Salt Reports: Ibrāhīm bin Ḥabbān or Ibrāhīm bin Ḥayyān?

QUESTION

The quotation from al-Laʾāliʾ al-Maṣnūʿah names Ibrāhīm bin Ḥabbān bin Ḥanẓalah bin Suwayd, whereas Tanzīh al-Sharīʿah names Ibrāhīm bin Ḥayyān bin Ḥakīm. Do these represent different reports or independent chains?

SHORT ANSWER

The stronger conclusion is that both quotations concerning seventy-three afflictions refer to the same report attributed to Saʿd bin Muʿādh and cited from Ibn Mandah. The differing name does not establish two independent chains. Biographical evidence supports Ibrāhīm bin Ḥayyān bin Ḥakīm bin ʿAlqamah bin Saʿd bin Muʿādh. This is a comparative inference, not a manuscript verification of Akhbār Aṣbahān. The report attributed to ʿAlī about seventy illnesses is a separate, fabricated report; neither the Saʿd report nor the statement attributed to ʿAlī provides sound corroboration.

TRANSLATION

1. “O ʿAlī, use salt, for it is a cure for seventy illnesses: leprosy, leukoderma and insanity.” This translates the fabricated report for identification.

2. “Begin your food with salt. By Him in whose hand is my soul, it repels seventy-three [kinds] of affliction—or he said: illness.” This translates Ibn ʿIrāq’s wording; [kinds] is supplied for clarity.

COMPANION ATTRIBUTIONS

ʿAlī bin Abī Ṭālib: the seventy-illness Prophetic report and a separate statement attributed to him. Saʿd bin Muʿādh: the seventy-three-affliction report quoted from Ibn Mandah.

SOURCES AND SCHOLARLY COMMENTS

1. Ibn al-Jawzī — al-Mawḍūʿāt, 2/289, Bāb Faḍl al-Milḥ: rejects the ʿAlī report and identifies ʿAbd Allāh bin Aḥmad bin ʿĀmir or his father as the suspected source, describing their collection attributed to the Prophet’s family as spurious. Open the hadith text ↗
2. Al-Suyūṭī — al-Laʾāliʾ al-Maṣnūʿah, the discussion of salt, quoted by al-Zabīdī in Itḥāf al-Sādah al-Muttaqīn, 5/264–265: introduces Ibn Mandah’s related report about seventy-three afflictions. Citing an additional chain is not itself an authentication. Open the quoted passage ↗
3. Ibn ʿIrāq al-Kinānī — Tanzīh al-Sharīʿah al-Marfūʿah, 2/243, Kitāb al-Aṭʿimah, item 44: rejects Ibrāhīm bin Ḥayyān bin Ḥakīm’s route as corroboration. He also criticizes the statement attributed to ʿAlī because Juwaybir is abandoned and ʿĪsā bin al-Ashʿath is unknown. Open the hadith text ↗
4. Al-Dhahabī, citing Ibn ʿAdī — Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl, 1/28, biography 77: records the full lineage Ibrāhīm bin Ḥayyān bin Ḥakīm bin ʿAlqamah bin Saʿd bin Muʿādh al-Awsī al-Madanī, reports severe criticism of his narrations, and explicitly spells Ḥayyān with yāʾ. Open the narrator’s biography ↗
5. Al-Shawkānī — al-Fawāʾid al-Majmūʿah, p. 161, item 22 in the food section: explicitly grades the “O ʿAlī, use salt” report as fabricated. Open the scholar’s assessment ↗

EXPLANATION

1. Does the name difference prove separate chains? No. Both quotations attribute the seventy-three-affliction report to Ibn Mandah’s Akhbār Aṣbahān. Ibn ʿIrāq identifies the very corroborating report being discussed as passing through Ibrāhīm bin Ḥayyān bin Ḥakīm. The stronger inference is that the two quotations concern the same report.
2. The preferred name and the limits of this review: Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl supports Ibrāhīm bin Ḥayyān bin Ḥakīm bin ʿAlqamah bin Saʿd bin Muʿādh. Ḥabbān/Ḥayyān may involve mispointing, but the changes involving Ḥanẓalah/Suwayd and Ḥakīm/ʿAlqamah are more extensive than a single misplaced dot. Corruption in the transmitted name and lineage is the stronger explanation. Its precise origin—author, copyist, print edition or digitization—requires comparison of the original witnesses.
3. Distinguish three reports: The ʿAlī Prophetic report, seventy illnesses, through ʿAbd Allāh bin Aḥmad bin ʿĀmir from his father: fabricated. The Saʿd Prophetic report, seventy-three afflictions: unsound and unsuitable as corroboration. The statement attributed to ʿAlī in al-Bayhaqī, seventy afflictions: severely weak owing to Juwaybir and ʿĪsā bin al-Ashʿath. The ʿAlī and Saʿd reports differ; the two quotations of Saʿd’s report are not shown to be independent merely by the altered name.
4. Grading method: “Not authentic” does not always mean “fabricated.” The fabricated grading here rests on the specific defect and al-Shawkānī’s explicit judgment, not merely inclusion in a book of fabricated reports. Multiple severely weak routes do not automatically raise a report to ḥasan li-ghayrih.
5. Attributing a special benefit to the Sunnah: These reports do not establish the claimed number of illnesses cured by salt. Ordinary culinary use is a separate matter; this review does not prescribe a medical benefit or dose.

LESSONS

1. Compare names, lineages, teachers, students and context before counting independent chains.
2. Distinguish Prophetic reports from Companion statements, and fabrication from weakness.
3. State when a conclusion is a comparative inference rather than manuscript verification.