Authenticity of a du’a at iftar time

Question:

Is the following du’a, for breaking the breaking the fast at iftar, weak (da’if) and is it suitable to act upon?

Answer:

The authenticity of the iftar du’a, as narrated in Sunan Abi Dawud and elsewhere, may be determined as follows:

Chain of transmission (sanad) and text (matn) as in Sunan Abi Dawud (no. 2351)




Translation:

Book 13, Number 2351:

Mu’adh ibn Zuhra narrated: The Prophet of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to say when he broke his fast: ‘O Allah, for Thee I have fasted, and with Thy provision I have broken my fast.’

Those who have weakened the above narration have done so mainly for two reasons:

1. The narrator known as Mu’adh ibn Zuhra (also known as Mu’adh Abu Zuhra al-Dabbi) was a tabi’i (a disciple of at least one Prophetic Sahabi), and the only explicit tawthiq (accreditation) on him was recorded by Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH) in his Kitab al-Thiqat (Book of trustworthy narrators):

2. The narration is mursal (a narration missing the link whereby the name of the Sahabi was dropped) as Mu’adh was a tabi’i and not a Sahabi, and thus he did not directly narrate from the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). To some Muhaddithin the mursal is a type of weak narration, but to other Imams like Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) and Malik ibn Anas (d. 179 AH) they are acceptable with some conditions.

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) has graded Mu’adh to be maqbul (acceptable) in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib as follows:




The grading of maqbul (acceptable) means that the narrator is acceptable if supported by a follow up. The fact of the matter is that al-Hafiz ibn Hajar has also authenticated some narrations which have the technically maqbul narrators as per his own grading system (as demonstrated in a forthcoming work) without further supporting follow ups. Hence, the above sanad (chain of transmission) cannot be weakened on the premise that Mu’adh was graded as maqbul by ibn Hajar.

Some scholars may also have an issue with accepting the lone tawthiq (accreditation) of Ibn Hibban on Mu’adh, but nevertheless, some prominent Muhaddithin (hadith scholars) have declared the overall sanad (chain of transmission) to be Hasan (good) as will be demonstrated below.

Some scholars were under the impression that Mu’adh ibn Zuhra was a Sahabi as al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar has mentioned in his work listing the names of the Sahaba entitled al-Isaba fi tamyiz al-Sahaba (6/285) as follows:




Ibn Hajar mentioned that Yahya ibn Yunus al-Shirazi listed Mu’adh as a Sahabi, though he is actually a Tabi’i as pointed out by others. Ibn Hajar pointed out this error (of calling him a Sahabi) in the above quote from his Taqrib al-Tahdhib (no. 6731).

Since some thought he was a Sahabi, this indicates that Mu’adh was a more senior ranking Tabi’i and thus his mursal narrations are acceptable to some Imams. Ibn Hajar mentioned the narration at hand in his Nata’ij al-afkar fi takhrij ahadith al-Adhkar (5/187, Dar Ibn Kathir edn.) as follows:




Ibn Hajar mentioned the narration from Sunan Abi Dawud and mentioned that it was a mursal narration from Mu’adh ibn Zuhra and remained silent on the overall authenticity. Indeed, the Hanafi Muhaddith known as Mulla Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 AH) mentioned the following from his teacher Imam Ibn Hajar (al-Haytami al-Makki, d. 974 AH) in his Mirqat al-Mafatih (4/1387, no. 1994) regarding the status of the narration from Mu’adh as found in Sunan Abi Dawud:




Meaning: “Ibn Hajar said: And he (Mu’adh) is with his transmission of the mursal a proof (hujja) in such a matter.”

This indicates that the mursal of Mu’adh ibn Zuhra is acceptable as evidence for such matters connected to virtuous actions (Fada’il al-a’mal) like the recitation of supplications.

Note that Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) remained silent on the overall status of Mu’adh in his al-Kashif fi Ma’rifa Man Lahu Riwaya fi al-Kutub al-Sitta:



 
Imam al-Bukhari (d. 256 AH) has listed Mu’adh in his al-Tarikh al-Kabir (7/364) and mentioned no Jarh (disparagement) or Ta’dil (explicit praise) on him:




It is worth taking note of this rule:

Imam al-Mizzi (d. 742 AH) mentioned the following in his Tahdhib al-Kamal (18/265, Awwad edn.) from al-Hafiz Abu Muhammad Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Sa’id ibn Yarbu al-Ishbili (b. 444 AH – d. 522 AH) who quoted from the Tarikh of al-Bukhari which he had in his possession:




Imam al-Bukhari said:

“For everyone against whom I do not mention clear words of disparagement there remains some possibility of his being acceptable, but if I say, ‘There is doubt about him’, then there remains no possibility.”

Hence, Mu’adh may be deemed to have been an acceptable type of narrator to al-Bukhari.

Scholars of hadith who declared the sanad or text to be Hasan (good):

1. Al-Hafiz Ibn al-Mulaqqin (d. 804 AH ) declared the sanad (chain of transmission) to be Hasan (good) though he knew it was also mursal in his al-Badr al-Munir (5/710, Dar al-Hijra edn.) as follows:

Note: Ibn al-Mulaqqin was Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani's Shaykh in Hadith.

2. Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d. 852 AH) has recorded the hadith from Sunan Abi Dawud in his Hidayatul Ruwa ila takhrij ahadith al-Masabih wa'l Mishkat (2/323, no. 1935). He has mentioned a rule in the introduction to this same work (1/58), that any narration placed in the second category under each chapter heading would be deemed to be a Hasan (good) narration if he remained silent on it. Since al-Hafiz ibn Hajar placed the narration in question in the second category and remained silent on it then this indicates that the narration was Hasan (good) to Ibn Hajar himself.

3. Imam Jalaluddin al-Mahalli (d. 864 AH) declared the sanad (chain of transmission) to be Hasan (good), though he knew it was also mursal, in his Sharh al-Mahalli ala’l Minhaj al-Nawawi (1/125) as follows:

4. Shaykhul-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari (d. 926 AH) declared its isnad (chain of transmission) to be Hasan, despite also knowing it is mursal, in his Asna al-Matalib (1/422) as follows:




5. Imam Shamsud-Din al-Ramli (d. 1004 AH) ) also declared its isnad (chain of transmission) to be Hasan, despite also knowing it is mursal, in his Nihayatul Muhtaj ila Sharh al-Minhaj (3/183) as follows:




6. Shaykh Sulayman ibn Umar al-Ujayli al-Azhari (d. 1204 AH) also declared its isnad (chain of transmission) to be Hasan, despite also knowing it is mursal, in his Futuhat al-Wahhab bi-Tawdih Sharh Minhaj al-Tullab (2/330) as follows:




7. Imam Sulayman ibn Muhammad al-Bujayrami (d. 1221 AH) also declared its isnad (chain of transmission) to be Hasan, despite also knowing it is mursal, in his Hashiya al-Bujayrami ala Sharh al-Minhaj (2/79) as follows:




8. Shaykh al-Hasan ibn Ahmed al-Ruba’ie al-San’ani (d. 1276 AH) also declared its isnad to be Hasan, despite also knowing it is mursal, in his Fath al-Ghaffar al-Jami li-Ahkam Sunna Nabiyyina al-Mukhtar (2/889) as follows:




9. Shaykh Muhammad Awwama has declared the sanad to be Hasan, despite knowing it to be also mursal, in his editing of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shayba (6/329, no. 9837). Shaykh Awwama also mentioned the supporting narrations (shawahid) for this narration despite them also containing weakness with chains going back to the Sahaba like Ibn Abbas (as recorded by al-Tabarani in his al-Mu’jam al-Kabir [no. 12720] and al-Daraqutni in his Sunan [no. 2280]), Anas ibn Malik (as recorded by al-Tabarani in his al-Mu’jam al-Awsat [no. 7545] and in his al-Mu’jam al-Saghir [no. 912]) and Ali ibn Abi Talib (as recorded by al-Harith ibn Abi Usama [see the Zawa’id version of his Musnad by al-Haythami known as Bughyatul Bahith an Zawa’id Musnad al-Harith, no. 469], radiallahu anhum ajma’in.

The late Albanian Salafi scholar known as Abdul Qadir al-Arna’ut (d. 2004) has also said in his editing of Jami al-Usul (6/378, no. 4560, fn. 1) of Imam Ibn al-Athir al-Jazari (d. 606 AH),  that the narration of Mu’adh has witnessing narrations (shawahid) that strengthen it.

Imam al-Nawawi (d. 676 AH) said in his al-Majmu Sharh al-Muhadhhab (6/362), that it is mustahab (praiseworthy) to say this specific du’a at the time of iftar:




Note: al-Nawawi has mentioned that it was reported by the Sahabi known as Abu Hurayra (radiallahu anh), however this seems to be a scribal error as it should be from Mu’adh Abu Zuhra, who is also known as Mu’adh ibn Zuhra.

In conclusion, the narration cannot be declared to be weak by unanimous agreement of all prominent Muhaddithin (hadith scholars) and such a mursal narration is acceptable as proof to a group of scholars like those named earlier. The sanad (chain of transmission) may be considered to be Hasan (good) and thus amal (action) may be made on this narration alongside other authentic narrations which mention supplications to be made when breaking the fast at the time of iftar, bi-idhnillahi ta’ala.


Wallahu a’lam

Abul Hasan Hussain Ahmed
Darultahqiq.com

23rd Ramadan 1437AH/June 28th 2016