Hadith Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Study & Analysis

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • *****
  • Total likes: 255
  • +19/-0
  • یا مقلب القلوب ثبت قلبی علی دینک
    • Refuting Shia allegations everywhere
  • Religion: Sunni
Hadith Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Study & Analysis
« on: June 04, 2020, 07:04:38 PM »
Ḥadīth-Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Analysis into the Historicity of its Transmission, Variants and Implications in Sunnī Literature
در خلافت میل نیست ای بی‌خبر
میل کی آید ز بوبکر و عمر
میل اگر بودی در آن دو مقتدا
هر دو کردندی پسر را پیشوا

عطار نِیشابوری | |


Re: Hadith Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Study & Analysis
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2020, 05:53:26 PM »
Ḥadīth-Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Analysis into the Historicity of its Transmission, Variants and Implications in Sunnī Literature

This has been quite sufficiently addressed.

The author has attempted to weaken the report of Ali b.Abi Talib, which was authenticated by al-Albani, al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and many other well respected scholars of Hadith. He goes after Kathir B.Zayd.

I don't want to copy and paste the entire thing, but you can read it here:

The points brought up are that Kathir B.Zayd is a weak narrator, and thus the Hadith is rendered weak.

This again, is a lie and not how the ulema of the Salafi/Ashari/Maturidi sects go about grading traditions. There are many narrators who have had many praise them, and some raise questions about them possibly being prone to error, some being very prone, others being possibly prone (varying degrees).

The Ulema therefore look at the narration quality, everything that has been said in totality, external indicators and form an overall judgement on the narrator.

The Ulema have therefore deemed the traditions of Kathir b.Zayd to not be that of a Saheeh standard, but to be sufficient to be that of a Hasan standard.

Furthermore, what Kathir b.Zayd narrates is not unique or original to him, but narrated by many who were not weak on account of being Shia.

The following are through Kathir b.Zayd:

Chain one

حدثنا سليمان بن عبيد الله الغيلاني، حدثنا أبو عامر، حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي، عن أبيه، عن علي رضي الله عنه أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال :إني تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله، سببه بيد الله، وسببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي. [Musnad Ibn Rahwayh / Sunan Abi Asim]

Chain two

حدثنا إبراهيم بن مرزوق قال : حدثنا أبو عامر العقدي قال : حدثنا كثير بن زيد، عن محمد بن عمر بن علي ، عن أبيه ، عن علي ، أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم  – إني قد تركت فيكم ما إن أخذتم به لن تضلوا :كتاب الله سببه بأيديكم، وأهل بيتي. [Mushkil al-Athar al-Tahawi]

The only difference between the two chains is a narrator at the beginning who is indisputably Thiqah, and so the following will apply for both, although al-Albani/ al-Arnaut were grading the second chain:

    1.Muhammad Nasir-ud-Dīn al-Albani included this in Silsila al-aHaadith as-Sahiha, referring to it as a strong Shawahid, whose narrators are trustworthy.

  2. Shu’ayb al-Arnaut has graded the chain of narrators as ‘Hasan’ in Sharh Mushkil al-Athar.

   3. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has graded the chain as ‘Saheeh’ in al-Matalib al-Aliyah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-Thamaniyyah.

   4.  Ahmad B. Abu Bakr b.Ismail Al Busri , Itihaf al-Khiyarah al-Maharah bi Zawaid al-Masanid al-‘Ashra declares the chain as ‘Saheeh’.

   5. Moulana Muhammad Abasoomar of the well-respected also grades the chain of narrators for this tradition as ‘Hasan’ and has written: “This is a narration from Kitabus Sunnah of Imam Ibn Abi ‘Asim (rahimahullah), hadith: 1563. The chain is sound (hasan).”

One tactic the authors of TSN like to use is they go into praise and criticism of narrators,  and rather than following the majority verdicts of many of the ulema of Hadith who have collated everything said about particular narrators in totality and given their overall judgement, they pick and choose and they themselves override the judgement of the ulema.
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.


