Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (2/710)

Silsilat al-Ahadith al-SahihahNasir al-Din al-Albani

concerning the hadith, as a second point in its favour. Shaykh Shu‘ayb’s overlooking of this fact is therefore incompatible with scholarly integrity, since it results in reversing the facts and portraying an authentic hadith as though it were defective.

Second: In my view, it is not permissible in critical assessment to give precedence to the denial of direct hearing over its affirmation, for this contradicts the agreed-upon principle: “Affirmative evidence takes precedence over negative evidence.” This is especially so when the one denying it has nothing but dates of death unsupported by any chain, merely disconnected assertions, whereas the one affirming it has an authentic chain. It is perhaps for this reason that al-Hafiz al-Mizzi, in his Tahdhib, indicated the weakness of the alleged break in the chain. After mentioning Abu Qilabah’s narration from Hudhayfah, he said:

“It has been said that he did not hear from him.”

What Shaykh Shu‘ayb did with this hadith closely resembles what his Hanafi colleagues did with Abu Hurayrah’s hadith concerning the story of Dhu al-Yadayn. In it, Abu Hurayrah explicitly stated that he had been present, saying: “The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, led us in prayer ...,” as recorded by al-Bukhari (1227) and others. Yet they denied this, clinging to al-Zuhri’s statement, which stops at the Successor level: that Dhu al-Yadayn was martyred at Badr, whereas Abu Hurayrah embraced Islam four years after Badr and thus could not have witnessed the incident. In this way, they rejected what is authentic on the basis of an unauthenticated statement of al-Zuhri. See Fath al-Bari (3/96–97).

Moreover, even if the dates of death of Hudhayfah and Abu Qilabah were assumed to be established, this would not entail a break in the chain unless Abu Qilabah’s date of birth were also established, such that it could be decisively determined that he had not lived long enough to meet Hudhayfah at a time when he could have received hadith from him—yet that is far from being established. Al-Dhahabi, one of the most knowledgeable authorities on history, denied such knowledge, saying in Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’ (4/468):

“I do not know when he was born.” And Allah knows best.

10–895. (The food most beloved to Allah is that over which many hands gather.)

I then found another supporting report for it from Anas, attributed to the Prophet, with the wording:

للحديث ثانيًا، ولذلك فتغاضي الشيخ شعيب عن هذه الحقيقة مما يتنافى مع الأمانة العلمية؛ لما يترتب عليه من قلب الحقائق، وإظهار الحديث الصحيح بمظهر الحديث المعلول! ثانيًا: لا يجوز -في نقدي- تقديم نفي السماع على إثباته لمخالفته القاعدة المتفق عليها: "المثبت مقدم على النافي"، ولا سيما والنافي ليس عنده إلا تاريخ الوفاة التي لا سند لها إلا أقوال معلقة، والمثبت معه السند الصحيح! وكأنه لذلك أشار الحافظ المزي في "تهذيبه" إلى تضعيف الانقطاع المذكور، فقال -وقد ذكر رواية أبي قلابة عن حذيفة-: "وقيل: لم يسمع منه". ويشبه ما فعله الشيخ شعيب بهذا الحديث -إلى حد كبير- ما صنعه أصحابه الحنفية بحديث أبي هريرة في قصة ذي اليدين التي صرح فيها أبو هريرة بأنه كان حاضرها بقوله: صلى بنا النبي ﷺ ... كما في البخاري (١٢٢٧) وغيره، فنفوا ذلك! متعلقين بقول الزهري المقطوع: إن ذا اليدين استشهد ببدر، وإسلام أبي هريرة كان بعد بدر بأربع سنين، فلم يشهد القصة، فردوا الصحيح بما لم يصح من قول الزهري، انظر "فتح الباري" (٣/٩٦-٩٧) . على أنه لو فرض ثبوت تاريخ وفاة حذيفة وأبي قلابة فذلك لا يعني الانقطاع؛ إلا لو ثبت مع ذلك تاريخ ولادة أبي قلابة؛ بحيث يقطع أنه لم يدرك حذيفة في وقت التحمل على الأقل، وهيهات! فقد نفى ذلك الذهبي -وهو من أعلم الناس بالتاريخ- فقال في "سير الأعلام" (٤/٤٦٨) : "ما علمت متى ولد". والله أعلم. ١٠- ٨٩٥- (أحب الطعام إلى الله ما كثرت عليه الأيدي) . ثم وجدتُ له شاهدًا آخر من حديث أنس مرفوعًا بلفظ: