Question: How do we reconcile
the ḥadīth where the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “If there were a prophet after
me, it would be ˋUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb” with the fact that the Ṣaḥābah
considered Abū Bakr (رضي الله عنه) to be the best person amongst the
people after the death of the Prophet (ﷺ), and the fact that he was
chosen as the first khalīfah of the Muslims and not ˋUmar?
Answer: This ḥadīth was reported by Aḥmad, at-Tirmiṫhī, al-Ājurrī, ar-Rūyānī, aṭ-Ṭabarānī, and al-Ḥākim [1] – all by way of Mishraḥ ibn Hāˋān from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) say:
لَوْ كَانَ مِنْ بَعْدِي نَبِيٌّ، لَكَانَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ
‘If there were a prophet after me, it would be ˋUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.’”
Aṭ-Ṭabarānī also reports this by way of Yaḥyā ibn Kathīr an-Nājī, from Ibn Lahīˋah, from Abī ˋAshānah (who is Ḥay ibn Mu’min) – also from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir, from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ), but Ibn Lahīˋah is ḍaˋīf (weak), and Yaḥyā ibn Kathīr an-Nājī is majhūl (unknown). [2]
And aṭ-Ṭabarānī [3] also narrates this from his shaykh Aḥmad ibn Rishdīn, from Khālid ibn Abd-is-Salām, from al-Faḍl ibn al-Mukhtār, from ˋAbd-ul-Lāh ibn Mawhib, from ˋIṣmah ibn Mālik, from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ). Aḥmad ibn Rishdīn is accused of lying, and al-Faḍl ibn al-Mukhtār is unknown and narrates fabrications.
There are similar narrations attributed to Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq, Bilāl ibn Rabāḥ, Abū Saˋīd al-Khudrī, and ˋAbd-ul-Lāh ibn ˋUmar – but they either come by way of liars or those who are abandoned as narrators, so they cannot be used to strengthen the narration attributed to ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir.
As for the narration of ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir, al-Ḥākim said following the ḥadīth, “This ḥadīth has a ṣaḥīḥ isnād,” but there are a couple of issues with this. First, when it comes to Mishraḥ ibn Hāˋān, then he is not at the level of those whom we would consider their narrations to be ṣaḥīḥ (authentic).
Yaḥyā ibn Maˋīn said, “He is thiqah” – meaning trustworthy [4] and al-ˋIjlī said, “He is a Tābiˋī; thiqah”, but al-ˋIjlī is known for being laxed when it comes to accepting narrators. [5]
Al-ˋUqaylī listed him in his book Aḍ-Ḍuˋafā’ (a book of narrators he considered weak). [6] And Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in his book Ath-Thuqāt and said, “He makes mistakes and differs” – meaning in his narrations with others who are more reliable. [7]
Ibn Ḥibbān also mentioned him in his book Al-Majrūḥīn and said, “He narrates from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir munkar narrations that he is not followed upon. Ibn Lahīˋah, al-Layth, and the people of Egypt narrated from him. The correct position concerning his affair is abandoning what he is alone in narrating and taking into consideration what agrees with those who are reliable.” [8] And he said, “He is not to be relied upon.” [9]
The second issue is that, even if we did assume the isnād was sound, other early scholars of ḥadīth rejected it. When Imām Aḥmad was asked about it – even though he included it in his Musnad – he said, “Strike against it [or cross it out], for I consider it munkar.” [10]
And after narrating the ḥadīth, at-Tirmiṫhī said, “This ḥadīth is ḥasan ġarīb; we only know it from the ḥadīth of Mishraḥ ibn Hāˋān.” The classification of ḥasan ġarīb by at-Tirmiṫhī is in fact a criticism against a ḥadīth and weakening it, and not a grading indicating that it is a good narration as some have misunderstood.
Suffice it to say, the narration of Mishraḥ ibn Hāˋān from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir is munkar. It was rejected by Imām Aḥmad and at-Tirmiṫhī, and Ibn Ḥibbān considered all his narrations from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir as such if no one else followed him in narrating it; which in this case, no one else did.
For us, we should keep in mind that when these early scholars speak about the authenticity of a narration – especially when they reject it, no attention should be paid to anyone who comes after them and says it is authentic. As for those who tried to reconcile between this narration and what we know concerning Abū Bakr, then no effort in reconciliation is needed once it is known a ḥadīth is rejected.
Answer: This ḥadīth was reported by Aḥmad, at-Tirmiṫhī, al-Ājurrī, ar-Rūyānī, aṭ-Ṭabarānī, and al-Ḥākim [1] – all by way of Mishraḥ ibn Hāˋān from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) say:
لَوْ كَانَ مِنْ بَعْدِي نَبِيٌّ، لَكَانَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ
‘If there were a prophet after me, it would be ˋUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.’”
Aṭ-Ṭabarānī also reports this by way of Yaḥyā ibn Kathīr an-Nājī, from Ibn Lahīˋah, from Abī ˋAshānah (who is Ḥay ibn Mu’min) – also from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir, from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ), but Ibn Lahīˋah is ḍaˋīf (weak), and Yaḥyā ibn Kathīr an-Nājī is majhūl (unknown). [2]
And aṭ-Ṭabarānī [3] also narrates this from his shaykh Aḥmad ibn Rishdīn, from Khālid ibn Abd-is-Salām, from al-Faḍl ibn al-Mukhtār, from ˋAbd-ul-Lāh ibn Mawhib, from ˋIṣmah ibn Mālik, from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ). Aḥmad ibn Rishdīn is accused of lying, and al-Faḍl ibn al-Mukhtār is unknown and narrates fabrications.
There are similar narrations attributed to Abū Bakr aṣ-Ṣiddīq, Bilāl ibn Rabāḥ, Abū Saˋīd al-Khudrī, and ˋAbd-ul-Lāh ibn ˋUmar – but they either come by way of liars or those who are abandoned as narrators, so they cannot be used to strengthen the narration attributed to ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir.
As for the narration of ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir, al-Ḥākim said following the ḥadīth, “This ḥadīth has a ṣaḥīḥ isnād,” but there are a couple of issues with this. First, when it comes to Mishraḥ ibn Hāˋān, then he is not at the level of those whom we would consider their narrations to be ṣaḥīḥ (authentic).
Yaḥyā ibn Maˋīn said, “He is thiqah” – meaning trustworthy [4] and al-ˋIjlī said, “He is a Tābiˋī; thiqah”, but al-ˋIjlī is known for being laxed when it comes to accepting narrators. [5]
Al-ˋUqaylī listed him in his book Aḍ-Ḍuˋafā’ (a book of narrators he considered weak). [6] And Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in his book Ath-Thuqāt and said, “He makes mistakes and differs” – meaning in his narrations with others who are more reliable. [7]
Ibn Ḥibbān also mentioned him in his book Al-Majrūḥīn and said, “He narrates from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir munkar narrations that he is not followed upon. Ibn Lahīˋah, al-Layth, and the people of Egypt narrated from him. The correct position concerning his affair is abandoning what he is alone in narrating and taking into consideration what agrees with those who are reliable.” [8] And he said, “He is not to be relied upon.” [9]
The second issue is that, even if we did assume the isnād was sound, other early scholars of ḥadīth rejected it. When Imām Aḥmad was asked about it – even though he included it in his Musnad – he said, “Strike against it [or cross it out], for I consider it munkar.” [10]
And after narrating the ḥadīth, at-Tirmiṫhī said, “This ḥadīth is ḥasan ġarīb; we only know it from the ḥadīth of Mishraḥ ibn Hāˋān.” The classification of ḥasan ġarīb by at-Tirmiṫhī is in fact a criticism against a ḥadīth and weakening it, and not a grading indicating that it is a good narration as some have misunderstood.
Suffice it to say, the narration of Mishraḥ ibn Hāˋān from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir is munkar. It was rejected by Imām Aḥmad and at-Tirmiṫhī, and Ibn Ḥibbān considered all his narrations from ˋUqbah ibn ˋĀmir as such if no one else followed him in narrating it; which in this case, no one else did.
For us, we should keep in mind that when these early scholars speak about the authenticity of a narration – especially when they reject it, no attention should be paid to anyone who comes after them and says it is authentic. As for those who tried to reconcile between this narration and what we know concerning Abū Bakr, then no effort in reconciliation is needed once it is known a ḥadīth is rejected.
And Allāh knows best.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Musnad Aḥmad (17405), Jāmiˋ at-Tirmiṫhī (3686), Ash-Sharīˋah (vol. 4, pg. 1736), Musnad ar-Rūyānī (214 and 223), Al-Muˋjam al-Kabīr (822), and Al-Mustadrak ˋalaṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn (4495).
[2] Al-Muˋjam al-Kabīr (857)
[3] Al-Muˋjam al-Kabīr (475)
[4] Kitāb al-Kāmil fī Ḍuˋafā’-ir-Rijāl (vol. 8, pg. 231)
[5] Kitāb ath-Thuqāt lil-ˋIjlī (vol. 2, pg. 279)
[6] Kitāb aḍ-Ḍuˋafā’ al-Kabīr (vol. 4, pg. 222)
[7] Kitāb ath-Thuqāt li Ibn Ḥibbān (vol. 5, pg. 452)
[8] Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn li Ibn Ḥibbān (vol. 3, pg. 28)
[9] Al-ˋIlal al-Muntanāhiyah fīl-Aḥādīth al-Wāhiyah (vol. 2, pg. 158) [10] Al-Muntakhab min-al-ˋIlal lil-Khallāl (106). Munkar, with regard to a narration, refers to something that has been narrated by someone who is alone in narrating it when others who are more likely to have narrated it, or should have narrated it, did not. Such narrations are rejected. If this term is used to classify a narrator, then it means this person narrates much of what is considered munkar.
[1] Musnad Aḥmad (17405), Jāmiˋ at-Tirmiṫhī (3686), Ash-Sharīˋah (vol. 4, pg. 1736), Musnad ar-Rūyānī (214 and 223), Al-Muˋjam al-Kabīr (822), and Al-Mustadrak ˋalaṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn (4495).
[2] Al-Muˋjam al-Kabīr (857)
[3] Al-Muˋjam al-Kabīr (475)
[4] Kitāb al-Kāmil fī Ḍuˋafā’-ir-Rijāl (vol. 8, pg. 231)
[5] Kitāb ath-Thuqāt lil-ˋIjlī (vol. 2, pg. 279)
[6] Kitāb aḍ-Ḍuˋafā’ al-Kabīr (vol. 4, pg. 222)
[7] Kitāb ath-Thuqāt li Ibn Ḥibbān (vol. 5, pg. 452)
[8] Kitāb al-Majrūḥīn li Ibn Ḥibbān (vol. 3, pg. 28)
[9] Al-ˋIlal al-Muntanāhiyah fīl-Aḥādīth al-Wāhiyah (vol. 2, pg. 158) [10] Al-Muntakhab min-al-ˋIlal lil-Khallāl (106). Munkar, with regard to a narration, refers to something that has been narrated by someone who is alone in narrating it when others who are more likely to have narrated it, or should have narrated it, did not. Such narrations are rejected. If this term is used to classify a narrator, then it means this person narrates much of what is considered munkar.
No comments:
Post a Comment