DAY SIX: THE WEAK NARRATIONS
When a hadîth fails to meet the requirements of even the hasan tradition, it is generally considered da`îf (unauthentic). This is invariably due to either a) discontinuity [inqitâ’ ][1] of the chain of authorities or b) disparagement [ta`n] of a narrator.[2]
With regards to discontinuity, two primary hadîth categories are generated, namely: a) a clear break and b) an unclear break.[3] Subsumed under a clear break are the following four categories:
1) the Mu`allaq [Suspended] tradition or the hadîth where an author drops his teacher regardless of whether or not others are dropped as well. As the dropped individual or individuals can be either reliable or unreliable and because we are unable to discern the truth of the matter, the hadîth is rejected if this is the only version of it.
However traditions that appear in the mu`allaq form in the Sahîh-works of Bukhârî and Muslim have a different ruling. In Sahîh Muslim only seventeen mu`allaq traditions appear, sixteen of which come in a mut-tasil form elsewhere in the Sahîh and which do not therefore fall under this discussion. The seventeenth narration hadîth nr 369 also appears in Sahîh Bukhârî hadîth nr 337 from Yahyâ ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Bukayr from Layth ibn Sa`d whereupon the sanad is exactly the same as that of Muslim. As such the hadîth is sahîh.
As for the mu`allaq narrations of Bukhârî, they number 1341 according to Ibn Hajar in the Hady al-Sârî. The bulk of them also appear elsewhere in the Sahîh with unbroken chains except for 160 narrations. These narrations in turn are narrated in two ways:
a) in a word form denoting certainty (sîghah al-jazm) such as qâla (he said) and rawâ (he narrates).
b) in a word form denoting uncertainty and weakness (sîghah al-tamrîd) such as ruwiya (it was narrated) and qîla (it was said).
a) Regarding the certain form, `Ulamâ’ have found that the portion of the sanad omitted by Bukhârî is always authentic while the portion he retains has to be subjected to study. If he mentions only the Prophet [peace be upon him] or the Prophet [peace be upon him] and the Sahâbî, the hadîth will invariably be authentic. If he adds the Tâbi`î with or without others, they will have to be checked and the hadîth classed in accordance whether sahîh, hasan or da`îf.
An example of a sahîh narration in the certain form is that of Bukhârî in Kitâb al-Sawm, Bâb Qawl al-Nabiyy idhâ Ra’aytum al-Hilâl fa Sûmû... where he states “Silah said on the authority of `Ammâr (ibn Yâsir): “Whosoever fasts on the day of doubt has disobeyed Abû al-Qâsim [peace be upon him].”” This hadîth is reported variously – such as in Tirmidhî: 686, Abû Dâwud: 2334, Nasâ’î: 2188 and Ibn Mâjah: 1645 – and renders it sahîh.[4]
An example of a da`îf narration in the certain form is that of Bukhârî in Kitâb al-Zakâh, Bâb al-`Ard fî al-Zakâh vol. 3, p. 393, who said: “Tâ’ûs said that Mu`âdh said to the people of Yemen: “Bring me goods: such as striped silk [khamîs] or worn items of clothing [labîs] as sadaqah [perhaps meaning zakâh] instead of barley and wheat as it is easier for you and better for the Companions of the Prophet at Medinah.” Although the sanad up to Tâ’ûs is sahîh, Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bârî vol. 3, pp. 393-4 informs us that Tâ’ûs himself did not hear hadîth from Mu`âdh and so it is weak.
b) Regarding a sahîh narration in the uncertain form, since Bukhârî himself lacks confidence in the narration it has to be studied before a ruling can be reached. As such these narrations vary from sahîh to da`îf.
An example of a sahîh narration in the uncertain form is that narrated by Bukhârî, Kitâb al-Adhân, Bâb al-Jam` bayna al-Sûratayn fî al-Raka`ah: where he states: “It is mentioned (dhukira) on the authority of `Abd Allâh ibn al-Sâ’ib that the Prophet [peace be upon him] recited Mu’minûn in the Subh prayer till he came to the mention of Mûsâ and Hârûn or `Îsâ and a cough took hold of him, so he went into rukû` (the bowing position). This hadîth is also narrated by Muslim: 455 with the full sanad.
An example of a da`îf narration in the uncertain form is that narrated by Bukhârî, Kitâb al-Wasâyâ, Bâb Ta’wîl Qawl Allâh ta`âlâ Min ba`d Wasiyyah Yûsâ where he states: “It is mentioned (dhukira) that the Prophet [peace be upon him] judged that (regarding the estate of the deceased) debts be settled prior to bequests.”[5]
2) the Mursal [Loose] tradition or the hadîth where the Tâbi`î [Follower] fails to mention the identity of his teacher and attributes the text directly to the Messenger of Allâh [peace be upon him]. As a Tâbi`î generally did not meet the Messenger of Allah, he could not have heard the hadîth directly from him and must have heard it from either a Sahâbî or a non- Sahâbî such as a Tabi`î or Tâbi`û al-Tâbi`în. While the Sahâbah are reliable and trusted narrators, all others have to be tested before they qualify as narrators and since we are unable to do so here, the hadîth is rejected according to most scholars.[6]
Many jurists [fuqahâ’] – such as Imâm Abû Hanîfah, his students, Imâm Ahmad and the students of Imâm Mâlik [may Allâh show them all mercy] – however use the mursal tradition as evidence. They argue that the Tâbi`î falls in the first three generations who are praised by the Prophet [peace be upon him] and because he would not have narrated the hadîth with such confidence had he not known it to be authentic.[7]
A third view, championed by Imâm Shâfi`î [may Allâh show him mercy], had it that the narration of senior Tabi`ûn who do not narrate from undesirables (sing. marghûb `anhu fî al-riwâyah) or unknowns (sing. majhûl) would be acceptable if the text was corroborated by any of the following:
a) It is narrated in the musnad (unbroken chain) form by others.
b) It appears in the mursal form elsewhere but via other narrators.
c) The view of a Sahâbî concurred with it.
d) The view of the majority of scholars was in accordance with it.
An example of a mursal is that narrated by Imâ Shâfi`î in his Musnad vol. 1, pp. 304-305:
(Akhbaranâ) Sa`îd (`an) Ibn Jurayj (qâla akhbaranî) Humayd al-A`raj (`an) Mujâhid that he said that the Prophet [peace be upon him] exposed of the talbiyah (the words) “Labbayk Allâhumma labbayk...” Since Mujâhid is a Tâbi`î he could not possibly have heard this hadîth from the Prophet and must have omitted at the very least one Sahâbî and probably even other Tabi`ûn.
3) the Mu`dal [Problematic] narration or a hadîth in which two or more narrators are dropped in the middle of the sanad consecutively.
An example of a mu`dal is the hadîth narrated by Ibn `Asâkir via Hishâm ibn `Ammâr (anba’anâ) al-Hasan ibn Yahyâ al-Khushanî that the Prophet [peace be upon him] on the night of Isrâ’ performed salâh on the spot of the mosque of Damascus. This is because multiple narrators are omitted between Hasan who died after 190 AH and the Messenger of Allâh [peace be upon him].
4) the Munqati` [Incomplete] narration or a hadîth in which one or more omissions occur in the middle of the sanad but not consecutively.[8]
An example of a munqati` where one narrator is dropped is that in the Sunan of Tirmidhî: 622:
(Haddathanâ) Muhammad ibn `Ubayd al-Muhâribî and Abû Sa`îd al-Ashajj (qâlâ: haddathanâ) `Abd al-Salâm ibn Harb (`an) Khusayf (`an) Abû `Ubaydah (`an) Abd Allah [i.e. ibn Mas`ûd] (`an) al-Nabiyy [peace be upon him] (qâla):
“In thirty cows (the zakâh) is one male or female tabî` [one year old] and in forty it is a musinnah [two year old].”
Tirmidhî then adds: “Abû `Ubaydah ibn `Abd Allâh didn’t hear from `Abd Allâh, his father,” and also “…on the authority of `Amr ibn Murrah that I asked Abû `Ubaydah ibn `Abd Allâh whether he makes mention of anything from `Abd Allah and he said: No!”[9]
An example of a munqati`, where two narrators are omitted but not consecutively, is that of Tirmidhî in the Sunan 1453:
(Haddathanâ) `Aliy ibn Hujr (Haddathanâ) Mu`ammar ibn Sulaymân al-Raqiyy (`an) al-Hajjâj ibn al-Artâh (`an) `Abd al-Jabbâr ibn Wâ’il ibn Hujr (`an) his father (who said):
“A woman was raped in the time of the Messenger of Allâh [peace be upon him] who lifted the hadd (punishment of zinâ) from her and established it for the one who had assaulted her...”
Analysis of this tradition: This chain of narrators suffers two problems:
a) Hajjâj never heard hadîth from `Abd al-Jabbâr and
b) Abd al-Jabbâr ibn Wâ’il ibn Hujr also did not hear hadîth from his father.[10]
Still the practise of the scholars from amongst the Sahâbah and others is that a lady that is raped will not be subjected to hadd.
An unclear break generates the following two categories:
a)Mudallas
b)Mursal Khafiyy
a) The Mudallas [Obscure] narration is of numerous types[11] but the most common – tadlîs al-isnâd – occurs when a narrator reports a hadîth which he had not heard from his teacher but in such a way that it gives the impression that he heard it from him. This is generally done in one of three ways: a) `an fulân (on the authority of so and so), b) inna fulân qâla (that so and so said) and c) qâla fulân (so and so said).
The ruling on this type of narrations is that when a mudallis [anyone who has been found guilty of producing mudallas narrations] narrates in any of the above three forms, his hadîth will be rejected as unauthentic. If however he narrates in a clear form indicating that he heard the hadîth – such as haddathanâ (he told us) – it will be accepted of him.
An example of a mudallasis that of Tabrânî in the Awsat 592/1/36/1 and Ibn `Adî 2398/6 where Anas narrates in the marfû form:
“Be cautious regarding people by having a bad opinion of them.”[12]
Analysis of this tradition: This hadîth has three problems: a) Baqiyyah, one of the narrators, is a mudallis and he has used the `an form. b) Mu`âwiyah ibn Yahyâ another of the narrators is considered weak. c) The text contradicts authentic narrations which command giving people the benefit of the doubt such as the hadîth in Bukhârî: 5144 and Muslim: 2563 “Beware of assumptions as statements based on assumption is the most untruthful of speech...”
b) The Mursal Khafiyy [Loose-hidden] tradition is when a narrator reports a hadîth from a contemporary without actually having heard it from him.[13]
An example of a Mursal Khafiyy is that narrated by Tirmidhî in his `Ilal Kabîr hadîth nr 345 p. 194:
(Haddathanâ) Ibrâhîm ibn `Abd Allâh al-Harawî (haddathanâ) Hushaym (akhbaranâ) Yûnus ibn `Ubayd (`an) Nâfi` (`an) Ibn `Umar who said that the Messenger of Allâh [peace be upon him] said:
“The delay of the rich is oppression...”
This sanad ostensibly appears to be unbroken but leading scholars of hadîth – like Bukhârî, Ibn Ma`în, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Abû Hâtim – state that Yûnus ibn `Ubayd did not hear hadîth from Nâfi`. As they are contemporaries the hadîth is considered mursal khafiyy and therefore unauthentic.[14]
[1]Also called a saqat(drop or gap) in the chain of narrators.
[2] `Asqalânî. 2000, p. 80. `Itr adds to the discussion that “The reason a hadîth is rejected due to discontinuity of the chain of authorities is the underlying principle of ignorance of the state of the missing narrator and caution fearing that he might be a weak narrator.”
[3] A clear break occurs when someone narrates from another who is not his contemporary. An unclear break occurs when someone narrates from a contemporary or a teacher what he did not hear from him.
[4] The deciding narration which strengthens the above hadîth is that in the Musannaf of Ibn Shaybah: 2/170-171.
[5] While this narration in isolation is weak the text has been declared hasan by various scholars – such as Albânî in Irwâ’ al-Ghalîl, hadîth nr 1667 – after collation of related material like the narration in Ibn Mâjah: 2433.
[6]There are two other types of Mursal traditions: a) Mursal al-Sahâbî and b) Mursal Khafiyy. Mursal Khafiyy will be discussed soon. Mursal al-Sahâbî is when a Sahâbî narrates a hadîth that he was not present for but does not state the name of the person he received it from. As that individual is almost invariably another Sahâbî and since all the Sahabah are considered reliable narrators, the Mursal al-Sahâbî tradition is accepted. An example is the narration of `Â’ishah where she discusses the beginning of the Prophet’s reception of wahy. As she was only 18 years old at the demise of the Messenger of Allâh and since the beginnings of wahy occurred 23 years prior to his death, she could not have been present for the narrated incident.
[7] Biqâ`î. 2006, p. 94. In fact Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalî argues that there is hardly a difference between these two views. This is because according to him the muhaddithûn almost invariably meant that the mursal version of the hadîth when considered in isolation would be unauthentic while jurists were arguing that the text itself is almost always corroborated via other related reports – including the mursal version – and therefore authentic. Sharh `Ilal al-Tirmidhî, vol. 1, p. 297-8.
[8]This is according to the view of the muta’akh-khirûn [latter-day] scholars such as Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî. Classical scholars held the view that the term munqati` applies to any and all omissions in the sanad. See the Irshâd of Nawawî.
[9]This hadîth is however authentic because it comes elsewhere in ways that corroborate it. See for example Tirmidhî: 623.
[10]Tirmidhî himself states that he heard Bukhârî mentioning that `Abd al-Jabbâr ibn Wâ’il ibn Hujr neither heard hadîth from his father nor did he ever meet him. It is said that he was born a few months after the demise of his father.
[11] The worst type is known as tadlîs al-taswiyah (the tadlîs of leveling) which involves omitting a weak narrator between two reliable narrators thereby ‘leveling out’ the sanad in question. Another common form is that of tadlîs al-shuyûkh where the narrator mentions his teacher by unknown appellations frequently resulting in either inability to identify the narrator or his misidentification.
[12]That is: “Protect yourself from the potential harm of others by assuming the worst of them.”
[13]`Itr. 1997, p. 386.
[14]As the text appears elsewhere in Bukhârî: 2287 and in Muslim: 1564 it is authentic with the wording: “The delay of the rich is oppression and when debt is transferred to the rich, the creditor should allow it.”