Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ - Shams al‑Din al‑Dhahabi - (5/174)

Siyar Aʿlām al-NubalāʾShams al‑Din al‑Dhahabi

As for the objection raised by some—that it is a ṣaḥīfah (a written collection) and that it has been transmitted only by wijādah (1) (discovering it in writing) without direct audition—their reasoning is that written manuscripts are prone to taṣḥīf (scribal distortion), especially in that period when the pages were still without vowel markings or diacritical dots, unlike taking the material from the mouths of living transmitters.

Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said: “He is trustworthy; the difficulty lies in the book his father possessed from his grandfather.”

Among those who wavered and felt perplexed about ʿAmr was Abū Ḥātim ibn Ḥibbān. In his book al-Ḍuʿafāʾ he wrote:

“If he narrates from Ṭāwūs, Ibn al-Musayyib, and other reliable authorities besides his father, he is reliable and one may cite his reports as proof. But when he narrates ‘from his father, from his grandfather,’ there are many objectionable reports, and in my view it is not permissible to adduce them.

Moreover, whenever he says ‘from his father, from his grandfather,’ Shuʿayb never met ʿAbd Allah, so the report is munqaṭiʿ (broken); and if by ‘his grandfather’ he means the nearer ancestor, Muḥammad, he was not a Companion, so the report is mursal (2).”

I reply: We have already answered this and have made it clear that Shuʿayb kept company with his grandfather and transmitted from him.

Ibn Abī ʿUmar informed us in his book from al-Ṣaydilānī; Fāṭimah al-Jawzdāniyyah informed us; Ibn Rīdhah informed us; al-Ṭabarānī informed us; ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and al-Kajjī narrated to us; they said:

Ḥajjāj narrated to us—al-Ṭabarānī added:

“And Jaʿfar ibn Muḥammad ibn…"

(1) In the technical usage of hadith scholars, *wijada* (transmission by finding manuscripts) refers to a narrator’s discovery of reports written in the handwriting of another transmitter—whether or not he ever met or heard from that transmitter—or his discovery of hadiths in the books of well-known authors. In all such cases he may not relate the material from its presumed transmitters with a regular isnad; instead he should say, “I found this in the handwriting of so-and-so,” provided he recognizes and trusts the script, or simply state, “So-and-so said …” and the like. The majority of hadith critics and the Maliki jurists, among others, consider it impermissible to act upon hadiths received solely through *wijada*. Al-Shafi‘i and the leading scholars of his school deem it permissible, and some later authorities even declare it obligatory once reliable attribution is established. This latter opinion is the sound one for the later periods, for if practical use depended on formal oral transmission, much of the transmitted legacy would become inaccessible when those conditions cannot be met. Hence, if the researcher is confident that the book is authentically ascribed to its author and that the author is trustworthy, he is obliged to use the hadiths it contains whose individual chains are sound. (2) Ibn Hibban, Kitab al-Majruhin wa-l-Du‘afa, vol. 2, p. 72.

وَأَمَّا تَعْلِيْلُ بَعْضِهِم بِأَنُّهَا صَحِيْفَةٌ، وَرِوَايَتُهَا وِجَادَةً (١) بِلاَ سَمَاعٍ، فَمِنْ جِهَةٍ أَنَّ الصُّحُفَ يَدْخُلُ فِي رِوَايَتِهَا التَّصْحِيْفُ لاَ سِيَّمَا فِي ذَلِكَ العَصْرِ، إِذْ لاَ شَكْلَ بَعْدُ فِي الصُّحُفِ وَلاَ نَقْطَ، بِخِلاَفِ الأَخْذِ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِ الرِّجَالِ. قَالَ يَحْيَى بنُ مَعِيْنٍ: هُوَ ثِقَةٌ، بُلِيَ بِكِتَابِ أَبِيْهِ عَنْ جَدِّهِ. وَمِمَّنْ تَرَدَّدَ وَتَحَيَّرَ فِي عَمْرٍو أَبُو حَاتِمٍ بنُ حِبَّانَ، فَقَالَ فِي كِتَابِ (الضُّعَفَاءِ) : إِذَا رَوَى عَنْ طَاوُوْسٍ، وَابْنِ المُسَيِّبِ، وَغَيْرِهِمَا مِنَ الثِّقَاتِ غَيْرَ أَبِيْهِ، فَهُوَ ثِقَةٌ، يَجُوْزُ الاحْتِجَاجُ بِهِ، وَإِذَا رَوَى عَنْ أَبِيْهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، فَفِيْهِ مَنَاكِيْرُ كَثِيْرَةٌ، فَلاَ يَجُوْزُ عِنْدِي الاحْتِجَاجُ بِذَلِكَ. قَالَ: وَإِذَا رَوَى عَنْ أَبِيْهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، فَإِنَّ شُعَيْباً لَمْ يَلْقَ عَبْدَ اللهِ، فَيَكُوْنُ الخَبَرُ مُنْقَطِعاً، وَإِذَا أَرَادَ بِهِ جَدَّهُ الأَدْنَى، فَهُوَ مُحَمَّدٌ، وَلاَ صُحْبَةَ لَهُ، فَيَكُوْنُ مُرْسَلاً (٢) . قُلْتُ: قَدْ أَجَبْنَا عَنْ هَذَا، وَأَعْلَمْنَا بِأَنَّ شُعَيْباً صَحِبَ جَدَّهُ، وَحَمَلَ عَنْهُ. وَأَخْبَرَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي عُمَرَ فِي كِتَابِهِ عَنِ الصَّيْدَلاَنِيِّ، أَخْبَرَتْنَا فَاطِمَةُ الجُوْزْدَانِيَّةُ، أَنْبَأَنَا ابْنُ رِيْذَةَ، أَنْبَأَنَا الطَّبَرَانِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا عَلِيُّ بنُ عَبْدِ العَزِيْزِ، وَالكَجِّيُّ، قَالاَ: حَدَّثَنَا حَجَّاجٌ، قَالَ الطَّبَرَانِيُّ: وَحَدَّثَنَا جَعْفَرُ بنُ مُحَمَّدِ بنِ

(١) الوجادة في اصطلاح المحدثين: هو أن يقف الراوي على أحاديث بخط راويها، سواء لقيه أو سمع منه أم لم يلقه، ولم يسمع منه، أو وجد أحاديث في كتب مؤلفين معروفين، ففي هذه الانواع كلها لا يجوز أن يرويها عن أصحابها، بل يقول: وجدت بخط فلان إذا عرف الخط ووثق منه، أو يقول: قال فلان ونحو ذلك وقد نقل عن أكثر المحدثين وفقهاء المالكية وغيرهم أن العمل بالاحاديث التي يتحملها بها غير جائز، ونقل عن الشافعي والمحققين من أصحابه جوازه، وذهب بعض المحققين إلى وجوب العمل بها عند حصول الثقة بما وجده، وهذا هو الصحيح الذي لا يتجه غيره في الاعصار المتأخرة، فإنه لو توقف العمل فيها على الرواية، لانسد باب العمل بالمنقول لتعذر شرط الرواية فيها، فإذا اطمأن الباحث إلى صحة نسبة الكتاب إلى مؤلفه، وكان ثقة مأمونا، وجب أن يعمل بما فيه من الأحاديث التي يصح سندها. (٢) كتاب المجروحين والضعفاء ٢ / ٧٢.