Critical Review of “Sarwar al-Aynayn” on Raf‘ al-Yadayn

This excerpt is taken from the book Nūr al-ʿAynayn fī Ithbāt Rafʿ al-Yadayn ʿInda ar-Rukūʿ wa Baʿdahu fī aṣ-Ṣalāh, authored by the Muhaddith of the era, Ḥāfiẓ Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī رحمه الله.

A Review of “Sarwar al-ʿAynayn”​

الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلوٰة والسلام على رسوله الأمين، أما بعد:

All praise is for Allah, Lord of the worlds, and prayers and peace be upon His trustworthy Messenger. To proceed:

Recently, Ḥāfiẓ Ḥabībullāh Derwī Deobandī has made a futile attempt to respond to the respected teacher Ḥāfiẓ Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī حفظه الله’s book “Nūr al-ʿAynayn fī Mas’alat Rafʿ al-Yadayn”, because the matters Derwī Ṣāḥib has made the basis of his response are either retracted (i.e., withdrawn) points or scribal/printing mistakes. Before we examine Derwī Deobandī’s writing, it is necessary to keep a few points in mind:

Key Points to Keep in Mind​

➊ Shaykh Ḥāfiẓ Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī حفظه الله has publicly announced:

“My only reliable book is the one in which my signature with date is present at the end of every edition. Without this condition, I am not responsible for any published book.”

Reference: al-Qawl al-Matīn fī al-Jahr bi al-Taʾmīn: p. 12 (1st ed., Jan 2004), p. 19 (2nd ed., Jun 2007); Monthly al-Ḥadīth: Issue 27, p. 60; Naṣr al-Bārī fī Taḥqīq Juzʾ al-Qirāʾah lil-Bukhārī: 1st ed. Apr 2005, 2nd ed. Sep 2006

➋ The respected teacher also wrote in Nūr al-ʿAynayn (new edition), p. 14:

“This new edition alone is reliable.”
And the writer also wrote in the preface that in this edition earlier oversights have been corrected and some matters clarified—now this edition is the reliable one.

Reference: Nūr al-ʿAynayn (new edition): p. 12, 14; Monthly al-Ḥadīth: Issue 23, p. 58

➌ Around July 2006, Derwī Ṣāḥib came to Maktabah al-Ḥadīth, Ḥaḍro (District Attock) along with his son and companions and met the respected teacher. During the conversation, Shaykh Ḥāfiẓ Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī حفظه الله asked: “It is said you are writing a reply to Nūr al-ʿAynayn?” Derwī Ṣāḥib said: “Yes.” The respected teacher said: “While writing the reply, keep the new edition in view, because now this edition alone is reliable.” Despite this, Derwī Ṣāḥib still made those matters a basis from which a formal retraction had already been announced.

By committing this act, Derwī—by the wording of his own writing—became guilty of betrayal and deception. Derwī himself wrote that it is a grave audacity and betrayal/deception to publicize a tract that is abrogated and whose author has retracted it.

؎ “Sunnī ḥikāyat-e hastī to darmiyān se sunnī
Na ibtidā kī khabar hai na intihā maʿlūm”

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 24

It became clear that, according to Derwī himself, publicizing a retracted matter is betrayal and deception.

؎ “Lo āp apne dām meṅ ṣayyād ā gayā”

Now see how great a betrayer and practitioner of deception Derwī Ṣāḥib is.

Derwī’s Claim and Its Analysis​

Derwī Ṣāḥib writes:

“Therefore, Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī’s lie has been exposed that Ḥāfiẓ Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn counted Sufyān al-Thawrī among the third tier.”

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 240

Analysis:​

However, the respected teacher Ḥāfiẓ Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī حفظه الله had, in clear words, explained in Nūr al-ʿAynayn (3rd edition, March 2004), p. 123, that mentioning Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAlāʾī there was his own misunderstanding; the correct view is that it is Imām al-Ḥākim’s statement—al-ḥamdu lillāh. Yet Derwī Ṣāḥib insists this is a lie. Thus, by the standard of his own writing, Derwī Ṣāḥib has been proven a betrayer and deceiver.

Note:​

Imām al-Ḥākim’s statement is far stronger than Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAlāʾī’s, so the proof became even stronger. Remember: Sarfarāz Khān Ṣafdar Deobandī, citing al-Dhahabī, called Imām al-Ḥākim: “al-imām al-ḥāfiẓ wa al-ḥujjah.”

Reference: Aḥsan al-Kalām: 1/232

Therefore, Derwī’s criticism of Imām al-Ḥākim is rejected.

Now attention is drawn to another writing of Derwī Ṣāḥib—perhaps he may feel remorse and repent for what he has done:

Derwī wrote:

“False statements are a sin for you. If you consider it a sin, this illness may go away; otherwise, you will fall into greater calamity.”

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 44

Derwī’s Continued Approach Regarding Sufyān al-Thawrī​

Derwī wrote that “Mawlānā Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī says Sufyān al-Thawrī رحمه الله is among the eminent scholars… narrator of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim… a mudallis of the second tier whose tadlīs is not harmful…” and he referenced a book/letter.

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 241

Analysis:​

Derwī continued his earlier method, because the respected teacher has already announced disassociation from that wording, which has become common among people. Shaykh Ḥāfiẓ Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī حفظه الله wrote:

“The preferred research regarding Sufyān al-Thawrī is that he is a mudallis and practiced tadlīs from weak narrators and others; therefore, his muʿanʿan narration outside the Ṣaḥīḥayn, in the absence of corroboration and explicit proof of hearing, is weak and rejected. Counting him among the second tier is not correct; rather, he is from the third tier.”

He further wrote that in a letter to ʿAbd al-Rashīd Anṣārī (19/8/1408 AH) he had said: “mudallis of the second tier whose tadlīs is not harmful.” This was wrong, and he retracted it—so it should be considered abrogated and void.

Reference: Monthly Shahādat (Islamabad): Apr 2003, Ṣafar 1424 AH, p. 39

Derwī! By your own standard, publicizing what is “abrogated and void” is betrayal and deception—yet you commit it repeatedly.

Derwī’s “Contradiction No. 1” and the Issue of Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq​

Derwī wrote under “Contradiction No. 1” that Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī said: Sarfarāz Deobandī and others also authenticated Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq, and then he tried to create the impression that this is a contradiction from Shaykh Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī.

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 247

Analysis:​

From this, it becomes clear that the contradiction is in fact of Sarfarāz Khān Ṣafdar, because in one place he argues using Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq’s narration, and in another place he declares the same Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq a liar and deceiver.

Reference: Taskīn aṣ-Ṣudūr: p. 340; Khazā’in as-Sunan (Part 1): p. 61; Aḥsan al-Kalām: 2/84

Now tell—whose contradiction is it?

؎ “Dīdah kūr ko kyā āye nazar, kyā dekhe”

A Printing Error Presented as “A Lie”​

Derwī wrote that Shaykh Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī cited the verse:

إِنَّمَا يَفْتَرِي الْكَذِبَ الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ وَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَاذِبُونَ

and referenced it as “Sūrah an-Naml: 105”, claiming this is a lie because Sūrah an-Naml has 93 verses.

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 248

Analysis:​

This was a typesetting error—“an-Naḥl” was mistakenly printed as “an-Naml.” In the handwritten original, it is an-Naḥl, and in the same edition on another page, the same verse is correctly referenced as Sūrah an-Naḥl. Derwī himself admits that mistakes can occur unintentionally in writing or reading.

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 43

“Who Is the Distorter?” (Muḥarraf)​

Derwī wrote that Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī “missed” a word in an Athar attributed to ʿUqbah ibn ʿĀmir رضي الله عنه and claimed that after “bi-kulli” the word “iṣbuʿayn” was present, and that Zubayr ʿAlī Zaʾī “ate” (omitted) it.

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 250–251

Analysis:​

In the first three editions of Nūr al-ʿAynayn, the word “iṣbuʿ” was omitted due to a typesetting error, while it exists in the handwritten original, and the translation itself (“finger”) shows it. This error was corrected in the new edition. Yet Derwī still labeled it distortion.

Moreover, the text contains “إصبع” (one finger), but Derwī changed it to “إصبعين” (two fingers), which is presented as distortion, and then he translated it as “two fingers,” stating:

“Meaning: for every gesture of two fingers a good deed or rank…”

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 251

؎ “Ham ilzām un ko dete the, quṣūr apnā nikal āyā”

Mixing the Discussion and Stubbornness​

The respected teacher cited the statements of Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Imām Isḥāq ibn Rāhawayh رحمهما الله under the meaning of the Athar of ʿUqbah ibn ʿĀmir رضي الله عنه to clarify for the public that these Imams also understood it as referring to Rafʿ al-Yadayn when going into rukūʿ and rising from it. Derwī, by mixing the discussion, objected that there is a gap of centuries between those Imams and ʿUqbah رضي الله عنه.

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 254

Derwī’s “Betrayal” Regarding an Attribution to al-Dhahabī​

Derwī wrote that al-Dhahabī “retracted” and then quoted a phrase as if it were al-Dhahabī’s wording.

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 360

Analysis:​

This was presented as a major betrayal, because that phrase is not al-Dhahabī’s statement; it is attributed to Abū ʿUbayd al-Ājirī or connected to Abū Dāwūd, as found in the referenced works.

Reference: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl: 17/155; Suʾālāt Abī ʿUbayd al-Ājirī (manuscript): 4/folio 11; al-Jāmiʿ fī al-Jarḥ wa at-Taʿdīl: 3/67

Attack on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī​

Derwī wrote:

“The rejected narrations of Abū an-Nuʿmān Muḥammad ibn Faḍl as-Sadūsī exist in Bukhārī itself.”

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 256

He sought to cast doubt on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī through “it is said” and “they say,” but this act made Derwī himself doubtful.

Shāh Walīullāh ad-Dehlavī wrote that the scholars of ḥadīth are agreed that all connected, marfūʿ narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim are certainly authentic, and whoever does not honor them is an innovator who opposes the path of the Muslims.

Reference: Ḥujjatullāh al-Bālighah (Arabic): 1/134; (Urdu): 1/242

Likewise, Sarfarāz Khān Ṣafdar Deobandī wrote:

“The Ummah is agreed that all narrations of both Bukhārī and Muslim are authentic.”

Reference: Ḥāshiyah Aḥsan al-Kalām: 1/187 (another copy: 1/234)

Thus, Derwī is shown as rebelling against his own teacher by insisting on declaring narrations in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī “rejected.”

On the Narration of Jābir ibn Samurah رضي الله عنه​

Derwī presented the narration of Jābir ibn Samurah رضي الله عنه as evidence and even placed it on the book cover. After setting aside academic debate, it is stated that by presenting it as proof, Derwī exposed himself and further fell in the sight of his elders. Additional verdicts are cited:

➊ Maḥmūd Ḥasan Deobandī said that responding using “the narration of the Nab Khayl” is not fair because it is about salām.

Reference: al-Ward ash-Shadhī ʿalā Jāmiʿ at-Tirmidhī: p. 63

➋ Muḥammad Taqī ʿUthmānī Deobandī said that, in fairness, the Ḥanafī argument from this ḥadīth is doubtful and weak.

Reference: Dars at-Tirmidhī: 2/36

It is then mentioned that Derwī wrote letters to Taqī ʿUthmānī seeking retraction, but he did not respond, and remained on his earlier view.

Reference: Nūr aṣ-Ṣabāḥ (Part 2): p. 328

Further statements are quoted:

➌ Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله said:

ولا يحتج بهذا من له حظ من العلم

“No one who has even a portion of knowledge uses this narration as proof.”

Reference: Juzʾ Rafʿ al-Yadayn: p. 37

➍ Imām an-Nawawī (commentator of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim) said that using this ḥadīth to argue against Rafʿ al-Yadayn at rukūʿ and rising from it is a reprehensible ignorance, and that Rafʿ al-Yadayn at rukūʿ is authentically established and cannot be rejected.

Reference: al-Majmūʿ Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab: 3/403

➎ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn al-Mulaqqin said that using this ḥadīth as proof is extremely evil ignorance.

Reference: al-Badr al-Munīr: 3/485

Final Note​

It is stated that in Monthly al-Ḥadīth (Issue 27, pp. 20–31), ten lies of Ḥabībullāh Derwī Ṣāḥib have already been presented with references before the readers’ court, and Derwī still owes a reply. In conclusion, it is said that the writer has taken only a cursory look at Derwī Ṣāḥib’s writing, and through this, the public has, to a large extent, recognized Derwī (In shā’ Allāh).

Reference: Monthly al-Ḥadīth, Ḥaḍro: Issue 41, pp. 48–58