“Isma‘il ibn ‘Ayyash is one of the leading scholars of Syria; the only criticism made of him is his poor retention.”

I say: The correct conclusion is that this criticism pertains only to his narrations from non-Syrians. As for his narrations from Syrians, they are authentic, as a number of leading scholars, including al-Bukhari and others, explicitly stated. Therefore, this chain of transmission is authentic, because his teacher, Buhayr ibn Sa‘id, was Syrian. Thus, the statement found in the marginal notes of Ibn Majah, quoted from al-Zawa’id—“Isma‘il is in its chain, and his narration from the people of the Hijaz is weak, as is the case here”—is an error.

I say: This is erroneous, and I do not know who is responsible for it. Our photographed copy of al-Zawa’id does not contain this statement (folio 244/2); rather, it only attributes the hadith to the Musnad and al-Bayhaqi. Perhaps this occurred in some copies of it. Furthermore, it is erroneous in itself. Perhaps the name “Buhayr” was corrupted for him, and he thought it was “Yahya,” while Yahya ibn Sa‘id was Medinan. And Allah knows best.

1667 — “One killed in the path of Allah is a martyr; one struck down in the path of Allah is a martyr; one who drowns in the path of Allah is a martyr; one who falls from his mount in the path of Allah is a martyr; and one afflicted with pleurisy in the path of Allah is a martyr.” Muhammad—that is, Ibn Ishaq—said: “The one afflicted with pleurisy is one suffering from a disease of the side.”

Recorded by Ahmad (2/441–442) through the route of Muhammad—that is, Ibn Ishaq—from Abu Malik ibn Tha‘labah ibn Abu Malik al-Qurazi, from ‘Umar ibn al-Hakam ibn Thawban, from Abu Hurayrah, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, say: “Whom do you consider a martyr?” They replied: “One who fights in the path of Allah until he is killed.” He said: “Then the martyrs in my community would indeed be few. One killed in the path of Allah is a martyr...” The hadith.

I say: Its chain of transmission is good. All of its narrators are trustworthy, except that Ibn Ishaq practised tadlis, and he