Contradictory Statements of Noori Sahib
نحمده و نصلي على رسوله الكريم، أما بعد:
Ghulam Mustafa Noori Sahib wrote a book titled “Turk Raf’ al-Yadain” in which there are many contradictory statements. For example, when a narrator came according to his preference, he was declared trustworthy, and when the narrator came against his preference, he was criticized and rejected. Some examples are as follows:
❀ Noori Sahib presented a narration to prove the raising of hands in prostration, about which he wrote: “In this chain, the non-Muqtalids speak against Ismail bin Ayyash, saying he is weak. Briefly, regarding him, it is stated that Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani, may Allah have mercy on him, in his book
says: Some scholars have unconditionally declared Ismail bin Ayyash trustworthy. The Muhaddith Ya’qub bin Sufyan said that some people have spoken against Ismail, although Ismail bin Ayyash is a trustworthy and just narrator. From this discussion, it is understood that this is a sound raised narration.”
Contradiction:
It is this Ismail bin Ayyash who, when narrating the tradition of raising the hands (Raf’ al-Yadain), Nuri Sahib wrote: “In its chain of narration is Ismail bin Ayyash. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani, may Allah have mercy on him, in Tahdhib has transmitted statements of criticism and modification regarding him, the summary of which is that whenever Ismail bin Ayyash narrates from someone in Sham, he is trustworthy, but when he narrates from the people of Madinah and the city dwellers, his hadith is not considered authoritative. In the narration under discussion, he has narrated from Salih bin Kaysan, who is from the people of Madinah, and when he narrates from the people of Madinah, his narration is not authoritative. It has become clear that this narration is not authoritative. Therefore, reasoning based on it is not correct.”
In the first narration, Noori Sahib considered its hadith authentic, although he also narrated it from Saleh bin Kaysan. Since it supported Noori Sahib, it was considered authentic, and since it was against him, it became weak.
❀About a narrator who appeared in a narration contrary to Noori Sahib’s preference, it was written: “Because in this chain there is Hikm bin Utaybah who is unknown.”
Contradiction:
When the same narrator appeared in a narration according to Noori Sahib’s preference, Noori Sahib wrote: “The fifth narrator in this chain is Hikm bin Utaybah, who is also trustworthy.”
See how Noori Sahib appears in the mirror of his own words, so please observe:
“There is distrust of narrators among the non-followers (ghair muqallideen) that if a narrator appears in Bukhari, then he is trustworthy and his hadith is authentic. The same narrator, if he appears in any hadith other than Bukhari which goes against the temperament of the non-followers, then God forbid, they firmly resolve to discredit that narrator and criticize him so much that they blacken many pages. The narrator who was trustworthy in Bukhari now becomes weak because he narrated a hadith that goes against the practice and temperament of the non-followers. This is the honesty and justice of the non-followers.”
They accuse us, but the fault lies with themselves
❀ Muhammad bin Fudail is a narrator about whom Noori Sahib writes: “Then in the chain of this narration is Muhammad bin Fudail, about whom Abu Dawood said he is a Shia. Ibn Saad said do not use him as evidence.”
Contradiction:
In another place, Noori Sahib wrote about the chain of narration of the hadith narrated by Muhammad bin Fudail: “All the narrators in this chain are authentic narrators of Sahih Bukhari and are trustworthy and reliable.”
❀When a Tabi’i, Muharib bin Dathar, appeared in the chain of narration of a hadith about raising the hands (rafa’ al-yadain), Noori Sahib, while rejecting Imam Bukhari, wrote: “In its chain is Muharib bin Dathar, about whom Imam Ibn Sa’d said: لا يحتجون به that the Muhaddithin do not accept evidence with him. Moreover, this person’s views about Sayyiduna Uthman Ghani Dhu al-Nurayn (may Allah be pleased with him) and Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) were not correct. It is surprising that such people are used as evidence for raising the hands.”
Also, after declaring Muharib bin Dathar as a subject of criticism and quoting criticism from Mizan al-I’tidal, Noori Sahib writes: “Now you yourself consider, can the narration of such a person be a proof who was disrespectful to Sayyiduna Uthman Ghani Dhu al-Nurayn (may Allah be pleased with him) and Sayyiduna Ali Sher Allah (may Allah be pleased with him)?”
Contradiction:
Then in another place in the same book, Noori Sahib, citing the narration of Muharib bin Dathar, writes: “Hazrat Muharib bin Dathar, who was the judge of Kufa and a person of knowledge and virtue.”
❀ Noori Sahib writes about a hadith: “Then in its chain of narration there is a narrator Abu Hilal Muhammad bin Salim Abu Hilal al-Rabsi al-Basri. Then he quoted the criticism of the muhaddithin regarding him and wrote: ‘From this detailed discussion it became clear that this narration is not authentic but extremely weak.'”
Contradiction:
When his own interest was dear, then he also used the same narration of the same narrator as evidence.
❀ Noori Sahib writes about a narration: “In its chain of narration is Ukramah bin Ammar, who is weak.”
Contradiction:
And then elsewhere he also used the narration of the same Ukramah bin Ammar as evidence.
❀ A narration of a narrator Ibrahim bin Mundhir was against Noori Sahib’s inclination, so he rejected it by writing: But this narration is also weak in its chain. In its chain is a narrator Ibrahim bin Mundhir. Please observe.
“Although some have authenticated him, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, used to speak against him and condemn him. Zakir Ya Saji says: He has fabricated narrations. Allama Zahabi writes in Mizan that he greeted Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, but the Imam did not even respond to his greeting. Zakir Ya Saji said that he has fabricated narrations.”
Contradiction:
But elsewhere, the same narrator’s same narration is also used as evidence.
Whoever wishes may consider your excellence a miracle
❀Nuri Sahib writes about a narrator Ibrahim bin Tahman:
“In his chain, there is a narrator Ibrahim bin Tahman who is also weak.”
Contradiction:
And on page 237 of his book, he also uses a narration from Ibrahim bin Tahman as evidence.
❀Nuri Sahib writes about a narration regarding raising the hands (rafa’ al-yadain):
His fourth answer: It is that in its chain of narration, Hamid Taweel is present. It is appropriate to present the opinion of the non-followers’ hadith scholar, Allama Abdul Rahman Mubarakpuri, regarding this so that the non-followers may feel some shame in denying it (if there is any). Mubarakpuri, in his book Abkar Leman, has rejected the authenticity of a hadith solely because Hamid Taweel is the narrator in its chain…. In summary, the meaning of this passage is that Mubarakpuri said: I say that Hamid Taweel is in its chain of narration and he is a mudallis (one who conceals defects in the chain). He narrated from Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) with ‘an’ (from), so how can this narration be authentic? The fact that he is a mudallis has been explained by Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn. So, viewers, it has been proven that according to Mubarakpuri, this narration is not authentic either because it contains Hamid Taweel and he narrated from Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) with ‘an’, which is not considered proof by the non-followers. Thus, it has become clear that the Mawkuf hadith of Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) is not proof.
Contradiction:
Then a narration that suited Janori Sahib’s temperament was also described by Hameed Taweel with the word “عن” (about), to which Noori Sahib said: “It is understood that according to Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), in an authentic and trustworthy hadith, the raising of hands is only at the time of Takbeer-e-Tahreema and nowhere else.”
You feel no shame at all
Noori Sahib himself should feel some shame, at least a little.
❀ Noori Sahib writes: “Hafiz al-Dunya, the scholar Ibn Hajar Asqalani, in Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn, has divided the mudallis into five categories. The first category’s tadlees is very minimal and is unanimously accepted. The tadlees of the second category is also accepted by the Imams, and the mudallis of the third category are not accepted unless there is explicit hearing (sama’) confirmation.”
Contradiction:
And Hamid Tawil has been mentioned by Hafiz Ibn Hajar in the third category.
A narration which Hamid Tawil narrated with the word ‘an’ but it was according to Nuri Sahib’s meaning, therefore Nuri Sahib wrote: “But Imam Abu Ya’li has narrated this hadith in his chain with an authentic chain as Marfu’.”
Now this narration was according to Nuri Sahib’s meaning, so neither did Nuri Sahib see Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s categorical classification or hierarchy, nor did he see Hamid Tawil’s tadlis. What a fine justice this is!
❀ Nuri Sahib writes about a narrator Abu Qulabah: “Then Abu Qulabah himself is the one being spoken about here, he is a mudallis and this narration is from ‘an’ which is not a proof.”
Contradiction:
Whereas Nuri Sahib himself wrote that the tadlis of the first category is very rare. The above agreement is accepted.
And Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned Abu Qulabah in the first category only.
Warning:
Abu Qilabah was free from tadlis. For details, see
❀Noori Sahib, while discussing the chain of a hadith, writes: “But in its chain there is Saeed bin Abi Aroobah who is trustworthy but a mudallis, and he narrated this hadith from Qatadah with the word ‘an’ (عن), and when a mudallis narrates with ‘an’, it is not considered proof.”
Contradiction:
Hafiz Ibn Hajar also counted Saeed bin Abi Aroobah in the same category as Sufyan al-Thawri. The narration with ‘an’ from Sufyan al-Thawri has been declared weak by the great Imams, but it was according to Noori Sahib’s intention, so he exerted every effort to prove it authentic. Here, when the narration was against him, it was declared weak. Is this justice?
❀Noori Sahib writes: The tadlis of the first category is very little. The above consensus is accepted.
Contradiction:
But on the other hand, a narration was against the nature of Janwari Sahib, and in its chain, there is a Yahya bin Saeed, whom Hafiz Ibn Hajar has mentioned in the first category.
Refuting this, Nuri Sahib writes: “Yahya bin Saeed, who narrated from Salman bin Bisar (may Allah have mercy on him), although he is trustworthy, reliable, and authoritative, Imam Dimyati (may Allah have mercy on him) said that it is said he used to practice tadlis (concealing defects in narration), and when a mudallis narrates from ‘an, he is not authoritative, especially according to non-muqallidin (non-followers). Yahya bin Saeed also narrated the above-mentioned narrations from ‘an, so these are also not authoritative.”
Now the hunter has fallen into his own trap
Dear readers! Consider carefully how Noori Sahib has used deceit and trickery. When the same narrator appeared according to his wishes, he authenticated him, argued from his narration, and when the same narrator came against his wishes, Noori Sahib criticized that narrator and rejected his narration. He himself made a rule and then broke it himself. Is this what justice is called?
We know that this is Noori Sahib’s compulsion; if he does not engage in such manipulation, his business would close.
Therefore, these people keep trying day and night to turn truth into falsehood and falsehood into truth, and they exert every effort to prove authentic hadiths weak and weak hadiths authentic for the sake of their sect, but one should think that one day we have to die and after death, we have to stand before Allah Almighty. So what will be the answer there?
Warning:
Yahya ibn Saeed is free from tadlees (deception in narration). For details, see
May Allah Almighty grant us all the ability to recognize the truth as truth and to act upon it. Ameen
وما علينا إلا البلاغ المبين
