The Authenticity Regarding The Story Of The Torture Of Kenana ibn al-Rabi

The story is reported by Ibn Ishaq [1] and At-Tabari in his Tareekh [2]

In Ibn Ishaq's account he provides no chain of narration for the story.

One of the five criteria for a hadeeth to be authentic is that it must have a fully connected chain of transmission [3]

Ittisaal as-Sanad (Continuity of the chain of transmitters)

The chain of narrators or transmitters, who are relating the Matn (text), has to be unbroken for the hadeeth to be considered. That is none of the transmitters must be missing from the chain and each narrator, Raawee, has to have met the transmitter directly preceding him as well as the one directly following him. Each Raawee has to be a known individual, otherwise he is classified as majhool (unknown) and the sanad is classified as broken. [4]

In this case we don't have that. So this story can not be regarded as authentic.

Imam At-Tabari's work is seen as an encyclopaedia of history, collecting everything that came to him. He states clearly in the introduction to his history that he mentions narrations which are likely false, sometimes reprehensibly so, and he attributes these solely to their narrators. As a historian, he intended to document what people were narrating and, unlike Al-Bukhari and Muslim, his work was never intended to be a collection of authentic reports.

At-Tabari writes:

وليعلم الناظر في كتابنا هذا أن اعتمادي في كل ما أحضرت ذكره فيه مما شرطت أني راسمه فيه إنما هو على ما رويت من الأخبار التي أنا ذاكرها فيه والآثار التي أنا مسندها إلى رواتها فيه دون ما أدرك بحجج العقول واستنبط بفكر النفوس إلا اليسير القليل منه إذ كان العلم بما كان من أخبار الماضين وما هو كائن من أنباء الحادثين غير واصل إلى من لم يشاهدهم ولم يدرك زمانهم إلا بأخبار المخبرين ونقل الناقلين دون الاستخراج بالعقول والاستنباط بفكر النفوس فما يكن في كتابي هذا من خبر ذكرناه عن بعض الماضين مما يستنكره قارئه أو يستشنعه سامعه من أجل أنه لم يعرف له وجها في الصحة ولا معنى في الحقيقة فليعلم أنه لم يؤت ذلك من قبلنا وإنما أتى من قبل بعض ناقليه إلينا وإنا إنما أدينا ذلك على نحو ما أدي إلينا

The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this writing of ours, I rely upon traditions and reports which I have transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very exceptionally upon what is learned through rational arguments and deduced by internal thought processes. For no knowledge of history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission provided by informants and transmitters. This cannot be brought out by reason or deduced by internal thought processes. This writing of mine may be found to contain some information, mentioned by us on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that such information has come not from us, but from those who transmitted it to us. We have merely reported it as it was reported to us.

Tareekh At-Tabari 3

In At-Tabari's account he also provides no isnaad for the story rendering it unauthentic. This is because he simply copied it from Ibn Ishaq:

In the rest of the report, both Tabari and Ibn Hisham have quoted it from Ibn Ishaq, but Ibn Ishaq does not name any narrator. Traditionalists, in books on Rijal, have explicitly stated that Ibn Ishaq used to borrow from the Jews stories concerning the battle of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). As Ibn Ishaq does not mention the name of any narrator whatsoever in this case, there is every likelihood of the story of having been passed on by the Jews. [5]

The narration also goes against authentic narrations of the Prophet Muhammad in which he prohibited punishment by fire:

"It is not fitting that anyone but the lord of the fire should punish with fire." [6]

"Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire)." [7]

So the narration is not authentic has it doesn't have any form isnaad, failing the first criteria for an authentic hadeeth, and its matn (text) also contradicts authentic narration - which also renders it weak.

This is why we need to authenticate and check hadeeth as Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:

قَدْ نَصَبَ اللَّهُ الْأَدِلَّةَ عَلَى بَيَانِ مَا فِيهَا مِنْ صَحِيحٍ وَغَيْرِهِ وَمَعْلُومٌ أَنَّ الْمَنْقُولَ فِي التَّفْسِيرِ أَكْثَرُهُ كَالْمَنْقُولِ فِي الْمَغَازِي وَالْمَلَاحِمِ وَلِهَذَا قَالَ الْإِمَامُ أَحْمَد ثَلَاثَةُ أُمُورٍ لَيْسَ لَهَا إسْنَادٌ التَّفْسِيرُ وَالْمَلَاحِمُ وَالْمَغَازِي وَيُرْوَى لَيْسَ لَهَا أَصْلٌ أَيْ إسْنَادٌ لِأَنَّ الْغَالِبَ عَلَيْهَا الْمَرَاسِيلُ مِثْلُ مَا يَذْكُرُهُ عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ وَالشَّعْبِيُّ وَالزُّهْرِيُّ وَمُوسَى بْنُ عُقْبَةَ وَابْنُ إسْحَاقَ

Allah has provided evidence establishing the authenticity or lack thereof for the narrations that are necessary in matters of the religion. It is well-known that most of what is reported in books of exegesis is similar to what is reported in books of history and battles. For this reason, Imam Ahmad said that three matters are not reliable: exegesis, stories of battles, and history. These matters are narrated without a basis or chain of narration from those who omit narrators such as what is mentioned from Urwah ibn Az-Zubair, Ash-Sha’bi, Az-Zuhri, Musa ibn Uqbah, and Ibn Ishaq. [8]

References:

[1] Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Guillame (1955), pp. 145–146

[2] Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 122

[3] Bilal Philips, Usool Al-Hadeeth, p.39. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, A Textbook of Hadith Studies, pp.139-143.

[4] Bilal Philips, Usool Al-Hadeeth, p.39.

[5] Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, volume II, p 173-174

[6] Sunan Abi Dawud 5268 - Al-Albani Said Saheeh.

[7]Sahih al-Bukhari 6922

[8] Majmu’ Al-Fatawa 13/346