Research and Status of the Duʿā “اللَّهُمَّ أَجِرْنِي مِنَ النَّارِ”

Source: Fatāwā Rāshidiyyah, Page 108

❖ Question​

What is the authenticity of the duʿā “اللَّهُمَّ أَجِرْنِي مِنَ النَّارِ”?

❖ Answer​

Al-ḥamdu lillāh, waṣ-ṣalātu was-salāmu ʿalā Rasūlillāh. ʾAmma baʿd!


The supplication “اللَّهُمَّ أَجِرْنِي مِنَ النَّارِ” along with the chain of narration that you have mentioned is indeed found in Sunan Abī Dāwūd. However, prior to this narration, there is another Hadith in Sunan Abī Dāwūd related to this duʿā which you have not included. Its chain of narration is as follows:


((حدثنا اسحاق بن ابارهيم ابوالنضر الدمشقي نامحمد بن شعيب اخبرني ابو سعيد الفلسطيني عبدالرحمن بن حسان عن الحارث بن مسلم انه اخبره عن ابيه مسلم بن الحارث التميمي عن رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم الحديث))

❖ Clarification of the Chain of Narration​

• The correct name is Muslim ibn al-Ḥārith, and his son’s name is al-Ḥārith.
• The books of Rijāl (narrators) reveal the following:

✔ Imām Bukhārī
✔ Imām Abū Ḥātim ar-Rāzī
✔ Imām Abū Zurʿah ar-Rāzī
✔ Imām Tirmidhī
✔ Ibn Qāniʿ, and other scholars of Ḥadīth
→ All of them gave preference to this narration and not to the version: Muslim ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Muslim from his father.

• The one whom Imām Dāraqutnī declared as "Majhūl" (unknown) is Muslim ibn al-Ḥārith ibn Muslim, not al-Ḥārith ibn Muslim ibn al-Ḥārith at-Tamīmī.
• Imām Ibn Abī Ḥātim, in his book al-Jarḥ wa at-Taʿdīl, narrated from his father Abū Ḥātim ar-Rāzī regarding al-Ḥārith ibn Muslim ibn al-Ḥārith:

"al-Ḥārith ibn Muslim is a Tābiʿī."

• But there is no criticism (jarḥ) upon him, nor was he declared Majhūl, neither by Abū Ḥātim nor by any other ḥadīth scholar.

❖ Additional Evidences​

Since even a strict critic like Imām Abū Ḥātim ar-Rāzī affirmed that he is a Tābiʿī, this is a strong indication that the narrator is at least known (Maʿrūf).

• This same al-Ḥārith was also mentioned by Imām Bukhārī in his work at-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, where the preference is likewise given to al-Ḥārith ibn Muslim ibn al-Ḥārith.
• Furthermore, Imām Bukhārī did not record any criticism against him.

❖ Ruling on the Chain​

Therefore, in the humble opinion of the writer (this servant), the chain should be at least ḥasan (acceptable).


Because of this, the researcher and annotator of Imām Nasāʾī’s book ʿAmal al-Yawm wa al-Laylah has also written:


"This ḥadīth, in shāʾ Allāh, is ḥasan."

❖ Conclusion​

There is currently no further detailed investigation known to us.


ھذا ما عندي، واللہ أعلم بالصواب