This article is a refutation of the well-known yet rejected and highly inconsistent story which claims that a female servant drank the urine of the Prophet ﷺ, and that he ﷺ gave her glad tidings of protection from Hell or cure from illness.
Although this narration appears in some Sunan and other books, however:
① There is an unknown female narrator in its chain.
② One of its transmitters suffered confusion (ikhtilāṭ) in the latter part of his life.
③ The text contains severe inconsistencies (sometimes only mentioning a cup, sometimes “drinking,” sometimes “protection from Hell,” sometimes “no stomach illness,” etc.).
Therefore, in this article, we shall detail these three defects and clarify that this narration is unacceptable.
The Original Narration
Arabic Text (via al-Bayhaqī / Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim):
13406 – «… عن حُكَيْمَةَ بنتِ أمَيْمَة، عن أمَيْمَة أمِّها: أنَّ النبيَّ ﷺ كان يَبُولُ في قَدَحٍ من عيدانٍ، ثم يضعه تحت سريره… فجاء فأراده، فإذا القدحُ ليس فيه شيء، فقال لامرأةٍ يقال لها بركة…: “أين البول الذي كان في هذا القدح؟” قالت: شربتُه يا رسولَ الله.»
وبعض الطرق فيها زيادات: «… فقال: لقد احتظرتِ من النار بحظار» / «… لا تشتكي بطنَك…»
Reference:
(relevant chapters);
(with similar wording).
Translation
It is narrated from Umaymah رضي الله عنها that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would urinate at night into a wooden cup and place it beneath his bed. One day when he ﷺ sought the cup, it was empty. He ﷺ asked a woman named Barakah (who had come from Abyssinia with Umm Ḥabībah رضي الله عنها): “Where is the urine that was in this cup?” She replied, “I drank it, O Messenger of Allah!”
(Some narrations add: “You have shielded yourself from the Fire,” or “You will not suffer from stomach illness.”)
These additional statements themselves become a major proof of textual inconsistency, as will be clarified.
Chain Defects (Sandi ʿIlal)
① Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah — Unknown (Majhūl al-Ḥāl)
Ibn Ḥajar (Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb):
Arabic:
«حكيمة بنت أميمة: لا تُعرف، من الثالثة، د س.»
Translation:
“Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah is unknown; from the third generation; narrated by Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasā’ī.”
Al-Dhahabī (Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl):
Arabic:
«فهي غير معروفة، روى عنها ابنُ جريج بصيغة (عن).»
Translation:
“She is not known. Ibn Jurayj narrated from her using the wording ‘ʿan’.”
Ibn al-Mulaqqin (al-Badr al-Munīr):
Arabic:
«… فالاضطراب مانع من تصحيحه… وجهالةُ حكيمة بنت أميمة؛ فإنه لا يُعرف لها حال.»
Translation:
“The inconsistency prevents its authentication… and Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah is unknown; her condition is not known.”
Al-Munāwī (Fayḍ al-Qadīr):
Arabic:
«وهو ضعيف؛ فيه حكيمة وفيها جهالة؛ فإنه لم يروِ عنها إلا ابن جريج، ولم يذكرها ابن حبان في الثقات.»
Translation:
“It is weak; it contains Ḥukaymah, and she is unknown. None narrated from her except Ibn Jurayj, and Ibn Ḥibbān did not include her among the trustworthy.”
Ibn Kathīr (Negating the Addition):
Arabic:
«… وهو إسناد مجهول… وأخرجه أبو داود والنسائي من حديث حجاج عن ابن جريج وليس فيه قصةُ بركة.»
Translation:
“It is a chain containing unknown narrators… Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasā’ī reported it through Ḥajjāj from Ibn Jurayj, and it does not contain the story of Barakah.”
Clarification Regarding the Claim of Authentication
The claim that “al-Dāraquṭnī declared Ḥukaymah trustworthy” is not established. Ibn al-Mulaqqin explicitly negated this.
Al-Dhahabī’s inclusion under “unknown women” is not authentication. Al-Suyūṭī and al-Albānī clarified that such narrations remain weak due to anonymity, though sometimes considered in supporting chains—not independently.
② Ḥajjāj ibn Muḥammad al-Muṣīṣī — Confusion in Later Life
Ibn Ḥajar (Taqrīb):
Arabic:
«ثقة ثبت، لكنه اختلط في آخر عمره لما قدم بغداد.»
Translation:
“Trustworthy and firm, but he became confused in the latter part of his life when he came to Baghdad.”
Imām Aḥmad:
Arabic:
«كان اختلط بآخره.»
Translation:
“He became confused at the end of his life.”
Ibn Saʿd:
Arabic:
«تغيّر حين قدم بغداد فمات على ذلك.»
Translation:
“He changed when he came to Baghdad and remained in that state until his death.”
Conclusion Regarding the Chain
The female narrator is unknown, and another narrator became confused in his later life. In such circumstances, an addition containing severe irregularity—such as “drinking urine”—cannot be accepted.
This explains why reliable Sunan collections only mention the “cup,” without the addition of “drinking,” clearly indicating that the extra wording stems from confusion and solitary narration of an unknown narrator.
③ Third Defect: Severe Textual Inconsistency (Iḍṭirāb)
This narration is not found in only one form; rather, the different texts contain additions that contradict one another:
① Some versions only mention that the Prophet ﷺ urinated in a cup and placed it beneath his bed.
② Some add that Barakah drank it.
③ Some add: “You have shielded yourself from Hell.”
④ Others add: “You will not suffer from stomach illness.”
These additions contradict one another and demonstrate severe inconsistency.
Ibn al-Mulaqqin:
«فالاضطراب مانع من تصحيحه.»
Translation:
“The inconsistency prevents its authentication.”
Ibn Kathīr:
«… أخرجه أبو داود والنسائي … وليس فيه قصة بركة.»
Translation:
“Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasā’ī reported it, but it does not contain the story of Barakah.”
Thus, the “drinking” portion is isolated and inconsistent.
④ Refutation of Certain Claims
① “Al-Dāraquṭnī declared Ḥukaymah trustworthy” → This is not established; Ibn al-Mulaqqin has negated it.
② “Al-Nasā’ī and Ibn Ḥibbān also brought this narration” → They only mention “urinating in a cup,” not the incident of “drinking it.”
③ “Abū Dāwūd reported it” → False; this story is not in Abū Dāwūd.
④ “Al-Ḥākim mentioned it in al-Mustadrak” → Al-Ḥākim is lenient in his authentications, and al-Dhahabī also agreed with him here out of a serious oversight.
⑤ “Al-Haythamī declared Ḥukaymah trustworthy” → Al-Haythamī’s leniency is well known; the majority have declared her unknown (majhūl).
⑥ “Al-Dhahabī included her among the unknowns but did not abandon her outright” → Al-Dhahabī explicitly said: «فهي غير معروفة» (Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl), i.e. she is not known.
⑤ Did Ibn Ḥajar Declare Her Trustworthy?
Answer:
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar wrote explicitly:
Arabic:
«8565 – حكيمة بنت أميمة لا تُعرف من الثالثة، د س.»
Translation:
“Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah is unknown; from the third generation; narrated by Abū Dāwūd and al-Nasā’ī.”
Thus, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar did not make any kind of authentication (tawthīq) here; rather, he clearly said she is “lā tuʿraf” = not known.
⑥ Principle Regarding Such Narrators
A male or female narrator from whom only one ḥadīth scholar narrates remains majhūl al-ḥāl (of unknown condition), even if some authentication of him is reported from somewhere.
As an example, al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar stated regarding Akhnas ibn Khalīfah:
Arabic:
«ولا يلزم من ذلك أن يكون الرجل ثقة، إذ حاله غير معروفة، ورواية ابنه عنه فقط لا ترفع جهالة حاله…»
Translation:
“This does not necessitate that the man is trustworthy, since his condition is unknown. If only his son narrated from him, the unknown status of his condition (jahālat al-ḥāl) is not removed, even though jahālat al-ʿayn (being a completely unknown person) is removed.”
➝ Thus Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah is likewise: only Ibn Jurayj narrates from her, therefore she will remain majhūl al-ḥāl.
⑦ Did al-Dhahabī Authenticate This Unknown Woman?
Answer:
Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī, in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, declared this woman unknown (majhūl) and counted her urine narration among her munkar (rejected) narrations:
Arabic:
«2232 – حكيمة بنت أميمة… فهي غير معروفة. روى عنها هذا ابن جريج بصيغة عن.»
Translation:
“Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah… she is not known. Only Ibn Jurayj narrated from her using ‘ʿan’.”
Therefore, according to al-Dhahabī as well, she is unknown—not trustworthy.
⑧ Response to a Misinterpretation
A Barelvi, Asad al-Madārī, says that al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī made a chapter in al-Mīzān:
«وما علمت في النساء من اتهمت ولا من تركوها»
and included Ḥukaymah in this chapter, so it is as if these women are “maqbūl” (acceptable).
Answer:
✔ This is al-Dhahabī’s condition for the chapter: that among the women there are none with severe criticism of lying or being abandoned (matrūk).
✔ This by no means means that they are trustworthy; rather, the basic reason for their weakness is being unknown (jahālah).
Al-Suyūṭī stated:
«وجميع من ضعف منهن إنما هو للجهالة.»
Translation:
“The weakness of all of them is due to anonymity.”
➝ That is, the basic reason for weakening these women is their being unknown.
Al-Albānī stated:
«ليس معنى كلام الذهبي هذا إلا أن حديث هؤلاء النسوة ضعيف، ولكنه ضعف غير شديد.»
Translation:
“The meaning of al-Dhahabī’s statement is only that the narrations of these women are weak, though not severely weak.”
➝ Thus, the narration of Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah is not an independent proof; it may only be considered among some supporting narrations (mutābaʿāt and shawāhid).
Final Summary and Conclusion
✔ The “urine-drinking” narration is severely weak in chain.
✔ Ḥukaymah bint Umaymah is declared unknown by the majority of scholars (Ibn Ḥajar, al-Dhahabī, al-Munāwī, Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Ibn al-Qaṭṭān).
✔ Ḥajjāj ibn Muḥammad became confused in his later life.
✔ The narration is also severely inconsistent in its text:
– sometimes only the cup is mentioned, sometimes “drinking,” sometimes “a shield from Hell,” sometimes “no stomach illness”…
– all these are mutually contradictory additions, and therefore incompatible with authenticity.
✔ Claims that this narration is in “Abū Dāwūd, al-Nasā’ī, Ibn Ḥibbān or al-Dāraquṭnī” are lies or fallacies; there only “urine in a cup” is mentioned, not drinking it.
✔ Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī and Ibn Ḥajar also declared her not known (ghayr maʿrūf); no reliable ḥadīth scholar accepted her as an independent proof.
➝ Conclusion: This narration is unacceptable. Relating such rejected and inconsistent additions is misguidance and contrary to the noble status of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
