-
His siding with al-Thanawī, the author of the Introduction to Iʿlāʾ al-Sunan(1), in attacking the two Ṣaḥīḥs and the leading ḥadīth authorities, issuing a sweeping critique of both collections in order to champion their shared Ḥanafī school—which, in many instances, does not act upon a large number of the reports they contain (p. 35, Introduction to Sharḥ al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah). In Kalimāt he did not answer him—not with so much as a single word.
-
His assault on Imām al-Bukhārī, alleging that the latter deviated from Abū Ḥanīfah, was prejudiced against him, and made insinuations about him, under the heading “The Reason for al-Bukhārī’s Deviation from Abū Ḥanīfah” (p. 380, 3rd ed.). Our brother, Ustādh Zuhayr, reproduced a portion of this in al-Tawḍīḥ, yet he offered no reply whatsoever.
-
His disparagement of ḥadīth scholars, ancient and modern, and his ill opinion of them. An illustration is what he transmits from Shaykh al-Kashmīrī al-Ḥanafī to justify why the ḥadīth critics judged Imām Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Shaybānī weak: namely, that he was the first to separate fiqh from ḥadīth, whereas before that* authors mixed reports with legal reasoning, and when he differed from their view they attacked him for it!
I remarked on this in the Introduction (p. 39):
"So he said! Yet he knows perfectly well that, in their eyes, the only fault was weak memory. Al-Dhahabī, in Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan’s entry in al-Mīzān, writes: ‘Al-Nasāʾī and others considered him soft because of his memory.’"
Moreover, the author himself** cited this from al-Thanawī (p. 344), but then produced another monstrosity, commenting:
"I say: his strictness is well known!"—meaning Imām al-Nasāʾī.