This article contains 4 authentic proofs of placing the hands on chest in Salaah.
Proof 1) The hadeeth of Sahl ibn Sa’d radhi Allahu anho
Proof 2) The Hadeeth of Waa’il ibn Hujr Radhi Allahu anho
Proof 3) The Hadeeth of Qasbiya ibn Hulb from his father radhi Allahu anho.
Proof 4) The hadeeth of Tawoos (rahimahullah)
The material included in this article are taken From The Works of-:
Shaikh ul Allaamah Al-Haafidh Abu Taahir Zubayr Alee Za’ee (May Allah Preserve him)
Shaikh ul Allaamah Al-Haafidh Thanaullaah Zayaa (May Allah Prserve Him)
Shaikh ul Allaamah Al-Haafidh Badee ‘ud-Deen Shaah Raashidi as-Sindhee (May Allah have Mercy upon him)
Translated and Compiled by: Raza Hassan
Before we continue, It is important to know the meaning of Chest i.e ‘Sadr’ in arabic. In the arabic dictionary of deoband, Qamoos Al Waheed pg 915, the word ‘Sadr’ means “the chest of a Human (From beneath the throat upto the tummy)”.
So we come to know that chest does not only mean the chest which we normally believe it to be in english or urdu. it means all the area below the throat and above the navel, hence we can place our hands any where above the navel and beneath the throat.
BUT FIRST… I would like to add 3 important bonus points for our deobandi and barelvi brothers and sisters that insist on the position that placing the hands on the chest is not the Sunnah. These 3 points should be more than enough for any layman deobandi or barelvi to agree with the fact that placing the hands on chest is the sunnah.
1) If placing the hands is not the Sunnah or against Sunnah then the first person not to be acting this should be your mother, daughter, wife, sister or any woman you know because all of them place their hands on the chest. Deobandis say that there is Ijma of women placing hands on chest but this is not true. Abdur Rahmaan Al Juzayri writes in Kitaab ul Fiqh ‘Ala Madhaahib Al Arba’ vol 1 Pg 251 that the hanbalees say that the sunnah for men and women is to place hands below the navel. So the claim of ijma from deobandis and barelvis is not right. Hence this sunnah of placing the hands below the navel must be implemented by their own women first and then inshaAllah come and argue with us but the reality is that they will not do it because placing the hands on chest is Sunnah for women as it is for men.
2) “Taqreer-e-Tirmidhi” written by Ashraf Ali thanvi deobandi, Published by Idaara Taleefaat-e-Ashrafyah, Multan reviewed by Mufti Justice Taqi Usmani deobandi. It is written on Page 82 of this book that:
“Some sahaba placed their hands above the navel which means on the Chest as other ahadeeth have the mention of the word ‘Sadr'(chest) and some sahaba placed their hands below the navel”
This is cover of the book:
This is the reference:
3) Allamah Sindhi Hanafi said
وبالجملة فكما صح أن الوضع هو السنة دون الإرسال ثبت أن محله الصدر لا غير وأما حديث أن من السنة وضع الأكف على الأكف في الصلاة تحت السرة فقد اتفقوا على ضعفه
Just as it is Sunnah to clasp the hands and not let them hang by one’s sides, It is proven that they are to be placed on the chest, not elsewhere. As for the hadeeth “It is Sunnah to place one hand over the other beneath the navel when praying”, the scholars agreed that it is Weak[Hashiyat Sindh Ala Ibn Majah Vol 2 page no.210]
We begin with the name of Allaah who is the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy. To proceed:
Sahl ibn Sa’d, may Allaah be pleased with him, reported, “The people were ordered to place their right hand upon their left forearm.” (Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, 1/102)
We can understand from this hadeeth that one should fold ones hands whilst in Salaah. Of course if the left hand were to be placed upon the left forearm as stated above then naturally, the hands would rest on the chest.
The forearm here means from the finger region of the hand right up to the elbow. In another hadeeth it is reported that, “He (sallelaho alaihi wa alaihi wasalam ) placed his right hand upon his left hand, wrist and forearm.”
(Sunan Nasaa’i with the footnotes of AllaamahSindhee(1/141),AbuDawood(1/112), lbnKhuzairnah(1/243,480) and Ibn Hibbaan (p.485) have all authenticated this narration).
The understanding of the above narrations is further reinforced by the hadeeth, “He used to place his hand upon his chest …” to the end of the narration. (Musnad Ahmad (5/226) with this wording also At-Tahqeeq of Ibn Hibbaan al-Jawzee (1/283) and( 1/338) in manuscript form).
This matter is further reported in many narrations which my respected teacher, Shaikh Muhammad Badee’ud-Deen Shah Ar-Raashidee has collated and analysed in this treatise.
Generally, according to the scholars of hadeeth, the narrations which are put forth by the Deobandi’s, Bareilwi’s and other branches of the Hanafi’s, according to the scholars of Hadeeth are all weak and rejected. One such narration possibly the one which is most frequently used, is of a report in Sunan Abee Dawood (p. 756). This narration includes ‘Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Ishaaq al-Koofee, who is unanimously known amongst the scholars to be weak.
One may refer to classical Hanafi texts such as Nasbur-Rayah of Zailee (1/314), Al-Banaaya Fee Sharh Hidaayah (2/208) and others. In actual fact, it is mentioned in the notes to the book Hidaayah al-Awlayn, (no. 17, 1/103) that this narration is, “… weak by consensus.”
Further, it should be known that the Deobandis have tampered with Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah, by adding the words, “… below the navel,” whereas the actual manuscript and various prints of Musannaf Ibn Abee Shaybah are free from any such addition.
Then a strange twist to this matter is the saying of the Hanafees that, “Men should place their hands below the navel and that women should place theirs upon there chest.” Subhaanallaah! There is no proof for this statement from any hadeeth – either authentic or weak – and nor is there any consensus upon such a distinction. In spite of this, all Hanafees are agreed upon this matter and practice it in their prayers.
May Allaah make this treatise a means of guidance and Sadaqah Jaariyyah. Haafidh Zubair Alee 22/9/1999
We say the prayer is the principal way to worship Allaah, the Almighty, and when a person stands in prayer, then, “He secretly converses with his Lord. ” (Muslim (1/208).
This is why no act should be performed within the Prayer which may conflict with good and suitable mannerisms. Rather, the Prayer should be offered with such humility that the fear of Allaah and taqwaa become apparent. Then it should be known that from man’s body, the heart is perceived as being of the greatest importance. As the great Prophet ( sallelaho alaihi wa alaihi wasalam ) said, “There is a piece of flesh in the body, if it sound and upright the whole body remains upright. If this part becomes corrupt then the whole body becomes corrupt. Verily this is the Heart.”(Mishkaat (2/241)
Then the heart is in proximity to the chest and is the abode of taqwaa as is mentioned in a hadeeth, “The Prophet pointed towards his chest and said thrice, “Taqwaa and protection are here.””(Muslim (2/317) with Nawawee)
This is why he ( sallelaho alaihi wa alaihi wasalam ) would place his hands upon the chest. It is the way to show absolute humility. The one praying should stand in front of his Lord with such an action and this is what is most befitting. Allaamah Shaikh Sa’dee Sheyraazee has also mentioned similar reasoning in very eloquent poetry prose.
There is no basis in hadeeth for the action of those people who are accustomed to placing their hands below the navel. In actual fact, such an action displays disrespect and, if one were to place ones hands upon the navel to welcome a respected person today, then he would be looked upon in a bad light. How then can one stand in such a position in front of the King of all kings? Rather a person should place his hands upon his chest with all humilty offering his heart to his Lord. This was also the practice and method of the Prophet of Allaah.
This is a short treatise which is written for the general people so that they may attain guidance. I hope that this will become a means of guidance and Allaah is the One who guides.
Proof number 1 for placing the hands on chest:
To Proceed: There are some ahadeeth which are mentioned in regard to this important matter of where the hands are to be placed during the prayer.
The Hadeeth of Sahal ibn Sa’d(ra)
Hadeeth No. 1
Abu Haazim Sahl ibn Sa’d Saadee narrates that: All those people praying (Companions) were ordered to place their right hand upon the left Zara’ (all part from elbow to middle finger). Salmah ibn Deenaar mentioned that I understood this narration to be marfoo in reaching the Prophet.
Authenticity of the Hadeeth
It is sufficient that this hadeeth is recorded in Saheeh al-Bukhaari because the ahadeeth in Bukhaari have a special grade of authenticity compared to all other ahadeeth and this is also the decision of the Scholars of this Ummah. [Sharh Nukhbah p.224 and Tadreeb ar-Raawee of Suyootee p.25 and others).
Further Imaam Ibn Hazm in Al-Muhalla (4/114) and Ibn Qayyim in A’laam al-Muwaqqi’een (2/6, Indian print) have declared this narration authentic.
This hadeeth is marfoo as is stated by the narrator Abu Haazim and who other than the Prophet could have given such an order? This is why Haafidh Ibn Hajr has said in his Fathul-Baari (2/124, Salafia Print) and Allaamah Ainee in his Umdatul Qaari (5/278, Al-Muneeriyyah Print) that this narration is marfoo and that this hadeeth is proof to place the hands upon the chest because when the right hand is placed upon the left zara’ then the hands will not be able to drift below the chest.
Zara’ means: “The Part from Elbow to the middle finger”.
Therefore, it is written in Ghareeb ul-Hadeeth by Al-Harbi (1/277) that:”Az-Zaraa’ is the part from bottom of elbow to the top of middle finger”
Moreover, this meaning is also written in the books of Lughat, for example See: “Lisaan al-Arab: 8/93, Taaj ul-Uroos: 1/5217, Kitaab al-Ayn: 2/96, Al-Mu’jam al-Waseet: 1/311, Tahdheeb al-Lughah: 2/189, Kitaab al-Kulliyaat: 1/730, and others”
The former teacher of Darul Uloom Deoband Maulaana Waheed uz-Zamaan Qaasmi al-Kairawaani, writes that:
“Zaraa’ means: The Part from Elbow to the Middle Finger” [See: Qamoos al-Jadeed: Pg 308, Pub. Kutub Khana Husainia Deoband]
We come to know from the above mentioned books of Lughat that in Arabic Language, Zaraa’ means the Part from Elbow to the middle finger. And in the hadeeth of Bukhari above, Prophet ordered to place right hand over left Zaraa’ which means to place the right hand over the left full arm from Elbow to the Middle Finger
This method should be tried by the reader to see what happens and then the matter will become clear, if Allaah wills.
Objections of some people
Some people object by saying that placing the hands over the zara’ doesn’t necessarily means to place them over the full Zaraa’. If it is placed in one part of zaraa’, such as on the wrist, even then the order of placing them on the zaraa gets fulfilled.
Read the following hadeeth of Bukhaari:
عن ميمونة قالت: «وضع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وضوءا لجنابة، فأكفأ بيمينه على شماله مرتين أو ثلاثا، ثم غسل فرجه، ثم ضرب يده بالأرض أو الحائط، مرتين أو ثلاثا، ثم مضمض واستنشق، وغسل وجهه وذراعيه، ثم أفاض على رأسه الماء، ثم غسل جسده، ثم تنحى فغسل رجليه» قالت: «فأتيته بخرقة فلم يردها، فجعل ينفض بيده» (صحیح البخاری :1 63 رقم 274)
Narrated Maimoonah (radiallah anha) that: Water was placed for the ablution of Allah’s Apostle after Janaba. He poured water with his right hand over his left twice or thrice and then washed his private parts and rubbed his hand on the earth or on a wall twice or thrice and then rinsed his mouth, washed his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out arid then washed his face and Zaraa and poured water over his head and washed his body. Then he shifted from that place and washed his feet. I brought a piece of cloth, but he did not take it and removed the traces of water from his body with his hand.”
In this hadeeth, the Prophet’s way of ablution has been described. And the following words have been used for the washing of arm: “وَغَسَلَ وَجْهَهُ وَذِرَاعَيْهِ”, meaning he (peace be upon him) washed his face and both his arms.
Now, does this also means “some part of zara (arm)” here? Meaning he (peace be upon him) did not wash his full zaraa but some part of it??
فماکان جوابکم فہوجوابنا۔
More Similar Ahadeeth with more clear and exact wordings and meanings
Hadeeth # 1:
حَدَّثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْوَلِيدِ، حَدَّثَنَا زَائِدَةُ، عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ كُلَيْبٍ، بِإِسْنَادِهِ وَمَعْنَاهُ، قَالَ فِيهِ: ثُمَّ وَضَعَ يَدَهُ الْيُمْنَى عَلَى ظَهْرِ كَفِّهِ الْيُسْرَى وَالرُّسْغِ وَالسَّاعِدِ، وَقَالَ فِيهِ: ثُمَّ جِئْتُ بَعْدَ ذَلِكَ فِي زَمَانٍ فِيهِ بَرْدٌ شَدِيدٌ فَرَأَيْتُ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهِمْ جُلُّ الثِّيَابِ تَحَرَّكُ أَيْدِيهِمْ تَحْتَ الثِّيَابِ
Al-Hassan bin Ali narrated to us, Abul Waleed narrated to us, Zaaidah narrated to us, from Aasim bin Kulayb, with the same isnaad and meaning, It says in it that: “He (peace be upon him) placed his right hand over the back of his palm, wrist, and arm…..” [Sunan Abu Dawood: Kitaab as-Salaat: Baab Rafa al-Yadain fi as-Salah: H. 727]
Explanation: This hadeeth says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to place his right hand over the wrist and arm of his left hand. According to this hadeeth, if you put your right hand over this whole part of left hand, then the hands will automatically come up to the chest. Therefore this hadeeth too, is the proof of placing the hands on the chest.
Shaikh Albaani, while refuting a Muqallid, said:
” ”فلوأنه حاول يوماما أن يحقق هذاالنص الصحيح في نفسه عمليا -وذلک بوضع اليمني علي الکف اليسري والرسغ والساعد، دون أي تکلف- وجد نفسه قد وضعهماعلي الصدر! ولعرف أنه يخالفه هو ومن علي شاکلته من الحنفية حين يضيعون أيديهم تحت السرة،وقريبامن العورة،”
If, someday, this person acts upon this Saheeh hadeeth, by placing his right hand over the palm, wrist, and arm of his left hand without any takallaf, then he will automatically find himself placing his hands on his chest. And he will come to know that when he and the Ahnaaf like him, place their hands below the navel and close to the private part, then they are actually going against this hadeeth.[Muqaddimah Sifaat as-Salaat an-Nabi: Pg 16]
Another Chain of this Hadeeth
أَخْبَرَنَا سُوَيْدُ بْنُ نَصْرٍ قَالَ: أَنْبَأَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ الْمُبَارَكِ، عَنْ زَائِدَةَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَاصِمُ بْنُ كُلَيْبٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي أَبِي، أَنَّ وَائِلَ بْنَ حُجْرٍ أَخْبَرَهُ قَالَ: ” قُلْتُ لَأَنْظُرَنَّ إِلَى صَلَاةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَيْفَ يُصَلِّي، فَنَظَرْتُ إِلَيْهِ فَقَامَ فَكَبَّرَ، وَرَفَعَ يَدَيْهِ حَتَّى حَاذَتَا بِأُذُنَيْهِ، ثُمَّ وَضَعَ يَدَهُ الْيُمْنَى عَلَى كَفِّهِ الْيُسْرَى وَالرُّسْغِ وَالسَّاعِدِ،
Suwayd bin Nadar informed us, he said: Abdullah bin al-Mubaarak informed us. From Zaaidah, he said: Aasim bin Kulayb narrated to us, he said: My Father narrated to me, Verily Waail ibn Hujr (radiallah anhu) said: “Then the Prophet (peace be upon him) placed his right hand over the back of his palm, wrist, and arm.” [Sunan Nasaa’ee: Kitaab al-Iftataah: H. 889]
Other chains of this hadeeth are also present in Musnad Ahmed, Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan (5/170 # 1860), Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah (Vol 1 Pg 243 H. 479) and others.
Proof number 2 for placing the hands on chest:
The Hadeeth of Waa’il ibn Hujr
Hadeeth # 2:
Waail ibn Hujr narrates that, “I prayed with the Prophet and he placed his right hand upon his left on his chest.” (Saheeh ibn Khuzaimah, 1/243).
Authenticity of the Hadeeth
Imaam Ibn Khuzaimah, in relation to his Saheeh Ibn Khuzaimah, states at the very beginning the condition that, “This is a compilation of authentic ahadeeth which go right back to the Prophet with authentic and complete chains of narration. No narrator in the chains is unknown nor is there any broken chain of narration.” (Ibn Khuzaimah, 1/2).
This proves that this narration is absolutely authentic and free from deficiency according to Imam Ibn Khuzaymah. Further it is mentioned by Imaam Nawawee in his explanation of Saheeh Muslim, (4/115, Egyptian print), in Sharhul-Muhazzab (3/315), Haafidh ibn Sayyid in An-Naas in An-Nafkhush Shuzaa (2/211), Haafidh Shamsud-Deen ibn Abdul Haadee al-Maqdisee in Al-Muharar fil-Hadeeth, (p. 44), Haafidh Zailee in Nasbur-Raayah (1/314), Ibn Hajr in Fathul-Baari (2/224), Talkhees al-Habeer (1/224, Egyptian), Ad-Darayah Fee Takhreej Ahadeeth al-Hidaayah (1/128, Egyptian), and in Buloogh al-Maraam (p. 55), Aliaamah Ainee Hanafee in Umdatal-Qaaree (5/379, Al-Muneeriyyah Print), Imaam Shawkaanee in Naylal-Awtaar(Zn 15), Aliaamah Mujadiddud-Deen Fairozabaadee in Safaras-Sa’dah, Aliaamah al-Murtada az-Zubaidee Hanafee in Aqoodul-Jawaahir al-Muneefah (1/59) – (these) and others have all reported this hadeeth.
Further, Imaam Ibn Sayyid an-Naas, Haafidh Ibn Hajr, Aliaamah Ainee and Aliaamah Shawkaanee have all declared this narration authentic. Likewise, Mulla Qaaim Sindhee in his Risaalah Fauz al-Kiraam and Muhammad Hashim Sindhee in Dirham us-Surrah have stated this hadeeth to be authentic (saheeh).
Also, Ibn Nujaym Hanafee in Al-Bahr ar-Raqaa’iq, Allaamah Abul Hasan al-Kabeer as-Sindhee in Fathul-Wadeed Sharh Abee Dawood, Aliaamah Muhammad Hayaat Sindhee in his Fathul-Ghafoor and Shaikh Abu Turaab Raashidullaah Shah Raashidee in his Darjud-Duroor have all stated this hadeeth to be authentic (saheeh).
It can be seen then that this hadeeth in its chain of narration and meaning, is clear as it informs us that the Sunnah of the Prophet is to place the hands upon the chest in the prayer.
Analysis of its Isnaad (Chain):
Its chain is like this:
Abu Moosa Muhammad bin Muthna informed us, Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel narrated to us, Sufyaan ath-Thawree narrated to us, From Aasim ibn Kulayb, From His Father Kulayb bin Shihaab, From Waail ibn Hujr [radiallah anhu]
Waa’il bin Hujr:
The first narrator of its chain is the Companion of the Mesenger of Allah [peace be upon him], Waa’il bin Hujr [radiallah anhu]. The Ahlu-Sunnah Wal Jama’ah are agreed upon that all the Companions are incomparable in Adal and Thaqahat.
Kulayb bin Shihaab:
Imam Ibn Sa’d said: “Kulayb is Siqah and is the narrator of many narrations. I have seen the experts of the fields praising his narrations, and they used to consider him Hujja” [Al-Tabaqaat Al-Kubra: Vol 6 Pg 123, Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb Vol 8 Pg 400]
Imam Abdur Rahmaan bin Abi Haatim said that Imam Abu Zur’ah was asked about Kulayb bin Shihaab, so he said: “He is Siqah.” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 7 Pg 167]
Abdullah bin Ahmed narrates that My Father (Ahmed bin Hanbal) said: “Aasim narrates from his Father Kulayb, and he is the same from whom Ibraheem bin Muhaajir narrates.” [Al-Illal: 1886]
Aasim bin Kulayb:
Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een and others have declared him Siqah. [Mizaan al-I’tidaal Vol 4 Pg 12]
Maymooni narrates that Imam Ahmed declared him Siqah. [Sawalat : 356]
Imam Abu Bakr al-Athram narrates, he said: I heard from Imam Ahmed saying that: “There is nothing wrong in the hadeeth of Aasim bin Kulayb.” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 6 Pg 350]
Imam Abu Haatim said that: Aasim bin Kulayb is Saalih al-Hadeeth. [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 6 Pg 350]
Imam Abu Dawood said that: Aasim bin Kulayb is better than the people of Koofah. And Imam Ibn Hibban has added him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat. [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: Vol 5 Pg 49]
Imam Ibn Sa’d said: Aasim is Siqah and Hujja. [Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra: Vol 6 Pg 341
Imam Awzaa’ee said: There is no major scholar from the People of Knowledge living, upon whom you people can rely on, except one Koofi Scholar, Abbaas said: That is Sufyaan ath-Thawree. [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 4 Pg 222]
Imam Sufyaan ibn Uyainah said: I did not see a person more well verse with Halal and Haraam than Sufyaan ath-Thawree. Ibn al-Muarak said, I did not see a great person like Sufyaan ath-Thawree. Imam Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan said, I did not see a Haafiz like Sufyaan. [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 4 Pg 223]
Yahya ibn Ma’een said: Sufyaan is the leader of the Believers in Hadeeth. [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 4 Pg 225]
Imam Dhahabi said: The Experts of the Field are agreed upon Sufyaan being Siqah and Hujjat, even though he used to do tadlees from Du’afa. [Mizaan al-I’tidaal: Vol 3 Pg 244]
The Hanafi Objection on Sufyaan ath-Thawree:
The ahnaaf claim that Sufyaan ath-Thawree is narrating this narration with “AN”, and Sufyaan is famous in making tadlees from Du’afa. Therefore the narration of such a narrator is unacceptable.
Answer to this Objection:
This narration of Sufyaan ath-Thawree is narrated in Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah with “AN”, but this narration will not become Da’eef due to this defect, because such narrations of Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah are affirmed of having heard, as Imam Nawawi writes:
“The Mu’an’an narrations of the Mudallis narrators from Saheeh Bukhaari, Muslim and the similar books like them, will be held affirmed of having heard.” [Taqreeb an-Nawawi with the Sharh of Tadreeb ar-Raawi]
Since there is a doubt of Inqita’ in the Mu’a’an narration of a Mudallis, that’s why the narration of that narrator is not accepted until the affirmation of having that hadeeth heard directly is done from that narrator.
Since Imam Bukhaari, Imam Muslim, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, and Imam Ibn Hibban etc have affirmed that they will not take evidence from the Munqati’ narrations in thier books, that’s why the mu’an’an narrations of these books will be considered affirmed of having heard.
Imam Ibn Khuzaymah has narrated many mu’an’an narrations of Mudalliseen in his Al-Musnad as-Saheeh (Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah). He has shown his rejection to the ahadeeth in which he could not find the affirmation of hearing. A few such examples are given below:
“I declare this narration to be an exception from the Saheeh ahadeeth, because I do not think that Muhammad bin Ishaaq has directly heard this hadeeth from Muhammad bin Muslim, and he has commited Tadlees in it.” [Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah: Vol 1 Pg 71] “Abu Ishaaq has narrated this narration with “AN” that’s why there is some problem in this narration, because I do not know about his Samaa in this narration.” [Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah: Vol 1 Pg 212] “I do not know whether Abu Ishaaq has heard this hadeeth from Burayd or has committed tadlees.” [Vol 2 Pg 152] From the above mentioned examples, it becomes clear that those mu’an’an narrations of Mudalliseen which were affirmed of hearing, upon them Haafidh Ibn Khuzaymah gave the verdict of authenticity in the beginning. And the narrations in which he was not aware of the affirmation, he showed his rejection to those ahadeeth. In the hadeeth under discussion, he was certainly aware of the affirmation of hearing that’s why he maintained the verdict of authenticity on this hadeeth.
Secondly, If a reliable Shaahid or Mutaabi’at is found for a Mudallis narrator, then the accusation of tadlees gets removed. A strong Shahid of the above narration is present in Musnad Ahmed (5/226 H. 22313), Al-Tahqeeq fi Ikhtilaaf ul-Hadeeth by Ibn al-Jawzi (1/28 H. 477), so the tadlees in this narration is no longer harmful.
Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel:
His full name is Abu Abdullah Mu’ammal bin Isma’eel Al-Qarshi Al-Udwi Al-Basri. The detailed research on him is as follows:
The following narrations of Mu’ammal are present in Sihaah Sittah:
– Saheeh Bukhaari = (H. 2700, and according to a raajih qaul H. 7083 in Ta’leeq Form)
– Sunan Tirmidhi = (H. 415, 672, 1822, 1948, 2145, 3266, 3525, 3906, 3949)
– Sunan Nasaa’ee: Al-Sughra = (H. 4097, 4589)
– Sunan Ibn Maja = (H. 2013, 2919, 3017)
Criticizm on Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel:
The following are the criticizms narrated regarding Mu’ammal:
1. Abu Haatim ar-Raazi: “Sadooq, Strictly Follows the Sunnah, Makes Abundant Mistakes, Write his narrations” [Kitaab al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 8/374]
2. Zikriyah bin Yahya As-Saaji: “He is sadooq, but makes many mistakes. He has errors that would take too long to be mentioned.” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]
NOTE: From the author of Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (Hafidh Ibn Hajar) to Imam As-Saaji, the chain is not present. Therefore this (criticism and) narration is Mardood (Rejected).
3. Muhammad bin Nasar al-Marwazi: “If Muammal alone relates a certain narration then it becomes obligatory to pause and research the hadeeth as he had a bad memory and erred excessively” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]
* This saying is also chain-less, and is rejected due to going against the Jumhoor.
4. Ya’qoob bin Sufyaan al-Faarsi: “Muammal is a great sunni shaikh. I heard Sulaiman bin Harb praise him. Our shaikhs would advise us to take his hadeeth, only that his hadeeth are not like the hadeeth of his companions. At times it is obligatory upon the people of knowledge to distance themselves from his narrations as he narrates munkar ahadeeth from even his authentic teachers. This is worse for had he narrated these munkar ahadeeth from weak authorities we would have excused him.” [Kitaab al-Ma’rifat wal Taareekh: 3/52]
* If this Jarah is from Sulemaan bin Harb then Ya’qoob al-Faarsi is among the Admirers (Mothaqeen) of Mu’ammal; and if this Jarah is from Ya’qoob then Sulemaan bin Harb is among the Admirers (mothaqeen) of Mu’ammal.
5. Abu Zur’ah: “There are a lot of Mistakes in his hadeeth” [Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 4/228 T. 8949]
* This saying is also chain-less (hence rejected).
6. Ibn Sa’d: “He is Thiqah, makes many mistakes.” [Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d: 5/501]
7. Daraqutni: “Thiqah, makes many mistakes.” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]
* This saying is contradictory to the praise of Imam Daraqutni as is coming ahead, and it is also not proven from The author of Tahdeeb to Daraqutni. Mu’ammal is not mentioned in the book of Imam Daraqutni “Kitaab ad-Du’afa wal Matrokeen”.
8. Abd ul-Baaqi bin Qaani’: “Saalih makes Mistakes” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]
* This saying is chain-less. Abdul Baaqi bin Qaani himself is criticized of being Mukhtalat. Some have praied him and some have criticized him. [See: Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 2/532, 533]
9. Hafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani: “He is truthful, weak in memory.” [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb]
10. Imam Bukhaari: “Munkir ul-Hadeeth” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/526, Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: 4/228, Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]
* In all the three books, this saying is mentioned without any chain and without any reference. Whereas on the contrary to it, Imam Bukhaari has mentioned Mu’ammal in Al-Taareekh al-Kabeer (Vol 8 Pg 49 T. 2107) and did not criticize him. Mu’ammal is also not mentioned in Kitaab ad-Du’afa of Imam Bukhaari, and the narrations of Mu’ammal are present in Saheeh Bukhaari, See: H. 2700, 2083 with Fath ul-Bari. Imam Mizzi said: “Imam Bukhaari has narrated from him as Istish-haad” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/527]
Haafidh Muhammad Taahir al-Maqdasi has written regarding a narrator that: “In fact He (Bukhari) has taken narrations from him in many places as Istish-haad to indicate that he is Siqah”
This proves that Mu’ammal is Siqah according to Imam Bukhari, not Munkir ul-Hadeeth.
11. Ahmed bin Hanbal: “Mu’ammal is mistaken.” [Sawalaat al-Marwaazi: 53, Mawsoo’ah Aqwaal al-Imam Ahmed: 3/419]
It is an established saying that, even the Siqah narrators get mistaken (sometimes), therefore if such a narrator is Siqah according to the Jumhoor, then his proven Mistakes are to be left, and in his remaining narrations, he will be Hasan ul-Hadeeth.
Moreover see: Qawaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 275 and others.
12. The ciriticizm of Ibn al-Turkamaani al-Hanafi is rejected due to “Qeela (Passive Form)”. [See: Johar al-Naqi 2/30]
The Praise of Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel
On the contrary, Mu’ammal is proven to be Siqah by the following Muhadditheen:
1. Yahya ibn Ma’een: “Thiqah” [Taareekh Ibn Ma’een by Ad-Dauri: 235 Pg 591, Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel by Ibn Abi Haatim: 8/374]
In Kitaab al-Jarah wal Ta’deel, Imam Ibn Abi Haatim wrote that: “Ya’qoob bin Ishaaq narrated to us from what was written in the book from him, he said, Uthmaan bin Sa’eed (Imam Ad-Daarimi) narrated to us, he said: I said to Yahya ibn Ma’een: ‘What is the Condition of Mu’ammal when he narrates from Sufyaan? He replied: ‘He is Siqah’, I said to him: ‘Who is more beloved to you Mu’ammal or Ubaydullah?’ He declared both of them to be Equal” [Same Reference]
Ya’qoob bin Ishaaq al-Harwi is Siqah. He is mentioned in Taareekh al-Islaam of Haafidh Dhahabi [25/54]
Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, in Sharh Illal al-Tirmidhi, has narrated this saying from the book of Imam Uthmaan bin Sa’eed ad-Daarimi. [See: 541/2]
2. Ibn Hibban has mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (9/187) and said: “Make Mistakes”. Such a narrator is not Da’eef accrding to Imam Ibn Hibbaan. Imam Ibn Hibbaan has brought the narrations of Mu’ammal in his Saheeh. [See: Al-Ihsaan bitarteeb Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan Vol 8 Pg 253 H. 6681]
This proves that Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth or Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Ibn Hibbaan. The criticizm of “Make Mistakes” does not affect the narrator.
3. Imam Bukhaari: He narrated from Mu’ammal as Istish-haad in his Saheeh. It has been passed under the criticizm of Imam Bukhari above that Imam Bukhaari has narrated from Mu’ammal in ta’leeq form, therefore he is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth acording to him.
4. Sulemaan bin Harb: He praised him [The reference has been passed under the criticizm of Sufyaan al-Faarsi]
5. Ishaaq bin Rahwayh: “Thiqah” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 10/381]
* This saying is chain-less, therefore it is not proven.
6. Tirmidhi: Declared his narration, Saheeh [415, 672, 1948], Declared his narration, Hasan [6146, (3266)]
Note: The narrations without the brackets around, are narrated from the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan.
According to At-Tirmidhi Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth and Hasan ul-Hadeeth.
7. Ibn Khuzaymah: Authenticated him. [1/243 H. 479 etc]
The chain of Mu’ammal – AN – Sufyaan is authentic according to Imam Ibn Khuzaymah.
8. Ad-Daraqutni: Authenticated him in his Sunan. [2/186, H. 2261]
* Daraqutni wrote about the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan that, it is Saheeh. Meaning he is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth according to him from Sufyaan.
9. Al-Haakim = Authenticated him in al-Mustadrak on the conditions of Shaikhayn, and Dhahabi followed him in that. [1/384 H. 1418]
* This narration is narrated from the chain of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan thawree, therefore Mu’ammal is Siqah according to Imam Haakim and Dhahabi.
10. Dhahabi = “He is among the Siqaat” [Al-Abar fi Khabar min Ghabar: 1/274]
This proves that according to Imam Dhahabi, Mu’ammal is Siqah and the criticizm on him is rejected.
11. Ahmed bin Hanbal = He Narrated from him. Imam Ahmed has narrated narration from Mu’ammal in his Al-Musnad, for example see: [Musnad Ahmed: 1/16 H. 97, Shuyookh Ahmed fi Musnad al-Imam Ahmed: 1/49]
* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi Deobandi has written that: “All the Shuyookh of Ahmed are Siqah”
* Haafidh Haythami said: “Ahmed has narrated from him and his Shyookh are Siqah.” [Majma az-Zawaid: 1/80]
Meaning generally, with the exception of some narrators, all the teachers of Imam Ahmed are Siqah (according to Jumhoor).
12. Ali ibn al-Madeeni = He narrated from him as mentioned in Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (1/526) and Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (10/380) and others. See Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel (8/374)
* It is narrated from Abu al-Arab al-Qairawaani that: “Certainly Ahmed and Ali ibn al-Madeeni (usually) only narrate from Siqah narrators” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 9/114 T. 155]
13. Ibn Katheer ad-Dimashqi: In a hadeeth of Mu’ammal from Sufyaan, he said: “Its chain is Jayyid” [Tafseer ibn Katheer 4/423, Surah al-Ma’arij]
* Mu’ammal is Jayyid ul-Hadeeth, meaning Siqah and Sudooq according to Imam Ibn Katheer.
14. Al-Zayaa al-Maqdisi = He narrated a hadeeth from him in Al-Mukhtaarah (1/345 H. 237)
* Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Zaya.
15. Abu Dawood = Abu Ubayd al-Ajurri said, I asked Abu Dawood about Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel, thus he described his greatness and raised his status, except that he makes mistake in somethings. [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 18/527]
* This proves that according to the saying narrated from Imam Abu Dawood, Mu’ammal is Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to him, but the tawtheeq of Abu Ubayd al-Aajuri is not known, this saying is defective.
16. Haafidh al-Haythami = “Siqah and he has weakness in him.” [Majma az-Zawaid: 8/183]
* Meaning Mu’ammal is Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Haythami.
17. Imam Nasa’ee = He narrated from him in his Sunan (4097, 4589)
* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi Deobandi wrote: “The narrator of Sunan al-Sughra which is not criticized by Imam Nasaa’ee is Siqah according to him.” [Qawaaid Uloom ul-Hadeeth Pg 222]
18. Ibn Shaheen = He mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat [Pg 232 T. 1416]
19. Al-Ismaa’eeli = He narrated from him in his Mustakhraj (upon Saheeh Bukhaari). [See: Fath ul-Bari 13/33 Under H. 7083]
20. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani = He mentioned the hadeeth of Ibn Khyzaymah in Fath ul-Baari (which contains Mu’ammal) and did not criticize it. [2/224 Under H. 740]
* Zafar Ahmed Thanvi said: “Whatever hadeeth Haafidh narrates in Fath ul-Baari, then it is Saheeh or Hasan according to him, as is affrmed in the Muqaddimah…….” [Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth Pg 89]
This proves that according to Thanvi, Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth or Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Haafidh Ibn Hajar. Meaning he recanted from his Jarah in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb.
21. Imam Busayri = He authenticated a hadeeth containing Mu’ammal and said: “This chain is Hasan due to Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel.” [Misbaah al-Zajajah VOl 2 Pg 130]
22. Ibn Sayyid an-Naas = He authenticated a hadeeth containing Mu’ammal [Sharh Tirmidhi Vol 2 Pg 211]
From this detail we come to know that Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel is Siqah and Sudooq, or Saheeh ul-Hadeeth and Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen, therefore the criticizm of some Muhadditheen upon him is Mardood. Among the criticizers, the criticizm of Imam Bukhari is not even proven. According to Imam Tirmidhi and the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen, if Mu’ammal narrates from Sufyaan then he is Siqah and Saheeh ul-Hadeeth. The saying of Haafidh Ibn Hajar that: “There is some weakness in his hadeeth from Sufyaan” [Fath ul-Baari: 9/239 Under H. 5172] is rejected due to going against te Jumhoor.
When it is proven that Mu’ammal is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth when he narrates from Sufyaan, so the criticizm of some Muhadditheen will be put on his narrations from other than Sufyaan.
At the end we say in conclusion that: Mu’ammal – AN – Sufyaan Thawree is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth; and Mu’ammal – AN – Ghair Sufyaan is Hasan ul-Hadeeth walhamdulillah.
Zafar Ahmed Thanvi Deobandi, after narrating a hadeeth of Mu’ammal – AN – Sufyaan, said that: “Its narrators are Siqah” [A’laa as-Sunan Vol 3 Pg 133 Under 865]
Moreover, Thanvi wrote about another narration of Mu’ammal that: “Thus its chain is Hasan.” [A’laa as-Sunan: 3/118, Under H. 85]
So this means that Mu’ammal is Siqah even according to Deobandis.
Total Number of Criticizers = 10.
Criticizm is not proven from some of them such as Bukhaari etc.
Total Number of Admirers = 22.
Praise is not proven from some of them such as Ishaaq bin Rahwayh.[Taken from: Ithbaat at-Ta’deel fi Tawtheeq Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel]
Abu Moosa Muhammad bin Muthana:
Abu Moosa Muhammad bin Muthana is the narator of Sihah Sittah. The Famous Muhadditheen such as: Yahya bin Sa’eed, and Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi are his Students.
Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: He is Siqah….. Abdur Abdur Rahmaan said: I asked my Father about Muhammad bin al-Muthana, he said: He is Saalih ul-Hadeeth. [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 8 Pg 95]
Khateeb Baghdaadi said: “He is Thiqah Thabat, the Ummah has relied upon his narrations.” [Mizaan ul-I’tidaal: Vol 6 Pg 318]
Hanafi Objection on the Hadeeth:
After narrating this hadeeth, Imam Shawkaani has written that, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah has authenticated it.
Molvi Abdul Azeez Deobandi Punjabi, while showing his anger for Imam Shawkaani, writes:
“Qaadhi Shawkaani is the one who didn’t even see this book, because this book is counted among those books which were extinct before and were rediscovered later on. Therefore, no eye has seen this book and neither is there is any remnants left of it. Yes, however, two volumes of this book are said to have been present in the library of Liyadan.” [Haashiah Nasb ur-Rayaa: Vol 1 Pg 314]
Furthermore he writes:
“Certinly Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah is not like Bukhaari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, and Nasaa’ee, rather he gives his verdict on a hadeeth after narrating it, like Imam Tirmidhi and Imam Haakim. If he renders a hadeeth to be Saheeh then he declares it to be Saheeh.” [Haashiah Nasb ur-Rayaa: Vol 1 Pg 315]
To stregnthen his congectural and ideological position, he writes, while trying to educt from the writing style of Haafidh Ibn Hajar that:
“The narration narrated by Waail bin Hujr is narrated with different wordings. In some of the wordings, there is no doubt of their authenticity. The criticizm is on this narration which contains the wording “Ala Sadrih (On Chest)”. Haafidh Ibn Hajr has written in Fath ul-Baari that the narration narrated by Waail ibn Hujr [radiallah anhu], which is narrated by Imam Abu Dawood and Imam Nasaa’ee with this wording that The Apostle of Allah [peace be upon him] placed his right hand upon the left hand in a way that it was on the joint of the hand and wrist.” Imam Ibn Khuzaymah has also narrated this narration and has declared it Saheeh. The narration of Waail which contains the wording of ‘Ala Sadrih’, Haafidh Ibn Hajr said about this narration in Fath ul-Baari that the narration of Waail ibn Hujr is also narrated by Imam Ibn Khuzaymah that the Prophet [peace be upon him] placed his hands on the chest, and in Musnad Bazzar it says, close to the chest, he did not narrate the tasheeh (authentication) of Imam Ibn Khuzaymah about this additional wording neither in Fath ul-Baari nor in Talkhees ul-Habeer and nor in Al-Dirayah” [Haashiah Nasb ur-Rayaa: Vol 1 Pg 316]
And Molvi Muhammad Haneef Gangohi has also raised the same arguement in Ghayat us-Sa’ayah Vo 3 Pg 42
Answer to this Objection:
Haafidh Ibn Hajar has narrated several ahadeeth in his books with reference to Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah. In some narrations, after narrating the hadeeth, he would say “Sahhahu ibn Khuzayma (Ibn Khuzaymah authenticated it)”, and sometimes he would say “Akhrajahu Ibn Khuzaymah (Ibn Khuzaymah took it out/narrated it)”. Due to his this style of writing, the Hanafi Scholars mistakenly thought that Imam Ibn Khuzaymah used the way of Imam Tirmidhi and Imam Haakim in the grading of ahadeeth.
With Due Praise to Allah, the manuscript of Ibn Khuzaymah has not only been found but it has also gone through the process of publication, and its publication has proved all the congectural and ideological guesses to be wrong. And this manuscript is not taken from the library of Liyadan, rather it is taken from Maktabah Ahmed al-Thalith Istanbul Turkey.
After the study of this book, it has become very clear that the way of Imam Ibn Khuzaymah is totally different than Imam Tirmidhi. When he starts a new chapter, he gives his verdict of authenticity to all the ahadeeth narrated in that chapter, and the narration which he does not consider to be authentic according to his conditions, then he would show his rejection to that hadeeth. The chapter under which Imam Ibn Khuzaymah has narrated those two narrations which are mentioned by Molvi Abdul Azeez Deobandi Punjabi in the Haashiah of Nasb ur-Rayaa, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah has started that chapter with the following words:
“This is the most abridged Musnad as-Saheeh based on the sayings of the Prophet, according to the conditions that we have mentioned in the beginning of Kitaab at-Tahaarah” [Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah: Vol 1 Pg 153]
In the beginning of Kitaab at-Tahaarah, he has written that:
“This is the most abridged Musnad Saheeh based on the sayings of the Prophet. Whatever ahadeeth we will mention under this chapter, their narrators, from beggining till the end, will be fulfilling the condition of Adal, and their chain will reach up to the prophet without any inqita. All its narators, Allah willing, are free from the defect of Jarah.” [Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah: Vol 1 Pg 3]
Under this chapter, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah has brought 708 Abwaab and 1469 ahadeeth, and in some of them he has shown his rejection, about whose authenticity he was not very sure, or his mentioned condition was not fulfilled by them. It should be kept in mind that Imam Ibn Khuzaymah has completely followed his conditions, therefore Allamah Jalal ud-Deen Suyuti writes;
“The status of Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah is high in authenticity than Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan, because Imam Ibn Khuzaymah is very cautious about this matter. He would reject a hadeeth as being unauthentic on a mere minute criticizm and says that ‘If this narration is authentic or if it is proven’ etc.”
From the publication of Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah and the explanation of Allamah Jalal ud-Deen Suyuti, the position of Molvi Abdul Azeez Deoband Punjabi and Molvi Haneef Gangohi gets proven to be wrong.
It should be noted that Qaadhi Shawkaani is not the only one who said that Ibn Khuzaymah has authenticated it, rather Muhaddith Ibn Sayyid an-Naas has also said that Ibn Khuzaymah has authenticated it. [Sharh Tirmidhi: Vol 3 Pg 211]
The Hanafi Objection on the Text of this Hadeeth:
Molvi Muhamad Haneef Gangohi, while discussing this hadeeth, wrote:
“Furthermore, its text also has idtiraab in it. Ibn Khuzaymah has narrated the words ‘Ala Sadrih (On Chest)’ Haafidh Al-Bazzar narrated ‘Inda Sadrih (Close to Chest)’, while Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated ‘Tahta Sadrih (Below the Navel)'” [Ghayat us-Sa’ayah: Vol 3 Pg 41]
Answer to this Objection:
Does this hadeeth really contains Idtiraab in it? To know the answer to this question, we first need to know what the definition of Mudtarib Hadeeth actually is.
“Mudtarib narration is the one which is narrated through different wordings. One narrator narrates contradictory words two or more than two times. Two or more narrators contradict each other, on the condition that he is Mutaqaarib in the words of Nawawi, Mutasawi in the words of Ibn as-Salaah, and Mutaqawim in the words of Ibn Jama’ah with a ‘waw’ and ‘meem’, and none of them can be preferred over the others. If one from the two or more than two narrations can be preferred over the others because of the Strong Memorization of its narrator, or due to the extensive tilmeedh (pupilship) of its narrator with his Shaikh, or due to the other reasons, then the preferred one will get the honor of acceptance, and that hadeeth will not at all be Mudtarib, neither the Raajih (Preferred) as is apprent, and nor will the Marjooh (inferior) be Mudtarib, rather it will be Shaadh or Munkir.” [Taqreeb an-Nawawi Ma’ Sharh Tadreeb ar-Raawi: Pg 93]
Meaning a narrator sometimes narrate different words and in other times he narrates different words than before; or several students of one Shaikh narrate contradictory words, then such a narration will be declared Mudtarib on the condition when none of them can be preferred over the others. The following are the situations of preference:
1. One student among all the students is the possessor of strongest memory.
2. Any of the students among the students, stayed with his Shaikh for a long time.
3. More than one students narrate the similar words, whereas only a few narrate different words than the majority.
Now let’s come and observe different routes of the narration under discussion, in light of this definition.
The hadeeth of Waail [radiallah anhu] present in the authentic Nuskha of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, is narrated without any determination of where to place the hands. The addition of ‘Tahta Sirra (Under the Navel)’ at the end of this narration was first done by Qaasim bin Qatlubagha and he said that its chain is Jayyid. Before him, many Hanafi scholars (Ibn Hummam Hanafi, Aynee Hanafi, Ibn Ameer al-Haaj Hanafi, Ibraheem Halbi Hanafi, and Saahib ul-Baher Hanafi) had presented several Da’eef ahadeeth and athaar to stregnthen their Madhab on this issue, but none of them presented this hadeeth as their evidence, even though they had a deep eye on Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah. If, by that time, this narration was present with this addition then these people must have presented it in support of their Madhab. The inconsideration of this hadeeth by these guys is an open proof that, by that time, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah had not been targeted by the negligence of any Copyist, or the Maslaki Ta’assub of any person. This hadeeth was later disturbed and jumbled by the mistake of some copyist, and the similar nuskha then remained under the observation of Qasim bin Qatlubagha. It is not difficult for the copyist to make such a mistake because right after this marfoo hadeeth, the athar of Ibraaheem Nakha’ee is present which contains the words ‘Tahta Sirrah’ at its end. Allamah Hayaat Sindhi Hanafi announces the acceptance of this fact with the following words:
“Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah has narrated this narration, and after that he has narrated the athar of Ibraaheem Nakha’ee. The starting words of both of them are almost the same, but the words of ‘tahta sirrah’ are present at the end of the athar (only). There are many Nuskhas (Manuscripts) of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, and the exact mention of where to place the hands is found in none of them, and the athar of Ibaraaheem is present in it with the words of ‘Tahta Sirrah’ and in some nukha the words of Tahta SIrrah are present at the end of the Marfoo hadeeth but the athar of Ibraaheem is not there.” [Darat fi Izhar Ghash naqad as-Sirat]
This detail makes it clear that the words of ‘tahta sirrah’ at the end of the Marfoo hadeeth are Ghair Mahfoodh (unpreserved), therefore it is not correct to present these words as a contradiction.
As far as the difference of ‘Ala Sadrih’ and ‘Inda Sadrih’ in Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah and Musand al-Bazzar is concerned, then this is not a kind of difference due to which we can reject the hadeeth, under discussion, by declaring it to be Mudtarib; because such a semantic difference is also found in the books of ahnaaf. Here is one example to prove this point:
Allamah Ibn Abideen said:
“Women and the homosexual should place their palm over the palm under their breasts, and in some Nuskhas of Munyah, it says to place them over the breast, in Hilyah it says that it is better to say that they should place them on chest as said by Jam al-Ghafeer, because when the hands are on chest then some part of the wrist must also be on the breast.” [Radd al-Mukhtaar Ala ad-Durrul Mukhtar: Vol 2 Pg 188]
Just like Ibn Abideen solved the word differences of the Nuskhas of Munyah, similarly, the word difference of ‘Ala Sadrih’ and ‘Inda Sadrih’ can also be solved. Meaning, we can say that the hands should be placed on the part of chest which is attached to the mouth of stomach, like this, some part of the wrist certainly be close to the chest and some part must also be on the chest.
Proof number 3 for placing the hands on chest:
Hadeeth # 3:
Qabiysa ibn Hulb the Taab’iee narrates from his father Hulb, may Allaah be pleased with him, that, “I saw the Prophet and he was turning to his right and left in the prayer and I saw that, in the prayer, he would place his right hand upon his left on his chest.” (Musnad Imaam Ahmad, 5/226)
Authenticity of the Hadeeth
The chain of narration of this hadeeth is saheeh as was stated by Imaam ibn Sayyid An-Naas in Sharh Tirmidhee and Haafidh Ibn Hajr in Fathul-Baari. Allaamah Nimawee Hanafee in Aathaarus-Sunan, (1/67) has also admitted that the chain of narration is, “Saheeh.”
Further, Allaamah Muhaddith Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree in Tuhfatul-Ahwadee the explantion of Tirmidhee writes, “All the narrators in this chain of narration are reliable/respected and this chain is complete.”
Analysis of the Chain of this hadeeth:
This narration is narrated with the following chain:
“Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan narrated to us, From Sufyaan ath-Thawree, (he said) Simaak bin Harb narrated to me, From Qabeesah bin Hulb, From his Father (Hulb at-Taa’ee) [radiallah anhu], From the Prophet [peace be upon him]”
Imam Ibn al-Jawzee has also narrated the same narration with the same words with his chain from Imam Ahmed. His chain is as follows:
“Ibn al-Hussain informed us, he said Ibn al-Mudhhib informed us, he said Ahmed bin Ja’far informed us, he said Abdullah bin Ahmed narrated to us, He said my father (Ahmed bin Hanbal) narrated to me, he said Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan narrated to us, From Sufyaan ath-Thawree, he said Simaak bin Harb narrated to me, From Qabeesah bin Hulb, From his Father (Hulb at-Taa’ee) [radiallah anhu], From the Prophet [peace be upon him]…The same hadeeth..” [Al-Tahqeeq by Ibn al-Jawzi: Vol 1 Pg 338]
Imam Tirmidhi has also narrated this narration with the same chain, and in ateast one Nuskha, the same text is mentioned which Imam Ahmed has narrated in his Musnad, as Muhaddith Abdul Haqq says that:
“Imam Tirmidhi narrated through the chain of Qabeesah bin Hulb From Hulb At-Taa’ee that he saw the Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] that he was placing his hands on the chest.” [Sharh Safar as-Sa’adat: Pg 44]
Inrotudction to the Narrators of this Hadeeth
Qabeesah bin Hulb:
Imam Ibn Abi Haatim said:
“Qabeesah bin Hulb is the son of Hulb Ta’ee [radiallah anhu] and the resident of Koofah. The real name of his father is Yazeed bin Qananah. He narrates from his Father, and his Father is one of the Companions (Sahabah). Simaak bin Harb narrated from him. I heard all this about him from my Father.” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 7 Pg 125]
The Reliable Imam, Imam Ijlee said: “He is a Koofi Tabi’ee, Siqah.” [Taareekh ath-Thiqaat: 1379]
Imam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat [5/319]
Imam Tirmidhi graded a hadeeth containing Qabeesah, as Hasan. [H. 252]
Baghwi graded one of his hadeeth to be Hasan. [Sharh us-Sunna: 3/31 H. 570]
Nawawi graded one of his hadeth by saying: “Its Isnaad is Saheeh”. [Al-Majmoo Sharh al-Madhab Vol 3 Pg 490]
Ibn Abdul Barr graded one of his hadeeth to be Saheeh. [Al-Isti’yaab fi Ma’rifatil Ashaab]
Hanafi Objection on Qabeesah bin Hulb:
Hanafis claim that Imam Nasaa’ee and Imam Ali ibn al-Madeeni have declared Qabeesah to be Majhool.
Answer to this Objection:
First of all, It is not proven from Imam Nasaa’ee and Ali ibn al-Madeeni that they declared him Majhool.
