Sahih Muslim Hadith 92

English

[92] Bishr bin Hakam narrated to me, he said: "I heard Yalyâ bin Sa'eed A1-Qattân describe Hakim bin Jubair, 'Abdul-A'la, and Yahyâ bin MiIsâ bin DInâr as weak (in narration) he said: 'His Hadith is nothing' – and he classed Müsâ bin Dihqân and 'Eisa bin AbI 'Eisa A]-Madani as weak. And I heard Al-Hasan bin 'Eisa say: 'Ibn Al-Mubârak said to me: "When you come to JarIr, write down all of his knowledge except for reports from three people: Do not write down from him reports from 'Ubaidah bin Mu'attib, As-SarrI bin Ismâ'il and Muhammad bin Sâlim." Muslim said: And there is much that is similar to what we have mentioned of the words of the people of knowledge concerning accused narrators of HadIth and the faults in their reports, for which we have no room to write about here. What we have mentioned is sufficient for those who are wise and understand the way of the MuhaddithIn in discussing and explaining such matters. The reason why they obliged themselves to expose the faults of the narrators of HadIth and transmitters of reports, and to pass judgement on them when asked to, is due to the seriousness of the matter. Reports on matters of religion speak of lawful and unlawful, commands and prohibitions, exhortation and warning. If the ; "T• ;1 narrator is not sincere and honest, and the one who knows of his faults hears it and narrates it – without explaining his faults to one who is unaware of them – then he will be sinning if he does that; betraying the common folk of the Muslims. For he cannot be certain that some of those who hear those reports will not follow and accept them, or some of them, although they – or most of them – are lies that have no basis. Moreover, the authentic reports, which are narrated from trustworthy narrators and the people who are accepted, are so great in number, that there is no need to quote from narrators that are not trustworthy and not accepted. I think that the reason why most of the people of this type narrate these weak AhâdtJj and chains of unknown narrators, and accept them after knowing of their faults, is to show how much knowledge of HadIth they have before the masses, and so that it will be said: "How many Ahâdith so-and-so has memorized and recorded!" Whoever follows such a path with knowledge, then he has no share of true knowledge, and it is more befitting that he should be called ignorant rather than knowledgeable. Chapter 6. The Correctness Of L) – 0 ç .iI) Using Mu 'an 'an AhadIg, As Proof When It Can Be Proven W ij 4M I3L That The Narrators Met One Another And There Is No Mudallas Among Them (A I) Some of our contemporaries who are claimed to have knowledge of HadIth have spoken about the examination of chains and explained what is authentic and what is unsound according their view, and if we were to avoid discussing how bad their methods and views are, that would be a good idea and the right thing to do, because ignoring a corrupt view is the best way to kill it off and make the one who said it less known. It is better, so that the ignorant will not know anything about them. But because we fear the consequences, and because the ignorant may be deceived by their innovations and may rush to believe their mistakes and flawed arguments, we decided to expose their flawed views and refute their opinions as much as is – -r1 LS appropriate. That is better for – the people and will bring better results, if Allah wills. The claimant whose flawed arguments we mentioned at the Lii L' — I; beginning of our discussion, claims that any Had I/ in which the chain says: "So-and-so JS I narrated from ('An) so-and-so", and it is well established that they were contemporaries who could have met one another, and that the narrator could have heard it directly from the one from whom he narrated it, or he could have spoken with him directly, but we have no proof that he heard from him, and we have not found anything in any report to show that they met at all or spoke to one another – then it cannot be authentic, unless he has some proof that they met during their lifetimes once or more, or spoke to one another, or there is some report which shows that they met once in their lifetimes or more. If he has no proof to that effect, and there is no sound report which says that this narrator met the other or heard something from him – if this is the case, then this report cannot be authentic. In his view, the report is Mawqâf, unless it is proven to him in a report that he heard some IIadith, a few or a lot, from