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

55), and then he proceeded to declare all four of its chains weak, without distinguishing between a weakness that can still be used for corroboration and one that cannot! He even likened the matter to the isnāds of the ḥadīth of the bird—“I am the city of knowledge and ʿAlī is its gate”—yet how far apart the two reports are: the latter enjoys no authentic ḥadīth that supports its meaning; rather, it belongs to the rejected Shīʿī narrations, as the specialists have established.

  1. After citing al-Tirmidhī’s grading of the ḥadīth as ḥasan and the rulings of al-Ḥākim and al-Dhahabī that it is ṣaḥīḥ, he wrote:

“It also has a corroborating narration from Ibn ʿUmar recorded by al-Maḥāmalī in al-Amālī (69/2), and its chain is good for supporting evidence.”

This is something the Shaykh clearly borrowed from my forthcoming takhrīj of the ḥadīth, as any reader will see with the slightest reflection. Everyone who works under his supervision knows this habit of his—yet there is neither thanks nor acknowledgment!

That, however, is not the point. What matters is that readers examine whether the man was truthful when he claimed the Shaykh agreed with him, or whether this was a retraction on the Shaykh’s part for some other reason. The same question applies to the next ḥadīth as you will soon see.

2- (160- …“does not bow to his friend”…)

I stated there that its isnād is ḥasan for corroboration. I traced it through four routes from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him): two of them are unquestionably fit to be cited as supporting evidence, the third is tolerable, and the fourth is not suitable for that purpose, exactly as I made clear. Al-Tirmidhī graded at least the first two chains ḥasan, al-Ḥāfiẓ endorsed him, and Ibn Taymiyyah used the report as proof, as will be shown.

Let me add here that al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Baghawī likewise strengthened it in Sharḥ al-Sunnah (12/292); the eminent ʿAlī al-Qārī explicitly ruled it ṣaḥīḥ in Sharḥ al-Mishkāt (4/576); and al-Nawawī deemed it ḥasan in al-Riyāḍ, following al-Tirmidhī.

Then this assailant against the Sunnah came along and transferred the ḥadīth to his “Weak Series” (529/

٢٣٧) ، فقال بعد أن نقل تحسين الترمذي وتصحيح الحاكم والذهبي للحديث: "وله شاهد من حديث ابن عمر عند المحاملي في "الأمالي" (٦٩/٢) ، وسنده حسن في الشواهد". وهذا مما استفاده الشيخ من تخريجي الآتي للحديث كما يظهر ذلك للقراء بأدنى تأمل، وهو أمر معروف عنه عند كل الذين يعملون تحت إشرافه، ثم لا حمداً ولا شكوراً! وليس هذا هو المقصود، وإنما هو أن ينظر القراء هل صدق الرجل فيما ينسبه إلى الشيخ من الموافقة، أم أن هذا تراجع منه لسبب أو آخر؟! وهذا عينه يقال في الحديث الآتي أيضاً كما سترى! ٢- (١٦٠- ... لا ينحني لصديقه ... ) . أقول: ذكرت هناك أن إسناده حسن في المتابعات، وخرجته من أربعة طرق عن أنس ﵁، طريقان منها، يصلحان للاستشهاد بهما دون أي شك أو ريب، والثالث يحتمله، والرابع لا يستشهد به؛ كما صرحت هناك، وللطريقين الأولين على الأقل حسنه الترمذي، وأقره الحافظ، واحتج به ابن تيمية؛ كما سيأتي. وأزيد هنا فأقول: وكذلك قواه الحافظ البغوي في "شرح السنة" (١٢/٢٩٢) ، وصرح بصحته العلامة علي القاري في "شرح المشكاة" (٤/٥٧٦) ، وحسنه النووي في "الرياض" تبعاً للترمذي. فجاء هذا الباغي على السنة، فأخرجه منه إلى "ضعيفته" (٥٢٩/

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies