-
Imaam Abu Haneefah according to
Imaam Daaraqutni
This article consists of the following topics:
Imaam Daaraqutnis intro: Scholars praise of him.
His Imaamate and Credibility in Al-Jarh wat-Tadeel
What he said about Imaam Abu Haneefah?
Weakness of the hadeeth, Whoever has an Imaam
The fairness of Imaam Daaraqutnis Jarh on Abu Haneefah
Reply to Muhammad Awwaamah concerning the Jarh of Imaam
Daaraqutni
o The reason why Imaam Daaraqutni narrates so many weak and
fabricated narrations in his Sunan
Conclusion
Before discussing what Ameer ul-Mumineen fil Hadeeth Imaam Abu
al-Hasan Ali
bin Umar bin Ahmad bin Mahdi ad-Daaraqutni (D. 305 - 385)
rahimahullah has
said about Imaam Abu Haneefah, we should know the status of
Imaam
Daaraqutni himself and what kind of expert of the field of
hadeeth are we dealing
with.
Imaam Daaraqutni is one of the few later Muhadditheen and Aimmah
who held
the highest position during their era as an expert of Hadeeth
and Jarh wa Tadeel,
such that he came to be called by the titles like, Ameer
ul-Mumineen fil
Hadeeth (The Leader of Believers in Hadeeth), Imaam al-Ilal, and
Haafidh
ad-Dunyaa which are the titles given only to a very few special
personalities of
history.
-
Some of the remarks of Scholars regarding him are as
follows:
Scholars praise of him:
All the Muhadditheen are unanimously agreed upon his Imaamate,
Thaqaahat,
and High Rank.
1- Qaadhi Shaykh ul-Islaam Abu at-Tayyib Taahir bin Abdullah
at-Tabari
rahimahullah (D. 405) said: Ad-Daaraqutni is Ameer ul-Mumineen
fil
Hadeeth (Leader of all believers in the field of Hadeeth)
[Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/36, Chain Saheeh]
He also said: Daaraqutni once recited to him the ahadeeth which
he
collected on the issue of (wudoo being invalidated) upon the
touching of
penis, so he said: If Ahmed bin Hanbal was present here today,
he would
have benefited from these ahadeeth
[Siyar: 16/455; Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/18]
2- Haafidh Abdul Ghani bin Saeed (The author of Al-Kamaal fi
Asmaa ur-Rijaal)
said: The best of people in doing Kalaam over the Hadeeth of
Allaahs
Messenger are three: (1) Ali ibn al-Madeeni in his era, (2)
Moosa bin Haaroon
in his era, (3) and Ali bin Umar ad-Daaraqutni in his era
[Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/36, Chain Saheeh]
3- Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi said: He was the unique one of his
era, the
only one personality, the Imaam of his time. The knowledge of
narrations,
awareness of hidden defects of ahadeeth, the names of men and
the
conditions of narrators ends upon him along with having the
qualities of
truthfulness, honesty, reliability, unbiasedness, acceptability
of testimony,
the correct Itiqaad (belief/Aqeedah), soundness of Madhab, and
dominance
over the Uloom other than the Ilm ul-Hadeeth such as: Al-Qiraat,
for verily
he (Daaraqutni) has a short and succinct book on this issue
-
[Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/34]
4- Imaam Al-Haakim said of him: "Ad-Daaraqutni became a unique
personality
in his time in relation to memorization, understanding and
piety. He was an
Imaam amongst the Reciters (Al-Qura'aa) and the Nahwiyyeen
(Scholars of
Arabic Grammar)...And I asked him about the 'Illal (hidden
defects in
hadeeth) and the Shuyookh (narrators of Hadeeth), and he has
works in
which he lengthens his mentioning of these matters, and I bear
witness that
there has not come on the earth after him anyone like him."
[Al-Haakim in his book Muzakki al-Akhbaar with reference from
Siyar Alaam
al-Nabula: 16/450]
Abu Dharr Al-Haafidh said, I said to Al-Haakim: Have you seen
the likes of
Daaraqutni? He replied: "He has not even seen the likes of
himself, how can
I have seen the likes of him?"
[Siyar: 16/453; & Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/35]
5- And Rajaa Ibn Muhammad Al Muaddal said: I said to Daaraqutni:
Have you
seen the likes of yourself? So he said: Allah The Most High
said, Do not
present yourselves as being pure [Surah Najm: 52]. So I kept
persisting with
him, and then he said: I have never seen anyone who has gathered
that
which I have gathered (in relation to Hadeeth and its
sciences).
[Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/35]
6- Imaam adh-Dhahabi said: He is al-Imaam al-Haafidh
al-Mujawwid, Shaykh
ul-Islaam, the erudite Scholar Al-Muqri al-Muhaddith
[Siyar Alaam al-Nabula: 16/449]
He also said: He is from the oceans of knowledge and from the
Aimmah of
the world; (Qualities of) Hifdh, Awareness of the hidden defects
of hadeeth,
and its men ended upon him, along with his superiority in the
field of Qiraat
and its routes, and strength of participation in Fiqh,
Ikhtilaaf, Maghaazi,
Ayyaam un-Naas and others.
-
[Siyar Alaam al-Nabula: 16/450]
7- Haafidh Ibn al-Jazri said: He is the author of (several)
books, and is one of
the learned Thiqaat
[Ghaayat un-Nihaayah: 1/558]
8- Haafidh Ibn Katheer said: He was a Major Haafidh; he was the
expert in this
field (of hadeeth) before his period and after his period until
this period of
ours. He heard a lot of narrations, compiled them, wrote them,
and
composed them, and benefitted others with them; he had deep
insight, he
found the hidden defects in them and researched them. He was the
unique
one of his time, the only one personality, and the Imaam of his
era in Asmaa
ur-Rijaal, in the field of Ilal, in Al-Jarh wat Tadeel, in
better writing, in the
additions of narrations, and the complete enlightenment of
narrations
[Al-Bidaayah wal Nihaayah: 11/317]
9- Ibn Khalkaan said: He is the famous Haafidh. He is a Scholar,
a Haafidh, a
Faqeeh. He is unique with Imaamate in Hadeeth
[Same]
10- Haafidh Abdul Hayy bin al-Ammaad al-Hanbali said: He is
al-Imaam al-
Haafidh al-Kabeer, Shaykh ul-Islaam, the awareness of Hadeeth
and its
Uloom ends upon him, and he is called the Ameer ul-Mumineen in
it.
[Shadhraat adh-Dhahab: 4/452]
11- Taaj ud-Deen as-Subki said: He is a famous name, the author
of several
books, the Imaam of his time, the master of the people of his
era, and the
Shaykh of Ahl ul-Hadeeth
[Tabaqaat ash-Shaafieeyyah: 3/462]
His Imaamate and credibility in Al-Jarh wat Tadeel:
-
Besides being an Imaam and an expert in Hadeeth, Qiraat, Ilal
and many other
fields, Imaam ad-Daaraqutni was also one of the most reliable
and just Imaams in
the field of Al-Jarh wat Tadeel. That is also why he wrote
several books in Uloom
ul-Hadeeth and he evaluated narrators with Jarh (Criticism) and
Tadeel (Praise) a
great deal. The Aimmah of Hadeeth from his era until now rely
and take evidence
from his evaluation of narrators.
Imaam ad-Daaraqutnis opinion in this field was accepted by
everyone. In fact,
Imaam adh-Dhahabi has written a book named Dhikr Man Yutamad
Qauluhu fi
al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel (The mention of those whose evaluations are
relied upon
in the field of al-Jarh wat-Tadeel). As is apparent from its
name, in the
introduction of this book, Imaam Dhahabi has made clear that in
this book he will
mention the names of those whose sayings are to be accepted in
narrator-
criticism, and their opinions are to be followed [See, P. 3]
In this book, Imaam Dhahabi has mentioned the name of Imaam
Ad-Daaraqutni
and said: Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Umar ad-Daaraqutni is the unique
one of his
time, and the Marifah (awareness) of Al-Ilal ended upon him [P.
15].
Similarly in another place, under the biography of Muhammad bin
al-Fadl Aarim
as-Sadoosi, after he mentioned the opinion of Imaam
ad-Daaraqutni about him,
Imaam Dhahabi said: I say, this is the saying of Haafidh ul-Asr,
the similitude of
whom did not come after Nasaaee
[Meezaan al-Itidaal: 4/8]
And Similarly the Aimmah of Hadeeth depended upon his opinion in
Al-Jarh wa al-
Tadeel. And no one is known to have differed in the credibility
and the
acceptance of his saying in this field overall.
Now that we know his credibility and status as an authority in
Jarh wa Tadeel,
lets see what he has to say about Imaam An-Numaan bin Thaabit
Abu Haneefah
al-Kaabuli.
-
What he said about Imaam Abu Haneefah?
In his sunan, Imaam Daaraqutni said,
, " ,
, , : , , ,
: .
, "Ali bin Abdullah bin Mubashshir narrated to us, Muhammad bin
Harb al-
Waasiti narrated to us, Ishaaq al-Azraq narrated to us, from Abu
Haneefah, from
Moosa bin Abi Aaishah from Abdullah bin Shaddaad, from Jaabir
(radiallah
anhu) that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)
said: Whoever
has an Imaam then the recitation of the Imaam is considered his
recitation.
This narration is not connected from Moosa bin Abi Aaishah
except by Abu
Haneefah and al-Hasan bin Umaarah and they both are Daeef.
[Sunan ad-Daaraqutni (2/107 H. 1233) Pub. Ar-Risaalah,
Beirut]
First of all, the hadeeth under which Imaam Daaraqutni has said
this is actually
Daeef because as Imaam ad-Daaraqutni later says that Abu
Haneefah is alone in
narrating it Muttasil while other Huffaadh like Sufyaan
ath-Thawree, Shubah bin
al-Hajjaaj, Israaeel bin Yoonus, Shareek, Abu Khaalid
ad-Daalaani, Abu al-Ahwas,
Sufyaan bin Uyaynah, Jareer bin Abdul Hameed and others who
narrated it from
Moosa bin Abi Aaishah from Abdullah bin Shaddaad from the
Prophet as Mursal.
Following are the comments of other Muhadditheen concerning this
hadeeth:
1- Imaam Yahya bin Maeen
-
Ibn Tahmaan said, I heard Yahya bin Maeen saying,
"
.
: "The hadeeth that Abu Haneefah has narrated from Moosa bin Abi
Aaishah
from Abdullah bin Shaddaad, from Jaabir from the Prophet
(sallallaahu
alayhi wasallam), whoever has an Imaam then the recitation of
his Imaam is
considered his recitation Ibn Maeen said has no significance, it
is only
(the Mursal of) Abdullah bin Shaddaad.
[Min Kalaam Abi Zakariyya Yahya bin Maeen fir-Rijaal (397)]
2- Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaaeel al-Bukhaari
He said about this narration,
"
"This report is not proven according to the Scholars of Hijaaz,
Iraaq and
others due to its Irsaal and Inqitaa (disconnection) (as) it is
narrated by Ibn
Shaddaad (directly) from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi
wasallam) (and not
as Muttasil from Jaabir)
[Juzz al-Qiraaat by Imaam Bukhaari (P. 8) and (P. 54-55) in the
English
translation]
3- Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani
-
He said,
" , "This hadeeth is Daeef according to the Huffaadh, and
Ad-Daaraqutni and
others have mentioned all its routes and defects with
details.
[Fath ul-Baari (2/285)]
So the reason based on which some Hanafiyyah are criticizing
Imaam
Daaraqutni, Haafidh Ibn Hajar is referencing and relying on the
very Imaam for
the ruling of this hadeeth.
In another place, he said:
" "This hadeeth has routes from a group of people and all of
them are
defective.
[Talkhees al-Habeer (1/569)]
4- Haafidh Ibn Katheer
He said,
"
"This hadeeth is narrated from routes out of which none is
authentically
proven from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)
[Tafseer Ibn Katheer (1/12)]
-
5- Imaam Qurtubi
He writes,
" "As for the Prophets (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying,
whoever has an
Imaam then the recitation of the Imaam is his recitation, then
this hadeeth is
Daeef.
[Tafseer Qurtubi (1/122)]
6- Imaam Ibn Hazm
He writes,
" "And it has been narrated in a number of narrations all of
which are Saaqit
(invalid) that whoever has an Imaam then indeed the recitation
of the
Imaam is his recitation.
[Al-Muhalla (3/242)]
7- Haafidh Ibn al-Jawzee
He said,
-
"
" This hadeeth has routes from Jaabir, Ali, Ibn Umar, Ibn
Abbaas, and Imraan
bin Husayn, none of them are authentically proven.
[Al-Ilal al-Mutanaahiyah (1/431)]
8- Allaamah Majd Ibn Taymiyyah
He writes,
"" It is narrated as Musnad (meaning, as a connected chain) from
a number of
routes all of which are Daeef, and the authentic view is that it
is Mursal.
[Al-Muntaqa ma Nayl (2/221)]
9- Imaam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah
He said,
"" Indeed you (o Hanafiyyah) take evidence from a Daeef Hadeeth
and that is,
whoever has an Imaam then the recitation of the Imaam is his
recitation
[Ilaam al-Mawqaeen (1/274)]
10- Allaamah Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi
-
He said,
" "It is narrated by Ahmad, Ibn Maajah, and Ad-Daaraqutni
through routes all
of which are Daeef.
[At-Tanbeeh Ala Mushkilaat al-Hidaayah (2/592)]
Moreover,
11- Imaam Ibn Adee
12- Imaam Bayhaqi
13- Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadi
14- Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr
15- And Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazi
Have also declared this hadeeth Daeef due to being a Mursal and
they have
denied its being Muttasil.
For details see, Tauzeeh ul-Kalaam fi Wujoob Qiraaat Khalf
al-Imaam by Shaykh
al-Muhaddith Irshaad ul-Haqq Athari Hafidhahullah (P. 844).
So we now know that this hadeeth is indeed Daeef and Munkar
according to all
the Muhadditheen because of the opposition of other giant
Huffaadh by Abu
Haneefah. And so the ruling of Imaam Daaraqutni on this hadeeth
is also correct.
Now coming to his Tadeef of Abu Haneefah. Firstly, it is
important to know that
this Jarh of Imaam Daaraqutni comes under the category of fair
and explained
Jarh due to the following reasons:
-
The Jarh of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni is fair and not based
on favoritism:
Some people are so engulfed into saving Imaam Abu Haneefah from
the criticisms
of Aimmah in his Hadeeth that every single criticism out of all
more than 100
criticisms, they find ways to reject every single one of them
based on some funny
and ridiculous reasons. As if all the Muhadditheen collectively
plotted against Abu
Haneefah and they all had enmity towards Abu Haneefah.
Hence like, all other criticisms, the excuse they give for the
Jarh of Imaam ad-
Daaraqutni is that his Jarh is not fair and he had something
against Abu Haneefah.
Therefore, his criticism is not accepted. The same line they
have said for Ibn Adee,
Bukhaari, Nasaaee, Ahmad, and all other Muhadditheen. As if this
is the only line
they know as a response.
Anyway, lets observe the claim that Imaam Daaraqutni was not
fair in his Jarh or
that he had enmity for Abu Haneefah.
Note:
But before that, it should be known that Hanafiyyah have no
evidence to prove
that he was not fair or had enmity towards Hanafiyyah. So their
claim
automatically becomes invalid and we dont even need to go any
further, and all
their arguments will merely be considered screaming of the
parrots. But on top of
that, we will still prove with strong evidence that Imaam
Ad-Daaraqutni was in
fact a fair and just Imaam of Jarh wa Tadeel and rejecting his
Jarh is invalid.
-
Imaam Daaraqutnis fairness in Jarh and Tadeel:
Imaam ad-Daaraqutni was considered a fair and unbiased Imaam in
al-Jarh wat
Tadeel; he was neither Mutashaddid (strict/extreme) nor
Mutasaahil (lenient) in
that, as compared to some Mutaassib contemporary Hanafis who say
that he
was strict towards Hanafiyyah (which is based on their own
Taassub)
His unbiasedness in the field of Al-Jarh wat Tadeel can be
explained in three
points:
First: The Imaams and Muhadditheen have relied upon his
evaluations, narrated them, and presented them as evidence while
negating any kind of Tashaddud or
Taassub or anything like that. We do not know of anyone who
accused him of
Tashaddud or Tasaahul except some later Mutaassib people like
the Kadh-dhaab
Zaahid al-Kawthaari, and his party. We will also touch on this
ahead.
Second: Many Scholars have explicitly mentioned Ad-Daaraqutni
among the unbiased and fair Imaams of Al-Jarh wat Tadeel. Among
them is Imaam Dhahabi.
When he divided the people of Jarh and Tadeel into three
categories:
1. First category being of those who are Mutaannit in Jarh and
Mutathabbit in
Tadeel
2. Second category being of those who are Mutasaahil (lenient)
such as
Tirmidhi and Al-Haakim.
3. Third category being of those who are Mutadal (reliable and
fair) and Ad-
Daaraqutni is mentioned among them.
[See, Fath ul-Mugheeth of Sakhaawi (3/325) & Ilaan
bit-Tauzeeh (167-168)]
Third: The third proof of his fairness is known by studying his
evaluations. There are many places where he would declare a person
to be reliable (if he deserved it)
-
even if he opposed Ad-Daaraqutni in belief and his Madhab. And
there are places
where he would declare a person to be weak and unreliable (if he
deserved so)
even if he favored his beliefs. Some examples of his
unbiasedness with those who
differed with him in Itiqaad are as follows:
1. Imaam ad-Daaraqutni said about Ahmed bin al-Abbaas bin Ahmed,
Abu al-
Hasan al-Soofi that: He is Shaykh Saalih Thiqah
[Al-Ilal ad-Daaraqutni: 8/309]
It is absolutely from his justice and fairness that he, being a
Salafi, said such
a thing for Ahmed bin al-Abbaas who is a Soofi.
2. Al-Barqaani asked Imaam ad-Daaraqutni about Muhammad bin
Yahya bin
Fiyaadh al-Hanafi al-Basari so he replied: Basari Thiqah
[Suaalaat al-Barqaani: 465]
3. Imaam ad-Daaraqutni said about Yoonus bin al-Qaasim al-Hanafi
that:
He is Thiqah
[Suaalaat al-Haakim: 522]
4. Imaam ad-Daaraqutni said about Thaabit bin Ammaarah al-Hanafi
that:
He is Thiqah
[Suaalaat al-Barqaani: 63]
5. Similarly, he said about Ziyaad bin Sabeeh al-Hanafi that: He
is relied
upon
[Suaalaat al-Barqaani: 174]
And there are many other similar examples. For details see the
book Al-Imaam
Abu al-Hasan ad-Daaraqutni by Shaykh Abdullah ar-Raheeli (P.
140-146).
Is this how a person who has enmity towards Hanafiyyah behaves?
By declaring
those Thiqah who deserve to be called so?
-
A Muhaddith evaluates a narrator or a hadeeth based on his
Ijtihaad and research
and this is not some personal war going on here where a
Muhaddith would
weaken a person he hates and authenticate a person he likes.
This is the matter
of religion. This is why, when Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni was
asked about his own
father, he said: My Father is Daeef. This is the extent of
fairness which the
Noble Muhadditheen have practiced. Now if some ignorant person
comes in this
century and accuses the Muhadditheen of Favoritism or Jealousy
without any
proof based on his personal observation then it will definitely
not be accepted
from him and he is directly questioning the authority and
validity of Ilm Asmaa ur-
Rijaal and Jarh wat Tadeel.
Imaam Ibn Hibbaans saying in this regard is an example that
Muhadditheen did
not declare people Daeef because of their enmity, rather they
followed justice
and taassub is only in those who reject their opinions because
of their own
favoritism towards Abu Haneefah and his Ashaab.
Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said,
"
"We (Muhadditheen) are not as some ill-behaved people cast doubt
about us,
which they do not consider Halaal (for themselves also). We are
not among
those who criticize another person unjustly even if he is our
opponent. We only
say about a person with respect to Jarh and Tadeel what he
deserves. We have
included Zufar and Abu Yoosuf among the Thiqah narrators because
their
trustworthiness in reports has become clear to us and we have
included those
-
who do not resemble them (in trustworthiness) among the weak
narrators
those whom it is not permissible to take evidence from.
[Ath-Thiqaat (7/646)]
So all those who slander the Muhadditheen without a single
evidence based on
their own taassub should take heed and make tawbah from Allaah
and do not
say a thing they have no knowledge of.
Reply to Shaykh Muhammad Awwaamah concerning
the Jarh of Imaam Daaraqutni:
Following is the step by step reply to the reply of Shaykh
Muhammad Awwaamah
and his objections on Imaam ad-Daaraqutni.
Shaykh Awwaamah said: Daraqutni did declare Abu Hanifa weak in
his Sunan
(1:132), without including him in his Kitab al-du`afa'.
We say: Not including him in Kitaab ad-Duafa is not necessary.
How many
narrators has he not mentioned in Ad-Duafa and still called them
Daeef either in
his Sunan or in one of the Sualaat of his students? Whats
important is that he
did call him Daeef just like the other Muhadditheen before him
and after him
did.
He said: However, his opinion of Abu Hanifa carries no weight
since he is known
to have fallen into extremism in his opinion on Abu Hanifa, and
because of this,
this particular judgment of his is rejected as required by the
rules of narrator-
criticism.
-
We say: Dear Shaykh if it is you who decides that his opinion
carries no weight
and it is you who decides that he fell into extremism concerning
Abu Haneefah
then what is the need of Muhadditheen and Scholars? Where is the
proof? You
havent been able to mention a single proof and yet you say,
because of this, this
particular judgment of his is rejected as required by the rules
of narrator-
criticism??? Please enlighten us with that rule of
narrator-criticism that says it
is permissible to reject any saying of a Naaqid by labeling it
with his enmity
without any proof and whenever desired?
On the contrary, the rules of narrator-criticism require that
Imaam ad-
Daaraqutnis Jarh must be accepted because:
First: He is a Fair and Mutadal Imaam of Jarh wa Tadeel and
contradicting him
without any evidence is not permissible.
Second: Imaam ad-Daaraqutni has explicitly explained the reason
he declared
Imaam Abu Haneefah Daeef. He first mentioned Imaam Abu Haneefah
opposing
other Huffaadh in that hadeeth and then he said that he is
Daeef. This is clear
proof that he declared Abu Haneefah Daeef not based on some
personal reason
but in the context of his opposition! And similarly, in other
places in his Sunan he
has mentioned several oppositions of Imaam Abu Haneefah in
ahaadeeth, which
is a clear proof that his criticism has a fair and valid reason.
And rules of narrator-
criticism require that the Jarh of a Naaqid based on a valid and
explained reason
must be accepted.
He said: The hadith master al-Badr al-`Ayni, author of `Umdat
al-qari, a massive
commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, said in his commentary of
al-Marghinani
entitled al-Binaya sharh al-hidaya (1:709):
-
From where does he [Daraqutni] take the right to declare Abu
Hanifa weak when
he himself deserves to be declared weak! For he has narrated in
his Musnad [i.e.
his Sunan] narrations that are infirm, defective, denounced,
strange, and forged.
We say: Is this the evidence for the assertion that
ad-Daaraqutnis opinion
carries no weight and that he fell into extremism concerning Abu
Haneefah!!?
Subhaan Allaah.
He said: The hadith master al-Badr al-`Ayni.. said
We say: Dear Shaykh sahab, you accuse Imaam Daaraqutni of
favoritism and
enmity and yet you yourself take evidence from one of your own
Hanafi Scholars
who is Mutaassib in his Madhab? Do you ever expect a Hanafi to
speak against
his Madhab?
And just who in the world gave Badr al-Ayni the right to take
the task of
Naaqideen ar-Rijaal in his hands? Do you take evidence from a
Mutakhkhir ghayr
Naaqid Scholar against all the references and sayings we have
mentioned above
of expert Naaqideen concerning Daaraqutni!?
Do you claim of favoritism when in fact, Badr al-Ayni himself is
the one accused of
favoritism in his Madhab. One of your own Scholars and
authorities, Allaamah
Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi al-Hanafi says,
" "Had there not been the smell of Madhabi Taassub in him (i.e.
Aynee), he
would have been an excellent person.
[Al-Fawaid al-bahiyah fi tarajim al-anafiyah (76)]
-
He said: The hadith master al-Badr al-`Ayni.. said: From where
does he
[Daraqutni] take the right to declare Abu Hanifa weak when he
himself deserves
to be declared weak! For he has narrated in his Musnad [i.e. his
Sunan] narrations
that are infirm, defective, denounced, strange, and forged.
We say: From where does Allaamah Aynee take the right to declare
Daaraqutni
weak when the Naaqideen and Aimmah Jarh wa Tadeel have praised
him and
his knowledge of Rijaal more than anything in his era? Who in
the world has given
Aynee the right to critique the Aimmah who are much higher in
status than him?
He is not a Naaqid, rather he is merely a Naaqil, so let's not
forget his position and
hence do not try to present him as a Naaqid or an authority over
anyone. His
saying, as a Naaqil, carries no weight at all, unless followed
by evidence from the
Naaqideen! Hence, his saying is like the saying of any other
person. If you really
want to present a proof against Daaraqutni then bring evidence
from the people
of Jarh wa Tadeel and not from one of your own Mutaassib Hanafi
Scholars who
is not even a Naaqid.
With this, still none of the Hanafi Mutaassibeen be it Muhammad
Awwaamah,
or Badr al-Aynee have been able to present a single evidence for
the assertion
that Daaraqutnis view carries no weight when he is called the
Imaam al-Jarh
wat Tadeel by the Naaqideen and that he fell into extremism
towards Abu
Haneefah.
Saying that he narrated many weak and fabricated narrations in
his Sunan is not
a proof at all of the above assertions. If this is your evidence
then you must reject
all his sayings in Jarh wa Tadeel, because no matter what
narrator he critiques,
any admirer of that narrator could come and simply say, Look
Daaraqutnis
opinion carries no weight and he also fell into extremism
concerning this narrator,
because because what? Because he narrated weak and fabricated
narrations
-
in his Sunan!!! No matter how hard I try, it is not possible to
think of this
argument as anything less than ridiculous and senseless.
As for Aynees criticism of Imaam Daaraqutnis Sunan then we will,
in-shaa-
Allaah, deal with this in a separate heading below where we
will, in-shaa-Allaah,
prove the superiority of Daaraqutnis Sunan and his methodology
in the book,
which if you or your Mutaassib Hanafis had known, would not have
said what
they said.
