Mashallah, awesome blog! Keep it up inshallah.

For those disappointed, follow up with a better, authentic hadith: Whoever travels in the path of knowledge, Allah will make it easy for them to walk the path to paradise.

Some of the “heavy hitters” amongst classical Hadîth scholars have declared this Hadîth weak, but al-Mizzî who compiled Tahthîb al-Kamâl fî Asmâ’ ar-Rijâl, who is by far the “heaviest hitter” of the scholars of grading narrators has called for caution to be exercised with this Hadîth. He has stated, “Perhaps, its status is rectified to Hasan on account of its wide circulation, ” reasoning that an outright forgery wouldn’t have reached such wide circulation amongst the Muslims.

Likewise, al-Munâwî cites al-Dhahabî’s Talkhîs wherein he claims that it has numerous weak chains, but some are sound. However, I looked in al-Dhahabî’s Talkhîs Kîtâb al-Mawdû`ât and found that the part cited by al-Munâwî was absent. The fact that a classical work cites another classical work and that citation is no longer extant in the copies we have today is an unfortunately common evidence of the scores of “redactions” that “editors” have exercised upon these books of knowledge.

One must understand that a Hadîth being Da`îf is not enough to say definitively that it is “not Prophetic”. Imâm Ahmad’s school necessitates appealing to Da`îf narrations (under strict prerequisites) before the application of Qîyâs (deduction), and this was one of the defining differences in his approach to jurisprudence as opposed to the approach of his beloved and respected contemporary Imâm ash-Shâfi`î.

It would be safer and more wise to say that this Hadîth is correct in its meaning, but many scholars have declared it weak and Allah knows best.

The scholarly rulings which were quoted in the original article should be sufficient to prove the weakness of this Hadeeth. Not only are we certain that the prophet PBUT did not say this statement, we are also certain that none of the Sahaba did either.

Bother Philomantis’ reply is filled with inacurate information. For someone to think that Al-Mizzi is a “heavier hitter” than earlier scholars such as Ibn Adi, Al-Bazzaar and Ibn Hibbaan is a shame, to say the least.

There are tens of authentic Hadeeths encouraging us to seek knowledge. There were books written to compile such Hadeeths. So we are in no need of such weak Hadeeth.

Someone who is giving a speech on the importance of seeking knowledge could still mention this statement but without attributing it to the Prophet PBUH. He/she could say: It was said … or: a wise man once said …

So, there is no reason to be disappointed!

Haitham Hamdan, jazâkullâhû khayr(an) for your response, but I’m afraid you’ve resorted to a bit of “my daddy is bigger than your daddy”. To call my opinion that al-Mizzî is one of the “heaviest hitters” in grading Hadîth narrators “a shame” is in itself ad hominem in nature and just plain untenable. His work on Rijâl is sufficient testimony to this. Also, how can 4 paragraphs be “filled with inacurate (sic) information”? Certainly, its not too lengthy for you to cite examples, is it? Please elaborate, if we could be so honored to read from you on this.

Finally, we are not “certain” that the Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) did not say this and for you to make such a statement is not consistent with the modus operandi of Hadîth scholarship…unless you can quote a single Muhaddith of repute from the classical era of Islamic scholarship who said, “The Prophet (sallallâhû `alayhî wa sallam) did not say this for an absolute fact”.

w-Allâhu a`lam. was-salâm

لا يصح عن رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) يعني أسانيدها ليست بصحيحة كما قيل عن كلّ أحاديث دون الأحاديث الصحيحة…والله تبارك وتعالى أعلم

Dear brother Philomantis,

You said in #4: “al-Mizzî … is by far the heaviest hitter …”.

But when you referenced this statement in #8, you said: “al-Mizzî is one of the heaviest hitters”.

The difference between the two statements is clear. You can not be trusted in referencing your own quotations!

I take great issue with your first statement, and still consider it shameful!

Another contradiction is that you asked me to “quote a single Muhaddith of repute from the classical era of Islamic scholarship”.

It is strange that someone like you says this. You believe that al-Mizzi, who lived nowhere near the classical era (d. 742), is “by far the heaviest hitter”!

Heavier than al-Bazzaar (d. 292), Ibn Hibbaan (d. 354), and Ibn Adi (d. 364), who lived during the classical era, and all three unauthenticated the Hadeeth.

There are other problems in your posts with regards to: the contributions of Imam al-Mizzi, the relationship between Ilm al-Rijaal and the authentication of a Hadeeth, Imam Ahmad’s school … etc.

I’m sorry to say that your thinking process is not yet scientific enough to be a good student of Hadeeth!

Wallahu A’lam.

Where is the Hadith?

I think Brother haitham only say that brother philomontos’s statement about Mizzi is shameful in the sense of hadith literature, not attacking him personaly.

And Brother haitham also provided some proofs, because Brother philomontis forgot the classical scholars, and used later scholars for his argument, in this sense.

Also, what was arabic translation for what Brother abu bakr said?

Al-Mizzi’s work is primarily a compilation of the statements of the earlier Imams of Rijal. These Imams, amongst whom are ibn ‘Adi, ibn Hibban, and many others such as al-Bukhari, Abu Hatim, and Abu Zur’ah did not merely compile the statements of scholars concerning the narrators to reach a conclusion as to his status. They compiled the narrations of each narrator and compared their narrations with the narrations of their peers to distinguish mistakes from correct narrations.

To illustrate, Imam Yahya b. Ma’in gathered the hadiths of Hammad b. Salamah, one of the important classical narrators from 18 different routes. Upon being asked the reason for doing so, he said, “I found mistakes in the narrations of Hammad so I wanted to distinguish his mistakes from the mistakes of his students.”

This is something very difficult for later scholars, if for no other reason, because they did not have access to the sheer volume of narrations that the earlier scholars did. This, by far, makes them the “heaviest hitters” in the field of Rijal.

Brother Husam,

your statement makes no sense at all. Many past and contemporary Salafi scholars are from ASh Shaam and not An Najd. Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Taimiyyah, Al Albaani and many more are all from Ash Shaam.

If it is an authentic hadith, then please tell us its isnad and which major works of hadith it is reported

Interesting!

Maybe we should focus on the reason for the widespread of this narration (I won’t call it hadith) and learn something from it.

It basically contained the essential ingredients of a viral campaign: to show off.

So, Chinese Muslims use this narration to their advantage, and non-Chinese Muslims use it too to show off that Islam is inclusive.

Also, China as a destination of knowledge and civilization is another good point to make this narration spread. Just like quoting, hey do you know our prophet (SAW) said, “Seek knowledge even in Harvard or Oxford.”

So, brothers and sisters, as with many other discussions about religion or politics, try to be nice and save your opponent face.

IMHO, most of the people who quote this narration don’t want to declare it as unauthentic, (maybe it’s not as much as asking a priest to say trinity is wrong, but more like retracting the thing they showed off for years)… suddenly they are no longer cool, suddenly their PR slogan is attacked… Again, I’m not talking about scholars, I’m talking about regular people who blindly copy/pasting their favorite opinion just because that fits their comfort zone.

As for authenticity: Was the word “China” or “Seen” known to Arabs at the time of the Prophet (SAW)? Check some old maps and you will be surprised.

May Allah reward all of you and gather us again in Jannah

Your Chinese brother who of the opinion that we shouldn’t attribute this narration to the Prophet (SAW) when we have so much doubts

what is this have to do with chinese and non chinese muslims. It has only to do with the authenticity of this narration.