After stating the authentication of Baqiyah bin Walid, Engineer Sahib now discusses deception and says that he will give three answers to this.
The first answer is that although in Abu Dawood Baqiyah is “an” Bahir, meaning it does not specify hearing, Baqiyah has explicitly stated hearing in the method of Musnad Ahmad, and then the reference of this method of Musnad Ahmad is given:
حَدَّثَنَا حَيْوَةُ بْنُ شُرَيْحٍ حَدَّثَنَا بَقِيَّةُ [حَدَّثَنَا بَحِيرُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ] عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ قَالَ وَفَدَ الْمِقْدَامُ بْنُ مَعْدِي كَرِبَ وَعَمْرُو بْنُ الْأَسْوَدِ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ فَقَالَ مُعَاوِيَةُ لِلْمِقْدَامِ أَعَلِمْتَ أَنَّ الْحَسَنَ بْنَ عَلِيٍّ تُوُفِّيَ؟ فَرَجَّعَ الْمِقْدَامُ، فَقَالَ لَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ أَتُرَاهَا مُصِيبَةً؟ فَقَالَ: وَلِمَ لَا أَرَاهَا مُصِيبَةً وَقَدْ وَضَعَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِي حِجْرِهِ وَقَالَ: ”هَذَا مِنِّي وَحُسَيْنٌ مِنْ عَلِيٍّ“۔
Let’s talk about the chain of narration later; first, the intention is to draw attention to the fact that when the Abu Dawood method does not include the specification of the remainder of the hearing, and fundamentally, when a narration with a hidden narrator (mudallis) is weak, then why is the Abu Dawood method always taught? In this video, you also read the narration from Sunan Abu Dawood word for word and added more emphasis to it, but why is the narration from Musnad Ahmad not read, about which you claim that it contains the specification of the remainder of the hearing? The answer is that neither does the narration in Musnad Ahmad (whose chain you claim is authentic) say that “Hasan was a glowing ember” (may Allah protect us), which you have elaborated into such a big story, nor does the narration in Musnad Ahmad say that Hazrat Muqdam (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Today I will make you angry and say things that you will dislike.” Nor is there any mention whatsoever that animal skins were used in the house of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), or that gold and silk were worn. All these things are in the narration of Abu Dawood, whose chain is weak. It is strange that you present the narration from Musnad Ahmad to prove the authenticity of the Abu Dawood narration, but these things are not present in it. Mirza Sahib says: So when the specification of the hearing was found in Musnad Ahmad, therefore the Abu Dawood narration also became authentic, indeed we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return!
Mirza Sahib! How can the additions in Sunan Abu Dawood be compensated by the narration of Musnad Ahmad when those things are not present in Musnad Ahmad that are in the narration of Abu Dawood? Yes, if both narrations were the same, it could be said that the explicit hearing (sama’) was found elsewhere, therefore………… But when there is an addition in a narration which is weak in chain, and that addition is not in the other authentic narration, then that addition will remain weak and unproven. For it to be authentic, the condition is that the addition must also be transmitted through a chain in which the narrator explicitly states he heard it directly (sama’). Otherwise, due to tadlis (concealment), it will remain weak.
Secondly, and most importantly, the method of Musnad Ahmad that you are presenting also contains the chain “عن” Khalid. It is not only your responsibility to explicitly prove the hearing (sama’) from your own teacher but the explicit hearing is required throughout the entire chain because the rest are not ordinary mudallis narrators but are guilty of tadlis taswiyah, as we have explained in great detail. For this, merely proving explicit hearing from your own teacher is not sufficient because one who commits tadlis taswiyah omits any weak narrator from any part of the chain. Therefore, just as it is necessary for the rest to explicitly prove hearing from their teacher, it is equally necessary for the teacher to explicitly state that he heard this narration from his teacher. However, even in the narration of Musnad Ahmad, there is the chain “عن” Khalid, and here the possibility of tadlis taswiyah by the rest remains. For example, the rest dropped Ishaq (a very weak narrator) from the chain حدثنا ابو وہب عن اسحاق بن ابی فروہ عن نافع and changed it to حدثنا ابو وہب “عن” نافع. Therefore, presenting Mirza Sahib’s method of Musnad Ahmad as proof is also futile; the issue of tadlis is not resolved by this either.
In answer number two, the same hadith from Sunan Tirmidhi -2676- has been presented: “Hold fast to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of my rightly guided caliphs,” and the respected author states that Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, graded this hadith as Hasan Sahih, despite the fact that it is narrated from Baqiyyah in the form of ‘an’. This implies that perhaps only Baqiyyah narrated this hadith and Imam Tirmidhi graded it as Sahih on the basis that Baqiyyah’s narration with ‘an’ from Buhairah is considered as a hearing (sama’), even if it does not explicitly state hearing, whereas this is nothing but deception.
The first point is that Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, did not narrate this hadith only through Baqiyyah but also said:
وَقَدْ رَوَى ثَوْرُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو السُّلَمِيِّ، عَنِ الْعِرْبَاضِ بْنِ سَارِيَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَحْوَ هَذَا۔
“And Thawr bin Yazid narrated from Khalid from Abdul Rahman bin Amr from Arabadh bin Sariya, may Allah be pleased with him, a similar hadith.”
The complete chain is as follows:
حدثنا بذلك الحسن بن علي الخلال، وغير واحد قالوا: حدثنا أبو عاصم، عن ثور بن يزيد، عن خالد بن معدان، عن عبد الرحمن بن عمرو السلمي، عن العرباض بن سارية، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
See, Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, also presents a second chain of this hadith in which Baqiyah bin Walid is not present, so how can it be said that Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, considered Baqiyah from Buhair to be absolutely authentic and accepted it based on hearing, thus declaring this hadith authentic? Besides this, the same hadith is narrated from Hazrat Arabadh bin Sariya, may Allah be pleased with him, through other chains as well, and its chain is present in Abu Dawood:
حدثنا أحمد بن حنبل حدثنا الوليد بن مسلم حدثنا ثور بن يزيد قال حدثني خالد بن معدان قال حدثني عبد الرحمن بن عمرو السلمي وحجر بن حجر قالا: أتينا العرباض بن سارية
In Sunan Ibn Majah, the chain of this hadith is as follows:
حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن بشير بن ذكوان الدمشقي حدثنا الوليد بن مسلم قال حدثنا عبد الله بن العلاء يعني ابن زبر قال: حدثني يحيى بن أبي المطاع، قال: سمعت العرباض بن سارية۔
In Ibn Majah itself, the next chain of this hadith is:
حدثنا إسماعيل بن بشر بن منصور وإسحاق بن إبراهيم السواق قالا: حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن مهدي عن معاوية بن صالح عن ضمرة بن حبيب عن عبد الرحمن بن عمرو السلمي أنه سمع العرباض بن سارية
The next method is:
حدثنا يحيى بن حكيم قال حدثنا عبد الملك بن الصباح المسمعي قال حدثنا ثور بن يزيد عن خالد بن معدان عن عبد الرحمن بن عمرو عن العرباض بن سارية
Therefore, if Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, has declared this hadith as authentic, it is not because he considers Baqiyah’s narration from Buhairah with ‘an’ as based on hearing (sama’), nor does he consider it free from tadlis taswiyah. Neither did Imam Tirmidhi say that Baqiyah had the book of Buhairah and for this reason he considers it authentic, and Baqiyah’s narration from Buhairah is absolutely acceptable. He also did not say that this hadith is hasan sahih “with this chain,” rather this hadith is narrated by many narrators besides Baqiyah.
But even if it is assumed that Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, declared this hadith authentic solely based on this chain of narration, still the result that the engineer is trying to derive does not follow. Here are a few examples from Sunan Tirmidhi where the narrations of mudallis (those who practice tadlis) have been classified as Hasan or Sahih:
In Sunan Tirmidhi, hadith number 477, Imam Tirmidhi writes that this hadith is Hasan Gharib.
Whereas in its chain of narration, the narrator named Atiyah al-Aufi is a mudallis and is narrating from ‘An. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, mentions this narrator in the fourth category of mudallis and writes “مشهور بالتدليس القبيح” that he is known for the worst kind of tadlis.
Regarding Sunan Tirmidhi hadith number 3726, Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, states that this hadith is Hasan Gharib!
Whereas Abu Zubair is a mudallis in it and is narrating with the ‘an’ form. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned him in the third category of mudallis.
Regarding Hadith number 2453 of Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, states that this hadith is Hasan Sahih in this chain.
Whereas in this chain, Ibn Ajlan is a mudallis narrator
and he did not specify the hearing (sama‘).
So can it be said here that Imam Tirmidhi does not consider all of them as mudallisīn (those who practice tadlīs), or that he interprets their transmitted narrations as being based on samā‘ (hearing directly) because they had their teacher’s book? And regarding the mudallisīn like Sufyan al-Thawri, A’mash, Sharīk al-Qāḍī, and Qatāda (whose tadlīs is rejected according to Mirza Sahib), whose transmitted narrations are declared authentic by Tirmidhi, will we also say the same about them—that their transmitted narrations are also based on samā‘ and that they had their teacher’s book? If not, and certainly not, then why is this principle attributed to Imam Tirmidhi in defense of the falsehood of the narration of Baqiyyah ibn al-Baḥīr? That according to him, Baqiyyah’s narration from al-Baḥīr is absolutely accepted because Baqiyyah had al-Baḥīr’s book, whereas he did not even hint at such a thing.
