al-Mustadrak (al-Hakim)

Compiled by al-Hakim al-Naysaburi (d. AD 1014): reports he judged to meet the standards of al-Bukhari and Muslim although they left them out. Al-Dhahabi's notes often disagree. Numbers follow the Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya edition unless stated. Not one of the six canonical books. Many reports here are graded weak; each entry names its grading and links the printed edition so you can check it.

← Back to all sources
0 / 0 entries
Category
Strength
Ibn al-Zubayr drinks Muhammad's cupping blood: 'Woe to the people from you' Gross / Vile Prophetic Privileges Contradictions Prophetic Character Basic al-Mustadrak 6343
"He said, 'Perhaps you drank it?' I said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Who told you to drink blood? Woe to you from the people, and woe to the people from you.'"

What the hadith says

Abdullah b. al-Zubayr says he came to the Prophet while he was being cupped. When it was over, Muhammad told him: 'Abdullah, take this blood and pour it out where no one sees you.' Once out of sight, Ibn al-Zubayr gulped the blood down. Asked what he had done, he said he had put it somewhere hidden; Muhammad guessed the truth, and on hearing it replied with the words above. The report is in al-Hakim's al-Mustadrak (6343 in the Ilmiyya edition; 6480 in the Risala edition), with parallels in Ibn Abi Asim, al-Bazzar (a shorter text without the rebuke), Abu Nu'aym's Hilya and al-Diya' al-Maqdisi's al-Mukhtara. Its grading is disputed. Al-Hakim gave no verdict and al-Dhahabi passed over it in silence. Everything turns on one narrator, Hunayd b. al-Qasim: al-Haythami called him reliable (thiqa), Ibn Hajar said 'no harm in him, but he is not known for knowledge', and Ibn al-Mulaqqin said his condition is unknown. Al-'Azimabadi and the Risala editors call the chain weak, and Ibn Baz said its authenticity is doubtful.

Why this is a problem

The Qur'an forbids blood by name (2:173, 5:3). In this report a Companion secretly drinks the Prophet's blood, and the Prophet's reaction is curiously mild. He asks who told him to do it, then moves straight to a prophecy about the boy's future: 'woe to you from the people, and woe to the people from you.' He gives no reminder of the Qur'anic ban, no order to make amends and no instruction to purify himself. The scene is told as a portent of Ibn al-Zubayr's later career, not as a sin corrected.

The report did not stay on the margins. It was copied by several compilers, and al-Diya' al-Maqdisi placed it in al-Mukhtara, his selection of reports he judged sound. The jurists also had to debate whether the Prophet's blood and urine are impure at all. Islamweb quotes al-Nawawi that the majority hold them impure, but a minority, especially later Shafi'is, hold them pure as a special privilege. That debate only exists because reports like this one were taken seriously enough to need an answer.

The Muslim response

The chain is not established. Hunayd b. al-Qasim is barely known: al-Hakim himself gave no verdict, and several critics, including the modern Risala editors of al-Mustadrak, grade it weak. Even taken at face value, the report has the Prophet rebuke the act ('Who told you to drink blood?'), so it gives no licence to drink blood. On the legal question, the majority view, as Islamweb states it from al-Nawawi, is that the Prophet's blood is impure like anyone else's. Nothing in Islamic law rests on this story.

Why it fails

On the chain, the response is largely right, and this entry does not claim the report is authentic. What it shows is how the tradition handled it. The whole dispute is over a single narrator, and the critics cannot agree even on him. The Risala editors point out that al-Haythami contradicted himself, calling Hunayd unknown in one place and reliable in another. A report that one major critic accepted and another rejected on the same evidence is not a clear forgery that the system caught. It is a judgement call.

The content problem also survives the 'rebuke' reading. The question 'Who told you to drink blood?' is followed by a prophecy, not by the Qur'anic ruling. If a follower had swallowed something God forbade by name, a lawgiver would be expected to say so. The transmitters preserved a scene in which the Prophet's blood is something a follower secretly consumes, and the Prophet answers with a rebuking question and a prophecy, not with the ruling.

Check it yourself

Umm Ayman drinks Muhammad's urine from a clay pot; he laughs and blesses her stomach Gross / Vile Prophetic Privileges Prophetic Character Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 6912
"I said, 'By Allah, I have drunk what was in it.' The Messenger of Allah laughed until his molars showed, then said, 'Your stomach will never ail you after this.'"

What the hadith says

Umm Ayman (Baraka) says the Prophet got up in the night, went to a clay pot at the side of the house 'and urinated in it' (fa-bala fiha). She woke thirsty in the night and drank what was in the pot without realising. In the morning he told her to pour out the pot; she told him she had drunk it, and he laughed and gave her the blessing above. The report is in al-Hakim's al-Mustadrak (6912 Ilmiyya; 7087 Risala), al-Tabarani's al-Mu'jam al-Kabir 25/89 no. 230, Abu Nu'aym's Dala'il al-Nubuwwa 365 and al-Tabari's Tarikh. The Arabic is explicit that he urinated in the pot (one online English version mistranslates it). The critics grade it weak: al-Daraqutni says the narrator Abu Malik al-Nakha'i is weak and the confusion in the chain is his, Ibn Hajar adds that Nubayh never met Umm Ayman, and al-Haythami, Ibn Daqiq al-'Id, al-Shawkani, al-Ruba'i, al-A'zami and the Risala editors (very weak) agree. Al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi gave no verdict. The one modern dissenter is al-Wadi'i, who said it could be graded hasan (good).

Why this is a problem

The Prophet's reaction is the problem. A member of his household has drunk a pot of his urine. He does not show concern for her health or tell her to clean herself. He laughs until his back teeth show and promises that her stomach will never trouble her again. The story treats the Prophet's waste as a blessing and a cure, which is the logic of a relic cult, not of the hygiene rules the same religion lays down for everyone else.

Where the report was kept matters too. Abu Nu'aym put it in his Dala'il al-Nubuwwa, a book of 'proofs of prophethood', so it was offered as a miracle. In the twentieth century al-Wadi'i still included it in his Sahih Dala'il al-Nubuwwa as possibly good. The canonical collections confirm the setting: Abu Dawud 24 and al-Nasa'i 32 say the Prophet kept a bowl to urinate in at night. Only the drinking, the laughter and the promise of health are non-canonical.

The Muslim response

The report is weak by the judgement of almost every critic who examined it: one narrator is weak, and another never met Umm Ayman, so the chain is broken. No Muslim is obliged to believe it. On the legal question, Islamweb follows the majority that the Prophet's urine is impure and calls it 'a clear lie' that Companions sought blessing by drinking it. Those who hold it pure, as a SeekersGuidance answer does, draw on a different report (Baraka, the servant of Umm Habiba), not this one.

Why it fails

On authenticity the response is right, and this entry does not claim otherwise. The honest point is what the tradition did with the story. It was not left with obscure storytellers. Al-Hakim, al-Tabarani and al-Tabari recorded it, Abu Nu'aym filed it among the proofs of prophethood, and a modern hadith scholar of al-Wadi'i's standing thought its chain might be raised to good.

Islamweb's 'clear lie' is therefore one side of a live disagreement, not the tradition's settled verdict. Part of the tradition holds the Prophet's urine pure, and the tradition preserved this story among the proofs of prophethood. That shows how far reverence for the Prophet's body was taken, and how heavily the critics had to work to keep it in check.

Check it yourself

Ibn Abbas: seven earths, each with 'a prophet like your prophet' and 'a Jesus like Jesus' Science Contradictions Prophetic Character Jesus / Christology Strange / Obscure Moderate al-Mustadrak 3822
"Seven earths; in every earth there is a prophet like your prophet, an Adam like Adam, a Noah like Noah, an Abraham like Abraham and a Jesus like Jesus."

What the hadith says

This is Ibn Abbas's own commentary, not a saying of the Prophet (mawquf). Explaining Qur'an 65:12, 'Allah who created seven heavens and of the earth the like of them', he says that each of the seven earths has its own prophet like Muhammad, its own Adam, Noah, Abraham and Jesus. Al-Hakim placed it in the Qur'an-commentary book of al-Mustadrak (3822 Ilmiyya; 3864 Risala), and al-Bayhaqi has the same text in al-Asma' wa'l-Sifat 831. Al-Hakim graded the chain sound (sahih al-isnad), and al-Dhahabi agreed. Al-Bayhaqi also called the chain to Ibn Abbas sound, but said the report is 'extremely irregular' (shadhdh bi-marra), because no one else corroborates its narrator Abu al-Duha; the Risala editors repeat this. Ahmad b. Hanbal rejected it outright, blaming the narrator 'Ata' b. al-Sa'ib's confusion: the report has 'nothing of Adam like Adam or a prophet like your prophet'. Al-Wadi'i called it munkar (rejected). A firmer chain, through Shu'ba, survives in al-Tabari's commentary with only 'in every earth the like of Abraham, and creation like what is on [this] earth'.

Why this is a problem

Taken as written, the report multiplies the prophets of Islam. There is another Muhammad on each of six other earths, along with another Adam, another Noah and another Jesus. That sits badly with the Qur'an's claim that Muhammad is the 'seal of the prophets' (33:40), and with a Jesus whose virgin birth and return are presented as unique. Even the milder Shu'ba wording has, in every earth, someone like Abraham and creation like that on this earth. No such worlds have been found.

The grading history is more revealing than the content. Al-Bayhaqi did not find a defect in the chain: he said it was sound. He called the report 'extremely irregular' because he knew of no one who corroborates Abu al-Duha in it. Al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi passed the chain. Ahmad threw the long wording out, blaming the confusion of its narrator 'Ata' b. al-Sa'ib for the 'Adam like Adam' and 'prophet like your prophet' lines. The same report is 'sound' or 'nothing' depending on who grades it.

The Muslim response

This is not a hadith of the Prophet but the opinion of a Companion, and no doctrine rests on it. Its long wording is irregular by al-Bayhaqi's verdict, and Ahmad b. Hanbal traced the 'Adam like Adam' wording to the confusion of 'Ata' b. al-Sa'ib. As IslamOnline puts it, since the report is weak there is no need even to ask whether those earths are inhabited.

Why it fails

The 'only a Companion's opinion' defence does not explain where Ibn Abbas got this. Other prophets on other earths are not something anyone could work out by reasoning about Arabic grammar. Either he received it, or he passed on unfounded lore as commentary on a Qur'anic verse. Al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi, al-Bayhaqi and the modern Risala editors all agree that the chain to Ibn Abbas is sound, so the second option means one of the most-quoted early interpreters taught a cosmology of parallel prophets. Ibn Kathir quotes the report and al-Bayhaqi's verdict in his commentary on 65:12.

The 'irregular' verdict also concedes the main point: al-Bayhaqi called the chain to Ibn Abbas sound and still would not accept the report, because a single narrator carries it. That is a reasonable judgement, but it shows that a sound chain does not guarantee a sound report. Readers who are told a hadith is sound because its chain is sound should know that the tradition's own experts can call a chain sound and still reject the report.

Check it yourself

Ibn Abbas: the earth rests on the back of the Nun, a great fish, and mountains stop it shaking Science Pre-Islamic Borrowings Strange / Obscure Moderate al-Mustadrak 3840
"Then He created the Nun, and the earth was spread out on it. The earth is on the back of the Nun. The Nun stirred, the earth shook, and it was made firm with the mountains, and the mountains boast over the earth."

What the hadith says

Ibn Abbas, speaking in his own name (mawquf), gives an order of creation. First Allah created the Pen and told it to write destiny until the Hour. His Throne was on the water; the water's vapour rose and the heavens were split out of it. Then He created the Nun and spread the earth on it. When the Nun stirred, the earth shook, so it was fixed in place with mountains. Al-Hakim records it under the commentary on Surat Nun (Qur'an 68) in al-Mustadrak (3840 Ilmiyya; 3882 Risala). He graded it sound on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, al-Dhahabi agreed, and the modern Risala editors call the chain sound (isnaduhu sahih). The same report is in al-Bayhaqi's al-Sunan al-Kubra 17762, Abu al-Shaykh's al-'Azama and al-Tabari's Tarikh. Ibn Kathir, on 68:1, introduces it with 'it is said' that Nun is a huge fish carrying the seven earths, and lists its many routes without grading them.

Why this is a problem

This is the Qur'an's own picture explained by the generation that received it. Several verses say Allah cast mountains on the earth 'lest it sway with you' (16:15; also 21:31, 31:10). Ibn Abbas's report uses the same verb (madat, 'it shook') and supplies the backstory. The earth sways because it lies on the back of a living creature, and the mountains were added to hold it still. The report presents mountains as weights that stop the earth from moving, and gives a fish as the reason the earth would move at all.

The chain is about as strong as al-Hakim's book gets: graded sound on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and accepted by al-Dhahabi and the modern editors. Ibn Kathir, writing centuries later, still listed its routes without rejecting it. A fish cosmology was handed down through one of the best chains in the collection as the meaning of a Qur'anic word.

The Muslim response

This is not a hadith of the Prophet. As SeekersGuidance puts it, it is a halted report (mawquf) from Ibn Abbas, who may have taken it from Ka'b al-Ahbar, so it can be classed as an Israelite report (Isra'iliyyat). Ibn Kathir introduces it only with 'it is said'. Muslims are not bound by a Companion's repetition of Jewish lore, and the Qur'an itself says nothing about a fish.

Why it fails

The Ka'b al-Ahbar explanation is offered as a possibility ('may have'), not as something shown in the chain. The chain runs from Abu Zabyan to Ibn Abbas and is graded sound. If the explanation is right, it means Ibn Abbas taught borrowed folklore as the meaning of the first word of a sura, and the transmitters passed it on as commentary without correction. That is not reassuring for a tradition that treats the Companions' understanding as the safest guide to the Qur'an.

The defence also leaves the Qur'anic link untouched. The report does not invent the idea that mountains stop the earth swaying; it explains a claim the Qur'an makes. Whatever modern readings are now given to 'lest it sway with you', an early explanation, attributed to Ibn Abbas through a chain graded on the Sahihayn's conditions, is a fish.

Check it yourself

A quince from Paradise: Khadija conceives Fatima after the Night Journey (fabricated) Strange / Obscure Paradise Prophetic Character Basic al-Mustadrak 4738
"Gabriel brought me a quince from Paradise and I ate it on the night I was taken on the Night Journey, and Khadija conceived Fatima. So whenever I longed for the scent of Paradise, I would smell Fatima's neck."

What the hadith says

In this report, attributed to the Prophet through Sa'd b. Malik, Gabriel brings Muhammad a quince from Paradise on the night of the Night Journey. He eats it, Khadija conceives Fatima, and afterwards he smells Fatima's neck whenever he longs for the scent of Paradise. Al-Hakim records it in al-Mustadrak (4738 Ilmiyya; 4791 Risala), and the chain shows he dictated it to his own students. It is also in Ibn al-Maghazili's Manaqib 'Ali 407. The report is fabricated, and Muslim critics say so. Al-Hakim called it 'strange in chain and text', said its narrator Shihab b. Harb is unknown and called the rest reliable. Al-Dhahabi's note in the Talkhis reads 'a fabrication of Muslim b. 'Isa al-Saffar' (dorar records it as 'an obvious lie'), and in the Mizan he calls it false. Ibn Hajar said the forgery is evident, al-Munawi called it certainly false, and al-Albani graded it fabricated (mawdu').

Why this is a problem

The story is impossible by Islam's own chronology. Ibn al-Jawzi, quoted by the Risala editors, points out that Fatima was born five years before the prophethood, and that the Night Journey came after Khadija had died. A Fatima conceived after the Night Journey, by a Khadija who was already dead, could not exist. Ibn al-Jawzi called the forger 'the most ignorant of the ignorant about transmission and history'.

This entry does not say Muslims believe the story. What it shows is how far it got. Ibn al-Jawzi collected versions of it attributed to a group of Companions, and in each he found a liar, a known thief of hadith or an abandoned narrator. Al-Hakim, compiling a book meant to supplement al-Bukhari and Muslim, dictated it and vouched for every narrator except one. The Risala editors note that this is wrong, because al-Daraqutni had already called Muslim b. 'Isa abandoned (matruk). Ibn al-Maghazili's version adds 'I had intercourse with Khadija' to remove any doubt about what the quince did.

The Muslim response

Muslim hadith critics caught this report themselves. Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Munawi and al-Albani all reject it as fabricated, so it carries no doctrinal weight (al-Dhahabi's verdict on dorar). Al-Hakim himself did not call it sound: he flagged it as strange and named an unknown narrator. The system did what it was built to do.

Why it fails

The response is right that the report is fabricated and that no doctrine rests on it, so this is a basic entry. Two points remain. First, al-Hakim did more than record it. He dictated it, vouched for the narrators he named, and missed the abandoned narrator in the middle of the chain. Second, the forgery was caught easily because it contradicts well-known dates.

The quince story spread through several chains before the critics stopped it. That shows the hadith literature was producing miracle tales about the Prophet's family. The critics are most reliable when a forger makes a blunder this obvious. A fabrication that does not contradict known history has no such tell-tale sign.

Check it yourself

The Dajjal's donkey: forty cubits between its ears Eschatology Strange / Obscure Animals Basic al-Mustadrak 8613
"He will have a donkey he rides; the breadth between its ears is forty cubits."

What the hadith says

Jabir b. Abdullah reports that the Dajjal will appear when religion is weak and knowledge is in retreat. He will roam for forty days, one of them like a year, one like a month and one like a week. He will ride a donkey whose ears are forty cubits apart, about 20 metres. He will tell people 'I am your Lord', but their Lord is not one-eyed. K-F-R will be written between his eyes, readable by every believer, whether they can read or not, and angels will guard Mecca and Medina against him. The text is in al-Hakim's al-Mustadrak (8613 Ilmiyya; 8827 Risala). A parallel in Musnad Ahmad 14954 adds mountains of bread and two rivers he calls Paradise and the Fire. It is graded both ways. Al-Hakim called it sound (the Ilmiyya text reads sahih al-isnad, the Risala text 'sound on Muslim's condition'), al-Dhahabi said it meets Muslim's condition, and the Risala editors call the chain strong (qawi). Al-Arna'ut says the chain meets Muslim's condition, but the narrator Abu al-Zubayr does not say he heard it from Jabir. Al-Albani grades it weak.

Why this is a problem

The giant donkey is not a loose add-on. It sits among details the canonical collections also teach: the forty days, the day like a year, the one-eyed false god and K-F-R between his eyes. Al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and the modern Risala editors accept the chain, and al-Arna'ut's only reservation is the same 'Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir' link that Muslim's own Sahih uses. The result is that a creature with a 20-metre ear-span is described, on a chain several authorities call sound, as part of the end of the world.

The animal's size reads like legend, and modern preachers have felt this. Islamweb notes that some have recast the donkey as an aircraft, a reading Islamweb itself rejects. When a report has to be turned into an aeroplane to sound credible, the original description is the problem.

The Muslim response

The signs of the Hour belong to the unseen (ghayb). Believers accept what is soundly reported without asking how, and Allah can create a donkey of any size. Islamweb treats the donkey as a real creature and refuses the aircraft reading. In any case the report's grade is disputed. Al-Albani graded it weak, and al-Arna'ut flagged the chain's gap, so no Muslim is obliged to believe in the donkey.

Why it fails

The 'unseen' principle can absorb any description at all, which is exactly why it settles nothing. No description of the Dajjal could count against the tradition if every oddity is covered by 'without asking how'. The disputed grading gives Muslims a way out, and this entry does not claim more than that.

The way out has a cost, though. The defect al-Arna'ut names, Abu al-Zubayr not stating that he heard from Jabir, is one that Muslim's Sahih itself tolerates, so rejecting the donkey on that ground alone puts pressure on other reports. The critics who accept it, including al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and the modern editors of al-Hakim, have to accept a 20-metre ear-span as literal end-times prophecy, as Islamweb does. Either way, the grading system has passed an animal of legend as sound.

Check it yourself

A rooster with its legs on the earth and its neck folded beneath Allah's Throne Science Strange / Obscure Animals Allah's Character Moderate al-Mustadrak 7813
"Allah has permitted me to tell of a rooster whose legs are on the earth and whose neck is folded beneath the Throne, saying: 'Glory be to You, how great is our Lord!' And [Allah] answers it: 'He who swears falsely by Me does not know that.'"

What the hadith says

Abu Hurayra reports that the Prophet said Allah had permitted him to describe a rooster so huge that its legs stand on the earth while its neck is bent beneath the divine Throne. It glorifies God, and God answers that no one who swears falsely by Him knows His greatness. Al-Hakim places it in the Book of Oaths of al-Mustadrak (7813 Ilmiyya; 8007 Risala). Al-Tabarani's al-Mu'jam al-Awsat 7324 has the rooster's feet 'pierced through the earth'. A companion report in Musnad Abi Ya'la 6619 describes an angel whose feet have pierced the seventh earth, with the Throne on his shoulder. Al-Hakim graded the chain sound and al-Dhahabi agreed. Al-Albani also graded the chain sound (al-Silsila al-Sahiha 150). Ibn Hajar graded the Abu Ya'la angel version sound. The Risala editors are more cautious. The narrators are broadly reliable, they say, but Abu Zur'a called Mu'awiya b. Ishaq a 'very weak shaykh', and he alone transmits this odd text, whose wording varies.

Why this is a problem

The report gives a physical cosmology. The Throne sits at a definite height above the earth, and a creature can stand on the ground and bend its neck beneath it. This is a three-storey universe with a ceiling, and the Prophet introduces the image as information Allah allowed him to disclose. It is not offered as a parable. The angel version has the same structure: a being stands with its feet through the seventh earth and carries the Throne on its shoulder.

Unlike many reports in this collection, this one is not a forgery that the critics caught. Al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Albani, whose gradings most modern Muslims rely on, all call the chain sound, and Ibn Hajar called the angel version sound. A Muslim who follows these gradings has an authentic saying of the Prophet describing a rooster that spans the distance from the earth to God's Throne.

The Muslim response

The point of the hadith is moral, not zoological: it is about the sin of false oaths. A dorar commentary explains that the rooster's enormous size is a sign of Allah's greatness. The one who swears falsely by Allah has not grasped a greatness that even this vast creature proclaims. Matters of the unseen, such as the Throne and the angels (Islamweb discusses the angel version), are accepted as reported without asking how.

Why it fails

The moral lesson does not need a cosmic rooster, but the hadith supplies one, and the response keeps it as a real creature of the unseen. The size is the point: the creature is meant to be big enough to reach the Throne. So the response does not remove the cosmology. It accepts it and adds a moral. The response has to take a physical picture of the universe with the Throne as its ceiling as literally true, with the warning about oaths on top.

The only grader who offers a real exit is the Risala editors, who point to a narrator called very weak and to shifting wording ('on the earth' in al-Hakim, 'pierced through the earth' in al-Tabarani). That is a minority view against al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Albani. The varying wording itself suggests the image was reshaped as it was passed on.

Check it yourself

'Do not teach women writing; teach them the spindle and Surat al-Nur': al-Hakim's 'sound' forgery Women Moderate al-Mustadrak 3494
"Do not lodge them in upper rooms and do not teach them writing (meaning women), and teach them the spindle and Surat al-Nur."

What the hadith says

Through Hisham b. Urwa, from his father, Aisha is made to report the Prophet saying that women should not be housed in upper rooms or taught to write, but should be taught spinning and Surat al-Nur. Al-Hakim placed it in his Qur'an-commentary book under Surat al-Nur (3494 Ilmiyya; 3536 Risala) and graded its chain sound (sahih al-isnad). It also appears in al-Tabarani's al-Mu'jam al-Awsat 5713 and al-Bayhaqi's Shu'ab al-Iman 2227. It is fabricated, and the critics reject it. Al-Dhahabi answered al-Hakim with 'rather, fabricated', blaming Abd al-Wahhab b. al-Dahhak, whom Abu Hatim called a liar. The Risala editors call the chain ruined (talif). Al-Bayhaqi called it rejected (munkar) with this chain, Ibn al-Jawzi said it is not sound, and al-Albani graded it fabricated. The al-Tabarani route rests on a different man, Muhammad b. Ibrahim al-Shami. Al-Haythami notes that al-Daraqutni called him a liar, and Ibn Hibban said he forged hadith.

Why this is a problem

This entry does not claim the hadith is authentic. The problem is who passed it. Al-Hakim was one of the great hadith masters, and his al-Mustadrak was meant to collect reports meeting al-Bukhari's and Muslim's standards. He graded 'sound' a report that runs through a man Abu Hatim called a liar and Ibn Hajar called matruk (abandoned). The report says women should be kept from literacy, kept off upper floors and trained in spinning and in the sura that governs their modesty.

It was not a one-off forgery either. Two men called liars carry it on two different routes, both claiming it from Shu'ayb b. Ishaq from Hisham. Al-Bayhaqi and al-Tabarani recorded it, and al-Hakim gave it his seal. A view of women as people to be kept unlettered and indoors was common enough that forgers expected it to pass as prophetic, and one of the leading graders let it pass.

The Muslim response

The report is fabricated by the verdict of al-Dhahabi, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn al-Jawzi, al-Albani and others, and al-Hakim is well known among hadith scholars for being lax in his gradings. Sound reports show the opposite practice. Islamweb and HadithAnswers cite the Prophet having al-Shifa' bint Abdullah teach his wife Hafsa to write. Islam does not forbid women to read or write.

Why it fails

On the hadith itself the response is right, and the Hafsa report is a fair counterweight. The 'al-Hakim was lax' defence, though, is a concession about the grading system rather than an answer. al-Mustadrak holds thousands of reports that al-Hakim declared sound. If his 'sound' can be attached to a liar's forgery, every report whose authority rests on al-Hakim's grading has to be checked again by someone else. That is in fact what al-Dhahabi had to do, report by report, in his Talkhis.

The forgery also shows which ideas about women could pass as prophetic in the early centuries. Forgers do not invent sayings they expect to be laughed at. Two routes for the same anti-literacy rule, each through a man called a liar, a 'sound' grade from a leading master, and transmission in the works of al-Tabarani and al-Bayhaqi all show that keeping women unlettered sounded plausible to the people who handed down the tradition.

Check it yourself

The jinn are of three kinds: winged fliers, snakes and dogs, and travellers Magic & Occult Animals Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 3702
"The jinn are three kinds: a kind that has wings and flies in the air; a kind that is snakes and dogs; and a kind that settles and moves on."

What the hadith says

Abu Tha'laba al-Khushani reports the Prophet dividing the jinn into three kinds: winged ones that fly through the air, ones that are snakes and dogs, and ones that settle in a place and then move on. Al-Hakim records it in the Qur'an-commentary book of al-Mustadrak (3702 Ilmiyya; 3744 Risala). It is also in Ibn Hibban 6156 and al-Tabarani's al-Mu'jam al-Kabir 22/214 no. 573, whose wording has snakes but no dogs. The grading is strong. Al-Hakim called the chain sound, al-Dhahabi agreed, and the Risala editors call it a strong hadith (qawi). Al-Arna'ut calls the chain strong, al-Albani grades it sound (Sahih al-Jami' 3114), and al-Wadi'i grades it good (hasan). One classical voice dissents: Ibn Kathir found it 'very odd' as a saying of the Prophet.

Why this is a problem

On the gradings most modern Muslims rely on, this is an authentic statement of the Prophet about the natural world, and it says that one of the three kinds of jinn simply is snakes and dogs. The taxonomy reads like desert folklore. Supernatural beings live in the animals that threaten travellers and camps, and other spirits fly or wander. It turns ordinary animals into possible spirit-beings.

This is not abstract. The canonical collections build rules on the same idea: Muslim 2236 says house snakes may be jinn and must be warned before they are killed, and Muslim 510 calls the black dog a devil. The three-kinds hadith supplies the general theory behind those rules, and it carries a grade of sound from al-Hakim through to al-Albani.

The Muslim response

The hadith does not say every snake or dog is a jinn. As Islamweb explains, the jinn can appear in the forms of dogs, cats, people, snakes and other things. The jinn belong to the unseen. Muslims accept their existence on the basis of revelation, and this report is not a biological claim about animals.

Why it fails

The response is right that the text does not make every dog a jinn, and this entry does not say so. But 'some snakes and dogs are jinn in animal form' is still a claim about the animals people meet. It cannot be tested, and Muslim law acts on it, as the snake-warning rule shows. Saying the claim is about the unseen does not change the fact that it is about visible snakes and dogs.

Ibn Kathir's reaction is telling. A classical exegete with no polemical motive found it 'very odd' that this should be a saying of the Prophet. Modern graders such as al-Albani and al-Arna'ut nonetheless accept it as one. The tradition's own scholars disagree about whether this piece of jinn-lore goes back to the Prophet at all.

Check it yourself

Muhammad's vision of hell: women whose breasts are bitten by snakes for withholding their milk Hell Women Moderate al-Mustadrak 2837
"Then he took me on, and there were women whose breasts were being bitten by snakes. I said, 'What is wrong with these?' He said, 'These are the ones who withhold their milk from their children.'"

What the hadith says

Abu Umama al-Bahili reports the Prophet describing a dream. Two men took him by the arms up a rugged mountain, where he heard loud cries: 'the howling of the people of the Fire'. He was shown people hung up by their hamstrings, the corners of their mouths torn and streaming blood. These were people who broke their fast before its time. Next came people swollen and stinking, the fornicators, male and female. Then he saw women whose breasts snakes were biting, for withholding their milk from their children. Further on were the children of believers playing between two rivers, three martyred Companions drinking wine, and Abraham, Moses and Jesus waiting for him. The report is in al-Hakim's al-Mustadrak (2837, Ilmiyya ed., vol. 2 p. 228) and in Ibn Hibban 7491. It is graded sound throughout. Al-Hakim said it meets Muslim's condition, and al-Dhahabi agreed. Al-Arna'ut calls the chain sound, and al-Albani grades it sound (Sahih al-Targhib 2393).

Why this is a problem

The punishment is aimed at the body part involved, and in women's case that is the breasts. Men and women are punished together for fornication, but the snake torment is reserved for mothers, for a decision about feeding their own infants. The text gives no exceptions for illness, failed milk or any other reason. The offence is stated flatly: they withheld their milk.

The Qur'an itself is more flexible. It allows parents to have a child nursed by someone else: 'if you wish to have your children nursed [by others], there is no blame on you' (2:233). A vision that sends mothers who withhold their milk to be bitten by snakes, beside people who broke a fast early, does not fit the measured rule of the Qur'an. A prophet's dream is treated in the tradition as revelation, not as a private nightmare. With grades of sound from al-Hakim to al-Albani, this one cannot be set aside as weak.

The Muslim response

Muslim readers answer that the vision targets deliberate harm, not mothers who cannot nurse. 'Withholding milk' means refusing a dependent infant its food without excuse and putting the child at risk, which is a real moral wrong. The Qur'an's permission to use a wet nurse is a way of making sure the child is fed. It does not cover a mother who simply refuses. The images in a dream vision fit the sin they warn against, and their purpose is to deter, not to describe hell's practical arrangements.

Why it fails

The qualifications that make the vision acceptable are not in the text. 'Without excuse', 'deliberately' and 'putting the child at risk' are added by the reader to soften a statement the Prophet made without them. The report is sound by every grader cited, so these are the words the tradition puts in his mouth: the women are tormented because they withheld their milk.

Even on the charitable reading, the choice of punishment remains. Of all the sins in the vision, the one specific to women is punished by snakes on the breasts. The fast-breaker's crime is breaking a fast before its time, yet it earns torn mouths and hanging by the hamstrings. A moral warning can be serious without being this graphic. The vision's scale of punishment is the problem, and fitting the image to the sin does not fix that.

Check it yourself

'Were it not for Muhammad I would not have created you': Adam asks forgiveness by Muhammad's right Prophetic Character Allah's Character Strange / Obscure Moderate al-Mustadrak 4228
"O Lord, I ask You by the right of Muhammad to forgive me ... Call on Me by his right, for I have forgiven you; and were it not for Muhammad I would not have created you."

What the hadith says

Through Abd al-Rahman b. Zayd b. Aslam, from his father and grandfather, Umar b. al-Khattab reports the Prophet saying that after Adam sinned he asked God to forgive him 'by the right of Muhammad'. God asked how he knew Muhammad, who had not yet been created. Adam said that when God created him and breathed His spirit into him, he raised his head and saw written on the legs of the Throne: 'There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.' He understood that God would join to His own name only the creature He loved most. God agreed, forgave him, and added that without Muhammad He would not have created Adam. Al-Hakim records it in the book of the Prophet's signs in al-Mustadrak (4228 Ilmiyya; 4274 Risala). He graded it sound (sahih al-isnad), adding that it is the first report from Abd al-Rahman b. Zayd b. Aslam he has cited in the book. Al-Dhahabi replied 'rather, fabricated'. The Risala editors call the chain very weak because Abd al-Rahman, weak by agreement, transmits it alone. Al-Bayhaqi and Ibn Taymiyya say the same of him, and al-Albani and Ibn Baz grade it fabricated.

Why this is a problem

The theology is far-reaching. The Qur'an says jinn and humans were created only to worship God (51:56). This report says Adam, and therefore humanity, exists for Muhammad's sake. It also has Adam put a claim on God by invoking a creature's 'right', and has God approve the method: 'call on Me by his right'. Muhammad's name is already written on the Throne when Adam is created, and he is described as the creature God loves most. This is a doctrine of the pre-existing Muhammad, put in God's own mouth.

Al-Hakim, one of the most celebrated hadith masters, graded this report sound. He even noted that it was the first time he had used this narrator in the book, while vouching for a chain that his own critic al-Dhahabi called fabricated. The report has not stayed a curiosity. Ibn Taymiyya wrote against it, and IslamQA still refutes it today, because it keeps being cited in arguments for asking God 'by the right of' the Prophet.

The Muslim response

Sunni hadith critics reject the report: al-Dhahabi, al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Taymiyya, al-Albani and Ibn Baz all identify Abd al-Rahman b. Zayd b. Aslam as the weak link, and several call it fabricated. Creation exists for the worship of Allah alone (51:56), as IslamQA stresses, and al-Hakim's leniency in grading is well known. No sound hadith says the world was created for Muhammad.

Why it fails

On authenticity the response is right, and this entry does not claim the report is sound. The issue is what the episode shows about the tradition. A grading by al-Hakim, who wrote one of the standard works on hadith science, could not stop a fabrication from being declared sound in a book meant to stand beside al-Bukhari and Muslim. Scholars have had to keep correcting it ever since. 'Al-Hakim was lenient' explains the mistake, but it does not remove the report from the record.

The report also survives because it meets a demand within the tradition. Elevating the Prophet into the purpose of creation is attractive to many believers, and a chain graded sound by al-Hakim gives them a citation. That is why the refutations keep being written.

Check it yourself

A'isha: 'He married me while I was a girl wearing a hawf' Child Marriage Basic al-Mustadrak 6727
"He married me when I was a girl wearing a hawf, and when he married me Allah cast modesty upon me, though I was small."

What the hadith says

Al-Aswad reports A'isha saying that the Prophet did not marry her until Gabriel brought him her image and said 'This is your wife'. She adds that when he married her she was a girl wearing a hawf, and that Allah then gave her modesty, 'though I was small'. Sufyan quotes al-Zuhri explaining the word: 'the hawf is leather thongs worn around her waist.' The report is in al-Hakim's al-Mustadrak (6727 Ilmiyya; 6876 Risala), in al-Tabarani's al-Mu'jam al-Kabir 23/120 no. 154 and in Musnad Abi Ya'la 4822. Al-Hakim graded the chain sound and al-Dhahabi, in his Talkhis, agreed. The Risala editors call the chain weak because of Sa'id b. al-Marzuban (Abu Sa'd al-Baqqal), whom al-Dhahabi himself, in the Siyar, called 'soft in hadith' (layyin). Husayn Asad, editing Abu Ya'la, also grades the chain weak.

Why this is a problem

The canonical sources already give A'isha's age as six at marriage and nine at consummation (Bukhari 5133), and have the angel showing the Prophet her image (Bukhari 3895). This report adds a physical marker. She describes herself as 'a girl' (jariya) dressed in a child's waist-thongs and says outright, 'I was small'. In words attributed to her, it restates what the sound reports say in numbers: the bride was a child, and was remembered as one.

The grading tells its own story. Al-Dhahabi passed this chain as sound in the Talkhis and, in another book, called its key narrator soft. Two of the most authoritative graders, al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi, put their names to a report on the Prophet's marriage that modern editors find weak, and neither saw any problem in the content.

The Muslim response

The chain is weak, as the Risala editors and Husayn Asad state, so no argument should rest on it. The hawf detail adds nothing that a Muslim is required to believe. The question of A'isha's age is discussed on the basis of other reports, and it should be settled there, not by a weak narration about her clothing.

Why it fails

That is fair as far as this chain goes, and this entry is basic for that reason. But the weakness gives no relief on the main question. The report was preserved by al-Hakim, al-Tabarani and Abu Ya'la, and passed as sound by al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi. It agrees completely with the sound reports in al-Bukhari, so throwing it out changes nothing. The six-and-nine reports remain, and this one only shows how A'isha's childhood was remembered and passed on: with a little girl's waist-thongs and the words 'I was small'.

Check it yourself

A master sits his slave-girl on a fire until her private parts burn; Umar would retaliate, but 'a slave is not given retaliation against his owner' Slavery & Captives Hudud Women Moderate al-Mustadrak 2856
"By Him in whose hand is my soul, had I not heard the Messenger of Allah say, "No slave is given retaliation against his owner ...", I would have given her retaliation against you."

What the hadith says

Ibn Abbas reports that a slave-girl came to Umar b. al-Khattab and said: "My master suspected me, and sat me on the fire until my private parts burned." Umar established that the master had not seen anything and that she had confessed nothing, and asked him: "Do you punish with the punishment of Allah?" Then he swore the oath above. The saying he quotes also contains the rule that a father is not killed for his child, which is the only part found in the canonical books (Tirmidhi 1400). Umar had the man brought out, gave him a hundred lashes, and told the girl: "Go, you are free for the sake of Allah." Al-Layth b. Sa'd, who transmits it, adds: "This ruling is acted upon" (al-Mustadrak 2856; repeated as 8101). Al-Hakim calls the chain sahih both times. Al-Dhahabi's Talkhis objects at 2856 that the narrator Umar b. Isa is munkar al-hadith (his reports are rejected), yet marks 8101 sahih. Ibn Kathir called the chain hasan (good); Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut called it very weak, and Ibn Hajar notes that al-Nasa'i and others weakened Umar b. Isa.

Why this is a problem

This is not a story of impunity: the master was flogged and the woman freed. The problem is the principle Umar states. A man burned a woman's genitals on a fire on nothing more than a suspicion, and the caliph says he would have given her retaliation (qisas) against him. Only a saying of the Prophet stopped him, and that saying makes her status as property the reason. Had she been free, the same injury would have earned her retaliation. Because she was owned by the man who burned her, the law gives her none.

Al-Layth's remark shows this was not one caliph's opinion: he reports the ruling as one that was being applied. And al-Hakim's own collection contradicts it. In al-Mustadrak 8098 the Prophet says: "Whoever kills his slave, we will kill him, and whoever mutilates his slave, we will mutilate him." Al-Hakim graded that sound on al-Bukhari's conditions, and al-Dhahabi agreed. The same compiler accepted both a law of retaliation for slaves and a law that denies it.

The Muslim response

Muslims point to what Umar actually did: he punished the master with a hundred lashes and freed the woman, so the report shows an abusive owner being punished, not protected. They also cite the Prophet's command that whoever slaps or beats his slave must free him as expiation (Muslim 1657), which Islam Q&A quotes in its answer on slavery as proof that Islam treats slaves with justice and kindness. Finally, the chain runs through Umar b. Isa, whom several critics reject.

Why it fails

The expiation for a slap and the remedy for burning a woman's genitals turn out to be the same: she is freed. What she does not get is what a free victim would get, retaliation against the man who maimed her, and Umar says so explicitly. The report gives no legal basis for the lashes; they were Umar's own decision.

The weak chain is a fair point, but it does not settle the matter. Al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi at 8101 and Ibn Kathir accepted the chain. Al-Layth's comment is his own words, reported by his secretary Abu Salih, and it does not pass through Umar b. Isa. The narrower canonical rule that a father is not killed for his child shows that the tradition did make retaliation depend on the relationship between killer and victim.

Check it yourself

'If he is the more unjust, let her go to him until she pleases him' Women Moral Problems Moderate al-Mustadrak 2770
"If he is the more unjust, let her come to him until she pleases him. If he accepts, well and good, and Allah accepts her excuse ... and if he refuses to be pleased with her, she has delivered her excuse before Allah."

What the hadith says

Mu'adh b. Jabal reports the Prophet as saying: "It is not lawful for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to give permission [for anyone to enter] her husband's house while he dislikes it, or to go out while he dislikes it, or to obey anyone against him, or to treat him roughly, or to keep away from his bed, or to strike him." The quoted lines follow. The report is in al-Hakim's al-Mustadrak 2770, which calls its chain sahih (sound). Al-Dhahabi's Talkhis on the same page disagrees: "rather it is munkar (rejected), and its chain is broken." Al-Albani calls it munkar in Da'if al-Targhib and da'if (weak) in Ghayat al-Maram. It is not in the six canonical books.

Why this is a problem

The report imagines a quarrel in which the husband is the one in the wrong, and still sends the wife to him. She must go to him "until she pleases him", and his acceptance or refusal decides the matter. Even then, the best she can do if he refuses is to have "delivered her excuse" to Allah. The report sets no duty on the husband who did the wrong, and it says nothing about what he owes her.

The list before it is just as one-sided. She may not strike him; the Quran allows him, in the last resort, to strike her (Q 4:34). She may not leave the house or admit a visitor against his wishes. A hadith master of al-Hakim's standing found nothing in this text that stopped him calling its chain sound.

The Muslim response

The hadith is weak. Al-Dhahabi rejected it as munkar with a broken chain, al-Albani agreed, and al-Hakim's grading is well known to be lenient. No Muslim is bound by it. Muslim teachers stress that marriage carries rights on both sides. Islam Q&A's answer on spouses' rights lists the wife's rights to her dower, maintenance, fair and kind treatment and not to be harmed, and quotes Q 2:228: women have rights similar to those over them.

Why it fails

On authenticity the response is right, and the entry does not claim the report is sound. The point is how little separates it from mainstream teaching. The same Islam Q&A answer says the husband's rights over his wife "are greater than her rights over him". It lists among them her obedience, not admitting anyone he dislikes, and not leaving the house without his permission. That is this report's list, minus its most explicit sentence.

Al-Dhahabi's note is four words long: munkar, and the chain is broken. It gives a verdict, not an objection to what the report teaches. Al-Hakim, a master of the same science, saw nothing in a wife sent to win back an unjust husband that stopped him from calling the chain sound.

Check it yourself

'Allah will not look at a woman who is not grateful to her husband while she cannot do without him' Women Moderate al-Mustadrak 2771
"Allah will not look at a woman who is not grateful to her husband while she cannot do without him."

What the hadith says

Abdullah b. Amr b. al-As reports this as a saying of the Prophet, through Sa'id b. al-Musayyib and Qatada (al-Mustadrak 2771). It immediately follows the report that a wife must go to her husband to please him even when he is the more unjust. This one is graded sound: al-Hakim calls its chain sahih, al-Dhahabi's Talkhis on the same page says sahih, and al-Albani calls the chain sahih in al-Silsila al-Sahiha 289. Al-Nasa'i also has it in his al-Sunan al-Kubra 9086, outside the canonical Mujtaba. The six canonical books do not contain this wording.

Why this is a problem

"Allah will not look at them" is not a mild phrase. The Quran uses it of those who sell Allah's covenant for a small price: Allah "will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection" (Q 3:77). This report applies the same sanction to a wife whose fault is a lack of gratitude to her husband.

The reason given is dependence: she is to be grateful "while she cannot do without him". The wife's position as the dependent party becomes the ground of a religious duty, and failing it costs her Allah's regard. The canonical collections already say that women are the majority in Hell because they are ungrateful to their husbands (Bukhari 29). This report, graded sound by al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Albani, adds the penalty. It addresses only the wife.

The Muslim response

Muslims read the report as an urging to gratitude within marriage, not as a ruling on women's worth. "Allah will not look at her" is understood as the withholding of His mercy, which is a warning about a sin, not a statement about her nature. They also point out that the husband has duties of his own. Islam Q&A's general answer on spouses' rights lists the wife's rights to dower, maintenance, kind treatment and freedom from harm, and quotes Q 2:228.

Why it fails

A warning for a sin is still a warning, and the question is whom it singles out. No husband is threatened here for ingratitude to a wife who feeds his household and bears his children. The report's own condition, that she "cannot do without him", makes the duty flow from her dependence, not from anything he has done to earn gratitude.

The response cannot fall back on weakness. Al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Albani all accepted the chain. The general balance of rights in the Islam Q&A answer says nothing to this text. In the same answer, the husband's rights over his wife are "greater than her rights over him".

Check it yourself

The 'verse of stoning' with an extra clause: stone them 'for the pleasure they enjoyed' Abrogation Scripture Integrity Hudud Moderate al-Mustadrak 8070
"The Messenger of Allah taught us to recite the verse of stoning: The old man and the old woman, if they commit zina, stone them outright, for the pleasure they have taken."

What the hadith says

Abu Umama b. Sahl b. Hunayf reports that his maternal aunt told him this. She is not named in al-Hakim's text (al-Mustadrak 8070). Al-Hakim calls the chain sahih and notes that al-Bukhari and Muslim did not record it "in this wording"; al-Dhahabi's Talkhis says sahih. Al-Albani, discussing it in al-Silsila al-Sahiha 6/976, says its men are reliable men of the two Sahihs except Marwan b. Uthman, who is weak. Ibn Hajar called the chain hasan (good). The core line is canonical: Umar quotes "the old man and the old woman, if they commit zina, stone them outright" in Ibn Majah 2553. Two things are not found there: a woman Companion saying the Prophet himself taught it to them as recitation, and the closing clause bima qadaya min al-ladhdha, "for the pleasure they have taken".

Why this is a problem

Muslims say the stoning verse was a real verse of the Quran whose words were later removed while its ruling stayed. If so, it should have one wording. Umar's version in Ibn Majah stops at "stone them outright". This version, which the narrator says the Prophet taught them to recite, has a further clause giving the reason. The very next report in al-Mustadrak, 8071, gives Zayd b. Thabit's wording, again without it. (In that report al-Hakim's text gives the request to write the line down to 'Amr; the Musnad Ahmad version, which gives it to Umar, is covered in the Musnad Ahmad entry on the stoning verse.) A supposed verse that circulates in versions with and without a whole clause is not behaving like a fixed revealed text.

The added clause also makes the mismatch with the law worse. The law stones the married adulterer and flogs the unmarried one, whatever their age (Q 24:2 gives a hundred lashes). This "verse" names the old man and old woman and justifies stoning by the pleasure they enjoyed. Every adulterer enjoys that pleasure, married or not, young or old.

The Muslim response

The standard answer is that the verse was abrogated in recitation while its ruling remained. Abu Amina Elias, a Muslim researcher, sets this out in his article on whether the stoning verse is missing from the Quran. He quotes al-Bayhaqi, who knew of no disagreement that the ruling stands and the recitation is abrogated. He concludes that the verse "was never written as the Quran" and that stoning applies as part of the Sunnah. His own translation renders the words as "the married old man and old woman".

Why it fails

The article itself shows the strain. It opens by saying the verse "was revealed to the Prophet" and "recited by the companions". It then says that "in reality" the verse "was something that the Prophet stated but which was never part of the written Quran". This report takes the first position: the Prophet taught it to them as a verse to recite.

Abrogation explains why a verse is missing. It does not explain why the remembered verse has two wordings, one with a reason clause and one without. Nor does reading "old man and old woman" as "married man and woman" rescue the wording. It concedes that the words, read as they stand, state a different law from the one Muslims say they preserve.

Check it yourself

Ali flogs Shuraha a hundred lashes, then fells her with a brick to the ear before the crowd stones her to death Hudud Women Moderate al-Mustadrak 8086
"I never saw a man throw harder than Ali b. Abi Talib. ... Ali took a brick and threw it at her, and it did not miss the root of her ear; it knocked her down, and the people stoned her until they killed her."

What the hadith says

A narrator called 'Abdullah (the chain gives only his first name) reports this to show Ali's strength of arm. A woman of Hamdan named Shuraha was brought to Ali. He flogged her a hundred lashes and then ordered her stoned. He threw the first brick himself, and the crowd finished her. Ali then said: "I flogged her by the Book of Allah and stoned her by the Sunna" (al-Mustadrak 8086). Al-Hakim calls the chain sahih and adds that al-Sha'bi used to say he had witnessed the stoning of Shuraha. Al-Dhahabi passes over it in silence in the Talkhis. The canonical record is much thinner: Bukhari 6812 says only that Ali stoned a woman on a Friday and said, "I have stoned her according to the Sunna of the Messenger of Allah." None of the hundred lashes, the brick or the admiring narrator is in Bukhari. This is a report about Ali's own act, not a saying of the Prophet.

Why this is a problem

The narrator does not tell this as a grim duty. He opens with praise of Ali's throwing arm and tells the execution as proof of it: the caliph's brick struck her at the root of the ear and felled her, and the crowd killed her where she lay. That is how the execution of a woman was remembered and passed on, and al-Hakim recorded it with a sound grading.

Ali's closing words matter as much. He flogged her "by the Book of Allah", the hundred lashes of Q 24:2, and stoned her "by the Sunna". By his own account stoning was not in the Book he knew. That fits poorly with the claim that there was once a verse of stoning in the Quran. The woman received both penalties, one from scripture and one from outside it.

The Muslim response

Muslims explain the combination of flogging and stoning as Ali's own legal judgement (ijtihad), not a rule binding on everyone. The penalty of stoning itself, they say, stands on the Sunna. Abu Amina Elias, in his article on the stoning verse, adds that the burden of proof for stoning is "so impossibly high that very few stonings ever occurred in Islamic history". He cites the principle that the fixed punishments are dropped when there is doubt.

Why it fails

That burden of proof is nowhere in this report. It does not say how Shuraha's guilt was established. What it records is a caliph carrying out both penalties and throwing the first stone himself. Calling the double penalty his ijtihad does not change what was done to her, and a canonical hadith prescribes exactly that combination: "the married with the married, a hundred lashes and stoning" (Muslim 1690).

Nor do the mitigating rules change what is being praised. The narrator's point is the force of Ali's throw, and the grading puts that admiration into a collection of reports al-Hakim held to be sound.

Check it yourself

A man grabs a passing girl by the waist; next day Muhammad asks, 'Aren't you the one with the grab?' and accepts his pledge Women Hudud Sexual Issues Moderate al-Mustadrak 8134
"A girl passed by me and I took hold of her by the waist. Then I came to the Prophet while he was taking the people's pledge, and he said to me: "Are you not the one with the little grab yesterday?" I said: "I will not do it again, Messenger of Allah." So he accepted my pledge."

What the hadith says

Abu Shahm tells this story of himself, through Qays b. Abi Hazim, set in Medina (al-Mustadrak 8134). The woman is called a jariya, which can mean a young woman or a slave-girl; the text does not say which. Kashh is the flank or waist. The Prophet's word for the act, al-jubaydha, is a diminutive of "grab" or "tug". Al-Hakim grades the chain sahih on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and al-Dhahabi's Talkhis agrees. Al-Daraqutni also listed it as meeting their conditions. Al-Busiri called the chain weak. The six canonical books do not contain it.

Why this is a problem

A man seizes a woman in the street. The Prophet knows of it the next day and names it with a diminutive, "the little grab". The man promises not to do it again, and his pledge of allegiance is accepted on the spot. Nothing in the report is done for the woman. She is not named, not asked, and not compensated, and the report records no penalty of any kind.

This should not be overstated: the text describes a grab, not an assault of a graver kind, and the Prophet's question is a rebuke. But the measure of a moral system is what it does about the small offences too. Here an unwanted grab at a woman's body is settled entirely between the offender and the Prophet. Elsewhere the same law flogs and stones for consensual sex.

The Muslim response

The expected Muslim answer is that the Prophet did rebuke the man, publicly and by name, and that he accepted a sincere repentance as Islam teaches. The act was a minor sin, not a crime with a fixed punishment, so a promise not to repeat it was enough. Al-Busiri also judged the chain weak.

Why it fails

Repentance repairs a man's standing with Allah; it does nothing for the person he wronged. In this report the matter begins and ends with the offender. Its treatment of the woman is not softened by a rival grading either: al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Daraqutni all held that the chain meets the standards of al-Bukhari and Muslim.

The diminutive is the Prophet's own word in the report, and it frames the act as something small. Repentance accepted without any redress may be mercy to the man. It shows how little weight the woman's side carried.

Check it yourself

Mariya's son: gossip that Muhammad 'claimed another man's child', A'isha's 'I see no resemblance', and a sword sent for the cousin Prophetic Character Slavery & Captives Women Prophetic Privileges Moderate al-Mustadrak 6821
"He said: "And no resemblance?" The jealousy that women feel drove me to say: "I see no resemblance." ... He said to Ali: "Take this sword, go and strike the neck of Mariya's cousin wherever you find him.""

What the hadith says

A'isha tells the story in the chapter al-Hakim heads "the concubines of the Messenger of Allah, the first of them Mariya the Copt, mother of Ibrahim" (al-Mustadrak 6821). Mariya was given to the Prophet together with a cousin of hers. He had intercourse with her once and she conceived, and he lodged her with her cousin. "The people of slander and falsehood" said: "Out of his need for a son he has claimed another man's child." When the baby was brought in, the Prophet asked A'isha what she thought, and then the question above; she says jealousy made her deny any likeness. When the gossip reached him, he gave Ali a sword to behead the cousin. Ali found him up a palm tree picking dates; he trembled, his cloth fell, and he turned out to have nothing of what men have. Al-Hakim gives no verdict and al-Dhahabi is silent. The canonical Muslim 2771 has only the core: a man suspected with the Prophet's slave-mother, the order to Ali, and the discovery that he had no sexual organ.

Why this is a problem

Muslim 2771 already shows an order to execute a man on a suspicion, with no hearing recorded, that was withdrawn only because his body happened to make the charge impossible. This version shows what set it off. The Prophet himself had housed Mariya with the man. Then people said the boy was not his, and he asked his wife whether she saw a likeness. The order to kill came when "what the people were saying" reached him. Gossip, not evidence, sent the sword.

The report also has A'isha admit that she answered the Prophet's question about his son's paternity out of jealousy, saying the child did not look like him. The report places her answer immediately before the order to kill the man.

The Muslim response

A'isha herself calls the gossipers "the people of slander and falsehood", so the report does not endorse the doubt, and the cousin's condition proved the rumour false. The report has no grading from al-Hakim or al-Dhahabi, and the core event is known from Muslim 2771. A Shi'i answer on Al-Islam.org calls the accusation a false allegation that the Quran refuted (citing Q 24:11).

Why it fails

That answer makes the problem sharper. The same Al-Islam.org reply says Mariya was accused by A'isha and Hafsa of having Ibrahim from another man. Shi'i readers, at least, take A'isha's role in this story as damaging, not as a jealous aside.

The rumour was disproved by chance, after the death sentence had already been given. Neither version records any inquiry before the order. The report sits unchallenged in al-Hakim's chapter on the Prophet's concubines, with no comment from al-Dhahabi.

Check it yourself

'The earth has been commanded to take care of it for us prophets': nothing left in the privy but the smell of musk Gross / Vile Prophetic Character Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 6950
"The earth has been commanded to take care of it for us, the company of prophets."

What the hadith says

Layla, the freedwoman of A'isha, says the Prophet went in to relieve himself. She went in after him, saw nothing, and smelled musk. When she told him she had seen nothing, he gave the answer above (al-Mustadrak 6950). The chain is defective: al-Minhal b. 'Ubayd Allah reports it "from someone he mentioned", an unnamed link. Al-Hakim gives no verdict, and al-Dhahabi is silent in the Talkhis. Dorar's takhrij finds it only in al-Hakim.

Why this is a problem

The report turns the Prophet's bodily waste into a miracle. The earth is ordered to remove it, and what remains is the scent of musk. It is not told as folklore. Al-Hakim places it in his book on the Companions, in the entry on Layla, and closes the section on women Companions by explaining that he has arranged the book around their merits.

It belongs to a wider pattern in the non-canonical collections, where the Prophet's urine and blood become sources of blessing. A story in which a woman checks the privy after him and finds only perfume shows how far that reverence was carried.

The Muslim response

The chain contains an unnamed narrator, and Muslim scholars do not rely on such reports. Al-Hakim did not grade it, and no critic is recorded as accepting it. No Muslim is obliged to believe it.

Why it fails

That is correct, and the entry does not claim the report is sound. The honest point is about the tradition, not about belief. A leading hadith master copied this into a collection meant to supplement al-Bukhari and Muslim, under a woman Companion's merits, and did not mark it as weak. Al-Dhahabi, who flagged many weak reports in the same book, passed over it.

A collection of 'merits' that has room for a miracle about the Prophet's excrement shows how much of this material circulated. It was not something the critics had to bury.

Check it yourself

Muhammad's wives taunt the captive Juwayriya: 'He did not marry you; you are only a possession of the right hand' Slavery & Captives Women Prophetic Character Basic al-Mustadrak 6778
"Your wives boast over me, saying: "The Messenger of Allah did not marry you; you are only a possession of the right hand." The Messenger of Allah said: "Did I not make your dower great? Did I not free forty slaves of your people?""

What the hadith says

Juwayriya bint al-Harith, who came to the Prophet as a captive of Banu al-Mustaliq, complains that his other wives boast over her (al-Mustadrak 6778). The report comes from Mujahid, a Successor who does not name his source: a mursal. Al-Hakim prints no verdict and al-Dhahabi is silent. Al-Albani calls it mursal with a sound chain (Irwa' al-Ghalil 5/38), sound as far as Mujahid. The six canonical books do not have the taunt.

Why this is a problem

The Quran itself sets out the two classes: the Prophet's wives "to whom you have given their due compensation" and "those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you" of captives (Q 33:50). In this report the other wives place Juwayriya in the second class because of how she came into the house. Her place among the Prophet's women was open to question by the rest of his household.

The Prophet's answer does not say "I married you". It lists what he paid: a large dower, and forty of her people set free. The forty were slaves "of your people", her own tribe. In the household's own terms, a captive's status as a wife rested on what had been given for her.

The Muslim response

The Prophet's reply settles the matter: a dower is paid only to a wife, so the wives' taunt was false. Islam Q&A's answer on slavery says that during the campaign against Banu al-Mustaliq the Prophet "married a female prisoner from the defeated tribe so as to raise her status, as she was the daughter of one of their leaders", and that the Muslims then let all the prisoners go. The report is also mursal.

Why it fails

The entry does not claim Juwayriya was kept as a concubine; the report says she was given a dower. The point is the one the report records itself. Wives of the Prophet considered a captive woman's marriage less than a real one, and she had to bring the insult to him.

Islam Q&A's account confirms the frame. Her people were prisoners until the marriage, and their release is counted, here by the Prophet himself, as part of what he gave for her. Raising her status meant moving her from the captives to the wives, and in this report the other wives did not accept the move.

Check it yourself

Muhammad divorces Hafsa; Gabriel tells him to take her back, 'for she is your wife in Paradise' Prophetic Character Women Prophetic Privileges Basic al-Mustadrak 6753
"Gabriel said to me: Take Hafsa back, for she fasts much and prays much at night, and she is your wife in Paradise."

What the hadith says

Qays b. Zayd reports that the Prophet divorced Hafsa bint Umar (al-Mustadrak 6753). Her maternal uncles, Qudama and Uthman, the sons of Maz'un, came in to her. She wept and said: "By Allah, he did not divorce me because he had had his fill of me." Then the Prophet came and gave Gabriel's message above. Al-Hakim prints no verdict and al-Dhahabi is silent. Qays is a Successor, so the report is mursal. Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut says its men are reliable except Qays b. Zayd, an unknown junior Successor, and that there is an error in the text. The bare fact is canonical: in Abu Dawud 2283 Umar says the Prophet divorced Hafsa and then took her back. Gabriel's instruction and Hafsa's words are found only in the non-canonical books.

Why this is a problem

The report makes an angel the marriage counsellor. A divorce in the Prophet's household is reversed not by reconciliation between husband and wife but by a message from Gabriel, and the message includes a promise about who will be the Prophet's wife in Paradise. The canonical sources already bring revelation into the Prophet's quarrels with his wives (Q 66 opens with one). This report goes further and has heaven reverse a divorce.

The Muslim response

The report is weak: it is mursal from an unknown Successor, and al-Arna'ut notes an error in the text. Muslims who cite it present it as an honour for Hafsa, praising her fasting and night prayer and promising her Paradise. The divorce and return are known from Abu Dawud without any of these details.

Why it fails

On authenticity the response is right, and the entry does not claim more. The report's value is as evidence of how the story was told. A plain divorce and taking back was retold with Gabriel stepping in. Hafsa's tears and her protest that she had not been put aside out of boredom are answered by a message from heaven. Al-Hakim placed it, ungraded, in his section on Hafsa among the Mothers of the Believers.

Check it yourself

At Ruqayya's burial: 'No man who had relations with his wife tonight shall enter the grave.' Her husband Uthman stays out Prophetic Character Sexual Issues Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 6852
"No man who has had relations with his wife tonight shall enter the grave. So Uthman did not enter the grave."

What the hadith says

Anas b. Malik reports that when the Prophet's daughter Ruqayya died, the Prophet laid down this condition for those who would go down into the grave, and Uthman, her husband, did not go down (al-Mustadrak 6852). Al-Hakim calls it sahih on the conditions of Muslim; al-Dhahabi is silent. Al-Albani records this version among the variants in Ahkam al-Jana'iz. The canonical Bukhari 1285 has the same test at the burial of an unnamed daughter. The Prophet asked whether any man there had not had relations that night, and Abu Talha went down. Naming the daughter as Ruqayya and recording that Uthman stayed out is the non-canonical detail.

Why this is a problem

A funeral becomes a public test of who had sex the night before. The condition is announced over the grave, and the report notes who stayed out: the dead woman's own husband. The text does not say that Uthman had relations with anyone, and this entry does not claim it. But the report sets the rule and Uthman's absence side by side, and leaves the reader, as it left the mourners, to draw the inference.

No reason is given for the rule. Why should lawful intercourse with one's wife the night before disqualify a man from lowering a body into a grave? The report preserves the ritual without explaining it.

The Muslim response

The expected Muslim answer is that the Prophet simply chose men free of recent intercourse to handle the burial, and that no blame attaches to anyone who stood aside. Lawful relations with a wife are not a sin. Uthman's staying out shows only that he followed the instruction.

Why it fails

That reading may be the right one, and the entry does not accuse Uthman. The point is the rule itself and the way the tradition preserved it. Sex within marriage, lawful by the religion's own teaching, is treated as something that unfits a man for a burial, even the burial of his own wife. Al-Hakim graded the version that names the husband sound on Muslim's conditions, and it is remembered for exactly that detail.

Check it yourself

The most beautiful bride is told: 'Seek refuge from him and you will win his favour' Prophetic Character Women Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 6816
"You are of royal blood. If you want to win favour with the Messenger of Allah, seek refuge from him, for then you will win favour with him and he will desire you."

What the hadith says

Al-Hakim tells this "in explanation of the story" through al-Waqidi, from Abd al-Wahid b. Abi 'Awn al-Dawsi (al-Mustadrak 6816). Al-Nu'man b. Abi al-Jawn al-Kindi came to the Prophet as a Muslim and offered him "the most beautiful widow among the Arabs". The Prophet married her, and Abu Usayd al-Sa'idi brought her to Medina. The women of the quarter spread word of her beauty, and "a woman came in to her" with the advice above. The report breaks off there. Al-Hakim's chapter heading says her name and tribe were disputed, and that "in the end she called herself al-Shaqiyya [the wretched one], and was known by it until she died". Al-Dhahabi's verdict on the chain: sanaduhu wah, very weak. Al-Hakim gives none.

Why this is a problem

The canonical account of a bride from the Jawn family has no trick. In Bukhari 5255 the Prophet says, "Give yourself to me". She answers, "Can a princess give herself to a commoner?" When he reaches out his hand to her, she says, "I seek refuge with Allah from you," and he sends her home. This version keeps the phrase and changes its meaning. In this telling, a woman who came in to her told her it was the way to his heart. The canonical story is about a woman who would not have him. This one makes it a trap laid by another woman.

Either way, the report preserves a picture in which a newcomer famous for her beauty is sabotaged on arrival. By al-Hakim's own heading she spent the rest of her life calling herself "the wretched one".

The Muslim response

The chain is very weak, as al-Dhahabi says, and it runs through al-Waqidi. No Muslim needs to accept the trick, and the canonical account in Bukhari is enough. The adviser is not named in this text, so it cannot be used to accuse any particular wife.

Why it fails

Agreed on all counts; the entry names no adviser and does not treat the story as sound. What it shows is the tradition's handling of an awkward episode. The authentic version has a bride refuse the Prophet to his face, and a weak version explains the refusal away as someone else's scheme. Al-Hakim chose to tell the story through it.

Check it yourself

A'isha kept her clothes wrapped tight in her own room after Umar was buried there, 'out of modesty before Umar' Women Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 6721
"I used to enter the room in which Umar was buried with them, and by Allah I never entered it except with my garments bound tight around me, out of modesty before Umar."

What the hadith says

A'isha describes her own practice, through Urwa b. al-Zubayr and his son Hisham (al-Mustadrak 6721). The room was her own, where the Prophet and her father Abu Bakr lay buried ("with them"); after Umar was buried there, she covered herself whenever she entered. These are a Companion's words about her own conduct, not a saying of the Prophet. The grading is strong: al-Hakim calls it sound on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, al-Dhahabi is silent, al-Albani calls the chain sahih, and al-Arna'ut, editing Musnad Ahmad 25660 where it also appears, calls it sound on the conditions of the two Sahihs. It is not in the six canonical books.

Why this is a problem

The Prophet's widow, a Mother of the Believers, dressed for a dead man. She names Umar alone as the reason. The other two men in the room were her husband and her father. The modesty rules were applied to a man in his grave as if he could see her.

Either the dead see, so that women must veil before graves, or modesty is a matter of honouring a man's presence even when he is a corpse. On the first reading a Companion's habit carries a claim about the unseen. On the second, the rule of dress has stopped being about the living at all.

The Muslim response

This is a Companion's personal practice, not a command, and no one is required to follow it. Muslims read it as an expression of A'isha's exceptional modesty and her respect for Umar. Some cite it as evidence that the dead are aware of those who visit them, which they hold on other grounds as well.

Why it fails

The response is fair about its legal weight, and the entry is rated accordingly. The report stands as sound by every grading recorded, and it shows the Mother of the Believers treating a buried man as a man before whom she must cover. Those who cite it to prove that the dead perceive the living take its implication seriously. That is the strange part.

Check it yourself

'Marry women, for they will bring you wealth' Women Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 2679
"Marry women, for they will bring you wealth."

What the hadith says

A'isha reports this as a saying of the Prophet, through Urwa, Hisham b. Urwa and Abu Usama (al-Mustadrak 2679). Al-Hakim calls it sound on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim. He explains that they left it out only because Salm b. Junada alone transmits it by this chain, "and Salm is trustworthy and reliable". Al-Dhahabi's Talkhis agrees: on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim. Later critics disagree. Al-Daraqutni judged that the version from Urwa without A'isha (mursal) is the more correct one, and al-Albani lists it as weak (al-Silsila al-Da'ifa 3400). It is not in the six canonical books.

Why this is a problem

The reason given for marriage is money. The women are the subject of the sentence: they bring you wealth. A saying that offers financial gain as the motive for taking a wife sits badly beside the high language Muslims use about marriage. Al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi both certified it as meeting the standard of the two Sahihs.

The Muslim response

Muslims read "wealth" as the provision Allah sends after marriage, not as property the wife brings with her. They point to the Quran: "marry the unmarried among you ... If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty" (Q 24:32). They also note that al-Daraqutni and al-Albani treat the connected chain as a mistake, so the saying may not go back to the Prophet at all.

Why it fails

The reading through Q 24:32 is reasonable, and this is a minor report; the entry is rated basic. Read that way, though, it still makes the promise of enrichment a selling point for marriage. Two senior critics, al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi, accepted it as the Prophet's word on the highest standard they used, and al-Hakim says outright that its one unusual narrator is trustworthy. Others in the tradition judged otherwise, so the saying stands in the books as a disputed hadith.

Check it yourself

'Who has the greatest right over a woman?' 'Her husband.' 'Over a man?' 'His mother.' Women Basic al-Mustadrak 7338
"I said: Messenger of Allah, who has the greatest right over a woman? He said: Her husband. I said: Who has the greatest right over a man? He said: His mother."

What the hadith says

A'isha asks the question and the Prophet answers, through Mis'ar from Abu 'Utba (al-Mustadrak 7338). Al-Hakim calls the chain sahih. Al-Dhahabi left it out of his Talkhis altogether. Ibn Hazm said Abu 'Utba is unknown, and al-Albani lists the hadith as weak (Da'if al-Jami' 959). It is not in the six canonical books.

Why this is a problem

The two answers are not symmetrical. For a man, the person with the greatest claim on him is his mother, a blood relation who outranks his wife. For a woman, it is her husband, who outranks her own mother. Marriage moves a woman under her husband's claim, while a man's first claim stays with the woman who bore him.

The Muslim response

The report is weak: its narrator Abu 'Utba is unknown, and al-Albani rejects it. Muslims affirm that the mother's right is great for sons and daughters alike, and that the husband's right is limited to what is reasonable and lawful.

Why it fails

The chain is weak, but the teaching does not depend on it. Islam Q&A's answer on spouses' rights states that "the rights of the husband over his wife are among the greatest rights; indeed his rights over her are greater than her rights over him". It reports that for the Shafi'is and Hanbalis a wife "does not have the right to visit (even) her sick father except with the permission of her husband". That is this report's ranking without the report: the husband's claim outranks the wife's own parents.

Check it yourself

'Looking at the face of Ali is worship' (fabricated) Prophetic Privileges Strange / Obscure Ritual Absurdities Basic al-Mustadrak 4682
"Looking at the face of Ali is worship."

What the hadith says

Abd Allah b. Mas'ud reports that the Prophet said: 'Looking at the face of Ali is worship' ('ibada). Al-Hakim records it twice in al-Mustadrak. In 4682 the chain runs through Yahya b. 'Isa al-Ramli from al-A'mash, and al-Hakim adds that 'Amr b. Murra corroborated it from Ibrahim al-Nakha'i. He then gives that corroborating chain in 4683, through al-Mas'udi from 'Amr b. Murra, with the same wording. Al-Hakim gives no verdict of his own on either. Al-Dhahabi's note from the Talkhis, printed under 4682, says: 'and this is fabricated' (wa dha mawdu'). Ibn al-Jawzi lists it in al-Mawdu'at (2/126) and says it is not authentic (la yasihh). It is not in the six canonical books.

Why this is a problem

Worship is the one thing Islam insists belongs to God alone. This saying makes the bare act of looking at one man's face count as worship. It asks nothing of the viewer: no prayer, no intention, no good deed. The merit lies entirely in Ali's face.

Nobody is obliged to believe the report, and this entry does not claim otherwise. The point is where it sits. Al-Hakim compiled al-Mustadrak to gather reports he thought the standard of al-Bukhari and Muslim should have admitted. He did not flag this one. He recorded it, noted that a second narrator 'followed' the first, and then supplied that second chain. That is the method hadith scholars use to strengthen a report, applied here to a text that later critics called a forgery. It is in a Sunni collection, not a Shia one.

The Muslim response

The Sunni critics themselves reject it. Al-Dhahabi's verdict is printed on the same page of the Ilmiyya edition, and Ibn al-Jawzi placed it in his book of fabricated reports. Al-Hakim did not call it sound. No Sunni doctrine or practice depends on it.

Why it fails

On the report itself the response is right, and the entry is rated accordingly. What it does not answer is the method. Al-Hakim, a major hadith master, treated a second chain as corroboration for a fabricated text, so two chains were not enough to show that a report was genuine. Readers are often told that a hadith is safe because it comes through more than one route. Here two routes carried a forgery into a book meant to supplement the two Sahihs.

The filter also worked only after the fact. The saying was transmitted, written down and given a corroborating chain before a later critic labelled it fabricated in a note now printed with al-Hakim's book.

Check it yourself

Resurrection Day: 'Lower your gazes until Fatima passes' (al-Hakim: sound; al-Dhahabi: 'No, by Allah') Prophetic Privileges Strange / Obscure Eschatology Basic al-Mustadrak 4728
"When the Day of Resurrection comes, a caller will call from behind the veil: O people of the gathering, lower your gazes from Fatima daughter of Muhammad until she passes."

What the hadith says

Ali says he heard the Prophet describe the Day of Resurrection: a caller will call out from behind the veil, telling the whole assembled crowd to lower their eyes from Fatima, the Prophet's daughter, until she has passed. Al-Hakim places it among the virtues of Fatima (al-Mustadrak 4728) and grades it at his highest level: 'sound on the conditions of the two shaykhs [al-Bukhari and Muslim], and they did not record it'. Al-Dhahabi's note, printed directly beneath, reads: 'No, by Allah; rather it is fabricated' (la wallahi bal mawdu'). Al-Albani also grades it fabricated (al-Silsila al-Da'ifa 2688). It is not in the six canonical books.

Why this is a problem

The scene moves a rule of modesty to the end of the world. All of humanity, gathered for judgement, is ordered by a voice from behind the veil to look away so that one woman can pass. The point is honour and seclusion on a cosmic scale, and it is staged for the Prophet's own daughter.

The sharper problem is the grading. Al-Hakim did not just include the report. He said it met the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, the strongest label he uses. His own commentator, al-Dhahabi, did not merely disagree; he swore an oath against it and called it a forgery. Readers who meet the words 'al-Hakim graded it sahih on the conditions of the two shaykhs' are given a guarantee that, in this case, a fabricated report also received.

The Muslim response

Sunnis do not rely on the report. Al-Dhahabi corrected al-Hakim on the same printed page, and al-Albani lists it among fabricated hadiths. Readers of al-Mustadrak are expected to check al-Hakim's verdicts against al-Dhahabi's notes.

Why it fails

As far as belief goes, the response is right: no one is asked to accept this scene. But it concedes the point about method. If a hadith master of al-Hakim's standing could call a forgery sound on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, then a classical scholar's 'sahih' tells the reader little unless a later critic has checked it. The verdict a reader gets depends on which scholar he consults.

The report also survived with that label attached. The correction came from a later critic, written as a note on al-Hakim's book. The book itself still carries his grading.

Check it yourself

'Allah is angered by your anger': God's anger follows Fatima's Prophetic Privileges Allah's Character Strange / Obscure Moderate al-Mustadrak 4730
"Allah is angered by your anger and pleased by your pleasure."

What the hadith says

Among the virtues of Fatima, al-Hakim records that the Prophet said to her: 'Allah is angered by your anger and pleased by your pleasure' (al-Mustadrak 4730). The chain runs through the Prophet's own family: Husayn b. Zayd b. Ali, from Umar b. Ali, from Ja'far b. Muhammad, from his father, from Ali b. al-Husayn, from his father, from Ali. Al-Hakim calls the chain sound (sahih al-isnad). Al-Dhahabi's note on the same page disagrees: 'rather, Husayn b. Zayd is munkar al-hadith' (he narrates objectionable reports). Al-Haythami, however, judged the chain good (isnaduhu hasan, Majma' al-Zawa'id 9/206). The canonical version is milder: in Bukhari 3714 the Prophet says 'Fatima is a part of me, and whoever angers her angers me.'

Why this is a problem

Bukhari's wording is a father's attachment: anger my daughter and you anger me. This report goes further. It makes God's anger and God's pleasure follow the moods of one human being, with no condition attached. It does not say 'when you are angry for Allah's sake' or 'when you are in the right'. It says Allah is angered by your anger.

That matters because Fatima's anger is on record. Bukhari 3093 says that when Abu Bakr refused her the inheritance she asked for, she 'got angry and stopped speaking to Abu Bakr, and continued assuming that attitude till she died'. The Mustadrak report does not mention that dispute; the connection is ours. But a Sunni who accepts al-Haythami's grading has a report in which God is angered by Fatima's anger, and a sound report in which she died angry with the first caliph.

The Muslim response

Al-Dhahabi rejects the chain because of Husayn b. Zayd, so the report cannot be pressed as established. Those who accept it read it as a virtue of Fatima: Allah is angered by what angers a righteous believer, because such a person is angered only by what displeases Allah.

Why it fails

The critics are divided, and the Muslim answer depends on choosing al-Dhahabi over al-Haythami. If al-Haythami's grading is accepted, the 'righteous believer' reading adds a condition the text does not contain. The Prophet does not say that Allah is angered by what angers Fatima when she is right. He ties Allah's anger to hers, as stated.

And the added condition is exactly what the Fadak dispute requires. To keep both Abu Bakr and this report, a reader has to decide that Fatima's lasting anger at him was not the kind that angers Allah. The report gives no way of telling one kind of anger from the other. That judgement is supplied afterwards, by the reader.

Check it yourself

Baby Marwan: 'the gecko son of the gecko, the accursed son of the accursed' (fabricated, al-Hakim: sound) Prophetic Character Governance Animals Basic al-Mustadrak 8477
"No child was born to anyone but it was brought to the Prophet and he prayed for it. Marwan b. al-Hakam was brought in to him, and he said: 'He is the gecko son of the gecko, the accursed son of the accursed.'"

What the hadith says

Abd al-Rahman b. Awf says that every newborn was brought to the Prophet so that he could pray for it. When Marwan b. al-Hakam, later the Umayyad caliph, was brought in, the Prophet called him 'the gecko son of the gecko, the accursed son of the accursed'. The chain is Abd al-Razzaq, from his father Hammam, from Mina', Abd al-Rahman's client (al-Mustadrak 8477). Al-Hakim uses it in his book on trials and battles. He first records the saying 'the ruin of this community will be at the hands of young men of Quraysh', grades it sound on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and says it has supporting reports that he could not leave out. This is the first of them. He calls its chain sound (sahih al-isnad). Al-Dhahabi's note is not printed on the shamela page, but his Talkhis verdict is recorded on dorar: 'No, by Allah; Abu Hatim called Mina’ a liar.' Al-Albani grades it fabricated (al-Silsila al-Da'ifa 348).

Why this is a problem

The gecko is not a neutral animal in Islam. The Prophet ordered geckos killed (Muslim 2237a). Here a newborn, brought for a blessing, is given a curse instead, for being his father's son. A baby can have done nothing. The insult is political: Marwan and his line ruled the caliphate, and the report attacks them in advance through the Prophet's mouth.

Al-Hakim did more than transmit it. He called the chain sound and used it as evidence for his argument about the 'young men of Quraysh' who would ruin the community. The site already covers a different, sound report about Marwan's father (Musnad Ahmad 6520, where a 'cursed man' walks in). That report does not curse Marwan. This one curses him at birth, and only a forger's chain supports it.

The Muslim response

The report is a forgery and Sunnis reject it. Al-Dhahabi answered al-Hakim with an oath and gave the reason: the narrator Mina' was called a liar by Abu Hatim. Al-Albani lists it as fabricated. Al-Hakim's grading here is simply wrong.

Why it fails

The response is right about authenticity, which is why the entry is rated Basic. What remains is what the episode shows about the tradition. A report cursing a future caliph as a baby was put into circulation, written down in a book that set out to supplement al-Bukhari and Muslim, called sound by its compiler, and used by him to support a political prophecy about Quraysh.

It also shows how such material spreads. Readers who meet this saying in polemics against the Umayyads may be told it is 'in al-Mustadrak' and 'graded sahih by al-Hakim', and both statements are true. The refutation is a note by a later critic, and in the edition linked here it is not printed on the page that carries the hadith.

Check it yourself

'People are from different trees; you and I, Ali, are from one tree' Prophetic Privileges Strange / Obscure Scripture Integrity Basic al-Mustadrak 2949
"O Ali, people are from various trees, and you and I are from one tree."

What the hadith says

Jabir b. Abd Allah says he heard the Prophet tell Ali: 'O Ali, people are from various trees, and you and I are from one tree.' The Prophet then recited Q 13:4: 'and gardens of grapevines, and crops, and palm trees from one root and from separate roots, watered with one water.' Al-Hakim places it in his book of the Prophet's Quran readings (al-Mustadrak 2949) and calls the chain sound (sahih al-isnad). Al-Dhahabi's note on the same page answers: 'No, by Allah; Harun is ruined' (la wallahi, Harun halik), meaning the narrator Harun b. Hatim, who is in the chain, is worthless. It is not in the six canonical books.

Why this is a problem

The saying sets Ali apart from the rest of humanity. Everyone else grows from various trees; the Prophet and Ali grow from the same one. The wording points to a shared origin, not just shared descent from Abd al-Muttalib, which Ali shared with many other cousins.

The proof text is a verse about agriculture. Q 13:4 lists vines, crops and palms watered by one water as signs of God's power in nature. Here it is recited as if it described the Prophet's and Ali's descent. Al-Hakim graded this sound, and he filed it among the Prophet's readings of the Quran, so the Quran citation is the reason it is in that chapter.

The Muslim response

The report is unreliable. Al-Dhahabi rejects it outright on the same page because of Harun b. Hatim, and no Sunni doctrine rests on it.

Why it fails

The response is correct about the chain, and the entry is rated Basic. What it shows is the pattern this group of entries keeps meeting. A text raising one Companion above all others was transmitted, given a Quranic proof text, and declared sound by al-Hakim in a collection that set out to supplement al-Bukhari and Muslim. The correction is a four-word note by a later critic, an oath followed by a verdict on the narrator.

It is also not Shia material. It sits in a Sunni compiler's book, with a Sunni compiler's grading. Claims for Ali's special nature also circulated in Sunni collections, with Sunni gradings.

Check it yourself

'Be like that': a man's twitching face fixed by the Prophet's word until he died Prophetic Character Strange / Obscure Magic & Occult Basic al-Mustadrak 4241
"So-and-so used to sit with the Prophet, and whenever the Prophet said anything, his face twitched. The Prophet said to him: 'Be like that.' And he did not stop twitching until he died."

What the hadith says

Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr says that a man, left unnamed ('so-and-so'), used to sit with the Prophet, and whenever the Prophet spoke, his face twitched. The Prophet said to him, 'Be like that,' and the man went on twitching until he died. Al-Hakim records it in his book of the signs of the Messenger of Allah that are proofs of prophethood (al-Mustadrak 4241) and calls the chain sound (sahih al-isnad). Al-Dhahabi's note on the same page says: 'Dirar b. Surad is feeble' (wahin); Dirar is in the chain. It is not in the six canonical books.

Why this is a problem

The text does not say why the man's face twitched. The usual reading is that he was pulling faces to mock the Prophet, and that reading is implied, not stated. Either way, the Prophet's answer was not a rebuke or an explanation. It was a word that fixed the movement on him for the rest of his life.

Al-Hakim does not present this as an embarrassment. He files it as a proof of prophethood: a permanent affliction laid on a man for a facial gesture, offered as evidence that Muhammad was sent by God. He also grades its chain sound.

The Muslim response

The chain is weak, as al-Dhahabi notes, so the story is not established. Those who accept such reports treat them as the Prophet's prayer answered against someone who mocked him, which is a sign of his standing with God, not cruelty.

Why it fails

The weak chain is a fair point, and the entry is rated Basic. But the defence needs the mockery reading, and the text does not supply it. If the man was only twitching, the 'answered prayer' reading has the Prophet afflicting someone with a lifelong tic for a movement of his face.

Even granting mockery, the defence accepts the moral the compiler drew. Al-Hakim chose this story as a proof of prophethood. In his book, the sign that God backs His messenger is that a man who made faces at him was left twitching until death. Whether or not the event happened, that is what a major hadith compiler thought a miracle should look like.

Check it yourself

'Their milk and ghee are a cure, their meat is a disease': the Prophet on beef Science Contradictions Animals Moderate al-Mustadrak 8232
"Take cows' milk and ghee, and beware of their meat: their milk and ghee are medicine and cure, and their meat is disease."

What the hadith says

In al-Hakim's Book of Medicine, Abd Allah b. Mas'ud reports the Prophet as saying: take cows' milk and ghee, and beware of their meat, because the milk and ghee are medicine and cure and the meat is disease (al-Mustadrak 8232). Al-Hakim calls the chain sound (sahih al-isnad). Al-Dhahabi's note on the page says: 'Ibn Hibban declared Sayf feeble', meaning Sayf b. Miskin in the chain. A similar wording, on a dorar card naming Suhayb as narrator, was graded sound by al-Albani (Sahih al-Jami' 4061). Ibn al-Qayyim, on the same listing, says nothing in that chain is established (Zad al-Ma'ad 4/298). A milder report a few pages earlier (al-Mustadrak 8224) says cows' milk 'is a cure for every disease', with no meat clause, and al-Dhahabi there agrees it is sound.

Why this is a problem

The saying sets beef against milk and calls it 'disease'. Yet the canonical collections show the Prophet sacrificing cattle and his household eating the meat. In Bukhari 5548, Aisha says that at Mina beef was brought to her, and she was told that the Messenger of Allah had slaughtered cows as sacrifices on behalf of his wives. A prophet who warns 'beware of their meat, it is disease' is shown in the most authoritative collection sacrificing cows and sending the meat to his wife.

It is also a medical claim, filed in a Book of Medicine. The companion report, which al-Dhahabi accepts, calls cows' milk a cure for every disease. These are sweeping claims about food and health, attributed to a prophet, and the critics disagree about whether the beef version is authentic, not about whether it is plausible.

The Muslim response

The Mustadrak chain is weak, as al-Dhahabi notes. Those who accept the meaning through the Suhayb route explain 'disease' as referring to eating beef in excess, or in particular climates, since the Prophet's own sacrifice of cows shows that beef is lawful. The text says 'beware', not 'it is forbidden'.

Why it fails

The text gives no such limit. It does not say 'too much of their meat' or 'their meat in hot countries'. It contrasts the milk, which is cure, with the meat, which is disease, and the limit has to be added from outside the text. The added limit is there to reconcile it with Bukhari 5548, not because the words suggest it.

Nor can the report simply be dropped. Al-Albani graded the saying sound, so readers who follow him have a sound prophetic saying calling beef a disease alongside a canonical one in which the Prophet sacrifices cows. Beef is not forbidden in Islam, and this entry does not claim it is. The problem is a prophetic health warning that the Prophet's own practice contradicts.

Check it yourself

'Allah will manifest Himself to people generally, and to Abu Bakr specially' (fabricated) Prophetic Privileges Allah's Character Paradise Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 4463
"O Abu Bakr, Allah has given you the greatest good pleasure. ... Allah will manifest Himself to His servants in the Hereafter generally, and manifest Himself to Abu Bakr specially."

What the hadith says

Jabir b. Abd Allah says that when the delegation of Abd al-Qays came, one of them spoke idly, and the Prophet told Abu Bakr to answer them. Abu Bakr answered well, and the Prophet said: 'O Abu Bakr, Allah has given you the greatest good pleasure (al-ridwan al-akbar).' Asked what that was, he said: 'Allah will manifest Himself to His servants in the Hereafter generally, and manifest Himself to Abu Bakr specially' (al-Mustadrak 4463). Al-Hakim gives no verdict on the page. The chain includes Muhammad b. Khalid, printed as al-Hubuli. Al-Dhahabi, in his Talkhis as recorded on dorar, wrote: 'I reckon Muhammad forged it.' Ibn al-Jawzi says it is not authentic by any of its routes (al-Mawdu'at 2/42). Another dorar listing has al-Khatib calling the saying false (Tarikh Baghdad 12/20) and al-Dhahabi's Mizan (3/120) calling it fabricated.

Why this is a problem

Sunni doctrine already promises that believers will see God in the Hereafter: 'you will see your Lord as you see this moon' (Bukhari 554). This report adds a second, private vision for one man. All the servants receive the general manifestation; Abu Bakr receives his own. It gives one Companion a vision of God that the rest of the believers do not receive.

It is a Sunni forgery, made to exalt Abu Bakr, and al-Hakim passed it on without a word of warning. Other entries in this group show forged virtues of Ali and Fatima in the same book. Each party's heroes were being given reports of this kind.

The Muslim response

Sunni critics themselves list it among forgeries. Ibn al-Jawzi says none of its routes is authentic, al-Dhahabi names the man he thinks forged it, and Ibn al-Qayyim also called it fabricated (al-Manar al-Munif 92, on the dorar listing). Abu Bakr's standing in Sunni Islam does not depend on it.

Why it fails

The response is right, and the entry is rated Basic. The point it leaves standing is the volume of material. Forgers produced theological privileges for Abu Bakr as well as for Ali, at the level of how God Himself will appear in the next life. A compiler who claimed to be completing al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded this one without comment.

The critics did their job, but only afterwards. The report was already in a major collection, and the man who recorded it did not flag it. A reader who meets it today needs al-Dhahabi's marginal note to know what it is.

Check it yourself

The Black Stone: bigger than a mountain, with lips, 'the right hand of Allah' that shakes hands Ritual Absurdities Allah's Character Strange / Obscure Pre-Islamic Borrowings Moderate al-Mustadrak 1681
"The Corner will come on the Day of Resurrection larger than Abu Qubays, having a tongue and two lips, speaking for whoever touched it with intention; and it is the right hand of Allah with which He shakes hands with His creation."

What the hadith says

In al-Hakim's Book of the Rites of Pilgrimage, Abd Allah b. Amr reports the Prophet as saying that the Corner (the Black Stone) will come on the Day of Resurrection larger than Mount Abu Qubays, with a tongue and two lips, speaking for whoever touched it with intention, and that it is 'the right hand of Allah with which He shakes hands with His creation' (al-Mustadrak 1681). Al-Hakim gives no direct verdict. He adds that an explanatory supporting report exists, but that it is not on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim, because they did not rely on Abu Harun al-'Abdi (that report is the next entry). Al-Dhahabi's Talkhis note, recorded on dorar, says the chain contains Abd Allah b. al-Mu'ammal, who is feeble. Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut says the same: 'they declared him weak.'

Why this is a problem

Umar kissed the Stone while telling it, 'I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone' (Bukhari 1597). This report gives the same stone lips, a tongue and a size greater than a mountain, and identifies it with the right hand of God, which God uses to shake hands with His creatures. Touching the stone becomes, on this wording, taking God's hand.

This is not just one stray chain. The idea has canonical relatives. In Tirmidhi 961, which al-Tirmidhi calls hasan, the Stone is raised with two eyes and a tongue to testify for those who touched it. In Ibn Majah 2957, a weak report, whoever faces the Black Corner 'is facing the Hand of the Most Merciful'. The Mustadrak wording combines these ideas and adds the handshake.

The Muslim response

The chain is weak, as al-Dhahabi and al-Arna'ut say. Scholars who accept the meaning read 'the right hand of Allah' figuratively: the Stone is the place where a believer gives his pledge to God, as people shake a man's right hand to seal an agreement. Nobody is touching God's literal hand.

Why it fails

The weakness of this chain is real, and the 'right hand' clause is not established by it. But the figurative reading still grants the point. On that reading, the Stone is the spot where the worshipper's hand meets God in a pledge. The ritual weight comes from treating a particular stone in Mecca as standing for God's own hand.

Umar's disclaimer shows that kissing a stone already needed explaining: he says he does it only because he saw the Prophet do it. The canonical answer is that the Stone is only a stone. The testifying-stone report in Tirmidhi, and this wording in al-Mustadrak, say something different.

Check it yourself

Ali corrects Umar: the Black Stone 'harms and benefits', and it swallowed mankind's covenant Ritual Absurdities Pre-Islamic Borrowings Strange / Obscure Contradictions Moderate al-Mustadrak 1682
"Yes, Commander of the Believers, it harms and benefits. ... He wrote that on a parchment. This stone had two eyes and a tongue, and He said to it: Open your mouth. It opened its mouth, and He fed it that parchment."

What the hadith says

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri says that on pilgrimage with Umar, Umar faced the Black Stone and said: 'I know that you are a stone that neither harms nor benefits; had I not seen the Messenger of Allah kiss you, I would not have kissed you.' Ali, in his own words, answered that it does harm and benefit, by the Book of Allah. He cited Q 7:172, where God draws Adam's offspring from their backs and makes them testify that He is their Lord. Allah, Ali said, took their covenants and wrote them on a parchment. The Stone had two eyes and a tongue; Allah told it to open its mouth and fed it the parchment, saying, 'Testify on the Day of Resurrection for whoever comes to you faithfully.' Ali then quoted the Prophet: the Black Stone will be brought on the Day of Resurrection 'with an eloquent tongue, testifying for whoever touches it with tawhid.' Umar replied: 'I seek refuge in Allah from living among a people in which you are not, O Abu Hasan' (al-Mustadrak 1682). Al-Hakim offers it as the explanatory supporting report for 1681, and says it is not on the conditions of al-Bukhari and Muslim because they did not rely on Abu Harun al-'Abdi. No al-Dhahabi note is printed with it.

Why this is a problem

Umar's words in Bukhari 1597 are the standard answer when Muslims are told that kissing a stone looks like idol veneration: it is only a stone, and the Prophet's example is the only reason to kiss it. In this report, inside a Sunni collection, Ali overrules him. The Stone harms and benefits, it once had eyes and a tongue, it swallowed humanity's covenant, and it will testify. Umar does not argue back. He seeks refuge in Allah from living among a people without Ali.

So the two Companions disagree about the one thing that matters in the debate: whether the Stone itself has power over a person's fate. Al-Hakim placed Ali's answer as the explanation of a prophetic saying about the Stone.

The Muslim response

Muslims hold that the Stone has no power of its own, exactly as Umar said in Bukhari. This report is weak because of Abu Harun al-'Abdi, and al-Hakim himself flagged that narrator when he introduced it. It cannot overturn a sound report in al-Bukhari.

Why it fails

On authenticity the response is right, and al-Hakim deserves credit for the warning. But the core of Ali's answer does not depend on this chain. Tirmidhi 961, which al-Tirmidhi grades hasan, says the Stone will be raised with eyes and a tongue, testifying for whoever touched it in truth. A stone that testifies for you on the Day of Judgement does benefit you, which is the core of Ali's claim.

That leaves the canon with Umar's 'you neither harm nor benefit' and a Stone that bears witness for its touchers. This report is where the tension is said out loud, and Umar is made to give way.

Check it yourself

Khalid b. Sinan: an Arab 'prophet whom his people lost', between Jesus and Muhammad? Pre-Islamic Borrowings Contradictions Prophetic Character Strange / Obscure Women Moderate al-Mustadrak 4173
"The Prophet was asked about him and said: 'That is a prophet whom his people lost.'"

What the hadith says

Ibn Abbas tells of Khalid b. Sinan of the Banu 'Abs. Khalid promised to put out a fire issuing from a crack in a mountain. He met it as it came out 'like sorrel horses following one another', struck it with his staff and went into the crack with it. He had told his people not to call him by his name; when they did, he came out holding his head and said they had killed him. He told them to bury him and dig him up when a herd of donkeys with a tail-less donkey passed, and they would find him alive. They refused to dig up their dead. His knowledge was kept in two tablets, which no menstruating woman was to touch; his wife brought them out while menstruating, and their knowledge was lost. The narrator Simak b. Harb then adds that the Prophet called him 'a prophet whom his people lost', and greeted Khalid's son with 'Welcome, son of my brother' (al-Mustadrak 4173). Al-Hakim calls it sound on al-Bukhari's conditions, though he notes that the manner of Khalid's death is disputed. He ends with an Andalusian report of an unchanged man in a mountain cave whom the locals say is Khalid.

Why this is a problem

The Prophet said: 'there has been no prophet between me and him', meaning Jesus (Bukhari 3442). Al-Hakim knew the problem. Just before this story he writes that he has already given the sound report that there was no prophet between Muhammad and Jesus. He then says he has narrated reports about Khalid's daughter, to whom the Prophet said, 'You are the daughter of my brother, a prophet whom his people lost' (4172).

The text gives no date for Khalid. But it has his son, and al-Hakim's remark has his daughter, coming to Muhammad in person. Unless 'son' and 'daughter' mean distant descendants, Khalid lived one generation before Muhammad, long after Jesus. The story around him is folklore, down to knowledge destroyed because a menstruating woman handled it.

The Muslim response

Ibn Kathir (al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya) answers that Ibn Abbas's account does not itself call Khalid a prophet, that the mursal reports which do 'are not proof here', and that he was more likely 'a righteous man with spiritual states and wonders'. The mursal point is the strongest. Simak b. Harb was a Successor (d. AH 123) who did not meet the Prophet, so the sentence 'a prophet whom his people lost' is mursal (it skips the link to the Prophet), and al-Hakim's 'sound' covers Ibn Abbas's story, not a connected saying. Al-Hakim himself put the sound 'no prophet between' report first.

Why it fails

The mursal point is fair, and it is why this is not rated Strong. But the 'righteous man' answer contradicts the only words attributed to the Prophet about him, which call him a prophet.

What remains is al-Hakim's own handling. He saw the conflict with the sound 'no prophet between' report, named it, and still graded the story sound, with its Arab prophet and its tablets ruined by menstruation. He then added a sleeper in a cave said to be Khalid, on the word of Andalusians he called trustworthy. A book set up to supplement al-Bukhari and Muslim carried all of this.

Check it yourself

Adam lived 1,000 years, and Moses to Jesus was 500: Ibn Abbas's timeline of history Science Scripture Integrity Contradictions Moderate al-Mustadrak 4172
"Adam's lifespan was a thousand years. Ibn Abbas said: Between Adam and Noah a thousand years, between Noah and Abraham a thousand years, between Abraham and Moses seven hundred years, between Moses and Jesus five hundred years, and between Jesus and Muhammad six hundred years."

What the hadith says

Ibn Abbas reports the Prophet as saying that Adam lived a thousand years. Ibn Abbas then gives, in his own words, the intervals between the prophets: Adam to Noah 1,000 years, Noah to Abraham 1,000, Abraham to Moses 700, Moses to Jesus 500, and Jesus to Muhammad 600 (al-Mustadrak 4172). Only the first sentence is attributed to the Prophet; the timeline is the Companion's. Al-Hakim gives no verdict, and dorar's researchers say they found it only in al-Mustadrak. The last interval matches the canon: in Bukhari 3948 Salman says 'the interval between Jesus and Muhammad was six hundred years'.

Why this is a problem

The intervals can be added up. The text does not do so and gives no age of the world, but by our arithmetic they come to 3,800 years from Adam to Muhammad, and 3,200 from Adam to Jesus. On this reckoning the first man lived a few thousand years before Christ, and the father of mankind lived a thousand years. Modern science dates the emergence of Homo sapiens to at least 300,000 years ago.

The 500 years from Moses to Jesus is also far too short. Scholars who allow for a historical Moses, or a Moses-like figure, place him in the 13th century BC. On that dating, by our arithmetic, Moses lived some 1,200 years or more before Jesus, not five hundred. The figures are not exact, but the error is too large for that to explain it.

The Muslim response

No Muslim answer to this report was found online. The natural answer is that the intervals are Ibn Abbas's estimate, not revelation; that only Adam's lifespan is attributed to the Prophet, and al-Hakim did not grade even that; and that the Quran itself gives no chronology. Nothing in Islamic belief depends on these numbers.

Why it fails

Much of this is fair, which is why the entry is rated Moderate. But Ibn Abbas was not alone in every figure. His 600-year Jesus-to-Muhammad interval is the same figure Salman gives in Bukhari, so at least that number was shared by another Companion. The Prophet's sentence that Adam lived a thousand years comes first, and the timeline builds on it.

The report shows what Ibn Abbas is recorded as believing about the past, with Salman agreeing on the last interval: a human history from Adam that, by our sum, runs to a few thousand years, a first man who lived a millennium, and Moses only five centuries before Jesus. Al-Hakim recorded it without comment, and nobody in the report treats these figures as a mere estimate.

Check it yourself

'O Allah, set Your dog on him': Abu Lahab's son taken by a lion Prophetic Character Animals Disbelievers Strange / Obscure Moderate al-Mustadrak 3984
"The Prophet said: 'O Allah, set Your dog upon him.' ... Then the lion came, snatched him away and went off with him."

What the hadith says

Abu 'Aqrab says that Lahab, the son of Abu Lahab, used to revile the Prophet, and the Prophet prayed: 'O Allah, set Your dog upon him.' Lahab later went out with a caravan heading for Syria. When they halted, he said, 'I fear the prayer of Muhammad.' His companions said, 'Never,' piled their goods around him and sat up guarding him. Then the lion came, snatched him away and carried him off. Al-Hakim records it in his commentary on the Sura of Abu Lahab (al-Mustadrak 3984). Here, unlike most reports in this group, the two critics agree: al-Hakim calls the chain sound (sahih al-isnad), and al-Dhahabi's note on the same page says 'sound' (sahih). Ibn Hajar graded a wording with 'a dog from among Your dogs' good (hasan, Fath al-Bari 4/48).

Why this is a problem

The offence in the text is speech. Lahab 'used to revile' the Prophet; the report does not say what he said, and it does not say he attacked anyone. The Prophet's answer was a prayer that God send a beast against him. The prayer was answered, the man was carried off by a lion while his companions guarded him, and the tradition tells it as a vindication.

The lion is called 'Your dog', an animal of God sent to kill. Al-Hakim placed the story in his commentary on the sura that curses Lahab's father, and both he and al-Dhahabi graded it sound. It was not only the lenient compiler who passed it, though al-Bayhaqi, on the dorar listing, says its narrator al-'Abbas b. al-Fadl 'is not strong'. By al-Dhahabi's own verdict, a man's death by lion in answer to the Prophet's prayer, for insulting him, is a sound report.

The Muslim response

Muslims present the story as one of the Prophet's miracles: a prayer answered against a persistent abuser, which showed his opponents that God stood behind him. The fear Lahab himself expressed shows that even his enemies took the Prophet's prayers seriously.

Why it fails

The miracle reading accepts every fact the criticism depends on. On this telling, the man's offence was words, the Prophet's response was to ask God to set a beast on him, and the story is remembered as a proof of prophethood. It does not show the Prophet answering insults with patience, or praying for the man's guidance.

Lahab's fear makes the point sharper. He had good reason to expect that the Prophet's curse would kill him, and his companions could not protect him. The story is preserved to show that insulting the Prophet could cost a man his life, and al-Dhahabi, who rejects so much of al-Mustadrak, let it stand as sound.

Check it yourself

Ibn Abbas on Q24:27: 'The scribe made a mistake' Scripture Integrity Contradictions Strong al-Mustadrak 3496
"On His saying, 'Do not enter houses other than your own until you tasta'nisu' [Q24:27], he said: 'The scribe made a mistake: [it is] until you tasta'dhinu (ask permission).'"

What the hadith says

Mujahid reports Ibn Abbas's comment on Q24:27. In the standard Qur'an the verb is tasta'nisu, usually rendered 'until you have announced yourselves' or 'sought familiarity'. Ibn Abbas says the written word is a scribe's error and the verse should read tasta'dhinu, 'until you ask permission'. These are Ibn Abbas's own words, not the Prophet's. The report is al-Mustadrak 3496 (dorar.net numbers it 3542). Al-Hakim calls it sound by the standard of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and al-Dhahabi agrees in his Talkhis. Ibn Hajar grades the route through Sa'id b. Jubayr isnaduhu sahih (sound chain), and Shu'ayb al-Arna'ut grades al-Tahawi's version sound by the two shaykhs' standard. Al-Wadi'i notes that, according to Shu'ba, Ja'far b. Iyas did not hear from Mujahid, but says the report is established by another route. On the other side, al-Qurtubi calls it not sound from Ibn Abbas and Ibn Kathir calls it gharib jiddan (very odd).

Why this is a problem

This is not a comment on meaning. Ibn Abbas, the leading Companion interpreter of the Qur'an, says a word in the written text is a copyist's mistake and supplies a different word. Al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and al-Arna'ut all accept a chain to him for this claim. If he said it, then one of the most learned Companions did not regard the written codex as free of human error, down to the letter.

It is not an isolated remark. A parallel report has Ibn Abbas reading Q13:31 differently and saying the scribe 'wrote it while drowsy'. Ibn Hajar grades that chain isnaduhu sahih, kulluhum min rijal al-Bukhari (sound chain, all its men are al-Bukhari's narrators) in Fath al-Bari 8/224.

The Muslim response

Muslims answer in two ways. The first is that the attribution is unsound: al-Qurtubi rejects it and Ibn Kathir calls it very odd. The second answer is for those who accept the chain. They say Ibn Abbas was stating a reading he preferred, and that the wording in the codex is in any case established by mass transmission independent of him.

Why it fails

Rejecting the report does not answer the critics who examined its chains and passed them: al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar and al-Arna'ut. Al-Wadi'i's doubt about one link comes with his own statement that the report is established by another route. The 'preferred reading' explanation does not fit the words either. Ibn Abbas does not say 'I read it as'; he says 'the scribe made a mistake'. Preferring a variant does not require anyone to have miswritten the text.

The appeal to mass transmission assumes what the report puts in question. The point is that a senior Companion, in a report graded sound, did not treat this wording as beyond error.

Check it yourself

Ibn Abbas: Q4:24 has 'for a fixed term': 'By Allah, Allah revealed it that way' Scripture Integrity Abrogation Strong al-Mustadrak 3192
"I recited to Ibn Abbas: 'So those of them you have enjoyed, give them their dues as an obligation' [Q4:24]. Ibn Abbas said: 'So those of them you have enjoyed for a fixed term.' I said: 'We do not recite it like that.' Ibn Abbas said: 'By Allah, Allah revealed it like that.'"

What the hadith says

Abu Nadra recites Q4:24 to Ibn Abbas. Ibn Abbas recites it back with three extra words, ila ajal musamma, 'for a fixed term'. These words are not in the standard Qur'an, and with them the verse speaks of a marriage for a set period (mut'a). When Abu Nadra objects that they do not recite it so, Ibn Abbas swears that Allah revealed it that way. These are Ibn Abbas's words, not the Prophet's. The report is al-Mustadrak 3192 (dorar.net 3234). Al-Hakim calls it sound by Muslim's standard and al-Dhahabi agrees in the Talkhis. An Islamweb article on the verse quotes al-Tabari, who records the same reading from both Ubayy b. Ka'b and Ibn Abbas.

Why this is a problem

Ibn Abbas is not offering an explanation. He is correcting the received text and swearing by Allah that his longer wording is what was revealed. Either three revealed words are missing from the codex, or a leading Companion was wrong, under oath, about what was revealed. The report is graded sound by al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi, so the problem cannot be put down to a weak chain.

The words are not trivial. With them, Q4:24 refers to marriage for a fixed term. Without them, it can be read as speaking of ordinary marriage. Whether the verse permits temporary marriage is still disputed, and the extra words that Ibn Abbas, and by al-Tabari's account Ubayy, said belonged in the text would settle it in favour of a fixed term.

The Muslim response

The Islamweb article gives the standard Sunni answers. Al-Tabari says a reading that differs from the Muslims' codices cannot be accepted, and no one may add to the Book of Allah anything not established by a report that settles the matter. Al-Razi argues that even if the reading is authentic, it shows only that mut'a was once lawful, which Sunnis accept. It was later abrogated.

Why it fails

Al-Tabari's rule decides which text Muslims recite today. It does not say that Ibn Abbas never said this, and al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi say he did. Calling the reading 'contrary to the codices' only restates the fact that the codex lacks words a senior Companion swore were revealed.

Al-Razi's reply concedes more than it defends. If the reading may be authentic, then revealed words may be missing from the Qur'an. Saying the ruling was abrogated explains why the practice stopped. It does not explain why words Allah revealed should have left the written text.

Check it yourself

Hudhayfa on Surat al-Tawba: 'You do not recite a quarter of it' and 'it is the surah of punishment' Scripture Integrity Abrogation Moderate al-Mustadrak 3274
"You do not recite a quarter of it, meaning Bara'a. You call it the Surah of Repentance, and it is the Surah of Punishment."

What the hadith says

Hudhayfa b. al-Yaman, a Companion, speaks of Bara'a, the ninth surah, also called al-Tawba ('Repentance'). These are Hudhayfa's own words, not the Prophet's. The report is al-Mustadrak 3274 (dorar.net 3316), through Abd Allah b. Salima. Al-Hakim calls its chain sound, al-Dhahabi says sahih, and Ibn Hajar also grades it sahih. On its own, al-Hakim's wording is ambiguous. 'You do not recite a quarter of it' could mean that most of the surah is gone, or that people neglect most of what is there. A fuller wording in al-Tabarani's al-Mu'jam al-Awsat, quoted by al-Haythami, who says its narrators are trustworthy, reads: 'and of what we used to recite of it, they recite only a quarter'.

Why this is a problem

Al-Tabarani's wording points strongly to text. Hudhayfa compares what is recited now with 'what we used to recite' of the surah, and puts the surviving part at a quarter. That is a claim about text, made by a Companion, and the narrators of this version are judged trustworthy. Al-Hakim's shorter version is consistent with it, though it does not spell it out.

The claim does not stand alone. In Sahih Muslim 1050, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari says the Companions used to recite a surah 'which resembled Bara'a in length and severity' and that he had forgotten all of it except one verse about the son of Adam's greed. That is a different report about a different surah, but it uses Bara'a as the measure. Hudhayfa also objects to the surah's name: people call it Repentance, but he says it is Punishment.

The Muslim response

No sourced Muslim reply to this report was found. Two answers are open to a Muslim. One is that Hudhayfa means recitation that was abrogated in the Prophet's lifetime, which Sunni theory allows. The other is that he is rebuking people for neglecting the surah's harsh contents, not saying that text is lost. Al-Hakim's short wording fits the second reading.

Why it fails

The neglect reading works only for al-Hakim's wording. Al-Tabarani's wording measures what people recite against what the Companions 'used to recite', which concerns text, not attention. The abrogation reading accepts that about three-quarters of a surah the Companions recited is no longer in the Qur'an, which is the point at issue. Hudhayfa does not mention abrogation; he speaks reproachfully to 'you'.

Because the clearest wording comes from al-Tabarani and not from al-Hakim, this entry is rated Moderate.

Check it yourself

Ibn Abbas: 'The Kursi is the place of His two feet' Allah's Character Moderate al-Mustadrak 3116
"The Kursi is the place of His two feet, and the Throne: its measure cannot be measured."

What the hadith says

Ibn Abbas explains Q2:255, 'His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth', through Sa'id b. Jubayr. This is Ibn Abbas's own statement (mawquf), not the Prophet's. The report is al-Mustadrak 3116 (dorar.net 3157). Al-Hakim calls it sound by al-Bukhari's and Muslim's standard and al-Dhahabi agrees. Al-Albani grades it sahih mawquf (sound as Ibn Abbas's words), and Ibn Kathir likewise calls it a sound Companion statement by the two shaykhs' standard, adding that a version attributed to the Prophet is not sound. The Ilmiyya print reads qadamayhi, 'His two feet'; the wording on al-Albani's card is al-qadamayn, 'the two feet'. The text does not say that Allah sits.

Why this is a problem

The Qur'an says only that the Kursi 'extends over the heavens and the earth'. Ibn Abbas makes it the place where Allah's two feet rest, and says the Throne's measure cannot be measured. Q42:11 says, 'There is nothing like Him.' This report, graded sound, gives Allah feet and a location for them.

This is not a fringe opinion that mainstream scholars set aside. Ibn Uthaymin says it is sound from Ibn Abbas and that a statement like this 'has the ruling of a prophetic report' (hukm al-raf'). The usual basis for that rule is that a Companion would not say such a thing about the unseen from his own opinion. On that view, the description of Allah's feet goes back in effect to the Prophet.

The Muslim response

Salafi scholars accept it and affirm the feet as an attribute of Allah 'without asking how', and without likening Him to creatures. Ibn Uthaymin is an example. Other Muslims stress that the report is a Companion's explanation, not revelation, that the version attributed to the Prophet is rejected (Ibn Kathir), and that 'feet' can be read figuratively.

Why it fails

The 'only a Companion's words' defence is closed by Ibn Uthaymin's own principle: on the unseen, a Companion's statement counts as the Prophet's. 'Without asking how' leaves the content in place, since the report still assigns Allah two feet and a place where they rest. The figurative reading has to explain why the Companion best known for interpreting the Qur'an chose the most physical image available.

The report is sound as Ibn Abbas's words, and the text does not describe sitting, so it is rated Moderate.

Check it yourself

Muhammad to Banu Qurayza: 'O brothers of apes and pigs!' Antisemitism Warfare & Jihad Prophetic Character Strong al-Mustadrak 4332
"He ordered his companions to shield themselves with leather shields so that he could make them hear his words, and he called out to them: 'O brothers of apes and pigs!' They said: 'O Abu al-Qasim, you were never foul-mouthed.'"

What the hadith says

A'isha, through al-Qasim b. Muhammad, tells of the march on Banu Qurayza after the Battle of the Trench. Gabriel appears in the form of Dihya al-Kalbi and orders the march. The Prophet tells his men not to pray the afternoon prayer until they reach Qurayza, then besieges the tribe. With his men screened by leather shields, he calls out to the Jews, 'O brothers of apes and pigs!' They answer, 'O Abu al-Qasim, you were never foul-mouthed.' The siege goes on until they surrender to the judgment of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, who had been their ally. He rules that their fighting men be killed and their children and women taken captive. The report is al-Mustadrak 4332 (dorar.net 4385). Al-Hakim calls it sound by the two shaykhs' standard, 'since they used Abd Allah b. Umar al-Umari in supporting reports', and al-Dhahabi agrees. Ibn Kathir says it has good routes (lahu turuq jayyida).

Why this is a problem

The insult is in the Prophet's own mouth, and he aims it at a whole tribe. The canonical account in Bukhari 4122 has the march, the siege and Sa'd's verdict, but not the insult. The Mustadrak preserves the detail the canonical version lacks.

Compare a published Musnad Ahmad report (Musnad Ahmad 25029). There it is A'isha who calls a Jewish visitor one of the 'brothers of apes and pigs', and the Prophet stops her: 'Hush. Allah does not love obscenity (al-fuhsh) or crude speech.' Here the besieged Jews use the same word against him: 'you were never fahhash', that is, never foul-mouthed. In one report he rebukes A'isha's outburst, this phrase included, as obscenity. In this one he uses it himself, and his enemies are the ones who call it obscene. Al-Hakim grades this report sound, and the al-Risala editors of the Musnad grade that one hadith sahih, noting a weak narrator who is corroborated.

The Muslim response

Muslims usually answer that the phrase echoes the Qur'an, which says that of those Allah cursed He made 'apes and pigs' (Q5:60). On this view the Prophet was naming a Qur'anic fact to enemies at war with him, not cursing for its own sake. They can also note al-Hakim's own remark that al-Bukhari and Muslim used Abd Allah b. Umar al-Umari only in supporting reports, so his 'sound' verdict here is lenient. This reply is not taken from a source with a URL.

Why it fails

The Qur'anic echo does not soften the insult. It applies a punishment from the Qur'an to living men because of their descent, which is what 'brothers of' implies. In the text, the people addressed take it as foul speech, the same category the Prophet condemns in Musnad Ahmad 25029.

The point about al-Umari weakens one chain, but Ibn Kathir says the story has good routes, and al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi both pass it. The killing of the men and the captivity of the women and children are canonical. What al-Mustadrak adds is the Prophet's own insult.

Check it yourself

'When the sons of Abu al-As reach thirty men, they will take Allah's religion as deceit' Governance Eschatology Moderate al-Mustadrak 8478
"When the sons of Abu al-As reach thirty men, they will take Allah's wealth as a thing passed around among themselves, Allah's servants as slaves, and Allah's religion as deceit."

What the hadith says

Hulam b. Jadhl al-Ghifari says he heard Abu Dharr report this from the Prophet. When people rejected it, Ali b. Abi Talib testified that he had heard the Prophet say that no one under the sky was more truthful in speech than Abu Dharr. The report is al-Mustadrak 8478 (dorar.net 8702). Al-Hakim calls it sound by Muslim's standard, with Abu Sa'id al-Khudri's report as a supporting witness, and al-Dhahabi agrees in the Talkhis. That supporting report (8479, 8480) runs through Atiyya. Al-Albani grades the saying sahih. Other critics disagree. In Tarikh al-Islam al-Dhahabi calls the chain of Abu Sa'id's version weak, Ibn Kathir calls Abu Hurayra's version weak, and in the Siyar al-Dhahabi notes that a prophetic version contains Atiyya al-'Awfi.

Why this is a problem

The 'sons of Abu al-As' are the clan of al-Hakam b. Abi al-As and his son Marwan, whose descendants, the Marwanid Umayyads, ruled the caliphate. In a report that al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi in the Talkhis, and al-Albani accept, the Prophet foretells that this family will treat the public treasury as their private property, the believers as their slaves, and the religion itself as a tool of deceit.

The Marwanids ruled the caliphate from AD 684 to 750. Yet Sunni tradition preserves, and some of its leading critics grade as sound, a prophecy that the dynasty that ruled the caliphate would corrupt the religion. The report also shows the claim was contested from the start: Abu Dharr's hearers rejected it, and Ali had to vouch for him.

The Muslim response

No sourced Muslim reply was found. The usual Sunni reading is that this is a prophecy of later Umayyad misrule. On that view, its fulfilment proves the Prophet's foreknowledge, and it says nothing against the Companions. A Muslim can also follow the critics who grade the routes weak: al-Dhahabi in Tarikh al-Islam, Ibn Kathir, and al-Dhahabi's warning about Atiyya.

Why it fails

If it is a true prophecy, then the Prophet knew that the community he founded would soon be ruled by a family that turned his religion into deceit. That sits badly with the claim that his guidance produced a uniquely righteous community. If it is weak, then a politically useful prophecy against a ruling house was graded sound by al-Hakim, al-Dhahabi and al-Albani, which raises the question of how reliable such gradings are.

Because the critics are split, the entry is rated Moderate.

Check it yourself

In a dream, al-Hakam's sons leap on Muhammad's pulpit 'as monkeys leap' Governance Prophetic Character Moderate al-Mustadrak 8481
"I was shown in my sleep as if the sons of al-Hakam b. Abi al-As were leaping on my pulpit as monkeys leap. He said: The Prophet was not seen laughing fully until he died."

What the hadith says

Abu Hurayra reports a dream of the Prophet: the sons of al-Hakam b. Abi al-As were leaping up and down on his pulpit the way monkeys leap. The narrator adds that the Prophet was not seen laughing fully from then until his death. The report is al-Mustadrak 8481 (dorar.net 8705). The 'monkeys' are a simile for how the men move, not a transformation. The critics are divided. Al-Hakim calls it sound by the two shaykhs' standard, and al-Dhahabi, in the Talkhis, by Muslim's. But elsewhere al-Dhahabi says the narrator Muslim b. Khalid al-Zanji is not strong. Ibn al-Jawzi says it has no basis, and al-Jawraqani calls it false. Al-Albani calls it weak in Da'if al-Jami' 791 but includes it with its routes in al-Sahiha 3940. For Abu Ya'la's version al-Wadi'i says hasan and al-Haythami calls its narrators reliable.

Why this is a problem

The pulpit is where the Prophet, and after him the caliphs, addressed the community. The sons of al-Hakam are the family that went on to rule from it as the Marwanid Umayyad caliphs. In this dream the Prophet sees them as monkeys jumping on his seat of authority, and the vision grieves him so much that he never laughs fully again.

The canonical collections keep only a muted trace. In Tirmidhi 3350, al-Hasan b. Ali says the Prophet was shown the Umayyads on his pulpit 'and that distressed him'; there are no monkeys. Tirmidhi himself calls that report gharib and names an unknown narrator. The published Musnad Ahmad entry 'A cursed man will come in to you' preserves a report in which the 'cursed man' the Prophet announced turns out, in the narrator's account, to be al-Hakam himself. Al-Mustadrak carries the theme further, to his sons.

The Muslim response

Muslims can rely on the critics who reject it: Ibn al-Jawzi ('no basis'), al-Jawraqani ('false'), al-Dhahabi on Muslim al-Zanji, and al-Albani's Da'if al-Jami'. They can also point out that a dream image is a simile, not a statement that anyone became an animal. The versions saying they appeared 'in the form of apes and pigs' are themselves graded false, and this entry does not use them.

Why it fails

The rejection is not unanimous. Al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi in the Talkhis passed this text. Al-Wadi'i grades Abu Ya'la's version hasan, al-Haythami calls its narrators reliable, and al-Albani lists it in his collection of sound reports. Even as a simile, it is the Prophet comparing a future ruling house, the caliphs of his own community, to monkeys on his pulpit.

Because the gradings are genuinely split, the entry is rated Moderate.

Check it yourself

Over Hamza's body: 'By Allah, I will mutilate seventy of them in your place' Warfare & Jihad Prophetic Character Moderate al-Mustadrak 4894
"Then he swore, standing where he was: 'By Allah, I will mutilate seventy of them in your place.' Then the Qur'an came down while he was standing in his place, not having moved: 'And if you punish, punish with the like of what you were punished with; but if you are patient, it is better for the patient' [Q16:126] ... and the Messenger of Allah expiated his oath and held back from what he had intended."

What the hadith says

Abu Hurayra says that at Uhud the Prophet looked at the body of his uncle Hamza, killed and mutilated, and saw nothing that pained his heart more. He praised Hamza and said that, but for the grief of those he left behind, he would have liked to leave him until he was gathered 'from many mouths', meaning from the beasts that would eat him. Then he swore to mutilate seventy of the enemy in Hamza's place. Q16:126 came down at once, and he expiated his oath and held back. The report is al-Mustadrak 4894 (dorar.net 4963). Al-Hakim prints no verdict. Al-Dhahabi says the narrator Salih al-Murri is feeble (wahin). Al-Albani grades it weak, Ibn Hajar says it 'has weakness', and al-Haythami calls Salih b. Bashir weak. The chain is weak.

Why this is a problem

In this report the vow is the Prophet's own: seventy enemy dead to be mutilated for one. The Qur'an has to restrain him on the spot, and he expiates the oath. The man held up as the moral model of Islam answers grief with a sworn plan of mass mutilation, and only revelation stops it.

The canonical account tells a different story. In Tirmidhi 3129 (Ubayy b. Ka'b), it is the Ansar who say after Uhud, 'If we get a day like this against them, we will exceed them.' The verse is revealed not at Uhud but on the day Mecca was conquered, years later, and the Prophet then says, 'Hold back from the people except four.' Tirmidhi grades it hasan gharib. The two reports give the same verse two different occasions and two different speakers.

The Muslim response

Muslims answer that the chain is weak, as al-Dhahabi, al-Albani, Ibn Hajar and al-Haythami all say, so the Prophet's vow is not established. Even if the report were true, it describes a moment of grief over a murdered and mutilated uncle that ended exactly as it should: revelation counselled patience, the Prophet expiated his oath, and no one was mutilated.

Why it fails

On the chain, the response is right, and this entry treats the vow as recorded but weak, not as established. But the tradition did not discard it. Al-Hakim recorded it in his section on Hamza, Ibn Hajar cites it in Fath al-Bari, and al-Albani's card lists it in al-Tabarani, al-Bayhaqi and al-Bazzar as well.

The conflict with Tirmidhi 3129 remains even if this report is set aside. Muslim sources do not agree on when or why Q16:126 was revealed, which shows how freely occasions of revelation were attached to verses.

Check it yourself

Black, 'foul-smelling, ugly' volunteer killed in battle: 'Allah has whitened your face' Warfare & Jihad Paradise Moral Problems Moderate al-Mustadrak 2463
"'Messenger of Allah, I am a black man, foul-smelling, ugly-faced, with no wealth. If I fight these people until I am killed, where will I be?' He said: 'In Paradise.' ... 'Allah has whitened your face, made your smell good, and increased your wealth.'"

What the hadith says

Anas b. Malik, through Thabit, says a black man came to the Prophet and described himself as black, foul-smelling, ugly and without wealth. He asked where he would be if he fought until he was killed. The Prophet said, 'In Paradise.' The man fought and was killed. The Prophet came to him and said, 'Allah has whitened your face, made your smell good, and increased your wealth.' Then, 'of this one or another', the narrator is not sure which, he said: 'I saw his wife from the wide-eyed houris tugging at a woollen jubba of his, getting in between him and his jubba.' The report is al-Mustadrak 2463 (dorar.net 2498). Al-Hakim calls it sound by Muslim's standard, al-Dhahabi agrees, and al-Albani grades it sahih.

Why this is a problem

The man lists four things he thinks count against him: he is black, he smells, he is ugly and he is poor. The Prophet's reply reverses each one: his face is whitened, his smell made good, his wealth increased. Read that way, the reward for a black man's death in battle is a white face, and blackness sits in the same list as bad smell and poverty, as one more defect that Paradise removes.

'Allah has whitened your face' is also an Arabic idiom for being honoured, and the Qur'an uses it for the saved: 'on the Day when some faces will be white and some faces black' (Q3:106). That reading is possible and should be weighed. But the Prophet's sentence answers the man's complaint point for point, and the first point was 'I am black'. Even on the idiom reading, the idiom itself makes white faces the sign of the blessed and black faces the sign of the damned.

The Muslim response

Muslims answer that 'whitening the face' means honour and joy on the Day of Judgment, as in Q3:106, and says nothing about skin colour. They add that the Prophet never called the man ugly; the man described himself. They also note that the report's point is equality: a poor black man, despised by others, is promised Paradise. This reply is not taken from a source with a URL.

Why it fails

The idiom defence is reasonable, and this entry does not treat the report as plain racism. But it has to explain why each of the man's other complaints, his smell and his poverty, is answered literally (his smell made good, his wealth increased) while 'black' is answered only figuratively. The Prophet did not tell him that his colour was no defect. Instead, the promise of Paradise was attached to his fighting until he was killed.

The houri scene is not sexual in the text: she tugs at his cloak and slips inside it. It is the reward that follows straight on from the death in battle.

Check it yourself

A Syrian commander's sermon: houris look out over the battle, veil themselves from those who flee, and wipe the dust off the slain Warfare & Jihad Paradise Hell Basic al-Mustadrak 6087
"The houris are adorned and look out. When one of you turns his face to the fighting, they say: 'O Allah, make him firm; O Allah, give him victory.' When he turns his back, they veil themselves from him and say: 'O Allah, forgive him; O Allah, have mercy on him.' ... Two of the wide-eyed houris come down to him and wipe the dust from his face."

What the hadith says

Mujahid reports a sermon by Yazid b. Shajara al-Rahawi, whom the report describes as one of the commanders of Syria whom Mu'awiya used to put in charge of armies. This is Yazid's own sermon, not a saying of the Prophet. When the prayer is called, he says, the gates of heaven, of Paradise and of the Fire open, and the houris are adorned and look out. They pray for the man who advances and veil themselves from the man who turns his back. 'Exhaust the enemy's faces,' he tells his men. The first spurt of a fighter's blood sheds his sins as a tree sheds its leaves, and two houris come down and wipe the dust from his face. He says to them, 'I am yours,' and they say, 'We are yours.' The same sermon describes a shore of Hell with snakes like palm trees and scorpions like mules. Al-Hakim records it as al-Mustadrak 6087 (dorar.net 6223) under Yazid's virtues, without a verdict, and al-Dhahabi passes over it. Al-Albani grades the Hell-shore part of the sermon sahih mawquf (sound as Yazid's words), in a wording that differs from al-Hakim's; dorar's takhrij on that card lists al-Hakim 6087.

Why this is a problem

The sermon shows how the promise of the houris was used on the battlefield. A commander tells his troops that the women of Paradise are watching the line, praying for those who charge, hiding from those who retreat, and coming down to the dead to say 'we are yours'. Paradise women serve as an incentive to fight, and the commander uses them that way.

Al-Hakim filed it among Yazid's virtues, and al-Albani included part of the sermon in Sahih al-Targhib, his collection of sound reports for encouragement and warning. The theme is not confined to commanders. The canonical Tirmidhi 1663, which Tirmidhi grades sahih gharib (sound, single route), has the Prophet promise the martyr forgiveness 'with the first flow of blood' and marriage to seventy-two of the houris.

The Muslim response

Muslims answer that this is a commander's exhortation, not a prophetic text, and binds no one. Al-Albani's grading covers only the Hell-shore section, and al-Hakim gives the report no verdict. The houris' prayer is also merciful: even for the man who flees they ask, 'O Allah, forgive him; O Allah, have mercy on him.' This reply is not taken from a source with a URL.

Why it fails

The response is largely right about status, which is why this entry is rated Basic. Nothing here obliges a Muslim to believe that houris watch the battle line. What the report shows is the tradition at work. A commander in Mu'awiya's army preached this, a later collector filed it as a virtue, and a modern critic placed part of it among sound exhortations. It builds on prophetic material, like Tirmidhi 1663, that ties the houris to death in battle.

Check it yourself

Khaybar shepherd killed before he prayed once: 'He has two wives from the houris' Warfare & Jihad Paradise Basic al-Mustadrak 2609
"Then he went forward to the battle line, an arrow struck him and killed him, and he had never prayed a single prostration to Allah. ... 'Your companion's Islam has become good. I went in to him, and with him were two wives of his from the wide-eyed houris.'"

What the hadith says

Jabir b. Abd Allah, through Shurahbil b. Sa'd, says that during the Khaybar campaign a raiding party seized a man grazing a flock. After the Prophet spoke with him, he declared his belief and asked what to do with the sheep, which belonged to other people. The Prophet told him to throw pebbles at their faces, and each sheep ran back to its owner. The man then went forward to the battle line and was killed by an arrow 'and he had never prayed a single prostration to Allah'. The Prophet had him carried into his tent, went in to him, came out and said that the man's Islam had become good and that two wives from the houris were with him. The report is al-Mustadrak 2609 (dorar.net 2646). Al-Hakim calls its chain sound. Al-Dhahabi replies in the Talkhis: 'Rather, Shurahbil was suspected (muttaham), as Ibn Abi Dhi'b said.' Al-Bayhaqi notes that it is transmitted with a connected chain through the criticised Shurahbil and also without the Companion (mursal). Yet in Tarikh al-Islam al-Dhahabi calls it 'hasan or sahih'.

Why this is a problem

The man never performed a single prayer. What earned him Paradise, and the Prophet's announcement of it, was a short profession of faith and death in battle. The reward the Prophet reports seeing is not described as forgiveness or nearness to God, but as two houri wives present with the body in the tent.

This matches the prophetic promise in Tirmidhi 1663 that the martyr is forgiven 'with the first flow of blood' and married to houris. The shepherd's story shows that promise applied to a man whose whole religious life was a profession of faith, the return of the flock he held in trust, and a charge.

The Muslim response

Muslims answer first that the chain is doubtful: al-Dhahabi in the Talkhis says Shurahbil was suspected, and al-Bayhaqi notes the criticism of him and a mursal transmission. Second, a man who believes and dies before a prayer falls due has neglected nothing, and Islam erases what came before it. The story shows God's generosity, not contempt for prayer. This reply is not taken from a source with a URL.

Why it fails

The point about the chain is fair, and the entry is rated Basic. But al-Dhahabi himself calls the report hasan or sahih in Tarikh al-Islam, so the critics, and even one critic, do not speak with one voice. The theological answer is reasonable: the man had no prayer yet due. The entry's point is narrower. In this story, what the Prophet sees and announces as the reward for death in battle is a pair of houri wives.

Check it yourself

Ubayy's extra words in Q48:26, and his challenge to Umar: 'Otherwise I will not teach a single letter' Scripture Integrity Strong al-Mustadrak 2891
"He used to recite: 'When those who disbelieved put in their hearts zealotry, the zealotry of the time of ignorance' — and if you had been zealous as they were zealous, the Sacred Mosque would have been ruined — 'then Allah sent down His tranquillity upon His Messenger' [Q48:26]. ... 'If you wish me to teach the people as he taught me, I will teach; otherwise I will not teach a single letter as long as I live.' He said: 'Rather, teach the people.'"

What the hadith says

Abu Idris al-Khawlani reports that Ubayy b. Ka'b, one of the leading Qur'an reciters among the Companions, recited Q48:26 with an extra clause: 'and if you had been zealous as they were zealous, the Sacred Mosque would have been ruined.' The clause is not in the standard Qur'an. When word reached Umar, he took it badly and sent for Ubayy, who was tarring his camel. Umar called some Companions, including Zayd b. Thabit, and asked who would recite Surat al-Fath. Zayd recited it 'according to our reading today', and Umar spoke harshly. Ubayy answered: 'You know that I used to go in to the Prophet and he would teach me to recite while you were at the door.' He then offered to teach as he had been taught, or else never teach again, and Umar told him to teach. The report is al-Mustadrak 2891 (dorar.net 2931). Al-Hakim calls it sound by al-Bukhari's and Muslim's standard, and al-Dhahabi agrees. A version in which Abu al-Darda''s Damascene companions recite the clause to Umar and name Ubayy as their teacher is judged by al-Arna'ut to have trustworthy narrators (rijaluhu thiqat).

Why this is a problem

Ubayy does not present the clause as a comment. He recites it as part of the verse, and when the caliph challenges him he appeals to private instruction from the Prophet: 'as he taught me'. Umar does not settle the matter by showing that the clause was never revealed. He has Zayd recite a rival text 'according to our reading today', and then backs down and lets Ubayy go on teaching.

The narrator's phrase 'our reading today' sets Ubayy's wording against the text as it was read in the narrator's own day. In a report graded sound by al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi, the most senior reciter defends words outside that text as the Prophet's own teaching, and the caliph, rather than refuting him, lets him teach.

The Muslim response

No sourced Muslim reply was found. The standard classification is that the clause is a non-canonical (shadhdh) reading or an explanatory gloss that Ubayy added while reciting. Such words do not meet the requirement of mass transmission, and the codex compiled under Uthman left them out. Umar's 'teach the people' can be read as approving Ubayy's teaching in general, not this clause.

Why it fails

The 'gloss' explanation does not match the story. Umar tests the clause against Zayd's recitation, which treats it as competing text, not commentary. Ubayy defends it as what the Prophet taught him, not as his own explanation. And Umar ends the dispute by giving way, not by ruling the clause out. To call it shadhdh is to state the later decision to exclude it. The report shows that, before that decision, a reciter who says the Prophet taught him in person recited these words inside the verse and defended them as what the Prophet taught him.

Check it yourself

Ibn Abbas: Gog and Magog are 'a span, two spans and three' tall Eschatology Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 8607
"Gog and Magog are a span, and two spans, and three; and they are of the children of Adam."

What the hadith says

Abu al-Jawza' reports that Ibn Abbas said Gog and Magog are one, two and three hand-spans tall, and that they are descendants of Adam. These are Ibn Abbas's own words, not the Prophet's. The report is al-Mustadrak 8607 (dorar.net 8831), in al-Hakim's book of trials and battles of the end times. Al-Hakim prints no verdict and al-Dhahabi passes over it without comment. Dorar's takhrij finds it only in al-Hakim. No critic's grading of it was found, so it is best described as recorded but ungraded.

Why this is a problem

Canonical texts describe Gog and Magog on an enormous scale. In Sahih Muslim 2937a they swarm down from every slope, and the first of them drink the lake of Tiberias until the last of them say, 'There was once water here.' In Bukhari 3348, when the people of the Fire are brought out, the Prophet tells his Companions, 'one person will be from you and one thousand will be from Gog and Magog'. Ibn Abbas, the Companion most quoted on the Qur'an, makes them a people from about a hand-span to three hand-spans tall.

The comparison is ours, not the text's. But it shows that the tradition kept, under a senior Companion's name, details about Gog and Magog that sit oddly beside the canonical picture, and that a major compiler recorded them without objection.

The Muslim response

Muslims can answer that this is a Companion's statement, not the Prophet's, that no critic has graded it, and that it is found only in al-Hakim. Nothing in Islamic belief depends on it. Statements of this kind about hidden peoples are often traced to Jewish and Christian lore, which Muslims are not obliged to accept. This reply is not taken from a source with a URL.

Why it fails

The response is largely right, and the entry is rated Basic. The report binds no one. Its value is as evidence of the lore that circulated about Gog and Magog under the names of the Prophet's Companions, which al-Hakim recorded in his book of end-time trials without comment. The same book records Abd Allah b. Amr saying that nine-tenths of humanity are Gog and Magog.

Check it yourself

Abd Allah b. Amr: nine-tenths of humanity are Gog and Magog, and nine-tenths of creation are angels Eschatology Strange / Obscure Basic al-Mustadrak 8506
"Allah divided creation into ten parts: He made nine parts the angels and one part the rest of creation. ... He divided creation into ten parts: He made nine parts the jinn and one part the children of Adam. And He divided the children of Adam into ten parts: He made nine parts Gog and Magog and one part the rest of mankind."

What the hadith says

Abd Allah b. Amr b. al-As, through Amr al-Bikali, sets out a scheme of creation in tenths. Nine-tenths of creation are angels. Of the angels, nine parts glorify Allah night and day without slackening and one part carries His message. Of the rest of creation, nine parts are jinn and one part humans. Of humans, nine parts are Gog and Magog and one part everyone else. These are Abd Allah b. Amr's own words, not the Prophet's. The report is al-Mustadrak 8506 (dorar.net 8730). Al-Hakim calls the chain sound and al-Dhahabi says sahih.

Why this is a problem

A Companion states, as fact, the proportions of the unseen world, down to the claim that nine out of ten human beings belong to Gog and Magog. Al-Hakim and al-Dhahabi both accept that he said it. The canonical Bukhari 3348 already makes Gog and Magog the vast bulk of those sent to the Fire: 'one person will be from you and one thousand will be from Gog and Magog'. Here they become nine-tenths of humanity itself.

No one could know such proportions by observation. Either the figures came from revelation, in which case they are part of what Muslims are taught about the world, or a senior Companion stated them from another source as though they were known.

The Muslim response

Muslims can answer that this is Abd Allah b. Amr's statement, not the Prophet's. Material of this kind may come from Jewish and Christian lore (isra'iliyyat), which may be repeated but need not be believed. Nothing in Islamic doctrine depends on these fractions. This reply is not taken from a source with a URL.

Why it fails

That is a reasonable answer, and the entry is rated Basic. It does conflict with a principle that Salafi scholars apply elsewhere. Ibn Uthaymin says that Ibn Abbas's statement on the Kursi, a Companion's word about the unseen, 'has the ruling of a prophetic report'. The usual basis for that rule is that a Companion would not say such things from opinion. Hadith scholars normally exempt Companions known to relate material from the People of the Book, and Abd Allah b. Amr is the standard example, so the rule cannot simply be applied here; but that exemption itself concedes that such lore entered the tradition under Companions' names. A Muslim has to choose between treating Companions' statements about the unseen as revelation and treating them as borrowed lore. Either choice has consequences for other reports.

Check it yourself