Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (6/1199)

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

against those afflicted by obsessive doubts concerning ritual purity, who oppose what is authentically reported from the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him: that he performed minor ablution once for each washing, and never exceeded three times. Ibn al-Qayyim said: “Rather, he reported that whoever exceeds this has acted wrongly, transgressed, and committed injustice.”

After documenting its sources, that addle-brained man commented on it (1/180): “The wording in Abu Dawud is: ‘Whoever exceeds this or falls short…’ I say: There is disagreement concerning the narration of Amr ibn Shuayb from his father, from his grandfather, and I am inclined to declare it weak. Al-Bukhari, Muslim, and Ibn Hibban did not regard it as authentic!”

I say: In this way, the man misleads his readers with such flimsy talk, whose answer is known even to beginners in this field: the fact that these scholars—or any one of them—did not include a hadith does not require it to be weak. How many authentic hadiths did none of them include at all! And how many hadiths did al-Bukhari and Muslim include which Ibn Hibban did not; let alone the hadiths that Ibn Hibban included while the two Shaykhs did not. Indeed, how many hadiths did al-Bukhari narrate which Muslim did not, and vice versa? This is the first point.

Second, he himself mentioned the scholars’ disagreement concerning this narration of Amr. What, then, is the point of following this with a mention of those who did not declare it authentic—when they constitute one side of the disagreement—other than to mislead? Moreover, as is well known among the scholars, denying that a hadith is authentic does not entail denying that it is good.

Third, he deceived the readers by including al-Bukhari among them. He must certainly have seen with his own eyes, in Amr’s biographical entry in al-Tahdhib, al-Bukhari’s statement: “I saw Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ali ibn al-Madini, Ishaq ibn Rahawayh, Abu Ubayd, and the great majority of our companions cite as proof the hadith of Amr ibn Shuayb from his father, from his grandfather. Not one of the Muslims abandoned it.” Al-Bukhari said: “Who are the people after them?!”

على الموسوسين في الطهارة، المخالفين لما صح عنه ﷺ أنه توضأ مرة مرة، ولم يزد على ثلاث، وقال ابن القيم: " بل أخبر أن من زاد عليها فقد أساء وتعدى وظلم ". فعلق المأفون عليه بعد تخريجه بقوله (١ / ١٨٠) : " ولفظ أبي داود: " فمن زاد على هذا أو نقص.. ". قلت: وقد اختلف في رواية عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده، وأميل إلى تضعيفها، ولم يرها من باب الصحيح البخاري ومسلم وابن حبان "! . قلت: هكذا يضلل الرجل قراءه بمثل هذا الكلام الواهي الذي يعرف جوابه المبتدئون في هذا العلم، وهو أنه لا يلزم من عدم إخراج هؤلاء أو أحدهم للحديث أن يكون ضعيفا، فكم من حديث صحيح لم يخرجه هؤلاء البتة، وكم من حديث أخرجه الشيخان ولم يخرجه ابن حبان، فضلا عن أحاديث أخرجها هو دون الشيخين، بل كم من حديث رواه البخاري لم يروه مسلم، وعلى العكس، هذا أولا. وثانيا: لقد ذكر هو اختلاف العلماء في رواية عمرو هذه، فما فائدة تعقيبه عليه بذكر الذين لم يصححوها - وهم طرف في الخلاف - سوى التضليل؟! هذا مع أن نفي الصحة لا يستلزم نفي الحسن كما هو معروف عند أهل العلم. وثالثا: لقد غش القراء بذكر البخاري معهم، فإنه لابد أنه رأى بعينه في ترجمة (عمرو) من " التهذيب " قول البخاري: " رأيت أحمد بن حنبل، وعلي بن المديني، وإسحاق بن راهويه، وأبا عبيد، وعامة أصحابنا يحتجون بحديث عمرو بن شعيب عن أبيه عن جده، ما تركه أحد من المسلمين. قال البخاري: من الناس بعدهم؟! ".