Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (7/1216)

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

another consideration—apart from their being more numerous and more trustworthy—namely, that these narrators have an additional detail, and an addition reported by a trustworthy narrator is accepted. The following response further confirms this.

As for the response to the third objection, it is found in al-Bayhaqī himself. After citing the narration of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muʾammal and declaring him weak, he remarked:

“However, Ibrāhīm ibn Ṭahmān corroborated him in this from Ḥumayd and provided it with a complete chain of transmission.”

He then cited it through him: “Ḥumayd, the freedman of ʿAfrāʾ, narrated to us from Qays ibn Saʿd, from Mujāhid, who said: Abū Dharr came to us, took hold of the door-ring, and then said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ with these two ears of mine ...’” He then mentioned the hadith under discussion, including the additional wording.

He then criticized it on account of Ḥumayd’s weakness—the response to which has already preceded—and on account of a break in the chain, saying:

“It is not established that Mujāhid heard from Abū Dharr, and his statement, ‘He came to us,’ means that he came to our town. And Allah knows best.”

Mujāhid explicitly stated, “Abū Dharr came to us”; this explicitly affirms that he met him and heard from him in Mecca. Mujāhid was Meccan, as is well known, and the chain to him in this regard is authentic. The figurative reinterpretation mentioned by al-Bayhaqī may only be adopted if there is likewise an authentically transmitted proof, not open to interpretation—for example, if it were established that Mujāhid was born after Abū Dharr’s death, or that he was still a child, or the like: matters upon which one may rely once they are established. In that case, the aforementioned reinterpretation could be asserted. And Allah knows best.

Nevertheless, the scholars agree that Mujāhid’s mursal reports are better than the mursal reports of other Successors, such as ʿAṭāʾ and others. Thus, if it is not established that he heard this hadith from Abū Dharr, it is an authentic mursal report that may be strengthened by certain supporting narrations:

جهة أخرى- غير الأكثر والأوثق- بأن يقال: إن هؤلاء معهم زيادة، وزيادة الثقة مقبولة. وفي الجواب التالي ما يؤكد ذلك. وأما الجواب عن الوجه الثالث؛ فهو عند البيهقي نفسه؛ فإنه بعد أن ساق رواية عبد الله بن المؤمل وضعفه؛ قال معقباً عليه: "إلا أن إبراهيم بن طهمان قد تابعه في ذلك عن حميد، وأقام إسناده ". ثم ساقه عنه: ثنا حميد مولى عفراء عن قيس بن سعد عن مجاهد قال: جاءنا أبو ذر، فأخذ بحلقة الباب، ثم قال: سمعت رسول الله ﷺ -بأذني هاتين ... فذكر حديث الترجمة بالزيادة. ثم أعله بضعف (حميد) - وسبق الجواب عنه-، وبالانقطاع، وبقوله: "ومجاهد لا يثبت له سماع من أبي ذر، وقوله: "جاءنا" يعني: جاء بلدنا. والله أعلم"! لقد صرح مجاهد بقوله: "جاءنا أبو ذر"؛ فهذا تصريح منه بلقياه إياه وسماعه منه في مكة، ومجاهد مكي كما هو معروف، والسند إليه بذلك صحيح، والتأويل الذي ذكره البيهقي؛ إنما يصح المصير إليه؛ إذا ثبت بإسناد صحيح أيضاً ولا يقبل التأويل، كما لو ثبت أنه ولد بعد وفاة أبي ذر، أو كان صغيراً، أو نحو ذلك من الأمور التي يصلح الاعتماد عليها بعد ثبوتها؛ ففي هذه الحالة يمكن القول بالتأويل المذكور. والله أعلم. ومع ذلك؛ فمن المسلَّم عند العلماء أن مراسيل مجاهد خير من مراسيل غيره من التابعين كعطاء وغيره، فإن لم يثبت سماعه للحديث من أبي ذر؛ فهو مرسل صحيح، يمكن تقويته ببعض الشواهد: