❖ Introduction
This article is a scholarly examination of a statement attributed to ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbbās رضي الله عنهما, which claims:
“There are seven earths, and in every earth is a Prophet like your Prophet ﷺ, an Adam like your Adam, a Nūḥ like your Nūḥ, an Ibrāhīm like your Ibrāhīm, and a ʿĪsā like your ʿĪsā.”
A Deobandi researcher, Muḥammad Nāẓim ʿAbbāsī, attempted to present this narration as credible and usable in argument, despite the fact that both its chains and text have been criticized by scholars of ḥadīth.
In this article, we will:
❀ Analyze both chains of transmission in detail.
❀ Present the criticism of the narrators by major ḥadīth scholars.
❀ Highlight the scholarly criticism of the content of the narration.
❀ Cite the statements of Deobandi scholars on the ḥujjiyyah (authority) of a Companion’s statement.
📜 Both Chains of al-Mustadrak and Criticism of the Narrators
① First Chain (al-Mustadrak 3822)
Chain:
أَخْبَرَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ الثَّقَفِيُّ، ثنا عُبَيْدُ بْنُ غَنَّامٍ النَّخَعِيُّ، أَنْبَأَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ حَكِيمٍ، ثنا شَرِيكٌ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ السَّائِبِ، عَنْ أَبِي الضُّحَى، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ…
Issues in the Chain:
- Sharīk ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Nakhaʿī and ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib have both been criticized due to confusion and weak memory.
- Sharīk’s memory deteriorated after becoming a judge, and ʿAṭāʾ suffered from confirmed ikhtilāṭ (confusion in later years).
- There is doubt as to whether Sharīk heard from ʿAṭāʾ before or after his ikhtilāṭ.
Scholarly Comments:
◈ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (Taqrīb):
شَرِيكُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ النَّخَعِيُّ… صَدُوقٌ يَخْطِئُ كَثِيرًا، تَغَيَّرَ حِفْظُهُ مُنْذُ وُلِّيَ الْقَضَاءَ بِالْكُوفَةِ…
“Ṣadūq, makes many mistakes; his memory declined after he was appointed as a judge in Kūfah.”
📚 Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb
◈ Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ (taḥqīq of Musnad Aḥmad):
وشريكٌ… سَيِّئُ الحِفْظ، ثم لم يتحرر لنا أمرُه: سمع من عطاء قبل الاختلاط أم بعده.
“Sharīk had weak memory, and we are uncertain whether he heard from ʿAṭāʾ before or after his ikhtilāṭ.”
📚 Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad (taḥqīq: Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ et al.), at no. 16400
◈ al-Haythamī (Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid):
وفيه عطاء بن السائب، وقد اختلط.
“In the chain is ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib, who suffered from ikhtilāṭ.”
📚 Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, by al-Haythamī (comment on the narration of al-Ṭabarānī’s al-Awsaṭ)
② Second Chain (al-Mustadrak 3823)
Chain:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ الْقَاضِي، ثنا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ الْحُسَيْنِ… عن أبي الضُّحى، عن ابن عباس…
Key Issue:
- The main narrator, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥasan al-Qāḍī al-Hamadhānī, has been explicitly accused of lying and extreme weakness; therefore this chain is discarded and unreliable.
Scholarly Criticism:
◈ al-Dhahabī (Tārīkh al-Islām):
… رماه بالكذب القاسمُ بنُ أبي صالح… وقال صالحُ بن أحمد الهمداني: ضعيف…
“Qāsim ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ accused him of lying. Ṣāliḥ ibn Aḥmad al-Hamadhānī said he was weak.”
📚 Tārīkh al-Islām
◈ Ibn ʿIrāq al-Kinānī (Tanzīh al-Sharīʿah):
عبدُ الرَّحمنِ بنُ الحسنِ… كذّبه القاسمُ بنُ أبي صالح.
“ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥasan… was declared a liar by Qāsim ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ.”
📚 Tanzīh al-Sharīʿah
◈ al-Manāwī (Fayḍ al-Qadīr):
وفيه عبدُ الرحمن بنُ الحسنِ الأسدي… أورده الذهبي وغيره في الضعفاء ورماه بالكذب.
“He was listed among weak narrators by al-Dhahabī and others and was accused of lying.”
📚 Fayḍ al-Qadīr
📜 Criticism of the Text of the Narration
③ al-Dhahabī:
… وهذه بَلِيَّةٌ تُحَيِّرُ السامع، كتبتُها استطْرادًا للتعجُّب، وهو من قبيل اسْمَعْ واسْكُتْ.
“This is a bewildering calamity for the listener. I recorded it out of astonishment. Such reports should be met with: ‘Hear and remain silent.'” (i.e., neither affirmed nor refuted by way of authentication).
📚 al-ʿUlū lil-ʿAliyy al-Ghaffār
④ Ibn Kathīr:
… وهو محمولٌ إن صحَّ نقله عنه على أنه أخذه عن الإسرائيليات والله أعلم.
“Even if this narration is authentically attributed, it should be understood as coming from Isrāʾīliyyāt (Judaic traditions), and Allah knows best.”
📚 al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah
⑤ al-Sakhāwī:
فهو محمول إن صح نقله عنه… على أنه أخذه عن الإسرائيليات، وذلك وأمثاله… إن لم يُخبر به ويصح سنده إلى معصوم فهو مردودٌ على قائله.
“If its attribution is authentic, it is still to be seen as taken from Isrāʾīliyyāt. Such narrations are rejected back upon the one who says them unless proven with an authentic chain to an infallible authority.”
📚 al-Maqāṣid al-Ḥasanah
⑥ Ibn Burhān al-Ḥalabī, quoting al-Bayhaqī:
قال البيهقي: إسناده صحيح لكنه شاذٌّ بالمرة… لا يلزم من صحة الإسناد صحة المتن… فهو ضعيف.
“Its chain is authentic but the content is extremely anomalous. An authentic chain does not imply the authenticity of the text. Therefore, it is weak.”
📚 al-Sīrah al-Ḥalabiyyah (Insān al-ʿUyūn)
⑦ Abū Ḥayyān al-Andalusī:
… وعن ابن عباس، من رواية الواقدي الكذّاب… وهذا حديث لا شك في وضعه.
“Attributed to Ibn ʿAbbās, but through the narration of al-Wāqidī — a known liar. There is no doubt this narration is fabricated.”
📚 al-Baḥr al-Muḥīṭ fī al-Tafsīr
✿ Summary and Conclusion
❀ The first chain is unreliable due to ikhtilāṭ and weakness in Sharīk and ʿAṭāʾ ibn al-Sāʾib.
❀ The second chain is entirely invalidated by the kadhb (lying) of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Ḥasan.
❀ The content of the narration — according to the statements of the imams (al-Dhahabī, Ibn Kathīr, al-Sakhāwī, al-Ḥalabī, and Abū Ḥayyān) — is agreed to be not fit to be used as evidence.
Scans of Important References
