Introduction
Multiple people asked me about a hadith over the last few months, but I could not reach a convincing conclusion about it, so I kept delaying writing an article.
The hadith is that, allegedly, Abu Umamah (RA) narrated: A man asked the Prophet (SAW), “Was Adam (AS) a prophet?” The Prophet (SAW) said, “Yes, Allah taught him and spoke with him (مُعَلَّمٌ مُكَلَّمٌ).” He asked, “How much time was there between him and Nuh?” The Prophet (SAW) said, “Ten generations.” Some transmissions add that he then asked , “How much time was there between Nuh and Ibrahim?” The Prophet (SAW) said, “Ten generations.” Then, he asked, “How many messengers were there?” The Prophet (SAW) said, “350.”
The number of generations the hadith mentions are the same as the Book of Genesis in the Bible.
This hadith has important implications about the history of the world and mankind and would affect what theories Muslims can posit about these topics if it is authentic. That is because the hadith says the gap between Adam (AS), the first human, and Nuh (AS) i.e. when the great flood happened was only ten generations and that the gap between the beginning of humanity and Ibrahim (AS) was only twenty generations.
This would require additional theological and historical explanation to account for the usual understanding of humanity’s timeline on earth according to archeological and biological evidence. For example, one would have to argue the archeological/biological evidence is mistaken, or that earlier human-like beings were not humans, or that Ibrahim (AS) was hundreds of thousands of years ago (instead of the commonly believed few thousand years ago), or that Ibrahim (AS)’s ancestors each lived for many thousands of years to account for the gap.
Before building any of those arguments, however, the first question is whether the hadith itself is strong enough to require them.
Grading of Hadith
Some hadith are clearly Sahih and most people agree about them. These are most if not all the hadith graded Sahih by Bukhari and Muslim. However, some hadith can be argued by one scholar to be authentic and another to be inauthentic depending on the exact principles or evidence used.
As such, the scope of this article is not to prove that no one can argue this hadith is Sahih. They definitely can and have as we will see in the article. The scope of this article is to show that there is stronger reason to believe the hadith is questionable or weak. If I am unable to convince you that it is the stronger conclusion, at least I will try to convince you it is a reasonable conclusion.
When we agree there is a reasonable argument to be made about the weakness of this hadith, the hadith can no longer be considered a limiting factor of Islamic faith when positing theories about human origins.
What are the versions of the hadith?
Because I had seen different versions of the hadith, my first instinct was to ask whether some parts of the hadith were mistaken additions. Specifically, I thought perhaps the part about Adam and Nuh (AS) having 10 ancestors in between is correct and the part about Nuh and Ibrahim (AS) is mistaken.
The hadith was only transmitted by Abu Tawbah, so I only needed to concern myself with the transmissions of Abu Tawbah’s students.
So, I analyzed which students transmitted what part:
- The time gap between Adam and Nuh (AS)
- Abu Hatim al-Razi, Uthman al-Darimi, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Malik, and others transmitted it from Abu Tawbah
- The time gap between Nuh and Ibrahim (AS)
- Abu Hatim al-Razi, Uthman al-Darimi, and Ahmad ibn Khulaid
- The number of prophets
- Uthman al-Darimi, Ahmad ibn Khulaid, and others
I found that all three parts were reliably transmitted by multiple students of Abu Tawbah. So, there was no easy avenue of separating between the parts and arguing one part is authentic and another part is inauthentic.
How was the hadith received by the scholars of hadith?
First of all, this hadith was not included in the seminal Sahihayn of Bukhari and Muslim. It was also not included by any of the other collections that form the Kutub al-Sittah or by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad.
The earliest author to indicate positive views about this hadith was Ibn Hibban (d. 354 AH). He included the hadith in his Sahih.
Then, Ibn Mandah (d. 395 AH) included the hadith in his book Tawheed and commented, “This chain is Sahih according to the conditions of Muslim and most people except Bukhari.”
Then, Al-Hakim (d. 405 AH) included the hadith in his Mustadrak and commented, “This hadith is Sahih on the conditions of Muslim, even though [Bukhari and Muslim] did not include it.”
Many later scholars similarly argued the hadith to be Sahih because it matched the “conditions of Muslim”.
Other authors pointed out possible issues in the hadith. Tabarani included the hadith and said, “This hadith was not narrated from Abu Umamah except through this chain. Muawiyah ibn Salam was alone in it.”
The scholars who authenticated the hadith, especially Ibn Hibban and Al-Hakim, were known for being somewhat lenient in their grading and for missing ilal (subtle defects) in hadith.
When Ibn Mandah and Al-Hakim used the phrase “conditions of Muslim,” they meant that all the narrators of the chain were at least narrators used by Muslim in his Sahih. Whether a narration truly meets the conditions of Muslim by meeting this minimum standard is debated by scholars. In particular, many scholars criticized Al-Hakim for not fulfilling Muslim’s standard of avoiding ilal in hadith in addition to his standard for narrators.
The exclusion of the hadith from the Sahihayn, the major collections, and even Musnad Ahmad is worthy of note and not something small. It is a strong indication to suspect the hadith was deemed suspicious in some sense, especially considering that both Bukhari and Muslim transmitted several hadith from Abu Tawbah while avoiding this hadith.
Even putting aside whether it was deemed suspicious, the absence of the hadith in the major books means no one can argue the hadith was agreed-upon by scholars to be Sahih, unlike a hadith that is in the Sahihayn and was agreed-upon.
Is the chain of this hadith reliable?
Since the scholarly opinion on this hadith is not conclusive, we must turn to the actual chain and content of the hadith.
This hadith was transmitted with the following chain: Abu Tawbah > Muawiyah ibn Salam > Zaid ibn Salam > Abu Salam > Abu Umamah > Prophet (SAW).
Problem 1: Narrators
At least one reason Bukhari excluded the hadith is immediately obvious from the narrators. Although Abu Tawbah and Muawiyah ibn Salam were narrators quoted by Bukhari in his Sahih, he did not quote a single hadith from either Zaid ibn Salam or Abu Salam.
On the other hand, Muslim included several hadith through the chain of Muawiyah ibn Salam narrating from (his brother) Zaid ibn Salam from (their father) Abu Salam.
In fact, Muslim included a hadith in his Sahih that had the exact same chain from Abu Tawbah to Abu Umamah (RA).
Problem 2: Connection
It is unclear whether Abu Salam met Abu Umamah to receive this hadith directly or not.
This is made problematic because he was known to narrate a lot of narrations without connected chains. Ibn Hajr said in Taqreeb, “Thiqah Yursil (reliable but used to narrate disconnected narrations).”
This raises questions about whether Abu Salam’s transmission from Abu Umamah should be accepted as authentic.
Some people even attributed to Abu Hatim al-Razi the direct claim that Abu Salam did not narrate anything directly from Abu Umamah. Others contested this attribution to Abu Hatim al-Razi.
As for Muslim, it appears he believed Abu Salam’s narrations from Abu Umamah were Sahih because he included one hadith with that chain in his Sahih.
Something that further supports connection is that the chain contains Abu Salam explicitly saying “Abu Umamah narrated to me.” However, this is not conclusive evidence because words in the chain can be easily mistaken.
Problem 3: Gharabah (Being Alone in Narration)
Abu Tawbah (d. 241 AH) was alone in narrating this hadith from Muawiyah ibn Salam (d. 170 AH). No one else narrated it from Zaid ibn Salam or Abu Salam either.
Tabarani said, “This hadith was not narrated from Abu Umamah except through this chain. Muawiyah ibn Salam was alone in it.” I would add: And Abu Tawbah was alone in narrating it from Muawiyah.
Abu Tawbah was a very late narrator for his gharabah to be entirely reasonable. In particular, Muawiyah ibn Salam had some major students of hadith, and by that time, the science of hadith was widespread. So, it raises questions that Abu Tawbah was alone in narrating the hadith from Muawiyah, at least in our existing records.
In fact, if one peruses the hadith of Sahih Muslim where Abu Tawbah narrated from Muawiyah, Muslim almost always brought support for Abu Tawbah’s narration. There are 7 narrations of Abu Tawbah from Muawiyah in Sahih Muslim. In 4 of those 7, Muslim directly brought evidence that Yahya ibn Hassan (another student of Muawiyah) narrated the hadith from Muawiyah. The other 3 are only supporting narrations for what came before. So, Muslim’s practice in his Sahih indicates that it is not good practice to accept Abu Tawbah being alone in narration.
That being said, Abu Tawbah was generally known to be a reliable narrator, and both Bukhari and Muslim included him in their Sahihs. So, even if the gharabah raises questions, it cannot completely disprove the authenticity of the hadith.
Summary of Problems
Based on what we discussed, there are three major problems in the hadith:
- Zaid ibn Salam and Abu Salam did not match the conditions of Bukhari
- It is possible Abu Salam did not meet Abu Umamah
- Abu Tawbah was unreasonably ghareeb in narrating the hadith
However, on face value, these problems do not seem to be enough to completely weaken the hadith. Like the hadith’s absence in the major collections, they cast doubt on the hadith without giving clear evidence to weaken it.
Is there a clear illah to weaken the hadith?
Despite being asked about this hadith multiple times and researching it multiple times as a result, I had no breakthrough more than the conclusions of the previous section even though those conclusions were somewhat unsatisfying.
But information in history is sometimes simply lost, impossible to find again, and hadith science is only a type of history. So, I resigned myself to the conclusion that it may be impossible to demonstrate for sure that the hadith is weak or that the hadith is Sahih because of the loss of information.
This is how I was until I came across an entry in Tarikh Bukhari and Tarikh Dimashq that I thought was a clear illah for the hadith. For a day, I thought I had finally found the decisive evidence I was looking for, until I realized my mistake. See if you can catch the mistake before I reveal it.
Meaning of Illah
An illah is a broad word in hadith sciences, but here I am using it to mean “clear evidence that proves that a version of a hadith is mistaken.” For example, if Adam narrates from Bilal that Dawood said, “X” and Faris and Haroon narrate from Bilal that Dawood said, “Y,” the narrations of Faris and Haroon are the illah that prove Adam’s narration is mistaken.
In hadith, a common type of illah is when a teacher actually narrates a report with a broken or defective chain somehow and one student mistakes it as a good chain and thus his narration becomes famous and widely recorded in hadith books.
For example, imagine Zuhri narrated from Urwah from the Prophet (SAW), “X.” Most of the students of Zuhri would record the hadith like that, but this would not get recorded in the more famous hadith books because Urwah never met the Prophet (SAW) and thus the chain is disconnected.
However, if one student of Zuhri makes a mistake and records it as Zuhri narrated from Urwah from Aisha from the Prophet (SAW), “X,” now the hadith becomes connected and gets recorded by a lot of collections that record connected hadith.
A clear illah to prove the mistake would be if you find another student of Zuhri narrating the hadith with the disconnected chain. Then, you will have evidence that the student who transmitted the connected chain made a mistake.
This type of clear illah is what I thought I had found for our hadith.
The Illah I Found
Bukhari wrote in his Tarikh:
Abdullah ibn Salih > Muawiyah ibn Salih > Muhammad ibn Ayyub > Ibn Aaiz > Abu Dharr (RA) > Prophet (SAW): “Adam was a prophet spoken to by Allah.”
Tarikh Bukhari
Bukhari in his Tarikh tended to summarize hadith, so I recognized that this must be the same hadith we are discussing (which Abu Tawbah also narrated from Muawiyah), but this still needed more confirmation.
Then, shortly afterwards, I was able to find a longer version from Abdullah ibn Salih confirming that this is the exact same hadith:
Abdullah ibn Salih > Muawiyah ibn Salih > Muhammad ibn Ayyub and other teachers > Ibn Aaiz > Abu Dharr (RA):
I asked the Prophet (SAW), “Who was the first prophet?” He said, “Adam.” I asked, “Was he a prophet?” He said, “Yes, spoken to by Allah.” Then, he said, “Then, Nuh, and there were 10 ancestors between them, then Ibrahim, and there were 10 ancestors between them.”
Tarikh Dimashq
This confirmed without doubt that this is the same hadith that Abdullah ibn Salih, a different student of Muawiyah, narrated with a different chain than the chain of Abu Tawbah.
It is, then, an open-and-shut case of one narrator (Abu Tawbah) making a mistake in the chain of a hadith (the actual chain having been narrated by Abdullah ibn Salih). That would also explain why none of the other students of Muawiyah narrated the hadith: The chain that Abdullah ibn Salih claimed Muawiyah narrated was disconnected, so that chain would not have been famously transmitted.
At least that would have been the conclusion and that is the conclusion I thought I had reached for a day or two until I realized the fatal mistake: These are two different Muawiyahs! Abdullah ibn Salih narrated his hadith from Muawiyah ibn Salih, and Abu Tawbah narrated his hadith from Muawiyah ibn Salam.
For this to be a clear illah, both reports would need to return to the same Muawiyah. If Abu Tawbah and Abdullah ibn Salih were both narrating from Muawiyah ibn Salam, and Abdullah preserved a defective Abu Dharr chain while Abu Tawbah alone preserved a clean Abu Umamah chain, then the defective version could expose Abu Tawbah’s version as a mistake.
But that is not what happened. Abu Tawbah narrated from Muawiyah ibn Salam, while Abdullah ibn Salih narrated from Muawiyah ibn Salih. Since these are two different teachers, Abdullah’s report does not directly reveal the original form of Abu Tawbah’s report. It only shows that similar material was circulating elsewhere with weak chains.
Is there an unclear illah to weaken the hadith?
Despite losing what I thought was a clear illah for the hadith, I believe what I found can still serve as an unclear or indirect illah for the hadith. Meaning, the fact that the hadith of Abu Tawbah is so ghareeb and the fact that there are earlier attestations of the same type of exchange from weak narrators raises the theory that Abu Tawbah accidentally mixed up a weak hadith he heard with the wrong chain.
The story of Abu Dharr (RA) asking the Prophet (SAW) some questions that included the question about Adam (AS)’s prophethood and the number of prophets was popular among weak narrators of Syria. It was transmitted by several weak narrators from that region.
Some explicitly mention the number of ancestors and have a close pattern to the hadith of Abu Tawbah:
- We already mentioned the chain of Muawiyah ibn Salih (d. 158) from the weak Muhammad ibn Ayyub.
- Abu Dharr (RA) narrated: I asked the Prophet (SAW), “Who was the first prophet?” He said, “Adam.” I asked, “Was he a prophet?” He said, “Yes, spoken to by Allah.” Then, he said, “Then, Nuh, and there were 10 ancestors between them, then Ibrahim, and there were 10 ancestors between them.” (Tarikh Dimashq)
- A hadith from the weak Muawiyah ibn Yahya (d. 160).
- Abu Dharr (RA) narrated: I asked the Prophet (SAW), “Which prophet was the first?” He said, “Adam.” I asked, “He was a prophet?” He said, “Yes, spoken to by Allah. Then, Nuh, and there were ten ancestors between them. Then, Ibrahim, and there were ten ancestors between them.” (Ibn al-Sawwaf)
- A hadith from the weak Ibn Lahee’ah (d. 174) which says similar about the number of ancestors
- Abu Dharr (RA) narrated: I asked the Prophet (SAW), “Who was the first prophet?” He said, “Adam.” I asked, “He was a prophet?” He said, “Yes, spoken to by Allah.” I asked, “Then who?” He said, “Nuh, and there were ten ancestors between them.” I asked, “Then who?” He said, “Ibrahim (AS), and there were ten ancestors between them.” (Tabarani)
Some versions of this narrative about Abu Dharr (RA) only mention the question about whether Adam (AS) was a prophet and the number of messengers:
- A hadith from the very weak Abu Amr al-Shaami (d. <150) that mentions whether Adam (AS) was a prophet and the number of messengers
- Abu Amr’s hadith is probably the oldest traceable version of this narrative about Abu Dharr (RA)
- A hadith from the weak Mu’an ibn Rifa’ah (d. 150) from the weak Ali ibn Yazid (d. 113) with a chain to Abu Umamah narrating a story about Abu Dharr (RA) with the question about Adam (AS) and number of prophets
There are some other transmissions I did not mention.
All the weak narrators mentioned above were Syrian (or Egyptian). It is no coincidence then that Abu Tawbah’s alleged source for his hadith (Muawiyah ibn Salam) was also Syrian.
What appears from the available routes is that this story circulated primarily through weak or questionable narrators, especially among Syrian transmitters. The lengthy nature of the story in many of these routes and the fact that they are all by weak narrators is consistent with the possibility that this hadith began as a storyteller-type narrative which was given chains by forgetful transmitters.
Then, it seems Abu Tawbah received this narrative through some Syrian and accidentally attributed it to his Syrian teacher Muawiyah ibn Salam.
This is not a clear illah in the strict sense that decisively proves Abu Tawbah’s narration wrong. However, it is cumulative circumstantial evidence. The question is not: “Can we prove with certainty that Abu Tawbah erred?” The question is: “Given the gharabah of Abu Tawbah’s version, and given that very similar material was already circulating earlier than him through weak Syrian routes, is it more appropriate to treat his version as preserved or as suspect?”
The Corroboration Dilemma
Someone can rightly ask: Couldn’t you argue the opposite and say that the weak hadith actually support and corroborate Abu Tawbah’s hadith and add more confidence that his hadith is preserved?
Responding to this requires understanding how corroboration works.
Valid Corroboration
When two narrators narrate a hadith in a way that it is likely or certain that they are independent transmissions, not taken from each other, the two narrations strengthen the authenticity of each other.
The likelihood of independence can be established by the narrators being very reliable and being in similar generations or being from different regions or other factors.
This is the origin of the concept of Sahih li-Ghayrihi and Hasan li-Ghayrihi.
Invalid Corroboration
On the other hand, if two narrators narrate a hadith in a way that it is likely or certain that one of them took it from the other, the two narrations do not strengthen each other.
The likelihood of dependence or derivation from the other can be established by the weakness of narrators, or the narrators being known to mix up narrations, or a difference in generation combined with gharabah (where the hadith is famous early on from one route then a later ghareeb chain claims a different route).
This concept is less well-known, especially the idea that gharabah itself can be evidence for dependence. So, I will give an example from the scholars of hadith.
Case of Abu Kuraib
Tirmidhi asked his teachers Bukhari and Mahmud ibn Ghailan about a hadith narrated by Abu Kuraib (d. 248 AH) > Abu Usamah > Buraid ibn Abdullah > Abu Burdah > Abu Musa > Prophet (SAW): “The disbeliever eats into seven vessels, and the believer eats into one vessel.” (Ilal at the end of Sunan Tirmidhi)
There are three things to know about this hadith for context:
- The exact same statement is narrated from companions like Ibn Umar and Abu Hurairah (RA) from the Prophet (SAW). The hadith as narrated by Ibn Umar and Abu Hurairah is in the Sahihayn.
- All the narrators were quite reliable. All of them were narrators of the Sahihayn, and in fact, the whole chain from Abu Kuraib to Abu Musa is mentioned several times in the Sahihayn.
- No one reliable narrated this hadith from Abu Musa (RA) with a chain like this except Abu Kuraib.
Despite the complete reliability of the chain and the fact that the hadith is supported by the more famous hadith of Ibn Umar and Abu Hurairah, Tirmidhi’s teachers did not conclude that this hadith was authentic.
Rather, Bukhari said, “This is Abu Kuraib’s hadith from Abu Usamah. We only know of it from Abu Kuraib. We used to think Abu Kuraib got the hadith from Abu Usamah in muzakarah (i.e. not a careful class but a time he recounted a hadith from memory without notes).”
Tirmidhi also asked another teacher Mahmud ibn Ghailan, and he said something similar.
They realized that this hadith was problematic because it was too strange for Abu Kuraib to be alone in narrating the hadith, and the fact that the narrations from Ibn Umar and Abu Hurairah were famous made it more suspicious, not less suspicious, because it increased the chances that Abu Kuraib somehow mixed up the content of that hadith with this chain.
Abu Kuraib vs. Abu Tawbah
I would posit that Abu Tawbah’s case is strongly analogous to Abu Kuraib’s case.
The similarity between the two cases can be seen in this table:
| Abu Kuraib’s case | Abu Tawbah’s case | |
| Year of Death | Died in 248 AH | Died in 241 AH |
| Generation (according to Ibn Hajr in Taqreeb) | 10th generation | 10th generation |
| Reliability (according to Ibn Hajr in Taqreeb) | Thiqah Hafiz (Reliable, Memorizer) | Thiqah Hujjah Aabid (Reliable, Proof, Worshiper of Allah) |
| Corroboration | Content known through multiple earlier (Sahih) routes | Content known through multiple earlier (weak) routes |
| Gharabah | Gharabah made Abu Kuraib’s hadith suspicious | Gharabah makes Abu Tawbah’s hadith suspicious |
| Conclusion | Bukhari and Mahmud ibn Ghailan suspected the content of the more famous hadith was mixed up with this chain | I suspect the content of the more famous hadith of Abu Dharr was mixed up with this chain |
There are three major differences to keep in mind between the two cases.
Firstly, Abu Kuraib was a more reliable expert in hadith. Compare the fact that Abu Kuraib has 52 hadith in Sahih Bukhari while Abu Tawbah has only 2 hadith. This only supports my argument about Abu Tawbah’s case more, since Bukhari and Mahmud ibn Ghailan suspected a mistake even with a more reliable narrator than Abu Tawbah.
Secondly, Abu Tawbah was famously known as being ascetic and devoted to worshiping Allah. Many scholars talked about his piety and worship. However, piety does not necessarily make someone more reliable than another narrator as long as both are known to be completely honest and trustworthy.
Thirdly, the supporting narrations in Abu Kuraib’s case were Sahih, while the supporting narrations in Abu Tawbah’s case are all weak. This plausibly supports my conclusion more. Bukhari and Mahmud ibn Ghailan were sure the Prophet (SAW) had spoken the words of Abu Kuraib’s hadith because of the Sahih narrations. Despite being sure of that, they still doubted his ghareeb narration of the hadith. What about a case where we are not even sure the Prophet (SAW) ever said the statement? We have even more reason to doubt the ghareeb transmission.
Someone could say: Your theory involves accusing a reliable narrator of making a mistake.
I would respond: Everyone makes mistakes, even the most reliable narrators. That is why Bukhari and Mahmud ibn Ghailan were able to doubt Abu Kuraib’s hadith, even though Abu Kuraib was definitely very reliable. What distinguishes reliable narrators from weak narrators is the frequency of mistakes. As such, we do not assume a reliable narrator made a mistake unless we have enough cumulative evidence to make it likely. We are not saying Abu Tawbah frequently made mistakes, but we are saying in this case there seems to be enough evidence to at least doubt his transmission of this hadith.
Someone could say: We understand now that reliable narrators can make mistakes, but do you have any evidence of Abu Tawbah specifically making a mistake to settle our hearts?
I would say: Yes, Daruqutni mentions in his Ilal one instance of Abu Tawbah making a mistake about which narrator was in a chain. He said Yahya ibn Saeed while it was actually Hajjaj ibn Araat according to stronger transmitters. (Ilal al-Daruqutni)
Conclusion
I have argued in this article that the hadith which claims there to be 10 generations between Adam and Nuh (AS) and between Nuh and Ibrahim (AS) is questionable and likely not preserved to the Prophet (SAW).
In terms of the scholars of hadith, we saw that the hadith is not found in the Sahihayn, the major collections, or in Musnad Ahmad but that it was only authenticated by later, more lenient scholars of hadith.
In terms of the chain, we saw that the level of reliability of some of the narrators was disputed between Bukhari and Muslim and that there is possible doubt in the connection of the hadith.
In terms of an illah, we saw that the hadith was only transmitted by Abu Tawbah who was unreasonably late for us to be fully content by his lone narration and that this similar narration was more widespread earlier on as a weak story about Abu Dharr (RA). This raises the likelihood that Abu Tawbah might have mixed up the story with the wrong chain.
In conclusion, although this hadith has an apparently respectable chain, its absence from the major early collections, disputed connection, gharabah, and resemblance to earlier weak Syrian narrations make it too questionable to serve as a binding constraint in Muslim discussions of human origins.
And Allah knows best.
