Imam Na’eem ibn Hammad is an Imam of the Sunnah

He is known for his refutation of the Jahmiyah, and he died when in prison about the case of Khalq Al-Quran beatened by Mutazili Abbasi rulers with scholars like ibn Abi Duwad Hanafi Mutazili undertaking this.

Hafiz ibn Kathir discussing Allah’s Istiwa (ascension) on the throne said in Surah A’raf Ayat 54 as translated by Darussalam:

“Indeed, we assert and affirm what the Imams said, such as Na’eem ibn Hammad Al-Khuza’i, the teacher of Imam Al-Bukhari: “Whoever likens Allah with His creation will has committed Kufr. Whoever denies what Allah has described Hiself with, will have committed Kufr. Certainly, there is no resemblance (of Allah with the creation) in what Allah and His Messenger (saw) have described Him with. Whoever attests to Allah’s attributes that the plain Ayat and the authentic Hadith have mentioned, in the manner that suits Allah’s majesty, all the while rejecting shortcomings from Him, will have taken the path of guidance”

Yet Habibullah Daerwi attacked this great Imam with injustice and Ta’asub, talbis and lies.

When Hafiz Qasim from GujranWala wrote a risalah “Hidayah ‘Awam ki ‘Adalat mein” showing the many baseless narrations of the Hanafi book of fiqh “Al-Hidayah”, this angered the ghali Muta’asib Deobandi Habibullah Daerwi, student of Sarfraz Safdar Khan. He wrote a risalah in answer “Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” but instead of defending Hidayah, he went over scholarly difference and started showing mistakes of other scholars, and he attributed many mistakes to Imam Al-Bukhari in his “Sahih”, to which Shaykh Irshadul Haqq Al-Athari answered in his risalah “Imam Bukhari par ba’dh I’tiradhat ka Jaizah”.

Here are Irshadul Haqq Athari’s answer to the attacks of Daerwi on Na’eem ibn Hammad. The translation of Shaykh Irshadul Haqq has been adapted and slightly sumarised. The terms Daerwi Sahib or Janab Daerwi have only been translated by Daerwi, also the words Hadhrat have been omited, as these terms are specific to urdu and english readers are not used to them.

“The 17th objection to Imam Bukhari from Habibullah Daerwi is:

“Imam Bukhari based himself (Ihtijaj) in two places of his Sahih Bukhari on Na’eem ibn Hammad Al-Marwazi (Bukhari v 1 p 56-543) while this narrator is very weak until that he used to fabricate false Ahadith” (“Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 103-104)

To relax the zeal of his heart, he went on to say: “He was a big liar, cunning and plotter”

Who is Na’eem ibn Hammad and how is he and what did Daerwi did and said about him?

The details of this are first ‘Allamah Abdul Qadir Qurshi, a famous Hanafi scholar in his well-known book “Jawahir Al-Madhiyah fi Tabaqat Al-Hanafiyah” mentioned him and said he was a student of Abu Hanifah and he presented him as being Hanafi, and he did not mention any words of Jarh on him, rather mentioned him as “Al-Imam Al-Kabir” (the great Imam), so he mentioned him with this great title and also mentioned the Tawthiq of Imam Ahmad. (Al-Jawahir Al-Madhiyah v 2 p 402)

And likewise Shaykhul Hadith Maulana Zakariyah Kandhalwi (Marhum) also wrote in a place of the introduction of “Lami’ Ad-Durari”: “The hanafi scholars among the teachers of Al-Bukhari and the teachers of his teachers are many as it is not hidden for those who are experts in books of Rijal”

Then when he mentioned Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak, Imam Yahya Al-Qattan, Imam Abu ‘Asim An –Nabil and others, he also mentioned Na’eem ibn Hammad among the Hanafi teachers of al-Bukhari, and he gave the reference of “Al-Jawahir Al-Madhiyah”, see his introduction p 64.

So Na’eem ibn Hammad is Hanafi according to these great scholars, rather is thiqah and “Al-Imam Al-Kabir”…if they (Daerwi and his pro-Kawthari colleagues) do not agree with them, they should also reject what ‘Allamah Qurshi did by saying that a group of Muhadith were Hanafi because of them being students of Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Muhammad, and Qadhi Abu Yussuf, and they should not make them (Muhadith) Hanafi and put laymen in error (so to show importance of Hanafi madhab).

Na’eem ibn Hammad and the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil

Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal, Yahya ibn Ma’in, Al-‘Ijli declared Na’eem ibn Hammad to be thiqah. Imam Abu Hatim said: “His position is that of Sidq”, and ibn Hibban also declared him to be thiqah and said that he erred sometimes and had wahm. Imam Ad-Daraqutni said: “An Imam in Sunnah and having a lot of wahm (Kathir al-Wahm)”. Maslamah ibn Qasim said: “He is Saduq but commits many mistakes”. But Imam Nasa’i declared him to be weak. Imam Abu Dawud said that he had twenty baseless Ahadith. There is also a saying from ibn Ma’in saying “He is nothing”. Abul Fath Al-Azadi said that Na’eem ibn Hammad would invent false Ahadith to support the Sunnah and Ad-Dulabi also said that some people say that Na’eem used to fabricate false Ahadith to strengthen the Sunnah and used to narrate some stories to diminish the status of Imam Abu Hanifah and they would all be lies. (Tahzib v 10 p 459-461, Mizan v 4 p 269, Al Kamil of ibn ‘Adi v 7 p 2486 and the introduction of Fath Al-Bari p 447 and others)

Imam ibn ‘Adi mentioned approximately nine Ahadith of Na’eem ibn Hammad and criticised them, and then said: “And the majority of what was objected to him is what I have mentioned, and I hope that the rest of his Hadith are Mustaqim (right).”

Accordibg to Hafiz ibn Hajar, the most authentic of saying is that he is “Saduq and makes a lot of mistakes” (Taqrib 359), and after mentioning all the sayings, he said: “The ‘Adalat and Sadaqat of Na’eem ibn Hammad is established, but errors (Awham) are famous in his Ahadith. Imam Daraqutni said that he is an Imam of the Sunnah and Kathir Al-Wahm and Abu Ahmad Hakim said: He opposes sometimes on some Ahadith, and it has preceded that Ibn ‘Adi gathered the Ahadith in which he had wahm. And this the correct saying about him.” (Tahzib v 10 p 463)

Daerwi tried to declare Na’eem ibn Hammad as a liar relying on the quotes of Imam ad-Dulabi and al-Azadi, but it is regretful that he gave the reference of Tahzib and saw the Jarh but he did not see the answer to this that is present in Tahzib, so he took this lightly and digested it (as he could not answer): “Ibn ‘Adi accused him (Ad-Dulabi) of being a liar, and this is far from Ad-Dulabi that he should be accused of lying, and this is only from the teacher from whom he quoted this, as he (the teacher of Dulabi) is unknown and accused of lying, and likewise the one from which Al-Azadi quoted saying “they said”, there is no Hujjah in this because of lack of knowledge of the one who said that” (Tahzib v 10 p 463)

And in the same manner, he wrote in the introduction of Fath Al-Bari: “And ibn ‘Adi answered to this (Jarh on Na’eem ibn Hammad) by saying that Ad-Dulabi is Muta’asib against him (Na’eem) because he (Na’eem) was harsh on the Ahlur-Ray, and this is correct”

So this Jarh is not accepted as Ad-Dulabi is a Muta’asib Hanafi, and such jarh of Muta’asib people is not accepted. Without doubt, Hafiz ibn Hajar defended Ad-Dulabi, but what should be paid attention to is that Ad-Dulabi mentioned the jarh saying: “And other than him (Ghayruhu)”, and who is this “other than him”? And if this jarh was established from a reliable Muhadith, then Ad-Dulabi would not hesitate to mention his name. So there is something that needs to remain under curtains. And if this person was not reliable, justice was not to mention it, or he should have been named, so the blame would not be on him. So because of this partisanship and unjust attitude, ibn ‘Adi accused him of being a liar.

Hafiz Az-Zahabi said: “He (Ad-Dulabi) was the first to accuse Na’eem of being a liar” (Tazkirah v 2 p 321) And Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned that he was a ghali Muta’asib Hanafi in “Lisan Al-Mizan” v 5 p 41-42, and he mentioned that ibn Yunus said that Ad-Dulabi is weak and Imam Ad-Daraqutni said that Muhadith spoke against him when later they became aware of his reality (Takalamu fihi lama Tabayana min Amrihi Al-Akhir). So the conclusion is that Ad-Dulabi is himself weak and Mutakalam fihi (criticised), secondly this only comes from his Ta’asub, thirdly this (jarh) is quoted from an unknown, so it is not worth looking at it.

And likewise, what Al-Azadi mentioned is also with words “they said”, so the person who said this is unknown as said by Hafiz ibn Hajar. Secondly Abul Fath Al-Azadi Muhammad ibnal Husayn Al-Mawsuli is himself weak. ‘Abdul Qadir Al-Armawi said that the people of Mawsul, meaning his compatriots declared him to be weak, they did not take him into account. Khatib Al-Baghdadi said his Hadith has Manakir. Hafiz Az-Zahabi said he declared in his book “Ad-Du’afa” a group of people of being weak without prove while Muhadith declare them to be thiqah. Imam Barqani also declared him to be weak. (Lisan v 5 p 136, Tarikh Baghdad v 5 p 139, Sayr v 16 p 348, Mizan v 3 p 46 also v 1 p 4)

Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote about Ahmad ibn Shu’ayb in answer to the jarh of Al-Azadi that his saying is not taken into account as he (Al-Azadi) is himself weak. (Muqadimmah Fath Al-Bari p 386) And likewise about Khaytahm ibn ‘Arak, he declared Al-Azadi to be weak (Muqadimmah p 400)

To comfort Daerwi we add that Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmani (Marhum) clarified in “Anha As-Sakan” (named by some people as “Qawaid fi Ulum al-Hadith”) that if the criticiser is himself criticised (Jarih is majruh) then his jarh has no value as “Al-Azadi because he had harshness upon his tongue” (Qawaid p 177). Then he (Zafar Uthmani) mentioned that Hafiz ibn Hajar declared him (Al-Azadi) to be weak, so when he is weak, how can his jarh be reliable?

Sahih Bukhari and Na’eem ibn Hammad

Hafiz ibn Hajar said that Imam Bukhari took Na’eem ibn Hammad’s narrations maqrunan (meaning attached to others meaning as Mutaba’ah, to follow), his words are : “Al-Bukhari narrated from him maqrunan” (Tahzib v 10 p 458). And this has also been said by ‘Allamah Al-Munziri in At-Targhib wa tarhib v 4 p 579, ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi in “Sayr ‘Alam An-Nubala vol 10 p 596, “Al-Kashif” v 3 p 307 and “Diwan Ad-Du’afah” p 319 and ‘Allamah Al-Khazraji in “Khulasah” p 246.

But Daerwi thinks that Imam Bukhari in his Sahih Bukhari (v 1 p 56-543) did Ihtijaj in two places (with Na’eem ibn Hammad) and what Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote in “Tahzib” has been rejected by himself in the introduction to “Fath Al-Bari”. So he (Darewi) wrote: “The meeting between Imam Bukhari and Na’eem ibn Hammad is proven, but Imam Bukhari did ihtijaj with him in two places and others of his narrations are Mu’allaq (without isnad). ‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kasmiri said in “Faydh Al-Bari” v 4 p 74 that some scholars said that Na’eem ibn Hammad is only a narrator in mu’allaq form, but this isnad refutes them, as it is musnad here. Moreover Imam Hakim clearly said in his in “Mustadrak” kitab Al-Jana’iz that Imam Bukhari did ihtijaj with Na’eem ibn Hammad. So the trick (Hilah) of those scholars who counted Na’eem among narrators of Ta’liqat did not work. We have made jarh of him in another place. Then ibn Jawzi counted this narration of Bukhari among fabricated narrations.” (“Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 104-105)

For the sake of being concise, we have not mentioned the quotes from Muqaddimah “Fath Al-Bari” or “Faydh Al-Bari”, but we remained sufficient of the translation of Daerwi. We will refute his misunderstandings in the same order (he presented them).

In the so quoted pages of Sahih Bukhari, the first hadith is in Kitab As-Salah, chapter “The virtue of facing the Qiblah” (Fadl Istiqbal Al-Qiblah), in which Imam Bukhari mentioned the hadith of Anas with three isnad:

The first Sanad: ‘Amr ibn ‘Abbas said, ibn Al-Mahdi narrated to us, Mansur narrated to us from Maymun ibn Syah from Anas

The second sanad: Na’eem narrated to us, he said ibn Al-Muabarak narrated to us from Humayd At-Tawil from Anas

The third sanad: Ibn Abi Maryam said: Yahya informed us: Humayd narrated to us: Anas narrated to us and ‘Ali ibn Abdillah said: Khalid ibn Al-Harith narrated to us, he said: Humayd said: Maymun ibn Syah asked Anas ibn Malik

Now justice is required, the narration of Na’eem ibn Hammad that Imam Bukhari narrated in second position, is it by way of Ihtijaj or way of Mutaba’ah (following others)?

Ibn Hajar said the same in “Tahzib”: “Al-Bukhari narrated from him Maqrunan” which has been translated by Daerwi himself: “Maqrunan meaning Mutaba’atan, meaning he did not do Ihtijaj with him.” (“Hidayah Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 104)

So it is clear that the first hadith of the chapter is for Ihtijaj and the second for Mutaba’ah, and the third supports the second in form of Mutaba’ah, but it is regretful that Daerwi with his little understanding declared the second narration to be for Ihtijaj.

As for the second narration (of Na’eem), then it is in Kitab Al-Manaqib, chapter “Al-Qisamah fil Jahiliyah”, in which Imam Bukhari mentioned six narrations and the fifth is: Na’eem ibn Hammad narrated to us: Hushaym ibn Hasin from ‘Amr ibn Maymun, and it is not marfu’ but the saying of ‘Amr ibn Maymun Al-Adawi Al-Makhdarami mentioning a story at time of Jahiliyah. Without any doubt Imam Bukhari mentioned it in a Mawsul way, but it is not to prove a shari’ masalah nor for Ihtijaj.

Imam Bukhari mentioned in this chapter and the precedent “Chapter: the days of Jahiliyah” different narrations and events that are related to the time of Jahiliyah. Before this narration of Na’eem, Imam Sahib (Bukhari) narrated a quote from ibn Abbas that the Sa’i between Safa and Marwah is not a Sunnah but since the time of Jahiliyah. The words are: “The Sa’i in the middle of the valley between Safa and marwah is a not a Sunnah, the people of Jahiliyah would do it.” And the aim of Imam Bukhari is not to prove that Sa’i between Safa and Marwah is Sunnah or not, but the aim is to show that Sa’i existed at the time of Jahiliyah, this is since the time of Hajirah, aleyha Salam. The ruling of Sa’i has preceded in Kitab Al-Hajj, chapter: the obligation of (Sa’i) between Safa and Marwah.

And this is the meaning of this fifth narration (that of Na’eem), it is related to the time of Jahiliyah, and the aim is not for Ihtijaj for a shar’i masalah. If Daerwi considered this as Ihtijaj, then it is purely the invention of his chest. As for the authenticity of the report, then it is authentic without doubt.

Whatever Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote in Muqaddimah “Fath Al-Bari” is absolutely not different from what he said in “Tahzib”. His words are: “He did not narrate from him in the “Sahih” except in one or two places” (Muqaddimah p 447) So it is mentioned here about taking narrations in a Mawsul form not for Ihtijaj, as it is the Wahm (error) of Daerwi. The narration (of Na’eem) that is under “Bab Al-Qisamah fil Jahiliyah”, Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote about it: “And very rarely Imam Bukhari narrates from him in a Mawsul way, rather his habit is to mention from him in Ta’liq way.” (“Fath Al-Bari v 7 p 160) (What he wrote) in Muqaddimah “Fath Al-Bari” about one or two places (of Na’eem’s narrations), it is for Mawsul narrations, not for Ihtijaj or Istidlal, and in what he wrote in “Tahzib” and what many experts of this field wrote, there is absolutely no contradiction in the words of Hafiz ibn Hajar, this is only the wrong conclusion of Daerwi and the result of his little understanding.

And likewise the refutation of ‘Allamah Kashmiri (Marhum) of those scholars who thought that Imam Bukhari only mentioned narrations of Na’eem in Ta’liq form, this saying is absolutely not opposing our claim (that Bukhari did not narrate from Na’eem for Ihtijaj).

Now remains the saying of Imam Hakim that Imam Bukhari did Ihtijaj with Na’eem ibn Hammad, then it is without doubt an error of Imam Hakim. Despite the efforts (of Daerwi), the two narrations he claimed that Imam Bukhari reported them fir Ihtijaj, you came to know their reality. The empty claim of Imam Hakim cannot prove anything. And there are many such errors in “Al-Mustadrak”. We have, thanks to Allah, many such narrations in our mind, but avoiding them, we will suffice by the words of Daerwi himself: “Imam Hakim commits many mistakes. He has made many errors in “Mustadrak”. Sometimes he declares some weak and fabricated narrations to be on the conditions of the two Shaykh (Bukhari and Muslim). This is why ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi made these mistakes apparent in “Talkhis Al-Mustadrak”. Sometimes ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi gets tried in mentioning his mistakes and becomes angry and addresses to Imam Hakim: “Do you not fear Allah, O author, to mention such false things?”. Mina is a narrator who is Rafidhi and liar according to the Muhadith, and Imam Hakim claims that Mina reached the Prophet (saw) and he also heard from the Prophet (saw). Imam Zahabi said that no human said this except Hakim, while he (Mina) is a Tabi’i and his ‘Adalat is dropped (Saqit), and Imam Abu Hatim said he is a kazzab, he lies, and ibn Ma’in said he is not thiqah, O author, don’t you have any shame to bring such lies with such isnad in your Mustadrak ‘ala Shaykhayn.” (Talkhis v 3 p 160) And Hafiz ibn Hajar wrote in “Taqrib” that Mina is Matruk Al-Hadith (abandoned in Hadith), and he is accused of rafd, and Abu Hatim declared him to be a liar, and Hakim committed such a mistake that he declared him to be a Sahabi.” (“Nur As-Sibah” p 62-64)

O readers! Make justice! When Imam Hakim commits such mistakes in narrators and Hadith, how can we rely on his saying opposing all other Muhadith that Imam Bukhari did Ihtijaj with Na’eem?

The dishonesty of Daerwi

‘Allamah Kashmiri considered Na’eem ibn Hammad as a narrator of Sahih Bukhari and never did he declare him to be weak, a liar or fabricator and others. But it is regretful that Daerwi dared to quote from him to prove that Na’eem is weak and that his narration (in sahih Bukhari) is fabricated. So he quoted from “Faydh Al-Bari”: “Qad takallamna fi Na’eem ibn Hammad haza thumma Inna ibn Al-Jawzi adkhala hazal hadith fil Mawdu’at” (“Faydh Al-Bari” v 4 p 74, “Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 105): (which was translated by Daerwi as) we have have made jarh on Na’eem in another place then ibn Jawzi mentioned this narration of Bukhari among fabricated narrations.”

While ‘Allamah Kashmiri wrote about Na’eem ibn Hammad: “This isnad is also strong (Qawwi) and it contains Na’eem ibn Hammad and he is from men of Bukhari, and the most just that has been said on him is that he is Saduq makes many mistakes, and ibn ‘Adi gathered his mistakes and said that the rest of his Hadith are Mustaqim (straight)-Taqrib” (“Nayl Al-Firqadayn” p 60)

And this has also been said by his student and son in law Ahmad Radha Shah Bajnori quoting from ‘Allamah Kashmiri: “He said (meaning Kashmiri) that Na’eem ibn Hammad is a narrator of Bukhari, so it is not so simple to make him dropped…Shah Sahib in his risalah “Nayl Al-Firqadayn” also mentioned a narration of Tahawi about leaving Raful yadayn containing Na’eem ibn Hammad and he said that the narration is strong and he Na’eem in this narration is a narrator of Bukhari, and the lost Mu’tadil view on him is that he is Saduq.” (“Anwar ul Bari” v 7 p 45 as quoted in “Lamhat” v 1 p 24-25)

From these two quotes, this matter is clearly proven that according to ‘Allamah Kashmiri Na’eem ibn Hammad is “Saduq yahimu Kathiran”. So Daerwi translating the precedent portion of Faydh Al-Bari as “we have have made jarh on Na’eem in another place” is totally false and is contrary to the desire and opinion of Kashmiri. If “Takalamna” (literally: we have spoken on Na’eem) means we have made jarh, so we will request Daerwi to wake up and have the courage to show this from the works of ‘Allamah Kashmiri (which are appreciatively more than twelve) that he did jarh on Na’eem. Else admit that this translation of the quote is contrary to the intended meaning of ‘Allamah Kashmiri and is in any way false.

And this is not all! Look at the limit of injustice, it has also been tried to give the impression from the quote of Kashmiri that ibn Jawzi declared this narration of Sahih Bukhari as fabricated (and Kashmiri approved that). Inna Lillahi wa Inna ilayhi raji’un.

While the reality is that ‘Allamah Kashmiri defended Na’eem ibn Hammad and this narration of Sahih Bukhari. Neither did he perform jarh of Na’eem nor did he declare the narration to be fabricated. Look at the summary of his words, whose translation has been quoted before by Daerwi: “Some said that is only a narrator of Bukhari in ta’liqat, not in Masanid, but this narration refutes them, rather Imam Hakim claimed that Imam Bukhari did Ihtijaj with Na’eem and we have spoken on him in another place and ibn Jawzi gathered this hadith with Mawdu’at”

And look at the words that Daerwi neglected: “And likewise for two hadith of Sahih Muslim. And the authors of the “Tabaqat” have clearly said that ibn al-Jawzi rides on quick riding camels and he makes too many mistakes, and I saw another problem (Musibah) and it is that he rejects authentic Ahadith that oppose his intelligence and that he dislikes as the hadith of the chapter…and As-Suyuti clarified in Al-Alali Al-Masnu’ah that ibn Al-Jawzi is extreme in judging (a hadith) to be fabricated to the point that his harshness became famous as the easiness (tasahul) of Al-Hakim in authenticating became famous. Hence they did not take into account the jarh of ibn Al-Jawzi and the tashih of Al-Hakim except what is proven according to themselves.” (Faydh Al-Bari v 4 p 74)

Tell us if in this quote, ‘Allamah Kashmiri declared Na’eem to be weak or declared his narration to be fabricated or whether he defended Na’eem and the narration he reported? If Na’eem was weak and his narration fabricated (according to Kashmiri) what was the aim of declaring him a narrator of Sahih Bukhari, telling that his narration is authentic and telling ibn Al-Jawzi to be Mutashaddid. And the ‘Aqli objection to this narration (of Na’eem), Allamah Kashmiri also answered to it and Maulana Badr Alam also defended against this objection in notes. And if Daerwi had criticised this narration from the ma’nawi point of view, then we would have answered and we would have translated ‘Allammah Kashmiri’s words. But when the objection was only on Na’eem ibn Hammad, we sufficed quoting about him.

So one can see how by tricks Daerwi tried to alter the view of ‘Allamah Kashmiri, and tried to weaken Na’eem quoting from him and what level of dishonesty he displayed.

And this is not all, rather in another place in “Faydh Al-Bari”, he answered to a jarh of Abu Na’eem on Na’eem ibn Hammad, and also named the topic: “The answer on what is objected to Na’eem ibn Hammad”, he wrote in answer to the jarh on Na’eem: “It has been said he is a narrator of the Ta’liqat of Al-Bukhari, and I searched for this and found marfu’ narrations as well in two places, and the tanbih on this has preceded. And this Na’eem ibn Hammad used to give false testimony in the Sunnah and in the defects of Abu Hanifah as in his “Tazkirah” and despite this Al-Bukhari narrated a lot from him in “Khalq Af’al Al-‘Ibad” so it is obligatory upon us to make a tawil for Al-Bukhari, and we say that the meaning of “Tazwir” for the Sunnah means to support the Sunnah and likewise for the case of Abu Hanifah, he would rejoice with it (narrating) not that he would lie himself, and except (this Tawil) the zahir (words) is very harsh.” (“Faydh Al-Bari v 4 p 145)

So one can see how ‘Allamah Kashmiri did takaluf in defending Na’eem. Can one say that after this, ‘Allamah Kashmiri did jarh on Na’eem? If Daerwi does not agree with the Tawil of Kashmiri, then at least he should not put him in t he rank of those who weaken Na’eem.

A jarh on the Hadith of Na’eem ibn Hammad

Daerwi wrote on Na’eem ibn Hammad: “Na’eem invented a Hadith that the Prophet (saw) said: “My community will be divided into seventy and some sects, and the greatest fitnah for my community among these sects will be a group that will make qiyas with their Ray in matters, they will make the haram halal and the halal haram…” This is the narration that ghayr Muqallid sing with zeal to condemn Hanafi fiqh.” (“Hidayah ‘Ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 106-109)

There is no doubt that Imam ibn ‘Adi in his “Kamil” counted this Hadith among Munakarat of Na’eem, and it has also been said that the four Mutabi’ (narrators of same level that support Na’eem) also took this narration from Na’eem. ‘Allamah Zahabi quoted this from Imam ibn ‘Adi about the mention of Ahmad ibn ‘AbdirRahman ibn Wahb, and Suwayd ibn Sa’id (Mizan v 1 p 113, v 3 p 249). But in the mention of Na’eem, he (Zahabi) himself wrote about these four Mutaaba’at: “I say: these four, it is not permissible according to their habit to agree on falsehood, so if there is a mistake, it comes from ‘Isa ibn Yunus.”

So Imam Az-Zahabi does not agree with the view of Imam ibn ‘Adi (that mistake comes from Na’eem). Then Daerwi himself made it clear that Imam ibn Ma’in said on this Hadith: “It has not basis”, and despite this he said: “Na’eem is thiqah, and he mixed this Hadith, and he had doubt in this Hadith.” (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 107) Muhadith Duhaym and Abu Zur’ah also told that the mistake came from Na’eem, but they do not say that he is a liar or fabricator. Imam ibn ‘Adi judges this Hadith to be Munkar, but he did not say on its basis that Na’eem is a liar and else, rather except for some narrations, he tells his other narrations are Mustaqim (straight, right).

The conclusion is that even if this narration is declared to be Munkar, this does not lead to Na’eem being a liar or being dropped, a thiqah and Saduq narrator narrating some munkar narrations does not make him dropped from being Thiqah, and the detail of this can be seen in “Raf’ wa Takmil” (of Luknawi) p 143, p 150, but when some human become stubborn and leave rules, then the cure is difficult.

To consolate Daerwi, we will moreover inform him that Ghayr Muqallid are not the only one to sing this narration with zeal, rather a cutter Muqallid and your teacher Maulana Sarfraz Sahib Safdar narrated it with great reliance and furthermore quoted Al-Hakim Zahabi declaring it authentic. So he wrote in refutation of the Bralwiyah: “People who perform Qiyas in the presence of Shar’i Dalail are the greatest criminals in the sight of Allah (Ta’ala), especially when they are not capable of Ijtihad and tafaquh in true meaning. ‘Awf ibn Malik narrated that the Prophet (saw) said that my community will divide in seventy and some sects and the one that will do greatest iftiraq will be people who judge matters with Ray, they make halal haram and haram halal, Mustadrak v 4 p 430, and Al-Hakim and Az-Zahabi said it is upon their conditions (meaning Al-Bukhari and Muslim)…and this the state of the innovators of our times, they run to prove everything with their little intelligence. They perform tawil of Qat’i Nusus and authentic Ahadith, they become themselves misguided and misguide others.” (“Rah Sunnat” p 134)

So look the respected teacher of Daerwi based himself on this Hadith, and he quoted Imam Hakim and ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi saying that it is authentic on the conditions of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim, and he makes clear with it in a convincing way the misguidance of innovators, So Daerwi should also blame his respected teacher, why are Ahlul Hadith only deserving this punishment?

And this is very strange saying that the leader (Aqa) of the ghayr Muqalidin Na’eem ibn Hammad also to strengthen the Sunnah and to blame Ray would invent false narrations (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 109) while ‘Allamah Qurshi Hanafi and Maulana Kandhalwi also declared Na’eem ibn Hammad to be Hanafi. Tell us, is Na’eem ibn Hammad the leader of Hanafi Muqalidin or the leader of Ghayr Muqalidin? For Ahlul hadith every scholar is respectable, we only accept the Prophet (saw) to be Ma’sum, and we do not like Jamid Muqalid when we find a narration or saying against our aim try to escape from it without reason. And the hatred and ‘Inad shown on Sahabah like Abu Hurayarh, Mu’awiyah, Wail, Wabisah ibn Ma’bad until scholars like ibn Hajar, we are aware of it, and the same is shown on Na’eem ibn Hammad without reason, at the end he is a human, he made some mistakes, but it is not that he is a liar as it is tried to present him.

The Kalam of ibn Ma’in and Imam Ahmad

The quotes have preceded that Imam Ahmad and Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in declared Na’eem ibn Hammad to be Thiqah, rather Imam Yahya said that he is thiqah and Saduq, and “I know him more than anybody else, he used to be my companion in Basrah” (“Tahzib” v 10 p 459 and others) but Darewi wrote: “Imam Yahya had good opinion of Na’eem and this is why he declared him to be thiqah, then it (good opinion) disappeared, Salih Al-Asadi said he heard Yahya ibn Ma’in saying that Na’eem is nothing in Hadith” (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 108, “Tahzib” v 10 p 461)

Furthermore he wrote: “Although Imam Ahmad declared him to be thiqah but later he blamed him, it is said in “Tahzib” v 1 p 459 that Na’eem narrates from ghayr thiqah narrators.” (same p 111)

But the weakness is absolutely not proven with these two things. First of all the words of Imam Yahya: “Laysa fil hadith bi Shayin” is not clear is mentioning weakness. Maulana Zafar Ahmad ‘Uthmani (Marhum) wrote that “Laysa bi Shayin” is generally used to mean that the narrator narrates few Hadith and sometimes Imam Yahya with these words would point to the weakness of one particular Hadith. (“Qawaid” p 417) and sometimes it also means a jarh.

But when there is from one Imam Jarh and Ta’dil and it is not possible to know which is the last of his saying, so in this case the preference would be to the Ta’dil and the jarh would be considered for a specific cause, as said in “Ar-Raf’ wat Takmil” p 172, 173 and “Qawaid” p 329-330. So that’s why when Daerwi tells this is the last saying of Imam ibn Ma’in, this is without prove, and saying it is opposing the tawthiq of Na’eem is a sign of ignorance of rules. What is to be pointed at is that Imam ibn Ma’in defends Na’eem despite the Qil and Qal of others, so from where can it be proved that this saying is his last?

And likewise telling that the words attributed to Imam Ahmad: “he narrates from ghayr thiqah” means a blame is a pure invention of Daerwi. If narrating from ghayr Thiqah is a blame then did not Imam Abu Hanifah took narrations from Aban ibn Abi ‘Ayash, Jabir Ju’fi, Jarah ibn Manhal, Muhammad ibn Saib Al-Kalbi, ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubayd, Nasr ibn Thurayf and others liars, abandoned and weak narrators? Did Imam Ahmad himself not take from ‘Amir ibn Salih, Muhammad ibn Qasim Asadi, ‘Amr ibn Harun Al-Balkhi, ‘Ali ibn ‘Asim Al-Wasiti, Nasr ibn Bab, Tulayd ibn Salman, Husayn ibn Hasan Al-Ashqar and other weak narrators? (“As-Sarim Al-Munki” p 19) Imam Sufyan Thawri took from more than eighty narrators that ibn Mahdi and others declared to be weak (“Mizan” v 1 p 381) also see “Tahzib” v 3 p 50, and there are very few Muhadith that are said to only narrate from thiqah, else all other Muhadith should be criticised (for Daerwi) as they narrated from weak narrators, and if not then why only Na’eem ibn Hammad is the only targeted?

The wrong understanding of Daerwi

And we have said all of this supposing Imam Ahmad said this, else the reality is that this (fake) “blame” does not come from Imam Ahmad but from Imam Ibn Ma’in. here are the words of “Tahzib” v 10 p 459: “I heard Ahmad and Yahya ibn Ma’in saying that Na’eem is famous for searching (Hadith) then he blamed him for narrating from ghayr thiqah”

And Daerwi made the referred by the article “he” Imam Ahmad which is totally false, and the referred is ibn Ma’in as he is the closest as it is the rule in grammar, and then Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned this from ibn ‘Adi, who himself said in “Kamil ibn ‘Adi” v 7 p 2482 clearly: “Then Yahya blamed him and said he narrates from ghayr Thiqat”, and this quote has also been quoted from ‘Allamah Zahabi in “Sayr” v 10 p 597 and here also there is “Yahya blamed him”, and Daerwi making Ahmad the author of this quote is Daerwi’s lack of information and not understanding the quote of “Tahzib”

Imam Abu Hanifah and Na’eem ibn Hammad

Daerwi wrote quoting from “Tarikh Baghdad” and others that Imam Abu Hanifah was a strong opponent of the Jahmiyah. Then he said that Jahmiyah to take revenge made a Jahmi become student of Nuh Al-Jami’ (student of Abu Hanifah) and Imam Abdullah ibn Mubarak (student of Imam A’zam) so he could make Taqiyah and stay with them then attack their reputation. This jahmi was Na’eem ibn Hammad. It is written in “Mizan Al-I’tidal” v 4 p 264 that Na’eem himself said: “I was a jahmi but when I searched for hadith, I came to know that the matter of Jahmiyah leads to Ta’til”. He himself acknowledged that he was a Jahmi, although his abandon (ruju’) is also established from the same quote, but this abandon (ruju’) is not proven, because the enemy of a sect loves the opponent of this sect, and does not display animosity. If Na’eem was an enemy of the Jahmiyah, then he would have loved Imam Sahib but he propagated hatred against Imam Sahib. ‘Abbas ibn Mus’ab said that Na’eem ibn Hammad gathered books against Muhammad ibn Al-Hassan and his shaykh Imam Abu Hanifah and against Jahmiyah” so we know from this that his aim was to attack the reputation of the enemy of Jahmiyah Imam A’zam and others.” (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 112-116)

We have summarised the words of Daerwi carefully and showed his charge sheet. Pay attention: all this operation, is this not purely in defence of Abu Hanifah? Na’eem ibn Hammad did not say anything about Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak, “student of Imam A’zam”, but he gathered books against Imam Abu Hanifah and Ahlur-Ray. If this is his crime, then ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak declared Nuh Al-Jami’to be a liar and fabricator, inventor of false narrations. There is no deserving to be quoted mention of any Muhadith making tawthiq of Nuh. Imam Hakim and Imam ibn Hibban went to the point of saying that Nuh Al-Jami’ gathered everything except Sidq, and we seek refuge from Allah from treachery. (“Tahzib” v 8 p 488) and likewise Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak in later time performed jarh on Imam Abu Hanifah and stopped mentioning his narrations, as mentioned with authentic sanad in “Al-Jarh wa Ta’dil” of Ibn Abi Hatim p 450 v 4 Q1, “Al-Majruhin” of ibn Hibban v 3 p 71, “Al-Intiqa” of ibn Abdil Barr p 151, “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 416 and others. So was Imam Ibn Al-Mubarak doing taqiyah as well to stay with Imam Sahib, and he would praise him and describe him with good attributes then later oppose him?

Was Na’eem a Jahmi?

The limit of injustice is that Na’eem clearly said he was a Jahmi then he repented from it, but Daerwi said his “this abandon (ruju’) is not proven”. So if his first saying is relied, what justice is to deny the second? ‘Allamah Az-Zahabi said: “He was harsh on the Jahmiyah” (“Mizan” v 4 p 268) “he wrote books against the Jahmiyah” (“Mizan” v 4 p 268) rather wrote thirteen books refuting them (“As-Sayr” v 10 p 599). His companion of travel rather student Imam Ibn Ma’in also said about Na’eem: “Sahib As-Sunnah” and Imam Ad-Daraqutni said: “Imam fi Sunnah” (“As-Sayr” v 10 p 608) (“Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 306 and others) But what a regret that to defend Imam Abu Hanifah, Na’eem is being declared to be Jahmi, a liar and fabricator without any shame and great disgust. Inna Lillahi wa inna ilahi Raji’un.

Moreover Na’eem ibn Hammad did not wrote books against Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Muhammad accusing them of being Jahmi, but he refuted them because of them using Qias and Ray to much to establish Masail, and Na’eem ibn Hammad is not alone in this action, other Muhadith also in this topic wrote books against Imam Abu Hanifah, so may Allah forgive, does it mean they were all Jahmi?

A story against Imam Abu Hanifah

Imam Bukhari narrated in his “At-Tarikh As-Saghir” p 171 a narration from Na’eem ibn Hammad that Abu Ishaq Al-Fazari informed him that he was with Sufyan Ath-Thawri when the news of the death of Abu Hanifah reached him, and he said: “All praise to Allah, it is a good matter that he died, he was breaking the chains of Islam one by one, there has not been anyone more ill-omened than him.”

And Daerwi made Na’eem ibn Hammad a criminal because of this. Daerwi wrote: “This is a lie. This shows that what jarh Muhadith Dulabi and Abul Fath Al-Azadi did was correct. Maulana Mir Muhammad Ibrahim Sialkoti proved him to be a liar in “Tarikh Ahle hadith” (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 116-117)

While it has preceded that Muhadith Al-Azadi is majruh himself and he is weak and Muhadith Dulabi is a victim of Ta’asub rather Imam ibn ‘Adi who quoted this from Dulabi, himself accused Dulabi of lying. And Maulan Sialkoti (Marhum) also did jarh on Na’eem basing on these sayings.

While in fact Na’eem is innocent and he is not alone in narrating such reports. Imam ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad mentioned this saying with little difference with another sanad: “Muhammad ibn Harun narrated to us, Abu Salih narrated to us, he said I heard Al-Fazari saying: “Al-Awza’i and Sufyan used to say that there has not been born in Islam anyone more ill-omened that Abu Hanifah.”

Abu Salih Mahbub ibn Musa Al-Fara narrated this from Al-Fazari. Hafiz ibn Hajar said that he (Abu Salih) is Saduq. (“Taqrib” p 329)

And the one narrating from Abu Salih is Muhammad ibn Harun Abu Nushayt, and he is also Saduq (“Taqrib” p 320).

So it is absolutely not correct to do jarh on Na’eem ibn Hammad basing on this story. And the words of Imam Sufyan Thawri being unsatisfied (with Abu Hanifah) at time of Imam Abu Hanifah’s death are narrated with many ways. (“Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 423) And the detail of it is not possible here, and humiliating and attacking Imam Abu Hanifah is not intended here (Na’uzubillah) but the aim is to show that Na’eem is not alone in reporting this story. So the Kalam of Dulabi Muta’asib hanafi and his different followers on Na’eem ibn Hammad is without any reason and totally false.

Another fraud of Daerwi

It has been quoted earlier that Hafiz ibn Hajar said about Na’eem “Saduq yukhti Kathiran” and said that this saying of ibn ‘Adi is the most just, so except for some few narrations (that are approximately nine) all the rest of his Ahadith are mustaqim, and this saying has also been said to be correct by ‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri, but how can Daerwi agree with them? He wrote: “Na’eem would commit many mistakes. Hafiz Sahib in “Talkhis Al-Habir” v 3 p 90 mentioned a Hadith and said: “The sanad contains Na’eem ibn Hammad, meaning he is a famous weak (narrator)” so telling his name is enough, so Na’eem in any case does not deserve that be taken for Ihtijaj in “Sahih Bukhari”” (“Hidayah ‘ulema ki ‘Adalat mein” p 118°

What a regret that the position of Hafiz ibn Hajar is clear in “Taqrib” “Tahzib” and “Muqaddimah Fath al-Bari” and that his non-vague view is neglected but the saying in “Talkhis Al-Habir” is with vague words is taken that “he is a famous weak (narrator)”

So to consulate him, we will present him what his respected teacher wrote, Maulana Muhammad Sarfraz Khan Sahib Safdar wrote: “It has been quoted from Hafiz ibn Hajar that he said : “I am not satisfied with any of my work because I wrote them in the beginning, and I could not find a companion to write it, that’s why there remained some mistakes (Saqam) in some places. Yes about “Fath Al-Bari”, its introduction, “Mushtabah”, “Tahzib” and “Lisan Al-Mizan” I am satisfied” and it is written in another place that he praised “Fath Al-Bari”, “Ta’liq”, “Nukhbah” (“Badr At-Tali’”), so this shows that Hafiz except some books was not satisfied with the others and did not rely on them.” (“Ahsanul Kalam” v 1 p 203)

We request Daerwi to read the words of his teacher and to tell us whether “Talkhis Al-Habir” is mentioned in these books? When your teacher except these works does not rely on the books of Hafiz ibn Hajar, so why the half and vague quote of “Talkhis Al-Habir” contrary to the clear view in “Muqaddimah Fath Al-Bari”, “Tahzib” can be reliable? So if the tricks and frauds of Daerwi work in his group, yet the people of knowledge and intelligence are not ready to accept them.

End of Shaykh Irshad ul Athari’s words. Shaykh Irshadul Haqq Al-Athari also answered some other lies of Daweri on Na’eem ibn Hammad, but yet the topic has been treated enough

May Allah send Salah wa Salam upon the Prophet (saw), his household, companions and their followers.

Translated and adapted by Ali Hassan Khan