Scrutinizing the chains of the report: My Ahlul Bayt are like Ark of Noah
“Behold! My Ahlul-Bayt are like the Ark of Noah. Whoever embarked in it was SAVED, and whoever turned away from it was PERISHED.”
This report has several chains going back to several companions. Reported as a hadith from Abu Dharr, Ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubair, Abu Sa’eed and Anas bin Malik.
Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari
 Tradition through Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’ee from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari:
This has come through following routes from Abu Ishaq from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr:
Related by Abu Bakr Al-Qatee’ee in “Ziyadaat Fadha’il As-Sahaba” (1402), Abu Abdullah Al-Hakim in his “Al-Mustadrak” (2/373 & 3/163), both through Mufaddhal bin Saleh. from Abu Ishaq from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari.
Hakim declared it authentic on the condition of Muslim. Dhahabi rejected it and said, “Mufaddhal bin Saleh is ‘Waah(weak)’” and in another place he said, “Mufadhhal, only Tirmidhi has narrated from him (among six books) and they (scholars) declared him weak”.
Imam Bukhari and Abu Hatim declared him ‘Munkirul Hadith’. Imam Tirmidhi said, “he was not a Hafiz according scholars of Hadith”. [See “Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb” (10/243)]
Tabrani in “Al-Kabeer” (3/45), “As-Sagheer” (1/240) and in “Al-Awsat” (4/9), through Husain bin Ahmed bin Mansur Sajjadah Al-Baghdadi from Abdullah bin Daahir from Abdullah bin Abdul Quddus from A’amash from Abu Ishaq from Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir from Abu Dharr, with the additional statement.. “My Ahlul-Bayt are like the gate of Hitta (a non Arabic word, see Quran 2:58) for Children of Israel”
We were unable to find information on “Husain bin Ahmed bin Mansur Sajjadah Al-Baghdadi”.
Regarding Abdullah bin Daahir, Ahmed and Yahya said that he was nothing (in the field of hadith). `Uqailee said ‘Rafidhi khabeeth’. [‘Al-Meezan’ (2/417), ‘Lisaan Al-Meezan’ (3/282)]
Regarding Abdullah bin Abdul Quddoos, Dhahabi said, “Kufi Rafidhi”. Yahya ibn Mu’een said ‘he is nothing. Rafidhi Khabeeth’. Nasai and others said about him that he was not a trustworthy narrator. Daar Qutni said that he was weak. [See “Al-Meezan” (2/257)]
There is some Kalaam about Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir, which will be discussed later on. Insha Allah.
Reported by Al-Ajurri in “Ash-Sharee’ah” (3/347), from Abbaad bin Ya’qoob, from Amr bin Thaabit from Abu Ishaq from Hanash from Abu Dharr…alhadith.
In this chain Abbad bin Ya’qoob was Rafidhi, although fair in hadith and Bukhari narrated his reports in support with others. Abu Hatim said: Shaykh, Thiqah. Ibn Khuzaima said (while narrating a hadith): Narrated to us trustworthy in his narrations, and accused in his religion. Khatib said: Ibn Khuzaima later on stopped narrating from him. Ibn Adi said: He has narrated Ahadith in merits which were rejected on him.
He used to insult Salaf and Sahaba and was very extremist shi’a. Ibn Hibban said: “He died in 250 Hijri. He was a caller to the Rafidhism, and with that he would narrate Munkar narrations from famous narrators.” Daar Qutni said, “he was a shi’a, Sadooq (truthful)”. Ibrahim bin Abu Bakr bin Abi Shaybah said: If there had not been two shia, there would not been any authentic narrations in support of shi’ism. They were Abbad bin Ya’qoob and Ibrahim ibn Muhammad bin Maymoon. [Al-Meezan (2/379), Tahdheeb (5/95), Al-Majrooheen by Ibn Hibban (2/172)]
Abu Dawud said, ‘he was Rafidhi Khabeeth’. Nasa’i said, ‘Matrook in hadith’. Ibn Hibban said, ‘he used to narrate fabrications’. Al-`Ijli said, ‘he was very extreme in tashayyu’ (shi’a belief) and was very weak in hadith.’ [“Tahdheeb” (8/10)]
In conclusion Abbad bin Ya’qoob was ‘Sadooq, Rafidhi’, whose narrations should be looked upon. WAllahu A’lam
The sanad also contain ‘Amr bin Thabit Al-Bakri Abu Muhammad. Ibn Mu’een said, “he was not trustworthy ”. In another report Ibn Mu’een said that he was weak. Abu Zur’ah said, ‘weak in hadith’. Similarly Abu Hatim said, and added, ‘his hadith should be written. He was extreme in his view and shi’ism’. Bukhari said, ‘he was not strong in hadith’. [Al-Meezan (3/249)]
At another place in similar tradition Abu Ishaq is changed to Simak bin Harb. That mistake was probably from Amr bin Thabit. Tabarani reported in “Al-Awsat” (5/354), through Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah from `Ali bin Hakeem Al-Awdi from `Amr bin Thabit from Simak bin Harb from Hanash bin Mu`tamir from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari.
Reported by Tabarani in “Al-Awsat” (5/306, h.5390), through Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Sawadah from Amr bin Abdul Ghaffaar Al-Fuqaimi from Hasan bin Amr Al-Fuqaimi from Abu Ishaq, from Hanash, from Abu Dharr…alhadith.
Tabarani said, “No one narrates this hadith from Hasan bin Amr Al-Fuqaimi except Amr bin Abdul Ghaffar”.
Amr bin Abdul Ghaffar was Matrook. Abu Hatim: Matrook Ul-Hadith. Ibn Adi said: He was accused of fabricating narrations. Ali bin Al-Madeeni said: I left him because of his rafdh. Al-Uqaili said: Munkarul Hadith. [Al-Meezan 3/273]
As for Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Sawadah, then Daar Qutni said: his narrations are to be taken for support only, not for proof. Khatib said: I have only seen fair hadith from him.
Common defects in the chain:
All the above narration come through the common narrators, Abu Ishaq from Hanash Al-Kinani from Abu Dharr. Keeping this in mind let us analyze this link.
1). Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’ee, although a Thiqah narrator, was a Mudallis who used to do Tadlees through weak narrators. Hafiz Ibn Hajar listed him among the third category of Mudalliseen [Tabaqat Al-Mudalliseen (1/42)], which according to him is the category of those mudallis narrators who did Tadlis through weak narrators, although there is disagreement regarding acceptance or rejection of their narration with ‘an’ana.
In a version of this same hadith, Abu Ishaq narrates it through an unknown person from Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir. Al-Fasawi records in his “Al-Ma’rifah wa At-Tarikh” with a sanad(chain) much better than above chains, it is mention there:
حدثنا عبيد الله عن إسرائيل عن أبي إسحق عن رجل حدثه عن حنش قال: رأيت أبا ذر آخذاً بحلقة باب الكعبة وهو يقول: يا أيها الناس أنا أبو ذر فمن عرفني ألا وأنا أبو ذر الغفاري لا أحدثكم إلا ما سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: سمعت وهو يقول: أيها الناس إني قد تركت فيكم الثقلين كتاب الله عز وجل وعترتي أهل بيتي، وأحدهما أفضل من الآخر كتاب الله عز وجل، ولن يتفرقا حتى يردا علي الحوض وإن مثلهما كمثل سفينة نوح من ركبها نجا، ومن تركها غرق
“(Al-Fasawi said:) Narrated to us Ubaydullah from Isra’eel from Abu Ishaq from a person who narrated to him from Hanash à Abu Dharr…..alhadith”
As it is quite clear that there is an unnamed mubhan narrator between Abu Ishaq and Hanash. And this report should be preferred over other Isnad because Isra’eel bin Yunus in the sanad was a grandson of Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’ee, also he was from the narrator of Kutub Sitta hence thiqah, and Ahmed preferred him over other in in Ahadith of Abu Ishaq. Abu Hatim, Yahya bin Mu’een and others also said that Isra’eel was the most aware of Abu Ishaq’s narrations. [See “Tahdheeb” (1/229)]
And Imam Daar Qutni preferred this sanad over other, as it is mention in “Ilal Daar Qutni” (6/236, q.1098).
So this make the hadith to be weak with all of its chains.
2). Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir has some weakness in him.
Abu Hatim said, Hanash bin Al-Mu’tamir is Saleh according to me, I don’t see scholars taking him as proof. Abu Dawud said: Thiqah. Bukhari said: They (scholars) used to criticize his narrations. Nasai said: He was not strong. Ibn Hibban said:He is not to be taken as proof. Al-‘Ijli said: he was Thiqah. Abu Ahmed Al-Hakim said: He was not good according to scholars. Al-‘Uqaili, As-Saji, Ibn Jarood, Abu Arab Al-Saqli they all listed him amongst weak narrators. [Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (3/51)]
Ibn Hajar said: Sadooq (truthful) but he had Awham (confusion in narrations) and he also narrates from whom he didn’t hear (i.e. Mursal) [Taqreeb (1582)]
All these factors prove that there is no authentic chain for this. Besides all these, it is also doubtful whether Hanash heard it from Abu Dharr or not. That is because Hanash died in 90 AH or around it as per the statement of As-Safdi in “Al-Waafi”, and if that is true then it is difficult that this Kufi narrator could have heard this from Abu Dharr who died around 33AH or before it during the caliphate of Uthman, near Madina at a place called Ar-Rabdhah. And Hanash saying ‘I heard Abu Dharr’ is not something solid against what was said, because weak narrators many a times confused regarding narrators. WAllahu A’alam
Other Isnad of the hadith from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari:
Related by Tabarani in “Al-Mu’jam Al-Kabeer” (3/45, h.2636), Al-Fasawi in “Al-Ma’rifa wat Tareekh” (1/294, Daarul Kutub Al-‘Ilmi Beirut), through Hasan bin Abi Ja’far from Ali bin Zaid from Sa’eed bin Musayyib from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari.
Hasan bin Abi Ja’far was weak. He has been declared weak by Ahmed, Ibn Mu’een, Nasa’I, Ibn Madeeni etc. Bukhari said, “Munkirul Hadith”. Ibn Adi said: He, according to me, did not intentionally lie. [See, “Meezan Al-E’itedal” by Dhahabi (1/482) Daarul Ma’rifa Beirut]
Ibn Al-Jawzi said that Hasan bin Abi Ja’far was nothing, he mentioned that Nasai declared him “Matrook Al-Hadith”, and Sa’di called him “Waahiyul Hadith”. [Al-‘Ilal Al-Mutanahiyah (1/106)]
Secondly, Ali bin Zaid Al-Jid’an is also weak, as said by Ahmed, Ibn Mu’een. Abu Hatim and Bukhari said, “He is not to be depended upon.” Daar Qutni said, “There is weakness (layyin) in him” [See “Al-Meezan” (3/127-129)]
All these weakness shows that the report is Munkar as no one narrates this narration from Sa’eed bin Al-Musayyib except Ali bin Zaid bin Jaid’aan – who was weak – and no one narrates this from Ali bin Zaid except Hasan bin Abi Ja’far – who was also weak – hence as a whole this report is not good for even support.
Reported by Abu Bakr Al-Ajurri in his book “Ash-Sharee’ah” (3/347, no.1759), through Harun bin Abdullah Al-Bazzaz, who said, narrated to us Sayyar bin Hatim, narrated to us Harun Al-‘Abdi, he said, A Shaykh narrated to me, that he heard from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari….alhadith.
Abu Harun Al-Abdi was Matrook. Nu’aym bin Hammad declared him liar. Ahmed said: He was nothing. Yahya said: He was weak, and didn’t narrate truthfully his narrations. Nasai said: Matrook Al-Hadith. [Al-Meezan (3/173)]
And the Shaykh of Al-Abdi is unknown.
Abu Sa`eed Al-khudri
Reported by Tabarani in “Al-Awsat” (6/85) and in “As-Sagheer” (2/84), through Muhammad bin `Abdul `Aziz bin Rabi`ah Al-Kilabi from his father from Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Hammad Al-Maqree’ from Abu Salamah As-Sa`igh from `Atiyya from Abu Sa`eed Al-Khudri.
Tabrani said, after narrating the hadith: “No one narrates this from Abu Salamah except Ibn Abi Hammad, and from him Abdul Aziz bin Muhammad was alone in narrating this.”
Hafiz Al-Haythami, after mentioning this narration in his book, said: “reported by Tabrani in his Al-Awsat and As-Sagheer. And in it are a group of narrators unknown to me.” [Majma’ Az-Zawa’id (9/94)]
Al-Haythami, probably, was referring to Muhammad bin ‘Abdul `Aziz, his father, Abdur-Rahman bin Abi Hammad and Abu Salama As-Saa`igh. I have not come across any Jarh or T`adeel regarding them. Wallahu A`alam.
As for `Atiyya Al-Awfi, then he was weak, without any doubt. [See, Tahdheeb At-Tahdheeb (7/200), no.414].