He said: This is a serious charge made against Daraqutni as a
narrator
We say: As if Aynee is a huge authority over us in
narrator-criticism in fact,
Imaam-criticism! Imaam Daaraqutni is Ameer ul-Mumineen fil
Hadeeth and do
you really think he is effected by Ayni Al-Hanafis saying the
least degree!? And
how does narrating weak narrations effect the credibility of
Daaraqutni anyway??
If this is the case, then you have hammered your own foot by
saying that, because
the first person in this list that comes is Abu Haneefah himself
who in fact is
Daeef. On the contrary, Imaam Daaraqutni narrated weak ahaadeeth
in his
Sunan on purpose, not based on any deficiency in his knowledge,
as will be
explained below, in-shaa-Allaah.
And what do you say about those Hanafi Scholars who narrate in
their books
fabricated narrations and stories which one would feel shy of
reading among
ones own family members? Dont you forget what mess the books
like Al-
Hidaayah, Fadhaail Amaal, and such books contain! Or do you have
a different
standard for those books?
He said: and many authorities have stated the same concerning
him.
-
We say: And at the end, what do you bring in the name of many
authorities??
He said: Another hadith master, al-Zayla`i, said in Nasb al-raya
(1:356, 1:360)
We say: This is what you bring!! Another Hanafi! Another ghayr
Naaqid whose
saying carries no weight in narrator-criticism.
He said: Another hadith master, al-Zayla`i, said in Nasb al-raya
(1:356, 1:360):
"al-Daraqutni's Sunan is the compendium of defective narrations
and the
wellspring of strange narrations... It is filled with narrations
that are weak,
anomalous, defective, and how many of them are not found in
other books!"
We say: This is not a criticism, rather he is only informing of
what condition
Daaraqutni had stipulated in his Sunan. Only if you had read the
condition of
Imaam Daaraqutni in his Sunan, you would not have presented this
saying as a
criticism, rather it is a praise of his Sunan and its special
rank among the books of
Sunan.
Why did Imaam Daaraqutni narrate so many weak and
fabricated narrations in his Sunan?
It is perhaps due to the ignorance of Shaykh Muhammad Awwaamah
and his
fellows that he finds the fact that Imaam Daaraqutni narrated
weak narrations in
his Sunan, to be a criticism of Imaam Daaraqutni and something
that lowers the
rank of this giant Imaam. On the contrary, this very thing is in
fact something that
distinguishes Imaam Daaraqutni from other collectors of
Hadeeth.
-
The subject of Sunan Daaraqutni: Is it a collection of
Saheeh
narrations or Daeef narrations or what?
From the naming of this book as Sunan, what the mind immediately
thinks of is
that it would resemble the likes of it from the other books of
Sunan in which
those narrations are compiled which are relied upon by the
fuqaha from the
Sunan of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) either for
Ihtijaaj or Istishhaad.
This is the default purpose of this type of book.
Haafidh Ibn Hajar said,
.. : " .
:
". Because the default in compiling a book of Hadeeth in
chapters (of fiqh) is
to confine it with those narrations that are suitable for
Ihtijaaj or Istish-haad, as
opposed to the one who compiles in (the arrangement of)
Masaaneed, for the
default in that (type of books) is general compilation.
[Tajeel al-Munfaah (P. 8)]
Al-Kattaani says about the books of Sunan,
" : :
"In their (i.e. the compilers and Muhadditheen) terminology,
Sunan are the
books arranged upon the fiqhi chapters including: Eemaan,
Tahaarah, Salaah,
-
Zakaah until the end, and they do not include any Mawqoof
narration in them
because Mawqoof, in their terminology, is not called a Sunnah,
it is named
Hadeeth.
[Ar-Risaalah al-Mustatrafah (P. 32)]
And in reality, Sunan Daaraqutni is not compiled in a way as the
Scholars have
defined the books of Sunan. But in fact, what is deduced from
this book after
thorough research is that the subject of this book is almost
opposite because
Imaam Daaraqutni, in the compilation of his book, has opposed
the default that
Ibn Hajar and Kattaani have mentioned and what the majority of
Muhadditheen
from before and from after have went towards.
In that the subject of Imaam Daaraqutnis book is: The
Compilation of Weak,
Mawdoo, Mudtarib, and Muallal ahaadeeth even if he went outside
of this
stipulation sometimes by narrating authentic narrations arranged
upon the
chapters of Fiqh.
So the subject of the common books of Sunan is: Compilation of
Ahaadeeth
arranged in chapters of Fiqh that the fuqaha have relied upon
and have used as
evidence to opine what they opined among the Ahkaam.
While the subject of Sunan ad-Daaraqutni is the compilation of
Ahaadeeth of
Ahkaam that some fuqaha have used as evidence, and the
explanation of its Ilal,
the difference of its routes and words, and that it is not
suitable as a proof for
what some of the Fuqaha have used it to opine what they
opined.
-
Hence by the compilation of these ahaadeeth in his Sunan, as
though he intended
to refute some of the fuqaha and explain that their reliance on
these ahaadeeth is
not right.
This is the predominant method, other than that, there indeed
are also found
some ahaadeeth he brought to be used as evidence. And this does
not bring the
book out of its original purpose which is to compile weak and
fabricated
narrations.
And whatever Saheeh or Hasan narrations he has mentioned in the
book by going
out of his original purpose is done only as a follow up and not
as intentional and
this is something you will not find any other books of Ilal and
similar books to be
free of. And this type of narrations that are relied upon (i.e.
Saheeh or Hasan) in
the book of Daaraqutni have only been mentioned in a quantity
that is suitable
and does not take the book out of its original purpose and they
reach up to 400
ahaadeeth only.
Hence we know that Imaam Daaraqutni, purposely, did not write
his sunan to
compile the relied upon Sunan, rather he authored it to compile
the unreliable
Sunan and to mention its Ilal. This is also known by the fact
that the number of
weak and fabricated ahaadeeth in Sunan Daaraqutni reach up to
about 4700 and
this is also confirmed by some of the Scholars.
1- Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said,
"
: "
" "
-
" " "
.
". . All these ahaadeeth are Daeef rather Mawdoo. None of the
people of
Sihaah and the famous Sunan and Masaaneed have narrated anything
from
it. The utmost of what is attributed of such kind is to the book
of Ad-
Daaraqutni and his intention in this book was to compile Ghareeb
Sunan,
and that is why he has narrated in it weak and fabricated
narrations that
others have not narrated.
[Majmoo al-Fataawa (27/166)]
2- Haafidh Ibn Abdil Haadi said,
"
"Rather it is only narrated by the likes of Ad-Daaraqutni who
has compiled
Ghareeb sunan in his book, and has narrated weak and munkar,
rather
fabricated ahaadeeth in it with abundance, and in some places he
has
explained the defect of the hadeeth and the reason of its
weakness and
rejection.
[As-Saarim al-Munki (P. 31)]
In another place, he said,
-
" "
" "
"
" .. rather some of them are narrated by Bazzaar and
Ad-Daaraqutni and
their likes with weak chain because it is from the practice of
Ad-Daaraqutni
and his likes to mention this (type of narrations) in the Sunan
for awareness.
And he and others explain the weakness of weak narration among
them, and
Allaah Subhaanahu wa Taaala knows best.
[As-Saarim al-Munki (P. 67)]
And likewise the saying of Az-Zaylaee al-Hanafi is also simply
to inform that
ad-Daaraqutnis intention was to narrate ghareeb, weak and
fabricated
narrations for awareness and to make their weakness and hidden
defects
apparent.
So it turns out that what Muhammad Awwaamah presented as a
defect of
Imaam Daaraqutni is in fact his plus point and it points towards
his high rank
and Imaamate in the field of Ilal al-Hadeeth. That is why the
Muhadditheen
have said that the knowledge of Ilal al-Hadeeth ends upon
Daaraqutni! And no
wonder why he is called Ameer ul-Mumineen fil Hadeeth!
That is why, Haafidh Ibn Katheer said about Sunan
Daaraqutni,
-
"
"Daaraqutni has a famous book of his, which is from the best of
books
written in this field, it has neither a precedent nor a
supplement in its
composition, except if someone borrows from his ocean and does
similar to
what he did.
[Al-Bidaayah wal-Nihaayah (11/317)]
For details see the book, Al-Imaam Abu al-Hasan ad-Daaraqutni
wa
Athaaruhu al-Ilmiyyah by Shaykh Abdullah bin Dayfullaah
ar-Ruhaylee (P. 251
- 316)
Hence Shaykh Muhammad Awwaamahs declaring this intentional
collection
of weak and fabricated narrations for the purpose of making
their hidden
defects apparent to be a defect of Imaam Daaraqutni and a
serious charge
made against Daraqutni as a narrator is utter ignorance and
rather a serious
charge on Shaykh Awwaamah himself.
And at the end, how still is this a proof of Daaraqutnis saying
carrying no
weight and having enmity for Abu Haneefah!?
He said: While Muhammad ibn Ja`far al-Kattani said in al-Risala
al-
mustatrafa (p. 31): "Daraqutni in his Sunan... has multiplied
the narrations of
reports that are weak and denounced, and indeed forged."
We say: It is from your deception or ignorance that you omitted
the first part
of Al-Kattaanis statement. The full saying of Al-Kattaani is as
follows,
While introducing each of the books of Sunan, Al-Kattaani
said,
-
"
. "And Sunan Daaraqutni, in it he has compiled ghareeb sunan and
has
mentioned the weak, munkar in fact mawdoo narrations in
abundance.
[P. 35]
As clearly seen, Al-Kattaani is describing and introducing Sunan
Daaraqutni
among others by explaining what Daaraqutni has intended to
compile in this
book. But Shaykh Awwaamah in his dajl omitted the first part and
presented
only the second part to make it look like a criticism while in
fact he is only
informing of what Sunan Daaraqutni is intended to be composed
of.
Inna Lillaahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raajioon.
He said: Ibn `Abd al-Hadi al-Hanbali wrote a large volume still
unpublished on
merits of Abu Hanifa entitled Tanwir al-sahifa bi manaqib
al-imam Abi
Hanifa in which he said: "Among those who show fanaticism
against Abu
Hanifa is al-Daraqutni." It is quoted in Ibn `Abidin's Hashiyat
radd al-
muhtar (1:37).
We say: If it is unpublished how do you know it is a LARGE
volume!? And as for
Ibn Abd al-Haadis saying that Daaraqutni showed fanaticism
against Abu
Haneefah, then if it is actually written in his book, it is not
acceptable at all.
Because Ibn Abd al-Haadi is a Mutakhkhir and he is a ghayr
Naaqid. Anything
that comes from them carries no weight until supported by proof.
Their saying
is like the saying of any other Scholar today. So do not deceive
people by giving
such references.
And how, after all, does Ibn Abd al-Haadi even has a slightest
of idea that Ad-
Daaraqutni had fanaticism against Abu Haneefah when there is no
such thing
proven in the Jarh of Ad-Daaraqutni? Ad-Daaraqutni has simply
declared him
-
Daeef due to his opposition and weak memory which is a fair and
valid
reason. Where is the fanaticism in this? Not to forget that
Ad-Daaraqutni is not
alone in this by any means. He is supported by numerous other
giant
Muhadditheen!
Do you even know the definition of fanaticism in Jarh wa Tadeel.
When a
Muhaddith criticizes another Muhaddith without a valid reason
and/or
without any reference to his weakness in hadeeth, rather
criticizes him for a
reason other than the defect in his hadeeth, then one can say
that he has been
strict or unjust about him.
As for Daaraqutni, this is not the case at all!
Hence, the proof is still binding upon you to provide.
He said: `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah in his commentary of Abu
al-Hasanat al-
Lucknawi's al-Raf` wa al-ta`dil (p. 70 n.1) also said:
"al-Daraqutni's fanaticism
against Abu Hanifa is well-known"
We say: Since when did Al-Ghuddah who is a contemporary Scholar
or Al-
Lakhnawi become Hujjah? This means, I can very well provide the
sayings of
Shaykh Albaani, Allaamah Muallami and others as proof as well.
Then no one
will reach to a conclusion until the Day of Judgment!
He said that Daaraqutnis fanaticism is well known and yet you
and your
entire progeny has still not been able to provide a single
example! Indeed, very
well-known it must be!
He said: and he gives several sources listing the scholars who
held the same
opinion.
We say: This is another mistake and dajl of Shaykh Awwaamah. Who
else have
they mentioned in there? Please also enlighten us with their
names so we can
increase our knowledge!
-
He said: One of the reasons for Daraqutni's attitude is his
extreme bias in
favor of the school of Imam Shafi`i.
We say: Subhaan Allaah! You are giving us the reasons of
Imaam
Daaraqutnis biasness before you even provide us with a single
proof of his
biasness! Youve got to be a challenged soul.
As for saying that Imaam Daaraqutni was bias in favor of the
School of Imaam
Shaafiee, then this is another blatant lie for which you have no
proof either.
Looks like you are here to shoot arrows in the air hoping one of
them will hit
something!
