“Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd never met Abū Umāmah, nor al-Ḥārith ibn al-Ḥārith, nor al-Miqdād. I also heard him say: ‘The report of Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd from Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī is mursal (missing the Companion).’ ”

Al-Albānī continues: “Al-Ḥāfiẓ then cited what had been said about Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd and took al-Mizzī to task; yet I am astonished that he himself, after criticising al-Mizzī, forgot to declare this ḥadith defective on account of this second flaw—namely, the break in the chain—although he did notice that very flaw in another narration which I have already discussed in this series (al-Ḍaʿīfah, 1510).

Still, there is nothing surprising in this; forgetfulness is part of human nature. I, too, have slipped in the same way: in al-Ṣaḥīḥah I cited a ḥadith under no. 1817, authenticating it in deference to al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī, even though this particular route is interrupted!”

I—Muḥammad—add: Its wording is: “Sweet is this world, bitter is the Hereafter; and bitter is this world, sweet is the Hereafter.” See al-Ṣaḥīḥah (1817) and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ (3155).

The Shaykh, may Allah have mercy on him, went on: “The same applies to ḥadith 225 of al-Ṣaḥīḥah, whereas I did notice the interruption in another narration which I quoted as supporting evidence under ḥadith 1502.”

I—Muḥammad—say: Its wording is: “The Promised Day is the Day of Resurrection; the Witness is Friday; the Attested is the Day of ʿArafah. Allah has set Friday aside for us, and the middle prayer is ʿAṣr.” The Shaykh cited it as a corroboration for ḥadith no. 1502 of al-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah (p. 5) and said: “Its transmitters are trustworthy except Ibn Ismāʿīl, and the chain is interrupted between Shurayḥ ibn ʿUbayd and Abū Mālik al-Ashʿarī.” See Ṣaḥīḥ al-Tirmidhī (2659), Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ (8200), and Hidāyat al-Ruāt (1311).

The Shaykh then said: “For that reason I have decided to remove ḥadith 225 from al-Ṣaḥīḥah unless I can find a sound supporting narration—which I consider unlikely—for al-Ḥāfiẓ also regarded it odd in Natāʾij al-Afkār (1/34), declared it weak because of Muḥammad ibn Ismāʿīl, and likewise failed to notice the interruption….”

Al-Silsilah al-Ḍaʿīfah – under ḥadith no. 5606, pp. 235–239

56 – ḥadith: “Whoever loves his worldly life harms his Hereafter, and whoever loves his Hereafter harms his worldly life; so prefer that which endures to that which perishes.” Al-Silsilah al-Ḍaʿīfah, no. 5650.

The publisher notes: In the Shaykh’s own manuscript above this text is written: “Transferred to al-Ṣaḥīḥah (3287); see the end of the takhrīj here.”

I say: The Shaykh wrote, “I later found a strong corroboration from Abū Hurayrah with similar wording, so I promptly included it in al-Ṣaḥīḥah (3287). Praise be to Allah for His grace.” (Al-Silsilah al-Ḍaʿīfah, vol. 12, p. 338)

The ḥadith referred to in al-Ṣaḥīḥah 3287 reads: “Whoever seeks the world harms the Hereafter, and whoever seeks the Hereafter harms the world; therefore harm that which perishes for the sake of that which abides.”

57 – ḥadith: “If a woman truly understood her husband’s right, she would not remain seated when his lunch or dinner is served until he has finished.”

The Shaykh graded it authentic in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Jāmiʿ (5259) and ascribed it to al-Ṣaḥīḥah (2166), but he removed it from the latter in the new al-Maʿārif edition, later declaring it weak in al-Silsilah al-Ḍaʿīfah, no. 5726.

He said: “I discovered an error of mine, probably provoked by an earlier mistake of al-Ḥāfiẓ, who had declared al-Bazzār’s chain ḥasan. When I examined al-Bazzār’s transmitters I assumed that ‘Faḍīl…’ was Faḍīl ibn ʿIyāḍ. Now the truth is clear: he is in fact Faḍīl ibn Sulaymān al-Nimīrī, and there is no basis for deeming the chain good, for the leading scholars are virtually unanimous in weakening al-Nimīrī. Accordingly, I have transferred the ḥadith from the Ṣaḥīḥah to the Ḍaʿīfah, since I have found no corroboration for it. Allah knows best.”
Vol. 12, pp. 503–506

58 – ḥadith: “The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, kissed ʿUthmān ibn Maʿẓūn on his cheek after he had died, and we do not know that he kissed anyone else besides him.”

Al-Albānī, may Allah have mercy on him, listed it in al-Ḍaʿīfah (6010) and labelled it munkar. He said: “I had graded the ḥadith weak in Mishkāt, then in Irwāʾ and elsewhere, but strengthened it in Aḥkām al-Janāʾiz (p. 21) on the basis of a fair supporting report I quoted from Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, which cites it from al-Bazzār. Once al-Haythamī’s edition of al-Bazzār’s Zawāʾid, titled Kashf al-Astār, was printed, we were able to examine its chain directly… Now that I have seen the chain, I have withdrawn my earlier strengthening, and it is to be removed from Ṣaḥīḥ Ibn Mājah and similar works.”
Vol. 13, pp. 27–29

I add: See Sunan Ibn Mājah (1456) and Mukhtaṣar al-Shamāʾil, 280.

———————————————

Muḥammad al-Ḥasan al-ʿĪdilī then corrected Muḥammad Abū ʿUmar, saying:

“May Allah reward our brother Muḥammad well. I have a few observations and amendments to what he has mentioned:

– Ḥadith no. 6, namely: ‘Do not be hard on yourselves…’. The Shaykh’s retraction of its weakness is clearly open to question, for he produced it in al-Ḍaʿīfah with the additional Qur’anic verse: ‘And monasticism which they invented—We did not prescribe it for them’ (Q 57:27). With this addition the report is weak, though not in its original wording, as the Shaykh clarified in his takhrīj of the ḥadith in vol. 7 of al-Ḍaʿīfah under no. 3467.

– Ḥadith no. 13: ‘O Allah, You are Pardoning, You love pardon, so pardon me.’”}