PROPHETIC MEDICINE

BETWEEN REVELATION AND

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

By Muntasir Zaman
April 10, 2019
25 Min read

By Dr. Jamīl Farīd

Translated by Muntasir Zaman

[Translator’s preface: In today’s intellectually

turbulent climate, many Muslims are increasingly
finding it difficult to reconcile ḥadīths that conflict
with modern sensibilities and are consequently
dismissing them summarily. This crisis of faith is
nothing new. As early as the second century AH,
scholars like al-Shāfiʿī (d. 204 AH) and later al-
Ṭaḥāwī (d. 321 AH) realized this phenomenon
and dedicated volumes to address it. The present
article is an excerpt from Dr. Jamīl Farīd’s
landmark thesis “Athar al-ʿIlm al-Tajrībī fī Kashf
Naqd al-Ḥadīth al-Nabawī” on the application of
experimental science in grading ḥadīths. Here
the author answers the pressing questions of what
religious and medical authority prophetic
medicine wields and how to resolve the conflict
between these ḥadīths and the findings of
contemporary medical research.

Balancing the fine line between total rejection and

unrestricted authority, the author demonstrates
the nuance required when assessing ḥadīths of this
nature. At the heart of this issue, the author
emphasizes, is the need to distinguish between
medical information that the Prophet (peace and
blessings be upon him) conveyed based on
knowledge that was prevalent in Arab societies in
his time and ḥadīths that were informed by
revelatory knowledge. He provides several
examples to clarify this delicate subject, which
unfortunately has been misappropriated to
undermine the authority of ḥadīths. It may be
useful to add that even prophetic medicine
informed by revelation lends itself to multiple
interpretations; al-Māzarī (d. 536 AH) postulates
that ḥadīths about ʿajwah dates preventing poison
and magic were specific to the Prophet’s
era,[1] and al-Khaṭṭābī (d. 388 AH) explains that
the generality in black seeds being a cure is
restricted to particular scenarios.[2] An idiomatic
translation was adopted, and sub-headings were
added, to make the article more reader-friendly.]

Introduction

It is necessary to distinguish between ḥadīths from

the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
that were pronounced in his capacity as a human
and others that were informed by revelation.
Overall this distinction is accepted among Muslim
scholars—legal theorists, jurists, exegetes, and
Ḥadīth experts—but they disagree on the method
of distinguishing between these two categories of
ḥadīths. However, the scope of this debate has
been inaptly expanded in the modern era where it
is now used as a pretext to deny the authority of
the Sunnah and strip it of its infallible and
legislative elements. I will not delve into the
specifics of the modern debate on the subject. I
will focus on ḥadīths about prophetic medicine
and their pronouncement as revelation or from a
human capacity because this issue has a profound
impact on both affirmative (ījābī) and negative
(salbī) historical criticism.

Its utility for affirmative historical criticism is

borne out by historians being aware that ḥadīths
about prophetic medicine comprise information
that was shared by the Prophet in his capacity as
a human; they will proceed with caution when
attempting to strengthen a given report on the
basis that it contains accurate medical knowledge.
Thus, an expert further explores the indication of
the text and other considerations to complete an
exhaustive critique. In terms of negative historical
criticism, keeping this distinction in mind can help
assuage modern concerns surrounding the conflict
between ḥadīths and contemporary medical
research by interpreting the ḥadīths as an outcome
of information that was prevalent during that
time, not based on revelation. This is a delicate
topic that has been addressed in previous
studies.[3]

Two Categories of Ḥadīths

In my opinion, it is not possible for all ḥadīths of

this nature to be subsumed under one broad
category because there are two equally convincing
and competing considerations at play here. First,
there is ample proof that some ḥadīths on
prophetic medicine are informed by revelation,
such as the following:

• “‘Allah has spoken the truth and your

brother’s belly has lied.’ He then gave him
honey and he was cured.’”[4]
• “Indeed, Allah did not place your cure in
unlawful things.”[5]
• Ḥadīths that speak about the unseen in
connection to medical issues, such as the
ḥadīth, “The form of each one of you is
assembled in their mother’s womb for forty
days.”[6]

Included are ḥadīths that contain medical

information where matters of the unseen are
addressed that could have only been known
through revelation. In fact, the Jews [of Madīnah]
recognized the signs of prophethood on account of
the Prophet relaying this information. The general
agreed-upon principle in regard to ḥadīths is, as
mentioned in the Qurʾān, “Nor does he speak
from [his own] inclination; it is just a revelation
revealed.”

The second consideration is that medicine is a

worldly subject that Islam is not primarily
concerned with correcting or improving, and the
Prophet did not issue any directives concerning it
that reach the level of taʿabbud (an act of devotion).
Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ (d. 544 AH) states:

It was possible for the Prophet to believe

something concerning the matters of this world
based on one interpretation where the opposite
was true, or to be subject to doubt or supposition
regarding them. Matters of religion, on the other
hand, were not like this [he then cites the ḥadīth
of cross-pollination and the battle of Badr].
Fallibility of such kind which pertains to any such
worldly matters which do not involve religion, its
beliefs, or teachings are permitted to him since
none of this implies imperfection or demotion.
They are ordinary things capable of being known
by anyone who attempts to learn and occupy
himself with them. The heart of the Prophet,
however, was directed towards the best interests of
his community in this world and the hereafter.[7]

Ibn Khaldūn (d. 808 AH) writes:

The medicine mentioned in religious tradition is

of the (Bedouin) type. It is in no way part of the
divine revelation. (Such medical matters) were
merely (part of) Arab custom and happened to be
mentioned in connection with the circumstances
of the Prophet, like other things that were
customary in his generation. They were not
mentioned in order to imply that that particular
way of practicing (medicine) is stipulated by the
religious law. He was sent to teach us the religious
law. He was not sent to teach us medicine or any
other ordinary matter. In connection with the
story of the fecundation of the palms, he said,
“You know more about your worldly affairs.”

None of the statements concerning medicine that

occur in sound traditions should be considered to
(have the force of) law. There is nothing to indicate
that this is the case. The only thing is that if that
type of medicine is used for the sake of a divine
blessing and in true religious faith, it may be very
useful. However, that would have nothing to do
with humoral medicine but be the result of true
faith. This happened in the case of the person who
had a stomach-ache and was treated with honey,
and similar stories. Allāh guides to that which is
correct.[8]

Notwithstanding the generality in Ibn Khaldūn’s

words which is the point of contention, the crux of
his argument is what is intended here. It is
therefore imperative for a researcher to bear this
point in mind and to analyze the context and
transmission of every ḥadīth, know what science
has to say on the subject, and note the congruence
of its words with the latest medical research. Only
then can we ascertain whether a given ḥadīth on
prophetic medicine is based on revelation or the
human element. This explanation is not meant to
contest academic research that examines
prophetic medicine. In the same breath, however,
we notice a flaw in a number of studies that
overlook the human element of these ḥadīths or,
at the bare minimum, the specificity of the
Prophet’s particular atmosphere in regard to
medical treatment. Failure to keep these things in
mind has led many researchers to proffer far-
fetched answers to resolve objections to these
ḥadīths.

It appears that Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ alludes to this detail—

having accepted the inadmissibility of ḥadīths
pertaining to worldly affairs—with his statement:

But such fallibility only happened in respect of

certain matters. The rare case is allowed and in
things which concern observing this world and its
fruits, not in doing such things often to the point
of stupidity and inattention. Many transmissions
have come from the Prophet showing a deep
knowledge of the matters of this world and
understanding of the fine points concerning the
best interests of his people and the politics of the
different groups of his people that was a miracle
among men.”[9]
The words “in respect of certain matters” are
important as they indicate the extent of this
exception. This is also the conclusion of Dr.
Muḥammad Sulaymān al-Ashqar who
categorized ḥadīths on medicine into two
categories: 1) those that are considered and
practiced as part of the religion; 2) those that are
not authoritative. He cites several examples for
both categories—some of these can be contested,
but the intent here is his perspective. He then
states after concluding the first category:

There are two issues to bear in mind when

considering whether ḥadīths that mention
medicine or treatments with the Prophet
mentioning that he learned them through
revelation or was informed by the angels or that
Allāh likes or dislikes them, and their like—are
authoritative in the field of medicine.

First, the ḥadīth needs to meet a high standard of

authenticity because its application can potentially
lead to severe bodily harm. If any harm is caused,
a physician cannot be excused on the grounds that
his treatment was based on an apparently
authentic ḥadīth that in reality was a fabrication.
I therefore suggest no ḥadīth be taken as proof
simply from a medical perspective until it is
definitively proven, i.e. a mutawātir report. Or it is
nearly definitive, that is, to be transmitted via two
completely independent routes such that it is
verified that no transmitter is solely responsible for
its transmission in any strata of the chain even in
the stratum of the Companions due to the
possibility of error; each route should be
rigorously authentic according to the
requirements of Ḥadīth nomenclature. Second,
the ḥadīth should conform to medical research
under the supervision of specialists. If its utility is
proven, that will suffice; the medical research will
then be the evidence for its utility.[10]

I can now say that further caution is required

when speaking about the influence of scientific
facts on grading ḥadīths about prophetic
medicine, because some of them may have been
pronounced in a human capacity and not through
revelation. Hence, when a researcher does not
thoroughly research every ḥadīth, he will arrive at
reckless and faulty conclusions. It is for this
reason many ḥadīths have become the subject of
lengthy debate, all the while the response is fairly
simple when we keep in mind the difference
between what is religiously legislative and not
legislative by analyzing the context of each ḥadīth.
At the same time, it is incorrect to hastily reject
scenarios of accurate scientific information found
in prophetic medicine due to the ḥadīths’ human
element when they contain proof of their
authoritativeness and they were pronounced from
the prophetic niche.[11]

Examples

It is beyond the scope of the present study to

examine all the relevant ḥadīths on the subject.
Nonetheless, I will mention a few examples to
provide clarity on the matter. Take ḥadīths that
specify a time for cupping, i.e. the 17th, 19th, and
21st of the lunar month. None of these ḥadīths are
reliable, contrary to those who have authenticated
them. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Mahdī said, “Nothing
reliable has been transmitted from the Prophet
about it (the timing for cupping), apart from a
general directive to do cupping.”[12] Al-Bardhaʿī
said, “I observed that Abū Zurʿah did not
authenticate any ḥadīth that prefers or
discourages cupping on a specific day.”[13] A
group of researchers studied the impact of cupping
on days besides those prescribed in the ḥadīths.
They concluded that the desired results of cupping
can only be achieved by observing those dates;
other days yield relatively less benefit. The results
of these tests can be found in Muḥammad Amīn
Shaykhū’s book al-Ḥijāmah. He writes:
A group of medical experts conducted cupping
sessions in the first half of Rabīʿ, while a group of
chemists analyzed the blood samples. The blood
samples taken from these sessions were similar to
the specification of the venous blood in number,
form, and viscosity, as opposed to the blood
samples taken from the sessions conducted in the
second half of the month.[14]

It does not follow, however, that these results

establish the reliability of the ḥadīths. Cupping
was an ancient practice of the Arabs transmitted
from generation to generation; even among the
Coptic, Greek, and Chinese civilizations.
Manuscripts dated before the Prophet’s birth
contain diagrams of cupping sessions.[15] This
information was likely transmitted by the Arabs in
detail in terms of method, timing, and place. This
is where the foundational pillar of applying
experimental science to strengthen weak ḥadīths
fails: the human element of the ḥadīth and the
possibility of it being based upon the transmitted
knowledge of the Arabs, not to mention the
weakness of the chain.

It is important for a researcher to be aware when

a hadīth clearly displays its human and probable
(ẓanniyyah) elements, as narrated on the authority
of Mūsā ibn Ṭalḥah from his father who said:
The Prophet and I passed by people who were
attending to date palms. He asked what they were
doing, so they replied that they were fecundating
them. The Prophet said, “I do not think it will
provide them any benefit.” When they were
informed of this, they refrained from doing it.
News reached the Prophet and he said, “They
should do it if it will provide them benefit. I only
conveyed what I assumed; do not blame me for
my assumptions. But if I narrate anything to you
from Allāh, hold fast to it; I will never lie about
Allāh.”[16]

Consider the words “I do not think it will provide

them any benefit.” They clearly indicate that his
comments were based on human judgment that is
potentially correct or incorrect, not on certainty.
He therefore said, “I only conveyed what I
assumed; do not blame me for my assumptions.”
Al-Nawawī explained the ḥadīth as such in his
words:

Scholars mention that his statement was not

information that he passed on; it was an
assumption, as he explained in these reports. They
mention that his opinions about worldly matters
are like those of others. It is therefore not
inconceivable for this to occur, and there is no
deficiency entailed in this.[17]
Ibn Taymiyyah said, “He did not prohibit them
from fecundating; they mistakenly understood
that he prohibited them, just as the one who erred
in his judgment that “al-khayṭ al-abyaḍ” and “al-
khayṭ al-aswad” refer to black and white
threads.”[18]

Another example is the ḥadīth narrated by

Muslim on the authority of Judhāmah bint Wahb
al-Asadiyyah that the Prophet said, “I intended on
prohibiting ghīlah but I recalled that the Romans
and Persians practice it, and it does not harm their
children.”[19] According to most
scholars, ghīlah is the practice of a husband having
intercourse with his breastfeeding wife.[20] If a
researcher carries out tests and medical science
provides insights about ghīlah, it will not affect the
narrations on the subject. It is proven that the
entire issue was based on the Prophet’s human
judgment. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr explains, “His
prohibition may be issued out of good conduct,
compassion, and kindness for his community, not
as a religious edict. Had he prohibited ghīlah, it
would be for those reasons.”[21]

Mice and Camel Milk

This discussion affects our present study on the

influence of science in grading a hadīth. A clear
example is the ḥadīth, “A tribe of the Israelites
went missing and their whereabouts were
unknown. I believe they are [were transformed
into] mice; do you not see when camel milk is
presented to mice, they refuse to drink, but if goat
milk is presented, they drink it?” This ḥadīth
revolves around Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn from Abū
Hurayrah. Ibn Sīrīn’s trustworthy students
transmit it from him: (i) Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd al-Malik
al-Ḥuddānī[22] and ʿAbd Allāh ibn
ʿAwn[23] narrate it from him in its entirety as a
prophetic ḥadīth; (ii) Ayyūb al-
Sakhtiyānī, [24] Khālid ibn Mihrān,[25] and
Hishām ibn Ḥassān al-Azdī[26]—he was Ibn
Sīrīn’s most reliable student—narrate it from him
as a statement of Abu Hurayrah, but the ending of
the report indicates that it is Prophetic in origin.
Abū Hurayrah said, “Mice are a result
of maskh (punishment in the form of
transformation). The proof for this is they will
drink if they are given goat milk, but if they are
given camel milk, they will not taste it.” Kaʿb
asked, “Did you hear this from the Prophet?” He
replied, “Has the Torah been revealed to me?”[27]

The contention remains whether the pronoun

“this” in Kaʿb’s question refers to the entire report
from Abū Hurayrah or only the words “Mice are
a result of maskh,” in which case the remainder of
the report, i.e. mice do not drink camel milk, is
Abū Hurayrah’s own words and inference.
However, experimental research disproves this
inference: mice drink camel milk without
hesitation. Dr. Muʿizz al-Islām studied six mice
and six rats, male and female, under a month old.
They were given camel milk and goat milk. After
observing their daily intake of the milk, it was
proven that they drank both types of milk. He
concluded, “In summary, our research
demonstrates the ability of the mice and rats to
drink camel milk, as is the case with goat milk.
There is no evidence to suggest that mice and rats
refuse to drink camel milk.”[28]

In light of the above, we arrive at one of two

conclusions. Either the ḥadīth was based on the
Prophet’s worldly judgment, as evidenced by the
words, “I believe they are mice” and in the route
of Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd Allāh from Ibn Sīrīn from Abū
Hurayrah, from the Prophet “Allāh knows best
whether they are mice or not.”[29] Ibn Ḥajar
said, “It appears that used to be his opinion but
then he came to know that they are
not.”[30] Alternatively, the ḥadīth is a non-
prophetic report from the words of Abū
Hurayrah. Only the words “Mice are a result
of maskh” are from the Prophet, and what is meant
here is that maskh (punishment in the form of
transformation) took place among the species of
mice, not that every mouse till this day is from
that maskh, because we learn from authentic
ḥadīths that maskh is not passed down. Or only the
words “A tribe of the Israelites were lost and their
whereabouts unknown” are prophetic. This
possibility is preferred for a number of reasons.

First, two students transmit the entire hadīth as a

prophetic report: Khālid al-Ḥadhdhāʾ and
Ashʿath ibn ʿAbd Allāh. They are in conflict with
Khālid ibn Mihrān, Hishām ibn Ḥassān, and
Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī (despite some feeble
disagreement in the transmission from the two)
who narrate it as a Companion report.
Furthermore, the final part of Kaʿb’s question is
not clear in making the entire report prophetic.
Ḥadīth experts agree that Hishām ibn Ḥassān is
the most preferred in transmission from Ibn Sīrīn.
ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī said, “Hishām is more reliable
than Khālid al-Ḥadhdhāʾ vis-à-vis Ibn Sīrīn.”
Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd said, “Hishām ibn Ḥassān from
Ibn Sīrīn is more beloved to me than ʿĀṣim al-
Aḥwal and Khālid al-Ḥadhdhāʾ.” Abū Ḥātim
said, “He was cautious vis-à-vis elevating ḥadīths
to the Prophet from Ibn Sīrīn.”[31] Aḥmad ibn
Ḥanbal said, “Hishām ibn Ḥassān is more beloved
to me than Ashʿath.”[32] Therefore, al-Dāraquṭnī
said about the non-prophetic version, “It is more
accurate.”

Second, Abū Salamah corroborates Ibn Sīrīn’s

report without adding the words under discussion,
i.e. the mice’s refusal to drink camel
milk.[33] Someone may object that Muḥammad
ibn Sīrīn is known to narrate reports from Abū
Hurayrah as Companion statements for the
purposes of brevity but his intent is that they are
prophetic. Ibn Sīrīn explained, “Everything I
narrate from Abū Hurayrah is from the
Prophet.”[34] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī said, “Ibn
Sīrīn frequently transmitted material as
Companion statements (mawqūf) for
brevity.”[35] However, this does not mean every
ḥadīth Ibn Sīrīn narrates from Abū Hurayrah as a
Companion statement will be taken as a prophetic
report (marfūʿ). Rather, each report will be studied
in light of the available indications. Therefore, al-
Dāraquṭnī at times prefers the mawqūf version
when there is conflict from Ibn Sīrīn on the
prophetic or non-prophetic nature of a report.[36]

[1] Al-Māzarī, al-Muʿlim bi Fawāʾid Muslim, vol. 3,

p. 121; Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 10, pp. 239-
240.
[2] Al-Khaṭṭābī, Aʿlām al-Ḥadīth, vol. 3, p. 2112;
ʿUthmānī, Takmilat Fatḥ al-Mulhim, vol. 10, pp.
308-312.

[3] See al-Ashqar, Madā al-Iḥtijāj bi al-Aḥādīth al-

Nabawiyyah fī al-Shuʾūn al-Ṭibbiyyah wa al-ʿIlājiyyah,
pp. 66-70; al-Quḍāh, Hal Aḥādīth al-Ṭibb al-Nabawī
Waḥy; Bāzmūl, Ḥujjiyyat al-Aḥādīth al-Nabawiyyah
al-Wāridah fī al-Ṭibb wa al-ʿIlāj.

[4] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

[5] Abū Yaʿlā, al-Musnad, vol. 12, p. 402, on the

authority of Umm Salamah via a sound
transmission.

[6] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī and Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.

[7] Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, al-Shifā bi Ḥuqūq al-Muṣṭafā, vol. 2,

pp. 183-185 [modified translation of Aisha
Bewley].

[8] Ibn Khaldūn, al-ʿIbar wa Dīwān al-Mubtadaʾ,

vol. 1, p. 651 [modified translation of Franz
Rosenthal].

[9] Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ, al-Shifā bi Ḥuqūq al-Muṣṭafā, vol. 2,

p. 185 [modified translation of Aisha Bewley].
[10] Al-Ashqar, Madā al-Iḥtijāj bi al-Aḥādīth al-
Nabawiyyah fī al-Shuʾūn al-Ṭibbiyyah wa al-ʿIlājiyyah,
p. 29. He further states, “Although we opine that
ḥadīths of the second category and their like are
not authoritative in matters of medicine, that does
not mean they should be completely abandoned.
The possibility of them being accurate should be
considered, like other medical knowledge from
non-specialists with experience and
understanding; in fact, ḥadīths of this category
should be accepted a fortiori due to the possibility,
albeit tenuous, that they were informed by
revelation. I therefore believe that they should be
subject to the studies and experiments applied by
specialists. If their utility is proven, they will be
accepted, and the evidence for their utility will be
the tests not that they are transmitted from the
Prophet. This is particularly the case when many
of these ḥadīths are not established via definitive
transmission in the manner discussed under the
first category. Thus, the need to establish their
utility remains.” Scholarly statements that
apparently demonstrate the unrestricted
authoritativeness of ḥadīths on prophetic
medicine are interpreted according to the
aforementioned explanation, i.e. in the presence
of indications of their utility. Alternatively, these
statements will be dismissed based on the previous
explanation.
[11] Some people have fallen into this error in
assessing the ḥadīth narrated by al-Bukhārī,
“Indeed, the black seed is a cure for every illness
except death,” questioning how a seed can be a
cure for every illness. However, medical experts
like Dr. Aḥmad al-Qādī have discovered the
benefits of black seeds for the immune system: one
drop of black seed oil increases cells that kill off
germs by 73%. See al-Ṣāwī, al-Ḥabbah al-Sawdāʾ
Shifāʾ li Kull Dāʾ.

[12] Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Mawḍūʿāt, vol. 3, p. 215. Ibn

Ḥajar said, “None of these ḥadīths are reliable.”
See Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 10, p. 149.

[13] Abū Zurʿah, al-Ḍuʿafāʾ (Ajwibah ʿalā Asʾilat al-

Bardhaʿī), vol. 2, p. 757.

[14] Shaykhū, al-Ḥijāmah al-Dawāʾ al-ʿAjīb, pp.

142-143.

[15] Ibid., pp. 72-74.

[16] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 2361.

[17] Al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj, vol. 15, p. 116.

[18] Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā, vol. 18, p.

12.
[19] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 1442. The ḥadīth
prohibiting ghīlah is narrated as “Do not discreetly
murder your children, for ghīlah will catch up with
a horse rider and drop him from his horse” by
Aḥmad and Abū Dāwūd via Muhājir ibn Abī
Muslim from Asmāʾ bint Yazīd ibn al-Sakan from
the Prophet. But this chain is unreliable due to
Muhājir ibn Abī Muslim. See Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb
al-Tahdhīb, vol. 10, p. 498.

[20] See Mālik, al-Muwaṭṭaʿ, vol. 4, p. 877.

[21] Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, al-Tamhīd, vol. 13, p. 93.

Al-Ṭaḥāwī states, “His prohibition was not
informed by revelation…he ordered it for no
other reason than compassion for his
community.” See Sharḥ Maʿānī al-Āthār, vol. 3, pp.
47-48.

[22] Musnad Aḥmad, vol. 16, p. 279, with the words

“A tribe from the tribes went missing. Allāh knows
best whether or not they are mice. Do you not see
when they are given camel milk, they do not
drink?”

[23] Al-Ṭabarānī, al-Muʿjam al-Awsaṭ, vol. 6, p.

375. Al-Ṭabarānī states, “Muḥammad ibn
Ibrāhīm ibn Sāriyah al-ʿAkkāwī narrated to us,
saying: Mūsā ibn Ayyūb al-Naṣībī narrated to us:
Baqiyyah ibn al-Walīd narrated to us, from Ismāʿīl
ibn ʿAyyāsh, from Ibn ʿAwn, from Muḥammad
ibn Sīrīn, from Abū Hurayrah that the Prophet
said, ‘Mice are a result of maskh; the proof for this
is if they are given goat milk, they will drink it, but
they will not drink camel milk.’ No one besides
Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh narrated this as a prophetic
ḥadīth from Ibn ʿAwn, and no one besides
Baqiyyah narrated it from Ismāʿīl; Mūsā ibn
Ayyūb alone transmitted it.”

[24] Musnad Aḥmad, vol. 13, p. 265, with the chain:

ʿAbd al-Ṣamad narrated to us: my father narrated
to us: Ayyūb narrated to us, from Muḥammad,
from Abū Hurayrah, who said, “A tribe of the
Israelites went missing” and he mentioned mice.
He said, “Do you not see when you give them
camel milk, they do not approach it, and if you
give them goat milk, they drink it?” He was asked,
“Did you hear it from the Messenger of Allāh like
that?” He replied, “Do I read the Torah?”