A similar thing was also said by one of your blind followers by
the name of
Shaykh Abdul Azeez al-Finjaabi al-Hindi who said about Imaam
ad-Daaraqutni
that in his book (i.e. Al-Sunan), he only criticizes the
ahadeeth which go against
his Madhab i.e. the Madhab of Ash-Shaafiee (according to him)
and if he finds
a hadeeth in accordance to Madhab ash-Shaafiee then he would
authenticate
it and he would do it due to his favoritism. To give an example,
Al-Finjaabi says
about the narrator Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Abi Layla that
when
he narrated the hadeeth of the purity of Maniy, Daaraqutni said:
He is
Thiqah, there is something in his memory (Pg. 46) but when he
narrated the
hadeeth of saying the words of Iqaamah twice, he said about him
that: He is
Daeef, weak in memory (Pg. 89)
[Al-Tankeel: 1/360]
To say that Imaam ad-Daaraqutni would follow favoritism in
hadeeth and
narrator criticism is something completely based on ignorance
and lack of
knowledge. The unbiasedness of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni in the field
is explained
with details under the heading His Imaamate and credibility in
al-Jarh wat
Tadeel. Reader may have a look at that to know the biasness of
al-Finjaabi
himself.
-
The evidence that al-Finjaabi gives to prove the favoritism of
Imaam ad-
Daaraqutni, is the two contradictory rulings of Imaam
ad-Daaraqutni for the
same narrator! I say, why is Imaam ad-Daaraqutni singled out for
that? You
can also add in the list the Aimmah like Imaam Yahya ibn Maeen,
Imaam
Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imaam Bukhaari, and others; because even they
at many
places have given contradictory rulings for one narrator. This
does not mean
that they all followed favoritism. There could have been several
reasons for
their contradictory rulings such as: change in Ijtihaad, or the
demand of
qaraain etc. Just making the argument of contradiction as a
base, no one has
any right to criticize an agreed upon Imaam & expert of the
field.
Lets also observe and look into the example of so-called
contradiction that
al-Finjaabi provides:
Imaam ad-Daaraqutni gave his opinion about Muhammad bin Abdur
Rahmaan
bin Abi Layla that he is Thiqah, there is something in his
memory. Therefore,
he has first brought a Marfoo hadeeth on Page 46 through the
route of: Ishaaq
An Shareek An Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan (Ibn Abi Layla) An
Ataa An Ibn Abbaas and said: No one narrates it as Marfoo from
Shareek
except Ishaaq al-Azraq; and Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Abi
Layla is
Thiqah, there is something in his memory
Right after this, ad-Daaraqutni narrated the same hadeeth as
Mawqoof
through Wakee An Ibn Abi Layla, which indicates that it is
either Shareek
or Ishaaq who have mistaken in narrating it as Marfoo. Ibn Abi
Layla is not the
one on mistake because Amr bin Deenaar and Ibn Jurayj have also
supported
Ibn Abi Layla in narrating this hadeeth as Mawqoof from Ataa, as
is narrated by
Imaam ash-Shaafiee.
Whereas on Pg. 89, since Ibn Abi Layla has opposed the narration
of Imaam
Sufyaan and Imaam Shubah as they both have narrated the hadeeth:
The
Messenger of Allaah would say each phrase of the Adhaan two
times as
Mursal, but Ibn Abi Layla has narrated it as Muttasil.
Therefore, he opposed
Imaam Sufyaan and Shubah (who have been given the title of:
Mountain from
the Mountains of Hifdh), so he was declared Daeef in comparison
to the
-
opposition of those two Huffaadh. As is the established
principle of Usool that
a narrator can sometimes be also declared Daeef in comparison to
another
narrator.
Moreover, even in the first example, Ad-Daaraqutni did point
towards the
weakness of Ibn Abi Layla by saying there was something in his
memory but
since he was Thiqah fi Nafsih (i.e. truthful) and he was not the
one on mistake
in this particular hadeeth so calling him weak here or taking
evidence from his
weakness was baseless because he was correct in this particular
case while
weakness came from the one who narrated from him.
So this detail proves that Imaam ad-Daaraqutni did not follow
favoritism,
rather this contradiction of ad-Daaraqutni was based on a
detailed and deep
insight of hadeeth (as is expected from such an Imaam) which the
ignorant
people of present time were unable to grasp.
Such contradictions can often take place due to Tawtheeq or
Tadeef Nisbi,
while sometimes it also occurs due to the change in Ijtihaad, as
Lakhnawi al-
Hanafi has also explained in Al-Rafa wal Takmeel (P. 172, 173).
It is highly
unfortunate that the so called Scholars are ignorant of these
things; which is
why when they themselves do not understand something, they dare
to
attribute a giant Imaam and expert with favoritism instead of
learning
themselves.
If the Imaamate of a Muhaddith in Jarh wat Tadeel is denied
merely based on
his contradiction then what would they rule Imaam Yahya ibn
Maeen with? As
Imaam Yahya ibn Maeen also had contradicting views about
narrators such
as: Abu Balj, Alaa bin Abdur Rahmaan, Muhammad bin Ishaaq and
others.
These explanations have made very clear that the dispute of
Imaam ad-
Daaraqutni concerning Jarh and Tadeel is not against his rank,
expertise, and
Imaamate in this field in any way possible.
Moreover, al-Finjaabis and Awwaamahs claim that Imaam
ad-Daaraqutni
favored the Madhab of Ash-Shaafiee, so whenever he found
something in
-
accordance to his Madhab, he would authenticate it, and whenever
he found
something against his madhab, he would weaken it.
To say that Imaam ad-Daaraqutni was a Shaafiee Muqallid is also
full of
ignorance. Imaam ad-Daaraqutni was an unbiased and Mutadal
Mujtahid, and
he has also opposed the Shaafiee Madhab at several places as is
apparent
from his books. Some examples of his opposition to Shaafiee
Madhab are as
follows:
1. In his al-Sunan [1/91], he has weakened whatever is narrated
about wiping
the head three times, which is in accordance to the Shaafiee
Madhab.
2. In al-Sunan [1/62-63], he weakened the ahaadeeth on the
purification of
the left-over of beasts, which is in accordance to the Shaafiee
Madhab as
can be seen in al-Umm of ash-Shaafiee [1/5]
3. Similarly, he also weakened the hadeeth of the purification
of a cats left-
over in al-Sunan [1/66-67], which was in accordance to the
Madhab of
Shaafiee as referenced above.
4. Likewise, he has remained silent upon a lot of weak
narrations in his Sunan,
which were in accordance to the Madhab of al-Hanafiyyah. See,
Sunan:
1/230, 1/231, 1/305, 1/308 and others.
So based on this it can very well also be said that Imaam
Daaraqutni was a
Hanafi and had enmity towards Imaam Shaafi'ee!!!
The muqallideen are so engulfed into their taqleed that they do
not think out
of taqleed and assume that every other person in the world is
also like them.
