Tag Archives: Prophet

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

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

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)]