152 - And Saʿīd ibn ʿAmr al-Sakūnī narrated to me, saying: Baqiyya ibn al-Walīd narrated to us, saying: ʿĪsā ibn Ibrāhīm narrated to me, from Mūsā ibn Abī Ḥabīb, from al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUmayr—and he was a Companion—who said: The Prophet—peace and blessings of God be upon him—said: When you say, "All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds," you have given thanks to Allah, so He increases you. (1)
Notes
- (1) Hadith 152: Ibn Kathīr transmitted it (1/43) via this chain of al-Ṭabarī, and al-Suyūṭī mentioned it in al-Durr al-Manthūr (1/11) attributing it to al-Ṭabarī, al-Ḥākim in Tārīkh Naysābūr, and al-Daylamī "with a weak chain." Its chain of transmission is indeed weak; in fact, it is a baseless chain, as we shall mention:
As for Baqiyya ibn al-Walīd, the truth is that he is trustworthy (thiqa); they only criticized him for obfuscation (Tadlies), which has no place here, for he explicitly stated having heard it directly.
However, ʿĪsā ibn Ibrāhīm, the Qurashī al-Hāshimī, is the sole source of calamity in this hadith and in similar hadiths that he narrated through this chain. Al-Bukhārī said regarding him in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (27): "Disapproved in hadith (munkar al-ḥadīth)," as did al-Nasāʾī (22). Ibn Abī Ḥātim wrote his biography in al-Jarḥ wa-l-Taʿdīl (3/1/271–272) and narrated from his father that he said: "Abandoned in hadith (matrūk al-ḥadīth)," and from Ibn Maʿīn: "He is nothing," and Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (folio 163): "It is not permissible to use him as proof when he is alone in narrating." His biography in al-Mīzān and Lisān al-Mīzān contains surprising things.
His teacher, "Mūsā ibn Abī Ḥabīb," is like him: weak and ruined. Al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān: "Abū Ḥātim graded him weak, and his report is discarded. He narrates on the authority of al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUmayr, a man said to have Companionship. In my view, he did not meet him. Mūsā—despite his weakness—came too late to meet a major Companion." So the calamity stems from these two or one of them.
Some of the Hadith masters even doubted the existence of the Companion himself, "al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUmayr," on their account! Ibn Abī Ḥātim wrote his biography in al-Jarḥ wa-l-Taʿdīl (1/2/125), saying: "Al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUmayr: He narrated from the Prophet Peace and blessings of God be upon him; neither direct hearing nor meeting is mentioned, [and he narrated] rejected hadiths from the narration of his nephew Mūsā ibn Abī Ḥabīb, who is a sheikh weak in hadith. And ʿĪsā ibn Ibrāhīm narrates from Mūsā ibn Abī Ḥabīb, and he is ruined in hadith—I heard my father say that."
Even al-Dhahabī denied his Companionship and wrote his biography in al-Mīzān, making an error in citing Abū Ḥātim by claiming that he declared al-Ḥakam weak! Abū Ḥātim's words—as you see—are otherwise. Al-Ḥāfiẓ followed up on him in Lisān al-Mīzān (2/337) and established that he was a Companion based on what Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Ibn Manda, Abū Nuʿaym, al-Tirmidhī, and others mentioned, and that al-Dāraquṭnī said: "He was a veteran of Badr."
Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in (p. 54) among the generation of the Companions, saying: "It is said that he has Companionship." Al-Ḥāfiẓ cited this in from Ibn Ḥibbān, but he overlooked it and claimed that he mentioned him "among the trustworthy Successors."
Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr wrote his biography in (No. 476) under the name: "Al-Ḥakam ibn ʿAmr al-Thumālī—Thumāla being from Azd—who witnessed Badr, and rejected hadiths were narrated from him among the reports of the people of Sham, which are not authentic." Naming his father "ʿAmr" is an old error in the manuscripts of , because Ibn al-Athīr followed him in (1/26) and pointed out the mistake in it, then gave his biography correctly as: "Al-Ḥakam ibn ʿUmayr al-Thumālī, from Azd, and he lived in Homs." Al-Ḥāfiẓ verified his biography well in (2/30).
This translation was produced with AI assistance and is part of an ongoing human-review process. Found a mistake? Use the feedback option in the reader menu.
