Q: What is the ruling on
the hadeeth which says that the Prophet used to place his right hand after
obligatory Salaah on his forehead and read this du’aa, “….”?
A:
This
hadeeth is Da’eef (Weak).
It is narrated from two people
as Marfoo’:
1. Anas bin Maalik (radiallah anhu) &
2. Amr bin Qays (with a slight difference of wording) – and he is a
contemporary of Taabi’een but not a Taabi’ee.
1. The Hadeeth of Anas
bin Maalik (radiallah anhu)
The hadeeth of Anas bin Maalik
is narrated through four different sub-routes:
First route:
Imaam Abu al-Qaasim Sulemaan bin
Ahmed bin Ayyoob at-Tabaraani rahimahullah (D. 360) narrates:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُسْلِمٍ قَالَ: نا حَفْصُ بْنُ عُمَرَ
الْحَوْضِيُّ قَالَ: نا سَلَّامٌ
الطَّوِيلُ، عَنْ زَيْدٍ الْعَمِّيِّ، عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ قُرَّةَ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ:
كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا قَضَى صَلَاتَهُ
مَسَحَ جَبْهَتَهُ بِيَدِهِ الْيُمْنَى، ثُمَّ يَقُولُ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ
الرَّحِيمُ، اللَّهُمَّ أَذْهِبْ عَنِّي الْغَمَّ وَالْحَزَنَ»
Abu Muslim narrated to us, he
said: Hafs bin Umar al-Hawdi narrated to us, he said: Sallaam at-Ta’weel
narrated to us, from Zayd al-Ammi, from Mu’aawiyah bin Qurrah, from Anas bin
Maalik (radiallah anhu) he said: Whenever the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu
alayhi wasallam) would complete his prayer, he would touch his forehead with
his right hand and said, “In the name of Allaah, I bear witness that there is
no God but Him the Most Merciful and the most compassionate, O Allaah relieve
me of grief and distress”
[Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat (3/66 H.
2499) & Ad-Du’afa by Al-Tabraani (1/210 H. 659)]
This hadeeth through the same
basic route of Sallaam from Zayd al-Ammi from Mu’aawiyah from Anas is also
narrated by Ibn Sam’oon in Amaali Ibn Sam’oon (121), Abu Nu’aym in Hilyat
al-Awliyah (2/301), and Ibn as-Sunni in Amal al-Yawm wal Laylah (1/101 H. 112).
This chain is severely weak
because:
First: Sallaam at-Ta’weel is
Matrook
Imaam Dhahabi
(D. 748) said:
“متروك”
“Matrook”
[
Al-Mughni (1/ T. 2496)]
Haafidh
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani (D. 852) said:
“متروك”
“Matrook”
[
Taqreeb (2702)]
Note: Click
on the name of “Sallaam at-Ta’weel” above to view his complete biographical evaluation.
Second: Zayd bin al-Hawaari al-Ammi is Da’eef especially in his narrations from Anas.
Imaam
Ibn Hibbaan (D. 354) said:
“يروي عن أنس أشياء موضوعة لا أصل لها حتى يسبق
إلي القلب أنه المتعمد لها، وكان يحيى يمرض القول فيه، وهو عندي لا يجوز الاحتجاج
بخبره ولا كتابة حديثه إلا للاعتبار”
“He narrated
fabricated narrations from Anas which had no basis until it occurred in heart
that he is deliberate in it, and Yahya (bin Ma’een) had bad opinion about him,
and it is not permissible, according to me, to take evidence from his report or
write his hadeeth except for consideration”
[
Al-Majroheen by Ibn Hibbaan (1/309)]
Haafidh Noor
ud-Deen al-Haythami (D. 807) said:
“وَضَعَّفَهُ الْجُمْهُورُ”
“And Jumhoor has weakened him”
[
Majma az-Zawaaid (10/110)]
Another route from Zayd al-Ammi
This narration is also narrated
by Imaam Abu Bakr al-Bazzaar (D. 292) in his Musnad through the route of Zayd
al-Ammi from Mu’aawiyah bin Qurrah from Anas. However, in this chain the one
narrating from Zayd al-Ammi is not Sallaam at-Ta’weel (as noted above) but
Uthmaan bin Farqad which is a mistake and it cannot be said that it is a
mutaabi’ah of Sallaam. His words are as follows:
حَدَّثَنَا الْحَارِثُ بْنُ الْخَضِرِ الْعَطَّارُ، ثنا عُثْمَان
بْنُ فَرْقَدٍ، عَنْ زَيْدٍ الْعَمِّيِّ، عَنْ
مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ مُرَّةَ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ
اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَمْسَحُ جَبْهَتَهُ بِيَدِهِ
الْيُمْنَى، وَيَقُولُ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ لا إِلَهَ إِلا هُوَ الرَّحْمَنِ
الرَّحِيمِ، أَذْهَبَ عَنِّي الْهَمَّ وَالْحَزَنَ»
Al-Haarith bin al-Khadir
al-Attaar narrated to us, he said: Uthmaan bin Farqad narrated to us, from Zayd
al-Ammi, from Mu’aawiyah bin Murrah, from Anas bin Maalik he said….. (the same
hadeeth as mentioned above).
[Kash ul-Astaar ‘An Zawaa’id
al-Bazzaar (4/22 H. 3100)]
In this chain, the narrator “Al-Haarith
bin al-Khadir al-Attaar” is Majhool ul-Haal. There is no mention of him in
the books of Rijaal.
And Uthmaan bin Farqad, here, is
not a Mutaabi’ah of Sallaam rather a mistake of the narrator. Instead of
Uthmaan, there should have been mentioned the name of Sallaam. And that is
because:
First:
All the narrators who narrated
it from Zayd al-Ammi have mentioned Sallaam in the chain. And not a single one
of them mentioned Uthmaan bin Farqad. And only Al-Haarith bin al-Khadir (who is
Majhool and weak) has mentioned Uthmaan, which clearly means that it is Shaadh
rather Munkar
Those who narrated it as “Sallaam An Zayd al-Ammi”:
1. Yahya bin bin Bukayr (Thiqah)
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْحُسَيْنِ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ
الْهَيْثَمِ، حَدَّثَنَا عِيسَى بْنُ أَبِي حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنِ أَبِي بُكَيْرٍ، عَنْ سَلامٍ، عَنْ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ قُرَّةَ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ
اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا قَضَى صَلاتَهُ وَسَلَّمَ مَسَحَ
جَبْهَتَهُ بِيَدِهِ الْيُمْنَى، ثُمَّ يَقُولُ: " بِاسْمِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي
لا إِلَهَ إِلا هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ، اللَّهُمَّ أَذْهِبْ عَنِّي الْهَمَّ
وَالْحَزَنَ
[Amaali Ibn
Sam’oon (121)]
2. Hafs bin Umar, Abu Umar al-Hawdee (Thiqah Thabat)
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُسْلِمٍ قَالَ: نا حَفْصُ بْنُ عُمَرَ الْحَوْضِيُّ قَالَ: نا سَلَّامٌ
الطَّوِيلُ، عَنْ زَيْدٍ الْعَمِّيِّ،
عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ قُرَّةَ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ
اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا قَضَى صَلَاتَهُ مَسَحَ جَبْهَتَهُ
بِيَدِهِ الْيُمْنَى، ثُمَّ يَقُولُ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ،
اللَّهُمَّ أَذْهِبْ عَنِّي الْغَمَّ وَالْحَزَنَ»
[Al-Mu’jam
al-Awsat (3/66 H. 2499), Ad-Du’afa by Al-Tabraani (1/210 H. 659) & Hilyat
al-Awliyah (2/301)]
Against these highly reliable
narrators, if only Al-Haarith who is Majhool narrates it from Uthmaan instead
of Sallaam then it clearly means that it is a Mistake and it is Munkar which
cannot be presented as a support to Sallaam.
