Sunday, 12 June 2011

Dr al-Khumayyis Attacks Imam Abu Hanifa

Wahhâbism by a Wahhâbî
promoted by Wahhâbis for the consumption of Wahhâbis

(Sheikh Dr al-Khumayyis)

Dr Muh-ammad ibn `Abd al-Rahmân al-Khumayyis is the author of:

Usûl al-Dîn `ind al-Imâm Abî Hanîfa;
Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fîl-`Aqâ'id;
Manhaj al-Mâturîdiyya fîl-`Aqâ'id;
Al-Tanbîhât al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fî Kitâb al-Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya;
Al-Majmû` al-Mufîd fî Naqd. al-Qubûriyyati wa-Nusrati al-Tawhîd.

One of the latest Saudi pseudo -Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a popelets of misguided auto-da-fés against the real Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a

al-Khumayyis began his career with a doctoral thesis at the University of Muh-ammad ibn Saûd entitled:

Usûl al-Dîn `ind al-Imâm Abî Hanîfa which he turned into a 650-page brick he published in the same town, at Riyadh's Dâr al-Sumayî, to once more hurl at the Umma the Najdî misrepresentation of the early Muslims, the Sacred Law, and the Religion as a whole, making them say the contrary of what they said.

In predictable betrayal of the title, the book is only another self-absorbed, complacent manifesto of Wahhâbism by a Wahhâbî promoted by Wahhâbis for the consumption of Wahhâbis.

Among its aberrations:

- Al-Khumayyis claims that the seventeen Musnads of Imâm Abû Hanîfa, Allâh be well-pleased with him, were compiled after his time and are therefore attributed to him unreliably.

This is like the claim of the non-Muslims and their ignorant acolytes that the hadîth was compiled after the time of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace: what matters is not the time of the final compilation but the veracity of transmission and attribution, while it is established that setting pen to paper took place at the earliest stages of hadîth transmission from the Prophet himself, upon him blessings and peace, let alone from the Imâms of later generations such as Sufyân al-Thawrî, Ibn Jurayj, al-Awzâ`î, or Abû Hanîfa, Allâh be well-pleased with them.

The attack against Abû Hanîfa the Musnid is enshrined in two lines of the Tankîl (1:214) originally written in refutation of Imâm al-Kawtharî's Ta'nîb al-Khatîb by the Lâ-Madhhabî Wahhâbî `Abd al-Rahmân al-Mu`allimî then rehashed by Muh-ammad `Abd al-Razzâq Hamza, Muh-ammad Nasîf, and Nâsir al-Albânî (1) in which al-Mu`allimî's confused pen (and/or others) wrote of the Masânîd of Imâm Abû Hanîfa:

"Most of the compilers of those Masânîd came late, a group of them are accused of lying, and whoever among them is not accused has in his chains to Abû Hanîfa, for the most part, narrators of undependable rank."

Such a statement is itself a litotic exercise in vagueness and unreliability since it backs its assertions with nothing, and the assertions themselves are so vague as to be meaningless.
One should also beware of the pronouncements of Wahhâbîs against early Hanafî narrators from Abû Hanîfa, since their business is to discredit such narrations on principle according to their lusts and not on a scientific basis. This fact becomes abundantly clear when critics are faced with the inevitable question:

What compilers do you mean exactly?

The Masânîd of Abû Hanîfa, as listed by the hadîth masters
Abû al-Mu'ayyad Muhammad ibn Mahmûd al-Khwârizmî (d. 655) in his Manâqib Abî Hanîfa,
Muhammad ibn Yûsuf al-Sâlihî (d. 942) in `Uqud al-Jumân, and Ibn Tûlûn (d. 953) in al-Fihrist al-Awsat., are narrated with their chains by the following:

1. al-Hâfiz Abû Muhammad `Abd Allâh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ya`qûb al-Hârithî al-Bukhârî.(2)
2. al-Hâfiz Abû al-Qâsim Talha ibn Muhammad ibn Ja`far al-Shâhid.
3. Abû al-H.asan Muhammad ibn al-Muzaffar ibn Mûsâ.
4. al-Hâfiz Abû Nu`aym Ahmad ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Ahmad al-As.bahânî al-Shâfi`î.
5. Abû Bakr Muh.ammad ibn `Abd al-Bâqî al-Ans.ârî Qâd.î Mâristân.
6. al-Hâfiz Abû Ahmad `Abd Allâh ibn `Adî al-Jurjânî al-Shâfi`î the author of al-Kâmil fîl-D.u`afâ'.
7. Abû al-H.asan Muhammad ibn Ibrâhîm ibn Hubaysh from al-H.asan ibn Ziyâd al-Lu'lu'î.
8. Qâdî Abû al-Hasan `Umar ibn al-Hasan al-Ashnânî.
9. Abû Bakr Ahmad ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khâlid al-Kalâ`î.
10. al-Hâfiz Abû `Abd Allâh al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Khusrû al-Balkhî.
11. al-Hâfiz Qâdî Abû Yûsuf's Âthâr.
12. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybânî's samâ`.
13. Hammâd ibn Abî H.anîfa.
14. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybânî's Âthâr.
15. Qâdî Abû al-Qâsim `Abd Allâh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Abî al-`Awwâm.
16. al-Hâfiz Abû Bakr ibn al-Muqri'.
17. al-Hâfiz Abû `Alî al-Bakrî.

Each one of the narrators between each of the above scholars and Imâm Abû Hanîfa is mentioned by name though not documented by al-Khwârizmî, al-Sâlihî, and Ibn Tûlûn.
Yet anti-Hanafîs muqallids cling to the ijmâlî disparagement they find in the Tankîl without firsthand knowledge of the narrators. In addition, Imâm al-Kawtharî and his editor in the Ta'nîb, Ah.mad Khayrî, also mention five more Masânîd which, unlike the foregoing ones, are no longer extant except for Zufar's, narrated by the following:

18. al-Hâfiz al-Dâraqutnî, which al-Khatîb said he had in his possession in Shâm.
19. al-Hâfiz Ibn Shâhîn, which al-Khatîb said he had in his possession in Shâm.
20. al-Hâfiz Ibn `Uqda, mentioned by al-Badr al-`Aynî in his Târîkh al-Kabîr and containing 1,000+ hadîths.
21. Muhammad ibn Makhlad al-Dûrî al-Bazzâz, mentioned in al-Khatîb's Târîkh Baghdâd.
22. al-Hâfiz Abû al-Hudhayl Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl al-'Anbarî's Âthâr.

- Al-Khumayyis claims that none of the doctrinal texts attributed to Abû Hanîfa are authentically his except the `Aqîda of Imâm al-Tahâwî.

This is an orientalist speculation which Wahhâbîs are only glad to endorse since it suits their hawâ.

Al-Khumayyis himself shows that early Hanafî doctrinal works all have well-known chains of transmission but he chooses to discard them on the basis of his own specious discreditation of the narrators:

I. Al-Fiqh al-Akbar. It is narrated by Nasr or Nusayr ibn Yahyâ al-Balkhî (d. 268), from Muhammad ibn Muqâtil al-Râzî, from `Isâm ibn Yûsuf ibn Maymûn al-Balkhî, from Hammâd ibn Abî Hanîfa, from his father.

The above narrators are all truthful. Al-Bukhârî alone declared Ibn Muqâtil weak - as mentioned by al-Khalîlî in al-Irshâd - but without explanation, hence Ibn Hajar dismisses this weakening as based on a difference in Madhhab and the fact that Ibn Muqâtil, like all Hanafîs, was considered a Murji'.(3) Ibn Sa`d declared `Isâm weak but this is also rejected as unconfirmed since Ibn Sa`d's severity against the Kufans is known, and Ibn H.ibbân, although a rabid enemy of H.anafîs, declared him "highly reliable despite occasional errors" while al-Khalîlî graded him "truthful" (s.adûq). As for Hâmmâd, al-`Uqaylî declared him weak then Ibn `Adî but their case is the same as Ibn Hibbân and Ibn Sa`d regarding Hanafîs. Hence, Abû al-Muzaffar al-Isfarâyînî declared this chain sound in al-Tabsira fîl-Dîn.

II. Al-Fiqh al-Absat.. Its text is in catechetical format and differs from the first in content as well. Its chain contains al-Husayn ibn `Alî al-Alma`î al-Kâshgharî and Abû Mut.î` al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muslim al-Balkhî who are both weak although their religion is beyond reproach according to al-Sim`ânî and Ibn al-Mubârak respectively. Al-Khumayyis confuses Abû Mut.î` with Abû Salama al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Khat.t.âf, whom Abû H.âtim accused of lying, while he only declared Abû Mutî` weak. (4)

III. Al-`Âlim wal-Muta`allim. It contains a noted emphasis on the necessity of learning kalâm for the protection of one's faith and the defense of religion, identical to Istih.sân al-Khawd. fî `Ilm al-Kalâm, which Imâm al-Ash`arî wrote after the H.anbalî Abû Muh.ammad al-Barbahârî slighted his Ibâna. It is at the very least a work by the student of Imâm Abû H.anîfa, Abû Muqâtil H.afs. ibn Salm al-Samarqandî, and the first of its two chains adduced by al-Khumayyis is impeccable and formed of Imâms of fiqh up to Abû Muqâtil who is upright but weak as a narrator.

IV. Risâla ilâ `Uthmân al-Battî. (5) Undoubtedly written by the Imâm and narrated from Abû Yûsuf, its chain is impeccable and comes through al-Marghînânî the author of the Hidâya (misspelled as "Marghiyânî"), Abû al-Mu`în al-Nasafî the Mutakallim, and other Imâms.

V. Al-Wasiyya. The chain adduced by al-Khummayis is similar to the previous one but he shows no knowledge that there are several Wasiyyas attributed to the Imâm, not just one.
The same Khumayyis also produced two books against the Ash`arîs and the Mâturîdîs, respectively entitled:

Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fîl-`Aqâ'id and Manhaj al-Mâturîdiyya fîl-`Aqâ'id, which the Jordanian researcher Ustadh Sa`îd Fawda in his al-Naqd wal-Taqwîm said were characterized by the following flaws:

- deep ignorance of the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a; - inability to probe the issues in the way of the great mujtahid Imâms of kalâm; - confinement to taqlîd without real understanding of Sunni `aqîda; - sanctification of Ibn Taymiyya and his followers as part of the said taqlîd.

The same Khumayyis also produced a thirty-five page libel he named
al-Tanbîhât al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fî Kitâb al-Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya published by the same house, which he begins with an epigraph from another zealot of Wahhâbism, Mahmûd Shukrî al-Alûsî's (d. 1342) Ghâyat al-Amânî (2:14):
"Al-Qastallânî was among the extremists of the tomb lovers (al-qubûriyya) [!]. He affirms the intermediary of the polytheistic type (al-wâsitat al-shirkiyya) [!!] by making an analogy between Allâh Most High and the kings of this world."

In addition to heinous envy of the Friends of Allâh, such a charge exhibits a Mu`tazilî type of disavowal of intercession and, what is worse, materialist disbelief in the realities of Barzakh established from the Prophetic reports through mass transmission.(6) {And you will find them greediest of mankind for life and greedier than the idolaters} (2:96).
Khumayyis then proceeds to list what he claims are mistakes Imâm al-Qastallânî, Allâh be well-pleased with him, committed, in which list he himself reveals his ignorance of Qur'ân, Sunna, and Consensus.

For example:

- He takes al-Qastallânî to task for mentioning the hadîths in support of the desirability of visiting the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in Madîna and the ruling that it is among the greatest acts of drawing near (min a`zam al-qurûbât). We have documented the former in our introduction to Imâm Ibn Jahbal's refutation of Ahmad ibn Taymiyya (AQSA Publications). As for the latter, al-Qastallânî is only expressing the Consensus of Ahl al-Sunna, in addition to his remark that some Mâlikîs held the ziyâra to be obligatory, whether the materialists and intercession-deniers like it or not!

- He says that Imâm al-Qastallânî, Allâh be well-pleased with him, said lâ yasihh of the hadîth "Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me" then, "despite this admission, he builds on this hadîth his claim that the visit of the Prophet's grave is obligatory... how can they build their minor and major analogies and its results on a hadîth they admit to be a falsehood (bâ"

This criticism shows ignorance of the difference between the fiqhî application to a hadîth of the expression "it is not sahîh" - such as the identical expression of Imâm Ahmad concerning the Basmala before wudû' whose hadîths are only hasan - and its preclusion from being used in absolute terms as if it were forged and "a falsehood"!

As for the hadîth "Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me," al-Dâraqutnî narrated it in his Sunan and Imâm al-Lacknawî in his marginalia on Imâm Muhammad's Muwatta' (chapter 49: On the Prophet's grave, upon him blessings and peace) said: "It is not forged as Ibn al-Jawzî and Ibn Taymiyya said, rather, a number of scholars consider its chain fair, and a number consider it weak."

- He takes to task Imâm al-Qastallânî, Allâh be well-pleased with him, for adducing the saying of Allâh Most High {If they had only, when they wronged themselves, come unto you and asked the forgiveness of Allâh, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allâh indeed Oft-Returning, Most Merciful} (4:64) as a proof for the obligatoriness of visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace and not only in his lifetime the way the advocates of ta`tîl would have it. Yet the ruling cited by al-Qastallânî is the established understanding of the noble verse and found in the recognized sources for the Four Schools, among them:

Al-Nawawî, al-Adhkâr (Makka 1992 ed. p. 253-254), Majmû' (8:217), and al-Îdâh., chapter on visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Ibn 'Asâkir, Târîkh Dimashq (2:408). Ibn Kathîr, Tafsîr (2:306) and al-Bidâya wal-Nihâya (Ma'ârif ed. 1:180). Ibn Jamâ'a, Hidâyat al-Sâlik (3:1384). Al-Samhûdî, Khulâsat al-Wafâ (p. 121, from al-Nawawî). Taqî al-Dîn al-Subkî, Shifâ' al-Siqâm (p. 52) and al-Sayf al-S.aqîl fîl-Radd `alâ Ibn Zafîl [= Ibn al-Qayyim]; Al-Haytamî, al-Jawhar fî Ziyârat al-Qabr al-Mukarram. Dah.lân, Khulâ al-Kalâm (year 1204).
Al-Nasafî's Tafsîr and al-Alûsî's Tafsîr (6:124-128). Al-Shurunbulâlî's Nûr al-Îd.âh.. Ibn al-Humâm's Sharh. Fath. al-Qadîr (2:337, 3:179-180). Anwar Shâh Kashmîrî's Fayd. al-Bârî (2:433). Ibn `Âbidîn, H.âshiya (2:257).
Qâd.î `Iyâd. in al-Shifâ'. Al-Qurt.ubî, Tafsîr of verse 4:64 in Ah.kâm al-Qur'ân (5:265). Al-Nu`mân ibn Muh.ammad al-Tilimsânî's (d. 683) Mis.bâh. al-Z.alâm fîl-Mustaghîthîna bi-Khayr al-Anâm `Alayhi al-S.alât wal-Salâm. Al-Zurqânî in Sharh. al-Mawâhib and al-Burhân fî `Ulûm al-Qur'ân. Ibn Qunfudh al-Qusant.înî in Wasîlat al-Islâm bil-Nabî `Alayhi al-S.alât wal-Salâm.
Ibn 'Aqîl, al-Tadhkira. Ibn Qudâma, al-Mughnî (3:556-557=3:298=5:465). Ibn Muflih., Mubdi' (3:259). Shams al-Dîn Ibn Qudâma, al-Sharh. al-Kabîr (3:494-495). Al-Buhûtî, Kashshâf al-Qinâ' (2:515=5:30). Ibn al-Jawzî, Muthîr al-Gharâm al-Sâkin ilâ Ashraf al-Amâkin (p.. 490) and his Tafsîr. Ibn al-Najjâr, Akhbâr al-Madîna (p. 147).

- Al-Khumayyis overtly lies about the commentary of the hadîth master al-Zurqânî - whom he calls a Hanafî! - on Imâm al-Qastallânî's denunciation of Ibn Taymiyya's innovation in forbidding travel to visit the graves of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. 

He cites al-Zurqânî's citation of Ibn `Abd al-Hâdî's defense of his teacher but leaves out al-Zurqânî's own words directly following Ibn `Abd al-Hâdî's citation, in utter rejection of the latter's excuses and in confirmation of the condemnation of Ibn Taymiyya as an innovator in the matter, per the Jumhûr of the Ulema of the Three Schools and many Hanbalîs as well such as the Shattâs of Damascus. This is the very tahrîf the Qur'ân and Sunna attribute to the Ahl al-Kitab who changed the meanings of the Book, leaving out what runs counter to their hawâ.

- Al-Khumayyis quotes from al-Alûsî's Qur'ânic commentary that the latter supposedly criticized "al-Tâj al-Subkî for rebuking al-Majd [Majd al-Dîn Ibn Taymiyya the grandfather], as is his habit" but [1] this is not Tâj al-Dîn but his father Taqî al-Dîn in Shifâ' al-Siqâm, and [2] such a mistake is not from the hand of al-Alûsî the Commentator but from his Wahhâbî successors who tampered with his book as exposed by Imâm al-Kawtharî in his Maqâlât, since the original author distinguishes effortlessly between al-Subkî father and son in over three dozen passages of his Tafsîr, and he calls the father "Mawlânâ"! No doubt he would curse anyone who so offends Ahl al-Sunna as to call one of their foremost authorities a qubûrî since such disparagement is the unmistakable mark of heresy.

At any rate, the passage in question regards Imâm al-Subkî's rejection of Imâm Majd al-Dîn Ibn Taymiyya's endorsement of the position attributed to Imâm Abû Hanîfa in prohibition of tawassul through the person of the Holy Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. We addressed this misunderstanding in our Four imâms and Their Schools where we said:

Imâm Abû Hanîfa nowhere objected to tawassul but only - as narrated from Abû Yûsuf in Kitâb al-Âthâr - to the use of specific wordings in supplication, namely, "by the right You owe to So-and-so" (bi-haqqi fulâni 'alayk) and "by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne" (bima'âqid al-'izz min 'arshik).(7) The reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allâh owes no-one any right whatsoever except what He Himself condescends to state on His part as in the verse {To help believers is incumbent upon Us (haqqun 'alaynâ)} (30:47). On the other hand, "by the right owed so-and-so" is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allâh Most High Himself on pains of shirk. Imâm Abû Hanîfa said: "Let one not swear any oath except by Allâh alone, with a pure affirmation of tawhîd and sincerity."(8) A third reason is that the expression "the joints of power and glory in Your Throne" is a lone-narrator report and is therefore not retained nor put into practice, in accordance with the rule for any such reports that might suggest anthropomorphism.

Those that claim (9) that the Imâm objected to tawassul altogether are unable to adduce anything to support such a claim other than the above caveat, which is not against tawassul but against a specific, prohibitive wording in tawassul. A proof of this is that it is permissible in the Hanafî School to say "by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence" (bi-hurmati/bi-jâhi fulân). This is stated in the Fatâwâ Bazzâziyya (6:351 in the margin of the Fatâwâ Hindiyya) and is also the position of Abû al-Layth al-Samarqandî and Ibn 'Âbidîn.

Even so, there is authentic evidence in [1] the hadîth of Fâtima bint Asad,(10) [2] the hadîth "O Allâh, I ask You by the right of those who ask You (bi-h.aqqi al-sâ'ilîna 'alayk),"(11) [3] the hadîth: "O Allâh, I ask You by the joints of power in the Throne,"(12) and [4] the hadîth: "Do you know the right owed to Allâh by His slaves and the right owed by Allâh to his slaves?"(13) to support the permissibility of such a wording.

If the above objection is authentically reported from Abû Hanîfa then either he did not deem these hadîths authentic by his standards, or they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that Abû Yûsuf permitted the formula "By the joints of power…".(14) Further, the opposite is also reported from Abû Hanîfa, namely, that he permitted tawassul using those very expressions.
Ibn 'Âbidîn said: "In the Tatârkhâniyya: The Âthâr also report what shows permissibility." Then he cites - from al-Qârî's Sharh. al-Niqâya, al-Munâwî quoting Ibn 'Abd al-Salâm (cf. the very first of his Fatâwâ in the printed Risâla edition), and al-Subkî - further explanations that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by Ibn Amîr al-Hajj in the thirteenth chapter of Sharh. al-Munya that permissibility is not limited to tawassul through the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, but extends to the S.âlih.în.(15)

- Al-Khumayyis rages at Imâm al-Qastallânî for stating that one faces the Noble Grave when making du`â during ziyâra although this, too, is a matter of the Jumhûr approving and condoning this as we have shown in our documentations of the exchange to that effect between Imâm Mâlik and the Caliph al-Mansûr and the ensuing positions of the Four Schools in our Four Imâms and Their Schools where we said:
The position is held by some of the Hanafî Masters such as Abû al-Layth al-Samarqandî and those that followed him such as al-Kirmânî and al-Sarrûjî as well as al-Kamushkhânawî in Jâmi' al-Manâsik, his commentary on Rahmat Allâh al-Sindî's Jamî' al-Manâsik, that Abû Hanîfa forbade the facing of the Noble Grave during supplication. However, al-Qârî in al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. - his large commentary on the same work by al-Sindî - said:
(1) Ibn al-Humâm said that it is belied by Abû Hanîfa's own narration in his Musnad from Ibn 'Umar that it is part of the Sunna to face the Noble Grave and turn one's back to the Qibla;
(2) Ibn al-Humâm also said, "This [narration of Ibn 'Umar] is the sound position (al-sahîh) in the madhhab of Abû Hanîfa, and Abû al-Layth's claim that his madhhab is the contrary, is untenable because the Messenger of Allâh, upon him blessings and peace, is alive, and whoever comes to someone who is alive, faces him";
(3) al-Qârî added, this is confirmed by al-Fayrûzâbâdî's narration [in Sifr al-Sa'âda?] from Ibn al-Mubârak that Abû Hanîfa observed al-Sakhtiyânî do the same during the latter's visitation.(16) Allâh knows best.

The same Khumayyis produced another 600-page brick entitled al-Majmû` al-Mufîd fî Naqd al-Qubûriyyati wa-Nusrati al-Tawhîd which he published at Riyadh's Dâr Atlas [!] and where he hurls insults and anathema at the Sunnis who visit graves and believe in the intercession of the righteous.

Such is the enmity to knowledge that movement promotes while they loudly pretend to defend the Sunna, and the Umma witnesses the continuing publication of their drivel helplessly.

Yet, no sooner do we warn Muslims of the dangers of their institutes and websites in the West than their ignorant defenders accuse us of the very divisiveness and takfîr they themselves have specialized in, alone among all the sects of the last two hundred years. There is no change nor might except in Allâh Most High. May Allâh Most High requite {every sinful, false one} with his just desert!



Hatred and Insults to 
Imam Abu Hanifa 
by Wahhabi/Salafis 

Wahhabi say:
Aslam Khan said: Abu Hanifa "JAHMIYA KI MAWT MARAAY THAY" ... AstaghfirUllah, In english it would mean: Imam Abu Hanifa died the "DEATH OF JAHMIYYAH" ... remember Jahmiyyah was a kafir/misguided sect. Now this proves that when I refuted Wahabism deeply they became baffled and started to reveal their real nature:

If someone thinks that only few Wahabis believe such way, then here is proof that when Wahabis are caught then they bring forward their real face... Look at this Nezam calling Imam Abu Hanifa (rah) as "Gumrah" "KAFIR" and "DAJJAL" May Allah bring death to Wahabism, Wahabism is indeed the world's biggest fitnah and hadith of Bukhari rightly proves them Khawarij:

Now this was height of Takfir by Wahabis .. after this disgusting person was humiliated and defeated in debate he said: "Chawal na mar Imam abu hanifa ko ab muslman sabit kar" (which means: Don't say rubbish and now prove Imam Abu Hanifa as a Muslim) ... Maaz Allah, Thuma Maaz Allah. Remember Imam Abu Hanifa cannot be kafir but this person is Kafir for sure due to false takfir:

Mubashar Salafi who is self proclaimed best debator of Wahabism on beyluxe, challenging all ahnaaf rather Muslims that "IMAM ABU HANIFA (RAH) WAS GUMRAH" ...Audhobillah Min Dhalik ...This Bughzi Wahabi also called Imam Sahab as "LANGRA LOLLA" ...AstaghfirUllah, look at reply from Ashfaq below that perfectly fits all Wahabis

Same self proclaimed debater of Wahabi sect calling one of the greatest scholars ever in history of Islam as "LANGRA LOLLA" i.e. Crippled and disabled....Audhobillah min Dhalik !!

by this
Wahabi Terrorist
Mubasher Hassan ^Salafi

This Evil Wahabi changed his Profile/ picture:
Mubasher Hassan Smp

Login Facebook to read/view this ^Wahhabi Evil