BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
صاحب سري علي بن أبي طالب.
‘Ali ibn Abi Talib is my close confidant.
Ibn ‘Asakir narrates — from Abu Bakr ibn Yusuf ibn al Qasim — Abu ‘Abdullah al Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn Mus’ab al Bajali al Kufi narrated to us in Kufah — Ahmed ibn ‘Uthman narrated to us — ‘Ali ibn Thabit narrated to us — Muhammad ibn Ismail and Mindal narrated to us — from Kathir ibn Abi al Safir al Numairi — from Anas ibn Malik — from Salman al Farisi who said, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said…”[1]
This chain of transmission is wah (feeble). It contains the following defects:
Ibn Hajar does not have a consistent methodology regarding Ibn Hibban and his incessant regard for treating unknown narrators as reliable. In general, he does not accept them; however, at times, he accepts it on account of a reason that appears to him.
The preponderant position regarding Ibn Hibban should entail a consistent methodology because his lenience in this regard is undeniable. Whenever he alone deems an unknown narrator reliable, it should be rejected. I have explained this in my book al Fawaʾid al Hadithiyyah.
The hadith is munkar (unacceptable and contradicting authentic reports) and batil (false).
[1] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 42/317.
[2] Ibn Hibban: Kitab al Thiqat, 8/457.
BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
صاحب سري علي بن أبي طالب.
‘Ali ibn Abi Talib is my close confidant.
Ibn ‘Asakir narrates — from Abu Bakr ibn Yusuf ibn al Qasim — Abu ‘Abdullah al Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn Mus’ab al Bajali al Kufi narrated to us in Kufah — Ahmed ibn ‘Uthman narrated to us — ‘Ali ibn Thabit narrated to us — Muhammad ibn Ismail and Mindal narrated to us — from Kathir ibn Abi al Safir al Numairi — from Anas ibn Malik — from Salman al Farisi who said, “The Messenger of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said…”[1]
This chain of transmission is wah (feeble). It contains the following defects:
Ibn Hajar does not have a consistent methodology regarding Ibn Hibban and his incessant regard for treating unknown narrators as reliable. In general, he does not accept them; however, at times, he accepts it on account of a reason that appears to him.
The preponderant position regarding Ibn Hibban should entail a consistent methodology because his lenience in this regard is undeniable. Whenever he alone deems an unknown narrator reliable, it should be rejected. I have explained this in my book al Fawaʾid al Hadithiyyah.
The hadith is munkar (unacceptable and contradicting authentic reports) and batil (false).
[1] Ibn ‘Asakir: Tarikh Dimashq, 42/317.
[2] Ibn Hibban: Kitab al Thiqat, 8/457.