Jambo moja bado linabaki. Mpinzani anaweza kusema kwamba Sahifah ya Madina imepokewa kwa njia ya Mursal (yaani, imesimuliwa na Taabi'i bila kutaja Sahabi katika mlolongo wa wapokezi), na kwamba hatujui mlolongo wowote Muttasil (yaani, endelevu na kamili) kwa ajili yake. Kwa hiyo, haisimami kama hoja, na si halali kuitumia kwa ajili ya kufanya istidlali. Tunasema: Jambo halipo hivyo. Badala yake, ni nakala ya hati iliyoandikwa, iliyonakiliwa na wapokezi kizazi baada ya kizazi, jambo linalodhihirika kutokana na ukaribu wa maneno yake, na ambalo tunaweza kuliita lenye kuafikiana au kuwiana. Imefika kupitia njia nyingi za usimulizi ambazo bila shaka mnyororo wake ni endelevu na kamili, na tutazijadili baadaye. Hivyo, huku tukitafuta mwongozo kutoka kwa Allah, tunasema: Ni Sahih (sahihi) na inasimama kama ushahidi na hoja. Lau Sahifah hii ingetoka kwa Mayahudi au Wakristo, watu hawa wanaopinga wangeikubali kikamilifu. Hawa ndio watu wale wale ambao wametuchosha vichwa vyetu kwa mapokezi yao ya Mursal na Munqati' (yaliyokatika) ambayo wanadai kuwa yaliandikwa huku yakilindwa na roho takatifu! Sasa tutawasilisha uchunguzi wa kina na wa makini wa minyororo ya usimulizi ya Sahifah ya Madina, mnyororo mmoja baada ya mwingine:

One important issue remains and this is that an objector may say in objection that the Sahifah of Al-Madinah has been transmitted in a Mursal (i.e. related by a Taabi’ without mention of the Sahabi in the chain) manner and we are not aware of any Muttasil (i.e. continuous and complete) chain of transmission for it. Consequently, it does not stand up as a proof and it is not permissible for it to be used for the purpose of deduction. We say: The matter is not like that. Rather, it is a transcription of a written document that has been transcribed by transmitters generation following generation, which is apparent from the closeness of the worded expressions and which we could call congruous or in accord. It has come via a host of transmission paths which are without doubt continuous and complete in their chain of transmission and which we will come to discuss in due course. As such, whilst seeking guidance from Allah, we say: It is Sahih (authentic) and stands up as evidence and proof. Had this Sahifah come from the Jews or the Christians we would have these objectors going fully along with it. These are the same people who have pained our heads with their Mursal and Munqati’ (interrupted) chains of narrations which they claim to have been written whilst being guarded by the holy spirit! We will now present a detailed and meticulous study of the chains of transmission of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah, one chain following another:

Isnadi ya kwanza (mnyororo wa wapokezi): Kama ilivyorekodiwa na Al-Baihaqi:

The first Isnad (chain of transmission): As recorded by Al-Baihaqi:

“Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh, amesimulia kutoka kwa Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub, kutoka kwa Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar, kutoka kwa Yunus bin Bukair, kutoka kwa Ibn Ishaq, kutoka kwa Uthman bin Muhammad bin Uthman bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq aliyesema: Ilichukuliwa kutoka kwa familia ya ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, Allah amridhie. Ilikuwa imeambatanishwa na hati iliyoandikwa ya As-Sadaqah ambayo ‘Umar aliwaandikia magavana.”

“Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh, related from Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub, from Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar, from Yunus bin Bukair, from Ibn Ishaq, from Uthman bin Muhammad bin Uthman bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq who said: It was taken from the family of ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him. It had been attached to the written document of As-Sadaqah which ‘Umar had written to the governors”.

- Kuhusu Imam Al-Baihaqi, yeye ni: Al-Hafizh, Al-‘Alamah, mwenye msimamo thabiti, Faqih (mwanasheria wa fiqhi), Sheikh ul-Islam, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Al-Husain bin ‘Ali bin Musa Al-Khusrawjirdi. Hii ni kwa mujibu wa “Siyar A’alam An-Nubulaa’” (35/145/86). - Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh ni: Al-Hakim Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamduwaih; Imam, Al-Hafizh, Naqid (mkosoaji wa hadithi), Al-‘Alamah, Sheikh ul Muhaddithin, Abu Abdullah bin Al-Bayyi’ Ad-Dabbiy At-Tahmaniy An-Naisaburiy Ash-Shafi’iy, na mwandishi wa kazi za kifasihi. Hii ni kwa mujibu wa “Siyar A’alam An-Nubulaa’” (33/157/100).

- As for Imam Al-Baihaqi, then he is: Al-Hafizh, Al-‘Alamah, the established, the Faqih (jurist), Sheikh ul-Islam, Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Al-Husain bin ‘Ali bin Musa Al-Khusrawjirdi. This is according to “Siyar A’alam An-Nubulaa’” (35/145/86). - Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh is: Al-Hakim Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamduwaih; the Imam, Al-Hafizh, the Naqid (critic), Al-‘Alamah, Sheikh ul Muhaddithin, Abu Abdullah bin Al-Bayyi’ Ad- Dabbiy At-Tahmaniy An-Naisaburiy Ash-Shafi’iy and author of literary works. This is according to “Siyar A’alam An-Nubulaa’” (33/157/100).

- Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub bin Yusuf bin Ma’qil bin Sinan Al-Umawiy, Mawla Bani Umayyah An-Naisaburiy Al-Asammu (kiziwi) (alifariki: mwaka 346 Hijria). Alikuwa Muhaddith wa zama zake bila mshindani. Hii ni kulingana na "Tarikh ul-Islam" (7/841/243). Hakuna anayehoji wanazuoni kama hawa isipokuwa yule ambaye akili yake ina kasoro. - Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar: Tumefupisha hadhi yake katika nyongeza chini ya kichwa: "Uthibitisho wa Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy". Ndani yake tulisema: [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, hana kasoro wala tatizo linalohusiana naye. Upokezi wake wa Seera ni sahihi na yeye ni mwaminifu wa kutegemewa kama ushahidi. Alikuwa wa tabaka la kumi (yaani kiwango cha mnyororo wa upokezi). Alifariki mwaka wa 72 (maana yake mwaka 172 AH) akiwa na umri wa miaka 95]. Hii ni kurekebisha kosa kubwa ambalo Imam Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani alilihusika nalo, aliposema katika "Taqrib At-Tahdhib" (1/81/64): [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, ni Da’if (dhaifu) na upokezi wake wa Seera ni sahihi, wa tabaka la kumi (yaani kiwango cha mnyororo wa upokezi). Haijathibitishwa kwamba Abu Dawud alipokea kutoka kwake. Alifariki mwaka wa 72 (maana yake mwaka 172 AH) akiwa na umri wa miaka 95]. Pia ni kukanusha Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi, mmoja wa wafuasi wa Al-Hafizh na miongoni mwa wanaodai "An-Nazhar Wa t-Tahqiq" (Uchunguzi na uthibitisho), ambaye aliandika kwenye tovuti ya "Ahl ul-Hadith" mtandaoni tarehe 19/03/2007, alipojadili njia za upokezi wa Sahifah ya Al-Madinah. Alitaja upokezi kadhaa usio kamili kutoka kwa baadhi ya Maimamu na kuhitimisha kwa kusema: [Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar alisema: Yeye ni Da’if (dhaifu) na kusikia kwake au upokezi wake wa Seera ni Sahih (sahihi). Nasema: Haieleweki kutokana na kauli hii ya Ibn Hajar kwamba yeye ni Thiqah (mwaminifu) kuhusu Seera! Badala yake, nia yake ilikuwa tu kuondoa shaka ya Tadlis (yaani kosa katika mlolongo wa usimulizi) kutoka kwake kwa sababu alikuwa ameshtakiwa kwa hilo, kama ilivyotajwa hapo awali. Hiyo ni kwa sababu alisikia (alipokea) “Maghaziy” (yaani Seera) tangu alipokuwa mdogo, pamoja na baba yake, kutoka kwa Yunus bin Bukair Ash-Shaibani. Alishtakiwa “kwamba vitabu anavyovisimulia (kwa kweli) vilikuwa vya baba yake na kwamba alidai kuvipokea (kuvisikia) pamoja naye”. Al-Hafizh (Al-Asqalaniy) alitaka kuthibitisha kwamba alikipokea mwenyewe, na Al-Khatib alisimulia hadithi inayodhihirisha uhalisia wa kupokea kwake kutoka kwa Yunus. Hiyo ni katika kesi ambapo alisimulia, pamoja na mlolongo wake, kutoka kwa Muhammad bin Al-Hasan bin Humaid bin Ar-Rabee’ kutoka kwa baba yake, yafuatayo: “… Waliomuuliza Abu Kuraib kuhusu Maghaziy (yaani Seera) naye akasema: ‘Nendeni mkamwone kijana mmoja huko Al-Kunas. Jina lake ni Al-‘Utaridiy, naye alipokea (alisikia) pamoja nasi na baba yake’. Basi tukamwendea, akasema: ‘Sijui kilipo. Tangu wakati wa kukisikia sijawahi kukitazama. Hata hivyo, kiko Qimatr (mahali vinapohifadhiwa vitabu) ambacho kina vitabu, basi kitafuteni huko’. Nikakitafuta nikakipata, na kulikuwa na kinyesi cha njiwa juu yake. Alikuwa ameukiandika pamoja na baba yake kwa maandishi ya zamani. Nilimwomba anipe na aniruhusu kukichapisha, naye akafanya hivyo”. Ikiwa simulizi hii imethibitishwa, basi msimulizi anaiweka kumbukumbu yake (ya kukariri) kuwa dhaifu kwa kuwa alikuwa amesahau na hakukumbuka. Pia inadhihirisha udhaifu wa kujali kwake kitabu hicho, kwa kuwa aliviacha kwenye mnara pamoja na njiwa, hadi kikawa na kinyesi cha njiwa juu yake! Kwa hiyo, mtu huyo ni Da’if (dhaifu) kama vile Maimamu wabobezi katika jambo hili walivyosema] [Mwisho wa Nukuu]. Pia hii ni matini iliyorekodiwa katika kumbukumbu za “The Ahl ul-Hadith Portal” katika maktaba ya e-program ya Shamela (2 - 51/390).

- Yunus bin Bukair: Tumeeleza pia kisa chake katika kiambatisho chini ya kichwa: "Kuthibitishwa kwa Yunus bin Bukair". Katika hitimisho la kiambatisho tulisema, kwa kusahihisha kauli ya Al-Hafizh katika kitabu chake "At-Taqrib": [Yunus bin Bukair bin Wasil Ash-Shaibani, Abu Bakr Al-Jamal Al-Kufi, ni Thiqah (mwaminifu), Imamu katika Seera na Maghaziy, na ni chanzo kilichothibitika cha ushahidi katika hilo, wa daraja la tisa. Alifariki katika mwaka wa 99 (yaani + 100, yaani 199)]. Pia tulikanusha madai ya Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi pamoja na hoja zake za kimajadiliano zenye mizunguko, ambazo zinaashiria kwamba yeye ni mtu wa matamanio, anayetaka kuiainisha Sahifah ya Al-Madinah kuwa dhaifu (Da'if), akitumia kila mbinu inayowezekana ili kufikia lengo hilo. Radd yetu ya kina inapatikana katika kiambatisho "Kuthibitishwa kwa Yunus bin Bukair".

- Yunus bin Bukair: We have also summarized his case in the addendum under the heading: “The authentication of Yunus bin Bukair”. In the conclusion of the addendum we stated in correction to the speech of Al-Hafizh in his “At-Taqrib”: [Yunus bin Bukair bin Wasil Ash-Shaibani, Abu Bakr Al-Jamal Al-Kufi, is Thiqah (trusted), an Imam in respect to the Seera and the Maghaziy and he is in respect to it an established source of evidence, from the ninth. He passed away in the 99th year (meaning + 100 i.e. 199)]. We also refuted the contention of Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi and his casuistic argumentation, which allude to him being a man of whims, who wants to classify the Sahifah of Al-Madinah as being weak (Da’if), employing every possible stratagem to accomplish that. Our detailed refutation can be found in the addendum “The authentication of Yunus bin Bukair”.

- Ibn Ishaq: Yeye ni Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, Imamu asiyepingika wa wanazuoni wa Siera, Maghaziy na historia; ndiye marejeo ya mwisho kuhusiana nao. Karibu kumekubaliwa kwa pamoja kuhusu uaminifu wake, ukweli wake na uongozi wake katika fani hii. Licha ya hayo, masahaba wetu wanaoitwa Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi hawakuweza kushinda matamanio yake. Kwa hiyo, baada ya kukiri hilo kwa kusema: [Kuhusu Ibn Ishaq, kumesemwa mengi juu yake, ambayo jumla yake ni: Kwamba yeye ni Saduq (mkweli), Mudlis (yaani, anayeficha mpokezi katika isnad) kuhusiana na Hadithi. Ni Imamu wa Maghazi na Siera, na ndiye marejeo ya mwisho kuhusiana nazo], bado hatukuweza kujiepusha na matamanio yake, hivyo akataja alichoamini kingetoa kivuli kibaya au hasi juu ya Ibn Ishaq, aliposema: [Abbas Ad-Dawri alisema: Ahmad bin Hanbal aliulizwa kuhusu Ibn Ishaq, naye akasema: “Hadithi hizi (yaani zinazohusu Maghazi na Siera) zimeandikwa (yaani zimepokelewa) kutoka kwake. Hata hivyo, akija na Halal na Haram, tungependa watu wawe kama hivi”, kisha akakunja mikono yake pamoja, akiweka vidole gumba vyake juu ya vidole vyake]. Kwa kujibu nauliza: Hili lina maana gani? Kwanza: Imamu Ahmad bin Hanbal ni mwanazuoni wa Fiqh na Hadithi pekee, si miongoni mwa wanazuoni wa Siera, Maghazi, historia au Tafsiri. Hana ujuzi wa kina wa wapokezi wake wakuu, kama vile asivyokuwa na riwaya nyingi kutoka kwa wanafunzi wa Ibn Ishaq hata aweze kuchunguza waliyoleta. Kwa hakika, alikuwa mkali bila ubaguzi au wa jumla pale aliposema kwamba vitabu vya Maghazi, Fitan (fitina na mitihani) na Tafsiri havina msingi wowote. Na miongoni mwa makosa yake makubwa ni kauli yake kuhusu Imam Al-Hujjah (mamlaka yenye ushawishi) wa Al-Maghazi (Siira ya misafara ya kijeshi): Muhammad bin ‘Umar Al-Waqidiy. Hali yake na uhalisia wake tumeyachunguza kwa umakini na usahihi wa hali ya juu kwa muda wa miaka mingi, na tutayawasilisha hivi karibuni chini ya kichwa “Haki kwa Al-Waqidiy”.

- Ibn Ishaq: He is Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, the indisputable Imam of the scholars of Seera, Maghaziy and history; representing the final point of reference in respect to them. A consensus has virtually been established concerning his authenticity, truthfulness and leadership in the field. Despite that, our companions called Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi could not overcome his whims. So, after affirming that by stating: [As for Ibn Ishaq, then regarding him there is a lot that has been said, the sum of which is: That he is Saduq (truthful), Mudlis (i.e. conceal a narrator in the Isnad) in respect to the Hadith. He is the Imam of the Maghazi and Seera and is the final point of reference in respect to them], we was nevertheless unable to escape from his whims and so he mentioned what he believed would cast a bad or negative shadow upon Ibn Ishaq, when he stated: [‘Abbas Ad-Dawri said: Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked about Ibn Ishaq and so he said: “These Ahadeeth (i.e. concerning the Maghazi and Seera) are written (i.e. transmitted) from him. However, if he comes with the Halal and the Haram, we would want a people to be like this” He then clasped his hands together, placing his two thumbs over his fingers]. In response I ask: What does this signify? Firstly: Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal is exclusively a scholar of Fiqh and Hadith and is not from the scholars of Seera, Maghazi, history or Tafsir. He does not have a deep knowledge of its main transmitters just as he doesn’t have a great deal of transmissions from the companions of Ibn Ishaq for him to have examined what they brought. Indeed, he was indiscriminate or over general when he stated that the books of Maghazi, Fitan (trials and tribulations) and Tafsir had no basis. And from among the greatest of his errors, was his speech regarding the Imam Al-Hujjah (the competent authority) of Al-Maghazi (Seera of military expeditions); Muhammad bin ‘Umar Al-Waqidiy, whose condition and reality we have studied in a painstaking precise manner over a period of many years and which we will present shortly under the title “Fairness to Al-Waqidiy”.

Pili: Kuhusu Ibn Ishaq, alisema, "Kuna mengi yaliyosemwa (kumhusu yeye)". Kwa haki gani au kwa utetezi gani ambaye anaitwa Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi ameliwasilisha sehemu hii ndogo kutoka katika "Kuna mengi yaliyosemwa" huku akipuuza kabisa yote yaliyosemwa ambayo yanaikanusha kabisa sehemu aliyoitaja? Mfano wa hilo ni kauli ya Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyah katika kitabu chake "Tahdhib Sunan Abi Dawud Wa Iedaah Mushkilaatuhu" (2/373 – maktaba ya kielektroniki ya Shamela): [Kuhusu Hadithi ya Ibn Ishaq inayosema "Hakika kiti chake cha enzi kiko juu ya mbingu kama Qubbah (kuba)" na jinsi Al-Mundiri alivyoikosoa. Kisha akasema: Wanazuoni wa Ithbaat (uthibitisho) walisema: Hakuna chochote ndani ya hili kinachokuruhusu kuikataa Hadithi. Kuhusu shutuma dhidi ya Ibn Ishaq kuhusiana nayo, jibu ni: Kwamba Ibn Ishaq ni miongoni mwa wale ambao Mwenyezi Mungu amewapa elimu na uaminifu. 'Ali Ibn Al-Madiniy pia alisema: Hadithi zake kwa maoni yangu ni Sahihi. Ash-Shu'bah alisema: "Ibn Ishaq ni Ameer ul-Mu'minin kuhusiana na Hadithi". Pia alisema: yeye ni Saduq (mkweli), na 'Ali bin Al-Madiniy pia alisema: "Sijapata kutoka kwake isipokuwa Hadithi mbili Munkar (zenye kasoro na zilizokataliwa)". Kauli hii ya mwisho inaonyesha kiwango cha juu kabisa cha sifa katika hali ambapo Hadithi mbili tu ndizo zilizokataliwa licha ya idadi kubwa ya Hadithi alizozipokea. 'Ali pia alisema: "Nilimsikia Ibn 'Uyainah akisema: Sijapata mtu yeyote anayezungumza kuhusu Ibn Ishaq isipokuwa maneno yake yalikuwa ya kumthamini au kumheshimu. Na hakuna shaka kwamba watu wa zama zake walikuwa na ujuzi zaidi juu yake kuliko wale waliozungumza juu yake baada yao". Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Hakam alisema: Nilimsikia Ash-Shafi'iy akisema: Az-Zuhri alisema: Elimu itabaki katika eneo hili maadamu yule kijana mwenye maono yupo ndani yake (akimaanisha Ibn Ishaq).". Ya'qub bin Shaibah alisema: Nilimuuliza Yahya bin Ma'een: "Hali ya Ibn Ishaq ikoje?" Alijibu: “Hakuwa hivyo (yaani wa kuulizwa). Nilimuuliza: ‘Je, unashikilia chochote moyoni (hasi) kuhusu Hadithi yake?’ Akajibu: ‘Hapana, alikuwa mkweli.’” Yazid bin Harun alisema: Nilimsikia Shu‘bah akisema: “Kama ningekuwa na mamlaka, ningemteua Ibn Ishaq juu ya wanazuoni wa Hadithi.” Ibn ‘Adiy alisema: “Nimezichunguza Hadithi za mwanazuoni mkubwa Ibn Ishaq, na sikupata katika Hadithi yake kitu kinachotupa nafasi ya kuthibitisha kuwa yeye ni dhaifu (Da‘if). Huenda alikosea au kusahau, kama wengine wanavyokosea. Wala haikujulikana miongoni mwa wapokezi waaminifu kwamba simulizi yake ilikuwa uongo.” Ya‘qub bin Shaibah alisema: Nilimuuliza Ibn ul-Madiniy kuhusu Ibn Ishaq, naye akasema: “Hadithi zake ni Sahihi (sahihi) kwa mtazamo wangu.” Nikauliza: “Je, vipi kuhusu alichosema Malik juu yake?” Akajibu: “Malik hakuketi naye, wala hakumjua yeye wala kila jambo lililozungumzwa huko Madina!” Nikasema: “Hisham bin ‘Urwah pia amezungumza juu yake?” Akajibu: “Kile alichosema Hisham si chanzo chenye mamlaka. Huenda (Ibn Ishaq) alikutana na yule mwanamke alipokuwa mvulana, akasikia kutoka kwake. Uaminifu unaonekana wazi katika Hadithi zake: Husimulia wakati mwingine: ‘Abu Az-Zinad aliniambia,’ na wakati mwingine husema: ‘Abu Az-Zinad alitaja,’ na husema: ‘Al-Hasan bin Dinar alinisimulia kutoka kwa Ayub kutoka kwa ‘Amr bin Shu‘aib (kuhusu Salaf na Ba‘i (yaani masuala yanayohusu biashara)).’ Na alisimulia zaidi kuliko watu wote kutoka kwa ‘Amr bin Shu‘aib.” Pia kuna yaliyokuja katika kitabu “Nasb Ar-Rayah Takhrij Ahadeeth Al-Hidayah” cha mwanazuoni mkubwa Jamal Ad-Din Az-Zai‘aliy, kwa msaada wa Ayman Salih Sha‘ban (1/252): [Abdullah ibn Mubarak alisema: Ibn Ishaq ni Thiqah, Thiqah, Thiqah (chanzo cha kuaminika).] Ikiwa mkosoaji mwenye haki angetafakari maneno ya Imamu wa Maimamu, ‘Ali bin Al-Madiniy, ambaye pia alikuwa miongoni mwa Maimamu wakubwa wa Hadith na mmoja wa wataalamu wakuu wa elimu ya Al-Jarh wa t-Ta’dil (elimu ya kuchunguza wapokezi wa Hadith kwa uaminifu na udhaifu wao), kuhusu Ibn Ishaq kwa ujumla, na alichosema kuhusu Hadith ya “Salaf na Ba’i” hasa, angejua kwamba anamtetea hata kuhusu shutuma ya Tadlis (yaani kuficha mpokezi katika Isnad). Hiyo ni kwa sababu hata shaka au wasiwasi huu hauna msingi. Ulihusu tu kuacha baadhi ya viungo vya mnyororo wa upokezi au kuvifupisha ili kuhifadhi mtiririko wa matukio na visa vya kihistoria. Hii ni mbinu inayojulikana sana. Ni jambo la lazima wala hakuna ubaya ndani yake. Mahitaji yanaiamuru mbinu hiyo kuhusu vitabu vya Siira na historia, wala haingii katika kundi la Tadlis (yaani kuchezea minyororo ya upokezi kwa makusudi) tangu mwanzo wala kwa umbo lake. Ikiwa unataka taarifa zaidi kuhusu kile kinachosemwa “Kuna mengi yamesemwa (kumhusu)” kuhusu Imamu Al-Hafidh Al-Hujjah, Amiru l-Mu’minina katika Hadith, Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar Al-Qurashi, basi unaweza kurejea nyongeza iliyo chini ya kichwa “Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, Amiru l-Mu’minina katika Hadith”. Ina ushahidi zaidi kuhusu kuwa kwake Imamu mkubwa na inakanusha shutuma ya kipuuzi ya Tadlis (yaani kuchezea minyororo ya upokezi kwa makusudi) inayohusishwa naye. - Uthman bin Muhammad bin Uthman bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq: Kwa kawaida hutajwa kwa jina Uthman bin Muhammad Al-Akhnasi au Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah au kwa urahisi Uthman Al-Akhnasi. Yule anayeitwa Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi, ambaye alichapisha kwenye tovuti ya Ahl ul-Hadith tarehe 19/03/2007, alisema yafuatayo, akiiga kauli ya Al-Hafizh bin Hajar, alipokuwa akijadili minyororo ya usimulizi wa Sahifah ya Al-Madinah: [Kuhusu Uthman bin Muhammad bin Mughirah Al-Akhnas Ath-Thaqafi Al-Hijazi, yeye ni Saduq (mkweli) mwenye Awham (usimulizi wenye makosa) na Manaakir (Hadith zilizokataliwa na wengine)]. Hili pia lilirekodiwa katika kumbukumbu za tovuti ya Ahl ul-Hadith katika maktaba ya kielektroniki ya Shamela (2 - 51/390). Hiki ndicho pekee alichosema Abdul Qadir ili kuunga mkono uongo wake: Mstari mmoja tu unaokusanya elimu yote ya waliotangulia na waliopita tangu wakati huo!! Hata kauli yake: “Manaakir” ilitoka chanzo kingine, kwa sababu haikuwa katika kauli ya Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar, ambaye alisema katika “Taqrib At-Tahdhib” (1/386/4515): [Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq Ath-Thaqafi Al-Akhnasiy Hijazi ni Saduq (mkweli) mwenye Awham, kutoka ngazi ya sita (ya mnyororo)]. Katika nyongeza yenye kurasa tisa chini ya kichwa: “Uthibitisho wa Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah Al-Akhnasi”, tumethibitisha kwa uhakika masahihisho ya muhtasari wa Al-Hafizh (Ibn Hajar) ambaye alipungukiwa sana katika tathmini yake, pamoja na kuthibitisha kwamba kauli sahihi kumhusu ni: [Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah bin Al-Akhnas Ath-Thaqafi al-Akhnasi ni Thiqah (mwaminifu katika usimulizi), mwanafiqhi, mwanazuoni wa Maghazi na historia, kutoka ngazi ya nne]. Nyongeza hiyo inaweza kurejelewa kwani ina faida nyingi muhimu za kihistoria pamoja na mjadala wa kasoro katika Hadith maarufu na yenye umuhimu “Yeyote aliyechukua jukumu la uadilifu (au ameteuliwa kuwa qadhi), basi amechinjwa bila kisu”. Na iwe ni furaha kwa idhini ya Allah.

- Aali (familia ya) ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, Allah amridhike naye: Katika nyongeza yenye kichwa “Uthibitisho wa Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah Al-Akhnasi” tulisema: [Kuhusu Aali (familia ya) ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, ambao miongoni mwao Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah Al-Akhnasi alipata hati iliyoandikwa ya “Sahifah ya Al-Madinah”, basi bila shaka ni Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, ‘Asim bin ‘Umar na ndugu zao, watoto wao na wake zao. Wote hao, kwa sifa za Allah, ni Thiqaat (wapokezi waaminifu na wanaokubalika) wa daraja la juu kabisa, katika kilele cha uaminifu, ukweli na uchaji Mungu, na hakuna mwongo wala mzushi anayejulikana miongoni mwao – Allah apishe mbali].

- Aali (the family of) ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him: In the addendum entitled “The authentication of Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah Al-Akhnasi” we stated: [As for the Aali (the family of) ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, among whom Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah Al-Akhnasi found the written document of the “Sahifah of Al-Madinah”, then they are without doubt Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, ‘Asim bin ‘Umar and their brothers, children and wives. All of whom, by the praise of Allah, are Thiqaat (trustworthy and accepted relators) of the firmest degree, at the height of trustworthiness, truthfulness and God-fearing, whilst a liar or fabricator has not been known from among them – Allah forbid].

Kwa kumalizia: Hadithi hii ni Muttasil (mnyororo wa usimulizi usiokatika tangu mwanzo hadi mwisho) na Sahih (ya kweli), kila kiungo katika mnyororo huo kinatoka kwa Thiqaat (wasimulizi wanaoaminika na kukubalika), na kupitia hilo ushahidi na hoja (Al-Hujjah) vinathibitishwa. Si kama alivyodai mtu aliyeitwa Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi alipofanya kosa kubwa kwa kusema: "Isnad (mnyororo wa usimulizi) huu haufurahishwi, kwa kuwa una Al-'Utaridiy na Ibn Bukair, pamoja na shaka au wasiwasi wa kuwepo kwa kukatika, pale Uthman alipokosa kutaja ni nani miongoni mwa familia ya 'Umar bin Al-Khattab aliyeichukua (yaani Sahifah) kutoka kwake. Huenda alikosea katika hilo, au kosa likatokana na Bukair kwa kuwa anajulikana kwa kufanya ukiukaji, pale ambapo angechukua usemi wa Ibn Ishaq na kujiunganisha mwenyewe na Hadithi (yaani mnyororo wa usimulizi)]. Hongera, je, hii ndiyo matokeo ya utafiti na uchunguzi unaofaa? Najilinda kwa Allah.

In conclusion: The Hadith is Muttasil (a continuous unbroken chain from beginning to end) and Sahih (authentic), each link in the chain is from the Thiqaat (trustworthy and accepted narrators), through which evidence and proof (Al-Hujjah) is established. It is not how the one named Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi claimed when he made a gross error stating: “This Isnad (chain of narration) is not rejoiced at, as it contains Al--‘Utaridiy and Ibn Bukair, in addition to the suspicion or doubt of the occurrence of an interruption, in the case where Uthman did not state who from among the family of ‘Umar bin Al- Khattab he had taken it (i.e. the Sahifah) from. It could be that he could have been mistaken in that or that the mistake originated from Bukair as he is well known to commit violations, in the case where he would take the speech of Ibn Ishaq and connect himself to the Hadith (i.e. the chain of narration)]. Bravo, is this the result of proper research and examination is undertaken? May Allah’s refuge be sought.

- Isnadi ya pili (mnyororo wa usimulizi): Huu ni mnyororo kama ulivyorekodiwa na Ibn Sayed An-Nas katika kitabu chake "Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al- Maghazi wa Ash-Shama'il Wa As-Siyar", ukipokewa na Ibn Abu Khaithama.

- The second Isnad (chain of transmission): This is the chain as recorded by Ibn Sayed An-Nas in his “Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al- Maghazi wa Ash-Shama’il Wa As-Siyar”, transmitted by Ibn Abu Khaithama:

[Ahmad bin Jinab Ab Al-Walid alisimulia kutoka kwa ‘Eisa bin Yunus, kutoka kwa Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr al-Muzani, kutoka kwa baba yake, kutoka kwa babu yake]. Al-Baihaqi pia ametaja Isnad (mnyororo wa usimulizi) kwa kifupi: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf alisimulia kutoka kwa baba yake, kutoka kwa babu yake … Ilisimuliwa kwetu na Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh na Abu Bakr Al-Qadi ambao walisema Abu Al-‘Abbas alisimulia kwetu kutoka kwa Muhammad bin Ya’qub, kutoka kwa Muhammad bin Ishaq Ad-Daghani, kutoka kwa Mu’awiyah bin ‘Amr kutoka kwa Abu Ishaq (Al- Farazi) kutoka kwa Kathir bin Abdullah, ambaye alilisema (yaani Hadith)].

[Ahmad bin Jinab Ab Al-Walid related from ‘Eisa bin Yunus, from Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr al-Muzani, from his father from his grandfather]. Al-Baihaqi also mentioned the Isnad (chain of transmission) in a summarized form: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf related from his father, from his grandfather … It was related to us by Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh and Abu Bakr Al-Qadi who said Abu Al-‘Abbas related to us from Muhammad bin Ya’qub from Muhammad bin Ishaq Ad-Daghani, from Mu’awiyah bin ‘Amr from Abu Ishaq (Al- Farazi) from Kathir bin Abdullah, who stated it (i.e. the Hadith].

Kwanza, tunasema: Kuhusu kauli ya Ibn Sayed An-Nas katika kitabu chake “Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al-Maghazi wa Ash-Shama’il Wa As-Siyar” (1/330), baada ya kuwasilisha maandishi ya Sahifah ya Al-Madinah kutoka kwa Ibn Ishaq kwa urefu wake wote na kamili: [Hivi ndivyo Ibn Ishaq alivyoitaja, na Ibn Abu Khaithama pia aliitaja (yaani maandishi ya Sahifah). Kisha akawasilisha Isnad (mnyororo wa wapokezi) kisha akasema: Ameitaja kwa namna ile ile], haiwezekani kwake kusema hivyo isipokuwa maandishi hayo mawili yalilingana au yalifanana. Haifai kutarajia jambo lingine kutoka kwa Imam wa Musannaf na Hafizh mkubwa kama Ibn Sayed An-Nas, vinginevyo ingekuwa ni aina ya usaliti na udanganyifu. Ukweli ni kwamba aliona inatosha kutotaja maandishi ya Ibn Abu Khaithama kutokana na kuwepo kwa maandishi ya Ibn Ishaq (ambayo yalikuwa yanafanana). Wakati huo watu waliandika kwa mikono yao wenyewe, na hawakuwa na kompyuta zinazorahisisha kunakili na kubandika. Kwa hiyo hakuna umuhimu wowote katika kile alichokichochea mtu aitwaye Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi alipo sema: [Hadith hii hailingani na Hadith ya Ibn Ishaq. Badala yake imekuja kwa namna fupi kama simulizi zinazofuata. Ibn Sayed An-Nas ameitaja tu kama alivyosema, yaani kama hati ambayo Ibn Ishaq aliisimulia. Kisha ikafuatiliwa na wale waliofuatilia, ilhali haikuthibitika kwake. Hiyo ni kwa sababu Ibn Sayed An-Nas hakututajia maandishi yake, ambayo yanachukuliwa kuwa miongoni mwa yale yaliyopotea katika historia ya Ibn Abu Khaitham. Hili linaungwa mkono na ukweli kwamba Al-Baihaqi aliisimulia kwa namna fupi kama inavyoonekana].

Firstly, we say: Concerning the statement of Ibn Sayed An-Nas in his “Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al-Maghazi wa Ash-Shama’il Wa As-Siyar” (1/330), after presenting the text of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah from Ibn Ishaq in its complete and full length: [This is how Ibn Ishaq mentioned it and Ibn Abu Khaithama also mentioned it (i.e. the text of the Sahifah). He then presented the Isnad (chain of transmitters) and then stated: He mentioned it in the same way], it is not conceivable that he said that unless the two texts conformed to each other or were mutually similar. It is not permitted to expect other than that from the Imam of the Musannaf and a great Hafizh like Ibn Sayed An-Nas, otherwise it would represent a form of treachery and deceit. The truth is that he found it sufficient not to mention the text of Ibn Abu Khaithama due to the presence of the text of Ibn Ishaq (which was the same). At that time the people would write by their own hands and they didn’t have computers to facilitate copying and pasting. There is therefore no significance in what the one named Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi stirred up when he said: [This Hadith does not conform to the Hadith of Ibn Ishaq. It rather came in a summarized form like the forthcoming narrations. Ibn Sayed An-Nas merely mentioned it as he stated i.e. like the document that Ibn Ishaq related. It was then followed up by those who followed it up, whilst not being established to him. That is because Ibn Sayed An-Nas did not mention to us its text, which is considered to be from among that which has been lost from the history of Ibn Abu Khaitham. This is supported by the fact that Al-Baihaqi related it in a summarized form as can be seen].

Kuhusu Al-Baihaqi kuipokea (Hadith) hii kwa namna ya muhtasari, hilo lilitokana na kufaa kwa sehemu hiyo ya matini kulingana na (mada ya) sura aliyokuwa akiishughulikia. Al-Baihaqi hufuata mbinu hii mara nyingi, hasa katika kitabu chake “Sunan Al-Kubra”. Pia ilifanywa na Al-Bukhari kabla yake katika kitabu chake “Sahih”, na na wengi wa wakusanyaji wa Hadith. Hakuna uhusiano kati ya hili na kufikiwa kwake kwa namna ya muhtasari au kamili, na kwa sababu nzito zaidi, kufikia wengine wasiokuwa yeye, kwa namna ya muhtasari au kamili. Yafuatayo yametajwa kumhusu katika “Dhail At-Taqyid Fee Ruwaat As-Sunan Wa Al-Asaneed” (1/247/483):

As for Al-Baihaqi having related it in a summarized form, then that was due to the suitability of that section of the text in respect to the (topic of the) chapter he was addressing. Al-Baihaqi follows this approach a lot and particularly in his “Sunan Al-Kubra”. It was also practised by Al-Bukhari before him in his “Sahih” and by the majority of the compilers of Hadith. There is no relationship between this and it having reached them in a summarized or complete form and by greater reason, reaching other than them, in a summarized or complete form. The following was mentioned concerning him in “Dhail At-Taqyid Fee Ruwaat As-Sunan Wa Al-Asaneed” (1/247/483):

Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Yahya bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abu Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul ‘Aziz bin Sayed An-Nas bin Abu Al-Walid bin Mundhir bin Abdul Jabbar bin Sulaiman Al-Ya’mariy Al-Hafizh Fat’h ud-Din Abu Al-Fat’h bin Ash- Sheikh Abu ‘Umar bin Ash-Sheikh Abu Bakr, anayejulikana kwa jina la Ibn Sayed An-Nas Al-Ya’mari. Alipokea Sahih Al-Bukhari mikononi mwa Al-‘Izz Abdul ‘Aziz bin Abdul Mun’im Al-Harani, na Sahih Muslim kutoka kwa Muhammad Abdul ‘Aziz bin Al-Hafizh Abu Al-Futuh Nasr Abu Al-Farah Al-Husari. Alipokea Sunan Abu Dawud mikononi mwa Al-Mu’ayed At-Tousi na Abdur Rahim bin Yusuf bin Khatib Al-Mizza. Alipokea Al-Ghilaniyat kupitia usomaji wa baba yake, na Al-Ghilaniyat kutoka kwa Ghazi Al-Halawi kupitia usomaji wake. Alipokea Jami’ ya At-Tirmidhi kutoka kwa Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Tarjam Amazani, kupitia usomaji wake, na Wa’l Abu ‘Ali Ya’qub bin Ahmad bin Fada’il Al-Halabiy alimsimulia Sunan ya Ibn Majah kupitia usomaji wake. Alipokea “(Seera) An-Nabawiyah Tahdhib Ibn Hisham” kutoka kwa Abu Al-Ma’aliy Ahmad bin (…), kupitia usomaji wake, isipokuwa sehemu ndogo yake, ambayo aliipokea kutoka kwa mwingine. Alipokea sehemu kubwa ya “Maghazi” ya Musa bin ‘Uqbah kutoka kwa Al-‘Izz Ahmad bin Ibrahim Al-Fariqiya, pamoja na kitabu “Adh- Dhuriyah At-Tahirah” cha Ad-Dulabi. Alipokea baadhi ya “Maghazi” ya Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin ‘Abid Al-Qurashi Al-Katib kutoka kwa Al-Khadr bin Al-Husain bin Al-Khadr bin ‘Abdan. Alipokea sehemu kubwa ya kitabu “At-Tabaqat Al-Kubra” cha Muhammad bin Sa’d kutoka kwa Abdul Muhsin bin As-Sahib Muhyi ud-Din Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Jaradah Al-‘Uqaili, kupitia usomaji wake. Alipokea “Al- Mu’jam As-Saghir” cha At-Tabarani kutoka kwa Muhammad bin Abdul Mu’min bin Abu Al-Fat’h As-Suwariy, kupitia usomaji wake, pamoja na usomaji wa Al-Hafizh Abu Al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi, na Musnad ya Abu Ya’la Lamousli. Alipokea "Mu'jam" ya Ibn Jami' kutoka kwa 'Umar ibn Al-Qawwas, kwa njia ya kusoma kwake, huko Gharbil katika Ghouta ya mkoa wa Damascus. Alipokea "Ash-Shifa" ya Al-Qadi 'Iyad kutoka kwa Al-Qadi 'Ilm ud-Din Muhammad bin Al-Husain bin Rashiq Ar-Rib'iy, kwa njia ya kusomewa kwa baba yake kupitia kusikia kwake kutoka kwa Ibn Jubair. Alipokea vitabu vingi vya elimu, na Mashaykh wake walikuwa wengi. Alikuwa mahiri katika Hadith, Adab (fasihi) na fani nyingine, na alijulikana sana kwa fadhila ya maelezo yake yenye uwezo juu ya sehemu kubwa ya At-Tirmidhi. Pia aliandika kitabu cha Historia ya Mtume ﷺ chenye faida nyingi, ambacho alikiita "Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al-Maghazi wa Ash-Shama'il Wa As-Siyar". Akakifupisha na kuupa muhtasari huo jina "Nur ul-Uyun". Mashairi yake yalijumuisha kitabu: "Bushra Al-Labib Bi-Dhikra Al-Habib". Alikuwa akisimulia kutoka kitabu hicho na kutoka "Uyun Al-Athar", miongoni mwa kazi nyingine zake zilizoandikwa au makusanyo yake. Alifariki ghafla tarehe 11 ya mwezi wa Sha'ban huko Cairo, mwaka 734 AH, wakati alizaliwa mwaka 671 AH. Alikaa Damascus pamoja na Ibn Al-Mujawir na alipokea (elimu) kutoka kwake. Mwenzake Al-Qutb Al-Halabi alipokea elimu kutoka kwake, pamoja na Ahmad bin As-Sabouni na Al-Jamal Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abdur Rahim Al-Amyouti.

Yafuatayo pia yametajwa (kuhusu Ibn Sayed An-Nas) katika "Mu'jam wa Ashaab Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah" (uk. 161 [Maktaba ya kielektroniki ya Shamela]):

The following also came mentioned (about Ibn Sayed An-Nas) in the “Mu’jam of the companions of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah” (p. 161 [Shamela E-library]):

Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Yahya bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abu Al-Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul ‘Aziz bin Sayed An-Nas bin Abu Al-Walid bin Mundhir bin Abdul Jabbar bin Sulaiman, Abu Al-Fat’h Fat’h ud-Din Al-Ya’mariy Ash-Shafi’iy [671- 734 AH). Alizaliwa katika mwezi wa Dhu l-Qa’dah katika familia yenye uongozi na madaraka fulani, na mjomba wake upande wa baba alikuwa kamanda wa kijeshi huko Seville. Baba yake alipohamia nchi za Misri, alileta pamoja naye Ummuhaat (mama, yaani vyanzo vikuu) vya vitabu vya elimu, ikiwa ni pamoja na Musannaf ya Ibn Abi Shaibah, Musnad yake, Musannaf ya Abdur Razzaq, Al-Muhalla, Al-Istidhkar na makusanyo mengine makubwa. Akiwa mdogo, baba yake alimpeleka kujifunza kwa Shams ud-Din Al-Maqdasi. Pia alipata elimu mikononi mwa Al-Qutb Al-Qastalani, Ibn Al-Anmatiy, Ghazi, Ibn Al-Khaimiy na Shamiya bint Al-Bakri. Alitafuta elimu mwenyewe na akaandika kwa mkono wake. Alipokea mengi kutoka kwa wenzi wa Al-Kindi na Ibn Tabarzadh. Alisafiri hadi Damascus, na kuwasili kwake kulisadifiana na kifo cha Al-Fakhr bin Al-Bukhari, jambo lililomhuzunisha sana. Alipokea mengi kutoka kwa As-Suwariy, Ibn ‘Asakir, Ibn Al-Mujawir, na Ash-Sheikh Al-Mizziy alimhimiza kupata elimu kutoka kwa Ash-Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah. Kisha alikutana naye na kupokea elimu kutoka kwake. Yeye (Ibn Sayed An-Nas) alisema kuhusu Ibn Taymiyyah: [Nilimwona kuwa miongoni mwa wale waliopata sehemu kubwa ya elimu ya sayansi za Kiislamu. Alikuwa amehifadhi kwa moyo karibu Sunan (yaani Hadith) na Athar (simulizi). Akizungumzia Tafsir, alibeba bendera yake mwenyewe (yaani alikuwa mashuhuri). Akitoa hukumu ya kisheria, alikuwa anafahamu kikamilifu lengo lake; na Hadith ilipotajwa kwake, alikuwa mwenye elimu ya Hadith hiyo na ya usimulizi wake. Au ikiwa angejishughulisha na kutoa na kufundisha, usingemwona mtu mwingine mwenye ukarimu zaidi katika kutoa na mwenye elimu ya juu zaidi kuliko yeye. Alikuwa maarufu katika kila fani kuliko wenzake. Hakuna jicho lililomwona lililowahi kuona mfano wake, wala hakuna jicho lililoshuhudia tukio kama lile, pale alipokuwa akizungumzia Tafsir na kikao chake kikihudhuriwa na umati mkubwa, huku yeye akinukuu kutoka katika bahari ya elimu yake tamu na safi. Watu walikuwa wakinufaika na sifa zake bora kama wanaofurahia bustani na kijito. Hali hiyo iliendelea hadi baadhi ya watu wa nchi yake walipoingiwa na wivu, na watu wa kukosoa wakaanza kumchochea kwa sababu ya misimamo yake ya Kihanbali katika mambo ya Aqeedah (imani). Wakashika baadhi ya maneno yake kuhusu jambo hilo na kutafuta kulifanya kuwa sababu ya lawama. Waliandaa mishale ya kumshtaki kwa upotovu na kudai kwamba amekiuka njia yao na kugawanya kundi lao. Hivyo akabishana nao, nao wakabishana naye; yeye akawasusia baadhi yao, nao wakamsusia. Kisha akabishana na kundi jingine ambalo lilikuwa miongoni mwa wale wasio na njia sahihi, wakidai kwamba wao wako juu ya elimu sahihi kabisa ya yaliyofichika katika mambo haya (yaani ya Aqeedah) na juu ya ukweli wake dhahiri. Akawafichua makundi hayo na kutaja madhara ya yale waliyodai. Kwa hiyo wakaenda kwa kundi la kwanza lililobishana naye, wakatafuta msaada kwa wale waliokuwa na chuki naye. Matokeo yake, wakaifikisha habari yake masikioni mwa watawala, na wote wakajitahidi kutangaza kwamba amekufuru na kufanya kazi ya kupinga fikra zake. Kisha wakaandaa waraka na kuwachochea wenye husuda kuusambaza miongoni mwa watu mashuhuri. Walijitahidi kuufikisha kwa wafalme watawala wa nchi ya Misri. Akakamatwa, akatiwa mbaroni na kuwekwa gerezani mara tu alipofika. Kisha wakakusanyika vikao vya kumwaga damu yake, na walikusanyika kwa lengo hilo kutoka miongoni mwa wakazi wa eneo hilo na wakaaji wa shule, kutoka miongoni mwa wale waliohusika katika mzozo na walikuwa wajanja katika udanganyifu wao, na kutoka miongoni mwa wale waliokuwa wakimwita wazi kuwa ni kafiri, na mashuhuri zaidi wa wale waliomsusia, huku wakimwita “Raib ul-Manun” (Mwenye shaka juu ya hatima). Mola wako Mlezi anajua yaliyofichika katika nyoyo zao na yale wanayoyadhihirisha. Wale waliokuwa wakitangaza wazi kukufuru kwake hawakuwa mbaya zaidi kuliko wale waliokuwa wadanganyifu. Nge walitambaa kuelekea kwake, lakini Allah aliuzuia upangaji wao wote. Alimwokoa kwa mikono ya wale ambao Allah amewachagua, na Allah ana nguvu juu ya jambo Lake. Baada ya hayo, hakuachwa salama na mtihani mmoja baada ya mwingine, na katika maisha yake yaliyobaki hakuhama kutoka mateso moja isipokuwa alipopatwa na jingine. Hadi alipopeleka shauri lake kwa baadhi ya majaji. Wakamfunga jela, naye akabaki gerezani humo hadi wakati wa kuondoka kwake kuelekea rehema ya Allah Ta’ala na kufariki kwake. Na kwa Allah ndio marejeo ya mambo yote, Naye ni Mjuzi wa wasaliti miongoni mwa watu na yale yanayoficha nyoyo. Siku yake ilishuhudiwa, mitaa ilibanwa kwa ajili ya janaza yake (mazishi), ikajazwa Waislamu waliokuja kutoka kila mahali wakitafuta baraka katika kukusanyika kwake, kwa Siku ambayo mashahidi watasimama, wakishikilia kwa nguvu jeneza lake hadi wakavunja miti yake. Hilo lilikuwa usiku wa ishirini wa Dhul-Qa’dah mwaka 728 AH, katika ngome iliyolindwa ya Dameski. Alizaliwa Harran tarehe 10 ya Rabi’ ul-Awwal mwaka 661 AH, Allah amrehemu yeye na sisi sote.

(Inaendelea) Alipokea kwake sehemu ya kitabu “Al-Juz’” cha Ibn ‘Arafah. Adh-Dhahabi alisema: “Ibn Sayed alikaribia kumfikia Al-Fakhr (yaani Al-Bukhari) lakini alimkosa kwa siku mbili. Walimu wake miongoni mwa wanazuoni walikaribia elfu moja. Alinakili kwa mkono wake mwenyewe, akachuja (elimu) na kwa kipindi fulani alipewa kazi ya kutoa ushahidi. Alikuwa na tabia njema, mchangamfu, mtu wa utani na mchezo. Alikuwa Saduq (mkweli) kuhusu Hadith, na alikuwa chanzo cha mamlaka kuhusu yale aliyoyapokeza. Alikuwa na jicho lenye ukali wa kupenya kuhusu fani ya Hadith, uzoefu kuhusu wapokezi, ujuzi wa tofauti za maoni, na alikuwa bora katika elimu ya lugha, akiwa na fadhila nyingi.” Alisema: “Lau ningejitolea kwa elimu kama ilivyonipasa, ningemfuata yeye (kwa safari ya kujifunza). Hata hivyo, angetafuta burudani mbali na hilo kupitia uandishi, huku mipango yake ikiwa haina gharama. Alikuwa mchangamfu, mwenye akili, mwepesi wa kushirikiana na watu, wala hakubeba wasiwasi wowote moyoni mwake.” (Mwisho).

(Continued) He (Ibn Sayed An-Nas) received from him some of the book “Al-Juz’” by Ibn ‘Arafah. Adh-Dhahabi said: “He (Ibn Sayed) almost reached Al-Fakhr (i.e. Al-Bukhari) but missed him by two days. His teachers from the scholars numbered close to one thousand. He transcribed in his own writing, sifted (through knowledge) and was assigned to testimony for a period. He gad good morals (character), cheerful and someone who was joke and be playful. He was Saduq (truthful) in respect to the Hadeeth and he was authoritative source in respect to what he transmitted. He had a sharp penetrating eye in respect to art, experience in respect to transmitters, knowledge of differences in opinion and was outstanding in the knowledge of the language and had abundant virtues. He said: And had I dedicated myself to knowledge as I should have done, I would have travelled to him. However, he would seek distraction from that through writing, while his arrangements were without cost. He was cheerful, intelligent, easy to get on with and did not carry any anxiety with him” (End].

(Inaendelea) Al-Barzali alisema: "Alikuwa mmoja wa wanazuoni mashuhuri. Alikuwa mkamilifu na mwenye kukariri vizuri, kuhusu Hadithi na katika kuelewa kasoro zake au sehemu zake dhaifu na Asaneed (minyororo ya usimulizi). Alikuwa na ujuzi wa zile Sahih na zile zenye dosari. Alikuwa hazina ya elimu ya Seera na alifanya vizuri sana katika lugha ya Kiarabu. Alijulikana kwa upangaji mzuri, usahihi katika Aqeedah, usomaji wa haraka, muonekano mzuri, unyenyekevu mkubwa, urafiki mwema, uchangamfu, ucheshi na akili. Alikuwa na mashairi mazuri na nathari bora sana. Aliwapendwa na wanafunzi wa Hadithi, na hakuna mtu kama yeye aliyekuja baadaye, kwa ujumla (yaani, akiwa na sifa hizi zote pamoja)." [Mwisho wa nukuu].

(Continued) Al-Barzali said: “He was one of the eminent people of knowledge. Perfection (excellence) and memorisation, in respect to the Hadith and in terms of comprehending their deficiencies or points of weakness and their Asaneed (chains of transmission). He was knowledgeable of those which were Sahih and those which were faulty. He was a knowledge base of the Seera and he excelled in the Arabic language. He was characterised by good classification, soundness in Aqeedah, quick reading, being well presented, greatly humble, good company, light-hearted, funny and intelligent. He had beautiful poetry and exceptional prose. He was loved by the students of Hadith and no one like him has come after him, as a whole (i.e. with all these qualities combined)” [End of Quote].

(Inaendelea) Ibn Hajar alisema: "Alihifadhi "At-Tanbih" na idadi ya walimu wake (wa elimu) labda ilikaribia elfu moja. Alitumia muda mwingi katika kuwa pamoja na Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Eid. Alikamilisha masomo ya Usul ul-Fiqh chini yake. Alirudi kwake, na alikuwa akimpenda na kumthamini, akisikiliza maneno yake na kumsifu. Alipokea elimu ya lugha ya Kiarabu kutoka kwa Bahaa’ ud-Din Ibn An-Nuhas. Aliandika kwa maandishi ya Maghreb na ya Misri, na akayakamilisha." Al-Kamal Al-Adfuwi alisema (kumhusu yeye): "Alihifadhi "At-Tanbih" katika Fiqh, na aliandika kitabu chake katika Seera kiitwacho: "Uyun ul-Athar". Ni kitabu kizuri katika eneo lake la somo, na kilikusudia kufafanua (Sunan za) At-Tirmidhi. Lau angejizuia katika hilo kwa upande wa sanaa (eneo la elimu) ya Hadith badala ya kujadili Asaneed (mnyororo wa usimulizi), lingekuwa kamili zaidi na bora zaidi. Hata hivyo, alitaka kumfuata mwalimu wake Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Eid, na hivyo akamaliza kabla ya kutimiza yale aliyotaka kuyatimiza" [Mwisho wa nukuu].

(Continued) Ibn Hajar said: “He memorised “At-Tanbih” and his (scholarly) teachers numbered perhaps close to a thousand. He spent a lot of time in the company of Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Eid. He completed the study of Usul ul-Fiqh under him. He returned to him and use to love and be fond of him, listen to his speech and commend him. He received the knowledge of the Arabic language from Bahaa’ ud-Din Ibn An-Nuhas. He wrote both the Maghreb and Egyptian scripts and perfected them. Al-Kamal Al-Adfuwi said (regarding him): “He memorised “At-Tanbih” in Fiqh and authored his book in Seera called: “Uyun ul-Athar”. It is a good book in its subject area and set out to explain (the Sunan of) At-Tirmidhi. Had he restricted himself in respect to that upon the art (knowledge area) of the Hadith rather than the discussion of the Asaneed (chains of transmission), it would have been more complete and better. However, he sought to follow his teacher Ibn Daqiq Al-‘Eid and consequently came to an end before accomplishing what he had wanted to accomplish” [End of Quote].

Pia aliandika vitabu vilivyomvutia watu na kuwa maarufu. Miongoni mwavyo ni: "Nur ul-Uyun" na "Bushra Al-Labib Bi-Dhikra Al-Habib". Ilikuwa kazi fupi katika eneo la Siera ambayo Ibn Hajar aliisifu. Pia aliandika mashairi ya kumsifu Nabii ﷺ ambayo aliyafafanua katika juzuu moja, pamoja na mashairi marefu ya nathari, miongoni mwa kazi nyingine. [Mwisho wa hotuba kutoka "Mu'jam of the companions of Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah" (uk. 161 [Shamela E-library]).]

He also authored books which dazzled and became famous. These include: “Nur ul-Uyun” and “Bushra Al-Labib Bi-Dhikra Al-Habib”. It was a summarised work in the area of the Seera which Ibn Hajar commended. He also authored Prophetic poetic works which he explained in a volume and long poetic proses among other works] [End of speech from the “Mu’jam of the companions of Sheikh Al- Islam Ibn Taymiyyah” (p. 161 [Shamela E-library]).

Tuchunguze maneno ya Imamu Adh-Dhahabi, Imamu asiyepingwa wa wanazuoni wa Hadithi na historia wa zama zake, alipomsema kuhusu Imamu huyu (Ibn Sayed An-Nas): "Alikuwa Saduq (mkweli) kuhusiana na Hadithi, na alikuwa chanzo chenye mamlaka kuhusiana na alichokipokea." Hapo tutatambua ukubwa wa uhalifu ambao yule aitwaye Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi alioufanya dhidi ya Imamu huyu na dhidi ya ukweli! Sasa tuelekeze umakini wetu katika kusoma njia hii ya pili ya upokezi (wa Sahifah ya Al-Madinah).

Let us contemplate the speech of Imam Adh-Dhahabi (in the above text), the uncontested Imam of the scholars of Hadith and history of his age, when he said about this Imam (Ibn Sayed An-Nas): “He was Saduq (truthful) in respect to the Hadeeth and he was authoritative source in respect to what he transmitted”. We would then realise the magnitude of the crime that the one named Abdul Qadir Al- Muhammadi perpetrated against this Imam and against the truth! Let us now focus upon the study of this second path of transmission (of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah):

Kwa upande wa Imam mashuhuri na mwenye elimu kubwa, Al-Hafizh Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abu Khaithama, mwandishi wa "At-Tarikh Al-Kabir", pamoja na 'Eisa bin Yunus bin Abu Ishaq As-Sabee'I Al-Hamdani, hawa ni Maimamu miongoni mwa Thiqat na Athbat (wale walio waaminifu na wategemewa katika usimulizi), na kuna makubaliano juu ya hilo. Kwa upande wa Ahmad bin Janab (Ab Al-Walid Al-Masisi), yeye ni Thiqah (mwaminifu) kwa makubaliano, na ni Thiqah Thabit (mwaminifu na mtegemewa) hasa kuhusiana na 'Eisa bin Yunus. Pamoja na kujumuishwa Al-Baihaqi, wote hawa ni Maimamu Athbat na Thiqat wanaojulikana, hadi mnyororo unapofika kwa Kathir bin Abdullah. Kwa hiyo, hakuna haja ya kuchunguza hali au hadhi ya mtu yeyote mwingine isipokuwa Kathir bin Abdullah bin 'Amr bin 'Awf. Tumeshughulikia hilo katika sehemu iliyoambatanishwa iliyotengwa kwa ajili hiyo chini ya kichwa: "Uadilifu kwa Kathir bin Abdullah bin 'Amr bin 'Awf Al-Muzani". Ndani yake tumethibitisha ubatili wa kile alichokitaja Al-Hafizh (Al-Asqalani) katika "Taqrib At-Tahdhib" (1/460/5617) aliposema: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin 'Amr bin 'Awf Al-Muzani Al-Madani ni Da'if (dhaifu). Wale waliomhusisha na uongo walizidi mipaka; kutoka kizazi cha saba]. Hilo ni katika hali ambapo ni wajibu kubadilisha maandishi kuwa yafuatayo: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin 'Amr bin 'Awf Al-Muzani Al-Madani; hakuna tatizo kwake, na wale waliomhusisha na uongo walikosea, kutoka kizazi cha saba]. Kwa njia hii, dhuluma inaondolewa kwa mtu huyu na anatendewa haki ndani ya mipaka ya kati na kati.

As for the eminent accomplished Imam Al-Hafizh Abu Bakr Ahmad bin Abu Khaithama, the author of “At-Tarikh Al-Kabir”, and ‘Eisa bin Yunus bin Abu Ishaq As-Sabee’I Al-Hamdani, then they are Imams from among the Thiqat and Athbat (Those who are trustworthy and reliable in terms of transmission), and there is a consensus over that. As for Ahmad bin Janab (Ab Al-Walid Al-Masisi), then he is Thiqah (trustworthy) by consensus and he is Thiqah Thabit (trustworthy and reliable) in respect to ‘Eisa bin Yunus specifically. With the inclusion of Al-Baihaqi, they are all well-known Athbat and Thiqat (trustworthy and reliable) Imams up until the chain reaches Kathir bin Abdullah. Consequently, there is no need to study the circumstance or condition of anyone other than Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf. We have undertaken that in an attached section specified for that under the heading: “Fairness to Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf Al-Muzani”. In it we have established the invalidity of what Al-Hafizh (Al-Asqalani) mentioned in his “Taqrib At- Tahdhib” (1/460/5617) when he said: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf Al-Muzani Al-Madani is Da’if (weak). Those who attributed lying to him were excessive; from the seventh]. That is in the case where it is obligatory to replace the text with the following: [Kathir bin Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin ‘Awf Al-Muzani Al-Madani; there is no issue with him and those who attributed lying to him were in error, from the seventh]. In this manner, the injustice is raised from this man and he is dealt with fairly within the boundaries of moderation.

Kutokana na hilo, ubora wa Isnad unathibitishwa, pamoja na kuwa kwake Hasan (nzuri). Kwa kweli, inawezekana kuwa yenyewe inatosha kuwa ushahidi wa kutumiwa kama hoja, ili kuthibitisha hoja ya kidalili. Basi, vipi ikiwa tungeongeza kwake Isnad ya kwanza, ambayo usahihi wake tumekwisha kuuthibitisha?! - Isnad ya tatu (mnyororo wa usimulizi): Isnad ya Ubaid Al-Qasim bin Salam, iliyorekodiwa katika kitabu chake kikubwa “Al-Amwal” (260/518): Yahya bin Abdullah bin Bukair na Abdullah bin Salih walinisimulia, wote wawili wakasema: Al-Laith bin Sa’d alituambia akisema: ‘Uqail aliniambia kutoka kwa Ibn Shihab, kwamba alisema: Ilinifikia kwamba Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ …].

As a consequence of that, the quality of the Isnad is affirmed and its being Hasan (good). Indeed, it is possible that it is sufficient as an evidence to be used as proof by itself, to establish an evidential argument. So, how about if we were to add to it the first Isnad, the authenticity of which we have already established?! - The third Isnad (chain of transmission): The Isnad of Ubaid Al-Qasim bin Salam recorded in his great book “Al-Amwal” (260/518): Yahya bin Abdullah bin Bukair and Abdullah bin Salih related to me and both said: Al-Laith bin Sa’d related to us saying: ‘Uqail related to me from Ibn Shihab, that he said: It reached me that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) …].

Inaonekana tangu mwanzo kuwa hii ni miongoni mwa riwaya za Mursal za Az-Zuhriy, ambazo kwa ujumla si za kiwango cha juu zaidi cha ubora. Hata hivyo, isnadi (mnyororo wa usimulizi) hii ni ya kiwango cha juu kabisa cha ubora. Kwa kweli, huenda ikawa miongoni mwa minyororo ya usimulizi iliyo sahihi zaidi duniani.

This appears from the onset to be from the Mursal narrations of Az- Zuhriy which are generally not of the highest level of quality. However, this Isnad (chain of transmission) is of the highest level of quality. Indeed, it may even be the from the most authentic chains of this Dunya (world).

Maoni sahihi ni kwamba isnadi hii si miongoni mwa riwaya za jumla za Mursal, bali ni Balagh (ujumbe uliofikishwa), na Az-Zuhriy ana Balaghat (ujumbe uliofikishwa) saba au nane nyingine, zote ni sahihi (Sahih). Hii inaonyesha kwamba Balaghat za Az-Zuhriy zinatofautiana na riwaya za jumla za Mursal kwa kiwango cha ubora wao (au usahihi wao). Maandishi yenyewe kimsingi yalitokana na hati, hata kama Az-Zuhriy alionekana kuyasema kutoka kumbukumbu yake.

The correct view is that this Isnad is not from among the general Mursal narrations, rather it is a Balagh (proclamation) and Az-Zuhriy has seven or eight other Balaghat (proclamations), all of which are authentic (Sahih), This indicates that the Balaghat of Az-Zuhriy are contrary to the general Mursal narrations, in respect to the extent of their quality (or soundness). The text in its origin was essentially from a document, even if Az-Zuhriy, evidently dictated it from his memory.

Hakuna sababu yoyote ya kutilia shaka usahihi wa mlolongo huu wa wapokezi (Isnad) wenyewe, hasa kwa kuwa sehemu nyingi za hadithi zake zimepokelewa pia kupitia njia nyingine sahihi, zenye kiwango cha juu kabisa cha usahihi.

There is therefore no cause to doubt the authenticity of this chain of transmission (Isnad) in itself and particularly as most of its paragraphs or articles have come mentioned from other authentic paths, of the highest level of authenticity.

Kwa vyovyote itakavyokuwa, mjadala wa jambo hili kwa undani kamili una sehemu huru iliyowekwa kwa ajili yake.

Whatever its case may be, the discussion of this matter in complete detail has an independent section dedicated to it.