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

and precision.

Al-Nasa’i declared him weak outright, and others also criticized him. However, Ibn ‘Adi said: “He is the most reliable of people in narrating from al-Layth.” Al-Hafiz relied on this statement in al-Taqrib, saying: “Trustworthy in his narrations from al-Layth.” Regarding Qutaybah, he said: “Trustworthy and exceptionally precise.”

Once the difference between the two men is clear, one is more reassured by Qutaybah’s narration—whose trustworthiness and precision are unanimously accepted—than by the narration of Yahya ibn Bukayr, concerning whom there is disagreement, even though Ibn ‘Adi’s unqualified statement suggests that his narration from al-Layth in particular is to be preferred over that of others who narrated from him.

Nevertheless, whether this version is established from Yahya is also open to question, because its narrator from him, ‘Ubayd ibn ‘Abd al-Wahid ibn Sharik, has likewise been criticized. Here is what appears in his biographical entry in al-Khatib’s Tarikh Baghdad (11/99):

“Al-Daraqutni said: ‘Truthful.’ Abu Muzahim Musa ibn ‘Ubayd Allah said: ‘He was one of the trustworthy narrators, and I did not write anything from him during his deterioration.’ Ibn al-Munadi said—meaning, in his history: ‘Most people narrated from him. Then he suffered an affliction that altered him in his final days, though even so he remained truthful.’ Al-Khatib said: ‘I did not write anything from him.’”

The conclusion of the above is that Ahmad’s version, from al-Layth, from Abu Kathir al-Jallah, from al-Mughirah ibn Abi Burdah, from Abu Hurayrah, is the authentic one as transmitted from al-Layth and al-Jallah.

Once this has been established, the chain of transmission is authentic. All of its narrators are trustworthy and are among Muslim’s narrators, except al-Mughirah, who is trustworthy, as al-Nasa’i stated. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al-Thiqat (1/218–219), and a number of narrators transmitted from him.

For completeness, it is fitting that I now cite the wording of the report through this chain, for it is more complete. Abu Hurayrah said:

والضبط فقد أطلق النسائي فيه الضعف، وتكلم فيه غيره، لكن قال ابن عدي: هو أثبت الناس في الليث. وهذا القول اعتمده الحافظ في " التقريب " فقال: " ثقة في الليث ". وقال في قتيبة: " ثقة ثبت ". وإذا تبين الفرق بين الرجلين، فالنفس تطمئن لرواية قتيبة المتفق على ثقته وضبطه، أكثر من رواية يحيى بن بكير المختلف فيه، ولو أن عبارة ابن عدي تعطي بإطلاقها ترجيح روايته عن الليث خاصة على رواية غيره عنه. ومع ذلك فإن في ثبوت هذا السياق عن يحيى نظر، لأن الراوي عنه عبيد ابن عبد الواحد بن شريك فيه كلام أيضا. وإليك ما جاء في ترجمته عند الخطيب في " تاريخ بغداد " (١١ / ٩٩) : " قال الدارقطني: صدوق. وقال أبو مزاحم موسى بن عبيد الله: كان أحد الثقات ولم أكتب عنه في تغيره شيئا. وقال ابن المنادي (يعني في تاريخه) : أكثر الناس عنه، ثم أصابه أذى فغيره في آخر أيامه، وكان على ذلك صدوقا. وقال الخطبي: لم أكتب عنه شيئا ". ويتلخص مما سبق أن سياق أحمد عن الليث عن الجلاح أبي كثير عن المغيرة ابن أبي بردة عن أبي هريرة، هو الصحيح عن الليث والجلاح. وإذا تبين هذا، فالسند صحيح رجاله كلهم ثقات رجال مسلم غير المغيرة وهو ثقة كما قال النسائي، وذكره ابن حبان في " الثقات " (١ / ٢١٨ - ٢١٩) وروى عنه جماعة. ولتمام الفائدة يحسن أن أسوق الآن لفظ هذا الإسناد فإنه أتم، قال أبو هريرة

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