Eesaa bin Jaariyah al-Ansaari

Name:

عيسى بن جارية الأنصارى المدنى

Eesaa bin Jaariyah al-Ansaari al-Madani

Tabaqah: 4 - Next to the Taabi'een of Middle Level

Death: 111 – 120 H

Narrated by: Ibn Maajah

Teachers: Jaabir bin Abdullah al-Ansaari, Jareer bin Abdullah al-Bajali, Saalim bin Abdullah bin Umar, Sa’eed bin al-Musayyab, Shareek (the companion), Abu Salamah bin Abdur Rahmaan bin Awf

Students: Abu Sakhrah Humayd bin Ziyaad al-Madani, Zayd bin Abi Aneesah, Sa’eed bin Muhammad al-Ansaari, Anbasah bin Sa’eed ar-Raazi, and Ya’qoob bin Abdullah al-Ash’ari al-Qummi.

Status: Sadooq, Hasan ul-Hadeeth

Opinions of Ahl ul-Jarh wat Ta’deel:

Those who criticized him:

1-    Imaam Yahya bin Ma’een (D. 233) said:

«ليس بشيء»

“He is nothing”

[ Su'alaat Ibn al-Junayd (1/302)]

Note: Laysa Bishayi is usually said by Imaam Ibn Ma’een to indicate towards the “Less” number of narrations of the narrator as explained by Ibn Hajar and others.

At another place, he said:

“روى عنه يعقوب القمي لا نعلم أحدا روى عنه غيره وحديثه ليس بذاك”

“Ya’qoob al-Qummi has narrated from him, we do not know of anyone who narrated from him other than him, and his hadeeth is nothing”

[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by Ad-Dauri (4/365)]

Note: Laysa Biqawi and Laysa Bidhaaka are one of the lightest forms of Jarh.

At another place, he said:

“عنده أحاديث مناكير يحدث عنه يعقوب القمي وعنبسة قاضي الري”

“He has some Munkar narrations; Ya’qoob al-Qummi and Anbasah the Qaadhi of Raaye have narrated from him”

[Taareekh Ibn Ma’een, narrated by Ad-Dauri (4/369)]

Note: There is a contradiction in both his above mentioned sayings whether only one person narrated from him or more than one.

Note: There is a huge difference between saying “Lahu Manaakeer” or “Indahu Manaakeer” and saying “Munkar ul-Hadeeth”. The former Jarh is not even counted among the reliable forms of criticism because it does not indicate towards the continuation or permanency of Nakarah as compared to “Munkar ul-Hadeeth”, nor can this Jarh be called Mufassar!

[See, Qawaaid Uloom al-Hadeeth (P. 260, 261)]

In conclusion, the Jarh of Ibn Ma’een in general is rejected because:

1.     Imaam Yahya bin Ma’een is among the Mutashaddid Naaqideen.

2.     His Jarh is extremely light.

3.     His Jarh is Ghayr Mufassar (unexplained).

4.     It is against the Jumhoor.

2-    Imaam Abu Ahmed bin Adee al-Jarjaani (D. 365) said:

“وكلها غير محفوظة”

“All (his narrations) are unpreserved”

[ Al-Kaamil by Ibn Adee (6/438)]

Note: The opposite of “Shaadh” is called “Mahfoodh (Preserved)”, therefore the meaning of “Ghair Mahfoodh (Unpreserved)” is “Shaadh”. Imaam Shaafi’ee (rahimahullah) has said: Shaadh is a narration in which a Thiqah narrator narrates against other Thiqah narrators. [Adaab ash-Shaafi’ee wa Manaaqibuhu by Ibn Abi Haatim: Pg 179, Chain Saheeh, Ma’rifat Uloom ul-Hadeeth by Haakim Pg 119 H 290, Chain Hasan, Ma’rifat us-Sunan wal Athaar by Bayhaqi: 1/81,82 Chain Hasan, Muqaddimah Ibn as-Salaah maa Sharh ul-Iraaqi Pg 101]

3-    Imaam Al-Nasaa’ee (D. 303) said:

“منكر”

“Munkar”

[ Ad-Du'afa wal Matrokeen by al-Nasaa'ee (1/76), Al-Kaamil by Ibn Adee (6/436)]

Note: This Jarh is rejected due to the following reasons:

1.     Imaam Nasaa’ee is known for his Tashaddud.

2.     The Jarh is not explained.

3.     It is against the Jumhoor.

Note: The Jarh of “Matrook” is not proven from Imaam Nasaa’ee with an authentic chain.

4-    Imaam Abu Ja’far al-Ukaylee (D. 322) mentioned him in Ad-Du’afa

[2/238 T. 2637]

5-    Haafidh Ibn al-Jawzee mentioned him in ad-Du’afa (2/238 T. 2637)

Note: Ibn al-Jawzee is known for his utmost strictness, even Harsher than any other Mutashaddid. That is why, Imaam Dhahabi said about his book “Ad-Du’afa”:

“وقد أورده أيضا العلامة أبو الفرج ابن الجوزي في "الضعفاء"، ولم يذكر فيه أقوال من وثقه، وهذا من عيوب كتابه، يسرد الجرح ويسكت عن التوثيق”

“And al-Allaamah Abu al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzee has also mentioned him in Ad-Du’afa but he did not mention any sayings of Tawtheeq in it, and this is one of the defects of his book, he brings only the Jarh and remains silent from the Tawtheeq”

[Meezaan al-I’tidaal (1/16)]

6-    It is said that Imaam Abu Dawood as-Sijistaani (D. 275) said:

“منكر الحديث”

“Munkar ul-Hadeeth”

[ Tahdheeb al-Kamaal (5/542 T. 5208)]

This Jarh is not proven due to two reasons:

1.     The authentic chain up to Al-Ajurri is unknown.

2.     Ajurri himself is not proven to be Thiqah or Sadooq, wallahu a’lam.

7-    Imaam Yahya bin Zakariyyah as-Saaji mentioned him in Ad-Du’afa

[Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb by Ibn Hajar (8/207)]

Note: Mentioning someone in the book of Du’afa does not mean that he is Da’eef according to the Author as well, because there are many authors like Ibn Adee and Dhahabi etc who compiled books of Du’afa but their methodology in the book does not suggest that every narrator they mention is also Da’eef according to them!! Therefore, since the methodology of As-Saaji is not known in his book nor is the type and level of Jarh known – as to whether it is just a Jarh on his character, or on his hadeeth etc therefore, the mere indication that As-Saaji mentioned him in Ad-Du’afa serves no good or benefit!

Khulaasah al-Jarh: The gist of all the sayings of criticism is that out of these 7 sayings:

The Jarh of Abu Dawood is not proven – remain 6

The Jarh of As-Saaji, Ibn al-Jawzee and Abu Ja’far al-Ukaylee are unexplained and they are not their own criticisms plus Ibn al-Jawzee is also known for his Tashaddud – remain 3

The Jarh of Ibn Adee is not a reliable Jarh as it does not negate his being Sadooq, Hasan ul-Hadeeth – remain 2

The Jarh of Ibn Ma’een and Nasaa’ee is rejected because it is unexplained, they both are Mutashaddid, and their Jarh is against the Jumhoor.

Those who praised him:

1-    Imaam Abu Zur’ah ar-Raazi (D. 264) said:

“لا بأس به”

“There is nothing wrong in him”

[ Al-Jarh wat Ta'deel by Ibn Abi Haatim (6/273)]

Note: Imaam Yahya ibn Ma’een has said: “When I say to you ‘There is nothing wrong in him’, then it means he is Thiqah” 

[Al-Kifaayah lil Khateeb Pg 22, Chain Saheeh]

This proves that “La Ba’sa Bihi” is from the expressions of Tawtheeq. That is why Haafidh Noor ud-Deen Haythami said: “And Abu Zur’ah has declared him Thiqah”

[Majma az-Zawaaid: 2/72]

2-    Imaam Ibn Hibbaan (D. 354) mentioned him in Kitaab ath-Thiqaat [5/214], and he also narrated from him in his Saheeh [2401/2409, 2406/2415]

Note: It is known that Imaam Ibn Hibbaan is Mutasaahil in doing Tawtheeq of only the Majhool narrators but he is Mutashaddid in criticizing the well-known narrators. Therefore, in this case Imaam Ibn Hibbaan has declared him Thiqah being in the position of a Mutashaddid. And the Tawtheeq of a Mutashaddid is highly reliable and more authentic than anyone else’s Tawtheeq.

3-    Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah (D. 311) narrated from him in his Saheeh and did not criticize him. [Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah: 2/138, H. 1070]

The narrator whom Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah al-Nisaaboori narrates from in his Saheeh and does not do Jarh on him then that narrator is Thiqah and Sudooq according to him, and that narration too, is Saheeh according to him.

See: Al-Badar al-Muneer [1/554, 619]

Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah narrated a hadeeth, but with it, he did not say “Sanaduhu Saheehun (Its Chain is Saheeh)” See: Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah [1/59 H. 111]

Regarding this hadeeth, Haafidh Ibn Hajar said in the beginning of his book, Buloogh ul-Maraam: “Wa Sahhahahu Ibn Khuzaymah (And Ibn Khuzaymah authenticated it)” [H. 1]

Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah narrated a hadeeth from Sayyidunah Abu as-Samh (radiallah anhu) but did not declare it Saheeh verbally. See: Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah [1/143 H. 283]. Regarding this hadeeth, Naymwi Taqleedi wrote: “And Ibn Khuzaymah Authenticated it” [Athaar us-Sunan H. 48]

This proves that merely narrating of a narration by Ibn Khuzaymah in his Saheeh (unless he does Jarh on it), is the authentication of that hadeeth according to him.

Haafidh Ibn Hajar said regarding a narrator that: “Ibn Khuzaymah has declared his hadeeth to be Saheeh, which means that narrator is Thiqah according to him” 

Ta’jeel al-Munfa’ah Pg 248 T. 618, Abdur Rahmaan bin Khaalid bin Jabal al-Adwaani; Also see: Al-Isaabah [1/403 T. 2152]

From this detail it is evident that Eesa bin Jaariyah is Aadil and Ghair Majrooh according to him. Walhamdulillah

4-    Imaam Abdul Adheem bin Abdul Qawi al-Mundhiri (581 – 656 H) narrated a Hadeeth of Eesaa bin Jaariyah and said:

“إسناده جيد”

“Its chain is strong”

[ Al-Targheeb wal Tarheeb by al-Mundhiri (1/507 H. 1069)]

5-    Imaam Abu Ya’la al-Khaleeli (D. 446) said:

“كَانَ عَارِفًا بِالْحَدِيثِ.... مَحِلُّهُ الصِّدْقُ”

“He was well versed with Hadeeth…. He is at the status of Sidq”

[ Al-Irshaad fi Ma'rifah Ulama al-Hadeeth by al-Khaleeli (2/785)]

6-    Despite narrating the criticisms of Scholars, Imaam Shams ud-Deen adh-Dhahabi (D. 748) authenticated and praised his hadeeth saying:

“إسناده وسط”

“Its chain is average (i.e. Hasan)”

[ Meezaan al-I'tidaal by Dhahabi (3/311)]

7-    Haafidh Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani (D. 852) said:

“فيه لين”

“There is mildness in him”

[ Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb by Ibn Hajar (5288)]

This apparently contradicts other sayings of Ibn Hajar. In Al-Isaabah, Haafidh Ibn Hajar said about the narration of Eesa bin Jaariyah that:

“رجاله ثقات”

“Its narrators are all Thiqah”

[Al-Isaabah (2/152 T. 3909)]

At another place, he said about one of the narrations of Eesa bin Jaariyah that:

“كَمَا أَخْرَجَهُ أَبُو يَعْلَى بِإِسْنَادٍ حَسَنٍ مِنْ رِوَايَةِ عِيسَى بْنِ جَارِيَةَ وَهُوَ بِالْجِيمِ عَنْ جَابِرٍ قَالَ كَانَ أُبَيُّ بْنُ كَعْبٍ يُصَلِّي...”

“As it is narrated by Ibn Ya’la with a Hasan chain from the narration of Eesa bin Jaariyah from Jaabir that Ubay bin Ka’b would pray….”

[Fath al-Baari (2/198)]

The saying of Ibn Hajar in Taqreeb apparently contradicts his two other sayings. In this case, like any other narration, there are four decisive factors to prefer one over another.

First: Tatbeeq (If Reconciliation is possible between the two sayings then that would be done)

Second: If reconciliation is not possible that we would look what came first and what came later and abrogate the early decision with the later decision.

Third: If even abrogation is not possible then, we should resort to Tarjeeh and give preference to one based on some evidence.

Fourth: If Tarjeeh is also not possible then both the sayings will be neutralized and none will be followed.

If we follow these methods then no matter which one you follow the preference will still be give to the Tawtheeq of Ibn Hajar. The details are as follows:

If we follow the way of Tatbeeq (reconciliation) then it can be reconciled and said that the “mildness” that Ibn Hajar has mentioned does not mean “Weakness” rather it could most likely and evidently mean that his narration at least becomes Hasan dropping from the level of Saheeh. It is mentioned in the books of Uloom al-Hadeeth that “Layyin (mild)” is the lightest form of Jarh and in fact it is close to “Ta’deel (praise)”. Therefore, this reconciliation can very well fit in this case.

If we follow the method of Naasikh and Mansookh then it is known that Ibn Hajar finished authoring Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb in 817 H but as for Fath ul-Baari then he finished authoring it in the year 842 H which means Fath ul-Baari was written way after Taqreeb at-Tahdheeb. And this would prove that the Jarh “Feehi Layyin” of Ibn Hajar is Mansookh (abrogated).

If we follow the method of Tarjeeh, then it is evident that Ibn Hajar authenticated Eesa bin Jaariyah at more than one places as compared to just one. So the Tarjeeh should be given to his Tawtheeq.

If we follow the last method and declare both sayings to be Saaqit (void) then it would neither become the Daleel for us nor would it be a Daleel for the opposing party, but that is not needed as we already have the previous three options available.

In all cases, it is clearly evident that the Tawtheeq of Ibn Hajar is preferred and that Eesa bin Jaariyah is at least Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to him.

Moreover, the Tawtheeq of Ibn Hajar is also hujjah and preferable according to the principles of those who oppose us i.e. Ahnaaf.

Zafar Ahmed Thaanvi Deobandi writes:

“إذا اختلف قول المنقد في رجل فضعفه مرة وقواه اخري فالذي يدل عليه صنيع الحافظ ان الترجيح للتعديل ويحمل الجرح علي شئ بعينه”

“When the saying of a Naaqid contradicts about a narrator – thus weakening him at one time and strengthening him at another time, then what indicates towards it that Al-Haafidh favored is that the preference is given to the Ta’deel and the Jarh will be interpreted upon something similar”

[Inhaa us-Sikan (P. 105)]

After narrating the same saying, Shaykh Abu Ghuddah al-Hanafi writes:

“ولعل هذا ارجح مما ذكره الزركشي رحمه الله تعالي”

“And probably this opinion is more accurate than what Zarkhashi rahimahullah mentioned.”

[Qawaaid Uloom al-Hadeeth (P. 265)]

These details can be seen in Ar-Rafa’ wal Takmeel by Abdul Hayy al-Lakhnawi (P. 172, 173) and Inhaa us-Sikan (P. 64)

This clearly proves that the Hanafi Scholars also prefer the Ta’deel in this case. Therefore, they should not have any objection to this.

