Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (7/972)

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

reports attributed to the Companion. I have no doubt that many of the routes that stop at the Companion are more authentic, and al-Ṭabarānī cited some of them in al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr (9/139–140). Yet I found him straining to posit a contradiction between them and the reports attributed to the Prophet, on the one hand, and going to excess in claiming a break in transmission between Muḥammad ibn Kaʿb al-Quraẓī and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd, on the other.

As for the contrivance, I see no contradiction at all between the reports attributed to the Prophet and those attributed to the Companion that would warrant preferring the latter over the former. This is because the Companion report here effectively has the ruling of a report attributed to the Prophet, since it is evidently not something that could be stated on the basis of personal opinion alone. This was al-Tirmidhī’s basis, as well as that of those who agreed with him, when they authenticated it; and they were undoubtedly aware of the routes that stop at the Companion. The same applies to the ḥāfiẓ Ibn Mandah, who based his treatise upon the routes attributed to the Prophet while also citing the numerous routes that stop at the Companion. He therefore did not declare the former defective on account of the latter, for the reason I have mentioned.

As for the excess, he clung, in attempting to establish the alleged break in transmission, to al-Bukhārī’s aforementioned statement: “I do not know whether he had retained it accurately or not.” He then said: “He meant his statement: ‘I heard ʿAbd Allāh.’”

I say: Even if he meant that, it amounts only to doubt concerning whether he heard from him; it is not a denial of it. Even if he had explicitly denied it, someone else has affirmed it—namely, al-Tirmidhī—for his authentication of the hadith plainly entails that its chain of transmission is connected. Indeed, Abū Dāwūd explicitly stated that he heard from him, saying: “He heard from ʿAlī, Muʿāwiyah, and Ibn Masʿūd.”

It is well known in the principles of jurisprudence that the one who affirms is given precedence over the one who denies. This is something that should not escape him, Allah willing. But let us consider how he sought to rebut this affirmation through tortuous and feeble arguments:

He cited al-Tirmidhī’s statement following the aforementioned authentication:

موقوفة، ولست أشك في أصحية كثير من الطرق الموقوفة، وقد ساق بعضها الطبراني في "المعجم الكبير" (٩/١٣٩- ١٤٠) ، ولكني رأيته متكلفاً في نصب التعارض بينها وبين الطرق المرفوعة من جهة، ومغالياً في ادعاء الانقطاع بين محمد بن كعب القرظي وعبد الله بن مسعود من جهة أخرى. أما التكلف؛ فإني لا أرى أي تعارض بين المرفوعات والموقوفات حتى يصار إلى ترجيح هذه على تلك؛ ذلك لأن الموقوف هنا في حكم المرفوع؛ لأنه لا يقال بمجرد الرأي كما هو ظاهر، وهذا هو ملحظ الترمذي ومن وافقه حين صححوه، وهم على علم بالطرق الموقوفة دون ريب، وكذلك الحافظ ابن منده الذي أقام جزءه على الطرق المرفوعة، وساق الطرق الكثيرة الموقوفة، فلم يعل تلك بهذه لما ذكرت. وأما المغالاة؛ فقد تشبث في إثبات الانقطاع المزعوم بقول البخاري المتقدم: "لا أدري حفظه أم لا؟ "! فقال: "أراد قوله: سمعت عبد الله ". وأقول: إن كان أراد ذلك؛ فليس إلا شكاً في السماع، وليس نفياً له، ولو صرح بالنفي؛ فغيره قد أثبته، وأعني به الترمذي، فإن تصحيحه للحديث يستلزم صحة اتصال إسناده كما هو ظاهر، بل قد صرح أبو داود بسماعه منه فقال. "سمع من علي ومعاوية، وابن مسعود". ومعلوم من علم الأصول أن المثبت مقدم على النافي، وهذا أمر لا يخفى عليه إن شاء الله. ولكن لننظر كيف رد الإثبات بطرق ملتوية هزيلة: لقد نقل عن الترمذي قوله عقب تصحيحه المذكور: