The hadith is reported from Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه that the Prophet ﷺ said:
“People will soon strike the bellies of camels seeking knowledge, yet they will not find anyone more knowledgeable than the scholar of Madinah.” (al Tirmidhi 2680, Ahmad 2/299, Ibn Hibban 3728, al Hakim 1/90–91)

Many of the ulama held that this refers to Imam Malik ibn Anas رحمه الله, based on the statements of Ibn Jurayj, Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah, ʿAbd al Razzaq and others who explicitly named Malik as “the scholar of Madinah”, while some suggested al ʿUmari al Zahid. (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 3/412–413, Siyar Aʿlam al Nubalaʾ 8/55–56)

The core question in the investigation is whether this hadith is authentic or not, and how strong its chains are.

Main Chain Of Transmission And Early Gradings

The hadith is recorded through a single principal chain which many compilers transmit with small variations:

Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah → Ibn Jurayj → Abu al Zubayr → Abu Salih → Abu Hurayrah → the Prophet ﷺ.

It is narrated in the Sunan of al Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, al Mustadrak of al Hakim, Sahih Ibn Hibban, Abu al Shaykh’s Juzʾ on Abu al Zubayr, al Tahawi’s Sharh Mushkil al Athar, al Nasaʾi’s al Sunan al Kubra, al Bayhaqi’s al Sunan al Kubra and al Maʿrifah, Ibn ʿAdi’s al Kamil, Ibn Abi Hatim’s introduction to al Jarh wa al Taʿdil, al Fasawi’s al Maʿrifah wa al Tarikh, al Khalili’s al Irshad, Ibn ʿAbd al Barr’s al Tamhid and al Intiqaʾ and many later works. (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 3/412–413, Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360, al Mustadrak 1/90–91, Sahih Ibn Hibban 9/52 no. 3736, al Kamil 1/101, al Maʿrifah wa al Tarikh 1/346–347, al Sunan al Kubra 4/263 no. 4277, al Sunan al Kubra lil Bayhaqi 1/567 no. 1810, al Maʿrifah 1/87, al Jarh wa al Taʿdil 1/11–12, al Tamhid 1/85, al Intiqaʾ 20–21, Siyar Aʿlam al Nubalaʾ 8/55–56, Ithaf al Salik 97–104, Akhbar Malik 1/2, al Arbaʿin of al Maqdisi 8–21)

Early hadith critics differed:

Al Tirmidhi graded it “hasan”. (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 3/412–413)
Al Hakim said it is authentic on the condition of Muslim and al Dhahabi agreed with him in the Talkhis in its printed form. (al Mustadrak 1/90–91, Talkhis al Mustadrak)
Ibn Hibban included it in his Sahih. (Sahih Ibn Hibban 9/52 no. 3736)

Some later verifiers like Ahmad Muhammad Shakir also inclined to its authenticity. (Musnad Ahmad 13/358 no. 7967)

However, many other imams criticised this chain and considered the hadith weak. The detailed investigation revolves around the two central narrators: Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr.

Ibn Jurayj And Abu Al Zubayr: Tadlis And ʿAnʿanah

Both Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr are trustworthy but are well known mudallisin, and they narrate this hadith with ʿanʿanah.

Abu al Zubayr, Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Tadrus al Makki, is described by al Dhahabi as a hafiz whom “the group” narrated from, while Abu Hatim held that his reports are not to be used as proof. Ibn Hajar described him as truthful but practising tadlis, and placed him in the third level of mudallisin whose reports are only accepted when they clearly state hearing. (al Kashif 3/96, Taqrib al Tahdhib 2/207, Khulasat Tadhhib Tahdhib al Kamal 358, Tabaqat al Mudallisin 17)

Ibn Jurayj, ʿAbd al Malik ibn ʿAbd al ʿAziz, is a leading faqih and muhaddith of Makkah, praised for his knowledge, but also known for tadlīs (concealment of a narrator in the chain) and Irsāl (a Successor narrating directly from the Prophet ﷺ while omitting the Companion). Ahmad said that when he says “he informed us” or “I heard”, that is sufficient; Ibn Maʿin considered him trustworthy if he narrates from his written book. Ibn Hajar again placed him in the third level of mudallisin. (al Kashif 2/210–211, Taqrib al Tahdhib 1/520, Khulasah 244, Tabaqat al Mudallisin 15)

Shuʿayb al Arnaʾut noted that while al Mizzi explicitly lists Abu al Zubayr among the students of Abu Salih and lists Abu Salih among the shuyukh of Abu al Zubayr, showing that they met and removing a claimed break between them, both Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr still narrate this hadith with ʿanʿanah without any clear statement of hearing. For that reason he graded the chain weak. (Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360, Tahdhib al Kamal 1/396, 3/1267–1268)

The attempt to rely on al Tahawi’s wording “Ibn Jurayj said: Abu al Zubayr narrated to us” is rejected, because the shaykh in that chain is unknown and the taṣrīḥ bi al samāʿ (explicitly stating direct hearing from a teacher) is said to be an error either from the copyist or from that shaykh, as explained by Shuʿayb al Arnaʾut and Bashshar ʿAwwad Maʿruf. (Sharh Mushkil al Athar 4016, Musnad Ahmad 13/359, Tarikh Baghdad 3/241)

On this basis, both chains that go through Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr remain weak due to the combined tadlīs (concealing a narrator or the manner of hearing in the chain) and ʿanʿanah (narration using ʿan without explicitly stating direct hearing), despite the personal reliability of the narrators. (Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360, Mukhtasar Istidrak al Dhahabi 1/84–85, Irshad al Salik 4–9)

Claims Of Breaks In The Chain And The Criticism Of Al Bukhari

Beyond tadlis, a more severe criticism is that there may be actual breaks between Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr and between Abu al Zubayr and Abu Salih.

Ibn al Mulaqqin transmitted, with explicit wording, that al Dhahabi reported from al Bukhari that Muslim asked him about this hadith and he replied that Ibn Jurayj did not hear it from Abu al Zubayr, so Muslim abandoned it. Al Dhahabi also mentioned a second defect, that Abu al Zubayr did not hear from Abu Salih. (Mukhtasar Istidrak al Dhahabi 1/84–85)

This is supported by what Ibn ʿAdi transmitted from some people of Madinah that Ibn Jurayj did not hear from Abu al Zubayr, as mentioned by Ibn Hajar. (al Kamil 1/101, Fath al Bari 12/91)

Al Dhahabi further explained in Muʿjam al Shuyukh al Kabir that Abu Badr al Sukuni narrated the hadith from al Muharibi from Ibn Jurayj, but he stopped it at Abu Hurayrah, and then commented that Ibn Jurayj is a mudallis and did not hear it from Abu al Zubayr, counting three defects along with the oddness of its wording. (Muʿjam al Shuyukh al Kabir 2/33)

On this basis, some major imams saw two levels of concern:

Even if the meeting of Abu al Zubayr and Abu Salih is established in general, this specific hadith may not be proven by clear hearing.
For Ibn Jurayj, there is a real possibility that he did not hear this report directly from Abu al Zubayr at all.

This pushed some critics to consider the chain too weak to be strengthened, especially when combined with the unusual wording of the hadith. (Irshad al Salik 4–9, Mukhtasar Istidrak al Dhahabi 1/84–85)

Mawquf (stopped at a Companion) or Marfuʿ (raised to the Prophet ﷺ) The View Of Imam Ahmad And Others

Another important aspect in the investigation is whether the hadith is truly marfu to the Prophet ﷺ or should be treated as mawquf on Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه.

Imam Ahmad is reported by Ibn Qudamah to have considered it mawquf, as he said that Sufyan sometimes stopped it at Abu Hurayrah and did not raise it. This is also reflected in the wording of Musnad Ahmad where he says: “From Abu Hurayrah, if Allah wills, from the Prophet ﷺ.” (al Muntakhab min ʿIlal al Khallal 67, al Muntakhab 136, Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360)

Al Mizzi and others noted that there is a clear mawquf route through al Muharibi from Ibn Jurayj, from Abu al Zubayr, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayrah as a statement of the Companion. (Tuhfat al Ashraf 9/445, Siyar Aʿlam al Nubalaʾ 8/56)

Some scholars responded that such wording does not invalidate the marfu route, and that in matters of such specific unseen virtue there is no room for opinion, so a mawquf wording may carry the ruling of marfu. However, from a strict hadith perspective the existence of a strong mawquf version, combined with defects in the marfu chain, weakens reliance on the marfu form. (al Muntakhab min ʿIlal al Khallal 67, Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360, Siyar Aʿlam al Nubalaʾ 8/56, Irshad al Salik 4–9)

Supporting Report From Abu Musa Al Ashʿari

There is a supporting report from Abu Musa al Ashʿari رضي الله عنه with similar wording.

It is narrated from Zuhayr ibn Muhammad, from ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿUmar, from Saʿid ibn Abi Hind, from Abu Musa, raising it with nearly the same meaning. This is found in al Fasawi’s al Maʿrifah wa al Tarikh, Ibn ʿAdi’s al Kamil, Ibn Hazm’s al Ihkam and Ibn ʿAbd al Barr’s al Intiqaʾ. (al Maʿrifah wa al Tarikh 1/347, al Kamil 1/101, al Ihkam 6/134–135, al Intiqaʾ 20)

However, this chain also has serious weaknesses:

Zuhayr ibn Muhammad al Tamimi is known to make many mistakes, as Abu Hatim mentioned.
Saʿid ibn Abi Hind did not hear from Abu Musa at all. Al Daraqutni said this explicitly and Abu Hatim confirmed that he did not meet him. Ibn Hajar described him as trustworthy but known for sending narrations from Abu Musa. (al ʿIlal lil Daraqutni 7/242, al Marasil 75, Jamiʿ al Tahsil 246, Taqrib al Tahdhib no. 2409)

Because of this disconnection and the mistakes of Zuhayr, this supporting report is too weak on its own.

Some later researchers like ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman al Humayd concluded that, despite these weaknesses, the existence of this supporting narration together with the main chain may raise the hadith to the level of ḥasan li ghayrihi (fair due to supporting narrations), especially in view of al Tirmidhi’s hasan grading. (Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360, al Mustadrak with Mukhtasar Istidrak al Dhahabi 1/84–85)

Mahfouz bin Dhaif Allah Shaihany, after a wide survey of all routes, held that this supporting report is too weak to strengthen the defective principal chain, so the hadith remains weak overall. (Irshad al Salik 4–9)

Positions Of The Hadith Critics And Contemporary Specialists

A number of classical critics expressed strong reservations:

Ibn Hazm rejected the hadith due to the tadlis of Abu al Zubayr when he does not say “he narrated to us” or “he informed us”, and went so far as to call the report false, which Mahfouz considers an exaggeration. (al Ihkam 6/134–135, Irshad al Salik 4–9)
Ibn al Qattan al Fasi discussed it in Bayan al Wahm wa al Iham, treating it among the narrations incorrectly left uncriticised, and emphasised that the chain is composed of mudallisin. (Bayan al Wahm wa al Iham 4/305 no. 1965)

On the other side, some early imams like al Tirmidhi, al Hakim, al Dhahabi in his Talkhis and Ibn Hibban inclined to accept it, whether as sahih on the condition of Muslim or hasan. (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 3/412–413, al Mustadrak 1/90–91, Sahih Ibn Hibban 9/52 no. 3736, Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360)

A large group of later hadith specialists considered the hadith weak, including:

al Albani in Silsilat al Ahadith al Daʿifah 4833, Daʿif al Jamiʿ 6/122, Daʿif Sunan al Tirmidhi 1/502 and his takhrij of Mishkat al Masabih.
al Huwayni in al Nafilah fi al Ahadith al Daʿifah wa al Batilah 39.
Shuʿayb al Arnaʾut in his verification of Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360 and Sahih Ibn Hibban 9/52–53.
ʿAbd al Qadir al Arnaʾut in his takhrij of Jamiʿ al Usul 9/241 no. 6836.
Hamdi ʿAbd al Majid al Salafi in his verifications of al Ahkam al Wusta and Bughyat al Multamis.
Dr Bashshar ʿAwwad Maʿruf in his verifications of Tarikh Baghdad 3/241, Sunan al Tirmidhi 4/412 and Tahdhib al Kamal 27/117.
Mashhur Hasan al Salman in his edition of al Majalisah and his Mawsuʿah on weak and fabricated reports.
ʿAli Hasan al Halabi in al Hittah and his Mawsuʿah on weak reports.
Badr ibn ʿAbd Allah al Badr in his verification of Juzʾ Ahadith Abi al Zubayr.
Dr ʿAbd al Rahman al Faryuwali in his work on Dhakhirat al Huffaz.
Dr al Husayn Ayat Saʿid in his verification of Bayan al Wahm wa al Iham.

All of them said that the combined defects of tadlis, possible breaks, mawquf routes and weak support leave the hadith below the level of authenticity.

Overall Ruling And Its Relation To Imam Malik

From the detailed investigation, two broad conclusions emerge:

The chain as it stands, through Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr with ʿanʿanah, is weak due to tadlis, and there are strong indications from al Bukhari and other critics of breaks between Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr and between Abu al Zubayr and Abu Salih. The supporting report from Abu Musa is also weak and disconnected. On this basis, many major hadith specialists past and present regard the hadith as weak and not suitable as an independent proof. (Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360, Mukhtasar Istidrak al Dhahabi 1/84–85, al Ihkam 6/134–135, Bayan al Wahm wa al Iham 4/305)
Some scholars, looking at the multiplicity of routes and the practice of early imams like al Tirmidhi, al Hakim and Ibn Hibban, as well as the supporting narration from Abu Musa, judged that the hadith reaches at least the level of hasan li ghayrihi. ʿAbd Allah al Luhaydan and Saʿd al Humayd incline to this, attributing al Tirmidhi’s hasan grading to this combined evidence. (Musnad Ahmad 13/358–360, al Mustadrak with Mukhtasar Istidrak al Dhahabi 1/84–85)

As for applying this wording to Imam Malik رحمه الله as “the scholar of Madinah”, that rests on explicit statements from senior imams like Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah, Ibn Jurayj and ʿAbd al Razzaq who named him directly, and on the well known historical reality that people travelled to him from east and west for knowledge and that his Muwatta was unrivalled in its time.

Even those who weaken the hadith as a hadith of the prophet ﷺ often acknowledge the factual point that, in his era, no scholar of Madinah was more sought for knowledge than Malik ibn Anas. (Jamiʿ At Tirmidhi 3/412–413, Siyar Aʿlam al Nubalaʾ 8/55–56, Ithaf al Salik 97–104)

Full Article

The Hadith of the Scholar of Madinah and the Scholarly Rank of Imam Malik

Everyone knows the great rank and lofty standing of Imam Malik, the Imam of the Abode of Migration. He is a followed imam and one of the four well known imams of the madhhahib in the lands of the Muslims. A hadith has been reported which many of the ulama understood to be referring to Imam Malik himself.

It is narrated from Abu Hurayrah, as a report attributed to the Prophet ﷺ, that he said:
People will soon strike the bellies of camels in search of knowledge, yet they will not find anyone more knowledgeable than the scholar of Madinah.

This was narrated by al Tirmidhi (2680), Ahmad (2/299), Ibn Hibban (3728), and al Hakim (1/90–91).

There was disagreement over whether this report is raised to the Prophet ﷺ or stopped at Abu Hurayrah. Imam Ahmad held that it is stopped, as mentioned in al Muntakhab min al Ilal by al Khallal (67), as cited by Ibn Qudamah al Maqdisi.

Tariq ʿAwad Allah said in his verification of al Muntakhab (page 138): the verifier of Tahdhib al Kamal (27/117) mentioned that Imam Ahmad criticised this hadith by saying it is stopped, though he did not attribute this to a specific source. If this is established from Ahmad, it supports what was mentioned earlier, and the apparent practice of Ahmad here, and likewise in the Musnad, indicates this.

This report is differed over regarding its soundness.

Some criticised it due to the use of ʿanʿanah by Ibn Jurayj, which is not a valid criticism.

Others criticised it due to the ʿanʿanah of Abu al Zubayr, which is also not a valid criticism. Rather, Imam Ahmad criticised it by holding it to be stopped at Abu Hurayrah, as mentioned in al Muntakhab min ʿIlal al Khallal by the hafidh Imam Ibn Qudamah. A stopped report here carries the ruling of a raised report, since there is no room for personal judgement in such a matter.

Al Tirmidhi said after narrating the hadith: it has been reported from Ibn ʿUyaynah that he was asked, who is the scholar of Madinah. He replied: it is Malik ibn Anas. Ishaq ibn Musa said: I heard Ibn ʿUyaynah say: he is al ʿUmari al Zahid, whose name is ʿAbd al ʿAziz ibn ʿAbd Allah. I also heard Yahya ibn Musa say: ʿAbd al Razzaq said: he is Malik ibn Anas. Al ʿUmari is ʿAbd al ʿAziz ibn ʿAbd Allah, from the descendants of ʿUmar ibn al Khattab.

