A Detailed Scholarly Refutation of
Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah, Vol. 1 – p. 583
❖ Introduction
Question:
Ghulam Mustafa Noori Qadri Barelwi authored a book titled “Tasuweed Wajh al-Shayṭānī bi-Tawthīq al-Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī” as a response to an article published in the monthly al-Ḥadīth Hazro. A detailed scholarly refutation is requested.
❖ Scholarly Background
– The author (Muḥammad Zubair ʿAlī Zaʾī) had earlier written an article titled “al-Naṣr al-Rabbānī fī Tarjamat Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī”, presenting translations and critical evaluations from Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl and Lisān al-Mīzān.
– That article was published in al-Ḥadīth Hazro (2004, pp. 11–20). Later, with further research and refinements, it was reissued under the title “al-Taʾyīd al-Rabbānī wa Ibn Farqad al-Shaybānī.”
❖ Review of Noori Barelwi’s Arguments
① Claim: al-Ḥākim declared a narration of al-Shaybānī as “ṣaḥīḥ.”
– Response: al-Dhahabī رحمه الله rejected this, describing it as “bi’l-dabbūs” (false, like hitting with a club).
② Claim: al-Haythamī graded his narration as “ḥasan.”
– Response: Such isolated gradings cannot outweigh the statements of major authorities like Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Ibn Maʿīn, and al-Fallas.
❖ Ten Scholarly Mistakes of Noori Barelwi
① Confusing narrators – Mixed up Aḥmad ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Maryam al-Miṣrī with Abū Bakr ibn Abī Maryam al-Ghassānī al-Shāmī.
② Declaring a reliable imām unreliable – Regarding ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī al-Fallas, while Ibn Ḥajar calls him “thiqah, ḥāfiẓ.”
③ Falsely attributing to al-Dhahabī – Claimed al-Dhahabī graded a narration ṣaḥīḥ, while he actually dismissed it with “bi’l-dabbūs.”
④ False claim about Abū Ḥātim – Accused him of calling Imām al-Bukhārī “matrūk” – a baseless fabrication.
⑤ Using a fabricated book for evidence – Quoted al-Juzʾ al-Mafqūd min al-Muṣannaf, proven fabricated by scholars, including Shaykh Shihāb al-Dīn ibn Bahādur Jang (Dubai).
⑥ Contradiction on Ibn Maʿīn – Calling him “mutashaddid” in jarḥ, but elsewhere praising him.
⑦ Contradiction on Muḥārib ibn Dithār – Called him disrespectful to ʿUthmān and ʿAlī رضي الله عنهما, but elsewhere praised him.
⑧ Using a liar’s narration – Relied on Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ṣalt (Ibn ʿAṭiyyah), declared a fabricator by al-Dhahabī and Ibn Ḥibbān.
⑨ Double standard on Shīʿī narrators – Harsh against some, lenient towards others.
⑩ Contradiction on Muḥammad ibn Faḍīl – Called him a Shīʿī and unreliable, yet elsewhere admitted he is a narrator of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and thiqah.
❖ Case of Ḥasan ibn Ziyād al-Luʾluʾī
– Numerous leading muḥaddithīn (Ibn Maʿīn, al-Dāraqutnī, al-Nasāʾī, Yaʿqūb ibn Sufyān, Ibn Ḥibbān, Ibn al-Jawzī, al-ʿUqaylī, al-Dhahabī, and others) declared him kadhdhāb, matrūk, or unreliable.
– Attempts at defending him rely on weak or unestablished statements.
❖ Conclusion
◈ Ghulam Mustafa Noori Barelwi’s arguments are based on:
– Weak or fabricated sources,
– Misrepresentation of scholars’ statements,
– Contradictions and confusion in narrator identification.
◈ His book “Tasuweed Wajh al-Shayṭānī” is entirely invalid, non-scholarly, and dishonest.
◈ The correct response with detailed references and authentic scholarly evaluations is found in the treatise “al-Taʾyīd al-Rabbānī wa Ibn Farqad al-Shaybānī.”
وما علینا إلا البلاغ
