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

without the additional designation “al-Dālānī.” Yet this designation is firmly established in al-Bukhārī’s version. Moreover, he was widely known by his kunyah, and his father’s name was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān; thus, he was Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. This is how they identified him when they gave an entry for his son under the aforementioned kunyah. Thus, al-Būṣīrī failed to recognize him.

I say: Another reason he is deemed weak is that there is inconsistency in his chain of transmission. Wahb ibn Jarīr narrated it: “Shuʿbah informed us, from him,” attributing it to the Prophet. Al-Bukhārī, al-Bayhaqī, and Abū Jaʿfar al-Razzāz, in his Ḥadīth (4/75/1), recorded it through this route. Salm ibn Qutaybah corroborated him: he heard Shuʿbah attribute it to the Prophet. Al-Bukhārī recorded this.

Ibn Mahdī, Ghundar, and Ādam, however, contradicted them, all three narrating it from Shuʿbah as attributed to the Companion Ḥudhayfah. Al-Bukhārī recorded it from them. Al-Ṭayālisī also corroborated them, saying: “Shuʿbah narrated to us, from him,” as a report attributed to the Companion. Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned this disagreement concerning Shuʿbah in al-ʿIlal (2/290), citing Wahb’s version attributed to the Prophet and al-Ṭayālisī’s version attributed to the Companion. He then related from his father: “In my view, the version attributed to the Companion is stronger, and Yazīd Abū Khālid is not al-Dālānī.” That is what he said! Yet since al-Bukhārī explicitly states in some narrations of the hadith that he was al-Dālānī, there is no basis for denying it, for one who has retained the information is authoritative over one who has not.

The hadith also has a supporting report from the hadith of Saʿīd ibn Ḥurayth, attributed to the Prophet, with the same wording. It was recorded by Ibn Mājah, al-Bayhaqī, Aḥmad (3/467, 4/307), Ibn ʿAdī (9/1), and al-Ḍiyāʾ in al-Muntaqā min Masmūʿātihi (79/2), through Ismāʿīl ibn Ibrāhīm ibn Muhājir, who said: ʿAbd al-Malik ibn ʿUmayr narrated to me from ʿAmr ibn Ḥurayth, from his brother Saʿīd ibn Ḥurayth, with the same report.

ليس فيه زيادة: " الدالاني "، وهي ثابتة عند البخاري، ثم هو مشهور بكنيته، واسم أبيه عبد الرحمن، فهو يزيد بن عبد الرحمن، وهكذا ذكروا اسمه لما ترجموا الابن في كنيته المذكورة، فخفي أمره على البوصيري. أقول: ومن ضعفه أنه اضطرب في إسناده، فرواه وهب بن جرير : أخبرنا شعبة عنه به مرفوعا. أخرجه من هذا الوجه البخاري والبيهقي وأبو جعفر الرزاز في " حديثه " (٤ / ٧٥ / ١) . وتابعه سلم بن قتيبة سمع شعبة رفعه . أخرجه البخاري. وخالفهم ابن مهدي وغندر وآدم، ثلاثتهم عن شعبة به موقوفا على حذيفة. أخرجه البخاري عنهم. وتابعهم الطيالسي، فقال: حدثنا شعبة به موقوفا. وقد ذكر ابن أبي حاتم في " العلل " (٢ / ٢٩٠) هذا الاختلاف على شعبة، وساق رواية وهب المرفوعة، ورواية الطيالسي الموقوفة، ثم قال عن أبيه : " موقوف عندي أقوى، ويزيد أبو خالد ليس بالدالاني ". كذا قال! وبعد تصريح البخاري في بعض روايات الحديث بأنه الدالاني، فلا وجه للنفي لأن من حفظ حجة على من لم يحفظ. وللحديث شاهد من حديث سعيد بن حريث مرفوعا به. أخرجه ابن ماجة والبيهقي وأحمد (٣ / ٤٦٧، ٤ / ٣٠٧) وابن عدي (٩ / ١) والضياء في " المنتقى من مسموعاته " (٧٩ / ٢) من طريق إسماعيل بن إبراهيم بن مهاجر حدثني عبد الملك بن عمير عن عمرو بن حريث عن أخيه سعيد بن حريث به.

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