The Third Narration

Dealing with the Fabrications that Have been Invented about Mu`awiyah
January 19, 2016
The Second Narration
January 20, 2016
Show all
Table of Contents
  1. The Third Narration
    1. The First Alledged Defect
    2. The Second Alledged Defect
    3. The Third Alledged Defect
    4. The Fourth Alledged Defect
▲

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

The Third Narration

 

Indeed this son of mine is a Sayed and I anticipate that Allah will bring about reconciliation, through him, between two great groups of the Muslims.

 

This narration has many points of benefit:

 
  1. Praise for Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
  2. Both parties are upon Islam.
  3. Praise for the abdication of Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu in favour of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
  4. The statement regarding the hypocrisy or disbelief of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu — how far he is from being described as such — necessitates disrepute of Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu since it is inconceivable that he would entrust the leadership of the ummah to a man who is a hypocrite and condemned by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
 

Ibn Taymiyyah, in Majmu’ al Fatawa (4/466), said:

 

This which Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu has done is that which has been praised by the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as is established in Sahih al Bukhari and others, from the narration of Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “This son of mine is a sayed and I anticipate that Allah will bring about reconciliation, through him, between two great groups of the Muslims.” So the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam made that which he praised his grandson with, the fact that Allah reconciled at his hands between the two major factions among the Muslims. That occurred when he handed over the khilafah to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu; whilst — prior to that — each party had approached the other with huge armies. Since the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam praised the reconciliation and abandoning the fighting; it indicated that the reconciliation between both parties was more beloved to Allah than their fighting. Hence, it indicates that the fighting between these two parties was not that with which Allah commanded. Furthermore, if Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu was a disbeliever, then nominating him and abdicating in favour of him would not have been pleasing to Allah and His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Instead, this narration proves that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his party were believers; and that which had been done by Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu was praiseworthy in the sight of Allah, pleasing to Him and His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Likewise it has been established from the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the Sahihayn, from the narration of Abu Sa’id al Khudri radiya Llahu ‘anhu, that the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said: “A faction will renegade at a time when there is division among the Muslims; and the party, among two parties, which is closer to the truth, will fight them.” Therefore, this authentic narration is a proof that both fighting parties — ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his party as well as Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his party — were upon the truth; and that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his party were the closest to the truth than Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his party.

 

He states further in Minhaj al Sunnah al Nabawiyyah (4/529):

 

… and this clearly indicates that the reconciliation between both parties was beloved to Allah and His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and was considered praiseworthy. Further, it indicates that which Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu did (i.e. reconciling), is from his greatest virtues and merits which bore praise from the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Were fighting obligatory, or even recommended, the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would not have praised anyone for abandoning an obligation or omitting a recommended practise.

 

Ibn Kathir said in Ikhtisar ‘Ulum al Hadith (2/499):

 

The fulfilment of that came to the fore when Hassan abdicated in favour of Muawiyah after the demise of his father, ‘Ali. So the community was united behind Muawiyah and that year was called the year of unity; and that was in the year 40 A.H. The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam called both parties “Muslims”; and (Allah) said: “If two parties from the believers fight each other; then bring about reconciliation between them…”[1] describing both parties as believers despite the internal fighting.

 

The First Alledged Defect

The principle according to the scholars of hadith is that Hassan (al Basri) did not hear from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu… and the explicit mention of hearing the narration is an error on the part of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah.

 

There are a number of responses to this allegation:

 
  1. Hassan al Basri indeed heard this narration from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu hence al Bukhari and ‘Ali ibn al Madini have established the fact that he heard from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as it is found in Sahih al Bukhari (2557, 6692).
  2. This narration has been narrated by a group of reliable, well established narrators by way of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah — from Abu Musa — from Hassan — having heard it — from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is farfetched to think that all of them have erred in their hearing of this narration from Sufyan that he relates it from Abu Musa — from Hassan — having clearly stated that he heard it — from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. It is also farfetched to imagine that all of these reliable and trustworthy narrators all narrate this from Sufyan after his memory lapsed; even though his lapse is minimal and is of no major consequence as will be explained later — with Allah’s permission — in mention of their narrations and tracing the variant chains.
 

The Second Alledged Defect

Al Daraqutni, in al Ilzamat, considers weak the narrations of Hassan — having heard — from Abu Bakrah, and included in that is this narration, “indeed this son of mine is a sayed…” Al Daraqutni says: “Hassan only narrates it by way of al Ahnaf — from Abu Bakrah.” I consider the view of al Daraqutni to be clear in rendering weak in general all the narrations of Hassan where he narrates directly from Abu Bakrah (having heard from him).

