Commentary on Sunan Abi Dawud 2049

Abu Dawud said in his Sunan (Hadith 2049):

كَتَبَ إِلَىَّ حُسَيْنُ بْنُ حُرَيْثٍ الْمَرْوَزِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا الْفَضْلُ بْنُ مُوسَى، عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ وَاقِدٍ، عَنْ عُمَارَةَ بْنِ أَبِي حَفْصَةَ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَالَ جَاءَ رَجُلٌ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَالَ إِنَّ امْرَأَتِي لاَ تَمْنَعُ يَدَ لاَمِسٍ ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏”‏ غَرِّبْهَا قَالَ أَخَافُ أَنْ تَتْبَعَهَا نَفْسِي. قَالَ ‏”‏ فَاسْتَمْتِعْ بِهَا

“A man came to the Prophet (ﷺ), and said: My wife does not prevent the hand of a man who touches her. He said: Divorce her. He then said: I am afraid my inner self may covet her. He said: Then enjoy her.”‏

This Hadith has come via a number of paths. The most authentic of those paths is the path of Al Husain b. Waaqid from ‘Umaarah b. Abi Hafsah from Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas as relayed by Abu Dawud (2049), Al Nasaa’i in his Sunan Al Sughra (3464) and Al Kubra (5629) and Al Bayhaqi in his Sunan (13983).

Note that in the rendition of Al Bayhaqi, the word إذا is present at the end. This is not found in the report of Abu Dawud. Al Bayhaqi said:

لَيْسَ فِي رِوَايَةِ أَبِي دَاوُدَ إِذًا

As for the path of Hammaad b. Salamah from Abdul Kareem b. Abi Al Mukhariq from Abdullah b. Ubayd b. Umayr Al Laythi from Ibn Abbas, this is relayed by Al Nasaa’i in his Sunan Al Sughra (3229) and in his Sunan Al Kubra (5321) and Al Bayhaqi in his Sunan (13982) and Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf (16605).

This is weak due to the presence of Abdul Kareem b. Abi Al Mukhariq who is a weak narrator by consensus.

Al Tirmidhi said about him when commenting on Hadith 12 in his Jami’:

وإنَّما رَفَعَ هَذا الحَدِيثَ عَبْدُ الكَرِيمِ بْنُ أبِي المُخارِقِ، وهُوَ ضَعِيفٌ عِنْدَ أهْلِ الحَدِيثِ؛ ضَعَّفَهُ أيُّوبُ السَّخْتِيانِيُّ وتَكَلَّمَ فِيهِ

“The one who raised this Hadith [to the Prophet ﷺ] was Abdul Karim b. Abi Al Mukhariq, and he is weak according to Ahl Al Hadith, he has been weakened by Ayyub Al Sakhtiaanee who spoke against him.”

Another issue with this path is that Harun b. Ri’aab contradicted Abdul Karim. Harun relayed the report as mursal whereas Abdul Karim relayed it as marfu’

The mursal report of Harun is reported by Abdurrazzaaq in his Musannaf (12365) via Ma’mar, Al Nasaa’i in his Sunan Al Sughra (3229), Al Nasaa’i in his Sunan Al Kubra (5321) via Yazid b. Harun and Al Bayhaqi in his Sunan (13982) via Sufyan b. Uyaynah.

Note that a marfu’ version is also reported from Harun as Al Nasaa’i mentioned in his Sunan Al Sughra (3465), his Sunan Al Kubra (5320 & 5630) and Al Bayhaqi in his Sunan (13982) all via Hammaad b. Salamah.

Al Nasaa’i explicitly mentioned upon relaying Sunan Al Sughra (3465) that this marfu’ version is incorrect and what is correct is the mursal version.

قَالَ أَبُو عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ : هَذَا خَطَأٌ ، وَالصَّوَابُ : مُرْسَلٌ

He also mentions after relaying the marfu’ version of Harun’s report that the mursal report of Harun b. Ri’aab is stronger than the marfu’ report of Abdul Karim b. Abi Al Mukhariq.

وَعَبْدُ الْكَرِيمِ لَيْسَ بِذَلِكَ الْقَوِيِّ ، وَهَارُونُ بْنُ رِئَابٍ ثِقَةٌ ، وَحَدِيثُ هَارُونَ أَوْلَى بِالصَّوَابِ ، وَهَارُونُ أَرْسَلَهُ

“And Abdul Karim is not that strong whilst Harun b. Ri’aab is a thiqah and the Hadith of Harun is more worthy of being correct and Harun relayed the report as mursal.”

From this we can conclude that the report of Abdul Karim is weak due to Abdul Karim being weak and it contradicting the mursal report of Harun b. Ri’aab. Also, the marfu’ report of Harun b. Ri’aab that some relayed is an error hence incorrect and what’s correct is the mursal report.

Another path for this report is via Sufyan Al Thawri from Abdul Karim Al Jazari from a man from Hisham the mawla of the Prophet ﷺ as reported by Abdul Razzaaq in his Musannaf (12366).

This path is weak due to the unknown status of the man between Al Jazari and Hisham.

Some other renditions mention Abu Al Zubayr as reported by Al Bayhaqi in his Sunan (13872) whilst mentioning Hisham to be a mawla (client) of the Hashemites. Ibn Al Jawzi reported this rendition but in mursal form (Al Mawdhu’aat 2/272)

This path has been criticised by some due to the ‘ananah of Abu Al Zubayr who is considered to be a mudallis from the 3rd category (Tabaqaat Al Mudalliseen p.45) or his irsal in the report relayed by Ibn Al Jawzi.

I said: There is difference of opinion on Abu Al Zubayr being a mudallis which I hope to discuss in another article.

In conclusion, the paths for this report are defective except for the first path of Al Husain b. Waaqid from ‘Umaarah b. Abi Hafsah from Ikrimah from Ibn Abbas which is sound.

As for the meaning of this Hadith, the scholars have greatly differed over its explanation. However, the prevailing belief regarding what’s meant by the man’s statement “My wife does not prevent the hand of a man who touches her” is that his wife did not avoid the company of men, she did not object to being touched by them, and she did not maintain a reserved demeanour and distance herself from them in a manner that would prevent physical contact or handshakes.

The man’s statement does not necessarily imply that the wife would consent to adultery since it is known that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would not have allowed for a marriage between a man and his adulteress wife to continue, especially given the many reports that have come regarding the dayyuth.

Because the wife exhibited such behaviour, the Prophet advised the man to separate from her, out of compassion for his well-being.

However, the man expressed his deep love for his wife and fear of losing her, which prompted the Prophet to permit them to remain together to prevent further harm caused by separation, such as them committing fornication in Haram if they were to separate.

And so in such situations where there is a choice between greater harm and lesser harm, it is necessary to choose the option that minimizes the harm. It is also possible that the woman may reform in the future.

Other interpretations for the man’s statement have been given such as:

• the wife excessively spending her husband’s wealth without moderation and essentially wasting his wealth.
• the wife would not stop men from committing adultery with her. They reconcile this understanding with the other reports and verses that prohibit marriage with an adulterer by saying that what’s prohibited is to enter into a marital contract with an adulteress. However, continuing a marriage with a wife, who was chaste when you married her but then committed adultery whilst under your care, out of fear of there being greater harm if he leaves her is not prohibited based on this report.

However, these two explanations are far-fetched.

And Allah knows best