Compiled by: Abu Hamzah Salafi
This article is a scholarly and methodological response to an objection raised by some critics against Imām Ibn Mājah al-Qazwīnī رحمه الله, based on a harsh criticism by Imām Ibn al-Jawzī رحمه الله. The central point is that merely transmitting a narration with its chain (especially in chapters of virtues) does not necessarily indicate that the compiler considers it authentic, nor does it imply (God forbid) that he is guilty of “fabricating ḥadīth” or “following desires.” Furthermore, the inclusion of a narration in Ibn al-Jawzī’s book al-Mawḍūʿāt does not, in itself, constitute definitive proof that the narration is fabricated. The ḥadīth masters have pointed out Ibn al-Jawzī’s leniency in al-Mawḍūʿāt, and later critics, regarding this very narration, refrained from declaring it fabricated, classifying it at least as munkar/weak.
Bāb Dhikr al-Daylam wa Faḍl Qazwīn
2780 – Ismāʿīl ibn Asad narrated to us, he said: Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar narrated to us, he said: al-Rabīʿ ibn Ṣabīḥ informed us, from Yazīd ibn Abān, from Anas ibn Mālik رضي الله عنه, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
«سَتُفْتَحُ عَلَيْكُمُ الْآفَاقُ، وَسَتُفْتَحُ عَلَيْكُمْ مَدِينَةٌ يُقَالُ لَهَا قَزْوِينُ، مَنْ رَابَطَ فِيهَا أَرْبَعِينَ يَوْمًا أَوْ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً، كَانَ لَهُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ عَمُودٌ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ، عَلَيْهِ زَبَرْجَدَةٌ خَضْرَاءُ، عَلَيْهَا قُبَّةٌ مِنْ يَاقُوتَةٍ حَمْرَاءَ، لَهَا سَبْعُونَ أَلْفَ مِصْرَاعٍ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ، عَلَى كُلِّ مِصْرَاعٍ زَوْجَةٌ مِنَ الْحُورِ الْعِينِ»
“Soon the surrounding lands will be opened for you, and you will conquer a city called Qazwīn. Whoever remains stationed there for forty days or forty nights, for him there will be in Paradise a pillar of gold, upon it a green emerald, upon which will be a dome of red ruby. It will have seventy thousand doors of gold, and upon every door will be a wife from among the ḥūr al-ʿīn.”
Sunan Ibn Mājah – Ibn Mājah al-Qazwīnī
Volume 4, Page 160, Ḥadīth No. 2780
Edition: Iʿtiqād Publication House, Delhi, India
Here, two matters must be clearly distinguished:
✔ ① What is the status of the narration (weak/munkar/fabricated)?
✔ ② What is the integrity of the compiler and the correct understanding of his methodology?
Often, the error occurs when the ruling of (①) is unjustifiably transferred to (②).
Rather, most of the ḥadīth scholars after the year two hundred (AH) and onwards believed that when they transmitted a ḥadīth with its chain, they had absolved themselves of its responsibility (i.e., of declaring its authenticity or weakness). And Allah knows best.
Lisān al-Mīzān
Brief Clarification:
In light of this principle, Imām Ibn Mājah’s mentioning a narration with its chain does not mean that he necessarily authenticated it. Many narrations are transmitted in collections, after which the scholars of criticism and defects examine them.
Early and later ḥadīth masters have stated that Ibn al-Jawzī was overly lenient in al-Mawḍūʿāt. He included many weak narrations, and even some ḥasan and ṣaḥīḥ narrations. This is why my teacher Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said that Ibn al-Jawzī, in al-Mawḍūʿāt, and al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, in al-Mustadrak, exercised leniency, thereby diminishing the benefit of both books.
Taʿqībāt al-Suyūṭī ʿalā Mawḍūʿāt Ibn al-Jawzī
Further clarification by al-Suyūṭī:
The compiler of al-Mawḍūʿāt, namely Abū al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzī, included many narrations for which there is no proof of fabrication; rather, they are merely weak. Indeed, some are ḥasan, and even ṣaḥīḥ. More astonishing is that a narration from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim has also entered it, as I shall clarify.
Tadrīb al-Rāwī
Brief Clarification:
Given such explicit statements from the ḥadīth masters, merely saying “Ibn al-Jawzī mentioned it in al-Mawḍūʿāt” does not necessitate declaring a narration fabricated, nor does it justify attacking the compiler.
This indicates that the ḥadīth is not considered fabricated by him. Ibn Mājah narrated it from Anas رضي الله عنه, and in its chain is Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar, upon whom the blame falls. In response, it is said that Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī stated in al-Tahdhīb that this ḥadīth is munkar and is not known except through Dāwūd’s narration. A munkar ḥadīth is a category of weak narrations, and weakness can be tolerated in virtues.
Tanzīh al-Sharīʿah al-Marfuʿah ʿan al-Akhbār al-Shanīʿah al-Mawḍūʿah
Brief Clarification:
✔ ① The critic placed the narration in the category of munkar/weak, not definitively fabricated.
✔ ② If the narration revolves around a particular narrator, then discussion should be based on the principles of narrator criticism and textual analysis, not by attributing “desires” to the compiler.
He made many mistakes in what he authored, for he would finish a book and not review it. Yes, there is much error in his works, due to haste, moving on to another composition, and because much of his knowledge was derived from books rather than practical engagement with the experts of the field as required.
Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ
Brief Clarification:
This is not to disparage Ibn al-Jawzī, but to caution against treating his harsh judgments as absolute proof, especially when other ḥadīth masters have identified his leniency.
Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ
(b) From Ibn ʿAdī رحمه الله:
At minimum, these statements show that the opinions regarding Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar are varied. Therefore, taking one severe statement and concluding that Ibn Mājah relied on a “liar,” and thus impugning his integrity, is methodologically incorrect.
Muḥammad ibn Yazīd, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Mājah… born in 209 AH, traveled extensively, heard much ḥadīth, authored al-Sunan, al-Tārīkh, and al-Tafsīr, and was knowledgeable in this field.
al-Muntaẓam fī Tārīkh al-Mulūk wa al-Umam
Brief Clarification:
Here, Ibn al-Jawzī himself acknowledges Ibn Mājah’s expertise. Thus, using one harsh remark to undermine Ibn Mājah’s integrity contradicts Ibn al-Jawzī’s own overall assessment.
✔ ② The methodology of the ḥadīth scholars was to transmit narrations with chains, leaving critical evaluation to later scrutiny.
✔ ③ Scholars have explicitly pointed out leniency in al-Mawḍūʿāt; mere inclusion there does not make a narration definitively fabricated.
✔ ④ Later critics classified this narration at least as weak/munkar, exercising caution in declaring it fabricated.
✔ ⑤ The statements about Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar are diverse; declaring him an absolute liar and attributing this to Ibn Mājah is incorrect.
✔ ⑥ Ibn al-Jawzī himself described Ibn Mājah as “knowledgeable in this field.”
This article is a scholarly and methodological response to an objection raised by some critics against Imām Ibn Mājah al-Qazwīnī رحمه الله, based on a harsh criticism by Imām Ibn al-Jawzī رحمه الله. The central point is that merely transmitting a narration with its chain (especially in chapters of virtues) does not necessarily indicate that the compiler considers it authentic, nor does it imply (God forbid) that he is guilty of “fabricating ḥadīth” or “following desires.” Furthermore, the inclusion of a narration in Ibn al-Jawzī’s book al-Mawḍūʿāt does not, in itself, constitute definitive proof that the narration is fabricated. The ḥadīth masters have pointed out Ibn al-Jawzī’s leniency in al-Mawḍūʿāt, and later critics, regarding this very narration, refrained from declaring it fabricated, classifying it at least as munkar/weak.
Background: The Narration on the Virtues of Qazwīn and the Point of Dispute
① The Narration in Sunan Ibn Mājah (Chapter: The Virtue of Qazwīn)
Kitāb al-JihādBāb Dhikr al-Daylam wa Faḍl Qazwīn
2780 – Ismāʿīl ibn Asad narrated to us, he said: Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar narrated to us, he said: al-Rabīʿ ibn Ṣabīḥ informed us, from Yazīd ibn Abān, from Anas ibn Mālik رضي الله عنه, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
«سَتُفْتَحُ عَلَيْكُمُ الْآفَاقُ، وَسَتُفْتَحُ عَلَيْكُمْ مَدِينَةٌ يُقَالُ لَهَا قَزْوِينُ، مَنْ رَابَطَ فِيهَا أَرْبَعِينَ يَوْمًا أَوْ أَرْبَعِينَ لَيْلَةً، كَانَ لَهُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ عَمُودٌ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ، عَلَيْهِ زَبَرْجَدَةٌ خَضْرَاءُ، عَلَيْهَا قُبَّةٌ مِنْ يَاقُوتَةٍ حَمْرَاءَ، لَهَا سَبْعُونَ أَلْفَ مِصْرَاعٍ مِنْ ذَهَبٍ، عَلَى كُلِّ مِصْرَاعٍ زَوْجَةٌ مِنَ الْحُورِ الْعِينِ»
Translation
The Noble Prophet ﷺ said:“Soon the surrounding lands will be opened for you, and you will conquer a city called Qazwīn. Whoever remains stationed there for forty days or forty nights, for him there will be in Paradise a pillar of gold, upon it a green emerald, upon which will be a dome of red ruby. It will have seventy thousand doors of gold, and upon every door will be a wife from among the ḥūr al-ʿīn.”
Sunan Ibn Mājah – Ibn Mājah al-QazwīnīVolume 4, Page 160, Ḥadīth No. 2780
Edition: Iʿtiqād Publication House, Delhi, India
Brief Clarification
This is the very narration under discussion. Some researchers have commented on its chain as being “fabricated/very weak,” whereas the core subject of the present response is that even if a narration is weak, it does not impugn the integrity of Imām Ibn Mājah رحمه الله, nor can Ibn al-Jawzī’s harsh wording be used to conclude that Ibn Mājah (God forbid) was guilty of falsehood.Summary of the Objection: Drawing an Incorrect Conclusion from Ibn al-Jawzī’s Harsh Criticism
The critic argues that Ibn al-Jawzī included this narration in al-Mawḍūʿāt and objected to Imām Ibn Mājah for recording such a narration in his Sunan, eventually interpreting this as an act of “following desires” or even “falsehood.”Here, two matters must be clearly distinguished:
✔ ① What is the status of the narration (weak/munkar/fabricated)?
✔ ② What is the integrity of the compiler and the correct understanding of his methodology?
Often, the error occurs when the ruling of (①) is unjustifiably transferred to (②).
The Response with Evidences and Proofs
① Merely Transmitting a Narration with Its Chain Does Not Mean the Compiler Declares It Authentic
Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar wrote:Translation:
Rather, most of the ḥadīth scholars after the year two hundred (AH) and onwards believed that when they transmitted a ḥadīth with its chain, they had absolved themselves of its responsibility (i.e., of declaring its authenticity or weakness). And Allah knows best.
Lisān al-MīzānBrief Clarification:
In light of this principle, Imām Ibn Mājah’s mentioning a narration with its chain does not mean that he necessarily authenticated it. Many narrations are transmitted in collections, after which the scholars of criticism and defects examine them.
② Inclusion in Ibn al-Jawzī’s al-Mawḍūʿāt Is Not Definitive Proof of Fabrication
ʿAllāmah Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī wrote regarding al-Mawḍūʿāt:Early and later ḥadīth masters have stated that Ibn al-Jawzī was overly lenient in al-Mawḍūʿāt. He included many weak narrations, and even some ḥasan and ṣaḥīḥ narrations. This is why my teacher Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said that Ibn al-Jawzī, in al-Mawḍūʿāt, and al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, in al-Mustadrak, exercised leniency, thereby diminishing the benefit of both books.
Taʿqībāt al-Suyūṭī ʿalā Mawḍūʿāt Ibn al-JawzīFurther clarification by al-Suyūṭī:
Translation:
The compiler of al-Mawḍūʿāt, namely Abū al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzī, included many narrations for which there is no proof of fabrication; rather, they are merely weak. Indeed, some are ḥasan, and even ṣaḥīḥ. More astonishing is that a narration from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim has also entered it, as I shall clarify.
Tadrīb al-RāwīBrief Clarification:
Given such explicit statements from the ḥadīth masters, merely saying “Ibn al-Jawzī mentioned it in al-Mawḍūʿāt” does not necessitate declaring a narration fabricated, nor does it justify attacking the compiler.
③ Later Critics on This Very Ḥadīth: Munkar/Weak, Not Necessarily Fabricated
ʿAllāmah Muḥammad ibn ʿIrāq al-Kinānī wrote while refuting Ibn al-Jawzī:Summary Translation:
This indicates that the ḥadīth is not considered fabricated by him. Ibn Mājah narrated it from Anas رضي الله عنه, and in its chain is Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar, upon whom the blame falls. In response, it is said that Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī stated in al-Tahdhīb that this ḥadīth is munkar and is not known except through Dāwūd’s narration. A munkar ḥadīth is a category of weak narrations, and weakness can be tolerated in virtues.
Tanzīh al-Sharīʿah al-Marfuʿah ʿan al-Akhbār al-Shanīʿah al-MawḍūʿahBrief Clarification:
✔ ① The critic placed the narration in the category of munkar/weak, not definitively fabricated.
✔ ② If the narration revolves around a particular narrator, then discussion should be based on the principles of narrator criticism and textual analysis, not by attributing “desires” to the compiler.
④ Ibn al-Jawzī’s Compositional Errors and al-Dhahabī’s Warning
Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī wrote regarding Ibn al-Jawzī:Translation:
He made many mistakes in what he authored, for he would finish a book and not review it. Yes, there is much error in his works, due to haste, moving on to another composition, and because much of his knowledge was derived from books rather than practical engagement with the experts of the field as required.
Tadhkirat al-ḤuffāẓBrief Clarification:
This is not to disparage Ibn al-Jawzī, but to caution against treating his harsh judgments as absolute proof, especially when other ḥadīth masters have identified his leniency.
⑤ Statements on Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar al-Ṭāʾī: “Liar” Is Not a Definitive Judgment
(a) From Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn رحمه الله: Tadhkirat al-Ḥuffāẓ(b) From Ibn ʿAdī رحمه الله:
(c) From Abū Dāwūd al-Sijistānī رحمه الله:
Brief Clarification:
At minimum, these statements show that the opinions regarding Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar are varied. Therefore, taking one severe statement and concluding that Ibn Mājah relied on a “liar,” and thus impugning his integrity, is methodologically incorrect.
⑥ Ibn al-Jawzī’s Own Praise of Imām Ibn Mājah’s Scholarly Standing
Translation:
Muḥammad ibn Yazīd, Abū ʿAbd Allāh Ibn Mājah… born in 209 AH, traveled extensively, heard much ḥadīth, authored al-Sunan, al-Tārīkh, and al-Tafsīr, and was knowledgeable in this field.
al-Muntaẓam fī Tārīkh al-Mulūk wa al-UmamBrief Clarification:
Here, Ibn al-Jawzī himself acknowledges Ibn Mājah’s expertise. Thus, using one harsh remark to undermine Ibn Mājah’s integrity contradicts Ibn al-Jawzī’s own overall assessment.
Summary of the Research
✔ ① The narration on the virtues of Qazwīn in Sunan Ibn Mājah may be debatable in its chain, but attacking the compiler’s integrity is unjustified.✔ ② The methodology of the ḥadīth scholars was to transmit narrations with chains, leaving critical evaluation to later scrutiny.
✔ ③ Scholars have explicitly pointed out leniency in al-Mawḍūʿāt; mere inclusion there does not make a narration definitively fabricated.
✔ ④ Later critics classified this narration at least as weak/munkar, exercising caution in declaring it fabricated.
✔ ⑤ The statements about Dāwūd ibn al-Muḥabbar are diverse; declaring him an absolute liar and attributing this to Ibn Mājah is incorrect.
✔ ⑥ Ibn al-Jawzī himself described Ibn Mājah as “knowledgeable in this field.”
Conclusion
The outcome of this discussion is that deriving the conclusion from Ibn al-Jawzī’s harsh wording that Imām Ibn Mājah رحمه الله (God forbid) was guilty of falsehood or of following desires is not academically sound. At most, it can be said that the narration in question is open to criticism—and this is precisely what the ḥadīth scholars have done. However, turning the transmission of a weak narration into an attack on the compiler’s integrity neither conforms to the methodology of ḥadīth nor to the general practice of the great ḥadīth masters.