Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Sahihah - Nasir al-Din al-Albani - (1/936)

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

14—End of Hadith 335

The so-called Hassan Abd al-Mannan declared this hadith weak, as well as its corroborating report from Anas, among the many authentic hadiths that he has declared weak. In a treatise he entitled A Critique of the Albanis on the Question of Prayer between Pillars, he—blindly following others—maintained that praying between them is permissible without an excuse, by analogy with the imam and the person praying alone! This is among the most invalid analogies on the face of the earth, as is self-evident to every sound-minded person. It amounts to analogizing one who has no excuse with one who does have an excuse—even if it did not contradict the sunnah. How could it not, when the disruption caused by congregational prayer between the pillars does not occur when an individual prays among them?!

My purpose here is not to reply to him in detail from the standpoint of hadith criticism, much less from the juristic standpoint. The space is limited—as you can see—and time is even more limited, except insofar as is necessary to defend the hadith of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him.

In declaring the hadith weak, the aforementioned person clung to Abu Hatim’s statement concerning the narrator Harun ibn Muslim: “unknown,” and to al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s statement: “of unascertained standing.” He set these against the declarations of reliability by those who deemed him reliable and authenticated his hadith, such as Ibn Hibban, Ibn Khuzaymah, al-Hakim, and al-Dhahabi. He answers this by claiming that they were lax, while al-Dhahabi was inconsistent!

The briefest possible answer is as follows:

Since no scholar is infallible, every scholar is liable to err, as is authentically reported from Imam Malik—whether the error results from leniency, uncertainty, inconsistency, or is simply an outright error. Accordingly, it is not permissible to dismiss a scholar’s statement merely by saying that he is lax or inconsistent. Yet this is precisely what the claimant has done!

First: As for al-Dhahabi, in al-Mizan he took issue with Abu Hatim’s statement concerning Harun:

١٤- آخر الحديث (٣٣٥) لقد ضعّفَ هذا الحديثَ وشاهدَه من حديث أَنس في جملةِ ما ضعّفَ من الأَحاديثِ الصحيحةِ الكثيرةِ - المدعو (حسان عبد المنان) في رسالةٍ له أسماها "مناقشة الأَلبانييّن في مسألةِ الصلاةِ بين السواري"، ذهبَ فيها تقليدًا منه لغيرِه إِلى جوازِ الصلاةِ بينها لغيرِ عذرٍ، قياسًا على الإِمامِ والمنفردِ! وهذا من أَبطلِ قياسٍ على وجه الأَرضِ، كما هو ظاهرٌ بداهةً لكلِّ ذي لُبٍّ، فإِنّه من بابِ قياس غير المعذور على المعذور -هذا لو لم يعارض السنّةَ- كيفَ لا؛ والقطعُ الذي يحصلُ بصلاةِ الجماعةِ بين السواري، لا يحصلُ بصلاةِ المنفردِ بينها؟! ليس غرضي الآن الردَّ عليه مفصلاً من الناحيةِ الحديثيّةِ فضلاً عن الناحيةِ الفقهيّةِ، فإِنَّ المجالَ ضيقٌ -كما ترى- والوقتُ أَضيقُ، إلاّ بمقدارِ ما لا بدَّ منه من الدفاعِ عن حديثِ رسولِ الله ﷺ. لقد تشبثَ المذكورُ في تضعيفِ الحديثِ بقولِ أبي حاتمٍ في راويةِ (هارون بن مسلم) : "مجهول"، وقول الحافظِ ابن حجر: "مستور"! معارضًا بهما توثيقَ من وثقه وصححَ حديثَه كابن حبّان، وابن خزيمةَ، والحاكمِ، والذهبيِّ! ويجيبُ على ذلك بأنَّ هؤلاءِ من المتُساهلين، وأَمّا الذهبيُّ فمتناقض! والجوابُ بأَوجزِ ما يمكنُ من العبارةِ: لا يمكنُ لأَيِّ عالمٍ -بحكمِ ارتفاعِ العصمةِ- إلاّ أَن يقعَ منه الخطأُ كما صحَّ عن الإِمامِ مالك، سواءٌ كانَ الخطأُ من بابِ التساهلِ أَم التشكك، أَم التعارضِ، أَم خطأً محضًا، وعليه فلا يجوزُ ردُّ قولِ العالمِ بمجرّدِ القولِ بأنّه متساهلٌ أَو متناقض، وهذا ما وقع فيه المدعي! أوّلاً - أَمّا الذهبيُّ، فقد تعقبَ في "الميزانِ" قول أبي حاتم في "هارون":