✦ Written by: Maulana Ibrahim Rabbani (Badin, Sindh)
✦ Published in: Monthly Noor al-Hadith, Issue 29
“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) offered ‘Aqeeqah on behalf of Hasan and Husayn (رضي الله عنهما), sacrificing one ram for each.”
(Sunan Abi Dawood: 2841 – Chain is authentic)
✔ Imam Ibn al-Jarood in al-Muntaqa
✔ Imam Dhiya al-Maqdisi in al-Mukhtarah
✔ Imam Abdul Haqq al-Ishbili: “It is Sahih.” (Ahkam al-Wusta)
✔ Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid: “Authentic.” (al-Iqtirah)
✔ Imam Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Imam al-‘Iraqi, Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi, Imam al-Nawawi, Imam Zainuddin al-Ansari
✔ Contemporary Hadith Scholars:
• Shaykh Nasiruddin al-Albani: “Isnad is Sahih per Bukhari's criteria.” (Irwa’ al-Ghalil)
• Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai: Also declared it authentic. (Tahqiq Sunan Abi Dawood)
➊ Abu Ma‘mar Abdullah ibn Amr – Reliable and established.
➋ ‘Abd al-Warith ibn Sa‘id ibn Dhakwan – Reliable and well-established.
➌ Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani – A leading, trustworthy jurist.
➍ ‘Ikrimah, Mawla of Ibn Abbas – Trustworthy and firm, expert in Tafsir.
➎ ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas – The noble Companion and scholar.
Claim: Only ‘Abd al-Warith narrates the Hadith as connected (mawsul); others narrate it disconnected (mursal).
Refutation:
His additional narration is acceptable under the principle:
“زيادة الثقة مقبولة” (Additional wording from a trustworthy narrator is acceptable).
Even Imam al-Bukhari held this principle, as shown in his stance on similar narrations.
Shubah ②:
Claim: ‘Abd al-Warith contradicts reliable narrators like Ma‘mar and Sufyan al-Thawri.
Refutation:
The alleged contradiction is unfounded. They merely omitted a link (mursal), while ‘Abd al-Warith preserved the full chain (mawsul), which is not a contradiction but an accepted addition.
Shubah ③:
Claim: Abu Hatim declared the narration mistaken and the mursal version more accurate.
Refutation:
This opinion is outweighed by numerous scholars who authenticated the Hadith. Moreover, no such mursal version exists in printed Hadith collections as claimed.
Shubah ④:
Claim: Al-Albani declared "kabshayn kabshayn" (two rams) version more accurate.
Refutation:
That version is weak due to Qatadah’s tadlis (concealment of narrators). Hence, it cannot override a sahih narration.
Shubah ⑤:
Claim: The narration of Umm Kuraz (two rams) supports the "kabshayn" version.
Refutation:
Her authentic narration confirms that offering two animals is preferable, while offering one (as in Ibn Abbas's Hadith) remains valid and fulfills the Sunnah.
Shubah ⑥:
Claim: This was a unique practice (khasa’is) of the Prophet (ﷺ).
Refutation:
No proof supports this claim. In fact, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar and other companions also practiced one-animal ‘Aqeeqah without objection.
Shubah ⑦:
Claim: Hadith of Ibn Abbas is abrogated (mansukh) by that of Umm Kuraz.
Refutation:
This claim is unsubstantiated. Scholars reconciled the narrations by saying one animal is sufficient, while two is preferred.
Shubah ⑧:
Claim: Gender superiority in inheritance should reflect in ‘Aqeeqah.
Refutation:
Inheritance and ‘Aqeeqah are separate domains. The analogy is misplaced. ‘Aqeeqah is Sunnah, not an obligatory distribution like inheritance.
✔ Offering one animal for a male child is permissible and fulfills the Sunnah, while offering two is superior, as proven from other narrations.
✔ There exists a legitimate scholarly difference of opinion, supported by sound evidence on both sides.
✦ Published in: Monthly Noor al-Hadith, Issue 29
✿ Narrated Hadith:
Imam Abu Dawood reports:“The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) offered ‘Aqeeqah on behalf of Hasan and Husayn (رضي الله عنهما), sacrificing one ram for each.”
(Sunan Abi Dawood: 2841 – Chain is authentic)
✿ Authentication by Scholars:
Numerous eminent scholars and Muhaddithun have classified this Hadith as Sahih (authentic):✔ Imam Ibn al-Jarood in al-Muntaqa
✔ Imam Dhiya al-Maqdisi in al-Mukhtarah
✔ Imam Abdul Haqq al-Ishbili: “It is Sahih.” (Ahkam al-Wusta)
✔ Imam Ibn Daqiq al-Eid: “Authentic.” (al-Iqtirah)
✔ Imam Ibn al-Mulaqqin, Imam al-‘Iraqi, Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi, Imam al-Nawawi, Imam Zainuddin al-Ansari
✔ Contemporary Hadith Scholars:
• Shaykh Nasiruddin al-Albani: “Isnad is Sahih per Bukhari's criteria.” (Irwa’ al-Ghalil)
• Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai: Also declared it authentic. (Tahqiq Sunan Abi Dawood)
✿ Biographical Evaluation of Narrators:
All narrators of this Hadith are from Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:➊ Abu Ma‘mar Abdullah ibn Amr – Reliable and established.
➋ ‘Abd al-Warith ibn Sa‘id ibn Dhakwan – Reliable and well-established.
➌ Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani – A leading, trustworthy jurist.
➍ ‘Ikrimah, Mawla of Ibn Abbas – Trustworthy and firm, expert in Tafsir.
➎ ‘Abdullah ibn Abbas – The noble Companion and scholar.
✿ Clarification of Doubts (Shubuhat) & Their Refutations:
Shubah ①:Claim: Only ‘Abd al-Warith narrates the Hadith as connected (mawsul); others narrate it disconnected (mursal).
Refutation:
His additional narration is acceptable under the principle:
“زيادة الثقة مقبولة” (Additional wording from a trustworthy narrator is acceptable).
Even Imam al-Bukhari held this principle, as shown in his stance on similar narrations.
Shubah ②:
Claim: ‘Abd al-Warith contradicts reliable narrators like Ma‘mar and Sufyan al-Thawri.
Refutation:
The alleged contradiction is unfounded. They merely omitted a link (mursal), while ‘Abd al-Warith preserved the full chain (mawsul), which is not a contradiction but an accepted addition.
Shubah ③:
Claim: Abu Hatim declared the narration mistaken and the mursal version more accurate.
Refutation:
This opinion is outweighed by numerous scholars who authenticated the Hadith. Moreover, no such mursal version exists in printed Hadith collections as claimed.
Shubah ④:
Claim: Al-Albani declared "kabshayn kabshayn" (two rams) version more accurate.
Refutation:
That version is weak due to Qatadah’s tadlis (concealment of narrators). Hence, it cannot override a sahih narration.
Shubah ⑤:
Claim: The narration of Umm Kuraz (two rams) supports the "kabshayn" version.
Refutation:
Her authentic narration confirms that offering two animals is preferable, while offering one (as in Ibn Abbas's Hadith) remains valid and fulfills the Sunnah.
Shubah ⑥:
Claim: This was a unique practice (khasa’is) of the Prophet (ﷺ).
Refutation:
No proof supports this claim. In fact, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar and other companions also practiced one-animal ‘Aqeeqah without objection.
Shubah ⑦:
Claim: Hadith of Ibn Abbas is abrogated (mansukh) by that of Umm Kuraz.
Refutation:
This claim is unsubstantiated. Scholars reconciled the narrations by saying one animal is sufficient, while two is preferred.
Shubah ⑧:
Claim: Gender superiority in inheritance should reflect in ‘Aqeeqah.
Refutation:
Inheritance and ‘Aqeeqah are separate domains. The analogy is misplaced. ‘Aqeeqah is Sunnah, not an obligatory distribution like inheritance.
✿ Conclusion:
✔ The Hadith of Ibn Abbas (رضي الله عنه) stating one ram each for Hasan and Husayn (رضي الله عنهما) is authentic.✔ Offering one animal for a male child is permissible and fulfills the Sunnah, while offering two is superior, as proven from other narrations.
✔ There exists a legitimate scholarly difference of opinion, supported by sound evidence on both sides.
