For Chronoligcal Order of the Prophet Muhammad's wives
For the refences putting the Prophet Muhammad's wives in chronological order see:
Al-Tabari Volume 9, pages 127-128, Al-Tabari Volume 39, pages 3-4, Al-Tabari Volime 9, page 128-130, Volume 9, Page 134, Al-Tabari Volume 39, Pages 182-184.
Monday, June 18, 2018
Thursday, June 14, 2018
The real reason for Quran 66 By Ehteshaam Gulam
The story of Hafsa and Maria in Surat at-Tahreem
The Sources for the whole story is found in Al-Tabari Volume 9, Pages 137-141, Al-Tabari Volume 39, pages 193-195, Ibn Sad Volume 8, pages 148-151, Al Tabari Volume 39, page 165, Ibn Sad Volume 8, page 106, 154.
One of Answering Islams vile, perverted and unprofessional authors Silas writes:
Here is the reference. NOTE: Words in [ ] type brackets are mine In the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", mention is made of Mariyah. On page 151, it says "He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir." The note for the word "handmaid" says "Handmaids gained the status of wedded wives if they bore children. They were called "umm walad" and became free.
This story is also supported by Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194. Here is the quote: (my words are in ( ) parenthesis). "He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property." The note (845) on this says, "That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophet's wives, but he did not marry her."
All these sources are weak, Muslim scholars don't accept them. As for the tafsirs, most of the time they don't have isnads as Ibn Taymiyyah said:
One of Answering Islams vile, perverted and unprofessional authors Silas writes:
Here is the reference. NOTE: Words in [ ] type brackets are mine In the "Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir", mention is made of Mariyah. On page 151, it says "He [the Lord of Alexandria] presented to the prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a donkey and a mule which was white....The apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was of white complexion and curly hair and pretty.... Then he cohabited with Mariyah as a handmaid and sent her to his property which he had acquired from Banu al-Nadir." The note for the word "handmaid" says "Handmaids gained the status of wedded wives if they bore children. They were called "umm walad" and became free.
This story is also supported by Tabari's History, volume 39, page 194. Here is the quote: (my words are in ( ) parenthesis). "He (Muhammad) used to visit her (Mariyam) there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her by virtue of her being his property." The note (845) on this says, "That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophet's wives, but he did not marry her."
All these sources are weak, Muslim scholars don't accept them. As for the tafsirs, most of the time they don't have isnads as Ibn Taymiyyah said:
Shaykh ibn Taymiyyah said:
Allah has provided evidence (i.e. Isnad) establishing the authenticity or lack thereof of the narrations that are necessary in matters of the religion. It is well known that most of what was reported in aspects of Tafsir (commentaries on the Qur'an) is similar to narrations reporting Maghazi (or Seerah) and battles, promoting Imam Ahmad to state that three matters do not have Isnad: Tafsir, Mala'him (i.e. great battles), and Maghazi. This is because most of their narrations are of the Maraseel (plural for Mursal) type, such as narrations reported by Urwah Ibn az-Zubair, ash-Sha'bi, az-Zuhri, Musa Ibn Uqbah and Ibn Ishaq." (Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu' Al Fataawa, Volume, 13, page 345)
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful
The opening verses of Sūrat al-Taḥrīm describe an incident in which the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, prohibited himself from something in order to please his wives. The classical commentators provide two opinions: one is strong and authentic, and the other is weaker and provokes controversy.
It has been authentically narrated on the authority of Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, that the Prophet prohibited himself from drinking honey to please his wives. Aisha and Hafsa were upset that the Prophet was spending more time with his wife Zainab on account of a honey drink she would serve him, so they secretly agreed to pretend to be offended by the odor. The Prophet did not want to offend his wives, so he swore an oath never to drink it again. Allah revealed the verses telling the Prophet not to prohibit what is lawful.
Aisha reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would spend time with his wife Zainab bint Jahsh and he would drink a concoction of honey. Hafsa and I agreed that whomever the Prophet visited first, we would say, “I notice a strong odor of mimosa gum on you.” The Prophet visited one of them and she said this to him, so the Prophet said:
بَلْ شَرِبْتُ عَسَلًا عِنْدَ زَيْنَبَ بِنْتِ جَحْشٍ وَلَنْ أَعُودَ لَهُI have taken a honey drink at Zainab’s house and I will not do it again.
The verse was revealed:
لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَWhy do you forbid yourself from what Allah has made lawful for you? (66:1)Source: Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1474, Grade: Sahih
The authenticity of this narration is agreed upon according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim. Al-Bukhari included it in his explanation of Sūrat al-Taḥrīm. Moreover, Aisha was the direct witness about whom the verses speak, so she would know best what really happened.
An alternative explanation of the passage has been narrated by others. In this version, the Prophet prohibits himself from being intimate with his concubine wife to please his other wives. In particular, it is alleged that Hafsa became upset when the Prophet was intimate with Maria the Copt in her house and on her bed, saying:
أَيْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ فِي بَيْتِي وَعَلَى فِرَاشِيO Messenger of Allah, in my house and on my bed?Source: Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 66:1
This narration comes on the authority of Zaid ibn Aslam who was from the third generation and not a witness to the events in question. Hence, Ibn Hajar rules that this narrations’s chain of authorities is incomplete (mursal) in Fatḥ al-Bārī 9/288. For this reason, the explanation was not universally agreed upon by the classical commentators.
Al-Qurtubi mentions first the story of Aisha followed by narrations that include Maria, then he says:
أَصَحُّ هَذِهِ الْأَقْوَالِ أَوَّلُهَا وَأَضْعَفُهَا أَوْسَطُهَاThe most correct of these opinions is the first of them, and the weaker of them are the others.Source: Tafsīr al-Qurṭubī 66:1
In other words, the authentic explanation is the one given by Aisha and the stories that include Maria are weak by comparison.
Ibn Al-Arabi concludes:
وَإِنَّمَا الصَّحِيحُ أَنَّهُ كَانَ فِي الْعَسَلِ وَأَنَّهُ شَرِبَهُ عِنْدَ زَيْنَبَ وَتَظَاهَرَتْ عَلَيْهِ عَائِشَةُ وَحَفْصَةُ فِيهِ وَجَرَى مَا جَرَى فَحَلَفَ أَلَّا يَشْرَبَهُ وَأَسَرَّ ذَلِكَ وَنَزَلَتْ الْآيَةُ فِي الْجَمِيعِIndeed, the only authentic narration is that it was about honey, that the Prophet drank it with Zainab, and Aisha and Hafsa pretended to be offended by it. There occurred what occurred and the Prophet made an oath never to drink it again. He confided that to his wife and the verse was revealed regarding all of them.Source: Aḥkām al-Qur’ān 66:1
In sum, the story about the dispute between Hafsa, Maria, and the Prophet does not have a strong basis in Islam. It is part of the apocryphal traditions that are of varying and questionable degrees of authenticity. Rather, the strongest explanation of the passage, passed down by the direct witness Aisha through an unbroken chain of authorities, is that the verses were revealed about a honey drink.
Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.
Follow Abu Bakr and Umar after me By Ehteshaam Gulam
Follow Abu Bakr and Umar after me
Bismillah
All praises due to Allah. And may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His Messenger and his family and companions.
This is recorded by Imam Tirmidhi in his “Sunan” [Al-Manaaqib, manaaqib Abu Bakr and ‘Umar]
حدثنا الحسن بن الصباح البزار أخبرنا سفيان بن عيينة عن زائدة عن عبد الملك بن عمير عن ربعي هو ابن حراش عن حذيفة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم “اقتدوا بالذين من بعدي أبي بكر وعمر”
Narrated by Hudhaifa (ra), he said: Prophet (saw) said, “follow those after me: Abu Bakr and Umar.”
Narrated by Hudhaifa (ra), he said: Prophet (saw) said, “follow those after me: Abu Bakr and Umar.”
Imam Tirmidhi said, narrated to us Hasan b. Sabbaah, reported to us Sufiyan bin Uyaina, from Zaa’ida, from Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, from Raba’ee b. Haraash, from Hudhaifa (ra) …hadith…
Dr. Bashshaar Awwad said in his Tahqeeq of in the tahqeeq of above hadith: Humaidy (449), Musnad Ahmed (5/382), Sharh Mushkil al-Aathaar (1226, 1227, 1228, 1229), Baghwi(3895).
This hadith has also been recorded by Ibn Sa’d (2/334), Tahawi in “Sharh Mashkil al-Aathaar” (1229), Baghwi (3893) without having the name of Zaa’idah in the Sanad.[Tahqeeq Sunan Tirmidhi (6/43), h-3662]
Tirmidhi said : and this hadith has also come through Sufiyan Thawri, from Abdul Malik b. ‘Umair, from servant of Raba’ee, from Raba’ee, from Hudhaifa.
Regarding this, Dr. Bashshar Awwad said: This has been recorded by Ibn Sa’d (2/334), Ibn Abi Shaiba (12/11), Ahmed (5/385, 402), Ibn Majah (97), Faswi in “Al-Ma’riah wa At-Tareekh”(1/480), Ibn Abi Aasim in “As-Sunnah” (1048), Tahawi in “Sharh Mushkil” (1224), Al-Hakim (3/75), Khateeb in “Tareekh” (4/347). [See Tahqeeq Tirmidhi by Bashhar Awwaad, vol.6, page-43,44]
In another narration the name of servant of Raba’ee is mention.
Tirmidhi said: “this has also narrated by Ibraheem b. Sa’d, from Sufiyan Thawri, from Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, from Hilaal slave of Raba’ee, from Raba’ee, from Hudhaifa.”
Tirmidhi said: “this has also narrated by Ibraheem b. Sa’d, from Sufiyan Thawri, from Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, from Hilaal slave of Raba’ee, from Raba’ee, from Hudhaifa.”
This is recorded by Bukhari in his “At-Tarikh Al-Kabeer” (8/no. 2741), Al-Faswi in “Al-Ma’rifah” (1/480), Ibn Abi Aasim (1149), Tahawi in “Sharh Mushkil Al-Aathar” (1230, 1231, 1232) [See “Tahqeeq Tirmidhi” by Bashhar Awwaad, vol.6, page-43,44]
As it is clear that all the above mentioned chain goes back to a common narrator Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, and he is Thiqah (trustworthy) [“Taqreeb” (2/364. no.4200), “Al-Meezan” (2/660, no.5235)]. But he is also a well known ‘mudallis’, i.e. one who used to hide the narrator in the sanad with ambiguous words (but not necessarily everytime).
And in the above routes sometimes Abdul Malik narrates from Hilal servant of Raba’ee, and sometime he narrates directly from Raba’ee. This cause very few scholars to declare this hadith to be unauthentic (e.g. Ibn Hazm). However they were wrong and major scholars said otherwise, as we’ll see insha Allah.
As for the Tadlees of Abdul Malik, then one should keep in mind that its not necessary that all the narrations of a Mudallis is Tadlees. Abdul Malik might have heard this narration from both Hilaal and Raba’ee, as he had seen even great companions like Ali b. Abi Talib and his hearing from Raba’ee is proven. On the other hand its also possible that this narration is really a Tadlees, and Abdul Malik hide the narrator Hilal from the Sanad. If he has heard this from Raba’ee then the narration would be Sahih. And if Abdul Malik heard this from Hilaal then also the Sanad would be atleast Hasan. This is because Hilaal is “Maqbool” according to Ibn Hajar, [Taqreeb 2/576] meaning his narration should be acted upon in case if there are other chain to support it. And there are many chain to support this as shown below.
And in the above routes sometimes Abdul Malik narrates from Hilal servant of Raba’ee, and sometime he narrates directly from Raba’ee. This cause very few scholars to declare this hadith to be unauthentic (e.g. Ibn Hazm). However they were wrong and major scholars said otherwise, as we’ll see insha Allah.
As for the Tadlees of Abdul Malik, then one should keep in mind that its not necessary that all the narrations of a Mudallis is Tadlees. Abdul Malik might have heard this narration from both Hilaal and Raba’ee, as he had seen even great companions like Ali b. Abi Talib and his hearing from Raba’ee is proven. On the other hand its also possible that this narration is really a Tadlees, and Abdul Malik hide the narrator Hilal from the Sanad. If he has heard this from Raba’ee then the narration would be Sahih. And if Abdul Malik heard this from Hilaal then also the Sanad would be atleast Hasan. This is because Hilaal is “Maqbool” according to Ibn Hajar, [Taqreeb 2/576] meaning his narration should be acted upon in case if there are other chain to support it. And there are many chain to support this as shown below.
[Note that Abdul Malik is not the only narrator who has narrated this from Hilaal servant of Raba’ee, but also Mansur narrate this from Hilaal, as in “Sharh Al-Mushkil” ]
This hadith has many support from other chains and other narrations, narrated from different companions. Also the matan (content) of this hadith is sound.
This same hadith of Hudhaifa (ra) also come through another route, other than those which contain Abdul Malik b. ‘Umair.
حدثنا سعيد بن يحيى بن سعيد الأموي أخبرنا وكيعٌ عن سالم أبي العلاء المرادي عن عمرو بن هرم عن ربعي بن حراش عن حذيفة قال: – “كنا جلوسا عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال إني لا أدري ما بقائي فيكم، فاقتدوا بالذين من بعدي وأشار إلى أبي بكر وعمر
Tirmidhi said: narrated to us Sa’eed b. Yahya b. Sa’eed Al-Amwi, (he said) reported to us Wakee’ b. Jarraah, from Saalim Abil ‘Alaa Al-Muraadi, from ‘Amr bin Haram, from Raba’ee b. Haraash, from Hudhaifa, he said:
“We were sitting near Prophet (saw), so he said: “I don’t know how much I will remain among you. So follow among those.” And he indicated towards Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
“We were sitting near Prophet (saw), so he said: “I don’t know how much I will remain among you. So follow among those.” And he indicated towards Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
Recorded by Ibn Sa’d (2/334), Ahmed in his “Musnad” (5/399), and in “Fadha’il As-Sahaba” (479), Tahawi in “Sharh Al-Mushkil” (1233), Ibn Hibbaan (6902) [See Tahqeeq Tirmidhi by Bashhar Awwaad, vol.6, page-45]
In the chain above, Salim Al-Muradi Abul ‘Ala is weak according to Ibn Mu’een and Nasa’i. Abu Hatim said: his hadith should be written. And Tahawi, Ibn Hibban and Al-‘Ijli declared him thiqah. [See “Tahdheeb” by Ibn Hajar (3/440,441)]
Ibn Hajar said: He is Maqbool. [“Taqreeb”(2180)]meaning his hadith should be accepted when supported by other routes.
Ibn Hajar said: He is Maqbool. [“Taqreeb”(2180)]meaning his hadith should be accepted when supported by other routes.
So this route also support the early narration and vice versa, as it is well known fact in ‘Ilmul Hadith that a weak chain, when its weakness is not much severe, support other weak sanad of the same hadith. This is known as Mutabi’ah.
However besides Saalim Abul ‘Alaa Al-Muraadi, another narrator narrates this hadith from ‘Amr bin Haram.
Ibn Adi narrates through the chain of Hammaad b. Daleel from ‘Amr b. Haram from Raba’ee from Hudhaifa similarly. [Ibn Adi in “Al-Kamil” 2/250]
Hammad bin Daleel is Sadooq according to Ibn Hajar. [“Taqreeb” (1/178, no.1497)]According to Dhahabi, he is Thiqah. [“Al-Kashif” (1/349, no.1218)] Ibn Mu’een said: Thiqah, nothing bad with him. Ibn Junaid said about him: Thiqah. Ibn ‘Ammar also consider him Thiqah. Abu Dawud said: There is no problem with him. Ibn Hibban counted him amongst Thiqaat in his book “Ath-Thiqaat”. Ibn Abi Hatim narrates from his father, that he (Hammaad) is Thiqah. [See “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” (3/8)]. Also see “Tahreer Taqreeb” [1/1497]
Although Al-Azdi consider him among weak narrators, but his saying is not hujjah because, its against majority of scholars and Jarh of Azdi is not mufassar, it doesn’t say why Hammad is weak. And in these cases these type of Jarh are not accepted as it opposes majority of views without any reason.
So we see Hammaad b. Daleel also support Saalim Abul ‘Alaa Al-Muradi. Therefore, the narration of Saalim from ‘Amr and Hammaad from ‘Amr, from Raba’ee make us certain about the authenticity of the narration by Abdul Malik b. ‘Umair (from Hilaal) from Raba’ee from Hudhaifa. In conclusion, there are sufficient support for the hadith of Hudhaifa.
Ibn Adi narrates through the chain of Hammaad b. Daleel from ‘Amr b. Haram from Raba’ee from Hudhaifa similarly. [Ibn Adi in “Al-Kamil” 2/250]
Hammad bin Daleel is Sadooq according to Ibn Hajar. [“Taqreeb” (1/178, no.1497)]According to Dhahabi, he is Thiqah. [“Al-Kashif” (1/349, no.1218)] Ibn Mu’een said: Thiqah, nothing bad with him. Ibn Junaid said about him: Thiqah. Ibn ‘Ammar also consider him Thiqah. Abu Dawud said: There is no problem with him. Ibn Hibban counted him amongst Thiqaat in his book “Ath-Thiqaat”. Ibn Abi Hatim narrates from his father, that he (Hammaad) is Thiqah. [See “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” (3/8)]. Also see “Tahreer Taqreeb” [1/1497]
Although Al-Azdi consider him among weak narrators, but his saying is not hujjah because, its against majority of scholars and Jarh of Azdi is not mufassar, it doesn’t say why Hammad is weak. And in these cases these type of Jarh are not accepted as it opposes majority of views without any reason.
So we see Hammaad b. Daleel also support Saalim Abul ‘Alaa Al-Muradi. Therefore, the narration of Saalim from ‘Amr and Hammaad from ‘Amr, from Raba’ee make us certain about the authenticity of the narration by Abdul Malik b. ‘Umair (from Hilaal) from Raba’ee from Hudhaifa. In conclusion, there are sufficient support for the hadith of Hudhaifa.
However there are lots of other:
[1] Ibn Mas’ud
اقتدوا باللذين من بعدي من أصحابي؛ أبي بكر وعمر واهتدوا بهدي عمار وتمسكو بعهد ابن مسعود
“Follow those after me, among my companions, Abu Bakr and Umar. And be guided through the guidance of Ammar, and stick to the advice of Ibn Mas’ud”
[Tirmidhi (3805) Bashshar Awwaad, Tabrani in “Al-Kabeer” (8426), and in “Al-Awsat” (7173), Ibn ‘Adi in “Al-Kamil” (7/2654), Al-Hakim (3/75-76), Baghwi (3496)]
Allamah Al-Albani said:
— Al-Hakim said, “its sanad (chain of narrator) is Sahih”. Dhahabi refuted him by saying, “rather its sanad is ‘wah’ (weak)”. And it is clear from the saying of Tirmidhi, “we are not aware of this accept through Yahya b. Salama b. Kuhail and he has been declared weak in hadith”
I (Al-Albani) say: “In fact he is “Matrook” (abandoned) as said by Ibn Hajar and similarly his son Isma’eel and his son Ibraheem all are weak. And there is another route (‘turq) for this narration of Ibn Mas’ud related by Ibn ‘Asakir (1/323/9) from Ahmed bin Rushd bin Khaitham from Humaid bin Abdur-Rahman from Hasan bin Saleh from Firas bin Yahya from Shu’bi from ‘Alqama bin Qais from Abdullah bin Mas’ud, without mentioning of second part of the hadith (about Ammaar and ibn Mas’ud).
I (Albani) say: The narrator are all “Thiqah” except Ahmed (bin Rushd) and I am not aware of him.—
[“Silsilah As-Saheeha” (3/233) hadith-1233. Daarul Ma’arif, Riyadh]
— Al-Hakim said, “its sanad (chain of narrator) is Sahih”. Dhahabi refuted him by saying, “rather its sanad is ‘wah’ (weak)”. And it is clear from the saying of Tirmidhi, “we are not aware of this accept through Yahya b. Salama b. Kuhail and he has been declared weak in hadith”
I (Al-Albani) say: “In fact he is “Matrook” (abandoned) as said by Ibn Hajar and similarly his son Isma’eel and his son Ibraheem all are weak. And there is another route (‘turq) for this narration of Ibn Mas’ud related by Ibn ‘Asakir (1/323/9) from Ahmed bin Rushd bin Khaitham from Humaid bin Abdur-Rahman from Hasan bin Saleh from Firas bin Yahya from Shu’bi from ‘Alqama bin Qais from Abdullah bin Mas’ud, without mentioning of second part of the hadith (about Ammaar and ibn Mas’ud).
I (Albani) say: The narrator are all “Thiqah” except Ahmed (bin Rushd) and I am not aware of him.—
[“Silsilah As-Saheeha” (3/233) hadith-1233. Daarul Ma’arif, Riyadh]
[2] Anas bin Maalik
Al-Albani said:
—hadith of Anas bin Malik is narrated by Hammad bin Daleel from Umar bin Nafe’ from ‘Amr bin Haram, he said: I and Jabir bin Zaid entered Anas bin Malik, so he said Prophet [saw] said…alhadith…
It is recorded by Ibn ‘Adi (1/72) through Muslim bin Saleh Abu Rajaa’ from him (Hammaad bin Daleel).—
[Ibid.]
—hadith of Anas bin Malik is narrated by Hammad bin Daleel from Umar bin Nafe’ from ‘Amr bin Haram, he said: I and Jabir bin Zaid entered Anas bin Malik, so he said Prophet [saw] said…alhadith…
It is recorded by Ibn ‘Adi (1/72) through Muslim bin Saleh Abu Rajaa’ from him (Hammaad bin Daleel).—
[Ibid.]
[3] Ibn ‘Umar
Allamah Albani said:
—And the Hadith of Ibn ‘Umar is narrated through Ahmed bin Saleeh ibn Waddaah, reported to us Muhammad bin Qatn, reported to us Dhu Nun, reported to us Maalik bin Anas, from Nafe’ from him (Ibn Umar) without the second part. Recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir (2/323/9) in this way. And Ahmed bin Saleeh, Dhahabi said in “Al-Meezan”: Ahmed bin Saleeh from Dhu Nun Al-Misry from Maalik (..same hadith..). (Dhahabi said) This is incorrect. And Ahmed is not to be depended upon.
…..(Albani said) and this is also narrated through Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-‘Umri Al-Madani from Malik similarly. This is recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir. As for Al-‘Umr then Ibn Hibban said about him: “it is not correct to take him as Hujjah”. —-
[Ibid.]
—And the Hadith of Ibn ‘Umar is narrated through Ahmed bin Saleeh ibn Waddaah, reported to us Muhammad bin Qatn, reported to us Dhu Nun, reported to us Maalik bin Anas, from Nafe’ from him (Ibn Umar) without the second part. Recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir (2/323/9) in this way. And Ahmed bin Saleeh, Dhahabi said in “Al-Meezan”: Ahmed bin Saleeh from Dhu Nun Al-Misry from Maalik (..same hadith..). (Dhahabi said) This is incorrect. And Ahmed is not to be depended upon.
…..(Albani said) and this is also narrated through Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-‘Umri Al-Madani from Malik similarly. This is recorded by Ibn ‘Asakir. As for Al-‘Umr then Ibn Hibban said about him: “it is not correct to take him as Hujjah”. —-
[Ibid.]
Meaning of the Hadith is proven:
There are many other narrations which support this meaning. One of them is that which is qouted by Shaykh Shu’aib Al-Arna’ut in the tahqeeq of Musnad to support this hadith. This is a part of a long hadith…
“So if you had obeyed Abu Bakr and Umar, you would have gone on the right path”
[Sahih Muslim (Book #004, Hadith #1450) english]
“So if you had obeyed Abu Bakr and Umar, you would have gone on the right path”
[Sahih Muslim (Book #004, Hadith #1450) english]
Scholars who declared this hadith to be authentic:
Great scholars have declared the narration of Hudhiafa to be authentic. Some of them are as follows:
[1]. Muhammad bin ‘Eesa Al-Tirmidhi
He declared this narration “Hasan” in his “Sunan”. [Sunan Tirmidhi, Al-Manaaqib, vol.6, page-43,44. Hadith- 3662. Tahqeeq Bashshaar Awwaad, Daar ul-Gharb Al-Islami, Beirut]
He declared this narration “Hasan” in his “Sunan”. [Sunan Tirmidhi, Al-Manaaqib, vol.6, page-43,44. Hadith- 3662. Tahqeeq Bashshaar Awwaad, Daar ul-Gharb Al-Islami, Beirut]
[2] Abu Hatim Ar-Razi
وَسَأَلْتُ أَبِي عَنْ حَدِيثٍ ؛ رَوَاهُ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ ، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ ، عَنْ هِلالٍ مَوْلَى رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ، قَالَ : اقْتَدُوا بِاللَّذَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِي.
وَرَوَاهُ زَائِدَةُ وَغَيْرُهُ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم.
قُلْتُ : فَأَيُّهُمَا أَصَحُّ ؟ قَالَ أَبِي : حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ كَثِيرٍ ، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ ، عَنْ مَوْلًى لِرِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ.
قُلْتُ : فَأَيُّهُمَا أَصَحُّ ؟ قَالَ : مَا قَالَ الثَّوْرِيُّ ، زَادَ رَجُلا وَجَوَّدَ الْحَدِيثِ ، فَأَمَّا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ فَسَمَّى الرَّجُلَ ، وَأَمَّا ابْنُ كَثِيرٍ فَلَمْ يُسَمِّ الْمَوْلَى
[Ibn Abi Hatim said] I asked my father about the Hadith (narrated through), Ibrahim bin Sa’d – Thawri – Abdul Malik bin Umair – Hilal mawla Raba’i – Raba’i – Hudhaifa (ra)….Hadith…
And this is also narrated through Za’idah and other from Abdul Malik – Mawla li Raba’i – Raba’i – Hudhaifa (ra). I said, “So which of them is most authentic”. He (ABu Hatim) said, “narrated to us Ibn Kathir, from Thawri, from Abdul Malik, from slave of Raba’i, from Raba’i, from Hudhaifa”.
I said, “So which one is most authentic?”
He said, “what Thawri said, as the narraters increase and the hadith becomes good (Jayyid). Ibrahim bin Sa’d named the person, and Ibn Katheer did not give the name of servant”.”
[Ilal Al-Hadith (2655)]
وَسَأَلْتُ أَبِي عَنْ حَدِيثٍ ؛ رَوَاهُ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ ، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ ، عَنْ هِلالٍ مَوْلَى رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ، قَالَ : اقْتَدُوا بِاللَّذَيْنِ مِنْ بَعْدِي.
وَرَوَاهُ زَائِدَةُ وَغَيْرُهُ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم.
قُلْتُ : فَأَيُّهُمَا أَصَحُّ ؟ قَالَ أَبِي : حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ كَثِيرٍ ، عَنِ الثَّوْرِيِّ ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ بْنِ عُمَيْرٍ ، عَنْ مَوْلًى لِرِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ رِبْعِيٍّ ، عَنْ حُذَيْفَةَ.
قُلْتُ : فَأَيُّهُمَا أَصَحُّ ؟ قَالَ : مَا قَالَ الثَّوْرِيُّ ، زَادَ رَجُلا وَجَوَّدَ الْحَدِيثِ ، فَأَمَّا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ فَسَمَّى الرَّجُلَ ، وَأَمَّا ابْنُ كَثِيرٍ فَلَمْ يُسَمِّ الْمَوْلَى
[Ibn Abi Hatim said] I asked my father about the Hadith (narrated through), Ibrahim bin Sa’d – Thawri – Abdul Malik bin Umair – Hilal mawla Raba’i – Raba’i – Hudhaifa (ra)….Hadith…
And this is also narrated through Za’idah and other from Abdul Malik – Mawla li Raba’i – Raba’i – Hudhaifa (ra). I said, “So which of them is most authentic”. He (ABu Hatim) said, “narrated to us Ibn Kathir, from Thawri, from Abdul Malik, from slave of Raba’i, from Raba’i, from Hudhaifa”.
I said, “So which one is most authentic?”
He said, “what Thawri said, as the narraters increase and the hadith becomes good (Jayyid). Ibrahim bin Sa’d named the person, and Ibn Katheer did not give the name of servant”.”
[Ilal Al-Hadith (2655)]
[3] Imam Adh-Dhahabi
He said in Tareekh Al-Islam :
وقال زائدة، عن عبد الملك بن عمير، عن ربعي، عن حذيفة قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” اقتدوا بالذين من بعدي أبي بكر وعمر ” . ورواه سالم أبو العلاء – وهو ضعيف – عن عمرو بن هرم، عن ربعي، وحديث زائدة حسن
“And Zaa’idah said, from Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, from Raba’ee, from Hudhaifa, he said: Prophet [saw] said: “Follow among those after me, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.” And narrated Saalim Abul ‘Alaa –and he is weak- from ‘Amr bin Haram, from Raba’ee. And hadeeth by Zaa’idah is Hasan.” [Tareekh Al-Islam (3/257), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-Arabi Beirut]
He said in Tareekh Al-Islam :
وقال زائدة، عن عبد الملك بن عمير، عن ربعي، عن حذيفة قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ” اقتدوا بالذين من بعدي أبي بكر وعمر ” . ورواه سالم أبو العلاء – وهو ضعيف – عن عمرو بن هرم، عن ربعي، وحديث زائدة حسن
“And Zaa’idah said, from Abdul Malik bin ‘Umair, from Raba’ee, from Hudhaifa, he said: Prophet [saw] said: “Follow among those after me, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.” And narrated Saalim Abul ‘Alaa –and he is weak- from ‘Amr bin Haram, from Raba’ee. And hadeeth by Zaa’idah is Hasan.” [Tareekh Al-Islam (3/257), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-Arabi Beirut]
[4] Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Hakim
He declared this hadith to be “Sahih” in his “Al-Mustadrak” [(3/80), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-`Arabi Beirut]
He declared this hadith to be “Sahih” in his “Al-Mustadrak” [(3/80), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-`Arabi Beirut]
[5] Abu Ja’afar Al-‘Uqailee
He this hadith good proven (jayyid thabit) in his book Ad-Du’afa (1649) .
عن بن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اقتدوا بالأميرين بعدي أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما حديث منكر لا أصل له من حديث مالك وهذا يروى عن حذيفة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بإسناد جيد ثابت
“Narrated Ibn ‘Umar, Messenger of Allah, (SAW) said: Follow the two leaders after me, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. (Abu Ja’far said) This hadith is munkar, not proven from the hadith of Malik. And this is narrated by Hudhaifa from Prophet (SAW) with a good and proven chain.” [Adh-Dhu’afaa (4/95), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-‘Ilmi Beirut]
He this hadith good proven (jayyid thabit) in his book Ad-Du’afa (1649) .
عن بن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم اقتدوا بالأميرين بعدي أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما حديث منكر لا أصل له من حديث مالك وهذا يروى عن حذيفة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بإسناد جيد ثابت
“Narrated Ibn ‘Umar, Messenger of Allah, (SAW) said: Follow the two leaders after me, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. (Abu Ja’far said) This hadith is munkar, not proven from the hadith of Malik. And this is narrated by Hudhaifa from Prophet (SAW) with a good and proven chain.” [Adh-Dhu’afaa (4/95), Daar Ul-Kutub Al-‘Ilmi Beirut]
[6] Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani
He declared this hadith to be “Hasan” in his book “Muwafiqah Al-khubr Al-Khabar”[(1/143,144), tahqeeq. Hamdi Abdul Majeed and Subhi As-Samirani, Maktaba Ar-Rushd Riyadh]
He declared this hadith to be “Hasan” in his book “Muwafiqah Al-khubr Al-Khabar”[(1/143,144), tahqeeq. Hamdi Abdul Majeed and Subhi As-Samirani, Maktaba Ar-Rushd Riyadh]
[7] Nasirud Deen Al-Albani
He declared this “Sahih”.
[Sahih Al-Jami’As-Sagheer (1/254), no. 1142, 1143, 1144. Al-Maktaba Al-Islami]
Silsila As-Saheeha [(3/233), no. 1233, Daarul Ma’arif, Riyadh]
He declared this “Sahih”.
[Sahih Al-Jami’As-Sagheer (1/254), no. 1142, 1143, 1144. Al-Maktaba Al-Islami]
Silsila As-Saheeha [(3/233), no. 1233, Daarul Ma’arif, Riyadh]
[8] Shu’aib Al-Arna’ut etc
He declared “Hasan li ghairihi” [Tahqeeq Musnad (38/281), no. 23245, Mu’assasah Ar-Risala]
He declared “Hasan li ghairihi” [Tahqeeq Musnad (38/281), no. 23245, Mu’assasah Ar-Risala]
[9] Abu Hafs Ibn Mulaqqin Ash-Shafa’i (d.804 H)
He declared this Hadith “Hasan” in his book “Al-Badrul Muneer” [(9/578), Hadith- 16, Daar Ul-Hijrah, Riyadh]. And later on he discredit the view of Ibn Hazm where he declared this hadith to be weak.
He declared this Hadith “Hasan” in his book “Al-Badrul Muneer” [(9/578), Hadith- 16, Daar Ul-Hijrah, Riyadh]. And later on he discredit the view of Ibn Hazm where he declared this hadith to be weak.
[10] Abdur Rahman bin ‘Umar Al-Jawrqani
He declare this hadith to be “Sahih” in his book “Al-Abateel wa Al-Manakeer” (Kitab Al-Fada’il, Khilafah Abu Bakr, Hadith-132)
He declare this hadith to be “Sahih” in his book “Al-Abateel wa Al-Manakeer” (Kitab Al-Fada’il, Khilafah Abu Bakr, Hadith-132)
[12] Muhammad bin ‘Ali Ash-Shawkani
He declared this hadeeth to be “Saheeh”. [See “Irshad Al-Fuhul” [(1/221), Daarul Kutub Al-‘Arabi]
He declared this hadeeth to be “Saheeh”. [See “Irshad Al-Fuhul” [(1/221), Daarul Kutub Al-‘Arabi]
Written By bro salamz & ahlusunnah.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Refuting Scientific Errors in Quran and Hadith
Sun sets in the murky water as per Qur'an?
One of the top-ten questions hurled at Muslims in any debate against Christians is about the following verse of the Holy Qur’an about Zulqarnain;
“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found (wajada) it set in a spring of murky water: “(Qur’an 18:86)
They say, the verse clearly says that sun sets in the murky water and needless to say it is blunder and proves that Qur’an is not the word of God
What does the Qur’an actually say?
Had the Qur'an actually said what they make it say, their conclusion would have been logical only. But they err in understanding the verse in the very first place.
1- The word used by the Qur’an:
I have given the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali above. The word he translated as “found” is وجد i.e. ‘wajada.’ This word is used to describe the perception. See the proof from the Edward William Lane’s Lexicon.
And further he writes;
Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon p. 2924
So the word ‘wajada’ refers to perception through any one of the five senses.
2- Qur’an uses the wording from Zulqarnain’s perspective:
What we find is that Qur’an has used the word from the perspective of Zulqarnain and merely describes his perception and how it appeared in his sight. owH And the description is very much valid for on a shore that is how sunset actually seems. May be the following image helps a bit.
3- Muslims have always understood the verse like this:
Someone may argue, the above explanation is the concoction of modern Muslim apologists and the verse reads as the skeptics say because early Muslims never knew the scientific facts about the cosmos as they are known today.
In Tafsir Jalalayn co-authored by al-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) and al-Mahalli (d. 864 A.H.), we find the following words;
“… its setting in a spring is [described as seen] from the perspective of the eye.” (ONLINE SOURCE)
Before them Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) wrote:
“… he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed.” (ONLINE SOURCE)
And even before him Nasiruddin al-Baydhawi (d. 691 A.H.) said:
“Perhaps he reached shore of an ocean and saw it like that as there was nothing in his sight except water and for this reason it is said, “and he perceived it to set”, and not that it actually sets.” (Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Tawil 4/14)
I hope all this detail leaves no ambiguity.
In the Bible we have something interesting on these lines. Talking about the two mountains, Gerizim and Ebal, the Book of Deuteronomy tells us;
“Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the campaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh?”(KJV, Deuteronomy 11:30)
Now the question is if the sun actually goes down? Certainly not! There is no doubt the verse simply refers to how humans perceive it and calling it a scientific error is nothing but sheer cunningness.
But the point here is, why adopt double standards? Why do the missionaries divorce with the common sense when they speak about Islamic texts?
Remember the words of Jesus, may Allah bless him?
“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (KJV, Matthew 7: 1-2)
حَتَّى إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ
“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found (wajada) it set in a spring of murky water: “(Qur’an 18:86)
They say, the verse clearly says that sun sets in the murky water and needless to say it is blunder and proves that Qur’an is not the word of God
What does the Qur’an actually say?
Had the Qur'an actually said what they make it say, their conclusion would have been logical only. But they err in understanding the verse in the very first place.
1- The word used by the Qur’an:
I have given the translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali above. The word he translated as “found” is وجد i.e. ‘wajada.’ This word is used to describe the perception. See the proof from the Edward William Lane’s Lexicon.
And further he writes;
Edward William Lane’s Arabic-English Lexicon p. 2924So the word ‘wajada’ refers to perception through any one of the five senses.
2- Qur’an uses the wording from Zulqarnain’s perspective:
What we find is that Qur’an has used the word from the perspective of Zulqarnain and merely describes his perception and how it appeared in his sight. owH And the description is very much valid for on a shore that is how sunset actually seems. May be the following image helps a bit.
3- Muslims have always understood the verse like this:
Someone may argue, the above explanation is the concoction of modern Muslim apologists and the verse reads as the skeptics say because early Muslims never knew the scientific facts about the cosmos as they are known today.
In Tafsir Jalalayn co-authored by al-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) and al-Mahalli (d. 864 A.H.), we find the following words;
وغروبها في العين في رأي العين
“… its setting in a spring is [described as seen] from the perspective of the eye.” (ONLINE SOURCE)
Before them Ibn Kathir (d. 774 A.H.) wrote:
رَأَى الشَّمْسَ فِي مَنْظَرِهِ تَغْرُبُ فِي الْبَحْرِ الْمُحِيطِ، وَهَذَا شَأْنُ كُلِّ مَنِ انْتَهَى إِلَى سَاحِلِهِ، يَرَاهَا كَأَنَّهَا تَغْرُبُ فِيهِ، وَهِيَ لَا تُفَارِقُ الْفَلَكَ الرَّابِعَ الَّذِي هِيَ مُثَبَّتَةٌ فِيهِ لَا تُفَارِقُهُ
“… he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed.” (ONLINE SOURCE)
And even before him Nasiruddin al-Baydhawi (d. 691 A.H.) said:
ولعله بلغ ساحل المحيط فرآها كذلك إذ لم يكن في مطمح بصره غير الماء ولذلك قال { وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ } ولم يقل كانت تغرب
“Perhaps he reached shore of an ocean and saw it like that as there was nothing in his sight except water and for this reason it is said, “and he perceived it to set”, and not that it actually sets.” (Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Tawil 4/14)
I hope all this detail leaves no ambiguity.
LET ME TURN THE TABLES!
In the Bible we have something interesting on these lines. Talking about the two mountains, Gerizim and Ebal, the Book of Deuteronomy tells us;
“Are they not on the other side Jordan, by the way where the sun goeth down, in the land of the Canaanites, which dwell in the campaign over against Gilgal, beside the plains of Moreh?”(KJV, Deuteronomy 11:30)
Now the question is if the sun actually goes down? Certainly not! There is no doubt the verse simply refers to how humans perceive it and calling it a scientific error is nothing but sheer cunningness.
But the point here is, why adopt double standards? Why do the missionaries divorce with the common sense when they speak about Islamic texts?
Remember the words of Jesus, may Allah bless him?
“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (KJV, Matthew 7: 1-2)
Unreliable Hadith about Sunset in the Spring of Warm Water
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم الحمد لله وحده و الصلاة و السلام على من لا نبي بعده و على آله و أصحابه أجمعين
Analysis of the reliability of the alleged report about the sun setting in a spring of warm water according to the Holy Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
There is a Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud that has been brought up by some anti-Islamic polemicists.
The narration:
The narration along with the chain of narrators goes as;
Yazid bin Harun- Sufyan bin Husain- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Abu Dharr said: I was sitting behind the Apostle of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 3991)
Related narrations:
In Musnad Ahmad these words are part of a longer narration reported through same chain of narrators;
Abu Dharr narrated, “Once I was with the Prophet riding a donkey on which there was a saddle or a (piece of) velvet. That was at sunset. He said to me, ‘O Abu Dharr, do you know where this (sun) sets?’ I said, ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said, ‘It sets in a spring of murky water, (then) it goes and prostrates before its Lord, the Exalted in Might and the Ever-Majestic, under the Throne. And when it is time to go out, Allah allows it to go out and thus it rises. But, when He wants to make it rise where it sets, He locks it up. The sun will then say, “O my Lord, I have a long distance to run.” Allah will say, “Rise where you have set.” That (will take place) when no (disbelieving) soul will get any good by believing then.’” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 21459 al-Risala ed.)
This narration is quite similar to the narration found in many hadith works including Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim etc. except the words “It sets in a spring of warm water.”
In Sahih Bukhari it goes as;
Sufyan (al-Thawri)- Al-A’mash- Ibrahim (b. Yazid al-Taymi)- Yazid al-Taymi- Narrated Abu Dharr: The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west. And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: "And the sun is quickly proceeding towards its destination. That is the designing of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing. " (36.38) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Hadith 421)
The significant difference is of the words “it sets in a spring of warm/murky water.”
Analysis of the chains of narrators:
From Abu Darr, it both ways i.e. with and without the words under consideration, it narrated by Yazid al-Taymi and from him by his son Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi. From Ibrahim it is narrated by six different narrators;
1- Al-A’mash: And from him at least five people narrate it. See Sahih Bukhari etc.
2- Yunus bin ‘Ubaid: And from him at least three narrators report this narration. See Sahih Muslim etc.
3- Musa bin al-Musayyab al-Thaqafi: From him it is narrated by Abdah bin Sulayman, See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1189
2- Yunus bin ‘Ubaid: And from him at least three narrators report this narration. See Sahih Muslim etc.
3- Musa bin al-Musayyab al-Thaqafi: From him it is narrated by Abdah bin Sulayman, See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1189
4- Abdul A’la al-Taymi: The narrator down from him is Mis’ar, See Hilyah al-Awliya 5/89
5- Harun bin Sa’d: Abdul Ghaffar bin al-Qasim narrates from him. See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1191 and Al-Tabarani’s Mu’jam Al-Awst, Hadith 4470
6- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah: The sole narrator down from him is Sufyan bin Husain, See Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, Mustadrak al-Hakim, Musnad al-Bazzar etc.
Of all these various routes from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, it is only through Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah that these words “It sets in a spring of warm water” are narrated.
In short, there are six narrators reporting the hadith from Ibrahim bin Yazid, and only one of them i.e. Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah quotes the particular words. And to add to the trouble there is again only one narrator down from him and he is Sufyan bin Husain whereas parallel to Sufyan there are at least eleven people narrating the hadith without these words on the authority of five different people narrating from Ibrahim bin Yazid.
Following flow diagram for the above detail gives the pictorial display the strangeness of these words. Down from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi only the narrators with red outline for their names give the words under consideration against loads of other narrators who do not report these words.
The narration is anomalous (shaadh) and defective (mu’allal):
This fact alone is enough to make the narration dubious. No doubt both Al-Hakam and Sufyan are per setrustworthy narrators but because on their respective levels they go against much reliable and numerous narrators. Such a narration reported this way is termed as “shaadh” i.e. anomalous.
Carefully read the definition of anomalous (shaadh) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 A.H.) in his magnus opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;
“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006 p.57)
Also see the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn Salah;
“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.67)
And when a report or a part of it becomes “shaadh” it ceases to be a sahih (sound) report. For this the definition of a “Sahih hadith” will help.
Hafiz Ibn Salah writes;
“The sahih (sound) hadith is a “supported” hadith (al-hadith al-musnad), the isnad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its point of termination. The sound hadith can be neither anomalous (shaadh) nor defective (mu’allal),” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.5)
So merely being “sahih al-isnaad” is not enough for the report itself to be sahih.
Therefore, the very fact that Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah’s narrates differently from five other narrators reporting it on the authority of Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, makes the narration “shaadh” (anomalous) which is a kind of weak (da’if) reports.
But the trouble with the narration does not end here. Down from Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah, Sufyan bin Husain is also unique in narrating these words whereas the number of narrators down from narrators other than Al-Hakam narrating it from Ibrahim al-Taymi is at least eleven. There is not a single supporting narrator for Sufyan either.
Hafiz Al-Bazzar (d. 292 A.H.) after giving this narration writes;
“We do not know anyone other than Sufyan bin Husain reporting it through the chain: Al-Hakam bin ‘Utayba –Ibrahim- his father- Abu Dharr, while Yunus bin ‘Ubayd, Suleman Al-A’mash and Harun bin Sa’d have also narrated it from Ibrahim.” (Musnad Al-Bazzar- Bahr al-Zakhkhar, under Hadith 4010)
And this is important, not only because it adds more to the oddity of the narration, but also because Sufyan bin Husain though generally considered authentic was also criticized by few scholars. This criticism does not harm his general narrations but becomes significant when he goes out of the way and narrates what other narrators from the same original source do not.
Muhammad ibn Sa’d said about him: “He was reliable (but) he made many mistakes in his narrations.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990, vol.7 p.227 No. 3417)
Conclusion:
These details make it quite clear that according to rules of reporting it is not right to attribute these words to the Messenger of Allah- on him be the peace and blessings of Allah.
Apparently, the words from Qur’an 18:86 were confused and appended to the hadith that had no link to the ayah whatsoever. The narrator failed to understand the real significance of the verse and the hadith and for apparent semblance he confused the two.
The verse from the Holy Qur’an i.e. surah 18 ayah 86 is simply about how the sunset appeared to Zulqarnain and even the classical Muslim scholars understood it like that. The detailed explanation of it is found HERE.
As to the meanings of the Hadith of Abu Dharr- may Allah be pleased with him- about the sun prostrating under the Throne (‘arsh) of Allah, visit THIS PAGE for explanation.
So the excitement of the missionaries is in vain. Pity!
5- Harun bin Sa’d: Abdul Ghaffar bin al-Qasim narrates from him. See Al-‘Uzmah of Abu al-Shaykh al-Asbahani 4/1191 and Al-Tabarani’s Mu’jam Al-Awst, Hadith 4470
6- Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah: The sole narrator down from him is Sufyan bin Husain, See Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Ahmad, Mustadrak al-Hakim, Musnad al-Bazzar etc.
Of all these various routes from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, it is only through Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah that these words “It sets in a spring of warm water” are narrated.
In short, there are six narrators reporting the hadith from Ibrahim bin Yazid, and only one of them i.e. Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah quotes the particular words. And to add to the trouble there is again only one narrator down from him and he is Sufyan bin Husain whereas parallel to Sufyan there are at least eleven people narrating the hadith without these words on the authority of five different people narrating from Ibrahim bin Yazid.
Following flow diagram for the above detail gives the pictorial display the strangeness of these words. Down from Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi only the narrators with red outline for their names give the words under consideration against loads of other narrators who do not report these words.
The narration is anomalous (shaadh) and defective (mu’allal):
This fact alone is enough to make the narration dubious. No doubt both Al-Hakam and Sufyan are per setrustworthy narrators but because on their respective levels they go against much reliable and numerous narrators. Such a narration reported this way is termed as “shaadh” i.e. anomalous.
Carefully read the definition of anomalous (shaadh) hadith given by Ibn al-Salah (d. 643 A.H.) in his magnus opus, “Kitab Ma’rifat ‘anwa’ ‘ilm al-Hadith” translated under the title “An Introduction to the Science of Hadith”;
“… the anomalous hadith is the one which a reliable transmitter relates and which is in conflict with what other people relate.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, Translated by Dr. Eerik Dickinson, Garnet Publishing Ltd. Berkshire 2006 p.57)
Also see the definition of defective (mu’allal) hadith given by Ibn Salah;
“A defective hadith is one in which a defect impugning its soundness is detected, although it outwardly appears to be free of the defect. That may apply to an isnad made up of reliable transmitters which outwardly seems to fulfill the conditions of soundness. Someone being alone in transmitting the hadith as well as others contradicting him aid in catching the defect.” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.67)
And when a report or a part of it becomes “shaadh” it ceases to be a sahih (sound) report. For this the definition of a “Sahih hadith” will help.
Hafiz Ibn Salah writes;
“The sahih (sound) hadith is a “supported” hadith (al-hadith al-musnad), the isnad of which coheres continuously through the transmission of one upright and accurate person from another up to its point of termination. The sound hadith can be neither anomalous (shaadh) nor defective (mu’allal),” (An Introduction to the Science of Hadith, p.5)
So merely being “sahih al-isnaad” is not enough for the report itself to be sahih.
Therefore, the very fact that Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah’s narrates differently from five other narrators reporting it on the authority of Ibrahim bin Yazid al-Taymi, makes the narration “shaadh” (anomalous) which is a kind of weak (da’if) reports.
But the trouble with the narration does not end here. Down from Al-Hakam bin ‘Utaybah, Sufyan bin Husain is also unique in narrating these words whereas the number of narrators down from narrators other than Al-Hakam narrating it from Ibrahim al-Taymi is at least eleven. There is not a single supporting narrator for Sufyan either.
Hafiz Al-Bazzar (d. 292 A.H.) after giving this narration writes;
“We do not know anyone other than Sufyan bin Husain reporting it through the chain: Al-Hakam bin ‘Utayba –Ibrahim- his father- Abu Dharr, while Yunus bin ‘Ubayd, Suleman Al-A’mash and Harun bin Sa’d have also narrated it from Ibrahim.” (Musnad Al-Bazzar- Bahr al-Zakhkhar, under Hadith 4010)
And this is important, not only because it adds more to the oddity of the narration, but also because Sufyan bin Husain though generally considered authentic was also criticized by few scholars. This criticism does not harm his general narrations but becomes significant when he goes out of the way and narrates what other narrators from the same original source do not.
Muhammad ibn Sa’d said about him: “He was reliable (but) he made many mistakes in his narrations.” (Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyya, Beirut, 1990, vol.7 p.227 No. 3417)
Conclusion:
These details make it quite clear that according to rules of reporting it is not right to attribute these words to the Messenger of Allah- on him be the peace and blessings of Allah.
Apparently, the words from Qur’an 18:86 were confused and appended to the hadith that had no link to the ayah whatsoever. The narrator failed to understand the real significance of the verse and the hadith and for apparent semblance he confused the two.
The verse from the Holy Qur’an i.e. surah 18 ayah 86 is simply about how the sunset appeared to Zulqarnain and even the classical Muslim scholars understood it like that. The detailed explanation of it is found HERE.
As to the meanings of the Hadith of Abu Dharr- may Allah be pleased with him- about the sun prostrating under the Throne (‘arsh) of Allah, visit THIS PAGE for explanation.
So the excitement of the missionaries is in vain. Pity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)