This excerpt is taken from A Research Review of Mirza Muhammad Ali Engineer's Objections and Issues, authored by Haroon bin Shabbir Ahmad, may Allah preserve him, and revised by Fazilat al-Sheikh Maulana Muhammad Rafiq Tahir, may Allah preserve him.
According to Imam Bukhari, are all the narrated hadiths regarding the virtue of Hazrat Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, weak?
It is true that among the traditions narrated in the virtue of Amir Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), a large portion is weak and fabricated, but some traditions are narrated with authentic and good chains of narration, and we have only mentioned those hadiths. This is also stated by Imam Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) in his explanation of the virtues of Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him).
Reference: (Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya:122/8)
And the hadiths we have presented as evidence are not only accepted by us, but earlier hadith scholars have also declared them authentic or good, and then the authentication of these narrations has also been done by the great hadith scholars of the present era, whose scholarly services and abilities are acknowledged even by Mirza Sahib himself, who considers them contemporary muhaddithin. After presenting each narration, their authentication is quoted, stating whether they considered it authentic, good, or weak. Among them, Muhaddith Nasiruddin al-Albani, Maulana Sheikh Irshad-ul-Haq Athari, Sheikh Zubair Ali Zaee, and Allama Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amanpuri Sahib are foremost! All of them have declared the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) that we have quoted as authentic and good. Justice would have been that when Mirza Sahib quotes their rulings under each hadith, he should also follow their authentication in these hadiths on which they all agree, but Mirza Sahib’s approach is not like that at all. And all these researchers who have declared these hadiths authentic never inform the general public about it, and if they differ, then what kind of difference is it, under what principles and guidelines? This is never mentioned, and against it, they are only seen making irrelevant remarks.
Besides all this, there is another objection that our respected Sahib spreads to make these hadiths doubtful. He says:
“The big Imams of the Ahl al-Hadith sect, like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, in the chapter of the mention of Muawiyah in Sahih Bukhari’s commentary Fath al-Bari, if you read it carefully, he wrote that Imam Bukhari, when he wrote the phrase ‘mention of Muawiyah,’ he followed his teacher Ishaq ibn Rahwayh in this regard, meaning that they did not consider any specific virtue for Hazrat Muawiyah, and Imam Bukhari also did not consider any virtue.”
Video: Hazrat Muawiyah R.A Ke Leye Jannat Ki Basharat?
That is, Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) did not use words like “virtue of Muawiyah” under the chapter of the virtues of the Companions for Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), but wrote “mention of Muawiyah,” and then did not bring any marfu’ hadith proving the virtue of Muawiyah, and on this basis, it is said that according to Imam Bukhari, no virtue of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is established.
Leaving aside the name of the chapter Imam Bukhari gave and why he wrote “mention of Muawiyah,” if the Imam had not mentioned Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) at all or had not established a chapter in his name in the virtues chapter, still it could not be said that according to him, no virtue of Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is narrated, nor could it be said that these hadiths are weak according to him. Because Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) neither claimed that he would mention all authentic hadiths in this book, nor stated that any hadith not included in Sahih Bukhari would be weak in his view. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) himself narrated this statement from Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him):
لم أخرج فِي هَذَا الْكتاب الا صَحِيحا وَمَا تركت من الصحيح أكثر۔
“I have only narrated authentic hadiths in this book, and the number of authentic hadiths that I have left out (i.e., not included in Sahih Bukhari) is very large.”
Reference: (Muqaddima Fath al-Bari: Vol.1, p.7)
After this statement, can anyone claim without evidence that if a certain hadith is not mentioned by Imam Bukhari in Sahih Bukhari, then it is weak according to him? Absolutely not!
Therefore, in this statement, whether it is Hafiz Ibn Hajar or Mirza Sahib, both are claimants, but what is the evidence? None! And Mirza Sahib’s deception that “the great Imam of Ahl al-Hadith Hafiz Ibn Hajar...” is outright falsehood. Mirza Sahib has the habit that when he wants to present someone’s statement (even if baseless), he exaggerates the status of the person to give weight to the matter. Look! The case of Ahl al-Hadith is very simple and clear, with no two opinions that the greatest Imam of Ahl al-Hadith is Muhammad Rasulullah (peace and blessings be upon him), whom Allah sent as an Imam. Besides him, no companion or follower, no matter how great an Imam, muhaddith, or faqih, is infallible; rather, everyone makes mistakes, and differences of opinion can exist in the light of evidence. Therefore, the respect and status of Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) is in its place, but we differ with him on this issue in the light of principles and guidelines because his claim is without any clear evidence, while Ibn Hajar himself states the rule that hadiths not included by Imam Bukhari in his Sahih should not be considered weak on that basis, as we will present some of his statements from Fath al-Bari.
