Salafi Research Institute SRI
Translated & Annotated
Abu Khuzaimah Ansari
The 1st – Report of
al-Hasan al-Basri Rahimahullah
KEY BLACK BOLD = Shaykh Abdul Qadir al-Junayd.
Blue [AK…..END] my annotations
Ibn Abi Dunya in his as-Samt (no.234) and al-Ghibah wan-Namimah (no.97) through the chain of Yahya bin Abi Bakir from Sharik from Uqil from al-Hasan. And Sharikh bin Abdullah in the chain is da’if – weak. Uqil in the chain is not specified and I was unable to find any narrations of Sharik from Uqil except only this narration. If it was Uqil bin Khalid, then he is trustworthy who transmits from al-Hasan but I could not find anyone saying Sharik narrates from this Uqil or whether a different one and Allah knows best.
The edition with Al-Huwayni’s checking.
The edition with Najm Abdur Rahman’s checking.
[AK] There is a difference of opinion concerning Sharik bin Abdullah whether he is weak or Hasan in hadith. Many of the scholars and Imams of hadith, rijal and Jarh wat-Ta’dil have criticised and praised him. For further details refer to al-Jam’i li-Kutub adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin wal Kadhabin (7/261-281 no.5506) where the latter has collated over 20 pages concerning him by the way of his integrity in hadith.
Further to differences on his trustworthiness, Sharik is a Mudallis.
The following scholars all classed and graded him to be a mudallis. Hafiz Ibn Hajr in Tabaqat al-Mudallisin (p.75 no.56), Hafiz al-Ala’i in Jam’i at-Tahsil Fi Ahkam al-Marasil (p.77 no.23), Sabt ibn al-Ajami in Kitab at-Tabiyin Li-Asma al-Mudallisin (p.33), Manzumah Mahmud al-Maqdisi (line 4), Abu Zurah al-Iraqi in Kitab al-Mudallisin (no.28), Hafiz Suyuti in Asma Man Urifa Bi-Tadlis (no.31), Muhammad Tal’at in Mu’ajam al-Mudallisin (p.248-250) (KSA: Adwa as-Salaf 1426H/2005, 1st Edn.).
Shaikh Zubair Ali Za’s discusses this to some extent despite declaring him hasan in hadith. See his Fath al-Mubin Fi Tahqiq al-Mudallisin (p.75 no.56). The Shaikh Rahimahullah also quotes Imam Ibn Hazm and Ibn Qattan al-Fasi declaring Sharik a Mudallis (al-Muhalla (8/263 issue no.1383 and 10/333 issue no.2016) Bayan al-Wahm wal-Iyham (3/533-534) (KSA: Dar Tayybah, 1432H/2011) 2nd Edn. Ed.al-Hussain Ayat Sa’id)
Al-Qufili in his checking of Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah said, “Also transmitted by Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Dunya in al-Ghibah (no.98) and in as-Samt (no.235) through the route of Sharik bin Abdullah an-Nakha’i from Uqil bin Khalid al-Ayli from al-Hasan al-Basri with the same wording. However, its chain is weak due to Sharik al-Qadhi and there is a disconnection in the chain between Uqil and al-Hasan and Allah knows best.” (Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad (1/310)
Najm Abdur Rahman in his checking of Kitab as-Samt said, “Its narrators are from the thiqat.” (Kitab as-Samt wa Adab al-Lisan (p.343 no.235) (Lebanon: Dar ul-Gharb, 1406H/1986) 1st Edn.). This is not the case, and he did this because he made assumptions on who this Uqil is and despite bringing criticism on Sharik. Al-Huwayni answers Najm’s words with surprise and astonishment, as you will read below.
Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni, who many of the advocators of backbiting the ruler publicly take from and who is known to have serious errors in Manhaj, grades the chain weak, he says, “There is weakness in the chain and Sharik an-Nakha’i had a weak memory….some of them claim the narrators are trustworthy! Despite what they said about Sharik an-Nakha’i (in terms of weakness)!!” (Kitab as-Samt wa Adab al-Lisan of Ibn Abi Dunya (p.145 no.234) (Lebanon: Dar ul-Kutub al-Arabi, 1410H/1990, 1st Edn. Ed. Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni) [END]
Ad-Dinawari also transmit it in is his book al-Majalisah wa Jawahir al-Ilm (no.1347) with a very weak chain.
[AK] Ibn Qutaybah ad-Dinawari transmit this report in al-Majalisah (4/196 no.1347) also with the same chain in (8/43 no.3352) (KSA: Dar ibn Hazm, 1419H/1998) 1st Edn. Ed. Mashur Hasan) and in his other work, U’yun al-Akhbar (2/17).
The chain is from Ad-Dinawari from Ahmad from Yusuf bin Abdullah al-Halwani from Uthman from A’wf from al-Hasan. Yusuf bin Abdullah al-Halwani is majhul – unknown and ad-Dinawari himself was accused of lying by Imam ad-Daraqutni (Mizan (1/156) and Lisan (1/309) END]
Al-Bayhaqi also transmit it in Shu’bal Iman (no.9221). The chain includes Abul Abbas bin Masruq, Mandal and Musa bin Ubaydah and all three are dhu’afa – weak narrators.
[AK] The chain from Imam al-Bayhaqi is from Abu Abdullah al-Hafiz, from Ja’far al-Khawas from Abul Abbas bin Masruq from Ibrahim bin Sa’d and Sufyan bin Waki both from Mandal bin Ali from Musa bin Ubaydah from Sulayman bin Muslim who said al-Hasan al-Basri said…. (Shu’bal Iman 12/167 no.9221) another edition (17/163-164 no.9221) (Indian Print)
Dr Abdul Ali Abdul Hameed Hamid grades this report weak; He continues and says Ja’far al-Khawas is Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Nasir al-Khaladi Abu Muhammad and in the manuscript we have it says Abu Ja’far al-Khawas, which is incorrect. He then says,
“It’s chain is weak…Abul Abbas bin Masruq is Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Masruq at-Tusi and he is not strong…..Mandal bin Ali is al-Anazi he is weak. Musa bin Ubaydah he is al-Rabadhi Abu Abdul Aziz al-Madani, he is weak.” (al-Jam’i Shu’bal-Iman (17/163-164 no.9221) (India: ad-Darus-Salafiyyah, 1416H/1996, 1st Edn. Ed. Under the supervision Mukhtar Ahmad al-Nadwi), in another edition (12/167 no.9221), (KSA: Maktabah ar-Rushd, 1437H/2015, 4th Edn.) with the checking of Dr. Abdul Ali Abdul Hameed Hamid, refer to the scan above)
For Abul Abbas bin Masruq
See Mizan (1/166), Lisan (1/646), Diwan ad-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (p.9), Mughni fidh-Dhu’afa (1/92), adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (1/89) of Ibn al-Jawzi from al-Jam’i li-Kutub adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin wal Kadhabin (1/649 no.1011) (Egypt: Dar Ibn Abbas, 1439H/2018 1st Edn. Shadi Al Nu’man)
Imam ad-Daraqutni said, “He is not strong, and his narrations are from the Mu’adhalat (missing 2 consecutive narrators).” (Suwalat Hamza bin Yusuf as-Sahmi, no.165)
For Mandal bin Ali
see Ahwal ar-Rijal (p.105), adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (no.611) an-Nasa’i, adh-Dhu’aqa al-Uqayli (6/149), al-Majruhin (3/24) al-Kamil (8/214), Man Takallam Fihim ad-Daraqutni Fi Kitab as-Sunan (no.430), Tarikh Asma ath-Thiqat adh-Dhu’afa wal Kadhabin wal Matrukin (no.636) Ibn Shahin, adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (3/138) of Ibn al-Jawzi, Diwan ad-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (p.397), Mughni fidh-Dhu’afa (2/429), Mizan (4/380) from al-Jam’i li-Kutub adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin wal Kadhabin (15/324 no.13255)
For Musa bin Ubaydah
see adh-Dhu’afa (no.361) of al-Bukhari, adh-Dhu’aqa al-Uqayli (5/440), Ahwal ar-Rijal (p.214), Asami adh-Dhu’afa Li-Abi Zurah ar-Razi (no.316), Suwalat al-Barza’i (no.478), al-Majruhin (2/234), Ta’liqat ad-Daraqutni Ala Kitab al-Majruhin (p.226), al-Kamil (8/44), adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (no.517) ad-Daraqutni, Man Takallam Fihim ad-Daraqutni Fi Kitab as-Sunan (no.434), Tarikh Asma adh-Dhu’afa wal Kadhabin wal Matrukin (no.588), adh-Dhu’afa (no.202) Asbahani, adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (3/147) of Ibn al-Jawzi, Diwan ad-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (p.402), Mughni fidh-Dhu’afa (2/441), Mizan (4/405), Kashf al-Hathith (no.796) from al-Jam’i li-Kutub adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin wal Kadhabin (15/453 no.13425)
Imam al-Lalaka’i also transmits this in his Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad with the following chain, from al-Hasan from Ahmad bin al-Hasan bin Yunus from Muhammad bin Uthman from Ahmad bin Yunus from Mandal from Musa bin Ubaydah from Sulayman bin Muslim from al-Hasan, “It is not unlawful to backbite three people, one is the person of innovation who is extreme in his innovation.” (Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad (1/231 no.278) (Maktabah al-Islamiyyah – Nashat bin Kamal). This is still weak due to Mandal and Musa bin Ubaydah.
It seems that Imam al-Lalaka’i made ikhtisar of the riwayah perhaps owing to only mentioning the point of discussion (backbiting the people of bid’ah) or perhaps the feasible possibility he was not convinced of the authenticity of the other two types of people. It is therefore also possible he might have summarised report (no.276), the report above or again, he might not have deemed the other wording to be authentic, Allahu Ta’la A’lam.
The muhaqqiq of Sharh Usul I’tiqad, Nashat bin Kamal said about this report (no,278), “(1) Mandal bin Ali al-Anazi Abu Abdullah al-Kufi, Ahmad declared him weak. (2) Musa bin Ubaidah Nashit al-Rabadhi, he was a worshipper but weak in hadith especially when narrating from Abdullah bin Dinar.” (Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad (1/231 no.278) (Egypt: Maktabah al-Islamiyyah, 1431H/2010, 6th Edn. Ed. Nashat bin Kamal al-Misri).
Al-Qufili said, “This report is weak, and its chain is disconnected. (He then quotes verbatim with the chain from Shu’bal Iman (vol 17 no.9221) [AK] Dar us-salafiyyah – Indian Print] and said) Mandal bin Ali al-Anazi is in the chain who is weak. Musa bin Ubaidah al-Rabadhi is also weak. Sulayman bin Muslim Abul Mu’ali al-Ijli is Majhul al-Hal (unknown). Furthermore, there is link (missing) between (Sulayman) and al-Hasan al-Basri as mentioned in al-Jarh Wat’Ta’dil (4/142) and Allah knows best.” (Sharh Usul al-I’tiqad Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah (1/309-310 no.244) END]
Also, Sulayman bin Muslim transmits from al-Hasan, but I could not find anyone who transmitted on al-Hasan al-Basri with that name. I found three people with that name who resided in al-Basrah who transmitted from al-Hasan, one is majhul and two are weak.
Several current researchers have definitively said Sulayman bin Muslim is Abu Mu’alli al-Ijli who is majhul – unknown.
[AK] Dr Abdul Ali Abdul Hameed Hamid said, “Sulayman bin Muslim he is Abul Mu’alli al-Khuza’i al-Ijli Kufi al-Asal Basri ad-Dar. Ibn Hibban cited him ath-Thiqat (6/393) and he did not mention any criticism or praise for him.” (Shu’bal Iman (12/167 under no.9221) END]
Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal also transmitted in az-Zuhd (p.486 no.1689) and another edition (p.234 no.1666) but with wording, “a treacherous ruler” and through another chain of transmission from Abdullah bin Ahmad by Abul A’la Attar al-Hamdani in his book Futya Wa Jawabiha Fi Zikr al-I’tiqad Wa Dhamm al-Ikhtilaf (no.14) but with the wording as “the oppressive ruler.” And its chain is weak due to a disconnection in it.
(These 2 scans were shared on social media by those who promote the permissibility of backbiting rulers publicly)
[AK] Kitab az-Zuhd with additions by Imam Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal is referred to as as-Zawa’id of Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal. It has been published many times and thus different references are often quoted. The scan shows what the opposers have shared (p.302 no.1666) Dar ul-Ghad al-Jadid, ed. Muhammad Ahmad Isa. END]
Imam Abu Hatim ar-Razi further said as mentioned in his son’s book, al-Marasil (no.421), “Ibn Shawdhab did not see (i.e. meet) al-Hasan and he did not hear any hadith from him.”
[AK] The chain in az-Zuhd is from Abdullah from al-Hasan bin Abdul Aziz al-Jarawi from Dhamrah from Ibn Shawdhab from al-Hasan.
Although Ibn Shawdhab is thiqah, he did not meet al-Hasan. (Kitab al-Marasil (p.116 tarjamah no.194 no.421) (Syria: Mu’assasah ar-Risalah, 1439H/2018, 2nd Edn. Ed. Shukrullah bin Ni’matullah Qawchani.
So, it seems Abdullah bin Shawdhab encountered al-Hasan’s era, but he did actually meet or transmit any narrations or reports from him. So, there is a disconnection in the chain which renders it weak.
Hafiz al-Ala’i (d.761) also classed Abdullah Ibn Shawdhab as narrator who did irsal while repeating the view of Imam Abu Hatim ar-Razi. (Jam’i at-Tahsil Fi Ahkam al-Marasil (p.212 no.371) (Lebanon: Alam al-Kutub, 1426H/2005, Edn. 3rd ed. Shaikh Hamdi Abdul Majid as-Salafi)
Hafiz Wali ud-Din bin Abdur Rahim al-I’raqi also classed him as a mursal narrator while relying on the view of Imam Abu Hatim ar-Razi. (Tuhfah at-Tahsil Fi Zikr Ruwat al-Marasil (p.305 no.482 (Lebanon: Dar al-Moqtabas, 1439H/2018, Edn. 1st Ed. Nafiz Hussain, Rif’at Fawzi and Ali Abdul Basit END]
Ibn Abi Dunya in his book as-Samt (no.238) from the statement of al-Hasan al-Basri through the chain of “From my father from Ali bin Shafiq from Kharijah from Ibn Jaban from al-Hasan who said, “It is not haram to backbite three, the open sinner, the oppressive ruler and the innovator.”
[AK] See also Mawsu’ah Ibn Abi Dunya (4/379) and this report is extremely weak. END]
The chain for this report is very weak due to Kharijah bin Mus’ab who is abandoned. As for Ibn Jaban or Jaban I could not determine who he was (and thus his trustworthiness) as others have also said. Ibn Abi Dunya also reported this with the same chain in al-Ghibah wan-Namimah (no.101) but in marfu form and this is another defect (that is transmitted in marfu form)
[AK] This chain although it is the same, the only variation is Jaban instead of Ibn Jaban. Najm Abdur Rahman Khalaf said in his checking of Kitab as-Samt, “In the manuscript of al-Zubaydi it says Ibn Jaban.” (Ittihaf (7/557) (Kitab as-Samt wa Adab al-Lisan (p.345) (Lebanon: Dar ul-Gharb, 1406H/1986) 1st Edn.)
Kharijah bin Mus’ab was a very weak narrator, heavily criticised, abandoned in hadith and would do tadlis from liars. Imam al-Bukhari said it was impossible to decipher his authentic hadith from others (ie weak) (Kitab ad-Dhu’afa (no.108), Tarikh ash-Saghir (p.192). He was also accused of Irja (Ahwal ar-Rijal (p.355), abandoned in hadith adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin (no.184) of an-Nasa’i, he was accused of lying and abandoned by most of the scholars of hadith. Ibn Ma’in said he was a liar (Tarikh Ibn Ma’in (3/253)
For comprehensive statements concerning him refer to al-Jam’i li-Kutub adh-Dhu’afa wal-Matrukin wal Kadhabin (5/135 no.3902), where the author devotes approximately 8 pages to him.
Kharjah bin Mus’ab was also a mudallis. Hafiz Ibn Hajr brings his entry in Tabaqat al-Mudallisin and said, “al-Khurasani, the majority of the scholars of hadith declared him weak and Ibn Ma’in said, “He would perform tadlis from liars.” (Tabaqat al-Mudallisin (p.155 no.136).
Sabt ibn al-Ajami in Kitab at-Tabiyin Li-Asma al-Mudallisin (no.24) and Muhammad bin Tal’at also declared him to be a Mudallis (Mu’ajam al-Mudallisin (p.174-175)
Shaikh Zubair Ali Za’i in his summary said, “Matruk – abandoned and accused of doing tadlis on liars. Hafiz Ibn Hajr said, “Matruk, he would do tadlis from liars and Ibn Ma’in declared him to be a lair.” (at-Taqrib no.1612) from Fath al-Mubin Fi Tahqiq Tabaqat al-Mudallisin (p.155 no.136).
Imam al-Bukhari also said, “Waki abandoned him, and he (Kharijah) would do tadlis on Ghiyath bin Ibrahim. (Ghiyath is weak in his hadith” (adh-Dhufa as-Saghir (no.108 p.259), Tuhfa al-Aqwiya Fi Tahqiq Kitab adh-Dhu’afa (p.41), Tarikh ash-Saghir (p.192)
Shaikh Zubair also said in his checking of Kitab adh-Dhu’afa as-Saghir, “Kadhab – a liar, matruk – abandoned, did tadlis from liars.” (Tuhfa al-Aqwiya Fi Tahqiq Kitab adh-Dhu’afa (p.41 no.109) (Pakistan: Maktabah al-Islamiyyah, 1433H)
Furthermore, Ibn Jaban is not known on the scale of the scholars of praise or criticism. This then adds to the weakness of the report. Najm Abdur Rahman Khalaf said, “I could not find a biographical note for him (Kitab as-Samt wa Adab al-Lisan (p.345)
He continues and says, “I think it was misspelt and it should be Ibn Jad’an al-Basri. He is one of the narrators who narrated from al-Hasan al-Basri. His name is Ali bin Zayd bin Jad’an at-Tamimi. He is weak. He was from the fourth tabaqah and he died in 131H, some said before that. (Taqrib (2/37), Tahdhib (7/322-324)” (Kitab as-Samt wa Adab al-Lisan (p.345)
Al-Huwayni in his checking of as-Samt said, “The chain is very weak. Kharijah bin Mus’ad is matruk – abandoned (in hadith) as an-Nasa’i and others said and as for Ibn Jaban, I do not know who he is.” (Kitab as-Samt wa Adab al-Lisan of Ibn Abi Dunya (p.146 no.238) (Lebanon: Dar ul-Kutub al-Arabi, 1410H/1990, 1st Edn. Ed. Abu Ishaq al-Huwayni) END]
Other people have transmitted this report from al-Hasan al-Basri and sometimes these reports only mention the innovator, sometimes they only mention the wicked sinner and sometimes they mention both.
[AK] As mentioned there are various reports from Imam al-Hasan al-Basri in many books. Some of these reports are authentic and some are weak. Reports concerning innovators can be found in books of Aqidah and Manhaj that discuss the reprehension of innovations and innovators. Some of these reports are from Rabi bin Sabih, as-Salat bin Tarif, Uthman bin Matar, Yunus bin Ubayd and others.
Some are related to etiquettes and manners for example, from Qatadah from al-Hasan who said,
“There should be no sense of respect between you and a wicked sinner.” (Adab al-Mufrad no.1018, Shaikh al-Albani authenticated it)
Another interesting report of al-Hasan al-Basri with the chain from al-Mubarak bin Fadhalah from al-Hasan who said, “When wicked sinning becomes open, it is not backbiting to speak about them. He said the same regarding the effeminate man and the Haruriyyah (the Khawarij).” (Ibn Abi Dunya in as-Samt (no.236), al-Ghibah wan-Namimah (no.98)
The narrators in the chain are thiqah except al-Mubarak who is truthful but also mudallis and narrates with Aan-Aan, however all the various reports from al-Hasan that speak about backbiting the innovators support this transmission since some are authentic
Imam al-Khattabi (d. 388H) said while expanding the Manhaj of Imam al-Hasan al-Basri when he said, “Who amongst is like al-Hasan today who will carry out his tasks with regards to giving sincere advice and aspiring admonishment. May Allah rectify us and our rulers, for they are corrupt because of our sins.” (al-Uzla p.235. Damascus: Dar Ibn Kathir 1410H/1990 2nd Edn. Ed. Yasin Muhammad al-Sawwas)
This shows this was the Manhaj of Imam al-Hasan al-Basri of advising the rulers and not backbiting them. Imam al-Khattabi recalls this in his era of the 4th century and expresses the need for someone to be like Imam al-Hasan al-Basri.
There are many reports from al-Hasan al-Basri which show apparent contradictions with this view, for example Imam Ibn Abdul Barr transmit from al-Hasan al-Basri said, “One who acts without knowledge is like one who travels off the path; and the one who acts without knowledge corrupts more than he rectifies. So, seek knowledge in a way that does not harm your worship, and seek to worship in a way that does not harm (seeking) knowledge. For verily, there were people (the Khawarij extremists) who sought to worship (Allah) but abandoned knowledge until they attacked the Ummah of Muhammad Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam with their swords. But if they had sought knowledge, it would not have directed them to do what they did.” (Jam’i Bayan al-Ilm wa Fadlihi no.905)
These reports contradict his insightful words which Imam Ibn Abi Hatim mentions in his explanation of the Quran, when al-Hasan al-Basri said, “If people called on Allah when put to trial because of their rulers, Allah would relieve their suffering, but instead they resorted to the sword, so they were left to it. And not one day of good did they bring. Then he recited (Quran 7: 137), “And the good word of your Rabb was fulfilled for Bani Isra’il, for the patience and perseverance they had, and We destroyed the works of Pharaoh and his people and what they had erected.” (Tafsir al-Quran al-A’zim Musnadan Aan Rasul Sallalahu Alayhi Wasallam was-Sahabah wat-Tabi’in, (7/311 no.883), Ibn Sa’d in at-Tabaqat al-Kubra (7/164), and as-Suyuti in ad-Darr al-Manthur (3/532)
And when l-Hasan was on his deathbed some of his companions came to him and said: “Oh Abu Sa’id, offer us some words you can benefit us with. He replied, “I will equip you with three words, then you must leave me to face what I am facing.( 1) Be the farthest of people from those things you have been forbidden (2) And be the most involved of people in the good you have been commanded to do (3) and know that the steps you take are two steps: a step in your favour and a step against you, so be careful where you come and where you go.” (Hilyatul Awliya (2/154)
And when al-Hasan said to the people regarding the oppression of al-Hajjaj, “If he is a punishment for you then do not oppose Allah’s punishment with the sword but with peace and supplication.” (Tarikh Dimashq (12/177)
This again shows, the need to be patient when faced with oppression. It is not the case if one argues that al-Hasan said with peace and supplication and by backbiting him since this is incomprehensible. Yes, this is about not rebelling but the advice of the Salaf is to be patient and advise privately. END]
(Athar al-Waridah Fi Jawaz Ghibah al-Hakim al-Ja’ir p.10-12)
