The First Narration

The Second Narration
January 21, 2016
Chapter One Responding to Those Ahadith Which Have Been Quoted in Criticism of Mu`awiyah
January 21, 2016

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The First Narration

 

The narration of Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

 

If you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him!

 
  1. This has been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil[1] (2/146), (5/200), (5/314) as well as by Ibn al Jowzi in al Mowdu’at[2] (2/265) with the wording, “stone him,” and by Ibn ‘Asakir [3] in Tarikh Dimashq[4] (59/155), all of them with the narration of Mujalid ibn Sa’id from Abu al Wadak, from Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
  2. This has also been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (7/83), by al Baladhuri[5] in Ansab as-Ashraf [6] (5/136), by Ibn al Jowzi in al Mowdu’at (2/256), and by Ibn ‘Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (59/55), all of them from the narration of ‘Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jud’an from Abu Nadrah, from Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
  3. It has also been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (2/209), by Ibn Hibban[7] in al Majruhin[8] (1/35), by Ibn al Jowzi in al Mowdu’at (2/265), all of them from the narration of ‘Abbad ibn Yaqub al Rawajini — from al Hakam ibn Zahir — from ‘Asim — from Zirr — from Ibn Mas’ud — from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[9]
  4. It has also been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (7/112) who says, ‘Ali ibn Sa’id narrated to us – he said – al Hussain ibn ‘Isa al Razi narrated to us – he said – Salamah ibn al Fadl narrated to us – he said – Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al Taymi narrated to us — from Abu Umamah ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf — from his father (Sahl ibn Hunayf) — from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “If you see so-and-so on my pulpit, kill him!”
  5. It was also been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (6/112) from the narration of Ahmed ibn Hussain al Sadfi — from Sufyan ibn Muhammad al Fazari — from Mansur ibn Salamah — from Sulaiman ibn Bilal — from Jafar ibn Muhammad — from his father — from Jabir — from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “If you see on my pulpit, then kill him — he meant so-and-so…”[10]
  6. It has also been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419) who said: “Ibn Sa’id narrated to us – who said – Abu Shaibah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Abi Shaibah narrated to us — from Khalid ibn Makhlad — from Sulaiman ibn Bilal — from Jafar — from a group of the participants of Badr — from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
  7. It has also been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (5/101), by al ‘Uqayli[11] in al Du’afa’’[12] (3/997), by al Khatib in his Tarikh (12/181), by Ibn al Jowzi in al Mowdu’at (2/266), by Ibn ‘Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (59/157) all of them from the narration of Sulaiman ibn Harb from Hammad ibn Zaid who said: “It was said to Ayub that ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid narrates from Hassan that the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “If you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him!” to which he — Ayub — replied: “‘Amr has lied!”[13]
 

As for the First Chain

In this chain appears Mujalid ibn Sa’id al Hamadani al Kufi.

 
  • Al Bukhari said of him: “Yahya al Qattan considered him weak [as a narrator] and Ibn Mahdi would not narrate from him.”
  • Al Juzajani said of him: “His narrations are to be considered weak.”[14]
  • Ahmed said of him: “Not [worth] anything.”[15] In another report Ahmed said: “Such-and such – then moved his hand – however, he adds to the chain of transmission,” and in another report from him he said, “Mujalid from al Sha’bi and others, weak, how many a strange narration from Mujalid!”
  • Yahya said of him: “He was weak.” He also said: “I do not consider his narrations admissible.”[16]
  • Al Nasa’i said of him: “A Kufahn, weak.”[17]
  • Ibn ‘Adi said of him: “Most of what he narrates is uncorroborated.”[18]
 

As for the Second Chain

In this chain appears ‘Ali ibn Zaid Jud’an.

 
  • Ahmed said of him: “Not [worth] anything.”
  • Yahya ibn Ma’in said of him: “Not that strong.”[19] In another narration: “Not all that [reliable],” and in the report from al Duri, “not an authoritative source.”[20]
  • Al Juzajani said of him: “Careless in his narration, weak, not to be relied upon.”[21]
  • Abu Hatim said of him: “Not strong [by any standard], his narrations are to be recorded but not considered an authoritative source, and he used to advocate Shia views.”[22]
  • Ibn Khuzaimah said of him: “I do not consider him reliable on account of his weak memory.”
  • Ibn Sa’d said of him: “Plentiful in terms of narration, but there is weakness in him, he is not to be considered an authoritative source.”[23]
  • Abu Zur’ah said of him: “Not strong [by any standard].”
  • Al Tirmidhi said of him: “Truthful, except that he elevates [chains of narrations to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] that which others suspend [at the Sahabah].”[24]
  • Al Daraqutni said of him: “There remains – in my assessment – infirmness in him.”[25]
  • Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil has said: “He was extreme in advocating Shia doctrine, and despite his weakness, his narrations may be recorded.”[26]
  • Hammad ibn Zaid said of him: “He substitutes his narrations.”[27]
  • Both al Nasa’i and Ibn ‘Uyaynah have declared him weak.[28]
  • Ibn Hibban said of him in al Majruhin (2/78): “He erred, this occurred often, as a result of which he deserves to be abandoned.”
  • ‘Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jud’an has been corroborated, or ‘followed-up’[29]. ‘Abdul Malik ibn Abi Nadrah has narrated this jointly, from the latter’s father with that chain as it is recorded in by ibn Hibban in al Majruhin (1/173). However, this corroboration is void due to the narrator in the chain – the person from whom Ibn Hibban narrates – Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn Fadalah, Abu Bishr, the jurist. Ibn Hibban says of him: “He was from those who would fabricate the text of reports, and he would substitute the chains of narration to make it seem as though they were from reliable narrators, and narrate outrageous reports from reliable narrators as a result of which he deserves to be abandoned.” Ibn Hibban mentioned a number of his narrations in al Majruhin[30], this particular narration among them, he then said: “These narrations that we have mentioned; most of them have had their chains substituted and these are known to be his handiwork.”
 

As for the Third Chain

In this chain appears al Hakam ibn Zahir al Fazari, al Kufi.

 
  • Ibn Hibban says of him in al Majruhin: “The Kufahns narrate from him. He used to utter profanities against the Sahabah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and relate from trustworthy narrators [falsely] things which were fabricated, and it is he who narrated from ‘Asim — from Zirr…” and he completed the narration.[31]
  • Yahya ibn Ma’in said of him: “He is not [worth] anything,” and on another occasion he said, “a confounded liar!”
  • Al Nasai said of him: “One whose narrations are abandoned, a Kufan”[32]
  • Al Bukhari said of him: “One whose narrations are rejected.”
  • Al Juzajani said of him: “failure.”
  • Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil said of him: “Most of his narrations are uncorroborated.”[33]

Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah al Qadi has jointly narrated this with al Hakam ibn Zahir as is mentioned by Ibn Hibban in al Majruhin (2/163). However, Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah al Qadi, Abu ‘Abdullah, the Kufan, is weak, especially in that which he narrated from memory after being assigned a post in the judiciary.

  • Ibn Hibban said in al Thiqat: “Towards the end he erred regularly and his memory failed him. Therefore, the narrations of those who heard from him in his early days in Wasit do not have confusion — like Yazid ibn Harun, Ishaq al Azraq — as for those who heard from him later on in Kufah, their narrations have many mistakes.”[34]
  • Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil said: “The general status of his narrations is one of reliability and acceptable. However, that which occurred in his narrations which is objectionable is on account of weakness of memory and not deliberate narration of that which is deserving of being declared weak.”[35]
  • Salih Jazarah said: “He is truthful, but when he took up the post in the judiciary his memory became inconsistent.”
 

As for the Fourth Chain

Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (6/112) has indicated to the occurrence of a non-corroborated, solitary narration by weak narrator, he said: “And this [narration] with this [wording] I have not recorded it except from [the narration of] ‘Ali ibn Sa’id.”

Furthermore, appearing in this chain is Salamah ibn al Fadl, Abu ‘Abdullah, al Abrash, and he is weak. He has many contradictions and solitary narrations. As for that which he narrates from Muhammad ibn Ishaq under the genre of Maghazi[36] only, it is stronger than the rest even though a general status of weak is accorded to his narrations.

  • Al Bukhari said of him: “He has many non-corroborated solitary narrations. ‘Ali ibn al Madini declared him weak[37]. ‘Ali said of him: “We did not leave Rayy, until we disposed of his narrations [that which we recorded of it].”[38]
  • Abu Hatim said of him: “He is within the category of truthfulness, yet there occurs in his narrations lone contradictions. His narrations may be recorded, but not relied upon as proof.”[39]
  • Al Nasa’i and Ishaq ibn Rahuyah have both declared him weak.[40]
  • Al Hakim has said of him: “He is not strong according to them [scholars of hadith].”
  • Ibn Hibban included him in al Thiqat and said: “He errs and contradicts.”[41]
  • Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawood and Ibn Sa’d considered him relatively reliable.
  • Ibn ‘Adi, in al Kamil (3/341), under his biographical details, has said: “And he has — besides that which he narrated from Ibn Ishaq and others under the genre of Maghazi — many independent, solitary, lone, non-corroborated narrations. I have not found in his narrations any narration which transgressed the boundaries in terms of contradiction, his narrations are passively weak.”
 

