Mr. Sanabli in the Mirror of His Writing
الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلوة والسلام على رسوله الأمين، أما بعد:
It is the right of every knowledgeable person to research any issue, but to sacrifice that issue to excess and negligence in the name of research and to abandon moderation is against the dignity of learned scholars. Like many other issues, the “Issue of Yazid” has also fallen victim to this approach. For some time now, there has been a great enthusiasm about this, and as a result, distorting principles has become a routine matter, even the standards of respect and love have changed, examples of which can be seen in the esteemed Mr. Kifayatullah Sanabli’s composition “A Research Review of Allegations on Yazid bin Muawiya, may Allah be pleased with him.” Accordingly, Sanabli Sahib writes:
“Ibn al-Jawzi has written a book condemning Yazid. Some people say that Ibn al-Jawzi wrote this book in response to Imam Abdul Maghith, may Allah have mercy on him, who wrote a book in defense of Yazid. But we say that Ibn al-Jawzi did not write this book in response to Imam Abdul Maghith, may Allah have mercy on him, but rather in ‘Jawab al-Jawab.’ In fact, Ibn al-Jawzi first made nonsense against Yazid in one of his speeches, and upon Imam Abdul Maghith’s response, Ibn al-Jawzi lost his composure.”
Commentary :
Dear readers! Initially, we thought that Muhaddith al-Asr Hafiz Zubair Ali Zaee, may Allah have mercy on him, had declared Sanabli Sahib a liar. Perhaps this is why inappropriate words came from Sanabli Sahib’s pen about the respected Sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him. But when we read his writing, we realized that for him, the standard of respect and courtesy is merely “supporting Yazid”!!! Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, did not refute Sanabli Sahib, yet he was still labeled a “babbling fool” and “out of control.” Not only that, but merely for opposing Yazid, every kind of honor was taken away from him, and all his services were ignored, Allah forbid.
, in just one paragraph, the name of Imam Abdul Maghith, may Allah have mercy on him, was written six times, and every time the titles Imam and may Allah have mercy on him were added because they were among the supporters of Yazid. In the same paragraph, Imam Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, was mentioned ten times, but only as Ibn al-Jawzi because he was counted among the opponents of Yazid.!
More Graces of Sanabili Sahib on Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him
❀ Sanabli Sahib writes: “It should first be made clear that Imam Abdul Maghith has not contradicted Imam Ahmad here, as Ibn al-Jawzi has mistakenly suggested.”
From Sanabli Sahib’s writing, it is evident that Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, is considered by him a “misleader.”
❀ He also writes: “It should be noted that Ibn al-Jawzi, out of enmity towards Abdul Maghith, focused all his efforts on the point that this verse is not addressed to the hypocrites. Here, Ibn al-Jawzi, out of enmity towards Imam Abdul Maghith, is defending Imam Ahmad’s statement.”
It is not hidden from the scholars whom Sanabli Sahib is paving the way for by describing the scholarly differences among the learned as “enmity.” Secondly, to say that Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, defended Imam Ahmad’s statement merely out of enmity is a failed attempt to portray him as an unfair person. Here we would say to Sanabli Sahib that you may judge the correctness or error of someone’s statements among the hadith scholars based on evidence, but you absolutely do not have the right to make such “vulgar interpretations.”
❀ Sanabli Sahib mocks Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, writing:
Consider that Imam Abdul Maghith presented an authentic hadith, which is present with an authentic chain in famous hadith books like Sunan Tirmidhi and Musnad Ahmad, etc., but Ibn al-Jawzi brought a broken chain from his side and then criticized it, defaming Abdul Maghith for using a fabricated hadith as evidence. SubhanAllah.
❀ Sanabli Sahib applies the proverb “The thief scolds the constable” fittingly to Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, may Allah have mercy on him, writing: “Ibn al-Jawzi, during his life, unjustly criticized many people and attributed baseless faults to them, but the truth is that those faults were not in others; rather, Ibn al-Jawzi himself was afflicted with those faults and perhaps he began to project his own faults onto others.”
If we comment on this, the respected one will complain, so we suffice with:
The pure gaze is devoid of compassion,
Then what wonder if it is fearless.
Dear readers! For those whose standard of respect and courtesy is merely a personality, there is no benefit in regretting their harsh writings. Yes! If there is regret, it is that was there no “wise man” among their circle who, instead of applauding, would have stopped them from tarnishing the turbans of the hadith scholars?!
In any case, we come to the main topic, which is that when extremism and negligence enter a matter, it becomes necessary to distort and twist principles and take a biased path, and the only purpose is to prove oneself truthful and one’s position strong. How far has respected Sanabli Sahib advanced in this race? For this, observe both sides with commentary:
First Aspect :
Sanabli Sahib declared Abdul Wahab Thaqafi as merely a subject of criticism because Imam Ibn Saad criticized him, thus he writes: “He is a subject of criticism because Ibn Saad said about him ‘weak’.”
Second Aspect :
When Imam Ibn Saad, may Allah have mercy on him, criticized Sanabli Sahib’s own favorite narrator, he states as follows: “This narrator is also trustworthy according to the majority of hadith scholars; only Ibn Saad
and Ibn Hibban
have criticized him. If Ibn Saad is unique in his criticism, then his criticism is not accepted, and Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, is strict in criticism.”
Comment:
Regarding Sanabli Sahib’s favorite narrator, Imam Ibn Saad’s criticism is unacceptable, and the criticism of the narrator who narrates against his stance by Ibn Saad, may Allah have mercy on him, is acceptable. Ah!
Perhaps they have never seen selfish faces, Ghalib
If they look in the mirror, we will tell them
The point is that when Imam Ibn Saad, may Allah have mercy on him, is not accepted in the form of unique criticism, then how did Abdul Wahab Thaqafi become a subject of discussion?
First aspect: Sanabli Sahib writes: “To show Abdul Wahab Thaqafi as a subject of discussion, we presented Ibn Saad’s ‘criticism of weakness’.”
Second aspect: Hafiz Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, said about Sanabli Sahib’s favorite narrator: عبد الرحمن بن معاوية ، فيه ضعف
Since this narrator was in favor of Sanabli Sahib, now observe his interpretative contortions as well. He writes: The point is that for this chain to be weak, its being mursal (interrupted) is sufficient, and after that, Imam Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, introduced Abu al-Huwairith and gave his full name, and since hadith scholars have criticized him, while presenting the introduction, he also said that there is weakness in him. This sentence does not at all indicate the absolute weakness of the narrator; it only means that there is some weakness in this narrator, but whether this weakness is such that it makes the narrator weak is not explicitly stated here, so it cannot be said that according to Imam Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, this narrator is weak.”
Comment:
If despite saying “fi-hi da’f” this narrator is not weak according to Imam Ibn Kathir, then how can the criticism of Ibn Sa’d, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding Abdul Wahab Thaqafi due to “fi-hi da’f” be correct? Isn’t this an obvious contradiction?
From the writing of Sanabli Sahib, the following points are understood:
(1) When Ibn Sa’d, may Allah have mercy on him, is unique in criticism, his criticism is not accepted at all; therefore, his criticism regarding Abdul Wahab Thaqafi is not accepted.
(2) According to the hadith scholar who says “fi-hi da’f,” the narrator about whom this is said is not weak; hence, Abdul Wahab Thaqafi is not weak according to Ibn Sa’d, may Allah have mercy on him.
From Sanabli Sahib’s own principles, it becomes clear that Abdul Wahab Thaqafi is definitely not the “mutakallam fihi” (the subject of discussion), and it also clarifies that he did not oppose any more reliable narrator. As for the issue of confusion (ikhtilaat), Sanabli Sahib himself writes about it: The criticism made on Abdul Wahab regarding confusion is related to the fact that the scholars of the field have explicitly stated along with the criticism of confusion that this matter was during the last days of his life.
Moreover, no hadith scholar has declared any narration weak based on his confusion; therefore, generally, the decision about the narrations he transmitted will be that they are not affected by his confusion. And Allah knows best.
Dear readers! When Abdul Wahab Thaqafi is not the subject of discussion, the criticism of confusion is not harmful, and he did not oppose any more reliable narrator, then on what basis is the hadith that changes the Sunnah considered weak? And on what basis is Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, defamed and criticized?
If Sanabli Sahib accepted all this, then someone should ask him whether the purpose of blackening so many pages and polluting the atmosphere was this, or if they will not be disgraced, then what will be the name?
Sanabli Sahib writes under the heading of a joke:
“Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai, while presenting the authentication of Abdul Wahab, calls him the central narrator of Sahih Bukhari and says: ‘You are the central narrator of Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and the four Sunan.'”
From this, one might understand that there are many hadiths of his in Sahih Bukhari, whereas Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “Lam yatikthir al-Bukhari ‘anhu” — “Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, did not take many hadiths from Abdul Wahab Thaqafi.”
Readers, please consider! The commentator of Sahih Bukhari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, says that Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, did not take many narrations from Abdul Wahab, and Mr. Zubair Ali Zai says that he is the central narrator of Bukhari. SubhanAllah!
Comment:
Sanabli Sahib! No one else but you has understood this, and the sorrow is that one who is devoid of understanding the meaning and concept of “Markazi” has taken upon himself to refute Muhaddith al-Asr Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, while even an ordinary student knows that scarcity or abundance is not a criterion for being a primary narrator of a book, and you are claiming that “Markazi” means abundance!!
If “Markazi” means abundance, then what should be understood from your following writing? Sanabli Sahib writes: “We presented the negation of the matn (text) in support of the weakness of the sanad (chain), otherwise the negation of the matn is not a central cause. That is why we presented it as an indication and support, not as a central argument.”
The one who mocked Muhaddith al-Asr, may Allah have mercy on him, through a joke has himself become a joke.
Entangled is the friend’s foot in the long hair,
Look, the hunter has come into his own trap.
Did Abdul Wahab Thaqafi oppose Awsat?
Sanabli Sahib writes: “It has been found that the narrator of the Kutub al-Sittah عبد الوهاب ثقة متكلم فيه has narrated against the narrator of the Kutub al-Sittah معاذ بن معاذ عنبري ثقة متقن بالاتفاق, therefore in the issue of Ziyadat Thiqah, this is evidence that the narration of Abdul Wahhab should be rejected.”
Comment:
Dear readers! The reality of Abdul Wahab Thaqafi being a mutakallim fihi has been clarified on previous pages. When he is not a mutakallim fihi, this objection automatically ends that he opposed the most reliable consensus, and regarding such opposition (excess), Sanabli Sahib himself has quoted the statement of Imam Ibn Abdul Hadi, may Allah have mercy on him, that “When the narrator of the excess is a Hafiz and reliable, and the one who did not mention the excess is also like him or less reliable than him, then in such a case the excess will be accepted.”
It is remembered that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, also criticized the memory of Mu’adh bin Mu’adh. Accordingly, he said:
وكان فى حديثه شيء
Sanabli Sahib translates “في حديثه شيء” as:
“Their hadiths are questionable.” And he considered this criticism as a criticism of the memory.”
Such a narrator, according to Sanabli Sahib, used to be a mutakallim fihi, therefore saying that Abdul Wahab Thaqafi opposed the most reliable is questionable; rather, Imam Ahmad’s criticism is far greater than that of Ibn Sa’d, which, in the light of Sanabli Sahib’s writing, presents the scenario that he opposed ”عبد الوهاب ثقفي ثقه نے معاذ بن معاذ متكلم فيه. And this opposition is certainly not harmful.
Regarding Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote while objecting to Imam Bukhari’s statement:
ولا يعرف لأبي ذر قدوم الشام زمن عمر Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, did not provide any evidence for his claim, so Sanabli Sahib writes about this:
“Later, we also found the correct evidence for this claim.”
Comment:
It becomes clear from Sanabli Sahib’s writing that until this argument existed, the claim was baseless, and Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, also needed evidence for his claim. We have a good opinion that if he had received this evidence earlier, he would never have blackened so many pages with word manipulation nor displayed double standards.
First Aspect:
When Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, forbade narrating from Yazid due to the killing, plundering, and looting in Medina, Sanabili Sahib wrote:
“As for Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, he did not present any authentic historical narration as evidence for his stance, therefore his position is unsupported and inadmissible.”
Whereas Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, is also a great authority in Jarh wa Ta’dil (criticism and accreditation) and ‘Ilal (hidden defects). Similarly, when the respected Sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him, quoted Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s explanation regarding the weakness in the criticism of Imam Ibn Sa’d, that it refers to a criticism of mixing (ikhtilat), Sanabili Sahib wrote:
“It is to be noted that this is Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s own explanation, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar did not provide any evidence for this explanation. Therefore, Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s explanation is devoid of evidence.”
Second Aspect:
But when the Muhaddith of the era, may Allah have mercy on him, asked for evidence for Imam Bukhari’s, may Allah have mercy on him, claim, Sanabili Sahib turned pale like this:
Respectfully, this is not your job at all, for God’s sake do not trouble yourself for such a great task. This matter is beyond your scope. You are absolutely not qualified to say that any Imam of the field calls a hadith defective and explains its defect, and then you sit to prove the defect he explained wrong. This is completely futile and useless work, because even if you prove that Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, did not give any correct reason for calling the hadith defective, it will not affect Imam Bukhari’s decision at all.
Comment:
If it stayed in your tresses, it was called beauty
That same arrow was in my black letter
If demanding evidence is so objectionable, then I ask, is Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, not the imam of this science? Is he not an expert in fine cotton? He is explaining the weakening of a narrator with a reason, and Sanabli Sahib is trying to prove the reason he mentioned wrong, calling it “no, meaning a useless act,” while he himself is doing it. By the way, regarding this criticism, it would not be inappropriate to also explain the jurisprudence of the “Faqih Sanabil.”
By the way: Sanabli Sahib wrote:
“Now if you can save yourself from a loud laugh, then observe another splendid example of jurisprudence on the claim of abrogation. He writes: ‘Khalid bin Samir says that once Hajjaj bin Yusuf al-Fasiq gave a sermon from the pulpit and said: Indeed, (Abdullah) Ibn Zubair has altered the Quran. Then (Abdullah bin) Umar said: You have lied; neither did he have the power for that nor do you have the power for this (alteration). Hajjaj angrily said: Be silent, old man! You have gone mad and lost your mind.’
When Hajjaj bin Yusuf came to visit you (Abdullah bin Umar) during your illness, you closed your eyes and did not speak to Hajjaj until he left.
It is understood that your act of praying behind Hajjaj is abrogated.” After the mentioned writing of Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, Sanabli Sahib wrote: “Those who base the affirmation of abrogation on such jurisprudence, or rather humor, have the right to call the words of Imam Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, abrogated on this basis, but in the scholarly world, it is nothing more than a joke.”
Dear readers! The respected Sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him, has clearly stated that due to the lies and accusations of Hajjaj bin Yusuf, Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, did not tolerate seeing or speaking to him, so how would they approve of praying behind him? For this reason, Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, claimed abrogation, but Sanabli Sahib, due to his buffoonery, tried to ridicule even that. Perhaps this is why the image of ” من ضحك ضحك“ appears before him. Now observe the humor of the “Faqih Sanabil” himself on the claim of abrogation.
Imam Ahmad Rahimahullah’s Return?
Sanabli Sahib writes about Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him:
“In the statement in which he accused Yazid bin Muawiya of oppression or plundering, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, later withdrew that statement. Not only did Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, retract his criticism of Yazid bin Muawiya in the end, but he also described him as possessing the virtue of the best of generations. Accordingly, Imam Abu Bakr Al-Khallal
said:
“Abu Talib Asmah bin Abi Asmah says that I asked Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, about the one who says ‘May Allah curse Yazid bin Muawiya.’ What do you say about this? He said: I do not speak on this matter. I said: What do you say, because the one who said this is a trustworthy person, and I will adopt your statement. Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, said: ‘Cursing a believer is like killing him.’ Also, he said: ‘The best time is my time, then the time of those who come after me,’ and Yazid is among the people of that era. Furthermore, he said: ‘If I curse or speak ill of anyone, O Allah! Make it mercy for him.’ Therefore, silence is better in my view.”
Comment:
“Whoever carefully studies the aforementioned text will realize the fact that Mr. Sanabli is misrepresenting the claim regarding Imam Ahmad’s (may Allah have mercy on him) criticism by substituting the question and answer, reflecting wheat instead of chaff, because the question posed to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) was about the curse on Yazid, not about looting or narrating or not narrating hadith from him. Therefore, he remained silent only regarding the curse. It is also known that cursing is harsh speech, and only the most extreme people adopt this approach regarding Yazid, whereas Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) is the imam of moderation. Further clarification of our position is that when the questioner repeated the question about the curse, he narrated those hadiths in which cursing is condemned, and another reason for not cursing is that Yazid is a Muslim of the best of generations. It should be clear that the term ‘best of generations’ does not mean that there was no existence of any oppressor or weak narrator in that era. We commend Mr. Sanabli himself for his splendid display of humor on this claim of substitution, that if the proof of substitution is based on such humor or even jest, and they declare the words of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) to be abrogated on this basis, then it is their right, but in the scholarly field, its status is nothing more than a joke.”
Warning:
Sanabli Sahib wrote regarding Doctor Muhammad bin Hadi: “Three days before the death of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, among the beliefs recorded is that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, remained silent about Yazid bin Muawiya and left his matter to Allah.
This is completely incorrect, because it is only proven that Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, was silent regarding the curse on Yazid, but absolute silence is not proven by any clear and explicit statement (evidence). It should be remembered that the mentioned statement of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, does not prove criticism of Yazid, but it does clearly show that according to Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, Yazid is not included among the army promised forgiveness, because if he were included, the Imam would have argued with the specific evidence of the promise of forgiveness rather than the general evidence of the best of generations. Not only that, but except for some later scholars, no earlier hadith scholar has presented him in favor of Yazid.
The Reality of Sanabli’s Evidence Regarding Imam Bukhari’s Claim
Sanabli Sahib wrote: “Zubair Alizai Sahib unnecessarily objected that there is no evidence for what Imam Bukhari said. We have thoroughly refuted this in the previous pages. But after further study, we found a very high-grade authentic narration according to the conditions of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, which fully supports Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him. That is, it explicitly states that Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, went to Syria during the time of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, and before that, he was residing in Medina.”
Sanabli’s Chain of Transmission
ثنا عبد الوهاب الثقفي، عن هشام ، عن محمد بن سيرين، عن أبى ذر رضى الله عنه
Introduction to the Chain of Transmission in Light of Sanabli’s Principle
(1) Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi
This Abdul Wahab is the same narrator whom Sanabli Sahib never tires of calling a mutakallim fihi, and here his narration is being declared a very high-grade authentic narration. Even a common student of the principles of Hadith knows well that the narration of a mutakallim fihi narrator is never a “very high-grade authentic narration,” but since this narration was in favor of Sanabli Sahib, he forgot what he himself had written.
It should be known that if Abdul Wahab is a mutakallim fihi, then his narration is not “very high-grade authentic,” and if Abdul Wahab’s narration is “very high-grade authentic,” then he is not a mutakallim fihi, and according to Sanabli Sahib, this is correct.
(2) Hisham:
This is Hisham bin Hassan, about whom Sanabli Sahib writes regarding a narration: This narration is weak, it includes Hisham bin Hassan, who narrated from ‘An’, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) classified him as a third-level mudallis. When a third-level mudallis narrates from “An,” the narration is weak.
In the mentioned chain, Hisham is also narrating from ‘An’, yet it is considered “a very high-grade authentic narration! Because it was in favor of Sanabli Sahib, and the narration which was proven weak was against his stance.”
A lover who does not go away is not disgraced anywhere,
Sometimes in the evening, sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the evening.
(3) Muhammad bin Sirin :
Sanabli Sahib wrote about him: “In fact, the narrator of this hadith is Muhammad bin Sirin, may Allah have mercy on him. And he is quite famous for transmitting it in an interrupted chain (mursal); he transmitted it from many companions as well. As can be seen in detail in the books of Murasil. That is, he was accustomed to narrate such hadiths from companions whom he had never met, although he lived in their era. In fact, he would even narrate events from the time of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, even though he did not live in that era because he was a Tabi’i (successor). In such a case, if he narrates a story which can be proven not to be from his own observation but rather heard from an untrustworthy person, then his narration would not be considered authentic.”
And according to our research, it is not established that Muhammad bin Sirin, may Allah have mercy on him, met Sayyiduna Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, as Imam Ibn Abi Hatim, may Allah have mercy on him, said: “It is not established that Muhammad bin Sirin met Sayyiduna Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him.”
When it is not established that Muhammad bin Sirin, may Allah have mercy on him, met Sayyiduna Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, then how did this hadith become “very highly authentic”? Sanabli Sahib! Whoever wishes may perform miracles with your authenticity.
Another Reason According to Sanabli Sahib
The narration which Anjanab calls “a very high-grade authentic” also has another defect according to him. Sanabli Sahib writes:
It is also noteworthy that the story mentioned in the narration is from the region of Sham, while Muhammad bin Sirin was a resident of Basra. Therefore, since this incident is from the region of Sham and Muhammad bin Sirin, may Allah have mercy on him, was a resident of Basra, the suspicion arises that this incident was his own observation, which is very unlikely.
And such a narration is considered fabricated by Sanabli Sahib.
Now how did a fabricated narration become “a very high-grade authentic”?
Your statement is neither a trickster nor stable,
Sometimes it is Sham, sometimes it is morning; sometimes it is morning, sometimes it is Sham.
Summary of the Investigation:
The argument presented by Sanabli Sahib against Imam Bukhari’s claim is fabricated according to Sanabli Sahib’s own principles. It is unclear for what purpose he deviated from his own principles and declared it a very high-grade authentic hadith.
How can one be just in this matter after all?
Joke: Sanabli Sahib has a great fondness for making or presenting jokes, which is why he often headlines jokes unnecessarily, but all of them are quite awkward. In this regard, a particular tribe from Punjab is well-known; they should go there for practice. As a joke, Sanabli Sahib writes:
“Zubair Alizai Sahib could not present any hadith against Imam Bukhari’s claim, but
So it is said that the hadith you have exerted every effort to prove weak is itself a Hasan Lazatah hadith that contradicts this claim.
If the eyes are closed, then the day is also night,
What fault does the sun have in this?”
The Last Arrow of Turkish:
To prove Abdul Wahab Thaqafi’s narration fabricated according to himself, Sanabli Sahib has presented two evidences. In the first evidence, a hadith from Sahih Muslim is presented in which Jabir رضي الله عنه narrates that the Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم said: The religion will always prevail and remain strong until twelve caliphs are completed. Then the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم said some words, but people did not let me listen, so I asked my father what the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم said? He said: All the caliphs will be from the Quraysh family.
This hadith mentions the safety and establishment of the religion until twelve caliphs, and Yazid bin Muawiya was the sixth caliph. Now consider that when it is proven from Sahih Muslim’s hadith that the religion will remain safe and established until twelve caliphs, and this has been testified by Allah’s Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم, then if someone says that the sixth caliph will change the Sunnah, what doubt remains about such a person’s falsehood and being a follower of the Sabaeans?!
Comment:
This is called an “emotional dialogue” or كلمة حق أريد بها الباطل because through this hadith, Sanabili Sahib wants to prove Yazid as infallible from error, and to this day no scholar or hadith expert has used this hadith as evidence. This is the “wit” of Bayd Sanabili himself.