Re: Hadith Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Study & Analysis
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2020, 06:17:10 PM »
حدثنا عبد الله حدثنى ابى عن ابن نمير ثنا عبدالملك بن ابى سليمان عن عطية العوفى عن ابى سعيد الخدرى قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم انى قد تركت فيكم ما ان اخذتم به لن تضلوا بعدى الثقلين احدهما اكبر من الاخر كتاب الله حبل ممدود من السماء الى الارض و عترتى اهل بيتى وانهما لن يفترقا حتى يردا على الحوض

al-Albani: وهو إسناد حسن في الشواهد  al-Arnaut: سنده حسن بالشواهد. [Hasan due to Shawahid]

While the above chain would be considered weak due to Attiyah, al-Albani and al-Arnaut deemed it Hasan due to corroborating witnesses – meaning, they took into account all of the various chains of narrators to strengthen this.

Attiyah was considered Saduq by ibn Hajar, but he was accused of having shia leanings and being a Mudallis. However, the famous Sunni Hadith expert, Mahmud Mamduh has argued that those who have weakened him on account of accusations of Tadlees or Shiite leanings have relied on very weak sources themselves.  Click here for an analysis on Attiyah where the authors also demonstrate Ibn Hajar  and his teacher al-Iraqi grading a Hadith of Attiyah as ‘Hasan’.

However, even if we can't regard chains of Attiyah to be independently 'Hasan' (and therefore the chains of the tradition being Saheeh li Ghairi), Al-Albani and Al-Arnaut considered the chains through Attiyah to be sufficient, when taken with other chains to elevate this chain to a Hasan due to the corroborating chains.

The authors of TSN on record, such as Hani have refuted Al-Albani, Al-Arnaut and many of the ulema on their understanding of corroborating weak chains. However, you can not corroborate just any chains, they must not include known forgers and liars. Not all weak chains can strengthen each other if the weakness is severe.

Furthermore, despite  Imaam Ijlee, Imaam Ibn Sa'd, and Imaam Timidhi declaring him Thiqah, he is overall considered to be weak. However, despite that, we find that his traditions can still be used as proof and support, which is exactly what strengthens the chain with Kathir b. Zayd.

Imaam Abu Haatim ar-Raazi said: "He is Da'eef ul-Hadeeth, write his narrations (for Mutaabi'aat and Shawaahid)." [Al-Jarh wal Ta'deel: 6/383]

 Imaam Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "He is Da'eef, however, write his narrations (for mutaabi'aat)" [Al-Kaamil by Ibn Adee: 5/369, Chain Hasan]

 Imaam Ibn Adee said: "He is Da'eef but in spite of this, write his narration (for mutaabi'aat)" [Al-Kaamil fi Du'afa ar-Rijaal: 5/370]

Therefore the chain indeed is Hasan due to Shawahid. The weakness of Attiyah is not sufficient to render it too weak to be elevated and doubts about his memory are addressed somewhat by the fact this hadith is narrated verbatim by many others, including by reliable narrators.

"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.


Re: Hadith Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Study & Analysis
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2020, 06:19:04 PM »
Was Al-Albani correct in elevating the chain of Attiyah to 'Hasan' due to the corroborating chains?

Al-Albani and usage of Shawahid - something Hani and Noor-us-Sunnah do not agree with

Here is an example of how he took chains with weaknesses, and together, allowed them to strengthen each other:

"[Sunan Abu Dawud (Darussalam Publishers, 2007), volume 4, p. 422, The Book of Clothing, chapter 31: “What a woman may show of her beauty,” Hadith number 4104. Classed as Da’if by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Za’i. Imam Abu Dawud said: “This Hadith is Mursal. Khalid ibn Duraik did not meet Aishah. (And Sa’eed bin Bashir is not strong (in narrating)).”]

The Hadith is weak by itself but authentic due to supporting narrations and is used as evidence for this matter . . . It was authenticated by Sheikh Al-Albani in Sahih Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 2, p. 774, number 3458.

Sheikh Al-Albani explains reasons behind this Hadith’s authenticity in great detail:

“. . . (The narration’s chain is) Bashir from Qatadah from Khalid ibn Duraik from Aishah. Ibn Adiy added that he (Khalid) once attributed it to Umm Salamah instead of Aishah. Abu Dawud said after citing it, ‘This Hadith is Mursal. Khalid ibn Duraik did not meet Aishah.’ Also, Sa’eed ibn Bashir is weak according to Hafidh ibn Hajar in At-Taqrib. However, this Hadith has been reported via other ways that strengthen it:

(1.) A Mursal report recorded by Abu Dawud (no. 437) from Qatadah with an authentic chain that includes neither ibn Duraik nor ibn Bashir: ‘Indeed, once a young girl reaches menses, it is not right for her to expose except her face and hands to the wrists.'

(2.) At-Tabarani (in Al-Kabir 24/143/378 and Al-Awsat 2/230/8959) and Al-Bayhaqi recorded via ibn Lahi’ah from Iyadh from Abdullah from Ibrahim bin Rufa’ah Al-Ansari from his father from (he believed) Asma bint Umays that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) entered Aishah’s house while she had with her sister Asma bint Abi Bakr, who was wearing wide-sleeved clothes (see the report in question for the remainder of this Hadith’s text) . . . There is no doubt that a report by ibn Lahi’ah does not go below the level of Hasan when it has supportive narrations, as is the case here . . .”

(Jilbab Ul-Mar’at Il-Muslimah pp. 58-59)

Therefore, we can see that the correct view is that the Niqab is recommended, and not obligatory.

Sheikh Al-Albani's knowledge of the Shawahid (supporting narrations in Hadith) was something which was uncontested to by other scholars of his day. Sheikhs Ibn Baz and Uthaymeen even testified to this. While some Hadith scholars would only grade the single Hadith, Sheikh Al-Albani would take into account all supporting narrations of the Hadith. So some Ahadith are authentic due to other texts with the same meaning, so please take note of this. This made his methodology more correct versus other scholars of his day."

"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.


Re: Hadith Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Study & Analysis
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2020, 06:21:09 PM »
Further discussion on Kathir b.Zayd:

There are two narrators that individuals and non-scholars often claim are weak, the first is Kathir bin Zayd, who  has been given Tawthiq by Ibn ‘Ammar al-Musili and Ibn Hibban in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, viii, 300 and is classed as ‘Saduq (truthful) and makes mistakes’ (but reliable and accepted in Hadith) by Ibn Hajar. 

It is pertinent here to note that someone being Saduq who makes mistakes does not degrade him to the level of a Dhai’f narrator. The science of Hadith is more nuanced than that. Rather, the weakness must be investigated for the severity, and context, and so and in this case, given the number of scholars who have graded this chain to as at least Hasan, he is not deemed to be a weak narrator by many scholars and most importantly, those who came later and collated the views of the previous ones (like Ibn Hajar).

If we take the example of Sharik, who is weaker than Kathir bin Zayd, and rather than just making mistakes, is said to have made many of them, even then we find  scholars may regard him to be Hasan narrator.

Al-Dhahabi says regarding him:” I (al-Dhahabi) say: Sharik was hasan al-hadith (i.e. his ahadith are hasan).” This is despite Ibn Hajar writing in his Taqrib Al-Tahdhib : ““Sharik b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nakha’i al-Kufi al-Qadi, (resided) first at Wasit and then Kufah, Abu ‘Abd Allah: Saduq (very truthful), made a lot of mistakes”. References have not been provided given the name is sufficient to look into the dictionary of the famous and well known books of Rijal.

Indeed if one performs research on Kathir bin Zayd, they will find that Ibn Khuzaymah has narrated many narrations with him, At-Tabari declared a chain containing him to be ‘Saheeh’, Ahmad ibn Hanbal has declared ‘ i do not see anything wrong with him’, Ibn Hiban has declares him Thiqah, as well as Yahya bin Ma’in and there are many more examples such as this.

The well respected Sunni Hadith website ‘’ who we have previously cited grading the chains as ‘Hasan’ have also noted:  “…Nevertheless, in the case in question (saduqun yukhti-u, or saduqun yahimu or saduqun lahu awham), such a narrator’s Hadiths can be sound(hasan), depending on the nature of the Hadith’s content and its topic of discussion.  [11]

Unfortunately, lay people who produce articles and give their own subjective gradings based on a very simplistic understanding of the science of Rijal and narrator criticism and Hadith,  fail to apply a holistic approach. We do not deny some scholars might judge a narrator weak, while another may not, and methodology differs. However, there is no such principle that means a Saduq narrator that sometimes makes a mistake is automatically considered weak, but rather he may be considered Hasan.

"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.


Re: Hadith Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Study & Analysis
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2020, 06:27:05 PM »
We didn't need to rely on Attiyah being a Hasan narrator, given there are already two Hasan chains going through Kathir b.Zayd, and Hasan chains due to corroborating chains going through Attiyah, who can be used as Shawahid.

However, there are some arguments in defense of Attiyah:

1. Ibn Hajar, and his teacher, al-Iraqi have authenticated traditions going through Attiyah to Abu Sai'd al-Khudri, grading the narration below as 'Hasan':

On the authority of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri, may Allah be pleased with him: He relates that the Messenger of Allah said:

"The one who leaves his house for prayer and then says: O Allah, I ask you by the right of those who ask you and I beseech you by the right of those who walk this path unto you that my going forth bespeak not of levity, pride nor vainglory nor done for the sake of repute. I have gone forth in the warding off your anger and for the seeking of your pleasure. I ask you, therefore, to grant me refuge from Hellfire and to forgive me my sins, for no one forgives sins but yourself. Allah will accept for his sake and seventy thousand angels will seek his forgiveness."

2. Atiyyah al-`Awfi is criticised for three matters:

- Tadlees (leaving the name of an intermediatery narrator when narrating ahadith

- inclination towards Shi'ism

- narration of things whose authenticity was contested

The Accusation of Tadlees:

The accusation is that `Atiyyah heard ahadeeth from Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri Radi Allahu `anhu for some time, then he used to go to the Sabai liar al-Kalbi and heard his narrations and (in order to strengthen al-Kalbi's narrations) he nicknamed him Abu Sa'eed, so when `Atiyyah said, "Narrated to me Abu Sa'eed" people thought he was narrating the ahadith of Hadhrat Abu Sa'eed al-khudri Radhi Allahu `anhu whereas in reality he was transmitting reports from the liar al-kalbi.

This accusation depends on a narration of Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri who heard from al-Kalbi (Sabai, forger of ahadeeth) that he said, "Atiyyah has given me the kuniyah 'Abu Sa'eed". And the narration of Abu khalid al-Ahmar who heard al-Kalbi say, "`Atiyyah said I have given you the kuniyah Abu Sa'eed, and he said So i say narrated to me Abu Sa'eed..."

Shaykh Mamduh says that since al-Kalbi is a known liar his accusation cannot be accepted and Imam Ahmad et el relied on Sufyan ath-Thawri for pronouncing `Atiyyah a mudallis and since Imam Sufyan relied on al-Kalbi's statement, which is inacceptable, the end result is the attribution of this fault to `Atiyyah cannot be accepted.

Inclination towards Shi'ism

al-Juzjani in Ahwal ur Rijal has called him mail (inclined). Shaykh Mamduh says that al-Juzjani is a Nasibi and his statement proves that `Atiyyah was not a Shi'a because if there were even a hint of shi'ism in him al-juzjani would have labelled him a shi'a, since he has only referred to him as inclined towards shi'ism, out of his hatred for Kufi people, this shows that there is no such thing in `Atiyyah.

And what al-`Uqayli has quoted from Salim al-Muradi (?) in Kitab al-Dhu`afa' and what adh-Dhahabi has quoted from him in al-Meezan regarding `Atiyyah being inclined towards shi'ism is not of benefit in this reard because Salim al-Muradi (?) is not one of the Huffaz or of those opinions are referred to in matters of jarh. And he is himself Shi'i like `Atiyyah al-`Awfi and `Atiyyah is one of his mashaikh so he is far removed from being able to condemn `Atiyyah.

Narrating things that were denied

He narrated from Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri Radhi Allahu `Anhu that Rasoolullah Sallallahu `alyhi wa Sallam said

"The people of `iliyyeen will be seen by those below them like you see the brilliant star on the horizon, and verily Abu bakr and `Umar will be in them and being rewarded."

The main part of this hadeeth is in the two Sahihs from Abu Sa'eed al-khudri Radhi Allahu `anhu

"The people of Jannah will see the people in special abodes above them as you see a glittering star remaining in the eastern horizon and the western horizon.due to differences in their stations. They said, "Oh Messenger of Allah these are the stations of the Prophets and those other than them will not be able to reach them? He said, "Why not! men who believe in Allah and affirm the Messengers"

What was contested by Ibn `Adi was the addition, "and verily Abu bakr and `Umar will be in them and being rewarded.". But this part is also proven and `Atiyyah al-`awfi is not the only person to have narrated this, Imam Ahmad has narrated this in his Musnad vol 3 page 26 and in his Fadhail u Sahabah vol 1 page 69 and Abu Y`ala in his Musnad vol 2 page 416, from Mujalid from Abu Alawdak (?) from Abu Sa'eed al-khudri Radhi Allahu `anhu.
"I leave behind for you two weighty things, which if you hold onto, you will never go astray...the Quran and my Ahlulbayt" - Musnad Ibn Rawayh (al-Albani classes Isnaad *independently* as Hasan, and Matn as authentic, as does Al-Arnaut, Ibn Hajar and others.


Re: Hadith Al-Thaqalayn: A Critical Study & Analysis
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2020, 09:38:30 PM »
here is the list of renowned scholars of Ahlesunnah who considered Atiyyah unreliable:

فقال أحمد _ كما في العلل (رقم 1306) _ : ( كان هشيم يضعف حديث عطية ). وانظر : التاريخ الصغير (1/267) .
1. “Hushaim used to declare his(Atiyya’s) hadith to be weak”.

وقال عبدالله بن أحمد _ كما في العلل (رقم 1306) _ : سمعت أبي ذكر عطية العوفي فقال : ( هو ضعيف الحديث ).
2. Imam Ahmed said: “Atiyya was weak in hadith”

وقال النسائي _ كما في الضعفاء والمتروكون (رقم 481) _ : ( ضعيف ).
3. Nasai said: Weak.

وقال أبوزرعة الرازي _ الموضع السابق من الجرح _ : ( ليّن )
4. Abu Zur’ah said: Layyin(soft).

وقال أبوحاتم الرازي _ كما في الجرح والتعديل (3/1/رقم 2125) _: ( ضعيف ، يكتب حديثه ، وأبونضرة أحب إليّ منه
5. Abu Hatim said: “weak, his Hadith to be written. And Abu Nadhra is better than him, according to me.”

وقال ابن عدي _ كما في الكامل (7/85) _ : ( وقد روى عنه جماعة من الثقات ، ولعطية عن أبي سعيد ( الخدري ) أحاديث عداد ، وعن غير أبي سعيد ، وهو مع ضعفه يكتب حديثه ، وكان يعد من شيعة الكوفة ).
6. Ibn Adi declared him to be weak and said that his hadeeh is written.

قال ابن حبان _ كما في المجروحين (2/176) بعد أن ذكر قصته مع الكلبي _ : ( فلا يحل الاحتجاج به ، ولا كتابة حديثه إلا على جهة التعجب ).
7. Ibn Hibban mention him in his book “Al-Majroohin”, and said, “his hadith should not be written except with ta’ajjub”

وقال الساجي _ كما في تهذيب التهذيب _ : ( ليس بحجة ، وكان يقدم علياً على الكل )
8. As-Saaji said: “he is not hujjah”. [See “Tahdheeb” of Ibn Hajar (7/201)]

وقال أحمد _ كما في العلل (رقم 4502) _ : ( وكان سفيان _ يعني الثوري _ يضعف حديث عطية )
9. According to Imam Sufiyan Ath-Thawri, Atiya’s hadith were weak[Al-‘Ilal, of Imam Ahmed (4502)]


ال لي علي عن يحيى : عطية، وأبو هارون ،ٌ وبشر بن حرب عندي سواء
التاريخ الكبير ج 5 ص 89
Al-Bukhari said: “Ali told me: from Yahya: Atiya and Abu Harun and Bishr Ibn Harb are all of the same status to me(i.e. He saw all men as weak and didn’t narrate from any of them).

وقال البخاري _ كما في التاريخ الكبير (4/رقم 2041): ( كان يحيى يتكلم فيه ) . وانظر : التاريخ الكبير (5/360) والصغير (1/267)

Imam Yahya bin Saeed Qattan used to criticize him.

وقال البخاري _ كما في التاريخ الصغير (1/267) _ قال أحمد في حديث عبدالملك عن عطية عن أبي سعيد قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : ( تركت فيكم الثقلين ) : ( أحاديث الكوفيين هذه مناكير ).
11. Imam Bukhari said: “-Imam Ahmad said about hadith of Abdulmalik from Atiya from Abu Said (“I’m leaving for you two things”)-“These Kufi Ahadith, are munkar”. (see “Tarih as-Sagir” vol 1, p 267)

وقال _ في رواية أبي الوليد بن أبي الجارود كما في الضعفاء للعقيلي (3/359) _ : (كان عطية العوفي ضعيفاً ).
12. In the report from Ibn Abi Jarood, ImamYahya Ibn Mu’een said: “Atiyya was weak”. [Adh-Dhu’afa of Al-Uqailee (3/359)]

رواه أبو يعلى بسند فيه عطية العوفي و هو ضعيف
13. Imam Busayri said: Weak. (Athaf Alkhayr, vol 4, page 478)

وقال أبوداود _ كما في سؤالات الآجري ( 1/264رقم376) _: ( ليس بالذي يُعتمد عليه ).
14. Abu Dawud also declared him weak. (Sawaalaat alAjri Abi Dawdood)

وقال الدارقطني _كما في السنن (4/39) _ : ( ضعيف ) .
وقال _ كما في العلل (4/6) _ : ( مضطرب الحديث ).
15. Daar Qutni declared him weak, as in his Sunan.
And also called him ‘Mudhtarib-ul-hadith’, as in Al-‘Ilal.

وقال البيهقي _ كما في السنن الصغير (2/101) وفي المعرفة (6/144) _ : ( ضعيف ).
وقال _ كما في السنن الكبرى (8/126) _ : ( لا يحتج بروايته ).
16. Bayhaqi said: he is weak, as in Sunan Al-Sugra.
Also said: he is not to be taken as proof, in Al-Kubra

قال ابن خزيمة _ كما في صحيحه (4/68) _ : ( في القلب من عطية بن سعد العوفي ).
17. Ibn Khuzayman weakened him by saying that he wasn’t satisified with him.

عطية هالك
18. Ibn Hazm said: Atiyya Halik(Perished). (Al Muhalli vol 11, page 335).

و هو ضعيف متروك
19. Heythami in “Majmau zawaid” #11125 said Atiyyah weak, abandoned.

وقال الجوزجاني _ كما في أحوال الرجال (رقم 42) _ : ( مائل ).
20. Jawzjani said: Astray.

ورجح الذهبي _ كما في السير (5/325) _ أنه : ( ضعيف الحديث )
وانظر : الميزان (5/100)
21. Imam Dhahabi in Al-Mizan said Weak . (Al-Mizan5/100)
In ad-du’afa(1/88) he says: “They are agreed upon his weakness”.

ابن الصلاح 643 هجرية
ذكر قصة تكنيته للكلبي في مقدمته فقال (وهو ‏(‏أبو سعيد‏)‏ الذي يروي عنه ‏(‏عطية العوفي‏)‏ التفسير يدلس به موهماً أنه أبو سعيد الخدري)
22. Ibn Salah said he intentionally does Tadlees from Abu Sa`eed.

14الطبراني 360 هـ هجرية
وروى الطبراني في معجمه ( فمبشر بن عبيد معدود في الوضَّاعين، وحجاج. وعطية ضعيفان
23. Tabarani said Hajjaj and `Atiyyah are both weak.

عطية أيضا ضعيف
ضعيف عند الجمهور
24. Nawawee in al-Adhkaar vol 1, page 30 considered him weak, and also said, Weak in the sight of Majority. (Tatheeb al-Asma wal Lughaat, vol 1, page 48)

هو ضعيف باجماع اهل العلم
25. Ibn Taimiyyah in al-Qaa’idatul-Jaleel page 215 said: Weak per consensus of people of knowledge.

26. Ibn Rajab did listed him among weak narrators in Sharh ‘ilal of tirmidhi (2/884):
ويلتحق بهؤلاء من البيوت الضعفاء، عطية بن سعد العوفي وأولاده (أما عطية) فضعفه غير واحد، وقد تكرر ذكره في الكتاب غير مرة
And among the family of weak narrators is ‘Atiyya and his sons.

عطية واه
27. Shaykh Sahsawani discussed the Jarh on `Atiyya in his “Siyanat Al-Insan” and considered him weak. Siyanat Al-Insan Vol 1, page 98.

28. Atiyya is also mentioned by Aboo Bakr ibn al-Muhibb al-Ba’labakee in ad-Du’afaa wal-Matrookeen.(“At-Tawasul, by Sheikh Albani”).

ضعيف الحفظ معروف بالتدليس القبيح
29. Ibn Hajr states regarding Atiyya Al-Awfi: Weak in memory, famous for evil Tadlees. (Tabqaat Mudalliseen vol 1, page 50).

و شيخه عطية ضعيف
30. Ibn Katheer said Atiyya is Weak. Tafsir ibn Kathir, vol 2, page 312.

أما عطية فاجتمعوا على تضعيفه
31. Ibn Jawzi said Atiyya is weak. Al Mawzoo’at vol 1, page 368.

في إسناده محمد بن الحصين بن عطية العوفي عن أبيه عن جده وثلاثتهم ضعفاء
32. Al-Mundhiri said in his “Mukhtasar As-Sunan”, as quoted by Sheikh Bashir Sahsawani , “Atiyya was weak in Hadith”. And at other place (in the same book), “his hadith are not to be taken as proof”. And in other place, “…in its sanad are Muhammad bin Hasan bin Atiyya Al-‘Awfi, from his father, from his grandfather (Atiyya). And all these three are weak.” [Siyanat Al-Insaan page-103]

الأثر ضعيف معلول فان فيه عطية
33. Allama Suyuti said weak in Al Durr al Manthur, vol 3, page 283.

في اسناده ضعف لضعف عطية
34. Nuruddin Alsindi said Atyiyya is weak in Kifaya al hajja fi Sharh Sunan ibn Majah vol 2, page 449.

حجاج و عطية ضعيفان
35. Allama Zilli considered Atiyyah weak. (Faydh Al Qadeer, vol 5, page 216)

و الجمهور على تضعيفه
36. Hafiz ibn Mulqan said: Weak according to Majority. (Al Badar Al Muneer, vol 7, page 463)

ضعفه الجمهور
37. Allama Ayni said Weak according to majority. (Umdat al qaari vol 6, page 250).

و شيخه العوفي يضعف بشدة
38. Ayman Saleh Sha’baan considered Atiyya extremely weak. (Jama’a Al Usool vol4, page 269).

مدلس ضعيف
39. Sheikh Albani said: Mudallis, Weak. (Silsila Daeefa).

إسناده ضعيف لضعف عطية
40. Sheikh Shu`aiyb Al-Arna’ut considered him weak.(Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal vol 2, page 58).

و عطية ضعيف
41. Dr Abdul Aleem Bastawi said weak. (Mousu’at fi Ahadeeth Al Imam al-Mahdi page 362)

42. Dr. Bashshar Awwad considered him weak. [Tahreer Taqreeb At-Tahdheeb (3/267) Mu`assasah Ar-Risalah]

43. Sharf al-haq Azeemabadi said Weak according to Majority. (Aun Al Ma’qbood, vol 3, page 336).

Ibn Hajar states regarding Atiyya Al-Awfi:

صدوق يخطىء كثيرا وكان شيعيا مدلسا
“Saduq, used to make many mistakes and was a Shia mudallis.” [Taqreeb (3/393)]

In another place Ibn Hajar said:

ضعيف الحفظ معروف بالتدليس القبيح

Weak in memory, famous for evil Tadlees.(Tabqaat Mudalliseen).

Ibn Hajar makes the criticism of Tadlees over Atiyya, this itself is sufficient to discard Atiyya’s reports, because as said earlier Atiyya used to practise evil Tadlees, and would give an impression that he is narrating from Abu Saeed Khudri, where as infact he was narrating from Kalbi, whom he gave the nick name of Abu Saeed, this is one of the reason why Atiyya awfi has been weakened by scholars.

Sheikh Albani explained this issue in his book, stating:

al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr says of him: “Truthful but makes many mistakes; he was a Sbee’ee mudallis.” So he(ibn hajar) clarifies this narrator’s weakness and it is due to two things: (i) The weakness of his memory as shown by his saying: “He makes many mistakes.” This is like his saying about him in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen: “weak in hadeeth” Even more clear is his saying about him in “Talkbeesul-Habeer (p.24l, Indian edn.) whilst discussing another hadeeth: “It contains ‘Atiyyah ibn Sa’eed al-‘Awfee and he is weak.” (ii) His tadlees. However al-Haafidh should have explained the type of tadlees which he performed, since tadlees with the scholars of hadeeth is of many types, the most well-known of which are:

(a) That a narrator reports a narration from someone he met when in fact he did not directly hear that narration from him, or that he narrated something from a contemporary whom he did not actually meet, giving the impression that he heard it from him. For example by saying ‘From so and so’ or ‘so and so said.’

(b) That the narrator calls his Shaikh by an unfamiliar name or title, different to the name by which he is commonly known in order to hide his true identity. The scholars have clearly stated that this is something forbidden if his Shaikh was an unreliable narrator, and he does this to hide his identity or to give the impression that he was a different reliable narrator with the same name or title.This is known as tadlees ush-Shuyookh.

The tadlees of Atiyya was of forbidden type as I have explained in my book , Silsilatul ahadeeth-daeefah.(no.24)

So in conclusion we say that ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from Aboo Sa’eed alKhudree(ra), then when he died he used to sit with one of the great liars well known for lying about hadeeth, who was al-Kalbee. Then ‘Atiyyah used to narrate from him, but when doing so would call him ‘Aboo Sa’eed’ to give the impression to those listening that he had heard these narrations from Aboo Sa’eed al-Khudree! This to me in itself would be enough to destroy the credibility of ‘Atiyyah, so how about when we have in addition to it his weak memory! Therefore I would have been pleased for al -Haafidh to clarify the fact that it was this evil type of tadlees which ‘Atiyyah was guilty of, even if only by an indication as he does in Tabaqaatul-Mudalliseen by his saying: “Well-known for evil tadlees” as has preceded. It is as if al-Haafidh forgot or erred, or something else, as humans are prone to make mistakes some – times, since he says about this hadeeth that in one narration ‘Atiyyah says:

“Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me,” and he himself says about this: “Therefore through this we know that we are safe from ‘Atiyyahs tadlees,” as Ibn ‘Alaan narrated from him, and some modern day authors follow him blindly in that. I say: This declaration that he heard it from him would only be of use if his tadlees were of the first type, but the tadlees of ‘Atiyyah is of the second and worse type and will not be cured by this statement since he still said “Aboo Sa’eed narrated to me” which is exactly the evil type of tadlees which he is known for. So from what has preceded it will be clear that ‘Atiyyah is weak due to his poor memory and evil tadlees.

As for the understanding of some people today that the saying of al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr in at-Taqreeb amounts to declaration of the reliability of ‘Atiyyah, then this is something which is not correct at all. I also asked Shaikh Ahmad ibn as- Haafidh Siddeeq when I met him in the Zaahiriyyah Library in Damascus about this understanding and he too found it very strange. For when the mistakes of a narrator become many his reliability is destroyed, as opposed to one whose mistakes are few. The first of these is weak whereas the second is hasan in hadeeth. This is why al-Haafidh in Sharhun-Nukhbah says, that one whose mistakes are many is the partner of one whose memory is poor, and he declares the ahaadeeth of both of them to be rejected, so refer back to that along with the footnotes of Shaikh ‘Alee al-Qaaree (pp 121&130).

[End Quote of Sheik Albani, from his book Tawassul and its types, page 96 & 97].

Regarding the claim that Ibn Hajar considered Atiyya saduq then, Dr. Bashshar Awwad and Sh. Shu`aiyb Al-Arna’ut comment on this view of Ibn Hajar:

“In fact, he is weak. He has been declared weak by Hushaim, Yahya bin Sa’eed Al-Qattan, Ahmed bin Hanbal, Sufiyan Ath-Thawri, Abu Zur’ah Ar-Razi, Ibn Mu`een in some reports, and in other he said: “there is no problem with him”. Also Atiya has been declared weak by Abu Hatim, Nasai, Zawzjani, ibn Adi, Abu Dawud, IBn Hibban, DaarQutni, As-Saaji. So they are all agreed upon declaring him weak. And no one declared him thiqah except Ibn Sa’d. So i don’t know from where he got this, “Saduq, used to make exessive mistakes…” [Tahreer Taqreeb (3/20)].

Hence, the fact that Ibn Hajar said “Makes MANY mistakes” is usually enough to weaken his narration according to the majority of scholars. Some ignorant Shia try to argue that by the terms many mistakes, Ibn Hajar meant tadlees, but is an incorrect argument because  Tadlees is not a “mistake”,Tadlees in itself is a pattern/style of narrating. Just like Irsaal. Some Mudalliseen were Thiqa take example Am’ash, even though he was known for doing tadlees. Therefore, when Ibn hajar said that atiyya makes lots of mistakes it was not about tadlees, rather it was regarding his memory like mixing the chains or the narrators. Ibn Hajar listed Tadlees separately, if he meant tadlees as mistakes, then he would have said “Katheer-ul-Tadlees”.

Taken from:


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
Last post March 20, 2016, 12:19:27 PM
by Abu Muhammad
21 Replies
Last post April 24, 2017, 04:28:58 AM
by Zlatan Ibrahimovic
36 Replies
Last post December 23, 2019, 10:28:30 AM
by Noor-us-Sunnah
3 Replies
Last post October 25, 2020, 06:17:42 PM
by Soccer