Abdul-Maalik ibn Amru Kathir ibn Zayd from Daawud ibn Abi Saalih who said “the governer of Madina, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, One day saw a man placing his face on top of the grave of the Prophet. He said to him “do you know what you are doing?” When he came near him, he realised it was (the companion) Abu Ayyub al-Ansari replied: “Yes! I came to the Prophet not to a stone.””
Grading Of The Hadeeth
Ibn Hibban in his ‘Sahih’,Ahmad,al-Tabrani-‘Mu’jam al-Kabir’,and his ‘Awsat’ according To Haythami,in his book ‘al-Zawa’id’, and in the book ‘Khilafat’. Al-Hakim ‘Mustadrak’ and al-Dhahabi declared it sahih.
A Look At Daawud Ibn Abi Saalih
Abu Hatim Said, ”He is righteous but not strong, however his “hadeeth are writen”. (If he means when Daawud narrates hadeeth that he has written down they are graded as authentic or something else Abu Hatim has not clearly said either way so Allah knows best what he means by this comment). [Tahdhib ut Tahdhib 5/50]
Ibn Adi also said: There is “No harm in him” that’s in Tahdhib ut Tahdhib.
He Shuayb Arnaut has weakened this hadeeth one of the reasons for this is that Dawud bin Saalih is unkown.
Adh-Dhahabi declares that he is not known.
Hafidh Askalaani graded him as truthful but makes mistakes.
A Look At Kathir Ibn Zayd
In his Takhreej of this hadeeth Shuayb Arnaut has weakened the narration due to the weakness of Katheer bin Zayd however another time he said about Kathir ibn Zayd “Rather he is Saduq (truthful) and Hasan Al-Hadith (good in narrating) just as Al-Busairi stated in his Misbaah Az-Zujaajah…” (Tahrir 5611).
Imam Ibn Khuzaymah reports his (Kathir ibn Zayd) narrations in his Sahih and the editor, Dr. Mustafa Azami states beneath his narrations, “Jayyid (Good).” [Entry 1888 of the Sahih of Ibn Khuzaymah].
Ibn Hajr, in his Tahthib, quotes Abdullah ibn Ahmad from his father Ahmad ibn Hanbal as saying about Kathir ibn Zayd, “I do not see anything wrong with him.”
Ibn Hajr, in his Tahthib, quotes different reports from Hafith Yahya ibn Ma’in about Kathir ibn Zayd:
A) From Abdullah ibn Dawrqi (or Durqi) from Ibn Ma’in that there is no harm with him
B) From Mu’awiyah ibn Saalih and other than him that he said, ‘Saalih (righteous)’
C) Ibn Abi Khaythama from Ibn Ma’in that he said, ‘Laysa bi-dhaak’ ( a type of criticism)
Ibn Hajr as stating in his Nata’ij al-Afkar he specifically declared Kathir ibn Zayd to be: Saduq: Truthful.
Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in his thiqaat (trustworthy narrators).” [at-Tathib At-Tahthib of Ibn Hajr; Vol. 4 page 579, entry 6499].
Ibn ‘Adi said, “…I do not see a problem with him. And I hope that nothing is wrong with him.”
Imam Adh-Dhahabi adds another grading to this list in his Mizan Al-‘Itidaal: From Ibn Abi Maryam From Yahya who said, “Thiqah (impeccably trustworthy)!” 6938]
Ibn ‘Ammaar Al-Mawsuli declared him, “Thiqah (impeccably trustworthy).”.
Ibn ‘Ammaar Al-Mawsuli declared him, “Thiqah (impeccably trustworthy).”
Ya’qub ibn Abi Shayba said, “Laysa bi-dhaak…” ( atype of critisim).
Abu Zura’ah said, “Saduq (truthful), fihi lin (or layyin – meaning weakness).”
Abu Haatim said, “Saalih (righteous), not with strength”
Imaam Haythami also in Majmau Zawaid explains that the narrator katheer bin Zayd have been declared weak by Imaam Nasaai.
The 2nd Chain Of Narration For This Hadeeth
Imam As-Subki narrates in his Ash-Shifaa’ As-Saqaam this narration with the following chain:Abul-Husayn Yahya ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ja’far ibn Ubaydulla Al-Husayni in his book “Akhbaar Al-Medinah” reports saying, “Amru ibn Khaalid>>Abu Nubaatah>>Kathir ibn Zayd from Al-Muttalib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab
A) The one reporting from Kathir Ibn Zayd is not Abdul-Maalik, rather it is Abu Nubaatah.
B) Kathir ibn Zayd is reporting from Al-Mutallib ibn Abdullah ibn Hantab instead of Dawud ibn Abi Saalih
A Detailed Investigation Of This 2nd Chain Of Narration
A Look At Nubaatah
As-Subki says, “I say: Abu Nubaatah is Yunus ibn Yahya, and those above him (in the chain) are thiqaat (trustworthy).”
Ibn Hajr declares Abu Nubaatah “Saduq” in his Taqrib, while Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut agrees with him in his Tahreer. (See Yunus’ entry in Tahreer Taqreeb).
Abu Haatim said of him, “A Shaykh from the people of Medinah, virtuous and Saalih (good) in Hadith, there is nothing wrong with him.” (9134 of At-Tahthib).
A Look At Al-Muttalib
Al-Muttalib is trustworthy according to Ya’qub ibn Sufyan and Abu Zura’ah who both stated he was thiqah (trustworthy).
But Al-Hafith Ibn Hajr states about him in his Taqrib, “Saduq (truthful), a lot of tadlees (lies) and Irsaal (narrating hadeeth which only back to a companion or one of there students and not the prophet a narrator is missing in the start of the chain).” (6710)
Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut “Rather he (Al-Muttalib) is thiqah (impeccably trustworthy). His reports from the Sahaabah are Munqati’ (disconneted) [Mursalah] exept from Sahl ibn Sa’ad, Anas, Salamah ibn Al-Akwa’ and those who were near to them (in time)…he was declared thiqah by Abu Zura’ah Ar-Raazi, Ya’qub ibn Sufyan, Ad-Daaraqutni, and Ibn Hibbaan mentioned him in his Ath-Thiqaat.
(On the other hand) Ibn Sa’ad weakened him for the reason of his many reports being Mursal.” (a hadeeth which only back to a companion or one of there students and not the prophet, as a narrator is missing in the start of the chain).
Regarding him reporting mursal narrations Abu Haatim said “His reports from Ibn Umar and Ibn ‘Abbas are Mursal, and we do not know if he heard from either of the two or not.”
A look At Amru Ibn Khalid
Al-Subki also admits that he doesn’t know who Amru ibn Khalid is in the secnond chin of narration he said “Amru ibn Khalid.”
Conclusion Concerning The Narrations Authenticity
The hadeeth is weak for three reasons:
- In the first chain Daawud ibn Abi Saalih is majhool (unknown).
- In the second narration Amru ibn Khalid is also unknown.
- Also in the narration Marwan Al-Hakam who is seeing the incident his condition is also unknown. He could be truthful but he could also be a liar so this incident can not be accepted, as the one who saw the incident may be a liar or have a bad memory. Therefore the narration may even be fabricated, as the condition of the only witness to the incident is unknown.
In Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalanis famous book Nukhbat Al-Fikar he puts hadeeths which include unknown narrators in the chain under the title of ‘The rejected and its Divisions’, after this he puts the unknown narrator under the subtitle of ‘Aspersion…..being unknown (jahala)’. (the 3rd (2000) edition of Nukhbas text established by Nur al-Din Itr p.178 -180)
Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani explains the unknown narrator (mubham) is not accepted. (Nukhbat Al-Fikar the 3rd (2000) edition of Nukhbas text established by Nur al-Din Itr p.182
Both chains of narration are weak that’s why Imaam Manawi in Fayd Al Qadeer weakens the narration.
Also al-Hakim did not say this Hadeeth is Saheeh. Rather he said its chain is Saheeh and there is a big difference between each statement as known in science of hadeeth. The former means the narration is authentic whereas the latter does not necessarily mean the narration is authentic.