Jibreel was not an Angel?

Posted: December 21, 2015 by millatibraheem in Bid'ah, Rebuttals

The Quran does not teach the belief that Jibreel (Gabriel) was an angel.  Jibreel is mentioned three times in the Quran by name, and twice he is mentioned separately from the angels:

مَن كانَ عَدُوًّا لِلَّهِ وَمَلائِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبريلَ وَميكالَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِلكافِرينَ

man kaana ʿaduwwan li-llaahi wa-malaaʾikatihī wa-rusulihī wa-jibrīla wa-mīkaala fa-ʾinna llaaha ʿaduwwun li-l-kaafirīn

‘Whoever is an enemy of Allah, His angels and His messengers, and Gabriel and Michael; Allah is indeed the enemy to the disbelievers.’

(al-Baqara 2:98)

And in Surah at-Tahrim 66:4:

إِن تَتوبا إِلَى اللَّهِ فَقَد صَغَت قُلوبُكُما ۖ وَإِن تَظاهَرا عَلَيهِ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ مَولاهُ وَجِبريلُ وَصالِحُ المُؤمِنينَ ۖ وَالمَلائِكَةُ بَعدَ ذٰلِكَ ظَهيرٌ

ʾin tatūbā ʾilā llāhi fa-qad ṣaghat qulūbukumā wa-ʾin taẓāharā ʿalayhi fa-ʾinna llāha huwa mawlāhu wa-jibrīlu wa-ṣāliḥu l-muʾminīna wa-l-malāʾikatu baʿda dhālika ẓahīr

If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined; and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah it is who is his Guardian, and Jibreel and -the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the aiders.

Both of these ayaat isolate Jibreel from the angels.  However, one can say to mention Jibreel separately shows his special status.  This could be true if there was support for this statement.

Also, we should note in other verses, Allah differentiates between “Ruh” and “al-Malaikat” or the Angels:

يَومَ يَقومُ الرّوحُ وَالمَلائِكَةُ صَفًّا ۖ لا يَتَكَلَّمونَ إِلّا مَن أَذِنَ لَهُ الرَّحمٰنُ وَقالَ صَوابًا

yawma yaqūmu r-rūḥu wa-l-malāʾikatu ṣaffan lā yatakallamūna ʾillā man ʾadhina lahu r-raḥmānu wa-qāla ṣawāba

The Day that the Spirit/ar-Ruh and the angels/al-Malaaikat will stand in rows, they will not speak except for one whom the Most Merciful permits, and he will say what is correct.

(an-Naba 78:38)

This distinction between “Ruh” and the angels can be read in other parts of the Quran = an-Nahl 16:2, al-Ma’arij 70:4, al-Qadr 97:4.  So we have four verses as evidence of “Ruh” not being from the angels.

Now, a well-known belief exists among certain sects that Jibreel is indeed “Ruh al-Qudus;” since Allah mentions in Surah al-Baqara 2:97 that “…Jibreel…brought/nazzala (the revelation?) to your heart…” and also in Surah an-Nahl 16:102 in similar wording except “nazzala” is connected to “Ruh al-Qudus

If this is true -Jibreel is Ruh al-Qudus- then this further shows Jibreel “Ruh al-Qudus” was not an angel but in fact something different.

In Sahih Muslim there is a single narrative attributed to ‘Aaisha reporting Rasolullah allegedly said:

…خُلِقَتِ الْمَلاَئِكَةُ مِنْ نُورٍ

“The angels were created from light/noor…”

Allah says about the “Ruh”:

وَيَسأَلونَكَ عَنِ الرّوحِ ۖ قُلِ الرّوحُ مِن أَمرِ رَبّي وَما أوتيتُم مِنَ العِلمِ إِلّا قَليلًا
wa-yasʾalūnaka ʾani r-rūḥi quli r-rūḥu min ʾamri rabbī wa-mā ʾūtītum mina l-ʿilmi ʾillā qalīla[n]
And they ask you concerning ar-Ruh; Say: “The Ruh, it is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you have been given only a little.”
(al-Israa 17:85)
Hence, we do not know much about the “Ruh” and what it is created from.  It would be conjecture to say angels and the Ruh are created from “noor.”
Therefore, we have Jibreel being isolated from the angels; the angels being mentioned separate from “ar-Ruh”; Both Jibreel and “Ruh al-Qudus” brought/revealed things with Allah’s permission.

