Discussion: Tracing the hadith: (… The distinction between us and the polytheists is wearing the turbans over the caps).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There is a hadith narrated by Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Hakim through the route of Muhammad ibn Rabi'ah from Abu al-Hasan al-'Asqalani from Abu Ja'far ibn Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Rakanah from his father Rakanah
This contains three unknowns: Abu al-Hasan al-'Asqalani, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Rakanah, and his father Muhammad. All of these are unknown. Imam al-Bukhari said regarding this hadith that its chain is unknown, and al-Dhahabi said in the biography of Muhammad that his report regarding wrestling is not authentic. Al-Bayhaqi also narrated this hadith through the route of Sa'id ibn Jubayr as a mursal (report missing the Companion link). So, if its chain to Sa'id is a sound chain, does this connected report, which contains three unknowns, get strengthened by this mursal, even though the imams like al-Bukhari and others said the report is not authentic?
The Shaykh : In your presentation, is it possible now that it can be strengthened? Let me summarize what I understood from you: the connected report has three unknowns, and the mursal has a sound chain to its narrator.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Well, in this presentation you mentioned, it can be said that it is a hasan (good) hadith. This returns to the rule we mentioned earlier. If one holds that a chain containing an unknown is called weak, and another chain containing a second unknown is called very weak, and a third chain like the one you are describing with three unknowns is called fabricated, I will give an example. If one's logic is this, then that mursal to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, whose chain to him is sound, does not strengthen it. Why? Because the thing being witnessed to, which is the connected report, is fabricated. Why? Because it is from an unknown, from an unknown, from an unknown. This equals fabricated. And if it is from an unknown, from an unknown, this equals very weak. And a very weak hadith cannot be strengthened by anything else, even if it is suitable for testimony, like a mursal with a sound chain to it.
As for one who does not hold this detailed distinction, I do not think any of the scholars says this detailed distinction. So, my previous statement returns: this chain is weak and can be strengthened by that mursal, because an unknown from an unknown from an unknown does not equal fabricated, and an unknown from an unknown does not equal very weak. So, it is not easy to cite it as evidence. The reason for that is that it is absolutely inconceivable. This witness is before you: the accusation would be on each of them. Why is it that the unknown hadith is not used as evidence now? Because it is possible that it is accused. This is its worst state, and its best state is that it is not a memorizer in what he narrates, so it is weak. But if one of the two possibilities prevails, for example fabrication, then citing it as evidence falls away. So, an unknown from an unknown from an unknown does not settle, and it is not kept in mind that each of these can be accused. It is not kept in mind; rather, the defect is in one person. But this came as an unknown from an unknown from an unknown. In summary, may Allah bless you.
That he wrestled with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and he threw him down, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: The distinction between us and the polytheists is wearing the turbans over the caps.
أنه صارع النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فصرعه فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فرق بيننا وبين المشركين لبس العمائم على القلانسThis contains three unknowns: Abu al-Hasan al-'Asqalani, Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Yazid ibn Rakanah, and his father Muhammad. All of these are unknown. Imam al-Bukhari said regarding this hadith that its chain is unknown, and al-Dhahabi said in the biography of Muhammad that his report regarding wrestling is not authentic. Al-Bayhaqi also narrated this hadith through the route of Sa'id ibn Jubayr as a mursal (report missing the Companion link). So, if its chain to Sa'id is a sound chain, does this connected report, which contains three unknowns, get strengthened by this mursal, even though the imams like al-Bukhari and others said the report is not authentic?
The Shaykh : In your presentation, is it possible now that it can be strengthened? Let me summarize what I understood from you: the connected report has three unknowns, and the mursal has a sound chain to its narrator.
The questioner : Yes
The Shaykh : Well, in this presentation you mentioned, it can be said that it is a hasan (good) hadith. This returns to the rule we mentioned earlier. If one holds that a chain containing an unknown is called weak, and another chain containing a second unknown is called very weak, and a third chain like the one you are describing with three unknowns is called fabricated, I will give an example. If one's logic is this, then that mursal to Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib, whose chain to him is sound, does not strengthen it. Why? Because the thing being witnessed to, which is the connected report, is fabricated. Why? Because it is from an unknown, from an unknown, from an unknown. This equals fabricated. And if it is from an unknown, from an unknown, this equals very weak. And a very weak hadith cannot be strengthened by anything else, even if it is suitable for testimony, like a mursal with a sound chain to it.
As for one who does not hold this detailed distinction, I do not think any of the scholars says this detailed distinction. So, my previous statement returns: this chain is weak and can be strengthened by that mursal, because an unknown from an unknown from an unknown does not equal fabricated, and an unknown from an unknown does not equal very weak. So, it is not easy to cite it as evidence. The reason for that is that it is absolutely inconceivable. This witness is before you: the accusation would be on each of them. Why is it that the unknown hadith is not used as evidence now? Because it is possible that it is accused. This is its worst state, and its best state is that it is not a memorizer in what he narrates, so it is weak. But if one of the two possibilities prevails, for example fabrication, then citing it as evidence falls away. So, an unknown from an unknown from an unknown does not settle, and it is not kept in mind that each of these can be accused. It is not kept in mind; rather, the defect is in one person. But this came as an unknown from an unknown from an unknown. In summary, may Allah bless you.