(an answer to the likes of Abul Hasan, Gf Haddad, faqir, and other soofees)
Firstly it is to be noted that the mukhaalif has not answered the bulk of points as mentioned above but in his usual “scholastic” fashion has answered in very general and ambiguous terms. Of course, this benefits none except his muqalideen whom he merely needs to satisfy by saying that he has replied! No doubt this is a shameful tact and Allaahs aid is sought. Hereon, it is made clear that no further responses shall be given to the mukhaalif until each point is answered. Once again the writer seeks the face of Allah and islaah for the mukhaalif and responds in due briefness to some further points raised by him.
Some of the points Asraar raises (he has posted his response on soofee bareilwi forums) are that the chain for this narration is as“Ann A’mash Ann Abee Saaleh Ann Maalik ad-Daar” Asrar says that A’mash is a mudallis of the second grade and that his tadlees is not of any consequence whether he makes it clear that he heard (samaa) or not. Asraar further says that A’mash’s narration even if it has anana (the absence of samaa and saying on the authority) then his narrations are still taken as connected and complete (bil itisaal) as a norm and hence taken.
He further claims that those A’mash narrates a lot from as his teachers being the likes Ibraaheem (Nakha’ee), Ibn Abee Wail and Abee Saaleh as-Simaan then these narrations will also be considered to be taken as ittisaal ie connected.
Asrar Breylwei has also mentioned some other points about Maalik ad-Daar not being unknown and the man who went to the grave was the companion Bilaal ibn al-Haarith al-Muzani with a report from Sayf from his Futuh as quoted by Haafidh ibn Hajr in his Fath ul-Baaree.
Tadlees of A’mash as one of the people in the chain of narration.
1) Please refer to previous answer to Asraar concerning this.
2) Further, we are going to take it back to basics for Asrar and keep it extremely simple hereon so he can understand what is being written and reply point by point accordingly, Allahs aid is sought.
3) The word tadlees broadly in the language (addals) means to mix the light with darkness, refer to Nukhbatul-Fikr of Haafidh Ibn Hajr (pg.81). When the scholars of hadeeth, especially from the mutaqaddimeen speak about someone’s tadlees then they make it clear that unless there tadlees is removed by them stating that they have samaa (have heard) then the narration will not be taken.
4)The scholars of hadeeth viewed tadlees of a narrator as something which would render the report defective unless samaa (the hearing was established). So where has Asraar established the samaa in this report from A’mash? How has Asraar removed the tadlees of A’mash? Will the majority opinion of the muhaditheen be taken in this issue or scarce and strange opinions?
This principle is clearly mentioned by the scholars of hadeeth, refer to Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth of Imaam Ibn Katheer, Muqaddimah of Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Haafidh al-E’laa’ee’s Jaami ut-Tahseel amongst other books. So to illustrate further the following scholars of hadeeth would not mention someone being a mudallis if they did not see this as a problem that could be resolved unless by samaa! Otherwise why make someone a mudallis like A’mash and the likes of Imam Thawree if there tadlees was not problematic?
Does Asraar know better than the early authorities on hadeeth and its sciences? Surely Asraar is not suggesting that when a scholar of hadeeth says that a reporter is mudallis then he is praising him? The fact that someone is a mudallis it shows that the Muhaddith is saying that his report will require investigation and samaa will be required.
Imam Shafi’ee said: “about one whom we have learnt that only ONCE he has fallen into tadlees then it is not right to say that we accept all his reports nor is it correct to say that we reject all his reports, we say, we do not accept from the mudallis his narration up until he narrates with the hearing (samaa)”. (ar-Risaalah pg 53).
So now Asraar must contemplate! Matters not whether the mudallis is a mudallis who makes takes often or only at times, if he is a mudallis then his narration will be accepted with samaa regardless of whether he himself as a narrator is trustworthy like A’mash. So, where does what Imaam Shafi’ee say rest with the principle that Asraar brings?
We ask Asraar that the principle of samaa that we have mentioned is clear for a mudallis narrator but in this instance what about A’mash who will even make tadlees from the Dhu’afaa (ie Weak narrators)! what ruling do you give for that if not even more necessary to have the samaa? therefore, It is clear what the scholars of hadeeth say about a mudallis in general and not to mention a mudallis who makes tadlees even from Dhu’afaa. Answer? As for Asraar saying that A’mash narration will be seen as fully connected ‘ittisaal’ then please see what Shafi’ee has said as well as what follows below about the principles of the scholars of hadeeth of the past.
Example: please note where there is a ? below Asraar must answer why the scholars below who mention the tadlees of A’mash do so and what principles they themselves hold in relation to the mudallis narrator? Do they mention his tadlees to indicate that the scholar is saying A’mash’s report shall be accepted without samaa or the opposite?
Hushaim Bin Basheer Al Waastee (d183) said “A’mash and Thawree are mudallis” (al-Ellal al-Kabeer of Tirmidhee 2/966, saheeh isnaad) Why has he mentioned this of A’mash?
Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazee (d277) said, “A’mash is mudallis” (al Ellal pg.94) Why?
Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah (d311) said “A’mash is mudallis” (Kitaab at-Tawheed pg.38) Why?
Imaam Abu Zurah (d726) said, “there is tadlees in the isnaad from A’mash”(al-Fiyyah al-A’raaqee pg.31) Why?
Imaam Ibn Katheer (d 884) said “Tadlees was with the two Sufyaans and A’mash” (Ikhtisaar Uloom al-Hadeeth (1/174) Why has he said this about A’mash?
Haafidh al-Elaa’ee (d 861) clearly says “it is the accepted stance that without samaa the hadeeth will not be relied upon” Why?
The same has been said from the likes of Imaam Shubah in Masaltus-Tasmiyyah pg.47), Haafidh Dhahabee in his Meezaan 2/224, Imaam A’maar al-Harawee (Ellal al-Hadeeth Fee Kitaab Saheeh al-Muslim bin al-Hajjaj pg.138 no.35, Haafidh Ibn Qattaan al-Faasee in Bayaan al-Wahm wal-Eeyhaam 2/435 no.441, Tahaawee in Mushkil al-Athaar 5/434 no.2192, Imaam Daarqutnee al-Ellal al-Warradah 10/95 no.1888, Nawawee in Sharh Saheeh Muslim 1/72 no.109, Ibn Khuzaimah, Imaam Bazzaar, Ibn Hibbaan, Haafidh ibn al-Jawzee, Imaam Alee ibn al-Madeenee, Imaam Suyootee, and many many more.
So after answering the above Asraar will need to establish whether these scholars of hadeeth held Asraar’s principle relating to the tadlees of A’mash or something quite different as to his tadlees and that samaa is required before his report is accepted! He must reply. Allahs aid is sought.
We give a gift to Asraar as he has even abandoned his scholars of his own Madhab when it comes to A’mash. Example, The grandfather of the Soofee Bareilwee’s of recent times and no doubt light of Asraar’s eyes Ahmed Raza Khan says “And the anana report from a mudallis is seen as rejected”!! Fatawa Ridhwiyyah 5/254) So now Asraar leaves his A’la Hadhrat also. Why? Answer?
5) i) “A’mash from Abee Saaleh” .
Asraar is asked to pay careful heed to practical examples of where A’mash makes tadlees in hadeeth from Abee Saaleh and the verdict that the scholars of hadeeth have given. This is important as the narration of Maalik ad-Daar is A’mash from Abee Saaleh, hence the weakness as it is not based upon samaa but anana, thus invalid. Thus the scholars of hadeeth did not hold the ananaa of A’mash in a chain as something which did not harm the chain or as good as a connected (mutassil) chain as opined by Asraar. Example:
A) Sufyaan at-Thawree says about a hadeeth from A’mash that he did not hear from Abee Saaleh. (Muqaddimah Jarh wa-T’adeel (pg.82) in another place he said, the same about a narrator narration in Sunan al-Kubraa of Baihaqee 3/127)
B) Imaam Haakim whilst criticising a chain of A’mash to Abee Saaleh says “A’mash did not make samaaa from Abee Saaleh” (Marifah Uloom al-Hadeeth pg.35)
C) Imaam Baihaqee whilst criticizing a chain says “no doubt A’mash did not hear from Abee Saaleh” (Sunan al-Kubraa 1/430)
D) it is recorded in Taareekh Yaqoob bin Sufyaan al-Faarsee (2/881) that the Messenger of Allaah (Sallalahu Alayhee Wasallam) informed Hudhaifah ibn Yamaan about the hypocrites and in it he mentioned that the illustrious companion Abu Moosa al-Asharee was amongst them (Naoozubillah min Dhaalik)
So the point Asraar raised with regards to this narration it is clear that this hadeeth is weak and rejected because in it is A’mash who is a mudallis and he does not make samaa! So what would Asraar say about this hadeeth as according to his principles this hadeeth would also be authentic. Contemplate Asraar! These examples are sufficient for the one who contemplates and has an open mind! for the sake of brevity this is sufficient otherwise many pages can be written on this. So what about these scholars of hadeeth and their criticism of the chain between A’mash and Abee Saaleh and what evidence does Asraar have to rebut the weakness in this chain? Answer.
ii) A’mash from Ibraaheem Nakha’i
Asraar has copied, and i quote him, “those he narrates a lot from his teachers from the likes Ibraahem (Nakha’ee), Ibn Abee Wail and Abee Saaleh as-Simaan then these narrations will be considered to be taken as ittisaal ie connected and clarity of samaa” it would have been pertinent if Asraar mentioned he got this from Imaam Dhahabee’s Meezaan 2/224 however Imaam Dhahabee did say, “He did tadlees and he would do tadlees from weak narrators and we do not know about him (ie figure him out)” (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal 2/224).
Dhahabee from whom Asraar quoted the above further said about a narration, “the chain has trustworthy narrators but A’mash is a mudallis” (Siyaar A’laam an-Nabula 11/362).
Imam Sufyaan ath-Thawree said about a narration of A’mash from Abee Saaleh, “A’mash did not hear this hadeeth from Abee Saaleh.” (Taareekh Yahyaa ibn Ma’een 2/236, no.2430 and he has also said that about other hadeeth of A’mash from Ibraaheem refer to Kitaab al-Ellal of Imaam Ahmad 2/67 no.1569, al-Jarh Wat-Ta’deel pg.72)
Imaam Abdur Rahman ibn Mahdee said concerning a hadeeth of A’mash from Ibraaheem an-Nakha’i based on Anana, “This is from the weak hadeeth of A’mash” (Kitaab al-Ellal of Imaam Ahmad 2/413 no.2845)
iii) A’mash from Ibn Abee Wail
Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal said concerning a hadeeth of A’mash from Ibn Abee Wail, “Huhaim did not hear from A’mash and nor did A’mash hear it from Abu Wail.” (Kitaab al-Ellal 2/252 no.2155)
Imaam Abu Zurah said about a hadeeth of A’mash from Abu Wail, “A’mash would do Tadlees sometimes.” (Ellal al-Hadeeth of Ibn Abee Haatim 1/14 no.9)
lastly with regards to the statement of Imaam Dhahabee then A’mash himself said in a narration in Sunan Abee Dawood, “This has reached me from Abee Saaleh and I do not but THINK except that I heard it directly from him.” (Sunan Abee Dawood no.518) why would he say I think?
6) Asraar said that A’mash is from the second grade of mudalliseen and then later quotes the likes of Ibn Hajr authenticating the report of Maalik ad-Daar. Asraar has clung to maybe a quote he has read on Google somewhere and not gone directly to the source of what he intimates.
Example: Haafidh Ibn Hajr places A’mash in the second grade mudallis and then himself has REJECTED a narration due to the anana of A’mash and the fact that A’mash makes no samaa from A’taa!! (Talkhees Habeer (3/19). Therefore, please refer to the varying sayings of Haafidh Ibn Hajr on this report by considering our first reply which Asraar did not answer and now consider this second evidence we mention here and it is clear that Ibn Hajrs words are clear here under his own principles that he has laid down. Allaahs aid is sought.
7) Asraar then once again mentions Maalik ad-Darr and him being a trustworthy narrator, Asraar still has not answered the points concerning this in our first reply and as we have said previously even if he is trustworthy as a narrator or even an illustrious companion then the narration will remain weak due to A’mash and others.
8) as for Asraar saying that the man that came in the dream was Bilaal bin Haarith al-Muzunee then Asraar knows that the basis of this narration is upon a liar namely Sayf as Mentioned by Asrar.
As for him, note, he is Sayf bin Umar at-Tameemee al-Burjamee and he is famous abandoned narrator. Ibn Maeen said “weak in Hadeeth and there is no good from him”, Abu Haatim said “abandoned in Hadeeth” and “his Hadeeth resemblance the Hadeeth of al-Waaqidee”, Abu Dawood said “he is nothing”, Nasaa’ee and Daarqutnee said “weak”, Ibn Adiyy said “some of his ahadeeth are well known and most are rejected and he is not supported in them”, Ibn Hibbaan said “he would narrated fabricated narrations from established (ie trustworthy) people And they say he would fabricate ahadeeth and he has been accused of being a heretic (a Zindeeq) and this is what Haakim has said and Barqaanee said from Daarqutnee abandoned (Tahdheeb 4/295-296) and Imaam Dhahabee said in Meezaan 1/436 he is like Waqidi (a well known weak and abandoned history narrator) and Khazrajee said in al-Khulaasah 1/136 he has been weakened.
And we say again this point is futile for Asraar to mention as this too does not make the narration authentic due to its problems in its chain. This we hope suffices for now and a reply is sought point by point.
Its all very well showing off and looking for fame on youtube and throwing ignorant challenges and looking good amongst your muqallids attempting to want to debate. We will not be entertaining any further points unless all our points are answered with evidences otherwise don’t waste our times and peoples times and more so fear Allaah.
We appeal to Asraar Rasheed followers to read and understand this response which we have riddled with the understanding of the greatest scholars of hadeeth of the Muslims pertaining to the sacred sciences of hadeeth and its knowledge in application to only this narration of Maalik ad-Daar. Also note this is a brief response which we have compiled and we have left it brief.
May Allaah have mercy on our souls and his Aid Alone is sought and may he guide us All. Ameen. Compiled in Sha’baan 1432H/July 2011
3 thoughts on “The SECOND Reply to Asraar Rasheed as-Soofee al-Bareilwee (& Abul Hasan, GF Haddad, faqir & whoever)”
Assalaamu Alaikum, May Allah[swt] bless the ones that run this website and may Allah[swt] make it a Thorn in the path of the innovators[Ameen]
Where is the articles of abul hasan, for which you are giving reply ?
well thought out. The names you.mentioned on ghe aarticle are not mentioned in the article itself?
#prepare for hurricane sandy