Discussion of the book Bayan al-Wahm wa al-Iyham.
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : I recently came across the book *al-Wahm wa al-Iyham* by Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Qattan al-Maghribi, in which he critiques some of the errors of al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, the book mentioned earlier. Ibn al-Qattan follows up on 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili, who is a huffaz, researcher, and critic, in many of the hadiths he mentioned.
Let us return and say that al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili (may Allah have mercy on him), in his book *al-Ahkam* and this book, is divided into three books: the first is *al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, the second is *al-Ahkam al-Wusta*, and the third is *al-Ahkam al-Sughra*. May Allah honor you.
In *al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, his method is to present the hadiths with the chains of their compilers. For example, he says: al-Bukhari: So-and-so narrated to us from so-and-so with the chain that is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*; Muslim: So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so with the chain that is in his Sahih; and so on for all the other books, Abu Dawud, Musnad al-Bazzar, etc. This is in *al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, and there he discusses the chain if it needs clarification of its authenticity or weakness.
The second book, *al-Ahkam al-Wusta*, does not present the chains of the compilers for the hadiths, but rather says: al-Bukhari narrated it, Muslim narrated it, agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim, Abu Dawud narrated it, etc.
But here he says, for example: Abu Dawud narrated it with a valid chain, with a good chain, with a chain containing so-and-so who is weak, or similar phrases that indicate the weakness of the chain. This is his approach in the second book, called *al-Ahkam al-Wusta*.
As for *al-Ahkam al-Sughra*, he selected it from both the *Kubra* and *Wusta* books, presenting the hadiths on the basis that everything mentioned in this book is authentic and established in his view. This is in *al-Ahkam al-Sughra*.
Now, returning to Ibn al-Qattan, he criticizes al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in some hadiths he attributed to Muslim, which are from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and other hadiths he attributed to al-Tirmidhi and others from this path as well. Ibn al-Qattan clarifies that 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili sometimes marks the hadith that is from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir as having a defect because of the *ina'ina* (elision), and considers that a defect. Sometimes he remains silent, especially if he has attributed it to Muslim. Now Ibn al-Qattan says his silence gives the impression regarding this hadith, which is from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, that it gives the reader of his book the impression that this chain or this hadith is free from defect, and that is not the case, because al-Isbili himself marks some of the narrations that came from the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir as having a defect.
Ibn al-Qattan says: It was therefore obligatory upon al-Isbili to clarify all the hadiths that are from the path of Abu al-Zubayr, and not to mark some of them as defective in this narration while remaining silent about others, because the reader assumes that their chain is free from defect.
Let us return and say that al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili (may Allah have mercy on him), in his book *al-Ahkam* and this book, is divided into three books: the first is *al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, the second is *al-Ahkam al-Wusta*, and the third is *al-Ahkam al-Sughra*. May Allah honor you.
In *al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, his method is to present the hadiths with the chains of their compilers. For example, he says: al-Bukhari: So-and-so narrated to us from so-and-so with the chain that is in *Sahih al-Bukhari*; Muslim: So-and-so narrated to me from so-and-so with the chain that is in his Sahih; and so on for all the other books, Abu Dawud, Musnad al-Bazzar, etc. This is in *al-Ahkam al-Kubra*, and there he discusses the chain if it needs clarification of its authenticity or weakness.
The second book, *al-Ahkam al-Wusta*, does not present the chains of the compilers for the hadiths, but rather says: al-Bukhari narrated it, Muslim narrated it, agreed upon by al-Bukhari and Muslim, Abu Dawud narrated it, etc.
But here he says, for example: Abu Dawud narrated it with a valid chain, with a good chain, with a chain containing so-and-so who is weak, or similar phrases that indicate the weakness of the chain. This is his approach in the second book, called *al-Ahkam al-Wusta*.
As for *al-Ahkam al-Sughra*, he selected it from both the *Kubra* and *Wusta* books, presenting the hadiths on the basis that everything mentioned in this book is authentic and established in his view. This is in *al-Ahkam al-Sughra*.
Now, returning to Ibn al-Qattan, he criticizes al-Hafiz 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili in some hadiths he attributed to Muslim, which are from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, and other hadiths he attributed to al-Tirmidhi and others from this path as well. Ibn al-Qattan clarifies that 'Abd al-Haqq al-Isbili sometimes marks the hadith that is from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir as having a defect because of the *ina'ina* (elision), and considers that a defect. Sometimes he remains silent, especially if he has attributed it to Muslim. Now Ibn al-Qattan says his silence gives the impression regarding this hadith, which is from the narration of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir, that it gives the reader of his book the impression that this chain or this hadith is free from defect, and that is not the case, because al-Isbili himself marks some of the narrations that came from the path of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir as having a defect.
Ibn al-Qattan says: It was therefore obligatory upon al-Isbili to clarify all the hadiths that are from the path of Abu al-Zubayr, and not to mark some of them as defective in this narration while remaining silent about others, because the reader assumes that their chain is free from defect.