A forgery against Amir Muawiyah

Baladhuri records:

Ishaq and Bakr bin Haytham from Abdurazaq bin Hamam from Mu’amar from Ibn
Taous from Taous bin Kisan from Abdullah Ibn Amr ibn Al-‘as who stated: ‘I was
sitting with the Prophet of Allah (s) when He (s) said: ‘A man will come out of
this mountain pass, who will die and he will be outside my nation (Islam)’. I
had left behind my father there for wudhu, and I feared, as if holding back my
urine, that he would be the one to come, but Mu’awiyah came out. The Prophet (s)
said: ‘He is the one’.
Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 2 page 120

Ishaq bin Abi Israel: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p79),
Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1 p234). Abdulrazaq bin Hamam: Ibn Hajar
said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599), Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam
alnubala, v9 p563). Mu’amar bin Rashid: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib
al-Tahdib, v2 p202), Dahabi said: ‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p190). Abdullah
bin Taous: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p503), Dahabi said:
‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v6, p103). Taous bin Kisan: Ibn Hajar said:
‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p448), Dahabi said: ‘He had a great magnificence’
(Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p90). Abdullah bin Amro bin al-Sas: A Sahabi. Moreover,
Hafiz Ahmad bin al-Sidiq said about this tradition: ‘Sahih according to Muslim’s
condition’ (Jawnat al-Attar, v2 p154)

[end quote]

 
Imam al-Bukhari (Allah have mercy on him) declared this narration a forgery
in his Tarikh al-Awsat (Luhaydan ed. 1:255-256) in the context of mentioning
some forgeries disparaging Mu`awiya (Allah be well-pleased with him), as
detailed below.

First, some rules and findings that are relevant to this narration:

1. As a rule all narrations praising or disparaging Mu`awiya (Allah be
well-pleased with him) are weak and/or forged as stated by Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn
al-Qayyim, Mulla `Ali al-Qari, and others in their books on forgeries, Allah
have mercy on them.

2. Among the forgeries are what is called copycat fabrications attempting to
reduplicate the Prophetic idiom along the lines desired by the forgers. A
hilarious example is the dietetic forgery “Eggplant fulfills whatever need it is
eaten for,” which was made up on the model of the authentic hadith “Zamzam
fulfills whatever need it is drunk for.”

Similarly, this particular narration is a “copycat rewording” type of doctrinal
forgery, both:

2.1 in its text (matn), patterned after: “A man will come out of this
mountain pass who belongs to the people of Paradise….”

2.2 and in the attribute of the transmission chain as “meeting the criterion
of al-Bukhari and Muslim.”

The latter matn is authentically related:

( a ) about `Abd Allah b. Salam (Allah be well-pleased with him) from Sa`d b. Abi
Waqqas by Imam Ahmad in the Musnad with a fair chain.

( b ) a man from the Ansar (Allah be well-pleased with him and them) by `Abd b.
Humayd in his Musnad. Imam Shihab al-Din al-Busiri said in Ithaf al-Khiyarat
al-Mahara (6:78 §5383):

`Abd b. Humayd said:
`Abd al-Razzaq informed us:
Ma`mar informed us:
from al-Zuhri:
that Anas b. Malik (Allah be well-pleased with him) told him:

“We were one day sitting with Rasul Allah salla Allah `alayh wa-Sallam when he
said: ‘Someone shall come out to meet you from this crag–a man from the people
of Paradise!’ Whereupon a man man from the Ansar emerged, his beard dripping
with the water of his ablution; he had hung his sandals on his left hand. He
gave salaam. The next day the Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) said the
same and the same man emerged, and likewise the day after. After the Prophet
rose, `Abd Allah b. `Amr b. al-`As followed the man in question and said to him:
‘I quarreled with my father and swore an oath to him that I would not stay under
the same roof with him for three days; could you shelter me until they pass?’ He
said yes.

“Anas said: `Abd Allah would narrate that he spent with him three nights and he
never saw him rise for late night prayers except that whenever he turned over in
his bed he would make dhikr and takbir, and so until he rose. `Abd Allah said:
and I never heard him say other than good things. But when the three nights
elapsed I was on the verge of considering his deeds insignificant. I said to
him: O `Abd Allah, trhere was no anger nor rejection between me and my father;
but I heard Rasulullah salla Allahu `alayh wa-Sallam say three times about you:
Now shall come out to meet you a man from the people of Paradise–and you came
out! so I wanted to spend time with you and observe your practice to follow you,
but I did not see you do anything special. What is it then that made you reach
what the Prophet said?

“He replied: Nothing other than what you saw.

“As I was leaving he called me back and said: Nothing other than what you saw,
except that I cannot recall that I do not feel any resentment toward any Muslim
who cheated me, nor do I envy anyone over any bounty Allah Most High gave them.
`Abd Allah said: That is what made you reach that, and which we are incapable of
doing!”

Al-Busiri then said: This is a sound chain by the criterion of al-Bukhari and
Muslim and al-Nasa’i, and this is also what Ibn hajar said in his marginalia on
al-Mundhiri’s Targhib wal-Tarhib.

3. The narration of the anti-Mu`awiya forgery in al-Baladhuri is mentioned in
Ansab al-Ashraf (Dar al-Ma`arif ed. 5:134) and comes through two chains, neither
of which is correct:

3.1 “Ishaq and Bakr b. al-Haytham narrated to me and both said: `Abd
al-Razzaq b. Hammam narrated to us: Ma`mar informed us: from Ibn Tawus: from his
father: from `Abd Allah b. `Amr b. al-`As…”

This unknown Bakr b. al-Haytham is a direct teacher to al-Baladhuri for many
chains in Ansab al-Ashraf and Futuh al-Buldan, narrating anti-Umayyad slurs from
`Abd al-Razzaq al-San`ani, from Ma`mar, from Qatada/al-Kalbi/al-Zuhri. It could
not possibly be Abu Bakr b. al-Haytham al-Anbari the teacher of al-Hakim (d.
405) and Abu Nu`aym (d. 430).

As for Ishaq, it is NOT Ishaq b. Abi Isra’il al-Marwazi al-Baghdadi (d. 246) as
claimed, since he is not known to narrate from `Abd al-Razzaq (nor does he
narrate anything in the two Sahihs whatsoever, but only a single hadith in
al-Nasa’i and a single hadith in Abu Dawud so even if it were him the chain
would still not be “sahih according to Muslim’s condition!”); but rather it is
the musnid of San`a’: Ishaq b. Ibrahim b. `Abbad al-Dabari (d. 285) who was only
six or seven when he heard from `Abd al-Razzaq according to Imam Ibrahim
al-Harbi; hence the saying of Ibn `Adi in al-Kamil (1:338): “He was deemed too
young to be reliable from `Abd al-Razzaq;” and al-Dhahabi in Mizan al-I`tidal
said that as a consequence the hadiths which he alone narrates from `Abd
al-Razzaq are disclaimed (munkar), and this is one of them. “Meaning,” Ibn Hajar
said in the Lisan (1:349-350), “His narrations from `Abd al-Razzaq other than
those found in the Musannaf.”

Ibn al-Salah said in his Muqaddima (Type 62: Knowledge of the trustworthy
masters who became senile in old age):

“`ABD AL-RAZZAQ B. HAMMAM. Ahmad b. Hanbal mentioned that he became blind in old
age and he used to be dictated to and endorse the dictation [yulaqqan
fa-yatalaqqan, e.g.: ‘You narrated from X, Y and Z’ – ‘Yes, I narrated from X, Y
and Z’] so the audition (sama`) of whoever heard from him after his blindness is
worthless. Al-Nasa’i said [in al-Du`afa’ wal-Matrukin]: ‘Anything that one
narrated from him in his latter period needs re-examination.’ I [Ibn al-Salah]
say: Thus is the saying of `Abbas b. `Abd al-`Azim understood when he returned
from San`a’: ‘By Allah! I endured every hardship to go study with `Abd al-Razzaq
and I bear witness that he is certainly a liar and that al-Waqidi is more
truthful!’ I say: I myself have found that what is narrated from al-Tabarani
(*), from Ishaq b. Ibrahim al-Dabari, from `Abd al-Razzaq, hadiths I found
thoroughly disclaimed and which I counted of that category, for the audition of
al-Dabari is very late [in `Abd al-Razzaq’s life].”

(*) Al-Tabarani narrates a version of this hadith that does not name the man who
came out of the crag. Majma` al-Zawa’id 5:243, cf. also Abu Nu`aym, Tarikh
Asbahan (2:77).

3.2 “`Abd Allah b. Salih narrated to me: Yahya b. Adam narrated to me: from
Sharik: from Layth: from Tawus: from `Abd Allah b. `Amr…”

This is an incomplete chain missing the actual forger as hinted by al-Bukhari
and Ahmad and as identified by al-Khallal:

Al-Bukhari said in his Tarikh al-Awsat (Luhaydan ed. 1:255-256), mentioning some
forgeries disparaging Mu`awiya (Allah be well-pleased with him):

“And it is narrated from Ma`mar, from Ibn Tawus, from his father, from a certain
man, from `Abd Allah b. `Amr, and he [the narrator] raised it [to the Prophet,
upon him blessings and peace] while recounting his story. This is broken-chained
and unreliable…. and all this shows, regarding those reports, that they have
no bases (laysa laha usul) and that they are inauthentic (la tathbut) from the
Prophet (upon him blessings and peace) in that regard. Such is only said by
typically weak people (innama yaquluh ahl al-da`f), one on top of another.”

Ibn Qudama in his Muntakhab min al-`Ilal lil-Khallal (p. 228 §136) said:

“Al-Khallal narrated from Muhanna: I asked Ahmad [b. Hanbal] of the hadith of
Sharik: from Layth: from Tawus: from `Abd Allah b. `Amr, etc. and he said:
‘Rather, Ibn Tawus narrated it from his father, from `Abd Allah b. `Amr or
someone else’–he was not sure.

“Al-Khallal said: `Abd al-Razzaq narrated it, from Ma`mar, from Ibn Tawus who
said: I heard Furkhaash narrating this hadith from my father [Tawus], from `Abd
Allah b. `Amr.”

This Furkhaash is identified as:

– “`Uthman b. Khaash or Furkhaash” al-Basri, a colleague of the Mu`tazili imam
`Amr b. `Ubayd. Lisan under `Uthman b. Khaash.

– `Uthman b. Famarkaash in al-`Uqayli’s Du`afa’, under `Amr b. `Ubayd.

– “A man named `Uthman who is the brother of al-Samri” in Ya`qub b. Sufyan
al-Fasawi’s al-Ma`rifa wal-Tarikh (2:262-263).

In conclusion each of the two chains mentioned above (3.1 and 3.2) has a mortal
defect, consisting either in the narrator from `Abd al-Razzaq or in the presence
of an extremely obscure Mu`tazili in its makhraj (high up in the chain) which,
in addition, was characterized as broken-chained and appears also to be jumbled
(mudtarib). Hence it it is forged or, at best, extremely disclaimed, but
certainly not authentic, even less “by the criterion of Bukhari and Muslim”!

4. Ibn Taymiyya explicitly declared it “a forged lie by agreement of all the
experts of hadith” in his Minhaj al-Sunna al-Nabawiyya (4:443-444). The version
he was addressing was from `Abd Allah b. `Umar, which is a chain adduced by the
discarded Rafidi Nasr b. Muzahim in his book Kitab Siffin, in which the latter
also concocted another chain from Jabir, all for the same wording.

5. Before adducing this forgery, al-Baladhuri himself first adduces the same
hadith but with the wording “a man from the people of Paradise shall come out of
this crag, and Mu`awiya came out. The Prophet (upon him blessings and peace)
said: ‘He is the one’.”

May Allah Most High grant him and all the Companions the Highest Paradises and
grant us but one minuscule ray from the suns of their good deeds.

Wallahu a`lam.

Was-Salam,
GF Haddad

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s