حدثنا عَبْدَانُ بن أَحْمَدَ ثنا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بن الْمُسْتَمِرِّ الْعُرُوقِيُّ ثنا قُرَّةُ بن حَبِيبٍ ثنا جَرِيرُ بن حَازِمٍ عن سَعِيدِ بن عَمْرِو بن جَعْدَةَ الْمَخْزُومِيِّ عَنِ بن زُرَارَةَ عن أبيه عَنِ النبي صلي اللّٰهُ عليه وسلم ذُوقُوا مَسَّ سَقَرَ إِنَّا كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقْنَاهُ بِقَدْرٍ قال نَزَلَتْ في أُنَاسٍ من أُمَّتِي في آخِرِ الزَّمَانِ يُكَذِّبُونَ بِقَدَرِ اللّٰهِ عز وجل
‘Amr ibn Zurarah reports from his father who reports from the Prophet (sws) that he said: “The verse was revealed about those people about my ummah who would deny the fate destined by God, the powerful and mighty.”1
Following is the schematic illustration of the isnad of this narrative’s variants:
This narrative cannot be soundly ascribed to the Prophet (sws). Sa‘id ibn ‘Amr ibn Ja‘adah does not narrate from ‘Amr ibn Zurarah. Authorities show that he actually narrates besides others from ‘Amr ibn Ja‘dah and not ‘Amr ibn Zurarah (as is the case in this narrative).2
If it is thought that ‘Amr ibn Zurarah has been erroneously mentioned as ‘Amr ibn Ja‘adah and it was the latter from whom Sa‘id ibn ‘Amr ibn Ja‘adah narrated, then ‘Amr ibn Ja‘dah does not narrate from Zurarah al-Ansari.3
It may also be noted that al-Tha‘labi and al-Khatib4 mention the name Ja‘far ibn Sulayman while the rest mention the name Hafs ibn Sulayman. It is the latter, then here is what al-Mizzi says about him:5 In the opinion of ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Yusuf ibn Khirash and Imam Muslim he is matruk al-hadith. Al-Bukhari comments on him as tarakuhu. ‘Ali ibn al-Madini and Abu Zur‘ah regard him to be da‘if al-hadith. In the opinion of Yahya ibn Ma‘in, as quoted by Abu Qudamah Sarakhsi and ‘Uthman ibn Sa‘id al-Darimi, he is laysa bi thiqah. Al-Nasa’i also regards him to be laysa bi thiqah. Salih ibn Muhammad al-Baghdadi says that the Ahadith narrated by him are not worth writing as primary evidence and all of them mention unfamiliar things in religion. ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Yusuf ibn Khirash says that he is a great liar and forges Ahadith. Yahya ibn Ma‘in also regards him to be a great liar.
About Abu Sahl al-Sabbah if Sahl, Ibn Hibban says that it is now permissible to adduce from him because of an abundance of manakir in his narratives.6
_____________
________________
1. Al-Tabarani, Al-Mu‘jam al-kabir, vol. 5, 287, (no. 5316). See also: Ibn Abi Hatim, Tafsir, vol. 10, 3321, (no. 18714); Al-Tha‘labi, Tafsir, vol. 9, 171; Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Madinah Dimashq, vol. 46, 12; Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tali talkhis al-mutashabih, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Riyad: Dar al-sami ‘i, 1417 AH), 150, (no. 65).
Ibn Hajar (Al-Isabah, vol. 5, 291) has pointed out that Ibn al-Qani‘ (Mu‘jam al-sahabah, vol. 2, 212) has wrongly ascribed this narrative to ‘Amr ibn Zurah, as the companion reporting from Muhammad). Precisely for this reason, it has not been represented in the chart.
Similarly, there is a tashif in Tarikh Madinah Dimashq and also one of the narrators has been skipped: عن حفص بن سليمان عن خالد بن سلمة بن عمرو بن زرارة عن أبيه قال. Thus it should actually be: عن حفص بن سليمان عن خالد بن سلمة عن عمرو بن زرارة عن أبيه . The narrator missed out is Sa‘id ibn ‘Amr ibn Ja‘adah. For this reason, this variant has not been represented in the chart.
2. See: Ibn Abi Hatim, Al-Jarh wa al-ta‘dil, vol. 4, 49; Al-Bukhari, Al-Tarikh al-kabir, vol. 3, 500; Ibn Hibban, Al-Thiqat, vol. 6, 370.
3. See: Ibn Hajar, Al-Isabah, vol. 5, 291.
4. Al-Tha‘labi, Tafsir, vol. 9, 171; Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tali talkhis al-mutashabih, 1st ed., vol. 1 (Riyad: Dar al-sami‘i, 1417 AH), 150, (no. 65).
Ibn Hajar (Al-Isabah, vol. 5, 291) has pointed out that Ibn al-Qani‘ (Mu‘jam al-sahabah, vol. 2, 212) has wrongly ascribed this narrative to ‘Amr ibn Zurah, as the companion reporting from Muhammad). Precisely for this reason, it has not been represented in the chart.
5. Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 7, 13-15.
6. Ibn Hibban, Al-Majruhin, vol. 1, 377.