Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Muhawir

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Muhawir

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Nope, they haven't. For example, there are three narrations from Imam Ahmad in which he considers him to be good (one where he says that he is weak in Hadith). And similarly, Waqi' bin Al-jarrah considered him to be trustworthy in Hadith. But the point is, him being weak in Hadith doesn't necessitate that he is weak in Quraan. He specialized in the latter, so it's not surprising to find him weak in the former. Likewise Imam Abu Hanifah was weak in Hadith, but a giant in Fiqh. Adn such a discrepancy is very common even today, someone might be really into medical science, but only average in history, despite the fact that both really rely on having a good memory. The problem was that when one scholar made the confusion, probably Imam Bukhari, many following scholars just took from him, so the mistake became popular and while Hafs Al-Basri was not charged for that event, our Hafs was. I am not aware of any other event that was mentioned as a charge to justify why he was weakened. The proof that the narration refers to the Basri is the fact that Ibn Sa'd in his Tabaqat ascribes this habit to Hafs under the category of the scholars of Basrah. There is a nice article on the topic that explains the main points here: http://eld3wah.com/vb/t1575.html Enjoy.
  2. He narrated a similar statement to which binman alluded when he referred to Musnad Ahmad. The narration is fabricated. At-Tabari's narration contains Abd Al-Ghaffar bin Al-Qasem who was a lying Rafidi, very similar to binman. You can find the details in As-Silsilah Ad-Da'ifah by Sheikh Al-Albani, No. 4932.
  3. A liar couldn't. But Hafs wasn't a liar. What happened was that he got confused with Hafs bin Sulayman Al-Basri over an incident where the latter would take books and not return them. After all the Ummah agreed on him being trustworthy in Qur'aan.
  4. You are acting as if someone just told you about the birds and the bees. How old are you?
  5. As you wish, King Kong.
  6. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the story is not sahih by reading the very first sentence: "I was told that...." Nothing less from you.
  7. He was weak in Hadith, strong in Qur'aan. Also known as specialization.
  8. That doesn't make sense. Why is not the latest Imaam the greatest divinely appointed leader to call to Allah's religion if the rank of Imaam is higher than that of a prophet?
  9. Alright, just say that you don't want to answer. Maybe someone else is not so scared to answer my question.
  10. I think it's pretty obvious that you don't have an answer to my simple question and are therefore hiding behind cheap flowery excuses.
  11. And thank you for the "Please put me on your ignore list" post.
  12. This issue really annihilates the dogma of Imaamat. If there had been anything like Imaamat that is even superior to prophethood, then what's the big deal over the finality of prophethood? Why is it such a great merit to be the last prophet if there will always be Imaams whose rank is even higher than prophets?
  13. Well, you didn't answer my question nor do I find an answer in the first sermon nor in your discussion with brother Mohammad. So tell me how do you know that nothing inauthentic was inserted in that book that popped up hundreds of years after its alleged author?
  14. Fine, so here goes the claim that you don't have a Sahih book because you only consider the Quraan to be sahih. Now, what makes you so sure that nothing inauthentic was inserted into a book that popped up hundreds of years after its alleged author?
×
×
  • Create New...