However in this narration we find the problem of implicit narration of Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar, and he was described — may Allah have mercy on him — with evasiveness. When he narrates in the implicit form he evades[42], especially if he narrates other than the Maghazi genre. So if his evasiveness is present, the narration is not accepted; and the solitary nature of this narration indicates that he has indeed evaded.

 

As for the Fifth Chain

In this chain appears Sufyan ibn Muhammad al Fazari, al Masisi. Regarding him, Ibn ‘Adi, in al Kamil (3/419), said: “He used to ‘steal narrations’ [by attributing a fictitious corroboratory narration] and interferes with the chains [by substituting a narrator or omitting a narrator — usually an unreliable narrator — between reliable narrators],” then mentioned this particular narration of his and said: “Sufyan al Fazari has interfered with this since he said, “from Jafar ibn Muhammad, from his father, from Jabir,” and he has also narrated it from Mansur ibn Salamah, from Sulaiman ibn Bilal — and Sulaiman is reliable and Mansur is acceptable — whereas this is only related by way of Jafar ibn Muhammad, from a group of the participants of Badr[43] from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.” Sufyan ibn Muhammad has narrations other than those mentioned for which he has absolutely no corroboration from the reliable narrators, as he has many fabricated narrations along with narrations for which he has forged supplementary chains from the narrations of reliable narrators. Additionally his narrations have names of narrators who have been switched as well as continuity for chains that have [known] missing links above the stage of the Tabi’in. His weakness is evidently clear.[44]

 

As for the Sixth Chain

In this chain appears Khalid ibn Makhlad al Qatawani, who — even though he is from the narrators in al Bukhari — is weak in narration.

 
  • Ahmed said of him: “He has many narrations which were not corroborated (despite his weakness).”[45]
  • Ibn Sa’d said of him: “Excessively weak, in addition to extreme Shia thought.”[46]
  • Abu Hatim said of him: “His narrations may be recorded, but not independently considered admissible as evidence.”[47]
  • Abu Dawood said of him: “Truthful, although he adopted Shia thought.”[48]
  • Yahya ibn Ma’in and Ibn ‘Adi said of him: “No problem in him [his narration].”[49]
  • Al ‘Ijli and Ibn Hibban both deemed him reliable.[50]
 

As for the Seventh Chain

It has a number of defects:

  1. It has been narrated in the passive voice — indicating its weakness — as related by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (5/101), al ‘Uqayli in al Du’afa’ (3/998), al Khatib in his Tarikh (12/181), Ibn al Jowzi in al Mowdu’at (2/266) and Ibn ‘Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (59/157): “It was said to Ayub, ‘indeed ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid narrates from Hassan,’ and the person saying this is not known.”
  2. Ayub al Sakhtiyani said that this narration is a lie, as recorded by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (5/101), (5/103).
  3. In the chain appears ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid, Abu ‘Uthman al Basri:
  • Ayub and Yunus ibn ‘Ubaid both said: “‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid used to lie in his narrations.”
  • Al Daraqutni said of him: “Weak!”
  • Ibn Ma’in said of him: “Not [worth] anything.”[51]
  • Al Nasa’i said of him: “One whose narrations are abandoned.”[52]
  • Ibn Hibban said of him: “He was a caller to Mu’tazilite doctrine, and uttered profanities against the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and with all of that he lied in his narrations out of carelessness not intentionally.”[53]
  • Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil said: “Abhorred, excessively weak in narration, openly declared innovation.”[54]
 

Therefore, ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid was a confounded liar, especially from that which he narrates from Hassan. Humaid al Tawil, Ayub al Sakhtiyani and Ibn ‘Awn have all clearly stated this. So, this chain is unsubstantiated. And even if the chain is proven it is from the Mursal narrations of Hassan, and the Mursal narrations of Hassan are not considered.

In al Muntakhab min al ‘ilal li al Khallal[55] (229), al Khallal said: “‘Abdullah narrated to us, from his father — who said — Sulaiman ibn Harb narrated to us — who said — Hammad ibn Zaid narrated to us — saying — a man said to Ayub, ‘indeed ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid narrates from Hassan that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “If you see — meaning Muawiyah — on the pulpit…” to which he — Ayub — said: ‘‘Amr has lied.’ He — ‘Abdullah — said: ‘I asked my father to narrate to me the narrations of ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid — I know them — so he dictated to me from the narration of Sahl ibn Yusuf from ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid from Hassan, then he said, ‘Leave it, for he has lied against Hassan!’”

It is evidently clear from all of this that this narration is baseless, in terms of the chain of narration as well as the text. A number of scholars have pointed out the fact that this narration is baseless.

 

1. Al Bukhari said in al Tarikh al Awsat:

 

Hammad ibn Salamah related from ‘Ali ibn Zaid, from Abu Nadrah, “when Muawiyah delivered the sermon from the pulpit, a man stood up and ascribed to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, ‘if you see him on the pulpit kill him,’ and another said, ‘write to ‘Umar,’ — and they did so — but ‘Umar was already murdered.” However, this is a Mursal narration and Abu Nadrah did not witness those days. ‘Abdur Razzaq says — by way of — Ibn ‘Uyaynah, from ‘Ali ibn Zaid, from Abu Sa’id from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and this has been interpolated, and not established. It has also been narrated by Mujalid, from Abu al Wadak, from Abu Sa’id from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and this is extremely weak. Ahmed said of Mujalid that his narrations are as if they are dreams. Yahya ibn Sa’id said if one wished, he would have made them all from al Sha’bi, from Masruq, from ‘Abdullah. It has also been related by way of Ma’mar, from Ibn Tawus, from his father, from a man, from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in this incident, and this narration is interrupted [in its chain], not to be relied upon. Al A’mash narrates from Salim, from Thowban, from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding this incident. However, Salim did not hear from Thowban, as for al A’mash it is uncertain whether he heard this from Salim or not. Abu Bakr ibn al ‘Ayyash relates from al A’mash that he said: “We seek forgiveness from Allah for things we would narrate on the basis of amazement, they have taken it as part of the religion. The Sahabah of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were present when Muawiyah became a governor during the era of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and after that for a period of ten years, yet no one stood up with the intention of killing him. [Al Bukhari says] This is a clear indication that these narrations have absolutely no basis and no report of this nature has been proven from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with regard to any of his Sahabah. It is only people of weakness who spoke of this among themselves, except that which occurred during Jahilyyah, and then they entered into Islam, and Islam wiped clean all that occurred before it.

 

2. Abu Jafar al ‘Uqayli, in al Du’afa’ (1/280), after mentioning a number of narrations — among them this narration — said: “And none of these texts have been authentically proven from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.”

3. Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419).

4. Ibn Hibban said in al Majruhin (1/171), under the biography of Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Bishr ibn Fadalah after mentioning some narrations from him — among them this narration: “These narrations that we have mentioned here, most of them have been substituted and been interfered with, it is his handiwork.” For this reason Ibn Hajar said in Tahdhib al Tahthib (3/164): “Others besides him — Ibn Hibban — have rejected that which Hammad ibn Salamah relates from him — Ahmed ibn Muhammad — from Abu Nadrah, from Abu Sa’id…”

5. Al Jawzaqani in al Abatil (1/200): “This narration is a fabrication, absolutely baseless, it is nothing except from the inventions of the innovators, who are fabricators. May Allah forsake them in both worlds! As for anyone who believes this, or its like, or even thinks that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said such things, then he is a heretic, out of the religion.”

6. Ibn al Jowzi in al Mowdu’at (2/266) said: “This narration is not authentic from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam,” in (2/264) Ibn al Jowzi mentioned this narration from those which have fabricated for the purpose of vilifying Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

7. Ibn ‘Asakir, in Tarikh Dimashq (59/157), said: “All these narrations are questionable.”

8. Abu al ‘Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah said in Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah (4/380): “These narrations are not found in the books of Islam, they are lies according to hadith experts and Ibn al Jowzi has mentioned it in al Mowdu’at.”

9. Al Dhahabi said in Siyar A’lam al Nubala’ (3/150): “This is a lie. It has also been said — through interpretation — that it refers to Muawiyah ibn Tabuh, the hypocrite.”

10. Ibn Kathir, in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah (11/419), said: “This narration is a lie, without doubt.”

11. Ibn Hajar al Haythami in Tathir al Janan (38).

12. Al Showkani in al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah (407).

13. Al Suyuti in al Fawa’id min al La’ali al Masnu’ah (1/388).

14. Ibn ‘Arraq al Kinani in Tanhiz al Shari’ah al Marfu’ah (2/8).

 

Furthermore, this narration is baseless if one considers only the text, for two reasons:

  1. The pulpit was ascended by individuals far worse than Muawiyah, but despite that the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not instruct that they be killed.
  2. It would be a criticism of the Sahabah, especially those whom this narration reached since they failed to act on it by hastening to kill Muawiyah.
 

Abu al ‘Abbas Ibn Taymiyyah said in Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah (4/380):

 

These narrations are not found in the books of Islam, they are lies according to hadith experts and Ibn al Jowzi has mentioned it in al Mowduat. Another factor that shows this narration to be a blatant lie is the fact that the pulpit of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was ascended — after the death of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu — by individuals whom Muawiyah was superior to, by consensus of the Muslims. So, if it were obligatory to kill those who ascended merely on account of ascending the pulpit, it would be obligatory to kill all of them. Furthermore, this goes contrary to what is known of the religion by necessity, that a person be killed merely on account of ascending the pulpit. And if it is said that it was meant by this that Muawiyah be killed for taking charge of the affairs of the Muslims, then it can also be said that people, whom Muawiyah was more virtuous than, assumed leadership of the Muslims, why was there no instruction to kill them. Again, this goes contrary to that which was recurrently passed on through the prophetic tradition which prohibits killing or fighting with the leaders of the Muslims. In addition to this, the consensus of Muslims goes contrary to that, since they did not attempt to kill those who assumed leadership nor did they permit it.

 

Ibn Kathir, in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah (11/434), has said: “This narration is a lie, without doubt. Were it reliable, the Sahabah would have not wasted any time in implementing it since no kind of censure would compromise their carrying out the instruction of Allah.”

Also, see what has been written by Ibn Hajar al Haythami al Makki in Tathir al Janan (pg.38).

 

The following are some academic observations on the attempt to authenticate this narrations by Hassan al Maliki, “if you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him!”

 

1. His referencing to secondary sources without referring to the original sources is an indication that he has not actually come across the narration:

  • That which is narrated by way of al Hakam ibn Zahir, from ‘Asim, from Zirr, from Ibn Mas’ud, from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “If you see Muawiyah…”. He has ascribed it to Siyar A’lam al Nubala’ (3/149), whereas the narration has been recorded by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (2/209), and Ibn Hibban in al Majruhin (1/35) and Ibn al Jowzi in al Mowdu’at (2/265).
  • That which is narrated by way of Sufyan ibn Muhammad al Fazari, from Mansur ibn Salamah, from Bilal ibn Sulaiman, from Jafar ibn Muhammad, from his father, from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: “If you see so-and-so…”. He ascribed it to Mizan al I’tidal (3/248), whereas it has been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419).
  • That which has been narrated by way of Khalid ibn Makhlad, from Sulaiman ibn Bilal, from Jafar, from a group of the participants of Badr, from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He has ascribed it to Mizan al I’tidal(3/248), whereas it has been narrated by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419).
 

2. His deceitfulness in mentioning corroboratory narrations:

Al Maliki has mentioned a ‘follow-up’ chain for the narration, “if you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him,” which has been related by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419) which has been narrated by way of Khalid ibn Makhlad from Sulaiman ibn Bilal. He mentioned the corroboratory chain which is related by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419) by way of Sufyan al Fazari from Mansur ibn Salamah, from Sulaiman ibn Bilal.

However, the second chain is merely an invention of Sufyan ibn Muhammad al Fazari as mentioned by Ibn ‘Adi in al Kamil (3/419).

 

3. He has said regarding the narration, “if you see Muawiyah on my pulpit, kill him,” it has been narrated from ‘Asim through four chains. However, he only mentions three chains. The first, by way of Sharik from ‘Asim. The second, by way of al Hakam ibn Zahir from ‘Asim and ascribed it to Siyar A’lam al Nubala’. And the third, he did not ascribe it to anyone, whereas it is in Ansab al Ashraf (5/137).

 
 

NEXT⇒ The Second Narration


[1] al Kamil fi Du’afa al Rijal by Abu Ahmed, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Adi al Jurjani (d. 365 A.H / 976 CE) this work of his is a collection of biographical details of narrators of hadith who were considered weak. He also identified a number of narrations of that narrator under his biography, hence indicating the flaw in that narration.

[2] al Mowdu’at min al Ahadith al Marfu’at by Abu al Faraj ibn al Jowzi. This work of his is a collection of fabricated narrations attributed to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

[3]  Abu al Qasim, ‘Ali ibn al Hassan ibn ‘Asakir (d. 571 A.H/1175 CE)

[4]Tarikh Dimashq by Ibn ‘Asakir is an encyclopaedia of the history of Damascus and has been printed in over 70 volumes. It covers the history of every person who visted or lived in Damascus during that period, not limited to hadith narrators but political figures as well. Ibn ‘Asakir attempted to collect everything that was said regarding these figures without any distinction between reliable and unreliable, he aimed to provide a chain of narration for every statement recorded.

[5]  Ahmed ibn Yahya al Baladhuri (d. 279 A.H / 893 CE).

[6]  This work deals with the biographical details and genealogy of the noble family of the Blessed Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

[7]  Abu Hatim, Muhammad ibn Hibban al Busti (d. 354 A.H / 966 CE)

[8]Kitab al Majruhin min al Muhaddithin wa al Du’afa’’ wa al Matrukin by Ibn Hibban is a collection of biographical data of weak and unreliable narrators of hadith. He also has a book titled al Thiqat in which he collected the names of those whom he considered reliable. However, many scholars do not consider the inclusion of a narrator in al Thiqat sufficient for ratification of a narrator due to his lenient standard in this work of his.

[9]  See also Ansab al Ashraf (5/138)

[10]  See also Mizan al I’tidal by al Dhahabi (2/172)

[11]  Abu Jafar, Muhammad ibn ‘Amr al ‘Uqayli (d. 322 A.H / 934 CE)

[12]  An encyclopaedia collecting the biographical details of weak narrators of hadith.

[13]  See also Ansab al Ashraf (5/136)

[14]Ahwal al Rijal (biography no. 126)

[15]  “Laysa bi Shay’” means not anything, this term is generally used to describe narrators of extreme weakness. Sometimes Ibn Ma’in used this term when he refers to a narrator who had very little hadith — translator

[16]  “La Ahtajju bihi,” this term is used for narrators with abundance of errors on account of weak memory and lack of accuracy — translator

[17]al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (biography no. 552)

[18]al Kamil (6/423), al Tahdhib (4/24)

[19]Tarikh ibn Ma’in, narration of al Darimi (141)

[20]Tarikh ibn Ma’in, narration of al Duri (4/341)

[21]Ahwal al Rijal (biography no.185)

[22]al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (6/186)

[23]al Tabaqat (7/252)

[24]Jami’ al Tirmidhi (Hadith no. 2678)

[25]al Mughni fi al Du’afa’ (biography no. 4265)

[26]al Kamil (5/201)

[27] al Du’afa’’ (3/958)

[28]al Tahdhib (3/126)

[29]  i.e he has narrated this jointly with others and not independently.

[30]al Majruhin (1/171)

[31]al Majruhin (1/304)

[32]  al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (biography no.127)

[33]al Kamil (2/210)

[34]al Thiqat (6/444)

[35]al Kamil (4/22)

[36]  The military expeditions of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, it extends to general aspects of sirah also well.

[37] al Tahdhib (2/165)

[38]  al-Tarikh al Kabir (4/84)

[39]al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (4/169)

[40]al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (biography no. 1487)

[41]al Thiqat (8/278)

[42]  The Arabic term is tadlis.

[43]  There is an obvious interruption in the continuity of this chain – the translator.

[44]  See Lisan al Mizan by Ibn Hajar al ‘Asqalani (3/93)

[45] al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (3/354)

[46]al Tabaqat (6/406)

[47]  al-Jarh wa al Ta’dil (3/354)

[48]Su’alat al Ajurri li Abi Dawood (1/103)

[49] al Tahdhib (1/531), Tarikh Ibn Ma’in narration of al Darimi (1/104), al Kamil by Ibn ‘Adi (3/35)

[50] Ma’rifat al Thiqat by al ‘Ijli (1/321) and al Thiqat by Ibn Hibban (8/224)

[51]Tarikh Ibn Ma’in narration of al Duri (4/275)

[52]  al Du’afa’ wa al Matrukin (biography no. 445)

[53]al Majruhin (2/69)

[54]al Kamil (5/110)

[55]  Compiled by al Muwaffaq ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Qudamah al Maqdisi (d. 620 A.H / 1223 CE)

Back to top