Imaam Abu Haneefah according to

Imaam Daaraqutni

This article consists of the following topics:

Imaam Daaraqutnis intro: Scholars praise of him.

His Imaamate and Credibility in Al-Jarh wat-Tadeel

What he said about Imaam Abu Haneefah?

Weakness of the hadeeth, Whoever has an Imaam

The fairness of Imaam Daaraqutnis Jarh on Abu Haneefah

Reply to Muhammad Awwaamah concerning the Jarh of Imaam Daaraqutni

o The reason why Imaam Daaraqutni narrates so many weak and

fabricated narrations in his Sunan

Conclusion

Before discussing what Ameer ul-Mumineen fil Hadeeth Imaam Abu al-Hasan Ali

bin Umar bin Ahmad bin Mahdi ad-Daaraqutni (D. 305 - 385) rahimahullah has

said about Imaam Abu Haneefah, we should know the status of Imaam

Daaraqutni himself and what kind of expert of the field of hadeeth are we dealing

with.

Imaam Daaraqutni is one of the few later Muhadditheen and Aimmah who held

the highest position during their era as an expert of Hadeeth and Jarh wa Tadeel,

such that he came to be called by the titles like, Ameer ul-Mumineen fil

Hadeeth (The Leader of Believers in Hadeeth), Imaam al-Ilal, and Haafidh

ad-Dunyaa which are the titles given only to a very few special personalities of

history.

Some of the remarks of Scholars regarding him are as follows:

Scholars praise of him:

All the Muhadditheen are unanimously agreed upon his Imaamate, Thaqaahat,

and High Rank.

1- Qaadhi Shaykh ul-Islaam Abu at-Tayyib Taahir bin Abdullah at-Tabari

rahimahullah (D. 405) said: Ad-Daaraqutni is Ameer ul-Mumineen fil

Hadeeth (Leader of all believers in the field of Hadeeth)

[Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/36, Chain Saheeh]

He also said: Daaraqutni once recited to him the ahadeeth which he

collected on the issue of (wudoo being invalidated) upon the touching of

penis, so he said: If Ahmed bin Hanbal was present here today, he would

have benefited from these ahadeeth

[Siyar: 16/455; Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/18]

2- Haafidh Abdul Ghani bin Saeed (The author of Al-Kamaal fi Asmaa ur-Rijaal)

said: The best of people in doing Kalaam over the Hadeeth of Allaahs

Messenger are three: (1) Ali ibn al-Madeeni in his era, (2) Moosa bin Haaroon

in his era, (3) and Ali bin Umar ad-Daaraqutni in his era

[Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/36, Chain Saheeh]

3- Imaam Khateeb al-Baghdaadi said: He was the unique one of his era, the

only one personality, the Imaam of his time. The knowledge of narrations,

awareness of hidden defects of ahadeeth, the names of men and the

conditions of narrators ends upon him along with having the qualities of

truthfulness, honesty, reliability, unbiasedness, acceptability of testimony,

the correct Itiqaad (belief/Aqeedah), soundness of Madhab, and dominance

over the Uloom other than the Ilm ul-Hadeeth such as: Al-Qiraat, for verily

he (Daaraqutni) has a short and succinct book on this issue

[Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/34]

4- Imaam Al-Haakim said of him: "Ad-Daaraqutni became a unique personality

in his time in relation to memorization, understanding and piety. He was an

Imaam amongst the Reciters (Al-Qura'aa) and the Nahwiyyeen (Scholars of

Arabic Grammar)...And I asked him about the 'Illal (hidden defects in

hadeeth) and the Shuyookh (narrators of Hadeeth), and he has works in

which he lengthens his mentioning of these matters, and I bear witness that

there has not come on the earth after him anyone like him."

[Al-Haakim in his book Muzakki al-Akhbaar with reference from Siyar Alaam

al-Nabula: 16/450]

Abu Dharr Al-Haafidh said, I said to Al-Haakim: Have you seen the likes of

Daaraqutni? He replied: "He has not even seen the likes of himself, how can

I have seen the likes of him?"

[Siyar: 16/453; & Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/35]

5- And Rajaa Ibn Muhammad Al Muaddal said: I said to Daaraqutni: Have you

seen the likes of yourself? So he said: Allah The Most High said, Do not

present yourselves as being pure [Surah Najm: 52]. So I kept persisting with

him, and then he said: I have never seen anyone who has gathered that

which I have gathered (in relation to Hadeeth and its sciences).

[Taareekh Baghdaad: 12/35]

6- Imaam adh-Dhahabi said: He is al-Imaam al-Haafidh al-Mujawwid, Shaykh

ul-Islaam, the erudite Scholar Al-Muqri al-Muhaddith

[Siyar Alaam al-Nabula: 16/449]

He also said: He is from the oceans of knowledge and from the Aimmah of

the world; (Qualities of) Hifdh, Awareness of the hidden defects of hadeeth,

and its men ended upon him, along with his superiority in the field of Qiraat

and its routes, and strength of participation in Fiqh, Ikhtilaaf, Maghaazi,

Ayyaam un-Naas and others.

[Siyar Alaam al-Nabula: 16/450]

7- Haafidh Ibn al-Jazri said: He is the author of (several) books, and is one of

the learned Thiqaat

[Ghaayat un-Nihaayah: 1/558]

8- Haafidh Ibn Katheer said: He was a Major Haafidh; he was the expert in this

field (of hadeeth) before his period and after his period until this period of

ours. He heard a lot of narrations, compiled them, wrote them, and

composed them, and benefitted others with them; he had deep insight, he

found the hidden defects in them and researched them. He was the unique

one of his time, the only one personality, and the Imaam of his era in Asmaa

ur-Rijaal, in the field of Ilal, in Al-Jarh wat Tadeel, in better writing, in the

additions of narrations, and the complete enlightenment of narrations

[Al-Bidaayah wal Nihaayah: 11/317]

9- Ibn Khalkaan said: He is the famous Haafidh. He is a Scholar, a Haafidh, a

Faqeeh. He is unique with Imaamate in Hadeeth

[Same]

10- Haafidh Abdul Hayy bin al-Ammaad al-Hanbali said: He is al-Imaam al-

Haafidh al-Kabeer, Shaykh ul-Islaam, the awareness of Hadeeth and its

Uloom ends upon him, and he is called the Ameer ul-Mumineen in it.

[Shadhraat adh-Dhahab: 4/452]

11- Taaj ud-Deen as-Subki said: He is a famous name, the author of several

books, the Imaam of his time, the master of the people of his era, and the

Shaykh of Ahl ul-Hadeeth

[Tabaqaat ash-Shaafieeyyah: 3/462]

His Imaamate and credibility in Al-Jarh wat Tadeel:

Besides being an Imaam and an expert in Hadeeth, Qiraat, Ilal and many other

fields, Imaam ad-Daaraqutni was also one of the most reliable and just Imaams in

the field of Al-Jarh wat Tadeel. That is also why he wrote several books in Uloom

ul-Hadeeth and he evaluated narrators with Jarh (Criticism) and Tadeel (Praise) a

great deal. The Aimmah of Hadeeth from his era until now rely and take evidence

from his evaluation of narrators.

Imaam ad-Daaraqutnis opinion in this field was accepted by everyone. In fact,

Imaam adh-Dhahabi has written a book named Dhikr Man Yutamad Qauluhu fi

al-Jarh wa al-Tadeel (The mention of those whose evaluations are relied upon

in the field of al-Jarh wat-Tadeel). As is apparent from its name, in the

introduction of this book, Imaam Dhahabi has made clear that in this book he will

mention the names of those whose sayings are to be accepted in narrator-

criticism, and their opinions are to be followed [See, P. 3]

In this book, Imaam Dhahabi has mentioned the name of Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni

and said: Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Umar ad-Daaraqutni is the unique one of his

time, and the Marifah (awareness) of Al-Ilal ended upon him [P. 15].

Similarly in another place, under the biography of Muhammad bin al-Fadl Aarim

as-Sadoosi, after he mentioned the opinion of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni about him,

Imaam Dhahabi said: I say, this is the saying of Haafidh ul-Asr, the similitude of

whom did not come after Nasaaee

[Meezaan al-Itidaal: 4/8]

And Similarly the Aimmah of Hadeeth depended upon his opinion in Al-Jarh wa al-

Tadeel. And no one is known to have differed in the credibility and the

acceptance of his saying in this field overall.

Now that we know his credibility and status as an authority in Jarh wa Tadeel,

lets see what he has to say about Imaam An-Numaan bin Thaabit Abu Haneefah

al-Kaabuli.

What he said about Imaam Abu Haneefah?

In his sunan, Imaam Daaraqutni said,

, " ,

, , : , , ,

: .

, "Ali bin Abdullah bin Mubashshir narrated to us, Muhammad bin Harb al-

Waasiti narrated to us, Ishaaq al-Azraq narrated to us, from Abu Haneefah, from

Moosa bin Abi Aaishah from Abdullah bin Shaddaad, from Jaabir (radiallah

anhu) that the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: Whoever

has an Imaam then the recitation of the Imaam is considered his recitation.

This narration is not connected from Moosa bin Abi Aaishah except by Abu

Haneefah and al-Hasan bin Umaarah and they both are Daeef.

[Sunan ad-Daaraqutni (2/107 H. 1233) Pub. Ar-Risaalah, Beirut]

First of all, the hadeeth under which Imaam Daaraqutni has said this is actually

Daeef because as Imaam ad-Daaraqutni later says that Abu Haneefah is alone in

narrating it Muttasil while other Huffaadh like Sufyaan ath-Thawree, Shubah bin

al-Hajjaaj, Israaeel bin Yoonus, Shareek, Abu Khaalid ad-Daalaani, Abu al-Ahwas,

Sufyaan bin Uyaynah, Jareer bin Abdul Hameed and others who narrated it from

Moosa bin Abi Aaishah from Abdullah bin Shaddaad from the Prophet as Mursal.

Following are the comments of other Muhadditheen concerning this hadeeth:

1- Imaam Yahya bin Maeen

Ibn Tahmaan said, I heard Yahya bin Maeen saying,

"

.

: "The hadeeth that Abu Haneefah has narrated from Moosa bin Abi Aaishah

from Abdullah bin Shaddaad, from Jaabir from the Prophet (sallallaahu

alayhi wasallam), whoever has an Imaam then the recitation of his Imaam is

considered his recitation Ibn Maeen said has no significance, it is only

(the Mursal of) Abdullah bin Shaddaad.

[Min Kalaam Abi Zakariyya Yahya bin Maeen fir-Rijaal (397)]

2- Imaam Muhammad bin Ismaaeel al-Bukhaari

He said about this narration,

"

"This report is not proven according to the Scholars of Hijaaz, Iraaq and

others due to its Irsaal and Inqitaa (disconnection) (as) it is narrated by Ibn

Shaddaad (directly) from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) (and not

as Muttasil from Jaabir)

[Juzz al-Qiraaat by Imaam Bukhaari (P. 8) and (P. 54-55) in the English

translation]

3- Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani

He said,

" , "This hadeeth is Daeef according to the Huffaadh, and Ad-Daaraqutni and

others have mentioned all its routes and defects with details.

[Fath ul-Baari (2/285)]

So the reason based on which some Hanafiyyah are criticizing Imaam

Daaraqutni, Haafidh Ibn Hajar is referencing and relying on the very Imaam for

the ruling of this hadeeth.

In another place, he said:

" "This hadeeth has routes from a group of people and all of them are

defective.

[Talkhees al-Habeer (1/569)]

4- Haafidh Ibn Katheer

He said,

"

"This hadeeth is narrated from routes out of which none is authentically

proven from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

[Tafseer Ibn Katheer (1/12)]

5- Imaam Qurtubi

He writes,

" "As for the Prophets (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, whoever has an

Imaam then the recitation of the Imaam is his recitation, then this hadeeth is

Daeef.

[Tafseer Qurtubi (1/122)]

6- Imaam Ibn Hazm

He writes,

" "And it has been narrated in a number of narrations all of which are Saaqit

(invalid) that whoever has an Imaam then indeed the recitation of the

Imaam is his recitation.

[Al-Muhalla (3/242)]

7- Haafidh Ibn al-Jawzee

He said,

"

" This hadeeth has routes from Jaabir, Ali, Ibn Umar, Ibn Abbaas, and Imraan

bin Husayn, none of them are authentically proven.

[Al-Ilal al-Mutanaahiyah (1/431)]

8- Allaamah Majd Ibn Taymiyyah

He writes,

"" It is narrated as Musnad (meaning, as a connected chain) from a number of

routes all of which are Daeef, and the authentic view is that it is Mursal.

[Al-Muntaqa ma Nayl (2/221)]

9- Imaam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah

He said,

"" Indeed you (o Hanafiyyah) take evidence from a Daeef Hadeeth and that is,

whoever has an Imaam then the recitation of the Imaam is his recitation

[Ilaam al-Mawqaeen (1/274)]

10- Allaamah Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi

He said,

" "It is narrated by Ahmad, Ibn Maajah, and Ad-Daaraqutni through routes all

of which are Daeef.

[At-Tanbeeh Ala Mushkilaat al-Hidaayah (2/592)]

Moreover,

11- Imaam Ibn Adee

12- Imaam Bayhaqi

13- Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadi

14- Imaam Ibn Abdil Barr

15- And Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazi

Have also declared this hadeeth Daeef due to being a Mursal and they have

denied its being Muttasil.

For details see, Tauzeeh ul-Kalaam fi Wujoob Qiraaat Khalf al-Imaam by Shaykh

al-Muhaddith Irshaad ul-Haqq Athari Hafidhahullah (P. 844).

So we now know that this hadeeth is indeed Daeef and Munkar according to all

the Muhadditheen because of the opposition of other giant Huffaadh by Abu

Haneefah. And so the ruling of Imaam Daaraqutni on this hadeeth is also correct.

Now coming to his Tadeef of Abu Haneefah. Firstly, it is important to know that

this Jarh of Imaam Daaraqutni comes under the category of fair and explained

Jarh due to the following reasons:

The Jarh of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni is fair and not based

on favoritism:

Some people are so engulfed into saving Imaam Abu Haneefah from the criticisms

of Aimmah in his Hadeeth that every single criticism out of all more than 100

criticisms, they find ways to reject every single one of them based on some funny

and ridiculous reasons. As if all the Muhadditheen collectively plotted against Abu

Haneefah and they all had enmity towards Abu Haneefah.

Hence like, all other criticisms, the excuse they give for the Jarh of Imaam ad-

Daaraqutni is that his Jarh is not fair and he had something against Abu Haneefah.

Therefore, his criticism is not accepted. The same line they have said for Ibn Adee,

Bukhaari, Nasaaee, Ahmad, and all other Muhadditheen. As if this is the only line

they know as a response.

Anyway, lets observe the claim that Imaam Daaraqutni was not fair in his Jarh or

that he had enmity for Abu Haneefah.

Note:

But before that, it should be known that Hanafiyyah have no evidence to prove

that he was not fair or had enmity towards Hanafiyyah. So their claim

automatically becomes invalid and we dont even need to go any further, and all

their arguments will merely be considered screaming of the parrots. But on top of

that, we will still prove with strong evidence that Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni was in

fact a fair and just Imaam of Jarh wa Tadeel and rejecting his Jarh is invalid.

Imaam Daaraqutnis fairness in Jarh and Tadeel:

Imaam ad-Daaraqutni was considered a fair and unbiased Imaam in al-Jarh wat

Tadeel; he was neither Mutashaddid (strict/extreme) nor Mutasaahil (lenient) in

that, as compared to some Mutaassib contemporary Hanafis who say that he

was strict towards Hanafiyyah (which is based on their own Taassub)

His unbiasedness in the field of Al-Jarh wat Tadeel can be explained in three

points:

First: The Imaams and Muhadditheen have relied upon his evaluations, narrated them, and presented them as evidence while negating any kind of Tashaddud or

Taassub or anything like that. We do not know of anyone who accused him of

Tashaddud or Tasaahul except some later Mutaassib people like the Kadh-dhaab

Zaahid al-Kawthaari, and his party. We will also touch on this ahead.

Second: Many Scholars have explicitly mentioned Ad-Daaraqutni among the unbiased and fair Imaams of Al-Jarh wat Tadeel. Among them is Imaam Dhahabi.

When he divided the people of Jarh and Tadeel into three categories:

1. First category being of those who are Mutaannit in Jarh and Mutathabbit in

Tadeel

2. Second category being of those who are Mutasaahil (lenient) such as

Tirmidhi and Al-Haakim.

3. Third category being of those who are Mutadal (reliable and fair) and Ad-

Daaraqutni is mentioned among them.

[See, Fath ul-Mugheeth of Sakhaawi (3/325) & Ilaan bit-Tauzeeh (167-168)]

Third: The third proof of his fairness is known by studying his evaluations. There are many places where he would declare a person to be reliable (if he deserved it)

even if he opposed Ad-Daaraqutni in belief and his Madhab. And there are places

where he would declare a person to be weak and unreliable (if he deserved so)

even if he favored his beliefs. Some examples of his unbiasedness with those who

differed with him in Itiqaad are as follows:

1. Imaam ad-Daaraqutni said about Ahmed bin al-Abbaas bin Ahmed, Abu al-

Hasan al-Soofi that: He is Shaykh Saalih Thiqah

[Al-Ilal ad-Daaraqutni: 8/309]

It is absolutely from his justice and fairness that he, being a Salafi, said such

a thing for Ahmed bin al-Abbaas who is a Soofi.

2. Al-Barqaani asked Imaam ad-Daaraqutni about Muhammad bin Yahya bin

Fiyaadh al-Hanafi al-Basari so he replied: Basari Thiqah

[Suaalaat al-Barqaani: 465]

3. Imaam ad-Daaraqutni said about Yoonus bin al-Qaasim al-Hanafi that:

He is Thiqah

[Suaalaat al-Haakim: 522]

4. Imaam ad-Daaraqutni said about Thaabit bin Ammaarah al-Hanafi that:

He is Thiqah

[Suaalaat al-Barqaani: 63]

5. Similarly, he said about Ziyaad bin Sabeeh al-Hanafi that: He is relied

upon

[Suaalaat al-Barqaani: 174]

And there are many other similar examples. For details see the book Al-Imaam

Abu al-Hasan ad-Daaraqutni by Shaykh Abdullah ar-Raheeli (P. 140-146).

Is this how a person who has enmity towards Hanafiyyah behaves? By declaring

those Thiqah who deserve to be called so?

A Muhaddith evaluates a narrator or a hadeeth based on his Ijtihaad and research

and this is not some personal war going on here where a Muhaddith would

weaken a person he hates and authenticate a person he likes. This is the matter

of religion. This is why, when Imaam Ali ibn al-Madeeni was asked about his own

father, he said: My Father is Daeef. This is the extent of fairness which the

Noble Muhadditheen have practiced. Now if some ignorant person comes in this

century and accuses the Muhadditheen of Favoritism or Jealousy without any

proof based on his personal observation then it will definitely not be accepted

from him and he is directly questioning the authority and validity of Ilm Asmaa ur-

Rijaal and Jarh wat Tadeel.

Imaam Ibn Hibbaans saying in this regard is an example that Muhadditheen did

not declare people Daeef because of their enmity, rather they followed justice

and taassub is only in those who reject their opinions because of their own

favoritism towards Abu Haneefah and his Ashaab.

Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said,

"

"We (Muhadditheen) are not as some ill-behaved people cast doubt about us,

which they do not consider Halaal (for themselves also). We are not among

those who criticize another person unjustly even if he is our opponent. We only

say about a person with respect to Jarh and Tadeel what he deserves. We have

included Zufar and Abu Yoosuf among the Thiqah narrators because their

trustworthiness in reports has become clear to us and we have included those

who do not resemble them (in trustworthiness) among the weak narrators

those whom it is not permissible to take evidence from.

[Ath-Thiqaat (7/646)]

So all those who slander the Muhadditheen without a single evidence based on

their own taassub should take heed and make tawbah from Allaah and do not

say a thing they have no knowledge of.

Reply to Shaykh Muhammad Awwaamah concerning

the Jarh of Imaam Daaraqutni:

Following is the step by step reply to the reply of Shaykh Muhammad Awwaamah

and his objections on Imaam ad-Daaraqutni.

Shaykh Awwaamah said: Daraqutni did declare Abu Hanifa weak in his Sunan

(1:132), without including him in his Kitab al-du`afa'.

We say: Not including him in Kitaab ad-Duafa is not necessary. How many

narrators has he not mentioned in Ad-Duafa and still called them Daeef either in

his Sunan or in one of the Sualaat of his students? Whats important is that he

did call him Daeef just like the other Muhadditheen before him and after him

did.

He said: However, his opinion of Abu Hanifa carries no weight since he is known

to have fallen into extremism in his opinion on Abu Hanifa, and because of this,

this particular judgment of his is rejected as required by the rules of narrator-

criticism.

We say: Dear Shaykh if it is you who decides that his opinion carries no weight

and it is you who decides that he fell into extremism concerning Abu Haneefah

then what is the need of Muhadditheen and Scholars? Where is the proof? You

havent been able to mention a single proof and yet you say, because of this, this

particular judgment of his is rejected as required by the rules of narrator-

criticism??? Please enlighten us with that rule of narrator-criticism that says it

is permissible to reject any saying of a Naaqid by labeling it with his enmity

without any proof and whenever desired?

On the contrary, the rules of narrator-criticism require that Imaam ad-

Daaraqutnis Jarh must be accepted because:

First: He is a Fair and Mutadal Imaam of Jarh wa Tadeel and contradicting him

without any evidence is not permissible.

Second: Imaam ad-Daaraqutni has explicitly explained the reason he declared

Imaam Abu Haneefah Daeef. He first mentioned Imaam Abu Haneefah opposing

other Huffaadh in that hadeeth and then he said that he is Daeef. This is clear

proof that he declared Abu Haneefah Daeef not based on some personal reason

but in the context of his opposition! And similarly, in other places in his Sunan he

has mentioned several oppositions of Imaam Abu Haneefah in ahaadeeth, which

is a clear proof that his criticism has a fair and valid reason. And rules of narrator-

criticism require that the Jarh of a Naaqid based on a valid and explained reason

must be accepted.

He said: The hadith master al-Badr al-`Ayni, author of `Umdat al-qari, a massive

commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, said in his commentary of al-Marghinani

entitled al-Binaya sharh al-hidaya (1:709):

From where does he [Daraqutni] take the right to declare Abu Hanifa weak when

he himself deserves to be declared weak! For he has narrated in his Musnad [i.e.

his Sunan] narrations that are infirm, defective, denounced, strange, and forged.

We say: Is this the evidence for the assertion that ad-Daaraqutnis opinion

carries no weight and that he fell into extremism concerning Abu Haneefah!!?

Subhaan Allaah.

He said: The hadith master al-Badr al-`Ayni.. said

We say: Dear Shaykh sahab, you accuse Imaam Daaraqutni of favoritism and

enmity and yet you yourself take evidence from one of your own Hanafi Scholars

who is Mutaassib in his Madhab? Do you ever expect a Hanafi to speak against

his Madhab?

And just who in the world gave Badr al-Ayni the right to take the task of

Naaqideen ar-Rijaal in his hands? Do you take evidence from a Mutakhkhir ghayr

Naaqid Scholar against all the references and sayings we have mentioned above

of expert Naaqideen concerning Daaraqutni!?

Do you claim of favoritism when in fact, Badr al-Ayni himself is the one accused of

favoritism in his Madhab. One of your own Scholars and authorities, Allaamah

Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi al-Hanafi says,

" "Had there not been the smell of Madhabi Taassub in him (i.e. Aynee), he

would have been an excellent person.

[Al-Fawaid al-bahiyah fi tarajim al-anafiyah (76)]

He said: The hadith master al-Badr al-`Ayni.. said: From where does he

[Daraqutni] take the right to declare Abu Hanifa weak when he himself deserves

to be declared weak! For he has narrated in his Musnad [i.e. his Sunan] narrations

that are infirm, defective, denounced, strange, and forged.

We say: From where does Allaamah Aynee take the right to declare Daaraqutni

weak when the Naaqideen and Aimmah Jarh wa Tadeel have praised him and

his knowledge of Rijaal more than anything in his era? Who in the world has given

Aynee the right to critique the Aimmah who are much higher in status than him?

He is not a Naaqid, rather he is merely a Naaqil, so let's not forget his position and

hence do not try to present him as a Naaqid or an authority over anyone. His

saying, as a Naaqil, carries no weight at all, unless followed by evidence from the

Naaqideen! Hence, his saying is like the saying of any other person. If you really

want to present a proof against Daaraqutni then bring evidence from the people

of Jarh wa Tadeel and not from one of your own Mutaassib Hanafi Scholars who

is not even a Naaqid.

With this, still none of the Hanafi Mutaassibeen be it Muhammad Awwaamah,

or Badr al-Aynee have been able to present a single evidence for the assertion

that Daaraqutnis view carries no weight when he is called the Imaam al-Jarh

wat Tadeel by the Naaqideen and that he fell into extremism towards Abu

Haneefah.

Saying that he narrated many weak and fabricated narrations in his Sunan is not

a proof at all of the above assertions. If this is your evidence then you must reject

all his sayings in Jarh wa Tadeel, because no matter what narrator he critiques,

any admirer of that narrator could come and simply say, Look Daaraqutnis

opinion carries no weight and he also fell into extremism concerning this narrator,

because because what? Because he narrated weak and fabricated narrations

in his Sunan!!! No matter how hard I try, it is not possible to think of this

argument as anything less than ridiculous and senseless.

As for Aynees criticism of Imaam Daaraqutnis Sunan then we will, in-shaa-

Allaah, deal with this in a separate heading below where we will, in-shaa-Allaah,

prove the superiority of Daaraqutnis Sunan and his methodology in the book,

which if you or your Mutaassib Hanafis had known, would not have said what

they said.

He said: This is a serious charge made against Daraqutni as a narrator

We say: As if Aynee is a huge authority over us in narrator-criticism in fact,

Imaam-criticism! Imaam Daaraqutni is Ameer ul-Mumineen fil Hadeeth and do

you really think he is effected by Ayni Al-Hanafis saying the least degree!? And

how does narrating weak narrations effect the credibility of Daaraqutni anyway??

If this is the case, then you have hammered your own foot by saying that, because

the first person in this list that comes is Abu Haneefah himself who in fact is

Daeef. On the contrary, Imaam Daaraqutni narrated weak ahaadeeth in his

Sunan on purpose, not based on any deficiency in his knowledge, as will be

explained below, in-shaa-Allaah.

And what do you say about those Hanafi Scholars who narrate in their books

fabricated narrations and stories which one would feel shy of reading among

ones own family members? Dont you forget what mess the books like Al-

Hidaayah, Fadhaail Amaal, and such books contain! Or do you have a different

standard for those books?

He said: and many authorities have stated the same concerning him.

We say: And at the end, what do you bring in the name of many authorities??

He said: Another hadith master, al-Zayla`i, said in Nasb al-raya (1:356, 1:360)

We say: This is what you bring!! Another Hanafi! Another ghayr Naaqid whose

saying carries no weight in narrator-criticism.

He said: Another hadith master, al-Zayla`i, said in Nasb al-raya (1:356, 1:360):

"al-Daraqutni's Sunan is the compendium of defective narrations and the

wellspring of strange narrations... It is filled with narrations that are weak,

anomalous, defective, and how many of them are not found in other books!"

We say: This is not a criticism, rather he is only informing of what condition

Daaraqutni had stipulated in his Sunan. Only if you had read the condition of

Imaam Daaraqutni in his Sunan, you would not have presented this saying as a

criticism, rather it is a praise of his Sunan and its special rank among the books of

Sunan.

Why did Imaam Daaraqutni narrate so many weak and

fabricated narrations in his Sunan?

It is perhaps due to the ignorance of Shaykh Muhammad Awwaamah and his

fellows that he finds the fact that Imaam Daaraqutni narrated weak narrations in

his Sunan, to be a criticism of Imaam Daaraqutni and something that lowers the

rank of this giant Imaam. On the contrary, this very thing is in fact something that

distinguishes Imaam Daaraqutni from other collectors of Hadeeth.

The subject of Sunan Daaraqutni: Is it a collection of Saheeh

narrations or Daeef narrations or what?

From the naming of this book as Sunan, what the mind immediately thinks of is

that it would resemble the likes of it from the other books of Sunan in which

those narrations are compiled which are relied upon by the fuqaha from the

Sunan of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) either for Ihtijaaj or Istishhaad.

This is the default purpose of this type of book.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said,

.. : " .

:

". Because the default in compiling a book of Hadeeth in chapters (of fiqh) is

to confine it with those narrations that are suitable for Ihtijaaj or Istish-haad, as

opposed to the one who compiles in (the arrangement of) Masaaneed, for the

default in that (type of books) is general compilation.

[Tajeel al-Munfaah (P. 8)]

Al-Kattaani says about the books of Sunan,

" : :

"In their (i.e. the compilers and Muhadditheen) terminology, Sunan are the

books arranged upon the fiqhi chapters including: Eemaan, Tahaarah, Salaah,

Zakaah until the end, and they do not include any Mawqoof narration in them

because Mawqoof, in their terminology, is not called a Sunnah, it is named

Hadeeth.

[Ar-Risaalah al-Mustatrafah (P. 32)]

And in reality, Sunan Daaraqutni is not compiled in a way as the Scholars have

defined the books of Sunan. But in fact, what is deduced from this book after

thorough research is that the subject of this book is almost opposite because

Imaam Daaraqutni, in the compilation of his book, has opposed the default that

Ibn Hajar and Kattaani have mentioned and what the majority of Muhadditheen

from before and from after have went towards.

In that the subject of Imaam Daaraqutnis book is: The Compilation of Weak,

Mawdoo, Mudtarib, and Muallal ahaadeeth even if he went outside of this

stipulation sometimes by narrating authentic narrations arranged upon the

chapters of Fiqh.

So the subject of the common books of Sunan is: Compilation of Ahaadeeth

arranged in chapters of Fiqh that the fuqaha have relied upon and have used as

evidence to opine what they opined among the Ahkaam.

While the subject of Sunan ad-Daaraqutni is the compilation of Ahaadeeth of

Ahkaam that some fuqaha have used as evidence, and the explanation of its Ilal,

the difference of its routes and words, and that it is not suitable as a proof for

what some of the Fuqaha have used it to opine what they opined.

Hence by the compilation of these ahaadeeth in his Sunan, as though he intended

to refute some of the fuqaha and explain that their reliance on these ahaadeeth is

not right.

This is the predominant method, other than that, there indeed are also found

some ahaadeeth he brought to be used as evidence. And this does not bring the

book out of its original purpose which is to compile weak and fabricated

narrations.

And whatever Saheeh or Hasan narrations he has mentioned in the book by going

out of his original purpose is done only as a follow up and not as intentional and

this is something you will not find any other books of Ilal and similar books to be

free of. And this type of narrations that are relied upon (i.e. Saheeh or Hasan) in

the book of Daaraqutni have only been mentioned in a quantity that is suitable

and does not take the book out of its original purpose and they reach up to 400

ahaadeeth only.

Hence we know that Imaam Daaraqutni, purposely, did not write his sunan to

compile the relied upon Sunan, rather he authored it to compile the unreliable

Sunan and to mention its Ilal. This is also known by the fact that the number of

weak and fabricated ahaadeeth in Sunan Daaraqutni reach up to about 4700 and

this is also confirmed by some of the Scholars.

1- Shaykh ul-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah said,

"

: "

" "

" " "

.

". . All these ahaadeeth are Daeef rather Mawdoo. None of the people of

Sihaah and the famous Sunan and Masaaneed have narrated anything from

it. The utmost of what is attributed of such kind is to the book of Ad-

Daaraqutni and his intention in this book was to compile Ghareeb Sunan,

and that is why he has narrated in it weak and fabricated narrations that

others have not narrated.

[Majmoo al-Fataawa (27/166)]

2- Haafidh Ibn Abdil Haadi said,

"

"Rather it is only narrated by the likes of Ad-Daaraqutni who has compiled

Ghareeb sunan in his book, and has narrated weak and munkar, rather

fabricated ahaadeeth in it with abundance, and in some places he has

explained the defect of the hadeeth and the reason of its weakness and

rejection.

[As-Saarim al-Munki (P. 31)]

In another place, he said,

" "

" "

"

" .. rather some of them are narrated by Bazzaar and Ad-Daaraqutni and

their likes with weak chain because it is from the practice of Ad-Daaraqutni

and his likes to mention this (type of narrations) in the Sunan for awareness.

And he and others explain the weakness of weak narration among them, and

Allaah Subhaanahu wa Taaala knows best.

[As-Saarim al-Munki (P. 67)]

And likewise the saying of Az-Zaylaee al-Hanafi is also simply to inform that

ad-Daaraqutnis intention was to narrate ghareeb, weak and fabricated

narrations for awareness and to make their weakness and hidden defects

apparent.

So it turns out that what Muhammad Awwaamah presented as a defect of

Imaam Daaraqutni is in fact his plus point and it points towards his high rank

and Imaamate in the field of Ilal al-Hadeeth. That is why the Muhadditheen

have said that the knowledge of Ilal al-Hadeeth ends upon Daaraqutni! And no

wonder why he is called Ameer ul-Mumineen fil Hadeeth!

That is why, Haafidh Ibn Katheer said about Sunan Daaraqutni,

"

"Daaraqutni has a famous book of his, which is from the best of books

written in this field, it has neither a precedent nor a supplement in its

composition, except if someone borrows from his ocean and does similar to

what he did.

[Al-Bidaayah wal-Nihaayah (11/317)]

For details see the book, Al-Imaam Abu al-Hasan ad-Daaraqutni wa

Athaaruhu al-Ilmiyyah by Shaykh Abdullah bin Dayfullaah ar-Ruhaylee (P. 251

- 316)

Hence Shaykh Muhammad Awwaamahs declaring this intentional collection

of weak and fabricated narrations for the purpose of making their hidden

defects apparent to be a defect of Imaam Daaraqutni and a serious charge

made against Daraqutni as a narrator is utter ignorance and rather a serious

charge on Shaykh Awwaamah himself.

And at the end, how still is this a proof of Daaraqutnis saying carrying no

weight and having enmity for Abu Haneefah!?

He said: While Muhammad ibn Ja`far al-Kattani said in al-Risala al-

mustatrafa (p. 31): "Daraqutni in his Sunan... has multiplied the narrations of

reports that are weak and denounced, and indeed forged."

We say: It is from your deception or ignorance that you omitted the first part

of Al-Kattaanis statement. The full saying of Al-Kattaani is as follows,

While introducing each of the books of Sunan, Al-Kattaani said,

"

. "And Sunan Daaraqutni, in it he has compiled ghareeb sunan and has

mentioned the weak, munkar in fact mawdoo narrations in abundance.

[P. 35]

As clearly seen, Al-Kattaani is describing and introducing Sunan Daaraqutni

among others by explaining what Daaraqutni has intended to compile in this

book. But Shaykh Awwaamah in his dajl omitted the first part and presented

only the second part to make it look like a criticism while in fact he is only

informing of what Sunan Daaraqutni is intended to be composed of.

Inna Lillaahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raajioon.

He said: Ibn `Abd al-Hadi al-Hanbali wrote a large volume still unpublished on

merits of Abu Hanifa entitled Tanwir al-sahifa bi manaqib al-imam Abi

Hanifa in which he said: "Among those who show fanaticism against Abu

Hanifa is al-Daraqutni." It is quoted in Ibn `Abidin's Hashiyat radd al-

muhtar (1:37).

We say: If it is unpublished how do you know it is a LARGE volume!? And as for

Ibn Abd al-Haadis saying that Daaraqutni showed fanaticism against Abu

Haneefah, then if it is actually written in his book, it is not acceptable at all.

Because Ibn Abd al-Haadi is a Mutakhkhir and he is a ghayr Naaqid. Anything

that comes from them carries no weight until supported by proof. Their saying

is like the saying of any other Scholar today. So do not deceive people by giving

such references.

And how, after all, does Ibn Abd al-Haadi even has a slightest of idea that Ad-

Daaraqutni had fanaticism against Abu Haneefah when there is no such thing

proven in the Jarh of Ad-Daaraqutni? Ad-Daaraqutni has simply declared him

Daeef due to his opposition and weak memory which is a fair and valid

reason. Where is the fanaticism in this? Not to forget that Ad-Daaraqutni is not

alone in this by any means. He is supported by numerous other giant

Muhadditheen!

Do you even know the definition of fanaticism in Jarh wa Tadeel. When a

Muhaddith criticizes another Muhaddith without a valid reason and/or

without any reference to his weakness in hadeeth, rather criticizes him for a

reason other than the defect in his hadeeth, then one can say that he has been

strict or unjust about him.

As for Daaraqutni, this is not the case at all!

Hence, the proof is still binding upon you to provide.

He said: `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghuddah in his commentary of Abu al-Hasanat al-

Lucknawi's al-Raf` wa al-ta`dil (p. 70 n.1) also said: "al-Daraqutni's fanaticism

against Abu Hanifa is well-known"

We say: Since when did Al-Ghuddah who is a contemporary Scholar or Al-

Lakhnawi become Hujjah? This means, I can very well provide the sayings of

Shaykh Albaani, Allaamah Muallami and others as proof as well. Then no one

will reach to a conclusion until the Day of Judgment!

He said that Daaraqutnis fanaticism is well known and yet you and your

entire progeny has still not been able to provide a single example! Indeed, very

well-known it must be!

He said: and he gives several sources listing the scholars who held the same

opinion.

We say: This is another mistake and dajl of Shaykh Awwaamah. Who else have

they mentioned in there? Please also enlighten us with their names so we can

increase our knowledge!

He said: One of the reasons for Daraqutni's attitude is his extreme bias in

favor of the school of Imam Shafi`i.

We say: Subhaan Allaah! You are giving us the reasons of Imaam

Daaraqutnis biasness before you even provide us with a single proof of his

biasness! Youve got to be a challenged soul.

As for saying that Imaam Daaraqutni was bias in favor of the School of Imaam

Shaafiee, then this is another blatant lie for which you have no proof either.

Looks like you are here to shoot arrows in the air hoping one of them will hit

something!

A similar thing was also said by one of your blind followers by the name of

Shaykh Abdul Azeez al-Finjaabi al-Hindi who said about Imaam ad-Daaraqutni

that in his book (i.e. Al-Sunan), he only criticizes the ahadeeth which go against

his Madhab i.e. the Madhab of Ash-Shaafiee (according to him) and if he finds

a hadeeth in accordance to Madhab ash-Shaafiee then he would authenticate

it and he would do it due to his favoritism. To give an example, Al-Finjaabi says

about the narrator Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Abi Layla that when

he narrated the hadeeth of the purity of Maniy, Daaraqutni said: He is

Thiqah, there is something in his memory (Pg. 46) but when he narrated the

hadeeth of saying the words of Iqaamah twice, he said about him that: He is

Daeef, weak in memory (Pg. 89)

[Al-Tankeel: 1/360]

To say that Imaam ad-Daaraqutni would follow favoritism in hadeeth and

narrator criticism is something completely based on ignorance and lack of

knowledge. The unbiasedness of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni in the field is explained

with details under the heading His Imaamate and credibility in al-Jarh wat

Tadeel. Reader may have a look at that to know the biasness of al-Finjaabi

himself.

The evidence that al-Finjaabi gives to prove the favoritism of Imaam ad-

Daaraqutni, is the two contradictory rulings of Imaam ad-Daaraqutni for the

same narrator! I say, why is Imaam ad-Daaraqutni singled out for that? You

can also add in the list the Aimmah like Imaam Yahya ibn Maeen, Imaam

Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imaam Bukhaari, and others; because even they at many

places have given contradictory rulings for one narrator. This does not mean

that they all followed favoritism. There could have been several reasons for

their contradictory rulings such as: change in Ijtihaad, or the demand of

qaraain etc. Just making the argument of contradiction as a base, no one has

any right to criticize an agreed upon Imaam & expert of the field.

Lets also observe and look into the example of so-called contradiction that

al-Finjaabi provides:

Imaam ad-Daaraqutni gave his opinion about Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan

bin Abi Layla that he is Thiqah, there is something in his memory. Therefore,

he has first brought a Marfoo hadeeth on Page 46 through the route of: Ishaaq

An Shareek An Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan (Ibn Abi Layla) An

Ataa An Ibn Abbaas and said: No one narrates it as Marfoo from Shareek

except Ishaaq al-Azraq; and Muhammad bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Abi Layla is

Thiqah, there is something in his memory

Right after this, ad-Daaraqutni narrated the same hadeeth as Mawqoof

through Wakee An Ibn Abi Layla, which indicates that it is either Shareek

or Ishaaq who have mistaken in narrating it as Marfoo. Ibn Abi Layla is not the

one on mistake because Amr bin Deenaar and Ibn Jurayj have also supported

Ibn Abi Layla in narrating this hadeeth as Mawqoof from Ataa, as is narrated by

Imaam ash-Shaafiee.

Whereas on Pg. 89, since Ibn Abi Layla has opposed the narration of Imaam

Sufyaan and Imaam Shubah as they both have narrated the hadeeth: The

Messenger of Allaah would say each phrase of the Adhaan two times as

Mursal, but Ibn Abi Layla has narrated it as Muttasil. Therefore, he opposed

Imaam Sufyaan and Shubah (who have been given the title of: Mountain from

the Mountains of Hifdh), so he was declared Daeef in comparison to the

opposition of those two Huffaadh. As is the established principle of Usool that

a narrator can sometimes be also declared Daeef in comparison to another

narrator.

Moreover, even in the first example, Ad-Daaraqutni did point towards the

weakness of Ibn Abi Layla by saying there was something in his memory but

since he was Thiqah fi Nafsih (i.e. truthful) and he was not the one on mistake

in this particular hadeeth so calling him weak here or taking evidence from his

weakness was baseless because he was correct in this particular case while

weakness came from the one who narrated from him.

So this detail proves that Imaam ad-Daaraqutni did not follow favoritism,

rather this contradiction of ad-Daaraqutni was based on a detailed and deep

insight of hadeeth (as is expected from such an Imaam) which the ignorant

people of present time were unable to grasp.

Such contradictions can often take place due to Tawtheeq or Tadeef Nisbi,

while sometimes it also occurs due to the change in Ijtihaad, as Lakhnawi al-

Hanafi has also explained in Al-Rafa wal Takmeel (P. 172, 173). It is highly

unfortunate that the so called Scholars are ignorant of these things; which is

why when they themselves do not understand something, they dare to

attribute a giant Imaam and expert with favoritism instead of learning

themselves.

If the Imaamate of a Muhaddith in Jarh wat Tadeel is denied merely based on

his contradiction then what would they rule Imaam Yahya ibn Maeen with? As

Imaam Yahya ibn Maeen also had contradicting views about narrators such

as: Abu Balj, Alaa bin Abdur Rahmaan, Muhammad bin Ishaaq and others.

These explanations have made very clear that the dispute of Imaam ad-

Daaraqutni concerning Jarh and Tadeel is not against his rank, expertise, and

Imaamate in this field in any way possible.

Moreover, al-Finjaabis and Awwaamahs claim that Imaam ad-Daaraqutni

favored the Madhab of Ash-Shaafiee, so whenever he found something in

accordance to his Madhab, he would authenticate it, and whenever he found

something against his madhab, he would weaken it.

To say that Imaam ad-Daaraqutni was a Shaafiee Muqallid is also full of

ignorance. Imaam ad-Daaraqutni was an unbiased and Mutadal Mujtahid, and

he has also opposed the Shaafiee Madhab at several places as is apparent

from his books. Some examples of his opposition to Shaafiee Madhab are as

follows:

1. In his al-Sunan [1/91], he has weakened whatever is narrated about wiping

the head three times, which is in accordance to the Shaafiee Madhab.

2. In al-Sunan [1/62-63], he weakened the ahaadeeth on the purification of

the left-over of beasts, which is in accordance to the Shaafiee Madhab as

can be seen in al-Umm of ash-Shaafiee [1/5]

3. Similarly, he also weakened the hadeeth of the purification of a cats left-

over in al-Sunan [1/66-67], which was in accordance to the Madhab of

Shaafiee as referenced above.

4. Likewise, he has remained silent upon a lot of weak narrations in his Sunan,

which were in accordance to the Madhab of al-Hanafiyyah. See, Sunan:

1/230, 1/231, 1/305, 1/308 and others.

So based on this it can very well also be said that Imaam Daaraqutni was a

Hanafi and had enmity towards Imaam Shaafi'ee!!!

The muqallideen are so engulfed into their taqleed that they do not think out

of taqleed and assume that every other person in the world is also like them.

So when they see a Muhaddith authenticating some narrations and criticizing

others based on his ijtihaad they relate the ahaadeeth he authenticated to the

Imaam who took evidence from them and call that muhaddith to be upon the

madhab of that Imaam and vice versa; while in fact the purpose of the

Muhaddith like all other Muhadditheen was simply to compile the narrations

of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), preserve them, critique them,

distinguish the weak from the authentic and explain the hidden defects in

them no matter where it came from and what madhab it supported or

opposed. Therefore, calling Imaam Daaraqutni a Shaafiee without a proof is

itself a lie let alone saying he was biased towards Shaafiee Madhab!

He said: It is related that when Daraqutni went to Egypt some of its people

asked him to compile something on the pronounciation of the Basmala,

whereupon he compiled a volume. A Maliki came to him and summoned him

to declare on oath which were the sound narrations of this book. Daraqutni

said: "Everything that was narrated from the Prophet concerning the loud

pronounciation of the Basmala is unsound, and as for what is related from the

Companions, some of it is sound and some of it weak."

We say: Now you have also started taking evidence from unknown sources. It

is upon you to prove this story authentically from Ad-Daaraqutni.

Secondly, I could not find this anywhere except in Majmoo al-Fataawa of Ibn

Taymiyyah and even in there the wording is not as you have mentioned. The

wording is as follows,

"

...

: :

."The Hadeeth experts are agreed upon that there is not a clear hadeeth

concerning reciting Basmalah out loud. The Jahr of Basmalah is only found in

the fabricated ahaadeeth. Which are narrated by those who compiled

(ahaadeeth) in this issue such as Ad-Daaraqutni, Khateeb and others. Indeed

they both simply compiled whatever is narrated and when it was asked them

about their authenticity, they replied according to their knowledge as Ad-

Daaraqutni said when he came to Egypt and was asked to compile all the

ahaadeeth of Jahr, so he compiled them. Then it was said to him: is there

anything in them that is authentic? He replied, As for what is narrated from

the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then no, and as for what is

narrated from the Sahaabah then among them some are Saheeh and some

Daeef.

[Majmoo al-Fataawa (22/416)]

As can be seen there is no mention of a Maaliki asking him to take an oath. Is

this because Shaykh Awwaamah did not bother to mention any source, so that

his readers may never be able to verify what he said?

Hence, this addition is clearly a forgery as there was no need to having him

take an oath in the first place because he did not say that I will narrate only

the Saheeh ahaadeeth in this juzz, rather he simply tried to compile all the

narrations on this issue in one book as is the practice of other Muhadditheen

as well! That is why when he was asked about his own personal view, he

clearly said these are not authentic according to me.

It is well known that when a Muhaddith compiles the narrations of one

particular fiqhi issue or one narrator in a single book, he does not stipulate the

condition of authenticity in them rather he simply compiles whatever is

narrated in that issue or from that narrator. This is a whole different type of

collection called Juzz or Ajzaa (plural) al-Hadeeth. Such type of books are

also compiled by Imaam Bukhaari, Ibn Abi Shaybah, Bayhaqi, Abu Dawood,

Nasaaee and many others. In fact, one whole section in Maktabah Shaamilah

is filled with these books.

Hence, presenting this as a criticism of Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni is an utmost

ignorance and deception that one can step down to in taassub of his Imaam.

Well, how about the fact that our very own Imaam Abu Haneefah (who is

being defended here by these arguments) writes narrations from Kadh-dhaab

narrators and openly narrates them!? Jaabir al-Jufee is someone whom Abu

Haneefah himself called, The biggest Liar I have seen and still he narrates

ahaadeeth from him! What does that now tell us about this Imaam?

Conclusion:

Amazingly, Shaykh Awwaamah has not been able to present a single proof for

any of the claims whether it is the claim of Daaraqutnis enmity or his

favoritism for Shaafiee. And he seems to base his entire rejection and slander

of Imaam Daaraqutni and his saying about Abu Haneefah completely on his

assumptions and misinformation without any proof at all.

Alhamdulillah, Imaam Daaraqutnis Jarh on Imaam Abu Haneefah is absolutely

valid. Every single claim that Shaykh Awwaamah has put forth against Ad-

Daaraqutni to reject his statement has no significance or proof, while Ameer

ul-Mumineen fil Hadeeth Imaam al-Ilal Haafidh ad-Dunya Abu al-Hasan

Daaraqutni is not effected by anyone of them to the least of degree

whatsoever.

Moreover, it should be known that Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni is also supported by

other Muhadditheen in his Jarh, including:

Abdullah bin Idrees

[Ad-Duafa al-Kabeer by Ukaylee

(4/282)]

Abdullah bin az-Zubayr al-

Humaydee

[Taareekh Baghdaad (13/432),

Taareekh al-Bukhaari (P. 156)]

Abdullah bin Abi Dawood as-

Sijistaani

Abdullah bin Adee the author

of al-Kaamil

[Al-Kaamil (7/2476), Taareekh

Baghdaad (13/445)]

[Al-Kaamil]

Abdullah bin Awn bin Artaab

[Taareekh Baghdaad (13/420),

Abdullah bin al-Mubaarak

Taareekh Abu Zurah (1/505)]

[Al-Jarh wat Tadeel, & Al-Sunnah and others]

Abdullah bin Numayr al-

Hamdaani

[Taareekh Baghdaad]

Abu Abdur Rahmaan Abdullah

bin Yazeed al-Muqri

[Al-Jarh wat Tadeel, Taareekh

Baghdaad, Al-Kaamil, al-Sunnah

etc]

Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzee

[Ad-Duafa wal Matrokeen]

Sufyaan ath-Thawree

Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi Ibraaheem bin Ishaaq al-Harbi

Ibraaheem bin Muhammad al-

Fazaari

Ibraaheem bin Yaqoob al-

Juzjaani

Al-Nasaaee

Al-Bukhaari

Ahmed bin Ali al-Abaar

Ahmed bin Hanbal

Husayn bin Ibraaheem al-

Jurqaani

Abu Hafs Ibn Shaaheen

Amr bin Ali al-Fallaas

Amr bin al-Haytham

Dhahabi

Ibn Hibbaan

Muhammad bin Sad

Abu Ahmed al-Haakim

Muslim bin al-Hajjaaj Mufaddal bin Ghasaan al-

Ghilaabi

Al-Nadr bin Shumayl

Wakee bin al-Jarraah

Yahya bin Saeed al-Qattaan

Yahya bin Maeen

Yaqoob bin Shaybah

Ali bin al-Madeeni

Ibn Abdul Barr

Ash-Shaafiee

Abu Nuaym al-Asbahaani

Ibn Taymiyyah

And many others