Brother Noor-Us-Sunnah, the author of youpuncturedtheark, obviously makes a lot of effort in the analysis he does. My impression is - and Allah knows best - these are sincere efforts. His arguments are well thought out, he does his research, but unfortunately, there are errors. These errors i believe, come from what he has assumed apriori; the idea that the Prophet (saw) explicitly designated the Quran and Ahlulbayt as sources of guidance right before his death it at odds with what Sunnis do, what the caliphs did, what many of the companions did, and seems to strongly support the Shia narrative. He has therefore gone to great lengths to weaken the tradition and explain it away.
The Shia narrative is that Ahl al-bayt were appointed as Leaders over the Ummah, which contradicts numerous reports showing Sunnah of Prophet(SAWS) and even the understanding of Sahaba including Ahl al-bayt such as Ali(RA).
And as for Ahl al-bayt being designated as being source of guidance and what the Shia narrative is, then this just doesn't goes against Quran, and ahadeeth, but it even goes against the understanding of Sahabi who narrated this report.
I will address his latest reply, but if you look on his article, he does a the following:
1. He knows that he needs to explain why well-respected, authoritative and far more knowledgeable scholars of Hadith like al-Albani , al-Arnaut, ibn Hajar etc have authenticated the chain. He erroneously claims this was out of leniency and misuses the principle of being more lax when it comes to traditions pertaining to virtue.
I clearly demonstrated instances when al-Arnaut, and al-Albani grade the same version of the same Hadith as 'weak' due to chain. They did not shy away from doing so, which throws that argument out of the water. There are also instances where, al-Albani for example, explicitly claims the narrators are reliable. Indeed, Allah is a witness, but it is beyond doubt that al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others have graded the chain to be at least 'Hasan' outright, and not out of leniency.
Does this change the fact the there were classical scholars who weakened the narrator? This even includes Ibn Hajar who did say that the narrator committed mistakes. So what's the problem in calling the version as faulty? Or atleast saying that a report coming from a narrator of this level cannot be used in forming an Aqeedah, which you are arguing for. These are basics, those same scholars whom you are quoting would laugh on this argument that, a report coming from a narrator of this level, who was known for making mistakes, would be used to form an Aqeedah and that too when it contradicts numerous reports of Prophet and Understanding of Sahaba.
If you are here to implying that the grading of al-Albani or Ibn Hajar implies that, the report is spotless and perfectly authentic, even when Ibn Hajar himself admittted that the narrator was known for making mistakes, then I can't help you come out of your delusion. But if you say that, even though the narrator was truthful but would commit mistakes, which makes his report atleast Hasan, which implies it's not at top level of authenticity then, it you shouldn't make a fuss when I say the text is faulty, because the narrator wasn't a top level narrator , whose narration is being called faulty, its a narrator who was known for his mistakes.
2. He then , in his article, makes the claim that irrespective of the grading, claiming a chain is 'Hasan' does not mean the scholars agree with the content of the Hadith. This is true, however, i provided evidence where several of the scholars who authenticated it, clearly also accepted the contents, such as Al-Albani himself. The point he raised therefore bears absolutely no relevance to our discussion.
I say, that's completely fine for me. Because al-Albani wasn't the only Muhaddith in the world, it's fine if you want to go with his grading, but other disagreed and there is a scope for difference of opinion in this, and this is how an academic approach is, but hypocrisy is when, you take his grading, but reject his interpretation, because if your connotations were applied al-Albani himself would point out to you that, this is false and that would effect the grading of hadeeth as Munkar.
So you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't use he grading of al-Albani but reject his explanation, because there are several instances wherein Albani authenticated weak reports because in his view those reports were supported by other Sahih reports. But but rejecting his interpretation you are jeopardizing his whole grading.
Well, it is up to Sunnis on here to decide for themselves. On one hand, you have scholars who have spent decades upon decades studying the science of Hadith, who have given their expert gratings over the matter of narrators. On the other hand, you have -perhaps- sincere online bloggers, trying to overrule the scholars.
The weakening of narrator wasn't by a online blogger as the Shia friend tries to portray but by these authoritative Scholars, which even includes Ibn Hajar.
(a). Ibn Abi Hatim in Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil:
سئل يحيى بن معين عن كثير بن زيد فقال ليس بذاك القوى…فقال ابو زرعة هو صدوق فيه لين
Yahya ibn Ma`in was asked about Kathir ibn Zayd and he said: “He is not strong according to the Muhaddithin”… Abu Zur’ah said: “Truthful but he has weakness.”[Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta`dil, vol 7, page 150-151, #841].
(b). Al-Dhahabi in al-Mizan:
قال ابو زرعة فيه لين…قال النسائى ضعيف
Abu Zur`ah said: “He has weakness”… Nasa’i said: “Da’if(weak)” [al-Meezan, vol 5, page 489]
(c). Ibn Hajar in al-Tahdhib:
صالح بن أبي خيثمة عن بن معين ليس بذاك وكان اولا قال ليس بشيئ…قال النسائى ضعيف…قال ابو جعفر الطبرى كثير بن زيد عندهم ممن لا يحتج بنقله
Ibn Abi Khaythamah has reported from Ibn Ma`in: “He is not reliable.” And he first said: “He is nothing”… Nasa’i said: “Da`if”… Abu Ja`far al-Tabari said: Kathir ibn Zayd is amongst those whose narrations cannot be substantiated from.” [Tahdhib al-Tahdhib vol 8, page 414, #745]
(d). Imaam Dhahabi said: “There is weakness in Katheer ibn Zayd“ [Mu’jam ash-Shuyookh ul-Kabeer by Dhahabi, vol 1, page 240]
(e). Ibn Jawzi mentioned him in Kitab al-Duafa wal Matrukin(weak and rejected narrators). [Kitab al-Duafa wal Matrukin by Ibn Jawzi vol 3, page 22 , #2786 ]
(f). Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: “Saalih, He is not Strong.“ [Sawalat Ibn Abi Shaybah by Ibn al-Madeeni: Pg 95]
(g). Ibn Ḥajar says: “He is a sadūq(truthful) who makes mistakes in his transmission. [Taqrib al-Tahdhib, vol 1, page 459]
What is the decent thing for youpuncturedtheark to do, even if he disagrees with scholars far greater than him? At least present the truth. Present the fact Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many others authenticated the chain, and not out of leniency, and many of these and others accepted the Matn, though some gave it their own interpretation. Then make it clear you disagree with these scholars, and why.
The purpose of article is to refute Shia narrative, and I have done that successfully Alhamdulillah!
And I have presented one of the major reason being the understanding of a Sahabi which destroys the Shia narrative or rather misinterpretation of the report. And it's a rational fact that the understanding of an eye witness Sahabi is superior to those who came centuries after, let alone some innovators(Shia).
60 Replies
15734 Views
February 22, 2015, 10:33:37 PM
