This article has been written in response to those objections in which it is claimed that when the foot of Ḥaḍrat ʿAbdullāh bin ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما became numb (khadar), he said: «يَا مُحَمَّدُ», and from this narration an argument is made for seeking help (istighāthah) from the noble person of the Prophet ﷺ after his passing.
Our position is that this narration is weak in its chain of transmission, and it is not correct to derive matters of creed or practice from it, because there are several defects in its chains:
① The fact that Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī was a mudallis and suffered from confusion (ikhtilāṭ).
② The fact that his shaykh is majhūl (unknown).
③ The presence of contradictions and irsāl in the various chains.
In light of all these aspects, this narration does not reach the level of proof (ḥujjah). In this article, we will first cite the original text of the narration and then provide a detailed scholarly response to each objection.
The Original Narration (Al-Adab al-Mufrad by al-Bukhārī)
Arabic Text
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، قَالَ: خَدِرَتْ رِجْلُ ابْنِ عُمَرَ، فَقَالَ لَهُ رَجُلٌ: اذْكُرْ أَحَبَّ النَّاسِ إِلَيْكَ، فَقَالَ: يَا مُحَمَّدُ.
Translation
“Abū Nuʿaym narrated to us, he said: Sufyān narrated to us, from Abū Isḥāq, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd, who said: The foot of Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما became numb. A man said to him: ‘Remember the most beloved of people to you.’ So he said: ‘O Muḥammad.’”
Reference: Al-Adab al-Mufrad by al-Bukhārī, Chapter: What a man says when his leg becomes numb.
First Defect: Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī (Mudallis and Mukhtaliṭ)
This narration is transmitted through Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī. The scholars of ḥadīth have mentioned two major defects concerning him:
① Abū Isḥāq Was a Mudallis
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī classified him among the third tier of mudallisin:
«مدلس، كثير الإرسال»
Translation: “He was a mudallis and frequently committed irsāl.”
In this narration, Abū Isḥāq reports with the word ‘ʿan’ (without explicitly stating that he heard it directly). The narration of a mudallis with ʿanʿanah is not accepted as proof unless explicit hearing (taṣrīḥ al-samāʿ) is established.
② Abū Isḥāq Became Confused (Ikhtilāṭ)
Imām al-Dhahabī said:
«كان من أوعية العلم، إلا أنه اختلط بآخره»
Translation: “He was among the great vessels of knowledge, but he became confused in his later years.”
Ibn Ḥibbān said:
«اختلط في آخر عمره حتى كان يقلب الأسانيد»
Translation: “He became confused in the latter part of his life to the extent that he would invert chains of transmission.”
③ Conclusion
This narration comes through the ʿanʿanah of Abū Isḥāq, who was both a mudallis and one who suffered confusion. Therefore, according to the principles of ḥadīth, this chain cannot be relied upon without explicit clarification of hearing — which is absent here.
Second Defect: The Shaykh of Abū Isḥāq is Majhūl (ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd)
In this narration, the shaykh of Abū Isḥāq is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd al-Kūfī. According to the scholars of ḥadīth, he is majhūl al-ḥāl (unknown in status), and no reliable authentication (tawthīq) is established for him.
① Statement of Imām al-Dāraquṭnī
When he was asked about the narration of Ibn ʿUmar’s رضي الله عنهما foot becoming numb, he said:
«يرويه أبو إسحاق السبيعي، واختلف عنه … وهو مجهول»
Translation: “It is narrated by Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī, and there is disagreement (ikhtilāf) regarding it… and (the shaykh) is unknown.”
② Statement of Imām Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn
Imām al-Dūrī said: I asked Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn about ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd, and he said:
«لا أعرفه»
Translation: “I do not know him.”
③ Statement of Ibn Abī Ḥātim
He mentioned him in Al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl but did not cite any jarḥ or taʿdīl regarding him.
When a narrator is mentioned without jarḥ or taʿdīl, he remains mastūr al-ḥāl (unknown status).
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr stated this same principle:
«ذكره ابن أبي حاتم … ولم يحك فيه شيئًا … فهو مستور الحال»
Translation: “Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned him but did not cite anything about him; thus he is mastūr al-ḥāl.”
④ Imām al-Bukhārī
He mentioned him in Al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr without jarḥ or taʿdīl.
Ibn al-Qaṭṭān al-Fāsī commented:
«لم يعرف هو ولا ابن أبي حاتم من حاله بشيء، فهي عندهما مجهولة»
Translation: “Neither al-Bukhārī nor Ibn Abī Ḥātim knew anything about his condition; thus according to them he is unknown.”
⑤ Attribution of Authentication to al-Nasāʾī
Some attribute authentication of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd to al-Nasāʾī, but this actually refers to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd al-Madanī, not al-Kūfī.
Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī and Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī cited al-Nasāʾī’s statement regarding the Madanī narrator, but there is no such authentication regarding the Kūfī. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar’s citing of an authentication from al-Nasāʾī for the Kūfī is merely an oversight (tasāmuḥ).
Conclusion
According to al-Dāraquṭnī, Ibn Maʿīn, al-Bukhārī, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd al-Kūfī is majhūl.
Therefore, this narration passes through an unknown narrator and cannot serve as proof.
Third Defect: Contradictions in the Chains
There is severe disagreement in the routes of this narration, and the names of Abū Isḥāq’s shaykhs are given differently.
① Statement of Imām al-Dāraquṭnī
While mentioning the various routes of this narration, Imām al-Dāraquṭnī said:
«يرويه أبو إسحاق السبيعي، واختلف عنه؛
فرواه أبو بكر بن عياش، عن أبي إسحاق، عن أبي سعد، عن ابن عمر.
ورواه الثوري، عن أبي إسحاق، عن عبد الرحمن مولى عمر بن الخطاب، عن ابن عمر.
وقال زهير: عن أبي إسحاق، عن عبد الجبار بن سعيد، عن ابن عمر.
وقال إسرائيل: عن أبي إسحاق، عن ابن عمر مرسلا.»
Translation
This narration is reported by Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī, and disagreement has occurred regarding him:
- Abū Bakr bin ʿAyyāsh narrates it from Abū Isḥāq, from Abū Saʿd, from Ibn ʿUmar.
- Al-Thawrī narrates it from Abū Isḥāq, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (the freed slave of ʿUmar), from Ibn ʿUmar.
- Zuhayr narrates it from Abū Isḥāq, from ʿAbd al-Jabbār bin Saʿīd, from Ibn ʿUmar.
- Isrāʾīl narrates it from Abū Isḥāq, from Ibn ʿUmar — in mursal form.
② Nature of the Contradiction
This is a clear contradiction: sometimes Abū Isḥāq narrates it from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd, sometimes from Abū Saʿd, sometimes from ʿAbd al-Jabbār, and sometimes it is reported as mursal.
This severe contradiction indicates that the narration is not preserved and that the identification of the shaykh is uncertain.
③ Preference of the Scholars
Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said:
«سفيان فقيه حافظ زاهد، وأتقن أصحاب أبي إسحاق … وإذا اختلف الثوري وشعبة فالثوري.»
Translation: “Sufyān (al-Thawrī) is a jurist, a ḥāfiẓ and an ascetic, and he is the most precise of the students of Abū Isḥāq… and when al-Thawrī and Shuʿbah differ, then (the narration of) al-Thawrī (is relied upon).”
Imām Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī said:
«الثوري أحفظ من شعبة في إسناد الحديث وفي متنه.»
Translation: “Al-Thawrī is a better memoriser than Shuʿbah in both the chain and the text of ḥadīth.”
Yaḥyā bin Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān and Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn also said:
«إذا خالف شعبة سفيان فالقَول قول سفيان.»
Translation: “When Shuʿbah differs from Sufyān, then the (accepted) statement is Sufyān’s.”
Sufyān al-Thawrī’s narration is the one preferred — and it is through ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd, the majhūl narrator.
Thus, even after reconciling the various chains, the narration remains weak, either due to an unknown narrator or due to irsāl.
Conclusion
This narration:
① Is transmitted through the ʿanʿanah of Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī, who was a mudallis and suffered confusion.
② Its shaykh, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd, is majhūl, and the scholars of ḥadīth declared him unknown.
③ There is severe disagreement in its various chains: sometimes Abū Saʿd, sometimes ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, sometimes ʿAbd al-Jabbār, and sometimes irsāl.
④ The scholars of ḥadīth gave preference to the narration of Sufyān al-Thawrī, and it too rests on the same majhūl narrator.
Therefore, this narration is severely weak in its chain and cannot serve as proof for the permissibility of seeking help from the Prophet ﷺ after his passing.
✦ Summary of the Entire Article
Summary
The narration in which Ḥaḍrat ʿAbdullāh bin ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما is reported to have said «يَا مُحَمَّدُ» when his foot became numb is presented by some as evidence for seeking help from the Prophet ﷺ after his passing.
We have demonstrated that this narration is severely weak in its chain, and it has several defects:
✔ Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī was a mudallis and suffered confusion, and he did not explicitly state hearing in this narration.
✔ His shaykh is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Saʿd al-Kūfī, who is majhūl. Imām al-Dāraquṭnī, Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn, Ibn Abī Ḥātim and al-Bukhārī all explicitly stated that he is unknown.
✔ There is severe contradiction (taʿāruḍ) in the various chains: sometimes Abū Saʿd, sometimes ʿAbd al-Jabbār, sometimes ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and sometimes mursal, which proves this narration is not preserved (ghayr maḥfūẓ).
✔ Whenever the scholars of ḥadīth mentioned a disagreement between Sufyān al-Thawrī and Shuʿbah, they gave preference to Sufyān al-Thawrī, and his narration too is through this same majhūl narrator.
Conclusion
This narration does not meet the standards of proof from any perspective.
It contains a mudallis and mukhtaliṭ narrator.
Its shaykh is majhūl.
Its chains contain severe contradiction.
The majority of scholars did not rely upon it.
Therefore, using this narration as evidence for the permissibility of seeking help (istighāthah) from the Prophet ﷺ after his passing is not correct according to sound scholarly principles.
