In this post we shall try to answer objections and allegations raised against the author of Musnad Abu Hanifa Imam Hafidh Abu Abdullah Hussain bin Muhammad Ibn Khusro H526. He is a THIQA Muhaddith but the problem is, any one who loves and works for Abu Hanifa automatically becomes the enemy of Kharji sect called Ahle Hadees/Salafi/Wahabi/Najdi. Just go to any wahabi mosque and say “I’m Hanafi” and then see. they will not hesitate in calling you a mushrik or biddati or kafir. Same happened to Ibn Khusro, just because he wrote Musnade Abu Hanifa, wahhabi couldnt resist. They started calling him Rafidi, Mo’atazili and Hadith forger. can you believe it?! Najdi Raees Ahmed Nadvi writes: Hussain bin Muhammad was a Motazili Hanafi and Rafidi. Ibn abi Waasti mentioned him in his Tabaqat-e-Rawafid and also stated that he has written a book on the virtues of Ahlul Bayt and according to Ibn Hajar this whole manuscript is a LIE. First of all, being a Motazili is not a JARRAH, these najdis have accepted that there are many motazili narrators in Sahihayn Ref: Noor al Aynen Pg108 Secondly, since when the sayings of Rawafid became hujjah for us? Tawoos and Ibn Juraij the narrators of Sahihayn, their names are mentioned in Rawafid, so are we going to throw away these books? i.e Rijaal Kashi Pg55, Rijaal Toosi pg94, Ibn juraij mentioned as a rafidi in Rijaal Kashi pg395 Rijaal Toosi pg233 Thirdly, the chain that was mentioned by Raees Khabees is: Ali bin Muhammad bin Ubaydullah ‘An Abi Bakr Muhammad bin Umar(for this chain he said Ibn khusro wrote a manuscript for ahlul bayt via above mentioned chain). Ali bin muhammad bin ali al waasti and abu bakr muhammad bin umar al baabzani are unknown. it is possible that these two narrators are responsible for these narrations. Then Raees Nadvi Najdi writes: Ibn Asakir said that he narrated a lot of narrations but he didnt know any knowledge. Ibn Nasir said that he was a Hatib ul Layl and Motazili and he has also written by the name of Musnad abu Hanifa. Ref: Al Lamhhaat vol1 pg150 Zubair Zai Najdi Kharji writes: He was a Hait ul Layl and weak in hadith, no accepted Muhaddith ever authenticated him Ref; Fatawa Ilmiya vol2 pg391 We will answer all of these objections! Now Lets First Come To The Commendations From The Accepted Muhadditheen And Then We Will Answer The Objections! Hafidh Dhahabi writes: He was Al Muhaddith, Al Mukatthir, Al Alim Mufeed ahl al baghdad Ref: Tarikh al Islam vol11 pg446 Ibn Asakir called him SHAYKH in his Zam min La ya’mal pg37 Hafidh Abu Saad Sam’aani writes: He was a great help for baghdad in his time! Ref: dhayl ala Tarikh al Baghdad lil Sam’aani vol3 pg207 Imam Hafidh Abu Tahir Silafi called him THIQA Imam Ibn Qutlubugha mentioned him in his Thiqaat vol3 pg437 Shaykh Allama Haji Khalifa called him Imam, Hafidh. Ref: salm alwasool vol2 pg55 Hafidh Salahuddin Safdi writes: He used to benefit Baghdad in his time. Ref: Al Wafi bil Wafyat vol13 pg25 Al Shaykh ul Ajal, Abu Saeed Zaheeruddin Shoaib bin Ibrahim states: Ibn Khusro Shaykh, Imam and Hafidh. Ref: Musnad imam Abu Hanifa vol1 pg143 Imam ibn Najjaar H643 writes: He was a Faqih in Baghdad from Ahlul Iraq Ref: Al Jawahir al Madiya lil Hafidh Qarshee vol1 pg218 all of the above proves that Hafidh Ibn Khusro was a Thiqa muhaddith near majority of the muhadditheen. Answering The Objections Is calling someone a Layyan in hadith a jarrah? or calling them Hatib al Layl is? well the thing is, even Imam Qatada was called hatib al layl by Imam Shobi and Ibn Hajar called Ibn Jawzi Hatib al Layl. Ref: Tehzeeb al Kamal vol23 pg510 Lisan ul meezan vol2 pg400 Also saying that Ibn khusro didnt know any knowledge is wrong because same Ibn Asakir called him Shaykh and his book Musnad Abi Hanifa is a proof that he was a Muhaddith and we also can not ignore all of these commendations from accepted Muhadditheen. Just because he wrote Musnad abu hanifa, see what these wahhabis have done in revenge. may Allah’s curse be upon them in this dunya and on the day of judgment!