Reported by Tabarani in “A-Kabeer” (3/46) and Abu Nu’aim in “Hilayah Al-Awliya” (4/306) both of them through the route of Muslim bin Ibrahim, from Hasan bin Abi Ja’far, from Abu Suhba, from Sa’eed bin Jubayr from Ibn Abbas….alhadith.
And Ibn Adi recorded it in “Al-Kamil” (2/760), as mentioned by Shaykh Sa’d Aal Humaid, from the route of Muslim bin Ibrahim from Hasan bin Abi Ja’far, from Amr bin Malik from Abil Jawza from Ibn Abbas….alhadith.
Hasan bin Abi Ja’far was weak munkirul hadith, as we have already discussed it above. As for Abu Suhba Al-Kufi, then Ibn Hibban mentioned him in his “Ath-Thiqaat”, and more than one narrates from him and no one mention any criticism on him. WAllahu A’lam.
Abdullah bin Zubair
Reported by Al-Bazzar, as in “Majma’ Az-Zawaid” (9/168) and “Kashf Al-Astaar” (3/222), through Ibn Abi Maryam who said, narrated to us, Ibn Lahee’ah from Abul Aswad from Amir bin Abdullah bin Zubair, from his father…alhadith.
Keeping in mind that this an odd Isnad of this hadith, and Ibn Lahee’ah and then Al-Bazzar were alone with this narrations, there are two points regarding this:
. In the Isnad of the report narrator Ibn Lahee’ah (Abdullah bin Lahee’ah) was weak with the agreement of scholars as none of the three Abdullah, who were aware of actual narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah, are the narrator of this report. And those three Abdullah were: Abdullah bin Mubarak, Abdullah bin Wahb and Abdullah bin Yazeed Al-Muqree. Besides that, Ibn Lahee’ah is alone in narrating this hadith through this Isnad, as said by Al-Bazzar in “Kashf Al-Astar”. And him being alone in narrating this hadith with this Isnad is sufficient for the rejection of this, and not to be counted it as supportive proof. This is because, singular narrations (Ifrad) are accepted from those who were Huffaz. There are long discussions with regards to Ibn Lahee’ahs reports, and scholars are divided into following categories with regards to him:
A). Those who consider his reports to be weak, regardless of whomsoever narrates from him.
B). Those who consider his those reports which are narrated by the three Abdullah, to be authentic.
With regards to the second opinion, its further debatable whether it means that there hearing from Ibn Lahee’ah is proven or the hadith with that chain itself is proven. But in any case, the hadith under discussion was not reported by any of the three Abdullah. Hence therefore the Isnad remains munkar, and it can’t be counted as a support for those narrations whose Isnad are not even closer to this.
Ibn Sa’d said: People used to read Ahadith which were not from his narrations, and he did not say anything. (and it was taken as his narration). When it was asked to him, he replied: “What is my sin? They come to me reading narrations from books and then leave. If they had asked me, I would have said that it was not my Hadith”.[Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d]
Abdur-Rahman Ibn Mahdi said: I do not count anything which I heard from among the narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah, except what was narrated by Ibn Mubarak and his likes.
Yahya ibn Mu’een said: He was nothing, regardless of whether his conditions were changed or not.
And in another report Ibn Mu’een said: “He was nothing in all of what he narrates”. Abu Zar’ah was asked regarding those people who heard him earlier, he replied: “Hearing of early and later narrators are equal (in terms of authenticity). However, Ibn Mubarak used to look for his Asl (books etc) and they wrote from it. And all others used to take from Shaykh, and Ibn Lahee’ah didn’t hold (remember) his narrations, and he was from among those who are not to be taken as proof”. Ibn Abi Hatim said: I asked my father, “Is Ibn Lahee’ah to be taken as proof when Ibn Mubarak and Ibn Wahb narrates from him?” He replied, No. [Al-Jarh wa At-Ta’deel (5/147)]
Imam Ibn Hibban said: “I studied narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah narrated by early narrators and later narrators, so I found Takhleet (confusion, mix up between different narratons) in his later narrations, and many narrations which were not narrated by early narrators. So I went back to check it for support, so I found him performing Tadlees from weak narrators from those whom Ibn Lahee’ah considered to be trustworthy. And in that way those fabrication were attributed to him.” [Al-Majrooheen (2/12)]
DaarQutni said in his short book “Ad-Du’afa wa Al-Matrookeen”: Those narrations of Ibn Lahee’ah which came through Ibn Mubarak, Al-Muqree and Ibn Wahb are to be taken for support.
