The Narration of Hulb Ta’ee – Proof of Placing The Hands On Chest

Qabiysa ibn Hulb the Taab’iee narrates from his father Hulb, may Allaah be pleased with him, that, “I saw the Prophet and he was turning to his right and left in the prayer and I saw that, in the prayer, he would place his right hand upon his left on his chest.” (Musnad Imaam Ahmad, 5/226) 

Authenticity of the Hadeeth 

The chain of narration of this hadeeth is saheeh as was stated by Imaam ibn Sayyid An-Naas in Sharh Tirmidhee and Haafidh Ibn Hajr in Fathul-Baari. Aliaamah Nimawee Hanafee in Aathaarus-Sunan, (1/67) has also admitted that the chain of narration is, “Saheeh.”

Further, Allaamah Muhaddith Abdur-Rahmaan Mubaarakpooree in Tuhfatul-Ahwadee the explantion of Tirmidhee writes, “All the narrators in this chain of narration are reliable/respected and this chain is complete.” 

Analysis of the Chain of this hadeeth

This narration is narrated with the following chain:

“Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan narrated to us, From Sufyaan ath-Thawree, (he said) Simaak bin Harb narrated to me, From Qabeesah bin Hulb, From his Father (Hulb at-Taa’ee) [radiallah anhu], From the Prophet [peace be upon him]”

Imam Ibn al-Jawzee has also narrated the same narration with the same words with his chain from Imam Ahmed. His chain is as follows:

“Ibn al-Hussain informed us, he said Ibn al-Mudhhib informed us, he said Ahmed bin Ja’far informed us, he said Abdullah bin Ahmed narrated to us, He said my father (Ahmed bin Hanbal) narrated to me, he said Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan narrated to us, From Sufyaan ath-Thawree, he said Simaak bin Harb narrated to me, From Qabeesah bin Hulb, From his Father (Hulb at-Taa’ee) [radiallah anhu], From the Prophet [peace be upon him]…The same hadeeth..” [Al-Tahqeeq by Ibn al-Jawzi: Vol 1 Pg 338]

Imam Tirmidhi has also narrated this narration with the same chain, and in ateast one Nuskha, the same text is mentioned which Imam Ahmed has narrated in his Musnad, as Muhaddith Abdul Haqq says that:

“Imam Tirmidhi narrated through the chain of Qabeesah bin Hulb From Hulb At-Taa’ee that he saw the Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] that he was placing his hands on the chest.” [Sharh Safar as-Sa’adat: Pg 44]

Inrotudction to the Narrators of this Hadeeth

Qabeesah bin Hulb:

Imam Ibn Abi Haatim said:

“Qabeesah bin Hulb is the son of Hulb Ta’ee [radiallah anhu] and the resident of Koofah. The real name of his father is Yazeed bin Qananah. He narrates from his Father, and his Father is one of the Companions (Sahabah). Simaak bin Harb narrated from him. I heard all this about him from my Father.” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: Vol 7 Pg 125]

The Reliable Imam, Imam Ijlee said: “He is a Koofi Tabi’ee, Siqah.” [Taareekh ath-Thiqaat: 1379]

Imam Ibn Hibbaan has mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat [5/319]

Imam Tirmidhi graded a hadeeth containing Qabeesah, as Hasan. [H. 252]

Baghwi graded one of his hadeeth to be Hasan. [Sharh us-Sunna: 3/31 H. 570]

Nawawi graded one of his hadeth by saying: “Its Isnaad is Saheeh”. [Al-Majmoo Sharh al-Madhab Vol 3 Pg 490]

Ibn Abdul Barr graded one of his hadeeth to be Saheeh. [Al-Isti’yaab fi Ma’rifatil Ashaab]

Hanafi Objection on Qabeesah bin Hulb

Hanafis claim that Imam Nasaa’ee and Imam Ali ibn al-Madeeni have declared Qabeesah to be Majhool.

Answer to this Objection:

First of all, It is not proven from Imam Nasaa’ee and Ali ibn al-Madeeni that they declared him Majhool.

Haafidh Al-Mizzi has narrated without any chain from Imam Nasaa’ee and Imam Ali ibn al-Madeeni that they said: “He is Majhool.” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 15/221]

This saying is rejected due to many reasons:

  1. It is Chain-less.
  2. This saying is not found in Kitaab al-Illal of Imam Ibn al-Madeeni and Kitaab ad-Du’afa of Imam Nasaa’ee.
  3. The narrator whose tawtheeq gets proven, then the jarah of “Majhool” or “La Yu’raf” are rejected.
  4. This saying is against the tawtheeq of Jumhoor.
  5. Ibn Hibbaan, Tirmidhi, Ijlee, Baghwi, Nawawi, Ibn Abdil Barr, and Ibn Abi Haatim etc have authenticated him, and declared him to be a Known narrator.

Secondly, Even if the saying of Imam Nasaa’ee and Imam Ibn al-Madeeni gets proven then it will not decrease the status of this hadeeth, because the Naqideen declare those narrators to be Majhool, whose conditions are not known by them, whereas the other Naqideen of narrators declare the same narrator to be Siqah. Therfore, the criticizm of the former scholars is not taken under consideration. Allamah Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi writes:

“Suyuti said in Tadreeb ar-Raawi that One group of Huffaadh have declared those narrators to be Mahool, about whose conditions they were not aware of. Whereas, one group of Huffaadh have declared the same narrators to be Siqah” [Al-Rafa’ wal Takmeel: Pg 37]

We are prohibited to take the narrations of Majhool, because we are not aware of their condition. And if his conditions get known by the Experts, then there is nothing preventing us to accept his narrations. Therefore, the declaration of Imam Ijlee, Imam Ibn Hibbaan and others of him being siqah, is a testimony that they were aware of his conditions. 

Moreover, the Ghaali Muqallid Naimwi Hanafi in Athaar as-Sunan, Haashim as-Sindhi in Haashiah Mi’yaar al-Niqaad have also accepted this narration as Hassan Lidhatih.

Simaak bin Harb:

Simaak bin Harb is the narrator of Sihah Sittah and is one of the Tabi’een

His narrations in Sahihayn are as follows:

Saheeh Bukhaaree = H. 6722

Saheeh Muslim = 224, 128/436, 458, 459, 499, 606, 618, 643, 670, 734, 862, 866, 965, 978, 173/1075, 1385, 11/1504, 6/1628, 18/1651, 13/1671, 1680, 1692, 1693, 1748, 6,7/1821, 1846, 1922, 1984, 2053, 2135, 2248, 2277, 44/2305, 2322, 2329, 2339, 2344, 2361, 2745, 42,43/2763, 78/2919, 2923, 2977, 2978

According to the counting of Fawaad Abdul Baaqi, these are the forty five (45) narrations. Some narrations among them are repeated more than once, so we come to know that there are more than 45 narrations of Simaak in Saheeh Muslim. Many of his narrations are also present in Sunan Abi Dawood, Sunan Tirmidhi, Sunan Ibn Maja, and Sunan Nasaa’ee.

Now let’s come and read about Simaak bin Harb and the reasearch on him.

Jariheen (Criticizers) and their Jarah (Criticizm)

  1. Shu’bah = Imam Yahya ibn Ma’een said: “Simaak bin Harb is Siqah and Shu’bah has weakened him…” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/215 T. 4792]

Ibn Ma’een was born in 157 H, and Shu’bah bin al-Hajjaj died in 160 H. Meaning, this narration is rejected due to being Munqati’.

  1. Sufyaan ath-Thawree = Al-Ijlee said: “He is Jaaiz in hadeeth….. He is Eluquent except through Ikrimah From Ibn Abbaas… And Sufyaan ath-Taree weakened him..” [Taareekh ath-Thiqaat: 621, and Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/216]

Imam Ijlee was born in 182 H, and Imam Sufyaan ath-Thawree died in 161 H. Therefore this chain is also Munqati’.

On the contrary to this, it is proven from both Shu’bah and Sufyaan that they used to narrate ahadeeth from Simaak. Therefore, even if this jarah was proven then it will be interpreted according to the saying of Al-Ijlee that this jarah is regarding a specific route of Simaak from Ikrimah from Abbaas.

Ibn Adee has narrated from Ahmed bin al-Hussain as-Soofi (?) who narrated from Muhammad bin Khalf bin Abdul Humayd, From Sufyaan Thawree that: “Simaak is Da’eef” [Al-Kaamil: 3/1299]

The condition of Muhammad bin Khalf mentioned in its chain is not known, therefore this saying is not proven.

