The Ahaadith that are considered as fabricated Hadith

Question:

According to certain information, the following Hadith were considered as fabricated Hadith: Is it true?

1. Love the Arabs for three reasons: because I am an Arab, the Quran was revealed in Arabic, and the language of Jannah will be in Arabic.

2. I am a city of knowledge and ‘Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) is its door through which you go through to acquire this knowledge.

Answer No. 1

Love the Arabs for three reasons...     

It is a Hadith whose Sanad is weak but the meaning has been reported by several Hadith which makes it reach the level and rank of a “Hassan” Hadith. Therefore, the Hadith is not "Mawdu" (fabricated) as alleged.

It should be noted that at times, a Hadith is declared weak or "Mawdu" in relation to a certain particular and specific source. However, on the whole, the Hadith may be an acceptable and a valid Hadith. We cite an example from Meezan ul I'tidaal of “Az Zahabi” to clarify this point.

Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullahi Alayh) labelled the Hadith "seeking knowledge is obligatory ..." which is reported by Imam Malik from Nafi from Ibn Umar (Radiyallahu anhum) as falsity. To be more specific, he says that the Hadith itself has been reported by several weak sources. It is merely in relation to this specific source that it is fabricated. That is, a person lied by attributing the Hadith in question to that Sanad. In short, the Hadith exists in itself, and according to Imam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahmatullahi Alaiyh), it is reported by several weak Sanad but in relation to certain sources, he has judged it to be fabricated.

Answer No. 2

"I am a city of knowledge and A'li (Radiyallahu anhu) is its door..."   

The Hadith was reported by Hazrat A'li (Radiyallahu anhu) who said that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu A'laihi Wasallam) said: "I am the house of Hikmah (wisdom) and ‘Ali is its gate". (Tirmizi)

After narrating this Hadith, Imam Tirmizi (Rahmatullahi Alaiyh) labelled it as "Ghareeb" and "Munkar". According to those who labelled it as "Ghareeb", it is probably because the narrators, who took this Hadith from "Shareek", did not mention the "Rawi" named “Sunabihi” between Suwaid bin Ghaflah and Hazrat ‘Ali (Radiyallahu anhu). And it was labelled as "Munkar" which signifies "strange and isolated", probably because the Hadith was not narrated by anyone else besides the Rawi named Shareek. That is, among the contemporaries of Shareek, no one has associated with him in reporting this Hadith from Hazrat ‘Ali (Radiyallahu anhu).

According to Allaamah Bin Jareer, there are two reasons for rendering the Hadith in question defective according to some. First of all, it is because the Hadith was narrated by Hazrat ‘Ali (Radiyallahu anhu) from only one source and only one Sanad. Secondly, it is due to the presence of a narrator named Salamah bin Kouhail in the Sanad which is not considered as authentic according to them. It appears that the verdict of Imam Tirmizi concerns the Hadith of Hazrat ‘Ali (Radiyallahu anhu) only. It is does not apply to the content of the Hadith in itself.

Is there any other Hadith which has been reported in this sense? Imam Tirmizi points out at this stage that a Hadith of a similar sense was reported by another Sahabi, namely Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbaas (Radiyallahu anhu). In Kanzul Ummal, the Hadith of Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbaas (Radiyallahu anhu) was reported as follows:

"I am the city of knowledge and ‘Ali is its door. Therefore, the one, who wants to acquire this city, must go through its door."

The Hadith of Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbaas (Radiyallahu anhu) and Hazrat ‘Ali (Radiyallahu anhu) has been labelled as Mawdu (fabricated) by Ibn ul Jawzi Ibn Adi and Allaamah Az-Zahabi. However, they did not give any justification for their judgment against this Hadith. Nonetheless, despite all the reasons given, Allaamah bin Jareer (Rahmatullahi Alaiyh) labelled the Hadith of Hazrat ‘Ali (Radiyallahu anhu) as a “Saheeh” (authentic) merely because it is reported by Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbaas (Radiyallahu anhu) also.

As for Hafiz Ibn Hajar (Rahmatullahi Alaiyh), he says that the Hadith was reported by several Sanad in Al Mustadrak of Al-Haakim. He says that the least that can be concluded is that the Hadith must be founded. So, it is not correct to label it as false. As for Yahya bin Ma'in and Al Haakim, they labelled it as Saheeh.

In the light of all these discussions, we find that the correct opinion is that the Hadith is in the category of Hassan, that is, it does not attain the rank of Saheeh nor does it go down to the rank of a fabricated Hadith. The author of Kanzul-Ummaal was sharing the opinion of Allaamah Ibn Hajar until he came across the opinion of Allaamah Bin Jareer who considered it as Saheeh. Finally, he was convinced that the Hadith is “Saheeh” (authentic).

Recapitulation:

The Hadith is “Mawdu” (fabricated) according to certain scholars of Hadith such as Allaamah Bin Jawzi, Ibn Adi and Az Zahabi. However, they did not justify their theses.

Nonetheless, the Hadith is “Saheeh” according to Al Hakim, Yahya bin Ma'in, Ibn Jareer and ‘Ali-Al Muttaqi of Kanzul Ummaal.

The least that we can say is that the Hadith is not “Mawdu” (fabricated). It is a Hadith which is founded, which may possibly contain defects in its Sanad when it is analysed individually. However, on the whole, it has the possibility and ability to attain the rank and capacity of a “Hassan” (good/passable) Hadith.

Since this possibility has been concretised by the scholars mentioned above, we can say that the Hadith in question occupies a degree between Hassan (good) and Saheeh (authentic) without hesitation.

[English version of "Les ahaadîce concernant la connaissance qui sont considérés comme fabriqués" – AL HAADÎ – Vol.4 No.2]