I actually, am not interested in writing refutations again and again, because i can understand that people have to defend their big guns, they have no other choice, it is natural

but I found some claims which got me to this post

A person had written refutation to my article

His main objective was to defend Bukhari, in the post of mine where it was clear that he heard from his sheikh Humaidi, but did not put name of Samrua in his Sahih, though Humaidi had included that in his own Musnad. Apart from that, there is another narration as well where Humaidi had narrated the name of Samura, the sahabi

you can read that post here
imam bukhari and his manipulation: a detailed examination of the narration « slave of Ahlubait’s Blog

now, rather than trying to prove that Humaidi had narrated the narration in different forms, which he had not proofs to back up,
he tried to prove that by putting other people into it so that they can defend Bukhari atleast, without realizing that it was putting their trustworthiness in question
he made a claim which is very interesting, let me share

he says

Most importantly, we have cases of narrators hearing both versions from their shaikh. The first, and most obvious, is the narration of Al-Bukhari from Al-Humaidi. The second, is Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah, who heard it from Sufyan twice. The first narration, with the word fulan is included aboveThe second, with the name of Samura, can be found in Sunan Ibn Majah.

Honestly, this claim is very odd because it puts him in more trouble, and that is, if it is is true that the great sheikh of their was narrating two versions, and in his words, ” hearing both versions from their shaikh”; then they should had the “trustworthiness” to include both version, and not that they include one version only which suited their desire, when his sheikh had put the other one

though, this claim on his part needs proof because there is nothing actually in Musnad Humaidi which proves that he had heard two versions, we just find this narration, and then narrated two version to Bukhari as has been claimed by this person with CONFIDENCE
but this is baseless claim

now, if it is said that since Bukhari has pointed it out that Humaidi has narrated it, then it is useless since we already are speaking of the trustworthiness of bukhari. That is the point of debate, and his claim cannot be accepted as a proof, by any one having even minor level of intellect
Anyway, he made my attention to a point, and that i wanted to share here

We find Ibn hajar saying in Fath ul Bari

في رواية مسلم وابن ماجه عن أبي بكر بن أبي شيبة عن سفيان بن عيينة بهذا الإسناد : ” أن سمرة باع خمرا فقال قاتل الله سمرة ” 

[Fath ul Bari]

now, let us see what Muslim had written

رقم الحديث: 2969
(حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ ، وَزُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ ، وَإِسْحَاق بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَوَاللَّفْظُ لِأَبِي بَكْرٍ ، قَالُوا : حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو ، عَنْ طَاوُسٍ ، عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : بَلَغَ عُمَرَ : أَنَّ سَمُرَةَ بَاعَ خَمْرًا ، فَقَالَ : قَاتَلَ اللَّهُ سَمُرَةَ ، أَلَمْ يَعْلَمْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : ” لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْيَهُودَ حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الشُّحُومُ ، فَجَمَلُوهَا فَبَاعُوهَا ” 

[Sahih Muslim]

and in Sunan ibn Maja, we find

رقم الحديث: 3382
(حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ , حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ , عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ , عَنْ طَاوُسٍ ، عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : بَلَغَ عُمَرَ ، أَنَّ سَمُرَةَ بَاعَ خَمْرًا , فَقَالَ : قَاتَلَ اللَّهُ سَمُرَةَ , أَلَمْ يَعْلَمْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ , قَالَ : ” لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْيَهُودَ , حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الشُّحُومُ فَجَمَلُوهَا فَبَاعُوهَ
ا ” .

[Sunan ibn Maja]

but when we look into Musanif ibn abi Sheebah, we find

رقم الحديث: 21008
(حديث مرفوع) حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ ، عَنْ عَمْرٍو ، عَنْ طَاوُسٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، قَالَ : بَلَغَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ أَنَّ فُلَانًا يَبِيعُ الْخَمْرَ ، فَقَالَ : مَا لَهُ قَاتَلَهُ اللَّهُ , أَلَمْ يَعْلَمْ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، قَالَ : ” لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْيَهُودَ , حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الشُّحُومُ فَجَمَّلُوهَا فَبَاعُوهَا وَأَكَلُوا أَثْمَانَهَا ” .

[Musanif ibn abi Sheebah]

so, despite the fact that those who took narrations from ibn abi Sheebah, they had put that name,
but the present day copy is not having the name 

now, many presumptions can be made like

1- the same old story of hearing it twice, which has no evidence to back up, as we do not find the two versions in Musanif ibn abi Sheebah; nor we find that Muslim or Ibn Maja had put the two forms as far as i can see. Of course, it will be nice if they can give us clear proof for this by quoting Ibn abi Sheebah hearing it in two forms and then narrating it so as well

2- there is tehreef in Musanif ibn abi sheebah; there are examples where we find books being changed like

tehreef in tabaqat ibn saad? taken from the work of brother farid al-salafi « slave of Ahlubait’s Blog

even their big guns like Albany have changed a narration

tehreef by sheikh albany « slave of Ahlubait’s Blog

so, it is not new thing for them


One thing is for sure, ibn abi Sheebah heard it once, no proof he heard it twice, I ll be happy if they give us saying of ibn abi Sheebah in this regard

He narrated it to two of his pupil, Muslim and Ibn Maja, in ONE form only, which is present

but the one present in his book does not name Samura

but his pupils have named him

So, there is change/tehreef in any of the case

Nawasib can put the finger on anyone, We will be happy in all cases……………….