Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal (D. 241) narrates:
حَدَّثَنَا أَسْوَدُ يَعْنِي ابْنَ
عَامِرٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا إِسْرَائِيلُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ هَانِئِ بْنِ
هَانِئٍ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، قَالَ: أَتَيْتُ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ أَنَا وَجَعْفَرٌ، وَزَيْدٌ، قَالَ: فَقَالَ لِزَيْدٍ: " أَنْتَ
مَوْلَايَ " فَحَجَلَ، قَالَ: وَقَالَ لِجَعْفَرٍ: " أَنْتَ أَشْبَهْتَ
خَلْقِي وَخُلُقِي "، قَالَ: فَحَجَلَ وَرَاءَ زَيْدٍ، قَالَ: وَقَالَ لِي:
" أَنْتَ مِنِّي، وَأَنَا مِنْكَ "، قَالَ: فَحَجَلْتُ وَرَاءَ جَعْفَرٍ
Aswad bin Aamir narrated to us, he
said: Israa’eel informed us, from Abu Ishaaq (as-Sabi’ee), from Haani bin
Haani, from Ali (radiallah anhu) that he said: I visited the Prophet
(Sallallahu ‘alayhi wa Sallam) with Ja’far [ibn Abi Taalib] and Zayd [ibn Haarithah].
The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said to Zayd, “You are my freedman whereupon
Zayd began to Hajala (hop on one leg – out of joy) around the Prophet
(sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). The Prophet (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)
then said to Ja’far: “You resemble me in my physical form and character”
(Khalqī wa Khuluqī), whereupon Ja’far began to do the same behind Zayd. The
Nabi (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) then said to me, “You are from me and I am
from you” whereupon I began to do the same behind Ja’far.
[Musnad Ahmed (2/213 H. 857)]
This hadeeth is Da’eef and
Munkar due to three reasons:
1- Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee is a Mudallis and he has not affirmed his
samaa in this narration.
2- Besides being a Mudallis, Abu Ishaaq is also proven to be a
Mukhtalat (one whose memory deteriorated at the end) and the narrator of this
hadeeth, “Israa’eel” has heard from him after the lose of his memory.
3- The word “Hajala” in this narration is not mentioned by any
other narrator who narrated this narration from Ali, hence, it is Munkar.
First:
Imaam Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee is
the narrator of Saheehayn and the four sunan and he is Thiqah with the
agreement of all Muhadditheen. However, he was also a Mudallis and used to
commit a lot of Tadlees due to which his narration will not be accepted unless
he affirms his samaa.
Ruling of Tadlees:
1. Imaam Ash-Shaafi’ee said:
فقلنا: لا نقبل من مدلس حديثا حتي يقول فيه: حدثني أو
سمعت.
“We say that we
do not accept the narration of a Mudallis until he says in it: Haddathani or
Sami’tu (i.e. affirms his sama)”
[Ar-Risaalah (P.
53)]
2. Imaam Khateeb Baghdaadi (D. 463) said:
وَقَالَ آخَرُونَ: خَبَرُ الْمُدَلِّسِ لَا يُقْبَلُ
إِلَّا أَنْ يُورِدَهُ عَلَى وَجْهٍ مُبَيَّنٍ غَيْرِ مُحْتَمِلٍ لِلْإِيهَامِ
فَإِنْ أَوْرَدَهُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ قُبِلَ وَهَذَا هُوَ الصَّحِيحُ عِنْدَنَا
“And others said
that the report of a Mudallis is not accepted until he mentions it with the
expression of certainty without having any doubtful words, so if he does that,
it will be accepted, and this is the correct opinion according to us.”
[Al-Kifaayah (1/361)]
3. Imaam Ibn Hibbaan al-Busti (D. 354) said:
فما لم يقل المدلس وإن كان ثقة: حدثني أو سمعت فلا
يجوز الإحتجاج بخبره
“Hence until
when a Mudallis, even if he is Thiqah, does not say ‘Haddathani’ or ‘Sami’tu’,
it is not permissible to take evidence from his report”
[Al-Majroheen
by Ibn Hibbaan (1/92), also See Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan (1/161)]
4. Haafidh Ibn as-Salaah ash-Shahrzoori (D. 643) said:
والحكم بأنه لا يقبل من المدلس حتي يبين.
“The ruling is
that the narration from a Mudallis is not accepted until he clarifies (where he
heard it from).”
