Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (1/919)

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

This is the first point.

Secondly, because he saw Duhaym’s narration in Fath al-Bari (10/54), standing out clearly in an abridged form without the story. The phrase “musical instruments”—which no one could possibly overlook—was cited by al-Hafiz to show what had been omitted from Abu Dawud’s abbreviated narration. Yet the man mentioned it in the second column of his article, citing it as proof that it contains no mention of “musical instruments.” He took it from Fath al-Bari while disregarding al-Hafiz’s statement immediately afterward:

“Yes, al-Isma'ili narrated the hadith by this route, through Duhaym’s narration from Bishr ibn Bakr with this chain of transmission, saying: ‘They will deem lawful illicit sexual relations, silk, wine, and musical instruments’—the hadith.”

If it is asked, “How do you know that he saw it?” I say: From my certain knowledge that he read al-Hafiz’s commentary on the hadith and his refutation of Ibn Hazm’s declaring it weak; and from the man’s own response to Ibn Hajar, in the third column, in defense of his declaring Atiyyah ibn Qays weak. He said:

“Accordingly, Ibn Hajar’s statement in Fath al-Bari (10/54), ‘Abu Hatim deemed him strong,’ is not precise!” (1)

You can see, then, that he quoted it from the very same page from which I have just quoted al-Hafiz’s statement concerning al-Isma'ili’s narration. After all this, has he left anyone any room to think well of him?!

Nor is this all; consider what follows:

(1) That is what he said. He then responded to al-Hafiz because he understood al-Hafiz's description of Atiyyah as “salih al-hadith” (acceptable in hadith) to be an endorsement of his reliability. The one declaring him weak, however, considers it a criticism. In this, he also differs from al-Dhahabi, who explicitly stated that it is an accreditation, as will be cited from him in Addendum (14). This man's habit is to oppose! And why not? “Oppose, and you will become known.” Indeed, he has become known—but for what?!

هذا أوّلاً. وثانيًا - لأنّه رأى في "فتح الباري" (١٠/٥٤) رواية دحيم هذه بارزةً شاخصةً مختصرةً ليس فيها القصّة، وإِنّ جملةَ (المعازفِ) -الّتي لا يمكنُ أَن تخفى على أَحدٍ- ساقها الحافظُ ليبيّنَ ما سقطَ من روايةٍ أبي داود الختصرة، وقد ذكرها الرَّجلُ في العمود الثاني من مقالِه محتجَّا بها أنّه ليسَ فيها ذكرُ (المعازفِ) ، أَخذها من "الفتح" معرضًا عن قولِ الحافظِ عقبها: "نعم، ساقَ الإِسماعيليُّ الحديثَ من هذا الوجه من روايةِ (دُحيم) عن بشرِ ابن بكر بهذا الإِسنادِ فقال: "يستحلُّونَ الحرَ والحريرَ والخمرَ والمعازفَ" الحديث". فإِن قيلَ: من أَينَ لك أنّه رآها؟ قلت: من علمي اليقيني أنّه قرأَ شرحَ الحافظِ للحديثِ، وردّه على ابن حزمٍ تضعيفَه إِيّاه، ومن ردّه هو على ابن حجرٍ في العمودِ الثالثِ دفاعًا عن تضعيفِه لعطية ابن قيس فقال: "لذا فقولُ ابن حجر في "الفتح" (١٠/٥٤) : قوّاه أبو حاتمٍ - ليس بدقيقٍ"! (١) فأَنتَ ترى أنَّه نقلَه من نفسِ الصفحةِ الّتيِ نقلتُ منها آنفًا قولَ الحافظِ في روايةِ الإِسماعيليّ، فهل بعد هذا كلِّه ترك مجالاً لأحدٍ أن يحسنَ الظنَّ به؟! وليس هذا فقط، فانظر التالي:

(١) كذا قالَ، ثمَ ردّ على الحافظِ لأنّه فهمَ من قولِ الحافظِ في (عطية) : "صالح الحديث" تقويتَه، ويرى (المضعّفُ) أنَّه جرحٌ، مخالفًا في ذلك الذهبيَّ أيضًا فإنّه صرّحَ بأنّه تعديلٌ، كما سيأتي نقلُه عنه في الاستدراك (١٤) ، فالرَّجلُ ديدنه المخالفة! ولم لا؟ (خالِفْ تُعرف) ، وفعلاً قد عُرف!! ولكن بماذا؟!