A Narrative on the Schematic Arrangement of the Qur’ān (Part 2/2)

Hadīth

 

Al-‘Uqaylī[1] records: in the opinion of Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn, he is laysa bi shay’ and his narratives are nothing not even worth a penny and at another place he has called him da‘īf. ‘Abdullāh ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal heard his father say that Ayyūb ibn ‘Utbah’s narratives from Yahyā ibn Abī Kathīr have discrepancies while from others he is okay. (In this narrative, he narrates from Yahyā ibn Abī Kathīr)

Ibn Abī Hātim[2] records that in the opinion of Abū Zur‘ah, he is da‘īf.

Al-Bukhārī[3] says that he is layyin.

Al-Nasā’ī[4] says that he is mudtarib al-hadīth.

Ibn Hajar[5] says the he is da‘īf.

Al-Mizzī records: ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī, Ibrāhīm ibn Ya‘qūb al-Juzjānī, ‘Amr ibn ‘Alī, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Ammār al-Mawsilī and Muslim ibn al-Hajjāj regard him to be da‘īf; al-‘Ijlī remarks about him: yuktabu hadīthuhū wa laysa bi al-qawī; Ya‘qūb ibn Sufyān regards him to be da‘īf; al-Dāraqutnī says: yutrak.[6]

 

Here are the two mursal narratives:

 

i.

 

Abū Qilābah

 

        Khālid ibn Mihrān

 

Ibn ‘Ulayyah                                                   Wuhayb

 

Ya‘qūb ibn Ibrāhīm                                          ‘Abd al-A‘lā

 

      al-Tabarī                                                   Ibn Durays

 

Abū Qilābah ‘Abdullāh ibn Yazīd died in 104/ 106 or 107 AH.[7]

Moreover, Khālid ibn Mihrān is a mudallis[8] and this narrative is an ‘an‘anah from him.

Though most authorities have regarded him to be a trustworthy narrator, in the opinion of Abū Hātim, he is: yuktabu hadīthuhū wa lā yuhtajju bihī.[9]

 

ii.

 

Sa‘īd ibn Abī Hilāl

 

Layth ibn Sa‘d

 

 ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālih

 

Abū ‘Ubayd

 

 

Besides inqitā‘ (Sa‘īd ibn Abī Hilāl died in 149 AH[10]), another flaw in the chain is the existence of ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālih. Al-Dhahabī[11] records about ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālih: wa lahū manākīr. Al-‘Uqaylī[12] records that ‘Abdullāh ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal asked his father about ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālihwho replied that initially he was trustworthy but later he became dubious (kāna awwala amrihī mutamāsikanthumma fasada bi ākharah), and that he is laysa huwa bi shay’, and at another instance ‘Abdullāh ibn Ahmad says that his father mentioned ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālihand censured him and expressed his disgust at him (dhammahū wa karihahū) and said that he narrated a book or narratives from Layth who narrated them from Ibn Abī Dhi‘b. However, Ahmad denied that he (Layth) narrated anything from Ibn Abī Dhi‘b. Ibn Hibbān[13] says that he is munkar al-hadīthin the extreme sense (munkar al-hadīth jiddan) and he would narrate things from trustworthy people which would not sound as theirs. While explaining the reason for the existence of manākīr in his narratives, Ibn Hibbān goes on to say that he had a neighbour who was an evil person and that he (Ibn Hibbān) heard Ibn Khuzaymah say that this person would fabricate narratives from ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālih. He would write these narratives in a handwriting which would resemble that of ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālihand would throw the pieces of paper on which it was written in his house among his books. ‘Abdullāh thinking that it was his handwriting would take these pieces and would narrate the narratives written on them. According to al-Nasā’ī,[14]he is laysa bi thiqah. Al-Mizzī[15] records that when ‘Abd al-Mu’min ibn Khalaf al-Nasafī asked Sālihibn Muhammad about him, he replied that though Yayhyā ibn Ma‘īn regards him to be trustworthy, to him he lies in hadīth (yakdhibu fī al-hadīth). In the opinion of Ahmad ibn Sālih, he is muttahamūn laysa bi shay’. Al-Dhahabī[16] records that ‘Alī ibn al-Madīnī said that he had not narrated anything from ‘Abdullāh ibn Sālih. Ibn Hajar[17] records that he is sadūqkathīr al-ghalatand is reliable when he narrates from his book (thabtunfī kitābihī) and is forgetful (kānat fīhi ghaflah). 

Next, the chain of narration of the narrative attributed to ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) quoted earlier is reproduced below:

 

‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd

 

al-Musayyib ibn Rāfi‘

 

‘Āsim ibn Bahdalah

 

Ibrāhīm ibn Tahmān                               ‘Amr ibn Abī Qays

 

Mu‘ādh ibn Hānī                                  Hukkām ibn Salim

 

al-Dārimī                                        Muhammd ibn Humayd

 

                                                           al-Tabarī

In the above chain, following narrators are considered suspect by authorities:

i. al-Musayyib ibn al-Rāfi‘

Al-Alā’ī[18] records that Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that al-Musayyib ibn Rāfi‘ has not heard anything from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta). Al-Mizzī[19] records that ‘Abbās al-Dūrī reports from Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn that al-Musayyib ibn al-Rāfi‘ has not heard from any Companion of the Prophet (sws) except Barā’ ibn ‘Āzib and Abū Iyās ‘Āmir ibn ‘Abdah. Ibn Abī Hātim[20] says that according to his father, Abū Hātim, his narratives from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) aremursal and at another instance he is said to have remarked that al-Musayyib ibn al-Rāfi‘ has neither met Ibn Mas‘ūd (rta) nor ‘Alī (rta).

 

ii. ‘Āsim ibn Bahdalah

Authorities like Abū Hātim, Ibn ‘Ulayyah, Abū Ja‘far al-‘Uqayli and al-Dāraqutnī are of the opinion that he does not have a sound memory.[21]

 

IV. Conclusion

The questions which arise on its text and the weakness in the chain of narration of the variants of this narrative warrant that it should not be accepted. It is perhaps because of these flaws that none of the authors of the six canonical collections have included this narrative in their collections.