1
:
A CRITIQUE OF LECTURE 116-B
A CRITICISM ON THE VIEWS OF IBN H:AJR “ASQALANI RH AND IBN ‘ISH:AQ RAHVAIH RH E ngineer “Ali: Mirza: has claimed that Imam Ibn H:-jr “Asq-la:ni: said that the H:adi:th: doeth not
shew any Fad:i:lah [Virtue]. Listen lecture 131-c,116-b. This the blind Taqli:d of ‘Imam ‘Ibn “Asqala:ni [d :852 A.H] . Since the Tradition quoted by ‘Imam ‘Ibn H:ajr doeth shew the Fad:ilah [Virtue] of Saiyiduna Mu”aviah RD. This Tradition [Hadith No:=3766] Stateeth at least One Fad:ilah Of Saiyiduna Mu”aviah RD. That is of S:ah:biah. This is even accepted by Ibn H:ajr “Asqalani. The Attempted Proof Text:= Bukhari mentioned "dh:ikr" rather than M-n-qabah or Fadheelah because there is no fad:i:lah in this H:adi:th: (quoted by Bukhari) but the apparent testimony of Ibn Abbas are evidence of his great virtue (i.e. the words Ibn Abbas ra used for Muawiyah ra) he is faqeeh and he was sahabi of Prophet peace be upon him. Ibn Abi Asim wrote a (separate) Juzz in his (Muawiyah`s ra) Manaqib, Abu Umar Ghulam Tha`lab and Abu Bakar Naqqash also (wrote juzz in Manaqib) [Fath al Bari under the chapter "Dhikar al Muawiyah"]
Logical Argument:= According to the Founder of Engineeriah sect there is only one virtue of MaulNA Mu”aviah RD. BUT THIS IS REFUTED LOGICALLY AS FOLLOW:= If This Holy Tradition Stateth Only One tradition then it Doeth State atleast one Fad:i:lah. If It Doeth State Only One Fad:i:lah then It Doeth State Some Fad:a:’il [ At least One]. So the explanation of Ibn H:-jr is in directly in contradiction with the H:adi:th: . If this H:adi:th: was silent from all virtues [Fad:a:’il] with out any exception, then his explanation would have been correct. But as at least one Fad:li:lah / Virtue is Stated in the Text Of Tradition , then the claim is contradicted that “ There is no Fad:ilah is Stated in the Text Of H:adi:th: “.
2
:
Any statement or sentence that contradicteth the Explicit Text of the Tradition is incorrect and wrong irrespective of the Speaker or Writer of the Statement or Sentence or both. Irrespective of the personality of the Speaker or Writer or Both, who so ever he may be, whether he be Imam ‘Abu H:ani:fah or Imam Shafi”i: or Imam Ibn H:ajr “Asqala:ni: or ‘Imam Ibn ‘Ish:a:q Rah-vaih [RAH:MATULLAH “ALAIHIM].
IN THE FORM OF SYLLOGISM := S:ah:abiah is a Fad:i:lah of any Person who so ever he may be. S:ah:biah is ascribed to Ascribed to Saiyiduna Mu”aviah in the Tradition. RESULT:= Fad:i:lah is ascribed to Ascribed to Saiyiduna Mu”aviah RD in the Tradition. Two contradicting sentences/statements cannot be simultaneously true. One of them is necessarily false. If it is true that Some Fad:a:’il [At least One ] IS EXPLICITLY Stated in the Text of H:adi:th: then it is False that No Fad:i:lah is Explicitly stated in the Text of the Tradion [under discussion]. If the Text of the Tradition hath mentioned no Virtue Not Even of S:h:a:biah then this explanation of ‘Ibn H:ajr “Asqalani: would have been correct. But as it contradicteth the text of H:adi:th: stated above this Explanation is Wrong and Incorrect. As this explanation is incorrect , to accept this explanation is nothing but a TAQLI:D of Imam Ibn H:ajr “Asqalani RH.
3
:
STATUS OF THE COMMENTARY [SH-RH:] OF “ASQALANI: ‘ It is one of the trustworthy Commentary of Holy Bukhari:. But even the trustworthy Commentary of Qur’a:n like Tafsi:r of ‘Imam T:abri: Hath some weak portions , some weak portions may exist in the the Commentary of “Ibn H:ajr as well as some weak portions do exist in Commentary Of T:Abri , one of the most trustworthy Commentaries of Holy Qur’a:n. Ibn H:ajr[d:-853 AC] is certainly not Infallible. The commentary of Imam “Aini: is far more better then Imam Ibn H:ahr at this H:ad:th: . Since it has irrefutable proofs. He saith:= “”….. He (Bukhari) did not mentioned The Virtues of Ibn Abbas as he said for the other Companions Because he already made a Chapter in Book of Knowledge that "Chapter about Saying of Prophet O Allah Teach him the Book" and then under it he narrated from him (Ibn Abbas) that he said Prophet embraced me and said O Allah teach him the Book, (i Ayni Say) this is a great Virtue and Imam Bukhari be settled with not discussing the Word Virtue Over Here. (Ummdatul Qari 23/393) Although Imam “Aini is H:anafi and Ibn H:ajr is a Shafa”I, yet such distinctions are useless since “Engineer “Ali Mirza claims that he requires proofs . If so then the proofs for IMAM “Aini are perfect and irrefutable in regard to the commentary in this regard.
NOTES: 1]So it is astonishing to see that Engineer “Ali Mirza: has become a Muqallid of Ibn H:ajr instead of accepting his error. 2]The status of Sharh: Of Bukha:ri is not equal to the Holy Bukha:ri It Self. To dispute from the given Sh-r-h: of Bukha:ri: is one thing and to dispute from the Very Holy Bukha:ri: is an other thing. 3] If an explanation of Text Of Holy Tradition Of Holy Bukhari: Shari:f contradicteth the Explicit Text of Tradition of Bukha:ri: , then the explanation is discarded , Since in principle any Speech of any created Rational Suppositum that Contradicteth a S:ah:ih: H:adi:th: is wrong and incorrect.
4
:
CONLUSION This is the Error of Imam Ibn H:ajr and be not to be followed [Taqli:d]. If Heretic Ali Mirza believes that there is no error in Fath: ‘Al Bari: then we do dispute with him. It is an authentic book in principle yet as it is not free from Errors, and some errors do exist in it. One of such error is that it contradicteth with the text of S:ah:ih: H:adith: [ Hadi:th: #3766]. How ever we do have some explanations on some other standards. This is ‘Insha: ‘Alha:h Sufficient on the standard of Shaikh Zubair “Ali Zai [ who is accused to conceal truth by Engineer Ali Mirza for only writing Kana: Yaktibul Vah:y in the lecture 116-b] and Ali Mirza: himself. Since they do claim that the reject any statement [Qaul] of any Person if the statement contradictheth the Text of Ha:di:th: . The commentary or explanation or both of Ibn H:ajr does contradict the Text Of H:adi:th: . So the this Particular Explanation or Commentary or Both Of ‘Ibn H:-j-r [RH] contradictheth the H:adi:th: . The statement of H:di:th: doeth contradict the portion of lecture of the Engineer. So they are not only rejected but also discarded. H:adith NO 3764. H:asan BN Bisr Stated to Us, Mu”afi: Stated to Us,From “Uth:ma:n Bin Asvad, From Ibn Abi Mulaicah, that He stated that: Mu'aviyah did offer one Rak'ah War prayerafter the 'Isha prayer, and at that time a freed slave[former bound man] of Ibn 'AbbSs was present. He (i.e., the former slave/boundman) did go to Ibn 'Abbas (and told him that Mu'aviyah did offer one Rak'a in War prayer).Ibn 'Abbas said, "Leave him, for He was in the company of Allah's Messenger. This Holy Text Of H:adi:th: doeth prove the Fad:ilah of Compaionship of Holy Apostle. This is Fad:ilah Number 1.
Hadith Number:= 3765.
5
:
Ibrahi:m Ibn Maryam Stated to Us,Nafi” Bn “Umar Stated to Us ,Stated to Us Ibn Abi Mulaicah, Stated to Us ,It was Stated to Ibn 'Abbas, "Canst Thou speak to Chief of the believers Mu'aviyah, as He doeth not offer except one Rak'ah as War?"Ibn 'Abbas replied, "He is a Faqih (i.e., alearned man /Scholar who can give religious verdict) ." [In archaic English this may be translated as He Be A Faqi:h]
This is the second Fad:lah. These to H:adith: do contradict the claims 1]Imam Bukhari: found no Fd:ilah. 2] Imam Bukhari found only one Fad:ilah. Since this Bab of Bukhari DO State two Vitues with certainty. So the claim of Ali Mirza is falsified. Q.E.D
In presence and exIstence of the texts of h:adI:th whIch do state explIcItly two fad:a:’Il of saIyIduna Mu”avIah, neIther the sateMents of IBn ha-j-r nor the stateMents of alI MIrza: Be accepted, and addItIonally not any stateMent of IBn ‘Ish:aq ra:h-vaIh Be accepted. As for Imam Bukhari we have presented some answers. We do like to reproduce it again.
IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ALI MIRZA IN REGARD TO HIS ARGUMENT BY THE THE WORDS ZIKR OF MU”AVIAH USED BY IMAM BUKHARI RH. ALI MIRZA of Jhelum as tried to allege that Imam Bukhari did not find any S:h:i: tradition in case of Saiyiduna Mu”aviah RD, so he was compeeld to write Zikr of Mu”aviah instead of M-NA:Q-B of Mu”aviah RD.
6
:
This is the worst of allegations agreed by All the Great Sunni Scholars even by Irsha:d ‘Al H:Aqq Athari who was even admired by Semi Ahlul Hadis Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai. The word Zikr is far more general in its meaning then the word M-NA:Q-B. But in the Shariah and Law of Allah the word is generally a more strong word then the Term M-N:AQ-B [Virtue]. 1] To write Zikr instead of the stated above word is it self a virtue. So writing it makes two Virtues. The Proofs:= 1]The word Zikr is used for Qur’a:n even in Qur’a:n.
Inna: Nah:nu Nazzalna: ‘A(l)zzikra Va ‘inna Lahu: Lah:afiz:u:n(a) [‘AL-H:-J-R^ 9]
This shews that this word is used as a virtue unless and otherwise there is a certain evidence that it is not. Other wise to term Qur’a:n Shal not be among M-NA:Q-B. 2] ALLAH SAITH :=
dhIKru rah:MatI raBBIKa “aBdahu zaKarIyya: [MaryaM:2] This is among M-NA:Q-B.
3] Vazkur Fi:l Kita:bi Musa: ‘innahu Ka:na Mukhlas:an Va Ka:na Rasu:lan Nabiyya: [Maryam:51] 4] Va Nzkuraka Kathi:rah [T:AHA: ^34] These four proofs are irrefutable proofs that the word Zikr or its derivations are used as M-NA:Q-B . So If Imam Bukhari changed his former stile ,it is due to the reason he was emphasizing on the M-na:q-b of Saiyiduna Mu”aviah RD. 5] “Allama “ABDUL “Azi:z Farha:rvi answering the very same objection of Ravafid: which is borrowed by Heretic Ali Mirza has said:= The answer of the act of Imam Bukharis is due to Tafann-n Fil Kala:m.
7
:
So even the slightest possibility or probability of this answer refutes the self designed reasoning of Ali Mirza that it was duet o the [alleged] reason that He did not found any tradition in the Ba:b of M-na:q-b. These are Insha: Allah sufficient for any one who wand to compare Ali Mirza’s objections and Answers of Ahlussunnah impartially and unbiased. So this is proved that the Word Zikr [‘Azka:r] is used for M-na:q-b by IMAM BUKHA:RI with out any doubt. The explanation of Ibn H:ajr is atmost a Possible explanation yet one has a right to accept an other possible explanation , on the basis Proofs. The explanation of Ibn H:ajr is not only proofless but it is against a number of Proofs.
A REQUEST TO THE FOLLOWERS OF ALI MIRZA: FOR SAKE OF ALL-H STUDY THE TEXT OF HOLY BUKHARI AND THE USE OF WORD Z:ICR /DH:IKR AND THE DECIEDE YOUR SELVES WHETHER TO FOLLOW THE TEXT OF H:ADI:TH: OR LECTURES OF ALI MIRZA. A SIMPLE CONUNDRUM:= WHAT IF SOME PORTION OF LECTURE OF ALI MIRZA OR STATEMENTS/SENTENCES ANY ONE ELSE BE IT SHAIKH ZUBAIR ALI ZAI OR IMAM “ASQALANI OR IBN IS-H:A:Q RA:H-VAIH CONTRADICT A PART OF EXPLICIT TEXT OF S:AH:I:H: ‘AL BUKHARI: , THEN WHICH ONE IS TO BE FOLLOWED .
THE TEXT OF SPEECH OF HOLY PROPHET OR THE TEXTS OF SPEECH OR WRITINGS OF OTHER PERSONS WHO SO EVER THEY MAY BE.
8
THE CHOICE IS YOURS. LET ASK ALI MIRZA TO ACCEPT THAT ATLEAST THIS PORTION OF HIS LECTURE IS CERTAINLY AND DEFINITELY WRONG AND INDCORRECT.
: