In this research article, we present the statements of the scholars of Jarḥ wa Taʿdīl regarding the well-known narrator Fudayl ibn Marzūq al-Aghar al-Ru’āsī al-Kūfī Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (d. after 150 AH).
He was a Kūfan narrator about whom errors, frequent mistakes, and attribution of Shiʿism were reported. Some scholars declared him ṣadūq (truthful), but the majority did not consider him suitable for independent proof (iḥtijāj).
❀ In this article, the statements of twenty (20) hadith scholars are presented with the original Arabic text, English translation, and references.
❀ At the end, clarification is also given regarding where Imām Muslim mentioned his narrations and at what level.
① Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ الأَغَرُّ الرُّؤَاسِيُّ كُوفِيٌّ… سَأَلْتُ أَبِي عَنْهُ فَقَالَ: هُوَ صَدُوقٌ صَالِحُ الحَدِيثِ، يَهِمُ كَثِيرًا، يُكْتَبُ حَدِيثُهُ. قُلْتُ: يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ؟ قَالَ: لَا.»
📚
Translation:
He is ṣadūq and sound in hadith, but he makes many mistakes. His hadith is recorded, but it is not used as proof.
② Imām al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī رحمه الله
(From the Questions of al-Sijzī) + Clarification of Ibn Ḥajar
Arabic Text (al-Ḥākim):
«وسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ: فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ لَيْسَ مِنْ شَرْطِ الصَّحِيحِ، فَعِيبَ عَلَى مُسْلِمٍ بِإِخْرَاجِهِ فِي الصَّحِيحِ.»
📚
Translation:
Fudayl ibn Marzūq does not meet the conditions of Ṣaḥīḥ, and for this reason Imām Muslim was criticized for including him in his Ṣaḥīḥ.
Clarification of Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله:
«قال الحاكم: ذَكَرَهُ مُسْلِمٌ فِي الشَّوَاهِدِ.»
📚
Translation:
Al-Ḥākim clarified that Imām Muslim mentioned him only in supporting narrations (shawāhid).
③ Imām Ibn Ḥibbān رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«… روى عنه العراقيون مُنْكَرَ الحَدِيثِ جِدًّا، كَانَ يُخْطِئُ عَلَى الثِّقَاتِ، ويَرْوِي عَن عَطِيَّةَ المَوْضُوعَات… فَمَا وَافَقَ الثِّقَاتِ يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ، وَمَا انْفَرَدَ لا يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ.»
📚
Translation:
(A Kūfan narrator) the Iraqis narrated from him; he is very munkar al-ḥadīth (objectionable in hadith), makes mistakes regarding reliable narrators, and narrates fabricated reports from ʿAṭiyyah. Therefore, whatever agrees with reliable narrators may be used as proof, but whatever he narrates independently is not used as proof.
④ Imām al-Nasā’ī رحمه الله
Arabic Text (reported):
«ضَعَّفَهُ النَّسَائِيُّ وَابْنُ مَعِينٍ.»
📚
Translation:
Al-Nasā’ī and Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn declared him weak.
⑤ Imām Ibn ʿAdī رحمه الله (with clarification by al-Dhahabī)
Arabic Text (Ibn ʿAdī):
«وَلِفُضَيْلٍ أَحَادِيثُ حِسَانٌ، وَأَرْجُو أَنَّهُ لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ.»
📚
Translation:
Fudayl has some good hadith, and I hope there is no harm in him.
Clarification (al-Dhahabī):
«قال ابن عدي: عندي أنّه إذا وافق الثقات يُحْتَجُّ به.»
📚
Translation:
According to Ibn ʿAdī, if he agrees with reliable narrators, then his narration may be used as proof.
⑥ Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī / Ibn al-Qaysarānī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«رَوَاهُ فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ، عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الخُدْرِيِّ… وَفُضَيْلٌ ضَعِيفٌ.»
📚
Translation:
This narration is reported by Fudayl ibn Marzūq from ʿAṭiyyah, from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī (may Allah be pleased with him)… but Fudayl is weak.
⑦ Imām ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«قُلْتُ: فَفُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ؟ فَقَالَ: لَيْسَ بِهِ بَأْسٌ. قَالَ عُثْمَانُ: يُقَالُ فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ ضَعِيفٌ.»
📚
Translation:
I asked: What about Fudayl ibn Marzūq? He (Ibn Maʿīn) said: There is no harm in him. But ʿUthmān (al-Dārimī) said: People call him weak.
⑧ Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«وَعَنْ يَحْيَى بْنِ مَعِينٍ… قَالَ: فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ ضَعِيفٌ.»
📚
Translation:
It is reported from Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: Fudayl ibn Marzūq is weak.
❖ Ibn Shāhīn clarified:
«وَثَّقَهُ مَرَّةً، وَضَعَّفَهُ أُخْرَى، وَالأَخِيرُ هُوَ الْمُعْتَمَدُ.»
Translation:
He declared him trustworthy once and weak another time; and declaring him weak is what is relied upon.
⑨ Imām al-Bukhārī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«قَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ: فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ مُقَارِبُ الحَدِيثِ.»
📚
Translation:
Imām al-Bukhārī said: Fudayl ibn Marzūq is muqārib al-ḥadīth (his hadith is close, but not fully reliable).
❖ al-Dhahabī commented:
«قُلْتُ: لا يَرْتَقِي خَبَرُهُ إِلَى دَرَجَةِ الصِّحَّةِ وَالِاحْتِجَاجِ.»
📚
Translation:
I (al-Dhahabī) say: His reports do not reach the level of authenticity and being used as proof.
⑩ Imām Ibn al-Jawzī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«2726 – فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ الرَّقَاشِيُّ الكُوفِيُّ… قَالَ يَحْيَى: ضَعِيفٌ. وَقَالَ الرَّازِيُّ: لا يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ. وَقَالَ ابْنُ حِبَّانَ: يُخْطِئُ عَلَى الثِّقَاتِ وَيَرْوِي عَن عَطِيَّةَ المَوْضُوعَاتِ.»
📚
He also said:
«هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مَوْضُوعٌ… وَفُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ ضَعَّفَهُ يَحْيَى.»
📚
Translation:
Fudayl ibn Marzūq is weak; his hadith is not used as proof; he makes mistakes regarding reliable narrators and narrates fabricated reports from ʿAṭiyyah. About the narration of the sun returning for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه he said: This is fabricated, and Fudayl ibn Marzūq is weak.
⑪ Imām al-Suyūṭī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«قَالَ الجَوْزَقَانِي: هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُنْكَرٌ مُضْطَرِبٌ. وَقَالَ الْمُؤَلِّفُ (السيوطي): مَوْضُوعٌ اضْطَرَبَ.»
📚
Translation:
Al-Jawzaqānī said: This hadith is objectionable and inconsistent.
Al-Suyūṭī said: It is fabricated and inconsistent.
⑫ Imām Ibn Kathīr رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«… فَإِنَّهُ قَدْ يَتَسَاهَلُ، وَلَا سِيَّمَا فِيمَا يُوَافِقُ مَذْهَبَهُ، فَيَرْوِي عَمَّنْ لَا يَعْرِفُهُ، أَوْ يُحْسِنُ بِهِ الظَّنَّ، فَيُدَلِّسُ حَدِيثَهُ… وَشَيْخُهُ إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ الْحَسَنِ لَيْسَ بِالمَشْهُورِ.»
📚
Translation:
He (Fudayl) would sometimes be lenient, especially in matters that agreed with his madhhab. He would narrate from people he did not even know, or take from them out of good opinion, and practise tadlīs. His teacher Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥasan is also not well known.
⑬ Imām al-Bayhaqī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«5131 – يَزِيدُ بْنُ هَارُونَ، أَنْبَأَ فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ، حَدَّثَنِي الْوَلِيدُ بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ … وَهَذَا حَدِيثٌ فِي إِسْنَادِهِ ضَعْفٌ.»
📚
Translation:
Regarding a narration reported through the chain of Fudayl ibn Marzūq, he said: There is weakness in its chain.
⑭ Imām al-Jawzaqānī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«154 – … أَخْبَرَنَا فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ … هَذَا حَدِيثٌ مُنْكَرٌ مُضْطَرِبٌ.»
📚
Translation:
Regarding a narration reported through Fudayl ibn Marzūq, he said: This hadith is munkar (objectionable) and muḍṭarib (inconsistent).
⑮ Imām al-ʿUqaylī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«… فَقَالَتْ أَسْمَاءُ: فَوَاللهِ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُهَا غَابَتْ ثُمَّ طَلَعَتْ … وَلَا يُتَابَعُ عَلَيْهِمَا بِهَذَا الْإِسْنَادِ… وَأَمَّا الثَّانِي فَالرِّوَايَةُ فِيهِ لَيِّنَةٌ.»
📚
Translation:
Regarding the narration of Asmāʾ (may Allah be pleased with her) through Fudayl ibn Marzūq, he said: There is no corroboration for them with this chain. And about the second narration he said: This chain is layyin (weak).
⑯ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«5437 – فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ الأَغَرُّ بالرَّاءِ، الرُّقَاشِيُّ الكُوفِيُّ، أَبُو عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، صَدُوقٌ يَهِمُ، ورُمِيَ بِالتَّشَيُّعِ.»
📚
Translation:
Truthful, but makes mistakes, and was accused of Shiʿism.
⑰ Imām Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«وَأَمَّا الإِسْنَادُ الثَّانِي فَمَدَارُهُ عَلَى فُضَيْلِ بْنِ مَرْزُوقٍ، وَهُوَ مَعْرُوفٌ بِالْخَطَأِ عَلَى الثِّقَاتِ، وَإِنْ كَانَ لا يَتَعَمَّدُ الكَذِبَ.»
📚
Translation:
This chain revolves around Fudayl ibn Marzūq, who is known for making mistakes regarding reliable narrators, though he did not deliberately lie.
⑱ Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«3390 – فُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ الرَّقَاشِيُّ: عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، ضَعَّفَهُ ابْنُ مَعِينٍ وَغَيْرُهُ.»
📚
He also said:
«وَضَعَّفَهُ النَّسَائِيُّ وَابْنُ مَعِينٍ، وَقَالَ الحَاكِمُ: عِيبَ عَلَى مُسْلِمٍ إِخْرَاجُهُ فِي صَحِيحِهِ.»
📚
Translation:
Ibn Maʿīn and others declared Fudayl ibn Marzūq weak. Imām al-Nasāʾī also declared him weak, and al-Ḥākim said: Imām Muslim was criticized for including his narration.
⑲ Imām Ibn Shāhīn رحمه الله
Arabic Text:
«507 – الفُضَيْلُ بْنُ مَرْزُوقٍ الأَغَرُّ. وَثَّقَهُ سُفْيَانُ الثَّوْرِيُّ، وَضَعَّفَهُ يَحْيَى بْنُ مَعِينٍ.»
📚
Translation:
Sufyān al-Thawrī declared him trustworthy, but Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn declared him weak.
⑳ Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ رحمه الله
Statement:
In his verification of Musnad Aḥmad, he declared Fudayl ibn Marzūq’s independent narrations weak.
Translation:
The contemporary scholar Shaykh Shuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ clarified that when Fudayl narrates independently, his narration is weak and not relied upon.
✦ His Status in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim
❖ Imām Muslim mentioned only two narrations of Fudayl ibn Marzūq (in the Book of Zakāh), and only as supporting narrations.
Statement of al-Ḥākim:
«قال الحاكم: فضيل بن مرزوق ذكره مسلم في الشواهد.»
📚
Translation:
Imām al-Ḥākim said: Imām Muslim mentioned the narration of Fudayl ibn Marzūq merely among supporting narrations (shawāhid), not as original proof.
✦ Summary
Balance of Criticism and Praise
✔ Some scholars declared him ṣadūq or “no harm in him” (Abū Ḥātim, Ibn ʿAdī, etc.).
✖ The majority declared him weak, prone to error, objectionable in hadith, and accused of Shiʿism (Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Nasā’ī, Ibn Maʿīn, al-Jawzaqānī, Ibn al-Jawzī, etc.).
Principled Conclusion
① When Fudayl ibn Marzūq agrees with reliable narrators, his narration may be accepted as support.
② When he narrates independently, his report is not relied upon, as clarified by the majority of hadith scholars.
Specific Example — The Return of the Sun
The narration of the sun returning for ʿAlī رضي الله عنه is primarily transmitted through him.
Scholars declared it false, objectionable or fabricated (Ibn al-Jawzī, Ibn al-Qayyim, al-Suyūṭī, Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Taymiyyah, etc.).
His Position in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim
Imām Muslim mentioned his narrations only twice (Book of Zakāh), and solely as supporting evidence (shawāhid/mutābaʿāt) — not as foundational proof.
Imām al-Ḥākim also said the same: «ذكره مسلم في الشواهد».
✦ Final Conclusion
❖ Fudayl ibn Marzūq was a ṣadūq narrator who made frequent mistakes and was associated with Shiʿism.
❖ His narrations may be used in follow-ups and supporting chains, but his independent reports are not suitable for proof.
❖ Even in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, his narrations appear only as supporting evidence, demonstrating that the scholars did not rely upon him independently.
Scans of Important References
