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

It was recorded by al-Tahawi in Mushkil al-Athar (2/419) and by al-Bazzar (4/244/3634), through two routes from Abd al-Aziz ibn Muslim: Subayh Abu al-Ala narrated to us from Abdullah ibn Buraydah, from his father, who said: He then related it.

I say: This is a sound chain of transmission. In al-Bazzar’s version, all its narrators are among those used by al-Bukhari, apart from Subayh Abu al-Ala. Ibn Hibban nevertheless declared him trustworthy, listing him in Thiqāt al-Tabiʿin (Trustworthy Followers) (4/385), on account of his narration from Anas and the reports from him by Hammad ibn Salamah and this Abd al-Aziz ibn al-Mukhtar. He also listed him in Thiqāt Atbaʿ al-Tabiʿin (Trustworthy Successors of the Followers) (6/478), on account of his narration from Shurayh and the reports from him by Marwan ibn Muawiyah al-Fazari.

I say: Thus, three trustworthy narrators reported from him: this Abd al-Aziz, Marwan ibn Muawiyah, and Hammad ibn Salamah; and a report of his appears in al-Bukhari’s al-Tarikh. Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned a fourth narrator from him, Muhammad ibn Jabir al-Yamami, who was truthful but poor in retention. Al-Bukhari mentioned a fifth: Adi ibn al-Fadl, but he was abandoned.

This assessment escaped the editor of Mushkil al-Athar (5/276–277), who declared it defective on the grounds that this Subayh was unknown, overlooking the reports of these four trustworthy narrators from him and Ibn Hibban’s declaration that he was trustworthy. He also declared it defective due to an alleged break between Ibn Buraydah and his father. The response to this will follow.

Regarding the hadith, al-Haythami said (10/244): “Al-Bazzar recorded it. Its narrators are those of the Sahih, apart from Subayh Abu al-Ala, who is trustworthy.”

I say: Abdullah ibn Buraydah was trustworthy. The two Shaykhs relied upon his narrations from his father and others, and he heard many hadiths from his father—contrary to one of the ignorant people who trespass against this field of knowledge and alleged that he had not heard from his father. A detailed refutation of him will follow, such as you will not find elsewhere; so consult the forthcoming hadith, no. (2914). And I do not know—by Allah—whether this claimant merely imitated the aforementioned editor in this unacceptable criticism, whether, as the saying goes, each has found his perfect match, or whether he is his pupil in this matter!

أخرجه الطحاوي في " مشكل الآثار " (٢ / ٤١٩) والبزار (٤ / ٢٤٤ / ٣٦٣٤) من طريقين عن عبد العزيز بن مسلم: حدثنا صبيح أبو العلاء عن عبد الله بن بريدة عن أبيه قال: فذكره. قلت: وهذا إسناد جيد، رجاله عند البزار كلهم رجال البخاري غير صبيح أبي العلاء، وقد وثقه ابن حبان، ذكره في " ثقات التابعين " (٤ / ٣٨٥) بروايته عن أنس، وعنه حماد بن سلمة وعبد العزيز بن المختار هذا ، وفي " ثقات أتباع التابعين " (٦ / ٤٧٨) بروايته عن شريح، وعنه مروان بن معاوية الفزاري. قلت: فهؤلاء ثقات ثلاثة رووا عنه: عبد العزيز هذا، ومروان بن معاوية، وحماد بن سلمة، وروايته في " تاريخ البخاري ". وذكر له ابن أبي حاتم راويا رابعا، وهو محمد بن جابر، وهو اليمامي، وهو صدوق سيىء الحفظ. وعند البخاري خامس: عدي بن الفضل، ولكنه متروك. وقد فات هذا التحقيق المعلق على " مشكل الآثار " (٥ / ٢٧٦ - ٢٧٧) ، فأعله بجهالة (صبيح) هذا، غافلا عن رواية هؤلاء الثقات الأربعة عنه، وعن توثيق ابن حبان إياه. وأعله أيضا بالانقطاع بين ابن بريدة وأبيه! ويأتي الجواب عنه. والحديث قال الهيثمي (١٠ / ٢٤٤) : " رواه البزار، ورجاله رجال الصحيح غير صبيح أبي العلاء، وهو ثقة ". قلت: وعبد الله بن بريدة ثقة احتج به الشيخان عن أبيه وغيره، وقد سمع منه أحاديث كثيرة خلافا لأحد الجهلة، المتعدين على هذا العلم فزعم أنه لم يسمع من أبيه، وسيأتي الرد عليه بتفصيل لا تجده في مكان آخر، فراجع الحديث الآتي برقم (٢٩١٤) ، ولا أدري - والله - إذا كان هذا الزاعم قلد المعلق المشار إليه آنفا في هذا الإعلال المرفوض، أم هو كما قيل: (وافق شن طبقه) ، أم هو تلميذه فيه؟!

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