“Among them was the eminent jurist whose standing is universally acknowledged, Masruq ibn al-Ajda‘, who died in 62 AH—a great Successor and one of the narrators of the six canonical hadith collections. When travelling, he would take with him a brick made from the soil of Madinah the Illuminated, upon which he would prostrate (!) This was related by the shaykh of shaykhs, the hadith master, the imam of the Sunnah, Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Shaybah, in his book al-Musannaf, volume two, in the chapter entitled, ‘Those who carried something in a ship upon which to prostrate.’ He reported it through two chains: Masruq would carry with him on a ship, whenever he travelled, a brick of the soil of Madinah the Illuminated, upon which he would prostrate.”

I say: This statement contains several lies.

First: His statement, “When travelling, he would take with him,” which, stated without qualification, includes travel by land; yet this contradicts the report he cited.

Second: His categorical assertion that Masruq used to do this gives the impression that it is established from him. This is not so; rather, it is weak and interrupted, as will be explained.

Third: His statement, “through two chains,” is a lie. It is only one chain of transmission, revolving around Muhammad ibn Sirin, concerning whom the narrators differed. Ibn Abi Shaybah related it in al-Musannaf (2/43/2) through Yazid ibn Ibrahim, from Ibn Sirin, who said: “I was informed that Masruq would carry a brick with him on a ship”—that is, to prostrate upon it. He also related it through Ibn ‘Awn, from Muhammad, that “whenever Masruq travelled, he would carry with him on a ship a brick upon which he would prostrate.”

Thus, as you see, the first chain is through Ibn Sirin, and the other is through Muhammad—who is Ibn Sirin. In reality, therefore, it is a single chain. However, Yazid ibn Ibrahim said, “I was informed,” thereby establishing that Ibn Sirin received this through an intermediary from Masruq, whereas Ibn ‘Awn did not mention this. Both of them are trustworthy in what they narrated, except that Yazid ibn Ibrahim supplied an additional detail in the chain, which must be accepted, as is established in hadith terminology: the one who has retained something is proof against the one who has not retained it. Accordingly, the chain to Masruq is weak and cannot serve as proof, for it hinges upon an unnamed, unknown narrator. It is therefore impermissible to assert categorically that this is attributable to Masruq—may Allah be pleased with him and have mercy on him—as the Shiite has done.