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

“There is cause for doubt concerning its authenticity, for its chain of transmission includes Dubbah ibn Muhassin, whose status is unknown; and I have not found for him any hadith other than this one that has reached me through an authentic chain!”

I say—and Allah is the One whose help is sought:

I had heard of this man and his recklessness in criticizing authentic hadiths, and that he had devised principles for himself—from which, he claims, he proceeds in declaring them weak. At times, following his whims, he is lax and declares them strong, without adhering in any of this to the scholarly principles established by the scholars. I therefore held back until we could find in his writings something for which to condemn him. Then his book was published, and this was confirmed: what I found bore out what I had heard. I do not wish to elaborate with examples, for there is little room at present. What he has said above is sufficient for us now, for it adequately demonstrates what has preceded, in several respects:

First: his claim that Dubbah ibn Muhassin is unknown in status. No one before him has ever said this, nor is it supported by the principles of this discipline or by the practice of the hadith masters who are knowledgeable in it.

Second: Ibn Hibban declared this Dubbah trustworthy, and al-Hafiz Ibn Khalfun al-Andalusi said: “Trustworthy and well-known.” Likewise, everyone who authenticated his hadith deemed him trustworthy—either by including it in an authentic collection, as Muslim and Abu Awanah did, or by expressly declaring it authentic, as al-Tirmidhi did.

Third: A number of trustworthy narrators transmitted from him, such as Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla, al-Hasan al-Basri, Qatadah, and Maymun ibn Mihran. Even if those previously mentioned had not declared him trustworthy, the transmission of these trustworthy narrators from him would have been sufficient to establish his uprightness and to adduce his hadith as evidence, so long as he did not narrate anything objectionable—particularly since he was a Successor, if not among their senior rank. This is evidenced by the practice of the later hadith masters regarding others like him. Therefore, al-Dhahabi explicitly stated in

"في صحته نظر؛ فإن في إسناده ضبة بن محصن، وفيه جهالة حال، ولم أر له غير هذا الحديث مما اتصل إليه بإسناد صحيح "! فأقول- والله المستعان-: لقد كنت أسمع عن هذا الرجل ومجازفاته في الطعن في الأحاديث الصحيحة، وأنه وضع لنفسه قواعد- بزعمه- ينطلق منها في تضعيفها، وأحيانأ يتساهل فيقويها- اتباعاً للهوى- غير ملتزم في ذلك القواعد العلمية التي وضعها العلماء، فكنت أتريث حتى نجد من آثاره ما ندينه به؛ حتى صدر كتابه، فتأكدت من ذلك، وصدَّق الخُبر الخَبر، ولا أريد الإفاضة في ضرب الأمثلة، فالمجال ضيق الآن، فحسبنا الآن قوله المذكور أعلاه؛ فإنه يكفي للدلالة على ما تقدم، وذلك من وجوه: الأول: زعمه أن ضَبة بن محصن مجهول الحال؛ فإنه مما لم يقله قبله أحد، ولا هو مما يساعد عليه قواعد هذا العلم وصنيع الحفاظ العارفين به. الثاني: أن ضبة هذا قد وثقه ابن حبان، وقال الحافظ ابن خلفون الأندلسي: "ثقة مشهور"، وكذلك وثقه كل من صحّح حديثه؛ إما بإخراجه إياه في "الصحيح" كمسلم وأبي عوانة؛ أو بالنص على صحته كالترمذي. الثالث: أنه قد روى عنه جمع من الثقات مثل عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى، والحسن البصري، وقتادة، وميمون بن مهران، فلو أنه لم يوثقه من سبق ذكرهم لكانت رواية هؤلاء الثقات عنه كافيةً في إثبات عدالته، والاحتجاج بحديثه؛ ما دام أنه لم يرو منكراً، ولا سيما وهو من التابعين إن لم يكن من كبارهم؛ كما يدل على ذلك صنيع الحفاظ المتأخرين في أمثالهم، ولذلك صرح الذهبي في

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