RENAISSANCE FEBRUARY 2021

Ḥ adith Studies 21 Monthly Renaissance February 2021 Al-Bukh ā r ī 9 opines that he is sakat ū ‘anh ū and that A ḥ mad and Ibn Numayr have abandoned him ( tarakah ū ). At another place, al-Bukh ā r ī 10 regards him to be matr ū k al- ḥ ad ī th . Al- Nas ā ’ ī 11 also regards him to be matr ū k al- ḥ ad ī th . Ibn Ḥ ibb ā n 12 records that A ḥ mad has declared him to be a liar and that Ya ḥ y ā ibn Ma‘ ī n regards him to be laysa bi shay’ and that ‘Al ī ibn al- Mad ī n ī says that he would forge narratives ( ya ḍ a‘u al- ḥ ad ī th ). Al-Dhahab ī 13 records that in the opinion of al-D ā raqu ṭ n ī f ī h ī al- ḍ u‘f and that Ibn ‘Ad ī says that his narratives are not safe. Al- Mizz ī 14 records that in the opinion of Muslim he is matr ū k al- ḥ ad ī th and Ab ū A ḥ mad al- Ḥā kim regards him to be dh ā hib al- ḥ ad ī th. Is ḥā q ibn R ā hawayh 15 also regards him to be a forger of ḥ ad ī th (‘ind ī min man ya ḍ a‘u al- ḥ ad ī th ) . Ibn Ḥ ajar 16 says that he is matr ū k. Authorities have pointed out that Qab ī sah ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Mu ḥ ammad is very suspect in his narrations from Sufy ā n al- Thawr ī 17 (ie. in the variants of this narrative, he reports from Sufy ā n). IV Conclusion The questions raised on the text and chain of narration of this narrative render it unacceptable. ـــــــــــــــــــــــــ 9. Al-Bukh ā r ī , Al-T ā r ī kh al-kab ī r , vol. 1, 178. 10. Al-Bukh ā r ī , Al- Ḍ u‘af ā ’ al- ṣ agh ī r , 104. 11. Al-Nas ā ’ ī , Al- Ḍ u‘af ā ’, 92. 12. Ibn Ḥ ibb ā n, Al-Majr ūḥī n , vol. 2, 290. 13. Al-Dhahab ī , M ī z ā n al-i‘tid ā l , vol. 6, 273. 14. Al-Mizz ī , Tahdh ī b al-kam ā l , vol. 26, 188. 15. Ab ū al-Waf ā ’ Ibr ā h ī m ibn Mu ḥ ammad Sib ṭ ibn al-‘Ajam ī al- Ḥ alb ī , Kashf al- ḥ ath ī th ‘amman rumiya bi wa ḍ al- ḥ ad ī th , (Beirut: Maktabah al-nah ḍ ah al-‘arabiyyah, 1987), 243. 16. Ibn Ḥ ajar, Taqr ī b al-tahdh ī b , 498. 17. See, for example: Al-Mizz ī , Tahdh ī b al-kam ā l , vol. 23, 484-485; Ibn Ḥ ajar, Tahdh ī b al-Tahdh ī b , vol. 8, 312.