In al-Lisan, it states: “Ahmad mentioned that Abd al-Razzaq became blind and would be prompted, so he would accept the prompting. Thus, the transmission of anyone who heard from him after he became blind is of no value.” Ibn al-Salah said: “Among the hadiths that al-Dabari narrated from Abd al-Razzaq, I have found reports that I found highly objectionable, and I attributed the matter to al-Dabari, because his hearing from him was exceedingly late.”
I say: In sum, the hadith is weak because it is mursal, because there is a break between the one who narrated it mursal and the narrator from him, and because the chain leading to it is weak—darknesses, one above another. Yet despite all this, this doomed man says, in his self-admiration and conceit: “Its chain of transmission is authentic!” Add to this the overarching defect shared by all five of his hadiths: their contradiction of the authentic hadiths.
- As for his fifth hadith, it is likewise from al-Hasan al-Basri, as previously indicated. The response to it has already been given under his third hadith, sufficiently demonstrating that it is rejected, like all his hadiths.
Moreover, part of this deluded man’s misguidance is that, after citing these weak hadiths and basing on them the claim that the three prayers were prescribed as four rak'ahs each, he proceeded to declare weak the authentic hadiths that contradict them. They are three in number. The first is the previously cited hadith of Aishah: “The prayer was prescribed as two rak'ahs …” This hadith was recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim, as well as other compilers of authentic collections. Ibn Rushd even said in al-Bidayah (3/395, in Takhrij al-Hidayah): “It is a hadith whose soundness is unanimously agreed upon.” Shaykh Ahmad al-Ghumari, the brother of this Abdullah, who cited it, likewise endorsed it and cited it without commenting on it.