Page 1 of 4
TAH:QI:Q ‘AL FATVA: FI IBTAL ‘AHL TAGH:VA IS NOT A RELIABLE BOOK: TAH:QI:Q ‘AL FATVA: FI IBTAL ‘AHL TAGH:VA IS NOT AUTHORED BY FAD:L H:AQQ OF KHAIRABA:D
A number of people believe that Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: and ‘Imtina:” An Naz:i:r are the the books written by Fad:l Haqq Khairaba:di son of Fad:l ‘Ima:m. These books are ascribed to him with certainly by them. But excogitation shews that both books are not reliable and none of the two has the credibility. It is impossible to prove the certainty. DISCUSSION: 1] The book Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: was supposed to be written against Taqviatul ‘I:man[1/1240 AH] and Yakrozah [12/1241 AH]. These two books are well known books of Sha:h ‘isma:”i:l Shaheed RD:. The book Tah:qiqul Fatva: was first published from Sha:h “Abdul H:aqq Muh:addith: Dahlivi Academy Darul “Ulu:m ‘Imda:diah Bandial [Srgodha] in 1979 CE. “AAbdul H:aki:m Sharf Q:diri had worked on the alleged manuscripts of this work. On Page 436 of the book Persian part it is written that 18/09/1240 AH was the date when the alleged original manuscript was completed by its supposed author Fad:l Haqq Kh:airabadi:. Now we come to discuss that the contends of this books does shew that it quotes the several portions of the book Yakrozah. See page 351,352,353 where it quotes Yakrozah. This is a certain proof that the author who so ever he might be did study Yakrozah of Sha:h Isma:”i:l Shahi:d. The author who so ever he might be tried to refute the arguments of Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shahi:d WHICH HE WROTE IN HIS BOOK YAKROZAH. But the date of Yakrozah is Dh:il H:aj 1241 AH.
Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4 This means that the alleged author had studied a book which was written a Lunar Year after.This is not Possible. So this is a proof that the Book Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: Fi ‘ibt:a:l ‘Ahl T:agh:va: is not the book of Fad:h H:aqq but a fabrication by some one who did not payed any attention on the date of writing of Yakrozah. The fabricator erred and considered the date of Taqiatul Iman in the first month of 1240. But in his zeal quoted from Yakrozah . So the year which was purported was incorrect. 2] Sharf Qa:diri: on page 64 , in the preface of the book did confess that this book was unpublished / uncirculated for 160 [Lunar] Years. 3] Maulavi Fad:l Haqq Khairabadi: remained under the company rule . He was a sevent in ‘Alvar . From Alvar he came to Dahli [Delhi] in August 1857CE. The Indian Mutiny or War of Independence occurred in 1857 CE one year latter when Maulavi ‘Ahmad Rad:a: Son Of Naqi “Ali: was Born in Ba:ns Barali [Not in Rai Baraili]. The speculated year is 1273\74 AH. So it means that from 1240 to 1273 it is about 33 Lunar Years. But in all these years Fad:l Haqq Khairabadi did not published this book. It is found in some works that after some discussions he accepted the believes of Sha:h ‘Isma:”i:l Shaheed during his life time. But he did not asked his sons to revert to the believes of Sha:h ‘isma:”i:l Sha:hi:d. He was exiled to Andaman Island on 8 Oct 1859CE. During all these period he neither published Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: nor ‘Imtina” An Naz:i:r. If we exclude the war days and focus on the years 1855 CE it becomes clear that non of the two books were published by Fad:l H:aqq. This does shew that these two especially the former was probably fabricated after he was sent to Andaman Island. Some copies of the fabricated works were made by the supporters of the Fabricator but for some reasons they were unable to publish the fabricated works. Its two manuscripts are said to be existed in Ja:mi”ah Qa:diriahb Lyallpur /Fs:al Abad, and in Panja:b University. But these cannot prove that the original manuscript was authored by Fad:l H:aqq. Thus this means that THIS BOOK LOSES ITS CRADIBILITY. Some Possible views As this is certain that this book is not authored by Fad:l Haqq, one may make hypotheses about the book. 1] This book is a fabrication of some one who is unknown but he tried to ascribe this book to Maulavi Fad:l Haqq Khairabadi:. 2]It may be the case that the author collected the quotations of Fad:l Haqq Khairaba:di from Yakrozah and fabricated a book. But in his zeal he quoted from Yakrozah and neglected the date of authoring of Yakrozah. 3] The alleged stamps are also proved to be fake and invented under a conspiracy since they it is impossible that those who stamped their stamps read the book which quoted a book which was not written yet in 1240 AH.
Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4 SOME IMPORTANT EVIDENCES:= It is generally claimed that Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: was written in response to Yakrozah [Also Known as Yakrozi]. And Maula:na: H:aidar “Ali: Tonki RH: Wrote te second refutation , the refutation of Tah:qi:qul Fatva: by the title “S:-ya:natunna:s Min V-sv-tul Kh:anna:s. It is said that a third refutation by the Title “ ‘Imtina:”unnaz:i:r was written by Fad:l H:aqq a response to S:iya:nah stated above. Maula:na: Tura:b “Ali: Laknavi in ‘-Fa:da:t Tura:biah claimed that Tah:qiq ‘Al Fatva: was written by Fadl Haqq in response to Yakrozah. But when it is acknowledged that Tah:qi:qul Farva: was first published in 1977 CE THEN it cannot be the very same book which is referred in ‘-Ia:da:t Tura:biah. Since it was never published till 1977 CE. But not much information is found about that referred book. It must be noted that S:-ya:natun Na:s was not the refutation of Tah:qi:q ‘Al Fatva: but it was the refutation of M-qu:la:t “Ashr of by Maulavi Bada:yuni. If this is the case then it is very improbable that Fad:l H:aqq took the task to refute the refutation of Maulavi Badayuni: . Also it is certain that the Maulavi Fad:l Haqq Khairabadi did in 1861 CE . It was first published in the first decade of 20th century some where in time from 1900 CE TO 1910 CE. This does shew that at least ofter 39 years and atmost after 49 years after the death of Maulavi Fad:l H:aqq Kh:airabadi in Andaman Islamds. So with in all this period if Fad:l H:aqq did not published his Manuscripts this negated the certainty of ascription and implies a very strong Probability of Corruption [Tah:ri:f], in the contants of the alleged work. Particularly by the hands of his son “Abdul H:aqq and others. It may be the case that this was the work of his son who ascribed it to his father in exile or ofter the death of his father in Exile. More ever it is also written in ‘-Fa:da:t that Maula:na Sira:j ‘Al H:aqq the Student of Maula:na: Fad:l ‘Ima:m RH: [Father of Maulavi Fad:l Haqq] debated with Maulavi Fad:l Haqq on the Issue of ‘Imka:n ‘An Naz:i:r and silenced him. He also convinced him and made him to affirm the belief of ‘Imka:n ‘An
1
Naz:i:r. [ ] BY THE GRACE OF ‘ALL-H SUBH:AN-HU: VA TA”A:LA: THE CONSPARACY HAS BEEN EXPOSED. ‘AL H:AMDULILLAHI RABBIL “A:LAMI:N. SUBH:ANALLAH VA BI H:AMDIHI SUBH:ANALLAHIL “AZ:I:M Foot Note: [1]The author of the book book Ameer al Rawayaat was scholar of ‘Ahlussunnah Deoband, who said that he has seen a copy of “ Imtinaun Nazeer” in which Maulavi Fad:l Haq Khairanadi accepted his fault on the matter of “ Imkan ‘An Naz:i:r. That means as per this deobandi scholar Maulavi Fazle Haq later accepted the view of ‘Ima:m ‘Ahlussunnah Sha:h Shahi:d. But he did not possessed the work. It was said that a manuscript of this book was in the possession of “Abdul Haqq Kharaba:di: . But as the opponent of ‘Ahlussunnah Deoband are not willing to accept the testimony of an ‘Ahlussnnah Deoband Scholar , and are likely to declare him a speaker of falsehood ,on the
Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4 basis he was unable to shew the manuscript ,since he did not possessed it. But There are several Possibilities. He did possessed the book/manuscript and did lost the book/manuscript latter.
But we do not depend upon his claim. We have only referred this , because some have declared him as a speaker of falsehood [liar]. We argue that a testimony cannot be declared as false on this basis.
Page 4 of 4