imam ibn fuurak / error of mufti asif jalali

Discussion in 'Siyar an-Nubala' started by abu Hasan, Mar 13, 2021.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    what do we know of al-Hakim? the author of al-mustadrak?

    let us consult dhahabi's siyar:

    muhammad ibn abdullah ibn muhammad ibn Hamduwayh ibn nuaym ibn al-Hakam.

    the imam, the Hafiz, the critic (naqid), the prominent scholar (`allamah) grandmaster of hadith scholars (shaykh al-muHaddithin) abu Abdullah ibn al-bayyi'y al-Dabiyy al-Tahmani al-nisaburi, al-shafiyi who was also a profilic author.

    he was born on monday, the 3rd of rabi'y al-awwal of the year: 321 AH.

    he pursued the study of hadith from an early age, due to the influence of his father and his maternal uncle.

    his first class of hadith ('hearing' / sama'a) was in 330 AH (i.e. when al-Hakim was merely 9 years old).
    he used to write the narrations of abu Hatim ibn Hibban in the year 334 AH, when he was 13 years old.

    he obtained elevated chains (al-asanid al-aaliyah) in khurasan, iraq and ma-wara' al-nahr (transoxiana).
    he heard (hadith) from nearly two thousand hadith masters (shaykh) more or less.

    in nishapur alone, he heard from a thousand souls; and when he travelled to iraq, he was twenty years old and reached there shortly after the passing of ismayil al-saffar.

    he narrates from his own father, who met imam muslim, the author of sahih muslim.
    [list of names that al-Hakim narrates from]

    those who narrate from al-Hakim are: daraquTni, even though al-daraquTni was his (al-Hakim's) teacher;
    [list of names who narrate from al-Hakim]
    abu dharr al-harawi
    abu bakr al-bayhaqi,
    abu'l qasim al-qushayri

    he wrote books and referenced others (sannafa wa kharraja); he criticised and apprised narrators (jaraHa wa `addal); he ratified hadith as authentic and identifed flaws (SaHHaHa wa `allal); he was an ocean of knowledge, even though he had an inclination towards some shiyi ideas. [tashayyu`in qaleel]

    he passed away in theyear 403 AH.

    in this notice, dhahabi narrates this:

    ahmad ibn salamah informed me, narrating from muHammad ibn isma'yil al-Tarsusi from ibn Tahir that he asked abu isma'yil abdullah ibn Muhammad al-harawi about abu abdullah al-Hakim and he said: "reliable in hadith; but a filthy rafizi" [thiqatun fi'l hadith, rafiDiyyun khabith].

    here dhahabi disagrees with the comment and says:

    "certainly not. he was not a rafidi. yes he had shia leaning opinions [yatashayy`a]

    the reason al-Hakim is mentioned here is because he was a contemporary of ibn furak and as dhahabi has noted, he has narrated from ibn furak; al-Hakim passed away one or two years before ibn furak was martyred. [dhahabi mentions two opinions about the year of al-Hakim's passing: 403 AH or 405 AH].
    Umar99 likes this.
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    salam. with so many open threads, i tend to lose track, even as i resist temptation to get involved in other threads...
    so let us restart this one.
    we still have to see what imam subki says about imam ibn furak, in sha'Allah.
    but there are a few key pieces in between we need to know about to appreciate imam subki's defence of imam ibn furak.

    the summary of the discussion so far:

    1. imam dhahabi's comments in his siyar and tarikh al-islam are the basis for the slander of imam ibn furak.

    2. dhahabi's notice gives the impression that ibn Hazm took it from abu'l walid baji.

    3. there is no proof whatsoever that imam abu'l walid baji - a major ash'ari theologian who is a student of ibn furak's student (abu dharr al-harawi) circulated this story.

    4. the wahabis who circulate this story acknowledge that the attribution to al-baji could not be found - HOWEVER, they extrapolate that since dhahabi had said it, he might have access to some source which is unknown to us. (THIS OBJECTION will be clarified first)

    5. ibn Hazm's statements about ash'aris do not amount to shucks. he is a rabid anti-ash'arite who does not even hesitate to circulate outright lies. and it is unfortunate that dhahabi forwards ibn Hazm's lies without comment, perhaps because of his own antipathy to the ash'aris.

    may Allah ta'ala forgive imam dhahabi. but we should not follow him in his error. and we should clear the name of an imam like ibn furak.

    6. we have also seen that from ibn furak's time to dhahabi's - 300+ years the apocryphal story does not appear.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2021
    Umar99 likes this.
  3. Ashique Mustafa

    Ashique Mustafa New Member

    This thread is still incomplete
  4. Noori

    Noori Senior Moderator

    it would be great if all the posts can be combined in one pdf with some appropriate edits. I may try on the Urdu ver then so that Urdu speaking ulama can benefit from it.
    Ghulam Ali likes this.
  5. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    One of the best threads on SunniPort. Should be shared to all ulama and students.
    Noori likes this.
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    ofc we will come to it. in sha'Allah. but again, alahazrat mentioned him via citation of imam bayhaqi from his al-asma' wa's sifat.

    the only point here is that alahazrat also deemed him an imam of ahl al-sunnah.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
  7. Ashique Mustafa

    Ashique Mustafa New Member

    Once you are done with all the contemporary scholars, would request you to also highlight that even till today scholars use ibn furak's books and quote him as a imam of ahlu sunnah. Such that aalahazrat himself quoted him in his fatawa as imam of ahlu sunnah
    Aqdas likes this.
  8. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    we will also see some more from his contemporaries. in sha'Allah.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2021
    Umar99 likes this.
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    got extremely busy yday. didn't get time to complete. in sha'Allah today we will translate the notice in imam subki's tabaqat.

    meanwhile in another thread which was bumped up by someone, is a snippet relevant to our discussion.

    shaykh abu manSur abd al-qahir al-baghdadi in his uSul al din mentions imam ibn al-furak alongside imam al-baqillani as the imams of ash'ari madh'hab.

    usuldin abdulqahir p309.jpg

    and ustaz abu manSur passed away in 429 AH. so he was a contemporary of imam ibn furak. far from mentioning the spurious story, he includes him among the imams of the age.


    Noori likes this.
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    one sidenote. someone may object that dhahabi was quoting ibn Hazm from his "al-naSa'iH" but i am quoting al-fiSal fi'l milal wa'n niHal.

    actually, ibn Hazm himself said that he added that book in his fisal, vol.2 p.275.

    i have explained the ugly beliefs of all these heretical sects in a small book named: "al-naSai'h al-munjiyyah mina'l faDa'iH al-mukhziyyah wa'l qaba'iH al-murdiyyah min aqwali ahl al-bida'ai mina'l firaq al-arba': al-mu'tazilah, wa'l murjiyyah, wa'l khawarij wa'l shi'ah"

    and then i have appended that work in the closing section of this book when i discuss various belief-systems and sects.

    fisal ibnhazm, v2p275.png

    so the citations below are from volume 5 which is the last volume of al-fiSal and hence it is deemed that the quotes are from al-naSa'iH.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Umar99 and Aqdas like this.
  11. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    look at the rumours ibn Hazm circulates vol.5, p.82 of fisal:

    abu'l marHa ibn nadma al-misri wrote to me that a reliable person from egypt among students of the hadith informed him that an ash'ari told him in his face that: may there be a thousand curses upon whoever says that Allah has said: "qul huwa Allahu aHad Allahu's Samad".

    [in another edition: abu'l marHi ibn razwar al-misri]

    fisal ibnhazm, v5p82.png
    and i couldn't find this abu'l marHa/marHi anywhere except in ibn Hazm's book!

    a man has to be just; ask yourselves - is this what the ash'aris profess? la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

    but all the wahabis and ashari-enemies of our time keep quoting this to slander asharis; if ibn Hazm was a prophet and his statement is as true as the verse of the qur'an.

    may Allah's damnation be upon liars.


    vol.5 p.84 of fisal:

    we seek Allah's protection from being misguided. and this is a statement no one has said prior to them. ALL of them (i.e. ash'aris) say: verily, muhammad ibn abdullah ibn abd al-muTTalib is not a Messenger of Allah today; rather he WAS a messenger of Allah.

    fisal ibnhazm, v5p84b.png

    notice that ibn Hazm attributes this to ALL ash'aris - and imam abu'l walid al-baji was the prominent ash'ari imam in ibn Hazm's time in his province.

    so we now come to one of the quotes dhahabi copied in his books:

    vol.5 p.84

    ...and they (ash'aris) say: it is obligatory to say: Muhammad WAS the messenger of Allah.

    and it is in this issue that the sultan, mahmud ibn subuktikin, the subordinate of amir al-mu'minin and the ruler of khorasan, may Allah have mercy upon him had the shaykh of ash'aris, ibn furak executed.

    may Allah ta'ala give a beautiful reward to maHmud for this action and damn ibn furak and his group and his followers.

    fisal ibnhazm, v5p84c.png

    this is the 'dua' that ibn Hazm made for sultan maHmud and he cursed imam ibn furak for what ibn Hazm believed to was his belief!

    and how did ibn Hazm come to know?

    in fisal volume 1 p.161 he says:

    abu muhammad (ibn Hazm) says: this is the discussion of the heretical sect that claims that muhammad ibn abdullah ibn abdul muTTalib (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) is not a messenger of Allah now; but he WAS a messenger of ALlah (sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam) in the past.

    this is the belief of ash'aris.

    sulayman ibn khalaf al-baji told me - and he is their foremost scholar today - that muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn furak al-aSbahani was executed by poison by maHmud ibn subuktikin, the ruler of the lands beyond the river (ma wara' al nahr / transoxiana) in khorasan.

    fisal ibnhazm, v1p161.png

    we have seen the accuracy with which ibn Hazm reports the belief of asharis - there are dozens of such false allegations replete with takfir and curses.

    as you have seen ibn Hazm does not relate the fancy story, and according to him:

    1. ALL ash'aris believe that our nabi WAS a messenger in the past and not at present (al iyadhu billah)

    2. abu'l walid baji is their foremost scholar in ibn Hazm's time; and hence it is his belief as well.

    3. baji informed him that ibn furak was executed in THIS ISSUE. but did baji say that it was ibn furak's belief?​

    while ibn furak was indeed martyred in this issue, it does not prove that it was BECAUSE he held that belief.

    this is ibn Hazm's own approximations and conclusions:

    1. ash'aris believe X

    2. baji is ash'ari imam.

    3. baji said: "ibn furak was poisoned in the dispute related to this issue X

    4. so ibn furak believed in X.​

    the fact is ibn furak was poisoned "in this mas'alah" because he was falsely implicated in X, which he rejected and refuted. as we will see from al-qushayri's narration in sha'Allah.

    the well-known principle of jarh/narrator criticism was clean forgotten by imam dhahabi in this place.

    an extremely virulent anti-ash'ari heretic's opinion is cited as THE TRUTH.

    la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.

    we have seen that imam al-baji was a mere three year old when imam ibn furak was martyred. baji travelled to the east decades later and met many shuyukh among which is imam abu dharr al-harawi, who according to qaDi iyaD was trained in ash'ari madh'hab by the two foremost mutakallimin of their age: al-baqillani and ibn al-furak.

    and imam qushayri and al-bayhaqi SAW and took from ibn furak - and they exonerated him.

    which is the more reliable report?

    this is why the final statement of imam dhahabi is very important when he said that ibn furak was a better person and his beliefs were better than those of ibn Hazm!

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2021
    Umar99 and Aqdas like this.
  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    for example in his al-fiSal fi'l milal wa'n niHal, he says: fisal v5/p76:

    fisal ibnhazm, v5p76.png
    al-ash'ari has explicitly said in his book known as "al-majalis" that there were some other things with Allah, other than him; and they have been forever existing just as He is existing always.

    sub'HanAllah! which ash'ari has ever said this?

    vol.5 p.78

    fisal ibnhazm, v5p78.png

    simnani reports from his ash'ari teachers: the meaning of the hadith of the Prophet SallAllahu alayhi wa sallam: "indeed Allah has created aadam upon His own form" actually means that He has created him (aadam alayhis salam) upno the Attributes of Rahman - life, knowledge, power and the aggregation of all the Attributes of Perfection in him; and made the angels to prostrate to him just as He made them to prostrate (do sajdah) for Himself. and entrusted him to command and prohibit for his progeny just like Allah does all of that.

    abu muhammad (ibn Hazm) says: every letter of these statements of simnani are explict kufr and idolatry; because he has explictly affirmed that aadam (alayhis salam) has the Attributes of Rahman and the Attributes of Perfection in him; so Allah and aadam according to him are similar and bear similitude...

    [la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah]


    he riles against ash'aris like deranged maniac and attributes all kinds of nonsense. i don't know why anyone calls him a "good man". he is a maniac and a shameless liar.

    in the same volume v5 page 84 he says:

    fisal ibnhazm, v5p84a.png

    baqillani said: there is no difference between a prophet and a sorcerer who is a false claimant to prophethood, except in the matter of challenge. that when a prophet challenges those present: "can you do as i do?"

    this is plain negation of prophethood.

    baqillani, ibn furak and their followers - among heretics and ignoramuses - have said: Allah absolutely does not have any names except only one; and there is no other name other than that.

    is this man a reliable narrator of ash'ari positions or can he be trusted to accurately report the position of an ash'ari imam that he freely slanders and vituperates against?

    the scholar who said that ibn Hazm's sword was like Hajjaj's sword, probably forgot to add that the only difference was that Hajjaj's sword did not have venom.

    la Hawla wa la quwwata illa billah.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
    Noori, Aqdas and Umar99 like this.
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    now ibn Hazm is incredibly ignorant of ash'ari madh'hab. some imams have praised him probably for his citations of hadith, but the man is mental. his ability to reasoning is terrible and has no clue of ash'ari madh'hab. he probably heard some rumours and like fake-news circulated like whatsapp uncles, he filled his deplorable book with those lies. may Allah ta'ala give him his just recompense.

    i positively hate that maniac. yes, he sounds like a maniac.

    imam dhahabi himself mentions about ibn Hazm:

    siyar, v18p199a.png

    abu'l abbas ibn al-arif used to say: the tongue of ibn Hazm and the sword of Hajjaj were siblings.


    it is said that he was a shafiyi in the beginning and then his ijtihad beckoned him to reject analogy completely in whatever degree. and take everything literally from the Book and the sunnah...

    ...he debated and let loose his tongue and pen; had no respect for the imams, he was brusque and crude in his speech, abusive and vituperative. and he received response of the same kind.

    siyar v18p187-8.png

    so ibn Hazm was abusive and especially attributed to asharis things no muslim would profess.
    Aqdas, Umar99 and Noori like this.
  14. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    in dhahabi's notice here are the points that he attributes to ibn Hazm:

    so these are two statements attributed to ibn Hazm.

    as for the spurious story apparently told by abu'l walid al-baji, in tarikh dhahabi mentions baji directly without quoting ibn Hazm.

    so turkmani's claim that imam dhahabi was quoting ibn Hazm for this story is unfounded. bear that in mind.

    durrah trkmani, p113clr.png

    imam subki's statement appears to do the same; but an astute reader can easily see that these are two statements:

    tbq-subki, v4p132.png

    our shaykh al-dhahabi mentioned the speech of ibn Hazm

    AND narrated a story that the sultan commanded that ibn furak be killed; someone interceded for him and said: 'he is an old man' so he ordered that he be killed by poisoning and thus he was poisoned.
    you may think i am quibbling for nothing. the summary is:

    1. ibn Hazm said that imam ibn furak was executed etc, but NOT the story.

    2. dhahabi did not attribute the story to ibn Hazm and from him to abu'l walid al-baji

    3. subki did not say that dhahab attributed it to ibn Hazm

    4. dhahabi attributed it to abu'l walid baji without mentioning where he got it from (this could spin in another long thread - on how could dhahabi get info from baji without anyone in between?)

    that leaves us with two issues to conclude.

    a) the accusations of ibn Hazm (which are verified to be his accusations)
    b) the loathsome story attributed to abu'l walid baji. (imam subki analysed this, and we will see in sha'Allah in tabaqat)

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
    shahnawazgm, Noori and Umar99 like this.
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    imam dhahabi's notice on imam ibn furak in his tarikh al-islam, vol.28 p.147-149


    #203. muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn furak

    abu bakr al-isbahani; the jurist, the theologian (faqih, mutakallim)

    he heard "musnad al-Tayalisi from: abdullah ibn ja'afar al-iSbahani; he was invited to nisabur for the people of nisabur were in need of a scholar like him, so he relocated to nisabur. a group of scholars graduated under him in usul and kalam.

    he has written many books

    he was a righteous man.

    he also heard from abu khurrazad al-ahwazi.

    those who reported from him are: abu bakr al-bayhaqi, abu'l qasim al-qushayri, abu bakr ahmad ibn ali ibn khalaf and others.

    abdu'l ghafir ibn ismayil has said: his grave is in al-hirah; people beseech for rain by his intercession.

    ibn hazm has mentioned in his "al-naSa'iH" that ibn subuktikin executed ibn furak for his saying that our Prophet sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam is not a prophet today. rather he WAS the Messenger of Allah. and he (ibn Hazm) claimed that this is the belief of all the ash'aris.

    ibn Salah said: "ibn Hazm's claim is not true. rather it is a slander and vile accusation circulated by the karramites as qushayri has said".

    ibn furak and abu uthman al-maghribi debated about a wali (friend of Allah); ibn furak denied it and abu uthman affirmed it.

    it is narrated by someone that ibn furak said: every issue that you see requires interpretation and it is not illuminated, then know that it is a concealed innovation.

    qaDi shamsuddin has mentioned in "wafyat al-a'ayaan": the master (ustaz) abu bakr, theologian, usul scholar, litterateur, grammarian, the preacher; he studied in baghdad for a long time and then went to ray (tehran). the heretics attacked him and the people of nisabur sent for him. they built a school and a house for him. and his munificence extended to the students there. he wrote nearly a hundred books. he was called to the city of ghazna where he participated in debates.

    he was very severe and harsh in his refutation of abu abdullah ibn karraam.

    then he returned to nisabur and was poisoned on the way and he passed away near bust. he was then brought to nisabur. his tomb in hirah is well known, is visited by people and prayers in its vicinity are accepted (by his intercession).

    i say: he took the ash'ari path frrom abu'l Hasan al-bahili and others.

    abdu'l ghafir ibn ismayil said: i heard abu Salih the mu'azzin say:
    abu ali al-daqqaq arranged for a gathering and in which he prayed for those assembled and those absent, naming prominent personalities of the city and leaders. he was told: "you have forgotten ibn furak; you did not pray for him".

    abu ali said: "how can i pray for him; only last night i prayed to Allah by his intercession (lit. asked Allah for the sake of his faith) cure me of my ailment. because he had stomach ache that night.