So when they see a Muhaddith authenticating some narrations and
criticizing
others based on his ijtihaad they relate the ahaadeeth he
authenticated to the
Imaam who took evidence from them and call that muhaddith to be
upon the
madhab of that Imaam and vice versa; while in fact the purpose
of the
Muhaddith like all other Muhadditheen was simply to compile the
narrations
of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), preserve them,
critique them,
distinguish the weak from the authentic and explain the hidden
defects in
-
them no matter where it came from and what madhab it supported
or
opposed. Therefore, calling Imaam Daaraqutni a Shaafiee without
a proof is
itself a lie let alone saying he was biased towards Shaafiee
Madhab!
He said: It is related that when Daraqutni went to Egypt some of
its people
asked him to compile something on the pronounciation of the
Basmala,
whereupon he compiled a volume. A Maliki came to him and
summoned him
to declare on oath which were the sound narrations of this book.
Daraqutni
said: "Everything that was narrated from the Prophet concerning
the loud
pronounciation of the Basmala is unsound, and as for what is
related from the
Companions, some of it is sound and some of it weak."
We say: Now you have also started taking evidence from unknown
sources. It
is upon you to prove this story authentically from
Ad-Daaraqutni.
Secondly, I could not find this anywhere except in Majmoo
al-Fataawa of Ibn
Taymiyyah and even in there the wording is not as you have
mentioned. The
wording is as follows,
"
...
: :
."The Hadeeth experts are agreed upon that there is not a clear
hadeeth
concerning reciting Basmalah out loud. The Jahr of Basmalah is
only found in
the fabricated ahaadeeth. Which are narrated by those who
compiled
(ahaadeeth) in this issue such as Ad-Daaraqutni, Khateeb and
others. Indeed
they both simply compiled whatever is narrated and when it was
asked them
-
about their authenticity, they replied according to their
knowledge as Ad-
Daaraqutni said when he came to Egypt and was asked to compile
all the
ahaadeeth of Jahr, so he compiled them. Then it was said to him:
is there
anything in them that is authentic? He replied, As for what is
narrated from
the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then no, and as for
what is
narrated from the Sahaabah then among them some are Saheeh and
some
Daeef.
[Majmoo al-Fataawa (22/416)]
As can be seen there is no mention of a Maaliki asking him to
take an oath. Is
this because Shaykh Awwaamah did not bother to mention any
source, so that
his readers may never be able to verify what he said?
Hence, this addition is clearly a forgery as there was no need
to having him
take an oath in the first place because he did not say that I
will narrate only
the Saheeh ahaadeeth in this juzz, rather he simply tried to
compile all the
narrations on this issue in one book as is the practice of other
Muhadditheen
as well! That is why when he was asked about his own personal
view, he
clearly said these are not authentic according to me.
It is well known that when a Muhaddith compiles the narrations
of one
particular fiqhi issue or one narrator in a single book, he does
not stipulate the
condition of authenticity in them rather he simply compiles
whatever is
narrated in that issue or from that narrator. This is a whole
different type of
collection called Juzz or Ajzaa (plural) al-Hadeeth. Such type
of books are
also compiled by Imaam Bukhaari, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Bayhaqi, Abu
Dawood,
Nasaaee and many others. In fact, one whole section in Maktabah
Shaamilah
is filled with these books.
Hence, presenting this as a criticism of Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni is
an utmost
ignorance and deception that one can step down to in taassub of
his Imaam.
-
Well, how about the fact that our very own Imaam Abu Haneefah
(who is
being defended here by these arguments) writes narrations from
Kadh-dhaab
narrators and openly narrates them!? Jaabir al-Jufee is someone
whom Abu
Haneefah himself called, The biggest Liar I have seen and still
he narrates
ahaadeeth from him! What does that now tell us about this
Imaam?
Conclusion:
Amazingly, Shaykh Awwaamah has not been able to present a single
proof for
any of the claims whether it is the claim of Daaraqutnis enmity
or his
favoritism for Shaafiee. And he seems to base his entire
rejection and slander
of Imaam Daaraqutni and his saying about Abu Haneefah completely
on his
assumptions and misinformation without any proof at all.
Alhamdulillah, Imaam Daaraqutnis Jarh on Imaam Abu Haneefah is
absolutely
valid. Every single claim that Shaykh Awwaamah has put forth
against Ad-
Daaraqutni to reject his statement has no significance or proof,
while Ameer
ul-Mumineen fil Hadeeth Imaam al-Ilal Haafidh ad-Dunya Abu
al-Hasan
Daaraqutni is not effected by anyone of them to the least of
degree
whatsoever.
Moreover, it should be known that Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni is also
supported by
other Muhadditheen in his Jarh, including:
Abdullah bin Idrees
[Ad-Duafa al-Kabeer by Ukaylee
(4/282)]
Abdullah bin az-Zubayr al-
Humaydee
[Taareekh Baghdaad (13/432),
Taareekh al-Bukhaari (P. 156)]
Abdullah bin Abi Dawood as-
Sijistaani
Abdullah bin Adee the author
of al-Kaamil
-
[Al-Kaamil (7/2476), Taareekh
Baghdaad (13/445)]
[Al-Kaamil]
Abdullah bin Awn bin Artaab
[Taareekh Baghdaad (13/420),
Abdullah bin al-Mubaarak
Taareekh Abu Zurah (1/505)]
[Al-Jarh wat Tadeel, & Al-Sunnah and others]
Abdullah bin Numayr al-
Hamdaani
[Taareekh Baghdaad]
Abu Abdur Rahmaan Abdullah
bin Yazeed al-Muqri
[Al-Jarh wat Tadeel, Taareekh
Baghdaad, Al-Kaamil, al-Sunnah
etc]
Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzee
[Ad-Duafa wal Matrokeen]
Sufyaan ath-Thawree
Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi Ibraaheem bin Ishaaq al-Harbi
Ibraaheem bin Muhammad al-
Fazaari
Ibraaheem bin Yaqoob al-
Juzjaani
Al-Nasaaee
Al-Bukhaari
Ahmed bin Ali al-Abaar
Ahmed bin Hanbal
Husayn bin Ibraaheem al-
Jurqaani
Abu Hafs Ibn Shaaheen
Amr bin Ali al-Fallaas
Amr bin al-Haytham
Dhahabi
Ibn Hibbaan
Muhammad bin Sad
Abu Ahmed al-Haakim
-
Muslim bin al-Hajjaaj Mufaddal bin Ghasaan al-
Ghilaabi
Al-Nadr bin Shumayl
Wakee bin al-Jarraah
Yahya bin Saeed al-Qattaan
Yahya bin Maeen
Yaqoob bin Shaybah
Ali bin al-Madeeni
Ibn Abdul Barr
Ash-Shaafiee
Abu Nuaym al-Asbahaani
Ibn Taymiyyah
And many others