Before this, it should be understood that Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) set very high and strict conditions for the inclusion of hadith in his Sahih al-Bukhari. He only narrated those hadiths that met the conditions of Sahih Bukhari. This does not mean that the other hadiths are weak according to him; rather, they may also be authentic but were not mentioned due to not meeting the high conditions of Sahih Bukhari. Mirza Sahib himself has clarified this.
Reference: (Ilmi wa Tahqiqi Majlis No. 10, Duration 1:02:55)
Now observe the approach of Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) himself in this regard:
Regarding a hadith not mentioned by Imam Bukhari in Sahih, he says:
أَخْرَجَهُ أَبُو دَاوُدَ أَيْضًا وَإِسْنَادُهُ حَسَنٌ وَلَمَّا لَمْ يَكُنْ هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ عَلَى شَرْطِ الْمُصَنِّفِ اسْتَنْبَطَ مِنَ الْحَدِيثِ الَّذِي عَلَى شَرْطِهِ مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ الْمَعْنَى كعادته۔
“This hadith is also mentioned by Imam Abu Dawood (in Sunan Abi Dawood) and its chain is good, so this hadith did not meet Imam Bukhari’s condition (therefore he did not narrate it). From this hadith, what met his condition and conveyed similar meaning was inferred, as is the habit of Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him).”
Reference: (Fath al-Bari:334/1)
And in another place he said:
وَحَدِيثُ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ أَخْرَجَهُ مَالِكٌ وَمُسْلِمٌ وَأَصْحَابُ السُّنَنِ وَلَيْسَ هُوَ عَلَى شَرْطِ الْبُخَارِيِّ فِي صَحِيحِهِ فَاكْتَفَى فِيهِ بِالْإِشَارَةِ إِلَيْهِ وَفِي كِتَابِهِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ نَظَائِرُ۔
“And the hadith of Hazrat Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) was narrated by Imam Malik, Muslim, and the authors of the Sunan, and it did not meet the condition of Sahih Bukhari, so Imam Bukhari only referred to it, and there are many such examples in his book.”
Reference: (Fath al-Bari:490/13)
Here it is also said about a hadith in Sahih Muslim that it did not meet the condition of Sahih Bukhari, so Imam Bukhari did not narrate it; it is not said that it might be weak according to him. Hafiz (may Allah have mercy on him) has repeatedly emphasized this point in his commentary on Sahih Bukhari regarding Imam Bukhari’s approach. In one place, supporting and interpreting our case, he said:
أَخْرَجَهُ مُسْلِمٌ وَأَصْحَابُ السُّنَنِ مِنْ رِوَايَةِ أَبِي نَضْرَةَ عَنْهُ قِيلَ وَإِنَّمَا ذَكَرَهُ الْبُخَارِيُّ بِصِيغَةِ التَّمْرِيضِ لِأَنَّ أَبَا نَضْرَةَ لَيْسَ عَلَى شَرْطِهِ لِضَعْفٍ فِيهِ وَهَذَا عِنْدِي لَيْسَ بِصَوَابٍ لِأَنَّهُ لَا يَلْزَمُ مِنْ كَوْنِهِ عَلَى غَيْرِ شَرْطِهِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَصْلُحُ عِنْدَهُ لِلِاحْتِجَاجِ بِهِ بَلْ قَدْ يَكُونُ صَالِحًا لِلِاحْتِجَاجِ بِهِ عِنْدَهُ وَلَيْسَ هُوَ عَلَى شَرْطِ صَحِيحِهِ الَّذِي هُوَ أَعْلَى شُرُوطِ الصِّحَّةِ۔
“This hadith was narrated by Imam Muslim and the authors of the Sunan through Abu Nadhrah. It is said that Imam Bukhari mentioned it with a form of tamridh (indirect reference) because of the weakness found in Abu Nadhrah, so it did not meet Imam Bukhari’s condition. But this is not correct in my view! Because the fact that it did not meet Imam Bukhari’s condition does not necessarily mean that the narrator is not acceptable to him; rather, he may be acceptable but not meeting the high conditions of Sahih Bukhari.”
Reference: (Fath al-Bari:205/2)
So our case is exactly this: if Imam Bukhari did not mention some authentic hadiths containing the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) in Sahih Bukhari, it does not mean at all that they are unacceptable or weak according to him; rather, it may be that these hadiths are acceptable but were not mentioned due to not meeting the high conditions of Sahih Bukhari.
One of the greatest and most famous commentaries on Sahih Bukhari is “Irshad al-Sari,” written by Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Qastalani (may Allah have mercy on him, died 923 AH). In his commentary on this chapter of Sahih Bukhari, he said:
قد ورد في فضل السيد معاوية رضي الله عنه أحاديث لكنها ليست على شرط المؤلف۔
“There are hadiths narrated about the virtues of Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), but they do not meet Imam Bukhari’s condition” (therefore they are not included in Sahih Bukhari).
Reference: (Irshad al-Sari:140,141/6)
The same point is being made which Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) used to say about Imam Bukhari’s approach. If there was any clear evidence that Imam Bukhari did not narrate these traditions because he considered them weak, then Allama Qastalani would never have said this. His statement is in accordance with principles and justice and also with other statements of Imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him). Therefore, this is correct! And the statement of Allama Ibn Hajar under discussion is not correct. But Mirza Sahib, according to his usual habit, has picked the statement that suits his desire, while ignoring the hadith scholars who have explicitly declared these hadiths authentic. Justice and principles demand otherwise, but Mirza Sahib has no concern for these matters, and after such dishonesty and injustice, he calls himself a very just and truthful speaker.
This was the matter of Sahih Bukhari. On the other hand, Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) has another book, “Al-Tarikh al-Kabir,” in which he has narrated the same hadiths about the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) under the chapter of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him):
Reference: (Al-Tarikh al-Kabir-326/7)
. So if someone says that Imam Bukhari’s narration of a hadith in Al-Tarikh al-Kabir is not proof of its authenticity according to him, then we say that Imam Bukhari’s not mentioning a hadith in Sahih Bukhari is also not proof of its weakness according to him. Therefore, saying that Imam Bukhari followed his teacher Ishaq ibn Rahwayh (may Allah have mercy on him) in this matter is not correct. Rather, first, that statement must be proven from Imam Ishaq, then it must be proven that Imam Bukhari was aware of his teacher’s statement, and then it must be proven with evidence that Imam Bukhari agreed with his teacher’s statement and therefore did not mention any hadith about the virtue of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) in Sahih Bukhari. Alhamdulillah, Mirza Sahib has never given evidence for any of these points nor can he, yet he denies the virtues narrated about Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) based on such statements, hiding the hadith scholars who have declared these narrations authentic, while accusing the scholars that they have hidden the truth from people. After these evidences, there is no room left for anyone to say that Imam Bukhari’s not mentioning words like virtue or excellence with the name of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) indicates that he did not consider any hadith about his virtue authentic.
Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) has also used the word “mention” with the names of many other companions in the chapter “Virtues of the Companions of the Prophet,” so what will Mirza Sahib say about them? Even a little attention would show that there is no need to debate or differentiate these words because when the chapter’s name itself is “Virtues of the Companions of the Prophet,” what does it mean? That this chapter requires the virtues, merits, or good qualities of the companions to be mentioned. Then what is the need to use the word virtue or merit with every companion’s heading when the word “virtues” has already been generally applied to all the companions mentioned under this chapter?
And Mirza Sahib, whose name is taken to raise these objections, himself has used words like “Merits of Muawiyah” for the chapter of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). For example, Allama Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) says at one place:
وَسَيَأْتِي فِي الْمَنَاقِبِ عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ أَنَّهُ أَوْتَرَ بِرَكْعَة وَأَن ابن عَبَّاسٍ اسْتَصْوَبَهُ۔
“And soon in the merits of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), it will be mentioned that he prayed Witr and Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) approved it.”
Reference: (Fath al-Bari:482/2)
So when even Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) has acknowledged this, yet Mirza Sahib has taken a statement from him in which he erred, but the same Ibn Hajar has another statement in which he is correct, but Mirza Sahib has no concern with that statement.
These were the excuses of Mirza Sahib that he makes to deny the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Sometimes he relies on baseless statements to deny authentic hadiths, sometimes he misinterprets someone’s statement, sometimes he questions why Imam Bukhari did not use a certain hadith for argument or why he did not mention hadiths about the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) in Sahih Bukhari, and sometimes he bases his argument on a rare and erroneous statement of Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him), but he never states with evidence that your presented narration has this defect or that weakness. Yet he claims that he is a Muslim scholar and not a Babi, and his fundamental call is to leave chapters and establish cases based on knowledge, but this is mere wordplay and deception. He himself becomes a Babi whenever he wishes and stubbornly clings to someone’s erroneous statement and denies the truth under its cover, while the poor public is kept under the illusion that he argues everything with evidence and references.
Mirza Sahib is not a lid for any pot. Here he is taking the name of Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) asking why he did not argue from a certain hadith or why he did not include certain hadiths in Sahih Bukhari. But from the hadiths from which Imam Bukhari derived the virtue of Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and from which you argued, what is Mirza Sahib’s approach to that argument, and how was Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him), in whose name Mirza Sahib has built this entire structure, treated in his commentary? Let us also see that.
Imam Bukhari's Argument on the Virtue of Hazrat Muawiyah (May Allah be pleased with him) and Mirza Sahab's Conduct:
Earlier you read how Mirza Sahib made unsuccessful attempts to refute the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) without any evidence. Sometimes he tries to evade by naming someone, sometimes he delays by invoking Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), sometimes he demands and questions why Imam Bukhari did not use the "Awal Jaish" hadith to argue for the virtue of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), and sometimes he excuses that Bukhari wrote "Zikr Muawiyah" as a heading but did not use words like virtue or praise, implying that even Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) did not consider any virtue proven for Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). You have already seen the reality of these objections. Now, the purpose here is to show that Mirza Sahib is a purely self-interested and hypocritical person; he uses anyone’s name only as far as it serves his interests and tries to strengthen his views with it, and once his purpose is fulfilled, he distances himself.
So, it is stated that Mirza Sahib, who repeatedly invoked Bukhari’s name, is not truly aligned with him. Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), in his book Sahih al-Bukhari, under the chapter of virtues of the Companions, where he made a chapter under the name of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), mentioned the following narration:
عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ، قَالَ: أَوْتَرَ مُعَاوِيَةُ بَعْدَ الْعِشَاءِ بِرَكْعَةٍ وَعِنْدَهُ مَوْلًى لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فَأَتَى ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، فَقَالَ: دَعْهُ فَإِنَّهُ صَحِبَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ۔
“Narrated from Ibn Abi Malika that Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed one Witr after Isha, and he had a servant of Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them). The servant came to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) and informed him about Hazrat Muawiyah’s act. Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) said: Leave him alone; he is a companion of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).”
Reference: (Sahih Bukhari: 3764)
(وعنه) قِيلَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: هَلْ لَكَ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مُعَاوِيَةَ فَإِنَّهُ مَا أَوْتَرَ إِلَّا بِوَاحِدَةٍ؟ قَالَ: إِنَّهُ فَقِيهٌ۔
“Also narrated from Ibn Abi Malika that when Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) was asked: What do you think about your Amir al-Mu'minin Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) who only prays one rak’ah of Witr? He replied: Indeed, he is a jurist (faqih).”
Reference: (Sahih Bukhari: 3765)
Many hadith scholars have mentioned this in the virtues of Muawiyah, and it is obvious that Imam Bukhari’s intention in narrating this in the chapter of virtues is the same. But Mirza Sahib could not digest this either. His mission is to spread negative impressions about the Companions among the general public. One who repeatedly invokes Bukhari’s name should have respected this narration, as Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) used it as evidence of Hazrat Muawiyah’s virtue and included it in the virtues of the Companions. But unfortunately, he did not spare this either. Also, see what Imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him)—whose name Mirza Sahib has used to embarrass himself—commented on this narration in his commentary on Sahih Bukhari:
وَقَوْلُهُ دَعْهُ أَيِ اتْرُكِ الْقَوْلَ فِيهِ وَالْإِنْكَارَ عَلَيْهِ فَإِنَّهُ قَدْ صَحِبَ أَيْ فَلَمْ يَفْعَلْ شَيْئًا إِلَّا بِمُسْتَنَدٍ وَفِي قَوْلِهِ فِي الرِّوَايَةِ الْأُخْرَى أَصَابَ إِنَّهُ فَقِيهٌ مَا يُؤَيِّدُ ذَلِكَ۔
“The statement of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) to ‘leave Muawiyah alone’ means to stop disputing and denying him because he was in the company of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), meaning he would only do what is authentic (i.e., proven by Sunnah or Hadith). And in the other narration, Abdullah ibn Abbas’s statement that ‘Muawiyah did correctly and he is a jurist’ supports this.”
Reference: (Fath al-Bari: 104/7)
Remember, Mirza Sahib has presented the commentary of Hafiz Ibn Hajar on the chapter “Zikr Muawiyah” in Sahih Bukhari word for word and repeatedly refers to it because it contains points beneficial to him. But believe me, Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s statement is also present on the same page from which Mirza Sahib quotes selectively, and Mirza Sahib confidently claims that he is an honest, just, and truthful person who does not hide the truth.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) further said:
لَكِنْ بدقيق نظره استنبط مَا يَدْفع بِهِ رُؤُوس الرَّوَافِضِ۔
“But Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) deduced from his deep insight something that refutes the Rawafid (Shi’a).”
Reference: (Ibid)
Meaning, the Rawafid claim love for Ahl al-Bayt and following their path, yet here one great personality from Ahl al-Bayt, Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), gave such wording about Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), while the Rawafid’s stance is completely opposite.
This was Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s (may Allah have mercy on him) position on this incident! But believe me, Mirza Sahib’s statements on this matter are completely contrary to Imam Bukhari and Imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on them). Both take it as praise for Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), but the engineer presents it as criticism and tries to give a negative impression according to his usual style.
Before addressing the engineer’s objections, listen to his statements on YouTube regarding the permissibility of praying Witr, where he himself considers this act completely correct. When asked once, he said it is entirely permissible and even cited the practice of Hazrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) from Muwatta Imam Malik, who always prayed Witr alone.
Ask Questions With Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza on Live Video Call | Shahid & Bilal. Episode: 023 - Last Question
Besides this, there are many videos of his based on permissibility. Praying one Witr is narrated from a group of Companions, including the Rightly Guided Caliph Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), as will be mentioned later. The point is that in Shariah and according to the engineer himself, one Witr is permissible. But due to hatred and prejudice against Hazrat Muawiyah, when it comes to his praying one Witr, since there is virtue in it that Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) called him a jurist Companion, the engineer’s tone changes. He says:
“Praying one Witr is such a dangerous act that I tell you this hadith from Bukhari, dangerous in the sense that it is permissible but not preferred! Listen to the hadith in Bukhari 3764 and 3765—people complained to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that Amir Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) only prays one rak’ah of Witr. This complaint was made to Ibn Abbas, who said: ‘Leave Muawiyah alone; he is a jurist and intelligent; he was in the company of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so there is no need to argue with him. If he considers this act permissible, then there is no harm in it; even one rak’ah can be prayed.’ But see how [it was considered blameworthy] [by the Companions] that they complained that Hazrat Muawiyah, [meaning no one else prayed one Witr]. And since I read this hadith, I sometimes used to pray one Witr, but now I never do, because it was considered blameworthy, and I do not want to do it.” (Then Mirza Sahib and the students sitting with him laughed.)
130-Mas'alah: Namaz-e-WITER kay 8-SUNNAT TAREEQAY aur Saheh FIQAHAI Ahkam-o-Masa'il (3-ILMI Points)-1:14:03
Some words are put in brackets to draw attention to the lies Mirza Sahib inserted to embarrass himself, which will be detailed later. Anyway, he admitted that Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) did not criticize Hazrat Muawiyah and accepted that calling him a jurist was true. He even narrates that Ibn Abbas said one Witr is permissible. But then Mirza Sahib’s software updated further, and now he outright denies this and tries to color it differently, saying:
“This is actually what we say in Punjabi when we see someone doing an awkward thing: ‘Yaar chhad deo eno, app syana beyana ae, eno ni pata!’ (Leave him alone, he is a clever fellow, he doesn’t know what he is doing). This is what Ibn Abbas said...”
Mas'alah 157, part b - 19:28
And in one place, the engineer says about Ibn Abbas’s response:
“And this was also Taqiyya by Hazrat Ibn Abbas because—according to Tahawi Sharif, the Hanafi’s ‘Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar’—Imam Tahawi took another narration in this context where when Ibn Abbas was told that Hazrat Muawiyah prays one Witr, he said: ‘Ask that donkey where he got this method from.’”
Hazrat Mouviya R.A Ki Koi Bhi Fazeelat Nhi Lakin ??? TRUTH Exposed By Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza - 0:45
This narration is very weak, as we will prove with evidence. Even a layperson knows this contradicts the clear narration in Sahih Bukhari. Anyway, the engineer, while giving evidence for his statements, said in response to a question:
Question: If it is proven that Hazrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas prayed one Witr, then why the criticism of Hazrat Muawiyah?
He replied: “I do not criticize anyone, may Allah protect me from that! Understand the premise... It is absolutely correct that he prayed one Witr. It is in Muwatta Imam Malik that Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas used to pray five rak’ahs of Isha: four obligatory and one Witr. So it is not just about Witr; he did not pray Sunnah either. So should we now encourage people that since Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas prayed five rak’ahs, there is no need to pray Sunnah, just pray Isha and one Witr and be done? No! We promote the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). That was the lowest level... We did not criticize Hazrat Muawiyah; we said that praying one Witr [which you call his virtue] was not considered a virtue among the Companions [rather it was considered blameworthy]. In Sahih Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Qasim ibn Abi Bakr, the grandson of Hazrat Abu Bakr, said, and Imam Bukhari narrated it in Sahih Bukhari, that he found the Companions praying three Witr [and one is also not objectionable], but the Companions’ practice was three. We say that what you call virtue is not their virtue; rather, among the Companions, it was considered blameworthy. That is why in Bukhari it is mentioned that people complained to Ibn Abbas that Amir al-Mu'minin Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan prays one Witr, and he said: Leave him alone; he is a jurist and a Companion. They say this is praise, but it is not praise; it means why do you criticize? It is Sunnah because Ibn Abbas’s language was like this... Here in Bukhari, when the complaint about one Witr was made about Hazrat Muawiyah, Ibn Abbas should have said: ‘May you be destroyed; this is the Sunnah of Abu al-Qasim (the Prophet).’ Do you understand? This was Ibn Abbas’s habit. Otherwise, you can check all the Hanafi books; the Hanafi do not even talk to us. Their fiqh books have explanations, like ‘Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar’ by Imam Tahawi, where he says that this hadith in Bukhari was Taqiyya by Ibn Abbas. The original narration is that when he was told, he said: ‘Ask that donkey where he got one Witr from.’ So that was Taqiyya, meaning [Ibn Abbas did not approve]. We do not criticize them; we say that the Companions did not approve of this act. Okay? No criticism. You read Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah: the hadith says ‘Witr is the right of a Muslim; whoever wishes may pray five, whoever wishes may pray three, whoever wishes may pray one.’ Okay? Although the Hanafi also interpret that one means the rest should be combined, but it is permissible to pray one alone. [The practice of the Companions and the Prophet (peace be upon him) does not support it.]”
Ilmi o tahqiqi majlis no.30 - 2:00:06 (Open Q & A Session) with Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza Bhai (30-Sep-2018)
The biggest sign of a lying and hypocritical person is that his statements contradict each other. Here you see that Mirza Sahib used to say one thing, but gradually his statements changed significantly, and the answer to every objection is found in his other statements. The summary of the arguments and objections Mirza Sahib presented to disprove the virtue of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is:
(1) Praying one Witr is a dangerous act; the Companions complained about it and considered it blameworthy (so how is this a virtue?).
(2) Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) criticized Hazrat Muawiyah’s act, and the word “jurist” in Bukhari is based on falsehood and was Taqiyya. For this, two points were made:
First: In Tahawi, there is a narration that when Ibn Abbas was told about this, he replied: “Ask that donkey where he got this method from.”
Second: To further support this, it was said that he indeed did Taqiyya; otherwise, if the act was correct, he would have said it is Sunnah and attributed it to Ibn Abbas’s temperament. Since he did not say this, it proves that the word “jurist” was said as Taqiyya.
(3) One Witr is permissible to the extent of permissibility, but making it routine is not right; it is a minimal act. Then Mirza Sahib started giving examples of Nawafil (supererogatory prayers) and their virtues, etc. (These points are omitted here due to length and irrelevance to the issue under discussion.)
(4) One Witr is certainly permissible, but the practice of the Companions and the Prophet (peace be upon him) does not support it.
In response, it is stated that Mirza Sahib himself has always considered this act completely permissible and has admitted regarding Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) that he considered it permissible. The important point is that if this act is attributed to Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), it does not mean he did it regularly; rather, only one incident is mentioned where he prayed one Witr. This alone answers almost all of Mirza Sahib’s objections: if an act is permissible and certainly permissible, then if someone performs it once, is it wrong and blameworthy? If yes, then what is the meaning of permissibility? Perhaps Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) had some excuse for praying only one Witr that night. Considering these points, it becomes clear that when Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) called him a jurist for this act, it meant that he performed an act that is permissible. He knew the Shariah rulings well, which acts are correct and which are wrong, and under what conditions and to what extent an act is correct. Therefore, his act should not be criticized, as we quoted Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s (may Allah have mercy on him) statement earlier. So when the narration in Sahih Bukhari is clear and authentic, it is not correct to interpret it contrary to its apparent meaning without evidence. And what about Imam Bukhari’s argument and Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s commentary? Earlier, Mirza Sahib used these two names falsely to deny the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah, but here both clearly agree and consider Abdullah ibn Abbas’s statement apparent, as mentioned before. Should this also be counted as your just-mindedness? Anyway, now let us move to the engineer’s videos and his arguments.
In the first video, Mirza Sahib’s main point was that the Companions considered Hazrat Muawiyah’s act blameworthy and therefore complained to Ibn Abbas about it. But this is a big lie by Mirza Sahib. The narration only says that Abdullah ibn Abbas’s servant saw this act and asked Ibn Abbas about it; there is no mention of [people] or [Companions] as can be seen in the Sahih Bukhari narration above. Also, the servant is not a Companion at all. How can this be called Mirza Sahib’s mistake when he repeatedly cites Sahih Bukhari in many videos and claims to always provide hadith references? This shows how he oppresses the reference. Then, adding insult to injury, the act of Hazrat Muawiyah and Ibn Abbas’s approval of it has been used by hadith scholars to argue for the permissibility of one Witr, as will be explained later. But Mirza Sahib uses the same narration to argue that one Witr is dangerous and blameworthy, whereas it should have been said that the servant’s surprise or considering it blameworthy is wrong for an act permitted in Shariah. But here, based on his surprise, a permissible act is declared dangerous and blameworthy. Glory be to Allah! Is ignorance or lack of knowledge about a person’s permissible act a reason to consider that act dangerous and blameworthy?
In the second video, the injustice Mirza Sahib did to this narration of Sahih Bukhari is clear evidence of his ignorance. To call the clear statement of a Companion like Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), who spoke about a Companion of the Prophet, as Taqiyya and to liken it to saying “Leave him alone, he is a clever fellow, he doesn’t know what he is doing” is a vile interpretation and completely against the meaning of the narration. Other narrations further confirm that Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them) approved of his act. And sir! This Punjabi phrase is used when someone is doing a wrong, inappropriate, or impermissible act, not when someone is doing an act that is not forbidden or impermissible in Shariah but permissible, practiced by the Companions, and clearly allowed in hadith, as you yourself quoted that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever wishes may pray five Witr, whoever wishes may pray three, whoever wishes may pray one.” Any sensible person would not apply this Punjabi phrase to someone performing this act. But an engineer can do so because this is beyond his field.
