Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Hadeeth’

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

Hadith: Abu Bakr and Umar ministers of the Prophet (S) on earth

September 20, 2011 Leave a comment

بسم الله

و الصلاة و السلام علي رسول الله و علي اله و صحبه و سلم

 

This has come through Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri, Ibn Abbas, Anas bin Malik and Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari.

Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri

It was recorded by Tirmidhi (3680) through the way of Taleed bin Suleiman from Abul Jihaf from Atiyya (Al-Awfi) from Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “There was not a Prophet except he had two ministers (wazeeraan) from the people of heaven and two from the people of earth. As for my ministers from the people of heaven then they are Jibreel and Mikail, and from the people of earth they are Abu Bakr and Umar.”

Tirmidhi said, “this Hadith is Hasan Ghareeb”.

In the Isnad of the above Atiyya Al-Awfi was weak and a mudallis[1]. Taleed bin Suleiman was weak and a Rafidhi, some even accused of lying[2]. Abul Jihaf Dawud bin Abi Awf, majority declared him trustworthy but some slightly criticized him[3].

Note: Early Shia used to have positive view of Abu Bakr and Umar particularly. So no wonder they narrated in their praise. All of them Atiya Al-Awfi, Abul Jihaf and Taleed were shia.

Also narrated by Abu Abdullah Al-Hakim in “Al-Mustadrak” (3046) through the way of ‘Ataa bin Ajlaan from Abu Nadhrah from Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri…marfoo’.

Al-Hakim said, “Isnad of this is Sahih”. And Dhahabi agreed[4] in Talkhis.

Al-Albani said, “And this from his (Dhahabi’s) wonder (ajaa’ib), because this Ibn Ajlaan was not better than Sawaar, for Dhahabi himself said in “Al-Mizan”[5], “Ibn Mu’een said, he (Ibn Ajlaan) was nothing, he was a liar. And at another place he said, narration were fabricated for him and he used to narrate it. Al-Fallaas said, Liar. Bukhari said, Munkirul Hadith.”[6]

There are other ways of this narration. Hence, Shaykh Al-Albani said:

“And it is also narrated through Sawaar bin Mus’ab from Atiyya Al-Awfi from Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri as a marfoo’ report. It was recorded by Al-Baghwi in “Al-Ja’diyyaat” (Q 1/93), Al-Hakim (2/264), Ibn Asakir (9/588, manuscript photocopy), and Hakim considered it weak. That is because this Sawaar is known weak reporter. In fact Bukhari said, Munkirul Hadith. Nasai and others said, Matrook. Hakim said, narrates munkar reports from A’amash and Ibn Khalid, and fabricated reports from Atiyya Al-Awfi.”[7]

 

Ibn Abbas

It was recorded by Tabrani in “Al-Kabeer” (11/179, no.11446), Abu Nu’aim in “Al-Hilyah” (8/160) through the way of Abdur-Rahman bin Nafe’ from Muhammad bin Mujeeb from Wuhaib bin Al-Ward from Ataa bin Abi Rabaah from Ibn Abbas, he said: The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said, “Allah strengthened me through four chiefs”. We asked, “O Messenger of Allah! Who are those four?” He said, “Two of them are from the people of heaven and two are from the people of earth.” So I asked, “who were the two from the people of heaven?” He said, “Jibrael and Meekail.” I (again) asked, “and who were the two from the people of earth?” He said, “Abu Bakr and Umar”.

Regarding the narrator Muhammad bin Mujeeb, Ibn Mu’een said, “Liar, the enemy of Allah”. Abu Hatim said, “Dhaahib Al-Hadith”[8].

This was also recorded by Al-Bazzaar in his Musnad, as in “Kashf Al-Astar” (3/167), through the way of Abdur-Rahman bin Malik bin Mighwal from Laith from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas…marfoo’.

Abdur-Rahman bin Malik was accused of lying. Hence Abu Dawud said, liar. At other place he said, “he used fabricate Hadith”[9]. Al-Haythami agreed with this in Majma’ Az-Zawaid (5/91).

This report has also come through the way of Umar bin Abi Ma’roof from Laith from Mujahid from Ibn Abbas…marfoo’. This was recorded by Ibn Adi in “Al-Kaamil” (5/32).

Ibn Adi said, “Umar bin Abi Ma’roof Al-Makki. Not known, he was Munkir Al-Hadith”.

 

Anas bin Malik

Shaikh Al-Albani said, “And this was reported from the Hadith of Anas bin Malik. Khalil bin Zakariyyah narrates it, he said, narrated to us Muhammad bin Thabit who said, reported to me my father Thaabit Al-Bunani from him (Anas) as a marfoo’ report. It was recorded by Ibn Sam’un Al-Wa’iz in his Amaali (1/57/1). And this Khalil is matrook (abandoned). And Muhammad bin Thaabit was weak.”

 

Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari

Recorded by Ibn Asakir in Tarikh Damishq (44/65) through the way of Abu Ya’la Al-Mawsili who said Sahl bin Zanjlah Ar-Razi informed us, Abdur-Rahman bin Umar informed us, Muhammad bin Ali bin Husain Al-Azdi informed us, narrated to us Hasan from Ahnaf bin Qais from Abu Dharr…marfoo’.

Al-Albani said, “this isnad is weak. Hasan – who is Al-Basari – was a mudallis, and here he narrated with ‘an’ana. And the two before him I don’t know who were they.”

In conclusion, this report is extremely weak, that is because all the route of this contain either liars, Matrook or unknown narrators, and these type of Isnad cannot support each other. This doesn’t mean the meaning of the narration is incorrect.  Indeed, Abu Bakr and Umar, radhiyAllahu ‘anhuma, were the viziers of Rasulullah (S), but the statement under discussion is not proven from the Messenger of Allah,(SAW). And Allah knows best.


[1]  Those who declared him weak include Ahmed bin Hanbal, Abu Hatim, Abu Zar’ah, Abu Dawud, Ibn Hibban etc. Hafiz Ibn Hajar included him among mudallis narrators. See, “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” (7/200-202), Tabaqat Al-Mudalliseen (pg.50).

[2] Ibn Mu’een said, “liar, he used to insult Uthman”. Abu Dawud and Ya’qoob bin Sufiyan said, “Rafidhi Khabeeth”. Nasai said, weak. Ibn Adi said, “It is clear from his reports that he was weak”. As-Saaji said, liar. Hakim and Naqqaash said, “Munkir Al-Hadith, he used narrate fabrications through Abul Jihaaf”. Abu Ahmed Al-Hakim said, “he was not strong”. Daar Qutni said, weak. [Tahdheeb (1/447-448)]

[3] Sufiyan Thawri and Ahmed bin Hanbal declared him reliable trustworthy. Abu Hatim said, Saleh Al-Hadith. Nasai said, “nothing bad with him”. While Ibn Adi said, “He, according to me, was not strong, and not to be taken as proof”. [Tahdheeb (3/170)]

[4] Dhahabi’s agreement with AL-Hakim in his Talkhis of Al-Mustadrak is an issue of debate among contemporary Hadith scholars, as whether Dhahabi’s agreement there is just a summary of Al-Hakim’s verdict or it is his real agreement. Dr. Azeez Rashid Muhammad Ad-Dayani, a Hadith teacher in a university of Baghdad, has a book “Tasheeh Ahadeeth Al-Mustadrak bain Al-Hakim An-Naisaburi wa AL-Hafiz Adh-Dhahabi” on the topic.

[5] Meezan Al-E’itedal (3/75)

[6] Besides that, Amr bin Ali said, liar. Abu Zur’ah said, weak. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said, “Matrook Al-Hadith”. Abu Dawud said, “He was nobody”. Nasai said, “he was not trustworthy, and his report is not to be written”. Tirmidhi said, “he was weak, Dhaahib Al-Hadith”. Al-Jawzjani said, liar.  Ali bin Junaid said, Matrook. [Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (7/186-187)]

[7] Besides that, Yahya bin Mu’een said regarding Sawwaar that he was nothing. Abu Dawud said, he was not a trustworthy narrator. Ahmed and Abu Hatim said, Matrook Al-Hadith. Ahmed also said, “he was nothing”. [Lisan Al-Meezan (3/128)]

[8] And Ibn Uqdah said, Munkar Al-Hadith. [Tahdheeb (9/380)]

[9]  Ahmed and Daar Qutni said, Matrook. Nasai said, “he wasn’t trustworthy”.  Ibn Mu’een said, “I’ve seen him and he is not truthful”. Abu Hatim said, Matrook Al-Hadith.  [Lisan Al-Meezan (3/427)]

Books refuting Mahmud Sa’eed Mamduh

June 20, 2011 20 comments

Bismillah

Following are some books in refutation of Mahmud Sa’eed Mamduh Ash-Shafa’i Al-Misri. To know about him read this.

[1] Aadab Az-Zafaaf fi As-Sunnah Al-Mutahharah

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)

[2] Rid’ Al-Jani al-Muta’addi ‘ala al-Albani

by, Shaykh Tariq bin Awadhallah

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)

[3] Talee’ah Siyanat al-Hadeeth wa Ahlihi min ta’addi Mahmud Sa’eed wa Jahlihi

by Shaykh Tariq bin ‘Awadhallah

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

Download: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=4938

 

 

 

[4] Hadam Al-Manarah li man sahhaha Ahadeeth   at-Tawassul wa az-Ziyarah  (pg.383)

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.

 

 

Download: http://www.mediafire.com/?44akgz6jlypafxd

Source: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1641476&postcount=1

 

 

 

 

[5] Fath Al-‘Aliyy Al-Qadeer fi tahqeeq Tawassul Adh-Dhareer (pg.80)

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Download: http://www.archive.org/download/abu_yaala_haditdarir_minyawi/haditdarir_minyawi.pdf (1.60MB)

 

Source: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1549271&postcount=1013

 

 

 

[6] Tuhfatul Abrar fi tahqeeq Athar Malik ad-Daar (pg.264) 

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.

Download: http://www.mediafire.com/?c952vwnfer2lqcm

Source: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1642033&postcount=1

 

[7] Tahreer al-Maqaal fi tahqeeq Hadeeth ‘ardh al-A’amaal (pg.64) 

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”.

 

 

Download: http://www.archive.org/download/nnss3/nnss3.pdf

Source: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1574766&postcount=1

 

 

 

 

 

[8] 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)

 

 

 

[9] Ta’reef uli An-Nuha wa al-Ahlam bi ma fi Ta’reef Mahmud Sa’eed min al-Akhta’ wa al-Awham (pg.896)

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)

Source: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=246187

 

 

 

 

[10] 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.

Download: http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=6416

Insha Allah, as soon as I find any new book available online I will update it into the list.