By all these quotes it is evident that Ibn Lahee’ah was himself weak even before his books were burnt, but his early narrations are to be taken as support and later narrations shouldn’t be taken even as support, because of possibility of Tadlees and Takhleet, specially when he came up with with an odd Isnad which was not narrated by anyone like him or better than him. Ibn Lahee’ah was a Mudallis and as we know Ibn Lahee’ah didn’t affirm his hearing in the tradition under discussion, rather he narrates it with ‘an’ana form. Besides that even those traditions in which he affirmed his hearing are doubtful whether he heard it or not, that is because of his weakness he many a times changed ‘an’ana to haddathna. For more detail on the status of Ibn Lahee’ah refer to the book “An-Naqd Al-Binna li Hadeeth Asmaa” (pg. 41 onwards) by Shaykh Tariq Awadhullah, where the author analyzed all the views regarding Ibn Lahee’ah.
. The second point which is to be looked into, Al-Bazzar was alone in reporting this through the route of Ibn Lahee’ah. Al-Bazzar was although a Hafiz of Hadith, but was also known for his mistakes in Sanad and Matan.
Abu Ahmed Al-Hakim said, “He did mistakes in Sanad and Matan”. Abu Abdullah Al-Hakim said, “I asked Daar Qutni regarding him, to which he replied that he used to make mistakes in Sanad and Matan.” Nasai criticized him, but he was thiqah who made many mistakes. [Meezan Al-E’itedal (1/124)].
Anas bin Malik
Reported by Khatib Baghdadi in his “Tarikh Baghdad” (12/91):
أخبرنا النجار حدثنا أبو الحسن علي بن محمد بن شداد المطرز حدثنا محمد بن محمد بن سليمان الباغندي حدثنا أبو سهيل القطيعي حدثنا حماد بن زيد بمكة وعيسى بن واقد عن أبان بن أبي عياش عن أنس بن مالك قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إنما مثلي ومثل أهل بيتي كسفينه نوح من ركبها نجا ومن تخلف عنها غرق
“’Ubaydullah bin Muhammad An-Najjar à Abul Hasan Ali bin Muhammad bin Shaddad Al-Mutarriz à Muhammad bin Muhammad Al-Baghandi à Abu Suhail Al-Qatee’ee à Hammad bin Zaid & ‘Isa bin Waqid à Aban bin Abi Ayyash à Anas bin Malik………alhadith.” We couldn’t find any Jarh or Ta’deel on Abul Hasan Al-Mutarriz. Khatib listed him in Tarikh Baghdad but did not mention any Jarh or Ta’deel. We couldn’t come across any info regaring Abu Suhail Al-Qatee’ee, which implies they were Majhool.
And Aban bin Abi Ayyash was ‘Matrook’. Al-Fallas, Ibn Mu’een, Ahmed bin Hanbal and others declared him ‘matrook’. [Tahdheeb (1/85)] Ibn Hajar said, Matrook. [Taqreeb (1/51)].
Reported by Ad-Dawlabi in “Al-Kuna wa Al-Asma”:
“Rawh bin Al-Farj à Yahya bin Sulaiman Abu Sa’eed Al-Ju’fi à Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi à Aslam Al-Makki à Abu Tufayl ‘Amir bin Wathilah à Prophet (SAW)…..alhadith.”
In the chain above, both Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi and Aslam Al-Makki are Majhool(anonymous). Regarding Abdul Karim bin Hilal Dhahabi said: I am not aware who he is. [Al-Meezan (2/647)]. Aslam Al-Makki was also unknown. No one mention him besides Ibn Hibban who listed him among “Ath-Thiqat” (4/46). No one narrates from Aslam Al-Makki except Abdul Karim bin Hilal Al-Ju’fi (who himself was unknown), and these type of narrators are considered Majhool in correct view, but Ibn Hibban would consider them Thiqah and he was famous for making Tawtheeq of Majhool narrators. In another version of this report Abu Tufayl narrates from Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari, instead of directly from Prophet (SAW). [Al-Mutalib Al-‘Aliyah (16/220)] That is probably a mistake from some narrator. In any case the report is very weak, as said earlier. WAllahu A’alam
Mawqoof report of Ali bin Abi Taalib
Besides all the above quoted Marfoo’ narrations, there is a Mawqoof Athar of Ali (R.A.). This means the report of Ali(ra) was not the hadeeth of Prophet(saw) but the opinion of Ali(ra). It was reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his “Al-Musannaf” (6/372, h.32115):
Ibn Abi Shayba said: Narrated to us Mu’awiyah bin Hisham who said, narrated us ‘Ammar from A’mash from Minhal from Abdullah bin Al-Haarith from Ali (R.A.), he said, “Our similitude in this Ummah is like the Ark of Noah and the book Al-Hittah in Bani Israel”.
