The Istinaad (analysis) of the Hadeeth: “My Sahaabah are like the stars…”

[Maulana Saeed Palanpuri D.B]

“As-haabee  Kan  Nujoom.  Bi  Ayyihim  Iqtadaytum Ihtadaytum”

[My  Sahaabah  are  like  the  guiding  stars.   Whosoever of them you will follow, you will be guided]

This  Hadeeth  has  been  narrated  by  six  different  Sahaabah:  

1.  Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)
2.  Jaabir  (radhiyallahu anhu)
3.  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu)
4.  Anas  (radhiyallahu anhu)
5.  Abu  Hurairah  (radhiyallahu anhu)
6. Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)

It  is  also  narrated  Dhahhaak  ibn  Muzaahim  Hilaali  in  a  Mursal  form.

1] The Narration of Ibn Umar: > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 89, no 1)

In  this  Sanad,  Hamza  ibn  Abi  Hamza  AlJazri  is  a  weak  narrator. Regarding  him:

– Imaam  Yahya  Ibn  Ma’een  said:  “He  is  not  worth  a  cent”

– Imaam  Bukhaari  said:  “He  is  Munkarul  Hadeeth (rejector)”

– Dar  Qutni  said:  “He  is  Matrook  (discarder)”

– Ibn  Adi  said:  “Most  of  his  narrations  are  Matrook”

– Tirmidhi  has  included  one  of  his  narrations  in  his  Kitaab (Baabul  Istidhaan)  but  then  said:  “This  Hadeeth  is Munkar  –  Hamza  is  Dha’eef  in  Hadeeth.  [Tuhfatul Ahwazee Vol. 3 pg. 391]

Verdict:

This Raawi (narrator) is Dha’eef Jiddan (very weak)

2] The Riwaayah (narration) of Jaabir > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 90, no 2)

Regarding  this  Sanad:

– Dar  Qutni  said:  This  Riwaayah  is  not  proven  from  Maalik and  its  Narrators  are  Majhool  (unknown).  [Lisaan] 

– Haafiz  has  said:  Jameel  is  not  Ma’roof  (known)  [Talkhees]

– Abu Haatim Raazi said: Laa A’rifuhu (not known) [Lisaan]

Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr  has  narrated  it  in  ‘Jaami’  Bayaanil  Ilm’ through this Sanad:

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 90, no 3)

But  then  he  says:  This  Sanad  is  not  strong  enough  to  be  used  as Hujjat  because  Haarith  Ibn  Ghadheen  is  Majhool.

In  Lisaanul  Meezaan,  Haafiz  has  narrated  this  statement  of Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr.  He  then  wrote:    

– Toosi  has  mentioned  him  in  his  ‘Tadhkirah  Rijaalush Shee’ah’ –  Ibn  Hibbaan  has  mentioned  him  in  his  ‘Kitaabuth Thiqaat’

Verdict:

The  Jarah  (critical  comment)  in  this  Riwaayah  is  not  very severe.  The  Raawi  (narrator)  is  Majhool  (unknown)  but  the  two Sanads  (chains  of  narrations)  lend  strength  to  each  other.  This Tareeq  is  Dha’eef  (weak)  but  not  Dha’eef  Jiddan.

3] The Riwaayah of Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91, no 4)

Razeen’s Tareeq has the following addition

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91, no 5) – –

– The  author  of  Mishkaat  has  included  this  Riwaayah  in  his Kitaab.

– Abu  Bakr  Al  Bazzaar  has  also  narrated  it  (Talkheesul  Habeer  pg. 404  and  Jaami’  Bayaanil  Ilm)  
– Dhahabi has also mentioned it in Meezaanul I’tidaal This Tareeq is also Dha’eef.

Regarding  Abdurraheem

– Bukhaari  has  said:  Tarakoohu  (the  Muhadditheen  have  left  him out)   

– Ibn  Ma’een  said:  Kadhaab  (liar)  and  Laisa  Bi  Shai’  (he  is nothing)

– Jawzjaani  said:  Ghair  Thiqah  (not  reliable)

– Abu  Haatim  said:  Turika  Hadeethuhu  (his  narrations  are  left  out)

– Abu  Zar’ah  said:  Waahin  (weak)

– Abu Dawood said: Dha’eef (weak)

Verdict: This  Riwaayat  is  also  Dha’eef  because  of  Abdur-raheem.

4] The Riwaayah of Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) > Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 91/92, no 6)

This  Tareeq  is  also  Dha’eef  Jiddan.  

Regarding  Ja’far  ibn  Abdil  Ahad:  

– Dar  Qutni  said:  He  fabricates  Hadeeth –

– Abu  Zar’ah  said:  He  narrates  baseless  Ahaadeeth

– Ibn  Adi  said:  He  ‘steals’  Hadeeth  and  narrates  Munkar Ahaadeeth

5] The Riwaayah of Anas (radhiyallahu anhu)

Bazzaar  has  narrated  this  Hadeeth  but  in  Talkhees,  Haafiz  has  said: Its Sanad is no good.

6] The Riwaayah of Ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu)

Baihaqi  has  narrated  this  Hadeeth  in  ‘Al-Madkhal’  and  Munaawi  has mentioned  it  in  Faidhul  Qadeer  Sharah  Jaami’us  Sagheer  but  he  has not mentioned its Sanad nor has he commented on it. 

> Reference to Urdu Version (Pg 92, no 7)

7] The Mursal Hadeeth from Dhahhaak

Ibn  Hajar  has  mentioned  it  in  Talkhees.  He  said:  Abu  Dhar  Harawi has narrated it in Kitaabus Sunnah but its Sanad is Dhaeef.

[End of the seven Tareeqs of this Hadeeth]

This  Hadeeth  has  been  narrated  through  several  chains.  After  putting all of them together, it reaches the level of Dha’eef at the very least. 

In  ‘At  ta’leequs  Sabeeh’  –  the  Sharah  of  Mishkaat,  the  following  has been  said:  “its  Sanad  is  weak  but  the  various  Sanads  complement each  other  as  has  been  mentioned  in  Zafarul  Amaani,  the  Sharah  of Mukhtasar Jurjaani”

Similar  to  this  is  the  Hadeeth:  “The  minimum  Haidh  is  3  days  and the  maximum  is  10”  which  has  also  been  narrated  from  6  Sahaabah and  all  six  Tareeqs  are  very  Dha’eef.  After  putting  all  the  chains together, the Hadeeth reaches the level of Dha’eef. 

According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  a  Dha’eef  Hadeeth  is  given  preference over  the  Rai  (opinion)  of  any  Mujtahid  and  therefore  they accept it.

The  Hadeeth  we  are  discussing  also  reaches  the  level  of  Dha’eef  and a Dha’eef Hadeeth concerning Fadhaail is accepted unanimously.

Ibn  Hazam  Zaahiri  has  said:  “This  Hadeeth  is  Makdhoob  Mawdhoo’ Baatil”  but  his  verdict  is  not  worth  considering.  Bazzaar  has  said:  “It is  not  Saheeh”.  This  verdict  is  correct  since  a  Hadeeth  which  is  not Saheeh is Dha’eef and not Baatil and Mawdhoo’. 

There is a worlds difference between the two!

Bazzaar  has  raised  another  objection  to  this  Hadeeth.  He  says:  “This Hadeeth  contradicts  the  Saheeh  Hadeeth  of  Rasulullaah  ρ:  ‘Hold  on to  my  Sunnah  and  that  of  the  rightly  guided  Khulafaa  after  me’  in that  there  were  differences  among  the  Sahaabah  and  these  cannot  be clearly understood.”

But  Allaamah  Ibn  Abdil  Barr  gave  the  following  answer:

“The  Kalaam  of  Bazzaar  is  not  completely  correct.  Each  Sahaabi  in his  own  right  was  on  Haqq  and  thus  worthy  of  being  followed.  As for  their  internal  dispute,  this  too  was  a  source  of  guidance  for  the Ummat.”

Generally  you  will  find  that  whenever  the  Ahnaaf  have  a  Riwaayat in  support  of  their  Madh-hab  and  the  Ashaabul  Hadeeth  don’t,  then their  common  argument  is  that  the  Riwaayat  is  Dha’eef  or  Ghair Mu’tabar (not reliable). There are many examples of this.

In  the  Mas’alah  of  laughing  aloud  breaking  Salaat  and  Wudhu;  the minimum  and  maximum  periods  of  Haidh;  Qiraa’at  Khalfal  Imaam etc.  this  is  the  argument  of  the  others.  Yet  in  most  of  these  Masaa’il, the  Ahaadeeth  in  question  are  Mu’tabar.  For  details  refer  to  I’laaus Sunan.

The  Ahnaaf  use  the  Hadeeth  “As-haabee  kan  Nujoom”  in  support  of their  Madh-hab  that  the  Aqwaal  and  Fataawa  of  the  Sahaabah  are Hujjat in Deen.
According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  the  saying  of  a  Sahaabi  is  an  accepted Hujjat in Deen even if there is no consensus among them.

The  other  Imaams  only  accept  the  Ittifaaq  of  Sahaabah  as  Hujjat.  In the  case  of  a  single  Athar  (saying)  of  a  Sahaabi,  he  may  accept  it  or reject it with his own Ijtihaad.

Shah  Waliyullaah  has  quoted  the  saying  of  Imaam  Shaafi’ee  in  this regard:  “it  is  not  necessary  to  follow  the  individual  Sahaabi  unless there is Ittifaaq among them…” (Hujjatullaah pg 147)

According  to  the  Ahnaaf,  if  an  Athar  of  a  Sahaabi  is  presented, the Mujtahid will not make his own Ijtihaad.

So  according  to  their  habit,  the  As-haabul  Hadeeth  declare  this Hadeeth  as  Ghair  Mu’tabar.  Strangest  of  the  lot  is  Haafiz  Ibn  Hajar who  after  gathering  all  the  Turuq  of  this  Hadeeth  besides  that  of  Ibn Abbaas,  then  brings  Ibn  Hazams  Qowl  (saying).  Yet  wherever  it suits  him,  he  would  gather  2  or  3  Turuqs  of  a  Hadeeth  and  then  say: ‘these  few  Turuqs  strengthen  each  other,  the  Hadeeth  is  therefore acceptable’!  Here  he  turns  the  table  completely.  Ibn  Hajar  is notorious for these types of inconsistencies. 

Further:

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains,  all  linking  up  to  one  Sahaabi,  then this  is  a  Daleel  (proof)  that  the  Riwaayat  (narration)  has  an  Asal (origin/basis)

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains,  leading  to  several  Sahaabah,  and  if they are Dha’eef, the Riwaayat will be Hasan li Ghairihi.

-If  a  Hadeeth  has  several  chains  from  several  Sahaabah,  and  they  are very Dha’eef, then all put together will become Dha’eef.

Keeping  all  these  Usools  in  mind,  the  Hadeeth  we  are  discussing  at the very least will be said to be Dha’eef.

In  fact,  Mulla  Ali  Qaari  has  declared  this  Hadeeth  Hasan  li  Ghairihi (see Maudhoo’aat Al-Kubraa)

Allaamah  Abdul  Ali  Bahrul  Uloom  has  also  called  it  Hasan  li Ghairihi.

The  content  of  this  Hadeeth  is  also  supported  by  several  others:   “All my Sahaabah are Adool (righteous and just)” etc.

The  Hadeeth  ‘As-Haabee  kan  Nujoom’  is  thus  acceptable  as  Hujjat. After putting all of this together, the Usool of the Ahnaaf stands that ‘The  Aqwaal  of  Sahaabah  are  Hujjat  in  Deen  and  will  gain preference over the Ijtihaad of any non Sahaabi’  

Wallaahu A’lam
Sa’eed  Ahmad
10  Muharram  1417
Deoband

Advertisements

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