Popular @troid.org

Topic-icon is hadith ṣaḥīḥ or dha'eef?

  • aamir_as_salafi
  • aamir_as_salafi's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Jadīd Boarder
  • Jadīd Boarder
More
9 years 5 months ago #1527 by aamir_as_salafi
is hadith ṣaḥīḥ or dha'eef? was created by aamir_as_salafi
Assalamu 'alaikum wa rahmatu allahi wa barakaatuhu

A post was recently added on salafitalk.net regarding the hadith of Musa('alayhi salam) in chapter 1 of Kitab at Tawḥīd to be sahih. Here is what was said:

Abū Sa'id al-Khudri (radiallaahu 'anhu) narrated: Allaah's Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said: Moosa (Moses) said, 'Oh, my Lord. Teach me an invocation/remembrance with which I should remember and invoke you.' Allaah Almighty said: 'Say: Laa ilaaha il Allaah.' Musa said, 'Oh my Lord, all your slaves say this invocation.' Allaah Almighty replied: 'Oh Musa, if the seven heavens and all they hold - other than Me - and the seven earths; if all these were weighed against this word of Laa ilaaha il Allaah, the latter would outweigh the former. [Abū Uwais said he used to think this ḥadīth was weak, but Shaikh Ṣāliḥ Aali Shaikh said Ibn Hibban recorded it in his ṣaḥīḥ, Al-Haakim and An-Nasa`i also recorded it. Ibn Hajar (ameer ul-mu`mineen of ḥadīth in his time) declared it 'Ṣaḥīh.' It has many other routes, and the ḥadīth becomes 'hasan,' or 'ṣaḥīḥ.']

the link to the post is here:
www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=8&Topic=12248

I know Moosa Richardson said that the hadith is weak because it comes from Daraaj narrating from Abū al Haitham, but the scholars quoted above say it's ṣaḥīḥ. Are they wrong? Isn't the hadith weak?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 5 months ago - 9 years 5 months ago #1529 by moosaa.richardson
Replied by moosaa.richardson on topic Re:is hadith ṣaḥīḥ or dha'eef?
In the Name of Allaah...

Abū Sa'id al-Khudri (radiallaahu 'anhu) narrated: Allaah's Messenger (salallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said: Moosa (Moses) said, 'Oh, my Lord. Teach me an invocation/remembrance... [Abū Uwais said he used to think this ḥadīth was weak, but Shaikh Ṣāliḥ Aali Shaikh said Ibn Hibban recorded it in his ṣaḥīḥ, Al-Haakim and An-Nasa`i also recorded it. Ibn Hajar (ameer ul-mu`mineen of ḥadīth in his time) declared it 'Ṣaḥīh.' It has many other routes, and the ḥadīth becomes 'hasan,' or 'ṣaḥīḥ.']


This ḥadīth is dha'eef (weak).

It was collected by:

An-Nasaa'ee in 'Amal al-Yowmi wal-Laylah (#840, #1149 in my printing, or: #834, 1141)

Abū Ya'laa in his Musnad (#1389 in my printing, or: #1393)

Ibn Hibbaan in his Ṣaḥīh (#6218, 14/102)

At-Tabaraanee in his book ad-Du'aa' (#1480, 1481)

Al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (1/528) and he called it ṣaḥīḥ, and ath-Thahabee did not respond (in at-Talkhees)

Al-Bayhaqee in al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat (#185, 1/251) by way of al-Haakim

Abū Nu'aym in Hilyat al-Owliyaa' (8/327-328)

Al-Baghawee in Sharḥ as-Sunnah (5/54-55)

All of them with the same chain: Dar-raaj Abūs-Samh narrating from Abūl-Haytham, narrating from Abū Sa'eed.

This chain is weak, according to the scholars of ḥadīth, since Darraaj himself was differed over, however the critics specifically identified his narrations from Abūl-Haytham as being weak. This is a point of specific criticism that applies to this ḥadīth specifically, and some scholars may have overlooked it, and this is a common mistake in ḥadīth criticism that even the greatest scholars make from time to time.

...Ibn Hibban recorded it in his ṣaḥīḥ...

This is correct, however Ibn Hibbaan is considered overly lenient in his authentication, and this is a clear case of it.

...Al-Haakim and An-Nasa`i also recorded it...

This is also correct, while an-Nasaa'ee collecting it does not indicate anything about its authenticity, al-Haakim collected it in his Mustadrak and said it is ṣaḥīḥ. Al-Haakim is also in the category of overly lenient authenticators of ḥadīth, and this is a clear case of it.

...Ibn Hajar (ameer ul-mu`mineen of ḥadīth in his time) declared it 'Ṣaḥīh.'...

This is also correct. He said in Fat-hul-Baaree (11/208), "And An-Nasaa'ee collected a ḥadīth with a ṣaḥīḥ chain from the report of Abū Sa'eed..."

However, this can be identified as an error from this great scholar, may Allaah have Mercy on him. How is that? He held that Dar-raaj was acceptable as a narrator (sadooq), however he clearly said in at-Taqreeb: "There is weakness in his narration from Abūl-Haytham (specifically)." We understand from this that Ibn Hajr considered Dar-raaj's ḥadīth normally to be hasan, but if he narrates from Abūl-Haytham specifically (as in this ḥadīth), he considered it weak. And there is no indication in his words that he was considering other chains to strengthen it, since he ruled directly on the chain, saying, "with a ṣaḥīḥ chain".

This is an understandable oversight from any great scholar. However, once we are able to recognize it it as a mistake, we are not allowed to cling to it, as clinging to the (known) mistakes of the scholars will only lead us to falsehood.

...It has many other routes, and the ḥadīth becomes 'hasan,' or 'ṣaḥīḥ.'

I believe this to be a mistake, as the claim is unproven. None of the checkers of the source books mentioned above even hinted to the presence of another chain for this ḥadīth. I have checked multiple printings of some of those source books, served by known scholars and specialized researchers in ḥadīth, and not one of them mentioned a single reference or hint that there is another chain for the ḥadīth.

Shaykh Muqbil al-Waadi'ee checked the chains of al-Mustadrak, and he rejected the authentication of al-Haakim for this ḥadīth. See: Tatab-bu' al-Owhaam (1/718).

Shaykh Al-Albaanee checked Ṣaḥīh Ibn Hibbaan, and he called the ḥadīth weak. See: at-Ta'leeqaat al-Hisaan (#6185, 9/54-55).

Other qualified researchers who checked Abū Ya'laa's Musnad, at-Tabaraanee's ad-Du'aa', Ṣaḥīh Ibn Hibbaan, and al-Bayhaqee's al-Asmaa' was-Sifaat, all of them considered the ḥadīth weak, listing many sources for the ḥadīth, all of them with the same chain, and not one of them could bring a single chain from other than Darraaj! Nor could Al-Haythamee in Majma' az-Zawaa'id (10/82), who also mentioned the weakness of the chain.

This should clear any doubt regarding the weakness of the ḥadīth. And if there is another chain for this ḥadīth, the only thing left to do is cite its source. Until it is produced, we are unable to accept the authentication of Ibn Hajr, since it has been identified as a mistake. And the idea that the only authentication of the ḥadīth from the early critics comes from mutasaahileen (overly lenient authenticators of ḥadīth), like Ibn Hibbaan and al-Haakim, further indicates that authenticating this ḥadīth is a mistake.

And Allaah knows best.
Last edit: 9 years 5 months ago by moosaa.richardson.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Sajid.Bin.Rafeeq
  • Sajid.Bin.Rafeeq's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Jadīd Boarder
  • Jadīd Boarder
More
9 years 5 months ago #1530 by Sajid.Bin.Rafeeq
Replied by Sajid.Bin.Rafeeq on topic Re:is hadith ṣaḥīḥ or dha'eef?

Al-Haakim is also in the category of overly lenient authenticators of ḥadīth, and this is a clear case of it.

I am wondering which scholar considered Imām Al-Haakim to be overly linient in authenticating Aḥādīth. I am not disagreeing with this but I would like to know which shaikh considered him such. JazaakAllaah khair.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 5 months ago #1531 by moosaa.richardson
Replied by moosaa.richardson on topic Re:is hadith ṣaḥīḥ or dha'eef?
I recall Ibn as-Ṣalāh mentioned it in his Muqaddimah.

And as-Suyootee in Tadreeb ar-Raawee.

And maybe al-Kattaanee in al-Mustatrafah...

Al-Waadi'ee in his introduction to Tatabbu' al-Owhaam.

But its just really well known in ḥadīth criticism, and I've never come accross anyone who challenged it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: moosaa.richardson
Time to create page: 0.212 seconds