Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?

[iceman]

A barelvi died in a village of Muradabad, India and his funeral prayer was led by a deobandi Imam. Barelvis declared that the funeral prayer was not only invalid, but all those barelvis who attended the prayer behind deobandi, their nikah also became invalid. People also approached a barelvi mufti of Muradabad, who issued the same fatwa and instructed all those who attended the funeral prayer to again arrange their nikah. To revive their faith, so far, hundreds of barelvis have re-arranged their nikah to compensate against the kufr, they committed by attending the prayer behind a deobandi Imam.

MORADABAD: Abid Ali is 80 years old and has been married to 75-year-old Asgeri for as long as he can remember. But this week he repeated his wedding vows and performed a nikah because a top cleric issued a fatwa dissolving his marriage. Ali wasn't the only one. More than 200 couples had to re-do their nikah in Aharaula village, about 20 km from Moradabad.
What happened? These Barelvi Sunni Muslims had committed the crime of attending a namaaz led by a cleric from the rival Deoband sect. The namaz on August 11 was led by Maulana Hafiz Abu Mohamid during the burial of his uncle, Master Nazakat Hussain, a respected madrassa teacher who had died at the age of 85.

[iceman]

As Punjab governor Salman Taseer came out of a restaurant in an upscale area of Islamabad, one of his bodyguards uttered the slogan "Allahu Akbar" and fired on the man he was supposed to guard, killing him on the spot. The assassin in the January 4 killing, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, belonged to the Elite Punjab Police, a force specially trained in counterterrorism work and the protection of important individuals (Dawn [Karachi], January 5). Qadri was also believed to be associated with the South Asian Barelvi Sufi movement.

The other bodyguards from the elite force did not try to stop him and the smiling Qadri surrendered to his fellow officers after he made sure the governor was dead. He later told the police that he had killed the governor because Taseer had insulted the Prophet of Islam by describing Pakistan's controversial blasphemy laws as "black laws."

Within hours of the assassination, Barelvi ulema (religious scholars) and more than 500 leading members of the Jamaat Ahle Sunnat ("The Community of People  of the Traditions of Muhammad," a Barelvi Sufi religious organization) had issued a fatwa against leading the deceased governor's funeral prayers or even attending his funeral (The News [Islamabad] January 5).

When the police brought the assassin to court a day later, hundreds of lawyers showered him with rose petals. There were widespread demonstrations in Qadri's favor throughout the country. With all opposition to Islamism and jihadism in Pakistan falling silent since, Sufi Islamism has succeeded in doing what Deobandi jihadism had failed in the past.

[iceman]

THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN BARELVI AND dEOBANDI
BOTH ARE
1.Follower of Imam Abu Hanifa,(R.A) in the matter of Fiqh.
2.They follow Same school of aqeeda of Ahle sunnat wal Jamaat that is Ashahari/Maturidi.
3.Agreed on tasawwuf (Both are related with all four chains of tasawwuf)

If they both follow Imam Abu Hanifah in the matter of Fiqh then why such a huge difference where if one leads or attends the funeral prayers of the other then your Nikah becomes invalid?

[muslim720]

Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions. Would you like the list again.

Not knowing how this escaped my attention, I challenge you to bring me one valid opinion from our scholars saying what you've claimed.  If you cannot, I want an apology.  Otherwise, next time you lie so grossly upon us, I'll curse (use profanity) on your ancestors back seven generations.

The Ayatollahs you've mentioned follow one and the same school of thought and have difference in thought, opinion and point of view.

Check this comment in the running for the most idiotic comment and logic.  The Ayatollahs have "one and same school of thought" and "have difference in thought and point of view".  How can certain individuals be part of the "same school of thought" and yet have "difference in thought"?

[iceman]

Not knowing how this escaped my attention, I challenge you to bring me one valid opinion from our scholars saying what you've claimed.  If you cannot, I want an apology.  Otherwise, next time you lie so grossly upon us, I'll curse (use profanity) on your ancestors back seven generations.

Check this comment in the running for the most idiotic comment and logic.  The Ayatollahs have "one and same school of thought" and "have difference in thought and point of view".  How can certain individuals be part of the "same school of thought" and yet have "difference in thought"?

Your answer is posts # 240, 241 and 242. Respond to those posts.I will bring more huge/mega differences within you forward. Those differences I've mentioned in the posts are your scholars opinion. Actually not opinion but based on your scholars fatwas.

[muslim720]

Your answer is posts # 240, 241 and 242. Respond to those posts.I will bring more huge/mega differences within you forward. Those differences I've mentioned in the posts are your scholars opinion. Actually not opinion but based on your scholars fatwas.

Having dodged the responsibility to account for your own blunders, the scum you are, you require us to respond to your nonsensical posts.  I will respond to your post not to abide by any fair rules of engaging in discussions but for others to see you run away, yet again, from another post of your own which backfired against you.

THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN BARELVI AND dEOBANDI
BOTH ARE
1.Follower of Imam Abu Hanifa,(R.A) in the matter of Fiqh.
2.They follow Same school of aqeeda of Ahle sunnat wal Jamaat that is Ashahari/Maturidi.
3.Agreed on tasawwuf (Both are related with all four chains of tasawwuf)

If they both follow Imam Abu Hanifah in the matter of Fiqh then why such a huge difference where if one leads or attends the funeral prayers of the other then your Nikah becomes invalid?

As though it has not been said before, you have shot yourself in the foot, again!  You highlighted the fact that Barelvis and Deobandis follow the same school of fiqh and they ascribe to the same schools of aqeedah (Ashari or Maturidi).  There are Barelvis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah; there are Deobandis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah.

Your deceitful and dishonest approach is highlighted by the fact that earlier, you were making schools of fiqh out to be different sects, all distinct from each other in practice and beliefs.  However, when you thought you had scored a point against us (in the case of Barelvis and Deobandis), you demonstrated that you possess the knowledge to know the difference between schools of fiqh and aqeedah thereby proving that your earlier claim (that the four schools of jurisprudence are different "sects") was a lie that you were just perpetuating to try to get even.

Now that I have exposed your character, allow me to comment on Barelvis and Deobandis.  As said, they ascribe to the same school of fiqh and the two schools of aqeedah (Ashari and Maturidi) are common between them.  The problem between them, the cause of all the rivalry and schism, in the India Sub-Continent, is more in practice than principle.

If we look at their differences, we can clearly see that one condemns the other based on the same standards for which you, yes you Shias, are condemned.  One of the major differences between them is "Istaghaatha" or asking, or seeking benefit, from the dead.  The Barelvi deem it permissible to seek benefit from the righteous people who have died.  The Deobandis, on the other hand, publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) so they limit "Istaghaatha" to the Prophet (saw).  However, I read that when one goes to their (Deobandi) books, they actually deem it permissible to call out on the chosen few righteous individuals.  Almost taqiyyah-like in their approach; they publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) for help but in private, they have a list of selected individuals that they can call upon.  Hence, the difference between them is calling upon general Awliya versus calling upon certain chosen individuals for assistance.  And this is exactly why we, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, tread very carefully when it comes to "Istaghaatha" and condemn any excesses in this matter, be it by Barelvis, Deobandis or Shias.

Furthermore, many of their other differences are more out of rivalry and hatred towards each other rather than those beliefs being present in their creedal sources.  In reality, their beliefs within the group itself is not constant since many lay Muslims are unaware of the beliefs of the group they belong to.

Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions.

Now that your post has been refuted and your character exposed, I want you to substantiate your claim that among the four different schools of fiqh, it is impermissible for one to pray behind someone belonging to another school of fiqh.

[iceman]

Having dodged the responsibility to account for your own blunders, the scum you are, you require us to respond to your nonsensical posts.  I will respond to your post not to abide by any fair rules of engaging in discussions but for others to see you run away, yet again, from another post of your own which backfired against you.



As though it has not been said before, you have shot yourself in the foot, again!  You highlighted the fact that Barelvis and Deobandis follow the same school of fiqh and they ascribe to the same schools of aqeedah (Ashari or Maturidi).  There are Barelvis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah; there are Deobandis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah.

Your deceitful and dishonest approach is highlighted by the fact that earlier, you were making schools of fiqh out to be different sects, all distinct from each other in practice and beliefs.  However, when you thought you had scored a point against us (in the case of Barelvis and Deobandis), you demonstrated that you possess the knowledge to know the difference between schools of fiqh and aqeedah thereby proving that your earlier claim (that the four schools of jurisprudence are different "sects") was a lie that you were just perpetuating to try to get even.

Now that I have exposed your character, allow me to comment on Barelvis and Deobandis.  As said, they ascribe to the same school of fiqh and the two schools of aqeedah (Ashari and Maturidi) are common between them.  The problem between them, the cause of all the rivalry and schism, in the India Sub-Continent, is more in practice than principle.

If we look at their differences, we can clearly see that one condemns the other based on the same standards for which you, yes you Shias, are condemned.  One of the major differences between them is "Istaghaatha" or asking, or seeking benefit, from the dead.  The Barelvi deem it permissible to seek benefit from the righteous people who have died.  The Deobandis, on the other hand, publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) so they limit "Istaghaatha" to the Prophet (saw).  However, I read that when one goes to their (Deobandi) books, they actually deem it permissible to call out on the chosen few righteous individuals.  Almost taqiyyah-like in their approach; they publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) for help but in private, they have a list of selected individuals that they can call upon.  Hence, the difference between them is calling upon general Awliya versus calling upon certain chosen individuals for assistance.  And this is exactly why we, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, tread very carefully when it comes to "Istaghaatha" and condemn any excesses in this matter, be it by Barelvis, Deobandis or Shias.

Furthermore, many of their other differences are more out of rivalry and hatred towards each other rather than those beliefs being present in their creedal sources.  In reality, their beliefs within the group itself is not constant since many lay Muslims are unaware of the beliefs of the group they belong to.



Now that your post has been refuted and your character exposed, I want you to substantiate your claim that among the four different schools of fiqh, it is impermissible for one to pray behind someone belonging to another school of fiqh.

First of all thanks for the response from you as usual entirely based on hatred and grudge. I don't think we will ever see you or your kind discussing things with an open mind based on logic and reason. Here we go,

"Having dodged the responsibility to account for your own blunders"

I've already cleared this nonsense. See my posts by going through the thread to jog your memory.

"the scum you are"

SCUM, you've been brought up well, it certainly shows. Ikhkaq surely means nothing to you. Some Aqeedah you have and follow.

[iceman]

Having dodged the responsibility to account for your own blunders, the scum you are, you require us to respond to your nonsensical posts.  I will respond to your post not to abide by any fair rules of engaging in discussions but for others to see you run away, yet again, from another post of your own which backfired against you.



As though it has not been said before, you have shot yourself in the foot, again!  You highlighted the fact that Barelvis and Deobandis follow the same school of fiqh and they ascribe to the same schools of aqeedah (Ashari or Maturidi).  There are Barelvis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah; there are Deobandis who follow Ashari or Maturidi aqeedah.

Your deceitful and dishonest approach is highlighted by the fact that earlier, you were making schools of fiqh out to be different sects, all distinct from each other in practice and beliefs.  However, when you thought you had scored a point against us (in the case of Barelvis and Deobandis), you demonstrated that you possess the knowledge to know the difference between schools of fiqh and aqeedah thereby proving that your earlier claim (that the four schools of jurisprudence are different "sects") was a lie that you were just perpetuating to try to get even.

Now that I have exposed your character, allow me to comment on Barelvis and Deobandis.  As said, they ascribe to the same school of fiqh and the two schools of aqeedah (Ashari and Maturidi) are common between them.  The problem between them, the cause of all the rivalry and schism, in the India Sub-Continent, is more in practice than principle.

If we look at their differences, we can clearly see that one condemns the other based on the same standards for which you, yes you Shias, are condemned.  One of the major differences between them is "Istaghaatha" or asking, or seeking benefit, from the dead.  The Barelvi deem it permissible to seek benefit from the righteous people who have died.  The Deobandis, on the other hand, publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) so they limit "Istaghaatha" to the Prophet (saw).  However, I read that when one goes to their (Deobandi) books, they actually deem it permissible to call out on the chosen few righteous individuals.  Almost taqiyyah-like in their approach; they publicly only call upon the Prophet (saw) for help but in private, they have a list of selected individuals that they can call upon.  Hence, the difference between them is calling upon general Awliya versus calling upon certain chosen individuals for assistance.  And this is exactly why we, Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, tread very carefully when it comes to "Istaghaatha" and condemn any excesses in this matter, be it by Barelvis, Deobandis or Shias.

Furthermore, many of their other differences are more out of rivalry and hatred towards each other rather than those beliefs being present in their creedal sources.  In reality, their beliefs within the group itself is not constant since many lay Muslims are unaware of the beliefs of the group they belong to.



Now that your post has been refuted and your character exposed, I want you to substantiate your claim that among the four different schools of fiqh, it is impermissible for one to pray behind someone belonging to another school of fiqh.

"you require us to respond to your nonsensical posts"

I don't require anything from you or for you to do. Good manners and positive behaviour is what I would expect but again certainly not from someone of your nature and stance.

"I will respond to your post not to abide by any fair rules of engaging"

Not surprised, principles, rules and regulations, justice and fairness? Since when did you care or give a damn.

" see you run away"

Not happening, never has happened and never will.

"which backfired against you"

Your words and only just words and nothing else. Air and wind.

[muslim720]

First of all thanks for the response from you as usual entirely based on hatred and grudge. I don't think we will ever see you or your kind discussing things with an open mind based on logic and reason.

Open mind based on logic and reason?  From someone who beats his head every year for an entire month?  Seriously?

I've already cleared this nonsense. See my posts by going through the thread to jog your memory.

Another escape from offering a counter rebuttal when refuted.  Upholding the legacy of someone on the run for over a 1000 years has conditioned you for online discussion marathons.

SCUM, you've been brought up well, it certainly shows. Ikhkaq surely means nothing to you. Some Aqeedah you have and follow.

Child of mutah questioning my upbringing?  Certainly a surprise!  From now on, until you provide evidence for saying "Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions", I will answer you in the way your Imams (ra) responded to zindeeqs like Zurarah and the two Hishams, one of which was the father of your school of theology.

[iceman]

Open mind based on logic and reason?  From someone who beats his head every year for an entire month?  Seriously?

Another escape from offering a counter rebuttal when refuted.  Upholding the legacy of someone on the run for over a 1000 years has conditioned you for online discussion marathons.

Child of mutah questioning my upbringing?  Certainly a surprise!  From now on, until you provide evidence for saying "Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other and many more severe restrictions", I will answer you in the way your Imams (ra) responded to zindeeqs like Zurarah and the two Hishams, one of which was the father of your school of theology.

What a TANTRUM. I don't think you would find such an attitude and behaviour even in kindergarten these days. I wouldn't even call this CHILDISH because it would be an absolute insult to children.

I just don't understand how you think you know me. For your information I don't beat my head or chest or anything else. I never have. Apart from this the rest of your post is full of RUBBISH which I don't have time for. Put something positive, constructive and useful forward so I can respond.

[muslim720]

What a TANTRUM. I don't think you would find such an attitude and behaviour even in kindergarten these days. I wouldn't even call this CHILDISH because it would be an absolute insult to children.

I just don't understand how you think you know me. For your information I don't beat my head or chest or anything else. I never have. Apart from this the rest of your post is full of RUBBISH which I don't have time for. Put something positive, constructive and useful forward so I can respond.

From here on out, until you substantiate your claim that there are "Four absolutely and completely different schools of thought where one can't pray behind the other", you will be meted out with your level of response, a kindergarten level.  By the way, thank you for proving me right AGAIN!  Once again, you were refuted and as usual, you've not provided an answer to be taken serious enough even on a kindergarten level.

[Mythbuster1]

What a TANTRUM. I don't think you would find such an attitude and behaviour even in kindergarten these days. I wouldn't even call this CHILDISH because it would be an absolute insult to children.

I just don't understand how you think you know me. For your information I don't beat my head or chest or anything else. I never have. Apart from this the rest of your post is full of RUBBISH which I don't have time for. Put something positive, constructive and useful forward so I can respond.

RUBBISH is what you posted of village idiot mullahs who have no bearing on real Islam or majority Muslims, you are using stupid examples from Indian villages from uneducated mullahs this shows your stupidity as well as your ingenuity.

Compare them village idiots with no bearing on Islamic rule to Shiites and their divisions I will give you 1 you disingenuous person and you can never slither out of it.......ZAIDIS they don’t believe in one of your made up usuls DIVINITY IMAMATE that is a major problem for Shiites it’s what you keep banging your head about against saqifa, deobandi s and barelvis dont have and never have an issue on this scale.

You must be one big banana not to notice this or you are being ingenious and trying to fool us while you have been fooled by some village idiot.

One Shiite believes in fairytale divine Imamate other Shiite doesn’t lol first sort that out before clutching on straws.

[iceman]

Anything positive, constructive and useful from you gentlemen? I didn't think so. Work on your manners (Ikhkaq). You desperately need to. Anything I put forward you try your very best to brush it aside. Your too over confident as well as full of arrogance and ignorance.

[iceman]

RUBBISH is what you posted of village idiot mullahs who have no bearing on real Islam or majority Muslims, you are using stupid examples from Indian villages from uneducated mullahs this shows your stupidity as well as your ingenuity.

Compare them village idiots with no bearing on Islamic rule to Shiites and their divisions I will give you 1 you disingenuous person and you can never slither out of it.......ZAIDIS they don’t believe in one of your made up usuls DIVINITY IMAMATE that is a major problem for Shiites it’s what you keep banging your head about against saqifa, deobandi s and barelvis dont have and never have an issue on this scale.

You must be one big banana not to notice this or you are being ingenious and trying to fool us while you have been fooled by some village idiot.

One Shiite believes in fairytale divine Imamate other Shiite doesn’t lol first sort that out before clutching on straws.

"RUBBISH is what you posted of village idiot mullahs who have no bearing on real Islam or majority Muslims, you are using stupid examples from Indian villages from uneducated mullahs this shows your stupidity as well as your ingenuity"

See how you degrade and demonise others. I gave you a FATWA of Mullahs. So who are you to decide who is educated and who isn't. It doesn't show my stupidity but your arrogance and ignorance.

"Compare them village idiots with no bearing on Islamic rule to Shiites and their divisions I will give you 1 you disingenuous person and you can never slither out of it.......ZAIDIS they don’t believe in one of your made up usuls DIVINITY IMAMATE that is a major problem for Shiites it’s what you keep banging your head about against saqifa, deobandi s and barelvis dont have and never have an issue on this scale"

So the village idiots have no bearing on Islamic rule, so what does this make you? The top supreme cleric of the Ahle Sunah does it? So you're MR RIGHT and KNOW IT ALL? Can you hear yourself? Do you know how you sound?

Be it Zaidis or who ever, have they given you the authority to speak for themselves and their behalf. Speak about yourself and who you are and that's all you're entitled to. Nothing more. You can't discuss or debate and when cornered you gents start letting off tantrums. Come on, it's time for you to finally grow up.

Yes who do believe in divine authority after Muhammad (s). Which has been proven time and time again. The only problem is that it can't be refuted. Saqifa? Well that was a coincidental incident which brought nothing but violence and bloodshed between Muslims.

[muslim720]

Iceman, aka QuestionMark Man:

[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

[iceman]

Iceman, aka QuestionMark Man:

 [ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

The Hanafi school of thought – was the earliest of the 4 mentioned, attributed to a student of a sahabah/companion of the Prophet s.a.a.s. However, it was founded in Iraq (intellectual capital of Islamic world) which was criticised by those living in Madinah (city of the Prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s) as having different practises than the more learned ones in Madinah (those in Madinah claimed to follow traditions of the prophet s.a.a.s practised by thousands narrating from thousands (mutawattir) – rather than following a single/aHad hadith narrated from one person attributed to the prophet.

Note;

"which was criticised by those living in Madinah"

Notice the word 'CRITICISED' criticised for what?

And note this;

"having different practises than the more learned ones in Madinah"

Having different practises, than the more learned ones in Madinah?

What is this suppose to mean? What should we make of this?

The Maliki school of thought – is the second earliest of the 4. this was the formalised the practises and interpretations of the learned ones living in Madinah (city of prophet Muhammad s.a.a.s). It draws it sources from widely accepted and practised sunnah of Madinah as a whole, which were shaped by the Prophet s.a.a.s and the sahabah whom lived amongst him (including the first caliphs like Omar r.a. and Ali r.a, etc).

Well one should follow Imam Malik then.

The Shafi school of thought – this school comes next, and attempts to resolve issues regarding differences in Islamic practises. So the imam collected all the hadith and attempted to categorise them into authentic, strong, weak, etc. Discarding all the weak hadith and keeping the rest: this made up the foundations of this school. (however it was criticised by the other 2 since discarding weak hadith and ignoring sayings of the sahabah – loses valuable information about the details of certain practises).

Note;

"attempts to resolve issues regarding differences in Islamic practises"

Attempts to resolve issues?

Note;

"however it was criticised by the other 2"

CRITICISED?

