Scholars’ Criticism and Validation of Narrator Samāk ibn Ḥarb

Below is a detailed presentation of the conditions of Samak bin Harb, the criticisms made against him, and the moderation by the Muhaddithin in response. All narrations and references are kept in their original form to preserve the content completely.

Samak bin Harbکتبِ ستہ is among the narrators and is counted in اوساط تابعین. His narrations are mentioned in صحیح البخاری and صحیح مسلم:

• Reference to his narration in صحیح البخاری:
  Reference: (H6722 said: Tabi’ah Yunus and Samak bin Atiyah and Samak bin Harb… “Al-Kh)
• Approximately forty-five (45) narrations of his are present in صحیح مسلم (some narrations are repeated):
  Reference: (224, 128/436, 458, 459, 499, 606, 618, 643(670), 734, 862, 866, 965, 978, 173/1075, 1385, 11/1504, 6/1628, 18/1651, 13/1671, 1680, (1692), 1693, 1748, 6/1821, 18467, 1922, 1984, 2053, 2135, 2248, 2277, 44/2305, 2322, 2329, 2339, 2344, 2361, 2745, 42/2763, 43, 78/2919, 2923, 2977, 2978)

Similarly,

also contain numerous narrations of his.

Below are the statements of those Muhaddithin from whom certain criticisms on Samak bin Harb have been transmitted. Alongside, the original status of each criticism will be clarified.

Statement of Shu’bah

“شعبہ: قال یحیٰ بن معین: ‘سماک بن حرب ثقۃ وکان شعبۃ یضعفہ’۔۔۔ الخ

• Ibn Ma’in (157 AH) was born approximately three years before Shu’bah bin al-Hajjaj (died 160 AH). This statement is rejected due to a broken chain because Ibn Ma’in himself did not meet Shu’bah to directly transmit his statement.

Statement of Sufyan al-Thawri

“کان یضعفہ بعض الضعف”

This statement has been transmitted by Imam al-Ajli

:

“جائز الحدیث۔۔۔ وکان فصیحاً الا انہ کان فی حدیث عکرمۃ ربما وصل عن ابن عباس۔۔۔ وکان سفیان الثوری یضعفہ بعض الضعف”
(تاریخ الثقات: ۶۲۱، تاریخ بغداد ۲۱۹/۹)

• The chain of narration for Sufyan al-Thawri’s (died 161 AH) statement is also broken.
• On the contrary, both Shu’bah and Sufyan narrate from Samak. Even if this criticism were established, it could only be attributed to the chain of “سماک عن عکرمۃ عن ابن عباس” (as is clear from al-Ajli’s own words).
• Ibn ‘Adi transmitted from Sufyan through Ahmad bin al-Husayn al-Sufi (?) via Muhammad bin Khalaf bin Abdul Hamid
  Reference: (Al-Kamil 1299/3);

  however, the status of Muhammad bin Khalaf is unknown, so this statement is also not established.

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal: “Mudharrab al-Hadith” (Hadith with conflicting reports)

“سماک ضعیف”

• The authenticity of one narrator of this statement, “محمد بن حمویہ بن الحسن”, is not known; however, there is also a witness to this in Ya’qub al-Farsi’s کتاب المعرفۃ والتاریخ (۶۳۸/۲).
• In Imam Ahmad’s book
  Reference: Al-‘Ilal wa Ma‘rifat al-Rijal (1/154, No: 775)

  , from Imam Ahmad’s statement “سماک یرفعھما عن عکرمۃ عن ابن عباس”, it is understood that the criticism of a hadith being “mutarab” (conflicted) is only related to the chain of narration containing “سماک عن عکرمۃ”.

Statement of Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Ammar al-Mawsili

“یقولون انہ کان یغلط ویختلفون فی حدیثہ”

• Here, the doer of “یقولون” is unknown. It is not known from any reliable source who these people are who say this.

Salih ibn Muhammad al-Baghdadi: “یضعف”

• This statement is through محمد بن علی المقرئی, whose identification is required. If this is the same Abu al-‘Ala’ al-Muqri’, then he is criticized.
  Reference: (See Mizan al-I‘tidal 3/654, No. 7971)

Statement of Ibn Khirash: “فی حدیثہ لین”

• Ibn Khirash himself is criticized according to the majority
  Reference: (Mizan al-I‘tidal 2/600, No. 5009)

  , and also the condition of محمد بن محمد بن داؤد الکرجی in his chain is unknown.

Statement of Ibn Hibban

“ذکرہ فی الثقات (۳۳۹/۴) وقال: یخطئ کثیراً۔۔۔ روی عنہ الثوری وشعبۃ”

• This statement is rejected for three reasons:
  1. If according to Ibn Hibban, Samak“یخطئ کثیراً” was trustworthy, then how could he be trustworthy? And if he is trustworthy, then saying“یخطئ کثیراً” is not correct. Sheikh Albani, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:

     “وھذا من افرادہ وتناقضہ، اذ لوکان یخطئ کثیراً لم یکن ثقۃ!”

     Reference: (Al-Da‘eefah 333/2 H930)
  2. Ibn Hibban recorded many narrations of Samak bin Harb in his صحیح
     Reference: (for example, Al-Ihsan in the order of Sahih Ibn Hibban 143/1 H66 p144 H68,69),

     so if he was really “یخطئ کثیراً”, how could his narrations be considered authentic?

  3. Ibn Hibban himself mentioned Samak without any criticism in another of his books “مشاہیر علما الامصار” (ص۱۱۰ ت۸۴۰). This proves that Ibn Hibban’s statement (یخطئ کثیراً) is either a contradiction or he did not give it practical significance.

Imam Aqili

• Aqili mentioned Samak in his book, however, there is no criticism or reasonable evidence that can reject the authentication by the Muhaddithin.

Jarir bin Abdul Hamid

He saw Samak urinating while standing, so he abandoned narrating from him.

• This is not a criticism but an incident. Urinating while standing can also be due to a legitimate Islamic excuse. It is authentically proven with a sound chain in Imam Malik’s Muwatta that Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) also used to urinate standing (due to some excuse).
  Reference: (1/65 H140 with verification)
• Therefore, this matter cannot be used as evidence to weaken Samak.

Imam Nasai

“لیس بالقوی وکان یقبل التلقین”

• In Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, there is another statement of Nasai:

  “فاذا انفرد باصل لم یکن حجۃ”

  Reference: (Tuhfat al-Ashraf lil-Mizzi 137/5, 138 H6104)
• This is a general statement. Most hadith scholars consider this criticism to be related specifically to “سماک عن عکرمۃ” (which will be discussed in the following sections).

Ibn al-Mubarak

“سماک ضعیف فی الحدیث”

• This narration is without a chain.
  Reference: Al-Kamil by Ibn Adi (1299/3)

  also considers its chain weak (as has been mentioned above under the statement attributed to Sufyan al-Thawri).

Imam Bazzar

“کان رجالً مشھوراً لا اعلم احداً ترکہ وکان قد تغیر قبل موتہ”

• Here there is mention of “تغیر قبل موتہ”, meaning mixing, which will be explained further ahead.

Yaqub bin Shaybah

“وروایتہ عن عکرمۃ خاصۃ مضطربۃ وھو فی غیر عکرمۃ صالح ولیس من المتشبتین ومن سمع من سماک قدیماً مثل شعبۃ وسفیان فحدیثھم عنہ صحیح مستقیم والذی قال ابن المبارک انما یری انہ فیمن سمع منہ باخرۃ”

• This is actually a confirmation that “وھو فی غیر عکرمۃ صالح” is reliable and that the narrations he transmitted before mixing are authentic. Ibn al-Mubarak’s statement does not contradict this; however, it has been clarified that when the weakness of Samak is discussed, it may be attributed to the narrations from the later period of mixing.

Now, here are the statements of the senior hadith scholars who authenticated Samak bin Harb or at least considered him truthful and reliable:

1. Imam Muslim

• He included the narrations of Samak in his Sahih.
  Reference: (See Mizan al-I’tidal 233/2)
• It was mentioned earlier that there are more than forty-five narrations of Samak in Sahih Muslim, therefore Samak is considered trustworthy, truthful, and authentic by Imam Muslim.

2. Imam Bukhari

• Samak is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari at Hadith 6722. Hafiz Dhahabi writes:

  “وقد علق لہ البخاری استشھاداً بہ”

  Reference: (Siyar A’lam al-Nubala 248/5)
• It has already been clarified in اثبات التعدیل فی توثیق مؤمل بن اسماعیل that the narrator whom Imam Bukhari cites as evidence is generally considered reliable by him.

3. Shu’bah

سفیان و شعبہ

• He narrated from Samak
  Reference: (Sahih Muslim 224 etc.)

  .

• It is well known about Shu’bah that he (generally) was convinced to take narration only from trustworthy narrators in his view
  Reference: (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib Vol.1 p.4, 5, and Qawa’id fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith p.217 by al-Diyubandi)

  .

4. Sufyan al-Thawri

• It is narrated that Sufyan himself said:

  “ما یسقط لسماک بن حرب حدیث”

  Reference: (Tarikh Baghdad 215/9 and its chain is Hasan Ladhatah)
• Meaning the hadith of Samak is not to be disregarded. Despite the criticism of Hafiz Ibn Hajar
  Reference: (Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 205/4)

  , this statement remains as a clear authentication.

5. Yahya ibn Ma’in

“ثقۃ”

6. Abu Hatim al-Razi

“صدوق ثقۃ”

7. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal

“سماک اصلح حدیثاً من عبدالملک بن عمیر”

• This is a positive statement that the hadith of Samak is better than that of Abdul Malik ibn Umair.

8. Abu Ishaq al-Subay’i

“خذوا العلم من سماک بن حرب”

• Abu Ishaq’s statement indicates the high scholarly status of Samak.

9. Imam al-Ajli

• He wrote in his book “تاریخ الثقات”: “جائز الحدیث”.
  Reference: (Details appeared above in the criticism of Sufyan’s statement)

10. Ibn ‘Adi

“واحادیثہ حسان عن من روی عنہ وھو صدوق لا بأس بہ”

11. Imam Tirmidhi

• They classified many hadiths of Samak as “حسن صحیح”.
  Reference: (e.g. H65, 202, 227)
• Even the very first narration in Sunan Tirmidhi is from the chain of Samak
  Reference: (H1)

  .

12. Ibn Shaheen

• He mentioned Samak in his book
  Reference: “Al-Thiqaat” (505)

  .

13. Imam Hakim

• Reference: Al-Mustadrak (1/297)

  narrated the hadith of Samak with authentication.

14. Hafiz Dhahabi

• He supported the authentication of it in Al-Mustadrak “تلخیص”
  Reference: (1/297)

  .

• Besides, he used several words of authentication:

  “صدوق جلیل”

  Reference: (Al-Mughni fi al-Du’afa: 2649)

  “الحافظ الامام الکبیر”

  Reference: (Siyar A’lam al-Nubala 5/235)

  “وکان من حملۃ الحجۃ ببلدہ” (سیر اعلام النبلاء ۲۴۶/۵)

15. Ibn Hibban

• He narrated hadiths from Samak in his Sahih, as mentioned above. Therefore, practically, according to him, he is trustworthy or at least has good hadith.

16. Ibn Khuzaymah

• He classified the narration of Samak in his Sahih as authentic
  Reference: (1/8 H8 etc.)

  .

17. Baghawee

“ھذا حدیث حسن”

• He classified the narration of Samak as Hasan.

18. Nawawi

• Reference: Al-Majmu’ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab (3/490)

  called the hadith of Samak “حسن”.

19. Ibn Abdul Barr

• Reference: Al-Isti’ab (3/615)

  classified the hadith of Samak as “صحیح”.

20. Ibn al-Jarood

• He mentioned the hadith of Samak in his book
  Reference: “Al-Muntaqi” (H 25)

  .

• Ashraf Ali Thanwi Deobandi says that mentioning the hadith of Ibn al-Jarood is equivalent to considering it authentic
  Reference: (Bawadir al-Nawadir p.135)

  .

21. Imam Zia al-Maqdisi

• He took the narration of Samak in his book
  Reference: “Al-Mukhtarah” (11/12, 98 H 1.115)

  and used it as evidence.

22. Imam Mundhiri

• He declared one narration of Samak
  Reference: (Tirmidhi H 2657 with the phrase “an”)

  as Hasan (good)

  Reference: (Al-Targhib wal-Tarhib 108/1 H 150)

  .

23. Hafiz Ibn Hajar

• Reference: Taqreeb al-Tahdheeb (2624)

  writes:
  “صدوق وروایتہ عن عکرمۃ خاصۃ مضطربۃ وقد تغیر باخرۃ فکان ربما یلقن”

• Meaning, overall they are truthful. He attributed the criticism specifically to “سماک عن عکرمۃ” or to confusion.
• Also, he remained silent on the hadith of Samak in Fath al-Bari
  Reference: (224/2 under H 740)

  .

• According to Zafar Ahmad Thanwi Deobandi, the additional hadiths on which Hafiz Ibn Hajar remained silent in Fath al-Bari are considered authentic or Hasan by him
  Reference: (Qawa’id fi Ulum al-Hadith p.89)

  . Thus, the ruling on Samak according to Ibn Hajar is also Hasan or Sahih.

24. Abu Awana

• He narrated from Samak in his Sahih
  Reference: (Al-Mustakhraj ala Sahih Muslim) (233/1)

  .

25. Abu Nu’aym al-Asbahani

• He also mentioned the narrations of Samak in his Mustakhraj on Sahih Muslim
  Reference: (289/1, 290 H 535)

  .

26. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas

• He corrected the narration of Samak in his شرح ترمذی. It was transmitted on the authority of Sheikh Muhammad Badi’ al-Din al-Rashidi al-Sindi;
  Reference: (See Khushu’ and Humility in Prayer, i.e., placing hands on the chest, p.10, h.3)

Summary of the Amendment

• From these detailed statements, it is clear that Samak ibn Harb is considered by the majority of hadith scholars as ثقہ or صدوق and صحیح الحدیث.
• There are some indications of confusion in a specific chain “سماک عن عکرمۃ عن ابن عباس”, however, this does not negatively affect his other narrations.

Some scholars have stated that سماک بن حرب suffered from memory weakness or confusion in his later years. For example:

“تغیر باخرۃ”

Ibn al-Salah says:

“واعلم ان من کان من ھذا قبیل مختجاً برواتیہ فی الصحیحین او احدھما فانا نعرف علی الجملۃ ان ذلک مما تمیز وکان ماخوذاً عنہ قبل الاختلاط واللہ اعلم”

• It appears that narrators who are confused but appear as evidence in the Sahihayn are considered قبل از اختلاط.

In صحیح مسلم, the following students of Samak have narrated, all of whom narrated before the time of confusion:

• Reference: Abu Awana (224)
• Reference: Shu’bah (224)
• Reference: Za’idah (224)
• Reference: Isra’il (224)
• Reference: Abu Al-Ahwas (436)
• Reference: Abu Khaithamah Zuhair bin Muawiyah (436)
• Reference: Umar bin Ubaid Al-Tanafsi (242/499)
• Reference: Sufyan Al-Thawri (287/670 Tuhfat Al-Ashraf by Al-Mizzi 154/2 H2164)
• Reference: Zakariya bin Abi Za’idah (287/670)
• Reference: Hasan bin Saleh (734)
• Reference: Malik bin Maghool (965)
• Reference: Abu Yunus Hatim bin Abi Sughairah (1680)
• Reference: Hammad bin Salmah (7/1821)
• Reference: Idris bin Yazid Al-Awadi (2135)
• Reference: Ibrahim bin Tahman (2277)
• Reference: Ziyad bin Khaithamah (44/2305)
• Reference: Asbat bin Nasr (2329)

• All their narrations are before the mixing, therefore it is not correct to criticize the narration with “سفیان الثوری عن سماک” on the basis of mixing.

The narration under discussion (“Ali Sidrah”) and responses to some objections on it

• Some say that the words “علی صدرہ” were only mentioned by Sufyan al-Thawri, while Abu al-Ahwas and Shareek al-Qadi, etc., did not mention them.
  

  Answer:

  Sufyan al-Thawri is trustworthy and a hafiz, and he is clarifying what he heard. The absence of mention is not proof of negation. Whenever a more trustworthy or truthful narrator adds extra words, they are acceptable, provided there is no explicit contradiction.

• Naimawi Hanafi himself fundamentally accepted that the addition made by a trustworthy narrator is قابلِ قبول
  Reference: (Athar al-Sunan p.17, h.36, footnote 27)

  .

• Similarly, from the example of the Muwatta of Imam Malik and the stopped (Mawquf) and raised (Marfoo’) references in Sahih Bukhari, it is also proven that if there is an addition in the stopped narration, the original hadith does not become weak.
• Reference: Musnad Ahmad (226/5, h.22313)

  contains the words “yadha’ hadhihi ‘ala sadrihi“. Imam Ibn al-Jawzi also mentioned these words in his chain

  Reference: (284/1)

  , which closes the door to interpretations and proves the words of “علی صدرہ” to be correct and authentic.

• If the narrator is trustworthy or truthful, his uniqueness (extra words) is not harmful.
• Some objected that the narration does not explicitly mention “فی الصلوٰۃ”.
  

  Answer:

  After the same chain, in مسند احمد, there is explicit mention of “فی الصلوٰۃ” in another narration

  Reference: (Ahmad 226/5, h.22314 via Sufyan from Samak bin Harb).

Other Warnings

1. The chain of سماک عن عکرمۃ عن ابن عباس is weak. Apart from this, the majority have relied on the remaining narrations of Samak.
2. If in some books Samak’s “تغیر باخرۃ” is mentioned, then in صحیحین and other authentic books, all of his narrations are considered before mixing, therefore there is no weakness in them.
3. بعض بریلوی حضرات
   Reference: (Munazare Hi Munazare p.335, p.129, 134)

   rejected the narration by calling Samak “مدلس”. This is an outright lie because in no authentic book is Samak called “مدلس”, nor is there any mention of him in the books of mudallis (those who conceal defects in narrations).

Conclusion

From all these details it is proven that:

• سماک بن حرب are trustworthy, reliable, and dependable according to the majority of muhaddithin.
• The criticism of “مضطرب الحدیث” or “یقبل التلقین” etc. is either related to اختلاط کے آخری دور or specifically connected to the “سماک عن عکرمۃ chain. Besides this, the narrations of Samak have been ruled as صحیح or at least حسن.
• The words with “علی صدرہ” are undoubtedly proven through Sufyan ath-Thawri. The application of criticism and mixing is rejected here, because great scholars like Shu’bah and Sufyan narrated from Samak at the same time when he was not mixed.

وما علینا الا البلاغ