umar (r.a) and the accusation of drinking

[Ibn Taymiyya]

could somebody refute this slander on umar r.a,
a rafidhi claim in shrah manial aasar, it states, umar r.a while flogging  a person who was intoxicated said i also drink from it(alcohol)(seems like self contradictory)
one similar assault is attempted citing a narration from  fathul baari.

[Ibn Taymiyya]

The Arabic as I could find in one of the version is



 - ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ: ﻭﻫﺬﺍ17338
ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ
،ﺃﺑﻲ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ، ﻋﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻲ
ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺫﻱ ﻟﻌﻮﺓ، ﻭﺗﺎﺭﺓ
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ
ﺫﻱ ﺣﺪﺍﻥ، ﻭﺍﺑﻦ ﺫﻱ ﻟﻌﻮﺓ: ﺃﻥ
ﺭﺟﻼ ﺃﺗﻰ ﺳﻄﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻓﺸﺮﺏ
ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﺴﻜﺮ، ﻓﺄﺗﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﺮ ﻓﺎﻋﺘﺬﺭ
ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ: ﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺑﺖ ﻣﻦ
ﺳﻄﻴﺤﺘﻚ، ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺮ: ﺇﻧﻤﺎ
ﺃﺿﺮﺑﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺮ، ﻓﻀﺮﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﺮ

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

The Arabic as I could find in one of the version is



 - ﻗﺎﻝ ﺃﺣﻤﺪ: ﻭﻫﺬﺍ17338
ﺍﻟﺤﺪﻳﺚ ﺭﻭﺍﻩ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻦ
،ﺃﺑﻲ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ، ﻋﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﺮ ﺍﻟﺸﻌﺒﻲ
ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ ﺫﻱ ﻟﻌﻮﺓ، ﻭﺗﺎﺭﺓ
ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺇﺳﺤﺎﻕ، ﻋﻦ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻦ
ﺫﻱ ﺣﺪﺍﻥ، ﻭﺍﺑﻦ ﺫﻱ ﻟﻌﻮﺓ: ﺃﻥ
ﺭﺟﻼ ﺃﺗﻰ ﺳﻄﻴﺤﺔ ﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻓﺸﺮﺏ
ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻓﺴﻜﺮ، ﻓﺄﺗﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﺮ ﻓﺎﻋﺘﺬﺭ
ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻭﻗﺎﻝ: ﺇﻧﻤﺎ ﺷﺮﺑﺖ ﻣﻦ
ﺳﻄﻴﺤﺘﻚ، ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻋﻤﺮ: ﺇﻧﻤﺎ
ﺃﺿﺮﺑﻚ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺮ، ﻓﻀﺮﺑﻪ ﻋﻤﺮ

It’s weak due to this narrator Sa’eed bin Za’ee :

.3414- سعيد بن ذي لعوة.

الذي روى عنه الشعبي.
ضعفه يحيى وأبو حاتم وجماعة.
وفيه جهالة.
وقال ابن حبان: دجال يزعم أنه رأى عمر بن الخطاب يشرب المسكر.
رواه وكيع عن سفيان، عَن أبي إسحاق عنه.
ووهم من قال فيه: سعيد بن ذي حدان.
وقال البُخاري: يخالف الناس في حديثه.
وقال أبو حيان التيمي: عن الشعبي، عَنِ ابن عمر عن عمر قال: حرمت الخمر وهي من خمسة والخمر ما خامر العقل.
قال البخاري: فهذا أثبت حديث للكوفيين في المسكر ثم خالفوه. انتهى.
وقال العقيلي: روى هذا أن أعرابيا شرب نبيذا من إداوة عمر فسكر فأمر به فجلد فقال: إنما شربت من إداوتك فقال: إنما أجلدك على السكر.
وقال العجلي: كوفي ثقة والبغداديون يضعفونه.
وقال علي بن المديني: مجهول.
وقال أبو بكر بن عياش: أقول لهم: حدثنا أبو حصين فيقولون: حَدَّثَنا أبو إسحاق عن سعيد بن ذي لعوة الماص بظر أمه كان يشتم عثمان.
وقال أبو حاتم: مجهول.
وقال أبو زرعة: ليس بالقوي.
وقيل: إن اسم ذي لعوة عامر بن مالك.
وذكره العسكري في الصحابة وقال: إنه روى مرسلا، وَلا تصح صحبته.
وذكره العقيلي، وَابن الجارود، وَغيرهما في الضعفاء.
وقال ابن عَدِي: لا أعرف له شيئا مسندا يعني مرفوعا.

[Ibn Taymiyya]

Excuse me, for my poor Arabic as I still learning, does the hadeeth come Independently from two narrators, ibn Saeed hadaan and ibn Saeed zae, while the criticism is levelled against ibn Saeed zae lawat only.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Excuse me, for my poor Arabic as I still learning, does the hadeeth come Independently from two narrators, ibn Saeed hadaan and ibn Saeed zae, while the criticism is levelled against ibn Saeed zae lawat only.

If it’s another person then he is majhool.

http://hadith.islam-db.com/narrators/3322/سعيد-بن-ذي-حدان

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Excuse me, for my poor Arabic as I still learning, does the hadeeth come Independently from two narrators, ibn Saeed hadaan and ibn Saeed zae, while the criticism is levelled against ibn Saeed zae lawat only.

There seems to be typist error. But in ilal Ibn Abi hatim it says (Or) not (And). So it’s same person.

عَنْ أَبِي إِسْحَاقَ، عَن سعيد بن ذي حُدَّان - أو ابن لعوة -؛ قال
http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-1350/page-2433

Wallahu alam.

[Ibn Taymiyya]

jazakallahu khyran for bearing with me, i took it the narration from here , is that  an error in the virtual book

http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-2863/page-6654

the other thing that comes to my mind is that , couldnt it be that the person who was intoxicated lied about being intoxicated after drinking from umar r.a vessel and umar r.a replied i drink from my vessel , i dont get intoxicated??

once again thankyou very much

[Ibn Taymiyya]

If it’s another person then he is majhool.

http://hadith.islam-db.com/narrators/3322/سعيد-بن-ذي-حدان

The link is not working with me

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

jazakallahu khyran for bearing with me, i took it the narration from here , is that  an error in the virtual book

http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-2863/page-6654

Wa iyyak. Most likely it’s an error, because of the way scholars dealt with it.

37- "عس- علي" سعيد بن ذي حدان2 كوفي روى عن سهل بن حنيف وعلي وقيل عمن سمع عليا وعن علقمة ونمران بن سعيد وعنه أبو إسحاق السبيعي ذكره ابن حبان في الثقات وقال ربما أخطأ قلت وقال ابن المديني في حديثه عن سهل بن حنيف في جعل الحج عمرة لا أدري سمع من سهل بن حنيف أم لا وهو رجل مجهول لا أعلم أحدا روى عنه إلا أبو إسحاق.
http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-3310/page-1562

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

An interesting comment was made by jorqani. 

، وَحِديثًا آخَرَ لَا يَحِلُّ ذِكْرُهُ فِي الْكُتُبِ ، وَمَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّهُ سَعِيدُ بْنُ ذِي حُدَّانٍ فَقَدْ وَهِمَ ،
https://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=779&pid=375427&hid=605

[Ibn Taymiyya]

An interesting comment was made by jorqani. 

، وَحِديثًا آخَرَ لَا يَحِلُّ ذِكْرُهُ فِي الْكُتُبِ ، وَمَنْ زَعَمَ أَنَّهُ سَعِيدُ بْنُ ذِي حُدَّانٍ فَقَدْ وَهِمَ ،
https://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=779&pid=375427&hid=605

brother could you translate this one for me,
also is saed ibn haddan declared thiqqah by bayhiqi
thankyou in advance

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

brother could you translate this one for me,
also is saed ibn haddan declared thiqqah by bayhiqi
thankyou in advance

It basically says that the the report in which it’s thought that he was sa’eed Ibn Haddan, it was an illusion.

[Ibn Taymiyya]

It basically says that the the report in which it’s thought that he was sa’eed Ibn Haddan, it was an illusion.

brother does bayhiqi say the same thing here

[Ibn Taymiyya]

my bad , sorry, it is  ibn hibban who says the same thing about saed ibn zii haddan as being abu lawat  the quote can be found in  ibn hibans criticism of saeed ibn zie lawat as you posted

[Moin]

Assalamu 'alaikum

Sa'eed ibn Dhi La'awah and Sa'eed ibn Dhi Huddaan are two different narrators. Former is listed in the generation of Kibaar Tabi'oon while the last one did not hear even from 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) as mentioned by Daarqutni.

The narration of Umar (ra) has been narrated through Ibn Dhi La'awah who has been declared unreliable and majhool by vast majority of scholars except for some who were lenient and their number could easily be ignored while comparing senior scholars of this field. Those who narrated this through Ibn dhi Huddan were actually did so based on confusion in the name as pointed out by Bukhari and Ibn Hibban. So this is not a supporting chain but rather a mistaken chain of the first original one.
Besides, even if we consider this to be a second chain then also it will have no weight as Sima' (hearing) of Ibn Dhi Huddan from even 'Ali (ra) is not proven.
Note - I have references if needed.

Wassalaam

[Ibn Taymiyya]

Assalamu 'alaikum

Sa'eed ibn Dhi La'awah and Sa'eed ibn Dhi Huddaan are two different narrators. Former is listed in the generation of Kibaar Tabi'oon while the last one did not hear even from 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) as mentioned by Daarqutni.

The narration of Umar (ra) has been narrated through Ibn Dhi La'awah who has been declared unreliable and majhool by vast majority of scholars except for some who were lenient and their number could easily be ignored while comparing senior scholars of this field. Those who narrated this through Ibn dhi Huddan were actually did so based on confusion in the name as pointed out by Bukhari and Ibn Hibban. So this is not a supporting chain but rather a mistaken chain of the first original one.
Besides, even if we consider this to be a second chain then also it will have no weight as Sima' (hearing) of Ibn Dhi Huddan from even 'Ali (ra) is not proven.
Note - I have references if needed.

Wassalaam

brother please do provide and add all the additional points. This issue isnt addressed on any of english websites, the rafidhi who brought it up has given up this claim but this will benefit many people.also isnt dhi huddan ,majhool as well, the link that brother provided detailed criticism upon him and there was Hardly any endorsement