Al-Nasa’i
He is Abu Abd al-Rahman Ahmad ibn Shu’ayb al-Nasa’i. He was born in Nasa which belonged to Nisabur in 215 H. Al-Daraqutni said: He travelled for performing the hajj pilgrimage, and was put to the test in Damascus realizing the shahadah then, when he said: Carry me to Mecca. So he was carried to it, dying there, and was buried in a place between the Safa and Marwah. The date of his death was 303 H.
Al-Dhahabi says: In Damascus he was questioned about merits of Mu’awiyah, when he said: Never he be pleased with being neck and neck (with Ali) so as to be preferred! He (al-Dhahabi) said: Then people kept on pushing him till bringing him out of the mosque, after which he was carried to Mecca where he died, while the correct narration, it was Ramlah (not Mecca), and he said: I entered Damascus, finding those turning away from Ali large in number, when I compiled the book al-Khasa’is, imploring Allah to guide them to the right path.
The narrations of al-Nasa’i differed much from others, and his book al-Mujtana, which was counted among the five principles, and was known with Sunan al-Nasa’i al-saghir, was narrated by Ibn al-Sunni. While the narration of Ibn Hayat and Ibn al-Ahmar and Ibn Qasim, was called Sunan al-Nasa’i al-kabir. Ibn Kathir said: In Sunan al-Nasa’i, we find rijal unknown either considerably or in respect of position, among whom we find some of defamed reputation (majruh), and in it weak and defective and disapproved traditions are found.607
There are other books, the reference to which is out of scope here, since they (Sunnis) have said: These five books: al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasa’i have never missed any of the Messenger’s traditions but so rarely.
In al-Taqrib (p. 3) al-Nawawi writes: “It is correct to say that only very few traditions were missed by the five books. Al-Suyuti, in his Alfiyyah, also referred to this. Ibn Khaldun, after discussing al-Muwatta’ and these five books,608 said: These are the well-known masanid in faith (millah), and major
607. Ibid., p.18.
608. The most famous books compiled in the 4th century were: Al-Ma'ajim al-thalathah of al-Tabarrani (d. 360), Sunan al-Daraqunti (d. 385 H), Sahih Ibn Hibban al-Basti (d. 345 H), Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah (d. 311 H) and Musannaf al-Tahawi (d. 321)... etc.
( 387 )
reference of books of hadith among the Sunnah, which even when numbering many, but most often should be referred to these (five) books.609
Following is a statement uttered by Monsieur Amil Darmengihim in his book “Hayat Muhammad” (Life of Muhammad):
The first sources for sirah (biography) of Muhammad being the Qur’an and Sunnah, of which the Qur’an being the most authentic in sanad, but it being not so comprehensive to the extent needed in this regard. In regard of the hadith, despite all the efforts exerted by the traditionists, particularly al-Bukhari, in collecting all the utterances of the Messenger and having knowledge of the least of his indications, with the biography of the rijal from whom the traditions – the musalsal and mu’an’an – were reported, it contained so many doubted and fabricated ones … etc.
Commenting on Darmengihim’s statement, Emir Shakib Arsalan expressed: “He was not believing in veracity of so many of the traditions even those cited in the two Sahihs. This being one of the thought tastes for which we cannot blame him, when taking into consideration the fact that many Muslims and those having Islamic ardour and strong faith and conviction share Monsieur Darmengihim in this opinion, finding it not a religious obligation to believe in all the traditions cited in the two Sahihs or others, since changing or alteration or addition or omission, might have crept into them, as it is known that they used to narrate hadith on basis of meaning. And narrating hadith on basis of meaning, usually opens the door for many additions through which the meaning may differ or be alienated from its origin, till he said:
The evidences the help from which is obtained by this elite for obligatoriness of not considering most of the traditions as definitely right, and necessity of contemplation before accepting what people hastily approve, being the following:
First: Non-possibility of narrating any hadith but only very rarely without any addition or omission, out of what one learnt before, as when one intending to reiterate any words he heard, it would be verily infeasible for him
609. Muqaddimat Ibn Khaldun, p.418.
( 388 )
to cite the same and very words even after elapse of only one hour after hearing them.
Second: The belief held by them that innumerable traditions being narrated on basis of meaning, the fact leading to many changes in words.
Third: Liability to inadvertence and forgetfulness on the part of every man regarding which no one can dispute at all.
Fourth: The Prophet (S) himself referring to fabrication of ahadith during his lifetime, and the most authentic hadith known to be uttered by him being: “Falsifiers to me have been multiplying, whoever falsifies my hadith should dwell in his abode in Fire.”
Then he (Arsalan) said: Suspicion still hanging about so many traditions cited in the Sihah, not in respect of honesty in naql (reporting) but in respect of non-ability of human beings – except in very rare cases – to narrating whatever coming to their ears literally, or citing the events exactly with no any addition or deletion. There may be two persons witnessing one and the same event, but each one of them may narrate it slightly or much different from the other.610
Al-Mustakhrajat
Al-Istikhraj (extraction) is a practice in which a memorizer embarks on citing al-Bukhari’s traditions one by one through asanid he approved of without observing the trustworthiness of the narrators from other than the turuq of al-Bukhari, till meeting with him in his Shaykh or that of a higher rank. But it is impermissible for the extractor to deviate from the way through which he meets with the compiler of the origin to the remote way but only for an urgent purpose, like a significant addition or alike. The extractor might abandon traditions for which he couldn’t find an authentic isnad, or rather might have reported them from some narrators, or citing them through the original source. Many of the huffaz cared much for istikhraj due to the significant advantages it had, restricting this most often to Sahih al-Bukhari
610. Hadir al-'alam al-Islami, vol.I, pp. 44-51.
( 389 )
and Sahih Muslim as they being the main references in this science (in view of those adopting it). From al-Bukhari extraction was done by Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Isma’ili and Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Barqani, and those extracting from Sahih Muslim were Abu Ja’far Ahmad al-Nisaburi and Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Raja al-Nisaburi, who shared Muslim in most of his shaykhs, and many others.
Among those who extracted from both of them we can refer to Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani with some other narrator, who extracted also from Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi. Many benefits are there for mustakhrajat, some of which being the additions to the traditions cited by them that were not found in the original ones from which extraction was done. These additions only emerged because the narrators could not observe citing the very words of the traditions they extracted from, but only the words with which the narration reached them from their shaykhs, that most often be contradictory to them. Contravention may occur in meaning also. Another benefit is the probability that the Sahih compiler may have reported from that accused of confusion, without manifesting whether he heard that hadith before confusion or after it, the case in which the mustakhrij would demonstrate this either through declaration or by narrating it from him through the tariq of that from whom he hadn’t heard but only before confusion. Also of them, his reporting in the Sahih from one known of tadlis with unauthentic chain, but the mustakhrij narrating it with declaration by hearing. Of them too the hadith containing some expression contradicting an Arabic grammar rule, the case in which he exerts much effort for justifying and drawing it out, so it would be produced according to the rules through the narration of the mustakhrij, when it would be introduced as sahih, while claiming that what inflicted the sahih ones was only misconception on the part of the narrators.611
Ibn al-Salah says: The compiler of the books extracted from al-Bukhari and Muslim have never observed agreement of hadith words with those books exactly without any addition or omission, since they reported these traditions from other than al-Bukhari and Muslim, seeking higher isnad,
611. Tawjih al-nazar, pp. 141, 142.
( 390 )
the act resulting in some inconsistency in wording. So was the case with the traditions reported by authors of independent compilations like al-Sunan al-kubra of al-Bayhaqi, and Sharh al-Sunnah of Abu Muhammad al-Baghawi and others, in which they said: ‘It is reported by al-Bukhari or Muslim,’ the case in which it would be got that none other than al-Bukhari or Muslim has reported the origin of that hadith, with probability of presence of difference in meaning between them,612 in which I actually found some inconsistency in denotation.613 I will not discuss what these extracted traditions contained of alterations in terms or meanings or additions, but they can be sought in their books. Al-Hamidi has distinguished these additions to the terms of al-Sahih, by saying, after citing the hadith, al-Bukhari was sufficed of it with so and so words, while al-Barqani, for instance, increased so and so words in it! and so forth. And non-distinguishing only occurred in few cases, as he may quote the hadith from what al-Barqani or another one extracted, saying then: Al-Bukhari abridged it and reported only part of it, without indicating the portion he was satisfied with, rendering it obscure for the reader, the obscurity that can’t be removed but only through referring to the origin of the hadith when he would be mostly relieved of blame.614 And as stated before, they have found fault with many of the traditions reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim, beside many suspicions raised in Sharh Ibn Hajar against al-Bukhari and by al-Nawawi against Muslim, which were used by them for producing several mustakhrajat. So when al-Bukhari and Muslim – though being al-Sahihan as called by them – containing all these defects and objections, with all that criticism levelled at them, left alone creeping of some Jewish traditions (Isra’iliyyat) into them and wrongly reporting on basis of meaning, beside ascribing them to some of hadith books that can’t be called masanid since they being unauthentic and not dependable at all, as whatever they contained was so poor. About them the leaders (imams) of hadith deemed them to be unfit for disputation, nor can be relied upon, as will be later seen.
O God, we implore You to provide this straightforward religion with that who safeguards its principles and protects its foundations, so as not to be
612. Till when is this difference in the words and meanings of the hadith?
613. Muqaddimat Ibn al-Salah, pp.9, 10.
614. Tawjih al-nazar, p.144.
( 391 )
invaded by any alien, nor be scaled by any ill-intentioned impostor.
Musnad Ahmad
A question may be raised that for what reason we made no reference to Musnad Ahmad among books of hadith that were discussed elaborately, despite its being more extensive in narration and all-inclusive than them, to the extent that it was said to contain forty thousand traditions! with its author being a great leader having one of followed school of thought adopted by numerous communities of Muslims? My reply to this being that, I made no detailed mention of this book or other Masanid books – which number so many – only due to the fact that the ulama’ have discussed them judging them to be unfit for argumentation and debate, and not dependable. But I found it proper to shed light upon Musnad Ahmad, which being the most famous of them, so as to reveal for the Muslims its real state and lay bare its position among books of hadith, to be a criterion by which all other Musnads should be measured. With this we can be satisfied and in no need of talking about other books.
I will initiate with a foreword manifesting the status of Musnad books in general among hadith books, and level of narrations contained in them, discussing then Musnad Ahmad.
Musnad Books Other Than al-Sihah al-Sittah:
The Musnad books are those books in which every Companion would privately report a hadith, with no regard to categorization. Their compilers used to bring together in the Musnad of every Sahabi all of his traditions whether correct or defective, hence it is absolutely improper to use whatever recorded in them for argumentation.
Ibn al-Salah, in his Muqaddimah says: The Musnad books can never reach the level of the five books: Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abi Dawud, Sunan al-Nasa’i and Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi. Also they are neither fit for
( 392 )
argumentation as in the case of those books, nor dependence can be there upon all the traditions cited in them, like Musnad Abi Dawud al-Tayalisi, Musnad Ubayd Allah ibn Musa and Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and their likes. The authors of these books used to report in the sanad of every Companion all the traditions heard from him without any commitment to their being fit for argument, the fact leading them to be lower in rank than those five books – though being high due to highness of their authors – beside their like of categorized books.615
Wali Allah al-Dihlawi says: “The Musnad books brought together the sahih, hasan (good), da’if (weak), well-known, odd, eccentric, disapproved, mistaken and right, thabit and maqlub (reversed) traditions. Besides, they could never gain that fame among the ulama’, though they be no more deemed fully disapproved, nor their veracity or weakness be fully investigated by the traditionists. And among them are some that no grammarian could use because of their oddity, no faqih could comply with the madhahib of the salaf (predecessors), no traditionist could manifest their dubiety, and no historian could refer to names of their rijal.”616
Al-Nawawi, in his Taqrib, when discussing the hadith books and their ranks, said: Concerning Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Musnad Abi Dawud al-Tayalisi and other Musnads, they can never be counted to occupy the same position of the five books and their likes, in respect of argumentation and reliance on whatever cited in them.617
Comments on Musnad Ahmad:
The statements mentioned before were comments on ranks of Musnad books in general among hadith books, that could be considered as unanimously agreed among traditionists. In regard of Musnad Ahmad in particular, I quote herewith some comments of leaders of hadith on it, initiating with utterance of Imam of Hanbalis after Ahmad: Ibn Taymiyyah. After quoting these sayings, we are not to blame if this would enrage any of
615. Muqaddimat Ibn al-Salah, p.15.
616. Hujjat Allah al-balighah, vol. pp. 134, 135.
617. Al-Taqrib p.5.
( 393 )
those claiming to be rijal of hadith nowadays, as truth should be followed. And I have never brought out this book but only for the purpose of pleasing the truth (haqq) alone, and if any one be enraged, his anger should be with truth not with us.
About Abu Nu’aym, Ibn Taymiyyah said: He had reported many traditions that were deemed weak or rather fabricated, according to concurrence of ulama’. And though he was a trustworthy memorizer, known of being prolific in narrating the hadith, and of extensive riwayah, but he used to — like other similar narrators – narrate whatever contained in the chapter (bab) for being acquainted with that, although he could not use all of it, except some portion, in argumentation . This while the authors of Musannafs were not reporting from those known to be falsifiers, like Malik and Shu’bah and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who were never reporting from any narrator they could never trust, nor relating any hadith from that known to be one of those who were deliberately falsifying the hadith. But it may happen that the narrators of some traditions might have committed mistakes in them, and al-Imam Ahmad and Ishaq and others may report traditions known to be weak in their view due to charging their reporters with had memory or the like, so as to be considered and inferred by others. It may happen that some evidences indicating that this hadith being preserved (against error), and may be there other signs proving its being wrong, with its original narrator being a liar in reality but not known for all to be falsifier, rather known to be relating many correct traditions, consequently his traditions would be reported. A large number of compilers may find difficulty in discerning this fact as it is, failing to find the truth, as a result of which he may narrate whatever reaching his ear as it is, leaving others to blame not him.618 Ibn Taymiyyah also said: It is not necessary that whatever reported by Ahmad in his Musnad is to be regarded hujjah by him, but rather he may report the traditions narrated by men of knowledge, as his condition for the musnad lies in not reporting from those known of falsification in his view, though containing some weak traditions. In regard of books of fada’il (merits), he (Ahmad) used to narrate
618. Minhaj al-Sunnah, vol.IV, p.15
( 394 )
whatever he heard from his shaykhs, whether being correct or weak, as never intended to not reporting but only those traditions proved to be true for him, increasing then some additions, with some other additions made then by Abu Bakr al-Qati’i, in which numerous fabricated traditions can be seen.619
He further said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal used to narrate every hadith related by people even if its veracity was not established. Every knowledge-seeker is aware that not every hadith on merits reported by Ahmad, should necessarily be correct, nor every hadith he reported in his Musnad should be deemed sahih, as these being the same traditions related by people from that who is known among people of transmission (naql) but his falsity was not manifest for all, with some of them probably having a defect indicating their being weak or even invalid.620
In a reply to that inferring a hadith reported by Ahmad which was false, he said: Even if we suppose the hadith be reported by Ahmad, this can never necessitate its being sahih and should be adopted in practice. Rather, al-Imam Ahmad is known to have reported many traditions so as to make people aquainted with them, disclosing for people their weakness, the fact that can be better apparent in his speech and answers, needing no more elucidation, especially in such a great source. In this book – Musnad Ahmad – many additions were increased by his son Abd Allah, from whom al-Qati’i reported with adding from his shaykhs several traditions that were known to be fabricated with concurrence of notable traditionists.621
In his book Qa’idah jalilah fi al-tawassul wa al-wasilah, he writes: There was heated dispute between Abu al-Ala’ al-Hamadani and al-Shaykh Abu al-Faraj ibn al-Jawzi, regarding presence of any fabricated hadith in Musnad Ahmad. Al-Hamadani denied its existence and Abu al-Faraj proved its being there, stating that it contained traditions known to be false. And no incompatibility is there between the two opinions, as what is deemed fabricated by Abu al-Faraj being that hadith on the falsity of which a proof was established though the narrator not intending falsity but committing an error in it. While al-Hafiz Abu al-Sa’ud and his likes meant by the falsified
619. Ibid., vol.IV, p.27.
620. Ibid., vol.IV, p.27.
621. Ibid., vol.IV, p.106.
( 395 )
fabricated hadith, that one whose narrator intended falsity on purpose,622 following the rule of “That to blame for falsity being one who intended it”. Whereas the narration of unintentional liar cannot be counted as falsity! And how much detrimental was this rule for religion.
In the same rule he said too that Ahmad ibn Hanbal and other ulama’ permitted reporting of traditions on virtuous deeds, that were not known to be established.623
Among the traditions reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal and agreed by Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi and Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, we can refer to the traditions: “When we narrate (a hadith) on halal (lawful) and haram (unlawful) we be severe, whereas when narrating on virtues (fada’il) we show tolerance.”
In Ikhtisar ulum al-hadith,624 Ibn Kathir says: The comment of Abu Musa Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr al-Midyani on Musnad Ahmad that it is sahih, is verily a weak saying as it (Musnad) contained feeble or even fabricated traditions, like those on excellences of Marv, Asqalan and the Red Berth belonging to Hams and others, as indicated by a group of huffaz. Besides, al-Imam Ahmad missed so many traditions in his book, and rather it was said that he has not reported from the Sahabah whose traditions are recorded in the two Sahihs, numbering about two hundred.
Al-Iraqi says: In refutation to those claiming that Ahmad ibn Hanbal took upon himself to reporting sahih traditions in his Musnad, we say: We never admit this, and regarding existence of weak hadith in his Musnad it is something verified, and rather it contains fabricated traditions which I collected in a booklet. Further his son Abd Allah made many additions containing weak and fabricated traditions with hadith of Anas: Asqalan is one of the two brides, from which Allah will resurrect on the Doomsday seventy thousand persons that will never be subject to reckoning. Also it contained several disapproved traditions of which hadith of Buraydah: “Be present at Khurasan then settle down at the City of Marv, as it is built by Dhu al-Qarnayn…etc. But the hadith of Berth being: “From it Allah will resurrect
622. See pp.75, 76.
623. Al-Qa'idah, p.77.
624. See pp.18, 19.
( 396 )
seventy thousand men not subject to reckoning or chastisement, in a place between the Red Berth and so and so, also hadith of A’ishah on the story of Umm Zar’ which is found in the Sahih but not cited in Musnad Ahmad.
Al-Allamah Abd al-Rahman ibn Isma’il , known with the nickname Abu Shamah, in his book al-Ba’ith ala inkar al-bida’ wa al-hawadith, says: Abu al-Khattab said: Companions of al-Imam Ahmad infer the traditions reported by Ahmad in his Musnad in argumentation, while most of them being unfit for argumentation, as they were cited by him only for knowing the source of the hadith, and determining whether its narrator being reliable or defamed! And it is impermissible for any well-informed Muslim to cite but only what is correct so as not to be miserable in the world and hereafter, as there is a correct hadith reported from Sayyid al-Thaqalayn (S) that he said: “Whoever relates from me any hadith, knowing it to be false, he will verily be counted as a liar.”625
Some of the examiners of Musnad Ahmad said about it: Truly the Musnad contained many traditions that were so weak to the extent that they were counted among the fabricated ones.626
When al-Imam Ahmad’s saying: ‘I made this book an imam, so as to be a reference for people when differing in any sunnah of the Messenger of Allah,627 was objected, my reply would be that al-Imam Ahmad started to write the Musnad on separate papers, making it then in separate parts like a draft copy. But his last hour approached before completing his work, when he embarked on reciting it to his sons and family members, passing away before revising and rectifying it, leaving it as it is. Then his son Abd Allah added to it traditions resembling what it contained, including in it alike and identical ones from his memory (what he heard). After that al-Qati’i selected from this copy whatever he could of traditions, causing confusion in Musnads and repetition. Consequently numerous traditions were left intact on papers and booklets since they were out of reach, as a result of which the Musnad was lacking many sahih traditions.628
When al-Imam Ahmad said: I have compiled and selected this book
625. See p.55
626. Tawjih al-nazar, p.155.
627. In Muqaddimat Ibn Khaldun it is reported that Musnad Ahmad contained 50 thousand traditions. See also the book al-Islam al-sahih of Muhammad Is'af al-Nashashibi.
628. Muqaddimat Musnad Ahamd, of al-Shaykh Ahmad Muhammad Shakir, vol.I, pp.30,31.
( 397 )
out of more than 750 thousand traditions; whenever Muslims differ regarding any hadith of the Messenger of Allah they can refer to it, if it be there (it should be adopted) and otherwise it is not a hujjah (fit for argumentation), Abu Abd Allah al-Dhahabi said: This utterance by him (Ahmad) applies to general probability, since there being strong traditions in the two Sahihs and Sunan and parts that are not found in the Musnad. And Allah predestined for al-Imam (Ahmad) to stop the narration before revising the Musnad, thirteen years before his death, as a result of which we find in the book repeated things, and interlacing of a Musnad into a Musnad and of a sanad (chain) into a sanad, which being a very rare case.629
Ibn al-Jawzi, in his book Sayd al-Khatir, has a commentary on the Musnad, I quote herewith its very words from the introduction to volume one of the Musnad (published by Dar al-Ma’arif):
A section (fasl): A question put forth to me by some men of hadith: Does Musnad Ahmad contain any incorrect hadith? I said: Yes. But this was regarded as exaggeration by some claiming to be among the followers of the madhhab (school of thought), whom I held to be among common people, paying no attention to them. But all of a sudden, they issued some fatawa (verdicts), in which some of people of Khurasan including Abu al-Ala’ al-Hamadani aggrandized and refuted this saying censuring anyone uttering it! This made me so amazed and astonished, speaking to myself: How wonderful! Knowledge claimants turned to be among common people too! And the only reason for this was that they heard the hadith without investigating to recognize the correct and defective ones, supposing that whoever holding what I held was subject to vilification in respect of what Ahmad reported, while the truth was never so. Because Ahmad has reported the good and weak traditions altogether, with disapproving and not adopting many of these traditions he himself reported. Hasn’t he said about the hadith on “performing ablution with wine” that it is “unknown”! and whoever looking into the book al-Ilal, compiled by Abu Bakr al-Khallal, will verily come across a large number
629. Ibid., p.31.
( 398 )
of traditions that were cited in the Musnad, and vilified by Ahmad.
Al-Qadi Abu Ya`la Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Farra’, in a comment on the issue of wine, said: Ahmad reported in his Musnad whatever was widely-known of hadith without intending to bring either the sahih or the defective ones. The evidence for this can be seen in Abd Allah’s words, saying: I said to my father: What is your opinion about the hadith of Rib’i ibn Kharash which he reported from Hudhayfah? He said: You mean the one reported by Abd al-Aziz ibn Abi Dawud? I said: Yes. He said: There are traditions contradicting it. I said: But you have cited it in your Musnad!? He said: You mean the widely-known Musnad…if I intended to cite only what I think to be right, I wouldn’t report in this Musnad but only very little number of traditions, but you know my way of citing the hadith…as I never oppose the weak hadith when there be nothing refuting it in the chapter.
Al-Farra’ said: He himself has explained his method of citing the hadith in the Musnad, as whoever was taken by him as a reference for correct hadith, he would contradict and leave him.
Ibn al-Jawzi said: What grieved me in this time,630 being the fact that the ulama’, because of their incompetency in knowledge, turned to be like common people…when coming across any fabricated hadith, they would say: It was reported!631 and that which should be lamented being the vile resolution. And neither might nor power but only is with Allah the Most High, the Great.632
Ibn Qutaybah, in his book al-Ikhtilaf fi al-lafz, writes: Ahmad ibn Hanbal stopped narration of hadith many years before his death, since the year 228H., as stated by Abu Talib al-Makki and others. Therefore the traditions that were reported from him were filled with expletives and words having no relation to knowledge, either out of bad accuracy or misconception or purposeful falsity.633
630. Ibn alj-Jawzi was born in 510 H. and died in 597 H.
631. All the misfortune is in the phrase: "it is reported".
632. Musnad Ahmad, Dar al-Ma'arif, introduction to vol.I, pp.56, 57. revised by Shaykh Ahmad Shakir.
633. See p.53.
( 399 )
Ahmad Reporting from an Apostate
Companion:
Ibn Hajar, in Fath al-Bari, says: In Musnad Ahmad we find hadith of Rabi’ah ibn Umayyah ibn Khalaf al-Jamhi, who embraced Islam during conquest of Makkah, attending the Hijjat al-Wada’ with the Messenger of Allah, relating his traditions after his demise…then he was disgraced. During the caliphate of Umar he joined the Romans, adopting the Christian religion, because of something that enraged him. Reporting such a hadith is verily a dubious thing, and that who reported it might not get acquainted with the story of his apostasy.634
These were comments uttered by eminent leaders (imams) about Musnad Ahmad, which suffice for introducing it and manifesting its worth as it was actually not as was known about it. It was one of the sources that were unreliable and unfit for argumentation, like all other Musnads.
634. Fath al-Bari, vol.VII, p.3