Then stay with her, for Paradise is beneath her feet

 

From Sunan an-Nasai with full Isnaad:

 

أَخْبَرَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَكَمِ الْوَرَّاقُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا حَجَّاجٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ، قَالَ أَخْبَرَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ طَلْحَةَ، – وَهُوَ ابْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ – عَنْ أَبِيهِ، طَلْحَةَ عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ جَاهِمَةَ السُّلَمِيِّ، أَنَّ جَاهِمَةَ، جَاءَ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَرَدْتُ أَنْ أَغْزُوَ وَقَدْ جِئْتُ أَسْتَشِيرُكَ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ هَلْ لَكَ مِنْ أُمٍّ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ نَعَمْ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏”‏ فَالْزَمْهَا فَإِنَّ الْجَنَّةَ تَحْتَ رِجْلَيْهَا ‏

 

It was narrated from Mu’awiyah bin Jahimah As-Sulami, that Jahimah came to the Prophet and said:

“O Messenger of Allah! I want to go out and fight and I have come to ask your advice.” He said: “Do you have a mother?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Then stay with her, for Paradise is beneath her feet.”

 

There are two problems wthin the isnaad of this particular hadith: 1) Ambiguity in transmission, and 2) lack of trustiness of one of the narrators.

 

1) The ambiguous transmission from حَجَّاجٌ “An”  ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ and from مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ طَلْحَةَ “An” أَبِيهِ، طَلْحَةَ  “An”  مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ جَاهِمَةَ السَّلَمِيّ.  Neither of these narrators clearly stated whether they heard, or were told, this hadith from their source.  Whether some of them were reliabel or not is irrelevant, since the actual state of receiving is in question.

 

2) طلحة is also an issue.  His full name was طلحة بن عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن بن عبد الله بن عثمان and he did not report many narrations.  His acceptability is not established by anyone who interacted with him.  No major imam mentioned him to be upright and reliable.

 

 

Paradise is at the feet of mothers

 

These words are supposedly reported by two companions – Anas b. Malik and Abdullah b. Abbas.

 

From al-Jami of al-Khatib with full Isnaad:

 

 أَنَا الْحَسيَنُ بْنُ أَبِي بَكْرٍ، أَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ زِيَادٍ الْقَطَّانُ، نَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الْوَاسِطِيُّ، نَا مَنْصُورُ بْنُ الْمُهَاجِرِ الْبُزُورِيُّ، نَا أَبُو النَّضْرِ الأَبَّارُ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ : “ الْجَنَّةُ تَحْتَ أَقْدَامِ الأُمَّهَاتِ 

 

From Anas b. Malik, Allah’s Messenger said : “Paradise is at the feet of mothers.”

 

There are two narrators who are a major problem: مَنْصُورُ بْنُ الْمُهَاجِرِ الْبُزُورِيُّ  and أَبُو النَّضْرِ الأَبَّارُ, both of these men are unknown. (ref. al-Ajluni)

 

 

From al-Kaamil of Ibn Adiy with full Isnaad:

 

ثنا عُمَرُ بْنُ سِنَانٍ، ثنا عَبَّاسُ بْنُ الْوَلِيدِ الْخَلالُ، ثنا مُوسَى بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَطَاءٍ، ثنا أَبُو الْمُلَيْحِ، عَنْ مَيْمُونَ بْنِ مَهْرَانَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ K: ” الْجَنَّةُ تَحْتَ أَقْدَامِ الأُمَّهَاتِ مَنْ شِئْنَ أَدْخَلْنَ وَمَنْ شِئْنَ أَخْرَجْنَ 

 

From Ibn Abbas who said, Allah’s Messenger said: “Paradise is at the feet of mothers, from there we are admitted and saved.”

 

Ibn Adiy comments: “وهذا حديث منكر أيضا This hadith is munkar” and al-Khatib also collected this hadith and said it was “weak.”

 

Once again, there are two problems wthin the isnaad of this particular hadith: 1) Ambiguity in transmission, and 2) abandonment of one of the narrators.

 

1) The ambiguity of narrating this hadith by أَبُو الْمُلَيْحِ “An” مَيْمُونَ بْنِ مَهْرَانَ “An” ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ

 

2) The narrator  مُوسَى بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ عَطَاءٍ was declared as “Matruk” by ad-Daraqutni and accused of lying (ref. Abu Hatim ar-Razi).

Let’s start with the famous smart quote from Ibn Hazm that represents the foundation of whatever is being developed after, both on the matter of jurisprudence or creeds:

“I looked up all the arguments that Shafi’i used to deny Istihsaan and I’ve found them useful to deny Qiyas also”
Well, what are they left with as a sunni sub group is Qur’an and “Sunnah”, but what’s sunnah?
Here, hadeeth comes along as the biggest, if not the only, source of sunnah with all its classes, grading, and various sources, with an estimated one million narrations, and a mighty arsenal of 1,400 books or more, and an army of over 50,000 narrators. What is the way to know what’s sunnah and whats not, a chain of questions pop up in ones mind (if the intellect is even being used)…
Did the Prophet really say this? Was it for all Muslims? Was it for a specific case? Am I included here? etc.
In defense of hadeeth, the infamous man-made remedy appears as the savior, the “science” of hadeeth. The “science”? Let’s look it up.

– If a critique is agreed upon, it’s not debatable to propose another criteria for that narrator even if the path of his narrations propose otherwise.

– If some ahadeeth are contradicted, we simply follow the conclusion of a muhaddith who attacked the issue; if muhadditheen disagree about it at one point, we see a closer generation and hope that one solved the issue.
– The categorization of “hassan,” is a cloud of thousands of narrations that can be used or not depending on…what you want.  It is a free-zone.
– If two narrators lived in the same city and coexisted for some time, than surely they met each other.
– If two narrators contradicted one another we choose the narration of the one with “better creed.”
….
So isn’t hadeeth science a mix of qiyas , istihsaan, and taqleed after all. What makes you better or closer to the truth than any hanafi or maliki? After all, these at least show a more developed legislation structure compared to a “newbie”.

Taraweeh during Ramadhaan is held worldwide in the masaajid.  Despite its popularity and claims of being from the ‘sunnah,’ Muhammad Rasoolullaah never actually sanctioned it.  The evidence against Taraweeh in the masjid is as follows:

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الأَعْلَى بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى بْنُ عُقْبَةَ، عَنْ سَالِمٍ أَبِي النَّضْرِ، عَنْ بُسْرِ بْنِ سَعِيدٍ، عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ ثَابِتٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم اتَّخَذَ حُجْرَةً ـ قَالَ حَسِبْتُ أَنَّهُ قَالَ ـ مِنْ حَصِيرٍ فِي رَمَضَانَ فَصَلَّى فِيهَا لَيَالِيَ، فَصَلَّى بِصَلاَتِهِ نَاسٌ مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ، فَلَمَّا عَلِمَ بِهِمْ جَعَلَ يَقْعُدُ، فَخَرَجَ إِلَيْهِمْ فَقَالَ ‏ “‏ قَدْ عَرَفْتُ الَّذِي رَأَيْتُ مِنْ صَنِيعِكُمْ، فَصَلُّوا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ فِي بُيُوتِكُمْ، فَإِنَّ أَفْضَلَ الصَّلاَةِ صَلاَةُ الْمَرْءِ فِي بَيْتِهِ إِلاَّ الْمَكْتُوبَةَ ‏”‏‏.‏ قَالَ عَفَّانُ حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، حَدَّثَنَا مُوسَى، سَمِعْتُ أَبَا النَّضْرِ، عَنْ بُسْرٍ، عَنْ زَيْدٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:

Allah’s Messenger made a small room in the month of Ramadan (Sa’id said, “I think that Zaid bin Thabit said that it was made of a mat”) and he prayed there for a few nights, and so some of his companions prayed behind him. When he came to know about it, he kept on sitting. In the morning, he went out to them and said, “I have seen and understood what you did. You should pray in your houses, for the best prayer of a person is that which he prays in his house except the compulsory prayers.”

This narration is recorded in Sahihayn and the books of Sunan.

Allah says there is no compulsion in Deen, the right way is clear from the wrong [2:256] and the truth is from your lord, whoever wills, let him believe and whoever wills, let him disbelieve [18:29].

 

Apostasy is when one abandons or renounces his religious and/or political beliefs and allegiances.

 

Whenever one testifies there’s no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s apostle, we assume that he’s Muslim based on his outward deeds.

 

However, there may be times these individuals manifest disbelief through their deeds. If he opposes the Rasul after guidance is made clear to him and follows other than the believers’ path, then clearly he’s among those who disbelieve [4:115].

 

Either he never believed or he believed then disbelieved or he’s filled with doubts. The ayat in surah an-nisa 89-91 tell us not to take them as allies until they emigrate in Allah’s path and if they turn away, seize them and kill them but if they restrain their hands against you and offer peace then Allah has not made a way for you against them, only those who have joined the enemy in fighting you should be fought against.

 

There are mainly three narrations which allude to killing apostates:
whoever changes his deen, kill him
the one who comes out against Allah and His Rasul
the one who forsakes Islam and parts the jama’ah (or parts from the jama’ah)

 

The first: whoever changes his deen, kill him
If this were taken generally, then a pagan or a Jew who becomes Christian should be killed.  Even if a Christian or Jew who becomes a Muslim should be killed, following the obvious wording of the narration.  If someone says only Islam is deen, then they are mistaken.  Why?  Because Allah tells the people of the scripture not to exceed the limits of their religion… [4:171], calling their ways ‘deen.’  Therefore, this narration is problematic with the Qur’an.

 

The second: the one who comes out against Allah and His Rasul
The Qur’an has already detailed the punishments for hiraba in surah al-ma’idah, regardless of whether or not it’s done by one who used to say he’s Muslim or one who still claims he’s Muslim.

 

The third: the one who forsakes Islam and parts the jama’ah (or parts from the jama’ah)
By jama’ah, it’s not speaking about the sect that emerged after the Rasul’s passing, calling themselves ‘Ahl us sunna wal jama’ah.  No, rather, the jama’ah is the Muslims and splitting their ranks. But due to the  word “and” in the narration, this individual must be doing both: leaving Islam and splitting the ranks of the believers, causing sectarian strife.  If the other wording is used -or parts from the jama’ah- then it implies he has parted ways with the jama’ah, in which case we apply the ayat in surah an-nisa depending on which camp he’s joined, a neutral party or the enemy…

 

Muhamad bin Muhamad

Thoughts on Accepting Hadiths

Posted: April 8, 2015 by Admin in Ulum ul Hadeeth
Tags: , , ,

Allah says:

أَفَلَا يَتَدَبَّرُونَ الْقُرْآنَ ۚ وَلَوْ كَانَ مِنْ عِندِ غَيْرِ اللَّهِ لَوَجَدُوا فِيهِ اخْتِلَافًا كَثِيرًا

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur’an? Had it been from other than Allah, they would have found many contradictions in it. (4:82)

وَقَوْلِهِمْ إِنَّا قَتَلْنَا الْمَسِيحَ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِن شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ ۚ وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِّنْهُ ۚ مَا لَهُم بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ إِلَّا اتِّبَاعَ الظَّنِّ ۚ وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ يَقِينًا

And their saying, “Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, Allah’s Apostle.” And they did not kill him, nor crucify him; though it had appeared to them. And indeed, those who differed about it, are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge in it except following assumption. Surely they did not kill him. (4:157)

When any hadith explicitly opposes the Qur’an, then either that hadith is a forgery, a mistake or perhaps a previous ruling which was abolished.

وَمَا كَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لِيَنفِرُوا كَافَّةً ۚ فَلَوْلَا نَفَرَ مِن كُلِّ فِرْقَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ طَائِفَةٌ لِّيَتَفَقَّهُوا فِي الدِّينِ وَلِيُنذِرُوا قَوْمَهُمْ إِذَا رَجَعُوا إِلَيْهِمْ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَحْذَرُونَ

And it is not for the believers to set out collectively. So if not, then from every division among them, a ta’ifah set out to gain understanding in the religion and then warn their people when they return. So that perhaps they might beware. (9:122)

A ta’ifah can be a small portion or even a single person. But does this necessarily mean that those who are being warned are always obliged to believe everything this ta’ifah is relaying to them?

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِن جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوا أَن تُصِيبُوا قَوْمًا بِجَهَالَةٍ فَتُصْبِحُوا عَلَىٰ مَا فَعَلْتُمْ نَادِمِينَ

O ye who have believed, when a fasiq comes to you with information, verify, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become regretful over what you have done. (49:6)

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اجْتَنِبُوا كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الظَّنِّ إِنَّ بَعْضَ الظَّنِّ إِثْمٌ ۖ وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا وَلَا يَغْتَب بَّعْضُكُم بَعْضًا ۚ أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَن يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوهُ ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ تَوَّابٌ رَّحِيمٌ

O ye who have believed, avoid much assumption. Indeed, some assumption is sin. And do not spy nor backbite one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is Accepting, Merciful. (49:12)

We know not to accept any narrations from known liars until they have been verified. However, we should not assume that those who have believed are lying without proof, but does this necessarily mean that since someone doesn’t lie, his narrations must always be true?

وَقَالَ لِلَّذِي ظَنَّ أَنَّهُ نَاجٍ مِّنْهُمَا اذْكُرْنِي عِندَ رَبِّكَ فَأَنسَاهُ الشَّيْطَانُ ذِكْرَ رَبِّهِ فَلَبِثَ فِي السِّجْنِ بِضْعَ سِنِينَ

And he said to the one whom he thought would be saved among the two, “Mention me to your lord.” But Satan had made him forget to mention him to his lord. So he was left in prison, several years. (12:42)

وَلَقَدْ عَهِدْنَا إِلَىٰ آدَمَ مِن قَبْلُ فَنَسِيَ وَلَمْ نَجِدْ لَهُ عَزْمًا

And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find him to be resolute. (20:115)

All humans have a natural tendency to forget things. It is only by the will and mercy of Allah that He reminds us.

وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِن رِّجَالِكُمْ ۖ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّن تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ أَن تَضِلَّ إِحْدَاهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحْدَاهُمَا الْأُخْرَىٰ ۚ وَلَا يَأْبَ الشُّهَدَاءُ إِذَا مَا دُعُوا ۚ وَلَا تَسْأَمُوا أَن تَكْتُبُوهُ صَغِيرًا أَوْ كَبِيرًا إِلَىٰ أَجَلِهِ ۚ ذَٰلِكُمْ أَقْسَطُ عِندَ اللَّهِ وَأَقْوَمُ لِلشَّهَادَةِ وَأَدْنَىٰ أَلَّا تَرْتَابُوا

And call two witnesses from among your men to testify. And if not two men, then a man and two women from those whose testimony you accept – so if she errs, the other will remind her. And let the witnesses not refuse when they have been called [to testify]. And do not grow weary, that you write it, whether it is small or large, regarding its term. That is more just with Allah and stronger as evidence and more likely that you not have doubt (2:282)

This shows us that having more witnesses and written records of the witnesses’ testimonies will help us to dispel doubts.

Many inauthentic ahadith are circulated about the virtues of one memorizing the Quraan.  Some of the the popular ones will be listed here along with their unreliability.  Only the major hadith books will be used and the untrustworthy narrators will briefly be mentioned.  It is up to the reader to further do research.

