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

Al-Bayhaqī also narrated it through this route in al-Zuhd (108/1), and said: “ʿUthmān would sometimes attribute it to the Prophet, and at other times would not.” That is, ʿUthmān ibn ʿUmar would sometimes attribute it to the Prophet and sometimes relate it as attributed to the Companion. There is no doubt that attribution to the Prophet is more weighty, for two reasons:

First, it contains an additional detail, and such an addition is accepted when it comes from a trustworthy narrator such as this ʿUthmān ibn ʿUmar—namely, Ibn Fāris al-ʿAbdī—for he is trustworthy and among the narrators of both Ṣaḥīḥs. A narrator may be more attentive at one time and thus attribute a hadith to the Prophet, while at another time he may not be as attentive and so relate it as attributed to the Companion.

Second, another narrator also transmitted it as attributed to the Prophet: al-Naḍr ibn Shumayl, who said: “Shuʿbah narrated it to us through this chain.” Al-Bayhaqī recorded it. Al-Naḍr too is a trustworthy and precise narrator from among the narrators of both Ṣaḥīḥs. It is true that ʿAlī ibn al-Jaʿd narrated it differently: “Shuʿbah informed us of it,” attributing it to the Companion. Al-Baghawī recorded this in Ḥadīth ʿAlī ibn al-Jaʿd (8/76/1). The answer is that attribution to the Prophet is an addition from a trustworthy narrator and must therefore be accepted, as stated above.

This is especially so since Shuʿbah’s attribution of it to the Prophet was corroborated: ʿUthmān ibn Wāqid al-ʿUmarī narrated from his father, from Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir, from ʿUrwah, from ʿĀʾishah, attributing to the Prophet a report similar to it. Ibn Ḥibbān (1542), al-Quḍāʿī (42/2), Mushriq ibn ʿAbd Allāh in Ḥadīthuhu (61/2), and Ibn ʿAsākir (15/278/1) recorded it. I say: This is a good chain of transmission. Its narrators are trustworthy and are narrators of both Ṣaḥīḥs, apart from ʿUthmān ibn Wāqid, who is truthful but sometimes erred, as al-Ḥāfiẓ said. Hishām ibn ʿUrwah also narrated it from his father, attributing it to the Prophet, but with the wording: “Whoever seeks people’s praise through disobedience to Allah, his praiser will become one who censures him.”

ومن هذا الوجه رواه البيهقي في " الزهد " (ق ١٠٨ / ١) ، وقال: " ربما رفعه عثمان، وربما لم يرفعه ". يعني أن عثمان بن عمر كان تارة يرفعه وتارة يوقفه، ولا شك أن الرفع هو الأرجح لسببين: الأول: أن فيه زيادة، وهي مقبولة إذا كانت من ثقة مثل عثمان بن عمر هذا - وهو ابن فارس العبدي - فإنه ثقة من رجال الشيخين، والراوي قد ينشط تارة فيرفع الحديث، ولا ينشط أخرى فيوقفه. الثاني: أنه قد رواه غيره مرفوعا أيضا، وهو النضر بن شميل حدثنا شعبة به. أخرجه البيهقي. والنضر ثقة ثبت من رجال الشيخين أيضا. نعم قد رواه علي بن الجعد: أخبرنا شعبة به موقوفا. أخرجه البغوي في " حديث علي بن الجعد " (٨ / ٧٦ / ١) . فالجواب: أن الرفع زيادة من ثقة، فيجب قبولها كما تقدم. ولاسيما وقد توبع شعبة على رفعه، فرواه عثمان بن واقد العمري عن أبيه عن محمد بن المنكدر عن عروة عن عائشة مرفوعا نحوه. أخرجه ابن حبان (١٥٤٢) والقضاعي ( ٤٢ / ٢) ومشرق بن عبد الله في " حديثه " (٦١ / ٢) وابن عساكر (١٥ / ٢٧٨ / ١) . قلت: وهذا إسناد جيد، رجاله ثقات رجال الشيخين غير عثمان بن واقد، وهو صدوق، ربما وهم كما قال الحافظ. وتابعه هشام بن عروة عن أبيه به مرفوعا، لكن بلفظ: " من طلب محامد الناس بمعصية الله عاد حامده ذاما ".

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