A Review of the Thirteen Narrations of al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim:
Narration No. 1
The slave of Ziyad said:
أَرْسَلَنِي زِيَادٌ إِلَى حُجْرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ وَيُقَالُ فِيهِ: ابْنُ الْأَدْبَرِ فَأَبَى أَنْ يَأْتِيَهُ، ثُمَّ أَعَادَنِي الثَّانِيَةَ فَأَبَى أَنْ يَأْتِيَهُ قَالَ: فَأَرْسَلَ إِلَيْهِ إِنِّي أُحَذِّرُكَ أَنْ تَرْكَبَ أَعْجَازَ أُمُورٍ هَلَكَ مَنْ رَكِبَ صُدُورَهَا۔
“Ziyad sent me to Hujr bin Adi to summon him; he used to be called “Ibn al-Adbar”. So he refused to come. He sent me a second time, but this time too he refused to come. Then he sent a message to him saying: I warn you against pursuing matters whose chests those who rode them have perished.”
With the bismillah, the very first narration is weak. In its chain there is a narrator, “Muhammad bin Zubayr al-Hanzali”, who is severely criticised; Imam Ibn Ma’in, Abu Hatim al-Razi, al-Bukhari, al-Nasa’i, Ibn Adi, Ibn Hibban and others declared him weak.
And there is nothing in it in line with the Engineer’s claim.
Narration No. 2
عَنْ زِيَادِ بْنِ عُلَاثَةَ قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ حُجْرَ بْنَ الْأَدْبَرِ حِينَ أَخْرَجَ بِهِ زِيَادٌ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ، وَرِجْلَاهُ مِنْ جَانِبٍ وَهُوَ عَلَى بَعِيرٍ۔
“Ziyad bin Ulathah said: I saw Hujr bin al-Adbar when Ziyad sent him to Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). He was riding a camel and both his feet were on one side.”
In this, al-A’mash is a mudallis (one who practises tadlis) and he narrates with “an”. And Mirza sahib used to say that a narration of a mudallis with “an” is weak by consensus, and that this is the agreed principle of the hadith scholars. But since it is now the turn of objections against Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), he does not see al-A’mash in this chain, nor does he remember any principle about tadlis. Because there is only one principle: whatever is against Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) is all sahih, and whatever is narrated in his virtues and in his favour is all weak and fabricated.
Narration No. 3
Mus’ab bin Abdullah al-Zubayri says:
حُجْرُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ الْكِنْدِيُّ يُكَنَّى أَبَا عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، كَانَ قَدْ وَفَدَ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَشَهِدَ الْقَادِسِيَّةَ، وَشَهِدَ الْجَمَلَ، وَصِفِّينَ مَعَ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ، قَتَلَهُ مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ بِمَرْجِ عَذْرَاءَ، وَكَانَ لَهُ ابْنَانِ: عَبْدُ اللهِ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ قَتَلَهُمَا مُصْعَبُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ صَبْرًا، وَقُتِلَ حُجْرٌ سَنَةَ ثَلَاثٍ وَخَمْسِينَ۔
“The kunyah of Hujr bin Adi al-Kindi is “Abu Abd al-Rahman”. He came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ as part of a delegation. He took part in the Battle of Qadisiyyah, the Battle of the Camel and Siffin alongside Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Mu’awiyah bin Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him) killed him as a martyr at the place Marj Adhra. He had two sons, Abdullah and Abd al-Rahman, whom Mus’ab bin al-Zubayr bound and killed. Hujr bin Adi was killed in 53 AH.”
Narration No. 4
عَنْ نَافِعٍ قَالَ: لَمَّا كَانَ لَيَالِي بَعْثِ حُجْرٍ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ جَعَلَ النَّاسُ يَتَحَيَّرُونَ وَيَقُولُونَ: مَا فَعَلَ حُجْرٌ؟ فَأَتَى خَبَرُهُ ابْنَ عُمَرَ وَهُوَ مُخْتَبِئٌ فِي السُّوقِ، فَأَطْلَقَ حَبْوَتَهُ وَوَثَبَ، وَانْطَلَقَ فَجَعَلْتُ أَسْمَعُ نَحِيبَهُ، وَهُوَ مُوَلٍّ۔
“Nafi’ says: On the night Hujr bin Adi was being sent to Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), people were asking in bewilderment what had become of Hujr. When his news reached Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), he was at that time hiding somewhere in the market; he ended his hiding and came out among the people. As he was going back, I heard the sound of him weeping bitterly.”
This narration is sahih, but there is nothing in it in line with Mirza sahib’s claim. And to take the weeping of Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) as the basis for saying that Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) considered it an unjust killing is not correct. No such definitive judgment can be made merely from his weeping, because weeping at the killing of someone very close and dear is a natural act, even if he was killed because of some crime. But if, according to Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both), this was an unjust killing, then why did he (may Allah be pleased with him) not raise his voice against the injustice? If it was oppression, why did he not condemn it? He could at least have said a couple of words of opposition! Fine, if not even that, he would at least have disliked it in his heart; so bring and prove that he (may Allah be pleased with him) called it wrong. None of this is proven at all; had it been, you people would never have held back from mentioning it. Fine, for a minute let us even accept this useless story of yours that Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) was a passive person who strongly avoided rebelling against rulers or opposing them, and that in contrast you then say that Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was of an (active) temperament, he would not compromise at all, and he raised the voice of truth against a tyrannical ruler like Yazid and rebelled against him. Then tell us, did Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) rebel against Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him)? Did he condemn this act of his? Not at all!
And even if it is accepted that Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) considered it an unjust killing, that is his understanding; but on the other side, Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was the ruler of the time and a mujtahid, and he did not have this killing carried out for any such reason as Mirza sahib is describing. And he took this step after full deliberation and proper consultation, as will come ahead.
Narration No. 5
عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، قَالَ: رَأَيْتُ حُجْرَ بْنَ عَدِيٍّ وَهُوَ يَقُولُ: أَلَا إِنِّي عَلَى بَيْعَتِي لَا أُقِيلُهَا، وَلَا أَسْتَقِيلُهَا سَمَاعَ اللهِ وَالنَّاسِ۔
“Abu Ishaq says that I saw Hujr bin Adi, and he was saying: Beware! I stand by my pledge of allegiance; I have neither broken it nor do I wish to break it. He said this, taking Allah the Exalted and the people as witnesses.”
In this, Sufyan al-Thawri is a mudallis; indeed Mirza sahib used to say that al-A’mash and Sufyan al-Thawri are the imams of the mudallisin. And on this basis he has declared many narrations weak, but the principles Mirza sahib states remain only at the level of statement.
Narration No. 6
عَنْ بِشْرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الْحَضْرَمِيِّ، قَالَ: لَمَّا بَعَثَ زِيَادٌ بِحُجْرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ إِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ أَمَرَ مُعَاوِيَةُ بِحَبْسِهِ بِمَكَانٍ يُقَالُ لَهُ: مَرْجُ عَذْرَاءَ، ثُمَّ اسْتَشَارَ النَّاسَ فِيهِ قَالَ: فَجَعَلُوا يَقُولُونَ: الْقَتْل الْقَتْل. قَالَ: فَقَامَ عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسَدٍ الْبَجَلِيُّ فَقَالَ: يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، أَنْتَ رَاعِينَا وَنَحْنُ رَعِيَّتُكَ، وَأَنْتَ رُكْنُنَا وَنَحْنُ عِمَادُكَ، إِنْ عَاقَبْتَ قُلْنَا: أَصَبْتَ، وَإِنْ عَفَوْتَ قُلْنَا: أَحْسَنْتَ وَالْعَفْوُ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى، وَكُلُّ رَاعٍ مَسْئُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ، قَالَ: فَتَفَرَّقَ النَّاسُ عَنْ قَوْلِهِ۔
“Bishr ibn Abdullah al-Hadrami says: When Ziyad sent Hujr ibn Adi to Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), Mu’awiyah ordered that he be imprisoned at a place called “Marj Adhra”. Then he consulted the people about him, and the people began to say: Kill him, kill him. Then Abdullah ibn Zayd ibn Asad al-Bajali stood up and said: O Commander of the Believers! You are our ruler and we are your subjects, you are our foundation and we are your pillars. If you punish, we will say that you did right, and if you pardon, we will say that you did well, and pardoning is closer to piety. And every person in charge will be asked about those under his charge. Then all the people disagreed with this statement of Abdullah ibn Zayd (that pardoning is good).”
This narration is plainly against Mirza Sahib, and its mention was not made at all while telling the story. Only insults were emphasised.
Narration No. 7
Abu Mikhnaf states that:
أَنَّ هَدِيَّةَ بْنَ فَيَّاضٍ الْأَعْوَرَ أُمِرَ بِقَتْلِ حُجْرِ بْنِ عَدِيٍّ، فَمَشَى إِلَيْهِ بِالسَّيْفِ، فَارْتَعَدَتْ فَرَائِصُهُ فَقَالَ: يَا حُجْرُ أَلَيْسَ زَعَمْتَ أَنَّكَ لَا تَجْزَعُ مِنَ الْمَوْتِ، فَإِنَّا نَدَعُكَ فَقَالَ: وَمَا لِي لَا أَجْزَعُ، وَأَنَا أَرَى قَبْرًا مَحْفُورًا، وَكَفَنًا مَنْشُورًا، وَسَيْفًا مَشْهُورًا، وَإِنِّي وَاللهِ لَنْ أَقُولَ مَا يُسْخِطُ الرَّبَّ۔
“Hadiyah ibn Fayyad al-A’war was ordered to kill Hujr ibn Adi. He advanced toward him with his sword, and Hujr was seized by trembling. Hadiyah ibn Fayyad said: Did you not claim that you do not fear death? So that we may let you go. He replied: Why should I not fear, when I see a dug grave, a spread-out shroud, and a drawn sword? And by Allah! I will never say anything that would anger the Lord.”
This narration is weak (da’if). Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya is a severely weak narrator, rather a liar. Imam al-Dhahabi declared him fallen (saqit) and abandoned (matruk).
And he said: لوط بْن يحيى، أَبُو مخنف الكوفي الرافضي….. قَالَ ابْنُ مَعِينٍ: لَيْسَ بِثِقَةٍ، وَقَالَ أَبُوحاتم: متروك الحديث، وقال الدارقطني: أخباري ضعيف۔
“Lut ibn Yahya Abu Mikhnaf al-Kufi is a Rafidi. Imam Ibn Ma’in declared him “laysa bi thiqah” (not reliable), Imam Abu Hatim declared him “matruk al-hadith” (his hadith is abandoned), and Imam al-Daraqutni declared him a “weak akhbari” (a narrator of stories).”
This is the briefest criticism quoted about him. Moreover, some imams have even declared him a liar.
A particular group, and Mirza Engineer Sahib who follows in their footsteps, who shed crocodile tears and lament “alas, alas” after narrating such incidents, all of that consists of stories prepared by this very narrator and liars like him. Many fabricated tales are also narrated regarding this killing, so that the matter may be given a different colour and the way be paved for reproach and slander against Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him).
