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

series; see, for example, 1128 and 1296 in the third volume.

Yet Shaykh al-Ghumārī, may Allah have mercy on him, did not notice in his book al-Ḥāwī—which he entitled al-Mudāwī li-ʿIlal al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr wa Sharḥay al-Manāwī (“The Remedy for the Hidden Defects of al-Jāmiʿ al-Ṣaghīr and al-Manāwī’s Two Commentaries”)—the confusion into which al-Manāwī had fallen regarding the three names. Rather, he took him to task only over what he said concerning al-Bazzār’s narration, with the wording, “Indeed, the Emigrants...,” because he said of al-Bazzār’s shaykh: “Unknown.” He followed this with the previously cited narration of al-Ḥākim and said:

“If al-Bazzār narrated it by a route other than through him—that is, Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān—then it is a sound supporting report for it.”

I say: This, regrettably, is indicative of Shaykh al-Ghumārī’s concern with criticizing individuals and hunting for their slips, as though that were an end in itself, rather than with criticizing hadiths, tracing their routes of transmission, and distinguishing their authentic reports from their weak ones—which is the aim of the people of knowledge, as is well known. Thus, he occupied himself with the means rather than the end. Do you not see that he made his statement, “then it is a sound supporting report,” conditional upon al-Bazzār’s route being other than that of Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān? This plainly shows that he did not consult al-Bazzār, much less Ibn Ḥibbān.

Moreover, how can it be a sound supporting report when he does not know the identity of the source of that corroboration? It may be a liar or an abandoned narrator, unfit to serve as corroboration.

Then let us suppose that it is acceptable—as is in fact the case. He should then have completed the remedy and treatment by clarifying that the hadith is free of hidden defect and valid as evidence, as we have already explained; or, if he considered it defective, by identifying the defect among the narrators above the corroborating transmitters, so that the critique might be of full benefit. Allah’s help is sought.

As for al-Haythamī, he said in al-Majmaʿ (5/254–255):

“Al-Bazzār narrated it from his shaykh Ḥamzah ibn Mālik, whom I do not know, while the rest of its narrators are trustworthy.”

"السلسلة"، فانظر مثلأ (١١٢٨ و ١٢٩٦) من المجلد الثالث. هذا.. ولم يتنبه الشيخ الغماري في كتابه الحاوي الذي أسماه "المداوي لعلل الجامع الصغير وشرحي المناوي " للخلط الذي وقع فيه المناوي بين الأسماء الثلاثة! وانما تعقبه فيما قاله في رواية البزار بلفظ: "إن للمهاجرين " لقوله في شيخ البزار: "مجهول "، وعقب عليه برواية الحاكم المتقدمة، وقال: "فإن كان البزار رواه من غير طريقه (يعني: أحمد بن عبد الرحمن) ؛ فهو شاهد جيد له "! قلت: وهذا- مع الأسف- مما يشعر الباحث أن الشيخ الغماري ﵀ يهتم بنقد الأشخاص وتتبع زلاتهم كأنها غاية عنده، ولا يهتم بنقد الحديث وتتبع طرقه وبيان صحيحه من ضعيفه، وهو الغاية عند أهل العلم؛ كما لا يخفى! فانشغل بالوسيلة عن الغاية، ألا تراه علق قوله: "فهو شاهد جيد" على كون طريق البزار من غير طريق (أحمد بن عبد الرحمن) ، وهذا صريح في أنه لم يرجع إلى "البزار" فضلأ عن "ابن حبان "!! ثم كيف يكون شاهداً جيداً، وهو لا يدري هوية الشاهد، فلعله يكون كذاباً أو متروكاً لا يصلح للشهادة؟! ثم لنفترض أنه صالح- كما هو الواقع-؛ فكان عليه أن يتم المداواة والمعالجة؛ بأن يبين سلامة الحديث من العلة، وصلاحيته للحجة- كما قدمنا-؛ أو إذا كان معلولأ عنده ممن فوق المتابعين، حتى تتم الفائدة من النقد. والله المستعان. وأما الهيثمي؛ فقال في "المجمع " (٥/٢٥٤- ٢٥٥) : "رواه البزار عن شيخه حمزة بن مالك؛ ولم أعرفه، وبقية رجاله ثقات"!

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