was imams who narrate hadith were aware of all his beliefs?
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!
however i don't agree with your line of reasoning or logic. it is same way deobandis say about their imams
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-maHrasi to recant? (yasin fadani is his prominent student from whom the whole world takes sanad and prides in). shaykh umar ibn Hamdan al-maHrasi 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.
how could arab scholars like imam barzanji
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.
----
doesn't prove that those who narrate were aware of the beliefs
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?
