Following are some books in refutation of Mahmud Sa’eed Mamduh Ash-Shafa’i Al-Misri. To know about him read this.
By Shaykh Muhammad Nasirud-Deen Al-Albani
Al-Maktaba Al-Islamiya, Oman, Ed. 1409AH
Although the book is regarding the different topic but the Shaykh has refuted some of Mahmud Sa’eed’s point in the Muqaddimah (pg.49-71). He mainly pointed out the ignorance of Mahmud Sa’eed in his book Tanbeeh Al-Muslim with regards to the opinions of Ulama and verdicts of his own Shuyukh. While he critize the Shaykh for weakening some reports in Sahih Muslim and accuses him of contradicting the Ijma’, but actually his elders like Ahmed Al-Ghumari, Abdullah Al-Ghumari and Al-Kawthari, whom he highly respects, were foremost in criticizing some famous reports of Sahihayn. Then he discusses some reports on the issue.
Download: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=3814 (5MB)
 Rid’ Al-Jani al-Muta’addi ‘ala al-Albani
This book was written in response of “Tanbeeh Al-Muslim” by Mahmud Sa’eed which was written to show that Al-Albani broke Ijma’ by criticizing the hadith of Sahih Muslim. Mahmud Sa’eed, in his book, listed several hadith which according to him were declared weak by Shaykh Al-Albani. Shaykh Tariq in this book showed that in most cases Shaykh Al-Albani would only declare the isnad to be weak while he would declare the hadith to be Sahih. Many a time he would state this in the same place which was quoted by Shaykh Al-Albani, but Mahmud Sa’eed would ignore it and quotes only the part which suites his agenda. Among fifty narrations mentioned by Mamduh, only ten are those which were declared to be weak by Shaykh. Shaykh Tariq then goes on to discuss all the ten hadith one by one. The book is very beneficial as this is not just a refutation, but it also has lots of beneficial discussion on hadith based topic especially regarding the authenticity of Sahihayn.
Download: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=2385 (5MB)
 Talee’ah Siyanat al-Hadeeth wa Ahlihi min ta’addi Mahmud Sa’eed wa Jahlihi
This is a short but powerful refutation of “Rafa’ al-Manarah li takhreej ahadeeth at-Tawassul wa az-Ziyarah” of Mahmud Sa’eed Mamduh by none other than Shaykh Tariq Awadhallah
This refutation is divided into two parts. The first section discusses the general methodology of Mamduh, and the second section is specially to discuss his book Rafa’ Al-Manarah. This book, like any other book of Shaykh Tariq, is very beneficial
by Shaykh ‘Amr bin Abdul Mun’im Saleem
This was written in refutation of Rafa’ al-Minarah of Mahmud Sa’eed. Click here to read the index of the book.
by Abu Hamza Sayyid bin Muhammad Al-Minyawi
First edition, year 2007CE, Al-Maktaba Al-Islamiyyah, Cairo.
This book particularly discuss the hadith of blind man and answers the claims raised in Rafa’ Al-Minarah.
by Abu Hamza Sayyid bin Muhammad al-Minyawi
This book discusses the hadith of Malik Ad-Daar. It discusses the narration in detail. The author attempted to prove the hadith to be weak due to seven reasons, as follows:
(1) Malik ad-Daar was Majhool al-Haal
(2) This was reported lonely by those narrators who were not expected to bore the knowledge of such incident.
(3) Irsaal [Malik ad-Daar was not the direct witness to this incident]
(4) Possibility of Disconnection between Abu Salih and Malik ad-Daar
(5) ‘an’ana of Al-A’amash
(6) This report contradict the religion
(7) Contradiction with the action of Umar.
Besides that he refuted several other argument of the author of Rafa’ al-Minarah.
by Abu Hamza Sayyid bin Muhammad al-Minyawi
This is another book from series of refutations of Mamduh’s Rafa’ al-Minarah by al-Minyawi. This book discusses the hadith ”my life is good for you and my death is good for you”.
 Talee’ah Fiqh Al-Isnad wa kashf haqeeqat Al-Mu’taridh ‘ala al-A’immah An-Nuqad (pg.110)
by Shaykh Tariq ‘Awadhallah
A brief refutation of At-Ta’reef of Mahmud Sa’eed.
Download: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=4939 (2.12MB)
by Abdullah bin Ubud bin Ahmad Ba Humran
First edition, year 2009CE, Maktaba Al-Imam Al-Albani, Sana, Yemen.
Refutation of At-Ta’reef of Mahmud Sa’eed in detail.
Download: http://www.archive.org/download/zad65/zad65.pdf (18.2MB)
 Ahkam Al-Hadeed ‘ala Mahmud Sa’eed (pg.554)
by Abdul Fattah Mahmud Sarur
First edition, 2007CE, Daar Adhwa As-Salaf, Riyadh.
Another refutation of Mamduh’s At-Ta’reef.
Insha Allah, as soon as I find any new book available online I will update it into the list.
أعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم
61. And whoso disputeth with thee concerning him, after the knowledge which hath come unto thee, say (unto him): Come! We will summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly (to our Lord) and (solemnly) invoke the curse of Allah upon those who lie. [Surah Aale ‘Imran, verse 61]
Argument from the verse
This is one of the evidences which shia give to prove the Imamah of Ali bin Abi Talib (ra) after the Messenger of Allah (saw). Their argument is that, since the word “your sons” refer to Hasan and Husain, while “your women” refer to Fatima, therefore “yourselves” must be referring to Ali bin Abu Talib, and that is because the Prophet (pbuh), during Mubahila, came up only with these personalities and no one else.
They further argue that, since Allah calls Ali the “nafs” of the Messenger of Allah, (pbuh), therefore he must be similar to Prophet (pbuh) in each and every speciality except that which has been told.
The argument is as weak as the house of spider, as you will see soon.
Firstly, the word used for “yourselves” is “anfusana” which is a plural form. This indicates that there were more than one who were worthy to be called as the “self of the Messenger of Allah (s)”. And the Prophet(s) coming up with only Ali in reference to “anfusana” (yourselves) doesn’t falsify its implication for others. Take for example the verse “And [as for] those who put away their wives by likening their backs to the backs of their mothers” (58:3). Here, the verse uses plural form even though the cause for its revelation was a single person. But still the implication is not limited to that person only and that is why Allah (swt) used the plural form. This refutes the contention of At-Tabtaba’i, the shi’a author of “Tafseer Al-Meezan”, who took this verse of Zihaar, present in Surah Al-Mujadilah (58:3), as a proof to claim that the word “anfusana”, although plural, is restricted to Ali bin Abi Talib (ra). He also took this evidence from “Allah has certainly heard the saying of those who said: Surely Allah is poor and we are rich” (3:181) and “And they ask you as to what they should spend” (2:219).
Interestingly all these verses are very strong evidences against what he was trying to prove, as in the case of verses of Zihar. As for the verse of Ale ‘Imran “Allah has certainly heard the saying of those…”, than this was revealed for the Jews, and its implication applied to a group of Jews who held such a view. This ugly statement was attributed to a group of Jews by Ibn Abbas, Hasan Al-Basari and Qatadah as reported by Tabari (7/443) and Ibn Abi Hatim. As for the argument of Shi’i At-Tabtaba’i then he probably concluded it from the report of Ibn Ishaq through Ibn Abbas which was recorded by Tabari (7/441-442) and Ibn Hisham in his “Seerah”, according to which the statement was said by Finhaas who was a Jewish scholar, and he said it during a Majlis of Jewish people. Ibn Ishaq narrates it from Muhammad bin Abi Muhammad the mawla of Zaid bin Thaabit, and he was not known. But this same Tafsir has come from Ikramah and As-Suddi. But as said before, just because the cause of of the revelation was one person or Prophet (S) was seen applying it to one person, doesn’t mean its implication restricted to that single person, this is quite obvious in light of several verses of Ahkam which were revealed because of a single person but it applies to others also. The above verse was revealed for Finhaas, but it applies to all those Jews who agreed with him and this include the Jews who were sitting in his Majlis. Shaykhul Islam has excellent speech on this matter of “limitation of the verse to its cause of revelation” in his Muqaddima Usul At-Tafseer which is in his “Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa” (13/338-340). The same answer goes for the verse 219 of Surah Al-Baqarah. In conclusion, the argument of At-Tabtaba’i has nothing in it to change the plural into singular.
In our case here, the verse used anfusana, which is plural, indicates that there were others who could be called “nafs” of Rasulullah (S). As for why Prophet (s) did not come with others, then we come to it later on.
Secondly, the use of “anfusana” doesn’t necessitate equality or even similarity. Allah (SWT) states “why did not the believing men and believing women, when they heard it, think well of their own selves (anfusahum)” [24:12], “therefore turn to your Creator [penitently], so kill your people [anfusakum i.e. yourselves]” [2:54] that doesn’t mean those who worshipped were like those who did not. “and do not kill your people [yourselves i.e. anfusakum]” [4:29]. “and do not find fault with your own people [anfusakum]” [49:11]. Refer to “Minhaj As-Sunnah” (7/87-89).
Similarly, the statement of Prophet (S) to Ali (ra) “you are from me, and I am from you” [Sahih Bukhari], and his (SAW) statement regarding Julaibib (ra) “he is from me, and I am from him” [Sahih Muslim], and his statements regarding Ash’aris “they are from me, and I am from them” [Sahih Muslim]. All these statements do not indicate that Ali, Julaibib or Ash’ari brothers were equal to Prophet (S) in quality, except for the Prophethood.
Allah (SWT) mention a statement of Ibrahim (AS) in his Book:
“My Lord! surely they have led many men astray; then whoever follows me, he
is surely of me”. [Surah Ibrahim, verse 36]
No person with intelligence would conclude from the above verse that those who followed Ibrahim (pbuh) were similar to him in all aspects except Prophethood. Likewise, no one can claim that the followers of Taloot, who did not drink from the river, were like him in characteristics because of his (Taloot’s) statement “whoever then drinks from it, he is not of me, and whoever does not taste of it, he is surely of me” [Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 249].
Likewise Shia Muhaddith Al-Kulaini relates (2/170, Kitab Al-Eeman wa Al-Kufr) a narration, which is Hasan as per the verdict of Al-Majlisi, through Imam Ja’af As-Sadiq in which he said regarding relation of Muslims with each other, “he is from you, and you are from him”.
Now the question arises as to why did not the Messenger of Allah came up with other people like Abu Bakr and Umar, and his other daughters.
Shaikh Al-Islam states:
“the reason that (only) these were invited because the command for each group was to call for their sons, women and their self from among their closest relatives. So everyone of them should call for their sons, women and the closest men to their lineage. And these were the closest to the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) in their lineage, even though there were those who were more superior to them near him (pbuh). So the command was not to call for the superior people from them because requirement for each of them was to call for their special relatives. That is because the fear a person have for them and mercy which he have for his near relatives, and that is why they were specialized in the incident of Al-Kisa and supplication (during that incident). The Mubahila is based on justice, hence they (the Christians) were also required to come with their closest relatives to their Nasab, and they have feared for them which they do not have for other (non-relatives). And that was the reason they quit from the Mubahila as they knew that he (pbuh) was on truth so if had done mubahila its curse would fall on them and their family. In fact many a times a person have fear for his child which he does not have for himself.” [Al-Minhaj (5/23-24)]
As for why the Prophet (pbuh) did not come with his other daughters then this is because of the fact that they were not alive during the incident.
And reason that he didn’t come with his wives was because the fact that a person, normally, have much more love for his children as compared to his wives. So if the Prophet would have come with his wives then this would have given the other party a chance for taking the mubahila lightly. For people of that time, putting the life of their wives was much easy as compared to their children and those who were related to them through Nasab. Wallahu a’alam
 The incident is proven, as in Sahih Muslim (2404)
 See, Muhadhraat fi Al-E’etiqadat (1/25-26) by the Rafidhi Ali Al-Meelani, “Tafdheel Ameer Al-Mu’mineen” (pg.20-23) by Al-Mufeed, “Minhaj Al-Kiramah” [1/70 with Sharh by Al-Meelani] by Al-Hili under “ninth evidence” from Quran for the Imamah of Ali.
 Refer to Tafsir Ibn Katheer (2/155)
 For example, Ayah of Az-Zihar, which has already been mentioned, Ayah of Li’aan, Al-Kalalah etc were revealed for single person but applied to any other muslim having similar condition described in the verses.
There had been disagreement among scholars with regards to the meaning of “Al-Kursiyy” mention in verse 255 of Surah Al-Baqarah, well famous as “Ayat Al-Kursiyy”.
Hence, according to Ibn Abbas, As-Suddi, Muslim Al-Butain and Adh-Dhahhaak, Al-Kursiyy is the place of Feet (of Allah). This is also reported from Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari. Some said, it means “Allah’s knowledge”. This was reported from Ibn Abbas and Sa’eed bin Jubair. While some other said, Al-Kursiyy is Al-Arsh itself. This is reported from Hasan Al-Basari, and both the laters are weak opinion.
Opinion-1: Al-Kursiyy is the place of two Feet
This was the saying of Ibn Abbas (ra) as recorded by Abdur-Razzaq in his Tafsir (3/350), Abu Abdullah Al-Hakim in “Al-Mustadrak” (3116) and declared it authentic, through the way of Sufiyan Ath-Thawri from Ammar Ad-Duhniyy from Muslim Al-Bateen from Sa’eed bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas….mawqoofan. Ibn Katheer attributed this to Tafsir of Wakee’ through the same chain of Sufiyan.
Its narrators are all trustworthy, from the narrators of Sahih. Those who declared it authentic includes Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam, Abu Zur’ah Ar-Razi, Abu Sa’eed Ad-Darimi, Dhahabi, Ibn Katheer, Al-Albani.
In “Mu’jam Al-Kabeer” (12/39) of Tabarani, Abu Muslim Al-Kashhiyy narrates from Abu ‘Aasim from Sufiyan from ‘Ammar Ad-Duhniyy from Sa’eed bin Jubair from Ibn Abbas. In this sanad Muslim Al-Bateen is missed from Isnad between Ammar Ad-Duhniyy and Sa’eed bin Jubair. Hasan As-Saqqaf made it one of the reasons for the weakness of this report. He states:
“And the narration of Tabarani in his Mu’ajam Al-Kabeer, as preceded, is from the narration of Ammar Ad-Duhniyy from Ibn Jubair directly without Al-Bateen being between them. And Ammar Ad-Duhniyy did not narrate from Sa’eed bin Jubair as he himself accepted…………..And all these necessitate Idhtirab and weakness of the report, and its unconformity from Ibn Abbas.” [I’alam Ath-Thaqalain, published with “Al-Qawl Al-Asad” of Abdul Aziz Al-Ghumari, pg. 90]
Answers to his contention are as follows:
- Considering that the report of Tabarani is preserved, it doesn’t necessitate Idhtirab of weakness. This is because if Tabarani’s narration is mahfooz , then mostly it could be said that Ammar Ad-Duhniyy sometimes relate it in Mursal way, and since we know who exactly is between Ad-Duhniyy and Ibn Jubair then there remains no reason to consider this narration to be weak. It is nothing new when some narrator reports a narration in Mudallas or Mursal form while some other time he narrates the same report by mentioning the missing reporter. No one said this necessitates weakness. Yes, when the actual narrator is not known then it makes the narration weak. This is if the isnad of Tabarani is correct, which is not the case actually.
- Declaring this whole report to be Mudhtarib based on a single Isnad is not correct. From Sufiyan Ath-Thawri, this was reported by Abdur-Razzaq, Wakee’, Abu Ahmed, Abu Aasim and Abdur-Rahman bin Mahdiyy, while the disconnection only exist in the report of Abu Aasim An-Nabeel, and that too in a single report of Abu Muslim who was opposed by other students of Abu Aasim. From Abu Aasim, this was reported by Ahmed bin Mansoor Ar-Rammadi, Muhammad bin Bashhaar, Muhammad bin Mu’adh and Abu Muslim Al-Kashhiyy, while the problem exists in the report of Abu Muslim Al-Kashhiyy only. Hence, if the isnad in Tabarani is not a mistake, then the report of majority from Sufiyan and Abu Aasim to be accepted.
- Khateeb Baghdadi (9/351) and Bayhaqi in “Al-Asma wa As-Sifat” report through the way of Abu Muslim from Abu Aasim, and in it they mention Muslim Al-Bateen. Dhiyaa Al-Maqdisi states in “Al-Ahadeeth Al-Mukhtarah” after relating the narration which doesn’t contain Muslim Al-Bateen, “This is how Tabarani narrates it in his Mu’jam, while in his Kitab As-Sunnah he added Muslim Al-Bateen in Isnad”. All this indicates that the isnad in Al-Mu’ajam is a mistake.
Hence, in conclusion, this report is authentic from the sayings of Ibn Abbas. As for those who made it marfoo’ from Prophet (S), then that is a mistake as it was notified by several scholars.
The same tafsir has been narrated from Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari (ra). Hence, it was reported by Ibn Jareer At-Tabari in his tafsir (5/398) through the way of Ammarah bin Umair from Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari as a Mawqoof report.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar declared this to be Sahih in “Fath Al-Bari” (8/199). Al-Albani said in “Ad-Da’eefa” (2/307), “Its chain is Sahih if Ammarah bin Umair heard it from Abu Musa, because he narrates from him (as it has been observed) through Abu Musa’s son Ibrahim.”
Shaykh Zahid Al-Kawthari considered this report of Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari to be weak based on Ammarah bin Umair who was listed by Imam Bukhari in his “Adh-Dhu’afa” (i.e. his book on weak narrators) as he said. Imam Al-Albani contradicted him in “Mukhtasar Al-Uluww” (pg.124) by saying, “a blantant mistake, and I don’t know if this happened from him unintentionally or he did it intentionally………I say this because Ammarah bin Umair was a Taba’i Thiqah with agreement, and the two Shaykhs reported from him in their Sahihs, and Ibn Hajar said regarding him, “Thiqah Thabt”. And (narrator) like of this couldn’t have been hidden from someone like Al-Kawthari. And he is not mentioned in “Adh-Dhu’afa” of Al-Bukhari as he thought, but in it is Ammarah bin Juwain who was Matrook.”
However, there is another ‘Ammarah bin Umair who narrates from Umm Tufail the Hadith in which the anthropomorphic description of Allah is given. The report is Munkar and this narrator is unknown. Imam Dhahabi has mentioned him in “Meezan Al-E’etedal” (3/177) and said that Imam Bukhari listed him in his book on weak narrator (Adh-Dhu’afa). But this could not be found in the published version of Al-Bukhari’s “Adh-Dhu’afa”. Hasan Saqqaf, in his “Tanaqudhat Al-Albani” (2/289), attacked Al-Albani by saying that it might have been existed in the manuscripts possessed by Al-Dhahabi. This could be true, but the criticism of Al-Albani on Al-Kawthari was still correct.
The one listed by Al-Dhahabi has nothing to do with the Ammarah bin Umair who is narrating from Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari the tafsir of Al-Kursiyy. Ammarah who narrates from Umm Tufail is known only through a single report, which is Munkar, describing the anthropomorphic picture of Allah, Exalted is He. He has no other contribution in the field of Hadith. While Ammarah who is narrating the Tafsir of Kursiyy is the one who was Thiqah Thabt.
Besides that, the full name of Ammarah who narrates from Umm Tufail is not actually Ammarah bin ‘Umair as assumed by Imam Dhahabi. His name was Ammarah bin ‘Aamir. This is how Imam Bukhari described him in “At-Tarikh Al-Kabeer” (6/500) and “At-Tarikh As-Sagheer” (1/327). Also, Ibn Hibban and At-Tabarani named him as such, as quoted by Hafiz in “Lisan Al-Meezan” (4/278). And this is how it is mentioned by Ibn Abi Hatim in “Al-Jarh wa At-Ta’deel” (6/367). Hasan As-Saqqaf came across all these as he referenced Lisan Al-Meezan where Ibn Hajar contradicted Al-Dhahabi with regards to the name of narrator. The only thing with Shaykh Al-Albani was that he couldn’t recall the entry of Ammarah (the unknown one) in Al-Meezan, hence he denied any possibility of criticism of Al-Bukhari on Ammarah, while on the other hand he was quite sure that Bukhari couldn’t have listed Ammarah bin Umair among weak narrators as he himself took his report as Hujjah in his Sahih and other scholars also declared him Thiqah. And we have proven above that there were two people Ammarah bin ‘Umair and Ammarah bin ‘Aamir, the latter of which was unknown. Al-Kawthari deceptively messed him up with the trustworthy ‘Ammarah to make the report under discussion weak.
Opinion-2: Al-Kursiyy means Knowledge
This was the view of Sa’eed bin Jubair. Bukhari mentioned it in mu’allaq form in his “Sahih”, and Ibn Hajar (8/199) said that Sufiyan Ath-Thawri had recorded it in his Tafsir with a Sahih chain.
This was also reported through Ibn Abbas. Hence, Ibn Jareer relates in his Tafsir (5/397) through the way of Ja’far bin Abil Mugheerah from Sa’eed bin Jubair from Ibn ‘Abbas in mawqoof form. Likewise, it has been recorded by ‘Abd bin Humaid, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Al-Mundhir, Al-Bayhaqi, as in “Ad-Durr Al-Manthoor” by As-Suyuti.
All of its narrators are trustworthy, except there is some Kalam with regards to Ja’far. Ibn Hibban listed him in his “Ath-Thiqat”. His Tawtheeq was narrated through Ahmed bin Hanbal, as in “Al-‘Ilal wa Al-Ma’rifah” (3/102), while at another place (3/283) in the same book he said that he wasn’t Mashhoor and preferred Aslam Al-Minqari over him. Hafiz in his “Taqreeb” (1/64) said, “He was truthful (sadooq), but he would fall in doubts (sometimes)”, the same thing was said by Safiyud-Deen Al-Khazraji in “Khulasah At-Tahdheeb”. Hafiz Ibn Mandah said that he was not strong while narrating from Sa’eed bin Jubair. [Al-Meezan, 1/417]
Based on this, some scholars have criticized the particular narration, and they prefer the earlier report which talks about Al-Kursiyy being place of two Feet, over this. It is quite possible that the report was of Sa’eed bin Jubair and Ja’far made it through Sa’eed from Ibn Abbas. Ibn Katheer said regarding this report after recording it in “Al-Bidayah wa An-Nihayah” (1/14), “And preserved (Mahfooz) report from Ibn Abbas is that which has recorded by Al-Hakim in “Al-Mustadrak”….(then he mentioned the report of the Two Feet)”. Ibn Mandah said in “Ar-Radd ‘ala Al-Jahmiyyah” (pg.21) after relating this report, “no one supports him on it (la yutabi’u ‘alaih), and Ja’far was not strong while narrating from Sa’eed”. Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani considered this Tafsir of Al-Kursiyy to be Ghareeb i.e. odd, as in “Fath Al-Bari” (8/199).
Ibn Katheer said: Adh-Dhahhaak reported from Ibn Abbas, “If the seven heavens and earths are to flattened and then joined together, it would not account for Al-Kursiyy except like a ring in the desert”. Ibn Jareer said, narrated to me Yunus who said, Ibn Wahb informed me, he said, Ibn Zaid said, my father narrated to me that the messenger of Allah, (SAW), said, “the similitude of seven heavens with respect to Al-Kursiyy is like the seven Dirham thrown on a shield”. He (also) said, Abu Dharr said, I heard the messenger of Allah saying, “By the one in whose hand is my life, the likeness of Al-Kursi as compared to Al-Arsh is like a iron ring thrown in a desert”.
Then Hafiz Ibn Katheer mentioned another report from Ibn Marduyah with a different sanad. [Tafseer (1/520)]
The narration of Adh-Dhahhaak from Ibn Abbas is disconnected, as Adh-Dhahhaak didn’t hear from Ibn Abbas.
The narration of Ibn Wahb from Ibn Zaid from his father, is also weak. Ibn Zaid is Abdur-Rahman bin Zaid bin Aslam who, although a mufassir, was very weak in hadith. He also narrated the hadith of Tawassul of Adam (A.S.) which was declared fabricated by several scholars. His father Zaid bin Aslam didn’t hear from Abu Dharr.
Note: – Shaykh Al-Albani [in As-Saheeha (109)] firstly considered Ibn Zaid to be Umar bin Muhammad bin Zaid. However, he corrected his mistake [as in Adh-Dha’eefa (6118)] when he found the full name mentioned in the isnad of “Al-Azmah” by Abu Ash-Shaykh.
The narration of Ibn Marduyah, quoted by Ibn Katheer, contains Muhammad bin Abi As-Sirri and Muhammad bin Abdullah At-Tameemi both of whom were weak. Also Al-Qasim bin Muhammad Ath-Thaqafi was unknown.
There are some other narrations. Reported by Al-Bayhaqi in “Al-Asma wa As-Sifaat” through Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Basari who narrated it from Abdul Malik bin Juraij from ‘Ataa from Ubaid bin Umar Al-Laithi from Abu Dharr. This was also criticized by several scholar due of Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Basari As-Sa’di.
Also reported by Muhammad Ibn Abi Shaiba in “Kitab Al-‘Arsh” which contains a weak or an unknown narrator. There are some other sanad but of not much benefit. [See Silsila As-Saheeha (109) and Adh-Dha’eefa (6118)]
The best isnad among above is the one by Adh-Dhahhaak from Ibn Abbas. So if the content of the report is saheeh or reliable then it would add to the weakness of the tafseer of Al-Kursi as knowledge. This is because this describes Al-Kursi to be as a physical body.
Opinion-3: Al-Kursiyy is the Throne
This was reported from Hasan Al-Basari. Hence, Ibn Jareer relates in his commentary (5/399) through the route of Juwaibir from Adh-Dhahhaak that he said: Hasan Al-Basari used to say that Al-Kursiyy is Al-‘Arsh. But Juwaibir bin Sa’eed wasn’t reliable.