|
|
Post by DarulTahqiq on Feb 15, 2016 17:36:51 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. 8): "It is this accursed usool of Ahnaaf that has also caused a Sahaabi like Abu Hurayrah to become a Ghayr Faqeeh and had his narrations rejected." Reply:It would have been much more scholarly if they quoted recognised Hanafi authorities from centuries back who had apparently mentioned this point with proper referencing and detailed explanations. Nevertheless, they should look at their own so called Imam of Jarh wa al-Ta'dil and what he had to say about the notable Sahabi, Muawiyya (ra). Here is an audio recording with Rabi Madkhali's verdict on Muawiyya (ra): If they deny that Rabi al-Madkhali said this then they should get a clarification from him denying this. On the other hand if Rabi affirmed this he should be asked to explain why he affirmed it. While on the subject of this noble Sahabi, Muawiyya (ra), Ibn Abi Raza and his two friends are asked to explain why their Egyptian "Salafi" authority - Tariq Awad Allah printed Nayl al-Awtar of Shaykh al-Shawkani by using some manuscripts, but his edition made out that al-Shawkani was actually CURSING - Muawiyya ibn Abi Sufyan and his son Yazid. Evidence from vol. 9/p. 172:  The following edition by Muhammad Subhi Hallaq clarified that the curse was absent in the original handwritten copy of Nayl al-Awtar by al-Shawkani and by the scribes known as al-Dalwani and al-Kabsi. Nayl al-Awtar (13/426, Dar ibn al Jawzi, Riyadh, 1st edn, 1427 AH) edited by Muhammad Subhi ibn Hasan Hallaq:
 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2016 5:33:08 GMT
As for the statement of Shaykh Rabee' al-Madkhalee, you would be surprised to know that we too had criticized Sh. Rabee' very heavily on this. So you did nothing new here. Surprise for us, on the other hand, would be if you actually did the same for those who rejected the narrations of Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu). But i guess that is never going to happen, because unlike us, your loyalty and disavowal (Al-Wala wal-Bara) is for your Akaabireen، while ours is for Allaah and His Rasool. So you see, there is a big difference.
But here is a shock, you know, I had criticized Sh. Rabee' without even listening to his words and the way he said it, rather the moment I got to know that he said this, I simply criticized him. But now that I have actually listened to his own words, it has now become clear to me that he was not actually speaking in a demeaning way towards the Sahaabi as I had thought, rather, he was only trying to compare one good side of different Sahaabah with the other good side.
And most certainly, he has not rejected the narrations of Mu'aawiyah, just to accommodate for some Qiyaas, unlike Abu Hurayrah.
I am sure even you would have realized this when listening to the audio, but I guess your hatred for the sake of other than Allaah, did not allow that to happen. Same goes with the fact that Rabee' al-Madkhalee had actually repented from this later on (as I hear). But how can we possibly mention something that does not go in our favor, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by DarulTahqiq on Feb 16, 2016 10:27:50 GMT
As for the statement of Shaykh Rabee' al-Madkhalee, you would be surprised to know that we too had criticized Sh. Rabee' very heavily on this. So you did nothing new here. Surprise for us, on the other hand, would be if you actually did the same for those who rejected the narrations of Abu Hurayrah (radiallah anhu). But i guess that is never going to happen, because unlike us, your loyalty and disavowal (Al-Wala wal-Bara) is for your Akaabireen، while ours is for Allaah and His Rasool. So you see, there is a big difference. But here is a shock, you know, I had criticized Sh. Rabee' without even listening to his words and the way he said it, rather the moment I got to know that he said this, I simply criticized him. But now that I have actually listened to his own words, it has now become clear to me that he was not actually speaking in a demeaning way towards the Sahaabi as I had thought, rather, he was only trying to compare one good side of different Sahaabah with the other good side. And most certainly, he has not rejected the narrations of Mu'aawiyah, just to accommodate for some Qiyaas, unlike Abu Hurayrah. I am sure even you would have realized this when listening to the audio, but I guess your hatred for the sake of other than Allaah, did not allow that to happen. Same goes with the fact that Rabee' al-Madkhalee had actually repented from this later on (as I hear). But how can we possibly mention something that does not go in our favor, right? Since you claimed that al-Madkhali had repented from this it would have been more appropriate that you provided direct proof from Rabi as it shows that it was not a light matter - or else there would be no reason for tawba. What Rabi said or did makes no difference for me, that is a problem for his admirers and followers. Can we see some clear examples where Ahnaf have actually rejected all the narrations from Abu Hurayra (ra)? Plus, if your scholars were free of bias they should also start targetting the other Madhhabs whenever they disagree with an Usul adopted by a specific Madhhab. This matter will show why they are so rabidly anti-Hanafi, but generally overlooking of the Usul of other Madhhab positions. Please explain why Tariq Awad Allah did allow curse on Muawiyya (ra) to be printed and he is admired by your two colleagues (Abu Khuzaymah/Abu Hibban) as they quoted him in their work on the Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (see p. 345 and 368) narration which you promoted (pp. 15-16 of your al-Qawl al-Mubin). I also want you to bring proof that I personally ever declared myself a "Shaykh" or gave myself any type of Islamic scholarly title before my name as you mentioned from your friends also on p. 16. I can take an oath that this is a lie invented to demean me. You also asserted it here - asmaur-rijaal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/the-authentication-of-hadeeth-is.html While we are on the subject of scholarship, it would be good if you and your friends could do us all a favour and mention who you all actually studied Hadith under and provide us your chains of transmission back to just the six main books of Hadith. This can be done by others on your behalfs, and a failure to provide this crucial information is a strong indication that you and them are not to be taken as authorities in Hadith sciences at least. Since you are also in contact with the two named who you got to write a preface for your al-Qawl al-Mubin, it is only fair and far from deception for you to clarify on their behalves when did Kamran Malik enter prison and when did he actually get released or not as may be the case based on media reports stating he received a 5 year sentence starting from the 6th of Feb. 2014 - www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/solicitor-coerced-witness-bid-avoid-6700881He was further exposed by one from your own sect - www.abukhadeejah.com/2001-chickens-come-home-to-roost-in-2014-for-kamran-malik-alum-rock/As he was also going back to 2002 alongside Imran Masoom and others when it was stated by us previously: "The duo have also been exposed, humiliated and charged with flagrant lying by their pseudo-Salafi brethren in faith in the city of Birmingham, England, known as Maktabah as-Salafiyya (Salafi Publications). The latter organisation compiled an 81-page dossier in expose of the duo and their friends from the district of Alum Rock, in a PDF file that was available for wide scale distribution and readership on the Internet (early 2003). This work was entitled: 'Advice and Guidance to the 4 of Alum Rock & Their Associates And an Explanation of Their Opposition to the Usool (Fundamentals) of Ahl us-Sunnah Concerning Ijtimaa’ (Uniting), Ikhtilaaf (Differing) and Tafarruq (Splitting).'” Download it - HERE |
|
