3

Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The flourishing state of Jerusalem will be when Yathrib is in ruins, the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes, the outbreak of the great war will be at the conquest of Constantinople and the conquest of Constantinople when the Dajjal (Antichrist) comes forth. He (the Prophet) struck his thigh or his shoulder with his hand and said: This is as true as you are here or as you are sitting (meaning Mu'adh ibn Jabal)

Sunan Abi Dawud 4294 (sunnah.com)

Is this hadith is a authentic or inauthentic (fabrication)? There are similar hadiths to this but are regarded as da'eef.

2

Is this Hadith hassan or da'if?

Well i found it in Sunan abi Dawod qualified as hassan by al-Albany. It could also be found in many books like Musnad al-Imam Ahmad (and this was qulified as da'if by the Muhadith Shoayb al-Arnaot) and also in Sahih ibn Abi Shaybah etc. Now in all the chains there's Abderrahman ibn Thabit ibn Thawban عبد الرحمن بن ثابت بن ثوبان who's qualified to be dai'f. And in the book Mizan al-I'tidal Imam ad-Dahaby considered this narration by Abderrahman ibn Thabit ibn Thawban as one of his manakeer!

See also about Qulaifiyng this hadith and the narrator in special here (in Arabic)

How to explain it assuming it's sane

Now if we assume that this hadith has some soundness then:

"The flourishing state of Jerusalem" could mean that it will flourish by people, money and real estates.

"And the ruined state of Yathrib" could mean in this context the reason for that! An other meaning for the flousishing of Jerusalem could be that the Khelafa will settle down there at the end of time which goes ahead with an other narration in Sunan abi Dawood.

"the ruined state of Yathrib will be when the great war comes" was explained as a great war between the people of Levant and the Rum. ...

But the Hadith has a Problem: As it says that the ruined state of Yatrib will be before the Dajal comes forth. As we have Sahih ahadith that tell us that the Dajal won't be able to enter Yatrib. But Ibn Kathir tried to explain this by saying that Medina won't be ruined totally before the Dajal comes forth but at the end of time.

See also this Fatwa in Arabic. And here are other interpretations of the hadith in Arabic.


An other Problem in my opinion is the conquest of Constantinople which already have been conquered ages ago, but i don't know the future and therefore even this could be explained somehow!

And Allah knows best!

3
  • i dont have a problem with the conquest of constantinople part because prophet never said it was one conquest we could lose it in future like we lost the iberian peninsula and regain it again – LuayAlzieny Oct 13 '15 at 15:17
  • i do have problems with ahadith where it's pretended that one place is better then an other except for Mekka, Medina and maybe al-Quds. And i have a problem that i can't take al-Albany seriously as he has no teachers in the science he apparently is best in! – Medi1Saif Oct 14 '15 at 6:58
  • i do have another question if you can answer it i hope islam.stackexchange.com/questions/28082/… – LuayAlzieny Oct 14 '15 at 8:56
1

Sheikh al albani classified this hadith as hasan. There's also a sahih Hadith in Muslim which may act as an evidence for the authenticity of this hadith.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (may peace he upon him) saying:

You have heard about a city, one side of which is on land and the other is in the sea (Constantinople). They said: Allah's Messenger, yes. Thereupon he said: The Last Hour would not come unless seventy thousand persons from Bani lshaq would attack it. When they would land there, they will neither fight with weapons nor would shower arrows but would only say: "There is no god but Allah and Allah is the Greatest," and one side of it would fall. Thaur (one of the narrators) said: I think that he said: The part by the side of the ocean. Then they would say for the second time: "There is no god but Allah and Allah is the Greatest" and the second side would also fall, and they would say: "There is no god but Allah and Allah is the Greatest," and the gates would be opened for them and they would enter therein and, they would be collecting spoils of war and distributing them amongst themselves when a noise would be heard saying: Verily, Dajjal has come. And thus they would leave everything there and go back. Reference : Sahih Muslim 2920a In-book reference : Book 54, Hadith 97

You can see the hadith in sunnah.com here: https://sunnah.com/muslim:2920a

From the above hadith we see 2 things:

  1. The conquest of Constantinople which has already occured can not be the one referred to in the above Hadith because there was fighting to conquer it and the dajjal hasn't come.
  2. The dajjal will come right after the conquest of Constantinople which is what the hadith in abi dawood (which you asked about) says thus acting as an evidence for it.

And Allah knows best!

0

I don't know much about Arabic Language, I most confess, but perhaps there could be a problem in the choice of words in the interpretation of the Hadith; the present state of Yathrib (Medina) today is backwarded as it has no relevance or impart in the world politics as Jerusalem. To me the word "rruin" could be interpreted as "relegated backward " or "has no impart". And the present decision on the Ayasofya by Reception Tayyib Erdogan could possibly trigger a warm the region. Allahswt knows best.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.