Toggle above to switch between keyword search and direct hadith lookup
مستدرکِ حاکم
Mustadrak al-Hakim
كتاب المغازي والسرايا
Book of Military Expeditions and Raids
قَتْلُ عَلِيٍّ عَمْرَو بْنَ عَبْدِ وُدٍّ رَأْسَ الْكُفَّارِ
Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) killing Amr bin Abd Wudd, the chief of the disbelievers
Mustadrak al-Hakim — Hadith 4378
اُردوEn
أخبرنا أبو جعفر محمد بن محمد بن عبد الله البغدادي، حدَّثنا أبو عُلَاثَة محمد بن خالد، حدَّثنا أبي، حدَّثنا ابن لَهِيعة، قال: قال [أبو الأسود: قال] (1) عُرْوة بن الزبير: وقُتِلَ من كفار قُريش يومَ الخندقِ من بني عامر بن لُؤي، ثُمَّ من بني مالك بن حِسْل: عَمرو بن عَبد وَدِّ بن نَصْر بن مالك بن حِسْلٍ، قتلَه عليُّ بن أبي طالب ﵁ (2). قد ذكرتُ في مقتل عَمرو بن عَبد وَدِّ من الأحاديث المُسنَدَة ومَغازي (3) عُروة بن الزبير وموسى بن عُقبة ومحمد بن إسحاق بن يَسار ما بَلَغَني، ليتَقرّر عند المُنصِفِ من أهل العلم أنَّ عمرو بن عبد وَدٍّ لم يَقتلْه ولم يَشترك في قتله غيرُ أمير المؤمنين عليّ بن أبي طالب ﵁، وإنما حَمَلَني على هذا الاستقصاءِ فيه قولُ مَن قال من الخَوارِج: إنَّ محمد بن مسلمة أيضًا ضربه ضربةً، وأخذ بعض السَّلَبِ (4)، ووالله ما بلَغَنا هذا عن أحدٍ من الصحابة والتابعين ﵃، وكيف يجوزُ هذا وعليٌّ ﵇ يقول ما بلغنا: إني ترفَّعتُ عن سَلَبِ ابن عمِّي فتركته، وهذا جوابُه لأمير المؤمنين عمر بن الخطاب ﵁ بحضرةِ رسول الله ﷺ.
It is narrated from Urwah bin al-Zubayr that on the day of the Battle of the Trench, from among the disbelievers of Quraysh, of Banu Amir bin Lu'ayy and then of Banu Malik bin Hisl, Amr bin Abd Wadd bin Nasr bin Malik bin Hisl was killed by Sayyiduna Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him).
Imam al-Hakim says: I have mentioned, regarding the killing of Amr bin Abd Wadd, what reached me from the hadith with chains (musnad) and from the Maghazi of Urwah bin al-Zubayr, Musa bin Uqbah and Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, so that it may be established before the fair-minded among the people of knowledge that Amr bin Abd Wadd was killed only by the Commander of the Believers Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), and that no one else shared in killing him. What prompted me to such a thorough investigation of this matter was the statement of a Kharijite who claimed that Muhammad bin Maslamah also struck him a blow and took some of his belongings. By Allah! This has not reached us from any Companion or Successor. And how could this be correct, when the statement of Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) has reached us in which he said: "I held myself above taking the belongings of my cousin, so I left them," and this was his reply to the Commander of the Believers Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
Imam al-Hakim says: I have mentioned, regarding the killing of Amr bin Abd Wadd, what reached me from the hadith with chains (musnad) and from the Maghazi of Urwah bin al-Zubayr, Musa bin Uqbah and Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, so that it may be established before the fair-minded among the people of knowledge that Amr bin Abd Wadd was killed only by the Commander of the Believers Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him), and that no one else shared in killing him. What prompted me to such a thorough investigation of this matter was the statement of a Kharijite who claimed that Muhammad bin Maslamah also struck him a blow and took some of his belongings. By Allah! This has not reached us from any Companion or Successor. And how could this be correct, when the statement of Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) has reached us in which he said: "I held myself above taking the belongings of my cousin, so I left them," and this was his reply to the Commander of the Believers Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him).
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Adil Murshid et al.
(1) سقط ذكر أبي الأسود - وهو محمد بن عبد الرحمن المعروف بيتيم عروة - من أصول "المستدرك"، وذكره ابن حجر في "إتحاف المهرة" (24704)، ولا بد من ذكره، وهي صحيفة في المغازي وأخبار الصحابة ومناقبهم يرويها عبد الله بن لهيعة عن أبي الأسود عن عروة بن الزبير، وسيُورد المصنف منها عشرات من الأخبار، وخصوصًا في المناقب، وقد أكثر منها أيضًا الطبراني والبيهقي وغيرهما، وشهرتها أعلى من أن يُدلَّل عليها.
Technical note / Dropped narrator: (1) The mention of "Abu al-Aswad" had dropped out of the original manuscripts of "al-Mustadrak" - he is Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Rahman, known as "the orphan of 'Urwah". Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned him in "Ithaf al-Maharah" (24704), and his mention is necessary.
Details of the narration: It is a "sahifah" (written collection) on the maghazi, the reports about the Companions and their virtues, which 'Abd Allah bin Lahi'ah narrates from Abu al-Aswad, from 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr. The author (al-Hakim) will cite dozens of reports from this sahifah, especially in the virtues (manaqib). Al-Tabarani, al-Bayhaqi and others also drew on it abundantly, and it is too well known to need proof.
(2) رجاله لا بأس بهم غير ابن لهيعة - واسمه عبد الله - ففيه مقال معروف من جهة حفظه، وكان عنده المغازي عن عروة بن الزبير من رواية أبي الأسود محمد بن عبد الرحمن المعروف بيتيم عروة عنه، فالظاهر أنها كانت صحيفةً عنده ضبطها عن أبي الأسود، على أنه قد رُوي مثلُ روايته بأبسط مما هنا عن عروة بن الزبير من طريق أخرى عند ابن إسحاق كما تقدم بيانه برقم (4375) بإسناد حسن إليه. لكن ليس فيها نسب عمرو بن عبد وَدٍّ. وأبو عُلاثة محمد بن خالد: هو محمد بن عمرو بن خالد الحَرَّاني ثم المصري، نُسب هنا لجده.
Grading: (2) There is no harm in its narrators except "Ibn Lahi'ah" ('Abd Allah).
Technical note / Narrator criticism and accreditation: There is well-known criticism of Ibn Lahi'ah regarding his memory. He had the "Maghazi" of 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr in the narration of Abu al-Aswad (the orphan of 'Urwah) from him; apparently it was a "sahifah" that he had preserved accurately from Abu al-Aswad.
Corroborating chains and supporting reports: However, a narration like his, in more detail than here, has been narrated from 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr through another route with Ibn Ishaq, as explained at no. (4375), and its chain up to him is "hasan". But it does not contain the lineage of 'Amr bin 'Abd Wudd.
Note / Clarification: "Abu 'Ulathah Muhammad bin Khalid" is "Muhammad bin 'Amr bin Khalid al-Harrani" (then al-Misri); here he is attributed to his grandfather.
(3) تحرّف هذا اللفظ في النُّسخ الخطية أو بُيِّض له، والصواب ما أثبتنا.
Technical note / Textual investigation: (3) In the manuscripts this word was corrupted or a blank was left in its place; the correct reading is what we have established.
(4) الظاهر أنَّ من قال ذلك التبس عليه ما حصل في غزوة الخندق من قتل علي بن أبي طالب لعمرو بن عبد وَدّ، مع ما حصل في غزوة خيبر من قتل علي بن أبي طالب لمرحب اليهودي، فهذا الأخير هو الذي اختُلف فيه هل قتله عليّ أو محمد بن مسلمة على ما بَسَطَه الحافظُ ابن حجر في "فتح الباري" 12/ 407، فاشتبه الأمر على مَن عَناهُم المصنف، والله أعلم.
Important point / Removing confusion: (4) It appears that whoever said this confused the killing of 'Amr bin 'Abd Wudd by 'Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) in the battle of the Khandaq with the killing of "Marhab the Jew" by 'Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) in the battle of Khaybar. It is the latter about which there is disagreement, whether 'Ali or Muhammad bin Maslamah (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar explained in detail in "Fath al-Bari" (12/ 407). So the matter became confused for those to whom the author referred. And Allah knows best.
Technical note / Dropped narrator: (1) The mention of "Abu al-Aswad" had dropped out of the original manuscripts of "al-Mustadrak" - he is Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Rahman, known as "the orphan of 'Urwah". Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned him in "Ithaf al-Maharah" (24704), and his mention is necessary.
Details of the narration: It is a "sahifah" (written collection) on the maghazi, the reports about the Companions and their virtues, which 'Abd Allah bin Lahi'ah narrates from Abu al-Aswad, from 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr. The author (al-Hakim) will cite dozens of reports from this sahifah, especially in the virtues (manaqib). Al-Tabarani, al-Bayhaqi and others also drew on it abundantly, and it is too well known to need proof.
(2) رجاله لا بأس بهم غير ابن لهيعة - واسمه عبد الله - ففيه مقال معروف من جهة حفظه، وكان عنده المغازي عن عروة بن الزبير من رواية أبي الأسود محمد بن عبد الرحمن المعروف بيتيم عروة عنه، فالظاهر أنها كانت صحيفةً عنده ضبطها عن أبي الأسود، على أنه قد رُوي مثلُ روايته بأبسط مما هنا عن عروة بن الزبير من طريق أخرى عند ابن إسحاق كما تقدم بيانه برقم (4375) بإسناد حسن إليه. لكن ليس فيها نسب عمرو بن عبد وَدٍّ. وأبو عُلاثة محمد بن خالد: هو محمد بن عمرو بن خالد الحَرَّاني ثم المصري، نُسب هنا لجده.
Grading: (2) There is no harm in its narrators except "Ibn Lahi'ah" ('Abd Allah).
Technical note / Narrator criticism and accreditation: There is well-known criticism of Ibn Lahi'ah regarding his memory. He had the "Maghazi" of 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr in the narration of Abu al-Aswad (the orphan of 'Urwah) from him; apparently it was a "sahifah" that he had preserved accurately from Abu al-Aswad.
Corroborating chains and supporting reports: However, a narration like his, in more detail than here, has been narrated from 'Urwah bin al-Zubayr through another route with Ibn Ishaq, as explained at no. (4375), and its chain up to him is "hasan". But it does not contain the lineage of 'Amr bin 'Abd Wudd.
Note / Clarification: "Abu 'Ulathah Muhammad bin Khalid" is "Muhammad bin 'Amr bin Khalid al-Harrani" (then al-Misri); here he is attributed to his grandfather.
(3) تحرّف هذا اللفظ في النُّسخ الخطية أو بُيِّض له، والصواب ما أثبتنا.
Technical note / Textual investigation: (3) In the manuscripts this word was corrupted or a blank was left in its place; the correct reading is what we have established.
(4) الظاهر أنَّ من قال ذلك التبس عليه ما حصل في غزوة الخندق من قتل علي بن أبي طالب لعمرو بن عبد وَدّ، مع ما حصل في غزوة خيبر من قتل علي بن أبي طالب لمرحب اليهودي، فهذا الأخير هو الذي اختُلف فيه هل قتله عليّ أو محمد بن مسلمة على ما بَسَطَه الحافظُ ابن حجر في "فتح الباري" 12/ 407، فاشتبه الأمر على مَن عَناهُم المصنف، والله أعلم.
Important point / Removing confusion: (4) It appears that whoever said this confused the killing of 'Amr bin 'Abd Wudd by 'Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) in the battle of the Khandaq with the killing of "Marhab the Jew" by 'Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) in the battle of Khaybar. It is the latter about which there is disagreement, whether 'Ali or Muhammad bin Maslamah (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar explained in detail in "Fath al-Bari" (12/ 407). So the matter became confused for those to whom the author referred. And Allah knows best.
Source: Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn (Takhrij & Tahqiq: Shaykh Adil Murshid et al.), Page: 4378
