Imam Malik’s Muwatta is a significant compilation, blending narrations and legal opinions. While relatively late (compiled over 161 years after the Prophet’s death) compared to the earliest period, it predates the canonical Sahih collections (compiled over 220 years after the Prophet). Consequently, it provides valuable insights into the development of post-Prophetic legal doctrines. This analysis examines the transmission routes from a specific narrator, Ibn Abbas, within the Muwatta to understand the prevalent chains of narration.
Ibn Abbas is cited 68 times as an authority within Imam Malik’s Muwatta:
| Muwatta (Book #) | Hadith (#) |
|---|---|
| 1 | 20 |
| 2 | 19, 23, 4 |
| 3 | 25 |
| 7 | 11, 23, 24 |
| 8 | 29 |
| 9 | 4, 17, 41 |
| 12 | 2 |
| 15 | 35, 36 |
| 18 | 3, 19, 21, 46 |
| 20 | 4, 52, 84, 98, 103, 119, 133, 156, 164, 165, 166, 168, 197, 206, 249, 253, 260 |
| 21 | 12, 19, 26 |
| 22 | 1, 2, 7 |
| 24 | 5, 6 |
| 25 | 16, 17 |
| 28 | 4, 28 |
| 29 | 1, 37, 38, 83, 86, 100 |
| 30 | 4, 5 |
| 31 | 70 |
| 41 | 8 |
| 42 | 12 |
| 43 | 8 |
| 45 | 21 |
| 49 | 33 |
| 51 | 17 |
| 53 | 2 |
| 54 | 9, 10, 20 |
Out of these 68 mentions, 39 of them have connected chains without missing links:
- Ibn Abbas – Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud – Ibn Shihab – Malik (Book 54 – Hadith 20)
- Ibn Abbas – Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud – Ibn Shihab – Malik (Book 41 – Hadith 8)
- Ibn Abbas – Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud – Ibn Shihab – Malik (Book 25 – Hadith 16)
- Ibn Abbas – Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud – Ibn Shihab – Malik (Book 22 – Hadith 1)
- Ibn Abbas – Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud – Ibn Shihab – Malik (Book 20 – Hadith 84)
- Ibn Abbas – Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud – Ibn Shihab – Malik (Book 18 – Hadith 21)
- Ibn Abbas – Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud – Ibn Shihab – Malik (Book 9 – Hadith 41)
- Ibn Abbas – Thawr ibn Zayd – Malik (Book 30, Hadith 4)
- Ibn Abbas – Thawr ibn Zayd – Malik (Book 24, Hadith 5)
- Ibn Abbas – Thawr ibn Zayd – Malik (Book 20, Hadith 156)
- Ibn Abbas – Thawr ibn Zayd – Malik (Book 18, Hadith 3)
- Ibn Abbas – al-Qasim ibn Muhammad – Ibn Shihab – Malik (Book 21, Hadith 19)
- Ibn Abbas – al-Qasim ibn Muhammad – Yahya ibn Sa’id – Malik (Book 22, Hadith 7)
- Ibn Abbas – al-Qasim ibn Muhammad – Yahya ibn Sa’id – Malik (Book 31, Hadith 70)
- Ibn Abbas – al-Qasim ibn Muhammad – Yahya ibn Sa’id – Malik (Book 49, Hadith 33)
- Ibn Abbas – Sa’id ibn Jubayr (Book 7, Hadith 23)
- Ibn Abbas – Sa’id ibn Jubayr (Book 9, Hadith 4)
- Ibn Abbas – Sa’id ibn Jubayr (Book 20, Hadith 249)
- Ibn Abbas – Ata ibn Yasar (Book 18, Hadith 19)
- Ibn Abbas – Ata ibn Yasar (Book 12, Hadith 2)
- Ibn Abbas – Ata ibn Yasar (Book 2, Hadith 19)
- Ibn Abbas – Kurayb (Book 7, Hadith 11)
- Ibn Abbas – Kurayb (Book 20, Hadith 253)
- Ibn Abbas – Sulayman ibn Yasar (Book 20, Hadith 98)
- Ibn Abbas – Sulayman ibn Yasar (Book 29, Hadith 86)
- Ibn Abbas – Tawus al-Yamani (Book 15, Hadith 35)
- Ibn Abbas – Tawus al-Yamani (Book 15, Hadith 36)
- Ibn Abbas – Ibn Wala al-Misri (Book 25, Hadith 17)
- Ibn Abbas – Ibn Wala al-Misri (Book 42, Hadith 12)
- Ibn Abbas – Da’ud ibn Husayn (Book 1, Hadith 20)
- Ibn Abbas – Nafi (Book 2, Hadith 49)
- Ibn Abbas – Abdullah ibn Hunayn (Book 20, Hadith 4)
- Ibn Abbas – Abu’z Zubayr al-Makki (Book 20, Hadith 119)
- Ibn Abbas – Ata ibn Abi Rabah (Book 20, Hadith 164)
- Ibn Abbas – Ikrima – (Book 20, Hadith 165) – Ikrima was only accepted since Rabia corroborated 166
- Ibn Abbas – Nafi ibn Jubayr (Book 28, Hadith 4)
- Ibn Abbas – Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman (Book 29, Hadith 83)
- Ibn Abbas – Amr ibn ash- Sharid (Book 30, Hadith 5)
- Ibn Abbas – Abu Umama ibn Sahl ibn Hunayf (Book 54, Hadith 10)
Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud
Abū al-Zanād said: I saw Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz coming to Ubaydullāh asking him about the knowledge of Ibn Abbās while he was the ruler. Sometimes he would grant him permission, and sometimes he would not [Ikmāl Tadhīb al-Kamāl (9/33)].
Ali ibn Zayd said: “Umar ibn Abd al-`Azīz wished for a session with Ubaydullāh and said: ‘From him, I acquired more knowledge than from anyone else.‘” [Ikmāl Tadhīb al-Kamāl (9/33)]
Ibn `Abd al-Barr also said: “Ubaydullāh was one of the ten jurists, then one of the seven whose fatwa was sought in Madinah, an excellent scholar in fiqh, and a skilled poet” [Ikmāl Tadhīb al-Kamāl (9/33)].
Al-Ajlī Ahmad ibn Abd Allāh al-Ajlī said: “He was blind, and one of the jurists of Madinah, a trustworthy Tābiī (Successor), a pious man, a gatherer of knowledge, and the teacher of Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz.” Abū Zura said: “He was trustworthy, reliable, and an imam.” [Tadhīb al-Kamāl (19/73)]
He also said: “He was one of the scholars and jurists of Madinah in his time, trustworthy, a pious man, a gatherer of knowledge, and the teacher of Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz.” [Ikmāl Tadhīb al-Kamāl (9/33)]
Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz In Tārīkh al-Bukhārī: Umar ibn Abd al-Azīz said: “If Ubaydullāh were alive, I would never issue a ruling without his opinion, and I wish I could have a session with him, or something similar to it.” [Ikmāl Tadhīb al-Kamāl (9/33)]
The most prolific narrator of Ibn Abbas’s narrations is Ubaydallah ibn Musa. To receive these Ibn Abbas narrations, Imam Malik used his teacher, Ibn Shihab Al-Zuhri, as an intermediary. A noteworthy aspect to evaluate is the relationship between Ubaydullah and Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, a prominent Umayyad caliph. Umar was so dependent on Ubaydullah’s scholarly opinion that he claimed he would never make a ruling without consulting him. This wasn’t just academic respect—it represented a direct line of influence between scholarly expertise and political power.
The transmission of these narrations consistently ran through Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri, a scholar explicitly accused by his contemporaries of being a tool for the Umayyad political agenda. Yahya ibn Ma’in’s direct accusation against al-Zuhri reveals the extent of scholarly compromise during this period. Scholars like Ubaydullah were not neutral transmitters of knowledge. They were active participants in a system that used religious scholarship as a mechanism of political control. Their respected status—seen as ‘trustworthy and pious’—actually provided the perfect cover for manipulating religious narratives. They were carefully crafted political instruments designed to give religious legitimacy to contemporary political agendas. By attributing specific legal interpretations to early companions, the Umayyad establishment could sanctify their policies with an appearance of divine approval.
Not every hadith transmission should be viewed through a lens of pure political manipulation. Some narrations, like the example of Ibn Abbas’s prayer at Mina (Book 9, Hadith 41), appear to be straightforward accounts of practical religious observation. In reality, these transmissions often reflect the juristic reasoning and social practices of later generations, retroactively attributed to the Prophet. The fundamental error lies in claiming these interpretations originated directly from the Prophet when they were, in fact, later scholarly judgments shaped by the social, legal, and cultural contexts of the transmitters’ own times.
