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.”

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.”

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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]

[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.]

[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.]

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]

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]

[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)]

[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]

[4] Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Hakim
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]

[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]

[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]

[8] Shu’aib Al-Arna’ut etc
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.

[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)

[11] Abu Hatim Ibn Hibbaan Al-Busti
He included this hadith in his “Saheeh” as referenced above.

[12] Muhammad bin ‘Ali Ash-Shawkani
He declared this hadeeth to be “Saheeh”. [See "Irshad Al-Fuhul" [(1/221), Daarul Kutub Al-'Arabi]

Wassalamu’alaikum

Ahlus-Sunnah

Contact: ahlussunnah.moin@gmail.com

"Behold! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked in it was SAVED, and whoever turned away from it was PERISHED."

It has several chains going back to several companions. Reported as a hadith from Abu Dharr, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubair, Abu Sa’eed and Anas bin Malik.

Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari

[1] Tradition through Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’ee from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari:

This has come through following routes from Abu Ishaq from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr:

Related by Abu Bakr Al-Qatee’ee in “Ziyadaat Fadha’il As-Sahaba” (1402), Abu Abdullah Al-Hakim in his “Al-Mustadrak” (2/373 & 3/163), both through Mufaddhal bin Saleh. from Abu Ishaq from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari.

Hakim declared it authentic on the condition of Muslim. Dhahabi rejected it and said, “Mufaddhal bin Saleh is ‘Waah’” and in another place he said, “Mufadhhal, only Tirmidhi has narrated from him (among six books) and they (scholars) declared him weak”.

Imam Bukhari and Abu Hatim declared him ‘Munkirul Hadith’. Imam Tirmidhi said, “he was not a Hafiz according scholars of Hadith”. [See “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” (10/243)]

-----------------------------

Tabrani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/45), “As-Sagheer” (1/240) and in “Al-Awsat” (4/9), through Husain bin Ahmed bin Mansur Sajjadah Al-Baghdadi from Abdullah bin Daahir from Abdullah bin Abdul Quddus from A’amash from Abu Ishaq from Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir from Abu Dharr, with the additional statement.. “My Ahlul-Bayt are like the gate of Hitta (a non Arabic word, see Quran 2:58) for Children of Israel”

I am unable to find information on “Husain bin Ahmed bin Mansur Sajjadah Al-Baghdadi”.

Regarding Abdullah bin Daahir, Ahmed and Yahya said that he was nothing (in the field of hadith). `Uqailee said ‘Rafidhi khabeeth’. [‘Al-Meezan’ (2/417), ‘Lisaan Al-Meezan’ (3/282)]

Regarding Abdullah bin Abdul Quddoos, Dhahabi said, “Kufi Rafidhi”. Yahya ibn Mu’een said ‘he is nothing. Rafidhi Khabeeth’. Nasai and others said about him that he was not a trustworthy narrator. Daar Qutni said that he was weak. [See “Al-Meezan” (2/257)]

There is some Kalaam about Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir, which will be discussed later on. Insha Allah.

-----------------------

Reported by Al-Ajurri in “Ash-Sharee’ah” (3/347), from Abbaad bin Ya’qoob, from Amr bin Thaabit from Abu Ishaq from Hanash from Abu Dharr…alhadith.

In this chain Abbad bin Ya’qoob was Rafidhi, although fair in hadith and Bukhari narrated his reports in support with others. Abu Hatim said: Shaykh, Thiqah. Ibn Khuzaima said (while narrating a hadith): Narrated to us trustworthy in his narrations, and accused in his religion. Khatib said: Ibn Khuzaima later on stopped narrating from him. Ibn Adi said: He has narrated Ahadith in merits which were rejected on him.

He used to insult Salaf and Sahaba and was very extremist shi’a. Ibn Hibban said: “He died in 250 Hijri. He was a caller to the Rafidhism, and with that he would narrate Munkar narrations from famous narrators.” Daar Qutni said, “he was a shi’a, Sadooq (truthful)”. Ibrahim bin Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah said: If there had not been two shia, there would not been any authentic narrations in support of shi’ism. They were Abbad bin Ya’qoob and Ibrahim ibn Muhammad bin Maymoon. [Al-Meezan (2/379), Tahdheeb (5/95), Al-Majrooheen by Ibn Hibban (2/172)]

Abu Dawud said, ‘he was Rafidhi Khabeeth’. Nasa’i said, ‘Matrook in hadith’. Ibn Hibban said, ‘he used to narrate fabrications’. Al-`Ijli said, ‘he was very extreme in tashayyu’ (shi’a belief) and was very weak in hadith.’ [“Tahdheeb” (8/10)]

In conclusion Abbad bin Ya’qoob was ‘Sadooq, Rafidhi’, whose narrations should be looked upon. WAllahu A’lam

The sanad also contain ‘Amr bin Thabit Al-Bakri Abu Muhammad. Ibn Mu’een said, “he was not trustworthy (thiqah)”. In another report Ibn Mu’een said that he was weak. Abu Zur’ah said, ‘weak in hadith’. Similarly Abu Hatim said, and added, ‘his hadith should be written. He was extreme in his view and shi’ism’. Bukhari said, ‘he was not strong in hadith’. [Al-Meezan (3/249)]

At another place in similar tradition Abu Ishaq is changed to Simak bin Harb. That mistake was probably from Amr bin Thabit. Tabarani reported in “Al-Awsat” (5/354), through Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah from `Ali bin Hakeem Al-Awdi from `Amr bin Thabit from Simak bin Harb from Hanash bin Mu`tamir from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari.

-------------------

Reported by Tabarani in “Al-Awsat” (5/306, h.5390), through Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Sawadah from Amr bin Abdul Ghaffaar Al-Fuqaimi from Hasan bin Amr Al-Fuqaimi from Abu Ishaq, from Hanash, from Abu Dharr…alhadith.

Tabarani said, “No one narrates this hadith from Hasan bin Amr Al-Fuqaimi except Amr bin Abdul Ghaffar”.

Amr bin Abdul Ghaffar was Matrook. Abu Hatim: Matrook Ul-Hadith. Ibn Adi said: He was accused of fabricating narrations. Ali bin Al-Madeeni said: I left him because of his rafdh. Al-Uqaili said: Munkarul Hadith. [Al-Meezan 3/273]

As for Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Sawadah, then Daar Qutni said: his narrations are to be taken for support only, not for proof. Khatib said: I have only seen fair hadith from him.

Common defects in the chain:

All the above narration come through the common narrators, Abu Ishaq from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr. Keeping this in mind let us analyze this link.

1). Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’ee, although a Thiqah narrator, was a Mudallis who used to do Tadlees through weak narrators. Hafiz Ibn Hajar listed him among the third category of Mudalliseen [Tabaqat Al-Mudalliseen (1/42)], which according to him is the category of those mudallis narrators who did Tadlis through weak narrators, although there is disagreement regarding acceptance or rejection of their narration with ‘an’ana.

In a version of this same hadith, Abu Ishaq narrates it through an unknown person from Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir. Al-Fasawi records in his "Al-Ma'rifah wa At-Tarikh" with a sanad much better than above chains, it is mention there:

حدثنا عبيد الله عن إسرائيل عن أبي إسحق عن رجل حدثه عن حنش قال: رأيت أبا ذر آخذاً بحلقة باب الكعبة وهو يقول: يا أيها الناس أنا أبو ذر فمن عرفني ألا وأنا أبو ذر الغفاري لا أحدثكم إلا ما سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: سمعت وهو يقول: أيها الناس إني قد تركت فيكم الثقلين كتاب الله عز وجل وعترتي أهل بيتي، وأحدهما أفضل من الآخر كتاب الله عز وجل، ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض وإن مثلهما كمثل سفينة نوح من ركبها نجا، ومن تركها غرق

“(Al-Fasawi said:) Narrated to us Ubaydullah from Isra’eel from Abu Ishaq from a person who narrated to him from Hanash à Abu Dharr…..alhadith”

As it is quite clear that there is an unnamed mubhan narrator between Abu Ishaq and Hanash. And this report should be preferred over other Isnad because Isra’eel bin Yunus in the sanad was a grandson of Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’ee, also he was from the narrator of Kutub Sitta hence thiqah, and Ahmed preferred him over other in in Ahadith of Abu Ishaq. Abu Hatim, Yahya bin Mu’een and others also said that Isra’eel was the most aware of Abu Ishaq’s narrations. [See “Tahdheeb” (1/229)]

And Imam Daar Qutni preferred this sanad over other, as it is mention in "Ilal Daar Qutni" (6/236, q.1098).

So this make the hadith to be weak with all of its chains.

2). Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir has some weakness in him.

Abu Hatim said, Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir is Saleh according to me, I don’t see scholars taking him as proof. Abu Dawud said: Thiqah. Bukhari said: They (scholars) used to criticize his narrations. Nasai said: He was not strong. Ibn Hibban said:He is not to be taken as proof. Al-‘Ijli said: he was Thiqah. Abu Ahmed Al-Hakim said: He was not good according to scholars. Al-‘Uqaili, As-Saji, Ibn Jarood, Abu Arab Al-Saqli they all listed him amongst weak narrators. [Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (3/51)]

Ibn Hajar said: Sadooq (truthful) but he had Awham (confusion in narrations) and he also narrates from whom he didn’t hear (i.e. Mursal) [Taqreeb (1582)]

All these factors prove that there is no authentic chain for this. Besides all these, it is also doubtful whether Hanash heard it from Abu Dharr or not. That is because Hanash died in 90 AH or around it as per the statement of As-Safdi in “Al-Waafi”, and if that is true then it is difficult that this Kufi narrator could have heard this from Abu Dharr who died around 33AH or before it during the caliphate of Uthman, near Madina at a place called Ar-Rabdhah. And Hanash saying ‘I heard Abu Dharr’ is not something solid against what was said, because weak narrators many a times confused regarding narrators. WAllahu A’alam


Other Isnad of the hadith from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari:

Related by Tabarani in “Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabeer” (3/45, h.2636), Al-Fasawi in “Al-Ma’rifa wat Tareekh” (1/294, Daarul Kutub Al-‘Ilmi Beirut), through Hasan bin Abi Ja’far from Ali bin Zaid from Sa’eed bin Musayyib from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari.

Hasan bin Abi Ja’far was weak. He has been declared weak by Ahmed, Ibn Mu’een, Nasa’I, Ibn Madeeni etc. Bukhari said, “Munkirul Hadith”. Ibn Adi said: He, according to me, did not intentionally lie. [See, “Meezan Al-E’itedal” by Dhahabi (1/482) Daarul Ma’rifa Beirut]

Ibn Al-Jawzi said that Hasan bin Abi Ja’far was nothing, he mentioned that Nasai declared him “Matrook Al-Hadith”, and Sa’di called him “Waahiyul Hadith”. [Al-‘Ilal Al-Mutanahiyah (1/106)]

Secondly, Ali bin Zaid Al-Jid’an is also weak, as said by Ahmed, Ibn Mu’een. Abu Hatim and Bukhari said, “He is not to be depended upon.” Daar Qutni said, “There is weakness (layyin) in him” [See “Al-Meezan” (3/127-129)]

All these weakness shows that the report is Munkar as no one narrates this narration from Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyib except Ali bin Zaid bin Jaid’aan – who was weak – and no one narrates this from Ali bin Zaid except Hasan bin Abi Ja’far - who was also weak – hence as a whole this report is not good for even support.

-----------------------

Reported by Abu Bakr Al-Ajurri in his book “Ash-Sharee’ah” (3/347, no.1759), through Harun bin Abdullah Al-Bazzaz, who said, narrated to us Sayyar bin Hatim, narrated to us Harun Al-‘Abdi, he said, A Shaykh narrated to me, that he heard from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari….alhadith.

Abu Harun Al-Abdi was Matrook. Nu’aym bin Hammad declared him liar. Ahmed said: He was nothing. Yahya said: He was weak, and didn’t narrate truthfully his narrations. Nasai said: Matrook Al-Hadith. [Al-Meezan (3/173)]

And the Shaykh of Al-Abdi is unknown.


Abu Sa`eed Al-khudri

Reported by Tabarani in “Al-Awsat” (6/85) and in “As-Sagheer” (2/84), through Muhammad bin `Abdul `Aziz bin Rabi`ah Al-Kilabi from his father from Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Hammad Al-Maqree’ from Abu Salamah As-Sa`igh from `Atiyya from Abu Sa`eed Al-Khudri.

Tabrani said, after narrating the hadith: “No one narrates this from Abu Salamah except Ibn Abi Hammad, and from him Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad was alone in narrating this.”

Hafiz Al-Haythami, after mentioning this narration in his book, said: “reported by Tabrani in his Al-Awsat and As-Sagheer. And in it are a group of narrators unknown to me.” [Majma’ Az-Zawa’id (9/94)]

Al-Haythami, probably, was referring to Muhammad bin ‘Abdul `Aziz, his father, Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Hammad and Abu Salama As-Saa`igh. I have not come across any Jarh or T`adeel regarding them. Wallahu A`alam.

As for `Atiyya Al-Awfi, then he was weak, without any doubt. [See, Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (7/200), no.414]. Some contemporaries has started spreading doubts regarding his weakness. Insha Allah, we'll compile a detailed analysis of Atiyya's status in hadith in future.


Ibn Abbas

Reported by Tabarani in “A-Kabeer” (3/46) and Abu Nu’aim in “Hilayah Al-Awliya” (4/306) both of them through the route of Muslim bin Ibrahim, from Hasan bin Abi Ja’far, from Abu Suhba, from Sa’eed bin Jubayr from Ibn Abbas….alhadith.

And Ibn Adi recorded it in “Al-Kamil” (2/760), as mentioned by Shaykh Sa’d Aal Humaid, from the route of Muslim bin Ibrahim from Hasan bin Abi Ja’far, from Amr bin Malik from Abil Jawza from Ibn Abbas….alhadith.

Hasan bin Abi Ja’far was weak munkirul hadith, as we have already discussed it above. As for Abu Suhba Al-Kufi, then Ibn Hibban mentioned him in his “Ath-Thiqaat”, and more than one narrates from him and no one mention any criticism on him. WAllahu A’lam

Abdullah bin Zubair

Reported by Al-Bazzar, as in “Majma’ Az-Zawaid” (9/168) and “Kashf Al-Astaar” (3/222), through Ibn Abi Maryam who said, narrated to us, Ibn Lahee’ah from Abul Aswad from Amir bin Abdullah bin Zubair, from his father…alhadith.

Keeping in mind that this an odd Isnad of this hadith, and Ibn Lahee’ah and then Al-Bazzar were alone with this narrations, there are two points regarding this:

[1]. In the Isnad of the report Ibn Lahee’ah (Abdullah bin Lahee’ah) was weak with the agreement of scholars as none of the three Abdullah, who were aware of actual narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah, are the narrator of this report. And those three Abdullah were: Abdullah bin Mubarak, Abdullah bin Wahb and Abdullah bin Yazeed Al-Muqree. Besides that, Ibn Lahee’ah is alone in narrating this hadith through this Isnad, as said by Al-Bazzar as in “Kashf Al-Astar”. And him being alone in narrating this hadith with this Isnad is sufficient for the rejection of this, and not to be counted it as supportive proof. This is because, singular narrations (Ifrad) are accepted from those who were Huffaz. There are long discussions with regards to Ibn Lahee’ahs reports, and scholars are divided into following categories with regards to him:

A). Those who consider his reports to be weak, regardless of whomsoever narrates from him.

B). Those who consider his those reports which are narrated by the three Abdullah, to be authentic.

With regards to the second opinion, its further debatable whether it means that there hearing from Ibn Lahee’ah is proven or the hadith with that chain itself is proven. But in any case, the hadith under discussion was not reported by any of the three Abdullah. Hence therefore the Isnad remains munkar, and it can’t be counted as a support for those narrations whose Isnad are not even closer to this.

Ibn Sa’d said: People used to read Ahadith which were not from his narrations, and he did not say anything. (and it was taken as his narration). When it was asked to him, he replied: “What is my sin? They come to me reading narrations from books and then leave. If they had asked me, I would have said that it was not my Hadith”.[Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d]

Abdur-Rahman Ibn Mahdi said: I do not count anything which I heard from among the narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah, except what was narrated by Ibn Mubarak and his likes.

Yahya ibn Mu’een said: He was nothing, regardless of whether his conditions were changed or not.

And in another report Ibn Mu’een said: “He was nothing in all of what he narrates”. Abu Zar’ah was asked regarding those people who heard him earlier, he replied: “Hearing of early and later narrators are equal (in terms of authenticity). However, Ibn Mubarak used to look for his Asl (books etc) and they wrote from it. And all others used to took from Shaykh, and Ibn Lahee’ah didn’t hold (remember) his narrations, and he was from among those who are not to be taken as proof”. Ibn Abi Hatim said: I asked my father, “Is Ibn Lahee’ah to be taken as proof when Ibn Mubarak and Ibn Wahb narrates from him?” He replied, No. [Al-Jarh wa At-Ta’deel (5/147)]

Imam Ibn Hibban said: “I studied narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah narrated by early narrators and later narrators, so I found Takhleet (confusion, mix up between different narratons) in his later narrations, and many narrations which did not narrated by early narrators. So I back to check it for support, so I found him performing Tadlees from weak narrators from those whom Ibn Lahee’ah considered to be trustworthy. And in that way those fabrication were attributed to him.” [Al-Majrooheen (2/12)]

DaarQutni said in his short book “Ad-Du’afa wa Al-Matrookeen”: Those narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah which came through Ibn Mubarak, Al-Muqree and Ibn Wahb are to be taken for support.

By all these quotes it is evident that Ibn Lahee’ah was himself weak even before his books were burnt, but his early narrations are to be taken as support and later narrations shouldn’t be taken even as support, because of possibility of Tadlees and Takhleet, specially when he came up with with an odd Isnad which was not narrated by anyone like him or better than him. Ibn Lahee’ah was a Mudallis and as we know Ibn Lahee’ah didn’t affirmed his hearing in the tradition under discussion, rather he narrates it with ‘an’ana form. Besides that even those traditions in which he affirmed his hearing are doubtful whether he heard it or not, that is because of his weakness he many a times changed ‘an’ana to haddathna. For more detail on the status of Ibn Lahee’ah refer to the book “An-Naqd Al-Binna li Hadeeth Asmaa” (pg. 41 onwards) by Shaykh Tariq Awadhullah, where the author analyzed all the views regarding Ibn Lahee’ah.

[2]. The second point which is to be looked into, Al-Bazzar was alone in reporting this through the route of Ibn Lahee’ah. Al-Bazzar was although a Hafiz of Hadith, but was also known for his mistakes in Sanad and Matan.

Abu Ahmed Al-Hakim said, “He did mistakes in Sanad and Matan”. Abu Abdullah Al-Hakim said, “I asked Daar Qutni regarding him, to which he replied that he used to make mistakes in Sanad and Matan.” Nasai criticized him, but he was thiqah who made many mistakes. [Meezan Al-E’itedal (1/124)]

Anas bin Malik

Reported by Khatib Baghdadi in his “Tarikh Baghdad” (12/91):

أخبرنا النجار حدثنا أبو الحسن علي بن محمد بن شداد المطرز حدثنا محمد بن محمد بن سليمان الباغندي حدثنا أبو سهيل القطيعي حدثنا حماد بن زيد بمكة وعيسى بن واقد عن أبان بن أبي عياش عن أنس بن مالك قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إنما مثلي ومثل أهل بيتي كسفينه نوح من ركبها نجا ومن تخلف عنها غرق

“’Ubaydullah bin Muhammad An-Najjar à Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Shaddad Al-Mutarriz à Muhammad bin Muhammad Al-Baghandi à Abu Suhail Al-Qatee’ee à Hammad bin Zaid & ‘Isa bin Waqid à Aban bin Abi Ayyash à Anas bin Malik………alhadith.” I couldn’t find any Jarh or Ta’deel on Abul Hasan Al-Mutarriz. Khatib listed him in Tarikh Baghdad but did not mention any Jarh or Ta’deel. I couldn’t come across any info regaring Abu Suhail Al-Qatee’ee.

And Aban bin Abi Ayyash was ‘Matrook’. Al-Fallas, Ibn Mu’een, Ahmed bin Hanbal and others declared him ‘matrook’. [Tahdheeb (1/85)] Ibn Hajar said, Matrook. [Taqreeb (1/51)]

Abu Tufayl

Reported by Ad-Dawlabi in “Al-Kuna wa Al-Asma”:

“Rawh bin Al-Farj à Yahya bin Sulaiman Abu Sa’eed Al-Ju’fi à Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi à Aslam Al-Makki à Abu Tufayl ‘Amir bin Wathilah à Prophet (SAW)…..alhadith.”

In the chain above, both Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi and Aslam Al-Makki are Majhool. Regarding Abdul Karim bin Hilal Dhahabi said: I am not aware who he is. [Al-Meezan (2/647)]. Aslam Al-Makki was also unknown. No one mention him besides Ibn Hibban who listed him among “Ath-Thiqat” (4/46). No one narrates from Aslam Al-Makki except Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi (who himself was unknown), and these type of narrators are considered Majhool in correct view, but Ibn Hibban would consider them Thiqah and he was famous for making Tawtheeq of Majhool narrators. In another version of this report Abu Tufayl narrates from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, instead of directly from Prophet (SAW). [Al-Mutalib Al-‘Aliyah (16/220)] That is probably a mistake from some narrator. In any case the report is very weak, as said earlier. WAllahu A’alam

Athar of Ali bin Abi Taalib

Besides all the above quoted Marfoo’ narrations, there is a Mawqoof Athar of Ali (R.A.). It was reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his “Al-Musannaf” (6/372, h.32115):

Ibn Abi Shayba said: Narrated to us Mu’awiyah bin Hisham who said, narrated us ‘Ammar from A’mash from Minhal from Abdullah bin Al-Haarith from Ali (R.A.), he said, “Our similitude in this Ummah is like the Ark of Noah and the book Al-Hittah in Bani Israel”.

All the narrators of this are reliable. But that is not something specific to the members of household of the Prophet (SAW). Ali did not say, “Ahlul Bayt are like ark of Noah”, he rather said, “our similitude are like ark of Noah”. It means similitude of believers or companions are like ark of Noah. And that is what Quran tells us:

)ومن يشاقق الرسول من بعد ما تبين له الهدى ويتبع غير سبيل المؤمنين نوله ما تولى ونصله جهنم وساءت مصيرا(

And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination. [Qur’an, An-Nisa, verse 115]

In conclusion, we say, all the isnad of this hadith is based on rejected, unknown or weak narrators, some isnad have single common narrator who was very weak or rejected. Hence we conclude, what was concluded that this hadith, with all its Isnad, is very weak hadith. WAllahu A'lam

 Books used while compiling this article:

1. Fadha'il As-Sahabah by Ahmed bin Hanbal, with Ziyadaat of Abdullah bin Ahmed and Abu Bakr Al-Qatee'i [t. Wasiyullah Abbas, Mu'assasah Ar-Risalah], 2. Mustadrak lil Hakim, Daarul Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah. 3. Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb by Ibn Hajr, Daarul Fikr. 4. Tabarani Al-Kabeer, Hamdi As-Salafi, Maktaba al-Uloom wal Hikam. 5. Tabarani Al-Awsat, Daarul Haramain. 6. Tabarani Al-Sagheer, Rawdh Ad-Daani, Maktabah Al-Islami Beirut. 7. Meezan Al-E'tedal, Daarul Ma'rifah Beirut. 8. Lisan Al-Meezan, Mu'assasat Al-Ilmi. 9. Ash-Sharee'ah, Abu Bakr Al-Aajurri, Mu'assasah Al-Qurtubah. 10. Al-Majrooheen by Ibn Hibban, t. Mahmood Ibrahim Zayad. 11. Tabaqat Al-Mudalliseen by Ibn Hajar, Maktabah Al-Manar 12. Al-Ilal by Daar Qutni, Daar Tayyiba Riyadh. 13. Majma' Az-Zawa'id by Al-Haythami, Daarul Kutub Al-Ilmiyya Beirut. 14. Kashf Al-Astar by Al-Haythami, Mu'ssasat Ar-Risalah. 15. Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Maktabah Ar-Rushd Riyadh. 16. Al-Matalib Al-'Aliyah by Ibn Hajar, Daarul Asimah, Daarul Ghaith Saudi. Risalah Ilmiyyah for Jami'ah Imam Muhammad bin Sa'ud.  17. Hilyat Al-Awliya, Daarul Kitab Al-Arabi. 18. Tarikh Baghdad by Khatib Baghdadi, Daarul Kutub Al-Ilmiyya Beirut. 19. Mukhtasar Istadrak Adh-Dhahabi by Ibn Mulaqqin vol.3, Tahqeeq- Sa'd Aal Humayyid, Daarul Aasimah Riyadh. 20. Ahadeeth Shuyukh Ath-Thiqat Qadhi Abi Bakr Al-Ansari, t. Hatim Al-Awni, Daarul Alam al-Fawa'id. etc. 21. Fath Al-Wahhab vol.2 by Ahmed Al-Ghumari, t. Hamdi As-Salafi.