Calming the Heart by Affirming the Reliability of Darrāj ibn Samʿān

The scholars of Ahl al-Ḥadīth are the guardians of Islam, preserving the authentic Sunnah and refuting distortions. Enemies of truth often attack them to weaken their influence. A recent example is a book written by Muḥammad Ishtiaq Qureshi of the sect “Masʿūdiyyah Registered Jamāʿat al-Muslimīn,” in which he unjustly criticizes Shaykh al-Albānī رحمه الله, ignoring his great contributions.

One of Qureshi’s claims is that the narrator Darrāj Abū al-Samḥ’s narrations from Abū al-Haytham are weak — a statement that, as will be shown, is incorrect and against the judgment of the majority of Hadith scholars.

Who is Darrāj ibn Samʿān?​

• Full Name: Darrāj ibn Samʿān Abū al-Samḥ al-Qurashī al-Miṣrī
• Teachers:
  
  • ʿAbdullāh ibn Ḥārith ibn Jazʾ al-Zubaydī
  • Abū al-Haytham Sulaymān ibn ʿAmr al-ʿAtwārī
  • ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Jubayr al-Miṣrī
  • ʿĪsā ibn Hilāl al-Ṣadafī
  • ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ḥujayrah
  • Many others
• Students:
  
  • Ḥaywah ibn Shurayḥ
  • Khallād ibn Sulaymān al-Ḥaḍramī
  • ʿAbdullāh ibn Lahīʿah
  • Layth ibn Saʿd
  • ʿAmr ibn al-Ḥārith
  • Others
• Death: 126 AH — Innā li-llāhi wa innā ilayhi rājiʿūn
  (References: Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 8/477, Tārīkh al-Islām 3/514, Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb #1824)
  
  

• Criticism (Jarḥ) Against Darrāj ibn Samʿān​

  
  Below are the main statements of criticism from early Hadith scholars, followed by notes on their weight and context.
  
  
  

  ---

  
  

  1. Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH)​

  • Statement:
    
    

    وَهَذَا رَوَىٰ مَنَاكِيْرَ كَثِيْرَةً
    “He has narrated many munkar reports.”
    (Suʾālāt Abī Dāwūd lil-Imām Aḥmad, #259, Maktabat al-ʿUlūm wa-l-Ḥikam, Madinah)

  • Additional Statement:
    
    

    هَؤُلَاءِ الثَّلَاثَةُ دَرَّاجٌ وَحُيَيٌّ وَزَبَّانُ هَؤُلَاءِ الثَّلَاثَةُ أَحَادِيْثُهُمْ مَنَاكِيْرُ
    “These three — Darrāj, Ḥuyayy, and Zabbān — their narrations are munkar.”
    (al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl, 3/116, #4482, al-Maktab al-Islāmī, Beirut)

  • Note: Imām Aḥmad’s wording here indicates slight weakness (ḍaʿf khafī). He grouped Darrāj with narrators who are generally ṣadūq but have some weakness (e.g., Ḥuyayy ibn ʿAbdullāh al-Maʿāfirī is considered ṣadūq, and Zabbān ibn Fāʾid is weak due to poor memory).
    (See: Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, #1605, #1985, Dār al-Rashīd, Ḥalab)
  • Therefore, this jarḥ does not outweigh the majority’s authentication.
• 
  

  ---

  
  

  2. Imām Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī (d. 277 AH)​

  • Statement:
    
    

    فِيْ حَدِيْثِهِ صُنْعَةٌ
    “In his hadith there is some weakness.”
    (al-Jarḥ wa-l-Taʿdīl, 3/411)

• 
  

  ---

  
  

  3. Imām al-Nasāʾī (d. 303 AH)​

  • Statement:
    
    

    لَيْسَ بِالْقَوِيِّ
    “He is not strong.”
    (Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-l-Matrūkīn, #196, Muʾassasat al-Kutub al-Thaqāfiyyah, Beirut)

• 
  

  ---

  
  

  4. Imām al-Faḍl ibn ʿAbbās al-Rāzī (d. 270 AH)​

  • Statement:
    
    

    مَا هُوَ بِثِقَةٍ وَلَا كَرَامَةٍ لَهُ
    “He is not trustworthy nor deserving of honor.”
    (al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl, 4/11, sanad ḥasan, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut)

  • Note: Phrases like ليس بالقوي or ما هو بثقة are not absolute jarḥ in every context; they may be relative, indicating he is below the highest tier of trustworthiness.
• 
  

  ---

  
  

  5. Imām al-Dāraqutnī (d. 385 AH)​

  • Statement:
    
    

    مِصْرِيٌّ مَتْرُوْكٌ
    “Egyptian, matrūk.”
    (Suʾālāt al-Barqānī, #142)

  • Note: This jarḥ is addressed in detail later. “Matrūk” here may not mean “accused of lying” (mutahham bi-l-kadhib), but could mean “abandoned due to memory weakness.” Early scholars sometimes used this term for ṣadūq narrators with poor retention.
• 
  

  ---

  
  

  6. Imām Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī (d. 507 AH)​

  • Statement:
    
    

    وَدَرَّاجٌ ضَعِيْفٌ
    “Darrāj is weak.”
    (Dhakhīrat al-Ḥuffāẓ, 2/901, #1833, Dār al-Salaf, Riyadh)

• 
  

  ---

  
  

  7. Other mentions​

  • Cited by al-ʿUqaylī (d. 322 AH) in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Kabīr (2/43) and by Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH) in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-l-Matrūkīn (1/269, #1175) — both relying on previous jarḥ, not adding new.
• 
  

  ---

  
  

  Unproven (Non-Authentic) Jarḥ​

  
  Some criticisms attributed to early scholars are not established with sound chains:
  
  
  • Attributed to Imām al-Bukhārī:
    
    

    وَدَرَّاجٌ فِيْ حَدِيْثِهِ نَظَرٌ
    (Taʿjīl al-Manfaʿah, 1/566)
    — Not proven with a sound chain from al-Bukhārī.

  • Attributed to al-Nasāʾī:
    
    

    مُنْكِرُ الْحَدِيْثِ
    (Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, 3/40, #2670)
    — Not proven with a sound chain from al-Nasāʾī.

• 
  Principle: In Hadith criticism, unauthenticated or baseless attributions have no scholarly value.
  
  
  

  ---

  
  

  Principle in Jarḥ and Taʿdīl​

  
  When there is a conflict between clear authentication by the majority (taʿdīl) and vague criticism (jarḥ mubham), the majority’s position takes precedence.
  As Imām al-Dhahabī explains:
  
  
  

  “We accept the statement of a critic unless it contradicts the majority… In such cases, the ruling is given to the consensus, not to the one who deviated.”
  (al-Ruwāt al-Thiqāt al-Mutakallim Fīhim, pp. 29–30, Dār al-Bashāʾir)

  
  

  ---

  
  

  Authentication (Taʿdīl) of Darrāj ibn Samʿān​

  
  

  Major Early Scholars Who Declared Him Trustworthy​

  1. Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn (d. 233 AH)
     
     

     هُمَا ثِقَتَانِ دَرَّاجٌ وَأَبُوالْهَيْثَمِ
     “Both Darrāj and Abū al-Haytham are trustworthy.”
     (Tārīkh Ibn Maʿīn, 2/318, #5039)

  2. ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī (d. 280 AH)
     
     

     هُمَا صَدُوْقَانِ
     “Both are truthful.”
     (al-Jarḥ wa-l-Taʿdīl, 3/114)

  3. Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH) — listed in al-Thiqāt, 5/114.
  4. Ibn Shāhīn (d. 385 AH) — said regarding the chain Darrāj → Abū al-Haytham → Abū Saʿīd:
     
     

     مَا كَانَ بِهَذَا الْإِسْنَادِ فَلَيْسَ بِهِ بَأْسٌ
     (Tārīkh Asmāʾ al-Thiqāt, #336)

  5. Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 AH) — authenticated multiple hadiths with this chain in Ṣaḥīḥ (#653, #1502, #1683, #2471).
  6. al-Ḥākim (d. 405 AH) — said this chain is:
     
     

     صَحِيْفَةٌ لِلْمِصْرِيِّيْنَ صَحِيْحَةُ الْإِسْنَادِ
     (al-Mustadrak, #1839)

  7. al-Tirmidhī (d. 279 AH) — graded some narrations ḥasan (#2617, #2033).
  8. al-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) — authenticated some narrations (Talḵīṣ al-Mustadrak, #3280).
  9. Ibn Ḥajar (d. 852 AH) — said:
     
     

     صَدُوْقٌ فِيْ حَدِيْثِهِ عَنْ أَبِي الْهَيْثَمِ ضُعْفٌ
     (Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, #1824)

  10. al-Haythamī (d. 807 AH) — “Darrāj Abū al-Samḥ — trustworthy.” (Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, 1/229)
• 
  

  ---

  
  

  Special Note: Narrations from Abū al-Haytham​

  • Imām Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn:
    
    

    هَذَا إِسْنَادٌ صَحِيْحٌ
    “This isnād is ṣaḥīḥ.”
    (al-Mustadrak, under #2971, sanad ṣaḥīḥ)

  • Ibn Shāhīn: Declared them acceptable. (Tārīkh Asmāʾ al-Thiqāt, #336)
  • Ibn Ḥibbān & Ibn Khuzaymah: Authenticated multiple narrations with this chain.
• 
  

  ---

  
  

  Final Conclusion​

  
  Darrāj ibn Samʿān is considered trustworthy (thiqah) and truthful (ṣadūq) by the majority of Hadith scholars.
  His narrations from Abū al-Haytham are also accepted as authentic by many leading imams.
  Therefore, it is incorrect to declare him weak solely on the basis of a few disputed or unproven criticisms.