On the Verification of the Book Gharāʾib Shuʿbah by Ibn al-Muẓaffar

The Islamic Ummah is experiencing a state of intellectual chaos. This chaos manifests in many forms, one of which is the distortion of heritage books that are undertaken for verification by those who are not qualified for it. The examples of this are too many to count.

Among these examples is what I have recently come across: the book Gharāʾib Shuʿbah by Muḥammad ibn al-Muẓaffar.

This book holds great importance for the scholars due to what it contains of gharāʾib (rare narrations) and ʿilal (hidden defects). The book was verified in two different editions:

By Ṣāliḥ al-Laḥḥām, published by al-Dār al-ʿUthmāniyyah in Jordan, 1424 AH / 2003 CE.
By Dr. Ḥamzah Aḥmad al-Zayn – former Director General of the Islamic Center for the Service of the Book and Sunnah in Makkah, and former Director of Scientific Research at Awqāf Dubai – published by Dār al-Ḥadīth, Cairo, 1424 AH / 2004 CE.

After examining both editions, I found that both editors distorted the book. So, I rolled up my sleeves and began verifying it myself after obtaining its manuscripts. I prefaced my work with an introduction in which I exposed the flaws of the two previous editions, refuting them when discussing each ḥadīth. I also included many benefits, such as identifying numerous defects, correcting dozens of mistakes made by earlier scholars and contemporary editors, as well as adding important principles in ḥadīth and rare biographies.

Working with this book requires a long time. Due to my lack of free time, I have chosen here only to briefly comment on the works of al-Laḥḥām and al-Zayn until I complete my own verification, in shāʾ Allāh.

General Remarks

Neither editor mentioned the other’s work. I suspect that al-Zayn’s edition came earlier than al-Laḥḥām’s, since al-Zayn stated that he had first published these treatises in refereed journals, then later printed them together in one volume.

Each editor relied on a different manuscript: al-Laḥḥām relied on the Fayḍ Allāh manuscript in Turkey, while al-Zayn used the Ẓāhiriyyah manuscript in Damascus. Both of them neglected the most basic condition of manuscript verification—namely, to collect all available manuscripts.

Al-Laḥḥām admitted that there was a copy in the Ẓāhiriyyah but claimed he was unable to view it. This excuse does not justify rushing to publish the book without reviewing it!

Neither of the two understood Ibn al-Muẓaffar’s intent behind authoring this book. Thus, they produced disastrous conclusions concerning the ḥadīth and its scholars. I will discuss each of them separately during my verification, in shāʾ Allāh.

Understanding the author’s objective is a crucial condition of proper verification. The goal is not merely to ensure textual accuracy, as the specialists know, but also to preserve the intent of the author. Otherwise, the editor may undermine the very purpose of the book and produce results that harm the ḥadīth and its people.

The gharāʾib here refers to strange narrations attributed to Shuʿbah that are not authentic from him. This is a genre that later imāms such as al-Dāraquṭnī, Ibn Mandah, al-Khaṭīb and others paid attention to. For example, al-Dāraquṭnī authored Gharāʾib Mālik, in which he collected strange narrations attributed to Mālik and commented on them. Among them:

Narrated by Ibn ʿUqdah, from Aḥmad ibn Yazīd al-Khurāsānī, from Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn Zayd, from Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Zayd ibn ʿAlī, from ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿAlī, from Mālik, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, who used to say: “The mosque founded upon taqwā is the mosque of the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.”

Al-Dāraquṭnī said: “This is not authentic from Mālik from Nāfiʿ. Aḥmad ibn Yazīd is not known for ḥadīth transmission, and no one else narrated this.” (Lisān al-Mīzān 1/325).

And Tamām al-Rāzī narrated in al-Fawāʾid (2/19): Abū al-Qāsim ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Kūfī al-Ḥāfiẓ told us, he said: Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn ʿImrān al-Hamdānī told us, he said: Muḥammad ibn al-ʿAbbās ibn Bassām told us, he said: Aḥmad ibn Yazīd al-Khurāsānī told us, he said: al-Qaʿnabī told us, from Mālik, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said: “Indeed, Allāh has placed the truth upon the tongue and heart of ʿUmar.”

