Fabricated Ḥadīth: "Learn Knowledge, For Learning It Is a Type of Khashyah (Fear)..."
Compiled by Abū al-ʿAbbās Mūsá Richardson
Can you verify this quote from Jamiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm vol.1 p. 66 Is the quote ṣaḥīḥ, meaning as a Ḥadīth?
That ḥadīth is mawḍūʿ' [fabricated], however its meaning (in general) is nice. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr said after mentioning it, 'This ḥadīth is ḥasan jiddan (very ḥasan), but it does not have a strong chain.' So when he said ḥasan, he was using the linguistic meaning [nice, fine], referring to the meaning, and not the technical meaning the scholars of ḥadīth use [acceptable, authentic].
Quote :- Muʿādh ibn Jabal (Radi Allāhu Ta'ala ʿʿʿanhu) who stated that the Messenger of Allāh (Salla Allāhu 'alahi wa Sallam) said in a Khuṭbah: "Learn Al-ʿIlm (knowledge), for learning it is a type of khashyah (Fear) of Allāh, seeking it is an act of worship, studying it is a type of Tasbiḥ, searching for it is a Jihād, teaching it to those who do not know is a charity and delivering it to those worthy of it is an act of drawing closer to Allāh. It is a weapon to use against the enemies. Allāh elevates some people by knowledge to the rank of leaders in righteousness who are followed, their actions imitated and their opinions referred to. With knowledge the slave reaches the ranks of the righteous and the elevated grades in this dunyā and the Hereafter. Thinking about knowledge is equivalent to Siyam (fasting), and studying it is equivalent to Qiyam (praying at night voluntarily). Only the happy ones are endowed with knowledge while the miserable ones are deprived of it." For complete Khuṭbah, read Jamiʿ Bayān al-ʿIlm, vol.1 p. 66.
That ḥadīth is mawḍūʿ' (fabricated); however, its meaning (in general) is nice. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr says after mentioning it, "This ḥadīth is ḥasan jiddan (very ḥasan), but it does not have a strong chain." So when he said ḥasan, he was using the linguistic meaning (nice, fine), referring to the meaning, and not the technical meaning the scholars of ḥadīth use (acceptable, authentic). This is clear since the second part of the statement refers to the chain, showing that the first part was not.
Here's the chain:
- ʿUbayd ibn Muḥammad
- Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdillāh al-Qādhī
- Muḥammad ibn Ayyūb
- ʿʿUbayd Allāh ibn Muḥammad al-Kalāʿī
- Mūsá ibn Muḥammad ibn 'Aṭāʾ
- ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ibn Zayd al-ʿAmmī
- his father, Zayd ibn al-Hawārī
- al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī
- Muʿādh ibn Jabal
Here are some of the problems:
In the chain is a liar, Mūsá ibn Muḥammad (#5), narrating from another liar, Abd al-Raḥīm ibn Zayd (#6), from his ḍāʿīf father (#7), from Al-Ḥasan (#8) from Muʿādh (#9), whom al-Ḥasan never met!
ath-Thahabee called Mūsá (#5) a kath-thaab in al-Mughnī fidh-Dhu'afaa' (2/442), and Ibn Hibbān mentions that ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ibn Zayd (#6) fabricated narrations and relayed them from his father (#7) in al-Majrooheen (2/150-151), just to support what I have said.
So in no way is it permissible to mention this as a ḥadīth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam). It comes with another chain as the speech of Muʿādh; however, that one is also ḍāʿīf at least, and Allāh knows best.
Originally posted on: http://salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=6&Topic=3090