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

I say: The following appears in the marginal commentary on al-Majmaʿ:

“Note: Rather, the Ṣadaqah mentioned in its chain is Ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Samīn, and he is very weak, as stated in the margin of the original.”

I say: I believe that this note is from al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, al-Haythamī’s teacher, as is everything attributed in the annotations to “the margin of the original.” His statement, “very weak,” conflicts with his limiting himself in al-Taqrīb to saying, “weak,” as was previously quoted from him. The latter is closer to what is correct, since the man is disputed over and some scholars deemed him trustworthy. His biography is given at length in Ibn ʿAsākir’s Tārīkh Dimashq, al-Tahdhīb, and other works.

Moreover, there is nothing in the chain to indicate more strongly that he is Ṣadaqah ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Samīn. Both he and Ṣadaqah ibn Khālid narrated from Zayd ibn Wāqid, and they did not mention in al-Samīn’s biography that al-Ṭarāʾifī narrated from him. The fact that the latter narrates from weak narrators is insufficient to establish this preference, for he also narrated from trustworthy narrators, including Imam Mālik, for example. So reflect!

Moreover, the hadith has a corroborating report from Abū Dharr, attributed to the Prophet, to a similar effect. Its sources, the discussion concerning it, and the demonstration that its chain of transmission is authentic have preceded at the beginning of volume six, no. 2510.

It has also been authentically reported as a statement of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd. Mālik cited it in al-Muwaṭṭaʾ (1/187), from Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, that ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd said to a man:

“You are living in a time in which its jurists are many and its Quran reciters are few ...” The hadith is similar in meaning.

This report has a double break in its chain of transmission. It is among the reports that Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr missed in al-Tamhīd, for he did not include it among the hadiths of Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd, which number 77 hadiths there and are found at the end of volume 23 and the beginning of volume 24.

قلت: وفي التعليق على "المجمع " ما نصه: " (فائدة) : بل صدقة المذكور في إسناده هو ابن عبد الله السمين، وهو ضعيف جدّاً. كما في هامش الأصل ". قلت: وأنا أظن أن هذه الفائدة هي من الحافظ ابن حجر تلميذ الهيثمي، وكذلك كل ما يعزى في التعليقات إلى"هامش الأصل"، وقوله: "ضعيف جداً" يخالف اقتصاره على قوله في "التقريب ": "ضعيف "؛كما تقدم نقله عنه، وهو الأقرب إلى الصواب؛ لأن الرجل مختلف فيه، وقد وثقه بعضهم، وترجمته مبسَّطة في "تاريخ دمشق " لابن عساكر، و"التهذيب " وغيرهما. ثم إنه ليس في السند ما يرجح أنه صدقة بن عبد الله السمين؛ فإن هذا وصدقة بن خالد كلاهما روى عن زيد بن واقد، ولم يذكروا في ترجمة السمين أنه روى عنه الطرائفي، وكون هذا يروي عن الضعفاء لا يكفي للترجيح؛ لأنه قد روى عن الثقات أيضاً، منهم الإمام مالك مثلاً، فتأمل! هذا؛ وللحديث شاهد من حديث أبي ذر مرفوعاً نحوه، سبق تخريجه، والكلام عليه، وبيان صحة إسناده في أول المجلد السادس رقم (٢٥١٠) . وقد صح موقوفاً من حديث عبد الله بن مسعود، فذكره مالك في"الموطأ" (١/١٨٧) عن يحيى بن سعيد أن عبد الله بن مسعود قال لإنسان: "إنك في زمان كثير فقهاؤه، قليل قراؤه.. " الحديث نحوه. وهذا معضل، وهو مما فات ابن عبد البر في "التمهيد"؛فلم يورده في أحاديث يحيى بن سعيد، وعددها فيه (٧٧) حديثاً، وهي في آخر المجلد (٢٣) وأول (٢٤)

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