Title: Regarding one of the Chain of Narrators of the 'Hadith Al-Thaqalayn' Question: I read a very intellectual post from you in which you proved that the hadith of Seqelayn, the version where it says we need to get guidance from Quran AND Ahlalbayt is weak in Esnad . You nicely pointed out the narrators of the various esnads of this version of hadith and showed that in each Esnad certain individuls are week. You then commented: "Besides these three chains, all other chains of narration of this version of the narrative include one or more of those narrators who have been strongly criticized by scholars of Hadith (cited above)." I recently found another chain of narrators for this hadith that does not include any one of those weak narrators. This is by Al-Hakim and it goes like this: Aboobakrebne Eshaq - Muhammadebne Ayyoob - Alazraqebne Ali - Hesanebne Ebrahim - Muhammadebne Salame - His Father - AbeTtofayl - Ebne Waseleh - Zaidebne Arqam. I am very keen and would like to ask you if you could please let me know if there are any problematic narrators in this Esnad . Regards Abdullah Ebrahim United Kingdom Answer: Before we take a look at the narrators in the referred narration in Al-Mustadrak of Al-Hakim , I would like to clarify that my referred statement related to the various narrations reported in the more "accepted compilations" of narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). I had not included Al-Hakim's 'Al-Mustadrak' in these compilations. Secondly, it should also be kept in mind that Hadith is not an independent source of Islamic beliefs. Even if a narrative has been reported through an absolutely reliable and unbroken chain of narrators, it cannot add any beliefs or practices to the corpus of Islam as transmitted through the Qur'an and the Sunnah . Thus, even to give a serious consideration to the narratives in which the family of the Prophet (pbuh) has been placed with the Qur'an as a source of Islamic injunctions, a reasonable basis of this belief must first be found in the Qur'an [ 1 ] . With the foregoing points in mind, let us now turn to the narrative in question. The referred narrative is narrative no. 4577 of Al-Mustadrak . The chain of its narrators is as under: حدثناه أبو بكر بن إسحاق ودعلج بن أحمد السجزي قالا أنبأ محمد بن أيوب ثنا الأزرق بن علي ثنا حسان بن إبراهيم الكرماني ثنا محمد بن سلمة بن كهيل عن أبيه عن أبي الطفيل عن بن واثلة أنه سمع زيد بن أرقم رضي الله عنه يقول... Abu Bakr ibn Is'haaq and Da`laj ibn Ahmad both say that Muhammad ibn Ayyub informed them: Al-Azraq ibn Ali told them: Hassaan ibn Ibraheem Al-Kirmaniy told them: Muhammad ibn Salamah ibn Kuhail told them: His father [i.e., Salamah ibn Kuhail] said: Abu Tufail said: ibn Wathilah said that he heard Zayd ibn Arqam (ra) saying... The first point that needs to be noted regarding this chain of narrators is that Al-Hakim (i.e., the author of Al-Mustadrak ), in his comment on this chain says: صحيح على شرط الشيخين This [chain of narrators] is Sahih , on the criteria of the two elders [i.e., Bukhariy and Muslim ] However, the fact, as has been pointed out by Al-Albaniy refutes Al-Hakim's claim. Al-Albaniy writes: وقال الحاكم: "صحيح على شرط الشيخين". ورده الذهبي بقوله: "قلت لم يخرجا لمحمد ...". (سلسلة الأحاديث الصحيحة ج 4 ، ص 332 ) Al-Hakim has said: 'This [chain of narrators] is Sahih , on the criteria of the two elders'. However, Al-Dhahabiy has refuted this point, saying: 'Neither of the two elders [i.e., Bukhariy and Muslim ] has accepted the narratives of Muhammad ibn Salamah ibn Kuhail. This point clearly indicates that the cited narrative is not 'Sahih' , as per the criteria of the 'two elders'. The second point that needs to be noted about this chain is that the second narrator in this chain named 'Ibn Wathilah' is, in fact, an error on the part of Al-Hakim . Ibn Wathilah is, in fact, the same person as the third narrator 'Abu Tufail' . The full name of this person is Abu Tufail `Aamir ibn Wathilah Al-Makkiy . As for the various narrators in this chain, the following comments have been made about them: Regarding Abu Tufail `Aamir ibn Wathilah, Ibn Hajar writes: وكان متشيعا (تهذيب التهذيب ج 5 ، ص 71 ) He was inclined towards the Shiites. Similar information is given by Ibn Hajar in ' Al-Isaabah fi Tamyeez al-Sahaabah ' and by Ibn Abd al-Burr in ' Al-Isti`aab '. Al-Jurjaniy has included Abu Tufail in his compilation of narrators who have been criticized (' Al-Kaamil fi al-Du`afaa ', Vol. 5, Pg. 87). Regarding Salamah ibn Kuhail, Al-`Ajaliy writes: وكان فيه تشيع قليل (معرفة الثقات ج 1 ، 421 ) He was a little inclined towards the Shiites. Similar information is also given in Ibn Hajar's ' Tehzib al-Tehzib ', Al-Maziy's ' Tehzib al-Kamal ', and Al-Dhahabiy's ' Siyar A`laam al-Nubalaa '. Regarding Muhammad ibn Salamah ibn Kuhail, Al-Jurjaniy writes: قال السعدي محمد ويحيى ابنا سلمة بن كهيل واهيا الحديث... وكان ممن يعد من متشيعي الكوفة... (الكامل في الضعفاء ج 6 ، ص 216 ) Sa`diy has said that both the sons of Salamah ibn Kuhail - Muhammad and Yahya - are extremely careless in narration... And Muhammad ibn Salamah was considered to among those people of Kufa, who were inclined towards the Shiites. Ibn Al-Jauziy, in his book ' Al-Du`afaa wa al-Matrookeen ', and Al-Juzjaniy, in his book ' Ahwaal al-Rijaal ', have also mentioned that Muhammad ibn Salamah was extremely careless in narration. Al-Dhahabiy, in ' Meezaan al-Ai`tidaal ' writes: وقال ابن عدي سمع أباه وعنه علي بن هاشم وحسان بن إبراهيم ثم ساق له أحاديث منكرة (ميزان الإعتدال ج 6 ، ص 171 ) Ibn `Adiy has said that he [i.e. Muhammad ibn Salamah] heard narratives from his father and his reports are narrated through Ali ibn Haashim and Hassaan ibn Ibraheem. Then he narrated Munkar narratives for him [ 2 ] . Regarding Hassaan ibn Ibraheem, Al-Jurjaniy writes: وحسان عندي من أهل الصدق إلا أنه يغلط في الشيء وليس ممن يظن به أنه يتعمد في باب الرواية إسنادا أو متنا (الكامل في الضعفاء ج 2 ، ص 375 ) I view Hassan as among the truthful, except that he errs in things. He is not among those on whom one can rely in the case of narrations, neither in the case of stating the chain of narrators nor in the case of stating the text of the narration. Nasaiy writes: حسان بن إبراهيم الكرماني ليس بالقوي (الضعفاء للنسائي ج 1 ، ص 34 ) Hassaan ibn Ibraheem Al-Kirmaaniy is not a strong narrator [ 3 ] . Ibn Hibaan writes: ربما أخطأ (الثقات ج 6 ، ص 224 ) Sometimes he [i.e., Hassaan in Ibraheem] commits mistakes Similar information is given in Ibn Hajar's ' Taqreeb al-Tehzeeb ' and ' Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb ', Al-Maziy's ' Tehzeeb al-Kamaal ' and Al-Albaniy's ' Irwaa al-Ghaleel ', vol. 8, pg. 195). Regarding Al-Azraq ibn Ali, the scholars are generally unanimous that he sometimes narrates strange and unique kind of narrators (See: ' Meezaan al-ai`tidaal ' and ' Tehzeeb al-Tehzeeb '). As for Muhammad ibn Ayyub, there are quite a few narrators by this name, due to which it cannot be said with certainty which one of these Muhammad ibn Ayyubs are we dealing with here. However, in the article on Da`laj ibn Ahmad - who is the next narrator in the chain of narrators under consideration - Khatib Al-Baghdadi, in his 'Tarikh Baghdad' has stated that the people from whom Da`laj ibn Ahmad has narrated his reports includes one by the name of Muhammad ibn Ayyub Al-Raziy [ 4 ] . If this information is accepted as correct, then the Muhammad ibn Ayyub included in the chain of narrators under consideration is either Muhammad ibn Ayyub ibn Haashim Al-Raziy or Muhammad ibn Ayyub ibn Yahya Al-Raziy. In case it is the latter, then he is generally considered to be a reliable narrator. However, regarding the former, ' Lisaan al-Meezaan ' says: قال أبو حاتم كذاب... قال بن مندة حدث عن يوسف بن المبارك مناكير وذكره أبو الحسين بن بأبويه في تاريخ الري فقال يكنى أبا عبد الله وقال كان ضعيفا تكلموا فيه ويقال كان شيعيا (لسان الميزان ج 5 ، ص 86 ) Abu Haatim has said that he [i.e. Muhammad ibn Ayyub] was a liar... Ibn Mundah has said that Muhammad ibn Ayyub has narrated many Munkar narratives on the authority of Yusuf ibn Al-Mubarak. Abu Al-Husain ibn Babwayeh has mentioned him in... and has said that he was weak. Scholars of Hadith have criticized him a lot and it is said that he was a Shiite. The foregoing should clarify the position of the chain through which the narrative under consideration has been reported. I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad August 5, 2002 [ 1 ] I had also mentioned this point in my first response to the referred question, titled " Why the Qur'an and the Sunnah , Why not the Qur'an and the Ahl al-Bayt ?". [ 2 ] The statement: 'Then he narrated Munkar narratives for him' means either 'then Muhammad ibn Salamah narrated Munkar narratives for his father' or 'then Hassan ibn Ibraheen narrated Munkar narratives for Muhammad ibn Salamah'. [ 3 ] i.e., he is not a very reliable narrator. [ 4 ] See: ' Tarikh Baghdad ' vol. 8, pg. 387.