Yahya bin Hamza was a famous qadhi and he is Damishqi, He did not met Abu Hanifa because he never came to Koofa and neither Abu Hanifa went to ash-Shaam.
c) Shaykh Muhammad Harathi mentioned another narration of this type and said:
وهاتان الروايتان المضطربتان تنطقان بالكذب الواضح والافتراء من الذي لا يخشى الله
These two narrations are Mudhtarib and clear lies and slanders by whom who does not fear Allah." Makanatul Imam Abi Hanifa Bayn al Muhadditheen" [see also Islamweb Arabic Fatwa no. 214978]
islamweb.net/ramadan/index.php?page=ShowFatwa&lang=A&Id=214978&Option=FatwaId
(After quoting Ibn al-Najjar as above):
In fact Dr Bashar Awad said the chain is authentic But this saying cannot be issued from Abu Hanifa and Yaqub b. Sufyan al-Fasawi, because it is contrary to the principles of Abu Hanifa and its branches [Tareekh Madeenatul Islam vol 15 page 509]
Note that when the chain is authentic that does not mean hadith or saying is also authentic as I have mentioned in many of the articles. Secondly according to Shaykh Muhammad Harathi even chain is weak.
Imam Abu Hanifa was against asking help from dead, how can he say things like worshiping the shoe?
-----------------------------------
