Atabek Shukrov Has No Right To Delve Into the Discussion of The Isnaad Nor To Question the Status of Hilaal bin Abi Maymunah Who is a Narrator Used by Both al-Bukhari and Muslim - Rather He is Obligated to Explain to the World Why His Language of Tawhid Is Taken from Aristotle Bin Nicomachus Which is the Real Reason He Is Attempting to Invalidate the Sunnah Which Clashes With His Personal Desires
There is an important point that Ahl al-Sunnah should note about the Jahmites who founded their deen upon ilm al-Kalaam, which is that these Jahmites will focus on a matter of micro-detail so as to hide the macro-picture. We have alluded to this matter previously and explained this in another article using a similar case example where another Jahmite was exposed for the very same:
- Jahmite Intellectual Fraudster Abu Layth bin 'Ataa of Seeking Ilm: Regarding The Saying of Imam Malik on Allah Being Above the Heaven - (see here)
It is crucial for you to read that article because it explains the matter well, and it is the same thing that Atabek Shukrov is attempting here, following other Jahmites such as Hassan Ali Saqqaaf and al-Kawtharee.
Essentially, what they will do is to focus on matters of minute detail, such as an isnaad (chain of narration), or the status of a particular narrator - matters whose discussion requires intricate knowledge and access to resources - something not accessible to the average person. By starting off in this way, they assume legitimacy and if anyone engages with them in the debate and discussion surrounding these issues, then that person has given them legitimacy in speaking about this matter (i.e. discussing the intricacies of a chain of narration or a narrator). However, in reality, these Jahmites do not have the right to be discussing these mattters - because there is a greater, more fundamental matter which they have to resolve and explain first. And that is:
Explain to us why you abandoned the language of the Book and the Sunnah and of the Companions and Tabi'een - the language of the Tawhid of the Messengers (affirmation without asking how) - and instead founded your speech about Allaah upon the language and conceptual baggage of Aristotle, that of bodies (ajsaam, jawaahir), accidents (a'raad) leading to your theology (negation concealed or dressed up as ta'weel and tafweed). Provide us with the legislative proof that allows you to build your theology upon the language and conceptual baggage of the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans all of whom were likewise affected with the conceptual baggage of Aristotle (see here) and which led them to deviation in speech about Allaah's attributes, using language identical to yours and to that of every other Jahmite for the past 13 centuries. You have no right to discuss any other matter until and unless you clarify this issue.
These people have no legitimacy in questioning and undermining texts which mention the uluww (exaltedness of Allaah with His essence) because it is apparent that they are only motivated to question these texts and cast doubts upon them because their theology is founded upon the intellect, conceptual baggage and terminology of a star-worshipping idolater named Aristotle and all of their rhetoric regarding place (makaan) and direction (jihah) is taken from Aristotle (see here). The Companions knew nothing of of this language, and nor did any of these false necessities arise in their minds (i.e. direction necessitates place and place necessitates embodiment).
Rather, these necessities only apply if you first made analogy for Allaah with His creation and include Allaah within the genus of all things about which if it is said "above" it necessitates "embodiment (Jismiyyah)." However, Allah's essence is unlike all essences and hence the analogy does not exist in the first place. As a result, this theological language and the necessities (lawaazim) it assumes is invalidated as it relates to Allaah, and is not applicable to Allaah to begin with. Hence there is no caution in saying "Allaah is above" since that is what the revealed texts came with and it is the truth, and Allaah's essence is unlike all other essences, "there is nothing like unto Him" (42:11).
Do Not Let Atabek Shukrov Into Your House
So the point here is that if Atabek Shukrov and his likes come knocking on your door and they say we want to discuss the narrator Hilaal bin Abi Maymoonah, and you let them in, then you have essentially acted in a way to legitimize and accept the greater crime that they committed earlier - which is using the conceptual baggage of Aristotle in speaking about Allaah and abandoning the actual speech of Allaah itself, or distorting it to fit the language of Aristotle. This is like a murderer coming into your house in order to argue whether the car owned by the person he murdered was silver or black. So if you engage in that argument you've legitimized or downplayed his prior action of murder and he has succeeded in engaging you in a relatively trivial matter. Now having made this point, it does not mean we ignore these doubts brought by these people, of course not! These doubts have to be addressed and answered (see below). But we have to be clear about the actual size and priority of each of the doubts they bring and not to fall into their trap of inflating a doubt to make it much larger than what it actually is.