  1. Ahmed bin Hanbal = “He is Mudtarib ul-Hadeeth” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/279]

One narrator of this saying is Muhammad bin Hamwiyah bin al-Hassan, whose tawtheeq is not known. But it has one shaahid in Kitaab al-Ma’rifat wal Taareekh Ya’qoob al-Faarsi (2/638). From the saying of Imam Ahmed in Kitaab al-Illal wal Ma’rifat ar-Rijaal “Simaak yarfa’huma An Ikrimah An Ibn Abbaas” we come to know that the Jarah of Imam Ahmed of Mudtarib ul-Hadeeth is related to this specific chain of “Simaak – AN – Ikrimah – AN – Ibn Abbaas”. Moreover see the sayings of Ta’deel: 7.

  1. Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Ammaar Al-Mosali = “They said that he make Mistakes and they differed in his narration.” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/216]

In this saying, the subject of “They said” is unknown.

  1. Saalih bin Muhammad Al-Baghdaadi = “He weakened him” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/216]

Its narrator is Muhammad bin Ali Al-Maqri, who is not clarified. The teacher of Khateeb Baghdaadi, Qaadhi Abul ‘Alaa al-Waasiti is included among the students of Abu Muslim Abdur Rehmaan bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Mihraan bin Salamah Al-Thiqah Al-Saalih [Taareekh Baghdaad: 10/299]. This Abul ‘Alaa is Muhammad bin Ali Al-Qaari [Taareekh Baghdaad: 3/95] Al-Maqri and Al-Qaari are two titles for the same person. The conditions of Abul ‘Alaa al-Maqri are present in Ma’rifat ul-Qurra Al-Kibaar by Dhahabi [1/391 T. 328] etc, and this person is Majrooh (criticized). See: Mizaan ul-I’tidaal [3/254 T. 7971] and others. Therefore this saying is not proven.

  1. Abdur Rahmaan bin Yusuf bin Kharaash = “Weakness is in his hadeeth” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/616]

The condition of the Student of Ibn Kharaash, Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Dawood al-Karji, is not known; and Ibn Kharaash himself is weak acording to the Jumhoor, See: Mizaan ul-I’tidaal [2/600 T. 5009]

  1. Ibn Hibbaan = He mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (4/339) and said: “He makes alot of Mistakes…..Thawree and Shu’bah have narrated from him.”

This saying is Mardood, due to three reasons:

  • If he is “Yakhtai Katheeran (Makes alot of Mistakes)” then he can’t be Siqah, therefore why did he mention him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat? And if he is Siqah then he can’t be “Yakhtai Katheeran”. 
  • Haaifdh Ibn Hibban has himself narrated several ahadeeth of Simaak in his Saheeh. For example see: Al-Ihsaan bi Tarteeb Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan [1/143 H. 66, Pg 144 H. 68, 69 etc], and Athaaf al-Maharah [3/63, 64, 65 etc]. Therefore, according to Ibn Hibban this jarah is not related to the narration of Hadeeth, that is why declares his ahadeeth to be Saheeh.
  • Haafidh Ibn Hibbaan, in his book, “Mashaaheer Ulama al-Amsaar” ha mentioned Simaak bin Harb and did not narrate any criticizm on him (Pg 110 T. 840). Meaning, According to Ibn Hibbaan himself, the jarah on him is Baatil and Mardood.
  1. Al-Ukaylee = He mentioned in Kitaab ad-Du’afaa al-Kabeer [2/178, 179]
  1. Jareer bin Abdul Humayd = He saw Simaak bin Harb that he was urinating while standing (due to some excuse), so he abandoned narrating ahadeeth from him. [Ad-Du’afa by Al-Ukaylee: 2/179, and Al-Kaamil by Ibn Adee: 3/1299]

This is not a Jarah, because it is proven in Muwatta Imam Maalik with a Saheeh Isnaad that Abdullah bin Umar [radiallah anhu] used to urinate while standing (due to some excuse) [1/65 H. 140 with the Tahqeeq of Shaikh Zubayr]. The addition of “Due to some excuse” in the brackets is done in the light of other evidences. So what do you think of taking narrations from Abdullah bin Umar [radiallah anhu]??

  1. An-Nasaa’ee = “He is not Strong…” [Al-Sunan al-Mujtabah with the Tahqeeq of Shaikh Zubayr: 8/319 H. 5680]

The saying of Imam Nasaa’ee in Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: “He is not Hujja when he narrates alone” [Tuhfat ul-Ashraaf by Al-Mizzi: 5/137, 138 H. 6104]

  1. Ibn al-Mubaarak = “Simaak is Da’eef in Hadeeth” [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 8/131, Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 4/204]

This narration is narrated without any chain. In Kaamil Ibn Adee (3/1299), the same Jarah is narrated briefly through Ibn al-Mubarak from Sufyaan ath-Thawree, with a Da’eef chain, as is passed in number 2.

  1. Al-Bazzaar = He is a Famous Person. I do not know anyone who abandoned him. He memory got deteriorated before his death. [Tahdheeb at-Tadheeb: 4/205]

Firstly: This saying is Chain-less, Secondly: It is related to Ikhtilaat, the answer to which is coming ahead.

  1. Ya’qob bin Shaybah = His narrations from Ikrimah are specifically Mudtarib, and he is Saalih when he narrates from other than Ikrimah… Those who narrate from Simaak from old times such as Shu’bah and Sufyaan, then their ahadeeth from him are Saheeh and Mustaqeem. Ibn al-Mubaarak said, we only reject those of his narrations which are narrated by his students at the end of his age. [Tahdheeb al-Kamaal: 8/131]

This saying is related to the chain of “Simaak AN Ikrimah (AN Ibn Abbaas)” and Ikhtilaat. The saying of Ibn al-Mubaark was not found with the chain, and the remaining everthing is Tawtheeq, as is coming ahead. [The sayings of Ta’deel: 27]

Mu’addaleen (Admirers) and their Ta’deel (Praise)

  1. Imam Muslim = He took narrations from him in his Saheeh. See Mizaan ul-I’tidaal (2/233)
  1. Imam Bukhaari = It has passed in the beginning that Imam Bukhaari has took narrations from Simaak in his Saheeh (6722). Haafidh Dhahabi has written that: “And Al-Bukhaari took narrations from him as Istishhaad” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 5/248]

It has passed under Ithbaat at-Ta’deel fi Tawtheeq Mu’ammal bin Ismaa’eel (Part 2 – Sayings of Criticizm # 6) that the narrator from whom Imam Bukhaari takes narration as Istishhaad, is SIqah according to Imam Bukhaari.

  1. Shu’bah = He took narrations from him. [Saheeh Muslim H. 224 etc]

There is a principle regarding Shu’bah that he only takes the narrations of those who are Siqah according to him. See: Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: Vol 1 Pg 4,5, and Quwaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth by Ashraf Ali Thanvi Pg 217.

  1. Sufyaan ath-Thawree = “No hadeeth of Simaak is Saaqit (unacceptable).” [Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/215, Chain Saheeh]

The criticizm of Ibn Hajar on this saying is very strange [Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb: 4/205]. It should be kept in mind that the Jarah of Sufyaan ath-Thawree on Simaak, is not proven.

  1. Yahya ibn Ma’een = “Siqah (Reliable)” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/279, and Taareekh Baghdaad: 9/215, Chain Saheeh]
  1. Abu Haatim ar-Raazi = “Sudooq Siqah (Truthful, Reliable)” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/280]
  1. Ahmed bin Hanbal = “Simaak is good in the hadeeth from Abdul Malik bin Umayr” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/279, 280]
  1. Abu Ishaaq as-Sabi’ee = “Abu Bakr bin Ayyaash narrated, and he is Da’eef, From Abu Ishaaq that he said: ‘Take knowledge from Simaak bin Harb.’” [Al-Jarah wal Ta’deel: 4/275]

This saying is not proven due to Abu Bakr bin Ayyaash.

  1. Al-Ijlee = “Jaaiz ul-Hadeeth” (See: The saying of Jarah: 2) And he mentioned him in Taareekh ath-Thiqaat.
  1. Ibn Adee = “…He is Sudooq and there is nothing wrong in him.” [Al-Kaamil: 3/1300]
  1. Tirmidhi = He has graded many of the narrations of Simaak to be “Hassan Saheeh”. See: H. 65, 202, 227 and others. In fact Imam Tirmidhi has started his Sunan with the hadeeth of Simaak (H. 1)
  1. Ibn Shaaheen = He mentioned him in his Kitaab ath-Thiqaat (505)
  1. Al-Haakim = He authenticated him in Al-Mustadrak [1/297 and others]
  1. Adh-Dhahabi = “He authenticated him in Talkhees ul-Mustadrak.” [1/297]. And Imam Dhahabi said: “He is Sudooq Jaleel” [Al-Mughni fi Du’afa: 2649], and he said: “Al-Haafiz Al-Imam Al-Kabeer” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 5/245]
  1. Ibn Hibbaan = “He took narrations from him in his Saheeh.” [See: The sayings of Jarah: 7]
  1. Ibn Khuzaymah = “He authenticated him in his Saheeh” [1/8 H. 8 and others]
  1. Al-Baghwi = He graded his hadeeth to be Hasan. [Sharh us-Sunnah: 3/31 H. 570]
  1. Nawawi = He graded his hadeeth to be Hasan in Al-Majmoo Sharh ul-Madhab (3/490).
  1. Ibn Abdul Barr = He authenticated him in Al-Ist’yaab (3/615).
  1. Ibn al-Jarood = He mentioned his hadeeth in Al-Muntaqa (H. 25)

Ashraf Ali Thaanvi said while commenting on a hadeeth that: “Ibn Al-Jarood narrated this hadeeth in Al-Muntaqa, and it is Saheeh according to him.” [Bawadir al-Nawadir Pg 135]

  1. Al-Ziyaa al-Maqdasi = He took evidence from him in Al-Mukhtara [12/11]
  1. Al-Mundhiri = He graded his hadeeth to be Hasan. See Al-Targheeb wa Tarheeb: 1/108 H. 150
  1. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani = “He is truthful, his narrations from Ikrimah are specifically Mudtarib, and his memory got deteriorated at the end of his age.” [Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb: Pg 137]

Ibn Hajar has kept silent in one of his hadeeth in Fath ul-Baari (2/224 Under H. 740). Zafar Ahmed Thanvi said: “Such a narration is Saheeh or Hasan or according to Haafidh Ibn Hajar” (Therefore this narrator is Saheeh ul-Hadeeth or Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to Ibn Hajar). [See Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth Pg 89]

  1. Abu Awaanah = He took evidence from him in his Saheeh al-Mustakhraj upon Saheeh Muslim (1/234)
  1. Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani = He took evidence from him in his Saheeh Al-Mustakhraj Ala Saheeh Muslim [1/289, 290 H. 535]
  1. Ibn Sayyid an-Naas = He authenticated his hadeeth in Sharh Tirmidhi.
  1. Ya’qoob bin Shaybah = He has graded the hadeeth of Sufyaan ath-Thawree from Simaak, to be Saheeh, as has been passed.

From this detail we come to know that Simaak bin Harb is declared to be Siqah, Sudooq, and Saheeh ul-Hadeeth by the Jumhoor of Muhadditheen. Therefore the Jarah of a few Muhadditheen upon him is rejected. Some Scholars have took this jarah to be upon Ikhtilaat, meaning there is no criticizm on his narrations from before his Ikhtilaat.

Discussion on Ikhtilaat

Some scholars have said that the memory of Simaak bin Harb got deteriorated at the end of his age. See: Al-Kawakib al-Niraat by Ibn al-Kiyaal Pg 159.

Ibn as-Salaah said in Uloom ul-Hadeeth ma’a Taqiyeed wal aizaah Pg 466, which means that, The narrations of Mukhtalateen (Pl. Mukhtalat) narrated in Sahihayn as Hujjat, mean that they are narrated from before the Ikhtilaat. This saying is absolutely authentic in light of the other qaraain. In Saheeh Muslim, the following are the students of Simaak bin Harb:

  1. Abu Awaanah (224)
  2. Shu’bah (224)
  3. Zaaidah (224)
  4. Israa’eel (224)
  5. Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr bin Mu’awiyah (436)
  6. Abul Ahwas (436)
  7. Umar bin Ubayd al-Tanafsi (499/242)
  8. Sufyaan ath-Thawree (270/287, Tuhfat ul-Ashraaf by Al-Mizzi: 2/154 H. 2164)
  9. Zikriyah bin Abi Zaidah (270/287)
  10. Hassan bin Saalih (734)
  11. Maalik bin Maghool (965)
  12. Abu Yunus Haatim bin Abi Sagheerah (1680)
  13. Hammaad bin Salamah (7/1821)
  14. Idrees bin Yazeed al-Awdi (2135)
  15. Ibraaheem bin Tahmaan (2277)
  16. Ziyaad bin Khaythama (44/2305)
  17. Asbaat bin Nasar (2329) 

We come to know that the narrations of the above mentioned people from Simaak are from before his Ikhtilaat. Therefore criticizm on the hadeeth of Sufyaan narrated from Simaak, is rejected.

[Taken From: Nasar ul-Rab Fee Tawtheeq Simaak bin Harb]

Sufyan ath-Thawree

His tarjumah has been passed in part 2. 

Yahya bin Sa’eed al-Qattaan

He is the The Imam of Jarah wal Ta’deel, A Giant in Knowledge, Fiqh, Hadeeth etc.. People of knowledge depend upon him. Imam Bukhaari, Imam Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Nasaa’ee, Ibn Maja havre narrated from him.

Abdullah bin Ahmed narrated that Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal said: “I have not seen anyone like Yahya (bin Sa’eed)” [Al-Illal: 846]

Ibn Sa’d said: “He is Siqah Ma’moon” [Al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra]

Haafidh Dhahabi said: “He is Al-Imam al-Kabeer, Ameer ul-Mu’mineen in Hadeeth.” [Siyar A’laam al-Nabula: 53]

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said: “Siqah Muttaqan, Haafidh Imam.” [Tahdheeb]

Hanafi Objection on this Hadeeth

Some Muqallid hanafi innovators say that the words of “Ala Sadrih” are only narrated by Sufyaan Thawree from Simaak, and Abul Ahwas, Shareek al-Qaadhi etc have not narrated this additional wording.

Answer to this Objection

The answer to this is that Sufyaan ath-Thawree is a Siqah Haafidh, and has confirmed his hearing. Therefore, if other narrators do not narrate the words of “Ala Sadrih” then it is not a Jarah, because aforementioning is not a proof of negation

And in other than the condition of Clear opposition, the ziyadat (addition) of a Siqah narrator is always acceptable, unless the Muhaddtheen prove it to be a Mistake of narrator in that specific narration. ٰ Imam Khateeb Baghdaadi has narrated Ijmaa on this issue. [Al-Kifayah Pg 425]

It is narrated that Sufyaan ath-Thawree once narrated a hadeeth in which he opposed Abul Ahwas, Zaaidah, Isra’eel, and Shareek, so Imam Yahya ibn Sa’eed al-Qattaan said: “Even if there were four thousand like them, still Sufyaan is more Siqah than them.” [Al-Nakat Ala Ibn as-Salaah: 2/779, 280]

Even though Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi has rejected this saying, but this is an authentic saying, unless if there is not an issue of aformentioning, and a clear opposition.

Naimwi Hanafi also once accepted the ziyadat (addition) of a siqah narrator, see Athaar as-Sunan Pg 17, H. 36.

* Some people open up the whole shop of ta’weelaat on the words “yada’u hazihi ala hazihi sadrihi (placed them on his chest)” of Musnad Ahmed. Whereas, Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi has also narrated the words of “yada’u hazihi ala hazihi sadrihi” of Musnad Ahmed with his chain. [Al-Tahqeeq: 1/338 H. 434]

Ibn Abdul Haadi has also written the words of “yada’u hazihi ala hazihi sadrihi” in “Al-Tanqeeh”. [1/284]

This proves all the baseless ta’weelaat of the Mu’awwaleen to be baseless and wrong, and the words of “Ala Sadrih” get proven to be Saheeh and Preserved.

* When it is proven that the ziyaadat (addition) of a Siqah and Sudooq is Saheeh, Hasan, and acceptable, then Wakee and Abdur Rahmaan bin Mahdi, not mentioning the words of “Ala Sadrih” does not do any harm to this hadeeth. Yahya ibn Sa’eed is a giant Siqah Haafidh. His mentioning of the words is enough for the practicers of hadeeth.

* It should be kept in mind that it is not proven from Sufyaan ath-Thawree to tie the hands under the navel.

* If a narrator is Siqah and Sudooq, then his Tafarrud (lone narration) is not harmful.

Wama Alaina Illal Balagha. 

Via : Yasiir Mahi 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close