Excerpt from: Ahkām wa Masā’il – In the Light of the Qur’an and Sunnah by Shaykh Mubashshir Ahmad Rabbānī
In Weekly Ghazwah, a writer, ʿAbd al-Razzāq Zāhid Sialkotī, published an article on the topic of Dowry of Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها, in which he labeled the narration concerning her dowry as weak due to narrators Abū Usāmah and Zā’idah, and claimed a break (inqiṭāʿ) in another chain, even accusing Muḥammad bin Faḍīl of being a Shīʿah.
Is this criticism valid? Kindly clarify in light of scholarly evidences.
The narration concerning Sayyidah Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها in which the Prophet ﷺ gifted her a blanket, a hand-mill, a water-skin, and two cushions at the time of her marriage is completely authentic. There exists no significant flaw or disqualifying defect in this narration.
This ḥadīth has been narrated by Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in five different places in his Musnad, and also recorded by:
One of the chains from Imām Aḥmad is as follows:
ḥaddathanā Abū Usāmah, anba’anā Zā’idah, ḥaddathanā ʿAṭā’ bin al-Sā’ib, ʿan Abīhi, ʿan ʿAlī رضي الله عنه
Musnad Aḥmad (1/84, ḥadīth: 643)
Mawlānā ʿAbd al-Razzāq Zāhid described Abū Usāmah as severely critiqued and only "ṣadūq" at best. This is unjust and shows unfamiliarity with ʿIlm al-Rijāl (science of narrators). Three individuals are known by this name:
① Abū Usāmah al-Ḥajjām (Zayd)
A narrator from al-Nasā’ī, declared thiqah by:
Bukhārī said: Ṣadūq, and Ibn Ḥajar said: Thiqah in al-Taqrīb.
However, this Abū Usāmah is not intended in this narration, since his teachers and students don’t align.
② Abū Usāmah al-Raqqī al-Ḥujā’ī (Zayd ibn ʿAlī ibn Dīnār)
Also a narrator of al-Nasā’ī, declared thiqah by:
③ Abū Usāmah Ḥammād ibn Usāmah al-Qurashī al-Kūfī
This is the correct narrator here. He narrated from:
His narrations were transmitted by:
He is a narrator of the Kutub al-Sittah (Six Canonical Books) and declared thiqah by:
Hence, no legitimate criticism can be made against him.
This is baseless. The claim originates from al-Azdī, who is himself weak, and even he reported that Abū Usāmah abandoned tadlīs.
Furthermore, Abū Usāmah explicitly stated his hearing (samaʿ) from Zā’idah in this very narration as found in Musnad Aḥmad.
Some mistakenly applied the jarḥ of munkar al-ḥadīth to Zā’idah ibn Qudāmah. But this jarḥ pertains to Zā’idah ibn Abī al-Ruqād al-Bābilī, not the one in this chain.
Zā’idah ibn Qudāmah is a narrator of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, widely accepted as thiqah. This is confirmed in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, etc.
Mawlānā also questioned the chain:
Wāṣil ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlá → Muḥammad ibn Faḍīl → ʿAṭā’ ibn al-Sā’ib → ʿAlī رضي الله عنه
He claimed:
① Break (inqiṭāʿ) between ʿAṭā’ and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه
② ʿAṭā’ is unreliable
Both points are invalid.
Regarding ①: The narration in Sunan Ibn Mājah (ḥadīth 4152) is via ʿAṭā’ from his father from ʿAlī, making it connected (muttaṣil). This is supported in Tuhfat al-Ashrāf (7/376) and al-Musnad al-Jāmiʿ (13/261/362).
Regarding ②: ʿAṭā’ ibn al-Sā’ib is ṣadūq. Ibn Ḥajar said: "Ṣadūq, but experienced ikhtiḷāṭ (confusion in later life)."
