Did ʿUthmān and Ziyād, the sons of Abū Sawdah, hear from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit? And did ʿUthmān hear from Abū Hurayrah? And other benefits.
Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt (4/260):
“Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, the brother of ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, from the people of Bayt al-Maqdis. His kunyah is Abū Naṣr. Their mother was a client of ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit, and their father was a client of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ. He narrates from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit. Zayd ibn Wāqid and the people of al-Shām narrated from him.
Al-Ṣūfī narrated to us: Abū Naṣr al-Tammār narrated to us: Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz narrated to us, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, that ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit sat on the eastern wall of Bayt al-Maqdis weeping. Some people said: ‘What makes you weep, O Abū al-Walīd?’ He said: ‘From here the Messenger of Allāh informed us that he saw Hellfire.’”
[Note: In the printed edition it reads “Ziyād from Abū Sawdah,” which is an error.]
Ibn Ḥibbān also said in al-Thiqāt (5/154):
“ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, the brother of Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah: he heard from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit. Their father was a client of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, and their mother was a client of ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit. He is counted among the people of Bayt al-Maqdis. Zayd ibn Wāqid and the people of al-Shām narrated from him.”
An error by Ibn Ḥibbān
I say: Ibn Ḥibbān’s statement “he heard from ʿUbādah” is incorrect. The scholars agree that he merely met him, and they did not establish hearing from ʿUbādah.
Al-Awzāʿī said:
“ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah met ʿUbādah, and he was his client.”
Abū Mushir said:
“ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah was older than Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, and ʿUthmān met ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit.” (Tārīkh Dimashq 38/373)
I say: ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah was a companion of ʿAṭāʾ al-Khurāsānī (d. 135 AH) [al-Maʿrifah wa’l-Tārīkh by Yaʿqūb: 2/218]. The birth of ʿAṭāʾ was around 50 AH, so ʿUthmān would be close to his age. Thus, he could not have heard from ʿUbādah, since there is disagreement about ʿUbādah’s death—some say 34 AH, others say 45 AH.
Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah did not hear from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit
Accordingly, even the possibility that he met ʿUbādah is questionable, and hearing from him is certainly not established. Since ʿUthmān was older than his brother Ziyād, Ziyād’s hearing from ʿUbādah is invalid, and even his meeting him is unlikely.
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in al-Marāsīl (p. 61):
“I asked my father about Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah. He said: ‘I do not think he heard from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit.’”
What also indicates that ʿUthmān did not hear from ʿUbādah is that he narrates from him through an intermediary.
Al-Dāraquṭnī reported in al-Sunan (1/320), through Zayd ibn Wāqid, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, from Nāfiʿ ibn Maḥmūd, who said: “I came to ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit,” then he mentioned the ḥadīth of reciting al-Fātiḥah.
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr reported in al-Tamhīd (5/338) from al-Awzāʿī, who said:
“ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah informed me. He said: Someone who heard ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit narrated to me that he said: I heard the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ say: ‘Indeed, Allāh conceals a servant’s sin so long as he does not tear the veil.’ They said: ‘How does he tear it, O Messenger of Allāh?’ He said: ‘By telling people about it.’”
A possible error by al-Bukhārī and those who followed him
Al-Bukhārī said in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (3/357):
“Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, from Abū Hurayrah. Thawr ibn Yazīd, Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, and Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz narrated from him.”
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in al-Jarḥ wa’l-Taʿdīl (3/534):
“Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah narrated from Abū Hurayrah and from his brother ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah. I do not think he heard from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit. Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Tanūkhī, Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, and Thawr ibn Yazīd narrated from him.” I heard my father say that.
Al-Dhahabī said in al-Kāshif (1/410):
“Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah al-Maqdisī, from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit and Abū Hurayrah.”
Al-Mizzī said in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (9/480):
“Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, Abū al-Minhāl—also said Abū Naṣr—al-Maqdisī, the brother of ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah. He narrated from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit, his brother ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, Abū ʿImrān al-Anṣārī, Abū Maryam al-Shāmī, Abū Hurayrah, and Maymūnah the servant of the Prophet ﷺ…”
I say: It seems that al-Bukhārī’s statement—and those who followed him—“he narrated from Abū Hurayrah” is an error. The one who narrated from Abū Hurayrah was his brother ʿUthmān. No earlier scholar mentioned that Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah narrated from Abū Hurayrah. Thus, it appears that al-Bukhārī was mistaken due to that, and Allāh knows best.
An error by Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim in authenticating a disconnected report of Ziyād from ʿUbādah
Ibn Ḥibbān reported in his Ṣaḥīḥ (16/505) and al-Ṭabarānī in Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn (1/197), through Abū Naṣr al-Tammār, from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah:
“That ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit stood on the eastern wall of Bayt al-Maqdis and wept…”
Al-Ḥākim reported it in al-Mustadrak (4/646) through ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yūsuf, from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Tanūkhī, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, saying:
“ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit—may Allāh be pleased with him—was on the wall of Bayt al-Maqdis…”
Al-Ḥākim said:
“This ḥadīth has an authentic chain, and they did not report it.”
Al-Ṭabarānī also reported it through al-Walīd ibn Muslim, from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah.
I say: It has become clear that Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah did not hear from ʿUbādah, so the chain is disconnected. Some versions explicitly indicate this. ʿAbd al-Aʿlā ibn Mushir narrated from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, who said:
“ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit was seen on the eastern wall of the mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis, weeping.”
This is how it appears in the copy of Abū Mushir ʿAbd al-Aʿlā (p. 31), but the printed edition has “I saw ʿUbādah,” which is incorrect. The correct wording is “he was seen,” as found with al-Ḍiyāʾ in al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtārah (8/285) and Ibn ʿAsākir in his Tārīkh (21/194) through ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Qāsim.
Ibn Ḥibbān defended his authentication, saying after narrating it:
“This report refutes the claim of one who alleged that this report was uniquely narrated by Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah.”
He then cited a report through al-Walīd ibn Muslim, from al-Awzāʿī, from Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr, from Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, who said:
“ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit was seen on the eastern wall of Bayt al-Maqdis, weeping…”
I say: Abū Salamah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf did not hear from ʿUbādah.
Al-Dhahabī said in al-Siyar (4/287), in the biography of Abū Salamah:
“He narrated from… and from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit—mursal.”
I think the real defect here is al-Walīd ibn Muslim. He was a mudallis, and he alone narrated this from al-Awzāʿī without stating hearing, so such a report is not accepted from him.
Al-Ḥākim also reported in al-Mustadrak (2/521), through Ḍamrah ibn Rabīʿah, from Muḥammad ibn Maymūn, from Bilāl ibn ʿAbd Allāh, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, who said:
“I saw ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit—may Allāh be pleased with him—in the mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis, facing the east or the wall—I am unsure—while he was weeping…”
Al-Ḥākim said:
“This ḥadīth has an authentic chain, and they did not report it.”
Al-Dhahabī objected in al-Talkhīṣ, saying:
“Rather, it is rejected, and its ending is false, because ʿUbādah did not meet the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ there. And who is Ibn Maymūn and his shaykh? In the copy of Abū Mushir, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, it says: ‘ʿUbādah was seen on the wall of Bayt al-Maqdis weeping…’ This mursal report is better.”
Explaining al-Dhahabī’s statement: “This mursal report is better”
I say: His statement “better” does not mean that he accepted it. Rather, he is comparing it with the other chain containing unknown narrators. Abū Mushir’s chain is known but mursal; thus it is better than the first, yet still rejected.
The biography of Bilāl, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, and Muḥammad ibn Maymūn
Al-Bukhārī said in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (2/109):
“Bilāl, the muʾadhdhin of the mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis….”
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in al-Jarḥ wa’l-Taʿdīl (2/396):
“Bilāl, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, narrated from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit. Muḥammad ibn Maymūn narrated from him.”
Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt (4/66).
Al-Bukhārī said in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (1/233):
“Muḥammad ibn Maymūn narrated from Bilāl, the muʾadhdhin of the mosque of Damascus…”
Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in al-Jarḥ wa’l-Taʿdīl (8/80):
“Muḥammad ibn Maymūn… he is unknown.”
Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt (9/49).
I say: In the printed editions of al-Bukhārī and Ibn Ḥibbān it says “the mosque of Damascus,” which is incorrect. The correct wording is “the mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis.”
Muḥammad ibn Maymūn and his shaykh Bilāl are both unknown, known only through this report. Had their report not been rejected, Ibn Ḥibbān’s inclusion of them in al-Thiqāt would have been consistent. But due to the rejection of the report and the lack of recognition of these narrators among the scholars, their report is rejected. Ibn Ḥibbān thus violated one of his own five conditions for accepting the narration of someone included in al-Thiqāt, namely the absence of nakārah (rejection). He did not notice the rejection of this report and therefore included them in al-Thiqāt, which was an error.
The usual practice of Ibn Ḥibbān is that he does not examine the narrations of those he includes in al-Thiqāt, but rather transmits most of these biographies from al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr of al-Bukhārī and al-Jarḥ wa’l-Taʿdīl of Ibn Abī Ḥātim. Therefore, Ibn Ḥibbān’s own conditions, which he stipulated in al-Thiqāt for accepting the narrations of such people, must be applied. If a condition is violated, that must be pointed out. And Allāh knows best and is Most Wise.
An error by Ibn Ḥibbān!
Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned “Bilāl, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, from ʿUbādah,” then he also mentioned in al-Thiqāt (5/572):
“Abū al-Zubayr, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, narrates from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit. The people of Palestine narrated from him.”
I say: This is an error on his part—may Allāh have mercy on him. Abū al-Zubayr, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, narrates from ʿUmar. It seems that it remained fixed in his mind that he narrated from ʿUbādah simply because he was the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, whereas the one who narrates from ʿUbādah is Bilāl, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, as mentioned in the report.
Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar said in al-Iṣābah (7/164):
“Abū al-Zubayr, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis. He attained [the era], and he used to call the adhān in the time of ʿUmar. Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥākim reported in al-Kunā through Marḥūm ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿAṭṭār, from his father, from Abū al-Zubayr, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, who said: ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb came to us and said: ‘When you give the adhān, recite calmly; and when you pronounce the iqāmah, do it quickly.’”
An error by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān al-ʿAnsī al-Dimashqī in this ḥadīth!
Abū Nuʿaym reported in al-Ḥilyah (6/110) and (8/332), and al-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī in al-Aḥādīth al-Mukhtārah (8/332), through Sulaymān ibn Aḥmad al-Ṭabarānī, from al-Ḥusayn ibn Isḥāq al-Tustarī, from Abū Umayyah ʿAmr ibn Hishām al-Dūraqī al-Ḥarrānī, from ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ṭarāʾifī, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, from his brother ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, who said:
“I saw ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit while he was on this wall—the wall of the mosque overlooking the Valley of Hell—placing his chest against it and weeping. I said: ‘O Abū al-Walīd, what makes you weep?’ He said: ‘This is the place where the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ informed us that he saw Hell.’”
Al-Ṭarāʾifī was followed in this by Yazīd ibn Khālid ibn Murashshal al-Yāfiʿī, who is ṣadūq.
Al-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī reported it in Faḍāʾil Bayt al-Maqdis (p. 45) through Mūsā ibn Sahl, from Yazīd ibn Khālid ibn Murashshal, from ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān, with it.
Thus, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān added in the chain: “from his brother ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah,” whereas what is preserved is without mentioning him, as has already been clarified.
This Ibn Thawbān is soft in ḥadīth, and he erred here.
A scribal corruption in the original of al-Ṭabarānī’s book, and al-Haythamī’s failure to notice it!
This ḥadīth reported by Abū Nuʿaym and al-Ḍiyāʾ through al-Ṭabarānī appears to be from the missing portion of al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr. In their versions it reads: “Yazīd ibn Abī Sawdah,” following what was in al-Ṭabarānī’s original. Because of this, al-Haythamī said in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid (10/386):
“And from Yazīd ibn Abī Sawdah, who said: I saw ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit while he was on the wall of the mosque… It was reported by al-Ṭabarānī. I do not know Yazīd, and in it are weak narrators who have been declared reliable.”
Note:
Al-Ṭabarānī reported this ḥadīth in Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn (1/143) from Anas ibn Sulaym al-Khawlānī, who said: Abū Umayyah ʿAmr ibn Hishām al-Ḥarrānī narrated to us; he said: ʿUthmān ibn Muḥammad al-Ṭarāʾifī narrated to us, from Ibn Thawbān, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, who said: “I saw ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit…”
Thus, “from his brother ʿUthmān” fell out of its chain, and the correct version is to affirm it. It appears that it dropped from the printed copy or the base manuscript. Also, what appears in the chain as “ʿUthmān ibn Muḥammad” is an error; the correct name is “ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān.”
Rudayḥ ibn ʿAṭiyyah’s contradiction of others in this ḥadīth!
Al-Ṭabarānī reported in Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn (1/198) from Yaḥyā ibn Ayyūb al-ʿAllāf al-Miṣrī, who said: Mahdī ibn Jaʿfar al-Ramlī narrated to us; he said: Rudayḥ ibn ʿAṭiyyah narrated to us, from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from Abū al-ʿAwwām, who said:
“I saw ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit east of Bayt al-Maqdis. I said: ‘O Abū al-Walīd, what makes you weep?’ He said: ‘How can I not weep, when I heard the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ say: “This is the Valley of Hell.”’”
Al-Ṭabarī reported it in his Tafsīr (27/225) from Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAṭiyyah ibn Rudayḥ ibn ʿAṭiyyah, who said: My uncle Muḥammad ibn Rudayḥ ibn ʿAṭiyyah narrated to me—from Rudayḥ— from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from Abū al-ʿAwwām, from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit, that he used to say regarding the verse {Its inner side contains mercy, and its outer side—facing it—is punishment}: “This is the Gate of Mercy.”
I say: What is preserved in this ḥadīth is: from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from Ziyād ibn Abī Sawdah, that ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit…
Thus, Rudayḥ ibn ʿAṭiyyah contradicted it, and it seems that one chain entered into another for him. Rudayḥ is ṣadūq, among the righteous people of Palestine, but he used to narrate odd reports, as Ibn Ḥibbān said in Mashāhīr ʿUlamāʾ al-Amṣār (p. 184). Al-Azdī said: “He is not followed in what he narrates” (Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 3/234).
Al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān (3/73): “Abū Ḥātim declared him reliable, and others softened him slightly.”
Ibn Ḥajar said in al-Taqrīb (p. 209): “Rudayḥ—ending with a diminutive hāʾ—ibn ʿAṭiyyah al-Qurashī, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis; ṣadūq, narrates odd reports, from the eighth [generation].”
Note:
The editor of Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn, Shaykh Ḥamdī al-Salafī, did not notice this contradiction. Rather, he did not recognize this “Abū al-ʿAwwām” at all!
I say: Abū al-ʿAwwām is well known; he was the custodian of Bayt al-Maqdis and a companion of ʿUmar and Muʿādh ibn Jabal, though his name is not known.
The report concerning the interpretation of His statement, Exalted is He: {Then a wall will be set up between them with a gate; its inner side containing mercy}.
Al-Ḥākim reported in al-Mustadrak (4/643) through ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yūsuf al-Tanīsī, and Ibn ʿAsākir in his Tārīkh (21/43) through Abū Mushir ʿAbd al-Aʿlā ibn Mushir—both from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Tanūkhī, from ʿAṭiyyah ibn Qays al-Kilābī, from Abū al-ʿAwwām, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, who said:
“I heard ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr—may Allāh be pleased with them both—say: ‘Indeed, the wall which Allāh mentioned in the Qurʾān—{Then a wall will be set up between them with a gate; its inner side containing mercy and its outer side—facing it—punishment}—is the eastern wall. Its inner side is the mosque and what is adjacent to it, and its outer side is the Valley of Hell.’”
Al-Ḥākim said:
“This ḥadīth has an authentic chain, and they did not report it.”
Al-Ḍiyāʾ al-Maqdisī reported it in Faḍāʾil Bayt al-Maqdis (p. 46) through Ṣadaqah ibn Yazīd, from Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, from ʿAṭiyyah ibn Qays, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ.
This is how it appears in the printed edition, without mentioning “from Abū al-ʿAwwām.” Perhaps it fell out of the copy; Allāh knows best.
Al-Ṭabarī reported it in his Tafsīr (27/225) from Ibn al-Barqī, who said: ʿAmr ibn Abī Salamah narrated to us, from Saʿīd ibn ʿAṭiyyah ibn Qays, from Abū al-ʿAwwām, the muʾadhdhin of Bayt al-Maqdis, who said: I heard ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ say the same.
I say: Saʿīd—also said to be Saʿd—is the son of ʿAṭiyyah ibn Qays al-Kilābī. I do not know whether his mention is preserved correctly in the chain.
If we rely on the first chain, then it is an authentic chain to ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr, and it is from what he narrated of the Isrāʾīliyyāt that he possessed.
This has also been narrated from Kaʿb al-Aḥbār. Al-Ṭabarī reported in his Tafsīr (27/225) from Muḥammad ibn ʿAwf, who said: Abū al-Mughīrah narrated to us; he said: Ṣafwān narrated to us; he said: Shurayḥ narrated to us that Kaʿb used to say regarding the gate in Bayt al-Maqdis:
“It is the gate which Allāh mentioned: {Then a wall will be set up between them with a gate; its inner side containing mercy and its outer side—facing it—is punishment}.”
Ibn Kathīr said in his Tafsīr (4/310):
“It has been narrated from ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit, Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, and ʿAlī ibn al-Ḥusayn Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn something similar. This is to be understood from them as intending an approximation of the meaning and an example thereof, not that the specific wall itself was what the Qurʾān intended—namely this particular wall and the mosque itself and what lies beyond it of the valley known as the Valley of Hell. For Paradise is in the heavens, in the highest heights, and Hellfire is in the lowest depths. As for Kaʿb al-Aḥbār’s statement that the gate mentioned in the Qurʾān is the Gate of Mercy, which is one of the gates of the mosque, then this is from his Isrāʾīliyyāt and his trifles. Rather, what is meant is a wall that will be set up on the Day of Resurrection to separate the believers from the hypocrites…”
I say: This has not been established from ʿUbādah, as has already been clarified. It seems that al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr relied on the soundness of what was narrated from him; hence he said that it should be understood as an approximation of meaning. What is strange is that he grouped Kaʿb al-Aḥbār with them in this interpretation, then said that it is from his Isrāʾīliyyāt and trifles! The correct view is that whoever among the Companions from whom this is established only took it from the books of the People of the Book and from Kaʿb al-Aḥbār.
Did ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah hear from Abū Hurayrah?!
Al-Bukhārī said in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (6/226):
“ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah from Umm al-Dardāʾ—may Allāh be pleased with her. Muḥammad ibn al-Muthannā said: Yūsuf ibn Yaʿqūb Abū Yaʿqūb narrated to us: he heard Abū Sinān ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, from Abū Hurayrah—may Allāh be pleased with him—from the Prophet ﷺ, who said: ‘Allāh said: Whoever I take away his two beloved ones and he is patient and seeks reward, I will not be pleased for him with any reward except Paradise.’ Hishām said: Ṣadaqah narrated to us: Zayd ibn Wāqid narrated to us, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah: My mother, Umm Sawdah, belonged to ʿUbādah ibn al-Ṣāmit—may Allāh be pleased with him—and my father belonged to ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ—may Allāh be pleased with them both. I think he is the brother of Ziyād, the Shāmī.”
I say: Al-Bukhārī alluded in this biography to several matters:
The lack of establishment of ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah’s narration from Umm al-Dardāʾ, who was the younger among the tābiʿāt. He lived in her time and was even of her generation, yet I have not come across this indicated narration.
The lack of establishment of ʿĪsā ibn Sinān’s narration from ʿUthmān. What ʿĪsā narrated from him—this ḥadīth from Abū Hurayrah—is unique to him.
There is no known hearing of ʿUthmān from Abū Hurayrah. Abū Hurayrah died in 57 or 58 AH. Even if ʿUthmān met Abū Hurayrah, he certainly did not hear from him.
Accordingly, what Abū Sinān narrated from ʿUthmān is questionable, because these aḥādīth which he narrated from him are unique to him, and none of the people of al-Shām followed him in them. Moreover, these aḥādīth are not known among the Syrians to be narrated from Abū Hurayrah through this route.
This ḥadīth which al-Bukhārī mentioned here is preserved from the narration of Abū Ṣāliḥ from Abū Hurayrah, raising it to the Prophet ﷺ:
“Allāh, Mighty and Majestic, says: Whoever I take away his two beloved ones and he is patient and seeks reward, I will not be pleased for him with any reward short of Paradise.”
It is an authentic ḥadīth through this route.
Al-Bukhārī did not establish ʿĪsā ibn Sinān’s hearing from ʿUthmān. Hence he said in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (6/396):
“ʿĪsā ibn Sinān Abū Sinān al-Shāmī al-Qismalī, from al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah and Yaʿlā ibn Shaddād. Ḥammād ibn Salamah and ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus narrated from him.”
I say: ʿĪsā ibn Sinān Abū Sinān al-Shāmī al-Filasṭīnī is weak, not strong.
Abū Bakr al-Athram said: I said to Abū ʿAbd Allāh—meaning Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal—about Abū Sinān ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, and he declared him weak.
Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said: “Weak.”
Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said: “Not strong in ḥadīth.”
Abū Zurʿah said: “Confused, weak in ḥadīth.”
Al-Nasāʾī said: “Weak.”
Al-ʿIjlī said: “There is no harm in him.”
Al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān (5/377): “Aḥmad and Ibn Maʿīn weakened him. He is among those whose ḥadīth is written despite his softness, and some slightly strengthened him.”
Ibn Ḥajar said in al-Taqrīb (p. 438):
“ʿĪsā ibn Sinān al-Ḥanafī Abū Sinān al-Qismalī— with a fatḥah on the qāf, a sukūn on the muhmala, a fatḥah on the mīm, and a light lām— a Palestinian who settled in Baṣrah; soft in ḥadīth, from the sixth generation.”
An error by Muslim, Ibn Ḥibbān, al-Dāraquṭnī, Ibn Mākūlā, Ibn Khirāsh, and al-Dhahabī in separating ʿĪsā ibn Sinān from Abū Sinān al-Qismalī!
Imām Muslim said in al-Kunā (1/402):
“Abū Sinān ʿĪsā ibn Sinān: he heard Yaʿlā ibn Shaddād and al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus narrated from him.”
Then he said:
“Abū Sinān ʿĪsā ibn Sulaymān al-Qismalī, from Abū Ṭalḥah al-Khawlānī. Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated from him.”
Ibn ʿAsākir said in Tārīkh Dimashq (47/305):
“Thus he separated them, but they are one person. He erred in saying ‘ibn Sulaymān’; rather, he is ibn Sinān.”
I say: It appears that Muslim relied on someone who named his father Sulaymān. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (8/189) that al-Fallās named his father Salmān.
Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt (7/235):
“Abū Sinān al-Shāmī, his name is ʿĪsā ibn Sinān al-Qismalī. He used to reside among the Qasāmilah in Baṣrah and was attributed to them. He narrates from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah and Yaʿlā ibn Shaddād. Ḥammād ibn Salamah and ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus narrated from him.”
Then he said:
“ʿĪsā ibn Sinān narrates from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, from Abū Hurayrah. ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus narrated from him.”
Abū al-Ḥasan al-Dāraquṭnī said: “ʿĪsā ibn Sinān,” and elsewhere he said: “Abū Sinān al-Qismalī.”
Ibn Mākūlā said:
“As for Sinān with two nūns, he is Abū Sinān al-Qismalī.”
Then a few lines later he said:
“Abū Sinān, from Yaʿlā ibn Shaddād and al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab. It is said that his name is ʿĪsā ibn Sinān. Ḥammād ibn Salamah and ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus narrated from him.”
Thus they spoke of them as two, while they are one person.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Yūsuf ibn Saʿīd ibn Khirāsh said:
“Abū Sinān ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, a Baṣran, ṣadūq.”
Then he said later:
“Abū Sinān ʿĪsā ibn Sinān. Ḥammād ibn Salamah, Abū Usāmah, and ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus ibn Abī al-Ḥajjāj narrated from him. In his ḥadīth there is rejection.” (Tārīkh Dimashq 47/307)
Al-Dhahabī said in al-Muqtaṇā fī Sard al-Kunā (1/295):
“ʿĪsā ibn Sinān al-Qismalī al-Shāmī, from al-Ḍaḥḥāk.”
Then he said:
“Abū Sinān al-Qismalī, from Wahb ibn Munabbih.”
ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad said in al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-Rijāl (3/312):
“I asked my father. I said: A shaykh from whom Abū Usāmah narrated—he is called ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, who narrated from ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-Majīd? He said: ‘He is ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, Abū Sinān al-Qismalī. Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated from him.’”
Aḥādīth of Abū Sinān from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah from Abū Hurayrah:
1) ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, from Abū Hurayrah (may Allāh be pleased with him), from the Prophet ﷺ, who said:
“Allāh said: Whoever I take away his two beloved ones and he remains patient and seeks reward, I will not be pleased for him with any reward except Paradise.”
Al-Bukhārī narrated it in the biography of ʿĪsā, and discussion of it has already passed.
ʿUthmān’s narration from Abū Hurayrah is disconnected… and the well-known ḥadīth:
“If a Muslim visits his brother for the sake of Allāh, or visits him while he is ill, Allāh says: You have done well, your walking is blessed, and you have taken a dwelling in Paradise”
is weak and not authentic!
2) Ibn al-Mubārak narrated in his Musnad (p. 4) from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Abū Sinān al-Shāmī, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, from Abū Hurayrah, who said that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said:
“If a Muslim visits his brother for the sake of Allāh, or visits him while he is ill, Allāh says: You have done well, your walking is blessed, and you have taken a dwelling in Paradise.”
Al-Bukhārī narrated it in al-Adab al-Mufrad (p. 126) from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUthmān, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak, with it.
Aḥmad narrated it in al-Musnad (2/326), (2/344), and (2/354) from Mūsā ibn Dāwūd, ʿAffān, and Ḥasan, from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, with it.
Ibn Mājah narrated it in al-Sunan (1/464) from Muḥammad ibn Bashshār, from Yūsuf ibn Yaʿqūb, from Abū Sinān al-Qismalī, likewise.
Al-Tirmidhī narrated it in al-Jāmiʿ (4/365) from Muḥammad ibn Bashshār and al-Ḥusayn ibn Abī Kabshah al-Baṣrī; both said: Yūsuf ibn Yaʿqūb al-Sadūsī narrated to us; he said: Abū Sinān al-Qismalī narrated to us, likewise.
Abū ʿĪsā said:
“This is a ḥasan gharīb ḥadīth. Abū Sinān’s name is ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, and Ḥammād ibn Salamah has narrated from Thābit, from Abū Rāfiʿ, from Abū Hurayrah, from the Prophet ﷺ something similar to this.”
I say: This is how it appears in the printed edition of al-Tirmidhī: “ḥasan gharīb.” Al-Mizzī transmitted in Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf (10/248) and Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (19/388) that he said: “gharīb,” without the word ḥasan. Al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar نقل in al-Fatḥ (10/500) from al-Tirmidhī that he graded it ḥasan, apparently relying on the copy that includes its grading as ḥasan, as al-Mundhirī did in al-Targhīb. The correct position is what al-Mizzī transmitted, because he was the one who precisely ضبط the gradings of al-Tirmidhī in his Tuḥfah.
Ibn Ḥibbān narrated it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (7/228) from ʿImrān ibn Mūsā ibn Mujāshiʿ, from ʿAbd al-Wāḥid ibn Ghiyāth, from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Abū Sinān, likewise.
Abū Ḥātim Ibn Ḥibbān said:
“This Abū Sinān is al-Shaybānī; his name is Saʿīd ibn Sinān. Abū Sinān al-Kūfī’s name is Ḍirār ibn Murrah.”
I say: This is an error. The correct name is ʿĪsā ibn Sinān.
The ḥadīth is weak. If it is said: You stated that al-Bukhārī indicated that ʿUthmān’s narration from Abū Hurayrah is not authentic and is disconnected—so why did he include it in al-Adab al-Mufrad?
I answer: His condition in al-Adab is not like his condition in the Ṣaḥīḥ. He may include weak narrations in order to support the basis of a chapter heading. He placed it under “Chapter: Visiting”, then followed it with “Chapter: The Virtue of Visiting”, in which he cited the ḥadīth of Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Thābit, from Abū Rāfiʿ, from Abū Hurayrah, from the Prophet ﷺ:
“A man set out to visit a brother of his in another village. Allāh appointed for him an angel on his path. When he came to him, he said: ‘Where are you going?’ He said: ‘I am going to a brother of mine in this village.’ He said: ‘Do you have any favor over him that you are repaying?’ He said: ‘No, except that I love him for the sake of Allāh.’ He said: ‘I am a messenger from Allāh to you that Allāh loves you as you love him.’”
Muslim narrated it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (4/1988). It suffices in place of the ḥadīth of Abū Sinān.
Look—may Allāh preserve you—at this ḥadīth which carries the light of Prophethood: it indicates that the man endured the hardship of travel to visit someone he loved while he was far away, “in another village.” As for the ḥadīth of Abū Sinān, even though it contains good wording, it is general regarding visitation, unlike this one, and it assigns an immense reward—taking a dwelling in Paradise. Because of its weakness, al-Bukhārī did not mention it under “The Virtue of Visiting.” And Allāh knows best.
Nevertheless, Shaykh al-Albānī graded the ḥadīth ḥasan in several places in his books, and that grading is questionable.
3) Ibn Mājah narrated in his Sunan (2/1251) from Abū Bakr ibn Abī Shaybah, from ʿAffān, from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Abū Sinān, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, from Abū Hurayrah:
“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ passed by him while he was planting some plants. He said: ‘O Abū Hurayrah, what are you planting?’ I said: ‘Plants for myself.’ He said: ‘Shall I direct you to a planting better than this?’ I said: ‘Yes, O Messenger of Allāh.’ He said: ‘Say: Subḥān Allāh, al-ḥamdu liLlāh, lā ilāha illā Allāh, Allāhu akbar—for each one a tree will be planted for you in Paradise.’”
It is also in Ibn Abī Shaybah’s Muṣannaf (2/1251).
Shaykh al-Albānī authenticated it in Ṣaḥīḥ Sunan Ibn Mājah!!
Al-Ḥākim narrated it in al-Mustadrak (1/693) through Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Khuzāʿī, from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, with it.
Al-Ḥākim said:
“This ḥadīth has an authentic chain, and they did not narrate it. It has a supporting narration from Jābir.”
A rebuttal of Dr. Bashshār Maʿrūf
Al-Khaṭīb narrated it in Tārīkh Baghdād (Salafī edition, 4/400) through Abū Jaʿfar Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Bulbul al-Barbarī, known as al-Muzayyin, from Bassām al-Kayyāl, from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Thābit al-Bunānī, from al-Ḥasan, from Abū Hurayrah, with similar wording.
Dr. Bashshār Maʿrūf said in his edited version of Tārīkh Baghdād (6/73):
“Its chain is weak: Bassām al-Kayyāl—the transporter—has criticism, as will come in his biography in this book; and in its chain is al-Ḥasan, who is a mudallis and has narrated with ʿanʿanah, and his ʿanʿanah from Companions is problematic.”
I say: The ʿanʿanah of al-Ḥasan has no relevance here. This chain is extremely rejected. Ibn Bulbul alone narrated it and erred in its chain. What is preserved is from the ḥadīth of Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Abū Sinān, from ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah, from Abū Hurayrah. That is why al-Khaṭīb included it in his book—it is among the solitary, odd, rejected narrations.
The ḥadīth of Abū Sinān has clear repudiation: Abū Hurayrah never owned any plantings in Madīnah; rather, he was poor and lived with the People of the Ṣuffah in the mosque of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.
The narrations of Abū Sinān are few, as the scholars stated, and most of them concern virtues and matters related to entering Paradise. It is also noticeable that he seems “specialized” in narrating ḥadīth qudsī!
When critics observe that a narrator’s reports overwhelmingly concern one specific issue, they discard his narrations—because it is implausible that all he possesses are reports on that single matter.
This narrator, ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, has few narrations, most of them about entering Paradise, and three of them are ḥadīth qudsī. Authentic ḥadīth qudsī are very few—so how could a single narrator uniquely transmit three of them?! They are:
“Allāh said: Whoever I take away his two beloved ones…”
“Allāh said: You have done well… and you have taken a dwelling in Paradise.”
The ḥadīth: “…Build for him a house and name it the House of Praise” is weak and not authentic
3) Among them is what al-Ṭayālisī narrated in his Musnad (1/69) from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Abū Sinān, who said:
“I buried my son Sinān while Abū Ṭalḥah al-Khawlānī was sitting at the edge of the grave. He said: al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān narrated to me, from Abū Mūsā, who said that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: When Allāh takes the child of a servant, He says to His angels: What did My servant say? They say: He praised You and said the istirjāʿ. He says: Build for him a house and name it the House of Praise.”
In Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān it reads: “I buried my son as a youth.”
Imām Aḥmad narrated it in his Musnad (4/415) from Yaḥyā ibn Isḥāq al-Sāliḥīnī, from Ḥammād, with the wording:
“Allāh said: O Angel of Death, you took the child of My servant—you took the comfort of his eye and the fruit of his heart. He said: Yes. He said: What did My servant say? He said: He praised You and said the istirjāʿ. He said: Build for him a house in Paradise and name it the House of Praise.”
Al-Tirmidhī narrated it in al-Jāmiʿ (3/341) from Suwayd ibn Naṣr, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Mubārak, from Ḥammād, with it.
Abū ʿĪsā said:
“This is a ḥasan gharīb ḥadīth.”
Ibn Ḥibbān narrated it in his Ṣaḥīḥ (7/210) through Abū Naṣr al-Tammār, from Ḥammād, with it.
Al-Bayhaqī narrated it in Shuʿab al-Īmān (7/119) from Abū Usāmah Ḥammād ibn Usāmah, from ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, from al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab, from Abū Mūsā, who said:
“When the child of a servant is taken, Allāh—knowing best what the servant said—asks the angels: You took the child of so-and-so? They say: Yes, our Lord. He says: What did My servant say? They say: He praised You and said the istirjāʿ. He says: You took the fruit of his heart, and he praised Me and said the istirjāʿ—build for him a house in Paradise and name it the House of Praise.”
In this version, “Abū Ṭalḥah al-Khawlānī” is not mentioned, and it is made mawqūf on Abū Mūsā.
Shaykh al-Albānī graded it ḥasan in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Tirmidhī, and included it in al-Ṣaḥīḥah (no. 1408). Yet in his commentary on al-Mishkāt (no. 1736) he said: “Its chain is weak”!!
I say: Its chain is very weak, and it has multiple defects:
Disagreement over whether it is marfūʿ or mawqūf; the mawqūf narration of Abū Usāmah is stronger than the marfūʿ narration of Ḥammād ibn Salamah.
ʿĪsā ibn Sinān is weak; what he uniquely narrates is not accepted.
The scholars spoke regarding the hearing of al-Ḍaḥḥāk from Abū Mūsā.
Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said:
“al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab—also said Ibn ʿArzam, but ʿArzab is correct—narrated from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī mursal.”
(al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl 4/459)
Al-Bayhaqī said:
“al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s hearing from Abū Mūsā is not established, and ʿĪsā ibn Sinān is weak and not relied upon.”
Al-Bukhārī, however, affirmed his hearing in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (4/333):
“al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab al-Ashʿarī heard from Abū Mūsā and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ghanm.”
I say: What appears strongest to me is that he did not hear from Abū Mūsā. Al-Ḍaḥḥāk died in 105 AH, while Abū Mūsā died in 44 AH (according to the strongest view). He lived during a portion of Abū Mūsā’s lifetime, but hearing from him is not established.
It seems that Imām al-Bukhārī affirmed his hearing based on other narrations—not the narration of ʿĪsā ibn Sinān.
He said in al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr (4/333):
“ʿAbd Allāh ibn Nuʿaym said: al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab al-Ashʿarī narrated to us: he heard Abū Mūsā.”
However, Ibn Maʿīn criticized this ʿAbd Allāh, saying: “Obscure.” (al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl 5/185)
Al-Bukhārī said in the biography of ʿĪsā (6/396):
“ʿĪsā ibn Sinān Abū Sinān al-Shāmī al-Qismalī, from al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah.”
I say: Ibn Mājah narrated in his Sunan (1/186) from ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus, from ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, from al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab, from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī:
“The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ performed wuḍūʾ and wiped over the socks and sandals.”
Al-Ruwayānī narrated in his Musnad (p. 376) from ʿĪsā ibn Sinān, from al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab, from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, who said:
“I saw the Prophet ﷺ wipe over the turban.”
I say: Both are uniquely narrated by ʿĪsā ibn Sinān. He did not hear from al-Ḍaḥḥāk, and the chains concerning wiping over socks and sandals are weak.
Conclusion
ʿUthmān ibn Abī Sawdah did not hear from Abū Hurayrah. The narrations he transmits from him were narrated only by ʿĪsā ibn Sinān al-Shāmī, who is weak and not relied upon—not even in virtues. Al-Ḍaḥḥāk ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿArzab did not hear from Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, and Abū Sinān did not hear from al-Ḍaḥḥāk.
Written by: Khālid al-Ḥāyik
11 Shawwāl 1429 AH