How the Shias and the Salafis are like sugar and honey

Sohael Wrote on 04/11/2010: Just an answer to the article which you pointed me to concerning the comparison of certain people with the shia. I have answered some points and left others due to constraints.



1)Nawaab Noorul Hasan Khan who is a Ghair muqallid says that the saying of a

Sahabi رضي الله عنه is not a valid proof, (Urful Jaadi pg.207 vol.1) and this is precisely what the Shias believe.

I have never heard of this man.His saying is ncorrect and no salafi would be caught dead with such a statement-the saying of the sahaba are one of the established foundations on which to base proof. We cant take the saying of an individual like Nawab Hassan and attribute it to a whole people-subhanAllah that is a great slander and unjust by whoever the author of that article was-if you look at the shaikhs of the salafis, they dont say what this man Nawab is attributed with saying. However, this saying does apply in certain circumstances and perhaps he meant it in that application, especially where the belief of a particular sahabi on a particular may not be correct, and there are very few examples of this:

Like when Umar )ra) was corrected by the woman.

Or when Umar رضي الله عنه did not know the sunnah of knocking on doors and so was corrected.

Or when Ali رضي الله عنه was more correct then Muawiyah in his ijtihaad(this is accepted amongst ahl as sunnah)

Or when Abu Bakrرضي الله عنه was incorrect in some of the interpretation of a dream within which Rasoolullah corrected him.

All of these instances show that it is possible for sahabah to sometimes lack knowledge or the correct opion on a particular rare issue- this is the belief of ahlus sunnah- does it then make ahlus sunnah shia?

2) ''Waheeduz Zamaan a Ghair muqallid scholar says it is okay to say ‘yaa Ali or yaa Muhammed’, (Hadiyyatul Mahdi pg.24) and this is also a Shiite belief.''

It is kufr to say these things by calling upon the anbiyaa, sahaba and awliyaa. Albani himself wrote a book against this (called Tawassul) and every salafi scholar I know is against this. The writer of this article really exposes his stance on the matter here by quoting a shaadh,rejected and despicable opinion in order to support an argument that seems more like it is based on desires then on scholarly criticism.

If we were to take all odd opinions then we would go to extremes. For example, Imam Suyuuti رضي الله عنه is reported to not have believed that the Prophet parents are going to hell. However there is a clear hadith in Muslim affirming this.Would we then take this opinion of Suyuti and attribute everyone who praises his tafseer as being disbelievers in the hadith of Muslim?

Would it be right for me to class every hanafi as an eater of interest based on rulings attributed to Abu Hanfiah that interest based transactions with kuffar are halal in darul harb?

Then how can we take one shadh statement of someone and attribute his belief to a whole group?

8) Salafis reject consensus, and so do the Shias.

How is that? Only the dhaahiris and deviants amongst those who call themselves 'salafi' are known to reject consensus-y everyone can not be painted with the same brush.

Could you provide me an example of where this is the case then? Otherwise the accusation stands T MERELY THAT- AN ACCUSATION BASED ON NO EVIDENCE. Also isnt it called rejecting consensus when we consider riba in darul harb halal?

9) Ahle Hadith also accept temporary marriages, (Hadiyyatul Mahdi pg.118) this also is a Shiite belief.

I am not from ahl e hadith in terms of being a person that just pulls out a hadith from bukhari and follows it without understanding its context etc (i know that there are uninformed people who may have this disease)... but i never heard that one before!lol

10) The Ghair muqallid scholar Waheeduz Zamaan says, ‘We are the followers of Ali رضي الله عنه (Hadiyyatul Mahdi pg.100

Every sunni is a follower of Ali رضي الله عنه as well the Uthman, Umar and Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه - I s there anything wrong with me saying that I am a follower of Abu Bakrرضي الله عنه?

Thank you for your reply brother and please forgive me for taking up so much of your valuable time.

'What we consider strong, you may consider it to be weak,'

I do not of my own accord consider these things, rather I gave you scholarly authentication for the hadith, something sadly which was not provided back in defence of the hadith in question.

I believe that there is a mutawatir hadith narrated by over 70 companions regarding a seat in hell to the oen who attributes a lie to the Prophet knowingly. As a sincere believer in Allah and His messenger, if you do not find any evidence to support the hadith , then in order to save yourself from Allah, you need to remove the article spreading what is clearly a 'hadith' that has no foundation. And since Ibn qattan was mentioned, then you would know that he would never accept a hadith in his right mind like the one under discussion where its chain does not exist.

Also (and thsi is a genuine question based upon my own ignorance) is it fair to say that the number of scholars praising Abu Hanifah on hadith outweighs those criticising him? I only mentioned a few quotes earlier for the sake of not causing fitnah - but now I find myself forced to mention more in order to establish from yourself(since you are probably more knowledgeable about Abu Hanifah). Check the following

Imaam Muslim says in ‘al-Kunaa wal Asmaa’ [q. 31/1], "mudtarib al-hadeeth (confused and mixes up hadeeth). He does not have many authentic hadeeth."

Imaam an-Nasaa`ee says at the end of ‘ad-Du`afaa wal Matrookeen’ [pg. 57], "he is not strong in hadeeth and he makes many mistakes despite the fact that he only narrates a few narrations."

Ibn Adee says in ‘al-Kaamil’ [2/403], "he has some acceptable hadeeth but most of what he narrates are mistakes, errors and incorrect additions in isnaads and texts and errors regarding peoples names - most of what he narrates is like this. Out of all that he narrates, only ten odd ahaadeeth are authentic and he has narrated around three hundred ahaadeeth including famous and strange ones - all of them in this way. This is because he is not from the People of Hadeeth and hadeeth are not taken from one such as this in the field of hadeeth."

Ibnu Abdil Barr Al-Maaliki (r.a.) mentions in Jaami’u Bayaanil I’lmi wa Fadlihi (pg.149): Those who narrated from Abu Haneefah (r.a.) and supported his authenticity are much more in number than those who criticised him (this is in agreement with your statement however look below)

Ibn Sa`d said in ‘at-Tabaqaat’ [6/256], "he is da`eef in hadeeth."

Al-Uqailee says in ‘ad-Du`afaa’ [pg. 432], "Abdullaah bin Ahmad narrated to us saying: I heard my father (Imaam Ahmad) say: the hadeeth of Abu Haneefah are da`eef."

ibn Abee Haatim said in ‘al-Jarh wat-Ta`deel’ [4/1/450], "Hajjaaj bin Hamzah narrated to us saying:Abdaan ibn Uthmaan narrated to us saying: I heard ibn al-Mubaarak say: Abu Haneefah was miskeen (poor) with regards hadeeth."

Abu Hafs ibn Shaaheen said, "Abu Haneefah with regards to fiqh then no one can fault his knowledge however he was not pleasing in hadeeth…" As is quoted at the end of ‘Taareekh al-Jarjaan’ [pg. 510-511]

Ibn Hibbaan said, "…hadeeth was not his field. He reported one hundred and thirty musnad ahaadeeth and no more, erring in one hundred and twenty either through reversing the isnaads or changing the text without knowing. Therefore when his errors outweigh that which he is correct in it is deserving to leave depending upon him in narrations."

Ad-Daaruqutnee says in his Sunan [pg. 132]…., "no one reports it from Musa ibn Abee Aa`ishah except Abu Haneefah and al-Hasan ibn Umaarah and both are da`eef."

Al-Haakim quotes in ‘Ma`rifah al-Ulum al-Hadeeth’ [pg. 256] amongst a group of narrators of the Atbaa` at-Taabi`een and those who came after them - whose ahaadeeth are not accepted in the Saheeh concluding by saying, "so all those we have mentioned are people well known for having narrated - but are not counted as being amongst the reliable precise memorisers."

Al-Haafidh Abdul Haqq al-Ishbeelee mentions ‘al-Ahkaam al-Kubraa’ [q. 17/2], …."Abu Haneefah is not used as a proof due to his weakness in hadeeth."

Ibn al-Jawzee mentions him in ‘Kitaab ad-Du`faah wal Matrookeen’ [3/163] mentioning the weakening of the Imaams of him and from ath-Thawree that he said, "he is not trustworthy and precise." And from an-Nadr ibn Shameel, "abandoned in hadeeth."

Adh-Dhahabee says in ‘ad-Du`afaah’, "an-Nu`maan, the Imaam, may Allaah have mercy upon him. Ibn Adee said: most of what he narrates are mistakes, errors and additions and he has some acceptable ahaadeeth. An-Nasaa`ee said: he is not strong in hadeeth, he makes many errors and mistakes even though he does not narrate very much. Ibn Ma`een said: his hadeeth are not to be recorded."

[Translators addition: al-Qurtobee said at the beginning of his tafseer [1/86], "…and Abu Haneefah and he is da`eef."

I agree as Ibn Hajar did that abu Hanifah was a faqeeh and a great mind at that. However it is no secret that he has been criticised -whether rightly or wrongly that it is not my place to judge

'there is a lot of sick people out there who have caused plenty of friction. I dont wont to be a part of that.'

By levelling the focus of these blogs against salafis, brother it results in just that, and adding to it by quoting mawdoo hadith only adds to it. It is better to take an aspect where they are incorrect and refute the IDEA.

'I understand what you are saying about the school you follow, but at the end of the day we follow The Prophet and his companions, and the opinions of the Imams are based on them. '

true brother- but not every opinion from every school is correct, moreso where ijmaa is against that opinion then we need to think really carefully. Ignorance is not always an excuse for following a scholar blindly in the case where he is incorrect, the shia reject ijmaa and in the same way it is sad that some of those who follow our father Abu Hanifa will also do the same. The yahud and nasara are chastised by Allah for following their rabbis and monks in opposition to the rulings of Allah. If we do not study and are not careful then we can fall into the same trap- especially if we consider ourselves fit to give da'wah , then we need to have knowledge of these things moreso then other people and should not use the excuse of a lack of knowledge-especially in a clear cut issue like the ruling on a hadith which has a non-existant chain.

'The Hanabila will be Hanabila and the Salafis will remain Salafi'

Even if they have the same usul? Where do the salafis exactly and clearly differ with the hanbalis? It is not necessary that every one who calls himself salafi does not pray 20 rakah or follow ibn taymiyyahرضي الله عنه on divorce, so where is the difference?