Examples:
Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud that Abdullah ibn Abbas said, “I heard Umar ibn al- Khattab say, ‘Stoning is in the Book of Allah for those who commit adultery, men or women when they are muhsan and when there is clear proof of pregnancy or a confession.’ ” (Book 41, Hadith 8)
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Ubaydullah ibn Abdullah ibn Utba ibn Masud that Abdullah ibn Abbas said, “I approached, riding on a donkey, while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was leading the people in prayer at Mina, and I was, at that time, nearing puberty. I passed in front of part of the row, dismounted, sent the donkey off to graze, and then joined the row, and no one rebuked me for doing so.” (Book 9, Hadith 41)
Thawr ibn Zayd
Bishr ibn Umar al-Zahrani:
He asked Malik ibn Anas: “Did Thawr ibn Zayd meet Ibn Abbas?” Malik replied: “No, he did not meet him.” [Tuhfat al-Tahsil fi al-Marasel (1/55)]
Al-Mu’iti mentioned to Khalaf al-Mukharmi, Yahya ibn Ma’in, and Abu Khaythama, while they were seated: “Malik ibn Anas used to criticize Sa’d ibn Ibrahim, the leader of the Quraysh, and he narrated from Daud ibn al-Husayn and Thawr ibn Zayd al-Daili, who were accused of being Kharijites, but none of them spoke up.” [Tadhhib al-Kamal (3/114)]
Al-Mizzi:
He mentions that Abdullah ibn Abbas did not meet Thawr, and he narrated from Ibn Abbas. [Tadhhib al-Kamal (4/416)]
Al-Bayhaqi:
He mentions that Malik remained silent about the name of ‘Ikrimah and that Thawr did not meet Ibn Abbas. (The Sheikh – may Allah have mercy on him – mentions that Malik did not mention ‘Ikrimah in many of his narrations, indicating he did not see him as credible. Thawr al-Daili narrated from Ibn Abbas, so he should not be used as evidence, Allah knows best. As for ‘Ikrimah’s narration from Ibn Abbas, we preferred it due to the opinions of Umar and Ali – may Allah be pleased with them.) [Al-Sunan al-Bayhaqi al-Kubra (9/217)]
The claim that Thawr ibn Zayd did not meet Ibn Abbas, despite the presence of narrations from Thawr attributed to Ibn Abbas, can be substantiated through the fact that Malik ibn Anas himself directly denied that Thawr met Ibn Abbas. When asked by Bishr ibn Umar al-Zahrani, Malik responded unequivocally, saying, “No, he did not meet him” [Tuhfat al-Tahsil fi al-Marasel (1/55)].
Given Malik’s stature as a leading scholar of hadith and his extensive knowledge of the narrators in his time, his testimony holds considerable authority. This assertion alone casts doubt on the authenticity of any narration from Thawr claiming a direct transmission from Ibn Abbas. Further supporting this position is the testimony of Al-Mu’iti, who reported that Malik was critical of certain narrators, including Thawr, whom he associated with the Kharijite movement. Malik’s skepticism about Thawr’s reliability, especially concerning narrations from Ibn Abbas, suggests that he may have been cautious in accepting Thawr as a trustworthy source, particularly in light of Thawr’s apparent lack of direct contact with Ibn Abbas [Tadhhib al-Kamal (3/114)]. Additionally, Al-Mizzi affirms that Abdullah ibn Abbas did not meet Thawr, further emphasizing the lack of direct interaction between the two, despite Thawr’s claims to have narrated from him [Tadhhib al-Kamal (4/416)].
It’s peculiar that Imam Malik, despite affirming that Thawr ibn Zayd never met Ibn Abbas, still included hadiths in the Muwatta with a chain linking Thawr to Ibn Abbas. This raises questions about Malik’s methodological consistency in accepting narrations. If Malik was aware that Thawr had never met Ibn Abbas, then logically, he should have rejected any hadiths suggesting a direct transmission between the two. Yet, the Muwatta contains several narrations where Thawr is cited as transmitting from Ibn Abbas.
Ikrima, mawla of Ibn Abbas
In previous discussions, I’ve noted claims that Ibn Abbas transmitted knowledge, including hadith, through students and freed slaves. However, it’s worth noting that Imam Malik’s assessment of the transmission of Ikrima in particular suggests a degree of skepticism regarding their reliability:
وقال أبو بكر بن أبي خيثمة : سمعت يحيى بن معين يقول : إنما لم يذكر مالك بن أنس عكرمة ، لأن عكرمة كان ينتحل رأي الصفرية .
Abu Bakr ibn Abi Khaythama, a hadith scholar known for coming from a legacy of hadith scholars in his family, born around 801 and died around 892, whom al-Daraqutni labeled as trustworthy and reliable, said he heard from Yahya ibn Ma’in, the foremost expert and top of the scholarly class of ilm al-rijal, as well as close friend of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, born around 774 and died in 847, stated, “The reason why Mālik ibn Anas [Imam Malik] did not narrate from Ikrimah, is that Ikrimah followed the doctrine of the Ṣufriyya (a sect of the Khawarij).“
- وقال الربيع بن سليمان عن الشافعي : وهو – يعني : مالك بن أنس – سيئ الرأي في عكرمة ، قال : لا أرى لأحد أن يقبل حديثه .
Al-Rabi’ ibn Sulayman, a hadith scholar born around 790 and who died around 884, whom Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Hajr Al-Asqalani, and Nasa’i all claimed was trustworthy and reliable, narrated from Imam al-Shafi’i: “He (meaning Malik ibn Anas) had a poor opinion of Ikrimah. He said: ‘I do not think anyone should accept his hadith.‘”
- وقال إبراهيم بن يعقوب الجوزجاني : سألت أحمد بن حنبل عن عكرمة ، قال : كان يرى رأي الأباضية ، فقال : يقال : إنه كان صفريا ، قال : قلت لأحمد بن حنبل : كان عكرمة أتى البربر ؟ قال : نعم ، وأتى خراسان يطوف على الأمراء يأخذ منهم
When we check the entirety of the Muwatta, we notice that Ikrima is cited only one time. And even in this hadith, Imam Malik only accepts it considering it’s corroborated with another hadith, indicating Ikrima wasn’t lying in this specific case:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Thawr ibn Zayd ad-Dili that lkrama, the mawla of Ibn Abbas, said “Someone who has intercourse with his wife before he has done the tawaf al-ifada should do an umra and sacrifice an animal.”
The corroborative hadith that doesn’t include Ikrima:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman saying the same about that as what Ikrama related from Ibn Abbas.
Malik said, “That is what I like most out of what I have heard about the matter.”
Malik was asked about a man who forgot the tawaf al-ifada until he had left Makka and returned to his community and he said, “I think that he should go back and do the tawaf al-ifada, as long as he has not had sexual relations with women. If, however, he has had sexual relations with women, then he should not only return and do the tawaf al-ifada, but he should also do an umra and sacrifice an animal. He should not buy theanimal in Makka and sacrifice it there, but if he has not brought one with him from wherever it was he set out to do umra, he should buy one in Makka and then take it outside the limits of the Haram and drive it from there to Makka and sacrifice it there.”
Multiple authoritative sources highlight Imam Malik’s profound skepticism towards Ikrima, primarily due to his alleged association with deviant theological movements. The testimony of Yahya ibn Ma’in, a paramount expert in ilm al-rijal, explicitly states that Imam Malik’s reluctance to narrate from Ikrima stemmed from his perceived alignment with the Ṣufriyya, a sect within the Khawarij movement.
This theological suspicion is further corroborated by multiple prominent scholars:
- Imam al-Shafi’i, through his student Al-Rabi’ ibn Sulayman, unequivocally declared that Malik had a “poor opinion” of Ikrima, suggesting that no one should accept his hadith.
- Ahmad ibn Hanbal reportedly confirmed Ikrima’s association with the Abadite movement, adding another layer of doubt to his scholarly credibility.
- Ibrahim al-Jowzajani’s account suggests Ikrima’s wandering nature, noting his travels among rulers and different regions, which potentially undermined his scholarly integrity.
The most telling evidence of Ikrima’s limited credibility lies in Imam Malik’s treatment of his narrations in the Muwatta. Malik’s approach is remarkable: out of the extensive corpus of potential narrations, he includes only a single hadith from Ikrima. Even more significantly, this singular inclusion is contingent upon corroboration from an alternative, independent chain of transmission. This methodological approach reveals Malik’s extraordinary scholarly rigor. By accepting the hadith only when independently verified, he effectively neutralizes potential concerns about Ikrima’s reliability while demonstrating a commitment to stringent verification processes.
Ikrima’s reputation remains a testament to the sophisticated, meticulous processes of hadith authentication in classical Islamic scholarship. The critical perspectives of Imam Malik and other prominent scholars underscore the importance of rigorous evaluation beyond surface-level assessments of a narrator’s perceived knowledge.
