Imam al-Haithami recorded this tradition (link):
رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فرج ما بين فخذي الحسين و قبل زبيبته
رواه الطبراني و إسناده حسنI saw the Messenger of Allah pbuh putting Husein’s legs apart and kissing his penis.
Related by Al-Tabarani and it's chain of narration is GOOD (حسن).
Imam al-Dhahabi recorded similar tradition in his book History of Islam, and declared its narrator Qabus to be Good in Hadith (link):
وَقَالَ جَرِيرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْحَمِيدِ ، عَنْ قَابُوسَ ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ: أَنّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ " فَرَّجَ بَيْنَ فَخِذَيِّ الْحَسَنِ وَقَبَّلَ زَبِيبَتَهُ " قَابُوسُ : حَسَنُ الْحَدِيثِ
Jarir from Qabus bin Abi Zayban, he from his father, who from Ibn Abbas: I saw the Messenger of Allah pbuh putting Hassan’s legs apart and kissing his penis. And Qabus bin Abi Zayban is Good in Hadith (حَسَنُ الْحَدِيثِ)
In Arabic, the word that is used for 'penis' is 'ذکر'. But in this tradition, the word 'زبيبته' has been used for penis, which is considered as a vulgar word for penis in the Arabic language.
Anyhow, this tradition became a problem for Islam apologists. And they tried to use the same tactic which they use every time in such situations i.e. they declared this tradition to be 'weak ضعيف'. They developed this so-called 'Ilm-ul-Hadith' in order to use it as a tool to discard all those Ahadith, which question the honour of Islam.
Nevertheless, a lie always causes some 'contradictions'. This same contradiction happened with this Hadith too. Islam apologists claimed that one narrator Qabus bin Abi Zayban is declared weak. But they don't tell that many Hadith Scholars declared this same person Qabus bin Abi Zayban to be Trustworthy too and accepted his Ahadith. Let us see those Scholars who accepted his Ahadith (link):
Qabus Ibn Abi Zabyan قابوس بن أبي ظبيان
قال محمد بن أحمد الذهبي: قابوس حسن الحديث
Muhammad ibn Ahmad Adh-Dhahabi says: “Qabus is good (Hasan) in traditions.” [Tarikh-ul-Islam, Vol. 4 page 36.]
قال نور الدين الهيثمي: وإسناده حسن
Nur-ud-Din Al-Haithami says: “Its chain of transmission is good (Hasan).” [Majma’-uz-Zawa’id, Hadith 15108.]
قال يحيى بن شرف النووي: صحيح
Yahya Ibn Sharaf An-Nawawi says: “Authentic (Sahih).” [Al-Majmu’, Vol. 2 page 47.]
قال إسلاموب نت: مقبول
Islamweb.net says: “Accepted (Maqbul).” [Al-Mu’jam-ul-Kabir, Number 2590.]
قال محمد بن عيسى الترمذي: حسن غريب
Muhammad Ibn Isa At-Tirmidhi says: “Good (Hasan), strange (Gharib).” [Sunan At-Tirmidhi, Hadith 1053.]
قال الحاكم النيسابوري: هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد ولم يخرجاه
Al-Hakim An-Naisaburi says: “The tradition is authentic (Sahih) according to its chain, but the two (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not publish it.” [Al-Mustadrak Ala As-Sahihain, Hadith 6995]
قال ابن حجر العسقلاني: أخرجه الطَبراني وفيه دليلٌ على أن الصَبي ليست له عروة
Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani says: “At-Tabarani reported it and it is a proof, that a little child has no nakedness to cover.” [Ad-Dirayah Fi Takhrij Ahadith Al-Hidayah, page 124]
Anyhow, this same tradition was also recorded from another chain of narrators by Ibn Abi Layla. Imam Bayhiqi recorded it in his book (link):
أنبأ أبو بكر القاضي وأبو سعيد بن أبي عمرو قالا نا أبو العباس محمد بن يعقوب ثنا محمد بن إسحاق ثنا محمد بن عمران حدثني أبي حدثني بن أبي ليلى عن عيسى عن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى قال : كنا عند النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فجاء الحسن فأقبل يتمرغ عليه فرفع عن قميصه وقبل زبيبته
Abdul Rehman said: We were with the prophet (saw) when Hassan came to him. Then the messanger of Allah lift up his (al Hassan’s) shirt and kissed his penis. (al-Bayhiqi declared that it's chain of narrators is not strong)
All the narrators of this Hadith are trustworthy, except for Muhammad ibn Abi Layla.
Nevertheless, none blamed Muhammad ibn Abi Layla to be a liar. At maximum, they objected that his memory is not strong. But according to their own rules of Ilm-ul-Hadith (i.e. Science of Hadith), a Hadith cannot be rejected completely only one the basis of weak memory of one narrator. A weak memory can cause small mistakes like change of names e.g. taking name of Hassan instead of Hussain etc, but the whole incident is not rejected. Especially in such cases, when the same tradition has also been recorded by ANOTHER chain of narrators too (for example, Qabus also narrated same tradition from another chain of narration). Both of these two Ahadith, with entirely different chain of narrators are supporting and thus strengthening each other and together they bring it to the level of Sahih (authentic) Hadith.
That is why Ibn Kathir wrote in his book al-Badaya wa al-Nahaya (link):
وهو أكبر ولد أبويه وقد كان رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله) يحبه حباً شديداً حتى كان يقبل زبيبته وهو صغير وربما مص لسانه واعتنقه وداعبه.
Hassan was the eldest one among his siblings and the messenger of Allah loved him so strongly that he used to kiss his penis. And while Hassan was a little boy, that is why he also sucked his penis with his tongue.
This Hadith is even part of Islamic Fiqh
Muslim Scholars of Fiqh use only those Ahadith in Fiqh Rulings, which they consider to be authentic enough for this purpose. And they indeed considered this Hadith of kissing the penis of Hassan to be strong enough to be used in Fiqh Rulings i.e. they allow in general to kiss the penis of a small boy.
Ibn Qadama wrote in his Fiqh book 'Al-Mughani' (link):
وعن الزهري و الأوزاعي لا وضوء على من مس ذكر الصغير لأنه يجوز مسه والنظر إليه وقد روي عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم أنه قبل زبيبة الحسن وروي وروي أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم مس زبيبة الحسن ولم يتوضأ
According to Imam Zuhri and Imam al-Owza'ii it is not needed to do Wadhu (ritual washing) again after touching the penis of a small boy, and it is also also allowed to see and touch it. And it is narrated from the Messanger of Islam (saw) that he kissed the penis of al-Hassan and he didn't do his Wadhu again.
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote in his Fatwa book 'مجموع الفتاوی' (link):
قال أحمد بن تيمية: وقد كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقبل زبيبة الحسن
Ahmad bin Taymiyyah said: The Messanger of Allah (saw) used to kiss the penis of al-Hassan.
And Imam al-Nawawi wrote in his Fiqh Book (link):
قال يحيى بن شرف النووي: وقال بعض أهل العلم ينقض مسه ذكر نفسه دون غيره واحتج لهؤلاء بحديث طلق بن علي رضي الله عنه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم سئل عن مس الذكر في الصلاة فقال: هل هو إلا بضعة منك وعن أبي ليلى قال كنا عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأقبل الحسن يتمرغ عليه فرفع عن قميصه وقبل زبيبته ولأنه مس عضوا منه فلم ينقض كسائر الأعضاء واحتج أصحابنا بحديث بسرة وهو صحيح كما قدمنا بيانه وبحديث أم حبيبة قالت: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: من مس فرجه فليتوضأ قال البيهقي: قال الترمذي سألت أبا زرعة عن حديث أم حبيبة فاستحسنه قال ورأيته يعده محفوظا
“Some of the people of knowledge say: ,,The ablution is broken by touching one’s own penis excluding the other.” And I reply to these people with the proof of the tradition of Talq Ibn Ali, may God be pleased with him, that the Messenger (s.) was asked about touching from the penis in prayer, whereupon he said: “Should it be something other than a piece of you?” And through Abu Lailah, who said: “We were with the Prophet Muhammad (s.), whereupon Al-Hasan came rolling on him. Then he removed his shirt and kissed his penis.” And because he touched a part of his body,the ablution was not broken like the rest of the body parts and our companions prove it with the narration of Busrah and it is authentic (Sahih) just as we have submitted its explanation and in a narration Umm Habibah said: “I heard the Prophet Muhammad (s.) say: “Whoever touches his own private parts should perform the ablution.” Al-Baihaqi commented that At-Tirmidhi said: “I asked Abu Zur’ah about the narration of Umm Habibah, whereupon he considered it good (Hasan).” He said: “I saw him considering it as being preserved.” [Al-Majmu’, Vol. 2 pp. 46 – 47]
Thus:
– An-Nawawi takes the report as evidence
– He does not reject the intimate kiss
– He accepts that the Prophet (s.) kissed the part
– He explains the intimate kiss in accordance with ablution
– He proves the evidence through his companions
– He confirms that it is authentic (Sahih)(link)
Imam Ibn Hajar, after quoting this narration in his book Al-Dariyah fi Takhrij Ahadith al-Hidayah, writes (link):
قال ابن حجر العسقلاني: أخرجه الطَبراني وفيه دليلٌ على أن الصَبي ليست له عروة
"Al-Tabarani narrated it, and it contains evidence that a small child does not have 'Awrah (the part of the body that must be covered)."
If a mother touches or holds such parts of a child's body while cleaning or taking care of them, there is nothing improper about it. However, kissing those parts (even if done by the mother) is an act contrary to natural decency.
Muslim Defence 1: This practice is also found in other religions
One person, in defence of the Prophet, has written:
This act has been a common practice in various cultures around the world. Jews still suck the blood from penis after circumcision.
Our Response: Muslims argue that it was an expression of intense love and had no connection to lust.
The problem is that even if one accepts this argument under the assumption of "good intent," it remains extremely difficult to justify this act from a rational or natural perspective.
If people can use this excuse to kiss the penis of a male child, then they can also use the same excuse to tickle the body parts of a female child.
It is precisely due to this natural disposition that Muslims today do not practice this Sunnah. Instead, they find the act repulsive and attempt to distance themselves from it by labelling the relevant Hadiths as weak (Da'if).
It should have been known to Allah and the Prophet that the genital area harbours more disease-causing germs and that this is not a good practice. This is likely why this custom naturally disappeared worldwide over time.
If a false tradition goes against humanity and natural disposition, it will always be criticized and condemned, regardless of which culture it originates from or even if it is practised worldwide. If the Prophet truly came to save humanity from wrong practices, he should have ended such a harmful tradition instead of perpetuating it.
Natural disposition is neither tied to religion nor culture, but rather to humanity itself. That is why, humanity within us automatically guide us that such actions are bad. That is why marriage of small girls is opposed. That is why criticism is present when the prophet married a 9 year-old-girl. If any DIVINE and 100% perfect Allah is present in the heavens, then He should have abolished this practice, instead of supporting it and making it Halal by letting the prophet marry such a 9-year-old girl.
This is why Muslims themselves have abandoned this Sunnah of their Prophet and are now trying to dismiss it by labelling it as a weak Hadith. If the same act had been done by a non-Muslim instead of the Prophet of Islam, Muslims would never have forgiven it under the guise of "intense love" and would have strongly condemned it.
Until Muslims were unaware that their Prophet also practised this, they used to mock and criticize Jews for it. But now that they have learned about it, even the actions of Jews in this regard have become acceptable and praiseworthy to them.
Muslim Defence 2: First prove the concept of nature, and answer the issue of oral sex among adults.
One individual has raised this objection:
If the genital area contains germs, odors, and is repulsive, then oral sex among adults would also go against natural disposition. So why is it supported by the West and the atheist community?
Additionally, first prove the existence of natural disposition, because Michael Foucault and many modern philosophers reject the notion that such a thing as human nature exists.
In today's era, even LGBT (including homosexuality) is being labeled as natural. What is your opinion on this—do you consider LGBT a part of natural disposition? Is the West promoting it for this reason?
Our Response:
Muslims often believe that their God is 100% perfect and has created the world in a flawless, 100% perfect way.
However, from our perspective, the world is far from perfect. Nature follows its own course, evolving as it sees fit. To survive, humans must adapt, make compromises, and align themselves with the realities imposed by nature.
Take oral sex among adults as an example—it's certainly not a perfect practice. Genital areas carry germs, there is a risk of disease, unpleasant odours are present, and many people find the act distasteful.
Yet, the paradox of nature lies in the human sexual drive, which overrides feelings of repulsion or concerns about hygiene and health. In pursuit of sexual gratification, people make compromises and engage in these acts despite the risks involved.
But there is no such intense sexual gratification involved in the case of child that people have to make compromise. Instead of sucking the child's penis (which has germs and odour and danger of diseases), one can simply kiss on cheeks, forehead, or hands to show love.
You mentioned Michael Foucault and other philosophers to question the concept of natural disposition. Here's the response: If we were debating with those philosophers, we would certainly engage in a discussion about the existence of natural disposition. However, this debate is between you Muslims and us. Since Muslims acknowledge natural disposition and often use it as a basis to oppose homosexuality, it is entirely valid to present arguments rooted in natural disposition against you. You cannot simply deny its relevance when it challenges your position.
This is why it’s surprising when Muslims undermine or distort the concept of natural disposition but still claim that Islam is the "religion of nature."
Regarding your objection to homosexuality, the response aligns with the earlier discussion on oral sex. Despite the associated discomfort or repulsion, nature's irony is that for same-sex individuals, this act is the only way to achieve sexual satisfaction. Without it, their lives can spiral into distress—they may develop mental health issues or even become suicidal. For them, compromising in this way becomes necessary to maintain their well-being.
If a 100% perfect God does exist, then even He forgot to create things in a 100% perfect manner, making this compromise necessary.
Hassan Radwan
