1/143:
“The upright jurist is accepted in all matters.”

I say: It is obvious to everyone that this sweeping principle covers the case in which a trustworthy Successor says, “Someone who heard the Prophet ﷺ narrated to me,” or the like, as occurs here. Therefore Ibn Ḥazm’s stipulation that the Companion must be named—as his criticism of this ḥadīth indicates, and as he states explicitly elsewhere in al-Iḥkām 2/3 and 83—not only clashes with the very general rule he has just set forth, a rule acknowledged by the hadith scholars, but also rests on no evidence whatsoever.

Moreover, Imām al-Bukhārī has preferred—as we noted on p. 50—the view that the Companion in question is Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī, a well-known Companion; al-Ḥāfiẓ inclined to the same conclusion (10/55) and, after citing the Imām’s preference, said:

“Uncertainty regarding a Companion’s name is of no consequence, as is established in the science of hadith; hence no heed is to be paid to those who fault the report on that basis, especially since the preponderant view is that it is from Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī, a famous Companion.”

I say: Even in Ibn Ḥazm’s own work I have found that he adduces as evidence in al-Iḥkām 4/31 the very isnād cited earlier on pp. 44–45: Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ—from Ḥātim ibn Ḥurayth—from Mālik ibn Abī Maryam—ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ghanm narrated to us, saying, “Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī informed us that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say:

“Some people from my ummah will certainly drink wine, calling it by other names.”