A Mistaken Biography in Ibn Abī Ḥātim, seemingly due to a fall in the chain, and a mix-up in some copies. An error by Ibn Ḥibbān, and a reading in al-Bukhārī’s biography, along with other benefits.

A close reading of Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s entry uncovers how a dropped name and later copyist slips distorted the biography of Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Zubayrī.

Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in al-Jarḥ waʾt-Taʿdīl (3/332):

“Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām: narrated from … narrated from him: Maʿn ibn ʿĪsā, and Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn ʿAthmah, and Yaḥyā ibn al-ʿAlāʾ. I heard my father say that.”

I say: this biography is mistaken, as if due to a fall in the chain of transmission upon which Ibn Abī Ḥātim or his father relied. What dropped from the name is: “Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn …”

The correct version of this biography is what he mentioned earlier (2/487):

“Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām: narrated from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, and ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUrwah. Narrated from him: Maʿn ibn ʿĪsā, Khālid ibn Mukhlad, and Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn ʿAthmah. I heard my father say that. He resided in Sāmarrāʾ, narrated from Abū Nuʿaym, ʿAffān, and Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl. I heard from him along with my father, and he is ṣadūq (truthful).”

I say: his statement, “ʿUmar ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUrwah” is mistaken! The correct form is: “ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUrwah,” the brother of Hishām ibn ʿUrwah.

Al-Bukhārī said in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (2/189):

“Jaʿfar ibn Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām al-Qurashī al-Asadī. Khālid ibn Mukhlad said to me: Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām narrated to us. He heard from ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUrwah and Hishām ibn ʿUrwah. And Maʿn said from Jaʿfar ibn Khālid …”

Mix-up in the manuscripts of Ibn Abī Ḥātim!

Ibn Abī Ḥātim added in the biography:

“He resided in Sāmarrāʾ, narrated from Abū Nuʿaym, ʿAffān, and Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl. I heard from him along with my father, and he is ṣadūq.”

I say: what appears in the printed edition of al-Jarḥ waʾt-Taʿdīl of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, the statement: “He resided in Sāmarrāʾ … etc.” has no relation to this biography.

Either Ibn Abī Ḥātim erred in this, or there is a mix-up in the manuscripts; for al-Muʿallimī pointed out that this is an addition from the Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyyah manuscript. This is what I lean towards. What is mentioned here should be in the biography of Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Shākir al-Ṣāʾigh. Thus, the name must have dropped from the manuscript, and this statement remained. This is supported by the fact that no mention of this Jaʿfar appears in the printed edition.

Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt (8/163):

“Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣāʾigh al-ʿĀbid, from the people of Baghdād. Narrated from Abū Nuʿaym and Abū Ghassān – that is, Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl. Aḥmad ibn Zanjawayh narrated to us from him. His kunya is Abū al-Faḍl, and he is Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Shākir.”

And Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt (6/133):

“Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām: narrated from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah and the people of al-Ḥijāz. Narrated from him Khālid ibn Mukhlad al-Qaṭawānī – and Qaṭwān is a lane in Kūfah.”

Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām has no narrations.

Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām has no narrations. Ibn Saʿd mentioned him in al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā (5/184), saying:

“Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām ibn Khwaylid ibn Asad ibn ʿAbd al-ʿUzzā ibn Quṣayy. His mother was Umm Khālid, whose name was: Amat bint Khālid ibn Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ ibn Umayyah. Khālid ibn al-Zubayr fathered: Muḥammad al-Akbar, and Ramla – her mother was an umm walad – and Muḥammad al-Aṣghar, and Mūsā, and Ibrāhīm, and Zaynab – their mother was Ḥafṣah bint ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Azhar ibn ʿAwf – and Sulaymān ibn Khālid …”

An error by Ibn Ḥibbān due to reversal in the name!

Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt (7/395):

“Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Zubayrī: narrated from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah. Narrated from him: Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn ʿAthmah. He errs and contradicts. Hishām ibn ʿUrwah narrated from his father from ʿĀʾishah, who said: ‘The Prophet ﷺ never interpreted anything of the Qurʾān except a few verses which Jibrīl taught him.’ Al-Ṭabarī narrated it to us, saying: Ibn ʿAthmah narrated to us, saying: Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us, saying: Hishām ibn ʿUrwah narrated to us …”

Ibn Ḥazm narrated it in al-Iḥkām (3/306) from the path of Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah, who said: Khālid ibn Mukhlad narrated to us, saying: Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar narrated to us, saying: Hishām informed us …

I say: “Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar” is a mistake! It is actually “Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad.” His name was inverted in both chains.

And it is astonishing that Ibn Ḥibbān judged him by saying: “He errs and contradicts,” while his very name was inverted!!

The Difference in His Name and a Reading in al-Bukhārī’s Biography of Him:

This ḥadīth was narrated by al-Ṭabarī in his Tafsīr from al-ʿAbbās ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm, who said: Ḥaddathanā Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn ʿAthmah, who said: Ḥaddathanī Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Zubayrī, who said: Ḥaddathanī Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah, who said: “The Prophet ﷺ would not explain anything from the Qurʾān except a few verses, which Jibrīl had taught him.”

He (al-Ṭabarī) said: Ḥaddathanā Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Yazīd al-Ṭarsūsī, who said: Akhbaranā Maʿn, from Jaʿfar ibn Khālid, from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah, who said: “The Prophet ﷺ would not explain anything from the Qurʾān except a few verses, which Jibrīl عليه السلام had taught him.”

I say: Ibn ʿAthmah named him “Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad,” while Maʿn ibn ʿĪsā named him “Jaʿfar ibn Khālid.” Al-Bukhārī referred to this difference in his earlier entry: “Jaʿfar ibn Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām al-Qurashī al-Asadī. Khālid ibn Makhlad told me: Ḥaddathanā Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām. He heard from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUrwah and Hishām ibn ʿUrwah. And Maʿn said: from Jaʿfar ibn Khālid.”

Ibn al-Qaysarānī narrated in al-Muʾtalif wa-l-Mukhtalif (p.171) under the entry of “al-Khālidī: mentioning a group attributed to their ancestor”: from Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir, who said: Ḥaddathanā Maʿn ibn ʿĪsā, who said: Ḥaddathanā Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Khālidī — from the descendants of Khālid ibn al-Zubayr — from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah رضي الله عنها, with this same report.

And it was narrated by Abū Yaʿlā in his Musnad (8/23, no. 4528) from Isḥāq ibn Abī Isrāʾīl, who said: Ḥaddathanā Maʿn al-Qaẓẓāz, from “so-and-so ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid,” from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, with the same.

Al-Haythamī said in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid (6/303): “It was narrated by Abū Yaʿlā and al-Bazzār. In it is a narrator whose name is unclear to both of them, while the rest of the narrators are those of the Ṣaḥīḥ. As for al-Bazzār, he said: from Ḥafṣ — I think Ibn ʿAbd Allāh — from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah. And Abū Yaʿlā said: from so-and-so ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid, from Hishām.”

I say: Ibn ʿAthmah and Khālid ibn Makhlad agreed that he is “Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Zubayrī.” Maʿn ibn ʿĪsā also agreed with them in the narration of Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir from him. The disagreement lies in the way his name is reported from Maʿn: Ibrāhīm ibn al-Mundhir named him “Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid,” while Muḥammad ibn Yazīd al-Ṭarsūsī named him “Jaʿfar ibn Khālid,” and Isḥāq named him “so-and-so ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid.” As for al-Bazzār’s version, I did not come across it, and I do not know whether it was from Maʿn or not. But what came in it is undoubtedly mistaken.

Thus, the correct version is “Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid,” contrary to what Imām al-Bukhārī favored when he affirmed his name as “Jaʿfar ibn Khālid.”

And al-Wāqidī — who was a scholar of genealogy — named him “Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid.” He would say: “Ḥaddathanā Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām” (see al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā of Ibn Saʿd, 4/96).

Ḥusayn Salīm Asad’s Commentary on the Ḥadīth:

What came in the Musnad of Abū Yaʿlā is mistaken. Accordingly, one cannot rely on what its editor said (8/23, footnote 3): “Its isnād is weak due to the anonymity of so-and-so ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid. And al-Haythamī mentioned it…”

For the problem is not the anonymity of this man — he is known — but rather the flaw is something else, which will be mentioned, inshāʾAllāh.

The Ruling on the Ḥadīth:

Al-Ṭabarī said in his Tafsīr after relating it: “This, in addition to the flaw in the report narrated from ʿĀʾishah in its isnād, makes it impermissible for anyone who knows the soundness and corruption of the isnāds of reports in religion to use it as proof. For its transmitter is one who is not known among the people of reports, namely: Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad al-Zubayrī.”

Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir critiqued this, saying: “And later al-Ṭabarī himself will declare both these isnāds defective, stating that Jaʿfar their transmitter is ‘not known among the people of reports.’ Ibn Kathīr transmitted that al-Bukhārī said about him: ‘He is not followed in his ḥadīth.’ Likewise, al-Dhahabī transmitted it from him in al-Mīzān, and Ibn Ḥajar followed him in Lisān al-Mīzān. But al-Bukhārī himself mentioned him in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr without saying anything of this sort, nor did he mention any jarḥ about him. Similarly, Ibn Abī Ḥātim did not mention any jarḥ about him. And neither al-Bukhārī nor al-Nasāʾī listed him among the weak. Ibn Ḥajar transmitted that Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt. For al-Bukhārī to include him in al-Tārīkh without jarḥ is a sign of his reliability according to him. And these two points are sufficient to accept his narration. And if al-Ṭabarī did not know him among the people of reports, then others knew him.”

Ibn Kathīr said in his Tafsīr (1/7): “A munkar, gharīb ḥadīth. And this Jaʿfar is the son of Muḥammad ibn Khālid ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām al-Qurashī al-Zubayrī. Al-Bukhārī said: ‘He is not followed in his ḥadīth.’ Al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Fatḥ al-Azdī said: ‘Munkar al-ḥadīth.’”

I say: This ḥadīth is munkar and gharīb — as Ibn Kathīr رحمه الله said. The man is not majhūl as al-Ṭabarī claimed; he is known, as others besides him have recognized, as Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir said.

But Shaykh Aḥmad Shākir defended this ḥadīth on several grounds:

• Casting doubt on what some scholars like al-Dhahabī and Ibn Kathīr transmitted from al-Bukhārī — that he said about him “He is not followed in his ḥadīth” — saying: “But al-Bukhārī mentioned him in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr without saying anything of this sort, nor did he mention any jarḥ about him. Similarly, Ibn Abī Ḥātim did not mention any jarḥ, and neither al-Bukhārī nor al-Nasāʾī listed him among the weak.”
• Ibn Ḥajar transmitted that Ibn Ḥibbān included him among the thiqāt.
• For al-Bukhārī to mention him in al-Tārīkh without jarḥ is a sign of his reliability according to him. And these two points are sufficient to accept his narration.

I say: As for the first: the transmission of these Imāms from al-Bukhārī’s statement is perhaps from a book or questions that have not reached us. Denying this requires proof. They are trustworthy in their transmission. The fact that al-Bukhārī did not mention this in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīر does not bind us, for he left many narrators without comment there, while criticizing them elsewhere. The aim of al-Tārīkh al-Kabīر was not jarḥ and taʿdīl, but documenting the names of narrators.

Similarly, Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s silence is not binding. Nor is the absence of his name in al-Bukhārī’s or al-Nasāʾī’s books of weak narrators proof, for they did not aim for comprehensiveness.

As for the second: Ibn Ḥibbān’s inclusion of him in al-Thiqāt was only because he did not find jarḥ against him. But jarḥ exists from others, and that outweighs his inclusion. Moreover, Ibn Ḥibbān confused his entry by reversing his name, and in another place said: “He makes mistakes and contradicts,” referring to this very man.

As for the third: it is not binding upon al-Bukhārī, for merely mentioning someone in al-Tārīkh without jarḥ does not signify tawthīq. Many narrators are mentioned there without comment, yet al-Bukhārī criticized them in other works.

Another Munkar Ḥadīth from Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad:

Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in ʿIlal al-Ḥadīth (1/407): I heard my father and Abū Zurʿah mention the ḥadīth of Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah, from the Prophet ﷺ: “Marry the compatible (al-akfāʾ), and marry into them.” They both said: “This ḥadīth does not hold.” They said: “It was narrated by Jaʿfar ibn Khālid al-Zubayrī from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father. And it was narrated by Hishām ibn ʿAmmār, from al-Ḥakam ibn Hishām, from Mandal, from Hishām.” Abū Zurʿah said: “This ḥadīth is not ṣaḥīḥ.”

I say: This ḥadīth is extremely munkar. It was narrated by more than ten of the ruined and abandoned narrators from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah with this isnād. It is not authentic in any way. I have detailed this elsewhere, and all praise belongs to Allah.

The conclusion is that Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Khālid al-Zubayrī is munkar al-ḥadīth.

Written by: Khālid al-Ḥāyik

16/6/2010