Second: his concealment in transmission, by omitting from the chain the attribution “al-Qurashī” that is established in my documentation, thereby paving the way for declaring the hadith weak on the basis of al-Wāsiṭī!
Third: along with those previously mentioned, his disregard for the established attribution “al-Qurashī” in al-Musnad and al-Mustadrak. Yet the possibility I mentioned there arises here: namely, that he relied, in documenting the hadith, on others’ citations and did not consult al-Mustadrak directly. This is more likely in Ḥassān’s case, in view of the evidence mentioned under the first flaw. But whether it was this or that, either is bitter.
There are other people who followed suit, among them Dr. Muḥammad Saʿīd al-Bukhārī. Like Shuʿayb and his assistants, he was bold in imputing error; for he commented on the hadith in al-Ṭabarānī’s Book of Supplication, declaring it weak on account of al-Wāsiṭī. This was because, after citing al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar’s grading of it as good, and al-Ḥākim’s and al-Dhahabī’s authentication of it, he remarked (2/1283):
“I say: Perhaps they confused ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Wāsiṭī with ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Isḥāq al-Qurashī, who is truthful and does not narrate from Sayyār Abū al-Ḥakam.”
How astonishing is this doctor and his comment on those two! How can he attribute error to them when their chain identifies him as al-Qurashī?! By Allah, these people’s following one another in this weakening, imputing of error, and obstinacy is among the gravest of enormities!
It should have been enough to restrain them from persisting in following one another had they recalled—despite their knowledge that the scholars unanimously deemed al-Wāsiṭī weak—another fact: namely, that everyone who recorded or cited this hadith accepted it as authentic or good, including some who declared al-Wāsiṭī weak. They are:
- al-Tirmidhī; 2. al-Ḥākim; 3. al-Mundhirī; 4. al-Nawawī;
- Ibn Taymiyyah; 6. al-Dhahabī; 7. al-ʿIrāqī; 8. al-ʿAsqalānī.