Tawḍīḥ al-AḥkāmAbd Allah al-Bassam

71 – On the authority of ʿAbd Allah ibn Abi Bakr (may Allah have mercy on him): “In the letter that Allah’s Messenger ﷺ wrote to ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm it is stated: ‘No one is to touch the Qur’an except one who is ritually pure.’” Mālik related it as a mursal report, while al-Nasāʾī and Ibn Ḥibbān supplied a connected chain, yet the report remains defective.⦗1⦘

Grade of the ḥadith:
The ḥadith is ṣaḥīḥ (sound).

Nevertheless, the ḥadith specialists have disagreed over its authenticity. Abū Dāwūd said: “This ḥadith has been transmitted with a chain, but it is not sound; the narrator listed as Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd is a mistake—the correct name is Sulaymān ibn Arqam.” Abū Zurʿah al-Dimashqī said the same, and was followed by Ṣāliḥ Jazrah and Abū’l-Ḥasan al-Harawī.

Al-Nasāʾī likewise remarked: “This is closer to the correct version,” meaning that the narrator is Sulaymān ibn Arqam.

Ibn Ḥazm said: “The document of ʿAmr ibn Ḥazm is disconnected and cannot serve as proof, and Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd is unanimously abandoned.”

Ibn Ḥibbān observed: “Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Yamāmī is weak, whereas Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd al-Khawlānī is reliable; both narrate from al-Zuhri. The person who transmitted the charity regulations is the Khawlānī. Those who graded the report weak did so only because they thought the narrator was al-Yamāmī.”

Ibn Ḥajar said: “Had it not already been shown that al-Ḥakam ibn Mūsa erred when he named the narrator as Sulaymān ibn Dāwūd—when in fact it is Sulaymān ibn Arqam—Ibn Ḥibbān’s statement would have weight.” The ḥadith was declared authentic by al-Ḥākim, Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Bayhaqī, and it is related from Aḥmad that he said, “I hope it is sound.”

(1) Malik, no. 468; al-Nasai, no. 4853; Ibn Hibban, 14/504.
٧١ - وَعَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ ﵀: "أَنَّ فِي الْكِتَابِ الَّذِي كَتَبَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ﷺ لِعَمْرِو بْنِ حَزْمٍ: أَنْ لَا يَمَسَّ الْقُرْآنَ إِلَّا طَاهِرٌ" رَوَاهُ مَالِكٌ مُرْسَلًا, وَوَصَلَهُ النَّسَائِيُّ, وَابْنُ حِبَّانَ, وَهُوَ مَعْلُولٌ (١). ــ * درجة الحديث: الحديث صحيح. إلاَّ أَنَّ المُحَدِّثِيْنَ اخْتَلَفُوا في صحَّة هَذا الحديث، فقال أبو داود: قد أُسْنِدَ هذا الحديث ولا يصح، والذي في إسناده سليمان بن داود وهمٌ، إنَّما هو سليمان بن أرقم، وهَكَذَا قالَ أَبُو زرعة الدمشقي: إنَّه الصَّوَاب، وتبعه صالح جزرة، وأبو الحسن الهروي. وَقالَ النَّسائِيُّ: وهذا أشبه بالصواب (يعني: عن سليمان بن أرقم). وقال ابن حزم: صحيفة عمرو بن حزم منقطعة لا تقوم بها حجَّة، وسليمان بن داود متفق على تركه. قَالَ ابن حبَّان: سليمان بن داود اليمامي ضعيف، وسليمان بن داود الخولاني ثقة، وكلاهما يروي عن الزهري، والذي روى حديث الصدقات هو الخولاني، فمن ضعَّفه فإنَّما ظنَّ أنَّ الرَّاوي له هو اليمامي. قَالَ ابن حجر: ولولا ما تقدَّم من أنَّ الحكم بن موسى وهم في قوله: سليمان بن داود، وإنَّما هو سليمان بن أرقم، لكان لكلام ابن حبَّان وجه. وصحَّحه الحاكم، وابن حبَّان، والبيهقي، ونقل عن أحمد أنه قال: أرجو أن يكون صحيحًا.
(١) مالك (٤٦٨)، النسائي (٤٨٥٣)، ابن حبَّان (١٤/ ٥٠٤).

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies