I Introduction
Various narratives state that the Prophet (sws) sent Walid ibn ‘Uqbah to collect zakah from the tribe of Banu Mustaliq; when he was close to their territory, a group from among them came out to welcome him. Walid feared that they had come to kill him; so, he returned to the Prophet (sws) and informed him about what had transpired. This angered the Prophet (sws) very much and he began contemplating an attack on the Banu Mustaliq. In the meantime, a delegation from the Banu Mustaliq arrived and informed the Prophet (sws) that Walid had never come to them. This diffused the situation. At this, the following Qur’anic verse of Surah al-Hujurat was revealed: يَاَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَكُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوۡا اَنۡ تُصِيۡبُوۡا قَوۡمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصۡبِحُوۡا عَلٰي مَا فَعَلۡتُمۡ نٰدِمِيۡنَ (Believers! If a defiant person brings you a piece of news to you, investigate it thoroughly lest you assail someone unknowingly; then regret what you did). It signified that Muslims must always investigate the news brought by a defiant person, lest they take a step in ignorance and then regret it.
In this article, these narratives will be critically evaluated.
II Existing Criticism
Amin Ahsan Islahi has criticized this narrative. He writes:
Firstly, the verse has asked Muslims not to trust a piece of news given by a fasiq (defiant person). Before this incident there is nothing known to people from Walid which could, God forbid, regard him as a fasiq. Not only this, such was the nature of his reliability and trustworthiness that the Prophet (sws) entrusted him with the responsibility of collecting zakah. If there had been some issue with his character, the Prophet (sws) would never have selected him for such an important service.
Secondly, if this occasion of revelation is accepted, then it will have to be conceded that the Prophet (sws), God forbid, was so unaware of his Companions (rta) that he would select from among them for such important positions those, who because of their dishonest misconduct, would endanger both the citizens and the government. Such short-sightedness is not expected even from a common sane human being, let alone the Prophet (sws).
Thirdly, if Walid ran away from the tribe thinking the group which had come out to receive him to be armed in order to attack him and if he conveyed this impression of his to the Prophet (sws), then though this could be regarded as a naïve act on his part, as per the shari‘ah, it cannot be regarded as fisq. Had this been the case, the verse should have been something to the effect: “Believers! Do not entrust your responsible positions to simpletons who are not even able to distinguish between a welcoming faction and a warring faction.” What needs to be kept in consideration is that had Walid been such a simpleton, would the Prophet (sws) have entrusted him with such a political and fiscal position? Can the trait of being a simpleton suddenly emanate from a person and the people around him not know about it beforehand? Even a person like the Prophet (sws) was not able to discern it?
Fourthly, it is Walid who was made the governor of Kufah by the caliph ‘Uthman (rta) in his time. Was he not aware of the fact that as per a Qur’anic verse, this person had been classified as a fasiq and was not even eligible to narrate a report or to bear witness, let alone be eligible for governorship? If he was not aware, then it should be accepted that a rightly guided caliph as ‘Uthman (rta) who is also known as the collector of the Qur’an, God forbid, did not have even as much knowledge of the Qur’an as the narrators of reports of occasions of revelation.
I have referred to only a few aspects of this occasion of revelation; otherwise it has problems at every step. Some variants say that the Prophet (sws) had sent an army contingent;1 others say that he had decided to send it and had given an ultimatum to the Banu Mustaliq that if they did not abstain, he would send someone who is like him (عندي كنفسي) and at the same time patting ‘Ali (rta) on his back to encourage him which indicated that he would be sent for this campaign.2 In some other narratives, it is said that he had sent Khalid ibn Walid (rta) for the campaign.3 In short, contradictions abound4 even though it is evident from the words لَوۡ يُطِيۡعُكُمۡ فِيۡ كَثِيۡرٍ مِّنَ الۡاَمۡرِ (had he followed you in most matters) that if such a thing came to the Prophet (sws), he ignored it and people were warned that they should not try to influence him with their opinions.
In my opinion, this occasion of revelation has been concocted by the rawafid through which they not only wanted to bring Walid’s name into disrepute but also that of ‘Uthman (rta) that deliberately patronizing his relative5 he appointed a fasiq as governor of Kufah. Even during his tenure as governor of Kufah, those horrible people did not spare Walid and narrated such incidents reflecting his fisq which bring both laughter and tears: laughter at their intelligence and tears at the simplicity of our exegetes who cite such baseless reports in their exegesis even though they have no relation with the words and context of the verse.
III Texts and Analysis of their Isnad
Following are the five companions who report this narrative. An analysis of each isnad is also presented.
i. From al-Harith ibn Dirar al-Khuza‘i (rta)
حدثنا عبد اللّٰهِ حدثني أبي ثنا محمد بن سَابِقٍ ثنا عِيسَي بن دِينَارٍ ثنا ابي انه سمع الحرث بن ضِرَارٍ الخزاعي قال قَدِمْتُ علي رسول اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم فدعاني إلي الاِسْلاَمِ فَدَخَلْتُ فيه وَاَقْرَرْتُ بِهِ فدعاني إلي الزَّكَاةِ فَاَقْرَرْتُ بها وَقُلْتُ يا رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ اَرْجِعُ إلي قومي فَأَدْعُوهُمْ إلي الإِسْلاَمِ وَأَدَاءِ الزَّكَاةِ فَمَنِ اسْتَجَابَ لي جَمَعْتُ زَكَاتَهُ فَيُرْسِلُ إِلَيَّ رسول اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم رَسُولاً لإِبَّانِ كَذَا وَكَذَا لِيَأْتِيَكَ ما جَمَعْتُ مِنَ الزَّكَاةِ فلما جَمَعَ الحرث الزَّكَاةَ مِمَّنِ اسْتَجَابَ له وَبَلَغَ الإِبَّانَ الذي أَرَادَ رسول اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم ان يُبْعَثَ إليه احْتَبَسَ عليه الرَّسُولُ فلم يَأْتِهِ فَظَنَّ الحرث أَنَّهُ قد حَدَثَ فيه سَخْطَةٌ مِنَ اللّٰهِ عز وجل وَرَسُولِهِ فَدَعَا بِسَرَوَاتِ قَوْمِهِ فقال لهم إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم كان وَقَّتَ لي وَقْتًا يُرْسِلُ إِلَيَّ رَسُولَهُ لِيَقْبِضَ ما كان عندي مِنَ الزَّكَاةِ وَلَيْسَ من رسول اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم الْخُلْفُ وَلاَ أَرَى حَبْسَ رَسُولِهِ الا من سَخْطَةٍ كانت فَانْطَلِقُوا فنأتي رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم وَبَعَثَ رسول اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم الْوَلِيدَ بن عُقْبَةَ إلي الحرث لِيَقْبِضَ ما كان عِنْدَهُ مِمَّا جَمَعَ مِنَ الزَّكَاةِ فلما أَنْ سَارَ الْوَلِيدُ حتي بَلَغَ بَعْضَ الطَّرِيقِ فَرِقَ فَرَجَعَ فَأَتَي رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم وقال يا رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ اِنَّ الحرث منعني الزَّكَاةَ وَاَرَادَ قتلي فَضَرَبَ رسول اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم الْبَعْثَ إلي الحرث فَأَقْبَلَ الحرث بِأَصْحَابِهِ إِذِ اسْتَقْبَلَ الْبَعْثَ وَفَصَلَ مِنَ الْمَدِينَةِ لَقِيَهُمُ الحرث فَقَالُوا هذا الحرث فلما غَشِيَهُمْ قال لهم إلي من بُعِثْتُمْ قالوا إِلَيْكَ قال وَلِمَ قالوا إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم كان بَعَثَ إِلَيْكَ الْوَلِيدَ بن عُقْبَةَ فَزَعَمَ أَنَّكَ مَنَعْتَهُ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَرَدْتَ قَتْلَهُ قال لاَ والذي بَعَثَ مُحَمَّداً بِالْحَقِّ ما رَأَيْتُهُ بَتَّةً وَلاَ أتاني فلما دخل الحرث علي رسول اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم قال مَنَعْتَ الزَّكَاةَ وَأَرَدْتَ قَتْلَ رسولي قال لاَ والذي بَعَثَكَ بِالْحَقِّ ما رَأَيْتُهُ وَلاَ أتاني وما أَقْبَلْتُ إِلاَّ حين احْتَبَسَ علي رسول اللّٰهِ صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم خَشِيتُ أَنْ تَكُونَ كانت سَخْطَةً مِنَ اللّٰهِ عز وجل وَرَسُولِهِ قال فَنَزَلَتِ الْحُجُرَاتُ ياَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَكُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوۡا اَنۡ تُصِيۡبُوۡا قَوۡمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصۡبِحُوۡا عَلٰي مَا فَعَلۡتُمۡ نٰدِمِيۡنَ اِلي هٰذَا الْمَكَانِ فَضۡلًا مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَ نِعۡمَةً وَ اللّٰهُ عَلِيۡمٌ حَكِيۡمٌ
Al-Harith ibn Dirar al-Khuza‘i said: “I went to meet God’s Messenger (sws); so he invited me to Islam and I accepted and affirmed it. I said: ‘O God’s Messenger (sws)! I will return to my people and invite them to Islam and to pay the zakah. Thus, he who accepts my invite I will collect zakah from him so that God’s Messenger (sws) send me an envoy Ibban at such and such a time to bring to you the zakah I had collected.’” Dinar said: “When al-Harith had collected zakah from those who had responded to his call and the time came for the envoy that God’s Messenger (sws) had intended to send him a message, he was stopped and did not come to him. At this, al-Harith thought that God, the Exalted, the Mighty, and his Messenger were angry with him. Thus, he gathered the leaders of his tribe and said to them: ‘God’s Messenger (sws) had appointed a time for me in which he would send his envoy who would collect from me the zakah I had gathered. God’s Messenger cannot go back on his words and I think that not sending me his envoy can only be because he is angry with me. So come with me to God’s Messenger (sws).’ On the other hand, God’s Messenger (sws) sent over al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah to al-Harith to collect what he had from zakah. So when al-Walid started off, he became apprehensive on the way and returned and came to God’s Messenger (sws) and said: ‘O Messenger of God! al-Harith has withheld zakah from me and planned to kill me.’ At this God’s Messenger (sws) sent another batch of people to al-Harith. So al-Harith came out of his city to welcome the batch [as it neared him]. When the batch of people saw him, they exclaimed: ‘This is al-Harith.’ When they met him, he said to them: ‘To whom have you been sent.’ They replied: ‘To you.’ He asked: ‘Why?’ They replied: ‘God’s Messenger (sws) had sent al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah to you and he had said that you had refused to give the zakah money to him and that you had the intention of killing him.’ Al-Harith said: ‘No! By He Who had sent Muhammad with the truth! Neither I ever saw him nor did he ever come to me.’ So when al-Harith reached the presence of God’s Messenger (sws), God’s Messenger (sws) said to him: ‘You refused to pay zakah to us and intended to kill my envoy.’ Al-Harith replied: ‘By the Being Who has sent you with the truth! Neither did I ever see him nor did he come to me; in fact, I have come to you when you did not send your envoy fearing that God, the Mighty, the Exalted, and His Messenger were angry with me.’” At this, the following verses of Surah al-Hujurat were revealed: ياَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَكُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوۡا اَنۡ تُصِيۡبُوۡا قَوۡمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصۡبِحُوۡا عَلٰي مَا فَعَلۡتُمۡ نٰدِمِيۡنَ اِلي هٰذَا الْمَكَانِ فَضۡلًا مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَ نِعۡمَةً وَ اللّٰهُ عَلِيۡمٌ حَكِيۡمٌ (Believers! If a defiant person brings you a piece of news, investigate it thoroughly lest you assail someone unknowingly then regret your action to the verse through God’s grace and bounty. And God is All-knowing and Wise.)6
Here is a shortened schematic illustration of the variants of this narrative:
Though some authorities like al-‘Ijli and Ya‘qub ibn Shaybah regard Muhammad ibn Sabiq (d. 214 AH) to be trustworthy, Yahya ibn Ma‘in says that he is da‘if. However, Ya‘qub ibn Shaybah has questioned his memory.7 Ibn al-Jawzi has included him in his Al-Du‘afa’.8 According to al-Dhahabi, Abu Hatim’s opinion about him is la yuhtajju bihi.9 Similarly, Ibn Hajar records the following opinion about him: yuktabu hadithuhu wa la yuhtajju bihi.10 It may however be noted that Ibn Abi Hatim does not ascribe this opinion to his father Abu Hatim.11
Dinar al-Kufi is majhul al-‘ayn as the only person who narrates from him is his son ‘Isa ibn Dinar.12 It is perhaps because of this reason that ‘Ali ibn al-Madini has said though ‘Isa ibn Dinar is well known, his father Dinar is not known to him.13 On the other hand, Abu Hatim apparently says that the only person that narrates from Dinar al-Kufi is another of his sons Abu Sulayman Ayyub ibn Dinar. He does not mention ‘Isa ibn Dinar.14 A little deliberation shows that this Dinar al-Kufi is actually Abu al-‘Iraz Dinar al-Kufi, who is different from Dinar al-Kufi.15
Ibn Hajar regards Dinar al-Kufi to be maqbul.16
ii. From ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (rta)
أخبرنا محمد بن عبد اللّٰه الحافظ أنبأ أحمد بن كامل القاضي ثنا محمد بن سعد العوفي حدثني أبي سعد بن محمد بن الحسن بن عطية حدثني عمي الحسين بن الحسن بن عطية حدثني أبي عن جدي عطية بن سعد عن بن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال كان رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم بعث الوليد بن عقبة بن أبي معيط إلي بني المصطلق ليأخذ منهم الصدقات وأنه لما أتاهم الخبر فرحوا وخرجوا ليتلقوا رسول رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم وأنه لما حدث الوليد أنهم خرجوا يتلقونه رجع إلي رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم فقال يا رسول اللّٰه إن بني المصطلق قد منعوا الصدقة فغضب رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم من ذلك غضبا شديدا فبينما هو يحدث نفسه أن يغزوهم إذ أتاه الوفد فقالوا يا رسول اللّٰه إنا حدثنا أن رسولك رجع من نصف الطريق وإنا خشينا أن يكون إنما رده كتاب جاءه منك لغضب غضبته علينا وإنا نعوذ بالله من غضب الله وغضب رسوله وإن رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم استعتبهم وهم بهم فأنزل اللّٰه عز وجل عذرهم في الكتاب فقال يَاَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَكُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوۡا اَنۡ تُصِيۡبُوۡا قَوۡمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصۡبِحُوۡا عَلٰي مَا فَعَلۡتُمۡ نٰدِمِيۡنَ
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas stated: “God’s Messenger (sws) sent al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘it to the Banu Mustaliq to collect zakah from them. When they received this news, they were overjoyed and came out to kill the envoy of God’s Messenger (sws). When al-Walid realized that they had come to kill him, he returned to God’s Messenger (sws) and said: ‘O God’s Messenger! The Banu Mustaliq have refused to give their zakah.’ At this, God’s Messenger (sws) got very angry. While he was thinking to launch an attack on them, suddenly a delegation from the Banu Mustaliq arrived and said: ‘God’s Messenger (sws) we have been told that your envoy returned to you from half way and we feared that he has returned the letter he brought from you because you had sent because of your anger that arose from his anger with us and we seek God’s refuge from His anger and from the anger of His messenger.’ And God’s Messenger granted them his goodwill while they were within him. At this, God, the Mighty, the Exalted, revealed their excuse in His Book: يَاَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَكُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوۡا اَنۡ تُصِيۡبُوۡا قَوۡمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصۡبِحُوۡا عَلٰي مَا فَعَلۡتُمۡ نٰدِمِيۡنَ (Believers! If a defiant person brings you a piece of news, investigate it thoroughly lest you assail someone unknowingly then regret your action).17
Here is a shortened schematic illustration of the variants of this narrative:
The following narrators are suspect:
‘Atiyyah ibn Sa‘d al-‘Awfi (d. 111 AH)
Al-Dhahabi records that Ahmad ibn Hanbal, al-Nasa’i, Abu Hatim and a host of others have regarded him to be da‘if.18 The narrative under discussion contains his ‘an‘anah and he is also a mudallis. According to Ibn Hajar, he is guilty of al-tadlis al-qabih.19. Ibn Hibban has mentioned him in his Al-Majruhin.20
Al-Hasan ibn ‘Atiyyah (d. 181 AH)
Abu Hatim regards him to be da‘if al-hadith.21 According to al-Bukhari, he is laysa bi dhak.22 On the other hand, Ibn Sa‘d regards him to be trustworthy (kana thiqah inshaAllah) and says that his narratives are sound (lahu ahadith al-salihah).23 Ibn Hibban says that his narratives are not clean (laysat bi naqiyyah).24 He further says that he is not sure if the problem in his narratives is from him or from his father Atiyyah ibn Sa‘d al-‘Awfi (mentioned earlier) or from both because his father is nothing in matters of Hadith and most of his narratives are from his father and for this reason his matter is ambiguous and it is essential that he be forsaken.25 Ibn Hajar says that he is da‘if. 26
Al-Husayn ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Atiyah (d. 211/212 AH)
Abu Hatim regards him to be da‘if al-hadith.27 According to Ibn Sa‘d, he is da‘ifan fi al-hadith.28 Dhahabi records that Yahya ibn Ma‘in and al-Nasa’i have regarded him to be da‘if and that in Ibn Hibban’s opinion, he narrates things which do not have any corroboration (rawa ashya’ la yutaba‘u ‘alayha) and it is not recommended that one adduces things from his narratives (la yajuzu al-ihtijaj bi khabarihi).29 .
Sa‘d ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Atiyyah
According to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal he is not worthy of being taken narratives from.30
Muhammad ibn Sa‘d al-‘Awfi (d. 277 AH)
According to al-Khatib, he is lenient in matters of Hadith (layyin fi al-hadith) but also records that in the opinion of al-Daraqutni he is la ba’sa bihi.31
iii. From Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah (rta)
حدثنا علي بن سعيد الرازي قال نا الحسين بن عيسي بن ميسرة الرازي قال ناعبد اللّٰه بن عبد القدوس قال نا الاعمش عن موسي بن المسيب عن سالم بن ابي الجعد عن جابر بن عبد الله قال بعث رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم الوليد بن عقبة إلي بني وليعة وكانت بينهم شحناء في الجاهلية فلما بلغ بني وليعة استقبلوه لينظروا ما في نفسه فخشي القوم فرجع إلي رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم فقال ان بني وليعة ارادوا قتلي ومنعوني الصدقة فلما بلغ بني وليعة الذي قال الوليد عند رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم أتوا رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم فقالوا يا رسول اللّٰه لقد كذب الوليد ولكن كانت بيننا وبينه شحناء فخشينا ان يعاقبنا بالذي كان بيننا فقال رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم لينتهين بنو وليعة او لأبعثن اليهم رجلا عندي كنفسي يقتل مقاتلتهم ويسبي ذراريهم وهو هذا ثم ضرب بيده علي كتف علي بن ابي طالب قال وأنزل اللّٰه في الوليد یَاَیُّهَا الَّذِیۡنَ اَمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَکُمۡ فَاسِقٌ الآية لم يرو هذا الحديث عن الأعمش إلا عبد الله بن عبد القدوس
Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah said: “God’s Messenger (sws) sent al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah to the Banu Wali‘ah and in the times of jahiliyyah there was enmity between them. So when he reached the Banu Wali‘ah, they welcomed him in order to find out what was in his heart. At this, al-Walid became scared of them and returned to God’s Messenger (sws) and said to him: ‘The Banu Wali‘ah planned to kill me and refused to give zakah to me.’ When the Banu Wali‘ah came to know what al-Walid had told God’s Messenger they came to him and said: ‘O God’s Messenger! Al-Walid has lied to you; the thing is that there was enmity between us and him and we feared that he would take revenge from us because of this.’ Thereupon God’s Messenger said: ‘The Banu Wali‘ah should abstain from this or I shall definitely send a person who to me is like me. He will fight their combatants. And this person is this. He patted ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib on his shoulder.’ God revealed this verse about al-Walid: یَاَیُّهَا الَّذِیۡنَ اَمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَکُمۡ فَاسِقٌ (Believers! If a defiant person brings you a piece of news.)32
Following is the schematic illustration of the isnad of this narrative.
Salim ibn al-Ja‘d is a mudallis33 and the narrative under discussion has his ‘an‘anah.
Al-A‘mash too is a mudallis34 and does tadlis from weak narrators and would not name them. According to the history of Yahya ibn Ma‘in, his pupil ‘Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-Darimi declares that al-A‘mash is guilty of the worst form of tadlis: tadlis al-taswiyah.35 The narrative under discussion has his ‘an‘anah.
Following is the jarh recorded by al-Mizzi on ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Quddus: according to Yahya ibn Ma‘in, he is laysa bi shay’; rafidi, al-khabith; Zanij says: tarktuhu lam aktub ‘anhu; Abu Da’ud says that he is da‘if al-hadith; al-Nasa’i says that he is da‘if; laysa bi thiqah. 36 Al-Daraqutni also regards him to be da‘if. 37
Regarding ‘Ali ibn Sa‘id ibn Bashir al-Razi, al-Daraqutni says that he is laysa bi dhak tafarrada bi ashya’.38
iv. From Umm Salamah (rta)
أخبرنا روح بن عبادة نا موسي بن عبيدة الربذي أخبرني ثابت مولي أم سلمة عن أم سلمة قالت كان رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم إذا خرج قبل الأولي صلي ركعتين في المسجد ويصلي ركعتين قبل العصر فقدم عليه وفد بني المصطلق وكان قد بعث إليهم الوليد بن عقبة فأخذ صدقات أموالهم بعد الوقعة فلما سمعوا بذلك خرج منهم قوم ركوبا يفخم رسول رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم ويهديه في البلاد ويحدثه فلما سمع بهم رجع فقال يا رسول اللّٰه إن وفد بني المصطلق منعوا صدقاتهم فلما سمعوا بمرجعه أقبلوا علي أثره حتي قدموا المدينة فصفوا مع رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم في الصف الأول في صلاة الأولي فقالوا نعوذ بالله وبرسوله من غضب الله وغضب رسوله ذكر لنا أنك بعثت رجلا تصدق أموالنا فسررنا بذلك وقرت به أعيننا فذكر لنا أنه رجع فخشينا أن يكون رده غضب من اللّٰه ورسوله نعوذ باللّٰه من غضب اللّٰه وغضب رسوله قالت فما زالوا يعتذرون إليه حتي جاء المؤذن لصلاة العصر فصلي المكتوبة ثم دخل بيتي وكان يومها فصلى بعدها ركعتين لم يصلهما قبل ولا بعد فبعثت عائشة إليها ما هذه الصلاة التي صلاها رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم في بيتك فقالت هذه سجدتان كان رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم يصليهما قبل العصر دخله بنو المصطلق فأنزل الله عز وجل يٰاَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَكُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوۡا اَنۡ تُصِيۡبُوۡا قَوۡمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ الآية
Umm Salamah said: “Whenever God’s Messenger would go out before the ‘asr prayer, he would pray two rak‘at in the mosque. So once he was praying two rak‘at before zuhr when a delegation from the Banu Mustaliq came to him; he had sent al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah to them so that he could collect zakah from them after the battle with the Banu Mustaliq. When they heard that he was coming to them, they went out from the city in the form of a group to welcome the envoy of God’s Messenger (sws). They gave him a guided-tour of the city and conversed with him. So when he had heard from them, he returned and said: ‘O God’s Messenger! The delegation of the Banu Mustaliq has refused to pay their zakah.’ Thus when they got to know what he told God’s Messenger, they followed his footsteps until they reached Madinah. Then they prayed the zuhr with God’s Messenger in the first row. [After the prayer was complete,] they said to him: ‘We seek refuge with God and His Messenger from the anger of God and His Messenger. We were told that you had sent a person to us to collect zakah. This made us happy and soothed our eyes; it was also mentioned to us that he had retuned before coming to us. So, we feared that his return was due to the anger of God and His Messenger from which we seek God’s refuge.’” Umm Salamah continued: “They continued to present their excuses to the Prophet (sws) until the prayer-caller called out the ‘asr prayer. He offered the prayer and then entered my house.” Thabit mawla Umm Salamah said: “It was her turn. After that he prayed two rak‘at which he never did before nor after this. Later ‘A’ishah sent her a message asking her: ‘What was this prayer he offered at your house?’ At this, she replied: ‘These were two prostrations which God’s Messenger offered before the ‘asr prayer when the Banu Mustaliq came to him. At this, the verse was revealed: يٰاَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا اِنۡ جَآءَكُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوۡا اَنۡ تُصِيۡبُوۡا قَوۡمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ الآية (Believers! If a defiant person brings you a piece of news, investigate it thoroughly lest you assail someone unknowingly).39
Following is the schematic illustration of the isnad of this narrative:
Ibn Hibban vaguely says that the people of Madinah narrate from Thabit mawla Umm Salamah.40 However, a recourse to Hadith literature shows that the only person who narrates from Thabit mawla Umm Salamah is Musa ibn ‘Ubayd ibn Nashit. This is also indicated by Ibn Abi Hatim, who also does not mention any jarh on him.41 Ibn Sa‘d states that he is qalil al-hadith.42 On the basis of this information, it can be concluded that Thabit mawla Umm Salamah is majhul.
About Musa ibn ‘Ubayd ibn Nashit (d. 153 AH), Ibn al-Jawzi writes: Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that it in his opinion narrating from him is not permissible. Yahya ibn Ma‘in says that he is laysa bi shay’ and at another instance states that he is da‘if; at a further instance says that he is la yuhtajju bihi and at still another instance says that he is not a liar but narrates manakir narratives. Abu Hatim say that he is munkar al-hadith; ‘Ali ibn al-Junayd regards him to be matruk al-hadith; al-Nasa’i and al-Daraqutni regard him to be da‘if.43 Ibn Hibban records him in his Al-Majruhin and says that he was a pious and righteous person except that he had a bad memory and would narrate things which were baseless and narrates from trustworthy people what is not from among the narratives of the trustworthy, though unintentionally. Hence adducing from him has been rejected. 4445
v. From ‘Alqamah (rta)
أخبرناه أبو الفتح يوسف بن عبد الواحد أخبرنا شجاع بن علي أخبرنا أبو عبد اللّٰه ابن منده أخبرنا الحسين بن الحسن بن أيوب الطوسي حدثنا أبو يحيي عبد اللّٰه بن أحمد بن ميسرة حدثنا يعقوب بن محمد الزهري حدثنا عيسي بن الحصين بن كلثوم بن علقمة بن ناجية الخزاعي عن جدة كلثوم بن علقمة عن أبيه أنه كان في وفد بني المصطلق حين قدموا علي رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم قال وبعث إلينا رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم الوليد بن عقبة بن أبي معيط يصدق أموالنا حتي إذا كان قريبا منا بعد وقعة المريسيع رجع فركبوا في أثره قال وسقنا طائفة من صدقاتنا فقدم فقال يا بني اللّٰه أتيت قوما في جاهليتهم جددوا القتال ومنعوا الصدقة فلم يسر ذلك رسول اللّٰه صلي اللّٰه عليه وسلم حتي أنزل اللّٰه عز وجل اِنۡ جَآءَکُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَیَّنُوۡۤا
‘Isa ibn al-Husayn reported from his grandmother Kulthum ibn ‘Alqamah who reported from his father ‘Alqamah that he was in the delegation of the Banu Mustaliq when it came over to God’s Messenger (sws). ‘Alqamah said: “God’s Messenger had earlier sent al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘it to collect the zakah of our wealth after the battle with the Banu Mustaliq [our tribe]. When he was near us, he returned. So, the people of this tribe followed him back and we had already sent a group of people with our zakah. Walid came to him and said: ‘God’s Messenger! I came to a people who were in their jahiliyyah; they renewed warfare and refused to pay zakah.’ This did not please God’s Messenger until God, the Mighty, the Exalted, revealed: اِنۡ جَآءَکُمۡ فَاسِقٌۢ بِنَبَاٍ فَتَبَیَّنُوۡا (If a defiant person brings you a piece of news …).”46
Following is the schematic illustration of the isnad of this narrative:
No information is available on ‘Isa ibn al-Husayn ibn Kulthum.
Regarding Ya‘qub ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Isa al-Zuhri (d. 213 AH), Ibn Abi Hatim records: Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that he is laysa bi shay’ laysa yusawwi shay’an, Abu Hatim says though he regards him to be just yet he did not write from him even though he had met him; Yahya ibn Ma‘in says that whatever he narrates from trustworthy teachers should be written and what he narrates from unknown teachers should be rejected; Abu Zur‘ah says that he is wahi al-hadith47 Ibn Hajar says: saduq kathir al-wahm.48 When Salih ibn Muhammad was asked about him, he said that his narratives resemble those of al-Waqidi as if he was regarding him to be weak.49
No jarh or ta‘dil is available on Abu Yahya ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Misrah (also spelled as Abu Yahya ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Abi Maysarah) even though al-Dhahabi briefly mentions him.50
No jarh or ta‘dil is available on Shuja‘ ibn ‘Ali ibn Shuja‘ and Yusuf ibn ‘Abd al-Wahid ibn Muhammad even though al-Dhahabi briefly mentions them.51
In the left most strand, about Abu Yusuf Ya‘qub ibn Humayd ibn Kasib (d. 140 AH), al-Mizzi records: Mudar reports from Yahya ibn Ma‘in that he is thiqah while ‘Abbas al-Duri reports from Yahya ibn Ma‘in that he is laysa bi shay’ and another opinion he gives is laysa bi thiqah; al-‘Abbas al-‘Anbari says yusilu al-hadith; Abu Hatim regards him to be da‘if al-hadith. Ibn ‘Adi says that he is kathir al-hadith kathir al-ghara’ib. Ibn Hibban has mentioned him in his Al-Thiqat and said that at times he makes mistakes one after the other.52 Al-Nasa’i says that he is laysa bi shay’.53 Ibn al-Jawzi has recorded him in his Al-Du‘afa’ and mentioned that al-Azdi says that he is da‘if al-hadith.54
No direct jarh or ta‘dil is available on Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Khalili (d. 545 AH). He is mentioned without jarh or ta‘dil by al-Dhahabi.55 Ibn al-Nuqtah mentions that Abu Sa‘d in his book Al-Ansab that al-Khalili would serve Qadi al-Khalil ibn Ahmad and that the latter was told that al-Khalili is shaykhun thiqatun.56 One can clearly see here that the indirect mention of al-Khalili’s trustworthiness is a very weak one.
Muhammad ibn Isma‘il ibn al-Fadl al-Fudayli is actually Muhammad ibn Isma‘il ibn al-Fudayl al-Fudayli (d. 534 AH). He is mentioned by al-Dhahabi without any jarh or ta‘dil.57
IV Conclusion
The questions raised on the text and chain of these narratives render them unworthy of being relied upon.
__________
______________________
1. See, for example: Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, vol. 4, 210.
2. See, for example: Al-Zamakhshari, Al-Kashshaf, vol. 4, 362.
3. See, for example: Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, vol. 4, 211.
4. Another contradiction that is apparent is that in the narrative of Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah (rta) cited ahead, the whole matter does not even relate to the tribe of Banu Mustaliq; it actually relates to the Banu Wali‘ah; moreover, this narrative also mentions that Walid had enmity with this tribe since the times of jahiliyyah. See: Al-Tabarani, Al-Mu‘jam al-awsat, vol. 4, 133-134, (no. 3797).
5. It should remain in mind that Walid ibn ‘Uqbah (rta) was a relative of ‘Uthman (rta).
6. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 4, 279, (no. 18482). See also: Al-Bukhari, Al-Tarikh al-awsat, vol. 1, 91, (no. 365); Ibn Qani‘, Mu‘jam al-sahabah, vol. 1, 177; Al-Tabarani, Al-Mu‘jam al-kabir, vol. 3, 274, (no. 3395); Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq, vol. 63, 228-229.
7. Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 25, 236.
8. Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Du‘afa’, vol. 3, 62.
9. Al-Dhahabi, Al-Mughni fi al-du‘afa, vol. 2, 583.
10. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 9, 154.
11. Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dil, vol. 7, 283.
12. See, for example: Al-Bukhari, Al-Tarikh al-kabir, vol. 3, 247; Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 8. 509; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 3, 188; Al-Dhahabi, Al-Kashif, vol. 1, 385.
13. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 8, 188.
14. Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dil, vol. 3, 430.
15. Ibn Hibban, Al-Thiqat, vol. 4, 218-219.
16. Ibn Hajar, Taqrib al-tahdhib, 202. Ibn Hajar places the narrator who is called maqbul in the sixth tabaqah and describes him thus: He narrates very few narratives and there is nothing concrete that rejects his narratives. If a narrative reported by him is corroborated by some other narrator as well, then he is termed maqbul and if this corroboration does not exist, then he is called layyin al-hadith. See: Ibn Hajar, Taqrib al-tahdhib, 73.
17. Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-kubra, vol. 5, 9, (no. 17754). See also: Al-Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 26, 123-124; Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq, vol. 63, 229-230.
18. Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-i‘tidal, vol. 5, 101.
19.Ibn Hajar, Tabaqat al-mudallisin, 50.
20. Ibn Hibban, Al-Majruhin, vol. 2, 176.
21. Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dil, vol. 3, 26.
22. Al-Bukhari, Al-Tarikh al-kabir, vol. 2, 301.
23. Ibn Sa‘d, Al-Tabaqat al-kubra, vol. 6, 304.
24. Ibn Hibban, Al-Thiqat, vol. 6, 170.
25. Ibn Hibban, Al-Majruhin, vol. 1, 234.
26. Ibn Hajar, Taqrib al-tahdhib, 162.
27. Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dil, vol. 3, 48.
28. Ibn Sa‘d, Al-Tabaqat al-kubra, vol. 7, 331.
29. Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-i‘tidal, vol. 2, 286-287.
30. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, vol. 9, 126.
31. Ibid., vol. 5, 322.
32. Al-Tabarani, Al-Mu‘jam al-awsat, vol. 4, 133-134, (no. 3797).
33. Ibn Hajar, Tabaqat al-mudallisin, 31.
34. Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-i‘tidal, vol. 3, 316.
35. ‘Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-Darimi, Tarikh Yahya ibn Ma‘in (Beirut: Dar al-ma’mun li al-turath, n.d.), 243.
36. Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 15, 243-244.
37. Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Du‘afa’, vol. 2, 130.
38. Al-Dhahabi, Al-Mughni, vol. 2, 448.
39. Ishaq ibn Rahawayah, Musnad, vol. 4, 118, (no. 1886).
40. Ibn Hibban, Al-Thiqat, vol. 4, 95.
41. Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dil, vol. 2, 461.
42. Ibn Sa‘d, Al-Tabaqat al-kubra, vol. 1, 494.
43. Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Du‘afa wa al-matrukin, vol. 3, 147.
44. Ibn Hibban, Al-Majruhin, vol. 2, 234.
45. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 10, 319-320.
46. Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq, vol. 63, 230. See also: Ibid., vol. 63, 231.
47. Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dil, vol. 9, 214.
48. Ibn Hajar, Taqrib al-tahdhib, 608.
49. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, vol. 14, 269.
50. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar, vol. 12, 632-633.
51. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar, vol. 12, 632-633; Al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-islam, vol. 16, 552.
52. Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 32, 321-322.
53. Al-Nasa’i, Al-Du‘afa’, 106.
54. Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Du‘afa’, vol. 3, 215.
55. Al-Dhahabi, Tarikh al-islam, vol. 31, 225.
56. Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ghani ibn al-Nuqtah al-Baghindi, Al-Taqyid li ma ‘rifh ruwat al-sunan wa al-asanid, 121.
57. Al-Dhahabi, Siyar, vol. 20, 64-65.