Abu Maryam PK
13th January 2008, 08:10 AM
Bismillah
In continiuation of another discussion:
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Abu Maryam al Salafi http://forums.islamicawakening.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=67986#post67986)
justabro, i thought 'ainee and ibn hajr were contemporaries and wrote their books at almost the same time [i remember something in the muqaddimah of umdat al-qari with that effect]. Anyway, was 'ainee's work supposed to be a defence of the hanafi postion against ibn hajr's onslaught against them in fath al-bari? i read some parts of umadat al qari, but he was mostly concetrating on gramattical structures of the riwayah, and did not look particularly biased towards the hanafiite postions in general.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
They did write at the same time. Apparently, al-Ayni had managed to get a hold of a copy of some of ibn Hajar's work on Fath and he incorporated things into his own work. Ibn Hajar was none to pleased about it either and so he wrote the following:
http://waqfeya.com/open.php?cat=33&book=1632
In any case, al-Ayni's work is still one that has benefit, and comparing the two, it is more than just work stolen from ibn Hajar.
I am currently reading the radd. It appears from the Hafidh's muqaddimah, that the order of his writings was:
1)Taghleeq Al-Ta'leeq (Started 813H and finished in Safar 814 H). He claims the work is unprecendented. It contains takhreej of the mu'allaq ahadith of Bukhari.
2)Hady Al-Sari, Muqaddimah Fath Al-Bari(814H start)
3)Fathul Bari (842H finish).
If so, then fathul bari took 3 years more than the famous 25 years. If we add to 25 the famous digit of 5 years for hady al-sari, then the total is 30years, 2 years more than the 28 here. What's the solution to this discrepiancy, was there overlap in the 5 and 25, as this is what the hadith appears to be speaking.
According to ibn hajr, 'ainee started his work in the whereabouts of 820 H. Al-Ainee was then the ombudsman at Cairo, later to become the 'hanafi judge' (islam u see was already divided into 4 at that time)
Secondly, the researchers, salafi and samirai say that 'aynee tried to answer ibn hajr's fath, and (hold ur breath) 'was dis-honest in copying the exact passage from fathulbari (بتر و تحريف)' to give a response to the hafidh. The researcher wrongly assume him to be a hanbali (probably typing error), while he was a hanafi all along. Does that mean that 'ainee was as muta'assib as the rest of ahnaaf, coming from the tradition of al-tahavi himself (in sharh ma'ani). No wonder they had a thread on multaqa:
من هم محدثو الاحناف
and they discreditted everyone (including al-tahavi), except al-zaila'ee. Brother Muhammad al-ameen as usual came up with most of the stuff.
Oh and hafidh is also accusing al-ainee of copy-paste form nawawi (and he accused him of doing a bad copy-paste job even, making 80 odd mistakes), besides copy-pasting from his fathulbari. And when ibn hajar pointed this out their co-teachers, balqainee and deeri and others also condemned al-ainee al-hanafi.
Apparently Al-Ainee wanted to bring anything against Al-Hafidh, even contradicting himself as pointed by Al-Hafidh in
البول عند صاحبه و التستر
And he accuse Al-Ainee of ta'assub (blind partisanship) in the next chapter, and he seems correct.
Also see الصلاة بالمني
And ينزل للمكتوبة is something i wont comment on, anyone can see it for himself.
And the self contradiction in الحيلة في النكاح
And باب قوله تعالي اطيعوا الله و اطيعوا الرسول is quite hillarious what al-ainee comes up with.
But hafidh is obviously wrong in his kitab al-tawheed beginning and the istidraak of al-ainee is correct, thats why soem of the salaf called the jahmis mushrikoon.
Apart from the fact that both do tafweedh al-ma'na as is seen here:
قوله تعالي يريدون ان يبدّلوا كلام الله
open to comments
In continiuation of another discussion:
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Abu Maryam al Salafi http://forums.islamicawakening.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?p=67986#post67986)
justabro, i thought 'ainee and ibn hajr were contemporaries and wrote their books at almost the same time [i remember something in the muqaddimah of umdat al-qari with that effect]. Anyway, was 'ainee's work supposed to be a defence of the hanafi postion against ibn hajr's onslaught against them in fath al-bari? i read some parts of umadat al qari, but he was mostly concetrating on gramattical structures of the riwayah, and did not look particularly biased towards the hanafiite postions in general.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
They did write at the same time. Apparently, al-Ayni had managed to get a hold of a copy of some of ibn Hajar's work on Fath and he incorporated things into his own work. Ibn Hajar was none to pleased about it either and so he wrote the following:
http://waqfeya.com/open.php?cat=33&book=1632
In any case, al-Ayni's work is still one that has benefit, and comparing the two, it is more than just work stolen from ibn Hajar.
I am currently reading the radd. It appears from the Hafidh's muqaddimah, that the order of his writings was:
1)Taghleeq Al-Ta'leeq (Started 813H and finished in Safar 814 H). He claims the work is unprecendented. It contains takhreej of the mu'allaq ahadith of Bukhari.
2)Hady Al-Sari, Muqaddimah Fath Al-Bari(814H start)
3)Fathul Bari (842H finish).
If so, then fathul bari took 3 years more than the famous 25 years. If we add to 25 the famous digit of 5 years for hady al-sari, then the total is 30years, 2 years more than the 28 here. What's the solution to this discrepiancy, was there overlap in the 5 and 25, as this is what the hadith appears to be speaking.
According to ibn hajr, 'ainee started his work in the whereabouts of 820 H. Al-Ainee was then the ombudsman at Cairo, later to become the 'hanafi judge' (islam u see was already divided into 4 at that time)
Secondly, the researchers, salafi and samirai say that 'aynee tried to answer ibn hajr's fath, and (hold ur breath) 'was dis-honest in copying the exact passage from fathulbari (بتر و تحريف)' to give a response to the hafidh. The researcher wrongly assume him to be a hanbali (probably typing error), while he was a hanafi all along. Does that mean that 'ainee was as muta'assib as the rest of ahnaaf, coming from the tradition of al-tahavi himself (in sharh ma'ani). No wonder they had a thread on multaqa:
من هم محدثو الاحناف
and they discreditted everyone (including al-tahavi), except al-zaila'ee. Brother Muhammad al-ameen as usual came up with most of the stuff.
Oh and hafidh is also accusing al-ainee of copy-paste form nawawi (and he accused him of doing a bad copy-paste job even, making 80 odd mistakes), besides copy-pasting from his fathulbari. And when ibn hajar pointed this out their co-teachers, balqainee and deeri and others also condemned al-ainee al-hanafi.
Apparently Al-Ainee wanted to bring anything against Al-Hafidh, even contradicting himself as pointed by Al-Hafidh in
البول عند صاحبه و التستر
And he accuse Al-Ainee of ta'assub (blind partisanship) in the next chapter, and he seems correct.
Also see الصلاة بالمني
And ينزل للمكتوبة is something i wont comment on, anyone can see it for himself.
And the self contradiction in الحيلة في النكاح
And باب قوله تعالي اطيعوا الله و اطيعوا الرسول is quite hillarious what al-ainee comes up with.
But hafidh is obviously wrong in his kitab al-tawheed beginning and the istidraak of al-ainee is correct, thats why soem of the salaf called the jahmis mushrikoon.
Apart from the fact that both do tafweedh al-ma'na as is seen here:
قوله تعالي يريدون ان يبدّلوا كلام الله
open to comments