According to the Imams of Hadith, Baqiyyah’s narration from Buhayr is not presumed to be a direct hearing!
The hadith scholars have always criticised the chain of Baqiyyah from Buhayr (on account of tadlis), and they also consider an explicit statement of direct hearing necessary in Baqiyyah’s narrations from Buhayr. This is clear proof that there is no reality to Baqiyyah having Buhayr’s book, nor is there any basis for the principle that Baqiyyah’s narration from Buhayr is presumed to be a direct hearing, whether he explicitly states hearing or not.
Imam Abu al-Abbas al-Busiri (may Allah have mercy on him):
Regarding a hadith narrated through the chain of Baqiyyah bin al-Walid, from Buhayr bin Sa’d, from Khalid bin Ma’dan, from al-Miqdam bin Ma’di Karib, he says:
هذا إسناد ضعيف لتدليس بقية۔
“This chain is da’if (weak) because of Baqiyyah’s tadlis.”
Imam Abd al-Azim al-Mundhiri (may Allah have mercy on him) says under a hadith narrated through the route of Baqiyyah from Buhayr:
رواه أحمد، وفيه بقية ولم يصرح بالسماع۔
“Ahmad narrated it
; in it is Baqiyyah, and he did not explicitly state hearing.”
Imam al-Haythami (may Allah have mercy on him) also says about the same narration:
رواه أحمد، وفيه بقية وهو مدلس، وقد عنعنه۔
“Ahmad narrated it; in its chain is Baqiyyah, and he is a mudallis, and here he is narrating with the wording ‘an (from).”
In another place he writes:
رواه أحمد، وفيه بقية بن الوليد وقد عنعنه، وهو مدلس۔
Whereas this narration too is through the route of Baqiyyah from Buhayr.
You say that the narration of Baqiyyah from Buhayr is presumed to be a direct hearing, whereas the Imams here are denying that hearing was explicitly stated! And they are pointing to his tadlis.
Imam Ibn al-Mulaqqin (may Allah have mercy on him) quotes:
قال الشيخ تقي الدين: وقال شيخنا – يعني: الشيخ زكي الدين -: في إسناده بقية، وفيه مقال۔ قال الشيخ: قلت في المستدرك من طريق بقية “نا بحير” فعلى هذا سلم من تهمة التدليس من بقية في روايته عن بحير۔
“Shaykh Taqi al-Din (may Allah have mercy on him) says that our teacher Zaki al-Din (may Allah have mercy on him) said: In its chain is Baqiyyah, and there is criticism (jarh) of him. Shaykh Taqi al-Din (may Allah have mercy on him) says: I say that in al-Mustadrak (this narration) is through the route of Baqiyyah, ‘Haddathana Buhayr’ (Buhayr narrated to us), so by this Baqiyyah’s narration from Buhayr is safe from tadlis.”
Consider: it was only when Baqiyyah said “Haddathana Buhayr” that the chain was declared safe from tadlis; that is, when it was “‘an Buhayr”, it was not safe from tadlis.
Allamah Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in one place:
وقد أمن تدليسه لتصريحه في هذا بالتحديث، لكن ينظر في حديث بحير عن خالد لأن بقية كان يُسوي۔
“By explicitly stating hearing here, Baqiyyah has made us safe from his tadlis, but the narration of Buhayr ‘an (from) Khalid will have to be examined, because Baqiyyah used to practise tadlis al-taswiyah.”
Look, al-Hafiz (may Allah have mercy on him) too declared Baqiyyah’s narration from Buhayr free of the suspicion of tadlis only when he explicitly stated hearing from Buhayr; therefore the rule you have stated has no standing. Moreover, Allamah Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) did not stop only here, but draws attention to Buhayr “‘an” Khalid, that here too there is a fear of tadlis because Baqiyyah used to practise tadlis al-taswiyah. Whereas when a narration is from a book, the discussion of tadlis is not raised at all.
Therefore, it is proven from these evidences that according to the hadith scholars it is necessary in every case for Baqiyyah to explicitly state his hearing, even if he narrates from Buhayr himself, and according to them there is no reality to the claim that Baqiyyah had the book of Buhayr. Otherwise this would have been narrated frequently and would be often mentioned in the words of the hadith scholars, whereas this is not at all the case; rather the matter is the opposite. Therefore, this claim of Mirza Sahib turned out to be futile and false.
