in al-Bukhārī’s al-Tārīkh al-Kabīr, whenever he narrates from Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayd al-Rāzī, he identifies him and gives his lineage in one of the two aforementioned ways. This befits his standing in religious integrity and scholarship, and his scrupulous avoidance of concealment in transmission, as explained earlier. That conclusion is not undermined by what occurs in those few instances, for the reasons I have just mentioned.

Thus, we may be certain of the correctness of what I had deemed more likely in the refutation referred to above: the hadith is al-Bukhārī’s narration from the trustworthy Muḥammad ibn Saʿīd al-Rāzī, not his narration from Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayd al-Rāzī, as the esteemed scholar whose view is being refuted asserted categorically, without evidence or proof. For had it been one of his reports from him, al-Bukhārī would have identified him, as he did in the other hadiths cited above by their numbers. In this way, we have also established that it was not al-Bukhārī’s practice to conceal the status of Muḥammad ibn Ḥumayd al-Rāzī, due to his weakness, by failing to attribute him to his father—as was implied by one who did not write competently on this precise subject. Allah, Most High, is the Giver of success, and He guides to the most upright path.

Moreover, I should not fail to thank some of our brothers who drew our attention to certain errors in the previous edition. We corrected them to the best of our ability. May Allah reward them well, and make both us and them among the righteous—those who shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve, and who place their trust in their Lord.

Amman, 6 Shawwāl 1406 AH

Written by
Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī