Hadith 12: Looking at ‘Ali is a form of ‘ibadah (worship).

Hadith 11: “Verily, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala created such a creation that is neither from the children of Adam nor from the children of Iblis. They curse those who have antipathy towards ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.”…
December 7, 2018
Hadith 13: I am the Sayed (master) of the descendants of Adam and ‘Ali is the master of the Arabs.
December 7, 2018

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Hadith 12

 

النظر إلى علي عبادة.

Looking at ‘Ali is a form of ‘ibadah (worship).

 

Al Albani and Sa’d al Humaid examined all the different chains of transmission for this hadith.[1] I benefitted very much from their discussions on the hadith; I even added several things to their discussions in the original work.

The hadith is narrated from ‘Imran ibn Hussain, Wathilah ibn al Asqa’, Ibn Mas’ud, ‘Aʾishah, Abu Bakr, Abu Hurairah, Muaz, Jabir, ‘Uthman, Anas, Ibn ‘Abbas, Thawban, and Abu Dharr radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

 

The Hadith of ‘Imran ibn Hussain

This version is narrated with the following different chains of transmission:

  1. Al Hakim narrates — from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Muawiyah — Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al Ju’fi narrated to us — ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd Rabbih al ‘Ijli — Shu’bah narrated to us — from Qatadah — from Humaid ibn ‘Abdul Rahman — from Abu Sa’id al Khudri — from ‘Imran who said, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said…”[2]

Al Hakim authenticated the hadith. Al Dhahabi disagreed in al Talkhis and said that it is mawdu’ (fabricated).

(The author says) In the biography of Da’laj, he narrates from ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz al Baghawi and ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Muawiyah al Qurashi. In al Ithaf, the chain of transmission appears as Da’laj, from ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Muawiyah.

Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al Ju’fi[3] is matruk (suspected of forgery).[4]

‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd Rabbih al ‘Ijli could not be traced.

 
  1. Ibn al Maghazili narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator al Kudaymi.[5] He is da’if (weak). In fact, he is suspected of lying.

Ibrahim ibn Ishaq al Ju’fi is matruk (suspected of forgery).

I could not trace ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd Rabbih al ‘Ijli. Al Albani was certain that he was majhul (unknown).

 
  1. Ibn al Maghazili, al Tabarani and others narrate — from ‘Imran ibn Khalid ibn Taliq — from his father — from his grandfather — from ‘Imran ibn Hussain.[6]

This version contains the following defects (which are the underlying causes for making it da’if (weak)):

a. Ibn Hibban is the only person to deem Taliq ibn ‘Imran ibn Hussain a thiqah (reliable).[7]

b. ‘Imran ibn Khalid ibn Taliq is da’if (weak).

c. His father, Khalid ibn Taliq is da’if (weak).

Al Dhahabi states that this hadith is, according to him, batil (false).[8] Ibn Hajar transmits from al ‘Alaʾi who said: “To rule the hadith batil (false) is far-fetched. It is rather gharib (rare), as al Khatib stated.”[9]

(The author says) Khalid, as mentioned previously, was deemed da’if (weak) by al Daraqutni.

Ibn Hajar, and before him, al Dhahabi, considered this narrator and ‘Imran ibn Khalid al Khuza’i two different people. Imam Ahmed said regarding the latter that he is matruk al hadith (suspected of forgery in hadith). Ibn Hibban and others have criticised him as well. However, Sa’d al Humayyid was unaware of this.[10] He may have thought they were one person. Or perhaps he simply followed what al Albani said in this regard. It is evident that they are only one person; it is pointless to make them two separate people.

Abu Bakr al Abhuri narrates — from Bakkar ibn al ‘Abbas — from Khalid ibn al Tufayl — from Ibn ‘Imran ibn Hussain — from his father who said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam say: ‘Looking at ‘Ali is ‘ibadah (worship).’”[11]

Al Silafi narrates from al ‘Abbas ibn Bakkar — from Khalid.[12]

I could not trace Bakkar ibn al ‘Abbas. In al Silafi’s version, his name appears as al ‘Abbas ibn Bakkar. He is suspected of lying. However, the editor of al Silafi’s work states that the manuscript version has his name as Bakkar ibn al ‘Abbas (as mentioned in Fawaʾid al Abhuri). Why should I change it if this how his name actually appears?

I do not know who Khalid ibn al Tufayl is.

 
  1. Abu Bakr al Abhuri narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator al Hassan ibn al Qasim and Bakkar ibn al ‘Abbas.[13] I could not trace either of them. The other narrator is Ibn ‘Imran ibn Hussain. He is the same Taliq as mentioned previously; Ibn Hibban is the only person to deem him a thiqah (reliable).[14]
 
  1. Ibn al Maghazili narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains Ibn al Maghazili (i.e. himself) and his teacher.[15] They are both da’if (weak).

It also contains the narrator Muhammad ibn Mahmud, who could not be traced.

It contains the narrator Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdul Salam. I think he is al Makhzumi al Makki. Ibn ‘Adi states: “He is not famous and he narrates manakir (unacceptable reports). According to me, he is a saraqat al hadith[16] (appropriates hadith).”[17]

I do not know who the other narrator, Muhammad ibn Musa al Harshi is.

 
  1. Ibn ‘Asakir narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Adam ibn Muhammad ibn Sahl, ‘Imran ibn Khalid ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Imran ibn Hussain, his father and his grandfather.[18] None of them could be traced.
 

The Hadith of Wathilah ibn al Asqa’

Ibn al Maghazili narrates this hadith with a chain of transmission that contains Ibn al Maghazili (i.e. himself) and his teacher.[19] They are both da’if (weak).

It also contains the narrator Muhammad ibn Mahmud, who could not be traced.

It also contains the narrator Ibrahim ibn Mahdi al Ubulli. Al Azdi states about him: “He is famous for fabricating hadith. It is not correct to include hadith from him.”[20]

 

The Hadith of Ibn Mas’ud

This version is narrated with the following different chains of transmission:

  1. Al Hakim and others narrate — from Yahya ibn ‘Isa al Ramli — from al A’mash — from Ibrahim — from ‘Alqamah — from Ibn Mas’ud.[21]

Al Dhahabi states in al Talkhis that this hadith is mawdu’ (fabricated).

Yahya ibn ‘Isa al Ramli is da’if (weak). In fact, Ibn ‘Adi states: “Most of his narrations do not enjoy mutaba’at[22] (parallel narrations).”[23]

 
  1. Abu al Qasim Ismail al Halabi narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrators Abu al Qasim Ismail al Halabi (i.e. himself) and his teacher, al ‘Abbas ibn al Fadl ibn Jafar al Makki.[24] I have not seen anyone regard them as reliable (thiqah).

It also contains the narrator Hammad ibn al Mubarak. He is majhul (unknown).

 
  1. Al Hakim narrates — from al Musayyab ibn Zuhayr al Dabbi — ‘Asim ibn ‘Ali narrated to us — al Mas’udi narrated to us — from ‘Amr ibn Murrah — from Ibrahim — from ‘Alqamah — from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.[25]

I have not seen anyone deem al Musayyab ibn Zuhayr al Dabbi a thiqah (reliable).

Al Mas’udi is mukhtalit[26] (commits serious errors). ‘Asim ibn ‘Ali narrates from him after he began committing serious errors.

Abu Nuaim narrates — Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn Muhammad ibn al Hussain ibn Abi al Hussain and Ahmed ibn Jafar ibn Asram narrated to us — ‘Ali ibn al Muthanna narrated to us — ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar al Bajali — from al A’mash — from Ibrahim —, from ‘Alqamah — from ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.[27]

 

This version contains the following defects (which are the underlying causes for making it da’if (weak)):

a. Muhammad ibn al Hassan ibn Muhammad ibn al Hussain ibn Abi al Hussain and Ahmed ibn Jafar ibn Asram could not be traced.

b. ‘Ali ibn al Muthanna is al Tahawi. Ibn Hibban is the only person to deem him a thiqah (reliable). He is notorious for deeming majhul (unknown) narrators as thiqat (reliable narrators). Ibn Hajar states: “Ibn ‘Adi indicated towards his weakness. This is mentioned under the biography of ‘Umar ibn ‘Itab in al Kamil.”[28] Perhaps he was referring to the biography of ‘Umar ibn Ghiyath in al Kamil.[29]

c. I do not know who ‘Asim ibn ‘Umar al Bajali Al Mu’allimi states that he (too) was unable to locate this narrator.[30]

Abu al Hassan al Sukkari and others narrate this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Ahmed ibn al Hajjaj ibn al Salt.[31] Al Dhahabi accused him of lying.[32]

 

The Hadith of ‘Aʾishah

Abu Nuaim narrates— from ‘Abbad ibn Suhayb — Hisham ibn ‘Urwah narrated to us — from his father — from ‘Aʾishah.[33]

‘Abbad ibn Suhayb is matruk (suspected of forgery).[34]

Ibn ‘Asakir narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Ahmed ibn ‘Isa al Washshaʾ.[35] He is matruk al hadith (suspected of forgery in hadith).

It also contains the narrator ibn Akhi al Nijad; I have not seen anyone regard him as a thiqah (reliable).

It also contains the narrator Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah. I could not trace him.

I have not seen anyone regard the teacher of Ibn ‘Asakir, Ahmed ibn al Fadl ibn Ahmed al Khayyat as a thiqah (reliable).

Ibn ‘Asakir also narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Makhzum.[36] His name might actually be Muhammad ibn Ahmed, as will be mentioned in Abu Bakr’s version of this hadith (the next hadith). As will be mentioned, he is suspected of lying.

Ibn al Maghazili narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Ibn al Maghazili (i.e. himself).[37] He is da’if (weak). Al Dhahabi mentions a biography of his teacher, Abu Jafar al ‘Alawi’.[38] However, he does not mention anything regarding his status as a narrator.

It also contains the narrators ‘Abdullah and Yahya ibn Sabir. I could not trace them. Perhaps one of them is the problem in the hadith.

 

The Hadith of Abu Bakr

Ibn al Maghazili narrates this hadith with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Ibn al Maghazili (i.e. himself).[39] He is da’if (weak).

This version contains another narrator by the name of Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn al Hussain ibn al Sindi Abu al Fawaris ibn al Sabuni. He is a saduq (sincere) but not considered a hujjah (valid form of proof) because a false hadith was inserted into his hadith. In fact, Ibn al Mundhir says he is a kadhdhab (liar).

Ibn al Jawzi also narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Muhammad ibn Ahmed ibn Makzum.[40] He was deemed a liar.[41] Imam al Suyuti attempted to absolve the above narrator from the responsibility of the hadith by claiming he enjoys a tabi’[42] (parallel narration).[43] However, I have mentioned in the original work that this version of the Abu Bakr’s hadith is batil (false) and therefore, the parallel narration is of no use. Al Suyuti, unfortunately, commits many errors in his discussions on ahadith in a number of his works, especially in discussions of authenticating ahadith in his works al Jami’ al Saghir and al Jami’ al Kabir. He commits similar errors when attempting to strengthen mawdu’at (fabrications) with (other) wahiyat (feeble reports). In his work al Laʾali al Masnu’ah, he even, at times, attempts to strengthen mawdu’at (fabrications) with (other) fabrications.

Ibn Hibban narrates this version with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Zakariyya al ‘Adawi.[44] He is a wadda’ (fabricator) and a kadhdhab (liar).

Ibn ‘Asakir also narrates this version from Ismail ibn al Qasim al Halabi.[45] The chain of transmission contains the narrator ‘Abdul Ghaffar al Azdi. He is matruk (suspected of forgery).

It also contains the narrator Ismail ibn al Qasim ibn Ismail. As mentioned previously, I have yet to see anyone regard him as a thiqah (reliable).

Similar is the case of his teacher, al ‘Abbas ibn al Fadl ibn Jafar al Makki, I have yet to see anyone regard him as a thiqah (reliable).

Al Dinawari also narrates this version with a chain of transmission that is saqit (wholly unreliable).[46] I have explained this in the original work.

 

The Hadith of Abu Hurairah

Ibn ‘Adi narrates — al Hassan ibn ‘Ali narrated to us — al Sabbah ibn ‘Abdullah narrated to us — Shu’bah narrated to us — from al A’mash — from Abu Salih — from Abu Hurairah.[47]

The teacher of Ibn ‘Adi (al Hassan ibn ‘Ali) in this narration is a kadhdhab (liar) and a wadda’ (fabricator).

 

The Hadith of Muaz

Ibn al Maghazili and others narrate this hadith with a chain of transmission that is saqit (wholly unreliable).[48] It contains the narrator al Kudaymi. He is da’if (weak) and accused of lying.

His teacher, ‘Abdul Humaid ibn Bahr al Basri is a munkar al hadith (narrates unacceptable reports) and a saraqat al hadith (appropriates hadith).

There is another narrator by the name of Siwar ibn Mus’ab. He is matruk (suspected of forgery).

The other narrator, al Kalbi, is a kadhdhab (liar).

The other narrator, Abu Salih Badham is da’if (weak).

Al Khatib also narrates this hadith with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Musa al Razi.[49] He is accused of fabricating hadith.

 

The Hadith of Jabir

Ibn al Maghazili and others narrate — from al ‘Abbas ibn BakkarAbu Bakr al Hudhali narrated to us — from Abu al Zubair — from Jabir.”[50]

Al ‘Abbas ibn Bakkar al Dabbi is a kadhdhab (liar).

Abu Bakr al Hudhali is matruk (suspected of forgery).

Abu al Zubair is a mudallis[51] (obfuscates when he narrates).

Ibn ‘Asakir narrates this hadith — from Sulaiman ibn Abi Salabah — Abu Bakr ibn Ibrahim narrated to us — Miqdam ibn Rashid narrated to us — Thawban ibn Ibrahim narrated to us — Salim al Khawwas narrated to us — from Jafar ibn Muhammad — from his father — from Jabir.[52]

I do not know anyone beneath Jafar ibn Muhammad.

Perhaps Sulaiman ibn Abi Salabah is the same person mentioned by Ibn Hajar. Ibn Hajar writes: “Sulaiman ibn Salabah al Malti. He is accused of lying. It is as if he is the previously mentioned son of Ahmed. The name Salabah is probably the nickname of his father or the name of his grandfather.”[53] Ibn Hajar was referring to Sulaiman ibn Ahmed al Malti. He is a kadhdhab (liar).[54]

Under all circumstances, the chain of transmission is batil (false) and inauthentic.

 

The Hadith of ‘Uthman

Al Abanusi and others narrate this hadith with a chain of transmission that contains narrators, most of which are unknown.[55] Ibn al Jawzi states that the hadith of ‘Uthman contains narrators that are majahil (unknown).[56]

 

The Hadith of Anas

Ibn ‘Adi narrates this hadith under the biography of al Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Salih ibn Zakariyya al ‘Adawi.[57] He is a kadhdhab (liar) and a wadda’ (fabricator).

Ibn al Jawzi also narrates this hadith with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Matr ibn Abi Matr.[58] His name is Matr ibn Maymun and he is matruk (suspected of forgery), as mentioned previously. In fact, he is accused of lying.

‘Ali ibn al Muthanna is al Tuhawi. Ibn Hibban is the only person to regard him as a thiqah (reliable). Ibn ‘Adi indicated towards him being da’if (weak) under the biography of ‘Umar ibn Ghiyath.[59]

Abu Bakr ibn Mardawayh also narrates this hadith — from Muhammad ibn al Qasim al Asadi — from Shu’bah — from Qatadah — from Anas.[60]

Imam Ahmed and al Daraqutni deemed Muhammad ibn al Qasim al Asadi a kadhdhab (liar).

 

The Hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas

Ibn al Jawzi narrates this hadith with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Yazid ibn Abi Ziyad.[61] He is da’if (weak).

There is another narrator by the name of al Himmani. His name is Yahya ibn ‘Abdul Hamid and he is accused of lying.

There is another narrator by the name of Muhammad ibn Sufyan Abu al ‘Abbas al Hinnaʾi. Al Khatib mentions his biography without any reference to his state as a narrator.[62]

There is another narrator by the name of ‘Uthman ibn Ya’qub al ‘Attar. I do not know who he is.

 

The Hadith of Thawban

Ibn ‘Adi narrates this hadith with a chain of transmission that contains the narrator Yahya ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl.[63] He is matruk (suspected of forgery).

It also contains the narrator ‘Ali ibn al Muthanna al Tuhawi. He is da’if (weak).

 

The Hadith of Abu Dharr

Ibn ‘Asakir and Ibn al Maghazili narrate this hadith with the words: “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: ‘The example of ‘Ali among you (or he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said ‘in this Ummah’) is like the cloaked Ka’bah; looking at it is ‘ibadah (worship) and Hajj of the Ka’bah is compulsory.’”[64]

The chain of transmission for this hadith contains the narrator Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad al Shaybani. He is a kadhdhab (liar) and a wadda’ (fabricator).

I do not know every other narrator that is above him except for ‘Abdul Muʾmin ibn al Qasim al Ansari. Al ‘Uqayli says many of his hadith do not enjoy mutaba’at (parallel narrations).[65]

 

Summary

Al Albani states:

 

In summary, the soul cannot accept the hadith to be authentic, despite its many different chains of transmission, since most of its narrators are liars and fabricators. All of them are narrated by abandoned and unknown narrators. It is not implausible that they “appropriated” the hadith and composed authentic chains of transmission for it. Therefore, Ibn al Jawzi was not far from the truth when he ruled the hadith to be a fabrication. And Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows best.[66]

 

Al Shawkani mentioned the hadith and said: “With this, it becomes evident that the hadith is al hassan li ghayrihi (fair on account of other corroborating narrations). It is not sahih (authentic) like al Hakim says, nor is it mawdu’ (fabricated) like ibn al Jawzi says.”[67]

‘Abdul Rahman al Mu’allimi critiqued all the different chains of transmission in his commentary on al Shawkani’s al Fawaʾid al Majmu’ah. After the above quotation of al Shawkani, al Mu’allimi writes: “The condition of some of these narrations was unknown to him, and so he thought they were strong. However, as you can see, it is actually quite the opposite.”

As mentioned previously, all the different chains of transmission are wahiyah (feeble). Generally, in al Fawaʾid al Majmu’ah, al Shawkani is misled by what al Suyuti mentions in al Laʾali al Masnu’ah. He does not critique the different chains of transmission that al Suyuti objected to against Ibn al Jawzi when he ruled the hadith to be fabricated. In fact, everyone who has written on the subject of mawdu’at (fabrications) after al Suyuti is misled by his statements. I have yet to see anyone from them adeptly critique the different chains of transmission. Ibn ‘Iraq is the least of them who conforms to al Suyuti’s statements; however, he rarely gives any attention to nakarat al matn (unacceptability of the text of a hadith). After Ibn Hajar and his student, al Sakhawi, most people simply imitate other scholars in ‘Ilm al Hadith (the Science of Hadith).

Furthermore, the hadith has elements that are clearly unacceptable. What virtue is there in looking at a specific person, however virtuous he may be?

I made mention in the original work the interpretation offered by al Khattabi and how it takes away from its apparent meaning. I have explained how his interpretation is weak.

I do not think this hadith can be established for our noble Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Whoever says “Verily, looking at Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is a meritorious act and (a form of) ‘ibadah (worship).” is required to furnish proof (for such a statement). How then with someone lesser (in status) than him? This fact only increases the hadith in its unacceptability and falseness.

 

NEXT⇒ Hadith 13


[1] Al Albani: Silsilat Ahadith al Da’ifah, hadith no. 4702; Siraj al Din ibn al Mulaqqin: Mukhtasar Talkhis al Dhahabi li al Mustadrak (ed. Sa’d Al Humayyid), hadith no. 1508.

[2] Al Hakim: Mustadrak al Hakim, hadith no. 4681.

[3] Ibn Hajar: Ithaf al Maharah, 12/31.

[4] Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan, 1/30.

[5] Ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith no. 247.

[6] Ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith no. 246; al Tabarani: al Mujam al Kabir, 18/207.

[7] Ibn Hibban: Kitab al Thiqat, 6/494.

[8] Al Dhahabi: Mizan al I’tidal, 3/236.

[9] Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan, 4/345.

[10] Siraj al Din ibn al Mulaqqin: Mukhtasar Talkhis al Dhahabi li al Mustadrak (ed. Sa’d Al Humayyid), hadith no. 1507.

[11] Abu Bakr al Abhuri: Fawaʾid al Abhuri, hadith no. 58.

[12] Al Silafi: al Tuyuriyyat, 2/540.

[13] Abu Bakr al Abhuri: Fawaʾid al Abhuri, hadith no. 58.

[14] Ibn Hibban: Kitab al Thiqat, 6/494.

[15] Ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith no. 250.

[16] For an explanation of this term. Click Here

[17] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/259.

[18] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 42/353.

[19] Ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith no. 251.

[20] Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 1/147.

[21] Al Hakim: Mustadrak al Hakim, hadith no. 4682.

[22] For an explanation of this term. Click Here

[23] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 7/218.

[24] Abu al Qasim Ismail al Halabi: Hadith Abi al Qasim Ismail al Halabi, hadith no. 37.

[25] Al Hakim: Mustadrak al Hakim, hadith no. 4683.

[26] For an explanation of this term. Click Here

[27] Abu Nuaim: Fada’il al Khulafaʾ al Rashidin, hadith no. 38.

[28] Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 7/329.

[29] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 5/58.

[30] Al Mu’allimi: al Fawaʾid al Majmu’ah, hadith no. 314.

[31] Abu al Hassan al Sukkari: Hadith Abi al Hassan al Sukkari, hadith no. 225.

[32] Al Dhahabi: Mizan al I’tidal, 1/89.

[33] Abu Nuaim: Hilyat al Awliyaʾ, 2/182.

[34] Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan, 3/230.

[35] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 40/9.

[36] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 42/355.

[37] Ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith no. 245.

[38] Al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 30/82.

[39] Ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith nos. 252 and 253.

[40] Ibn al Jawzi: al Mawdu’at, 1/358.

[41] Hamzah ibn Yusuf al Sahmi: Suʾalat Hamzah li al Daraqutni, p. 108.

[42] For an explanation of this term. please see p. [translator’s note]

[43] Imam al Suyuti: al Laʾali al Masnu’ah, 1/313.

[44] Ibn Hibban: Kitab al Majruhin, 1/241.

[45] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 42/350; Ismail ibn al Qasim al Halabi: Ahadith Abi al Qasim al Halabi, hadith no. 38.

[46] Al Dinawari: al Mujalasah wa Jawahir al ‘Ilm, hadith no. 3503.

[47] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 2/339.

[48] Ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith nos. 244 and 247.

[49] Al Khatib: Tarikh Baghdad, 2/51.

[50] Ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith no. 248.

[51] For an explanation of this term. Click Here

[52] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 42/354.

[53] Ibn Hajar: Lisan al Mizan, 3/96.

[54] Ibid., 3/72.

[55] Al Abanusi: Mashyakhat al Abanusi, 2/168.

[56] Ibn al Jawzi: al Mawdu’at, 1/362.

[57] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 2/339.

[58] Ibn al Jawzi: al Mawdu’at, 1/360.

[59] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 5/58.

[60] Ibn al Jawzi: al Mawdu’at, 1/360.

[61] Ibid., 1/359.

[62] Al Khatib: Tarikh Baghdad, 5/347.

[63] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 7/197.

[64] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 42/356; ibn al Maghazili: Manaqib ‘Ali, hadith no. 149.

[65] Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afaʾ al Kabir, 3/92.

[66] Al Albani: Silsilat Ahadith al Da’ifah, 10/250.

[67] Al Shawkani: al Fawaʾid al Majmu’ah, hadith no. 316.

Back to top