Zahid Al-Kawthari’s lie about Imam Abu Ash-Shaykh

Shaykh Shams Al-Afghani said in his “Maturidiyah” vol 2 p 258 :

“Al-Imam Abu ‘Ubayd Al-Qasim ibn Salam (d224) said, and he is from the Kibar of Ahnaf according to the Kawthariyah (see “Fiqh Ahlil ‘Iraq” p 64), about the Ahadith of attributes like seeing (Allah), (His) laugh, and putting (His) foot on the hell and others… :

“These Ahadith are authentic, the people of Hadith have carried them from each other, and they are for us the truth about which we do not doubt, but if we are asked: how does He put His foot? How does He laugh? We answer: We do not make Tafsir of it and we did not hear anyone making a Tafsir of it (meaning we do not explain with another meaning other than the literal meaning and we do not resort to Tawil (extrapolation) to a metaphorical meaning).” “

Shaykh Shams mentioned that this has been narrated by Ad-Daraqutni in Kitab “As-Sifat” p 68-69 with an authentic Isnad, also by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab “Asma wa Sifat” p 355 with an Isnad including the Imam Abu Ash-Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad Al-Asbahani (d 369).

Then Shaykh Shams said: “Al-Kawthari could not find any defect in the narrators of this Isnad except that he criticized this Imam (Abu Ash-Shaykh) Al-Asbahani, and he said:

“He is Mutakalam fihi (spoken about, criticized)” and “Hafiz Abu Ahmad Al-‘Asal from his country weakened him, and he is leaning towards Tajsim (anthropomorphism)”

See “Tanib” of Al-Kawthari p 102, “Tabdid Az-Zulam” p 180, and his notes on “Asma wa Sifat” p 242, 355, 428.

And he said: “The Tawthiq (declaring a narrator to be trustworthy) of people similar to Abu Ash-Shaykh, Abu Nu’aym, Al-Bayhaqi and Al-Khatib are not accepted because of their strong Ta’assub (partisanship) and as someone who lacks something cannot give it, and they are among those people that base on the narrations of liars knowing them to be liars, see “At-Tarhib” p 303, 334.”

I say: As for his saying: “He is Mutakalam fihi” despite being a lie in itself, is not a Jarh, how many Imams of Islam have been spoken about and among their head is Imam Abu Hanifah, and how many individuals in “Al-Mizan”, “Al- Lisan” have been spoken about (Mutakalam fihim) and Az-Zahabi has a book entitled: “Zikr Asma man Tukulima fihi wa he Muwathaq” (Mention of the names of those that have been spoken about and they are trustworthy)

As for his saying that Al-‘Asal weakened him, then it is a clear lie, and I have personally made efforts to search and look into details, and I could not find it, and some great scholars before me tired themselves in trying to find this like the Zahabi of our times ‘Allamah Al-Mu’allimi, the Muhadith Al-Albani, Shaykh Sulayman As-Sani’, Shaykh Muhammad Nasif, they could not find the weakening of Al-‘Asal of him.

And Al-Kawthari hided the reference (of his quote), rather Shaykh Sulayman As-Sanee’ met Al-Kawthari many times and asked him for the reference of this saying and he could not obtain any answer. And all of these scholars agree that Al-Kawthari invents lies and deceives, see “Tankil” p 22-24, and the introduction of Al-Albani p 7, and “Tankil” vol 1 p 308-309, and the introduction of the verification of Shaykh Radhaullah Al-Mubarakpuri on the book “Al-‘Azamah” of Abu Ash-Shaykh p 94-97, and this is from one angle.

As for the other angle, certainly the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil and people of this field and of great knowledge have agreed on declaring Abu Ash-Shaykh as trustworthy, and that he is among Thiqat (trustworthy narrators) reliable and great Hufaz of great precision, sources of veracity, Musnid and pious, see “Al-Ansab” vol 4/285, “Al-Lubab” vol 1 p 404, “As-Sayr” vol 16 p 278-279, “Al-‘Ibr” vol 2 p 132, “Tazkiratul Hufaz” vol 3 p 945-946, see the introduction of Radhaullah Al-Mubarakpuri of the book “Al-Azamah” of Abu Ash-Shaykh 78-79, 94-97.

From the third angle: Abu Shaykh is definitively not mentioned in the books of weak narrators, neither in those spoken about while they are trustworthy, we cannot find his mention in “Al-Mizan”, neither in “Al-Lisan” and neither in “Zikr Asma man Tukulima fihi wa he Muwathaq” (Mention of the names of those that have been spoken about and they are trustworthy) despite that people like Abu Shihab Az-Zuhri, Hamad ibn Salamah, ‘Ali ibn Ja’d and others are mentioned in it (meaning they have been criticised wrongfully).

And all of this, and similar to this, shows the lies of Al-Kawthari, his treachery and his falling off from religious integrity and trust. How can it be true for the adventitious al- Binnori Ad-Deobandi Al-Kawthari to praise Al-Kawthari with lies and false testimony?

(he said in his introduction of Al-Maqalat that Al-Kawthari is precautious, he is careful in quoting and precise…do you find in him any slip (in quoting)?…and they could not find any gap in him whether about narrating or understanding …You will not find any hardness to his sword, nor any defect to his generosity…”)

As for his saying: “he is leaning towards Tajsim (anthropomorphism)” then these are the thoughts of the Jahmiyah, their reality, and their leader is al-Kawthari. Except this Abu Ash-Shaykh is Salafi in creed and among the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah. Az-Zahabi said: “A person of the Sunnah and imitation (Itiba’) if only he would not have filled his books with very weak narrations” see “As-Sayr” vol 1- p 279, see the details on the introduction of “Al-‘Azamah” of Shaykh Radhaullah Al-Mubarakpuri. And this is not surprising from Al-Kawthari as he, according to his filthy inherited habit, accused many Imams of Islam of idolatry, disbelief, polytheism, so what about Tajsim (anthropomorphism)? And this has preceded in vol 1 p 344-359.

As for his saying: “The tawthiq (declaring a narrator to be trustworthy) of people similar to Abu Ash-Shaykh…is not accepted” then it is not accepted, because the Imams of Islam have indeed accepted his sayings in Jarh wa Ta’dil, and these sayings are spread in the middle of books of Jarh and Ta’dil, rather Abu Ash-Shaykh is from greatest of Imams of Jarh wa Ta’dil, this is why Az-Zahabi mentioned him in “Zikr man Yu’tamadu Qawluhu fi Jarh wa Ta’dil” (Mention of those whose saying are relied upon in Jarh wa Ta’dil) p 195 and likewise As-Sakhawi in “Al-Mutakalimun fi Rijal” (the speakers on narrators) p 104 and these two are in “Arba’u Rasail fi ‘Ulum Al-Hadith” (four essays on the knowledge of Hadith) and they are all with the verification of Abu Ghuddah Al-Kawthari, and he remained silent on (these sayings of Az-Zahabi and As-Sakhawi), and As-Sakhawi also mentioned him among Imams of Jarh wa Ta’dil in “I’lan bi Tawbikh” p 346, see also “’Ilm At-Tarikh indal Muslimin” of the orientalist Frantz Rosenthal and its translation into Arabic by Dr Salih Ahmad ‘Ali p 714, and this contains a lesson for Al-Kawthariyah, Al-Deobandiyah and Al-Ghuddiyah.

And if the Jahmiyah and their leaders do not accept the Tawthiq of the Imams of Islam like Abu Ash-Shaykh, Abu Nu’aym and Al-Khatib, while the Imams of Jarh wa Ta’dil from Ahlus Sunnah rely on their sayings, what harm can they bring to the Ahlus Sunnah?….

And what is shocking from Al-Kawthari here is that he mentions a criticism of Al-’Asal on Abu Ash-Shaykh, with the forgery of Al-Kawthari, but Al-Kawthari in another place criticises the religion of Hafiz Al-‘Asal and his creed and counts him among the Mujassimah and Mushabihah (anthropomorphist), see Al-Kawthari’s introduction of “Asma wa Sifat” of Al-Bayhqaqi. It is said to the likes of Al-Kawthari: “if they hear the truth they hide it, and if they hear evil they spread it and if they do not hear it, they lie”

This is why you will see that Al-Kawthari criticises Abu Ash-Shaykh but in other places he relies on his saying and bases himself on it because of his soul’s desire. See the “Tanib” of Al-Kawthari p 86-87, and this is a disgraceful contradiction and clear Idhtirab.

As for his saying “their strong Ta’assub (partisanship)” then Al-Kawthari has a greater share in it, and deserves more this until he was called Majnun Abi Hanifah (the crazy about Abu Hanifah) as it has preceded on vol 1 p 400-401…

As for Abu Ash-Shaykh none (of the scholars) said he was Muta’asib, so what about him having strong Ta’assub.

As for his claim that they base on the narration of liars with their knowledge that they are liars, then this is a matter accepted for the Imams of Muslims without Hujjah, and this is Al-Kawthari, and despite this Al-Kawthariyah describe him with integrity in religion and trust and reliability on quoting, see what has preceded vol 1 p 374, Glory to Allah (SubhanAllah) how lies have been cheap! Rather Al-Kawthari is the one who bases himself on liars with his knowledge that it is a lie, see what will come vol 3 p608.”

End of Shaykh Shams Al-Afghani’s words

Shaykh Al-Mu’alimi mentioned in his Tankil vol 1 p 309 that he wrote to some people of knowledge about the issue of the reference of Al-Kawthari about Hafiz Al-‘Asal weakening Abu Ash-Shaykh, and he did not obtain any answer except that one of them met Kawthari.

And Shaykh Al-Albani said that Shaykh Al-Mu’alimi did not mention the result of this meeting with Al-Kawthari, so Shaykh Al-Albani wrote to Shaykh Muhammad Nasif about this and Shaykh Nasif wrote to Shaykh Sulayman As-Sani’, member of the Majlis Shura at Makkah Mukarammah and former director of the Maktabah Al-Haram Al-Makki.

And Shaykh As-Sani’ wrote in answer as indicated by Shaykh Al-Albani in his notes on “Tali’ah” of Shaykh Al-Mu’alimi:

“My answer about this is that I met Al-Kawthari many times in his house in Egypt at this time and asked him about this, and I could not obtain any result from him, and if he was truthful in what he attributed to Abu Ahmad Al-‘Asal, he would have made it clear at the time of my answer to him, and what is apparent for me is that the person (Al-Kawthari) invents lies and misleads, and as Shaykh ‘AbdurRahman made it clear in “At-Tali’ah” and in “At-Tankil”…” end of Shaykh Albani’s words.

Also it sheds full lights on the reliability of Abu Ghuddah and Yusuf Al-Binnori.

What reliability is to praise and recommend such a liar?

And it is difficult that the so many lies of Al-Kawthari were hidden to them, as book “At-Tankil” was very popular among people of science.

Al-Ghumari’s critcism of Al-Kawthari

Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Siddiq Al-Ghumari although he was a student of Al-Kawthari, he could not stand the attacks of Al-Kawthari on the Salaf and his treacheries, so he wrote the book “Bayan Talbis Al-Mouftari Muhammad Zahid Al-Kawthari, Aw Radul Kawthari ‘ala Al-Kawthari”.

And he showed in it that Zahid Al-Kawthari attacked the other Imams like Ahmad, Ash-Shafi’i and Malik, and here are quotes:

About Imam Malik, Al-Kawthari said p 116 of “At-Tanib” : “The great elders of the Malikiyah have three opinions towards such sayings of Malik” and after mentioning them he said : “And it is clear from that that these sayings, if they are proven to be attributed to him (Malik), then the one who says that is a criminal (Mujrim) and how is the criminal made taqleed in his crimes?”

Al-Kawthari made fun of Imam Shafi’i on p 23 (Tr: Ihqaq ul Haqq p 40) and after for Ash-Shafi’i having two sayings in many issues, then he mentioned a lie that a student traveled to take knowledge from Ash-Shafi’i and when he came back, and a man asked him: “Is there a doubt about Allah?” and the student answered: “There are about this two sayings of Shafi’i.”

Al-Kawthari said about Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal p 141 on his “At-Tanib” : “And there are not few among Jurists who did not agree to put sayings of Ahmad among sayings of Jurists as he is a Muhadith Ghayr Faqih for them”

Yet Al-Ghumari could not stand these revilments of great Imams, but Ahnaf like Abu Ghuddah, the Deobandiyah see no problem in these crimes, rather recommend his book, and help is sough from Allah.

Al-Kawthari’s unjust attacks on Muhadith because they criticised Imam Abu Hanifah or narrated criticism of Imam Abu Hanifah

The information below is taken from “Tankil” of Al-Mu’allimi.

Al-Mu’allimi in his “At-Tankil” v 1 p 373 quoted from “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13 p 386 from the way of Ibrahim ibn Sa’id Al-Johari then from the way of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali (ibn Bahr Abu Hafs Al-Falas) both of them saying: I heard Mu’az ibn Mu’az saying: I heard Sufyan Ath-Thawri saying: “Abu Hanifah was requested to repent (Istitabah) twice from Kufr (else being killed).”

Al-Kawthari tried to weaken this authentic narration saying that ‘Amr ibn ‘Ali ibn Bahr Abu Hafs Al-Falas “had strong Ta’assub and strong opposition to the people of Kufah”

Al-Mu’allimi replied: “I do not know him to be Muta’assib, and if this was known then this would not be a defect (in accepting) his narration with what is established from his being Thiqqah and Amanah, and this story (of Abu Hanifah) is famous rather Mutawatir and true.”

Shaykh Albani wrote in notes about Hafiz Al-Falas: “He is from Thiqah and Thabat Hufaz, Az-Zahabi put him in his “Tazkirah” and described him by his saying: “…Al-Hafiz Al-Imam Ath-Thabat one of the great personalities…” and Al-Hafiz said in “At-Taqrib”: “Thiqah Hafiz”.

So this is the state of Al-Kawthari, instead of accepting the truth, that his Imam is a human that can make mistakes, he started attacking great Imams and Hufaz accusing them of being Muta’asib, being Mujassim…

Al-Kawthari attacked Imam Al-Bukhari and after quoting from Imam Bukhari’s Tarikh about Abu Hanifah “Sakatu ‘anhu” (and the word Sakatu ‘Anhu is among strongest jarh, meaning they (Ahlul Hadith) abandoned him) and Imam Bukhari said the same for Abu Hanifah’s Ray, meaning they abandoned it.

Al-Kawthari attacked the Emir Al-Muminin in Hadith: “The one who turns away from him (Abu Hanifah) is either a Khariji praising similar to ‘Imran ibn Hatan and Hurayz ibn ‘Uthman or Mu’tazili believing in the state between two states”

Al-Mu’allimi answered this that Ahlul Hadith agreed that these two people are among most truthful people in narrating. Al-Bukhari in his “Tarikh” mention that Hurayz abandoned his belief of Khawarij, and Al-Bukhari did not do Ihtijaj with ‘Imran, he only came in Mutaba’ah in one Hadith only (meaning for strengthening and not for justifying a point).

Yet Al-Kawthari inferred that Imam Bukhari was a Khariji praising other Khariji…Al-Mu’allimi quoted from the Hafiz Al-Khafaf that whoever said anything against Imam Al-Bukhari then there are thousands and thousands of curses from me on him.

And Al-Kawthari said that the reason of abandoning Abu Hanifah is not mentioned by Al-Bukhari, so one cannot accept this Jarh, while many Hufaz have mentioned clearly reasons, bad memory, mixing and committing to many errors

And what is funny is that Al-Kawthari weakened Muhammad ibn Isma’il Abu Isma’il At-Tirmidhi (not the author of the Sunnan) because of the saying of ibn Abi Hatim: “They spoke against him” and Al-Mu’allimi said that ibn Abi Hatim did not mention who where these people and what was the reason for speaking against him, while An-Nassai, Maslamah, Ad-Daraqutni and others declared him to be Thiqah. Shaykh Albani said that Az-Zahabi said in “Tazkirah”: Hafiz Kabir Thiqah, Khatib said he is Mutqin…And Hafiz ibn Hajar said in “At-Taqrib”: Thiqah Hafiz and the words of ibn Abi Hatim are not detailed.”

And Abu Isma’il At-Tirmidhi is among narrators in “Tarikh Baghdad” narrating from Sufyan and Al-Awza’i that there has not been born in Islam more harmful than Abu Hanifah and he is also narrator of the narration of Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak saying that whoever look at the book of Hyal (tricks) of Abu Hanifah will make Halal what Allah made Haram.

So to defend his Imam, Al-Kawthari had no shame in attacking great Hufaz. For Abu Hanifah saying “they abandoned him” is not detailed and for Abu Isma’il At-Tirmidhi “they spoke against him” is enough to reject his narration against Abu Hanifah.

One can see the only aim of Al-Kawthari is to defend his Imam, whether it leads to attack Al-Bukhari and others, and play with the religion.

The same for Ahmad ibn Al-Hassan ibn Jundub Abul Hasan At-Tirmidhi (other than the author of the Sunnan) who is a companion of Imam Ahmad, and he quoted a narration from Ahmad against Abu Hanifah and Al-Kawthari rejected it saying that “his Ta’assub for ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad was not little…”

So Al-Kawthari did not find anything in these Hufaz, so he invented from himself that they were Muta’assib, and even a Muta’assib would not invent a lie from his teacher.

Same for Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Hajjaj Abu Bakr Al-Marwazi who narrated in “Tarikh Baghdad” from Imam Ahmad that he said: “Abu Hanifah is worse for Muslims than ‘Amr ibn Ubayd because he had companions”

And Al-Kawthari could not find any defect so he attacked Al-Marwazi saying Al-Marwazi’s creed is that the Prophet (saw) will sit next to Allah in Maqam Al-Mahmud and he accused Al-Marwazi of being a Mujassim.

Al-Kawthari criticized ibn Al-Madini for him under compulsion saying words of ibn Abi Duwad during Fitnah of Khalq Al-Quran. And this is also because this great Hafiz declared Abu Hanifah to commit many mistakes.

Al-Kawthari attacked Ad-Daraqutni saying he had a bad creed, he accused Abu Ash-Shaykh of leaning towards Tajsim (anthropomorphism), the same for Nu’aym ibn Hammad and Sa’id ibn ‘Uthman Ad-Darimi, Ibn Khuzaymah and many others. He accused Hafiz Al-‘Uqayli of being “Al-Muta’assib Al-Khasir (the loser)”

Al-Kawthari criticized the creed of ibn Abi Hatim, accused ibn Battah Al-Akbari of being among Hashawiyah. He quoted the insult of the misguided Asbagh ibn Khalil insulting the great book of Hadith of “Al-Musannaf”.

About Da’laj ibn Ahmad As-Sijzi who has been declared to be Thiqah by Al-Khatib, Ad-Daraqutni, Az-Zahabi inscribed him in his “Tazkirah” and Al-Kawthari accused him of having creed of Tashbih and being a Muta’assib.

Abul Qasim Al-Baghawi is agreed upon to be thiqah and Kawthari accused him of lying because this agreed upon Imam narrated a narration saying Abu Hanifah was saying that the Qur’an is created.

Al-Kawthari attacked the great Imam Al-Humaydi of being Muta’assib and Mudhtarib.

The same for Zakariya ibn Yahya As-Saji, while he is not Muta’asib.

He attacked Hafiz ibn ‘Adi of being far from Fiqh and Arabic language and having a long tongue on Abu Hanifah and his students.

He attacked the student of ibn ‘Adi, ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Sayar Al-Farhiani also called “Farhazani”. There is a narration with him in Tarikh Baghdad that Imams were cursing Abu Fulan on the Minbar of Damascus and Al-Harhyani said it is Abu Hanifah (meaning the cursed one).

Al-Kawthari could not find a defect so he attacked the creed of Al-Farhyani and called him to be a “Khabith (filthy)” while Az-Zahabi said about him in “Tazkirah”: Al-Hafiz Al-Imam Ath-Thiqah”

He accused Muhammad ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Ibrahim Abu Bakr Ash-Shafi’i of being Muta’assib, and that he narrated from liars and Majhul to attack Abu Hanifah, while Mu’allimi answered to this that there is only one narrator that some told to be liars, other Thiqah and two Majhul, all others narrations in “Tarikh” of Khatib from him are from famous Thiqah, and this Imam is not known with Ta’assub.

Al-Kawthari rejected a narration of the Hafiz Abdul Mumin Khalf Abu Ya’la At-Tamimi An-Nasafi criticizing Hassan ibn Zyad Al-Lului Al-Hanafi saying “he is not trusted in it because he was a Zahiri having a long tongue against the people of Qiyas”

And Al-Mu’alimi refuted this saying that is someone is thiqah then his narration is accepted, and opposition of Madhab does not lead to reject one’s narration, and this is against rules.

Al-Kawthari is someone playing with the religion of Allah, in the same book “Tanib” he declared Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah to be a liar, and in the same book he criticised the Hafiz Muhammad ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Sulayman Al-Hadhrami saying that Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah spoke against him.

While Al-Mu’alimi has proven that Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah is not a liar, and he is Thiqah.

Shaykh Rais Nadwi in his vol 5 of “Lamhat” said that Imam Al-Bukhari v 1 p 240, narrated from AburRahman ibn Shaybah who is thiqah and narrator of Al-Bukhari from Muhammad ibn Maslamah, the companion of Malik declaring Imam Abu Hanifah to be a Dajjal among Dajjals.

Now Zahid Al-Kawthari tried to say Muhammad ibn Maslamah is Majhul while he has been declared thiqah by many like Abu Hatim Ar-Razi and others…one can see “Intiqa” of ibn Abdil Barr for details.

Al-Kawthari altering the words of scholars of Jarh wa Ta’dil

In his “Tali’ah At-Tankil”, Al-Mu’alimi mentioned some examples of Zahid Al-Kawthari’s alterations of words of Imams of Jarh and ta’dil, and I will quote some

About Ahmad ibn Kamil, Kawthari said p 43: “Ad-Daraqutni said about him: “sometimes he narrates what he does not have” as mentioned by Al-Khatib”

While the saying of Ad-Daraqutni in “Tarikh Baghdad” is “sometimes he narrates what he does not have in his book”

And this addition removes any kind of blame, because not having a Hadith in his book does not prevent having it in his memory.

About Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Hakeemi, Al-Kawthari said p 114: “Al-Barqani said: there are Manakir in his Hadith”

While the words of Al-Barqani as in “Tarikh Baghdad” and “Lisan” are: “Thiqah except that he narrates Manakir” and the difference is clear because what Al-Kawthari quoted showed to be a Jarh and that the author was responsible of these Manakir, so he altered the saying to deceive people. While saying someone is Thiqah but narrates Manakir does not mean he is responsible of these Manakir but he was lax in quoting them.

So the lies, treacheries and misguidance of Al-Kawthari are clear, this man is a Jahmi accusing Salaf of Tajsim, he is a Muta’asib Hanafi accusing Imams of Hadith of being Muta’asib in their weakening and criticizing Abu Hanifah.

And despite all these lies and attacks of Al-Kawthari on the Salaf, one will see that Deobandiyah and Abu Ghuddah praise him and recommend his works accusing Salaf of Tajsim…so they have a share in his crimes…

Al-Kawthari on the fabricated Hadith about Abu Hanifah being the lamp of this community

‘Allamah ‘AbdurRahman ibn Yahya Al-Mu’alimi wrote in his Tankil v 1 p 446 :

“Muhammad ibn Sa’id Al-Boriqi, in “Tarikh Baghdad” v 13/335 from his way: “Sulayman ibn Jabir ibn Sulayman ibn Yasir ibn Jabir narrated to us: Bishr ibn Yahya narrated to us, he said: Fadl ibn Musa As-Sinani informed us from Muhammad ibn ‘Amr from Abi Salamah from Abu Hurayrah from the Messenger of Allah (saw):

“Verily there will be a person in my Ummah, is name will be An-Nu’man and his Kuniyah will be Abu Hanifah and he is the lamp of my community, he is the lamp of my community”

Al-Khatib said: “This is a fabricated Hadith, Al-Boriqi is alone is narrating it, and we have detailed his condition in what has preceded” meaning his mention that is in “Tarikh” v 5 p 308-309 and there is there from Hamwah As-Shuhaymi: “Muhammad ibn Sa’id Al-Boriqi is a liar…” and from Hakim: “This al-Boriqi had indeed fabricated so many Manakir from trustworthy narrators that we cannot count and he propagated his narrations…: There will be a man in my community that will be called Abu Hanifah and he is the lamp of my community” and this is how he narrated it in land of Khurasan and then he narrated it in ‘Iraq with his Isnad and he added: “And there will be a man in my community called Muhammad ibn Idris and his Fitnah will be more harmful than that of Iblis” and Al-Khatib mentioned other from his Manakir.

The Ustaz (Al-Kawthari) said p 30 (of his “Tanib Al-Khatib”): “Al-Badr Al-‘Ayni gathered its ways in his “Tarikh Al-Kabir” and it is difficult to judge it to be fabricated with the presence of these so many ways and he said: “And this Hadith as you can see has been narrated from many ways and with close Matn and many narrators from the Prophet (saw) and this shows that it has a basis, even if some Muhadith rather their majority reject this and some declare it to be fabricated, and sometimes this is due to the effect of Ta’assub, and the narrators of this Hadith are in majority scholars, and they are from the best of all communities, and it is not suitable to their condition to invent a lie on the Prophet (saw) on purpose”

And Al-Kawthari added the words: “A scholar who struggled during all his life and he dies in prison and then his knowledge propagates in countries of all corners in the east and west, and half of the Muhamadiyah community follow him in his Fiqh rather the third in successive centuries, despite facing dispute from jurists, Muhadiths and authors showing animosity towards him, his greatness grew so it is not far that the Prophet (saw) would inform of him…”

I say: …I followed the narrations of this Hadith in “Manaqib Abi Hanifah” and others and I saw that it is based on a group:

The first is Al-Boriqi, and you have known his condition, and he narrated from a Majhul from a similar one from As-Sinani with this Sanad…

Secondly: Abu ‘Ali Ahmad ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Khalid Al-Juwaybari Al-Harawi and he is famous for fabricating and his matter is known and he has four ways:

First from As-Sinani with this Isnad
Second from Ibn Yahya Al-Mu’alim from Humayd from Anas
Third from ibn Yahya from Aban from Anas
Fourth from Abdullah ibn Ma’dan from Anas

And the narrator from him (Al-Juwaybari) in some of these narrations is Mamun ibn Ahmad As-Sulami and he is similar to him in being famous for clearly lying.

Thirdly: Abul Ma’ali ibn Muhajir…he is Majhul. And it has been narrated from Muhammad ibn Yazid Al-Mustamli and he is accused (of lying) from a Majhul from his similar from Abul Ma’ali from Aban from Anas.

And An-Nadhari narrated with three Isnads all containing Majhul narrators up to Abul Ma’ali from Aban from Anas.

Fourth: Abu ‘Ali Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad Ar-Razi, and he is accused (of lying) and sayings related to him have preceded in the mention of Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Salt n° 34, and An-Nadhari narrated from his way with a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul up to ‘Abdullah ibn Mughafal from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, his saying.

Fifth: An-Nadhari, ibn Sam’ani said about him: “Al-Khiuwi with the name Abul Qasim Yunus ibn Tahir ibn Muhammad ibn Yunus ibn Khiuw An-Nadhari Al-Khiuwi from the people of Balkh, named as Shaykh Al-Islam” and he did not mention any Tawthiq nor Jarh, Allah knows best about him.

And some of the precedent narrations are from him, and he added with a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Aban from Anas;

And a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Abu Hudbah from Anas

And a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Musa At-Tawil from Thabit from Anas

And a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Hammad from a man from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Umar

And a Sanad whose narrators are all Majhul from Abu Qatadah Al-Harani from Ja’far ibn Muhammad from Juwaybir from Ad-Dahak from ibn ‘Abbas

And this is all I came to know, and the first four narrators, you came to know (their conditions), as for the fifth and he is An-Nadhari and Allah knows best about him, and anyway there are between people non Arab Majhul Muta’asib people, and there is no novelty that they get close to Allah (‘Azza wa Jalla) with many narrations containing all Majhul, and Aban, Abu Hudbah and Musa At-Tawil are all destroyed (in Jarh wa Ta’dil) and despite this I see them innocent from this Hadith, else it would have become famous in their times.

What is the matter that there is no mention of this before its fabrication by Al-Juwaybari in the third century?

And Abu Qatadah Al-Harani became Fasid at the end and despite this I consider him free of this and Hammad who narrates from him from a man from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Umar, I do not known who he is, and it is possible that he is Hammad ibn Abi Hanifah, because it has been said that he narrated from Malik from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Umar, and some Majhul heard this and invented a Sanad up to him with this Sanad, and An-Nadhari had shame to say from Malik from Nafi’ from ibn ‘Umar, as it would have been the worst of mistakes, so he named a person instead of Malik!

And this is the status of Dajjal people, one of them invents many Isnad for one Hadith in order to deceive ignorant people, and one of them invents it and another steals it and invents an Isnad from himself, and this is the status of ignorant Muta’assib to get close (to Allah) with fabrication and stealing and invention of Isnads.

Abul ‘Abbas Al-Qurtubi said: “Some jurists (Fuqaha) of Ahlur-Ray have given themselves permission to attribute the ruling that is shown by Qiyas to the Messenger of Allah (saw)…that is why you will see their books full of Ahadith whose Matn witness that they are fabricated because of their resemblance to the Fatawa of Fuqaha…and because they do not give any Isnad for it.”

And ibn As-Salah hinted at this: “And likewise the people of Fiqh who gave themselves permission to attribute what the Qiyas shows to the Prophet (saw).”

Reflect on what we explained and what Al-‘Ayni said. And then compare the many ways with authentic Isnads about the story of Abu Hanifah requested twice to repent from Kufr else he would be killed, and the majority of these ways have successive men famous between being a Thiqah Muhadith and a Thiqah Hafiz or famous Imam.

Look at what Al-‘Ayni and Al-Kawthari said (about this authentic story of Abu Hanifah requested to repentance twice) as if the Imams of Hadith and its men, Fuqahah of other Madhab can invent any kind of lie for Al-‘Ayni and Al-Kawthari, even if they are famous with being Imam, Thiqah, Sidq, Taqwa contrary to their companions of Ahlur-Ray as if there was not among them and their donkeys and dogs but Sidq.

And despite this he accuses people who oppose him of Ta’assub and following their desire until the Ustaz (Al-Kawthari) repeats his saying: “May Allah protect us from the followers of desire, we ask Allah the protection, we ask Allah safety” and he is more deserving this (description)…” End of Al-Mu’allmi’s words

Al-Kawthari’s attack on Al-Fazari

Al-Fazari is among narrators in “Tarikh Baghdad” of words of Al-Awza’i and Sufyan Ath-Thawri in which they attacked Abu Hanifah with very strong words.

Al-Kawthari said Al-Fazari was an enemy of Imam Abu Hanifah because his brother died in fighting rulers because of the Fatwa of Abu Hanifah, and ibn Sa’d and ibn Qutaybah and ibn Nadeem weakened him saying he committed many mistakes.

First the animosity if established does not cause the rejection of narration because a thiqah narrator does not lie.

Al-Mu’alimi said that ibn Qutaybah and ibn Nadeem are not people specialists of narrators, ibn Qutaybah is scholar of language, literature, as for ibn Nadeem he is a Rafidi knowing names of books and he took his words from ibn Sa’d.

And ibn Sa’d is Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Mani’ the writer of Al-Waqidi, and he is not such a specialist in narrators to accept his criticism of agreed upon Thiqah, and he was in most of his sayings following his weak and unreliable teacher Al-Waqidi.

Hafiz ibn Hajar said in introduction of “Fath Al-Bari” about ‘AbudrRahman ibn Shurayh: “Ibn Sa’d did Shuzuz (opposed more reliable people) in saying Munkar Al-Hadith, and none looks at Ibn Sa’d in this because he relies mainly on Al-Waqidi and he is unreliable”

About Muharib ibn Dathar, Ibn Hajar said: “Ibn Sa’d said: “they do not do Ihtijaj with him” rather they all did Ihtijaj with him…but Ibn Sa’d does Taqlid of Al-Waqidi”

And same for other narrators

What is funny is that when ibn Madini said Abu Hanifah narrated 50 Hadith and erred in them, Al-Kawthari objected to that saying he did not give examples of mistakes so we would need to answer him, and this is a Jarh ghayr Mufassar (not explained).

When Abu Dawud said Abu Hanifah erred in half of Hadith he narrated, and Al-Kawthari said that it is not worth being answered as he did not mention in which Hadith he erred and what kind of mistake it is.

Yet for Al-Fazari, Al-Kawthari takes from ibn Sa’d and ibn Qutaybah whose sayings are not taken into account when opposing Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil, and they did not quote any example of mistakes.

Ibn Ma’in said about him: Thiaqh Thiaqh

Abu Hatim said: Thiqah Mamun Al-Imam

An-Nasa’i said: Thiqah Mamun one of the Imams

Al-Bukhari and Muslim both did Ihtijaj with him in their Sahih

Ibn Al-Mubarak said: I did not see a man more Faqih than Abu Ishaq Al-Fazari

Abdullah ibn Dawud Al-Khuraybi said: The saying of Abu Ishaq is more beloved to me than the saying of Ibrahim An-Nakh’i.

And likewise Ibn ‘Uyaynah, Ash-Shafi’i and others praised him.

So declaring such a Thiaqh Imam to be weak because of the Shaz saying of ibn Sa’d, then it is the Ta’assub of Al-Kawthari, specially when ibn Sa’d also declared Abu Hanifah to be weak in Hadith, and yet Al-Kawthari does not accept this.

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

Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan