✿ Investigation: Was the Name of a Companion’s Dog “Rashid”? Authenticity of the Narration ✿
Source: Fatāwā ‘Ilmiyyah – Volume 3 – Principles, Hadith Authentication, and Rulings – Page 266
Sarfraz Khan Safdar (Deobandi scholar) stated:
“If a Companion had a wrong or inappropriate name, the Prophet ﷺ would change it. Once, a strong villager came to the Prophet ﷺ with his dog. The Prophet ﷺ asked, ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘My name is Ẓālim (Oppressor), and my dog’s name is Rāshid (Rightly Guided).’ The Prophet ﷺ responded, ‘You are a human but called Ẓālim, and your dog is called Rāshid?! Go back to your people and inform them.’ The man, being upright and pure-hearted, simply accepted this correction without argument.”
Source: Dhakheerat al-Jinān fī Fahm al-Qur’ān, Vol. 3, pp. 162–163
The question is:
Is it authentic that a Companion's dog was named Rāshid? Please provide a verified response.
– Aḥmad ibn Faḍl Mālik, Hasan Zai
الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام علىٰ رسول الله، أما بعد
Sarfraz Safdar did not cite any source for this narration in his book. However, the incident does appear (with different wording) in the following classical works:
◈ Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah by Imām Abū Nu‘aym al-Aṣbahānī (1/35, Ḥadīth 68)
◈ Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah by Abū Nu‘aym (Vol. 2, p. 1120, Ḥadīth 2814)
The narration appears in both detailed and abbreviated forms with the following chain:
“Ḥaddathanā ‘Umar ibn Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far, thana Ibrāhīm ibn al-Sindī, thana al-Naḍr ibn Salamah, thana Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Makhzūmī, ḥaddathanī Yaḥyā ibn Sulaymān, ‘an Ḥakīm ibn ‘Aṭā’ al-Ẓufarī, from the descendants of Rāshid ibn ‘Abd Rabbih…”
This narration is also referenced by:
◈ Imām Ibn Kathīr in al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah (3/177–178)
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī in al-Iṣābah fī Tamyīz al-Ṣaḥābah (1/495, T2517; also see 2/140, T2512)
Let’s analyze the chain of narrators:
All three are unknown (majhūl) narrators.
➤ Their credibility is not established in the science of ḥadīth.
Unidentified narrator (ghayr mu‘ayyan).
➤ His exact identity is unclear, making the narration unreliable.
Some manuscripts mistakenly mention him as Muḥammad ibn Salamah, but correct is Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Makhzūmī.
Severely criticized:
Also unidentified.
There is a known liar from this category: Naḍr ibn Salamah Shādhān al-Marwazī, a fabricator (kadhdhāb).
Needs authentication.
His reliability is not established, and no major scholars have validated him.
The narration mentioned by Sarfraz Khan Safdar regarding a Companion whose dog was named Rāshid is fabricated (mawḍū‘).
It is ḥarām (unlawful) to narrate such stories without exposing their falsity.
It is astonishing how some individuals, even while bearing titles like "Shaykh al-Ḥadīth", present fabricated, baseless, or chainless stories to the public without any scholarly fear—even though the Prophet ﷺ warned:
"Whoever narrates a ḥadīth from me knowing it to be false, he is one of the liars."
Sahih Muslim: Book 1, Ḥadīth 1
Do such people not fear Allah’s accountability?
(5th December 2010)
هٰذَا مَا عِنْدِي وَاللّٰهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ
Source: Fatāwā ‘Ilmiyyah – Volume 3 – Principles, Hadith Authentication, and Rulings – Page 266❖ Question
Sarfraz Khan Safdar (Deobandi scholar) stated:
“If a Companion had a wrong or inappropriate name, the Prophet ﷺ would change it. Once, a strong villager came to the Prophet ﷺ with his dog. The Prophet ﷺ asked, ‘What is your name?’ He replied, ‘My name is Ẓālim (Oppressor), and my dog’s name is Rāshid (Rightly Guided).’ The Prophet ﷺ responded, ‘You are a human but called Ẓālim, and your dog is called Rāshid?! Go back to your people and inform them.’ The man, being upright and pure-hearted, simply accepted this correction without argument.”
Source: Dhakheerat al-Jinān fī Fahm al-Qur’ān, Vol. 3, pp. 162–163The question is:
Is it authentic that a Companion's dog was named Rāshid? Please provide a verified response.
– Aḥmad ibn Faḍl Mālik, Hasan Zai
❖ Answer
الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام علىٰ رسول الله، أما بعد
✦ Reference of the Story
Sarfraz Safdar did not cite any source for this narration in his book. However, the incident does appear (with different wording) in the following classical works:
◈ Dalā’il al-Nubuwwah by Imām Abū Nu‘aym al-Aṣbahānī (1/35, Ḥadīth 68)
◈ Ma‘rifat al-Ṣaḥābah by Abū Nu‘aym (Vol. 2, p. 1120, Ḥadīth 2814)
The narration appears in both detailed and abbreviated forms with the following chain:
“Ḥaddathanā ‘Umar ibn Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far, thana Ibrāhīm ibn al-Sindī, thana al-Naḍr ibn Salamah, thana Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Makhzūmī, ḥaddathanī Yaḥyā ibn Sulaymān, ‘an Ḥakīm ibn ‘Aṭā’ al-Ẓufarī, from the descendants of Rāshid ibn ‘Abd Rabbih…”
This narration is also referenced by:
◈ Imām Ibn Kathīr in al-Bidāyah wa’l-Nihāyah (3/177–178)
◈ Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī in al-Iṣābah fī Tamyīz al-Ṣaḥābah (1/495, T2517; also see 2/140, T2512)
❖ Detailed Authentication of the Chain
Let’s analyze the chain of narrators:
➊ Ḥakīm ibn ‘Aṭā’ al-Ẓufarī, his father ‘Aṭā’, and his grandfather:
All three are unknown (majhūl) narrators.➤ Their credibility is not established in the science of ḥadīth.
➋ Yaḥyā ibn Sulaymān:
Unidentified narrator (ghayr mu‘ayyan).➤ His exact identity is unclear, making the narration unreliable.
➌ Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Makhzūmī:
Some manuscripts mistakenly mention him as Muḥammad ibn Salamah, but correct is Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Makhzūmī. Severely criticized:- Imām Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn said:
“He was a liar and worthless. He was from Madinah.”
Tārīkh Ibn Ma‘īn (Riwayah al-Dūrī) no. 1060
- Also said:
“He is not trustworthy. He used to steal ḥadīths.”
ibid: 799
- Furthermore:
“By Allah, he is not trustworthy. The enemy of Allah narrated falsely from Mālik.”
al-Jarḥ wa’l-Ta‘dīl (7/288) — Authentic isnād
- Imām al-Dāraqutnī said:
"Matrūk" (Abandoned narrator)
Su’ālāt al-Burqānī: 427
- Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī said:
“Kadhdhabūh – The ḥadīth scholars declared him a liar.”
➍ Naḍr ibn Salamah:
Also unidentified.There is a known liar from this category: Naḍr ibn Salamah Shādhān al-Marwazī, a fabricator (kadhdhāb).
➎ ‘Umar ibn Muḥammad ibn Ja‘far:
Needs authentication.His reliability is not established, and no major scholars have validated him.
❖ Conclusion of the Research
The narration mentioned by Sarfraz Khan Safdar regarding a Companion whose dog was named Rāshid is fabricated (mawḍū‘).
It is ḥarām (unlawful) to narrate such stories without exposing their falsity.It is astonishing how some individuals, even while bearing titles like "Shaykh al-Ḥadīth", present fabricated, baseless, or chainless stories to the public without any scholarly fear—even though the Prophet ﷺ warned:
"Whoever narrates a ḥadīth from me knowing it to be false, he is one of the liars."
Sahih Muslim: Book 1, Ḥadīth 1Do such people not fear Allah’s accountability?
(5th December 2010)هٰذَا مَا عِنْدِي وَاللّٰهُ أَعْلَمُ بِالصَّوَابِ
