According to the saying of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, when the deceased is questioned in the grave, at that time the soul is returned to the body. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
وتعاد روحه فى جسده، ويأتيه ملكان،فيجلسانه، فيقولان له : من ربك؟
“The soul of the deceased is returned to his body, two angels come to him, they make him sit and ask him: Who is your Lord?…”
↰ Dear readers have observed that this hadith has been mentioned from the beginning of hadith compilation and in every era by earlier and later muhaddithin in books based on creed and other subjects. The noble muhaddithin have derived many issues of belief from this hadith. None of the scholars and critics among the muhaddithin have declared this hadith unreliable. All its narrators are trustworthy and truthful according to the majority of the muhaddithin. This alone suffices to establish the authenticity of this hadith, moreover, several muhaddithin have explicitly affirmed its authenticity, such as:
➊ Imam Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Muhammad bin Yahya, Ibn Manda, Abdi, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 395 AH) after mentioning this hadith says:
هذا إسناد متصل مشهور، رواه جماعة عن البراء، وكذلك رواه عدة عن الأعمش، وعن المنهال بن عمرو، والمنهال أخرج عنه البخاري ما تفرد به، وزاذان أخرج عنه مسلم، وهو ثابت على رسم الجماعة. وروي هذا الحديث عن جابر، وأبي هريرة، وأبي سعيد، وأنس بن مالك، وعائشة رضي الله عنهم.
“This is a connected and well-known chain of narration. Many narrators have reported it from our master Bara bin Azib, may Allah be pleased with him. Similarly, many narrators have reported it from Al-A’mash and Munhal bin Amr. Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, has also narrated a hadith from Munhal bin Amr in Sahih Bukhari, which he alone has narrated. The narration of the narrator Zadhan has been mentioned by Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, in his Sahih. Thus, this hadith is established like a mutawatir hadith. This hadith is also narrated from other companions, our master Jabir, our master Abu Hurairah, our master Abu Sa’id, our master Anas bin Malik, and Lady Aisha.”
➋ Imam Abu Nu’aym, Ahmad bin Abdullah, Asbahani, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
وأما حديث البراء فحديث مشهور، رواه عن المنهال بن عمرو الجم الغفير، وهو حديث اجمع رواة الاثر على شهرته و استفاضته.
“The hadith of our master Bara’ bin Azib, may Allah be pleased with him, is of the level of authentic; it has been narrated from Munhal bin Amr by a very large group of muhaddithin. There is consensus among the muhaddithin on its authenticity and widespread acceptance.”
➌ Imam Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Abdullah, Hakim Nishapuri, may Allah have mercy on him (321-405 AH), says:
هذا حديث صحيح على شرط الشيحين، فقد احتجا جميعا بالمنهال بن عمرو وزاذان أبى عمر الكندي، وفي هذا الحديث فوائد كثيرة لأهل السنة، وقمع للمبتدعة، ولم يخرجاه بطوله، وله شواهد على شرطهما، يستدل بها على صحته.
“This hadith is authentic according to the conditions of Imam Bukhari and Muslim, may Allah have mercy on them. Both Imam Bukhari and Muslim have used the narrations of Munhal bin Amr and Zadhan Abu Umar al-Kindi as evidence (Munhal’s narration is in Bukhari, while Zadhan’s is in Muslim). This hadith contains many benefits for Ahl al-Sunnah and is a breaker of innovations. Imam Bukhari and Muslim did not explain it in detail, but according to their conditions, there are many evidences for this hadith, from which its (further) authenticity is deduced.”
➍ Imam Abu Bakr, Ahmad bin Hussain bin Ali, Bayhaqi, may Allah have mercy on him (384-458 AH) says:
هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد.
“This hadith has a sound chain of narration.”
➎ Hafiz Abu Muhammad, Zaki al-Din, Abdul Azim bin Abdul Qawi, Mundhiri, may Allah have mercy on him (581-656 AH) writes:
هذا الحديث حديث حسن، رواتهٔ محتج بهم فى الصحيح
“This hadith is Hasan (good), and its narrators have been accepted as authentic (in Bukhari and Muslim).”
➏ The famous mufassir, Allama, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Ahmad, Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 671 AH) says:
وهو حديث صحيح، له طرق كثيرة
“This hadith is Sahih (authentic), and it has many chains of narration.”
➐ Sheikh al-Islam, Taqi al-Din, Ahmad bin Abdul Halim, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him (661-728 AH) says:
وهو على شرطهما “This hadith is authentic according to the conditions of Imam Bukhari and Muslim.”
➑ Allama, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdulhadi Dimashqi, may Allah have mercy on him (705-744 AH) says:
وقد ثبت فى حديث البراء بن عازب الطويل المشهور فى عذاب القبر ونعيمه، فى شأن الميت وحاله، أن روحه تعاد إلى جسده.
“In the long and famous hadith narrated by Sayyiduna Bara bin Azib regarding the punishment and reward of the grave, it is established that the soul is returned to it.”
➒ Allama, Shams al-Din, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him (673-748 AH) writes:
على شرطهما “This hadith meets the conditions of Imam Bukhari and Muslim.”
➓ Sheikh al-Islam Thani, Allama Muhammad bin Abu Bakr bin Ayyub, Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him (691-751 AH) says:
وهذا حديث صحيح “This hadith is authentic.”
◈ He also says:
وذهب إلى القول بموجب هذا الحديث جميع أهل السنة والحديث من سائر الطوائف.
“All groups of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Hadith unanimously hold the belief according to this hadith.”
◈ At one place it is stated:
هذا حديث ثابت، مشهور، مستفيض صححه جماعة من الحفاظ، ولا نعلم أحدا من أئمة الحديث طعن فيه، بل رووه فى كتبهم، وتلقوهٔ بالقبول، و جعلوه اصلا من اصول الدين فى عذاب القبر ونعيمه، ومسائلة منكر و نكير، وقبض الأرواح وصعودها إلى بين يدي الله، تم رجوعها إلى القبر.
“This hadith is authentic, well-known, and widely transmitted. Many great Hafiz Imams have declared it authentic. To our knowledge, none of the hadith scholars have criticized it; rather, they have narrated it in their books and accepted it, giving it fundamental religious significance regarding the punishment and reward of the grave, the questioning by Munkar and Nakir, the moment of death, the soul’s journey to Allah Almighty, and then its return to the grave.”
⓫ Allama Abu al-Hasan, Ali bin Abu Bakr bin Sulayman Haithami (735-807 AH) writes:
هو فى الصحيح وغيره باختصار، رواه أحمد، ورجاله رجال الصحيح.
“This hadith is authentic and present in Bukhari and others in a concise form. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) has narrated it, and its narrators are authentic (as per Bukhari and Muslim).”
⓬ Hafiz, Abu al-Fadl, Ahmad bin Ali, Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him (773-852 AH), pointing towards its authenticity, writes:
و صححه ابو عوانة وغيره. “It has been declared authentic by Imam Abu Awana and others.”
⓭ Allama Abdul Rahman bin Abu Bakr, Al-Suyuti (849-911 AH) writes:
اخرج احمد وابن ابي شيبة فى المصنف والطيالسي وعبد الله فى مسنديهما، وهناد بن السري فى الزهد، وأبو داؤد فى سننه، والحاكم فى المستدرك، وابن جرير، وابن أبى حاتم، والبيهقي فى كتاب عذاب القبر، وغيرهم من طرق صحيحة، عن البراء بن عازب.
“This hadith has been narrated with authentic chains from Sayyiduna Bara bin Azib by Imam Ahmad (in his Musnad), Imam Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf, Imam (Abu Dawood) Tayalisi and Imam Abdullah (?) in their Musnads, Imam Hunad bin Sari in his book Al-Zuhd, Imam Abu Dawood in his Sunan, Imam Hakim in his Mustadrak, Imam Ibn Jarir, Imam Ibn Abi Hatim, and Imam Bayhaqi in the book ‘Azab al-Qabr’, as well as other noble Imams in their respective books.”
⓮ Allama, Abu al-Hasan, Ubaidullah bin Muhammad Abdus Salam, Mubarakpuri, may Allah have mercy on him (1327-1414 AH) says:
والحديث نص فى أن الروح تعاد إلى الميت فى قبره وقت السؤال، وهو مذهب جميع أهل السنة من سائر الطوائف.
“This hadith is clear evidence that at the time of questioning the deceased in the grave, their soul is returned. This is the belief of all groups of Ahl al-Sunnah.”
⓯ Allama, Abu Abdur Rahman, Muhammad Nasiruddin bin al-Hajj Nuh, al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him (1332-1420 AH) says:
وقال الحاكم : صحيح على شرط الشيخين، وأقره الذهبي، وهو كما قالا.
“Imam Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, declared it authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim, and Allama Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, agreed with him. The reality is also that (this hadith is authentic).”
↰ Readers should note that more than a dozen hadith scholars and experts from various eras have authenticated the authenticity of this hadith. Not a single expert hadith scholar has declared it “weak.” The consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah has always been this belief, but in the present era, Dr. Masooduddin Usmani has declared this hadith “weak” and has mentioned criticism regarding two of its narrators, Minhal bin Amr and Zadhan Abu Umar.
↰ In his own opinion, Dr. Usmani has made a great scholarly effort, but in reality, by opposing the noble Muhadditheen, he has committed a great act of ignorance. What is the reason that the noble Muhadditheen, who themselves established the rules for accepting and rejecting narrations in the light of the Quran and Sunnah and meticulously classified the ranks of the narrators of Hadith, could not recognize the defects in this Hadith, while those who were not well-versed in the science of Rijal (narrators) clearly saw the “defects” in this Hadith? And on this basis, these people began to issue declarations of disbelief and polytheism against Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, and other Muhadditheen and great scholars of the Ummah!
↰ In the following lines, we will examine this matter and, in the light of the principles of the Muhadditheen, clarify with utmost fairness that this entire action was carried out by Dr. Usmani due to his ignorance. If he had even the slightest understanding of the science of Hadith and Rijal, he would never have made such an ignorant effort.
The Scholars of Hadith and the Authentication of Munhal bin Amr
The hadith of Munhal bin Amr is authentic. We have already mentioned the opinions of more than a dozen scholars of Hadith and critics of the field regarding this. According to all of them, Munhal bin Amr is a trustworthy narrator. Now, observe further testimonies of other scholars of Hadith about him:
➊ Imam Jarh wa Ta’dil Yahya bin Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him (158-233 AH), says:
المنهال بن عمرو ثقة.
“Munhal bin Amr is a trustworthy narrator.”
➋ Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Abu Abdullah Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him (164-241 AH), says:
أبو بشر أوثق، إلا أن المنهال أمتن.
“Abu Bishr is more trustworthy, but Munhal is a stronger narrator.”
↰ That is, according to Imam Ahmad, although Abu Bishr is considered more trustworthy than Munhal bin Amr, Munhal bin Amr is regarded as a stronger narrator.
➌ Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him (194-256 AH), narrated a hadith from Minhal bin Amr in Sahih Bukhari.
This is evidence of Imam Bukhari’s trust in Minhal bin Amr, because Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned only authentic hadiths in his book and named his book “Sahih,” and the Muslim Ummah has unanimously acknowledged its authenticity.
◈ The commentator of Bukhari, Abu al-Fadl Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 852 AH), says:
ينبغي لكل منصف ان يعلم ان تخريج صاحب الصحيح لاي راو، كان مقتض لعدالته عنده، وصحة ضبطه، وعدم غفلته، ولا سيما ما انضاف إلى ذلك من إطباق جمهور الأئمة على تسمية الكتابين بالصحيحين، وهذا معنى لم يحصل لغير من خرج عنه فى الصحيح، فهو بمثابة اطباق الجمهور على تعديل من ذكر فيها
“Every just person should know that when Imam Bukhari and Muslim narrate a hadith from a narrator, it means that this narrator is considered by them to be truthful in character and strong in memory, and also not negligent in matters of hadith. Especially since the majority of the noble Imams unanimously call the books of Bukhari and Muslim ‘Sahih.’ This status cannot be attained by a narrator whose narration is not present in Sahih (Bukhari and Muslim). In other words, a narrator mentioned in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim is considered a trustworthy narrator by the majority of the noble Muhaddithin.”
↰ It has been found that according to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, a just person is one who considers the narrators of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim trustworthy and reliable based on the authentication of Imam Bukhari and other majority scholars of Hadith. Now, a person like Dr. Usmani who calls the narrators of Sahih Bukhari “weak, defective, and abandoned,” according to Ibn Hajar, is not just but rather a traitor.
◈ The Muhaddith of the era, Allama Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, while rejecting the criticism on Munhal bin Amr, says:
ويكفي فى رد ذلك أنه من رجال البخاري.
“In response to this, it is sufficient to say that Munhal bin Amr is a narrator of Sahih Bukhari.”
➍ Imam Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Saleh, Al-Ajli, may Allah have mercy on him (181-261 AH), says:
منهال بن عمرو، كوفي، ثقة
“Munhal bin Amr was a resident of Kufa and a trustworthy person.”
➎ Imam Abu Dawood Sulaiman bin Ash’ath, Sajistani, may Allah have mercy on him (202-275 AH), after mentioning a hadith of Minhal bin Amr, says:
هذا دليل على أن القرآن ليس بمخلوق.
“This hadith is evidence that the Holy Quran is not created.”
↰ Imam Abu Dawood, may Allah have mercy on him, uses the hadith of Minhal bin Amr as evidence that the Quran is not created. From this, two things are established. First, that calling the Quran created is against the Sunnah according to Imam Abu Dawood. For this reason, the Imams of the religion have declared such a person a disbeliever. Second, that Minhal bin Amr is trustworthy and reliable according to the Imam, and his hadith serves as evidence even in fundamental matters of religion, i.e., in beliefs.
➏ Imam Abu Isa Muhammad bin Isa Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him (209-279 AH), after mentioning a hadith of Minhal bin Amr, says:
هذا حديث حسن صحيح
↰ Can a hadith narrated by a “weak, defective, and abandoned” person be considered Hasan Sahih? It is obvious that according to Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, Minhal bin Amr is a trustworthy narrator, and therefore, according to him, his hadith reaches the level of Hasan Sahih.
➐ Imam Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Amr bin Abdul Khaliq Bazzar, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 292 AH), after mentioning a hadith narrated by Minhal bin Amr, states:
واسنادۂ حسن . “Its chain is Hasan.”
➑ Imam al-A’immah Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq, Ibn Khuzaymah, may Allah have mercy on him (223-311 AH), also declared several hadiths narrated by Minhal bin Amr (for example see Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah: 1194, 2830) as Sahih.
➒ Imam Abu Awana, Yaqub bin Ishaq Nishapuri, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 316 AH), also considers the hadith narrated by Minhal bin Amr (see Mustakhraj Abu Awana: 7764) as Sahih.
➓ Imam, Abu Ja’far, Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Salamah, Tahawi Hanafi, may Allah have mercy on him (238-321 AH), after mentioning a hadith narrated by Minhal bin Amr, states:
وكان فى ذلك دليل . . . “This hadith is evidence that……..”
According to Imam Tahawi Hanafi, the hadith narrated by Minhal bin Amr is also evidence in creed, as he states at one place:
فكان هذا الحديث فيه إثبات عذاب القبر.
“This hadith affirms the punishment of the grave.”
⓫ Imam, Abu Hatim, Muhammad bin Hibban bin Ahmad, Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 354 AH), also authenticated many hadiths of Minhal bin Amr
.
⓬ The critic of narrators, Imam Abu al-Hasan, Ali bin Umar, Darqatni, may Allah have mercy on him (306-385 AH), when Imam Hakim, may Allah have mercy on him, asked about Minhal bin Amr, he said:
صدوق . “He was a truthful and reliable person.”
⓭ Imam, Abu Hafs Umar bin Ahmad, Ibn Shaheen, may Allah have mercy on him (297-385 AH) says:
والمنهال بن عمرو ثقة . “Minhal bin Amr is trustworthy.”
⓮ Imam Andalus, Abu Umar, Yusuf bin Abdullah, Ibn Abdul Barr, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
والأحاديث فى أعلام نبوته أكثر من أن تحصي، وقد جمع قوم كثير كثيرا منها، والحمد لله، ومن أحسنها، وكلها حسن، ما حدثنا عبد الوارث بن سفيان . . . عن المنهال بن عمرو . . .
“There are numerous hadiths narrated about the signs of prophethood. Alhamdulillah! Many people have transmitted many of these hadiths. All of them are good, but among all, the best hadith is the one narrated to us by Abdul Warith bin Sufyan… through Minhal bin Amr…”
⓯ Hafiz, Abu al-Qasim, Ali bin Hasan, Ibn Asakir, may Allah have mercy on him (499-571 AH) has authenticated the hadith narrated by Minhal.
⓰ Allama, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahid, Diya al-Din Muqaddasi, may Allah have mercy on him (569-643 AH) has declared many hadiths of Minhal bin Amr
as authentic.
⓱ Hafiz, Abu Fida, Imaduddin, Ismail bin Umar, Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him (700-774 AH) regarding some narrations, including the narration narrated by Munhal bin Amr, states:
فهذه طرق جيدة، مفيدة للقطع فى هذه القضية
“These are excellent chains of narration which establish the certainty of this matter.”
⓲ Hafiz, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman, Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him (673-748 AH), before mentioning the biography of Munhal bin Amr, wrote صح. About this symbol, he himself states:
إذا كتبت (صح) أول الاسم، فهي إشارة إلى أن العمل على توثيق ذلك الرجل .
“When I write صح before any name, it indicates that only the authentication of that person will be relied upon.”
Also, after mentioning a narration narrated by Munhal bin Amr, he states:
فهذا اسنادهٔ صالح.
“Its chain of narration is Hasan (good).”
⓳ Hafiz, Abu al-Fadl, Ahmad bin Ali, Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him (773-852 AH), while responding to a criticism made against Minhal bin Amr, states:
وبهذا لا يجرح الثقه.
“A trustworthy narrator cannot be discredited on the basis of such a matter.”
⓴ Allama, Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on him (1332-1420 AH), regarding the narration of a hadith by Minhal bin Amr, states:
وهذا اسناد صحيح، المنهال بن عمرو ثقة من رجال البخاري.
“This chain of narration is authentic. Minhal bin Amr is trustworthy and a narrator of Sahih Bukhari.”
More than a dozen esteemed hadith scholars and experts have declared the hadith about the return of the soul as authentic, and now twenty hadith scholars and experts have established Minhal bin Amr as trustworthy and reliable. The Imams of the religion who have declared Minhal bin Amr trustworthy and have relied upon his hadiths also consider the hadith narrated by Minhal regarding the return of the soul to be completely authentic.
Will all these Imams of the religion also be declared dead-worshippers and polytheists by the Usmani sect? Now, with what face do these people use the hadiths narrated by these Imams as their evidence? Now, those who accept Dr. Usmani on the straight path should tell which Imam has been spared by him?
Dr. Usmani’s Ignorance-Based Objections
Dr. Usmani has written: “In fact, the narration about the soul returning to the dead body is a narration of the Ja’fari Shariah, which its narrator Zadhan (a Shia) took from there and attributed it to Bara bin Azib (may Allah be pleased with him). Look at its chain of narration, you will find weak narrators, those with broken chains, abandoned narrators, and Shias in it.”
↰ Did the readers notice that in this passage Dr. Usmani has classified this hadith as the fault of the narrator Zadhan? That is, according to him, the only one responsible for narrating this hadith incorrectly is Zadhan, but in the very next line he begins to criticize Munhal bin Amr. When Zadhan himself was responsible for this narration, then the only reason for criticizing Munhal bin Amr could be stubbornness.
The Reality of Criticism on Munhal bin Amr
The fact that dozens of hadith scholars consider Munhal bin Amr trustworthy and also rely on his hadith in matters of belief is clear evidence that he is a trustworthy narrator and the narrations he has reported are completely authentic according to the principles of the muhaddithin. Moreover, the criticism leveled against him is rejected, as:
◈ According to Allama Zahabi (may Allah have mercy on him), the criticism on Munhal bin Amr is not acceptable; rather, his authentication is preferred.
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
المنهال بن عمرو تكلم فيه بلا حجة
“The criticism made against Minhal bin Amr is baseless.”
◈ Allama Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, says about Minhal bin Amr:
وفيه كلام لا يضر “The criticism made against him does not harm him at all.”
◈ Contemporary researcher, Dr. Bashar Awad Ma’roof writes:
ولم يجرح بجرج حقيقي، وبعض ما نسب إلى جرحه لا يصح بسبب ضعف الراوي .
“No acceptable criticism has been made against Minhal bin Amr; some criticisms made are not even established due to the weakness of the narrator.”
↰ We will mention more statements from scholars and experts on this matter in the following lines. If we arrange the criticism that Dr. Usmani has mentioned about Munhal bin Amr in our own words for the ease of the readers, its summary would be somewhat like this. (We will mention Dr. Usmani’s words in detailed analysis):
① Imam Hakim says that Munhal bin Amr was of the same status as Yahya bin Saeed.
② Ibn Ma’in criticized Munhal’s status.
③ Imam Shu’bah heard the sound of singing from Munhal bin Amr’s house and therefore abandoned him.
④ Juzjani wrote that Munhal bin Amr was of bad creed.
⑤ Ibn Hazm weakened him and rejected the narration about questioning and answering in his grave.
↰ Against the clear authentication of Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) and dozens of other hadith scholars, Dr. Usmani had only this collection. According to the principles of hadith, in comparison to the authentication of so many hadith scholars, even if these five criticisms were proven and effective, they would hold no value. Moreover, the first two are not proven at all, meaning Imam Yahya bin Saeed Qattan and Imam Yahya bin Ma’in never criticized Munhal, while the remaining three do not affect the hadith of Munhal bin Amr in any way. Let us examine in detail:
① Imam Yahya bin Saeed and Munhal bin Amr
Dr. Usmani has written: “Al-Dhahabi writes in his book Mizan al-I’tidal that Hakim says Munhal was of the status of Yahya bin Saeed.” (“Iman Khalis,” second part, p. 17)
↰ This statement is neither found in any book of Imam Hakim (may Allah have mercy on him), nor has anyone narrated such a thing with a chain of transmission from Imam Yahya bin Saeed (may Allah have mercy on him). There is a gap of about three and a half centuries between Allama Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Hakim (may Allah have mercy on him), while nearly two centuries separate Imam Hakim and Imam Yahya bin Saeed. How can it be accepted without any chain of transmission that Imam Yahya bin Saeed actually lowered the status of Munhal? Dr. Usmani’s logic is strange: when the majority of hadith scholars accept a hadith as authentic, he discusses its chain to reject it, but he does not adhere to any chain when narrating criticism.
↰ It should be remembered that just as a hadith cannot be accepted without a chain of narration or with a weak chain, similarly, statements regarding the acceptance or rejection of hadith and the authentication or criticism of narrators cannot be accepted without a chain of narration or with a weak chain, because these matters are directly related to the hadith. Readers should also keep in mind our methodology that just as we ensure the authenticity of the chain of narration regarding hadith, in the same way, when mentioning any statement of any Imam on any matter, we ensure that the statement is either present in a verified book of that Imam or has been cited by someone else with a chain of narration considered authoritative by the hadith scholars. In contrast, misguided people blindly quote unsupported statements from later books to support their views.
↰ The second point is that even if this narration is accepted as authentic, it does not establish any criticism (jarh) on Minhal bin Amr regarding Ibn Qattan, because it is an ambiguous statement. It is possible that compared to a more trustworthy narrator, Ibn Qattan diminished his status, and this is not a criticism.
◈ Regarding this, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
وحكاية الحاكم عن القطان غير مفسرة.
“Imam Hakim’s narration from Imam Yahya bin Saeed Qattan is ambiguous.”
↰ Then it is also worth noting that Imam Hakim (may Allah have mercy on him) himself was against criticizing Minhal. He considered Minhal bin Amr trustworthy, as we have already mentioned. Please see Dr. Usmani’s “Diyanat Ilmi” where he completely ignores Imam Hakim’s established statement about Minhal bin Amr’s trustworthiness and Ibn Hajar’s commentary on Ibn Qattan’s criticism, while wholeheartedly accepting an unsupported and baseless statement about criticism on Minhal. May Allah guide, what a research!
② Imam Yahya bin Ma’in and Munhal
Dr. Usmani has written with reference to Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s book “Tahdhib al-Tahdhib”: “Ibn Ma’in used to belittle Munhal.”
↰ Like the previous case, this statement is also without any chain of narration. Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, was born six centuries after Imam Ibn Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him. He did not mention any chain of narration for this statement reaching Ibn Ma’in. How can it be accepted without any chain that indeed Ibn Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him, belittled Munhal? Regarding this, the narration on which Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, relied might be this:
Hafiz Ibn Asakir, may Allah have mercy on him (499-571 AH), wrote in the biography of Munhal bin Amr:
قال المفضل بن غسان الغلابي : ذم یحيى بن معين المنهال بن عمرو.
“Mufaddal bin Ghassan al-Ghallabi says that Imam Yahya bin Ma’in criticized Munhal bin Amr.”
↰ The narrator of this narration is Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Musa Babasiri “Majhool”.
↰ Even if this statement is proven, it is not a criticism of Munhal.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
فأما حكاية الغلابي، فلعل بن معين كان يضع منة بالنسبة إلى غيره، كالحكاية عن أحمد، ويدل على ذلك أن أبا حاتم حكى عن ابن معين انهٔ وثقه.
“As for the narration of Ghulabi, perhaps Imam Ibn Ma’in lowered its status by attributing it to another (more trustworthy) narrator, as is also established from Imam Ahmad. The evidence for this is that Imam Abu Hatim mentioned the trustworthiness of Munhal from Imam Ibn Ma’in.”
↰ That is, contrary to criticism, the clear authentication of Munhal bin Amr by Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him, is established, as we have already stated first in the context of authentication.
↰ We have already mentioned that Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, rejected the criticism against Munhal. Dr. Usmani mentioned the criticism that Ibn Hajar had rejected without quoting the rejection, but he did not mention the fact that was established from Ibn Ma’in and Ibn Hajar, which is the authentication of Munhal, when it went against him. Expecting justice from such people is futile.
③ Imam Shu’bah and Munhal bin Amr
Two types of narrations have been reported from Imam Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, regarding this matter. One is that he heard the recitation of the Qur’an from Munhal bin Amr’s house with the voice of the head (i.e., with proper pronunciation).
The second is that he heard the sound of singing from Munhal’s house.
↰ The narration mentioned by Dr. Usmani does not mention singing. The words are:
لانه سمع من داره صوت قراءة بالتظريب
“Because Sha’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, heard the recitation of the Qur’an with melody at Minhal’s house.”
It is proven that this narration does not mention singing, but rather the recitation of the Holy Qur’an, as clarified elsewhere in Dr. Usmani’s referenced book:
سمع صوت قراءة بألحان، فترك الكتابة عنه لأجل ذلك.
“Imam Sha’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, heard the recitation with melody, and for this reason, he stopped writing hadith from him.”
This shows Dr. Usmani’s mastery of Arabic and his thorough review of the books!
In any case, reciting the Holy Qur’an with melody, that is, with tone and beautiful voice, is not something blameworthy, as the Arab researcher Dr. Bashar Awad Ma’roof states:
هذا جرح مردود، والله أعلم، وما أدري كيف جوز شعبة لنفسه أن يتركهٔ للتطريب بالقراءة، ان صح ذلك عنه، فقد ثبت عن المصطفي صلى الله عليه وسلم ضرورة تحسين الصوت والتطريب بالقراءة.
“This criticism is rejected. If it is proven from Imam Sha’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, then it is beyond understanding how he considered it permissible to abandon Minhal based on the recitation being soft and beautiful? Whereas it is established from the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, that the recitation of the Holy Qur’an should be with a beautiful voice and melody.”
The second narration, which mentions the sound of singing coming from Munhal’s house, also indicates that there was no restriction on Munhal bin Amr. This is why, when Imam Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, narrated this incident before Wahb bin Jarir, may Allah have mercy on him, Wahb bin Jarir criticized Imam Shu’bah’s approach and asked a question, to which Imam Shu’bah remained silent and could not respond. Wahb bin Jarir, may Allah have mercy on him, describes his dialogue with Imam Shu’bah as follows:
عن شعبة، قال : أتيت منزل منهال بن عمرو، فسمعت منه صوت الطنبور، فرجعت، ولم أساله، قلت : وهلا سألته ! فعسى كان لا يعلم.
“Imam Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I came to the house of Munhal bin Amr and heard the sound of singing from the house. I returned without asking Munhal about it. I said: Why did you not ask him? Perhaps he was unaware of it.”
The first refutation of the criticism against Imam Shuba, may Allah have mercy on him, was made by Wahb ibn Jarir, may Allah have mercy on him, right in front of him, and he also left him speechless. Wahb ibn Jarir’s point was absolutely correct that it is possible that Minhal was not even aware of this, he might not have been at home, or it could also be that the sound was coming from the neighbor’s house and Imam Shuba, may Allah have mercy on him, was mistaken. Then, the sound of singing coming from someone’s house is not a reason for criticism, because it is possible that the person in the house who is doing this is not approved by Minhal. Even some family members of the noble Prophets were disobedient to them. Should they also be blamed for this? According to Wahb ibn Jarir, Imam Shuba, may Allah have mercy on him, should have inquired from Minhal before forming any opinion about him.
Later scholars have also rejected Imam Sha’bah’s undue harshness, such as:
◈ Allama, Abu al-Hasan, Ali bin Muhammad, Ibn Qattan, Al-Fasi, may Allah have mercy on them (562-628 AH), mentioning the narration about Imam Sha’bah’s reaction to recitation in the gentle voice of Minhaj, states:
فإن هذا ليس بجرحه، إلا أن يتجاوز إلى حد يحرم، ولم يذكر ذلك فى الحكاية.
“This (recitation from memory) is not a fault, unless it reaches the level of prohibition (meaning there is affectation and error in it), and no such thing is mentioned in this incident.”
And regarding the narration about Sha’bah abandoning upon hearing the sound of singing, he writes:
فهذا، كما ترى، التعسف فيه ظاهر.
“As you see, Imam Sha’bah’s attitude here is clearly undue.”
◈ Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him (661-728 AH), says about Imam al-Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him:
وأما قول من قال: تركه شعبة، فمعناه أنه لم يرو عنه، كما قال أحمد بن حنبل : لم يسمع شعبة من عمر بن أبى سلمة شيئا، وشعبة، ويحيى بن سعيد، وعبد الرحمن بن مهدي، ومالك، ونحوهم، قد كانوا يتركون الحديث عن أناس لنوع شبهة بلغتهم، لا توجب رد أخبارهم، فهم إذا رووا عن شخص كانت روايتهم تعديلا له، وأما ترك الرواية فقد يكون لشبهة لا توجب الجرح، وهذا معروف فى غير واحد قد خرج له فى الصحيح.
“He who said that one should abandon a narrator of Imam al-Shu’bah, meant that Imam al-Shu’bah did not narrate hadiths from him, as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, said that al-Shu’bah did not hear any hadith from Umar ibn Abu Salamah. Imams like Imam al-Shu’bah, Imam Yahya ibn Sa’id, Imam Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Imam Malik, and others would stop narrating from people due to some suspicion. The fact that these Imams narrated from a narrator is evidence of his trustworthiness, but their abandoning narration from someone was often due to some suspicion which in reality does not amount to criticism. Imam al-Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, exhibited such behavior regarding several narrators of Sahih al-Bukhari.”
Allama Ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) says about this:
ان مجرد ترك شعبة له لا يدل على ضعفه فكيف وقد قال بن ابي حاتم انما تركهٔ شعبة لانهٔ سمع فى دارہ صوت قراءۃ بالتطريب، وروي عن شعبة، قال : أتيت منزل المنهال، فسمعت صوت الطنبور، فرجعت، فهذا سبب جرحه، ومعلوم أن شيئا من هذا لا يقدح فى روايته، لأن غايته أن يكون عالما به، مختارا له، ولعله متأول فيه، فكيف وقد يمكن أن لا يكون ذلك بحضورہ، ولا إذنه، ولا علمه، وبالجملة فلا يرد حديث الثقات بهذا وأمثاله.
“The fact that Imam Shu’bah (may Allah have mercy on him) abandoned Munhal cannot be taken as evidence that Munhal is weak, especially since Imam Ibn Abi Hatim has also stated that Imam Shu’bah used to hear the recitation of the Qur’an from Munhal’s house. For this reason, he abandoned him. According to one narration, Imam Shu’bah said that when I went to Munhal’s house, I heard the sound of singing. This was the reason for Imam Shu’bah’s criticism. It is an established fact that none of these things make Munhal’s narration defective. At most, it could be that Munhal was aware of this and it was happening with his consent, but he interpreted it (meaning he considered it permissible based on certain evidences, as Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) believed). It is also not unlikely that this happened neither in his presence, nor with his permission, nor did he come to know about it. In short, such matters cannot be used to reject the narrations of trustworthy narrators.”
◈ Hafiz, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman, Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him (673-748 AH) says:
وهذا لا يوجب غمز الشيخ.
“This does not harm Sheikh (Minhal bin Amr).”
◈ Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, writes regarding Wahb bin Jarir’s objection to Imam Sha’bah, may Allah have mercy on him:
وهذا اعتراض صحيح، فإن هذا لا يوجب قدحا فى المنهال
“Wahb bin Jarir’s objection was correct, because the matter mentioned by Imam Sha’bah does not cause criticism of Minhal.”
◈ Allama Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman, Sakhawi (may Allah have mercy on him) (831-902 AH) says:
وجرحہ بهذا تعسف ظاهر.
“Imam Shu’bah’s criticism of Munhal on this basis is clearly unjust.”
↰ All these points were deceitfully taken over by Dr. Usmani, who only mentioned the criticism part and created an uproar claiming that Munhal bin Amr is a “weak” narrator.
↰ It is clear that Imam Shu’bah leaving Munhal bin Amr is not a matter worthy of criticism; rather, it is evidence of Imam Shu’bah’s excessive strictness regarding narrators.
Allama Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) rightly said:
شعبة متعنت “Imam Shu’bah is very strict (regarding narrators).”
Music and Ibn Hazm
Then those who reject this hadith by using Allama Ibn Hazm’s criticism of Munhal bin Amr as evidence should be ashamed to the point of sinking in shame, and they should abandon one of these two things: either they should not criticize Munhal bin Amr because of the narration that accuses him of singing, or they should stop mentioning Ibn Hazm’s statements, because Ibn Hazm considered the buying and selling of singing and musical instruments permissible.
↰ The hadith with a soul-stirring effect was first declared “weak” in the world by Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, in the fifth century Hijri. Before him, all hadith scholars and experts had considered it authentic, as we have already explained. Observe Dr. Usmani’s distribution: a person who explicitly permits singing and also declares the buying and selling of musical instruments lawful, for them, his criticism and modification are acceptable, and his hadith criticism is considered a valid proof. But for someone about whom it cannot even be proven that he knew singing was performed in his house, this false propaganda is made against him! Is this justice? And can there be any trace of trustworthiness and honesty in such people?
Imam Shuba, may Allah have mercy on him, and other trustworthy narrators’ abandonment:
↰ Imam Sha’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, out of excessive caution, abandoned many other trustworthy narrators due to minor doubts. Here, we present only one example:
Muhammad bin Muslim, Abu al-Zubair al-Makki:
Abu al-Zubair al-Makki is a narrator of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. A large number of great muhaddithin have declared him trustworthy, but Imam Sha’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, did not take narration from him either. Waraqah states:
قلت لشعبة : ما لك تركت حديث أبى الزبير؟ قال : رأيته يزن ويسترجح فى الميزان
“I asked Sha’bah: Why did you abandon the hadith of Abu al-Zubair? He replied: I saw him demanding more weight (i.e., more stringent criteria).”
In response to Imam Sha’bah’s approach, Imam Ibn Hibban writes:
ولم ينصف من قدح فيه، لأن من استرجح فى الوزن لنفسه، لم يستحق الترك من أجله.
“Whoever criticized Abu al-Zubair did not act justly, because a person who demands more weight for himself does not thereby deserve to be abandoned.”
↰ Will Abu al-Zubair al-Makki also be declared “weak” due to Imam Sha’bah’s, may Allah have mercy on him, abandonment of him? If so, then hundreds of his hadiths present in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim would have to be discarded. Will the followers of Dr. Usmani also abandon the hadiths of Abu al-Zubair al-Makki? It is understood that when the majority of the great hadith scholars declare a narrator trustworthy, Imam Sha’bah’s abandonment of him does not cause harm to that narrator.
④ Abu Ishaq Juzjani and Minhal
Dr. Usmani wrote: “Al-Juzjani wrote in his book ‘Al-Du’afa’ that he was of bad religion.”
↰ The first thing is, what are the exact words of Juzjani? There is disagreement among those who mention this. Allama Zahabi and Hafiz Ibn Hajar, etc., have quoted Juzjani’s words about Munhal as (heretic), whereas Allama Ayni Hanafi (762-858 AH) mentioned Juzjani’s commentary about Munhal bin Amr in these words:
وقال إبراهيم بن يعقوب الجوزجاني: المنهال بن عمرو سني المذهب.
“Ibrahim bin Yaqub Juzjani said that Munhal bin Amr was Sunni in terms of creed.”
It appears that the manuscript of Juzjani’s book that Allama Ayni had contained these words. Then the words mentioned by Allama Ayni Hanafi are not improbable, because Munhal bin Amr held the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah, he was not a Rafidhi. It is proven from him calling Sayyida Aisha “Umm al-Mu’minin” and mentioning the supplicatory phrase “Radi Allahu Anha” about her.
Whereas the Rafidi Shia are enemies of the Companions, they cannot express such reverence for Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her). The unfamiliarity with or criminal negligence of Allama Aini’s book clearly reveals Dr. Usmani’s “extensive reading” or “scholarly honesty.”
Furthermore, if the words “bad-madhhab” (heretical) about Manhal bin Amr by Juzjani are correct, then Dr. Usmani has mentioned this from the books of both Allama Zahabi and Hafiz Ibn Hajar, but he did not explain what impression these two scholars themselves had about Juzjani’s criticism. Both of them did not consider Juzjani’s criticism noteworthy. Allama Zahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote صح before quoting Juzjani’s criticism, indicating that no criticism made by anyone, including Juzjani, is effective. Meanwhile, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) has detailed Juzjani’s biased attitude and explained that labeling the true and faithful people of Kufa as heretics is Juzjani’s prejudiced habit, which should be guarded against. Hafiz’s stern warning about Juzjani is essential reading for researchers; he states:
وممن ينبغي أن يتوقف فى قبول الجرح من كان بينه وبين من جرحه عداوة سببها الاختلاف فى الاعتقاد، فإن الحاذق إذا تأمل ثلب أبى إسحاق الجوزجاني لأهل الكوفة رأى العجب، وذلك لشدة انحرافه فى النصب، وشهرة أهلها بالتشيع، فتراه لا يتوقف فى من ذكره منهم، بلسان ذلقة وعبارة طلقة، حتى إنه يلين مثل الأعمش، وأبي نعيم، وعبيد الله بن موسى، وأساطين الحديث، وأركان الرواية، فهذا إذا عارضة مثله أو أكبر منه، فوثق رجلا ضعفه قبل التوثيق
“Among those whose critical statements must be approached with caution is the person who harbors enmity towards the narrator due to differences in belief. Thus, when an expert (in narrators) examines Abu Ishaq Juzjani’s criticism against the people of Kufa, he will observe a strange behavior. This is because he suffers from severe deviation in the doctrine of Nawasib (enmity towards Ahl al-Bayt), whereas the people of Kufa are known for their Shi’ism (greater love for Ahl al-Bayt). Therefore, you will see that whoever among the people of Kufa Abu Ishaq Juzjani mentioned, he did not hesitate to criticize them with harsh language and severe expressions, even criticizing hadith narrators like Imam A’mash, Abu Nu’aym, and Ubaidullah bin Musa, who were pillars of hadith and narration. Hence, when a contemporary imam or a greater imam calls a person trustworthy whom Juzjani has declared weak, the trustworthiness will be accepted…”
It is a fact that some people among the people of Kufa, due to extremism in their love for Ahl al-Bayt, became suspicious of the other companions of the Prophet, but it is an even clearer fact that not all people of Kufa were like this. If going to the extent of insulting the other companions while being extreme in love for Ahl al-Bayt is one extreme, then being involved in belittling Ahl al-Bayt in support of the other companions and holding enmity against the people of Kufa who love Ahl al-Bayt while respecting all the companions is another extreme. Those who reach the first extreme are called “Rafidhi” and those who reach the second extreme are called “Nasibi” in terminology. Despite his knowledge and scholarship, Juzjani was a biased Nasibi. It was his habit to unjustly criticize the people of Kufa and lovers of Ahl al-Bayt. If even one reliable narrator from Kufa is declared trustworthy by any authentic hadith scholar, then Juzjani’s criticism should be discarded, especially since dozens of hadith scholars have declared Munhal trustworthy, yet Dr. Usmani embraces Juzjani’s criticism. Researchers have given no importance to the biased Juzjani’s opinion compared to moderate hadith scholars.
Allama Muhammad Nasiruddin Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, says about the criticism of Juzjani:
ويكفي فى رد ذلك أنه من رجال البخاري.
“This is sufficient to refute Juzjani that he is a narrator of Sahih Bukhari.”
↰ Contrary to this fair approach of investigation, Dr. Usmani’s method of research can be called nothing but ignorance and dishonesty.
Regarding Juzjani’s criticism of Minhal bin Amr, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
وأما الجوزجاني، فقد قلنا غير مرة : إن جرحه لا يقبل فى أهل الكوفة، لشدة انحرافه، ونصبه.
“As for Juzjani’s statement, we have stated many times that due to his extreme bias and deviation from the path of moderation, his criticism of the people of Kufa cannot be accepted.”
Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, explained it many times, even hundreds of thousands of times, but what do researchers like Dr. Usmani, who lack fairness and honesty, care? Like Juzjani, they have adopted the same biased approach that wherever they find a statement supporting their point, they cut it out of its context and present it in their favor without even mentioning the author’s impression on the matter. We have been continuously showing our readers this method of theirs.
⑤ Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, and Minhal bin Amr
Dr. Usmani wrote: “Similarly, Ibn Hazm has criticized it and declared the narration about the testing of the same grave and the questioning and answering to be inadmissible.”
↰ According to his honest and fair approach, Dr. Usmani took the criticism of Ibn Hazm from Hafiz Zahabi, but he did not consider it appropriate to convey his own stance about it. Hafiz Zahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, initially wrote “Sahih” to indicate that Ibn Hazm’s criticism is not acceptable, rather it is rejected. Secondly, he declared the same hadith about the torment of the grave and the return of the soul from Minhaj as authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim, as we have explained. Thirdly, after conveying Ibn Hazm’s criticism, he mentioned a hadith from Minhaj and declared its chain of narration sound. Dr. Usmani closed his eyes like a pigeon to all these matters and assumed that perhaps no one would reach them. Allah Almighty certainly exposes the actions of the enemies of Hadith before the people.
◈ Hafiz, Abu Fida, Ismail bin Umar, Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him (700-774 AH) says:
وتكلم فيه ابن حزم، ورد حديثه عن زاذان، عن البراء، فى السؤال فى القبر، فاخطا ابن حزم
“Hafiz Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, criticized Minhal bin Amr and rejected his hadith narrated indirectly through Zadhan from our master Bara, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding questioning and answering in the grave. This is Ibn Hazm’s mistake.”
↰ Dozens of hadith scholars have affirmed the authenticity of the hadith about the soul’s return, and dozens of scholars have considered Minhal trustworthy, but Dr. Uthmani insisted on Ibn Hazm’s mistake. This is his invaluable research!
The status of Hafiz Ibn Hazm in Jarh wa Ta’dil:
Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, although he was a mujtahid and a jurist, was nevertheless a later scholar, and in the science of Jarh wa Ta’dil (criticism and accreditation), his status was only that of a transmitter. He was only qualified to form an opinion about a narrator based on the statement of an earlier Imam, as Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, states:
وضعفه أبو محمد ابن حزم، فأخطأ، لأن لا نعلم له سلفا فى تضعيفه .
“He (Marwan ibn Muhammad al-Dimashqi) was declared weak by Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm, and this is his mistake, because to our knowledge, before Ibn Hazm, no one had called him weak:…”
↰ Therefore, the statements of experts in the field of Hadith like Imam Bukhari and others cannot be given any importance in comparison. Yes! If Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, uses the statement of an earlier Muhaddith as evidence to classify a narrator as “Thiqah” (trustworthy) or “Da’eef” (weak), then his evidence will certainly be worth considering. Ibn Hazm has also mentioned an argument regarding the classification of Munhal bin Amr as “Da’eef,” which we will examine in the following lines, InshaAllah!
↰ It is also agreed that the knowledge of Jarh wa Ta’dil (criticism and accreditation) and the authenticity or weakness of Hadith was not Ibn Hazm’s field. Even as a transmitter, he was not proficient in Jarh wa Ta’dil. This can be inferred from the fact that he classified the narration about the prohibition of music in Sahih Bukhari as “Da’eef,” whereas earlier and later Muhaddithin consider it authentic.
Moreover, they declared Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him, as “unknown,” even though he is a famous and well-known Imam of Hadith. Both earlier and later scholars have praised him.
Regarding this, Hafiz Zahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:
ثقة مجمع عليه، ولا التفات إلى قول أبى محمد بن حزم فيه، فى الفرائض، من كتاب الإيصال : إنه مجهول، فإنه ما عرفه، ولا درى بوجود الجامع، ولا العلل اللذين له .
“The consensus of the Ummah is on the trustworthiness of Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him. The statement of Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm in his book Al-Iysal, in the chapter on obligations, that he is unknown, is insignificant. (It is astonishing) that Ibn Hazm neither recognized the Imam himself, nor his collection, nor the two books written on the defects of Hadith by him.”
Similarly, Ibn Hazm has declared several narrators of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim as “weak.” For example:
➊ Ibrahim bin Tahman is a narrator of dozens of authentic hadiths in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
No criticism from any reliable Imam has been established against him, but Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, called him “weak.”
Isra’il is also a narrator of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Allama Ibn Hazm has also criticized him.
Whereas the decision of Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, about them is:
ثقة، تكلم فيه بلا حجة.
“He is a trustworthy narrator. The criticism made against him is baseless.”
Hafiz Al-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, writes about them:
ثقة إمام، ضعفه ابن حزم، ورد أحاديثه، مع كونها كثيرة الصحاح.
“Isra’il is a trustworthy Imam. Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, declared him weak, although a large collection of authentic hadiths has been narrated by him.”
If we accept Ibn Hazm’s ruling regarding Ibrahim bin Tahman and Israel bin Yunus, etc., then a large portion of Bukhari and Muslim will become weak and unreliable.
Therefore, Ibn Hazm’s opinion in Jarh and Ta’dil will only be accepted when it aligns with the consensus of the earlier majority of hadith scholars; otherwise, it will be rejected, just as Ibn Kathir, may Allah have mercy on him, rejected his opinion against the hadith scholars regarding Minhal.
Ibn Hazm’s argument:
Hafiz Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, also mentioned the reason for criticizing Minhal bin Amr, which is:
والمنهال ضعيف، وروي عن المغيرة بن مقسم أنه قال : لم يثبت للمنهال شهادة فى الإسلام .
“Minhal bin Amr is weak; it is narrated from Mughirah bin Muqsim that Minhal’s testimony is not established in Islam.”
There is a gap of about two and a half centuries between the death of Mughirah ibn Muqsim and the birth of Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him. Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, did not mention any chain of narration for this statement. However, its chain of narration was mentioned by Ibn Abu Khaythamah. Perhaps Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, copied it from there, but he did not realize that the chain was not authentic. Regarding this, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, states:
وروى ابن أبى خيثمة بسند له عن المغيرة بن مقسم . . . وهذه الحكاية لا تصح، لأن راويها محمد بن عمر الحنفي لا يعرف.
“Ibn Abi Khaythamah narrated from Mughirah ibn Muqsim with his chain of narration… but this report is not established because its narrator Muhammad ibn Umar Hanafi is unknown.”
When even Ibn Hazm’s (may Allah have mercy on him) argument was not proven, the entire structure of criticism based on it also collapsed. Perhaps someone might think that the incident where Imam Shuba (may Allah have mercy on him) heard singing from Munhal’s house and therefore left him, is proven, and maybe that was also in front of Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him), and on that basis, he called Munhal “weak.” But this is nothing less than a joke, because Ibn Hazm himself considered singing permissible and also declared the buying and selling of musical instruments lawful. Then how could he criticize Munhal for the sound of singing coming from his house?
Ibn Hazm and Dr. Usmani:
It is also worth mentioning here that Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) rejected this hadith solely because of Munhal and said:
ولم يرو أحد أن فى عذاب القبر رد الروح إلى الجسد إلا المنهال بن عمرو، وليس بالقوي.
“In the hadith about the punishment of the grave, the mention of the soul returning to the body is only by Munhal bin Amr, and he is not strong.”
From the aforementioned statement, it is proven that according to Ibn Hazm, if Munhal were not “weak” or if a trustworthy narrator had narrated such a hadith, he would have accepted it. This proves that Dr. Usmani also criticized Munhal’s teacher Zadhan, but Ibn Hazm opposes Dr. Usmani in this matter because, according to him, this hadith is “weak” only due to Munhal. On the contrary, Dr. Usmani has placed the entire blame on Zadhan, as we have already mentioned.
Now, firstly, Munhal bin Amr has been proven trustworthy, and secondly, besides Munhal, there are hadiths narrated by other trustworthy narrators mentioning the return of the soul, as we are about to explain. Therefore, people of justice should distinguish between truth and falsehood in favor of the truth.
Conclusion
Regarding Munhal bin Amr, despite the endorsements of dozens of eminent hadith scholars and experts, Dr. Usmani found only five criticisms in the entire collection of biographical books. Among these, two, namely Imam Yahya bin Saeed Qattan and Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on them, their criticisms could not be established at all. On the contrary, we have already mentioned the clear endorsement of Imam Yahya bin Ma’in. Of the remaining three, one was that Imam Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, had abandoned narrations from him. It was explained that Imam Shu’bah’s decision was not correct; when Imam Wahb bin Jarir, may Allah have mercy on him, debated this matter with him, Imam Shu’bah was left speechless. He did this due to his strictness, which many Imams of the religion rejected and considered it an excessive caution on his part. Then we explained that Imam Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, had also abandoned narrations from several other narrators of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, while Dr. Usmani also accepts the narrations he reported as authentic.
But Dr. Usmani used Imam Shuba’s approach as his argument against dozens of hadith scholars regarding Minhal bin Amr.
The second criticism was from Allama Juzjani. We have explained that firstly, his words have reached us in two ways, one of which indicates not criticism but authentication. Secondly, we have clarified from the statements of the Imams of the religion that Juzjani was a Nasibi and could not remain impartial in criticism and evaluation concerning the people of Kufa. The Imams of the religion do not accept his criticism of the people of Kufa, but Dr. Usmani made it his own burden to oppose dozens of reliable Imams of the religion.
The third criticism was by Hafiz Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, about whom we have already mentioned that the chain of narration for the criticism Ibn Hazm presented against Munhal is not authentic, and also Ibn Hazm was not very skilled in the science of Rijal (narrators). Ibn Hazm’s criticism is not significant against the earlier hadith scholars. Ibn Hazm even declared several narrators of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim as “weak,” although Dr. Usmani considers the narrations they transmitted to be authentic. However, here, to support his point, Dr. Usmani accepted Ibn Hazm’s statement without hesitation, akin to “a drowning person clutching at a straw.”
Now, let the people of justice decide for themselves whether they will accept the hadith of Munhal bin Amr based on the authentication of dozens of great hadith scholars or reject it considering these five criticisms of Dr. Usmani, two of which are not established at all, and the remaining three do not harm Munhal’s hadith in the eyes of hadith scholars!
Now we come to the second objection of Dr. Usmani regarding the hadith about the returning soul.
He has also criticized Zadhan, the teacher of Minhal bin Amr, in this hadith. In fact, he placed the entire responsibility of this narration on Zadhan, as we have mentioned. Then, for some unknown reason, why did he unjustly attack Minhal?
Authentication of Zadhan Abu Umar by Hadith Scholars and Researchers
Dear readers, you have already observed that Dr. Usmani goes to any extent to reject any hadith that contradicts his self-made belief. He filters the statements of hadith scholars about trustworthy narrators from the books of Jarh wa Ta’dil through his sieve of “integrity,” through which dozens of clear authentic statements do not pass. Only a few ambiguous and ineffective criticisms reach the pages of his book, and his ignorant followers consider this act of integrity as thorough research and rejoice immensely.
Dr. Usmani has adopted the same approach regarding Zadhan. We have already mentioned that dozens of hadith scholars and researchers have authenticated the hadith about the return of the soul and have derived matters of belief from it, giving it a fundamental status in the issue of punishment and reward in the grave. We have referenced thirteen of them. All of them say that Zadhan Abu Umar is a trustworthy narrator.
Now observe some more statements of the scholars:
➊ Imam, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Saad bin Mani’, Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him (168-230 AH) says:
وكان ثقة، قليل الحديث.
“He was a trustworthy narrator. He narrated a few hadiths.”
➋ Imam of Jarh wa Ta’dil, Abu Zakariya, Yahya bin Ma’in, may Allah have mercy on him (158-233 AH) says:
ثقة، —، لا يسال عن مثل هؤلاء.
“He is a trustworthy narrator; such narrators should not even be questioned.”
➌ The famous Muhaddith, Imam, Abu al-Hasan, Muslim bin Hajjaj, Nishapuri, may Allah have mercy on him (204-261 AH) narrated from Zadhan (Sahih Muslim: 1657 etc.) and authenticated him.
➍ The historian of Rijal, Imam, Abu al-Hasan, Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Saleh, Ajli, may Allah have mercy on him (181-261 AH) declared him trustworthy.
➎ Imam, Abu Isa, Muhammad bin Isa, Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on him (209-279 AH) wrote about a hadith narrated by Zadhan:
هذا حديث حسن صحيح
“This hadith is Hasan Sahih.”
➏ Imam of Imams, Abu Bakr, Muhammad bin Ishaq, Ibn Khuzaymah, may Allah have mercy on him (223-311 AH) narrated in his Sahih
and authenticated him.
➐ Imam, Abu Awana, Yaqub bin Ishaq, Asfara’ini, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 316 AH) mentioned his narration
in his Sahih, which is an implicit authentication.
➑ Imam, Abu Hatim, Muhammad bin Hibban, Busti, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 354 AH) also mentioned his narration
in his Sahih, which is his authentication of Zadhan.
➒ Imam, Abu Ahmad, Abdullah bin Adi, Jurjani, may Allah have mercy on him (277-365 AH) says:
وأحاديثة لا بأس بها إذا روى عنه ثقة.
“When the narrator who reports from him is trustworthy, then there is no defect in his hadith.”
➓ Imam, Abu Bakr, Ahmad bin Ali, Khateeb Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him (392-463 AH) says:
وكان ثقة.
“Zadhan was a trustworthy narrator.”
⓫ Hafiz, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahid, Diya al-Din, Maqdisi, may Allah have mercy on him (569-643 AH) authenticated his hadith.
⓬ Allama, Abu Muhammad, Abdul Azim bin Abdul Qawi, Munziri, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 656 AH) says:
وزاذان ثقة مشهور.
“Zadhan is a well-known trustworthy narrator.”
⓭ Shaykh al-Islam, Abu al-Abbas, Ahmad bin Abdul Halim, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 728 AH) says:
و حديث زاذان مما اتفق السلف والخلف على روايته، وتلقيه بالقتول
“There is consensus among the Salaf and Khalaf on narrating and accepting the hadith of Zadhan.”
⓮ Hafiz, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Ahmad, Ibn Abd al-Hadi, may Allah have mercy on him (705-744 AH) said the chain of hadith narrated by Zadhan is authentic.
⓯ Hafiz, Abu Abdullah, Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Uthman, Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him (673-748 AH) says:
وكان ثقة، صادقا.
“He was a trustworthy and truthful person.”
⓰ Hafiz, Abu al-Hasan, Ali bin Abu Bakr, Haithami, may Allah have mercy on him (735-807 AH) also declared him trustworthy.
Dozens of Imams have declared the hadith of Zadhan authentic and have authenticated him. These are dozens of testimonies based on the explicit authentication of Zadhan by the Imams of the religion. Now let us observe the reality of the criticisms quoted by Dr. Usmani:
The Reality of Criticism on Zadhan
Dr. Usmani has quoted criticisms against Zadhan from several dozen hadith scholars and researchers, summarized as follows:
➊ Hakim was asked why he did not take narration from Zadhan? He said that he used to talk a lot, that’s why.
➋ Ibn Hibban said that he made many mistakes.
➌ Abu Ahmad Hakim says that he is not strong in the eyes of the scholars.
➍ Salmah bin Kaheel said that he considers Abu al-Bakhtari better than him.
➎ Ibn Hajar said that Zadhan had Shi’ism.
This was the entire stock of Dr. Usmani against Zadhan in comparison to dozens of hadith scholars including Imam Muslim, Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, Imam Tirmidhi, and Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, etc. According to the principles of hadith, even if these criticisms are effective against dozens of hadith scholars, they are negligible. Let alone, they hold no value among the hadith scholars. Observe:
Zadhan and Imam Hakim bin Utaybah
Dr. Usmani has written: “Shu’bah says that I asked Al-Hakam why he does not take narration from Zadhan? He said that he talks too much, that’s why.”
↰ Talking too much or Imam Hakam not taking narrations from him is not a criticism. This is why the Muhaddithin and researchers have also quoted Hakam’s statement, but still considered him trustworthy.
No one considered it a criticism on Zadhan. Then some Imams’ clarifications are added on this:
◈ The Imam of Hadith and Ilm al-Rijal, Abu Ahmad Ibn Adi, may Allah have mercy on him (277-365 AH), says:
وأحاديثه لا بأس بها إذا روى عنه ثقة،—، وإنما رماه من رماه بكثرة كلامه.
“When the narrator who reports from him is trustworthy, then there is no defect in his hadith. The one who accused him only said that he talks too much.”
↰ Imam Ibn Adi, may Allah have mercy on him, has made it very clear that the objection raised against Zadhan is only regarding his excessive talking, but this objection does not affect his reliability; rather, despite this, he is trustworthy and his hadiths are authentic.
◈ Hafiz Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote “Sahih” about Zadhan in
, indicating that this does not affect Zadhan’s reliability.
Then the followers of Dr. Usmani should also know that they have rejected Zadhan’s hadith by calling him a Shia, although this is not proven. We will explain the reality of this in the upcoming pages in order. However, here we will at least ask them this much: if being a Shia is a criticism and the hadith narrated by a Shia is not authentic, then does criticism and evaluation of Sunni narrators by any Shia hold validity? If yes, then why? And if not, then know that Imam Hukm bin Utaybah, who abandoned Zadhan’s narrations, was a Shia. Zadhan being a Shia has not been proven, but Imam Hukm’s Shia identity is proven, as:
◈ Imam, Abu al-Hasan, Ahmad bin Abdullah, Ajli, may Allah have mercy on him (d. 261 AH) says:
وكان فيه تشيع، إلا أنّ ذلك لم يظهر منه إلا بعد مؤته .
“There was Shi’ism in them, but this became known only after their death.”
↰ Just think, why would any Shia criticize a Shia who promotes their religion? And decide how much justice Dr. Usmani has done?
It is understood that for the fair-minded, Imam Hakim bin Utaybah leaving Zadhan is not a criticism, nor does it affect Zadhan’s hadith.
Ibn Hibban and Zadhan
Dr. Usmani’s words are: Ibn Hibban said that كان يخطي، كثيرا “He used to make many mistakes.”
● The first point is that Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, was uncertain about Zadhan. How can a person who makes many mistakes be considered trustworthy? What is the justification for mentioning him among the trustworthy narrators? Moreover, Ibn Hibban himself wrote a book called “Al-Majruhin” about weak narrators. If Zadhan was considered “weak” by him, then why did he include him among the trustworthy narrators instead of mentioning him in that book? Furthermore, Ibn Hibban himself declared the hadith of Zadhan
as authentic. Can the hadith of someone who makes many mistakes be authentic?
● The second point is that among the scholars, the criticism and praise (Jarh wa Ta’dil) of Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, holds no weight compared to Imam Muslim, Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in, and Imam Tirmidhi, may Allah have mercy on them. When Ibn Hibban opposes these dozens of great Imams, his opinion is not considered reliable.
● The third point is that if Imam Ibn Hibban, may Allah have mercy on him, considers the hadith of Minhal bin Amr authentic in agreement with the great Imams of the religion, then Dr. Usmani does not even mention this, but when he criticizes Zadhan against all of them, Dr. Usmani immediately accepts it, even though he himself has declared him trustworthy and his hadith authentic. Is this called justice?
↰ It is clear that Ibn Hibban’s criticism of Zadhan is against the endorsement of dozens of great Imams and even against his own judgment, therefore it holds no credibility.
Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim and Zadhan
Dr. Usmani wrote: “Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim says that among the scholars he is not strong.”
↰ This is a scholarly slip by Abu Ahmad al-Hakim. Who are the scholars that have called Zadhan weak? Dr. Usmani perhaps did not know that several dozen hadith scholars have considered Zadhan trustworthy. We have left the details to the readers. Honestly tell us, are Imam Ibn Saad, Imam Muslim, Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, Imam Tirmidhi, Imam Ibn ‘Adi, Imam ‘Ajli, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imam Abu ‘Awana, Imam Khateeb Baghdadi, Imam Ibn Manda, Imam Abu Nu’aym Asbahani, Imam Abu Abdullah Hakim, Imam Bayhaqi, Hafiz Muqaddasi, Hafiz Munzhiri, Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Hadi, Allama Ibn Taymiyyah, Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, Allama Suyuti, Allama Dhahabi, Hafiz Haithami, etc., not scholars? If these are not scholars, then tell us who are the scholars? All of these say that Zadhan is a trustworthy narrator.
Now let only the followers of Dr. Usmani make a new revelation that proves that the scholars considered Zadhan weak. Regarding calling Zadhan weak, we have presented the entire universe of Dr. Usmani before you; three of these criticisms have already been commented on, and the status of the remaining two criticisms will also be presented to you shortly. Except for Ibn Hibban, none of these statements prove that they considered Zadhan weak. As for Ibn Hibban’s statement, it contradicts his own words and actions. In this context, can it be said that the scholars considered Zadhan weak? The decision is in your hands.
Salmah bin Kaheel and Zadhan
Dr. Usmani wrote: “Salmah bin Kaheel said that I consider Abu al-Bakhtari better than him.”
When a narrator is compared by a muhaddith to another narrator, it is called relative authentication or relative weakening. Before understanding this comparison in the context of authentication or weakening, it is necessary to know what status the person being compared holds in the eyes of the muhaddithin.
Take the example where Salmah bin Kaheel compared Zadhan with Abu al-Bakhtari and considered Abu al-Bakhtari better than Zadhan. Now let us see what status Abu al-Bakhtari holds. The fundamental principle is that if Abu al-Bakhtari is trustworthy, then Zadhan will be somewhat less trustworthy than him, because Abu al-Bakhtari is better than Zadhan. And if Abu al-Bakhtari is “weak,” then Zadhan will be even more “weak,” because Abu al-Bakhtari is, in any case, better than him.
Abu al-Bakhtari Saeed bin Feroz is a narrator of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim. Besides Imam Bukhari and Muslim, he has been declared trustworthy by Imam Yahya bin Ma’in, Imam Abu Hatim, Imam Abu Zuhah, Imam Ibn Hibban, Imam Ajli, and others. Now, if Abu al-Bakhtari is considered better than Zadhan, the conclusion would be that Zadhan’s status is somewhat lower than Abu al-Bakhtari. Drawing from this comparison that Zadhan is a “weak” narrator according to Salmah bin Kaheel is sheer ignorance and foolishness. Does one become “weak” or unreliable just by comparing two trustworthy narrators?
Dear readers, also keep in mind that Salmah bin Kaheel, whose statement Dr. Usmani wants to use to attack Zadhan, was a Shia.
Dr. Usmani has rejected the Hadith of Aud al-Ruh by accusing Zadhan of being a Shia.
Our question is that if the hadith narrated by the Shia narrator is “weak,” then how is criticism of any narrator acceptable? This is the scholarly position of those who object to the hadith with the return of the soul!
It is understood that Salmah bin Kaheel’s statement does not affect the reliability of Zadhan.
Accusation of Shi’ism on Zadhan
Dr. Usmani has written: “Zadhan is a Shi’ith.”
See Dr. Usmani’s ignorance and bias that he did not bother to investigate and declared Zadhan a propagator of Ja’fari jurisprudence. The first person in the world to claim that Zadhan was a Shi’ith was Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him. Before him, no reliable hadith scholar made this claim. If Ibn Hajar’s statement is correct, then he did not mean the technical term Shi’a, which abandons the religion of Muhammad and follows Ja’fari jurisprudence.
However, Abu Bashar Dulabi (224-310 AH) wrote: وكان من شيعة علي
“He was among the group of Sayyiduna Ali, may Allah be pleased with him.”
Perhaps some ignorant person might think that Zadhan was a Shia. Being part of Sayyiduna Ali رضي الله عنه‘s group is not proof of being misguided or an enemy of the companions, nor does it prove being Shia. Many noble companions were also part of Sayyiduna Ali رضي الله عنه‘s group. Will they also be called Shia?
In fact, the terms “early” and “later” scholars have different meanings among the Shia as well. While explaining this difference, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) himself writes:
التشيع فى عرف المتقدمين، هو اعتقاد تفضيل على علي عثمان، وأن عليا كان مصيبا فى حروبه، وأن مخالفة مخطى، مع تقديم الشيخين وتفضيلهما، وربما اعتقد بعضهم أن عليا أفضل الخلق بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وإذا كان معتقد ذلك ورعا، دينا، صادقا، مجتهدا، فلا ترد روايته بهذا .
“In the terminology of the early Shia, it means those who believe in the virtue of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Umar, along with giving virtue to Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and hold the belief that Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the truth in the battles and his opponents were in error. Among these (early Shia) people, some (while respecting all the noble companions, may Allah be pleased with them) sometimes also hold the belief that Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is the most excellent after the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). When a person with this belief is pious, religious, truthful, and an ijtihad scholar, his narration will not be rejected.”
That is, even if Zadhan were Shia, it does not mean Shia who follow Ja’fari jurisprudence. Dr. Usmani and his followers did not even consider Zadhan’s kunya. Zadhan’s kunya was “Abu Umar.” Can the enemies of the Companions who are Shia take the kunya Abu Umar?
Secondly, what kind of Shia is he who becomes a student of Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), narrates traditions from her, and prays for her with “may Allah be pleased with her”? Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) has narrated a tradition from Zadhan with an authentic chain; please observe its chain of narration:
. . . عن زاذان، عن عائشة رضي الله عنها . . .
“Zadhan narrates that it is from Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her).”
The third point is, what kind of Shia is he who acknowledges Sayyiduna Umar Farooq as Amir al-Mu’minin and calls him “Radi Allahu Anhu”? Consider another narration narrated by Zadhan:
. . . عن زادان، قال : كنا عند علي، فتذاكرنا الخيار، فقال: أما أمير المؤمنين عمر رضى الله عنه، قد سألني عنه . . .
“Zadhan says that we were with Sayyiduna Ali. We mentioned the option of choice (khiyar) in divorce, and he said: Amir al-Mu’minin Umar, Radi Allahu Anhu, had asked for my opinion on this matter…”
See that Zadhan did not use the words “Amir al-Mu’minin” or “Radi Allahu Anhu” for Sayyiduna Ali, whereas he called Sayyiduna Umar both “Amir al-Mu’minin” and “Radi Allahu Anhu.” Are Shias like this?
Zadhan and the Ja’fari Fiqh narration. A subtle point:
Here, listen to a joke about Dr. Usmani’s mental state. He has written: “Actually, the tradition of the soul returning to the body of the deceased in the grave is a tradition of Shariat Jafariya, which the narrator Zadhan (Shia) took from there and attributed it to Bara bin Azib.”
Now, Dr. Usmani’s followers, hold your hearts because the idol of your devotion is about to be shattered, God willing! They are requested, for God’s sake, to observe this reality and free themselves from Dr. Usmani’s deceit and fraud. If, after seeing this truth, they do not correct their direction, then no excuse will work for them before Allah.
Ja’fari jurisprudence is attributed to Imam Abu Abdullah, Ja’far ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abu Talib, who, according to the scholars of narrators, was born in 80 AH, while according to the author of Ja’fari jurisprudence, Kulayni (whose book Dr. Usmani has referenced), he was born in 83 AH and died in 148 AH. Meanwhile, Zadhan died in 82 AH. This means that when Zadhan passed away, Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq was either not yet born or was only 2 years old, and by the time Ja’far al-Sadiq grew up and became capable of performing jurisprudential services, decades had already passed since Zadhan’s death.
Now, let any follower of Dr. Usmani explain how Zadhan, who died decades before the foundation of Ja’fari jurisprudence, could have narrated the statements of those born many decades later?
Then Ja’fari jurisprudence was compiled several centuries after the death of Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq. Al-Kulayni, whose book contains a Shia narration presented by Dr. Usmani, was born about a century after the death of Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq. He narrated this tradition from Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq. Only a mad and foolish person can say that Zadhan narrated Shia traditions, which came into existence several hundred years after his death, during his lifetime.
This is the intellectual state of Dr. Usmani! Now there is no doubt that abandoning the unanimous belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah and accepting the words of such a stubborn person is the height of misfortune. Whoever begins to insult the Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah by calling them polytheists and disbelievers, Allah Almighty makes his mental state just like that.
In summary
Zadhan is a trustworthy narrator according to the great hadith scholars, and his narration is completely authentic in the light of the principles and explanations of the hadith scholars. All objections against him are invalid.
Dr. Usmani’s own trust in the traditions of Shia and unreliable narrators
We have already presented some glimpses of Dr. Usmani’s “Honesty and Integrity” to the readers. Observe another example of his “honesty” regarding his rejection of the hadith narrated by Zadhan by calling him a Shia. Look at the chain of narration of the very first hadith presented in Dr. Usmani’s article “Amulets and Shirk” (p. 3), in which the prohibition of amulets is mentioned. This hadith is from Sunan Abu Dawood. Its chain of narration is:
حدثنا محمد بن العلاء، حدثنا أبو معاوية، حدثنا الاعمش، عن عمرو بن مرة، عن يحيى بن الجزار، عن ابن أخي زينب امرأة عبد الله، . . . عن زينب امرأة عبد الله، عن عبد الله . . .
Two narrators in this chain are Shia, and two narrators are Murji’ah (belonging to a misguided sect).
➊ You must have noticed the narrator named Yahya bin Jizzar in this chain. He was a Shia; not just one, several hadith scholars have declared him a Shia, indeed an extremist Shia, but Dr. Usmani’s treacherous pen did not mention this at all. Let us tell you what the scholars’ opinion was about this.
Imam Shu’bah, may Allah have mercy on him, teacher of Imam Hakim bin Utaybah, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
كان یحيى بن الجزار يغلو فى التشيع.
“Yahya bin Jizzar was a staunch Shia.”
The famous historian, Imam Abu al-Hasan, Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Saleh, Al-Ajli, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
وكان يتشيع “He was a Shia.”
Also consider the statement of the same Abu Ishaq Juzjani about him, according to Dr. Usmani, who declared Minhal bin Amr as “heretical.” Followers of Dr. Usmani should carefully observe what Juzjani’s opinion is about Yahya bin Jizzar. He writes:
وكان يحيى بن الجزار غاليا مفرطا
“Yahya bin Jizzar was an extremist type of Shia and was excessively misguided.”
➋ The second narrator of the same chain, Sulaiman bin Mehran Amash, has also been called a Shia; please observe:
Juzjani, who considered Minhal bin Amr to be of bad sect, also used the words مذموم المذهب “bad sect” for him.
◈ Imam Ajli, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
وكان فيه تشيع. “There was Shia tendency in him.”
Wow! Very good. Juzjani called one narrator of the Hadith with the spirit of the oud (lute) a bad sect, so Dr. Usmani criticized him well, but the same Juzjani called two narrators of the Hadith narrated by him bad sect, yet he mentioned them as his first and fundamental evidence. This is called hypocrisy and this is called “sweet sweet hip hip and bitter bitter spit spit.”
➌ The narrator named Amr bin Marah of the same chain was a Murji. Tell me, who is a Murji?
Baqi bin Walid and Imam Shu’bah,
Imam Ahmad
, Imam Ya’qub bin Sufyan Faswi
, and Imam Ibn Hibban
and others have declared Amr bin Marah to be a Murji.
4. The narrator of the same chain, Abu Muawiyah Muhammad bin Khazim, was also a Murji’i. Imam Ya’qub bin Shaybah
, Imam Ibn Sa’d
, Imam Ajli
, and Imam Ibn Hibban
and others have explicitly stated that he was a Murji’i.
Despite two of the narrators of this hadith being Shia, extreme Shia, and two being Murji’i and severely misguided according to the scholars of religion and hadith, Dr. Usmani has quoted this hadith as his most central proof. Imagine if this very hadith had been against Dr. Usmani’s disposition and an opponent had presented it to him, what would Dr. Usmani’s attitude have been? Is this what is called justice?
For the sake of Allah, those who still listen to Dr. Usmani should come to their senses.
It becomes clear how much expertise Dr. Usmani had in the science of Hadith and Rijal! The reality is exactly as we have stated according to Ibn Hajar, that if a narrator is truthful, then his being a Shia does not harm his narration. Therefore, even if it is proven that Zadhan was a Shia, it does not affect the authenticity of his Hadith.
Another Hadith about ‘Aud-e-Ruh’
The readers have already seen the sharp responses to Dr. Usmani’s objections regarding the hadith of the return of the soul. Along with this, it is also necessary to mention here that the statement about the return of the soul is not only found in the hadith on which Dr. Usmani raised objections, but it is also mentioned in another hadith. Let us also observe that:
Hadith of Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him):
Sayyiduna Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him), in a long hadith, narrates the words of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) mentioning the death of the righteous and the wicked person and the conditions of the grave:
فترسل من السماء، ثم تصير الي القبر، فيجلس الرجل الصالح
“Then the soul is sent down from the heaven and it comes towards the grave. Then the righteous person is seated…”
All the narrators of its chain are narrators of Bukhari and Muslim.
Imam Abu Nu’aym Asbahani says:
هذا حديث متفق على عدالة ناقليه
“The narrators of this hadith are unanimously trustworthy.”
There is not even a false accusation of any narrator of this hadith being Shia. Now how will Dr. Usmani’s followers declare this a Shia narration?
Thus, Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, was also incorrect in saying that except for Munhal bin Amr, no one mentions the return of the soul in the hadith of the torment of the grave.
If Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, had come across this hadith, he would certainly have referred to it.
He may be excused before Allah due to lack of knowledge, but those who deny these authentic hadiths even after knowing them should fear the punishment of Allah Almighty.
In summary
Dr. Usmani had raised objections against the two narrators of the hadith about the return of the soul, Munhal bin Amr and Zadhan. Praise be to Allah! These objections by those who accuse Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, of being a worshiper of the dead, have turned out to be a slap on their own scholarly faces. These objections have exposed Dr. Usmani and his associates’ scholarly shortcomings and their disturbed mental state to the public. The verdict of the hadith scholars and the people of knowledge is correct that this hadith is authentic. Muslims should base their beliefs accordingly.
An Intellectual Objection
An intellectual objection raised regarding the hadith about the soul leaving is that the deceased will not be alive before the Day of Resurrection. When the soul leaves the body, it becomes dead, and if the soul is inserted, it becomes alive? Then the dead in the graves would not remain dead.
The answer to this is that in the grave, the connection of the soul with the body is not complete, but partial, due to which the dead does not live like in worldly life. He remains dead. Thus, no Quranic verse or Prophetic hadith is necessarily contradicted. Just as the soul of a sleeping living person is taken out, but he remains alive. Since this departure of the soul is not complete, it is not called true death, and a sleeping person is called alive, not dead.
Allah the Almighty says:
اللَّـهُ يَتَوَفَّى الْأَنْفُسَ حِينَ مَوْتِهَا وَالَّتِي لَمْ تَمُتْ فِي مَنَامِهَا فَيُمْسِكُ الَّتِي قَضَى عَلَيْهَا الْمَوْتَ وَيُرْسِلُ الْأُخْرَى إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ
“He it is Who takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that die not during their sleep. He keeps those (souls) for which He has ordained death and sends the rest for a term appointed. Verily in this are signs for those who reflect.”
Similarly, in the Prophetic tradition, this supplication is taught before sleeping:
باسمك ربي، وضعت جنبي، وبك ارفعه، ان امسكت نفسي فارحمها، وإن أرسلتها فاحفظها، بما تحفظ به عبادك الصالحين
“My Lord! I lie down with Your name and with Your help I will rise. If You take my soul (i.e., cause me to die), then have mercy on it, and if You let it remain (so that it returns to the body), then protect it as You protect Your righteous servants.”
There are many hadiths regarding sleep, mentioning which would cause great length, from which it is proven that the soul is taken out of a person during sleep and metaphorically he is also called dead. However, despite this, no one has ever objected that countless deaths necessarily occur from this, nor has anyone ever called a sleeping person truly dead, because this departure of the soul is not complete, but partial.
Exactly the same matter applies to the return of the soul in the grave, that the original abode of this soul is either Paradise or Hell, but a partial connection is established with the body so that the body also experiences the rewards and punishments that the soul receives, as it shared in good and evil with it. This return of the soul does not necessitate a third life. The Imams of the religion have explained this matter very clearly and explicitly and have responded to the objections of those who consider this hadith to imply two lives and two deaths, which they see as contradictory to the law of deaths.
Conclusion
The hadith regarding the return of the soul in the grave is completely authentic according to the principles of hadith. Imams of the religion have accepted it in every era. The objections raised by Dr. Usmani against its narrators are baseless, because firstly, these narrators are from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and are considered trustworthy by the majority of hadith scholars, and secondly, these narrators are not unique in describing the return of the soul.
The objections Dr. Usmani has raised against the trustworthy narrators of this authentic hadith are exactly the same objections found in the hadiths he considers authentic. This writing is clear evidence of Dr. Usmani’s narrow-mindedness and lack of knowledge.
May Allah Almighty grant us the ability to understand the truth and act upon it, while protecting us from all kinds of misguidance. آمين
