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

al-Kāshif explicitly states that he was “trustworthy,” while al-Hafiz states in al-Taqrīb that he was “truthful.”

Fourth: even if we were to concede, for argument’s sake, that he was unknown in status—as this would-be verifier claims—a narrator such as him would still have his hadith authenticated; or, at the very least, it would be deemed sound on account of the supporting reports and corroborating narrations, among them the hadith under discussion. Although it does not contain the phrase concerning prayer, this is supported by the hadith of Awf ibn Malik recorded by Muslim, through Muslim ibn Qurazah, from him. It states: “Should we not fight them with the sword?” He replied: “No, so long as they establish the prayer among you.” Its documentation has preceded under no. 907. Yet this alleged verifier also declared it defective on the same grounds on which he declared the hadith of Umm Salamah defective, saying in his note on it (218/501):

“Its chain of transmission includes Muslim ibn Qurazah, whose status is unknown. See the preceding hadith, no. 129.”

That is, the hadith of Umm Salamah.

This shows the researcher that he has formulated for himself a rule by which he declares weak the hadiths of trustworthy narrators whose reliability was affirmed solely by Ibn Hibban—to the best of his knowledge—even if one of them is among the narrators of the Ṣaḥīḥ, a number of trustworthy narrators transmitted from him, and some later hadith masters declared him trustworthy! This alleged verifier, in his ignorance, self-admiration, and conceit, disregards all of that entirely.

For what is to be said regarding this Ibn Qurazah and his hadith is the same as what is to be said regarding Dubbah ibn Muhassin and his hadith. Three trustworthy narrators transmitted from him: Ruzayq ibn Hayyan, Rabi'ah ibn Yazid, and Yazid ibn Yazid ibn Jabir—as recorded in Tārīkh al-Bukhārī (4/1/270–271), where he cited this hadith; al-Jarḥ of Ibn Abi Hatim (4/1/192); al-Thiqāt of Ibn Hibban (5/396); and Tārīkh Ibn Asakir (16/482). Therefore, al-Dhahabi stated decisively in al-Kāshif that he was “trustworthy.” Muslim, Abu Awanah, and Ibn Hibban authenticated this hadith of his, as did al-Bayhaqi by endorsing Muslim’s authentication. Moreover, he was among the well-known senior Successors, as is indicated by

" الكاشف " بأنه: "ثقة "، والحافظ في " التقريب " بأنه: "صدوق ". الرابع: لو سلمنا جدلاً بأنه مجهول الحال- كما زعم مدعي التحقيق- فمثله يصحح حديثه؛ أو على الأقل يحسن بالشواهد والمتابعات التي منها حديث الترجمة، وإن كان ليس فيه جملة الصلاة، فإنه يشهد لها حديث عوف ابن مالك عند مسلم من طريق مسلم بن قَرَظَة عنه، وفيه: أفلا ننابذهم بالسيف؟ فقال: "لا؛ ما أقاموا فيكم الصلاة". وقد مضى تخريجه برقم (٩٠٧) ؛ إلا أن المحقق المزعوم أعلّه أيضاً بمثل ما أعلّ حديث أم سلمة، فقال في تعليقه عليه (٢١٨/٥٠١) : "في إسناده مسلم بن قرظة، وهو مجهول الحال. وانظر الحديث المتقدم برقم (١٢٩) ". يعني: حديث أم سلمة. وهذا مما يدل الباحث على أنه قد وضع لنفسه قاعدة تضعيف أحاديث الثقات الذين تفرد ابن حبان بتوثيقهم- في حد علمه- ولو كان أحدهم من رجال "الصحيح"، وروى عنه جمع من الثقات، ووثقه بعض الحفاظ المتأخرين! فالمحقق المزعوم- بجهله وعجبه وغروره- يضرب بكل ذلك عرض الحائط! فإن القول في ابن قرظة هذا وحديثه كالقول في ضبة بن محصن وحديثه، فقد روى عنه ثلاثة من الثقات: رزيق بن حيان، وربيعة بن يزيد، ويزيد بن يزيد بن جابر؛ كما في "تاريخ البخاري " (٤/١/٢٧٠ - ٢٧١) وساق له هذا الحديث، و"جرح ابن أبي حاتم " (٤/١/١٩٢) ، و"ثقات ابن حبان " (٥/٣٩٦) ، و"تاريخ ابن عساكر" (١٦/٤٨٢) ، ولذلك جزم الذهبي في "الكاشف " بأنه "ثقة "، وصحح حديثه هذا مسلم وأبو عوانة وابن حبان، وكذلك البيهقي بإقراره لتصحيح مسلم، ثم هو إلى ذلك من كبار التابعين المشهورين؛ كما يدل على

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