BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
أن النبي كان عنده طائر فقال: اللهم ائتني بأحب خلقك يأكل معي من هذا الطير فجاء أبو بكر فرده ثم جاء عمر فرده ثم جاء علي فأذن له.
There was a bird (cooked as food) with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam so he said, “O Allah, send me the most beloved of Your creation to partake of this bird with me.”
Abu Bakr came and he denied him. Then ‘Umar came and he denied him. Then ‘Ali came and granted him permission.
Several hadith masters (huffaz) have gathered the (variant) chains of transmission of this hadith for the sake of ‘itibar’[1] (consideration), including al Hakim Abu ‘Abdullah, Abu Bakr ibn Mardawayh, Abu Nuaim, and al Hafiz al Dhahabi.
The hadith has been transmitted from Anas ibn Malik, Safinah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah al Ansari, Abu Sa’id al Khudri, Hubshi ibn Junadah, Ya’la ibn Murrah, and Abu Rafi’ radiya Llahu ‘anhum. One by one, I have analysed each of these narrations, totalling fifty-four (different) chains.
All of the chains are weak, most of which are extremely weak (shadidat al d’af). They revolved around hulka (disastrous), matruk (narrators suspected of forgery), and majhul (unknown) narrators. In addition the matn (text) of the hadith is mudtarib (unresolvably problematic). Based on these factors, the hadith is inauthentic.
I have previously explained that the ‘ulama’ reject this hadith on account of the text lending a meaning that gives preference to ‘Ali over the Sheikhayn (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma) and even the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; this, in addition to the scantiness in wording and its unresolvable nature. I have examined the controversial and problematic areas of the hadith and, to the extent of my knowledge, there does not exist (another) hadith with such unresolvable problems. The problems of the hadith are summarized below:
The narrations describe the bird as follows:
Most narrations say it was a grilled bird (tayr).
The other majority of narrations say it was merely a bird (ta’ir) and then he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ordered for it to be cooked and prepared.
Some narrations mention the bird was brought to him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from the leftovers of the night before.
5. Difference of opinion regarding the arrival of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu
In some narrations (Anas says): “I was with Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in an orchard.” In other narrations it is mentioned: “He spent the night by some of his wives—either Safiyyah or someone else (…)”
The difference in wording and irresolvable nature of the wording proves it is weak. The narrators contrived the hadith and caused such confusion whereby it is impossible to reconcile between the (conflicting) narrations. This proves the hadith is weak according to the hadith scholars because when a hadith cannot be resolved it is a proof that it lacks accurate (transmission), even if the narrators are reliable. How is this even remotely possible when the narrators of this hadith are weak? How is this possible when they are matruk (suspected of forgery)?
The following hadith masters (huffaz) have regarded the hadith as weak:
It seems that the vast majority of hadith scholars are of the opinion that the hadith is weak. Al Khatib (al Baghdadi) Abu Bakr says, “The people rejected several ahadith that Abu ‘Abdullah al Hakim collected and claimed to be sahih—according to the conditions of the Sheikhayn (al Bukhari and Muslim). Among these ahadith is the (above) hadith of the bird.”[25]
Al Khalili states, “All of the imams of hadith reject this hadith.”[26]
Ibn al Mulaqqin reported that al Khatib said: “Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Muhammad (al Armawi) of Naysabur narrated to me—he was a respected, virtuous, pious scholar—(and) said: ‘Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdullah collected several ahadith and claimed they are sahih according to the conditions of al Bukhari and Muslim, and that they should have included them in their respective sahihs. Some of these ahadith include the hadith of the bird and the hadith regarding ‘Ali’s wilayah (man kuntu mawlahu…). The hadith scholars rejected this from him and paid no attention to these statements. They also did not approve of his actions.’”[27]
Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdullah authenticated this hadith; however, the masters of hadith have consistently rejected this from him. It has been reported that he retracted this view on account of the ‘ulama’s rejection.
In one instance, al ‘Ala’i strengthened the hadith, and in another instance he was uncertain.
Al ‘Ala’i states, “This hadith has many chains of transmission, most of which are wahin (feeble and baseless). Some, however, can be used for ‘itibar (consideration), whereby one chain can bolster the other.[28]
(In another place) he says, “The truth is that the hadith can possibly be on the level of Hassan (fair). Or, it can be da’if (weak), but of an acceptable nature. As for all of the narrations being a fabrication, this is not the case.”[29]
(In another place) he says, “Therefore, the hadith via the two chains of Abu Muawiyah and Sharik are on the level of Hassan (fair), such that it can be used as a proof. It is not da’if (weak), let alone mawdu’ (fabricated).”[30]
There is no doubt that what the Imams of hadith have followed is the correct position, for all the considerations that have been mentioned. Furthermore, al Hakim retracted his authentication of the hadith. Al ‘Ala’i was also unsure; sometimes he strengthens the hadith and two pages later he is unsure. Then again, he strengthens the hadith.
[1] I’tibar (consideration) is the process in which a hadith critic would collect all the reports that a transmitter had narrated from various teachers and then analyze them for corroboration. [translator’s note]
[2] Al ‘Uqayli: Kitab al Du’afa’, 1/46; Imam al Tirmidhi: al ‘Ilal al Kabir, 374.
[3] Abu Zur’ah al Razi: al Du’afa’ li Abi Zur’ah al Razi, 2/692.
[4] Al Bazzar: Musnad al Bazzar, 14/80.
[5] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 4/266; Imam al Dhahabi: Tadhkirat al Huffaz,, 146.
[6] Al Zarkashi: al Nukat ‘Ala Ibn al Salah, 1/328.
[7] Al ‘Uqayli: Kitab al Du’afa’, 1/46-82.
[8] Ibn al Jawzi: al ‘Ilal al Mutanahiyah, 1/237; Imam al Dhahabi: Tadhkirat al Huffaz, 146.
[9] Al Khalili: al Irshad fi Ma’rifat ‘Ulama’ al Hadith, 1/420.
[10] Ibn al Jawzi: al ‘Ilal al Mutanahiyah, 1/225
[11] Imam al Dhahabi: Tadhkirat al Huffaz, 146.
[12] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil
[13] Zayn al Din al ‘Iraqi: Takhrij Ahadith al Ihya’, 855.
[14] Jamal al Din al Zayla’i: Nasb al Rayah, 1/359-360.
[15] Ibn al Mulaqqin: al Badr al Munir, 1/315.
[16] Imam al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 13/232, 17/168-169, 175-176, al Mughni fi al Du’afa’, 2/394, Mizan al I’tidal, 1/602, Tadhkirat al Huffaz, 3/164; ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/80-81;
[17] Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 7/371.
[18] Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/75, 80, 83.
[19] Al Shawkani: al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah fi al Ahadith al Mawdu’ah, hadith no. 332.
[20] Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/83.
[21] Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani: Lisan al Mizan, 2/354, 4/561.
[22] Abu Hafs al Qazwini: al As’ilat al lati Su’ila ‘Anha al Hafiz Ibn Hajar bi Sha’n al Ahadith al Muntaqadah ‘Ala Miskhat al Masabih (printed at the end of Miskhat al Masabih, 3/1774-1776.
[23] Al Shawkani: al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah fi al Ahadith al Mawdu’ah, hadith no. 332.
[24] Al Albani: Silsilat Ahadith al Da’ifah, 14/173.
[25] Al Zarkashi: al Nukat ‘Ala Muqaddimat Ibn al Salah, 1/214.
[26] Al Khalili: al Irshad fi Ma’rifat ‘Ulama’ al Hadith, 1/420.
[27] Ibn al Mulaqqin: al Badr al Munir, 1/315.
[28] Al ‘Ala’i: al Naqd al Sahih Lima ‘Uturida min Ahadith al Masabih, 49.
[29] Ibid., 51.
[30]Ibid., 55.
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
أن النبي كان عنده طائر فقال: اللهم ائتني بأحب خلقك يأكل معي من هذا الطير فجاء أبو بكر فرده ثم جاء عمر فرده ثم جاء علي فأذن له.
There was a bird (cooked as food) with the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam so he said, “O Allah, send me the most beloved of Your creation to partake of this bird with me.”
Abu Bakr came and he denied him. Then ‘Umar came and he denied him. Then ‘Ali came and granted him permission.
Several hadith masters (huffaz) have gathered the (variant) chains of transmission of this hadith for the sake of ‘itibar’[1] (consideration), including al Hakim Abu ‘Abdullah, Abu Bakr ibn Mardawayh, Abu Nuaim, and al Hafiz al Dhahabi.
The hadith has been transmitted from Anas ibn Malik, Safinah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah al Ansari, Abu Sa’id al Khudri, Hubshi ibn Junadah, Ya’la ibn Murrah, and Abu Rafi’ radiya Llahu ‘anhum. One by one, I have analysed each of these narrations, totalling fifty-four (different) chains.
All of the chains are weak, most of which are extremely weak (shadidat al d’af). They revolved around hulka (disastrous), matruk (narrators suspected of forgery), and majhul (unknown) narrators. In addition the matn (text) of the hadith is mudtarib (unresolvably problematic). Based on these factors, the hadith is inauthentic.
I have previously explained that the ‘ulama’ reject this hadith on account of the text lending a meaning that gives preference to ‘Ali over the Sheikhayn (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma) and even the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; this, in addition to the scantiness in wording and its unresolvable nature. I have examined the controversial and problematic areas of the hadith and, to the extent of my knowledge, there does not exist (another) hadith with such unresolvable problems. The problems of the hadith are summarized below:
The narrations describe the bird as follows:
Most narrations say it was a grilled bird (tayr).
The other majority of narrations say it was merely a bird (ta’ir) and then he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ordered for it to be cooked and prepared.
Some narrations mention the bird was brought to him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from the leftovers of the night before.
5. Difference of opinion regarding the arrival of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu
In some narrations (Anas says): “I was with Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in an orchard.” In other narrations it is mentioned: “He spent the night by some of his wives—either Safiyyah or someone else (…)”
The difference in wording and irresolvable nature of the wording proves it is weak. The narrators contrived the hadith and caused such confusion whereby it is impossible to reconcile between the (conflicting) narrations. This proves the hadith is weak according to the hadith scholars because when a hadith cannot be resolved it is a proof that it lacks accurate (transmission), even if the narrators are reliable. How is this even remotely possible when the narrators of this hadith are weak? How is this possible when they are matruk (suspected of forgery)?
The following hadith masters (huffaz) have regarded the hadith as weak:
It seems that the vast majority of hadith scholars are of the opinion that the hadith is weak. Al Khatib (al Baghdadi) Abu Bakr says, “The people rejected several ahadith that Abu ‘Abdullah al Hakim collected and claimed to be sahih—according to the conditions of the Sheikhayn (al Bukhari and Muslim). Among these ahadith is the (above) hadith of the bird.”[25]
Al Khalili states, “All of the imams of hadith reject this hadith.”[26]
Ibn al Mulaqqin reported that al Khatib said: “Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Muhammad (al Armawi) of Naysabur narrated to me—he was a respected, virtuous, pious scholar—(and) said: ‘Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdullah collected several ahadith and claimed they are sahih according to the conditions of al Bukhari and Muslim, and that they should have included them in their respective sahihs. Some of these ahadith include the hadith of the bird and the hadith regarding ‘Ali’s wilayah (man kuntu mawlahu…). The hadith scholars rejected this from him and paid no attention to these statements. They also did not approve of his actions.’”[27]
Al Hakim Abu ‘Abdullah authenticated this hadith; however, the masters of hadith have consistently rejected this from him. It has been reported that he retracted this view on account of the ‘ulama’s rejection.
In one instance, al ‘Ala’i strengthened the hadith, and in another instance he was uncertain.
Al ‘Ala’i states, “This hadith has many chains of transmission, most of which are wahin (feeble and baseless). Some, however, can be used for ‘itibar (consideration), whereby one chain can bolster the other.[28]
(In another place) he says, “The truth is that the hadith can possibly be on the level of Hassan (fair). Or, it can be da’if (weak), but of an acceptable nature. As for all of the narrations being a fabrication, this is not the case.”[29]
(In another place) he says, “Therefore, the hadith via the two chains of Abu Muawiyah and Sharik are on the level of Hassan (fair), such that it can be used as a proof. It is not da’if (weak), let alone mawdu’ (fabricated).”[30]
There is no doubt that what the Imams of hadith have followed is the correct position, for all the considerations that have been mentioned. Furthermore, al Hakim retracted his authentication of the hadith. Al ‘Ala’i was also unsure; sometimes he strengthens the hadith and two pages later he is unsure. Then again, he strengthens the hadith.
[1] I’tibar (consideration) is the process in which a hadith critic would collect all the reports that a transmitter had narrated from various teachers and then analyze them for corroboration. [translator’s note]
[2] Al ‘Uqayli: Kitab al Du’afa’, 1/46; Imam al Tirmidhi: al ‘Ilal al Kabir, 374.
[3] Abu Zur’ah al Razi: al Du’afa’ li Abi Zur’ah al Razi, 2/692.
[4] Al Bazzar: Musnad al Bazzar, 14/80.
[5] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 4/266; Imam al Dhahabi: Tadhkirat al Huffaz,, 146.
[6] Al Zarkashi: al Nukat ‘Ala Ibn al Salah, 1/328.
[7] Al ‘Uqayli: Kitab al Du’afa’, 1/46-82.
[8] Ibn al Jawzi: al ‘Ilal al Mutanahiyah, 1/237; Imam al Dhahabi: Tadhkirat al Huffaz, 146.
[9] Al Khalili: al Irshad fi Ma’rifat ‘Ulama’ al Hadith, 1/420.
[10] Ibn al Jawzi: al ‘Ilal al Mutanahiyah, 1/225
[11] Imam al Dhahabi: Tadhkirat al Huffaz, 146.
[12] Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil
[13] Zayn al Din al ‘Iraqi: Takhrij Ahadith al Ihya’, 855.
[14] Jamal al Din al Zayla’i: Nasb al Rayah, 1/359-360.
[15] Ibn al Mulaqqin: al Badr al Munir, 1/315.
[16] Imam al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 13/232, 17/168-169, 175-176, al Mughni fi al Du’afa’, 2/394, Mizan al I’tidal, 1/602, Tadhkirat al Huffaz, 3/164; ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/80-81;
[17] Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah, 7/371.
[18] Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/75, 80, 83.
[19] Al Shawkani: al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah fi al Ahadith al Mawdu’ah, hadith no. 332.
[20] Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 11/83.
[21] Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani: Lisan al Mizan, 2/354, 4/561.
[22] Abu Hafs al Qazwini: al As’ilat al lati Su’ila ‘Anha al Hafiz Ibn Hajar bi Sha’n al Ahadith al Muntaqadah ‘Ala Miskhat al Masabih (printed at the end of Miskhat al Masabih, 3/1774-1776.
[23] Al Shawkani: al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah fi al Ahadith al Mawdu’ah, hadith no. 332.
[24] Al Albani: Silsilat Ahadith al Da’ifah, 14/173.
[25] Al Zarkashi: al Nukat ‘Ala Muqaddimat Ibn al Salah, 1/214.
[26] Al Khalili: al Irshad fi Ma’rifat ‘Ulama’ al Hadith, 1/420.
[27] Ibn al Mulaqqin: al Badr al Munir, 1/315.
[28] Al ‘Ala’i: al Naqd al Sahih Lima ‘Uturida min Ahadith al Masabih, 49.
[29] Ibid., 51.
[30]Ibid., 55.