Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (7/87)

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

has been subject to criticism. Hence al-Hafiz said:

“Truthful, but prone to error; his narrations from Yahya ibn Abi Kathir are inconsistent, and he did not possess a written book.”

Note: Al-Haythami declared the first chain from Abu al-Darda defective because of Ibn ‘Ayyash, saying (2/212):

“Al-Bazzar and al-Tabarani in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir recorded it, and it contains Isma‘il ibn ‘Ayyash, concerning whom there is criticism.”

I say: This criticism is without merit, in view of what has preceded: his reports from Syrian narrators are authentic. The criticism of him applies only when he narrates from others, as the leading imams—such as Ahmad, al-Bukhari, and others—have explicitly stated.

As for Shaykh al-A‘zami, he objected to this in his annotations to Kashf al-Astar, saying:

“I say: The chain before us contains Muhammad ibn Isma‘il, not Isma‘il!”

I say: Rather, it contains Isma‘il as well. The Shaykh was misled by confining himself to the apparent wording of the chain before him and failing to notice the omission that had occurred in it. I do not know whether this is how it appears in the original from which it was printed, or whether it reached him already printed in that form, so that he commented on what was before him. Either possibility is equally regrettable, for he should have realized that Muhammad ibn Isma‘il could not have met Rashid ibn Dawud al-San‘ani—or, at the very least, that no narration of his from him has been recorded. Rather, such narrations belong to his father, Isma‘il. Nor have they recorded any narration from anyone by Muhammad except from his father. This alone should have alerted him, had he truly been a critical editor.

Al-Haythami did not declare the chain defective because of this Muhammad because—Allah knows best—he is supported by a corroborating narration from Abu al-Yaman, also recorded by al-Tabarani in al-Mu‘jam al-Kabir. Unfortunately, the volume containing the hadiths of Abu al-Darda has not yet been published, so that we may verify what I have mentioned. And Allah knows best. *

كلام، ولذلك قال الحافظ: ((صدوق يغلط، وفي روايته عن يحيى بن أبي كثير اضطراب، ولم يكن له كتاب)) (تنبيه) : أعل الهيثمي الطريق الأولى عن أبي الدرداء بابن عياش؛ فقال (٢/٢١٢) : ((رواه البزار، والطبراني في "الكبير"، وفيه إسماعيل بن عياش، وفيه كلام)) . فأقول: هذا الإعلال ليس بشيء؛ لما تقدم ذكره أنه صحيح الحديث عن الشاميين، فالكلام فيه إنما هو إذا روى عن غيرهم؛ كما صرح به كبار الأئمة كأحمد والبخاري وغيرهم. وأما الشيخ الأعظمي فتعقبه في تعليقه على ((كشف الأستار)) بقوله: ((قلت: الذي بين أيدينا فيه محمد بن إسماعيل لا إسماعيل)) ! فأقول: بل فيه إسماعيل أيضاً؛ والشيخ إنما أتي من وقوفه مع ظاهر السند الذي بين يديه، ولم يتنبه للسقط الذي وقع فيه، ولست أدري هل هو كذلك في الأصل الذي طبع عليه، أم قدم كذلك مطبوعاً إليه فعلق بما تقدم عليه؟! وأيهما كان فأحلاهما مر؛ إذ كان عليه أن يدرك أن محمد بن إسماعيل لم يدرك راشد بن داود الصنعاني، أو على الأقل لم يذكروا رواية له عنه، وإنما لأبيه إسماعيل، ولم يذكروا لمحمد رواية عن أحد إلا عن أبيه، فهذا وحده كان يكفيه منبهاً لو كان مُحَقِّقاً حقاً! وإنما لم يعله الهيثمي بمحمد هذا؛ لأنه- والله أعلم- متابع من أبي اليمان عند الطبراني في ((المعجم الكبير)) أيضاً. ومن المؤسف أن المجلد الذي فيه أحاديث أبي الدرداء لم يطبع بعد حتى نتحقق مما ذكرته. والله أعلم. *