Haafidh Al-Mizzi has narrated without any chain from Imam Nasaa’ee and Imam Ali ibn al-Madeeni that they said: “He is Majhool.” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 15/221]
This saying is rejected due to many reasons:
1. It is Chain-less.
2. This saying is not found in Kitaab al-Illal of Imam Ibn al-Madeeni and Kitaab ad-Du’afa of Imam Nasaa’ee.
3. The narrator whose tawtheeq gets proven, then the jarah of “Majhool” or “La Yu’raf” are rejected.
4. This saying is against the tawtheeq of Jumhoor.
5. Ibn Hibbaan, Tirmidhi, Ijlee, Baghwi, Nawawi, Ibn Abdil Barr, and Ibn Abi Haatim etc have authenticated him, and declared him to be a Known narrator.
Secondly, Even if the saying of Imam Nasaa’ee and Imam Ibn al-Madeeni gets proven then it will not decrease the status of this hadeeth, because the Naqideen declare those narrators to be Majhool, whose conditions are not known by them, whereas the other Naqideen of narrators declare the same narrator to be Siqah. Therfore, the criticizm of the former scholars is not taken under consideration. Allamah Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi writes:
“Suyuti said in Tadreeb ar-Raawi that One group of Huffaadh have declared those narrators to be Mahool, about whose conditions they were not aware of. Whereas, one group of Huffaadh have declared the same narrators to be Siqah” [Al-Rafa’ wal Takmeel: Pg 37]
We are prohibited to take the narrations of Majhool, because we are not aware of their condition. And if his conditions get known by the Experts, then there is nothing preventing us to accept his narrations. Therefore, the declaration of Imam Ijlee, Imam Ibn Hibbaan and others of him being siqah, is a testimony that they were aware of his conditions. Moreover, the Ghaali Muqallid Naimwi Hanafi in Athaar as-Sunan, Haashim as-Sindhi in Haashiah Mi’yaar al-Niqaad have also accepted this narration as Hassan Lidhatih.
Simaak bin Harb:
Simaak bin Harb is the narrator of Sihah Sittah and is one of the Tabi’een
His narrations in Sahihayn are as follows:
Saheeh Bukhaaree = H. 6722
Saheeh Muslim = 224, 128/436, 458, 459, 499, 606, 618, 643, 670, 734, 862, 866, 965, 978, 173/1075, 1385, 11/1504, 6/1628, 18/1651, 13/1671, 1680, 1692, 1693, 1748, 6,7/1821, 1846, 1922, 1984, 2053, 2135, 2248, 2277, 44/2305, 2322, 2329, 2339, 2344, 2361, 2745, 42,43/2763, 78/2919, 2923, 2977, 2978
According to the counting of Fawaad Abdul Baaqi, these are the forty five (45) narrations. Some narrations among them are repeated more than once, so we come to know that there are more than 45 narrations of Simaak in Saheeh Muslim. Many of his narrations are also present in Sunan Abi Dawood, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Maja, and Sunan Nasaa’ee.
Now let’s come and read about Simaak bin Harb and the reasearch on him.
Jariheen (Criticizers) and their Jarah (Criticizm)
1. Shu’bah = Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “Simaak bin Harb is Siqah and Shu’bah has weakened him…” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/215 T. 4792]
Ibn Ma’een was born in 157 H, and Shu’bah bin al-Hajjaj died in 160 H. Meaning, this narration is rejected due to being Munqati’.
2. Sufyaan ath-Thawree = Al-Ijlee said: “He is Jaaiz in hadeeth….. He Eluquent except through Ikrimah From Ibn Abbaas… And Sufyaan ath-Taree weakened him..” [Taareekh ath-Thiqaat: 621, and Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/216]
Imam Ijlee was born in 182 H, and Imam Sufyaan ath-Thawree died in 161 H. Therefore this chain is also Munqati’.
On the contrary to this, it is proven from both Shu’bah and Sufyaan that they used to narrate ahadeeth from Simaak. Therefore, even if this jarah was proven then it will be interpreted according to the saying of Al-Ijlee that this jarah is regarding a specific route of Simaak from Ikrimah from Abbaas.
Ibn Adee has narrated from Ahmed bin al-Hussain as-Soofi who narrated from Muhammad bin Khalf bin Abdul Humayd, From Sufyaan Thawree that: “Simaak is Da’eef” [Al-Kaamil: 3/1299]
The condition of Muhammad bin Khalf mentioned in its chain is not known, therefore this saying is not proven.
3. Ahmed bin Hanbal = “He is Mudtarib ul-Hadeeth” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/279]
One narrator of this saying is Muhammad bin Hamwiyah bin al-Hassan, whose tawtheeq (reliability/trust worthiness) is not known. But it has one shaahid in Kitaab al-Ma’rifat wal Taareekh Ya’qoob al-Faarsi (2/638). From the saying of Imam Ahmed in Kitaab al-Illal wal Ma’rifat ar-Rijaal “Simaak yarfa’huma An Ikrimah An Ibn Abbaas” we come to know that the Jarah of Imam Ahmed of Mudtarib ul-Hadeeth is related to this specific chain of “Simaak – AN – Ikrimah – AN – Ibn Abbaas”.
Moreover see the sayings of Ta’deel#7
4. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Ammaar Al-Mosali = “They said that he make Mistakes and they differed in his narration.” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/216]
In this saying, the subject of “They said” is unknown.
5. Saalih bin Muhammad Al-Baghdaadi = “He weakened him” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/216]
Its narrator is Muhammad bin Ali Al-Maqri, who is not clarified. The teacher of Khateeb Baghdaadi, Qaadhi Abul ‘Alaa al-Waasiti is included among the students of Abu Muslim Abdur Rehmaan bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Mihraan bin Salamah Al-Thiqah Al-Saalih [Taareekh Baghdaad: 10/299].
This Abul ‘Alaa is Muhammad bin Ali Al-Qaari [Taareekh Baghdaad: 3/95] Al-Maqri and Al-Qaari are two titles for the same person. The conditions of Abul ‘Alaa al-Maqri are present in Ma’rifat ul-Qurra Al-Kibaar by Dhahabi [1/391 T. 328] etc, and this person is Majrooh (criticized).
See: Mizaan ul-I’tidaal [3/254 T. 7971] and others.
Therefore this saying is not proven.
6. Abdur Rahmaan bin Yusuf bin Kharaash = “Weakness is in his hadeeth” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/616]
The condition of the Student of Ibn Kharaash, Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Dawood al-Karji, is not known; and Ibn Kharaash himself is weak acording to the Jumhoor,
See: Mizaan ul-I’tidaal [2/600 T. 5009]
7. Ibn Hibbaan = He mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (4/339) and said: “He makes alot of Mistakes…..Thawree and Shu’bah have narrated from him.”
This saying is Mardood(rejected), due to three reasons:
A) If he is “Yakhtai Katheeran (Makes alot of Mistakes)” then he can’t be Siqah, therefore why did he mention him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat? And if he is Siqah then he can’t be “Yakhtai Katheeran”.
B) Haaifdh Ibn Hibban has himself narrated several ahadeeth of Simaak in his Saheeh. For example see: Al-Ihsaan bi Tarteeb Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan [1/143 H. 66, Pg 144 H. 68, 69 etc], and Athaaf al-Maharah [3/63, 64, 65 etc]. Therefore, according to Ibn Hibban this jarah is not related to the narration of Hadeeth, that is why declares his ahadeeth to be Saheeh.
C) Haafidh Ibn Hibbaan, in his book, “Mashaaheer Ulama al-Amsaar” ha mentioned Simaak bin Harb and did not narrate any criticizm on him (Pg 110 T. 840). Meaning, According to Ibn Hibbaan himself, the jarah on him is Baatil and Mardood.
8. Al-Ukaylee = He mentioned in Kitaab ad-Du’afaa al-Kabeer [2/178, 179]
9. Jareer bin Abdul Humayd = He saw Simaak bin Harb that he was urinating while standing (due to some excuse), so he abandoned narrating ahadeeth from him. [Ad-Du’afa by Al-Ukaylee: 2/179, and Al-Kaamil by Ibn Adee: 3/1299]
This is not a Jarah, because it is proven in Muwatta Imam Maalik with a Saheeh Isnaad that Abdullah bin Umar [radiallah anhu] used to urinate while standing (due to some excuse) [1/65 H. 140 with the Tahqeeq of Shaikh Zubayr]. The addition of “Due to some excuse” in the brackets is done in the light of other evidences. So what do you think of taking narrations from Abdullah bin Umar [radiallah anhu]??
10. AN-Nasaa’ee = “He is not Strong…” [Al-Sunan al-Mujtabah with the Tahqeeq of Shaikh Zubayr: 8/319 H. 5680]
The saying of Imam Nasaa’ee in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: “He is not Hujja when he narrates alone” [Tuhfat ul-Ashraaf by Al-Mizzi: 5/137, 138 H. 6104]
11. Ibn al-Mubaarak = “Simaak is Da’eef in Hadeeth” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 8/131, Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 4/204]
This narration is narrated without any chain. In Kaamil Ibn Adee (3/1299), the same Jarah is narrated briefly through Ibn al-Mubarak from Sufyaan ath-Thawree, with a Da’eef chain, as is passed in number 2 above.
12. Al-Bazzaar = He is a Famous Person. I do not anyone who abandoned him. He memory got deteriorated before his death. [Tahdheeb at-Tadheeb: 4/205]
Firstly: This saying is Chain-less, Secondly: It is related to Ikhtilaat, the answer to which is coming ahead.
13. Ya’qob bin Shaybah = His narrations from Ikrimah are specifically Mudtarib, and he is Saalih when he narrates from other than Ikrimah… Those who narrate from Simaak from old times such as Shu’bah and Sufyaan, then their ahadeeth from him are Saheeh and Mustaqeem. Ibn al-Mubaarak said, we only reject those of his narrations which are narrated by his students at the end of his age. [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 8/131]
This saying is related to the chain of “Simaak AN Ikrimah (AN Ibn Abbaas)” and Ikhtilaat. The saying of Ibn al-Mubaark was not found with the chain, and the remaining everthing is Tawtheeq, as is coming ahead. [The sayings of Ta’deel: 27]
Mu’addaleen (Admirers) and their Ta’deel (Praise):
1. Imam Muslim = He took narrations from him in his Saheeh. See Mizaan ul-I’tidaal (2/233)
2. Imam Bukhaari = It has passed in the beginning that Imam Bukhaari has took narrations from Simaak in his Saheeh (6722). Haafidh Dhahabi has written that: “And Al-Bukhaari took narrations from him as Istishhaad” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 5/248]
It has passed under Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel (Criticizm # 6) that the narrator from whom Imam Bukhaari takes narration as Istishhaad, is SIqah according to Imam Bukhaari.
3. Shu’bah = He took narrations from him. [Saheeh Muslim H. 224 etc]
There is a principle regarding Shu’bah that he only takes the narrations of those who are Siqah according to him.
See: Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: Vol 1 Pg 4,5, and Quwaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth by Ashraf Ali Thanvi Pg 217.
4. Sufyaan ath-Thawree = “No hadeeth of Simaak is Saaqit (unacceptable).” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/215, Chain Saheeh]
The criticizm of Ibn Hajar on this saying is very strange [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 4/205]. It should be kept in mind that the Jarah of Sufyaan ath-Thawree on Simaak, is not proven.
5. Yahya ibn Ma’een = “Siqah (Reliable)” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/279, and Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/215, Chain Saheeh]
6. Abu Haatim ar-Raazi = “Sudooq Siqah (Truthful, Reliable)” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/280]
7. Ahmed bin Hanbal = “Simaak is good in the hadeeth from Abdul Malik bin Umayr” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/279, 280]
8. Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee = “Abu Bakr bin Ayyaash narrated, and he is Da’eef, From Abu Ishaaq that he said: ‘Take knowledge from Simaak bin Harb.'” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/275]
This saying is not proven due to Abu Bakr bin Ayyaash.
9. Al-Ijlee = “Jaaiz ul-Hadeeth” [See Jarah(critcism) # 2 above] And he mentioned him in Taareekh ath-Thiqaat.
10. Ibn Adee = “…He is Sudooq and there is nothing wrong in him.” [Al-Kaamil: 3/1300]
11. Tirmidhi = He has graded many of the narrations of Simaak to be “Hassan Saheeh”. See: H. 65, 202, 227 and others. In fact Imam Tirmidhi has started his Sunan with the hadeeth of Simaak (H. 1)
12. Ibn Shaaheen = He mentioned him in his Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (505)
13. Al-Haakim = He authenticated him in Al-Mustadrak [1/297 and others]
14. Adh-Dhahabi = “He authenticated him in Talkhees ul-Mustadrak.” [1/297]. And Imam Dhahabi said: “He is Sudooq Jaleel” [Al-Mughni fi Du’afa: 2649], and he said: “Al-Haafiz Al-Imam Al-Kabeer” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 5/245]
15. Ibn Hibbaan = “He took narrations from him in his Saheeh.” [See: The sayings of Jarah: 7]
16. Ibn Khuzaymah = “He authenticated him in his Saheeh” [1/8 H. 8 and others]
17. Al-Baghwi = He graded his hadeeth to be Hasan. [Sharh us-Sunnah: 3/31 H. 570]
18. Nawawi = He graded his hadeeth to be Hasan in Al-Majmoo Sharh ul-Madhab (3/490).
19. Ibn Abdul Barr = He authenticated him in Al-Ist’yaab (3/615).
20. Ibn al-Jarood = He mentioned his hadeeth in Al-Muntaqa (H. 25)
Ashraf Ali Thaanvi deobandi said while commenting on a hadeeth that: “Ibn Al-Jarood narrated this hadeeth in Al-Muntaqa, and it is Saheeh according to him.” [Bawadir al-Nawadir Pg 135]
21. Al-Ziyaa al-Maqdasi = He took evidence from him in Al-Mukhtara [12/11]
22. Al-Mundhiri = He graded his hadeeth to be Hasan. See Al-Targheeb wa Tarheeb: 1/108 H. 150
23. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani = “He is truthful, his narrations from Ikrimah are specifically Mudtarib, and his memory got deteriorated at the end of his age.” [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb: Pg 137]
Ibn Hajar has kept silent in one of his hadeeth in Fath ul-Baari (2/224 Under H. 740). Zafar Ahmed Thanvi deobandi said: “Such a narration is Saheeh or Hasan or according to Haafidh Ibn Hajar” (Therefore this narrator is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth or Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Ibn Hajar). [See Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth Pg 89]
24. Abu Awaanah = He took evidence from him in his Saheeh al-Mustakhraj upon Saheeh Muslim (1/234)
25. Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani = He took evidence from him in his Saheeh Al-Mustakhraj Ala Saheeh Muslim [1/289, 290 H. 535]
26. Ibn Sayyid an-Naas = He authenticated his hadeeth in Sharh Tirmidhi.
27. Ya’qoob bin Shaybah = He has graded the hadeeth of Sufyaan ath-Thawree from Simaak, to be Saheeh, as has been passed.
From this detail we come to know that Simaak bin Harb is declared to be Siqah, Sudooq, and Saheeh ul-Hadeeth by the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen. Therefore the Jarah of a few Muhadditheen upon him is rejected. Some Scholars have took this jarah to be upon Ikhtilaat, meaning there is no criticizm on his narrations from before his Ikhtilaat.
Discussion on Ikhtilaat
Some scholars have said that the memory of Simaak bin Harb got deteriorated at the end of his age. See: Al-Kawakib al-Niraat by Ibn al-Kiyaal Pg 159.
Ibn as-Salaah said in Uloom ul-Hadeeth ma’a Taqiyeed wal aizaah Pg 466, which means that, The narrations of Mukhtalateen (Pl. Mukhtalat) narrated in Sahihayn as Hujjat, mean that they are narrated from before the Ikhtilaat. This saying is absolutely authentic in light of the other qaraain. In Saheeh Muslim, the following are the students of Simaak bin Harb:
1. Abu Awaanah (224)
2. Shu’bah (224)
3. Zaaidah (224)
4. Israa’eel (224)
5. Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr bin Mu’awiyah (436)
6. Abul Ahwas (436)
7. Umar bin Ubayd al-Tanafsi (499/242)
8. Sufyaan ath-Thawree (270/287, Tuhfat ul-Ashraaf by Al-Mizzi: 2/154 H. 2164)
9. Zikriyah bin Abi Zaidah (270/287)
10. Hassan bin Saalih (734)
11. Maalik bin Maghool (965)
12. Abu Yunus Haatim bin Abi Sagheerah (1680)
13. Hammaad bin Salamah (7/1821)
14. Idrees bin Yazeed al-Awdi (2135)
15. Ibraaheem bin Tahmaan (2277)
16. Ziyaad bin Khaythama (44/2305)
17. Asbaat bin Nasar (2329)
We come to know that the narrations of the above mentioned people from Simaak are from before his Ikhtilaat. Therefore criticizm on the hadeeth of Sufyaan narrated from Simaak, is rejected.[Taken From: Nasar ul-Rab Fee Tawtheeq Simaak bin Harb]
See part 2.
Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan
He is the The Imam of Jarah wal Ta’deel, A Giant in Knowledge, Fiqh, Hadeeth etc.. People of knowledge depend upon him. Imam Bukhaari, Imam Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Maja havre narrated from him.
Abdullah bin Ahmed narrated that Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal said: “I have not seen anyone like Yahya (bin Sa’eed)” [Al-Illal: 846]
Ibn Sa’d said: “He is Siqah Ma’moon” [Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra]
Haafidh Dhahabi said: “He is Al-Imam al-Kabeer, Ameer ul-Mu’mineen in Hadeeth.” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 53]
Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: “Siqah Muttaqan, Haafidh Imam.” [Tahdheeb]
Hanafi Objection on this Hadeeth
Some Muqallid hanafi innovators say that the words of “Ala Sadrih” are only narrated by Sufyaan Thawree from Simaak, and Abul Ahwas, Shareek al-Qaadhi etc have not narrated this additional wording.
Answer to this Objection
The answer to this is that Sufyaan ath-Thawree is a Siqah Haafidh, and has confirmed his hearing. Therefore, if other narrators do not narrate the words of “Ala Sadrih” then it is not a Jarah, because aforementioning is not the evidence for mentioning.
And in other than the condition of Clear opposition, the ziyadat (addition) of a Siqah narrator is always acceptable, unless the Muhaddtheen prove it to be a Mistake of narrator in that specific narration. ٰ Imam Khateeb Baghdaadi has narrated Ijmaa on this issue. [Al-Kifayah Pg 425]
It is narrated that Sufyaan ath-Thawree once narrated a hadeeth in which he opposed Abul Ahwas, Zaaidah, Isra’eel, and Shareek, so Imam Yahya ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan said: “Even if there were four thousand like them, still Sufyaan is more Siqah than them.” [Al-Nakat Ala Ibn as-Salaah: 2/779, 280]
Even though Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi has rejected this saying, but this an anuthentic saying, unless if there is not an issue of aformentioning, and a clear opposition.
Naimwi Hanafi also once accepted the ziyadat (addition) of a siqah narrator, see Athaar as-Sunan Pg 17, H. 36.
* Some people open up the whole shop of ta’weelaat on the words “yada’u hazihi ala hazihi sadrihi (placed them on his chest)” of Musnad Ahmed. Whereas, Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi has also narrated the words of “yada’u hazihi ala hazihi sadrihi” of Musnad Ahmed with his chain. [Al-Tahqeeq: 1/338 H. 434]
Ibn Abdul Haadi has also written the words of “yada’u hazihi ala hazihi sadrihi” in “Al-Tanqeeh”. [1/284]
This proves all the baseless ta’weelaat of the Mu’awwaleen to be baseless and wrong, and the words of “Ala Sadrih” get proven to be Saheeh and Preserved.
* When it is proven that the ziyaadat (addition) of a Siqah and Sudooq is Saheeh, Hasan, and acceptable, then Wakee and Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi, not mentioning the words of “Ala Sadrih” does not do any harm to this hadeeth. Yahya ibn Sa’eed is a giant Siqah Haafidh. His mentioning of the words is enough for the practicers of hadeeth.
* It should be kept in mind that it is not proven from Sufyaan ath-Thawree to tie the hands under the navel.
* If a narrator is Siqah and Sudooq, then his Tafarrud (lone narration) is not harmful.
Proof number 4 for placing the hands on chest:
Hadeeth # 4
Tawoos narrated: ‘The Messenger of Allaah (SAW) used to place his right hand upon his left hand and plant them firmly upon his chest while in prayer. [Abu Dawood ma’ al-Minhal a-azab al-mawrood: Vol 5 Pg 166]
Introduction to its Isnaad (Chain)
Imam Abu Dawood narrates this hadeeth from his teacher Abu Tawbah. Imam Abu Dawood has first narrated his narration in Kitaab at-Taharah, where he mentions his full name as: “Abu Tawbah bin ar-Rabee’ bin Naafi”, and he narrates it from “Haytham bin Al-Humayd”, From “Thawr”, From “Sulemaan bin Moosa”, From Tawoos [rahimahullah]….
Abu Tawbah Rabee’ bin Naafi’:
Imam Abu Haatim said: “He is Siqah, Sudooq, Hujjah…… Al-Athram said, I heard Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal mentioned Abu Tawbah and praised him, and said: I do not think anything about him except good.” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 3 Pg 470]
Haafidh Ibn Hajar has authenticated him in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb [Vl 3 Pg 218]
Imam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat.
He is the narrator of Saheeh Bukhaari and Saheeh Muslim, and is Siqah with agreement.
Al-Haytham bin Al-Humayd:
Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: “He is turthful, and accused of Qadar.” [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb: 7362]
The Jumhoor of Muhadditheen have authenticated him, therefore he is Hasan ul-Hadeeth.
1. Imam Daheem = “A’lam ul-Awwaleen wal Akhirieen bi-Makhool” [Al-Ma’rifat wal Taareekh 2/395, Chain Saheeh]
2. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal = “I only know good about him.” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 9/82, Chain Saheeh]
3. Yahya ibn Ma’een = “There is nothing wrong in him.” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 9/82, Chain Saheeh]
4. Daraqutni = Siqah. [Sunan Daraqutni: 1/319 H. 204]
5. Ibn Shaaheen = He mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (1549)
6. Ibn Hibbaan = He mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (9/235)
7. Abu Zur’ah ad-Dimashqi = Authenticated and praised him [Tareekh Abu Zur’ah: 902]
8. Adh-Dhahabi = “Al-Faqeeh al-Haafidh” [Tadhkiratul Huffaadh: 1/285]. In Mizaan ul-I’tidaal (4/321), Haafidh Dhahabi authenticated him. In Ma’rifat ur-Rawaat al-Mutakallim fihim bima yojab ar-Radd, he said: “He is Truthful” [Pg 187]
9. Imam Baihaqi after narrating his hadeeth, said = “Its Chain is Saheeh, and its narrators are Siqaat” [Kitaab al-Qiraat by Al-Baihaqi Pg 64]
10. Ibn Hajar = Sudooq, accused of Qadar. [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb: 7362]
On the contrary to these praises, only the saying of Abu Mashar is narrated, who said: “He is Da’eed and Qadari”. This saying is Da’eef due to going against the Jumhoor.
Haytham bin Humayd is Thiqah and Sudooq.
Thawr bin Yazeed bin Ziyaad al-Kalaa’ee Abu Khaalid Al-Hamsi:
Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: I have not seen any Shaami more reliable than him, Ibn Sa’d said that he is Thiqah in Hadeeth, Ibn Adee said that when he narrates from Thiqah and sudooq narrator then accoding to my research there is nothing wrong in his narration, Imam Nasaa’ee and Imam Duhaym said that he is Thiqah, Imam Abu Haatim said that he is Sudooq and Hafidh, Imam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat, Molvi Khaleel ur-Rahmaan Saharanpoori Hanafi said that He is Thiqah Thabat, meaning Thiqah of the highest level. [Bazal al-Majhood: Vol 1 Pg 83]
Muhammad bin Ishaaq, Ahmed bin Saalih, Muhammad bin Awf, Abu Dawood, and Al-Ijlee have also said that he is Thiqah.
Haafidh Dhahabi has narrated that he recanted from his belief of Qadar, therefore the accusation of being a Qadari on him is not valid.
And he is a narrator of Saheeh Bukhaari.
Thawr is Siqah and Saheeh ul-Hadeeth
Sulemaan bin Moosa al-Umwi Ad-Dimashqi Al-Ashdaq:
Praise (Ta’deel) narrated about him:
1. Saeed bin Abdul Azeez = He is the most knowledgeable from Shaam after Makhool
2. Duhaym = The reliable companion of Makhool [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/41, Chain Saheeh]
3. Ibn Ma’een = Thiqah [Taareekh Uthmaan bin Sa’eed ad-Daarimi: 26, 360]
4. Ibn Adee = And he is Thabat Sudooq according to me. [Al-Kaamil: 3/1119]
5. Ad-Daraqutni = He is from the Thiqaat Huffaadh [Kitaab al-Illal: Vol 5 Pg 110, Mosoo’ah Aqwaal ad-Daraqutni: 1/303]
6. ‘Ataa bin Abi Ribaah = He Praised him [Kitaab al-Ma’rifah wal Taareekh: 2/405, Chain Saheeh]
7. Hishaam bin Ammaar = “Arfa’ Ashaab Makhool Sulemaan bin Moosa. [Kitaab al-Ma’rifah wal Taareekh: 2/396, Chain Saheeh]
8. Ibn Sa’d = He is Thiqah, Ibn Jurayj praised him [Tabaqaat Ibn Sa’d: 7/457]
9. Az-Zuhri = He Praised him [Musnad Ahmed: 6/47 H. 24205, Chain Saheeh]
10. Ibn Hibbaan = He mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat, and said: “He is Faqeeh and righteous”. [Kitaab ath-Thiqaat: 6/379, 380]
11. Ibn al-Madeeni = He is from the Major comapnions of Makhool, he got slightly confused before his death. [This saying was not found with an authentic chain]
12. Adh-Dhahabi = “Al-Imam, Al-Kabeer, Mufti..” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 5/433]
13. Ibn Hajar = In Fath ul Baari (10/8), he said, all the narrators of the hadeeth narrated by Suelmaan are trustworthy. Haafidh Ibn Hajar has also said he was truthful in Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb, and he became a little forgetful before his death.
14. Al-Haakim = He authenticated him [Al-Mustadrak: 2/168 H. 2706]
Criticism on Him
1. Al-Bukhaari = He has Munkar narrations [Ad-Du’afa by Al-Bukhaari: 148], And he said: “He is Munkir ul-Hadeeth, I do not narrate anything from him.”
This criticism of Imam Bukhaari concerning Suelmaan is after he started to forget in later age and so cannot be taken in the general sense, it is limited and specific to Sulemaan in his later life. (refer to ‘Tuhfatul Aqwiyaa fee Tahqeeq Kitaab ad-Du’afaa (no. 148 pg. 37), Manuscript Form, of Shaikh Zubair Alee Za’ee.
2. Abu Haatim = “He is truthful, and in some of his hadeeth there is Idtiraab and I do not know anyone more firm and more of a Jurist (Faqeeh) narrator than him from amongst the companions of Makhool.” (al-Jarah wal Ta’deel of Ibn Abi Haatim Tarjamah Sulemaan, Tahdheeb ut-Tahdheeb (4/237) and ‘Aun al-Ma’bood (2/325)
So Imam Abu Haatim said he was firm, which are words of high praise. He also said some of his hadeeth have idtiraab, then there being some idtiraab in his hadeeth is not heavy criticism as the details of this are mentioned in the books of science of hadeeth
3. An-Nasaa’ee = He was a Jurist and not strong in Hadeeth [Ad-Du’afa: 252]
4. Abu Zur’ah ar-Raazi = He mentioned him in Ad-Du’afaa
5. Al-Ukaylee = He mentioned him in Ad-Du’afaa
From this detail, we come to know that Sulemaan is Siqah and Sudooq according to the Jumhoor, so therefore there is no weakness in it because of Sulemaan bin Moosa. [It should also be noted that he is the narrator of Saheeh Muslim]
“Got slightly confused before his death” is not even proven, and is not hramful here either, wallahu a’lam.
Imam Abu Dawood has kept silent on this hadeeth, therefore according to the principle of Thanvi Deobandi, this hadeeth is Authentic.
Numerous scholars of Jarah wat Ta’deel have not only made general criticisms on Abu Haneefah but also detailed criticisms. The Hanafees anwer this criticism and say Abu Haneefah was a great Jurist of his time and therefore the criticisms on him are not sustainable. However, no one has criticized Sulemaan in detail and ash-Sharazee said in ‘Tabqaat ul-Fuqaha’, “Sulemaan was the Jurist of Shaam and a Companion of Makhool”, therefore how can general criticism on him be sustainable.
Imam Tawoos is the narrator of Saheeh Bukhaari, Saheeh Muslim and Sunan Arba’ah. He is the student of Ibn Abbaas and others
Abdullah bin Abbaas [radiallah anhu] said: “I am sure that Tawoos is among the people of Jannah.” [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: Vol 4 Pg 9]
Imam Zuhri said: “If you see Tawoos, you will praise his sincerity” [Tahdheb at-Tahdheeb: Vol 4 Pg 9]
Objection on this narration:
This is a Mursal narration.
Answer to this Objection:
Certainly this hadeeth is Mursal. However, Mursal hadeeth is Hujjat according to Ahnaaf without any condition.
The Imaam of the Hanafee Madhhab, Imaam Sarkhasee writes, “Those mursal narrations which are of the 2nd and 3rd generations, according to our Hanafee Ulamaa are accepted as proof and evidence.” (Stated in Kitaab al-Usool (1/360), likewise Noor al-Anwaar (p.150) also mentions the same).
Further Muhammad Hashim Tahtawee Hanafee in his treatise, Kashfud-Deen p. 17, states that, “The mursal narration is acceptable to us Ahnaaf as a proof.” Allaamah ibn Humaam Hanafee in Fathul-Qadeer, the explantion of Hidaayah (1/239) states the same.
Zafar Ahmed Uthmaani said: “And Mursal is Hujjat according to us.” [A’laa us-Sunan: Vol 1 Pg 82]
Whereas, according to Shaafi’ees and Ahle-Hadeeth, a Mursal hadeeth is not hujja until it is not supported by a Marfoo and Musnad hadeeth.
Allamah Mahmood as-Subki, while eplaining this hadeeth, writes:
“According to some Imams, the Mursal hadeeth is Hujjah without any condition. Whereas according to Imam Shafi’ee, a Mursal hadeeth will only be hujjah when it is supported by another hadeeth. Certainly, there are narrations present which strengthen this narration. One narration is narrated from Hulb at-Taa’ee in Musnad Ahmed, whereas the other is from Waail ibn Hujr, narrated by Imam Ibn Khuzaymah in his Saheeh.” [Al-Minhal al-Azab al-Mawrood: Vol 5 Pg 166]
Imaam Abdur Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree said: “And the Hadeeth of Tawoos is Mursal, because Tawoos is a Tabi’ee and its Isnaad is Hasan. And the Mursal hadeeth is considered a proof with Abu Haneefah, Maalik, and Ahmed in general. And according to Shaafi’ee it is a proof when supported by something that occurs via another route that builds upon the first route be it Musnad or Mursal. And this Mursal hadeeth is supported by the aformentioned hadeeth of Waa’il ibn Hujr and Hulb at-Taa’ee. So deriving evidence from these to place the hands on the chest in prayer is correct….” [Tuhfatul Ahwadhee 2/81]
Alhamdulillah all this proves that Placing the Hands on chest is the Sunnah. Allah knows best.
InshaAllah Read more: http://www.systemoflife.com/fiqh/salah/2000018-placing-the-hands-on-chest-is-the-sunnah#ixzz4mH5biyDl