What the ‘ulamā’ of rijāl say about the two versions

What the ‘ulamā’ of rijāl say about the two versions

In Tahdhīb al-Kamāl, Ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī,[1] one of the researchers of the science of rijāl,[2] writes about Ismā‘īl and his father as follows:

Yaḥyā ibn Mu‘īn (who is one of the prominent ‘ulamā’ of ‘ilm ar-rijāl) says: “Abū Uways and his son (Ismā‘īl) are ‘weak’ [ḍa‘īf]. It is also reported that Yaḥyā ibn Mu‘īn used to say: “These two persons used to steal hadīth.” Ibn Mu‘īn also says about the son (Ismā‘īl): “He cannot be trusted.”

Regarding the son (Ismā‘īl), Nisā’ī says: “He is ‘weak’ and not trustworthy.”

Abū’l-Qāsim Lālkā’ī says: “Nisā’ī has said a lot against him, concluding that his narration must be rejected.”

Ibn ‘Adī, one of the ‘ulamā’ of rijāl, says: “Ibn Abī Uways, a maternal uncle of Mālik, narrates strange hadīths, which nobody accepts.”[3]

In the Introduction to Fatḥ al-Bārrī, Ibn Ḥajar (al-‘Asqalānī) has stated: “One can never refer (as proof) to the hadīth of Ibn Abī Uways on account of the reproach which Nisā’ī has heaped on him.”[4]

In the book, Fatḥ al-Mulk al-‘Alā, Ḥāfiẓ Sayyid Ahmad ibn Ṣādīq narrates on the authority of Salmah ibn Shayb, thus: “Ismā‘īl ibn Abī Uways was heard to have said: ‘Whenever the people of Medina split into two over an issue, I fabricated a hadīth’.”[5]

Therefore, the son (Ismā‘īl ibn Abī Uways) is charged with fabricating hadīth and Ibn Mū‘īn says that he lies. In addition, his narration has come neither in the Ṣaḥīḥ of Muslim nor in the Sunan of Tirmidhī or any other Ṣaḥīḥ books.

Concerning Abū Uways, it is enough to state that Abū Ḥātam ar-Rāzī in the book, Al-Jaraḥ wa’t-Ta‘dīl, says: “His narration may be recorded but it must not be referred to (as proof), and his narration is neither strong [qawī] nor firm [muḥkam].”[6]  

Abū Ḥātam who relates on the authority of Ibn Mu‘īn says that Abū Uways is unreliable.

Any narration [riwāyah] related by any of these two is by no means authentic [ṣaḥīḥ]. Moreover, it does not accord with authentic and sound narrations.

It is worth considering that the narrator of the hadīth, viz. Ḥākim al-Nayshābūrī has acknowledged the weakness of the hadīth and instead of putting right its chain of transmission, he has brought forth a witness who speaks in favor of it and whose chain of transmission is also weak and devoid of any credibility and so, instead of strengthening the hadīth, he has made its weakness more distinct. Now, let us see the following weak witness: