🧵 Regarding some people’s argument with the words of Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and some of the later Hanbalis to deny the words of the Salaf regarding the Imam of the People of Al-Rai’e :
📖The fact is that Sheikh Al-Islam, despite his words in the book “Lifting Blame from the Imams” excused the Imams in general for their jurisprudential opinions, not just this man.
📖However, he did not deny the Salaf’s censure of him, because the Salaf’s censure of him did not only include his mistakes in jurisprudence, but also in belief, and he was judged to repent from disbelief twice.
📖So let us quote Sheikh Al-Islam’s words regarding not denying the Salaf’s words about the man, even though the Sheikh had his own opinion as a result of his being influenced by the surrounding environment.
📕 Ibn Taymiyyah - may God have mercy on him - said in his response to al-Subki on the issue of suspending divorce (2/837):
“Most of the people of hadith have criticized Abu Hanifa and his companions with well-known criticism that has filled books, and it has reached the point that nothing has been narrated from them in the books of hadith, and there is no mention of them in the two Sahihs and the Sunan.”
📃This is an acknowledgment from Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah of the consensus of criticism of the man.
📃Although Sheikh Al-Islam spoke about the people of Iraq attacking Imam Malik, this is not a case of equality between attacking Malik and Abu Hanifa, because what happened with Abu Hanifa was a consensus on declaring him an innovator and exposing him to the sword twice.
📖The fact is that Sheikh Al-Islam, despite his words in the book “Lifting Blame from the Imams” excused the Imams in general for their jurisprudential opinions, not just this man.
📖However, he did not deny the Salaf’s censure of him, because the Salaf’s censure of him did not only include his mistakes in jurisprudence, but also in belief, and he was judged to repent from disbelief twice.
📖So let us quote Sheikh Al-Islam’s words regarding not denying the Salaf’s words about the man, even though the Sheikh had his own opinion as a result of his being influenced by the surrounding environment.
📕 Ibn Taymiyyah - may God have mercy on him - said in his response to al-Subki on the issue of suspending divorce (2/837):
“Most of the people of hadith have criticized Abu Hanifa and his companions with well-known criticism that has filled books, and it has reached the point that nothing has been narrated from them in the books of hadith, and there is no mention of them in the two Sahihs and the Sunan.”
📃This is an acknowledgment from Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah of the consensus of criticism of the man.
📃Although Sheikh Al-Islam spoke about the people of Iraq attacking Imam Malik, this is not a case of equality between attacking Malik and Abu Hanifa, because what happened with Abu Hanifa was a consensus on declaring him an innovator and exposing him to the sword twice.
🧵The words of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa, Volume 20, p. 186:
The innovators who claim to belong to other than him, if they were Jahmites, Qadariyyah, Shiites, or Murji’ah, that was not a doctrine of the Imam except in Irja’, which is the saying of Abu so-and-so. As for some of the Jahmites, the transmission from them differed, and therefore his companions who claimed to belong to him differed between Sunnis and Jahmites, males and females, anthropomorphists and anthropomorphists, because his principles do not negate innovations even if they do not confirm them.
📃he meant that the Hanafi Mazhab has many innovators because of the bases of the founder of the school of thought, he said that scholars differed in attributing Jahmism to Abu Fulan, and he suggested that this could be the reason for the presence of many Jahmites in the Mazhab.
The innovators who claim to belong to other than him, if they were Jahmites, Qadariyyah, Shiites, or Murji’ah, that was not a doctrine of the Imam except in Irja’, which is the saying of Abu so-and-so. As for some of the Jahmites, the transmission from them differed, and therefore his companions who claimed to belong to him differed between Sunnis and Jahmites, males and females, anthropomorphists and anthropomorphists, because his principles do not negate innovations even if they do not confirm them.
📃he meant that the Hanafi Mazhab has many innovators because of the bases of the founder of the school of thought, he said that scholars differed in attributing Jahmism to Abu Fulan, and he suggested that this could be the reason for the presence of many Jahmites in the Mazhab.
🧵Sheikh Al-Islam said in Iqamah Al-Dalil, p. 167:
The third aspect:
These tricks first appeared in the fatwas of the late Tabi’een era. The scholars of that time, such as Ayoub al-Sakhtiyani, Hammad ibn Zayd, Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, Yazid ibn Harun, Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, al-Fudayl ibn Iyad, and the likes of Sharik ibn Abdullah, al-Qasim ibn Ma’n, and Hafs ibn Ghiyath, the judges of Kufa, denounced that. The scholars of that era, such as Ayoub al-Sakhtiyani, Ibn Awn, al-Qasim ibn Mukhaymara, the two Sufyans, the two Hammads, Malik, al-Awza’i, and whoever Allah willed of the scholars of religion,
spoke about them and expanded on them from the people of Kufa and others with harsh words that are not said except when an innovation appears that is not known except from those who issued fatwas with what the Companions issued fatwas with or with the truth of it. It is known that these and their likes are the lamps of Islam, the lights of guidance,
and the figures of religion. They were the most knowledgeable people of their time and the most knowledgeable of those who came after them about the past Sunnah, the most knowledgeable in religion, and the most pious in logic. They differed in matters of jurisprudence and spoke of ijtihad of opinion and did not denounce whoever followed this path.
So when… They strongly denounced the people of Al-Ra’ie who made tricks permissible. It is known that they knew that this was an innovation and in their words there are indications of that, such as their description of the one who issued a fatwa in this way as turning Islam upside down and leaving Islam thinner than a sabre-thin garment and tearing Islam apart, and similar words.
The greatest thing they denounced of the one who expanded his opinion was contradicting the hadiths and issuing fatwas using tricks. It is known that none of the people of fatwa intentionally contradicts the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), but rather contradicts it because it was not conveyed to him or because he forgot it and was unaware of it or because it was not conveyed from a source that he trusts or because he was not aware of the evidence from it or because he was not concerned with knowing it or because of a type of interpretation
that he interpreted it to him or because he thought that it was abrogated and the like. There is no one among the jurists except that some of the Sunnah was hidden from him. Rather, the reprehensible thing that was not known in the past was issuing fatwas using tricks.
It has been mentioned from some of the people of Al-Ra’ie explicitly that he said: What they blamed us for is that we deliberately did things that were forbidden to them and took advantage of them until they became permissible. He said: Two others: We have tricking for the people for such and such for years he used it with a man in a case happened between them and when some people wrote a book on tricks,
the denunciation of the predecessors became intense, so
Ahmad bin Zuhair bin Marwan said:
There was a woman here who was passing by and wanted to divorce her husband, but her husband refused this so it was said to her: If you apostatize from Islam, you will be forbidden to your husband, so she did that, and that was
It was mentioned to Abdullah meaning Ibn al-Mubarak and it was said to him: This is a book of tricks, so Abdullah said: Whoever wrote this book is a disbeliever, and whoever hears about it and accepts it.
📃Here the Sheikh decides that they are not excused for tricks, so here he restricted what was released in lifting the blame and those expressions that the Sheikh transmitted from the predecessors in denouncing tricksters many of them were said about Abu Hanifa himself so this invalidates the analogy of Abu Hanifa’s error to Malik’s error as Ibn Abd al-Barr did and just as the Zahiris deviated by denying Qiyas the people of opinion deviated by tricks.
The third aspect:
These tricks first appeared in the fatwas of the late Tabi’een era. The scholars of that time, such as Ayoub al-Sakhtiyani, Hammad ibn Zayd, Malik ibn Anas, Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, Yazid ibn Harun, Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, al-Fudayl ibn Iyad, and the likes of Sharik ibn Abdullah, al-Qasim ibn Ma’n, and Hafs ibn Ghiyath, the judges of Kufa, denounced that. The scholars of that era, such as Ayoub al-Sakhtiyani, Ibn Awn, al-Qasim ibn Mukhaymara, the two Sufyans, the two Hammads, Malik, al-Awza’i, and whoever Allah willed of the scholars of religion,
spoke about them and expanded on them from the people of Kufa and others with harsh words that are not said except when an innovation appears that is not known except from those who issued fatwas with what the Companions issued fatwas with or with the truth of it. It is known that these and their likes are the lamps of Islam, the lights of guidance,
and the figures of religion. They were the most knowledgeable people of their time and the most knowledgeable of those who came after them about the past Sunnah, the most knowledgeable in religion, and the most pious in logic. They differed in matters of jurisprudence and spoke of ijtihad of opinion and did not denounce whoever followed this path.
So when… They strongly denounced the people of Al-Ra’ie who made tricks permissible. It is known that they knew that this was an innovation and in their words there are indications of that, such as their description of the one who issued a fatwa in this way as turning Islam upside down and leaving Islam thinner than a sabre-thin garment and tearing Islam apart, and similar words.
The greatest thing they denounced of the one who expanded his opinion was contradicting the hadiths and issuing fatwas using tricks. It is known that none of the people of fatwa intentionally contradicts the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), but rather contradicts it because it was not conveyed to him or because he forgot it and was unaware of it or because it was not conveyed from a source that he trusts or because he was not aware of the evidence from it or because he was not concerned with knowing it or because of a type of interpretation
that he interpreted it to him or because he thought that it was abrogated and the like. There is no one among the jurists except that some of the Sunnah was hidden from him. Rather, the reprehensible thing that was not known in the past was issuing fatwas using tricks.
It has been mentioned from some of the people of Al-Ra’ie explicitly that he said: What they blamed us for is that we deliberately did things that were forbidden to them and took advantage of them until they became permissible. He said: Two others: We have tricking for the people for such and such for years he used it with a man in a case happened between them and when some people wrote a book on tricks,
the denunciation of the predecessors became intense, so
Ahmad bin Zuhair bin Marwan said:
There was a woman here who was passing by and wanted to divorce her husband, but her husband refused this so it was said to her: If you apostatize from Islam, you will be forbidden to your husband, so she did that, and that was
It was mentioned to Abdullah meaning Ibn al-Mubarak and it was said to him: This is a book of tricks, so Abdullah said: Whoever wrote this book is a disbeliever, and whoever hears about it and accepts it.
📃Here the Sheikh decides that they are not excused for tricks, so here he restricted what was released in lifting the blame and those expressions that the Sheikh transmitted from the predecessors in denouncing tricksters many of them were said about Abu Hanifa himself so this invalidates the analogy of Abu Hanifa’s error to Malik’s error as Ibn Abd al-Barr did and just as the Zahiris deviated by denying Qiyas the people of opinion deviated by tricks.
🧵As for the words of Al-Tawfi Al-Hanbali, who says that the last words of Imam Ahmad were in praise of Abu Hanifa:
📖Instead of accepting those who oppose the words of Imam Ahmad himself, they go to those who are below him so that they agree with their desires.
📖Al-Tawfi reported that the last words of the chains of transmission are mostly from Ibn al-Salt the liar.
📖And the book of Manaqib by Mukram ibn Ahmad is all fabricated because of lying and the narrations in it rely on forgers.
📖It was reported that Al-Tawfi was involved in Rafidism, and there is a dispute over his repentance and how it is proven that he transmitted it from Imam Ahmad in the first place, and the difference between them is hundreds of years.
📖Al-Khatib has a comment on the narrations that praise him, saying: We have cited from Ayoub al-Sakhtiyani, Sufyan al-Thawri, Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash, and other imams many narrations that include praise and
📖commendation of Abu Hanifa, and what is preserved from the narrators of hadith from the earlier imams and those mentioned among them regarding Abu Hanifa is contrary to that, and their speech about him is much for heinous matters that have been preserved about him, related
some of them to the principles of religions, and some of them to the branches.
📕History of Baghdad, vol. 15, p. 502.
📖Instead of accepting those who oppose the words of Imam Ahmad himself, they go to those who are below him so that they agree with their desires.
📖Al-Tawfi reported that the last words of the chains of transmission are mostly from Ibn al-Salt the liar.
📖And the book of Manaqib by Mukram ibn Ahmad is all fabricated because of lying and the narrations in it rely on forgers.
📖It was reported that Al-Tawfi was involved in Rafidism, and there is a dispute over his repentance and how it is proven that he transmitted it from Imam Ahmad in the first place, and the difference between them is hundreds of years.
📖Al-Khatib has a comment on the narrations that praise him, saying: We have cited from Ayoub al-Sakhtiyani, Sufyan al-Thawri, Sufyan ibn Uyaynah, Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash, and other imams many narrations that include praise and
📖commendation of Abu Hanifa, and what is preserved from the narrators of hadith from the earlier imams and those mentioned among them regarding Abu Hanifa is contrary to that, and their speech about him is much for heinous matters that have been preserved about him, related
some of them to the principles of religions, and some of them to the branches.
📕History of Baghdad, vol. 15, p. 502.
🧵As for those who will object and say, “Are you more knowledgeable than so-and-so among the contemporaries who praised Abu so-and-so?” Sheikh al-Islam responded in Majmoo’ al-Fatawa, Volume 20, p. 215, with something appropriate for them.
If it is said to this person seeking guidance and advice: Are you more knowledgeable or Imam So-and-so? This is a corrupt opposition. Because Imam so-and-so was contradicted in this issue by someone who is his counterpart from the Imams,
and I do not know of this or that, but the relation of these to the Imams is like the relation of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Mas`ud, Abu, Mu`adh and the like to the Imams and others, so just as some of these Companions are competent more than one another between each others in the resources of conflict; And if they disputed about something,
they referred what they disputed about to Allah and his Messenger, even if some of them may be more knowledgeable in other matters. So are the sources of dispute between the imams. The people abandoned the statement of Umar and Ibn Mas`ud in the issue of the ritual ablution of the one in a state of Tayammum for sexual impurity and took the statement of those who were below them,
such as Abu Musa al-Ash`ari and others, when he argued. By the Book and the Sunnah, and they abandoned the statement of Umar regarding the blood money for fingers and took the statement of Muawiyah because of what he had from the Sunnah,
that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “This and that are the same.” Some people were debating with Ibn Abbas about Mut’ah, so he said to him: Abu Bakr and Umar said. Then Ibn Abbas said: Stones are about to fall upon you from the sky. I say: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said, and you say: Abu Bakr and Umar said?
If it is said to this person seeking guidance and advice: Are you more knowledgeable or Imam So-and-so? This is a corrupt opposition. Because Imam so-and-so was contradicted in this issue by someone who is his counterpart from the Imams,
and I do not know of this or that, but the relation of these to the Imams is like the relation of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Mas`ud, Abu, Mu`adh and the like to the Imams and others, so just as some of these Companions are competent more than one another between each others in the resources of conflict; And if they disputed about something,
they referred what they disputed about to Allah and his Messenger, even if some of them may be more knowledgeable in other matters. So are the sources of dispute between the imams. The people abandoned the statement of Umar and Ibn Mas`ud in the issue of the ritual ablution of the one in a state of Tayammum for sexual impurity and took the statement of those who were below them,
such as Abu Musa al-Ash`ari and others, when he argued. By the Book and the Sunnah, and they abandoned the statement of Umar regarding the blood money for fingers and took the statement of Muawiyah because of what he had from the Sunnah,
that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “This and that are the same.” Some people were debating with Ibn Abbas about Mut’ah, so he said to him: Abu Bakr and Umar said. Then Ibn Abbas said: Stones are about to fall upon you from the sky. I say: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said, and you say: Abu Bakr and Umar said?
Loading suggestions...