 

This will be rebutted with the following points:

 
  1. The hadith is narrated from Hassan by various chains; whilst al Bukhari only adopted the narration of Abu Musa, from Hassan that he heard Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He has included the narration with its complete wording in the chapter of settlement and commented at the end of it that ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah said: “It is through this narration that we have established that Hassan (al Basri) heard from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.”[2]
  2. Ibn Hajar states in Hadi al Sari (386):
 

I continue to be amazed at assertiveness in his view that Hassan al Basri did not hear from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu despite the narration appearing in al Bukhari… As for al Daraqutni’s argument that al Bukhari narrates this particular hadith with an alternative chain — from Hassan — from al Ahnaf — from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu then there is no contradiction since in the narration that goes via al Ahnaf there is a clear addition which is not found in the hadith which he narrates directly from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 

The Third Alledged Defect

The opinion of rejecting the narration of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, from Abu Musa, from Hassan — having heard — from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu due to numerous considerations:

 

His contradiction of the other reliable narrators, who all narrate it with a Mursal chain:-

 
  • Nuaim ibn Hammad narrates in al Fitan (417) from Hushaim ibn Bashir — from Yunus — from ‘Ubaid — from Hassan with a Mursal chain (pg. 105).
  • Al Nasa’i narrates in ‘Amal al Yowm wa l-Laylah (256) by way of Hisham ibn Hassan — from Hassan with a Mursal chain.
  • Ishaq ibn Rahuyah narrates in his Musnad (1899) by way of Sahl ibn Abi al Salt — from Hassan with a Mursal chain.
  • Ibn Abi Shaibah narrates in his Musannaf (32178) and (37362), from Hussain ibn ‘Ali al Ju’fi — from Abu Musa — from Hassan with a Mursal chain.
  • Al Nasa’i narrates in ‘Amal al Yowm wa l-Laylah (254) by way of ‘Awf — from Hassan with a Mursal chain.
  • Al Nasa’i narrates in ‘Amal al Yawm wa l-Laylah (255) by way of Dawood ibn Abi Hind — from Hassan with a Mursal chain.
 

In response to this I say: the narration of Nuaim ibn Hammad narrated in al Fitan (417) from Hushaim ibn Bashir — from Yunus — from ‘Ubaid — from Hassan with a Mursal chain is problematic on account of Nuaim ibn Hammad al Khuza’i. He was firm on the Sunnah but weak in narration. Al Nasa’i[3] considers him weak as well as Ibn Ma’in[4].

Hushaim ibn Bashir narrates with ‘an’anah and does not expressly state that he heard. Furthermore, in al Tabarani’s al Mu’jam al Saghir (766) and al Mu’jam al Kabir (2592) this narration appears by way of Hushaim —from Yunus ibn ‘Ubaid and Mansur — from Zadhan — from Hassan — from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, with a Marfu’ chain.

The narration of Al Nasa’i in ‘Amal al Yowm wa l-Laylah (256) by way of Hisham ibn Hassan — from Hassan with a Mursal chain is problematic since Hisham ibn Hassan, even though he is reliable in general, is weak in what he narrates from Hassan. Isma’il ibn ‘Ulayyah said: “We did not consider the narration of Hisham ibn Hassan from Hassan worth anything.”[5]

As for the narration Ishaq ibn Rahuyah in his Musnad (1899) by way of Sahl ibn Abi al Salt — from Hassan with a Mursal chain; this chain is narrated via Sahl ibn Abi al Salt who was overall honest, but he had solitary narrations. Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan was not pleased with him.

As for the narrations of Ibn Abi Shaibah in his Musannaf (32178, 37362) — from Hussain ibn ‘Ali al Ju’fi — from Abu Musa — from Hassan with a Mursal chain, and al Nasa’i in ‘Amal al Yowm wa l-Laylah (254) by way of ‘Awf — from Hassan with a Mursal chain, and ‘Amal al Yowm wa l-Laylah (255) by way of Dawood ibn Abi Hind — from Hassan with a Mursal chain; these Mursal narrations are contradicted by tens of uninterrupted chains; some of which are with ‘an’anah, and some with explicit mention of Hassan having heard from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. For the sake of brevity I will limit myself to five uninterrupted narrations, three of which have ‘an’anah, and some have explicit mention of Hassan having heard from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

 
  1. The uninterrupted chain with ‘an’anah by way of Hussain ibn ‘Ali al Ju’fi; al Bukhari (3430) narrates from ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad al Musnadi — from Yahya ibn Adam — from Hussain al Ju’fi — from Abu Musa — from Hassan — from Abu Bakrah — without express mention of hearing it from Abu Bakrah.[6]
  2. The uninterrupted chain with ‘an’anah from Ash’ath ibn ‘Abdul Malik al Humrani — from Hassan — from Abu Bakrah; a group of scholars narrate this: Abu Dawood (4662), al Tirmidhi (3773), al Nasa’i in ‘Amal al Yowm wa l-Laylah (253)[7], al Hakim (4863), al Tabarani in al Kabir (3/34) as well as Ibn ‘Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (13/235). Al Tirmidhi said: “This hadith is Hassan Sahih.”
  3. The uninterrupted chain with ‘an’anah from al Mubarak ibn Fadalah — from Hassan — from Abu Bakrah, this has been narrated by Abu Dawood al Tayalisi in his Musnad (874) and al Tabarani in al Kabir (2591).
  4. The uninterrupted chain with Sama’ between Hassan and Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu; al Bukhari narrates in his Sahih (2557) by way of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah — from Abu Musa — who said — I heard Hassan saying I heard Abu Bakrah. It is narrated from Sufyan by both ‘Ali ibn al Madini (2557) and ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad al Musnadi (4072).[8]
  5. The uninterrupted chain with Sama’ between Hassan and Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, it is narrated as such by Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (6964), Abu Nuaim in al Hilyah (2/35), al Bazzar (3656), Ibn ‘Asakir in Tarikh Dimashq (13/237), by way of Abu al Walid al Tayalisi — who said — Mubarak ibn Fadalah narrated to us from Hassan — who said — Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrated to me. Likewise it is narrated by Ahmed in his Musnad (20466) by way of Hashim ibn al Qasim — who said — Mubarak ibn Fadalah narrated to us – who said — Hassan narrated to us[9] — who said Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrated to us; and the narration in the Musnad (20535) by way of ‘Affan — who said — Mubarak ibn Fadalah narrated to us, from Hassan — who said — Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrated to me.
 

As for the response regarding the allegation that Sufyan contradicts the other reliable narrators, who all narrate it with ‘an’anah, I say: Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah is reliable and an Imam (of hadith). It is farfetched to think that he blundered in this narration since the great, reliable scholars of hadith narrate it from him, upholding the Sama’ between Hassan and Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu; their mention will follow later in this treatise.

 

As for the allegation that his memory lapsed and he would get confused in the chains; the lapse that occurred to Ibn ‘Uyaynah is of no major consequence since Ikhtilat (confusion) is divided into two categories:

 
  • Such confusion that has an effect on the narrations of a narrator that his narrations are not accepted
  • Minimal confusion which have no consequence on the status of the narrator or his narrations
 

Similar to this is the transition in the memory of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, since none have pointed this out besides Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan, al Bukhari and Muslim rely on his early and later narrations; although his earlier narrations are considered stronger than his later narrations; therefore he says to hold on to the older narrations.[10]

 

Al Dhahabi states in al Siyar (10/84):

 

Every change that occurs in the terminal illness is not a basis for discredit in a reliable narrator since most people are subject to lapse in memory when enduring such a harsh illness. However, what is dangerous is that when a reliable narrator experiences such memory lapse and confusion that he does not narrate during that state such that it brings about discrepancies in the chain or text and there will be contradictions on account of that.[11]

 

Assuming the altered memory of Sufyan, the teachers of the compilers of the six major collections all heard from him before this transition. Al Dhahabi says in al Mizan (2/171):

 

What seems most accurate in my judgment is that all the teachers of the six Imams have heard from him before the year 197 , i.e. before his transition in the year 197 AH.

 

As for the allegation that he became confused in this narration and the fact that he narrates it with ‘an’anah and Sama’ is an indication that he was confused. The response to this allegation is that — as previously established — Sufyan’s transition was one of no consequence. Secondly, those who narrate it from Sufyan — from Abu Musa — from Hassan with an uninterrupted chain explicitly mentioning that he heard from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu are greater in number and more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the science of hadith than those who narrate it with ‘an’anah, and their narrations are preferred. The one who proves is given preference over the one who denies; and they are as follows:

 
  • ‘Ali ibn al Madini as in Sahih al Bukhari (7109), and al Tarikh al Awsat (387).
  • ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair al Humaidi as in Musnad Ahmed (793), and al Sunan al Kubra of al Bayhaqi (16486).
  • Ahmed ibn Hanbal as in his Musnad (20408).
  • Sa’id ibn Mansur as in al Sunan al Kubra of al Bayhaqi (16486).
  • Muhammad ibn ‘Abbad as in al Sunan al Kubra of al Bayhaqi (11705).
  • Muhammad ibn Mansur as in al Sughra of al Nasa’i (1410) and in ‘Amal al Yowm wa l-Laylah (252), and Ibn Hazm in al Muhalla (4/227).
  • Ibrahim ibn Bashshar al Ramadi as in Majma’ al Zawa’id (3/33), and in al Tabarani’s al Kabir (2590).
  • Al Salt ibn Mas’ud as in Mustakhraj al Isma’ili, Ibn Hajar notes this in al Fath (13/66).
 

From this we can see the futility in the claim that Hassan did not hear from Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the uninterrupted chains.

 

The Fourth Alledged Defect

The possibility of Idraj (addition to the text) in this narration.[12]

 

The response to this is as follows:

 
  1. None of the scholars of hadith whether from the early scholars or later scholars have said that this wording has been added to the text.
  2. The narration of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu which is limited to the statement, “indeed he is a sayed” is unreliable. Al Nasa’i narrates it in ‘Amal al Yowm wa l-Laylah (250) — by way of Muhammad ibn Salih al Madani — from Muslim ibn Abi Maryam — from Sa’id al Maqburi — Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
 

Muhammad ibn Salih al Madani has been included by Ibn Hibban in al Thiqat (7/385), and in al Du’afa’. He said: “He narrates objectionable narrations.”[13] Abu Hatim said: “He is a teacher.”[14] Ibn Hajar says of him in al Taqrib (5964): “Acceptable.”

Assuming the reliability of this narration (i.e. narration of Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu), it does not necessarily mean that in the narration of Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu the words, “I anticipate that Allah will bring about reconciliation at his hands to two major groups among the Muslims,” is an addition that has been injected into the text.

 
 

NEXT⇒ Chapter Three

[1]  Surah al Hujurat: 9

[2]  Al Bukhari (2/962), Kitab al Sulh, Bab al Sulh fi al Diyah, Hadith: 2557

[3]  Al Du’afa wa al Matrukin (244)

[4]  Su’alat al Ajurri of Abu Dawood (1/284)

[5]  Al Tahdhib (4/268)

[6]  See what al Maliki has written in al Suhbah wa al Sahabah (pg. 231), he has rejected this narration with the most strange, unprecedented excuses, based purely on speculation and conjecture. He rejects it due to an oversight on the side of al Bukhari, or the teacher of al Bukhari ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad al Musnadi, or the intentional forgery of Yahya ibn Adam — who is reliable and a narrator in all six collections — on account of him being of the line of Khalid ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’it. Is this how narrations are to be criticised? All that one needs to do in rejecting a narration in al Bukhari is to say that he erred?

[7]  There is also a narration from Anas (pg.259).

[8]  And a group of narrators as will follow in the next few pages.

[9]  Al Maliki did not indicate the Sama’ between Mubarak ibn Fadalah and Hassan; and between Hassan and Abu Bakrah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

[10]  Al Tahdhib (2/60), al Siyar (8/465) and al Mizan (2/171)

[11]  For further reading on the subject of altered states of recollection one may refer to Sharh al ‘ilal (2/563) Hussain ibn ‘Abdur Rahman al Sulami, the biography of Hisham ibn ‘Urwah in Mizan al I’tidal (4/301) and the biography of Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i in Mizan al I’tidal (2/270).

[12]  See al Suhbah wa al Sahabah (241) he states: “Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu narrates it only with the wording, “indeed he is a sayed,’” likewise it is narrated as such by Abu Juhayfah. So based on this the most dominant view — and Allah knows best — is that the addition, “I anticipate that Allah will bring about reconciliation at his hands between two major groups among the Muslims,” is an addition by Abu Bakrah that has been injected into the text; and this is a flaw that I have not found anyone pointing it out.

[13]  Al Majruhin (2/260), he said: “It is not permissible to rely on his narrations if he is not corroborated.”

[14]  Al Jarh wal Ta’dil (7/287)