So when we compare this doubt of trying to cast aspersions upon the status of Hilal bin Abi Maymunah as a narrator, when we compare this with the presence of numerous other matters such as the fact of the Salaf having ijmaa' (consensus) that Allaah is above the heaven, above the Throne, and that this consensus is explicitly stated and narrated by Imaams from the Salaf, from them al-Awzaa'ee (d. 157H), Qutaybah bin Sa'eed (d. 240H), Abu Zur'ah al-Raazee (d. 264H) and Abu Hatim al-Raazee (d. 277H), Zakariyyaa al-Saajee (d. 307H), Ibn Battah al-Ukbaree (d. 387H), Abu Umar al-Talamankee (d. 429H), Abu Nasr al-Sijzee (d. 444H) and Abu Uthmaan al-Saaboonee (d. 449H) - indicating that the Salaf as a whole - (in particular the Imaams of the second century who figured and realized that the greatest goal of the Jahmites was to deny Allaah's uluww through this new conceptual baggage of kalaam) - that they affirmed a matter that Atabek Shukrov is trying to deny through a relatively trivial matter (is Hilal bin Abi Maymunah thiqah or not) which he is fraudulently inflating to make it look as if he can reject a matter agreed upon by the Early Ash'aris (Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari, al-Baqillani) and their Kullaabi forerunners (Ibn Kullaab, al-Harith al-Muhaasibee, al-Qalanisi, Ibn Mahdee al-Tabaree), let alone the entirety of the Salaf! Namely, that Allaah is above His Throne (without that necessitating that He is a jism - the view of the early Kullaabiyyah Ash'ariyyah).
So we see this a deception and a fraud from Atabek Shukrov who is pushing the deen of the Jahmites which is founded upon the language and terminology of Aristotelian Metaphysics and through which he is attempting to undermine the Sunnah.
As for the actual issue he raised, this can be addressed in brief here and a person can refer to the various lengthy rebuttals on this matter (such as الدفاع عن حديث الجارية by Abdullaah al-Khaleefee) from which the materials below have been summarized.
The Hadeeth of Mu'awiyah bin al-Hakam
Following in footsteps of known and confirmed liars and academic fraudsters such as al-Kawtharee and Hasan Alee Saqqaaf, Atabek Shukrov has tried to discredit the narrator, Hilaal bin Abi Maymoonah by downplaying his status using the tact of concealment and selective quoting.
First, let us mention the hadeeth of Mu'awiyah bin al-Hakam (radiallaahu anhu):
Muawiyah bin Al-Hakam said:
I had a slave-girl who used to herd sheep for me. One day I discovered that a wolf had killed one of her sheep, and I'm a man from the children of Adam, I get upset like they get upset, and I slapped her in the face. Then I went to the Prophet who impressed upon me the seriousness of my act. I said, 'O Messenger of Allah, should I not set her free?' He said, 'Bring her to me.' He asked her, 'Where is Allah', She said, 'He is above the heavens.' He said, 'Who am I?' She said, 'You are the Messenger of Allah.' He said, 'Free her, for she is a believer.' (Muslim)
The isnaad (chain of narration) for this hadeeth is as follows: From Yahyaa bin Abi Katheer, from Hilaal bin Abi Maymoonah, from Ataa bin Yasaar, from Mu'aawiyah.
Atabek Shukrov's Academic Dishonesty and Attempted Fraud
This hadeeth is a thorn in the throat of the Jahmites and they have tried their best to discredit this particular hadeeth using numerous types of subterfuge. The first one we are discussing in this hadeeth is to cast doubt about the chain of narration. They do not deny the hadeeth itself is acceptable, because it is narrated by Imaam Muslim, however they try to cast doubt about a narrator by making his status less than what it actually is, and use that as a stepping stone to make the claim there is confusion (idtiraab).
This narrator is Hilaal bin Abi Maymoonah. Atabek Shukrov follows the way of al-Kawtharee and Saqqaaf by presenting only a few statements of some of the Scholars of Hadeeth regarding the rank of this narrator. The first statement is that of al-Nasaa'ee who said, (لا بأس به ) "There is no harm in him (meaning he is alright)" and that of Abu Haatim al-Raazee who said, (شيخ) "Shaykh." By citing only these two statements, Atabek proceeds to say that these are not glowing, praiseworthy statements and do not make Hilaal a high-ranking narrator, but he is just at the acceptable level whereby his truthfulness is merely ascertained - but as for a great deal of precision and memory, then he is not like those top-ranking narrators.
The aim of Atabek and his Jahmite precedecessors before him (such as al-Kawtharee) is to try to make it look as if there is idtiraab (confusion) surrounding the narration as a whole and casting doubt about the status of Hilal bin Abi Maymunah is just one element that forms part of that broader aim.
What Atabek Shukrov Hid Out of Deception
Here is what Atabek Shukrov did not mention (very conveniently):
ONE: The fact that Imaam al-Bukhaaree, the Ameer al-Mu'mineen of Hadeeth uses Hilaal bin Abi Maymunah as proof (for narrations) more than once in his Saheeh, indicating that he is "thiqah (trustworthy) to him. And Muslim has also used him as proof in narrations, and this led al-Haakim to state in al-Mustadrak (1/208):
فقد اتفقا على الحجة بروايات هلال بن أبي هلال ويقال ابن أبي ميمونة ويقال ابن علي ويقال ابن أسامة وكله واحد
They (al-Bukhari and Muslim) have both agreed upon the narrations of Hilaal bin Abi Hilaal as constituting proof (hujjah) and it is also said Hilaal bin Abi Maymoonah and it is said Ibn Alee and it is also said Ibn Usaamah and it is all one (person).
TWO: Ibn Hajar mentions in Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb (11/82):
وذكره بن حبان في الثقات ... وقال الدارقطني: هلال بن علي ثقة وقال مسلمة في الصلة ثقة
So he states that Ibn Hibbaan mentions Hilaal bin Abi Maymunah amongst the thiqaat (trustworthy) and that al-Daraqutni held him to be thiqah (ثقة ) and that Maslamah (bin al-Qaasim) held him to be thiqah (ثقة ).
THREE: It is established that Imaam Malik narrates from Hilaal bin Abi Maymunah in his Muwatta. Imaam al-Dhahabi says in al-Siyar (8/71-72):
وقد كان مالكٌ إماماً في نقد الرجال ، حافظا ، مجوداً ، متقناً قال بشر بن عمر الزهراني سألت مالكا عن رجل فقال هل رأيته ... في كتبي قلت لا قال لو كان ثقة لرأيته في كتبي فهذا القول يعطيك بأنه لا يروي إلا عمن هو عنده ثقة
And Malik was an Imaam (leader) in criticism of men, a Haafidh, precise and excellent... Bishr bin Umar al-Zahrani said: "I asked Malik about a man and he said 'Have you seen him in my books', I said 'No' and he said, 'If he had been trustworthy (thiqaah), you would have seen him in my books'." So this saying will afford you (with the fact) that he (Malik) does not narrate from anyone except one he holds to be thiqah (trustworthy).
FOUR: Yahya bin Ma'een said, as in Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb (10/6) and Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (27/112):
كل من روي عنه مالك بن أنس فهو ثقة إلا عبد الكريم البصري أبو أمية
Everyone Malik bin Anas narrates from is (ثقة ) "trustworthy" except Abd al-Kareem al-Basree Abu Umayyah.
FIVE: Ibn Adee said in al-Kaamil (6/125):
كفى بالراوي صدقاً إن حدث عنه مالك ؛ فإن مالكاً لا يروي إلا عن ثقة
It is sufficient for a narrator to be considered truthful if Malik narrates from him, for Malik does not narrate except from a (ثقة ) "trustworthy person."
SIX: Imaam Ahmad said as related by Ibn Rajab in Sharh al-Ilal (2/786) whilst noting that Hilal bin Abi Maymunah is a Madani (resident of Medinah):
لا تبالِ أن لا تسأل عن رجل روى عنه مالك، ولا سيما مدني
Do not care if you do not ask of a man whom Malik narrates from, esepcially if he is Madani.
SEVEN: Ibn Hibbaan said in al-Thiqaat (7/459) and also Ibn Manjooyah in Rijaal Sahih Muslim (2/220):
كان مالك أول من انتقى الرجال من الفقهاء بالمدينة، وأعرض عمن ليس بثقة في الحديث، ولم يكن يروي إلا ما صح ولا يحدث إلا عن ثقة، مع الفقه والدين والفضل والنسك
Malik was the first one who selected men amongst the jurists in Madinah and he left those who were not (ثقة ) trustworthy in hadeeth. And he did not used to narrate except what was authentic and he would not narrate except from a (ثقة ) trustworthy one who had understanding, religiosity, excellence and much devotion.
EIGHT: Further, Imaam Muslim is not the only scholar to authenticate this hadeeth with its wording. It is also authenticated by Ibn Khuzaymah in his Saheeh, Abu Awaanah in his Mustakhraj (no. 1727) and Ibn al-Jaarood in al-Muntaqaa (no. 212).
NINE: Finally, Imaam al-Bayhaqi brings his isnaad for it in al-Asmaa wal-Sifaat (2/325 no. 890), authenticating the hadeeth with this wording.
As for al-Bayhaqi saying that he did not find this story in the narration in the Sahih of Muslim then either he did not find it in his specific manuscript, or it is wahm (presumption) from him, because it is found in other manuscripts and besides, al-Bayhaqi actually cited the hadeeth here in this book al-Asmaa wal-Sifaat, authenticating it himself! So it is laughable to find Atabek Shukrov trying to deceive his audience by using that other speech of al-Bayhaqi (about this part of the story not being in the narration in Sahih Muslim), when al-Bayhaqi himself authenticates the hadeeth with this wording!
Atabek Shukrov's Academic Fraud in Ruins
Why did Atabek Shukrov deceive his audience through a paltry citation (from al-Nasa'ee and Abu Haatim), deliberately omitting a large amount of what is established with respect to Hilal bin Abi Maymunah, that he is a narrator of al-Bukharee (and hence a narrator of the two Imaams, al-Bukharee and Muslim), that he is from the narrators of Imaam Maalik, that he is declared thiqah by numerous authorities in hadeeth, and that the hadeeth is narrated with this wording by other than Imaam Muslim, such as Ibn Khuzaymah and al-Bayhaqi who also authenticated the hadeeth as "saheeh" based on its isnaad. With this matter cleared about Hilal bin Abi Maymunah, we now move to the next issue which is another hadeeth in the Musannaf of Abdur-Razzaq in which it is alleged by the likes of Hasan Alee Saqqaaf and others (whom Atabek is following in this doubt) that another similar incident is reported about Mu'awiyah bin al-Hakam in which the details differ, and hence, it appears there is idtiraab (confusion) in what is narrated in the hadeeth of Imaam Muslim.