Review of Mirza Engineer Sahib’s Arguments:
In the video under discussion, the engineer spent almost the last twenty minutes trying to prove this narration correct, but believe me, Mirza Sahib did not present a single argument that could invalidate our presented evidence and prove this narration correct. Mirza Sahib divided the objections raised against this narration into two parts. The first part concerns the reliability of Baqiyah bin Waleed, and the second part discusses the issue of Baqiyah’s deception.
Mirza Sahib made a strong effort to prove Baqiyah bin Waleed trustworthy; he presented five arguments regarding this and spent most of the time on this, even though our objection was not about Baqiyah’s reliability, nor did we deny Baqiyah being trustworthy and truthful (from our side).
The first argument is the statement of Imam Abdullah bin Mubarak, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding the introduction to Sahih Muslim: that Baqiyah is truthful, but he narrates from everyone who comes to him (meaning from trustworthy narrators as well as weak, unknown, and lying narrators).
It is stated that when he takes narrations from all other types of narrators but also commits tadlees (concealment), it is necessary that he explicitly mentions in the chain that he heard it directly (sama’), so that it is clear he has not omitted any weak narrator. But has he explicitly mentioned sama’ in the narration of Sunan Abu Dawood, which you have read out word for word in this video? Then you have claimed that we were the ones who introduced the principle “A narration with a tadlees narrator is weak” the most. Therefore, we are not calling this narration weak because the others are weak, but we are declaring it weak because of its tadlees.
The second argument was presented with reference to Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him. He quoted the statement of Imam Abu Ishaq Al-Fazari, may Allah have mercy on him, who said: “Take from Baqiyyah those narrations which he narrates from trustworthy narrators.”
If someone says that the narration number 2859 in Sunan Tirmidhi, which Baqiyyah has narrated in the form of ‘an’ (from), and Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote “هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ” that this hadith is Hasan Gharib (good but rare)! Then remember that Imam Tirmidhi did not say the chain is Hasan, rather he declared the hadith Hasan, and this hadith is also narrated in Musnad Ahmad through another chain in which Baqiyyah bin Walid is not present –
, and Allama Shoaib Al-Arnaout said about it: “The chains are Hasan.”
The third argument presented is that in Sahih Muslim, a hadith is narrated from Baqiyyah bin Walid: “Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, narrates that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said: ‘Whoever is invited to a Walimah (wedding feast) or similar, should accept the invitation.'”
.
If someone says that in this narration of Sahih Muslim, Baqiyah had said حدثنا زبیدی ”عن“ Nafi‘, then where did the Tadlees Taswiyah go? The answer is that Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, as usual, has taken such a chain in Mutaaba‘ah (following), and under this chapter, Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, has brought this hadith from nearly a dozen different chains in which Baqiyah bin Waleed is not present. Therefore, it is wrong to negate Baqiyah’s Tadlees Taswiyah from this, because Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, did not rely on this chain as proof. The reason for saying “as usual” is that Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, has clarified this in the introduction of Sahih Muslim, the summary of which is that whenever I mention any hadith, I will first bring it from trustworthy and high-ranking narrators, then I will also mention the same hadith from some weaker narrators. And you have given examples such as ‘Ata bin Sa’ib, Laith bin Abi Sulaym, and Yazid bin Abi Ziyad. Whereas Laith bin Abi Sulaym is a weak narrator; Imam Ibn Ma‘in, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Abu Zur‘ah al-Razi, Abu Hatim al-Razi, Nasai, Ibn Hibban, and many muhaddithin have declared him weak, and he was also very mixed up. The condition of Yazid bin Abi Ziyad is even worse. So Imam Muslim’s style is that he brings a hadith from an authentic chain but then mentions the same hadith as a following narration from a chain that sometimes has some weakness. See Mirza Sahib’s video “Mas’alah: 36”
. Laypeople can understand this example like this: you receive a report from many truthful and reliable people, but the exact same statement is heard from a person who has some weakness, whether he is a liar himself or narrates from liars. So will that statement be accepted as correct or incorrect? Obviously, when it is supported by others, the doubt about it is removed. Now neither can it be said that you only trusted that person’s statement, nor will it prove that he became completely truthful and reliable.
It happens that sometimes in the follow-ups, the narration with ‘an’ from the mudallis is taken in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Allama Ibn Hajar says:
وليست الأحاديث التي في الصحيحين بالعنعنة عن المدلسين كلها في الاحتجاج۔
“And not all narrations with ‘an’ from the mudallis in the Sahihayn (Bukhari and Muslim) are considered as proof.”
Meaning, sometimes they are in the follow-ups and evidences, and they are not presented as proof. Here also, in Sahih Muslim, the narration of Baqiyah is in the follow-up. Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated that the narration of Baqiyah in Sahih Muslim is in the follow-up.
Allama Abdul Azim al-Mundhiri (may Allah have mercy on him) also said that there is only one narration of Baqiyah in Sahih Muslim and that too as a witness.
Imam Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) also said that the narration of Baqiyah in Sahih Muslim is among the evidences.
So in the follow-ups and evidences, Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, said that I will also bring the narration of people like Laith bin Abi Sulaym and Yazid bin Abi Ziyad (who are weak). So does that make them trustworthy? Therefore, declaring the rest free from concealment or considering their narration authentic according to the condition of Sahih Muslim is not correct.
And by the way, Engineer Sahib! At least you should not forget this principle because you yourself have stated many times that the narrations with ‘an’ from the mudallis in Bukhari and Muslim are based on hearing (sama’). Therefore, if there is a narration with ‘an’ from a mudallis in Bukhari and Muslim, it is fundamentally wrong to declare that mudallis free from tadlis. The matter of Bukhari and Muslim is different; now it does not mean that if the narration with ‘an’ from that mudallis appears in any other book, it is authentic.
The fourth argument was presented from Sunan Tirmidhi that Imam Tirmidhi, regarding the narration transmitted through the chain Baqiyah ‘an Buhair ‘an Khalid, about the hadith “Hold firmly to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of my rightly guided Caliphs,” says: هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ, that this hadith is Hasan Sahih.
But it is submitted that Imam Tirmidhi immediately after said: وَقَدْ رَوَى ثَوْرُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو السُّلَمِيِّ، عَنِ الْعِرْبَاضِ بْنِ سَارِيَةَ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ نَحْوَ هَذَا۔
“And Thawr bin Yazid has narrated a similar hadith through the chain ‘an Khalid ‘an Abdul Rahman bin Amr ‘an Arabadh bin Sariyah (may Allah be pleased with him).”
And in this chain, there is no Baqiyah, rather Abu Asim is narrating this hadith through Thawr bin Yazid, and he through Khalid.
, Imam Tirmidhi is indicating that this hadith is narrated not only through Baqiyah but also through other chains. And he has declared the hadith authentic, not this chain. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, has absolutely declared the narration through Baqiyah’s chain as authentic. Mirza Sahib has shown on the screen what suits his point, but the second chain of this hadith presented by Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, has not even been mentioned. Could it be so that this impression is given that the narrator of such an important and famous hadith is Baqiyah? And Engineer Sahib has also stated that this hadith is memorized by every child of Ahl al-Sunnah, and its narrator is also Baqiyah! It is incomprehensible how Mirza Sahib manages to commit such deceptions?
This hadith is also narrated through several other chains of transmission, which will be mentioned later, InshaAllah.
The fifth argument is given with reference to Mustadrak Hakim, where Imam Hakim (may Allah have mercy on him) has declared two narrations (4230)(2435) narrated through Baqiyyah Hadithani Bahir from Khalid as authentic according to the conditions of Sahih Muslim.
However, it is not correct to say this chain meets the conditions of Sahih Muslim. If we say this, it might be taken badly, so it should be noted that Allama Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) has already refuted this before us. Regarding one narration of Baqiyyah in Mustadrak Hakim, which Imam Hakim (may Allah have mercy on him) declared authentic according to Sahih Muslim’s conditions, Hafiz (may Allah have mercy on him) refuted it by stating that Baqiyyah’s narration is present in Sahih Muslim only as a following narration, and this alone is not sufficient to prove that all his narrations meet Sahih Muslim’s conditions. So how is it possible to take Baqiyyah’s narration as proof under Sahih Muslim’s conditions? (In brief). At the same place, he also criticized Bahir’s “‘an” Khalid and said that Baqiyyah used to practice tadlis taswiyah.
And then Imam Hakim and Dhahabi themselves have acknowledged that the narration of Baqiyah is among the evidences in Sahih Muslim.
. So how can Baqiyah’s narration be called authentic on the condition of Sahih Muslim?
And just as it is wrong to argue from Baqiyah on the condition of Sahih Muslim, similarly it is also wrong to call its ‘An’ narration authentic on the basis that it is in Sahih Muslim.
Therefore, no one should present Hakim and Dhahabi’s authentication as a denial of Baqiyah’s tadlis or taswiyah; they erred in this matter. And then why only Baqiyah? In Al-Mustadrak of Hakim, there are many narrations with ‘An’ from mudallis narrators which Hakim and Dhahabi have declared authentic on the condition of Bukhari and Muslim. So can all of them be declared free from tadlis? And can all their ‘An’ narrations be called authentic everywhere? The answer will never be affirmative!
In any case, these were the remaining arguments of Mirza Sahib in support of Baqiyyah bin Walid, whose condition is before you, although much better arguments can be given to prove Baqiyyah as trustworthy. Anyway, we also consider Baqiyyah to be truthful, but the only point is that he is also a muddler, and not just an ordinary muddler but one who commits tadlis taswiyah, which is the worst kind of tadlis. And none of these points are our own; rather, there are statements from the hadith scholars regarding this.
