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

This is what he said, and al-Aʿẓamī uncritically followed him—as was his habit. Even more astonishing is what al-Manāwī did: he cited al-Haythamī’s first statement, then immediately remarked: “This shows that the author’s symbol indicating that it is good is inadequate; he should instead have indicated that it is authentic!” Those responsible for publishing al-Jāmiʿ al-Kabīr (1/5/588/1939) likewise followed him, as was their custom.

The error has two aspects. First, the statement, “Its narrators are trustworthy,” does not mean that the chain of transmission is authentic, as has been explained more than once. How then could it, when he qualified his first statement by saying, “Its narrators have been declared trustworthy”? This indicates that some of its narrators were deemed trustworthy on a questionable basis. Al-Dhahabī frequently uses this expression in his work al-Kāshif. I examined this statement of his in dozens of biographical entries and found that all, or most, concerned narrators whom Ibn Ḥibbān alone had declared trustworthy. Yet, in al-Mīzān, he describes them, and others like them, as “unknown,” while al-Ḥāfiẓ describes them as “acceptable.”

In this hadith’s chain of transmission, as you can see, is Suwayd ibn Jabalah. Ibn Ḥibbān declared him trustworthy, but al-Bukhārī mentioned that four trustworthy narrators transmitted from him, one of whom was Ḥarīz ibn ʿUthmān. Abū Dāwūd said: “Ḥarīz’s shaykhs are trustworthy.” For this reason, in Taysīr al-Intifāʿ, I inclined to regard him as truthful. Thus, he is not the hidden defect in this hadith; rather, it is the narrator who follows him, certainly.

The second is this Isḥāq ibn Zubayrīq, concerning whom there is disagreement. Ibn Ḥibbān included him in al-Thiqāt (8/113), following Ibn Maʿīn’s statement concerning him: “There is no harm in him.” However, Muḥammad ibn ʿAwf al-Ṭāʾī al-Ḥimṣī declared him a liar, and he knew him better than others did, since he was from his own town. Therefore, al-Ḥāfiẓ said of him: “Truthful, but makes many errors; Muḥammad ibn ʿAwf stated outright that he lies.”

كذا قال، وقلده الأعظمي - كعادته - ، وأعجب منه ما فعله المناوي، فإنه نقل قول الهيثمي الأول، ثم قال عقبه: " وبه يعلم أن رمز المؤلف لحسنه تقصير، وحقه الرمز لصحته "! وقلده القائمون على طبع " الجامع الكبير " (١ / ٥ / ٥٨٨ / ١٩٣٩) كعادتهم أيضا! ووجه الخطأ من ناحيتين: الأولى: أن قوله: " رجاله ثقات " لا يعني أن الإسناد صحيح، لما تقدم بيانه أكثر من مرة، فكيف وهو تعقبه في قوله الأول: " رجاله وثقوا "، فإن هذا فيه إشارة إلى أن بعض رجاله وثقوا توثيقا مريضا. ويكثر من هذا التعبير الحافظ الذهبي في كتابه " الكاشف "، وقد تتبعت قوله هذا في عشرات التراجم، فوجدتها كلها أو جلها ممن تفرد ابن حبان بتوثيقه، ويقول فيهم وفي أمثالهم في " الميزان ": " مجهول "، ويقول الحافظ: " مقبول ". وفي إسناد هذا الحديث - كما ترى - سويد بن جبلة، وقد وثقه ابن حبان، لكن قد ذكر البخاري أنه روى عنه أربعة من الثقات، أحدهم: حريز بن عثمان، وقد قال أبو داود: " شيوخ حريز ثقات "، ولذلك ملت في " تيسير الانتفاع " إلى أنه صدوق، فليس هو علة هذا الحديث، وإنما هي التالية على التأكيد. والأخرى: إسحاق بن زبريق هذا، فإنه مختلف فيه وأورده ابن حبان في " الثقات " (٨ / ١١٣) تبعا لقول ابن معين فيه: " لا بأس به ". لكن كذبه محمد بن عوف الطائي الحمصي، وهو به أعرف من غيره لأنه من بلده، ولذلك قال الحافظ فيه: " صدوق يهم كثيرا، وأطلق محمد بن عوف أنه يكذب ".

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