Imam Sufyan Thawri’s Tadlees and the Second Class?

[This article was originally written in response to Faisal Khan Barelvi’s book “On the Subject of Raising Hands… A Scholarly Analysis of Noor al-Aynain”.]

الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلوة والسلام على رسوله الأمين ، أما بعد:

Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned Imam Sufyan ibn Saeed al-Thawri, may Allah have mercy on him, in the second category of mudallis (those who practice tadlees).

Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s research is incorrect in many respects, for which thirty (30) evidences and references are presented here:
① Imam Abu Hanifa narrated a hadith through the chain Asim from Abi Razin from Ibn Abbas that a female apostate is not to be killed. See Sunan Dar Qutni

, Al-Kamil by Ibn Adi

, Sunan al-Kubra by Bayhaqi

, Kitab al-Imam al-Shafi’i

, and Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah

, etc.
Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Sufyan al-Thawri used to criticize Abu Hanifa because of a hadith he narrated which no one else besides Abu Hanifa narrated from Asim from Abi Razin.

Imam Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi said: I asked Sufyan (al-Thawri) about the hadith of Asim regarding the apostate, and he said: This narration is not from a trustworthy person.

This is the same hadith which Sufyan al-Thawri himself narrated through ”عن عاصم عن أبى رزين عن ابن عباس“ chain, then his student Imam Abu Asim (Al-Dhahhak ibn Mukhlad al-Nabil) said: We consider that Sufyan al-Thawri practiced tadlees from Abu Hanifa in this hadith, so I wrote down both chains.

From this, it is understood that Imam Sufyan al-Thawri practiced tadlees even from narrators he considered weak (da’if). Hafiz Al-Dhahabi wrote: He (Sufyan al-Thawri) practiced tadlees from weak narrators, etc.

A famous principle of hadith methodology is that if a narrator practices tadlees from weak narrators, then his ‘an’ narration is weak. Hafiz Al-Dhahabi wrote:

ثم إن كان المدلس عن شيخه ذا تدليس عن الثقات فلا بأس، و إن كان ذا تدليس عن الضعفاء فمردود

If one practices tadlees from his teacher, and if he does so from trustworthy narrators, then there is no harm in his narration; but if he practices tadlees from weak narrators, then his narration is rejected.

Abu Bakr al-Sirfi (Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Baghdadi al-Shafi’i / died 330 AH) said in his book Al-Dala’il: كل من ظهر تدليسه عن غير الثقات لم يقبل خبره حتى يقول : حدثني أو سمعت Whoever is clearly shown to practice tadlees from weak narrators, his hadith is not accepted unless he says “hadathani” or “sami’tu” (i.e., explicitly states hearing).

From this principle of hadith methodology, it is clear that Imam Sufyan al-Thawri was not from the second category but from the third category of mudallis due to his behavior.
② Imam Ali ibn Abdullah al-Madini said: People depend on Yahya al-Qattan in the hadiths of Sufyan (al-Thawri) because he narrated with explicit hearing (sama’).

Two things are proven from this statement:
First: The narration of Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattan from Sufyan al-Thawri is based on Sufyan’s explicit hearing.
Second: Imam Ibn al-Madini did not consider Imam Sufyan al-Thawri to be from the first or second category; otherwise, why would he need Yahya al-Qattan’s narration?
③ Imam Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattan said: I only wrote from Sufyan (al-Thawri) what he said “hadathani” or “hadathana,” except for two hadiths.

The two hadiths are as follows:
سفيان عن سماك عن عكرمة ومغيرة عن إبراهيم ﴿وإِن كَانَ مِن قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّۢ لَّكُمْ﴾ قالا : هو الرجل يسلم فى دار الحرب فيقتل فليس فيه دية فيه كفارة

Meaning, the two narrations of Akramah and Ibrahim al-Nakha’i mentioned above, apart from these, every narration of Yahya al-Qattan from Sufyan al-Thawri is based on explicit hearing. From Yahya al-Qattan’s statement, it is proven that he did not consider Sufyan al-Thawri from the second category; otherwise, what is the benefit of not writing the hadiths?
④ Hafiz Ibn Hibban al-Busti said: For those mudallis narrators who are trustworthy and just, we only accept those narrations in which they explicitly state hearing (sama’). For example, Sufyan al-Thawri, Al-A’mash, Abu Ishaq, and others who were top trustworthy Imams… etc.

It is understood that Hafiz Ibn Hibban considered Sufyan al-Thawri and Al-A’mash not from the second category but from the third category.
Hafiz Ibn Hibban further said: Those trustworthy narrators who practiced tadlees in their hadiths, such as Qatadah, Yahya ibn Abi Kathir, Al-A’mash, Abu Ishaq, Ibn Jurayj, Ibn Ishaq, Al-Thawri, and Hashim, sometimes narrated from their sheikh in a tadlees manner, meaning they heard from weak and unreliable people. Therefore, unless the mudallis, even if trustworthy, says: حدثني يا سمعت (i.e., explicitly states hearing), it is not permissible to accept his narration as proof.

Two things are evident from this testimony:
First: Hafiz Ibn Hibban did not consider the narrations of Sufyan al-Thawri and others as proof unless explicit hearing was stated.
Second: According to Hafiz Ibn Hibban, Sufyan al-Thawri and others sometimes practiced tadlees even from weak narrators.
⑤ Hakim Nishapuri mentioned the first category of mudallis who practiced tadlees from trustworthy narrators, then he mentioned the second category, and then the third category who practiced tadlees from unknown narrators.

Hakim Nishapuri mentioned Imam Sufyan ibn Saeed al-Thawri in the third category of mudallis, indicating that he narrated from unknown narrators.

This statement was explained by Hafiz al-‘Alai as follows:

والثالث: من يدلس عن أقوام مجهولين لا يدرى من هم كسفيان الثوري

And the third are those who practice tadlees from unknown people, like Sufyan al-Thawri…

It has been stated that the ‘an’ narration of one who practices tadlees from weak narrators is rejected.
Note: All narrations of mudallis in Sahihayn are considered authentic because they are based on explicit hearing or corroborations. Praise be to Allah.
⑥ The statement of Imam Abu Asim al-Nabil has already been mentioned in point 1, which proves that he did not consider his teacher Imam Sufyan al-Thawri from the first or second category; otherwise, he would have based his ‘an’ narration on explicit hearing.
⑦ Imam Sufyan al-Thawri narrated a hadith from his teacher Qais ibn Muslim al-Judali al-Kufi, about which Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi said: ولا أظن الثوري سمعه من قيس، آراه مدلسا I do not think that al-Thawri heard it from Qais; I consider it tadlees (i.e., a tadlees narration).

It is understood that Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi considered Imam Sufyan al-Thawri not from the second category but from the third category.
⑧ Imam Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak said to the famous third-category mudallis Imam Hashim ibn Bashir al-Wasiti: Why do you practice tadlees when you have heard much? He replied: Two great ones also practiced tadlees, namely Al-A’mash and (Sufyan) al-Thawri.

Imam Ibn al-Mubarak did not criticize Hashim by saying that these two were from the second category and you are from the third; rather, his silence indicates that he accepted that Hashim, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Al-A’mash were all mudallis of the third category. In other words, he considered Sufyan al-Thawri and Al-A’mash also from the third category; otherwise, he would have certainly criticized Hashim.
⑨ It is a fact that Imam Hashim ibn Bashir was a third-category mudallis, and it is also proven that he considered Sufyan al-Thawri and Al-A’mash as mudallis like himself. Therefore, it is established that Sufyan al-Thawri and Al-A’mash were not mudallis of the first or second category according to Hashim.
⑩ Imam Ya’qub ibn Shaybah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: فأما من دلس عن غير ثقة و عمن لم يسمع هو منه فقد جاوز حد التدليس الذى رخص فيه من رخص من العلماء So if he practices tadlees from a weak narrator or from someone he did not hear from, then he has crossed the limit of tadlees which some scholars have permitted.

Two things are proven from Imam Ya’qub ibn Shaybah’s statement:
First: The narration of one who practices tadlees from weak narrators without explicit hearing is rejected.
Second: Mursal and Munqati’ narrations are rejected.
Since it is proven that Sufyan al-Thawri practiced tadlees from weak narrators, therefore, in light of this statement, his ‘an’ narration is also rejected.
⑪ Allama Nawawi al-Shafi’i said about Sufyan al-Thawri:

منها أن سفيان رحمه الله تعالى من المدلسين وقال فى الرواية الأولى عن علقمة والمدلس لا يحتج بعنعنته بالاتفاق إلا أن ثبت سماعه من طريق آخر…

And from them it is also understood that Sufyan (al-Thawri), may Allah have mercy on him, was among the mudallis, and he said in the first narration عن علقمه, and the ‘an’ narration of a mudallis is unanimously not considered proof unless explicit hearing is established in the second chain.

It is understood that Allama Nawawi did not accept Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s classification but considered Sufyan al-Thawri a third-category mudallis whose ‘an’ narration is weak unless explicit hearing or reliable corroboration is established.
⑫ ‘Ayni Hanafi said: And Sufyan (al-Thawri) was among the mudallis, and the ‘an’ narration of a mudallis is not proof unless explicit hearing is established in the second chain.

⑬ Ibn al-Turkumani Hanafi criticized a narration saying:
فيه ثلاث علل: الثوري مدلس و قد عنعن… It has three defects (reasons for weakness): Al-Thawri is a mudallis and he narrated it ‘an’…

It is understood that according to Ibn al-Turkumani, Sufyan al-Thawri was a third-category mudallis and his ‘an’ narration is a disqualifying defect.
⑭ Karamani Hanafi said in Sharh Sahih Bukhari:
Indeed, Sufyan al-Thawri is among the mudallis, and the ‘an’ narration of a mudallis is not proof unless explicit hearing is established in the second chain…

⑮ Qastalani Shafi’i said: Sufyan (al-Thawri) was a mudallis, and the ‘an’ narration of a mudallis is not acceptable proof unless explicit hearing is established.

⑯ Hafiz Al-Dhahabi’s principle mentioned in point 1 is that the ‘an’ narration of one who practices tadlees from weak narrators is rejected; therefore, it is proven that according to Hafiz Al-Dhahabi, the ‘an’ narration of Sufyan al-Thawri is rejected and that he was a third-category mudallis.
⑰ Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in declared Sufyan al-Thawri a mudallis.
See Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil

and Al-Kifaya

When asked about the mudallis whether his narration is proof or only when he says “hadathana” or “akhbarana,” he replied: لا يكون حجة فيما دلس The narration in which he practices tadlees (i.e., narrates ‘an’) is not proof.

⑱ Hafiz Ibn al-Salah al-Shahrazuri al-Shafi’i mentioned Sufyan al-Thawri, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, Al-A’mash, Qatadah, and Hashim ibn Bashir among the mudallis and then decided that the narration of a mudallis without explicit hearing is not acceptable. See Muqaddimah Ibn al-Salah

⑲ Hafiz Ibn Kathir upheld Ibn al-Salah’s mentioned principle and quoted the statement briefly. See Ikhtisar ‘Ulum al-Hadith

⑳ Hafiz Ibn al-Mulaqqin also quoted Ibn al-Salah’s statement without criticism. See Al-Muqta’ fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith

㉑ The famous contemporary scholar and Zahabi era scholar, Allama Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Yahya Al-Ma’alimi Al-Yamani Al-Makki, may Allah have mercy on him, declared the narration of abandoning raising hands (عن عاصم بن كليب عن عبدالرحمن بن الأسود عن علقمة عن عبد الله بن مسعود رضي الله عنه) as defective, stating the first reason that Sufyan (Thawri) used to practice tadlis (concealment) and there is no explicit mention of his hearing (sama’) in any chain.
See: Al-Tankil bima fi taniib al-Kawthari min al-Abatil

Note: No one has been able to refute Allama Yamani’s statement to this day. Neither has anyone established explicit mention of Sufyan Thawri’s hearing in this hadith nor presented reliable following (mutaba’at). No matter how much they try, the narration abandoning raising hands is weak from him.
Remember that the reference to Al-‘Ilal by Al-Daraqutni in this regard is rejected due to being without chain.
㉒ A famous contemporary scholar, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz, may Allah have mercy on him, declared Sufyan Thawri, may Allah have mercy on him, as a mudallis (one who practices tadlis) and considered his ‘an narration among the non-Sahih narrations as defective. See the book: Ahkam wa Masa’il

After these evidences and statements, some references from the followers of taqlid (followers of Deoband and Barelvi) are presented:
㉓ Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Deobandi Karmanji criticized a narration due to Sufyan Thawri’s tadlis. See Khaza’in al-Sunan

㉔ Muhammad Sharif Kotlawi Barelvi criticized a narration of Sufyan Thawri, saying: “There is suspicion of tadlis in Sufyan’s narration.”

㉕ Master Amin Okaraavi Deobandi criticized a narration due to Sufyan Thawri’s tadlis. See Majmu’ah Rasail

and Tajalliyat Safdar

㉖ Muhammad Abbas Rizvi Barelvi wrote: “That is, Sufyan is a mudallis and he narrated this narration from ‘Asim bin Kalib with ‘an, and according to the principles of hadith scholars, the ‘an tadlis is not acceptable, as will be explained later, InshaAllah.”

It is understood that according to Rizvi and others, Sufyan Thawri was a mudallis of the third category.
㉗ Sher Muhammad Mamati Deobandi wrote about a narration of Sufyan Thawri: “And here also Sufyan Thawri narrates with ‘an tadlis.”

Refuting Sarfaraz Safdar, Sher Muhammad said:
“Maulana Sahib himself kindly judge that when the ‘an narration of a mudallis like Zahri cannot be authentic, then how can the narration of Sufyan bin Saeed Thawri, who also narrates with ‘an tadlis, be authentic?”

It is understood that according to Sher Muhammad Mamati, both Sufyan Thawri and Imam Zahri were mudallis of the third category.
㉘ A semi-taqlidi criticized the hadith narrated by Sufyan Thawri with “Ameen,” stating that Thawri sometimes practiced tadlis and narrated it with ‘an. See the marginal note of Athar al-Sunan

㉙ Muhammad Taqi Usmani Deobandi, preferring the narration of Shu’bah over Sufyan Thawri, said:
“Sufyan Thawri, despite his high status, sometimes practiced tadlis…”

㉚ Hussain Ahmad Madani Tandwi Deobandi, regarding the narration with “Ameen,” said: “And Sufyan practices tadlis, etc.”

There are many more such references, for example:
Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi wrote about Shareek bin Abdullah Al-Qazi

(as approval) that
In Tahdhib al-Tahdhib it is said that Abdul Haq Ashbili said: “He used to practice tadlis.” And Ibn al-Qattan said: “He was famous for tadlis.”

It is understood that according to Ahmad Raza Khan, the classification of categories is not correct.
Note: The famous rule of the hadith scholars is that the ‘an (repeated ‘an) of mudallis narrators in the Sahihain is understood as hearing (sama’).
Refuting this, Ahmad Raza Khan said: “This is mere blind imitation, although we do not deny good opinion, however, estimation (guessing) cannot be like clear statement.”

It is submitted that this is not blind imitation or estimation but due to the acceptance of the Sahihain by the Ummah, the great scholars have stated this rule that the ‘an of mudallis narrators in the Sahihain is understood as hearing (or mutaba’at).
For details see: Riwayat al-Mudallisīn fi Sahih al-Bukhari

and Riwayat al-Mudallisīn fi Sahih Muslim

Both these books were published by Dar al-Bashair al-Islamiyyah Beirut Lebanon.
From the above evidences and references from the followers of taqlid, it is proven that Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani’s mention of Imam Sufyan Thawri among the second category of mudallis is incorrect, and the correct is that (Sufyan Thawri, may Allah have mercy on him) was a mudallis of the third category, whose ‘an narration among the non-Sahih narrations is weak without hearing and reliable following.
Note: No conclusion should be drawn from our discussion that we consider the ‘an narrations of mudallis other than the third category as authoritative; rather, the purpose of the above evidences is to remove the misconception of those who insist on considering Imam Sufyan Thawri, may Allah have mercy on him, as a mudallis of the second category and thus accept his ‘an narrations as authentic. Further evidences and explanation will be presented on the coming pages.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s Classification

Some people insist on the class division of the narrators in Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani’s Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn. It is presented to them that Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned both Sufyan al-Thawri and Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah in the same class (second class), more or less together.

Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated a hadith عن جامع بن أبى راشد عن أبى وائل قال حذيفة… أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: لا اعتكاف إلا فى المساجد الثلاثة: المسجد الحرام ومسجد النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم ومسجد بيت المقدس… whose meaning is as follows:
The Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: There is no i’tikaf except in three mosques: the Sacred Mosque (Masjid al-Haram), the Prophet’s Mosque (Masjid an-Nabawi), and Al-Aqsa Mosque in Bayt al-Maqdis.

This hadith was transmitted from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah by three narrators: Mahmood ibn Adam al-Marwazi, Hisham ibn ‘Ammar, and Muhammad ibn al-Faraj, all of whom were truthful (saduq) narrators.

Jami‘ ibn Abi Rashid was trustworthy and virtuous.

Abu Wa’il Shaqiq ibn Salmah was trustworthy.

This narration is weak due to the tadlis (concealment) of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (in ‘an). Those who consider the ‘an narration of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah as authentic or believe in the validity of the munn‘an (with concealment) narrations mentioned in the second class of Hafiz Ibn Hajar should deny the permissibility of i‘tikaf in every mosque except the three mentioned mosques. Take note!

Sheikh Albani and Class Division

Sheikh Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, had a strange stance regarding tadlees (concealment). He considered the mursal narrations of Sufyan al-Thawri, Al-A’mash, and others as authentic, while he declared the mursal narrations of Hasan al-Basri

as weak.
For example, see Arwa al-Ghaleel

.
Moreover, Sheikh Albani outright rejected the mursal hadith of Abu Qulabah (Abdullah ibn Zaid al-Jurmi / first generation according to Ibn Hajar

). Albani said:

إسناده ضعيف لعنعنة أبى قلابة وهو مذكور بالتدليس…

Its chain is weak due to Abu Qulabah’s ‘an’anah (repetition) and he (Abu Qulabah) is mentioned among those who practice tadlees…

Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned Hasan ibn Zakwān

, Qatadah

, Muhammad ibn Ajlan

, and others in the third generation, while Sheikh Albani never tired of calling the mursal hadiths of these people Hasan or Sahih. See Sahih Abi Dawood

, and Sahihah

, and Sahihah

.
It is clear that Albani was not a proponent of any categorical classification of mudallis (those who practice tadlees), but rather he would declare some mursal narrations of certain mudallis as authentic according to his own preference, and declare some mursal narrations of other mudallis (or those free from tadlees) as weak. He had no principle or rule in this regard, so reasoning based on his research on the issue of tadlees is incorrect and rejected.
Maulana Abdul Rahman Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him (Ahl al-Hadith), criticized the ‘an’ narration of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i

and said: In its chain, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i is a mudallis; Hafiz (Ibn Hajar) mentioned him among the mudallis in the generation of Sufyan al-Thawri, and he narrated it from Aswad with ‘an’ (repetition). So how can this narration be considered authentic according to Nawawi?

From this, it is understood that even among the scholars of Ahl al-Hadith, this categorical classification is not definitive or necessary, and it can be disputed with evidence.

◈The Family of Imitation and Class Division

References from Ayni, Kermani, Qastalani, and Nawawi, among others, have already passed that they used to criticize the broken chains of narration (mu‘anna) even of Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s second category of mudallisīn. Therefore, it is proven that these people did not accept Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani’s classification of categories; otherwise, they would never have done so.

Naimwi Taqleedi declared Saeed bin Abi Arooba

as a frequent mudallis and said that he narrated this hadith through ‘an (broken chain).

Sarfaraz Khan Safdar Taqleedi Deobandi Kardmangi criticized Abu Qulaba

by calling him a wrathful mudallis and criticized his broken chain narration.

See Ahsan al-Kalam

Muhammad Sharif Kotlawi Barelvi, Abbas Rizvi Barelvi, and Amin Okara Deobandi, among others, have already been referenced in this topic.

It is proven that the followers of taqlid (imitation) also do not accept this classification of categories as correct. It is a separate matter that when it suits their benefit and desire, some people even use the categories of mudallisīn as evidence, and if it goes against their desire, they discard these categories.

Benefit: Imam Shafi‘i explained this principle that if a person commits tadlis even once, then his narration is not accepted unless there is an explicit mention of hearing (sama‘).

Nothing contrary to this principle has been proven from the other three Imams (Malik, Ahmad, and Abu Hanifa). Therefore, those who believe in the truthfulness of the four Imams and the four madhhabs should consider on which path they are going by abandoning the four Imams on the issue of tadlis?!

⟐ Answers to Some Doubts

Some people raise certain objections and doubts regarding Imam Sufyan al-Thawri’s tadlees (deception in narration), and the following are the concise and decisive answers:

➊ If someone says that you do not agree with Hafiz Ibn Hajar, etc.’s classification of the mudallis (those who practice tadlees) into categories as mentioned in Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn, as you wrote in Monthly al-Hadith: 33

, and on the other hand, you say that mentioning Sufyan al-Thawri and Al-A’mash in the second category is wrong and the correct is that both belonged to the third category of mudallisīn. Isn’t this a contradiction?

The answer is that, in our view, there are only two categories of narrators accused of tadlees:

First category: Those on whom the accusation of tadlees is false and it has been proven through investigation that they were not mudallis, e.g., Imam Abu Qilabah and Imam Bukhari, etc. [The mursal narrations of such narrators are authentic.]

Second category: Those on whom the accusation of tadlees is true and their tadlees is established, e.g., Qatadah, Sufyan al-Thawri, Al-A’mash, Ibn Jurayj, and others.

The mursal narration of such narrators (except in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim) is weak due to lack of mutaba’ah (following) and supporting evidence, whether they are mentioned in the first or second category by Hafiz Ibn Hajar, etc.

This is our original research. On the other hand, when I have mentioned narrators like Imam Sufyan al-Thawri and Al-A’mash in the third category, this clarification is made as an accusation against those who blindly believe in the prevalent classification and defend it indiscriminately. In other words, the purpose of this clarification is that if you consider the prevalent classification as definitive and certain, then listen! These narrators are not from the first or second category but from the third category, and this is the stronger view. Therefore, this is not a contradiction but the same matter expressed in two statements.

➋ If someone says that you yourself once wrote Sufyan al-Thawri in the second category many years ago. (See the book: Masah on Socks

, your letter dated 19/8/1408 AH)

The answer is that long ago I published a declaration stating, “My statement was wrong, I retract it, so consider it canceled and nullified.”

Therefore, objection to a canceled and retracted statement is invalid.

And the wording is his.

➌ If someone says that “You mentioned Sufyan al-Thawri in the third category solely based on trust in Hakim Nishapuri.”

The answer is that this is incorrect; rather, I mentioned Sufyan al-Thawri in the third category based on multiple evidences (such as tadlees by weak narrators), most of which are present in this very article you have in hand.

Similarly, according to Hafiz Ibn Hibban, Ayni Hanafi, Ibn al-Turkumani Hanafi, and others, Sufyan al-Thawri was among the third category, as proven with references in this article.

Note: If a statement of a muhaddith (hadith scholar) is presented as support, some cunning people start propaganda by presenting other statements of that muhaddith and question why you do not accept those.

It should be noted that every statement of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is always obligatory to accept and true, but no one else has the authority that all his statements are always obligatory to accept and true. Rather, one can differ with this distinguished person with evidence, and doing so is not a sin. Therefore, if Hakim Nishapuri, etc., made mistakes elsewhere, it is the right of every sensible Muslim to differ with them.

➍ If someone says that Hakim and others have declared many narrations of Sufyan al-Thawri as authentic. For example, see a person’s book: On the topic of raising hands… a scholarly analysis of Noor al-‘Aynayn

The answer is that this is wrong or lenient due to contradiction with the established rules and principles of hadith.

Remember that Hakim, etc., are also accused of leniency. For example, see Hafiz Dhahabi’s Risalah: ذكر من يعتمد قوله فى الجرح والتعديل and other books.

➎ If someone says that you have relied on Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) regarding the issue of tadlees, although his opinion is against the majority.

The answer is that Imam Shafi’i’s ruling that the mursal narration of a mudallis is weak and not accepted is not against the majority but agrees with the majority of muhaddithin, as our article testifies, presenting many references specifically about Sufyan al-Thawri, and the books of hadith principles also support this. The writings of scholars of verification, extraction, and those who write on controversial issues also confirm this.

➏ If someone says that Imam Shafi’i himself narrated mursal narrations from mudallisīn such as Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah and Sufyan al-Thawri in his books.

The answer is that mere narration or reporting is not authentication; therefore, whoever considers it authentication should correct himself.

For benefit, it is noted that all narrations from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah by Imam Shafi’i are based on samā‘ (hearing directly). See Al-Nukat by Al-Zarkashi

and Al-Fath al-Mubin

.

The mursal narrations of Imam Shafi’i from Sufyan al-Thawri do not mean that Imam Shafi’i considered those narrations authentic. Our demand is to present from Kitab al-‘Um, etc., a narration of Imam Shafi’i with complete chain and text in which Sufyan al-Thawri is unique, the narration is mursal, and Imam Shafi’i declared its chain authentic or good. If not, then this objection is invalid.

➐ If someone says that many narrations of Sufyan al-Thawri are present in hadith books with ‘an’ (from), e.g., Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, Sahih Ibn Hibban, Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, and Musnad Abi Ya’la, etc.

The answer is that hadith books are of three categories:

First: Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim

These two books have the acceptance of the Ummah by consensus; therefore, the narrations of mudallisīn in these two books are authentic due to samā‘, mutaba’ah, and supporting evidence.

Second: Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah and Sahih Ibn Hibban, etc.

These books do not have acceptance by consensus; therefore, they can be differed with. For example, the narration about placing the hand on the chest in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah is weak solely due to Sufyan al-Thawri’s ‘an’, and the objection is rejected after the endorsement of Maul Ibn Isma’il by the majority of muhaddithin including Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in. See my article: “Ithbat al-Ta’dil fi Tawthiq Ma’ml Ibn Isma’il”

.

Third: Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan Tirmidhi, Musnad Abi Ya’la, and Musnad Ahmad, etc.

The authors of these books did not claim their books to be authentic; therefore, it is wrong to say based on mere narration that the author considered the narration authentic.

A person has claimed by extracting some narrations from these books that these narrations are authentic according to him, although this claim is completely false.

Many evidential narrations of Ahl al-Hadith are present in these books; does that person accept that all these narrations are authentic according to the authors of these books?

➑ Some people have made a rule against Imam Shafi’i and the majority of muhaddithin that if a narrator is frequently tadlees-practicing, then his mursal narration is weak, and if he is rarely tadlees-practicing, then his narration is authentic.

The answer is that this rule is wrong, as proven by more than twenty references in this article.

Imam Ibn al-Madini’s statement that people are dependent on Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan for Sufyan al-Thawri’s narrations is clear evidence that Sufyan al-Thawri was a frequent tadlees practitioner; otherwise, why would people be dependent? Probably this is why the Saudi scholar Misfar bin Ghurm Allah al-Dimayni wrote: و تدليسه كثير and Sufyan al-Thawri’s tadlees is very frequent.

Note: It is not explicitly proven that Misfar mentioned is Ahl al-Hadith or non-muqallid; only Allah knows his creed.

Abu Zur’ah Ibn al-‘Iraqi said: مشهور بالتدليس meaning Sufyan al-Thawri is famous for tadlees.

➒ If someone says that Hafiz al-‘Alai and others have written Sufyan al-Thawri in the second category, whose tadlees was considered possible (tolerable) by the Imams.

The answer is that Hafiz al-‘Alai mentioned Zahri

, Hamid al-Tawil

, Ibn Jurayj

, and Hashim bin Bashir

also in the same second category with Thawri, although all of them were mentioned by Hafiz Ibn Hajar in the third category.

When Imam Darqutni (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about Ibn Jurayj’s tadlees (mursal narration), he said:

يتجنب تدليسه فإنه وحش التدليس، لا يدلس إلا فيما سمعه من مجروح… One should avoid his tadlees (narrations with ‘an’) strictly because his tadlees is terrible; he only practiced tadlees from the injured (majrooh)…

Imam Ahmad bin Salih al-Masri said that if Ibn Jurayj does not specify samā‘, then the narration is of no concern.

Regarding Hashim bin Bashir, Ibn Sa’d said: وما لم يقل فيه أخبرنا فليس بشئ “If he does not specify samā‘, then it is nothing.”

It is clear that just as mentioning Ibn Jurayj and Hashim in the second category is wrong, similarly mentioning Sufyan al-Thawri, Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, and Al-A’mash in the second category is also wrong.

➓ If someone says that a person wrote a book: Muhqiqan Tajziyah (Scholarly Analysis) in response to your book Noor al-‘Aynayn.

The answer is that in this book, the author did not present the specification of samā‘ of Sufyan al-Thawri in the narration about abandoning raising hands, nor did he prove reliable mutaba’ah. This book made a failed attempt to defend Sufyan al-Thawri’s tadlees (mursal narration), which is invalid according to our research article.

This person tried to give the impression by presenting many mursal narrations of Sufyan al-Thawri from hadith books that the great muhaddithin considered Sufyan al-Thawri’s mursal narrations as proof, although this impression is false, and such narrations can be presented from every mudallis narrator in hadith books, which neither Barelvi, nor Deobandi, nor Hanafi scholars accept. Such a method should never be adopted, which results in all mursal narrations of all mudallisīn being considered authentic and the science of tadlees becoming useless.

A person tried to prove mutaba’ah of Abu Bakr al-Nahshali and Abdullah bin Idris from Imam Darqutni’s book Al-‘Illal

, although this reference is rejected due to being completely without chain, and no narration with authentic or good chain from Abu Bakr al-Nahshali or Abdullah bin Idris is mentioned in the reference with literal or implied mutaba’ah in any book worldwide.

Some people wrote:

امام دارقطني رحمه الله نے حدث به الثوري عنه words, from which the form of hadith transmission from Imam Sufyan al-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) is proven.

This reasoning is rejected for two reasons:

● Imam Darqutni died long after Imam Sufyan al-Thawri, so this statement is without chain.

● حدث به الثوري عنه means that Thawri narrated from him, so how is samā‘ proven from this? There is no specification of samā‘, but some people try to prove it. Glory be to Allah!

A person tried to make ten (10) evidences of Imam Sufyan al-Thawri’s mursal hadith, among which numbers 1 to 9 are all mursal and disconnected narrations and weak and rejected.

Ibrahim Nakha’i was a mudallis; therefore, every narration from him from Sayyiduna Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him), who died before his birth, is rejected, even if he heard it from a group (unknown narrators).

Abdur-Razzaq, Hammad bin Abi Sulayman, Ibn ‘Uyaynah, Sufyan al-Thawri, and Ibrahim Nakha’i were all mudallisīn; therefore, their mursal narrations are rejected.

The last narration was weak according to the majority of muhaddithin. Hammad and Ibrahim were both mudallisīn and the narration is mursal.

In short, all these evidences are rejected, and the matter is stuck on Sufyan al-Thawri’s tadlees.

Finally, here are five documented lies of the author of Muhqiqan Tajziyah (Faisal Khan Barelvi) with refutations:

① Regarding the narration attributed to Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him), this person quoted correction from Tahawi Hanafi’s book Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar

, although Tahawi did not explicitly say it is authentic; therefore, this is a lie on Tahawi.

② Regarding the narration, this person quoted from Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s book Al-Durrah

as “authentic”

.

This is a blatant lie.

③ Regarding the narration, this person quoted from Maulana Ataullah Hanif’s Ta’liqāt Salafiyyah (123) as “authentic”

.

Maulana Ataullah never said this hadith is authentic; rather, he quoted Abu al-Hasan Sindhi’s marginal note and wrote its letter

. Therefore, the author of Tajziyah lied on Maulana Ataullah Hanif Bhojani (may Allah have mercy on him).

④ The author of Muhqiqan Tajziyah said: Imam Shafi’i’s later statement is also that abandoning raising hands is proven from both (Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Abdullah bin Mas’ud)

.

This is a complete lie.

⑤ The author said: Zubair Alizai criticizes Imam Bazzar (may Allah have mercy on him) and does not accept his authentication; therefore, how can his statement be presented?

This is a lie because, in my view, Imam Bazzar is trustworthy, accurate, and a good hadith narrator, and I have declared many hadiths narrated by him authentic at various places.

For example, see Ilmi Maqalat

.

also at the end quoted from Khateeb Baghdadi and Abu Awana, etc., that Muhaddith Bazzar is trustworthy and accurate.

Besides these, this person has many other lies, e.g., quoting Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal as “Ijtihad bih” (used as proof) based on mere narration in Musnad Ahmad, etc.

This person also has many ignorances, e.g.:

”حدث به الثوري عنه“ interpreted as samā‘.

And saying “Even without Thumma la Ya’ud, the claim of the Hanafis is proven.”

Whereas in this weak narration, if ثم لا يعود and its implied meaning are proven false, then the claim of Barelvis and Deobandis and its foundation is destroyed, the whole structure collapses, and the kiln sits idle.

Summary of the research: In our detailed and researched article, it has been proven that the narration attributed to Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) or attributed to him about abandoning raising hands includes Sufyan al-Thawri who is a mudallis of the third category; therefore, his mursal narration is weak and rejected.

No book in the world contains a narration with specification of Imam Sufyan al-Thawri’s samā‘ in the mentioned narration, nor is there any reliable mutaba’ah anywhere.

The people of faith should abandon obstinacy and accept the truth, and therein lies success in both worlds. وما علينا إلا البلاغ (12 September 2009, 21 Ramadan 1430 AH)