However, narrators like:
narrated from him before his ikhtiḷāṭ, and their narrations are sound. Imām Bukhārī stated that his early narrations are authentic, and included a narration from him in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Book of Riqāq, ḥadīth 6578).
Thus, both the isnād is connected and ʿAṭā’ is reliable when narrated from before his ikhtiḷāṭ.
The claim that he is unreliable due to being a Shīʿah is misleading.
In earlier usage, Shīʿah simply referred to affection for Ahl al-Bayt, and numerous narrators in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslim were described similarly.
All objections raised by ʿAbd al-Razzāq Zāhid Sialkotī have been comprehensively refuted. The narration regarding the dowry of Sayyidah Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها is sound, authentic, and well-established through multiple strong chains.
Even scholars like:
have all declared it ṣaḥīḥ.
The claim of weakness is erroneous, misleading, and contrary to the principles of ḥadīth criticism.
(And Allah knows best!)
❖ Question:
In Weekly Ghazwah, a writer, ʿAbd al-Razzāq Zāhid Sialkotī, published an article on the topic of Dowry of Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها, in which he labeled the narration concerning her dowry as weak due to narrators Abū Usāmah and Zā’idah, and claimed a break (inqiṭāʿ) in another chain, even accusing Muḥammad bin Faḍīl of being a Shīʿah.
Is this criticism valid? Kindly clarify in light of scholarly evidences.
✿ Answer:
The narration concerning Sayyidah Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها in which the Prophet ﷺ gifted her a blanket, a hand-mill, a water-skin, and two cushions at the time of her marriage is completely authentic. There exists no significant flaw or disqualifying defect in this narration.
This ḥadīth has been narrated by Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal in five different places in his Musnad, and also recorded by:
- Imām al-Nasā’ī in his Sunan al-Ṣughrā and al-Kubrā
- Ibn Mājah in his Sunan (ḥadīth: 4152)
- al-Ḍiyā’ al-Maqdisī in al-Mukhtārah
- Ibn Saʿd in al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā
- Ibn Ḥibbān in his Ṣaḥīḥ
- al-Bayhaqī in Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah (3/171)
- al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak
- Ibn Kathīr in Jāmiʿ al-Masānīd wal-Sunan
- and Imām Aḥmad in Faḍā’il al-Ṣaḥābah
One of the chains from Imām Aḥmad is as follows:
ḥaddathanā Abū Usāmah, anba’anā Zā’idah, ḥaddathanā ʿAṭā’ bin al-Sā’ib, ʿan Abīhi, ʿan ʿAlī رضي الله عنه
Musnad Aḥmad (1/84, ḥadīth: 643)✔ Examination of the Chain:
➤ Criticism on
Mawlānā ʿAbd al-Razzāq Zāhid described Abū Usāmah as severely critiqued and only "ṣadūq" at best. This is unjust and shows unfamiliarity with ʿIlm al-Rijāl (science of narrators). Three individuals are known by this name:
① Abū Usāmah al-Ḥajjām (Zayd)
A narrator from al-Nasā’ī, declared thiqah by:
- Imām Yaḥyá ibn Maʿīn
- Abū Ḥātim
- Ibn Ḥibbān
Bukhārī said: Ṣadūq, and Ibn Ḥajar said: Thiqah in al-Taqrīb.
However, this Abū Usāmah is not intended in this narration, since his teachers and students don’t align.
② Abū Usāmah al-Raqqī al-Ḥujā’ī (Zayd ibn ʿAlī ibn Dīnār)
Also a narrator of al-Nasā’ī, declared thiqah by:
- Ibn Ḥibbān
- al-Dāraqutnī
- Ibn Ḥajar – rated ṣadūq
- Dr. Bashār ʿAwwād – rated thiqah
Yet again, this is not the Abū Usāmah in this ḥadīth.
③ Abū Usāmah Ḥammād ibn Usāmah al-Qurashī al-Kūfī
This is the correct narrator here. He narrated from:
- Zā’idah ibn Qudāmah
- Abū Isḥāq al-Fazārī
- Sufyān al-Thawrī
- al-Aʿmash
- Shuʿbah, and others.
His narrations were transmitted by:
- Imām Aḥmad
- Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh
- al-Ḥumaydī
- Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah
- ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī, and others.
He is a narrator of the Kutub al-Sittah (Six Canonical Books) and declared thiqah by:
- Imām Aḥmad
- Yaḥyá ibn Maʿīn
- Ibn Saʿd
- al-Dāraqutnī
- Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī and others.
Hence, no legitimate criticism can be made against him.
➤ Claim of
This is baseless. The claim originates from al-Azdī, who is himself weak, and even he reported that Abū Usāmah abandoned tadlīs.
Furthermore, Abū Usāmah explicitly stated his hearing (samaʿ) from Zā’idah in this very narration as found in Musnad Aḥmad.
➤ Criticism on
Some mistakenly applied the jarḥ of munkar al-ḥadīth to Zā’idah ibn Qudāmah. But this jarḥ pertains to Zā’idah ibn Abī al-Ruqād al-Bābilī, not the one in this chain.
Zā’idah ibn Qudāmah is a narrator of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, widely accepted as thiqah. This is confirmed in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, etc.
✔ Response to the Second Chain:
Mawlānā also questioned the chain:
Wāṣil ibn ʿAbd al-Aʿlá → Muḥammad ibn Faḍīl → ʿAṭā’ ibn al-Sā’ib → ʿAlī رضي الله عنه
He claimed:
① Break (inqiṭāʿ) between ʿAṭā’ and ʿAlī رضي الله عنه
② ʿAṭā’ is unreliable
Both points are invalid.Regarding ①: The narration in Sunan Ibn Mājah (ḥadīth 4152) is via ʿAṭā’ from his father from ʿAlī, making it connected (muttaṣil). This is supported in Tuhfat al-Ashrāf (7/376) and al-Musnad al-Jāmiʿ (13/261/362).
Regarding ②: ʿAṭā’ ibn al-Sā’ib is ṣadūq. Ibn Ḥajar said: "Ṣadūq, but experienced ikhtiḷāṭ (confusion in later life)."
However, narrators like:
- Sufyān
- Shuʿbah
- Zuhayr
- Zā’idah
narrated from him before his ikhtiḷāṭ, and their narrations are sound. Imām Bukhārī stated that his early narrations are authentic, and included a narration from him in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (Book of Riqāq, ḥadīth 6578).
Thus, both the isnād is connected and ʿAṭā’ is reliable when narrated from before his ikhtiḷāṭ.
➤ Criticism on
The claim that he is unreliable due to being a Shīʿah is misleading.
- He is a narrator in the Ṣaḥīḥayn, especially the final ḥadīth of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī is via Muḥammad ibn Faḍīl.
- Imām Aḥmad called him ḥasan al-ḥadīth, and Yaḥyá ibn Maʿīn declared him thiqah.
- Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ mentions that his Shīʿism was merely love for Ahl al-Bayt, not of the Raafiḍī type.
In earlier usage, Shīʿah simply referred to affection for Ahl al-Bayt, and numerous narrators in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Muslim were described similarly.
✔ Conclusion:
All objections raised by ʿAbd al-Razzāq Zāhid Sialkotī have been comprehensively refuted. The narration regarding the dowry of Sayyidah Fāṭimah رضي الله عنها is sound, authentic, and well-established through multiple strong chains.
Even scholars like:
- Imām al-Ḥākim
- Imām al-Ḍhahabī
- al-Ḍiyā’ al-Maqdisī
- Ibn Ḥibbān, and
- Scholars verifying Musnad Aḥmad
have all declared it ṣaḥīḥ.
The claim of weakness is erroneous, misleading, and contrary to the principles of ḥadīth criticism.
(And Allah knows best!)
