Shaykh Akram Nadwi on Hadiths

بِسْمِ ٱللَّٰهِ ٱلرَّحْمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

I spoke to a leading Hadith scholar and academic about certain comments that shaykh Akram Nadwi has made about Surah Kahf. His comments are below:

"As for the merit of Surat al-Kahf in absolute terms it is narrated in the two Sahihs.

As for the merit of reciting Surat al-Kahf on the day of Jumua it is also authentic and narrated in Sunan al-Darimi with a sahih chain but as a saying of Abu Sa`id al-Khudri which nevertheless has the hukm of a Prophetic narration as per the rules of the huffaz of hadith. Ibn Hajar declared it hasan in his takhrij of the Adhkar and he said it was the strongest hadith on the merit of reading Surat al-Kahf on Jumu`a.

There is also a marfu` narration of the same by al-Hakim in al-Mustadrak but al-Dhahabi pointed out it contains Nu`aym b. Hammad. However, al-Bayhaqi in the Sunan and Fada'il al-Awqat produced a mutabi` for him, i.e. a corroborant chain. So this is also strong, not to mention in conjunction with the mawquf version.

Even if everything were weak it would still carry weight as recommended actions. There is consensus among the hadith scholars in both theory and practice that weak hadiths can and are indeed used in fada'il al-a`mal. This is an actual fact that no one who reads can dispute. Only Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi dissented in his Qawa`id al-Tahdith, adducing some proofs which turned out to be all wrong without exception but al-Albani followed him in this utterly flawed reasoning.

As for multiple weak narrations they do strengthen each other unless they are very weak. Only da`if jiddan narrations cannot serve as a strengthening factor. This was settled a long time ago among the scholars and the dissents are not considered valid opinions.


Akram al-Nadwi's formation is in Arabic just like Dr. Abu al-Hasan al-Nadwi's forte was Arabic and da`wa. Akram's contribution to the history of women scholars are a welcome addition to the literature; but his views on hadith science do not carry weight in light of the agreements of the huffaz on all these points..."

Summary: Did Ibn Mas'ud reject parts of the Qur'an e.g. al-Mu'awwizatayn

Some people have claimed that the senior companion (Sahabi) Ibn Mas’ud (ra) rejected parts of the Qur’an, such as the last two surahs of the Qur’an (i.e. al-Mu’awwizatayn). The evidences against him denying them are overwhelming and supported from various angles. The below summary was found online and I thought that it useful to post it here (I’ve edited it a bit and included input from other expert scholars).

The sources for the Hadiths and isnad analysis are covered here. I hope to give a detailed isnad analysis later in sha Allah. I briefly mention just some points here on why Ibn Mas'ud did not reject al-Mu'awwizatayn as being from the Qur'an, although other points can be mentioned to support my arguments also:

1)      Ibn Mas’ud was present in the last complete Prophetic reading of the Qur’an so he knew the complete Qur’an and couldn’t consider al-Mu'awwizatayn as du’a only (see Ahmad’s Musnad, Nasa’i’s Kubra, Hakim’s Mustadrak etc)

2)      Authentic report that he affirmed al-Mu’awwizatayn with Surah Ikhlas (see Tabarani). There’s another report by Daylami that supports it.

3)      Knowledge of the four short Surahs beginning with “Qul” (i.e. al-Kafirun, al-Ikhlas, al-Falaq, al-Nas)  was widespread and simple, even amongst children so he can’t be ignorant of them, so is a matter of Umum ul-Balwa

4)      All the authentic Qira’ats that go through him have all 114 Surahs

5)      None of the scholars who were known to have recited per Ibn Mas’ud’s recitation (e.g. in Kufa or Ibrahim Nakha’i) denied these Surahs

6)      None of his students, nor any known Qari, rejected those 2 Surahs (al-Mu'awwizatayn)

7)      Reports about him removing these 2 surahs (al-Mu'awwizatayn) don’t mean that he denied them, as shown by his report of why he didn’t have Fatiha in his Mushaf.

8)      Believing them (al-Mu'awwizatayn) to be du’as doesn’t negate them as Qur’an. As is well known in fiqh, one of the benefits of reciting any part of the Qur'an as a du'a is that it is allowed even for one in a state of janaba and hayd.

9)      The wording about them (al-Mu'awwizatayn) being du’as is from the narrator, not Ibn Mas’ud, as is explicit from the narration

10)   The reports with the addition about him denying them (al-Mu'awwizatayn) from “Kitab Allah” are all weak and shadh

11)   No one condemned him or did takfir of him about them. If he did, then many would condemn him and do takfir, as people and Qaris did in the reports that propelled Uthman to send Mushafs. There’s no explicit authentic report of condemning or takfir of Ibn Mas’ud on this. Instead, there is a sound report of Umar writing a letter to Ibn Mas’ud on a dialectical difference of one word that Ibn Mas’ud was writing whilst he was in Kufa (see Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh, Ibn Qutayba’s Gharib al-Hadith etc).

12)   Rejecting those 2 basic surahs (al-Mu'awwizatayn) is a major matter that would’ve been reported by many people.Furthermore, because the Kufan Mushafs were mainly based on Ibn Mas’ud (before the Uthmanic project), if he had denied any Surah, it would have become a widely known matter. Instead, these weak reports are reported by a few and ahad (probabilistic).

13)   Some Mushafs attributed to Ibn Mas’ud had these surahs and some Mushafs attributed to him didn’t have Fatiha and these 2 Surahs. Note: None of the Mushafs attributed to Ibn Mas’ud, agreed with each other, per Ibn al-Nadim, which casts a lot of doubt. There are also reports that Ibn Mas’ud agreed with Zayd’s Qira’ah.

14)   Ibn Mas’ud was the type of person who would check less grave matters with other Companions and then change his opinion when he was clearly wrong. It is not feasible that he wouldn’t check the Qur’anic status of al-Mu'awwizatayn.

15) He was sent to teach the Qur'an to the people so how can he have been allowed to teach an incomplete Qur'an with 2/3 major surahs missing, against the rest of the companions, especially the major companions, for around 15-23 years? This is whilst the zeal of the Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, in regards to the preservation and correct teaching of the Qur'an is known. As is clear from various reports, when they noted small mistakes about the Qur'an, they were swift and strict in correcting them. Yet there is no authentic, widespread, report of condemning Ibn Mas'ud or his takfir.

16) Ibn Mas’ud was alive and present during Abu Bakr’s Qur’anic project where an official copy of the Qur’an was compiled based on what was written in front of the Prophet (ﷺ). He didn't condemn it so Ibn Mas’ud could not be in any doubt about what was the Qur’an and what wasn’t, especially al-Mu'awwizatayn.

17) Ibn Mas’ud compared his qira’ah to Zayd’s/Uthman’s qira’ah and told people to recite according to whichever qira’ah they learnt, thus clearly accepting the Uthmanic Mushafs and Zayd’s qira’ah: Abu Wa’il narrated from Ibn Mas’ud: “I heard the qira’at and I found them similar so read according to what you were taught and beware of differences and going in deeply”. Abu Mu’awiya’s addition has “They are like your sayings “هلم” and “تعال” . (see Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shayba, Sunan of al-Bayhaqi, others). This shows that he accepted al-Mu'awwizatayn.

The result of the above points is that there is no doubt left in any reasonable mind, per Islamic usul and objective standards of historical criticism, that Ibn Mas’ud accepted al-Mu’awwizatayn as part of the Qur’an. The opinion that he rejected them is baseless and pure fiction.