Responding to the doubts of Christians and Orientalists about Ismail bin Abi Uways in Sahih Al-Bukhari

 

The Christian says:

quote Ismail bin Abi Uways wrote : The scandal of Bukhari and the refutation of the science of criticism and authentication and the destruction of the Sunnah with all the hadiths. Ismail bin Abi Uways told us: Malik told me, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Ubayd Allah bin Abdullah bin Utbah, on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, who said: I came riding on a female donkey, and I was on that day approaching puberty, and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was praying in Mina, not against a wall. I passed in front of some of the rows and let the female donkey graze, so it entered the row, and he did not disapprove of that to me. 2558_ Ismail bin Abi Uways said: My brother told me, on the authority of Sulayman, on the authority of Yahya bin Saeed, on the authority of Abu al-Rijal Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman: that his mother, Umrah bint Abd al-Rahman, said: I heard Aisha, may God be pleased with her, say: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, heard the voices of opponents at the door, their voices loud, and if One of them was asking the other to be lenient with him in something, and he was saying: By God, I will not do it. So the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, came out to them and said: (Where is the one who swears by God that he will not do good?) He said: I will, O Messenger of God, and whichever of them he prefers. 76 - Ismail bin Abi Uways narrated to us : Malik narrated to me, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah, on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, who said: I came riding on a female donkey, and I was at that time approaching puberty, and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was praying in Mina, not facing a wall, so I passed in front of some of the row, and let the female donkey graze, so it entered the row, and he did not disapprove of that to me. Ismail bin Abi Uwais narrated to us, he said: My brother narrated to me, on the authority of Sulayman, on the authority of Yahya bin Saeed, on the authority of Abu al-Rijal Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman, that his mother , Amrah bint Abd al-Rahman, said: I heard Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, say: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, heard the voices of litigants at the door, loudly. Their voices, and if one of them begs the other and asks him to be gentle with him in something, and he says, “By God, I will not do it.” So the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, came out to them and said, “Where is the one who swears by God that he will not do good?” He said, “I am, O Messenger of God.” And for him, which of the two is more beloved? http://www.al-eman.com/ hadeeth/viewc...BID=12&CID= 272 Reason for the weakness of the hadith: Ismail bin Abi Uways. A group of scholars said that he was weak, including: Sheikh Al-Amini - Al-Ghadir - Part: (8) - Page number: (35) - Al-Dulabi in Al-Du'afa', who said: I heard Al-Nasr bin Salamah Al-Marwazi say: Ibn Abi Uways is a liar. He used to narrate the issues of Ibn Wahb on the authority of Malik. - Al-'Uqaili said in Al-Du'afa' on the authority of Yahya bin Ma'in that he said: Ibn Abi Uways is not worth two pennies. - Al-Daraqutni said: I do not choose him in the Sahih. - Al-Ismaili mentioned him in Al-Madkhal and said: He was accused of frivolity and rashness, which I hate to mention. - Some of them said: We avoided him for the sake of the Sunnah. They claim with their weak doubt that the most authentic book after the Holy Quran contains hadiths that are not authentic . These people, as they have always accustomed us to, raise their doubts, attacking Islam without having any prior knowledge of the principles of the science of hadith, criticism and authentication, and the hadith and jurisprudential rulings that govern the chain of transmission and text of the hadith and its narrators. These people, in their ignorance, think that with this attack they have added something or, according to their claim, responded to Islam, which indicates complete ignorance that confirms that their doubts are only to strengthen the crumbling Christian faith and to attack Islam for the sake of attacking. These people throw their doubts and do not bother themselves to further research and study the doubts that they present. In this doubt that we have in our hands, one of the Christians says : quote Ismail bin Abi Uways wrote: The scandal of Bukhari and the refutation of the science of criticism and authentication and the destruction of the Sunnah with all the hadiths. Ismail bin Abi Uways told us: Malik told me, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Ubayd Allah bin Abdullah bin Utbah, on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, who said: I came riding on a female donkey, and I was on that day approaching puberty, and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was praying in Mina, not against a wall. I passed in front of some of the rows and let the female donkey graze, so it entered the row, and he did not disapprove of that to me. 2558_ Ismail bin Abi Uways said: My brother told me, on the authority of Sulayman, on the authority of Yahya bin Saeed, on the authority of Abu al-Rijal Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman: that his mother, Umrah bint Abd al-Rahman, said: I heard Aisha, may God be pleased with her, say: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, heard the voices of opponents at the door, their voices loud, and if One of them was asking the other to be lenient with him in something, and he was saying: By God, I will not do it. So the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, came out to them and said: (Where is the one who swears by God that he will not do good?) He said: I will, O Messenger of God, and whichever of them he prefers. 76 - Ismail bin Abi Uways narrated to us: Malik narrated to me, on the authority of Ibn Shihab, on the authority of Ubaydullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah, on the authority of Abdullah bin Abbas, who said: I came riding on a female donkey, and I was at that time approaching puberty, and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, was praying in Mina, not facing a wall, so I passed in front of some of the row, and let the female donkey graze, so it entered the row, and he did not disapprove of that to me. Ismail bin Abi Uwais narrated to us, he said: My brother narrated to me, on the authority of Sulayman, on the authority of Yahya bin Saeed, on the authority of Abu al-Rijal Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman, that his mother , Amrah bint Abd al-Rahman, said: I heard Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, say: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, heard the voices of litigants at the door, loudly. Their voices, and if one of them begs the other and asks him to be gentle with him in something, and he says, “By God, I will not do it.” So the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, came out to them and said, “Where is the one who swears by God that he will not do good?” He said, “I am, O Messenger of God.” And for him, which of the two is more beloved? http://www.al-eman.com/ hadeeth/viewc...BID=12&CID= 272 Reason for the weakness of the hadith: Ismail bin Abi Uways. A group of scholars said that he is weak, including: Sheikh Al-Amini - Al-Ghadir - Part: (8) - Page number: (35) - Al-Dulabi in Al-Du'afa', who said: I heard Al-Nasr bin Salamah Al-Marwazi say: Ibn Abi Uways is a liar. He used to narrate the issues of Ibn Wahb on the authority of Malik. - Al-'Uqaili said in Al-Du'afa' on the authority of Yahya bin Ma'in that he said: Ibn Abi Uways is not worth two pennies. - Al-Daraqutni said: I do not choose him in the Sahih. - Al-Ismaili mentioned him in Al-Madkhal and said: He was accused of frivolity and rashness in what I hate to mention. - Some of them said: We avoided him for the sake of the Sunnah. - Ibn Hazm said in Al-Muhalla: Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi said: Saif bin Muhammad told me: Ibn Abi Uways used to fabricate hadith. Al-Bayhaqi - Al-Sunan Al-Kubra - Part: (3) - Page number: (289) - Ibn Al-Junayd said: Ibn Ma'in said: Ibn Abi Uways is confused and lies and is nothing. - In Al-Kamal, Abu Al-Qasim Al-Tabari said that Al-Nasa'i went too far in his speech about him to the point of abandoning him. - In the book of Ibn Al-Jawzi, Yahya said that he is weak. - Ibn Hibban said that his narration cannot be relied upon because no one else followed him. Al-Azimabadi - Awn Al-Ma'bud - Part: (11) - Page number: (195) - He means Ibn Abi Uways, and he is weak. Al-Nasa'i accused him of something ugly that he narrated - on the authority of Salamah on his authority, so his narration cannot be relied upon. Amr bin Abi Asim - Book of Sunnah - Page numbers: (344, 391, and 542) - On the weakness of Ibn Abi Uways, who is Ismail bin Abdullah bin Abi Uways. - On the weakness of Ibn Abi Uways, whose name is Ismail bin Abdullah, and they narrated it as follows - On the fact that Ibn Abi Uways is spoken about in terms of his memory. - And Al-Hafiz says about him: He is truthful, but made mistakes in the hadiths from his memory. A weak suspicion. In this topic, God willing, we will respond to it and show with evidence and proof the invalidity of what they claim. First: The science of criticism and validation: Definition The science of criticism and validation is a science concerned with the men who transmit the hadith of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and the traces and reports, and examining the conditions for their acceptance and the reasons for their rejection. Whatever chains of transmission meet the conditions of authenticity is ruled to be accepted, and whatever contains one or more reasons for rejection is rejected. It is a great science whose fruit is knowing the hadith of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, authenticity and weakness, acceptance and rejection, as well as the traces and reports. Levels of criticism and validation Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar explained in his book "Taqreeb Al-Tahdheeb" the levels of criticism and validation, and made them twelve levels: 1. The Companions, may God be pleased with them. 2. Whoever is confirmed to be praised with "af'al" such as the most trustworthy of people, or by repeating the description verbally: such as trustworthy or in meaning: such as a trustworthy hafiz. 3. Whoever is singled out by a description: such as trustworthy, or skilled, or proven, or just. 4. He who is a little less than the one before him: such as truthful, or he is acceptable, or he is not acceptable. 5. He who is less than the fourth degree, and is referred to as: truthful but has a poor memory, or truthful but makes mistakes, his beginning is delusions, or he makes mistakes or changes at the end. This includes the one who is accused of a type of innovation: such as predestination and postponement. 6. He who has only a little hadith, and there is no proof in him that would abandon his hadith for it, and is referred to with the word: “acceptable” where he is followed; otherwise: weak hadith. 7. He who has more than one narrator narrated from him and is not authenticated, and is referred to with the word: concealed, or unknown status. 8. He who has no reliable authentication, and is weakened even if it is not mentioned in secret, and is referred to with the word: weak. 9. He who has only one narrator narrated from him, and he is not authenticated, and is referred to with the word: unknown identity, meaning: he is not known to the hadith scholars. 10. He who is not documented at all, and is nevertheless weak due to a defect, and is referred to as: abandoned or abandoned hadith, or weak hadith, or fallen. 11. He who is accused of lying, and it is said about him: accused, and accused of lying, meaning accused of deliberately lying by lying in the hadith, not deliberately and intentionally, but he does it a lot until he is accused of doing it deliberately. 12. He who is called a liar or a fabricator, such as saying: a liar, or a fabricator, or what a liar he is, then whoever is of the second and third ranks: his hadith is acceptable and most of it is in the two Sahihs, and whoever is of the fourth rank: he is also acceptable, and his acceptance is in the second rank, which is what Al-Tirmidhi deemed good and Abu Dawud was silent about, and whoever is of the fifth and sixth ranks: if its paths are multiple and it is strengthened by a follower or witness, then it is good for others, otherwise it is rejected, and whoever is of the seventh to the last ranks: then it is weak according to the different degrees of weakness. Description of the one whose narration is accepted and the one whose narration is rejected The report of the trustworthy in his religion and narration is accepted, and he is the just and precise. Justice: is the sane, adult Muslim who is free from immorality: committing a major sin or insisting on a minor one, and free from violations of honor. Chivalry: is a person doing what is good and avoiding what is disgraceful, such as eating while walking and urinating in the street without necessity. As for accuracy: it is the narrator’s mastery of what he narrates, by being alert and not negligent, memorizing what he narrates if he narrates from memory, controlling his book if he narrates from a book, knowing the meaning of what he narrates, and what changes the meaning from the intended if he narrates by meaning. The narrator’s justice is proven by: fame in the report and beautiful praise, such as the four imams and others, or by the approval of the imams, or the approval of two of them, or one of them. Accuracy is proven by the agreement of trustworthy and accurate people, and rare disagreement does not harm, but if it is frequent, his narration is rejected due to his lack of accuracy. The ruling on narrating from the people of innovation: The narration of the innovator is rejected if his innovation is disbelief, such as denying a matter in the Sharia that is known from the religion by necessity, or believing the opposite and the like, such as those who say that Allah does not know the details. If his innovation does not necessitate disbelief, then if he considers lying permissible, then it is also rejected. However, if he does not consider lying permissible, then his narration is accepted if he is not calling to innovation, because if he is calling to it, then embellishing his innovation will lead him to distort his narration. An-Nawawi preferred this detail and said: It is the most apparent and fair, and the opinion of many or most. Al-Hafiz Abu Ishaq al-Jawzaani restricted the statement of accepting the narration of someone other than a caller to the condition that he did not narrate anything that strengthens his innovation. Ibn Hajar said: What he said is valid, because the reason for which the narration of a caller was rejected also applies to him. Scholars of criticism and authentication: The science of criticism and authentication has scholars who excelled in it, and they are divided into four levels: 1. The extremists 2. The moderates with some extremism 3. The moderates with some leniency 4. The lenient ones, the most famous of whom are the extremists: Abu Hatim al-Razi, Yahya ibn Saeed al-Qattan, al-Uqayli, Abu al-Fath al-Azdi, Ibn Hibban, Abu Naim al-Fadl ibn Dukayn al-Mulla’i, Affan ibn Muslim al-Saffar. The moderates with some extremism : al-Bukhari, Muslim, Yahya ibn Ma’in, Abu Zur’ah al-Razi, al-Nasa’i, Ali ibn al-Madini, Malik, Shu’bah ibn al-Hajjaj, Abd al-Rahman ibn Mahdi, Abu Ishaq Ibrahim al-Juzajani al-Sa’di (he may be strict with the Kufians), Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan al-Fasi (he may be strict with the unknowns), Uthman ibn Abi Shaybah, Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi. Moderates with some leniency: Muhammad al-Dhuhli, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abu Dawud, Abu al-Hasan al-Daraqutni, Ibn Adi, Ibn Saad, Dahim, Ibn Yunus al-Misri, Ibn Numayr al-Kufi, al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ibn Mandah, Sufyan ibn Saeed al-Thawri, Baqi ibn Mukhallad al-Andalusi, al-Dhahabi, Ibn Hajar. The lenient ones: Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Hibban (mentioned in the book “al-Thiqat” or in his Sahih), al-Hakim, al-Bayhaqi, al-Ijli, Abu Isa al-Tirmidhi, Ibn al-Sakn, Abu Bakr al-Bazzar, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Abu Ja`far Ahmad ibn Salih al-Misri, and his student Ya`qub ibn Sufyan al-Fusawi, Abu Hafs ibn Shahin. Also, the later scholars of criticism and authentication such as Ahmad Shakir and al-Albani, may Allah have mercy on them. The importance of the science of criticism and authentication: Allah - the Almighty - has bestowed upon the Islamic nation countless blessings, and among those blessings is that He made it the best of nations brought forth for mankind, its religion the final and most perfect of religions, and its Prophet the final and master of the prophets. He - the Almighty - has also undertaken to preserve its revelation from distortion and alteration. Allah the Almighty says: {Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian.} [Al-Hijr: 9], and the remembrance here includes the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Because the Sunnah is also a revelation sent down from Allah, the Most High. Allah the Most High said: {Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed.} [An-Najm: 3-4], and it is the explanation of the Qur’an, and Allah the Most High called it a reminder. Allah the Most High said: {And We have sent down to you the message that you may make clear to the people what was sent down to them and that they might give thought.} [An-Nahl: 44]. However, it is not possible to act upon the Qur’an in isolation from the Sunnah, and this is what made Makhul say: “The Qur’an is more in need of the Sunnah than the Sunnah is of the Qur’an.” The Sunnah is the one that explains the intention of Allah - the Almighty - from the generalities of His Book, and indicates His limits, and makes things easy for him, and guides to the straight path, the path of Allah, whoever follows it will be guided, and whoever takes a path other than its path will go astray and go astray, and Allah will appoint him to what he has appointed. One of the most important tools of the Sunnah that helps in it and leads to its preservation is the science of criticism and authentication. The science of criticism and authentication, which is usually specific to narrators, is one of the most precise and important sciences of the Sunnah, because it is what is relied upon in accepting or rejecting the Sunnah, and it is basically the chain of transmission that is formed by a group of men who transmit the hadith narrated from the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This acceptance or rejection was not without rules or controls; rather, the scholars of this art traced the histories of the men, and stood on their stories with precision, and they were devoted to the truth, and they were not concerned with the blame of any critic in Allah’s cause. Whoever they found to be just, they treated him justly, and whoever they found to be wounded, they wounded him, and in all of that they did not take into account any personal considerations, except sincerity to Allah Almighty, and caution to preserve the Sunnah of the Prophet - may Allah bless him and grant him peace. If there was nothing from it except warning those who are negligent in knowledge of the Sunnah about what has not been proven, let alone what is falsely attributed to the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - so that they avoid it, and beware of acting upon it, and believing what is in it, and guiding people to it - that would be sufficient and satisfactory. Therefore, it is not surprising that the scholars - may Allah have mercy on them - have increased their clarification of the conditions of the narrators, and exposed the veils of the liars, and denied the hadith of the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - the fabrications of the falsifiers, the distortions of the extremists, and the slander of the slanderers, and they - may Allah have mercy on them - carried out the greatest jihad, especially at the time when corruption was beginning to appear. They were truly the just ones of this nation in carrying and conveying knowledge, and they are among those whose efforts are referred to in documenting and weakening, correcting and falsifying. This is what you criticize, forgetting that most of your books are not supported, and are of unknown source and writer, and no source or acceptable chain of transmission to Jesus, peace be upon him, can be expected from your books, not to mention the myths and historical and scientific errors that your books contain. Al-Albani, may God have mercy on him, says: The chain of transmission about which some of the predecessors said: If it were not for the chain of transmission, anyone could say whatever he wanted. Therefore, when other nations lost this great means, their history was filled with absurdities and superstitions. Let us not take the readers far, for these are their books that they call the Holy Books, in which the rope is mixed with the arrow, so that they cannot distinguish the correct from the weak, from what is in them of the laws revealed to their prophets, nor know anything about the history of their lives, forever. They are still wandering in their error, and in the darkness of the night they are lost! Not to mention the testimonies of many Christian writers and scholars themselves who rejected much of what came in your Holy Books and admitted in their tongues and through their writings the loss of the original copies of the Holy Book!!!! See, but not limited to: (1) The book Introductions to the Old Testament by Dr. Wahib George Kamel, page 24 (2) The Biblical Encyclopedia - Part Three - page 279. (3) The book Manuscripts of the Holy Book in its Original Languages ​​by Dr. Priest Emil Maher Ishaq, Professor of the New Testament and Theology at the Clerical College and the Coptic Language at the Coptic Language Institute in Cairo, page 19. (4) A Guide to Reading the Holy Bible by Father Stephan Charpentier, translated into Arabic by Father Subhi Hamwi, the Jesuit, page 234 (5) The Bible Dictionary, page 844, also available online (6) A General Idea about the Holy Bible. They wrote in the book’s data in the introduction to the book that the book is from articles published between 1968 and 1970, with articles by Father Matta El Meskeen. (7) An Introduction to Biblical Criticism by Engineer Youssef Daoud Riyad, page 26 – a small Catholic book (8) The Inspiration of the Holy Bible by Youssef Riyad, page 65 (9) An Introduction to the New Testament by Dr. Fahim Aziz, pages 111,112 (10) The Holy Bible – Translation of the Jesuit Fathers or the Jesuit Order, Introduction to the New Testament, page 12, which shows beyond any doubt that all the original copies of the originals of the Holy Bible have been lost and disappeared, and that there is no Holy Bible today written by their authors. In denying the revelation of the Holy Book, it was mentioned in the (Encyclopedia Britannica) a book that the investigators agreed to compose from the scholars of England, and in it (274/11) in explaining the inspiration (revelation): A dispute has arisen over whether every statement included in the Holy Books is inspired or not? And so in every case included in it, Jerome, Walker, Teece, Erasmus, Procopius and many other scholars said (that not every statement that came from it is inspired) Izhar al-Haqq by Sheikh Rahmatullah al-Hindi (205/1) Curt says (the current circulated Holy Book does not contain the Torah and the Gospel revealed by God, and scholars themselves have acknowledged the human touches in preparing this Holy Book) Currt Kuhl the old testament: Its original composition (London, 1061) p, p47. 51, 52 James Hasting says (however, we expect to find within the pages of the Holy Book some parts of the original Torah and Gospel, which necessitates a serious study in order to make the content of the Holy Book understandable) James Hasting, Dictionary of Bible (New York, 1963) p, p 567 -567 Sources of the Holy Book: The modern Jesuit translation says on p. 66 under the title: “Its Sources” The authors of the Bible, while narrating the beginning of the world and humanity, did not hesitate to draw their information directly or indirectly from the traditions of the ancient Near East, especially from the traditions of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Phoenician-Canaanite region. Archaeological discoveries from about a century ago indicate the existence of many things in common between the first attributes of the Book of Genesis and some of the lyrical, wisdom, and liturgical texts of Sumer, Babylon, Thebes, and Ugarit. Have you seen the importance of criticism and modification? Therefore, the best description suitable for this weak suspicion of yours, which we will show later to be invalid, God willing, and which you want to attribute what is in your books of a break in the chain of transmission and source and the identity of its writers and the huge amount of historical and scientific errors and attribute all of that to Islam is the Arabic proverb: She threw her disease at me and slipped away. There are many, many of these sayings and studies that challenge or reject the chain of transmission and source of the Bible. We did not mention them due to lack of time Second: Among the weak men among the scholars of Hadith: (Kh M D T Q) Ismail bin Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Uwais bin Malik bin Abi Aamer, the nephew of Malik bin Anas. Al-Marzubani said in his (Dictionary): He was one of the jurists of Hijaz and he has a few poems from it: The heart has driven to you love * In the most violent way possible O Fatima, release my anger * Otherwise, some of the tension loosens the bonds So remembering you is my companion when I sleep * And remembering you is my morning and my evening remembrance. Ibn Khalafun (5) said: Muslim narrated from him, and narrated from Ahmad bin Yusuf Al-Azdi from him in (The Book of Cursing), and from Zuhair bin Harb from him in (Wearing the Ring), and from Ubaidullah bin Muhammad bin Khunais from him in the Book of Judgments, and he said at the beginning of Judgments: More than one of our companions told me from him, and Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi said: Weak. Narrated from him: Ibn Wadah Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Qurtubi. In (Al-Muhalla), Ibn Hazm said (1): Al-Azdi Abu Al-Fath Al-Hafiz said: Saif Ibn Muhammad told me that Ibn Abi Uways used to fabricate hadith. Abu Muhammad said: This is a great sin. The author of Al-Zahra said: He died and he had eighty-eight pilgrimages. Al-Bukhari narrated from him nearly two hundred hadiths, and Muslim estimated twenty hadiths. Ibn Abi Hatim said, as mentioned by the author of Al-Kamal: I asked my father about him and he said: He was trustworthy. Al-Khalili said in Al-Irshad (2): Abu Hatim Al-Razi said: He was reliable in his maternal uncle. Al-Khalili said: And a group of the hadith masters said that he was weak in mind. Abu Jaafar Al-Uqaili mentioned him in Jamalat Al-Du’afa (3). Al-Daraqutni said in the book Al-Tajreeh wa Al-Ta’deel: It was said to him: Why did Al-Nasa’i weaken Ibn Abi Uways? He said: He mentioned Muhammad bin Musa, who is one of the imams, and Abu Abd Al-Rahman used to single him out in a way that he did not single out his son. He mentioned from Abu Abd Al-Rahman that he said: Salamah bin Shabib narrated to me from him, then Abu Abd Al-Rahman stopped. He said: After that, I kept trying to prevent him from narrating the story to me until he said: Salamah bin Shabib told me that I heard Ismail bin Abi Uways say: : Perhaps I would make up the hadith for the people of Medina if they differed among themselves about something. Al-Barqani said: I said to Al-Daraqutni: Who narrated this to you from Muhammad bin Musa? He said: The minister wrote it from his book and read it to him - meaning - Ibn Hanzabah (1). He narrated from Abdullah bin Wahb Al-Masry, as mentioned by Al-Mizzi in the book (Al-Atraf) (2) in the book of Jihad in the chapter on shields. Al-Bukhari said: Ismail told us, Ibn Wahb told us, Amr said, and Abu Al-Aswad told me, from Urwah, from Aisha, and he mentioned the hadith: (The two singing slave girls) and he did not mention it here, nor did he mention it among those who took it from Ibn Wahb in the chapter on Abdullah. And Ibn Khalafun said something similar to what we mentioned here in his book (The Names of the Men of the Two Sheikhs), and Imam Abu Nasr Hamid bin Mahmoud bin Ali bin Abdul Samad Atawar Al- Fahri Al-Razi mentioned it in his summary in (The Book of Al-Bukhari). Al-Nadr bin Salamah Al-Marwazi said: He is a liar, Ibn Al-Jawzi mentioned it from him. (3) Ibn Dihya said in (Al-Mustawfi): People spoke ill of him. ------------------------ Footnotes: (1) And in Al-Hakim’s Questions (263 / p. 172) Al-Darqutni narrated this chain of transmission on the authority of Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Nasa’i, who said: Suhayl ibn Abi Salih is better than Ismail ibn Abi Uways. (2) (12/23). (3) (al-Du’afa’) (395). Taqrib al-Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar: Uwais with the diminutive Ibn Abi Uwais [Numeric Banu Tamim] on the authority of Anas, perhaps Ibn Malik, the uncle of Malik Ibn Anas, the jurist, Ibn Hibban deemed him trustworthy from the third S, Book of Tahdhib al-Tahdhib Ahmad ibn Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Hajar al-Asqalani Ma’in: “Ibn Abi Uwais and his father steal hadith.” Ibrahim ibn al-Junayd said on the authority of Yahya: “He is confused and lies, he is nothing.” Abu Hatim said: “His position is truthfulness, but he was neglectful.” Al-Nasa’i said: “Weak.” He said in another place: “Not trustworthy.” Al-Lalaka’i said: “Al-Nasa’i went too far in speaking about him to the point of abandoning him, and perhaps he was shown what was not shown to others, because the speech of all of these people leads to the conclusion that he is weak.” Ibn ‘Adi said: “He narrated strange hadiths on the authority of his maternal uncle, and no one supported him in them, and on the authority of Sulayman ibn Bilal and others of his sheikhs. People narrated on his authority, and Ibn Ma’in and Ahmad praised him, and al-Bukhari narrated a lot on his authority, and he is better than Abu Uwais.” Ibn ‘Asakir said: He died in the year six, and it is said in the year Two hundred and twenty-seven in Rajab. I said: Ibn Hibban asserted in Al-Thiqat that he died in the year 6. Al-Dulabi said in Al-Du’afa’: I heard Al-Nasr bin Salamah Al-Marwazi say: “Ibn Abi Uways is a liar. He used to narrate the issues of Ibn Wahb from Malik.” Al-Uqaili said in Al-Du’afa’: Usama Al-Rifa’ Al-Basri narrated to us that Yahya bin Ma’in said: “Ibn Abi Uways is worth two fils.” Al-Daraqutni said: “I do not choose him in the Sahih.” Al-Khalili narrated in Al-Irshad that Abu Hatim said: “He was steadfast in his condition.” In Al-Kamal, Abu Hatim said: “He was one of the trustworthy.” Ibn Abi Khaithama narrated on the authority of Abdullah bin Ubayd Allah Al-Abbasi, the ruler of Yemen: “Ismail took a bribe from a merchant for twenty dinars until he sold him a garment worth fifty for one hundred to the emir.” Al-Ismaili mentioned him in Al-Madkhal and said: “He was accused of frivolity and rashness in what I hate to mention.” He said: “Some of them said we avoided him for the sake of the Sunnah.” Ibn Hazm said in Al-Mahalli: Abu Al-Fath Al-Azdi said: Saif bin Muhammad told me that Ibn Abi Uways: “He used to fabricate.” The hadith: “And I read on the authority of Abdullah bin Omar on the authority of Abu Bakr bin Muhammad that Abd al-Rahman bin Makki informed them in writing, I am the hafiz Abu Tahir al-Salfi, I am Abu Ghalib Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad al-Baqillani, I am the hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ghalib al-Barqani, he told us Abu al-Hasan al-Daraqutni, he said: Muhammad bin Musa al-Hashimi was mentioned, and he is one of the imams, and al-Nasa’i used to single him out in a way that he did not single out his son, so he mentioned on the authority of Abu Abd al-Rahman, he said: Salamah bin Shabib narrated to me, he said: Why did Abu Abd al-Rahman hesitate? He said: So after that I kept trying to prevent him from narrating the story to me until he said: Salamah bin Shabib said to me: I heard Ismail bin Abi Uways say: “I used to fabricate hadith for the people of Madinah if they differed about something among themselves.” Al-Barqani said: I said to al-Daraqutni, who narrated this to you on the authority of Muhammad bin Musa? He said: “The minister, I wrote it from his book and read it to him,” meaning by the minister the great hafiz Ja’far bin Khazabah. I said: This is what was clear to al-Nasa’i from him, so he avoided his hadith and said about him that he was “not trustworthy.” Perhaps this was from Ismail in his youth, then he became righteous. As for the two sheikhs, it is not thought that they narrated from him anything except the authentic hadith in which trustworthy people participated. I explained this in the introduction to my commentary on al-Bukhari, and God knows best. The songs of the righteous in explaining the names of the men and the meanings of the monuments Badr al-Din al-Ayni Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Uwais bin Malik bin Abi Amir Al-Asbahi: Abu Uwais Al-Madani, the father of Ismail bin Abi Uwais, and Abu Bakr bin Abi Uwais, and he is the son of the paternal uncle of Malik bin Anas and his brother-in-law on his sister. He narrated from Thawr bin Zaid Al-Dayli, Jaafar bin Muhammad Al-Sadiq, Rabia bin Abi Abdul Rahman, Shurahbil bin Saad, a client of the Ansar, Damrah bin Saeed Al-Mazini, Abdullah bin Dinar, Abu Al-Zinad, Abdullah bin Dhakwan, Al-Zuhri, Muhammad bin Al-Munkadir, Hisham bin Urwah, Yahya bin Saeed Al-Ansari, and others. His son Ismail bin Abi Uwais, Ismail bin Subaih, Al-Sindi bin Abdul Rabbah Al-Razi, Abdullah bin Muslimah Al-Qa’nabi, his son Abu Bakr Abdul Hamid bin Abi Uwais, Firdaws bin Al-Ash’ari, Mo’alla bin Mansour, and others narrated from him. And from Ahmad bin Hanbal: Salih. And from him: There is nothing wrong with him. On his authority: Trustworthy. On the authority of Yahya: Authentic, but his hadith is not that permissible. On his authority: He is not strong. On his authority: Weak, not like Falih. On his authority: Abu Uways and his son are weak. On the authority of Yahya: Truthful, but not a proof. On his authority: Weak hadith. Amr ibn Ali said: There is weakness in him, but he is among the people of truthfulness in their view. Al-Bukhari said: What he narrated from his original book is more authentic . Abu Dawud said: Authentic hadith. Al-Nasa’i said: A Madani, but not strong. Abu Zur’ah said: Authentic, truthful, but weak. Abu Hatim said: His hadith is written down but not used as proof, and he is not strong. Al-Daraqutni said: There is something in some of his hadith from Al-Zuhri. Abu Al-Husayn ibn Qani’ said: He died in the year 167 AH. The group narrated from him except Al-Bukhari, and Abu Ja’far Al-Tahawi narrated from him. Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’dil 2/(613). Abu Talib said: I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal about Ibn Abi Aws. He said: There is nothing wrong with him. Al-Kamil by Ibn Adi. Ahmad bin Abi Yahya said: I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal say: Ibn Abi Aws is not bad, and his father is weak in hadith. Tarikh Baghdad . Hanbal bin Ishaq said: Abu Abdullah said: Abu Uwais, the cousin of Malik bin Anas, is righteous. 10/7. Al-Daraqutni mentioned in ((Al-Du`afa’ wa al-Matrukin)) (41), and said on the authority of Ibn Abi Uwais, on the authority of his father, on the authority of his grandfather. Al-Dhahabi said: Al-Daraqutni is weak. ((Al-Mizan)) 1 (585). Encyclopedia of Al-Daraqutni’s Sayings . Al-Daraqutni said: Ismail is weak, Al-Nasa’i accused him, he fabricated a narration on his authority, so his narration cannot be used as evidence if he is the only one who narrates it on the authority of Sulayman, meaning Ibn Bilal, or on the authority of anyone else, so the addition of Ibn Abi Uwais on the authority of Sulayman is not accepted if he is the only one who narrates it. ((Al-Ilzamat wa al-Taba`)) pp. 354 and 355. Abu al-Qasim al-Lalaka’i said: Al-Nasa’i went to extremes in his discussion of him, to the point of abandoning him. Perhaps he was shown what was not shown to others, because the words of all of these people lead to the conclusion that he is weak. [Tahdhib al-Kamal]. Al-Daraqutni also said: I do not choose him in the Sahih. ((Al-Mizan)) 1 (855). Ibn Hajar said: I read on the authority of Abdullah bin Omar, on the authority of Abu Bakr bin Muhammad, that Abd al-Rahman bin Makki informed them in writing, al-Hafiz Abu Tahir al-Salfi informed us, Abu Ghalib Muhammad bin al-Hasan bin Ahmad al-Baqillani informed us, al-Hafiz Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Ghalib al-Barqani informed us, Abu al-Hasan al-Daraqutni told us, he said: Muhammad bin Musa al-Hashimi was mentioned - and he is one of the imams, and al-Nasa’i used to single him out in a way that he did not single out his son - so he mentioned on the authority of Abu Abd al-Rahman, he said: Salamah bin Shabib narrated to me, he said: Then Abu Abd al-Rahman stopped, he said: I kept on trying to prevent him from narrating the story to me until he said: Salamah bin Shabib told me: I heard Ismail bin Abi Uways say: I used to fabricate hadith for the people of Madinah if they differed about something among themselves, al-Barqani said: I said to al-Daraqutni: Who narrated this to you on the authority of Muhammad bin Musa? The minister said: I wrote it from his book and read it to him, meaning by the minister the great hafiz Ja’far bin Hanzabah. ((Tahdhib al-Tahdhib)) 1 158. But the meaning of Ismail’s phrase is not what came to mind of al-Nasa’i. Dr. al-A’zami said: “He meant: I will write a book for them on that, or I will write the hadith among them, i.e. I will inform them of it.” Book Mizan al-I’tidal by al-Dhahabi: Ismail ibn Abi Uways [Kh, M] Abdullah ibn Abdullah ibn Abi Uways ibn Malik ibn Abi Amir al-Asbahi [Kh, M], Abu Abdullah al-Madani. A hadith scholar who is very weak. He narrated from his maternal uncle Malik, his brother Abdul Hamid, and his father. He was the first to meet Abdul Aziz al-Majshun and Salamah ibn Wardan. The two authors of Sahih, Ismail al-Qadi and al-Kibar narrated from him. Ahmad said: He is fine. Ibn Abi Khaithama said, from Yahya: He is trustworthy, weak in mind, not that. Abu Hatim said: His position is trustworthy, but he is neglected. Al-Nasa’i said: He is weak. Al-Daraqutni said: I do not choose him in Sahih. He died in the year two hundred and twenty-six. Ibn Adi said: Ahmad bin Abi Yahya said: I heard Ibn Ma'in say: He and his father steal hadith. Ad-Du'labi said in Ad-Du'afa: I heard An-Nadr bin Salamah Al-Marwazi say: He is a liar, he used to narrate the issues of Ibn Wahb on the authority of Malik. Al-'Uqaili said: Usamah Ad-Daqqaq Basra told me. I heard Yahya bin Ma'in say: Ismail bin Abi Uways is not worth two pennies. I said: Ibn Adi cited three hadiths for him, then he said: He narrated strange things on the authority of his maternal uncle Malik that no one else supported him on, and on the authority of Sulayman bin Bilal. Al-Bukhari Al-Kabir narrated on his authority. I said: He died in the year two hundred and twenty-six. I have completed his news in Tarikh Al-Islam. Al-Hafiz Adh-Dhahabi said in As-Seer: The scholars agreed on the authenticity of the hadiths narrated by Ismail bin Abi Uways in Sahih. I said: The two sheikhs' reliance on him is sufficient for his trustworthiness. The scholars of hadith have spoken about him and some of them have authenticated him. And Allah knows best. Therefore: Not everyone who is weak is abandoned by scholars in general, but you may find a scholar criticizing the narrator and then citing some of his hadith as evidence. A doctoral thesis was conducted on the narrations of Ismail in the two Sahihs - under the supervision of Dr. Bashar Awad in Iraq - and the result was that every hadith that the two authors of the two Sahihs narrated for Ismail was followed except for two narrations in which the evidence indicated its correctness. Therefore, if Al-Bukhari narrated for a narrator, then he would have refined his hadith and distinguished the weak from the correct. Anyone who is familiar with the methodology of Imam Al-Bukhari knows his precision in choosing the men of his hadith. He narrated what was authentic from the narration of Ibn Abi Uways, and as Al-Hafiz Al-Dhahabi said, they agreed on the authenticity of what he narrated for him in the Sahih. This is what we will explain, God willing. Note: Abdul Rahman bin Yahya Al-Mu'alimi said in the introduction to his book At-Tankil when speaking about Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah Al-Naysaburi, the author of Al-Mustadrak: The two sheikhs only narrate from someone who is criticized in known places. That they see that the weakness in the man is specific to his narration from so-and-so of his sheikhs, or to the narration of so-and-so from him, or to what he heard from him other than his book, or to what he heard from him after his confusion, or to what came from him by way of isnad while he is a mudallis and nothing came from him from another source that would remove suspicion of tadlis. So they narrate from the man where he is suitable and they do not narrate from him where he is not suitable. Al-Mizzi said in “Tahdheeb Al-Kamal”: (Kh M D T Q): Ismail bin Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Uwais bin Malik bin Abi Aamer Al-Asbahi, Abu Abdullah bin Abi Uwais Al-Madani, an ally of Banu Taym bin Murrah, and he is the brother of Abu Bakr Abdul Hamid bin Abi Uwais, and the nephew of Malik bin Anas. End quote. Birth: Class: Tenth: The great ones who took from the followers of the followers. Death: 226 AH. Narrated by: Kh [Al-Bukhari] M [Muslim] D [Abu Dawud] T [Al-Tirmidhi] Q [Ibn Majah] Who is the trustworthy man among the hadith scholars? Ahmad bin Hanbal said: Ibn Abi Uwais is trustworthy and he took a commendable position in the matter of the ordeal. (History of Islam by Imam Al-Dhahabi, and Al-Ma’rifah by Ya’qub) Abu Hatim said: His status is truthfulness (Al-Mughni fi Al-Du’afa by Al-Dhahabi 1: 79) Abu Hatim Al-Razi said (Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’dil 1: 22): I asked Ismail bin Abi Uways. I said: This is what Malik bin Anas says. The trustworthy one told me. Who is he? He said: He is Mukhramah bin Bakir bin Uthman. In Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib 1: 271: Al-Khalili narrated in Al-Irshad that Abu Hatim said: He was trustworthy in his condition. In Al-Kamal - by Abdul Ghani - that Abu Hatim said: He was trustworthy. In the history of Ibn Ma’in, narrated by Uthman Al-Darimi (No. 930-931): I said: So Ibn Abi Uways is the brother of this tribe. He said: He was trustworthy. I said: So this tribe? He said: There is nothing wrong with him. In the history of Ibn Ma’in, narrated by Al-Duri (No. 5331): I said: Is Yahya trustworthy? He said: Yes, there is nothing wrong with him. Abu Bakr bin Abi Khaithama said on the authority of Yahya bin Ma’in: He is trustworthy, but weak in mind (Tahdhib Al-Kamal 3: 127). Ibn Adi (in Al-Kamil): People narrated from him and Ibn Ma’in and Ahmad Al-Bukhari praised him : Ibn Abi Uways gave his book to Imam Al-Bukhari to sort out his hadiths, and Al-Bukhari selected what was proven to him, as Al-Hafiz mentioned in the introduction to Al-Fath with a sound chain of transmission, and he is Al-Bukhari’s sheikh as Al-Hafiz mentioned in Taghliq Al-Ta’liq (3: 425). Imam Al-Bukhari said: When Ismail bin Abi Uways selected from his book, he would copy those hadiths for himself and say, “These hadiths were selected by Muhammad bin Ismail from my hadiths.” And Ibn Abi Uways said to me, “Look in my books and what I have for you, and I will be grateful to you as long as I am alive.” Commentary 5: 400 Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in the introduction to Fath al-Bari, p. 14: Those who were spoken about by al-Bukhari alone, most of them were his sheikhs whom he met, sat with, knew their circumstances, looked into their hadiths, and distinguished the good from the imaginary. He also said, p. 6: The statement is limited to ten chapters: The ninth: In the context of the names of all those who were criticized from his men in alphabetical order, and the response to that criticism in a fair and just manner, either because he avoided what was criticized because of it, or because he brought out what was agreed upon by someone stronger than him, or for other reasons. Ibn Hajar said in the introduction to Fath al-Bari, p. 410: We have narrated in Manaqib al-Bukhari with a sound chain of transmission that Ismail brought out his original hadiths for him and gave him permission to select from them and to inform him of what he narrated so that he could narrate it and ignore what was other than it. This indicates that what al-Bukhari brought out from him is from his sound hadiths, because he wrote from his original hadiths. Based on this, nothing of his hadiths can be relied upon other than what is in the Sahih. It was stated in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib 5:245: Ibn Abd al-Barr said: No one has ever mentioned anything wrong with his religion or his trustworthiness, but they have criticized him for his poor memory and that he contradicts some of his hadith. Al-Hakim Abu Abdullah said: He has been accused of making many mistakes, and his position among the imams is the position of one who is likely to make mistakes and mentions the correct ones from him. The author of Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (1:409) said: Ismail ibn Abi Uways, the imam, hafiz, hadith scholar of Medina. Imam al-Dhahabi said in his book: “Whoever spoke about him while he is trustworthy (p. 44): Ismail ibn Abi Uways, Kh. M., is a trustworthy, famous man with strange things. Al-Dhahabi said in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’ 10:391: Ismail bin Abi Uways: The Imam, the memorizer, the truthful, he read the Quran and its authenticity with Nafi’ and he was the last of his students to die, and he was the scholar of the people of Medina and their narrators in his time, despite his deficiency in his memorization and mastery, and if the two sheikhs had not used him as evidence, his hadith would have been moved from the level of authentic to the level of good, this is what I have about him and the two Sahihs relied on him, and there is no doubt that he is the owner of individual and objectionable hadiths that are overwhelmed by the vastness of what he narrated, for he is one of the vessels of knowledge . Imam Al-Dhahabi said in his history: I said: The matter settled on his authentication and avoiding what is objectionable to him. Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said in Al-Taqreeb 1: 108: Ismail bin Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Uways bin Malik bin Abi Amir Al-Asbahi Abu Abdullah bin Abi Uways Al-Madani is truthful, he made mistakes in hadiths from his memory. Al-Hafiz Abu Zar’ah Al-Iraqi said in his book Al-Bayan wa Al-Tawdih liman anjrahu fi Al-Sahih and was touched with a kind of criticism: As for what Al-Daraqutni said: I do not choose him in the Sahih, this is cold talk, he was chosen before you as an imam of the Sahih, if you have something ambiguous, leave it. Otherwise, no. As for the statement of Ibn Adi, it does not detract from that either, because the fact that a trustworthy person narrated some hadiths alone does not harm his integrity Third: Imam Al-Bukhari’s method in authenticating hadiths. The ranks of the men of the two Sahihs in terms of accuracy: The men of the two Sahihs are not on the same level in terms of accuracy. Among them are the trustworthy hafiz and among them are those who are less than that. I will cite from the statements of the scholars what indicates this. Imam Al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) - may God have mercy on him - said: (p. 142) “Whoever the two sheikhs or one of them narrated from him is divided into two categories: one of them is what they used as evidence in the fundamentals, and the second is: whoever they narrated from him as a follow-up, testimony, and consideration. Whoever they used as evidence from him or one of them, and he was not trusted or criticized, then he is trustworthy and his hadith is strong. Whoever they used as evidence from him or one of them and spoke about him: sometimes the talk about him is harsh, and the majority are on his trustworthiness, so his hadith is also strong. And sometimes his softening and his memory are considered, so his hadith does not fall below the level of good, which we may call: the lowest levels of authenticity. So in the “two books”, praise be to God, there is no man who was used as evidence by Al-Bukhari or Muslim in the fundamentals and his narrations are weak, rather good or authentic. And whoever Al-Bukhari or Muslim narrated from him in the witnesses and follow-ups, then among them there is someone who has something in his memory and he is hesitant about his trustworthiness, so everyone who narrated from him in the “two Sahihs” has jumped the bridge and there is no turning back from him except with clear proof. Yes, the authentic has levels and the trustworthy have classes, so whoever is trusted absolutely is not like whoever spoke about him. And the one who speaks about his poor memory and diligence in seeking knowledge is not like those who weakened him, nor the one who weakened him and narrated from him is like the one who left him, nor the one who left him is like the one who accused him and lied about him ( ). Al-Hafiz Al-Hazimi (d. 524 AH) preceded him in this. He said after dividing the narrators into five classes and making the first class the purpose of Al-Bukhari. And sometimes he cites prominent figures from the second class: “If it is said: If the matter is as you have prepared, and that the two sheikhs did not deposit in their books anything except what was authentic, then why did they cite the hadith of a group about whom they spoke, such as Falih bin Sulayman, Abd al-Rahman bin Abdullah bin Dinar and Ismail bin Abi Uways according to Al-Bukhari and Muhammad bin Ishaq and his relatives according to Muslim. I say: As for Al-Bukhari (p. 143) and Muslim depositing in their books the hadith of a group who were attributed to a type of weakness, then it is clear, except that their weakness did not reach a level that would reject their hadith” ( ). The meaning of this is that Imam Al-Bukhari narrates from the weak who did not reach the level of abandonment, but he does not narrate from them anything except what was authentic from their hadith. The authenticity of a hadith is known by two things: First: The agreement of this narrator with others and their following him. This is something that is observed in Sahih al-Bukhari, as he frequently mentions follow-ups and evidence. He narrates the hadith and then says: So-and-so and so-and-so followed him... if the narrator is weak, or the narrator is trustworthy but there is a difference in his chain of transmission and text. This will be explained in "Al-Bukhari's Methodology in Explaining Hadiths". Second: Reviewing the narrator's sources and examining them. Even if he is weak in his memory, his hadith found in his sources is accepted. If the narrator is truthful in general. An example of this is the hadiths of Ismail bin Abi Uways ( ). This method is known as the method of selecting from the hadiths of the weak, meaning that the hadith of the weak is not rejected as a whole nor accepted as a whole. Rather, only what is authentic from his hadith is accepted. Similarly, the hadith of the trustworthy is not accepted at all, so what he got right is accepted and what he got wrong is rejected. Imam Ibn al-Qayyim said, responding to those who criticized Muslim for citing the hadiths of the weak and those with poor memory, such as Matar al-Warraq and others:There is no fault with a Muslim in quoting his hadith, because he selects from the hadiths of this type what he knows he has memorized, just as he discards from the hadiths of a trustworthy person what he knows he made a mistake in. So in this case, the one who corrects him by quoting all the hadiths of a trustworthy person is mistaken.And from the weakness of all the hadiths of the bad ones (p. 144) of memorization. The first: the method of al-Hakim and his likes, and the second: the method of Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm and his likes. And the method of Muslim. It is the method of the imams of this matter (). And this is the method of Imam al-Bukhari - may God have mercy on him - also, but the efforts of the imams may differ in estimating the weakness of the narrator and his rank. The narrator may be weak and abandoned according to Muslim, while according to al-Bukhari he may be weak with a slight weakness that is possible, or the opposite, each according to his effort. Imam Ibn al-Salah stated this when he said : “Muslim’s condition in his Sahih is that the hadith be connected in its chain of transmission by a trustworthy person from a trustworthy person from its beginning to its end, free from anomalies and defects. This is the limit of the Sahih, so every hadith in which these conditions are met is Sahih without disagreement among the people of hadith, and what they differed about its authenticity from the hadiths: it may be due to their difference as to whether these conditions are met in it or some of them are absent. This is the most likely case, as if the hadith has narrators who differed as to whether it meets the conditions of authenticity. If the hadith has narrators who are all trustworthy, except that among them is Abu al-Zubayr al-Makki, for example, or Suhayl ibn Abi Salih, or al-Ala ibn Abd al-Rahman, because according to Muslim these are among those who meet the valid conditions, and this was not proven in al-Bukhari regarding them. And the same is the case with Al-Bukhari in what he narrated from the hadith of Ikrimah, the freed slave of Ibn Abbas, and Ishaq bin Muhammad Al-Gharawi, and Amr bin Marzouq and others whom Al-Bukhari used as evidence but Muslim did not use as evidence ( ). It is clear from the words of Imam Ibn Al-Salah that the imams did not differ in the definition of the authentic hadith and its valid conditions and its pillars: the mastery of the narrators, the connection of the chain of transmission, and the freedom from anomalies and defects. Rather, the difference between them is in the application of those conditions (p. 145) to the narrators and hadiths, and thus their efforts differ, and not because of the difference in the foundations and methodology as many understand – wrongly – but rather the difference is in the application and implementation of those conditions. Many have thought that Al-Bukhari has a special condition for the authentic hadith, and likewise that Muslim has a distinct condition, and likewise that Ibn Hibban and Ibn Khuzaymah have special conditions, and likewise Al-Hakim has a special condition for the authentic hadith. That is, every imam and critic has conditions for the authentic hadith that are completely different from the conditions of others, and this is contrary to the practical application of the critics, and the reason for falling into this dangerous methodological error is that The general terms used by Al-Haazimi, Al-Maqdisi and Al-Hakim in their books, and they never meant what these people understood. Hence, the common definition of an authentic hadith, which is: (What is narrated by a just and accurate person from someone like him up to the end of the chain of transmission and is free from irregularity and fatal defects), is deficient, as it does not include the hadiths of just people whose accuracy is weak, or in other words, it does not include the hadiths of weak narrators that are authentic. For this reason, Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar believes that the definition of an authentic hadith should be as follows: (It is a hadith that is connected by its chain of transmission to a completely accurate and accurate person, or a weak person from him if it is supported - from someone like him up to the end of the chain of transmission - and it is neither irregular nor defective) ( ). Al-Hafiz based this on his investigation and investigation of the hadiths of the two Sahihs. He said - may Allah have mercy on him -: “I only said that because I examined many hadiths of the two Sahihs and found that the ruling of authenticity cannot be reached on them except by that” ( ). Then he mentioned examples of this (p. 146). Among them is the hadith of Abi bin Al-Abbas bin Sahl bin Saad ( ) on the authority of his father ( ) may God be pleased with him in mentioning the horses of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace. He said: The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, had a horse in our garden called Al-Lahif. Abu Abdullah said, and some of them said: Al-Lakhif ( ). This father of mine was weakened by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Yahya ibn Ma'in and al-Nasa'i due to his poor memory. However, his brother Abdul-Muhaimin ibn al-Abbas ( ) supported him in this. Ibn Majah narrated it through his chain of transmission. Abdul-Muhaimin is weak, so it was supported. In addition to that, it is not one of the hadiths of rulings, so for this collected form, al-Bukhari ruled it to be authentic ( ). Likewise, al-Bukhari ruled the hadith of Mu'awiyah ibn Ishaq ibn Talhah on the authority of his aunt Aisha bint Talhah on the authority of Aisha - may Allah be pleased with her - to be authentic, that she asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) about jihad, and he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Your jihad is Hajj and Umrah" ( ). Abu Zur'ah weakened Mu'awiyah, but Ahmad and al-Nasa'i ( ) trusted him. Habib ibn Abi Umrah ( ) supported him in this, so it was supported ( ). There are many examples, many of which al-Hafiz mentioned in the introduction to his commentary on al-Bukhari, and there are many more in the book of Muslim than what is in al-Bukhari. (p. 147) Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar said - explaining the ranks of narrators in terms of accuracy - regarding Imam al-Bukhari: “As for mistakes, sometimes they are common in the narrator and sometimes they are rare. So when he is described as having many mistakes, he should look at what he has transmitted. If he finds it narrated by him or by someone else from a narration other than this one described as having mistakes, he should know that what is relied upon is the origin of the hadith, not this particular path. And if it is only found from a path, then this is a flaw that requires hesitation in what is in this way - and there is nothing of that in the Sahih - praise be to God. And when he is described as having few mistakes, as it is said that he has a bad memory, or he has delusions, or he has strange things, and other than that of expressions, then the ruling on him is like the ruling on what preceded it, except that the narration from these in the follow-ups is more than it is according to the author from the narration from those” ( ). From here it becomes clear to us that Al-Bukhari’s method in authenticating hadiths is to look at the hadith with all its chains of transmission and isnads, and not to look at each chain of transmission individually. This is not only the method of Imam Al-Bukhari, but it is the method of all the critical hadith scholars such as Imam Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi and others. Therefore, we see Imam Muslim cite in his Sahih some hadiths that have weak chains of transmission, then he cites supporting evidence and corroborating reports for them, so that hadith is authentic with all those chains of transmission. Likewise, Imam Al-Tirmidhi often cites hadiths whose narrators are weak, and he speaks about those narrators, saying for example: “So-and-so is not strong,” or “He is not that,” and similar expressions of softening. Then he judges the hadith to be authentic or good, or both, based on its supporting evidence and corroborating reports, because he usually follows that judgment by saying: “And in this chapter there is from so-and-so and so-and-so…” Explaining this matter and mentioning examples of it would take a long time, and whoever looks at Al-Jami’ Al-Sahih of Imam Muslim and Jami’ Al-Tirmidhi carefully will see that, and what I am focusing on is: It is a mention of examples and models from Sahih Al-Bukhari, which Al-Bukhari strengthened and authenticated based on the sum of their chains of transmission, not specifically their chains of transmission. (p. 148) For more: Imam Al-Bukhari’s Methodology in Authenticating and Explaining Hadiths (Through Sahih Al-Bukhari) Question: Ibn Adi said: Ahmad bin Abi Yahya said: I heard Ibn Ma’in say: He and his father steal hadith. The narrator of this statement on the authority of Imam Ibn Ma’in is Ahmad bin Abi Yahya al-Anmati Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi , who narrates on the authority of the two Imams Yahya bin Ma’in and Ahmad bin Hanbal. Ibn Adi said in (Al-Kamil fi Du’afa’ al-Rijal 1: 195): “Ahmad bin Abi Yahya Abu Bakr al-Anmati al-Baghdadi I heard Musa bin al-Qasim bin Musa bin al-Hasan bin Musa al-Ash’ath say Abu Bakr told me he heard Ibrahim al-Isfahani say Abu Bakr bin Abi Yahya is a liar. The Sheikh said Abu Bakr bin Abi Yahya has a strange hadith from trustworthy people that I did not include here. He narrated from Yahya bin Ma’in and Ahmad bin Hanbal a history of men.” Imam al-Dhahabi said in (Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal 1: 310): Ahmad bin Abi Yahya al-Anmati Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Ibrahim bin Urmah said he is a liar and Ibn Adi said a strange hadith from trustworthy people. I said it is narrated from Ahmad bin Hanbal and the like.” Ibn Hajar said in (Lisan al-Mizan 1: 321): “Ahmad bin Abi Yahya al-Anmati Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Ibrahim bin Urmah said he is a liar and Ibn Adi said a strange hadith from trustworthy people.” Conclusion: From here it becomes clear to us beyond any room There is doubt that this narration is invalid (they steal hadiths), as Imam Ibn Ma’in did not say that about Ibn Abi Uways after the lie of the narrator Ahmad Ibn Abi Yahya was revealed, and he is also the one who narrated strange hadiths from trustworthy people, so his words are not to be relied upon. Question: quote I said to Abu al-Hasan: Why did Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Nasa’i consider Ismail ibn Abi Uways to be weak? He said: He mentioned Muhammad ibn Musa al-Hashemi - Abu al-Hasan said: This is one of the imams, and Abu Abd al-Rahman used to single him out in a way that he did not single out his son - and he mentioned on the authority of Abu Abd al-Rahman that he said: (Salmah ibn Shabib narrated to me on his authority, he said: Then Abu Abd al-Rahman stopped, he said: I continued after that to prevent him from narrating the story to me, until he said to me: Salamah ibn Shabib told me: I heard Ismail ibn Abi Uways say: I sometimes used to fabricate hadith for the people of Madinah if they differed about something among themselves). I said to Abu al-Hasan: Who narrated this to you on the authority of Muhammad ibn Musa? He said: The minister, I wrote it from his book, and I read it to him, meaning Ibn Hanzabah. Then al-Daraqutni said on the authority of Muhammad ibn Musa: Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Nasa’i narrated on his authority in Sahih. The meaning of “weaving the hadith” according to the hadith scholars and linguists: It was stated in Al-Muhaddith Al-Fasil 1: 250: “Al-Saji informed me that Ja’far bin Ahmad told them that when Abu Ubaid wrote the books of jurisprudence and refutation, Husayn bin Ali Al-Karabisi heard about it, so he looked into it and saw that he was arguing against them with arguments from Al-Shafi’i and narrating his words without mentioning Al-Shafi’i, so Husayn became angry.” End . It was stated in Khasais Musnad Ahmad 1: 14: I heard Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal say: I said to my father, may God have mercy on him, why did you dislike writing books when you had made the Musnad?” End . And in the Epistle of Abu Dawud, p. 28: “And it is also written like Jami’ Sufyan Al-Thawri; 2 - Imam Abu Dawud, who said in his letter, p. 29: “ And the hadiths that I have placed in the book of Sunan, most of them are famous. ” 3 - Imam Ahmad and his son used the expression “placed books.” The Arabs used it in meanings other than fabricating hadiths falsely, including: It is stated in Lisan al -Arab, chapter “placed”: “ It is said that the camel placed, it places, if it He ran and hurried, so he is a placer, and he put the thing in the place: he fixed it in it , and the agreement: the debate in the matter. And the agreement: that you agree with your friend on a matter and debate with him about it. End. And in the ocean dictionary it also came: “The agreement: the bet, and the abandonment of the sale, and the agreement in the matter. And come, I will agree with you on the opinion: I will inform you of my opinion, and you will inform me of your opinion.” End. And in the book “Al-Ain”: “And the agreement: that you agree with your brother on a matter and debate with him about it.” End . And based on that, if the phrase comes from the tongue of one of the jurists or hadith scholars: I fabricated the hadith for them”; we cannot be certain that its meaning is: “I made up a false hadith for them.” This is supported by what has been mentioned about the uses of this expression in the Arabic language and by the great imams of hadith as well. Imam Muslim - may Allah have mercy on him - says in the Book of Prayer, Chapter on the Testimony of Faith: (… Not everything I have that is correct has been placed here, rather I have placed here what they agreed upon). This confirms what we have gone to, that the meaning of fabricating the hadith in the words of Ibn Abi Uways is a metaphorical statement that does not mean in any way that he lies about the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. So his saying [I used to fabricate the hadith for the people of Madinah if they differed about something among themselves]) means that I would fabricate a book for them on that, or I would fabricate the hadith among them, meaning I would inform them of it. Sheikh Muhammad al-Amin says: This is the correct under appropriate meaning of this word... It is not necessary that Ibn Abi Uways wrote for them a book with the meaning that is actually known... Rather, it is sufficient for him to have placed in their hands the hadith or hadiths recorded on a paper or papers from what he heard from his sheikhs, reminding them of it... This is what Ibn Abi Uways meant... This is the understanding that if its owner said that he was certain of it = hundreds of texts and documents would testify to that for him... As for the other meaning, it is a weak and invalid understanding... So where is Ibn Abi Uways from those skilled critics... such as his maternal uncle Malik, Al-Majashun, Al-Darwardi, Ibn Wahb, Ibn Kinanah... and dozens of others from the scholars of Medina... Are they asleep until Ibn Abi Uways fabricates lies against their Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - and they are silent... They do not transmit to us a letter that shows his action... until he comes and reveals it himself? Or did they know that and remain silent? This is what Sheikh Al-A'zami went to in the introduction to his investigation of the book Muwatta of Imam Malik: The meaning of Ismail's phrase is not what came to mind of Al-Nasa'i. Dr. Al-A'zami said: "He meant: I will put a book for them on that, or I will put the hadith among them, i.e. I will inform them of it." And in the index of Ibn Al-Nadim <d. 380> there is a further clarification of this sentence: The word "put" was repeated in his book on page 71 of Rida's copy three times: (And he was the first of the Kufians to put a book on grammar) ... (And Al-Rawasi said: Al-Khalil sent to me asking for my book, so I sent it to him and he read it and put his book) ... (Ibn Durastawayh said: Tha'lab claimed that the first of the Kufic grammarians to put a book on grammar was Al-Rawasi ...). Conclusion: In the statement of Imam Al-Dhahabi in Tarikh Al-Islam: (I said: The matter settled on documenting it and avoiding what is denied about it). A profound meaning that can only be understood by those who have taken correct knowledge as a beacon for themselves and the sound scientific method as a tool for dealing with what they read and hear. It is not what the Orientalists and Christians are trying to falsify and deceive people with due to their limited understanding of the hadith texts and their lack of familiarity with this great art. Question: quote Imam Al-Darqutni said about Ibn Abi Uwais: “I do not choose him in the Sahih” (Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib 1: 271) This statement does not necessarily impugn his justice, religion, and honesty . Although Imam al-Daraqutni told al-Barqani what he heard from al-Nasa’i in response to al-Barqani’s question, he did not impugn the honesty of Ibn Abi Uways. This confirms that al-Daraqutni neglected what the minister told him, because he did not confirm that narration, or because he doubted its authenticity, or because it was confirmed to him but he saw that it did not necessarily mean the meaning that al-Nasa’i understood. This is confirmed by what al-Barqani said in his questions: “I said to him: Sharik on the authority of Abu al-Yaqzan on the authority of Adi ibn Thabit on the authority of his father on the authority of his grandfather. How is this chain of transmission? He said: Weak. I said: From whom? He said: Abu al-Yaqzan is weak. I said: So he should be abandoned.” He said: No, rather he is expelled, people narrated it long ago. So if al-Daraqutni’s statement about a man “weak” does not necessarily mean that he abandoned his narration , rather he may mean by it the weakness of his memory, while we find al-Daraqutni saying about al-Husayn ibn Abdullah ibn Damira: “Abandoned” (see Ta’jil al-Manfa’ah 1: 96) in al-Barqani’s Questions: I asked him about Hakim ibn Jubayr, so he said he is a Kufi who is abandoned. I asked him about Ismail ibn Yahya ibn Salamah ibn Kuhayl, so he said he is abandoned . Also: I heard Abu al-Hasan - he is al-Daraqutni - say: Mutahhar ibn Sulayman, meaning the jurist, is a liar. I said: Why? He said: I heard him say one day: I heard from al-Firyabi, my father took me to him in the year three hundred and four. Abu al-Hasan said: So I said to him: This is after he died by four years. Abu al-Hasan said: Al-Firyabi stopped the hadith in Shawwal of the year three hundred and died in Muharram of the year three hundred and one. If this narration is proven by al-Daraqutni or it is understood from it that it means fabricating the hadith falsely or lying about the Messenger of God. If the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had said something very harsh about Ibn Abi Uways, criticizing his justice, religion, and truthfulness, just as he did with Mutahhar ibn Sulayman and others, then if Imam al-Daraqutni had criticized the justice of the one who lied about him, is it conceivable that he would be reluctant to criticize the justice of the one who fabricated a false hadith about the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and Imam al-Daraqutni was not a contemporary of Ibn Abi Uways? Ibn Abi Uways died in the year 226, while al-Daraqutni died in the year 385. So it is better to give preference to the statements of the imams of criticism and authentication who were contemporaries of Ibn Abi Uways and lived with him, and even narrated from him and accepted his hadith, and they are the most knowledgeable people about him and his circumstances and the degrees of his hadith. Al-Hafiz Abu Zur’ah said when he quoted al-Daraqutni’s statement: “As for al-Daraqutni’s statement: ‘I do not choose him in the Sahih,’ then he responded to him by saying: ‘He was chosen before you as an imam of the Sahih, if you have something ambiguous, leave it, otherwise do not.’” (al-Bayan wa’l-Tawdih, p. 385 ) 56) Question: quote It was stated in Mizan al-I’tidal 1:379: “And al-Dulabi said in al-Du’afa ’: I heard al-Nadr ibn Salamah al-Marwazi say : He is a liar. He used to narrate the questions of Ibn Wahb on the authority of Malik. ” End quote. And Ibn ‘Adi said in “al-Kamil” 1:323: “I heard Ibn Hammad say: I heard al-Nadr ibn Salamah al-Marwazi say: Ibn Abi Uways is a liar. He used to narrate the questions of Abdullah ibn Wahb on the authority of Malik.” This narration is narrated by Al-Nadr bin Salamah Al-Marwazi. See what is stated in Al-Du’afa’ wa Al-Matrokin by Ibn Al-Jawzi 3:161: “Al-Nadr bin Salamah Shadhan Abu Muhammad Al-Marwazi narrates from Ibn Nafi’. Abu Hatim Al-Razi said: He used to fabricate hadith. Al-Daraqutni said: He is abandoned. Ibn Hibban said: He steals hadith. It is not permissible to narrate from him except for consideration. Ibn Abdul Karim said: We know that he is a liar and that he fabricates hadith.” Ibn Abi Hatim says in Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’deel: “Al-Nadr bin Salamah Shadhan Al-Marwazi. I asked my father about him and he said: He used to fabricate hadith and he was not truthful. I heard him say: I heard Ismail bin Abi Uways mention Shadhan in a bad way. Abdul Aziz Al-Uwaysi and Ismail bin Abi Uways told me: Shadhan took our books and copied them and did not compare them with them. He did not hear from us and mentioned him in a bad way.” It is clear from the narration of this man that he is attacking Ibn Abi Uways in order to take revenge on him because Ibn Abi Uways mentioned him in a bad way. The imams of Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’deel have mentioned that Ibn Abi Uways was right in what he said. And whoever is fair and uses his mind if he contemplates the state of Ibn Abi Uways who is mentioned in the sources: that he was an ignorant... weak-minded... did not know how to narrate hadith and did not know how to convey it... and that he needed other scholars of hadith to explain to him what he was narrating and to ignore what was not... So, who was in such a state, would he know how to fabricate hadith and embellish it to pass it on to the masters of the people of knowledge in Madinah? Ibn Abi Uways - may Allah have mercy on him - seemed to want to praise himself and boast to some of the people that he was of high standing among the scholars of Madinah and attended their discussion sessions... until he even fabricated the hadith from what he heard and narrated in their hands for them to look at... So he came with words that made some of those who came after him think that he wanted something bad... And all of that did not happen... And even if he had tried it, I do not think it was within his power... And if he had done it, he would have dropped it immediately. So if someone asks: Why do the imams of the people of hadith narrate from someone who was in this state... and we know that they choose the memorizers who are prominent in memorization and accuracy to narrate the Sunnah? The man, may God have mercy on him, was not a crazy, insane person, so that his narration could be rejected and rejected in general terms... The most that happened was that he was light-headed and reckless... Then, what helped them to narrate from him was his accuracy in his narrations in his book... and they knew that they did not contradict what others had narrated... So this prompted them - with the high chain of transmission that they loved - to narrate from him. This is what we explained previously from the sayings of the imams of hadith, may God have mercy on them, and their testimonies. Question: quote Ibn Abi Khaithama said in his history (the manuscript copy of Al-Qarawiyyin) and (the printed version 3430 - 3432, Cairo edition): (I heard Yahya bin Ma’in say: Ismail bin Abi Uwais Al-Madani is truthful but weak in mind. Yahya was asked about him another time? He said: Ismail bin Abi Uwais: He is not that. He was asked about him another time? He said: Ibn Abi Uwais: He is nothing . Abdullah bin Ubaidullah bin Al-Abbas bin Muhammad Al-Hashimi, the ruler of Yemen, told me: I went out with Ismail bin Abi Uwais to Yemen. He said: While I was there one day, Ibn Abi Uwais entered upon me with a garment and something, and he said: His wife is divorced three times irrevocably if she does not buy from this A man sold his garment for one hundred dinars, so I said to the boy: Weigh it for him. So he weighed it for him, and we took the garment up. We needed some goods to send to the Sultan, so I said: Bring out that garment. So we showed it to him and found that the garment was worth fifty. So I said to Ibn Abi Uways: O Abu Abdullah! The garment is worth fifty and you swear that I will buy it for one hundred? He said: How insignificant to you. No, by God, if I sell it to him I will take twenty dinars from him. Counselor Salem Abdul Hadi says: Hadith scholars, may God have mercy on them, were able, through their own mechanism, through internal and external comparison of texts, which they call “consideration” and is called by the people of our time the theory of “textual analysis” or “internal and external criticism of the text.” Through this process, Hadith scholars, may God have mercy on them, were able to know the hadiths of narrators more than the narrators themselves know their hadiths. The books of criticism and modification and reasons for hadith are full of the phrase “not from the hadith of so-and-so,” and everyone can refer to them because of their great number. However, there is something that should be clarified in this matter when the narrator himself admits to a hadith that is his, but denies that it is his, or attaches to himself a hadith or an accusation that he did not commit in the first place, but attached it to himself without knowing its truth or considering and contemplating the consequences of his actions. In this case, the narrator’s confession is not valid, even if he confesses against himself a hundred times and insists on his confession. There is no value in a confession from someone who is not competent, and no attention is paid, neither by Sharia, law, nor custom, to the confession of someone who is feeble-minded or weak-minded, no matter what his confession is! Rather, no attention is paid to the confession of a sane person with full capacity himself if his confession is something that is not customary, and does not suit the nature of the confessor himself, and external and internal criticism and analysis of the confession indicate its invalidity. We have dozens of neglected confessions in our prosecution offices that our courts do not accept or consider in the course of investigation or judgment, based on their issuance under duress or from someone who is not fully competent, or a will that contradicts their appearance. From here, we can identify some of the reasons that prevent the acceptance of a confession from its owner, whoever this confessor is, trustworthy and fully competent, or weak and feeble-minded, but not fully competent! The response to a full-fledged confession of eligibility for not indicating the intended meaning. The great Maliki Imam Abu Omar bin Abdul Barr, may God have mercy on him, mentioned in his book “Al-Istidhkar” (4/84) the hadith of Abdullah bin Yusuf, who said: Malik told us, on the authority of Omar, on the authority of Saeed bin Al-Musayyab, on the authority of Umm Salamah, that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “Whoever sees the crescent of Dhul-Hijjah and wants to offer a sacrifice, should not take anything from his hair or nails.” Then Ibn Abdul Barr said: “Al-Qa’nabi, Abu Mus’ab, and Ibn Bakir narrated it on the authority of Malik. We have mentioned the chains of transmission on their authority in other places, except that it is not with most. It was narrated by Al-Muwatta’, and Shu’bah narrated it on the authority of Malik.” Then Ibn Abdul Barr cited the narration of Shu’bah on the authority of Malik to which he referred. So the hadith is now before us, as we see, narrated on the authority of Malik by: Abdullah bin Yusuf, Al-Qa’nabi, Abu Mus’ab, Ibn Bakir, and then Shu’bah bin Al-Hajjaj, may God have mercy on them all. These are five who narrated the hadith from Malik, may Allah have mercy on him. Abu Omar bin Abdul Barr said: ((Malik stopped narrating this hadith at the end of his life, and Imran bin Anas narrated it from him, so he said: It is not from my hadith. He [meaning Imran] said: So I said to those sitting with him: Shu’bah narrated it from him and he said: It is not from my hadith!). Imran bin Anas’ denunciation of Malik’s statement here is appropriate; because it was not narrated from him by Shu’bah alone, rather it was narrated from him by five great imams, from the great companions of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, especially Shu’bah, Shu’bah in the field of criticism and accuracy and an example of alertness in this science! So how can Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, say: It is not from his hadith?! Yes; Malik is Malik in imamate, trustworthiness and knowledge; but his opponents are five imams who are not denied trust and imamate, and they are the most knowledgeable people about him, especially Al-Qa'nabi, may Allah have mercy on him, as he is preferred in Malik over the rest of Malik's companions! Here we must take the statement of these five great ones and turn to Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, with the possibility of error or forgetting the hadith, and such possibilities. We do this despite his own admission that it is not from his hadith! But we do not take his admission here due to the existence of the previous obstacles, so if there is an error here, then let it be on the part of Malik, not on the part of the five who disagreed with him. This is what the analysis of the text dictates to us. However, if we return to "Al-Tamhid" by Ibn Abd Al-Barr, we will find the text that he quoted in "Al-Istidhkar" with a clearer and more complete expression that removes this problem for us, and clarifies for us what Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, meant by his previous admission that the hadith is not from his hadith! We see in “Al-Tamheed” the following text: “And Imran bin Anas said: I asked Malik about this hadith of Umm Salamah? He said: It is not from my hadith. He said: So I said to those sitting with him: Shu’bah narrated it from him and he narrated it from him and he said: It is not from my hadith!! They said: If he does not accept the hadith, he says about it: It is not from my hadith. And a group narrated it from Malik” (Al-Tamheed) (23/194, and similarly in 17/237). So here is another aspect that removes the confusion and clarifies for us the meaning of Imam Malik’s statement, may God have mercy on him: (It is not from my hadith). If we were to accept his first statement without research and deliberation, we would accuse him of delusion, which he is innocent of in this situation! The response to the confession of a person with incomplete legal capacity and weak mind . This is divided into categories that concern us now: those who are not fully legal due to their poor and weak memory. These include the group of mixed people who became mixed up in the last days of their lives, and their memory became weak and their control was bad, so they began to accept dictation and did not know the soundness of their hadith from the weak. In this state, these people are not fully legal, and what they mention and confess to, whether hearing or reading or other things, has no value, and no effects or accusations result from that. Among these is the great hafiz and righteous man Abdullah ibn Lahi'ah (may Allah have mercy on him), who is one of those around whom the chains of transmission revolved, but his memory was not as precise as that, and it was said that he suffered from that at the end of his life. Some scholars believe that he had a poor memory from the beginning, but they acknowledge his righteousness. So what happened to Ibn Lahi'ah (may Allah have mercy on him)? If we go to Ibn Lahi'ah, may Allah have mercy on him, we will see that he explicitly stated that he heard it from someone he never saw at all, in such an explicit manner that it is not open to interpretation, and this has been proven from him without a doubt. This is a lie, because he explicitly stated that he heard it from someone he never heard it from at all, and he even omitted a rejected man between himself and "Amr ibn Shu'ayb", namely: "Ibn Abi Farwah". The reasons for omitting "Ibn Abi Farwah" are available, because he is a man whose hadith is rejected and whose narration is invalid. So the pillars of accusing Ibn Lahi'ah of lying are available, and the reasons for that are available! In fact, Ibn Lahi'ah insisted on claiming that he heard it and was fed up with Ibn Wahb when he mentioned that Ibn Lahi'ah did not hear these hadiths from Amr ibn Shu'ayb. The story is in his biography from Tahdhib al-Kamal by al-Mizzi and others. However, we see Ibn Wahb, may God have mercy on him, saying in a hadith: “By God, the truthful and righteous Abdullah ibn Lahi’ah told me.” Abu al-Tahir ibn al-Sarh said: “I never heard him - meaning Ibn Wahb - swear by something like this.” Ibn Ma'in says in a narration: "He was a truthful sheikh", and Ibn Hibban described him as righteous! A man claims to have heard from someone he never saw, and insists on that, and is upset with someone who says to him: You didn't hear! The picture is one of a blatant lie, and the motives are available, but despite all of this, our imams do not pay attention to Ibn Lahi'ah's confession or his insistence, and even describe him as being righteous and religious! So what is the matter? Anyone who looks at the biography of Ibn Lahi'ah, may Allah have mercy on him, will see his confusion and poor memory, to the point that he could no longer distinguish between what he heard in reality and what he did not hear at all; rather, he may have approved a hadith for someone other than Amr ibn Shu'ayb on the grounds that it was narrated by him from Amr, as in his biography by Al-Uqaili and others. All of this was caused by his poor memory and lack of control over what he narrated and heard, despite the man’s righteousness and religion. That is why scholars spoke about the weakness of his hadith and abandoned it, while they established his religion and righteousness! Because no attention should be paid to what was said by someone with a poor memory and lack of control who does not know what is coming out of his head. Rather, Ibn Lahi’ah was afflicted with gross negligence, so in this case it is not correct to arrange the effects of his actions and claims, which he may not have controlled themselves, nor thought about their consequences due to his poor memory, let alone accusing him of lying and opposing scholars... etc. Because he did not have the intention while being able to know this intention and have it clear to him. If he had the intention, he would have had the right to be described as a liar. However, when he was a fool with a poor memory, lacking the ability to memorize and control, what came out of him was of no value because he did not know what was coming out of his head at all. So how can he be held accountable in this case?! He was not fully qualified due to his light-headedness and recklessness. I mention here among them: - Abd al-Rahman ibn Musahar, the brother of Ali ibn Musahar, took over the position of judge of Jabal. He was light-headed. When al-Rashid arrived in Basra, he immediately said: “What an excellent judge, the judge of Jabal.” He praised himself to al-Rashid, so al-Rashid dismissed him due to his foolishness. ((The Great History)) by Ibn Abi Khaithama (Q/20/B) manuscript of al-Qarawiyyin, and ((Lisan al-Mizan)) by Ibn Hajar. His excessive light-headedness was the reason for his abandonment of his speech on the one hand, and for his loss of the position of judge on the other hand! - And we read in the biography of the great Imam, the author of the books ((Muslimah bin Al-Qasim Al-Qurtubi)) from ((Lisan Al-Mizan)) by Ibn Hajar these paragraphs: ((This is a man of great stature... and he has books in the art and he had a journey in which he met the greats... he collected a history of men... and it is very useful in one volume. Abu Muhammad bin Hazm said that he was one of the most prolific narrators and hadith. He heard a lot in Cordoba then traveled to the East before the 320 AH and heard in Kairouan, Tripoli, Alexandria, Crete, Egypt, Al-Qulzum, Jeddah, Mecca, Yemen, Basra, Wasit, Ayla, Baghdad, Al-Madain and the Levant and he collected a lot of knowledge then he returned to Andalusia and he lost his sight)). With all this we read in his biography there also: ((And some people in Andalusia were biased against him and perhaps they called him a liar. Judge Muhammad bin Yahya bin Mufrij was asked about him and he said he was not a liar but he was weak-minded)). In the biography of ((Ismail bin Abi Uways)): Ibn Abi Khaithama narrated on the authority of Yahya bin Ma’in who said: ((Ismail bin Abi Uways is truthful but weak in mind, but not like that)) (The Great History) by Ibn Abi Khaithama (Q/151/B) the manuscript of Al-Qarawiyyin, and (Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’dil) by Ibn Abi Hatim. When Al-Mizzi quoted this text in Tahdhib Al-Kamal, he added after it: “It means that he is not good at hadith, nor does he know how to recite it, or read from a book other than his own.” Abu Hatim and others described him as “being foolish,” meaning that he had a poor memory and was weak in mind. At the same time, Abu Hatim, who was strict in criticizing men, and others described him as “truthful”! The man is truthful, with no doubt about his religious commitment. However, due to his bad mind and weakness, he made mistakes that are not to be taken into account, even if he confessed against himself a hundred times, because the confession of someone who lacks the capacity to confess has no value! When we put the statement of Ibn Ma'in (truthful) with the same of Abu Hatim al-Razi and others next to the statement of Ibn Ma'in (in the narration of Ibn al-Junayd): (confused, lying) and his statement: (weak-minded), we will see that the whole problem came about because of (confused) (weak-minded) and that his statement (lying) must mean (making a mistake), and lying comes with the meaning of mistake in the language of the Arabs, and it is a well-known and famous expression in the custom of the scholars of hadith, which does not need clarification. They say: So-and-so lied; meaning: So-and-so made a mistake. This is a well-known meaning in the language of the Shari'ah and the language, and I will not elaborate on it so as not to deviate from the main topic here. We must carry (lying) here with this meaning because they describe it as truth, which contradicts lying, so there is no longer any doubt that they meant by lying here something else, and another meaning of the meanings of lying in the language and Shari'ah, which is error. Summary of the topic: Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Yahya Al-Mu'alimi, may God have mercy on him, says in At-Tankil (1/123): I say in the chapter on the imam performing the two rak'ahs from Jami' At-Tirmidhi: ((Muhammad bin Ismail [Al-Bukhari] said: Ibn Abi Laila is truthful, but I do not narrate from him because he does not know the soundness of his hadith from the weak, and whoever is like this, I do not narrate anything from him)) and Al-Bukhari did not meet Ibn Abi Laila, so his saying ((I do not narrate from him)) means through an intermediary, and his saying ((and whoever is like this, I do not narrate anything from him)) includes narration through an intermediary and without an intermediary, and if he did not narrate from someone who was like that through an intermediary, then it is more appropriate that he does not narrate from him without an intermediary, because it is known from most of the cautious people that they only avoid narrating from the weak without an intermediary, and they often narrate from the early weak narrators through an intermediary. This story requires that Al-Bukhari did not narrate from anyone unless he saw that he could distinguish the authentic hadith from the weak. This requires that the narrator be at least truthful in origin, because it is not possible to know the authenticity of a liar’s hadith. If it is said that he may be known by his agreement with trustworthy people, he would have narrated from Ibn Abi Laila and not said that word about him. Ibn Laila is considered truthful according to Al-Bukhari and others, and trustworthy people agreed with him in many of his hadiths, but according to Al-Bukhari he makes many mistakes to the point that his mistakes cannot be trusted even with what trustworthy people agreed with. Close to him is the one who is known for accepting prompting, for he may be prompted from the hadiths of his sheikhs what his reward is, but he did not hear it from them. And so is the one who narrates based on illusion, for he may hear from his sheikhs whom he recited, then he imagines that he heard it from his sheikhs, so he narrates it from them. Al-Bukhari intended to know the authenticity of a narrator’s hadith from his sheikhs simply by the agreement of trustworthy people. This can only be achieved by one of two things: 1) Either the narrator is trustworthy and reliable, so the authenticity of his hadith is known by his narration . 2) Or he is truthful and makes mistakes, but it is possible to know what he did not make mistakes in by another way, such as if he has good foundations, or if his mistake is specific to a certain area, such as Yahya ibn Abdullah Bakir, from whom Al-Bukhari narrated, and he said in (Al-Tarikh Al-Saghir): “What Yahya [ibn Abdullah] ibn Bakir narrated from the people of Hijaz in history, I avoid it,” and so on. If it is said that the issue of the aforementioned story is that Al-Bukhari committed himself to narrating only what he considered authentic, because if he narrated what he did not consider authentic, then what is the benefit in his not narrating from someone whose hadith he did not know was authentic from weak? But how can this issue be correct, given that Al-Bukhari’s books that are not authentic contain unauthentic hadiths, and many of them he himself ruled as unauthentic? I said: As for what was pointed out to be unauthentic, the problem with it is easy, and that is by assuming that he does not narrate what is unauthentic on the narration with the intention of updating or citing evidence, so that does not include what he mentions to show its unauthenticity, and consideration remains in what is other than that. It may be said that if he sees that the narrator does not know the authenticity of his hadith from the weak, he leaves it completely so that people know its weakness absolutely, and when he sees that it is possible to know the authenticity of his hadith from the weak in one chapter but not another, he leaves narrating from him in the chapter in which it is not known, as in the case of Yahya ibn Bakir. As for other than that, he narrates what he knows to be authentic and what is close to it or similar to it, clarifying the reality by saying or the situation. And God knows best. End quote. We conclude from all of the above: Dr. says. Nawaf Hammad in his book Qurat Al-Uyun bi-Tathiq Al-Asaneed wa Al-Matn: - The lack of proof of the wounding of Ismail bin Abi Uways according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim, and therefore they included his hadith, and if they had known of his wounding they would have rejected his narration, and their acceptance of his narrations and their citing of his hadith bears witness to his documentation when it is accepted, even if it is weak according to others. - The two sheikhs relied on his books in narrating from him, as they selected and chose from them what was known of his hadith, so Al-Bukhari did not take from the book of Ismail except what was proven to be authentic and what did not have a defect, and the same is said about Muslim. - The hadiths criticized by the two sheikhs, including the three previous narrations of Ismail, do not meet - according to the belief of the criticizing preservers - the conditions set by the people of hadith for the two Sahihs, and they descended - in their opinion - from the rank of the most authentic of the authentic to the rank of the authentic. - Nothing from his hadith other than what is in the two Sahihs can be used as evidence unless it is with the same chain of transmission in the two Sahihs or one of them and the trustworthy ones agree with it. And Allah knows best. And praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds . If I am right, then it is from Allah alone, and if I am wrong, then it is from myself and from Satan. I seek forgiveness from Allah and repent to Him, and may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon Muhammad and his family and companions.