بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

12 Dhul Qa’dah, 1444 AH (Friday,  2nd June , 2023)

We completed the definition of Ṣaḥīḥ according to ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh. In this definition, there are five conditions that he stipulated for a narration to be authentic:

1. Ittiṣāl as-Sanad
2. ‘Adālah ar-Rāwī
3. Ḍabṭ ar-Rāwī
4. ‘Adam ash-Shudhūdh
5. ‘Adam al-‘Illāh

But if ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ was teaching (and writing these) from towards the end of the 630 AH (He commenced writing the book on Friday, the 7th of Ramaḍān 630) , it raises the question: From where did ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ obtain this definition and how did he get these conditions? Were there any scholars before him who clearly gave the same definition that encompasses these five conditions?

For this, we search in the verbal statements of the scholars of the first few centuries. Unfortunately, we cannot find any scholar in the first three centuries who mentioned these conditions. In fact, no statement has reached us from any scholar from before ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ who mentioned all of these condition or said this definition.

If we refer to the books that were written on Ḥadīth or ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, we also do not find any of the earlier scholars clearly defining Ṣaḥīḥ in this way.

In the fourth century: in Al-Muḥaddith al-Fāṣīl, ‘Allāmah Rāmahurmuzī does not discuss Ṣaḥīḥ at all.

Another scholar from this century was ‘Allāmah Khattābī (319 – 388). He presented a definition for Ṣaḥīh which we have quoted a few times already. In his definition, he did not mention Ḍabṭ nor did he mention the two Shurūt al-salbiyyah i.e. Shādh and Mu’allal. ‘Allāmah Khattābī simply defined a Sahīh Ḥadīth saying:

فالصحيح عندهم ‌ما ‌اتصل ‌سنده وعدلت نقلته. (معالم السنن – 1 / 6)

Looking at another book of ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth written in this century, in his Ma’rifah ‘Ulūm al-Ḥadīth, under the chapter of Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Ḥākim quotes some examples, and then he passes remarks such as:

هذا حديث ليس في إسناده إلا ثقة ثبت، وذكر النهار فيه وهم. (معرفة علوم الحديث للحاكم – ص: 58)

From the word Thiqah, we understand that the narrators should have ‘Adālah and Ḍabṭ. Despite that, he alludes that the narration is not Ṣaḥīḥ, due to it being Shādh.

He then passes a comment that illustrates that a narration should not be Ma’lūl. He writes:

وهذا حديث تداوله الثقات هكذا، وهو في الأصل معلول واه. (معرفة علوم الحديث للحاكم – ص: 59)

As for the continuity of the chain, the reader will have to guess the condition of Ittiṣāl from other sections of his book.

In short, he did not give a clear definition of Ṣaḥīḥ.

Besides that, there is no clear definition of Ṣaḥīh given in this century.

In the next century, ‘Allāmah Khaṭīb did not present a definition for Ṣaḥīh in any of his books.

The points that I am trying to make are:

1) Prior to ‘Allāmah Ibn as-Salāḥ, no scholars presented an official and accurate definition of Ṣaḥīḥ. At most, we have that statement of ‘Allāmah Khaṭṭābī, but it is defective.

2) ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ was the first to define Ṣaḥīḥ in this manner with these conditions.

Question

The question remains: From where did ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ get this definition? How did he mention all of these conditions?

It becomes more important for us to determine the origin and source of this definition of ‘Allāmah Ibn as-Salāh, since scholars after him accepted this definition.

Answer

In Tadrīb ar-Rāwī, ‘Allāmah Suyūṭī quotes the origin from Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar:

قال ابن حجر: كلام ابن الصلاح في شرح مسلم له يدل على أنه أخذ الحد المذكور هنا من كلام مسلم. (تدريب الراوي في شرح تقريب النواوي – 1 / 67)

Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar claimed that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ derived this definition from the Introduction of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Imām Muslim did not clearly and emphatically mention this definition with these conditions, however, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ extracted it from his various statements. The definition of ‘Allāmah aṣ-Ṣalāh is not the exact wordings of Imām Muslim, rather, it is derived from the statements of Imām Muslim (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him).

What made Ibn Ḥajar assume this and on what basis did he make this claim? It is due to what ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ wrote in his commentary of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

In the introduction of commentary of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ first mentioned that these are the conditions of Imām Muslim, and then he claimed that this is actually and precisely the definition of Ṣaḥīḥ. Please take note of how he phrased his sentence:

شرط مسلم في صحيحه أن يكون الحديث متصل الإسناد ‌بنقل الثقة عن الثقة من أوله إلى منتهاه سالما من الشذوذ ومن العلة وهذا هو حد الحديث الصحيح في نفس الأمر. (صيانة صحيح مسلم – ص: 72)

He opened the statement by mentioning the that these are the conditions of Imām Muslim, and he concludes the statement by explaining that the reality is that this is the definition of Ṣaḥīḥ.

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ makes the claim that these were the conditions of Imām Muslim, but he does not tell us how he knows that these are the conditions of Imām Muslim. Imām Muslim did not clearly and emphatically mention his conditions. Thus, ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is making a claim, but there is no support for his claim.

We will have to get to the bottom of this, especially since majority of scholars after ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ followed him in these conditions.

In order to determine whether ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is correct in this claim of his, we will attempt to find these conditions. Fortunately, we do not have to go through the entire Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, since Imām Muslim wrote an introduction for us his book, and the objective of this introduction was really to introduce the book.

In this introduction, Imām Muslim indicated to all of his conditions. We will now survey and scan through the introduction to determine whether we are able to find the five conditions. (Even if we do not identity the exact sentence or statement that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ considered – because we can never be sure about that – as long as we find some indication to these conditions anywhere within the Muqaddimah, it will be sufficient).

Hereunder are some possible statements of Imām Muslim from which ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ could have derived his conditions:

1) Ittiṣāl as-Sanad

The condition of Ittisāl would probably be based on the following statement of Imām Muslim:

‌والمرسل ‌من ‌الروايات في أصل قولنا وقول أهل العلم بالأخبار ليس بحجة. (مفدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 24)

In the past scholars would use Mursal and Munqati’ interchangeably. In this instance, Imām Muslim’s use of Mursal refers to Munqati’. ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī mentions in his Nukat:

بل المنقطع والمرسل عند المتقدمين واحد. (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 76)

2) ‘Adālah

There are various statements and quotations from which ‘Adālah is established. One example is that Imām Muslim said:

واعلم، وفقك الله تعالى، أن الواجب على كل أحد عرف التمييز بين صحيح الروايات وسقيمها، وثقات الناقلين لها. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 6)

He also said:

وتركهم ‌الاقتصار ‌على ‌الأحاديث ‌الصحيحة ‌المشهورة مما نقله الثقات المعروفون بالصدق والأمانة. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 6)

Later in his introduction, he wrote:

مع أن الأخبار الصحاح ‌من ‌رواية ‌الثقات وأهل القناعة أكثر من أن يضطر إلى نقل من ليس بثقة ولا مقنع. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 22)

There are numerous quotations of earlier scholars. We will quote one random statement:

حدثني أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي قال: حدثني عبد الرحمن بن مهدي، عن حماد بن زيد قال: ذكر أيوب رجلا يوما، فقال: لم يكن بمستقيم اللسان. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 16)

3) Ḍabṭ

The condition of Ḍabṭ could be extracted from the word Thiqah, in the above quotations. Thiqah refers to a combination of ‘Adālah and Ḍabṭ.

However, we will attempt to see if it could be derived from any place independently. Ḍabṭ could be established from the following quotations:

حدثنا ‌نصر بن علي الجهضمي ، حدثنا ‌الأصمعي ، عن ‌ابن أبي الزناد ، عن ‌أبيه قال: « أدركت بالمدينة مائة كلهم ‌مأمون، ما يؤخذ عنهم الحديث، يقال: ليس من أهله ». (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 11)

In this, he is mentioning about their ‘Adālah, but there is not Ḍabṭ. Thus, their narrations are rejected.

As for his own statement, Imām Muslim also alludes to it in his statements:

فإذا نحن تقصينا أخبار هذا الصنف من الناس، أتبعناها أخبارا يقع في أسانيدها بعض من ليس بالموصوف بالحفظ والإتقان. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 4)

4) Adm ash-Shudhūdh

This is a difficult condition to find in the statements of Imām Muslim. Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar said:

قال شيخ الإسلام: ولم يتبين لي أخذه انتفاء الشذوذ من كلام مسلم، فإن كان وقف عليه من كلامه في غير مقدمة صحيحه فذاك، وإلا فالنظر السابق في السلامة من الشذوذ باق. (تدريب الراوي في شرح تقريب النواوي – 2 / 163)

However, it could probably also be deduced from the statement that we will quote about ‘Adam al-‘Illah.

5) Adam al-‘Illah

Imām Muslim said:

فأما القسم الأول، فإنا نتوخى أن نقدم الأخبار التي هي أسلم من العيوب من غيرها وأنقى من أن يكون ناقلوها أهل استقامة في الحديث، وإتقان لما نقلوا. لم يوجد في روايتهم اختلاف شديد. ولا تخليط فاحش. كما قد عثر فيه على كثير من المحدثين. وبان ذلك في حديثهم. (مقدمة صحيح مسلم – 1 / 3 – 4)

• Iktilāf Shadīd could refer to ‘Adam ash-Shudhūdh
• Takhlīṭ Fāḥish could refer to ‘Adam al-‘Illah

From this we learn that even though ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ is in the seventh century, he is basing this definition of Ṣaḥīḥ on conditions that Imām Muslim mentioned.

Source of Definition from Imām Muslim

Even if ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ derived this from Imām Muslim, being born in the beginning of the third century, Imām Muslim too was relatively late. Hence, we would like to determine where Imām Muslim obtained this from.

We could safely assume that Imām Muslim actually derived this from Imām Shāfi’ī. Imām Shāfi’ī wrote:

فقلت خبر الواحد عن الوحد حتى ينتهي به إلى النبي أو من انتهى به إليه دونه ولا تقوم الحجة بخبر الخاصة حتى يجمع أمورا (الرسالة للشافعي – ص: 370)

This opening statement shows that the narration could be Marfū’, Mawqūf or Maqṭū’. These rulings are not specific to only what is attributed to the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

(I will change the sequence of Imām Shāfi’īs words to correspond with the order that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāh placed the conditions.)

1) Ittiṣal as-Sanad

The condition of Ittiṣāl as-Sanad is clear from the following:

بريا من أن يكون مدلسا يحدث عن من لقي ما لم يسمع منه ويحدث عن النبي ما يحدث الثقات خلافه عن النبي

ويكون هكذا من فوقه ممن حدثه حتى ينتهى بالحديث موصولا إلى النبي أو إلى من انتهي به إليه دونه

(الرسالة للشافعي – ص: 371)

2) ‘Adālah

The condition of ‘Adālah is derived from the following statement of Imām Shāfi’ī:

منها أن يكون من حدث به ثقة في دينه معروفا بالصدق في حديثه (الرسالة للشافعي – ص: 370)

3) Ḍabṭ

The condition Ḍabṭ

حافظا إذا حدث به من حفظه حافظا لكتابه إذا حدث من كتابه. (الرسالة للشافعي – ص: 371)

‘4) Adam ash-Shudhūdh and ‘Adam al-‘Illah

The conditions of ‘Adam ash-Shudūdh and ‘Adam al-‘Illah are derived from the following statement:

إذا شرك أهل الحفظ في حديث وافق حديثهم بريا. (الرسالة للشافعي – ص: 371)

These are all mentioned at one place in ar-Risālah. In Kitāb al-Umm, Imām Shāfi’ī said:

وهو عندنا ‌شاذ والشاذ من الحديث لا يؤخذ به. (كتاب الأم للإمام الشافعي – 7 / 381)

We are now certain that ‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ does have a good basis for his definition. Yes, as Ḥanafīs, we can differ with him, but we cannot assume that he concocted or made up his own thing when teaching to his students with no basis at all. Rather, he does have support.

Ibn Ḥajar’s Change of Understanding the Condition of Ṣhādh

‘Allāmah Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ gave two definitions for Shādh:

فخرج من ذلك أن الشاذ المردود قسمان: أحدهما: الحديث الفرد المخالف، والثاني: الفرد الذي ليس في راويه من الثقة والضبط ما يقع جابرا لما يوجبه التفرد والشذوذ من النكارة والضعف، والله أعلم. (مقدمة ابن الصلاح – ص: 79)

In his Nukat, Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned (and we quoted this previously):

الأول: مراده بالشاذ هنا ما يخالف الراوي فيه من هو أحفظ منه أو أكثر، كما فسره الشافعي. لا مطلق تفرد الثقة كما فسره به الخليلي. فافهم ذلك (النكت على كتاب ابن الصلاح لابن حجر – 1 / 65)

Considering this meaning, Ḥāfiḍ Ibn Ḥajar doubted that ‘Adam ash-Shudhūdh is a valid condition of Ṣaḥīḥ. We spoke about this in the beginning of the lesson last week. ‘Allāmah Suyūṭī quotes him as saying:

قال شيخ الإسلام: ولم يتبين لي أخذه انتفاء الشذوذ من كلام مسلم، فإن كان وقف عليه من كلامه في غير مقدمة صحيحه فذاك، وإلا فالنظر السابق في السلامة من الشذوذ باق.

قال: ثم ظهر لي مأخذ ابن الصلاح، وهو أنه يرى أن الشاذ والمنكر اسمان لمسمى واحد. وقد صرح مسلم بأن علامة المنكر أن يروي الراوي عن شيخ كثير الحديث والرواة شيئا ينفرد به عنهم، فيكون الشاذ كذلك، فيشترط انتفاؤه (تدريب الراوي في شرح تقريب النواوي – 2 / 163)

‘Allāmah Zarkashī felt that the easiest way to understand it is to understand this is to accept that they are two types of Shudhūdh; that which is acceptable and that which is not:

والتحقيق أن الشاذ الذي يخالف الصحيح هو الشاذ المنكر أو الذي لم ينجبر شذوذه بشيء من الأمور المذكورة في انجبار المعلل والشاذ. (النكت للزركشي – 1 / 117)

وفي هذه الأوصاف احتراز عن المرسل، والمنقطع، والمعضل، والشاذ،

After quoting the definition of Ṣaḥīḥ, ‘Allāh Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ explains that this definition will exclude narrations with missing links, irrespective of where the missing link is in the chain.

وما فيه علة قادحة، وما في راويه نوع جرح. وهذه أنواع يأتي ذكرها إن شاء الله تبارك وتعالى. فهذا هو الحديث الذي يحكم له بالصحة بلا خلاف بين أهل الحديث.

He is claiming that this is the narration that is indisputably graded as authentic with no differences amongst the scholars of Ḥadīth.

‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī commented on this saying:

إنما قيد ‌نفي الخلاف بأهل الحديث ، لأن غير أهل الحديث قد يشترطون في الصحيح شروطا زائدة على هذه ، كاشتراط العدد في الرواية ، كما في الشهادة. (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 68)

‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī presents an example: Like how it is necessary for there to be two witnesses to bear testimony in court, it is essential for there to be two people who will transmit the narration.

