[TYPE THE COMPANY NAME]

The Source Of Allegation Of

Tah:ri:f made by Mirza:
Jhelumi: on Muslim :3597,
AND Refutation of the
source ,even before the
birth of Mirza Jhelumi:
[b:1977 CE]
Defending the Tradition of Muslim From the
Allegation of Tah:ri:f
Talat Zahra Naqvi
09-Jun-19

The Source Of Allegation Of Tah:ri:f made by Mirza: Jhelumi: on Muslim :3597, AND Refutation of the
 Page 1 of 9

source ,even before the birth of Mirza Jhelumi: [b:1977 CE]

Page 1 of 9
 Page 2 of 9

The Source Of Allegation Of Tah:ri:f made by Mirza: Jhelumi: on Muslim :3597

Engineer ‘:Ali: Mirza has made an allegation on he H:adi:th 3597 of Holy Muslim that is of Tah:ri:f.

He further alleges that he no one was able to defend his allegation.

But when investigated it is found that this allegation is borrowed from an ‘Ith:na: ‘Ashrite , whose
author died long long before the birth of the Mirza Jhelumi: .

How ever the said author made this objection on a Tradition of D-r Manth:u:r.

The very same objection was applied by Mirza Jhelumi , andafter borrowing it he applied to the
Tradition of Holy Muslim No:-3597.

How ever this objection was powerfully refuted by Maula:na: ‘:Abdush Sh-ku:r Lakhnavi RH: in His
famous book Instruction to the Perplexed [Tanbi:h ‘Al H:a:’irain].

The very same Answer refutes the allegation of Engineer of Jhelum correctly and rightly.

This shews that the Engineer of Jhelum the Greatest Heretic Mind of fifteen Century AH is just a
collector and does not have an original mind.

Our discussion shall consist on several Preliminaries and an Epilogue.

Page 2 of 9
 Page 3 of 9

It shall now be clear that Mirza Jhelumi: is CERTAINLY NOT a Sunni . Whether he be in ‘Ahluttashaiyu’: or
not , is up to the Sub Sects of the Sect of ‘Ahluttashaiu:’ , say Zaidiah or Twelvers or ‘Isma’:i:lah , is up to
them , or he is a founder of New Sub Sect in ‘AHLUTTASHAIYU’: .We are just responsible to declare that
Mirza Jhelumi is Certainly out of the Sect of Sunnism with Certainty and Certitude.

First Preliminary

Long before the birth of the Engineer of Jhelum, even before the Division of British Subcontinent there
was a book published by Maulana H:amid H:usain . The title of the book was ‘Istaqs:a: ‘Al ‘Ifha:m.

In this book the author proposed an idea that if an ‘A:yah becometh Mansu:kh ‘Att-la:vah , it ceaseth
to be[ a part/verse] of Sacred Qur’a:n.

Based on this theory he tried to shew a tradition of a book of ‘Ima:m Suyu:t:i: RH: as a Tradition of
Tah:ri:f oFil Qur’a:n in the said Sunni book of the Great Scholar Suyu:t:i: RH: .

Second Preliminary

This very theory was borrowed by Engineer of Jhelum and he applied it on the Tradition of Holy Muslim.

How ever he was inspired by Anti –Islamic sites like Answering Islam and Answering Muslims.

Additionally he was inspired by Shia Pen .

He used the Idea of Maulavi H:a:mid H:usain to shew that it is wrong and incorrect to say that the ‘Ayah
about the five Sucking of Milk by a baby for the establishment of Motherhood of Milk cannot be
considered as Masu:kh: ‘att-la:vah [Abrogation Of Recitation/Reading].

This objection is based on the Dogma that when a Verse is Abrogated from the Recitation then it cannot
be written in the Text of Holy Qur’a:n and there fore it ceaseth to be Qur’a:n.

It is necessary to shew that Mirza: Jhelumi: did not mentioned that this objection which is general in
nature and may be applied to more than one Traditions in Sunnism is borrowed one and not his
innovation.

Third Preliminary

It is necessary to quote the important part of the book in English from a Secondary Source, that was
itself written long before the Division of British India. The Famous book Tanbi:h ‘Al H:a’irain.

It may be noted that there is a Tradition in D-r Manth:u:r that Saiyiduna: ‘Ibn ‘:Umar RD: discouraged and prohibited to claim that one
hath Mamorised Entire Qur’a:n since a Number of the verses of Sacred Qur’a:n are gone.

The Sunni Explanation or Commentary of the Tradition is that the word “Gone” is used to mean “Abrogation in Reading/Recitation”.

The very same Commentary or Explanation of the Tradition of Holy Muslim :-3597

Maula:na: H:a:mid H:usain criticises the Sunni Commentary as follow:-

Page 3 of 9
 Page 4 of 9

“ As far as to interpret the sentence [Of ‘Ibn ‘:Umar] that the Respected One intended by the word “Gone” the Abrogation Of
Recitation , is a joke . since what so ever is Abrogated From Recitation is Excluded from [the Text Of] Sacred Qur’a:n, and
there is no meaning to consider it as Qur’:an and due to this reason the claim of Mamorising the Entire Qur’a:m shall be
correct and it cannot be permitted to prohibit from the claim [of Memorising Entire Qur’a:n].

So the interpretation repel the evidence of Subtraction in the [Text Of] Holy Qur’a;n as Tah:ri:f /Corruption/Manipulation
but it becometh the evidence of insanity of ‘Ibn ‘:Umar RD: that he prohibited to claim the memorisation of Entire Sacred
Qur’a:n due to the reason of going away of some parts [Verses] of Holy Qur’a:n due to Abrogation of Recitation/Reading
[Mansu:kh: ‘Att-la:vah].

This interpretation shall open the portal of satire and condemnation upon ‘Ibn ‘:Umar RD: ; and it may be the case that to
save the Sacred Qur’a:n from the Imperfection [of Tah:ri:f] is more preferable then to save [ the perfections of] Sanity

, Grace and Respect of ‘Ibn ‘:Umar RD: .”

Forth Preliminary

This criticism on the Sunni Commentary does acknowledge that Sunni Answer to the Allegation of
Corruption by considering the act of Going in the meaning of Abrogation of Recitation is powerful and is
so sufficient that it doeth save the Tradition from the allegation of Tah:ri:f . How ever this interpretation
doeth imply irrational mind of ‘Ibn ‘:UmarRD:

Now the Sunnites have only two alternative , either to refute the Allegation of Tah:ri:f by Naskh: ‘Att-
la:vah or to accept the insanity and irrationality of ‘Ibn ‘:UmarRD: .

Similarly if the same answer is given to the allegation of Tah:ri:f on the Tradition of Holy Muslim 3597

, there can be an objection OF INSANITY AND IRRETIONALITY on Saiyiduna: ‘:A:’ishah RD: but the answer
to the allegation of Corruption /Tah:ri:f on the Tradition 3597 of Muslim is perfect atleast in regard to
refute the allegation of Tah:ri:f.

So this means that if Saiyiduna: Navavi RD: has considered the tradition as the Naskh: ‘Att-la:vah then
his consideration does answer the allegation of Tah:ri:f yet this answer implies some imperfections in
the thinking and mind of Saiyidatuna: ‘:A:’ishah RD: .

But Mirza: Jhelumi: did not go that deep in the discussion. He hastely rejected the answer on the ground

No Abrogation of any sort is possible after the death of Holy Prophet. There fore this Tradition cannot be
of Naskh: ‘Att-la:vah but of Tah:ri:f .He did not considered the possibility for Saiyiduna: ‘:A:’isha’s
sentencewhich H:a:mid H:usain Sb considered for the sentence of Saiyiduna: ‘Ibn ‘:Umar RD: .

This does shew that he did borrowed the objection from Maula:na: H:a:mid H:usain Sb but was unable
to go deep in his Criticism.

It is a garlic example of borrowing an objection from the Criticism of a greater scholar but NOT going
deep in the Criticism.

Page 4 of 9
 Page 5 of 9

That is the reason that Mirza Jhelumi: discards the answer of ‘Ima:m Navavi RD: with out acknowledging

the Power of the Answer of ‘Ima:m Navavi: .

Fifth Preliminary

Maula:na: ‘:Abdush Sh-ku:r RD: made a logical and powerful answer to the criticism of Maula:na:
H:a:mid H:usain and refuted his principle idea upon which his criticism is based.

The Critique of the Criticism of Maula:na: H:a:mid H:usain by Maula:na: ‘:Abdush Sh-ku:r is presented as
follow:-

“
As far as has said “ this tradition cannot be predicated by ‘Abrogation [of
Recitation] , since the ‘Ibn ‘:Umar RD: hath said the portion of the Text of
Qur’a:n that Hath gone ,as Qur’a:n ; and one that is Mansu:kh: ‘Att-la:vah
[Abrogation of Recitation] cannot be called Qur’a:n ,as it is excluded from

The Reality Of Qur’a:n ; is the result thinking and power of Knowledge [ a

polite satire for incorrect view in regard to the issue ] rather is power of pen
[ an other satire of stated above nature ] , that does not cease at any place.
Let him be asked , from where you have known the abrogation [of recitation]
is excluded from the Reality and Quiddity of Sacred Qur’a:n ?

What is the Reality of Qur’a:n except the Intrinsic (Esoteric) Speech of G-d ,
so Do what so ever the amount [ i.e number] of verses are Abrogated [in
regard to recitation] cease to be Esoteric Speech of G-d? Does the number of
‘Ah:a:dith: that are abrogated cease to be Speech. This strange thing would
not be said by any one except Maulavi H:a:mid H:usain.

Perhaps Maulavi: H:a:mid H:usain has seen the definition of Qur’a:n in the
books of Principles of Fiqh.

“( Sacred Qur’a:n is) One that that is written in M-s:a:h:-f [Copies] and
conveyed to us with consecutiveness /successiveness [Tava:tur]” .

As this definition is not applicable to the verses which are Abrogated [regard
to recitation] , so he [Maulavi H:a:mid H:usain Sb] opined that verses that are
abrogated [in regard to recitation] , are excluded from the reality of Qur’a:n.

Page 5 of 9
 Page 6 of 9

But why Respected Maulavi H:a:mid H:usain did not understand that the
terms of the [Nomenclature of the] Principles Of Fiqh are established after
the period of S:ah:a:bah RD: .

So these terms can not be claimed to used in the Speech [Speeches] of

S:ah:a:bah RD: .

Rather the Terminological definitions can not be applied to the Unabrogated

verses in the period of Holy Prophet when there were no copies in form of
books.

The Principlists [of Sunniites] (Those who study Principles and Definitions in
‘Ahlussunnah] have proposed such definitions to exclude the Abrogated
Verses [in regard to recitation] , since in there period the Abrogated Verses
[in regard to recitation] could not be said to be Qur’a:n due to the lack of
Successiveness / Consecutiveness [Tava:tur]; and they could not be given
any status more than ‘Ah:a:di:th: .

But those who had heard them directly from Holy Prophet Himself, there
could be no doubt in there minds [they could not have no doubt]. Saiyiduna:
‘Ibn ‘:Umar would have listened these ‘Aya:t directly from Holy Prophet ,there
he had the right/h:aqq to call these verses abrogated [in regard to recitation]
as Qur’a:n ; and since they were not in the [Text of (Copy/M-s-h:-f]) ] Qur’a:n ,

Then his Precautions had the appetite [Taqa:d:ah] that without these
verses [which are abrogated from reading/recitation] , is to prohibite the
claim of Memorising

The Entire Qur’a:n ” .

Tambi:h ‘Al H:a:’irain Bi H:-ma:y-tul ‘Al Kita:b ‘Al Mubi:n by Maula:nah

‘:Abdush Sh-ku:r Lakhnavi RH: [ Pages 65,66,67,68]

The same answer can be used for the Tradition of Holy Muslim 3597 narrated by Saiyidatuna: ‘:A:’ishah
RD: .

This meaneth that WHEN Saiyidatuna: ‘:A:’ishah RD: said :-

Page 6 of 9
 Page 7 of 9

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the
Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was
abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace
be upon him) died and it was recited from in the Qur'an.

The word Qur’a:n in the Tradition is discussed above .

Now this Tradition is correctly Explained in the above meaning and commentary .

Now we have an other tradition in Muvat:t:a:’

Book 030, Hadith Number 017.

This tradition is also explained as such.

Regarding to the Definition of Naqlan ‘Ilaina: Mutva:tiran , if this definition is applied to the Qur’a:n
directly uttered by Holy Prophet , the condition Tava:tur is not fulfilled. Since two rational Supposita ,
even if one of the two is the HOLY PROPHET ,even then it is not the condition of Tava:tur.

So the condition is not fulfilled.

But one cannot say that Qur’a:n recited by Holy Prophet is not Qur’a:n. [‘Astagh:farullah].

Sixth Preliminary

It is now clear that the definition of Qur’a:n as stablished by Principlists of ‘Ahlussunnah excludeth the
verses that are Abrogated from Recitation.

But they impose some conditions to exclude Gh:air Mutvatir Readings as well even if they are Mashhu:r.

As a Principle any thing that is not Mutva:tir is an Abrogated Verse and excludeth from the Text of
Qur’a:n.

But during the time of S:ah:a:bah there the word Qur’a:n was used in an other definition that is the
Divine Speech which / that is descended and revealed to Holy Prophet.

In this case there are some instances in tradition whether a Tradition useth the Term Qur’a:n in a
Definition that is no more used.

The other definition is now used in General and the previous one may be found in some tradiions only.

Page 7 of 9
 Page 8 of 9

This has made every thing positive and annihilated the confusions and doubts which may cause
problems in the mind oft hose who have not studied the matter in detail.

Seventh Preliminary

Mirza: of Jhelum himself have claimed that Qur’a:n is saved between two covers [Tad-fain].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWl-z8HN2JI

11:45 to 12:30

If this is a definition of Qur’a:n then if the covers of a copy of Holy Qur’a:n are removed then this means
that Qur’a:n hath ceased to be Saved. Is the Engineer going to say that just by removing the covers from
the Holy Qur’a:n , Qur’a: Ceaseth to be Qur’a:n or Qur’a:n Ceaseth to be saved? Even if in the pages of
the coverless copy the Entire Text is written?

There are some Qur’a:n that are written on a Single large sheet , in micro-fonds with out any
cover.Doeth it cease to be Qur’a:n due to absence of Covers.

Suppose that there is a copy of Holy Qur’a:n which has lost one of its cover, doeth it mean that now this
ceaseth to be Qur’a:n just because it ceaseth to satisfy the definition of two covers.

What if a copy of Sacred Qur’a:n is made without covers. Is this not Qur’a:n just because there are no
covers o it.

So this is a proof that the latter definition are coined for the purpose convenience.

Epilogue

Now we have shewn that some words do have a number of meanings in the time of S:ah:a:bah RD: but
latter some of them were ceased to be used, in latter periods.

Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9

Page 9 of 9