1

A CRITIQUE OF LECTURE 116-B

A CRITICISM ON THE VIEWS OF IBN H:AJR ASQALANI RH AND IBN

ISH:AQ RAHVAIH RH
Engineer Ali: Mirza: has claimed that Imam Ibn H:-jr Asq-

la:ni: said that the H:adi:th: doeth not shew any Fad:i:lah
[Virtue].
This the blind Taqli:d of Imam Ibn Asqala:ni [d :852
A.H] .
Since the Tradition quoted by Imam Ibn H:ajr doeth shew
the Fad:ilah [Virtue] of Saiyiduna Muaviah RD. This
Tradition [Hadith No:=3766] Stateeth at least One Fad:ilah
Of Saiyiduna Muaviah RD. That is of S:ah:biah. This is
even accepted by Ibn H:ajr Asqalani.
Logical Argument:=
If This Holy Tradition Stateth Only One tradition then it
Doeth State atleast one Fad:i:lah.
If It Doeth State Only One Fad:i:lah then It Doeth State
Some Fad:a:il [ At least One].
So the explanation of Ibn H:-jr is in directly in
contradiction with the H:adi:th: .
If this H:adi:th: was silent from all virtues [Fad:a:il] with
out any exception, then his explanation would have been
correct.
But as at least one Fad:li:lah / Virtue
is Stated in the
Text Of Tradition , then the claim is contradicted that
There is no Fad:ilah is Stated in the Text Of H:adi:th: .
Any statement or sentence that contradicteth the Explicit
Text of the Tradition is incorrect and wrong irrespective of

the Speaker or Writer of the Statement or Sentence or

both. Irrespective of the personality of the Speaker or
Writer or Both, who so ever he may be, whether he be
Imam Abu H:ani:fah or Imam Shafii: or Imam Ibn H:ajr
Asqala:ni: or Imam Ibn Ish:a:q Rah-vaih [RAH:MATULLAH
ALAIHIM].

IN THE FORM OF SYLLOGISM :=

S:ah:abiah is a Fad:i:lah of any Person
who so ever he may be.
S:ah:biah is ascribed to Ascribed to
Saiyiduna Muaviah in the Tradition.
RESULT:=
Fad:i:lah is ascribed to Ascribed to
Saiyiduna Muaviah in the Tradition.
Two contradicting sentences/statements
cannot be simultaneously true. One of
them is necessarily false.
If it is true that Some Fad:a:il [At least
One ] IS EXPLICITLY Stated in the Text of
H:adi:th: then it is False that No
Fad:i:lah is Explicitly stated in the Text
of the Tradion [under discussion].

If the Text of the Tradition hath mentioned no Virtue Not Even of

S:h:a:biah then this explanation of Ibn H:ajr Asqalani: would
have been correct. But as it contradicteth the text of H:adi:th:
stated above this Explanation is Wrong and Incorrect.
As this explanation is incorrect , to accept this explanation is
nothing but a TAQLI:D of Imam Ibn H:ajr Asqalani RH.
STATUS OF THE COMMENTARY [SH-RH:] OF ASQALANI:
It is one of the trustworthy Commentary of Holy Bukhari:.
But even the trustworthy Commentary of Qura:n like Tafsi:r of
Imam T:abri: Hath some weak portions , some weak portions may
exist in the the Commentary of Ibn H:ajr as well as some weak
portions do exist in Commentary Of T:Abri , one of the most
trustworthy Commentaries of Holy Qura:n.
Ibn H:ajr is certainly not Infallible.
NOTES:
1]So it is astonishing to see that Engineer Ali Mirza: has become a Muqallid
of Ibn H:ajr instead of accepting his error.
2]The status of Sharh: Of Bukha:ri is not equal to the Holy Bukha:ri It Self. To
dispute from the given Sh-r-h: of Bukha:ri: is one thing and to dispute from
the Very Holy Bukha:ri: is an other thing.
3] If an explanation of Text Of Holy Tradition Of Holy Bukhari: Shari:f
contradicteth the Explicit Text of Tradition of Bukha:ri: , then the explanation
is discarded , Since in principle any Speech of any created Rational
Suppositum that Contradicteth a S:ah:ih: H:adi:th: is wrong and incorrect.

CONLUSION
This is the Error of Imam Ibn H:ajr and be not to be
followed [Taqli:d].

If Heretic Ali Mirza believes that there is no error in Fath:

Al Bari: then we do dispute with him. It is an authentic
book in principle yet as it is not free from Errors, and
some errors do exist in it. One of such error is that it
contradicteth with the text of S:ah:ih: H:adith: [ Hadi:th:
#3766].
How ever we do have some explanations on some other
standards. This is Insha: Alha:h Sufficient on the
standard of Shaikh Zubair Ali Zai [ who is accused to
conceal truth by Engineer Ali Mirza for only writing Kana:
Yaktibul Vah:y in the lecture 116-b] and Ali Mirza: himself.
Since they do claim that the reject any statement [Qaul] of
any Person if the statement contradictheth the Text of
Ha:di:th: .
The commentary or explanation or both of Ibn H:ajr does
contradict the Text Of H:adi:th: .
So the this Particular Explanation or Commentary or Both
Of Ibn H:-j-r [RH] contradictheth the H:adi:th: .
The statement of H:di:th: doeth contradict the portion of
lecture of the Engineer.
So they are not only rejected but also discarded.
H:adith NO

3764.

H:asan BN Bisr Stated to Us, Muafi: Stated to Us,From Uth:ma:n Bin Asvad, From
Ibn Abi Mulaicah, that He stated that:
Mu'aviyah did offer one Rak'ah War prayerafter the 'Isha prayer, and at that time a
freed slave[former bound man] of Ibn 'AbbSs was present. He (i.e., the former
slave/boundman) did go to Ibn 'Abbas (and told him that Mu'aviyah did offer one

5
Rak'a in War prayer).Ibn 'Abbas said, "Leave him, for He was in the company of
Allah's Messenger.
This Holy Text Of H:adi:th: doeth prove the Fad:ilah of Compaionship of Holy Apostle.
This is Fad:ilah Number 1.

Hadith Number:= 3765.

Ibrahi:m Ibn Maryam Stated to Us,Nafi Bn Umar

Stated to Us ,Stated to Us Ibn Abi Mulaicah, Stated
to Us ,It was Stated to Ibn 'Abbas,
"Canst Thou speak to Chief of the believers Mu'aviyah, as He
doeth not offer except one Rak'ah as War?"Ibn 'Abbas replied, "He
is a Faqih (i.e., alearned man /Scholar who can give religious
verdict) ."
[In archaic English this may be translated as He Be A Faqi:h]

This is the second Fad:lah.

These to H:adith: do contradict the claims 1]Imam Bukhari: found
no Fd:ilah.
2] Imam Bukhari found only one Fad:ilah.
Since this Bab of Bukhari DO State two Vitues with certainty. So
the claim of Ali Mirza is falsified.
Q.E.D

In presence and existence of the Texts of H:adi:th which

do state Explicitly Two Fad:a:il of Saiyiduna Muaviah,
neither THE SATEMENTS OF IBN Ha-j-r nor the Statements
of Ali MIrza: be accepted, and additionally not any
statement of Ibn Ish:aq Ra:h-vaih be accepted.

As for
Imam
to reproduce it again.

Bukhari we have presented some answers. We do like

IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ALI MIRZA IN REGARD TO

HIS ARGUMENT BY THE THE WORDS ZIKR OF MUAVIAH
USED BY IMAM BUKHARI RH.
ALI MIRZA of Jhelum as tried to allege that Imam Bukhari did not find any S:h:i:
tradition in case of Saiyiduna Muaviah RD, so he was compeeld to write Zikr of
Muaviah instead of M-NA:Q-B of Muaviah RD.
This is the worst of allegations agreed by All the Great Sunni Scholars even by
Irsha:d Al H:Aqq Athari who was even admired by Semi Ahlul Hadis Shaikh Zubair
Ali Zai.
The word Zikr is far more general in its meaning then the word M-NA:Q-B.
But in the Shariah and Law of Allah the word is generally a more strong word then
the Term M-N:AQ-B [Virtue]. 1] To write Zikr instead of the stated above word is it
self a virtue. So writing it makes two Virtues.
The Proofs:=
1]The word Zikr is used for Qura:n even in Qura:n.

Inna: Nah:nu Nazzalna: A(l)zzikra Va inna Lahu:

Lah:afiz:u:n(a)
[AL-H:-J-R^ 9]

This shews that this word is used as a virtue unless and otherwise there is a certain
evidence that it is not. Other wise to term Qura:n Shal not be among M-NA:Q-B.
2] ALLAH SAITH :=

DHIKRU RAH:MATI RABBIKA ABDAHU ZAKARIYYA:

[MARYAM:2]
This is among M-NA:Q-B.

3] Vazkur Fi:l Kita:bi Musa: innahu Ka:na Mukhlas:an Va

Ka:na Rasu:lan Nabiyya:

7
[Maryam:51]
4] Va Nzkuraka Kathi:rah [T:AHA: ^34]
These four proofs are irrefutable proofs that the word Zikr or its derivations are used
as M-NA:Q-B . So
If Imam Bukhari changed his former stile ,it is due to the reason he was
emphasizing on the M-na:q-b of Saiyiduna Muaviah RD.
5] Allama ABDUL Azi:z Frha:rvi answering the very same objection of Ravafid:
which is borrowed by Heretic Ali Mirza has said:=
The answer of the act of Imam Bukharis is due to Tafann-n Fil Kala:m.

So even the slightest possibility or probability of this answer refutes the self
designed reasoning of Ali Mirza that it was duet o the [alleged] reason that He did
not found any tradition in the Ba:b of M-na:q-b.
These are Insha: Allah sufficient for any one who wand to compare Ali Mirzas
objections and Answers of Ahlussunnah impartially and unbiased.
So this is proved that the Word Zikr [Azka:r] is used for M-na:q-b by IMAM
BUKHA:RI with out any doubt.

A REQUEST TO THE FOLLOWERS OF ALI

MIRZA:
FOR SAKE OF ALL-H STUDY THE TEXT OF
HOLY BUKHARI AND THE USE OF WORD
Z:ICR /DH:IKR AND THE DECIEDE YOUR
SELVES WHETHER TO FOLLOW THE TEXT
OF H:ADI:TH: OR LECTURES OF ALI
MIRZA.
A SIMPLE CONUNDRUM:=

WHAT IF SOME PORTION OF LECTURE OF

ALI MIRZA OR STATEMENTS/SENTENCES
ANY ONE ELSE BE IT SHAIKH ZUBAIR ALI
ZAI OR IMAM ASQALANI OR IBN IS-H:A:Q
RA:H-VAIH CONTRADICT A PART OF EXPLICIT
TEXT OF S:AH:I:H: AL BUKHARI: , THEN
WHICH ONE IS TO BE FOLLOWED .
THE TEXT OF SPEECH OF HOLY PROPHET OR
THE TEXTS OF SPEECH OR WRITINGS OF
OTHER PERSONS WHO SO EVER THEY MAY
BE.
THE CHOICE IS YOURS.
LET ASK ALI MIRZA TO ACCEPT THAT ATLEAST
THIS PORTION OF HIS LECTURE IS CERTAINLY
AND DEFINITELY WRONG AND INDCORRECT.