him. This view for criticizing chains – may Allah have mercy on you – is an innovated and unprecedented view for which there is no support among the people of knowledge. The widely held view, on which there is agreement among those who have knowledge of reports both old and recent, is that in the case of every trustworthy man who narrated a HadIth from another man like him, and it is possible that he met him or heard from him because they lived at the same time, even if there is no report at all to tell us that they met or spoke with one another, the report is authentic and may be used as evidence, unless there is clear evidence to show that this narrator did not meet the one whom he supposedly narrated from, and that he did not in fact hear anything from him. But as the possibility is there, as we have explained above, then it is to be understood that he heard the report from him, unless there is evidence to the contrary. So it is said to the one who introduced this view that we have mentioned above, and to those who support it: You accepted that a report of one trustworthy man, narrated from another trustworthy man, is sound and should be followed. Then you introduced a condition and said: Provided that it is proven that they met once or more than once, or that he heard something from him. Did you find this condition that you have stipulated narrated from one whose view is to be accepted? Otherwise, give us evidence to support what you are claiming. If he claims that any of the scholars of the Salaf stipulated this condition for accepting reports, he should be asked about that. But neither he nor anyone else will ever find this proof. If he claims that there is evidence that supports his view, it should be said to him: "What is your evidence?" If he says: "I already stated it. On the basis that the narrators of reports, both old and more recent, narrated reports, one from another, without having met or heard one from another. And when I saw them allowing themselves to narrate reports in this manner, as Mursal reports without having heard them – and Mursal reports, in our view, and the view of those who have knowledge of reports, are not sound – then because of this problem, I needed to check and confirm whether the narrator of every report heard it from the one whom he claimed narrated it to him. If I verified that he had heard anything from him, then to me everything that he narrated after that would be authentic. But if it was not possible for me to verify that, I would leave this report and it would not be authentic in my view, because of the possibility that it may be Mursal." Then it should be said to him: If the reason for your regarding a report as weak and as being unsound is the possibility that it may be Mursal, then you should not regard any Mu 'an 'an Hadth as authentic until you are satisfied that the narrators heard it from one another throughout the chain. That is because the HadI,t/ is reported to us with the chain of Higâm bin 'Urwah, from his father, from 'Aijjah. So we are certain that Higâm heard it from his father, and that his father heard it from 'Aigah, as we know that 'Aihah heard it from the Prophet ç. But it is possible, if Higâm did not say in some of his reports, "I heard" or "(my father) told me", that there is someone else in the report between him and his father, and that man heard it from his father, and that he himself did not hear it directly from his father, but he wanted to narrate it as Mursal, and not mention the one from whom he heard it. If that is possible in the case of Hihâm narrating from his father, it is also possible in the case of his father narrating from 'Aihah, and in every chain of a Hadith in which there is no clear mention of the narrators hearing it from one another. If we know in general that each of them heard a great deal from his companion, then it is possible that each of them could have curtailed it (the name or names) in some of the narrations; so he heard it from another (third) person narrating from him, then he narrated it as Mursal from him in some cases, without naming the one from whom he heard it, and on other occasions he does mention the name of [the man] who narrated the HaduIjl to him, and he does not narrate it as Mursal. What we have spoken of here is present in some Ahâditji, and was widespread among trustworthy MuhadditjiIn and the A 'imma among the people of knowledge. We will mention a number of their reports to prove our point, which may be taken as an indication that there are many more, if Allah the Most High wills. For example, Ayyüb As- SahtiyânI, Ibn Al-Mubârak, Waki', Ibn Numair and others narrated from Hishâm bin 'Urwah, from his father, from 'Aihah, [may Allah be pleased with her, that she said]: "I used to put perfume on the Messenger of Allah for Hil (when he exited Ihrâm) and for his Hur,n (when he entered Ihrâm), using the best perfume that I could find." This exact same report was also narrated by Al-Laift bin Sa'd, Dâwd Al-'Attâr, Humaid bin Al-Aswad, Wuhaib bin Qjâlid and Abü Usâmah from Hihâm. He said: " 'Uhmân bin 'Urwah told me, from 'Urwah, from 'Aihah, from the Prophet ." Hishâm narrated from his father, from 'Aiah [that she said]: "When the Prophet performed I'tikâf, he put his head out to me and I combed his hair, while I was menstruating." The same report was narrated by Mâlik bin Anas from Az-ZuhrI, from 'Urwah, from 'Amrah, from 'Aihah, from the Prophet. Az-ZuhrI and Sâlih bin Abi Hassân narrated from Abü Salamah, from 'Aiah: "The Prophet used to kiss while he was fasting." Yabyâ bin AbI KaIr said concerning this report about kissing: Abü Salamah [bin 'Abdur-Rahman] informed me that 'Umar bin 'Abdul-'Azlz told him that 'Urwah told him, that 'Ai.hah told him, that the Prophet used to kiss her while he was fasting. Ibn 'Uyaynah and others narrated from 'Amr bin DInâr, from Jâbir that he said: "The Messenger of Allah allowed us to eat the flesh of horses and he forbade us to eat the flesh of domestic donkeys." This was narrated from Hammâd bin Zaid, from 'Amr, from Muhammad bin 'All, from Jâbir, from the Prophet it. There are many reports of this tye, too many to list them all. N lat we have mentioned is sufficient for those who understand. If the reason why, according to what is dictated by the view of those we have described, a Hadith is considered invalid and not authentic, is that it is not known that the narrator heard anything from the one from whom he is narrating, and that it may be a Mursal report; then they should not use any HadILh as proof when it is known that the narrator heard it from the one whom he narrated it from, unless it says in the report itself that he heard it, because of what we have said about the A'imma who transmitted reports, who sometimes made their reports Mursal and did not mention the one from whom they heard the report, and who sometimes were more precise, and did attribute the report the way they heard it, so they curtailed (the chain) when they curtailed it, or they lengthened it when they lengthened it, as we exiplained. We do not know of anyone among the A 'imma of the Salaf – those who dealt with reports and examined the correctness of the chains and their weaknesses, such as Ayyüb As-SaichtiyânI, Ibn 'Awn, Mâlik bin Anas, Shu'bah bin Al-Hajjâj, Yayâ bin Sa'eed A1-Qattân, 'Abdur- Rahmân bin MahdI and others from the people of HadIth who came after them – who insisted on finding proof of hearing directly in the chains, as was claimed by the one whose view we referred to above. Rather the scholars only tried to verify that the narrator of the LIadItj actually heard it from the one whom he narrated it from, if the narrator was one of those who were known for Tadils. In that case they would look for proof that he heard it from his narrators and try to verify that, so as to make sure that there was no TadlIs in this case. That was not done in cases other than TadlIs, contrary to the view of the one who made the claim we mentioned, rather we have not heard of that from any of the A'imma, those whom we have named and those whom we have not named. For example, 'Abdullâh bin YazId A1-AnsârI – who saw the Prophet – narrated from Huhaifah and from Abü Mas'üd Al-AnârI, and from both of them he narrated AhâdIth which he attributed directly to the Prophet But it is not mentioned in his report from them that he heard it from them, and we do not have any report on record that 'Abdullâh bin YazId spoke directly to Huijaifah or Abil Mas'üd, nor is there any mention that he saw them in any particular narration. We have not heard from any of the people of knowledge of the past nor from any of those whom we met, any criticism of these two reports which were narrated by 'Abdullâh bin Yazid from – — – – — Hudhaifah and Abü Mas'üd, or , any suggestion that these reports are weak. Rather these two reports and others like them, according to the people of knowledge of 1-IadIt/j whom we have met, are among the correct and have strong chains of narration, and they held the view that what is transmitted through them should be utilized, and proof may be sought in whatever Sunan and Athâr come from them. According to this person of whom we have spoken above, they are weak and are to be overlooked, unless it can be verified that the narrator heard them from the one he is narrating from. If we carry on counting the reports that are Sahih according to the people of knowledge, and which prove that his argument is flawed, we will not be able to list them all. But we would like to list a number of them that will be sufficient to represent those that we did not mention from them. Abü 'Uthmân An-NahdI and Abü Râfi' As-Sâ'igh were both men who lived during the Jâhiliyyah and also accompanied the Companions of the Messenger of Allah 4*' who had been present at Badr, as well as other Companions. They narrated reports from them, even from Abü Hurairah, Ibn 'Umar and the like. Each of them narrated a chain from Ubayy bin Ka'b from the Prophet jW, but we have not heard in any particular report that they saw Ubayy or heard anything from him. Abü 'Amr Aii-ShaibãnI, who was one of those who lived during the Jâhili)yah and was an adult at the time of the Prophet ;, and Abü Ma'mar 'Abdullâh bin Saichbarah each narrated two chains from Abü Mas'iid Al- AnârI from the Prophet . 'Ubaid bin 'Umair narrated a chain for a HadIth from Umm Salamah, the wife of the Prophet , from the Prophet jW , and 'Ubaid [bin 'Umair] was born during the time of the Prophet. Qais bin AbI Hâzim, who lived at the time of the Prophet jW , narrated three chains for reports from Abü Mas'üd Al-Ansârl, from the Prophet . 'Abdur-Rahmân bin AbI Layla – who learned from 'Umar bin Al- ihattâb and was a companion of 'All – narrated a chain for a HadIth from Anas bin Mâlik from the Prophet At. Rib'I bin Hirâsh narrated two HaaIth with a chain from 'Imrân bin Husain from the Prophet , and a Hadith from Abü Bakrah from the Prophet ç. Rib'l heard from 'All bin AbI Talib and narrated from him. Nâfi' bin Jubair bin Mut'im narrated a chain for a Hadliji from Abü Shuraih Al-Khuzâ'I from the Prophet . An-Nu'mân bin AbI 'Ayyâsh narrated chain for three AhâdIth from Abü Sa'eed Al-hudrI, from the Prophet c. 'Atâ' bin YazId Al-LaithI narrated a chain for a HadIth from TamIm Ad-Diri from the Prophet . Sulaimân bin Yasâr narrated a chain for a HadIth from Râfi' bin EhadIj from the Prophet Jç. Humaid bin 'Abdur-Rahmân Al- Himyarl narrated a chain for several AhâdIth, from Abü Hurairah from the Prophet . In the case of all of these Ta hi 'In to whom we have attributed the reports from the Companions whom we have named, it has not been preserved from them that they heard what they learned from them in the particular narration, nor that they met them in the very same narration. But these chains, according to those who are knowledgeable about the reports and the narrations in correct chains, we do not know of any one at all who considered them as feeble nor searched for evidence that they heard it one from another. Because it is possible that they heard it one from another in all cases, and it is not strange, since they all lived at the time in question. This view which was invented by the one whom we spoke about, 1L 1 iI tI the view of considering a ITIadIt/ feeble due to the reason which we described, is too insignificant to be discussed and argued about, because it is a new idea that has L. ii been invented of late, and was never suggested by any of the scholars among the Salaf, and was denounced by the later scholars who came after them. So there is no need for us to refute it by saying any more than what we have already said, because this view and its proponent are of little worth. And Allah is the One Whose help we seek in refuting that which goes against the way of the scholars, and upon Him do we rely. Praise be to Allah alone, and may Allah send blessings and peace upon our master Muhammad and upon his family and Companions. In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful 1. The Book Of Faith 1•4! t ?at5 – 0 ____ – Chapter 1. Explaining Al-lmân t) 'r' – (Faith), Al-Islam, And Al-Ihsân, And The Obligations Of Al- -4 Imân With Affirmation Of The Qadar Of Alrah, Glorious And Most High Is He. And L Explaining The Evidence For Declaring One's Innocence Of One Who Does Not Believe In Al-Qadar, And Having A Harsh View Of His Case Imâm Abü Al-Husain Muslim bin Al-Hajjâj Al-QushairI (may Allah be pleased with him) said: With the help of Allah we begin and upon Him we rely, and our success in our task can only come from Allah, may He be exalted: