What the ‘ulama’ of rijal say about the two versions In Tahdhib al-Kamal ...

What the ‘ulama’ of rijal say about the two versions In Tahdhib al-Kamal , Hafiz al-Mizzi,[^6] one of the researchers of the science of rijal ,[^7] writes about Isma‘il and his father as follows: Yahya ibn Mu‘in (who is one of the prominent ‘ulama’ of ‘ilm ar-rijal ) says: “Abu Uways and his son (Isma‘il) are ‘weak’ { da‘if }. It is also reported that Yahya ibn Mu‘in used to say: “These two persons used to steal hadith.

” Ibn Mu‘in also says about the son (Isma‘il): “He cannot be trusted.” Regarding the son (Isma‘il), Nisa’i says: “He is ‘weak’ and not trustworthy.” Abu’l-Qasim Lalka’i says: “Nisa’i has said a lot against him, concluding that his narration must be rejected.” Ibn ‘Adi, one of the ‘ulama’ of rijal , says: “Ibn Abi Uways, a maternal uncle of Malik, narrates strange hadith s, which nobody accepts.”[^8] In the Introduction to Fath al-Barri , Ibn Hajar (al-‘Asqalani) has stated: “One can never refer (as proof) to the hadith of Ibn Abi Uways on account of the reproach which Nisa’i has heaped on him.”[^9] In the book, Fath al-Mulk al-‘Ala , Hafiz Sayyid Ahmad ibn Sadiq narrates on the authority of Salmah ibn Shayb, thus: “Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways was heard to have said: ‘Whenever the people of Medina split into two over an issue, I fabricated a hadith ’.”[^10] Therefore, the son (Isma‘il ibn Abi Uways) is charged with fabricating hadith and Ibn Mu‘in says that he lies.

In addition, his narration has come neither in the Sahih of Muslim nor in the Sunan of Tirmidhi or any other Sahih books. Concerning Abu Uways, it is enough to state that Abu Hatam ar-Razi in the book, Al-Jarah wa’t-Ta‘dil , says: “His narration may be recorded but it must not be referred to (as proof), and his narration is neither strong { qawi } nor firm { muhkam }.”[^11] Abu Hatam who relates on the authority of Ibn Mu‘in says that Abu Uways is unreliable.

Any narration { riwayah } related by any of these two is by no means authentic { sahih }. Moreover, it does not accord with authentic and sound narrations. It is worth considering that the narrator of the hadith , viz.

Hakim al-Nayshaburi has acknowledged the weakness of the hadith 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 hadith , he has made its weakness more distinct.