I say: This ḥadīth was never narrated by Mālik, nor reported by al-Qaʿnabī. It was uniquely transmitted by Aḥmad ibn Yazīd al-Khurāsānī, who is unknown.

First: The Edition of Ṣāliḥ al-Laḥḥām

Al-Laḥḥām titled the book “Ḥadīth Shuʿbah”, and this is not correct. The actual title is “Gharāʾib Shuʿbah” (The Rarities of Shuʿbah), and its naming is clear in the Ẓāhiriyyah manuscript, which al-Laḥḥām did not consult. Had he returned to Shaykh al-Albānī’s catalogue of the Ẓāhiriyyah manuscripts, he would have found that the Shaykh called it “Gharāʾib Shuʿbah.” Al-Laḥḥām himself even mentioned (p.16) that al-Nasāʾī and Ibn Mandah compiled “Gharāʾib Shuʿbah.”

And there is a big difference between the two names: the first (Ḥadīth Shuʿbah) means that this is a collection of some of the ḥadīth narrated by Shuʿbah (raḥimahuʾllāh). The second (Gharāʾib Shuʿbah), however, is the opposite, and reflects the author’s intent in compiling it—namely, to collect the rare/strange reports attributed to Shuʿbah. Al-Laḥḥām’s failure to understand this aim led him into a major blunder which he then attributed to Imām Shuʿbah (raḥimahuʾllāh), as follows.

Al-Laḥḥām wrote (pp. 5–6), while explaining his method of takhrīj:

“Then I mention—and I may not always adhere to this—if the ḥadīth is in either or both of the Ṣaḥīḥs, I do not go beyond them, if the ḥadīth is narrated through Shuʿbah. For their narration of the ḥadīth through Shuʿbah suffices to establish its authenticity. Then I mention the aspects of disagreement if found upon Shuʿbah, and I may point out if Shuʿbah differed from others, or say the opposite where Shuʿbah was correct... After all, it is not strange for someone like Shuʿbah ibn al-Ḥajjāj that scholars of old would pay close attention to his ḥadīth, due to their authenticity, his reliability in transmission, and his diligence in narrating and scrutinizing transmitters... Nor is it strange, given the abundance of his ḥadīth, that he would err, or that he would be alone in some narrations compared to other ḥuffāẓ. And there were those who undertook to collect what he erred in and what he was alone in, which in comparison to the vastness of his narrations is but a drop in the ocean.”

I say: This statement is false and invalid. Ibn al-Muẓaffar’s purpose in this compilation was to point out the ḥadīth that were wrongly ascribed to Shuʿbah (raḥimahuʾllāh). That means these ḥadīth could not possibly be in the two Ṣaḥīḥs and cannot be Ṣaḥīḥ as al-Laḥḥām claimed! Yes, it may be that a ḥadīth narrated by Shuʿbah was included by al-Bukhārī or Muslim, but what Ibn al-Muẓaffar recorded is the strange isnād attributed to Shuʿbah. Thus, we cannot say: this ḥadīth is authentic because al-Bukhārī or Muslim recorded it.

Likewise, al-Laḥḥām assumes that those ḥadīth not recorded by al-Bukhārī and Muslim (or one of them) include some wherein Shuʿbah was correct, while others were his errors. This asserts two things:

First: That Shuʿbah had many errors. But this is not the case! Rather, Ibn al-Muẓaffar included in his book reports wrongly attributed to Shuʿbah, and most of them Shuʿbah never narrated at all.
And I do not know if al-Laḥḥām realizes what he is claiming when he attributes numerous errors to Shuʿbah, then excuses him by saying, “this is not strange given his abundant ḥadīth”! Does he not know that narrators far below Shuʿbah in rank were abandoned by the critics if they erred in fifty ḥadīth?

Then who, pray tell, “undertook to collect Shuʿbah’s errors”?! Subḥānak! This is a terrible slander. Yes, Shuʿbah had narrations wherein he was alone, and those are accepted without dispute—but such narrations have nothing to do with this compilation.

What was known of Shuʿbah (raḥimahuʾllāh) is that he sometimes erred in the names of men, and I myself have collected about fifty of these mistakes, wal-ḥamdu lillāh.

Had al-Laḥḥām noticed that Abū Nuʿaym in al-Ḥilyah drew upon Ibn al-Muẓaffar’s book, he would have realized—waʾllāhu aʿlam—that Ibn al-Muẓaffar’s intent was as I have said. For when Abū Nuʿaym narrates a ḥadīth from Ibn al-Muẓaffar’s book, he says after it: “Gharīb from the narration of Shuʿbah; so-and-so alone reported it.” With this wording he clarifies that it is an error ascribed to Shuʿbah. Yet al-Laḥḥām quotes from al-Ḥilyah as though cut-and-pasted from a computer, without reviewing the original! Waʾllāhu aʿlam.

Here is also a useful note: compilations of “sources” (mawārid), like al-Khaṭīb’s Mawārid in al-Tārīkh, are very important works—not, as many modern doctors say, useless. Their benefits are great: they help us understand the aims of authors in their works, and the ḥadīth preserved in books like that of Ibn al-Muẓaffar serve as secondary witnesses for comparing manuscripts. Those who claim such works are unimportant simply do not appreciate the immense labor of these Imāms; if someone ignorant of that says such words, he may be excused, waʾllāhuʾl-mustaʿān.

The second point al-Laḥḥām made was that some of these ḥadīth reflect Shuʿbah’s correctness. This too is false. These reports are errors wrongly ascribed to him. Yes, there may be other authentic routes from Shuʿbah, but those are not what Ibn al-Muẓaffar cited, for that was not the purpose of his book. Waʾllāhuʾl-mustaʿān.

The editor’s weak style and poor language sometimes mislead the reader. For example, on p.3 he wrote:

“...And I hope there will remain men to carry it, faithful to the covenant, not tainted by the desires of this world like us...”

I say: Some may understand this as self-praise—that he is untainted by worldly desires unlike others. We excuse him from such a meaning, but even if he meant that worldly desires had tainted him, such phrasing is not appropriate for a student of knowledge, even in humility.

Incidentally, some students show an excessive, almost artificial piety, which sometimes pushes them towards a kind of murjiʾī stance without realizing it. Waʾllāhuʾl-mustaʿān. If a student of knowledge states the truth and clarifies mistakes, there is no blame. But to leave errors uncorrected under a misplaced ḥusn al-ẓann—no! Did not ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī refuse to narrate a ḥadīth when asked, and when pressed by a student later in private, he became angry and said: “That is Dīn.”

Some ḥadīth were left without takhrīj, contrary to his usual method.

He sometimes defers the takhrīj to later pages (e.g. p.58).

He provides no discussion of the narrators at all.

He passes no judgment on the ḥadīth! He merely cites their sources, with no personal ruling. This contradicts the true method of editing, since readers need judgments—they cannot investigate each ḥadīth themselves. Otherwise, what is the point of editing? This new trend of “just citing takhrīj without rulings” is misplaced “piety.” This is not the place for it.

He adds some useless comments, such as quoting Abū Nuʿaym on Shuʿbah’s statements, without understanding Abū Nuʿaym’s intent, copying everything without distinction. I will clarify this further in due course, inshāʾAllāh.

His takhrīj is seriously misleading. He gives the impression that these ḥadīth were narrated by al-Bukhārī and Muslim in the exact form cited. For example, when he says: “Narrated by al-Bukhārī and Muslim (ḥadīth no. 6),” it misleads the reader into thinking that this same isnād was in the Ṣaḥīḥayn, which is not the case. I will explain this more fully in its place, inshāʾAllāh.

Second: The Edition of Dr. Ḥamzah al-Zayn

Shaykh Ḥamzah also failed to grasp the purpose of this work, so he judged the ḥadīth in strange ways without noticing this point, as I will clarify, inshāʾAllāh.

He divided the gharāʾib in this book into three categories:

Isnād gharīb before Shuʿbah (up to him). That is, someone alone transmitted the isnād and attributed it to Shuʿbah, while other ḥuffāẓ narrate it from, say, Ḥammād.
Isnād gharīb from Shuʿbah upwards. That is, Shuʿbah (or someone above him) is alone in the chain, differing from all other ḥuffāẓ.
Gharāʾib in the text (matn), whether below Shuʿbah or above. (pp.126–127).

I say: This division is incorrect. The gharāʾib here fall only into the first category. They are reports wrongly ascribed to Shuʿbah. As for ḥadīth actually narrated solely by Shuʿbah, if the isnād is sound they are accepted. Thus, by using his scheme, the doctor fell into many errors, sometimes declaring reports ṣaḥīḥ, sometimes ḥasan, sometimes ḍaʿīf, sometimes suspending judgment—all misplaced, since the reports Ibn al-Muẓaffar included about Shuʿbah fall into these types:

Some are known from Shuʿbah, but through a different route than what Ibn al-Muẓaffar cited.
Some are mistakes attributed to him, such as raising a mawqūf, connecting a mursal, or naming an anonymous transmitter.
Some Shuʿbah never narrated at all.
And so on, as I will detail in its proper place, inshāʾAllāh.

The editor set up a section (p.142) titled “The Gharāʾib of Shuʿbah: Between Ṣaḥīḥ and Ḍaʿīf”. He wrote:

“We learned earlier that among the gharāʾib are ṣaḥīḥ and ḍaʿīf reports. The weak may be below Shuʿbah or above him. Thus we found in these gharāʾib isnāds revolving around weak narrators, for reasons I explained in context and in my commentary. Based on this I found one hundred weak isnāds revolving around twenty weak transmitters. But these one hundred have other sound routes in the Ṣiḥāḥ, as I proved in my notes.

However, I found very weak isnāds in ḥadīths 30, 76, 132, 149, 163, 166, 167.

In any case, we are left with many authentic ḥadīths useful for researchers in two ways:

First: They appear here through new sound routes. A report that circles around a weak narrator in many books and is deemed gharīb munkar—when found here from Shuʿbah through reliable narrators—loses its strangeness and becomes ṣaḥīḥ.

Second: Many ḥadīth appear here that were not mentioned by the authors of the Sunan or Musnads. This is a great gain and a new addition to the Sunnah’s record. If we found in such rare manuscripts only a single ḥadīth, that would suffice us...”

I say: The doctor built his whole edifice upon false premises and illogical, unscientific assumptions, leading to grave errors and contradictions:

Yes, gharāʾib among scholars can be ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʿīf—but that was not Ibn al-Muẓaffar’s purpose. His purpose was to collect reports wrongly ascribed to Shuʿbah. Not the unusual authentic narrations in which Shuʿbah was alone—those are accepted. The errors upon Shuʿbah, however, are not accepted.
These reports revolving around weak narrators are not to be “corrected” by citing other sound routes. On the contrary, those sound routes are the very proof of the falsity of the routes attributed to Shuʿbah. Ibn al-Muẓaffar was a great ḥāfiẓ who knew that these ḥadīths had sound routes elsewhere; his aim was only to collect the strange ascriptions to Shuʿbah.
Nothing in this collection can be considered ṣaḥīḥ, as the doctor claimed, because all these routes are false. He only “authenticated” them through shāhid/mutābaʿāt because he misunderstood the author’s aim.
A ḥadīth deemed munkar and ḍaʿīf by the experts—its appearance here only increases its weakness and strangeness; it does not elevate it to ṣaḥīḥ! I cannot fathom how someone claiming expertise in ḥadīth criticism can say otherwise!
The doctor considered it a “great gain” that these ḥadīth are not found in the Sunan and Musnads, claiming they are authentic additions. This is a disaster: the reason those Imāms did not record them is precisely because they knew they were not sound from Shuʿbah. This proves their weakness and falsity, not their authenticity!
The doctor paid no attention to Abū Nuʿaym’s statements in al-Ḥilyah and his intent, even though he sometimes quoted him.
His judgments on the ḥadīth are bizarre: sometimes he weakens a report due to a narrator below Shuʿbah for tadlīs or the like—while in fact Shuʿbah never narrated the report at all!
He authenticated many reports merely on the basis of mutābaʿāt and shawāhid, ignoring the actual case of the isnād he was supposed to evaluate. His concern is only to “grade” ṣaḥīḥ or ḍaʿīf, nothing else.

Written by: Khālid al-Ḥāyik