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.
The claim that Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) condemned and disliked this act of his is completely false. Let us also examine the evidence they present from Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar. Al-Tahawi writes:
أَنَّ أَبَا غَسَّانَ مَالِكَ بْنَ يَحْيَى الْهَمْدَانِيَّ حَدَّثَنَا قَالَ: ثنا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ قَالَ: أنا عِمْرَانُ بْنُ حُدَيْرٍ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: كُنْتُ مَعَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عِنْدَ مُعَاوِيَةَ نَتَحَدَّثُ حَتَّى ذَهَبَ هَزِيعٌ مِنَ اللَّيْلِ فَقَامَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فَرَكَعَ رَكْعَةً وَاحِدَةً فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: مِنْ أَيْنَ تُرَى أَخَذَهَا الْحِمَارُ۔
"Ikrimah narrates that I was with Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) at the presence of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). We kept talking until part of the night passed. Then Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) stood up and prayed one rak'ah of Witr. Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'From where did this donkey take this act?'"
Reference: (Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar:1719)
Maulana Zubair Ali Zai (may Allah have mercy on him) has declared this narration weak
Reference: (Fada'il al-Sahaba:127)
, and Maulana Ghulam Mustafa Amanpuri (may Allah preserve him) has also called it weak
Reference: (Difa' al-Sahaba:503)
. Here, not only did Mirza Sahib promote a weak narration against the authentic hadith of Sahih Bukhari, but he also lied in the name of Allama Tahawi. Mirza Sahib first claimed that Tahawi declared this narration authentic, and secondly that Tahawi said: "This hadith in Bukhari... Ibn Abbas practiced taqiyya [the original narration is the one with the donkey words]..." and gave the impression that Tahawi's interpretation was based on this (weak) narration. But believe me, none of these claims is true. Mirza Sahib deceives people with book and reference names.The real matter is that Allama Tahawi was of the Hanafi school, and in Hanafi fiqh, praying one rak'ah of Witr is not correct. So, in this discussion, he said that if someone presents this narration as evidence:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ الْبَغْدَادِيُّ قَالَ: ثنا الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ عَنِ الْأَوْزَاعِيِّ عَنْ عَطَاءٍ قَالَ: قَالَ رَجُلٌ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُمَا: هَلْ لَكَ فِي مُعَاوِيَةَ أَوْتَرَ بِوَاحِدَةٍ وَهُوَ يُرِيدُ أَنْ يَعِيبَ مُعَاوِيَةَ فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: أَصَابَ مُعَاوِيَةُ قِيلَ لَهُ: قَدْ رُوِيَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُمَا فِي فِعْلِ مُعَاوِيَةَ هَذَا مَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى إِنْكَارِهِ إِيَّاهُ عَلَيْهِ۔ وَذَلِكَ:
which states that when Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) was informed about Hazrat Muawiyah's (may Allah be pleased with him) act, he supported Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) saying: "Muawiyah did correctly"
Reference: (Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar:1718)
.Then Tahawi says that in response, we would say that there is also a narration from Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) in which he denies Hazrat Muawiyah's (may Allah be pleased with him) act, and then he mentions the narration which Mirza Sahib presents as evidence:
أَنَّ أَبَا غَسَّانَ مَالِكَ بْنَ يَحْيَى الْهَمْدَانِيَّ حَدَّثَنَا قَالَ: ثنا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ قَالَ: أنا عِمْرَانُ بْنُ حُدَيْرٍ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: كُنْتُ مَعَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عِنْدَ مُعَاوِيَةَ نَتَحَدَّثُ حَتَّى ذَهَبَ هَزِيعٌ مِنَ اللَّيْلِ فَقَامَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فَرَكَعَ رَكْعَةً وَاحِدَةً فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: مِنْ أَيْنَ تُرَى أَخَذَهَا الْحِمَارُ۔
And then he said:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرَةَ، قَالَ: ثنا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ عُمَرَ، قَالَ: ثنا عِمْرَانُ، فَذَكَرَ بِإِسْنَادِهِ مِثْلَهُ إِلَّا أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَقُلِ الْحِمَارُ وَقَدْ يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ قَوْلُ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَصَابَ مُعَاوِيَةُ عَلَى التَّقِيَّةِ لَهُ، أَيْ أَصَابَ فِي شَيْءٍ آخَرَ لِأَنَّهُ كَانَ فِي زَمَنِهِ وَلَا يَجُوزُ عَلَيْهِ عِنْدَنَا أَنْ يَكُونَ مَا خَالَفَ فِعْلَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الَّذِي قَدْ عَلِمَهُ عَنْهُ صَوَابًا۔
"Imran bin Hudayr narrated a similar narration with his chain but without the donkey statement. It can be said that Ibn Abbas's statement 'Muawiyah did correctly' was taqiyya, meaning Muawiyah did some other act correctly (and this was said about that). And in our view, it is not permissible for them to approve an act that is against the knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)."
Now the entire passage is before you. Tell me, where did Tahawi say that the narration in Bukhari or the one in which Ibn Abbas said "Muawiyah did correctly" is opposed by the original denial narration? Or where did he say that this narration is authentic? And can such a style be considered as authentication of the narration? Even if he had said it was authentic, it would still have no value because according to the scholars of hadith, this narration is weak, including Imam Bukhari. But Tahawi is not an expert in Jarh wa Ta'dil (criticism and accreditation), nor is it his field. And does a weak hadith become authentic just because someone says so? Especially when it contradicts the authentic hadith of Bukhari. Yes! According to Mirza Sahib, it can be if it benefits him. Clearly, Allama Tahawi was making all these efforts out of loyalty to the Hanafi school.
What is Mirza Sahib's opinion about Hanafi fiqh, and how does he reject and criticize it? You can see this by searching on YouTube for "Fiqh e Hanafi and Engineer Muhammad Ali Mirza" or similar words. Many videos will appear criticizing and condemning Hanafi fiqh. It is surprising that until yesterday, you used to reject and mock the fiqh and its false interpretations, which clearly contradict hadith or sunnah, yet today you present the Hanafi opinion as a proof against us. Isn't this injustice? Anyway, our case is based on a very clear narration, so we have no need to waste time responding to Tahawi's statement. Hanafi fiqh often uses "maybe" and "it could be" to justify many things.
Regarding Halala, there is a hadith from Abdullah bin Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) cursed the one who performs or arranges Halala.
Reference: (Sunan Tirmidhi:1120)
But in Hanafi fiqh, Halala is permissible, and they present many interpretations on this issue. In the Hanafi book "Kanz al-Daqa'iq" commentary
Reference: (Mustakhlas al-Haqa'iq p.126)
, it is stated that the curse in the hadith might mean mercy (i.e., instead of curse, mercy is meant). The Hanafi Imam Ibn Abi al-'Izz (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:وَقد انحرف فِي شَأْن أبي حنيفة رَحمَه الله طَائِفَتَانِ فطائفة قد غلت فِي تَقْلِيده فَلم تتْرك لَهُ قولا وأنزلوه منزلَة الرَّسُول صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم وَإِن أورد عَلَيْهِم نَص مُخَالف قَوْله تأولوه على غير تَأْوِيله ليدفعوه عَنْهُم ۔
"A group (Hanafis) exaggerated in following Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) to the extent that they did not abandon any of his statements and elevated him to the status of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). If a hadith is presented against Imam Abu Hanifa's statement, they make undue interpretations."
Reference: (Al-Ittiba':30)
Similarly, Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi of the Hanafis writes about his followers:
"Most of the followers, even the elite, are so rigid that if a verse or hadith contradicts the mujtahid's statement, their hearts do not remain open or joyful, and they start thinking of interpretations, no matter how far-fetched..."
Reference: (Tadhkirat al-Rashid:131/1)
Regarding the issue under discussion (the permissibility of one rak'ah Witr), many interpretations exist on the narrations, which is not the appropriate time to elaborate. But as a note, Engineer Sahib supports the permissibility of one Witr and has cited a hadith as evidence that whoever wishes may pray five, three, or one rak'ah. But let's see what Tahawi the Hanafi wrote in response to this narration. In the same Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar, after this narration, he writes: "وَقَدْ أَجْمَعَتِ الْأُمَّةُ بَعْدَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى خِلَافِ ذَلِكَ" and that after the Prophet (peace be upon him), the Ummah gathered against it (i.e., there was consensus against one rak'ah Witr)
Reference: (Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar:1753)
. You are talking about Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar, so open its "Bab al-Witr" and observe that after every hadith and narration supporting one rak'ah Witr, it is stated that there is a possibility and every narration is interpreted, meaning nothing is free from possibility here.Regarding the narration supporting one rak'ah Witr, the Hanafi Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri wrote that he pondered over this narration for about fourteen years and then produced a sufficient and conclusive answer...
Reference: (Al-'Urf al-Shadhi:442/1)
.Therefore, the point is that Hanafis are kings of interpretation. You yourself quote Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) who said about Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him): if he wished, he could prove a wooden plank to be gold by interpretation. So Mirza Sahib! Do not present Hanafi opinions against the very clear hadith of Sahih Bukhari. And when you yourself are not satisfied with Hanafi fiqh and its approach, your efforts are futile.
If it suits your purpose, you accept Tahawi; otherwise, you reject him. On the other hand, Imam Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) declared Tahawi's interpretation completely false, stating: "It is not permissible for anyone to attribute the words of Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) to taqiyya..."
Reference: (Ma'rifat al-Sunan wal-Athar:5472)
. Does our truthful speaker ever mention this?Now, coming to the investigation of the narration that Mirza Sahib presented against Sahih Bukhari's narration to create this whole drama that Ibn Abbas's calling Hazrat Muawiyah a faqih was taqiyya and that the original narration is:
أَنَّ أَبَا غَسَّانَ مَالِكَ بْنَ يَحْيَى الْهَمْدَانِيَّ حَدَّثَنَا قَالَ: ثنا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ قَالَ: أنا عِمْرَانُ بْنُ حُدَيْرٍ عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ أَنَّهُ قَالَ: كُنْتُ مَعَ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عِنْدَ مُعَاوِيَةَ نَتَحَدَّثُ حَتَّى ذَهَبَ هَزِيعٌ مِنَ اللَّيْلِ فَقَامَ مُعَاوِيَةُ فَرَكَعَ رَكْعَةً وَاحِدَةً فَقَالَ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ: مِنْ أَيْنَ تُرَى أَخَذَهَا الْحِمَارُ ۔
"Ikrimah narrates that I was with Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) at the presence of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). We kept talking until part of the night passed. Then Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) stood up and prayed one rak'ah of Witr. Ibn Abbas said: 'From where did this donkey take this act?'"
Reference: (Sharh Ma'ani al-Athar:1719)
One narrator here is "Abdul Wahhab bin 'Ata." Consider the statements of the scholars of Jarh wa Ta'dil about him:
Imam Bukhari mentioned him in "Al-Du'afa al-Kabir" (the book of major weak narrators)
Reference: (Al-Du'afa al-Kabir:1824)
, and in "Al-Du'afa al-Saghir" he said "this narrator is not strong according to the muhaddithin"
Reference: (Al-Du'afa al-Saghir:233)
. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal declared him weak and unreliable
Reference: (Al-Du'afa al-Kabir by Al-'Aqili:1043)
. Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, though he authenticated him, also said "this narrator is not strong according to the muhaddithin"
Reference: (Al-Jarh wal-Ta'dil:72/6)
. Imam Ibn Shahin quoted Uthman bin Abi Shaybah as saying "he is not a liar but not trustworthy in hadith matters"
Reference: (Tarikh Asma' al-Thiqat:984)
. Imam Abu Ja'far al-'Aqili mentioned him among the weak
Reference: (Al-Du'afa al-Kabir:1043)
. Imam Abu Bakr al-Bazzar said "Abdul Wahhab is not strong in hadith"
Reference: (Musnad Bazzar:7098)
. Imam Nasai declared him "not strong"
Reference: (Al-Du'afa wal-Matrukoon:374)
. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi also mentioned him among the weak narrators
Reference: (Al-Du'afa wal-Matrukoon:2211)
. Hafiz Ibn Hajar said: "صدوق ربما أخطأ" meaning he is truthful but sometimes makes mistakes in narration
Reference: (Taqrib:4262)
.Note: There is no narration from this narrator in Sahih Muslim in the original chains; all narrations are in mutaba'at (follow-up chains). Therefore, calling him a narrator meeting Sahih Muslim's conditions or considering his narrations authentic by Sahih Muslim's standards is a mistake.
Although he has been authenticated, there is still weakness. Therefore, rejecting all criticism is not correct. Hafiz Ibn Hajar clarified that this narrator makes mistakes. So when a narrator with weakness, even if good, narrates against a trustworthy and reliable group of narrators, the narration is rejected and weak. Here, this narration, which Mirza Sahib calls the original, is against the very clear narration of Sahih Bukhari and other trustworthy narrators because all other trustworthy narrators, who are greater in hadith and memory, oppose it. Mirza Engineer Sahib, in his video explaining Sahih Muslim's introduction, says:
"In hadith terminology, a 'munkar' narration is one that contradicts the narration of trustworthy and perfect memory narrators or has no agreement from others. In such a case, the narrator is abandoned and his hadith is not accepted by muhaddithin. For example, if Imam Muslim has 50 students, 49 narrate a hadith similarly, and one narrates it with opposite words or words contrary to understanding, we say this narrator's narration is munkar and should be rejected. [49 are correct, one is wrong!] ... He gives an example that if someone narrates from a great person like Imam Zuhri or Hisham bin Urwah a narration that none of their famous students narrated, and this narrator is not among the famous students in authentic narrations, then his hadith will not be accepted even if he is trustworthy because he contradicted his trustworthy people."
Imam MUSLIM r.a ka Muqaddimah & Aqeedah ??? Saheh AHADITH hi Kewn ??? 21:40
We will not go into the difference between shadh and munkar narrations here. Read carefully the words in brackets in Mirza Sahib's speech and decide whether the original narration he presented is weak or not. Mirza Sahib himself stated that even if a narrator is trustworthy, if he narrates against more trustworthy narrators, his narration is not acceptable! So here, is this narrator not narrating against the narrators of Sahih Bukhari? And is he not contradicting other trustworthy narrators? As will be shown later, other trustworthy narrators say that Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said to leave Muawiyah alone because he is a companion and a faqih, and some trustworthy narrators add that Ibn Abbas said: "أصاب معاوية" or "أصاب السنة" meaning Muawiyah did correctly and acted according to the Sunnah. So even if this narrator is considered trustworthy, due to his weak memory and contradiction with other trustworthy narrators, his narration will be weak according to Mirza Sahib's own principles.
When Engineer Sahib explained Sahih Muslim's introduction, he later released a video titled "Difference between Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim?" At the beginning, the questioner (scripted) praised Mirza Sahib, saying: "You have done a favor to the Ummah by explaining Sahih Muslim's introduction..."
So our request to Mirza Sahib is that since you have done a favor by explaining, please also do a favor by following these principles. But no! This is Mirza Sahib's characteristic that he becomes truthful by stating principles but rejects those principles when they obstruct his path.
Now, very briefly, the narrations of narrators who oppose this narrator (Abdul Wahhab bin 'Ata) are presented:
حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ حَدَّثَنَا الْمُعَافَى عَنْ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ الْأَسْوَدِ عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ قَالَ: أَوْتَرَ مُعَاوِيَةُ بَعْدَ الْعِشَاءِ بِرَكْعَةٍ وَعِنْدَهُ مَوْلًى لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، فَأَتَى ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، فَقَالَ: دَعْهُ، فَإِنَّهُ صَحِبَ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ۔
Reference: (Sahih Bukhari:3764)
حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ ، حَدَّثَنَا نَافِعُ بْنُ عُمَرَ ، حَدَّثَنِي ابْنُ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ قِيلَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: هَلْ لَكَ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مُعَاوِيَةَ فَإِنَّهُ مَا أَوْتَرَ إِلَّا بِوَاحِدَةٍ؟ قَالَ: إِنَّهُ فَقِيهٌ ۔
Reference: (Sahih Bukhari:3765)
These narrations state that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) told the questioner to leave him because he is a companion and a faqih.
Also, the Bukhari narrator Nafi' bin 'Umar narrates from Ibn Abi Mulaikah:
حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى قَالَ: ثنا دَاوُدُ بْنُ عَمْرٍو قَالَ ثنا نَافِعُ بْنُ عُمَرَ، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ قَالَ قِيلَ لِابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: هَلْ لَكَ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مُعَاوِيَةَ، وَاللهِ مَا أَوْتَرَ إِلَّا بِرَكْعَةٍ؟ قَالَ: أَصَابَ إِنَّهُ فَقِيهٌ ۔
Reference: (Al-Awsat fi al-Sunan wal-Ijma':2642)
It states that Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "(Muawiyah) did correctly; indeed, he is a faqih." Also see:
Reference: (Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq:4641)
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللهِ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو هَاشِمٍ زِيَادُ بْنُ أَيُّوبَ ثنا يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ قَالَ أنا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ حُسَيْنٍ، عَنْ يَعْلَى بْنِ مُسْلِمٍ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ: كُنْتُ مَعَ أَبِي عِنْدَ مُعَاوِيَةَ ذَاتَ لَيْلَةٍ...... فَقُلْتُ لِأَبِي: يَا أَبَتِ أَمَا رَأَيْتَ مَا صَنَعَ؟ قَالَ: وَمَا صَنَعَ؟ قُلْتُ: أَوْتَرَ بِرَكْعَةٍ قَالَ: أَيْ بُنَيَّ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ مِنْكَ ۔
Reference: (Fada'il al-Sahaba by Ahmad ibn Hanbal:1950)
It states that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) replied to the questioner: "Muawiyah has more knowledge than you."
أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو زَكَرِيَّا بْنُ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ الْمُزَكِّي، ثنا أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ، أنبأ الرَّبِيعُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، أنبأ الشَّافِعِيُّ، أنبأ عَبْدُ الْمَجِيدِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي عُتْبَةُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَارِثِ، أَنَّ كُرَيْبًا مَوْلَى ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَخْبَرَهُ: أَنَّهُ رَأَى مُعَاوِيَةَ صَلَّى الْعِشَاءَ ثُمَّ أَوْتَرَ بِرَكْعَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ لَمْ يَزِدْ عَلَيْهَا ، فَأَخْبَرَ ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ فَقَالَ: أَصَابَ، أَيْ بُنَيَّ، لَيْسَ أَحَدٌ مِنَّا أَعْلَمَ مِنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ، هِيَ وَاحِدَةٌ أَوْ خَمْسٌ أَوْ سَبْعٌ إِلَى أَكْثَرَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ، الْوِتْرُ مَا شَاءَ ۔
Reference: (Al-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi:4794)
It states that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Muawiyah did correctly; none among us has more knowledge than Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). He further said that Witr can be prayed as one, five, seven, or more!
Atbah bin Harith is mentioned among the trustworthy by Imam Ibn Hibban
Reference: (Al-Thiqat:4700)
, and Imam Ibn Khuzaymah narrated from him in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah
Reference: (Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah:1033)
. Imam Bayhaqi wrote about one of his narrations: هَذَا الْإِسْنَادُ لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ
Reference: (Al-Sunan:3821)
, and Imam Ziya al-Maqdisi also took his narration in "Al-Ahadith al-Mukhtara" (182/9), a book in which he mentioned authentic narrations not found in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai (may Allah have mercy on him) praised his narration
Reference: (Sunan Abi Dawood under hadith:1033)
.All these narrations, especially this one, refute Allama Tahawi's false interpretation that Ibn Abbas might have said "Muawiyah did correctly" about some other act, and also refute Mirza Sahib's fabricated stories because it clearly states that Ibn Abbas said "Muawiyah did correctly" and that one rak'ah Witr can be prayed.
In our view, there are other narrations with similar words. Allama Tahawi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated another chain connected to this narration in which Imran bin Hudayr narrates from Uthman bin Umar (trustworthy) instead of Abdul Wahhab, and there is no donkey statement. The narrator under discussion (Abdul Wahhab) narrated against all these trustworthy narrators the narration which our Engineer Sahib considers "original" and derives meanings against Sahih Bukhari's narration.
Furthermore, the first narrator in the chain of the narration presented by Mirza Sahib is "Abu Ghassan Malik bin Yahya." Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai (may Allah have mercy on him) said that except for Imam Ibn Hibban, no one authenticated him
Reference: (Fada'il al-Sahaba:127)
.When Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) called Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) a faqih, the second logic Engineer Sahib presents to deny this is that Ibn Abbas's style was that when asked about someone's act, if it was correct, he would say "this is Sunnah!" But this clearly shows that Mirza Sahib is just making excuses to deny the matter because he clearly said to leave Muawiyah alone as he is a companion and a faqih. Other narrations say Ibn Abbas said Muawiyah has the most knowledge, and also confirmed his act by saying "أصاب معاوية" (Muawiyah did correctly) and clarified that one rak'ah Witr can be prayed. So demanding why Ibn Abbas did not say this or that is just excuses.
Your claim that Ibn Abbas's style of response was such and such is wrong because when he heard about an act against Quran and hadith, he condemned it clearly and cited hadith or sunnah against it, not practiced taqiyya:
Ikrimah narrates that some apostates were brought to Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), who had them burned. When Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) heard this, he said that if he were there, he would not burn them because the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade it, saying "Do not punish with the punishment of Allah" (fire is Allah's punishment), and he would kill them according to the Prophet's command to kill apostates.
Reference: (Sahih Bukhari:6922)
Abu Tufail (Amir bin Wathilah) narrates that he was with Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) when Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) would kiss the corner (Rukn) he passed by. Ibn Abbas said to him that the Prophet (peace be upon him) kissed only the Black Stone and the Yemeni Corner. Muawiyah replied that nothing of the House of Allah should be left untouched.
Reference: (Sahih Bukhari:1608, Sunan Tirmidhi:858)
It is clear that he did not practice taqiyya but openly fulfilled the duty of enjoining good and forbidding evil without ambiguity. If he considered this act wrong, he should have said that the Prophet's sunnah is such and such and the hadith commands such and such. But what did he say? "Muawiyah did correctly; he is a faqih." Therefore, Mirza Sahib's reference to Ibn Abbas's style of response is in our favor and against Mirza Sahib. Ibn Abbas calling Muawiyah a faqih is based on truth and is a virtue for him.
Praise be to Allah, now briefly consider the viewpoint of muhaddithin on the Sahih Bukhari narration we presented:
Imam Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked if praying one rak'ah Witr is permissible when no other voluntary prayer has been prayed before it. He replied yes! Among the proofs he mentioned is that "Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed one Witr, and Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: He did correctly."
Reference: (Kitab al-Umm:165/1)
Imam Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah (may Allah have mercy on him), in his "Kitab al-Radd 'ala Abi Hanifa," which he wrote against Imam Abu Hanifa's statements contradicting hadith and sunnah, mentioned this narration as evidence against the prohibition of one Witr.
Reference: (Al-Musannaf:36406)
Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this hadith in the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Mirza Sahib's claim that Imam Bukhari did not prove his virtue but only his companionship is false. If that were the case, the chapter's title would have been "فضائل أصحاب النبي" instead of "معرفة أصحاب النبي" because this chapter clearly discusses the virtues and merits of the companions mentioned. Mirza Sahib! Imam Bukhari mentioned two narrations: the first states that Ibn Abbas said to leave Muawiyah because he is a companion of the Prophet, and the second includes Ibn Abbas's words "Muawiyah is a faqih." So if the first narration proves companionship, what is the purpose of the second?
Imam Abu Bakr al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) presented this narration as evidence for the permissibility of one Witr and said: "It is not permissible for anyone to attribute Ibn Abbas's words to taqiyya because..." He further said in response to Tahawi that one who wants to authenticate weak narrations according to his sect will attribute Ibn Abbas's statement about Muawiyah to taqiyya.
Reference: (Ma'rifat al-Sunan wal-Athar:61,60/4)
. But Mirza Sahib is unaware of Imam Bayhaqi's statement, although he criticizes Hanafi fiqh in his videos and praises Shafi'i fiqh as closer to Quran and Sunnah. But here, he needed Tahawi's Hanafi opinion, so he promoted it because it contained material against Hazrat Muawiyah.Imam Jurqani (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this narration in the virtues of Muawiyah to prove his virtue.
Reference: (Al-Abatil wal-Manakheer wal-Sihah wal-Mashahir:343/1)
Imam Abu al-Qasim al-Baghawi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated it in the mention of Hazrat Muawiyah.
Reference: (Mu'jam al-Sahaba:2200)
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) also mentioned it under the virtues of Muawiyah.
Reference: (Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah:235/6)
Imam Salah al-Din al-'Alai (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated this hadith in the virtues and merits of Sayyiduna Muawiyah and said it is narrated from Ibn Abbas that he confirmed Muawiyah's act and called him a faqih.
Reference: (Tahqiq Munif al-Rutbah liman Thabata lahu Sharif al-Sahabah:89/1)
Imam Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) also narrated it in the virtues of Hazrat Muawiyah.
Reference: (Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah:122/8)
The statements of Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) have already been mentioned.
From the clarifications of these great scholars, it is clear that according to them, this narration proves the virtue of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and that Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) confirmed and approved his act. So if this is their view, what status would the weak narration that Ibn Abbas denied his act have among these muhaddithin?
Allama 'Ayni Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) also interpreted this hadith in Sahih Bukhari's commentary "Umdat al-Qari" as apparent. Regarding the words "دعه (leave Muawiyah alone)," he said: "Meaning stop denying his act because he is a companion of the Prophet and well-versed in fiqh." And about "أصاب معاوية," he said: "Meaning Muawiyah acted according to the Sunnah."
Reference: (Umdat al-Qari:249,248/16)
This also exposes the lie in Mirza Sahib's last video where he said: "Take all the Hanafi books and see, Hanafis won't even talk to us; their fiqh books have explanations that..." This is a common habit of Mirza Sahib to exaggerate when promoting his false views, although even the Hanafis themselves have not accepted Tahawi's interpretation. Mentioning Allama 'Ayni's statement here was only to expose Mirza Sahib's lie because Engineer Sahib considers Allama 'Ayni among the major Hanafi scholars and muhaddithin after Imam Abu Hanifa.
In the last video, Mirza Sahib made all statements baseless and off-topic, while the topic was that Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), a noble companion and from Ahl al-Bayt, called Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) a faqih, which is a virtue for him. The discussion about one rak'ah Witr is not our topic, and you yourself say one rak'ah Witr is permissible and present the hadith supporting it. So all your efforts are in vain because neither the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade one rak'ah Witr nor is there any narration that calls it dangerous or disliked. Your claim that Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas prayed only one rak'ah Witr—should we then encourage people to pray only the obligatory and one Witr? This is a foolish claim. When have we ever claimed that voluntary prayers should not be prayed and only one Witr should be prayed? We never claim that praying only one Witr is better than praying all voluntary prayers and then Witr. You say that Muhammad bin Qasim bin Abi Bakr, the grandson of Hazrat Abu Bakr, narrated in Sahih Bukhari that he found the companions praying three Witr and that one is also permissible. This itself answers your objections. First, he narrates what he observed, but this does not negate that companions prayed one Witr because lack of knowledge of one thing does not lead to such a conclusion. If he saw companions praying three Witr, others saw one Witr. If one rak'ah Witr is negated, what about five or seven rak'ah Witr? Can it be said that companions did not pray five or seven Witr? If not, then saying one rak'ah Witr is invalid is wrong. Here, Qasim bin Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions three rak'ah Witr and also clarifies that one Witr is permissible, as Mirza Sahib himself quoted.
It is surprising that after thoroughly exposing the flaws, you repeatedly say we did not insult. Who knows if this is not insult, then what is? And you also say one rak'ah Witr is permissible and present the Prophet's hadith, but bias makes a person do many things. Mirza Sahib is also afflicted with hatred and bias.
The claim that companions did not practice one rak'ah Witr is also a misrepresentation by Engineer Sahib. It is proven that companions prayed one rak'ah Witr:
Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed one Witr and said: "This is my Witr."
Reference: (Al-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi:4783)
. Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai declared it Hasan
Reference: (Maqalat-6 p.23)
.Hazrat Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "Witr is a right; whoever wants to pray five, let him; whoever wants to pray three, let him; whoever wants to pray one, let him."
Reference: (Sunan Nasai:1713)
. Sheikh Albani graded it Sahih in his takhrij of Sunan Nasai, and Zubair Ali Zai called it Hasan.Sayyiduna Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) also prayed one rak'ah Witr.
Reference: (Sahih Bukhari:6356, Musnad Ahmad:23665)
.And when Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) prayed one Witr, Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) approved and called it correct and Sunnah. Therefore, the claim that companions' practice does not support it is purely false. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote in Fath al-Bari:
وَصَحَّ عَنْ جَمَاعَةٍ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ أَنَّهُمْ أَوْتَرُوا بِوَاحِدَةٍ مِنْ غَيْرِ تَقَدُّمِ نَفْلِ قَبْلَهَا...
"It is proven from a group of companions that they prayed one rak'ah Witr without any voluntary prayer before it."
Reference: (Fath al-Bari:482/2)
In summary, Mirza Sahib has been extremely unfair to Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), and this is called hatred of Muawiyah. Whatever is in his favor, he has certain principles; whatever is against him, he accepts it even if it contradicts authentic narrations. You saw that Engineer Sahib tried to declare some narrations about Hazrat Muawiyah's virtues weak without evidence and presented unclear and unproven statements, while on the contrary, muhaddithin authenticated and praised these hadiths. Also, the great contemporary scholars whom Mirza Sahib trusts have declared these narrations authentic. Yet, according to Mirza Sahib, all these narrations are weak, and to prove them weak, he never presented any principled argument. He keeps repeating that "Babis are nothing new," and about himself, he says he is not a Babi but a scholarly bookish person. But wherever he wants, he becomes a Babi and a follower, calling Babis and declaring all virtues of Muawiyah weak without proof, while he cannot prove these statements with authentic chains and ignores the muhaddithin who authenticated them.
He also deceived people in the name of Imam Bukhari, sometimes attributing to him without evidence that he did not prove any virtue for Hazrat Muawiyah, which has been answered above. He made excuses about the hadith that if it proved Hazrat Muawiyah's virtue, why did Imam Bukhari not argue from it? When we presented Imam Bukhari's argument, see how Mirza Sahib treated it. Then he abandoned Imam Bukhari and turned to Tahawi the Hanafi, presenting the weak narration as authentic. So when something is in favor of Hazrat Muawiyah, it is weak and fabricated according to hadith principles and muhaddithin's authentication, but whatever is against him, even if weak and against authentic narrations and according to Mirza Sahib's own principles weak, is considered authentic and "original" by Mirza Sahib! You will see in Mirza Sahib's objections to Hazrat Muawiyah that he brings the weakest narrations against him and does not care that they are weak and declared so by muhaddithin. At that time, he becomes blind and deaf to check whether it is authentic or not. This behavior clearly shows that Mirza Sahib's purpose is not to state the truth but to deny it and give a negative impression about Hazrat Muawiyah. If you are truly just and truthful, present both sides, but you never present the positive side and always create doubts about it. Our purpose is to expose Mirza Sahib's deception and lies and reveal his changing colors.
أصاب معاوية
❀❀❀