[iceman]

Imam Abu Hanifa who lived from 80H to 150H. Imam Abu Hanifa was born to a non-Arab father, was raised in Kufa, and died in Baghdad. This school of thought prevailed during the time of the Abbasid Empire when a student of Imam Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf al-Qadi became the head of the judiciary department and the highest judge, and thus he spread this madhhab (school of thought), in particular, during the caliphates of al-Mahdi, al-Hadi, and al-Rashid.

No other man was as close to the Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid as was Abu Yusuf al-Qadi, but the Abbasid caliph, al-Mansur also worked hard to support and consolidate Imam Abu Hanifa’s school of thought and to spread his madhhab in the face of the growing popularity of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq. Imam Abu Hanifa studied under the instruction of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq for two years, and said in regards to him, “I have not seen anyone more knowledgeable than Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, and indeed, he is the most knowledgeable one in the nation."

Note; "in the face of the growing popularity of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq."

[muslim720]

Imam Abu Hanifa who lived from 80H to 150H. Imam Abu Hanifa was born to a non-Arab father, was raised in Kufa, and died in Baghdad. This school of thought prevailed during the time of the Abbasid Empire when a student of Imam Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf al-Qadi became the head of the judiciary department and the highest judge, and thus he spread this madhhab (school of thought), in particular, during the caliphates of al-Mahdi, al-Hadi, and al-Rashid.

No other man was as close to the Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid as was Abu Yusuf al-Qadi, but the Abbasid caliph, al-Mansur also worked hard to support and consolidate Imam Abu Hanifa’s school of thought and to spread his madhhab in the face of the growing popularity of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq. Imam Abu Hanifa studied under the instruction of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq for two years, and said in regards to him, “I have not seen anyone more knowledgeable than Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, and indeed, he is the most knowledgeable one in the nation."

Note; "in the face of the growing popularity of Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq."

While the previous post of Iceman - not sure if it is a reference to a hitman, Chuck Liddell or the pilot from Top Gun - was copy-pasted from Quora and MuslimTimes (some lofty sources), this snow man needs to be further humiliated for quoting Al-Islam.org once again.  Having not an ounce of shame in him, I don't think that is possible.  However, it is fun to see him getting exposed and then failing to offer a counter-rebuttal, a phenomena we have probably now seen more than his question-mark tactic.

The statement "I have not seen anyone more knowledgeable than Ja‘far ibn Muhammad, and indeed, he is the most knowledgeable one in the nation" is only found on Al-Islam.org, ShiaPen and their likes, the same two sources which had Iceman believing "Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah" was a brilliant source to support Shiaism with (when it actuality is a book written to refute Shiaism) and thereafter had him on the run like the marathoner who has been on the run for 1000 years and counting!

The first source Al-Islam.org cites for the remark (allegedly made by Imam Abu Hanifa) is "Asna al-Matalib" by Qadhi Dahlan.  Immediately, my mind raced back to the discussion between Raza (of Bayat al-Ghadeer) and brother Adnan Rashid in which the former quoted the same Qadhi Dahlan to prove his point.  Brother Adnan challenged him to see if this scholar was from the early sources; Raza ended up researching him and admitted that he was a 19th century scholar, far from being an early source.

Now, the second source Al-Islam.org cites for the statement is "Tadhkirat al-Hiffadh, Vol. 1, 166".  After some research, I stumbled across this quote from the same book, same volume: "Yazid bin haroon (rah) said, 'I did not see a more knowledgeable person then Imam Abu Hanifah (rah)' " [Tadhkirat al-Huffadh, Vol. 1, 168-169]

While the page numbers are off by a couple of digits, knowing the habitual liars that Al-Islam.org and ShiaPen are, I wouldn't be surprised if they misrepresented this statement and wrongly attributed it to Imam Abu Hanifa (rah).

