بسم الله الرَّحمن الرَّحيم
2 of 9
 If it is said that: “He is nothing” is taken over one who said: “He
is trustworthy”, then we have seen narrators in the Six Books upon which
the scholars of Islam depend about whom such disagreement occurred.
For example: Muhammad bin Ishaq. For Shu`bah and Sufyan said about him: “The
Commander of the Believers in Hadith” – according to what Ibn Mahdi
reported from them. And Malik bin Anas and Yahya bin Sa`id have both criticized
him.
Yahya bin Ma`in was asked about him, and he said: “Trustworthy, and
he is not a proof” and another time he said: “He is truthful, but
he is not a proof. The proof is only in `Ubaidullah bin `Umar, and Malik bin
Anas.”
Ahmad bin Hanbal said about him: “If a man said: ‘Indeed Muhammad
bin Ishaq is a proof’ then he is not correct, but he is trustworthy.’”
And Ya`qub bin Shaibah said: “I asked Yahya bin Ma`in, saying: ‘How
is Muhammad bin Ishaq according to you?’ He said: ‘He is not that
in my view’ and he did not indicate that he was reliable, he indicated
that he was weak. But he did not say that he was very weak. So I said: ‘So
you feel something in yourself regarding his truthfulness? He said: ‘No.
He was truthful.’”
So how should these statements be understood considering that he is in reports
in the depended upon books? And Ibn `Adi said:
“If Ibn Ishaq did not have any virtue except that he turned the kings
away from preoccupation with books that are of no benefit to preoccupation
with the Maghazi (military expeditions) of the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu
alayhi wa alaa aalihi wa sallam) and his advent and the beginning of creation,
this would be a virtue in which Ibn Ishaq preceded others. Then, those who
came after him authored (concerning the Maghazi,etc.) and they did not reach
the station of Ibn Ishaq in it. And I searched his many hadiths and I did not
find any that could be certainly graded as weak, and maybe he erred or made
a mistake in one thing then another. And the reliable ones and the Imams did
not hold back from relating from him, and there is no harm in him.”
These are the expressions used by Ibn `Adi about him. And this disagreeing
causes confusion.
Similarly, with Shabaabah bin Sawwaar. Al-Bukhari, Muslim and others among
the Imams recorded narrations of his in their books. While Abu Hatim said about
him: “He is truthful, his hadiths are written, and he is not used as
a proof.”
‘Abdur-Rahman bin Yusuf bin Khiraash said: “Ahmad bin Hanbal was
not pleased by him.”
It was said to Yahya bin Ma`in: “Is Shabaabah liked more to you, or
al-Aswad bin ‘Aamir?” So he said: “Shababah.” And he
also said: “He is truthful.”
Ibn Sa`id said: “He was trustworthy, salih al-amr in hadith, except
that he was a Murji’.”
This Shabaabah has been reported from, by Ishaq bin Rahuyah, Ahmad bin Hanbal,
Yahya bin Ma`in, Abu Khaithamah, Ahmad bin Sinan Al-Qattaan, and personalities
other than them.
So what does this disagreement about him mean? Upon whose saying does one
depend? How is criticism of a person accepted without explanation, and when
is such criticism without explanation cut off? What is the reason for accepting
the criticism of these Imams without explanation while leaving [the opinion
of] other than them?
| Previous |
Jump to: |
Next |
|