Did al-Bukhari or Ibn Abi Hatim mention the narrator in their books as evidence for removing his obscurity?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The statement of al-Majd Ibn Taymiyyah regarding 'Ikrimah ibn Ibrahim al-Azdi, refuting al-Bayhaqi’s weakening of him: “It is possible to demand the reason for the weakness, since al-Bukhari mentioned him in his *Tareekh* and did not criticize him, and his custom was to mention the critics and the criticized. Ibn al-Qayyim reported this and remained silent on it.”
The Shaykh : Whose statement is this? Whose statement is “his custom”?
The questioner : It is the statement of this al-Majd.
The Shaykh : Ibn Taymiyyah.
The questioner : Al-Majd Ibn Taymiyyah, and the statement of al-Mundhiri refuting Ibn Khuzaymah, who said: “If the report is authentic—meaning regarding this hadith—I do not know of a successor, Abu al-Rabi', who is just, nor 'Umar ibn Hamzah al-Qaysi who is below him in rank.” Al-Mundhiri said: “Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned them… and did not mention any criticism of them.” In *Nasb al-Raayah*, Ibn al-Jawzi said: “'Uthman ibn Hamd is one who has been criticized.” Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi refuted him by saying: “This statement is not acceptable from him because he did not specify who criticized him. Abu Dawud, Abu Bakr ibn Abi 'Asim, and others narrated from him, and Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him in his book without mentioning any criticism of him.” Ibn Hajar added in *Ta'jeel al-Manfa'ah*—meaning that Ibn Hajar mentioned eighty-seven narrators in *Ta'jeel al-Manfa'ah*—and added to al-Husayni’s statement after mentioning their biographies: “Al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Hatim, or one of them, mentioned him and did not mention any criticism of him.” He meant that the statement is clearer in some instances, such as Suwayd ibn al-Harith from Abu Dharr. Al-Husayni said of him: “Unknown, not recognized.” The Hafiz said: “This is an exaggeration.” He then explained this by stating that al-Bukhari mentioned Suwayd without criticizing him, and Ibn Abi Hatim followed him. He also said in *Ta'jeel al-Manfa'ah* in the biography of Saqir: “Al-Husayni said he is unknown, but he was mistaken in that, for they mentioned him in the letter of Saad with a silent hamzah. Al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Hatim did not mention any defect in him, and Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy narrators.”
Al-Dhahabi said in *al-Mizan* in the biography of Muhammad ibn al-Aswad ibn Khalaf: “Neither he nor his father is known. Ibn Khuzaymah is the sole narrator from him.” Al-Husayni refuted him by saying: “Al-Dhahabi was known to al-Bukhari, who included him in his *Tareekh*.” Ibn Hajar reported this in *Ta'jeel al-Manfa'ah* and approved it. Can we take from this that these Imams hold the view that al-Bukhari’s or Ibn Abi Hatim’s mention of a narrator in their books is evidence for removing the narrator’s obscurity? We do not say it is authentication, only the removal of obscurity?
The Shaykh : What we know in this field is that it is not authentication, nor the removal of specific obscurity. Rather, the matter returns to what was mentioned earlier regarding the statement of the Hafiz Ibn Hajar about many narrators in the biographies of his book *al-Taqrib*, where he says “acceptable” (maqbul). Among these narrators, there are many about whom he says in some other biographies, pardon me, that it is accurate to say, according to his rule, “acceptable.” But despite that, he says of them “truthful” (siddiq). There is no need to repeat the previous speech. We say: Everything that has come in these lines revolving around what was mentioned in al-Bukhari’s *Tareekh* or in the book of *al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil*, where they biographed them and remained silent, does not provide authentication or the removal of obscurity. The predominant view, which has settled in my mind, is that these Imams, or some of them, including the Hafiz Ibn Hajar, practically do not authenticate or grade as good the narration of anyone mentioned in al-Bukhari’s *Tareekh* or in *al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil*. This is from one side. From another side: What is in my mind is that some of the contemporaries, and perhaps he is the one who passed away recently, Abu Ghuddah, wrote a treatise and claimed that everyone al-Bukhari biographed in his book *al-Tareekh* is trustworthy in his view, and this is his proof. But this is refuted, because many of these biographed narrators are weakened by al-Bukhari himself in some of his other books, such as his *Tareekh al-Saghir* and the like. Therefore, these quotations I read earlier are, in the apparent reality, that they hold the view of removing specific obscurity, but practically they do not dare to do this absolutely, especially if the narrator, after research, investigation, and tracking, is found to have only one narrator in all the books, no more. In that case, the hadith rule should be applied to him: specific obscurity is not removed by the narration of a single narrator. If al-Bukhari, and if Ibn Abi Hatim after his father, and add to that Ibn Hibban the lenient one, do not mention about the biographed person except one narrator, then by what proof do we say that the silence of Ibn Hajar—pardon me, Ibn Hibban—The Shaykh : Do al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim consider that as removing specific obscurity? We have only such quotations, and they are contradicted by the practical reality of these preservers. This is what I testify to Allah, and I do not doubt that in such statements there is some leniency that they themselves would not approve of in their *takhrij* (tracing of hadiths). Yes.
The student: Al-Bukhari.
The Shaykh : To put it more precisely, does the mention of a narrator by Ibn Abi Hatim or al-Bukhari in their books, with silence regarding criticism, benefit the researcher at all, or does it benefit him in some way?
The questioner : It may benefit and it may not. This depends on the narrators from the biographed person. If the narrators are many, and this means researching Ibn Abi Hatim’s book in this field, it is more beneficial than al-Bukhari’s book, because Ibn Abi Hatim exhaustively lists the narrators from the biographed person. We have often seen this and our minds were reassured by the authentication of the narrator with the silence of Ibn Abi Hatim, let alone his father, regarding this biographed person due to the multitude of narrators he mentioned as narrating from this biographed person. As for al-Bukhari, he does not have a long track record in this field.
The Shaykh : It may be beneficial, or it may not; this depends on the narrators from the person being evaluated. If there are many narrators, then Ibn Abi Hatim's book is more beneficial in this regard than al-Bukhari's, because Ibn Abi Hatim exhaustively investigates the narrators from the person being evaluated. We have often seen this, and our hearts were reassured by the authentication of a narrator despite the silence of Ibn Abi Hatim, let alone his father, regarding this person, due to the large number of narrators he mentioned who narrated from this person. As for al-Bukhari, he does not have extensive experience in this field.
The Shaykh : Whose statement is this? Whose statement is “his custom”?
The questioner : It is the statement of this al-Majd.
The Shaykh : Ibn Taymiyyah.
The questioner : Al-Majd Ibn Taymiyyah, and the statement of al-Mundhiri refuting Ibn Khuzaymah, who said: “If the report is authentic—meaning regarding this hadith—I do not know of a successor, Abu al-Rabi', who is just, nor 'Umar ibn Hamzah al-Qaysi who is below him in rank.” Al-Mundhiri said: “Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned them… and did not mention any criticism of them.” In *Nasb al-Raayah*, Ibn al-Jawzi said: “'Uthman ibn Hamd is one who has been criticized.” Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi refuted him by saying: “This statement is not acceptable from him because he did not specify who criticized him. Abu Dawud, Abu Bakr ibn Abi 'Asim, and others narrated from him, and Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him in his book without mentioning any criticism of him.” Ibn Hajar added in *Ta'jeel al-Manfa'ah*—meaning that Ibn Hajar mentioned eighty-seven narrators in *Ta'jeel al-Manfa'ah*—and added to al-Husayni’s statement after mentioning their biographies: “Al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Hatim, or one of them, mentioned him and did not mention any criticism of him.” He meant that the statement is clearer in some instances, such as Suwayd ibn al-Harith from Abu Dharr. Al-Husayni said of him: “Unknown, not recognized.” The Hafiz said: “This is an exaggeration.” He then explained this by stating that al-Bukhari mentioned Suwayd without criticizing him, and Ibn Abi Hatim followed him. He also said in *Ta'jeel al-Manfa'ah* in the biography of Saqir: “Al-Husayni said he is unknown, but he was mistaken in that, for they mentioned him in the letter of Saad with a silent hamzah. Al-Bukhari and Ibn Abi Hatim did not mention any defect in him, and Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy narrators.”
Al-Dhahabi said in *al-Mizan* in the biography of Muhammad ibn al-Aswad ibn Khalaf: “Neither he nor his father is known. Ibn Khuzaymah is the sole narrator from him.” Al-Husayni refuted him by saying: “Al-Dhahabi was known to al-Bukhari, who included him in his *Tareekh*.” Ibn Hajar reported this in *Ta'jeel al-Manfa'ah* and approved it. Can we take from this that these Imams hold the view that al-Bukhari’s or Ibn Abi Hatim’s mention of a narrator in their books is evidence for removing the narrator’s obscurity? We do not say it is authentication, only the removal of obscurity?
The Shaykh : What we know in this field is that it is not authentication, nor the removal of specific obscurity. Rather, the matter returns to what was mentioned earlier regarding the statement of the Hafiz Ibn Hajar about many narrators in the biographies of his book *al-Taqrib*, where he says “acceptable” (maqbul). Among these narrators, there are many about whom he says in some other biographies, pardon me, that it is accurate to say, according to his rule, “acceptable.” But despite that, he says of them “truthful” (siddiq). There is no need to repeat the previous speech. We say: Everything that has come in these lines revolving around what was mentioned in al-Bukhari’s *Tareekh* or in the book of *al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil*, where they biographed them and remained silent, does not provide authentication or the removal of obscurity. The predominant view, which has settled in my mind, is that these Imams, or some of them, including the Hafiz Ibn Hajar, practically do not authenticate or grade as good the narration of anyone mentioned in al-Bukhari’s *Tareekh* or in *al-Jarh wa al-Ta'dil*. This is from one side. From another side: What is in my mind is that some of the contemporaries, and perhaps he is the one who passed away recently, Abu Ghuddah, wrote a treatise and claimed that everyone al-Bukhari biographed in his book *al-Tareekh* is trustworthy in his view, and this is his proof. But this is refuted, because many of these biographed narrators are weakened by al-Bukhari himself in some of his other books, such as his *Tareekh al-Saghir* and the like. Therefore, these quotations I read earlier are, in the apparent reality, that they hold the view of removing specific obscurity, but practically they do not dare to do this absolutely, especially if the narrator, after research, investigation, and tracking, is found to have only one narrator in all the books, no more. In that case, the hadith rule should be applied to him: specific obscurity is not removed by the narration of a single narrator. If al-Bukhari, and if Ibn Abi Hatim after his father, and add to that Ibn Hibban the lenient one, do not mention about the biographed person except one narrator, then by what proof do we say that the silence of Ibn Hajar—pardon me, Ibn Hibban—The Shaykh : Do al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim consider that as removing specific obscurity? We have only such quotations, and they are contradicted by the practical reality of these preservers. This is what I testify to Allah, and I do not doubt that in such statements there is some leniency that they themselves would not approve of in their *takhrij* (tracing of hadiths). Yes.
The student: Al-Bukhari.
The Shaykh : To put it more precisely, does the mention of a narrator by Ibn Abi Hatim or al-Bukhari in their books, with silence regarding criticism, benefit the researcher at all, or does it benefit him in some way?
The questioner : It may benefit and it may not. This depends on the narrators from the biographed person. If the narrators are many, and this means researching Ibn Abi Hatim’s book in this field, it is more beneficial than al-Bukhari’s book, because Ibn Abi Hatim exhaustively lists the narrators from the biographed person. We have often seen this and our minds were reassured by the authentication of the narrator with the silence of Ibn Abi Hatim, let alone his father, regarding this biographed person due to the multitude of narrators he mentioned as narrating from this biographed person. As for al-Bukhari, he does not have a long track record in this field.
The Shaykh : It may be beneficial, or it may not; this depends on the narrators from the person being evaluated. If there are many narrators, then Ibn Abi Hatim's book is more beneficial in this regard than al-Bukhari's, because Ibn Abi Hatim exhaustively investigates the narrators from the person being evaluated. We have often seen this, and our hearts were reassured by the authentication of a narrator despite the silence of Ibn Abi Hatim, let alone his father, regarding this person, due to the large number of narrators he mentioned who narrated from this person. As for al-Bukhari, he does not have extensive experience in this field.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.