A hadith?: “Seek knowledge as far as China”
February 28, 2007A phrase very commonly attributed to Our Beloved Prophet is this one
“seek knowledge as far as China”
Regardless of how famous a phrase gets, we have a religious duty to verify it authenticity and ascription to the Messenger of God.
Imam Muslim dedicates a large part of the introduction to his Sahih on this very subject, so I advice everyone to refer back to it.
As for the above statement, it was narrated by a large group of scholars in many various books. However, after analysis of these narrations, they all lead back to one solitary isnad, that being “al-Hasan ibn Atiyyah from Abu Atikah Tarif ibn Salman from Anas from the Prophet…”
Most scholars identifying Abu atikah as the problematic narrator in this chain.
Of thosethat critiqued this hadith are the following scholars:
- al-Bazzar
“Abu Atikah is unknown, this hadith is baseless…” (al-Bahr al-Zakhkhar) - Ibn Hibban
“Batil (False), it is baseless…” (al-Majruhin) - Ibn Adi
“in contains Abu Atikah from Anas; Most of what he narrates from Anas is not corroborated by any other narration from someone trustworthy (Thiqah)…” (al-Kamil)
in another narration of the hadith attributed back to Abu Hurayrah he says:
“..with this Isnad it is false (batil), it contains Ahmad al-Juwaybari who used to fabricate hadith…” - al-Bayhaqi
“Its text is famous, yet it is a weak hadith; it has been narrated by chains which are all entirely weak…” (Shu’ab al-Iman) - Ibn al-Qaysarani
“It contains Abu Atikah Tarif ibn Salman he is Rejected in hadith to the utmost (Munkar al Hadith jiddan)…” (Tadhkirat al-Huffadh) - Ibn al-Jawzi
“It is not authentic…” (al-Mawdu’at) - al-Dhahabi
Mentions Abu Atikah Tarif ibn Salman and those that disparaged him and this hadith in (MIzan al-’Itidal) - Al-Sakhawi
“…it is weak…” (al-Maqasid al-Hasanah)
al-Zarqani agreed with this ruling in Mukhtasar al-Maqasid - Al-Ajluni
“…it is weak…” (Kashf al-Khafa)
in another place he says “in its [isnad] is a habitual liar (Kadhdhab)…” - Scholars the likes of Al-Bukhari and al-Nisa’i spoke about Abu Atikah.
Al-Bukhari said of him “Rejected in Hadith (Munkar al Hadith)” which is one of the harshest phrases that al-Bukhari, and Imam in Hadith and in Prophetic ettiquite, uses to describe a narrator. Many others described him similarly, some stating that he fabricates hadith. See the Books of Rijal for more detailed information.
It can then be seen from this plethora of quotes that the hadith is a worst Fabricated and at best extremely weak. The bottom line is that such a hadith cannot be attributed the the Messenger of God in any way, shape, or form. Such hadith because of their extreme weakness can not even be used to substantiate each other.
May Allah guide us to the use of the true statements of our Messenger. Amin
Brother Hood,
Nice post! May Allah reward you for your efforts.
I have felt for a long time that there is a ‘fashion’ amongst Muslims (laymen and scholars included) to quote Ahadith without proper care towards verifying the Isnad and without realizing as to how much falsohood these can spread.I remember reading that some of the Sahaba were very reluctant in quoting from the Prophet (SAW). Maybe they thought that if they were to include their own words amongst those of the Prophet(SAW) then this would cause numerous problems.
One should be very cautious when quoting Ahadith and should always make sure that the Hadith is either Sahih ot at least Hasan
Just my 2 cents…
Not to knock what you are saying, but here is another view:
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/skx_e.html
Thanks for the link, I will look over it inshallah
[...] to Hood, who has provided us with this short summarized takhrij (verification) of this [...]
Please see the following comment in a blog entry that referenced this one. I didn’t want to cross post so I am presenting the link:
http://muslimmatters.org/2007/03/09/seek-knowledge-as-far-as-china-really/#comment-297
There are lots of other nuances of concern regarding this topic, but I have desisted from engaging those matters to avoid loquacity before someone far greater than myself.
Jazâkullâhû khayr(an), was-salâm
Philomantis,
The only one far greater than all of us mentioned on this page is our Beloved Messenger - May God shed his grace on him - and he is deserving of only the best being related about him and from him.
After looking your comments at muslimmatters, and additionally that which was mentioned in the link provided by Ibn Ajibah, this is what is seeming to me:
1- This addition of “seek knowledge as far as China” was as I mentioned above only narrated by “al-Hasan ibn Atiyyah from Abu Atikah Tarif ibn Salman from Anas from the Prophet…”.
That said this particular chain of the hadith, which begins with “seeking knowledge is an obligation…” and ending with the reference to china is extremely weak, in fact as mentioned before several of the narrators were accused of fabrication.
This type of narration cannot be supported by way of Isnad, even though its meanings could be substantiated through the generalities of the Quran and Sunnah. An example of this would be the hadith “My Lord taught me character and did so perfectly…” which is weak in isnad but is supported by the texts of the Quran and Sunnah. It is incorrect to narrate it as a direct statement of the Prophet, attributing it to him directly.
So the first part of the hadith “seeking knowledge..” is supported in meaning by the numerous other narrations, while there is nothing of substance to support in any of the other narrations concerning china. which leads me to my nest point…
2- Al-Mizzi’s statement was concerning the first part of the hadith, which is narrated from Anas from several different chains. This applying to the portion “talabu l-ilmi faraDatin ala kulli muslim…” seems most likely in that most (if not all) other authors that related al-Mizzi’s statement applied it to the narrations that begin with this phrase, yet do not contain the reference to China in the end (for ex. al-zarkashi and al-kattani apply his statement to this portion, not the china reference).
Therefore this portion of the hadith is supported by the other narrations. This however has no bearing on the latter part about china. Hajj Gibril mentions this himself in the above link, although the manner in which he does so may be misleading to a non-specialist or someone not exposed to the science of takhrij.
3- Hajj Gibril - May Allah guide him to what is best in this life and the next - states that his hadith is mashur, being a hadith with 5 to 9 narrators at each level of the chain.
Upon cursory examination of the asa_ni_d containing the reference to china, there seems to be less than five at several levels of the chain back to anas, al-Bayhaqi says of this hadith that it is “shibhu mashur” (i.e. sort of) and therefore it is likely that the scholars who referred to this hadith as Mashur possibily meant the other meaning of mashur, i.e. that this is a popular hadith and is well known by the people. al-Sakhawi and al-’Ajluni including this in their books would support this, in that his book is an examination of hadith which are popular but may or may not be authentic.
All in all the hadith seems to be extremely weak.
And Allah knows best.
Assalaamualaikum Hood,
Just seeing if I understand. First there are many weak hadith in regards to the hadith “seeking knowledge is an obligation on every muslim”, and for that reason, i.e. there being many hadith it is brought up to a status of hasan (is that the same as saying hasan lighayri?)
Then you got the sole narration about china, that being added to one of the weak hadith about the obligation of seeking knowledge, so just because the other part of the statement is set up to be hasan, because of its multiple narrations, that part, china, cant be as it is a sole narration as well as the identification of the narrator as being weak etc…?
And that Mashhour is being stated, being in the stance of it being ahad, because the number of narrators at each level is 3 or more and not because it is “famous.” As in is mashhour used here because it actually became famous, or because the number of narrators?
Ibrahim,
wa alaikum salam
Yes.
Yes.
and could be both, but the first part on seeking knowledge is mashur in both senses, the second part on china is only mashur in the sense of being famous (but I’m not saying thats a final ruling on it)
JazaakAllah Khairun.
In the case of mashhour, isnt it only an identification on what type of ahad hadith it is in reagards to the number of narrators at each level on the chain, and even if it is mashhour in that sense, how does it elevate something daef?
Also if the case was for the famous(isnt that the literal translation of mashhour?), can that elevate a hadith?
Ibrahim,
yes its only and Identification, but the identification does take importance for some of the Fuqaha in the case when a mashur or aziz hadith seemingly contradicts a mutawatir one, so there is some benefit to the categorization, just not here.
Mashur in the case of this hadith does nothing really except when determining the extent to which one must seek knowledge. Al-Munawi and others go into this a little in their explanations of the hadith.
As for being famous, then no it cannot elevate a hadith if that hadith is
1- extremely problematic in the case of its narrators,
2- its famous nature is gained at a later time.
Some hadith become so famous in early generations that there is Ijma of the scholars that it is actually a hadith, even though the isnad is slightly problematic, like the hadith of ‘IrbaD ibn sariyah “alaykum bi sunnati…” which Ibn abdil-Barr says “tallaqathu al-ummatu bil-qabul” the ummah as whole has accepted it. This type of shuhrah would elevate a hadith, any other wouldn’t, but may as Ibn rajab says give some notion that the subject matter has a basis in either the sunnah of the practice of the early muslim community. This is of course dependent on the first point, that the chain not contain narrators that are accused of lying, fabrication, their narrations being rejected, etc etc.
ameen