Did the Prophet Touch a Woman's Chest? A Weak Hadith Exposed
Some critics, particularly from Shia polemical circles, cite a narration attributed to Anas ibn Malik alleging that the Prophet ﷺ placed his hand on a woman’s chest after she requested him to wipe her face and supplicate for her. This post demonstrates that the narration is weak in both its chain of transmission and its text, that it contains the known fabricator Hanzalah al-Sadusi, and that the critics’ reliance on it exposes their disregard for classical hadith methodology. We examine the chain defects, the judgments of the hadith masters on Hanzalah, and the scholarly consensus that rejects this narration.
The Alleged Hadith
The filthy Rafidi mentioned it under the title of the Prophet [kissing and touching] — Allah the Almighty said: Indeed, the curse of Allah is upon the wrongdoers.Al-A’raf 7:44. He wants to work according to the principle of mutual silence — “do not tell me and I will not tell you” — while the evidence overwhelmingly condemns his own methodology of hadith theft without verification.
The Chain Defect: Hanzalah al-Sadusi
The chain of this narration includes Hanzalah al-Sadusi, who is weak and confused. The shameful Rafidi did not bother to open a single book from which he could quote the criticism and approval of the people of Hadith for the chain of narrators; he only succeeded in stealing the narration without understanding its defects.
The criticisms of Hanzalah al-Sadusi are extensive and severe:
-
He narrated on the authority of Anas that the Prophet used to supplicate in the Qunut — a narration not found in the authentic collections.
-
He narrated on the authority of Shahr on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Prophet used to recite in the Fajr prayer — another strange narration.
-
Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said on the authority of his father: “Weak hadith, he narrates fabricated hadiths on the authority of Anas.”
Al-Busayri’s authentication is not decisive. Al-Busayri is not an infallible angel. Even if he authenticated the chain, his judgment relied on Ibn Hibban’s mention of Hanzalah in Al-Thiqat and Al-Saji’s statement that Hanzalah is truthful. However, Ibn Hibban’s mention of a narrator in Al-Thiqat does not mean that he is trustworthy in absolute terms, and Al-Saji’s statement is not to be relied upon because most of the scholars of Hadith have weakened Hanzalah and deliberately rejected his narration — there is almost a consensus on weakening him.
Therefore, if we go back to the chain of transmission, we will find in it the weakness of Hanzalah, and they have no choice but to weaken the hadith — because Al-Busayri or anyone else is not an angel, and we do not testify to anyone’s infallibility.
Scholarly Consensus on the Weakness of This Narration
This judgment appears in Al-Matalib al-Aliyah verified by a group of researchers in a university thesis with the coordinator Dr. Saad bin Nasser bin Abdul Aziz Al-Shathri, published by Dar Al-Asemah for Publishing and Distribution — Dar Al-Ghaith for Publishing and Distribution. The scholarly consensus is clear: the narration is rejected due to the presence of a known fabricator in its chain.
Sources
-
Abu al-Hasan al-Maymuni, on the authority of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
-
Abu Bakr al-Athram, on the authority of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
-
Salih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, on the authority of his father Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
-
Al-Busayri, Ithaf al-Khayrah, Vol. 6, p. 471.
-
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Al-Matalib al-Aliyah, Vol. 15, p. 616, verified by researchers under Dr. Saad bin Nasser bin Abdul Aziz Al-Shathri, published by Dar Al-Asemah — Dar Al-Ghaith.