Excerpted from: Monthly al-Ḥadīth, Hazro
نحمده و نصلي على رسوله الكريم، أما بعد
Ghulam Mustafa Noori, in his book "Tark-e-Rafʿ al-Yadayn", demonstrates severe inconsistencies and contradictions in the evaluation of narrators. His method appears biased, whereby he accepts a narrator when the narration supports his position, and rejects the same narrator when the narration contradicts his view. This article highlights multiple documented examples of such inconsistencies.
Same narrator, same chain — accepted once, rejected the second time.
Selective authentication based on narrative alignment.
Same narrator, same style (ʿanʿanah), different verdicts based on narrative bias.
Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar listed Abū Qilābah among the first category (طبقة الأولى) — whose tadlīs is accepted.
Ibn Ḥajar listed him in the same class of mudallis as Sufyān al-Thawrī, whose similar narrations Noori accepted.
Same narrator, same method, yet double standards.
When narrations support his view: "Thiqah", "Ṣaḥīḥ", "Proof"
When against him: "Weak", "Mudallis", "Not Hujjah"
"A narrator is accepted when he appears in Bukhārī, but when he narrates something against the Ghair-Muqallid viewpoint, they try to discredit him with full effort — a clear contradiction in their honesty."
(Page 259)
Ironically, this very attitude is evident in Noori Ṣāḥib’s own work, as exposed above.
"We must all one day return to Allah. Let us fear the Day of Judgment and speak with truth and justice in religious discourse."
May Allah ﷻ grant us all the ability to recognize truth as truth and to follow it, and to recognize falsehood as falsehood and to avoid it.
Āmīn
❖ Introduction:
نحمده و نصلي على رسوله الكريم، أما بعد
Ghulam Mustafa Noori, in his book "Tark-e-Rafʿ al-Yadayn", demonstrates severe inconsistencies and contradictions in the evaluation of narrators. His method appears biased, whereby he accepts a narrator when the narration supports his position, and rejects the same narrator when the narration contradicts his view. This article highlights multiple documented examples of such inconsistencies.
◈ Example ①: Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh
- When it supports his view, Noori writes:
"Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh is a trustworthy narrator; Ibn Ḥajar stated that some scholars declared him thiqah."
➤ (Page 293)
- When it opposes his view, he writes:
"Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh is weak when narrating from people of Madīnah like Ṣāliḥ ibn Kaysān, and such narrations are not proof."
➤ (Page 445)
Same narrator, same chain — accepted once, rejected the second time.◈ Example ②: Ḥakam ibn ʿUtaybah
- Rejected:
"Ḥakam ibn ʿUtaybah is majhūl (unknown)."
➤ (Page 453)
- Accepted:
"He is thiqah (trustworthy)."
➤ (Page 462)
Selective authentication based on narrative alignment.◈ Example ③: Muḥammad ibn Faḍīl
- When against him:
"He is a Shīʿī; Ibn Saʿd said his narrations are not taken as evidence."
➤ (Page 424)
- When in his favor:
"All narrators in this chain, including Muḥammad ibn Faḍīl, are from Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and are trustworthy."
➤ (Page 457)
◈ Example ④: Muḥārib ibn Dithār
- Rejected:
"He is not accepted by scholars; had problematic views about ʿUthmān and ʿAlī رضي الله عنهما."
➤ (Pages 423, 440)
- Accepted:
"He was a Qāḍī of Kūfah, a knowledgeable and virtuous man."
➤ (Page 256)
◈ Example ⑤: Abū Hilāl Muḥammad ibn Sulaym
- Rejected:
"He is weak; his narration is not reliable."
➤ (Pages 426–427)
- Accepted:
Used his narration as evidence when it served his purpose.
➤ (Pages 236–237)
◈ Example ⑥: ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār
- Declared weak:
➤ (Page 253) - Used his narration as proof:
➤ (Page 289)
◈ Example ⑦: Ibrāhīm ibn Munḏir
- Rejected:
"He is weak; Imām Aḥmad criticised him; narrated munkar (unacceptable) reports."
➤ (Page 441)
- Accepted:
Used his narration as evidence.
➤ (Page 237)
◈ Example ⑧: Ibrāhīm ibn Ṭahmān
- Rejected:
"He is weak."
➤ (Page 441)
- Accepted:
Used his narration.
➤ (Page 237)
◈ Example ⑨: Ḥumayd Ṭawīl
- Rejected a narration:
"He is a mudallis (ambiguous narrator) and narrated with 'ʿan', hence the report is not proof."
➤ (Page 379)
- Accepted similar narration:
"This shows ʿAnas’s narration only proves Rafʿ al-Yadayn at the opening takbīr."
➤ (Page 224)
Same narrator, same style (ʿanʿanah), different verdicts based on narrative bias.◈ Example ⑩: Abū Qilābah
- Rejected:
"He is a mudallis and narrates via 'ʿan'; not accepted."
➤ (Pages 443–444)
- But previously admitted:
"First level mudalliseen are accepted by consensus."
➤ (Page 463)
Hāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar listed Abū Qilābah among the first category (طبقة الأولى) — whose tadlīs is accepted.◈ Example ⑪: Saʿīd ibn Abī ʿArūbah
- Rejected:
"He is a mudallis and narrated from Qatādah via ʿan, thus not hujjah."
➤ (Page 425)
- But when it supports his claim:
No objection made, despite same issue of tadlīs.
Ibn Ḥajar listed him in the same class of mudallis as Sufyān al-Thawrī, whose similar narrations Noori accepted.◈ Example ⑫: Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd
- Rejected:
"He is a mudallis and narrates via ʿan; hence not accepted."
➤ (Page 382)
- However, Yaḥyá ibn Saʿīd is free from tadlīs, as shown in Fatḥ al-Mubīn fī Taḥqīq Ṭabaqāt al-Mudalliseen (T32, p. 31–32)
❖ Summary of Noori Ṣāḥib’s Contradictions:
Same narrator, same method, yet double standards. When narrations support his view: "Thiqah", "Ṣaḥīḥ", "Proof" When against him: "Weak", "Mudallis", "Not Hujjah"❖ A Quotation from Noori Ṣāḥib’s Own Book:
"A narrator is accepted when he appears in Bukhārī, but when he narrates something against the Ghair-Muqallid viewpoint, they try to discredit him with full effort — a clear contradiction in their honesty."
(Page 259)
Ironically, this very attitude is evident in Noori Ṣāḥib’s own work, as exposed above.❖ Final Reminder:
"We must all one day return to Allah. Let us fear the Day of Judgment and speak with truth and justice in religious discourse."
May Allah ﷻ grant us all the ability to recognize truth as truth and to follow it, and to recognize falsehood as falsehood and to avoid it.
Āmīn
