Page 1 of 3 Are Tah:qi:qul Fatva and ‘Imtina:” ‘An Naz:i:r Manipulated and Corrupted forms of extinct works of Fad:l H:aqq of Kh:airaba:d? Martyrdom [Shaha:dah] of ‘Ima:mu ‘Ahlissunnah ‘Ash Sha:h “Isma:”i:l Shahi:d occurred in the Solar Year 1830 CE. The ‘Ima:m of Sils-lah of Kh:airaba:di thought died in 1861 CE in Exile , 31 years after the death of ‘Ima:mu ‘Ahlussunnah stated above. Taqviyatul ‘I:ma:n was authored by ‘Ash Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d in 1240 AH in the first Lunar Month. Yakrozah [Also called Yakrozi] was Written by Shah Shahi:d in the twelveth month of 1241 AH, Five years prior to the Martyrdom of Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d. Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: ascribed to Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq is a refutation of Yakrozah. But it is allegedly written in 1240. It was first published in 1979 CE. This book is allegedly written one Lunar Year prior to the book which it purports to refute. This does proves that it is a concoction ascribed to ‘Ima:m of Kh:airabadis or it is manipulated and Corrupted.The Original and Genuine Book have ceased to exist. If Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: was a refutation of Yakrozi then it would have been written on some year between 1825 CE to 1856 CE since it cannot be written in the year 1857 CE the year of Indian Munity or renamed as First War Of Independence. But this books was not published until 1979 CE about 160 years after it is allegedly written. So this implies that the present work is probably apocryphal and mutated form of an original work if any. Some people report about Tah:qi:qul Fatva yet it is not certain whether it is the same book or a mutated , manipulated and corrupted form of that book. It is probable that the manipulation did occur from 1858 CE to 1910 CE since the coplies of the manuscripts were in the possession of those who were nemeses of Saiyiduna Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d. Now we come to the work ‘Imtina:” An Naz:i:r which is purported to be written by Fad:l Haqq and is said to be a refutation of the book of Maulana: H:aidar “Ali: RD: . But it is strongly improbable thatMaulavi Fad:l Haqq wrote a refutation of a book that was not a refutation of his book.
It is further said that Maula:na: H:aidar “Ali Tonki RH: wrote a second refutation , that is refutation of Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: . But the work [S:-YANATUN NA:S] which is claimed to be a refutation of Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: is really a work which refutes Maqu:la:t “Ashrah written by Fad:l Rasu:l of Badayun and not of Fad:l H:aq Kh:airaba:di. So this is very obscure to consider this work as a refutation of a book which was published about 160 years after it was allegedly authored. Serious doubts, improbabilities and uncertainties are implied. If it Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3 was a book written but unpublished yet the manuscripts or manuscript copies of the alleged original was seen by some followers of Sha:h Shahi:d even then there is no certainty that there is no manipulation latter during the period these manuscripts were in the possession of Nemeses of Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d RH: . One can never be certain .Certainty is Impossible. But Maula:na: H:aidar “Ali: died in the year 1856 CE the year when ‘Ah:mad Rad:a of Bans Barili was born. Within all these years Maulana: Fad:l H:aqq did not published this work. Fad:l H:aqq died in the year 1861 CE in exile in Andaman Islands. Even it was not published immediately after his death. It was first Published in the year 1899CE or 1900CE for the first time. With in all these period its alleged manuscript was in the possession of son of Maulana:/Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq of Kh:airaba:d, WHO WAS A Nemesis of ‘Ash Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d. If this book was really written by ‘Ima:m of Kh:airabadi Cult [Sils-lah] then it cannot certain that there is no manipulation and corruption in the text of this book. There are some evidences which imply that the original book of this name was not the very same book which exist by the very same title .
Now we come to the work ‘Imtina:” An Naz:i:r which is purported to be written by Fad:l Haqq and is said to be a refutation of the book of Maulana: H:aidar “Ali: RD: .But it is strongly improbable thatMaulavi Fad:l Haqq wrote a refutation of a book that was not a refutation of his book. Some problems in regard to this book. 1] If ‘Imtina:” ‘An Naz:i:r was a refutation of a book of Maula:na: H:aidar “Ali: whether the book of Maulana: H:aidar “Ali: be S:-ya:nah or else even then why Maula:na: Fad:l H:aqq did not publish this book with in his life time , and why did he kept it in the possession of himself which latter came in the possession of his son [Malavi “Abdul H:aqq]. 2] If he was unable to publish due to certain reasons , did he send a manuscript copy of the original manuscript to Maula:na: H:aidar “Ali: . If not then to write a book and not to send it to the concern person devalues the worth of the book. 3] It is reported by some narrators and authors that Maulana Fad:l H:aqq did revert to the believes of Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d. 3.1] ‘-Fa:da:t T-ra:biah reports that Maula:na: Fadl H:aqq accepted the belief of Sha:h Shahi:d. It was published in 1852 CE , when he was silenced by a student of his father Maula:na Fad:l ‘Ima:m [RH:] . 3.2]
This book which is stated above supports a tradition of an other book of Noun Ami:r al Ravaya:t) was written by a scholar and a reporter , who witnessed that he had a copy of “ Imtinaun Nazeer” in which Imam of Kh:iraba:di sect Maulavi Fad:le Haqq Khairanadi accepted his fault on the matter of “ Imtina:” ‘Annaz:i:r . That means that if the testimony is correct then Imam Of Kh:airabadi Cult Maulavi Fad:l Haqq Kh:airaba:di finally accepted the believes of ‘Ima:m ‘Ahlussunnah ‘Ashsha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d of Dahli [Delhi /Dahali] . When the opponents asked him to show this copy , he could not shew.
WHY? Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3 Because the manuscript of that work was with the son of Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq Khairabadi . Some of the opponents claimed that this testimony is false. But it cannot be declared so for the following reasons. 1] If a person has read a Book then it does not imply that he possesses it for all the sempiternity. It is possible that he read a book by borrowing it from some one else and then returned it to the person from whom the reade borrowed it for a limited period of time. 2] If this book was one the property of the reader/studier , he might have gave it to some one who never returned it , or he might gifted it to some one , who never returned it even for a short period of time. 3] It may be the case that “Abdul Haqq let him study the book in the past relative to the testimony , yet after that he did not allowed any access to the witness. 4] In a Court of Law the witness is not a claimant. The position of the narrator is neither of the Claimant nor of the Prosecutor but of a Witness. If a person has seen some thing by his own eyes he cannot be declared as speaker of falsehood [liar] even if his testimony is not accepted. SO IT IS INCORRECT TO AY THAT This lie was refuted in those days itself! But the thing is that there are some more reports with the same information. This does shew that there are some reports of his reversion , and the reports of his reversion cannot be discarded just one the basis that he could not shew a book that was not in his possession. We have defended the accusation of falsehood ascribed to the Author of ‘Ami:ru Rava:ya:t , yet it is some what out of the context. The pont is that the book was in the possession of the Son of Ma:ulavi Fad:l H:aqq of Kh:airabadi. It is possible that Manipulation ,Mutation, Curruption, Addition, Substraction [All Types of Tah:rif could occur during this period of time]. Even the Supporters of the previous views of Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq of Kh:airabadi were not given any access to the Manuscript by the Son of the Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq Kh:airabadi i.e Maulavi “Abdul H:aqq Khairabadi. Even if one reject the stated above testimony , he cannot claim that there was no mutation etc. in the Text during the period the book became a Apocrypha and was hidden not only from Supporters of ‘Ima:m ‘Ahlussunnah ‘Ash Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d but also from the opponents of Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d. The book kept in secret was not published until 39/38 years passed after the death of the alleged author in 1861CE i.e in 1900CE or 1899 CE. This minimisws the credibility of the book. These two traditions does shew that there was a reversion if not shown with certainty then with good probability.
If it is correct then we find a logical explanation for not publishing these books. He no longer remained in his former believes so he did not published his works, and kept it in his possession so that no one can see them. After him those who inherited these books manipulated them and waited for a long time to publish then when it would become very difficult to determine the scheme. How ever we do not need to reley on these traditions. Since the opponent may not accept them in any case. The basic argument is that as these books were published long after the death of the author , it the lose their certainty and possibility of Addition and Subtraction become a strong probability.
Page 3 of 3