[Muqadimah Ibn
as-Salaah along with Al-Taqiyeed wal Ayzaah by Al-Iraaqi (P. 99)]
Note: Muqaddimah
Ibn as-Salaah or Uloom al-Hadeeth is a famous and well known book on Usool
al-Hadeeth and it has gained the wide acceptance of Ummah.
I hope this
much references are enough to explain the ruling on Tadlees, but many more can
be provided upon request.
Tadlees of Abu Ishaaq:
Abu Ishaaq is proven to be a
Mudallis and it is a well known fact among the Muhadditheen.
1. Mugheerah bin Muqsim ad-Dabbi said:
"أهلك أهل
الكوفة أبو إسحاق وأعيمشكم هذا"
“The people of
Koofah were destroyed by Abu Ishaaq and your A’mash”
[Ahwaal
ar-Rijaal lil Juzjaani (P. 81), Chain Saheeh]
Haafidh Ibn
Hajar said under its explanation: “It means due to the Tadlees”
[Tahdheeb
at-Tahdheeb (8/59), Meezaan al-I’tidaal (2/224)]
Moreover the following Scholars
have also declared him a Mudallis:
2. Shu’bah bin al-Hajjaaj [Mas’alah at-Tasmiyyah (P. 47), Chain
Saheeh]
3. Ibn Hibbaan [Al-Majroheen (1/91), Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan (1/61)]
4. Ibn al-Ajmi al-Halabi [Al-Tabiyeen (P. 44)]
5. Abu Mahmood al-Maqdisi [in his Qaseedah]
6. Al-Haakim [Ma’rifah Uloom al-Hadeeth (P. 105)]
7. Adh-Dhahabi [in his Arjoozah]
8. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani [Tabaqaat al-Mudalliseen (3/91)]
9. Ibn Khuzaymah [in his Saheeh (2/152 H. 1096)]
10.
Al-‘Alaa’ee [Jaami
at-Tahseel (P. 108)]
11.
As-Suyooti [Asmaa
al-Mudalliseen (41)]
12.
Abu Zur’ah Ibn al-Iraaqi
[Al-Mudalliseen (47)]
And many others
And Abu Ishaaq has not affirmed
his samaa in this narration.
The attempt to find Abu Ishaaq’s tasreeh sama:
Some people have tried to prove
that Abu Ishaaq has actually affirmed his sama in this narration, and to prove
it, they presented the following narration of Bayhaqi as a proof:
أخبرنا أبو الحسين بن بشران العدل، ببغداد، أنبأ أبو
الحسن علي بن محمد المصري، ثنا عبد الله بن محمد بن أبي مريم، ثنا أسد بن موسى،
ثنا يحيى بن زكريا بن أبي زائدة، حدثني أبي وغيره، عن أبي
إسحاق حدثني هانئ بن هانئ، وهبيرة
بن يريم، عن علي بن أبي طالب، رضي الله عنه
[Sunan al-Kubra lil Bayhaqi (8/9
H. 15770)]
By presenting this chain, some
people try to claim that here not only has Abu Ishaaq affirmed his samaa but he
also has a Mutaabi’ of Haani bin Haani.
However, for it to be a valid
affirmation of samaa, it first has to be proven from Abu Ishaaq himself, and
this is not the case here.
This chain where Abu Ishaaq has
allegedly affirmed his samaa is actually a severely weak chain because Abdullah
bin Muhammad bin Abi Maryam is Matrook and severely weak.
Imaam Ibn Adee said after
mentioning a few narrations from him that:
وهذا الحديث ليس بمحفوظ، عنِ ابن عُيَينة، وَعَبد
الله بْنُ مُحَمد بْنِ سَعِيد بْنِ أبي مريم هذا إما أن يكون مغفلا لا يدري ما
يخرج من رأسه أو يتعمد فإني رأيت له غير حديث مما لم أذكره أَيضًا هَاهُنا غير
محفوظات
“And this hadeeth is not preserved
from Ibn Uyaynah. And this Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Sa’eed bin Abi Maryam is
either negligent and does not know what comes from his head, or he is
deliberate (i.e. in fabricating) for indeed I also saw some of his hadeeth
which I did not mention here which are un-preserved.”
[Al-Kaamil by Ibn Adee (5/420)]
Hence, this chain itself is not
proven to be from Abu Ishaaq so how could it be relied upon to seek his samaa?
Second:
The second weakness in this
hadeeth is that Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee had his memory deteriorated at the end
and Israa’eel heard this hadeeth from him after the lose of his memory.
