Toggle above to switch between keyword search and direct hadith lookup
مستدرکِ حاکم
Mustadrak al-Hakim
كتاب الحدود
Book of Prescribed Punishments
أَحَادِيثُ قَطْعِ يَدِ السَّارِقِ
Hadiths about cutting off the hand of the thief
Mustadrak al-Hakim — Hadith 8341
اُردوEn
حدَّثنا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب، حدَّثنا أبو زُرْعة الدمشقي، حدَّثنا أحمد بن خالد الوَهْبي، حدَّثنا محمد بن إسحاق، عن أيوب بن موسى، عن عطاء، عن ابن عباس قال: كان ثمنُ المِجَنِّ في عهد رسول الله ﷺ يُقوَّمُ عشرة دراهمَ (3).
هذا حديث صحيح على شرط مسلم، ولم يُخرجاه. وشاهدُه حديث أيمَنَ:
[التعليق - من تلخيص الذهبي] ترقيم العلميه 8142 - على شرط مسلم
هذا حديث صحيح على شرط مسلم، ولم يُخرجاه. وشاهدُه حديث أيمَنَ:
[التعليق - من تلخيص الذهبي] ترقيم العلميه 8142 - على شرط مسلم
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) the price of a shield was estimated at ten dirhams.
This hadith is sahih (authentic) on the condition of Imam Muslim, but the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim) did not record it; and its supporting report (shahid) is the hadith of Ayman.
This hadith is sahih (authentic) on the condition of Imam Muslim, but the two Shaykhs (Bukhari and Muslim) did not record it; and its supporting report (shahid) is the hadith of Ayman.
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Adil Murshid et al.
(3) إسناده ضعيف لاضطراب محمد بن إسحاق في إسناده كما بينه الحافظ ابن حجر في "فتح الباري" 21/ 497 - 499، وقد أشار البخاري في "التاريخ الكبير" 2/ 25 إلى وجوه الاختلاف في إسناده عن عطاء، ثم الاختلاف فيه على محمد بن إسحاق، ثم أورد حديث ابن عمر في تقدير ثمن المجن بثلاثة دراهم - وهو في "صحيحه" (6795)، و "صحيح مسلم" (1686). وقال: وهذا أصحُّ. وكذلك بين النسائي في "السنن الكبرى" 7/ 29 - 32 الاختلاف في إسناده، وكذا البيهقي في "السنن الكبرى" 8/ 256 - 257، وفي "معرفة السنن والآثار" (17089 - 17092) بين الاختلاف فيه، وأعله أيضًا بمخالفة محمد بن إسحاق.
Grading: Its isnad is da'if (weak).
Technical note / Defect ('illah): The reason for this is the "idtirab" (inconsistency) of Muhammad bin Ishaq in the isnad, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar explained in "Fath al-Bari" 21/ 497 - 499. Al-Bukhari, in "al-Tarikh al-Kabir" 2/ 25, pointed to the different versions of its isnad from Ata', and then to the disagreement over it from Muhammad bin Ishaq; then he cited the hadith of Ibn Umar in which the price of the shield is estimated at three dirhams — and it is in his "Sahih" (6795) and in "Sahih Muslim" (1686) — and said: This is more authentic. Likewise al-Nasa'i clarified the disagreement in its isnad in "al-Sunan al-Kubra" 7/ 29 - 32, and al-Bayhaqi also set out the disagreement in "al-Sunan al-Kubra" 8/ 256 - 257 and in "Ma'rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar" (17089 - 17092), and he also declared it "ma'lul" (defective) because of Muhammad bin Ishaq's contradiction (of others).
وقال ابن عبد البر في "التمهيد" 14/ 381: وليس في شيء من هذه الأسانيد التي وردت بذكر المجن أصحُّ من إسناد حديث ابن عمر عند أهل العلم بالنقل.
Important point: Ibn Abd al-Barr said in "al-Tamhid" 14/ 381: Of all the isnads that have come mentioning the shield (mijann), none is more authentic, in the view of the scholars of transmission, than the isnad of the hadith of Ibn Umar.
وأخرجه أبو داود (4387)، والنسائي (7397) من طريق ابن نمير، عن ابن إسحاق، بهذا الإسناد من قول ابن عباس.
Corroborating chains and supporting reports: It was narrated by Abu Dawud (4387) and al-Nasa'i (7397) via Ibn Numayr, from Ibn Ishaq, with this same isnad, as the statement of Ibn Abbas (mawquf).
وانظر تتمة تخريجه والكلام عليه في "سنن أبي داود" (1387) طبعة الرسالة العالمية.
Note / Clarification: See the rest of its takhrij and the discussion of it in "Sunan Abi Dawud" (1387), al-Risalah al-Alamiyyah edition.
Grading: Its isnad is da'if (weak).
Technical note / Defect ('illah): The reason for this is the "idtirab" (inconsistency) of Muhammad bin Ishaq in the isnad, as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar explained in "Fath al-Bari" 21/ 497 - 499. Al-Bukhari, in "al-Tarikh al-Kabir" 2/ 25, pointed to the different versions of its isnad from Ata', and then to the disagreement over it from Muhammad bin Ishaq; then he cited the hadith of Ibn Umar in which the price of the shield is estimated at three dirhams — and it is in his "Sahih" (6795) and in "Sahih Muslim" (1686) — and said: This is more authentic. Likewise al-Nasa'i clarified the disagreement in its isnad in "al-Sunan al-Kubra" 7/ 29 - 32, and al-Bayhaqi also set out the disagreement in "al-Sunan al-Kubra" 8/ 256 - 257 and in "Ma'rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar" (17089 - 17092), and he also declared it "ma'lul" (defective) because of Muhammad bin Ishaq's contradiction (of others).
وقال ابن عبد البر في "التمهيد" 14/ 381: وليس في شيء من هذه الأسانيد التي وردت بذكر المجن أصحُّ من إسناد حديث ابن عمر عند أهل العلم بالنقل.
Important point: Ibn Abd al-Barr said in "al-Tamhid" 14/ 381: Of all the isnads that have come mentioning the shield (mijann), none is more authentic, in the view of the scholars of transmission, than the isnad of the hadith of Ibn Umar.
وأخرجه أبو داود (4387)، والنسائي (7397) من طريق ابن نمير، عن ابن إسحاق، بهذا الإسناد من قول ابن عباس.
Corroborating chains and supporting reports: It was narrated by Abu Dawud (4387) and al-Nasa'i (7397) via Ibn Numayr, from Ibn Ishaq, with this same isnad, as the statement of Ibn Abbas (mawquf).
وانظر تتمة تخريجه والكلام عليه في "سنن أبي داود" (1387) طبعة الرسالة العالمية.
Note / Clarification: See the rest of its takhrij and the discussion of it in "Sunan Abi Dawud" (1387), al-Risalah al-Alamiyyah edition.
Source: Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sahihayn (Takhrij & Tahqiq: Shaykh Adil Murshid et al.), Page: 8341
