This article critically examines the objection raised against Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai رحمه الله, alleging that he authenticated a munkar (denounced) narration while translating Imām al-Bayhaqī’s book “Ithbāt ʿAdhāb al-Qabr”, particularly a narration from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما about seeing a tormented soul emerging from the grave.
In this article we will first present the original narration and the objections to it in the words of the opposing party, and then under each point, with the heading «al-Jawāb», we will present a researched refutation of it. Along the way, statements of the hadith scholars, rules of the principles of hadith, and explanations in simple language will be included so that general readers can also understand the matter.
✿ Claim of the Opponent
Imām al-Bayhaqī narrated in Ithbāt ʿAdhāb al-Qabr that Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما saw a man emerge from a grave while being punished.
Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai allegedly confirmed its authenticity by translating it.
However, this narration is munkar, containing severely weak or abandoned narrators in all chains.
According to the hadith of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, the punishment of the grave is not visible to the Companions or to other people; otherwise the Prophet ﷺ would have supplicated that it be shown to everyone.
◈ al-Jawāb: General Clarification
It is incorrect to say Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai authenticated this narration. The reality is:
✔ He merely translated Imām al-Bayhaqī’s words.
✔ Imām al-Bayhaqī himself said: “This narration has supporting witnesses.”
✔ The real error lies in Bayhaqī’s leniency in authentication, as he combined a munkar narration with authentic reports.
📌 Therefore, the criticism should be directed not towards Shaykh Zubair but towards Imām al-Bayhaqī’s “oversight” (sahw).
✿ Can a Companion See the Punishment of the Grave?
◈ al-Jawāb:
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
النص (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Ḥadīth 2867):
«إِنَّ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةَ تُبْتَلَى فِي قُبُورِهَا، فَلَوْلَا أَنْ لَا تَدَافَنُوا، لَدَعَوْتُ اللهَ أَنْ يُسْمِعَكُمْ مِنْ عَذَابِ الْقَبْرِ الَّذِي أَسْمَعُ مِنْهُ»
Translation:
“Indeed, this Ummah will be tested in their graves. Had I not feared that you would stop burying one another, I would have asked Allah to let you hear the punishment of the grave that I hear.”
📌 Explanation:
This hadith shows that ordinary people are neither made to hear the punishment of the grave nor shown it.
If Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما had really seen such a scene, it would have been established with an authentic chain, whereas in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim the Prophet ﷺ himself clarified that this matter has been kept hidden from ordinary people.
Therefore, the narration attributed to Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما about “the dead man coming out of the grave” is munkar and weak.
✿ Detailed Analysis of the Narrations:
① First Chain – Narrated by Imām al-Bayhaqī
أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ … ثَنَا الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ … ثَنَا عَبَاءَةُ بْنُ كُلَيْبٍ اللَّيْثِيُّ، عَنْ جُوَيْرِيَةَ بْنِ أَسْمَاءٍ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ …
(Ithbāt ʿAdhāb al-Qabr, p. 183)
Translation (summary): It is narrated from Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما that he passed by a grave and a man came out of the grave; fire was burning on him, there was a chain around his neck and he was asking for water. Then another man came, seized him by the chain and dragged him back into the grave.
◈ al-Jawāb: Chain Analysis
The central narrator is ʿAbāʾah bin Kulayb, also known as ʿAbbād bin Kulayb – a severely weak and abandoned narrator.
✿ Statements of Scholars:
① al-Dhahabi:
«متروك» — Mizān al-Iʿtidāl
② al-ʿUqaylī:
«لا يُتابع عليه» — No corroboration for his narration. (al-Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Kabīr)
③ Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī:
«صدوق وفى حديثه إنكار» — Apparently truthful but narrates munkar reports. (al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl)
④ Imām al-Bukhārī:
Ibn Abī Ḥātim wrote that Imām al-Bukhārī also mentioned him in Kitāb al-Ḍuʿafāʾ.
◈ Explanation for General Readers
When a narrator of a report has such severe criticisms against him — sometimes matrūk, sometimes munkar al-ḥadīth — his narration cannot serve as a proof in religion.
Especially in a major matter like ʿAqīdah, making such a munkar narration the basis is serious misguidance.
Since Imām al-Bayhaqī was on some occasions somewhat lenient in authentication, he transmitted it, but the explicit statements of the hadith scholars make it clear that this narration is not fit to be used as proof.
✅ Conclusion:
The first chain (the one with ʿAbāʾah bin Kulayb) is severely weak, so building ʿAqīdah on it is not correct.
② Second Chain – ʿAmr bin Dīnār (the steward of Āl al-Zubayr)
… عَمْرُو بْنُ دِينَارٍ قَهْرَمَانِ آلِ الزُّبَيْرِ قَالَ: “كُنْتُ مَعَ سَالِمِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ … فَرَأَيْتُ رَجُلًا قَدْ خَرَجَ مِنْ قَبْرٍ … فَقَالَ: يَا عَبْدَ اللَّهِ اسْقِنِي … ثُمَّ خَرَجَ رَجُلٌ آخَرُ … فَأَخَذَهُ وَضَرَبَهُ حَتَّى أَعَادَهُ فِي الْقَبْرِ.”
(Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah)
“… ʿAmr bin Dīnār, the steward of Āl al-Zubayr, said: ‘I was with Sālim bin ʿAbdillāh … and I saw a man who had come out of a grave … he said: O ʿAbdullāh, give me water … then another man came out … seized him and beat him until he returned him into the grave.’”
◈ al-Jawāb: Chain Analysis
The central narrator of this report is ʿAmr bin Dīnār (Qahramān Āl al-Zubayr), upon whom the hadith scholars have made severe criticism.
✿ Statements of Scholars:
① Ismāʿīl bin ʿUlayyah:
«ضعيف» — (al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl)
② Yaḥyā bin Maʿīn:
«لا شيء» — i.e., he has no standing. (al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl)
③ Abū Ḥātim:
«ضعيف الحديث … عامة حديثه منكر» — Most of his hadiths are munkar.
④ Abū Zurʿah:
«واهي الحديث» — Extremely weak
⑤ Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal:
«منكر الحديث» — His narrations are munkar.
⑥ Ibn Ḥibbān:
«ينفرد بالموضوعات … لا يحل كتابة حديثه إلا على جهة التعجب» — He narrates fabrications even from trustworthy narrators; his hadith may only be written down as a curiosity (for wonder). (al-Majrūḥīn)
◈ Explanation for General Readers
When the hadith scholars agree in declaring a narrator ḍaʿīf al-ḥadīth, munkar al-ḥadīth and wāhī, relying on his narration is a serious mistake.
In this chain there is no major problem other than ʿAmr bin Dīnār, but his weakness alone makes the hadith unfit to be used as proof.
Therefore this second route is also weak and unreliable.
✅ Conclusion:
The second chain of the story of the dead man in the grave from Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما (ʿAmr bin Dīnār, the steward of Āl al-Zubayr) is also severely weak because of a munkar al-ḥadīth narrator.
③ Third Chain – ʿAbdullāh bin Muḥammad bin Mughīrah
… ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْمُغِيرَةِ، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ مِغْوَلٍ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ …
…that Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما saw a dead man come out of a grave with a chain around his neck, asking for water; then another man came and pulled him by the chain back into the grave.
(al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ of al-Ṭabarānī)
◈ al-Jawāb: Chain Analysis
The central narrator of this report is ʿAbdullāh bin Muḥammad bin Mughīrah, who is severely weak and matrūk (abandoned).
✿ Statements of Scholars:
① Abū Zurʿah:
«منكر الحديث» — He used to narrate munkar reports.
② al-Dhahabī:
«متروك … روى الطامات» — He is abandoned and used to narrate bizarre false reports. (Tārīkh al-Islām)
③ Ibn Yūnus al-Miṣrī:
«منكر الحديث» — He was a Kūfan narrator who resided in Egypt, but was munkar in hadith. (Tārīkh Ibn Yūnus)
④ Ibn al-Jawzī:
«كذاب» — He declared him a liar. (Talkhīṣ al-Mawḍūʿāt)
⑤ Nūr al-Dīn al-Haythamī:
«متروك» — He called him abandoned. (Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid)
◈ Explanation for General Readers
When more than one hadith scholar has called a narrator kadhdhāb, matrūk, munkar al-ḥadīth, it is not possible to take his narration as a proof in ʿAqīdah or religion.
This third route is just as weak as the first two.
Because of the narrator’s severe weakness and his reputation for lying, this narration is entirely unfit to be used as proof.
✅ Conclusion:
The third chain (ʿAbdullāh bin Muḥammad bin Mughīrah) is of the most severe weakness, because the hadith scholars declared its central narrator a liar, abandoned and munkar al-ḥadīth.
④ Fourth Chain – From al-Lālakāʾī
… إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّزَّاقِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ، نا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الصُّورِيُّ، نا الْفِرْيَابِيُّ، نا السَّرِيُّ بْنُ يَحْيَى، عَنْ مَالِكِ بْنِ دِينَارٍ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ سَالِمَ بْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ …
…that a dead man came out of the grave, burning in fire; then another man came and pushed him back into the grave.
