Tampering of Mashhūr Ḥasan Āl Salmān with the books of heritage without awareness!
Revisiting the isnād of the wrestling narration in al-Furūsiyyah and correcting editorial distortions.
In Ibn al-Qayyim’s al-Furūsiyyah (ed. ʿIzzat al-ʿAṭṭār, p. 33) it is stated:
“Abū al-Shaykh said in his Kitāb al-Sabaq: Ḥaddathanā Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAlī al-Muqriʾ, from Ḥammād, from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, from Saʿīd ibn Jubayr, from Ibn ʿAbbās – and he mentioned the ḥadīth of the Prophet ﷺ wrestling Rukānah.”
Ibn al-Qayyim said: “This is a good, connected isnād.”
Shaykh al-Albānī relied upon this narration in Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl (5/331), which Ibn al-Qayyim had transmitted from Abū al-Shaykh. He cited it as it appeared in the printed edition and found it problematic, saying:
“But I did not know who Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAlī al-Muqriʾ is, nor did I find him in the ‘Tenth and Eleventh Ṭabaqāt’ of Ṭabaqāt al-Muḥaddithīn bi-Iṣfahān by Abū al-Shaykh, which is the ṭabaqah of his shuyūkh. And I do not think that among them is anyone who met Ḥammād ibn Salamah. I see that in this isnād there is both omission and distortion. Then I found the ḥadīth in al-Talkhīṣ, through Abū al-Shaykh, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd from Ḥammād with the same content. Its isnād is weak. End quote. So it became clear that the omission was this ‘al-Madanī’, and Allah knows best.”
In the edition of Mashhūr Ḥasan, Dār al-Andalus/Saudi Arabia (1414H), al-Furūsiyyah (p. 201), it is written:
“Abū al-Shaykh said: Ḥaddathanā Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAlī, ḥaddathanā Ibn al-Muqriʾ, from [Ibn Abī] Ḥammād…”
So Mashhūr added in the isnād – within brackets – [Ibn Abī] without clarifying who this Ibn Abī Ḥammād is! I do not know how he did this, especially when this ḥadīth was mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim as one of three routes of narration for the ḥadīth of Ḥammād ibn Salamah!!
What appears in both printed editions of al-Furūsiyyah contains both distortion and omission. The correct isnād in Abū al-Shaykh is:
“Ḥaddathanā Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAlī – and he is al-ʿUmrī al-Mawṣilī (d. 306H) – he said: Ḥaddathanā Ibn al-Muqriʾ, from his father, from Ḥammād, from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār…”
And Ibn al-Muqriʾ is Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd al-Qurashī al-ʿAdawī, Abū Yaḥyā ibn Abī ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muqriʾ al-Makkī (d. 256H). What fell from the isnād was “from his father” – and his father is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muqriʾ al-Makkī (d. 213H), who narrated from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, and Ḥammād narrated from him also.
Thus what Ibn Ḥajar indicated in al-Talkhīṣ (4/162) – that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd narrated it from Ḥammād – is correct. But a scribal error occurred in his nisbah, so it appeared as “al-Madanī,” while the correct is “al-Muqriʾ.” So let this be noted.
The ḥadīth was narrated by Abū Dāwūd in al-Marāsīl. It was transmitted from Ḥammād by four narrators:
- Mūsā ibn Ismāʿīl al-Tubudhukī al-Baṣrī, whose narration is mursal.
- ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd, whose narration is mawṣūl through Saʿīd from Ibn ʿAbbās.
- Ḥafṣ ibn ʿUmar al-Ḍarīr al-Baṣrī, whose narration is also mawṣūl like the previous one, and in it the one who wrestled him was Yazīd ibn Rukānah, and the wager was over a hundred sheep, unlike the other reports.
- Muḥammad ibn Kathīr al-Miṣīṣī, whose narration is mawṣūl but through Saʿīd ibn Jubayr from Yazīd ibn Rukānah, that Rukānah…
This means that Ḥammād ibn Salamah had inconsistencies in both its isnād and matn; because his narrators are reliable: Mūsā is thiqah, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd is thiqah, Ḥafṣ is ṣadūq, reliable in his ḥadīth, and Muḥammad ibn Kathīr is a righteous man, whose ḥadīth is written for consideration.
So the problem in this ḥadīth lies with Ḥammād ibn Salamah – may Allah have mercy on him. He was a Baṣrī, and he narrated it from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, who was a Makkan. Ḥammād did not perfect the ḥadīth of ʿAmr! This is counted as one of the errors of cross-regional transmissions. And Allah knows best.
I even doubt that ʿAmr ibn Dīnār narrated it at all! It is possible that a ḥadīth got mixed into another for Ḥammād, so he did not preserve it properly and narrated it from ʿAmr ibn Dīnār mistakenly! Because this ḥadīth is not known by the reliable companions of ʿAmr. And Allah knows best.
The mursal versions of this ḥadīth weaken the mawṣūl ones, since they are the origin.
In conclusion: the story of the wrestling is well-known among the scholars. This is the extent to which it is established – without the fabricated and rejected details. There is no ḥadīth established about it, whether marfūʿ or mursal. And in it are denounced elements, like the matter of the wager and returning the sheep to Rukānah! Alongside the disagreement regarding the name of the one who wrestled the Prophet ﷺ in the mursal of Saʿīd and others! It is common that marāsīl contain some denounced elements, due to their popularity among people and circulation.
In some reports it is mentioned that the wrestling was the reason for Rukānah’s Islam. But this is not the case; for it is agreed that the wrestling took place in the Jāhiliyyah. What is correct is that Rukānah accepted Islam on the Day of the Conquest of Makkah. This story has nothing to do with his Islam. And Allah knows best.
Written by: Khālid al-Ḥāyik