and its terminology.
- I have two observations on this passage:
First, it gives the impression that Ahmad did not transmit it through Ibn Ayyub, whereas the fact is otherwise. On the page to which you referred in Takhrij al-Fada’il, he transmitted it from Ibn Ayyub. To be sure, on the preceding page he also transmitted it from Ibn Lahi‘ah.
The second is this: Ibn Lahi‘ah is indeed subject to criticism, as is well known, and the hadiths transmitted through him that we cite in Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da‘ifah are too numerous to count. Yet this criticism of him is not absolute, for the narrations of the three men named Abd Allah from him are authentic: Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, Abd Allah ibn Wahb, and Abd Allah ibn Yazid al-Muqri’. They narrated from him before his books were burned, as is explained in his biographical entry in al-Tahdhib.
There is also a third observation: Ibn Lahi‘ah’s weakness stems only from his poor memory. Thus, the hadith of someone like him is strengthened when it comes through another route, even if that other route is of comparable weakness, provided that his weakness is not severe. This is clear in the books on hadith terminology, such as al-Nawawi’s al-Taqrib and others.
- There is no doubt that al-Dhahabi made many errors and contradictions in his Talkhis of al-Mustadrak. By Allah’s grace, I am among those most knowledgeable of them and most diligent in tracing and drawing attention to them. Nevertheless, his position with regard to this particular hadith is sound, for he endorsed al-Hakim’s statement concerning it (2/229): “Authentic according to the conditions of the two Shaykhs.” There is no doubt that it meets their conditions, although others may dispute its authenticity, as al-Dhahabi did with respect to hadiths other than this one; and the distinguished writer has cited some examples of this. Such an objection may then be accepted or rejected, as you will see explained in detail.
But we take the writer to task here on certain points.
The first is his declaring al-Hakim’s chain defective on account of its containing al-Harith ibn Abi Usamah. This apparently implies that al-Hakim narrated it only through him; otherwise, it would not have been permissible to impugn it on that basis. This is very strange coming from the writer, because