All the narrators of this are reliable. However it has narrator A’mash was known for Tadlees, which can be used to weak a report.
Anyways, this Mawqoof report is not something specific to the members of household of the Prophet (SAW). Ali did not say, “Ahlul Bayt are like ark of Noah”, he rather said, “our similitude are like ark of Noah”. It means similitude of believers or Sahaba(companions) are like ark of Noah. And that is what Quran tells us:
)ومن يشاقق الرسول من بعد ما تبين له الهدى ويتبع غير سبيل المؤمنين نوله ما تولى ونصله جهنم وساءت مصيرا(
And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other than the way of the believers – We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and evil it is as a destination. [Qur’an, An-Nisa, verse 115].
The Prophet Muhammed(saw) said: “Indeed the people of the Book before you split into seventy-two sects. And this nation will split into seventy-three sects, seventy-two are in the Fire and one in Paradise”. And in another narration, “All are in the Fire except one.” It was asked: Who is that one? He replied, “That which I and my Companions are upon” Related by at-Tirmidhi (5/62) and al-Haakim (1/128). It has been authenticated by al-Haafidh al-Iraaqee in Takhreejul-Ihyaa (3/199) and Sheikh Albani authenticated it in Saheeh at-Tirmizi 2641. He said it’s hasan(good).
One could argue that, the above extremely weak reports of the version of Ahlul Bayt can be used to claim that Ali(ra) was speaking about Ahlulbayt, However it is highly possible that the unreliale narrators in those extremely weak reports might have changed “we” into “Ahlul Bayt”.
Al-Hakim recorded the tradition in his book ‘al-Mustadrak’ volume 2 page 343 and declared it as Sahih according to the condition of Muslim. Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti in his book ‘Al-Jame al-Saghir’ volume 2 page533 declared it as Hasan. Imam Al-Sakhawi in his book ‘Al-Baldanyat’ page 186 declared it as Hasan.
It is true that some scholars who were very lenient in hadeeth verification did call this report as Hasan, but those scholars weren’t known to be experts in hadeeth verification. Infact Al-Hakim’s grading have been rejected by the scholars of Ahl us-sunnah, because when those reports were verified as per the standard principle of hadeeth science many of those reports turned out to be weak and unreliable.
Khateeb al-Bagdadee wrote in “Tareeh-al-Bagdad” 5/437:
جمع الحاكم أبو عبد الله أحاديث زعم أنها صحاح على شرط البخاري ومسلم يلزمهما أخراجها في صحيحيهما منها الحديث الطائر ومن كنت مولاه فعلى مولاه فأنكر عليه أصحاب الحديث ذلك ولم يلتفتوا فيه إلى قوله ولا صوبوه في فعله
“Hakeem Abu Abdullah gathered narrations and claimed that they are authentic on conditions of Bukhari and Muslim, and it the same like they narrated in their “sahihayn”. From them narration “at tayeer” and “man kuntu mawla fa aliul mawla”. And “ashabool hadeeth” rejected that claim. And didn’t agreed with that with his saying. And there in no benefit in his act”.
Imam Ibn Hajar in “Lisan al Meezan” wrote:
ولكنه يصحح في مستدركه أحاديث ساقطة فيكثر من ذلك فما أدري هل خفيت عليه فما هو ممن يجهل ذلك وإن علم فهو خيانة عظيمة
“But he autheticated in his “Mustadrak” narrations which are worthy to be dropped. He did so a lot. I don’t know, was he unaware of them (the narrations). He is not one to be ignorant of them. If he was aware of them, then this would be a big treachery”.
Al-Dhahabî writes in his book Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ’ “:
“The Mustadrak contains a lot of hadîth that conform to the conditions of authenticity of both (al-Bukhârî and Muslim) as well as a number of hadîth conforming to the conditions of either one of them. Perhaps the total number of such hadîth comprises a third of the book or less. A lot of the book is comprised of hadîth that appear on the surface to be on the conditions of one or both of them, but that have hidden within them subtle but substantial defects. A portion of the book contains chains of transmission that are good and acceptable. This is about a fourth of the book. The rest of the book is comprised of rejected and extremely strange hadîth. (Siyar A`lâm al-Nubalâ)
When this hadeeth was verified on the principles of hadeeth science, it turned out to be very weak, as we have shown, therefore those scholars who were expert in the field of hadeeth verification, weakened this report as it had serious flaws in its Isnad(chain), so those scholars who out of their lenience authenticated it, their views doesn’t become binding upon Ahl us-sunnah. This is the reason we made a systematic scrutinization of the chains of this hadeeth, as per standard principles of Hadeeth science, and in the light of which we proved that this hadeeth is extremely weak.
However, we know that the opponents are usually ignorant people, who have no idea about hadeeth science, they pick a verdict of Sunni scholar if it suits their desire and reject the view of others if it doesn’t suit their desire, however we Sunnis consider our scholars to be fallible, who are prone to error, hence we have proven using the standard principles that these ahadeeth are very weak.
Inorder, to give the readers a better understanding we would like to use an interesting example, which would help the readers understand the objectivity and honesty of Ahl us-sunnah wal Jama’ah. Here is one of the famous hadeeth which Shia often try to weaken, since it doesn’t suits their desires. We read:
قال الرسول: أصحابي كالنجوم،بأيهم اقتديتم اهتديتم
Prophet said: “My Companions are like the stars; whoever among them you use for guidance, you will be rightly guided.”.
Now this famous hadeeth was authenticated by following scholars:
1. Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Haytami(rah) has classified this Hadith as Hasan. (see Tuhfatul Akhyaar of Maulana Abdul-Hayy Laknawi pg.63)
2. Imaam Saghaani(rah) has also classified it as Hasan. (Ibid pg.54; Sharhu Teebi alaa Mishkaat)
3. Allaamah Qaasim ibn Qutloobugha(rah) stated, ‘It’s chains have defects, but they strengthen each other.’ (refer Tuhfatul Akhyaar pg.134).
However, it would be the Shia who would be in the front line to discredit the authenticty of this hadeeth, though it was authenticated by some scholars, they argue that this hadeeth is weak as per the standard principle of hadeeth verification, and we say that they are correct in this case. This hadeeth is indeed very weak, and those who authenticated it their view isn’t binding upon Ahl us-sunnah, as they erred in their judgement.
Several other Sunni scholars who were experts in the field of hadeeth verification have weakened this report. A detailed analysis can be read here: Verification of hadeeth: “My Companions are like stars, whomever among them you follow, you will be guided.”
Now, can any objective reader claim that Sunni hate companions of Prophet Muhammad(saw) because they weakened a famous hadeeth in the virtue of Sahaba(companions)? Ofcourse not, rather it shows the justice and objectivity of Ahl us-sunnah. Similarly we say to those Shia, ” who might try to argue that, we weakened the hadeeth which was regarding virtue of Ahlul bayt because we hate them”, that this accusation would be far from reality, since just like we weakened a hadeeth in virtue of Sahaba due to apparent weakness, we even weakened hadeeth in virtue of Ahlul bayt. And why shouldn’t we be cautious in accepting reports regarding virtues of Ahlul bayt, when we know that countless reports were fabricated by the Rafidah regarding virtues of Ahlu bayt.
[ Al-Hafidh Abu Yala al-Khaleele said: “Rawafidh fabricated 300 000 narrations about Ali and ahlul-bayt“. Source: ibn Qayum “Al manar wa munif fi saheeh wa dhaif” p 292, Darul “Karincha”.]
[Hafidh shaykh-ul islam ibn Hajar said: “As for narrations about fadail, it’s impossible to count how many of them were fabricated by rawafidh about ahlel-bayt”. Source: “Lisanul mizan” 1/13.]
Therefore, it is important to scrutinize the reports in regards to virtues of Ahlul bayt or Sahaba, since it is known that there were people fabricating a lot of ahadeeth. So we need to seperate the fake pearls from the original ones.
Moreover, we do affirm in many other reports regarding the virtues of Ahlul bayt, we have a seperate article dedicated which is about the virtues of Ahlul bayt as per authentic reports. [Merits of Prophetic Ahlebayt].
Also we would like to inform the Shia readers that,what we have explained is not something odd, similar stance was even taken by Shia scholars who found that some Shia scholars have authenticated the narrations in their books. Hence, they explained this matter in an academic way, which we would like to present, inorder to open the eyes of those ignorant folk who act stubbornly and continue using the the refuted argument that some scholars out of lenience erroneously authenticated the hadeeth.
Shia scholar of high stature and author of over a hundred texts, Muĥammad Muĥsin al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1091), writes in his voluminous al-Wāfī:
وقد جرى صاحبا كتابي الكافي والفقيه على متعارف المتقدمين في اطلاق الصحيح على ما يركن اليه ويعتمد عليه فحكما بصحة جميع ما أورداه في كتابيهما من الأحاديث وإن لم يكن كثير منه صحيحا على مصطلح المتأخرين
“The authors of the two books, al-Kāfī and al-Faqīh, have taken the traditional course of the early scholars in terming the relied and depended upon (narrations) as ‘şaĥīĥ.’ Thus, they have ruled the correctness of all the narrations they have mentioned in their books, even though many of them are not şaĥīĥ according to the terminology of the later scholars.” [al-Wāfī, of al-Fayđ al-Kāshānī (d. 1034), volume 1, page 23]
Similarly, al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Mujāhid al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242) stated:
إن إخبار الكليني بصحة ما دونه في الكافي كما يمكن أن يكون باعتبار علمه بها وقطعه بصدورها عن الأئمة عليهم السلام فيجوز الاعتماد عليها والحال هذه كسائر أخبار العدول كذلك يمكن أن يكون باعتبار اجتهاده وظهورها عنده ولو بالدليل الظني فلا يجوز إذن الاعتماد عليه فإن ظن المجتهد لا يكون حجة على مثله كما هو الظاهر من الأصحاب بل ومن العقلاء وحيث لا ترجيح للاحتمال الأول وجب التوقف به لأن الشك في الشرط يوجب الشك في المشروط فيلزم التوقف
“Indeed, the testimony of al-Kulaynī concerning the authenticity of (the narrations) he has recorded in al-Kāfī, just as it is possible that it is in consideration of his knowledge and certainty of their issuance from theImāms (as), in which case it is permissible to depend upon them and its status will be the same as of all the reports of just individuals, it is (also) possible that it is in consideration of his independent judgment [ijtihād] and their appearance to him on the basis of conjectural proof. In this case it is impermissible to depend upon them, for the conjecture of a scholar capable of independent judgment [mujtahid] is not proof for those of the same stature, as it is obvious from other scholars, in fact, even from those with intellect. And when there is no preference for the first possibility, it is incumbent to desist from holding on it because doubt about the condition necessitates doubt about what the condition is applied upon. Therefore, desistance is incumbent.” [Mafātīĥ al-Uşūl, of al-Sayyid Muĥammad al-Ţabāţabā’ī (d. 1242), page 332]
Grand Āyat Allāh Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī puts it in simple words:
واعتقاد الكليني بصحة الرواية ليس من الحجج الشرعية إذ ليس هو معصوما عندنا
“The belief of al-Kulaynī about the correctness of traditions is not a legal proof because he is not an infallible according to us!” [Dirāsāt fī al-Makāsib al-Muĥarrama, of Ĥusayn `Alī al-Muntažarī, volume 3, page 123]
We are thankful to Grand Ayatullah Husayn Ali al-Muntazari for his simple words, which would be helpful to make the un-academic and stubborn Shia understand, that even Ahl us-sunnah doesn’t consider those scholars as infallible who erroneously authenticated the hadeeth in question.
In conclusion, we say, all the isnad of this hadith is based on rejected, unknown or weak narrators, some isnad have single common narrator who was very weak or rejected. Hence we conclude, what was concluded that this hadith, with all its Isnad, is very weak hadith. WAllahu A’lam.
In any case, even if for sake of argument if it is supposed to be reliable, then it would be used first and foremost in relation to the Prophet’s wives who have most right to being called Ahlel Bayt. The Shia are the ones who have abandoned the Prophet’s wives. If Ahlel Bayt are an Ark, then the Shia have cut up that ship and punched a hole in part of it so that now the entire boat is drowning. This is how they have punctured the Ark. On the other hand, the Ahlus Sunnah loves and respect “the entire boat” (i.e. the entirity of the Ahlel Bayt).
Takhreej taken from: [Al-Sunnah]
May Allah’s (swt) blessings be upon His Messenger, his household, and companions.