Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you” November 15, 2008
Posted by Admin in Refutations, Takhrij, Usool ul Hadeeth.add a comment
Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you”
It has been reported in the Saheeh of Imaam Muslim,
[حدثنا إسحاق بن إبراهيم الحنظلي أخبرنا عيسى بن يونس حدثنا الأوزاعي عن يزيد بن يزيد بن جابر عن رزيق بن حيان عن مسلم بن قرظة عن عوف بن مالك عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: «خيار أئمتكم الذين تحبونهم ويحبونكم، ويصلون عليكم وتصلون عليهم، وشرار أئمتكم الذين تبغضونهم، ويبغضونكم وتلعنونهم ويلعنونكم»، قيل: (يا رسول الله: أفلا ننابذهم بالسيف?!)، فقال: «لا ما أقاموا فيكم الصلاة: وإذا رأيتم من ولاتكم شيئا تكرهونه: فاكرهوا عمله، ولا تنزعوا يدا من طاعة!»]
Told us Ishaaq Ibn Ibraaheem al-Hanzali, informed us ‘Isa Ibn Yoonis, told us al-’Awzaa’i, from Yazeed Ibn Yazeed Ibn Jaabir, from Ruzayq Ibn Hayyaan, from Muslim Ibn Qarda, from Auf Ibn Maalik who said, “The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid, “The best of your leaders are those whom you love and they love you, and for whom you pray and they pray for you; and the worst of your leaders are those whom you hate and they hate you, and you curse and they curse you” Someone asked, “Should we not then fight them with the sword?” He saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid, “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you” and he saAllaahu alayhi wa salamcontinued, “And if you observe something dislikeable from the ‘Ameer, then dislike it but do not release your hand from obedience”.
All the mutawatir narrations, in essence have come with the same wording. In some narrations it mentions the word Munaabidtha (disputing with them) but without the word Sayf (Sword). However, the word Sayf has come through various channels from a number of trustworthy authorities and cannot be rejected.
Otherwise, if we take the addition of a Thiqah in one narration but reject the addition of a Thiqah in another narration, then that would be a contradiction. Either you take all the words of a thiqah in a narration or you reject all their words. If he is trustworthy in the main wording of the hadeeth, he is also classed as trustworthy in the additions, unless there is a counter evidence to suggest that he has made a mistake. Accepting the hadeeth of a thiqah is required and rejecting it for no reason is haraam so we have to take this additional part of the hadeeth.
Also, by necessity of reason, disputing with the rulers is usually done with the sword otherwise how else will you be able to dispute with them, so even the other hadeeths which don’t contain the word Sayf , still imply, by necessity of reason, that the disputing with them, will be by the sword.
In some channels of narrations, it says “if there is a wali (governor) above you, and you see him committing a disobedience to Allaah, then hate the disobedience to Allaah, but don’t pull your hand from obedience” instead of the wording contained in the above narration which we have quoted in full, which says ““And if you observe something dislikeable from the ‘Ameer, then dislike it but do not release your hand from obedience”.
The narration we have quoted in full is better and more eloquent for the following reasons.
1. If you hate what the one in authority does, than that is wider then hating just the disobedience to Allaah. For example, you may hate taxes imposed upon you, but they are not a disobedience to Allaah and you are not permitted to rebel just because you hate these taxes.
2. The wording “dislikeable” has a wider meaning.
3. The other wording “then hate the disobedience to Allaah, but don’t pull your hand from obedience” may misguide some people, who may take it to mean that they must tolerate every sin. But this is not correct as some sins cannot be tolerated like the kufr buwah. So the wording “dislikeable” is more befitting and suitable for all cases.
In some of the chains of narration, the phrase “No, as long as they establish the call for prayer amongst you” is repeated two or three times, and this is just for further affirmation and does not change the meaning at all.
The hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik in Saheeh Muslim is saheeh and is confirmed by oath in another chain also contained in Saheeh Muslim:
Told us Dawud ibn Rashid, told us Al-Walid ibn Muslim, told us Abdul Rahman ibn Yazeed ibn Jaabir, from Mawla bani Fazarah (who is Razaik ibn Hayan) that he heard from Muslim ibn Karadah (who was the cousin of Auf Ibn Maalik) say that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid this hadeeth.