1. Imaam Ahmed bin Hanbal said about those who heard from Abu
Ishaaq that:
زهير، وإسرائيل، ويونس بن أبي إسحاق بآخرة
“Zuhayr, Israa’eel, and Yoonus bin Abi Ishaaq heard from him at the
end (of his life, when he started to forget).”
[Su’aalaat Ibn
Haani lil Imaam Ahmed (2/220)]
In another
place, Ibn Rajab narrates that Maymoon said, I asked Imaam Ahmed, “Did Abu
Ishaaq’s memory deteriorated?” He replied:
أي والله هؤلاء الصغار زهير، وإسرائيل، يزيدون في الإسناد وفي الكلام.
“Yes by Allaah,
these minor narrators: Zuhayr and Israa’eel add things (in
his hadeeth) in the chain as well as the text”
And we know
very well that in this hadeeth also, he has added a Munkar word “Hajala” which
has no basis as will be explained ahead.
Similarly,
Imaam Ahmed also said:
إسرائيل عن أبي إسحاق فيه لين، سمع منه بآخره
“Israa’eel’s
narration from Abu Ishaaq contains weakness, (because) he heard from him at the
end”
[Al-Jarh wat
Ta’deel by Ibn Abi Haatim (2/330)]
2. Imaam al-Ijlee said:
زهير بن معاوية سمع من أبي إسحاق بآخره، هو وزكريا بن
أبي زائدة، وإسرائيل.
“Zuhayr
bin Mu’aawiyah along with Zakariyyah bin Abi Zaa’idah, and Israa’eel heard from
Abu Ishaaq at the end”
[Taareekh
ath-Thiqaat lil Ijlee (P. 165, 166)]
3. Imaam Yahya bin Ma’een said:
زكريا بن أبي زائدة، و زهير بن حرب، وإسرائيل حديثهم
عن أبي إسحاق قريب من السواء، وإنما أصحاب أبي إسحاق سفيان و شعبة
“The narrations
of Zakariyyah bin Abi Zaa’idah, Zuhayr bin Harb, and Israa’eel from Abu Ishaaq
are close to being the same. The (real) companions of Abu Ishaaq are only
Sufyaan and Shu’bah”
[Taareekh Ibn
Ma’een, narrated by Ad-Dauri (3/372)]
Third:
The third major weakness that
this hadeeth contains is the fact that the mention of the word “Hajala” in this
narration is Munkar, and no other narrator has mentioned this wording.
The same hadeeth is also
narrated by Imaam Ahmed elsewhere in his Musnad from Abu Ishaaq himself but
with the following text:
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ آدَمَ، حَدَّثَنَا
إِسْرَائِيلُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ هَانِئِ بْنِ هَانِئٍ، وَهُبَيْرَةَ
بْنِ يَرِيمَ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، قَالَ: لَمَّا خَرَجْنَا مِنْ مَكَّةَ اتَّبَعَتْنَا
ابْنَةُ حَمْزَةَ تُنَادِي: يَا عَمِّ، يَا عَمِّ. قَالَ: فَتَنَاوَلْتُهَا
بِيَدِهَا، فَدَفَعْتُهَا إِلَى فَاطِمَةَ، فَقُلْتُ: دُونَكِ ابْنَةَ عَمِّكِ. قَالَ:
فَلَمَّا قَدِمْنَا الْمَدِينَةَ اخْتَصَمْنَا فِيهَا أَنَا وَجَعْفَرٌ وَزَيْدُ
بْنُ حَارِثَةَ، فَقَالَ جَعْفَرٌ: ابْنَةُ عَمِّي وَخَالَتُهَا عِنْدِي - يَعْنِي
أَسْمَاءَ بِنْتَ عُمَيْسٍ - وَقَالَ زَيْدٌ: ابْنَةُ أَخِي. وَقُلْتُ: أَنَا
أَخَذْتُهَا وَهِيَ ابْنَةُ عَمِّي. فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ: " أَمَّا أَنْتَ يَا جَعْفَرُ، فَأَشْبَهْتَ خَلْقِي وَخُلُقِي،
وَأَمَّا أَنْتَ يَا عَلِيُّ، فَمِنِّي وَأَنَا مِنْكَ، وَأَمَّا أَنْتَ يَا
زَيْدُ، فَأَخُونَا وَمَوْلَانَا، وَالْجَارِيَةُ عِنْدَ خَالَتِهَا، فَإِنَّ
الْخَالَةَ وَالِدَةٌ " قُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللهِ، أَلَا تَزَوَّجُهَا؟
قَالَ: " إِنَّهَا ابْنَةُ أَخِي مِنَ الرَّضَاعَةِ
“Yahya
bin Aadam narrated to us, Israa’eel narrated to us, from Abu Ishaaq, from Haani
bin Haani and Hubayrah bin Yareem, from Ali [Ibn Abi Taalib radiallah anhu], he
said: When we left Makkah, the daughter of Hamzah followed us, crying: O uncle,
O uncle. I took by the hand and gave her to Faatimah and said: Here is your
cousin. When we came to Madeenah, Ja’far, Zayd bin Haarithah, and I disputed
concerning her. Ja’far said: ‘She is the daughter of my paternal uncle and her
maternal aunt is married to me – meaning Asmaa bint Umays.’ Zayd said: ‘She is
the daughter of my brother.’ I said: ‘I took her and she is the daughter of my
paternal uncle.’ The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘As
for you, O Ja’far, you resemble me in appearance and attitude. As for you, O
Ali, you are of me and I am of you. As for you, O Zayd, you are our brother and
our freed slave. The girl should be with her maternal aunt, for the maternal
aunt is [like] a mother.’ I said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, why don’t you marry
her?’ He said: ‘She is the daughter of my brother through breastfeeding.’”
[Musnad Ahmed (2/160-161 H. 770)
English version (1/388-389)]
This narration mentions the full
context of the story and no where does it mention any of the respected Sahaabah
hopping on their legs.
Similarly, this hadeeth is also
narrated by Al-Bazzaar in his Musnad and Ibn Abi Umar in his Musnad with the
following route and text:
قَالَ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَحْيَى بْنِ أَبِي عُمَرَ:
وَثَنَا عَبْدُ الْعَزِيزِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الدَّرَاوَرْدِيُّ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ ابن
الْهَادِ، عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ نَافِعِ بْنِ عُجَيْرٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ نَافِعٍ، عَنْ
عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ قَالَ: "خَرَجَ زَيْدُ بْنُ حَارِثَةَ إِلَى
مَكَّةَ، فَقَدِمَ بِبِنْتِ حَمْزَةَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْمُطَّلِبِ، فَقَالَ جَعْفَرُ
بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ: أَنَا آخُذُهَا وَأَنَا أَحَقُّ بِهَا، بِنْتُ عَمِّي
وَعِنْدِي خَالَتُهَا، وَإِنَّمَا الْخَالَةُ أُمٌّ وَهِيَ أَحَقُّ. وَقَالَ
عَلِيٌّ: بَلْ أَنَا أَحَقُّ بِهَا، هِيَ ابْنَةُ عَمِّي وعندي بِنْتِ رَسُولِ
اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وَهِيَ أَحَقُّ بِهَا، فَإِنِّي
أَرْفَعُ صَوْتِي لِيَسْمَعَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
- حُجَّتِي قبل أن يخرج. وقال زيد: بل أَنَا أَحَقُّ بِهَا؟ خَرَجْتُ إِلَيْهَا
وَسَافَرْتُ وَجِئْتُ بِهَا. فَخَرَجَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ - فَقَالَ: مَا شَأْنُكُمْ؟ قَالَ عَلِيٌّ: بِنْتُ عَمِّي وَأَنَا
أَحَقُّ بِهَا، وَعِنْدِي ابْنَةُ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ
وَسَلَّمَ - فَتَكُونُ مَعَهَا أَحَقُّ بِهَا مِنْ غَيْرِهَا. قَالَ جَعْفَرٌ:
أَنَا أَحَقُّ بِهَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، ابْنَةُ عَمِّي وعندي خالتها، والخالة
أم وفي أَحَقُّ بِهَا مِنْ غَيْرِهَا. وَقَالَ زيد: بَلْ أنا أحق بها يا رسول الله
خَرَجْتُ إِلَيْهَا وَتَجَشَّمْتُ السَّفَرَ وَأَنْفَقْتُ، فَأَنَا أَحَقُّ بِهَا.
فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: سَأَقْضِي
بَيْنَكُمْ فِي هَذَا وَفِي غَيْرِهِ. قَالَ عَلِيٌّ: فَلَمَّا قَالَ: فِي
غَيْرِهِ، قُلْتُ: نَزَلَ الْقُرْآنُ فِي رَفْعِنَا أَصْوَاتَنَا، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ
اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ -: أَمَّا أَنْتَ يَا زَيْدُ بْنَ
حَارِثَةَ، فَمَوْلَايَ وَمَوْلَاهُمَا. قَالَ: قَدْ رَضِيتُ يَا رَسُولَ
اللَّهِ. قَالَ: وَأَمَّا أنت يا جعفر، فأشبهت خَلقي وخُلقي، وأنخما مِنْ
شَجَرَتِي الَّتِي خُلِقْتُ مِنْهَا. قَالَ: رَضِيتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ.
قَالَ: وَأَمَّا أَنْتَ يَا عَلِيُّ فَصَفِيِّي وَأَمِينِي- قَالَ يَزِيدُ:
فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِعَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ حَسَنٍ فَقَالَ: إِنَّهُ قَالَ: أَنْتَ
مِنِّي وَأَنَا مِنْكَ- قَالَ: رَضِيتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ. قَالَ:
وَأَمَّا الْجَارِيَةُ فَقَدْ قَضَيْتُ بِهَا لِجَعْفَرٍ، تَكُونُ مَعَ خَالَتِهَا
وَالْخَالَةُ أُمٌّ. قَالُوا: سَلَّمْنَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ".
[Musnad Ibn Abi Umar with
reference from Ithaaf al-Khayrah (5/370 H. 4868) & Al-Baher az-Zakhkhaar
bi-Musnad al-Bazzaar (3/105 H. 891) through Muhammad bin al-Muthanna from Abu
Aamir from Abdul Azeez onwards – Chain Hasan]
As clear in this narration as
well, there is no such mention of “hopping” in front of the Prophet, which
clearly means that the mention of “Hajala” is absolutely Munkar in the hadeeth
in mentioning which the other narrators and in fact even Abu Ishaaq himself in
another narration as shown above has opposed his wording.
On the contrary this last
hadeeth mentions that upon hearing the remarks of the Prophet, the respected
Sahaabah did not hop rather they said: “I am pleased O Messenger of Allaah” and
at the end of the final remark they all together said: “We agree O Messenger of
Allaah”! So what the Sahaabah did upon hearing the Prophet is clearly mentioned
in the hadeeth and there is no mention whatsoever of whether they hopped or not,
so there is no proof for the Soofiya in this hadeeth for their baatil raqs!
That is why the Muhaqqiq of
Musnad Ahmed, Shu’ayb Al-Arana’oot said: “The word Al-Hajal in the hadeeth is
Munkar Ghareeb”
[Tahqeeq Musnad Ahmed (2/214)].
Even if it is proven:
Lastly, even if we assume that
this hadeeth is absolutely authentic, still it serves no good to the Soofi
Raqs. That is because the most that this hadeeth can prove is the
permissibility of jumping out of joy upon hearing good news which is not done
with the intent of raqs at all, rather it is a completely natural reaction.
After all, hearing a word of praise from the Messenger of Allaah and the Imaam
ul-Anbiyaa is not a small thing. Moreover, the Sahaabah did not do it as a form
of worship or in the circles of Dhikr or a means to draw near to Allaah nor did
they do it anything like the wild break dance of soofis; rather they did it
randomly as a result of a natural reaction out of happiness. Whereas, the
Soofis deliberately dance like a wild animal on the rhythm of their music and
take it as a form of worship which is completely off the bounds of what this
hadeeth is being presented for.
Some videos of Soofi Raqs:
That is why, Imaam Ibn al-Jawzee
said:
واما الحجل فهو نوع من
المشى يفعل عند الفرح فاين هو من الرقص
“As for Hajal then it is a type of
walking that is done at the time of happiness, so how is it related to Raqs?”
[Talbees Iblees (1/230)]
In fact, one of the Soofi
Scholars, often quoted by them in their books, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami al-Makki
said, discussing the Soofis and others quoting this hadeeth as evidence for it
to be permissible to dance that:
“They also quote (to prove their
point) that he said to ‘Ali, “You are of me and I am of you,” and he began to
hop; and he said to Zayd, “You are our brother and our friend (mawla),” and he
began to hop… ”
Ibn Hajar al-Makki replied:
“The response is that all of these
are objectionable hadeeths and the wording is
fabricated and made up. Even if we assume that they are saheeh, they
cannot be regarded as evidence, because what is forbidden is dancing in which
there is swaying and twisting, and this is not like that.”
[Kaff ar-Ra’aa ‘An Muharramaat
al-Lahw was-Samaa’ (P. 75)]
Wa-Lillaahil-Hamd
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.