However, with regards to this, ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī then mentions that this view was transmitted from a handful of Muḥaddīthīn. He thereafter said:

على أنه قد حكى أيضا عن بعض أصحاب الحديث. (التقييد والإيضاح – 1 / 68)

There are two points to take note of:

1) It is either falsely attributed to some reputable and great scholars or their statements have been misunderstood. Ultimately, there is no known great scholar of Ḥadīth who clearly and unambiguously stipulated that there should be a minimum of two narrators.

2) It is the view of the scholars who were assumed to be Muḥaddithīn, but they had no worth at all.

As for the first, we will speak about that in more detail under the chapter of ‘Azīz. For now, we can suffice with the statement of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, where he commented on the statement of ‘Allāmah ‘Irāqī saying:

وهذا ، إن كان الشيخ ‌أراد ‌بأنه لا يعرف التصريح به من أحد من أهل الحديث فصحيح. (النكت لابن حجر – 1 / 68)

There is lengthy discussion on whether Imām Ḥākim held this view or not. Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar quoted and explained something differently in Nuzha compared to what he explained here in his Nukat. When you are reading page 69. If you are reading the Nukat of Ibn Ḥajar, then at this point, it will be useful and beneficial to check and revise the notes.

As for the second, an example is: Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar says:

وأما ‌اشتراط ‌العدد في الحديث الصحيح، فقد قال به قديما إبراهيم بن إسماعيل بن علية وغيره. (النكت على كتاب ابن الصلاح لابن حجر – 1 / 71)

However, this person was very low in Ḥadīth. His narrations will be classified and graded as Mawḍū’.

وذكره أبو العرب في “الضعفاء” ونقل عَن أبي الحسن العجلي قال: قال: إبراهيم ابن عُلَيَّة جهمي خبيث ملعون قال: وقال ابنُ مَعِين: ليس بشيء…….قال الشافعي: هو ضال جلس بباب الضوال يضل الناس……. وقال ابن عبد البر: له شذوذ كثيرة ومذاهبه عند أهل السنة مهجورة وليس قوله عندهم مما يعد خلافا. (لسان الميزان 1 / 243)

In short, from the Muḥaddithīn, there is no clear statement of any scholar emphatically claiming that a narration has to be transmitted by two narrators, then only will it be accepted. All Muḥaddithīn and all Fuqahā accepted narration which was quoted by one person independently.

Proof of the Narration of One Person Being a Ḥujjah

Imām Shāfi’ī went into great length in many of his books proving that even if one person quotes a narration, then too, it will be accepted. In his Ar-Risālah, there is an entire chapter:

‌‌باب ‌خبر ‌الواحد. (الرسالة للشافعي – ص: 369)

(Note: this heading is not in all of the manuscripts of Ar-Risālah, but the discussion on this topic commences from this point.) This is in 32 pages. Thereafter, there is the chapter:

‌‌ الحجة في تثبيت خبر الواحد. (الرسالة للشافعي – ص: 401)

ʿAllāmah Bazdawī (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) mentions:

وهذا في كتاب الله أكثر من أن يحصى. (أصول البزدوي 154-155).

There are so many verse in the Qur’ān from where it is established that information passed on by one person is acceptable. ʿAllāmah Abd al-ʿAzīz al-Bukhārī provides numerous proofs for this. For example, Allāh says:

وَمَا كَانَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنُونَ لِيَنفِرُواْ ‌كَآفَّةٗۚ فَلَوۡلَا نَفَرَ مِن كُلِّ فِرۡقَةٖ مِّنۡهُمۡ طَآئِفَةٞ لِّيَتَفَقَّهُواْ فِي ٱلدِّينِ وَلِيُنذِرُواْ قَوۡمَهُمۡ إِذَا رَجَعُوٓاْ إِلَيۡهِمۡ لَعَلَّهُمۡ يَحۡذَرُونَ [التوبة: 122]

ʿAllāmah Abd al-ʿAzīz al-Bukhārī explained:

والطائفة منها إما واحد أو اثنان فإذا روى الراوي ما يقتضي المنع من فعل وجب تركه لوجوب الحذر على السامع، وإذا وجب العمل بخبر الواحد أو الاثنين هاهنا وجب مطلقا إذ لا قائل بالفرق. كشف الأسرار – 2 / 372)

He presents another example:

وَلۡيَشۡهَدۡ ‌عَذَابَهُمَا ‌طَآئِفَةٞ مِّنَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ [النور: 2]

ʿAllāmah Abd al-ʿAzīz al-Bukhārī explained this saying:

الواحد فصاعدا كما قال قتادة. كشف الأسرار عن أصول فخر الإسلام البزدوي (2/ 372)

He presented many other verses. Thereafter, he presents Ahādīth and the practice of the Sahābah (raḍī Allāhu ʿanhum).

The View of the Mu’tazilites

In Nuzha an-Naḍar, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar mentioned about there being two narrators in every link:

وليس شرطا للصحيح؛ ‌خلافا ‌لمن ‌زعمه، وهو أبو علي الجبائي من المعتزلة. (نزهة النظر – 15)

This person’s name was Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb and he was the leading scholar of the Mu’tazalites, and the leader of the Jubbā’ī sect. He has the same name and father’s name as the leader of the Salafīs, Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb. He was popularly known as Abū ‘Alī al-Jubbā’ī and he lived between 235 AH – 303 AH.

From his Nukāt, we understand that Ibn Ḥajar (may Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on him) obtained this view of Abū ‘Alī from Abī al-Ḥussain Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī al-Mu’tazili, because Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar wrote:

وعن أبي علي الجبائي – أحد المعتزلة – أيضا – فيما حكاه أبو الحسين البصري في المعتمد: “أن الخبر لا يقبل إذا رواه العدل الواحد إلا إذا انضم إليه خبر عدل آخر. أو ‌عضده موافقة ظاهر الكتاب، أو ظاهر خبر آخر. أو يكون منتشرا بين الصحابة، أو عمل به بعضهم”. النكت لابن حجر – 1 / 72)

However, when we revert to the exact source to verify this statement, then Muḥammad ibn ‘Alī quoted these words in his Al-Mu’tamad:

فصل في أن الخبر لا يرد إذا كان راويه واحدا

 ذهب جل القائلين بأخبار الآحاد إلى قبول الخبر وإن رواه واحد وقال أبو علي: إذا روى العدلان خبرا وجب العمل به وإن رواه واحد فقط لم يجز العمل به إلا بأحد شروط، منها: أن يعضده ظاهر أو عمل بعض الصحابة أو اجتهاد أو يكون منتشرا. (المعتمد في أصول الفقه – 2 / 138)

Chapter Concerning (the Fact) that a Report is not Rejected if its Narrator is One

Most of those who accepted the report of Āḥād maintained the view that it is fine, even if only one person narrates. And Abū ‘Alī said if two just (narrators) narrated a report, it is necessary (wājib) to act upon it, and if only one narrated it, it will not be accepted except by fulfilling some conditions, amongst which are, the apparent (statements) and actions of some Companions strengthen it, or (their) legal judgements become widespread (in their era).” 28:27, 21 to 28:43:50 (Al-Mu’tamad, 2 / 138)

Looking at his exact words, we cannot claim that Abū ‘Alī insisted that there only has to be two narrators. Abū ‘Alī accepts the narrations of a solitary narrator, as long as it has some support.

Nevertheless, in his Nukat, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar presented their proofs and refuted their claim. Since it is an incorrect assumption, and therefore, we will not delve into the reasons and proofs that Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar then mentioned in his Nukat. Rather, we will suffice with presenting this short summary:

Refutation of the Mu’tazilah

The primary proof of the Mu’tazilah is Qiṣṣah Dhil-Yadayn.

عن ‌أبي هريرة قال: «صلى بنا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إحدى صلاتي العشي قال ابن سيرين: سماها أبو هريرة، ولكن نسيت أنا قال: فصلى بنا ركعتين ثم سلم، فقام إلى خشبة معروضة في المسجد، فاتكأ عليها كأنه غضبان، ووضع يده اليمنى على اليسرى، وشبك بين أصابعه، ووضع خده الأيمن على ظهر كفه اليسرى، وخرجت السرعان من أبواب المسجد، فقالوا: قصرت الصلاة؟ وفي القوم أبو بكر وعمر، فهابا أن يكلماه، وفي القوم رجل في يديه طول، يقال له ‌ذو ‌اليدين، قال: يا رسول الله، أنسيت أم قصرت الصلاة؟ قال: لم أنس، ولم تقصر. فقال: أكما يقول ‌ذو ‌اليدين؟. فقالوا: نعم، فتقدم فصلى ما ترك، ثم سلم، ثم كبر وسجد مثل سجوده أو أطول، ثم رفع رأسه وكبر، ثم كبر وسجد مثل سجوده أو أطول، ثم رفع رأسه وكبر. فربما سألوه: ثم سلم؟ فيقول: نبئت أن عمران بن حصين قال: ثم سلم». (متفق عليه)

Qiṣṣah Dhil-Yadayn refers to an occasion the Prophet (ṣalAllāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) performed only two rak’āh (units) in the Ḍuhr prayer. Dhul-Yadayn (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) asked the Prophet  (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) if the prayer had been reduced (to only two units rather than four) or if this had been a mistake. The Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) sought confirmation from the surrounding Sahābah, i.e. had Dhul-Yadayn (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) spoken the truth?

On a side note: This incident is proof that Nabi was not ālim al-ghayb, as believed by the Barelwīs. Firstly, because Nabī (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) made this mistake, thereafter he (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) did not realise the mistake was made. Undoubtedly, Allāh Ta’ālā through His wisdom allowed this to happen; it was a means of teaching the ummah sajdah sahw.

The Mu’tazilah claim that that the Prophet (ṣallAllāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) did not immediately accept what Dhul-Yadayn (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) said. Rather, he (ṣallAllāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) sought confirmation, after which he (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) acted on the statement of Dhul-Yadayn (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him).  That proves that the statement of one person cannot be accepted.

Response

The reason why the Prophet (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) sought confirmation, was in consideration of the fact there was large gathering of people present, including many senior Sahābah yet nobody else made any contradiction; Dhul-Yadayn (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) could have been mistaken. The reason why there was no comment made regarding this by the people was due to the awe and respect of Nabī (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam).

Their second proof is the incident of the inheritance of a grandmother.

‌مالك ، عن ‌ابن شهاب ، عن ‌عثمان بن إسحاق بن خرشة  ، عن ‌قبيصة بن ذؤيب ؛ أنه قال: ‌جاءت ‌الجدة ‌إلى ‌أبي ‌بكر الصديق تسأله ميراثها. فقال لها أبو بكر: ما لك في كتاب الله شيء. وما علمت لك في سنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، شيئا. فارجعي حتى أسأل الناس. فسأل الناس. فقال ‌المغيرة بن شعبة : حضرت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، أعطاها السدس. فقال أبو بكر: هل معك غيرك؟ فقام ‌محمد بن مسلمة الأنصاري ، فقال مثل ما قال المغيرة. فأنفذه لها أبو بكر الصديق. ثم جاءت الجدة الأخرى، إلى عمر بن الخطاب، تسأله ميراثها. فقال لها: ما لك في كتاب الله شيء. وما كان القضاء الذي قضي به إلا لغيرك، وما أنا بزائد في الفرائض شيئا، ولكنه ذلك السدس، فإن اجتمعتما فهو بينكما، وأيتكما خلت به فهو لها. (موطأ مالك – 3 / 732)

Response

The reason why Sayyidunā Abū Bakr (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) sought a second opinion was because this masalah is regarding a commonly occurring topic i.e. the issue of inheritance, upon the passing of one’s grandmother, yet only one Sahābī narrated it. Hence, due to the possibility of suspicion, Sayyidunā Abū Bakr (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) erred on the side of caution. Moreover, Sayyidunā Abū Bakr (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) accepted many that were Āhād. For example he asked ʿA’ishah (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with her) regarding the kafn amount used for Nabī (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) and he accepted the answer, after only hearing the answer from one source.

Third example mentioned in the commentaries:

قصة عمر في توقفه في حديث أبي موسى الأشعري في الاستئذان

جاء يستأذن عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه، فاستأذن ثلاثا ثم رجع، فأرسل عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه  في أثره فقال ما لك لم تدخل. فقال أبو موسى رضي الله عنه سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول الاستئذان ثلاثا فإن أذن لك فادخل وإلا فارجع . فقال عمر رضي الله عنه ومن يعلم هذا؟ لئن لم تأتني بمن يعلم ذلك لأفعلن بك كذا وكذا، فخرج أبو موسى رضي الله عنه حتى جاء مجلسا في المسجد، يقال له مجلس الأنصار رضي الله عنهم، فقال: إني أخبرت عمر بن الخطاب  رضي الله عنه أني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول الاستئذان ثلاثا فإن أذن لك فادخل وإلا فارجع. فقال لئن لم تأتني بمن يعلم هذا لأفعلن بك كذا وكذا، فإن كان سمع ذلك أحد منكم فليقم معي، فقالوا لأبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه قم معه، وكان أبو سعيد رضي الله عنه أصغرهم ، فقام معه، فأخبر بذلك عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه.

Sayyidunā Umar (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) was going to punish Sayyidunā Abū Mūsā al-Asharī (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him);  undoubtedly there was no question of the integrity, piety, and memory of Sayyidunā Abū Mūsā al-Asharī (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him), yet as he was a single narrator, Sayyidunā Umar (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) was willing to punish him. They claim that this proves that Sayyidunā Umar (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) held such an opinion. However, the answer is in the hadith:

فقال عمر بن الخطاب لأبي موسى رضي الله عنهما أما إني لم أتهمك، ولكن خشيت أن يتقول الناس على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.

Sayyidunā Umar did not doubt Sayyidunā Abū Mūsā al-Asharī (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with them both); however, he said this out of fear that people will fabricate against Nabī (ṣal Allāhu ʿalayhī wa-sallam) – it was to set an example.

Response

Hāfiz Ibn Hajar (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) mentions various examples in which Sayyidunā Umar (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) accepted a mas’alah that had only one narrator. For example, Sayyidunā Umar (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him) himself took jizyah from the majūs of Hajar. Similarly, the narration of famine i.e. if it comes to an area one should avoid it, however, if one resides within the area they must not leave.

Besides these, there are countless other proofs. Imām Shāfī (may Allāh Ta’ālā have mercy on him) states:

قد تركوا قبلة كانوا عليها بخبر واحد ولم ينكر ذلك عليهم صل الله عليه وسلم. (الرسالة)

This qiblah change impacts the compulsory duty of a Muslim, but based on a khabar wāhid, the Sahābah (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with them all) were ready to change the direction of their qiblah.

Similarly, the incident of the prohibition of wine narrated by Sayyidunā Anas (may Allāh Ta’ālā be pleased with him):

إني لقائم أسقي أبا طلحة وفلانا وفلانا إذ دخل رجل فقال هل بلغكم الخبر؟ فقالوا وما ذاك؟ قال حرمت الخمر قالوا أهرق هذه القلال يا أنس قال فما سألوا عنها ولا راجعوها بعد خبر الرجل.

Bearing in mind, there were Quranic ayahs alluding to the permissibility of wine prior to this.

May Allāh Taʿālā have mercy on them all

سبحانك اللهم وبحمدك ، أشهد أن لا إله إلا أنت ، أستغفرك وأتوب إليك