Al-Radd al-Mufhim - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (84)

In al-Dhahabī’s al-Kāshif we read:
“Al-Bukhārī said, ‘People question his memory, yet it is still acceptable.’ Duhaym said, ‘Trustworthy; our teachers considered him reliable.’”

Al-Dhahabī cites none of the statements that disparage him, which means that in his judgment the narrator is acceptable. This is further supported by the fact that al-Dhahabī includes him in his book Maʿrifat al-Ruwwāt al-Mutakallam Fīhim bimā Lā Yūjib al-Radd (pp. 112–144), where he writes:
“Shuʿbah and others declared him trustworthy, while al-Bukhārī said, ‘People question his memory,’ and al-Nasāʾī said, ‘Weak.’”

I say: These passages from the leading authorities—taken from the very sources to which al-Sindī directed the readers—make it abundantly clear that he concealed pertinent information. They do not show that this Saʿīd is so weak that he cannot serve as corroborative evidence. On the contrary, if they do not place him squarely in the middle tier whose ḥadīths are cited, they at least show that he is to be considered and that his reports strengthen a narration. Al-Zaylaʿī stated this explicitly in Naṣb al-Rāyah (1/74) after quoting some of the remarks mentioned above:
“The least that can be said about someone like this is that he may be used for corroboration.”

[84]

٦ - " الكاشف " للذهبي قال: قال البخاري: يتكلمون في حفظه وهو محتمل وقال دحيم: ثقة كان مشيختنا يوثقونه ولم يذكر الذهبي شيئا من أقوال من جرحه فهذا معناه أنه مقبول عنده ويؤيده أنه أورده في كتابه: " معرفة الرواة المتكلم فيهم بما لا يوجب الرد (ص ١١٢ - ١٤٤) : وثقه شعبة وغيره وقال البخاري: يتكلمون في حفظه قال النسائي: ضعيف قلت: فهذه النصوص من هؤلاء الأئمة - ومن المصادر التي أحال السندي القراء إليها - تؤكد بكل وضوح أنه كان يدلس على القراء لأنها لا تدل على أن سعيدا هذا ضعيف جدا لا يصلح للاستشهاد به بل هي إن لم تدل على أنه وسط يستدل بحديثه فهي على الأقل تدل على أنه يعتبر ويتقوى به وهذا ما صرح به الزيلعي فقال في " نصب الراية " (١ / ٧٤) - بعد أن ذكر بعض ما قيل فيه مما تقدم -: وأقل أحوال مثل هذا أن يستشهد به [٨٤]