We Became Three' Hadith Weak — Two Liars in the Chain
This doubt is the same one raised by Christians, atheists, and Shia, who continue to try to deceive the Sunnis — but they will never be able to prove their doubts and lies against the great religion of Islam. I say, and with God’s help, that this narration only appears in Al-Mustadrak ‘ala Al-Sahihayn (Vol. 3, p. 410, Hadith No. 5564). A full chain-of-transmission ([isnad]) analysis demonstrates that the narration is fatally flawed at multiple levels, and that Al-Hakim’s authentication of it carries no weight given his well-documented leniency.
The Narration Under Examination
Abu Al-Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub told us, Muhammad bin Sinan Al-Qazzaz told us, Ishaq bin Idris told us, Muhammad bin Hazim told us, Hisham bin Urwah told us, on the authority of his father, on the authority of Abdullah bin Al-Zubayr, on the authority of his father, who said: “The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, sent me on a cold morning, and I came to him while he was with some of his wives under his blanket, so he put me under the blanket and we became three.”
See the chain of narration here to discover the weakness of the narration: Muhammad ibn Sinan al-Qazzaz — in fact, Abu Dawud and others have declared him a liar. Al-Albani declared the narration weak, documented its defects, and clarified the error of those who authenticated it.
Al-Albani’s full discussion of the defects in this chain, and his critique of those who accepted Al-Hakim’s authentication, is reproduced below.
First Defect: Ishaq bin Idris — A Fabricator of Hadith
The chain of this narration passes through Ishaq bin Idris al-Aswari al-Basri (Abu Ya’qub), a narrator unanimously condemned by the masters of rijal criticism.
- Abu Zur’ah: Declared him feeble/very weak (
واهٍ) - Al-Bukhari: Abandoned him (
تركه) — his narrations are rejected - Al-Daraqutni: Graded him munkar al-hadith — a denied/anomalous narrator
- Yahya bin Ma’in: The harshest verdict — a liar who fabricates Hadith (
كذاب يضع الحديث)
Source: Imam Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal
The cover of Mizan al-I’tidal and the relevant entry are shown below.
Al-Haythami’s verdict on this same narration confirms the same defect in transmission:
Al-Haythami records that this narration was transmitted by Al-Bazzar, and explicitly identifies the decisive flaw: “وَفِيهِ إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِدْرِيسَ، وَهُوَ مَتْرُوكٌ” — “And within its chain is Ishaq bin Idris, and he is abandoned/rejected.”
Source: Imam Al-Haythami, Majma’ al-Zawa’id wa Manba’ al-Fawa’id, 9/151
Al-Bukhari’s own biographical dictionary delivers the same ruling. The cover of Kitab al-Tarikh al-Kabir and its entry on Ishaq bin Idris follow.
The subject is Ishaq bin Idris al-Basri (also known as Al-Aswari, Abu Ya’qub). The definitive judgment of the author is: “تَرَكَهُ النَّاسُ” — “The scholars of Hadith abandoned him.” His narrations are fully rejected and carry no evidential weight.
Source: Imam Al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Tarikh al-Kabir
Second Defect: Muhammad bin Sinan al-Qazzaz — Accused of Lying
Another reason the narration is rejected is that it also passes through Muhammad bin Sinan al-Qazzaz — he is the son (ibn) of Sinan. Even if scholars were to disagree about the grading of Ishaq bin Idris, this second defect independently disqualifies the narration. So no matter who authenticates it, the hadith is flawed.
The book Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil, authored by Imam al-Hafiz Shaykh al-Islam al-Razi — Volume 7 — published by Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, Beirut, page 279, says: Muhammad ibn Sinan al-Qazzaz al-Basri narrated on the authority of Ruh ibn Ubadah and Yahya ibn Abu Bakir and Abu Asim al-Nabil wrote about him. His father was in Basra and he was hidden at that time. He came to him in Baghdad. Abd al-Rahman said, “I asked Abd al-Rahman ibn Khurash about him, and he said, ‘He is a liar. He narrated a hadith, and now he is on the authority of Ruh ibn Ubadah, so the hadith is gone.’”
- Abu Dawud: Accused him of lying (
رماه أبو داود بالكذب) - Ibn Kharash: Declared him unreliable — “He is not trustworthy” (
ليس بثقة) - Al-Daraqutni: Took a softer position, stating “There is nothing wrong with him” (
لا بأس به)
Source: Imam Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal
Al-Dhahabi’s dedicated dictionary of weak narrators gives the same verdict in briefer terms:
Muhammad bin Sinan al-Qazzaz — well-known (mashhur). Critical verdict: “رَمَاهُ بِالْكَذِبِ أَبُو دَاوُدَ وَابْنُ خِرَاشٍ” — “Abu Dawud and Ibn Kharash accused him of lying.”
Source: Imam Al-Dhahabi, Al-Mughni fi al-Du’afa, authored by the historian of Islam, Imam al-Hafiz Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman al-Dhahabi — edited by Abu al-Zahra Hazim al-Qadi, Part Two — Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut
Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi in Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil provides a firsthand account of this narrator’s discrediting:
Muhammad bin Sinan al-Qazzaz al-Basri narrated on the authority of Ruh bin Ubadah, Yahya bin Abi Bakir, and Abu Asim al-Nabil. The author’s father wrote about him in Basra, noting that at that time his condition was hidden/unclear (mastoor). “And I came to him myself in Baghdad. Abd al-Rahman said: I asked Abd al-Rahman ibn Kharash about him, and he replied: He is a liar. He narrated a hadith, and now he is on the authority of Ruh ibn Ubadah, so the hadith is gone.”
Source: Imam Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi, Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil, 7/279
The relevant entry from Kitab al-Jarh wa al-Ta’dil is shown below.
The book Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, authored by Shams al-Din Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman ibn Qaymaz al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) — edited by Ali Muhammad al-Bajawi — Volume 3 — Dar al-Ma’rifah for Printing and Publishing, Beirut, Lebanon, tells us on page 575: [7651 — Muhammad ibn Sinan al-Qazzaz] — a well-known narrator. He heard from Muhammad ibn Bakr al-Barsani and Abu Amir al-Aqdi. Ismail al-Saffar and a group narrated from him. Abu Dawud accused him of lying, and Ibn Kharash said: He is not trustworthy.
The specific entry from Mizan al-I’tidal (p. 575, Entry #7651) is shown below, with the critical verdicts of Abu Dawud and Ibn Kharash highlighted.
The book Al-Mughni fi al-Du’afa’ — authored by the historian of Islam, Imam al-Hafiz Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman al-Dhahabi — edited by Abu al-Zahra Hazim al-Qadi, Part Two — Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut — states on page 314: [5601 — Muhammad ibn Sinan al-Qazzaz, famous, accused of lying by Abu Dawud and Ibn Kharash].
The book Al-Du’afa’ wa al-Matrukin — authored by Imam Jamal al-Din Abu al-Faraj Abd al-Rahman ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Jawzi, the preacher al-Baghdadi (may God have mercy on him) — (Fa’id Ibn Nimran) — verified by Abu al-Fida’ Abdullah al-Qadi — Part Three — states on page 70:
Muhammad bin Sinan bin Yazid bin al-Dhayyal, Abu al-Hasan, al-Qazzaz, al-Basri — narrated on the authority of Ruh bin Ubadah.
- Abu Dawud al-Sijistani: Explicitly attributed lying to him (
كان أبو داود السجستاني يطلق عليه الكذب) - Abd al-Rahman bin Kharash: Stated flatly — “He is a liar” (
وقال عبد الرحمن بن خراش: هو كذاب)
Source: Imam Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Du’afa’ wa al-Matrukin, 3/70
The relevant entry from Al-Du’afa’ wa al-Matrukin (p. 70, Entry #3031) is shown below with the verdicts of Abu Dawud and Ibn Kharash highlighted.
Returning to the Chain: Ishaq bin Idris — Further Documentation
Still on the chain of transmission: Ishaq bin Idris. The book Al-Du’afa’ wa al-Matrukin — authored by Imam Jamal al-Din Abu al-Faraj Abd al-Rahman ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al-Jawzi, the preacher of Baghdad (may God have mercy on him) — (Fa’id Ibn Nimran) — edited by Abu al-Fida’ Abdullah al-Qadi — Part Three — states on page 99:
Ishaq bin Idris, Abu Ya’qub, al-Aswari al-Basri — narrates from Hammam and Aban.
- Yahya bin Ma’in: “He is nothing; he fabricates Hadith” (
ليس بشيء، يضع الحديث) - Al-Nasa’i: Abandoned in Hadith (
متروك الحديث) - Abu Zur’ah: His narrations are feeble (
واهي الحديث) - Al-Razi (Ibn Abi Hatim): Weak in Hadith (
ضعيف الحديث) - Al-Daraqutni: A denied/anomalous narrator (
منكر الحديث)
Source: Imam Ibn al-Jawzi, Al-Du’afa’ wa al-Matrukin
The entry from Al-Du’afa’ wa al-Matrukin on Ishaq bin Idris is shown below.
The book Al-Mughni fi al-Du’afa’ — authored by the historian of Islam, Imam al-Hafiz Shams al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman al-Dhahabi — edited by Abu al-Zahra Hazim al-Qadi, Volume Two — Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut — states on page 106: [542 — Ishaq ibn Idris al-Aswari, on the authority of Hammam — “تَرَكَهُ النَّاسُ” — the people abandoned him].
The book Al-Kamil fi Du’afa’ al-Rijal — authored by Imam al-Hafiz Abu Ahmad Abdullah ibn Adi al-Jurjani — edited by Sheikh Ahmad Adel Abdel-Mawjoud and Sheikh Ali Muhammad Muawwad — with the participation of Professor Dr. Abdel-Fattah Abu Sousana, Al-Azhar University — Volume Seven — Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyya, Beirut — states on page 442:
Ishaq bin Idris al-Aswari, Basran, known as Abu Ya’qub.
- I heard al-Hasan ibn Uthman al-Tustari say: I heard Muhammad ibn al-Muthanna say: “Ishaq ibn Idris is weak in hadith.”
- Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr narrated to us, on the authority of Abbas, on the authority of Yahya, who said: “Ishaq ibn Idris al-Basri is worthless; he fabricates hadiths.”
- Ibn Hammad narrated to us, on the authority of al-Abbas, who said: I heard Yahya ibn Ma’in say: “Ishaq ibn Idris al-Basri is a liar.”
- Al-Junaydi narrated to us, on the authority of al-Bukhari, who said: “They remained silent about Ishaq ibn Idris al-Iswari al-Basri.”
- I heard Ibn Hammad say: Al-Bukhari said: “Ishaq ibn Idris Abu Ya’qub al-Iswari was abandoned by the people.”
- Al-Nasa’i said: “Ishaq ibn Idris al-Basri is a rejected narrator of hadith.”
- Abbas said: “This is a heinous hadith. The first person to narrate it was so-and-so al-Khayyat, and Yahya ibn Ma’in attacked him.”
The Sheikh said: “This hadith is also narrated by Ishaq bin Idris, on the authority of Abu Muawiyah, and he has other hadiths besides what I mentioned, and his narrations are closer to being weak.”
Source: Imam Ibn Adi, Al-Kamil fi Du’afa’ al-Rijal, 7/442
The relevant entry from Al-Mughni fi al-Du’afa (p. 106, Entry #542) is shown below, with the verdict “The scholars abandoned him” highlighted.
Correcting Al-Hakim’s Authentication — It Carries No Weight Here
The narration in its full wording, as recorded in multiple collections, reads: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent me on a cold night or a cold morning. I went and then came back, and the Messenger of Allah was with some of his wives, wrapped in a blanket. He threw the edge of his garment over me (so we were three).” It was narrated by Al-Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam, and graded weak by Al-Albani in Al-Silsilah Al-Da’ifah (No. 2662).
The only reason this narration is raised at all is that Al-Hakim included it in his Mustadrak and graded it authentic. However, the scholarly community has thoroughly documented Al-Hakim’s well-known leniency ([tasahul]) in authentication. Al-Hakim, may God have mercy on him, was known for a certain degree of leniency.
Regarding Al-Hakim’s authentication of a narration from Anas, Al-Nawawi writes: “وَلَكِنَّ الْحَاكِمَ مُتَسَاهِلٌ كَمَا سَبَقَ بَيَانُهُ مَرَّاتٍ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ” — “But Al-Hakim is lenient in his conditions of authentication, as has been previously explained multiple times, and Allah knows best.” This serves as a methodological warning that his independent grading requires careful verification due to his well-known leniency.
Source: Imam Al-Nawawi, Al-Majmu’ Sharh al-Muhadhdhab
The scholarly consensus on Al-Hakim’s methodological weakness is extensive. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar noted that Al-Hakim “mentioned a group of people in his book on weak narrators and categorically rejected narrating from them and prohibited using their narrations as evidence. Then he included some of their hadiths in his Mustadrak and authenticated them” (Lisan al-Mizan, 5/233). He cited an example in his commentary on Ibn al-Salah, where Al-Hakim included a hadith containing Abd al-Rahman ibn Aslam and after narrating it said, “Its chain of transmission is sound” — even though he himself had written in his book on weak narrators: “Abd al-Rahman ibn Zayd ibn Aslam narrated fabricated hadiths from his father… So, in my view, their unreliability is clear.”
Al-Dhahabi said: “He authenticates weak hadiths in his Mustadrak and does so frequently” (Mizan al-I’tidal, 3/6–8). He further noted that Al-Hakim was a well-known Shia who did not criticize al-Bukhari and Muslim (Mizan al-I’tidal, 6/216). Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani confirmed his Shia inclination while exonerating him from Rafidism (Lisan al-Mizan, 5/232).
Al-Zayla’i al-Hanafi stated: “Al-Hakim was known for his leniency and his authentication of weak, even fabricated, hadiths” (Nasb al-Rayah, 1/36).
Al-Laknawi al-Hanafi al-Hindi concluded: “How many hadiths did al-Hakim judge to be authentic, only for al-Dhahabi to refute him as weak or fabricated? Therefore, one should not rely on al-Hakim’s Mustadrak unless one also reads al-Dhahabi’s abridgment of it” (Al-Ajwiba al-Fadila, p. 161).
Conclusion: A Narration With Two Fatal Defects
As we have seen, the hadith has two independent defects. Even if scholars disagree about Ibn Sinan, one defect will always remain. So no matter who authenticates it, the hadith is flawed.
The narration “we became three” (Al-Mustadrak 5564) is fatally flawed at two points in its chain:
First: Muhammad bin Sinan al-Qazzaz — accused of lying by Abu Dawud and Ibn Kharash, with Ibn Abi Hatim personally confirming the verdict via Abd al-Rahman ibn Kharash. Al-Daraqutni’s relatively lenient position (“no objection against him”) is outweighed by the stronger jarh verdicts.
Second: Ishaq bin Idris al-Aswari al-Basri — unanimously condemned as a liar and fabricator by Yahya bin Ma’in, Al-Bukhari, Al-Nasa’i, Abu Zur’ah, Al-Daraqutni, and Ibn al-Jawzi. Al-Haythami explicitly identified him as abandoned (matruk) in the Bazzar transmission of this same narration.
Al-Hakim’s authentication carries no independent weight here — his leniency in grading (tasahul) is documented by Al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, Al-Dhahabi, Al-Zayla’i, and Al-Laknawi.
This narration was recorded by:
- Al-Hakim (No. 5564)
- Al-Bazzar (No. 968) — with Al-Haythami explicitly noting Ishaq bin Idris is abandoned in this chain (Majma’ al-Zawa’id, 9/151)
- Ibn Abi Asim in Al-Sunnah (No. 1394) — with similar wording
- Abu Al-Sheikh in Akhlaq Al-Nabi (No. 480) — with slight difference
Narrator of the report: Al-Zubayr ibn Al-Awwam. Graded weak by Al-Albani in Al-Silsilah Al-Da’ifah, No. 2662.