Authenticity of reciting Surat al-Kahf on Friday

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Question: Is a ḥadīth regarding the recital of Sūrat al-Kahf on Friday proven? Please clarify with evidences (Muḥammad Na’īm Sājid)

Answer: The following narration is reported concerning the recital of Sūrat al-Kahf on Friday:

حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيْدٌ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، ثَنَا أَبُو هَاشِمٍ، عَنْ أَبِيْ مِجْلَزٍ، عَنْ قَيْسِ بنِ عُبَادٍ، عَنْ أَبِيْ سَعِيْدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ رضي الله عنه قَالَ: ((مَنْ قَرَأَ سُوْرَةَ الْكَهْفِ يَوْمَ الجُمُعَةِ أَضَاءَ لَهُ مِنَ النُّوْرِ مَا بَيْنَهُ وَبَيْنَ الْبَيْتِ العَتِيْقِ))

Sayyiduna Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Whoever recites Sūrat al-Kahf on the day of Jumu’ah (Friday), a light will shine between him and al-Bayt al-‘Atīq (the Ka’bah)” (Sunan Sa’īd bin Manṣūr : 1368 and its Isnād is Ṣaḥīḥ)

a brief introduction to the narrators of this narration is as follows:
(1) Sa’īd bin Manṣūr: “Thiqah (trustworthy), author”. (al-Taqrīb : 2399)
(2) Hushaym bin Bashīr: “Thiqah (trustworthy), Thabt (precise)”. (al-Taqrīb : 7312)
He is Mudallis too but in the mentioned sanad, direct hearing (Samā’ i.e سمعت, حدثنا etc) is explicitly stated.
(3) Abū Hāshim Yaḥyā bin Dīnār al-Wāsiṭī: “Thiqah (trustworthy)”. (al-Taqrīb : 8425)
(4) Abū Mijlaz Lāḥiq bin Ḥumayd: “Thiqah (trustworthy)”. (al-Taqrīb : 7490)
(5) Qays bin ‘Ubād: “Trustworthy”. (al-Taqrīb : 5582)

This narration is Mawqūf (attributed to a companion) but it has the ruling of Marfū’ (attributed to the prophet ﷺ)

Imām al-Nasā’ī رحمه الله said: “and the correct (narration) is Mawqūf” (al-Sunan al-Kubrā : 9/37)
Imām al-Bayhaqī رحمه الله said: “And this is what is Maḥfūz (preserved) as Mawqūf” (Shu’ab al-Īmān 4/86)

Meaning that according to al-Nasā’ī and al-Bayhaqī this Mawqūf narration is preserved Alḥamdulillāh.

Ibn Ḥajar رحمه الله also declared the Mawqūf as being more authentic (al-Talkhīṣ al-Ḥabīr 2/1765)

{al-Dhahabi said: “Mawqūf is more authentic” (al-Muhadhab fī ikhtiṣār al-Sunan al-Kabīr 1/42)

Ibn al-Qayyim said: “and Sa’īd bin Manṣūr mentioned it from the saying of Abū Sa’īd and that is more correct” (Zād al-Ma’ād 1/463)}

Objection: An objection is raised against the aforementioned narration that Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal رحمه الله narrated the following:

حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، عَنْ أَبِيْ هَاشِمٍ عَنْ أَبِيْ مِجْلَزٍ عَنْ قَيْسِ بنِ عُبَادٍ عَنْ أَبِيْ سَعِيْدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ قَالَ: إِذَا تَوَضَّأَ الرَّجُلُ فَقَالَ: سُبْحانَكَ اللَّهُمَ وَبِحَمْدِكَ

Then he said: “Hushaym did not hear this from Abū Hāshim” (al-‘Ilal wa Ma’rifat al-Rijāl : 2/251)

Removal (of objection): After keeping in mind the sanad (chain) and matn (text) quoted by imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal, consider also the following sanad and matn: Imam al-Nasā’ī رحمه الله said:

أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ، عَنْ أَبِي هَاشِمٍ قَالَ: ‌سَمِعْتُ ‌أَبَا ‌مِجْلَزٍ يُحَدِّثُ ‌عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ عُبَادٍ عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ قَوْلَهُ

He also said:

أَخْبَرَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ السَّكَنِ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ كَثِيرٍ أَبُو غَسَّانَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا شُعْبَةُ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو هَاشِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي مِجْلَزٍ، عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ عُبَادٍ عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ: مَنْ تَوَضَّأَ فَقَالَ: سُبْحَانَكَ اللهُمَّ وَبِحَمْدِكَ…ـ

In both of the mentioned sanad, imām Shu’bah has clearly done Mutāba’ah (supported) Hushaym which indicates that Imam Shu’bah also heard this narration from Abū Hashim. Therefore, considering the mentioned narration as weak based on Hushaym not mentioning direct hearing (Samā’) is absolutely wrong and incorrect.

Note: Some people, feigning ignorance, raise the objection that the narration in which Shu’bah did Mutāba’ah does not mention Friday.

لو! آپ اپنے دام میں صیّاد آگیا

“So the hunter has fallen into his own trap.” (Lines of poetry)

We will only dare to ask: Is Friday mentioned in the narration where Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal رحمه الله denied direct hearing (Samā’)? If the Mutāba’ah (by Shu’bah) is not accepted due to the absence of the mention of Friday, then how is Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal’s criticism accepted due to the absence of the mention of Friday?

Futhermore, following the aforementioned objection, it is to be said that if such a difference (of opinion) arose among the scholars, they would present the direct explicit hearing (Samā’) as evidence and would not reject the direct explicit hearing (Samā’) without a clear indication (to support it)

Imām Ibn al-Qayyim رحمه الله said concerning Imām Ibn Ḥibbān رحمه الله:

وَقَد أَعَلَّهُ أَبُو حَاتِمٍ ابْن حِبَان بأَن قَالَ: زَاذَانُ لَمْ يَسْمَعهُ مِنَ الْبَرَاءِ وَهَذِهِ الْعِلَّةُ فَاسِدَةٌ فَإِنَّ زَاذَانَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ الْبَرَاءَ بْنَ عَازِبٍ…ـ

“Abū Ḥātim Ibn Ḥibbān declared it defective by saying: Zādhān did not hear it from Al-Barā’, but this defect is invalid because Zādhān said: I heard Al-Barā’ bin ‘Āzib…” (Ḥāshiyat Ibn al-Qayyim ‘alā sunan Abī Dawūd : 9/31, see also Kitāb al-Rūḥ page : 77)

It is clear from the aforementioned text that when Imām Ibn Ḥibbān رحمه الله denied the hearing (of Zādhān), Imām Ibn al-Qayyim رحمه الله presented the direct explicit hearing (Samā’) as evidence.

Similarly, after narrating a hadith, Imām Diyā’ al-Dīn al-Maqdisī رحمه الله mentions the saying of Imām al-Dāraquṭnī رحمه الله that: “إِنَّ ابْنَ جُرَيْجٍ لَمْ يَسْمَعهُ مِنْ إِسْحَاقَ” (Indeed, Ibn Jurayj did not hear it from Isḥāq). Afterwards, Imām Diyā’ al-Dīn clarifies that through the route of Yaḥyā bin Sā’id (it is) “أخبرني إسحاق” (Ishaq informed me), meaning the defect mentioned in Imām al-Dāraquṭnī’s saying was removed by the direct explicit hearing (Samā’). See al-Mukhtārah li al-Maqdisī (4/373-374)

Similarly, the claim that the direct explicit hearing (Samā’) is a mistake of a narrator is completely baseless. No credible Muḥaddith (ḥadīth scholar) has pointed this out and it is also not worthy of attention because five trustworthy and truthful narrators are reporting the direct explicit hearing (Samā’), and it is not merely the single narration of a narrator.

Imām Sa’īd bin Manṣūr has narrated the direct explicit hearing (Sunan Sa’īd bin Manṣūr : 1368) {cf. Tarikh al-Islam 7/693-694}
Imām Abū al-Nu’mān al-Sadūsī also narrated the direct explicit hearing (Sunan al-Dārimī : 3450) {with the wording “Friday night”}
Imām Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim bin Sallām also narrated the direct explicit hearing (Faḍāil al-Qurān : p. 244)
Imām Abū al-Qāsim ‘Abd al-Raḥmān bin ‘Umar bin Naṣr also narrated the direct explicit hearing (Fawāid Ibn Naṣr: 123)
Imām Nu’aym bin Ḥammād also narrated the direct explicit hearing {al-Mustadrak 3430 by al-Ḥākim, al-Sunan al-Kubrā 6063, al-Sunan al-Ṣaghīr 606, Shu’ab al-īmān 2220 and al-Da’awāt al-Kabīr 526 by al-Bayhaqi}

It should be clear that the “mistake” which no credible Muḥaddith has pointed out and then the agreement of these five trustworthy and truthful Imams on such a “mistake” is impossible.

Objection: Hushaym intentionally saying “أخبرنا” (he informed us) in a narration that he had not heard.

Removal (of objection): If this were the case, it would raise questions about Hushaym’s integrity, and the distinction between authentic and inauthentic narrations from him would disappear. Meanwhile, the Muḥaddithīn have accepted his narrations where direct explicit hearing is stated which is evidence that Hushaym’s hearing was not disregarded.

In this regard, drawing a conclusion from the saying of Imam Yaḥyā bin Ma’īn: “سَمِعْتُ هُشَيْمًا يُحَدِّثُ يَوْمًا فَقَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ زَيْدٍ ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَسْمَعْهُ مِنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ زَيْدٍ” (I heard Hushaym narrating one day, and he said: ‘Ali bin Zayd informed us, then he mentioned that he did not hear it from ‘Ali bin Zayd.) (Tārīkh Ibn Ma’īn bi Riwāyat al-Dūrī:4921) is not correct. Rather, it indicates Hushaym’s integrity and honesty that when he uttered “حَدَّثَنَا” (he narrated to us) and had not heard that hadith, he immediately clarified that he had not heard this narration. Subḥān Allāh.

Objection: Imām Ibn Ma’īn رحمه الله says: “أَخْطَأَ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ مَهْدِي يَوْمًا فَقَالَ حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا مَنْصُوْرٌ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ هُشَيْمٌ سَمِعَهُ مِنْ مَنْصُورٍ” (Abd al-Raḥmān bin Mahdī made a mistake one day and said: Hushaym informed us, who said: Manṣūr informed us while Hushaym had not heard it from Manṣūr) (Tārīkh Ibn Ma’īn bi Riwāyat al-Dūrī : 3620)

Removal (of objection): O esteemed readers! Study the mentioned text carefully, and it will become clear that the mistake is from Imām Abd al-Raḥmān bin Mahdī رحمه الله. Therefore, it is contrary to justice to criticise and discredit Hushaym because of the mistake of Ibn Mahdī رحمه الله and it is absolutely incorrect to reject Hushaym’s narration where direct explicit hearing is stated based on this.

Conclusion of the research: The aforementioned narration regarding Surat al-Kahf is authentic and can be acted upon. It is incorrect to declare it weak unrestrictedly and Allah knows best.

[Ḥāfiẓ Nadeem Zaheer حفظه الله, Ustādh al-Ḥadīth in Jāmi’ah Lahore al-Islāmiyyah and founder of al-Ma’rifah institute. Taken from one of his pdfs titled “جمعہ کے دن سورة کہف کی تلاوت؟”. Also see Nūr al-Ḥadīth 24 p. 11-12]

al-Shāfi’ī رحمه الله said:

وأحب قراءة ‌الكهف ليلة الجمعة، ويومها لما جاء فيها [الأم ١/ ٢٣٩]

“And I like reading al-Kahf on the night of Friday and during its day because of what has been mentioned concerning it” [al-Umm 1/239]

Other scholars who authenticated this narration: