Answer number three given is that the narration from Baqiyah from Baheer is also authentic and is based on hearing (sama’), even if it does not explicitly state hearing, because Baqiyah had his teacher Baheer’s book and he narrated from that book. Therefore, there is no need for explicit mention of hearing. But Mirza Sahib has made such a big claim and keeps repeating it to intimidate, but what evidence has he provided? Believe me, only words have been twisted; there is no trace of evidence. Actually, you are not a Babi but a scholarly bookish person, and the behavior of a scholarly bookish person is to present evidence for his claim, not just the opinion of a scholar; otherwise, he is not a scholarly bookish person but a Babi and a follower. So here, the entire discussion of Mirza Sahib is based on an unsupported statement of Sheikh Zubair Ali Zaee, may Allah have mercy on him. Mirza Sahib says about Sheikh Zubair Ali Zaee, may Allah have mercy on him, that in the book Fada’il al-Sahaba, Zubair Sahib also narrated this narration and wrote about it “the chain is good (sahih).” Then Sheikh Zubair Sahib writes, “This narration of Baqiyah bin Walid from Baheer bin Saad is to be understood as based on explicit hearing (sama’) even if the narrator narrates from ‘an’ (from) as well; still, this narration is to be understood as based on explicit hearing, because Baqiyah was narrating from Baheer’s book.” Therefore, there is no need for explicit mention of hearing.
But neither Mr. Zubair nor the engineer has provided any evidence for this claim, and a claim without evidence holds no value in the field of knowledge, no matter who makes it. Moreover, this is against the statements of the hadith scholars. After this, the engineer reads the remaining part of the same passage by Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, and says: Then Sheikh Zubair Sahib writes, “See my book Al-Fath Al-Mubeen fi Tahqiq Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn, on page number 69, where I have written full details about the rest.” After this, the engineer says in Punjabi that Sheikh Zubair Sahib has taken this narration all the way home!
The words “I have written the full details about Baqiyah there” were not said by Sheikh Zubair Sahib. Well, if Mirza Sahib has said “full details,” then let us see what full details are written there. Now Mirza Sahib reads that full details passage from “Al-Fath Al-Mubeen” where Zubair Sahib has written about Baqiyah:
“That Imam Nasai also considers him trustworthy. He died in 197 Hijri and he is a Hasan Al-Hadith truthful narrator [if he clarifies the hearing], from him Tadlees Taswiyah is not proven, and for its details you can see Sheikh Albani’s ‘Weak Ahadith’… and the narration which is Baqiyah from Buhair ibn Saad is authentic.”
Here you go! These are the complete details! Engineer Sahib! I earnestly request you to leave this work and instead tell jokes on YouTube; you laugh quite well.
Mentioning arguments and references is out of the question; here, not even the word “book” has been used, but these are full details for Mirza Sahib and his blind followers, and they are completely satisfied with it.
Before responding to this, let us clarify Mirza Sahib’s deception that Mirza Sahib here in this video is accusing us of deceiving in the name of Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him. However, this is a huge lie and slander! It is not us but you who are deceiving in the name of Zubair Sahib, sir. The book “Fazail-e-Sahaba” from which Mirza Sahib claimed regarding Zubair Sahib that he called our (Sunan Abu Dawood) narration Hasan, and on which basis this was said, all the details are before you! But did you find in the same book the chapter: “Love for Sayyiduna Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him”? Did you see any hadiths about the virtues of Sayyiduna Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him? And did you see all those virtues which Zubair Sahib declared Hasan and Sahih? Did you look at the sayings of other Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, transmitted in favor and praise of Hazrat Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him? Did you see the narration against Hazrat Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding the recitation of Witr, which contradicts Sahih Bukhari, that you present from Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar, a weak narration, and Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, declared it weak? At the end of the same chapter, there is a statement: “One should remain silent about the wars that occurred among the Sahabah due to ijtihadi reasons. Imam Ahl al-Sunnah Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, said: When you see a person who speaks ill of the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah, then accuse him of disbelief.” Did you see all this? You do not present all this in the name of Zubair Sahib but shamelessly and brazenly oppose all these matters day and night. So whose advice regarding Hazrat Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, and all other Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them, and whose methodology, may Allah have mercy on you, is being followed? Now the decision is in the hands of the public whether we are deceiving in the name of Zubair Sahib or Mirza Engineer Sahib?
If in this regard we are calling them wrong, then we are not saying anything on our own but are following their own character, teachings, and advice that everyone makes mistakes, sometimes arguments may remain hidden from someone, therefore, whoever it may be, in the field of knowledge, differences of opinion based on arguments can occur, and someone’s incorrect statement can be rejected, and indeed should be. Furthermore, it is stated that even Hazrat Zubair Ali Zai (may Allah have mercy on him) himself said that the narration of Baqiyah ‘an Buhair is weak, and he also declared Baqiyah to be guilty of tadlees taswiyah (a form of deceptive narration).
A glance at the complete details of Sheikh Zubair Sahib:
It is stated that despite Mirza Sahib’s claim of being scholarly and well-read, he has not provided a single argument, and for this, he has only quoted the statement of Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him. So, first of all, we refute this from the pen of Zubair Sahib himself, may Allah have mercy on him. Accordingly, in the authentication of Sunan Abu Dawood, Hadith number 2515, which is from the chain of narration of Baqiyah Hadithni Bahir from Khalid bin Ma’dan, he writes:
[اسناده ضعيف] اخرجه النسائي…… من حديث بقية به، وهو يدلس تدليس التسوية، ولم أجد تصريح سماعه المسلسل……۔
“Its chain of narration is weak; Imam Nasai also narrated it through Baqiyah’s chain, and he used to practice tadlees taswiyah (concealing the weakness of a narrator by placing a reliable narrator before him). I did not find his continuous hearing (sama’) in this narration.”
Here, Zubair Sahib himself is declaring Baqiyah to be guilty of tampering with the chain of transmission (tadlees taswiyah), and even after clarifying the hearing (sama’) from his own teacher, he denies the explicitness of hearing in the rest of the chain and on this basis considers this narration weak. That is, the claim that Baqiyah had the book of Baheer and that the narration from Baheer is correct because it is based on hearing is also being rejected. Now, Sheikh Zubair, may Allah have mercy on him, has expressed this statement in accordance with the evidences and the sayings of the hadith scholars, so this will be preferred, while no evidence has been presented by Zubair Sahib himself or by Mirza Sahib against this statement. But Mirza Sahib hides this correct opinion and promotes an unfounded opinion, so tell me, who is deceiving in the name of Zubair Sahib? Here Mirza Sahib clearly proves to be a deceiver and hypocrite. At the beginning of the video under discussion, it was said that the truth is only being stated from our platform, and it is impossible to give an example from anywhere else. Whereas their evidences and truthfulness have no connection whatsoever, they only call stating things according to their own desire “truthfulness.” And they only catch such mistakes of others which are in their favor and exaggerate them; if the same scholar’s statement is against them, they have no concern with it. They taunt others by calling them Babi and imitators, and when necessary, they themselves become Babi and imitators, and this is the worst kind of imitation.
If Sheikh Zubair Sahib’s statement is being called wrong, it is based on his other statement which is in accordance with the evidence, and then you yourself have written in “Al-Fath Al-Mubeen” regarding Baqiyah (as Mirza Sahib has also mentioned) “And he is a Hasan Al-Hadith, a truthful narrator if he specifies the hearing (Sama‘).” There, to draw attention to these words, we have written them in brackets, that here the condition for him being Hasan Al-Hadith is that if he specifies the hearing, then his narration will be accepted, otherwise not. But then you yourself hear that even if Baqiyah does not specify the hearing from Bahir, the narration will be correct. Now, to exclude Baqiyah from Bahir based on this general ruling, there should be some evidence, right? What is that evidence? What Mirza Sahib read from Sheikh Zubair’s book “Al-Fath Al-Mubeen” does not contain any evidence according to his claim, but on this page there is a phrase which Mirza Sahib did not mention, and the reason could be that it is all in Arabic and he did not find its translation anywhere, and he himself is not capable of translating it! Anyway, Sheikh Zubair has cited as evidence the statement of Allama Ibn Abdul Hadi, may Allah have mercy on him:
بقية عن بحير صحيحة، سواء صرح بالتحديث أم لا۔
“The narration from Baqiyah is authentic, whether Baqiyah specifies the hearing (sama’) or not.”
However, Allama Sahib has not presented any evidence for this either. We do not even need to respond, rather according to the principles and rules of Sheikh Zubair Ali Zaee, may Allah have mercy on him, this statement cannot establish the intended point. Accordingly, Sheikh Zubair Ali Zaee, may Allah have mercy on him, while criticizing a narration in his articles: Volume 2, p. 287, which is from A’mash on the authority of Abu Salih, states: “In this, A’mash is a mudallis (one who practices tadlis) and there is no specification of his hearing (sama’) in any chain… Hafiz Dhahabi has considered A’mash’s narration from Abu Salih and others as based on hearing (sama’), which is incorrect in the light of evidences.”
And what are those evidences? In this regard, Mr. Zubair, may Allah have mercy on him, first presented general statements that A’mash is a mudallis (one who practices tadlis) and that a narration from a mudallis through ‘an’ is not accepted. Then he mentioned a few references in which A’mash is narrating through ‘an’ and the muhaddithin have criticized those narrations. So we say that if A’mash is a mudallis and the imams have criticized his ‘mu’annan’ narrations, then if evidences regarding the rest are presented, it would become a separate lengthy article. Some of the ‘an’ narrations of the rest have even been called fabricated (man gharrat).
.
So if Imam Zahabi’s statement is unacceptable in the light of these evidences, then Allama Ibn Abdulhadi’s statement regarding Baqiyah is also not acceptable! Moreover, Baqiyah’s tadlis is many times more harmful and dangerous than that of A’mash; Baqiyah used to practice tadlis even with abandoned, unknown, and lying narrators.
Regarding Baqiyah’s narrations, the established principle of the Muhaddithin is that his narration will only be considered authentic if he reports by saying “حدثنا” (he narrated to us), “أخبرنا” (he informed us), or “سمعت” (I heard), and where he reports with “عن” (from), it is not considered proof.
Allama Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
والذي استقر عليه الأمر من قول الأئمة أن بقية ثقة في نفسه لكنه مكثر من التدليس عن الضعفاء والمتروكين يسقطهم ويعنعن الحديث عن شيوخهم وهو قد سمع من أولئك الشيوخ كالأوزاعي وابن جريج ومالك وغيره فلا يحتج بحديثه إلا بما قال فيه حدثنا أو أخبرنا أو سمعت۔
“And the matter that is settled in light of the statements of the Imams is that Baqiyah is trustworthy in himself, but he was very deceptive with weak and abandoned narrators and would drop them from the chain and narrate from his teachers with the phrase ‘an’………… Therefore, his hadith will not be accepted except in those narrations in which he says words like ‘hadathana’ or ‘akhbarana’ or ‘sami’tu’.”
That is, after considering the statements of all the Muhaddithin, they have summarized that Baqiyah’s narration is acceptable only when he explicitly states ‘sama” (hearing directly) (and not when he uses ‘an’).
Allama Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes about Baqiyah:
وقال غير واحد كان مدلسا، فإذا قال عن فليس بحجة۔
“And many Imams have said that Baqiyah was a mudallis, so when he narrates with the phrase ‘an’ (عن), it is not a proof.”
Therefore, regarding Baqiyah, a very strong argument is needed to exempt “Baqiyah ‘an Buhair” from this established principle, where it is clarified why Baqiyah ‘an Buhair is authentic, and the statement of Allama Ibn Abdul Hadi (may Allah have mercy on him) is very weak compared to all these evidences; he himself is in need of proof. Hence, the statement presented by Sheikh Zubair Ali Za’i (may Allah have mercy on him) is not acceptable according to his own principle, so Mirza Sahib’s raising a fuss by mentioning his name is futile and merely deceptive.
Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, used to only present the opinion of Allama Ibn Abdul Hadi, may Allah have mercy on him, and Mirza Sahib, following him, also limited himself to this while repeatedly refuting others. However, in this regard, in Al-Kamil Fi Dhu’afa al-Rijal: 264/2, there is an indication that the others had the book of Bahir. But that narration is not established, perhaps for this reason Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai, may Allah have mercy on him, did not cite it. And Allah knows best. Regarding this narration in Al-Kamil, Allama Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amanpuri, may Allah preserve him, writes:
“It is not proven that Baqiyah had any book of Bahir bin Saad. Referring to Al-Kamil fi Dhu’afa al-Rijal by Ibn Adi (264/2) and saying that Baqiyah had the book of Bahir bin Saad is not correct, because in its chain Imam Ibn Adi’s teacher, Fazl bin Abdullah bin Sulaiman, is unknown, and no authentication from anyone is established. (Perhaps) on this basis, Ibn Abdulhadi, may Allah have mercy on him, claimed that Baqiyah’s narration from Bahir bin Saad is based on hearing (sama’). The basis on which this was said is itself weak. Therefore, it is not proven that Baqiyah bin Walid had any book of Bahir. Another indication that Baqiyah did not have Bahir’s book is that this narration (presented by Mirza Sahib from Sunan Abu Dawood and Musnad Ahmad) is narrated with different wording; if the narration was from a book, there would be no difference in wording.”
