The THIRD Reply to Abul Hasan Soofee & Asraar Rasheed as-Soofee al-Bareilwee (GF Haddad, faqir & whoever)

A Quicker Response to your Quick Reponse

Abul Hasans Muqallid (or maybe himself with a deceptive name) sent us a quick response at about jumu’ah time (1.47pm) (what time do you guys pray Jumuah !!!!), non bold is Abul Hasans kalaam and the bold is our response.  Walhamdulillah this is our response in 7 hours. So this game oh we have responsed is playground play, when will you brothers grow up.

(Quick response from Shaykh Abul Hasan)

All i can say for now is that it is a weak response with hardly any relavant evidence, Indeed, my longish article on this has gone into the Ta’dil of Malik al Dar already and i can’t see how they have responded to it at all.

WHAT did you even read the detailed response with regards to the samaa of A’mash from Abee Saaleh and what the great scholars of hadeeth and Imaams of Hadeeth and Jarh wat-Ta’deel said. The soofees have a childish mentality that as long as a response is done a response has been done no matter of the relevance of the content in it even if its kalaam and baatil speech as is the norm with Abul Hasan and his followers, regretfully this has become the norm with Abul Hasan and the other false names he goes by that he just uses kalaam upon kalaam, treachery and deception in trying to prove a point.  Allaahs aid is sought  

The mukhaalif must learn either to read what we say or to have his eyes checked, Allahs aid is sought. In our second reply we have just bought the principles of the scholars of hadeeth and what these great scholars have said about these issues.

We have made it clear from the very first article and then once again in the second reply that that the discussion as to whether Maalik ad-Daar had tadeel recorded by the scholars of hadeeth for him and whether indeed he was a companion or not was irrelevant to the acceptance of the authenticity of the transmission in question.

So we ask what evidence has Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis bought forth to remove the Jahaalah tul-Haal of Malik ad-Daar? Save that we have continued to mention that if he is a companion then this point ceases to be argued. We remind him once again to refer and carefully read and consider what we have written and seeking only the face of Allah Almighty to answer our points that have been argued. Leave making a reply for the sake of making a reply only to satisfy a few cronies and remember the day when “no soul shall bear the burden of another” and in the words of  Umar ibn ul-Khataab (Radhiallaahu anhu) “ take account of your soul before it is taken account of {upon death and onwards}”!

So we remind him not to eat our points argued as if they are a plate of yellow cherried rice given out at a ghayarweein langar shareef in Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis’s local!

Who will reply to what we said concerning Abu Hibbaan and what he said about Abu Haneefah and his principles of adjudication of trustworthiness?

Who will answer the point about the limitations of the kalaam of Ibn Hajr and Ibn Katheer in comparison to those before them and their own understanding of this narration?

And so on it continues, so contemplate and contemplate again

Even the point on al-A’mash has been dealt with and these people have shown themselves to be amateurs on this matter. They couldn’t even quote anything to back up their claim regarding al-Khalili when they said:

Allahs aid is sought, We assume Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi has not seen our second response to him.

“With all due respect Khalilee is not a major authority on the names of narrators and one should revert to the more specialised scholars in this field that came before him.”

So Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis has either misunderstood or deliberately distorted our words and we asked but received no reply from him asto whether Khaleeli that was he talking of Malik Ad Daar being upright or his precision in memory and narrating?

Further these words were said in comparison to those who we mentioned as saying that in the narration is A’mash and the problem of samaa and the purported tawtheeq of Khaleeli as recorded by Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis.

Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi says and quotes others to argue that Maalik ad-Daar was a companion what does Khaleeli say about this as this is in the same quote that Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi mentioned but this has been left aside for some reason!

Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi himself has now accepted walhamdullilah that he is merely doing a cut and paste job when he says that the quote from Khaleeli is referenced at the following:

  Abū Yā‘lā Khalīl bin ‘Abdullāh Khalīlī Qazwīnī, Kitāb-ul-irshād fī ma‘rifat ‘ulamā’-il-hadith, as quoted by ‘Abdullāh bin Muhammad bin Siddīq al-Ghumārī in Irghām-ul-mubtadī al-ghabī bi-jawāz-it-tawassul bi an-nabī (p.9)

so we ask him provide us with the full tawtheeq of the teacher of Khaleeli ‘Muhammad Bin Ahmed Bin Abdoos Al Muzzaki Abu Bakr An Neesabooree’ as referenced from the book the al-Irshad? If he cannot do this then without even going into tadlees of others this narration is not proved in Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis favor! Answer!

I’ve even shown a good example of al-Albani himself authenticating a narration from Malik al Dar when i said to Abu Alqama:

Why did he forget to mention that Ibn Hibban did declare him in his Thiqat, then the words of Ibn Sa’d and al-Khalili are strong enough to show that Malik is not majhul and his narrations were sound enough to be declared Sahih by Ibn Kathir and ibn Hajr and on top of that his own Imam – al-Albani did declare a narration from Malik al-Dar as recorded by al-Tabarani to be Hasan!!

We refer Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi to the reply that we have given in our first response and that those that have even authenticated the narration do not take the understanding that Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi takes, he obviously holds himself out as knowing better than those that came before him!

Points 3 to 7 in the first response deal with this issue. 

Now, Abu Alqama knows this very well about al-Albani – but he just can’t explain why al-Albani did declare another narration from Malik al-Dar to be Hasan! Or is it a contradiction?! He has no proof to show why al-Albani came to the decision that the following narration is Hasan as he did in his Tahqiq to Targhib wal-Tarhib of al-Mundhiri:

القراطيسي ، ثنا نعيم بن حماد ، ثنا ابن المبارك ، أنا محمد بن مطرف ، أنا أبو حازم ، عن عبد الرحمن بن سعيد بن يربوع ، عن مالك الدار ، أن عمر بن الخطاب ، أخذ أربعمائة دينار فجعلها في صرة ، فقال للغلام : ” اذهب بهم إلى أبي عبيدة بن الجراح ، ثم تله ساعة في البيت ساعة حتى تنظر ما يصنع ، فذهب بها الغلام إليه ” فقال : يقول لك أمير المؤمنين : اجعل هذه في بعض حاجتك ، فقال : وصله الله ورحمه ، ثم قال : تعالي يا جارية ، اذهبي بهذه السبعة إلى فلان ، وبهذه الخمسة إلى فلان ، حتى أنفذها ، فرجع الغلام ، وأخبره فوجده قد أعد مثلها إلى معاذ بن جبل فقال : ” اذهب بهذا إلى معاذ بن جبل وتله في البيت حتى تنظر ما يصنع ” ، فذهب بها إليه فقال : يقول لك أمير المؤمنين : اجعل هذا في بعض حاجتك ، فقال : رحمه الله ووصله ، تعالي يا جارية ، اذهبي إلى بيت فلان بكذا ، واذهبي إلى بيت فلان بكذا ، فاطلعت امرأة معاذ فقالت : نحن والله مساكين ، فأعطنا ، ولم يبق في الخرقة إلا ديناران ، فدحا بهما إليها ، ورجع الغلام إلى عمر ، فأخبره وسر بذلك ، وقال : ” إنهم إخوة بعضهم من بعض

We have not been a party to such discussions but reiterate that we have endeavoured to quote the mutaqaddimoon over and above the mutakhiroon in the discussions concerning this hadeeth so to levy such blame or accusation at us is far fetched.

Therefore, to say that Imam Albaanee has contradicted himself is once again showing teh utter foolishness of Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi lack of insight and depth into the manhaj and usool of Imam Albaanee in quoting a hadeeth to be hasan! Then the Imam has different principles as to grading a hadeeth Hasan Li-Ghayree and Hasan Li-Dhaati, of course Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis it would serve you good to look at the basic principles of the sheikh in verification of reports before you raise this point again. A tip for you is to see if this report has any supports other than through the chain of Maalik ad-Daar or is Imam Albaanee relying on the precision of memory of Maalik ad-Daar before you make such futile points

What we have written here now is sufficient and we hope Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis can contemplate on this rather than once again relying on the likes of Mamduh and Ghumaaree who are the real “imitators” and not Imam Albaanee as Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi refers to him in his first article. 

 

If you have my piece called:

Reply to “Abu Alqama” and his NEFARIOUS attacks on a narration from Malik al-Dar

Once again we are not party to such discussions, but we now considered what you have written and once again it is more of teh same.

For example you say,

These people have also come off with claims that the narrator in the Isnad: al-A’mash may have made Tadlees – that is not clarifying how he received his report from: Abu Salih, since A’mash sometimes made Tadlees. He used the term: An (from) – which is not a very clear way to show how the narration was received by him.

The answer to this is the fact that A’mash using “An” – from Abu Salih is not considered as tadlees – because Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih accepted this type of route, as did: Ibn Hajr and Ibn Kathir.

Firstly we ask again does Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis need glasses and if so we can refer him to a good optician! Did he not see or did he choose to be blind to what we wrote in our first response when we clearly said

“Can Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis please remove this grave difficulty of tadlees {Of course the narrations in the saheehain have a different ruling} and if there is no simaa from these narrations to prove that they are authentic”

Allahs aid is sought!

Further,  we say this shows the reality and astonishing ignorance of Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis understanding. Advice, come and sit at the feet of a true scholar of hadeeth before you even delve into such matters! Going to Syria to read fiqh and just matoon {texts} do not qualify you or the likes of your ilk to pass such judgements, know your station O young boy!

Leaving aside what your own elders and grandfathers and so called modern day tafdheeli shiahs like Tahir ul-Qadree  (as per Asraar Rasheed and crew) have said about this topic we suffice with the following:

Mulla Alee Qaaree Hanafee says “all annana narrations are upon samaa in saheehain”

Do you see he limits this to the saheehain only and not ALL of the narrations with ananaa from a mudallis! Answer.

He further says that, “Bukhaari does not mention ananaa unless he has samaa of the report from elsewhere as a support”.

Is this not sufficient to show the fallacy of Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwiss principles of hadeeth and those of his own scholars of hadeeth!

So is this report of Malik Ad Dar in saheehayn? Obviously not, so the samaa will be required of the mudaliss and his ananaa.

Karmanee  Hanafee in his explanation of Bukahree 4/67 says “verily all ananaa reports in saheehayn are upon samaa and itisaal (complete) from other sources that are used as supports”.

So the restriction to the saheehain is clear for those who wish to see!

 Mullah Ali continues,  “all reports in saheehain are upon samaa even though in them is the ananaa”.

Haafidh Ibn Hajr in his Fath says,” Hufaadh of the muhaditheen say that they only take ananaa upon samaa and I have investigated the Ahadeeth in Bukhari and found them like this”

Subhaaanalaah, Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi opposes even the Hufaadh of the Scholars of hadeeth as it is clear Ibn Hajr limits this to the Saheehayn and not the ananaa outside of them! Reply.

Nawawee in Muqaddimah Saheeh Muslim (pg.18) says, “verily when the mudallis makes anana {does not say he has heard in a report} this is not hujjah {proof} unless he has samaa and those reports in the saheehayn are Mahmool {considered as} upon samaa”

So Imaam Nawawee closes all the doors on Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi and his trickery in making principles and using the names of Bukharee to support him when they are far removed from such falicies!

Ibn Hibbaan kitaab ath-thiqaat (pg.176) says “ We the scholars of hadeeth don’t take as authority ananaa as Hujjah unless there is the Samaa”

Please refer to our second response for a far more detailed discussion and proofs concerning this matter.

On A’mash i said in the above work:

—————

One of the brothers has already shown briefly that al-A’mash did not commit Tadlis from scholars like Abu Salih. This is what he mentioned based on al-Dhahabi’s Mizan al-I’tidal (no. 3517):[1]

Imam Dhahabī comments: “When A‘mash begins a tradition with the word ‘an (from) there is a possibility of imposture and deception. But if he relates it from his elders like Ibrāhīm, Ibn Abū Wā’il, Abū Sālih Sammān, etc., then it is presumed to possess sound linkage (ittisāl).[27] In addition, Imam Dhahabī has also described him as trustworthy (thiqah).

Hence, there is continuity between al-A’mash and Abu Salih as al-Dhahabi indicated. This will be shown from the agreement of the two Shaykhs- al-Bukhari and Muslims from the Sahihayn below.

[1] http://hadithproofsfortawassul.blogspot.com/2005/11/hadith-3-response-to-al-albanis.html

This point has been answered above we are just so shocked how ignorant and ill versed Abul Hasan is with the sciences of hadeeth, fear Allaah for deceiving and lying to the people, using your red herring tactics. All of the scholars of hadeeth are agreed concerning the narrations in the Saheehain. We are still shocked how some one can lie and deceive the people so blatantly we urge all readers to refer to the basic books on the sciences of hadeeth and their discussion about the anana in the saheehain. Allahu Yahdeek

The arabic quote from al-Dhahabi being:

قلت : وهو يدلس ، وربما دلس عن ضعيف ، ولا يدرى به ، فمتى قال حدثنا فلا كلام ، ومتى قال ” عن ” تطرق إلى احتمال التدليس إلا

في شيوخ له أكثر عنهم : كإبراهيم ، وابن أبى وائل ، وأبى صالح السمان ،

What a disastrous translation and treachery Abul Hasan no wonder you never translate from the Arabic but you happily accuse others this is treachery and yet you raise allegations concerning others, look yourself have done the same. Anyone knows how deceptive you are, you have totally missed out Imaam Dhahabee’s first words why because your treacherous and you has been doing this for years especially with your scholastic old tactic of just copy and pasting in Arabic. Infact if you look at all of his replies he just copies and paste Abul Hasan why don’t you translate the stuff and yet you claim others are copyists yet you are the first and foremost and this proves what has been said about him for years he is a distorter and manipulator.

Imaam Dhahabee said as we have highlighted before, “I say he is a mudallis and he would do tadlees from weak (narrators) and we do not know (or find out) about him (meaning could not figure him out) however when he says narrated there is no speech however when he says Ann then that route has a possibility of tadlees….. (Meezaan ul-Ei’tidaal 2/224)   

Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis needs to consider the following and that will suffice,

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)

 

It would have been pertinent if Asraar and Abul Hasan (as elucidated above) mentioned further quotes of Imam Dhaahbee when he said about the narration from Amash to Ibraheen an Nakh’ai “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 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)

 

This suffices for now, so we finally say Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwis unless there is a shortage of paper or ink where you are then do reply to all the replies given to you and your false principles so that we can really see how much of a ‘sidi’ and hadeeth master you are, yet you challenge all and sundry not knowing even the basics of the basics!

Allah as aid is sought,

We write this as an advise to Abul Hasan/Asraar Bareilwi not attacking him personally, rather, hoping that he comes back to the path of the blessed Ahlus Sunnah, Ahlul Hadeeth wal Athar.