A Return to the Beginning, Regarding Umayyah ibn Khalid and the Criticism of Him by Ahmad, al-Uqayli, and Abu al-'Arab.

The questioner : Before the new questions, I wanted to read a comment that our Shaykh dictated to one of the brothers regarding a previous question about Umayyah ibn Khalid and the criticism of him by Ahmad, al-Uqayli, and Abu al-'Arab. Our Shaykh said: It was mentioned in al-Tahdhib that after narrating his authentication from a group, from al-Athram, it was said: I heard Abu 'Abdullah asked, or being asked, about Umayyah ibn Khalid, and he said: He only used to narrate from memory and did not produce a book. And al-Uqayli did not mention in it anything other than one hadith, which he connected and others transmitted as mursal. And Abu al-'Arab mentioned him in al-Du'afa and did not do anything. This is what one of the brothers says was dictated to him.The Shaykh : In the morning, our Shaykh, do you remember?

The Shaykh : The purpose of this is to draw attention, or as an answer to a previous question, the content of which was: Why did al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar specifically single out Abu al-'Arab by saying that he "did not do anything"?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Rather than Imam Ahmad and al-Uqayli. So when we returned to the biography of the man, we found first that al-Hafiz had narrated his authentication from a group of Imams, and an authentication that we should pause at and not move past to the criticism of one who may have criticized him. Then this criticism: either it is a passing criticism, as al-Uqayli did in what he narrated there, where he listed him in his book of the weak, mentioned a hadith for him, and indicated that he contradicted the trustworthy narrators in his narration, and did not do more than that. Such a thing is not like what Abu al-'Arab did, where he firmly asserted his weakness. It appeared to me, and Allah knows best, that the reason al-Hafiz singled out Abu al-'Arab with his statement "he did not do anything" is because he included him in the list of the weak!

The questioner : Firmly.

The Shaykh : Ah, and it is not like what al-Uqayli did first, where he listed him in the book of the weak and hinted at his channel by saying that he contradicted those who transmitted the hadith as mursal. Then when I looked at the hadith, I found the matter to be easy, whether the correct version is mursal as narrated by those who contradicted this Umayyah, or whether Umayyah was correct when he added to the chain. In any case, the chain is broken. This is because the core of the chain, whether connected or mursal, is Abu 'Ubaydah ibn 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. The trustworthy narrators who contradicted him narrated it from Abu 'Ubaydah from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and they did not mention the connection between Abu 'Ubaydah and the Messenger (peace be upon him), which is 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. But likewise, the one who mentioned Ibn Mas'ud, who is Umayyah, narrated it from Abu 'Ubaydah from 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. And Abu 'Ubaydah did not hear, as you know, from 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. The hadith is in any case defective due to disconnection, either between Abu 'Ubaydah and Ibn Mas'ud, or between Abu 'Ubaydah and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The only thing is that there is a convention: if the Companion is dropped from the chain, it is mursal; otherwise, it is munqati' (disconnected), as is the case with this hadith. This observation regarding al-Uqayli made al-Hafiz single out Abu al-'Arab for mention. As for what concerns Imam Ahmad, Imam Ahmad also did not do what Abu al-'Arab did; rather, he hinted at his memory. And we know that many trustworthy narrators have had their memory criticized, and yet that is what excluded them from being considered among the trustworthy. This is what appeared to me after I returned to the biography.

The questioner : May Allah bless you.

The Shaykh : May Allah bless you.