The Ink of Scholars is superior to the Blood of Martyrs

On several different occasions a number of our scholars use to cite the following ḥadīth:

“The ink of the scholars is superior to the blood of martyrs.”

And every once in a while those who recite this ḥadīth encounter detractors who consider this ḥadīth to be weak (ḍa‘īf) or very weak (ḍa‘īf jiddan), if not fabricated (mawḍū‘).

I admit that, although this ḥadīth was narrated through multiple distinct chains of narrators (asānīd), almost all of them are extremely weak. However, as it has turned out, a second glance, away from judgments of pseudo-Salafīs like al-Munajjid or al-Albānī, has proven itself to be quite worthwhile.

Hereinafter I will put on record two asānīd through which the fact will be established that in truth this ḥadīth qualifies to bear the judgment (ḥukm) “good” (ḥasan).

The first ḥadīth was recorded by Imām as-Sam‘ānī (d. 562 AH) as follows:

أخبرنا أبو غانم المظفر بن الحسين بن المظفر المفصلي، ببروجرد، أنا أبو الفتح عبد الواحد بن إسماعيل بن عثمان النغاري، حدثني أبو نعيم أحمد بن عبد الله بن أحمد الحافظ، ثنا أبو بكر بن خلاد، ثنا الحارث بن أبي أسامة، ثنا روح بن عبادة، وإسحاق بن عيسى الطباع، قالا: ثنا مالك بن أنس، عن سهيل بن أبي صالح، عن أبيه، عن أبي هريرة، رضي الله عنه، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، قال: "يوزن مداد العلماء يوم القيامة بدم الشهداء، فيرجح مدادهم على دماءهم أضعافا مضاعفة."

Isnād:

Abū Ghānim al-Muẓaffar ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Muẓaffar al-Mufaṣṣalī[1] – Abū al-Fatḥ ‘Abd al-Wāḥid ibn Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Uthmān an-Naghārī – Abū Nu‘aym Aḥmad ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Aḥmad al-Ḥāfiẓ – Abū Bakr ibn Khālid – al-Ḥārith ibn Abī Usāmah – Rauḥ ibn ‘Ubādah and Isḥāq ibn ‘Īsā at-Ṭabbā‘ – Mālik ibn Anas – Suhayl ibn Abī Ṣāliḥ – His Father – Abū Hurayrah (ra) – The Holy Prophet (saw)

Matn:

Yūzanu midādu l-‘ulamā’i yawma l-qiyāmati bi-dami sh-shuhadā’i, fa-yarjaḥu midāduhum ‘alā dimā’ihim aḍ‘āfan muḍā‘afatan

Translation:

“The ink of the scholars will be weighed against the blood of the martyrs on the Day of Judgment and their ink will outweigh their blood manifold times.”[2]

Those narrators that are contested by the critics are just the last two. It is said that both of them would be of unknown integrity (majhūl al-ḥāl). [3]

The last narrator is Abū Ghānim al-Muẓaffar ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn al-Muẓaffar ibn ʻUbayd Allāh al-Mufaḍḍalī al-Burūjirdī. Imām as-Sam‘ānī himself said about him that he was an elder (shaykh), a scholar (‘ālim), an eminence (fāḍil), virtuous (ṣāliḥ), of well-disposed character (sadīd as-sīrah), someone minding his own business (mushtaghilan bi-mā ya‘nīhi) and staying at his home (lāziman manzilahu).[4] Imām Ibn al-Athīr (d. 630 AH) said that he was an eminence (fāḍil), virtuous (ṣāliḥ) and an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh).[5] Imām as-Subkī (d. 771 AH) said that he studied Islamic jurisprudence under as-Sayyid Abū al-Qāsim ad-Dabūsī.[6]

That by now is the first indication whereby it has been found that al-Munajjid, al-Albānī and the likes have worked sloppily and have failed to do their homework properly. By no means is this narrator unknown, rather is he a highly respectable and trustworthy scholar.

The penultimate narrator is Abū al-Fatḥ ‘Abd al-Wāḥid ibn Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Naghārah an-Naghārī (al-Jabalī) al-Burūjirdī.

Now, before I put forward arguments in favour of his credibility, some words will be made disclosing a fundamental of the topic of obscurity (jahālah) which is less well-known to the laity.

Imām al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463 AH) wrote:

المجهول عند أصحاب الحديث هو كل من لم يشتهر بطلب العلم في نفسه ولا عرفه العلماء به ومن لم يعرف حديثه إلا من جهة راو واحد. […] وأقل ما ترتفع به الجهالة أن يروى عن الرجل اثنان فصاعدا من المشهورين بالعلم.

“According to the adherents of ḥadīth (asḥāb al-ḥadīth) unknown (majhūl) is anyone whose acquiring of knowledge is not known of per se and neither do the scholars know about him and he whose ḥadīth is not known, except from the direction of a single narrator. […] And the least that cancels out their obscurity (jahālah) is that two or more men narrate from him which are known for knowledge.”[7]

Imām ad-Dāraquṭnī (d. 385 AH) said:

من روى عنه ثقتان فقد ارتفعت جهالته، وثبتت عدالته.

“Anyone of who two reliable (thiqah) people have narrated, his obscurity (jahālah) cancels out and his trustworthiness (‘adālah) is proven.”[8]

Among other scholars, Imām al-Aʻẓam Abū Ḥanīfah (d. 150 AH) [9], Imām al-Bazzār (d. 292 AH) [10], Imām Ibn Ḥibbān (d. 354 AH)[11] and Imām Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 751 AH) [12] advocated this same opinion (madhhab).

I was unable to find any testimonies of specific scholars reviewing the probity of the narrator in discussion, but in an isnād recorded by Imām Ibn ʻAsākir he was characterized as an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh)[13] and in two different asānīd recorded by Imām as-Sam‘ānī he was characterized as a preserver [of narrations] (ḥāfiẓ).[14] In spite of everything, based on the aforementioned methodological principle it can be duly proven that he has to be considered as credible.

Apart from the above-mentioned al-Mufaḍḍalī al-Burūjirdī and others, the following two narrators reported from an-Naghārī:

Abū ‘Alī al-Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Abī ‘Alī al-Muqri’ al-Burūjirdī – Imām Ibn ʻAsākir described him as an elder (shaykh) and virtuous (ṣāliḥ).[15] Imām as-Sam‘ānī said he was from the people of the Qur’ān (ahl al-qur’ān), virtuous (ṣāliḥ), pious (dayyinan) and of decent character (hasan as-sīrah).[16]

Abū an-Najm Badr ibn Ṣaliḥ ibn ‘Abd Allāh aṣ-Ṣaydalānī al-Burūjirdī ar-Rāzānī – Imām Ibn ʻAsākir said he was an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh).[17] Imām as-Sam‘ānī decribed him as an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh), virtuous (ṣāliḥ) and moral (‘afīf).[18] Imām Ibn al-Athīr said that he was an expert of the Shāfi‘ī school of Islamic jurisprudence (faqīh Shāfi‘ī), virtuous (ṣāliḥ) and that he studied Islamic jurisprudence under Imām Abū Naṣr ibn aṣ-Ṣabbāgh (d. 477 AH).[19] Imām al-Ḥamawī (d. 626 AH) writes that he was from the people of Islamic jurisprudence (ahl al-fiqh).[20] Imām adh-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) said that he studied Islamic jurisprudence under Imām al-Kiyā al-Harrāsī (d. 504 AH) in Baghdad.[21]

Hereby the fact has now been unearthed that at least three reliable narrators have reported from an-Naghārī and no discrediting (jarḥ) whatsoever could be discovered, whereby he has to be acknowledged as a trustworthy narrator.

The second ḥadīth was recorded by Imām Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597 AH) as follows:

وأما حديث النعمان: فأنا ابن ناصر، قال: أنا محمد بن إبراهيم، قال: أنا محمد بن الفضل، قال: أخبرنا ابن مردويه، قال: نا عبد الله بن إبراهيم الجرجاني، قال: نا إبراهيم بن يومرد، قال: نا أحمد بن بهرام، قال: نا سهل بن عبد الكريم، عن يعقوب القمي، عن هارون بن عنترة، عن الشعبي، قال: خطبنا النعمان بن بشير، فقال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، يقول: "يوزن مداد العلماء مع دم الشهداء يرجح مداد العلماء على دم الشهداء."

Isnād:

Ibn Nāṣir – Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm – Muḥammad ibn al-Faḍl – Ibn Mardawayh – ‘Abd Allāh ibn Ibrāhim al-Jurjānī – Ibrāhīm ibn Yawmard – Aḥmad ibn Bahrām – Sahl ibn ‘Abd al-Karīm – Ya‘qūb al-Qummī – Hārūn ibn ‘Antarah – ash-Sha‘bī – an-Nu‘mān ibn Bashīr – The Holy Prophet (saw)

Matn:

Yūzanu midādu l-‘ulamā’i ma‘a dami sh-shuhadā’i yarjuḥu midādu l-‘ulamā’i ‘alā dami sh-shuhadā’i

“The ink of the scholars will be weighed against the blood of the martyrs; the ink of the scholars will outweigh the blood of the martyrs.”[22]

Those narrators that are contested by the critics are Hārūn ibn ‘Antarah and Ya‘qūb al-Qummī. It is said that Ibn Ḥibbān weakened both of them.[23]

The narrator mentioned first is Abū ‘Amr Hārūn ibn ‘Antarah ibn ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ash-Shaybānī al-Kūfī. Even though the objection is valid that Ibn Ḥibbān at one place weakened him, but the fact is that he also mentioned him as being from amongst the trustworthy people (thiqāt).[24] Apart from that Imām Ibn Sa‘d (d. 230 AH), Imām Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn (d. 233 AH), Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH) and Imām al-‘Ijlī (d. 261 AH) said that he was trustworthy (thiqa). Imām Abū Zur‘ah (d. 264 AH) and Imām Ya‘qūb ibn Sufyān (d. 277 AH) said that there was no harm in him (lā ba’sa bihi), i.e. he was reliable, and Imām Abū Zur‘ah added that he was righteous (mustaqīm al-ḥadīth). Imām ad-Dāraquṭnī said that he was authoritative (yuḥtajju bihi).[25] Furthermore, Imam adh-Dhahabī declared him to be trustworthy (waththaqūhu)[26] and Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852 AH) was also of the opinion that he was reliable (lā ba’sa bihi).[27]

The second narrator is Abū al-Ḥasan Ya‘qūb ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sa‘d al-Ash‘arī al-Qummī. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him as being from amongst the trustworthy people (thiqāt).[28] Imām an-Nasa’ī (d. 303 AH) said that he was reliable (laysa bihi ba’s). Imām aṭ-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 AH) said that he was trustworthy (thiqa). Imam Muḥammad ibn Ḥamīd ar-Rāzī (d. 248 AH) said that both Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Imām Yaḥyā ibn Ma‘īn came to him to copy off his aḥādīth, wherefrom is apparent that both regarded him as reliable.[29] Imam ad-Dhahabī said that he was veracious (ṣadūq)[30] and good in his narrations (ṣāliḥ al-ḥadīth).[31] Even Imām al-Bukhārī (d. 256 AH) mentioned him in a narration with an incomplete isnād (ḥadīth mu‘allaq).[32] ad-Duktūr Bashshār ʻAwwād Maʻrūf and ash-Shaykh Shuʻayb al-Arnaʼūṭ said that he was truthful and reliable (ṣadūq hasan al-ḥadīth).[33]

Hereby now both the former and the latter asānīd of this ḥadīth are proven to be valid, true and correct.

---

[1] correctly “al-Mufaḍḍalī” with aḍ-ḍād

[2] Kitāb Adab al-imlā’ wa-l-istimlā’ by Abū Sa‘d ‘Abd al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad at-Tamīmī as-Sam‘ānī al-Marwazī, ed. Max Weisweiler, 1401 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, p. 162

[3] For example refer to: http://islamqa.info/en/11920 or http://foodiefahoodie.blogspot.com/2012/11/weakness-of-hadeeth-ink-of-scholar-is.html

[4] al-Ansāb by Abū Sa‘d ‘Abd-al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad at-Tamīmī as-Sam‘ānī al-Marwazī, 1408 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Jinān, vol. 5, p. 357

[5] al-Lubāb fī tahdhīb al-Ansāb by Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī ‘Izz ad-Dīn ibn al-Athīr ash-Shaybānī al-Jazarī, n.d., Baghdad: Maktabat al-Muthannā, vol. 3, p. 243

[6] Ṭabaqāt ash-Shāfi‘iyyah al-kubrā by Tāj ad-Dīn ʻAbd al-Wahhāb ibn ʻAlī as-Subkī, ed. Maḥmūd Muḥammad aṭ-Ṭanāḥī; ʻAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad al-Ḥulw, 1396 AH, Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʼ al-Kutub al-ʻArabiyyah, vol. 7, p. 300

[7] Kitāb al-kifāyah fī ʻilm ar-riwāyah by Abū Bakr Aḥmad ibn ʻAlī al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, 1357 AH, Hyderabad Deccan: Idārat Jamʻiyyat dāʼirat al-Maʻārif al-ʻUthmāniyyah, p. 88

[8] Fatḥ al-mughīth sharḥ Alfiyyat al-ḥadīth li-l-ʻIrāqī by Muḥammad ibn ʻAbd ar-Raḥmān as-Sakhāwī, 1403 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, vol. 1, p. 322

[9] Sharḥ Sharḥ Nukhbat al-fikar fī muṣṭalaḥāt ahl al-athar by al-Mulla Alī ibn Sulṭān Muḥammad al-Harawī al-Qārī, ed. Muḥammad Nizār Tamīm; Haytham Nizār Tamīm, n.d., Beirut: Dār al-Arqam, p. 518

[10] an-Nukat ʻalā Muqaddimat Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ by Muḥammad ibn Bahādur az-Zarkashī, ed. Zayn al-ʻĀbidīn ibn Muḥammad Bilā Furayj, 1419 AH, Riyadh: Aḍwāʼ al-Salaf, vol. 3, p. 376

[11] Muqaddimat Ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ wa-Maḥāsin al-iṣṭilāḥ by ʻUthmān ibn ʻAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn aṣ-Ṣalāḥ ash-Shahrazūrī; Sirāj ad-Dīn ʻUmar ibn Raslān al-Bulqīnī, ed. ʻĀʼishah ʻAbd al-Raḥmān, 1411 AH, Cairo: Dār al-Maʻārif, p. 297

[12] Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzīyah wa-juhūduhu fī khidmat as-sunnah an-Nabawiyyah wa-ʻulūmuhā by Jamāl ibn Muḥammad as-Sayyid, 1424 AH, Medina: ʻImād al-Baḥth al-ʻIlmī bi-l-Jāmiʻat al-Islāmiyyah, vol. 1, p. 478

[13] Muʻjam ash-shuyūkh by ʻAlī ibn al-Ḥasan ibn ʻAsākir, ed. Shākir al-Faḥḥām; Wafāʼ Taqī ad-Dīn, 1421 AH, Damascus: Dār al-Bashāʼir, p. 1214

[14] al-Muntakhab min muʻjam shuyūkh as-Samʻānī by Abū Sa‘d ‘Abd-al-Karīm ibn Muḥammad at-Tamīmī as-Sam‘ānī al-Marwazī, ed. Muwaffaq ibn ʻAbd Allāh Ibn ʻAbd al-Qādir, 1417 AH, Riyadh: Dār ʻĀlam al-Kutub, vol. 1, p. 653, 1122

[15] Muʻjam ash-shuyūkh, ibid., p. 262

[16] al-Muntakhab min muʻjam shuyūkh as-Samʻānī, p. 652

[17] Muʻjam ash-shuyūkh, ibid., p. 184

[18] al-Ansāb ibid., vol. 3, p. 23

[19] al-Lubāb fī tahdhīb al-Ansāb ibid., vol. 2, p. 6

[20] Muʻjam al-buldān by Shihāb ad-Dīn Abī ʻAbd Allāh Yāqūt ibn ʻAbd Allāh al-Ḥamawī ar-Rūmī al-Baghdādī, 1397 AH, Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, vol. 3, p. 13

