View Single Post
Old 02-23-2008, 02:54 PM
Abu Maryam Abu Maryam is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 97

Originally Posted by MarijWasti View Post

Secondly, Abu Sakhr Humayd bin Ziyad with all due respect to Arnaut is not without ambiguity. Imam Darmi narrated from Ibn Ma'een that he is "Thiqa". Ahmed bin said bin Abi maryam narrated from him that Abu Sakhr is "weak in hadith". Ishaq bin mansoor narrated from yahya that he is "weak"!
Likewise Imam Ahmed in one narration from Abdullah bin ahmed said "no harm in him" elsewhere Uqaili in his duafa mentioned from Muhammed bin esa from Hamdan bin Ali from Imam Ahmed that Abu Sakhr is "weak"! Imam Nisai said "he is not strong"! Ibn Adi said that he is Salih in hadith and elsewhere he said that " I heard Ibn al-Hammad say that Abu Sakhar, the one from whom Hatim Ibn Isma‘il narrates is "weak". Infact Ibn Adi pointed out the mistakes from the same route i.e. Abu Sakhr from Saeed from Abu Hurairah and said:In some of his hadeeths are things he was not followed up in narrating. al-Mizzi said: another one of his strange hadeeths is as follows. Then he pointed out that at-Tabaraani said: no one narrated it from Kurayb except humayd bin ziyaad abu sakhr. Imam Dhahabi spoke about him saying "People have disagreed abt him" Now consider the narration in the Sahihs and consider the narration with same matan with the addition "Ya Muhammed". No one narrates it except Abu Sakhr who is known for making mistakes!
Wa alaikum salam


With due respect i am not sure if you are on the level of a Muhaddith to give a final judgement on the narration in question or anyone else on this forum for that matter. I haven't seen anyone mention a single Muhaddith declaring this specific narration from Musnad Abu Ya'la to be da'eef.

On the contrary we have seen the Salafi Muhaddith of Syria, Shaykh Husayn Asad declaring the sanad to be SAHIH. On top of this i have also discovered from the Salafi Shaykh, Dr Sa'd ibn Nasir al-Shithari that he too had not weakened this very narration in his editing of Ibn Hajar's Matalib al-Aliyya which has this narration in it with Ibn Hajar's silence. Rather, Dr Shithari said the Hadith is Hasan with this sanad (in Abu Ya'la) and the narrators are all trustworthy! SEE the attatched file where he also said that Abu Sakhr is Saduq.

Even Shaykh al-Albani has declared in his editing of Jami al-Tirmidhi and Sunan Ibn Majah a narration via Abu Sakhr to be Hasan.

The following is a notice on Abu Sakhr in Ibn Hajar's Tahdhib (vol. 3):

[ 69 ] بخ م د ت عس ق البخاري في الأدب المفرد ومسلم وأبي داود والترمذي والنسائي في مسند علي وابن ماجة حميد بن زياد وهو بن أبي المخارق المدني أبو صخر الخراط صاحب العباء سكن مصر ويقال حميد بن صخر وقال أبو مسعود الدمشقي حميد بن صخر أبو مودود الخراط ويقال أنهما اثنان رأى سهل بن سعد وروى عن أبي صالح السمان وأبي حازم سلمة بن دينار ونافع مولى بن عمر وكريب ومكحول وأبي سعيد المقبري ويزيد بن قسيط وشريك بن عبد الله بن أبي نمر وسعيد المقبري وغيرهم وعنه سعيد بن أبي أيوب وحيوة بن شريح وابن وهب ويحيى القطان وهمام بن إسماعيل وحاتم بن إسماعيل وغيرهم قال أحمد ليس به بأس وقال عثمان الدارمي عن يحيى ليس به بأس وقال إسحاق بن منصور وابن أبي مريم عن يحيى ضعيف وكذا قال النسائي وقال بن عدي بعد أن روى له ثلاثة أحاديث وهو عندي صالح وإنما أنكر عليه هذان الحديثان المؤمن يألف وفي القدرية وسائر حديثه أرجو أن يكون مستقيما ثم قال في موضع آخر حميد بن صخر وعنه حاتم بن إسماعيل ضعفه النسائي وأخرج له بن عدي أحاديث غير تلك الأحاديث وقال وله أحاديث وبعضها لا يتابع عليه قلت وكذا فرق بينهما بن حبان وبين البغوي في كتاب الصحابة أن حاتم بن إسماعيل وهم في قوله حميد بن صخر وإنما هو حميد بن زياد أبو صخر وهو مدني صالح الحديث وقال الدارقطني ثقة وذكره بن حبان في الثقات وقال أبو إسحاق الصريفيني مات سنة 89 وقيل سنة 192 رأيت ذلك بخط مغلطاي وفيه نظر

You've mentioned some Jarh and Ta'deel on Abu Sakhr - but what you did not proove is if the Jarh is Mufassar and are all Abu Sakhr's narrations outrightly weak or not?! Did you see how Ibn Adee didn't reject all of Abu Sakhr's narrations and accepted others?

Note also that Shaykhs Arna'ut and Bashhar Awwad said in Tahrir al-Taqrib (no. 1546) that the most authentic (as-sah al-riwayat) report from Ibn Ma'een is his Tawtheeq and i didn't see you mention that al-Daraqutni (sawalat al-Barqani: 93), al-Ijli and Ibn Hibban all made tawtheeq on Abu Sakhr as well.

Originally Posted by MarijWasti
Thirdly speaking, according to my knowledge Muslim has only narrated his narrations as a support(Shawahid) and not when he is alone in narrating them! He has not used them as evidence! If that is so then plz enlighten me!
How do you know that and what Qawa'id is used to say that when i recall some 8 chains with Abu Sakhr in Sahih Muslim?!

Originally Posted by MarijWasti
Fourthly, the narration of Hakim is with the same text but with slight difference in the addition not found in the sahih and it chain contains Muhammed Ibn Ishaq a well known mudallis and narrates with mode "an" from his preceding authority! This is all with respect to Sanad! With respect to matn, even if this narration is authentic then it does not in anyway either proof tawassul nor does it prove that we can say "Ya Muhammed"!

Allah knows best!

I know and agree with this point on Ibn Ishaq and the narration is not a proof for Tawassul or does it imply Shirk. It merely mentions what Isa (alaihi salam) may say at the Qabr. The point in the Hadith:

Then he shall stand at my graveside and say: Ya Muhammad! and I will answer him."

If this portion is Hasan or Sahih, it is exclusively for Isa (alaihis salam) and why do people think here it is a "Shirki" narration when such contemporary Salafi Muhaddithin like Dr Shithari and Shaykh Husayn Asad didn't bring such a notion up, and nor did they come off with claims of Abu Sakhr is outright weak - but rather they both accepted the narration!

To cut out the arguments please try to give a judgement from a recognised Muhaddith that Abu Ya'la's narration is Munkar.

Attached Files
File Type: doc Abu Sakhr in Matalib al Aliyya+Jami al-Tirmidhi.doc (200.5 KB, 32 views)
Reply With Quote