Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

16) Hadith Al-Siyadah, ExaminingThe Background Arguments

Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H) states:

ففي هذا الخبر إخبار عمر بين المهاجرين والأنصار أن أبا بكر سيد المسلمين وخيرهم وأحبهم إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ذلك علة مبايعته فقال بل نبايعك أنت فأنت سيدنا وخيرنا وأحبنا إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم ليبين بذلك أن المأمور به تولية الأفضل وأنت أفضلنا فنبايعك

In this report is the declaration of ‘Umar among the Muhajirun and the Ansar that Abu Bakr was the sayyid of the Muslims and the best of them, and the most beloved of them to the Messenger of Allah. This is the reason for following him. So, he (‘Umar) said, “Rather, we will follow you because you are our sayyid, and the best of us, and the most beloved of us to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him”. He wanted to make clear through it that: What is ordained is to give authority to the best, and you are the best of us. So, we will follow you.1

‘Umar apparently referred to Abu Bakr as “our sayyid”2 . Our Shaykh interprets that “our” as referring to all Muslims of that time, who were only the Sahabah. In other words, ‘Umar was speaking on behalf of his colleagues as a whole.Therefore, on the basis of ‘Umar’s testimony, Abu Bakr was the sayyid of the Sahabah. So, what does this mean?

First and foremost, it is important to note that the word sayyid has different meanings and can be used in various contexts. Dr. Baalbaki, a contemporary lexicographer, defines sayyid in this manner:

master, lord, chief, head, leader; Mr.; gentleman; a descendant of Prophet Mohammad; sovereign; independent.3

As such, in a cultural context, the word sayyid means “descendant of the Prophet”. In a political context, it refers to the ruler. In a tribal context, the title belongs to their chief. In the family setting, the husband – being its head - is the sayyid. The examples go on and on. What matters to our research, however, is solely the spiritual context. Therefore, all references to “sayyid” or “siyadah” henceforth in this and other chapters on Hadith al-Siyadah relate to spirituality only. Abu Bakr was not the political leader of Muslims, nor was he their tribal or other chief, when ‘Umar addressed him as “our sayyid”. This reveals that he too was referring to Abu Bakr’s alleged spiritual siyadah over the Ummah.

In order to determine what the term sayyid indicates in the spiritual context, we must examine the following hadith, documented by Imam Muslim (d. 261 H):

حدثني الحكم بن موسى أبو صالح حدثنا هقل (يعني ابن زياد) عن الأوزاعي حدثني أبو عمار حدثني عبدالله بن فروخ حدثني أبو هريرة قال قال رسول الله أنا سيد ولد آدم يوم القيامة

Al-Hakam b. Musa Abu Salih – Hiql b. Ziyad – al-Awza’i – Abu ‘Ammar – ‘Abd Allah b. Farukh – Abu Hurayrah:

The Messenger of Allah said: “I am the sayyid of the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection.”4

Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) also records:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا يحيى بن سعيد قال ثنا أبو حيان قال ثنا أبو زرعة بن عمرو بن جرير عن أبي هريرة قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أنا سيد الناس يوم القيامة

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – Yahya b. Sa’id – Abu Hayyan – Abu Zur’ah b. ‘Amr b. Jarir – Abu Hurayrah:

... The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said: “... I am the sayyid of mankind on the Day of Resurrection.”5

Shaykh al-Arnaut comments:

إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين

Its chain is sahih upon the standardof the two Shaykhs.6

Obviously, the siyadah of the Prophet, sallallahu ‘alaihi wa alihi, in these hadiths falls within the spiritual context, especially since they are connected with the Hereafter. This is how the scholars of the Ahl al-Sunnah understand the reports too. Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 H), for instance, states:

تفضيل نبينا صلى الله عليه وسلم على جميع الخلائق

قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنا سيد ولد آدم يوم القيامة وهذا الحديث دليل لتفضيله صلى الله عليه وسلم على الخلق كلهم لأن مذهب أهل السنة أن الآدميين أفضل من الملائكة وهو صلى الله عليه وسلم أفضل الآدميين وغيرهم وأما الحديث الآخر لا تفضلوا بين الأنبياء فجوابه من خمسة أوجه الأول: أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قاله قبل أن يعلم أنه سيد ولد آدم فلما علم أخبر به

