. J "" (cont.)

When Shubah was asked about al-Hudhali, he said, "Leave me so I do not vomit." There is widespread agreement that he is a rejected, completely unacceptable narrator. 1 This chain also goes through Shahr ibn Haushab. In al-Taqreeb, lbn Hajr stated that he is honest but he has lots of mursal (reports with broken chains) and lots of errors. Maroof and al-Arnaoot point out that this is probably not the correct description of Shahr. Instead, he should be considered weak but his narrations can be used as supporting evidence. This is more consistent with what the early scholars, such as Yahya ibn Saeed, Shubah, Abu Haatim, said about Shahr ibn Haushab. 2 The above three narrations of this hadith must be considered unacceptable. They can neither be used as corroborating evidence nor can they corroborate other reports. The Chain from al-Hasan al-Basri: Al-Hasan was a very famous Follower and not a Companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Hence, the chain between al-Hasan and the Prophet (peace be upon him) is broken. Therefore, this is one of al-Hasan's mursal reports, since he did not mention the name of the Companion who originally narrated this hadith. There is a difference of opinion concerning the quality of al-Hasan's mursal reports. A mursal hadith is a type of weak hadith. However, some narrators' mursal reports are considered of better quality than others because when those mursal reports were studied in detail, they were found, for the most part, to have known and accepted sources. In his dissertation, al-Auni discusses al-Hasan's mursal reports in great detail and concludes that they are of a good quality.3 This means that they may be used for supporting evidence and they may be supported by other reports. The one who narrated this hadith on the authority of al-Hasan was Hishaam ibn Hasaan. Although Hishaam was a trustworthy narrator, there is some question about his narrations on the authority of al-Hasan al-Basri. Some claimed that his narrations from al-Hasan were actually from what he found in Haushab's book. This is based on a couple ofreports where the people said that they never saw Hishaam in the company of al-Hasan. At the same time, ibn Uyainah said that Hishaam was the most knowledgeable of the people in the 1 See his entry in ibn Hajr, Tahdheeb, vol. 4, p. 498. 2 Bashaar Maroof and Shuaib al-Arnaoot, Tahreer Taqreeb al-Tahdheeb (Beirut: Muassasah al­ Risaalah, 1997), vol. 2, p. 1 22. 3 Al-Shareef al-Aooni, al-Mursal al-Kha.ft wa Alaaqatuhu bi-1-Tadlees: Diraasah Nadhiriyyah wa Tabeeqiyyah ala Marwiyyaat al-Hasan al-Basri (Al-Thuqbah, Saudi Arabia: Daar al-Hijrah, 1997), vol. I , pp. 299-454. 1 192 Hadith #39: "Allah has pardoned . . . " hadith of al-Hasan.1 It has also been reported that Hishaam was al-Hasan's neighbor for ten years. Al-Auni, who also discussed this issue in detail, noted that Hishaam lived a long life and those who did not see him in al-Hasan's company were present at times other than when Hishaam studied with al­ Hasan. Al-Auni concludes, as did numerous scholars before him, that Hishaam's narrations from al-Hasan are sound and correct.2 The conclusion about this chain, therefore, is that it is a good mursal report. This means that, by itself, it is still considered weak. However, it is acceptable as supporting evidence and it may also be strengthened due to corroborating evidence. The Chains from Ataa: The link between Ataa and the Prophet (peace be upon him) is obviously broken, since Ataa was not a Companion. Hence, it is also a mursal report. Ataa was Ataa ibn Abu Ribaah, a well-known and trustworthy narrator.3 The first chain from Ataa is from ibn Juraij . lbn Juraij is Abdul Maalik ibn Abdul Azeez ibn Juraij. He was considered one of the most knowledgeable in the hadith of Ataa because he stayed with Ataa for seventeen years. The problem with ibn Juraij is that he has been accused of committing tadlees; in fact, he has been accused of committing a terrible form of tadlees wherein he only drops the narrator's name if he is a weak narrator. However, ibn Juraij himself said regarding his narrations from Ataa, "If I said, 'Ataa said,' it means I heard it directly from him even I did not say, 'I heard."' This narration in question is one where he simply said, "Ataa said."4 Yahya ibn Sulaim, the next in the chain, was an honest person, whose hadith are good except when he narrates from Ubaidullah ibn Umar.5 The conclusion concerning this chain is that it is also a good mursal report. Again, this means that it may be used as supporting evidence for other reports. The second chain from Ataa goes through Muhammad ibn Musaffa from al-Waleed ibn Muslim once again. At least in this case, however, they are supported in both the wording as well as the source of the hadith. lbn Hibbaan would accept ibn Musaffa in this case. Hence, it could be a case where they did not make a mistake while other narrations from ibn Musaffa are his mistakes.