(Sharḥ Uṣūl Iʿtiqād Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah)
◈ al-Jawāb: Chain Analysis
Several narrators in this chain are severely criticized:
① Ibrāhīm bin ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Azdī — majhūl al-ḥāl (of unknown condition).
② Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm al-Ṣūrī — matrūk al-ḥadīth (abandoned) and an extreme Shīʿī.
③ Mālik bin Dīnār — although a well-known worshipper, his hearing from Sālim bin ʿAbdillāh is not established.
Ibn Rajab:
«…وهذا خطأ إنما سمعه مالك عن عمرو بن دينار قهرمان آل الزبير…» — (Ahwāl al-Qubūr of Ibn Rajab)
That is, the mistake in this narration is that Mālik bin Dīnār did not hear it directly from Sālim, but rather heard it from ʿAmr bin Dīnār (the steward of Āl al-Zubayr), and that narrator has already been shown to be munkar al-ḥadīth.
◈ Explanation for General Readers
In this chain one narrator is majhūl, another is matrūk, and the third’s hearing is not even established.
Thus this chain is disconnected and weak in several respects.
The hadith scholars have made it clear that a serious error (wahm) occurred in this narration.
✅ Conclusion:
The fourth chain is also unreliable, and because of its main narrators this story becomes even weaker.
⑤ Fifth Chain – Kulthūm bin Jawshan
… Khālid bin Ḥayyān narrated from Kulthūm bin Jawshan, he from Yaḥyā al-Madīnī, he from Sālim bin ʿAbdillāh, and he from his father (Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما) that: Ibn ʿUmar passed by a grave and a dead man came out, with a chain around his neck, asking for water; then another man came and pulled him by the chain and put him back into the grave.
(Ahwāl al-Qubūr of Ibn Rajab)
◈ al-Jawāb: Chain Analysis
The central narrator of this report is Kulthūm bin Jawshan, upon whom the hadith scholars have made severe criticism.
✿ Statements of Scholars:
① Abū Dāwūd:
«منكر الحديث» — (Suʾālāt al-Ājurrī)
② Ibn Ḥibbān:
«يروي عن الثقات المقلوبات وعن الأثبات الموضوعات… لا يحل الاحتجاج به بحال» — (al-Majrūḥīn)
That is, he narrated inverted (maqlūb) and fabricated reports even from trustworthy narrators; his narration cannot be used as proof in any circumstance.
③ Abū Ḥātim:
«ضعيف الحديث» — (al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl)
◈ Explanation for General Readers
When the hadith scholars have declared a narrator munkar al-ḥadīth and ḍaʿīf al-ḥadīth, and also said that he transmits fabricated reports, making his narration a proof in religion is dangerous.
In this fifth chain too, as before, severely criticized narrators are present, so it is also unreliable.
✅ Conclusion:
The chain of Kulthūm bin Jawshan is also extremely weak. Thus all five chains of the story of Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما (ʿAbāʾah bin Kulayb, ʿAmr bin Dīnār, Ibn Mughīrah, Muḥammad bin Ibrāhīm al-Ṣūrī, and Kulthūm bin Jawshan) turn out, every one of them, to be weak and unfit to be used as proof.
✿ Note on Imām al-Bayhaqī’s Leniency
Imām al-Bayhaqī رحمه الله is an eminent hadith scholar, but the people of knowledge have written that he was somewhat lenient (mild) in authenticating narrations.
al-Dhahabī said:
«وأبو عيسى الترمذي، وأبو عبد الله الحاكم، وأبو بكر البيهقي متساهلون.»
— al-Dhahabī in “Dhikr Man Yuʿtamad Qawluhu fi al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl”
📌 Meaning: Imāms like Tirmidhī, Ḥākim, and Bayhaqī occasionally relaxed conditions of hadith authenticity.
◈ Explanation for General Readers
While transmitting the narration of Ibn ʿUmar رضي الله عنهما, Bayhaqī wrote that “it has supporting witnesses.”
The reality is that all the chains among these “supporting witnesses” are severely weak or munkar.
Because of Bayhaqī’s leniency (tasāhul), he mentioned these narrations together with authentic reports.
✅ Conclusion:
Shaykh Zubair Ali Zai رحمه الله merely translated the words of Imām al-Bayhaqī.
Therefore, saying that “he authenticated a munkar narration” is not correct; this was in fact the result of Imām al-Bayhaqī’s leniency.
Scans of Important References
