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

Everything posted by Muhawir

  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?
  15. So it was Ali [radia Allahu 'anhu] in person who gave you this book so that you don't need any chain for it? And are you suggesting that everything in NB is authentic?
  16. Thanks for the "I am still alive" comment.
  17. like when he was heavily tortured and couldn't bear it anymore? You are seriously comparing Ammar [radia Allahu 'anhu] with the "infallible" who allegedly lied when he was simply asked about a legal verdict about a secondary issue that Zurarah conveyed from him? And in turn, Zurarah lied for..err..nothing?
  18. Except for useless insults, you didn't bring anything new which really shows how you failed. First of all, you keep bringing up the mistake by Ibn Mundah about alleged Tadlis in the chain and then go on to talk rubbish about alleged distortion of the matn. It's pretty obvious that you have no real argument. Second, Ibn Mundah didn't provide proofs but simply interpreted the saying of Bukhari "X said to us" to be Tadlis which is wrong and many scholars refuted him. Of course you don't want to pay attention to that fact since your agenda is not to find the truth but simply to slander for the sake of slander. The real reason why Imam Bukhari would sometimes use this form is in order to indicate that the narration is mawquf (although likely marfu') or in order to indicate that it falls short of fulfilling the sahih criteria on its own. This is the case when the chain is a supportive chain to a sahih chain also found in Sahih Bukhari. For details, the interested reader is advised to read the short paragraph about that topic in the following nice article: http://www.ibnamin.com/Manhaj/bukhari.htm The fact that you keep bringing up a simple mistake of mine into this discussion show more about you than about me. I was looking for the narration that your brother posted and where he stupidly assumed that there is a cycle in the chain in a combination of Sahih Bukhari with the sharh of Fath ul Bari. And I found a very similar looking chain in the Sharh, so I assumed that the poster actually took that. I later found the original narration and realised my mistake. That's all there is about it. Other than that, I couldn't care less about whether you accept my word or not. Thanks for proving that you didn't read the article. You brought exactly one scholar who called him a Thiqah which reminds me of how you declared the narration at hand to be mutawatir by bringing up the same chains several times. Obviously, Ibn Adi doubts that he was indeed a member of the police. Again, Adh-Dhahabi didn't authenticate it. Al-Bosayri said the chain is hassan, not the narration as you falsely claimed, ya mudallis. And Al-Hakim is well-known for his weakness in his Mustadrak. Are you referring to the narration "anta wali kul mu'min min ba'di"? Nope, because the context clarifies its meaning. Moreover, I assume that there are chains without Shia narrators. lol, why did you ask me for the reference if that's all you have to say afterwards? Al-Albani is highly respected for his expertise in Hadith among Ahl us-Sunnah. This isn't changed by stupid attacks of the like of the liar Hassan As-Saqqaf. So in summary, not a single chain of this narration is strong. If some scholar like Al-Hakim authenticated it, he was mistaken and was contradicted by much more reliable scholars like Ad-Daraqutni and Bukhari and Albani.
  19. How convenient. The usual cheap Taqiyyah excuse. So because of Taqiyyah, Ja'far The Truthful [rahimahuAllah] curses Zurarah for conveying a wrong Fatwa in a secondary Fiqhi issue who in turn accuses Ja'far of having no insight into the words of men. It seems you are smarter than the narrator who went to Ja'far to ask him about Zurarah and didn't get that it's just Taqiyyah so he even went to Zurarah and informed him about what Ja'far was saying about him..and even Zurarah didn't get that it's just Taqiyyah when he accused Ja'far of having little understanding.
  20. lol, how can you refute it based on the chain if your own comrades agree that your jarh wa ta'deel sucks? If you really wanted to apply the pseudo-science of rijaal that you have, not a single authentic chain will survive as as pointed out by Al-Hur Al-Amili who also confessed that you tried to copy 'Ilm ul Rijaal from Ahl us-Sunnah. Anyway, here is one of many narrations that put your greatest narrator in very bad light. In particular, Ja'far As-Sadiq rahimahuAllah is cursing him and calling him a liar: ÍÏËäí ÃÈæ ÌÚÝÑ ãÍãÏ Èä Þæáæíå¡ ÞÇá: ÍÏËäí ãÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÇáÞÇÓã ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå¡ ÇáãÚÑæÝ ÈãÇÌíáæíå¡ Úä ÒíÇÏ Èä ÃÈí ÇáÍáÇá¡ ÞÇá: ÞáÊ áÇÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã: Åä ÒÑÇÑÉ Ñæì Úäß Ýí ÇáÇÓÊØÇÚÉ ÔíÆÇ ÝÞÈáäÇ ãäå æÕÏÞäÇå æÞÏ ÃÍÈÈÊ Ãä ÃÚÑÖå Úáíß¡ ÝÞÇá: åÇÊå¡ ÝÞáÊ: íÒÚã Ãäå ÓÃáß Úä Þæá Çááå ÚÒæÌá: (æááå Úáì ÇáäÇÓ ÍÌ ÇáÈíÊ ãä ÇÓÊØÇÚ Åáíå ÓÈíáÇ) ÝÞáÊ: ãä ãáß ÒÇÏÇ æÑÇÍáÉ¡ ÝÞÇá áß: ßá ãä ãáß ÒÇÏÇ æÑÇÍáÉ Ýåæ ãÓÊØíÚ ááÍÌ æÅä áã íÍÌ ¿ ÝÞáÊ: äÚã ¿ ÝÞÇá: áíÓ åßÐÇ ÓÃáäí æáÇ åßÐÇ ÞáÊ¡ ßÐÈ Úáí æÇááå ßÐÈ Úáí æÇááå¡ áÚä Çááå ÒÑÇÑÉ¡ áÚä Çááå ÒÑÇÑÉ¡ áÚä Çááå ÒÑÇÑÉ¡ ÅäãÇ ÞÇá áí: ãä ßÇä áå ÒÇÏ æÑÇÍáÉ Ýåæ ãÓÊØíÚ ááÍÌ ¿ ÞáÊ: ÞÏ æÌÈ Úáíå¡ ÞÇá: ÝãÓÊØíÚ åæ ¿ ÝÞáÊ: áÇ ÍÊì íÄÐä áå¡ ÞáÊ: ÝÃÎÈÑ ÒÑÇÑÉ ÈÐáß ¿ ÞÇá: äÚã¡ ÞÇá: ÒíÇÏ: ÝÞÏãÊ ÇáßæÝÉ ÝáÞíÊ ÒÑÇÑÉ¡ ÝÃÎÈÑÊå ÈãÇ ÞÇá ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå æÓßÊ Úä áÚäå. ÞÇá: ÃãÇ Çäå ÞÏ ÃÚØÇäí ÇáÇÓÊØÇÚÉ ãä ÍíË áÇ íÚáã¡ æÕÇÍÈßã åÐÇ áíÓ áå ÈÕÑ ÈßáÇã ÇáÑÌÇá. found in Mu'jam Rijaal Al-Hadith, Vol. 8, P. 247
  21. Charged with the slightest form of rare Tadlis by one scholar who was mistaken and with whom nobody agreed. I wonder what you would have done if we considered narrators like Zurarah to be among the greatest although they were actually cursed by the "infallibles" and who "would fart in their beards". To describe your "Ilm ul Rijaal": it's a complete mess.
  22. So in summary, there is no authentic chain for this book that is valued so highly by you. What a joke.
  23. Why don't you translate the whole quote instead of highlighting one part that is contradicted in the sentence directly after it where Ibn Hajar is stating that nobody agreed with Ibn Mundah? So if anyone, then it is you who would be charged of Tadlis. And I'm still dying to know how you reached the conclusion that Imam Bukhari did Tadlis in the matn. As for the narrators in Sahih Bukhari, then in general they are strong when the narration is in the Usul, however they could be much weaker when they only occur in additional supportive narrations. But all that is completely irrelevant here. Even if a chain is made up solely of narrators from Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim it could still be weak. In particular, for it to be sahih, it has to be continuous. And that's not the case if it contains 'an'anah from Hushaym (outside of Sahih Bukhari). In fact, he did grade some of the narrations, but in many cases he would only summarize the grading by Al-Hakim although he himself opposes it. It's not my fault if you don't know that. If you like to know more about the topic, I advise you to read the following article by Sheikh Muhammad al-Amin: http://www.ibnamin.com/Manhaj/Zahabi.htm As I pointed out, Adh-Dhahabi didn't authenticate it, but summarized the wrong authentication by al-Hakim. In order to know whether Adh-Dhahabi considers Abu Idris to be reliable you will have to find him in one of his books of Rijaal. But of course, you will fail in that because the guy is unknown. That's irrelevant. Being a leader in the army could be an indication that he is trustworthy, but it doesn't help in determining whether his memory was good. Al-Bukhari's judgment doesn't just mean that his hadith may be questioned, but it is a well-known strong rejection of his narrations. Ibn Hajar calls him Sadooq Shi'i. Abu Hatim considered him to be weak. Ibn Adi even doubts that he really heard from Ali [radia Allahu 'anhu] so in that case the chain is even broken. And all agree that he was a Shi'i from the ghulaat. So his narration in anything that supports his bid'ah is useless. Fine, but not if a narration supports his bid'ah. Then it is rejected. Simply narrating Fada'il isn't enough. æÈÇáÌãáÉ ÝÌãíÚ ØÑÞ ÇáÍÏíË æÇåíÉ æáíÓ ÝíåÇ ãÇ íÊÞæì ÈÛíÑå As-Silsilah Ad-Da'ifah, No. 4905, which is really a good read as he discusses every chain. He also mentions that Imam Bukhari considered the narration to be weak. So in summary, not a single chain of this narration is strong. If some scholar like Al-Hakim authenticated it, he was mistaken and was contradicted by much more reliable scholars like Ad-Daraqutni and Bukhari and Albani.
×
×
  • Create New...