Did the Prophet ﷺ Place His Hand on the Torah? Refuting the Weak Hisham ibn Sa‘d Report
Did the Prophet ﷺ Believe in the Corrupted Torah? Refuting the Hisham Ibn Sa’d Addition
This article responds to the claim that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ placed his hand on the Torah and declared belief in it, as used by Christian polemicists to argue that Islam confirms the present Torah. The response focuses on the weakness of the added wording, the criticism of its narrators, the stronger narration of Malik from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar, and the fact that even if the narration were assumed authentic, it would refer to the Torah revealed to Musa عليه السلام, not the corrupted text in Jewish hands.
Table of Contents
- The Objection
- The Weak Narrators in the Report
- Al-Arna’ut Weakens the Report
- Hisham Ibn Sa’d Was Weakened
- Ibn Hazm Declared the Report False
- Abu Dawud’s Presentation of the Report
- Malik’s Stronger Narration Does Not Contain the Addition
- Who Is Hisham Ibn Sa’d
- The Criticism of Hisham Ibn Sa’d in Mizan al-I’tidal
- Abu Hatim’s Comparison with Ibn Ishaq
- Ibn Hajar’s Judgment on Hisham Ibn Sa’d
- The Strong Isnad: Malik — Nafi’ — Ibn Umar
- The Addition Is Munkar or Shadh
- Answering the Al-Albani Objection
- Even If Authentic, It Still Does Not Prove Their Claim
- Conclusion
The Objection
Christians and anti-Islam polemicists use a report claiming that the Prophet ﷺ placed his hand on the Torah and said that he believed in it. They use this to claim that Islam confirms the Torah in Jewish possession as reliable and uncorrupted.
DAWOOD 4449
The Weak Narrators in the Report
-
Hisham bin Sa’d weakened by:
[Hibban, Nasai Ibn Hanbal, al Asqalani] -
Ahmad bin Sa’eed weakened by: [Ibn Hanbal al Jawzi Al Nasai Daraqutni]
3, it goes against the Quran and much more sahih Hadiths. 🔽
Al-Arna’ut Weakens the Report
Here al-arna’ut in his tahquiq weakns the report
Book: Tahqiq of the hadith collection shown in the provided scan
Editor/Muhaqqiq: Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut
Al-Arna’ut weakens the report in his verification, which directly undermines the use of this narration as proof.
Book: Tahqiq of the hadith collection shown in the provided scan
Editor/Muhaqqiq: Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut
The grading discussion continues and supports the point that this report is not strong enough to establish the controversial addition.
Book: Tahqiq of the hadith collection shown in the provided scan
Editor/Muhaqqiq: Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut
The chain criticism remains tied to the reliability of the narrators. This is why the addition cannot be used against the Qur’anic position on distortion.
Hisham Ibn Sa’d Was Weakened
Hisham bin Sa’d هِشَامُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ was weakened by Nasai in here
Ibn Hazm Declared the Report False
Ibn hazm said: it is a fabricated false report that did not reach us with proper chain of transmission.
Book: Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal
Author: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi
Ibn Hazm rejects the report about the Prophet ﷺ placing his hand on the Torah and declaring belief in it. He calls it false and states that it did not reach through a sound chain.
Abu Dawud’s Presentation of the Report
It’s worth to note that when Abu dawud mentioned his hadith that talks about Muhammad ﷺ Believing in the torah that was narrated by Hisham Ibn Sa’d, He states
“He then mentioned the Stoning story through Malik’s hadith from Nafi’
Sunan Abu Dawud Vol.6 Page 498
Book: Sunan Abi Dawud, Vol. 6
Author: Imam Abu Dawud Sulayman ibn al-Ash’ath
This is the report containing the controversial wording through Hisham ibn Sa’d. Abu Dawud then points to the stoning story through Malik’s hadith from Nafi’.
Book: Sunan Abi Dawud, Vol. 6
Author: Imam Abu Dawud Sulayman ibn al-Ash’ath
The narration is connected to the stoning incident, but the controversial addition must be compared against the stronger version through Malik.
Malik’s Stronger Narration Does Not Contain the Addition
And if we go back to Malik’s hadith from Naf’i, We will find the same exact narration without putting his hands on the Torah Ziyada that was mentioned by Hisham Ibn Sa’d (Also in Sunan Abu dawud)
Vol.6 Page 494-495
Book: Sunan Abi Dawud, Vol. 6
Author: Imam Abu Dawud Sulayman ibn al-Ash’ath
Malik’s narration from Nafi’ presents the same core stoning story without the addition of the Prophet ﷺ placing his hand on the Torah.
Book: Sunan Abi Dawud, Vol. 6
Author: Imam Abu Dawud Sulayman ibn al-Ash’ath
The stronger Malik–Nafi’ route continues without the controversial ziyadah. This matters because the more reliable route preserves the story without the polemical wording.
Book: Sunan Abi Dawud, Vol. 6
Author: Imam Abu Dawud Sulayman ibn al-Ash’ath
The conclusion from comparing the routes is that the addition attributed through Hisham ibn Sa’d is absent from the stronger narration.
So therefore, Imam Malik’s narration does not have Hisham Ibn Sad’s Ziyada That Anti-Islamists love to use
Who Is Hisham Ibn Sa’d
But who is Hisham Ibn Sa’d in the first place? Imam Ibn Hibban states that he Flipped over Isnads, And he doesn’t understand. He also quotes Imam Yahya Bin Maen’s view, Which states he was Daif.
Kitab Al Majruhin Min Al-Muhadithin
Book: Kitab al-Majruhin min al-Muhaddithin
Author: Ibn Hibban
Ibn Hibban criticizes Hisham ibn Sa’d, mentioning problems in his transmission and his handling of isnads.
Book: Kitab al-Majruhin min al-Muhaddithin
Author: Ibn Hibban
Ibn Hibban also cites Yahya ibn Ma’in’s view that Hisham ibn Sa’d was weak. This supports rejecting his isolated addition when it conflicts with stronger narration.
The Criticism of Hisham Ibn Sa’d in Mizan al-I’tidal
Imam Al-Dhahabi Also quotes a Bunch of Views from Ulama regarding Hisham Ibn Sa’d. Like Imam Ahmad who stated he wasn’t a Hafiz or Muhkam in Hadith. And Al-Nasai and Ibn Adi Considered him Daif, And that Ibn Ma’en didn’t consider him strong (But also not Matrook).
And Al-Hakim said that Imam Muslim didn’t consider him a Hujja, And Abu Hatim considered Hisham and Ibn Ishaq one
Mizan Al-Itidal Vol.7 Page 80-81
Book: Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal
Author: Imam al-Dhahabi
Al-Dhahabi gathers the statements of hadith critics on Hisham ibn Sa’d. Imam Ahmad did not regard him as precise in hadith.
Book: Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal
Author: Imam al-Dhahabi
Al-Nasa’i and Ibn ‘Adi considered Hisham ibn Sa’d weak, and Ibn Ma’in did not regard him as strong.
Book: Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal
Author: Imam al-Dhahabi
Al-Hakim states that Imam Muslim did not rely on him as a proof. Abu Hatim compared him with Ibn Ishaq, which indicates weakness in hadith precision.
Abu Hatim’s Comparison with Ibn Ishaq
But what did Abu Hatim say About Ibn Ishaq? He states that he doesn’t consider him strong, and is Daif in hadith
Kitab Al Harj Wa Al-Ta’dil Vol.7 Page 194
Book: Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil
Author: Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi
Abu Hatim’s view on Ibn Ishaq is cited because Hisham ibn Sa’d was compared to him. Abu Hatim did not consider Ibn Ishaq strong in hadith.
Book: Al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil
Author: Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi
The criticism reinforces the point: a narrator with this level of precision cannot safely preserve an isolated addition against stronger chains.
Ibn Hajar’s Judgment on Hisham Ibn Sa’d
And Imam Ibn Hajr stated that he is a honest man filled with Illusions. Which means that he doesn’t intend to make mistakes, But he still has them.
Taqrib Al-Tahdhib Page 503
Book: Taqrib al-Tahdhib
Author: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani
Ibn Hajar describes Hisham ibn Sa’d as truthful but affected by many mistakes or illusions. This means he may not be accused of lying, but his solitary additions are not automatically accepted.
Book: Taqrib al-Tahdhib
Author: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani
The biographical entry supports the argument that Hisham’s addition is not reliable when it contradicts a stronger preserved version.
The Strong Isnad: Malik — Nafi’ — Ibn Umar
So therefore, The Isnad of the narration about the story:
Malik-Nafi’-Ibn Umar
Is the Authentic version, As Imam Bukhari stated (I Don’t mean the Hadith Btw, Just what he said about the Isnad)
Siyar A’lam Al Nubala Vol.8 Page 114
Book: Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’
Author: Imam al-Dhahabi
The chain Malik → Nafi’ → Ibn Umar is one of the strongest and most famous chains in hadith transmission.
Book: Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’
Author: Imam al-Dhahabi
The stronger Malik route does not contain the controversial addition. This makes the addition through Hisham ibn Sa’d unacceptable.
The Addition Is Munkar or Shadh
And when a Daif narrator goes up against the one who is more reliable, It’s called a Munkar hadith. Which means the Ziyada narrated by Hisham Ibn Sa’d is Munkar, And the part christians love to use in order to prove their False claim is nonsense.
And the Prophet ﷺ Never said that. And even if Hisham is trustworthy, It would still be a Shaz hadith. And Ibn Hazm states that the report about Muhammadﷺ Putting his hand on the Torah and saying he believes in it is false and Mawdu
Al Fasl Fi Al Milal Wa Al Nihal Vol.1 Page 315
Book: Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal
Author: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi
Ibn Hazm rejects the report about the Prophet ﷺ placing his hand on the Torah and saying he believes in it.
Book: Al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa’ wa al-Nihal
Author: Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi
Ibn Hazm states that this report is false and fabricated, and that it did not reach through a proper chain of transmission.
Answering the Al-Albani Objection
Now someone might argue:
“But Al-Albani graded the Hadith as Hasan”
Answer:
Yes, But every Scholar has a mistake. And that’s truth, No one can say otherwise. And even then, Al-Albani also graded a Hadith that Affirms the Torah’s Tahreef as Hasan too. Which states:
“Bani Israel have a Wrote a Scripture they have followed, And left the Torah”
Sahih Jami Al Saghir Page 409
Book: Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghir
Author/Verifier: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani
Al-Albani also graded as hasan a narration stating that Bani Israel wrote a scripture, followed it, and left the Torah. This supports the Islamic position that they departed from the revealed Torah.
Book: Sahih al-Jami’ al-Saghir
Author/Verifier: Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani
The narration attributed to Bani Israel supports the doctrine of distortion and abandonment, so using al-Albani selectively does not help the Christian argument.
Even If Authentic, It Still Does Not Prove Their Claim
But even if we assume the narration is Sahih (Not saying that it is), It still doesn’t prove their point. Because the Prophet ﷺ Called it the Torah,Given the origin it was before Tahreef. And that’s what Ibn Hajr Said, when talking about the Hadith
Fath Al-Bari Vol.1 Page 315
Book: Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari
Author: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani
Ibn Hajar explains that referring to it as “the Torah” can be based on its original revelation, not an endorsement of every altered text in Jewish possession.
Book: Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari
Author: Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani
The explanation blocks the polemical leap: calling something “Torah” does not mean affirming the current text as pure and uncorrupted.
Conclusion
The stronger route is Malik → Nafi’ → Ibn Umar, and it does not contain the addition of placing the hand on the Torah. The addition comes through a criticized narrator, Hisham ibn Sa’d, and is opposed by the stronger preserved narration. Therefore, the Christian argument collapses.