الحمد لله رب العالمين و الصلوٰة والسلام على رسوله الأمين، أما بعد :
A book of hadith titled Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq is published and widely circulated. In 1425 AH, corresponding to 2005 CE, a small book titled “al-Juz’ al-Mafqud min al-Juz’ al-Awwal min al-Musannaf” was published by Mu’assasat al-Sharq, Lahore, Pakistan (of the Barelvis), with an introduction by Muhammad Abd al-Hakim Sharaf al-Qadri (Barelvi) and verification by Isa bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Mani’ al-Himyari (?). This edition contains forty (40) hadiths and athar. The Barelvis are rejoicing over the Hadith of Nur contained in it, although there are many conditions for citing written and printed books as evidence. This article presents a review of this “al-Juz’ al-Mafqud.”
The “al-Juz’ al-Mafqud” published by the Barelvis is entirely fabricated and made-up. The reasons for its being fabricated and made-up are as follows:
➊ The scribe (copyist) of this manuscript is Ishaq bin Abd al-Rahman al-Sulaymani, and from his handwriting (date of copying 933 AH) it is known that this person lived in the tenth century AH.
His circumstances and whether he was thiqah or sadduq are unknown; therefore this person is majhul (unknown).
➋ Ishaq bin Abd al-Rahman al-Sulaymani of the tenth century AH did not narrate any chain from himself up to Imam Abd al-Razzaq (may Allah have mercy on him) (author of al-Musannaf), nor did he state where he copied this manuscript from; therefore this entire manuscript is without a chain.
➌ There is no evidence of where and with whom this manuscript remained. On reliable manuscripts of hadith books, the samâʿāt (records of audition) of scholars are written, meaning that a certain scholar heard this manuscript from a certain scholar on a certain date. For example, see the manuscript of Musnad al-Humaydi (Zahiriyyah), first page. Whereas, on the contrary, the introduction of the “al-Juz’ al-Mafqud” states:
وليس على النسخة التى بين يدينا أية سماعات “The copy that is in our hands has no samâʿāt on it.”
➍ The copy of Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq published by Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, was published from five manuscripts:
First: Murad Mulla’s copy (Turkey). This is a complete copy and was written in 747 AH.
Second: Fayd Allah Effendi’s copy (Turkey). This is an incomplete copy and was written in 606 AH.
Third: The copy of al-Maktabah al-Sa’idiyyah al-Amah (Tunk). This is a defective copy and was written in 1373 AH.
Fourth: The copy of Shaykh Muhammad Nusayf (Jeddah). This is an incomplete copy and is from the ninth century AH.
Fifth: The printed edition by Habib al-Rahman al-A’zami, which was published from the copy of Murad Mulla.
It is clear that the Barelvi copy lacking samâʿāt, the copyist being unknown, and the copy being without a chain are sufficient to show that this copy is doubtful and without origin.
➎ The introducer of this copy (the Barelvi copy) claimed that this copy is stronger than the printed copy.
However, this copy has glaring errors.
Example: In the Barelvis’ “al-Juz’ al-Mafqud” it is written:
عبدالرزاق عن ابن جريج قال : أخبرني البراء قال…… etc.
In this narration, it is reported from Imam Ibn Jurayj that he said: “Al-Bara’ (ibn Azib, may Allah be pleased with him) informed me,” etc.
The verifier of “al-Juz’ al-Mafqud” writes:
ابن جريج حافظ ثقة و كان يدلس، فقد صرح هنا بالإخبار
Ibn Jurayj is a hafiz and thiqah; he used to commit tadlis, so here he has explicitly stated the report (ikhbar).
We state that Ibn Jurayj (may Allah have mercy on him) was born in 80 AH.
Whereas Sayyiduna al-Bara’ (may Allah be pleased with him) died in 72 AH.
How can Imam Ibn Jurayj, who was born eight years after the death of Sayyiduna al-Bara’ bin Azib (may Allah be pleased with him), say أخبرني البراء “Al-Bara’ informed me”? (!)
A witticism: The verifier of “al-Juz’ al-Mafqud,” forgetting his own words, wrote at another place:
عبدالرزاق قال : أخبرني الزهري عن سفيان بن شبرمة…
In this narration, Imam Abd al-Razzaq (may Allah have mercy on him) is explicitly stating hearing from Imam al-Zuhri (may Allah have mercy on him), whereas Imam al-Zuhri (may Allah have mercy on him) died in 125 AH or a year or two before that
and Imam Abd al-Razzaq (may Allah have mercy on him) was born in 126 AH.
How can Imam Abd al-Razzaq (may Allah have mercy on him), who was born one year after the death of Imam al-Zuhri (may Allah have mercy on him), say أخبرني الزهري?
Trivia: In another place of the same book, the “researcher” writes:
هذا الإسناد فيه انقطاع بين عبدالرزاق و الزهري “And in this chain there is a break (inqita’) between Abdul Razzaq and Zuhri.”
➐ The narration written in the previous number: the narrator “Sufyan ibn Shabrama” is unknown. The correct reading is “Sufyan ‘an Ibn Shabrama” (Sufyan from Ibn Shabrama), as written in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah
.
That is:
سفيان الثوري عن عبدالله بن شبرمة .
I ask Muhammad Abdul Hakeem Sharaf al-Qadri (Barelwi) and all the Barelwis: who is “Sufyan ibn Shabrama”? If this is a scribal or compositor error, then why are you rejoicing over this unsourced manuscript full of errors?
➑ There is a difference of opinion regarding the birth date of Imam Zuhri al-Madani. Some say 50 or 51 AH.
Imam Yahya ibn Abdullah ibn Bukayr (born 154 AH, died 231 AH), a student of Imam al-Layth ibn Sa’d, says that Zuhri was born in 56 AH.
Sayyidina ‘Uqba ibn ‘Amir (may Allah be pleased with him) died around 60 AH.
His grave is in al-Muqattam (Egypt).
That is, he died in Egypt!
In the Lost Juz it is written that: عن ابن جريج عن الزهري أنه سمع عقبة بن عامر … .
Whereas the meeting of Imam Zuhri (who was born in Madinah) with ‘Uqba (may Allah be pleased with him) is not established. Hafiz Nur al-Din al-Haythami (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: والزهري لم يسمع من عقبة بن عامر “And Zuhri did not hear anything from ‘Uqba ibn ‘Amir (may Allah be pleased with him).”
It is thus known that the unidentified copyist of the “Lost Juz” fabricated a chain in this unsourced manuscript and has lied upon Imam Zuhri (may Allah have mercy on him), claiming that he heard from Sayyidina ‘Uqba (may Allah be pleased with him)!
➒ In the Lost Juz it is written that:
عبدالرزاق عن معمر عن الزهري عن أبى سعيد الخدري عن أبيه عن جده عن أبى سعيد etc.
In this narration, according to Ishaq ibn Abdul Rahman al-Sulaymani: Imam Zuhri narrates from Sayyidina Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Sa’d ibn Malik ibn Sinan al-Ansari) (may Allah be pleased with him), from his father (Malik ibn Sinan), from his grandfather (Sinan ibn Ubayd), from Abu Sa’id. Whereas the grandfather of Sayyidina Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him), Sinan ibn Ubayd, is not mentioned anywhere among the Companions, nor is there any mention of Sinan ibn Ubayd’s teacher Abu Sa’id anywhere. The “researcher” of the Lost Juz has turned Abu Sa’id al-Khudri in “Abu Sa’id al-Khudri from his father from his grandfather from Abu Sa’id” into Rabih ibn Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Sa’id, whereas the kunya of Rabih is not known to be Abu Sa’id, and nor is any mention of Imam Zuhri among his students found.
➓ In hadith books, it is commonly the case that their narrations (chains and texts) are also found in other books. For example, the first connected marfu’ hadith of Musannaf Abdul Razzaq is narrated through the chain عبدالرزاق عن مالك عن عمرو بن يحيي عن أبيه عن عبدالله بن زيد. This same narration has been related by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) through the chain of حدثنا عبدالرزاق قال : أخبرنا مالك عن عمرو بن يحيي عن أبيه عن عبدالله بن زيد with the same text.
This narration from Abdul Razzaq’s chain is also present in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah.
Through the chain of امام مالك عن عمرو بن يحيي عن أبيه عن عبدالله بن زيد, this same narration is present in Muwatta Imam Malik (18/1 h. 31), Sahih al-Bukhari (185) and Sahih Muslim (235). Whereas the existence of the narrations of the “Lost Juz” presented by the Barelwis is not found in other books of hadith that have chains. It is known that there is definitely something fishy here.
From these ten proofs it is known that the book published under the name “al-Juz al-Mafqud” is baseless, unsourced and fabricated. Therefore, it is not permissible to derive evidence from it.
Imam Abdul Razzaq ibn Hammam al-San’ani (may Allah have mercy on him)
There is no doubt that Imam Abdul Razzaq (may Allah have mercy on him) (died 211 AH) was a trustworthy (thiqah) hafiz imam. The majority of hadith scholars have declared him trustworthy, but along with being trustworthy, he was also a mudallis. For his tadlis, see Kitab al-Du’afa lil-‘Uqayli (vol. 3 pp. 111, 110, its chain is sahih) and Tabaqat al-Mudallisin by Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him).
Regarding a mudallis narrator, the general principle is that in books other than the Sahihayn, his ‘an narrations are da’if and rejected; therefore, even if this fabricated and forged “Lost Juz” (hypothetically) were established, the narrations about light in it would be baseless and rejected.
Imam Abdul Razzaq fell into ikhtilat (confusion of memory) in his final years after becoming blind.
Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) said: We came to Abdul Razzaq before 200 AH, and at that time his eyesight was sound. Whoever heard from him after his eyesight had ended, his hearing is da’if.
Imam Ahmad further said:
لا يعبأ بحديث من سمع منه وقد ذهب بصره، كان يلقن أحاديث باطلة
“Whoever heard hadiths from him after he became blind, there is no regard for them. He would accept the instruction of false hadiths (and narrate them).”
In this unsourced printed manuscript, the student of Abdul Razzaq is not even known; so how can one rely upon it?
