Tahrif An-Nusus (alteration of religious texts) by some Deobandis and Muhammad Awamah
Tahrif of the Quran by Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi
Allah (Ta’ala) said in verse 59 of Surah An-Nisa:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا الرَّسُولَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ
“O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad (saw)), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority (Ulul ‘Amr). (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day, that is better and more suitable for final determination.”
This verse made it clears that one should obey Allah, His Messenger and those in authority, and this includes rulers and scholars. But the obedience to rulers and scholars is in matters agreed upon, and in matters of difference, the believers should refer to Allah and His Messenger, and this means that one should not obey a ruler in disobedience to Allah and His Prophet, neither a scholar whose saying opposes Quran and Hadith.
So in this verse Allah has clearly separated obedience to rulers and scholars from the obedience to Allah and to His Prophet, and has made two levels:
First level: Allah and His Prophet who should be referred to in matters of disagreement. And this is the final authority for Muslims one cannot oppose, and referring to them constitutes belief in Allah and in the Last Day.
Second level: Rulers and scholars who should be obeyed if there is no disagreement.
This verse is clear that in matters of disagreements, we should refer to the Quran and the Sunnah. Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Al-Battalwi quoted this verse to show that Taqlid Shakhsi (Taqlid of only one particular scholar) is void, and he also asked ten questions to the Deobandiyah in the form of a challenge.
The Deobandi scholar who answered him was Mahmud ul Hasan Deobandi, he first wrote “Adillah Al-Kamilah” and then “Idah ul Adillah” to answer this challenge to his group.
“Idah ul Adillah” was first published in 1299.
In the second edition published by Asghar Husayn in 1330, Mahmud ul Hasan wrote:
“As obedience to rulers under orders is considered as obedience to rulers superior, likewise the obedience to the noble Prophets and preponderantly (obedience) to those in authority (Ulul Amr) will be considered as obedience to Allah by itself. And considering those who obey the Prophets and different people of authority (Ulul Amr) as being outside the obedience to Allah will be like some people lacking of reason considering those who obey the orders of rulers under orders as being outside the obedience to superior rulers
This is why Allah revealed “If you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger and to those among you (Muslims) in authority (Ulul Amr)” and it is clear that in this verse “those in authority” (Ulul Amr) are nothing but other than the Messengers. This verse makes it clear that that obedience to the Messengers and preponderantly to those in authority (Ulul Amr) is obligatory.
You (Ahlul Hadith) have seen this verse: “Refer it to Allah and to His Messenger if you believe in Allah and in the Last day” but you did not know that in the same Quran in which this verse is, there is also the verse that Ahqar (most despised: meaning himself, a terminology used by Sufi to describe themselves) presented.
It is not surprising that as usual you have considered these two verses as contradictory and you have given the Fatwa that one abrogated the other. Mujtahid Sahib, I am saying that hoping to make void Taqlid in matters of difference (with this verse) is similar to the story of a hungry man would say two and two Rotis (Indian breads) make four” End of Mahmud ul Hasan’s words.
Click on the link below to see the scan of this second edition, and this book is present in Maktabah Rehmaniyah, Model Town Lahore, which is the library of Jamiyah Rehmaniyah.
So the words “And to Ulul Amr” have been added by Mahmud ul Hasan to show that in matters of disagreement, one should also refer to the scholars, and their obedience is like the obedience to the Prophets, while Allah ordered to obey scholars, but in matters of disagreements the final verdict is that of Allah and His Messenger.
While Allah gave us a clear message and differentiated between the obedience to the scholars and rulers and the obedience to Allah and to His Messenger, and conditioned the first one by the final authority that is Allah and the Messenger, the people of Taqlid have made obedience to scholars to the same level as obedience to the Messengers, and as they could not find any verse of the Quran for this, they invented one.
So not only they opposed Allah’s differentiation between Messengers and rulers/scholars, but they invented their own religion in which obedience to human beings who make mistakes is on the same level as obedience to Prophets who receive revelation from Allah.
Some Deobandi answered that it was a mistake from Mahmud ul Hasan and not an alteration like in the magazine “Furqan” of April 2000, Luknaw, p 33: “When this mistake happened, he (Mahmud ul Hasan) was not Shaykh ul Hind, only a teacher since 9 years”.
And he brought other doubts saying how could he do that, when there were a lot of Hufaz (Quran memorizers) in every town?
One should know that when this book was first published in 1299 H, at that time Mahmud ul Hasan had already taught the “Sunnan” of At-Tirmidhi since 6 years, the “Sahih” of Al-Bukhari since 4 years. He was 30 years old. So after teaching such great books, he had a lot of knowledge. If he had not, why did he accept the challenge from a great scholar of Ahlul Hadith, he should have left this matter to his elders?
And it was Mahmud ul Hasan’s routine to read his books to his teacher Qasim An-Nanotwi who was a memorizer of the Quran.
And An-Nanotwi’son, Muhammad Ahmad was in charge of publishing the first edition.
1000 copies must have been published first time, and there might be so many readers. And there is a great probability that the Deoabandi elders (Gangohi, Thanvi, Kasmiri, Ahmad Husayn…) had read this answer to a great scholar of the Ahlul Hadith, as it came to a challenge to the Deobandi group, so it is difficult for them not to have read this answer to this challenge to their group.
30 years later, the second edition came and Mahmud ul Hasan was 60 years old, at that time he was called Shaykhul Hind by the Deobandiyah. Asghar Husayn published the second edition, and he is from the Deobandi major scholars. He wrote a biography of Mahmud ul Hasan and was very close to him.
At the end of second edition, from which the extracts were given, there are words of Asghar Husayn: “This precious book, whose great value is known only from people of knowledge, was only published once in 1299…and some pages of the first edition were not well printed and it lost its beauty…Some companions felt the need and asked the Ahqar (himself) to obtain recompense for its publication. And the person (himself) took it with happiness to publish Hazrat Ustad’s Fuyudh Ilmiyah (lights of knowledge), and I corrected the old manuscript carefully and with a lot of efforts…and because of my defective understanding, I could not understand some ( sentences), so I took help from the Author himself and corrected it…” End of Asghar Husayn’s words.
So 30 years later, 1000 people must have read this book, maybe much more, Deobandi major scholars must have had a look, Asghar Husayn checked it and corrected the mistakes, and despite all of this, this mistake in quoting the verse of the Quran was not removed, so it is much more than an error.
Rather, the verse 59 of Surah An-Nisa was:
“Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad (saw)), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority (Ulul ‘Amr). (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day”
And Mahmud ul Hasan quoted this verse as such: “(And) If you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and to His Messenger and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority (Ulul ‘Amr)”
And he claimed this verse to be different from this one: “Refer it to Allah and to His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and in the Last day”
While the verse is the same one, and one can see Mahmud ul Hasan carefully quoted them so to make them appear as two verses. In the first one he quoted the parts of the beginning “If you differ in anything then refer…” and in the second he quoted the end of the verse “if you believe in Allah and Last day” so his aim was to prove that there are two verses: One tells to refer to Allah and to His Prophet and to those in authority in matters of disagreements, and the other tells to refer to Allah and to His Prophet, so one verse is to be understood with the other.
While there is no verse that tells to refer to those in authority in matters of differences. And Mahmud ul Hasan in both cases did not quote the verse fully, while in such matters one should have quoted full verses.
And these matters are about obedience to Allah and His Messenger, they are matters relating to the creed of Muslims and submission to Allah and His Messenger. So these verses are among fundamentals of the Muslim creed, how is it possible to err in quoting them?
So the topic is clear, and this error remaining in the book thirty years after is clear that it is a deliberate alteration in the Quran, and specifically when the proof is being established with the added parts.
And the disease of blind Taqlid, Ta’asub has lead its people to the level of competing with the Jews and the Christians in their alteration of the Books of Allah. Shaytan has made their evils actions look beautiful to them, and they legislated a religion for which Allah did not send any revelation.
Prisoners of their desire, blinded by their love of Imam Abu Hanifah, they want to put their Imams to the same level of the Prophet (saw).
This is why Mahmud ul Hasan wrote in his “Taqrir Tirmidhi” in the chapter of transactions:
“What is obtained is that the topic of Khyar is among important topics and Abu Hanifah contradicted in it the majority and a lot of people from the first and later generations, they wrote Rasail in refutation of his (Abu Hanifa)’s Madhab on this topic and Maulana Shah Waliyullah Muhadith gave preference in his writings to the Madhab of Ash-Shafi’i taking evidence from the Ahadith and Nusus (religious texts), and likewise our Shaykh gave preference to his Madhab and said the truth and justice in this topic is to give preference to Ash-Shafi’i and we are Muqalid and the Taqlid of our Imam Abu Hanifa is obligatory upon us. Allah knows best”
Tahrif of the Quran by Ameen Okarvi
Allah (Ta’ala) said in the verse 77 of Surah An-Nisa:
أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ قِيلَ لَهُمْ كُفُّوا أَيْدِيَكُمْ وَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَلَمَّا كُتِبَ عَلَيْهِمُ الْقِتَالُ إِذَا فَرِيقٌ مِنْهُمْ يَخْشَوْنَ النَّاسَ كَخَشْيَةِ اللَّهِ أَوْ أَشَدَّ خَشْيَةً وَقَالُوا رَبَّنَا لِمَ كَتَبْتَ عَلَيْنَا الْقِتَالَ لَوْلَا أَخَّرْتَنَا إِلَى أَجَلٍ قَرِيبٍ قُلْ مَتَاعُ الدُّنْيَا قَلِيلٌ وَالْآخِرَةُ خَيْرٌ لِمَنِ اتَّقَى وَلَا تُظْلَمُونَ فَتِيلًا
Muhsin Khan: “Have You not seen those who were told to hold back their hands (from fighting) and perform As-Salât (Iqâmat¬as¬Salât), and give Zakât, but when the fighting was ordained for them, behold! a section of them fear men as they fear Allâh or even more. they say: “Our Lord! why have You ordained for us fighting? would that You had granted us respite for a short period?” say: “Short is the enjoyment of This world. the Hereafter is (far) better for Him who fears Allâh, and You shall not be dealt with unjustly even equ to the Fatilâ (a scalish thread In the long slit of a datestone).”
Ameen Okarvi is a highly respected person among the Deobandiyah, he is the student of one of their greatest Muhadith, Sarfraz Safdar Khan. And he is one of their famous debater and his writings are popular among Deobandiyah.
The matter of raising hands before and after Ruku’ is in the two “Sahih” of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, Ahnaf did not have proofs of same level. Shah Waliyullah and many other Hanafi scholars said that the Ahadith of raising hands are stronger and much more than that of not doing it. So in debates between Ahnaf and Ahlul Hadith, the laymen because of the respect every Muslim has for the two Sahih tended to favour raising hands, and to prevent people raising hands before and after Ruku’, Ameen Okarvi invented a proof stronger than the two “Sahih”, he distorted the speech of Allah to refute the two “Sahih”.
Click on the link below to see a scan of his book, as given by Dr Abu Jabir Ad-Dimanwi from Karachi in his book “Tahrif Quran and Hadith”
Ameen Okarvi presented this verse as such in his book “Tahqiq Masalah Raful Yadayn” p 5-6: “O believers, hold your hands while you pray”
The verse was revealed about the Muslims of weak faith and Ameen Okarvi added the part “O believers” to prove that the order concerns the believers. His purpose was to show that the order to hold hands means that the believers should not raise hands before and after Ruku’ in the prayer.
Secondly the translation is also a pure alteration of the Quran, one cannot translate like Ameen Okarvi. It cannot be “O believers, hold your hands while you pray” and the first sentence “Hold your hands” cannot be in the grammatical position of “Hal”, meaning describing the condition of the praying person, even an beginner in Arabic would not translate this as Ameen Okarvi. The order to hold hand is in imperative form and cannot be a description of the state of prayer, rather there are two orders: hold hands and to pray.
Anyone can open any translation of the Quran whether in Urdu and English and none will see such a falsehood and lie upon Allah
Yusuf Ali: “Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who were told to hold back their hands (from fight) but establish regular prayers and spend in regular charity?”
Pickthall: “Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands, establish worship and pay the poordue…”
Shakir: “Have you not seen those to whom it was said: Withhold your hands, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate…”
Muhammad Asad: “Art thou not aware of those who have been told, “Curb your hands, and be constant in prayer, and render the purifying dues“?
Muhammad Asad wrote in note to “Curb your hands”: “from unrighteous violence, to which man so often inclines. The fact that most people have to be told to refrain from violence is contrasted, in the next sentence, with the unwillingness on the part of many of them to expose themselves to physical danger in a righteous cause.”
Even the Deobandi English translation of the Quran clarifies that the order of holding hands is from fighting.
In the English translation of “Ma’arif ul Quran” of Mufti Muhammad Shafii, with revision of his son Taqi Uthmani it is written:
“Have you not seen those to whom it was said: ”Hold your hands (from fighting) and be steadfast in Salah, and pay Zakah…”
In his commentary, he writes: “Verse 77 beginning with the words “Have you not seen those to whom it was said: ”Hold your hands (from fighting)” was revealed in a particular background. Before their migration from Makkah, Muslims were regularly persecuted by disbelievers. Harassed Muslims used to visit the Holy Prophet (saw) complaining to him about the high-handed treatment meted out to them and asking for his permission to fight back in self-defence and put an end to the Kafir reign or terror. He advised patience holding them back from direct confrontation on the plea that he has not been commanded to fight, in fact, he told them he has been commanded to stay patient, forgo and forgive. He also told them to continue observing the instruction of salah and Zakah, already given to them, consistently and devotedly. He impressed upon them the virtues of the present pattern of their behaviour, even though the odds were against them, for the simple reason that, unless man is conditioned to fight against his own evil desires in obedience to the command of Allah and is also used to bearing physical pain and financial sacrifice, he finds joining Jihad and sacrificing his life a very difficult proposition. This was an advise the Muslims had accepted.
