Critical Analysis of the Weak “Ya Sāriyah al-Jabal” Narration

Source: Fatāwā ʿIlmiyyah, Tawḍīḥ al-Aḥkām, Vol. 2, p. 433

Question:​

Is the narration of "Ya Sāriyah al-Jabal" authentic? If it is authentic, please explain its meaning; and if it is weak, clarify the reason for its weakness.

Answer:​

Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh. Ammā baʿd:


The writer has already published a detailed research on this topic in the weekly Al-Iʿtiṣām, Lahore (Vol. 43, Issue 45, dated 8 November 1991). The summary is as follows:

Chain-based Investigation of the “Ya Sāriyah al-Jabal” Incident​

This story is not authentically established from a chain of transmission perspective. The detailed analysis of its various chains is as follows:

1. Ibn ʿAjlān → Nāfiʿ → Ibn ʿUmar​

Source: Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah by al-Bayhaqī (6/370)

• Issue: Muḥammad ibn ʿAjlān is a mudallis.
• According to Ṭabaqāt al-Mudallisin (3/98, p. 60), he is a mudallis narrator.
• He narrates here with ʿan (an ambiguous form), and per ḥadīth principles, in non-Ṣaḥīḥayn works, a mudallis’ ʿan-narration is weak.
  (See Muqaddimah Ibn al-Ṣalāḥ, p. 99)

2. Marāsīl of Iyās ibn Muʿāwiyah ibn Qurrāh​

Source: Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwah (6/370)

• Issue: This report is mursal.
• According to the majority of muḥaddithīn, a mursal report is rejected.
  (See Alfiyyah al-ʿIrāqī, verse 123, p. 28)

3. Ayyūb ibn Khūṭ → ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sarrāj → Nāfiʿ …​

Source: Al-Fawāʾid by Abū Bakr ibn Khallād (1/215, manuscript) – quoted in al-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah (3/101, no. 1110)

• Issue: Ayyūb ibn Khūṭ is matrūk (abandoned).
  (See Al-Taqrīb, no. 612)

4. Furāt ibn al-Sāʾib → Maymūn ibn Mihrān → Ibn ʿUmar …​

Source: Usud al-Ghābah (2/244)

• Issue: Furāt ibn al-Sāʾib is matrūk and severely criticised.
  (See Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, 3/341; and other books of weak narrators)

5. Al-Wāqidī → His shuyūkh​

Sources: Al-Bidāyah wa-n-Nihāyah (7/135), Al-Iṣābah (2/3)

• Issue: Al-Wāqidī is a well-known fabricator (kadhdhāb) and matrūk.
  (See Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, 9/323–326)

6. Sayf ibn ʿUmar → His shuyūkh​

Source: Al-Bidāyah wa-n-Nihāyah (7/134)

• Issue: Sayf ibn ʿUmar has been declared matrūk al-ḥadīth and a zindīq by ḥadīth critics.
  (See Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, 4/259–260)

7. Hishām ibn Muḥammad ibn Mukhlad ibn Maṭar → Abū Tawbah → Muḥammad ibn Muhājir → Abū Balj ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd Allāh …​

Source: Al-Sunnah by al-Lālakāʾī (7/130–131)

• Issue: Both Hishām and Abū Balj are unknown narrators (majhūl).

8. Al-Lālakāʾī → Mālik → Nāfiʿ → Ibn ʿUmar​

Sources: Al-Bidāyah wa-n-Nihāyah (7/135), Karāmāt of al-Lālakāʾī (p. 73; another ed. p. 67)

• Issue: This chain contains ʿAmr ibn al-Azhar.
  
  • Imām al-Dāraqutnī: "Kadhdhāb" (liar). (Al-Ḍuʿafāʾ wa-l-Matrūkūn, p. 395)
  • Ibn Ḥibbān: "He fabricates ḥadīth." (Al-Majrūḥīn, 2/78)
• Verdict: Fabricated chain.
• Ibn Kathīr commented:
  
  "Wa fī ṣiḥḥatihi min ḥadīth Mālik naẓar"
  Meaning: Its authenticity from Mālik is questionable.
  (Al-Bidāyah, 7/135)
  

Ruling on All Other Chains​

All other chains of this story are rejected.
Therefore, the claim that multiple weak chains can strengthen each other does not apply here, as they all suffer from severe defects.

Final Verdict​

• This incident is weak and unreliable in all its chains.
• Declaring it authentic by any later scholar is against the principles of ḥadīth.
• Anyone claiming its authenticity must prove it based on ḥadīth methodology.

هٰذا ما عندي والله أعلم بالصواب