    bayhaqi said: i have heard qushayri say: i have heard ibn furak say: i was arrested and taken to shiraz due to the strife in religious matters. we reached the gate of the city in the wee hours of the morning and i was very sad.

    when the light began to spread, my eyes fell on a niche in a masjid near the gate of the city, in which it was carved: "is Allah not sufficient for His slave?". i found hope internally that i would be relieved very soon. and thus it happened. they let me go with respect.

    i [dhahabi] say: even though he was religious, he had aberrations and heresies.

    abu'l walid baji said: "when ibn furak demanded (action on) the karramites; they sent a message to mahmud ibn subuktikin, the ruler of khurasan and said to him: "this man who instigates you against us holds beliefs that are greater in heresy and disbelief according to you compared to us. ask him about Muhammad ibn abdullah (SallALlahu alayhi wa sallam) ibn abdu'l muTallib; is he a Messenger of Allah today or not?

    this cause mahmud immense consternation and he said: 'if this is true, then i will execute him myself'.

    then he summoned him and asked him. he replied: "he was the messenger of Allah; as of today, he is not".

    then he commanded that he be executed. someone interceded for him and said: "this is an old man"

    so he commanded that he be executed by poison. so he was administered poison.

    ibn Hazm prayed for sultan mahmud for having executed ibn furak because he apparently said: "indeed RasulAlah was a messenger in his lifetime only; and his soul has scattered and annihilated. and he is not in paradise near Allah; that is his soul."

    in summary: ibn furak was better than ibn Hazm and greater and professed a better creed (than ibn Hazm).

    hakim abu abdullah said: "ibn furak informed me: informed me abdullah ibn ja'afar and mentioned the hadith."

    tarikhzahabi, v28p147.png

    tarikhzahabi, v28p148.png

    tarikhzahabi, v28p149.png
  16. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    if anyone has any comments, i request that they hold back until i am done with citations from imam dhahabi, ibn hazm and imam subki and some more.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Umar99 likes this.
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    siyar v18p229.png

    siyar of dhahabi, notice on imam abu'l qasim al-qushayri v18 p229.

    so you think he was not aware of ibn furak's aqidah?

    and his own shaykh abu ali daqqaq would do dua with wasilah of ibn furak. dhahabi himself reported it.

    they are all unaware according to you?
    Umar99 and Noori like this.
  18. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    do you know imam ibn furak's taqwa and iHtiyat?
    he would not sleep stretching his legs in the same house where a mus'Haf would be placed. source? dhahabi.
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    this is false equivalence.

    scholars from sham and hijaz who narrate from devbandis are not contemporaries. contemporaries ruled them kafir. besides devbandis concealed their kufr from them. when contemporaries from india presented their kufr, the contemporary arab ulama ruled them kafir without hesitation.

    in imam ibn furak's case, the spurious story appears 300 years later. Allah knows where dhahabi got it from, but his inclusion of that is a phenomenal self-contradiction.

    you will see how dhahabi praises him as a righteous man - according to your blind faith in that spurious story, even dhahabi should be ruled kafir.

    and imam ibn furak's contemporaries were not zayd and bakr. his contemporaries and students were luminaries. don't tell me imam bayhaqi was simple minded who only heard "haddathana" and went away happily without bothering to ascertain the issue.

    and qaDi iyaD lists ibn furak as one of the two prominent kalam masters of abu dharr al-harawi. who according to you was not aware of ibn furak's beliefs.

    the reason i listed these bios to show you how rich their resume is.

    we will see imam subki's analysis of the story.

    all said and done - should an accusation require any proof or just accepted without murmur?

    if you ask me, where did the devbandis say what we rule as kafir - do you want me to show it?
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2021
    Brother Barry and Umar99 like this.
  20. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i think you have not read what i have written below - but simply trying to defend that slander against imam ibn furak...who knows, probably you are an admirer of mufti ashraf. [not accusing - but remember an accusation without any proof is enough to attribute a loathsome lie to an imam of ibn furak's standing]

    according to you everybody among his contemporaries and his students did not know anything; and even the quote attributed to abu'l walid baji cannot be found anywhere except in dhahabi's tarikh without any attribution.

    so al-bayhaqi, khatib, imam qushayri who were his students were are faithless according to you? and like devbandis? what an idiotic comment!

    you need to fix your logic first.

    the spurious story has no basis. you won't find that apocryphal story attributed to imam abu'l walid baji until dhahabi's tarikh. and dhahabi HIMSELF in his tazkiratu'l huffaz mentions ibn furak as "imam ibn furak".

    secondly, devbandis were not two hundred years ago and alahazrat came after 200 hundred years and levelled the charges. one of their main culprits khalil saharanfuri (also ambethvi) was PRESENT in makkah during the husam episode and visited makkah many more times until his death. why didn't he get the likes of umar ibn Hamdan al-maHrisi to recant? (yasin fadani is his prominent student from whom the whole world takes sanad and prides in). shaykh umar ibn Hamdan al-maHrisi wrote not ONE but TWO attestations to husam.

    so they were contemporaries. my question - which contemporary of ibn furak said the same?

    thirdly, the arabs do not know what is in urdu. there is a language barrier and YET, the strict ones have said: "if it is indeed the case, it is kufr no doubt". besides we are talking about arabs not well-acquainted with devbandi nifaq in the subcontinent.

    ibn furak was in nishapur and khorasan; bayhaqi and qushayri were his students. according to you they were upset with issues of aqidah which still remain as heresies and refuted them with all their might - but they did not care about such an outright kufr and they ignored ibn furak? rather kept narrating from him?

    why do you think i translated the long biographies of baji and abu dharr al-harawi? to show you that they were not easy going ulama, like those in our time. they were pious, scrupulous and unrelenting.

    you also don't seem to know ash'ari aqidah - and like ibn Hazm blindly accuse ash'aris of holding such aqayid.

    fourthly, the devbandis have not denied writing it. they still print it and justify it. if you have been living in a cave for the past 20 years on the internet, you must go look at zameel's whining and lying on his blog.

    we are not only contesting the spurious report but outright rejecting dhahabi's copying a false story. and you will see how stupid and irrational that made up story is. much like khalid mahmud's "student ran away from thanawi and instigated ahmad rida" kind of tripe.

    fifthly, imam furak's own works are proof against this heinous slander.

    again ignorance. imam barzanji not only wrote taqriz for husam, he repeated it in his purported refutation of alahazrat on ulum khamsah issue. khalil ahmad lied through his teeth in his "muhannad" and this is the advertisement version of deobandi aqidah.

    the real version is the wahabi chamchagiri (bootlicking) which they dole out to their mindless followers. check out zameel's zaleel blog.

    perhaps if you read TKM, you will be disabused of some false notions.

    what an inane assumption!

    you think in bayhaqi's time, people were churned out as 'muhaddithin' by merely sitting in 'dawrah e hadith' where few hadith from beginning, middle and end are read out. and people meet a muhaddith, get a sanad and claim "narrating from so and so". which would be a lie anyway unless you narrate from someone.

    do you think those muhaddithin were as lax and generous in according titles, like speechmakers being dubbed as "imam" nowadays?

    how egregious is your logic! let us take out names to make it simple for you.

    a) ibn furak lived in 400 AH
    b) Y, R, K, P, M all students of ibn furak do not say anything about the purported aqidah.
    c) dhahabi comes in 700 AH. 300 years after ibn furak and finds a spurious story and includes it in his book.

    d) in 1400 AH, a wahabi/salafi inclined researcher repeats it in his muqaddimah of ibn Hazm's work (who is himself a heretic)
    e) some scholar reads out this to prove a point

    f) now it has become 'ibn furak's aqidah'! according to you

    first prove, HOW is it his aqidah?
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2021

Share This Page