Fabricated Hadith “He who visits my grave after my death, it is as if visited me in my life”

Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Hadi said in “Sarim Al-Munki fi Radd ‘ala Subki” about the Hadith collected by Ad-Daraqutni and quoted by Subki in his “Shifa As-Siqam”: Abu Rabi’ Az-Zahrani from Hafs ibn Abi Dawud from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet (saw): “He who performs Hajj and visits my grave after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life”:

“Know that it is a Hadith on which it is not permissible to base, nor is it suitable to rely on it, because it is a Munkar Hadith, with a dropped Isnad, and none of the Hufaz authenticated it and none of the Imams based themselves on it, rather they weakened it and criticised it and some of them mentioned it among fabricated Ahadith and reports that are lies.”

And Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Hadi mentioned that its narrator Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and he is Hafs ibn Sulayman Abu ‘Umar Al-Asadi Al-Kufi Al-Bazar Al-Qari Al-Ghadiri though he was an Imam in Qira’ah, but in the field of Hadith he has been weakened by the Ahlul Hadith and some of them accused him of lying.

Here are some quotes from Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi from Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil on Hafs, p 63 and after of the edition published by “Muasasah Ar-Rayan” with the footnotes of ‘Aqil ibn Muhammad Al-Muqtari, student of Shaykh Muqbil:

Abu ‘Uthman ibn Sa’id Ad-Darimi and others said from Yahya ibn Ma’in: “He is not trustworthy (thiqah)”

Al-‘Uqayli mentioned from Yahya (ibn Ma’in) that he was asked about him and he said: “He is nothing” (Laysa bi Shayin)

And Abdullah ibn Imam Ahmad said: I heard my father saying: Hafs ibn Sulayman Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari is abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith).

And Al-Bukhari said: “They abandoned him.”

Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub Al-Juzjani said: ‘They have left him from a long time.”

Muslim ibn Hajjaj said: “Matruk.”

‘Ali ibn Madini said: “Weak in Hadith and I have abandoned him purposely.”

An-Nassa’i said: “He is not trustworthy and his Hadith is not written” and he said once: “Abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith).”

Salih ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdadi said: “His Ahadith are not written and all of his Ahadith are Manakir” (plural of Munkar: a Munkar Hadith is that of a weak narrator who opposes authentic Hadith).

Zakariyah As-Saji said: “He narrates from Samak, ‘Alqamah ibn Marthad, Qays ibn Muslim and ‘Asim some Bawatil (false Ahadith).”

Abu Zur’ah said: “Weak in Hadith.”

Ibn Abi Hatim said: “I asked my father about him and he said: His Hadith is not written and he is weak in Hadith, he is not trusted and is abandoned in Hadith (Matruk Al-Hadith).”

’AburRahman ibn Yusuf Kharash said: “He is a liar, abandoned (Matruk), he used to fabricate Hadith.”

Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: “Zahib Al-Hadith” (wasted in Hadith).

(T: Ibn As-Salah clasified “Zahib Al-Hadith” among strongest level of Jarh. In the English translation of “Muqqadimah ibn Salah” published by “Great Books of Islamic Civilization” it is written p 93: “Ibn Abi Hatim said: “When they say “abandoned in Hadith”, “wasted in Hadith (Dhahib Al-Hadith) or “liar” (Kadhdhab), the man is fallen in Hadith. His Hadith are not recorded. It is the fourth rank.”)

Ad-Daraqutni said: “Weak.”

Abu Hatim ibn Hibban said: “He used to mix the chains of transmission and used to declare Marfu’ some Mursal narrations and he used to take from the books of people and write them and narrate them without listening (to them).”

Ibn ‘Adi said: “As-Saji informed me that Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Baghdadi informed me, he said: “I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in saying: “Hafs ibn Sulayman and Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayash where the most knowledgeable people of the Qira’ah of ‘Asim, and Hafs was better in Qira’ah than Abu Bakr, and Abu Bakr was Saduq, and Hafs was a liar.”

And ibn ‘Adi mentioned some of his rejected Hadith and among them this Hadith about the visit of the Prophet’s grave.

Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi said that Al-Bayhaqi narrates in his “Sunnan Kabir” and in his “Shu’b Al-Iman” this narration of Hafs about the visit and he declared him to be weak in both of his works.

And ibn ‘Abdil Hadi concluded that if this is the status of Hafs for the Imams of Hadith, then how can someone rely on his report, especially when the narrator from him, Layth ibn Abi Sulaym is Mudhtarib Al-Hadith (he contradicts in narrating)?

Then ibn ‘Abdil Hadi mentioned that As-Subki tried to strengthen this Hadith with ignorance and deception, as he refused to admit for sure that Hafs ibn Abi Dawud the narrator of this Hadith is Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Qari, and he said that it is possible they are two different narrators. And As-Subki claimed that Ibn Hibban mentioned Hafs ibn Abi Dawud in his “Kitab Ath-Thiqat”.

And Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi replied that these words of As-Subki are full of mistake, mixing and deception (Talbis), as the narrator of this Hadith is Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Qari et he is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud without any doubt, and the one who claims that this Hadith is narrated by two narrators one of them being Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and the other Hafs ibn Sulayman, and one of them is Thiqah (trustworthy) and the other is weak, then he is ignorant mistaken by consensus or an opponent (to the truth) a person of passion following his desire and his aim is to deceive and mix the truth with falsehood : “And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light.” (An-Nur 24 : 40)

Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Hadi further added that he did not find in the manuscript of “Kitab Ath-Thiqat” of ibn Hibban that was available for him what As-Subki quoted, that Hafs ibn Abi Dawud was mentioned in it. And ‘Aqil Al-Muqtari also checked a manuscript of it and did not find these words of Ibn Hibban.

And what is strange is that Ibn Hibban himself said that Hafs ibn Sulayman is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud as indicated by ibn ‘Abdil Hadi and Ibn Hibban weakened him in “Kitab Al-Majruhin”: “Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Al-Qari Abu ‘Umar Al-Bazzar, and he is the one called Hafs ibn Abi Dawud… He used to mix the chains of transmission and used to declare Marfu’ some mursal reports, and he used to take from the books of people and write them and narrate them without listening (to them).”

And ibn ‘Abdil Hadi said that if the quote of As-Subki that Ibn Hibban mentioned Hafs ibn Abi Dawud in his “Kitab Thiqat” is true, then it will be a clear contradiction of Ibn Hibban. Yet As-Subki took from ibn Hibban what suited him and left his words in “Al-Majruhin” that was against him. Hafiz Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi described the pathetic condition of As-Subki: “It is not a novelty for this person who is an objector to Shaykh Al-Islam and a follower of his desire that he takes the saying of a person (ibn Hibban) in which he erred and none agreed with him in it and he leaves his saying (of Ibn Hibban) that is correct and in which he is followed. And Allah gives Tawfiq.”

And if ever this quote of As-Subki exists, yet As-Subki took this mistake of ibn Hibban and opposed Hufaz like Al-Bukhari, ibn Abi Hatim, Abu Zur’ah, Al-Hakim and others who said that Hafs ibn Sulayman is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and here are some quotes taken from ibn ‘Abdil Hadi:

“Al-Bukhari said in his “Kitab Du’afa”: Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari narrating from ‘Alqamah ibn Marthad and ‘Asim, they left him and he is ibn Abi Dawud Al-Kufi. Then ibn Abi Al-Qadhi said: Sa’id ibn Mansur said to us: Hafs ibn Sulayman said to us from Layth from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar: he said the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life” So Al-Bukhari mentioned like this showing some rejected narrations of Hafs.

And he said in his Kitab At-Tarikh: “Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Qari, they abandoned him and he is Hafs ibn Abi Dawud.”

Ibn Abi Hatim said in his book “Jarh wa Ta’dil”: Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Abu ‘Umar Al-Muqri, and he is Al-Bazzar and he is Ibn Abi Dawud the companion of ‘Asim in Qira’at, I heard my father saying this. And Abu Zur’ah was asked about Hafs ibn Abi Dawud and he said: he is Hafs ibn Sulayman and he is weak in Hadith. And Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said in his book “Al-Kuna”: Abu ‘Umar Hafs ibn Sulayman Al-Asadi Al-Muqri Al-Kufi and Sulyman (his father) is Al-Asadi Al-Muqri Al-Kufi and Sulayman has the kuniyah Abu Dawud, he is Zahib Al-Hadith (wasted in Hadith).”

So one can clearly see the sayings of the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil, and how As-Subki opposed them, making ibn ‘Abdil Hadi saying: “I am surprised to see how this objector (to Ibn Taymiyah) came with this mixing in words and deception in saying…”

And specially when someone lacks of respects towards Ibn Taymiyah, attacks him violently with lies, and is unjust and oppressor as mentioned by ibn Abdul Hadi, and this man (As-Subki) comes with deception and opposes the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil. Allah ul-Musta’an.

And what is shocking is that the commander of the believer in Hadith, Imam Al-Bukhari mentioned this Hadith of Hafs to show some of his rejected Hadith, and Ibn ‘Adi also did the same. So earlier Hufaz have clearly weakened this narration, yet As-Subki tried with ignorance or deception to authenticate this Hadith. And if Al-Bukhari and ibn ‘Adi knew some reliable strengthening reports, they would have mentioned them.

But As-Subki said that this Hadith of Hafs has a following narration that strengthens it, and Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi showed the status of this following narration.

In the “Mu’jam “of At-Tabarani, he said: Ahmad ibn Rushdin narrated to us, ‘Ali ibn Al-Husayn ibn Harun Al-Ansari narrated to us, Al-Layth ibn Bint Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym said: My grant mother ‘Aishah bint Yunus the wife of Al-Layth narrated me from Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym from Mujahid from ibn ‘Umar, he said the Messenger of Allah said: “He who visits my grave after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life.”

Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi said: “This Isnad is nothing on which one can rely, and it is not something one can turn to, rather it is an unjust and extremely weak Sanad, because it is composed of weak narrators on which it is not permissible to base upon and of unknown narrators whose condition is not known so to accept their information, and ibn Rushdin is the teacher of At-Tabarani and he has been criticised, and ‘Ali ibn Al-Husayn Al-Ansari is not someone whose narrations are reliable, and Al-Layth ibn Bint Al-Layth ibn Abi Sulaym and his grant mother are both unknown (Majhul), their condition is not known to the people of knowledge so to accept their narration, and they do not have any mention in other than this Hadith, and Layth ibn Abi Sulaym is Mudhtarib Al-Hadith (he contradicts in narrating), this has been said by Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal.

Abu Mu’mar Al-Qati’i said: “Ibn ‘Uyaynah used to weaken Layth ibn Abi Sulaym”. And Yahya ibn Al-Ma’in and An-Nassa’i said: “weak”. As-Sa’di said: “His Hadith is weakened”. Ibrahim ibn Sa’id Al-Johiri said that Yahya ibn Ma’in narrated to us from Yahya ibn Sa’id Al-Qattan that he would not narrate from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym.

And Ahmad ibn Sulayman Ar-Rahawi said from Muamil ibn Al-Fadl, ‘Isa ibn Yunus narrated to us: “Don’t you listen (Hadith) from Layth ibn Abi Sulaym”. He replied: “I have seen him, and he mixes (ikhtalata) (Hadith)…”

Ibn Abi Hatim said: I heard my father and Abu Zur’ah saying: “Layth should not be dealt with, he is Mudhtarib Al-Hadith (contradicts himself)…”

So Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi pointed that even if the Sanad was authentic up to Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, then the narration would be weak, and how can it be authentic when the chain contains darkness over darkness? And how can such a narration of many unknown and Mudhtarib and Mukhtalit (contradicting and mixing) people be a witness to the narration of Hafs?

As-Subki also mentioned in Hadith n°14 a narration other than the way of Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, he said: Abul Hasan Yahya ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ja’far Al-Husayni in his “Kitab Akhbar Madinah” said: Muhammad ibn Isma’il narrated to us, Abu Ahmad Al-Hamdani narrated to us, An-Nu’man ibn Shibl narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Al-Fadl Al-Madini narrated to us in the year 76H from Jabir from Muhammad ibn ‘Ali from ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, he said: the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life, and he who does not visit my grave has harmed me”:

Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Hadi also mentioned that some later Hufaz mentioned this Hadith from Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Bukar ibn Karmun narrated us at Intakiyah, Abu ‘Umar and ‘Uthman ibn Abdillah ibn Kharzad Al-Baghdadi narrated to us, that An-Nu’man ibn Ash-Shibl narrated to us, Muhammad ibn Al-Fadl narrated to us from Jabir from Muhammad ibn ‘Ali from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib that he said: the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me in my life, and he who does not visit my grave has harmed me”:

Hafiz Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi replied that it is a fabricated Hadith and this for four reasons

First: An-Nu’man ibn Shibl as been accused (of lying) by Musa ibn Harun al-Hamal and Abu Hatim ibn Hibban Al-Busti said: he narrates from trustworthy narrators with some falsehood and from established people with inversed Hadith (Maqlub).

Secondly: Muhammad ibn Al-Fadl ibn ‘Atiyah is a liar as said by Yahya ibn Ma’in. And Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal said: “He is nothing, his Hadith is that of people of lies”. Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub Al-Juzjani said: “he is a liar”…Al-Falas said: “Abandoned in Hadith (Matruk) a liar”. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said: “Zahib Al-Hadith (wasted in Hadith) and his Hadith was abandoned”. And Muslim ibn Al-Hajjaj, ibn Kharash and An-Nassa’i said: “Abandoned in Hadith (Matruk)” and An-Nassa’i said in another place: “A liar”, and ibn ‘Adi said: “The majority of his Hadith are not followed by trustworthy narrators (Thiqat), and Salih ibn Muhammad Al-Hafiz said: “He used to fabricate Hadith”, and ibn Hibban said: “He was among those who would narrate fabrications from established narrators”… And Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah attacked him severely.

Third reason: Jabir in the chain is Jabir Al-Ju’fi and he was not trustworthy. Abu Hatim Ar-Razi said from Ahmad ibn Hambal: Yahya and ‘AbdurRahman abandoned him, and Abu Hanifah said: “I did not see someone more liar than Jabir Al-Ju’fi”. Yahya ibn Ma’in said: “Jabir Al-Ju’fi was a liar, his Hadith is not written without any doubt, he is nothing.” As-Sa’di said: “He is a liar, I asked Ahmad ibn Hambal and he said: Ibn Mahdi abandoned him”…An-Nassa’i said: “Abandoned in Hadith (Matruk)” and he said in another place: “He is not trustworthy and his Hadith is not written”, and Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: “Zahib Al-Hadith (wasted in Hadith)”. And ibn Hibban said: “He was a Sabai, from the companions of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba, and he used to say that ‘Ali would return in this world”, then he narrated from Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah that he said: “Jabir Al-Ju’fi believes in the return (of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib)”, Zaidah said: “As for Jabir Al-Ju’fi, he was by Allah a liar and a believer in the return (of ‘Ali).”

Fourth reason: Muhammad ibn ‘Ali from whom Jabir (Al-Ju’fi) narrates and he is Abu Ja’far Al-Baqir and he did not meet the grant father of his father ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib.

What a shock to see people mentioning such liars to support the narration of Hafs ibn Sulayman that is fabricated.

As-Subki mentioned two other narrations with close words.

First he mentioned as Hadith n°8 of his “Shifa”: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited in my life” and this has been narrated in “Sunnan” of Ad-Daraqutni.

Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Hadi said this Hadith is the same as the Hadith n°6 and n°7, but As-Subki tried to present them as three different Ahadith.

The Hadith n°6 is “He who visits my grave” or he said “he who visits me, I will be his intercessor or witness and he who dies in one of the two Haram, Allah (‘Azza wa Jalla) will resurrect him among the safe people on the day of resurrection”. This has been narrated by Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi in his “Musnad” with the chain: “Siwar ibn Maymun Abul Jarah Al-‘Abdi narrated to us, a man from the family of ‘Umar narrated to me from ‘Umar: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “He who visits my grave…”

Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Hadi answered it saying: “This Hadith is not authentic because of its Inqita’ (disconnection) and the ignorance in its Isnad and its Idhtirab (contradiction). The objector made it as three Ahadith because of the difference of its narrators in its chain and Idhtirab in it, while it is one Hadith with a dropped Isnad, it is not permissible to base on it and it is not correct to rely on similar to it, as we will show Insha Allah.

Al-Bayhaqi narrated it in his “Shu’b Al-Iman” and in his book “As-Sunnan Al-Kabir” and he said in his book “As-Sunnan” after narrating it: “this Isnad is Majhul (contains unknown narrators)”.

I say: Abu Dawud (At-Tayalisi) was contradicted by others in its Isnad and words, and his Shaykh Siwar ibn Maymun some narrators inversed his name and said Maymun ibn Siwar, and he is an unknown Shaykh, his ‘Adalah (integrity) is not known neither his Dhabt (accuracy) and he did not became famous for holding knowledge and transmitting it. As for the Shaykh of Siwar in this narration, the narration of Abu Dawud, then he is a Mubham Shaykh (non-identified), and this is the worst case of Majhul. And some narrators said about him “from a man from the family of ‘Umar” as in this narration, and some said: “from a man from the children of Hatib” and some said: “from a man from the family of Al-Khattab”.

Al-Bukhari said in his “Tarikh”: “Maymun ibn Siwar Al-‘Abdi from Harun Abu Quz’ah from a man from the children of Hatib from the Messenger of Allah (saw): “He who dies in one of the two Haram”, Yusuf ibn Rashid said, Wak’i narrated to us, Maymun narrated to us.”

This is how Al-Bukhari named him in the narration of Waki’ from him, and he did not mention in it ‘Umar and he added Harun (ibn Quz’ah) and he said “from a man from the children of Hatib” and there is in this contradiction with the narration of Abu Dawud in many ways.

And he said in words “ha” of his “At-Tarikh”: “Harun Abu Quz’ah from a man from the children of Hatib from the Prophet (saw): “he who dies in on of the two Haram” and Maymun ibn Siwar narrated from him and he (Harun) is not followed (by anybody in narrating this).”

(The Muhaqiq ‘Aqil al-Muqtari said he did not find this in the published version so there might be some pages dropped as the majority of old scholars affirm these words as the author, ibn ‘Adi, ibn Hajar, Allah knows best)

Al-‘Uqayli said in his book “Du’afa”: “Harun ibn Quz’ah Madni, Siwar ibn Maymun narrated from him. Adam narrated to me: I heard Al-Bukhari saying: Harun ibn Quz’ah Al-Madni is not followed.”

This is how Al-‘Uqayli mentioned it Harun ibn Quz’ah, and in “Tarikh” of Al-Bukhari there is Harun Abu Quz’ah, it is possible that the name of Harun’s father is Quz’ah and he also has the nickname of Abu Quz’ah.

Then Al-‘Uqayli said: “Muhammad ibn Musa narrated to us, Ahmad ibn Al-Hasan At-Tirmidhi narrated to us, ‘Abdul Malik ibn Ibrahim Al-Jadi narrated to us, Shu’bah narrated to us from Siwar ibn Maymun from Harun ibn Quz’ah from a man from the family of Al-Khattab from the Prophet (saw) that he said: “He who visits me on purpose will be in my neighbourhood on the day of resurrection, and he who dies in any of the two Haram Allah will resurrect him among the safe people on the day of resurrection.”

And Al-‘Uqayli said after mentioning this Hadith: “This narration contains Layin (softness)”

(T: Ibn As-Salah clasified “Layin” as the weakest level of Jarh. In the English translation of “Muqqadimah ibn Salah” published by “Great Books of Islamic Civilization” it is written p 93: “Their saying “Soft in Hadith (Layin al-Hadith): Ibn Abi Hatim said, “Then they reply regarding a man, “soft in Hadith”, he is one of those whose Hadith may be recorded and examined for the sake of analysis (I’tibar)” and I’tibar means analysis for strengthening, so the “Layin” narrator is acceptable for following or witnessing (Mutaba’ah or Istishad), yet he is weak. Ad-Daraqutni said bout “Layin” as quoted by Ibn Salah: “He is not fallen (Saqit) and abandoned (matruk) in Hadith, but he is discredited (majruh) by something which does not cause him to fall out of the state of integrity.”)

I say: It is so in this narration “from a man from the family of Al-Khattab”, so it agrees with At-Tayalisi “from a man from the family of ‘Umar” and it looks like to be a mistake of writing from Hatib, and what is in “At-Tarikh” of al-Bukhari is “from a man from children of Hatib” and there is not in this narration mentioned by al-‘Uqayli (the name of) ‘Umar as in the narration of At-Tayalisi…so it is clear that it is a mistake of At-Tayalisi, and likewise his dropping Harun is also a mistake.

And the basis of this Hadith is on Harun and he is a Shaykh unknown (Majhul), and he is not known to be mentioned in other than this Hadith. Abul Fath Al-Azdi mentioned him and said: “He is abandoned in Hadith, one should not base on him.”…

Abu Ahmad ibn ‘Adi said in his book “Al-Kamil fi Ma’rifah Ad-Du’afa wa ‘Ilal Al-Ahadith”: “Harun Abu Quz’ah, I heard ibn Hammad saying: Al-Bukhari said: Harun Abu Quz’ah, Maymun ibn Siwar narrated from him and he is not followed.”

Ibn ‘Adi said: “Harun ibn Quz’ah, his tribe and family is not known, it is only narrated from him what Al-Bukhari indicated.”

And this is all that ibn ‘Adi mentioned about Harun, and if he knew something else than what Al-Bukhari said, then he would mention it according to his habit, so it is known that the basis of this Hadith is on Harun Abu Quz’ah and he is a Shaykh who is not known except in this weak Hadith and his condition is not famous so how can we accept his narration? And similar to him are not based upon by those who tasted the flavour of Hadith or understand anything from it.

(The Muhaqiq mentioned that Az-Zahabi in “Al-Mizan” vol 4 p 288 said: “Harun Abu Quz’ah: he is not known, Al-Azdi said: Matruk.” See his mention in “Lisan Al-Mizan” of Hafiz ibn Hajar v 6 p 183)

And with this, the narrator from Harun is a Shaykh whose name is differed upon, not known for holding knowledge neither famous in transmitting it, and none of the Imams declared him to be trustworthy and none declared his narration to be strong, rather they criticised it, rejected it and did not accept it.

And the objector (to Ibn Taymiyah, meaning As-Subki) mixed here with a great mixing and he presented this weak and Mudhtarab Hadith as three (different) Hadith, and he tried to strengthen it according to his habit of strengthening the weak, and he started to debate against those who spoke against it and showed its condition from the Imams of Hufaz, and this is the bad habit of this objector who strengthens the weak and weakens the strong.

He said: “Siwar ibn Maymun, Shu’bah narrated from him, and (Shu’bah) narrating from him is a prove that he is Thiqah for him, so there only remains to look in the chain at this man who is from the family of ‘Umar, and the matter about him is close especially in this level that is the level of Tabi’is.”

It is said to him: the narration of Shu’bah from him is not known except in this weak Hadith Mudhtarab in Isnad, and the mention of the unknown Harun ibn Quz’ah has been added to the narration of At-Tayalisi, the one that is not followed by anybody in what he narrated.”

Then ibn ‘Abdil Hadi mentioned that in majority of cases, Shu’bah narrated from Thiqah narrators, yet in some instances he also narrated from a group of weak narrators whose weakness is famous like Ibrahim ibn Muslim, Jabir Al-Ju’fi, Zayd ibn Al-Hawary Al-‘Amyi, Mujalid ibn Sa’id, Dawud ibn Yazid Al-Awdi, ‘Ubaydah ibn Mu’tab Adh-Dhabi, Muslim Al-A’war, Musa ibn ‘Ubaydah Ar-Ribzi, Ya’qub ibn ‘Ata ibn Abi Rabah, ‘Ali ibn Zayd ibn Jad’an, Layth ibn Abi Sulaym, Farqad As-Sabkhi and others.

Then ibn ‘Abdil Hadi said: “And Siwar ibn Maymun if it is correct that Su’bah narrated from him, then he is below a lot of these people that we have named and from whom he narrated, and they are criticised (Mutakalam fihi), as some of them are narrating many Hadith and they are acceptable for Muta’bah (chain strengthening from same Sahabi), strengthening and Istishad (chain strengthening from another Sahabi). As for Siwar ibn Maymun then he is a Shaykh Majhul Al-Hal, with few narrations, rather there is no narration known from him except this weak and Mudhtarab Hadith, and with this there is difference among narrators about his name and they did not mentioned him properly, some said Maymun ibn Siwar and some inversed his name and said Siwar ibn Maymun, and Allah knows best if his name was Siwar or Maymun, how is it correct to base on the narration Munqati’ Mudhtarab in transmitting it from people not famous and among unknown narrators? Allah is the one giving Tawfiq.

Then the objector said: “There only remains to look in the chain at this man who is from the family of ‘Umar, and the matter about him is close” while we have shown the Idhtirab about this man, and the Idhtirab in the chain of his Hadith, and some said “children of Hatib” and he is a Mubham man (non identified) who is the worst case of unknown…”

Then As-Subki mentioned the Hadith n°7 that is the Hadith of Al-‘Uqayli ibn ‘Abdil Hadi mentioned before: Muhammad ibn Musa narrated to us, Ahmad ibn Al-Hasan At-Tirmidhi narrated to us, ‘Abdul Malik ibn Ibrahim Al-Jadi narrated to us, Shu’bah narrated to us from Siwar ibn Maymun from Harun ibn Quz’ah from a man from the family of Al-Khattab from the Prophet (saw) that he said: “He who visits me on purpose will be in my neighbourhood on the day of resurrection, and he who does in any of the two Haram Allah will resurrect him among the safe people on the day of resurrection.”

And As-Subki mentioned that Ash-Shahami added words “He who lives in Madinah and bears its difficulties, I will be a witness or an intercessor for him”

And As-Subki said that Ibn Hibban mentioned Harun ibn Quz’ah in his “Thiqat”, and Al-’Uqayli when he mentioned him did not add anything except the words of Al-Bukhari that he is not followed, “so there only remains the Mubham man and his Irsal (meaning the name of the Sahabi is omitted), and his saying in it from the family of Al-Khattab, it is the same as the narration of At-Tayalisi from the family of ‘Umar, and At-Tayalisi mentioned ‘Umar in it as it has preceded, but I fear that Al-Khattab is a mistake of writing from Hatib, because Al-Bukhari when he mentioned it in his “At-Tarikh” said “Harun Abu Quz’ah from a man of the children of Hatib from the Prophet (saw): “He who died in one of the two Haram.” Maymun ibn Siwar narrated from him and he is not followed by anybody” and ibn Hibban said: “Harun ibn Quz’ah narrated from a man from the children of Hatib some Mursal narrations” so in both cases, this is a Mursal Jayd (acceptable). As for the saying of Al-Azdi that Harun is Matruk Al-Hadith, one should not base on him, maybe he relied on what Al-Bukhari and Al-‘Uqayli mentioned and he exaggerated in this quote, and this is only used where the condition of the person shows he deserves to be abandoned, and it is known that ibn Hibban mentioned him in “At-Thiqat” and ibn Hibban is more knowledgeable than Al-Azdi and more established.”

Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi answered: “This seventh Hadith is exactly the same as the sixth Hadith, and the objector presented them as two Hadith, rather three, and it is only one Hadith weak Mudhtarab Majhul from the Isnad and from the weakest of Mursal narrations…and it is known that the causes is based on many reasons: Idhtirab, difference, ignorance, Irsal, Inqita’, and some of these reasons were enough to weaken a Hadith and make it unreliable for the Imams of this category, then how when of these reasons are gathered in one narration?

As for his saying that Harun has been mentioned by ibn Hibban in his “Thiqat”, this is not something that leads to the authenticity of the Hadith that he narrates nor its strengthening, and it has been known that Ibn Hibban mentioned in this book in which he gathered Thiqat a lot of unknown narrators whose condition is not known neither to him nor to others. And ibn Hibban has clearly said this in more than one place of his book.

He said about the third level: “Sahl narrates from Shaddad ibn Al-Hadi, and Abu Ya’qub narrated from him, and I do not know him nor his father.” This is how he mentioned this man in his “Kitab Thiqat” and he made it clear that he does not know him.

He also said: “Hanzalah: a Shaykh that narrates Mursal narrations, I do not know who he is, Ibn Al-Mubarak narrates from Ibrahim ibn Hanzalah from his father” this is how he mentioned him and did not add.

He also said: “Al-Hasan Abu ‘Abdillah: a Shaykh that narrates Mursal narrations, Ayub Najjar narrates from him, I do not know who he is nor whose son he is.”

He also said: “Jamil: a Shaykh that narrates from Abu Malih ibn Usamah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Awn narrated from him, I do not know who he is nor whose son he is.”

And ibn Hibban mentioned a great group similar to this type, and his method is that he mentions those that are not known to be criticised, even if they are unknown, their condition is not known…”

Then Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi wrote many pages about the weakness of Mursal narrations, and its conditions to be accepted by Ash-Shafi’i.

As-Subki then said: “This has also been narrated by Harun ibn Quz’ah in a Musnad way with other words and it is the eighth Hadith: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited in my life” and this has been narrated in “Sunnan” of Ad-Daraqutni and others”

And the chain of Ad-Daraqutni is: “Abu ‘Ubayd Al-Qadhi and Abu Abdillah and ibn Makhlad narrated to us, they said: Muhammad ibn Al-Walid Al-Busri narrated to us, Waki’ narrated to us, Khalid ibn Abi Khalid and Abu ‘Awn narrated to us from Sha’bi and Al-Aswad ibn Maymun from Harun ibn Quz’ah from a man from the family of Hatib from Hatib who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: ““He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited in my life, and he who dies in one of the two Haram will be resurrected among the safe people on the day of resurrection.”

Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi answered: “This Hadith that he established as the eighth Hadith is exactly the same as the sixth and seventh Hadith, and it is one Hadith weak Mudhtarab from its Isnad, and the narration he added only adds more Idhtirab in the Isnad and also in the Matn.

Al-Bayhaqi narrated it from the way of Ad-Daraqutni in his “Shu’b Al-Iman” and said: “This is how it is in my book (Al-Aswad ibn Maymun), and others said: “Siwar ibn Maymun” and it has been said: “Maymun ibn Siwar”, and Waki’ also narrates from him, and there is in “At-Tarikh” of Al-Bukhari Maymun ibn Siwar al-‘Abdi from Harun ibn Quz’ah from a man from the children of Hatib from the Messenger of Allah (saw): “he who dies in of the two Haram” Yusuf ibn Rashid said: Waki’ narrated to us: Maymun narrated to us.”

So the conclusion is that it the narration mentioned from Muhammad ibn al-Walid from Al-Waki’ does not add but more weakness and Idhtirab to its Isnad and to its words, and the Hadith is one Hadith with a Majhul Isnad Mudhtarab with a great Idhtirab, and its basis is on Harun ibn Abi Quz’ah, and it has been said ibn Quz’ah, and some narrators mentioned him and some (at-Tayalisi) dropped him, and his Mubham (non-identified) Shaykh…some said about him “from a man from the family of ‘Umar” and some said “from a man from the family of Al-Khattab” and some said: “from a man from the children of Hatib” and some mentioned it in a Musnad way from ‘Umar, and some from Hatib, and some mentioned it in a Mursal way and not Musnad neither from Hatib nor from ‘Umar and Al-Bukhari and others narrated it like this.

Then the narrator from Harun, some narrators named him Siwar ibn Maymun, and some inversed his name and said “Maymun ibn Siwar” and some called him “Al-Aswad ibn Maymun”, and there is no doubt for the person who has lowest cognisance in knowledge of narrations that Idhtirab similar to this is among strongest and clearest proofs for the weakness of this narration and dropping it, rejecting it and not accepting it, and abandoning to base on it…

As for the addition in the Isnad of Waki’ from Khalid ibn Abi Khalid and Abi ‘Awn or ibn ‘Awn from Ash-Sha’bi or dropping Ash-Sha’bi, then it is an addition that is Munkarah ghayr Mahfuzah (not preserved), and Ash-Sha’bi has nothing to do in the Isnad of this Hadith…” End of ibn ‘Abdil Hadi’s words

So one can see that Al-Bayhaqi after narrating the words of At-Tayalisi mentioned that the Isnad is Majhul, and yet As-Subki considered this Hadith to be a proof.

Al-Bayhaqi after mentioning the version of Ad-Daraqutni mentioned the difference in this Hadith whether it is Siwar ibn Maymun, Maymun ibn Siwar or al-Aswad ibn Maymun, and yet As-Subki considered this as three different Hadith so not to have to defend this Idhtirab.

As for the version of Al-‘Uqayli, then one can see he mentioned the weakness of its Sanad, and also that Az-Zahabi also declared Harun ibn Quz’ah not to be known, yet As-Subki declared him to be Thiqah opposing Hufaz.

So we have Siwar ibn Maymun or Maymun ibn Siwar or Al-Aswad ibn Maymun who is unknown, and even if Shu’bah narrated from him, which is questionable seeing Idhtirab in Isnad, then it cannot make him thiqah, as in some cases Shu’bah narrated from weak narrators like Jabir Al-Ju’fi.

And yet the person from the children of Hatib, or the family of Khattab or ‘Umar, then he is not identified, and this is the worst kind of Mahul.

So Miswar or Maymun or Al-Aswad is Majhul, Harun ibn Quz’ah in Majhul, the man from the family of Hatib or ‘Umar is Mubham…it is as darkness over darkness.

And As-Subki’s trying to hide this Idhtirab by making this three Hadith shows he is a person of desire. Allah Ul-Musta’an.

Then As-Subki mentioned in Hadith n°10 of his “Shifa”: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me while I am alive.” This has been narrated by Abu Al-Futuh Sa’id ibn Muhammad ibn Isma’il Al-Ya’qubi in a Juzz of him, and this Jazz has been narrated by Isma’il ibn ‘Abdillah ibn Abdil Muhsin Al-Ansari Al-Maliki known as ibn Anmati.

The Sanad from Anmati is: Abu Abdillah Muhammad ibn ‘Alwan ibn Hibatullah ibn Rayhan Al-Huti At-Tikriti As-Sufi informed us while I was listening from him in the Haram Sharif in the Sufi corner in the side of Bab Bani Shaybah in front of the noble Ka’bah, may Allah increase its nobility, Abul Futuh Sa’id ibn Muhammad ibn Isma’il Al-Ya’qubi narrated to us in the year 552H, he said: Imam ibn Sam’ani narrated to us, Abu Sa’d Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Hasan Al-Hafiz narrated to us dictating us in the Rawdah between the grave of the Prophet (saw) and his Minbar, Abul Hasan Ahmad ibn ‘AbdirRahman Az-Zakwani narrated to us, Ahmad ibn Musa Al-Mardawayh Al-Hafiz informed us, Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad As-Suwaysi narrated to us, Ahmad ibn Sahl ibn Ayub informed us: Khalid ibn Yazid narrated us: ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar Al-‘Umri narrated to us, he said: I heard Sa’id Al-Maqbury saying: I heard Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, saying: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “He who visits me after my death, it is as if he visited me while I am alive, and he who visits me, I will be witness for him or intercessor on the day of resurrection.”

As-Subki then said: “Khalid ibn Yazid, if he is Al-‘Umri then ibn Hibban said: He is Munkar Al-Hadith…”

Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Hadi answered: “This Hadith is Munkar, it has no basis, and its Isnad is unjust, rather it is a fabricated Hadith on ‘Abdullah Al-‘Umri…and Al-Hasan ibn Muhammad as-Suwaysi and Ahmad ibn Sahl ibn Ayub Al-Ahwazi both narrate Munkar, and one should not base on their narration nor one should rely on their report.

And Khalid ibn Yazid is Al-‘Umari without any doubt, and he is Matruk Al-Hadith (abandoned in Hadith) accused of lying.

Ibn Abi Hatim said: “Khalid ibn Yazid Al-‘Umri Al-Makki Abul Walid, he narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Ishaq ibn Yahya ibn Talhah, ‘Abdullah Al-‘Umri, Abul ‘Asr Thabit ibn Qays, and I heard my father saying this. And from him narrated ‘Ali ibn Harb Al-Mawsuli, and Abu Zur’ah wrote from him then left narrating from him, ‘Ali ibn Al-Hasan Al-Hasanjani narrated to us, he said: I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in saying: Khalid ibn Yazid Al-‘Umri is a liar. And my father was asked about him and he said: he was a liar, I came to him in Makkah and did not write from him and he was Zahib Al-Hadith.”

Abu Hatim ibn Hibban said in his “Kitab Al-Majruhin”: “Khalid ibn Yazid Al-‘Umri Abul Walid, a Shaykh residing in Makkah and he was on the Madhab of Ahlur-Ray, and he narrated from Ath-Thawri some very Munkar narrations, and the majority of those who wrote from him were Ashabur-Ray, he is not worth being mentioned because he narrates fabrications from established (narrators).” Then he mentioned a Hadith from him about the expedition of Al-Bahr.

Al-‘Uqayli said: “Khalid ibn Yazid Al-‘Umri Al-Haza is a Mawla of them, he narrates with errors, and tells from trustworthy narrators what has no basis, and Al-Azdi said: Matruk Al-Hadith.”

Ad-Daraqutni and Al-Bayhaqi said: “weak”

Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said in “Al-Kuna”: “Abul Walid Khalid ibn Yazid Al-‘Umri Al-Makki: Zahib Al-Hadith.”

And it is narrated from Muhammad ibn Sulayman from Muhammad meaning ibn Isma’il Al-Bukhari that he said: “Khalid ibn Yazid Al-‘Umri Makki Zahib Al-Hadith.”

And Abu Ahmad ibn ‘Adi said in his “Al-Kamil”: “Khalid ibn Yazid Al-‘Adawi Abul Walid and he was in Makkah…and he has more Ahadith than those I mentioned and the majority of his Ahadith are Manakir…and he is dropped in Hadith…”

If this is the condition of Khalid ibn Yazid Al-‘Umri for the Imams of this category, how can we rely on the Hadith he narrates and base on a report containing him” end of ibn ‘Abdil Hadi’s words.

So this is the state of As-Subki, gathering many liars and unknown narrators and trying to object to Ibn Taymiyah with such falsehood.

Fabricated story of the Sahabi Bilal travelling to the grave of the Prophet (saw)

As-Subki mentioned in his “Shifa As-Siqam” the narration of the Sahabi Bilal being in Sham and seeing the Prophet (saw) in a dream telling him to come to visit him, and Bilal came to Madinah, gave Azan and people cried.

As-Subki said this narration has a Jayd Isnad (good chain).

Hafiz ibn Abdil Hadi answered in his “Sarim Al-Munki” that this narration is not authentic. This narration has been narrated by Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad ibn Ahmad ibn Ishaq An-Nisapori Al-Hafiz in his Juzz Khamis from his “Fawaid”, and from his way it has been narrated by ibn ‘Asakir in the mention of Bilal, and it is an narration that is Gharib Munkar with an Isnad having Inqita’ (disconnection) and Majhul (unknown narrators):

Muhammad ibn Al-Faydh Al-Ghasani was alone in reporting it from Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Sulayman ibn Bilal from his father from his great father, and Ibrahim ibn Muhammad, this Shaykh is not known to be thiqah or having Amanah (trust) neither Dhabt (accuracy) and ‘Adalah (integrity), rather he is Majhul not known in narrations and not famous in narrations, and no one narrated from him except Muhammad ibn Al-Faydh narrating from him this Munkar narration…

(Note from Muhaqiq of “Sarim Munki” ‘Aqil Al-Muqtari on Ibrahim ibn Muhammad: see his mention in “Al-Mizan”, Az-Zahabi said: “There is Jahalah (ignorance) in what is narrated from him by Muhammad ibn Al-Faydh Al-Ghassani”. And Hafiz ibn Hajar mentioned this story in his Lisan from ibn ‘Asakir’s “Tarikh” and ibn Hajar said: This is a story clearly fabricated)

We request this objector (to Ibn Taymiyah) who speaks without knowledge: Why did you declare this narration in which Ibrahim ibn Muhammad is alone in reporting it to have a Jayd Isnad, and who declared this Ibrahim ibn Muhammad or based on his narration or praised him among people of knowledge and Hadith?

As for Muhammad ibn Sulayman ibn Bilal, the father of Ibrahim, then he is a Shaykh Qalil ul Hadith (narrating few Hadith), and his condition did not become famous so to accept his narrations, Al-Bukhari mentioned him in his “Tarikh”, and he mentioned a Hadith he narrated from his mother from its great mother, and Hisham ibn ‘Amar narrated from him…

(About Muhammad ibn Sulayman, the Muhaqiq said: His mention is in “Jarh wa Ta’dil” v 7 p 267 and Abu Hatim said on him: Munkar Al-Hadith, see “Tarikh Al-Kabir” v 1 p 98)

As for his father Sulayman ibn Bilal then a his man not famous, rather Majhul Al-Hal and Qalil Ar-Riwayah (unknown and narrating few narrations), and he did not become famous in holding knowledge and transmitting it, and none from the Imams declared him to be thiqah as far as we know, and Al-Bukhari did not mention him in his book, and likewise Abu Hatim, and its hearing from Um Darda is not known.

And we request the one taking this as a proof and basing on this narration: who declared him to be thiqah among Imams and relied on his Hadith among Hufaz, or praised him among scholars until his narration can be based upon and one can rely on his report?

End of Ibn Abdil Hadi’s words.

Fabricated story of Ja’far Mansur and Imam Malik

As-Subki also quoted the narration of Qadhi ‘Iyad in his “Shifa” that Ja’far Mansur, the second ‘Abbasid caliph, when visiting the Prophetic mosque asked Imam Malik: “Shall I turn my face towards the Ka’ba or face the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw) for invocation?” To which Imam Malik replied: “How can you turn your face away from the Messenger of Allah? He is your Wasilah and the Wasilah of your father Adam, peace be upon him! Rather turn your face towards him and seek intercession though him!…”

The Isnad is Qadhi ‘Iyadh: Qadhi Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad ibn ‘AbdirRahman Al-Ash’ari and Abu Al-Qasim Ahmad ibn Baqi Al-Hakim and others who gave me the authority to narrate this, they said: Abu Al-‘Abbas Ahmad ibn ‘Umar ibn Dalhath narrated to us, Abul Hasan ‘Ali ibn Fihr narrated to us, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Faraj narrated to us, Abul Hasan ‘Abdullah ibn Al-Muntab narrated to us, Ya’qub ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Israil narrated to us, ibn Humayd narrated to us: he said Abu Ja’far Emir Al-Muminin called Malik in the mosque of the Messenger of Allah (saw)…

Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi said after quoting the story attributed to Imam Malik: “I say: What is known from Malik is not facing the grave for invocation, and this story quoted by Qadi ‘Iyad with his Isnad to Malik is not true from him, and the objector (As-Subki) said in a place of his book its Isnad is a good (Jayd) Isnad, and he is mistaken in this saying with a clear mistake, rather the Isnad is not good, it is an unjust Munqati’ (disconnected) Isnad, and it comprehends someone accused of lying, and on some whose condition is not known, and ibn Humayd is Muhammad ibn Humyd Ar-Razi, he is weak with a lot of Manakir, not based upon in narrations, and he did not hear anything from Malik nor met him, rather this narration from him is Munqati’ not continuous.

And the objector thought that he (Muhammad ibn Humayd) is Abu Sufyan Muhammad ibn Humayd Al-Mu’amari, one of the trustworthy narrators present in “Sahih Muslim”, he said: “Al-Khatib mentioned him among those who narrated from Malik” and he made a clear mistake in his thinking and an ugly error, because Muhammad ibn Humayd Al-Mu’amari came before, Ya’qub ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Israil the narrator from ibn Humayd in the story did not reach him, rather there is a great gap between them. Al-Mu’amari narrated from Hisham ibn Hasaan, Mu’amar and Ath-Thawri, and he did in 182H before the birth of Ya’qub ibn Ishaq ibn Abi Israil. As for Muhammad ibn Humayd Ar-Razi then he is among the narrators from Al-Mu’amari like Abu Khaythamah, ibn Numayr, ‘Amr An-Naqid and others, and his death was in 248, and it is possible for Ya’qub ibn Ishaq to narrate from him contrary to narrating from Al-Mu’amari, because it is impossible.

Muhammad ibn Humayd Ar-Razi, and he is the one from whom the narration is narrated, has been criticised by many Imams and some attributed lie to him.

Ya’qub ibn Shaybah As-Sudusi said: “Muhammad ibn Humayd Ar-Razi mentions many Manakir” (note from Muhaqiq of “Sarim Al-Munki: see “Tahzib” 9/129)

Al-Bukhari said: “Hadithuhu fihi Nadhar (his Hadith has observations)” (At-Tarikh Al-Kabir 1/69 and “Ad-Du’afa As-Saghir” n°315)

An-Nassa’i said “He is not Thiqah” (“Ad-Du’afa wal Matrukin” p 32)

Ibrahim ibn Ya’qub Al-Juzjani said: “He had a bad Madhab, he is not trustworthy” (“Ahwal Ar-Rijal” n°382)

Fadlak Ar-Razi said: “I have fifty thousands Ahadith from ibn Humayd, and I do not narrate a word from him.” (“Tahzib” 9/129)

Abul ‘Abbas Ahmad ibn Muhammad Al-Azhari said: “I heard Ishaq ibn Mansur saying: “I witness in front of Allah that Muhammad ibn Humayd and ‘Ubayd ibn Ishaq Al-‘Atar are both liars.” (“Tahzib” 9/129)

Salih ibn Muhammad Al-Hafiz: “Every Hadith from Sufyan that reached him he would turn it to Mihran, and every Hadith from Mansur that reached him he would turn it ‘Amr ibn (Abi) Qays, and every Hadith of Al-A’mash that reached him he would turn it to similar to these and to ‘Anbasah” then he said: “Everything he was narrating, we would accuse him (of lying in it).”

And he said in another place: “His Ahadith would add (in words) and I have not seen someone daring (more lies) on Allah than him, he would take the Ahadith of people and would inverse them” and he said in another place: “I have not seen anyone more keen to lie than two men: Sulayman Ash-Shazkuni and Muhammad ibn Hameed Ar-Razi, he would learn a Hadith one day, and would add, and every day he would add (words). Abul Qasim said: ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abdil Karim Ar-Razi, the nephew of Abu Zur’ah: I asked Abu Zur’ah about Muhammad ibn Humayd and he made a sign putting his finger on his mouth” I asked him: “Would he lie?” and he answered with his head saying yes…

Abu Nu’aym ‘Abdul Malik ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Adi: I heard Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Idris Ar-Razi in his house, and ‘AbdurRahman ibn Yusuf ibn Kharash was present with him and also a group of scholars of (region of) Ray and their Hufaz of Hadith, and they mentioned ibn Humayd and they agreed on the fact that he was very weak in Hadith and he narrates what he did not hear, and he would take the Ahadith of the people of Basrah and Kufah and narrate them from the two Razi. Abul ‘Abbas ibn Sa’id said: I heard Dawud ibn Yahya saying: Abu Hatim heard from him before, meaning from Muhammad ibn Humayd then he left him at the end, he said: I heard ‘AbdurRahman ibn Yusuf Kharash saying that ibn Humayd narrated to him and by Allah he was a liar. (Al-Kamil 6/2277)

Abu Hatim ibn Hibban Al-Busti said in his “Kitab Ad-Du’afa”: Muhammad ibn Humayd Ar-Razi, his Kubiyah is Abu ‘Abdillah, he narrates from ibn Al-Mubarak and Jarir, our Shuyukh narrated from him and he died in 248H, and he was among those who were alone in inversing narrations of Thiqat, and specially when he narrated from the Shuyukh of his country…”

Al-‘Uqayli said in his “Kitab Ad-Du’afa”: “Ibrahim ibn Yusuf narrated to us, he said: Abu Zur’ah, Muhammad ibn Muslim narrated a lot from Muhammad ibn Humayd then they stopped narrating from him. And Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said in his “Kitab Al-Kuna”: Abu ‘Abdillah Muhammad ibn Humayd Ar-Razi is not strong for them and Abu ‘Abdillah ibn Yahya Az-Zuhli and Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah abandoned him.” End of ibn ‘Abdil Hadi’s words

Also after the weakness of ibn Humayd, there is also disconnection as ibn Humayd did not meet Malik as explained by Ibn Taymiyah in his “Al-Qa’idah Al-Jalilah fi Tawassul Wal Wasilah” and this chain contains other unknown narrators.

Fabricated narration of ‘Utbi

As-Subki also quoted the narration of ‘Utbi: “I was once seated by the grave of the Messenger of Allah (saw), when a Bedouin came and said: “Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah. O Messenger of Allah, I have heard All-Mighty Allah saying in the Qur’an “And if they, when they had been unjust to themselves, had come to you (Muhammad (saw)) and begged Allah’s forgiveness and the messenger had begged forgiveness for them, indeed they would have found Allah All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Al-Nisa 4 :64) hence, I have come to you in a state that I seek forgiveness of my sins by seeking your intercession by my Lord’, thereafter he recited a few couplets and departed. Al-Utbi [ra] said: “I then fall asleep and I saw The Messenger of Allah (saw) instructing me by the words: “O ‘Utbi, go to that Bedouin and give him the glad tidings that All-Mighty Allah has forgiven him.”

Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Hadi answered: “This story has been narrated by a group of Imams from Al-‘Utbi and his name is Muhammad ibn ‘Abdillah ibn ‘Amr ibn Mu’awiyah ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘Utbah ibn Abi Sufyan: Sakhr ibn Harb, he was among most eloquent people, a person of stories (Akhbar) and a narrator of literature, and he narrated from his father and Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, and he died in 228 and his Kuniyah is Abu AbdirRahman.

And ibn ‘Asakir narrated it in his “At-Tarikh” and ibn Al-Jawzi in his “Muthir Al-‘Azm As-Sakin” and others with their Asanid up to Muhammad ibn Harb Al-Hilali: I came to the grave of the Prophet (saw), visited it and sat next to it and a Bedouin came and said…

And this story that some narrate from Al-‘Utbi without any Isnad, and some narrate it from Muhammad ibn Harb Al-Hilali and some narrate it from Muhammad ibn Harb from Abul Hasan Az-Za’farani from the Bedouin, Al-Bayhaqi mentioned it in his “Shu’b Al-Iman” with an unjust Isnad from Muhammad ibn Ruh ibn Yazid Al-Basri: Abu Harb Al-Hilali narrated to me: he said: A Bedouin performed Hajj and when he came to the door of the Mosque of the Messenger of Allah (saw)…and some liars invented such an Isnad up to ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, as it will detailed further”

Ibn ‘Abdil Hadi said further: “If it is said: Abul Hasan ‘Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdillah ibn ‘AbdirRahman Al-Karkhi narrated: Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Al-Haytham At-Ta’i narrated to us: my father narrated from his father from Salamah ibn Kuhayl from Abu Sadiq from ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, he said: A Bedouin came three days after we buried the Prophet (saw)…

The answer is: This is a Munkar narration, fabricated and a narration invented made, it is not suitable to base on it, and it is not correct to turn to it, and its Isnad is darkness over darkness, and Al-Haytham the great father of Ahmad ibn Al-Haytham, I think he is ibn ‘Adi At-Ta’i, and if it is him then he is Matruk a liar, else he is Majhul, and Al-Haytham was born in Kufah and grew here and he reached the time of Salamah ibn Kuhayl according to what is said, then he went to Baghdad an resided there.

‘Abbas Ad-Dawri said: I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in saying: Al-Haytham ibn ‘Adi Kufi is not trustworthy, he used to lie. Al-‘Ijli and Abu Dawud said: a liar, And Abu Hatim Ar-Razi, An-Nassa’i, Ad-Dolabi and Al-Azdi said: “Matruk Al-Hadith” and Al-Bukhari said: “They remained silent on him (Sakatu ‘Anhu)” meaning they abandoned him…Al-Hakim Abu Ahmad said: Zahib Al-Hadith…” end of ibn ‘Abdil Hadi’s words.

So the narration of this Bedouin is extremely weak, contains unknown narrators, and in one Isnad probably a liar.
May Allah send Salah and Salam on the Prophet (saw), his household, Companions and those who follow them.

Compiled by Ali Hassan Khan.