Imam Bukhari did not call Mu'ammal bin Isma'il a munkarul hadeeth. 6693289253

In fact, the so-called Ahl al-Hadith brethren are not able to put forward any evidence on their chests, insisting on their theory that "the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadith are the only evidence". So in this case take refuge in cunning. If the Qur'an and Sahih Hadith are the only documentary evidence, and if following the sayings of a community other than the Qur'an and Sahih Hadith evidence is a taqlid of the level of shirk, then has Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah declared that hadith to be saheeh from Allah and His Messenger according to their claim? If not, then isn't it a blind taqlid of a muhaddith to say that a hadith which Allah and the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not call saheeh is saheeh with reference to any ummah without reference to Qur'an and saheeh hadeeth? If we follow the wise mujtahids, then it is shirk, and if they do, then how can it be based on Qur'an and Sahih Hadith? The slogan of obedience to the Qur'an and Sahih Hadith orally, and blindly accepting the statement of the Ummah in deeds without the Qur'an and Sahih Hadith, whatever else, is not following the Qur'an and Sahih Hadith, but deception. When the so-called Ahl al-Hadith brothers did not find any evidence of tying their hands on their chests, their own invented theory "The Qur'an and Sahih Hadith are the only evidence". Then, first of all, he started calling the hadith of Sahih Ibn Khuzaym as Sahih by imitating the Qur'an and the Hadith without any document. But whenever we point out to them that Imam Bukhari, who believes that all his comments are final and true, has commented on one of the narrators of that narration, Muammal bin Ismail, as “Munkarul Hadith”, then their attention is shattered. He came up with new ideas. That is to make Mu'ammal bin Ismail Mu'ammal bin Saeed. This is a strange trick. Let's see if Imam Bukhari (may Allah be pleased with him) or Mu'ammal bin Ismail (may Allah be pleased with him) commented on "Munkarul Hadith" or not. What did Keram write in his own book about that? 1 Allama Mizzi Rah wrote: Waqal al-Bukhari: Munkar al-Hadith. That is, Imam Bukhari said, he (Mu'ammal bin Ismail) munkarul hadith. (Tahajibul Kamal fi Asma'ir Rizal, Narration No. 6319) 2 Imam Zahabi said, Imam Bukhari said, Muammal bin Ismail Munkarul Hadith. Almugani Fij Juafa, Narration No-6547, Tarikhul Islam, Narration No-360, Siyaru Alamin Nubala, Narration No-1548, Zikru Man Takallama Fihi, Narration No-348, Mianul Itidal, Narration No-6949. 3 Ibn Hajar Asqalani (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Imam Bukhari (may Allah be pleased with him) called Mu'ammal bin Ismail a munkarul hadith. (Tahajibut Tahajib, Narration No. 6, Lisanul Mian, Narration No. 496) (Maganiul Akhyar, Narration No. 2419) 5 Ahmad bin Abdullah Yamani said: Imam Bukhari has called Mu'ammal bin Ismail a munkarul hadith. (Khulasatul Tahajibu Tahajibil Kamal) The Imams of so many acceptable Jarah Tadil have copied the comment of Imam Bukhari in so many books. Imam Bukhari (may Allah be pleased with him) did not make this comment about Muammal bin Ismail, but about Muammal bin Saeed. No one said that Imam Bukhari's remarks about Mu'ammal bin Ismail were substantiated. No one mentioned Muammal bin Saeed. This clearly proves that the so-called Ahl al-Hadith brothers of today have resorted to the heinous act of proving the position of the Imams of so many acceptable Jarah Tadil to prove their undocumented masala. Protect the sincere Muslims from the plots of these so-called Ahl al-Hadith. Amen. Interestingly, when the same person contradicts the masala of the so-called Ahl al-Hadith brothers, then he is considered to be Zayef and inadmissible. We have not paid any attention to the chain of transmission of the hadith mentioned in the first question. Described from This time I noticed some deceptions of the so-called Ahl al-Hadith brothers. Mu'ammal has narrated the hadith from the source of the hadith narrated in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, the deceiver No. 1, from Sufyan Sauri, and from Sufyan Sauri, Asem bin Kulaib. And this source is being propagated by the so-called Ahl al-Hadith brothers as Sahih Sanad. But the same kind of sanad i.e. narration from Sufyan Sawri Rah: Asem bin Kulaib narrates the narration of leaving the time of going and getting up in Rufay Yadain Ruku when we present from Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and Nasai. Then they say this certificate is weak. Because Sufyan Saori Rah or Mudallis. And he narrated it with the word "an", so the hadith is weak. But in the midst of Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, when that Sufyan Sauri is narrating from Asim bin Kulaib through the word "an", this hadith became a necklace around their necks. Now where is the Zayf when you say "An", or the statement with Sufyan Saori Rah: Mudallis? Deceptive No. 2 The hadith of Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood and Nasai who abandoned Rafi'i Yadain while going up and down in ruku 'is said to be abandoned for another reason. And when Asem bin Kulaib became Munfarid, he was not documentable. But the interesting thing is that Asem bin Kulaib Munfarid is also mentioned in the document mentioned in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah. There is no other such narration from Wail bin Huzur. So how did the hadith of Tirmidhi, Nasai and Abu Daud's Rafi'i Yadain leaving Aseem bin Kulaib become authentic even though it is not authentic because it is munfarid in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah? Big surprised brothers mentality! The authentic hadith narrated by Ibn khujaimaya -3 No. frauds have been reported after the close sutre عاصم بن كليب الجرمي, حدثني أبي أن وائل بن حجر أخبره قال: قلت: "لأنظرن إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كيف يصلي قال: فنظرت إليه, قام فكبر وَعَرَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ حَتَّى حَاذَتَا أُذُنَيْهِ, Asim bin Kulaib from his father, he narrates Wail bin Huzur r, Wail bin Huzur r said, I saw the Prophet SAW how he prayed, then I saw him, then he stood up, he stood up, He raised his hand up to the earlobe. (Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, Hadith No. 480) Asim bin Kulaib, his father, he narrated the hadith in question from the source of Hazrat Wail bin Huzur (R). Bin Huzur narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to raise his hands up to his ears in prayer. But the so-called Ahl al-Hadith raise their hands up to their shoulders like women. Do not raise your hand up to the ear. This hadith contradicts. Is it the act of making the hadith narrated in one sutra a necklace and excluding the hadith narrated in another sutra the act of sahih hadith or the worship of the mind? Imam Bukhari: Even if Mu'ammal bin Ismail is not called a munkarul hadith, that hadith cannot be a document of the so-called Ahl al-Hadith. There are two reasons. Namely- 1st reason: Mu'ammal bin Ismail Munfarid Asem bin Kulaib, he is from his father, he is from Hazrat Wail bin Huzur. Through this source, several sources related to the prayer of the Prophet (peace be upon him) have come. I am mentioning a few sources: 1 عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ, حَدَّثَنِي سُفْيَانُ ... (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No.-181) (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 17) We are the servants of Al-Razzaq. R to 6 ... (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 1758) 4 عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بَنُ ِْدْرِيسَ . (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith No. 912) 5 حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرُ بَنُ الْمُفَضَّلِ ... (Sunan Abu Dawood, Hadith No. 628) He is from Wail bin Huzur. (Musnadul Bajjar, Hadith No. 4489) . (Sunan Nasai, Hadith No. 1283) (Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, Hadith No. 48) (Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, Hadith No. 48) (Sahih Ibn Hibban, Hadith No. 1605) I have mentioned only 10 sources. This description has come from many other sources. But nowhere is there any mention of tying hands on the chest. The only source of Mu'ammal bin Ismail is the word on the chest. So he is munfarid in the case of saying hand tied on the chest. And all the Imams of Jarah Tadil agree that Mu'ammal bin Ismail used to make a lot of mistakes. So it is easy to understand that he may have forgotten the word on his chest in that description. Otherwise, why it did not come from any other source? Mu'ammal bin Isma'il (may Allah be pleased with him) said: You can bring that statement by mistake. The document is clear from the statement of Keram in Muhaddisin-

1. Ibn Saad said: That is, he learned, but he made a lot of mistakes. (Attabkatul Kubra, Narration No. 1856)
2. Muhammad bin Hibban said: He was almost wrong. (Assikatul Liibne Hibban, Narration No. 15915)
3. Allama Khatib Baghdadi said: He used to do a lot. (Dated Baghdad-6)
4. Imam Abu Hatem said that he used to make a lot of mistakes. (Al-Jazeera Wattadil, Narration No. 1609)
5. Allama Zahabi said: He used to make a lot of mistakes. (Alkashashaf, Narration No. 5846)
6. Imam Abu Jura'ah said: He used to make a lot of mistakes. (Almugani Phiz Juafa, Narration No. 6546)
7. Imam Dara Qutni said: He made a lot of mistakes. (Tahajibut Tahajib, Narration No. 6) 2nd reason: It is easily conceivable that the narrator of the hadith acts contrary to the said hadith. And one of the rabbis of the source of that hadith of Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah is Hazrat Sufyan Sauri. And he himself did not accept the idea of ​​tying his hands on his chest. Instead, he would tie his hands under his navel. Imam Nawabi (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned in his commentary on Muslim: To tie down. (Sharh Muslim Linnabbi-1/63) And when the narrator himself acts contrary to his own narration, then it is clear that the narration is not valid. So it became clear that there was no evidence to put a hand on the chest. Everything that the so-called Ahl al-Hadith brothers preach is deceptive in proportion to their own theories. May Allah protect the sincere Muslims from the fitna of our so-called Ahl al-Hadith. Amen. 6353711625