Minhaj as-Sunnah - Ibn Taimiya - (7/195)

Minhaj as-SunnahIbn Taimiya

The answer may be given from several angles:

First, they must establish the authenticity of the report. Merely attributing it to a narration by Abū Nu‘aym does not(1), by consensus, constitute proof. Abū Nu‘aym has a well-known book on “The Virtues of the Companions” (2), and he also mentioned a selection of their virtues at the beginning of al-Hilyah. If they invoke his narrations as proof, he narrated concerning the virtues of Abū Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthmān that which demolishes their edifice and tears down its pillars. But if they [do not](3) invoke his narrations as proof, they cannot rely upon his transmission.

As for what he and others narrated, we refer it to the experts in this discipline and to the methods by which the truth or falsity of a hadith is determined. This entails examining its chain of transmission and its narrators: whether they are reliable and whether they heard from one another. We also examine the hadith’s corroborating reports and whatever indicates, [regarding it](4), either of the two conclusions. We make no distinction between reports concerning the virtues of Alī and those concerning the virtues of anyone else. Whatever is established as true, we affirm as true; and whatever is false, we reject as false.

Thus, we bring forward the truth and affirm it: we neither lie nor declare a truthful person a liar. This is well known among the leading scholars of the Sunnah. As for anyone who fabricates a lie against Allah or denies(5) the truth, we must declare him false in both his lying and his denial of the truth, as with the followers of Musaylimah

(1) N, M, and S read *fa-laysat* (“thus it is not”). (2) A biographical notice of Abū Nuaym Ahmad ibn Abd Allāh al-Asbahānī appeared several pages earlier. Al-Ziriklī states in *al-Alām*, vol. 1, p. 150, that he authored the substantial work *Marifat al-Sahābah* (Knowledge of the Companions), portions of which survive in a single manuscript volume. Al-Dhahabī said of him in *Mīzān al-Itidāl*: “Al-Khatīb said, ‘I observed some matters in which Abū Nuaym was lax. One was that, when transmitting by *ijāzah* (authorization), he would use *akhbaranā* (“he informed us”) without specifying the mode of transmission.’ I say: ‘This is a position held by Abū Nuaym and others, and it is a form of *tadlīs* (concealment of the mode of transmission). Ibn Mandah’s remarks concerning Abū Nuaym are appalling, and I do not wish to relate them. Nor do I accept what either man said about the other; rather, I regard both as acceptable. I know of no greater fault committed by either of them than transmitting fabricated reports without identifying them as such.’” (3) *Lā* (“not”) is omitted from N and S. (4) *Alayhi* (“regarding it”) appears only in B. (5) S and B read *wa-kadhdhaba* (“and denied [the truth]”).

وَالْجَوَابُ مِنْ وُجُوهٍ: أَحَدُهَا: الْمُطَالَبَةُ بِصِحَّةِ النَّقْلِ. وَأَمَّا مُجَرَّدُ الْعَزْوِ إِلَى رِوَايَةِ أَبِي نُعَيْمٍ فَلَيْسَ (١) حُجَّةً بِالِاتِّفَاقِ. وَأَبُو نُعَيْمٍ لَهُ كِتَابٌ مَشْهُورٌ فِي " فَضَائِلِ الصَّحَابَةِ " (٢) ، وَقَدْ ذَكَرَ قِطْعَةً مِنَ الْفَضَائِلِ فِي أَوَّلِ " الْحِلْيَةِ " ، فَإِنْ كَانُوا يَحْتَجُّونَ بِمَا رَوَاهُ، فَقَدْ رَوَى فِي فَضَائِلِ أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ وَعُثْمَانَ مَا يُنْقِضُ بُنْيَانَهُمْ وَيَهْدِمُ أَرْكَانَهُمْ، وَإِنْ كَانُوا [لَا] (٣) يَحْتَجُّونَ بِمَا رَوَاهُ فَلَا يَعْتَمِدُونَ عَلَى نَقْلِهِ، وَنَحْنُ نَرْجِعُ فِيمَا رَوَاهُ - هُوَ وَغَيْرُهُ - إِلَى أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِهَذَا الْفَنِّ وَالطُّرُقِ الَّتِي بِهَا يُعْلَمُ صِدْقُ الْحَدِيثِ وَكَذِبُهُ، مِنَ النَّظَرِ فِي إِسْنَادِهِ وَرِجَالِهِ، وَهَلْ هُمْ ثِقَاتٌ سَمِعَ بَعْضُهُمْ مِنْ بَعْضٍ أَمْ لَا؟ وَنَنْظُرُ إِلَى شَوَاهِدِ الْحَدِيثِ وَمَا يَدُلُّ [عَلَيْهِ] (٤) عَلَى أَحَدِ الْأَمْرَيْنِ، لَا فَرْقَ عِنْدَنَا بَيْنَ مَا يُرْوَى فِي فَضَائِلِ عَلِيٍّ أَوْ فَضَائِلِ غَيْرِهِ، فَمَا ثَبَتَ أَنَّهُ صِدْقٌ صَدَّقْنَاهُ، وَمَا كَانَ كَذِبًا كَذَّبْنَاهُ. فَنَحْنُ نَجِيءُ بِالصِّدْقِ وَنُصَدِّقُ بِهِ، لَا نَكْذِبُ، وَلَا نُكَذِّبُ صَادِقًا. وَهَذَا مَعْرُوفٌ عِنْدَ أَئِمَّةِ السُّنَّةِ. وَأَمَّا مَنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللَّهِ كَذِبًا أَوْ كَذَّبَ (٥) بِالْحَقِّ، فَعَلَيْنَا أَنْ نُكَذِّبَهُ فِي كَذِبِهِ وَتَكْذِيبِهِ لِلْحَقِّ، كَأَتْبَاعِ مُسَيْلِمَةَ

(١) ن، م، س: فَلَيْسَتْ. (٢) سَبَقَتْ تَرْجَمَةُ أَبِي نُعَيْمٍ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْأَصْبَهَانِيِّ قَبْلَ صَفَحَاتٍ، وَذَكَرَ الزِّرِكْلِيُّ فِي " الْأَعْلَامِ " ١/١٥٠ أَنَّ لَهُ كِتَابَ " مَعْرِفَةِ الصَّحَابَةِ " كَبِيرٌ، بَقِيَتْ مِنْهُ أَجْزَاءٌ فِي مُجَلَّدٍ وَاحِدٍ مَخْطُوطٍ. وَقَالَ الذَّهَبِيُّ فِي " مِيزَانِ الِاعْتِدَالِ " عَنْهُ: " قَالَ الْخَطِيبُ: رَأَيْتُ لِأَبِي نُعَيْمٍ أَشْيَاءَ يَتَسَاهَلُ فِيهَا، مِنْهَا أَنَّهُ يُطْلِقُ فِي الْإِجَازَةِ أَخْبَرَنَا وَلَا يُبَيِّنُ. قُلْتُ: هَذَا مَذْهَبٌ رَآهُ أَبُو نُعَيْمٍ وَغَيْرُهُ، وَهُوَ ضَرْبٌ مِنَ التَّدْلِيسِ، وَكَلَامُ ابْنِ مَنْدَهْ فِي أَبِي نُعَيْمٍ فَظِيعٌ لَا أُحِبُّ حِكَايَتَهُ، وَلَا أَقْبَلُ قَوْلَ كُلٍّ مِنْهُمَا فِي الْآخَرِ، بَلْ هُمَا عِنْدِي مَقْبُولَانِ، لَا أَعْلَمُ لَهُمَا ذَنْبًا أَكْثَرَ مِنْ رِوَايَتِهِمَا الْمَوْضُوعَاتِ سَاكِتَيْنِ عَنْهَا ". (٣) لَا: سَاقِطَةٌ مِنْ (ن) ، (س) . (٤) عَلَيْهِ: فِي (ب) فَقَطْ. (٥) س، ب: وَكَذَّبَ.