Argument Number: 4
لَمَّا قَدِمَ فُلَانٌ إِلَى الْكُوفَةِ أَقَامَ فُلَانٌ خَطِيبًا، فَأَخَذَ بِيَدِى سَعِيدُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ فَقَالَ: أَلَا تَرَى إِلَى هَذَا الظَّالِمِ؟ فَأَشْهَدُ عَلَى التِّسْعَةِ أَنَّهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَلَوْ شَهِدْتُ عَلَى الْعَاشِرِ لَمْ إِيثَمْ…. قُلْتُ: وَمَنِ التِّسْعَةُ؟ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُوَ عَلَى حِرَاءٍ: “اثْبُتْ حِرَاءُ، إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكَ إِلَّا نَبِيٌّ، أَوْ صِدِّيقٌ، أَوْ شَهِيدٌ”۔ قُلْتُ: وَمَنِ التِّسْعَةُ؟ قَالَ: رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرُ، وَعُثْمَانُ، وَعَلِيٌّ، وَطَلْحَةُ، وَالزُّبَيْرُ، وَسَعْدُ بْنُ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عَوْفٍ. قُلْتُ: وَمَنِ الْعَاشِرُ؟ فَتَلَكَّأَ هُنَيَّةً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: أَنَا۔
Abdullah bin Zalim narrates that when a certain person came to Kufa and was appointed as a preacher, Hazrat Saeed bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with him) took my hand and said: Are you looking at this oppressor? I testify that nine persons are in Paradise, and if I mention the tenth, I will not be sinful. I asked, who are those nine individuals? Hazrat Saeed bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said—when you were on Mount Hira (the mountain shook): O Hira, stop, upon you is a Prophet, a Siddiq (truthful one), and a martyr. (Abdullah says) I asked, who are those nine in Paradise? Hazrat Saeed bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Talha, Zubair, Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abdul Rahman bin Auf (may Allah be pleased with them). I asked, who is the tenth? He hesitated a little, then said: I am.
The engineer has mentioned two more chains of narration in his research paper:
لَمَّا قَدِمَ مُعَاوِيَةُ الْكُوفَةَ أَقَامَ مُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ خُطَبَاءَ يَتَنَاوَلُونَ عَلِيًّا فَأَخَذَ بِيَدِى سَعِيدَ بْنَ زَيْدٍ فَقَالَ: أَلَا تَرَى هَذَا الظَّالِمَ الَّذِى يَأْمُرُ بِلَعْنِ رَجُلٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ فَأَشْهَدُ عَلَى التِّسْعَةِ أَنَّهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ وَلَوْ شَهِدْتُ عَلَى الْعَاشِرِ قُلْتُ مَنِ التِّسْعَةُ قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: وَهُوَ عَلَى حِرَاءٍ: اثْبُتْ إِنَّهُ لَيْسَ عَلَيْكَ إِلَّا نَبِيٌّ، أَوْ صِدِّيقٌ، أَوْ شَهِيدٌ قَالَ: وَمَنِ التِّسْعَةُ؟ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرُ، وَعُثْمَانُ، وَعَلِيٌّ، وَطَلْحَةُ، وَالزُّبَيْرُ، وَسَعْدٌ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ قُلْتُ: مَنِ الْعَاشِرُ قَالَ: أَنَا۔
Abdullah bin Zalim says that when Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) came to Kufa, Hazrat Mughirah bin Shu’bah (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed preachers who were speaking ill of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), then Hazrat Saeed bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with him) took my hand and said: Are you seeing this oppressor who commands to curse a person who is in Paradise…………
عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ قَالَ: دَخَلْتُ عَلَى سَعِيدِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ فَقُلْتُ: أَلَا تَعْجَبُ مِنْ هَذَا الظَّالِمِ أَقَامَ خُطَبَاءَ يَشْتِمُونَ عَلِيًّا؟ فَقَالَ: أَوَقَدْ فَعَلُوهَا، أَشْهَدُ عَلَى التِّسْعَةِ أَنَّهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَلَوْ شَهِدْتُ عَلَى الْعَاشِرِ لَصَدَقْتُ، كُنَّا مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى حِرَاءٍ، فَتَحَرَّكَ فَقَالَ: اثْبُتْ حِرَاءُ، فَمَا عَلَيْكَ إِلَّا نَبِيٌّ، أَوْ صِدِّيقٌ، أَوْ شَهِيدٌ قُلْتُ: وَمَنْ كَانَ عَلَى حِرَاءٍ؟ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرُ، وَعُثْمَانُ، وَعَلِيٌّ، وَطَلْحَةُ، وَالزُّبَيْرُ، وَعَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عَوْفٍ، وَسَعْدٌ قُلْنَا: فَمَنِ الْعَاشِرُ؟ قَالَ: أَنَا۔
Abdullah bin Zalim says I came to Hazrat Saeed bin Zaid (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: Do you not wonder at this oppressor who appointed preachers who speak ill of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)? He said: Are they really doing that?…………
This is the same narration, narrated with different wording. It should be noted that this narration is also weak; hadith scholars have declared it weak, although the chain appears sound at first glance. Before the details, please observe its chain of narration:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْعَلَاءِ، عَنِ ابْنِ إِدْرِيسَ، أَخْبَرَنَا حُصَيْنٌ، عَنْ هِلَالِ بْنِ يَسَافٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ، وَسُفْيَانُ، عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ، عَنْ هِلَالِ بْنِ يَسَافٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ الْمَازِنِيِّ
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ الْعَلَاءِ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ إِدْرِيسَ قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنَا حَصِينٌ، عَنْ هِلَالِ بْنِ يَسَافٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ
أَخْبَرَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ حَصِينٍ، عَنْ هِلَالٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ
That is, in all three, Hilal bin Yasaf is narrating via Abdullah bin Zalim, but Hilal bin Yasaf did not hear it directly from Abdullah, and there is a narrator between them who is unknown, which makes the narration weak. This is explicitly stated in the references presented by Mirza Sahib.
This narration is considered weak by the hadith scholars:
Imam Abu Dawood, may Allah have mercy on him, narrates the chain from Hilal bin Yasaf to Abdullah bin Zalim and writes: “ذَكَرَ سُفْيَانُ رَجُلًا فِيمَا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ الْمَازِنِيِّ” meaning: “Sufyan has added a narrator in his narration who is between Hilal bin Yasaf and Abdullah bin Zalim.” Then he mentions the text that Mirza Sahib presents, followed by another chain: قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُد: رَوَاهُ الْأَشْجَعِيُّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ، عَنْ هِلَالِ بْنِ يَسَافٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ حَيَّانَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ، بِإِسْنَادِهِ نَحْوَهُ “Imam Abu Dawood, may Allah have mercy on him, said: Ashja’i narrated from Sufyan from Mansur from Hilal bin Yasaf from Ibn Hayan from Abdullah bin Zalim in a similar manner.” Exactly the same statement was made by Imam Nasai, may Allah have mercy on him, under this chain.
And after quoting the third chain mentioned by Engineer Sahib, Imam Nasai, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
هِلَالُ بْنُ يَسَافٍ لَمْ يَسْمَعْهُ مِنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ۔
“Hilal bin Yasaf did not hear this narration from Abdullah bin Zalim.”
So here is our point proven from the narrations presented by Mirza Sahib himself that Hilal bin Yasaf did not hear this narration from Abdullah bin Zalim.
Imam Nasai, may Allah have mercy on him, states the same at another place:
هِلَالُ بْنُ يَسَافٍ لَمْ يَسْمَعْهُ مِنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ۔
“Hilal bin Yasaf did not hear this narration from Abdullah bin Zalim.”
After mentioning this hadith in his book “Fada’il al-Sahaba,” Imam Nasai, may Allah have mercy on him, also comments exactly the same that Hilal did not hear this narration from Abdullah.
When a statement is repeated multiple times, what does it mean? Obviously, he is indicating the weakness of this narration, which is hidden. Let us see the opinions of other Muhaddithin on this narration:
Imam Ibn Adi, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
سمعتُ ابن حماد يقول: قال البُخارِيّ عبدالله بن ظالم عن سَعِيد بن زيد عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ولم يصح۔
“I heard from Ibn Hammad that Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, said: The narration of Abdullah bin Zalim from Saeed bin Zaid from the Prophet, peace be upon him, is not authentic.”
Then he briefly mentions the narration presented by Mirza Sahib and says:
وهذا الحديث هو الذى أراده البُخارِيّ۔
“This is the hadith about which Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, said that this narration is not authentic.”
And Imam Ibn Adi mentioning it in his book “Al-Dhu’afa” is also evidence that he trusted Imam Bukhari’s statement and considered this narration weak.
Imam Abu Ja’far Aqili, may Allah have mercy on him, states in his book “Al-Dhu’afa al-Kabir”:
حَدَّثَنِي آدَمُ بْنُ مُوسَى قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ الْبُخَارِيَّ قَالَ: عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ ظَالِمٍ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَلَا يَصِحُّ۔
“I was told by Adam bin Musa, who said that I heard Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, say: The narration of Abdullah bin Zalim from Saeed bin Zaid from the Prophet, peace be upon him, is not authentic.”
Immediately after, he said:
وَهَذَا الْحَدِيثُ: حَدَّثَنَاهُ يَحْيَى بْنُ عُثْمَانَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ إِدْرِيسَ، عَنْ حُصَيْنٍ، عَنْ هِلَالِ بْنِ يَسَافٍ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ ظَالِمٍ الْمَازِنِيِّ قَالَ: لَمَّا قَدِمَ مُعَاوِيَةُ الْكُوفَةَ أَقَامَ الْمُغِيرَةُ بْنُ شُعْبَةَ خُطَبَاءَ يَلْعَنُونَ عَلِيًّا، وَفِي الدَّارِ سَعِيدُ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ عَمْرِو بْنِ نُفَيْلٍ، فَأَخَذَ بِيَدِى فَقَالَ: أَلَا تَرَى إِلَى هَذَا الظَّالِمِ الَّذِى يَأْمُرُ بِلَعْنِ رَجُلٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْجَنَّةِ…………..
“(That) hadith is: …………” and then he narrates the entire hadith which Mirza Sahib presents as evidence.
Then he explains the narration in detail with the narrators’ differences, that some narrate it as Hilal bin Yasaf from Abdullah from Saeed, some say Hilal bin Yasaf from Hayan bin Ghalib from Abdullah, and some say Hilal from Ibn Hayan from Abdullah bin Zalim. (In reality, this is the same person but with different names; some narrators call him Ibn Hayan and others Hayan bin Ghalib –
). Then Imam Aqili, may Allah have mercy on him, mentions the intermediary between Hilal and Abdullah and says:
وَحَيَّانُ بْنُ غَالِبٍ لَيْسَ بِمَشْهُورٍ بِالنَّقْلِ۔
“And Hayan bin Ghalib/Ibn Hayan is not well-known in terms of narration.”
Meaning, he is an unknown narrator, and this is our point. Therefore, due to this, the narration is weak.
Imam al-‘Illal Abu al-Hasan al-Daraqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, after explaining the narrators’ differences in its chain, says:
وَالَّذِى عِنْدَنَا أَنَّ الصَّوَابَ قَوْلُ مَنْ رَوَاهُ، عن الثوری، عن منصور، عن هلال، عن فُلَانِ بْنِ حَيَّانَ، أَوْ حَيَّانَ بْنِ فُلَانٍ، عن عبدالله بن ظالم، لأن منصور أَحَدُ الْإِثْبَاتِ، وَقَدْ بَيَّنَ فِي رِوَايَتِهِ عَنْ هِلَالٍ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَسْمَعْهُ مِنَ ابْنِ ظَالِمٍ وَأَنَّ بَيْنَهُمَا رَجُلًا۔
“In our view, the correct narration is the one narrated from al-Thawri from Mansur from Hilal from Ibn Hayan/Hayan bin Ghalib from Abdullah bin Zalim, because Mansur is among the affirming Muhaddithin, and he clarified in his narration that Hilal did not hear this narration from Abdullah bin Zalim and that there is a person between these two (Hilal and Abdullah).”
Allama Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, in the discussion of Abdullah bin Zalim says:
عبد الله بن ظَالِم عَن سعيد بن زيد الْعشْرَة فِي الْجنَّة قَالَ الْبُخَارِيّ لم يَصح۔
“The narration of Abdullah bin Zalim from Saeed bin Zaid regarding the hadith of ‘الْعشْرَة فِي الْجنَّة‘ (the ten promised Paradise) is narrated, and Imam Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, said about it that this narration is not authentic.”
Imam Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, included it in “Al-Dhu’afa” to indicate its weakness. He also mentioned it in “Diwan al-Dhu’afa:2212” and “Mizan al-I’tidal:447/2.”
And the narrator (Ibn Hayan) who is the intermediary between Hilal bin Yasaf and Abdullah bin Zalim is declared “unknown” by him.
Allama Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, also said about Ibn Hayan “La Yu’raf” meaning unknown.
From the statements of the Muhaddithin, it is understood:
(1) Although the chain apparently shows Hilal from Abdullah, which gives the impression of authenticity, Hilal did not actually hear this narration from Abdullah.
(2) There is a narrator between these two, and Hilal bin Yasaf heard this hadith from him.
(3) That narrator is Ibn Hayan/Hayan bin Ghalib, who is unknown.
(4) According to the Muhaddithin, this narration is weak.
It is regrettable that these clarifications exist in the narrations presented by Mirza Sahib himself, but Mirza Sahib never mentions them and hides them, yet he presents these narrations and claims that the scholars have concealed the truth.
Maulana Ghulam Mustafa Zaheer Amnpuri, may Allah preserve him, writes about this narration:
The chain is weak; Hilal bin Yasaf did not hear from Abdullah bin Zalim; there is an intermediary Ibn Hayan between them, and Ibn Hayan is unknown.
Sheikh Shoaib al-Arna’ut
and Allama Muhammad Zia ur-Rahman al-A’zami
also declared it defective (weak) and called Ibn Hayan unknown.
Note: Sheikh Shoaib al-Arna’ut declared only the Marfu’ part of the narration under discussion in Sunan Abu Dawood as authentic and said that the following of Abdullah bin Zalim is present, meaning the incident of Mount Hira and the hadith of the ten promised Paradise are present in other authentic chains. But the rest of the story is not established. From all these Muhaddithin’s clarifications, it is evident that Allama Albani and Zubair, may Allah have mercy on them, erred in declaring this narration authentic because these clarifications were hidden from them; otherwise, they would have surely written it as weak.
In Sunan Abu Dawood:3774, there is a hadith with this chain:
حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا كَثِيرُ بْنُ هِشَامٍ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ بُرْقَانَ، عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ۔
All its narrators are trustworthy, and the chain appears connected, but just as Imam Abu Dawood, may Allah have mercy on him, explicitly stated after the narration presented by Mirza Sahib
and before the text that there is another narrator between Hilal bin Yasaf and Abdullah bin Zalim, similarly, about this chain, it is written:
هَذَا الْحَدِيثُ لَمْ يَسْمَعْهُ جَعْفَرٌ مِنَ الزُّهْرِيِّ۔
“This hadith was not heard by Ja’far from Zuhri,” then he mentions the chain in which there is an unknown narrator between Ja’far and Zuhri.
Now, in the takhrij of this narration, Allama Zubair Ali Za’i, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:
إسناده ضعيف، جعفر بن برقان لم يسمع هَذَا الحديث من الزهري كما بينه أبو داود، بينهما رجل مجهول۔
“Its chain is weak; Ja’far bin Barqan did not hear this hadith from Zuhri as Imam Abu Dawood clarified, and there is an unknown narrator between them.”
Therefore, do not be deceived by anyone citing Sheikh Zubair Sahib.
Mirza Sahib considers narrations of unknown narrators as false, fabricated, and baseless narrations, but his obsession with criticizing the Sahaba is such that he presents whatever he finds without discrimination. Based on these weak narrations, he maligns the character of these noble Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them, and tries to make people dislike them.
Mirza Sahib claimed that whatever Maududi Sahib presented from history, they have proven all from the books of hadith, and you consider it a great battle and revelation. However, Mirza Sahib’s arguments are before you; just tell me, what is the difference between historical narrations and narrations of unknown narrators found in hadith books? Therefore, understand well that Mirza Sahib did not do anything new or unique; rather, you have also collected weak and unestablished narrations.
