The Book al-Fitan by Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah al-Marwazī, and al-Ḥākim’s narration from it.

Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah Abū Mālik al-Marwazī authored a book on al-Fitan (tribulations). He was an early scholar [died between 201–210 AH], originally from al-Baṣrah, where he studied under its scholars, then settled in Merv, narrating from its scholars. He also transmitted unusual (rare) ḥadīths.

Scholars have discussed him, and he was criticized by Ibn Ḥibbān. I have detailed this elsewhere, clarifying that he did not fabricate ḥadīths, and what he transmitted of strange or fabricated reports were brought to him, and he responded to them. While this is a flaw, he traveled and sought ḥadīth and had authentic narrations that agreed with others.

It seems that because of what he transmitted of unusual reports, this book did not become well-known among scholars.

This book was narrated from him by: Abū Naṣr Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī al-Marwazī, who was trustworthy and became known for transmitting this book al-Fitan, so people sought him out for it [Ikmāl, Ibn Mākūlā: 1/503].

Imām al-Ḥākim narrated in his Mustadrak, in Kitāb al-Fitan wa’l-Malāḥim, several ḥadīths from this book. Al-Ḥākim narrates the book from Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥalīm ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Maymūn al-Ṣāʾigh al-Marwazī, from Abū Naṣr Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Marwazī, from Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah.

Unfortunately, I found that no other scholar mentioned this book except Ibn Mākūlā, and only al-Ḥākim cited from it in his book.

It seems that due to distortions in al-Ḥākim’s chains of transmission, no contemporary students of knowledge referred to his narration from this book. Those who edited the book followed these distortions, as I will explain, and I do not know whether the distortions are in the original manuscripts.

The ḥadīths

First ḥadīth

Al-Ḥākim narrated in al-Mustadrak (4/469) (8304):

Al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥalīm al-Dihqān, in Merv, told us: Abū Naṣr Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm [al-Bukhtī]* – [al-Saddūsī] [al-Shadhūrī] – said: Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah told us, who said: Ḥammād ibn Salamah told us, who said: Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī told us.

Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Ṣanʿānī, in Mecca, told us: Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm told us: ʿAbd al-Razzāq narrated from Maʿmar from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: “O Abū Ḏarr, what will you do if people become so hungry that you cannot rise from your mosque to your bed, nor from your bed to your mosque?” I said: “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said: “You abstain.” Then he said: “What will you do if people die until the house is crowded?” I said: “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said: “You endure.” Then he said: “What will you do if people come until the ranks spill blood?” I said: “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said: “Approach whom you belong to.” I said: “And if they come against me?” He said: “If you fear the sword’s strike, throw a part of your cloak on your face, bearing your sin and his, and he will be among the people of the Fire.” I said: “Should I not take my weapon?” He said: “Then you share it.”

Al-Ḥākim said: “This ḥadīth is authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs, and al-Bukhārī narrated it from Ḥammām from Abū ʿImrān. He added in his chain between Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf, with additions in the text, and Ḥammād ibn Zayd is more reliable than Ḥammād ibn Salamah.”

Then he said (4/470) (8305):

Al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥalīm told us: Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī told us, who said: Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah told us, who said: Ḥammād ibn Zayd told us, who said: Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī told us, from al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: “O Abū Ḏarr…” and the narration continues with similar content regarding hunger, struggle, and protection by abstinence, advising him to throw his cloak on his face if attacked.

Distortion in attributing al-Ḥākim’s shaykh

I say: [*In all editions of al-Ḥākim’s book it reads: “Abū Naṣr Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Saddūsī,” and in some chains: “al-Shadhūrī.” Muqbil al-Wāḍiʿī mentioned in his book Rijāl al-Ḥākim fī al-Mustadrak (1/133) (237): “Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Saddūsī… in 4/429: Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Shadhūrī, also 433, 452; his teacher in all: Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah.”]

I say: al-Saddūsī is a known lineage, while “al-Shadhūrī” does not exist in genealogical or ḥadīth works.

I believe both attributions here are distortions. The correct one in the original is “al-Bukhtī,” as Ibn Mākūlā noted in Ikmāl (1/503), explaining:

“As for ‘al-Bukhtī’: the first letter is a Ḍammah, followed by a silent Kh, then a Tā’ with two dots above it, making him Bukhtī ibn ʿUmar al-Thaqafī, a Kufi from al-ʿAbbād, narrating from Muḥammad ibn al-Naḍr al-Ḥārithī, who was narrated from by Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī al-Jaʿfī. Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī, a trustworthy Marwazī Shaykh.”

He also mentioned him elsewhere (7/132): “Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Yūnus al-Fāzī al-Marwazī from the village of Fāz, narrated from Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī.”

Al-Samʿānī followed this in al-Ansāb (10/130): “Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Abī Yūnus al-Fāzī al-Marwazī, from the village of Fāz, narrates from Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī.”

Another distortion in the genealogy

In some chains in al-Ḥākim’s book, it appears as: “al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥakīm”! This is a distortion. The correct form is “ibn Ḥalīm” with a lām, not a kāf.

Ibn Mākūlā said in al-Ikmāl (2/492):

“As for Ḥalīm, with ḥā’ opened and lām… Abū Naṣr Muḥammad ibn Ḥalīm ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥalīm al-Marwazī narrated from ʿAlī ibn Ḥujr, Isḥāq ibn Manṣūr, and their peers. His son: Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥalīm, was mentioned among the descendants of Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh, and he narrated from Abū al-Muwajah, Saif ibn Rayḥān, Muḥammad ibn Ḥātim ibn al-Muẓaffar, Yūsuf ibn Yaʿqūb al-Qāḍī, and ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. He died at the end of Muḥarram 357 AH and was also a Marwazī.”

Al-Samʿānī in al-Ansāb (4/221) regarding the attribution “al-Ḥalīmī” said:

“With ḥā’ opened, lām kasrah, and yā’ with two dots below… As for the attribution to ‘Ḥalīm’: Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥalīm ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Maymūn al-Ṣāʾigh al-Ḥalīmī al-Marwazī, attributed to his grandfather Ḥalīm. He narrated the Musnad of Abū al-Muwajah Muḥammad ibn ʿAmr ibn al-Muwajah al-Fazārī, from whom al-Ḥākim, Abū ʿAbdullāh al-Ḥāfiẓ, and others narrated. He is called al-Ḥalīmī because of his grandfather.”

Distortion in al-Ḥākim’s statement

After citing the ḥadīth of Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, al-Ḥākim said:

“This ḥadīth is authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs, and al-Bukhārī narrated it from Ḥammām…”

The part “and al-Bukhārī narrated it from Ḥammām” is distorted!

Al-Bukhārī did not actually narrate this ḥadīth. Al-Ḥākim himself said before this: “according to the conditions of the two shaykhs,” meaning they did not narrate it. It is only authentic according to their conditions by his statement. Even if there was confusion, Ḥammād ibn Salamah and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit are not among al-Bukhārī’s conditions, so they were cited merely as transmitters, not as proof of authenticity.

Al-Ḥākim narrates it elsewhere in his book (2/169) (2666) from ʿAbd al-Razzāq, then says:

“This ḥadīth is authentic according to the conditions of the two shaykhs, though they did not narrate it; for Ḥammād ibn Zayd narrated it from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, who said: al-Munbaʿith ibn Ṭarīf – a qāḍī in Herāt – narrated from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr… similarly.”

Thus, al-Ḥākim’s statement “Ḥammād ibn Zayd narrated the ḥadīth from Abū ʿImrān…” is the correct chain.

Ḥabīb al-Raḥmān al-Aʿẓamī’s continuation of this distortion

He said in his commentary on Muṣannaf ʿAbd al-Razzāq (11/352), margin (3):

“…And al-Bukhārī narrated it via Ḥammād ibn Zayd from Abū ʿImrān from al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf, adding in the chain, and so did Ibn Mājah, p. 293, and al-Ḥākim narrated it via al-Muṣannaf 4:423.”

Al-Aʿẓamī followed what appears in the printed Mustadrak, because al-Ḥākim narrated it via ʿAbd al-Razzāq. If it had been in al-Bukhārī, he would have cited its location, or he either did not find it, or he relied on what was in al-Ḥākim’s book. Allah knows best.

Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah was corroborated

Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah’s narration of this ḥadīth from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, and also from Ḥammād ibn Zayd, was corroborated by others.

Ibn al-Mubārak narrated it from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr.

It was also narrated by Musaddad, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Malik, Abū Dāwūd al-Ṭayyālisī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdah al-Ḍabbī, Khallād ibn Yazīd, Aḥmad ibn al-Muqaddām al-ʿIjlī, and Abū al-Rabīʿ Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Zahrānī, all via Ḥammād ibn Zayd, from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, from al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr.

The disagreement is not between Ḥammād ibn Salamah and Ḥammād ibn Zayd as al-Ḥākim suggested by saying “Ḥammād ibn Zayd is more reliable than Ḥammād ibn Salamah.”

A group followed Ḥammād ibn Salamah, including Maʿmar ibn Rāshid, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd al-Ṣamad al-ʿAmmī, Ṣāliḥ ibn Rustum, Marḥūm ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Qurashī, and Abān ibn Yazīd al-ʿAṭṭār.

All of them opposed Ḥammād ibn Zayd.

Al-Bazzār, after citing the ḥadīth, said:

“This wording is known to be narrated only from Abū Ḏarr, and this ḥadīth is narrated from Abū ʿImrān, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit only by Ḥammād ibn Zayd, who mentioned al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf between Abū ʿImrān and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit.”

Elsewhere he said:

“This ḥadīth was narrated by a group from Abū ʿImrān, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr except Ḥammād ibn Zayd, who narrated it from Abū ʿImrān, from al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr.”

Abū Dāwūd said after narrating it:

“Al-Mushaʿthab is mentioned in this ḥadīth only by Ḥammād ibn Zayd.”

Was Ḥammād ibn Zayd mistaken? The alleged errors

I say: Based on general ḥadīth principles, Ḥammād ibn Zayd’s narration is considered reliable, not mistaken. Any addition of a transmitter between Abū ʿImrān and ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit falls under the category of “additional in a connected chain,” because Abū ʿImrān’s narration from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit is already connected. Thus, this addition is not a real error in the connected isnād; it belongs to this category.

Some scholars doubted Ḥammād ibn Zayd in certain cases because the collective narration was preferred over his, which is a correct logic.

Some scholars explicitly stated that Ḥammād ibn Zayd made mistakes in one or two ḥadīths.

Abū Bakr ibn Abī Khaythamah reported that his father and Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said:

“Ḥammād used to make mistakes in this ḥadīth — meaning — his narration from Abū Ḥāzim, from Sahl ibn Saʿd: that the Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: ‘When a servant reaches sixty years, Allah has excused him in life.’”

ʿUbaydullāh ibn ʿUmar al-Qawārīrī said he made a mistake in his narration from Ayyūb, from Ḥumayd ibn Hilāl or others, in the report:

“Zayd ibn Ṣūḥān was thrown on the day of the camel.”

This was narrated to us by ʿAbd al-Wārith and Ibn ʿUlayyah from Ayyūb similarly. ʿUbaydullāh said the correct version is from Ghailān. [Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 4/141]

Al-Kaʿbī, in his Qabūl al-Akhbār wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl (2/132), reports:

“Ibn Abī Khaythamah said: my father said Ḥammād ibn Zayd made mistakes in the ḥadīth. Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn was asked about Ḥammād ibn Zayd’s narration from Abū Ḥāzim, from Sahl ibn Saʿd, that the Prophet said: ‘When a servant reaches sixty years…’ and he said it was a mistake by Ḥammād ibn Zayd.

‘ʿUbaydullāh ibn ʿUmar narrated to us from Ḥammād ibn Zayd from Ayyūb, from Ḥumayd ibn Hilāl or others, that “Zayd ibn Ṣūḥān was thrown on the day of the camel…” then mentioned the ḥadīth. He said Ḥammād ibn Zayd erred; the correct version is from ʿAbd al-Wārith and Ibn ʿUlayyah, from Ayyūb, from Ghailān, similarly.

‘Ḥammād ibn Zayd narrated from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, from al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf, qāḍī of Herāt, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr, a long ḥadīth on patience. No one corroborated Ḥammād ibn Zayd on this narration. Abān ibn Yazīd al-ʿAṭṭār narrated it, but he did not mention al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf.

Abu Salamah narrated: Abān narrated from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr: I rode behind the Prophet on a donkey… then mentioned the ḥadīth.”

I say: What al-Kaʿbī mentioned from Ibn Abī Khaythamah is very valuable, especially regarding the last ḥadīth, but at the start he stated that Ḥammād ibn Zayd “made mistakes in ḥadīth” in a general sense. This is not correct. His comment was specifically about the ḥadīth mentioned afterwards, as shown in the previous transmission from Ikmāl:

“Ḥammād made mistakes in this ḥadīth — meaning — his narration from Abū Ḥāzim…”

So the statement is about that particular narration, not in general. The omission of “this” in al-Kaʿbī’s version might be accidental or deliberate; he wrote his book to criticize the scholars of ḥadīth.

Nevertheless, it provides us with the commentary of Yaḥyā — perhaps also that of Abī Khaythamah — on this last ḥadīth.

Did Ḥammād ibn Zayd make mistakes in his narrations?

Even if he did make a minor error, it does not impugn his reliability. Everyone can err; it is not a requirement for a trustworthy narrator to be absolutely infallible. The errors attributed to Ḥammād ibn Zayd are very few. In the first ḥadīth, the discrepancy is about the narrator, not Ḥammād ibn Zayd. The second ḥadīth is not a marfūʿ report but a story, and Ḥammād said: “from Ḥumayd ibn Hilāl or others,” indicating uncertainty. This is not considered an error.

Ḥammād ibn Zayd correctly preserved his narration from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī

Did Ḥammād ibn Zayd really make a mistake in his narration from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī?

A narration from Aḥmad ibn al-Muqaddām says:

“Ḥammād ibn Zayd narrated from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, who said: al-Mushaʿthab ibn Ṭarīf — a qāḍī in Herāt — narrated from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr.”

The introduction of Zayd ibn Ḥammād to this transmitter, and the mention that he was a qāḍī in Herāt, indicates that Ḥammād ibn Zayd preserved him accurately. He was praised by the imāms for his memorization, such as Ibn Mahdī and Ibn Maʿīn, and he was reliable.

Ibn Ḥibbān and Abū Bakr ibn Manjūwah said:

“He was blind but memorized all his ḥadīth.”

It is not easy for him to err in a narration, add a transmitter on his own, and provide his description. Such errors happen only to someone with poor memory. The qāḍī of Herāt appears only here, not in other chains, further confirming Ḥammād ibn Zayd’s accuracy.

Principle regarding ʿIlal (hidden defects)

If a narrator is cautious about raising ḥadīth and usually shortens chains, yet adds a transmitter here, this indicates his precision.

Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah said in his Musnad:

“Ḥammād ibn Zayd is more reliable than ibn Salamah, all trustworthy, though ibn Zayd is known to shorten chains and refrain from raising ḥadīth if doubtful. He was careful and had no book to refer to, so sometimes he would raise a ḥadīth, sometimes he would avoid it.” [Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 4/139]

Thus, when dealing with Ḥammād ibn Zayd, the absence of a reference book meant that if he hesitated about a narration, he did not raise it. His addition of a transmitter indicates not doubt or error, but rather his precision.

Who is Mushʿath ibn Ṭarīf? Fictional?

One might ask: Who is this man, the qāḍī of Herāt? And where did Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī hear from him? The scholars’ books mention him only through Ḥammād ibn Zayd’s narration!

I say: Yes, the scholars relied on this isnād when writing his biography. If Ḥammād had invented him, then he would be a purely fictional character!

Mushʿath — with a doubled ʿayn followed by a triple thā’ — is also said as Mishʿath (pattern: Mishraḥ), or Munbaʿath — with a silent nūn, a fully opened bā’, a broken ʿayn, followed by a triple thā’.

Al-Bukhārī in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (8/63) (2163) says:

“Mushʿath ibn Ṭarīf: from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū Ḏarr. Ḥammād ibn Zayd said: from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī.”

I say: It seems Bukhārī suspected Ḥammād ibn Zayd here!

Ibn Abī Ḥātim did not mention him in his book.

Ibn Ḥibbān in al-Thiqāt (7/524) (11286) says:

“Mushʿath ibn Ṭarīf was a qāḍī in Herāt. He narrated from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī.”

Muslim in al-Munfaridāt wa al-Waḥdān (p. 175) (713) says:

“Among those narrated independently by Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī is ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Ḥabīb… and Mushʿath ibn Ṭarīf, who was a qāḍī in Herāt.”

Abū al-Fatḥ al-Azdī in al-Waḥdān (p. 255) (492) says:

“Mushʿath ibn Ṭarīf, from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit; only Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī narrated from him.”

Later scholars did not add more, except al-Mizzī in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (28/8) citing Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad al-Asadī (Jazarah):

“He was qāḍī of Herāt, a distinguished rank among its people. No qāḍī in Khurāsān is known to be senior to him except Yaḥyā ibn Yaʿmar. Mushʿath was venerable, unparalleled among Khurāsān’s judges.”

This confirms his existence, that he was qāḍī of Herāt, and a respected figure.

Al-Dhahabī in al-Mīzān (4/117) (8551) says: “Not known.”

Ibn Ḥajar in al-Taqrīb (p. 945) (6680) says: “Qāḍī of Herāt is accepted, sixth category.”

I say: If one claimed Ḥammād ibn Zayd invented him, that would imply he is fictional. But the narrator Ṣāliḥ Jazarah confirms he was qāḍī of Herāt, which supports Ḥammād ibn Zayd’s narration. Therefore, Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī did meet him and heard from him in Herāt.

Zuhayr, from whom Abū ʿImrān narrated, was governor in Herāt

Al-Kaʿbī in Qabūl al-Akhbār wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl (2/229) (405) says:

“Zuhayr, from whom Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī narrated.”

He adds:

“Aḥmad said: I heard Abū ʿUbayd say: Zuhayr, from whom Abū ʿImrān narrated, is the father of al-Ṣaqʿab and al-ʿAlā’, and he was governor — I believe — in Herāt.”

This is an important report from Imām Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Salām. He confirms that this narrator, from whom Abū ʿImrān narrated, was the father of al-Ṣaqʿab and al-ʿAlā’, and he was governor in Herāt. Since Abū ʿUbayd was born in Herāt in 154 AH, he knew the local figures. This confirms that Abū ʿImrān entered Herāt, heard from Zuhayr (the governor or ruler), and also from its qāḍī Mushʿath ibn Ṭarīf.

Therefore, Ḥammād ibn Zayd did not err in the narration and preserved it accurately. Mushʿath ibn Ṭarīf’s status is largely unknown; we do not have other reports of him from ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Ṣāmit, and this narration contains some unusual details.

On Abū ʿImrān’s narration from Zuhayr

The narration of Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī from Zuhayr varies widely in his name:

Ḥammād ibn Zayd narrated from Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, from Zuhayr ibn ʿAbdullāh, raised to the Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam):

“Whoever sleeps on a ledge (ijjār) with nothing around to protect his feet, and dies, his liability is lifted; whoever sails on the sea in rough conditions, his liability is lifted.”

Hishām al-Dastawāʾī narrated similarly. Muḥammad ibn Thābit narrated similarly.

Shuʿbah narrated from Abū ʿImrān, from Muḥammad ibn Abī Zuhayr. Others said from Muḥammad ibn Zuhayr ibn Abī ʿAlī, or from Zuhayr ibn Abī Jabal. Abān narrated similarly from Abū ʿImrān.

Dūrī in Tārīkh Ibn Maʿīn (4/127) (3510) reports Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said regarding Ḥammād ibn Zayd, from Abū ʿImrān, from Zuhayr ibn ʿAbdullāh: “Mursal (disconnected).”

Ibn Abī Ḥātim in al-Marāsīl (211) says:

“I heard my father say: Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī from Zuhayr ibn ʿAbdullāh, from the Prophet (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam)… it is mursal.”

Ibn Ḥibbān in al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl (3/585) (2662) says:

“Zuhayr ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn Abī Jabal, a Basran, narrated from the Prophet: ‘Whoever sleeps on a ledge…’ Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī narrated from him; I heard my father say so.”

Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī was trustworthy and virtuous, narrating even from some obscure transmitters. He was ascetic and pious, often discussing wisdom, as noted by Abū Saʿīd ibn al-ʿArabī, and narrated some stories and prayers from the prophets of Banī Isrāʾīl, including the Isrāʾīliyyāt.

Ibn Khalfūn in al-Thiqāt reports that Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Baghdādī asked Muḥammad ibn Naṣr al-Tamīmī about Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī:

“He narrated from al-Ḥasan, but was not precise in ḥadīth; most of his narrations are delicate.” [Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 8/306]

It appears that when Abū ʿImrān narrated, he sometimes mentioned Mushʿath ibn Ṭarīf and sometimes did not. Ḥammād ibn Zayd preserved him accurately.

Note on errors in Mashāhīr and omission in al-Thiqāt

Ibn Ḥibbān in Mashāhīr ʿUlamā’ al-Amṣār (p. 96) (707) says:

“Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Ḥabīb al-Kindī, from the righteous people of Basra. Died 123 AH; he was 128 years old.”

In al-Thiqāt (5/117) (4126):

“ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Ḥabīb al-Kindī, Abū ʿImrān al-Jawnī, from Basra. Narrated from Anas ibn Mālik. Narrated from him: Ibn ʿAwn, Shuʿbah, and the Basrans. Died 123 AH; some said 128 AH.”

I say: What is written in Mashāhīr is a serious error. The correct date is 128 AH, and “twenty” was mistakenly omitted in al-Thiqāt.

Muġaltāy in al-Ikmāl (8/305) notes:

“Ibn Ḥibbān in al-Thiqāt said he died 123 AH. Al-Mizzī mentioned this. If one looks carefully at al-Thiqāt, one finds: he died 123 AH; some said 128 AH.”

Second ḥadīth

Al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak (4/475) (8320) reports:

Al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥalīm al-Marwazī informed us, saying: Ahmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī [printed as al-Shadhūrī — which is a corruption] informed us, saying: Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah informed us, saying: Ḥammād ibn Salamah informed us, saying: Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd informed us, from Abū al-Zubayr, from Abū al-Ṭufayl, who said: Ḥudhayfah said: “How are you while there is fitnah, yet you are its best among its people, and every wealthy person is hidden within it?” I said: “By Allāh, it is nothing but the giving of someone asleep, thrown here and there, and we aim at every target.” He said: “Should you not be like Ibn al-Labūn, with neither a back to ride nor a milk to be milked?”

Al-Ḥākim said: “This ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ in its isnād, and neither al-Bukhārī nor Muslim transmitted it.”

I say: Nuʿaym ibn Ḥammād narrated it in al-Fitan (1/76) (166) from ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Thaqafī. Ibn Abī Shaybah in al-Muṣannaf narrated it from Yazīd ibn Hārūn. Both are from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Anṣārī. These are mutābaʿāt (successive chains) of Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah from Ḥammād ibn Salamah. This isnād is authentic and mauqūf.

Third ḥadīth

Al-Ḥākim in al-Mustadrak (4/479) (8334) reports:

Al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥalīm al-Marwazī informed me, saying: Ahmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī [printed as al-Shadhūrī — a corruption] informed us, saying: Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah informed us, saying: Muḥammad ibn Sulaym informed us, saying: Qatādah informed us, from ʿAbdullāh ibn Shaqīq al-ʿUqaylī, from Murrah al-Bahzī, who said: The Messenger of Allāh (ṣallā Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) said: “Trials will open upon the earth like the spots on a cow’s hide.” Then a masked man passed by, and said: “This is truth on that day.” I approached him, grabbed the seams of his garment, and asked: “Is this him, O Messenger of Allāh?” He said: “Yes.” It was ʿUthmān.

Al-Ḥākim said: “This ḥadīth is Ṣaḥīḥ in its isnād, and neither al-Bukhārī nor Muslim transmitted it.”

I say: It was narrated by ʿAbdullāh ibn Ahmad in Ziyādātihi ʿalā Faḍāʾil al-Ṣaḥābah (1/449) (720) … and others — all following Saʿīd’s report via Abū Hilāl al-Rāsibī Muḥammad ibn Sulaym. Abū Hilāl is not strong; his solitary narration is not accepted. Its isnāds are very irregular.

Fourth ḥadīth

Al-Ḥākim narrated in al-Mustadrak (4/499) (8394):

Al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥalīm … said: ʿAbd al-Wārith ibn Saʿīd narrated to us, he said: Muḥammad ibn Juḥādah narrated to us, from Nuʿaym ibn Abī Hind, from Abū Ḥāzim, from al-Ḥusayn ibn Khārijah … [dream of the fitnah and counsel of Saʿd].

I say: Multiple routes follow Saʿīd’s report (Ibn ʿAsākir; Siyar; others), confirming the path through ʿAbd al-Wārith → Ibn Juḥādah. Al-Ḥusayn ibn Khārijah is only known through this; the chain details are discussed and his idrāk inferred.

Fifth ḥadīth

Al-Ḥākim (4/505) (8416):

“… Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī … Ḥammād ibn Zayd → Abū at-Tayyāḥ → [crowds around Abū Rajāʾ al-ʿAṭāridī] … ʿUbadah ibn al-Ṣāmit said: ‘It is about to be that the best wealth will be two flocks …’”

I say: This route is unique via Saʿīd from Ḥammād ibn Zayd; we do not know hearing of Abū Rajāʾ from ʿUbadah, making it at least mursal and gharīb.

Sixth ḥadīth

Al-Ḥākim (4/513) (8440):

“… Ḥammād ibn Salamah → Ayyūb → Abū Qilābah → Yazīd ibn ʿUmayrah → Muʿādh … ‘There will occur a tribulation … innovations are misguidance.’”

I say: There are follow-ups via Asad ibn Mūsā and Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā, but Ḥammād ibn Salamah was opposed by Ḥammād ibn Zayd and ʿUbayd Allāh ibn ʿAmr (mursal). The preserved form is mursal.

Seventh ḥadīth

Al-Ḥākim (4/520) (8459):

“… Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh → ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Ḥamzah → Sālim → his father (ʿAbdullāh) → ʿUmar … ‘The affair began with prophethood and mercy … then despotism … adhere to ribāṭ …’”

I say: Saʿīd uniquely transmits from Ismāʿīl here; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz is dubious; the report is not reliable.

Eighth ḥadīth

Al-Ḥākim (4/524) (8473–8474):

“… Ḥammād ibn Zayd, from ʿAlī ibn Zayd ibn Judʿān (and Saʿīd added Ayyūb erroneously) → Abū Naḍrah → ʿUthmān ibn Abī al-ʿĀṣ … three ‘Egypts’, terrors, famine … descent of ʿĪsā … slaying of the Dajjāl …”

I say: The preserved path is through ʿAlī ibn Zayd alone (very weak), without Ayyūb, as the follow-ups show (Ibn Abī Shaybah; Aḥmad; Abū Yaʿlā; al-Ṭabarānī). The report is not dependable.

Benefits of the research

• Saʿīd ibn Hubayrah authored a book on al-Fitan, only explicitly mentioned by Ibn Mākūlā; it remained little known.
• It was narrated by Abū Naṣr Aḥmad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Bukhtī al-Marwazī, a trustworthy transmitter sought out for this book.
• Al-Ḥākim narrated eight aḥādīth from this book in his Mustadrak (Kitāb al-Fitan wa’l-Malāḥim).
• The printed Mustadrak contains nisbah distortions: “al-Saddūsī / al-Shadhūrī”; the correct is “al-Bukhtī.” Another is “al-Ḥasan ibn Ḥakīm” → “ibn Ḥalīm.”
• A textual corruption attributes the report to al-Bukhārī; the correct reading cites Ḥammād ibn Zayd’s path.
• Across these eight reports: six have follow-ups, one is unique, and one is contradicted; collectively they are defective and weak.

Written by: Dr. Khālid al-Ḥāyik