Superiority of our Prophet, peace be upon him, over the entire creation

His statement, peacebe upon him, “I am the sayyid of the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection”.... This hadith is proof of his superiority, peace be upon him, over all the creation. This is because the doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunnah is that human beings are superior to angels, and he, peacebe upon him, is the most superior of the human beings and others. As for the other hadith “do not give superiorty to any among the prophets”, the answer is from five aspects. The first is: he, peacebe upon him, said it before he knew that he was the sayyid of the descendants of Adam. When he knew, he informed of it.7

Imam al-Mubarakfuri (d. 1282 H) has a similar view:

قوله أنا سيد ولد آدم يوم القيامة ولا فخر أي ولا أقوله تفاخرا بل اعتداد بفضله

His statement, “I am the sayyid of the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection, and I am not boastful”,meaning: I am not saying it for pride. Rather, it was in consideration of his superiority.8

Therefore, in the spiritual context, siyadah means superiority in the Sight of Allah. Whoever is the sayyid of the Muslims is their best. Moreover, anyone who is a sayyid in the Hereafter is equally a sayyid in this world in the same capacity.

Our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah often quote a relevant Sunni-only report to prove the superiority of both Abu Bakr and ‘Umar over the Ummah. ‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) states:

قال عبد الله بن أحمد في " زوائد المسند " (1 / 80) : حدثني وهب بن بقية الواسطي حدثنا عمر (في الأصل: عمرو) بن يونس اليمامي عن عبد الله بن عمر اليمامي عن الحسن بن زيد بن حسن حدثني أبي عن أبيه عن علي رضي الله عنه قال: " كنت عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، فأقبل أبو بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما، فقال: " يا علي هذان سيدا كهول أهل الجنة وشبابها بعد النبيين والمرسلين ".

‘Abd Allah b. Ahmad said in Zawaid al-Musnad (1/80):

Wahb b. Baqiyyah al-Wasiti – ‘Umar (in the original: ‘Amr) b. Yunus al-Yamami – ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar al-Yamami – al-Hasan b. Zayd b. Hasan – my father – his father ‘Ali,may Allah be pleased with him:

I was with the Prophet, peace be upon him, when Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, approached. So, he said, “O ‘Ali! These two are the two sayyids of THE ELDERLY ONES of the people of Paradise (Ahl al-Jannah) and of its youth, after the prophets and messengers.”9

Our ‘Allamah comments:

قلت: وهذا سند حسن

I say: This chain is hasan.10

The problem of the above hadith is primarily in its matn (content). It disturbingly assumes that there will be elderly people in Paradise, alongside its youth! This embarrassing mistake raises several red flags concerning its true origin. The correct opinion of the Messenger of Allah, which is universally confirmed, is that there will be only youth in Jannah. Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal records, for instance:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا سليمان بن داود ثنا عمران عن قتادة عن شهر بن حوشب عن عبد الرحمن بن غنم عن معاذ بن جبل انه سأل النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أو سمع النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم يقول يدخل أهل الجنة الجنة جردا مردا مكحلين بنى ثلاثين أو ثلاث وثلاثين

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) Sulayman b. Dawud – ‘Imran – Qatadah – Shahr b. Hawshab – ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Ghanam – Mu’adh b. Jabal:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “The people of Paradise will enter Paradise hairless, beardless with their eyes anointed with kohl, aged thirty or thirty-three years.”11

Shaykh al-Arnaut declares:

حسن لغيره

Hasan li ghayrihi12

In his Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghir, the ‘Allamah copies a similar hadith:

يدخل أهل الجنة الجنة جردا مردا كأنهم مكحلون أبناء ثلاث وثلاثين

The people of Paradise will enter Paradise hairless, beardless, with their eyes anointed with kohl, aged thirty-three years.13

And the ‘Allamah says:

صحيح

Sahih14

Imam al-Tirmidhi (d. 279 H) also documents a shahid:

حدثنا محمد بن بشار و أبو هشام الرفاعي قالا حدثنا معاذ بن هشام عن أبيه عن عامر الأحول عن شهر بن حوشب عن أبي هريرة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أهل الجنة جرد مرد كحل لا يفنى شبابهم ولا تبلى ثيابهم

Muhammad b. Bashar and Abu Hisham al-Rufa’i – Mu’adh b. Hisham – his father – ‘Amir al-Ahwal – Shahr b. Hawshab – Abu Hurayrah:

The Messenger of Allah, peacebe upon him, said, “The people of Paradise will be hairless and beardless, with their eyes anointed with kohl. Their YOUTH will never end, and their clothes will never become worn.”15

Al-Tirmidhi says:

هذا حديث حسن غريب

This hadith is hasan gharib.16

‘Allamah al-Albani supports him:

