sh. abdul fattah abu ghuddah goes even further and mentions imam dhahabi and imam suyuti as including mawduu in their books. p.124 p.126 ==== so whining about a riwayah mentioned in passing (without qualification) is not to be deemed as a fault of the imam. Allah ta'ala knows best.
p.71 [imam dhahabi] mentioned that: ibn majah was a hafiz, truthful, extensive in knowledge; however he reduced the value his sunan by the inclusion of rejected reports adn some fabrications. p.77 as for works of daraqutni, ayni has said in his binayah sh. hidayah while discussing the recitation of fatihah; he has said about daraqutni: how can he weaken abu hanifah whereas he (daraqutni) is himself deserving of being weakened! because he has narrated in his musnad, many hadith which are inauthentic (saqimah), defective, rejected, strange and fabricated. this comment by ayni is because daraqutni was one of the critics of imam abu hanifah and graded him weak. so this is ayni's retort, to that specific aspect of daraqutni. otherwise, who can deny the greatness of daraqutni in the field of hadith? on p.79 so also khatib: for he went beyond a tolerable degree and prejudice - and used fabricated hadith as evidence - fully knowing that they were fabricated. this also in the context of khatib using fabricated narrations to revile imam abu hanifah out of his bias. regardless, khatib's action is called out but who disputes khatib's standing as a hadith master? this is what justice and fairness means. p. 80 ayni has said in al-binayah [about hakim] : it is known that he is lax in validating weak hadith as authentic - rather, even fabricated reports [are graded sahih] here also, ulama pointed out the laxity of hakim - and numerous hadith were graded fabricated. so they did what was necessary for a scholar to do. when you see a fabricated hadith, point it out. hakim was criticised for his laxity, but nobody chucks him out or his book in its entirety or chides his status as a hadith master. rather, they point out the mistake, but nevertheless praise his learning and knowledge. we will see more on hakim. in sha'Allah. p. 83 about mustadrak in tabaqat al-shafiyiyyah of ibn shuhbah citing dhahabi: al mustadrak, a large part of it is according to the conditions of bukhari and muslim; and another large part of it is according to the conditions of either one of them. and this is about half of the book. [in the remaining] about one fourth of it is sahih chain but there are some slight effects. the rest of it are rejected reports, unsound (wahiyah) without sahih chains - and among them are a few fabrications, which i have pointed out when i abridged the book. alahazrat mentioned a citation in passing, and we are not sure if it was not commented upon; the duo make a song and dance about it. what about a proper hadith book with narrations? of course, you must call out a fabrication. mention that it is a fabrication - just as the translator of malfuz pointed it out. will nooruddin say about hakim: but what did dhahabi say about hakim? we will see. ---- p. 95 dhahabi said in siyar al nubala about musnad ahmad: there are a number of weak hadith and it is not necessary to use them as evidence; and therein are hadith which resemble fabrications - but these are a drop in an ocean. even though, some scholars commented on a few hadith as fabricated - but ibn hajar examined all their chains and declared them to be weak utmost. if these jokers were to comment about it - they would right away shoot their stupid mouths off and nooruddin gravely shaking his head: 'so bad so bad, it is shocking..." p.110 abu nuaym narrated many weak hadith - rather fabrications - by the common agreement of hadith scholars, both sunni and shiah; even though he was a hafiz, trustworthy, plenty of knowledge about hadith, extensive collection of reports - however, he narrates as is the habit of hadith masters that they narrate everything that is found in the topic so that it is known what else has been said in the matter. even though it cannot be used as evidence. this is about numerous reports with chains found in the hadith works. and because nooruddin has no idea of what hadith books look like - though he gives an impression as if he is some scholar, he thought that it was his duty to dismiss a scholar and his corpus of hundreds of book and standing as a hadith scholar because he mentioned a report in passing! nooruddin should go read some books to gain knowledge. as for the moron asking questions who probably hopes to be like mirza's channel one day and dreams about monetization - you can see his advertisement of youtube and instagram emblazoned on his chest - declaring that.
on p.67 nawawi has mentioned that in the sunan there are sahih, hasan, dayif and rejected (munkar) fabricated reports. munkar is a general category of rejected reports; here since sahih, hasan and dayif are mentioned; munkar is used for a fabricated reports in this context. also as it is cited in this context by lucknawi. === will the shoe-shine boy and his master, nooruddin the ahmaq make faces and say: 'very sinful very sinful' and excoriate these imams?
the shaykh was asked: the second question: is everything found in the voluminous books such as the four sunan (i.e. abu dawud, ibn majah, tirmidhi, nasayi), the books of bayhaqi, the books of daraqutni, hakim, ibn abi shaybah and others among famous works among hadith collections: a) intrinsically sahih or sahih due to other factors? b) intrinsically hasan or hasan due to other factors? c) or not? answer: not everything in these books and other books like them are sahih and hasan; rather, they include sahih reports, hasan reports, weak reports and (even) fabricated reports.
recently, a couple of dolts with no clue of hadith sciences - one of them masquerading as a scholar - spent twenty minutes trying to establish that alahazrat made a gigantic mistake and in their words, "narrated" a fabrication. and the faux scholar shaking his head and making faces and chiming: 'very very sinful..." watch their theatrics here: https://sunniport.com/index.php?threads/nooruddin-slandering-alahazrat.16112/ in the case of alahazrat, it is at best an ambiguous case wherein he mentioned the report, but it is not known if he commented on it. because the scribe does not say that it was inscribed exactly as he said - rather, the comments in parenthesis indicate that other things were being discussed and this one was also mentioned. however, fabricated narrations have crept in books of scholars - written by scholars. with sanad and narrated as hadith. scholars have pointed out these issues in various places, but shaykh abdul hayy lucknawi, the indian hadith scholar put them in one place in his book: al-ajwibah al-fadilah li'l as'yilah al-asharah al-kamilah. answers to ten questions on hadith. abu ghuddah has annotated it. so i will both cite directly from the book, but also cite from other books taking hint from their references.
