Fawāids |Qur'ān | Authentic Sunnah

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The hadīth

وحَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ بْنُ مُعَاذِ الْعَنْبَرِيُّ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، وَحَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْمُثَنَّى : حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِيٍّ قَالَا : حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ عَنْ خُبَيْبِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ حَفْصِ بْنِ عَاصِمٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ ﷺ:كَفَى بِالْمَرْءِ كَذِبًا أَنْ يُحَدِّثَ بِكُلِّ مَا سمع .

Muslim related from ‘Ubayd Allāh b. Mu’ādh, his father. And Muhammad b. Muthannā, b. Mahdī. Both from Shu’bah, Khubayb b. ‘Abd al-Rahmān, from Hafs ibn ‘Āsim that he said: “The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) said: ‘It is sufficient lying for a man to speak of everything that he hears.” (Sahīh Muslim #5 – In al-Musnad al-Musannaf al-Mu‘allal [15722]: it was corrupted in the printings of Sahīh Muslim — the Turkish edition, the ‘Abd al-Bāqī edition, and the Dār al-Mughnī edition — to read “from Hafs ibn ‘Āsim, from Abū Hurayrah, who said: the Messenger of Allāh said” whereas the correct reading appears in Tuhfat al-Ashrāf (12268) and in the Dār Taybah printing (5) and the Maknaz printing (7), without “from Abū Hurayrah.”)

وحَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ : حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَفْصِ : حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ حُبَيْبِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ حَفْصِ بْنِ عَاصِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ بِمِثْلِ ذَلِكَ .

A similar report was narrated from Abū Hurayrah, from the Prophet (ﷺ) via Abū Bakr b. Abī Shaybah, ‘Alī b. Hafs, Shu’bah, Khubayb b. Abd al-Rahmān, Hafs ibn ‘Āsim. (Sahīh Muslim #5)

---

Statements of the scholars of Hadīth

Imām al-Dāraqutnī said: “The correct [version] is that it is mursal [a statement of a Tābi’ī], as stated by Mu‘ādh, Ghundar, ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī, and others.” (al-Tatabbu’ #8)

Elsewhere he said: “Muslim related the connected hadīth of ‘Alī ibn Hafs, from Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah; he then cited the hadīth of ‘Alī ibn Hafs with its chain, then said: ‘Alī ibn Hafs alone related it from Shu‘bah as connected (Kitāb al-‘Ilal, 2008)

He said in his comments on al-Majrūhīn. Ibn Hibbān had cited the hadith of ‘Alī ibn Hafs, relying on it as evidence [al-Majrūhīn, 1/17], so al-Dāraqutnī commented on it, saying: “This is a hadīth that Ghundar, Ibn Abī ‘Adī, and others related from Shu‘bah as mursal, not mentioning Abū Hurayrah in it. ‘Alī ibn Hafs al-Madā’inī mentioned it [connected to the prophet], but others are more reliable than him” (Comments of al-Dāraqutnī on al-Majrūhīn, p. 41)

---

Abū Dāwūd related the mursal hadith of Hafs ibn ‘Umar, then followed it with the connected hadīth of ‘Alī ibn Hafs, saying: “No one connected it except this shaykh.”

Shaykh Muqbil said regarding the statement of Abū Dawūd: “Abū Dāwūd, after mentioning the hadīth both connected and mursal, appended [to it] his statement: “No one connected it except this shaykh” — meaning ‘Alī ibn Hafs al-Madā’inī.

By this he, may Allāh have mercy on him, points to the strengthening of the mursal [version] on account of the large number of those who related it as mursal.

For it was related as mursal by Mu‘ādh ibn Mu‘ādh al-‘Anbarī and ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī, as found in Muslim; by Hafs ibn ‘Umar, as found in Abū Dāwūd by Ādam ibn Abī Iyās and Sulaymān ibn Harb, as found in al-Hākim; and by Ghundar, as al-Dāraqutnī, may Allāh have mercy on him, indicated in al-Tatabbu’.” (al-Ilzāmāt wa al-Tatabbu’ pg. 222-223)

---

Shaykh ‘Abd al-Karīm al-Khudayr said: “It appears from his [i.e. Abū Dāwūds] statement that he gives precedence to the mursal [version], and this is correct — this is what al-Dāraqutnī held, as mentioned above.

For those who related it as mursal are a group, and all of them are precise, trustworthy huffādh [masters of retentive memory in hadīth], whereas ‘Alī ibn Hafs al-Madā’inī alone connected it, and he is not a hāfidh [master of precise retention] — rather, as stated in al-Taqrīb [of Ibn Hajr], he is truthful [sadūq].

So his chain is, at best, anomalous [shādhdh – isolated, deviating and contradicting from what the more reliable narrators transmit], and precedence is [therefore] given to the mursal [version].

Shaykh Ahmad Shākir gave precedence to the connected [version] in his commentary on Ibn Hibbān, holding that the mursal [version] does not harm [the report], because connecting [it] constitutes an addition from a trustworthy [narrator].

However, when the mursal [version] comes from a group of huffādh [masters of retentive memory in hadīth], while the connected [version] comes from a single individual who does not reach the level of even one of them in precision [dabt] and exactitude [itqān] — rather, the most that has been said of him is that he is truthful — then the view favoring the mursal [version] is more correct in this case.” (Sharh Muqaddimah Sahīh Muslim pg. 100-103)

---

Shaykh ‘Alī ibn Ādam Al-Ithyūbī said: “…what appears to me is that what al-Dāraqutnī, may Allāh Almighty have mercy on him, said is the more correct because ‘Alī ibn Jafs is not among those whose memory is relied upon.

Abū Hātim said of him: “His hadīth is [worth] writing down, but he is not relied upon as evidence” — end [of quotation].

This is especially so given this disagreement with these reliable authorities: Mu‘ādh ibn Mu‘ādh, ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī, and Ghundar — all of them being people of retentive memory [hifdh] and exactitude [itqān], and among those who had particular association with Shu‘bah.

The position of the rigorous scholars among the hadīth specialists, such as Ahmad, al-Bukhārī, al-Tirmidhī, and others, is that the one who disagrees [with the majority] must be among those whose memory is relied upon before his addition is accepted — indeed, some of them further required that he be corroborated…

Al-Albānī critiqued Abū Dāwūd’s aforementioned statement, may Allāh Almighty have mercy on him, [saying] that it applies [only] to the routes he [Abū Dāwūd] came across, otherwise the two other routes — meaning the routes of Mu‘ādh and Ibn Mahdī, as found in Muslim — refute it.

The compiler, may Allāh Almighty pardon him, says: There is an evident problem with this critique, for it is based upon the copies containing the error of the addition of [the mention of] Abū Hurayrah, as we have already noted.

The correct [position] is that the two other routes which al-Albānī relied upon as evidence — namely, the route of Mu‘ādh ibn Mu‘ādh and [the route of] ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Mahdī — contain no mention of Abū Hurayrah at all; rather, the hadīth [via these routes] is mursal.

So what Abū Dāwūd, may Allāh Almighty have mercy on him, said regarding ‘Alī ibn Hafs being alone in connecting [the chain] is correct, and this is also the necessary implication of al-Hākim’s aforementioned statement. So look with fairness, and do not rush headlong into distortion [driven by going off the proper path of evidence].” (Sharh Muqaddimah Sahīh Muslim 1/495-496)