Yes, Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrates it from

Ayyūb al-Sakhtiyānī, Hishām ibn Ḥassān, and
Ḥabīb as a prophetic ḥadīth, as recorded by al-
Bazzār, who said, “I do not know anyone besides
Ḥammād who narrated this ḥadīth.” See Musnad
al-Bazzār, vol. 17, p. 280. However, one should
not be content with this prophetic version from
Ḥammād, because his students disagree whether
he narrated it as a non-prophetic report from Abū
Hurayrah. Al-Dāraquṭnī states, “There is
disagreement on it being a prophetic report.
Khālid al-Ḥadhdhāʾ, Hishām ibn Ḥassān, and
Ashʿath narrate it as a prophetic report from Ibn
Sīrīn from Abū Hurayrah. There is disagreement
from Ayyūb: ʿAbd al-Aʿlā ibn Ḥammād from
Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Ayyūb, Ḥabīb, and
Hishām, from Ibn Sīrīn, from Abū Hurayrah as a
prophetic report; al-Ḥasan ibn Musā narrates it
from Ḥammād ibn Salamah from Ḥabīb ibn al-
Ṣhahīd and Hishām from Ibn Sīrīn from Abū
Hurayrah as a Companion report, and this is
more accurate.” See al-Dāraquṭnī, al-ʿIlal, vol. 10,
p. 36. Some of Ḥammād ibn Salamah’s students
narrate it with doubt. Abū Yaʿlā said, “ʿAbd al-
Aʿlā narrated to us: Ḥammād narrated to us, from
Ḥabīb, Hishām, and Ayyūb from Ibn Sīrīn, from
Abū Hurayrah—I assume he narrates from the
Prophet […]” See Musnad Abī Yaʿlā, vol. 10, p. 448.

[25] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, no. 3305; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no.

2997.

[26] Suwayd ibn Saʿīd al-Ḥadathānī incorrectly

narrated the entire ḥadīth from Hishām ibn
Ḥassān as a prophetic report. See Musnad Abī
Yaʿlā, vol. 10, p. 449. This route cannot be
considered a reliable source of conflict from
Hishām ibn Ḥassān, because Suwayd ibn Saʿīd
erred and the route of Muslim from Hishām is
much more reliable than the chain of Abū Yaʿlā.

[27] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 2997.

[28] See Dr. Ḥudhayfah al-Khaṭīb and Dr.

Muʿizz al-Islām, Dirāsah Naqdiyyah li al-Ḥadīth al-
Sharīf: Fuqidat Ummah min Banī Isrāʾīl lā Urāhā illā al-
Faʾr, p. 18. Khālid al-Ḥadhdhāʾ said, “I narrated
this ḥadīth in Wasit in a gathering attended by
ʿInabah ibn ʿUmar al-Makhzūmī, who said, ‘By
Allāh, I have a she-camel, and I will test this.’ He
later met me and said, ‘Abū Manāzil! I found the
ḥadīth to be as you narrated it: I gave it camel milk
and it did not approach it.’” See al-Dāraquṭnī, al-
Muʾtalif wa al-Mukhtalif, vol. 3, p. 1653. However,
this experiment is deficient for our purposes. It
lacks all the requirements for the application of
experimental sciences (outlined earlier in the
book), and therefore, we cannot take this report as
proof.

[29] Musnad Aḥmad, vol. 16, p. 289.

[30] Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 6, p. 353.

[31] Al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl, vol. 9, p. 56.

[32] Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, al-ʿIlal wa Maʿrifat al-
Rijāl, vol. 1, p. 411.

[33] Ibn ʿAdī, al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʿafāʾ al-Rijāl, vol. 6, p.

90. The chain of transmission is reliable; I was
unable to find a defect in it. The tadlīs attributed
to ʿUmar ibn ʿAlī al-Muqaddimī is not a
defect according the most sound view. Al-Bukhārī
negated tadlīs from him, and he narrated from in
his Ṣaḥīḥ via ʿanʿanah without explicit oral
reception. Al-Dhahabī said, “Scholars have
tolerated his tadlīs.” See al-Dhahabī, Siyar Aʿlām al-
Nubalāʾ, vol. 8, p. 514; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-
Tahdhīb, vol. 8, p. 486.

[34] Al-Khaṭīb, al-Kifāyah, p. 416.

[35] Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 9, p. 31.

[36] For a detailed study of the conflict between

the prophetic and non-prophetic nature of reports
from Ibn Sīrīn, see ʿAlī al-Ṣayyāḥ, al-Thiqāt
alladhīna Taʿammadū Waqf al-Marfūʿ aw Irsāl al-
Mawṣūl, pp. 43-69.

https://hadithnotes.org/prophetic-medicine-between-revelation-
and-traditional-knowledge