Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (6/1069)

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

as he claimed. Rather, it would have been correct to say that Muslim narrated from him only in conjunction with another narrator. It is remarkable that Fu'ad Abd al-Baqi drew the readers’ attention to this point in a footnote, yet the annotator referred to did not notice it—or did not accept it—because he saw that his biographers had designated him as one of Muslim’s narrators. Al-Hafiz did likewise in his two books, as did Abu Nasr al-Kalabadhi in al-Jamʿ bayna Rijal al-Sahihayn: they stated this without qualification and did not specify that Muslim narrated from him only in conjunction with another narrator.

But even if this designation is sound, the person in question should not have said what he said, because it does not apply to the hadith to which he referred, since, as I have mentioned, it was narrated in conjunction with another narrator. Al-Kalabadhi also indicated this, but added nothing further. Take note, for this is among the subtleties of this noble discipline.

Despite the weakness referred to above, Muhammad ibn Yazid—al-Wasiti, who was trustworthy—differed from him in its chain of transmission, saying: “From Isma'il ibn Abi Khalid, from the freedman of Amr ibn Hurayth, from Amr ibn Hurayth.” He then mentioned the hadith concerning the recitation referred to earlier, and added after it: “He said: My mother or father took me to him, and he supplicated for provision for me.” Abu Ya'la transmitted it (1469).

I say: Al-Wasiti thus added the freedman of Amr ibn Hurayth to the chain of transmission, and his addition is accepted because of his trustworthiness and precision. It appears that this freedman was Asbagh, mentioned in the chain of the previously cited hadith of Ibn Majah. He was trustworthy, though he later suffered deterioration, as stated in al-Taqrib. In my view, it is also possible that he was al-Walid ibn Sari', for he too was a freedman of Amr ibn Hurayth and joined Asbagh in narrating the hadith of recitation from his patron Amr, as recorded by Muslim and others, such as Abu Ya'la (1457). It is cited in al-Irwa' (2/63). It is also possible, in my view, that al-Walid was Asbagh himself, and that this was a nickname of his. And Allah knows best.

كما زعم، فكان الحق أن يقال روى له مقرونا. ومن الغريب أن فؤاد عبد الباقي قد لفت نظر القراء في الحاشية إلى هذا المعنى، ومع ذلك لم يتنبه له المعلق المشار إليه، أو أنه لم يأخذ به، لأنه رأى المترجمين له قد رمزوا له بأنه من رجال مسلم كالحافظ في كتابيه، وكأبي نصر الكلاباذي في " الجمع بين رجال الصحيحين " أطلقوا ولم يقيدوا بأنه مقرون عنده، ولكن هذا إن صح، فما كان ينبغي للمومى إليه أن يقول ما قال، لأن ذلك لا يصدق على الحديث الذي أشار إليه، لما ذكرت أنه مقرون، والكلاباذي قد أشار إليه أيضا ولم يزد! فتنبه، فإنه من خفايا هذا العلم الشريف. ومع الضعف المشار إليه، فقد خالفه في إسناده محمد بن يزيد - وهو الواسطي الثقة - فقال: عن إسماعيل بن أبي خالد عن مولى عمرو بن حريث عن عمرو بن حريث.. فذكر حديث القراءة المشار إليه آنفا، وزاد عقبه: " وقال: ذهبت بي أمي أو أبي إليه، فدعا لي بالرزق ". أخرجه أبو يعلى (١٤٦٩) . قلت: فزاد الواسطي في الإسناد مولى عمرو بن حريث، فزيادته مقبولة لثقته وحفظه. والظاهر أن هذا المولى هو (أصبغ) المذكور في إسناد حديث ابن ماجه المتقدم، وهو ثقة، إلا أنه كان تغير كما في " التقريب "، ويحتمل عندي أن يكون هو الوليد بن سريع، فإنه مولى عمرو بن حريث أيضا، وشارك (أصبغ) في رواية حديث القراءة عن مولاه عمرو عند مسلم وغيره كأبي يعلى (١٤٥٧) وهو مخرج في " الإرواء " (٢ / ٦٣) ، فيحتمل عندي أيضا أن يكون هو (أصبغ) نفسه، ويكون هذا لقبا له. والله ﷾ أعلم.