From Shu’bah to Ibn Ma’in… Consolidation of the critical approach and its expansion

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

From Shu’bah to Ibn Ma’in… Consolidation of the critical approach and its expansion

 

Criticism developed extensively in that era. I mentioned previously that Shu’bah had a strong influence on Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan and ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi, both of whom were senior Imams of criticism, who discussed extensively about narrators and narrations. Their knowledge was inherited by several senior critics, such as Yahya ibn Ma’in (d. 233 AH), ‘Ali ibn al Madini (d. 234 AH), Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), Muhammad ibn Sa’d, the author of al Tabaqat, (d. 230 AH), Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb (d. 234 AH), and Ishaq ibn Rahawayh (d. 238 AH). However, in brief, I confine myself, in this book, to the statements of Yahya ibn Ma’in, the great critical scholar, to show the continuity of the critical approach in his time. I introduce him and the means he selected for it. Then I study his methodology in authenticating texts and present the features of his critical approach. Thereafter, I conclude with the effects of this approach among the ranks of narrators.

My reliance in what I mention is on his discussions pertaining to narrators, which I extrapolated. I studied what his students collected regarding his discussions on narrators and extrapolated nearly two-thousand narrators from that, collected the most important discussions regarding them, and then arranged them in the features of criticism.

Among the most important books I studied were Su’alat al Duri li Ibn Ma’in, Su’alat Muhriz li Ibn Ma’in, Su’alat al Junaid li Ibn Ma’in, etc.

 

1. Yahya ibn Ma’in (158-233 AH) and the importance of his criticism at the beginning of the third century AH

Ibn Ma’in was born in the year 158 AH in Baghdad. He met a large number of the Atba’ al Tabi’in and acquired knowledge and Hadith from them. He grew up in Baghdad and travelled to various regions, visiting Yemen, Hijaz, Egypt, Greater Syria, Kufah, Basrah, and other Islamic cities. In those trips, he collected tremendous amount of ahadith with scattered and diverse isnads. As a result, his colleague ‘Ali ibn al Madini (d. 234 AH) said:

 

لا نعلم أحدا من لدن آدم عليه السلام كتب من الحديث ما كتب يحيى بن معين

We do not know of anyone from the time of Adam ‘alayh al Salam who wrote as many ahadith as Yahya ibn Ma’in wrote.^[1]

 

He is reported to have said:

 

كتبت بيدي ألف ألف حديث

I have written a million ahadith with my hands.^[2]

 

By this, he means the various isnad, the repeated, mawquf, and maqtu’ narrations, as previously mentioned. This is confirmed by Yahya’s statement:

 

لو لم نكتب الحديث خمسين مرة ما عرفناه

If we had not written down a hadith fifty times, we would not have known it.^[3]

 

Similarly, he said:

 

لو لم نكتب الحديث من ثلاثين وجها ما عقلناه

If we had not written down a hadith from thirty different ways, we would not have understood it.^[4]

 

Included in this amount are ahadith narrated by liars. Ibn Ma’in would write from liars in order to be aware of those ahadith, so as not to narrate them. He said:

 

كتبنا عن الكذابين وسجرنا به التنور وأخرجنا به خبزا نضيجا

We wrote from liars, lit the oven with it, and brought out baked bread.^[5]

 

Likewise, he said:

 

وأي صاحب حديث لا يكتب عن كذاب ألف حديث

Which Hadith author does not write a thousand ahadith from liars?^[6]

 

Once Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal saw him in San’a’, in a corner, while he was writing Sahifat Ma’mar (The Booklet of Ma’mar) from — Aban — from Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu. When he would see anyone, he would hide it. Then Ahmed ibn Hanbal said to him:

 

تكتب صحيفة معمر عن أبان عن أنس وتعلم أنها موضوعة فلو قال لك قائل إنك تتكلم في أبان ثم تكتب حديثه على الوجه

Are you writing Sahifat Ma’mar from — Aban — from Anas radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whilst you know that it is fabricated? What if someone objects that you criticise Aban, but you write his Hadith directly?

 

He said:

رحمك الله يا أبا عبد الله أكتب هذه الصحيفة عن عبد الرزاق عن معمر على الوجه فأحفظها كلها وأعلم أنها موضوعة حتى لا يجيء بعده إنسان فيجعل بدل أبان ثابتا ويرويها عن معمر عن ثابت عن أنس بن مالك فأقول له كذبت إنما هي عن معمر عن أبان لا عن ثابت

May Allah have mercy on you, O Abu ‘Abdullah. I am writing this booklet from ‘Abdul Razzaq — from Ma’mar, directly. Then I will memorise it all, knowing that it is fabricated so that no one comes after him and substitutes Aban for Thabit, and narrates it from Ma’mar — from Thabit — from Anas ibn Malik. Then I can tell him that he is lying, it is from Ma’mar — from Aban, not from Thabit.^[7]

 

He is aware that the ahadith of Aban are fabricated, yet he writes them down and pays attention to them for critical purposes. Thus, his statement ‘million ahadith’ includes all the mawdu’ and forged ahadith, in addition to the da’if, maqtu’, mursal, mawquf, and repeated ones, as I previously mentioned in the feature of the stability of texts and the spread of isnad.

The statements of Yahya ibn Ma’in confirm the feature of the stability of the texts and that the Huffaz were aware and conscious of them, and that their attention in the third century was focused on collecting isnad and their branches. From amongst those statements is the statement of Yahya, mentioned above, where he said:

 

كتبت بيدي ألف ألف حديث

I have written a million ahadith with my hands.

 

He followed it by saying:

 

وكل حديث لا يوجد ههنا وأشار بيده إلى الأسفاط فهو كذب

Any hadith that is not found here, and he pointed with his hand to the notebooks, is a lie.^[8]

 

His friend Imam Ahmed confirms this, saying:

 

كل حديث لا يعرفه يحيى بن معين فليس هو بحديث

Any hadith that Yahya ibn Ma’in does not know is not a hadith.^[9]

 

This means that sahih texts became clear and known, in fact, even the da’if and many mawdu’ ones, at that time. Therefore, any new hadith that Yahya ibn Ma’in had not heard before, is not a hadith at all.

Nevertheless, Yahya paid attention to collecting and criticising narrations in the most accurate way possible in his time. It is as if he devoted himself to that and spent his time in it, to the point that he did not compile any book on narrations, as was the custom of the Muhaddithin at that time, but rather devoted all his concern and effort to criticism.

Due to all of this, he was praised even by his senior peers. Ibn al Madini’s praise has been mentioned previously. Ahmed ibn Hanbal confirmed that praise when he said:

 

ههنا رجل خلقه الله لهذا الشأن يظهر كذب الكذابين

Here is a man whom Allah created for this matter, exposing the lies of liars.^[10]

 

It is reported that he would ask Yahya ibn Ma’in about various things, saying:

 

يا أبا زكريا ما تقول في حديث كذا وكيف حديث كذا

O Abu Zakariyya, what do you say about such-and-such hadith? How is such and such hadith?

 

He would seek confirmation of the ahadith they had heard. Whatever Yahya said, Ahmed wrote.^[11]

As a result, al Dhahabi (d. 748 AH) described him by saying:

 

وهو‏ أسن الجماعة الكبار الذين هم علي بن المديني (ت ٢٣٤ه‏ ) وأحمد بن حنبل (ت ٢٤١ه)‏ وإسحاق ابن راهويه (ت ٣٨٢‏ه) وأبو بكر بن أبي شيبة (ت ٢٣٥ه) وأبو خيثمة (ت ٢٣٤ه) فكانوا يتأدبون معه ويعترفون له وكان له هيبة وجلالة يركب البغلة ويتجمل في لباسه رحمه الله تعالى

He is the eldest of the senior group who were ‘Ali ibn al Madini (d. 234 AH), Ahmed ibn Hanbal (d. 241 AH), Ishaq ibn Rahawayh (d. 382), Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 235 AH) and Abu Khaythamah (d. 234 AH). They revered and acknowledged him, and he had prestige and majesty. He rode a mule and was well dressed. May Allah have mercy on him.^[12]

 

When Hafiz Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH) wrote his biography, he started by saying:

 

الإمام المطلق في الجرح والتعديل وإلى قوله في ذلك يرجع الناس وعلى كلامه فيه يعولون

The absolute Imam in Jarh and Ta’dil, to whose views people refer to in that field, and on whose words they rely.^[13]

 

For all these reasons, I believe that selecting him was appropriate for this occasion, in addition to the fact that he was affiliated with the school of the Ahl al Hadith in terms of criticism, preoccupation, and specialisation, distinct from many of them in terms of his stance on other schools. This is apparent in two ways:

‎1.  His stance on the Ahl al Ra’y was not as severe as many of the Muhaddithin. He made tawthiq of a group of them. He was a Hanafi in subsidiary rulings. In fact, he was described as a fanatic of the Hanafi Mazhab.^[14] His student, Ibn al Junaid, asked him:

 

ترى أن ينظر الرجل في شيء من الرأي

Do you think a man should look into opinion?

 

He asked:

 

أي رأي

Whose opinion?

 

I said:

 

رأي الشافعي وأبي حنيفة

The opinion of al Shafi’i and Abu Hanifah.

 

He said:

 

ما أرى لمسلم أن ينظر في رأي الشافعي‎ ينظر في رأي أبي حنيفة أحب إلي من أن ينظر في رأي الشافعي

I do not think that a Muslim should look into the opinion of al Shafi’i. Looking into the opinion of Abu Hanifah is more beloved to me than considering the opinion of al Shafi’i.^[15]

 

Al Dhahabi commented on this, saying:

 

قد كان أبو زكريا رحمه الله حنفيا في الفريع فلهذا قال هذا وفيه انحراف يسير عن الشافعي

Abu Zakariyya—may Allah have mercy on him—was a Hanafi in subsidiary rulings. That is why he said this, and in it is a slight aversion from al Shafi’i.^[16]

 

2. He is one of those who believed that the Qur’an was created during the well-known strife. Therefore, Ahmed abandoned writing from him at the end of his life. Abu Zur’ah al Razi is reported to have said:

 

كان أحمد بن حنبل لا يرى الكتابة عن أبي نصر التمار ولا عن يحيى بن معين ولا عن أحد ممن امتحن فأجاب

Ahmed ibn Hanbal did not believe in writing from Abu Nasr al Tammar or Yahya ibn Ma’in, nor from anyone who responded when he was tested.^[17]

 

This means that he did not agree with the Muhaddithin’s view at the time. Al Dhahabi responded to this position, and Ahmed criticised him by saying:

 

قلت‏ هذا أمر ضيق ولا حرج على من أجاب في المحنة بل ولا على من أكره على صريح الكفر عملا بالآية وهذا هو الحق وكان يحيى رحمه الله من أئمة السنة فخاف من سطوة الدولة وأجاب تقية

I say: This is a constrained issue. There is no blame on the one who responded during the strife, and even on the one who was forced into displaying disbelief, practicing on the verse. This is the truth. Yahya, may Allah have mercy on him, was one of the Imams of the Sunnah. He feared the authority of the state and responded out of fear.^[18]

 

Therefore, it is not possible to claim that Ibn Ma’in’s criticism was based on an intellectual ideology through which he criticised narrators and narrations, as his scope was wide and his positions were distinct from the positions of many Muhaddithin during his time and after him.

 

2. Maintaining criticism based on the methodology of historical, not religious, tawthiq

Ibn Ma’in continued the method of critics in differentiating between the narrator’s piety and his accuracy, ahadith, and memorisation. He did not make tawthiq—as I see—of any narrator due to his piety without looking into his ahadith and testing them. Thus, the central point in criticising a narrator remained judging him through his narrations, not judging the narration through the narrator, which is contrary to what was established by later scholars in Hadith criticism.^[19]

Accordingly, the research, scrutiny, monitoring, and investigation in Ibn Ma’in’s criticism was directed more at the narrations and their paths than at monitoring the religiosity of the narrator, his righteousness, his acts of worship, and his piety. In fact, some of the expressions emanating from him show that he would exaggerate in his reluctance to follow that. Regarding those who denounced his narration from his sheikh, ‘Abdul Razzaq al San’ani, who was accused of Shi’ism, he said:

 

والله لو تهوّد عبد الرزاق لما تركنا حديثه

By Allah, if ‘Abdul Razzaq had become a Jew, we would not have abandoned his Hadith.^[20]

 

This expression contains a lot of exaggeration, but it shows the critic’s attention in tracking the narrations and criticising them without considering the thought, mazhab, and religiosity of the narrator.

