“Fudalah ibn Dinar’s hadith is rejected, and the narration on this subject is not established.” (1)
This is what he said, and al-Dhahabi endorsed it in al-Mizan. Al-Hafiz then criticized him in al-Lisan, saying:
“This is truly astonishing! How can the author say this and endorse it when the hadith is in Sahih Muslim, even if through a route other than this one?! I reviewed al-‘Uqayli’s words and did not find this statement in them.”
I say: If he means the precise wording, then it is indeed in Muslim. But if he means it in an unrestricted sense, even merely in meaning, then this is refuted by what I quoted above from al-‘Uqayli. A similar statement from him will follow in the next hadith.
- As for the hadith of Ibn Mas‘ud, al-‘Uqayli cited it without a full chain in the entry on al-Hakam ibn Zuhayr (1/259), from ‘Asim, from Zirr, from him, with this wording. He said:
“Al-Hakam ibn Zuhayr: al-Bukhari said, ‘His hadith is rejected.’”
Al-‘Uqayli then said:
“Nothing concerning this text is authentically established from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, through any established route.”
I say: This is another explicit statement confirming that al-‘Uqayli’s earlier statement is established—the statement which al-Hafiz found objectionable and denied was from al-‘Uqayli. As for his finding it objectionable, there is no doubt about that; but his denial is refuted by these two statements. Perhaps al-‘Uqayli based this on Ahmad’s statement: “This hadith is among al-Jariri’s solitary reports,” as al-Dhahabi quoted in al-Jariri’s entry in al-Siyar (6/155).
Yet it is well known that solitary transmission may coexist with authenticity; thus, when a narrator is trustworthy, it does no harm