Dismantling the Proofs for Tawassul and Istigatha with Conclusive Evidence [Part 4] – The Weakness of the Hadith: “My living is good for you and my death is good for you…”

Compiled, Translated & Annotated

Abu Khuzaimah Ansari

 

Answering the Anon Twitter Aqua@D1mashqi

al-Kawthari, Zaini Dahlan, al-Ghumari, Saqqaf, Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh, Alawi al-Maliki, G.F. Haddad and the Sufi Ash’ari Barelwi and Deobandis  

READ >>>  PART 1  PART 2

ʿAudhu Billāhi min ash-Shayṭān al-Rajīm

Bismillāh al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm

Alḥamdullilāhi Rabbil ʿAlamīn, Waṣalatu Wassalām ʿAla Rasūlillahil Karīm, Wa ʿAla Alihī Wa Aṣḥābīhi Wa Man Tabiāhum Bi-Eḥsan Ilaʾ Yaum al-Dīn; Wa Baʿd

All Praise belongs and is directed to the Rabb of everything

 that exists, Praise and Salutations be upon His

Final beloved Messenger, his revered family

 and his noble Companions and upon

 those who follow them in good

until the end of times,

 To proceed,

 

 

Introduction

Aqua@D1mashqi an anonymous twitter user discharged a tirade of false allegations against al-Albani and Ibn Baz accusing them and Salafis of theological tashih and tad’if. The foul-mouthed individual by sharing unwarranted book scans tried to fool muslim twitter while incorrectly authenticating several reports which support his deviant creed. With the horrendous blunders, deliberate distortions, and beguiled manipulations Aqua@D1mashqi thought it was acceptable to refute Salafis, wishfully thinking of getting away with it and hoping we would not respond. This individual quite often displays a vile and abhorrent attitude towards Salafis. He boasts his tough attitude with an anonymous name all the while behind his little screen. What follows is a reply to his feeble twitter thread and his substandard attempt in authenticating the narration under discussion.

At one point to increase his twitter credentials for his thread, his approach to prove the narration is authentic he says, “al-Qadi Iyad mentioned the narration…”. How does a scholar “mentioning” a narration make it authentic! Many scholars quoted and cited this narration in their respective books; he should have included all the references then. Already you can see how poor this point was.

Aqua@D1mashqi used the research and theological approach of the likes of Saqqaf, Mahmud Sa’id Mamduh, al-Ghumari, al-Kawthari, G.F. Haddad and others. Furthermore, the likes of Ahmad Zaini Dahlan and Sayyid Muhammad ibn Alawi al-Maliki also used this report to further their deviant creed and tried to authenticate it. There are many Sufi Ash’ari’s whether Deobandi or Barelwi who attempted to authenticate this narration and they also cite these narrations in support of their misguided beliefs.

It’s hypocritical for Aqua@D1mashqi to slanderously accuse Ibn Baz and al-Albani of theological tashih. Even though this libellous claim is mere desperation and a display of utter frustration at the knowledge and expertise of these two Shaykhs in Aqidah and Hadith, when he should know the clear deviation in aqidah of his own scholars. Saqqaf, Mamduh and some of the Ba Alawi clan have been criticised by the Sufi Ash’ari clergy for cursing and vilifying Mu’awiyyah RadhiAllahu Anhu, being Nasibis and questioning the position of Abu Bakr RadhiAllahu Anhu. Mamduh is also on record for attacking al-Ghazzali for being a Nasibi and having enmity for Ahlul Bayt. This is just the tip of the iceberg of these pro-Alid scholars who spared no early Sunni authority to push their rawafidh tendencies. How much theological tashih they used is already on record and acknowledged by their own scholars and clergy.

Aqua@D1mashqi attacks al-Albani and Ibn Baz but in his thread, he uses later scholars to authenticate the narration without any recourse to the major scholars of hadith or their criticism of the narrator in the hadith. He argued foolishly, the authentication and weakening of hadith is different to the criticism and praise of a narrator! The readers can judge the ignorance of this statement themselves. These ideas are not unfamiliar from people who label themselves blind followers and lack independent reasoning yet discuss intricate details of hadith sciences and rijal.

Aqua@D1mashqi quotes al-Ghumari from his Nihayatul Amal saying the narration is authentic without doubt. However, you will see the overwhelming criticism on Abdul Majid and the view of most of the scholars of hadith and al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil and learn he is weak without doubt which in turn renders this narration weak without doubt.

Aqua@D1mashqi attacks al-Albani since he exposed their failed attempt in trying to authenticate this narration. Despite this he still cannot formulate his argument properly and makes blunders himself. Al-Albani said no one narrated the second part of the hadith from Sufyan except Abdul Majid and at least 16 other narrators reported this hadith from Sufyan without the second part. Instead of attacking al-Albani due to personal desires and innate hate for him and his creed, his basic task was to prove him wrong by simply bringing at least one other chain to Sufyan with the complete wording, but he failed and unable to even fulfill this task.

Aqua@D1mashqi claims thre are two different mutun with the same isnad. So, that makes it two different hadith, right? If this is the case, why do over 16 narrators narrate only the first matn and not the second matn? He argues the scholars of hadith generally do this. So according to you al-Bazzar was the only one who used two mutun as one hadith with one isnad. Furthermore, this proves the weakness of Abul Majid b. Abi Rawwad who is still in both chains since you claim its two hadith. So, not only is there a weakness, but you also have a narrator who is criticized for making mistakes and adding words to a hadith that no one else narrated, and all those he opposed were stronger than him in narrating hadith, in fact some were Imams of hadith. Yet you still want to latch onto this theory and in the process attack al-Albani who beautifully explained this to you. The scholars of hadith who mention the second part of the hadith as a separate hadith do so because there are other chains of transmission for that matn and therefore there is corroborative evidence.

Aqua@D1mashqi distorts reality and claims Abdul Majid made a few mistakes. This is incorrect and a huge error in comprehension. He fails to understand the criticism levied against Abdul Majid and further attempts to dismiss it as a few mistakes, this is a huge deliberate blunder and outright deception.

Aqua@D1mashqi exposes his muqallid ignorance of rijal and mustalah and embarrasses himself when he says adh-Dhahabi mentioned his name and said his irja does not affect his narrations. Wherein adh-Dhahabi was talking about Abdul Majid’s father, Abdul Aziz and not Abdul Majid. Our detractor even produces the scan and for our convenience highlights and underlines the relevant words, but for his own convenience it was a totally different narrator!

Aqua@D1mashqi claims Abdul Majid made a mistake once and made a mistake from Malik. This is another lie; he is on record for even fabricating reports and the scholars criticised him for many narrations. He then uses adh-Dhahabi’s Man Takallam Fihi but he also said he was a caller to irja and the scholars of hadith weaken narrators who called towards their bid’ah. Furthermore, the muhaqqiq of Man Takallam Fihi said in the footnote regarding adh-Dhahabi declaring him thiqah that he does not grade him thiqah in his other works like al-Mughni, al-Kashif and in al-Mizan where he says, truthful murji like his father. Similarly, and likewise, he brings an entry for him in his book of weak and abandoned narrators, which therefore nulls this view.

The Hadith of Abdullah b. Mas’ud

From al-Bazzar, narrated to us, Yusuf b. Musa narrated to us Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad from (Aan) Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan from Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) from the Prophet; Verily Allah has Angels that roam [the earth] conveying the salam of my ummah to me. He said and he said Allah’s Messenger said, my living is good for you and my death is good for you, your actions are presented to me, whatever I see of good I thank Allah for, and whatever I see of bad I pray for you[1].

Note: “He said and he said” are the exact words of the narration

The first thing to note is that this narration is different to the wording of Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani and that of Anas since this has the additional wordings in the first part of the hadith that the other two do not.

Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad is in the chain who is very weak.

Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad

Ibn Ma’in’s View on Abdul Majid

Abdul Ghani al-Maqdisi said, Yahya b. Ma’in said thiqah, he transmitted from a group of weak narrators, he was the most knowledgeable about the hadith of Ibn Jurayj and he would openly declare his Irja[2]. Al-Fasi repeats this statement of Ibn Ma’in[3].

Ad-Duri said I heard Yahya [ibn Ma’in] say Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad said, thiqah[4].

Ad-Duri also transmits that Ibn Ma’in said Abdul Majid was the better transmitter of the reports of Ibn Ulayyah from Ibn Jurayj. It was said to Yahya [b. Ma’in], do you think Abdul Majid is really like that? He replied he was the most knowledgeable of people concerning the hadith of Ibn Jurayj, however he did not exert effort on hadith himself[5].

Abu Fadhal al-Abbas b. Mus’ab transmits something very similar to ad-Duri in that he mentions Abdul Majid had the most accurate book of the reports of al-Ulayyah from Ibn Jurayj and when asked Ibn Ma’in replied, he was the most knowledgeable person regarding the books of Ibn Jurayj except that he did not exert effort in hadith himself[6].

Adh-Dhahabi quotes Abbas b. Mus’ab from his Tarikh Marwa that Abdul Majid heard the books of Ibn Jurayj from his teachers[7].

Ibn Junayd heard Ibn Ma’in mention Abdul Majid and then mentioned his nobility and stature[8]. Ibn Ma’in said Ali b. al-Madini said to me what innovation did Abdul Majid have that al-Humaydi noticed? Al-Humaydi just warned against him. Ibn Ma’in said he was truthful[9].

Ibn Junayd transmits from Yahya, he said Abdul Majid was truthful[10].

Ibn Junayd transmits that Ibn al-Ghalabi said something to Ibn Ma’in, to which he replied, it was al-Humaydi and others who fell into this, their intent was for him to exert effort [in hadith]. He is himself thiqah. He adopted the view of Irja. He transmitted from a group of large number of weak narrators but he himself is thiqah[11].

Ad-Darimi said I said to Ibn Ma’in how is Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad? He said thiqah[12].

Ibn Muhriz said I heard Yahya b. Ma’in say Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad I swear by Allah I do not know of a man truthful and who speaks little. If he is asked about something he transmitted, he is silent. He is from the most knowledgeable of people on [the hadith of] Ibn Jurayj[13].

Ibn Abi Khaythamah transmits from Ibn Ma’in who said, he was from the worshippers[14].

Abdullah b. Ahmad b. Hanbal asked Ibn Ma’in about him and he said thiqah there is no harm in him[15]. On another occasion Ibn Ma’in said Abdul Majid essentially transmitted from Ibn Jurayj’s books[16].

Ibn Adiyy quotes Ahmad b. Sa’d b. Abi Maryam from Ibn Ma’in saying Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad is thiqah[17], he transmits from a group of weak [narrators], he is most knowledgeable concerning the hadith of Ibn Jurayj, and he was open about his Irja,[18] he heard from Ma’mar[19]. Ibn Adiyy transmits from Muhammad b. Ali from Uthman I said to Ibn Ma’in how is Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad, he said, thiqah[20].

Al-Mughlata’i al-Hanafi said, Yahya b. Ma’in in the riwayah of Abdul Khaliq b. Mansur said, He is thiqah when he transmits from the thiqah[21].

Most of these statements have been compiled in the compilation of the various statements of Yahya b. Ma’in on narrators, although I have quoted them from each individual book, the reader who wishes to save time may refer to the mawsu’at[22].

Ibn Khalfun mention him in his book of thiqah narrators[23].

Al-Khalili’s View on Abdul Majid

Al-Khalili said, thiqah but makes mistakes in hadith[24].

Al-Khalili then quotes the example of the mistake of Abdul Majid, the hadith of actions are by intentions which Abdul Majid made a mistake in.

In the introduction of the same book al-Khalili shows examples of thiqah narrators who made mistakes, he lists Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad and quotes a hadith in which Abdul Majid narrates from Ibn Jurayj and he from Ibn Abi Zubayr…., Abdul Majid made a mistake in this hadith because other thiqah narrators transmit differently from Ibn Abi Zubayr (Ibn Jurayj is thiqah). Abdul Majid is a good muhaddith the son of a muhaddith, he did not see the likes of himself, but he made mistakes, and he was not transmitted [used as a narrator] in the Sahihs [al-Bukhari and Muslim][25].

Al-Khalili continues and gives another example and said, he made a mistake in the hadith transmitted from Malik and many people from Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan, the Judge of Madinah, from Muhammad b. Ibrahim at-Taymi from Alqamah b. Waqas from Umar b. al-Khattab from the Nabi Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam that actions are based on intentions. This is a fundamental from the principles of the religion and it revolves around Yahya b. Sa’id who said Abdul Majid made a mistake in this hadith from Malik from Zayd b. Aslam from A’ta b. Yasar from Abu Sa’id al-Khudri Radhiallahu Anhu from the Nabi Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam who said actions are based on intentions[26]. Nuh b. Habib and Ibrahim b. Atiq transmitted it from him, and it is not preserved (ie inauthentic) from the hadith of Zayd b. Aslam through this transmission, and it is a mistake or error while a thiqah narrates from a thiqah [27].

An-Nasa’i’s Position

An-Nasa’i said there is no harm in him another time he said thiqah[28].

Ahmad b. Hanbal on Abdul Majid

Ahmad said there is no harm in him[29]. Al-Maqdisi and Al-Mizzi both said, thiqah[30] and he was extreme in his Irja[31], they say [i.e. the murjiyyah say about the people of Sunnah] they are the doubters [about iman] [32].Some reports mention, they are those who have ishkal [problems in iman]

Adh-Dhahabi takes time to explain this statement, they are the doubters refers to the statement of the scholars [i.e. Ahlus Sunnah], I am a believer inshaAllah[33].

It is important to note, none of the direct students of Ahmad narrated thiqah from him.

Yusuf b. Hasan b. Abdul Hadi brings an entry for in his book and says, Ahmad b. Abi Yahya transmits from Ahmad b. Hanbal that he said, thiqah, he is associated with al-Irja and they say, he is from the people who had problems. Al-Marudhi said, I asked Ahmad how he was. He said, he was a murji and I wrote from him. The people said he ruined his father [with Irja] and Ibn Uyaynah was contentious with him.[34]

Abu Dawud’d View on Abdul Majid

Al-A’jurri said I asked Abu Dawud about him, and he said he was thiqah, Ahmad and Ibn Ma’in transmitted from him. Ibn Ma’in said he was the most knowledgeable regarding Ibn Jurayj[35].

Adh-Dhahabi mentions Abu Dawud said he was thiqah, a caller to irja[36].

Ibn Shahin has an entry for him in book of thiqah narrators, he says, thiqah, Yahya said thiqah[37].

Ibn Hajr’s View

Ibn Hajr quotes the various criticisms and then says, I say: and then proceeds to quoter further statements of critical disparagement, indicating his inclination of the weakness of Abdul Majid despite being thiqah[38].

Ibn Hajr gives him an entry in his summarised view and says, truthful but makes mistakes, he was a murji. Ibn Hibban was excessive[ly harsh] and said he was matruk – rejected[39].

Bashar A’wad al-Ma’ruf and Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut contest Ibn Hajr’s grading and assessment and say, rather he is thiqah, he made mistakes in hadith as men do make mistakes, and he was the strongest of people while transmitting from Ibn Jurayj. There was hostility towards him due to his Irja and some [scholars of hadith] weakened him due to this reason. However, Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawud, an-Nasa’i and al-Khalili said he was thiqah, ibn Adiyy said, most of those who abandoned him was due to his Irja[40].

In the edition of the Taqrib with the marginal notes of Abdullah b. Salim al-Basri, Muhammad Amin Mirghani and introduction of Muhammad Awwamah, they add in the notes, the author categorized him from the third level of mudallis narrators[41].

The View of Muslim on Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad

The 5 main authors of hadith books transmit from him. Muslim used him in one narration in Kitab ul-Hajj but this was linked or supported by Hisham b. Muslim al-Makhzumi[42]. This hadith in Muslim is from Ibn Jurayj, so both Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad and Hisham b. Sulayman al-Makhzumi transmit from Ibn Jurayj. This shows Muslim also held him to be weak or that he at least had mistakes and needed support.

Al-Maqdisi said, Muslim transmits from him while corroborating with Hisham b. Sulayman al-Makki[43].

Al-Mizzi further alludes to this and says, “Muslim transmitted from him while corroborating with others [narrators] and others [i.e. the four books of Sunan] transmitted from him except al-Bukhari”[44].

Taqi ud-Din Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Hasani al-Fasi also said, Muslim transmitted from him while corroborating with Hisham b. Sulayman al-Makki and the four Sunans[45].

Muslim adopts a cautionary measure and still doubles up and uses Hisham in line with Abdul Majid to alleviate any shortcomings in him. This shows Muslim did not use him as his main source of evidence and he only uses him in a chain wherein he transmits from Ibn Jurayj. Furthermore, we also know Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad was the most knowledgeable regarding the hadith of Ibn Jurayj as Ahmad[46], Ibn Ma’in[47], ad-Daraqutni[48], Ibn Adiyy[49], al-Mizzi[50] and others have said. This also shows Abdul Majid made mistakes in the hadith from Ibn Jurayj.

Muslim brings an entry for him in his book on Kunna and Asma and says, Abu Abdul Hamid Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad. He transmits from Ibn Jurayj, he was from Makkah and believed in Irja[51].

Criticism of Abdul Majid

Abu Zurah ar-Razi has an entry for him in his book on weak narrators[52]. He also declared him to be a murji[53].

Ya’qub b. Sufyan al-Fasawi said, “a stubborn innovator and a caller [to innovation].[54] I heard Hammad b. Hafs say, I heard Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan say, Kazzab – Liar – meaning Abdul Majid”.[55]

The criticism of being declared a liar by Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan holds value and is of great importance because Abu Abdullah b. Bakir al-Baghdadi asked ad-Daraqutni about the stronger and grounded transmitters and companions of Ibn Jurayj. Ad-Daraqutni quotes Ibn Ma’in listing Abdul Majid and Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan. This shows al-Qattan was more familiar with the affair of Abdul Majid[56].

Muhammad b. Yahya b. Abi Umar [adh-Dhuhali] was asked about Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad? He said, he is weak[57].

Ibn Sa’d said, he has numerous hadith, but he is weak and a murji[58].

in Mukhtasar Ibn Sa’d it mentions, Ahmad said thiqah, but was extreme in his irja, Ibn Ma’in said thiqah there is no harm in him, he narrates from a large group of weak narrators, and he was the most knowledgeable concerning the hadith of Ibn Jurayj, he would be open and declare his irja, but he did not focus or exert himself in hadith. Abu Dawud said thiqah, al-Khalili said thiqah but made mistakes in hadith. Ad-Daraqutni said he cannot be used as evidence, but he is relied upon. Ibn Hajr said, truthful a murji, Ibn Hibban was excessive when said he was matruk[59].

Ahmad b. Shabbuwiyyah said, I saw Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad and Salm b. Salim al-Khurasani both were callers to al-Irja[60].

Al-Marudhi said I asked Ahmad about Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad, he said, he was a murji and I wrote from him. The people said he ruined his father [with Irja] and Ibn Uyaynah had a dispute with him. Al-Marudhi said, Abu Abdullah [Ahmad] would transmit from a murji if he was not a caller or someone who defended [or debated this view][61].

Abu Ahmad al-Hakim said, he is not strong according to them [i.e. the scholars of hadith][62]

Abu Dawud said, I heard Ahmad when he was asked about Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz, he said he was the most knowledgeable concerning [the hadith of] Ibn Jurayj, however he did not exert himself in what he narrated, and the people of Makkah accused him of [having aqidah issues related to] qadr. It was said to Ahmad, do his narrations have credibility? [Are his narrations taken] Ahmad replied, I don’t know.  I heard Ahmad say he transmits from him[63].

Abu Dawud said a caller to irja and Abdul Aziz was affected [with Irja] by his son and the people of Khurasan did not narrate from him[64].

Another time Abu Dawud said, Abdul Majid was the head or leader [of the people of] Irja[65].

 

al-Bukhari’s View on Abdul Majid

Al-Bukhari said, he had Irja, he transmitted from his father and al-Humaydi spoke about him [i.e. criticised him][66].

Al-Bukhari further brings an entry for him in his smaller book of weak narrators and repeats the criticism, he had al-Irja, he transmitted from his father and al-Humaydi criticised him. One manuscript mentions, he [al-Humaydi] transmitted from him[67].

Zubayr Ali Za’i in his checking of Kitab adh-Dhu’afa under Abdul Majids entry he says, he is weak due to his memory and the majjority [of the scholars of hadith] weakened him. Al-Uqayli 3:96 brings an entry for him. Muslim transmitted from while corroborating with others [i.e. another narrator] he was used in the four sunans ….. and he is also a mudallis (refer to Tabaqat al-Mudallisin with my checking 82:3)[68].

The muhaqqiq of the Markaz Ihsan edition Dr. Salim b. Saleh al-Ammari said the words, [al-Humaydi] “and he transmitted from him” were not in at least 4 manuscripts and in the transmission of Musabbih b. Sa’id.[69] Another edition also does not mention these words.[70] al-Mizzi does mention this in Abdul Majid’s entry but in the section about those who transmitted from Abdul Majid[71], two pages later al-Mizzi brings this statement of al-Bukhari but he does not mention these words[72].

Ibn Adiyy says I heard Ibn Hammad say al-Bukhari said Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad Abu Abdul Hamid he had Irja with him and al-Humaydi criticised him[73].

Adh-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajr quote al-Bukhari saying there are some contradictions in his hadith, and I do know except only 5 hadith that are authentic from him[74].

al-Mughlata’i al-Hanafi also quotes al-Bukhari saying there are some contradictions in his hadith, and I do know except only 5 hadith that are authentic from him [75].

However, this statement cannot be found in the printed works of al-Bukhari. This does not lead to the notion al-Bukhari did not say this. Al-Mizzi, Ibn Hajr and Mughlatai, have followed up on this and continued to quote it and so the possibility that al-Bukhari said this is at the very least questionable.

 

The View of ad-Daraqutni

Ad-Daraqutni said Ibrahim b Ahmad said Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad transmitted munkar [rejected] hadith from Malik. Then he gives 2 examples[76]. Although in this report under discussion he does not transmit from Malik, it shows ad-Daraqutni’s view on Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad.

ad-Daraqutni quotes the chain transmitted by Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad concerning the hadith actions are based on intentions which he transmits via Malik and then singles out Abdul Majid and said, no one supported him in this [in this chain] and as for companions of Malik they were preservers of hadith (and they did not transmit it through this chain)[77]. This shows ad-Daraqutni wanted to show Abdul Majid opposed the strong preservers of hadith and in this specific case the companions and stronger students of Malik.

This is further supported by ad-Daraqutni’s overall position concerning him when al-Barqani asked him, he said, he cannot be used as evidence however he can be relied upon[78], his father [Abdul Aziz] is also weak and his son is better, it was said he was a murji and his father is not relied upon, he is abandoned, and both were Makkan narrators[79].The notion that ad-Daraqutni says, his father is also weak, proves he was weak with him.

Regarding the hadith actions are by intentions, al-Bulqini said, ad-Daraqutni transmits Malik’s hadith which are not in his al-Muwatta, the wording of the hadith, actions are by intentions for whatever is intended. Ad-Daraqutni continued and said, this is a solitary or lone report of Abdul Majid from Malik. We don’t know anyone else who transmitted this from Abdul Majid besides Nuh b. Habib and Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Atiq[80].

Ibn Hajr quotes ad-Daraqutni who transmits with his own chain of transmission in al-Ifrad a narration from Abdul Majid from Ibn Jurayj from A’ta from Ibn Abbas, he said, the speech of the Qadariyyah is kufr, the speech of the Haruriyyah [khawarij] is misguidance, the speech of the Shi’a is tarnished with sins and infallibility is from Allah and know that everything is with Allah’s decree. Ad-Daraqutni said, Abdul Majid is alone in reporting this[81].

Ibn Hajr after this report said, the rest of the narrators are thiqah[82]. Meaning, Abdul Majid was not thiqah according to Ibn Hajr!

Abu Hatim ar-Razi’s Position

Abu Hatim ar-Razi said, He is not strong[83], his hadith are to be written [noted][84] and al-Humaydi criticised him[85]. Ibn Hajr in Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib quotes the criticism of Abu Hatim twice, only the part when he said, he is not strong[86].

The View of Ibn Hibban

Imam Ibn Hibban said, severely rejected in hadith [munkar al-hadith jiddan], he confused and mixed narrations while narrating rejected narrations on the authority of famous transmitters and therefore he deserves to be abandoned[87]. His forefathers were engrossed in Irja[88].

Ibn Hibban then gives an example of a narration he narrates via Ibn Jurayj from A’ta from Ibn Abbas that the Qadariyyah are upon kufr, the Shi’a are destroyed, the Haruriyyah [Khawarij] are upon innovation and we do not know the truth except for it to be with the Murjiyyah. Isam b. Yusuf al-Balkhi transmitted this incident from him, and this is fabricated, Ibn Abbas did not say this, nor A’ta nor Ibn Jurayj[89].

Ibn Adiyy’s Position

Ibn Adiyy cites some of hadith of Abdul Majid and then concludes his position on him by saying, all of these hadith are not preserved [i.e. authentic], he was stronger in the hadith of ibn Jurayj while he has other hadith transmitted from other than him and most of what is rejected from him was due to his Irja[90].

Ibn Adiyy and other scholars have subsequently quoted from him, a very important incident where Abdul Majid issued a legal edict for the killing of Waki [an Imam from the Imams of Ahlus Sunnah].

Al-Uqayli Rendering Abdul Majid Weak

al-Uqayli brings an entry for him in his Kitab ad-Dhu’afa and quotes al-Bukhari’s criticism with his own chain of transmission to al-Bukhari, that he said al-Humaydi criticised him and that he had Irja[91]. He then quotes Muhammad b. Yahya b. Abi Umar [adh-Dhuhali] who declared Abdul Majid weak[92].

So, it is evident al-Uqayli including an entry for him in his Kitab ad-Dhu’afa alone and then transmitting the statements above proves he considered him to be weak.

Al-Juzjani’s View

Al-Juzjani said, Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad was a worshipper and extreme in Irja and his son, Abdul Majid was also like him[93].

Ibn al-Jawzi on Abdul Majid

Ibn al-Jawzi brings an entry for him in his book of weak and abandoned narrators and says, he narrates from Malik, Yahya said thiqah, ar-Razi said, he is not strong and al-Humaydi criticised him. Ibn Hibban said he confused and mixed reports and narrated abandoned reports from well -known transmitters and thus deserves to be rejected[94].

Ibn al-Jawzi repeats these charges in al-I’llal al-Mutanahiyyah. For one report he says, the author says this hadith is not authentic and al-Humaydi criticised Abdul Majid and then quotes Ibn Hibban’s criticism[95]. Ibn al-Jawzi repeats the same criticism for another report which Abdul Majid transmits[96].

Al-Hakim said, he is from those who you remain silent about [ie criticised][97].

As-Saji said, he would narrate abandoned narrations from Malik from, Zayd b. Aslam from A’ta b. Yassar from Abu Sa’id [al-Khudri], Actions are by intentions. The hadith he would narrate from Ibn Jurayj would not be supported[98]

Ibn Abdul Barr said, this Ibn Abi Rawwad would transmit hadith from Malik and make mistakes in them[99].

Ibn Hajr quotes Ibn Abdul Barr in the following way, he would transmit wrong or erroneous hadith from Malik, his well-known error or mistake was transmitting the hadith of actions are by intentions[100].

Ibn Hajr also said after citing this hadith, this hadith is Gharib through this chain of transmission, ad-Daraqutni transmitted it in Ghara’ib Malik from Muhammad b. Makhlad from Ibrahim b. Muhammad b. Marwan b. Hisham. He erred here instead of something correct. Ad-Daraqutni continued and said, this is a solitary or lone report of Abdul Majid from Malik. We don’t know anyone else who transmitted this from Abdul Majid besides Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Atiq and Nuh b. Habib…..he erred due to a third reason too, al-Hakim transmitted in his Tarikh Nisabur from the report of Ali b. al-Hasan adh-Dhuhali from Abdul Majid. As for Abdul Majid Ahmad and Ibn Ma’in, an-Nasa’i declared him thiqah while Abu Hatim and ad-Daraqutni criticised him. It is said or they say there is a mistake in this from Malik, while the chain from Yahya b. Sa’id from Malik is what is preserved[101].

Al-Bulqini cites this report [of Abu Sa’id al-Khudri] with the chain mentioned above. He declared Abdul Majid to be thiqah but also says he erred in preserving this hadith[102].

Abu Nu’aym said, this is a Gharib of the hadith of Malik from Zayd, it is a lone report of Abdul Majid, what is well-known and authentic is the chain of transmission in the Muwatta from Yahya b. Sa’id[103].

Ibn Abi Hatim transmits from his father Abu Hatim that he said, it is batil and has no basis…. [Then he quotes the authentic chain][104] ad-Daraqutni also mentioned this hidden defect in his book[105].

Abu Nu’aym al-Hafiz said in his book under the name of Abdul Majid, he had Irja with him, he was Mudhtarib in hadith.[106]

Salamah b. Shabib said, I was with Abdur Razzaq and the news of the death of Abdul Majid came to us in the year 206H, so Abdur Razzaq said All praise be to Allah, the Ummah of Muhammad is relieved of Abdul Majid[107].

Al-Mughlata’i mentions, in the book of al-Lalaka’i Ibn Abi Umar al-Adani said, he is weak[108].

Ibn Makula further supports what the early scholars of hadith mention that Abdul Majid’s father was attributed with good until his son affected him with irja, Ibn Makula continue to say, his son Abdul Majid was a caller to Irja and he affected his father with it and then some people also attributed it to him [ie. Irja][109].

Al-Fasi mentions Ibn Abi Umar al-Adani was Muhammad b. Abi Umar al-Adani and he was from those who transmitted from Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad[110]. This shows despite narrating from him, al-Adani declared him to be a liar. So, the notion of some ignorant people that just by narrating from someone does not make them thiqah. Al-Mizzi also mentions al-Adani from those who transmitted from Abdul Majid[111].

Zayn ud-Din al-I’raqi said, although Muslim transmits from Abdul Majid in his Sahih and Ibn Ma’in and an-Nasa’i declared him thiqah, yet many [scholars of hadith] declared him to be weak[112].

 

Adh-Dhahabi

Adh-Dhahabi brings an entry in his two books of weak narrators, Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa[113] and in his Diwan adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin[114]

Adh-Dhahabi has an entry for him in his Mizan and summarises his view in the following way, truthful, a murji like his father, Imam Yahya b. Ma’in and others said he was thiqah, Abu Dawud said thiqah a caller to al-Irja, Ibn Hibban said, he deserves to be abandoned and severely rejected in hadith since he would mix and confuse reports and would transmit rejected narrations from well-known narrators[115].

Adh-Dhahabi another time said, thiqah murji[116].

In another work on the narrators in the 6 books of hadith he says after bringing Abdul Majid’s entry, Ahmad said he was thiqah and extreme in his Irja, Abu Hatim said he is not strong[117]. The researcher of al-Kashif made a mistake when he said Ibn Hajr said he was matruk in at-Taqrib[118].

Adh-Dhahabi further displays his disapproval and condemnation for Abdul Majid based on the view of Harun b. Abdullah al-Hammal who said, I have not seen anyone fear Allah like Waki and Abdul Majid was more fearful [of Allah] than him[119]. Adh-Dhahabi targets Abdul Majid and censures him and says, I say: the fear of Allah of Waki while also being an Imam of the Sunnah and at the forefront in opposition the fear of this murji, may Allah forgive him and may Allah forbit us from opposing the Sunnah[120].

al-Khazraji brings his entry and says, Ahmad and Yahya said he was thiqah but extreme in his Irja, ad-Daraqutni said he is reliable but not used as evidence[121].

Ali b. Salah ud-Din al-Kawkabani as-San’ani on the marginal notes of Khulasah Tadhhib Tahdhib titled, Ittihafu al-Khasah Bi-Tashih al-Khulasah quotes the statement of Abdur Razzaq upon the death of Abdul Majid [as has preceded][122].

Ibn Rajab in his Sharh I’llal includes an entry for Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad among narrators who although are thiqah, there is weakness in hadith from some of their teachers as opposed to their narrations from other teachers. Then he mentions Abdul Majid and says, from them is Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad. Ibn Adiyy singled him out to be the strongest in the narrations of Ibn Jurayj, meaning he is not strong [when narration] from others and others decisively declared him weak[123].

Even Nur ud-Din Itr express his dismay and is forced to say after quoting Ibn Hajr from his Taqrib, rather what is preferred is that he is thiqah but made mistakes in hadith, most of them declared him thiqah and used him as evidence refer to al-Kamil[124].

Qanun adh-Dhu’afa mentions, Matruk [rejected] Ibn Hibban said he deserves to be abandoned severely rejected. Abu Hatim said he is not strong write his hadith as ad-Daraqutni said something similar. Ahmad, Ibn Ma’in, Abu Dawud and others said he was thiqah.[125]

The Digressive and New Method to Praise a Narrator

One twitter user, Aqua@D1mashqi attempts to bypass the standard practice of praise and criticism of a narrator and attempts to show some illustrious scholars transmitted or narrated from Abdul Majid, hence that shows his integrity, trustworthiness and for him taken as an acceptable and reliable narrator. In one tweet he highlights the names of Ahmad, al-Humaydi and ash-Shafi’i from al-Mizzi’s Tahdhib ul-Kamal[126] who transmitted and narrated from Abdul Majid.

This is nothing hidden, rather it is well known, in fact Abdul Ghani al-Maqdisi only mentions al-Humaydi and ash-Shafi’i of those who transmitted from him, and he fails to mention Ahmad[127], while we also know al-Kamal was original work al-Mizzi took from.

However, if we use the same principle or this primitive approach it poses several serious problems, the two main ones are,

The First Problem

In the report of al-Bazzar[128] Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad narrates from Sufyan, and this must be ath-Thawri, as Abdul Majid had a contention and conflict with Sufyan b. Uyaynah, even for arguments sake it is Ibn Uyaynah it is still a problem. The same al-Mizzi does not mention either Sufyan from those who Abdul Majid narrated from[129]. So, using this principle the narration should be considered weak and furthermore, with the criticism of tadlis on Abdul Majid it further supports our view of the weakness of Abdul Majid.

The Second Problem

In the same report Yusuf b. Musa transmits from Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad however the same al-Mizzi does not mention Yusuf b. Musa from those who transmitted from Abdul Majid, we only find Yusuf b. Abi Mutta’id[130].

Those who considered him weak

Al-Bukhari has an entry for him in his ad-Dhu’afa as-Saghir[131]

Ibn Adiyy brings and entry for him Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa ir-Rijal[132]

Uqayli brings entry in his Kitab adh-Dhu’afa[133] – so he considered him to be weak

Adh-Dhahabi brings an entry in his two books of weak narrators, Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa[134] and in his Diwan ad-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin[135]

Abu Zurah ar-Razi has an entry for him in his book on weak narrators[136]

Ibn Hibban brings an entry in his book of weak, abandoned, and criticised narrators[137].

Ibn al-Jawzi brings an entry for him in his book of weak and abandoned narrators[138].

Abdul Majid’s Tadlis

Al-Khallal transmits from Muhanna who said, I said to Ahmad and Yahya, do you transmit from Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad from Ubaydullah b. Umar from Naf’i from Ibn Umar who said Allah’s Messenger said, very nation has a firawn and the firawn of this ummah is Mu’awiyyah b. Abi Sufyan. Both replied and said, this is not authentic, this hadith is not known to be from the ahadith of Ubaydullah. Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad did not hear anything from Ubaydullah, it is possible Abdul Majid did tadlis, he would hear men and transmit from them[139].

Ibn Jawzi after mentioning this report quotes al-Khallal’s statement from Muhanna and then repeats the criticism of al-Humaydi and Ibn Hibban which have preceded[140].

Salah ud-Din al-I’la’i included and mentioned him to be from the mudallisin narrators[141].

Wali ud-Din Abi Zur’ah al-I’raqi also declared him to be from the mudallisin, in his entry he mentions his name and then quotes Ahmad saying Abdul Majid did tadlis in the report of from Ubaydullah b. Umar, he would take from men and narrate on them as al-Khallal mentioned in Kitab al-I’llal[142].

Ibn Hajr categorized Abdul Majid from the third level of mudallis narrators. In his entry he said, Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad al-Makki. Truthful, attributed with Irja, his memory had some weakness, and he is attributed with tadlis, he is from those who al-I’la’i mentioned [to have tadlis] [143].

Ibn Hajr in the introduction of his book of mudallis narrators said, The Third Level: Those who had a lot of tadlis and the scholars of hadith did not use them as evidence except when they clarified and affirmed they heard hadith directly[144].

Ibn Hajr further classified Abdul Majid as a narrator who either committed little tadlis but transmitted numerous hadith or did not commit tadlis except from thiqah narrators and he lists Abdul Majid as such a narrator[145].

As-Suyuti also declared Abdul Majid to be a mudallis[146].

Muhammad b. Ta’lat includes an entry for Abdul Majid in his book on mudallis narrators and devout almost 2 pages to him[147].

Misfar b. Gharmallah ad-Damini also declares him to be a mudallis[148].

 

Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad and his Weak Memory

From the statements of disparagement quoted above, we can also deduce and say with certainty despite several scholars declaring him to be thiqah we know he had weak or poor memory. This is supported by the statement of ad-Daraqutni, Ibn Adiyy, al-Khalili and what Ibn Hajr summarized in his Taqrib ut-Tahdhib. It is therefore conclusive to say based on the statements of the scholars of hadith, that Abdul Majid is a weak narrator, when he narrates from Ibn Jurayj from memory the statements above apply i.e. he makes mistakes due to his weak or poor memory. However, when he transmits from Ibn Jurayj from his book, he is the strongest compared to all other narrators. This is the summary of the statements of Ibn Ma’in. Ibn Adiyy, ad-Daraqutni and others.

Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad Was a Caller to Irja

We learnt from the previous statements, Abdul Majid was extreme and excessive in his Irja, he would openly declare and express his murji aqidah, he would also call to and propagate it and he would transmit reports spreading his innovated belief. Therefore, he was disparaged, and his narrations were rendered weak. It is also the reason why numerous hadith authorities also declared him to be weak on account of his Irja.

The twitter user, Aqua@D1mashqi quotes Ahmad declaring Abdul Majid to be thiqah thereby attempting to show Abdul Majid is an acceptable and worthy transmitter and therefore, ultimately his narrations are to be accepted and taken to be authentic. This is incorrect, just as Ahmad declared him to be thiqah, he does not transmit any narration from him, despite Abdul Majid being from those who Ahmad narrated from! Furthermore, Ahmad is on record for not transmitting any report from narrators who called to and propagated the belief of Irja.

Al-Marudhi said I asked Ahmad about Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad, he said, he was a murji and I wrote from him. The people said he ruined his father [with Irja] and Ibn Uyaynah was contentious with him. Al-Marudhi said, Abu Abdullah [Ahmad] would transmit from a murji if he was not a caller or someone who defended [or debated this view][149].

Hasan b. Wahb said, Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad came to us when he was young around 20 and he stayed with us for around 40-50 years and he had nothing of Irja with him up until his son (Abdul Majid) was born and affected him with Irja. He was the worst son born into Islam[150].

Furthermore, Muhammad b. Ali narrates Abdul Majid was mentioned in the presence of Malik and he said, he affected his father with Irja[151].

Adh-Dhahabi in his biographical work, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula says about Abdul Majid, he was from the murjiyyah[152].

Transmitting From Callers to Innovations

A large group of scholars made a distinction between a caller and a non-caller to innovation.

Al-Hakim said, do not write hadith from a caller to bid’ah or respects him, there is ijma on this from a group of the Imams of the Muslims to abandon such people[153].

Ibn Hajr mentions, as for the narrations of the innovators who were truthful in the Sahihayn, there is a large group of such narrators, but they were not extreme or callers [to their innovations]. Most of the narrations used of such narrators of such a category are not related to legal rulings. Yes, it is true that narrators who were callers to innovations and extreme [in their innovation] were utilized in the Sahihayn like Imran b. Hittan and Abd b. Ya’qub and others, however not a single one was used except that a supporting or corroborating narration was used to support them[154].

Ibn Hajr also mentions the narrations of an innovator that support his innovation are rejected and this is the chosen view[155].

Abdullah b. Mubarak, Abdur Rahman b. Mahdi, Ahmad b. Hanbal and Ibn Ma’in were all the view to abandon the narrations of such people, narrators who supported their innovations through transmission[156].

Ibn Jama’ah also shares one view that a narrator who is a caller to his belief and religious group, his narrations are not to be accepted and this is the view of the majority [of scholars][157].

 

Al-Bazzar’s View – The Transmitter of This Report

This hadith in al-Bazzar can be clearly seen to comprise of two hadith, in the middle of the narration we can clearly see, Qala wa Qala Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam. So, this hadith can be seen to be two hadith combined as one. The contention is with the second hadith which has only been transmitted through this route of transmission. Al-Bazzar affirms this by directly saying after transmitting it, the last hadith, we do not know it being transmitted from Abdullah except through this route with this chain of transmission[158].

Al-Haythami after transmitting it in Majma’ az-Zawa’id said, al-Bazzar transmitted it and its rijal are the rijal of the sahih’s[159].

However, after al-Haythami transmitting it in Kashf ul-Astar he brings al-Bazzar’s statement that he said, we do not know its transmission from Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) except through this chain of transmission[160].

We can clearly see a difference in al-Haythami’s position on this narration, where it seems he was not convinced of the authenticity of this narration. Aqua@D1mashqi failed to make recourse to both statements and was hasty in using al-Haythami’s words and merely claiming he authenticated. It is also shows Aqua@D1mashqi’s limited knowledge and comprehension of these matters, yet our detractor has become an expert in screenshotting!

Al-Albani classed this narration weak[161].

Those who Narrated it From Sufyan

Al-Bazzar’s statement in of itself indicates the weakness of this report due to this narration being a solitary or lone report from Abdullah from Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad.

al-Albani quotes Ibn Kathir saying, the first part of the hadith [in al-Bazzar] is the statement of Allah’s Messenger Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam, Verily Allah has Angels that roam [the earth] conveying the salam of my ummah to me, then al-Nasa’i transmitted this through numerous routes from Sufyan and from A’mash, both on the authority of Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib[162].

This is Ibn Kathir alluding to the fact this hadith are really two hadith, with the first one being authentic and well known and that there are numerous routes from Sufyan. Ibn Kathir also alludes to the fact that none of the transmission mention the second part of the hadith, which again indicate the weak transmission from Abdul Majid.

Aqua@D1mashqi poorly attempts to show it is one hadith, but this is not the case and this is nothing but sheer desperation and despondency to authenticate the second part of the hadith.

A total of 14 transmitters, some who are highly trustworthy narrators transmit this hadith from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib, and none of them transmitted the second part, which clearly shows Abdul Majid being weak, make errors and not strong in hadith transmission led to this major error. Including Abdul Majid, it is 15 people.

Al-Mizzi[163] and Ibn Hajr[164] trace this hadith and its various routes of transmission and it can be found in their respective books.

So, a group of trustworthy hadith narrators, some of whom are major scholars in hadith, rijal, ilm ul-hadith, Jarh wa’t- Ta’dil and all of them were either students and transmitters from Sufyan or known as Ashab Sufyan ath-Thawri, all narrated this hadith from him and he in turn narrated it from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan from Ibn Mas’ud, so they all narrated the same hadith. They all narrated this hadith in marfu form and all of them except Abdul Majid narrated only the first part of the hadith and not even one transmitted the second part!

1 – Abdullah b. al-Mubarak narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [165].

2 – Abdur Razzaq narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [166].

3 – Waki b. al-Jarrah narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [167].

4 – Abdur Rahman b. Mahdi narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [168].

5 – Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [169].

6 – Fudhayl b. Iyadh narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [170].

7 – Mu’adh b. Mu’adh al-Ambari narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [171].

8 – Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Faryabi narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [172].

9 – Abdullah b. Numayr narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [173].

10 – Zayd b. al-Hubab narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [174].

11 – Abu Nu’aym Fadhal b. Dakin narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [175].

12 – Muhammad b. Kathir narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [176].

13 – Abu Ishaq al-Fazari narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part[177]

14 – Ubaydullah b. Musa narrated from Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan without the second part [178].

15 – Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz b. Abi Rawwad narrated from Sufyan with both the first and second part of the hadith[179].

All 14 narrate from Sufyan ath-Thawri from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud in marfu form with the only the first part of the hadith and not the second part, “My living…” Abdullah b. al-Mubarak, Abdur Razzaq, Waki b. al-Jarrah, Abdur Rahman b. Mahdi, Yahya b. Sa’id al-Qattan, Fudhayl b. Ayadh, Mu’adh b. Mu’adh al-Ambari, Muhammad b. Yusuf al-Faryabi, Abdullah b. Numayr, Zayd b. al-Hubab, Abu Nu’aym Fadhal b. Dakin, Muhammad b. Kathir, Abu Ishaq al-Fazari, Ubaydullah b. Musa, these 14 transmitters from Sufyan do not mention the words, “My living…”. Abdul Majid opposed these 14 transmitters while narrating from Sufyan with this chain and only he mentioned these words. So, we learn this hadith is weak and munkar.

This coupled with the fact that numerous scholars of hadith criticized Abdul Majid in general and specifically for his weak memory, lack or precision and accuracy all allude to his weakness in narrating and that this hadith from his weak. Furthermore, Sufyan himself and all those who transmitted from him are supported in their transmission by al-A’mash.

al-A’mash also transmitted from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud in marfu form as well and he also just transmits the first part.

Abu Ishaq al-Fazari from al-A’mash and Sufyan from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib from Zazan[180]

Furthermore, al-Hussayn al-Khalqani also transmits from Abdullah b. as-Sa’ib with the same chain and the same hadith, meaning only the first part of the hadith[181].

Al-Albani said, a group of trustworthy narrators were unified in transmitting this hadith from Sufyan without [the second part of] “My living…” and A’mash transmissions further support this, this therefore proves the irregularity [and or inconsistency] of the additional [words] due to the isolated and lone reporting of Abdul Majid b. Abdul Aziz of this hadith. This is more so specifically that he was criticized for his memory despite being a narrator in Muslim and a group of scholars said he was thiqah and another weakened him. Some of them clarified the reason [for his weakening], al-Khalilil said thiqah but makes mistakes in hadith, an-Nasa’i said he is not strong write his hadith, Ibn Abdul Barr said he narrates from hadith from Malik and there are mistakes in them, Ibn Hibban said in al-Majruhin (2:152), severely abandoned in hadith, he confused the reports, and transmitted abandoned narrations on famous narrators and therefore worthy to be abandoned. I say this is the reason why al-Hafiz said in at-Taqrib, truthful but makes mistakes.

When you have come to know what has been mentioned, al-Hafiz al-Haythami said in al-Majma’ (6:24), transmitted by al-Bazzar and its narrators are the narrators of the sahih. He errs here, alluding there is no one [in the chain] who has been criticized. Perhaps this is the reason as-Suyuti was deceived by this and said in al-Khasa’is al-Kubra (2:281) its chains is authentic.

This is why I say, al-Hafiz al-I’raqi – the Shaykh of al-Haythami was more precise [and accurate] in addressing the reality of the chain of al-Bazzar for he said in Takhrij al-Ihya (4:128), the narrators are the narrators of the sahih, except Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad, who Muslim has used for transmission, Ibn Ma’in and an-Nasa’i said he was thiqah and others declared him weak.

I say: as for his statement of his sons in Tarh at-Tathrib Fi Sharh at-Taqrib (3:297), the chain is good, however is this it is not good according to me, this would have been the case if Abdul Majid had not opposed trustworthy narrators as mentioned before and this is the defect in the hadith[182].

 As-Suyuti coded only the first part of the hadith Sahih and does not mention the second part of the hadith with the first[183].

Aqua@D1mashqi also tried to use the words of Tarh Tathrib to show both al-I’raqis authenticated it. However, as I mentioned they might have understood both parts of the hadith of al-Bazzar to be one and thus claimed the Isnad was good. This claim is true for the first part of the report since Abdul Majid b. Abi Rawwad was weak in his reports, at least 16 other narrators supported the first part of the wording and perhaps this is the reason they both declared it to be good. This would therefore make sense if they considered both parts of the hadith to be a single hadith, but this is clearly not the case as has bene proven in this paper.

Furthermore, even if this authentication of al-I’raqi was taken, he himself expresses and shows criticism levied against Abdul Majid, and as al-Albani said, al-I’raqi was precise and more accurate in his words compared to al-Haythami.

Aqua@D1mashqi uses as-Suyuti’s authentication from his Manahil as-Safa[184] and his al-Khasa’is al-Kubra[185].

Al-Munawi[186] questions as-Suyuti’s authentication of it in his Takhrij ash-Shifa[187]and al-Albani presents a potential reason why as-Suyuti might have authenticated it. Aqua@D1mashqi in his futile endeavour of “theological tashih” totally missed the comments of the the verifier of the Khasa’is, Muhammad Khalil Harras, when he showed the screenshots of the Khasa’is.

Muhammad Khalil Harras said in the footnote to this narration, I have added an annotative note to this hadith in my explanation of Sharh Qasidah Nuniyyah of Allamah Ibnul Qayyim that these words [as this report] are batil and mawdhu – fabricated. The Ashab as-Sihah did not transmit it rather the author of al-Firdaws did with a disconnected chain and some reports are mawquf from Anas[188].

The Mursal Narration of Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani

There are 3 mursal reports from Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani and they are as follows

Two [2] Narrations in Fadhal as-Salah Alan-Nabi of [Qadi] Isma’il b. Ishaq

[1] Abul Qasim informed us that Isma’il narrated to us and said Sulayman b. Harb narrated to us and said Hammad b. Zayd narrated to us and said Ghalib al-Qattan narrated to us and said on the authority of Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani who said Allah’s Messenger Sallalalhu Alayhi Wasallam said…[189]

The chain of transmission for the second report,

[2] Abul Qasim informed us and said Isma’il narrated to us and said al-Hajjaj b. al-Minhal narrated to us and said Hammad b. Salamah narrated on the authority of Kathir Abi Fadhal on the authority of Bakr b. Abdullah [al-Muzani] the Prophet Sallalalhu Alayhi Wasallam said…[190]

One [1] Report in Kitab at-Tabaqat al- Kabir of Ibn Sa’d

[1] This is the same as narration [1] above.

Yunus b. Muhammad al-Mu’adhib informed us [he said] Hammad b. Zayd on the authority of Ghalib [al-Qattan] on the authority of Bakr b. Abdullah [al-Muzani] who said Allah’s Messenger Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam said…[191]

One [1] Report in Musnad al-Harith b. Abi Usamah

[3] al-Harith said narrated to us Al-Hasan b. Qutaybah narrated to us and Jasr b. Farqad on the authority of Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani who said Allah’s Messenger Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam said…[192]

Nur ud-Din al-Haythami brings it in his Zawa’id of the Musnad, Bugyah al-Bahith Aan Zawa’id Musnad al-Harith[193] Ibn Hajr in al-Matalib al-Aliyyah[194]

Al-Busayri transmits it from al-Harith and brings it in his Ittihaf al-Khayra al-Mihrah Bi-Zawa’id al-Masanid al-Ashrah[195]

This narration is weak due to al-Hasan b. al-Qutaybah and Jasr b. Farqad

 

Al-Hasan b. al-Qutaybah

Al-Hasan b. al-Qutaybah is also in the chain who is abandoned and weak in hadith[196]. Al-Uqayli said he is not supported and made many errors[197] ad-Daraqutni said he is weak[198] another time al-Barqani narrated ad-Daraqutni said abandoned in hadith[199] Azdi said he is weak in hadith[200]. Adh-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajr clarify Ibn Adiyy’s view that there was no harm in him and says, rather he is finished (very weak)[201] Abu Hatim said weak[202]

 

Jasr b. Farqad

Jasr b. Farqad is very weak. Amir al-Mu’minin Fi’l Hadith Al-Bukhari said he is nothing[203], Abu Zurah said weak[204], an-Nasa’i said weak[205] Ibn Ma’in said he is nothing[206] another time he said he is not thiqah[207], Abu Hatim said he was a pious man but not strong[208] al-Saji said truthful but weak in hadith[209] al-Uqayli weakened him[210] Ibn Adiyy repeats this criticism and adds, is hadith generally are not preserved [ie authentic][211], Ibn Hibban weakened him[212] and Ibn Hajr quotes him saying he was weak[213] ad-Daraqutni weakened him[214] and said he is matruk[215] Ibn al-Jawzi weakened him[216] adh-Dhahabi weakened him[217] Ibn Hajr repeats this criticism in Mizan[218] both him and his son were abandoned and the latter was a Qadari[219]

So, there are 3 reports from Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani and all of them are mursal. Therefore al-Busayri is on record saying, al-Harith transmitted this in mursal form with this chain and Jasr b, Farqad who is in the chain is weak[220].

al-Busayri also said after transmitting it in his Ittihaf, this is mursal [and] weak, Jasr – everyone is united on his weakness, and I don’t know anyone who said he was thiqah.[221]

As-Suyuti coded it mursal[222] and al-Munawi also classed it mursal in explanation said, it is apparent the author (i.e. as-Suyuti) did not hold it to be Mawsul (i.e. connected back to the Nabi Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam). Al-Bazzar transmitted it from the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud, al-Haythami said its narrators are the narrators of the sahih[223].

Therefore, al-Munawi clarifies that he and as-Suyuti both held the report to be mursal and he further explains as-Suyuti did not see the report to be mawsul and therefore not connected to the Prophet Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam which leads al-Munawi to bring the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud from al-Bazzar to show a continuous connected chain. Al-Munawi had a need to do this to correct the disconnection in the chain, therefore he was aware of its weakness

Aqua@D1mashqi mentions al-Munawi authenticated the chain, which is incorrect and possibly a lie or ignorance on Aqua@D1mashqi’s part since we see al-Munawi merely repeating al-Haythami’s words. This is Aqua@D1mashqi’s affair even after presenting the screenshot of the book and hence passage himself!!!

Ibn Abdul Hadi alludes to its weakness by saying it is mursal, I say this report is mursal Qadi Isma’il transmitted it … this chain is authentic up to Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani[224].

Aqua@D1mashqi tried manipulating Ibn Abdul Hadi’s words to show he authenticated is another desperate attempt because he starts by saying I say this report is mursal, thereby indicating it is a category of a weak narration, but the chain is authentic up to Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani, and this is very clear from the words of Ibn Abdul Hadi and even the beginner student knows this!

And al-Sehsawani emphasises this further after quoting the words of Ibn Abdul Hadi and saying, al-mursal is a category of weak hadith and therefore grading this report authentic is not correct[225].

Al-Albani also clarifies and acknowledges the chain is authentic but only for a mursal report, he said, yes, the chain for this hadith is authentic to Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani in mursal form [only] and it has three chains of transmission.

The first: From Ghalib al-Qattan narrating from him [i.e. Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani] transmitted by Isma’il Qadi in Fadhal as-SalahAlan Nabi (no.25 with my checking) and Ibn Sa’d in at-Tabaqat (2/2/2) and all the narrators in the chain are thiqah and from the narrators of the two Shaykhs [i.e. al-Bukhari and Muslim].

The second:  From Kathir Abi Fadhal reporting transmitting from him as also transmitted by Isma’il (no.26) and the narrators are thiqah and are the narrators of Muslim except Kathir. And his father’s name was Yasar and he is well-known as Hafiz clarified in al-Lisan and he refutes Ibn al-Qattan’s statement that his affair was not well-known.

The Third: From Jasr b. Farqad reporting from him and al-Harith b. Abi Usamah transmitted it in his Musnad (no.230 of Bughyah al-Bahith Aan Zawa’id Musnad al-Harith) and Jasr is weak[226].

Al-Albani continues and says, perhaps this is the reason Abdul Majid transmitted this hadith in mawsul form from Ibn Mas’ud whereas in reality it is mursal from Bakr. Abdul Majid erred and transmitted it in mawsul from and added it to the first hadith of Ibn Mas’ud and Allah knows best[227].

Al-I’la’i classed Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani as someone who committed irsal and therefore adds an entry for him in his book of narrators who committed irsal[228].

Abu Zur’ah Wali ud-Din b. al-I’raqi himself declared Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani as a narrator who transmitted mursal reports[229].

 

Ruling on Hadith Mursal

At-Tirmidhi said, and the hadith if it is mursal then it is not authentic according to the majority of Ahlul Hadith [scholars of hadith] and a number of them declared them weak[230].

Aqua@D1mashqi says it is the opinion of the four madhaheb to accept this mursal of Bakr as he is thiqa of the Tabi’in narrating from the Prophet Sallalahu alayhi Wasallam and then proceeds to highlight only two opinions from al-Bayquniyyah.

What immediately refutes this is that ash-Shafi’i is on record for rejecting mursal narrations and this has been relayed from him through many narrations. Abu Dawud said ash-Shafi’i came and he criticised the practice [of taking mursal narrations][231]. There are two views from Ahmad, the first that he used mursal as evidence[232]. The second view was he did not totally declare them weak nor authentic, rather he considered the mursal reports of narrators to be weak who would do irsal from non thiqah narrators[233].

If he had read the second position of the scan he shared, he would have learnt there is also a valid view that, mursal reports are weak which cannot be used as evidence and this is the view of the majority of the scholars of hadith and numerous jurists and Ashab [scholars] of al-usul as Imam Muslim mentioned in the introduction to his Sahih that a mursal narration according to our foundational principles and the statement of the people of knowledge who are experts in narrations that they [mursal narrations] do not constitute evidence.[234]

Muslim mentions his view in the muqaddimah to his Sahih[235].

Ibn as-Salah said there is no khilaf that a mursal [report] is a hadith of a major Tabi’i who met a group of Companions and sat with them like Ubaydullah b. Adiyy b. al-Khiyar and Sa’id b. al-Musayyab[236]. He further goes on to say, and as for what we have mentioned in abstaining from using a mursal report as evidence and grading it weak is the madhhab adopted and the view of the majority Huffaz of Hadith and critical analysts [Nuqqad] of the reports and they have recourse this in their books[237].  

Ibn Hajr said a mursal report is a narration from a major Successor (Kibar Tabi’i)[238]. Al-I’la’i said, some have specified accepting the mursal of a major Successor but not minor Successors. He further mentions this is the view of the Hanafiyyah and some Malikiyyah[239].

Ibn Hajr further said regarding one report, [even if accepted] it is mursal and they [mursal reports] cannot be used as evidence[240]. Another time he said about a narration, whoever uses this as evidence he knows very well it does not actually constitute or be used as evidence because it is mursal[241]. He said after another narration, it is mursal or mu’adhal and it cannot be used as evidence[242].

Al-Munawi explained the criteria of a major Successor is whose narrations are mostly from Companions while a minor Successors narrations are mostly from other Successors. As for the view that a minor Successor is the one who met one or two Companions – then this is not a compatible explanation[243].

Therefore, it is upon Aqu@D1mashqi to prove Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani was from the major Successors based on what Ibn Hajr, al-Munawi and al-I’la’i said. Hanafis in general have an open view on this and accept the mursal of anyone even after the era of the Tabi’in[244], so its open season I guess and Aqua@D1mashqi was too busy ranting about the theological outlook of al-Albani whereas the Hanafis have open season and everything is lawful and authentic!!!

The Narration of Anas b. Malik RadhiAllahu Anhu

There are two chains for this narration

[1] Report in al-Mukhallisiyat

Informed me Muhammad narrated to us Yahya narrated to us Yahya b. Khidam in the grand mosque of Basrah in 250H narrated to us Muhammad b. Abdullah b. Ziyad Abu Salamah al-Ansari narrated to us Malik b. Dinar from Anas b. Malik[245].

This was declared fabricated by al-Albani[246] and he quoted criticism levied against al-Ansari and the detractors like Aqua@D1mashqi also affirm this, where he says the chain has a weak narrator.

[1] Report in Al-Kamil Fi Dhu’afa ir-Rijal

From al-Hasan narrated to us Khirash (b. Abdullah) narrated to us Anas b. Malik[247]. Ibn Adiyy classed this as a weak narration and hence included it in his biographical entry. Adh-Dhahabi[248] and Ibn Hajr[249] also classed this narration from Khirash to be weak.

Khirash b. Abdullah was accused of lying and Ibn Adiyy said he was majhul[250]. Ibn Hibban said he narrated fabricated narration; it is not lawful to use him as evidence nor write his hadith except for I’tibar[251]. None narrated from him except Abu Sa’id al-Adawi who was a kazzab – liar[252]. Burhan ud-Din al-Halabi has an entry for him in his book of those who were accused or fabricated hadith[253] and therefore al-Albani declared it a fabrication[254]

Al-I’raqi also declared the report of Anas to be weak but he incorrectly references it to al-Harith’s Musnad[255].

As-Suyuti also has an entry for the hadith of Anas and he classed it weak[256].

So, both reports from Anas b. Malik RadhiAllahu Anhu are severely weak and fabricated. The poor understanding and sheer desperation of Aqua@D1mashqi is evident when he says about the weakness of these narrations that they do not hurt the main, it strengthens it further, is disgraceful since liars and fabricators can never be used to support other weak narrations. This is basic science of hadith, and it shows the dubious and devious ways of these Sufi Ash’ari detractors!!!

Al-Albani brings both reports and references them to some unique rare and other well-known books that are in manuscript form. He brings the statements of the scholars of hadith of criticism on al-Ansari who is Muhammad b. Abdul Malik b. Ziyad Abu Salamah al-Ansari. He concludes and says,

In conclusion, this hadith is weak through all routes of transmission, the best of which is the hadith of Bakr b. Abdullah al-Muzani which is mursal and this is a category of weak hadith according to the scholars of hadith. Then we have the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud which is based on an error or mistake and the worst [weakest] of reports is that of Anas[257].

This is the reality of the 6 reports and its various chains of transmission,

There are many numerous other ahadith that dispel and contradict the wording of this report, which further alludes to its weakness. Perhaps at a later stage I can expand on this paper and bring further clarification. The discussion regarding the chains and narrators should be sufficient to prove to the honest reader to the weakness of this report and other supporting reports. This also shows the desperation and false attempt of the Sufi Ash’aris in deceiving the readers in trying to prove its authenticity.

As for as-Suyuti coding them as two different reports is in support of our view, if it was actually one narration Suyuti would have only had one entry in his Jami’ as-Saghir, but we learn he has 2 separate entries therefore he also was of the view that they were 2 separation narrations.[258]

Aqua@D1mashqi in his poor understanding admits this but this is a proof against him because it shows they are 2 separate narrations. If the scholars of hadith classed them as 2 different narrations, how is it that you can use both wordings and the chain and then claim the chain is authentic, either the chain is for the first hadith or the second hadith. This game playing has only but landed you further in your ignorance and lack of understanding of hadith and its sciences.

Let this be a lesson for Aqua@D1mashqi to humble himself and learn from his embarrassing research and major blunders while attacking the Salafi scholars. He should pay more attention to his own Sufi Ash’ari house.

Wa Sallallahu Ala Sayyidina Muhammad Wa Ala Alihi Wa Ashabihi Wa-Sallam Tasliman Kathira.

Abu Khuzaimah Ansari

Dhul Hijjah 1443H/ July 2022

Birmingham

England

NOTES

[1] Al-Bahr uz-Zakhar Bi-Musnad al-Bazzar 5:308 no.1925 (Maktabah Ulum wal-Hikam), al-Haythami, Majma’ az-Zawa’id Wa Manba’ al-Fawa’id 8:427 no.14250 (DKI) another edition 17:425 no.14263 (Dar ul-Minhaj), al-Haythami, Kashf ul-Astar Aan Zawa’id al-Bazzar 1:397 no.845 (ar-Risalah al-A’lamiyyah), Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah 5:275

[2] Al-Maqdisi, al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:109 no.4160

[3] Taqi ud-Din Muhammad al-Fasi, al-Iqd ath-Thamin Fi Tarikh al-Balad al-Amin, 5:492 no.1868 (Mu’assasah ar-Risalah)

[4] At-Tarikh Li-Yahya b. Ma’in Riwayah ad-Duri 1:99 no.235, al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil 6:64 no.340, adh-Dhahabi, Diwan adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:44 no.2815, al-Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa 2:7 no.3793, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:434 no.162 (ar-Risalah al-A’lamiyyah), Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:147 no.2151 (DKI), al-Mizzi, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:273, Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, al-Iqd ath-Thamin Fi Tarikh al-Balad al-Amin, 5:493

[5] At-Tarikh Li-Yahya b. Ma’in Riwayah ad-Duri 1:114 no.361, Ibn Abi Hatim al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil 6:64 no.340, al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 8:464, al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:110, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:273, adh-Dhahabi, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:566, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:435

[6] Ibn Adiyy, Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa ir–Rijal 8:463-464 no.1505 (Maktabah ar-Rushd)

[7] Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:566

[8] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:274, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:435

[9] Su’alat Abi Ishaq Ibrahim b. al-Junayd Li-Imam Yahya b. Ma’in no.333, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:274, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[10] Su’alat Abi Ishaq Ibrahim b. al-Junayd Li-Imam Yahya b. Ma’in no.333, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:435

[11] Su’alat Abi Ishaq Ibrahim b. al-Junayd Li-Imam Yahya b. Ma’in no.672

[12] Tarikh Uthman b. Sa’id ad-Darimi Aan Abi Zakariyyah Yahya b. Ma’in al-Baghdadi no.676

[13] Ma’rifah ur-Rijal Riwayah Ibn Muhriz 1:295

[14] Tarikh Ibn Abi Khaythamah 1:296 no.1050 (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah)

[15] Ahmad b. Hanbal, Kitab al-I’llal wa Ma’rifah ar-Rijal 3:19 no.3958 (Dar ul-Qabs) Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:273, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[16] Kitab al-I’llal wa Ma’rifah ar-Rijal 3:19 no.3960

[17] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:273

[18] Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[19] Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 8:462, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:566

[20] Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 8:463

[21] Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 8:298, no.3322 (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah)

[22] Bashar Awad Ma’ruf, Jihad Muhammad Khalil and Mahmud Muhammad Khalil, Mawsu’ah Aqwal Yahya b. Ma’in Fi Rijal al-Hadith Wa I’llalihi, 3:271-273 no.2388 (Dar ul-Gharb), Muhammad Sayyid Uthman, Mawsu’ah Tarikh Ibn Ma’in (DKI)

[23] Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:298

[24] Al-Khalili Al-Irshad Fi Ma’rifah Ulama il-Hadith no.64, 61, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:299

[25] Al-Irshad 33-34

[26] Transmitted in Musnad ash-Shihab 2:196 no.1173 (Dar ur-Risalah al-A’lamiyyah). The muhaqqiq, Hamdi Abdul Majid quotes al-Khalil transmitting it and then proceeds to quotes Ibn Hajr’s analysis of the narration from his al-Amali which I have quoted further on in this paper. Also transmitted by, Abu Nu’aym, Hilyatul Awliya 6:342 Ibn Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq 62:235

[27] Al-Irshad 34-35

[28] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:274, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[29] al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil 6:65 no.340. Ibn Abi Hatim only mentions this part. Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:297

[30] al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:110, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:273,

[31] Adh-Dhahabi, al-Kashif Fi Ma’rifah Mann Lahu Riwayah Fi’l Kutub as-Sittah, 2:239, adh-Dhahabi only mentions this segment

[32] Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 8:463, al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:110, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:566, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:273, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:434

[33] Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:434

[34] Yusuf b. Hasan b. Abdul Hadi, Kitab Bahr ad-Dam Fiman Takallam Fihi al-Imam Ahmad Bi-Madah Aw Dhamm, 1:306-307 no.639 (Dar Imam Ahmad)

[35] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:274, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[36] Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:565, Diwan adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:44 no.2815, al-Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa 2:7 no.3793

[37] Ibn Shahin, Tarikh Asma ath-Thiqat, no.937, 217 (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah), another edition, no.863, 232 (DKI)

[38] Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[39] Ibn Hajr, Taqrib ut-Tahdhib no.4188. 620 (Dar ul-Asimah), another edition, 217-218 (Faran Academy)

[40] Taqrib ut-Tahdhib Ma’a Tahrir Taqrib ut-Tahdhib no.4160, 491 (Mu’assisah a-Risalah Nashirun)

[41] Taqrib ut-Tahdhib no.4160, 475 (Dar ul-Yusr & Dar ul-Minhaj)

[42] Muslim 2:902 no.179/1229

[43] al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:110

[44] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:275

[45] al-Iqd ath-Thamin Fi Tarikh al-Balad al-Amin, 5:492

[46] Su’alat Abi Dawud Li-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal no.237

[47] Tarikh Ibn Ma’in Riwayah ad-Duri 1:114 no.361, al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil 6:64 no.340, Su’alat Abi Abdullah b. Bakir al-Baghdadi Li-Imam Abil Hasan ad-Daraqutni no.54, 182-183

[48] Su’alat Abi Abdullah b. Bakir al-Baghdadi Li-Imam Abil Hasan ad-Daraqutni no.54, 182-183, Al-I’llal al-Waridah Fi’l Hadith an-Nabawiyyah 9:24 Q:2346 (Dar Taybah), another edition 6:13 (Mawsu’ah ar-Rayyan) Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[49] Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 8:463

[50] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:271

[51] Muslim, al-Kuna Wa’l Asma 1:648 no.2630 (al-Jami’ al-Islamiyyah)

[52] Asami ad-Dhu’afa no.217, Su’alat al-Barza’i Li-Abi Zur’ah ar-Razi – Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wa’l Kazabin wa’l Matrukin no.728

[53] Su’alat al-Barza’i Li-Abi Zur’ah ar-Razi – Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wa’l Kazabin wa’l Matrukin no.14

[54] Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:435, adh-Dhahabi only mentions this section

[55] Kitab Al-Ma’rifah wat-Tarikh 3:52, (Mu’assasah ar-Risalah), another edition 3:156 (DKI), Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:299

[56] Su’alat Abi Abdullah b. Bakir al-Baghdadi Li-Imam Abil Hasan ad-Daraqutni no.54, 182-183

[57] Al-Uqayli, Kitab ad-Dhu’afa 3:102 (Dar ul-Gharb), another edition 4:127 no.1073 (Maktabah ar-Rushd), Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:297

[58] Ibn Sa’d Kitab atTabaqat al-Kabir 8:62 no.2477 (Maktabah al–Khanji), Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:298

[59] Barq Tawhidi, Mukhtasar at-Tabaqat Min ad-Dhu’afa wath-Thiqat no.717, 118) (Bayt at-Tawhid)

[60] Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, 9:143 (Dar ul-Nawadir), another edition 7:219 (DKI)

[61] al-I’llal wa Ma’rifah ar-Rijal Li-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal no.213 (Dar Imam Ahmad), Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:297

[62] Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:297

[63] Su’alat Abi Dawud Li-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal no.237

[64] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:274 Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[65] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:274, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:435

[66] Kitab al-Tarikh al-Kabir 6:112 no.1875 (Da’irah al-Ma’rif al-Uthmaniyyah), at-Tarikh al-Kabir 7:128 no.7856 (Nashir al-Mutamayyiz), al-Uqayli, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa 3:102 no.1072 (Dar ul-Gharb), al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:109, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:274, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:566, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[67] Al-Bukhari, ad-Dhu’afa as-Saghir no.249, 269 (Idarah Tarjuman as-Sunnah), another edition Kitab ad-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin al-Mashur ad-Dhu’afa as-Saghir (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah), another edition no.248, 246-247 (Markaz al-Ihsan)

[68] Zubayr Ali Za’i, Tuhfa al-Aqwiya’ Fi Tahqiq Kitab adh-Dhu’afa, no.242, 76-77

[69] Kitab ad-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin al-Mashur ad-Dhu’afa as-Saghir (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah), no.248, 247 Footnote alif.

[70] Kitab ad-Dhu’afa as-Saghir no.239, 269 (printed with at-Tarikh as-Saghir, Idarah Tarjuman as-Sunnah)

[71] Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib ul-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 18:272

[72] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:274

[73] Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 8:463

[74] Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:566

[75] Al-Mughlata’i, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 8:298 no.3322 (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah)

[76] Ta’liqat ad-Daraqutni Ala Kitab al-Majruhin 196

[77] Ad-Daraqutni, Al-I’llal al-Waridah Fi’l Hadith an-Nabawiyyah 1:623 Q:213 (Dar Taybah)

[78] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:275, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:565, al-Iqd ath-Thamin Fi Tarikh al-Balad al-Amin, 5:493

[79] Su’alat Abi Bakr al-Barqani Li-Imam Abi Hasan ad-Daraqutni no.317, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:275, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[80] Ibn Hajr, Kitab Muwafiqatul Khubar al-Khabr Fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Mukhtasar 2:248, majlis 183 (Maktabah ar-Rushd) also known as al-Amali Fi Takhrij Ahadith Mukhtasar al-Muntaha, al-Bulqini, Mahasin al-Istilah wa Tadhmin Kitab Ibn as-Salah, 172

[81] Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[82] Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[83] Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:147 no.2151, al-Kashif Fi Ma’rifah Mann Lahu Riwayah Fi’l Kutub as-Sittah, 2:239, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:298,

[84] al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:110, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:275, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:565. Adh-Dhahabi, al-Mizzi and Ibn Hajr only mention this statement and do not quote al-Humaydi’s words.

[85] al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil 6:65 no.340-341, Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:147

[86] Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[87] Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:147 no.2151 (DKI), Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:565, al-Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa 2:7 no.3793, Diwan adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:44 no.2815, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606. Ibn Hajr only mentions the part, he confused and mixed narrations, and he transmitted rejected reports on famous transmitters and deserves to be abandoned. Al-Mughlata’i, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 8:297 no.3322

[88] Al-Majruhin 2:150 no.780 (Dar as-Sumay’i), another edition 2:138 no.782 (Dar al-Loloaa), Ibn al-Jawzi adh-Dhu’afa wal Matrukin 2:147, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:565

[89] Al-Majruhin 2:150 (Dar as-Sumay’i), another edition 2:138 (Dar al-Loloaa), Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:565

[90] Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 8:467, al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:110, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:275, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:435

[91] Al-Uqayli, Kitab ad-Dhu’afa 3:102 no.1072 (Dar ul-Gharb), another edition 4:127 no.1073 (Maktabah ar-Rushd)

[92] Kitab ad-Dhu’afa 3:102 (Dar ul-Gharb), another edition 4:127 (Maktabah ar-Rushd), Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[93] Al-Juzjani, Ahwal ur-Rijal no.273-274, 261-262 (Hadith Academy)

[94] Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:147 no.2151 (DKI)

[95] Ibn al-Jawzi, al-I’llal al-Mutanahiyyah Fi Ahadith al-Wahiyyah 1:36-37 no.32 (Idarah Ulum al-Athariyyah)

[96] Ibn al-Jawzi, al-I’llal al-Mutanahiyyah Fi Ahadith al-Wahiyyah 1:279-280 no.451

[97] Su’alat Mas’ud b. Ali as-Sijzi Ma’a Asilah al-Baghdadiyin Aan Ahwal ar-Rijal Li-Abi Abdullah al-Hakim an-Nisaburi no.209, another edition, no.222, 183-184 (Dar ul-Gharb) Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:299

[98] Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:298

[99] Ibn Abdul Barr, at-Tamhid Lima Fi’l al-Muwatta Min al-Ma’ani Wa al-Asanid 13:502 (Mu’assasah al-Furqan)

[100] Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606

[101] Kitab Muwafiqatul Khubar al-Khabr Fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Mukhtasar 2:248

[102] Al-Bulqini, Mahasin al-Istilah wa Tadhmin Kitab Ibn as-Salah 172

[103] Abu Nu’aym, Hilyatul Awliya 6:342

[104] Illal al-Hadith Li-Ibn Abi Hatim 1:296 no.363 (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah), another edition titled, Kitab ul-I’llal no.362, 240 (Khalid b. Abdur Rahman al-Jarisi))

[105] Ad-Daraqutni, Al-I’llal al-Waridah Fi’l Hadith an-Nabawiyyah 1:623 Q:213 (Dar Taybah)

[106] Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:298

[107] Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:566, Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:275, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:435

[108] Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:298

[109] Ibn Makula, al-Ikmal Fi Raf’a al-Irtiyab Aan Mu’talif wal Mukhtalif Fil Asma wal Kuna wal Ansab 4:105 (DKI – a reprint of Da’iratul Ma’arif ul-Uthmaniyyah)

[110] Taqi ud-Din Muhammad al-Fasi, al-Iqd ath-Thamin Fi Tarikh al-Balad al-Amin, 5:492 no.1868

[111] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:272

[112] Al-I’raqi, al-Mughni Aan Hamal al-Asfar Fi’l Asfar Fi Takhrij Ma Fi al-Ahya Min al-Akhbar 1:354 (Dar Ibn Hazm), another edition 2:1051 no.3811 (Maktabah Tabariyyah)

[113] Al-Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa 2:7 no.3793

[114] Diwan adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:44 no.2815 (Dar ul-Basha’ir)

[115] Adh-Dhahabi, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:565 no.4926 (al-Risalah al-A’lamiah)

[116] Adh-Dhahabi, Asma Man Takallam Fihi Wa Huwa Mawthaq, 346

[117] Adh-Dhahabi, al-Kashif Fi Ma’rifah Mann Lahu Riwayah Fi’l Kutub as-Sittah, 2:239 no.3428 (Dar ul-Hadith)

[118] al-Kashif, 2:239 no.3428 (Dar ul-Hadith)

[119] Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:435, Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 8:463

[120] Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:436

[121] Al-Khazraji, Khulasah Tadhhib Tahdhib ul-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 343

[122] Ittihaf al-Khasah Bi-Tashih al-Khulasah on the margin of Khulasah Tadhhib Tahdhib ul-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 343, note 2

[123] Ibn Rajab, Sharh I’llal at-Tirmidhi 2:662 (Dar ul-Minhaj al-Qawim)

[124] Sharh I’llal at-Tirmidhi 2:662, note 1

[125] Qanun ad-Dhu’afa 275

[126] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:272

[127] Al-Maqdisi, al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:109 no.4160

[128] Al-Bahr uz-Zakhar Bi-Musnad al-Bazzar 5:308 no.1925

[129] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:271-272

[130] Tahdhib ul-Kamal 18:272

[131] ad-Dhu’afa as-Saghir no.249, 269 (Idarah Tarjuman as-Sunnah), another edition Kitab ad-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin al-Mashur ad-Dhu’afa as-Saghir (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah), another edition no.248, 246-247 (Markaz al-Ihsan)

[132] Al-Kamil Fi Dhu’afa ir-Rijal 8:462 no.1505

[133] Al-Uqayli, Kitab ad-Dhu’afa 3:102 no.1072 (Dar ul-Gharb), another edition 4:127 no.1073 (Maktabah ar-Rushd)

[134] Al-Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa 2:7 no.3793

[135] Diwan adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:44 no.2815

[136] Asami ad-Dhu’afa no.217, Su’alat al-Barza’i Li-Abi Zur’ah ar-Razi – Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wa’l Kazabin wa’l Matrukin no.728

[137] Al-Majruhin 2:150 no.780 (Dar as-Sumay’i), another edition 2:138 no.782 (Dar al-Loloaa), adh-Dhu’afa wal Matrukin 2:147, Mizan ul-I’tidal 2:565

[138] Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 2:147 no.2151 (DKI)

[139] Al-Maqdisi al-Muntakhab Min I’llal al-Khallal no.135, 227 (Dar ur-Rayah), another edition, no.162, 188 (al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah, al-I’llal al-Mutanahiyyah Fi Ahadith al-Wahiyyah 1:280

[140] Ibn al-Jawzi, al-I’llal al-Mutanahiyyah Fi Ahadith al-Wahiyyah 1:279-280 no.451

[141] Al-I’la’i, J’am’i at-Tahsil Fi Ahkam al-Marasil, no.30, 107 (Alim ul-Kutub)

[142] Wali ud-Din Abi Zur’ah al-I’raqi, al-Mudallisin no.39, 68 (Dar ul-Wafa), another edition, no.39, 191 (al-Maktabah al-Islamiyyah)

[143] Tabaqat al-Mudallisin no.82, 41 (Maktabah al-Manar), another edition, no.3 level:82, 101 (al-Maktabah al-Islamiyyah)

[144] Tabaqat al-Mudallisin 12 (al-Maktabah al-Islamiyyah)

[145] Ibn Hajr, an-Nukt Kitab Ibn as-Salah 2:584 no.43 (Dar Imam Ahmad)

[146] As-Suyuti, Asma al-Mudallisin no.34, 71 (Dar ul-Jil), another edition no.43, 208 (al-Maktabah al-Islamiyyah)

[147] Muhammad b. Tal’at, Mu’ajam al-Mudallisin no.99, 309-311 (Adwa as-Salaf)

[148] Ad-Damini, at-Tadlis fi’l Hadith 1:44

[149] al-I’llal wa Ma’rifah ar-Rijal Li-Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal no.213 (Dar Imam Ahmad), Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 2:606, Ikmal Tahdhib ul-Kamal 8:297

[150] Al-Lalaka’i, Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah 5:1076 no.1848 (Dar Taybah)

[151] Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah 5:1076 no.1849

[152] Siyar A’lam an-Nabula 9:434

[153] Al-Hakim, Ma’rifah Ulum ul-Hadith 16

[154] Ibn Hajr, an-Nukt Kitab Ibn as-Salah 1:346

[155] Nazhatun Nazar Fi Sharh Nukhbatul Fikr 103

[156] Khatib al-Baghdadi, al-Kifayah Fi Ilm ur-Riwayah 203-204

[157] Ibn Jama’ah, al-Manhal ar-Rawwi Fi Mukhtasar Ulum ul-Hadith an-Nabwi 74

[158] Al-Bahr uz-Zakhar Bi-Musnad al-Bazzar 5:309

[159] Majma’ az-Zawa’id Wa Manba’ al-Fawa’id 8:427 no.14250 (DKI) another edition 17:426 no.14263 (Dar ul-Minhaj)

[160] Al-Haythami, Kashf ul-Astar Aan Zawa’id al-Bazzar 1:397

[161] Al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifah wal-Mawdhu’a 2:404 no.975

[162] Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah 5:275 from Silsilah al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifah wal-Mawdhu’a 2:404

[163] Tuhfatul Ashraf Bi-Ma’rifah al-Atraf 6:270 no.9204

[164] Ittihaf al-Maharah Bi-Fawa’id al-Mubtakarah Min Atraf al-Asharah10:457 no.12543

[165] Ibn al-Mubarak, Kitab az-Zuhd no.1028, An-Nasa’i, al-Yawm al-Layla no.66

[166] Musannaf Abdur Razzaq 2:278 no.3150, an-Nasa’i no.1282, at-Tabarani, Mu’ajam al-Kabir 5:188 no.10529

[167] An-Nasai, al-Mujtaba no.1282, Musnad Ahmad 7:260 no.4210, Ibn Hibban 1:355 no.462, Ibn Balban 3:195 no.914, Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 5:413 no.8966 and 17:446 no.33882, Musnad Abu Ya’la 9:137 no-247-5213

[168] Musnad Ahmad 7:260 no.4210

[169] Al-Bazzar 5:307 no.1923, Isma’il Qadi, Fadhal as-Salah Alan-Nabi no.21

[170] Al-Haytham b. Kulayb, al-Musnad (ash-Shashi), no.826, at-Tabarani, Mu’ajam al-Kabir 5:188 no.10530

[171] An-Nasa’i, al-Mujtaba no.1282, al-Kubra no.1205, Musnad Ahmad 7:343 no.4320

[172] Ad-Darimi 3:62 no.2804

[173] Musnad Ahmad 6:183 no.3666

[174] Al-Haytham b. Kulayb, al-Musnad (ash-Shashi) no.825

[175] Al-Bayhaqi, ash-Shu’bal Iman no.1582, ad-Da’wat al-Kabir no.159, al-Baghawi, Sharh as-Sunnah 3:197 no.687

[176] Abu Nu’aym, al-Hilyatul Awliya 4:201

[177] Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak 4:478 no.3616, Abu Nu’aym, Tarikh Asbahan 2:175 no.1394 (DKI),

[178] Al-Bayhaqi, ad-Da’wat al-Kabir no.159, al-Baghawi, Sharh as-Sunnah 3:197 no.687

[179] Al-Bahr uz-Zakhar Bi-Musnad al-Bazzar 5:308 no.1925 (Maktabah Ulum wal-Hikam), al-Haythami, Majma’ az-Zawa’id Wa Manba’ al-Fawa’id 8:427 no.14250 (DKI) another edition 17:425 no.14263 (Dar ul-Minhaj), al-Haythami, Kashf ul-Astar Aan Zawa’id al-Bazzar 1:397 no.845 (ar-Risalah al-A’lamiyyah), Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah 5:275

[179] Al-Maqdisi, al-Kamal Fi Asma ir-Rijal 7:109 no.4160

[180] Al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak 4:478 no.3616, Abu Nu’aym, Tarikh Asbahan 2:175 no.1394 (DKI), at-Tabarani, al-Mu’ajam al-Kabir 5:187 no.10528

[181] Al-Bazzar 5:307 no.1924, Tarikh Baghdad 9:104

[182] Al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifah wal-Mawdhu’a 2:404-405

[183] As-Suyuti, al-Jam’i as-Saghir 1:142 no.2355 (DKI), Al-Munawi, Faydh ul-Qadir, 3:401 no.3771

[184] Manahil as-Safa Fi Takhrij Ahadith ash-Shifa no.8, 31

[185] Al-Khasa’is al-Kubra 3:406

[186] Faydh ul-Qadir 3:401

[187] Manahil as-Safa Fi Takhrij Ahadith ash-Shifa no.8, 31

[188] Al-Khasa’is al-Kubra 3:406 footnote 2

[189] [Qadi] Isma’il b. Ishaq, Fadhal as-Salah Alan-Nabi, no.25, 40 (DKI)

[190] Fadhal as-Salah Alan-Nabi, no.26, 41-42 (DKI)

[191] Ibn Sa’d, Kitab at-Tabaqat al-Kabir 2:174 (Maktabah al–Khanji),

[192] Musnad al-Harith b. Muhammad b. Abi Usamah, 4:105 no.1923 (Ja’izah Dubai ad-Dawliyyah)

[193] Nur ud-Din al-Haythami, Bugyah al-Bahith Aan Zawa’id Musnad al-Harith, 1:884 no.953

[194] Al-Matalib al-A’liyyah bi-Zawa’id al-Masanid ath-Thamiyyah 4:22-23 no.3853

[195] al-Busayri, Ittihaf al-Khayra al-Mihrah Bi-Zawa’id al-Masanid al-Ashrah 9:93 no.8628 (Maktabah ar-Rushd)

[196] Qanun adh-Dhu’afa, 250

[197] Kitab adh-Dhua’fa 2:17, Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:473, Lisan ul-Mizan 3:106

[198] Man Takallam Fihim ad-Daraqutni Fi Kitab as-Sunan no.84

[199] Diwan adh-Dhu’afa, 1:193 no.947, al-Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa 1:256, Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:473, Lisan ul-Mizan 3:106

[200] Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:473, Lisan ul-Mizan 3:106

[201] Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:473, Lisan ul-Mizan 3:106

[202] Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:473, Lisan ul-Mizan 3:106

[203] Adh-Dhu’afa as-Saghir no.54, Tarikh al-Kabir 6:246

[204] Asami adh-Dhu’afa no.52

[205] Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal Matrukin no.107

[206] Al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil 2:539 no.2238, Ibn Hibban, al-Majruhin 1:217, al-Uqayli Kitab adh-Dhu’afa 1:538,

[207] Ta’liqat ad-Daraqutni Ala Kitab al-Majruhin, 66

[208] Al-Jarh wa’t Ta’dil 2:539 no.2238, Lisan ul-Mizan 2:435

[209] Lisan ul-Mizan 2:435

[210] Al-Uqayli, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa 1:538

[211] Al-Kamil Fidh-Dhu’afa 2:421

[212] al-Majruhin 1:217

[213] Lisan ul-Mizan 2:435

[214] Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal Matrukin no.146

[215] Lisan ul-Mizan 2:435

[216] Ibn al-Jawzi, adh-Dhu’afa wal Matrukin 1:169

[217] Diwan adh-Dhu’afa wal Matrukin 1:205, al-Mughni Fidh-Dhu’afa 1:205

[218] Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:366

[219] Qanun adh-Dhu’afa, 246

[220] Al-Busayri, al-Mujriddah no.7173

[221] al-Busayri, Ittihaf al-Khayra al-Mihrah Bi-Zawa’id al-Masanid al-Ashrah 9:94 no.8628

[222] As-Suyuti, al-Jam’i as-Saghir 1:229 no.3771 (DKI),

[223] Al-Munawi, Faydh ul-Qadir, 3:401 no.3771 (Dar ul-Ma’rifah)

[224] Ibn Abdul Hadi, as-Sarim al-Munki Fi Radd Alas-Subki, 204.

[225] Al-Sehsawani, Siyantul Insan Aan Waswasah Shaykh Dahlan, 258-259

[226] Al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifah wal-Mawdhu’a 2:405

[227] Silsilah al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifah wal-Mawdhu’a 2:405

[228] Al-I’la’i, J’am’i at-Tahsil Fi Ahkam al-Marasil, no.65, 150 (Alim ul-Kutub)

[229] Abu Zur’ah Wali ud-Din b. I’raqi, Tuhfah at-Tahsil Fi Zikr Ruwat al-Marasil no.94, 82

[230] At-Tirmidhi, Kitab al-I’llal – with Tuhfatul Ahwadhi 10:464 (Dar ul-Fayha)

[231] Risalah al-Imam Abi Dawud Ila Ahl Makkah Fi Wasaf as-Sunnah, 32

[232] Al-Nukt Ala Kitab Ibn Salah, 2:569

[233] Sharh I’llal at-Tirmidhi 1:310

[234] Al-Bayquniyyah, 111

[235] Muqaddimah Sahih Muslim 1:30

[236] Ma’rifah Ulum ul-Hadith, 126

[237] Ma’rifah Ulum ul-Hadith, 30

[238] Fath ul-Bari 9:60, 12:40

[239] Jami’ at-Tahsil Fi Ahkam al-Marasil, 34

[240] Fath ul-Bari 1:251

[241] Fath ul-Bari 2:175

[242] Fath ul-Bari 5:190

[243] Al-Yawaqit wad-Durrar Fi Sharh Nukhbatul Fikr 1:498

[244] Jami’ at-Tahsil Fi Ahkam al-Marasil, 33

[245] Abu Tahir al-Mukhallis, al-Mukhallisiyat, 3:237 no.2412

[246] Al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifah wal-Mawdhu’a 2:406

[247] Ibn Adiyy, Al-Kamil Fi Dhu’afa ir-Rijal 4:406 3:533 535, al-Ghazzali, Ihya’ Ulum ud-Din 4:148

[248] Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:600

[249] Lisan ul-Mizan 3:355

[250] Al-Kamil Fi Dhu’afa ir-Rijal 4:408, Ibn al-Jawzi, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 1:253

[251] Al-Majruhin 1:288, Kitab adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin 1:253, Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:600, Lisan ul-Mizan 3:355, al-Kashf ul-Hathith Amman Rumiya Bi-Wadhi’ al-Hadith, no.273

[252] Mizan ul-I’tidal 1:600, Mughni Fidh Dhu’afa 1:315, Lisan ul-Mizan 3:355, Burhan ud-Din al-Halabi, al-Kashf ul-Hathith Amman Rumiya Bi-Wadhi’ al-Hadith, no.273, 108 (Alim al-Kutub), al-Kinani, Tanziyyah ash-Shari’yyah al-Marfu’ah Aan ash-Shani’yyah al-Mawdhu’a 1:57 (Maktabah al-Qahira), Faydh ul-Qadir 3:401

[253] al-Kashf ul-Hathith Amman Rumiya Bi-Wadhi’ al-Hadith, no.273.

[254] Al-Albani, Silsilah al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifah wal-Mawdhu’a 2:406

[255] Al-I’raqi, al-Mughni Aan Hamal al-Asfar Fi’l Asfar Fi Takhrij Ma Fi al-Ahya Min al-Akhbar 2:1051 no.3811

[256] Jami’ as-Saghir 1:229 no.3770, Faydh ul-Qadir, 3:400 no.3770

[257] Silsilah al-Ahadith ad-Da’ifah wal-Mawdhu’a 2:406

[258] Jami’ as-Saghir no’s 2355 and 3771