Imam Abu Dawood says:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مَعْمَرٍ عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ عَمْرٍو، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَارِثِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَيُّوبُ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَنَّ عَنِ الْحَسَنِ وَالْحُسَيْن كَبْشًا كَبْشًا .
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sacrificed one sheep each for Hasan and Husaynؓ as ‘Aqiqah.'”
Many Imams and scholars have declared this hadith authentic.
Imam Ibn al-Jaroodؒ (died 307 AH) included this hadith in his book “Al-Muntaqi” (911, 912) and
Imam Ziya al-Maqdisiؒ (died 643 AH) included it in his book “Al-Mukhtarah” (282), which is their authentication of it.
Imam Abdul Haq al-Ashbiliؒ (died 581 AH) says:
وهو صحيح .
Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eidؒ (died 702 AH) has said it is authentic.
Imam Ibn al-Mulqinؒ (died 804 AH) says:
قال عبد الحق: هذا حديث صحيح .
Imam Iraqiؒ (died 806 AH) declared it the most authentic.
Imam Ibn Abd al-Hadiؒ (died 744 AH) says:
وإســنــاده على شرط البخاري.
Imam Nawawiؒ (died 676 AH) says:
فرواه أبو داود بإسناد صحيح .
Imam Zain al-Din Zakariya Ansariؒ (died 926 AH) says:
روى أبو داؤد بإسناد صحيح .
The contemporary Muhaddith, Allama Nasiruddin al-Albaniؒ says:
قلت: وهذا إسناد صحيح على شرط البخاري، وقد صححه عبد الحق الأشبيلي في الأحكام الكبرى
The contemporary Muhaddith Hafiz Zubair Ali has also declared this hadith authentic.
Brief Introduction to the Narrators of the Hadith:
All the narrators of this hadith are among the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim.
➊ Abu Muammar Abdullah bin Amr:
He is trustworthy and reliable.
➋ Abdul Warith bin Saeed bin Zikwan:
He is also trustworthy and reliable.
➌ Ayub bin Abi Tamimah Sakhtiyani:
He is trustworthy, reliable, and authoritative; he is counted among the senior jurists.
➍ Ikrimah Mawla Ibn Abbas:
Hafiz Ibn Hajar says:
ثقة ثبت عالم بالتفسير .
➎ Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Abbas:
He is a venerable companion.
Removal of Some Doubts:
Doubt 1:
In narrating this hadith both musal-lan (continuous chain) and marfoo’ (attributed to the Prophet) Abdul Warith bin Saeed is alone.
Removal:
Abdul Warith bin Saeed is a trustworthy and reliable narrator; according to the principles of hadith scholars, it is not correct to object to the uniqueness of such a narrator.
Authentication of Abdul Warith bin Saeed:
Along with the Sahihayn, there are narrations in Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah, Al-Muntaqa by Ibn al-Jarood, Sahih Ibn Hibban, Al-Mukhtarah, etc., which are endorsements by the authors of these books because these books adhere to authenticity, and authenticity of a hadith necessitates that the narrators be trustworthy. This is called implicit endorsement.
Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi said he is trustworthy.
Imam Abu Zur’ah al-Razi said:
ثقة . (Also)
Imam Ibn Hibban said:
متقنا في الحديث .
Imam Ibn Sa’d said:
وكان ثقة حجة .
Hafiz al-Dhahabi said:
ثبت صالح .
Hafiz Ibn Hajar said he is trustworthy and reliable.
It is established that Abdul Warith is a trustworthy narrator according to the Imams.
Objection 2:
Abdul Warith bin Saeed has been opposed by the trustworthy narrators because Muammar and Sufyan al-Thawri narrate Mursal from Ayyub, as is present in the work of the author Abdul Razzaq:
عن معمر والثوري ، عن أيوب عن عكرمة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: عق عن حسن وحسين كبشين.
Removal:
Firstly:
The objection is incorrect. Abdul Waris has added to the chain, and according to the principles of the Muhaddithin, an addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable unless there is contradiction in that addition. There is no contradiction here because Thawri and Muammar are reporting a Mursal narration, where one intermediary is omitted in their chain, while Abdul Waris is reporting it as Muwṣal and Marfū‘, thus revealing the omitted narrator. This is an addition. According to the principles of the Muhaddithin under الزيادة من الثقات مقبولة, Abdul Waris’s addition will be accepted. This is the method followed by the Muhaddithin in such cases. An example of this is presented from Sunan al-Kubra by Bayhaqi:
Muhammad bin Harun al-Miski says, a question was asked to Imam al-Bukhari, the leader of the believers in hadith, about اســــــرائيـــل ، عـن ابـــی اسحاق، عن ابى برده ، عن ابيه عن النبی ﷺ قال: ((لا نكاح إلا بولی)), to which Imam Bukhari replied categorically:
الزيادة من الثقة مقبولة، وإسرائيل بن يونس ،ثقة ، وإن كان شعبة، والثوري أرسلاه، فإن ذلك لا يضر الحديث۔
An addition by a trustworthy narrator is acceptable (because) Isra’il bin Yunus is trustworthy, and although Shu’bah and Thawri have described it as Mursal, it does not harm the hadith.
Imam Hakim says:
وهذا شرط الصحيح عند كافة فقهاء أهل الإسلام أن الزيادة في الأسانيد والمتون من الثقات مقبولة .
This is the condition for an authentic hadith according to all Islamic jurists, that additions in the chains and texts by trustworthy narrators are acceptable.
Therefore, to reject Abdul Waris bin Sa’id’s addition by calling it contradictory is forced reasoning. Moreover, according to the Imams, Abdul Waris’s hearing from Ayub is extremely strong, as Imam Uthman bin Sa’id al-Darimi states:
قلت:
هو أحب إليك في أيوب أو عبد الوارث؟
فقال:
عبد الوارث،
قلت:
فابن عيينة أحب إليك في أيوب أو عبد الوارث؟
فقال: عبد الوارث
Abdul Waris: I asked (Imam Yahya bin Ma’in): Between Ayub and Abdul Waris, whose narration do you prefer? He said: Abdul Waris. I asked: Between Ibn ‘Uyaynah and Abdul Waris, whose narration from Ayub do you prefer? He said: Abdul Waris.
From the above statement of Imam al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil Yahya bin Ma’in, it is clear that Imam Ayub is preferred over Sakhitani in narration, and Abdul Waris is preferred over many trustworthy narrators, and his hearing from Ayub is strong, and this narration is also being reported from Ayub.
Secondly:
The two chains mentioned by the author Abdul Razzaq are not established. Firstly, both contain tadlis (concealment) by Imam Abdul Razzaq himself; secondly, Sufyan al-Thawri himself is a mudallis (concealer), which is his known practice. Therefore, presenting tadlis chains against the most authentic chain of Abdul Waris is unjust.
Doubt 3:
Imam Abu Hatim considered the narration of Abdul Warith to be doubtful and regarded it as mursal.
Removal:
Compared to the authentication by many other scholars of religion, the statement of Imam Abu Hatim is weak. Secondly, the chain which Imam Sahib calls mursal is not found in any printed books of hadith, as the researchers of Ilal al-Hadith have stated:
ولم نقف على روايته، لكن أخرجه عبد الرزاق فى المصنف“ (٧٨٦٢) عن معمر وسفيان الثوري، كلاهما عن أيوب، عن عكرمة مرسلاً . (٥٤٣/٤)
This is the same mursal narration whose lack of authenticity has become clear. It should also be noted that Abdul Warith’s hearing from Ayub is extremely strong, as proven by the statement of Imam al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil Yahya ibn Ma’in. Therefore, to call this narration doubtful only on the basis of Imam Abu Hatim’s statement is incorrect; rather, Imam Abu Hatim’s statement is weak in every respect.
Doubt 4:
Allama Albani says about this hadith:
صحیح ، لكن في رواية النسائي: “كبشين كبشين“ وهو الأصح .
Removal:
The hadith in Sunan Nasai in which کبشین is mentioned is weak due to the tadlees (deception) of Qatadah bin Du’ama. It is established that Qatadah bin Du’ama was not only trustworthy but also a mudallis (one who practices tadlees), indeed a frequent mudallis. According to the classification of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, he is also a third-grade mudallis.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar states:
Famous for tadlees. (Also)
For details, refer to the book “Fath al-Mubeen” by the Muhaddith of the era Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai.
Imam Iraqi (died 806 AH) states:
رواية الإفراد أصح لأنها من رواية أيوب وقتادة مدلس
The narration of individuals (the narration with كبشا كبشا) is more authentic because it is narrated from Ayyub, whereas (in the narration with کبشین کبشین) Qatadah is a mudallis.
The Muhaddith of the era Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai states:
اسناده ضعيف قتاده عنعن .
Note that the narration with کبشین کبشین is weak; even if it is established, the hadith with کبشاً كبشاً will not be called weak. Rather, a suitable reconciliation will be presented between the two, as some scholars (who consider both authentic) have reconciled.
Objection 5:
کبشین کبشین is also supported by the hadiths of Karz and others in which devils are mentioned.
Removal:
It is correct to present the narration of Umm Karz in support; in fact, the authentic hadith of Umm Karz Ka’biyyah
کبشین کبشین makes us disregard the weak hadith, as Hafiz Zubair Ali Za’i, the scholar of the era, said:
يغنى عنہ .
And from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), the same (كبشاً كبشاً) is narrated with an authentic chain. In fact, there was also a difference of opinion among the Salaf on this issue whether one animal (goat/sheep) should be sacrificed on behalf of the child or two? The proponents of one animal have been presenting this narration, as Ibn Rushd (died 595 AH), the author of Bidayat al-Mujtahid, said:
وسبب اختلافهم اختلاف الآثار في هذا الباب؛ فمنها حديث أم كرز الكعبية خرجه أبو داود قال: سمعت رسول الله الله يـقــول في العقيقة عن الغلام شاتان مكافاتان، وعن الجارية شاة والمكافاتان: المتماثلتان . وهذا يقتضى الفرق في ذلك بين الذكر والأنثى وما روي أنه عق عن الحسن والحسين كبشاً كبشاً يقتضي الاستواء بينهما .
The reason for the difference in this issue is the difference in the reports. Among these hadiths is the narration of Umm Karz Ka’biyyah, which Abu Dawood has narrated. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said about the Aqeeqah:
“Two goats should be sacrificed on behalf of a boy and one goat on behalf of a girl.”
This hadith requires a distinction between masculine and feminine, and similarly it is narrated that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sacrificed one ram each for Hasan and Husayn. This hadith requires equality between masculine and feminine.
From Ibn Rushd’s statement, it is clear that the hadith of Ibn Abbas is the evidence for those who advocate one, and the hadith of Umm Karz is the evidence for those who advocate two.
Also, Allama Ibn Abd al-Barr (died 463 AH) has presented the hadith of Ibn Abbas as the evidence of Imam Malik, who advocates one.
The truth regarding this matter is that according to the hadith of Umm Karz Ka’biyyah
and other evidences, it is preferable and better to sacrifice two animals (goats or sheep) on behalf of the child; however, according to the authentic hadith narrated from Ibn Abbas under discussion, it is also permissible to sacrifice one animal (goat or sheep) on behalf of the child. Among the Companions, it is also established from Sayyiduna Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that one goat or sheep was sacrificed on behalf of a boy.
Similarly, Janab Urwah ibn Zubair also held the same view.
(ايضاً وإسناده صحيح)
The same is narrated from Imam Zahri (may Allah have mercy on him).
Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) also holds the same position.
Imam Dhakari or Ansari (died 926 AH) has permitted sacrificing one animal on behalf of a boy based on this hadith.
Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Khatib al-Sharbini (died 977 AH) said:
ويتأدى أصل السنة عن الغلام بشاة واحدة لما روى أبو داود بإسناد صحيح أنه ﷺ عق عن الحسن والحسين كبشاً كبشاً .
Sacrificing one goat on behalf of a boy fulfills the original Sunnah, due to the hadith narrated by Abu Dawood with an authentic chain “أنه لا عــق عــن الحسن والحسين كبشاً كبش“.
Imam Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ali al-Ansari (died 710 AH) says:
واما الجواز فالشاة الواحدة يتادى بها سنة العقيقة في الجارية والغلام؛ لأنهـ عليه السلام۔ عق عن الحسن والحسين كبشاً كبشاً كذا رواه أبو داود عن ابن عباس۔
As for permissibility, sacrificing one goat each on behalf of a boy and a girl fulfills the Sunnah because the Messenger of Allah ﷺ sacrificed one ram each for Hasan and Husayn.
Amir San’ani has permitted sacrificing one animal on behalf of a boy according to the hadith of Ibn Abbas.
Doubt 6:
Sacrificing one ram each by Hasan and Husayn (رضي الله عنهما) is a special privilege of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.
Removal:
A special privilege requires evidence; if it were a special privilege, none of the Companions would have accepted it, whereas Abdullah ibn Umar (رضي الله عنه) was a proponent and practitioner of it. Moreover, no Companion objected to Ibn Umar (رضي الله عنه), which is evidence that it was not a special privilege. Similarly, many Imams among the Salaf also accepted it.
Doubt 7:
The hadith of Ibn Abbas is abrogated, and the hadith of Umm Kurz is its abrogator.
Removal:
Calling it abrogated is very difficult. The scholars of hadith have interpreted the hadith of Ibn Abbas as permissibility and the hadith of Umm Kurz as recommendation, which is better. If this hadith were abrogated, none of the Companions would have accepted it, or some Companion would have clarified it. According to our knowledge, none of the Salaf claimed this; rather, many accepted it.
واللہ اعلم
Doubt 8:
Allama Abdul Haq Dehlawi says:
ان الـلـه تـعــالـىٰ فضل الذكر على الأنثى في الميراث . (ايضاً)
Removal:
Firstly:
In the case of Aqeeqah, it is better to differentiate between male and female, and the permissibility of not differentiating is also established from another authentic hadith, whereas the matter of inheritance is entirely different.
Secondly:
Giving shares to heirs in inheritance is obligatory, whereas in the case of Aqeeqah, this is not so; therefore, the example of inheritance cannot be presented here.
