Questioning Effendi's analysis on Ma'ruf bin Kharboodh

[Shia_student]

He said about Ma'ruf bin Kharboodh:

1) Maroof ibn Kharboodh. Ibn Hajar al-Askalani in “Lisanul mezaan” (7/395/n4888) noticed: Ibn Hibban said he was upright, ibn Muin said he was weak.

Tawseq of ibn Hibban doesn’t mean a lot, because he use to make tawseq upon almost everyone, who wasn’t discredited.

Dhahabi himself included this narrator in his book “Mughni fi duafa” (6342) where he said: “Shia, upright. Yahya ibn Muin said he’s weak.

Ahmad said: “I don’t know grading of his narrations”.

Abu Khatim said: “His narrations are to be recorded”.

Ibn Jawzi included him in his book “Duafa wal matrukin” (#3370).

Ukayli in his “Duafa” (1810) noticed that his narrations are not to be relied on, and they aren’t known except by him.

==========================

Do such statements actually weaken Ma'ruf, when we know that:

* Imam Bukhari has placed a chain in his  Sahih, which includes him in it. That is in connection with an athar from Ali (as).

One could say it's mawquf, but al-Bukhari saw it as authentic, hence he placed it in his Sahih without another support for it.

* Imam Muslim has a chain with him in reference to a report regarding a practice of Haj.

* Ibn Hajar called him Saduq, makes some mistakes...

* Imam Dhahabi called him Saduq Shia...

* Abu Hatim said, record his Hadith

* Ibn Hibban contained him in his Thiqaat.

I thought the reliance of al-Bukhari and Muslim greatly meant something for the Sunnis.

Was it about weakening the narrator at any cost because he narrated the virtues of Ahulbayt?

[Farid]

Was it about weakening the narrator at any cost because he narrated the virtues of Ahulbayt?

...and yet, Sunnis have strengthened narrators who narrated virtues of Ahlulbayt and our books contain a good amount of authentic material on their fadha'il.

[Shia_student]

Was it about weakening the narrator at any cost because he narrated the virtues of Ahulbayt?

...and yet, Sunnis have strengthened narrators who narrated virtues of Ahlulbayt and our books contain a good amount of authentic material on their fadha'il.

Sunnis have, but my statement was referring to Effendi.

What's your view on Ma'ruf Fareed?

[AE]

Bismillah.

As you quoted, I have mentioned myself that Maroof been accepted by some scholars. So you can't accuse me in being blind on his tawsiq.

He is disputed narrator, been discredited and praised as well. And he narrates in favor of his innovation.

That is why, I rejected this report of him.

Was it about weakening the narrator at any cost because he narrated the virtues of Ahulbayt?

If that would be a case, I would not compile a book in the merits of Ali's family.

[Shia_student]

Accepted by giants, such as al-Bukhari and Muslim and supported by others, such as ibn Hajar and Dhahabi, etc.

Weakened by ibn Jawzi and Uqayli? Both are not very valued.

Besides their criticism is unexplained. In that sense, rejected.

So why you use rejected jarh and say he is disputed? Why place him in that standard?

He is thiqa until proven guilty.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Accepted by giants, such as al-Bukhari and Muslim and supported by others, such as ibn Hajar and Dhahabi, etc.

Weakened by ibn Jawzi and Uqayli? Both are not very valued.

Besides their criticism is unexplained. In that sense, rejected.

So why you use rejected jarh and say he is disputed? Why place him in that standard?

He is thiqa until proven guilty.

I guess this answer was sufficient.

He is disputed narrator, been discredited and praised as well. And he narrates in favor of his innovation.

That is why, I rejected this report of him.

Besides I see yahya ibn Maeen weakened him.

Also Uqayli puts it in a nice way , which implies that he narrates odd reports in which he is alone. Hence if that is the case then he shouldn't be relied on, unless we have a shawahid for that report. Esp. The report in which he invites towards his innovation.

As for the reports mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim then I'm certain that you may find shawahid for those in some or the other book of hadeeth.

[Shia_student]

The issue of his innovation is not being discussed. We are discussing the reliability of Ma'ruf at this instance.

In order for Uqayli's jarh to be accepted, in what he says, Ma'ruf's jarh besides Uqalyi's needs to be proven FIRST, why?

Because a reliable person's single routes are accepted.

As for the reports mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim then I'm certain that you may find shawahid for those in some or the other book of hadeeth.

What a joke! Imam bukhari made a collection of sahih based upon the reports of his own books, not the shawahids of others! 😆😆😆

[AE]

Besides their criticism is unexplained. In that sense, rejected.

Disagree.

Critisim is explained. He was weak, and reported ahadeth on his own, without any shawahid.

Uqayli said: His reports are not to be rely on, and not known (from other way) than (reported) by him. (Duafa 1810)
So he narrated odd reports, that no one else transmitted. That is clear explanation of jarh.

He is thiqa until proven guilty.

Approach of ibn Hibban. Which is not correct.

What a joke! Imam bukhari made a collection of sahih based upon the reports of his own books, not the shawahids of others! 😆😆😆

Real joke is you.  Useless waste of time.

[Shia_student]

Uqayli himself relies on and commits blunders. Does he himself have a support for what he stated?

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Uqayli himself relies on and commits blunders. Does he himself have a support for what he stated?

Funny how the Shias play with the choice of words.

Mistakes become blunders and blunders became mistakes depending upon their desire.

if you were against the narrator then even lesser jarh than this was sufficient for you to attack this narrator. But there seems to be some reports which you want to use in favor of Shiism(which becomes a support for Uqayli's view)

[Shia_student]

Uqayli will only be used where there is some truth in his saying. It's not about picking and choosing.

Anyhow Effendi, why did you ignore the reliance of Imam al-Bukhari and Muslim? And then you just quoted contradictory views of ibn Hajar and al-Dhahabi?

[zaid_ibn_ali]

Uqayli will only be used where there is some truth in his saying. It's not about picking and choosing.

Anyhow Effendi, why did you ignore the reliance of Imam al-Bukhari and Muslim? And then you just quoted contradictory views of ibn Hajar and al-Dhahabi?

Who exactly decides whether there is truth to Uqayli's saying? Is it the consenus verdict of sunni hadith scholars or is it you?
Academically it would be picking & choosing what suits you.

[Shia_student]

Uqayli is a person who has even criticised the men of sahihs u fairly.

Therefore, his statements alone are not good enough. Provide some examples, or I'll have to say, blind shots are not worth the effort to prove your case.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Uqayli is a person who has even criticised the men of sahihs u fairly.

Therefore, his statements alone are not good enough. Provide some examples, or I'll have to say, blind shots are not worth the effort to prove your case.

Some men in Sahih were indeed weak. Do you disagree ?

[Shia_student]

Some were weak and were used as a support. I was referring to the accepted narrators by the authors of Sahihs.

Scholars differ, but al-Bukhari and Muslim were much better than Uqayli.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Some were weak and were used as a support. I was referring to the accepted narrators by the authors of Sahihs.

Scholars differ, but al-Bukhari and Muslim were much better than Uqayli.

The point you made was regarding Uqayli, being the person who criticized narrators of sahihayn.
So I responded that criticizing narrators of Sahihayn, doesn't harm the status of a scholar when he gives. Fair reason.

FYI, even the giants like Daraqutni weakened the narration of a Sahih due to a narrator who was an innovator but was upright. And I don't think anyone with slightest knowledge about ilm ul rijaal would undermine the status of Daraqutni.

The point being made here is that Uqayli has made jarh mufassar(explained criticism) and when the jarh is mufassar it take precedence over tawtheeq.

[Shia_student]

So I responded that criticizing narrators of Sahihayn, doesn't harm the status of a scholar when he gives. Fair reason

He was not fair and that is why men like Dhahabi criticised him for weakening reliable men.

[Shia_student]

Al-Dhahabi in his Mizan:

Have you no mind, O `Uqayli?! (afama laka `aqlun ya `uqayli) Do you know who you are talking about?!

The only reason we mention what you say about them is in order to repel from them the statements made about them as if you did not know that each one of those you target is several times more trustworthy than you?! Nay, more trustworthy than many trustworthy narrators whom you did not even cite once in your book...

If the hadith of these narrators were to be abandoned, then shut the gates, cease all speech, let hadith transmission die, put the free-thinkers in office, and let the antichrists come out!

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Al-Dhahabi in his Mizan:

Have you no mind, O `Uqayli?! (afama laka `aqlun ya `uqayli) Do you know who you are talking about?!

The only reason we mention what you say about them is in order to repel from them the statements made about them as if you did not know that each one of those you target is several times more trustworthy than you?! Nay, more trustworthy than many trustworthy narrators whom you did not even cite once in your book...

If the hadith of these narrators were to be abandoned, then shut the gates, cease all speech, let hadith transmission die, put the free-thinkers in office, and let the antichrists come out!

Mind you, I never said Uqayli is infallible, nor that he can never make a mistake. But that he explained the jarh on Maruf. And your argument using the rebuke of Dhahabi gets dismissed because the giants like Yahya ibn Maeen weakened Marif. So Uqayli is not alone in his criticism but just that he explained it.

[Shia_student]

I did state that his criticism is does not carry weight until it is proven through different routes that he is actually weak, because a reliable narrator can report Hadiths that don't have another support.

His issue is that Ma'ruf narrates odd reports, well so what, he is not proven to be an unreliable narrator?

Besides, his odd narrators will become an issue when they will contradict something more stronger.

Well do they? Can you show me some examples of his odd reports?