yet again as per usual the discussions have digressed to broken records and childish immature behaviour.
we produced three parts on this blog pertaining to the narration of Maalik ad-Daar centering on the tadlees of A’mash more so from Abi Saaleh, without really going any further into the chain or the other issues surrounding it. Those who differ with its weakness should have firstly in all fairness by now answered us. Secondly as opposed to diverging, confusing and digressing from the actual point in discussion, those who advocate the authenticity of this report should have addressed the issue of the tadlees of A’mash in general and then extended this discussion to Abi Saaleh.
Yet we find the total opposite, with the greater aim to confuse the issue and the general readers by the way of quoting samnudi, Ibn Hajr, Zarqani , Qastalanee, fulaan etc etc etc. In order to facilitate a better understanding, the dear readers are advised to read the 3 parts and then refer to our post in reference to Allaamah Ainee Hanafees d.855H position on the tadlees of A’mash, in which he agrees with the understanding of the Scholars of Ahlus Sunnah. It must also be noted here we are referring to the earlier classical Sunni Scholar and not the later ones.
The initial point was that of the allegation of plagiarism, so a scan from Badr ud deen Ainees Umdatul-Qaaree was produced which was not in the earlier 3 responses nor is it found in any of the works Shaikh Zubair Alee Za’ee Hafidahullaah. This would have been enough to rebutt this slanderous claim of plagiarism, yet this was not the case and because those who intended confusion and aimed to pollute the truth continued to deliberately undermine the core issues and shifted the discussion from the original point to some idle talk with a conceited effort to undermine the research presented. Making claims of plagiarism will not subdue the statements of the Imaams of Jarh Wat-Ta’deel, try to understand this. Constantly belittling others research will not make Abul Hasan to be the best researcher and also please try to understand this, wake up and smell the coffee and we are sorry to burst your bubble Abu Maryam.
For those of us who are just and open minded inshaAllaah and fair readers, we have produced the statement of Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr d.463 from his Tamheed, which again is not in any of Shaikh Zubair Alee Za’ees books to the best of our knowledge (ps why is it always assumed Abu Hibbaan & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari write everything!!!!). This also rebutts Abu Maryams plea, pre Albanee in the 5th century Ibn Abdul Barr said A’mash was a MUDALLIS
In all of this confusion, quarelling and the vile language used by the likes of Abu Zahra which he directed at the great Sunni Scholars of Islaam like Imaam al-Albaanee and Imaam Ibn Baaz the core issues got overlooked and were hushed and brushed rapidly aside. Again this was a tactic employed by those who aim and want to hide the truth. In the issue at hand they began to say, show us one scholar before so and so who said this or one scholar who said this.
FIRSTLY: The issue is the tadlees of A’mash got over looked and unanswered and the restrictions Abu Maryam put in place inside or outside the Saheehain etc etc. Then the answer to this is, it has nothing to do with us, your Hanafee Scholar and expounder of the Hanafee Madhab in his explanation of Bukhaari said A’mash was a Mudallis without making any restrictions except that A’mashs tadlees will disappear when there is knowledge of him hearing the narration. Now it is upto the hanafee audience to question their Scholars not us. We just copied it from him and presented it to you.
SECONDLY: In the three responses that were authored ample and substantial statements from the Salaf and earlier classical sunni, established and grounded scholars were cited with regards to the tadlees of A’mash from the classical books of Rijaal and Jarh Wat-Ta’deel. Well what happened with that, well evidently it conveniently got over looked and their slogan of early classical sunni scholars went down the drain Therefore dear readers those who hold this narration to be authentic must prove its authenticity and we can start off by clearing the ruling of tadlees on A’mash in this narration as Ainee hanafee said he was a mudallis.
As we intend the truth we are now bringing another older classical sunni scholar, well established and someone agreed upon who generically says A’mash is a mudallis without any restriction or specifications. He is none other than Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr d.463. He clearly says the Tadlees of A’mash is not accepted. It must be shown here that Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr made no restrictions here, whether this restriction is correct or incorrect is not the point of discussion here. However those who do then let them bring forth proof from the scholars the early Sunni mutaqaddimeen scholars.
If we examine the posts of Abu Maryam you will find it is riddled with grave errors and constant requests and it is these requests that they formulate themselves with the clear intent to confuse the people with their kalaam and polemics. For example who weakened the isnad or matn pre Imaam al-Albaanee and etc etc. That does not mean you end up with Zarqani etc since when has been an authority in authentication of reports, stop playing these name games and dropping in names for confusion.
We can say show us who authenticated this report up until the 4th or 5th century or even used this report as evidence during that period or before. Shaikh Subki started and then the rest followed. We say forget these polemics and lift the tadlees from A’mash in this narration and then we can move on. Abu Maryam says generically, “Your views count for nothing unless you quote to us classical Sunni Ulama..” oh okay thats good so Abu Maryam when will you use the classical sunni scholars?? Yet again we can say Haafidh Ibn Katheer said the Isnaad is Saheeh! Do you even know the basic of Mastalah that an isnaad being authentic does not necessarily make the report authentic… you did know that, right? I thought so.
Let us also add here by the way of showing we can also digress from the discussion and say lets drop the later scholars and stick to the statements of the early scholars with regards to their grading of this report and their statements pertaining to the narrators. I wonder how many of the mutaqaddimeen scholars authenticated this report Hint. Rather the likes of Abu Maryam ended up with Zarqanis Sharh Muwwahib and Muhammad Abid Sindhees 1257H work, ‘Tawassul Wa Ahkamuhu Wa Anwa’uhu’. Yes Abu Maryam we know where you plagiarise your stuff, from the footnotes of these books.
HERE I would like to share a common sense point and highlight the double standards and polemics of the likes of Abul Hasan, Abu Zahra and Abu Maryam. That on one hand they curse and abuse our Ulama, they hurl all sorts of slanderous, treacherous accusations all day long and when it comes to suit them, they over look everything. The Tas’heeh, Tad’eef, Jarh Wat-Tadeel of our scholars is not acceptable with you guys but when it comes to other things you are fine for example the aforementioned book of Muhammad Abid Sindhees ‘Tawassul Wa Ahkamuhu Wa Anwa’uhu’ has been reproduced via only 2 manuscripts and one of them was possessed by none other than the great Sunni Salafi Ahlul Hadeeth, Hadeeth Master, the Allaamah Muhibullaah Shaah Raashidhee d.1415H (See his Biography) which the verifier mentioned, (note producing a book with one manuscript does not raise the authenticity of the book as it has no verifying text to support it, therefore only with the Shaikhs manuscript they can quote.
(Tawassul Wa Ahkamuhu Wa Anwa’uhu pg.8 of Muhammad Abid Sindhee)
ALLAAHU AKBAR, you refute our Ulama and then the VERY same books you use to refute them, are the very same books they share with you in the first place. Dear readers this is what you call a proper and utter joke and the laughing stock of the century.
So in other words you guys say, The salafis are untrustworthy, they lie, they cheat, they distort the books, they tamper with them yes ok yes but will accept and believe their manuscripts!!!!!!!!! Abu Maryam if you or any of your Co has any dignity or honour you should die of shame than use Muhammad Abid Sindhees book on this topic let alone have the guts to quote it to any Salafi from now on.
Anyway here is the at-Tamheed, enjoy
(at-Tamheed Limaa Fil-Muwatta Minal Ma’anee Wal-Asaaneed 1:30)
One thought on “Returning To The Tadlees of A’mash – Imaam Ibn Abdul Barr on his Tadlees”
Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmad & Co are high caliber jokers , so far all what they did is nothing but made other laugh on their scholarship.
They will bring so many unrelated names like zarqani, qastallani and it is not far-fetched if you see their Dr. Shaykh al-islam Tahir al-Qadri and Mawlana Ahmad Reza Khan Barelwi to be quoted by them to support their stance.
I wonder where is their propaganda PR specialist mr faqir ? under which nick is he posting apart from faqir ?
I saw these people are not even Hanafis, they only hide behind hanafi madhhab to fool unsuspecting innoncent muslims in UK ; These people are different kind , a kind similar to Bishr al-Hanafi and not similar to Tahawi al-Hanafi.