Question:
As-salam,
A Wahhabi says that the narration about “Ya Muhammadah” being the battle cry of the Muslim armies during the battle at Yamama is extremely weak: http://ahlusunnahwaljamaah.com/2010/10/25/tawassul4/
“At-Tabari mentioned the Isnad of the poem of Khalid ibnul Walid and the saying of Muslims on battle “O Muhammad” in his book “Tarikh Al-Umam Wal Muluk” v 3 p 293 with Isnad: from Shu’ayb from Sayf from Dahak ibn Yarbu’ from his father from a man from Banu Suhyam.
And this Isnad is extremely weak, as it contains Sayd ibn ‘Umar, the author of “Al-Futuh”. Abu Hatim declared him to be Matruk, Ibn Hibban said he is accused of heresy, and ibn ‘Adi said that most of his Ahadith are Munkar. Despite this, there are two other narrators Dahak ibn Yarbu’ and the man from Banu Suhaym are Majhul (unknowen).”
Is this true?
Answer:
Alaykum Salam,
Discussions of Sayf b. `Umar generally show ignorance of the rules of narrator-commendation and discreditation (al-jarh wal-ta`dil) and this objection is no exception.
Furthermore, al-Dahhak b. Yarbu` is not unknown, and the only scholar to weaken him was al-Azdi, whose unconfirmed rulings are considered unreliable due to their unsubstantiated severity; both al-Dahhak and his father are Muslims from the Banu Hanifa — Musaylima’s tribe — and the unnamed Tabi`i was present with Khalid b. Walid, so draw your own conclusions as to why such a researcher as Sayf b. `Umar would consider this report valuable and historic.
Ibn Kathir relies on Sayf a lot in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya as does Ibn Hajar in the Isaba. The latter said in the Taqrib that Sayf was “weak in hadith but a pillar of reliance (`umda) in history.” Our teacher Dr. Nur al-Din `Itr in his notes on Ibn Rajab’s Sharh `Ilal al-Tirmidhi (2:554-555) includes Sayf in the type of “Those that were declared weak in certain subjects and not others. This applies to those that devoted themselves to a certain discipline then went into other than it, such as, in the qira’at, `Asim… or in history Ibn Ishaq…. and Sayf.” Al-Daraqutni cites him authoritatively in al-Mu’talif wal-Mukhtalif. Al-Dhahabi calls him a “master chronicler” (akhbari `arif). Ibn Hajar rejects Ibn Hibban’s report that Sayf was accused of heresy (zandaqa) and Dr. `Itr points out in his notes on al-Dhahabi’s Mughni that Sayf’s reports point to anything but zandaqa.
That is why al-Tabari retained this report, as did the specialists of history after him in their large works such as al-Maqrizi, Ibn al-Athir and Ibn Kathir, and they did not care about those who weaken it.
Hajj Gibril Haddad
