Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ - Shams al‑Din al‑Dhahabi - (8/465)

Siyar Aʿlām al-NubalāʾShams al‑Din al‑Dhahabi

And it is related from Ibn ʿUyaynah that he said, “Scrupulous piety is the pursuit of the knowledge through which piety is understood.”

Sulaymān ibn Ayyūb narrated: “I heard Sufyān ibn ʿUyaynah say, ‘I have attended the standing on the Plain of ʿArafah eighty times.’”

It is also reported that at every such standing Sufyān would supplicate, “O Allah, do not make this the last meeting with You.” In the year he died, however, he offered no such prayer and remarked, “I felt shy before Allah, exalted be He.”

Sufyān had several brothers—among them ʿImrān ibn ʿUyaynah, Ibrāhīm ibn ʿUyaynah, Ādam ibn ʿUyaynah, and Muḥammad ibn ʿUyaynah—and these likewise transmitted ḥadith.

Sufyān was known for practising tadlīs, the concealment of an intermediary in transmission. He would sometimes take reports that had reached him of al-Zuhrī’s ḥadith, omit the name of the one who conveyed them to him, and relate them in that disguised form; nevertheless, he practised tadlīs only when the intermediary was, in his view, trustworthy (1).

As for the claim transmitted from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd al-Qaṭṭān that he said, “Bear witness that Ibn ʿUyaynah became confused in the year 179 AH,” this statement is anomalous, unsound, and untenable. Yaḥyā al-Qaṭṭān died in Ṣafar, 189 AH, when the pilgrims were returning from ḥajj. Who, then, informed him of Sufyān’s supposed confusion, and when could he have uttered such a remark?

(1) Ibn Hibban states in his Sahih, p. 122: “As for the mudallisun (narrators who sometimes omit an intermediary) who are nonetheless trustworthy and upright, we do not cite their reports as evidence unless they explicitly mention having heard the hadith—such is the case with al-Thawri, al-Aʿmash, Abu Ishaq and their peers among the God-fearing imams. Indeed, if we were to accept the report of a mudallis who has not clarified his hearing—even though he is reliable—we would then be obliged to accept every maqtuʿ (disconnected) or mursal (missing Companion) report, for the mudallis may well have concealed a weak transmitter whose weakness would be obvious were he named. The only exception is when it is known that the mudallis never practised tadlis except from a reliable authority. In that case we accept his report even if he omits the hearing—and there is, in fact, no one in the world who meets this criterion except Sufyan ibn ʿUyaynah alone. Although he did practise tadlis, he did so only from meticulous, trustworthy transmitters, and virtually every hadith in which Sufyan employs tadlis can also be found with an explicit isnad that shows he heard it directly from someone as reliable as himself.”

وَعَنِ ابْنِ عُيَيْنَةَ، قَالَ: الوَرَعُ طَلَبُ العِلْمِ الَّذِي بِهِ يُعْرَفُ الوَرَعُ. رَوَى: سُلَيْمَانُ بنُ أَيُّوْبَ: سَمِعْتُ سُفْيَانَ بنَ عُيَيْنَةَ يَقُوْلُ: شَهِدْتُ ثَمَانِيْنَ مَوْقِفاً. وَيُرْوَى: أَنَّ سُفْيَانَ كَانَ يَقُوْلُ فِي كُلِّ مَوْقِفٍ: اللَّهُمَّ لاَ تَجْعَلْهُ آخِرَ العَهدِ مِنْكَ، فَلَمَّا كَانَ العَامُ الَّذِي مَاتَ فِيْهِ، لَمْ يَقُلْ شَيْئاً، وَقَالَ: قَدِ اسْتَحْيَيتُ مِنَ اللهِ -تَعَالَى-. وَقَدْ كَانَ لِسُفْيَانَ عِدَّةُ إِخْوَةٍ، مِنْهُم: عِمْرَانُ بنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، وَإِبْرَاهِيْمُ بنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، وَآدَمُ بنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، فَهَؤُلاَءِ قَدْ رَوَوُا الحَدِيْثَ. وَقَدْ كَانَ سُفْيَانُ مَشْهُوْراً بِالتَّدْلِيسِ، عَمَدَ إِلَى أَحَادِيْثَ رُفِعَتْ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ حَدِيْثِ الزُّهْرِيِّ، فَيَحذِفُ اسْمَ مَنْ حَدَّثَهُ وَيُدَلِّسُهَا، إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ لاَ يُدَلِّسُ إِلاَّ عَنْ ثِقَةٍ عِنْدَهُ (١) . فَأَمَّا مَا بَلَغَنَا عَنْ يَحْيَى بنِ سَعِيْدٍ القَطَّانِ، أَنَّهُ قَالَ: اشْهَدُوا أَنَّ ابْنَ عُيَيْنَةَ اخْتُلِطَ سَنَةَ سَبْعٍ وَتِسْعِيْنَ وَمائَةٍ، فَهَذَا مُنْكَرٌ مِنَ القَوْلِ، وَلاَ يَصِحُّ، وَلاَ هُوَ بِمُسْتقِيْمٍ، فَإِنَّ يَحْيَى القَطَّانَ مَاتَ فِي صَفَرٍ، سَنَةَ ثَمَانٍ وَتِسْعِيْنَ، مَعَ قُدُوْمِ الوَفْدِ مِنَ الحَجِّ، فَمَنِ الَّذِي أَخْبَرَهُ باخْتِلاَطِ سُفْيَانَ، وَمتَى لَحِقَ أَنْ يَقُوْلَ هَذَا

(١) قال ابن حبان في " صحيحه ": ١٢٢: وأما المدلسون الذين هم ثقات وعدول، فإنا لا نحتج بأخبارهم إلا ما بينوا السماع فيما رووا مثل الثوري، والاعمش، وأبي إسحاق وأضرابهم من الأئمة المتقين، وأهل الورع والدين، لانا متى قبلنا خبر مدلس لم يبين السماع فيه وإن كان ثقة، لزمنا قبول المقاطيع والمراسيل كلها لأنها لا يدرى لعله هذا المدلس دلس هذا الخبر عن ضعيف يهي الخبر بذكره إذا عرف. اللهم إلا أن يكون المدلس يعلم أنه ما دلس قط إلا عن ثقة، فإذا كان كذلك، قبلت روايته، وإن لم يبين السماع، وهذا ليس في الدنيا إلا سفيان بن عيينة وحده، فإنه كان يدلس، ولا يدلس إلا عن ثقة متقن، ولا يكاد يوجد لسفيان بن عيينة خبر دلس فيه إلا وجد ذلك الخبر بعينه قد بين سماعه عن ثقة مثل نفسه.