Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Biographical Notes' started by abu Hasan, Aug 9, 2017.
the method of alahazrat. the OP is relevant.
we all make mistakes in proper names, and particularly names foreign to us or ones which we might not have heard often. sometimes, mistakes happen due to following others on the assumption that the person they are following might have got it right.
even giants like imam bukhari have misspelled names or mistaken appellations. it is anyway an insignificant issue and is not the measure of someone's knowledge. the only reason i felt commenting, is that ibn Hajar is a hadith master and any student of hadith would have heard or read his name hundreds of times - IF one is a serious student of hadith. but it is also true that we keep making the same mistake over and over, without realising it until someone points it out. so let us cut some slack and give dr. asim benefit of doubt.
as for the comment on alahazrat's knowledge of hadith. it is a lenghty subject.
abu'l hasan nadawi poisoned the pond; in his nuzhatu'l khawatir, he said that alahazrat had very little knowledge in hadith.
our ulama took this up long ago and demonstrated the lie of this jealous and inimical biographer and his pernicious comments. various articles were written to debunk this slander. mawlana muhammad hanif baraylawi has compiled a 10 volume compendium, with takhrij of ahadith mentioned in fatawa riDawiyyah, which has been linked below by janab aqib sahib.
shaykh hanif says that the number of books alahazrat from which alahazrat has cited in his fatawa are more than 400.
a few years ago, i started a comparison of books/fatawa of deobandi elders with those of alahazrat, to examine this patent lie brazenly dished out by nadawi. i started writing an essay on this topic "the jealous biographer", but have been sidetracked due to other important things. moreover, it is a time consuming activity and i hope to complete it some day, in sha'Allah.
for example, take the case of sujud al-taHiyyah. this is a book which the nadawi, in spite of his acrimony, couldn't withhold his praise.
'this work demonstrates the depth of his knowledge and the strength of his argument'
the hatred in nadawi's heart couldn't stay bottled up; he vents his spleen: "...he had very little knowledge of hadith and tafsir"
it is easy to throw statements. there are a number of lies in this biographical notice, and unfortunately, many sunni ulama among arabs have been deceived by this kazzab - may Allah ta'ala give him his just recompense.
now, on this subject of prostration, thanawi also wrote a fatwa, the first question in hifz al-iman. he stated just one hadith from mishkat in this matter, and mentioned a couple of mufassirin. as an aside, it is also in this short work, that thanawi committed a blasphemy! another aside, is that in this fatwa that thanawi says that the life of RasulALlah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is "barzakhi" which khalil denied without blinking in his muhannad.
hifz al iman, thanawi:
hifz al iman, thanawi:
alahazrat also wrote a fatwa on sujud al-taHiyyah and he compiled an arbayin - 40 hadith that prohibit prostration of greeting/respect. apart from being an original compilation on a specific topic, the hadith also has takhrij which only a hadith scholar is capable.
please remember that alahzrat was using books that did not have extensive indexes and cross-referencing that we have in our time, nor did he have access to tools such as computer-search across compilations. plus he has comments on rijal, textual accuracy, cross referencing from numerous other books.
let us take the hadith which thanawi also cited: "hadith in mishkat from abu dawud".
alahazrat says about this (#16)
abu dawud in his sunan, Tabarani in his mu'jam al-kabir, Hakim and bayHaqi narrate from qays ibn sa'ad...
after the narration, he comments:
abu dawud indicated that was hasan by not commenting on it, Hakim explicitly said it was SaHiH and dhahabi in his talkhiS validated Hakim's assertion. as it is mentioned in it'Haf.
not only alahazrat collected all the narrations, he also mentioned the statuses of the hadith and comments by hadith masters. in a footnote for the very first hadith of this compilation, he says:
jamiy of tirmidhi, SaHiH ibn Hibban, SaHiH mustadrak, musnad bazzar, sunan of bayhaqi reporting from abu hurayrah raDiyAllah anhu.
here, alahazrat's footnote says:
i have seen this in jamiy of tirmidhi; and in durr al-manthur, it has been attributed to bazzar, Hakim and bayhaqi, mentioned under the verse: "men have authority over women.." [surah nisa, v34].
in (chapter on) nikah, in targhib (wa't tarhib) and appendix (dhayl) of jamiy al-saghir, attributing to ibn Hibban; and he sufficed only with the marfu' narration as is the context of his book.
and in kanz al-ummal, he indicated (in abbreviation) that it is nasayi by mentioning nuun, but that is a typo (taS'Hif); for it is taa for tirmidhi.
thereafter, concerning the objection of those who permit such prostrations, in which they cite the case of angels prostrating to sayyiduna aadam alayhi's salam, or the prostrations to sayyiduna yusuf alayhis salam, thanawi just wrote a few lines. whereas alahazrat cites numerous mufassirin from many places in their tafasir.
nadawi was either blind to all this, or most likely in his jealousy and hatred wrote "did not have much knowledge of hadith and tafsir".
i dare deobandis to show any of their teachers and elders such skill in takhrij - and this is not just one risalah. hundreds of them are printed and available - even on topics where ulama like abul hasanat lucknawi said he didn't know any narration, alahazrat shows hadith in which that information is implicit.
one can say in defence of thanawi, that he wrote only a mukhtasar risalah and did not compile a hadith work. fine, but alahazrat WROTE a huge risalah with compilation of hadith. HOW can you say he didn't know hadith?
i also stumbled on this old article by shaykh monawwar ateeq: http://scholarspen.blogspot.ae/2005/08/hadith-huffaz-major-hadith-authorities.html.
in this he mentions another short work of his, which can be found here:
and a PDF here.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
Anyway, it is well known that the Faqih is above the Muhaddith in rank. So how can a Mujtahid like Imam Ala Hazrat ( RehmatUllah Alai) who was a masterful Jurist not be strong in Hadith. How can you derive rulings if you don't know Hadith?
When he reads the Hadith at 15:38 he reads the word يرحمكم with jazm and then nasb!
Whereas it should be with jazm (based on jawab ul sharT) and raf' (based on isti'naf)?
Also at 21:20 he makes the error of making feminine the nisbah of Imam ibn Ataaillah (he says السكدرية instead of السكندري)
How can someone whose discussion on one hadith is riddled with so many errors dare to raise objections at the Hadith knowledge of the Imam who would flawlessly quote hundreds of Hadith as evidence for one point!?
not accusing you of anything but would like to know which rule of ethics forbids discussing works on forums or social media, even if it goes no further than that? Are forums some inherently evil things?
It is the first step, to highlight the issue. Nowadays, that happens through forums and social media first and then perhaps other channels.
It would be great someone took time out to write a response. But there's no need for a curfew on discussing it on other platforms.
If criticizing a book on social media is unethical then why shouldn't praising it be unethical? Nobody says that, including you. So please lets not lose sight of the context and the times we live in.
totally missed this last time. fascinating...
there's another aspect here. If you want your work to be talked about, the modern tactic is to make it controversial. quite common these days. that way you get publicity cheap.
The trick is to choose the right controversy. If you praise alahazrat then only and only sunnis will talk about your book, devbandis and wahabis will just yawn and look the other way, pretending that the book does not exist - not very "controversial", is it?
That's bad marketing.
But deride him and everyone will be talking about it, praising it and getting that devilish kick out of repeating the lies and slanders that dobbies are so addicted to.
Wahabis and dobbies already have well-oiled propaganda machines so even without doing any PR, you can just piggy back your way to fame.
On the plus side, it's a bubble which bursts sooner rather than later. so here's to your 20 seconds of fame..
Couldnt some it up better Mawlana
why doesn't someone say: 'shaykh abdu'l Hayy lucknawi, abu'l Hasanat was not strong in hadith'?*
and if someone said so, would it be business as usual? if not, why is it fair game to say the same with alahazrat?
does asim have the guts to say 'qasim nanotwi was not strong in hadith?'
if not, why is it that only alahazrat is fair game?
every one of these maulvis would be running around in tab-jamat or some wahabi offshoot if not for alahazrat. but as i said, this is a disease of ingratitude and even some big names like karam shah azhari were afflicted with.
nas'alu Allaha al-aafiyah.
* note: asim's actual statement was not direct. he did it in a roundabout fashion. he said:
"Rida Khan was unusual for jurists in general for his wide range of high level expertise - covering all the Islamic sciences (with the possible exception of hadith), but also mathemantics, astronomy, poetry and other liberal arts. Nonetheless, he would by no stretch of the imagination have been considered one of the major astronomers of his time."
what a lame excuse. sorry brother, but that is the deobandi verbal gymnastics.
have you ever heard someone say 'shaykh abdul haq muhaddith dihlawi is not strong in hadith' or 'shaykh muhammad ja'afar al-kattani was not strong in hadith'?
by your logic, you could say: shaykh sayid foudeh is not strong in kalam. the justification, of course is that: he is not at the level of imams sanusi, taftazani and sharif jurjani.
why, we can go back even further: 'ibn hajar asqalani was not strong in hadith'. if someone gives you a 'whats-the-matter-with-you' stare, just tell him, 'look ibn hajar was not strong in hadith as the likes of imam bukhari'.
asim was just parroting devbandi lies, as many so called sunnis have an inferiority complex (obviously, their ignorance plays a big part), and in their eagerness to not appear left out from the 'intelligentsia', they do somersaults and the easiest way to appear modern, cool and 'non-extreme-barelwi' is to attack alahazrat or belittle him.
statements are taken on face value unless there is a plausible reason to explain them otherwise.
this is another disease of generalisation and trying to desensitivise and trivialise the issue. you may not be doing it intentionally, but this is how western media conditions you. it is not 'x'. it is alahazrat, asim was talking about. and only an ignoramus, a jealous person or one with malicious intent will say that.
as the brother pointed out below, asim's book is not private. why didn't asim privately find out first whether his slander was justified or not?
yeah, if you don't want to get your heads ripped off, don't say things that will make people rip off your heads. as such, where did we rip his head off? but i admire your zeal to defend your contemporary half-baked shaykhs. yet if i do that with alahazrat, i am uncivil.
did asim ever ask anyone why 'someone' said alahazrat was "probably not an expert in hadith?"
no one should write things about alahazrat without a shred of evidence, and publish them as expensive books.
i am curious to know what made him say that.
that he said 'alahazrat's expertise excluded hadith' is clear.
No one should say a single thing up until one asks " what did you mean when you said such a such ". Let him give his explanation and respond. This is because if one says something like " x is not strong in Hadith" and he means " not as strong as the likes of Imam Ibn Hajar" then if it is true then the response should take this into consideration. What are the possibilities of another explanation where an excuse is possible for the Shaykh? First privately find out and take steps afterwards.
We first rip people's heads off and then ask questions after most of the time.
I have read and have noted your points. Thank you.
I'll also take this opportunity to further detail some of the thoughts that are going through my mind and then, hopefully, resign from any further posting until such time that a reply is written, scrutinising the relevant sections in Dr Asim's work.
If we are to stick to our principles and ethics, then I believe he should be addressed through writing or diologue (as opposed to doing nothing but discussing it on forums, social media etc), whereby a clarification/refutation should be penned. I am now siding towards a written response being sent to Dr Asim, partially after reading your post and partially after giving it some thought of my own - though written responses are more likely to 'go unnoticed' or get ignored.
The very thing I'm not in favour of is 'getting worked up about it' or pent up with emotions and anger, yet not actually addressing the issue. We need less shouting and jeering and more focus towards penning a reply or at least an opportunity to show Dr Asim where and possibly how he has gone wrong.
If I am correct in my points and sincere in my intentions, may Allah reward me. If I am wrong, then I seek refuge in Him and ask for His forgiveness.
I was not aware that Deobandis have praised this work. In any case, do give us feedback if ever you do read it.
just why should he be "approached". As it is, he is openly dismissive of baraylwi shuyukh.
He has not said all this in a private room or even a facebook chat. He's presented it as his 'research' in a published book.
The response should first and foremost be via a book or book-review or a paper. If anyone has the time and inclination to visit him, that's his choice.
I do not see this as necessarily incriminating his intentions. Shoddy research should be called out for what it is so that the correct picture gets recorded for posterity.
Sorry but what constitutes an 'attack'? Refuting his notions in public - for the public - is not an attack. Our response should be based on our own principles and Islamic ethics rather than being modulated by fear of how the opponents might paint us.
That's giving into blackmail. "Talk reverentially to us even if we talk condescendingly about you and if you don't then we will run a smear campaign and call you names".
Besides, there is no need to get worked up at all. The smear campaign against Alahazart has never abated nor will it. The fight between truth and falsehood will continue and those who side with truth should do their part and leave the rest to the Judgement of Allah ta'ala.
And Allah ta'ala knows best.
it is fashionable to attack alahazrat, and circulate lies about him which were first put out by enemies. but hey no, we need kid gloves to deal with these people - calling their bluff may disturb delicate dispositions. is there any proof for their claims, or just a regurgitated statement from nadwi liars is enough?
how on earth can anyone make such a preposterous statement except out of ignorance or malice?
if devbandis are praising asim's 'treatise' - let him not get deluded; it might not be for his 'research' but merely for the reason that he is trying to put down alahazrat. i am curious to read asim's book, and i have asked for a copy. let us see...
devbandis defend their elders even in their blasphemies; but so-called sunnis, use alahazrat's name to come up, and once they build a base, they shamelessly attack alahazrat and try to belittle him and will not hesitate to repeat lies and slanders. some loud mouths on facebook, who have sat in the company of some arab shuyukh,* probably consider themselves equal or superior to alahazrat! at the least, they talk of him as "just another aalim" in a dismissive tone.
such lack of gratitude is not new; karam shah azhari in his tafsir did it already. take from alahazrat, and instead of thanking him, belittle him! and then run away with the praise nanotvi...
i say, that if you are so enamoured by devbandis, why don't you go join them openly?
*we respect all sunni ulama, regardless of their domicile or ethnicity; my statement doesn't mean that arab shuyukh have influenced these ingrates to belittle alahazrat.
I think it's only wise to offer what I believe could form the basis for a solution here.
Dr Asim should be approached by a group of our scholars to reconsider these erroneous statements. If he is attacked, castigated or, otherwise, smeared, then this will only reinforce the idea of us being all that our enemies love to spread about us and result in furthering ourselves from resolving the issue.
Though he has fallen grossly short here, I genuinely feel that his intentions are usually in the right place; I can't help but think he will listen and retract his current sentiments if he is approached in a sensible and amicable manner.
Dr Asim respects Molana Rasul Baksh Saeedi a lot and I believe he has studied under them. I'm sure that there will be members on here who are acquainted with Molana Saeedi. If that is you, then please kindly request them to have a word with Asim. The likes of Molana Sjaad and Molana Yaseen can also be used to address him, as they are all resident in the same city and have previously worked on a few initiatives together.
yeah and to change that perception, asim should dumbly and blindly follow deobandi lies in slandering alahazrat. else, where will the 'acceptance' come from?
i read that one page and he makes other errors related to alahazrat - ata and ataya are two different words; ahmad rida and rida khan are not the same names (unless of course your mind is enslaved to keller).
maulana Mufti Haneef Khan Razavi has compiled an encyclopedia of the aHadeeth that were found in various books of Ala Hazrat. The 7,000 pages book - 10 volumes - is called "Jamey al-aHadeeth".
It is in Urdu; someone kindly send the link to Dr Asim:-
What he has said about 'barelvis' is largely true, most regrettably.
hmm. i didn't know this when i met him back in 2006.
in the above clip, around 11.17, the 'friend' he mentions is yours truly. we indeed met shaykh muTiy al-Hafiz and the shaykh gave us ijazah (oh, yes. the shaykh gave us not only verbal, but a printed and signed ijazah) of not only this chain and all his other isnads. sitting there with the shaykh, i flitted through the pages and saw that the shaykh also had an isnad that ran through devbandis.
i told the shaykh that these devbandis have problematic aqayid. if the shaykh seemed displeased, he did not show it. i said to the shaykh that devbandis believe that it is possible for Allah ta'ala to lie. the shaykh said instantly and without even thinking somewhat like: 'no. only mumkinat are included in Divine Power, not muHaalat'.
i also spoke to him about his tahqeeq of sharH aqidah al-TaHawiyyah, and the shaykh told us the background of this edition (which is also mentioned in the preface).
this was in november 2006.
around 13.30 in the above clip, this asim - after 20 years of rigorous training, does not even know the difference between ibn Hajar and ibn Hajjaar; this pipsqueak will decide whether alahazrat was proficient in hadith or not!
i will write again on this blind imitator of devbandi lies.
nas'alu Allah al-aafiyah.