Scholarly Criticism and Authentication of Narrator Muʾammal ibn Ismāʿīl al-Qurashī

Below is a detailed research about Abu Abdullah Mu’mil bin Ismail Al-Qurashi Al-Adawi Al-Basri Nazil Makkah. The purpose of this writing is to review the various criticisms and praises made about him and to reach the correct opinion. All references have been cited exactly as they are so that there is no alteration in the original material and sources.

The following narrations of Mu’mil are present in the Kutub al-Sittah:

• Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari = (Hadith 2700, and according to the preferred opinion Hadith 7083, with a conditional note)
• Reference: Sunan al-Tirmidhi = (Hadith 415, 672, 1822, 1948, 2135, 3266, 3525, 3906, 3949)
• Reference: Sunan al-Nasa’i al-Sughra = (Hadith 4097, 4589)
• Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah = (Hadith 2013, 2919, 3017)

The statements regarding the criticism and praise of Mu’mil bin Ismail are presented in detail below.

Part One: Statements of Criticism on Mu’mil bin Ismail

1. Statement of Abu Hatim al-Razi

   “صدوق، شدید فی السنۃ، کثیر الخطا، یکتب حدیثہ”

   Reference: (Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil 347/8)

   Meaning he was truthful, strict in matters of Sunnah, but many mistakes also occurred from him. Despite this, his hadiths are recorded.

2. Zakariya bin Yahya al-Saji
   Reference: “صدق، کثیر الخطا ولہ اوھام یطو ل ذکرھا”
   (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 381/10)

   There is no chain between the author

   Reference: (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (Hafiz Ibn Hajar) and Imam al-Saji (d. 307 AH as in Lisan al-Mizan 488/2)

   , therefore this statement is fundamentally not acceptable due to lack of chain.

3. Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwazi

   “المؤمل اذا انفرد بحدیث وجب ان یتوقف ویثبت فیہ الانہ کان سیئ الحفظ کثیر الخطا”

   Reference: (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 381/10)

   This statement is also without chain and is rejected due to opposition to the majority.

4. Statement of Ya’qub bin Sufyan al-Farsi
   He on one hand called Mu’mil a confirmer of سلیمان بن حرب, and on the other hand mentioned reservations about his narration of hadith:

   “سنی شیخ جلیل، سمعت سلیمان بن حرب یحسن الثناء علیہ یقول: کان مشیختنا یعرفون لہ ویوصون بہ الا ان حدیثہ لا یشبہ حدیث اصحابہ، حتی ربما قال: کان لا یسعہ ان یحدث وقد یجب علی اھل العلم ان یقفوا (عن) حدیثہ ویتخففوا من الروایۃ عنہ فانہ منکر یروی المناکیر عن ثقات شیوخنا وھذا اشد فلو کانت ھذہ المناکیر عن ضعاف لکنا نجعل لہ عذراً”

   Reference: (Kitab al-Ma’rifah wa al-Tarikh 52/3)

   If this criticism is from Sulayman bin Harb, then Ya’qub al-Farsi is among the trustworthy ones of Mu’mil, and if this criticism is from Ya’qub himself, then Sulayman bin Harb is among his trustworthy ones. However, this criticism is also rejected due to opposition to the majority.

5. Abu Zur’ah al-Razi

   “فی حدیثہ خطا کثیر”

   Reference: (Mizan al-I’tidal 228/4, t8949)

   This statement is also without chain.

6. Imam Bukhari

   “منکر الحدیث”

   Reference: (Tahdhib al-Kamal 526/18, Mizan al-I’tidal 228/4, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 381/10)

   In these three books, this statement appears without chain or reference, whereas on the other hand Imam Bukhari mentioned Mu’mil in his book

   Reference: Al-Tarikh al-Kabir (vol. 8, p. 49, t2107)

   without any criticism. Furthermore, Mu’mil bin Isma’il is not mentioned in Al-Du’afa by Bukhari. Bukhari included narrations of Mu’mil in his Sahih

   Reference: (h2700, 7083)

   . Hafiz Muzi says:

   “استشھد بہ البخاری”

   Reference: (Tahdhib al-Kamal 527/18)

   And Muhammad bin Tahir al-Maqdisi says:

   “بل استشھد بہ فی مواضع لبیین انہ ثقۃ”

   Reference: (Shurut al-A’immah al-Sittah p18)

   It is clear that Imam Bukhari considered him trustworthy, not a denier of hadith.

7. Ibn Sa’d

   “ثقۃ کثیر الغلط”

   Reference: (Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d 501/5)
8. Imam Darqutni

   “صدوق کثیر الخطا”

   (

   Reference: Sawalāt al-Hakim li al-Darqutni: 942)

   However, in other statements of Darqutni, nothing against him is found. Mu’mil is not present in الضعفاء والمتروکین للدارقطنی. This indicates that he had withdrawn this criticism.

9. Abdul Baqi bin Qani’ al-Baghdadi

   “صالح یخطئ”

   Reference: (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 381/10)

   This statement is also without chain and Ibn Qani’ himself is accused of confusion.

10. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani

    “صدوق سیئ الحفظ”

    Reference: (Taqrib al-Tahdhib: 7029)
11. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal

    “مؤمل کان یخطئ”

    Reference: (Sawalāt al-Marwazi: 53, Mawsu’at Aqwal al-Imam Ahmad 419/3)

    This indicates that he sometimes made mistakes, but this is possible even for a trustworthy person. It does not necessarily mean he becomes unreliable.

12. Ibn al-Turkumani al-Hanafi
    His criticism is based on “قیل”, therefore it is rejected.
    Reference: (Al-Jawhar al-Naqi 30/2)

Part Two: The Hadith Scholars Who Modified Mu’mil bin Ismail

Now, here are the statements of those hadith scholars from whom evidence is found for the authentication of Mu’mil bin Ismail or at least for the acceptance of his hadith:

1. Yahya bin Ma’in

   “ثقۃ”

   Reference: (Tarikh Ibn Ma’in Rawiyatu ad-Duri: 235, Al-Jarh wa at-Ta’dil Ibn Abi Hatim 373/8)

   It is narrated in the book Al-Jarh wa at-Ta’dil:

   “انا یعقوب بن اسحاق فیما کتب الی قال : نا عثمان بن سعید قال قلت لیحیی بن معین : ای شیئ حال المؤمل فی سفیان؟ فقال : ھو ثقۃ، قلت : ھو احب الیک او عبیداللہ ؟ فلم یفضل احدا علی الآخر”

   Reference: (374/8)

   From this, it is understood that Yahya bin Ma’in had a clear statement of authentication regarding Mu’mil from Sufyan.

2. Ibn Hibban
   He mentioned him in his
   Reference: Kitab ath-Thiqaat (187/9)

   and said “ربما اخطا”. According to Ibn Hibban, a narrator holding such an opinion is not unreliable. Furthermore, Ibn Hibban included narrations from Mu’mil in Sahih Ibn Hibban.

   Reference: (For example, Al-Ihsan bi Tartib Sahih Ibn Hibban Vol. 8 p. 253, Hadith 6681)
3. Imam Bukhari
   Bukhari narrated from Mu’mil with a conditional chain in his Sahih
   Reference: (Hadith 2700, 7083)

   , meaning he did not consider him unreliable but at least worthy of being cited. Among the Muhaddithin, this is considered an indication of authentication.

4. Sulaiman bin Harb
   He praised Mu’mil. (Details have already been mentioned above in Ya’qub bin Sufyan’s statement)
5. Ishaq bin Rahwayh

   “ثقۃ”

   Reference: (Tahdhib at-Tahdhib 381/10)

   Although this statement was transmitted without a chain, its meaning implies that Ishaq bin Rahwayh did not consider him weak.

6. Imam Tirmidhi
   He classified Mu’mil’s narration at several places as صحیح or حسن,
   Reference: for example, he declared Hadiths 415, 672, 1948 as Sahih and 2146, [3266] etc. as Hasan.

   The narrations in brackets [ ] have chains other than Sufyan’s, while those narrated from Sufyan ath-Thawri have been explicitly authenticated in most places. Thus, according to Tirmidhi, he is a narrator of Sahih or Hasan Hadith.

7. Ibn Khuzaymah
   He also included his narration in his Sahih and authenticated it.
   Reference: (Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah 243/1 Hadith 479)
8. Imam Darqutni
   When narrating from مؤمل سفیان الثوری, Darqutni mentioned words “اسنادہ صحیح” regarding this chain. This also indicates his reliability in this particular chain according to him.
9. Imam Hakim and Imam Dhahabi
   Both declared the narration of Mu’mil from Sufyan as ‘Ali Shart ash-Shaykhayn’ in
   Reference: Al-Mustadrak (384/1 Hadith 1418)

   and authenticated it. Dhahabi also agreed with this. This clearly shows that both considered Mu’mil acceptable and reliable.

10. Hafiz Dhahabi

    “کان من ثقات البصریین”

    Reference: (Al-‘Ibar fi Khabar man Ghabar 274/1 and Wafayat 206H)

    It is clear that he counted Mu’mil bin Ismail among the trustworthy narrators.

11. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
    He took narrations from Mu’mil in his
    Reference: Musnad (16/1 Hadith 97)

    and other places. According to the statement of Zafar Ahmad Thanvi Deobandi:

“وکذا شیوخ احمد کلھم ثقات”

Similarly, Hafiz Haithami says that the teachers of Imam Ahmad are trustworthy.

1. Ali bin al-Madini
   He also narrated from Mu’mil, as mentioned in
   Reference: Tahdhib al-Kamal (526/18)

   and others. According to Abu al-Arab al-Qayrawani, Ahmad and Ali bin al-Madini generally narrated only from reliable narrators.

   Reference: (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 114/9 T155)
2. Ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi
   In Tafsir Ibn Kathir
   Reference: (423/4 Surah Al-Ma’arij)

   , a hadith from Mu’mil from Sufyan is called “اسناد جید”. Similarly, in

   Reference: Musnad al-Faruq (367/1)

   , he is also considered excellent.

3. Hafiz Diya al-Maqdisi
   He included a hadith of Mu’mil in his
   Reference: Kitab al-Mukhtarah (345/1 H237)

   , indicating that he also considered it authentic.

4. Abu Dawood’s Statement (Narration of Abu Ubaidah al-Ajri)

   “قال ابو عبیدۃ الآجری: سالت ابا داؤد عن مؤمل بن اسماعیل فعظمہ ورفع من شانہ الا انہ یھم فی الشیئ۔”

   Reference: (Tahdhib al-Kamal 527/18)

   Although the chain of this statement does not include Abu Ubaidah al-Ajri’s authentication himself, at least it implies that Mu’mil was not entirely unacceptable according to Abu Dawood.

5. Hafiz Haithami

   “ثقۃ وفیہ ضعف”

   Reference: (Majma’ al-Zawa’id 183/8)

   Meaning he considered him Hasan al-Hadith; because “ثقۃ وفیہ ضعف” is generally said for a narrator who is generally reliable but has some errors in a few places.

6. Imam Nasai
   He included narration from Mu’mil in السنن الصغریٰ
   Reference: (H4097, 4589)

   . According to Zafar Ahmad Thanawi, if Nasai does not criticize a narrator and includes him in his Sunan, then generally he is considered trustworthy by them.

   Reference: (Qawa’id fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith p222)
7. Ibn Shaheen
   He included Mu’mil in his
   Reference: Kitab al-Thiqat (p232 T1416)

   .

8. Imam Ismaili
   He narrated from Mu’mil in Mustakhraj ‘ala Sahih al-Bukhari.
   Reference: (Fath al-Bari 33/13 under H7083)
9. Another Testimony of Hafiz Ibn Hajar
   He mentioned a hadith of Ibn Khuzaymah (which includes Mu’mil bin Ismail) in
   Reference: Fath al-Bari (224/2 under H740)

   but did not criticize it. According to Zafar Ahmad Thanawi Deobandi, the narrations that Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned more in Fath al-Bari are considered authentic or Hasan by him.

   Reference: (Qawa’id fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith p89)

Result of the Revision

• From all these statements, it is evident that according to the majority of hadith scholars, Mu’mal ibn Ismailثقہ or at least صدوق and حسن الحدیث are reliable. The criticism against him is either not proven or has been rejected due to opposition by the majority.
• The criticism attributed to Imam Bukhari “منکر الحدیث” is not established from any authentic source.
• The chain of narration “مؤمل عن سفیان (الثوری)” is especially considered authentic by Imam Tirmidhi and others.
• The statement of Hafiz Ibn Hajar “فی حدیثہ عن الثوری ضعف”
  Reference: (Fath al-Bari 239/9 under H5172)

  is against the majority and is therefore rejected. For this reason, there are many evidences that Mu’mal from Sufyan is considered صحیح الحدیث according to Bukhari, Darqutni, Ibn Khuzaymah, etc. For non-Sufyan narrations, his narration is at least of the grade Hasan.

Zafar Ahmad Thanvi Deobandi also quoted a chain with Mu’mal from Sufyan in

and called it “رجالہ ثقات”, and wrote elsewhere: “فالسند حسن” (اعلاء السنن ۱۱۸/۳)۔. Thus, it is clear that even Deobandi researchers consider مؤمل trustworthy or at least حسن الحدیث.

Part Three: Numerical Comparison of Tadil versus Jarh

• Number of Jarh critics = Approximately 7
• Number of Tadil critics = More than 18

Also, most of the major hadith scholars of the compilation era did not mention Mu’ammal in their books of weak narrators, for example, Imam Bukhari, Imam Nasai, Ibn Shahin, Ibn Hibban, Aqili, and Ibn al-Jawzi, among others, did not include Mu’ammal in any book of weak narrators. The Jarh found in some books is either without a chain or against the consensus.

Part Four: Response to Some Contemporary Objections

Nowadays, some Deobandi and Barelvi scholars criticize Ma’mal bin Ismail merely because one of his narrations about “سینے پر ہاتھ باندھنے” in prayer appears in sources such as

. They say that this narration contains “مؤمل عن سفیان الثوری”, and therefore they try to weaken him in some way. However, according to the majority of hadith scholars, he is completely صحیح الحدیث in narrating from Sufyan.

Moreover, Sufyan al-Thawri is also considered a mudallis (one who practices tadlis), so unless Sufyan explicitly clarifies, there may be weakness in the chain. But there is also a strong supporting narration of the same hadith

through Yahya bin Saeed (Al-Qattan) from Sufyan, etc. This strengthens the original narration.

A Brief Review of Qabisa bin Halb

• The relevant hadith also mentions قبیصہ بن ہلب, who is considered unknown according to Ibn Madini and Nasai, but this opinion is against the majority and lacks a chain.
• Imam Al-Ajli called him trustworthy, Ibn Hibban included him in Kitab al-Thiqat, and Imam Tirmidhi classified one of his narrations as Hasan.
• An-Nawawi also called one narration “باسناد صحیح”, and Ibn Abdul Barr ruled “حدیث صحیح”.
• Therefore, Qubaysa is a narrator of the Hasan grade and no effective criticism has been proven against him.

Conclusion:

When both Mu’mil ibn Ismail and Qubaysa ibn Halb are considered trustworthy by the majority in the mentioned chain, the weakening of this hadith is merely based on prejudice.

Comprehensive Summary

1. Those hadith scholars who severely criticized مؤمل بن اسماعیل either have unsupported statements or it is proven that they retracted, or their statements are unacceptable due to being contrary to the consensus.
2. The long list of تعدیل کرنے والوں proves that overall they are counted among ثقہ or حسن الحدیث, especially their authentication in narrating from سفیان الثوری is very clear.
3. Targeting the narrator for rejecting the narration containing سینے پر ہاتھ باندھنے is against scholarly integrity, because many narrations of this narrator are accepted as authentic or good in their own books.

والحمدللہ علیٰ ذلک، وصلی اللہ علیٰ نبینا محمد وعلیٰ آلہ وصحبہ اجمعین۔