Archive

Archive for January, 2012

Takhreej of Narrations present in Shia Encyclopedia [Part – 1]

January 30, 2012 2 comments

Bismillah

All praises due to Allah, and May His peace and blessings be upon His Last and Final Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and companions.

Shia Encyclopedia has great fame among shia so called internet debaters. They rely on this online encyclopedia assuming it to be a great research. But the fact is this work is full of weak and fabricated narrations. This Takhreej is a small effort to analyze the authenticity of narrations present outside the two Sahih.

This Part-1 include analysis of following narrations:

[1]. “I am leaving behind two commands: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah“.

[2]. “I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to both of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt.”

[3]. “Ali is with Quran, and Quran is with Ali.”

[4]. “Behold! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked in it was saved, and whoever turned away from it was perished.

[5]. “Do not be ahead of them (Ahlul Bayt) for you will perish, do not turn away from them for you will perish, and do not try to teach them since they know more than you do!

[6]. “My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Gate of Repentance (Baab Hittah) of the Children of Israel; whoever entered therein was forgiven.”

[7]. “O folk! I am soon going to depart from here, and although I have already told you, I repeat once more that I am leaving with you two things, namely, the Book of Allah and my descendants, that is, my Ahlul-Bayt.” Then he lifted Ali by the hand and said: “Behold! This Ali is with the Quran and the Quran is with him. These two shall never separate from each other until they come to me at the Pool of Kawthar.”

[8]. “Whosoever wishes to live and die like me and enter that heaven (after death), which my lord has promised me, namely, the everlasting heaven should acknowledge Ali (AS) as his patron after me, and after him he should acknowledge the sons of Ali.”

[9]. “Regard the Ahlul-Bayt among you as the head to the body or the eyes to the face, for the face is only guided by the eyes.”

[10]. “My Ahlul-Bayt are the protected place of refuge about the dispute in religion.”

Download word file: Takhreej Shia Encyclopedia Part-1

Hadeeth Thaqalain: A systematic takhreej of its different wordings

January 23, 2012 3 comments

A systematic Takhreej of Hadith Thaqalain

By

Muhammad Moin

 

In the name of Allah.

And may his peace and blessings be upon his final Messenger.

This hadith has been narrated from several Sahabah, viz. Ali, Abdur-Rahman bin Awf, Abu Dharr, Zaid bin Thabit, Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Jabir, Hudhaifa bin Usaid, Khuzaimah bin Thabit, Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri, Zaid bin Arqam, Sahl bin Sa’d, Dhumairah, ‘Aamir bin Lailah, ‘Adi bin Hatim, ‘Uqbah bin ‘Aamir, Abu Rafe’, Abu Shuraih al-Khuza’i, Abu Qudamah al-Ansari, Abu Hurairah, Abul Haitham bin at-Tayyahan, Umm Salamah, Umm Hani and a person from Qureish. However, most of these traditions are not established. [See the detail of these traditions in “Istijlab Irtaqa’ al-Ghuraf” (1/336-364) by Hafiz As-Sakhawi]

My intention is to analyze the authenticity of different wordings of this tradition.

[1] “I am leaving behind things [or two weighty things], the first of which is the book of Allah. In it is guidance and light. So stick to it.” So he urged us to [stick with] the book of Allah and aspired people of it. Then he said, “And my Ahlul Bayt. I remind you of Allah with regards to m Ahlul Bayt [He repeated this three times]”

This wording is established from the hadith of Yazeed bin Hayyan from Zaid bin Arqam related by Muslim (6304), Ahmad (19265), Nasai in “al-Kubra” (8119), Ibn Khuzaimah (2357) and others.

This wording is also established in the narration of Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri. Ya’qoob al-Fasawi relates in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/537) through Fudhail bin Marzooq from Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed with the wording similar to that of Sahih Muslim. At the end Fudhail asked Atiyyah, “Who were the Itrah of Prophet (S.A.W.)?” He replied, “His Ahlul Bayt”.

حدثنا عبيد الله قال: أنبأ فضيل بن مرزوق عن عطية عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: إني تارك فيكم الثقلين أحدهما أكبر من الآخر: كتاب الله عز وجل حبل ممدود من السماء إلى الأرض طرف في يد الله عز وجل وطرف في أيديكم فاستمسكوا به، ألا وعترتي. قال فضيل: سألت عطية عن عترته؟ قال: أهل بيته

There are other wordings also narrated from ‘Atiyyah, and that may be due to weakness in ‘Atiyyah or it may be that some narrators while trying to narrate it through meaning, have changed the sequence of the words unintentionally. WAllahu A’alam

Likewise, this has come under the hadith of Zaid bin Hasan al-Anmati from Ma’roof bin Kharraboodh from Abu Tufayl from Hudhaifa bin Usaid. It was reported by Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/67 & 3/180) and Abu Nu’aim in “al-Hilyah” (1/355), and its Isnad is weak due to Zaid al-Anmaati, as we’ll see later.

This wording has also been related by Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/66 & 5/166) through the way of Abdullah bin Bukair Al-Ghanawi from Hakeem bin Jubair from Abu Tufayl from Zaid bin Arqam. Hakeem bin Jubair was extremely weak. [Meezan (1/583)]

 

[2] “I am leaving behind things, which if you adhere to you shall never go astray. And that is the Book of Allah and my Ahlul Bayt [or my Itrah].”

This is disputed upon. This relation is famous from the hadith of Jabir, related by Tirmidhi in “Sunan” (3786), Tabarani in “Al-Kabeer” (2680) and “Al-Awsat” (4757) through the way of Zaid bin Al-Hasan Al-Anmati from Ja’far bin Muhammad from his father (Al-Baqir) from Jabir bin Abdullah. This tradition also mentions that the Prophet (SAW) said it during his farewell pilgrimage. This tradition is obviously Munkar for the following reasons:

  1. Zaid bin al-Hasan al-Anmaati was weak as stated by Hafiz Ibn Hajar in Taqreeb (1/337). Abu Hatim said that he was Munkar al-Hadeeth.
  2. The hadeeth of Thaqalain was said by the Prophet (SAW) at the place of Khumm. However, according to this tradition the Prophet said it during his pilgrimage, at ‘Arafah.
  3. Zaid al-Anmaati relates it from Ja’far as-Sadiq, while the other trustworthy narrators related it through same Ja’far as-Sadiq and they did not mentioned Ahlul Bayt. Rather,during the farewell pilgrimage the Prophet (SAW) only urged people to stick with Qur’an. This tradition could be read in Sahih Muslim and other book.

    If it is said that Shaykh al-Albani authenticated this, then answer would be: No, Shaykh al-Albani did not authenticate this particular incident; rather he specifically authenticated the wording which was common in both this narration and other narrations. He notified the weakness in Zaid al-Anmaati there. See, As-Saheehah (1761).

The other relation is that which was related by Tabrani [al-Kabeer (3/65)] through Abdul Malik bin Abi Suleiman and Harun bin Sa’d from ‘Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri. This relation is not established due to Atiyyah. And the tradition through Atiyyah has come with the other wording also which doesn’t support this wording. Hence, this has been related through Katheer an-Nawa, A’amash, Fudhail bin Marzooq, Zakariyya and others from Atiyyah with the wording different than the wording related by Abdul Malik bin Abi Suleiman.

Hence, Ya’qoob al-Fasawi relates in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/537) through Fudhail bin Marzooq from Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed with the wording similar to that of Sahih Muslim [This has preceded already].

Fudhail was well famous for his companionship with Atiyyah and he was much well aware of the narrations of Atiyyah than any other. Besides that, he was also supported by al-A’amash from Atiyyah. So, it is established from this that what is established from the hadith of Atiyyah is that which come through Fudhail, and other people related it by meaning and hence came up with different wordings. Wallahu A’alam

Another tradition through Katheer bin Zaid from Muhammad bin Umar bin Ali from his father from Ali (ra). It has been recorded by Ishaq bin Rahuyah in his Musnad, as in “Al-Mutalib Al-‘Aaliyah” (16/142) by Ibn Hajar, likewise by Tahawi in Mushkil al-Aathar (5/13), through Abu ‘Aamir Al-‘Uqdi from Kathir bin Zaid from Muhammad bin ‘Umar bin Ali bin Abi Talib, from his father, from Ali bin Abi Talib….alhadith, which has the wording, “I have left behind among that which if you stick to you shall never go astray….”.

أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم حضر الشجرة بخم، فخرج آخذا بيد علي، فقال: من كنت مولاه فإن عليا مولاه – أو قال: فإن هذا مولاه – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا: كتاب الله وأهل بيتي. ألستم تشهدون أن الله ورسوله أولى بكم من أنفسكم؟ وأن الله ورسوله أولياؤكم؟ قالوا: بلى قال: فمن كنت مولاه

Ibn Hajar said, “Its Isnad is Sahih.”

I say: Katheer bin Zaid is disagreed upon. Ibn Hajar himself said in Taqreeb that he was Sadooq who used to commit mistakes. [Taqreeb] Mostly his hadith could be classified as Hasan, when not opposed by other reliable narrators. Imam Dhahabi, after quoting this tradition in disconnected form, said that there was weakness in Katheer. [Risalah Turq hadith “man kuntu maulahu fa ‘Aliyyu maulahu” (32)]

Ibn Jareer records this tradition, as mentioned treatise of al-Dhahabi and al-Bidayah of Ibn Katheer, and Ibn Abi Aasim in As-Sunnah [Zilal Al-Jannah (no.1558)] without relating the part mentioning the tradition of Thaqalain, while ad-Dawlabi related it in “Adh-Dhurriya at-Tahirah” (237) in disconnected form through Muhammad bin Umar bin Ali from Ali.

It was also related by al-Bazzar in his Musnad (864) through Su’ad bin Suleiman from Abu Ishaq from Harith fro Ali. This is weak due to Su’ad bin Suleiman and Harith al-A’awar.

Regarding Su’ad bin Suleiman, Abu Hatim said that he was not strong. Ibn Hibban listed him in ath-Thiqaat. [Tahdheeb (3/401)] It is not known whether he heard this from Harith before Ikhtilat or after it. Harith was weak according to most of the scholars. [Al-Kashif (1/303), Taqreeb (1/175), Tahdheeb (2/126)]

Also, there is disconnection between Abu Ishaq and Harith. Shu’bah said that Abu Ishaq did not hear from Harith except for four narrations. Yahya bin Sa’eed used to narrate from Abu Ishaq only those traditions of Harith which he actually heard from him. [Tahdheeb (2/126), Jami’ at-Tahseel (pg.245)] In our case, neither Abu Ishaq mentioned his hearing nor does Yahya al-Qattan narrate this from him.

Another narration, which urges muslims to stick with Ahlul Bayt, is related by al-Fasawi in “al-Ma’rifah wa at-Tareekh” (1/536) from the hadith of Zaid bin Arqam through the route of Jareer from Hasan bin Ubaidullah from Abu adh-Dhuha from Zaid bin Arqam (ra). This narration, with this wording, exists only in the version of al-Fasawi. Al-Hakim (4711) related it through the same Yahya bin Mugheerah without having the wording under consideration. Similarly, Tabarani relates it through Ali bin al-Madeeni and Khalid bin Abdullah al-Wasiti, (both of them) through Jareer. Also, the authentic tradition of Zaid bin Arqam has already been mentioned, which gives detail account of this statement of Prophet (SAW). WAllahu A’alam

Another tradition from Zaid bin Arqam is related in “al-Mustadrak” (4577) through Muhammad bin Salamah bin Kuhail from his father from Abu Tufail from Zaid. The authentic version of the hadeeth of Abu Tufail is coming under the study of the addition “they shall never separate”. Muhammad bin Salamah bin Kuhail was weak. [Lisan al-Meezan (5/183)]

This wording also exists in some version of the hadith of Shareek from Rukain from Qaasim bin Hassaan from Zaid bin Thaabit. [Musnad ‘Abd bin Humaid] This is not present in other version of the hadith of Shareek, narrated in Musnad Ahmad and other books of hadeeth. Shareek was weak.

 

Now, the following points would make the issue clear:

  1. It is known that all these traditions are describing the same statement, and the occasion was one. The Prophet couldn’t have said all of those wordings because that would be useless.
  2. The difference in the wording is due to reason that many people narrated it through meaning. So they narrated the summarized wording instead of exact wording. Prophet [SAW] could have uttered only one of those different wordings. That is the reason there is not a hadith with this wording except there is also other version of same narration exist which aids the version of Sahih Muslim.
  3. The exact wording has been narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh and Ahmad in his Musnad through Zaid bin Arqam, and this is the most authentic Isnad of Hadith Thaqalain. Similarly, the tradition of Atiyyah al-‘Awfi supports this, which was narrated by Fudhail, Atiyyah’s closest student.
  4. Besides that, the version of Muslim is also explicit. It has been narrated in a way which makes us to believe that it has been narrated precisely.
  5. This wording of Sahih Muslim is also supported by the narration of farewell ceremony related by Muslim and other through Ja’far as-Sadiq from al-Baqir from Jabir (ra). If it was necessity for the Ummah to follow Ahlul Bayt then Prophet (SAW) would have made this clear during his farewell speech at Makkah. But rather he commanded to stick with the Qur’an and later on at Khumm he repeated the same thing except that he added the prescription for the Ummah to be careful with Ahlul Bayt.

 

 [3]. Addition of “they shall never separate until they meet me at the fountain”.

This addition is proven in the hadeeth of Zaid bin Arqam. Hence, it was related by al-Fasawi in “al-Ma’rifah” (1/536), at-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (5/169)(5/170) and al-Hakim in “al-Mustadrak” (4711) all of them through Hasan bin Ubaidullah from Abu adh-Dhuha Muslim bin Sabeeh from Zaid bin Arqam.

Imam Tirmidhi relates it in his Sunan (3788) through A’mash from Habeeb bin Abi Thabit from Zaid bin Arqam. Its narrators are all reliable but there is some doubt whether Habeeb heard from Zaid or not. Ali bin Madeeni said, “He found Ibn Abbas, and heard from A’isha. He did not hear anyone besides them.” [Jami’ at-Tahseel (pg.158)] Therefore, this is disconnected. However, Nasai narrates it in al-Kubra (8092, 8410) and likewise Hakim (4576) and there they mention Abu Tufayl between Habeeb and Zaid bin Arqam. The statement of Ali bin Madeeni apply here as well, since Abu Tufayl was a Sahabi, but it is least applicable in case of Abu Tufayl because he was among those Sahabah who died after 100AH. Abu Tufail died in 110Ah while Habeeb bin Abi Thaabit died in 119AH. Both of them lived in Kufah. Imam Dhahabi declared this Isnad to be Qawi (strong), in his treatise on the hadith “man kuntu maulahu” (1/66, no.65).

This was reported in the narration of Atiyyah al-‘Awfi from Abu Sa’eed. Imam Ahmad records it in Musnad (11104, 11131, 11211 and 11561) through Atiyyah from Abu Sa’eed. Atiyyah bin Sa’d al-‘Awfi was weak in hadeeth.

This was also recorded by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (21578, 21654) through Shuraik from ar-Rukain from Qasim bin Hassan from Zaid bin Thaabit. Shareek was weak. Qasim bin Hassaan al-‘Aamiri was Majhool al-Haal.

It was also related by At-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (3/67) through Zaid bin al-Hasan al-Anmati, he said narrated to us Ma’roof bin Kharboodh from Abu Tufayl from Hudhaifa bin Usaid al-Ghifari. Zaid bin Hasan al-Anmati was weak as already preceded.

[4]. Wording of “Khaleefatayn” instead of “Thaqalain”.

This word comes in the tradition of Shareek from Rukain from Qasim bin Hassaan from Zaid bin Thaabit. It was related by Ibn Abi Shaibah in “al-Musannaf” (31679), Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (21578, 21654) and others.

Shareek was weak, especially when opposes others. [Taqreeb (1/417)] And there is dispute regarding Qaasim bin Hassaan. Dhahabi quotes from Bukhari that his hadith is Munkar and he was not known. Ibn Hibban listed him among Thiqaat, like he does with Majhool al-Haal narrators. Ibn Shaheen said that Ahmad bin Saleh al-Misri said that he was Thiqah. While Abul Hasan Ibn al-Qattan said he was not known. WAllahu A’alam [Meezan (3/369), Tahdheeb (8/279)]

The word “Khaleefah” here doesn’t indicate the successor of Prophet (SAW) in any way. Qur’an cannot be a successor of the Prophet (SAW) for it was in authority even during the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW). In fact, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) himself followed the Qur’an. Khaleefa is simply something which has been left behind. WAllahu A’alam

[5]. Addition of “So be careful how you deal with these two”

This addition comes under the hadith of A’mash from Habeeb bin Abi Thabit [from Abu Tufail] from Zaid bin Arqam. This Isnad has been discussed under the addition of “they shall never separate…” so look there.

This is the only Isnad, according to my knowledge, which contain this wording and it is authentic, Insha Allah. Wallahu A’alam

Narrations regarding purity of urine and faeces of the Prophet (pbuh): A look at their authenticity

January 20, 2012 Leave a comment

Bismillah

All praises due to Allah, and may His mercy and blessings be upon the Last and Final Messenger Muhammad, his family and companions.

Muhammad ibn Sa’d, al-Waqidi’s scribe, related that ‘A’isha said to the Prophet, “When you come from relieving yourself, we do not see anything noxious from you.” He said, “‘A’isha, don’t you know that the earth swallows up what comes out of the prophets so that none of it is seen?”

This was related by Ibn Sa’d in his Tabaqat (1/170-171) and Abul Qasim at-Tabarani in “Al-Awsat” (8/21) through ‘Anbasah bin Abdur-Rahman from Muhammad bin Zadhaan from Umm Sa’d from ‘Aisha (ra)…alhadith.
There are two serious defects in this report as follows:
1. ‘Anbasa bin Abdur-Rahman was Matrook (abandoned). Ibn Hajar summarized the ruling on him: He was Matrook, and Abu Hatim accused him of fabricating hadith.
2. Muhammad bin Zadhaan was also Matrook as declared by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani. Imam al-Bukhari said: His hadith should not be written. At-Tirmidhi said: He was Munkar al-Hadith.

It was also reported by Al-Bayhaqi in “Dala’il an-Nubuwwah” (6/70, Al-‘Ilmiyya ed.) through Husain bin ‘Ulwan, he said: narrated to us Hisham bin ‘Urwah from his father from ‘Aisha…alhadith with similar meaning.
Al-Bayhaqi declared this to be fabricated and said that it was fabricated by Husain bin ‘Ulwan. Ibn Hibban also declared it to be fabricated in “Al-Majruheen” (1/245-246). Al-Dhahabi agreed with him in “al-Meezan” (1/543).

 

It was also related by Al-Hakim (no.6950) through Minhal bin ‘Ubaidullah from whom he heard from Layla freed slave of ‘Aisha. The link between Minhal and Layla is not established. It was probably Abu Abdullah al-Madani as in other reports.
Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani said in “Al-Isabah” (8/108) in the entry of Layla, “Abu Umar [Ibn Abdul Barr] said isnad of her hadith [this hadith] is not established. Abu Abdullah al-Madani narrates from her and he is unknown. I [Ibn Hajar] say: Al-Mustaghfiri relates it through the route of Abdul Kareem al-Jaraar [sic] from Abu Abdullah al-Madani from the one who veil Aisha and her servant.”

This later Isnad was also cited by As-Suyuti in “Khasais al-Kubra” (1/121) quoting it from some of Abu Nu’aim’s book.

Now, there are following defects in above report:
1. Abu Abdullah al-Madani who was not known.
2. Secondly, Layla is not known. She is only mentioned in the report of Abu Abdullah al-Madani who was Majhool as mentioned before, hence her true identity depends only on the authenticity of this report. Besides this report says that it was Layla with whom this incident happen while the previous reports says that it was Aisha (ra).
There is a third defect which are different for both the routes. In the former exist Minhal bin Ubaidullah and I couldn’t find his biography. Sh Muqbil bin Haadi also didn’t mention any information on him in his book “Rijal al-Hakim fil Mustadrak” which is a book to discuss all the narrators present in Al-Mustadrak. WAllahu A’alam. In the later one, Abdul Kareem Al-Khazaaz was unreliable.

 

There is another route for this hadith. It was recorded by Ad-Daarqutni in “Al-Afrad”, as quoted by As-Suyuti in “Al-Khasais” (1/121), and through him Ibn al-Jawzi in “Al-‘Ilal al-Mutanahiyah” (1/182) through Muhammad bin Hassan al-Umavi who narrates it from ‘Abdah bin Suleiman from Hisham bin ‘Urwah from his father from ‘Aisha (RA)….alhadith.

Muhammad bin Hassan al-Umavi is alone in narrating from Hisham bin ‘Urwah, hence Ad-Daarqutni included this report among Ghara’ib or lone reports. With regards to Muhammad bin Hassan al-Umavi there is no praise mention in the books of hadith and its related sciences. Dhahabi under his entry says nothing related to criticism or praise, and later Ibn Hajar did the same in his Lisan al-Meezan. However, As-Suyuti quoted Ibn Dihyah who said, “This Isnad is established. Muhammad bin Hassan Baghdadi was trustworthy (thiqah) and righteous (Saleh)”. It seems Ibn Dihya thought him to be Abu Ja’far al-Baghdadi who was Muhammad bin Hassan bin Firoz Ash-Shaibani Al-Azraq that is why he called him Baghdadi. However, this is not established as both are different.

 

Mursal of Dhakwan

As-Suyuti said in “Al-Khasais” (1/121): And it has a sixth route (of narration) which is Mursal. This was related by Hakeem Tirmidhi through Abdur-Rahman bin Qais Az-Za’farani from Abdul Malik bin Abdullah bin Waleed from Dhakwan that he said, “The Messenger of Allah did not have any shadow in Sun (i.e. Day) or in Moon (i.e. Night). Neither did he have any remnant of faeces”.

Firstly this narration is Mursal and hence not connected with the Prophet (SAW).
Secondly, Abdur-Rahman bin Qais Az-Za’farani was matrook, and Abu Zur’ah and other considered him liar.
WAllahu A’alam

 

 

Tradition of Umm Ayman

Related by Abu Ya’la in his Musnad through Silm bin Qutaibah from Hasan bin Harb from Ya’la bin ‘Ataa from Waleed bin Abdur-Rahman from Umm Ayman, she said: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu ‘alaih wa sallam) had a wooden cup in which he used to urinate (during night). In the morning he would tell, O Umm Ayman, throw away the water in the cup. [She said:] So one night I awake and I was thirsty so I drank what was in it. He [sallallah ‘alaih wa sallam] said, “From this day, you’ll never complain of your stomach”. [See, Al-Mutalib al-‘Aaliyah (3823) by Ibn Hajar]
Hasan bin Harb is unidentified. I could not find any information regarding him.
Related by at-Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (25/89) and al-Hakim (6912) through the route of Abu Maalik an-Nakha’i from Aswad bin Qais from Nabeeh al-‘Inzi from Umm Ayman…. same as previous.
Abu Malik an-Nakha’i was abandoned. [Taqreeb (2/462)]

 

Narration of Hukaimah bint Umaimah

Related by Tabarani in “al-Kabeer” (24/189) and al-Bayhaqi in As-Sunan al-Kubra (7/67) through Hukaimah bint Umaimah from her mother…similar to the tradition of Umm Ayman.

عَن حكيمة بنت أُمَيْمَة عَن أمهَا قَالَت كَانَ للنَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم قدح من عيدَان يَبُول فِيهِ ويضعه تَحت سَرِيره فَقَامَ فَطَلَبه فَلم يجده فَسَأَلَ عَنهُ فَقَالَ أَيْن الْقدح قَالُوا شربته برة خَادِم أم سَلمَة الَّتِي قدمت مَعهَا من أَرض الْحَبَشَة فَقَالَ النَّبِي صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم لقد احتظرت من النَّار بحظار

Hukaimah was not known. Hafiz Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar both said that she was not known. [Meezan (1/587), Taqreeb (2/636)]
Another thing which was pointed out by Dhahabi is that it was narrated by Ibn Juraij from Hukaima through “an”, so it is doubtful whether he heard it from her or not. Ibn Juraij was known for narrating madallas traditions [in more appropriate terminology “Mursal Khafiyy”].

WAllahu A’alam

Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel: A look at the research of Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai regarding him

January 7, 2012 31 comments

Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel: A look at the research of Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai regarding him

By

Muhammad Moin

 

Some brother Raza Hassan has translated an urdu article by Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai proving Tawtheeq of Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel. I had read it in the book ‘Ilmi Maqalaat (1/417) by the author. After comparing the translation and the article present in Ilmi Maqalaat, it is clear to me that the brother has quoted it from the urdu Islamic magazine Al-Hadeeth vol.21. This same article was later published in ‘Ilmi Maqalaat (collection of Shaykh Zai’s articles) where he retracted a lot of things he claimed previously (this will be notified during the course of this writing). The title of the article is “Ithbat at-Ta’deel fi tautheeq Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel”

Some people may think why Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel is so much discussed among hardcore muqallids and hardcore ghair-muqallid. There are two reasons for it, Muqallids call him Munkar ul-Hadith because (1) he is the narrator of the tradition which mentions that the Musalli should place his hands over his chest, (2) and he is the narrator of some criticisms of Sufyan Thauri against Abu Hanifa. These are the same two reasons why some harsh Ahle Hadith scholars made Tautheeq of Mu’ammal.

Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai has special methodology of analyzing conflicting statements of Jarh and Ta’deel. He counts the number of criticism and praise, and rejects the minority based on majority. This seems good, but this was not the methodology of scholars of hadith, not even single of them. Rather they would prefer explained Jarh over general Tautheeq, and reject unexplained Jarh against established Ta’deel.

There are several problems with his methodology, and we shall see them during the course of this refutation, Insha Allah. After this brief introduction, let us proceed with the article by Shaykh Zai.

Note: – I’ll be quoting from the translation of Brother Raza Hassan.

Firstly he listed the criticism on Mu’ammal, and tried to answer many of them.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

The following are the criticizms narrated regarding Mu’ammal:

1. Abu Haatim ar-Raazi: “Sadooq, Strictly Follows the Sunnah, Makes Abundant Mistakes, Write his narrations” [Kitaab al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 8/374]

He did not make any criticism against this Jarh of Imam Abu Hatim Ar-Razi, wa Lillahi l-Hamd. Note, that this Jarh is mufassar. Besides this there is another statement of Jarh by Imam Abu Hatim. It is in the same “Kitab al-Jarh wa at-Ta’deel” (8/168) of Ibn Abi Hatim, he said: He (Abu Hatim) was asked regarding Abu Hudhaifa and Mu’ammal, so he replied,”their books constitute a lot of mistakes. And Abu Hudhaifa was fewer in mistakes than Mu’ammal”. Both Abu Hudhaifa and Mu’ammal were students of Sufyan and they were famous for narrating from him.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

2. Zikriyah bin Yahya As-Saaji: “He is sadooq, but makes many mistakes. He has errors that would take too long to be mentioned.” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* From the author of Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (Hafidh Ibn Hajar) to Imam As-Saaji, the chain is not present. Therefore this narration is Mardood.

I say: Imam As-Saaji had around a dozen books which do not reach us. Ibn Hajar very often quotes As-Saaji from his books. So there is no reason to ask for isnad while Ibn Hajar’s source is his book itself. A lot of manuscripts do not reach us but it was with Ibn Hajar from which he quoted. It is generally known and accepted that when a Muhaddith who was specialist in hadith criticism attribute some statement to a scholar or quote a hadith with affirmative words (with Jazm), then it was established according to that scholar. Imam al-Mizzi said, as quoted and followed by Ibn Hajar, “And regarding statements we quoted in this book without mentioning its sanad, so that which is with sigha of Jazm (affirmation) we do not know any problem with its sanad.”

Shaykh Abdul Kareem al-Khudheir says in his footnotes on Fath al-Mugheeth by Hafiz As-Sakhawi (4/432):
Ibn Abi Hatim said in “al-Jarh wa at-Ta’deel” (3/601), “Zakariyyah bin Yahya….Abu Yahya…He has good books on Rijal…” Ibn Khair said in his Fihrist (210), “Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wa al-mansubeen ila al-bid’ah min al-muhadditheen wa al-‘Ilal, compiled by Abu Yahya Zakariyyah bin Yahya as-Saaji.” Imam Dhahabi said in “As-Siyar” (14/197), “Imam, Thabt, Hafiz…Abu Yahya bin Zakariyyah as-Saaji…and he has a great book on the science of ‘Ilal ul-Hadith which indicates towards his great knowledge.” Ibn Hajar quoted from him, saying “Zakariyyah as-Saaji said”, and sometimes he would say, “As-Saaji mentioned in Adh-Dhu’afa”, and sometimes he would say “and in ad-Dhu’afa of as-Saaji”. –end quote—

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

3. Muhammad bin Nasar al-Marwazi: “If Muammal alone relates a certain narration then it becomes obligatory to pause and research the hadeeth as he had a bad memory and erred excessively” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* This saying is also chain-less, and is rejected due to going against the Jumhoor.

I say: Ibn Hajar was an Imam of this field and we trust that he wouldn’t come with some made up references. Al-Marwazi made this Jarh in one of his famous books. It is in “Ta’zeem Qadr as-Salaat” (2/572, no.614), just as quoted by Hafiz Ibn Hajar. This Jarh is also Mufassar.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

4. Ya’qoob bin Sufyaan al-Faarsi: “Muammal is a great sunni shaikh. I heard Sulaiman bin Harb praise him. Our shaikhs would advise us to take his hadeeth, only that his hadeeth are not like the hadeeth of his companions. At times it is obligatory upon the people of knowledge to distance themselves from his narrations as he narrates munkar ahadeeth from even his authentic teachers. This is worse for had he narrated these munkar ahadeeth from weak authorities we would have excused him.” [Kitaab al-Ma’rifat wal Taareekh: 3/52]

* If this Jarah is from Sulemaan bin Harb then Ya’qoob al-Faarsi is among the Admirers (Mothaqeen) of Mu’ammal; and if this Jarah is from Ya’qoob then Sulemaan bin Harb is among the Admirers (mothaqeen) of Mu’ammal.

There is no word of tawtheeq in the comment of al-Faswi to make it a possibility from either of them. Praising could be because of ‘adalah, but it doesn’t necessitate Thabt. There were a number of scholars who were Imams but in the field of Hadith they were weak. So basically the comment of al-Fasawi is an explained Jarh against Mu’ammal.

Shaykh Zai added a statement later on in “Ilmi Maqalat” just after the above quoted part. He said regarding Jarh of al-Fasawi, “This Jarh is rejected because it is against the majority”.
I say: This is not against the majority as we shall see soon. Besides that, Jarh of al-Fasawi is mufassar, and normally Jarh mufassar is preferred over general Tautheeq, as it is well documented in the books on Mustaleh al-Hadith. Wallahu A’alam

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

5. Abu Zur’ah: “There are a lot of Mistakes in his hadeeth” [Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 4/228 T. 8949]

* This saying is also chain-less.

Allahu A’alam. This could be true, as neither al-Mizzi nor Ibn Hajar mentioned this criticism. The other way is also possible, and it might be that Imam Dhahabi had seen in some book which doesn’t reach al-Mizzi and Ibn Hajar.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

6. Ibn Sa’d: “He is Thiqah, makes many mistakes.” [Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d: 5/501]

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

7. Daraqutni: “Thiqah, makes many mistakes.” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* This saying is contradictory to the praise of Imam Daraqutni as is coming ahead, and it is also not proven from The author of Tahdeeb to Daraqutni. Mu’ammal is not mentioned in the book of Imam Daraqutni “Kitaab ad-Du’afa wal Matrokeen”.

 

Shaykh Zai made three claims, and answers to them are as follows:

(1). This saying does not contradict any other statement of Imam Daarqutni as we shall see while discussing Mu’ammal’s tawtheeq. Even if we accept that there is some contradiction, then also the Jarh should be preferred, because this Jarh is explicit and tasheeh of Isnad contains other possibilities, as we shall see under the claimed Tawtheeq of Daarqutni.
(2). The claim that this is not proven from the author of Tahdheeb till Daarqutni, is false claim. He claimed this because he couldn’t find from where Hafiz Ibn Hajar quoted it. If he had done some sabr it would have been better. Hence later on he found its source in questions of al-Hakim from Daarqutni (492). This second claim was omitted later on from the article, as could be seen in Ilmi Maqalat (1/419).
(3). Rejecting it based on the fact that it is not present in adh-Dhu’afa wa al-Matrookeen by Daarqutni is also incorrect. In his modified later edition of this article in “Ilmi Maqalaat”, Zubair Ali Zai claimed that since this Mu’ammal is not listed by Daarqutni in Ad-Dhu’afa therefore the criticism narrated by al-Hakim from him is abrogated [sic]. I say: Nowhere Imam Daarqutni claimed that all those narrators which are not listed in his “Ad-Dhu’afa wa al-Matrookeen” were Thiqah, while on the other hand criticism on Mu’ammal by Daarqutni is established. This kind of claims doesn’t suite a student, much less a scholar who is considered, by some, to be the top Muhaddith of this time.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

8. Abd ul-Baaqi bin Qaani’: “Saalih makes Mistakes” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* This saying is chain-less. Abdul Baaqi bin Qaani himself is criticized of being Mukhtalat. Some have praied him and some have criticized him. [See: Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 2/532, 533]

 

Ibn Qane’ was Imam of this field even though he wasn’t like others, but here his verdict is in agreement with other scholars. As for isnad of this until Ibn Qani’ then see my early reply under the Jarh of As-Saaji.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

9. Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani: “He is truthful, weak in memory.” [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb]

 

I do not think listing muta’akhhireen alongside mutaqaddimeen is a good thing, while you are making a list of majority and minority. Generally statements of later scholars are based on the statements of early scholars of Hadith. Yes, statements of later Huffaz are very beneficial to analyze our understanding of Jarh and Ta’deel, but mentioning it alongside Mutaqaddimeen while listing majority and minority is incorrect.

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

10. Imam Bukhaari: “Munkir ul-Hadeeth” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/526, Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 4/228, Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* In all the three books, this saying is mentioned without any chain and without any reference. Whereas on the contrary to it, Imam Bukhaari has mentioned Mu’ammal in Al-Taareekh al-Kabeer (Vol 8 Pg 49 T. 2107) and did not criticize him. Mu’ammal is also not mentioned in Kitaab ad-Du’afa of Imam Bukhaari, and the narrations of Mu’ammal are present in Saheeh Bukhaari, See: H. 2700, 2083 with Fath ul-Bari. Imam Mizzi said: “Imam Bukhaari has narrated from him as Istish-haad” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/527]
Haafidh Muhammad Taahir al-Maqdasi has written regarding a narrator that: “In fact He (Bukhari) has taken narrations from him in many places as Istish-haad to indicate that he is Siqah”
This proves that Mu’ammal is Siqah according to Imam Bukhari, not Munkir ul-Hadeeth.

 

This could be true because just after Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel, in at-Tarikh al-Kabeer, Imam Bukhari listed Mu’ammal bin Sa’eed and declared him Munkar al-Hadith. It may be that some scholar mistakenly took it for Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel.
However, on the other hand it also seems difficult because more than one scholars had attributed this to Bukhari, some have attributed the statement “Munkar al-Hadith” while some have attributed mere weakening without specifying any term. This includes the likes of Imam al-Mizzi, al-Dhahabi, al-Haythami, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and al-Buqa’i. It is necessary, before reaching to a conclusion, that different manuscript of Tarikh Kabeer and other books on Rijal by al-Bukhari should be analyzed carefully. WAllahu A’alam.

With regards to the claim of Shaykh Zai that Imam Bukhari has included his narrations in his “Saheeh” in support and hence he was Thiqah, this is again a false analogy.
Imam Bukhari intentionally avoiding Mu’ammal and not taking him as hujjah, indicates that there was some reason for which he avoided him. Similarly Imam Muslim completely avoided him. Hafiz Abu Umar Ibn As-Salah said in his famous Muqaddimah on ‘ilmul hadeeth (pg.84), “Know that the narrations of those who is not Hujjah (as a narrator) and rather he is among weak narrators, is sometimes cited in case of Mutabi’ah and Shawahid. And in the book of Bukhari and Muslim there are several weak narrators cited as Mutabi’ah and Shawahid.”

Inclusion of some weak narrators in Ta’aaleeq of Saheeh is a fact which cannot be denied. The following are narrators in Ta’aleeq of Saheeh:
1. Ibrahim bin Isma’eel bin Mujamma’: Imam Bukhari said, “he was the person with a lot of doubts (Kathir al-Wahm)”.
2. Huraith bin Abi Matar: Bukhari said, “feehi nazr”.
3. Ubaidulla bin Sa’eed bin Muslim al-Ju’fi, Abu Muslim: Bukhari said,”feehi nazar”.
4. Umar Abu Salamah bin Abdur-Rahman: Bukhari said,”Sadooq, except that he was opposed (by scholars) in some of narrations”.
5. Imran bin Dawar: Bukhari, “truthful, he used to fall in doubts (yahim)”.
6. Mu’awiyah bin Abdul Kareem: Ibn Abi Hatim said, “Bukhari listed him amongst weak narrators”.
7. Yahya al-Kindi: Bukhari said, “He was not known and no one back (support) him (lam Yutaba’ alaih)”.
One can refer to entries of these narrators in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb by Ibn Hajar.

Sh Zubair quoted from Muhammad bin Tahir al-Maqdisi that he said regarding a narrator, “In fact He (Bukhari) has taken narrations from him in many places as Istish-haad to indicate that he is Thiqah”, and then he (Sh Zai) himself concluded, “This proves that Mu’ammal is Thiqah according to Imam Bukhari, not Munkir ul-Hadeeth”.

I say: The statement of al-Maqdisi is regarding some narrators of Sahihayn who were well famous scholars but still Shaykhain avoided them, except in Mutabi’ah or Shawahid. This doesn’t mean for every single narrators mentioned by Shaykhain in support or for back up. Even if we accept that al-Maqdisi meant it for every single narrator, then also there is no reason to blindly follow him and leave the facts described above. Therefore, I could not understand the basis for the statement of Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai that Mu’ammal was Thiqah according to Imam Bukhari.

In conclusion, Imam Bukhari only mentioned Mu’ammal in Ta’aleeq, not in the main Ahadeeth of Sahih Bukhari. WAllahu A’alam.

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

11. Ahmed bin Hanbal: “Mu’ammal is mistaken.” [Sawalaat al-Marwaazi: 53, Mawsoo’ah Aqwaal al-Imam Ahmed: 3/419]

It is an established saying that, even the Siqah narrators get mistaken (sometimes), therefore if such a narrator is Siqah according to the Jumhoor, then his proven Mistakes are to be left, and in his remaining narrations, he will be Hasan ul-Hadeeth. Moreover see: Qawaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 275 and others.

 

Correct translation of the statement of Imam Ahmad should be, “Mu’ammal used to make mistakes”. WAllahu A’alam

It is true that even Thiqah Hafiz narrators could make mistakes, but that doesn’t make scholars to declare that they used to make mistakes. Imam Ahmad said this because the mistakes of Mu’ammal were in good amount.

Let me quote it in full context. It is in Su’alaat by al-Marwazi (53), al-Marwazi said: I asked Abu Abdullah, “Yahya bin Yaman and Mu’ammal, when they differ [i.e. who is to be preferred]?” He replied, “Leave it,” as though he weakened their cases (ka annahu layyana amrahuma). Then he said, “Mu’ammal used to make mistakes”.
This indicates that Mu’ammal was not as good as Yahya bin Yamaan, according to Imam Ahmad, and that is why he preferred Yahya over him. Now, what was the status of Yahya bin Yamaan according to Imam Ahmad? He said, as in Tarikh Baghdad [(14/123) with an authentic chain], “Yahya was not hujjah in hadith”. See, “Mawsoo’ah Aqwaal alImam Ahmad” (4/142-143) for other statements of Jarh on Yahya by Imam Ahmad. The point here is Imam Ahmad preferred Yahya bin Yamaan (weak according to Ahmad) over Mu’ammal. Both Yahya and Mu’ammal were famous for narrating from Sufyan, and the question of al-Marwazi was regarding their narrations from Sufyan. This proves that Mu’ammal was weak according to Imam Ahmad even while narrating from Sufyan, and hence Hafiz Ibn Hajar was correct in his verdict that his Mu’ammal’s traditions from Sufyan have weakness in it. WAllahu A’alam.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

12. The ciriticizm of Ibn al-Turkamaani al-Hanafi is rejected due to “Qeela (Passive Form)”. [See: Johar al-Naqi 2/30]

I say: Ibn Turkmani used “qeela” for the reason mentioned by some scholar for the weakness of Mu’ammal. So he said, “It is said that he buried his books, and then he kept on narrating from his memory that is why his mistakes became abundant. This was mentioned by the author of al-Kamal.” His use of passive form was for the reason of weakness not for the weakness itself. As for the weakness itself then Mu’ammal was obviously weak according to Ibn at-Turkamani. He quoted Dhahabi’s Meezan there to show weakness of Mu’ammal. Hafiz ad-Dimyati also said, with Jazm, that Mu’ammal buried his books and then kept on narrating from his memory, therefore his mistakes increased [al-Badr al-Muneer (7/553)].  WAllahu A’alam.

Besides this, see what I wrote previously regarding counting later scholars alongside Mutaqaddimeen to make a minority and majority.

 

The Praise of Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

On the contrary, Mu’ammal is proven to be Siqah by the following Muhadditheen:

1. Yahya ibn Ma’een: “Thiqah” [Taareekh Ibn Ma’een by Ad-Dauri: 235 Pg 591, Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel by Ibn Abi Haatim: 8/374]

In Kitaab al-Jarah wal Ta’deel, Imam Ibn Abi Haatim wrote that: “Ya’qoob bin Ishaaq narrated to us from what was written in the book from him, he said, Uthmaan bin Sa’eed (Imam Ad-Daarimi) narrated to us, he said: I said to Yahya ibn Ma’een: ‘What is the Condition of Mu’ammal when he narrates from Sufyaan? He replied: ‘He is Siqah’, I said to him: ‘Who is more beloved to you Mu’ammal or Ubaydullah?’ He declared both of them to be Equal” [Same Reference]

Ya’qoob bin Ishaaq al-Harwi is Siqah. He is mentioned in Taareekh al-Islaam of Haafidh Dhahabi [25/54]

Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, in Sharh Illal al-Tirmidhi, has narrated this saying from the book of Imam Uthmaan bin Sa’eed ad-Daarimi. [See: 541/2]

This is one of the very few absolute Tautheeq of Mu’ammal. Regarding this Shaykh al-Albani conclude the following:
قلت : فيبدو أن من وثقه لم يبد له حفظه ، ومن وصفه به معه زيادة علم ، فينبغي اعتماده ، ولا يجوز طرحه كما هو معلوم من قواعد “مصطلح الحديث” ، وعليه ؛ فحديث الرجل يبقى في مرتبة الضعف حتى نجد له من يتابعه أو يشهد له
“So it appears that those who made his tautheeq couldn’t came across defects in his memory. And those who attributed it (weakness) to him, they had extra knowledge with them, so it should be relied on and not to be rejected as it is well documented in the principles of Mustaleh al-Hadith. So the narrations of this person remain weak unless we find some other Shahid”. Ad-Da’eefa (no.3995).

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

2. Ibn Hibban has mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (9/187) and said: “Make Mistakes”. Such a narrator is not Da’eef accrding to Imam Ibn Hibbaan. Imam Ibn Hibbaan has brought the narrations of Mu’ammal in his Saheeh. [See: Al-Ihsaan bitarteeb Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan Vol 8 Pg 253 H. 6681]

This proves that Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth or Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Ibn Hibbaan. The criticizm of “Make Mistakes” does not affect the narrator.

It is well known that there are different stages of ta’deel. The book Ath-Thiqaat of Ibn Hibban includes narrators of all those stages some are close to weakness. Ibn Hibban has included even those narrators who according to him were liable to make a lot of mistakes. See the entries of Simak bin Harb, Sadoos bin Habeeb, Shabib bin Bishr, Abdullah bin ‘Usm, Mukhtar bin Fulful etc. All these narrators are listed in Ath-Thiqaat but still according to Ibn Hibban they had a lot of mistakes (yukhtee katheeran).

In case of Mu’ammal, Ibn HIbban has made it clear that he sometimes used to make mistakes. Therefore this verdict of Ibn Hibban does’nt actually contradict the verdict of Abu Hatim, rather statement of Abu Hatim is more explanatory than his.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

3. Imam Bukhaari: He narrated from Mu’ammal as Istishhaad in his Saheeh. It has been passed under the criticizm of Imam Bukhari above that Imam Bukhaari has narrated from Mu’ammal in ta’leeq form, therefore he is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth acording to him.

See what I have written under Jarh of Bukhari previously.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

4. Sulemaan bin Harb: He praised him [The reference has been passed under the criticizm of Sufyaan al-Faarsi]

Praising doesn’t indicate Tautheeq, as it has already been preceeded.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

5. Ishaaq bin Rahwayh: “Thiqah” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]

* This saying is chain-less, therefore it is not proven.

In Ilmi Maqalaat, Zubair Ali modified his claim as he found the source of Ibn Rahuyah’s tautheeq. It is in al-Jame’ li akhlaq ar-Rawi (1/400) of Khateeb. See what I qouted from the words of Allamah al-Albani under tawtheeq of Ibn Mu’een.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

6. Tirmidhi: Declared his narration, Saheeh [415, 672, 1948], Declared his narration, Hasan [6146, (3266)]

Note: The narrations without the brackets around, are narrated from the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan.

According to At-Tirmidhi Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth and Hasan ul-Hadeeth.

Imam Tirmidhi declared the hadith to be Sahih or Hasan, that doesn’t necessitate Tautheeq of each and every narrator. A scholar looks for several factors before declaring a hadith to be authentic or weak. In most of the examples provided by Shaykh Zai, Shaykh al-Albani agree with tas’heeh or tahseen of tirmidhi, so does that mean Mu’ammal was Thiqah even according to al-Albani? No, he did so based on different isnad and shawahid. WAllahu A’alam

Imam Tirmidhi himself had issues with Mu’ammal. He said under hadith no.3525 which was narrated by Mu’ammal from Hammad bin Salamah from Humaid from Anas in Marfoo’ form, “This hadith is gharib and not preserved. This narration is (correctly) narrated through Hammad from Humaid from Hasan al-Basari from the Prophet, alaihi assalatu wassalaam, and this is correct. Mu’ammal did a mistake and narrated it through Humaid from Anas, and no one supported him in this (la yutaba’ feeh).”
This is just one example of mistake of Mu’ammal, if one opens books on ‘Ilal al-Hadeeth there are several examples of Mu’ammal’s mistakes.

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

7. Ibn Khuzaymah: Authenticated him. [1/243 H. 479 etc]

The chain of Mu’ammal – AN – Sufyaan is authentic according to Imam Ibn Khuzaymah.

Imam Ibn Khuzaimah has narrated from even matrook narrators, would that be consider his Tawtheeq? Ibrahim bin Hakam, Kharija bin Mus’ab, Isma’eel bin Yahya and his father, Abdullah bin Nafe’ are just few examples of him narrating from known matrook narrators. Mu’ammal was much better than them, so no wonder if Ibn Khuzaimah recorded his narrations. Scholars many a time may accept hadith of a weak narrator based on their selections.

If just existence of a narrator in Sahih of Ibn Khuzaimah and Ibn Hibban is tawtheeq then why do the scholars who compiled detailed books on Jarh & Ta’deel never claimed that Ibn Khuzaimah did tawtheeq of Mu’ammal and all those Matrook narrators? The only thing you can find regarding some narrators (not the above narrators) that scholars would claim “Hassan lahu at-Tirmizi” or “sahhaha lahu Ibn Khuzaima” and like it, but you will not see them inferring from these statements that Tirmidhi did Tawtheeq or Ibn Khuzaimah did Tawtheeq of such and such narrators.

Many a time Ibn Khuzaimah notify the weakness of a narrator at one place while at some place just record his narrations. It could be that Ibn Khuzaimah had notified the problems with Mu’ammal in that part of his Sahih which is lost. We have at our hands only one fourth of his Sahih while the remaining are lost since a long time. Ibn Hajar and others have notified this.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

8. Ad-Daraqutni: Authenticated him in his Sunan. [2/186, H. 2261]

* Daraqutni wrote about the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan that, it is Saheeh. Meaning he is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth according to him from Sufyaan.

It has already preceded that ad-Darqutni made slight Jarh on him. He said in answering the questions of Abu Abdullah al-Hakim (492), “He was truthful (Sadooq), but with a lot mistakes (Kathir al-Khata’)”.

This is clear enough, so I don’t see the reason for catching at straws. These kinds of tawtheeq are not explicit, because we can never be aware what the status of the narrators was. Even tawtheeq has categories, so in which category does Mu’ammal fall in? Also what was the methodology of these scholars in authentication? They may be lenient to some extant like Tirmidhi and Ibn Hibban. Or they may have special methodology in authentication such that they would make Tasheeh based on the fact that in a particular hadith there is no mistake from a narrator who could be weak. We have already seen the jarh mufassar by Daarqutni so there is no need of using uncertain factors. Daarqutni had special methodology when he says “Isnadun Hasan” (click to learn about it), so it is also possible for “Isnadun Sahih”, and this is supported by following examples.

There are several examples where Daarqutni has said the same thing regarding an Isnad which has a weak narrator in it:

[1]. In Sunan (85, Ar-Risalah ed.) he declared an Isnad to be Saheeh. This isnad include Ali bin Ghuraab regarding whom Daarqutni, in riwayah of al-Barqani (363) said, “yu’tabiru bihi (take him for support)”. The other narrator is Hisham bin Sa’d who was weak according to scholars.
[2]. Under hadith (147) he said the same, but this include Muslim bin Qurt who was Majhool.
[3]. Hadith (161). This include Hasan bin Dhakwan who was weak according to Daarqutni as in his al-‘Ilal (3/38).
[5]. Hadith (1325). This include Laith bin Abi Sulaim. Daarqutni said, weak. He also said accused him of bad memory. Also said, he was not a Hafiz. Another place he said he was not strong. Sunan (202, 210, 1253, 2303, 3682)
[6]. Hadith (2233) and (3136). This include Simak bin Harb. Daarqutni said he had bad memory (saiy al-hifz). al-‘Ilal (13/134)

These were some selected examples which I was able to collect. These examples indicate that statement of Daarqutni “Isnadun Sahih” doesn’t necessitate tawtheeq of each and every narrator therein.

In his ‘Ilal, Daarqutni attributed mistakes to Mu’ammal in more than one narrations. For example: (2/142), (2/244), (4/380), (5/252), (6/275), (7/17-18), (7/242), (7/249), (8/22), (9/201-202), (9/273), (9/314), (11/151), (11/186), (11/317). The underlined references are through other than Sufyan.

At a place in Sunan (2199), Imam Daarqutni mentioned the statement of his teacher Abu Bakr An-Naisaburi where he doubted the memory of Mu’ammal. Imam Daarqutni said: Abu Bakr told us, “If Mu’ammal remembered this (narration) then this is Gharib, and he was opposed by al-Imam Abdur-Rahman bin Mahdi”.

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

9. Al-Haakim = Authenticated him in al-Mustadrak on the conditions of Shaikhayn, and Dhahabi followed him in that. [1/384 H. 1418]

* This narration is narrated from the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan thawree, therefore Mu’ammal is Siqah according to Imam Haakim and Dhahabi.

 

Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai gave only one reference, however there are many narrations through Mu’ammal in al-Mustadrak.
In the above referenced tradition al-Hakim said it is on the condition of Shaykhayn, as quoted by even Shaykh Zai. However, even he knows this is incorrect. Traditions of Mu’ammal are not on the condition of Shaykhain. Muslim totally avoided him while Bukhari reported through him in Ta’aaleeq. If someone claim that the intention of al-Hakim was to say that its narrators are like the narrators of Sahihayn, then this is also false. Imam al-Hakim said under hadith (1229): “Hadith of Thawri from Ya’la bin ‘Ataa is Gharib Sahih, because the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim) took hujjah from Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel even though they did not narrate this report”. This proves that it was from Hakim’s wahm that both Bukhari and Muslim took Mu’ammal as hujjah, and that is why he declared Mu’ammal’s tradition to be Sahih on the condition of Shaykhain. Once it is known that this was al-Hakim’s wahm then there remains no point in mentioning al-Hakim.
Also, Imam al-Hakim would include the narrations of abandoned narrators, so no wonder if he took some narrations of Mu’ammal for his al-Mustadrak. Besides this, see also what I wrote under Tawtheeq of Daarqutni regarding “inferring tawtheeq of narrators from tasheeh of isnad”.

As for Dhahabi’s agreement then it is a separate debatable topic as to whether Dhahabi’s agreement in “Talkhis” is his real agreement or it is just a summary of al-Hakim’s verdict. In any case, Dhahabi has some well known books on Jarh and Ta’deel where he made his opinion clear, which will be quoted under his supposed Tautheeq.

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

10. Dhahabi = “He is among the Siqaat” [Al-Abar fi Khabar min Ghabar: 1/274]

This proves that according to Imam Dhahabi, Mu’ammal is Siqah and the criticizm on him is rejected.

Imam Dhahabi had made his opinion clear in Meezan al-E’atedal (4/228) where he said, “He makes mistake (yukhti)”. In Meezan, the narrators which were unjustly criticized by some are indicated by “saad & haa” (صح). This sign in al-Meezan indicates that the narrator was criticized wrongly, and hence the criticism is rejected. There is no such sign with Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel, even though the next narrator Mu’ammal bin Ihab was marked with that sign. This further supports the point that Mu’ammal was not Thiqah (in Istalahi sense) according to Dhahabi.
In “al-Kashif” (2/309) he preferred the verdict of Abu Hatim and hence he said, “Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel al-Basari al-‘Umri mawlahum, resided in Makkah. He narrated from ‘Ikrimah bin ‘Ammar, Shu’bah and Sufyan. Ahmad and Mu’ammal bin Ihab narrated from him. Abu Hatim said, “He was truthful (sadooq), strict in following sunnah. He used to make a lot of mistakes. It is said that his books were buried, so he narrated from his memory and commited mistakes.”
It is to be noted that al-Kashif is a summary of Tahdheeb al-Kamal of al-Mizzi. Dhahabi choose the opinion of Abu Hatim from all opinions mentioned in Tahdheeb (including tawtheeq of Ibn Mu’een), which means it was the most balanced opinion according to Dhahabi.

Then why did he declare him thiqah in al-‘Ibar? Allahu A’alam, Probably he meant it in literal sense not in the sense we normally understand. Many a time the word “thiqah” is used for a narrator to mean truthful and righteous regardless of his Dhabt and Memory. Many scholars would use this term in literal sense, and it is possible Dhahabi also did the same. This probability is supported by what I have already quoted.

In any case, the verdict of Dhahabi in his books on Rijal should be preferred over his statements in history books (like al-‘Ibar).
 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

11. Ahmed bin Hanbal = He Narrated from him.

Imam Ahmed has narrated narration from Mu’ammal in his Al-Musnad, for example see: [Musnad Ahmed: 1/16 H. 97, Shuyookh Ahmed fi Musnad al-Imam Ahmed: 1/49]

* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi Deobandi has written that: “All the Shuyookh of Ahmed are Siqah”

* Haafidh Haythami said: “Ahmed has narrated from him and his Shyookh are Siqah.” [Majma az-Zawaid: 1/80]

Meaning generally, with the exception of some narrators, all the teachers of Imam Ahmed are Siqah (according to Jumhoor).

 

I say: If this is the case then on what basis he concluded that Mu’ammal did not fall under those exceptions? The misconception that all the teachers of Imam Ahmad were Thiqah was refuted by Hafiz Ibn Abdul Haadi in his marvelous book “As-Saarim Al-Munki” while discussing the adalah of Musa bin Harun, under first hadith. Since even Shaykh Zai does not believe in that misconception, I do not feel any need of quoting Ibn Abdul Haadi. Anyone looking for detail can refer there. Besides that, we have already seen the Jarh on Mu’ammal by Ahmad.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

12. Ali ibn al-Madeeni = He narrated from him as mentioned in Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (1/526) and Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/380) and others. See Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel (8/374)

* It is narrated from Abu al-Arab al-Qairawaani that: “Certainly Ahmed and Ali ibn al-Madeeni (usually) only narrate from Siqah narrators” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 9/114 T. 155]

Again, there is no point as he himself considers that this was not the case always. That is why he used the word “usually” (urdu: ‘aam taur par) in brackets.

اذا جاء الاحتمال بطل الاستدلال

Note:- In the quote from Abul ‘Arab al-Qairwani, the word “maqbool” is used not thiqah, as I can see in Ilmi Maqalat (1/422). I don’t know why brother Raza Hassan mentioned “Thiqah” in his translation. “Maqbool” is totally different than “Thiqah”.WAllahu A’alam

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

13. Ibn Katheer ad-Dimashqi: In a hadeeth of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan, he said: “Its chain is Jayyid” [Tafseer ibn Katheer 4/423, Surah al-Ma’arij]

* Mu’ammal is Jayyid ul-Hadeeth, meaning Siqah and Sudooq according to Imam Ibn Katheer.

Declaring the Isnad to be Jayyid doesn’t necessitate tawtheeq of narrator or Isnad according to Ibn Katheer. I have a lot of examples for it, but I do not think there is any need of it for the following reason:
Ibn Katheer has done tasheeh of Isnad containing Mu’ammal. He said regarding a narration containing Mu’ammal, “Isnadun Saheeh”. Tafseer (3/52, al-Maida verse-6)
Now in what category of praise he fall, according to Ibn Katheer? Allahu A’alam. In short, apparently, he did consider him trustworthy (either thiqah or Sadooq). And Allah knows best.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

14. Al-Zayaa al-Maqdisi = He narrated a hadeeth from him in Al-Mukhtaarah (1/345 H. 237)

* Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Zaya.

Al-Ahadeeth Al-Mukhtarah, according to the author, was supposed to be a collection of authentic hadith, not necessarily a collection of authentic Isnad. Even in that scholars criticize the author for being lenient. Shaykh al-Albani said regarding a hadith containing a liar recorded by al-Hakim and al-Dhiya: There is nothing odd if al-Hakim recorded it, but the oddness is from al-Dhiya, how he disgraced his book by narrating from him (Ibn Aadam, Kadhhab), while his book is much better than al-Mustadrak. But the reality testify that he was also lenient in it [recording weak reports], for he narrates abundantly from weak and unknown narrators.” Irwa al-Ghaleel (5/321, h-1498)

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

15. Abu Dawood = Abu Ubayd al-Ajurri said, I asked Abu Dawood about Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel, thus he described his greatness and raised his status, except that he makes mistake in somethings. [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/527]

* This proves that according to the saying narrated from Imam Abu Dawood, Mu’ammal is Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to him, but the tawtheeq of Abu Ubayd al-Aajuri is not known, this saying is defective.

 

There is no word of Tawtheeq in the statement of Abu Dawud, as one can see. It is more close to Jarh than Tawtheeq.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

16. Haafidh al-Haythami = “Siqah and he has weakness in him.” [Majma az-Zawaid: 8/183]

* Meaning Mu’ammal is Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Haythami.

One can see the clear contradiction in the writing of Shaykh Zai. Here he considers this statement to be a Tawtheeq, while the similar statement of Ibn Sa’d he kept under “Criticism on Mu’ammal”.

The term thiqah here means righteous and truthful, not thiqah. This is clear if we see it in the light of the next part of al-Haythami’s statement (i.e. he has weakness in him). This was also supported by statements of al-Haythami at other places in the same book. For example: “Ibn Mu’een made tawtheeq of him, while majority considered him weak” (5/49). “He was thiqah, with a lot of mistakes” (7/128).

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

17. Imam Nasa’ee = He narrated from him in his Sunan (4097, 4589)

* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi Deobandi wrote: “The narrator of Sunan al-Sughra which is not criticized by Imam Nasaa’ee is Siqah according to him.” [Qawaaid Uloom ul-Hadeeth Pg 222]

This is not the case always. Allamah Badee’ud-deen Shah ar-Rashidi, teacher of Zubair Ali Zai, said in his refutation of Shaykh Zafar Ahmad Thanvi:
“His [Thanvi] statement: ……narrators on whom he (that is Nasai) kept silence were Thiqah.
I [ar-Rashidi] say: He has kept silence over Majrooh narrators, so this rule is incorrect.
…….
I [ar-Rashidi] say: This [the statement of Sa’d az-Zanjani] doesn’t necessitate all those on whom Nasai kept silence were Thiqah. Several narrators on whom he did Sukut in Sunan, but criticized them in “adh-Dhu’afa”. And this is not hidden from anyone who has read his books”.
[Naqdh Qawa’id fi ‘Uloom al-Hadeeth, pg.213]
Note:- The text under square brackets, i.e. “[]”, is by me. This is for what has preceded and which is about to come.

I [Moin] say: Shaykh Rashidi criticized Shaykh Thanvi for generalizing this rule for Imam Ahmad also. His student Shaykh Zai is involved in taking this rule in cases of both Nasai and Ahmad.
If it is said that he did so just to make an argument against Deobandi scholars, then the question arises, why did he counted this as valid Tautheeq at the end of this topic?

Jarh of Imam Nasai on Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel: He said in Sunan Kubra (no.2838, 9833) and in “Amal al-Yawm wa al-Lailah” (85), “Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel was Katheer al-Khata’ [one who makes a lot of mistakes]”.

Hence, Imam Nasai should be kept among Jariheen. WAllahu A’lam

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

18. Ibn Shaheen = He mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat [Pg 232 T. 1416]

He was lenient. And in this case he relied on Yahya bin Mu’een, like he does most of the time. He said, “Mu’ammal al-Makki, Thiqah. This was said by Yahya.

 

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

19. Al-Ismaa’eeli = He narrated from him in his Mustakhraj (upon Saheeh Bukhaari). [See: Fath ul-Bari 13/33 Under H. 7083]

Mustakhraj are the books in which the author connects his Isnad with the isnad of another book. Mustakhraj doesn’t necessitate authenticity, and they are sometimes referred to as Sahih [particularly Mustakhraj upon Saheeh] because their narrators are the same narrators of Sahih.
Since, Mu’ammal exist in Sahih Bukhari as a narrator of Ta’leeq, therefor Hafiz al-Isma’eeli did its takhreej and connected that Mu’allaq report with his Isnad. There is no question of Tawtheeq. See also what Mawlana Irshad ul-Haq Athari has to say regarding Mustakhraj of Abu ‘Awana (also known as Sahih Abu ‘Awanah), in Tawdheeh al-Kalam (676-678).

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

20. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani = He mentioned the hadeeth of Ibn Khyzaymah in Fath ul-Baari (which contains Mu’ammal) and did not criticize it. [2/224 Under H. 740]

* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi said: “Whatever hadeeth Haafidh narrates in Fath ul-Baari without criticizing it, then it is Saheeh or Hasan according to him, as is affrmed in the Muqaddimah…….” [Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth Pg 89]

This proves that according to Thanvi, Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth or Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Ibn Hajar. Meaning he recanted from his Jarah in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb.

 

If this is just the view of Thanvi then why did Maulana Zai count it so as to make a list of Jamhoor? Ibn Hajar’s view is clear and he did slight Jarh on Mu’ammal as it has already preceded under Jarh. Even in “Fath al-Baari” he criticized Mu’ammal as quoted by Zubair Ali himself.

Zubair Ali Zai does not consider the silence of Ibn Hajar, in Fath al-Baari, to be his authentication. He has an article in his magazine al-Hadeeth vol.74 on this topic. According to him Ibn Hajar even kept silence over some fabricated hadith, and he provided some examples for it relying on some book “Anees al-Saari”. So basically, in this article, he was making an argument against Deobandi Ulama by using their own rule. If that so then he should not have counted this as valid tawtheeq to reach a number of 22. WAllahu A’alam

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

21. Imam Busayri = He authenticated a hadeeth containing Mu’ammal and said: “This chain is Hasan due to Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel.” [Misbaah al-Zajajah VOl 2 Pg 130]

At another place (2/122, Dar al-‘Arabiyah) he said regarding a hadith containing Mu’ammal, “Its narrators are all Thiqaat”.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

22. Ibn Sayyid an-Naas = He authenticated a hadeeth containing Mu’ammal [Sharh Tirmidhi Vol 2 Pg 211]

This claim doesn’t exist in “Ilmi Maqalaat” neither in al-Hadeeth magazine, so I don’t know from where brother Raza Hassan got this reference. WAllah A’alam.
By looking at translation, it seems Ibn Sayyid an-Naas authenticated a hadith, not the Isnad. So there remains no question of tautheeq. Wa lillahi al-hamd.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

From this detail we come to know that Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel is Siqah and Sudooq, or Saheeh ul-Hadeeth and Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen, therefore the criticizm of some Muhadditheen upon him is Mardood.

This is totally false and we have made it clear. Wa lillahi alhamd

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

According to Imam Tirmidhi and the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen, if Mu’ammal narrates from Sufyaan then he is Siqah and Saheeh ul-Hadeeth. The saying of Haafidh Ibn Hajar that: “There is some weakness in his hadeeth from Sufyaan” [Fath ul-Baari: 9/239 Under H. 5172] is rejected due to it being against the Jumhoor.

Nowhere did Imam Tirmidhi claim such a thing. Authenticating a hadith doesn’t mean authenticating a particular Isnad. And Ibn Hajar’s verdict was supported by the statement of Imam Ahmad preceded under tautheeq no. 11. Ibn Muhriz also report from Ibn Mu’een that Mu’ammal was not hujjah while narrating from Sufyan. Abu Hatim also said similar thing, as could be seen under his Jarh. Ibn Hajar’s statement was also supported by the mistakes attributed to Mu’ammal in books of Ilal. I’ve already provided the references for Daarqutni’s ilal, besides that there are more explicit texts in Ilal of Ibn Abi Hatim. [For example: – (289), (578), (1754), (2008), (2069), (923), (1116), (1570), (2003), (2164), (2660)]. Hafiz al-Bazzar could also be seen attributing mistakes to Mu’ammal’s narration from Thawri [See, Musnad al-Bazzar (1476), (2395), (4363), (8653)]. Hafiz Ibn Abil Fawaaris did the same [Irwa al-Ghaleel (6/240)]. Al-Bayhaqi did the same [Shu’b al-Eeman (572), As-Sunan as-Sagheer (3/20), Al-Kubra (4/213), (4/240)]. At-Tabrani did the same [Al-Awsat (1512), As-Sagheer (777)]. Hafiz Ibn Hajar was specialist in this field and Sh Zubair Ali should think ten times before degrading their research.

 

Originally Posted by Zubair Ali Zai

Total Number of Criticizers = 10. Criticizm is not proven from some of them such as Bukhaari etc.

Total Number of Admirers = 22. Praise is not proven from some of them such as Ishaaq bin Rahwayh.

Total Number of Criticizers = Abu Hatim, al-Fasawi, Nasai, Ibn Nasr al-Marwazi, As-Saaji, Ibn Sa’d, Daarqutni, Ibn Qani’, Ibn Hibban, Ahmad bin Hanbal [total 10, leaving aside Abu Zar’ah, Bukhari and Muta’akhir scholars].
Total Admirers = Ibn Mu’een, Ibn Shaheen, Ibn Rahuyah [total 3, Leaving aside others and Muta’akhhir scholars].

Besides the fact that majority of scholars criticized him, the Jarh against him is Mufassar. So it should take precedence.

And may the mercy and peace of Allah be upon His last and final Messenge Muhammad, his family and his companions.