A Review of Allama Albani’s Research Regarding Baqiyyah’s Tadlis al-Taswiyah:
While declaring Baqiyyah bin al-Walid free of tadlis al-taswiyah, Mirza Sahib did not present any evidence, but he requested that we look at Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) and his book
on this matter. Let us pause here first and decide whether Ali Mirza Sahib is a man of knowledge and books, or a follower of a “Babi” and a blind follower (muqallid)? Is everything he says backed by evidence, or is all of this a mere pretence?
In any case, at his request, here briefly is the comment of Mr. Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) and our submissions on it:
The first and most fundamental claim that has been put forward is that the chain on which the accusation of tadlis al-taswiyah against Baqiyyah is based contains explicit hearing throughout, that is, it reads “Baqiyyah: Abu Wahb narrated to me, he said: Nafi’ narrated to us”, so how can there be tadlis?
In reality there is no room for this objection, because our research is limited to the outward appearance of chains, whereas Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) is an imam of ‘ilal (hidden defects). The people of knowledge know well that an ‘illah (hidden defect) is, by definition, a concealed flaw occurring in a chain that is not visible to everyone, while it is perfectly clear to the experts in the ‘ilal of hadith. Here Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) takes the outward appearance of the chain and says that the chain has “Baqiyyah: Abu Wahb narrated to me, he said: Nafi’ narrated to us”, so when there is continuous hearing, where is the tadlis? But Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) has already explained that here Abu Wahb’s “narrated to us” from Nafi’ is the result of an error (wahm), and he has also stated explicitly that Baqiyyah dropped Ishaq bin Abi Farwah from between these two (Abu Wahb and Nafi’), and that Baqiyyah was the most skilled of all at this practice
. Therefore it is also incorrect to say that perhaps Baqiyyah did not drop Ishaq deliberately, and that the link of Ishaq was omitted by mistake. Moreover, Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) is not alone; rather Imam al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (may Allah have mercy on him) strongly supported him. After quoting the complete statement of Abu Hatim (may Allah have mercy on him), he says: “وقول أبي حاتم كله في هذا الحديث صحيح“, meaning: all of Imam Abu Hatim’s (may Allah have mercy on him) statement about this hadith is correct.
And further, no one has refuted Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him); rather, the muhaddithin have continued to quote his statement as evidence in explaining Baqiyyah’s tadlis al-taswiyah, and they have agreed with Abu Hatim and supported him, as we have already quoted. Therefore it is not correct to take Abu Wahb’s “narrated to us” from Nafi’ as proof and on that basis to declare Baqiyyah free of tadlis al-taswiyah.
Then the statement of Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him) has been quoted, that Baqiyyah’s students, in order to test him, would drop weak narrators from his hadith and perform tadlis al-taswiyah.
Regarding this, Allama Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) says that this is explicit evidence that Baqiyyah was free of tadlis al-taswiyah. In fact, there is no such explicit evidence in it by which Baqiyyah could be declared free of tadlis al-taswiyah, because other muhaddithin have stated explicitly that Baqiyyah was the most prolific in tadlis al-taswiyah, and they also present evidence for their claim. The statement of Imam Ibn Hibban is shadh (anomalous); the reliance of the leading muhaddithin is on the statement of Imam Abu Hatim, as we mentioned in the evidences, that the muhaddithin have continued to quote Imam Abu Hatim’s statement in the discussion of tadlis al-taswiyah, and Imam al-Khatib al-Baghdadi also said about him (may Allah have mercy on him) that his statement is entirely correct.
Shaykh Albani’s (may Allah have mercy on him) well-known and highly capable student, Allama Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni (may Allah have mercy on him), has also declared Baqiyyah guilty of tadlis al-taswiyah, rejected this argument of Mr. Albani, and ruled in favour of Abu Hatim (may Allah have mercy on him). He says that if Baqiyyah’s students used to do this, then how does it necessarily follow that Baqiyyah himself did not do it?
One more point was also made: that Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him), where he discussed Baqiyyah in “al-Kashif”, described him only as having tadlis of shaykhs and did not mention tadlis al-taswiyah. And Imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) also mentioned Baqiyyah in Tabaqat al-Mudallisin, but he too did not accuse him of tadlis al-taswiyah.
As for the fact that Imam al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) did not describe Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid as guilty of tadlis al-taswiyah, this can in no way be proof that Baqiyyah is free of tadlis al-taswiyah. It is not necessary for every imam to mention every single thing about every narrator, nor is it a principle that a defect is acted upon only when all the muhaddithin report it for a narrator, otherwise the criticism is rejected because some did not mention it. And when other muhaddithin (among whom are also the teachers of Imam al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him) have been stating explicitly that Baqiyyah used to practise tadlis al-taswiyah, then he does not become free of tadlis al-taswiyah merely because Allamah al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) did not mention it. Otherwise, in this way any criticism of any narrator could be proven weak, by saying: “such-and-such imam did not mention this about him!” And if someone cites al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) in this regard, saying that he declared sahih (authentic) a certain ‘an-narration of Baqiyyah, then I submit that not only Baqiyyah, he has declared sahih the ‘an’an narrations of many mudallisin. So will it be said about all of them too that they are not mudallis at all?
And to name Imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) here is not appropriate at all, because he has in various places described Baqiyyah as guilty of tadlis al-taswiyah, as has been mentioned earlier with references. As for Tabaqat al-Mudallisin, in this book Allamah Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him), in mentioning al-Walid ibn Muslim, did not say that he practises tadlis al-taswiyah either, although you accept regarding al-Walid ibn Muslim that he used to practise tadlis al-taswiyah.
Therefore, Mr. al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) has not presented any such proof by which it could be established that Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid is free of tadlis al-taswiyah and that the muhaddithin who accused him of tadlis al-taswiyah are wrong. And further, Allamah al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) did not quote the statement of even a single one of the imams who explicitly declared Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid free of tadlis al-taswiyah. Therefore, Mirza Sahib should not browbeat us by taking the name of Allamah al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him), because it is not we who accuse Baqiyyah of tadlis al-taswiyah; rather we are presenting the statements of the muhaddithin, that great muhaddithin have declared him guilty of tadlis al-taswiyah.
What is our standing? The very students of those whom you are citing to us do not agree with their teacher Allamah al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) in this matter and hold a different opinion from him. We suffice here with mentioning two names. Shaykh Muqbil ibn Hadi and the muhaddith Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni (may Allah have mercy on them both) are two special students of Allamah al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him). Thus Allamah Abu Ishaq, after mentioning this position of Allamah al-Albani, says that tadlis al-taswiyah is established from Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid, and then he established his own position with evidence.
. And likewise Allamah Muqbil ibn Hadi also described Baqiyyah as guilty of tadlis al-taswiyah.
. Therefore, do not cite Allamah al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) to us; his claim is also without evidence. And do remember that you are “‘ilmi kitabi”, not “babi”.
And then Mr. Zubair Ali Za’i (may Allah have mercy on him), in imitation of whom you are claiming that Baqiyyah’s narration from Buhayr is sahih even without an explicit statement of hearing, and that tadlis al-taswiyah is not established from Baqiyyah, — Shaykh Zubair Ali Za’i (may Allah have mercy on him) himself accused Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid of tadlis al-taswiyah and also declared his narration from Buhayr da’if (weak) because of ‘an’anah. So, praise be to Allah, we are on this very position of the Shaykh, which agrees with the explicit statements of the muhaddithin and the evidences. Therefore, do not present anyone’s error to us as evidence. In this regard also look at Mirza Sahib’s own principle. Thus, in connection with this very narration, he says in one place:
“In the field of knowledge, emotions have no standing; then the scalpel is in hand, and the surgeon’s job is that whether a Shaykh al-Hadith is lying down or a doctor is lying down, he will make the incision; one cannot say to him, ‘Friend, why did you make an incision on the Shaykh al-Hadith? An incision has to be made to remove the appendix.’ So whoever the greatest of venerable personalities may be, wherever there are scholarly evidences, there we will say that a mistake was made by them, and for this mistake they can be taken to task scholarly.”
Masalah 157 a -1:30:10
Also see the Engineer’s video:
Sheikh Albani vs Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai vs Imam Tirmizi by Engineer Ali Mirza
So we have proven by scholarly evidences that this narration is da’if (weak), and in this matter a scholarly error occurred from Allamah al-Albani and Zubair.
The summary of the whole discussion is this: the narration presented by Mirza Sahib is da’if (weak) because of the tadlis of Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid; the scholars who declared it da’if are right in their statement. And the claims the Engineer made to prove it sahih (authentic) are all without evidence. Therefore, to criticise Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) because of this narration and to give a wrong impression is not correct. In your view, the narrations of mudallisin come to be fabricated and worthless narrations.