حسن

Hasan17

Since there will be no elderly folks in Paradise, how then will Abu Bakr and ‘Umar be their sayyids in there? Al-Mubarakfuri – apparently troubled by these facts - attempts to explain away the fatal problem:

لم يكن في الجنة كهل وقيل سيدا من مات كهلا من المسلمين فدخل الجنة لأنه ليس فيها كهل

There will be NO elderly person in Paradise And it is said they (i.e. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) both will be sayyids of those who died as elderly people among the Muslims and thereby entered Paradise, because there will be no elderly person in it.18

So, “elderly ones of the people of Paradise” only refers to those who died elderly in this world and were later admitted to Jannah in the Hereafter. Their official title, according to the Ahl al-Sunnah, is “elderly ones of the people of Paradise”. What about those who died young in this world and then made it to Paradise? In line with the Sunni logic, they are “the youth of the people of Paradise”. Things however get out of hand when questions are asked about the fortunate people of Jannah who died as infants, babies or children in this world? The hadith mentions only two categories for the people of Paradise:

" يا علي هذان سيدا كهول أهل الجنة وشبابها بعد النبيين والمرسلين ".

“O ‘Ali! These two are the two sayyids of the elderly ones of the people of Paradise (Ahl al-Jannah) and of its youth, after the prophets and messengers.”

The youth, of course, are people above the ages of adolecence. It would be ridiculous to put babies of two months or foetuses, for instance, in the category of youth! So, there are only two possibilities here:

1. People who died in pregnancy, infancy or childhood will all automatically go to Hellfire. No category is listed for them, thereby suggesting that they have no place in Paradise. Otherwise, the hadith should have mentioned “the, foetuses, infants and children of the people of Paradise” as well.

2. People who died in infancy or childhood will all be superior to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, in Paradise! After all, theduo are described as being sayyids of only the elderly as well as the youth of the people of Paradise. The infants and children are conspicuously excluded.

Apparently, neither of the above is acceptable to our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah. As such, the absurdity of al-Mubarakfuri’s linguistic gymnastics, even by Sunni standards, is unmistakable. Clearly, the Sunni hadith is not about the age of death here in the world at all. It rather informs the Ahl al-Sunnah that the people of Paradise will be in two categories only: the elderly as well as the youth. Of course, such a scandalous error could never have emerged from the noble Messenger of Allah.

Things get even a lot messier when one considers the case of Bilal b. Rabah, the well-known muezzin of the Prophet. Imam IbnSa’d (d. 230 H) records about him:

قال أخبرنا محمد بن عمر قال أخبرنا موسى بن محمد بن إبراهيم بن الحارث التيمي عن أبيه قال توفي بلال بدمشق سنة عشرين ودفن عند الباب الصغير في مقبرة دمشق وهو بن بضع وستين سنة قال أخبرنا محمد بن عمر سمعت شعيب بن طلحة من ولد أبي بكر الصديق يقول كان بلال ترب أبي بكر قال محمد بن عمر فإن كان هذا هكذا وقد توفي أبو بكر سنة ثلاث عشرة وهو بن ثلاث وستين سنة فبين هذا وبين ما روي لنا في بلال سبع سنين وشعيب بن طلحة أعلم بميلاد بلال حين يقول هو ترب أبي بكر فالله أعلم

Muhammad b. ‘Umar – Musa b. Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Harith al-Tamimi – his father: “Bilal died in Damascus in the year 20 AH, and was buried at the al-Bab al-Saghir in the cemetery of Damascus, and he was more than sixty years old.”

Muhammad b. ‘Umar – Shu’ayb b. Talhah, from the descendants of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, used to say: “Bilal was an age mate of Abu Bakr.” Muhammad b. ‘Umar said, “If this was the case, and Abu Bakr had died in 13 AH at the age of sixty three, then the difference between this and what is narrated to us concerning Bilal (i.e. his date of death) is seven years. Shu’ayb b. Talhah was the most knowledgeable of the date of birth of Bilal when he used to say that he (Bilal) was an age mate of Abu Bakr. And Allah knows best.”19

He was over 60 years old when he passed away. That puts him far into the elderly category. Yet, he was the sayyid of ‘Umar in the same way that Abu Bakr was, as the son of al-Khattab himself testified! Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) records:

حدثنا أبو عبد الله الصفار أحمد بن عبد الله ثنا أحمد بن مهران الأصبهاني ثنا خالد بن مخلد وحدثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب ثنا بحر بن نصر ثنا عبد الله بن وهب قالا : ثنا عبد العزيز بن أبي سلمة الماجشون عن محمد بن المنكدر عن جابر قال قال عمر : رضي الله عنه أبو بكر سيدنا وأعتق سيدنا يعني بلالا

Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Saffar Ahmad b. ‘Abd Allah – Ahmad b. Mahran al-Isbahani – Khalid b. Mukhlid AND Abu al-‘Abbas Muhammad b. Ya’qub – Bahr b. Nasr – ‘Abd Allah b. Wahb – ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. Abi Salamah al-Majishun – Muhammad b. al-Munkadar – Jabir:

‘Umar,may Allah be pleased with him, said, “Abu Bakr is our sayyid, and he emancipated OUR SAYYID, THAT IS BILAL.”20

Al-Hakim comments:

صحيح ولم يخرجاه

It is sahih, and they both (i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim) have not recorded it.21

Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) also states:

صحيح

Sahih22

Contrary to the mistake of al-Hakim, Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H) has actually recorded it:

حدثنا أبو نعيم حدثنا عبد العزيز بن أبي سلمة عن محمد بن المنكدر أخبرنا جابر بن عبد الله رضي الله عنهما قال : كان عمر يقول أبو بكر سيدنا وأعتق سيدنا يعني بلالا

Abu Na’im – ‘Abd al-‘Aziz b. Abi Salamah – Muhammad b. al-Munkadar – Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah,may Allah be pleased with them both:

‘Umar used to say, “Abu Bakr is our sayyid, and he emancipated our sayyid, that is Bilal”.23

Siyadah – in the spiritual sense - in this world only reflects that of the Hereafter. For instance, our Prophet will be the sayyid of all humanity in the Hereafter. This, as we have shown, is why he is our sayyid here as well. As such, since Bilal was the sayyid of ‘Umar, he will surely also be the latter’s sayyid in the Hereafter. Siyadah in the Hereafter reflects in this world, and siyadah in this world is evidence of that of the Hereafter.

Notes

1. Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. ‘Abd al-Halim b. Taymiyyah al-Harrani, Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah (Muasassat Qurtubah; 1st edition, 1406 H) [annotator: Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim], vol. 8, p. 565

2. See also Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 3, p. 1341, # 3467

3. Dr. Rohi Baalbaki, al-Mawrid: A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary (Beirut: Dar al-‘Ilm li al-Malayin; 7th edition, 1995 CE), p. 653

4. Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 4, p. 1782, # 2278 (3)

5. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 2, p. 435, # 9621

6. Ibid

7. Muhyi al-Din Abu Zakariyyah Yahya b. Sharaf al-Nawawi, Sahih Muslim bi Sharh al-Nawawi (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi; 1407 H), vol. 15, pp. 37-38

8. Abu al-‘Ala Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1410 H), vol. 10, p. 59

9. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Sahihahwa Shayhun min Fiqhihah wa Fawaidihah (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Ma’arif li al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1415 H), vol. 2, p. 468, # 824

10. Ibid

11. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 5, p. 243, # 22159

12. Ibid

13. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghirwa Ziyadatuhu (Al-Maktab al-Islami), vol. 2, p. 1341, # 3158 (8072)

14. Ibid

15. Abu ‘Isa Muhammad b. ‘Isa al-Sulami al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih Sunan al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani], vol. 4, p. 679, # 2539

16. Ibid

17. Ibid

18. Abu al-‘Ala Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Mubarakfuri, Tuhfat al-Ahwazi bi Sharh Jami’ al-Tirmidhi (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1410 H), vol. 10, p. 103

19. Muhammad b.Sa’d , al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (Beirut: Dar al-Sadir), vol. 3, p. 238

20. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. ‘Abd Allah al-Hakim al-Naysaburi, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-’Ilmiyyah; 1st edition, 1411 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 3, p. 320, # 5239

21. Ibid

22. Ibid

23. Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Isma’il b. Ibrahim b. Mughirah al-Bukhari al-Ju’fi, al-Jami’ al-Sahih al-Mukhtasar (Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir; 3rd edition, 1407 H) [annotator: Dr. Mustafa Dib al-Bagha], vol. 3, p. 1371, # 3544

17) Hadith Al-Siyadah, Proving Its Authenticity

‘Allamah al-Albani (d. 1420 H) records this hadith in his al-Dha’ifah:

يا علي! أنت سيد في الدنيا، سيد في الآخرة، حبيبك حبيبي، وحبيبي حبيب الله، وعدوك عدوي، وعدوي عدو الله، والويل لمن أبغضك بعدي

O ‘Ali! You are a sayyid in this world and a sayyid in the Hereafter. Your lover is my lover, and my lover is the lover of Allah. Your enemy is my enemy, and my enemy is the enemy of Allah. Woe unto anyone who hates you after my death.1

In his takhrij of the report, our ‘Allamah states:

أخرجه ابن عدي (308/ 2) ، والحاكم (3/ 127-128) ، والخطيب (4/ 41-42) ، وابن عساكر (12/ 134/ 2-135/ 1) من طرق عن أبي الأزهر أحمد بن الأزهر: أخبرنا عبد الرزاق: أنبأ معمر عن الزهري عن عبيد الله بن عبد الله عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال: نظر النبي - صلى الله عليه وسلم - إلى علي فقال فذكره

وقال الحاكم: "صحيح على شرط الشيخين، وأبو الأزهر - بإجماعهم - ثقة، وإذا انفرد الثقة بحديث؛ فهو على أصلهم صحيح "!!

وتعقبه الذهبي بقوله: "قلت: هذا وإن كان رواته ثقات؛ فهو منكر، ليس ببعيد من الوضع؛ وإلا لأي شيء حدث به عبد الرزاق سراً، ولم يجسر أن يتفوه به لأحمد وابن معين والخلق الذين رحلوا إليه، وأبو الأزهر ثقة ".

Ibn ‘Adi (2/308), al-Hakim (3/127-128), al-Khatib (4/41-42) and Ibn Asakir (12/134/135-2/1) through many routes from Abu al-Azhar Ahmad b. al-Azhar – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – al-Zuhri – ‘Ubayd Allah b. ‘Abd Allah – Ibn ‘Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them both:

The Prophet, peacebe upon him, looked at ‘Ali and said, “...” Then he mentioned it (i.e. the hadith as quoted above).

Al-Hakim says: “It is sahih upon the standard of the two Shaykhs, and Abu al-Azhar – based upon their (i.e. the scholars’) consensus – is thiqah (trustworthy). When a trustworthy narrator narrates a hadith without corroboration, it is (nonetheless) sahih based upon their (i.e. the scholars’) principle”!!

Al-Dhahabi responded to him by saying: “I say: Although its narrators are trustworthy, this (hadith) is munkar (repugnant). (In fact), it is not far from being a fabrication. Otherwise, why did ‘Abd al-Razzaq narrate it secretly, and did not have the courage to transmit it to Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in and the other people who travelled to him. And Abu al-Azhar was trustworthy.”2

Both Imam al-Hakim (d. 403 H) and Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 H) agree that all its narrators are trustworthy. However, while the former grades the hadith as sahih, al-Dhahabi nonetheless rejects it, questioning why Imam ‘Abd al-Razzaq (d. 211 H) had narrated it only secretly. As such, his sole reason for throwing out the noble hadith is nothing but the secrecy of its transmission. Of course, that is not a valid ground in the Sunni hadith sciences.

What is ‘Allamah al-Albani’s own verdict on the hadith? This is it, in one simple word:

موضوع

Mawdu’ (fabricated)3

But, on what basis is this? Our ‘Allamah has no objection to al-Dhahabi’s claim that all its narrators are trustworthy. So, what is the problem? He outlines his reasons:

قلت: فانحصرت العلة في عبد الرزاق نفسه، أو في معمر، وكلاهما ثقة محتج بهما في "الصحيحين "

I (al-Albani) say: So, the fault (in the hadith) is LIMITED to ‘Abd al-Razzaq himself, or to Ma’mar, and both of them are relied upon as hujjahin the two Sahihs.4

In other words, all the narrators are truly trustworthy, as declared by Imam al-Dhahabi. Moreover, the alleged defect in the hadith is traceable only to its narrators, specifically to either ‘Abd al-Razzaq or Ma’mar. Yet, both are “trustworthy” narrators of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim! There is absolutely no other issue with the sanad or matn (content) of the riwayah. Here, the plot thickens significantly.

So, what exactly is al-Albani’s point against Ma’mar? Let us hear him out:

أما بالنسبة لمعمر؛ فقد بين وجه العلة فيه: أبو حامد الشرقي؛ فقد روى الخطيب بسند صحيح عنه: أنه سئل عن حديث أبي الأزهر هذا؟ فقال: "هذا حديث باطل، والسبب فيه: أن معمراً كان له ابن أخ رافضي، وكان معمر يمكنه من كتبه، فأدخل عليه هذا الحديث، وكان معمر رجلاً مهيباً لا يقدر عليه أحد في السؤال والمراجعة، فسمعه عبد الرزاق في كتاب ابن أخي معمر ! ".

قلت: فهذا - إن صح - علة واضحة في أحاديث معمر في فضائل أهل البيت، ولكني في شك من صحة ذلك؛ لأنني لم أر من ذكره في ترجمة معمر؛ كالذهبي والعسقلاني وغيرهما. والله أعلم

With regards to Ma’mar, Abu Hamid al-Sharqi has explained the reason for the fault with him. Al-Khatib has narrated with a sahih chain from him that he was asked about this hadith of Abu al-Azhar. So, he said, “This hadith is nonsense, and the reason is this: Ma’mar had a nephew who was a Rafidhi, and Ma’mar gave him control of his books. So, he (the Rafidhi nephew) included this hadith, attributing it to him (i.e. Ma’mar). Meanwhile, Ma’mar was an awe-inspiring man. None could criticize him. So, ‘Abd al-Razzaq heard from the book of Ma’mar’s nephew!”

I (al-Albani) say: This – if authentic – is a clear defect in the ahadith of Ma’mar concerning the merits of the Ahl al-Bayt. However, I am in doubt concerning the authenticity of that, because I saw no one – like al-Dhahabi, al-‘Asqalani or others - who mentioned it in the biography of Ma’mar. And Allah knows best.5

Everything here revolves around whether al-Sharqi was telling the truth or not. ‘Allamah al-Albani himself doubts the reliability of al-Sharqi’s story. Yet, this same ‘Allamah has rejected Hadith al-Siyadah on the strength of this suspicious tale! ‘Allamah al-Maghribi – a well-known contemporary Sunni muhadith - was understandably very angry while responding to this blameworthy action of ‘Allamah al-Albani on the hadith:

قلت : هذا كلام باطل جدا ، وبيان ذلك : أن ابن أخي معمر، شخص وهمي لا وجود له ، ولا يعرف أخ لمعمر وكيف يوجد ابن بدون أب غير عيسى عليه السلام ؟

I say: This is complete nonsense! The reason for this is: That nephew of Ma’mar was only an imaginary figure. He never existed! Ma’mar was not known to have any brother. How could a son exist without a father, apart from ‘Isa, peace be upon him?6

Why has ‘Allamah al-Albani stooped so low as to rely upon such kind of evidence in undermining an authentically transmitted hadith? Well, he also mentions ‘Abd al-Razzaq as a possible defect. Therefore, what has he got against him? Our ‘Allamah launches his further attack:

وأما بالنسبة لعبد الرزاق؛ فإعلاله أقرب؛ لأنه وإن كان ثقة؛ فقد تكلموا في تحديثه من حفظه دون كتابه؛ فقال البخاري: "ما حدث به من كتابه فهو أصح". وقال الدارقطني: "ثقة، لكنه يخطىء على معمر في أحاديث". وقال ابن حبان: "كان ممن يخطىء إذا حدث من حفظه؛ على تشيع فيه". وقال ابن عدي في آخر ترجمته: "ولم يروا بحديثه بأساً؛ إلا أنهم نسبوه إلى التشيع، وقد روى أحاديث في الفضائل مما لا يوافقه عليه أحد من الثقات، فهذا أعظم ما رموه به، وأما في باب الصدق؛ فإني أرجو أنه لا بأس به؛ إلا أنه قد سبق منه أحاديث في فضائل أهل البيت ومثالب آخرين؛ مناكير ".

As for ‘Abd al-Razzaq, his own fault is more likely. This is because even though he was trustworthy, he has been criticized in his ahadith from his memory, other than from his book. Al-Bukhari said, “Whatever he narrated from his book is MORE sahih.” Al-Daraqutni said, “Thiqah (trustworthy), but he made mistakes in ahadith from Ma’mar.” Ibn Hibban said, “He used to make mistakes when he narrated from his memory, plus (there was) Shi’ism in him.” Ibn ‘Adi said at the end of his biography of him, “I do not see any problem with his hadith, except that they have linked him with Shi’ism. He narrated ahadith about the merits (of the Ahl al-Bayt) which were not narrated by any other trustworthy narrator. This is the worst of the accusations against him. As for the issue of truthfulness, I hope there is no problem with him, except that he had narrated munkar (repugnant) ahadith on the merits of the Ahl al-Bayt and in criticism of others.”7

There are two allegations above:

1. ‘Abd al-Razzaq used to make mistakes when he narrated from memory.

2. Specifically, he also used to make mistakes in ahadith from Ma’mar.

It is noteworthy that ahadith of ‘Abd al-Razzaq from his memory are sahih, according to Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 H). However, his reports from his books are “more sahih”. If his ahadith from memory had been dha’if, al-Bukhari would never have added “more” to his declaration. The worst that one could deduce from this is that ‘Abd al-Razzaq made slight mistakes, which were neither serious nor many, and which did not change the original meanings of his narrations.

Al-Bukhari, of course, has not accused him of making “serious” or “a lot of” mistakes – terms which are normally employed to indicate worrisome memory degeneration. Imam Ibn ‘Adi (d. 365 H) even disputes al-Bukhari’s claim entirely. In the former’s view, ‘Abd al-Razzaq never made any mistakes, in any of his ahadith, whether from memory or otherwise. However, some of his ahadith – in terms of their messages - did not sit well with mainstream Sunni beliefs. As such, Sunni ‘ulama graded them as manakir (repugnant narrations).

As for the submission that he made mistakes in his reports from Ma’mar, the muhadithun of the Ahl al-Sunnah do not give any independent weight to it. As such, even if the opinion of Imam Ibn ‘Adi were disregarded, other conditions must still be fulfilled before that point could become valid. For instance, Imam Muslim (d. 261 H) has relied upon reports of ‘Abd al-Razzaq from Ma’mar from al-Zuhri in his Sahih8 . Imam Ahmad (d. 241 H) has equally narrated through a similar chain:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبى ثنا عبد الرزاق ثنا معمر عن الزهري عن عروة بن الزبير عن المسور بن مخرمة

‘Abd Allah (b. Ahmad) – my father (Ahmad b. Hanbal) – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – al-Zuhri – ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr – al-Musawwar b. Mukhramah9

Shaykh al-Arnaut has a clear verdict on the chain:

إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين

Its chain is sahih upon the standardof the two Shaykhs.10

Even more interesting is that ‘Allamah al-Albani himself has the same opinion. This is what he writes in his Sahih Abi Dawud:

إسناده: حدثنا الحسن بن علي: ثنا عبد الرزاق: ثنا معمر عن الزهري عن ابن المسيب وأبي سلمة عن عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص

قلت: وهذا إسناد صحيح على شرط الشيخين

Its chain: al-Hasan b. ‘Ali – ‘Abd al-Razzaq – Ma’mar – al-Zuhri – Ibn al-Musayyab and Abu Salamah – ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Amr b. al-‘As:

I (al-Albani) say: This chain is sahih upon the standardof the two Shaykhs.11

Meanwhile, there is an extremely crucial point which must be taken into notice concerning ‘Abd al-Razzaq’s alleged mistakes in ahadith generally. Imam al-Dhahabi records:

أبو زرعة الدمشقي، أخبرنا أحمد، قال: أتينا عبد الرزاق قبل المئتين، وهو صحيح البصر، ومن سمع منه بعدما ذهب بصره، فهو ضعيف السماع

Abu Zur’ah al-Dimashqi – Ahmad: “We went to ‘Abd al-Razzaq before the year 200 H, and his eye-sight was still good. Whoever heard from him after he lost his eye-sight, then what he heard isdha’if. ”12

Al-Hafiz (d. 852 H) also states:

عبد الرزاق بن همام بن نافع الحميري مولاهم أبو بكر الصنعاني ثقة حافظ مصنف شهير عمي في آخر عمره فتغير وكان يتشيع

‘Abd al-Razzaq b. Hammam b. Nafi’ al-Humayri, their freed slave, Abu Bakr al-San’ani: Thiqah (trustworthy), hafiz (a hadith scientist), a well-known author. He became blind at the end of his lifetime, and thereby his memory deteriorated. He was a Shi’i.13

In simple terms, ‘Abd al-Razzaq had a sound memory before his blindness. This puts everything into its proper context. All the alleged mistakes of ‘Abd al-Razzaq – whether from Ma’mar or others - occurred only during the last part of his lifetime, after he had gone blind. Therefore, whatever ahadith he transmitted before that period is sahih, with no defects at all.

There seems to be irreconciliable contradictions among the Sunni muhadithun on the gravity of ‘Abd al-Razzaq’s alleged mistakes after his blindness and subsequent memory issues. Imam Ibn ‘Adi does not agree anyway that his memory problem affected his narrations at all. By contrast, al-Bukhari alleges that it affected his ahadith, even though his resultant mistakes were only very slight and inconsequential. Imam Ahmad, at the other end, argues that ‘Abd al-Razzaq’s mistakes after his blindness were actually serious. Yet, even if we took Ahmad’s view as the most correct, Hadith al-Siyadah still scales through!

The question to ask is: did Abu al-Azhar hear Hadith al-Siyadah from him before his blindness or not? Imam al-Dhahabi copies this game-changing report, which is specifically about the hadith:

قال مكي بن عبدان: حدثنا أبو الأزهر، قال: خرج عبد الرزاق إلى قريته، فبكرت إليه يوما، حتى خشيت على نفسي من البكور، فوصلت إليه قبل أن يخرج لصلاة الصبح، فلما خرج، رآني، فأعجبه، فلما فرغ من الصلاة، دعاني، وقرأ علي هذا الحديث، وخصني به دون أصحابي

Makki b. ‘Abdan said: Abu al-Azhar narrated to us:

‘Abd al-Razzaq went to his town. So, I went early to him one day, until I feared for myself due to the earliness. I therefore reached him before he went out for Salat al-Subh. When he came out, he SAW me, and he was surprised. After finishing the Salat, he called him, and READ this hadith to me, and transmitted it to me only without my companions.14

Concerning Makki – the sub-narrator, al-Dhahabi states:

مكي بن عبدان ابن محمد بن بكر بن مسلم، المحدث الثقة، المتقن، أبو حاتم التميمي النيسابوري

Makki b. ‘Abdan b. Muhammad b. Bakr b. Muslim: the muhadith (hadith scientist), the thiqah (trustworthy) hadith scientist, the extremely precise narrator, Abu Hatim al-Tamimi al-Naysaburi.15

This basically seals everything! First, Abu al-Azhar got the hadith from ‘Abd al-Razzaq before the latter’s blindness, when his memory was still sharp and sound. Therefore, he was blessed with it at a time when ‘Abd al-Razzaq was not making mistakes in his reports, either from Ma’mar or anyone else.

Second, ‘Abd al-Razzaq did NOT narrate to Abu al-Azhar from memory. He actually “read” the hadith to the latter, obviously from a script! It might be argued that he must have “read” it from memory, since no book or any other written source was mentioned. Even then, this was before ‘Abd al-Razzaq’s blindness and memory problems. As such, all criticisms of the hadith - on account of his memory – fall and fail completely.

Notes

1. Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Dha’ifahwa al-Mawdhu’ah wa Atharihah al-Sayyiah fi al-Ummah (Riyadh: Dar al-Ma’arif; 1st edition, 1412 H), vol. 10, p. 522, # 4894

2. Ibid

3. Ibid

4. Ibid, vol. 10, p. 523, # 4894

5. Ibid, vol. 10, p. 524, # 4894

6. Abu al-Fadhl ‘Abd Allah b. al-Siddiq al-Maghribi, al-Qawl al-Muqni’ fi Radd ‘ala al-Albani al-Mubtadi’, p. 8

7. Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith al-Dha’ifahwa al-Mawdhu’ah wa Atharihah al-Sayyiah fi al-Ummah (Riyadh: Dar al-Ma’arif; 1st edition, 1412 H), vol. 10, p. 524, # 4894

8. See, for instance, Abu al-Husayn Muslim b. al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naysaburi, Sahih Muslim (Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi) [annotator: Muhammad Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi], vol. 3, p. 1648, # 2078 (31)

9. Abu ‘Abd Allah Ahmad b. Hanbal al-Shaybani, Musnad (Cairo: Muasassat Qurtubah) [annotator: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut], vol. 4, p. 327, # 18936

10. Ibid

11. Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad Nasir al-Din b. al-Hajj Nuh b. Tajati b. Adam al-Ashqudri al-Albani, Sahih Abi Dawud (Kuwait: Muasassat al-Gharas li al-Nashrwa al-Tawzi’; 1st edition, 1423 H), vol. 7, p. 188, # 2098

12. Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 9th edition, 1413 H) [annotators of the ninth volume: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut and Kamil al-Khurat], vol. 9, p. 565, # 220

13. Ahmad b. ‘Ali b. Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Taqrib al-Tahdhib (Beirut: Dar al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmiyyah; 2nd edition, 1415 H) [annotator: Mustafa ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata], vol. 1, p. 599, # 4078

14. Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 9th edition, 1413 H) [annotators of the ninth volume: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut and Kamil al-Khurat], vol. 9, p. 576, # 220

15. Shams al-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad b. ‘Uthman al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam al-Nubala (Beirut: Muasassat al-Risalah; 9th edition, 1413 H) [annotators of the fifteenth volume: Shu’ayb al-Arnaut and Ibraaheem al-Zaybaq], vol. 15, p. 70, # 38