Question:
In the weekly Ghazwa, there was an article by Abdul Razzaq Zahid Sahib Sialkoti on the topic of dowry, in which he declared the hadith narrated about Fatimah’s dowry weak due to Abu Usamah and Za’idah, and in another chain he ruled it disconnected, while accusing Muhammad bin Fudail of being Shia. Is the scholar’s criticism of this hadith correct? Please explain it with evidence.
Answer:
The hadith regarding the gifts of goodness, a millstone, a leather bag, and two pillows given by the Noble Messenger ﷺ to Sayyida Fatimah رضي الله عنها on the occasion of her marriage is absolutely authentic, with no flaw or defect whatsoever. This hadith has been narrated in five places in Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal’s Musnad, and also by Imam Nasai in his Sunan Sughra and Kubra, Ibn Majah in his Sunan
, Zia in Al-Mukhtarah, Ibn Sa’d in Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, Bayhaqi in Dala’il Al-Nubuwwah
, Harun in his Musnad, Hakim in “المستدرك على الصحيحين“, Ibn Kathir in Jami’ Al-Masanid wal Sunan, and Imam Ahmad in Fada’il Al-Sahaba. This narration is transmitted through various chains, among which one chain of Imam Ahmad is:
حدثنا أبو أسامة، أنبأنا زائدة، حدثنا عطاء بن السائب، عن أبيه، عن على رضى الله عنه
Maulana Abdul Razzaq Zahid Sahib, while discussing this chain, writes: “There is a severe criticism on Abu Usamah in this chain; the mildest judgment on him is that he is a truthful narrator.” This statement by the respected Maulana is far from justice and shows unfamiliarity with the science of Rijal (narrators). Because in the books of Rijal, three persons named Abu Usamah are well-known:
① Abu Usamah Al-Hajjaj, his name is Zaid, and he is a narrator of Nasai. He narrated from Ikrimah Mawla Ibn Abbas and others, and from him, Junaid Al-Hajjaj and others narrated. Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in, Imam Abu Hatim, and Imam Ibn Hibban have declared him trustworthy.
Imam Bukhari رحمه الله called him “truthful”.
Ibn Hajar رحمه الله says: “He is trustworthy.” (Taqrib) Therefore, this narrator is trustworthy and truthful, but this Abu Usamah is not meant in the mentioned hadith because among his teachers is Zaida, and among his students is not Imam Ahmad.
② Abu Usamah Al-Raqi Al-Ha’i, his name is Zaid ibn Ali ibn Dinar, also a narrator of Nasai. He narrated from Ja’far ibn Barqan, and from him, his son Muhammad ibn Abi Usamah Al-Raqi and Mughira ibn Abd al-Rahman Al-Harani narrated. Ibn Hibban included him in Kitab Al-Thiqat, and Imam Dar Qutni declared him trustworthy.
Ibn Hajar رحمه الله says: “He is truthful.”
Following Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani رحمه الله, Dr. Bashar Awad writes: بل ثقة ولقه الدار قطني “Rather, this narrator is trustworthy; Imam Dar Qutni declared him trustworthy.”
Therefore, this narrator is also trustworthy, but he is not meant in the above hadith because among his teachers is Zaida, and among his students is not Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
③ Abu Usamah Hammad ibn Usamah Al-Qurashi Al-Kufi, he narrated from prominent hadith scholars such as Zaida ibn Qudamah, Abu Ishaq Al-Fazari, Sufyan Al-Thawri, A’mash, Shu’bah, Abd al-Razzaq, and others. From him narrated Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Imam Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, Humaydi, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah, Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Muhammad ibn Yahya Al-Shafi’i, and others. He is a narrator of the six books and highly trustworthy. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in, Muhammad ibn Abdullah Al-Mawsili, Sufyan, Ibn Sa’d, Ibn Qani’, Dar Qutni, and Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani رحمه الله have declared him trustworthy.
The Abu Usamah in the chain under discussion is this one, and there is no doubt about his trustworthiness. It is incumbent upon Maulana Abdul Razzaq Sahib to prove severe criticism against him, and if he considers another Abu Usamah, he should determine this from the books of Rijal. Secondly, according to him, if Abu Usamah is truthful, then he is also a good narrator, as recorded in the books of Usul. Moreover, he is not unique in narrating this hadith. Abu Sa’id Mawla Bani Hashim and Mu’awiyah ibn Amr also followed him in narrating from Zaida; see Musnad Ahmad and others. Some have accused him of tadlis (concealment), but this is rejected because the narration is from Azdi, who himself is weak, and according to Azdi’s narration, Abu Usamah had abandoned tadlis.
According to Ibn Sa’d, he used to clarify his tadlis.
Even if this is accepted, the rule is that if a narrator clarifies that he heard directly from his teacher, the defect of tadlis is removed, and in this narration, he has explicitly stated hearing from his teacher Zaida, as found in Musnad Ahmad.
The second objection by Abdul Razzaq Sahib on this narration is that “‘زائده’ is declared a munkar hadith (rejected narration) in the books of criticism and appraisal.” This also shows the Maulana’s unfamiliarity with hadith sciences because Zaida ibn Qudamah, who is a narrator in this chain, is a narrator of the six books, and his narrations are abundant in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, and his trustworthiness is established; see Tahdhib Al-Kamal and others.
The Zaida who is criticized as a munkar hadith is Zaida ibn Abi Al-Riqad Al-Babli, as Imam Bukhari declared in Tarikh Kabir and Nasai in Dhu’afa. The Maulana did not understand which Zaida is meant in the chain. The Zaida who is a student of Ata ibn Saib and teacher of Abu Usamah is Zaida ibn Qudamah. If only the Maulana had consulted the books of Rijal and distinguished between authentic and weak narrators, his main argument, which is baseless and without scholarly foundation, would have been invalidated. The other chain he mentioned is from Wasil ibn Abd al-A’la from Muhammad ibn Fudayl from Ata ibn Saib from Sayyidina Ali رضي الله عنه. About this, it is written: “There is a break in this chain because the meeting of Ata ibn Saib with Sayyidina Ali رضي الله عنه is doubtful and questionable, and even if it occurred, it is not reliable because it is not itself a valid proof.” This also indicates the Maulana’s ignorance because Sunan Ibn Majah, in the chapter on the Striped Animals of the Family of Muhammad
, narrates from Ata ibn Saib from his father from Ali رضي الله عنه. Also, see Tuhfat Al-Ashraf
and Al-Musnad Al-Jami’
, etc. Therefore, there is no break but continuity, and the reference to an uninterrupted chain is the Maulana’s responsibility. Secondly, he wrote: “He is not reliable because he is not a valid proof himself.” However, this is incorrect; Ata ibn Saib is trustworthy and a valid proof.
Ibn Hajar رحمه الله says: “صدوق اختلط” He was truthful; he had confusion (mix-up). (Taqrib) Dr. Bashar Awad, following him, writes: “Rather, he is trustworthy; before the confusion, his narration is authentic. Ayub al-Sakhtiyani, Yahya ibn Sa’id Al-Qattan, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Bijli, Ibn Sa’d, Ya’qub ibn Sufyan, Nasai, and others declared him trustworthy. Some judged him weak due to confusion, and then Dr. Bashar listed those who heard from Ata before the confusion.”
The rule about a narrator with confusion is that the narrations of students who heard from him before the confusion are authentic. In this chain, Muhammad ibn Fudayl is narrating from Ata, while in the first chain I mentioned, Zaida ibn Qudamah, a student of Ata, heard from him before the confusion. Imam Tabrani says: “He is trustworthy; he became confused in old age, and the narrations from his early students are authentic, such as Sufyan, Shu’bah, Zuhair, and Zaida.”
Imam Bukhari رحمه الله says: “The early narrations of Ata ibn Saib are authentic.”
Imam Bukhari himself narrated from Ata in Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Al-Riqaq, chapter on Al-Hawd
. Therefore, this criticism is rejected and unreliable, and Abdul Razzaq’s research itself is flawed and questionable. Then the Maulana writes: “Another narrator in this chain, Muhammad ibn Fudayl, is not reliable among hadith scholars because he is accused of being Shi’a.”
Firstly, remember that Muhammad ibn Fudayl ibn Ghazwan is also a narrator of the six books and trustworthy. Imam Bukhari رحمه الله narrated the last hadith in Sahih Bukhari from his chain. Abdul Razzaq Sahib should also cancel this hadith in Sahih Bukhari. The Barelvi Imam Ahmad Raza Khan said very well: “They had no shame that Muhammad ibn Fudayl is among the narrators of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.”
Among hadith scholars, the term Shi’ism before the third century Hijri had a different meaning, while today it refers to the Rafidi Shi’a. Allama Dhahabi رحمه الله says: “Yahya ibn Ma’in declared him trustworthy, and Ahmad said his hadith is good but Shi’i.” Then Allama Dhahabi رحمه الله says: “He was called Shi’a only because of his love for Ahl al-Bayt.”
Many trustworthy narrators in the two Sahihs have been described as Shi’a; this is a special terminology of hadith scholars. Abdul Razzaq Sahib should have consulted Mizan and Tahdhib and others to avoid such scholarly errors. In any case, all the objections of the Maulana have been repeatedly refuted, and the authenticity of this hadith has become absolutely clear and evident. He has further guided to the weak Sunan Nasai and Taqrib for details. If only he had the capacity to understand Sheikh Albani رحمه الله‘s research, I would only say that if he had also seen Sheikh Albani’s research on Sunan Ibn Majah, he would not have been deceived.
The above hadith has also been declared authentic by Imam Hakim, Imam Dhahabi, Zia Muqaddasi, Ibn Hibban رحمه الله, and other scholars who have researched Musnad Ahmad, and this narration is absolutely authentic and correct.