Shaykh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah strongly favoured the view that the hadith refers to Imam Malik ibn Anas. He said in al Fatawa (20/323–325): this supports the hadith narrated by al Tirmidhi and others from the Prophet ﷺ that he said: people will soon strike the bellies of camels in search of knowledge, and they will not find a scholar more knowledgeable than the scholar of Madinah. It has been reported from more than one person, such as Ibn Jurayj, Ibn ʿUyaynah, and others, that they said: it is Malik.

Those who disagreed with this had two arguments.

The first was criticism of the hadith itself, with some claiming there is a break in its chain.
The second was that it refers to someone other than Malik, such as al ʿUmari al Zahid and the like.

It is said in response that what the hadith indicates, namely that it refers to Malik, is firmly established for those who witnessed his time, and by widespread transmission for those who did not. There is no doubt that in the era of Malik there was no one to whom people travelled in search of knowledge more than Malik.

This can be established in two ways. The first is by claiming his precedence over figures such as al Thawri, al Awzaʿi, al Layth, and Abu Hanifah. This point is disputed and there is no need to rely on it here. The second is that Malik lived longer than all of them. He died in the year 179 AH, while all of them died before that.

It is well known that after their deaths there was no one in the ummah more knowledgeable than Malik in that era. No Muslim disputes this.

No scholar of Madinah was travelled to as much as Malik, neither before him nor after him. People travelled to him from the east and the west, from all ranks of society, including ulama, ascetics, rulers, and common people.

His book al Muwatta spread throughout the lands, and no book after the Qur’an was more widespread in that era than al Muwatta. The people of the Hijaz, Sham, and Iraq took al Muwatta from him. Among the youngest of those who learned from him were al Shafiʿi and Muhammad ibn al Hasan.

When Muhammad ibn al Hasan narrated in Iraq from Malik and the scholars of the Hijaz, his house would be filled with people. When he narrated from the scholars of Iraq, fewer people attended, because they knew that the knowledge of Malik and the people of Madinah was sounder and more firmly established.

The most eminent teachers from whom al Shafiʿi took knowledge were two: Malik and Ibn ʿUyaynah. It is known to everyone that Malik was greater than Ibn ʿUyaynah, to the extent that Ibn ʿUyaynah himself used to say: I and Malik are as the poet said: when the young camel presses its horn, it cannot strike like the mighty, thick horned camel.

Whoever claims that the one to whom people travelled in search of knowledge was al ʿUmari al Zahid, despite him being a righteous, ascetic man who commanded good and forbade evil, it was not known that people needed his knowledge or travelled to him for it. Rather, when he intended a serious matter, he would consult Malik and seek his verdict.

It is reported that when he was written to from Iraq to take on the caliphate, he said: until I consult Malik. Malik advised him not to enter into it and informed him that the Abbasids would not leave this matter without much bloodshed, similar to what ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al ʿAziz had said when it was suggested that al Qasim ibn Muhammad be appointed.

As for the sciences of tafsir, hadith, legal verdicts, and other fields, it is not known that people took from al ʿUmari in any notable way. So how can he be compared to Malik in knowledge and in the journeys made to him.

Then there are the books of authentic hadith, foremost among them Sahih al Bukhari. He often opens chapters with a hadith from Malik, and if there is a hadith from Malik in a chapter, he does not place any other narration before it. It is well known that people travelled in search of knowledge and did not find anyone more knowledgeable than Malik in his time.

At Tirmidhi’s Grading

Al Hasan ibn al Sabah al Bazzar and Ishaq ibn Musa al Ansari narrated to us. They both said: Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah narrated to us, from Ibn Jurayj, from Abu al Zubayr, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayrah, as a narration: It is soon that people will strike the bellies of camels seeking knowledge, but they will not find anyone more knowledgeable than the scholar of Madinah.

At Tirmidhi said: This is a hasan hadith, and it is the hadith of Ibn ʿUyaynah.

It has been narrated from Ibn ʿUyaynah that he was asked concerning this: who is the scholar of Madinah? He replied: it is Malik ibn Anas. Ishaq ibn Musa said: I heard Ibn ʿUyaynah say: it is al ʿUmari al Zahid.

I also heard Yahya ibn Musa say: ʿAbd al Razzaq said: it is Malik ibn Anas. As for al ʿUmari, he is ʿAbd al ʿAziz ibn ʿAbd Allah, from the descendants of ʿUmar ibn al Khattab.

al Albani weakened this hadith. Al Dhahabi said in al Siyar, after mentioning it with its wording: This is a hadith with a clean chain and a strange wording. It was narrated by several from Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah. It was narrated by al Muharibi from Ibn Jurayj as mawquf, and it is also narrated from Muhammad ibn ʿAbd Allah al Ansari, from Ibn Jurayj, as marfuʿ (Siyar Aʿlam al Nubalaʾ 8/56).

Jami’ At Tirmidhi (3/412–413)

Shuayb Al Arna’ut’s Grading

Sufyan narrated to us. Ibn Jurayj narrated to us, from Abu al Zubayr, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayrah, if Allah wills, from the Prophet ﷺ: It is soon that people will strike the bellies of camels seeking knowledge. They will not find anyone more knowledgeable than the scholar of the people of Madinah.

Sufyan once said: that people will strike.

Shuayb Al Arna’ut said: Its chain is weak. Its narrators are trustworthy and are narrators of the two Sahihs, except that Ibn Jurayj, who is ʿAbd al Malik ibn ʿAbd al ʿAziz, is a mudallis, and he does not practice tadlis except from a weak narrator. Here he narrated with ʿanʿanah and did not mention hearing from Abu al Zubayr. Likewise, Abu al Zubayr, whose name is Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Tadrus, is also a mudallis and narrated with ʿanʿanah.

Al Dhahabi said in al Siyar 8/56 after mentioning the hadith with this chain: This is a hadith with a clean chain and a strange wording.

It was also reported by al Humaydi (1147), al Tirmidhi (2980), al Tahawi in Sharh Mushkil al Athar (4017) and (4018), Ibn Abi Hatim in al Jarh wa al Taʿdil 1/11 to 12, Ibn Hibban (3736), Ibn ʿAdi in al Kamil 1/101, al Hakim 1/90 to 91, al Bayhaqi in al Sunan 1/386 and in al Maʿrifah 1/87, al Khatib in his Tarikh 5/306 to 307, 6/376 to 377, and 13/17, and al Dhahabi in al Siyar 8/55, through seven routes from Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah with this chain. Al Hakim declared it authentic upon the conditions of Muslim, and al Dhahabi agreed with him. Al Tirmidhi declared it hasan.

As for what al Tahawi reported in Sharh al Mushkil (4016), from Abu Ayyub ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿUbayd ibn ʿImran al Tabarani, who said: Harun ibn Maʿruf narrated to us, who said: Sufyan narrated to us, from Ibn Jurayj, who said: Abu al Zubayr narrated to us, from Abu Salih, with it. This explicit statement of hearing by Ibn Jurayj is an error. If the scribe did not err, then the error is from the shaykh of al Tahawi. He is unknown, and al Tahawi did not narrate from him in al Mushkil except in three places.

Al Nasaʾi also reported it in al Sunan al Kubra (4291), from ʿAli ibn Muhammad ibn ʿAli, from Muhammad ibn Kathir, from Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah, from Ibn Jurayj, from Abu al Zinnad, from Abu Salih, with it. Al Nasaʾi said: This is an error. The correct narration is Abu al Zubayr from Abu Salih. Al Mizzi said the same in al Tuhfah 9/445.

Al Mizzi mentioned in al Tuhfah that the hadith was narrated by Abu Badr Shujaʿ ibn al Walid, from al Muharibi, who is ʿAbd al Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Ziyad, from Ibn Jurayj, from Abu al Zubayr, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayrah, as a mawquf report.

Al Dhahabi pointed to this narration in al Siyar 8/56. He also mentioned that it is narrated from Muhammad ibn ʿAbd Allah al Ansari, from Ibn Jurayj, as a marfuʿ report. Ibn Qudamah mentioned in al Muntakhab that Imam Ahmad regarded it as mawquf.

It has a supporting report from Abu Musa al Ashʿari at Ibn ʿAdi in al Kamil 1/101, from the route of Saʿid ibn Abi Hind, from Abu Musa, raising it. This chain is weak due to disconnection. Saʿid ibn Abi Hind did not hear anything from Abu Musa. Al Daraqutni said in al ʿIlal: He did not hear from Abu Musa at all.

Al ʿUmari is ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿAbd al ʿAziz ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿAbd Allah ibn ʿUmar ibn al Khattab, and it was also said that he is his father, ʿAbd al ʿAziz ibn ʿAbd Allah. Allah knows best.

Musnad Ahmad (13/358–360)

Investigation By Abdullah bin Hamad al Luhaydan & Sa’ad bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Humaid

The hadith of Abu Hurayrah, raised to the Prophet ﷺ: People will soon strike the bellies of camels, yet they will not find a scholar more knowledgeable than the scholar of Madinah.

He said: It is upon the conditions of Muslim.

I said: Muslim only did not include it because he asked al Bukhari about it, and he mentioned a defect, which is that Abu al Zubayr did not hear from Abu Salih.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: The wording, “I said: Muslim did not include it only because he asked al Bukhari about it, and he mentioned an ʿillah, which is that Abu al Zubayr did not hear from Abu Salih”, is not found in the printed al Talkhis. Rather, what appears there is agreement that it is upon the conditions of Muslim. So it is possible that this is from the critical remarks of Ibn al Mulaqqin, except that this conflicts with the rule he followed in his introduction, where he said: Whenever I say, “I said”, then it is for al Dhahabi. Also, al Albani, when tracing Mishkat al Masabih 1/82, mentioned that al Dhahabi agreed with al Hakim in his statement, “upon the conditions of Muslim”, and this supports that it is from the critical remarks of Ibn al Mulaqqin, and Allah knows best.

Seventeen. Al Mustadrak 1/90 to 91. Abu Bakr ibn Ishaq al Faqih and ʿAli ibn Hamshadh narrated to us. They said: Bishr ibn Musa narrated to us, al Humaydi narrated to us, Sufyan narrated to us, Ibn Jurayj narrated to us.

And Abu ʿAbd Allah ibn Yaʿqub narrated to us. Yahya ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya narrated to us. Musaddad narrated to us. Sufyan narrated to us.

And Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ʿUmar informed me. Ahmad ibn Salamah narrated to us. ʿAbd al Rahman ibn Bishr narrated to us. Sufyan narrated to us, from Ibn Jurayj, from Abu al Zubayr, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayrah, who said: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:

People will soon strike the bellies of camels, and they will not find a scholar more knowledgeable than the scholar of Madinah.

Its sources:

It was narrated by al Tirmidhi with similar wording in Kitab al ʿIlm, chapter eighteen, the chapter on what has come about the scholar of Madinah 5/47, hadith 2680. He said: This hadith is hasan.

It was narrated by al Nasaʾi in al Sunan al Kubra, as mentioned in Tuhfat al Ashraf 9/445.

It was narrated by Imam Ahmad with similar wording 2/299.

It is also found in al Mishkat 1/82, and in Daʿif al Jamiʿ by al Albani 6/122.

Study of the chain:

It is narrated through the route of Ibn Jurayj, from Abu al Zubayr, from Abu Salih.

Ibn al Mulaqqin said: There is a break between Abu al Zubayr al Makki and Abu Salih al Samman.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: What appears is that Abu al Zubayr did hear from Abu Salih, because al Mizzi, in the biography of Abu Salih al Samman, mentioned that Abu al Zubayr was among his students, and he mentioned that Abu Salih died in the year 101. Tahdhib al Kamal 1/396.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: Al Mizzi also mentioned, in the biography of Abu al Zubayr, that Abu Salih was among Abu al Zubayr’s shaykhs, and that Abu al Zubayr died in the year 128. Tahdhib al Kamal 3/1267 and 1268.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: Based on this, it becomes clear that he met him and took from him, so the break mentioned by Ibn al Mulaqqin, quoting al Bukhari, is removed.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: However, the chain contains Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr al Makki, and both narrated this hadith with ʿanʿanah.

As for Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Tadrus al Asadi, their freedman, Abu al Zubayr al Makki, al Dhahabi said in al Kashif: The group narrated from him, and al Bukhari narrated from him alongside another narrator. He is a hafiz and trustworthy. Abu Hatim said: His reports are not used as proof. Al Dhahabi said: He was a mudallis with vast knowledge 3/96.

Ibn Hajar said in al Taqrib: Truthful, except that he practices tadlis 2/207, and he noted that the group narrated from him.

Al Khazraji said in al Khulasah: One of the imams, trustworthy, and he practices tadlis. Ibn Maʿin, al Nasaʾi, and Ibn ʿAdi declared him trustworthy. Abu Hatim and Abu Zurʿah said: His reports are not used as proof. He has one report in al Bukhari where he was paired with another narrator, page 358.

Ibn Hajar counted him in the third level of the mudallisin, those from whom nothing is accepted unless they clearly mention hearing. He said: Well known for tadlis, and al Nasaʾi described him with tadlis. Tabaqat al Mudallisin by Ibn Hajar, page 17.

As for ʿAbd al Malik ibn ʿAbd al ʿAziz ibn Jurayj, Abu al Walid al Qurashi, their freedman, the Makkan jurist, one of the leading scholars, Ibn ʿUyaynah said: I heard him say: No one wrote down knowledge before me. Al Kashif 2/210 and 211.

Ibn Hajar said in al Taqrib: Trustworthy, a jurist, excellent, and he practiced tadlis and irsal 1/520.

Al Khazraji said in al Khulasah: Ibn al Madini said: There was no one on earth more knowledgeable of ʿAtaʾ than Ibn Jurayj. Ahmad said: If he says, “He informed us”, or, “I heard”, then that is enough. Ibn Maʿin said: Trustworthy if he narrates from his book, page 244.

Ibn Hajar counted him in the third level of the mudallisin, those from whom nothing is accepted unless they clearly mention direct narration, page 15.

Ruling on the hadith:

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: From what has passed, it becomes clear that Abu al Zubayr and Ibn Jurayj are mudallisin, and both narrated this hadith with ʿanʿanah. So the hadith with this chain is weak due to their ʿanʿanah.

Al Albani mentioned it in Daʿif al Jamiʿ and its addition 6/122, and said: Weak.

Al Albani also said in his tracing of al Mishkat: This is from the narration of Ibn Jurayj, from Abu al Zubayr, from Abu Salih. Abu al Zubayr and Ibn Jurayj are known mudallisin, and they narrated it with ʿanʿanah, so the hadith is weak.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: However, it has a supporting report with al Tabarani in al Kabir, from Abu Musa al Ashʿari, with similar wording. Al Haythami attributed it in al Majmaʿ 1/134 and 135, and he said: Al Tabarani narrated it in al Kabir, and in it is ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn ʿAqil, and he is weak according to most.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: It was not found in the printed al Kabir, and Allah knows best.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: Based on this, the hadith, through these two chains, is hasan due to supporting evidence.

ʿAbd Allah ibn Muhammad al Luhaydan and Saʿd ibn ʿAbd al Rahman Al Humayd said: Al Tirmidhi declared it hasan, and it appears that he relied on that.

al Mustadrak Mukhtasar Istidrak al Dhahabi ʿala Mustadrak al Hakim by Ibn al Mulaqqin page 85

Mahfouz bin Dhaif Allah Shaihany’s In Depth Investigation

Hadith Authentication: This hadith is weak in its chain and is not established, as will become clear through the following study. It was narrated by Imam al Tirmidhi in al Sunan (4/344, no. 2680) with this wording.

It was also narrated by Imam Ahmad in al Musnad (13/358, no. 7980).

By Ibn Abi Hatim in the introduction to al Jarh wa al Taʿdil (pp. 11–12).

By Ibn ʿAdi in al Kamil fi Asmaʾ al Rijal (1/101).

By al Fasawi in al Maʿrifah wa al Tarikh (1/346–347).

By al Hakim al Naysaburi in al Mustadrak ʿala al Sahihayn (1/168, no. 307).

By Abu al Shaykh al Asbahani in a booklet containing the narrations of Abu al Zubayr from other than Jabir (no. 80, 81, 82).

By Muhammad ibn Makhlad al Dawri in Ma Rawahu al Akabir ʿan Malik (nos. 44, 45, 46).

By al Khalili in al Irshad fi Maʿrifat ʿUlamaʾ al Hadith (1/210).

By al Nasaʾi in al Sunan al Kubra (4/263, no. 4277).

By al Bayhaqi in al Sunan al Kubra (1/567, no. 1810).

By Ibn Hazm al Zahiri in al Ihkam fi Usul al Ahkam (6/134).

By al Tahawi in Sharh Mushkil al Athar (nos. 4016, 4017, 4018 according to the edition of al Arnaʾut).

By al Khatib al Baghdadi in Tarikh Baghdad (3/241, biography no. 337).

By Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (9/52, no. 3736 according to al Ihsan).

By Ibn ʿAbd al Barr in al Tamhid (1/85) and in al Intiqaʾ fi Fadaʾil al Thalathat al Aʾimmah al Fuqahaʾ (pp. 20–21).

By al Dhahabi in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubalaʾ (pp. 556–558) and al Muʿjam al Latif (no. 52).

By Abu Nasr al Marri in Akhbar Malik ibn Anas (1/2).

By Abu al Hasan ʿAli ibn al Mufaddal al Maqdisi in al Arbaʿin (pp. 8–21).

By al Rafiʿi in Tarikh Qazwin (3/175), as cited in al Silsilah al Sahihah (10/383).

By al Hafiz Salah al Din al ʿAlali in Bughyat al Multamis (p. 66).

By Ibn Nasir al Din al Dimashqi in Ithaf al Salik bi Ruwat al Muwattaʾ ʿan al Imam Malik (pp. 97–104), and others.

All of them narrated it through multiple routes from Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah, from Ibn Jurayj, from Abu al Zubayr, from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayrah, raised to the Prophet ﷺ.

Al Tirmidhi said: This is a hasan hadith.

Al Hakim said: It is authentic according to the condition of Muslim, though they did not include it. Al Dhahabi agreed with him.

Ibn Hibban authenticated it, according to his well known leniency. It was also authenticated by the scholar Ahmad Muhammad Shakir, may Allah have mercy on him, in his verification of al Musnad (no. 7967), but he was incorrect.

The narrators of the hadith are trustworthy narrators of the Sahihayn, except that Ibn Jurayj, who is ʿAbd al Malik ibn ʿAbd al ʿAziz, and Abu al Zubayr, who is Muhammad ibn Muslim ibn Tadrus al Makki, are both well known for tadlis, especially the former. His tadlis is severe, and he does not practice tadlis except from a weak narrator.

Imam al Daraqutni even said about him: Avoid the tadlis of Ibn Jurayj, for his tadlis is repugnant.

He only practices tadlis regarding what he heard from a weak narrator, then he performs tadlis in it. They both narrated with ʿanʿanah, and neither of them explicitly stated hearing in any part of the hadith, so it is criticised. (See their biographies in Taqrib al Tahdhib 1/520 and 2/204, Tahdhib al Tahdhib 6/402 and 9/440, and Tabaqat al Mudallisin nos. 83 and 110, all by al Hafiz Ibn Hajar al ʿAsqalani.)

It is well known and established in the principles and terminology of hadith that the ruling on the hadith of a mudallis is weakness if he does not explicitly state hearing from his shaykh, due to the possibility that he omitted a weak narrator between them.

As for what al Tahawi narrated in Sharh Mushkil al Athar (no. 4016) from Abu Ayyub ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿUbayd ibn ʿImran al Tabarani, who said: Harun ibn Maʿruf narrated to us, he said: Sufyan narrated to us, from Ibn Jurayj, he said: Abu al Zubayr narrated to us, from Abu Salih, with it. The explicit statement of narration by Ibn Jurayj here is an error.

Either the scribe made a mistake, or the error is from the shaykh of al Tahawi, for he is unknown, and al Tahawi only narrated from him in three places in al Mushkil, as stated by Shaykh Shuʿayb al Arnaʾut. (See his discussion in the verification of Musnad Imam Ahmad 13/359, and also Tarikh Baghdad 3/241, and the comments of its verifier Dr Bashshar ʿAwwad Maʿruf, who said that Ibn Jurayj’s explicit narration here is not sound.)

In addition to what has preceded, the hadith was also criticised by Imam Ahmad due to it being mawquf. This is reported from him by Imam Ibn Qudamah al Maqdisi in al Muntakhab min ʿIlal al Halal (p. 136, no. 67), where he said: Sufyan once stopped it at Abu Hurayrah and did not raise it to him.

This is also apparent from Imam Ahmad’s practice in al Musnad, where he said: From Abu Hurayrah, if Allah wills, from the Prophet ﷺ. Allah knows best.

The hadith has another defect. Al Hafiz Ibn Nasir al Din al Dimashqi said in Ithaf al Salik bi Ruwat al Muwattaʾ ʿan al Imam Malik (p. 101): Al Hafiz Abu ʿAbd Allah Muhammad ibn al Dhahabi wrote in his own handwriting: Abu al Hajjaj al Mizzi said to me: Muslim asked al Bukhari about this hadith, and he said to him: Ibn Jurayj did not hear it from Abu al Zubayr. So Muslim stood up and accepted this.

This is supported by what al Hafiz Ibn ʿAdi transmitted in al Kamil from the people of Madinah, who said: Ibn Jurayj did not hear from Abu al Zubayr, as mentioned by al Hafiz Ibn Hajar in al Fath (12/91).

In addition to this, there is another defect mentioned by Imam al Dhahabi as well, which is the lack of hearing of Abu al Zubayr from Abu Salih. Imam Ibn al Mulaqqin mentioned in his book Mukhtasar Istidrak al Hafiz al Dhahabi ʿala Mustadrak Abi ʿAbd Allah al Hakim (1/84, no. 17), quoting al Dhahabi, his statement regarding this hadith while commenting on al Hakim’s claim that it is according to the condition of Muslim: I say: Muslim did not include it because he asked al Bukhari about it, and he said: It has a defect, which is that Abu al Zubayr did not hear from Abu Salih. (Note: Ibn al Mulaqqin said in the introduction to his book 1/39: Whenever I say ‘he said’, it refers to al Hakim, and whenever I say ‘I said’, it refers to al Dhahabi. This shows that this statement is explicitly from al Dhahabi and not an addition by Ibn al Mulaqqin, contrary to what the verifier of the book suggested, especially since this statement is omitted from the printed edition of al Dhahabi’s al Talkhis, which is the original of this abridgement.)

From the words of Imam al Dhahabi, we benefit that Imam al Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him, criticised this hadith with two defects. The first is the break between Ibn Jurayj and Abu al Zubayr. The second is the break between Abu al Zubayr and Abu Salih.

Al Dhahabi also said in his book Muʿjam al Shuyukh al Kabir (2/33) regarding this hadith: It was narrated by Abu Badr al Sukuni, from al Muharibi, from Ibn Jurayj, but he stopped it. Ibn Jurayj is a mudallis and did not hear it from Abu al Zubayr. These are three defects, along with the oddness of its wording.

The hadith was also criticised by Imam Ibn Hazm in al Ihkam (6/135) due to the ʿanʿanah of Abu al Zubayr alone, where he said: In its chain is Abu al Zubayr, and he is a mudallis unless he says ‘he narrated to us’ or ‘he informed us’. He then exaggerated, may Allah have mercy on him, in rejecting it, to the point that he ruled it fabricated and false, and went to extremes in criticising those who used it as evidence.

It was also weakened by al Hafiz Ibn al Qattan al Fasi in Bayan al Wahm wa al Iham al Waqiʿayn fi Kitab al Ahkam li ʿAbd al Haqq al Ishbili (4/305, no. 1965), during his objection and criticism of him, in the chapter titled: Mention of hadiths that he remained silent upon, treating them as authentic, though they are not authentic.

He explained that ʿAbd al Haqq’s authentication of it, following al Tirmidhi, is incorrect, and that the hadith is a chain of mudallisin.

I say: The hadith has a supporting narration from the hadith of Abu Musa al Ashʿari, may Allah be pleased with him, raised, but it does not strengthen it, because it is also weak in its chain due to disconnection.

It was narrated by al Fasawi in al Maʿrifah wa al Tarikh (1/347), Ibn ʿAdi in al Kamil (1/101), Ibn Hazm in al Ihkam (6/134), and Ibn ʿAbd al Barr in al Intiqaʾ (p. 20), from the hadith of Zuhayr ibn Muhammad Abu Mundhir al Tamimi: ʿUbayd Allah ibn ʿUmar narrated to us, from Saʿid ibn Abi Hind, from Abu Musa, raised, with a similar wording.

Zuhayr, who is the Khurasani al Tamimi, is one who makes many mistakes, as stated by Imam Abu Hatim.

Saʿid ibn Abi Hind, al Daraqutni said about him in al ʿIlal (7/242): He did not hear anything from Abu Musa. Abu Hatim al Razi said: Saʿid ibn Abi Hind did not meet Abu Musa al Ashʿari, as mentioned in al Marasil (p. 75) and Jamiʿ al Tahsil fi Ahkam al Marasil (no. 246). Al Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in al Taqrib (no. 2409): Trustworthy, he sent narrations from Abu Musa.

The hadith was also weakened by a number of contemporary specialists in hadith, among them al ʿAllamah al Albani in al Silsilah al Daʿifah (no. 4833), Daʿif al Jamiʿ al Saghir (no. 6448), Daʿif Sunan al Tirmidhi (1/502), and Takhrij al Mishkat.

It was also weakened by Shaykh al Huwayni in al Nafilah fi al Ahadith al Daʿifah wa al Batilah (p. 61, no. 39).

It was also weakened by Shaykh Shuʿayb al Arnaʾut in his verification of Musnad Imam Ahmad (no. 7980), and he also pointed to its weakness in his verification of Sahih Ibn Hibban (9/52–53).

It was also weakened by Shaykh al Muhaddith ʿAbd al Qadir al Arnaʾut in Takhrij Jamiʿ al Usul fi Ahadith al Rasul (9/241, no. 6836).

It was also weakened by Shaykh Hamdi ʿAbd al Majid al Salafi in his verification of al Ahkam al Wusta min Hadith al Nabi by al Hafiz ʿAbd al Haqq al Ishbili (1/94), and in his verification of Bughyat al Multamis fi Thubaiyyat Hadith Malik ibn Anas by al Hafiz al ʿAlali (p. 66).

It was also weakened by Dr Bashshar ʿAwwad Maʿruf al Baghdadi in his verification of Tarikh Baghdad (3/241), in his verification of Sunan al Tirmidhi (4/412), and in his verification of Tahdhib al Kamal fi Asmaʾ al Rijal by al Hafiz Jamal al Din al Mizzi (27/117).

It was also weakened by Shaykh Mashhur Hasan Al Salman in his verification of al Majalisah wa Jawahir al ʿIlm by Abu Bakr al Dinuri (3/172, no. 809).

It was also weakened by Shaykh ʿAli Hasan al Halabi in his verification of al Hittah fi Dhikr al Sihah al Sittah by al ʿAllamah Sadiq Hasan Khan al Fattani (p. 416), and he also mentioned it in his book Mawsuʿat al Ahadith wa al Athar al Daʿifah wa al Mawduʿah (12/73, no. 30121).

It was also weakened by Shaykh Badr ibn ʿAbd Allah al Badr in his verification of Juzʾ Ahadith Abi al Zubayr ʿan Ghayr Jabir by Abu al Shaykh al Asbahani (p. 135, no. 80).

Dr ʿAbd al Rahman al Faryuwali also indicated its weakness in his verification and authentication of Dhakhirat al Huffaz al Mukharraj ʿala al Huruf wa al Alfaz by al Hafiz Muhammad ibn Tahir al Maqdisi (5/2807, no. 6581).

It was also weakened by Dr al Husayn Ayat Saʿid in his verification and authentication of Bayan al Wahm wa al Iham al Waqiʿayn fi Kitab al Ahkam by Ibn al Qattan al Fasi (no. 1965).

Irshād al sālik ilā takhrīj ḥadīth by Mahfouz bin Dhaif Allah Shaihany page 4–9

Author

ISHAQ. K

Is The Hadith Of The Most Knowledgeable Scholar Coming From Medina Authentic?

Navigation Menu For The Summary

The Hadith Of The Scholar Of Madinah