We have faith in this hadith and the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) prophecy is true, but how does this prove that individually no one will commit any sin or error?! The Rafidis’ belief in the infallibility of the Imam is only congratulated to Sanabili Sahib. Similarly, according to Sanabili’s opinion, Yazid’s infallibility is not proven even by the testimony of Muhammad bin Hanfiya, so their attempts to prove the Hasan Ladhatah narration fabricated through unrelated narrations will never be successful. (To be continued)
When the mirror was shown to them, they took offense
In response to our writing, we received a “Love Letter” from the respected Mr. Kifayatullah Sanabli, in which he has bestowed upon me, the insignificant one, titles such as cunning, sly, and a scoundrel like Markhan. This is his capacity; we will only say this:
How sweet are your lips, O rival,
Even after receiving insults, you did not become unpleasant.
His anger is such that he could not maintain balance in his writing, and thus he writes: “Some of our writings have been taken out of context by the respected Mr. Nadeem Zaheer to show our contradiction. On this, I feel that he has projected himself onto me.”
This phrase clearly shows his furious state.
He also writes: “And he has also considered the insignificant like himself as a distant fool.”
Sanabli Sahib! If we only had to prove you a distant fool, that would not be a difficult matter.
Because after just five lines, your statement changes, an example of which is present here. The honorable writes:
“We presented Ibn Saad’s criticism ‘weak in it’ to show Abdul Wahab Thaqafi as the subject of discussion and supported this by saying that in the end, they became mixed.”
Then, on the fifth line after that, he writes: “It is stated that we neither called Abdul Wahab mixed nor used the criticism of mixing as evidence to weaken the narration.”
What is it to first affirm continuously and then deny?
After all, what are you so stubborn about that you consider your writing as the final word and do not like anyone else’s objection to it?
We had only tried to make you understand the matter through the mirror of your own writing, but you took offense. In any case, we will clarify again:
At the beginning of our article, we showed a few samples of Sanabli Sahib’s writing merely because earlier he had dedicated an entire chapter titled “Samples of the Nobility of Zubair Ali Zai Sahib’s Pen and the Purity of His Language.” See Hadith Yazid in the eyes of the Muhadditheen
so that his own literary nobility and purity of language would also become evident to him, and he would realize that what he himself considers worthy of criticism for others is found in him as well.
Then see Sanabli Sahib’s sense of justice and courage: he considers “nonsense, fallacy,” scolding the thief by the police chief, and being out of control as minor straws worthy of explanation, whereas, on the contrary, due to doctrinal affiliation, calling someone a “Sufi” (even though this is just like a Muhaddith calling someone Murji or Qadri, etc.), calling Allama Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, “Hatib al-Layl” (even though this is well-known among scholars and its originator is definitely not Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him), and calling a Hanafi scholar a Hanafi Maulvi (while these very people themselves marginalize Imams like Tahawi by calling them strict Hanafis) are considered sharp arrows and inexplicable!!!
Dear readers! The writings we pointed out, Sanabli Sahib, according to his blessed habit, after lengthy arguments and delays, finally admitted that while writing some harsh words about Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi, those very thoughts were circulating in his mind, which were mentioned; this was the reason why harsh words were written at some places. We do not say that these things justify harsh speech; rather, we only want to say that these things prompted the harsh speech, and God willing, in the next edition, we will soften the words.
Sanabli Sahib’s admission is a sign that we neither cut the context nor altered any of his phrases, which will be further clarified ahead.
The Reality of False Accusations
❀ Sanabli Sahib writes: “Nadeem Zaheer Sahib and his teacher Mamduh both have this particular principle and rule that when these gentlemen cannot provide any scholarly response to their opponent’s statements, they change the meaning of the opponent’s words.”
Regarding this, it is submitted that before accusing us, please reflect on your own written expressions! Because if the purpose or reason for any statement is in your heart and mind rather than on the pages, then everyone including us will understand the meaning that is conveyed on the pages. It is known that only Allah Almighty knows the secrets of hearts. If we had changed any clear, explicit, and written meaning of yours, then instead of presenting excuses like: “Actually, my purpose was this… that was not the reason,” etc., you would have presented the changed meaning with evidence, which you could not do except for making accusations.
As for reasoning with narrations, ahadith, and sayings, it is not necessary that the same meaning you derived be presented in your imitation. Just as you have the right to extract meaning from them, others also reserve this right of reasoning and you cannot sacrifice it to your accusations.
❀ As for the accusation of cutting context, it is clear to every reader of our writing that we generally select such phrases that are explicit in their meaning and do not require context, for example: Sanabli Sahib writes: “In short, it cannot be said in any case that ”له رؤية “ are companions, therefore, Zubair Alizai Sahib calling Ibn Mati’ a companion and applying the rulings of companions on him is completely against the principles of Hadith. To the best of our limited knowledge, no trustworthy and well-known narrator in the entire Islamic history has adopted such a stance, and among contemporaries, Zubair Alizai Sahib is the only person in the whole world.”
What has the respected author himself written a few pages earlier? Please observe:
Sanabli Sahib wrote: “It is submitted that those who have called Amir bin Masood a companion may have called him a companion only in terms of sighting, especially since Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: Amir, the son of Masood Ibn Umayyah, was born shortly before the conquest of Mecca, so he did not have the companionship of hearing from the Prophet ﷺ, although in terms of sighting he has been counted among the companions. Those who have been called companions in terms of sighting are counted among the second category.”
First Point
It is not correct in any case to call someone a companion (له رؤية).
Throughout Islamic history and among contemporaries as well, Mr. Zubair Alizai is the only person in the whole world.
Second Point
“The people who have been called companions in terms of sighting belong to the second category.”
It is stated that those who called Amir bin Masood a companion may have done so only in terms of sighting.
These two points are from Mr. Sanabli himself, reading which it becomes clear who is what? Because the difference is clearly evident.
Now if someone accuses us of changing the meaning or cutting the context on this basis, understand that their own mental context is confused.
Warning:
In response to the writer, Sanabli Sahib has elaborated on Muhaddith al-Asr Hafiz Zubair Ali Zaee, may Allah have mercy on him, which we do not consider worthy of attention here for two reasons:
① The topic will expand, the pages will increase, and readers will face difficulty in understanding the actual situation, which we do not accept.
② Like Sanabli Sahib’s accusations and objections, a person named Zahoor Ahmad Deobandi has also included many innovations in his book, the answers to which are now being provided by Abu al-Hasan Anbawi Sahib in the monthly magazine Ishaat al-Hadith. Therefore, the response to Sanabli Sahib’s elaborations regarding Sheikh Muhtaram Daalne can be seen there in due course.
Regarding the hadith of Yazid, the objections raised by Sanabli Sahib were answered in light of his own writings, upon which he wrote again and, as usual, tried to prolong the topic extensively. However, ignoring his irrelevant discussions and unnecessary statements, for the time being, we will focus only on matters related to the hadith of Yazid. InshaAllah
First Objection: Is Abdul Wahab Thaqafi the subject of discussion?
Regarding the narrators in the context of criticism, it should be clear that in the books of the names of narrators, except for a few narrators, there is some criticism found on almost every narrator, as the muhaddith Irshad-ul-Haq Asri, may Allah preserve him, writes:
“Even a minimal acquaintance with the books of criticism and evaluation knows that there are very few trustworthy narrators on whom no word of criticism exists.”
Now, is every criticism sufficient to affect the narrator’s status of trustworthiness? Certainly not, because in such cases, the scholars of hadith, instead of affecting the narrator’s status of trustworthiness based on this little criticism, strongly defend them. It is not hidden from the scholars that many narrators have been declared ”بلا حجة “ by the muhadditheen and thus not considered worthy of attention. If someone says that this does not end the criticism, it is to inform them that the criticism does not end but also does not remain sufficient to make the narrator a subject of criticism that affects their status of trustworthiness.
If we look at Sanabli Sahib’s approach, every second narrator would be considered a subject of criticism. Do not go far; even his desired narrator Muadh bin Muadh, about whom he is eloquent, has criticism from Imam Ahmad al-Malalah, and according to Sanabli Sahib’s principle, he is subject to criticism. But to exclude his desired narrator from being subject to criticism, he has brought far-fetched excuses and tried to defend him vigorously.
The explanation regarding the criticism of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, on Muadh bin Muadh will be observed in the following lines.
On the other hand, there is Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi, whose defense is being made by the Imams of criticism and evaluation, including Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, who wrote:
قلت: عنى بذلك ما نقم عليه من الاختلاط
I said: The criticism of weakness in him (Ibn Saad, may Allah have mercy on him) means confusion.
Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini, may Allah preserve him, said:
وقد تكلم بعض العلماء فيه من جهة أنه اختلط
Some scholars have criticized him (Abdul Wahhab) due to confusion.
In Lisan al-Mizan published by Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, Beirut, before the name of Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi, there is the symbol “Sahh” (authentic), about which Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
ومن كتبت قبالة ((صح)) فهو من تكلم فيه بلاحجة
It is understood that according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, the criticism of “weakness in him” regarding Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi is baseless or related to confusion.
Warning:
This is also the sign of “Sahih” in Mizan al-I’tidal. According to some scholars, Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Maliki has explained the meaning of Imam al-Dhahabi’s “Him Allah,” and whichever of the two interpretations is correct, it is clear that the criticism against Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi is baseless.
It is astonishing that Sanabli Sahib, who has no standing in the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil nor any service, considers Imam Ahmad’s statement about Mu’adh bin Mu’adh to be rejected and regards his own era’s worthless evidence as proof, while considering Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Maliki’s explanation about Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi as “devoid of evidence.” SubhanAllah.
If someone says that there is criticism of Ikhtilaat (mixing) on Abdul Wahhab, therefore he is a mutakallam fihi (subject of criticism), then it should be noted that just as a trustworthy, precise, and reliable narrator can be a mudallis (one who conceals defects) and his narration is rejected if it is from a wali (master), and thus he is not called mutakallam fihi, similarly, a trustworthy, precise, and reliable narrator can also be a mukhtalit (mixed narrator), and his narration is rejected if it is after the mixing. Therefore, in such a case, applying the criticism of mutakallam fihi to him cannot make the narrations before the mixing doubtful.
It should be noted that people like Sanabli Sahib also use the term mutakallam fihi for their own benefit because when a narrator is declared mutakallam fihi, whether you turn it towards weakness or towards authenticity and goodness, it can be used as a tool.
An example of this is presented here. Sanabli Sahib writes: “In the connected narration of Nafi’ bin Jubair, Suwaid bin Abdul Aziz is present, and he is a very famous and well-known weak narrator.”
After declaring the narrator as famous and well-known weak, when there was a need to prove his narration authentic, immediately he added the term mutakallam fihi and wrote: “The narration of Suwaid from Sulayman bin Musa is authentic, although he is mutakallam fihi.”
Whoever wishes, may your goodness perform miracles.
Sanabli Sahib did something similar with Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi and is trying to gain his benefit by declaring such a strong trustworthy narrator as mutakallam fihi.
In the previous lines, we have made it clear that the criticism on Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi is completely baseless; still, repeatedly making him mutakallam fihi is equivalent to injustice. The nature of the criticism on him is merely verbal, not semantic or technical. You can understand it further as follows:
① Sanabli Sahib writes: “Abu Ghalib, a narrator, has also been criticized and authenticated. Zubair Alizai Sahib, after declaring one narration of this narrator as Hasan sanad, writes: ‘Abu Ghalib is considered Saduq Hasan al-Hadith by the majority due to being trustworthy.’ The question is, if every criticism against a narrator contrary to the majority is entirely rejected, then how did Abu Ghalib fall from the rank of Thiqah and Sahih al-Hadith to Saduq and Hasan al-Hadith, and why did his narration become Hasan instead of Sahih?”
On page 20 of the same article, Sanabli Sahib writes about Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi:
“It is stated that he is mutakallam fihi, but there is no such criticism on him that would lower him from the rank of Thiqah to Saduq and Hasan al-Hadith. Therefore, despite being mutakallam fihi, he remains at the rank of Thiqah, and since Yahya protested against him and his narrations are mentioned in the Kutub al-Sitta, his narrations must be of the highest level of authenticity.”
Dear readers! The difference is clearly evident. Now our question is, when every baseless criticism against a narrator is entirely rejected, then why did Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi not fall from the rank of Thiqah and Sahih al-Hadith to Saduq and Hasan al-Hadith? And why did his narration become Hasan instead of Sahih, which is of the highest level?
② What kind of mutakallam fihi narrator is he that even in the case of singularity (tafarrud), no criticism is found on him? Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
قلت: الثقفي لا ينكر له إذا تفرد بحديث
Even if it is hypothetically accepted that Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi is a true mutakallam fihi, the nature of the criticism on him is not such that his singularity would not be accepted in case of opposition. Therefore, Sanabli Sahib, who is trying to weave a web in the denial of the Hadith of Yazid and has made the first objection on Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi, will have to face defeat in the scholarly field (InshaAllah).
Because no matter how long Sanabli Sahib’s pen may be, there still exist fair-minded people in the world who can distinguish well between right and wrong.
After this preamble, it becomes as clear as daylight that the two faces of Sanabli Sahib we mentioned in this regard are absolutely correct, and that he has taken the term “mutakallam fihi” as a support in his difficult time, just as Zafar Ahmad Thanvi Deobandi had understood Mukhtalif fihi differently.
Muhaddith Irshad al-Haq Athari Allah Thanvi Sahib expresses about this attitude: “Even a student with a slight knowledge of ‘Ilm al-Rijal knows that perhaps there is no trustworthy narrator on whom no criticism has been made, nor is there any weak narrator whom at least one person has not called trustworthy. So, should all be declared ‘Mukhtalif fihi’?”
And he writes: “Maulana Usmani adopted this principle repeatedly in A’la al-Sunan and mostly supported his corroborating narrations with it.”
He also writes: “Here too, in fact, the principle of Mukhtalif fihi is operative.”
Similarly, he writes: “Consider how useful the principle of Mukhtalif fihi is proving here.”
Warning:
It should be kept in mind that we are not denying the term “Mutakallim Fihi” but insisting on its correct usage, just as the Hadith scholar Athari, may Allah preserve him, pointed out the incorrect use of various “Fihi” terms.
Sanabli Sahib’s Perspectives
First Perspective:
He writes about Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi: “He is a Mutakallim Fihi, because Ibn Sa’d said about him ‘there is weakness in him.'”
Second Perspective:
“If Ibn Saad is singular in criticism, then his criticism is not accepted.”
When we presented this perspective, Sanabli Sahib greatly questioned the author’s scholarly capability, but later the pearls he scattered could not have been expected from a researcher like him.
Our fundamental objection in this regard was that in one place he rejects the criticism of Imam Ibn Saad that goes against him, and in another place he presents it in his favor. Why is that?
The summary of Sanabli Sahib’s lengthy discussion on this matter is as follows:
① Our respected teacher (Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him) also classified some narrators as mutakallam fih (subjects of discussion).
② “In short, although criticisms are rejected in comparison to authentication, when discussing the narrator’s status of trustworthiness, those criticisms are used as evidence. Therefore, if at one place the criticisms of the aggressors are rejected against authentication, and at another place those criticisms are cited while discussing the narrator’s status of trustworthiness, there is absolutely no contradiction or conflict between these two approaches. Nadim Zaheer Sahib should note well that to prove Abdul Wahab Thaqafi weak, we did not present Ibn Saad’s criticism, rather we presented Ibn Saad’s criticism to indicate his status of trustworthiness.”
Comment:
Our respected teacher, may Allah have mercy on him, has mentioned the narrators whom he called mutakallam fīh (subjects of discussion) and, based on the criticisms (jarh) by the muhaddithin, has also stated their level of trustworthiness (thiqah). For example, the narrators mentioned by Sanabli Sahib such as Abu Ghalib, Ubaidullah bin Umar, and Imam Bazzar, etc. All of them were declared truthful (ṣidq) and good narrators (ḥasan al-ḥadith), and there is neither any disagreement nor any ulterior motive involved. Therefore, presenting Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, as an example in this regard is absolutely not beneficial. Moreover, the muhaddith of the era, Ilmullah, did not call a narrator like Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi mutakallam fīh due to such baseless criticism, despite the fact that such statements exist about many esteemed narrators.
① On the contrary, what status did Sanabli Sahib assign to Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi? After this statement, has Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi become a narrator who narrates from the highest level of “ṣaḥīḥ” to the level of ḥasan narration?
② Has he moved from the level of trustworthy (thiqah) to truthful (ṣidq) because of this criticism?
③ Will his narration now be rejected if it appears as a solitary (tafarrud) narration?
If the answer to all these questions is negative, then please tell us what status you have assigned linguistically besides “mutakallam fīh”? What effect has this statement had on Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi’s level of trustworthiness? If nothing at all, then why have you unnecessarily involved yourself behind a trustworthy narrator merely for the sake of semantics? After this clarification, the detail that Sanabli Sahib wrote in defense of his “Durkhī” becomes futile, that Ibn Saad’s criticism was presented only to state the level of trustworthiness. It should be remembered that baseless and irrelevant criticism neither affects the level of trustworthiness nor determines anything.
Imam Ahmad Rahimahullah’s Words on Muadh bin Muadh
In our previous writing, during the discussion on Abdul Wahab Thaqafi’s narrations, we showed Mr. Sanabli a mirror that if every narration of this nature makes the narrator “Mutakallim Fihi” (subject of criticism), then Mu’adh bin Mu’adh is also Mutakallim Fihi because Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) criticized him. On this point, he took great offense and angrily wrote many pages, which are reviewed as follows:
في حديثه شيء‘ According to the scholars of hadith verification, the word “Jarh” (criticism) is well-established, as evidenced by the books of the names of narrators. To date, no muhaddith has taken “في حديثه شيء“ to mean a style of writing or methodology. Even Mr. Sanabli himself presented it as criticism, writing: Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him)
said:
” فى بعض حديثه شيء“
“Some of his hadiths are questionable.”
Since the author intended to prove the narrator as criticized here, he not only presented
as criticism but also emphatically translated it as “questionable.” When Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) made the same criticism about Mu’adh bin Mu’adh, the author not only refused to accept it as criticism but also translated it as “there was something in his hadith” instead of “questionable.”
Perhaps this is opportunism.
Dear readers! Before proceeding further, it is necessary to know whether “في حديثه شيء” is not a word of criticism?
① Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about Zaid bin Jubair: “أليس فى حديثه شيئ “ and he replied: “لا والله! إلا ثقة“
Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (may Allah have mercy on him) declared him trustworthy against ”في حديثه شيء“ and denied weakness في حديثه شيء, thus considering him trustworthy.
② Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the well-known weak narrator Muhammad bin Thabit al-Abdi in Kitab al-Dhughaffa
and wrote يقال فى حديثه شيء as criticism, indicating that ”في حديثه شيء “ is also criticism according to Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him).
③ Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about Amir Ahwal, and he said: فى حديثه شيء
Elsewhere about him, he said: ليس بالقوى، ضعيف الحديث
According to Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), ” فى حديثه شيء“ is indeed criticism. When it became clear that among the scholars and muhaddithin “في حديثه شيء” is a word of criticism, now Mr. Sanabli refuses to accept it merely because he would fall under his self-made principle.
The statement of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) is as follows:
”كان يحيى القطان، وخالد بن الحارث، ومعاذ بن معاذ لا يكتبون عند شعبة، كان يحيي يحفظ ، ويذهب إلى بيته ، فيكتبها، وكان فى حديثه بعض ترك الأخبار والألفاظ، وكان معاذ يقعد ناحية فى جانب، فيكتب ما حفظ ، وكان فى حديثه شيء ، وكان خالد أيضا يقعد فى ناحية ، فيكتب ما حفظ لا يجتمعون . “
Ignoring ” فى حديثه شيء“ and making Mr. Sanabli ignore the fact that the subject of Imam Ahmad’s statement is to explain the writing style and methodology of three students of Sha’bah is completely wrong because Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) here does not intend to describe the writing style but to explain the background of his commentary فى حديثه شيء, etc. Consider its details carefully.
① وكان فى حديثه بعض ترك الأخبار والألفاظ ، Is it methodology or criticism? If a narrator writes from memory and in his writing there is omission of news and words, is this preferred among the muhaddithin? Do muhaddithin describe it as a virtue or a defect?
Certainly, they describe it as a defect, and this defect is called criticism, and this is what Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) intends to explain because this is the importance and status of criticism and modification; otherwise, anyone sitting at home writing hadiths or in the mosque, muhaddithin would have no concern with it.
② Writing while sitting in a corner is not criticism because if it were, Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) would have also criticized Khalid on this basis, but he did not. Obviously, Khalid and Mu’adh bin Mu’adh wrote hadiths from their memories, and whichever of them felt any defect, he wrote ” فى حديثه شيء‘ about it. If, according to Mr. Sanabli, this style was part of the methodology, then after mentioning Khalid, he would have expressed ” فى حديثه شيء“ as well, but he did not because this is criticism which Mr. Sanabli forcibly tries to call style and methodology.
③ In the above statement, the word ”في حديثه شيء “ related to Mu’adh bin Mu’adh is clearly criticism, yet Mr. Sanabli writes: “He did not criticize Mu’adh at all.”
If the eyes are closed, then even the day is night,
What fault does the sun have?
Mr. Sanabli writes: “Moreover, consider that Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned Mu’adh several other times but never criticized his memory; rather, he expressed great trustworthiness.”
It is submitted that this is not a general rule that after trustworthiness, criticism cannot occur. If that were so, then Imam Ibn Sa’d (may Allah have mercy on him) also said فيه ضعف after declaring Abdul Wahab Thaqafi absolutely trustworthy. Secondly, Mu’adh bin Mu’adh is not weak according to Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) that he is criticized everywhere; rather, despite ”في حديثه شيء“, he is trustworthy, but according to Mr. Sanabli’s principle, he is “Mutakallim Fihi.”
Second Objection: Opposition to the Reliable?
It becomes clear from our previous lines that if Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi is the subject of discussion due to the words of Imam Ibn Saad, may Allah have mercy on him, then Muadh bin Muadh is also the subject of discussion due to the words of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him. Therefore, in such a case, this objection automatically ends that Abdul Wahhab Thaqafi opposed the consensus of the reliable, and moreover, this opposition is by no means harmful, as Sanabli himself has quoted the statement of Hafiz Ibn Abdul Hadi, may Allah have mercy on him, that “When the narrator of the addition is a Hafiz and trustworthy, and the one who did not mention the addition is also the same or less in trustworthiness, then in such a case, the addition will be accepted.”
Third Objection: Mixing
The objection regarding Abdul Wahab Thaqafi’s mixing (ikhtilaat) has been resolved by Sanabli himself, who writes:
“The criticism made against Abdul Wahab concerning mixing is that since the scholars have explicitly stated that this matter pertains to the last days of his life. Moreover, no hadith scholar has declared any narration weak based on his mixing, therefore, generally, the narrations he transmitted will be considered unaffected by his mixing. And Allah knows best.”
Also, despite this objection, Sanabli has classified Abdul Wahab Thaqafi’s narration as “a very high-grade authentic narration.”
Fourth Objection: Imam Bukhari’s (may Allah have mercy on him) reasoning
Whether Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه went to Syria during the caliphate of Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه or not is a matter of difference. If Imam Bukhari رحمه الله denies his going, many scholars affirm that he did go. Perhaps this is why two great contemporary hadith scholars consider the chain of the discussed hadith authentic despite the mentioned (alleged) defect.
① Despite Imam Bukhari’s reasoning for rejection, the contemporary hadith scholar Allama Nasiruddin al-Albani declared its chain as Hasan.
② The contemporary hadith scholar Hafiz Zubair رضي الله عنه also called it “Hasan.” Regarding Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه, Imam Al-Dhahabi رحمه الله said:
وقد شهد فتح بيت المقدس مع عمر
Meaning, he participated in the conquest of Bayt al-Maqdis alongside Sayyiduna Umar رضي الله عنه.
❀ Due to Imam Al-Dhahabi رحمه الله‘s aforementioned statement, the investigator Sheikh Abdul Qadir bin Abdul Karim bin Abdul Aziz of “Al-Matalib al-Aliyah”
printed by Dar al-Asimah rejected Imam Bukhari رحمه الله‘s reasoning and declared the hadith of Yazid as Hasan, i.e., he preferred affirmation over negation.
❀ Hafiz Ibn Asakir رحمه الله said: وشهد فتح بيت المقدس والجابية مع عمر بن الخطاب .
Regarding Jabiyah, Hafiz Ibn Qarqool
said: من أرض الشام . meaning Jabiyah is a region in Syria.
❀ Imam Ibn Athir رحمه الله said: ثم هاجر إلى الشام بعد وفاة أبى بکر رضی اللہ عنہ, meaning Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه migrated towards Syria after the death of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه.
❀ Imam Ibn Abdul Barr رحمه الله said: ثم خرج بعد وفاة أبى بكر رضی اللہ عنہ إلى الشام. Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه went to Syria after the death of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه.
Warning:
These hadith scholars did not mention Sayyiduna Abu Dharr’s journey to Sham through phrases like “Balaghnī” or “Qīla,” rather they expressed according to their knowledge, and calling their statements baseless is laughable. Similarly, they are not merely historians whose statements can be dismissed by calling them historical; rather, their sayings are also given status in the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil (criticism and authentication).
As for the evidence of the aforementioned hadith scholars regarding this matter, it is stated that if asking for proof to deny Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه’s journey to Sham is a fault, then why commit the same fault by affirming it? Furthermore, understand this in the light of Sanabli Sahib’s rare principle, where he writes: Many scholars have definitely attributed to these companions the statement of sacrificing for four days. It is possible that the chains of narration of these statements are in books that are inaccessible to us or have been lost. Remember that Allah Almighty has taken the responsibility only for the preservation of the Book and Sunnah, not for the sayings of the Ummah; therefore, the loss of authentic chains of narration of the Ummah’s sayings is not surprising.
Dear readers! You must have understood what is implied by this passage, that is, many scholars have mentioned Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه’s journey to Sham; it is possible that the chains of narration of these statements are in books that are inaccessible to us or have been lost.
Sanabli Sahib formulated this rare principle for his own benefit, but here it has backfired.
Imam Ibn Kathir رحمه الله said: ثم لما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ومات أبو بو بكر الله خرج إلى الشام Then when the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم and Sayyiduna Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه passed away, he (Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه) went towards Sham.
From our discussion, it is clear as the sun that if Imam Bukhari al-Ma’ila denied Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه’s journey to Sham during the caliphate of Umar رضي الله عنه, then many scholars have affirmed his journey, and this is the prevailing view on which Allama Nasiruddin al-Albani Malalah and many researchers have declared this chain as Hasan (good). Therefore, like Sanabli Sahib’s previous objections, this objection is also not worthy of consideration.
Strong Evidence and Its Proofs for Imam Bukhari’s Claim, May Allah Have Mercy on Him
On the stance of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, Sanabli Sahib presented a narration which he considered a very high-grade authentic narration on the condition of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim.
Our fundamental objection to this narration was that it is disconnected, because the meeting of Imam Muhammad bin Sirin with Sayyiduna Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, is not established.
On this basis, Sanabli Sahib attributed a permanent principle to us that we demand evidence for every statement of the critic, just as a demand for evidence was expressed regarding the statement of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, whereas there is a background to this which is that a group of scholars’ statements are contrary to the statement of Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, and for this reason we also declared it as Mukhtalaf Fih (disputed). But who are the Muhaddithin against the statement of Imam Abu Hatim: “لم يلق الحسن و محمد بن سيرين أبا ذر الغفاري“? If you prove from other Muhaddithin that Muhammad bin Sirin, may Allah have mercy on him, met Sayyiduna Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, and heard from him, then we will also accept it. In any case, after our mentioned objection, Sanabli Sahib admitted that “we clearly declare that the chain of the mentioned narration is not at any level of authenticity, rather it is weak due to discontinuity.”
After accepting the narration he presented as weak, Sanabli Sahib mentioned some evidences whose review is as follows.
In the weak narration presented by Sanabli Sahib, the words: “So when the buildings reached the hill of Sila‘ and this happened during the caliphate of Uthman bin Affan, may Allah be pleased with him, then Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, set out towards Sham (Syria).” are noteworthy.
Because Sanabli Sahib himself has underlined and highlighted them, and this phrase could have been the fundamental evidence; moreover, there is no such statement in the entire narration, so these words should be kept in mind while reviewing the evidences. Sanabli Sahib wrote: “For the rest of the literal or semantic miscellaneous evidences of this narration’s text, see:
and others
Review:
Readers! If you keep checking all these references while keeping our quoted text in front of you, it will become clear to you that these literal or contextual evidences do not fully support Sanabli Sahib’s intended meaning because none of these narrations even hint that “the buildings reached the Sila’ mountain during the era of Uthman رضي الله عنه, and at the same time Sayyiduna Abu Dharr set out towards Sham.”
This is a clear confusion of topics and an attempt to establish an unproven matter through some authentic hadiths. Moreover, in this context, calling weak narrations or one’s own “understanding and reasoning” as evidence is also a display of bravado by the respected author, which will be further explained ahead (Insha Allah).
Sanabli Sahib wrote: “Next, we present those evidences related to the fact that before the era of Uthman رضي الله عنه, Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه was residing in Madinah, and it was during the era of Uthman رضي الله عنه that Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه went to Sham. Accordingly, he writes: ‘Zaid bin Khalid al-Jarmi says: I was sitting with Uthman رضي الله عنه when an elder came to him. When people saw him, they said: This is Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه. When Uthman رضي الله عنه saw him, he said: We welcome and greet our brother. Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه said: You have been strict in giving us orders. By Allah, if you command me to crawl on the ground, I am ready to do that to the best of my ability. I once went with the Prophet of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم one night towards the garden of Banu Fulan. When you arrived, you looked upwards, then looked straight and said: “After me, your destruction will come.” I wept and said: O Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم! Will I remain alive after you? He صلى الله عليه وسلم said: Yes, and when you see that the buildings have reached Sila’, then set out towards the west (Sham).’
After narrating this hadith, Sanabli Sahib wrote: “From this hadith, the following points are understood
We present these points with analysis:
First:
The Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, ordered Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, to go from Medina to Sham after a specific sign appeared.
Review:
Yes, absolutely! But when did that specific sign appear? There is no mention of it in the cited narration or any authentic narration alongside it.
Second:
“Before the appearance of this sign, Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, could not go to Sham, because the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, ordered him to leave Medina only after the sign appeared.”
Review: This only mentions leaving the residence; interpreting it to mean that he could not leave Medina for any jihadi expedition or commercial purpose is completely incorrect.
Third:
After the appearance of this sign, Abu Dharr, may Allah be pleased with him, was scheduled to depart for Sham, because the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, had given him this order.
Review:
Yes, absolutely! But when exactly did this sign appear requires clear evidence, not the author’s mental invention.
Fourth:
Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه manifested the command of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم during the caliphate of Uthman رضي الله عنه. This is evidence that the sign mentioned by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appeared during the caliphate of Uthman رضي الله عنه, upon seeing which Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه set out for Syria. That is, Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه went to Syria during the time of Uthman رضي الله عنه‘s caliphate; before that, he was residing in Medina.
Review:
From the aforementioned and other hadiths, it is established that Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه returned from Sham to Madinah during the era of Uthman رضي الله عنه, but it is absolutely not proven by any authentic narration that Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه went from Madinah to Sham during the era of Uthmani as well.
Sanabili Sahib’s argument that Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه manifested the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم command during the caliphate of Uthman رضي الله عنه is evidence that the sign mentioned by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم appeared during Uthman رضي الله عنه‘s caliphate. This viewpoint is rather incorrect because Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه expressed displeasure about the decision to return.
It is clear that if the sign had already appeared for Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه during the era of Uthman رضي الله عنه before leaving Madinah, then that era of Uthman رضي الله عنه was still ongoing. Sayyiduna Uthman رضي الله عنه had not demolished those buildings, so on this occasion, this hadith was narrated. That is, Sayyiduna Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه wanted to stay in Sham until his death after leaving Madinah.
After his first evidence, which was indeed a masterpiece of reasoning, Sanabili Sahib presents a second evidence and writes:
“Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه‘s wife, Umm Dharr رضي الله عنها, says: By Allah! Uthman رضي الله عنه did not send Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه; rather, the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: (O Abu Dharr!) When the buildings reach Sila’, then you leave from here (Madinah). So when the buildings reached and exceeded Sila’, Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه set out towards Sham. Then they mentioned Abu Dharr رضي الله عنه‘s return from Sham, then his departure to Rabdha, and his death there.”
Review:
The narration that Sanabli Sahib is presenting as authentic with its chain of transmission is actually weak.
In the chain of transmission of the mentioned narration, Abdul Malik bin Muhammad and Abu Qulaba Al-Raqashi, despite being truthful and reliable narrators, were also mixed (in their narrations). Therefore, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said about them:
صدوق يخطئ تغير حفظه لما سكن بغداد
Hafiz Zain al-Din al-Iraqi says about a narrator:
قلت: وسماع القنطري من أبى قلابة بعد اختلاطه ليس بصحيح . قال ابن خزيمة فى صحيحه: ثنا أبو قلابة بالبصرة قبل أن يختلط و يخرج الى بغداد۔
For this reason, scholars have clarified that in Basra, the narration from Abu Qulaba Al-Raqashi is before the mixing (of narrations), and in Baghdad, it is after the mixing.
Our mentioned narration is being narrated from Abu Qulaba Al-Raqashi by Ahmad bin Kamil Al-Qadi, who heard it in Baghdad. See Mu’jam al-Mukhtaliteen
. Therefore, this narration is weak due to Abu Qulaba’s mixing.
Allama Nasiruddin Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) also declared this narration weak. See Musalsalah Da’ifah
.
After Sanabli Sahib accepted the narration presented on the claim of Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) as weak, the way he elaborated makes it clear that he has nothing more than weak and irrelevant narrations in this chain, and the weak narration which he wants to prove as good is weak due to weak supporting and irrelevant narrations, because Sanabli Sahib could not present any authentic and explicit supporting narration for “When the buildings reached the hill of Sila, and this happened during the caliphate of Uthman bin Affan (may Allah be pleased with him), then Abu Dharr also set out towards Sham.”
The Refutation of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him?
We had a good opinion about Mr. Sanabli that a researcher like him cannot use an unproven and baseless narration as evidence or foundation. Therefore, we wrote by giving precedence to the proven statement and postponing the unproven and baseless one as a warning that this is completely wrong, because silence of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding the curse on Yazid is proven, but absolute silence is not at all proven by any clear and explicit statement (evidence).
We wrote this matter with full responsibility after complete research, but what gifts did we receive as a result of this good opinion: “committing the worst betrayal,” “misleading,” and Mr. Nadeem Zaheer accused us of betrayal and deceit, etc.
May their own words be a blessing for them.
The condition of Mr. Sanabli’s “clear evidence” regarding the refutation of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him
Sanabli Sahib wrote: Doctor Muhammad bin Hadi Al-Shaibani writes:
في عقيدة أحمد التى كتبت عنه ، وذلك قبل ثلاثة أيام من وفاته: وكان يمسك عن يزيد بن معاوية ويكله إلى الله
Three days before the death of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, it was recorded about his beliefs that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, remained silent regarding Yazid bin Muawiya and left his matter to Allah.”
“This is clear evidence that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, ultimately entrusted the matter of Yazid to Allah.”
Review:
The manuscript from which Dr. Muhammad bin Hadi has copied this passage is present in the library of our Sheikh, may Allah have mercy on him, and it is published by Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut. Praise be to Allah.
Who is the one who copied this passage?
Sanabli Sahib wrote: “It is obvious that a student of Imam Ahmad has recorded it.”
This is completely wrong and false, because the one who narrated it is the “only” Hafiz Abu Muhammad Rizq Allah bin Abdul Wahab bin Abdul Aziz Tamimi, may Allah have mercy on him, who was born around 400 AH. See Siyar A’lam al-Nubala
Now tell me, how did this Hafiz Abu Muhammad
become a student of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, who died in 241 AH?
Declaring a baseless and unproven narration as clear evidence is something only people like Sanabli Sahib would do.
Now it is incumbent upon Sanabli Sahib to prove his real and clear evidence with an authentic chain from Hafiz Abu Muhammad Rizq Allah to Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him. Merely saying, “We do not have access to the manuscript of Tabaqat Hanabila from which Dr. Muhammad bin Hadi copied, but we trust his copy,” is not sufficient in the scholarly field.
You fight but have no sword in hand.
One, no access; second, see the audacity that they attack us with an unproven and baseless statement, while this is the same person who wrote: “It should be clear that our topic is to discuss accusations, therefore negligence in historical narrations in this chapter is not correct; rather, in such matters, more scrutiny is needed in historical narrations than in hadith.”
What could be more negligence than trusting the words of an unknown contemporary and basing your claim on it, which has no foundation at all? We ask Sanabli Sahib: Is it not the worst betrayal to present unproven and baseless narrations under the guise of authentic narrations? Is this not a fallacy? In any case, when the unproven narration of the mentioned person has lost the right to be called clear or conclusive evidence, then our statement is: “Silence regarding the curse on Yazid from Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, is proven, but absolute silence is by no means proven by any clear and explicit statement (evidence). This was correct yesterday and remains correct today. Praise be to Allah.”
Sanabli Sahib further wrote: “If anyone argues from this second narration that Imam Ahmad had withdrawn his criticism, then this is absolutely correct, because according to this narration, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, described Yazid as an example of the best of generations.”
Review:
Is there no difference between curse and general criticism? When it is known that curse is the ultimate limit of hatred and enmity and it expresses extreme dislike, then how did it become necessary that if a hadith scholar does not consider someone deserving of curse, his existing general criticism is also nullified!? This reasoning is like asking a hadith scholar about a narrator who has already been declared weak whether he was a liar, and the scholar denies his lying, then someone claims that the scholar has also withdrawn his judgment of weakness!! Just as this is wrong, similarly, remaining silent on curse and assuming that they have also withdrawn the general criticism is completely wrong and rejected. As for Sanabli Sahib’s statement: “It is obvious that if Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, accepted the oppression attributed to Yazid, the unjust killing of the companions, and looting in Medina as proven, then he would never have described him as the embodiment of the best of generations.”
So it is stated that no matter how sinful a believer and Muslim may be, he cannot be deprived of this virtue; this is the position of Ahl al-Sunnah. To deprive someone of this virtue, it is necessary to prove him a disbeliever, polytheist, or hypocrite, and it is obvious that according to Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, Yazid is among the believers and Muslims. Therefore, Sanabli Sahib’s argument does not prove Imam Ahmad’s withdrawal at all.
Finally, Sanabli Sahib has made a “threatening-like statement,” so our response is: Have you left any stone unturned that you felt the need to write this “threatening-like statement”? Can you extend your pen even further? Perhaps it would be outright insults! In any case, fulfill your desire; we have already implemented it within a certain framework before. Now we have made every effort to improve it further.
لاحول ولا قوة الا بالله .
