The second chain of transmission of the narration, “wa sunnatī” [and my tradition]

The second chain of transmission of the narration, “wa sunnatī” [and my tradition]

With a chain of transmission that will come later on, Ḥākim al-Nayshābūrī thus relates on the authority of Abū Hurayrah in a narration termed marfū‘:[1]

:بعدهما تضلّوا لن شيئين فيكم تركت قد إنّي”

“.الحوض عليَّ يردا حتىٰ يفترقا لن و سنّتي و الله كتاب

Verily, I am leaving among you two things to which (if you hold fast) you shall never go astray: the Book of Allah and my Sunnah [tradition] and they will never separate (from each other) until they meet me at the Pond [ḥawḍ] (of Kawthar).[2]

Ḥākim has transmitted this narration with the following chain of transmission:

“Aḍ-Ḍabī relating on the authority of Ṣāliḥ ibn Mūsā aṭ-Ṭalḥī from ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Rafī‘ from Abī Ṣāliḥ from Abū Hurayrah.”

Like the previous narration, this narration is a fabricated one, and Ṣāliḥ ibn Mūsā aṭ-Ṭalḥī is one of its transmitters about whom great figures of ‘ilm ar-rijāl say:

Yaḥyā ibn Mu‘īn says: “Ṣāliḥ ibn Mūsā is unreliable.” Abū Ḥātam ar-Rāzī says: “His hadīth is ‘weak’ [ḍa‘īf] and ‘unusual’ [munkar]; he narrates many of his ‘unusual’ hadīths from trustworthy individuals.” Nisā’ī says: “His hadīth cannot be recorded.” In another place, he says: “His hadīth is rejected [matrūk].”[3]

In Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb, Ibn Ḥajar (al-‘Asqalānī) writes: “Ibn Ḥibbān says: ‘Ṣāliḥ ibn Mūsā attributes to trustworthy individuals, things which do not correspond with their words.’ He then says: ‘His hadīth does not represent a sound proof’ and Abū Na‘īm says: ‘His hadīth is rejected and he always narrates unusual hadīths’.”[4]

Also, in At-Taqrīb,[5] Ibn Ḥajar says: “His hadīth is rejected.” In Al-Kāshif,[6] Dhahabī says: “His hadīth is weak.” In Mizān al-I‘tidāl,[7] Dhahabī relates a disputable hadīth from him, and says that it is among his ‘usual’ hadīths.

The third chain of transmission of the narration, “wa sunnatī” [and my tradition]

In At-Tamhīd, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr relates this narration with the following chain of transmission:

‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Yaḥyā relating on the authority of Ahmad ibn Sa‘īd from Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm ad-Dubaylī from ‘Alī ibn Zayd al-Farā’iḍī from al-Ḥunaynī from Kathīr ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Amrū ibn ‘Awf from his father from his grandfather.[8]

Concerning Kathīr ibn ‘Abd Allāh, Imām ash-Shāfi‘ī says: “He is one of the pillars of lying.”[9] Abū Dāwūd says: “He is one of the mendacious and liars.”[10] Ibn Ḥibbān says: “‘Abd Allāh ibn Kathīr narrates from his father and grandfather a book of hadīth based on forgery. Relating any narration from that book and any of ‘Abd Allāh’s narration is unlawful except if it is intended to express surprise or for the sake of criticism.”[11]

Nisā’ī and Dārquṭnī say: “His hadīth is rejected.” Imām Ahmad (ibn Ḥanbal) says: “He is munkar al-hadīth (he who relates odd hadīths) and he is not reliable”. And Ibn Mu‘īn has the same view about him.

It is surprising that in the biographical account of Kathīr, At-Taqrīb, Ibn Ḥajar has contented himself with the term, “weak” [ḍa‘īf], regarding those who have accused him of lying as fanatic. Meanwhile the forerunners of ‘ilm al-rijāl have charged him with lying and forgery. Moreover, Dhahabī says: “His statement is unfounded and weak.”