﷽
Clarification that the Sunnah of Specifying Supplication between Dhuhr and ʿAṣr on Wednesday – its Basis is not Established
All perfect praises be to Allāh, prayers and salutations upon the Messenger of Allāh. To proceed:
Imām Aḥmad bin Muḥammad bin Ḥanbal – may Allāh be pleased with him- reported in Al-Musnad:
Abū ʿĀmir narrated to us, Kathīr -i.e. Ibn Zayd- narrated to us, ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAbdur-Raḥmān bin Kaʿb bin Mālik narrated to me, Jābir -i.e. Ibn ʿAbdullāh- narrated to me that,
“The Prophet ﷺ made supplication in Masjid Al-Fatḥ1 thrice, on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and it was answered for him between the two prayers on Wednesday, so he was visibly happy”.
Musnad Ahmad 14563
Jābir said, “Whenever anything severe and serious happened to me and I singled out that hour and made supplication to Allāh, I found the answer.”
This is a weak Ḥadīth. The Muḥaqqiq (checker) of Al-Musnad said: It’s chain of narration is weak. Kathīr bin Zayd is not that strong, especially if his narration is not narrated by anybody else. He is the only one who narrated this ḥadīth from ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAbdur-Raḥmān bin Kaʿb, and the latter is classified among the unknown narrators, and he has been mentioned in ‘At-Taʿjīl’ (563)
Reported by Ibn Saʿd in ‘Aṭ-Ṭabaqāt’ 2/73, Al-Bukhārī in ‘Adab Al-Mufrad‘ 704, Al-Bayhaqī in Ash-Shuʿab 3874 by way of Kathīr bin Zayd through this chain of narration.
I said: The following is what the people of al-Jarḥ wat-Taʿdīl (criticism and praise) said regarding this Kathīr:
- Abū Bakr said: He said earlier: He is nothing, then spoke against him
- Al-Mufaḍḍal bin Ghassān Al-Ghalābī and Muʿāwiyah bin Ṣāliḥ said about him: Righteous
- ʿAbdullāh bin Aḥmad bin Ibrāhīm Ad-Dawrqī said: There is nothing wrong with him
- Ibn Miḥriz said: Weak
- ʿAlī bin Al-Madīnī: Muḥammad bin ʿUthmān said regarding him: He’s righteous and not strong
- Abū Ḥātim at-Rāzī: Righteous, not strong, writes down his ḥadīth
- Abū Zurʿah ar-Rāzī: Truthful and he has lenience
- Aḥmad bin Ḥanbal: ʿAbdullāh said regarding him: I don’t see anything wrong with him
- An-Nasāʾī said in ‘aḍ-Ḍuʿafāʾ’: Weak
- Muḥammad bin Ḥibbān: Mentioned him in the ranks of the followers of at-Tābiʿīn in his book ‘ath-Thiqāt’. He mentioned him in his book ‘Al-Majrūḥīn’ and said: He used to have several errors with limited narrations, I’m not pleased with taking his support if he is a lone narrator
- Adh-Dhahabī: said in ‘Al-Kāshif’: Abū Zurʿah said: Truthful and he has lenience
- Ibn Ḥajar al-Asqalānī: said in ‘Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb’: Truthful, makes mistakes
- Ibn ʿUday: Kathīr bin Zayd has Ḥadīths other than the one mentioned by me. Ibn Abī Ḥāzim and Sufyān bin Ḥamzah and Sulaymān bin Bilāl, each one of them narrated a version of it from Kathīr bin Zayd on the authority of Al-Walīd bin Rabāḥ, on the authority of Abū Hurairah, from the Prophet ﷺ. It was narrated from him on the authority of Ibn Abī Ḥāzim and Ibrāhīm bin Ḥamzah and Abū Musʿab and Ibn Kāsib and other than them. It was narrated on the authority of Sufyān bin Ḥamzah and Ibrāhīm bin Mundhir and Ibn Kāsib. Sulaymān bin Bilāl and Ibn Wahb, each one of them have narrated a unique version from him not narrated by others by this chain of narrators, and perhaps they agreed on some of it. Kathīr bin Zaid has Ḥadīths on the authority of other than Al-Walīd bin Rabāḥ that I did not mention, and I did not see anything wrong with them, and I hope that there is nothing wrong with them.
- Ibn Shaybah: He is not that disreputable but inclines towards weakness
- Ibn ʿAmmār: Trustworthy
- Ibn Jarīr aṭ-Ṭabarī: Kathīr bin Zaid, according to them is from those whose narrations are not taken as evidence
So after this I (Shaykh ʿAbdul Ḥamīd) say: The best case is that he is not accepted from when he’s the only narrator. So how about when the criticism upon him is detailed.
And also, there appears to be a difference in it as can be seen, in the Musnad, he has narrated on the authority of ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAbdur-Raḥmān bin Kaʿb who is unknown. And in Adab al-Mufrad he said ʿAbdur-Raḥmān bin Kaʿb who is trustworthy.
So two defects were mentioned, weakness of Kathīr and ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAbdur-Raḥmān being Majhūl (unknown). Then how can a ḥadīth of this condition be authenticated?
Also how can this act be considered a Sunnah based on an evidence that has not been established from the Prophet ﷺ?
As for what was reported from the speech of Shaykhul Islam2, regarding the action of some on its basis, then this was not for the sake of reporting rather it was a side point regarding the action of the one who opposed.
To declare it as Sunnah and to specify the act, there is a need for evidence to advance with the issue.
– (Shaykh) ʿAbdul Ḥamīd az-Zuʿkurī (may Allāh preserve him)
– 7th Shaʿbān 1438H
– Translated by Abū Āsiyah Muzaffar -one in need of Allāh’s pardon-
Original Fatwā: https://t.me/A_lzoukory/1916
Translator’s Footnotes:
- Masjid al-Fatḥ is where the Prophet (ﷺ) is said to have made supplication during the Battle of Khandaq and where Allah (ﷻ) sent him the glad tidings of victory. ↩︎
- Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said: “The chain of narrators of this ḥadīth includes Kathīr ibn Zayd, who was criticized by the scholars; Ibn Maʿīn sometimes authenticates him and at some other times classifies him as weak. Some of our companions [scholars of our Mathhab] act according to this ḥadīth, as well as some other scholars, and so they seek to supplicate at that place, as narrated from Jābir; however, it was not narrated that Jābir -may Allāh be pleased with him- sought to supplicate at that particular place; rather, it was at that particular time.” Iqtidā as-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm 1/433 ↩︎
📒((البيان أن سنية تخصيص الدعاء بين الظهر والعصر يوم الأربعاء لا تقوم به الأركان))
الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله أما بعد
فقد أخرج الامام أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رحمه الله في المسند
(14563) فقال: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَامِرٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا كَثِيرٌ – يَعْنِي ابْنَ زَيْدٍ – حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ كَعْبِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ ، حَدَّثَنِي جَابِرٌ – يَعْنِي ابْنَ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ – أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ دَعَا فِي مَسْجِدِ الْفَتْحِ ثَلَاثًا، يَوْمَ الِاثْنَيْنِ، وَيَوْمَ الثُّلَاثَاءِ، وَيَوْمَ الْأَرْبِعَاءِ فَاسْتُجِيبَ لَهُ يَوْمَ الْأَرْبِعَاءِ بَيْنَ الصَّلَاتَيْنِ، فَعُرِفَ الْبِشْرُ فِي وَجْهِهِ. قَالَ جَابِرٌ : فَلَمْ يَنْزِلْ بِي أَمْرٌ مُهِمٌّ غَلِيظٌ إِلَّا تَوَخَّيْتُ تِلْكَ السَّاعَةَ، فَأَدْعُو فِيهَا فَأَعْرِفُ الْإِجَابَةَ.
📌هذا حديث ضعيف قال محقق المسند: (١٤٥٦٣) إسناده ضعيف، كثير بن زيد ليس بذاك القوي، خاصة إذا لم يتابعه أحد، وقد تفرَّد بهذا الحديث عن عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن بن كعب، وهذا الأخير في عداد المجاهيل، وله ترجمة في “التعجيل” (٥٦٣) .
وأخرجه ابن سعد في “الطبقات” ٢/٧٣، والبخاري في “الأدب المفرد” (٧٠٤) ، والبيهقي في “الشعب” (٣٨٧٤) من طرق عن كثير بن زيد، بهذا الإسناد. انتهى
🖊قلت كثير هذا إليك ما قال فيه أهل الجرح والتعديل: يحيى بن معين .:قال عبد الله بن شعيب الصابونى ، وأبو بكر بن أبي خيثمة عنه : ليس بذاك القوي .
قال أبو بكر : وكان قال أولا : ليس بشيء ، ثم ضرب عليه .
وقال المفضل بن غسان الغلابي ، ومعاوية بن صالح عنه : صالح .
وقال عبد الله بن أحمد بن إبراهيم الدورقي عنه : ليس به بأس .
وقال ابن محرز عنه : ضعيف .
علي ابن المديني:قال محمد بن عثمان عنه : هو صالح وليس بالقوي .
أبو حاتم الرازي:صالح ، ليس بالقوي ، يكتب حديثه .
أبو زرعة الرازي:صدوق فيه لين .
أحمد بن حنبل:قال عبد الله عنه : ما أرى به بأس .
النسائي:قال في (الضعفاء) : ضعيف .
محمد بن حبان:ذكره في طبقة أتباع التابعين من كتابه (الثقات) .
وذكره في كتابه المجروحين ، وقال : كان كثير الخطأ على قلة روايته ، لا يعجبني الاحتجاج به إذا انفرد .
الذهبي:قال في (الكاشف) : قال أبو زرعة : صدوق فيه لين .
ابن حجر العسقلاني:قال في (تقريب التهذيب) : صدوق يخطئ .
ابن عدي:ولكثير بن زيد غير ما ذكرت من الحديث ، ويروى ابن أبي حازم ، وسفيان بن حمزة ، وسليمان بن بلال كل واحد منهم عن كثير بن زيد عن الوليد بن رباح عن أبي هريرة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نسخة ، ويرويه عن ابن أبي حازم ، إبراهيم بن حمزة ، وأبو مصعب ، وابن كاسب ، وغيرهم . ويرويه عن سفيان بن حمزة إبراهيم بن المنذر ، وابن كاسب . ويروى عن سليمان بن بلال ، ابن وهب ، كل واحد منهم ينفرد عنه بهذا الإسناد بنسخة ، وربما اتفقوا في شيء منه . ولكثير بن زيد عن غير الوليد بن رباح أحاديث لم أذكرها ، ولم أر به بأسا ، وأرجو أنه لا بأس به .
ابن شيبة:ليس بذاك الساقط ، وإلى الضعف ما هو .
ابن عمار:ثقة .
ابن جرير الطبري:وكثير بن زيد عندهم ممن لا يحتج بنقله .
📌فبعد هذا أقول فأحسن أحواله أن لا يقبل ما تفرد به فكيف والجرح فيه مفسرا.
وأيضا كأن فيه اختلاف ففي المسند كما ترى يرويه عن عبدالله بن عبدالرحمن بن كعب وهو مجهول.
وفي الادب المفرد قال عبدالرحمن بن كعب وهو ثقة
فذكر فيه عالتين ضعف كثير وجهالة عبدالله بن عبدالرحمن فكيف يصحح حديث من هذا حاله
وكيف يحكم بسنية هذا الصنيع بناء على دليل لم يثبت عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم.
وأما ما نقل من كلام شيخ الاسلام عن بعضهم العمل به فليس على سبيل التقرير وإنما استطرادا لما يلزم به المخالف.
والقول بالسنية والتخصيص يحتاج إلى دليل ينهض بالمسألة.
عبدالحميد بن يحيى الزعكري
٧ شعبان ١٤٣٨
