The Shaykh declared, “Fabricated. It was reported by Ibn ʿAdī and Abū Nuʿaym in Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ ….” In both of his books he confined himself to rating the ḥadith weak without explaining its defect, apparently relying on the rule that anything transmitted solely by Ibn ʿAdī is weak. He never examined the chain; had he done so, his opinion would have been different.
I too followed him in grading it weak in Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ for the very same reason. Now that I have located the isnād and recognized the flaw that demands a verdict of fabrication, I have moved from simply declaring it weak to judging it fabricated. I have corrected my copy of Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ in preparation for a greatly revised edition, all the more so because the former publisher—the unjust Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh—tampered with the work in his new printing, altering and changing passages. May Allah guide him.
Al-Silsilah al-Ḍaʿīfah – ḥadith no. 6363, pp. 803–804.
See also Ḍaʿīf al-Jāmiʿ (no. 1864).
51 – “Laqad zawwajtuka ghayra dajjāl—meaning ʿAlī.”
The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, said:
Weak. It was cited by al-ʿUqaylī in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ through Qays ibn al-Rabīʿ, from Mūsā ibn Qays, from Ḥijr ibn ʿAnbas, who said: When the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—married Fāṭimah to ʿAlī, he said … and he mentioned the tradition.
Al-ʿUqaylī introduced it in the biography of Mūsā ibn Qays al-Ḥaḍramī. This is the only marfūʿ report he quoted for that narrator. I say: Al-ʿUqaylī alone accused him of being a Rāfiḍī; hence no one else weakened him—indeed, many early and later scholars declared him reliable. The ḥadith could therefore have been accepted on his account, were it not for what follows, for after him in the chain lies Qays ibn al-Rabīʿ, whose weakness is well known, and whose son used to insert into his father’s narrations material that did not belong to them.
Abū Nuʿaym al-Faḍl ibn Dukayn disagreed over the wording: he narrated it from Mūsā ibn Qays as,
“Hiya laka yā ʿAlī, lasta bi-dajjāl”
(“It is hers—and yours—O ʿAlī; you are no impostor.”)
Ibn Saʿd recorded it in al-Ṭabaqāt.
ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dāwūd—al-Khuraybī—supported him; al-Bazzār narrated it.
The Prophet’s—peace and blessings be upon him—statement, “You are no impostor,” shows that he had previously promised him, for he said, “I do not break a promise,” as Ibn Saʿd reports in similar words.
I say: This wording, transmitted by these two trustworthy narrators, is the sound text from Mūsā ibn Qays; it conflicts with the version of Qays ibn al-Rabīʿ and is therefore munkar. I had earlier extracted the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dāwūd from al-Ṭabarānī—cited by al-Bazzār—but with the wording:
“Hiya laka, ʿalā an tuḥsina ṣuḥbatahā”
(“It is hers—and yours—on condition that you treat her well.”)
I entered it in al-Ṣaḥīḥah no. 166, authenticating its chain; afterwards I realised that I had been mistaken for three reasons:
- The wording differs from al-Bazzār’s report in two ways:
a) al-Bazzār does not have the phrase “on condition that you treat her well”;
b) al-Bazzār contains something al-Ṭabarānī lacks: “You are no impostor,” which is plainly superior because it agrees with Ibn Saʿd’s version. - Al-Haythamī quoted al-Ṭabarānī in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid without the addition “on condition that you treat her well,” and al-Ḥāfiẓ did likewise in the biography of Ḥijr ibn Qays in al-Iṣābah; this made me suspect that the extra phrase had crept into al-Ṭabarānī’s text through a copyist.
- Ḥijr ibn ʿAnbas—also called Ibn Qays—has no verified status as a Companion. Once I saw that he is not a Companion, I withdrew my authentication of the isnād. Allah, exalted is He, is the guide.
Al-Silsilah al-Ḍaʿīfah – under ḥadith no. 6392, pp. 880–883.
52 –
The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, said in Irwāʾ (1/106–107):
“How excellent is the report narrated by al-Ṭabarānī from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ghanm: I asked Muʿādh ibn Jabal, ‘May I use the siwāk while fasting?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ I asked, ‘At what time of day?’ He said, ‘Morning or evening.’ I said, ‘People dislike it in the evening and claim that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “The odour of the fasting person’s mouth is sweeter to Allah than the fragrance of musk.”’ He answered, ‘Glory be to Allah! He commanded them to use the siwāk, and He would never command them to make their mouths stink on purpose. There is no good in that at all; rather, it is evil.’ Al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Talkhīṣ (p. 113): ‘Its chain is good.’”
And in al-Ḍaʿīfah, under ḥadith 6349, he wrote:
“Ibn al-Jawzī did well to include this ḥadith—the one under discussion—among the fabrications, yet al-Ḥāfiẓ objected in al-Talkhīṣ, saying, ‘It has a corroborating witness from Muʿādh, narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in al-Kabīr!’ Al-Suyūṭī endorsed this in al-Laʾālī, and Ibn ʿIrāq in Tanzīh al-Sharīʿah!! But a glaring problem exists, both in chain and in text. Al-Ṭabarānī recorded it in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (20/70–71) and in Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn as well, through Bakr ibn Khunays, from Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from ʿUbādah ibn Nusī, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ghanm, who then quoted the earlier report—the narration of Muʿādh.
From the standpoint of text, the flaw is obvious, for it is mawqūf on Muʿādh and is not traced back to the Prophet.
As for the isnād, the defect is likewise subtle. Bakr ibn Khunays is disputed, and in fact—as al-Dhahabī said in al-Kāshif—‘feeble (wāhī).’ Yet al-Ḥāfiẓ in al-Talkhīṣ overlooked the real flaw, namely Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Bakr’s unnamed shaykh. Al-Dhahabī stated in Kunā al-Mīzān: ‘Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Shāmī, from Nusī; al-Azdī said: a liar. I (al-Dhahabī) said: perhaps he is the one who was crucified,’ and al-Ḥāfiẓ accepted this in al-Lisān.
Thus the defect in the “supporting witness” claimed by al-Ḥāfiẓ lies in Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān—this liar who was crucified for heresy. How astonishing that this escaped al-Ḥāfiẓ and those who followed him!