A Sample of the Investigations of Some Contemporary Scholars (Shaykh Ḥusayn Salīm Asad)

Abū Yaʿlá al-Mawṣilī said in his Musnad (10/509):

Ḥaddathanā Abū Kurayb, ḥaddathanā Abū Usāmah, from Mufaḍḍal ibn Yūnus, from al-Awzāʿī, from Abū Yasār al-Qurashī, from Abū Hāshim, from Abū Hurayrah: that the Prophet ﷺ was brought a mukhannath (effeminate man) who had dyed his hands and feet with henna! The Prophet ﷺ said: “What is the matter with this one?”

It was said: “O Messenger of Allāh, he imitates women.” So he ordered that he be banished to an-Naqīʿ. They said: “O Messenger of Allāh, should we not kill him?” He replied: “I have been forbidden from killing those who pray.”

Abū Usāmah said: “an-Naqīʿ is an area outside Madīnah, not al-Baqīʿ.”

The editor, Shaykh Ḥusayn Salīm Asad, said:

“Abū Yasār al-Qurashī was narrated from by al-Layth ibn Saʿd and al-Awzāʿī, and he was declared unknown by Abū Ḥātim.

We say: The ignorance of Abū Ḥātim does not harm, for he declared a number of narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ unknown, among them Aḥmad ibn ʿĀṣim and Bayān ibn ʿAmr…

Al-Ḏahabī said in al-Mīzān (4/588): ‘I say: Two Imāms narrated from Abū Yasār – al-Awzāʿī and al-Layth – so this shaykh is not weak…’ The rest of the narrators are trustworthy.

As for Abū Hāshim al-Dawsī, al-Bukhārī mentioned him (9/80) without stating any criticism or praise. Ibn Abī Ḥātim in al-Jarḥ wa’t-Taʿdīl (9/453) followed him in that.

Al-ʿAjlī said in Tārīkh al-Thiqāt (p.513, no.2059): ‘Abū Hāshim al-Dawsī, a trustworthy tābiʿī.’

And Mufaḍḍal ibn Yūnus is al-Juʿfī.

Abū Dāwūd also transmitted it in al-Adab (4928), Chapter: Concerning Judgement on the Effeminate Men – and from his route it was transmitted by al-Bayhaqī in al-Ḥudūd (8/224), Chapter: What Came Concerning the Banishment of the Effeminate – through Hārūn ibn ʿAbdullāh and Muḥammad ibn al-ʿAlāʾ with this isnād.

And it is supported by the ḥadīth of Abū Bakr mentioned earlier under no.88, where we also mentioned other corroborating reports.”

End of the editor’s words.

I say: This is uncritical speech from this editor:

• The first thing an editor should begin with is the takhrīj (referencing and tracing the ḥadīth), not doing it after discussing the narrators!
• The editor missed that al-Dāraquṭnī also transmitted it. He recorded it in as-Sunan (2/54) through al-Ḥasan ibn al-Rabīʿ and Ḥumayd ibn al-Rabīʿ, from Abū Usāmah, with this isnād.
• The editor’s wording suggests that he accepts this ḥadīth! But it is a munkar ḥadīth. Al-Ḏahabī himself said in the very passage which the Shaykh quoted from:

“Abū Yasār (D) from Abū Hāshim from Abū Hurayrah: its isnād is obscure and the text is munkar.”

I say: If the isnād is obscure, then how can its narrators be “trustworthy” as the Shaykh claimed?

His dismissal of Abū Ḥātim’s judgement of Abū Yasār as “unknown” is illogical. One cannot reject Abū Ḥātim’s statement merely because it is claimed that al-Awzāʿī and al-Layth narrated from him – for this itself is not sound, as will be shown.

The tawthīq (declaration of reliability) of al-ʿAjlī is not relied upon here, for he often declares majhūl (unknown) and majrūḥ (criticized) narrators as trustworthy.

The Shaykh cited the entries of al-Bukhārī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim for Abū Hāshim, but he did not properly understand them, for they contain problematic points that undermine strengthening the isnād.

The Shaykh also did not cite what other Imāms said about Abū Hāshim, such as Ibn Ḥajar, al-Ḏahabī, and others.

The supposed supporting narration he mentioned under no.88, about Abū Bakr, is concerning the Prophet ﷺ forbidding “striking those who pray,” while our ḥadīth is about “killing those who pray”! And even that ḥadīth is false, and its so-called supporting narrations are also munkar and provide no valid support.

These are general notes. The detailed discussion on this ḥadīth is as follows:

Al-Dāraquṭnī was asked about this ḥadīth in his ʿIlal (11/230). He said:

“It is narrated by al-Awzāʿī. There is disagreement about it: Mufaḍḍal ibn Yūnus narrated it from al-Awzāʿī, from Abū Yasār al-Qurashī, from Abū Hāshim, from Abū Hurayrah.

ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus disagreed with him. He narrated it from al-Awzāʿī, from some of his companions, [directly], that the Prophet ﷺ…”

Al-Dāraquṭnī said:

“Abū Hāshim and Abū Yasār are both unknown, and the ḥadīth is not established.”

I say: ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus ibn Abī Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī is more reliable than Mufaḍḍal ibn Yūnus. The mention of Abū Yasār and Abū Hāshim only comes through the path of Mufaḍḍal. The ḥadīth of ʿĪsā is stronger.

Al-Bukhārī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim both gave another isnād for Abū Hāshim al-Dawsī:

Al-Bukhārī said in al-Kuná (p.80):

“Abū Hāshim al-Dawsī said: Abū Hurayrah said. Narrated by al-Naḍr ibn Shumayl, from ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār.”

Ibn Abī Ḥātim said in al-Jarḥ wa’t-Taʿdīl (9/453):

“Abū Hāshim al-Dawsī, the cousin of Abū Hurayrah, narrated from Abū Hurayrah. Al-Naḍr ibn Muḥammad al-Jurashī narrated from ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār, who said: A man from the family of Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah narrated to me, who said: Abū Hāshim narrated to me.”

I say: I do not know whether this same ḥadīth was transmitted through this chain or not. Nor whether this Abū Hāshim is the same or another one different from the one narrated from by Abū Yasār. In any case, the one narrating from Abū Hāshim here is an unknown man from the family of Ḥāṭib ibn Abī Baltaʿah.

What is printed in the Kuná of al-Bukhārī is mistaken. The correct version is what Ibn Abī Ḥātim reported: it is al-Naḍr ibn Muḥammad ibn Mūsá al-Jurashī al-Yamāmī, not al-Naḍr ibn Shumayl. The latter never narrated from ʿIkrimah ibn ʿAmmār al-Yamāmī. Since Ibn Abī Ḥātim follows al-Bukhārī’s entries, the error likely came from scribal mistakes or poor editing, and part of the chain (“a man from the family of Ḥāṭib”) dropped out. It should be restored from Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s version.

Al-ʿAjlī said in al-Thiqāt (2/432):

“Abū Hāshim al-Dawsī, a trustworthy tābiʿī. Only one ḥadīth is narrated from him.”

Al-Bukhārī did not list Abū Yasār al-Qurashī at all. He only listed another:

“Abū Yasār, in a statement of his, narrated from by al-Layth.” (al-Kuná, p.82).

Ibn Ḥibbān distinguished between them:

“Abū Yasār al-Qurashī narrated from Abū Hāshim from Abū Hurayrah, narrated from by al-Awzāʿī.”

Then he said: “Abū Yasār (in a statement of his), narrated from by al-Layth ibn Saʿd.” (al-Thiqāt, 7/667).

Al-Ḏahabī followed this distinction, based on Abū Aḥmad al-Ḥākim in his al-Kuná. He said in al-Muqtná fī Sard al-Kuná (2/151):

“Abū Yasār al-Qurashī, from Abū Hāshim from Abū Hurayrah; al-Awzāʿī narrated from him in the ḥadīth of the effeminate who dyed himself.”

Then: “Abū Yasār, narrated from by al-Layth.”

Ibn Abī Ḥātim (9/460) however combined the two:

“Abū Yasār al-Qurashī: narrated from Abū Hāshim the cousin of Abū Hurayrah. Narrated from by al-Awzāʿī and al-Layth ibn Saʿd.”

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān said: I asked my father about him. He said: “He is majhūl.”

Al-Mizzī and others followed this combining (see Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, 34/411).

I say: The correct view is to distinguish between them. Ibn Abī Ḥātim erred by combining them without evidence. Al-Bukhārī himself seems to have not even accepted the narration via al-Awzāʿī from Abū Yasār, and therefore did not give him a full entry, because the isnād was defective.

Some later scholars fell into error due to following Ibn Abī Ḥātim’s combining. For example, al-Mundhirī said in al-Targhīb wa’l-Tarhīb (3/76):

“It was narrated by Abū Dāwūd… In its matn there is nakārah! As for Abū Yasār, I do not know his name. Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī said when asked about him: he is majhūl. But this is not the case, for both al-Awzāʿī and al-Layth narrated from him, so how can he be majhūl? Allāh knows best.”

Al-Ḏahabī said in Dīwān al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (2/517):

“Abū Hāshim from Abū Hurayrah: majhūl. (D).”

Then: “Abū Yasār al-Qurashī from Abū Hāshim: majhūl, like his shaykh.”

He also said in al-Mīzān (7/446):

“Abū Yasār (D) from Abū Hāshim from Abū Hurayrah: its isnād is obscure for a munkar matn. Abū Ḥātim said: he is majhūl.

I say: Two Imāms – al-Awzāʿī and al-Layth – narrated from him, so this shaykh is not weak. This ḥadīth is in Sunan Abī Dāwūd, from the route of Mufaḍḍal ibn Yūnus from al-Awzāʿī from him. Mufaḍḍal was Kūfan, died young, and I know of no fault in him. He alone transmitted this, and Abū Ḥātim declared him trustworthy.”

I say: It has become clear that this ḥadīth is defective. Mufaḍḍal erred against al-Awzāʿī, whereas ʿĪsā ibn Yūnus preserved it. Therefore, we cannot say al-Awzāʿī actually narrated it in that form. The supposed narration of al-Layth from Abū Yasār was only stated by Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and he erred. Even al-Ḏahabī distinguished between the Abū Yasār narrated from by al-Awzāʿī and the Abū Yasār narrated from by al-Layth.

Further, the “unknown” status (majhūl) which Abū Ḥātim meant is “unknown in condition” (majhūl al-ḥāl). The statement of al-Ḏahabī that since al-Awzāʿī and al-Layth narrated from him he is “not weak” is questionable. At most, this would remove the “unknown in identity” (jahālat al-ʿayn) – if their narration was authentic. But it does not establish him as trustworthy.

Ibn Ḥajar said in al-Taqrīb:

“Abū Hāshim, cousin of Abū Hurayrah, majhūl al-ḥāl, of the third generation. (D).”

And Ibn Ḥajar here followed Ibn al-Qaṭṭān (Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb, 12/286).

Conclusion: Abū Hāshim and Abū Yasār are both majhūl al-ʿayn. I even doubt whether they were real persons. The tawthīq of al-ʿAjlī for Abū Hāshim carries no weight, for he often declares people trustworthy if there is no explicit criticism, even in such weak levels. Ibn Ḥibbān’s inclusion of Abū Yasār in al-Thiqāt is because he did not notice the defect in the ḥadīth. And Allāh knows best.

Written by: Khālid al-Ḥāyik

6 Muḥarram 1429 AH