Perhaps this is due to what I presented, regarding the stability of the texts and the knowledge of the critics about the sahih and da’if ones. Thus, consideration continued to be in the divergence of the isnad, the paths of narrations and the errors in them. When it was proven that ‘Abdul Razzaq is thiqah and proficient, by comparing his narrations with the narrations of others, Ibn Ma’in announced that he would not care about any sectarian details related to his personality, if his narrations are sahih and proven.

The methodology of tawthiq through historical tools only—regardless of the narrator’s religion, trust, knowledge, piety, and virtue—becomes evident in Ibn Ma’in’s monitoring of the narrations of the prominent and righteous scholar, Imam Hammad ibn Salamah (d. 167 AH). He is one of the most prominent scholars and sheikhs of Basrah. Ibn Ma’in met a large number of his students and acquired Hadith from them. Ibn Ma’in would venerate him highly in terms of his virtue and religion and would say about him:

 

إذا رأيت إنسانا يقع في حماد بن سلمة فاتهمه على الإسلام

If you see a person attacking Hammad ibn Salamah, then be concerned about his Islam.^[21]

 

However, that was not an obstacle for Ibn Ma’in from declaring and announcing his mistakes, as some mistakes appeared in his ahadith. Ibn Ma’in was monitoring and tracking it with the aim of finding out the source of the error. Was it Hammad himself or those who narrated from him? Therefore, it was necessary for him to hear one hadith from several sheikhs who narrated from Hammad. If they all agreed on the error, then the error would be from Hammad, and if they disagreed, then the error would be from someone else. The details of that are in this incident:

 

فقد توجه ابن معين ذات مرة إلى شيخه عفان بن مسلم (ت٢٢٠ه)‏ وهو من طلاب حماد ليسمع منه كتب حماد فسأله الشيخ‎ سمعتها من أحد قال نعم حدثني سبعة عشر نفرا عن حماد بن سلمة فغضب الشيخ وحلف أن لا يحدثه إذ هو مكتف بما سمع وقال والله لا حدثتك فأجابه ابن معين بأن غيره من الشيوخ يمكنه أن يحدثه به كذلك وهو أبو سلمة التبوذكي (ت٢٢٣ه)‏ في البصرة وأمره هين فالسفر لا يكلف إلا درهما قال ابن معين إنما هو درهم وأنحدر إلى البصرة وأسمع من التبوذكي فقال شأنك فانحدر إلى البصرة وجاء إلى موسى بن إسماعيل فقال له موسى لم تسمع هذه الكتب من أحد قال سمعتها على الوجه من سبعة عشر نفسا وأنت الثامن عشر فقال وماذا تصنع بهذا قال إن حماد بن سلمة كان يخطئ فأردت أن أميز خطأه من خطأ غيره فإذا رأيت أصحابه قد اجتمعوا على شيء علمت أن الخطأ من حماد نفسه وإذا اجتمعوا على شيء عنه وقال واحد منهم بخلافه علمت أن الخطأ منه لا من حماد فأميز بين ما أخط هو بنفسه وبين ما أخطئ عليه

Ibn Ma’in once went to his sheikh, ‘Affan ibn Muslim (d. 220 AH)—one of Hammad’s students—to hear Hammad’s books from him. The sheikh asked him, “Have you heard them from anyone?”

He said, “Yes, seventeen people narrated to me from Hammad ibn Salamah.”

The sheikh became angry and took an oath that he will not narrate to him, since he was satisfied with what he heard. He said, “By Allah, I will not narrate to you.”

Ibn Ma’in replied that another sheikh could narrate to him as well, and he is Abu Salamah al Tabudhaki (d. 223 AH) in Basrah, and his matter is easy, as travel only costs a dirham. Ibn Ma’in said, “It is only a dirham. I will go to Basrah and hear it from al Tabudhaki.”

He said, “Go ahead.”

Therefore, he went down to Basrah and came to Musa ibn Ismail. Musa said to him, “Did you not hear these books from anyone?”

He replied, “I heard it directly from seventeen people, and you are the eighteenth.”

He asked, “Why are you doing this?”

He replied, “Hammad ibn Salamah used to make mistakes. Therefore, I wanted to distinguish his mistake from the mistake of others. If I saw that his students had agreed on something, I would know that the mistake was from Hammad himself, and if they agreed on something from him, and one of them differed, I would know that the mistake was from him, not from Hammad. Thus, I can differentiate between the mistakes he himself made and the mistakes that were attributed to him.”^[22]

 

Accordingly, the ahadith of Hammad ibn Salamah were well-known to Ibn Ma’in, and he narrated them through many paths. In fact, this incident shows that the errors were also known, as Ibn Ma’in was aware of the errors that occurred in those ahadith. However, he tries to confirm their source and only realises the errors by comparing the narrations of Hammad himself with his peers. From this, it is evident that the ahadith had been established in the second century, and he is merely tracking, criticising, and monitoring their divergence and spread.

This tracking does not show a religious outlook that sees Hammad ibn Salamah as one of the greatest and righteous scholars, hence, his mistakes and delusions must be overlooked; rather, it is a method of tawthiq that relies on historical tools only.

This methodology of tawthiq remained dominant in Ibn Ma’in’s critical ideology. Comparison and opposition between narrations and isnad was the primary means he used in criticising the narration and the narrator. Amongst the examples of this is Muhammad ibn ‘Umar al Waqidi (d. 207 AH), who narrated ahadith and transmissions extensively in his time. Ibn Ma’in tracked it diligently, and mentioned his methodology of opposition and comparison by saying:

 

نظرنا في حديث الواقدي فوجدنا حديثه عن المدنيين عن شيوخ مجهولين أحاديث مناكير فقلنا يحتمل أن تكون منهم ثم نظرنا إلى حديثه عن ابن أبي ذئب ( ت ١٥٩ه)‏ ومعمر (ت ١٥٤ه)‏ فإنه يضبط حديثهم فوجدناه قد حدث عنهما بالمناكير فعلمنا أنه منه فتركنا حديثه

We looked into the Hadith of al Waqidi and found his ahadith from the people of Madinah from unknown sheikhs to be munkar narrations. Therefore, we thought that it is possible that they are from them (the unknown sheikhs). Then we looked at his ahadith from Ibn Abi Dhi’b (d. 159 AH) and Ma’mar (d. 154 AH), as their ahadith were captured, and found that he had narrated munkar narrations from them also. We thus knew that it was from him, so we discarded his Hadith.^[23]

 

This is an objective historical view, in which Ibn Ma’in, as a critic and a scrutinising historian, tries to find out the condition of the narrator. He tracks his ahadith and finds some mistakes and reprehensible aspects. However, he does not rush to judge the narrator, holding him directly responsible for those mistakes, as it is possible that they are from his unknown sheikhs whom Ibn Ma’in did not know. So he resorted to another method, which was to follow his ahadith from the well-known and famous scholars whose ahadith were compiled and captured. He compared the narrations of al Waqidi with the narrations of their students, and found many munkar narrations in his ahadith, so he ruled him to be da’if and rejected.

Ibn Ma’in confirms his methodology in dozens of narrators. Once, when he was asked about Yahya ibn Yaman (d. 189 AH); he said:

 

لا يشبه حديثه عن الثوري أحاديث غيره عن الثوري

His Hadith from al Thawri does not resemble the ahadith of others from al Thawri.

 

This shows an accurate comparison of the ahadith of narrators from their sheikhs, and that this narrator was not thiqah. Therefore, Ibn Ma’in quoted from Waki’, when he heard the ahadith of Yahya ibn Yaman from Sufyan al Thawri:

 

كأن هذا ليس سفيان الذي سمعنا نحن منه

It seems that this is not the Sufyan from whom we heard.^[24]

 

Ibn Ma’in would sometimes count the number of errors in the narrator from his sheikh and point out their locations, as he did in the Hadith of the eminent, thiqah and well-known scholar Jarir ibn ‘Abdul Hamid al Dabbi (d. 188 AH),^[25] when he said about his ahadith from al A’mash (d. 148 AH):

 

فيها حديثان خطأ

There are two ahadith wherein there are errors.^[26]

 

Thereafter, he clarifies them, and they were in the names of the narrators. Then he explained that the way to know this was by comparing with the narrations of other thiqah narrators from al A’mash.

There are plenty of reports about this, all of which show that the methodology that Ibn Ma’in was following in that era was a historical tawthiq methodology, wherein the critic establishes the narrator’s accuracy and memorisation of his narrations.

It appears that some thiqah sheikhs in that era were afraid of Ibn Ma’in and his monitoring of narrations. Hence, they would resort to him to ensure their memorisation and accuracy. He would answer them with his historical tawthiq methodology, not due to piety and virtue. Ismail ibn ‘Ulayyah, the famous thiqah scholar (d. 193 AH),^[27] asked Ibn Ma’in about his Hadith. Ibn Ma’in says:

 

قال لي إسماعيل بن عليية يوما كيف حديثي قال قلت أنت مستقيم الحديث قال فقال لي وكيف علمتم ذاك قلت له عارضنا بها أحاديث الناس فرأيناها مستقيمة قال فقال الحمد لله فلم يزل يقول الحمد لله ويحمد ربه حتى دخل دار بشر بن معروف أو قال دار أبي البختري وأنا معه

Ismail ibn ‘Ulayyah asked me one day, “How is my Hadith?

I said, “Your ahadith are correct.”

He asked me, “How do you know this?”

I told him, “We compared it with the people’s ahadith and saw that they were correct.”

He said, “All praise be to Allah.” He continued praising Allah until he entered the house of Bishr ibn Ma’roof, or he said, the house of Abu al Bakhtari, and I was with him.^[28]

 

It was as if the sheikh was afraid and apprehensive about Ibn Ma’in’s judgement on him, as he might declare him da’if and degrade him in the scholarly community at that time. When he answered him that his ahadith were correct, he thanked Allah greatly for that. It can be noticed that the answer was not through virtue, righteousness, and piety, but rather through the historical tawthiq methodology, which is comparing the narrations and contrasting them with the narrations of thiqah narrators. This is despite the fact that Ibn Ma’in believed in the righteousness and piety of his sheikh, as he described him on another occasion by saying:

 

كان ثقة مأمونا صدوقا مسلما ورعا تقيّا

He was thiqah, trustworthy, truthful, Muslim, devout, and pious.^[29]

 

Based on all of this, this methodology of historical tawthiq does not favour anyone. Those who agree in thought and those who disagree are subjected to the same criticism, in fact, even the known and the unknown. This is confirmed through two viewpoints:

First: Tawthiq of those who differ in thought and belief from amongst those who follow the school of other beliefs.

The consideration of narrations and narrators was based on the historical tawthiq methodology; which is an established method that does not differ according to proximity to the critic and distance from him, in mazhab, thought, relationship, and kinship. Therefore, there are many reports of Ibn Ma’in’s tawthiq of some Shia, Khawarij, and others who followed schools that differ from the Ahlus Sunnah. This was based on their ahadith and narrations, not their beliefs and opinions. The methodology was fixed.

From amongst them is the statement of Ibn Ma’in about al Hussain ibn al Hassan al Ashqar al Fazari al Kufi (d. 208 AH). When Ibn al Junaid asked him about him, he replied:

 

كان من الشيعة المغلية الكبار فسأله ابن الجنيد فكيف حديثه قال لا بأس به قلت صدوق قال نعم كتبت عنه عن أبي كدينة ويعقوب القمي

He was one of the senior extremist Shia.

Ibn al Junaid asked him, “How is his Hadith?”

He replied, “There is nothing wrong with him.”

I asked, “Is he saduq (truthful)?”

He said, “Yes, I wrote from him, from Abu Kudaynah and Yaqub al Qummi.”^[30]

 

Similarly, he said about Abu Isra’il al Mula’i (d. 169 AH):

 

لا به بأس كان يفرط في التشيع

There is nothing wrong with him. He would exaggerate in Shi’ism.^[31]

 

He said about Jafar ibn Ziyad al Ahmar (d. 167 AH):

 

شيعي‏ ثقة

He is a thiqah Shia.^[32]

 

These are all Shia. One of them was even an extremist in his belief, but he was truthful in speech and accurate in the narration, so Ibn Ma’in declared him thiqah.

His statement about ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih al Azdi al ‘Utaki (d. 235 AH) confirms that he relies on the narrator’s reports in judging him, even if he is an extremist Shia. He said:

 

يقدم عليكم رجل من أهل الكوفة يقال له عبد الرحمن بن صالح ثقة صدوق شيعي لأن يخر من السماء أحب إليه من أن يكذب في نصف حرف

A man from the people of Kufah, called ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Salih, who is thiqah, saduq, and a Shia, will come to you. Falling from the sky is more beloved to him than lying about half a letter.^[33]

 

His tawthiq was not confined to the Shia. He made tawthiq of some Khawarij, Nawasib, Qadariyyah, and others.^[34]

If we add that to the fact that Ibn Ma’in made tad’if of some pious people of the Ahlus Sunnah,^[35] then this shows that his historical tawthiq methodology was precise, accurate, and objective.

Second: Tawthiq of the unknown narrators when their narrations are sahih.

What I mean by this is that Ibn Ma’in may not know the narrator, but he hears about his narrations. Thus, he may be unknown to him in terms of personality, but he is known in terms of his narrations, so he issues his judgement about him through those narrations, and the methodology of historical tawthiq applies to him.

An example of this is that Ibn Ma’in was asked about Hajib ibn al Walid ibn Maymun al A’war (d. 228 AH), and he said:

 

لا أعرفه وأما أحاديثه فصحيحة

I do not know him, but his ahadith are sahih.

 

His student asked him:

 

ترى أن أكتب عنه

Do you think I should write from him?

 

He said:

 

ما أعرفه وهو صحيح الحديث وأنت أعلم

I do not know him. His ahadith are sahih. You should know better.^[36]

 

This means that fundamentally, the ruling is directed to the narrator’s Hadith, regardless of his personality. The reason for this is that the ahadith have been proven, known, and established. Thus, whoever presents the ahadith accordingly—even if he is not known—is thiqah. Whoever changes and modifies it, then there is an objection and a problem.

Similar to this is when Ibn al Junaid narrated a hadith in front of Ibn Ma’in and he said:

 

حدثنا سعيد بن منصور حدثنا أنس بن أبي القاسم الحضرمي قال حدثني عبد الرحمن بن الأسود عن أبيه قال سألت عائشة عن الطيب عند الإحرام فقالت كأني أنظر

Sa’id ibn Mansur narrated to us — Anas ibn Abi al Qasim al Hadrami narrated to us — ‘Abdul Rahman ibn al Aswad narrated to me — from his father, who said, “I asked Aisha about perfume when donning the Ihram?”

She said, “It is as if I am seeing…”

Yahya did not denounce the hadith, whereas he did not know this sheikh, Anas.^[37]

 

All of this shows that the methodology followed by Ibn Ma’in was a historical methodology, intending historical tawthiq of texts, regardless of the virtue of the speaker. However, that does not mean that it neglects the basic integrity of narrators, which includes the meaning of honesty. This is a basic meaning in societies in general, before it being specific in religious societies, because the custom among people in general is that they do not rely on the honesty of someone who is known for stealing things, for example, and do not trust his integrity. Hence, they turn away from him before even looking into his accuracy and investigating his reports. This applies to societies in general, then how about a religious society that sees theft as a crime in this world and a major crime in the Hereafter?

Therefore, if Ibn Ma’in and other critics doubted the narrator’s honesty and integrity, they would avoid including him in the Hadith system as a whole, before judging his ahadith as weak or wrong. It is natural for Ibn Ma’in to criticise someone who steals people’s things and avoid him, before criticising his Hadith. Therefore, when he was asked about ‘Abdul Hakim ibn Mansur al Khuza’i he said:

 

ليس بشيء سرق حانوتا بواسط فقيل له يا أبا زكريا كيف سرقه؟ قال كان إلى جنب منزله حانوت لرجل فنقب إليه بابا من داره من الليل وسدّ بابه من ناحية الطريق وأدخله في داره

He is nothing. He stole a shop from someone.

Someone asked, “O Abu Zakariyya, how did he steal it?”

He said, “A man had a shop next to his house. At night, he opened a door from his house, blocked his door on the side of the road, and brought the shop into his house.”^[38]

 

He also criticised al Hussain ibn al Khayyat, who had taken money from the family of al Muttalib ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Malik on the pretext that he would perform Hajj with it. He went to Ahwaz and stayed there. This means that he did not perform Hajj with it, but rather stole it. Ibn Ma’in was told:

 

يا أبا زكريا إنه يحدث

O Abu Zakariyya, he narrates Hadith.

 

He said:

 

ما يكتب عنه إلا من لعنه الله وغضب عليه

Only those write from him who are under the curse and anger of Allah. ^[39]

 

It is natural that a person who would release scorpions into al Masjid al Haram so they sting people and one who would pour ink at night in the places where Wudu’ (ablution) is made, to blacken the people’s faces,^[40] cannot be accepted among narrators of Hadith at all. This is so because these are actions that contradict the basic concept of trustworthiness that people generally rely on when receiving news.

The concept of general honesty and integrity is not specific to narrators and witnesses in the Islamic community, but rather it is a requirement in all human societies, as the testimony of the dishonest, the untrustworthy, and the one with a criminal or immoral résumé is not accepted. The lives of all the people depend on that, and their interests are achieved through this approach, their integrity is validated for them, and they were satisfied with it.^[41]

 

3. The features of Ibn Ma’in’s observation of narrators and narrations

Critics in that era were distinguished by their intense observation of the narrations and its course, and the intensity of their tracking of the narrators, their conditions, and their changes. This is clearly evident in Ibn Ma’in’s observation. Amongst the features are:

 

The first feature: Careful observation of changes in the narrator’s ahadith

Critics in general and Ibn Ma’in in particular would scrutinise the changes that occurred to a narrator during his life. This is because the narrator may be thiqah in his youth, but he grows older and suffers from senility, his memorisation becomes weak, and he gets confused. He may be thiqah in his country, when he narrates from his sheikhs due to his frequent attachment with them, but when he leaves his country and he narrates from the sheikhs of other countries, this may not be accurate due to some of the circumstances related to him. He may be thiqah in certain sheikhs in his country due to his close attachment to them, but he is da’if from other sheikhs of his country due to his lack of attention to their Hadith. He may be thiqah in some Hadith topics due to his frequent repetition and attention to them, but da’if in other Hadith topics due to lack of interest in them. This is consistent with human nature, stages of life, conditions, and circumstances.

If the criticism were a solid template that included all the narrator’s conditions without considering the changes occurring in him, it would be a criticism that is inconsistent with human nature and its conditions. Ibn Ma’in’s critical statements were based on these and other changes. Here, I will suffice on the following:

 

First: Monitoring chronological changes

This is called ikhtilat (confusion) by the critical scholars. This is when the narrator grows old, his memory changes, and he forgets. Hadith scholars judge him to be da’if if he narrated and made a mistake in that state. They differentiate between narrators who narrated from him before ikhtilat and those who narrated after ikhtilat.

Perhaps one of the most important examples of this in Ibn Ma’in’s criticism is his observation of the changes that occurred in the life of his sheikh Hajjaj ibn Muhammad al Missisi (d. 206 AH). He was thiqah and narrated ahadith frequently. He learned from the prominent Atba’ al Tabi’in. Ibn Ma’in honoured and venerated him, to the point that he travelled to him with Ahmed ibn Hanbal from Baghdad to his town of al Missisah^[42] and wrote about fifty thousand ahadith from him there.^[43] Yahya considered him thabt and strong. In fact, in his opinion, he was one of the most reliable students of Ibn Jurayj (d. 150 AH).^[44] However, when this sheikh visited Baghdad at the end of his life, Ibn Ma’in noticed a change in his memory and noticed ikhtilat in him. Thus, he was afraid that he might narrate Hadith to the people and make mistakes, whereas before that he was thiqah and well-known, so he said to his son, “Do not let anyone come to him.”

In the evening, people entered by him and gave him Shu’bah’s book. He said:

 

حدثنا شعبة عن عمرو بن مرة عن عيسى بن مريم عن خيثمة عن عبد الله…

Shu’bah narrated to us — from ‘Amr ibn Murrah — from ‘Isa ibn Maryam — from Khaythamah — from ‘Abdullah…”

 

He made a terrible mistake in mentioning the name of the Prophet of Allah, ‘Isa ibn Maryam ‘alayh al Salam in the isnad in front of the students of Hadith, which means that he got confused, forgot, and became senile. The people criticised him for some of his mistakes. Ibn Ma’in said to his son, “I told you.”^[45]

Yahya tracked many of the narrators who became mukhtalit (confused) at the end of their lives, among the class of his sheikhs and in the class of the sheikhs of his sheikhs. An example of that was his tracking of the time of Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah’s (d. 156 AH) ikhtilat as he was able to determine the year in which Sa’id became mukhtalit. Therefore, he distinguished between those who narrated from him before that and those who narrated from him after that. Yahya said:

 

سعيد‏ بن أبي عروبة اختلط بعد هزيمة إبراهيم بن عبد الله بن حسن بن حسن ‏ فمن سمع منه سنة اثنتين وأربعين فهو صحيح السماع وسماع من سمع منه بعد ذلك فليس بشيء وأما يزيد بن هارون (ت ٢٠٦ه)‏ فصحيح السماع كان يسمع منه بواسط وهو يريد الكوفة وأثبت الناس سماعا منه عبدة بن سليمان (ت ١٨٨ه)

Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah became mukhtalit after the defeat of Ibrahim ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Hassan ibn Hassan.^[46] Therefore, whoever heard from him in the year forty-two, his hearing is sahih. Whoever heard from him after that is nothing. As for Yazid ibn Harun (d. 206 AH), the hearing is sahih. He heard from him in Wasit, while he was going to Kufah. The most thabit (astute) person to hear from him is ‘Abdah ibn Sulaiman (d. 188 AH).^[47]

 

Perhaps that specification was the result of his knowledge of the errors of those who narrated from him, and his comparison between those who narrated from him before the year 142 AH and those who narrated after that. It is as if Ibn Ma’in was scrutinising those dates and specifying the time of the mukhtalit’s ikhtilat and discussing that. When he heard some Muhaddithin say:

 

إن سعيد بن إياس الجريري (ت١٤٤ه)‏ اختلط قبل الطاعون يعني قبل سنة إحدى وثلاثين ومئة قال يحيى هذا كذب ويعني أنه اختلط بعد ذلك بكثير

Sa’id ibn Iyas al Jariri (d. 144 AH) became mukhtalit before the plague, meaning before the year 131 AH.

Yahya said, “This is a lie,” meaning that he became mukhtalit much later.^[48]

 

This is known only through the narrations that were narrated from him.

There are many examples of Yahya tracking the narrations of those who became mukhtalit. There is no space for detail here,^[49] but he had an amusing situation with one of his most distinguished sheikhs, ‘Affan ibn Muslim Abu ‘Uthman al Basri, then al Baghdadi (d. 220 AH). Yahya ibn Ma’in and Abu Khaythamah believed that he became mukhtalit in the last days of his life, and they would say:

 

أنكرنا عفان في شهر صفر لأيام خلون منه سنة تسع عشر ومئتين ومات عفان بعد أيام مع أنه كان قبل ذلك ثقة جبلا جليل القدر

We denounced ‘Affan a few days into the month of Safar, in the year 219 AH, and he passed away a few days later,^[50] even though prior to that he was thiqah, a mountain, and illustrious.^[51]

 

It is as if they knew about his ikhtilat when they visited him in his last days. ‘Affan asked Abu Khaythamah—whilst Yahya was present—about his travel and Hajj that year, and Abu Khaythamah answered him:

 

ما كنت حاجا العام

I did not perform Hajj this year.

 

‘Affan said:

 

ما شككت أنك حاج

I had no doubt that you performed Hajj.

 

This was a sign to them that the sheikh had changed and become mukhtalit. Ibn Ma’in said:

 

فسأله أبو خيثمة كيف تجدك يا أبا عثمان قال بخير الجارية تقول لي أنت مصدع وأنا في عافية فقلت له أيش أكلت اليوم فقال أكلت اليوم أكلة رز وليس أحتاج إلى شيء إلى غد أو بالعشي آكل أخرى وتكفيني لغد أو بعدها آكل أخرى تكفيني لبعد غد

Abu Khaythamah asked him, “How do you feel, O Abu ‘Uthman?”

He said, “I am well. The slave girl is telling me that I am in pain but I am well.”

Then I said to him, “What did you eat today?”

He said, “I ate some rice today and I do not need anything until tomorrow, or in the evening I will eat more and it will suffice me for tomorrow, or after that I will eat more and that will suffice me for the day after tomorrow.”

 

This means that he had clearly changed, as it is a strange answer to a simple question. Ibn Ma’in departed and judged ‘Affan as mukhtalit. Ibrahim al Harbi (d. 285 AH) states:

 

فلما كان بالعشي جئت إليه أي إلى عفان فنظرت إليه كما حكى أبو خيثمة أي أنه قد اختلط فقال له إنسان إن يحيى يقول إنك قد اختلطت فقال لعن الله يحيى أرجو أن يمتعني الله بعقلي حتى أموت قال إبراهيم الخرف يكون ساعة خرفا وساعة عقلا

In the evening, I came to him—i.e. to ‘Affan—and found him to be as Abu Khaythamah reported, meaning that he became mukhtalit. A person said to him, “Yahya says that you have become mukhtalit.”

He said, “May Allah curse Yahya. I hope Allah will benefit me through my intelligence until I die.”

Ibrahim said, “Senility is sometimes senility and sometimes intelligence.”^[52]

 

It appears from this incident that the ruling on ikhtilat does not require listening to ahadith. Rather, it is sufficient that a person utters speech that is not consistent, upon which the critic judges him as mukhtalit. This is what occurred with Yahya and Abu Khaythamah here, and Ibrahim al Harbi agreed with them.

I believe that ‘Affan’s harsh statement against Ibn Ma’in only came out during his confusion and out of anger at him. This indicates to the natural human movement of society and that they were humans with all their anger, annoyance, inclinations, desire, love, and hatred, and they were not mere names in narrations. Hence, such natural reports were reported from them.^[53]

Ibn Ma’in did not suffice with tracking mukhtalit people and monitoring their narrations. He sometimes tracked some of his sheikhs in terms of his relationships and companionship throughout his life. An example of this is that he observed the development taking place in the life of Dawood ibn al Muhabbar (d. 206 AH). He said about him:

 

ليس بكذاب ولكنه كان رجلا قد سمع الحديث بالبصرة ثم صار إلى عبادان فصار مع الصوفية فعمل الخوص والأسل فنسي الحديث وجفاه ثم قدم بغداد فجاء أصحاب الحديث فجعل يخطئ في الحديث لأنه لم يجالس أصحاب الحديث ولكنه كان في نفسه ليس يكذب قال يحيى وقد كتبت عن أبيه المحبر بن قحذم

He is not a liar, but he was a person who heard Hadith in Basrah, then he went to ‘Abadan and joined the Sufis. He made wicker and baskets, forgot about Hadith and became estranged to it. Then he came to Baghdad. The people of Hadith came and he made mistakes in the Hadith, because he did not sit with the people of Hadith. However, in reality he was not a liar. Yahya said, “I wrote from his father, al Muhabbar ibn Qahdham.”^[54]

 

He defends this narrator and explains his tracking of his life and narrations, and the reasons for his errors.

 

Second: Monitoring geographical changes

This requires a difference in the narrator’s place of acquisition or the place of imparting Hadith. The narrator may acquire Hadith from the sheikhs in his country and be accurate in that, but if he acquires it from others in other countries, then he may make mistakes and err. Ibn Ma’in tracked this strongly as well. An example of this is his tracking of the transmissions of Ismail ibn ‘Ayyash al Himsi (d. 182 AH). Ibn Ma’in said:

 

إذا حدث عن الشاميين عن صفوان وحريز فحديثه صحيح وإذا حدث عن العراقيين والمدنيين خلطه ما شئت

When he narrated from the people of Greater Syria, from Safwan and Hariz, then his Hadith is sahih. When he narrated from the people of Iraq and Madinah, mix it as you wish.^[55]

 

Similarly, he said:

 

و كان ثقة فيما روى عن أصحابه أهل الشام وما روى عن غيرهم يخلط فيه

He was thiqah in what he narrated from his companions, the people of Greater Syria. What he narrated from others, he made ikhtilat in that.^[56]

 

Ibn Ma’in explains the reason for this in another narration about him, saying:

 

وأما روايته عن أهل الحجاز فإن كتابه ضاع فخلط في حفظه

As for his narration from the people of Hijaz, his book was destroyed and he mixed up in memorising it.^[57]

 

Ibn Ma’in tracks Ismail’s travels, recognises the Hadith problems that arose for him in countries, and tries to understand their causes. The reason here is the loss of the book, and the narrator was not accurate in memorising, but relied on his book.

Sometimes, the reason may be related to the narrator’s desire for his name to appear and spread in the scholarly community, so he narrates that which he did not hear, and, as a result, is discarded. An example of this is that Ibn Ma’in made tad’if of Abu Hafs al ‘Abdi ‘Umar ibn Hafs (d. 198 AH). When Abu Salamah al Tabudhaki (d. 223 AH) narrated from him in his Hadith gathering in Basrah, Yahya was present writing narrations and ahadith and became aware of this narrator. Then Ibn Ma’in asked Abu Salamah:

 

لعله الذي قدم علينا ببغداد

Perhaps he is the one who came to us in Baghdad.

 

Abu Salamah smiled, so Yahya took the pen, crossed out his Hadith (i.e. put a line through it), indicating that it was not reliable, and said:

 

صرت تدلس علينا يا أبا سلمة

You have begun practicing tadlis, Abu Salamah.

 

Abu Salamah said:

 

إنما كنا نعرفه عندنا بأحاديث فلما قدم عليكم بغداد رأى الزحام فحدث بما ليس من حديثه

We knew him only through some ahadith. When he came to you in Baghdad, he saw the crowd, and narrated Hadith that were not his.^[58]

 

It is as if this narrator was thiqah, but he travelled to Baghdad and narrated ahadith there. People began gathering around him, so he wanted to show that he possessed ahadith that no one else had, to increase the crowd around him. Hence, he narrated ahadith that were not part of his Hadith, and he was discarded.

This means careful tracking of the narrator’s movements and tracking his personal inclinations in Hadith narration, as Hadith gatherings in that era had importance, weight, significance, and honour in the Islamic society. Whomever the narrators approached and narrated from was ‘the star’. Therefore, he was discarded due to his desire to do so.

There are also many reports regarding Ibn Ma’in’s criticism of narrators according to their countries. This will suffice here. It was as if they were all under surveillance regarding their narrations and their differences.

 

Third: Monitoring changes when sheikhs differ

Ibn Ma’in would scrutinise narrators according to their sheikhs. A narrator might be thiqah from a particular sheikh and da’if in other sheikhs, which means paying close attention to the narrator’s transformations and changes. He said about Jafar ibn Burqan (d. 154 AH):

 

ثقة فيما روى عن غير الزهري وأما ما روى عن الزهري فهو فيه ضعيف وكان أميا لا يكتب فليس هو مستقيم الحديث عن الزهري وهو في غير الزهري أصح حديثا

He is thiqah in what he narrated from other than al Zuhri. As for what he narrated from al Zuhri, he is da’if in that. He was illiterate and could not write, so he is not authentic in the Hadith from al Zuhri. His Hadith from other than al Zuhri is more authentic.^[59]

 

Close to this is his statement about Sufyan ibn Hussain (died after 150 AH) regarding his narration from al Zuhri. He was asked about him and he said:

 

ليس به بأس وليس هو من أكابر أصحاب الزهري إنما المعتمد منهم معمر وشعيب وعقيل ويونس ومالك وربما قال وابن عيينة

There is nothing wrong with him. He is not one of the senior students of al Zuhri. The reliable ones amongst them are Ma’mar, Shu’ayb, ‘Aqil, Yunus, and Malik. (Sometimes he would add Ibn ‘Uyaynah.)^[60]

 

He made tawthiq of his sheikh, Abu Muawiyah al Darir (d. 195 AH) in his Hadith from al A’mash. He stayed with him for very many years and memorised his Hadith and captured it accurately. However, when he was asked about Abu Muawiyah regarding ahadith other than that of al A’mash, He said:

 

ثقة ولكنه يخطئ

He is thiqah, but he makes mistakes.^[61]

 

Regarding Jarir ibn Hazim (d. 170 AH), he said:

 

ليس به بأس وهو عن قتادة ضعيف

There is nothing wrong with him. He is da’if (when narrating) from Qatadah.^[62]

 

He made tad’if of Ma’mar (d. 154 AH) (when narrating) from Thabit, ‘Asim ibn Abi al Najud, and Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, and said that regarding them he was:

 

مضطرب كثير الأوهام

Mudtarib (confused) and full of errors.^[63]

 

This means that a student may be attached to a sheikh for a long time, acquire from him and master his Hadith, but he may make mistakes in others, and be thiqah from one sheikh but da’if from another, which is consistent with human nature and the difference in interest, preoccupation, and mastery. Therefore, it is not possible to judge all the narrator’s reports according to ‘one template’ that does not change with circumstances and variations.

 

Fourth: Monitoring changes when the Hadith topic differs

Ibn Ma’in was aware of the specialisation of some narrators in certain topics, which was their interest and preoccupation. Thus, they were thabit and thiqah in these topics. In other topics, they do not memorise well due to their lack of interest. Examples of this include his discussion about his sheikh Ziyad ibn ‘Abdullah al Baka’i (d. 183 AH), the narrator of the Sirah of Ibn Ishaq (d. 152 AH) from him, who specialised in al Maghazi (campaigns and battles). Ibn Ma’in used to write al Maghazi from him and believed that there was nothing wrong with him in this field, but he was da’if in other subjects. He would mention the intensity of al Baka’i’s interest in Sirat Ibn Ishaq, to ​​the point that he sold part of his house in order to write al Maghazi from Ibn Ishaq.^[64]

Similar was the case with those who were completely occupied with reciting the Qur’an, teaching it, memorising it, and making people hear it. Hence, he made tad’if of Hafs ibn Sulaiman Abu ‘Umar al Bazzaz al Kufi, the famous reciter (died 180 AH), in Hadith, despite his tawthiq in Qira’ah. Ibn Ma’in said:

 

أبو عمر البزاز صاحب القراءة ليس بثقة هو أصح قراءة من أبي بكر بن عياش وأبو بكر أوثق منه

Abu ‘Umar al Bazzaz, the Imam of Qira’ah, is not thiqah. He is more authentic in Qira’ah than Abu Bakr ibn ‘Ayyash, whereas Abu Bakr is more thiqah than him [in Hadith].^[65]

 

This distinction shows that tawthiq is not in general, but rather each narrator’s Hadith is viewed as an ‘independent world’ in itself, that can be examined and verified.

 

Second Feature: Monitoring books and copies

This method continued and developed, and perhaps it was one of the most developed methods in the era of Ibn Ma’in. We did not notice many criticisms of books by Shu’bah, but this appeared clearly in Ibn Ma’in’s criticism. His methods of judging the narrator through his book varied. Among them are:

 

First: Asking to view the book and verify its content

Ibn Ma’in would ask to look into the books of narrators and sheikhs, and he would verify its content and authenticity himself. If he saw anything in them that cast doubt, he scrutinised and examined further. If its content was accurate and upright, he judged the narrator to be thiqah and the content of his book to be authentic. It was as if he was frightening the narrators through that, as his viewing of the books was the view of a critic, an investigator, an observer, not the view of a loving friendly teacher. Therefore, an incident of fear is reported from Khalaf al Bazzar (d. 229 AH). He states:

 

كنت‏ عند خلف البزار فقلت له هات كتبك فجبن فقلت هات رحمك الله فجاء بها فنظرت فيها فرأيت أحاديث مستقيمة صحاحا

I was with Khalaf al Bazzar. I said to him, “Bring your books.”

He got cold feet, so I said, “Bring it, may Allah have mercy on you.”

Then he brought them, and I looked at them. I saw upright, sahih ahadith in them.^[66]

 

Khalaf al Bazzar got cold feet only for fear that Ibn Ma’in would find mistakes that Khalaf had not noticed, and Ibn Ma’in would discard him and make his tad’if thereby. This would be a difficult and embarrassing situation in the scholarly community. It seems as if this sheikh remained in his fear of Ibn Ma’in. ‘Abbas al Duri (d. 271 AH) narrates:

 

وجهني‏ خلف إلى يحيى فقال أحب أن تقول لأبي زكريا يحيى بن معين كانت عندي كتب عن حماد بن زيد فحدثت بها وبقي منها رقاع بعضها دارس (أي صار قديما باليا انمحى فيه بعض أثرها) فاجتمعت عليه أنا وأصحابنا فاستخرجناها فما ترى أحدث بها فقال لي قل له حدث بها يا أبا محمد فأنت الصدوق الثقة

Khalaf directed me to Yahya and said, “I would like you to say to Abu Zakariyya, Yahya ibn Ma’in that I had books from Hammad ibn Zaid. I narrated from them. Some fragments of them remained, some of which were obliterated (i.e., they had become old and worn out, and some of their traces had been erased). Then my companions and I gathered and reproduced it. What do you think, should I narrate it?”

He said to me, “Tell him, ‘Narrate it, O Abu Muhammad, for you are saduq and thiqah.’”^[67]

 

It is as if he is asking permission to narrate from those fragments that have become old and worn out, from which some handwriting and some words may be missing, even though he reproduced what was in them with his companions, but it is the fear of being discarded by critics in the scholarly community.

Just as Ibn Ma’in judged this narrator to be thiqah after looking at his books, he judged others da’if and liars after looking at their books forcefully. This is when he judged Nasr ibn Bab Abu Sahl al Marwazi (d. 193 AH) as a liar, wretched, and an enemy of Allah. He gave the reason for this by saying:

 

ذهبت إليه أنا وابن الحجاج بن أرطاة فأخرج إلينا كتبا كان فيها كتاب عوف فجعل يحدثنا فطوى رأس الكتاب فاستربت به فقلت ناولني الكتاب وظننت أنه قد خنس عنا بعض الأحاديث فأبى أن يعطيني فوثبت عليه فأخذت الكتاب منه فنظرت فيه وكان يحدث عن عوف فإذا أوله بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم حدثني نوح بن أبي مريم أبو عصمة الخراساني عن عوف فطرحت الكتاب من يدي وقمت وتركناه فقلت له كيف هذا فقال هاه كتبتها عن أبي عصمة ثم سمعتها بعد فقمنا وتركناه

Ibn al Hajjaj ibn Artat and I went to him. He brought out books to us that contained the book of ‘Awf. He began narrating to us. He folded the top of the book. I was suspicious of it, so I said, “Give me the book.”

I suspected that he withheld some of the ahadith from us. He refused to give it to me, so I leaped to him and took the book from him. I looked into it—he was narrating to us from ‘Awf—and it started it with “In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful. Nuh ibn Abi Maryam Abu ‘Ismah al Khurasani narrated to me from ‘Awf.” I threw the book out of my hand and got up and we left.

I said to him, “How is this?”

He said, “I wrote it from Abu ‘Ismah, then I heard it later.”

We stood up and left him.^[68]

 

Nuh ibn Abi Maryam is well-known for being da’if and a liar.^[69] It is clear that the actions of the narrator, Nasr ibn Bab, while narrating the Hadith were a cause of doubt for Ibn Ma’in, so he asked for the book, discovered the lies and concealment in it, and then exposed his lying by looking at his book. Likewise, he made tad’if of Muhammad ibn al Hajjaj al Makhzumi (d. 216 AH) stating:

 

كان يحدث عن شعبة بأحاديث منكرة أنا رأيت كتابه وكتبت عنه ما كان في كتابه وليس هو بشيء

He would narrate munkar ahadith from Shu’bah. I saw his book and wrote what was in his book. He is nothing.^[70]

 

He judged him by looking in his book.

 

Second: Differentiating between the locations of ahadith in the book

This issue corresponds with the development of writing and paper, as the spread of writing made narrators write a lot and distinguish between their writings. Critics would scrutinise them in some areas of writing. In a funny incident, Ibn Ma’in visited Basrah and wrote from its sheikh, the great thiqah scholar, Abu Salamah al Tabudhaki (d. 223 AH). However, he doubted a hadith that Abu Salamah narrated isolated, from his sheikh Hammam, which others did not narrate, and Ibn Ma’in did not find it in the front of the book, but rather found it on the back. This aroused Ibn Ma’in’s amazement, so he asked him:

 

يا أبا سلمة إني أريد أن أذكر لك شيئا فلا تغضب قال هات قال حديث همام عن ثابت عن أنس عن أبي بكر حديث الغار لم يروه أحد من أصحابك إنما رواه عفان وحبان ولم أجده في صدر كتابك إنما وجدته على ظهره قال فتقول ماذا قال قال تحلف لي أنك سمعته من همام قال ذكرت أنك كتبت عني عشرين ألفا فإن كنت عندك فيها صادقا ما ينبغي أن تكذبني في حديث وإن كنت عندك كاذبا ما ينبغي أن تصدقني فيها ولا تكتب عني شيئا وترمي بها برة بنت أبي عاصم [يعني زوجته] طالق ثلاثا إن لم أكن سمعته من همام والله لا كلمتك أبدا

“O Abu Salamah, I want to mention something to you, so do not get angry.”

He said, “Say it.”

Ibn Ma’in said, “The hadith of Hammam — from Thabit — from Anas — from Abu Bakr, the Hadith of the cave, none of your companions narrated it. It was narrated by ‘Affan and Hibban only, and I did not find it in the front of your book, but rather I found it on the back.”

He said, “What do you want to say?”

Ibn Ma’in said, “Take an oath to me that you heard it from Hammam.”

He said, “You mentioned that you wrote twenty-thousand (ahadith) from me. If according to you, I was truthful to you in it, you should not falsify me in one hadith. And if I am a liar to you, you should not believe me; do not write anything from me and throw it away. Barrah bint Abi ‘Asim (meaning his wife) is divorced three times if I did not hear it from Hammam. By Allah, I will never talk to you.”^[71]

 

Here, criticism of the narrator’s isolation in the narration from his peers is intertwined with criticism because of the book. The object of criticising the book is not to criticise it in its entirety, but rather to criticise the place of the hadith in it, which shows intense accuracy and clear tracking. The previous incident shows spontaneity and clear naturalness, and it indicates to spontaneous human interaction between narrator’s Hadith and its critics. It involves fear of the teacher’s anger and boldness towards him, then anger of the teacher, conditional divorce, and an oath to stop talking to the critical student.

 

Third: Differentiating between types of writings

One of the developments in criticism accompanying the development of writing is that Ibn Ma’in would differentiate between the types of books in the possession of the sheikh. Some books were old, and they are the ones relied upon by some sheikhs, not the publicised books. Regarding Hammad ibn Salamah (d. 167 AH), he said:

 

من‏ سمع من حماد بن سلمة الأصناف ففيها اختلاف ومن سمع من حماد بن سلمة نسخا فهو صحيح

Whoever heard from the publicised books of Hammad ibn Salamah, there are differences in them. Whoever heard from the copy of Hammad ibn Salamah, then it is sahih.^[72]

 

This means that his old books are more authentic than his publicised books that he produced for the people.

He would respond to some of the sheikhs who made mistakes in their publicised books. The sheikhs would revert to the old copy and realise the accuracy of Ibn Ma’in’s statements. An example of that is when he visited Egypt and sat in the gathering of his friend, Nuaim ibn Hammad al Marwazi (d. 228 AH), while he was narrating to the students from a book he had compiled. Ibn Ma’in states:

 

فقرأ‏ ساعة ثم قال حدثنا ابن المبارك عن ابن عون بأحاديث قال يحيى فقلت له ليس هذا عن ابن المبارك فغضب وقال ترد علي قال قلت إي والله أرد عليك أريد زينك (يعني الحسن لك وفائدتك) فأبى أن يرجع فلما رأيته هكذا لا يرجع قلت لا ولله ما سمعت أنت هذا من ابن المبارك قط ولا سمعها ابن المبارك من ابن عون قط فغضب وغضب من كان عنده من أصحاب الحديث وقام نعيم فدخل البيت فأخرج صحائف فجعل يقول وهي بيده أين الذين يزعمون أن يحيى بن معين ليس أمير المؤمنين في الحديث نعم يا أبا زكريا غلطت وكانت صحائف فغلطت فجعلت أكتب من حديث ابن المبارك عن ابن عون وإنما روى هذه الأحاديث عن ابن عون غير ابن المبارك

He read for a while and then said, “Ibn al Mubarak narrated ahadith to us from Ibn ‘Awn.”

Yahya says that I said to him, “This is not from Ibn al Mubarak.”

He became angry and said, “Are you refuting me?”

I said, “Yes, by Allah. I am refuting you for your adornment (i.e. for your good and benefit).”

He refused to retract. When I saw him like this, I said, “No, by Allah. You never heard this from Ibn al Mubarak and Ibn al Mubarak never heard it from Ibn ‘Awn.”

He became angry, and so did the people of Hadith who were with him. Nuaim stood up and entered the house. He took out pages and began to say, while they were in his hand, “Where are those who claim that Yahya ibn Ma’in is not the Amir al Mu’minin in Hadith? Yes, Abu Zakariyya, I made a mistake. They were in pages, so I made a mistake and started writing from the Hadith of Ibn al Mubarak, from Ibn ‘Awn; however, other narrators narrated these ahadith from Ibn ‘Awn, not Ibn al Mubarak.”^[73]

 

These two examples show that the critics in that era were not content with the latest compiled version produced by the scholar or narrator, even if he was a great scholar. Rather, his old versions may have been more reliable than his new publicised books. This is contrary to the understanding of the system of books and writings in our time. This also criticises the ideology that it is necessary to rely on the publicised books circulated from that era in historiography and explaining its conditions, as there may be errors in the publicised books, and the old versions may be correct, and only critics who lived through the narrators, books, and works of that time would realise this.

It appears from Ibn Ma’in’s severity towards his companion that scholarly courtesy was far from him when he found an error in the gathering. Therefore, he announced the error openly, taking an oath on it, which angered the sheikh and the students around him, but Ibn Ma’in remained adamant and his opinion appeared correct.

 

Fourth: Noticing theft from books and claiming sima’

Ibn Ma’in would scrutinise those who copied well-known books in the second century without hearing anything from them, and then attributing them to themselves. An example of that is his statement:

 

قال لي هشام بن يوسف وسألته عن مطرف بن مازن فقال هو والله كذاب ما سمع من هذه الأحاديث قليلا ولا كثيرا جاءني والله فكتب عني كتاب معمر ولم يسمعه منه ثم ذهب فرواه عن معمر وبعث بابن أخيه إلي فكتب الكتاب عن ابن جريج كتاب المناسك ولم يسمعها اذهب فجئ به إن شئت قال يحيى فذهبت فاستعرته ثم جئت فعارضت به فإذا هو من أوله إلى آخره كتاب هشام

Hisham ibn Yusuf told me, when I asked him about Mutarrif ibn Mazin, “By Allah, he is a liar. He heard nothing from these ahadith. By Allah, he came to me, wrote the book of Ma’mar from me, and did not hear it from him. Then he went and narrated it from Ma’mar. He sent his nephew to me and he wrote a book from Ibn Jurayj, Kitab al Manasik, but he did not hear it. Go and bring it if you wish.”

Yahya said, “I went and borrowed it. Then I came and compared it, and lo and behold, it was Hisham’s book from beginning to end.”^[74]

 

From this, he judged this narrator to be a liar,^[75] as he claimed to have heard books that he had not heard from the sheikhs.

Likewise, Ibn Ma’in made tad’if of Ayub ibn Suwaid al Ramali (d. 202 AH) saying:

 

أيوب بن سويد ليس بشيء كان يسرق الأحاديث قال أهل الرملة حدث عن ابن المبارك بأحاديث ثم قال حدثني أولئك الشيوخ الذين حدث عنهم ابن المبارك

Ayub ibn Suwaid is nothing. He would steal ahadith. The people of Ramalah said that he narrated ahadith from Ibn al Mubarak. Then he said, “Those sheikhs narrated to me, from whom Ibn al Mubarak narrated.”^[76]

 

He also criticised Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Ayub (d. 228 AH) and said:

 

إنه لص كذاب ما سمع هذه الكتب قط

He is a thief and a liar. He never heard these books.^[77]

 

By books, he meant the book al Maghazi by Ibrahim ibn Sa’d (d. 183 AH).^[78]

 

The Third Feature: Observing the narrator’s isolated narrations from his peers: Criticising him for his isolation in one hadith

This is an important observation, as isolation (in narration) in that era was very surprising, and through it, the critics made tad’if of a group of narrators merely because of their isolation. This was clearly evident in Shu’bah, as mentioned before, and it continued among the critics until it reached Ibn Ma’in. An example of this is what was mentioned previously about Ibn Ma’in’s falsification of the hadith of Abu al Azhar al Naysaburi pertaining to the virtue of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his statement:

 

من هذا الكذاب الذي روى هذا عن عبد الرزاق

Who is the liar who narrated this from ‘Abdul Razzaq?

 

He was judged a liar based on his narration. Similar to this is his tad’if of ‘Amr ibn Hakkam (d. 219 AH), who is one of the frequent narrators from Shu’bah (d. 160 AH). He accompanied Shu’bah and remained with him. He narrated four thousand ahadith from him. However, he once narrated a hadith in isolation. Critics denounced him for that, among them was Ibn Ma’in. The hadith is the one he narrated from Shu’bah — from ‘Ali ibn Zaid — from Abu al Mutawakkil — from Abu Sa’id:

 

أهدى‏ ملك الروم إلى رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هدايا فكان فيها جرة زنجبيل فأطعم كل إنسان قطعة وأطعمني قطعتين

The Roman king sent gifts to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and there was a jar of ginger in it. He fed each person a piece and he fed me two pieces.^[79]

 

The reason for denouncing this hadith was two:

The first is that ‘Amr ibn Hakkam was the only one to narrate it from Shu’bah, without any of his students narrating it and they were in the hundreds. No one narrated such a hadith from him.^[80]

The second is the strangeness of its text, i.e. ginger never used to be gifted from Rome to Hijaz, and that the Roman king is not known to send any gift to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.^[81] Since then, Ibn Ma’in would call ‘Amr ibn Hakkam “al Zanjabili”, in reference to his error in this hadith.^[82] The critics discarded his entire Hadith due to this one hadith.^[83]

It seems as though some of the narrators in that era wanted to get closer to the political authority by fabricating Hadith. Therefore, Hadith critics declared that those ahadith were fabricated and then declared their narrators to be liars or da’if. An example of that is that Yahya ibn Ma’in stated that al ‘Abbas ibn al Fadl al Ansari al Waqifi (d. 186 AH) was not thiqah.^[84] Then he explained the reason for it by saying:

 

وضع‏ حديثا لهارون يعني الرشيد عن قتادة عن جابر بن زيد عن ابن عباس في الأمراء لم يكن به بأس لولا أنه وضع هذا الحديث ولو أن رجلا متى همّ في الحديث بكذب حرف لهتك الله ستره

He fabricated a hadith for Harun, i.e. al Rashid, from Qatadah — from Jabir ibn Zaid — from Ibn ‘Abbas regarding rulers. There was nothing wrong with him had he not fabricated this hadith. If a person intends to lie about a single letter in a hadith, Allah will disgrace him.^[85]

 

This text shows the method of judgement based on the narrator’s narrations. Had it not been for this hadith, the narrator would have been accepted, but when he narrated a fabricated hadith, the matter turned against him and the critics declared that his Hadith was fabricated and he is da’if because of it. Thus, it is the narration which is judging the narrator here.

When Ibn Ma’in was under the Abbasid political authority during the days of its strength and golden age, and yet he was declaring the falsehood of this hadith in gatherings, this shows that the idea of political influence on the Hadith narration and its spread is incorrect, at least in this context.

On the subject of politics itself and criticising the narrator through his isolated narrations, Ibn Ma’in and Ahmed ibn Hanbal made tad’if of Ismail ibn Aban al Ghanawi (d. 210 AH) when he narrated a hadith related to the virtue of the Abbasids as well, as if he wanted to get closer to them. Therefore, Yahya announced his lies. Yahya said:

 

إسماعيل‏ بن أبان الغنوي كذاب وضع حديثا عن علي السابع من ولد العباس يلبس الخضرة يعني المأمون

Ismail ibn Aban al Ghanawi is a liar. He fabricated a hadith from ‘Ali that the seventh from the descendants of ‘Abbas will wear green, referring to al Ma’mun.^[86]

 

It seems as if he repeated the fabrication of ahadith to get closer to the khalifas through it, and Ibn Ma’in and Ahmed ibn Hanbal shouted out about it. Ibn Ma’in was asked about the hadith of Jarir:

 

تبنى مدينة بين دجلة ودجيل

A city will be built between the Tigris and Dujayl.

 

He said:

 

حديث باطل لما جاء إسماعيل بن أبان إلى هاهنا جائه أحمد وغيره فإذا هو قد حدث بهذا الحديث عن مسعر فقال له أحمد ممن سمعت هذا قال من مسعر فدفع الكتاب إليه وما حدث عنه إلى الساعة

It is a false hadith. When Ismail ibn Aban came here, Ahmed and others came to him. He found out that he had narrated this hadith from Mis’ar. Ahmed asked him, “Who did you hear this from?”

He said, “From Mis’ar.”

He gave the book back to him and did not narrate from him until now.

 

Therefore, Ibn Ma’in used to say:

 

كان إسماعيل بن أبان يضع الحديث

Ismail ibn Aban used to fabricate Hadith.^[87]

 

4. Effects of Ibn Ma’in’s critical approach among the narrators and the extent of submission to him

As mentioned regarding Shu’bah, the narrators’ fear of critics and their criticism remained continuous in the era of Ibn Ma’in and after him. The narrators’ fear was not limited to Ibn Ma’in, as Ibn Ma’in was not alone in criticising, but rather he was joined or surpassed by a number of senior critics, such as Ahmed ibn Hanbal, ‘Ali ibn al Madini, Abu Khaythamah, Ibn Numair and others.

The narrators’ fear of Ibn Ma’in appears in his statement:

 

ما جلست إلى شيخ إلا هابني أو عرف لي ما خلا هذا الأثرم التبوذكي

I have never sat with any sheikh without him being in awe of me or knowing about me except this al Athram al Tabudhaki.^[88]

 

The sheikh would only be afraid of Ibn Ma’in because he knew that his criticism would cause him to be discarded in the scholarly community. It has been previously mentioned that Ismail ibn ‘Ulayyah (d. 193 AH), a famous thiqah scholar asked his student, Ibn Ma’in, about his Hadith and he replied that his Hadith was upright, and explained to him the reason for his knowledge of the authenticity of his ahadith. The sheikh continued praising Allah until he entered some houses.^[89]

It was as if the sheikh was afraid and apprehensive of Ibn Ma’in’s judgement on him, as he might regard him to be da’if and degrade him in the scholarly community at that time. When he answered him that his Hadith was upright, he thanked Allah immensely for that.

The narrators’ fear of Ibn Ma’in and their praising Allah when he made their tawthiq is repeated in another incident. ‘Abdul Wahhab ibn ‘Ata’, a thiqah person from Basrah (d. 204 AH), came to Baghdad, and Ibn Ma’in acquired Hadith from him. He was very happy about that and sent a message to his family thanking Allah for that. Ibn Ma’in states:

 

لما‏ قدم عبد الوهاب بن عطاء أتيته فكتبت عنه فبينا أنا عنده إذ أتاه كتاب من أهله من البصرة فقرأه وأجابهم فرأيته وقد كتب على ظهره وقدمت بغداد وقبلني يحيى بن معين والحمد لله رب العالمين

When ‘Abdul Wahhab ibn ‘Ata’ came, I went to him and wrote from him. While I was with him, a letter came to him from his family in Basrah. He read it and answered them. I saw him writing at the back, “I came to Baghdad and Yahya ibn Ma’in accepted me. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.”^[90]

 

Yahya ibn Ma’in’s acceptance of the narrator is something that deserved a letter to Basrah and thanks to Allah for that, which means that his non-acceptance was frightening for the narrator.

Khalaf al Bazzar’s fear of Ibn Ma’in was mentioned previously, when Ibn Ma’in asked him for his books and Khalaf got cold feet. Yahya insisted on looking at his books, and when he saw them, he issued his ruling that they were upright and sahih ahadith.^[91] If the narrator had not been afraid of being discarded, he would not have been cowardly in presenting his books.

In fact, some of the sheikhs were terrified of Yahya specifically. Harun ibn Ma’roof (d. 231 AH) states:

 

قدم علينا بعض الشيوخ من الشام فكنت أول من بكر إليه فدخلت عليه فسألته أن يملي علي شيئا فأخذ الكتاب يملي علي فإذا بإنسان يدق الباب قال الشيخ من هذا قال أحمد بن حنبل فأذن له والشيخ على حالته والكتاب في يده لا يتحرك فإذا بآخر يدق الباب فقال الشيخ من هذا قال أحمد الدورقي فأذن له والشيخ على حالته والكتاب في يده لا يتحرك فإذا بآخر يدق الباب فقال الشيخ من هذا قال عبد الله بن الرومي فأذن له والشيخ على حالته والكتاب في يده لا يتحرك فإذا آخر يدق الباب فقال الشيخ من هذا قال أبو خيثمة زهير بن حرب فأذن له والشيخ على حالته والكتاب في يده لا يتحرك وإذا بآخر يدق الباب فقال الشيخ من هذا قال يحيى بن معين قال فرأيت الشيخ ارتعدت يده وسقط الكتاب من يده

One sheikh from Greater Syria came to us. I was the first to come early to him. I entered by him and asked him to dictate something to me, so he began to dictate something to me, and suddenly a person knocked on the door. The sheikh asked, “Who is this?”

He replied, “Ahmed ibn Hanbal.”

He gave him permission. The sheikh was in his normal state and the book was in his hand, not moving.

Then someone else knocked on the door. The sheikh asked, “Who is this?”

He replied, “Ahmed al Dawraqi.”

He gave him permission. The sheikh was in his normal state and the book was in his hand, not moving.

Then someone else knocked on the door. The sheikh asked, “Who is this?”

He replied, “‘Abdullah ibn al Rumi.”

He gave him permission. The sheikh was in his normal state and the book was in his hand, not moving.

Then, when someone else knocked on the door, the sheikh asked, “Who is this?”

He replied, “Abu Khaythamah Zuhayr ibn Harb.”

He gave him permission. The sheikh was in his normal state, and the book was in his hand, not moving.

Then another man knocked on the door. The sheikh asked, “Who is this?”

He replied, “Yahya ibn Ma’in.”

I saw the sheikh’s hands trembling and the book fell from his hand.^[92]

 

In fact, the Hadith narrators had formed groups that were somewhat frightening to some of the narrators. For example, Ibn Ma’in attended a gathering wherein Sheikh Waki’ ibn al Jarrah—the well-known Sunni Imam and the sheikh of Ibn Ma’in (d. 197 AH)—was described to be a Rafidi. Yahya states:

 

فقلت له وكيع خير منك قال مني قلت نعم قال فما قال لي شيئا ولو قال لي شيئا لوثب أصحاب الحديث عليه قال فبلغ ذلك وكيعا فقال يحيى صاحبنا

Therefore, I said to him, “Waki’ is better than you.”

He said, “Better than me?”

I said, “Yes.”

He did not say anything to me. If he had said anything to me, the scholars of Hadith would have attacked him.

Yahya said, “This reached Waki’ who said, ‘Yahya is our companion.’”^[93]

 

However, despite this great influence among the narrators, Ibn Ma’in himself was also the subject of criticism, as the critical community was alive and strong. Some of Ibn Ma’in’s rulings were criticised and opposed by some critics. He was opposed by some of his senior peers, such as Ahmed ibn Hanbal, who described Ibn Ma’in’s criticism as reckless^[94] and criticised his ruling on some narrators, saying:

 

وما‏ يدري يحيى بن معين أو كل شيء يعرفه يحيى

What does Yahya ibn Ma’in know? Or Does Yahya know everything?^[95]

 

He criticised Ibn Ma’in’s criticism of a narrator in harsh terms.^[96] On the other hand, Ibn Ma’in was angry at Ahmed’s behaviour with some of the narrators, so he expressed that in expressions in which he did not mean in reality, such as his saying:

 

ماله جن

He has no intelligence.^[97]

 

This shows the vital critical life at that time, and that the idea of ​​submission in criticism was not in their minds, hence, it continued in the ranks of their students. Al Bukhari criticised some of Ibn Ma’in’s rulings,^[98] and the criticism continued after that and did not stop. The scholars did not accept Ibn Ma’in’s criticism of some of the narrators, even though he knew them and had information about them, for it is Ijtihad, which is subject to error and correctness, and there is no infallibility for anyone and no sanctity for criticism.

Therefore, the reliance in all criticism is on the sum of what the critical Imams came up with and on the method they formed and accepted. Otherwise, they are human beings who can be correct and make mistakes. When Imam al Dhahabi mentioned Yahya ibn Ma’in in Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, he wrote his biography extensively and mentioned some of his anomalous rulings on narrators, attributing this to the fact that he spoke about it through his Ijtihad,^[99] saying before that:

 

ونحن لا ندعي العصمة في أئمة الجرح والتعديل لكن هم أكثر الناس صوابا وأندرهم خطأ وأشدهم إنصافا وأبعدهم عن التحامل وإذا اتفقوا على تعديل أو جرح فتمسك به واعضض عليه بناجذيك ولا تتجاوزه فتندم ومن شذ منهم فلا عبرة به فخل عنك العناء وأعط القوس باريها فوالله لولا الحفاظ الأكابر لخطبت الزنادقة على المنابر

We do not claim infallibility regarding the Imams of Jarh and Ta’dil, but they are the most correct people, the ones with the least mistakes, the most fair, and the furthest from prejudice. If they agree on jarh or ta’dil, adopt it, hold on to it with your molars (i.e. firmly), and do not go beyond it, lest you regret it. What is anomalous from them will not be considered. So spare yourself the trouble and give the bow to its master, for by Allah, had it not been for the great Huffaz, the heretics would have preached on the pulpits.^[100]

 

 

NEXT⇒ From the vast heritage of criticism and narration to Imam al Bukhari (d. 256 AH)

---

^[1]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/270; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 65/12.

^[2]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 65/13; al Mizzi, Tahdhib al Kamal, 31/548.

^[3]  Ibn al ‘Arabi: al Mujam, 3/1075–1076; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 65/14.

^[4]  Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, pg. 33; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 65/14.

^[5]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/273; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 65/25.

^[6]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/307; Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 11/345.

^[7]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: al Jami’, 2/192; Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, 1/31–31.

^[8]  Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 65/13; al Mizzi, Tahdhib al Kamal, 31/548.

^[9]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/268. This ruling is by majority as is evident

^[10]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/268.

^[11]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/267-268; Ibn Abi Hatim, al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 9/192.

^[12]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 11/78.

^[13]  Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, ‎1/488. Al Dhahabi states:

إعلم‏ هداك الله أن الذين قبل الناس قولهم في الجرح والتعديل على ثلاثة أقسام

١- قسم‏ تكلموا في أكثر الرواة كابن معين وأبي حاتم الرازي

‎٢‏ – وقسم تكلموا في كثير من الرواة كمالك وشعبة

‎٣‏ – وقسم تكلموا في الرجل بعد الرجل كابن عيينة والشافعي والكل أيضا على ثلاثة أقسام

Know well—may Allah guide you—that those people whose views are accepted in Jarh and Ta’dil are of three types:

1. 1. Those who criticised most of the narrators, such as Ibn Ma’in and Abu Hatim al Razi.
   2. Those who criticised many of the narrators, such as Malik and Shu’bah.
   3. Those who criticised narrator after narrator, such as Ibn ‘Uyaynah and al Shafi’i. Then all of them are also divided into three categories… (Dhikr Man Yu’tamad Qawluhu fi al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, pg. 171-172.)

^[14]  Among that is al Dhahabi’s statement regarding him:

إن ابن معين كان من الحنفية الغلاة في مذهبه وإن كان‎ محدثا

Ibn Ma’in was one of the extremist Hanafis in his mazhab, even though he was a Muhaddith. (Al Ruwat al Thiqat al Mutakallam Fihim bi Ma La Yujib Raddahum, pg. 30).

^[15]  Ibn al Junaid: Su’alatuhu li Ibn Ma’in, pg. 81 (96); al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 11/ 88.

^[16]  Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 11/ 88.

^[17]  Al Bardha’i: Su’alatuhu li Abi Zur’ah, pg. 261 (468); al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad: 12/170; Ibn al Jawzi: Manaqib Ahmed, pg. 522.

^[18]  Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 11/ 87.

^[19]  Professor Muhammed Enes Topgül conducted a study on this ideology in the Turkish language, entitled Min al Riwayah Ila al Rawi Kayf Tashakkalat Ahkam al Jarh wa al Ta’dil (From the Narration to the Narrator, how were the Laws of Jarh and Ta’dil Formed?). It contains valuable ideas, the gist of which is that the ruling on the narrator was based on his report in terms of his accuracy and his integrity. I clearly agree with him from the accuracy point of view, as the actions of the critics are well known in this matter through the examples of Shu’bah and Ibn Ma’in mentioned previously. However, I do not agree with him in terms of proving integrity through the narrator’s reports, especially since he devoted his examples to Shia narrators, where he studied six of the men of the second and third centuries. He went on to say that the critics’ judging them as Shia stemmed from their narrations; however, this is not the case in general, as the judgement could be based on their lives, their opinions, and their declaration of Shi’ism, and sometimes through their narrations. There are many examples of their judgement of the narrator’s Shi’ism through his actions and beliefs, not through his ahadith. This deserves a special study. It is possible to look at the previous discussion about Abu al Azhar al Naysaburi and his narration of a hadith about the virtue of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, the discussions around this hadith, and the critics’ criticism of ‘Abdur Razzaq or the nephew of Ma’mar regarding it, in his biography by al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 5/68–69. (Muhammed Enes Topgül: Rivayetten Raviye: Cerh-Ta’dil Hukümleri Nasil Ouştu, pg. 178-179).

^[20]  Al Hakim: al Madkhal Ila al Sahih, 4/179; al Dhahabi: Tarikh al Islam, 8/111

^[21]  Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, 41/103; al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 7/263. There are many reports about the merits of Hammad ibn Salamah. Among them is the saying of ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Mahdi—the sheikh of Ibn Ma’in—wherein he states:

لو قيل لحماد بن سلمة إنك تموت غدا ما قدر أن يزيد في العمل شيئا

If Hammad ibn Salamah had been told, “You will die tomorrow,” he would not be able to add any more action.

Similarly, the statement of ‘Affan ibn Muslim—who is also the sheikh of Ibn Ma’in—who said:

قد رأيت من هو أعبد من حماد بن سلمة لكن ما رايت أشد مواظبة على الخير وقراءة القرآن والعمل لله تعالى منه

I have seen people who worshipped more than Hammad ibn Salamah, but I have never seen someone more punctual on righteousness, reciting the Qur’an, and sincere to Allah than him.

Likewise, Shihab ibn Ma’mar al Balkhi said:

كان حماد بن سلمة يعد من الأبدال

Hammad ibn Salamah was considered one of the Abdal (special group of saints). (See his biography by al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, ‎7/447–448.)

^[22]  Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, 1/32; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 7/456.

^[23]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 8/21.

^[24]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 9/199.

^[25]  See his biography by al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 9/9-18.

^[26]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 3/375 (1826).

^[27]  See his biography by al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 9/107-120. Al Khatib al Baghdadi mentioned in al Kifayah, pg. 210, from Qutaybah ibn Sa’id, saying:

كانوا يقولون الحفاظ أربعة إسماعيل بن علية وعبد الوارث ويزيد بن زريع ووهيب كانوا يؤدون اللفظ

They would say, “The Huffaz are four: Ismail ibn ‘Ulayyah, ‘Abdul Warith, Yazid ibn Zuray’, and Wuhayb.” They would narrate verbatim.

^[28]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 2/39 (60).

^[29]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 1/104 (471).

^[30]  Ibn al Junaid: Su’alatuhu li Ibn Ma’in, pg. 914 (716).

^[31]  Abu Zur’ah al Dimashqi: al Tarikh, pg. 641 (1175).

^[32]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 1/110 (516).

^[33]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 11/544. His colleague, Imam Ahmed ibn Hanbal, agreed with him on this matter. Yaqub Ibn Yusuf al Muttawwi’i narrates:

كان عبد الرحمن بن صالح الأزدي رافضيا وكان يغشى أحمد بن حنبل فيقربه ويدنيه فقيل له يا أبا عبد الله عبد الرحمن رافضي فقال سبحان الله رجل أحب قوما من أهل بيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نقول له لا تحبهم هو ثقة

‘Abdur Rahman ibn Salih al Azdi was a Rafidi. He frequently visited Ahmed ibn Hanbal, so he would keep him close to him. He was told, “O Abu ‘Abdullah, ‘Abdur Rahman is a Rafidi.”

He said, “Glory be to Allah! A man who loved some people from the family of the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and we say to him that you do not love them? He is thiqah.” (Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 11/544.)

^[34]  Ibn al Junaid: Su’alatuhu li Ibn Ma’in, pg. 127 (321). It is necessary to study Ibn Ma’in’s stance on innovators objectively, because some texts reported from him show a kind of distinction between the one who invites to his innovation and those who do not. Ahmed ibn Muhammad al Hadrami said:

سألت يحيى بن معين عن عمرو بن عبيد فقال لا تكتب حديثه فقلت له كان يكذب ققال كان داعية إلى دينه فقلت له فلم وثقت قتادة وسعيد بن أبي عروبة وسلام بن مسكين فقال كانوا يصدقون في حديثهم ولم يكونوا يدعون إلى بدعة

I asked Yahya ibn Ma’in about ‘Amr ibn ‘Ubaid. He said, “Don’t write his ahadith.”

I asked him, “Would he lie?”

He said, “He would invite towards his creed.”

Then I said to him, “Why did you make tawthiq of Qatadah, Sa’id ibn Abi ‘Arubah, and Sallam ibn Miskin?”

He said, “They were truthful in their ahadith and would not invite towards innovation.” (Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 3/281.)

‘Abbas al Duri said:

سمعت‏ يحيى يقول ما كتبت عن عباد بن صهيب وقد سمع عباد بن صهيب من أبي بكر بن نافع وأبو بكر بن نافع قديم يروي عنه مالك بن أنس قلت ليحيى هكذا تقول في كل داعية لا يكتب حديثه إن كان قدريا أو رافضيا أو غير ذلك من أهل الأهواء من هو داعية قال لا يكتب عنهم إلا أن يكونوا ممن يظن به ذلك ولا يدعو إليه كهشام الدستوائي وغيره ممن يرى القدر ولا يدعو إليه

I heard Yahya saying, “I did not write from ‘Abbad ibn Suhayb whereas ‘Abbad ibn Suhayb heard from Abu Bakr ibn Nafi’ and Abu Bakr ibn Nafi’ is an old narrator. Malik ibn Anas narrates from him.”

I asked Yahya, “Is this what you say regarding everyone who invites (to his innovation)? His Hadith will not be written, whether he is a Qadari, Rafidi, or from other people of desires who is an inviter?”

He said, “Their Hadith will not be written unless they are among those who are regarded as those who do not invite towards it, like Hisham al Dastawa’i and others, who held the Qadariyyah belief but do not invite to it.” (Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 4/139 (3581).)

Ibn Ma’in also said:

لا أصلي خلف قدري إذا كان داعيا ولا خلف الرافضي الذي يشتم أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان

I do not perform Salah behind a Qadari who invites to it or behind the Rafidi who insults Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. (Al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 3/466 (2290).)

It may be possible that by his statement ‘do not write his Hadith’, he meant abstaining from taking Hadith from him, not that he is making his tad’if thereby, as I mentioned previously regarding Shu’bah.

^[35]  Ibn Ma’in made tad’if of Abu Bakr ‘Ayyash, who is famous for reciting the Qur’an and the well-known pious person. (Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh of Baghdad, 16/549.) Similarly, he made tad’if of Hafs ibn Sulaiman, the Imam of the famous Qira’ah, Hafs from ‘Asim. (Ibn Abi Hatim: Al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, ‎3/173.) He has a clear expression in distinguishing between piety and Hadith. When he was asked about the condition of Yazid al Raqqashi, he said:

رجل صالح لكن حديثه ليس بشيء

A pious man, but his Hadith is worthless. (Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, ‎3/98.)

^[36]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 9/191.

^[37]  Ibn al Junaid: Su’alatuhu li Ibn Ma’in, pg. 87 (114).

^[38]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 1/66 (126). In another narration, he said about him:  Kadhdhab (a great liar). (Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, narration of al Duri, 4/381 (4887).)

^[39]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 1/66 (125), 2/235 (808). See some harsh expressions such as ‘May Allah curse…’ which will come in due course.

^[40]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 3/77 (309). Midad: ink used for writing.

^[41]  Al Sharif Hatim al ‘Awni: ‘Aqlaniyyat Manhaj al Muhaddithin fi al Tahaqquq Min ‘Adalat al Ruwat (The Rationality of The Muhaddithin’s Approach in Verifying the Integrity of Narrators), pg. 6 (published on his website: http://dr-alawni.comvfiles/books/pdfi1507557720.pdf.)

^[42]  This village is located in our time in Turkey, near the city of Adana.

^[43]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 9/143-144.

^[44]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, ‎3/166; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, ‎9/143–144.

^[45]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 9/143-144.

^[46]  This was the uprising carried out by Ibrahim and his brother Muhammad al Nafs al Zakiyyah against the rule of Abu Jafar al Mansur, which ended in failure. (Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 6/218-224.)

^[47]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 4/449.

^[48]  Ibn al Junaid: Su’alatuhu li Ibn Ma’in, pg. 68 (40); Muqaddamat al Muhaqqiq, pg. 40.

^[49]  See examples of this in the biography of Sa’id ibn Iyas al Jariri by Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 5/511–514, and in the biography of Khalid al Khaffaf by Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 4/273–275. See biography of ‘Ata ibn al Sa’ib by Abu Hatim: al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, 4/273; It contains an important text in which Yahya differentiates, in a foundational statement, between narrators from mukhtalit narrators. He says:

عطاء بن السائب اختلط فمن سمع منه قديما فهو‎ صحيح وما سمع منه جرير وذووه ليس من صحيح حديث عطاء وقد سمع أبو عوانة‎ من عطاء في الصحة وفي الاختلاط جميعا ولا يحتج بحديثه

‘Ata ibn al Sa’ib became mukhtalit. Therefore, whoever heard from him in the past is sahih. What Jarir and his relatives heard from him is not from the sahih Hadith of ‘Ata. Abu ‘Awanah heard from ‘Ata in health and in ikhtilat. His Hadith cannot be used as evidence.

^[50]  This is what they said, as stated by al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/210–211. Al Khatib authenticated the view that his death was in the year 220 AH. Al Dhahabi said:

وأما قوله فتوفي بعد أيام من سنة تسع عشرة فوهم فإنه قد روي في الحكاية بعينها أن ذلك كان في سنة عشرين وهذا هو الحق فإن عفان كاد أبو داود أن يلحقه وإنما دخل أبو داود بغداد في سنة عشرين وقد قال شهدت جنازة عفان

As for his statement that he passed away a few days later in the year 219 AH, it is an error. The same incident is narrated which states that this was in the year 220 AH, and this is correct, for Abu Dawood nearly met him. He entered Baghdad in the year 220 AH and he said, “I attended the funeral of ‘Affan.” (Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 10/254.)

^[51]  One of the important statements in explaining ‘Affan’s position is the statement of Ibn Ma’in:

كان يحيى بن سعيد القطان  إذا تابعه عفان على شيء ثبت عليه وإن كان خطأ وإذا خالفه عفان في حديث عن حماد رجع عنه يحيى لا يحدث به أصلا

Yahya ibn Sa’id—al Qattan—was such that if ‘Affan conformed with him on something, he would confirm it, even if it was a mistake, and if ‘Affan contradicted him in a hadith from Hammad, Yahya would retract from it and would not narrate it at all.

Ibn Ma’in stated:

ما أخطأ عفان قط إلا مرة في حديث أنا لقنته إياه فأستغفر الله

‘Affan never made a mistake except for once in a hadith which I made talqin of to him. I seek forgiveness from Allah. (Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/208-209).

^[52]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/209-210; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 10/253–254. He commented on the incident by saying:

كل تغير يوجد في مرض الموت فليس بقادح في الثقة‎ فإن غالب الناس يعتريهم في المرض الحاد نحو ذلك ويتم لهم وقت السياق وقبله أشد‎ من ذلك وإنما المحذور أن يقع الاختلاط بالثقة فيحدث في حال اختلاطه بما يضطرب‎ في إسناده أو متنه فيخالف فيه

Any change found during the final illness is not damaging to the thiqah, for most people suffer from something like that during acute illness and it ends at the occurrence of death. Before death, it is more severe than that. What is detestable is that ikhtilat occurs to a thiqah and he narrates during his ikhtilat that which causes confusion in its isnad or in its text. Then he is opposed.

^[53]  It is possible to collect many stories and various anecdotes that show the true natural life of Hadith narrators and critics. In Ibn Ma’in particularly, the clear spontaneous interactions with the sheikhs and narrators is evident. There are many examples of this that deserve to be compiled and analysed. Soon, an amusing incident between Ibn Ma’in and his sheikh, Abu Salamah al Tabudhaki will be mentioned, in the issue of writing, in the study of differentiating between the places of ahadith in the book, which reveals the true, spontaneous life of Muhaddithin and critics.

^[54]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 2/35; Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 4/388 (4920).

^[55]  Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, 1/142; Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Marthad’s narration, pg. 68 (32).

^[56]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 1/89; Ibn Hibban: al Majruhin, 1/125; Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Marthad’s narration, pg. 68 (32).

^[57]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, ‎7/192.

^[58]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, ‎13/23.

^[59]  Ibn al Junaid: Su’alatuhu li Ibn Ma’in, pg. 518 (495).

^[60]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 3/205 (948).

^[61]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, ‎1/96 (385); Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Darimi’s narration, pg. 53 (59), 187 (678).

^[62]  Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, 3/10 (3912).

^[63]  Al Baji: al Ta’dil wa al Tajrih, 2/742; Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, 59/414; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 10/245.

^[64]  Ibn al Junaid: Su’alatuhu li Ibn Ma’in, pg. 172 (595), 234 (914); Ibn Abi Hatim, al Jarh wa al Ta’dil, ‎3/538.

^[65]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 4/58; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 9/65.

^[66]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 2/161 (507).

^[67]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 9/276.

^[68]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 1/55 – 56 (51).

^[69]  Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 10/486 (876); Taqrib al Tahdhib, pg. 567 (7210).

^[70]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 1/61 (90).

^[71]  Al Mizzi: Tahdhib Al Kamal, 29/26; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 10/363.

^[72]  Al Mizzi: Tahdhib Al Kamal, 7/263; Ibn Rajab: Sharh al ‘Ilal, 2/784.

^[73]  Al Khatib Al Baghdadi: al Kifayah, pg. 146; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 62/166; al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 29/471. Al Mizzi quoted the statement of Hafiz Abu Nasr al Yunarti—after mentioning the above-mentioned story—saying:

ومما يدل على ديانة نعيم وأمانته رجوعه إلى الحق لما نبه على سهوه وأوقف على غلطه فلم يستتكف عن قبول الصواب إذ الرجوع إلى الحق خير من التمادي في الباطل والمتمادي بالباطل لم يزدد من الصواب إلا بعدا

Amongst the aspects that indicate to Nuaim’s religiousness and honesty is his retraction to the truth when he was alerted of his error and made aware of his mistake. He did not decline from accepting what is right. Retracting to the truth is better than persisting on falsehood and persisting on falsehood only takes a person further away from the truth.

^[74]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 9/163–164.

^[75]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 3/177 (787); Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 9/163–164.

^[76]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 4/451 (5248); Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 2/220; al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 3/476. The printed version of al Tarikh of Ibn Ma’in has the word ‘yasuq’ which is a misprint. The correct word is ‘yasriq’ (steal) as reported by Ibn ‘Adi and al Mizzi.

^[77]  Ibn al Junaid: Su’alatuhu, pg. 233 (910).

^[78]  See details in al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 6/62-64.

^[79]  Al ‘Uqayli: al Du’afa’, 3/267; al Tabarani: al Awsat, Hadith: 2416; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 7/592-594; al Hakim: al Mustadrak, Hadith: 727, through ‘Amr ibn Hakkam — from Shu’bah. Al Tabarani said about him:

لم يرو هذا الحديث عن شعبة إلا عمرو

No one narrated this hadith from Shu’bah except ‘Amr.

^[80]  Ibn Abi Hatim: al ‘Ilal, 3/326-328. It is as if Abu Hatim, Abu Zur’ah, and others suffice on this reason without the reason of the text.

^[81]  Imam al Dhahabi explained the strangeness of the text of this hadith by saying in al Mizan, ‎3/254:

‎ هذا‏ منكر من وجوه أحدها أنه لا يعرف أن ملك الروم أهدى شيئا للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وثانيها أن هدية الزنجبيل من الروم إلى الحجاز شيء تنكره العقل فهو نظير هدية التمر من الروم إلى المدينة النبوية وكأن إنكار ابن معين وأحمد على عمرو بن حكام هذا الحديث ووصفه بالزنجبيلي

This is objectionable in many ways. One of them is that it is not known that the Roman king gave something as a gift to the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Secondly, the gift of ginger from Rome to Hijaz is something that baffles the mind. It is similar to gifting dates from Rome to Madinah. It seems as if Ibn Ma’in and Ahmed’s denial of ‘Amr ibn Hakkam and describing him as al Zanjabili is due to this hadith.

Al Dhahabi’s view is strong, because if the denial had been due to the isnad, they would not have described him due to a mistake that he narrated in the text. It is also endorsed by Ibn Hibban’s statement in al Majruhin, 2/80:

عمرو بن حكام أبو عثمان من أهل البصرة صاحب حديث الزنجبيل

‘Amr ibn Hakkam Abu ‘Uthman, from the people of Basrah, the narrator of the hadith about ginger.

^[82]  Al Khalili: al Irshad fi Ma’rifat ‘Ulama’ al Hadith, 2/490.

^[83]  Al Khalili states in al Irshad, 2/490:

عمرو بن حكام ضعفوه لحديث يتفرد به عن شعبة

‘Amr ibn Hakkam was declared da’if due to a hadith he narrated isolated from Shu’bah.

^[84]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, ‎1/59 (76). In another narration, Ibn Ma’in states about al ‘Abbas:

ليس بشيء

He is nothing.

(Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, al Duri’s narration, 4/86 ‎(3271), 4/242 (4162).)

^[85]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, ‎1/59 (76).

^[86]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 7/213; al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 3/9; Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 2/115.

^[87]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 7/213.

^[88]  Al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 29/24; al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 10/361.

^[89]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 2/39 (60).

^[90]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/269; Ibn ‘Asakir, Tarikh Dimashq, 65/22; Ibn Hajar: Tahdhib al Tahdhib, 11/284.

^[91]  Ibn Ma’in: al Tarikh, Ibn Muhriz’s narration, 2/161 (507).

^[92]  Ibn ‘Adi: al Kamil, 1/304; al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 16/268-269.

^[93]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 15/652; Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 15/652; al Mizzi: Tahdhib al Kamal, 3/476–477.

^[94]  Ahmed ibn Hanbal: al ‘Ilal, al Marwadhi, pg. 74 (87).

^[95]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 2/481.

^[96]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/152.

^[97]  Al Khatib al Baghdadi: Tarikh Baghdad, 14/152.

^[98]  Al Bukhari criticised Ibn Ma’in’s opinion about a narrator and expressed this by saying:

والذي قال يحيى عجب

What Yahya said is strange. (Al Tarikh al Kabir, 4/30.)

^[99]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 11/83.

^[100]  Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala’, 11/82.