Furthermore, in the same book, Tadhkirat al-Huffadh, we read the following suspicious report:

As narrated by Ibn `Uqdah Al-Hafizh through Ja`far bin Muhammad bin Husayn bin Hazim through Ibrahim bin Muhammad ar-Rummany Abu Najeeh through Hassan bin Ziyad who heard Abu Hanifa, when asked who is the most expert [afqaha] Islamic scholar you have seen replied that he has never seen any scholar more knowledgeable than Ja`far bin Muhammad.
[He continued]: When al-Mansour [the sultan] felt confused he sent to me (Abu Hanifa) and said that the people have been tempted by Ja`far ibn Muhammad, so please prepare for him some difficult questions, so I prepared for him forty cases and approached Abu Ja`far al-Mansour while Ja`far is sitting on his right hand side.  When I looked at them I felt more majesty coming from Ja`far than from Abu Ja`far.  I greeted them and they gave me permission to sit.  Then Ja`far turned to me and said: “O Abu `AbdAllah (Ja`far bin Muhammad) do you know this man?”  He said, “Yes it is Abu Hanifa.  He has come to us.”  Then he said: “O Abu Hanifa show us your cases so that we may ask Abu AbdAllah.”  So I started asking him and he would say: “You say that and the people of Madina say something else and we say a third thing,” and that is how he has approached all forty cases then he (Abu Hanifa) said: “didn’t we mention before that the most knowledgeable of the people is the one who knows the differences in the views of the people.”

The problem with the report is that ibn 'Uqadah was Shia which automatically makes this particular report suspicious if he is the only one that reports it.  As al-Dhahabi said in Tadhkirat al-Huffazh: "He (ibn 'Uqadah) mixed haqq with batil, and narrated worthless reports together with pearls.  He was disliked for his tashayyu.  Otherwise he would have been a great imam."  At the same time he said he was not extreme in his Shi`ism; hence he and others quote him as an authority in his field of expertise, which is hadith.  The majority rule is in such cases that they discard whatever promotes the narrator’s bid`a and keep what does not promote it.  Source: https://eshaykh.com/hadith/takhrij/confirm-this-citation-abu-hanifa/

Run Iceman run!  Scum!

[Mythbuster1]

"RUBBISH is what you posted of village idiot mullahs who have no bearing on real Islam or majority Muslims, you are using stupid examples from Indian villages from uneducated mullahs this shows your stupidity as well as your ingenuity"

See how you degrade and demonise others. I gave you a FATWA of Mullahs. So who are you to decide who is educated and who isn't. It doesn't show my stupidity but your arrogance and ignorance.

"Compare them village idiots with no bearing on Islamic rule to Shiites and their divisions I will give you 1 you disingenuous person and you can never slither out of it.......ZAIDIS they don’t believe in one of your made up usuls DIVINITY IMAMATE that is a major problem for Shiites it’s what you keep banging your head about against saqifa, deobandi s and barelvis dont have and never have an issue on this scale"

So the village idiots have no bearing on Islamic rule, so what does this make you? The top supreme cleric of the Ahle Sunah does it? So you're MR RIGHT and KNOW IT ALL? Can you hear yourself? Do you know how you sound?

Be it Zaidis or who ever, have they given you the authority to speak for themselves and their behalf. Speak about yourself and who you are and that's all you're entitled to. Nothing more. You can't discuss or debate and when cornered you gents start letting off tantrums. Come on, it's time for you to finally grow up.

Yes who do believe in divine authority after Muhammad (s). Which has been proven time and time again. The only problem is that it can't be refuted. Saqifa? Well that was a coincidental incident which brought nothing but violence and bloodshed between Muslims.

You idiot just like them idiots they have personal issues between themselves......I gave you MY example here in the UK you IDIOT!! Ask any deobandi or barelwi here infact in Pakistan too.....you are clutching on straws.

Zaidis don’t believe in divinity Imamate yet 12’rs do?!?!?
That is a major difference a BIGLY difference it’s a sect CHANGING difference but you like to just pull on strings cos you have embarrassed yourself that much mr ameen.

The top supreme cleric?? Hahahaha trust me you are an embarrassment to any shia wow this is the lowest you will go a top supreme cleric?? Honestly you’ve ran into idiocy of the highest level.......name the cleric and what standing he has in the Islamic world...... AGAIN you are using village idiot mullahs just to prove that you know summert lol, EMBARRASSING!!!

What A LYING DECIEVING lil man you are I guess it’s the lil man syndrome your talking nonsense cos you are so small and have a minuscule impact on Islam that you have to raise lil issues and make them big lol

Poor lil ameen has to use village idiot mullahs as his proof

Lol

[muslim720]

Poor lil ameen has to use village idiot mullahs as his proof

If he can use (or be duped into using) Al-Sawa'iq Al-Muhriqah to ascertain Shia beliefs and Shiaism then he can go to the lowest depths possible to come up with something foolish to say just so he could say that he had a "response".