Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (1/914)

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

but only for corroboration.” Ibn al-Salah relates this in al-Muqaddimah (pp. 75–76, al-Halabi edition), then refutes it. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar clarified this in his Notes on It, saying (2/601):

“I say: This Maghribi was mistaken in equating his words, ‘So-and-so said,’ with, ‘So-and-so told me.’ The difference between them is apparent and requires no proof: ‘told me’ is equivalent to an explicit statement of direct hearing, whereas the bare expression ‘said’ is not explicit at all.”

He then added a point—may Allah have mercy on him—that utterly demolishes this deceiver:

“I have seen several hadiths in the Sahih in which he says, ‘So-and-so told us,’ while citing them in his works outside al-Jamiʿ with the wording, ‘He narrated to us.’ I have also found the reverse of this in the Sahih, and this proves that the two expressions are synonymous.”

His statement: “The more likely view is that it too is a suspended narration.”

I say: This is manifest deception. You have already learned that there is no disagreement on this matter; consequently, there can be no more likely or less likely view. Even if such disagreement were assumed, this would only be the view he considers more likely, and so he should have qualified it by saying, “The more likely view in my opinion.” Even had he said this, he would still have been wrong and would have done an injustice to Imam al-Bukhari, since he would have attributed to him an inadmissible statement—as is plainly evident and requires no proof. If you refuse to accept this, I shall attribute to you the view that you permit yourself to say, “So-and-so told me,” while meaning that he did not tell you!

There may be another deception in his earlier statement, “The more likely view is that it too is a suspended narration”: perhaps he does not mean what its apparent wording suggests, but rather assumes an omitted qualifying word—meaning: it has the status of a suspended narration, as that Maghribi claimed. If this is what he meant, then why the deception? Yet this intended meaning is likewise invalid, as mentioned above.

به، وإنّما للاستشهادِ"، حكاه ابن الصّلاحِ في "المقدمة" (ص ٧٥-٧٦-الحلبيّة) ثم ردّه، وبيّن ذاك الحافظُ ابن حجر في "نكته عليه" فقال (٢/٦٠١) : " قلت: لم يصب هذا المغربيُّ في التسويةِ بين قولِه: "قال فلان" وبين قولِه: "قال لي فلان"، فإنَّ الفرقَ بينهما ظاهرٌ لا يحتاجُ إِلى دليل، فإنَّ " قال لي " مثلُ التصريحِ في السماعِ، و" قال " المجرّدة ليست صريحةً أَصلاً ". ثمَّ أَفادَ ﵀ فائدةً تقصمُ ظهرَ هذا الملبّسِ فقال: "فقد رأيتُ في " الصحيح " عدّةَ أحاديث قال فيها: "قال لنا فلان"، وأَوردها في تصانيفِه خارج "الجامع" بلفظ " حدّثنا "، ووجدتُ في " الصحيح " عكسَ ذلك، وفيه دليلٌ على أنّهما مترادفان ". ٢- قوله: "والأَرجحُ أنّه تعليقٌ أيضًا". فأقولُ: فيه تلبيسٌ ظاهرٌ، فقد عرفتَ أنّه لا خلافَ هناك، وبالتالي فليس ثمّةَ راجحٌ ومرجوحٌ، وعلى افتراضِ وجودِه، فيكونُ الأَرجحَ لديه، فكانَ عليه أَن يقيِّدَه فيقول: والأَرجحُ عندي، وهو لو قالَ ذلك يكون مبطلاً مسيئًا إِلى الإِمامِ البخاريِّ؛ لأنّه يكونُ قد نسبَ إِليه ما لا يجوزُ من القولِ، كما هو ظاهرٌ لا يحتاجُ إِلى دليلٍ، فإِن أَبيتَ، نسبتُها إِليك أنّك تجوّزُ لنفسِك أَن تقولَ: "قال لي فلان" وأَنتَ تعني أنّه ما قالَ لك؟! وقد يكونُ فى قوله المتقدّمِ: "والأَرجح أنّه تعليقٌ أيضًا" تلبيسٌ آخرُ، وهو أنّه لا يعني ظاهرَه! وإنّما بتقديرِ مضافٍ محذوفٍ، أَي: في حكمِ التعليق، أَي: كما قال ذاك المغربيُّ، فإِن كانَ هذا مرادَه، فلم التلبيسُ؟ إِلاّ أنَّ مرادَه باطلٌ أيضًا كما تقدّمَ.