Firstly, my thanks to the CMA for preparing such a wonderful environment to complete Imām al-Nawawi’s masterpiece Riyādh’l-Sālihīn, by the grace of Allah jalla wa ‘ala. My thanks also to all those who attended and increased the barakah that we all witnessed masha’Allah.

For the Maqra’ah-hungry of you, don’t forget that there is an opportunity this Saturday in London (details here) to complete ‘Umdat’l-Ahkām under the supervision of Shaykh Haitham al-Haddad which will be very beneficial and only over a single day as well for the time-restricted of you. Then we have the big one: the Sunan of Abu Dawūd under the supervision of Shaykh Kehlan al-Juboori over the next Bank Holiday Weekend (23rd-26th May) at Markaz al-Bukhary in Manchester. Can’t wait.

My second and main point though: whilst we were reading on Sunday, we paused at the Hadīth that Imām al-Nawawi placed in his Riyādh’l-Salihīn which is originally narrated in Sahīh Muslim but which I claimed was actually a weak narration, and was then asked for my proof. I’ve found it now and so here it is as promised as collected by our Shaykh, ‘Abdullah al-Juday (hafidhahullāh):

Imām Muslim said: Qutaybah b. Sa‘d, Abu Bakr b. Abi Shaybah and Zuhayr b. Harb narrated that Wakī‘ narrated from Zakariyyah b. Abi Zā’idah on the authority of Mus‘ab b. Shaybah on the authority of Talq b. Habīb on the authority of ‘Abdullāh b. Zubayr on the authority of ‘A’ishah (r) who said:

The Messenger of Allah (s) said, “Ten (things) are from the fitrah: trimming the moustache, leaving the beard to grow, (using) the tooth-stick, snuffing water (into the nose), cutting the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the armpit hair, shaving the pubic hair and the washing (of the private parts) with water.” Zakariyyah said, “Mus‘ab said, “I’ve forgotten the tenth but I think it could have been rinsing the mouth.””

The chain of this narration is weak.

It was collected by Muslim (No.261), Ahmed (137/2), Ibn Abi Shaybah (195/1), Abu ‘Awānah (190/1), Abu Dāwūd (No.53), Tirmidhi (No.2758 ), Nasā’ī (No.5040), Ibn Mājah (No.293), Abu Ya‘lā (No.4517), Ibn Khuzaymah (No.88 ) as well as many others.

Even though this narration has been collected by Muslim in his Sahīh, and Imām al-Tirmidhi graded it “Hasan”, the majority of the Hadīth Scholars considered the chain to be at fault, its weakness because of two main points:

1. The weakness of Mus‘ab b. Shaybah and the munkar [1] nature of his Hadīth.

Abu Bakr al-Athram said, “I mentioned to Abu Abdullah (i.e. Imām Ahmed b. Hanbal) whether one needed to perform wudhū’ after cupping and he replied, “That is a munkar Hadīth narrated by Mus‘ab b. Shaybah and his narrations are munkar, from them this one, and “ten things are from fitrah…” and “the Messenger of Allah (s) came out wearing a “animal-patterned cloak” (mirtun murahhal)…” (al-Dhu‘afā’ lil-‘Uqaylī, b:208 )

Al-Nasā’ī after narrating this Hadīth said, “Mus‘ab is confused in Hadīth (munkar’l-hadīth).”

Abu Hātim al-Rāzi said, “They don’t praise him, and he is not strong.”

Al-Dāraqutni said after the Hadīth of washing after cupping, which has the same isnād as the above “fitrah” narration up to ‘A’ishah (r), “He is neither strong (in Hadīth) or a Hāfidh.” (al-Sunan, 113/1).

He also said, “He’s weak.” (134/1)

Shaykh ‘Abdullāh al-Juday‘ said, “All of this criticism indicates two things: firstly the weakness of Mus‘ab’s memory and his lack of excellence in the field, and secondly his singular narrating of that which is unknown except through his own routes. He is not known for being a major narrator of Hadīth, as Ibn Sa‘d said about him, “He only had a few Hadīth.”

Thus when someone has been described in such a fashion, one must study carefully that which he narrates, and one is not to accept his narrations unless they are found to have an established basis from other than his own routes. Therefore one can only accept the above Hadīth if it is found to have a strong basis from the narration of Talq on the authority of ‘Abdullāh b. Zubayr on the authority of ‘A’isha on the authority of the Prophet (s). If this is not found to be the case, then this narration is to considered from the rejected narrations of Mus‘ab.

If someone was to say: Yahya b. Ma‘īn and and al-‘Ijli said (Mus‘ab was) “thiqah” (trustworthy), the response would be that such a general acclaim (Ta‘dīl Mutlaq) is only considered if it is not opposed with a detailed discreditation (Tajrīh Mufassar) – here, the criticism is detailed and specific and thus overcomes general praiseworthy creditation as mentioned by the Hadīth scholars.

2. The differing of Mus‘ab with two authentic narrators of this very Hadīth on the authority of Talq b. Habīb as his own maqtū‘ statement.

This is what al-Nasā’ī mentioned to be the hidden defect of this Hadīth in Sahīh Muslim after al-Nasā’ī narrated this (No.5041) with his own chain to Sulayman al-Taymī who said, “I heard Talq mention that there are ten things from the fitrah: to use to tooth-stick, to trim the moustache, to cut the nails, to wash the finger joints, to shave the pubic hair, to snuff water into the nose and I have doubt about the rinsing of the mouth with water.”

Then Imām al-Nasā’ī narrates again with his own chain (5042) to Abu Bishr Ja‘far b. Iyās, on the authority of Talq b. Habīb who said, “Ten things are from the Sunnah: to use the tooth-stick, to trim the moustache, to rinse the mouth, snuffing water into the nose, allowing the beard to grow, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hair, circumcision, shaving the pubic hair and washing the rear private parts.”

Al-Nasā’ī then said, “the narrations of Sulaymān al-Taymi and Ja‘far b. Iyās are more likely to be correct than the Hadīth of Mus‘ab b. Shaybah.”

Similar was mentioned by al-Dāraqutni in his al-Sunan and his al-‘Ilal (b:20/5).

The point here to realise is that if Mus‘ab was thiqah, his narrations would have been ruled as odd (shādh) against the two trustworthy narrators above. What then when someone is ruled to be weak in Hadīth? This is why Imām Ahmed is correct in saying that Mus‘ab’s Hadīth are not just shādh but indeed munkar.

Ibn Hajr was alone is grading this above narration as “Hasan” and by that, he contradicted the well-established principles of the earlier Muhaddithin on which there can be a long discussion.

This should be sufficient to establish the weakness of this narration in Sahīh Muslim [2].

And Allah knows best.

[1] A type of weak Hadīth which is rejected due to its “confused” nature, in that it opposes that which is more authentic as well as the fact that the narrator has some inherent weakness as well.

 

[2] For further details on the weakness of this narration, see al-Lihyah, 81, of ‘Abdullah al-Juday‘.