8-    Haafidh Noor ud-Deen al-Haythami (D. 807) said about one of the narrations of Eesa bin Jaariyah:

“وَرِجَالُ أَبِي يَعْلَى ثِقَاتٌ”

“And the narrators of Abu Ya’la are Thiqah”

[ Majma az-Zawaaid by Al-Haythami (3/174)]

And the narration in Abu Ya’la (3/335 H. 1799) clearly contains the name of Eesa bin Jaariyah as one of the narrators.

9-    Haafidh Shihaab ud-Deen al-Busayri (D. 840) said regarding a hadeeth narrated by Eesaa bin Jaariyah that:

“هَذَا إِسْنَاد حسن يَعْقُوب مُخْتَلف فِيهِ وَالْبَاقِي ثِقَات”

“This chain is Hasan; Ya’qoob is differed upon and the remaining all narrators are Thiqah”

[ Misbaah uz-Zajaajah fi Zawaaid Ibn Maajah (4/245)]

Conclusion:

The details prove that Eesaa bin Jaariyah is Thiqah and Sadooq thus Hasan ul-Hadeeth according to the Jumhoor Muhadditheen.

For our dear Hanafi Brothers, the following Muhadditheen should also be counted among those who declared Eesa bin Jaariyah Thiqah and Hasan ul-Hadeeth.

1-    Imaam Bukhaari has mentioned Eesa bin Jaariyah in al-Taareekh al-Kabeer [6/385] and did not criticize him.

Zafar Ahmed Thaanvi Deobandi said: 

“وكذا كل من ذكره البخاري في تواريخه ولم يطعن فيه فهو ثقة...”

“And similarly, whoever Bukhaari has mentioned in his Tawareekh and did not criticize them then they are Thiqah (according to him).” 

[Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth: Pg 223, I’laa us-Sunan19/223]

2-    Haafidh Ibn Abi Haatim has mentioned Eesa bin Jaariyah in Al-Jarh wat Ta’deel [6/273] and did not criticize him.

Zafar Ahmed Thaanvi Deobandi has invented an Usool that the Sukoot (Silence) of Abu Haatim or Abu Zur’ah on a narrator, is his tawtheeq. See: Qawaaid fi Uloom ul-Hadeeth (Pg 248) I’laa us-Sunan [19/403]

These two sayings are only mentioned as an Ilzaam, but they are Hujjah for the Ahnaaf. Therefore, they now have no choice but to consider Eesa bin Jaariyah to be Thiqah based on their own Usool.

3-    Another person who is Hujjah for Ahnaaf is Shawk al-Naymawi, and he said about a hadeeth of Eesaa bin Jaariyah: “Its chain is Saheeh”

[Athaar as-Sunan: 961] which means even Naymawi considers him Thiqah.

Final Words:

Eesaa bin Jaariyah has narrated from Jaabir bin Abdullah (radiallah anhu) that we prayed with the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) 8 rak’ahs and Witr in the month of Ramadaan….

[Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah (2/138 H. 1070), Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan, al-Ihsaan (4/62 H. 2401, 4/64 H. 2406)]

This narration is Hasan Lidhaatih. This narration is authenticated by Imaam Ibn Khuzaymah, Imaam Ibn Hibbaan, Imaam Dhahabi and others. Therefore, the criticism of Ibn Adee alone is not correct.

This narration of Eesaa bin Jaariyah was also mentioned by Aynee al-Hanafi and Zayla’ee al-Hanafi and they both did not criticize it at all.

[Umdat al-Qaari (7/177 H. 1129), Nasb ur-Raayah (2/152)]

Mulla Ali Qaari al-Hanafi said:

“فإنه صح عنه أنه صلي بهم ثماني ركعات والوتر”

“Certainly it is authentically proven from him that he prayed with them (i.e. his companions) eight rak’ahs and Witr”

[Mirqaat Sharh al-Mishkaat: 3/379 under H. 1302]

He is referring to the same narration as this is the only narration which mentions the Prophet praying 8 rak’ahs with his Sahaabah in congregation along with the witr. This proves that this narration is Saheeh even according to Mulla Ali Qaari al-Hanafi.