Second:
No Muhaddith has ever mentioned
the name of “Uthmaan bin Farqad” among the students of “Zayd al-Ammi”. All of
them, on the other hand, have mentioned the name of “Sallaam” among the
students of Zayd al-Ammi. This also supports the fact that the mention of
Uthmaan in the chain of Bazzaar is a Mistake, and it actually should have
mentioned “Sallaam”!
[See, Tahdheeb al-Kamaal and
other books of Rijaal]
Third:
After narrating this hadeeth
from Sallaam at-Ta’weel, Imaam Abu al-Qaasim at-Tabaraani said:
“لم يرو هذا الحديث عن معاوية إلا زيد تفرد به سلام”
“No one
narrates this hadeeth from Mu’aawiyah except Zayd, (and) Sallaam is alone in
narrating it from him”
[Al-Mu’jam
al-Awsat (3/66)]
Imaam Tabaraani is clearly
saying that Sallaam is alone in narrating it from Zayd al-Ammi. So if Uthmaan
bin Farqad had also been one of the narrators narrating it from Zayd al-Ammi,
he would not have said that Sallaam is alone in narrating it!
This clearly proves that the
mention of Uthmaan bin Farqad in the chain of Bazzaar is Shaadh and Munkar. And
the mentioned chain of Musnad al-Bazzaar is basically the same route as the first
one, but the narrator has mistaken in narrating it from someone else instead of
Sallaam.
Second route:
Imaam Abu al-Qaasim Sulemaan bin
Ahmed bin Ayyoob at-Tabaraani rahimahullah (D. 360) said:
حَدَّثَنَا بَكْرُ بْنُ سَهْلٍ الدِّمْيَاطِيُّ، ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ
بْنُ صَالِحٍ، حَدَّثَنِي كَثِيرُ بْنُ سُلَيْمٍ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ
صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا صَلَّى وَفَرَغَ مِنْ صَلَاتِهِ
مَسَحَ بِيَمِينِهِ عَلَى رَأْسِهِ وَقَالَ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي لَا إِلَهَ غَيْرُهُ الرَّحْمَنِ
الرَّحِيمِ، اللَّهُمَّ أَذْهِبْ عَنِّي الْهَمَّ وَالْحَزَنَ»
Bakr bin Sahl ad-Dimyaati
narrated to us, he said: Abdullah bin Saalih narrated to us, he said: Katheer bin Sulaym narrated to us, from Anas bin Maalik (radiallah anhu) that…. (the
same hadeeth as above)
[Al-Mu’jam al-Awsat (3/289 H.
3178), & Ad-Du’aa by Tabaraani (1/209 H. 658)]
This chain is severely weak
because:
First: Abdullah bin Saalih Kaatib
al-Layth is Da’eef
Imaam Nasaa’ee said: “He is not Thiqah”
Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal, Imaam
Ibn Ma’een, and Imaam Ibn al-Madeeni etc have done Jarh on him
[Al-Johar al-Naqi by Ibn
al-Turkamaani al-Hanafi (1/309)]
Some have also declared him
Thiqah, but he is Da’eef according to the Jumhoor Scholars.
Haafidh Noor ud-Deen al-Haythami
(D. 807) said:
“وعبد الله بن صالح ضعفه الجمهور وقال عبد الملك بن شعيب: ثقة مأمون”
“Abdullah bin
Saalih is declared weak by the Jumhoor. Abdul Malik bin Shu’ayb said, he is
Thiqah Ma’moon”
[Majma
az-Zawaaid (2/7)]
Therefore, the tawtheeq of Abdul
Malik bin Shu’ayb against the Jumhoor is not acceptable.
However, the narrations of
experts like Imaam Yahya bin Ma’een, Imaam Bukhaari, Imaam Abu Zur’ah, and
Imaam Abu Haatim etc from him are among those of his narrations which are
Saheeh.
[See, Hadi us-Saari by Ibn Hajar
(412) T. Abdullah bin Saalih]
This narration is not from the
route of “Ahl al-Hizq (the experts)”. Therefore, it is weak.
However, Abdullah bin Saalih is supported by a Thiqah narrator in Taareekh Baghdaad. So the weakness is not from Abdullah bin Saalih, but the main culprit here is Katheer as noted below
However, Abdullah bin Saalih is supported by a Thiqah narrator in Taareekh Baghdaad. So the weakness is not from Abdullah bin Saalih, but the main culprit here is Katheer as noted below
Second: Katheer bin Sulaym is
Munkar ul-Hadeeth
Imaam
Muhammad bin Ismaa’eel al-Bukhaari (D. 256) said:
“منكر الحديث”
“Munkar
ul-Hadeeth”
[
Taareekh al-Kabeer (7/218)]
Imaam
Abu Zur’ah ar-Raazi (D. 264) said:
“واهي الحديث”
“He is wasted
in hadeeth”
[
Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel by Ibn Abi Haatim (7/152)]
Imaam
Abu Haatim ar-Raazi (D. 275) said:
“ضعيف الحديث، منكر
الحديث، لا يروي عَنْ أنس حديثا له أصل من رواية غيره”
“Da’eef in
Hadeeth, Munkar ul-Hadeeth, he did not narrate a single narration from Anas
which had a basis from the narration of narrators other than him”
[
Al-Jarh wat Ta'deel by Ibn Abi Haatim (7/152)]
Imaam
Al-Nasaa’ee (D. 303) said:
“متروك الحديث”
“Matrook in
Hadeeth”
[
Ad-Du'afa wal Matrokeen by al-Nasaa'ee (509)]
In fact, Imaam Abu Ahmed bin
Adee al-Jarjaani (D. 365) mentioned this very narration of Katheer under
discussion in his book al-Kaamil and declared this narration specifically to be
among his “unpreserved narrations”. He said:
“وهذه الروايات، عَن
أَنَس عامتها غير محفوظة”
“And these
narrations from Anas, most of them are unpreserved”
[
Al-Kaamil (7/200)]
Hence, this is a specific Jarh
which cannot strengthen this narration in the chapter of Shawaahid and
Mutaabi’aat! But even without this Jarh, the Jarh of expert Muhadditheen like
Bukhaari, Abu Haatim, and Abu Zur’ah etc on Katheer is too severe to be taken
as evidence in Shawaahid and Mutaabi’aat.
Third route:
Imaam Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahaani
rahimahullah (D. 430) narrates:
ثنا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ حَمَّادٍ
الطِّهْرَانِيُّ، ثنا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ الْجَصَّاصُ، ثنا دَاوُدُ بْنُ الْمُحَبَّرِ، ثنا الْعَبَّاسُ
بْنُ رَزِينٍ مُصْطَفَى السُّلَمِيُّ، عَنْ جُلَاسِ
بْنِ عَمْرٍو، عَنْ
ثَابِتٍ الْبُنَانِيِّ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ
صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
إِذَا قَضَى صَلَاتَهُ مَسَحَ جَبْهَتَهُ بِكَفِّهِ الْيُمْنَى، ثُمَّ أَمَرَّهَا
عَلَى وَجْهِهِ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَ بِهَا عَلَى لِحْيَتِهِ وَيَقُولُ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي
لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا هُوَ عَالِمُ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ،
اللَّهُمَّ أَذْهِبْ عَنِّي الْغَمَّ وَالْحَزَنَ وَالْهَمَّ، اللَّهُمَّ
بِحَمْدِكَ انْصَرَفْتُ وَبِذَنْبِي اعْتَرَفْتُ، أَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ شَرِّ مَا
اقْتَرَفْتُ، وَأَعُوذُ بِكَ مِنْ جَهْدِ بَلَاءِ الدُّنْيَا وَمِنْ عَذَابِ
الْآخِرَةِ»
Abdur Rahmaan bin Muhammad
bin Hammaad at-Tahraani narrated to us, he said: Al-Hasan bin Yazeed al-Jassaas
narrated to us, he said: Dawood bin al-Muhabbar narrated to us, he said:
Al-Abbaas bin Razeen Mustafa as-Sulami narrated to us, from Julaas bin Amr,
from Thaabit al-Bunaani, from Anas bin Maalik (radiallah anhu)…. (the same
narration with some additions)
[Akhbaar Asbahaan by Abu Nu’aym
(2/66)]
This chain is severely weak and
fabricated because:
First: Dawood bin al-Muhabbar is Matrook
and some have accused him of lying and fabricating
Abdullah bin Ahmed said, I asked
my father (Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal) about Dawood bin al-Muhabbar, so he
laughed, and said:
“كان لا يدري ذاك أيش الحديث”
“He does not even
know what Hadeeth is”
[Al-Ilal
(766)]
Imaam Bukhaari said:
“مُنكر الحديثِ”
“Munkar
ul-Hadeeth”
[Taareekh
al-Kabeer (1/352)]
Imaam Abu Haatim said:
“داود بن المحبر غير ثقة، ذاهب الحديث، منكر الحديث”
“Dawood bin
al-Muhabbar is untrustworthy; he is Dhaahib ul-Hadeeth, Munkar ul-Hadeeth”
[Al-Jarh
wat Ta’deel (3/424)]
Imaam Abu Abdullah al-Haakim
said:
“حدث بِبَغْدَاد عَن جمَاعَة من الثِّقَات بِأَحَادِيث مَوْضُوعَة”
“He narrated
fabricated narrations in Baghdaad from a group of Thiqah narrators”
[Al-Madkhal
ila as-Saheeh (1/135)]
Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said:
“كَانَ يضع الْحَدِيث عَلَى الثِّقَات ويروي عَن المجاهيل المقلوبات”
“He fabricated
narrations upon the Thiqah narrators, and he narrates twisted narrations from
unknown narrators”
[Al-Majroheen
by Ibn Hibbaan (1/291)]
Imaam Abu Ali Saalih bin
Muhammad Jazrah al-Baghdaadi said:
“يكذب وَيضعف فِي الْحَدِيثِ”
“He lies, and
he is weakened in hadeeth”
[Taareekh
Baghdaad (8/357), Chain Saheeh]
Imaam Abu al-Hasan ad-Daaraqutni
said:
“يضع، بصري، كان ببغداد، متروك”
“He
fabricates….. Matrook”
[Ad-Du’afa
wal Matrokeen by Daaraqutni (208)]
Second: Al-Abbaas bin Razeen
as-Sulami is Majhool ul-Haal
There is no mention of him in
the books of Rijaal. Shaykh Albaani said:
“لم أعرفه”
“I do not know
him”
[Silsilah
ad-Da’eefah (1059)]
Third: Julaas bin Amr is weak
Imaam Bukhaari said:
“لا يصح حديثه”
“His hadeeth is
not authentic”
[Taareekh
al-Kabeer (2/252)]
Haafidh Ibn Hajar said:
“ضعيف”
“Da’eef”
[Taqreeb
(991)]
Hence, this chain is severely
weak and fabricated.
Fourth route:
It is narrated in the nuskhah
attributed to Zubayr bin Adee:
أَخْبَرَنَا
الشَّيْخُ الْإِمَامُ الْعَالِمُ الأَوْحَدُ الصَّدْرُ الْكَبِيرُ تَاجُ الدِّينِ
أَبُو الْيَمَنِ زَيْدُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ الْكِنْدِيُّ , أَبْقَاهُ
اللَّهُ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا الشَّيْخُ أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ
عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَحْمَدَ الْمُقْرِئُ , أنبا أَبُو عَلِيٍّ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ
بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ زِينَةَ , أَنَبا أَبُو الْفَتْحِ هِلالُ
بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ جَعْفَرٍ الْحَفَّارُ , قَالَ: قَرَأْتُ عَلَى أَبِي
الْفَضْلِ عِيسَى بْنِ مُوسَى بْنِ الْمُتَوَكِّلِ عَلَى اللَّهِ , قَالَ: أنبا
أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عُفَيْرِ
بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ سَهْلِ بْنِ أَبِي حَثْمَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ , ثنا أَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ الْحَجَّاجُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ بْنِ قُتَيْبَةَ
الأَصْبَهَانِيُّ , ثنا بِشْرُ بْنُ
الْحُسَيْنِ , ثنا الزُّبَيْرُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ , عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ
مَالِكٍ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا انْفَتَلَ مِنْ صَلاتِهِ مَسَحَ وَجْهَهُ بِيَدِهِ الْيُمْنَى ,
ثُمَّ قَالَ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الَّذِي لا إِلَهَ إِلا هُوَ الرَّحْمَنُ الرَّحِيمُ
اللَّهُمَّ أَذْهِبْ عَنِّي الْهَمَّ وَالْحَزَنَ»
[Nuskhah az-Zubayr bin Adee (1/12
H. 11)]
This chain is severely weak and
fabricated because:
First: Abu Muhammad Al-Hajjaaj
bin Yoosuf bin Qutaybah al-Asbahaani is Majhool ul-Haal
His Tawtheeq is not proven from
any Muhaddith.
Second: Bishr bin al-Husayn
al-Asbahaani is the fabricator of hadeeth
It was said to Imaam Abu Haatim
ar-Raazi that:
“أنه ببغداد قوم يحدثون عن محمد بن زياد بن زبار، عن بشر بن الحسين، عن
الزبير بن عدي، عن أنس نحو عشرين حديثا مسندة”
“A group of
people in Baghdaad narrate from Muhammad bin Ziyaad bin Zubaar, from Bishr bin
al-Husayn, from Az-Zubayr bin Adee from Anas about 20 Musnad narrations”
So he replied:
“هي أحاديث موضوعة ليس يعرف للزبير، عن أنس، عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم
إلا أربعة أحاديث أو خمسة أحاديث”
“These are
fabricated narrations, the narrations of Zubayr are not known from Anas from
the Prophet sallallaahu alayhi wasallam except 4 or 5 narrations”
[Al-Jarh
wat Ta’deel (2/355)]
Meaning, according to Imaam Abu
Haatim, Zubayr bin Adee narrated only 4 or 5 narrations in total from Anas from
the Prophet, so where did Bishr bin al-Husayn come up with the remaining
narrations!? Of course, it clearly means that he fabricated them!
Imaam Bukhaari said:
“فِيهِ نَظَرٌ”
“There is nazer
in him”
[Al-Taareekh
al-Kabeer (2/71)]
Note: This is one of the
most severe forms of Jarh from Imaam Bukhaari.
Imaam Ibn Hibbaan said:
“يَرْوِي عَن الزُّبَيْر بْن عدي بنسخة مَوْضُوعَة”
“He narrated
from Zubayr bin Adee a fabricated nuskhah”
[Al-Majroheen
(1/190)]
Imaam Ad-Daaraqutni said:
“عن الزبير بن عدي، وله عنه نسخةٌ موضوعة”
“He narrates
from Zubayr bin Adee, and he has a fabricated nuskhah from him”
[Ad-Du’afa
wal Matrokeen (126)]
Imaam Dhahabi said about his
Nuskhah:
“له عن الزبير بن عدي نسخة باطلة”
“He has a
Baatil nuskhah from Zubayr bin Adee”
[Deewaan
ad-Du’afa (1/48)]
Hence, this chain, no doubt, is
fabricated.
Summary of the hadeeth of Anas:
In short, this narration is
narrated from Anas bin Maalik through four different routes.
First route is severely
weak due to Sallaam at-Ta’weel (Matrook) and Zayd al-Ammi (Da’eef)
Although in the narration of
Bazzaar, Sallaam is replaced by another person, but that is a mistake, and in
reality it is from Sallaam only.
Second Route is also
severely weak due to the presence of Katheer bin Sulaym who is Munkar
ul-Hadeeth.
Third Route is rather
fabricated due to the presence of Dawood bin al-Muhabbar (accused of lying and
fabricating), Al-Abbaas bin Razeen (Majhool), and Julaas bin Amr (Da’eef).
And lastly, the Fourth Route is
definitely fabricated due to Bishr bin al-Husayn who fabricated a whole nuskhah
on Zubayr bin Adee.
Those who weakened this hadeeth:
1- Imaam Ibn Adee said:
“غير محفوظ”
“Not-Preserved”
[Al-Kaamil (7/199)]
2- Imaam Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahaani said after narrating it:
“غريب من حديث معاوية تفرد به عنه زيد العمي بصري
فيه لين”
“It is ghareeb from the hadeeth of Mu’aawiyah. Zayd al-Ammi
al-Basri is alone in narrating it from him and there is leniency in him”
[Hilyat al-Awliyaa (2/342)]
3- Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani said:
“ضعيف جداً”
“It is severely weak”
[Nataa’ij ul-Afkaar (2/301)]
Also see,
al-Futuhaat ar-Rabbaaniyah (3/57)
4- Allaamah Jalaal ud-Deen as-Suyooti said:
“ضعيف”
“Da’eef”
[Al-Jaami as-Sagheer (6741)]
5- Shaykh Naasir ud-Deen Al-Albaani said:
“ضعيف جداً”
“Severely weak”
[Silsilah ad-Da’eefah (660, 1058, 1059)]
2. The Hadeeth of Amr
bin Qays (rahimahullah)
Imaam Abu al-Hasan Aslam bin
Sahl bin Aslam bin Habeeb al-Waasiti rahimahullah (D. 292) narrates:
حدثنا
أسلم، قَالَ: ثنا عَمَّارُ بْنُ خَالِدٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ عَنْ
عَنْبَسَةَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْوَاحِدِ الْوَاسِطِيِّ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ قَيْسٍ،
قَالَ: كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِذَا انْصَرَفَ
مِنْ صَلاتِهِ مَسَحَ جَبْهَتَهُ بِيَدِهِ الْيُمْنَى، وَقَالَ: «بِسْمِ اللَّهِ
الَّذِي لا إِلَهَ إِلا هُوَ، عَالِمِ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ، الرَّحْمَنِ
الرَّحِيمِ، اللَّهُمَّ أذهب عني الهمّ والحزن»
Aslam narrated to us, he
said: Ammaar bin Khaalid narrated to us, from Muhammad bin Yazeed, from Anbasah
bin Abdul Waahid al-Waasiti, from Amr bin Qays, he said: When the Messenger of
Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would complete his prayer, he would wipe
his forehead with his right hand and say, “In the name of Allaah, there is no
God but Him, He is the knower of unseen and the witnessed, the most merciful,
the most compassionate, O Allaah relieve me of grief and distress.”
[Taareekh Waasit (1/130)]
All the narrators of this chain
are reliable except that it is disconnected and there is a huge gap between Amr
bin Qays and the Prophet.
In this chain Amr bin Qays who
is Abu Abdullah al-Mulaa’ee, is not even a Taabi’ee. He is among the 6th
level of narrators who are only the contemporaries of Minor Taabi’een. This
would mean that there is a gap of 2 or 3 or more narrators in the chain.
Hence, this narration is among
the Mu’dal type of narrations.
Conclusion:
This hadeeth is weak from both
the narrators. And acts of Ibaadah cannot be based on weak narrations.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.