Then Abdul Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Jabir said “I said to Razaik (ibn Hayan) when he told me this hadeeth, by Allaah did you hear this hadeeth from Muslim ibn Karadah saying that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik saying that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said this hadeeth?” Razaik ibn Hayan went onto his knees and faced the Qiblah and said “By Allaah i heard this hadeeth from Muslim ibn Karadah saying that he heard from Auf Ibn Maalik saying that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid this hadeeth“
The hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik is also contained in other narrations of Saheeh Muslim, as well as al-Darimi’s Sunan, the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad bin Hanbal, the Saheeh of Ibn Hibban, Imaam Al-Bayhaqi’s Sunan al Qubra, the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imaam Tabarani, the Musnad al-Shamail and the Musnad ibn Rowanah from many channels so the hadeeth is well-established and authentic.
There is another similar hadeeth in the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imaam Tabarani which is not narrated from Auf Ibn Maalik, but from Uqbah ibn Aāmir:
Told us Muhammad ibn yahya ibn Mandah Al-Asbahani, from Abu Qurayb, from Yunus ibn Baqir, from Musa ibn Ali, from his father, from Uqbah ibn Aāmir who said that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid “Shall I not tell you about the best of your rulers and the worst?” they said “Yes, tell us, Messenger of Allaah” he said “the best are the ones you love and they love you and you make dua for them and they make dua for you. The worst are those who you hate and they hate you and you make dua against them and they make dua against you” they responded “should we not fight them?” the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam replied “leave them, as long as they pray and fast”
This isnaad is Hasan not saheeh, because it is said of Yunus ibn Baqir that he is “Saduq (Trustworthy), but makes mistakes” and Bukhaari and Muslim did narrate from him but only as a supporting channel not a main channel. The rest of the narrators in the chain like Musa ibn Ali, his father, and Uqbah ibn Aāmir are from the strong narrators of Saheeh Muslim. While Abu Qurayb is Muhammad ibn Alaa ibn hamdani, a teacher of both Imaams Muslim and Bukhaari and Muhammad ibn yahya ibn Mandah Al-Asbahani are famous scholars, well known to the scholars of hadeeth.
There is a third hadeeth narrated on the authority of Umar ibn al-Khattaab in the Sunan al-Tirmidhi:
Told us Muhammad ibn Bashar, from Abu Amar al-Aqdi, from Muhammad ibn Abi Hamayd, from Zayd ibn Aslam, from his father (Aslam, the freed slave of Umar), from Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salamsaid “”Shall I not tell you about the best of your rulers and the worst? The best are the ones you love and they love you and you make dua for them and they make dua for you. The worst are those who you hate and they hate you and you make dua against them and they make dua against you” the hadeeth stops there and does not carry on.
Imaam Tirmidhi says the hadeeth is “Hasan, but strange” because it is only known through this channel and Muhammad ibn Abi Hamayd has been declared to be weak as a narrator of hadeeth. Shaykh Albani declared this hadeeth to be saheeh, but it is not saheeh unless he meant it is saheeh because of shawaahid (supporting) evidences, but he didn’t mention this when he declared it saheeh and he should have done so as it is not saheeh on its own.
The hadeeth is also mentioned in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la and Shaykh Husayn Salim Asad declared the isnaad to be weak, which is correct. But the hadeeth can be considered Hasan if the other supporting evidences are also taken into account as Imaam Tirmidhi stated.
So we have the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik which is Saheeh without doubt, the hadeeth of Uqbah ibn Aāmir which is Hasan and the hadeeth of Umar ibn al-Khattaab which is of a acceptable isnaad if the supporting evidences are taken into account. So the hadeeth is close to being Mutawatir.
The hadeeth is definite in meaning that it is permissible to remove the rulers including fighting them with the sword, if they do not “establish the call for prayer amongst you”.
The meaning of establishing the call for prayer amongst us can be both literal and metaphorical.
Literally, it can mean allowing us to establish the salah amongst ourselves, by leaving the mosques open, not prosecuting those who pray, not preventing people praying in the official institutions like government buildings and the armed forces. If any of this happens then they are not establishing the call for prayer amongst the Muslims.
The metaphorical meaning of establishing the call for prayer amongst us could be of establishing the deen and this would essentially convey the same meaning as the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit (…unless you see public Kufr for which you have evidence from Allaah) which we will be discussing in the next section. Because whoever establishes kufr buwah in public has not established the deen.
So in the literal sense it gives a condition of allowing salah to be established in the society unhindered and in the metaphorical sense it synchronises with the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit, so it must be understood by both its literal and metaphorical meanings.
A Study of the hadeeths related to Munaabidtha al-Hukaam (disputing with the Rulers) November 15, 2008
Posted by Admin in Takhrij, Usool ul Hadeeth.add a comment
A Study of the hadeeths related to Munaabidtha al-Hukaam (disputing with the Rulers)
There is no need in this brief study to examine the authenticity of the Isnaads and discuss the reliability and trustworthiness of the narrators of the three famous ahadeeth of Umm Salamah (No, as long as they pray), Auf Ibn Maalik (As long as they establish call for prayer amongst you), and ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit (…unless you see public Kufr for which you have evidence from Allaah) as they have been established beyond doubt in the collections of saheeh hadeeth, In the books of Sunan as well as the Masanid collections and can be found everywhere amongst them. The whole ummah has taken these ahadeeth as saheeh and no muhadith of any calibre has ever rejected them. What remains is tahreer, which is to find what the most accurate wording of these ahadeeth is and to discuss some necessary conclusions in relation to their meaning.
Ascertaining the most accurate wording of the hadeeth of Umm Salamah “No, as long as they pray”
It is reported in the Sunan of Abu Dawood;
[حدثنا سليمان بن داود قال: حدثنا حماد بن زيد عن هشام عن حسان عن الحسن عن ضبة بن محصن عن أم سلمة زوج النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «ستكون عليكم أئمة: تعرفون منهم وتنكرون فمن أنكر بلسانه، فقد برئ، ومن كره بقلبه، فقد سلم، ولكن من رضي وتابع!»، فقيل: (يا رسول الله: أفلا نقاتلهم?!)، قال: «لا ما صلوا»]
Told us Sulaymaan Abu Dawood, told us Hammad Ibn Zayd, from Hishaam, from Hasan (al Basri), from Adubbat Ibn Muh’sin, from ‘Umm Salamah the wife of the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam, she (r.a) said the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said “There will be above you Imaams, some things (from them) you will accept and other things you will reject; whoever rejects with his tongue will be innocent, and whoever hates with his heart he will at least have escaped, but whoever follows and accepts!” It was said, “Should we not fight them?” The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said, “No, as long as they pray”.[1]
We say this is the most balanced of the various Riwayaat of this narration, both in transmission and in wording.
Some narrators have reversed the wording of the hadeeth in their minds so they say that whoever rejects with the tongue is safe from punishment and whoever hates the munkar with his heart is innocent. However, this is definitely wrong as rejecting with the tongue is a higher level then hating with the heart and being innocent is higher than being safe from the punishment because you could have been guilty, but still escape punishment because Allaah (swt) has forgiven you.
Whilst the one who is innocent has no sin and the issue of being safe from the punishment of Allaah (swt) is not relevant to him whatsoever.
The rejecting with the tongue is at a higher level and must be associated with being innocent and divorced from the sin whilst the hating with the heart should be associated with being safe from the punishment. So, although you didn’t reject the munkar with the tongue at least you hated it with your heart. However, the one who is pleased with the munkar of what the rulers do and follows them, then it separates him from being either safe or innocent. The sahabah around the prophet understood the gravity of the sin and without hesitation asked “Should we not fight them?” and the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam replied, “No, as long as they pray”.
It is amazing that Imam Al-Bayhaqi narrates this hadeeth from the channel of Abu Dawud and you would assume that it would be the same wording but he mixes the hadeeth up and only mentions the part of the hadeeth of hating with the heart. He also states that the one who hates with the heart is innocent whereas the full hadeeth mentions only that he would have escaped punishment. Nevertheless, the dhikr is protected and the full narration is preserved in the books of ahadeeth and is established beyond doubt.
Some narrators do not use the words ‘with his tongue’ or ‘with his heart’ but what we have chosen is what must be understood by necessity because hating is something that happens in the heart. You cannot hate with the tongue. Rejecting or condemning munkar happens with the tongue and is at a higher level because the existence of hating with the heart is a necessary condition to condemn the munkar with the tongue. Otherwise condemning the munkar with the tongue whilst not hating it in your heart would be an act of hypocrisy. True sincere rejection and condemnation of munkar cannot happen with the tongue unless you first hate the munkar in your heart.
It is also not possible that both are in the heart. Otherwise, the hadeeth does not make sense. Why would the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam say condemn with the heart and also hate the munkar in your heart when we know that condemning munkar is better than just hating it in your heart. It would have mentioned just one of them and we know that the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam is the most eloquent and has been given the comprehensiveness in his speech. Whenever Inkar is mentioned alongside KARAHIYYAH then rejection must be with the tongue whilst hatred must be with the heart.
It has been said by some that the two wordings of “with his tongue” and “from the heart” are from Al-Hasan Al-Basri and not from the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam. Some narrators claim that Al-Hasan Al-Basri said ‘’with his heart’ in both of them as a tafseer and that it is not contained in the hadeeth. The one who said this is most likely Qatadah. However, what is most correct and a proof that the two wordings weren’t added by Al-Hasan Al-Basri is that which is found in al-Bayhaqi’s Shu’ab al-Imaan[2] where it is narrated through another channel from Al-Hasan Al-Basri that he said “whoever rejects with his tongue will be innocent, but the time of that happening has gone and whoever hates with his heart his time has come”. So he is saying that his time is so bad that no one is condemning the munkar with their tongues anymore and instead they are only hating it in their hearts. The two statements “but the time of that happening has gone” and “his time has come” are the additional comments of Al-Hasan Al-Basri. From this statement, we can prove that the wordings of “with his tongue” and “from the heart” are in the original hadeeth and the one who claims they are from Al-Hasan Al-Basri is mistaken.
The wording “Should we not fight them?” has been narrated in most of the chains of narrations. In a couple of narrations the wording has been “Should we not kill them?” however they are singular chains of narration which when compared with other chains indicate that the narrator has made a mistake with his narration. In addition, the context of the hadeeth is that it is not discussing establishing a hadd (punishment) for the rulers, but whether they should be removed from power or not. So the sahabah asking, “Should we not fight them?” means should we not fight them to remove them from power not whether they should be killed or not. In one of the Isnaads the phrase narrated is “shouldn’t we fight the evil ones amongst them” and this has the same meaning as “Should we not fight them?” as you would only fight those whose deeds are rejected.
Most of the strong narrations contain the phrase “No, as long as they pray” and in some narrations it says “No, as long as they pray the obligatory prayers” which is a further clarification.
This hadeeth establishes that if they pray regularly then it is a barrier to rebelling against them and this is different from the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik, which talks about establishing salah in the society. So if they do not establish salah in the society, then according to the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik, rebellion against them is permissible and even if they do establish the salah in society, if they themselves do not pray then that it is also permissible to rebel against them according to the hadeeth of Umm Salamah. This shows the importance of salah both at an individual level and at a societal level. We will discuss the meaning of the hadeeth of Auf Ibn Maalik in the next section.
The hadeeth of Umm Salamah is a Saheeh hadeeth narrated through a number of channels in Sahih Muslim as well as a number of channels in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, some of which are even stronger then the channels in sahih Muslim. It is also to be found in the Musnad of Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi (d 201/818) and in the Musnad of Abu Ya’la. Shaykh Husayn Salim Asad who wrote a commentary on the Musnad of Abu Ya’la declared the isnaad to be saheeh and he is one of the best modern commentators on the Musnad of Abu Ya’la and his judgments can be relied upon to be correct. It is also narrated in the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imam Tabarani in many many channels most of which are saheeh and is also narrated in the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah, in the Musnad of ibn Ruhwanah, in the Musnad of Ishaq ibn Rahwaih and in the Tamheed of Ibn Abdul ‘Barr (Volume 24, p 312 onwards) as well as many other works of the imams of islam.
In the Al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer of Imam Tabarani there is a witness to some of what has been narrated in the hadith of Umm Salamah in a hadeeth from Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA), Imam Tabarani narrates:
Told us Muhammad ibn Uthman ibn Abu Shaybah, From his father (Uthman ibn Abu Shaybah), from Yahya ibn abu Baqir, from Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam, from Layth, from Tawoos, From ibn Abbas who said the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam said “There will be umara (leaders) over you, who you will know and will reject, whoever rejects and fights them will escape and be saved, whoever abstains from them (but doesn’t fight them) is safe, however whoever mixes with them will perish” however this hadeeth is not strong because Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam is weak and his son Khalid, narrated very weak hadeeth from him. Also Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam narrates from Layth ibn abu Sulaym whose memory in later life deteriorated although it was good earlier on in his life and it not clear in this hadeeth when Al-Hayyaj ibn Bustam is taking from him so the isnaad is weak.[3]
The hadeeth of Umm Salamah is definite in its meaning, that it is permissible to fight, including using the sword if necessary, with the intention and purpose of removing the ruler who does not pray. Leaving one obligatory prayer is enough to make him liable to be removed. The Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam prohibited the listener from fighting the ruler on the condition “ as long as they pray” and this condition would be violated if they leave any of the obligatory prayers clearly and intentionally.
The wording of the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam “as long as they pray” indicates a continuous action because he did not say, “Unless they leave salah” like in other hadeeths like “What is between imaan and kufr is leaving salah” or “ salah is the pillar of the deen, whoever leaves it has commited kufr” All the hadeeths which talk of leaving the salah, have come as As-salāh (The salah) which means leaving salah permanently, not just leaving one salah. But the hadeeth of Umm Salamah does not talk of leaving the salah permanently, it has a different wording, that of “as long as they pray” meaning that they must continuously offer the obligatory prayers. The moment they leave one salah then it becomes permissible to remove a ruler, even with the sword if necessary.
On a side point, this refutes those who claim that it is only permissible to remove a ruler once he has been declared a kafir, as leaving one salah is not agreed upon by all scholars to be enough to declare a person to be outside the millah of Islam.
The phrase “as long as they pray” could also have a metaphorical meaning. In Arabic As-salāh can mean the individual prayer or it can mean the deen as a whole. The metaphorical meaning would therefore be that as long as they remain committed to the deen in their private affairs and implement Islam upon the society, showing they are committed to the deen in the public affairs as well, then they cannot be removed.
However, if they commit kufr or apostasy in their personal affairs but they implement Islam in the public affairs the hadeeth would still apply upon them. In fact the one who has committed apostasy his salāh is invalid and he can be considered to have left the salāh completely and cannot be called ‘Musalli’ who are referred to in the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah saAllaahu alayhi wa salam “ where he said “I have been prohibited from killing the musallin’[4] meaning the Mu’min who prays.
If he establishes kufr in the public affairs then it is even worse than if he commits kufr himself as it shows he is not continuously committed to the deen in the public affairs. This is worse in the sense, that his function as a leader is to manage the affairs of the society and not applying the Shariah would have wider implications than his individual actions, so a fortiori he should be removed, and this is where the hadeeth of ‘Ubaaidah bin As-Samit applies.
To clarify one final point, from the wording of the hadeeth it can be deduced that fighting the ruler is permissible, the evidences to show whether it is desirable or an obligation come from other ahadeeth not from this hadeeth itself.
[1] Sunan Abu Dawud, (no.4760)
[2] al-Bayhaqi, Shu’ab al-Imaan (Volume 6, p.62)
[3] Abdullaah Ibn ‘Abbaas said that Allaah’s Messenger (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “There shall be rulers whom you will recognize from them good and evil. Whoever opposes them is saved. Whoever abandons them is freed. And whoever intermingles with them is destroyed.” (Collected by Ibn Abi Shaybah and at-Tabaraanee; al-Albaanee authenticated it in “Saheeh al-Jaami’”, hadeeth #3661).
[4] Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4910: Narrated AbuHurayrah: A mukhannath who had dyed his hands and feet with henna was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He asked: What is the matter with this man? He was told: Apostle of Allaah! he affects women’s get-up. So he ordered regarding him and he was banished to an-Naqi’. The people said: Apostle of Allaah! should we not kill him? He said: I have been prohibited from killing people who pray. AbuUsamah said: Naqi’ is a region near Medina and not a Baqi (in other words not refering to Jannat al-Baqi cemetery. Indicating they were not punished.
“You have come from the Lesser Jihaad to the Greater Jihaad” October 6, 2008
Posted by Admin in Refutations, Takhrij, Weak & Fabricated Ahadeeth.add a comment
Imaam al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in his book, “The History of Baghdad”, reported by the way of Yahya ibn al ‘Ala’, who said, “We were told by Layth, on the authority of ‘Ata’, on the authority of Abu Rabah, on the authority of Jabir, who said, ‘The Prophet (salallaahu ‘alayhee wa sallam) returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, ‘You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihaad to the Greater Jihaad – the striving of a servant against his desires.’
al-Hafidh al-’Iraqi said in “Takhrij al-Ihya” (2/6) “al-Bayhaqi narrated it in his book “az-Zuhd” from the hadeeth of Jabir and said: “There is weakness in it’s isnad”.
al-Hafidh ibn Hajar said in “Takhrij al-Kashshaf” (4/114, number: 33) after citing the words of al-Bayhaqi: “And it’s a narration of ‘Isa bin Ibrahim form Yahya bin Ya’la from Layth bin Abi Sulaim and these three are weak. and an-Nasai narrated it as a saying from Ibrahim bin Abi ‘Ablah, one of the tabi’in of Sham.
as-Suyuti said in “ad-Durar” (pg: 170): “al-Hafidh ibn Hajar said in “Tasdid al-Qaws”: “it’s famous amongst people and it’s the words of Ibrahim bin Abi ‘Abla as mentioned in “al-Kunya” of an-Nasai.” And as-Suyuti mentions the hadeeth of Jabir which is a narration of al-Khatib after the words of Ibn Hajar. It would be better if he had narrated the above mentioned narration of al-Bayhaqi, because it’s free of a narrator who was accused of forging hadeeth on contrary to the narration of al-Khatib, because in it’s isnad there is a liar. And it will be mentioned later: “‘You have arrived with an excellent arrival…”
Shaikh Zakariyya al-Ansari quoted in his ta’liq upon “Tafsir al-Baydhawi” (1/110) the words of Ibn Taymiya: “It has no source” and he approved it! he said in another place (1/202): “al-Bayhaqi narrated it and weakened it’s isnad and others said: “it has no source”. “
As for the words of al-Khafaji in his hashiya on “Tafsir al-Baydhawi” (6/316): “There is weakness in it’s isnad but such weakness can be forgiven.” It’s not true, because from his words one would understand that this hadeeth is hasan!!! And how is it possible when we have three weak narrators in it’s isnad and scholars have unanimously agreed upon it’s weakness?! Later after two years I found a hadeeth in “az-zuhd ” (1/42) of al-Bayhaqi and it’s wording is: “‘You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihaad to the Greater Jihaad – the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires.” With this exact wording narrated it Abu Bakr ash-Shafi’i in “Fawaid al-Muntaqa” (1/83/13) from ‘Isa bin Ibrahim al-Baraki’s way and said: “Yahya bin Ya’la narrated to us and said: “Layth bin ‘Ata narrated it to us from Jabir and said: “A group of people without clothes came to the prophet – sallallahu aleihi wa sallam – and the prophet – sallallahu aleihi wa sallam – said: ” he mentions the hadeeth.
I say: “Its isnad is weak. Layth is Ibn Abi Sulaim and he is weak due weakness in memory and Yahya bin Ya’la, the apparent is that he is al-Aslami and he is weak as well. The rest of the narrators are reliable. This narration was also narrated by al-Khatib in his “Tarikh” (13/523-524) from the way of al-Hasan bin Hisham from Yahya bin Abi al-’Ala, said: Layth narrated it. And al-Hasan bin Hisham, I couldn’t find a biography of him. As for Yahya bin Abi al-’Ala, probably he is Yahya bin al-’Ala The Liar. But most probably he is Yahya bin Ya’la who is mentioned in the isnad of Abu Bakr ash-Shafi’i and al-bayhaqi and the mistake in the name was done by the one who copied the book “al-Tarikh” and he is the one mentioned amongst the narrators from al-Layth. Another fact that supports it is that as-Suyuti narrated this hadeeth in “ad-Durar” (pg: 170) from the narration of al-Khatib and he mentioned it after the words of Ibn Hajar that he believed that these words belonged to Ibrahim bin Abi ‘Ablah, even if in the isnad of al-Khatib was this Fabricator.
And Ibn Taymiya said about this hadit in “Majmu’ al-Fatawa” (11/197): “it has no source, nobody whomsoever is familiar with the words of the prophet – sallallahu aleihi wa sallam and his deeds, has narrated it. Jihaad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action that a human being can perform…” then he mentioned some verses of Quraan and the ahadeeth prooving that it’s the most virtuous a’mal, and it seems that Ibn Taymiya pointed out with his words that naming “the lesser Jihaad” is rejected…”
