Initially I restricted myself to deal with issues basically raised by the non-Muslims, namely Christians, Ahmadis, and Atheists etc. but now I feel I need to answer contentions of some lunatic Muslims too. This is important because their stupidities are exploited by islamophobes to attack Islam. Insha’Allah I will ensure not to fall in the trap and start taking pain to brush off authentic things if some short of brains is not able to comprehend and draws a “bad picture” of Islam because of it.

Did the Prophet, may Allah bless him, commend people drinking his urine?

This is actually a response to the article found HERE

Report One:

This is actually the “Hadith Two” in the link

Tabarani said: Hussain bin Is’haq al-Tustari informed us, who was informed by Uthman bin Abi Shaybah, who was informed by Shababah bin Sawwar, who was informed by Abu Malik al-Nakha’i who narrated from Aswad bin Qays, who narrated from Nubayh al-Anazi, who narrated from Umm Ayman, who said: ‘‘One night the Prophet got up and went to a side to urinate in the bowl. During the night, I rose and was thirsty so I drank whatever was in it and I did not even realize what it was. In the morning, He said, ‘Oh Umm Ayman! Throw away whatever is in the bowl’. I replied, ‘I drank what was in the bowl’. He thereafter smiled as such that His teeth appeared and said, ‘Beware! You will never have stomach pain’’.

(Tabarani Kabir 20740, Mustadrak al-Hakim 6912, Dalail al-Nubuwwah li-Isfahani 355)

As the author of the article himself accepts that it is weak because of the narrator Abu Malik al-Nakha’i. As he quoted Hafiz Haithmi declared that he is weak. Furthermore Imam Nasai, said he is “Matrook” i.e. rejected, someone whose narrations can never be accepted. (al-Du’afa wal-Matrookin No. 383)

And as Hafiz Ibn Hajr says Nasai declares a person “Matrook” only when all scholars agree on rejecting his narrations.

And al-Darqutni never explicitly authenticated the narrator or narration. All he did was to refrain from commenting. This cannot stand the fact that the narrator is declared ‘rejected’ by al-Nasai. And many others graded him as unreliable like al-Haitmi, Abu Hatim, Ibn ‘Adi, Yahya bin Ma’in , Ibn Hibban etc. So with all this criticism Darqutni’s silence means nothing and whoever accepted the narration because of this was mistaken.

What did Hakim and Dhahbi comment on this?

Even Imam Hakim who is too lax did not authenticate this narration and Dhahbi did not comment either. Hakim’s silence shows he did not consider the narration authentic else he would have commented because he is known to have made mistakes and consider weaker narrations as authentic. And Dhahbi’s silence is simply because his comments were basically to correct Hakim’s mistake and when Hakim did not comment in the first place, he had no reason to comment either.

Note, author of the article says that “Hadith One” is narrated by Hakim while not “Hadith One” but “Hadith Two” is narrated by Hakim.

Hakim narrates the other narration which simply says that bowl was there and not a word about someone drinking it or Prophet, may Allah bless him, commenting on it. However, it has a unknown narrator discussed under the heading “Report Two”

Next the author argues that it has more than one chain. Let’s see the reality of other chain.

Ibn Kathir narrates the Hadith of Umm Ayman in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya with the following channel of transmission. Hafiz Abu Ya’la said, Muhammad Ibn Abi Bakr al-Muqaddami informed me, who was informed by Ibn Qutaybah, who narrates from Hussain bin Harb, who narrates from Ya’la bin Ata, who narrates from Waleed bin Abd al-Rahman who narrates from Umm Ayman who said, ‘The Messenger of Allah May Allah send peace and blessings upon Him had a clay bowl in which he used to urinate and in the morning He used to say, ‘Oh Umm Ayman! Throw away what is in the bowl’. One night I woke up and was very thirsty so I drank whatever was in the bowl. The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Oh Umm Ayman! Throw away what is in the bowl’. She replied, ‘Oh messenger of Allah! I got up and was thirsty so I drank what was in it’ to which He replied, ‘you will never have stomach pain anymore’’.

This is found in Al-Bidaya wal Nihaya 5/347. The is found in Tarikh Damishq (4/303) but there in chain instead of “Hussain bin Harb” we have “Hussain bin Hurayth.” This disparity shows there is something fishy.

Moreover, Hafiz Ibn Hajr writes about the narrator “Hussain bin Hurayth” that he is from the Tenth Category i.e. from the 4^th generation of Muslims; A generation after “Taba Tabi’in” the Succeeding Successors (see al-Taqrib No. 1319)

While the narrator from whom he quotes i.e. Ya’la bin ‘Ata is from the Fourth Category i.e. 2^nd generation of Muslims; people referred to as “Tab’iin” (see al-Taqrib 2/341)

Note that the generation thing is not biological; it’s with respect to having met people of the earlier generations. So simply the fact that they are not from consecutive generation is enough to prove that chain is disconnected and thus it cannot help the weak narration through Abu Malik al-Nakha’i.

In the end conclusion is that the report is not valid.

Report Two:

The other two narrations, “Hadith One” and “Hadith Three” are actually same and the slight change of the narrators makes no difference and both are narrated by Umayma through her daughter Hukayma and none narrates from Hukayma except Ibn Jurayj.

1. The fact that it comes from one narrate each in three steps shows the strangeness of the report.

2. Hafiz Ibn Hajr says that Hukaymah is unknown cf. al-Taqrib 2/636. And most certainly narration from such a narrator is not valid. So what we see is that all the reports are dubious.

Author of the article says, that Abu Dawud and Nasai narrate from her. So what? Abu Dawud and Nasai do not have all authentic narrations. infact even in Abu Dawud and Nasai’s collections the same report in a shorter form is reported from and nothing else. In Abu Dawud and Nasai the narration is there without any reference to Prophet, may Allah bless him, asking about the bowl or someone drinking from it. And even that is graded as weak by scholars. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaut graded the narration as weak. (See Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 24)

To the Missionaries who use this narration:

To the Missionary haters of Islam, I will simply say that if you thing the above dubious narrations prove to be big notions about Islam and you feel that Muslims should have sleepless nights for such issues then Christians must also pull up socks and explain as to why their sources say that birth of a daughter is a loss (cf. Ecclesiasticus) and as to why Jesus, may Allah bless him, God-Forbid kissed Mary Magdalene (cf. Gospel of Philips) and the things of the kind? If you cry that that these are from apocrypha then why forget we Muslims have a robust and empirical science using which we show certain narrations from our sources are dubious. Surely this is more worthy to be considered then vague distinction between the apocrypha and the canon in the Christian tradition.

Indeed Allah knows the best!