First weak hadith:

حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَمْرِو بْنِ السَّرْحِ، أَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي يَحْيَى بْنُ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ زَبَّانَ بْنِ فَائِدٍ، عَنْ سَهْلِ بْنِ مُعَاذٍ الْجُهَنِيِّ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ  قَالَ ‏ “‏ مَنْ قَرَأَ الْقُرْآنَ وَعَمِلَ بِمَا فِيهِ أُلْبِسَ وَالِدَاهُ تَاجًا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ضَوْؤُهُ أَحْسَنُ مِنْ ضَوْءِ الشَّمْسِ فِي بُيُوتِ الدُّنْيَا لَوْ كَانَتْ فِيكُمْ فَمَا ظَنُّكُمْ بِالَّذِي عَمِلَ بِهَذَا ‏”

“If anyone recites the Quraan and acts according to its content, on the Day of Judgement his parents will be given to wear a crown whose light is better than the light of the sun in the dwellings of this world if it were among you. So what do you think of him who acts according to this?”
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Musnad Abi Y’ala…)
PROBLEMS:
  • يحيى بن أيوب – He narrated few ahadith and his reliability was not established.  Hence, his reports were taken as secondary evidences. (an-Nisai)  Abu J’afar al-‘Aqeeli mentioned him in his book of weak reporters and Ibn Hazm said he was weak.
  • زبان بن فائد – Ahmad b. Hanbal mentioned him to be from munakeer and Yahya b. Ma’een said he was weak.  Abu J’afar counted him to be from among the weak.
  • سهل بن معاذ الجهني – Yahya b. Ma’een said he was weak.

Second weak hadith:

حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حُجْرٍ، أَخْبَرَنَا حَفْصُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ، عَنْ كَثِيرِ بْنِ زَاذَانَ، عَنْ عَاصِمِ بْنِ ضَمْرَةَ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ  ‏ “‏ مَنْ قَرَأَ الْقُرْآنَ وَاسْتَظْهَرَهُ فَأَحَلَّ حَلاَلَهُ وَحَرَّمَ حَرَامَهُ أَدْخَلَهُ اللَّهُ بِهِ الْجَنَّةَ وَشَفَّعَهُ فِي عَشَرَةٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ بَيْتِهِ كُلُّهُمْ وَجَبَتْ لَهُ النَّارُ ‏”

“Whoever recites the Quraan and memorizes it, making lawful what it makes lawful, and unlawful what it makes unlawful, Allah will admit him to Paradise due to it, and grant him intercession for ten of his family members who were to be consigned to the Fire.”

(at-Tirmidhi & Ibn Maajah, at-Tirmidhi said it’s gharib )

PROBLEMS:

  • حفص بن سليمان – ‘Ali b. al-Madini, Abu Haatim, Abu Zurra, Abu J’afar, and Abu Faraj b. al-Jowzi all said he was weak.  ad-Daraaqutni mentioned him from the weak and rejected, and an-Nisai said he was matrook.
  • كثير بن زاذان – Both Abu Haatim and Abu Zurra said he was unknown.

Third weak hadith:

حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو بَكْرٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُوسَى، أَنْبَأَنَا شَيْبَانُ، عَنْ فِرَاسٍ، عَنْ عَطِيَّةَ، عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ‏ “‏ يُقَالُ لِصَاحِبِ الْقُرْآنِ إِذَا دَخَلَ الْجَنَّةَ اقْرَأْ وَاصْعَدْ ‏.‏ فَيَقْرَأُ وَيَصْعَدُ بِكُلِّ آيَةٍ دَرَجَةً حَتَّى يَقْرَأَ آخِرَ شَىْءٍ مَعَهُ ‏”

“It will be said to the companion of the Quraan, when he enters Paradise: ‘Recite and rise one degree for every Verse,’ until he recites the last thing that he knows.”

(Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal & Sunan Ibn Maajah)

PROBLEMS:

  • عطية بن سعد – Yahya b. Sa’eed al-Qattan, Sufyian ath-Thowri, Ahmad b. Hanbal, an-Nisai, ad-Daraaqutni, and Abu Haatim all said he was weak.