Recently, the following Ḥadīth has been spread by many who are ignorant of the Sciences of Ḥadīth, some even declaring those who question its authenticity to be disbelievers: “My nation will split into seventy-some divisions. The greatest of them as a fitnah [test, trial, usually negative] against my nation will be a people using Qiyās with their personal views, thereby they will permit the harām and forbid the halāl.” And they reference it as: [related by at-Tabarānī and al-Hakim; al-Haithamī and others said it is authentic]
Below is a clarification of the fabricated nature of this Ḥadīth, as well as the ignorance displayed in referencing it and attempting to deem it an acceptable narration:
Abū Bakr al-Bazzār (d. 292 H.) said:
حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ السِّجِسْتَانِيُّ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا عِيسَى بْنُ يُونُسَ عَنْ حَرِيزِ بْنِ عُثْمَانَ عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ عَنْ أَبِيهِ عَنْ عَوْفِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: "سَتَفْتَرِقُ أُمَّتِي عَلَى بِضْعٍ وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً أَعْظَمُهَا فِتْنَةً عَلَى أُمَّتِي قَوْمٌ يَقِيسُونَ الْأُمُورَ بِرَأْيهِمْ يُحَرِّمُونَ الْحَلَالَ وَيُحِلُّونَ الْحَرَامَ."
“‘Umar Ibn al-Khaṭṭāb as-Sijistānī told us, saying: Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād informed us, saying: ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus informed us: On the authority of Ḥarīz Ibn ‘Uthmān: On the authority of ‘Abdur-Raḥmān Ibn Jubayr: On the authority of his father: On the authority of ‘Awf Ibn Mālik, رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ, who said: The Messenger of Allāh, صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ, said: ‘My Ummah will split into seventy-something sects. The greatest of them as a Fitnah upon my Ummah will be a people who perform Qiyās in matters based upon their opinions, they permit the Ḥarām and forbid the Ḥalāl.’” [1]
And Aṭ-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 H.) said:
حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ ثنا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ...
“Yaḥyā Ibn ‘Uthmān Ibn Ṣāliḥ told us: Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād told us…” [2]
And Ibn ‘Adī (d. 365 H.) said:
حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ حَمَّادٍ حَدَّثَنَا عِصَامُ بْنُ رَوَّادٍ حَدَّثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ..."افْتَرَقَتْ بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَى سَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً وَتَزِيدُ أُمَّتِي عَلَيْهَا فِرْقَةً لَيْسَ فِيهَا أَضَرُّ عَلَى أُمَّتِي مِنْ قَوْمٍ يَقِيسُونَ الدِّينَ بِرَأْيِهِمْ فَيُحِلُّونَ بِهِ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَيُحَرِّمُونَ بِهِ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ
Ibn Ḥammād told us: ‘Iṣām Ibn Rawwād told us: Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād told us…“The Children of Isrā’īl split into seventy sects. And my Ummah will add one more sect that it. Amngst them, there will not be one greater in harm upon my Ummah than a people who perform Qiyās in the religion based upon their opinions. Therefore, they will permit with it what Allāh Forbid and forbid with it what Allāh Permit.” [3]
And Al-Ḥākim an-Naysābūrī (d. 405 H.) said:
أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو جَعْفَرٍ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدٍ الْبَغْدَادِيُّ بِنَيْسَابُورَ ثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ عُثْمَانَ ثَنَا صَالِحُ السَّهْمِيُّ ثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ...
“Abū Ja’far Muḥammad Ibn Muḥammad al-Baghdādī informed us, in Naysābūr: Yaḥyā Ibn ‘Uthmān told us: Ṣāliḥ as-Sahmī told us: Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād told us…” [4]
And he said:
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُؤَمَّلِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ ثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْمُسَيِّبِ ثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ...
“Muḥammad Ibn al-Mu’ammal Ibn al-Ḥasan informed us: Al-Fadhl Ibn Muḥammad Ibn al-Musayyib told us: Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād told us…” [5]
As can be seen, this Ḥadīth revolves around Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād.
As for the state of Nu’aym Ibn Hammād, Yaḥyā Ibn Ma’īn said: “In Ḥadīth he is nothing. However, he was a person of the Sunnah.”[6] And he and Imām Aḥmad said: “He is known in seeking (Aḥādīth).” Then Yaḥyā criticized him and said: “He narrates from those who are not Thuqāt (reliable narrators).” [7]
And Abū Dāwūd said: “Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād has approximately twenty Ḥadīth from the Prophet, صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ, which have no basis.” [8]
And An-Nasā’ī said: “He is Dha’īf.” [9] And he said: “He is not a reliable narrator.” [10] And he said: “He had Tafarrud of many Aḥādīth from well-known Imāms, so he ended up at the level of those who are not to be used as proof.” [11]
And Abū ‘Arūbah al-Ḥarrānī (d. 318 H.) said: “The situation of Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād was dark.” [12]
And Ibn Yūnus al-Miṣrī (d. 347 H.): “He used to understand the Aḥādīth. (However) he narrated Munkar narrations from the Thuqāt.” [13]
And Maslamah Ibn al-Qāsim (d. 353 H.) said: “He is Ṣadūq (a truthful person). And he had many mistakes. And he has Munkar Aḥādīth concerning the Malāḥim (Final Battles) in which he had Tafarrud (isolation in narrating).” [14]
And Ibn Ḥibbān said: “He possibly made mistakes and errors.” [15] Meaning, more than others, as all narrators will make mistakes from time to time.
And Abul-Fat’ḥ al-Azdī (d. 374 H.) accused him fabricating Aḥādīth. [16]
And Ad-Dāraquṭnī said: “He was an Imām in the Sunnah; he had many errors.” [18]
As for why some declared him Thiqah, then Ibn Rajab (d. 795 H.) said: “And even if a group of Imāms considered him Thiqah, and Al-Bukhārī collected from him, then (this is because) the Imāms used to assume the best about him, due to his rigidity upon the Sunnah and his harshness in refuting the people of desires. And they used to attribute his mistakes to being because he confused some Aḥādīth with others. Then, when their findings of his Munkar narrations became many, they judged him to be Dha’īf.” [19] He then mentioned a number of the quotes mentioned earlier.
About the Ḥadīth as a whole, Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr said: “And Aḥmad Ibn Ḥanbal and Yaḥyā Ibn Ma’īn said: ‘This Ḥadīth of ‘Awf Ibn Mālik has no basis.” [20]
Abū Zur’ah ad-Dimashqī (d. 281 H.) said: “I told this Ḥadīth to Yaḥyā Ibn Ma’īn and asked him about its authenticity, and he rejected it (Ankarahu). [21]
And Abū Zur’ah ad-Dimashqī mentioned he asked Duḥaym ad-Dimashqī (d. 245 H.) about this Ḥadīth, and he rejected it (Raddahu). [22]
And Al-Bazzār said: “And this Ḥadīth; we do not know of anyone who narrated it other than Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād and no one followed him in doing so. [23]
And Ibn ‘Adī said: “Ibn Ḥammād told us: ‘This was fabricated by Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād.” [24]
Ibn Ḥammād is Abū Bishr Muḥammad Ibn Aḥmad Ibn Ḥammād ad-Dawlābī (d. 310 H.).
Al-Bayhaqī (d. 458 H.) said: “Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād narrated it in isolation (Tafarrada Bihi). And a group of weak (narrators) stole it from him. And it is Munkar.” [25]
As for what Al-Ḥākim an-Naysābūrī said: “This is an authentic Ḥadīth according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs, and they did not collect it.” [26]
As for the authentication of Al-Ḥākim, then it cannot be relied upon.
Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 H.) said: “And very often, Al-Ḥākim authenticates Aḥādīth which can be said, without doubt, are fabricated (and) have no basis.” [27]
And Ath-Thahabī (d. 748 H.) said: “In his ‘Mustadrak’, he authenticates Aḥādīth which are disreputable, and he does so often.” [28]
And Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 H.) said: “And the Ḥuffāth (preservers) who diagnose defects of Ḥadīth pay no attention to the authentication of Al-Ḥākim. And they do not raise their heads to it. In fact, his authentication does not equal or indicate a Ḥadīth is Ḥasan (good). Rather, he authenticates things that are, without any doubt, fabricated according to the people of knowledge of Ḥadīth.” [29]
And Az-Zayla’ī (d. 762 H.) said: “And the authentication of Al-Ḥākim is not to be taken into consideration.” [30] And he also said: “Al-Ḥākim is known for his leniency and for his authentication of Dha’īf and even fabricated Aḥādīth.” [31]
And other people narrated this in place of Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād, namely ‘Abdul-Wahhāb Ibn adh-Dhaḥḥāk, An-Nadhr Ibn Ṭāhir, Suwayd al-Anbārī and Abū Ṣāliḥ Al-Ḥakam Ibn al-Mubārak al-Khawāshtī. However, it is understood that they did not actually hear this from ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus, and, in reality, stole this Ḥadīth from Nu’aym. In fact, they were accused of being fabricators due to the fact that they narrated this Ḥadīth.
Ibn ‘Adī explained: “And this Ḥadīth; Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād used to be known with this chain of narration, until ‘Abdul-Wahhāb Ibn adh-Dhaḥḥāk, Suwayd al-Anbārī and a Khurāsānī Shaykh called Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Khurāsānī from ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus. And Abū ‘Ubayd was accused (of fabrication) due to this Ḥadīth, as he told it and narrated it from his uncle from ‘Īsā. And Al-Firyābī told us: When I intended to go to (see) Suwayd, Abū Bakr al-A’yun said to me: Ask Suwayd about this Ḥadīth and stop him at it. So, I came to Suwayd and he dictated to me from ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus. So, he stopped him at that, but he refused. And ‘Abdul-Wahhāb Ibn adh-Dhaḥḥāk narrated it from ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus as well. And Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Khurāsānī, and he was from the early people of Ḥadīth, narrated it from ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus. And Abdul-Wahhāb Ibn adh-Dhaḥḥāk was also accused (of fabrication) due to it, as was that one, as this Ḥadīth was known to be from Nu’aym from ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus.” [32]
"تَفْتَرِقُ هَذِهِ الأُمَّةُ بِضْعاً وَسَبْعِينَ فِرْقَةً شَرُّهَا فِرْقَةُ قَوْمٍ يَقِيسُونَ الرَّأْيَ يَسْتَحِلُّونَ بِهِ الْحَرَامَ وَيُحَرِّمُونَ بِهِ الْحَلَالَ."
“This Ummah will split into seventy-something sects. The most evil sect amongst them are a people who perform Qiyās in matters based upon their opinions, they permit the Ḥarām and forbid the Ḥalāl.”
Ibn ‘Adī continued: “Al-Firyābī said: ‘And I stopped Suwayd at it after he narrated it to me, and much discussion took place between him and I.’ And this is only known to be from Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād. And he narrated it from ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus, so the people spoke about it due to him. Then it is was narrated by a man from Khurāsān called Al-Ḥakam Ibn al-Mubārak whose Kunyah is Abū Ṣāliḥ al-Khawāshtī, and it is said there is no harm in him (as a narrator). Then a weak group of people, who are known for stealing Aḥādīth, stole it. From amongst them were ‘Abdul-Wahhāb Ibn adh-Dhaḥḥāk, An-Nadhr Ibn Ṭāhir and the third of them was Suwayd al-Anbārī.” [33]
We see here that the Scholars of Ḥadīth in that time did not accept the fact that these narrators heard this Ḥadīth from ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus, and maintained that the only person to have this chain of narration was Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād.
There is one other narrator mentioned to have taken the place of Nu’aym Ibn Hammād; ‘Abdullāh Ibn Wahb.
Ibn ‘Adī said:
وَحَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ حَمَّادٍ حَدَّثَنَاهُ أَبُو عُبَيدِ اللَّهِ بْنُ أَخِي بْنِ وَهْبٍ حَدَّثَنَا عَمِّي حَدَّثَنَا عِيسَى بْنُ يُونُسَ نَحْوَهُ.
“And Ibn Ḥammād told us: Abū ‘Ubaydillāh, the son of the brother of Ibn Wahb told it to us: My uncle told us: ‘Īsā Ibn Yūnus told us the likes of it.” [34]
However, it is not confirmed that he narrated this Ḥadīth. This is because the person who narrated this Ḥadīth from him, Abū ‘Ubaydillāh, the son of the brother of Ibn Wahb, is weak. In fact, many considered him a liar.
Yes, some considered him to be truthful but unreliable due to mistakes and others due to senility, however, he was, without doubt, weak.
Abū Zur’ah ar-Rāzī said: “I do not see that anyone emerged in Egypt for a long time, who fabricates Aḥādīth more, nor who is more audacious in lying than him.” [35]
And An-Nasā’ī said: “A frequent liar (Kathāb).” [36]
And Abū Sa’īd Ibn Yūnus al-Miṣrī said: “He is weak; his Ḥadīth does not establish proof.” [37]
And Ibn ‘Adī said: “I saw the Shaykhs of Egypt whom I met, agreed upon his weakness.” [38]
And Ad-Dāraquṭnī said: “They spoke about him.” [39] Meaning, people have criticized him.
Therefore, since it is not confirmed that he even ever narrated this Ḥadīth, he obviously cannot take the place of Nu’aym Ibn Ḥammād.
As for the claim that “al-Haithamī and others said it is authentic”, then this is false. He did not say it is authentic.
Al-Haythamī (d. 807 H.) actually said: “It was collected by Aṭ-Ṭabarānī in ‘Al-Kabīr’ and Al-Bazzār. And its men are the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ.” [40]
There is a huge difference between “It is Ṣaḥīḥ.” and “its men are the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ.” The first is a judgment upon the acceptability of the Ḥadīth. The second merely means that the men in the chain are found in both or one of the two Ṣaḥīḥs. This does not take into account anything related to breaks in the chain, contradictions of other narrators, Tafarrud and any number of other defects.
And even if he did say it was authentic, there is no comparison between his authentication and what was stated by the Imāms mentioned earlier.
Lastly, saying “related by at-Tabarānī and al-Hakim” is not in line with how the Scholars of Ḥadīth reference Aḥādīth. One approach is to mention the sources in order of the year of the authors’ deaths and another is to do so in order of authenticity. Neither of these were done here.
And Allāh Knows Best.
Haytham Āl Sayfaddīn (hafidhahUllah)
FOOTNOTES:
[2] “Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr” (#90) and “Musnad ash-Shāmiyyīn” (#1,072) both by Aṭ-Ṭabarānī
[3] “Al-Kāmil Fī Dhu’afā’ ar-Rijāl” by Ibn ‘Adī, 8/253
[4] “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn” by Al-Ḥākim an-Naysābūrī (#6,325)
[5] “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn” by Al-Ḥākim an-Naysābūrī (#8,325)
[6] “Tārīkh Baghdād” by Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī 15/419
[7] “Al-Kāmil Fī Dhu’afā’ ar-Rijāl” by Ibn ‘Adī 8/251
[8] Attributed to him by Al-Mizzī in “Tahthīb al-Kamāl Fī Asmā’ ar-Rijāl” 29/475 and Ath-Thahabī in “Mīzān al-I’tidāl Fī Naqd ar-Rijāl” 4/268 and elsewhere in his books
[9] “Adh-Dhu’afā’ Wal-Matrūkīn” by An-Nasā’ī pg. 101
[10] “Tārīkh Baghdād” by Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī 15/419
[11] Attributed to him by Al-Mizzī in “Tahthīb al-Kamāl Fī Asmā’ ar-Rijāl” 29/476, Ath-Thahabī in “Mīzān al-I’tidāl Fī Naqd ar-Rijāl” 4/268 and elsewhere in his books, Ibn Rajab in “Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūmi Wal-Ḥikam” pg. 825 and Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī in “Tahthīb at-Tahthīb” 10/461
[12] “Al-Kāmil Fī Dhu’afā’ ar-Rijāl” by Ibn ‘Adī 8/251
[13] “Tārīkh Ibn Yūnus aṣ-Ṣadafī al-Miṣrī” 2/245
[14] Attributed to him by Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī in “Tahthīb at-Tahthīb” 10/462
[15] “Ath-Thuqāt” by Ibn Ḥibbān 9/219
[16] Attributed to him by Ath-Thahabī in “Mīzān al-I’tidāl Fī Naqd ar-Rijāl”4/269
[17] “Tārīkh Madīnati Dimashq” by Ibn ‘Asākir 62/160
[18] “Su’ālāt al-Ḥākim Lid-Dāraquṭnī” pg. 280
[19] “Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūmi Wal-Ḥikam” by Ibn Rajab pg. 825
[20] “Jāmi’ Bayān al-‘Ilmi Wa Fadhlih” by Ibn ‘Abdil-Barr, 2/890
[21] “Tārīkh Abī Zur’ah ad-Dimashqī” pg. 622
[22] “Tārīkh Abī Zur’ah ad-Dimashqī” pg. 622
[23] “Al-Musnad” by Al-Bazzār 7/186
[24] “Al-Kāmil Fī Dhu’afā’ ar-Rijāl” by Ibn ‘Adī, 8/253
[25] “Al-Madkhal Ilas-Sunan al-Kubrā” by Al-Bayhaqī pg. 188
[26] “Al-Mustadrak ‘Alaṣ-Ṣaḥīḥayn” by Al-Ḥākim an-Naysābūrī 4/477
[27] “Majmū’ al-Fatāwā” by Ibn Taymiyyah 22/426
[28] “Mīzān al-I’tidāl Fī Naqd ar-Rijāl” by Ath-Thahabī 3/608
[29] “Al-Furūsiyyah al-Muḥammadiyyah” by Ibn al-Qayyim pg. 185
[30] “Naṣb ar-Rāyah Li-Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Hidāyah” by Az-Zayla’ī 1/344
[31] “Naṣb ar-Rāyah Li-Takhrīj Aḥādīth al-Hidāyah” by Az-Zayla’ī 1/360
[32] “Al-Kāmil Fī Dhu’afā’ ar-Rijāl” by Ibn ‘Adī, 8/253
[33] “Al-Kāmil Fī Dhu’afā ar-Rijāl” by Ibn ‘Adī, 4/497-498
[34] “Al-Kāmil Fī Dhu’afā’ ar-Rijāl” by Ibn ‘Adī, 8/253
[35] “Su’ālāt al-Bartha’ī Li-Abī Zur’ah” pg. 417
[36] “Adh-Dhu’afā’ Wal-Matrūkīn” by An-Nasā’ī pg. 23
[37] “Tārīkh Ibn Yūnus aṣ-Ṣadafī” 1/15
[38] “Al-Kāmil Fī Dhu’afā’ ar-Rijāl” by Ibn ‘Adī 1/302
[39] “Su’ālāt as-Sulamī Lid-Dāraquṭnī” pg. 289[40] “Majma’ az-Zawā’id Wa Manba’ al-Fawā’id” by Al-Haythamī 1/179
No comments:
Post a Comment