So Abu Maryam after deliberately totally ignoring all our ilmee points, he commented having a rant and rave about Shaikh al-Albaanees Ijaazahs and our point that Abul Hasan never translates. Instead of answering any of our points he just attempted to digress from the points and concocted further Shakespearean stories. As per usual we do not and will not succumb to these childish games and appalling behaviour. Our aim is just to present the evidences and inshaAllaah the truth
This below is again original research to satisfy the likes of Abu Zahra Aka Abu Maryam, and we please await replies to our previous points and article namely the 3 previous parts, Ainee and Ibn Abdul Barr on the Tadlees of A’mash. Lets see your original research.
NUMBER 1 – Asaabah at-Tamayyiz as-Sahaabah of Haafidh Ibn Hajr
Haafidh Ibn Hajr in his ‘Asaabah at-Tamayyiz as-Sahaabah’ cites this incident under the biography of Maalik bin A’yaadh without making any hukm
(Asaabah at-Tamayyiz as-Sahaabah (10/413 no.8393)
NUMBER 2 – Fath ul-Baaree Bi-Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari Of Haafidh Ibn Hajr
Haafidh Ibn Hajr in his explanation of Saheeh al-Bukhaari cites this incident and thereafter says,
(Fath ul-Baaree Bi-Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari (2/495)
With the checking of al-Allaamah, Imaam Abdul Azeez ibn Abdullah bin Baaz, the very same Imaam about whom Abu Maryam used despicable and abusive words.)
“and narrated Ibn Abee Shaybah with an authentic chain from the narration of Abee Saaleh from Maalik ad-Daaree….”
Here Haafidh is just saying the chain of this report upto Abu Saaleh is authentic in terms of the people in it and there are just 2 of them ie Abu Saaleh and Maalik ad-Daar. So the issue here is, the chain is authentic only to Abu Saaleh, as this is not the complete chain and those who transmitted this report will have the complete chain in their respective books, hence the reason Haafidh mentioned it only from from Abu Saaleh, was to show there were defects and problems with the narrators ie the chain further down in line.
Secondly Haafidh declaring the narration to be authentic based on Maalik ad-Daar is questionable as where is the tautheeq of Maalik ad-Daar. The likes of Abu Maryam/Abu Zahra & Co are playing with mubham words which are vague and do not by any means authenticate the situation of Maalik. Hence for this they need to bring clear conclusive proof from the mutaqadimeen scholars who are agreed upon.
This shows Haafidh was not convinced with the authenticity of this report and hence he said the report was authentic only from Abu Saaleh. Dear readers it should also be further noted that Haafidh only authenticated the chain and not the actual report as it is not necessary according to the science of hadeeth that an authentic chain always denotes and renders the matn ie the text of the report to also be authentic. Our Shaikh and Allaamah Imaam Ibn Baaz added a tremendous note of great important which also indicates that as such, the action from this report opposes the act of the major companions which by default renders the matn of this report in question to we weak.
We do not wish to go into detail here and i am fairly certain after the long awaited response from Abul Hasan & Co on our previous parts we shall inshaAllaah be more than happy to advocate further clarification in the half hearted authentication of this report by Haafidh Ibn Hajr. I hear you ask, well why was Haafidh Ibn Hajr reluctant with regards to his authentication of this report and this leads us onto point number 3
NUMBER 3 – Ta’reef Ahlul Taqdees Bi-Maraattib al-Mawsoofeen Bit-Tadlees ie Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen Of Haafidh Ibn Hajr
(Ta’reef Ahlul Taqdees Bi-Maraattib al-Mawsoofeen Bit-Tadlees (pg.25 no.55)
Haafidh Ibn Hajr clearly states that although Suleimaan bin Mehraan ie al-A’mash was a Muhaddith of Koofah he was also a mudallis and the likes of al-Karabeesee, Nasaa’ee and ad-Daarqutnee also attributed tadlees to him. So Haafidh Ibn Hajr in essence declared this report to be weak. For instance a number of authors have transmitted this report with the full chain, Imaam Ibn Abee Shaybah being one of them and he must have done so with a full chain, as even the most basic student of hadeeth knows in order for a text or report to be authentic, its Isnaad must be complete and connected.
So a basic question arises and we pose this to those who advocate the authenticity of this report that when Haafidh Ibn Hajr said in Fath ul-Baaree the chain is authentic, which chain was he referring to. I hear you quickly say, well it has to be the chain which Ibn Abee Shaybah transmits. So we say we agree but then that chains contains A’mash and Haafidh Ibn Hajr himself is saying A’mash is a Mudallis and the report of a mudallis narrator is weak up until there is further evidence, knowledge or restrictions that take the tadlees away. Summary Haafidh Ibn Hajr declared the chain to be authentic based on just narrators. How does this prove this whole report with its actual full chain is authentic.
Dear readers we explained above, just because some narrators are trustworthy or if a particular chain is authentic it does by default necessitate the report or the matn of the report is authentic. Therefore we ask did Haafidh Ibn Hajr authenticate this report of Maalik ad-Daar by his statement that the isnaad is authentic, lets further examine what Haafidh himself says and this leads us on to point Number 4
NUMBER 4 Talkhees al-Habeer Fee Takhreej Ahadeeth ar-Raafi’ee al-Kabeer of Haafidh Ibn Hajr
(Talkhees al-Habeer Fee Takhreej Ahadeeth ar-Raafi’ee al-Kabeer (3/45)
Haafidh Ibn Hajr as explained above holds A’mash to be a mudallis and he re-iterated that in his Talkhees he explains that just because the narrators of a report are trustworthy and reliable it does not necessitate the hadeeth or athar is also authentic
Haafidh says, “I say according to me the hadeeth which Ibn al-Qattaan authenticated is in actual fact ma’lool (defective and hence weak), just because the narrators are trustworthy it does not necessitate the report is authentic! Because A’mash is a Mudallis as he did not mention hearing from A’taa. It is possible A’taa here is A’taa al-Khurasaanee and in this way the tadlees (of A’mash) will be tadlees taswiyyah (concealing the tadlees) thereby dropping Naa’fe between A’taa and Ibn Umar. Therefore refer to the first chain which is well known.”
So this was Haafidh Ibn Hajr stance on A’mash. He also furthers his position by citing the position of other scholars on A’mash namely Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah and this leads us onto Point Number 5
NUMBER 5 Ittihaaf ul-Maharah Bil-Fawaa’id il-Mubtakarah Min Atraaf al-Ashrah Of Haafidh Ibn Hajr
(Ittihaaf ul-Maharah Bil-Fawaa’id il-Mubtakarah Min Atraaf al-Ashrah (8/592-593)
Here Haafidh ibn Hajr has cited Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah grading A’mash to be a mudallis. What is interesting here is that Haafidh in his Ittihaaf bringing Ibn Khuzaimahs statement and thereby agreeing with him. This dear readers is the methodology employed by the likes of Abul Hasan & Co. in authenticating narrators and therefore why should it not be applicable here.
In the process of compiling this article we would like to apologise to Abul Hasan, Abu Zahra and Abu Maryam for NOT plagairisng this from Shaikh Zubair Alee Za’ee and sorry to have let you down.
we await the over 50 pages reply inshaAllaah