[21] al-Mushtabih fi-r-rijāl: asmā’ihim wa-ansābihim by Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qaimāz adh-Dhahabī, ed. ʻAlī Muḥammad al-Bajāwī, 1381 AH, Cairo: Dār Iḥyāʼ al-Kutub al-ʻArabiyyah, vol. 1, p. 296

[22] al-ʻIlal al-mutanāhiyah fi l-aḥādīth al-wāhiyah by Abū al-Faraj ʻAbd ar-Raḥmān ibn ʻAlī ibn al-Jawzī at-Taymī al-Qurashī, ed. ash-Shaykh Khalīl al-Mays, 1403 AH, Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʻIlmiyyah, vol. 1, p. 81

[23] Refer anon to: http://islamqa.info/en/11920 or http://foodiefahoodie.blogspot.com/2012/11/weakness-of-hadeeth-ink-of-scholar-is.html

[24] Kitāb ath-Thiqāt by Abū Ḥātim Muḥammad ibn Ḥibbān ibn Aḥmad at-Tamimī ad-Dārimī al-Bustī, ed. Ad-Duktūr Muḥammad ‘Abd al-Mu‘īd Khān, 1393 AH, Hyderabad Deccan: Idārat Jamʻiyyat dāʼirat al-Maʻārif al-ʻUthmāniyyah, vol. 7, p. 578

[25] Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb by Abī al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ḥajar Shihāb ad-Dīn al-‘Asqalānī ash-Shāfi‘ī, ed. Ibrāhīm az-Zaybaq; ʻĀdil Murshid, 1416 AH, Beirut: Mu’assasat ar-Risālah, vol. 4, p. 255

[26] al-Kāshif fī maʻrifat man la-hu riwāyah fī al-Kutub as-sittah by Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qaimāz adh-Dhahabī, ed. Muḥammad ʻAwwāmah; Aḥmad Muḥammad Nimr al-Khaṭīb, 1413 AH, Jeddah: Dār al-Qiblah li-th-Thaqāfah al-Islāmiyyah; Muʼassasat ʻUlūm al-Qurʼān, vol. 2, p. 330

[27] Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb by Abī al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ḥajar Shihāb ad-Dīn al-‘Asqalānī ash-Shāfi‘ī, ed. Muḥammad ‘Awwāmah, 1406 AH, Aleppo: Dār ar-Rashīd, p. 569

[28] Kitāb ath-Thiqāt, ibid., vol. 7, p. 645

[29] Tahdhīb at-Tahdhīb by Abī al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī ibn Ḥajar Shihāb ad-Dīn al-‘Asqalānī ash-Shāfi‘ī, ed. Ibrāhīm az-Zaybaq; ʻĀdil Murshid, 1416 AH, Beirut: Mu’assasat ar-Risālah, vol. 4, p. 444

[30] al-Kāshif fī maʻrifat man la-hu riwāyah fī al-Kutub as-sittah, ibid., vol. 2, p. 394

[31] ‪Man tukullima fīhi wa-huwa muwaththaq aw ṣāliḥ al-ḥadīth by Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Qaimāz adh-Dhahabī, ed. ʻAbd Allāh ibn Ḍayf Allāh ar-Ruḥaylī, 1426 AH, Medina, p. 558

[32] al-Jāmi‘ aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ by Abū ʻAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Ismāʻīl al-Juʻfī al-Bukhārī, ed. Muḥammad Zuhayr ibn Nāṣir an-Nāṣir, 1422 AH, Beirut: Dār Ṭawq al-Najāh, vol. 7, p. 122

[33] Taḥrīr Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb by ad-Duktūr Bashshār ʻAwwād Maʻrūf; ash-Shaykh Shuʻayb al-Arnaʼūṭ, 1417 AH, Beirut: Muʼassasat al-Risālah, vol. 4, p. 126