The Prophetic Constitution of Madinah by Dr Muhammad Al-Massari

It may be most appropriate to begin with the summary of Al-Hafizh (Al-Asqalani) in his “Taqrib At-Tahdhib”, followed immediately by our correction of him in a concise abridged manner like that employed in “Taqrib At-Tahdhib”, before presenting the evidence for our correction.

- The following came stated in “Taqrib At-Tahdhib” (1/81/64): [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al- Kufi, is Da’if (weak) and his receiving of the Seera is authentic, from the tenth (i.e. level of chain). It has not been established that Abu Dawud related from him. He passed away in the 72nd year (meaning 172 AH) at the age 95].

I state: This represents a major failing from Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar:

- It is correct and fair, which we will provide evidence for shortly, for it to be said: [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, has no issue or problem associated with him. His receiving of the Seera is authentic and he is reliable to be used as evidence. From the tenth (i.e. level of chain). He passed away in the 72nd year at the age 95].

- Al-Hafizh considered him to be from the third class, whose number totalled fifty, in his “Tabaqat Al-Mudallisin” (1/37/67) stating: [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy Al-Kufi was a well-known Muhaddith (scholar of Hadith), whom they spoke about. Ibn ‘Adiy said: I do not know of any Munkar (i.e. contrary to that which is authentic) report from him. Rather, they attributed to him that he had not heard from those he had narrated from]. I say: This statement is Batil (false/invalid) and should be removed from the book without being replaced with anything else. I now present the texts of the Imams concerning this man: - The following came mentioned in the book “Ath-Thiqat” (by Imam Ibn Hibban) (8/45/12178): [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar, is from the people of Al-Kufa. It was related from Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayash and Ibn Idris that our companions narrated from him. He may have erred but I have not seen in his Hadith anything that obliges that he be moved in terms of trustworthiness to the Sunan of Majruhin (i.e. to the category of weak, abandoned and untrustworthy transmitters)]. - The following came stated in “Al-Jarh Wa At-Ta’dil” (by Ibn Abu Hatim) (6/33/9424): [Abdul Jabbar bin Kathir bin Sannan Al-Hanzhali Ar-Ruqiy related from his father and from Muhammad bin Bishr the Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him), when he was commanded to present himself to the Arab tribes. My father related from him. My father was asked about him and so he said “Sheikh”].

- The following came stated in “Tahdhib At-Tahdhib” (by Ibn Hajar) (1/44/88): “(D - Abu Dawud): Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad bin ‘Umair bin ‘Utarid bin Hajib bin Zurarah At-Tamimi Al-‘Utaridiy; Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, related from Ibn Ghiyath, Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayash, Abu Mu’awiyah, Yunus bin Bukair and others. It has also been said that Abu Dawud related from him. Al-Mizzi said: I didn’t take a position upon that. The author of “Ash-Shuyukh An-Nubl” did not mention him, nor did Abu ‘Ali As-Sifar, Al-Mahamaliy Abu Sahl bin Ziyad At-Qattan, Al-Baghawi, Ibn Dawud, Ridwan bin Jalinus, ibn Al-Buhturi, Abu ‘Awanah, Al-Asamm and Khalq. Ibn Abu Hatim said: I wrote about (or from) him but refrained from relating from him due to the great amount of talk of the people concerning him. Al-Matin said: He used to lie. Abu Ahmad Al-Hakim said: He is not strong in their view and was left by ‘Uqdah. Ibn ‘Adiy said: “I saw that the people of Iraq were agreed upon his weakness. Ibn ‘Uqdah did not relate from him. He mentioned that he had some writing (Qimtar) from him but that he did not use to have any hesitation (or caution) in respect to narrating from anyone”. Ibn ‘Adiy said: “He is not known to have narrated a Munkar Hadith (i.e. one which is rejected because it opposes what is authentic). Rather, they only classified him as Da’if (a weak transmitter) upon the premise that he had not met those he related from”. Al-Asamm said: “I asked Abu ‘Ubaidah bin Ahki Hannad bin As- Sariy concerning Al-‘Utaridiy and he said: (He is) Thiqah (trustworthy)”. Abu Bakr bin Sadaqah said: “I heard Abu Kuraib saying: Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar heard (i.e. received directly) from Abu Bakr ‘Ayash”. Hamza As-Sahmiy said: “I asked Ad-Daraqutni concerning him and he said: There is no issue (or problem) in respect to him. Abu Kuraib commended him. He was asked about the Maghazi of Yusuf and said: Go to see a young man in Al-Kunas (place) who heard it alongside us with his father”. Al-Khatib said: “Al-‘Utaridiy related from his father, from Yunus some pages that he had lost from Al-Maghazi and this indicates to his careful consideration. As for the statement of Al-Matin stating that he used to lie. Then this is unspecified. If he meant by this, that he used to fabricate Hadith, then that is non-existent in respect to the Hadith pf Al-‘Utaridiy. If he meant by this, that he used to relate from those he had not met, then that is Batil (false/invalid) because Abu Kuraib testified that he (Al-‘Utaridiy) had heard from Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayash. He had died before his Shuyukh (teachers) apart from Ibn Idris who had died a year prior to Ibn ‘Ayash. It is permissible (or conceivable) that his father started early with him and Allah knows best. It has been said that the birth of Ahmad (i.e. Al-‘Utaridiy) was in the year 177 and Ahmad bin Kamil said that he died in the year 71. That is whilst Ibn Sammak said that he died in the month of Sha’ban of the year 272 in Kufa. I said: And similar to that was said by Ibn Al- Muadi, Ibn ‘Uqdah, Abu Ash-Sheikh and Al-Qurab. Ibn Hibban said in his “Ath-Thiqat”: He may have erred but I have not seen in his Hadith anything that obliges that he be moved in terms of trustworthiness to the Sunan of Majruhin (i.e. to the category of weak, abandoned and untrustworthy transmitters). Al-Khalili said: There are no Munkar narrations in his Hadith however he related from those who were from the past and accusations were made against him for that reason”. In respect to the questions of Al-Hakim posed to Ad-Daraqutni, our Shuyukh (scholars) have differed concerning him. And he was not from the people of the Hadith and his father was Thiqah (trustworthy)” [End of Quote].

- The following came mentioned in “Tahdhib Al-Kamal” (by Al-Hafizh Al-Mizzi) (1/378/65):

“Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad bin ‘Umair bin ‘Utarid bin Hajib bin Zurarah At-Tamimi Al-Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, related from Hafs bin Ghiyath, Abdullah bin Idris, his father Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy and Abu Mu’awiyah Muhammad bin Khazim Ad-Darir, (from whom) he took his Tafsir, Muhammad bin Fudail bin Ghazwan, Wakee’ bin Al-Jarrah, Yunus bin Bukair Ash-Shaibani, (from whom) he took the Maghaziy of Muhammad bin Ishaq, and Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayash. The following all related from him: Abu Dawud, Abu Sahl Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Ziyad Al-Qattan An- Nahwiy, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Hisham bin Humaid Al-Husari, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Hisham Al-Anmatiy, Abu ‘Ali Isma’il bin Muhammad As-Saffar, Al-Hussein bin Isma’il Al- Mahamiliy, Al-Hussein bin Humaid bin Ar-Rabi’ Al-Lakhmi, Hamzah bin Muhammad bin Al-‘Abbas Ad-Dahqan, Ridwan bin Ahmad bin Al-Jalinus As-Saidalani, Sa’id bin Abdullah Al-Mahrani, Abu Ja’far Abdullah bin Isma’il bin Ibrahim (well-known as Ibn Bariya Al-Hashimi), Abu Bakr Abdullah bin Abu Dawud, Abdullah bin ‘Urwah Al-Harawi, Abu Al-Qasim Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Baghawi, Abu Bakr Abdullah bin Muhammad bin ‘Ubaid bin Abu Ad-Dunya, Abu ‘Amr Uthman bin Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Yazid Ad-Daqqaq (well-known as ibn As-Sammak), ‘Ali bin Muhammad Bin ‘Ubaid Al-Hafizh, ‘Umar bin Muhammad bin Bujair Al-Bujairiy, Al-Qasim bin Zakariya Al- Mutriz, Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Sa’id Al-Mahrani, Muhammad bin Abdul Hamid Al-Astrabadhi, Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin ‘Amr bin Al-Bukhtari Ar-Razzaz, Muhammad bin Al-Mundhir Al-Harawi Shukr, Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub Al-Asamm An-Naisaburi, Maimun bin Ishaq Al-Basari and Abu ‘Awanah Ya’qub bin Ishaq bin Ibrahim bin Yazid Al-Isfra’ini. Abdur Rahman Ibn Abu Hatim said: “I wrote from (or about) him but refrained from relating from him due to the great amount of talk of the people concerning him”. Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Hadrami said: “He used to lie”. Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh said: “He is not strong in their view. He was abandoned (i.e. his relations) by Abu Al-‘Abbas Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa’id (i.e. Ibn ‘Uqdah)”. Abu Ahmad bin ‘Adiy said: “I saw that the people of Iraq were agreed upon his weakness. Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa’id (i.e. Ibn ‘Uqdah) did not relate from him. He mentioned that he had some writing (Qimtar) from him but that he did not use to have any hesitation (or caution) in respect to narrating from anyone”. Ibn ‘Adiy said: “He is not known to have narrated a Munkar Hadith (i.e. one which is rejected because it opposes what is authentic or due to a defect). Rather, they only classified him as Da’if (a weak transmitter) upon the premise that he had not met those he related from”.

Abu Bakr Al-Khatib said: From what we were informed by Abu Al-‘Izz Ash-Shaibani, from Abu Al-Yaman Al-Kindi, from Al-Hasan Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Ibrahim bin Sarma As-Sa’igh who related that some of our Shuyukh said to us: “Those who discredited Al- ‘Utaridiy only did so because they said that the books that he narrated from were the books of his father and that he (falsely) claimed to have heard them alongside his father”. We were informed by Abu Sa’id As-Sirfi that Abu Al-‘Abbas Al-Asamm said: I heard Abu ‘Ubaidah As-Sarriy bin Yahya bin Ahki Hannad and my father asked him concerning Al-‘Utaridiy and he said: “He is Thiqah (trustworthy)”. Abu Sa’d Al-Maliniy Ijazah related from Abdullah bin ‘Adiy, from Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Hamdan, from Abu Bakr bin Sadaqah who said: I heard Abu Kuraib saying: “Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar had heard (i.e. received directly) from Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayash”. ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Nadr said: I heard Hamza bin Yusuf saying: I asked Ad-Daraqutni concerning Al-‘Utaridiy and he said: “There is no issue (or problem) with him. Abu Kuraib commended him. He was asked about the (book) Maghazi of Yunus bin Bukair and he said: Go to see a young man in Al-Kunas (place), called Al-‘Utaridiy, who heard it alongside us with his father. So, we came to him and he said that he did not where it was (i.e. the book). He then found it in the tower of pigeons and narrated from it”. Abu Al-Qasim Al-Azhari said: Muhammad bin Humaid bin Muhammad Al-Lakhmi said to us: I heard Al-Qadi Abu Al-Hasan Muhammad bin Salih Al-Hashimi saying: Muhammad bin Al-Hussein bin Humaid bin Ar-Rabi’ related from his father who said: Abu Kuraib Muhammad bin Al-‘Alaa’ began to read to us the book of Al-Maghazi by Yunus bin Bukair. He read to us one session or two and then some of the people of Hadith began to be noisy. He then interrupted his reading and made an oath that he would not read to us. We then returned to him and asked him to resume but he refused. He said: “Go to Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridi because he heard its reading alongside us from Yunus”. We asked: “And if he has already passed away?” He said: “Then listen to it from his son because he was present with us”. So, we set off from him with a group of the people of Hadith. We asked about Abdul Jabbar and it was said to us that he had passed away. We then asked about his son and were directed to his house. We arrived to him, sought permission to speak to him and made him aware of our story with Abu Kuraib ; that he had directed us to his father and then to him. Ahmad was playing with a pigeon and said to us: “Since the time that we heard it, I have not looked in it, however it is in a storage place containing books and so seek it there”. I went ahead, sought it and found it with pigeon droppings upon it. It was found that it had been recorded in an old script and so I asked him to give it me so that I publish it, which he did” This was what was said or close to it.

Al-Khatib said: Abu Kuraib was from the distinguished, truthful and pious scholars and Abu ‘Ubaidah As-Sarriy bin Yahya was also a great scholar; Thiqah (trustworthy) from the generation of Al-‘Utaridiy. One of these testified that he had heard (or received directly) and the other testified to his ‘Adalah (trustworthiness). That establishes his good condition or status and the permissibility of relating from him. That is in the case where no statement or view has been established by other than these two which would oblige discarding his Hadith or casting aside his reports. As for the statement of Al-Hadrami concerning Al-‘Utaridiy when he said that “He used to lie”, then this is an unspecified statement which requires examination and explanation. If he intended by this statement that he fabricated Hadith, then that is non-existent in respect to the Hadith of Al- ‘Utaridiy. And if he meant that he used to narrate from those he had not met, then that is also Batil (false/invalid) because Abu Kuraib testified for him that he had heard (or received) alongside him from Yunus bin Bukair. It has also been established that he heard from Abu Bakr ‘Ayash. As such, it should not be sought to be denied that he heard from Hafs bin Ghiyath, bin Fudail, Wakee’ and Abu Mu’awiyah. That is because Abu Bakr ‘Ayash passed away prior to all of them. As for Ibn Idris, then he passed away a year before Abu Ayash, yet this still does not prevent him having heard from him. That is because his father was from the main scholars of Hadith and it is conceivable that he started early with him (i.e. when he was very young). Indeed, Al- ‘Utaridiy related from his father from Yunus bin Bukair some papers from the Maghazi of Ibn Ishaq and it appears that he missed hearing it directly from Yunus and so heard (or received) it from his father who had heard from him. This indicates to his seeking the truth and his reliability in respect to relating, and Allah knows best. It has been said that he was born the 10th of Al-Ad’haa (i.e. Dhu l-Hijjah), in the year 177 AH and Abu Ya’la Al-Khalil bin Abdullah Al-Khalili Al- Qazwini stated that he died in the year 270 AH. Ahmad bin Kamil Al- Qadi said that he died in the year 271 AH, whilst Abu ‘Amr bin As- Sammak and Ahmad bin Mahmud Bin Subaih said that he passed away on the year 272 Ah. As-Sammak added that he passed away in Al-Kufa in the month of Sha’ban” [End of Quote].

I say: The speech of Imam Ahmad bin ‘Adiy: “He is not known to have narrated a Munkar Hadith (i.e. one which is rejected because it opposes what is authentic or due to a defect). Rather, they only classified him as Da’if (a weak transmitter) upon the premise that he had not met those he related from” dictates decisively that he does not know the reason for his being classified as Da’if (weak), apart from that which had been said about him “That he had not met those he related from”. That is because the wording ‘only’ (امنَّ إ) is from the ِ forms of limitation or restriction (in the Arabic language). Consequently, there is no meaning to what the one called Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi claimed, when he wrote on the Ahl ul-Hadith platform, on 19/03/2007, during his discussion about the Asanid (chains of transmission) of the “Sahifah of Al-Madinah”, stating: [I say: It is not understood from this statement of Ibn Hajar that he (i.e. Al- ‘Utaridiy) is Thiqah (trustworthy) in respect to the Seera! Rather, his intention was merely to repel the suspicion of Tadlis (i.e. misrepresentation in the chain of transmission) from him because he had been accused of that, as has previously been mentioned”. This was taken from the archives of the Ahl ul-Hadith platform, found in the Shamela e-library - 2 (51/390). There is no meaning to his speech because the classification of the man being Da’if (weak)has one single reason, which is the accusation of Tadlis (misrepresentation) with his use of the wording “He related to us” (انَ َثَّدحَ ), which brought the accusation of lying against him, instead of “Al-‘An’anah” (ةنَ عَ نْ عَ لْ ا) [i.e. in his chain instead of stating “So and so told us” or “He informed us” or “I heard”, it was be said “so and so” reported “from” so and so “from” so and so etc.. with the repetition of ‘’An’ (from)], which is employed by the Thiqaat Mudallisin (those misrepresenting who are trustworthy). All of this Batil (false/invalid), as has been explained and will be explained further.

- The final word in this matter came in the “Tarikh of Baghdad” [by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi] (4/262/2004):

“(He is) Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad bin ‘Umair bin ‘Utarid bin Hajib bin Zurarah, Abu ‘Umar At-Tamimi, who is well- known as Al-‘Utaridiy, from Al-Kufa. He came to Baghdad and narrated in it from Abdullah bin Idris Al-Awdi, Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayash, Hafs bin Ghiyath, Muhammad bin Fudail, Wakee’ and Abu Mu’awiyah. From Abu Mu’awiyah he had his Tafsir and from Yunus bin Bukair he had the Maghazi of Muhammad bin Ishaq. He was related from by Abu Bakr Ad-Dunya, Abu Al-Qasim Al-Baghawi, Qasim bin Zakariya Al- Mutriz, Yahya bin Muhammad bin Saa’id, Abu Bakr bin Abu Dawud, Al-Hussein bin Isma’il Al-Mahamiliy, Ridwan bin Ahmad As-Saidalani, Isma’il bin Muhammad As-Saffar, Muhammad bin ‘Amr Ar-Razzaz, Abu ‘Amr bin As-Sammak, Hamza bin Muhammad Ad-Dahqan, Abu Sahl bin Ziyad Al-Qattan and Abu Ja’far bin Bariyah Al-Hashimi, among others. Abu ‘Umar Abdul Wahid bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Mahdi related to us from Al-Qadi Abu Abdullah Al-Hussein bin Isma’il Al- Mahamiliy, in the form of dictation, in the year 329 AH, that: Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad said: Yunus (meaning bin Bukair) related to us from Mis’ar bin Kaddam, from Ash’ab bin Abi Ash- Sha’tha’, from a man from Kinanah, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying: “O people, say La Ilaha Illallah (There is no deity other than Allah) and you will succeed”. Hilal bin Muhammad bin Ja’far Al-Haffar related from Isma’il bin Muhammad As-Saffar, from Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy, from Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayash, from ‘Asim bin Zir bin Hubaish, from Abdullah who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) saying: “Whoever lies upon me intentionally, then let him take his seat from the fire”. Al-Qadi Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Al-Hussein bin Ahmad Al-Harasiy related from Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub Al-‘Asamm, from Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy who related that his father informed him that “I was born in the year 177 AH, on the 10th of Al-Ad’haa in the month of Dhu l-Hijjah”. Abu Sa’id Al-Malini related to us from Abdullah bin ‘Adiy al-Hafizh, who said: [(Concerning) Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy, I saw that the people of Iraq were in agreement upon his being Da’if (weak). Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Sa’d did not used to relate from him and he mentioned that he has a lot from him. Ibn ‘Adiy said: “(Concerning) Al-‘Utaridiy, I do not know from him a Munkar Hadith that he related. Rather, they only classified him as being Da’if because he had not met the people whom he related from”. Ahmad bin Abu Ja’far Al-Qati’iy related to us from Abu ‘Umar and Uthman bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Al-‘Abbas Al- Makhrami, from Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Nadir Al-Khuldiy who said: Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Hadrami said: [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy used to lie]. Some of our Shuyukh (scholars/teachers) told me that those who discredited Al-‘Utaridiy only did so because they said: That the books that he narrated from were the books of his father and that he claimed to have heard them alongside his father”. Abu Sa’id Muhammad bin Musa bin Al-Fadl bin Shadhan As-Sirfi related to us from Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub Al-Asamm, who said: I heard Abu ‘Ubaidah As-Sarriy bin Yahya bin Akhi Hannad asking my father about Al-‘Utaridiy Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar and he said: “(He is) Thiqah (trustworthy)”. Abu Sa’d Al-Malini Ijazah informed us from Abdullah bin ‘Adiy, from Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Hamdan, who said: Abu Bakr bin Sadaqah informed me: He said: I heard Abu Kuraib saying: Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy had (indeed) heard (or received directly) from Abu Bakr bin ‘Ayash. ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin Nadr informed me: He said: I heard Hamza bin Yusus saying: I asked Abu Al-Hasan Ad-Daraqutni about Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al- Utaridiy and he said: There is no issue (or problem) in respect to him. He was commended by Abu Kuraib. And he was asked about the Maghazi of Yunus bin Bukair and so he said: “Pass by a young man in Al-Kunas (place), called Al-‘Utaridiy, who heard (received) with us alongside his father. We came to him and he said: “I don’t know where it is (i.e. the transcripts). He then found it and in the pigeon tower and narrated by it”. Abu l-Qasim Al-Azhariy informed me: He said: Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Humaid bin Muhammad Al-Lakhmi said: I heard Al-Qadi Abu Al-hasan Muhammad bin Sakih Al-Hashimi saying: Muhammad bin Al-Hussein bin Humaid bin Ar-Rabi’ told me: He said: [Abu Kuraib Muhammad bin Al-‘Alaa’ began to read Al-Maghazi of Yunus bin Bukair to us. He read to us for a session or two and then some of the people of Hadith made a noise and din. As a result, he interrupted his reading and made an oath that he would not read to us again. We (later) returned to him and asked him to resume but he refused and told us: “Go to Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy as he attended its (original) listening with us from Yunus”. So we asked him: “And what if he has passed away?” He replied: “Then listen from his son Ahmad, because he was in attendance alongside him”. So, we set of from his with a group from the people (students) of Hadith and then enquired about Abdul Jabbar and we were told that he had passed away. We then asked about his son and we were directed to his residence. We arrived and sought permission to speak to him. We made him aware of our story with Abu Kuraib and how he had directed us to his father and to him. Ahmad was playing with a pigeon and said: “Since the time that I heard it, I have not looked in it. However, it is kept in a place of storage containing books and so seek it there. I did that and sought it out. I located it and it had pigeon droppings upon it. He had listened to (and transcribed) it with his father in an old script, so I asked him to give it to me so that I could publish it, which he did”. This was what was said or close to it. I say: Abu Kuraib was from the distinguished, truthful and pious scholars and Abu ‘Ubaidah As-Sarriy bin Yahya was also a great scholar; Thiqah (trustworthy) from the generation of Al-‘Utaridiy. One of these testified that he had heard (or received directly) and the other testified to his ‘Adalah (trustworthiness). That establishes his good condition or status and the permissibility of relating from him. That is in the case where no statement or view has been established by other than these two which would oblige discarding his Hadith or casting aside his reports. As for the statement of Al-Hadrami concerning Al-‘Utaridiy when he said that “He used to lie”, then this is an unspecified statement which requires examination and explanation. If he intended by this statement that he fabricated Hadith, then that is non-existent in respect to the Hadith of Al- ‘Utaridiy. And if he meant that he used to narrate from those he had not met, then that is also Batil (false/invalid) because Abu Kuraib testified for him that he had heard (or received) alongside him from Yunus bin Bukair. It has also been established that he heard from Abu Bakr ‘Ayash. As such, it should not be sought to be denied that he heard from Hafs bin Ghiyath, bin Fudail, Wakee’ and Abu Mu’awiyah. That is because Abu Bakr ‘Ayash passed away prior to all of them. As for Ibn Idris, then he passed away a year before Abu Ayash, yet this still does not prevent him having heard from him. That is because his father was from the main scholars of Hadith and it is conceivable that he started early with him (i.e. when he was very young). Indeed, Al- ‘Utaridiy related from his father from Yunus bin Bukair some papers from the Maghazi of Ibn Ishaq and it appears that he missed hearing it directly from Yunus and so heard (or received) it from his father who had heard from him. This indicates to his seeking the truth and his reliability in respect to relating, and Allah knows best. I read from Al-Hasan bin Abu Bakr who related from Ahmad bin Kamil Al-Qadi who said: Al-‘Utaridiy died in Kufa in the year 271 AH. Al-Hasan said: Abu ‘Amr bin As-Sammak said: Al-‘Utaridiy passed away in Kufa in the month of Sha’ban in the year 272 AH. We were informed by Abu Nu’aim Al-Hafizh who said: I heard Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Ja’far bin Hayyan saying: I heard Ahmad bin Mahmud bin Subaih saying: Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy passed away in the year 272 AH”. [End of Quote].

- In respect to the word Qimatr (which came in the narration where the students sought out Al-‘Utaridiy to read to them the book of Al- Maghazi by Yunus bin Bukair) then it has various possible meanings in the classical dictionaries but the most correct in the context of the narration is what was mentioned in Mukhtar As-Sihhah (1/230): [Qimatr and Qimatrah: “What the books are preserved or maintained in”].

(Translators note: I have left here the translation of what came in Lisan Al-‘Arab and Mukhtar As-Sihhah concerning the meaning of the word Qimatr, because it would not benefit the English reader, in addition to it being difficult to reproduce productively. I have just selected the part in Mukhtaar As-Sihhah where it states the desired meaning clearly) I say: Firstly: Yunus bin Bukair passed away in the year 199 AH and Abdullah Ibn Idris in the year 192 AH, as agreed upon by the transmitters. If we were to assume that he passed away at the beginning of the year, in Muharram, for instance, then Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar would have completed the 14th year of his life on the 10th of Dhu l-Hijjah of the previous year 191 Ah. This was about the same age as Imam Abu Hatim Ar-Raziy when he embarked upon his journey, at a time when he was beardless and yet to have a single hair upon his face. What is decisively certain is that Abdul Jabbar brought his son along with him, from an early age, to the Shuyukh (scholars). That is because he had heard or learnt directly from Abu Bakr ‘Ayash, who passed away a year or two after Abdullah ibn Idris. That was confirmed by the testimony of the Imam Al-Hujjah Ath-Thabt (authoritative and reliable source) Abu Kuraib Muhammad bin Al- ‘Alaa’ Al-Hamdani. That generation contained a group of those whom their fathers began their listening and learning with scholars at a very early age. For example, Ishaq bin Ibrahim Ad-Dabari, one of the relators of Abdur Razzaq, was seven years old when his father took him to receive (the knowledge) and At- Tabarani was receiving at the age of 13. As such, there is no cause for doubting that he (Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar) received from the scholars alongside his father. Indeed, that represented receiving of two men, alongside the writing of Abdul Jabbar and the reading of Ahmad upon his father a second time, whilst his father himself was from the Shuyukh Ath-Thiqat (Trustworthy and reliable scholars). This therefore counts as a third hearing or instance of receiving and represents the height of reliability.

Secondly: Contemplate the speech of Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar, when he said: “Since the time that I heard it, I have not looked in it. However, it is kept in a place of storage containing books and so seek it there. I did that and sought it out. I located it and it had pigeon droppings upon it. He had listened to (and transcribed) it with his father in an old script, so I asked him to give it to me so that I could publish it, which he did”. This indicates that its book, which was the book of his father, was preserved and maintained inside a Qimatr (i.e. special place for the preservation of books). This Qimatr was in the pigeon tower, which is the highest place in the house, which is aired naturally by the constant movement of the wind. There is no fear in respect to what is kept in such a place from flooding or dampness compared to what is feared in respect to that which is on the lower floors of the houses of Iraq. The pigeon tower is therefore reinforced and it was not possible for rain to reach it. That is also clear from the testimony of Al-Hussein bin Humaid bin Ar-Rabi’ when he said that he found the book written in an old script, in a sound condition and free of defect. He then asked Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar if he could publish it. The presence of the pigeon droppings upon the Qimatr did not bring harm to the book as Al-Hussein bin Humaid bin Ar-Rabi’ testified to the book being in sound condition, with no defect, and suitable to be published. This is, and Allah knows best, how Imam Al- Khatib Al-Baghdadi understood this story which he presented. And as such, he did not see any cause to discredit or cast doubt upon Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar.

There is therefore no meaning to the claim of the one named Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi, who wrote on the Ahl ul-Hadith platform on 19/03/2007, when speaking about the chains of transmission of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah: [If this story is affirmed, then the narrator classifies his memory (by heart) as being weak as he had forgotten it and did not recall it. It also made clear the weakness of his concern to it (the book) as he had left it in the tower with pigeons, to the point that it had pigeon droppings upon it! Consequently, the man is Da’if (weak) just as the Imams who specialise in this matter have stated] – 2 (51/390) in the Shamela e-library. His speech holds no meaning at all for the following reasons:

1) The book was preserved and kept safe in a Qimatr manufactured specifically for that purpose. The pigeon tower is the best place for preservation in houses such as that which Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar resided in, as he was not from the rich who were able to rent a house which had an independent storage facility for books. In addition, the publisher Al-Hussein bin Humaid bin Ar-Rabi’ testified to the sound condition of the book and its readiness to be published.

2) As for the statement “the Imams who specialise in this matter have stated”, then Abu Kuraib, Ad-Daraqutni, Abu Ahmad bin ‘Adiy and Al- Khatib Al-Baghdadi did not classify him as being Da’if (weak in terms of transmission). The fact Ad-Daraqutni, who was the uncontested Imam of his era, did not classify him as Da’if should be sufficient in itself. So, which Imams is this man called Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi talking about?! For every ailment there is a medicine that can be used for treatment Except for foolishness which can not be treated The summary conclusion is therefore: The invalidity or falseness of the summary of Al-Hafidh (Ibn Hajar) concerning his status and the correctness of our summary of his status, with certainty and without the least amount of doubt: [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, has no issue or problem associated with him. His receiving of the Seera is authentic and he is reliable to be used as evidence. He was from the tenth (i.e. level of chain). He passed away in the 72nd year (meaning 272 AH) at the age 95].