Is Drinking Camel Urine a Sunnah?

There exists numerous reports within the "Sunni" compilations of hadith which have been used to portray that the drinking of camel urine is a Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad and a part of the divine revelation to him from Allah. These ahadith have been authenticated by those scholars whom are held in high esteem by the traditionalists and therefore, the practice itself has been widely accepted within the "Sunni" doctrine as a remedy for maintaining good health.

However, when these narrations are reviewed in light of the divine criterion (al-Furqaan) and put to the test using the traditionalists very own science of hadith it becomes evident that such a practice has nothing to do with the Deen of Islaam.

🔀| Routes Of The Drinking Camel Urine Hadith

1️⃣| Qatadah (Tabi') ——» Anas bin Malik

Qatadah bin Da'amah (ﻗﺘﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﻦ ﺩﻋﺎﻣﺔ) was known for committing a lot of tadlees as well as irsaal - he would narrate from people whom he had actually never met so therefore, his dishonesty and deception is already brought to our attention.


Ibn Hibban said about Qatadah:

"وكان مدلسا."

"He was Mudallis."

{Kitaab al-Thiqaat, 5/322}


And ibn Hajr al- Asqalasni also affirmed that Qatadah used to perform irsaal:

وأرسل عن سفينة وأبي سعيد الخدري وسنان بن سلمة بن المحبق وعمران بن حصين.

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, Narrator ID: 7637, vol.8}


It has also been mentioned by scholars of hadith that there were issues with regards to the Creed of Qatadah because he was accused of being Qadari, as mentioned by al-Dhahabi:

"قتادة بن دعامة السدوسى. حافظ ثقة ثبت، لكنه مدلس, ورمى بالقدر."

Reference: {Meezaan ul-I’tidaal, volume 3/385}


Furthermore, Qatadah narrates using عَنْ or أَنَّ in every hadith concerning this specific matter which negates certainty of him having directly heard this hadith from Anas bin Malik.


Those who then narrated this specific hadith from Qatadah were:

a) Hamam bin Yahya bin Dinar

There were issues with regards to his weak memory and confusion which resulted in mistakes when he narrated hadith.


Amr ibn Ali said that:

وقال عمرو بن على : كان يحيى لا يرضى حفظه ولا كتابه ، ولا يحدث عنه

"Yahya was not pleased with his (Hamam's) memorisation and nor his book and nor did he narrate from him."

Reference: {Mezan al-A'tadal al-Dhahabi, Narrator Id:9253, Vol:4}


And Muhammad ibn Manhal said:

وقال محمد بن المنهال سمعت يزيد بن زريع يقول همام حفظه رديء

" I heard Yazid ibn Zaree'ah say (that) Hamaam his memorisation is bad."

Reference: {Siyar A'lam al-Dhahbi, Narrator Id:3093, 7/296-301}


And Ibn Sa'd said that he was trustworthy (thiqah) but sometimes erred in hadith:

وكان ثقة ربما غلط في الحديث

Reference: {Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Narrator Id:5458, Vol.7}


b) Hammad bin Salamah

Al-Bukhaari considered him Da'eef (weak) and therefore' did not narrate anything from him in his Jami' al-Sahih.

c) Sa'id bin Abu Arubah

He was known for committing a lot of tadlees so therefore, his  deceptive character is already brought to our attention. He was also known for confusing and mixing up when narrating hadith.


Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani mentioned him in his book {Tabaqaat ul-Mudalliseen, Volume 2/50} and also stated the following about Sa'id:

 ثقة حافظ له تصانيف [ لكنه ] كثير التدليس واختلط.

"He is trustworthy (thiqah) and hafidh. He has several writings but he's done much tadlees and he became confused.

Reference: {Taqrib al-Tahdhib, Narrator Id: 2365, 1/239}


Furthermore, he was also accused with being Qadari as mentioned by scholars such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal:

قال أحمد بن حنبل كان قتادة وسعيد يقولان بالقدر

Reference: {Siyar A'lam, 6/413-418}


d) Shu'bah bin al-Hajjaaj


2️⃣| Humayd bin Abi Humayd (Tabi') ——» Anas bin Malik

Although the scholars of hadith considered Humayd bin Abi Humayd (حميد بن أبي حميد) to be trustworthy (thiqah) they acknowledged that he used to perform tadlees and therefore, his dishonesty and deception is already brought to our attention.

ibn Sa'd said:

وكان حميد ثقة كثير الحديث إلا أنه ربما دلس عن أنس بن مالك

"Humayd was trustworthy, many narrations, except sometimes he used to commit tadlees from Anas bin Maalik.”

Reference: {Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Narrator Id:5366, 7/252}


Furthermore, Humayd narrates using عَنْ in every hadith concerning this specific matter which negates certainty of him having directly heard this hadith.

Abu Bakr al-Bardayjee said:

وقال أبو بكر البرديجي وأما حديث حميد فلا يحتج منه إلا بما قال حدثنا أنس

"And as for Humayd's hadith then there is no proof from it except with what he says "Haddathana" Anas."

Reference: : {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr, Narrator Id:2065, Vol.3}


Those who then narrated this specific hadith from Humayd were:

a) Hammad bin Salamah

As already mentioned al-Bukhaari considered him Da'eef (weak)

b) Abdullah bin Umar bin Hafs

He was considered Da'eef (weak) by many scholars of hadith:

al-Bukhaari mentioned that:

كان يحيى بن سعيد يضعفه

"Yahya ibn Sa'eed weakened him."

Reference: {Tarikhul Kabir, Narrator Id:6511, Vol:5}


And ibn al-Madini said that he is Da'eef (weak):

وقال ابن المديني ضعيف

Reference: {Siyar A'lam al-Dhahabi, Narrator Id:3123, 7/339-341}


And al-Nasa'iee also said that he is weak in hadith:

وقال النسائي ضعيف الحديث

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr, Narrator Id:4564, Vol:5}


c) Khalid bin Abdullah al-Tahan

He was known for narrating from people whom he had never actually met (Irsaal) such al-A'amash. Both al-Dhahabi and ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani also mentioned that there exists Taffarud (تفرد) in the hadith of Khalid.


d) Hashaym bin Bashayr bin al-Qasim

He was known for committing much tadlees and also for narrating from people whom he had not actually met so therefore, his dishonesty and deception is already brought to our attention:

ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani said:

ثقة ثبت كثير التدليس والإرسال الخفي

"Trustworthy (thiqah), precise (thabt), committed much tadlees and irsaal al-Khafee."

Reference: {Taqrib al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr, Narrator Id:7312, pg.574}


And ibn Sa'd said:

يدلس كثيرا فما قال في حديثه أخبرنا فهو حجة وما لم يقل فيه أخبرنا فليس بشيء

"Committed much tadlees so in what he narrates saying "akhbarna" (he told us) then it is a proof (in an argument) but in what he does not say "akhbarna" (he told us) then it is nothing."

Reference: {Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Narrator Id:5594, Vol.7}

In {Sahih Muslim Book: 29, Hadith: 4445} Hashaym narrates using عَنْ from both Humayd bin Abi Humayd and Abdul 'Aziz bin Suhaib which negates certainty of him having directly heard this specific hadith from either of them.

e) Abdul Wahab bin Abdul Majeed

f) Isma'il bin Ibrahim (ibn Aliyah)

g) Muhammad bin Abi Adi


3️⃣| Abu Qalabah, 'Abdullah bin Zayd (Tabi') ——» Anas bin Malik

He was known for committing much tadlees and that he would also narrate from people whom he had actually never met so therefore, his dishonesty and deception is already brought to our attention.

Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani said that he was trustworthy (thiqah) but that he committed much irsaal:

ثقة فاضل كثير الإرسال

Reference: {Taqrib al-Tahdheeb, pg.304}


And al-Ijlee mentioned that Abu Qalabah was someone who was against and had no regards towards the Sahabi 'Ali ibn Abu Talib, and nor did he narrate anything from him:

 وقال العجلي بصري تابعي ثقة وكان يحمل علي علي ولم يرو عنه شيئا ولم يسمع من ثوبان

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, Narrator Id: 4388, vol.5}


Those who then narrated this specific hadith from Abu Qalabah were:

a) Yahya bin Abi Kathir

He was known for committing tadlees and that he would also narrate from people whom he had actually not met as mentioned by scholars of hadith such as ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani:

يحيى بن أبي كثير الطائي مولاهم أبو نصر اليمامي ثقة ثبت لكنه يدلس ويرسل

Reference: {Taqrib al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr, Narrator Id:7632,  pg.596}

b) Abu Rajaa'

c) Ayoub al-Sakhtiyani


4️⃣| Yahya bin Sa'id al-Ansari (Tabi') ——» Anas bin Malik

He was accused with committing tadlees although some would argue that this is not proven.

Yahya narrates using عَنْ from Anas bin Malik which negates certainty of him having directly heard this specific hadith from him. In fact in the version reported by al-Nasa'iee in his Sunan, Book: 37, Hadith: 4036 Yahya narrates the same incident, albeit with some variations in the wording, on the authority of Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib (a fellow Tabi') instead of on the authority of Anas bin Malik.

Regardless of whether or not the accusation of tadlees upon Yahya is proven or not, the chain of narration up to Yahya includes Muhammad bin Salamah and Abu Abdul Raheem (Khalid bin Abu Yazid) both whom were considered Da'eef (weak) by al-Bukhaari and therefore, this route is not free from ikhtilaaf (disagreement), doubts or weaknesses.


5️⃣| Thabit bin Aslam Albanani (Tabi') ——» Anas bin Malik

The problem within this route is not necessarily between Thabit and Anas but because there exists weaknesses elsewhere within the chain leading up to Thabit.

Those who narrated this specific hadith from Thabit were:

a) Hammad bin Salamah

As already mentioned al-Bukhaari considered him Da'eef (weak)

b) Salam bin Miskeen

He waa accused with being Qadari as mentioned by scholars of hadith such as ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani and Abu Da'wud:

قال أبو داود كان يذهب إلى القدر

Reference: {Siyar A'lam al-Dhahabi, Narrator Id:3155, 7/414-415}


Furthermore, within his version of the incident the instruction from the Prophet was to drink only the milk of the camel and not the urine.


6️⃣| Abdul 'Aziz bin Suhaib (Tabi') ——» Anas bin Malik

The problem within this route is not necessarily between Abdul 'Aziz and Anas but because the only person to have narrated this specific hadith from Abdul 'Aziz is Hashaym bin Bashayr bin al-Qasim.

As already mentioned, Hashaym was known for committing much tadlees and also for narrating from people whom he had not actually met so therefore, he should not be considered as being someone who is honest or trustworthy. Hashaym narrates this specific hadith found in {Sahih Muslim Book: 29, 4445} using عَنْ from  Abdul 'Aziz which negates certainty of him having directly heard this specific hadith from Abdul 'Aziz.


7️⃣| Mua'wiyyah bin Qurrah bin Iyas (Tabi') ——» Anas bin Malik

The problem within this route is not necessarily between Mu'awiyyah and Anas but because the only person to have narrated this specific hadith from Mu'awiyyah is Simak bin Harb bin Aws.

There was disagreement amongst the scholars of hadith concerning Simak where some such as Muslim considered him trustworthy (Thiqah) but others such as al-Bukhaari considered him weak (Da'eef).

ibn al-Mubarak said:

زكريا بن عدي عن ابن المبارك قال سماك ضعيف في الحديث

"Simak is weak (Da'eef) in hadith."


And Salih ibn Muhammad also weakned him (Simak):

وقال صالح بن محمد يضعف


Reference: {Siyar A'lam al-Dhahbi, Narrator Id:1109, 5/245-249}


And even those who considered him trustworthy acknowledged that there were issues in his hadith:

Ibn Hibban said that he had many mistakes:

سماك بن حرب البكري من أهل الكوفة كنيته أبو المغيرة يخطيء كثيرا

Reference: {Thiqat Ibn Hibban, Narrator Id:3228, Vol.4}


And Ahmad ibn Hanbal said:

وقال أبو طالب عن أحمد مضطرب الحديث

"He is Mudtarib (disorderly) in the hadith."

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr, Narrator Id:3405, Vol:4}

⛔| Additional Problematic Narrators Found Within The Chains of Narration

1️⃣| Yahya bin Sa'id al-Ghafiqi

He was considered Da'eef (weak) and someone who made mistakes in narrating because he had a poor memory, for example:

وقال أحمد : سيئ الحفظ.

Ahmad (ibn Hanbal) said: "He has bad (poor) memory."

Reference: {Mezan al-I'tidaal, Narrator Id: 9462, Vol.4}


And ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani said:

وذكره العقيلي في الضعفاء.

"al-Uqaylee mentioned him in al-Du'afa."

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, Narrator Id: 10315, Vol.11}


Some scholars even considered him to be Munkar (denounced) in hadith, such as Ibn Sa'd who said:

يحيى بن أيوب الغافقي كان منكر الحديث.

"Yahya ibn Ayyub al-Ghafiqi was munkar (denounced) in hadith."

Reference: {Tabaqat ibn Sa'd, Narrator Id: 6244, Vol.7}


2️⃣| Mua'wiyyah bin Salih

Scholars such Ya'qoob ibn Shaybah and Al-Bukhaari considered him to be Da'eef (Weak).

And Ibn Ma'een said that Yahya ibn Sa'eed was not pleased with Mu'awiyyah:

قال بن أبي خيثمة والدوري في تاريخهما عن بن معين كان يحيى بن سعيد لا يرضاه

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr, Narrator, Id:9391, Vol:10}


He was considered to be delusional and confused and therefore, not reliable enough to be used as a proof by scholars of hadith such as Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani Abu Hatim who said:

وقال أبو حاتم صالح الحديث حسن الحديث ولا يحتج به

"Competent in hadith, Hasan in hadith but he is not a proof (in an argument)."

Reference: {Siyar A'lam al-Dhahbi, Narrator Id:3054, 7/158-163}


3️⃣| Al-Waleed bin Muslim

He was known for committing much tadlees including tadlees al-taswiyyah which is considered as the worst type:

And Abu Mushir said:

وقال أبو مسهر ربما دلس الوليد بن مسلم عن كذابين

"Sometimes Waleed ibn Muslim did tadlees from liars."

Reference: {Siyar A'lam al-Dhahbi, Narrator Id:5060, 9/211-220}


And Ahmad ibn Hanbal said:

وقال المروذي عن أحمد كان الوليد كثير الخطأ

"There was in al-Waleed a lot of mistakes."

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr, Narrator Id:10254, Vol.11}


4️⃣| Al-Awza'i

He was known for narrating from people whom he did not meet or directly hear from (irsaal) and scholars such as Ahmad bin Hanbal considered him Da'eef (weak) as reported by Ibrahim al-Harbi who said:

وقال إبراهيم الحربي سألت أحمد بن حنبل عن الأوزاعي فقال حديثه ضعيف

"I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal about al-Awza'i so he (Ahmad) said his (al-Awzai's) hadith are weak."

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb Ibn Hajr, Narrator Id:5487, Vol:6}


Furthermore, he was accused of disrespecting and speaking ill of the Sahabi Ali bin Abu Talib as reported by Yazid bin Muhammad al-Rahawi who said that he heard from his father who heard from Issa bin Yunus that he heard al-Awza'i say:

سمعت الأوزاعي يقول : ما أخذنا العطاء حتى شهدنا على علي بالنفاق وتبرأنا منه

"We didn’t obtain gifts until we testified that Ali was a hypocrite and declared our disavowal of him."

Reference: {Siyar A'lam an-Nubla, 7/130}


5️⃣| Sufyaan al-Thawri

He was known for committing  tadlees including from weak narrators so therefore, his dishonest and deceptive character is brought to our attention.

Al-Dhahabi said:

"كان يدلسّ عن الضعفاء."

“He used to perform tadlees from weak narrators.”

Reference: {Mizan al-I‘tidal, 2/169}


And Ibn Rajab said:

"Sufyaan al-Thawri and others used to do tadlees even with those whom they never heard."

Reference: {Sharh Illal al-Tirmidhi, 1/358}


In the version reported by al-Nasa'iee in his Sunan {Book: 37, Hadith: 4027} Sufyaan narrates using عَنْ from Ayoub al-Sakhtiyani which negates certainty of him having directly heard this specific hadith from him.


6️⃣| Abdullah bin Wahb

Ibn Sa'd said that he is trustworthy in what he says "Haddathana" and that he was a Mudallis:

عبد الله بن وهب مولى لقريش وكان كثير العلم ثقة فيما يقال حدثنا وكان يدلس

Reference: {Tabaqat Ibn Sa'd, Narrator Id:6252, Vol:7}

Despite the above mentioned opinion of ibn Sa'd the reality is that due to his tadlees the deceptive character of Abdullah bin Wahb is brought to our attention rendering him doubtful and untrustworthy in and of himself. Furthermore, Abdullah bin Wahb claims to have directly heard about this specific incident (concerning the instruction to drink milk and urine of the camel) from Abdullah bin Umar bin Hafs in (Sunan al-Nasai'ee, Hadith: 4028) and from both Yahya bin Ayoub al-Ghafiqi
AND Mu'awiyah bin Salah in (Sunan al-Nasai'ee, Hadith: 4036) - all three of these narrators have weaknesses within themselves that also renders them doubtful and untrustworthy.


7️⃣| Bahz bin Azad

It was reported that he used to insult/discriminate upon the Sahabi (companion) 'Uthman:

وقال أبو الفتح الازدي : كان يتحامل على عثمان رضى الله عنه

Reference: {Mezan al-A'tadal, Narrator Id:1324, Vol.1 and Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, Narrator Id:923, Vol:1}

Despite this the scholars of hadith such as ibn Ma'een considered him to be trustworthy (thiqah) which contradicts their own principles concerning those who spoke ill of the Sahaba, in fact ibn Ma'een himself said:

وكل من شتم عثمان أو طلحة أو واحدا من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم دجال لا يكتب عنه وعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين

"And everyone who insults Uthman or Talha or anyone of the companions of Messenger of Allah, he is Dajjal, do not write (hadith) from him, and upon him be the curse of Allah, and the Angels, and all of mankind together."

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, 1/509 and Tahdheeb ul-Kamal, 4/322}


8️⃣| Malik bin Isma'il (Abu Ghasan)

He was a staunch Shi'ah who according to al-Dhahabi was adhering to the same bad doctrine (mazhhab) as his mentor al-Hasan ibn Salih who was a Shi'ah:

وقال الذهبي في الميزان ذكره بن عدي واعترف بصدقة وعدالته لكن ساق قول الثوري كان حسنيا يعني الحسن بن صالح علي عبادته وسوء مذهبه هذا كلام السعدي وهو إبراهيم بن يعقوب الجوزجاني وعني بذلك أن الحسن بن صالح بن حي مع عبادته كان يتشيع فتبعه مالك هذا في الأمرين

Reference: {Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, Narrator Id:9002, Vol.10 and Mezan al-A'tadal al-Dhahbi, Narrator Id:7008, Vol.3}

🔍| Analysing the discrepancies and differences within the Matn (Text)

The reader will find that there are a number of discrepancies in what has been narrated concerning the details of the specific incident surrounding the instruction to drink from the urine of camels. Sometimes the discrepancies or differences in wording occurs between the reports of different narrators but at times the discrepancies even occur through the same narrator.

What follows is an analysis of the most significant discrepancies that are found within the wording of these reports/narrations:

1️⃣ Where were the people who embraced Islaam and then later apostatised and killed the Sheppard actually from? 

The narrations (ahadith) do not clarify this matter and therefore, the information presented does not provide any degree of certain knowledge but rather the reader is left in a state of doubt because of conflicting opinions between the narrators.

What is presented within the wording of the various narrations are that the people in question were from:

a) Urainah (عُرَيْنَة)

This is reported from Humayd bin Abi Humayd, Qatadah, Thabit bin Aslam, Shu'bah bin Al-Hajjaj, Abdul Aziz bin Suhaib, Yahya bin Sa'id al-Ansari, Mu'awiyyah bin Qurrah and others.


b) Ukl (عُكْل)

This is reported from Abu Qalabah, Qatadah, Sa'id bin Abu Arubah, Salman Abu Rajaa' and others.


c) Ukl or Urainah (عُكْل أَوْ عُرَيْنَة)

This is reported from Qatadah, Abu Qalabah, Sa'id bin Abu Arubah, Shu'bah bin al-Hajjaj and Yazid bin Zari'


d) Ukl and Urainah (عُكْل وَ عُرَيْنَة)

This is reported from Qatadah, Yazid bin Zari', Salman Abu Rajaa' and others.


What we can conclude from the above analysis is that narrators like Qatadah and Abu Qalabah were either unsure of the truth but nonetheless guilty of spreading conjecture or that they were erroneous in narrating the incident due to weaknesses in their memory. In fact, al-Bukhaari in his Jami' al-Sahih, Hadith 6893 records that Abu Qalabah himself testifies that he did not know - but merely thinks that Anas said Ukl.


2️⃣| Was the instruction to drink the milk and urine OR only the milk of the camels?

Whilst the vast majority of narrators report the Prophet Muhammad instructing to drink of the milk AND urine there does exist a few narrations where ONLY drinking of the camels milk is prescribed:

🅰️| Thabit bin Aslam narrates on the authority of Anas bin Malik in the Jami' al-Sahih of al-Bukhaari, hadith 5747 that the Prophet said:

اشْرَبُوا أَلْبَانَهَا ‏

"Drink from their milk."

This hadith is unanimously considered authentic by the traditionalists.

However, all the other narrations in which Thabit narrates on the authority of Anas mention that the Prophet said:

اشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا وَأَبْوَالِهَا

"Drink from their milk and urine."

Likewise, these ahadith are also unanimously considered authentic by the traditionalists.


🅱️| Yahya bin Sa'id al-Ansari narrates on the authority of Anas in the Sunan of al-Nasai'ee, hadith 4035 that the instruction from the Prophet was to drink of the camels milk AND urine.

However, when Yahya narrates from Sa'id bin al-Musayyib in the Sunan of al-Nasai'ee, hadith 4036, the instruction from the Prophet on this occasion is ONLY to drink of the camels milk.


📌 There is also a hadith found in the Sunan of Abu Daw'ud, No.333 through the route of Ayoub from Abu Qalabah that Abu Dharr said:

"The climate of Medina did not suit me. The Messenger of Allah ordered me to have a few camels and goats. He said to me: 'Drink of their milk'...."

The narrator Hammad bin Zayd said: I doubt whether he (the Prophet) said: "Their urine."

Abu Da'wud commenting on this discrepancy and uncertainty said : "This is transmitted by Hammad bin Zayd from Ayoub. This version does not mention the words "Their urine." This is not correct. The words "Their urine" occur only in the version reported by Anas and transmitted only by the people of Basrah."

This narration therefore, brings with it the following points of consideration:

i) If the opinion of Abu Da'wud is valid then that would entail a significant weakness in the narrator Hammad bin Zayd, especially considering that Hammad himself is in doubt as to what he  remembers hearing of this hadith. One can evidently make the decision that Hammad bin Zayd is not someone who would necessarily be considered trustworthy and reliable.

ii) If indeed, Hammad bin Zayd has erred  by only mentioning "Their Urine" then why is it that this particular hadith has still been considered authentic by the traditionalist scholars?

iii) Hammad bin Zayd also narrated the hadith found in the Jami' al-Sahih of  al-Bukhaari, No.6893 and in the compilation of Muslim, No.4447 concerning the people of Urainah/Ukl through the same route of Ayoub on the authority of Abu Qalabah in which it is stated that the Prophet instructed them to drink BOTH the milk and urine of the camels. Even though the story concerning Abu Dharr is separate to that of the story concerning the people of Urainah/Ukl, the similarity within both incidents is undeniable in that both those people as well as Abu Dharr had complained of being unwell due to the climate of Medina. However, what is different is that the remedy was NOT the same.


3️⃣| Did the apostates bite stones (الْحِجَارَة) OR the earth (الأَرْض) out of thirst?

Another conflict that is found within the wording of these narrations is that sometimes it is reported from Anas that those who were guilty of killing the shepherd were seen biting on the earth/land (الأَرْض) out of thirst as a consequence of their punishment whilst elsewhere it was reported from him (Anas) that they were seen biting upon stones out of thirst.

Those who narrated on the authority of Anas that the apostates were seen biting the earth were:

Qatadah, Thabit bin Aslam and Humayd bin Abi Humayd.

Those who narrated this particular wording from the above Tabi'een were Hammad bin Salamah and Salam bin Miskeen.

Whilst Shu'bah bin al-Hajjaj is alone in narrating from Qatadah on the authority of Anas that the apostates were seen biting stones. This wording is found in the Jami' al-Sahih of al-Bukhaari, hadith 1526.

In this particular situation of conflict the principles of hadith would imply that Shu'bah bin al-Hajjaj has made the mistake and therefore, necessitate that his lone report be rendered defective as it differs with that of others (who in this case are considered trustworthy). However, and not surprisingly, what we actually find is that, despite the discrepancies and differences, ALL of the narrations have been deemed authentic by the traditionalist scholars of hadith who, not for the first time, have forsaken their own principles.

✒️| Conclusion

In accordance with the science of hadith that was invented by the traditionalist scholars it becomes evident that the narrations do not fulfill the principles or conditions that would qualify them to be authentic.

Firstly, each and every version of the hadith contains problems within its chain of narrators (Isnaad) with one of the most common issues being the abundance of narrators who commit tadlees and/or irsaal. Those who conceal the name of narrators within an isnaad (Tadlees) or lie about having heard from someone (Irsaal) are simply NOT trustworthy but rather such behaviour exposes them for being from the people of deception, fraud and dishonesty. Therefore, arguments seeking to defend such people (narrators) on the basis of how knowledgeable they were, or how many scholars they studied under or how famous they were, all of this, holds NO weight when the truth about their deceptive and dishonest behaviour has already been acknowledged.

Thus, when a sincere and non biased consideration is given to what has been mentioned concerning those narrators who were known to commit tadlees and/or irsaal, then the person who is not fanatically attached to famous names will realise the fallacy in the statement of those such as ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani and Ibn Hibban concerning their praise for narrators such as Qatadah, Abu Qalabah and al-Waleed bin Muslim to name just a few.

The idolisation of specific persons from mankind whether that be the prophets, scholars or forefathers is not a practice that is restricted to the lay people but rather it is a disease which runs within the mindset of learned sectarian and pagan scholars themselves as is evident within the following statement from Yahya ibn Ma’een (one of the teachers of al-Bukhaari) who said about Abdul Razzaq (a famous Shi'ah scholar):

"Even if Abdul Razzaq apostates, we won’t leave his narrations."

Reference: {Tahzheeb al-Tahzheeb, 6/280}

Secondly, there are problems between the various versions of this hadith in relation to the text (Matn). The conflicting wording that exists not only throws further doubt and uncertainty over the reliability of the narrators but more significantly the authenticity of the historical story itself. The discrepancies and differences can not be simply eradicated through the opinions of scholars because conjecture is no substitute for the truth.


Furthermore, according to the traditionalist scholars of history and medicine the use of camel urine was an ancient medicinal practice of the non-Muslim desert Arabs which was already a known part of their customs - it was not something newly revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. For example, the Sunni historian Ibn Khaldun mentioned the narrations related to camel urine and then wrote:

والطب المنقول في الشرعيات من هذا القبيل وليس من الوحي في شىءوإنما هوأمر كان عادياً للعرب‏.‏ ووقع في ذكر أحوال النبي صلىالله عليهوسلم من نوع ذكرأحواله التي هي عادة وجبلة لا من جهة أن ذلك مشروع على ذلك النحو من العمل‏ فإنه صلى الله عليه وسلم إنما بعث ليعلمنا الشرائع ولم يبعث لتعريف الطب ولا غيره من العاديات.

"The medicine mentioned in the religious tradition is of the Bedouin type. It is in no way part of the divine revelation. (Such medical matters) were merely part of the 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. Muhammad, (peace and blessings be upon him), was sent to teach us the religious law (sharia). He was not sent to teach us medicine or any other ordinary matter."

Reference {Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddimah}

And Ibn al-Qayyim reports that the philosopher Ibn Sina (Avicenna) mentioned camel’s urine in his work on classical Arab medicine:

وَأَنْفَعُ الْأَبْوَالِ بَوْلُ الْجَمَلِ الْأَعْرَابِيِّ وَهُوَ النَّجِيبُ.

"The most beneficial urine is the urine of Bedouin camels, which is called najeeb."

Reference: {Zaad Al-Ma’ad, pg.44}


And finally, the ruling with regards to eating and drinking must be based upon the following revelation from Allah that was conveyed by the Messenger Muhammad in {Surah al-Baqarah, 2:168}:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ كُلُوا مِمَّا فِي الْأَرْضِ حَلَالًا طَيِّبًا

"O mankind! Eat of what is in the earth, lawful and good/clean/pure."

Urine is something that is not considered as being amongst that which is good/clean/pure but rather it is unclean waste which exits the body.