A brother recently enquired about a famous and popular hadith which is often mentioned during khutbahs/reminders etc. Below are are the results of a brief study which I have collated from various sources, in particular from the
Multaqa.
For those
not so enamoured with the
Shar'i sciences and want a simple paragraph summary (and hey, I can live with that), then we're talking about that hadith where Companion X was identified to being a man of Paradise and upon investigation, appeared as such simply for the fact that he held no bad feelings for any other Muslim. Remember now? Yep, it's that same hadith. And after much deliberation, I tentatively lean to the opinion that the hadith is weak, and Allah knows best.
And now on to the
real fun:
حديث انس قال كنا مع النبي فقال يطلع عليكم ألآن رجل من أهل الجنة فطلع رجل من الأنصار تنظف لحيته من الدفع قد تعلق نعليه في يده الشمال فلما كان الغد قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مثل ذلك فطلع ذلك الرجل مثل المرة الأولى فلما كان اليوم الثالث قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم مثل مقالته أيضا فطلع ذلك الرجل على مثل حالته الأولى فلما قام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم تبعه عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص فقال إني لأحيت أبي فأقسمت أن لا أدخل عليه ثلاثا فإن رأيت أن تؤيني إليك حتى تمضي فعلت قال نعم قال أنس فكان عبد الله يحدث أنه بات معه تلك الثلاث الليال فلم يره يقوم من الليل أنه إذا تعار وتقلب على فراشه ذكر الله عز وجل وكبر حتى تقوم صلاة الفجر قال عبد أني لم أسمعه يقول إلا خيرا فلما مضت الثلاث وكدت أن أحتقر عمله قلت يا عبد الله لم يكن بيني وبين أبي غضب ولا هجرة ولكني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول لك ثلاث مرات يطلع عليكم الآن رجل من أهل الجنة فطلعت أنت الثلاث المرات فأردت أن آوي إليك لأنظر ما عملك فأقتدي به فلم أرك تعمل كبير عمل فما الذي بلغ بك ما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ما هو إلا ما رأيت إلا ما أني لا أجد في نفسي لأحد من المسلمين غشا ولا أحسد أحدا على خير أعطاه الله إياه فقال عبد الله هذه الذي بلغت بك وهي التي لا نطيقAnas Ibn Mâlik (radhy Allâhu ‘anhu) reported that he and other companions were sitting with the Messenger (sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam), who said, "A man from the people of Paradise will enter now."
Then, a man from the Ansâr entered, his beard dripping with water from ablution whilst holding his sandals in his left hand.
The following day, the Prophet (sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said the same thing and the same man entered.
On the third day, the Prophet (sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) again repeated his statement and the same man entered in an identical state as he was on the first day.
When the Prophet (sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) left, 'Abdullah Ibn 'Amr Ibn al-'Aas (radhy Allâhu ‘anhu) followed the man and said, "I quarrelled with my father and I swore I would not go to him for three days and nights. Would you shelter me for this time?" The man replied, "Yes."
Anas said, "'Abdullah said that he stayed with this man for three nights and he did not see him praying at night, but every time he moved and changed position in bed he would remember Allah and say, 'Allahu Akbar' until he arose for Salat'l-Fajr."
'Abdullah said, "I didn't hear anything but good from him. When the three nights had passed, I said, 'O servant of Allah! There was no problem/anger between myself and my father and I did not abandon him either; but I heard the Messenger of Allah (sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) speaking of you on three separate occasions. The Prophet had said that a man from the people of Paradise would enter, and you were the one to enter on each of the three times. So, I wanted to stay with you to see what you do so that I could follow you, but I have not seen you doing too much. So what is that you do for Allah's Messenger (sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) to say what he has said?'
The man replied, "Nothing more other than what you have seen, except that I have no place in myself for disloyalty to any of the Muslims, nor do I have any envy towards any Muslim in what Allah has given them."
'Abdullah said, "This is what has made you deserving of the praise and this is what we cannot do."This is the version as narrated by Imam Ahmed in his
Musnad (12697 of al-Arna'ut and 3/166 of the original) - it has also been collected in the
Musannaf of 'Abd al-Razzaq (20559) with his own similar
isnad as well as al-Bazzar (1981,
Kashf'l-Astar), al-Bayhaqi (6650,
al-Shu'ab), al-Nasa'i in
'Amal (863) and al-Baghawi (3535).
Although there are a few slight variations in the wording of this hadith, the discussion on its authenticity centres around the relationship between Zuhri and Ma'mar, the various deficiencies of the supporting
asanid, and most importantly the break between Zuhri and Anas ibn Malik.
From the classical, those scholars which graded the
sanad authentic were 'Iraqi in his
takhrij of the
Ihya' (231/3), Ibn Kathir in his
Tafsir (95/8) and al-Mundhiri in
Targhib (32/4). Al-Haythami graded the chain acceptable in his
Majma' (78/8) as did al-Busiri in
Mukhtasar Ittihaf al-Sadah (286/8).
From the contemporaries, this is also the position of Shaykh Shu'ayb in his
tahqiq of the
Musnad (145/20) where he says: an authentic chain ('Abd al-Razzaq from Ma'mar from al-Zuhri from Anas) according to the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim.
It is important to note here that very few if any risked grading the hadith authentic in its entirety but restricted their ruling to the
chain only, as I shall clarify soon.
Those scholars who graded it weak included Ibn Abi Hatim (365/2) from his father, al-Hafidh Hamzah al-Kinani in
Tuhfat'l-Ashraf (395/1) commenting on the same position held by Hafidh al-Mizzi, as well as Hafidh Ibn Hajr in
Nukat al-Dharaf where he said,
"...and it appears to be ma'lul (contains hidden faults)."
Of the contemporaries, al-Albani graded it weak due to the
inqita' as mentioned above in his
tahqiq of
Targhib (1768).
And this is all from the angle of the chain only.
Some scholars found difficulty with the text of the hadith itself for how could it be possible that 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr, a notable Sahabi, actually lie? Surely this is not possible and hence the
matn of this hadith is strange and alongside the potential problems in the chain, lead to a weak grading for the hadith.
Yet many defended the text of the hadith suggesting that this was just a "sleight of hand" from ibn 'Amr for he did indeed have bad relations with his father in the past and was possibly referring to that in an obscure sense to achieve his aim of finding out the special quality of the man he was with.
Imam al-Nawawi controversially mentions in
Riyadh that lying is of different types, so if one can achieve a praiseworthy objective without lying, it is impermissible to lie. Yet if it is not possible to achieve that objective without lying, then it is permissible to do so. Less controversially, he also confirms that if a certain objective is obligatory then to lie also becomes obligatory if that is the only option.
Although this may sound strange, it has been 'supported' by Imam al-Ghazali in the
Ihya' when he divided lying into five types (prohibited, disliked, permissible, recommended and obligatory). This was also done by other scholars, yet how applicable are these divisions to this scenario here? Allah knows best.
Al-Albani also defended Ibn 'Amr when he said, "الكذب (lying) is not impermissible simply because it contains the letters " الكاف " and " الذال " and " الباء " but it is impermissible because of its consequences, the usurping of the rights of others and other hidden or obvious harms; here, there has been no harm from the Companion."
Other scholars say that if the person who tells such a 'lie' retracts it himself without any harm or without any consequences occuring based on that statement, then it is not seen as a lie.
But this doesn't answer the question about ibn 'Amr convincingly. There are also other questions that could be problematic in this text such as how is it that the Prophet (
sallallâhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) told such a gathering that here was a man of Paradise and no-one responded except
one single Companion? And even this, after three
separate occasions?!
Where were the people to praise him, ask him, speak to him in all this time? One of my teachers told me concerning this incident, "How can this be? If I was there, I would have jumped up and have been the first to congratulate him!" Other issues might be raised concerning the length of time Ibn 'Amr stayed with this man. Was he (some narrations name him as Sa'd ibn Malik although they are all weak) not married? How can a man have someone sleep next to him for three continuous days like that?
These are not major issues but the point is to combine them to build a case, and it seems that the case for the hadith being problematic from both text and chain is a fair case which can only be rebutted with a strong, clean and authentic chain.
This does not seem to be the case here and hence I (cautiously) lean towards the opinion that taking everything into account, in particular the
'ilal in the chain, it is indeed a weak hadith and Allah knows best.
