Waqar Akbar Cheema
Abstract
What do spoiled meat and Eve’s betrayal have in common? A famous hadith links both to the earliest history of mankind, yet its meaning is often misunderstood. Through a close reading of the report’s language, scriptural background, and early transmission, this article argues that the hadith is neither a statement about the biological origin of decay nor an endorsement of original sin. Rather, it is a reflection on human weakness, divine provision, and the enduring patterns of human behaviour.
1. Introduction
Many people have trouble understanding the following hadith:
عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رضي الله عنه قَالَ: قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم: لَوْلَا بَنُو إِسْرَائِيلَ لَمْ يَخْنَزْ اللَّحْمُ، وَلَوْلَا حَوَّاءُ لَمْ تَخُنْ أُنْثَى زَوْجَهَا الدَّهْرَ
~
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.”[1]
The hadith consists of two distinct statements, each of which has generated questions and discussion among readers. The first concerns the connection between Bani Isra’il and the spoilage of meat, while the second concerns Eve and the statement that women inherited from her a tendency to “betray” their husbands. Since the two clauses raise different interpretive issues, they are best examined separately.
2. Transmission of the Hadith
Before interpretation and explanation, however, it is important to note that among the Companions, the hadith is reliably narrated from Abu Hurairah alone. From him, it was transmitted through multiple students, including Hammam b. Munabbih,[2] ‘Ata’ b. Yasar,[3] Muhammad b. Sirin,[4] Abu Salama,[5] Abu Yunus Salim b. Jubayr,[6] and Khilas b. ‘Amr al-Hajari.[7]
3. Part One: The Israelites, Meat, and Decay
Let us now focus on the meaning of the phrase, “Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay.”
3.1 The Traditional Interpretation
The same hadith is also found in Sahih Muslim. In his commentary on Sahih Muslim, Muhammad Taqi Usmani relays a neat explanation offered by several classical scholars:
It means that the Children of Israel were the first to make a habit of storing food and meat until it spoiled. Had they not initiated this practice, food would not have been left long enough to become putrid. This is how al-Abi and Ibn Hajar explained the hadith. The meaning is not that food and meat never spoiled before the time of Bani Israel. Rather, the practice of storing food in this manner was not common. People would eat and share what they had, and food would not be left to spoil. Then Bani Israel adopted the habit of storing it until it became putrid.[8]
The explanation should not be understood as claiming that Bani Isra’il were literally the first human beings in history to preserve or store food. Rather, the emphasis is upon a particular pattern of retaining provision until it spoils. This is evident from the scriptural context of manna and quails, where the issue was not storage as such but keeping food beyond immediate need and divine instruction, resulting in waste and loss of blessing.
This explanation is not only the neatest one but also the most firmly grounded and meaningful. It accounts for the wording of the hadith without forcing it into a discussion about the biological origin of decay. Significantly, support for it is found not only in the commentaries of later scholars but also in the language of the report itself, the broader scriptural tradition, and the earliest contextual clues surrounding its transmission.
3.2 The Language of the Hadith
The wording of the hadith itself points in the same direction. It is instructive to note that the word khaniz derives from the root kh-n-z, which some philologists treated as related through transposition (qalb) to kh-z-n, the root of words denoting storage or preservation (khazana).[9] Qalb is a recognised linguistic phenomenon in which roots sharing the same letters in a different order are understood to retain a semantic connection while expressing a shift in meaning. The Cairene polymath Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505) also mentions kh-n-z and kh-z-n among the examples of qalb and illustrates their linkage through the expression:
كم خنز يخزن
How much spoilage results from storage (kam khanzi khazana)?[10]
This association is not unique to later philologists. The early grammarian al-Mubarrad (d. 286/900) cited the verse of the pre-Islamic poet Tarafah (d. 569 CE):
ثم لا يخنز فينا لحمها إنما يخنز لحم المدخر
Its meat does not become foul among us; rather, it is only the meat of one who stores it that becomes foul.[11]
Here too, khaniza is associated specifically with spoilage resulting from storage. The hadith’s use of this rather unusual word is therefore significant. It suggests that the spoilage in question is not merely decay in the abstract, but rather spoilage associated with retention and storage. The report thus appears to concern food left to spoil rather than the biological phenomenon of decay itself.
3.3 Lexical Evidence
The same understanding appears in the lexical tradition. Muhammad Tahir al-Fattani (d. 986/1578), in Majmaʿ al-Bihar al-Anwar, explains khaniza as referring to food that has been stored until it becomes foul.[12]
Classical Arabic lexicons preserve a similar association. Abu Mansur al-Azhari (d. 370/980), for example, notes:
Al-Khunnāz: the Jews who stored meat until it became foul.[13]
The notice is especially significant because it directly links Jewish communities, the storage of meat, and spoilage through retention. It thus reflects the same conceptual association found in the hadith and its traditional explanation. Such notices likely preserve a broader interpretive and cultural memory surrounding hoarding, spoilage, and the misuse of divine provision.
3.4 The Scriptural Background
Beyond linguistic and cultural references, the interpretation also fits well with the broader scriptural context surrounding the Israelites and divine provision. The Qur’an recalls Allah’s favour upon them:
وَظَلَّلْنَا عَلَيْكُمُ الْغَمَامَ وَأَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَى كُلُوا مِنْ طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ وَمَا ظَلَمُونَا وَلَكِنْ كَانُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ
And We overshadowed you with clouds and sent down upon you manna and quails: ‘Eat from the good things We have provided you.’ And they did not wrong Us, but they used to wrong themselves. (Qur’an 2:57)
Classical Muslim commentators connected the wrongdoing alluded to here with the Israelites storing the manna despite divine instruction. It is similarly related to “exceeding of limits” with regard to good provisions in Qur’an 20:81.[14]
Qatadah (d. 117/735) is reported to have said:
Manna and quails descended upon the Children of Israel from daybreak until sunrise like snow falling from the sky. They would gather only enough to meet their needs for that day, except on Friday, when they would take enough for Friday and the Sabbath. But whenever they took more than that, what they had stored became spoiled. In this way, their hoarding brought corruption to food for themselves and for others.[15]
Ibn Juraij (d. 150/767) also noted the same thing.[16]
Interestingly, the Biblical account preserves a strikingly similar memory:
Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank. (Exodus 16:20)
Taken together, the Qur’anic allusion, the report from Qatadah, and the Biblical narrative point to a well-known scriptural theme concerning divine provision, storage, spoilage, and the loss of blessing through misuse. The hadith appears to invoke that shared scriptural memory rather than introduce a new explanation for the natural phenomenon of decay.
3.5 Khaybar and the Occasion of the Statement
As for the temporal context of this Prophetic statement, no explicit report from Abu Hurairah appears to specify when it was uttered. However, Ibrahim ibn Tahman (d. 168/784), a very early authority whose work has survived, follows the hadith with a discussion of those who participated in the Khaybar campaign.[17] Subsequently, Abu Bakr Ibn al-Mundhir (d. 319/931) transmitted the report and Ibn Tahman’s accompanying material under the chapter heading:
ذكر الخبر الدال على أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما أعطى من لم يشهد فتح خيبر بإذن أهل الحديبية
Mention of the report indicating that the Prophet (ﷺ) only granted a share from Khaybar to those who witnessed the conquest, except those permitted by the people of Hudaybiyyah.[18]
This suggests that Ibrahim b. Tahman possessed some information—whether through another narration of the hadith or related historical material—linking the statement to the conquest of Khaybar.[19] Significantly, Abu Hurairah himself arrived at Khaybar immediately after its conquest while the Prophet (ﷺ) was still there and was among those exceptionally included in its distribution. He relates:
قدمنا على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وقد فتحت خيبر، فكلم المسلمين فأشركونا في سهمانهم
We reached the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) at Khaybar after the town had already been conquered. He then spoke to the Muslims, and they allowed us to share in their allotted portions.[20]
The placement of this report with both Ibn Tahman’s Mashaykha and Ibn al-Mundhir’s al-Awsat shows that early transmitters understood the statement within the setting of Khaybar, its provisions, and the distribution of its spoils rather than as an isolated cosmological statement concerning the physical origin of decay.
Incidentally, Abu Hurairah embraced Islam only shortly before Khaybar and joined the Prophet (ﷺ) there.[21] On this understanding, the hadith may well have been among the earliest Prophetic statements he ever heard.
This contextual placement becomes even more noteworthy when one recalls the nature of the Khaybar spoils themselves. Abu Hurairah relates that the Muslims did not acquire gold or silver there, but rather livestock, goods, and agricultural estates.[22] The discussion was therefore taking place in a setting heavily concerned with food, produce, provision, and distribution. Against that backdrop, a statement invoking the Israelites’ treatment of divinely provided food would have carried an immediate practical and moral resonance.
3.6 A Version That Makes the Meaning Explicit
A version of the report preserved by al-Suyuti makes this interpretation explicit. He notes:
وأخرج سفيان بن عيينة عن عكرمة أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قال لَوْلَا بَنو إِسْرَائِيل مَا خنز الْخبز وَلَا أنتن اللَّحْم وَلَكِن خَبَّأوه لغد فأُنتن اللَّحْم وخنز الْخبز
Sufyan b. ‘Uyaina brought it on the authority of ‘Ikrima that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Were it not for Bani Isra’il, no meat would have become foul, and no food would have become putrid. When they were commanded to take only what they needed for the day, they stored some of it for the next day.[23]
Although this is not narrated through Abu Hurairah’s report, it is highly significant because it states the interpretive point directly: the spoilage being discussed is spoilage resulting from storing food beyond immediate need. It therefore preserves, almost verbatim, the very interpretation reached above through linguistic, lexical, scriptural, and contextual analysis.
A similar idea appears in a statement attributed to Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 114/732): “Had I not decreed spoilage for food, the rich would store it away from the poor.”[24] Although not directly related to the hadith, it reflects the same moral outlook: spoilage acts as a restraint upon hoarding and encourages the circulation of provisions.
3.7 Meaning and Purpose
Accordingly, the statement may also have functioned as a subtle warning against hoarding and wastefulness, and misuse of divine provision. By invoking the conduct historically associated with Bani Isra’il regarding divinely provided food—in a context following the subjugation of the Jewish communities of Khaybar—the hadith would have resonated with Qur’anic and Biblical narratives already familiar to its audience. Read in this light, the report appears less concerned with explaining the natural origin of decay than with human conduct surrounding divine provision and the loss of blessing through misuse and excess.
Taken together, these considerations strongly support understanding the hadith as a comment on human conduct surrounding food and divine provision rather than as an abstract statement about the biological origin of decay. The traditional explanation is therefore not merely a later attempt to explain away a difficult text; rather, it emerges naturally from the language of the report, the lexical tradition, the scriptural background, and the earliest contextual clues surrounding its transmission.
4. Part Two: Eve’s Betrayal
We can now turn to the second part of the hadith, “Were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.” The second clause raises two principal questions. First, does the betrayal mentioned here refer to marital infidelity? Second, does the hadith place responsibility for the primordial transgression upon Eve in a manner inconsistent with the Qur’anic account?
4.1 Traditional Interpretation
Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (d. 852/1449) wrote:
It refers to what happened when Eve encouraged Adam to eat from the tree until he eventually did so. Her betrayal consisted in the fact that she accepted what Satan had embellished for her and then, in turn, (she also) embellished it for Adam. Since she was the mother of Adam’s daughters, they came to resemble her through descent and inherited disposition (nazʿ al-ʿirq), such that scarcely any woman is entirely free from betraying her husband in one way or another, whether by word or deed.
The betrayal intended here is not the commission of sexual immorality—far from it. Rather, because Eve inclined toward the desire to eat from the tree and made it appear attractive to Adam, this was regarded as a form of betrayal toward him. As for the women who came after her, each one’s betrayal is according to her own circumstances and degree.
It is similar to the hadith: “Adam denied it and his offspring denied; …”[25]
4.2 Understanding Eve’s “Betrayal”
The word used in the hadith is khiyanah (betrayal). While the term may in some contexts include marital infidelity, its meaning is considerably broader. In the Qur’an, the root is frequently used in a general sense to denote treachery, breach of trust, or sinful conduct (Qur’an 2:187; 5:13; 8:27; 8:71; 40:19). Thus, before turning specifically to Eve, it is important to determine how the Qur’an itself uses the language of khiyanah in relation to wives and husbands. This is best illustrated in Allah’s statement regarding the wives of the Prophets Noah and Lot:
كانَتا تَحْتَ عَبْدَيْنِ مِنْ عِبادِنا صالِحَيْنِ فَخانَتاهُما فَلَمْ يُغْنِيا عَنْهُما مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئاً وَقِيلَ ادْخُلا النَّارَ مَعَ الدَّاخِلِينَ
~
Both were married with two of Our righteous servants, but betrayed them. So they could not benefit them against Allah at all, and it was said, “Enter the Fire along with those who enter.” (Qur’an 66:10)
Classical Muslim scholars were virtually unanimous that the betrayal mentioned here did not refer to adultery. Rather, it referred to religious and personal disloyalty. In fact, Lot’s people were condemned for male homosexuality; therefore, the khiyana for Lot’s wife could not be sexual infedility. Ibn Abbas explained:
ما زنتا في هذه الآية؛ أما امرأة نوح فكانت تخبر عنه أنه مجنون، وأما امرأة لوط فكانت تدل على الضيف
~
In this verse, it does not mean they committed adultery. As for Noah’s wife, she used to tell people he was mad. As for Lot’s wife, she informed them about his guests.[26]
Therefore, the term khiyana may instead refer to a failure of loyalty, support, trust, or sincere counsel.
This observation is especially relevant to the present hadith. Eve’s betrayal cannot reasonably be understood as marital infidelity in the ordinary sense, for at the time of Adam and Eve, there existed no other human beings with whom such infidelity could even be imagined. The hadith must therefore be referring to some other form of khiyana.
Ibn Hajar explained that the betrayal consisted of Eve’s role in the affair of the forbidden tree. Having been deceived, she encouraged Adam to partake of it, and in that sense her action was described as a form of betrayal. However, this explanation can initially appear to create a tension with the Qur’anic presentation of the event. The Qur’an consistently portrays Satan as deceiving both Adam and Eve, and in one passage even singles out Adam:
فَوَسْوَسَ إِلَيْهِ الشَّيْطَانُ
Then Satan whispered to him. (Qur’an 20:120)
Likewise, the Qur’an describes both Adam and Eve as repenting together after the transgression. It nowhere places exclusive or primary blame upon Eve.
For this reason, some scholars offered an important clarification. Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597/1201) and Ibn al-Jazari (d. 833/1429) mentioned in their explanation to this hadith.
خيانة حواء آدم: هي ترك النصيحة له في أمر الشجرة، لا في غيرها
~
Eve’s betrayal of Adam was failing to give sincere counsel regarding eating from the tree, and not anything else.[27]
This formulation resolves the apparent tension. The hadith does not attribute the sin itself to Eve, nor suggest that she alone bore responsibility for the event. Rather, it focuses on one particular aspect of the episode: her failure to advise Adam correctly after she herself had been deceived. In this sense, the betrayal was not a betrayal of chastity, nor even a betrayal born of malice, but a lapse in counsel and judgment.
4.3 Does the Hadith Teach Original Sin?
The hadith does not support the Christian doctrine of original sin. In Islam, the incident of the forbidden tree was a specific event involving Adam and Eve themselves. Their descendants do not inherit their guilt, nor are they held accountable for the sins of their forebears. The Qur’an repeatedly affirms that no soul bears the burden of another.
Rather, the hadith concerns recurring human tendencies and weaknesses. The Qur’an frequently speaks of such traits: “Man was created weak” (Qur’an 4:28), “Indeed, man was created anxious” (Qur’an 70:19), and “Indeed, man is ungrateful to his Lord” (Qur’an 100:6). The point is not that women inherit Eve’s sin, but that human beings possess dispositions that make them prone to error.
This understanding is reflected elsewhere in the Sunnah. The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Adam forgot, and so his descendants forget; Adam sinned, and so his descendants sin.”[28] Likewise, he said: “Every son of Adam sins, but the best of those who sin are those who repent.”[29] The emphasis throughout is not inherited guilt but inherited fallibility. Human beings err, yet each person remains individually responsible for his or her own actions and capable of repentance.
4.4 Meaning and Lesson
If both Adam and Eve were deceived and both subsequently repented, why does the hadith specifically mention Eve? The answer appears to lie in the moral purpose of the report rather than in any assignment of exclusive blame. As Ibn Hajar explains:
The hadith contains an indication of consolation for men regarding what they may experience from their wives, by recalling what occurred from their first mother. It also indicates that this is part of their natural disposition, so one should not be overly harsh in blaming a woman when something of this sort occurs unintentionally or only rarely. At the same time, women should not take this as a licence to persist in such behaviour; rather, they should discipline themselves and strive against their desires. And Allah’s help is sought.[30]
The lesson, therefore, is neither misogyny nor the denigration of women. Rather, it is a realistic acknowledgement that human beings possess weaknesses and are liable to err. Just as men should not react excessively to every mistake, women are likewise reminded to guard themselves against lapses in judgment and to strive for sincerity in counsel and conduct.
Conclusion
Taken as a whole, the hadith is far less mysterious than it initially appears. The first half does not concern the biological origin of decay but recalls a well-known tradition regarding Bani Isra’il, divine provision, and the spoilage that resulted from storing food beyond immediate need. The second half does not accuse Eve of adultery, assign her exclusive blame for the primordial transgression, or teach inherited guilt. Rather, it refers to a lapse in counsel and judgment whose effects became emblematic of a recurring aspect of human nature.
Read in this light, the two halves of the hadith mirror one another. The first recalls Bani Isra’il to warn against the misuse of divine provision through hoarding and wastefulness; the second recalls Eve to warn against lapses in counsel and judgment within human relationships. In both cases, the objective is moral instruction rather than assigning perpetual blame. The Prophet (ﷺ) directs attention to enduring patterns of human conduct, tracing them to familiar historical examples to encourage self-awareness, restraint, and moral improvement.
The traditional explanation is therefore not a later attempt to explain away a difficult report. Rather, it emerges naturally from the language of the hadith itself, the lexical tradition, the broader scriptural background, and the earliest clues surrounding its transmission. Properly understood, the report is not about the origins of spoilage or inherited sin, but about the recurring weaknesses of human beings and the need to guard against them.
References & Notes:
[1] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, no. 3399
[2] Hammam b. Munabbih, al-Sahifa, no. 57; Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, no. 3330, 3399; Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, no. 1470-65;Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, no. 8170;
[3] Ibrahim b. Tahman, Mashaykha, no. 22; Ibn al-Mundhir, Abu Bakr, al-Awsat fi al-Sunan wa al-Ijma‘ wa al-Ikhtilaf, (Fayoum: Dar al-Falah, 2010) Vol.6, 375 no. 6309;
[4] Al-Hakim, Abu ‘Abdullah, al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn, (Damascus: Dar al-Minhaj al-Qawim, 2018) no. 7569
[5] Yahya b. Sallam, al-Tafsir, Vol.1, 270
[6] Muslim b. Hajjaj, al-Sahih, no. 1470-64; Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, no. 8591
[7] Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-Musnad, no. 8032; Ibn Rahuwayh, Ishaq, al-Musnad, no. 115
[8] Usmani, Muhammad Taqi, Takmila Fath al-Mulhim, (Beirut: Dar al-Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2006) Vol.1, 140
[9] Ibn Sidah, Abu al-Hasan Ali ibn Isma’il al-Mursi, al-Muhkam wa al-Muhit al-Azam (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, 2000), Vol.5, 99-100; al-Zabidi, Muhammad Murtada, Taj al-Arus min Jawahir al-Qamus, (Kuwait: Wizarat al-Irshad wa al-Anba, 1965–2001), Vol.15, 141
[10] Al-Suyuti, Abu Bakr, Al-Muzhir fi ‘Ulum al-Lugha, (Cairo: Dar al-Turath, n.d.) Vol.1, 477
[11] Al-Mubarrad, Muhammad ibn Yazid Abu al-Abbas. al-Kamil fi al-Lughah wa al-Adab, (Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, 1997) Vol.3, 76. Al-Mubarrad described this as “the finest verse cited on the subject.”
[12] al-Fattani, Muhammad Tahir ibn Ali al-Siddiqi al-Hindi al-Gujarati. Majma Bahr al-Anwar fi Gharaib al-Tanzil wa Lataif al-Akhbar (Hyderabad Deccan: Matb‘ Majlis Dai’rat al-Ma‘arif al-‘Uthmaniyyah, 1967) Vol.2. 117
[13] Al-Azhari, Abu Mansur, Tahdhib al-Lughah, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 2001) Vol.7, 96. Also, Ibn Manzur Al-Afriqi, Lisan al-‘Arab, (Beirut: Dar al-Sader, 1414 AH) Vol.5, 346;
[14] Muqatil b. Suleman, al-Tafsir, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ al-Turath, 1423 AH) Vol.3, 35-36
[15] Al-‘Aini, Badr Al-Din, ‘Umdat al-Qari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, (Beirut: Dar Ihya’ at-Turath al-‘Arabi, n.d.) Vol.15, 211. See also, Ibn Abi Zamanin, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Aziz, (Cairo: al-Faruq al-Hadithiya, 2002) Vol.1, 141
[16] Al-Tabari, Abu Ja’far, Jami‘ al-Bayan ‘an Ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, (Cairo: Dar Hijr, 2001) Vol.1, 710
[17] Ibn Tahman, Ibrahim al-Harawi. Mashaykhat Ibn Tahman. Edited by Muhammad Tahir Malik (Damascus: Majma al-Lughah al-Arabiyyah, 1983) 73 no. 22
[18] Ibn al-Mundhir, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Naysaburi, al-Awsat min al-Sunan wa al-Ijma wa al-Ikhtilaf, (Fayoum: Dar al-Falah, 2010) Vol.6, 375 (no. 6309)
[19] It is noteworthy that Ibn Tahman belonged to a very early generation of hadith transmitters. Al-Dhahabi notes that he was born toward the end of the era of the younger Companions and acquired knowledge from a number of senior Successors, including Muhammad b. Ziyad al-Jumahi, a close associate of Abu Hurairah. This proximity to the earliest circles of transmission lends additional interest to his association of the hadith with the Khaybar context. See, Al-Dhahabi, Shams al-Din, Siyar al-A‘lam al-Nubala, (Beirut: al-Resalah Publishers, 1985) Vol.7, 379
[20] Al-Dhahabi, Siyar al-A‘lam al-Nubala, Vol.2, 62
[21] al-Dhahabi, Siyar al-A‘lam al-Nubala, Vol.2, 62, 586, 588
[22] Al-Bukhari, al-Sahih, no. 4234
[23] Al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur, Vol. 5, 600. ‘Ikrimah was a student of Ibn ‘Abbas. In this report, however, he relates the statement directly from the Prophet (ﷺ) without mentioning Ibn ‘Abbas. Interestingly, Yahya b. Sallam preserves substantially the same wording through ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbas, though Ibn ‘Abbas does not attribute it to the Prophet (ﷺ). See Yahya b. Sallam, al-Tafsir (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2004), vol. 1, 270.
For another example of a report preserved through ‘Ikrimah in both mawquf and mursal-marfu‘ forms, see Abu Dawud al-Sijistani, al-Marasil (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risalah, 1988), nos. 182–183. Such parallels are relevant from the perspective of i‘tibar(corroborative analysis), since they illustrate how a statement transmitted mursal by ‘Ikrimah may also circulate through him as a mawquf report from Ibn ‘Abbas, potentially shedding light on the omitted intermediary in the mursal route. In a way, this accords with al-Shafi‘i’s observation that a mursal report may be strengthened by corroborating evidence, including a corresponding statement from a Companion. See, al-Shafi‘i, Muhammad b. Idris, Al-Risalah, (Cairo: Maktaba al-Halabi, 1940) 461-465
[24] Abu Nu‘aym al-Asbahani, Hilyat al-Awliya’ wa Tabaqat al-Asfiya’ (Cairo: al-Sa’adah, 1974) Vol.4, 37-38
[25] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, (Beirut: Dar al-Ma‘rifa, 1379 AH) Vol.6, 368. The hadith referred to by Ibn Hajar is related by al-Tirmidhi (no. 3076) who also graded it as hasan sahih.
[26] Al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-Bayan ‘an Ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, Vol.23, 111-112
[27] In al-Jawzi, Abu al-Faraj, Kashaf al-Mushkil min Hadith al-Sahihain, (Riyadh: Dar al-Watan, n.d.) Vol.3, 504; Ibn al-Athir, Majd al-Din al-Jazari, Jamiʿ al-Usul fi Ahadith al-Rasul (Cairo: Maktabat al-Halwani, 1972) Vol. 10, 325
[28] al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami‘ al-Sunan, no. 3076 – graded as hasan sahih.
[29] al-Tirmidhi, al-Jami‘ al-Sunan, no. 2499 – graded as hasan by al-Albani.
[30] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-Bari bi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, 368.
