This article revolves around a single narrator of Hadith: Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād (also known as Ḥumayd bin Sakhr, Ḥumayd bin Abī al-Mukhāriq al-Madanī; kunyah: Abu Sakhr).
Those inclined toward grave-veneration present two well-known narrations which mention calling upon (nidā’) at the grave or a specific connection with the grave. However, both narrations are solitary and weak reports of Abu Sakhr.
◈ The Two Narrations in Question
① The narration in Musnad Abī Yaʿlā about the descent of ʿĪsā (peace be upon him), which contains a solitary addition:
«ثُمَّ لَئِنْ قَامَ عَلَى قَبْرِي فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ، لَأُجِيبَنَّهُ»
That is: “Then if he stands at my grave and says: O Muhammad, I will respond.”
② The narration in Sunan Abī Dāwūd:
«مَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ يُسَلِّمُ عَلَيَّ إِلَّا رَدَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيَّ رُوحِي حَتَّى أَرُدَّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامَ»
That is: “Whoever sends salutations upon me, Allah returns my soul to me so that I may respond to his salutation.”
The greatest defect (ʿillah) of both these narrations is precisely that their central narrator, Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād, has been declared weak by the majority.
◈ Narration 1: Calling at the Grave (Musnad Abī Yaʿlā)
Arabic Text:
حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عِيسَى، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، عَنْ أَبِي صَخْرٍ، أَنَّ سَعِيدًا الْمَقْبُرِيَّ، أَخْبَرَهُ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ أَبَا هُرَيْرَةَ يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ يَقُولُ:
«وَالَّذِي نَفْسُ أَبِي الْقَاسِمِ بِيَدِهِ، لَيَنْزِلَنَّ عِيسَى بْنُ مَرْيَمَ … ثُمَّ لَئِنْ قَامَ عَلَى قَبْرِي فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ، لَأُجِيبَنَّهُ»
📖
Translation:
Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه reported that the Prophet ﷺ said:
“By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Abu al-Qasim (Muhammad ﷺ), surely ʿĪsā ibn Maryam will descend … then if he stands at my grave and says, ‘O Muhammad,’ I will surely respond to him.”
Clarification:
The phrase:
«لَئِنْ قَامَ عَلَى قَبْرِي…»
is a solitary addition (ziyādah) reported only by Abu Sakhr. It is not found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, nor in the authentic routes of the leading Hadith scholars. This addition rests entirely upon this narrator.
◈ Narration 2: “Return of the Soul” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd)
Arabic Text:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَوْفٍ، حَدَّثَنَا الْمُقْرِئُ، حَدَّثَنَا حَيْوَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي صَخْرٍ حُمَيْدِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ قُسَيْطٍ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ ﷺ قَالَ:
«مَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ يُسَلِّمُ عَلَيَّ إِلَّا رَدَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيَّ رُوحِي حَتَّى أَرُدَّ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامَ»
📖
Translation:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
“There is no one who sends salutations upon me except that Allah returns my soul to me so that I may return his greeting.”
Clarification:
This narration also comes solely through Abu Sakhr. Imām al-Dāraquṭnī and other scholars clarified that the established meaning is that salutations are conveyed to the Prophet ﷺ, but the description of the soul being returned is a rejected addition (munkar ziyādah).
◈ Criticism (Jarḥ) of Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād
Now let us see what the majority of Hadith scholars said about Abu Sakhr:
① Ibn al-Qayyim (751 AH)
Arabic:
«وَأُنْكِرَ عَلَيْهِ بَعْضُ حَدِيثِهِ، وَهُوَ مِمَّنْ لَا يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ إِذَا انْفَرَدَ.»
📖
Translation:
Some of his narrations were considered objectionable, and he is among those whose solitary reports are not used as proof.
Clarification:
Ibn al-Qayyim clearly laid down the principle that if Abu Sakhr is alone in something, it is not correct to build religion upon it.
② Imām al-ʿUqaylī (332 AH)
Arabic:
«ذكره في كتاب الضعفاء.»
📖
Translation:
Imām al-ʿUqaylī mentioned him in his book al-Ḍuʿafā’.
Clarification:
Including someone in a list of weak narrators is, in the terminology of the Hadith scholars, explicit criticism (jarḥ).
③ Ibn Shāhīn (385 AH)
Arabic:
«أبو صخر حميد بن زياد ضعيف.»
📖
Translation:
Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād is weak.
Clarification:
These are explicit words of “weak”, and they mean that his narration is not relied upon.
④ Ibn al-Athīr (630 AH)
Arabic:
«أبو صخر حميد بن زياد الخراط مولى بني هاشم … هو ضعيف.»
📖
Translation:
Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād al-Kharrāṭ, a client (mawlā) of Banū Hāshim … he is weak.
Clarification:
This is an explicit confirmation by a Hadith scholar of a later era that he is weak.
⑤ Ibn al-Jawzī (594 AH)
Arabic:
«قال أحمد: ضعيف، وقال النسائي: ليس بالقوي.»
📖
Translation:
Imām Aḥmad said: He is weak.
Imām al-Nasā’ī said: He is not strong.
Clarification:
When two great Imams (Aḥmad and al-Nasā’ī) agree that he is weak, how can his narration be relied upon?
⑥ Muḥammad bin Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī (507 AH)
Arabic:
«… رواه حميد بن زياد … وحميد ضعيف.»
📖
Translation:
This narration comes from Ḥumayd bin Ziyād, and Ḥumayd is weak.
Clarification:
Here too it is explicitly stated that this narrator is weak.
⑦ Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn (233 AH)
Arabic:
«أبو صخر حميد بن زياد ضعيف.»
📖
Translation:
Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād is weak.
Clarification:
Although on one occasion “lā ba’sa bihi” (there is no harm in him) is also reported from Ibn Maʿīn, the researchers (Ibn Ḥajar, al-Ruḥaylī and others) have stated that his final and preferred statement is “weak”.
⑧ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar (852 AH)
Arabic:
«حميد بن زياد أبو صخر … صدوق يهم من السادسة.»
📖
Translation:
Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād … is truthful (ṣadūq) but makes errors (yahim); from the sixth category.
Clarification:
Regarding the sixth category, Ibn Ḥajar himself wrote in the introduction:
«من ليس له من الحديث إلا القليل … مقبول حيث يتابع، وإلا فليّن الحديث.»
➝ That is: one who has only a few hadiths is accepted (maqbūl) if he is corroborated; otherwise he is layyin al-ḥadīth (weak).
➝ Meaning: when Abu Sakhr is alone, he is not a proof.
⑨ Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal (241 AH)
First statement:
«سئل عن أبي صخر فقال: ليس به بأس.»
📖
Second statement:
«سألت أحمد بن حنبل عن حميد بن صخر فقال: ضعيف.»
📖
Clarification:
That is, Imām Aḥmad’s first statement is a lenient one (meaning his narration is written down but scrutinised). His second statement is his preferred one: that he is weak.
⑩ Imām al-Nasā’ī (303 AH)
Arabic:
«حميد بن صخر … ليس بالقوي.»
📖
«حميد بن صخر … ضعيف.»
📖
Translation:
Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād … is not strong; rather, he is weak.
Clarification:
Al-Nasā’ī’s words “laysa bil-qawī” are themselves criticism (jarḥ).
⑪ Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī (748 AH)
Arabic:
«حميد بن صخر المدني عن المقبري وغيره، ضعفه أحمد.»
📖
And he also mentioned in Tārīkh al-Islām:
«هو الذي قال فيه أحمد بن حنبل: ضعيف.»
Clarification:
Al-Dhahabī too counted him as weak.
⑫ Ibn ʿAdī (365 AH)
Arabic:
«لحاتم بن إسماعيل عن حميد بن صخر أحاديث … لا يُتابع عليها.»
📖
Translation:
Ḥātim bin Ismāʿīl narrated some hadiths from Abu Sakhr … among them are some for which no corroboration (mutābaʿah) of him is found.
Clarification:
That is, these narrations are munkar, because no other trustworthy narrator has supported them.
⑬ Shaykh al-Albānī (1420 AH)
Arabic:
«رجاله ثقات على ضعف يسير في أبي صخر واسمه حميد بن زياد الخراط.»
📖
Translation:
Its narrators are trustworthy, though there is slight weakness in Abu Sakhr, whose name is Ḥumayd bin Ziyād al-Kharrāṭ.
◈ Response to Those Who Declared Him Trustworthy
✔ Imām al-ʿIjlī (d. 261 AH)
Arabic:
«حميد بن زياد أبو صخر ثقة.»
📖
Clarification:
Imām al-ʿIjlī’s leniency is well known: he sometimes uses the word “thiqah” even at the level of merely “ṣadūq” or “lā ba’sa bihi” (as ʿAbd al-ʿAlīm al-Bastawī explained in the introduction to al-Thiqāt). Therefore, his declaration of trustworthiness cannot be given preference over the criticism of the majority.
✔ Imām al-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385 AH)
Arabic (Su’ālāt al-Barqānī):
«هو حميد بن زياد مدني، وهو ثقة.»
But in his book al-ʿIlal he said:
«… خالفه عبيد الله بن عمر … وقول عبيد الله أشبه بالصواب.»
📖
And in al-Ilzāmāt wa al-Tatabbuʿ:
«ولم يُتابَع عليه وغيره أثبت منه.»
Translation:
In one narration from Saʿīd al-Maqburī, Abu Sakhr differed (from ʿUbaydullāh bin ʿUmar), and the narration of ʿUbaydullāh bin ʿUmar is more correct. And in some places he said: he is not corroborated in it, and others are firmer than him.
Clarification:
That is, al-Dāraquṭnī called him “thiqah” in one place, but in his scholarly criticism he deemed his narrations weak and gave preference to the corroborated narrations of others. This makes clear that he too did not regard his solitary narrations as reliable.
◈ Ruling on the Two Narrations
① Addition in Musnad Abī Yaʿlā:
«ثُمَّ لَئِنْ قَامَ عَلَى قَبْرِي فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ لَأُجِيبَنَّهُ»
➝ This addition is solely the solitary narration of Abu Sakhr, who is criticised by the majority of Hadith scholars. Therefore it is a rejected addition (munkar ziyādah) and is not acceptable as proof.
② Narration in Sunan Abī Dāwūd:
«مَا مِنْ أَحَدٍ يُسَلِّمُ عَلَيَّ إِلَّا رَدَّ اللَّهُ عَلَيَّ رُوحِي …»
➝ This narration too comes through Abu Sakhr. Therefore the part of it that comes with “the returning of the soul” is a rejected addition (munkar).
The established matter is that salutations are conveyed to the Prophet ﷺ and he responds, but the specific description of the soul being returned is not established authentically.
◈ Final Conclusion
① Abu Sakhr Ḥumayd bin Ziyād is weak according to the majority of Hadith scholars.
② His solitary narrations cannot be relied upon.
③ The narration of calling at the grave in Musnad Abī Yaʿlā and the narration of “return of the soul” in Sunan Abī Dāwūd are both rejected (mardūd).
④ Deriving permissibility of grave-veneration or seeking help (istighāthah) from these narrations is invalid.
