The Wounded Narrators of Aal Deoband
Maulana Abdul Rahman Shaheen Hafizahullah (a famous Ahl-e-Hadith scholar) used the hadiths narrated by Imam Hakim Rahimahullah and the trustworthy Tabi’i Imam Abu Qulaba Rahimahullah as evidence, upon which Ameen Okaraavi Deobandi labeled Imam Hakim Rahimahullah as a Shia.
However, by declaring Abu Qulaba Rahimahullah as a Nasibi, he wrote:
“You sometimes prostrate at the threshold of a Shia for raising hands in supplication, and sometimes seek the feet of a Nasibi.”
But the entire Deoband group, including Amin Okaraavi himself, also wrote the hadiths of these two mentioned Imams in their books and used them as evidence. Therefore, according to Okaraavi’s principle, Amin Okaraavi and other Deoband members sometimes prostrated at the threshold of the Shia and sometimes served the Nasibi at their feet. Below, the writer of these lines, God willing, will identify more than thirty (30) narrators whose narrated traditions, if they align with the disposition of the Deoband group, are accepted; and if they contradict their disposition, then those narrators are criticized and their traditions rejected. As an example, I will mention a few narrators in detail, and then for brevity, where the Deoband group has accepted or praised a tradition, I will write the reference, and where the tradition has been rejected, I will write “reference.” Discerning readers should consult the original references themselves.
Muhammad bin Jabir Yamami:
From its narration, the Al-Deo Band argue the issue of abandoning the raising of hands. See the hadith and
Warning:
Jameel Ahmad Nazeeri has committed two major mistakes:
◈He has narrated from Muhammad bin Jabir with reference to Dar Qutni, Bayhaqi, and Haithami, but he concealed the criticism that all three scholars made against this narrator.
◈Nazeeri wrote that “This narration of Muhammad bin Jabir Yamami, may Allah have mercy on him, is from before he became blind. Therefore, it is free from any kind of confusion.”
Whereas Nazeeri’s statement is completely baseless and a blatant lie.
Remember that Muhammad bin Jabir is considered a flawed narrator by the majority of hadith scholars.
For details, see
But when the same narrator said that Abu Hanifa had stolen his books, Abdul Quddus Qarun Deobandi criticized him as follows: “Then in this narration, there is Muhammad bin Jabir Al-Yamami Al-Atmi, about whom Imam Ahmad said that only a person more wicked than him would narrate hadith from him, and Ibn Ma’in and Nasai have declared him weak.”
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi said:
“And the narration of Hazrat Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) is weak because its chain includes Muhammad bin Jabir and Ayub bin Utbah. Allama Al-Hazmi writes in Kitab Al-I’tibar, p. 44 ضعیفان عند اهل العلم بالحدیث and Imam Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him)
writes that Muhammad bin Jabir is abandoned (matruk), so what is the meaning of abrogating an authentic narration with such a weak narration?”
Zaili Hanafi also declared Muhammad bin Jabir weak.
Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri Deobandi also declared Muhammad bin Jabir weak.
Abu Yusuf Muhammad Wali Darwesh Deobandi criticized Muhammad bin Jabir due to the hadith about ablution being invalidated by mentioning the name of Allah.
And in the same book, Muhammad bin Jabir’s endorsement is cited regarding the issue of abandoning the raising of hands.
This is the height of double standards.
Sulaiman Shadh Kuni:
Al Deoband mentions a debate between Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Awza’i on the issue of abandoning the raising of hands, citing a narration attributed to Sulaiman bin Dawood Shadh Kuni.
See
Sarfaraz Safdar Deobandi has written:
“The great scholars of Hadith were not satisfied with the methodology of the author of Khair al-Kalam and sought support from the lies of Sulayman Shadh Kuni, and they do not even bother to explain who he is. Imam Bukhari states that Ibn Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him, considered him a liar in Hadith. Abu Hatim called him unreliable in Hadith, and An-Nasa’i, may Allah have mercy on him, said he is not trustworthy. Saleh Jazrah, may Allah have mercy on him, said کان یکذب فی الحدیث that he lied in Hadith. Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said that he drank alcohol and was involved in indecent acts, and also said that no one more deceitful than Shadh Kuni entered Darb Damik. Al-Baghawi said that the leaders of Hadith accused him of lying, and Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in said that he used to fabricate Hadith. Imam Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, considered him unreliable in Hadith, and Imam Ibn Mahdi called him unsuccessful and unworthy. Imam Abdul Razzaq, may Allah have mercy on him, called him an enemy of Allah, a liar, and vile. Saleh Jazrah said that he fabricated chains of narration instantly, and Saleh bin Muhammad also said that he was accused of lying and immoral behavior.
”
Muhammad bin Saib Kalbi and Muhammad bin Marwan al-Suddi:
Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib Deobandi has written:
The name of Kulbi is Muhammad bin Al-Saib bin Bishr Abu Al-Nadr. Imam Ibn Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him, states that he is not trustworthy. Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, says that Imam Baychi and Ibn Mahdi completely abandoned narrations from him. Abu Juz and Yazid bin Zurai say that Kulbi is a liar because he claims that Angel Jibril mistakenly revealed the revelation to Hazrat Ali instead of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him (may Allah forbid). Imam Nasai says that he is not trustworthy. Imam Ali bin Al-Junaid, Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim, and Dar Qutni say that his hadiths are abandoned. Zujai says that he is a liar and unreliable. Ibn Hibban says that falsehood is clearly evident in his narrations. Saji says that he is abandoned in hadith, very weak, and an extremist Shia. Imam Abu Abdullah Al-Hakim says that he narrated false reports from Abu Salih. Hafiz Ibn Hajar says that all trustworthy narrators unanimously condemn him and there is consensus that none of his narrations are acceptable in rulings and branches of jurisprudence
. Imam Ahmad says that Kulbi’s tafsir from beginning to end is all false, and it is not permissible to read it
.
Warning:
The tafsir attributed to Kulbi (Tanweer al-Miqbas) is by no means authentically proven with a sound chain up to Kulbi himself; rather, in the chain below, many narrators are weak or unknown. For example: محمد بن مروان السدی کذاب، عمار بن عبدالمجید الہروی، ابو عبید الله محمود بن محمد الرازی ابوعبد الله ، المأمور الہروی، عبد اللہ بن الماً مور۔
Muhammad bin Marwan Suddi:
Sarfaraz Safdar Deobandi wrote against a Barelvi who presented Suddi’s narration: “You have taken refuge in the house of the liar Suddi through Khazin, which is absolutely sufficient for your scholarly disgrace, and this stain will always shine on your forehead.”
However, regarding the issue of abandoning raising hands (raf‘ yadayn), Ameen Okaraavi Deobandi argued from a narration of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) attributed to Sayyid Na Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), whose chain includes both Kulbi and Muhammad bin Marwan Suddi.
See
Abdul Ghani Tariq Ludhianvi Deobandi also argued similarly.
See
The “Sheikh al-Hadith” of the Deoband group, Faiz Ahmad Multani, also argued.
See
The “Mufti” of the Deoband group, Ahmad Mumtaz, also argued.
Amjad Saeed Deobandi also argued.
Ilyas Ghuman Deobandi also argued.
This fabricated interpretation has been attributed to Sayyid Na Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, and this has been acknowledged by Ahmad Raza Barelvi and Taqi Usmani Deobandi as well.
See
Warning:
The forged tafsir named Tanweer al-Miqbas by Muhammad bin Marwan al-Saddi is also never proven with an authentic chain; rather, the chain below it contains defective and unknown narrators.
Muhammad bin Humayd al-Razi:
He is a narrator of a tradition attributed to Sayyiduna Jabir, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding the issue of Taraweeh.
◈ Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued from his narration on the issue of Taraweeh.
See
◈ Amin Okaraavi also argued on this issue.
◈Ilyas Ghuman Deobandi also argued from its narration on the same issue.
See
Ameen Okaraavi also argued from its narration in the issue of divorce.
See
Also, in the issue of divorce, Ismail Jhangvi argued from its narration in Tuhfa
and Sarfaraz Safdar in
.
However, when the narration of the same narrator was against him, Ameen Okaraavi severely criticized it.
Mufti Jameel Nazeeri of the Deobandi family also severely criticized it. See Rasool Akram ﷺ Ka Tareeqa Namaz
For further details see
Sarfaraz Safdar also accepted him as a liar.
Jabbarah bin Mughlis:
Ameen Okaraavi has cited a narration attributed to Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar رضي الله عنه from Ibn Adi to prove that raising hands is an innovation.
Anwar Khurshid has also narrated this in support from Hadith and
, but on the other hand, for the criticism of Sarfaraz Safdar, see
.
Yazid bin Abi Yazid:
The Deobandi scholars use his narration in the issue of abandoning the raising of hands during prayer as evidence. See
.
Sayyiduna Bara bin Azib is attributed with a narration on his behalf, and many other Deobandis have presented his narration in their books as evidence. For example, Taqi Usmani in
, Faiz Ahmad Multani in
, Jamil Ahmad Naziri in Rasul Allah’s Method
, and Abdul Hamid Swati in
have used his narration as proof, but Ashraf Ali Thanvi has criticized Yazid bin Abi Yazid.
.
The author of “Namaz-e-Payghambar ﷺ”, Ilyas Faisal Deobandi, wrote:
Zailai states that in its chain of narration is Yazid bin Abi Ziyad, and he is weak.
Because the narration was related to wiping over socks, which was against the Deobandi school of thought.
Ameen Okaraavi also wrote to reject the narration of Yazid bin Abi Ziyad: “In the chain of narration of Tabarani, Yazid bin Abi Ziyad is present; he has mistakenly mentioned the word ‘Jor Bain’ here.”
Abdullah Mutasim, a favorite of Ilyas Ghuman, rejected the narration of Yazid bin Abi Ziyad, writing: “This hadith could not be presented as proof because Imam Zailai states that in the chain of this hadith is Yazid bin Abi Ziyad, and he is weak.”
Hafiz Ibn Hajar states that Yazid was weak. In his later life, his condition changed and he became Shia. (
Ayni Hanafi wrote: “I said: Yazid bin Abi Ziyad is weak.”
Ali bin Muhammad Haqqani Sindhi Deobandi considered Yazid bin Abi Ziyad weak in the matter of wiping over socks.
And in the same book, in the discussion of raising the hands, the same Yazid bin Abi Ziyad was declared trustworthy and truthful.
This is the height of double standards and hypocrisy.
Umar bin Harun:
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi used his narration as evidence in the issue of Taraweeh.
Okaraavi also used his narration as evidence in this issue.
Ilyas Ghuman Deobandi also used his narration as evidence in the same issue.
But on the other hand, since his narration was contradictory, Ameen Okaraavi declared this narration extremely weak and thus criticized it: “Allama Zahabi says about the narrator Umar bin Harun that they agreed on his weakness and An-Nasa’i considered him abandoned.”
For further criticism see
Muhammad bin Abdur Rahman Ibn Abi Layla:
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued on the issue of abandoning the raising of hands.
Taqi Usmani declared it weak.
For further criticism, see
Anwar Shah Kashmiri Deobandi also declared Muhammad ibn Abi Layla weak according to the majority.
See
Amin Okarawee also called it weak.
It is noted that due to a writing error, Layla was mistakenly written as Ya’la.
Tahawi also said: ’’مضطرب الحفظ جدًا‘‘
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued from a narration of Umm Yahya.
Okarawee also argued on this issue.
Amjad Saeed Deobandi also argued on the same issue.
But elsewhere, to reject the narration of Umm Bichi, Okarawee declared it “Majhoola” (unknown).
Sarfaraz Safdar also called it “Majhoola”.
Abdul Rahman bin Zaid bin Aslam:
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued on the issue of abandoning recitation behind the Imam.
But Sarfaraz Safdar quoted the consensus of the Muhadditheen on its weakness.
For further criticism see
and
Abdul Rahman bin Ishaq al-Wasiti:
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi used the narration attributed to Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the issue of folding hands below the navel.
For criticism by the Deobandi scholars and their elders see
Anwar Shah said about al-Shamiri:
’’ان الواسطي ضعيف متفق علی ضعفه‘‘
Indeed, al-Wasiti is weak, there is consensus on his weakness.
Laith bin Abi Sulaym:
To prove the raising of hands (Raf’ al-Yadain) in Witr prayer, the Deobandi scholars argue by mistranslating the narration attributed to Sayyiduna Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him)
. Anwar Khurshid argued in Hadith aur Ahl-e-Hadith
. Sarfaraz Safdar argued in Khazain al-Sunan
and also declared the narration authentic.
The Deobandi “Sheikh al-Hadith” Faiz Ahmad Multani also argued on this issue and declared the narration authentic.
However, when this narration was seen against the Deobandi school of thought, Sarfaraz Safdar Deobandi severely criticized it and declared it weak.
Taqi Usmani declared it weak in Dars Tirmidhi
, Ameen Okaraavi in Tajalliyat Safdar
, and Faqirullah in Khatmah al-Kalam
.
Also see
Kaseer bin Abdullah bin Umar wal-Aufi:
Anwar Khurshid argued on the issue of abandoning the raising of hands.
Sarfaraz Safdar also argued.
But Al Deoband’s KP Mushtaq has declared it very weak and has narrated the criticism.
Sarfaraz Safdar has also criticized it.
Abdul Rahman bin Ziyad bin al-Na’am al-Afriki:
In the book of Al Deoband’s Pir Mushtaq Ali Shah, it is written:
If after Tashahhud one deliberately passes gas or talks, then his prayer will be complete.
Answer Your objection is not on Hidayah, nor on Imam Azam, but on the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) because the chain of narration of this issue is present in the hadith. “Objections on Hanafi Fiqh
” After this, Mushtaq Ali Shah Deobandi has presented a narration on
in which Abdul Rahman bin Ziyad bin al-Na’am al-Afriki is the narrator.
Sarfaraz Safdar has declared it weak in
and Taqi Usmani Deobandi has also declared it weak in
.
Ibrahim bin Uthman Wasiti:
Al Deoband uses his narration as evidence in the issue of Taraweeh.
In the same issue, Ilyas Ghuman Deobandi has also used it as evidence.
But in a narration regarding reciting Surah in the funeral prayer, the same narrator is present, therefore Muhammad Taqi Usmani Deobandi said: “It is weak because of Ibrahim bin Usman.”
For further criticism of this narrator, see
Yahya bin Ya’la Al-Salmi and Abu Farwah Yazid bin Sinan:
Regarding the issue of omitting the raising of hands in the Takbirs of the funeral prayer, Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued from a narration attributed to Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him), and both these narrators are present in this chain.
But Taqi Usmani Deobandi considered both these narrators weak.
See
Fadl bin Al-Sakan:
Anwar Khurshid argued from a narration attributed to Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the issue of omitting the raising of hands in the Takbirs of the funeral prayer, from this narrator.
Taqi Usmani Deobandi declared this narrator unknown.
Hajjaj bin Arta:
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued from his narration regarding the issue of double Iqamah.
And regarding the same narrator, Abdul Quddus Deobandi has quoted his Allama Qasmi’s words as: “He was showing off in front of people.”
Habibullah Dervi Deobandi, in his book Noor-us-Sabah, declared Hajjaj bin Artaatah as weak, a fabricator, frequently mistaken, and abandoned in hadith.
And in the same book, he presented a narration of the same Hajjaj bin Artaatah and declared it an authentic hadith.
Ibn Lahi’ah:
From his narration, Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued in Maimoon Makki’s narration regarding the issue of raising the hands (raf’ al-yadain) during prayer.
Munir Ahmad Munawwar used it as evidence in the issue of raising hands in the Takbeerat of Eid prayers.
Ameen Okaraavi used a wrongly translated narration to argue in the issue of Taqlid (imitation).
But when his narration was against the Deobandi school regarding the issue of twelve (12) Takbeerat in Eid prayers, Munir Ahmad Munawwar declared him weak in the same mentioned book.
Taqi Usmani has declared it weak
, Mahmood Alam Okaraavi has declared it weak
, and Ameen Okaraavi has declared it weak in the section on raising hands
.
For the interest of readers, I am quoting the contradictory statements of Ameen Okaraavi:
Ameen Okaraavi wrote in one place: “This chain is absolutely weak because Abdullah bin Lahi’ah is a weak narrator.”
Ameen Okaraavi wrote elsewhere:
“And Ibn Lahi’ah is Hasan al-Hadith (a reliable narrator).”
Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Sayyar:
According to the majority, he is a trustworthy narrator.
See
For reasoning or modification based on the narrations of Muhammad bin Ishaq, see
For refutation and criticism of the narrations of Muhammad bin Ishaq, see
Abu Ishaq al-Subai’i:
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued on the issue of abandoning recitation behind the Imam.
This narration is attributed to Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him). Sarfaraz Safdar also argued on the same issue.
However, when one Barelvi presented one of his narrations in favor of the permissibility of saying “Ya Muhammad” (peace be upon him), Noor Muhammad Tuniswi Deobandi exposed it as deceptive and rejected that narration.
See
(pp. 35-39)
Ameen Okaraavi also criticized it.
See
Also, Mahmood Alam (Nanhe Okaraavi) has criticized it.
See
Argument from the Mua’anan narration of Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him):
The Deobandi scholars argued on the issue of abandoning the raising of hands (raf’ al-yadain) during prayer from the Mua’anan narration of Sufyan al-Thawri.
On the other hand, mention was made of being a mudallis (one who practices tadlis) in case his narration is contradictory.
See
For further details see
Makhool al-Shami, may Allah have mercy on him:
Several from the Al-Dewband family have used the narration of Imam Makhool as evidence or praised him.
But on the other hand, Asif Lahori, a favorite of Ilyas Ghuman, and his assistant debater also rejected the narration of Makhool, may Allah have mercy on him, and used foul language.
The assistant debater’s name is “Sanaullah,” a Deobandi.
Usama bin Zaid al-Laithi:
Usama bin Zaid Al-Laithi is considered a trustworthy narrator by the majority, while Usama bin Zaid Al-Adawi is weak. Ameen Okarawee wrote against one of his opponents: “To deny a hadith, Usama bin Zaid Al-Laithi was declared to be Usama bin Zaid Al-Adawi. This method of denying the Prophetic hadiths has not even occurred to the deniers of hadith so far, that wherever the word عن عبد اللہ قال قال رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم appears, instead of Abdullah bin Mas’ud (رضی اللہ عنہ), they declare the chief of hypocrites Abdullah bin Abi and refuse to accept the hadith.”
Okarawee wrote elsewhere: “In the eagerness to deny a hadith, Usama bin Zaid Al-Laithi was made Usama bin Zaid Al-Adawi; this is mere fabrication. If only the Hanafis refrained from enmity against the Messenger in opposition.”
Sarfaraz Safdar also declared the narration of Usama bin Zaid Al-Laithi as authentic.
Sarfaraz Safdar said about Usama bin Zaid Al-Laithi:
“His hadith is not less than good (Hasan) grade.”
But when the narration of the same narrator was against the Deobandi sect, Sarfaraz Safdar has criticized it to refute it.
Now the entire Deobandis should also attach Okara’s fatwas against the Deobandis who criticize.
Abu Ja’far al-Razi:
In the matter of Taraweeh, Anwar Khurshid Deobandi argued.
Ilyas Ghuman argued in the matter of Taraweeh.
But Zakariya Deobandi of Tablighi Jamaat said it was weak.
Sarfaraz Safdar Deobandi also said it was weak.
For further criticism, see the statements of the entire Deoband and their elders.
Imam Ibn Jurayj, may Allah have mercy on him:
Regarding him also, the policy of the entire Deoband is double-faced. For details see
Also, Sarfaraz Safdar Sahib has said that the hadith narrated by Ibn Jurayj, may Allah have mercy on him, is authentic.
Habibullah Dervi Deobandi severely criticized Ibn Jurayj in the introduction of Noor-us-Subah.
And elsewhere, he presented the narration of the same Ibn Jurayj as evidence.
Rather, he wrote: “He is trustworthy but a severe type of mudallis (one who conceals defects in the chain of narration).”
This is the height of double standards.
Imam Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him:
Sarfaraz Safdar proved him trustworthy.
In the case of a conflicting narration, Amin Okaraavi wrote about him: “Hakim is an extreme Shia.”
Elsewhere, referring to Imam Hakim’s kunyah, he wrote: “The second narrator Abu Abdullah Al-Hafiz is a filthy Rafidi.”
But Amin Okaraavi himself has recorded Imam Hakim’s narrations in his books.
See
Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi, in his book “Rah-e-Sunnat” against the Barelvis, used narrations of Imam Hakim, and his references are presented here:
Also see
Qazi Shareek Al-Kufi:
Ameen Okaraavi used the narration attributed to Sayyiduna Wail bin Hujr رضي الله عنه regarding the issue of leaving the raising of hands, in which Qazi Shareek is the chain narrator, as evidence.
Faiz Ahmad Multani Deobandi argued in the issue of “placing the knees first and then the hands when going into prostration.”
Jameel Ahmad Deobandi also argued on the same issue.
Sufi Abdul Hameed Sawati argued on the same issue.
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi presented its narration.
In the issue of leaving the raising of hands, Mufti Ahmad Mumtaz of the Deoband family argued.
But on the other hand, Sarfaraz Safdar has severely criticized their narration for being against the Deobandi school of thought.
Amjad Saeed Deobandi wrote about Qazi Shareek’s narration being against the Deobandi school of thought: “Qazi Shareek is not only a weak narrator but also rejected and not accepted.”
Imam Abu Qalabah, may Allah have mercy on him:
Sarfaraz Safdar, in the issue of the eclipse prayer, first presented the narration of Abu Qalabah, may Allah have mercy on him, as evidence for Imam Abu Hanifa’s argument. See
and
, where he is also praised.
Anwar Khurshid Deobandi has presented the narration of Imam Abu Qalabah, may Allah have mercy on him, in the issue of abandoning recitation behind the Imam.
Also, a narration has been presented in the issue of prostration of forgetfulness.
Indeed, even Okaraavi has presented his narrations.
When Imam Abu Qalabah’s statement was according to Okaraavi’s desires, Okaraavi wrote: “Hazrat Abu Qalabah”
Abu Bakr Ghazipuri wrote: “Abu Qalabah, a muhaddith of Basra… a famous muhaddith, a great ascetic”
Dear readers, it was quoted at the beginning that Amin Okaraavi Deobandi called Ahl al-Hadith those who present the narrations of Imam Hakim (may Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Abu Qulaba (may Allah have mercy on him) as those who prostrate at the doorstep of Shia and lick the feet of the Nasibis. However, he himself presents the hadiths of these two noble Imams and has the same attitude with many other Muhaddithin, as you have already observed with references. Despite this, Amin Okaraavi wrote:
“This is the condition of these so-called Ahl al-Hadith; if any hadith is according to their own desires, they become very happy, but if any hadith is against their desires, they surpass even the Jews in rejecting that hadith.”
From the above references, it has become as clear as daylight that the ones fitting Okaraavi’s commentary are the Deobandi group and Okaraavi himself.
For commentary on Okaraavi’s mentioned statement, see
Regarding the narrators of Ahl-e-Deoband, these (30) contradictory statements have been presented to you from a heap; otherwise, the list of such contradictory statements of Ahl-e-Deoband is very long. For example: The narration of Amr ibn Shuayb has been used as evidence. Maulana Munir Ahmad Manwar of Ahl-e-Deoband first presented the narration of Amr ibn Shuayb, may Allah have mercy on him, in the issue of “The obligation of the beard and its prescribed length.”
Sarfaraz Safdar also accepted the narrations of Amr ibn Shuayb, may Allah have mercy on him, as authentic and used them as evidence.
Amin Okaraavi, while explaining to a fellow Deobandi, wrote:
“If it is Amr ibn Shuayb, may Allah have mercy on him, then Imam Sahib, may Allah have mercy on him, took the hadith from him in the Musnad, so you have no objection.”
But according to Okaraavi, when their narration was against Sarfaraz Safdar’s desire of the self, he declared them weak and their narration as mursal based on the statements of some hadith scholars.
Habibullah Deorvi Deobandi, in his book Izhar al-Tahseen, called Ibrahim bin Abi al-Laith (a narrator) a liar and fabricator.
And in another place in the same book, he also counted him among the highly trustworthy narrators.
I conclude my article by stating that sometimes, some present unfounded criticism against all trustworthy narrators in such a way that they end up playing the role of a naive friend to their own elders (whom they do not tire of calling “Hazrat”) and disgrace and humiliate them in front of the world. For example: Amin Okara Deobandi, while criticizing the trustworthy and truthful narrator Musharrah bin Haman in the discussion of raising hands during prayer, wrote that he (Musharrah) was in the army of Hajjaj which besieged the Holy Kaaba and threw stones with slingshots at Hazrat Abdullah bin Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him), and even burned the curtains of the Holy Kaaba with fiery bullets.
Therefore, they take narrations from enemies of the non-following Companions and enemies of the Holy Kaaba.
This incident against Musharrah is fabricated and baseless.
But the issue of the Finality of Prophethood includes a unique narration by Musharrah bin Ha’aan that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: If there were to be any prophet after me, then Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) would not have existed.
This mentioned hadith was cited by Al-Diwbandi “Muhaddith Kabir” Badr Alam Meerthi as evidence.
Al-Diwbandi’s “Mufti” and “Shaheed” Muhammad Yusuf Ludhianvi also cited it as evidence.
Therefore, according to Okaraavi, these two (Meerthi and Ludhianvi) have been proven enemies of the Companions of the Prophet!
