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

with the same wording, except that he reported it as attributed to Abū Saʿīd rather than to the Prophet. Al-Ḥākim recorded it. ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak corroborated him, narrating it from Sufyān as a report attributed to the Companion. Al-Nasāʾī recorded it. He then recorded it through Ghundar, from Shuʿbah, with the same chain, as a report attributed to the Companion. There is no doubt that the Companion-attributed version has the sounder chain of transmission. However, al-Ḥāfiẓ said (1): “Such a statement is not made on the basis of personal opinion; it therefore has the ruling of a report attributed to the Prophet.”

I then found a corroborating report for the hadith. Ibn Bishrān said in al-Amālī (147/1): Abū Muḥammad ʿAbdullāh ibn Muḥammad ibn Ṭāhir al-ʿAlawī informed us in Medina: Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn Naṣr al-Baghdādī, known as al-Maqdisī, narrated to us: Muḥammad ibn Ḥassān al-Azraq narrated to us: Wakīʿ ibn al-Jarrāḥ narrated to us from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father, from ʿĀʾishah, as a Prophetic narration, with the same wording.

I say: Al-Azraq was trustworthy and is biographed in al-Tahdhīb; those above him in the chain are among the narrators of both al-Bukhārī and Muslim. I have not identified al-Maqdisī, nor have I found him in Tārīkh Baghdād, though he ought to have been included in it. Nor have I identified al-ʿAlawī. In summary, the hadith is authentic on account of its combined chains attributed to the Prophet. The Companion-attributed version does not contradict this, since such a statement cannot be made merely on the basis of personal opinion, as al-Ḥāfiẓ stated above.

Perhaps for this reason Ibn al-Qayyim cited it in Zād al-Maʿād (1/69) as an established fact. However, he attributed it to Sunan al-Nasāʾī, which was an error that the commentator on the work failed to notice. The commentator then fell egregiously short in documenting it, attributing it only to Ibn al-Sunnī and declaring its chain weak—which it is, as noted above, unlike the chains preceding it—thus giving the impression that the hadith is weak. Allah’s help is sought.

(1) Al-Nukat al-Ziraf by al-Hafiz, 3:447.
به، إلا أنه أوقفه على أبي سعيد. أخرجه الحاكم. وتابعه عبد الله بن المبارك عن سفيان به موقوفا. أخرجه النسائي. ثم أخرجه من طريق غندر عن شعبة بإسناده موقوفا. ولا شك أن الوقف أصح إسنادا، لكن قال الحافظ (١) : " مثله لا يقال من قبل الرأي، فله حكم المرفوع ". ثم وجدت للحديث شاهدا، فقال ابن بشران في " الأمالي " (١٤٧ / ١) : أخبرنا أبو محمد عبد الله بن محمد بن طاهر العلوي - بالمدينة -: حدثنا محمد بن الحسن بن نصر البغدادي المعروف بـ (المقدسي) : حدثنا محمد بن حسان الأزرق حدثنا وكيع بن الجراح عن هشام بن عروة عن أبيه عن عائشة مرفوعا به. قلت: الأزرق ثقة مترجم في " التهذيب "، ومن فوقه من رجال الشيخين. والمقدسي لم أعرفه، ولم أره في " تاريخ بغداد "، وهو من شرطه. والعلوي لم أعرفه أيضا. والخلاصة: أن الحديث صحيح بمجموع طرقه المرفوعة، والموقوف لا يخالفه لأنه لا يقال بمجرد الرأي كما تقدم عن الحافظ. ولعله من أجل ذلك ساقه ابن القيم في " زاد المعاد " (١ / ٦٩) مساق المسلمات ، ولكنه عزاه لـ " سنن النسائي " وهو وهم لم يتنبه له المعلق عليه، ثم قصر في تخريجه تقصيرا فاحشا، فلم يعزه إلا لابن السني وضعف إسناده - وهو كذلك كما تقدم دون الأسانيد التي قبله - فأوهم أن الحديث ضعيف. والله المستعان.
(١) " النكت الظراف " للحافظ (٣ / ٤٤٧) . اهـ.

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