But when they emigrated from Makkah to Madinah, and Jihad was enjoined upon them, they should have been pleased with it, as it was something that has answered their own prayers. But there were some infirm Muslims around who started fearing the prospect of fight against the disbelievers as one would fear the punishment of Allah, rather more than this. Caught in that peevish state of mind, they started pining for a little more respite, a possible postponement of the command to fight to some later day which may have given them so more time to live and to enjoy. Thereupon these verses were revealed. (Ruh Al-Ma’ani).” End of “Ma’ariful Quran”’s quote.
So one can see that the order of holding hands was from fighting, and not to hold hands in the prayer. And Ameen Okarvi like Mahmud ul Hasan before him did not quote the verse fully so people would have seen that the order of holding hands is related to fight and has nothing to do with raising hands in the prayer. But Ameen Okarvi’s aim was to lie upon Allah and deceive laymen.
Shaykh Salahdin Yusuf wrote in his “Tafsir” on the verse 77 of Surah An-Nisa about this Tahrif of Ameen Okarvi:
“While the verse of the noble Quran as it is can be seen, has no relation from far or close to the topic of raising hands (before and after Ruku’), but the Taqlid Al-Jumud (blind Taqlid) made its author make a Ma’nawi and Lafzi Tahrif (in meaning and words) of the Quran”
So one can see the ugliness of blind Taqlid, not only it led to the division of Muslims, forbidding them from marrying between each others, praying behind each others, physical fights and killings, but also some of their authors fabricated Ahadith for their Madhab, and did not stop to lying on the Prophet (saw), but the Shaytan managed to deceive them to the level of lying upon Allah and committing this great crime without any shame, remorse and fear of Allah.
For what matters did he sell his soul and followed the Jews and Christians in altering the speech of Allah?
Tahrif of “Musnad Humaydi” by Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami
Most of the facts below are taken from “Noor ul ‘Aynayn” of Shaykh Zubayr ‘Ali Zai, and most of scans from Dr Abu Jabir Dimanwi’s book “Quran or Hadith mein Tahrif”.
In the manuscript of the library of Zahiriyah in Damascus of “Musnad Humaydi”, there is the narration from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah from Az-Zuhri from Salim ibn Abdillah from his father ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Umar who said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands to shoulders level when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’, and after he raised his head from Ruku’, and he (saw) would not raise them in the two Sajdah”
حدثنا الحميدي قال ثنا سفيان قال ثنا الزهري قال أخبرني سالم بن عبد الله عن أبيه قال: رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إذا أفتتح الصلاة رفع يديه حذو منكبيه وإذا أراد أن يركع وبعد ما يرفع رأسه من الركوع ولا يرفع بين السجدتين
See the scan of the first lines of manuscript of Zahiriyah where on can read that the negation of raising hands is between the two Sajdah and not for before and after the Ruku’.
In the Indian manuscript, it is written: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands to shoulders level when he started the prayer. And when he desired to do Ruku’, and after he raised his head from Ruku’, he (saw) would not raise them, nor in the two Sajdah”
حدثنا الحميدي قال ثنا سفيان قال ثنا الزهري قال أخبرني سالم بن عبد الله عن أبيه قال: رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إذا أفتتح الصلاة رفع يديه حذو منكبيه وإذا أراد أن يركع وبعد ما يرفع رأسه من الركوع فلا يرفع ولا بين السجدتين
So in the manuscript of Zahiriyah, raising hands before and after Ruku’ is affirmed and raising them between the two Sajdah is negated, while in the Indian manuscript, raising hands is denied before and after Ruku’ as well as between the two Sajdah.
And Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami published the Indian manuscript that contained an error of copyist, and he failed to mention that the version of Zahiriyah was different and affirmed raising hands before and after Ruku’ and did not deny it, while he had both manuscripts.
Instead of this, he dared to claim that this narration denied raising hands before and after Ruku’ and none of the Salaf weakened it. How could they weaken it as this Hadith did not exist in this form?
Al-A’zami wrote in the notes on this Hadith:
“Al-Bukhari has narrated the Asl of this Hadith from the way of Tariq ibn Yunus from Az-Zuhri. As for the narration of Sufyan from him (Az-Zuhri), then Ahmad narrated in his “Musnad” and Abu Dawud from Ahmad in his “Sunnan” but the narration of Ahmad from Sufyan opposes the narration of the author (Al-Humaydi) from him (Sufyan).
In “Musnad Ahmad”: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands until it reached his shoulders when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’ and after he raised his head from Ruku’ and Sufyan said once: “when he raised his head from Ruku'” and most of times he said: “after he raised his head from Ruku'”, and he would not raise (hands) between the two Sajdah” (vol 2 p 8)
And there is in it affirmation of raising (hands) before and after Ruku’ and negation in the two Sajdah, while in the narration of Al-Humaydi there is negation of both (raising hands) in Ruku’ and after raising from it and in the two Sajdah and none of the Muhadith criticised this narration of Al-Humaydi” end of Al-A’zami’s words
Maulana Tasin Deobandi who is the son of law of Yusuf Al-Binnori added a note to this edition of Al-A’zami:
“Note: In the Manuscript of “Musnad al-Humaydi” that is in Maktbah Zahiriyah, the Hadith has the same words as in “Musnad Ahmad”, that Maulana A’zami mentioned in his notes, his words are: “He said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands until it reached his shoulders when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’ and after he raised his head from Ruku’, and he would not raise (hands) between the two Sajdah” End of Tasin’s words
See the scan provided by Dr Dimanwi in his book “Tahrif Quran or Hadith mein” (In the first edition, Al-A’zami even dropped ibn Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah in the Sanad, then in the second one he corrected this)
So Maulana Tasin of Karachi corrected this in the copy of his library, and why did Al-A’zami not mention at least that there was a difference in the manuscript and the manuscript of Az-Zahiriyah was conform to the narration of Imam Ahmad? So people would have seen that the Indian manuscript contained an error made by its copyist and the manuscript of Zahiriyah is correct as it agrees with other narrations from ibn ‘Uyaynah from Az-Zuhri like that of Imam Ahmad.
And copyists do make mistakes so we do not blame them as they are human, but Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami because of his Ta’asub failed even to mention any difference, and published the version of the Indian Manuscript that had a clear error
What is strange is that in some places, Al-A’zami said that the Indian manuscript contained an error and that of Zahiriyah was correct, like v 1 p 15 in the notes.
Why did Al-A’zami closed his eyes on this mistake, and the proofs of the Indian contained an error are many:
The Nuskhah of Az-Zahiriyah is older than the Indian so more reliable
None of the Salaf quoted this Hadith, neither the students of Al-Humaydi like Imam Al-Bukhari, while he wrote a book on the topic of raising hands before and after Ruku’, and he answered in it many narrations of the opponents, why would he not mention this narration of his teacher?
Moreover, the scholars who have written books of “Zawaid” containing Ahadith that are not in the “Sahih” and “Sunnan” did not mention this one, showing it has the same words of those in the “Sahih” with affirmation of raising hands. Neither ibn Hajar mentioned it in “Matalib Al-‘Aliyah” neither Al-Bosiri.
And Hanafis scholars like Anwar Shah Al-Kashmiri, Shabir Ahmad Al-Uthmani, and An-Nimawi had the Indian manuscript of Al-Humaydi, and none of them brought this narration to support the Hanafi Madhab, neither earlier Hanafis Muhadith like At-Tahawi, ibn Turkmani, ibn Humam and others, showing it is a recent fabrication, an error from a copyist that Habib ur Rahman shamefully printed without even telling difference in manuscripts and favouring the correct one.
Also Husayn Asad Saleem Ad-Darani published “Musnad Al-Humaydi” and he also brought the narration affirming raising hands before and after Ruku’ according to the manuscript of Zahiriyah.
Abu Nu’aym mentions this narration of Al-Humaydi in his “Mustakhraj” on “Sahih Muslim”
This narration with the same Sanad is found in the “Al-Musnad Al-Mustakhraj ‘ala Sahih Al-Imam Muslim” of Abu Nua’ym Al-Asbahani vol 2 p 12 with affirmation of raising hands in conformity with the manuscript of Zahiriyah.
A “Mustakhraj” on a book gathers different Isnad for the Ahadith of this book, and this “Mustakhraj” of Abu Nu’aym is on “Sahih Muslim”, and there is no Hadith in “Sahih Muslim” denying raising hands before and after Ruku’, there are only narrations affirming it. So for Abu Nu’aym the narration of Al-Humaydi is to support the narration in Sahih Muslim.
See a scan of the published “Mustakhraj” of Abu Nua’yim by Dar ul Kutub Al-‘Ilmiyah,
حدثنا أبو علي محمد بن أحمد بن الحسن ثنا بشر بن موسى ثنا الحميدي ح وحدثنا فاروق ثنا أبو مسلم ثنا القعنبي ح وحدثنا أبو بكر الطلحي ثنا عبيد بن غنام ثنا أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة وحدثنا جعفر بن محمد بن عمرو ثنا أبو حصين ثنا يحيى بن عبد الحميد ح وحدثنا محمد بن إبراهيم ثنا أحمد بن علي بن المثنى ثنا زهير بن حرب وإسحاق بن أبي إسرائيل ح وحدثنا أبو علي مخلد بن جعفر ثنا الفريابي ثنا قتيبة ح وحدثنا أبو محمد بن عبدان ثنا عثمان بن أبي شيبة وأبو بكر بن خلاد وزيد بن الحريش وحدثنا أبو علي الصواف ثنا عبد الله بن أحمد بن حنبل حدثني أبي قالوا ثنا سفيان بن عيينة ثنا الزهري أخبرني سالم ابن عبد الله عن أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه وسلم ) إذا افتتح الصلاة رفع يديه حذو منكبيه وإذا أراد أن يركع ويعد ما يرفع رأسه من الركوع ولا يرفع بين السجدتين اللفظ للحميدي
Abu Nu’aym wrote:
“Abu ‘Ali Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Hasan narrated to us: Bishr ibn Musa narrated to us: al-Humaydi narrated to us (then Abu Nu’aym wrote the letter Ha meaning that he will quote different other Isnad of the same Hadith)
Farooq narrated to us, Abu Muslim narrated to us, Al-Qa’nabi narrated to us (Letter Ha)
Abu Bakr At-Talhi narrated to us: Ubayd ibn Ghanam narrated to us: Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah narrated to us and Ja’far ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Amr narrated to us: Abu Hasin narrated to us: Yahya ibn Abdul Hameed narrated to us (Ha)
Muhammad ibn Ibrahim narrated to us: Ahmad ibn ‘Ali ibn al-Muthanna narrated to us, Zuhayr ibn Harb and Ishaq ibn Abi Israil narrated to us (Ha)
Abu ‘Ali Makhlad ibn Ja’far narrated to us; Al-Faryabi narrated to us: Qutaybah narrated to us (Ha)
Abu Muhammad ibn ‘Abdan narrated to us: ‘Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah and Abu Bakr ibn Khallad and Zayd ibn Al-Harish narrated to us and Abu ‘Ali As-Sawaf narrated to us: ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hambal narrated to us: my father narrated to me:
They said: Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated to us: Az-Zuhri narrated to us: Salim ibn ‘Abdillah informed me from his father, he said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands to shoulders level in the beginning of the prayer, and when he intended to do Ruku’, and when raising his head from Ruku’, and he (saw) was not raising them in the two Sajdah” AND THE WORDS ARE THAT OF AL-HUMAYDI.” End of Abu Nu’aym’s words.
Look at the end, after quoting all these different Isnads of the same Hadith, Abu Nu’aym mentioned the text (Matn) of the Hadith and said the words are that of Al-Humaydi, as there are little differences in the words. So it is clear that all these narrators mentioned from ibn ‘Uyaynah from Az-Zuhri from Salim and from his father ‘Abdillah ibn ‘Umar the same Hadith about the Prophet (saw) raising hands before and after Ruku’ and not raising hands in the two Sajdah.
So even if not raising hands before and after Ruku’ was in all manuscript of Al-Humaydi, it would be weak and Shaz, as it opposes this great group of trustworthy people from ibn ‘Uyaynah. But yet, Al-Humaydi narrated it as in “Sahih Muslim” and others.
So this is a definitive proof that Al-Humaydi brought this Hadith with affirmation and not negation of raising hands before and after Ruku’.
A similar narration in “Musnad Abu ‘Awanah”
Also Abu ‘Awanah in his “Musnad” brought a narration affirming raising hands before and after Ruku’ and denying it in the two Sajdah and said that Ash-Shafi’i, Abu Dawud from Ali ibn Al-Madini and Al-Humaydi narrated a similar Hadith.
In “Musnad of Abu ‘Awanah” we read:
“Chapter of raising hands when staring the prayer, before the Takbeer, to shoulders level and when doing Ruku’ and raising the head from Ruku’ and that one should not raise (hands) in the two Sajdah:
‘Abdullah ibn Ayun Al-Makhrami and Sa’dan ibn Nasr and Shu’ayb ibn ‘Amr in the last two, they said: Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated to us from Az-Zuhri from Salim from his father (‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar), he said:
I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands until they reached them (shoulders) and some said: to shoulders level when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’ and after he raised his head from Ruku’, and he did not raise them and some said he did not raise them between two Sajdah, and the meaning is the same.
Ar-Rabi’ ibn Sulyman narrated to us from Ash-Shafi’i from ibn ‘Uyaynah similarly: and he was not doing this in the two Sajdah.
Abu Dawud narrated to us, he said: ‘Ali narrated to us, he said: Sufyan narrated to us: Az-Zhuri narrated to us: Salim informed me from his father, he said: I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) similarly.
As-Saigh narrated to us in Makkah, he said: Al-Humaydi narrated to us, he said: Sufyan narrated to us from Az-Zuhri, he said: Salim informed me from his father, he said: I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) similarly.” End of Abu ‘Awanah’s words.
بيان رفع اليدين في افتتاح الصلاة قبل التكبير بحذاء منكبيه وللركوع ولرفع رأسه من الركوع وأنه لا يرفع بين السجدتين – *
حدثنا عبد الله بن أيوب المخرمي وسعدان بن نصر وشعيب بن عمرو في آخرين قالوا ثنا سفيان بن عيينة عن الزهري عن سالم عن أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا افتتح الصلاة رفع يديه حتى يحاذي بهما وقال بعضهم حذو منكبيه وإذا أرادأن يركع وبعد ما يرفع رأسه من الركوع ولا يرفعهما وقال بعضهم ولا يرفع بين السجدتين والمعنى واحد
حدثنا الربيع بن سليمان عن الشافعي عن ابن عيينة بنحوه ولا يفعل ذلك بين السجدتين
حدثني أبو داود قال ثنا أنا علي قال ثنا سفيان ثنا الزهري أخبرني سالم عن أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بم
حدثنا الصائغ بمكة قال ثنا الحميدي قال ثنا سفيان عن الزهري قال أخبرني سالم عن
أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مثله
Click below to see the scan of the manuscript of Madinah University:
Click below to see the scan of the manuscript of the library of Shaykh Ihsanullah Rashidi Pir Jandha in Sindh:
But when the Ahnaf of “Ma’arif Al-Uthmaniyah” from Hyderabad first published the “Musnad” of Abu ‘Awannah, the narration appeared without a “Waow”, meaning “and”.
I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands until they reached them (shoulders) and some said: to shoulders level when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’ and after he raised his head from Ruku’, (“Waow” meaning “and” disappeared here) he did not raise them and some said he did not raise them between two Sajdah, and the meaning is the same.
Here is how it appeared in the “Musnad” published by “Ma’arif Al-‘Uthmaniyah”:
حدثنا عبد الله بن أيوب المخرمي وسعدان بن نصر وشعيب بن عمرو في آخرين قالوا ثنا سفيان بن عيينة عن الزهري عن سالم عن أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا افتتح الصلاة رفع يديه حتى يحاذي بهما وقال بعضهم حذو منكبيه وإذا أرادأن يركع وبعد ما يرفع رأسه من الركوع لا يرفعهما وقال بعضهم ولا يرفع بين السجدتين والمعنى واحد
See scans of “Ma’arif Al-‘Uthmaniyah”’:
And they relied on a manuscript in the library Khuda Baksh Khan in India, so either this manuscript contains an error of copyist or the publisher dropped it accidentally, Allah knows best.
If the “Waow” meaning “And” disappears here, the negation of raising hands can be linked to what comes earlier and it is before and after Ruku’, and if there is a “Waow” as in the manuscript of Madinah and Sindh, then the negation is definitively for what comes after.
Musnad Abu ‘Awanah is a Mustakhraj on Sahih Muslim
‘Arif ibn Ayman Ad-Dimasqi in his published version of “Musbad Abi Awanah” by “Darul Ma’rifah” mentioned in his introduction that the “Musnad” of Abu ‘Awanah was a “Mustakhraj” on Sahih Muslim, meaning it brought many other Isnad to the narrations of “Sahih Muslim” and he Az-Zahabi saying about Abu ‘Awanah in his “Syar” (v 14 p 418): “The author of “Al-Musnad As-Sahih” for which he did a Takhrij on “Sahih Muslim” and he added some other narrations at the end of the chapters”
So this narration whether it has a “Waow” as in the manuscript of Madinah and Sindh or does not have it as “Ma’arif” published it, in both ways the negation cannot be for raising hands before and after Ruku’ as it is a Mustakhraj on “Sahih Muslim” and there is no narration in “Sahih Muslim” denying raising hands before and after Ruku’.
There cannot be any narration in the Musnad of Abu ‘Awanah denying raising hands before and after Ruku’, and the words that are in the manuscript of Madinah and Sindh are definitively correct.
And Abu ‘Awanah like Abu Nu’aym also brought the narration of Al-Humaydi to support the narration of “Sahih Muslim” as they both quoted it in their “Mustakhraj” on “Sahih Muslim”.
A discussion of Abu Awanah’s words: the meaning is the same
Yet even if the “Waow” is dropped, then one cannot for sure say that the negations is for what comes before, as the publisher from India did not put any coma, so one can still read the negation for what comes after:
He did not raise them and some said he did not raise them between two Sajdah, and the meaning is the same.
This is why Ayman ibn ‘Arif Ad-Dimashqi put a coma before the sentence “he did not raise them” in his Tahqiq of the published version by “Darul Ma’rifah Beirut”, clearly showing that the negation is for what comes after.
And he did not have any manuscript for the second volume of Abu Awanah’s “Musnad” in which this narration is, but he relied on the previous published editions that are all based on the Indian published edition. He had just found the third volume’s manuscript and published it for the first time, while he took all other volumes from previous publications.
And the reason for the negation for being after is that Abu ‘Awanah mentioned difference between narrators, as there are three narrators reporting from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah: ‘Abdullah ibn Ayun Al-Makhrami, Sa’dan ibn Nasr and Shu’ayb ibn ‘Amr
And in the beginning some narrators said: “until they reached them (shoulders)” and some others said: “to shoulders level” so Abu ‘Awanah is mentioning a difference of words among narrators, and this is what he did at the end.
Some narrators said at the end: “And he did not raise them” and some said “He did not raise them between the two Sajdah” and after mentioning this difference Abu ‘Awanah clarified that the meaning is the same.
If Abu Awanah negated raising hands before and after Ruku’ and also between the two Sajdah, how can he say that the meaning is the same? Raising hand before and after Ruku’ is different from raising hands between the two Sajdah, and Abu Awanah made it clear by saying “The meaning is the same” that there is only a difference in words but they carry the same meaning.
So Ayman ibn ‘Arif seeing the context clearly put a coma in the right place, so the reader does not understand the wrong meaning.
This Hadith is under chapter of raising hands before and after Ruku’
Moreover, Abu ‘Awanah brought this Hadith as the first one of the chapter:
“Chapter of raising hands when staring the prayer, before the Takbeer, to shoulders level and when doing Ruku’ and raising the head from Ruku’ and that one should not raise (hands) in the two Sajdah”
So this narration could not deny raising hands before and after Ruku’, Abu ‘Awanah would have quoted it in another chapter if so, as in the next chapter about doing Takbeer before raising hands, he brought narrations showing that one should do Takbeer first and then raise hands. So for different topics, Abu ‘Awanah makes different chapters, and scholars usually do this as At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud also separated between the chapter of raising hands and the one of not raising hands.
And Abu ‘Awanah has no such chapter of not raising the hands as it is a “Mustakhraj” on “Sahih Muslim”.
Ash-Shafi’i’s similar narration to that of Abu ‘Awanah and Al-Humaydi
Furthermore, Abu ‘Awanah mentioned that Ash-Shafi’i had a similar narration, as well as Al-Humaydi:
حدثنا الربيع بن سليمان عن الشافعي عن ابن عيينة بنحوه ولا يفعل ذلك بين السجدتين
حدثنا الصائغ بمكة قال ثنا الحميدي قال ثنا سفيان عن الزهري قال أخبرني سالم عن أبيه
قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم مثله
And Imam Ash-Shafi’i never narrated a Hadith that denied raising hands before and after Ruku’, rather in his “Umm” he mentioned this same Hadith from ibn ‘Uyaynah with affirmation and not negation:
أخبرنا الربيع قال أخبرنا الشافعي قال أخبرنا سفيان بن عيينة عن الزهري عن سالم بن عبد الله عن أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا افتتح الصلاة يرفع يديه حتى تحاذي منكبيه وإذا أراد أن يركع وبعد ما يرفع رأسه من الركوع ولا يرفع بين السجدتين
So this Hadith of Ash-Shafi’i is told to be similar to the first one of the chapter and to that of Al-Humaydi.
Also Imam Al-Bayhaqi narrated the narration of Ash-Shafi’i in his “Ma’rifah Sunnan wal Athar”
باب رفع اليدين عند الافتتاح والركوع ورفع الرأس من الركوع
أخبرنا أبو عبد الله الحافظ وأبو زكريا بن أبي إسحاق وأبو بكر أحمد بن الحسن قالوا حدثنا أبو العباس قال أخبرنا الربيع بن سليمان قال أخبرنا الشافعي قال أخبرنا سفيان عن الزهري عن سالم عن أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا افتتح الصلاة يرفع يديه حتى يحاذي منكبيه وإذا أراد أن يركع وبعدما يرفع رأسه من الركوع ولا يرفع بين السجدتين
So it is clear like water crystal that Al-Humaydi and Abu ‘Awanah both narrated this narration to affirm raising of hands before and after Ruku’ and not to deny it.
Ali ibn Al-Madini’s similar narration to that of Abu ‘Awanah and Al-Humaydi
Abu ‘Awanah also narrated from Abu Dawud from Ali ibn Madini from ibn ‘Uyaynah from Zuhir from Salim and he said it is similar to the narration above
حدثني أبو داود قال ثنا أنا علي قال ثنا سفيان ثنا الزهري أخبرني سالم عن أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بمثله
Imam Al-Bukhari narrated in his “Juzz Raful Yadayn” in the second narration from Ali ibn Al-Madini from ibn ‘Uyaynah from Az-Zuhri from Salim from his father saying:
“I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands when he did Takbeer, and when he raised his hands from Ruku’ and he would not do this in the two Sajdah.”
Ali ibn Al-Madini said, and he is the most knowledgeable of his time: “Raising hands is the right upon the Muslims because of what Az-Zuhri narrated from Salim from his father” end of Al-Bukhari’s words.
[ 2 ] حدثنا علي بن عبد الله حدثنا سفيان حدثنا الزهري عن سالم بن عبد الله عن أبيه قال رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يرفع يديه إذا كبر وإذا رفع رأسه من الركوع ولا يفعل ذلك بين السجدتين قال علي بن عبد الله وكان أعلم أهل زمانه رفع اليدين حق على المسلمين بما روى الزهري عن سالم عن أبيه
See scan of the published version with Tahqiq of Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zai:
So the narration of Ali ibn Al-Madini from Az-Zuhri clearly affirm raising hands before and after Ruku’ and only deny this for the two Sajdah.
The narration of Sa’dan ibn Nasr in “Sunnan Al-Kubra” of Al-Bayhaqi
Also one of three narrators that narrated this narration from ibn ‘Uyaynah in the “Musnad” of Abu ‘Awanah, is Sa’dan ibn Nasr, and Al-Bayhaqi narrated from Sa’dan ibn Nasr from ibn ‘Uyaynah in his “Sunnan Al-Kubra”
“Abul Hasan ibn Bashran Al-‘Adl narrated to us in Baghdad, Isma’il ibn Muhammad As-Safar and Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn ‘Amr Ar-Razaz informed us, they said: Sa’dan ibn Nasr Al-Makhrami narrated to us: Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated to us from Az-Zuhri from Salim from his father, he said:
“I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) raising his hands to shoulders level when he started the prayer, and when he desired to do Ruku’, and after he raised his head from Ruku’, and he (saw) would not raise them in the two Sajdah”
Muslim narrated this in his “Sahih” from Yahya ibn Yahya and a group from ibn ‘Uyaynah” end of Al-Bayhaqi’s words.
أخبرناه أبو الحسين بن بشران العدل ببغداد أنبأ إسماعيل بن محمد الصفار وأبو جعفر محمد بن عمرو الرزاز قالا ثنا سعدان بن نصر المخرمي ثنا سفيان بن عيينة عن الزهري عن سالم عن أبيه قال : رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إذا افتتح الصلاة رفع يديه حتى يحاذي منكبيه وإذا أراد أن يركع وبعد ما يرفع من الركوع ولا يرفع بين السجدتين رواه مسلم في الصحيح عن يحيى بن يحيى وجماعة عن بن عيينة
See scans of published “Sunnan Al-Kubra” by “Al-Ma’arif Al-‘Uthmaniyah”
So Abu ‘Awanah narrated the same narration from Sa’dan ibn Nasr as it is narrated from Al-Bayhaqi with a different Isnad.
So all of this makes it clear that the narration of Al-Humaydi is as Abu Nu’aym quoted it, conform to the manuscript of Zahiriyah, and Abu ‘Awanah, Ash-Shafi’i and ‘Ali ibn ul Madini narrated a similar narration to it.
And Habib ur Rahman Al-A’zami had the manuscript of Zahiriyah, favoured it in some places over the Indian manuscript, yet in this Hadith he failed to even mention any difference in manuscripts.
Tahrif in “Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah” by Idarah Al-Quran of Karachi
The scans below are provided from the book “Tahrif Quran or Hadith mein” of Dr Dimanwi, except some scans of Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay and Shaykh Thanaullah Zia.
The Hadith in Ibn Abi Shaybah as printed by the Deobandi institute Idarah Al-Quran of Karachi: “Waki’ narrated to us from Musa ibn ‘Umayr from ‘Alqamah ibn Wail from his father, he said: I saw the Prophet (saw) putting his right hand on the left in the prayer under the navel.” (Tahta Surah)
Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari was the first to denounce this Tahrif of Idarah Al-Quran in 1987 as they added words “under the navel” without any manuscript. He wrote in the article “Khidmat Hadith ke parde mein Tahrif Hadith” (alteration of Hadith behind veil of contribution to Hadith) published in the magazine “Al-I’tisam” 20 Feb 1987, and this article also appears in the Shaykh’s Maqalat v 1 p 282. Below are some extracts of this article:
“And we have a live prove of what we say. A Deobandi institute “Idarah Al-Quran Wal ‘Ulum Al-Islamiyah Karachi” published a new edition of “Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah”. People of knowledge and narrations know that this book’s publication was first done by “Maulana Abul Kalam Academy Hyderabad (Hind)” and in 1386/1966 its first volume was published and came in the hands of people of knowledge, and likewise the second and third volumes also got published and for unknown reasons they could not complete it. Then this great work was completed by Ad-Dar As-Salafiyah Bombay (Hind) in 15 volumes, but this copy was not complete because at the end of the third volume p 396, it is said about the forthcoming fourth volume: “Kitab ul Hajj will come next: Bismillahi Ir-Rahman Ir-Rahim, What is said about reward of Hajj” but the fourth volume did not start with this chapter but with the chapter: “About His saying (Ta’ala) “Fa Syam Thalathatu Ayamin fil Hajj”” It is regretful that the publishers of ibn Abi Shaybah with great neglect did not pay attention to this, what was the matter?
After them, the publication of this book was undertaken by Idarah Al-Quran Wal ‘Ulum Islamiyah from Karachi. The founder, owner and director of this institute is Maulana Nur Ahmad Sahib, who is the son in law of Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi’ (Marhum). The described (Nur Ahmad) was also the director of his Dar Al-Ulum for a while.
Maulana Nur Ahmad Sahib also felt this lack (in previous publications) so with the help of a hand written manuscript, the one that is the beauty of Pir Af Jandha Kutub Khana, he added and corrected the missed chapters, that were not present in previous publications…so this book got published into 16 volumes, for which we are thankful to this institute.
But with this, a very painful matter occurred and it is that in the first volume (p 390) in the chapter: “Putting the right hand on the left” at the end of the Hadith of Wail…he incorporated the addition “under the navel”. Inna Lillahi wa Inna Ilayhi Raji’un
While this Hadith is present in the two precedent publications on the same page 390 but the addition “under the navel” is not present. It was the requirement of those who published this copy to tell on which manuscript they relied (for this addition) and in the difference of manuscripts, which manuscripts have been referred to. But what is their concern for such an explication, the aim of these Hazraat (noble people, irony) is only to provide a proof for their Hanafi friends and nothing else…” End of Shaykh Irshad’s words.
So in fact people of Idarah Al-Quran took photocopies of previous publications, and they added some missing chapters, but on the page of the Hadith of Wail ibn Hujr, they added the words “under the navel”. And this constitutes a Tahrif, as one cannot put words in a Hadith without a manuscript present in his hand. Publishing a manuscript follows the same rules of copyist and they can only reproduce a manuscript and cannot add words without a manuscript.
See below scans of Abul Kalam Academy Hyderabad
See now scans of Idarah Al-Quran, and one can see that that the word (‘an meaning from) has disappeared at the end of the line because they added words “under the navel”
And yet Idarah Al-Quran did not give the reference of any manuscript, and they completed their version of ibn Abi Shaybah after taking a photocopy of the manuscript of Pir Jandha. So the person reading this could be mislead that this addition came from the manuscript of Pir Jandha. While in fact, Nur Ahmad relied on the sayings of some Ahnaf to add these words, and not on any manuscript, and this is a treachery. One cannot add words in a Hadith based on the saying of such and such scholar having such and such manuscript. What he could have done is not to add this in the Hadith and say in notes that some scholars had a manuscript with addition “under the navel”. Yet not telling people were this addition came from is a treachery and a Tahrif.
Yet Muhammad ‘Awammah had two manuscripts with addition “under the navel” but these two manuscripts are defective as shown by Shaykh Irshadul Haqq in an article of “Al-I’tisam” published in 12 Jan 2007, and below is the Hadith almost in its entirety, and some matters have been added by myself into brackets and indicated by the letter T and in italic.
Tahrif in “Al-Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah” : the action Muhammad ‘Awammah
There has been dispute since a long time whether these words “under the navel” are present in the Hadith of Wail ibn Hujr in the “Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah” about the position of hands in the prayer. The first volume of Al-Musannaf was first published in India by Maulana Abul Kalam Academy Hyderabad in 1386/1966. It contains this Hadith in vol 1 p 390 but the words “under the navel” were not present. Its photocopy has been reproduced by Ad-Dar As-Salafiyah Bombay, but when the people of Idarah Al-Quran Karachi published this copy they added the words “under the navel” with false letters (T: meaning they took a photocopy of previous publication but added these words in previous copy, see the links above), and everybody can see it.
Then the directors of At-Tayib Academy Multan and Maktabah Imdadiyah Multan have published the copy of Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah with the Tahqiq of Ustaz Sa’id Al-Laham, and they also have added the addition “under the navel” from themselves. Look at the extreme level of dishonesty as this copy was published before by Dar Al-Fikr Beirut but it did not contain this addition. The people of Tayib Academey have also published their shameful falsification of the related photocopied pages of the hand-written Manuscript of Maktabah Rashidiyah Pir Janda. And this is Zulumat ba’duaha fawqa ba’d (darkness over darkness). And to Allah is our complain.
(T: They took photocopy of Pir Jandha and falsified the page, added the words under the navel and showed the alteration with other genuine pages of the manuscript as being the manuscript of Pir Jandha, see the links below).
And now in recent times in 2006, a new edition of Al-Musannaf has been published by Dar Al-Qiblah Musasash Ulum Al-Quran with the Tahqiq of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah with the addition “under the navel”. The action of Idarah Al-Quran was a pure invention and theft, on which manuscript did they base for their addition? They have not clarified this. And Tayb Academy, their falsification (of Pir Jandha’s photocopied manuscript) is a proof of their lie as we have indicated.
But Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah justified this addition by two manuscripts, one of them being the manuscript of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abid As-Sindhi and the other the manuscript of Shaykh Murtadha Az-Zubaydi, as he wrote under this Hadith: “Under the navel is an addition proven in “Ta”, “‘Ayn” as the reader can see their pictures (photocopies) in the introduction of this volume.”
The letter “Ta” refers to the manuscript of ‘Allamah Murtadha Az-Zubaydi and “’Ayn” means the manuscript of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abid As-Sindhi, and as Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah indicated we had a look at the photocopies of the two manuscripts, and we also had a look at the description of these two manuscripts that he gave in the details of the manuscripts of Al-Musannaf (on which he relied). But based on these details, this addition of “under the navel” is not correct, because Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah himself wrote that the manuscript of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abid As-Sindhi (Marhum): “This is for Istinas not for I’timad” meaning one is manus with this manuscript and it is not reliable (p 27)
So when the position of this manuscript is uncertain according to himself, then relying on it (I’timad), what is it else than a prove of pure support to his Maslak (Hanafi)? And he also indicated that this manuscript is not with his hands, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abid As-Sindhi did not write it himself, rather Muhsin ibn Muhsin Az-Zaraqi wrote it in 1229 for him. Shaykh Sindhi only wrote the Fihrist of its chapters. Was this copy compared to the original manuscript? And what is the level of Isnad of the copy from which it was copied for Shaykh As-Sindhi? And these details also have not been given by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah, so these details are apparently lost, so this makes this manuscript more unreliable.
Now there remains the second manuscript of Shaykh Muhammad Murtadha Az-Zubaydi Al-Hanafi, about which he himself wrote that on many places ‘Allamah ‘Ayni (rah) wrote notes on it, and this was the manuscript that was in possession of Shaykh Qasim Qutlubagha, and basing on this manuscript Shaykh Qasim in “At-Ta’rif wal Ikhbar bi Takhrij Ahadith Al-Ikhtiyar” mentioned this Hadith and said its Sanad is Jayd (good). And it has been said about this manuscript (by ‘Awammah) that “Al-’I’timad aley Mufid” that relying on it is useful, so it means that reliance on it is not certain, but there is room for some reliance.
But this manuscript also contains the defect that ‘Allamah Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi mentioned in “Fath Al-Ghafur fi Wad’ Al-Aydi ‘Ala Sudur”: “There is objection to the prove of the addition “under the navel”, rather it is a mistake based on forgetfulness (Sahw), because I checked an authentic manuscript of the “Musannaf” and I saw in it this Hadith with this Sanad without the addition “under the navel”, and it was mentioned in it after this Hadith the Athar of Ibrahim An-Nakh’i and his words are close to the words of this Hadith (of Wail) and there is at the end (of the Athar of An-Nakh’i): “under the navel”. So maybe the eye of the copyist mistakenly went from a place to another, so he entered (Adraja) the Mawquf words (of Nakh’i) in the Marfu’ (Hadith of Wail). And what strengthens what I have said is that all manuscripts do not agree on this addition, and many people of knowledge mentioned this Hadith and they did not mention “under the navel”, rather I did not see any people of knowledge mentioning this Hadith with this narration except Al-Qasim” (“Fath Al-Ghafur” p 77-78 published in 1977 with the Tahqiq of Zia ur Rahman Al-A’zami)
And similarly has been said by ‘Allamah Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi in “Ad-Durah fi Izhar Ghash Naqd As-Surah”: “Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated this Hadith and after it the Athar of An-Nakh’i and their words are close, and there is at the end of the Athar the words “under the navel”, and there is difference in the manuscripts, some of them contain the Hadith in an absolute way without mention of the position of putting hands (meaning without this addition) and they also have the Athar of An-Nakh’i, and some (manuscripts) contain the Marfu’ Hadith with the addition “under the navel” without the Athar of An-Nakh’i, so it is possible that this addition is based on what the copyist left by forgetfulness (Sahw) some parts like a line in the middle and he entered (Adraja) the words of the Athar (of Nakh’i) in the Marfu’ (Hadith of Wail)” (Ad-Durah p 5)
What ‘Allamah As-Sindhi said in repetition is exactly what is the case of Shaykh Muhammad Murtadha Az-Zubaydi’s manuscript, and this was the manuscript that was in possession before of ‘Allamah Qasim ibn Qutlubagha, as clarified by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah, and this manuscript only contains the Marfu’ hadith, and the Athar of Hadhrat Ibrahim An-Nakh’i is dropped from it, as shown in the photocopy given by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah in the third volume.
So when the Athar of Ibrahim An-Nakh’i is dropped, then it supports words for words what ‘Allamah Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi said, that the copyist’s eye went on the Athar of An-Nakh’i “under the navel” and he wrote this with the Marfu’ narration, and the Athar in between with its Sanad has been dropped.
(T: meaning that the copyist because of resemblance in words dropped the parts that are into brackets.
Waki’ narrated to us from Musa ibn ‘Umayr from ‘Alqamah ibn Wail from his father, he said: I saw the Prophet (saw) putting his right hand on his left hand in the prayer.
[Waki’ narrated to us from Rabee’ from Abi Ma’shar from Ibrahim, he said: one should put the right hand on the left hand in the prayer] under the navel.
And we had finally have after the mistake:
Waki’ narrated to us from Musa ibn ‘Umayr from ‘Alqamah ibn Wail from his father, he said: I saw the Prophet (saw) putting his right hand on his left hand in the prayer under the navel
So the copyist dropped the Athar of Ibrahim An-Nakh’i except its final words “under to navel” that he added to the marfu’ Hadith.)
But Muhammad ‘Awammah was not satisfied with this, he answered this difficulty in a laughable and strange way, here are his words: “This making uncertain and doubtful will make the enemies of Allah and Islam happy, and if we open this chapter there will not remain any trustworthiness in anything from the books of our religion (Masadir ud Deen), and with this what will we do about this being proven in the manuscript of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abid As-Sindhi, that contain both the Hadith and the Athar, and both have (the words) “under the navel”?” (“Al-Musannaf” v 3 p 321)
We request Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah to tell us with sincerity whether these kinds of mistake of eye of copyists do not appear in hand written manuscript and published books? And are there not these kinds of mistakes in quoting? Dear readers to cure (doubts) we will only mention some examples.
1) In “Musnad Imam Ahmad” (v 1 p 327) edition Maymaniyah, edition Dar Ihya Turath and edition Al-Maktab Al-Islami Beirut on number 3012, there is a Hadith: “Sulayman ibn Dawud narrated to us, ‘Abbad ibn Mansur narrated us from ‘Ikrimah from ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) stood on a Jam’…” (“Al-Musnad” v 1 p 327 number 3012)
So this narration is narrated like this in these three publications of Musnad Imam Ahmad, while the case is contrary to this, the reality is that the Matn of this Sanad and the Sanad of the next narration have been dropped by the copyist by forgetfulness (Sahw), the real portion is:
“Sulayman ibn Dawud narrated to us, ‘Abbad ibn Mansur narrated us from ‘Ikrimah [from ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (saw) went to see Abi Taybah at time of ‘Isha and he met him and gave him his reward, Abu Dawud narrated to us from Zam’ah from ‘Ikrimah] from ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah stood on a Jam’…”
Musnad Ahmad has been published in one volume by Bayt Al-Afkar Ad-Dawliyah Riyadh and there is this narration on p 270, and the Muhaqiq indicated that some part of the Sanad of the first Hadith and its Matn, and the first part of the second Hadith’s Sanad has been dropped by the mistake of copyist in the publication of Maymaniyah, and I have indicated this by brackets. The copyist saw ‘Ikrimah in the first Sanad (and after writing it) his view fell on ‘Ikrimah in the second Sanad, and he mixed the Matn of the second Sanad with the Matn of the first Sanad.
The second narration has been mentioned like this by ibn Jawzi (At-Tahqiq v 2 p 475), Hafiz ibn Hajar in “Atraf Al-Musnad” (v 3 p 200) and ‘Allamah Az-Zela’I in “Nasb Ar-Rayah” (vol 4 p 74), meaning with “Abu Dawud from Zam’ah from ‘Ikrimah”…
So in the same way as the copyist’s view went on the ‘Ikrimah of the below line and he dropped the sentence in between, then (the view of the copyist) went on the manuscript of “Musannaf” of ‘Allamah Az-Zubaydi instead of the words “Fi Salah” (in the Hadith of Wail) to the sentence below on the Athar of Ibrahim An-Nakh’i containing “Fi Salah” and he added the words “under the navel” into the Marfu’ Hadith, and he dropped by forgetfulness (Sahw) the Sanad and beginning of the Matn of the Athar of Ibrahim An-Nakh’i.
If this simple thing leads to the risk of making the books of religion (Masadir ud-Deen) unreliable, then what will it mean not to rely on Musnad Ahmad (that contains mistake)? And there is not one Hadith in Musnad Ahmad but the people of knowledge know that the publication of Maymaniyah had dropped many Ahadith, but nobody considered this as a difference of manuscripts. Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah is not ignorant of these realities but Madhabi bias is refraining from accepting them.
2) This is not limited to Imam Ahmad, rather in a widely spread book like “Jami’ At-Tirmidhi” that is studied in Nisab (of Dars Nizami), in majority of manuscripts in the chapter “Bab Manaqib Mu’az ibn Jabal wa Zayd ibn Thabit wa ibn Ka’b wa Abi Ubaydah, radiAllahu ‘anhum”, Imam Tirmidhi mentioned a narration from Qatadah from Anas: “The most merciful of my community about my community is Abu Bakr…until end of Hadith” and then Tirmidhi said:
“And this has been narrated by Abu Qilabah from Anas from the Prophet (saw) similarly, Muhammad ibn Bashar narrated to us, Abdul Wahab ibn Abdil Majid Ath-Thaqafi narrated to us Khalid Al-Haza narrated to us from Abi Qilabah from Anas ibn Malik, he said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Ubay ibn Ka’b: “Allah ordered me to read it to you “Lam Yakuni Lazina Kafaru”until the end” (Tirmidhi ma’a Tuhfah v 4 p 344)
While this narration (about ‘Ubay ibn Ka’b) is not with this Sanad. With this Sanad the Hadith “The most merciful of my community about my community is Abu Bakr” is mentioned. And the Hadith “Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Ubay ibn Ka’b” is narrated with this Sanad: “Muhamad ibn Bashar narrated to us Muhammad ibn Ja’far narrated to us Shu’bah narrated to us, I heard Qatadah narrating from Anas.”
(T: Meaning one should have read in fact:
And this has been narrated by Abu Qilabah from Anas from the Prophet (saw) similarly, Muhammad ibn Bashar narrated to us, Abdul Wahab ibn Abdil Majid Ath-Thaqafi narrated to us Khalid Al-Haza narrated to us from Abi Qilabah from Anas ibn Malik: [“The most merciful of my community about my community is Abu Bakr…until end of Hadith”
Muhamad ibn Bashar narrated to us Muhammad ibn Ja’far narrated to us Shu’bah narrated to us, I heard Qatadah narrating from Anas] he said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to ‘Ubay ibn Ka’b: “Allah ordered me to read it to you “Lam Yakuni Lazina Kafaru” until the end” and the part in blue between the two Anas has been dropped by forgetfulness)
So the copyist in writing the first Sanad, his eyes went on the word “Anas” (in the next Hadith) and he dropped the Matn of the first Sanad: “The most merciful…” and the Sanad of the second Hadith.
‘Allamah Al-Mizzi warned against this mistake in “Tufatul Ashraf” (v 1 p 259,325) and he also said that Hafiz ibn ‘Asakir mentioned this narration with the wrong Isnad and he clarified that “He went to enter the Hadith in the (next) Hadith”
And this (mistake) is in most of the manuscripts, but in ‘Allamah ibn Al-‘Arabi’s Sharh “’Aridatul Ahwazi” (v 12 p 202-203) and in the copy published by Dar Al-Gharb Al-Islami with the Tahqiq of Dr Bashar ‘Awad, this narration is mentioned with the right Matn and Sanad.
And these (kinds of mistakes) do not only occur in books of Hadith, but also in books of Rijal, so there is in “Lisan Al-Mizan”:
“Muhammad ibn Abdillah from Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan he said and he mentioned a Hadith Munkar about the Mudd of Khamr not known…” (“Lisan Al-Mizan” v 5 p 224)
And look at the real text that is taken from “Mizan Al-I’tidal”:
“Muhammad ibn Abdillah ibn Mu’awiyah ibn Sufyan, he said and he mentioned a Hadith [not known, Muhammad ibn Abdillah from his father he said and he mentioned a Hadith] Munkar about the Mudd of Khamr not known.” (Mizan v 3 p 603)
So one can see that the Katib dropped by forgetfulness (Sahw) the mention of “Muhammad ibn Abdillah from his father”. His eyes were on the first line “he mentioned a Hadith” and he saw the words of the next line after “he mentioned a Hadith”, and he dropped the part in the middle as we have made it clear with the brackets. As for “ibn Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan” becoming “from Mu’awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan” then this is an usual matter.
And we know many similar cases in books of Hadith and Rijal, but we only want to make the point that the copyist making these kinds of mistakes is not impossible, the rules mentioned in books of Usul Al Hadith about copying and the conditions for the (copied) book to be considered as reliable compared the original book, all of these are to protect from such mistakes. The beginner (in knowledge of Hadith) cannot deny these kinds of mistakes due to neglect (Ghaflah) but what is strange is that Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah denies them, rather considers them as lack of reliance of the books of religion (Masadir ud-Deen). While despite these kinds of human mistakes and the Shaytani Waswasah of fabricators, no scholar until know doubted about the books of the religion (Masadir ud-Deen)…Muhadith and people of knowledge have in every time distinguished between milk and water (dudh ka dudh or pani ka pani kar diya) (meaning they have caught lies and mistakes), but it is regretful that Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah considers the forgetfulness (Sahw) of a copyist to mean criticism of the books of the religion (Masadir Deen)
So with this summarised explanation, it has become clear like midday that errors of copyists are possible, and what ‘Allamah Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi wrote about the addition “under the navel” in “Al-Musannaf”, then it is a reality, and there are many other examples of such mistakes.
Now remains the matter that in the manuscript of Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi, both the Marfu’ Hadith and the Athar of Ibrahim An-Nakh’i contain the words “under the navel”, so this would have been an answer to the fear expressed by ‘Allamah Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi. We are extremely astonished by Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah that on one side he says that the manuscript of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abid is not reliable (not for I’timad), we can only be manus with it, but here he does not feel any problem in relying on it with great confidence. Inna Lillahi wa Inna ilayhi raji’un.
This is strange that the manuscript Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah himself tells to be not reliable, then why does he rely on it? And why does he not rely on the four other manuscripts (used by Awammah) that do not contain this addition? While about one of these manuscripts, Shaykh ‘Awammah himself said: “It is the oldest manuscript and I judged upon it” And this is the oldest manuscript, written in 648, and its writing is clear and clean, and his writer is also “Mutqin” (precise) and this manuscript has been compared to its original (Asl) (p 38-39); and it has been indicated by the letter “Kha”. Why is there not reliance on this oldest manuscript? There are three other manuscripts supporting it (not having the addition), so there is no reliance on these four manuscripts but reliance on the manuscript about which he himself said: “not for I’timad” showing its lack of reliability then relying on it, if it is not said to be a prove of Madhabi bias then what else?
And more surprising is that (he claimed) that there are with these two (Allamah Az-Zubaydi and Allamah ‘Abid As-Sindhi) three other manuscripts that support this addition, here are his words: “The manuscript of Allamah Qasim so it will be the manuscript “Ta”, the manuscript of ‘Allamah ‘Abdul Qadir ibn Abi Bakr As-Siddiqi the Mufti of Makkah Mukarramah, and the manuscript of ‘Allamah Muhammad Akram As-Sindhi, and this has been quoted by Allamah Muhammad Hashim As-Sindhi At-Titwi in his Risalah “Tarsi’ Ad-Durah ‘ala Dirham As-Surah” (Hashiyah Musannaf v 3 p 321)
What astonishment that despite declaring the manuscript of Allamah Qasim to be the manuscript of Allamah Az-Zubaydi, why is it now considered to be another manuscript? And then this another manuscript is told to support the manuscript of Shaykh ‘Abid, it is synonym to Zulumat Ba’duha Fawqa Ba’d (darkness over darkness). When Shaykh Qasim’s manuscript does not contain the Athar of An-Nakh’i, then how can it support the manuscript of Shaykh ‘Abid? Only because there is “under the navel” with the Marfu’ Hadith, so if this addition is with the Marfu’ hadith, then why don’t you drop the Athar of Ibrahim Nakh’i? And why is it not then reliable? When you say that “I’timad on it is Mufid” then why do you not rely fully on it (and drop the Athar of An-Nakh’i)?
As for the manuscript of ‘Allamah Akram As-Sindhi, then Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah did not manifest any honesty and trust about it, because the book from which he quoted about the existence of this manuscript, in it Shaykh Muhammad Hashim As-Sindhi said: “So it is clear that the manuscript of Shaykh Muhammad Akram contains the words “under the navel” at the end of the Hadith (of Wail) as it is present except that the Athar of An-Nakh’i is dropped in entirety with the words “under the navel”.”
So what about this? The manuscript of Shaykh Muhammad Akram is told to be defective by Shaykh Muhammad Hashim himself, this has the same defect and lack as the manuscript of Shaykh Qasim and after it ‘Allamah Az-Zubaydi, now justice is required, how can this strengthen the addition “under the navel” to be authentic, according to what we mentioned before?
Now remains the manuscript of ‘Allamah Abdul Qadir the Mufti of Makkah Mukarramah, then Shaykh Muhammad Hashim wrote that it contains both the Marfu’ and the Athar of Nakh’i with the words “under the navel”, but he did not mention from which manuscript it is copied and who is the copyist, and if it was compared to its original (Asl) and whether it is reliable, so until these things are proven, then relying on it is not the attitude of people of knowledge.
Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah after mentioning the existence of this addition in three other Manuscripts to justify this addition, he felt the necessity to defend the copy of the Musannaf published by Idarah Al-Quran Wal ‘Ulum Islamiyah Karachi, to justify their Shameful Tahrif of the addition of the words “under the navel”. So he wrote on this topic: “I met the director of Idarah Al-Quran, Shaykh Nur Ahmad in the Haram Nabawwi and he informed me that the addition “under the navel” in his copy was based on the Tahqiq of Shaykh Muhammad Hashim in his “Tarsi’ Ad-Durah” saying that there are three hand-written manuscript containing this addition. So he had full reliance on this and he added the words “under the navel”, he did not dare to lie on the Prophet (saw) nor did he change a text to support his Madhab.”
The fact is that I have myself heard this explanation from Maulana Nur Ahmad Sahib. When I went with my noble teacher Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Abdullah Muhadith Fayslabadi in Idarah Al-Quran to buy some books, and my noble teacher was busy in searching for books, and I stood by Maulana Nur Ahmad, and he told me the same thing that he told Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah (that he did not base on a manuscript but Tahqiq of Muhammad Hashim Sindhi)…
”Al-Musannaf” has also been published with the Tahqiq and notes of Maulana Habib Ur-Rahman A’zami by Maktabah Imdadiyah, he mentioned the Marfu’ narration without the words “under the navel” and he mentioned the Athar if Ibrahim Nakh’i in brackets like this:
[3907 Waki’ narrated to us from Rabi’ from Abi Ma’shar from Ibrahim he said: The right hand should be put in the left in the prayer under the navel]
And he wrote on number 1 of his Hashiyah: “This was dropped from the Asl except its end that was incorporated (Mudraj) in what is above and I corrected this from “ba “ and Hyderabad” (meaning that the Athar of An-Nakh’i was dropped and its end “under the navel” was incorporated (mudraj) in the Hadith of Wail that was above it, and Al-A’zami corrected this with the manuscript “ba” and the published version of Hyderabad)
(T: see scans below
So many matters have been made clear by Maulana Al-A’zami (Marhum):
1) He also had a manuscript like Shaykh Murtadha Az-Zubaydi and Shaykh Qasim, the Athar of Hazrat Ibrahim was dropped in it and its end “under the navel” was added to the Marfu’ narration. ‘Allamah Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi also indicated the existence of such Manuscript.
2) Maulana Al-A’zami mentioned the Athar of Ibrahim Nakh’i in brackets because it was dropped in the manuscript he declared to be the Asl.
3) Maulana A’zami did not fear that the books of religion “Masadir Deen” are in danger because of this mistake, like Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah feared.
4) Despite the words “under the navel” being with the Marfu’ Hadith, he did not rely on it as did Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah relied on it and left it with the Marfu’ Hadith, and he darkened two pages of ink trying to justify it.
5) The manuscript on which Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah based himself, one of them is unreliable because of the Athar of Ibrahim Nakh’i being dropped and the other manuscript is not reliable according to himself, then he mentions the Athar of An-Nakh’i from it, and he did not feel the need to make any distinction, and all of this is done with precise Tahqiq and honesty and without Madhabi bias, Subhan Allah!
So one can understand from the methodology of Maulana Al-A’zami that what people of Idarah Al-Quran did, that without any explanation they did this addition, it is false and against Ilmi trust, and the defence of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah is an excuse of sin that is synonym to sin.
Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah should not only defend Idarah Al-Quran but should also think about the fabrications of At-Tayib Academy Multan and Maktabah Imdadiyah Multan who when reproducing the copy of Dar Al-Fikr with the Tahqiq of Ustaz Sa’id Al-Laham have added the addition “under navel” with fraud. But they mentioned it (addition) under brackets, and they mentioned in the Hashiyah the reason for it that will come insha Allah.
When Dar Al-Fikr published this manuscript, there was not the addition “under the navel”, but when At-Tayib Academy and Maktabah Imdadiyah Multan reproduced its photocopy, they added “under the navel”.
(T: see scan of Laham’s Tahqiq published by Dar ul Fikr not having this addition
Scans of Maktabah Imdadiyah
Scans of At-Tayb Academy
And they did not stop here, they also published a photocopy of the related pages of the manuscript of Maktabah Rashidiyah Pir Af Jandha and they added (with falsification) “under the navel”. I have myself seen the manuscript of Maktabah Rashidiyah more than once and profited from it, and I had a look again at it on about this narration, but the addition “under the navel” was not present in it.
And the same as been said by Shaykh Thanaullah Zia as he took an oath in his Risalah “Namaz mein hath kahan bandhen” p 74 that the manuscript does not contain the Marfu’ Hadith with words “under the navel”. And he has also shown clear words of Hazrat As-Sayid Muhibullah Shah Rashidi denying any such words in this manuscript. And those people to whom Allah gave eyes can see it nowadays in Maktabah Rashidiyah for being convinced. Can Shaykh ‘Awammah explain us if this is not an evil action. Is this evil falsification not for Mazhabi zeal?
(T: See below the scan of a photocopy of the manuscript of Pir Jandha of the “Musannaf” as shown by Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay in his Risalah Namaz mein hath Bandne ka hukm or Maqam”:
And below is the falsified photocopy of the manuscript of Pir Jandha as shown by At-Tayb Academy and Maktabah Imdadiyah of Multan:
Proofs of alteration: In some Ahadith, the words “Hadathana” (narrated to us) have two marks above as one can see in the photocopy of Zubayr Ali Zay for the Hadith after the Hadith of Wail, and also in the photocopy of At-Tayb academy at the bottom, one of the “Hadathana” is also under two marks.
And these two marks appear after the Hadith of Wail in the photocopy of Zubayr Ali Zay above the words “Hadathana Waki’”, but they do not appear in the photocopy of At-Tayb academy, and there are little marks showing that some kinds of marks where there, but it is as if some experts copied a paper on it with same style of hand writing and coped it with glue or it is done with some computer software.
Also in At-Tayb academy’s photocopy, the words “Hadthana” are not under these remnants of marks, but the words “Tahta Surah” so it shows that the words “Hadathana” have changed their place to leave place for “Tahta Surah”.
Also other details showing the Tahrif in the photocopy of At-Tayb academy is that the “Ta” of Salah appears at the top of the words and are not in line, they come at the top of the Lam and Alif, as if the falsifier needed some place to add the words “Tahta Surah”, while the “ta” of Salah is clear in the photocopy of Zubayr Ali Zay.
And not only the “ta” of Salat, but also the ‘Waow” of Waki’ is slightly on the bottom compared to the others letters of the name Waki, meaning the Waow is not in line with the Kaf, ya and ‘Ayn, as if the falsifier needed some place, so there remains little place between Hadathana and Waki’. While in the photocopy of Zubayr Ali Zay, not only the waow is in line with other letters, but there is enough gap between Hadathana and Waki’.
Also there is little gap between the added words “Tahta Surah” and Hadathana, and why did the copyist needed to put the ‘Ta” on the top of Salah, and the “Waow’ of Waki’ slightly under other letter, and leave so much few gap between these words?)
Moreover Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah said that on the manuscript ‘Ta” ‘Allamah ‘Ayni wrote some notes in many places. And this was the manuscript that was under the eyes of Shaykh Qasim and he quoted the Hadith with “under the navel” from it in his “At-Tasrif wal-Ikhbar”, and this was the manuscript that came in possession of Shaykh Muhammad Murtadha Az-Zubaydi the author of “Taj”. And when he wrote the explanation of “Ihya Ulum Ad-Din”, he had this manuscript in his hands and he quoted Athar and others from it, rather in this explanation v 3 p 270, he mentioned the copyist (of Musannaf) and the date it was copied, as mentioned in the introduction of the book (p29).
1) But what is to be pointed at is that and that should be looked at, is that ‘Allamah Murtadha Az-Zubaydi in the explanation of “Ihya Ulum Ad-Din” named “Itihaf As-Sadat Al-Mutaqin”, in the third volume on the topic of putting hands, he mentioned among Ahanf’s proofs the famous narration of Hazrat ‘Ali, “Musnad Ahmad” and Ad-Daraqutni and others, but he did not mention from “Al-Musannaf” this so called “authentic” narration with a “Jayd Sanad”. His words are: “The Proof of Hanafiyah are what is narrated by Ahmad, Ad-Daraqutni, Al-Bayhaqi and others from ‘Ali” (“Itihaf As-Sadat” v 3 p 37)
And this is not all, he also wrote a separate book for the support of Hanafi Madhab “’Uqud Al-Jawahir Al-Maniyah”. And he also did not mention in it this narration of “Al-Musannaf”, and why? And it is clear that if this narration was acceptable or reliable, then he would have mentioned it, so this is a sign that he was not confident to quote this narration from his manuscript of “Al-Musannaf”. ‘Allamah Qasim considered it reliable as he quoted this narration from it, but ‘Allamah Az-Zubaydi not mentioning it, is it not but a proof that it was not reliable for him?
2) Also ‘Allamah Al-‘Ayni about whom it is said that he wrote many notes on this manuscript, he also did not mention it in his explanation of Al-Bukhari “’Umdatul Qari” nor his explanation of Hidayah “Al-Binayah”. He tried to defend the weak narration of Hazrat ‘Ali but what is the reason of avoiding this so called “Sanad Jayid” narration of Al-Musannaf? Is this not also a sign that he was not convinced with this Sanad and this Matn?
3) ‘Allamah ibn Abdil Barr d 463 in “At-Tamhid” v 20 p 74-76 mentioned many Athar from “Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah” on the topic of the hands in prayer and on v 20 p 75 he mentioned in a general way that Ibrahim An-Nakh’I and Abu Mujlis considered that hands should be put under the navel, and who does not know that these two Athar are not in “Al-Musannaf”. Rather ibn Abdil Barr by saying about the Athar of An-Nakh’i that is not established indicated its weakness, and if there were “under the navel” in the narration of Wail, he would have mentioned it, so it shows that this addition in “Al-Musannaf” is false and has no basis.
One should know that there is a difference between not mentioning some proofs about a topic and mentioning some Athar of a chapter and not quoting this so called “reliable Sanad”. Allamah Az-Zela’i, Hafiz ibn Hajar, Allamah ibn Mulqin, Allamah ibn Humam and others Mutaakhir scholars not mentioning it, one can say that it is possible that they did not look in “Al-Musannaf”, but there is not such possibility for ibn Abdil Barr.
4) Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah does Takhrij of Hadith and mentions its different ways, and in the chapter “Putting right hand on the left” he did generally Takhrij of narrations, but why did he not do Takhrij of this narration (of Wail)?
He spent all his efforts trying to strengthen the addition “under the navel”, but he remained silent on the Takhrij, and at the end why?
Waki’ from Musa ibn ‘Umayr from ‘Alqamah from his father, were there not other narrations with this Sanad on this topic so not to mention them? And if they existed he remained silent on them not because of carelessness but because the secret of this addition would be disclosed. It is sure that Allah knows best the intentions of people, but leaving one’s methodology and remaining silent on the Takhrij of this narration, this is a sign that the matter is different here, so his action is considered as childish and as a sign of support for his Madhab.
We say that this Sanad of Imam Waki’ is mentioned in “Musnad Ahmad” (v 4 p 316), “Sunnan Ad-Daraqutni” (v 1 p 286) and “Sharh Sunnah” of Al-Baghawi (v 3 p 30) and it is without the addition “under the navel”. The cotemporary of Imam Waki’, Imam ‘Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak also mentioned this narration from Musa ibn ‘Umayr without this addition, see An-Nassa’i v 1 p 105, “Sunnan Al-Kubra” of him, and also “At-Tamhid” v 20 p 76, and a third cotemporary of Imam Waki’, Imam Abu Nu’aym Fadl ibn Waki’ also narrated it without the addition, see “At-Tamhid” v 20 p 76, “Sunnan Al-Kubra” of Al-Bayhaqi, v 2 p 28, “Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabir” of At-Tabarani v 22 p 9, “Tahzib Al-Kamal” of Al-Mizzi v 11 p 499 in the mention of Musa ibn ‘Umayr.
(T: The Sanad of ibn Abi Shaybah is:
Waki’ narrated to us from Musa ibn ‘Umayr from ‘Alqamah ibn Wail ibn Hujr from his Father
In “Musnad Ahmad” n° 18846 with the Tahqiq of Shuyab Al-Arna’ut: “Waki’ narrated to us from Musa ibn ‘Umayr Al-Anbari from ‘Alqamah ibn Wail Al-Hadrami from his father: I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) putting his right hand on the left in the prayer”
In “Sunnan” Ad-Daraqutni: Al-Husayn ibn Isma’il and ‘Uthman ibn Ja’far ibn Muhammad Al-Ahwal, they both said: Yusuf ibn Musa narrated to us: Waki’ narrated to us: Musa ibn ‘Umayr Al-‘Anbari narrated to us from ‘Alqamah ibn Wail Al-Hadrami from his father, he said: “I saw the Messenger of Allah (saw) putting his right hand on his left in the prayer”
An-Nassa’i narrated in his “Sunnan”: Suwayd ibn Nasr narrated to us, ‘Abdullah (ibn Al-Mubarak) narrated to us, from Musa ibn ‘Umayr Al-‘Anbari and Qays ibn Sulaym Al-‘Anbari, they both said: ‘Alqamah ibn Wail narrated to us from his father, he said: I saw the Prophet (saw) when he was standing in the prayer, he would hold his left hand with his right on it.”
In ‘Mu’jam Kabir” of At-Tabarani: Ali ibn Abdil Aziz narrated to us: Abu Nu’aym narrated to us: Musa ibn ‘Umayr Al-‘Anbari narrated to us from ‘Alqamah ibn Wail ibn Hujr from his father Wail ibn Hujr that the Prophet (saw) when he was praying would hold his left hand with his the right on it ”
In “Sunnan Al-Kubra” of Al-Bayhaqi: Abul Hasan ibn Fadl Al-Qa’lan informed us in Baghdad that Abdullah ibn Ja’far informed him that Ya’qub ibn Sufyan narrated to us: Abu Nu’aym narrated to us Musa ibn ‘Umayr Al-‘Anbari narrated to us: ‘Alqamah ibn Wail informed me from his father that the Prophet (saw) when he was standing in prayer, he would hold his left hand with the right on it, and I saw ‘Alqamah doing it.
This is why the famous advocate of the Hanafi Maslak, ‘Allamah An-Nimawi said that this addition is not preserved (Ghayr Mahfuzah) in his “Ta’liq Al-Hasan”. So he first mentioned the saying of Hafiz Qasim Al-Qutlubagha, ‘Allamah Abu Tayib Al-Madni and Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi that its Sanad is Jayid and its narrators are trustworthy, then he mentioned the saying of ‘Allamah Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi that this addition is a mistake of the copyist, then he mentioned the answer of ‘Allamah Qaim As-Sindhi in his “Fawz Al-Kiram” that this addition is authentic, and after mentioning the details, he wrote:
“The justice is that though this addition is authentic because of its existence in most of manuscripts of Al-Musannaf, but it opposes the narrations of Thiqat, so it is Ghayr Mahfuzah” (“Ta’liq Al-Hasan” p 71 Multan)
We will mention later the reality of the claim “Its existence in most of manuscripts of Al-Musannaf”, but our aim is to show that ‘Allamah An-Nimawi declared this addition to be “Ghayr mahfuzah”, and he did not agree with ‘Allamah Qasim and others so that it can be presented for taking a proof. Rather Maulana Badr ‘Alim mentioned in the notes of “Fayd al-Bari” the same view of An-Nimawi quoting from his book “Ad-Durah An-Nusrah fi Wad’ Yadayn tahta Surah” that An-Nimawi was not convinced with the Tawthiq of this narration contrary to Shaykh Qasim, Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi and ‘Allamah Abu Tayib Al-Madni, his words are: “Allamah Zahir Ahsan (rah) was not satisfied with it and said “that this narration is ma’lulah (defective)”. (Hashiyah “Faydh Al-Bari” v 2 p 267)
(T: Some people argued that An-Nimawi changed his mind and in the Hashiyah of his “Ta’liq ul Hasan” he wrote:
“His (an Nimawi’s) words: ‘however, it is weak from the aspect of text': I say (al Nimawi): This is according to what we have ascertained just now. However, according to the position of Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Sharh al-Nukhba, this addition (below navel) is accepted [as textually authentic], and preponderance needs to be established between itself and whatever contradicts it; because this narration has a shorter chain than the narration ‘on his chest’ and the like, narrated by Ibn Khuzayma and al-Bazzar.”
This change of mind is not evident, because An-Nimawi could change his words in “Ta’liq ul Hasan” and say this addition is authentic, or he could even have said in its Hashyah that I change my mind and this addition is authentic. Rather he just quoted after his Tahqiq the words of Hafiz Ibn Hajar as an ilmi point, and nowhere does he say he agrees with Hafiz ibn Hajar. And Badr ‘Alim who is a Deobandi scholar also was not aware of this change of mind and it would have become famous among Deobandiyah. Allah knows best.)
So it is evident that the narration of Imam Waki’ and his cotemporaries is present in the treasure of books of Hadith, and there is no addition “under the navel”, and this addition is also not present in many manuscripts of al-Musannaf, so what Mi’raj of honesty and knowledge is it to declare it authentic based on a mistaken manuscript and an unreliable manuscript. It should be remembered that Shaykh ‘Abid’s manuscript has been told unreliable by Shaykh ‘Awammah himself and he also accepted the Athar of An-Nakh’i was dropped in the other, as we have explained before.
Now remains the saying of ‘Allamah An-Nimawi about “its existence in most of manuscripts of Al-Musannaf”, so he quoted this according to the Risalah “Fawz Al-Kiram” of Allamah Qaim As-Sindhi, and basing on this he said “its existence in most of manuscripts”, he did not mention seeing any manuscript. Yet, he (An-Nimawi) mentioned in his “Ad-Durah An-Nusrah” the manuscript of Maktabah Mahmudiyah, and that the addition is present in this manuscript, and this is the manuscript about which Shaykh ‘Awammah said: “there is no reliance on it”.
I had a look at the Risalah “Fawz Al-Kiram” in Maktabah Pir Jandha and I also have a copied version of it thanks to Allah. So what ‘Allamah An-Nimawi wrote was on his time in which Shaykh Qaim from the manuscript of Shaykh Abdul Qadir Mufti of Makkah Mukarramah and Shaykh Qasim in his “Tasrif wal Ikhbar bi Takhrij Ahadith Al-Ikhtyar” mentioned it, so tell us, can these two manuscripts be majority of manuscripts. And it has preceded that the manuscript of Shaykh Qasim is defective, so what reliance on it?
And contrary to this, ‘Allamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri (marhum) after mentioning the view of Allamah Hayat As-Sindhi, wrote: “I would not be surprised if it is so, because I checked three manuscripts of “Al-Musannaf”, and I did not find it in any of them” (“Faydh Al-Bari” v 2 p 267)
Allamah Kashmiri did not clarify in which Maktabah he saw these three manuscripts, but there are three manuscripts against the two (mentioned in “Fawz al-Kiram”), and Shaykh ‘Awammah accepted in the Hashiyah of Al-Musannaf v 3 p 321 that he has four manuscripts not having this addition. Maulana Habir Ur-Rahan A’zami also relied on these manuscripts and not on the altered manuscript. In 1989, Dar At-Taj Beirut published the “Musannaf’” with the Tahqiq of Kamal Yusuf and it does not contain “under the navel”. The copy published with the Tahqiq of Ustaz Sa’if Al-Laham also does not contain this addition, but people of At-Tayib Academy Multan made this addition as it has preceded.
(T: see scan of Kamal Yusuf Al-Hut
A volume of Musannaf has been published with the Tahqiq of Shaykh Hamad ibn Abdillah and Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibrahim, and I do not know if it has been completed or not. They have used eight hand-written manuscript and three published copies to publish their work, and in the introduction they have mentioned the altered copy of Idarah al-Quran: “This Hadith is found in the three published editions before of Al-Musannaf v 1 p 390 without this addition (meaning Idarah Al-Quran photocopied it from other publishers before of Bombay and Hyderabad) and the publisher (Idarah Al-Quran) did not indicate the manuscript in which he found this addition and where this manuscript can be found. This is why this published version falls from ilmi reliance rather all the publications of this house, it is obligatory not to rely on them, and how after lying on the Prophet (saw).” (Introduction of Al-Musannaf v 1 p 55 second Fasl)
So these Hazrat have eight manuscripts and three published copies and they criticized this addition of Idarah Al-Quran, so can anybody say after this addition is present in most of manuscripts, Kala thuma Kala.
(T: see at the end of the article the description of these eight manuscripts and what they said on the manuscript of Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi).
5) ‘Allamah ‘Alaudin ibn Turkmani d 745 or 749 in “Johir An-Naqi” criticized Imam Al-Bayhaqi and defended the Hanafi Madhab, and this is not hidden to anybody. About the issue of putting the hands in the prayer, he defended his Madhab, and opposing the view of Imam Al-Bayhaqi, he quoted from ibn Abi Shaybah the Athar of Abu Mujliz about putting hands under the navel with its Isnad (“Johir An-Naqi” v 2 p 31). Now justice is required, if “Al-Musannaf” contained the narration of Hazrat Wail with words “under the navel”, would he not quote them? Imam Al-Bayhaqi mentioned the narration of Hazrat Wail with the Sanad of Musa ibn ‘Umayr and it does not have “under the navel” as we have mentioned before and he also mentioned the words “on the chest” with the Sanad: Muamil ibn Isma’il from Ath-Thawri from ‘Asim ibn Kulayb from his father from Wail. Allamah Al-Mardini (ibn Turkmani) remained silent on the first Sanad (same as ibn Abi Shaybah) and criticized the second because of Muamil. He did not bring against it (the first) the so called narration of Musannaf “with Jayid Isnad”, and if this addition existed he would not miss to mention it, so his silence shows that until 745, there was no reliable manuscript of “Al-Musannaf” with words “under the navel”.
So with our clarifications it becomes as clear as midday that the addition “under the navel” in the Hadith of Wail in Musannaf is absolutely not correct, and Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awammah based on two manuscripts opposing four, and the two manuscripts upon which he added these words and based himself to justify this addition, then according to his agreed sayings, this addition is not correct. Neglecting the oldest reliable manuscripts for the unreliable and manuscripts with error is a proof of his Madhabi bias, this is not a service to ‘Ilm. And then his defence of the altered copy published by Idarah Al-Quran of Karachi, this is also against precision and honesty. At least At-Tayib academy and Maktabah Imdadiyah were better on one point, and it is that they published the copy of Dar Al-Fikr and they added the words “under the navel” but between brackets: [Tahta Surah], but what they wrote in the Hashiyah is a sign of their Ta’assub rather a sign of their ignorance.
They wrote: “Under the navel, these words are present in some manuscripts of “Al-Musannaf” and the addition of Thiqah is accepted, and none denied it except Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi d 1168, the one that was the student of Muhammad Mu’in Titwi Ash-Shi’i”
First: They did not quote any manuscript for this addition, so their reliance is on ‘Allamah Muhammad Hashim Sindhi’s “Dirham As-Surah” as they have indicated in the Hashiyah and they have also published this Risalah at the end, and the basis of Shaykh Muhammad Hashim has already been discussed before.
Secondly: The commentator to show his high level said that the addition of thiqah is accepted, while here it is not the case of addition of thiqah but existence in the manuscript.
Thirdly: It is said that only ‘Allamah Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi denied it and nobody else, we said that ‘Allamah Nimawi and ‘Allamah Kashmiri also declared this narration to be “Ghayr Mahfuzah” or unreliable, but Maulana Habib Ur-Rahman A’zami also denied it as we have shown before. Then maybe the commentator does not know that the Risalah “Dirham As-Surah fi Wad’ Al-Yadayn tahta Surah” of Shaykh Muhammad Hashim As-Sindhi is in fact a refutation of Shayk Abul Hasan As-Sindhi the commentator of “Sahih Al-Bukhari” and others, and it is written in Shaykh Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi’s “Ad-Durah fi Izhar Ghash Naqd Surah” that this Risalah was written with the advice and help of Shaykh Abul Hasan, and he also said in this Risalah that the addition in the manuscript of “Al-Musannaf” is a mistake of the copyist, as we have quoted earlier. So this matter shows that not only Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi rejected the addition of “under the navel” but also Abul Hasan As-Sindhi.
Moreover, “Dirham As-Surah” has been answered by Shaykh Sayid Rushdullah Shah Pir Af Jandha Sahib Al-‘Ilm Ar-Rabi’ in “Darj Ad-Durar fi Wad’ Al-Aydi ‘ala Sudur”…
So saying that only Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi denied this and nobody else is absolutely false and a prove of the commentator’s ignorance.
Fourthly: Look at the state of Ta’assub of the commentator, he mentioned Shaykh Muhammad Hashim with “Ash-Shaykh Muhammad Hashim Sindhi” but for Shaykh Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi, he only wrote “Muhammad Hayat”.
Fifthly: The fire of this Ta’assub did not vanish yet on writing only “Muhammad Hayat” but he went on to write that he was the student of Muhammad Mu’in Titwi Shi’i. Who was Muhammad Mu’in and how was he? We do not desire to dwell in this. But the crime of Muhammad Hayat was to be his student, so what will be the meaning of Imam Abu Hanifah and Imam Muhammad being students of the Rafidi Jabir Al-Ju’fi. Here Shaykh Muhammad Hayat being student of Muhammad Mu’in has different effect as he refuted the Shi’a and the Quburiyah in his “Ibtal Ad-Dharaih”, then he took lessons of Hadith from ‘Allamah Abul Hasan Sindhi Al-Madni, and after his death, he became his successor and during 24 years he taught in the Haram Nabawwi. Moreover he also had the honour of being student of Shaykh Abdullah Salim al-Makki, Shaykh Abu Tahir ibn Ibrahim Al-Kurdi, Shaykh Hasan ibn Ali Al-‘Ajmi. But the commentator because of his interior filth did not see these Mashaykh. Maulana Sayd Abdul Hay Lukhnawi mentioned him with this title: “Ash-Shayk Al-Imam Al’Alim Al-Kabir Al-Muhadith Muhammad Hayat” (“Nuzhat Al-Khawatir v 6 p 301)
Sixthly: the commentator wrote that he died in 1168 and this is also false, as he died in 1163 as said by Sayid Abdul Hay…So you can see from all of this how people claiming this addition like justice, people who have this state of Ta’assub, and they declare it to be authentic, then there is no surprise in it.
End of Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq’s words
More examples of mistakes of copyists
To strengthen that these kinds of mistakes occur from copyists and it does not put in danger the books of the religion:
1) Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq Al-Athari mentioned in his “Tawdih Al-Kalam” p 860 and after (519 of old edition) a mistake of copyist:
“’Allamah Az-Zel’ai wrote: “An-Nassa’i said in his “Sunnan”, Qutaybah informed us from Al-Layth from Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdillah ibn ‘Umar from his father, he said: “From the Sunnah of the prayer is to make his right foot stand with its fingers facing the Qiblah and to sit on the left” end of it and after it, he named the chapter: “Bab Istiqbal Atraf Al-Asabi’ Al-Qadam Al-Qiblah ‘inda ‘Al-Qu’ud li Tashahud”” (“Nasb Ar-Rayah v 1 p 387-388)
Take “Sunnan An-Nassa’i” and look under this chapter (vol 1 p 136) you will see that the Hadith under this chapter is not with this Sanad. The matter is that under the previous chapter “Bab Kayfa Al-Julus li Tashahud al-Awal” Imam An-Nassa’i mentioned with the Sanad: “Qutaybah ibn Sa’id narrated to us, Al-Layth narrated to us from Yahya from Al-Qasim ibn Muhammad from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdillah ibn ‘Umar” the narration: “From the Sunnah of the prayer is to lie down the left foot…”
And in the chapter after it “Bab Istiqbal Atraf Al-Asabi’ Al-Qadam”, he mentioned with the Sanad: “Ar-Rabi’ ibn Sulayman, Ishaq ibn Bakr narrated to us, my father narrated to me from ‘Amr ibn Al-Harith from Yahya that Al-Qasim narrated him from Abdullah ibn Abdillah from his father” and this is the narration that ‘Allamah Az-Zela’i mentioned above. And this is because the end of the Sanad of the two Hadith is close…and Maulana Abdul ‘Aziz also said this in Hashiyah: “It is strange that Allamah Az-Zela’i also mentioned this narration like this (v 1 p 418), but the reality became confuse to him” end of Shaykh Irshad’s words
So one can see that Az-Zela’i erred in the Sanad and mentioned a Matn with the Sanad of the previous chapter as there words were close. Or maybe from the manuscript he took from, the copyist made a mistake.
2) Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq also mentioned that in “Tabaqat ibn Sa’d” v 4 p 230, there is a similar mistake and this has been accepted in its Hashiyah “Bughyat al-Lami’”.
3) Shaykh Muhibullah Shah Rashidi in his Risalah “Jawdah At-Tanqih fi Masalah Rak’at At-Tarawih” p 38 and after mentioned a mistake of Mulla Ali Qari in his notes on “Sharh Wiqayah” in which he said: “So the consensus (‘Ijma) happened on what Al-Bayhaqi narrated with an authentic Isnad that they were standing on the time of ‘Umar upon 20 Rak’ah and on the time of ‘Uthman and ‘Ali similarly.”
And this is a mistake of Mulla Ali Qari as in none of the book of Al-Bayhaqi there is the addition “and on the time of ‘Uthman and ‘Ali similarly”. And An-Nimawi Al-Hanafi had no other solution but acknowledge this mistake of Mulla ali Qari in his “Athar Sunnan” p 353: “And it is not hidden for you that what Saib narrated from the Hadith of 20 Rak’ah, then some people of knowledge mentioned it with words “and on the time of ‘Uthman and ‘Ali similarly” and this saying is Mudraj and it is not found in the books of Al-Bayhaqi.”
4) Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay in his Risalah “Namaz mein hath Bandne ka hukm or Maqam” mentioned on p 18 :
“Hafiz Al-Mizzi, Hafiz Az-Zahabi, and Hafiz ibn Hajar without any Sanad have mentioned that the mentioned (narrator) Muamil is “Munkar Al-Hadith”, but we did not find this Jarh of Al-Bukhari in his books, in “Tarikh Al-Kabir” v 8 p 49 mention the Tarjamah of Muamil ibn Isma’il but did not do Jarh of him.
And there is a rule of Zafar Ahmad Thanvi Sahib: “Anybody Imam Al-Bukhari mentioned in his Tawarikh and he did not criticize them, then he is thiqah (according to the Deobandiyah)” (Qawaid Ulum Hadith p 223)…
Imam Al-Bukhari said about Muamil ibn Sa’id Ar-Raji “Munkar Al-Hadith” (Tarikh v 8 p 49) and Hafiz Az-Zahabi and Hafiz ibn Hajar did not mention this Jarh of Al-Bukhari on Muamil ibn Sa’id (see “Lisan ul Mizan” v 6 p 161)
And Al-Bukhari did not mention Muamil ibn Isma’il in “ad-Du’afa”, and all older scholars that wrote about weak narrators like ibn ‘Adi, ibn Hibban, Al-‘Uqayli, ibn Jawzi and others did not mention this Jarh of Al-Bukhari on Muamil ibn Isma’il, so it shows that Hafiz Al-Mizzi erred in attributing that to Al-Bukhari, and Az-Zahabi and ibn Hajar followed him, and there are other examples of this see for instance ‘Ala ibn Al-Harith (“Mizan al-I’tidal” v 3 p 98 with Hashiyah)” End of Shaykh Zubayr’s words.
Also on p 30, Shaykh Zubayr said that Al-Mizzi, Az-Zahabi, ibn Hajar (“Tahzib Kamal” 18/526, “Mizan ul I’tidal” 4/228, “Tahzib ut-Tahzib” 10/381) all have attributed to Imam Al-Bukhari that he said about Muamil ibn Isma’il that “he is Munkar Al-Hadith”. And Shaykh Zubayr said: “Al-Bukhari mentioned Muamil ibn Ismail in “Tarikh Al-Kabir” v8 p 49 “Ta” 2107), and there is no mention of Muamil in his Kitab “Du’afa” and there are two narrations of Muamil in “Sahih Al-Bukhari (2700, 7083 with Fath Bari). (In Ta’liq form)
Hafiz Al-Mizzi said: “Al-Bukhari did Istishad with him” (Tahzib Al-Kamal v 18 p 527). (Meaning brought his narration as witness)
Muhammad Tahir Al-Maqdisi said about a narrator: “Rather he (Bukhari) did Istishad with him in two places to show he is thiqah” (“Shurut Al-Aimah Sittah”)
From this it is known that Muamil ibn Ismail is Thiqah for Al-Bukhari and not Munkar Al-Hadith.” End of Shaykh Zubayr’s words.
Shaykh Thanaullah Zia also mentioned the same in his Risalah “Namaz mein Hath Kahan Bandhen” p 24 and after: “Imam Bukhari mentioned him in “Tarikh ul Kabir” and “Tarikh As-Saghir” but he did not do any Jarh, while he mentioned Muamil ibn Sa’id after Mua’mil ibn Isma’il, and Bukhari declared him (Muamil ibn Sa’id) to be Munkar Al-Hadith…while Abu Hatim also tells Muamil ibn Sa’id to be Munkar ul-Hadith (Jarh wa Ta’dil v 8 p 375) and ibn Hibban also declared him to be “Munkar ul-Hadith” (Mizan Al-I’tidal v 6 p 572).” End of Shaykh Thanaullah’s words
Then Shaykh Thanaullah clearly said that someone erred in copying the Tarjamah of Muamil ibn Isma’il from “Tarikh ul Kabir” and he wrote the Tarjamah of Muamil ibn Sai’d mistakenly. Allah knows best. So it can be Al-Mizzi who erred, or he had a mistaken copy and the error came from a copyist.
And the prove for this is as said by Shaykh Thanaullah Zia is that when Imam Bukhari tells someone to be Munkar Al-Hadith, he does not consider it lawful to narrate from him as said by Imam Az-Zahabi: “Al-Bukhari said that for everyone about whom I say: Munkar al-Hadith, It is not permissible to narrate from him.” (“Mizan ul-I’tidal” v 1 p 119)
And Hafiz ibn Hajar also said this in “Lisan”: “And this saying is narrated with an authentic Isnad from Abdus Salam ibn Ahmad Al-Khaffaf from Al-Bukhari”
And it should be remembered that Al-Bukhari took some Ta’liq narrations of Muamil ibn Isma’il. (“Tahzib At-Tahzib” v 10 p 339)
So the quotes above show that Muamil ibn Isma’il is not Munkar Al-Hadith for Al-Bukhari, because if he was Munkar ul-Hadith, he would not take his narrations.
So this is the Tahqiq of Shaykh Thanaullah Zia, and it shows that Al-Mizzi can err in copying the manuscript of “Tarikh Al-Kabir”, and other scholars can follow him in this mistake.
And other examples are many as said by Shaykh Irshad ul Haqq, a beginner in Ilm ul-Hadith would not ignore that such errors of copyists happen, but ‘Awammah is blinded in Ta’asub for Ahnaf, and denies this.
As for Muhammad Awammah everybody can see his bias for his Madhab :
1) His defence of An-Nakhi’s Athar being dropped in Az-Zubaydi’s manuscript is childish and shows his great ignorance and Ta’assub, as such mistakes happen and there is no danger to the books of the religion.
2) He relied on ‘Abid As-Sindhi’s manuscript after telling it is not reliable.
3) He did not do Takhrij of this Hadith of Wail, and this seem to be clear Ta’assub, and shows one cannot rely on this man’s Tahqiq as it is for a sect and not for Islam.
4) He failed to mention that the manuscript of Shaykh Akram As-Sindhi had same defect as that of Az-Zubaydi
The problem with the manuscript of ‘Abid As-sindhi of Maktabah Al-Mahmudiyah:
Shaykh Thanaullah Zia in his Risalah “Namaz mein Hath Kahan Bandhein” wrote a Halfiyah Bayan saying:
”The author says taking an oath that he has seen the manuscript of ibn Abi Shaybah in the library of Pir Muhibullah Shah Rashidi, and there is no addition of “under the navel” in the end of the Hadith narrated by Wail ibn Hujr.”
He wrote: “This narration is quoted by our (Deobandi) brothers sometimes quoting from the edition of ibn Abi Shaybah published by Idarah Al-Quran wal Ulum Islamiyah Karachi, sometimes from the published version of Tayb Academy Multan, and sometimes they refer to the manuscript of Muhammad Akram Nasrpuri. These two manuscripts that are weak like the web of a spider are presented by our brothers as Urwah Wuthqa and for this they have done one of the worse ilmi Khyanat (treachery) of this century. The copy published by Idarah Al-Quran wal ‘Ulum Islamiyah with the Tahqiq and Ta’liq of Ustaz Abdul Khaliq Al-Afghani has been published before in India, and Idarah Al-Quran have in fact reproduced its photocopy, but they have added the addition “under the navel” with their impure hands which was not present in the original manuscript.”
Shaykh Thanaullah Zia wrote furthermore: “Sayid Muhibullah Shah Rashidi denied this clearly. Here is the Bayan of Shah Sahib: “An Idarah from Karachi took a (photocopy of a) manuscript from us of “Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah” to publish it, but in two places they have added words to the Hadith of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala)’s Messenger which are not present in the original Manuscript, rather all the Maktabah of Pak and Hind that have a manuscript of this book, none of them has this word. This book was first published in Hyderabad then maybe in Bombay but they did not see these words in their Manuscripts, this is why they did not publish these words, despite that the people of Hyderabad are Hanafi, but the people of Karachi have exceeded the limits, Apna Ulu sidha karne ke lie, they have added words from themselves in Ahadith. They did not have fear of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta’ala) about the result of such an action in His tribunal and about the shameful consequences they will face. Is this contribution to Hadith or extreme fraud and a great treachery? For the moment we have only seen two inventions of these people, but we fear what they could have done in other places. Brothers, these are the actions of Hanafi Muqalideen…”
Note: We have a photocopy of this letter, whoever desires to loot at it can see it.”
Shaykh Thanaullah gave these details of the manuscript of Pir Jandha:
“This copy was started by Shaykh Fath Muhammad An-Nizamani Al-Hanafi in 7 Sha’ban 1317 for Sayid Abu Turab Rushdullah Rashidi Sahib Al-‘Ilm Ar-Rabi’, and it was completed on Sunday 9 Rabi’ al-Awwal 1321 before Thuhr.”
He also quoted from the Risalah Makhtutah of “Darj Ad-Durar fi wad’ Al-Aydi ‘ala Sudur” p 62 of As-Sayid Rushdullah Shah Rashidi that the manuscript in his possession did not have this addition:
“And this manuscript does not contain at the end of the Hadith “under the navel” as As-Sayid Rushdullah Shah Rashidi wrote: “Know that it is accepted by the two sides (that of Shaykh Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi and Shaykh Muhammad Hashim Sindhi) that some of the Manuscripts of Musannaf contain the Hadith of Wail with the addition “under the navel” and some do not contain it and upon this is my manuscript of Musannaf that is taken (Manqulah) from the Manuscript of Musannaf of Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abid As-Sindhi that is present now in Maktabah Al-Mahmudiyah in Madinah Munawwarah” (Makhtutah of “Darj Ad-Durar fi wad’ Al-Aydi ‘ala Sudur” p 62)
Shaykh Thanaullah said that the copyist of this manuscript for Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi is Shaykh ‘Inayatullah Al-Hanafi and he copied it in 1229. See the scan of the last page of this manuscript with the name of Shaykh ‘Inayatullah and date, and it is told to be a copy from Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi’s manuscript of Maktabah Al-Mahmudiyah.
See photocopies of the last page of manuscript of Pir Jandha as given by Shaykh Thanaullah Zia:
And Shaykh Fath Muhammad An-Nizamani said this manuscript is taken from a copy send by Shaykh Shamsul Haqq Al-’Azimabadi, and the manuscript of ‘Allamah Al-‘Azimabadi is lost until now, so we could see who copied it for him from the manuscript of ‘Abid As-Sindhi.
But the problem is that the manuscript of ‘Abid As-Sindhi is that of Maktabah Al-Mahmudiyah in Madinah. This manuscript contains this addition as shown by Muhammad ‘Awammah who used it to prove the addition “under the navel”. He also told that Muhsin ibn Muhsin Az-Zaraqi wrote it in 1229 for ‘Abid As-Sindhi.
While in the manuscript of Shaykh Rushdullah Ar-Rashidi that is taken from Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi’s manuscript, there is not this addition as shown in the scan shown by Shaykh Zubayr Ali Zay, and as attested by Shaykh Rushdullah Ar-Rashidi in “Darj Ad-Durar”, his great son Muhibullah Shah Ar-Rashidi, Shaykh Irshad Ul Haqq Athari and Shaykh Thanaullah Zia.
And the manuscript of Pir Jandha tells that ‘Inayatullah Al-Hanafi wrote in in 1229 and the copy in the hands of Abu ‘Awammah tells that Muhsin ibn Muhsin wrote it in 1229.
Hamad ibn Abdillah Al-Jum’ah and Muhammad ibn Ibrahim Al-Luhaydan have recently published a copy of Musannaf ibn Abi Shaybah, these noble Shuyukh took help of 11 Manuscripts to publish it, and this is the list of them
1) Manuscript Dar Al-Kutub Al-Wataniyah of Tunis
2) Manuscript Al-Maktabah Al-Mahmudiyah of Madinah
3) Manuscript Az-Zahiriyah (first) of Damascus
4) Manuscript Az-Zahiriyah (second) of Damascus
5) Manuscript Jami’ah Islamiyah (first) in Madinah
6) Manuscript Jami’ah Islamiyah (second) in Madinah
7) Manuscript Ahmad Ath-Thalith in Turkey
8) Manuscript of Jami’ah Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Su’ud Al- Islamiyah in Ryad
9) Published version of Salafiyah in India
10) Published version of Imdadiyah in Makkah
11) Published version of Dar ‘Alim Al-Kutub in Ryad
Al-Luhaydan and Al-Jum’ah have also mentioned in notes of their published copy that the manuscript of ‘Abid Sindhi of Maktabah Mahmudiyah contains this addition, but they said: “The handwriting differs in the middle from the beginning and the end. Maybe Abid As-Sindhi employed two copyists for it.”
And they also told that the manuscript of Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi contains many mistakes in writing, many Isnads are omitted, and although this manuscript is famous for its photocopies being spread in many places, but it is a weak manuscript.
And even Muhammad ‘Awammah agreed it is not reliable.
So this would mean that this manuscript had two copyists, one being ‘Inayatullah Al-Hanafi and the other Muhsin ibn Muhsin Az-Zaraqi, and ‘Allamah Al-‘Azimabadi obtained the one written by ‘Inayatullah Al-Hanafi not having this addition and Fath An-Nizamani copied it for Shaykh Rushdullah Ar-Rashidi, or maybe the copyist for Al-‘Azimabadi erred and dropped this addition or Fath An-Nizamani dropped it by mistake, Allah knows best.
Yet there is no mention of ‘Inayatullah Al-Hanafi on the copy of ‘Abid As-Sindhi and there is no mention of Az-Zaraqi on the manuscript of Pir Jandha. So there is a mystery here, what really happened?
And in all cases, everybody agrees that the manuscript of Shaykh ‘Abid As-Sindhi is weak.
And Al-Luhaydan and Al-Jum’ah had eight manuscripts, and only two had this addition, the one of Az-Zubaydi who dropped the Athar or Ibrahim An-Nakhi and the one of ‘Abid As-Sindhi that is weak. And all other manuscripts that have both the Athar of An-Nakh’i and the Marfu’ Hadith of Wail do not have this addition.
So this strengthens the saying of Shaykh Muhammad Hayat As-Sindhi, and this is why Al-Luhaydan and Al-Jum’ah did not add it in the Matn of the Hadith.
May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, his companions and those who follow them.
Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan