الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلوٰة والسلام على رسوله الأمين، أما بعد:
There are two well-known and common positions regarding turning the salam in the funeral prayer in our community:
● Turning the salam on both sides like the regular prayer.
● Turning the salam only once to the right side.
In this article, we will examine the arguments of both sides and also indicate the position which we consider to be stronger. InshaAllah.
① Turning the salam on both sides and its arguments
⟐ First narration
Those who turn the salam on both sides in the funeral prayer consider only one narration as proof for themselves and present the same narration as evidence on this issue, which is as follows:
Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
«ثلاث خصال كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يفعلهن تركهن الناس، إحداهن التسليم على الجنازة مثل التسليم فى الصلاة»
Several objections arise to this narration in the light of the principles of the Muhaddithin, which are mentioned in order.
Hammad bin Abi Sulayman is a mudallis:
➊ Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) declared Hammad to be a mudallis
➋ Imam Ibn Sa’d (may Allah have mercy on him) also called him mudallis.
➌ Imam Abu Dawood (may Allah have mercy on him) also considered Hammad to be mudallis, as is clear from his question: «قلت: هشام كيف سماعه؟ قال: قديم» meaning, how is Hisham’s hearing from Hammad? Imam Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) said: It is qadim (old).
➍ From the question of Imam Abu Bakr al-Athram (may Allah be pleased with him), it also appears that he considered Hammad bin Abi Sulayman to be mudallis.
➎ Allama Haithami (may Allah have mercy on him) said: لا يقبل من حديث حماد إلا ما رواه عنه القدماء شعبه وسفيان الثوري والدستوائي وما عدا هؤلاء رواه عنه بعد الإختلاط meaning only those hadiths narrated from Hammad by his earlier students: Shu’bah, Sufyan Thawri, and (Hisham) Dastawai will be accepted, and those besides them narrated from him after he became mixed (mudallis).
Our discussed narration is also after Hammad’s mixing, and there is no evidence that Zaid bin Abi Anisa heard from Hammad before his mixing. Some of our friends have tried by addition and subtraction to count Ibn Abi Anisa among the qadim students, but in this science, without evidence, addition and subtraction is of no benefit. Therefore, it is necessary to establish from the group of Muhaddithin that Zaid bin Ibn Anisa heard from Hammad bin Abi Sulayman before his mixing, إذ ليس فليس.
➏ Imam Shu’bah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: «قال لي حماد بن أبى سليمان يا شعبه لا توقفني على إبراهيم فإن العهد قد طال، وأخاف أن أنسي أو أكون قد نسيت» Hammad bin Abi Sulayman said to me: O Shu’bah! Do not leave me stopped at Ibrahim, because a long time has passed and I fear that I may forget or have already forgotten.
Allama Abdul Rahman Muallimi (may Allah have mercy on him) explains this statement as: إذا قلت: قال إبراهيم أو نحو ذلك، فلا تسألني: أسمعه من إبراهيم أم لا؟ فيتبين بهذا أنه قد كان يقول: قال إبراهيم ونحوه فيما لا يتحقق أنه سمعت من إبرهيم meaning when I say Ibrahim said, or such words, do not interrupt me by asking whether you heard from Ibrahim or not? This shows that Hammad bin Abi Sulayman sometimes said قال إبراهيم etc. even where he did not have actual hearing.
From Hammad bin Abi Sulayman’s own words and Allama Muallimi’s explanation, Hammad’s mixing and concealment is evident.
In contrast to the above evidence, some friends try to give the impression that mixing refers to Hammad’s madness and epilepsy.
Regardless of the evidentiary status of the statements of Mughirah and Mu’ammar, this impression is incorrect; otherwise, it would be necessary that a great scholar like Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), who is the leader of the Muhaddithin, was unable to distinguish between mixing and common illness, which is absolutely wrong. Moreover, epilepsy and mixing are two separate matters; considering them the same is nothing but confusion of topics. Also, Imam Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) only mentioned statements without comparison or explanation. Furthermore, saying “the mixing in his narrations is due to the poor memory of the narrators who narrated from him.”
This is also subject to scrutiny because a group of scholars themselves consider Hammad bin Abi Sulayman to have poor memory. For example, the virtuous Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini (may Allah preserve him) also declared Hammad bin Abi Sulayman to be mudallis and of poor memory.
Muhaddith Irshad al-Haq Asri (may Allah preserve him) clearly wrote: “The difference in the chain and the names of narrators in the narration from Hammad is the result of Hammad’s mixing.”
Imam Ibn Abi Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him) also declared Hammad to be of poor memory.
According to the above statements, it appears that the mixing is not due to the narrators who narrated from Hammad but because of Hammad’s own poor memory.
Special criticism of Hammad ‘an Ibrahim by the scholars:
➊ Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: «حدثنا عثمان بن عثمان، قال أخبرنا البتي قال: كان حماد إذا قال برأيه أصاب، وإذا قال قال إبراهيم، أخطأ» meaning when Hammad speaks from his own opinion, he is correct, and when he narrates from Ibrahim, he makes mistakes.
Like Uthman bin Uthman, Hammad bin Salamah also narrated from Uthman bin Muslim al-Batti that كان حماد بن أبى سليمان إذا قال برأيه أصاب وإذا حدث عن إبراهيم أخطأ
These words are also present in the following books:
● Al-Ma’rifah wa al-Tarikh by Al-Fasawi
● Al-Tarikh al-Kabir by Al-Bukhari
● Tahdhib al-Kamal by Al-Mizzi
● Al-Muntakhab min ‘Ilal al-Khilal by Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi
● Sharh ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhi by Ibn Rajab
etc.
Muhaddith Irshad al-Haq Asri (may Allah preserve him) writes:
Imam Bayhaqi narrated Hammad ‘an Ibrahim’s fatwa which is in Kitab al-Athar and pointed out its weakness. حماد إذا قال برأيه أصاب، وإذا قال: قال إبراهيم أخطأ meaning when Hammad speaks from his own opinion, he is correct, and when he quotes from Ibrahim (may Allah have mercy on him), he errs. Imam Abu Hatim (may Allah have mercy on him) also said the same.
This special criticism is also confirmed by Hammad bin Abi Sulayman’s own statement which we have already quoted from Taqdimat al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil
, therefore our discussed narration is weak due to this special criticism as well. Sheikh al-Arab wal-Ajam Sayyid Badi’ al-Din Shah al-Rashidi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: It is clear that the great Muhaddithin (may Allah have mercy on them) have specifically criticized Hammad bin Abi Sulayman for narrating from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i.
Important warning:
In a narration of Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d
, these words are present: وكان حماد إذا قال برأيه أصاب وإذا قال عن غير إبراهيم أخطأ
Based on this narration, one of our brothers wrote: “Even if Hammad’s mixing is accepted, it will be attributed to narrations from others besides Ibrahim.”
Dear brother! This would only be possible if Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d’s narration were authentic, whereas it is rare or based on slip. The majority of scholars narrate it without “ghayr” (others). Moreover, Salim Abi al-Mundhir opposes two narrators more reliable than him, Hammad bin Salamah and Uthman bin Uthman, which shows that the addition of “ghayr” is not correct and this narration is rare and not worthy of proof or argument.
He also writes: “Perhaps for this reason Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) called the narration of Ibrahim narrated by Hammad as preserved.”
Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) cannot say it is preserved at least for this reason, because he himself narrated in his book Al-Tarikh al-Kabir the same statement that كان حماد إذا قال برأيه أصاب وإذا قال عن إبراهيم أخطأ
Also remember that merely calling a hadith sahih or hasan by a Muhaddith does not necessarily mean that the defect in it becomes non-defective, because there are several reasons:
● Sometimes the defect is unknown to the Muhaddith.
● The Muhaddith may have another sahih or hasan hadith at hand.
● It is also possible that what is a defect for the majority of Muhaddithin is not so for one Muhaddith, etc.
Our brother quoted a narration from Al-‘Ilal al-Kabir
in which a statement attributed to Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) is mentioned: أرجو أن يكون محفوظا and from this he tried to support his self-made position.
Regardless of whether the attribution of Al-‘Ilal al-Kabir to Imam Tirmidhi (may Allah have mercy on him) is correct or not, if our brother had read the connected subsequent narration, he would have known the background of أرجو أن يكون محفوظا, as Imam Tirmidhi (may Allah have mercy on him) says: وسألت محمدا عنه، يعني حديث الحسن عن على بن أبى طالب رفع القلم الحديث فقال: الحسن قد أدرك عليا وعندي حديث حسن
From this detailed explanation, it is clear that Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) did not say the narration of Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) is preserved because he accepted the method “Hammad ‘an Ibrahim” as correct, but rather because of the narration of Ali bin Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) which he considered hasan. And Allah knows best.
The author further writes: “Similarly, Imam Hakim (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the narrations of Hammad from Ibrahim in Al-Mustadrak and declared them sahih, and Dhahabi agreed.”
To this, it is said that this is not a fundamental matter; this is why scholars have criticized such cases, as Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) objected to a narration and said: وغفل ابن حبان والحاكم عن علته فصححاه meaning Ibn Hibban and Hakim overlooked its defect and declared it sahih.
Allama Abdul Rahman Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) said: في إسناده محمد بن إسحاق وهو مدلس وقد رواه عن عبدالرحمن بن الأسود معنعنا فكيف يكون إسناده حسنا أو صحيحا وتساهل الترمذي والحاكم مشهور
Meaning Allama Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) rejected Hakim’s correction and Imam Tirmidhi’s praise against the defect, so the general sahih is not worthy of attention against the special criticism in our discussed narration.
The author presented an excuse to clear Hammad’s narration from mixing that “perhaps the reason Hammad remembered Ibrahim’s narrations well is that he used to write down Ibrahim’s narrations, and before the disease of mixing, when a narrator who is easy to mix wrote narrations, the possibility of error remained.”
It is said that your statement could have some validity only if Hammad narrated from Ibrahim only those narrations which were written, but here the matter is the opposite; besides written narrations, Hammad also narrated from Ibrahim those narrations which he had never heard at all. Consider this interesting incident: Imam Shu’bah (may Allah have mercy on him) said, “Hammad narrated a narration from Ibrahim to me, so I asked: من أخبرك؟ سمعت هذا من إبراهيم؟ Who narrated it to you? Did you hear it yourself from Ibrahim? He said: No. I said: Then who narrated it to you? He said: Mansur narrated it to me. I went to Mansur and said: Hammad narrated a narration from Ibrahim through you; did you hear it from Ibrahim? Mansur said: No, Mughirah narrated it to me from Ibrahim. Then I met Mughirah and asked: Did you narrate this and that from Ibrahim? He said: Yes. I asked: Did you hear it from him? He said: No, Hammad narrated it to me.” Imam Shu’bah said: “I greatly wished to know who narrated this narration first, but it was not possible for me.”
This single incident reveals the reality of Hammad ‘an Ibrahim. The author perhaps unknowingly tried to build a weak foundation.
Our respected brother made another excuse, writing: “One proof of Hammad’s reliability from Ibrahim is that after Ibrahim’s death, people used to ask him about the fatwas issued by Ibrahim.”
This is nothing more than childish consolation because narrating a hadith and issuing fiqh rulings and matters are different.
Regarding Hammad bin Abi Sulayman, some Muhaddithin themselves have differentiated and declared him reliable in fiqh but unreliable in narration. Imam Abu Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him) said: هو صدوق ولا يحتج بحديثه وهو مستقيم فى الفقه وإذا جاء الآثار شوش meaning he is truthful but not a proof in hadith; however, he is straightforward in fiqh, but when he narrates hadith, he confuses.
Sheikh al-Arab wal-Ajam Sayyid Badi’ al-Din Shah al-Rashidi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: “Hammad bin Abi Sulayman is the teacher of Laith, and he is also a weak and criticized narrator. Imam Abu Hatim (may Allah have mercy on him) said he is truthful but his hadith is not proof; he is straightforward in narrating fiqh narrations.”
The author made the last excuse in this regard that “One proof of Hammad’s reliability from Ibrahim in this narration is that Ibrahim himself used to turn salam on both sides.”
Muhaddith Irshad al-Haq Asri (may Allah preserve him) writes: Contrary to this opinion, Allama Ibn al-Salah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: عمل العالم أو فتياه على وفق حديث ليس حكما منه بصحة ذلك الحديث “The action of a scholar or his fatwa according to hadith does not mean that the hadith is authentic according to him.” Simply put, when a scholar or mujtahid’s correct statement or action is against a hadith, it does not imply that he considers the hadith weak; his action cannot be proof of its authenticity because it is possible that besides this hadith, there is some external evidence supporting it, such as consensus or analogy. Therefore, the mujtahid acted upon or deduced from this hadith. Moreover, some great Imams even prefer weak hadith over qiyas, as Imam Ahmad (may Allah be pleased with him) and others have said.
One salam turn in funeral from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i is also established:
Besides, the author should also remember that one salam turn in funeral from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i (may Allah have mercy on him) is also established.
Now what do you think about this self-made argument?
Hammad bin Abi Sulayman is a mudallis:
Another objection to this narration is that Hammad is a mudallis and there is no explicit hearing. In response, some say that since he is a second-class mudallis, his ‘an’anah (traditional way of narrating) is not harmful. We consider this answer incorrect because this classification has never been considered final or conclusive in any era. For example, Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani (may Allah have mercy on him) classified Sufyan al-Thawri as a second-class mudallis, while Imam Uthman bin Sa’id al-Darimi (may Allah have mercy on him), who lived centuries before Ibn Hajar, placed him in the third class.
Even Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) did not consider it final. Yahya bin Abi Kathir is listed in the second class of mudallis in Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn, and his narration was also criticized. Muhaddith Muhibullah Shah al-Rashidi (may Allah have mercy on him) complains: “Leaving aside the predecessors, among the later scholars, Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned the issue of the horse’s halat (condition) in Fath al-Bari and presented a defect in a narration because it contains Yahya bin Kathir who is a mudallis, although Yahya bin Kathir is a second-class mudallis.” He also writes: Similarly, in Talkhis al-Habeer, Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned a hadith al-‘Innah which he brought through Al-A’mash from ‘Ata from Ibn Umar, although this hadith was mentioned and authenticated by Ibn al-Qattan, yet it is defective because لأنه لا يلزم من كونه رجاله ثقات أن يكون صحيحا لأن الأعمش مدلس ولم يذكر سماعه من عطاء meaning the presence of all trustworthy narrators in a hadith does not necessarily mean the hadith is authentic because it contains Al-A’mash who did not specify hearing from ‘Ata, i.e., عن narrated. From Hafiz’s Tabaqat al-Mudallisīn, it is understood that Al-A’mash is also a second-class mudallis.
Similarly, Ibn Jurayj was placed in the third class by Hafiz Ibn Hajar due to frequent tadlis, while in Fath al-Bari
he is considered ربما دلس.
If this classification were final or conclusive, scholars would never oppose it, but we see that scholars have issued rulings contrary to these classes. For example, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) placed Imam Zahri (may Allah have mercy on him) in the third class, but a group of contemporaries are not ready to accept him in the third class. The following lines mention some well-known scholars who disagreed with Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani’s classification:
● Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned Sufyan al-Thawri in the second class, while Allama Muhammad Bashir Sahaswani (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote while explaining a defect in a narration: وأيضا فيها سفيان الثوري وهو مدلس وقد عنعنه
● Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned Al-A’mash in the second class, while Muhaddith al-Asr Hafiz Muhammad Gondalwi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote: It contains Al-A’mash who is a mudallis and narrates from ‘Amman who is unreliable.
● Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned Ibrahim al-Nakha’i in the second class, while Sheikh al-Arab wal-Ajam Sayyid Badi’ al-Din Shah al-Rashidi (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote while explaining a defect in a narration: Thirdly, Ibrahim is also a mudallis (كما لا يخفي على الماهر بالأصول)
Considering brevity, I stop here; otherwise, Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai (may Allah have mercy on him) has mentioned dozens of such examples in his Maqalat
. Alhamdulillah.
When this classification itself is disputed, what meaning does it have to accept the ‘an’anah of second-class mudallis as “agreed acceptance”?
We cannot impose our position on anyone, but we cannot remain silent about what we consider right. Therefore, in our view, the most cautious opinion in this regard is that of Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) who said: ومن عرفناه دلس مرة فقد أبان لنا عورته فى روايته about whom we have learned that once he did tadlis, he revealed his hidden matter to us.
Also, Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: لا نقبل من مدلس حديثا حتي يقول فيه: حدثني أو سمعت We do not accept any hadith from a mudallis even if he says حدثني or سمعت.
This is the position of the majority of Muhaddithin, as Muhaddith Irshad al-Haq Asri (may Allah preserve him) said: The fourth position is that if a trustworthy narrator is a mudallis, his narration is not acceptable until his tadith is established. This is the position of Imam Shafi’i and Khateeb Baghdadi (may Allah have mercy on them) and most accept this.
Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: وقد اتفقوا على أن المدلس لا يحتج بعنعنته meaning there is consensus that the ‘an’anah of a mudallis is not proof. (
Here, it is intended to say that whoever mentioned Hammad bin Abi Sulayman’s ‘an’anah as a defect has committed no sin but followed the style of scholars and Muhaddithin. We have clearly shown that even the ‘an’anah of second-class mudallis has been discussed. The writer is writing in detail on the issue of tadlis; may Allah grant him success by His special mercy and help (Ameen). Further details on this topic can be seen there, InshaAllah.
Misunderstanding:
One of our brothers wrote: Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) also accepts Hammad’s ‘an’anah. Thus, in Sahih Bukhari, in the chapter on reciting the Qur’an after hadith, etc., the statement of Ibrahim al-Nakha’i (may Allah be pleased with him) is mentioned: قال حماد عن إبراهيم meaning Imam Bukhari mentions this effect with “qala” despite Hammad’s “an,” not “qila,” as if Imam Bukhari accepts Hammad’s ‘an.
Removal:
It is safer to avoid self-made reasoning in the principles of hadith; otherwise, it would lead to denial of any Muslim principle. If this brother’s reasoning is accepted, then it must be admitted that Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) did not consider tadlis a defect and accepted tadlis from others besides the second class. Consider:
Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: قال ابن جريج عن ابن شهاب
He also said: قال ابن جريج قال ابن شهاب (same reference)
Similarly, he said: وقال مغيرة عن إبراهيم
Mughirah bin Muqsim and Ibn Jurayj belong to the third class and are considered frequent mudallis. Now what do you think, did Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) accept their ‘an’anah as well? إذ ليس فليس.
The reality is that according to Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him), if there was a reliable mutaba’at or explicit hearing elsewhere, he would have narrated through قال etc., but to conclude from this that he considered the defect completely removed or did not consider it a defect is absolutely wrong.
Misunderstanding:
One misunderstanding of our brother is that Imam Hakim declared Hammad’s narrations from Ibrahim as sahih and Dhahabi agreed, and Imam Ibn Khuzaymah narrated it in his Sahih, so their ‘an’anah is accepted.
Removal:
To remove this misunderstanding, we present some excerpts from Muhaddith al-Asr Sayyid Muhibullah Shah al-Rashidi (may Allah have mercy on him), from which it is hoped the misunderstanding will be removed, InshaAllah.
Rashidi Sahib writes: Regarding the narration of a third-class mudallis, saying that it is according to Imam Bukhari’s condition (because Sheikhain, including Imam Bukhari, are included) is the most incorrect thing, and Hakim wrote in Al-Mustadrak about even weaker hadiths that صحيح على شرط الشيخين meaning this hadith is sahih and according to the condition of Sheikhain (Bukhari and Muslim).
He also writes: Hafiz Dhahabi did not mention the tadlis defect anywhere in his summary; he only criticized the narrators, and that too for narrators of Sahih Sitta.
Actually, from Hafiz Dhahabi’s work, it is only known that he criticized Hakim’s narration where a narrator is criticized or, in other words, Hafiz’s purpose was to point out the criticized narrators. Otherwise, tadlis, interruption, etc., are defects presented as evidence for weakening a Muhaddith’s narration, and certainly, who is more familiar with the methodology of Muhaddithin than Hafiz Dhahabi?
Later, in the mentioned reference, Shah Sahib (may Allah preserve him) presented many examples; those seeking details can see there.
Regarding the correction of hadith and defects, we have already explained in previous pages, and here is another excerpt from Rashidi (may Allah have mercy on him). Muhaddith Muhibullah Shah (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: From Hafiz Sahib’s example, you can understand that if Ibn al-Qattan corrects a hadith, although Ibn al-Qattan is considered strict, Hafiz Ibn Hajar among the later scholars criticized his correction and said the hadith is not sahih but defective because it contains a mudallis narrator. He did not specify hearing from his teacher, meaning Ibn al-Qattan was unaware of this defect at that time, which Hafiz Sahib later warned about. So what is wrong or disgraceful in this?
He also writes: Ibn Hibban narrated this hadith in his Sahih; dear viewers, consider that if this hadith is weak and its defects are evident, then Ibn Hibban’s narration of it in his Sahih cannot be proof of its authenticity according to scholars. Many narrations of Sahih Ibn Hibban have been criticized and declared defective or weak by the Imams of hadith.
The narration of Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah will also be in the same condition regarding defects.
Our brother’s reasoning is nothing but misunderstanding or scholarly slip, so surely he is far from the explanation and justification of scholars. InshaAllah.
Misunderstanding:
Our respected brother writes: Similarly, Imam Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: سألت أبا زرعة عن حديث حماد عن إبراهيم عن أبى سعيد الخدري عن النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم رواه الثوري عن حماد عن إبراهيم عن أبى سعيد موقوفا قال أبو زرعة: الصحيح موقوف عن أبى سعيد لان الثوري احفظ
Here Abu Zur’ah (may Allah have mercy on him) declared Hammad’s ‘an’anah but accepted his mوقوف (stopped) narration as sahih, and obviously, this is about the defects of hadith. If this defect were a defect of today’s era, Abu Zur’ah would have clarified here.
Removal:
Here also our brother argued without thinking and expressed anger. It is said that your reasoning is flawed because we believe that Imam Abu Hatim and the majority of Muhaddithin consider this method as not established. Imam Abu Hatim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: لم يلق إبراهيم النخعي أحدا من أصحاب النبى ما إلا عائشة ولم يسمع منها شيئا
And the mentioned narration is Ibrahim ‘an Abi Sa’id. If the brother’s reasoning is accepted, then Ibrahim’s meeting and hearing from Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) must also be accepted, whereas there is no indication of this from any Muhaddith including Imam Abu Zur’ah, rather all have decided the opposite. When إبراهيم عن أبى سعيد is not correct, how can حماد عن إبراهيم be accepted?
As for the brother’s statement that “if this defect were a defect of today’s era, Abu Zur’ah would have clarified here,” it is said: Are Imam Shafi’i, Khateeb Baghdadi, Hafiz Ibn Hibban, and the majority of Muhaddithin considered today’s era by you? Do not forget that your criticism also affects Sheikh al-Arab wal-Ajam, whose name you have made “Badi’ al-Uloom,” because he also presented Ibrahim al-Nakha’i’s ‘an’anah as a defect, as mentioned earlier.
Misunderstanding:
The author writes: Imam Ibn Hajar and others gave an example for Hammad being a mudallis that he caused Mughirah bin Muqsim to commit tadlis, and Mughirah is a trustworthy Imam, meaning he also used to do tadlis but from trustworthy narrators.
Removal:
SubhanAllah! What intelligence and insight! What the Imams of Muhaddithin could not solve, our brother solved in a snap!
Imam Shu’bah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “I greatly wished to know who narrated this narration first, but it was not possible for me.”
While the author made the impossible possible!!!
It is requested to read this incident mentioned in previous pages again and again, then tell how much truth is in what you wrote?
Misunderstanding:
The respected one writes: Question to the objectors: Since you think Hammad’s ‘an’anah is always rejected, then present all the narrations where Muhaddithin heard from him before mixing, like Sufyan (may Allah have mercy on him), and the narration of Sufyan from Hammad which Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) also declared sahih, present all those narrations and mention one in which explicit hearing of Hammad from Ibrahim is present?
Removal:
This is a completely childish question. Even a common student knows that here only the absence of mixing is discussed, and the defect of tadlis remains because many narrations of Hammad exist besides Ibrahim, which Sufyan al-Thawri narrated from Hammad with explicit hearing. You should not unnecessarily link Hammad with Ibrahim. Your question is nothing but confusion of topics, and you must know that mixing and tadlis are different.
Ibrahim al-Nakha’i is a mudallis:
Ibrahim al-Nakha’i is a mudallis and did not specify hearing in this narration; therefore, this narration is weak due to his ‘an’anah as well.
Al-A’mash (may Allah be pleased with him) said: إذا حدثتني عن عبدالله، فأسند قال: إذا قلت: قال عبدالله فقد سمعه من غير واحد من أصحابه وإذا قلت: حدثني فلان فحدثني فلان When you narrate hadith from Abdullah, make it musnad (connected). He said: When I say قال عبدالله, it means I heard it from many of his companions, and when I say حدثني فلان فحدثني فلان, then the hearing is actual.
حدثني فلان is general, and the Imam himself explained that if I specify hearing, then the hearing is actual; otherwise, not.
Sheikh al-Arab wal-Ajam Sayyid Badi’ al-Din Shah al-Rashidi (may Allah have mercy on him) said while explaining a defect in a narration: Thirdly, Ibrahim al-Nakha’i is a mudallis. (كما لا يخفي على الماهر بالأصول)
Due to the above, the discussed narration is declared weak, which we have explained with references in order. Alhamdulillah.
Now if anyone among the scholars corrects or praises this narration despite these defects, it will not be accepted, as we have written many examples in previous pages.
⟐ Second narration
عن أبى موسي قال: صلينا مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على جنازة فسلم عن يمينه وعن شماله
In the chain of this narration, one narrator Khalid bin Nafi’ al-Asha’ri is weak.
➊ Imam Abu Zur’ah al-Razi (d. 264 AH) said: ضعيف الحديث
➋ Imam Nasai (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 303 AH) said: ضعيف
➌ Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (may Allah have mercy on him) (233 AH) said: ليس بشيء
➍ Imam Abdullah bin Numayr (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 115 AH) said: ضعيف الحديث
➎ Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 277 AH) said: شيخ، ليس بقوي يكتب حديثه
➏ Hafiz Ibn al-Jawzi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 597 AH) mentioned it in الضعفاء والمتروكون
➐ Hafiz Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 748 AH) mentioned it in المغني فى الضعفاء
and ديوان الضعفاء
According to Imam Ibn ‘Adi (may Allah be pleased with him) (d. 365 AH)
and Imam Khateeb Baghdadi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 463 AH)
, it is weak.
Also, Hafiz Ibn al-Qaysarani (d. 507 AH) in Dhakirat al-Huffaz
, Hafiz Ibn Hajar (d. 852 AH) in Lisan al-Mizan
, Ahmad bin Ali, Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi (d. 845 AH) in Mukhtasar al-Kamil fi al-Du’afa’
, Allama Muqbil bin Hadi (d. 1422 AH) in Rijal al-Hakim fi al-Mustadrak
, Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini (Nathr al-Nibal bi Mu’jam al-Rijal
) and Allama Nasiruddin al-Albani (d. 1420 AH) in Silsilat al-Da’ifah
also consider it weak.
Imam Ibn Numayr (may Allah have mercy on him) even criticized his memory.
Such a weak narrator is not worthy of mutaba’at even for those who accept weak + weak narrators, and Imam Yahya bin Ma’in (may Allah have mercy on him) said beautifully about a narration: ليته يصحح نفسه، فكيف يصحح غيره meaning I wish it were authentic itself, then how can a weak narrator correct another?
Third hadith:
Ibrahim al-Hijri said: Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Abi Awfa (may Allah be pleased with him) led our funeral prayer for his daughter; he said four takbirs, then paused for a while until we felt he would say the fifth takbir. Then he turned salam to the right and left. When he finished, we asked: What is this? He said: I did not add anything to what I saw the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) do, or said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did the same.
This narration is also weak due to the following reasons:
➊ Muhammad bin Muslimah al-Wasiti:
He is متكلم فيه. For severe criticism, see Allama Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani’s book Latif Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da’ifah
etc.
➋ Sharik bin Abdullah al-Qadi:
Although he is truthful and has good hadith, he is also mudallis and mixed. Yazid bin Harun’s hearing from Sharik is before mixing, but in the mentioned narration, Sharik did not specify hearing, and it is known that a mudallis’s narration with ‘an is weak, as detailed discussion has passed.
❀ Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 456 AH) declared Sharik al-Qadi مشهور بتدليس المنكرات إلى الثقات
❀ Imam Ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi (may Allah have mercy on him) (d. 628 AH) said: شريك مع ذلك مشهور بالتدليس وهو لم يذكر السماع فيه
❀ Muhaddith Irshad al-Haq Asri (may Allah preserve him) ruled on a narration: إسناده ضعيف، لأن شريك القاضي مدلس كما فى التهذيب
وقد عنعنه
And in our discussed narration, Sharik al-Qadi did not specify hearing and narrated with ‘an, so this narration is weak due to Sharik al-Qadi’s ‘an’anah.
➌ Ibrahim al-Hijri:
He is such a narrator that almost all Muhaddithin agree on his weakness. For details, see books of Asma’ al-Rijal.
➍ For the fourth defect of this narration, see: Fatawa Ilmiya
by Muhaddith al-Asr Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai (may Allah have mercy on him).
قال إبراهيم
② Turning away from Salam on one side and its arguments
The following lines will present the arguments of those who turn the salam to one side in the funeral prayer, and objections and doubts related to this will also be addressed, InshaAllah.
A narration transmitted from Sayyiduna Abu Imamah bin Sahl bin Hunayf رضي الله عنه states that السنة فى الصلاة على الجنازة أن تكبر ثم تقرأ بأم القرآن ثم تصلي على النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم ثم تخلص الدعاء للميت ولا تقرأ إلا فى التكبيرة الأولي ثم تسلم فى نفسه عن يمينه, meaning the Sunnah in the funeral prayer is that you say Takbeer, then recite Surah Al-Fatiha, then send blessings upon the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the recitation of (Al-Fatiha) is only done in the first Takbeer, then quietly turn your salam to your right side. This was explained by Imam Ibn al-Jarood in المنتقي
and its chain of narration is authentic.
Authentic or Hasan Lidhatah narrations regarding turning salam to one side in the funeral prayer are also found in the following books:
● Fadl al-Salat ‘ala al-Nabi صلى الله عليه وسلم by Imam Ismail bin Ishaq
● Musnad al-Shamiyyin by al-Tabarani
● Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar by al-Tahawi
● Al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim
Imam Hakim رحمه الله writes after this hadith: There is no more authentic hadith than this regarding one salam in the funeral prayer.
Note: Abu Imamah Sahl bin Hunayf رضي الله عنه is a Sahabi Saghir (younger companion), and according to us, the preferred view is that whether a Sahabi Saghir or Kabir, the Mursal Sahabah are authoritative.
If someone still insists that the Mursal narration of a Sahabi Saghir is not authoritative or outright denies the Sahabiyyah of Abu Imamah Sahl bin Hunayf رضي الله عنه, then it should be noted that some narrations explicitly state that Abu Imamah Sahl bin Hunayf رضي الله عنه also narrated this hadith from رجل يا رجال من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. Please observe:
Al-Mustadrak by al-Hakim
, Al-Awsat by Ibn al-Mundhir
, Sharh Ma’ani al-Athar by al-Tahawi
, Al-Sunan al-Kubra by al-Bayhaqi
, etc.
It is established in the principles of Hadith that when a trustworthy Tabi’i رجل من أصحاب رسول narrates, that hadith is accepted and authoritative, whereas in our discussed hadith, Abu Imamah Sahl bin Hunayf رضي الله عنه is a Sahabi who holds the honor of companionship.
One Salam in the Funeral Prayer and Our Predecessors
❀ Nafi’ reports that Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar رضي الله عنهما when leading the funeral prayer would raise his hands, then say Takbeer. When he finished (the Takbeers etc.), he would turn one salam to his right side.
❀ Imam Makhool رحمه الله also used to turn only one salam in the funeral prayer.
❀ Evidence of turning one salam in the funeral prayer is also found from Imam Ibrahim al-Nakha’i رحمه الله.
❀ Imam Abdullah bin Mubarak رحمه الله said: Whoever turns two salams in the funeral prayer is ignorant, he is ignorant.
❀ Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Nasr al-Marwazi رحمه الله (d. 294 AH) said: وقال ابن المبارك وعامة أهل الحديث: تسليمة واحدة, meaning Imam Abdullah bin Mubarak and the generality of Ahl al-Hadith hold that there is only one salam in the funeral prayer.
From Imam Marwazi رحمه الله’s statement, it is understood that almost in every era, the generality of Ahl al-Hadith have agreed that there is only one salam in the funeral prayer.
On the contrary, we see that there is neither any authentic Marfoo’ hadith nor any practice of a Sahabi regarding turning two salams in the funeral prayer, and among the Tabi’in, except for Ibrahim al-Nakha’i رحمه الله, no evidence is found from any other Tabi’i. This is why Imam Ibn al-Mundhir رحمه الله said: Based on the hadith of Abu Imamah (Sahl bin Hunayf رضي الله عنه), I prefer turning salam to one side only, because the Sahabah رضي الله عنهم also followed this, and they have more knowledge of the Sunnah, they attended the prayer of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and learned the method of prayer from him. All those from whom we have narrated are unanimous on this matter that undoubtedly there is only one salam in the funeral prayer, and the scholars agree that by turning one salam, the prayer is concluded.
Thus, Imam Ibn Mundhir رضي الله عنه transmitted the consensus of the scholars on one salam in the funeral prayer.
Sheikh Nuh Alam bin Abdul Sattar al-Bukhari al-Madani حفظه الله writes: “All the great Imams agree that turning one salam in the funeral prayer is obligatory and necessary; without it, the prayer is not valid. The only difference is regarding the permissibility and recommendation of two salams.”
We request all those scholars who hold that turning one salam in the funeral prayer is established to take steps to revive this Sunnah, because this Sunnah has especially become lost in the Indian subcontinent, and debates and disputes should not be made against this established Sunnah. Remember, the revival of Sunnah removes trials, it does not create them.
Note: Some people try to argue from general evidences against specific evidences, whereas the established principle of Fiqh is that it is not permissible to argue from general against specific.
Preferred Position:
Dear readers! We have mentioned arguments from both sides, but according to us, the preferred view is that only one salam should be turned in the funeral prayer because the Marfoo’ hadiths, the practice of the Sahabah and Tabi’in, and the consensus of the majority of scholars are evidence for this, and contrary to this are unestablished narrations which are not authoritative or arguable. And Allah knows best.
