Abu Khuzaimah Ansari
ʿAudhu Billāhi min ash-Shayṭān al-Rajīm
Bismillāh al-Raḥmān al-Raḥīm
Alḥamdullilāhi Rabbil ʿAlamīn, Waṣalatu Wassalām ʿAla Rasūlillahil Karīm, Wa ʿAla Alihī Wa Aṣḥābīhi Wa Man Tabiāhum Bi-Eḥsan Ilaʾ Yaum al-Dīn; Wa Baʿd
All Praise belongs and is directed to the Rabb of everything
that exists, Praise and Salutations be upon His
Final beloved Messenger, his revered family
and his noble Companions and upon
those who follow them in good
until the end of times,
This is the fifth reply in the series on Bro Hajji’s distortion of the truth and matters pertaining to the unified position of Ahlus Sunnah on Khuruj or rebellion. In addition to these replies, I have answered many of his points on our forum, Forum.Salafiri.com and twitter. The previous replies can be found on our website, and they are as follows,
Tremendous Advice of the Salaf for Bro Hajji; ‘Saved Sect Syndrome’
Breaking Down and Dismantling Bro Hajji
Outrageous and Lame, Destroying the Neo-Khariji Bro Hajji’s Claim
Demolishing and Mutilating Bro Hajji – Oh The Shame; Expanding on Outrageously Lame, Destroying the Neo-Khariji Bro Hajji’s Claim
This fifth reply answers Bro Hajji’s distortion that Imam Malik Rahimahullah allowed rebellion and deemed revolt against an unjust ruler to be permissible. I have already, very clearly presented the ignorance of Bro Hajji, his desecration and violation of hadith sciences and al-Jarh Wa’t Ta’dil. However, despite universal embarrassment and utter humiliation at the lack of his knowledge, he remains defiant and stubborn in his little make belief world of Youtube! This is more so on account of some comments and thumbs up by unknowns, which have massaged his ego, despite his abysmal failure in all other ventures. Let us now move on to refute this distortion and the ignorance of Bro Hajji.
A circulating document was shared with me that lists the evidence and statements for rebelling against an unjust ruler. This document seems to be a summarised transcription of the ill researched and uneducated speech of Bro Hajji. Point 27 of this document alleges Imam Malik allowed rebellion against an unjust ruler and the document reads,
27.Imam Malik deemed it appropriate to revolt against (an) unjust ruler and tyrannical rulers. Imam Ibn Jarir reported that when he issued a verdict to the people in favour of the actions of Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Hasan, who revolted in the year 145 Hijri, he was told “On our conscious is allegiance to al-Mansur.” He said, “You were forced to swear and allegiance cannot be compelled.” Here ends his words as reported in Ibn Kathirs book al-Bidayah wal Nihaya.
Bro Hajji used this report of Imam Malik to prove he allowed and believed it was permissible to rebel and revolt against an unjust ruler. The report used by Bro Hajji in in Tarikh at-Tabari
NOTE: Sa’id is a typographical error, and it should be Sa’d which is clear from the books of Rijal and Tarikh.
And transmitted Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid b. Ja’far b. Abdullah b. al-Hakam b. Sinan al-Hakami, the brother of the Ansar. He said, I have been informed by MORE THAN ONE PERSON on the authority of Malik b. Anas who was asked about rebelling with Muhammad. It was said to him (i.e. Malik), “We have given the oath of allegiance (i.e. it is around our necks) to Abu Ja’far.” Malik responded, “You gave the allegiance under compulsion which is not binding upon everyone when they are coerced. The people then hurried to Muhammad (to join him) but Malik stayed at home.
There are two central problems with this report and both problems render it weak, as the problem relates to reporters in the chain.
The First Problem
The chain is disconnected and there is no clear information on who actually reported this from Imam Malik. Since in the science of hadith, it is not acceptable because the requirements are for the names in the chain to be mentioned, i.e. who reported the incident. The usage of the words, “more than one person” is unclear and therefore the chain is disconnected. This then ultimately renders the chain weak. This in the science of hadith is known as Jahalatur-Rawi, such a problem is serious which renders the report weak. The narrator(s) is majhul i.e. unknown and therefore it falls under the ruling of majhul ul-Ayn.
The report despite mentioning “more than one person narrated this” does not add any weight to the argument but rather it weakens it because if there were more than one person, naming them should be easier.
The Second Problem
The serious problem is the weakness of Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid, who is a narrator of this report. He was classified weak by the scholars of Hadith and Rijal.
Imam Ibn Abi Hatim said,
My father met him, but he did not write hadith from him, and I heard my father say this.
The View of Imam Ibn Ma’in
Imam Ibn Ma’in has several statements concerning him. Ibn Junayd asked Imam Ibn Ma’in about Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid. He said,
There is no harm in him, I wrote hadith from him.
Ibn Junayd said,
A man said to Yahya b. Ma’in, I heard a hadith from Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid? He replied, “There is no harm in him, and he would hear hadith casually”.
Muhanna b. Yahya said,
I asked Ahmad b. Hanbal, Abu Khaythamah and Yahya b. Ma’in (about) Abu Mu’adh Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid b. Ja’far? They said, “He is Ibn Abdul Hamid b. Ja’far al-Madani? So, I said, “How is his affair”? They said he is here in the suburbs of the Ansar, and he claims to have casually heard the books of Malik b. Anas”!
The wording of Imam Khatib al-Baghdadi adds,
Ahmad said to me the people refute and reject this (his claims) since he was here in Baghdad and he did not perform Hajj, so how could he have heard from Malik casually?
We know when Imam Ibn Ma’in says, “There is no harm in him” it means the narrator is authentic according to him. However, some narrators like this are declared weak according to other scholars of hadith. For example, Harith b. Abdullah al-A’ur. Imam Ibn Ma’in said about him, “There is no harm in him” Yet other scholars of hadith declared him to be a liar. Imam ad-Darimi said,
Ibn Ma’in cannot be supported in this.
There are many examples like this. Sometimes Imam Ibn Ma’in will use the words to indicate someone is truthful but weak, see for example Yunus b. Harith at-Ta’ifi. We also know the last view of Imam Ibn Ma’in regarding any narrator is what was narrated by Abbas ad-Duri, he transmits from Imam Ibn Ma’in that he graded Yunus weak.This shows the possibility of Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid being weak as well.
Also, from Imam Ibn Ma’in’s terminology as mentioned by Imam Adiyy is that when Ibn Ma’in says, “write his hadith” then it means the narrator is from the weak narrators whose ahadith are written.
Imams al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Hatim
Both Imams bring an entry for him in their respective books but without quoting or making any criticism on him or even praising him. On the apparent this seems the Imams did not criticize him. For their entries see Imam al-Bukhari’s Tarikh al-Kabir and in another edition and Imam Ibn Hatim al-Jarh Wa’t Ta’dil.
Hafiz Ibn Hajr explained when Imam al-Bukhari and Imam Ibn Abi Hatim remain silent on a narrator without quoting criticism, then such a narrator according to them is Mastur al-Hal and his ahadith need supporting evidence. Mastur al-Hal is Majhul al-Hal i.e. their affair is unknown which renders such narrators and their reports weak.
In one edition of the Tarikh al-Kabir he is described as Baghdadi, meaning a person from Baghdad.
Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid b. Ja’far, they (the hadith scholars) disparaged and criticised his ahadith.
Abu Ali Saleh b. Muhammad Jazrah said,
There is no harm in him, another time he said, he had a weak memory.
Imam Sufyan ath-Thawri also criticised him on the basis of his legal edicts.
Ya’qub b. Shaybah said,
Imam Khatib al-Baghdadi in his entry says he was from Ahlul Madinah but lived in the Ansar quarters in Baghdad and that he transmitted from Malik b. Anas. It is possible Sa’d was born in Madinah but then moved to Baghdad at a young age and this does not contradict the statement of Imam Ahmad, that did not leave Baghdad. Hafiz al-Mizzi opens his entry by saying he resided in the Ansar quarter in Baghdad.
Imam ad-Dhahabi declared him to be thiqah. Another time he said,
Trustworthy and Ibn Hibban said he is not used as evidence.
Imam ad-Dhahabi also had an entry for him in his book of weak narrators, al-Mughni. He said,
Truthful, Ibn Hibban said, He would make bad errors and he was not used as evidence.
Imam ad-Dhahabi also brings an entry for him in his book of weak and abandoned narrators, Diwan ad-Dhu’afa wa’l Matrukin. He says,
Ibn Hibban said, he would make bad mistakes and Ibn Ma’in said there is no harm in him.
In the Mizan Imam ad-Dhahabi brings his entry and says,
Ibn Ma’in said there is no harm in him and Ibn Hibban said he would make bad mistakes, he is not used as evidence.
It is therefore natural for us to conclude that despite Imam al-Dhahabi saying he was trustworthy, he also brings his entry in his books on weak and abandoned narrators. This at the very least raises doubts on the reliability of Sa’d in the view of Imam ad-Dhahabi
Hafiz Ibn Hajr
Hafiz Ibn Hajr after his entry brings the statement of the early hadith and rijal scholars and then proceeds with Imam Ibn Hibbans’ statement which Imam Ibn hibban mention in his book on abandoned and weak narrators. Imam Ibn Hibban said,
His kunyah was Abu Mu’adh. Originally from Madinah but resided in Baghdad and he narrated from Ibn Abi Zinad. He would narrate rejected reports from famous narrators which were very bad mistakes and excessive errors to the extent that people avoided using him as evidence.
Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani also brings his entry in his Lisan. He mentions he was born in Madinah and moved to Baghdad. In one edition of the Lisan it says he narrated the Muwatta from Imam Malik but most editions only mention he narrated from Imam Malik. In summarizing his view on Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid, Hafiz Ibn Hajr said,
Truthful but makes/has mistakes.
This seems to be the final position of Hafiz Ibn Hajr on Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid as his Taqrib is his summary of his position on the narrators.
Al-Mughlatai after bringing his entry, quotes the statement of Imam Ibn Hibban from al-Majruhin. He also adds Imam al-Hakim used his hadith in his Mustadrak and Ibn al-Qattan said,
He is Majhul al-hal.
Imam al-Hakim and his Leniency
Bro Hajji and his blind supporters might argue that Imam al-Hakim used him as a reporter in his al-Mustadrak therefore, he was reliable with him. The answer to this is that Imam al-Hakim is Mutasahil.
The Imam as-Salah, in his reference work for hadith, Ulum al-Hadith also grades Imam al-Hakim as lenient.
Imams al-Nawawi and al-Suyuti in his Taqrib and Tadrib al-Rawi Fi Sharh Taqrib al-Nawawi both held the view that Imam al-Hakim was lenient. al-Suyuti even went onto say that Imam ad-Dhahabi rendered many of al-Hakims hadith in his al-Mustadrak weak and even compiled a treatise of around 100 fabricated narrations. This indicates the leniency of Imam al-Hakim.
Imam ad-Dhahabi alludes to the leniency of al-Hakim and says he himself has collated the fabricated and weak ahadith in al-Hakims al-Mustadrak. Imam ad-Dhahabi very clearly declares Imam al-Hakim to be Mutasahil, he says,
Like the type that is referred to as Mutasahil like al-Hakim.
Imam ad-Dhahabi said another time,
The mutasahil (lenient ones) are like….al-Hakim …
Shaikh Irshad ul-Haq al-Athari said,
I say their leniency (tasahul ie of al-Hakim and Ibn Hibban) is well known and al-Shaykh al-Albani has mentioned in Silsilah ad-Da’ifa no.23 so refer to it.
Shaykh Hamdi Abdul Majid as-Salafi said,
Then it is well known about both (Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim) of them that they are mutasahil i.e. lenient.
Shaykh Salim al-Hilali brings a long passage from al-Lucknowi’s al-Rafa’ wa’t-Takmil, who in turn quotes Hafiz al-Sakhawi saying the same in his Fath ul-Mughithi. Ibn al-Mulaqqin also attributed Tasahul to Imam al-Hakim.Hafiz Ibn Hajr does the same in his al-Nukt Ala Ibn as-Salah.
Imam al-Hakim brings this report in his al-Mustadrak,
1:452 no.1161 (DKI, 1411/1990)
2:448 no.1161 (Maktabah al-Assrya (1427/2006)
2:230 no.1172 (Dar al-Minhaj al-Qawwim (1439/2018)
Imam al-Hakim said about the hadith that was transmitted by Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid,
This hadith is Sahih on the condition of Muslim and he did not transmit it.
Imam ad-Dhahabi agreed that it was on the condition of Muslim. However, it is not on the condition of Muslim. The researchers of the Dar al-Minhaj al-Qawwim edition, under the supervision of Ashraf b. Muhammad Najib al-Misri said,
Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid has weakness in him and he (Imam Muslim) did not transmit from.
This is also supported by Ramadhan Ahmad Ali Muhammad who said about the narration transmitted by Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid,
It was narrated from Sa’d b. Abdul Hamid and he (Imam Muslim) did not transmit using him and he has weakness in him. He also said ad-Dhahabi said about him in ad-Dhu’afa that Ibn Hibban said he makes a lot of mistakes, Ibn Ma’in said there is no harm in him and al-Hafiz said, truthful but makes mistakes.
Furthermore, the researchers of Sahih Tarikh at-Tabari in al-Khilafah Fi Ahd al-Abbasiyun of Imam at-Tabari do not mention this incident. Therefore, they concluded and did not consider tis report to be authentic. This was compiled by Muhammad b. Tahir al-Barzanji and Muhammad Subhi Hasan Hallaq. It further says some chapters were presented to Dr. Ali Muhammad as-Sallabi and Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaf and they agreed with the everything in those respective chapters.
We have clearly learnt Bro Hajji lied on Imam Malik and he lied badly. The report from Imam Malik is not authentic and therefore propagating Imam Malik allowed armed rebellion, gave a fatwa but then stayed at home himself.
Bro Hajji needs to retract this fabricated lie and the attempted deceptive ploy to fool his gullible listeners. It is also the duty of his listeners, followers and supporters to bring this up him and for him to retract and apologise for his blatant lie on Imam Malik.
Wa Sallallahu Ala Sayyidina Muhammad Wa Ala Alihi Wa Ashabihi Wa-Sallam Tasliman Kathira.
Abū Khuzaimah Anṣārī
Shawwal 1442H/ May 2021, Birmingham, England
 Tarikh at-Tabari 6:491. 1st edn. (Beirut: Mawsu’ah al-A’lami lil-Matbu’at, 1418/1998) ed. Abd al-A’la Maha.
 Al-Jarh Wa’t Ta’dil 4:92 no.402. 1st edition (Hyderabad: Da’irah Ma’rif Uthmaniyyah, 1372H/1952)
 Suwalat al-Junayd Li-Ibn Ma’in no.676, part of Mawsu’a Tarikh Yahya ibn Ma’in 2:340. Mawsu’a Khamsu Riwayatin. 1st edn. (Beirut: DKI, 2011) ed. Muhammad Sayyid Uthman. Also, in Mawsu’a Aqwal Yahya ibn Ma’in Fir Rijal al-Hadith Wa Ilayhi 2:150 no.1329. 1st edn. (Tunisia: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1430H/2009) ed. Bashar A’wad Ma’ruf, Jihad Mahmud Khalil and Mahmud Muhammad Khalil. Tarikh Baghdad 7:207.
 Suwalat al-Junayd Li-Ibn Ma’in 2:341 no.690 (Mawsu’a), 2:151 no.1329 (Mawsu’a Aqwal).
 (Mawsu’a Aqwal) 2:151 no.1329, Tarikh Baghdad 7:206 no.4741, Tahdhib al-Kamal 10:286-287, Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 1:695.
 Tarikh Baghdad 7:206. 1st edn. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 2004) ed. Sidqi Jamil al-A’ttar.
 Mizan al-I’tidal 1:435. (Dar al-Ma’rifah)
 Al-Kamil Fi’d-Dhu’afa ar-Rijal 10:486 no.2088, statement no.18090, 18094). 2nd edn. (Riyadh: Maktabah ar-Rushd, 1435/2014) ed. Mazin as-Sarsawi.
 Ad-Duri, at-Tarikh no.317, al-Kamil 10:486 statement no.18091, 18092.
 al-Kamil 1:242-243 from Dhawabit al-Jarh Wa’t Ta’dil 167. 1st edn. sixth print (Dar Tayybah, 1440/2018).
 Tarikh al-Kabir 5:49 no.4813. 1st edn. (Riyadh: Nashir al-Mutamayyiz, 1440/2019) ed.ad-Dabusi
 Tarikh al-Kabir 4:61 no.1964. 1st edn. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1407/1986) ed.ad-Dabusi
 Al-Jarh Wa’t Ta’dil 4:92 no.402.
 Al-Nukt A’la Ibn as-Salah 2:700. 2nd edn. (Cairo: Dar Imam Ahmad, 1433/2012) ed. Shaykh Rabi b. Hadi al-Madkhali.
 Tarikh al-Kabir 5:49 footnote no.8.
 Tarikh Baghdad 7:206.
 Tarikh Baghdad 7:206, Tahdhib al-Kamal 10:287.
 Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 1:695, Tarikh Baghdad 7:207, Tahdhib al-Kamal 10:287.
 Tarikh Baghdad 7:207, Tahdhib al-Kamal 10:287, Khulasah Tadhib Tahdhib al-Kamal, 135. 5th edn. (Beirut: Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, 1416H)
 Tarikh Baghdad 7:205.
 Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma ar-Rijal 10:285 no.2218. 3rd ed. (Beirut: Risalah al-A’lamiah, 1436/2015) ed. Dr. Bashar A’wad Ma’ruf.
 Al-Kashif Fi Ma’rifah Man Lahu Riwayah Fi’l Kutub as-Sittah 1:413 no.1829. 1st edn. (Cairo: Dar ul-Hadith, 1439/2008) ed. Farid Abdul Aziz al-Jundi.
 Man Takallam Fihi Wa Huwa Mawthaq Aw Saleh al-Hadith 216-217 no.124. 1st edn. (KSA: Maktabah Malak Fahd, 1426/2005) ed. Abdullah b. Dayfullah al-Ruhayli.
 Al-Mughni Fi’d Dhu’afa 1:395 no.2347. 1st ed. (Beirut: DKI, 1418/1997) ed. Abu Zahra Hazim al-Qadhi.
 Diwan ad-Dhu’afa Wa’l Matrukin 1:471 no.1742. 1st edn. (Beirut: Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyyah, 1438/2017) ed. Muhammad Sayyid Ahmad al-Azhari
 Mizan al-I’tidal 2:118 no.2974) 1st edn. (Damascus: al-Resalah al-A’lamiah, 1430/2009) ed. Muhammad Rizwan A’rqususi.
 Kitab al-Majruhin Minal Muhaddithin 1:662 no.464. Another edition, 1:454 no.463. 1st edn. (Beirut: Dar al-Lolooaa 1439/2018) ed. Abu Muhammad Muhammad b. Insan Farhan and 2nd edn. (Riyadh: Dar as-Sumay’i, 1428/2007) ed. Shaykh Hamdi Abdul Majid as-Salafi, respectively. Tahdhib ut-Tahdhib 1:695.
 Lisan ul-Mizan 7:273 no.3075. 1st edn. (Beirut: DKI, 1416/1996) ed. Adil Ahmad Abdul MAwjud and Ali Muhammad Mu’wadh.
 Taqrib ut-Tahdhib 370 no.2260. 1st edn. (KSA: Dar ul-A’simah, 1416) ed. Shaykh Abul Ishbal Saghir Ahmad Shagif al-Pakistani.
 Ikmal Tahdhib al-Kamal 5:241-242 no.1887. 1st edn. (Egypt: al-Faruq al-Hadithiyyah, 1422/2001) ed. Adil b. Muhammad and Usamah b. Ibrahim.
 Ulum al-Hadith, 22. 24th edn. (Damascus/Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1440/2019) ed. Nur ud-Din al-‘Itr.
 Tadrib ar-Rawi 1:112. 5th edn. (Riyadh: Dar al-Taybah, 1422) ed. Abu Qutaybah Nazar Muhammad al-Faryabi.
 Siyar al-A’lam al-Nubala, 17:175.
 Ma’rifah ur-Ruwat al-Mutakkalam Fihim Bima Yujad ar-Radd, 15. (Dar al-Ma’rifah)
 al-Muqizah Fi Ilm Mustalah al-Hadith, 83. 8th edn. (Beirut: Maktabah Matbuat al-Islamiyyah, 1425) ed. Abdul Fattab Abu Guddah.
 al-I’llal al-Mutanahiyyah Fi’l Ahadith al-Wahiyyah 1:269 footnote no.5). another edn, Khalīl Mayyis, 1:270 footnote no.8.
 Mu’ajam al-Kabir 24:351-352. (Cairo: Maktabah Ibn Taymiyyah, 1415H/1994).
 al-Rafa’ wa’t-Takmil 282-308.
 Kifayah ul-Hifzah Sharh a-Muqaddimah al-Muqizah, 323. 2nd edn. (UAE: Maktabah al-Furqan, 1422/ 2001).
 al-Muqn’i Fi Ulum al-Hadith 67. (KSA: Dar al-Fawaz)
 al-Nukt A’la Ibn as-Salah 314.
 Mustadrak al-Jam’e as-Sahih 2:230 (Dar al-Minhaj al-Qawwim).
 Mustadrak as-Sahihayn 1:452 (DKI), 2:448 (al-Asrya)
 Mustadrak al-Jam’e as-Sahih 2:230, footnote 5 (Dar al-Minhaj al-Qawwim).
 Tanbiyyatul Wahim A’la Ma Ja Fi Mustadrak al-Hakim 105 no.232. 1st edn. (Riyadh: Maktabah at-Tawbah, 1420/2000). See also 295 no.805.
 Sahih Tarikh at-Tabari 5:72+. 2nd edn. (Damascus/Beirut: Dar Ibn Kathir, 1434/2013) ed. al-Barzanji and Hallaq.