Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah, Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām, Vol. 2, p. 433
Is the narration of “Yā Sāriyyah al-Jabal” authentic? If it is authentic, please explain its meaning. And if it is weak, what are the reasons for its weakness?
Jazākum Allāhu Khayran.
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa as-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh. Ammā baʿd:
A detailed investigation on this topic by the undersigned was published in the weekly magazine al-Iʿtiṣām, Lahore (Vol. 43, Issue 45, dated 8 November 1991). A summary of that article is presented below:
This story does not prove to be authentic based on its chains of narration. Below is a detailed breakdown with references:
(Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah by al-Bayhaqī 6/370)
◈ Muḥammad ibn ʿAjlān is a mudallis (obfuscating) narrator.
◈ According to Ṭabaqāt al-Mudalliseen, he is confirmed to be mudallis (Vol. 3, p. 60).
◈ He narrates using “‘an,” which—according to ḥadīth principles—renders the narration weak outside of the Ṣaḥīḥayn (Bukhārī and Muslim).
(Refer: Muqaddimah Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, p. 99)
(Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah by al-Bayhaqī 6/370)
◈ This narration is mursal (missing the Companion).
◈ According to the majority of ḥadīth scholars, mursal narrations are rejected.
(Refer: Alfiyyah al-ʿIrāqī, verse 123, p. 28)
(al-Fawāʾid by Abū Bakr ibn Khallād 1/215/2, cited in al-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah 3/101, ḥadīth 1110)
◈ This narration contains Ayyūb ibn Khuṭ, who is matrūk (abandoned).
(Refer: al-Taqrīb, No. 612)
(Usud al-Ghābah 2/244)
◈ Furāt ibn al-Sāʾib is also matrūk and heavily criticized.
(Refer: Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl 3/341, and other books on weak narrators)
(al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah 7/135; al-Iṣābah 2/3)
◈ al-Wāqidī is a well-known fabricator and abandoned narrator.
(Refer: Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 9/323–326)
(al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah 7/134)
◈ Sayf ibn ʿUmar is considered matrūk and even labeled a heretic (zindīq) by ḥadīth scholars.
(Refer: Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 4/259–260)
(al-Sunnah by al-Lālikāʾī 7/130–131)
◈ Both Hishām and Abū Bilj are unknown (majhūl) narrators.
(al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah 7/135; Karāmāt al-Lālikāʾī: 73, alternate edition: 67)
◈ Narrator ʿAmr ibn al-Azhar is described by Imām al-Dāraqutnī as:
“Kadhdhāb” (liar)
(al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkūn: p. 395)
◈ Ibn Ḥibbān said he fabricated ḥadīths.
(Refer: al-Majrūḥīn 2/78)
◈ Therefore, this isnād is fabricated (mawḍūʿ).
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr also commented on this narration:
“Wa fī ṣiḥḥatihi min ḥadīth Mālik naẓar”
“There is doubt concerning its authenticity as a narration from Mālik.”
(al-Bidāyah 7/135)
All other known chains for this incident are rejected as well.
Therefore, the claim that multiple chains strengthen one another is incorrect in this case.
✔ The story of “Yā Sāriyyah al-Jabal” is weak and unreliable in all its chains.
✔ Declaring this incident as authentic by any later scholar contradicts the principles of ḥadīth science.
✔ Those who believe it to be authentic must provide proof based on ḥadīth methodology.
هٰذا ما عندي، والله أعلم بالصواب
❖ Question:
Is the narration of “Yā Sāriyyah al-Jabal” authentic? If it is authentic, please explain its meaning. And if it is weak, what are the reasons for its weakness?
Jazākum Allāhu Khayran.
❖ Response:
Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa as-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh. Ammā baʿd:
A detailed investigation on this topic by the undersigned was published in the weekly magazine al-Iʿtiṣām, Lahore (Vol. 43, Issue 45, dated 8 November 1991). A summary of that article is presented below:
❖ Chain-Based Analysis of the “Yā Sāriyyah al-Jabal” Incident
This story does not prove to be authentic based on its chains of narration. Below is a detailed breakdown with references:
(Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah by al-Bayhaqī 6/370)
◈ Muḥammad ibn ʿAjlān is a mudallis (obfuscating) narrator.
◈ According to Ṭabaqāt al-Mudalliseen, he is confirmed to be mudallis (Vol. 3, p. 60).
◈ He narrates using “‘an,” which—according to ḥadīth principles—renders the narration weak outside of the Ṣaḥīḥayn (Bukhārī and Muslim).
(Refer: Muqaddimah Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, p. 99)
(Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah by al-Bayhaqī 6/370)
◈ This narration is mursal (missing the Companion).
◈ According to the majority of ḥadīth scholars, mursal narrations are rejected.
(Refer: Alfiyyah al-ʿIrāqī, verse 123, p. 28)
(al-Fawāʾid by Abū Bakr ibn Khallād 1/215/2, cited in al-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah 3/101, ḥadīth 1110)
◈ This narration contains Ayyūb ibn Khuṭ, who is matrūk (abandoned).
(Refer: al-Taqrīb, No. 612)
(Usud al-Ghābah 2/244)
◈ Furāt ibn al-Sāʾib is also matrūk and heavily criticized.
(Refer: Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl 3/341, and other books on weak narrators)
(al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah 7/135; al-Iṣābah 2/3)
◈ al-Wāqidī is a well-known fabricator and abandoned narrator.
(Refer: Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 9/323–326)
(al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah 7/134)
◈ Sayf ibn ʿUmar is considered matrūk and even labeled a heretic (zindīq) by ḥadīth scholars.
(Refer: Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 4/259–260)
(al-Sunnah by al-Lālikāʾī 7/130–131)
◈ Both Hishām and Abū Bilj are unknown (majhūl) narrators.
(al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah 7/135; Karāmāt al-Lālikāʾī: 73, alternate edition: 67)
◈ Narrator ʿAmr ibn al-Azhar is described by Imām al-Dāraqutnī as:
“Kadhdhāb” (liar)
(al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa al-Matrūkūn: p. 395)
◈ Ibn Ḥibbān said he fabricated ḥadīths.
(Refer: al-Majrūḥīn 2/78)
◈ Therefore, this isnād is fabricated (mawḍūʿ).
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr also commented on this narration:
“Wa fī ṣiḥḥatihi min ḥadīth Mālik naẓar”
“There is doubt concerning its authenticity as a narration from Mālik.”
(al-Bidāyah 7/135)
❖ Status of All Other Chains
All other known chains for this incident are rejected as well.
Therefore, the claim that multiple chains strengthen one another is incorrect in this case.
❖ Final Conclusion:
✔ The story of “Yā Sāriyyah al-Jabal” is weak and unreliable in all its chains.
✔ Declaring this incident as authentic by any later scholar contradicts the principles of ḥadīth science.
✔ Those who believe it to be authentic must provide proof based on ḥadīth methodology.
هٰذا ما عندي، والله أعلم بالصواب
