一个重要的问题仍然存在:反对者可能会提出异议,说麦地那宪章是以"麦尔祖"(Mursal)的方式流传的,即由一位再传弟子(Taabi')转述,而没有提及链条中的圣门弟子(Sahabi),我们也不知道它有任何"穆along"(Muttasil,即连续且完整)的传述链。因此,它不能作为证据,也不允许用于推论。我们说:事情并非如此。相反,它是对一份成文文件的抄录,这份文件一代代地被传述者抄录下来,从其措辞的高度相近可以看出这一点,我们可以称之为相符或一致。它通过大量传述途径流传下来,这些途径的传述链无疑是连续且完整的,我们将在适当的时候加以讨论。因此,我们在寻求真主指引的同时宣布:它是萨希赫(Sahih,真实可靠的),可以作为证据和凭据。如果这份宪章来自犹太人或基督徒,这些反对者必定会完全接受它。而正是这些人,用他们那些据称在圣灵护佑下写成却属于麦尔祖和孟盖特尔(Munqati',中断)的传述链,让我们头疼不已!现在,我们将逐一对麦地那宪章的传述链进行详细而严谨的考察。

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:

第一条伊斯纳德（传述链）：如拜哈蒂所记载。

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

“Abu Abdullah Al-Hafizh 讲述，从 Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub 处传来，从 Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar 处传来，从 Yunus bin Bukair 处传来，从 Ibn Ishaq 处传来，从 Uthman bin Muhammad bin Uthman bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq 处传来，他说：这份文献取自‘Umar bin Al-Khattab 的家人，愿真主喜悦他。它原本附在‘Umar 写给各地总督的关于天课（As-Sadaqah）的文书之中。”

“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”.

- 至于伊玛目·拜哈基（Al-Baihaqi），他是：Al-Hafizh（哈菲兹，精通圣训的人）、Al-‘Alamah（大学者）、Al-Mutqin（精研者）、Al-Faqih（教法学家）、Sheikh ul-Islam（伊斯兰长老），即阿布·伯克尔·艾哈迈德·本·侯赛因·本·阿里·本·穆萨·Al-Khusrawjirdi。此据《杰出人物传记》（Siyar A’alam An-Nubulaa’）（35/145/86）。 - 阿布·阿卜杜拉·Al-Hafizh 是：Al-Hakim（哈基姆），穆罕默德·本·阿卜杜拉·本·穆罕默德·本·哈姆杜威赫（Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamduwaih）；伊玛目、Al-Hafizh（哈菲兹）、Al-Naqid（圣训评论家）、Al-‘Alamah（大学者）、Sheikh ul Muhaddithin（圣训学者之长），阿布·阿卜杜拉·本·Al-Bayyi’ Ad-Dabbiy At-Tahmaniy An-Naisaburiy Ash-Shafi’iy，并著有多部文学作品。此据《杰出人物传记》（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).

- 艾卜·阿拔斯·穆罕默德·本·雅古卜·本·尤素福·本·马各伊勒·本·西南·乌麦维（Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub bin Yusuf bin Ma’qil bin Sinan Al-Umawiy），伯努·乌麦耶（Bani Umayyah）的附庸，内沙布尔人（An-Naisaburiy），绰号阿萨姆（Al-Asammu，即聋子）（卒年：公元346年）。他是其时代无可争议的圣训学家。此据《伊斯兰史》（Tarikh ul-Islam）（7/841/243）。除了心智有缺陷的人，没有人会质疑像这样的学者。 - 艾哈迈德·本·阿卜杜勒·贾巴尔：我们在附录中以“艾哈迈德·本·阿卜杜勒·贾巴尔·欧塔里迪的认证”为题对其情况作了概述。其中我们指出：[艾哈迈德·本·阿卜杜勒·贾巴尔·本·穆罕默德·欧塔里迪，艾卜·欧麦尔·库非（Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi），其身上没有任何问题或瑕疵。他传述的《圣纪》（Seera）是可靠的，可以作为证据采用。他属于第十层传述者。他卒于第72年（即公元172年），享年95岁。]这是为了纠正哈菲兹·伊本·哈哲尔·阿斯喀兰尼（Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani）所犯的一个重大失误，他在《Taqrib At-Tahdhib》（1/81/64）中说：[艾哈迈德·本·阿卜杜勒·贾巴尔·本·穆罕默德·欧塔里迪，艾卜·欧麦尔·库非，是弱者（Da’if），他传述的《圣纪》是可靠的，属于第十层。尚未确定艾卜·达伍德曾从他传述。他卒于第72年（即公元172年），享年95岁。]这也是为了反驳阿卜杜勒·卡迪尔·穆罕玛迪（Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi），他是哈菲兹一派的追随者，也是“考察与核实”（An-Nazhar Wa t-Tahqiq）的自称学者，他于2007年3月19日在“圣训家”（Ahl ul-Hadith）网站上发文，讨论麦地那《Sahifah》的传述路线。他列举了一些不完整的传述链，并在结尾说道：[哈菲兹·伊本·哈哲尔说：他是弱者，他的听闻或传述《圣纪》是健全的（Sahih）。我说：从伊本·哈哲尔这句话并不能理解为他在《圣纪》方面是可信的（Thiqah）！相反，他的意图仅仅是为了排除“伪置”（Tadlis）的嫌疑。 在传述链中的歪曲(misrepresentation)——因为他曾被指控有此行为,如前文所述。之所以如此,是因为他自幼便与父亲一同从尤努斯·本·布卡尔·沙伊巴尼处听闻(接受)了“Maghaziy”(即Seera)。他被指控说:“他所传述的那些书实际上属于他的父亲,而他声称是与父亲一同听闻的。”阿勒-哈菲兹(阿斯盖拉尼)想要证明他是亲自听闻的,而阿勒-哈蒂布传述了一则故事,清楚地表明他从尤努斯处听闻的真实性。这是在其传述链中,他从穆罕默德·本·哈桑·本·胡迈德·本·阿尔-拉比从其父亲那里传述的情况:“……有人向艾布·库莱布询问关于Maghaziy(即Seera)的事,他说:‘去见在阿尔-孔纳斯(地名)的一位年轻人。他的名字叫阿尔-乌塔里迪,他是和我们以及他的父亲一起听闻的。’于是我们去找他,他说:‘我不知道它在哪里。自从听闻之后,我就再没有翻看过它。不过,它在Qimatr(存放书籍的地方)里,那里有许多书,你们去那里找吧。’我去找并找到了它,上面还有鸽子的粪便。他曾与父亲一起用旧式字体把它记录下来。我请求他把它交给我,并允许我出版,他同意了。”如果这则故事被证实,那么传述者便将他的记忆(背诵)判定为弱,因为他已经遗忘,不再记得它。它也清楚地表明了他对此书的重视程度薄弱,因为他把它留在了有鸽子的塔楼里,以至于上面有鸽子粪便!因此,此人是Da'if(弱者),正如专门研究此学科的伊玛目们所陈述的。[引文结束]。这段文字也记录于“Ahl ul-Hadith门户网站”档案库的Shamela电子程序图书馆中(2 - 51/390)。

- Abu Al-‘Abbas Muhammad bin Ya’qub bin Yusuf bin Ma’qil bin Sinan Al-Umawiy, Mawla Bani Umayyah An-Naisaburiy Al-Asammu (the deaf) (DOD: 346 ah). He was the Muhaddith of his age without a competing claim. This is according to “Tarikh ul-Islam” (7/841/243). Nobody questions the scholars like these except for the one whose mind is defective. - Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar: We have summarized his case in the addendum under the heading: “The authentication of Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar Al-‘Utaridiy”. In it we stated: [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, has no issue or problem associated with him. His receiving of the Seera is authentic and he is reliable to be used as evidence. He was from the tenth (i.e. level of chain). He passed away in the 72nd year (meaning 172 AH) at the age 95]. This is to correct the major failing which Imam Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani was party to, when he said in “Taqrib At- Tahdhib” (1/81/64): [Ahmad bin Abdul Jabbar bin Muhammad Al-‘Utaridiy, Abu ‘Umar Al-Kufi, is Da’if (weak) and his receiving of the Seera is authentic, from the tenth (i.e. level of chain). It has not been established that Abu Dawud related from him. He passed away in the 72nd year (meaning 172 AH) at the age 95]. It is also to refute Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi, one of the adherents of Al-Hafizh and among the claimants of “An-Nazhar Wa t-Tahqiq” (Examination and verification), who wrote upon the “Ahl ul-Hadith” online portal on 19/03/2007, when discussing the lines of transmission of the Sahifah of Al-Madinah. He mentioned a number of incomplete transmissions from some of the Imams and concluded by stating: [Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar said: He is Da’if (weak) and his hearing or receiving of the Seera is Sahih (authentic). I said: It is not understood from this statement of Ibn Hajar that he is Thiqah (trustworthy) in respect to the Seera! Rather, his intention was merely to repel the suspicion of Tadlis (i.e. misrepresentation in the chain of transmission) from him because he had been accused of that, as has previously been mentioned. That is because he heard (received) the “Maghaziy” (i.e. Seera) from an early age, alongside his father, from Yunus bin Bukair Ash-Shaibani. He was accused “that the books that he narrates from (actually) belonged to his father and that he had claimed to have received (heard) them alongside him”. Al-Hafizh (Al- Asqalaniy) wanted to establish that he had received it himself and Al- Khatib had transmitted a story that makes clear the authenticity of his receiving from Yunus. That is in the case where he transmitted, with its chain, from Muhammad bin Al-Hasan bin Humaid bin Ar- Rabee’ from his father, the following: “… That they asked Abu Kuraib about the Maghaziy (i.e. Seera) and he said: “Go to see a young man in Al-Kunas (place). His name is Al-‘Utaridiy and he received (heard it) alongside us and his father”. So, we came to him and he said: “I don’t know where it is. Since the time of hearing it I have not looked in it. However, it is in Qimatr (what books are preserved in) which contains books, so seek it there”. I sought and found it and there were pigeon droppings upon it. He had recorded it with his father with an old script. I asked him to give to me and allow me to publish it, and so he did”. If this story is affirmed, then the narrator classifies his memory (by heart) as being weak as he had forgotten it and did not recall it. It also made clear the weakness of his concern to it (the book) as he had left it in the tower with pigeons, to the point that it had pigeon droppings upon it! Consequently, the man is Da’if (weak) just as the Imams who specialise in this matter have stated] [End of Quote]. This is also a recorded text in the archives of “The Ahl ul- Hadith Portal” in the Shamela e-program library (2 - 51/390).

- 尤努斯·本·布凯尔：我们也在附录中以“尤努斯·本·布凯尔的认证”为题概述了他的情况。在附录的结论部分，我们对阿勒-哈菲兹在其《至善》（At-Taqrib）中的论断作了更正，并写道：[尤努斯·本·布凯尔·本·瓦西勒·阿什-沙伊巴尼，又名阿布·伯克尔·阿勒-贾迈勒，库法人，是可信的（Thiqah），在圣训传述与圣战历史（Seera 与 Maghaziy）方面是一位伊玛目，在这方面是确立的证据来源，属于第九层传述者。他于第99年去世（即加100，也就是199年）]。我们还驳斥了阿卜杜勒-卡迪尔·穆罕默迪的主张及其诡辩式的论证，这些论证暗示他是一个凭私欲行事的人，想要把麦地那文告（Sahifah of Al-Madinah）判定为孱弱的（Da'if），并为此不择手段。我们的详细反驳见于附录《尤努斯·本·布凯尔的认证》之中。

- 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”.

- 伊本·伊斯哈格：他是阿布·伯克尔·穆罕默德·本·伊斯哈格·本·亚萨尔，是传记（Seera）、战役（Maghaziy）与历史学者公认无可争议的伊玛目，在这些领域中是最终的权威依据。学界对他的可靠性、诚实度以及在该领域的领导地位，几乎已形成共识。尽管如此，我们的同道阿卜杜勒·卡迪尔·穆罕默迪却未能克制自己的私欲。因此，在他先承认了这一点，称：[关于伊本·伊斯哈格，学者们说了很多，总括起来是：他是萨杜格（诚实可信的），在圣训方面是穆达利斯（即在传述系统中隐去某位传述人）。他是战役与传记方面的伊玛目，在这些领域中是最终的权威依据]之后，他仍然无法摆脱自己的私欲，于是提到了他认为会对伊本·伊斯哈格造成负面印象的内容，他说：[阿巴斯·al-达维里说：有人问艾哈迈德·本·罕百勒关于伊本·伊斯哈格的情况，他说：“这些圣训（即关于战役与传记的）是从他那里records传述下来的。然而，如果他带来的是合法与非法的内容，我们希望人们能像这样（谨慎）。”随后他双手交握，将两根拇指压在其他手指上。]对此我的回应是：这说明了什么？首先：伊玛目艾哈迈德·本·罕百勒专精于教法学与圣训学，并非传记、战役、历史或经注学的学者。他对这一领域的主要传述人缺乏深入了解，他从伊本·伊斯哈格的同伴那里传述的也不多，因而无法充分审查他们所传的内容。实际上，他的说法笼统而不加区分，当他说战役、内乱（Fitan）与经注方面的书籍没有根据时，正是如此。 在他最大的失误之中，有他关于伊玛目·哈贾（权威学者）、麦加兹（Al-Maghazi，即远征史/征战史）专家穆罕默德·本·欧麦尔·瓦基迪（Muhammad bin 'Umar Al-Waqidiy）的言论。我们多年来以极为细致严谨的方式研究了瓦基迪的状况与实际情况，并将在近期以“为瓦基迪主持公道”为题予以呈现。

- 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”.

其次:关于伊本·易卜拉欣(Ibn Ishaq),他说过:“关于他有很多说法。”阿卜杜勒·卡迪尔·穆罕默迪(Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi)凭什么权利或理由,只摘取了“关于他有很多说法”中的这一小部分,而完全无视所有足以驳倒他所提及那部分内容的说法呢?举例来说,伊玛目伊本·凯伊姆·Al-Jawziyah在其《Tahdhib Sunan Abi Dawud Wa Iedaah Mushkilaatuhu》(2/373,Shamela电子图书馆)中的说法:[关于伊本·易斯哈格的圣训,其中包含“他的宝座在诸天之上,如同圆顶(Qubbah)”,以及穆恩达里(Al-Mundiri)对其中瑕疵的指摘。他接着说:主张确认者说:没有任何内容允许你否定这段圣训。至于对伊本·易斯哈格的指控,回答是:伊本·易斯哈格是真主赋予知识与诚信之人。阿里·伊本·麦迪尼(‘Ali Ibn Al-Madiniy)也说:在我看来,他的圣训是Sahih(可靠的)。舒尔巴(Ash-Shu'bah)说:“伊本·易斯哈格在圣训方面是信士的长官(Ameer ul-Mu'minin)。”他又说:他是Saduq(诚实可信者)。阿里·伊本·麦迪尼还说:“我在他的圣训中只发现两段Munkar(有缺陷且被弃用的圣训)。”这最后一句话体现了最高的赞誉,因为他传述的圣训数量如此之多,而被弃用的仅有两段。阿里又说:“我听伊本·乌耶奈(Ibn 'Uyainah)说:‘凡谈论伊本·易斯哈格的人,其言辞都含有赞赏或尊重。’毫无疑问,他那个时代的人比其后谈论他的人更了解他。”穆罕默德·伊本·阿卜杜拉·伊本·阿卜杜勒·哈卡姆(Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Abdul Hakam)说:我听沙斐仪(Ash-Shafi'iy)说:祖赫里(Az-Zuhri)说:“只要那位有远见的年轻人(指伊本·易斯哈格)仍在此领域,知识就会留存于此。”雅古布·伊本·沙伊巴(Ya'qub bin Shaibah)说:我问叶海亚·伊本·main(Yahya bin Ma'een):“伊本·易斯哈格的地位如何?”] 他回答道:"他并不是那样的人(即不值得被质疑)。"我问:"你对他所传的圣训心中有没有什么负面的看法?"他答道:"没有,他是诚实的。" 叶兹德·本·哈伦说:我听舒阿巴说:"如果我有权力,我会让伊本·伊斯哈格居于圣训学者之上。" 伊本·阿迪说:"我考察过这位大学者伊本·伊斯哈格的圣训,没有发现他的圣训中有任何足以让我们断定他软弱(Da'if)的地方。他或许会出错或犯误,正如他人也会出错。而且在可信的传述者中,从未有人知道他的传述是谎言。" 叶尔库卜·本·沙依巴说:我问伊本·马迪尼关于伊本·伊斯哈格的情况,他说:"依我看,他的圣训是Sahih(真实可靠的)。"我又问:"马立克关于他所说的话怎么说?"他答道:"马立克没有与他同坐,也不认识他,也不了解麦地那所传的每一件事!"我说:"希沙姆·本·欧尔沃也谈过他?"他答道:"希沙姆所说的不是可以依据的权威之言。也许他(即伊本·伊斯哈格)年幼时见过那位女子,并从她那里听过圣训。他圣训中的诚实是显而易见的。他有时这样传述:'艾布·阿兹-齐纳德告诉我',有时说:'艾布·阿兹-齐纳德提到',他又说:'哈桑·本·丁纳尔从艾尤布那里转述给我,艾尤布从阿穆尔·本·舒尔艾卜那里转述'(关于萨勒夫和买卖,即与贸易有关的问题)。他从阿穆尔·本·舒尔艾卜处传述的圣训,比所有人都多。" 另外,伟大学者哲马鲁丁·宰拉尔在艾曼·萨利赫·沙阿班协助下所著的《〈希达亚〉圣训考释:奈斯卜·拉亚》(1/252)中也有记载:[阿卜杜拉·本·穆巴拉克说:伊本·伊斯哈格是Thiqah(可信赖的),Thiqah,Thiqah(值得信赖的来源)。] 如果公正的批评者能够思考圣裔中的圣裔、同时也是圣训学界伟大的伊玛目、“al-Jarh wa t-Ta’dil”(审查圣训传述人可靠性的学科)最杰出的学者之一阿里·伊本·穆迪尼(‘Ali Ibn Al-Madiniy)关于挑剔圣训瑕疵的论述,特别是他对伊本·伊斯哈格(Ibn Ishaq)的总体评价,以及他关于“Salaf and Ba’i”圣训所说的话,他就会知道,阿里·伊本·穆迪尼甚至为伊本·伊斯哈格辩护,反对对他的“隐瞒传述人”(Tadlis,即在isnad中隐去某位传述人)的指控。因为即便是这种怀疑或疑虑,也毫无根据。它仅仅代表省略了某些传述环节,或为了保持事件和历史故事的连贯而加以概括。这是一种众所周知的方法。这种方法是必要的,并无不妥。在圣传(Seera)和历史类书籍中,必要性决定了这种方法,它从一开始,无论在形式上还是实质上,都不属于隐瞒(Tadlis,即蓄意篡改传述链)的范畴。 如果想进一步了解关于“关于他的说法很多”(There is a lot that has been said concerning him)的情况,即关于伟大的伊玛目、圣训领域的“Hafizh”、“Hujjah”、“Amir ul-Mu’minin”穆罕默德·伊本·伊斯哈格·伊本·雅萨尔·古赖什(Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar Al-Qurashi),那么可以参阅题为“穆罕默德·伊本·伊斯哈格·伊本·雅萨尔,圣训领域的圣训之长”(Muhammad bin Ishaq bin Yasar, Amir ul-Mu’minin in respect to the Hadeeth)的附录。其中包含更多证据,证明他是伟大的伊玛目,并驳斥了加在他身上的荒谬的隐瞒传述人(Tadlis,即蓄意篡改传述链)指控。 - 欧斯曼·伊本·穆罕默德·伊本·欧斯曼·伊本·艾赫纳斯·伊本·沙里格(Uthman bin Muhammad bin Uthman bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq):他通常被称为欧斯曼·伊本·穆罕默德·艾赫纳西(Uthman bin Muhammad Al-Akhnasi)、欧斯曼·伊本·穆罕默德·伊本·穆吉拉(Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah),或简称欧斯曼·艾赫纳西(Uthman Al-Akhnasi)。 据Ahl ul-Hadith网络门户于2007年3月19日发表文章的阿卜杜勒·卡迪尔·穆罕默迪(Abdul Qadir Al-Muhammadi)所言，他在效仿哈菲兹·伊本·哈哲尔（Al-Hafizh bin Hajar）评论麦地那《圣训集》（Sahifah of Al-Madinah）的传述链时说道：[至于欧斯曼·本·穆罕默德·本·穆吉拉·阿赫纳斯·赛给菲（Uthman bin Muhammad bin Mughirah Al-Akhnas Ath-Thaqafi）·希贾兹人（Al-Hijazi），他是一位萨杜克（Saduq，诚实的人），有阿瓦姆（Awham，错误的叙述）和马纳基尔（Manaakir，他人所拒绝的圣训）。]这一说法也被记录在Ahl ul-Hadith门户的档案中，见沙梅拉电子图书馆（Shamela e-library）（2 - 51/390）。 他为支撑其谬论所说的全部内容，就是这一行字，却要概括前人与后人的全部学识！即便他所说的"马纳基尔"一词，也并非出自哈菲兹·伊本·哈哲尔的原话，因为伊本·哈哲尔在《点评》（Taqrib At-Tahdhib）（1/386/4515）中写道：[欧斯曼·本·穆罕默德·本·穆吉拉·本·阿赫纳斯·本·沙里克·赛给菲·阿赫纳斯·希贾兹（Uthman bin Muhammad bin Al-Mughirah bin Al-Akhnas bin Shariq Ath-Thaqafi Al-Akhnasiy Hijazi）是萨杜克（诚实的人），有阿瓦姆，属于第六层（传述链的层级）。] 在题为"欧斯曼·本·穆罕默德·本·穆吉拉·阿赫纳斯的认证"的九页附录中，我们已确凿地纠正了哈菲兹（伊本·哈哲尔）的概括，他对此人的评价极为欠妥；同时也证明了关于他的正确说法是：[欧斯曼·本·穆罕默德·本·穆吉拉·本·阿赫纳斯·赛给菲·阿赫纳斯是赛格（Thiqah，可信于传述者），是一位法学家，精通迈加齐（Maghazi，早期战役）与历史，属于第四层。]读者可参阅该附录，其中包含许多重要的历史知识，并讨论了那段著名而重要的圣训"凡担任司法职务（或被任命为法官）者，便已在没有刀的情况下被宰杀"的缺陷。愿它蒙安拉允许，能带来些许喜悦。

- 欧麦尔·本·赫帕卜（愿安拉喜悦他）的家族（Aali）：在题为《乌斯曼·本·穆罕默德·本·穆吉拉·阿赫纳西的可信度》的附录中，我们曾写道：[至于欧麦尔·本·赫帕卜的家族（Aali），乌斯曼·本·穆罕默德·本·穆吉拉·阿赫纳西正是在其中找到了《麦地那文书》（Sahifah of Al-Madinah）的书面文件。他们无疑是阿卜杜拉·伊本·欧麦尔、阿辛·本·欧麦尔及其兄弟、子女和妻子。凭借安拉的赞颂，他们都是最为可靠、极其可信的传述人（Thiqaat），在诚实、真诚和敬畏安拉方面达到了最高境界，而他们之中从未有人被知晓为说谎者或捏造者——安拉禁止此事。]

- 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].

总结：这段圣训的传述链是连续不断的（从头到尾没有中断），并且是萨希赫（真实可靠）的，其中每一环的传述者都是可信赖、被接受的传述人（Thiqaat），由此确立了证据与论据（Al-Hujjah）。事情并非如名为阿卜杜勒·卡迪尔·穆罕默迪的人所声称的那样。他犯了严重的错误，说道：“这条伊斯纳德（传述链）不值得称道，因为它包含了阿勒-乌塔里迪和伊本·布凯尔，此外还存在传述中断的怀疑或疑虑，即乌斯曼没有说明他是从欧麦尔·本·哈塔卜家族中的哪一位那里获得这份经卷（即Sahifah）的。也可能他在这一点上出了错，或者错误源于布凯尔，因为他以犯错多而闻名，他可能会把伊本·伊斯哈格的话拿来，并将其与圣训（即传述链）相连。”哇哦，这是经过认真研究和考察之后得出的结论吗？愿安拉庇护我们免受此类错误之害。

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.

- 第二条伊斯纳德（传述链）：此为伊本·赛义德·阿尔-纳斯在其《Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al- Maghazi wa Ash-Shama'il Wa As-Siyar》中所记载的传述链，由伊本·艾布·海萨玛传述：

- 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:

[艾哈迈德·本·吉纳卜·阿卜·阿尔-瓦利德转述，来自尔萨·本·尤努斯，来自卡西尔·本·阿卜杜拉·本·阿慕尔·阿尔-穆扎尼，来自其父，来自其祖父]。巴伊哈基也以简略形式提及了伊斯纳德（传述链）：[卡西尔·本·阿卜杜拉·本·阿慕尔·本·奥夫转述，来自其父，来自其祖父……阿布·阿卜杜拉·阿尔-哈菲兹和阿布·巴克尔·阿尔-卡迪告诉我们，他们说：阿布·阿尔-阿拔斯告诉我们，来自穆罕默德·本·雅古卜，来自穆罕默德·本·伊斯哈格·阿德-达格哈尼，来自穆阿维叶·本·阿慕尔，来自阿布·伊斯哈格（阿尔-法拉兹），来自卡西尔·本·阿卜杜拉，他如此陈述（即该圣训）]。

[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].

首先,我们要说:关于伊本·赛义德·安-纳斯在其《Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al-Maghazi wa Ash-Shama’il Wa As-Siyar》(1/330)中的说法,他在完整地呈列了伊本·易司哈格所载的麦地那宪章全文之后,说道:[伊本·易司哈格是这样记载的,伊本·阿布·海赛迈也这样记载了(即宪章的原文)。随后他列出了传述链,然后说:他以同样的方式记载了它]。如果两段文本彼此相符或基本相同,他就不可能这样说。对于《穆萨奈夫》的作者、伊本·赛义德·安-纳斯这样伟大的圣训学家,我们不应期待其他的结论,否则就等于背信和欺骗。事实是,由于伊本·易司哈格的文本已经存在(且内容相同),他认为无需再录入伊本·阿布·海赛迈的文本。当时的人都是亲手抄写,没有电脑可以方便地复制粘贴。因此,阿卜杜勒·卡迪尔·穆罕默迪所挑起的争论毫无意义。他说:[这段圣训与伊本·易司哈格的圣训不相符,它是以概括的形式出现的,如同后面的传述。伊本·赛义德·安-纳斯只是像他所说的那样提及了它,即如伊本·易司哈格所转述的那份文件。之后又有追随者跟进,而这一点对他而言并未得到证实。因为伊本·赛义德·安-纳斯并没有向我们录入它的原文,而这原文被认为是伊本·阿布·海赛姆历史著作中已失传的部分。正如可以看到的,拜海address吉以概括的形式转述了它,这一点也印证了这一观点]。

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].

至于拜哈格ي（Al-Baihaqi）节略地转述此段，那是因为该段文字与所讨论的章节主题相契合。拜哈格ي经常采用这种做法，尤其是在他的《大Sunan》（Sunan Al-Kubra）中。在他之前，布哈里（Al-Bukhari）在其《沙希赫》（Sahih）中也采用过这种做法，大多数圣训编纂者同样如此。这与该段文字是以节略形式还是完整形式传到他们那里毫无关系，更不用说传到其他人那里时是节略还是完整的了。关于他，《Dhail At-Taqyid Fee Ruwaat As-Sunan Wa Al-Asaneed》（1/247/483）中有如下记载：

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):

穆罕默德·本·穆罕默德·本·穆罕默德·本·艾哈迈德·本·阿卜杜拉·本·穆罕默德·本·叶海亚·本·穆罕默德·本·穆罕默德·本·艾布·卡西姆·本·穆罕默德·本·阿卜杜拉·本·阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹·本·赛义德·安-纳斯·本·艾布·瓦利德·本·蒙迪尔·本·阿卜杜勒·贾巴尔·本·苏莱曼·阿尔-雅马里·阿尔-哈菲兹·法特赫·乌德-丁·艾布·法特赫，即伊本·赛义德·安-纳斯·阿尔-雅马里，人称“伊本·赛义德·安-纳斯·阿尔-雅马里”。他由阿尔-伊兹·阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹·本·阿卜杜勒·蒙因·阿尔-哈拉尼传授《司法布哈里圣训集》（Sahih Al-Bukhari）；由穆罕默德·阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹·本·阿尔-哈菲兹·艾布·法图赫·纳斯尔·艾布·法拉赫·阿尔-胡萨里传授《司法穆斯林圣训集》（Sahih Muslim）。他由阿尔-穆阿耶德·阿尔-图西和阿卜杜勒·拉希姆·本·优素福·本·哈提卜·阿尔-米兹扎传授《艾布·达伍德圣训集》（Sunan Abu Dawud）。他通过其父的诵读获得《阿尔-吉拉尼亚特》（Al-Ghilaniyat），并通过加齐·阿尔-哈拉维的诵读获得《阿尔-吉拉尼亚特》。他通过穆罕默德·本·易卜拉欣·本·塔贾姆·阿玛扎尼的诵读获得提尔米兹的《大全》（Jami' of At-Tirmidhi）；艾布·阿里·雅古布·本·艾哈迈德·本·法达伊尔·阿尔-哈拉比依通过其诵读为他讲述了伊本·马哲的《圣训集》（Sunan Ibn Majah）。他通过艾布·阿尔-马阿利·艾哈迈德·本（……）的诵读获得《先知传记·伊本·希沙姆校订本》（“(Seera) An-Nabawiyah Tahdhib Ibn Hisham”），其中一小部分除外，该部分他是从其他人处获得的。他由阿尔-伊兹·艾哈迈德·本·易卜拉欣·阿尔-法里基亚传授穆萨·本·乌克巴的大部分《远征记》（“Maghazi”），此外还有阿德-杜拉比所著的《纯洁的后裔》（Adh-Dhuriyah At-Tahirah）。他由哈德尔·本·侯赛因·本·哈德尔·本·阿布丹传授阿布·阿卜杜拉·穆罕默德·本·阿比德·阿尔-古拉西·阿尔-卡提布《远征记》的一部分。他通过阿卜杜勒·穆辛·本·阿斯-萨希卜·穆希·丁·穆罕默德·本·艾哈迈德·本·贾拉达·阿尔-乌盖利的诵读，获得穆罕默德·本·萨阿德所著《大传记》（At-Tabaqat Al-Kubra）的大部分。他通过穆罕默德·本·阿卜杜勒·穆明·本·艾布·法特赫·阿尔-苏瓦里的诵读，获得泰伯拉尼的《小辞典》（Al-Mu'jam As-Saghir），此外还有阿尔-哈菲兹·艾布·哈贾吉·阿尔-米兹的诵读，以及拉穆斯利所传的艾布·耶拉的《圣训集》（Musnad of Abu Ya'la Lamousli）。 他从欧麦尔·伊本·古瓦瓦斯处获得了伊本·贾米厄的《Mu'jam》,听其诵读所得,地点在大马士革省古塔的加尔比勒。他从卡迪·伊亚德处获得了《Ash-Shifa》,经由卡迪·伊勒姆丁·穆罕默德·本·侯赛因·本·拉希格·阿尔-里比伊处,听其父诵读而得,其父曾从伊本·主拜尔处听闻。他获得了许多知识典籍,他的师长也众多。他精通圣训、文学(Adab)及其他领域,因其对《提尔米兹圣训集》大部分内容的精彩讲解而声名远扬。他还撰写了一部关于先知ﷺ传记的著作,其中包含许多益处,他称之为《Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al-Maghazi wa Ash-Shama'il Wa As-Siyar》。他将其缩写,并将缩写本命名为《Nur ul-Uyun》。他的诗作包括一部名为《Bushra Al-Labib Bi-Dhikra Al-Habib》的书。他常从此书以及《Uyun Al-Athar》和他的其他著作或辑录中讲述圣训。他于伊历734年沙阿班月11日在开罗突然去世,而他生于伊历671年。他曾与伊本·阿尔-穆贾威尔一同居住在大马士革,并从他那里获得了知识。他的同伴阿尔-库特卜·阿尔-哈拉比从他那里获得了知识,此外还有艾哈迈德·本·阿尔-萨布尼,以及贾马勒·易卜拉欣·本·穆罕默德·本·阿布杜·拉赫曼·阿尔-阿米尤蒂。[引文结束]

“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, who is known under the name of Ibn Sayed An-Nas Al-Ya’mari. He received Sahih Al-Bukhari at the hands of Al-‘Izz Abdul ‘Aziz bin Abdul Mun’im Al-Harani and Sahih Muslim from Muhammad Abdul ‘Aziz bin Al-Hafizh Abu Al- Futuh Nasr Abu Al-Farah Al-Husari. He received Sunan Abu Dawud at the hands of Al-Mu’ayed At-Tousi and Abdur Rahim bin Yusuf bin Khatib Al-Mizza. He received Al-Ghilaniyat via his father’s reading of it and Al-Ghilaniyat from Ghazi Al-Halawi via his reading. He received the Jami’ of At-Tirmidhi from Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin Tarjam Amazani, via his reading, and Wa’l Abu ‘Ali Ya’qub bin Ahmad bin Fada’il Al-Halabiy related the Sunan of Ibn Majah to him via his reading. He received the “(Seera) An-Nabawiyah Tahdhib Ibn Hisham” from Abu Al-Ma’aliy Ahmad bin (…), via his reading, with the exception of a small part of it, which he received from other than him. He received the majority of the “Maghazi” of Musa bin ‘Uqbah from Al-‘Izz Ahmad bin Ibrahim Al-Fariqiya, in addition to the book “Adh- Dhuriyah At-Tahirah” by Ad-Dulabi. He received some of the “Maghazi” of Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin ‘Abid Al-Qurashi Al-Katib from Al-Khadr bin Al-Husain bin Al-Khadr bin ‘Abdan. He received the majority of the book “At-Tabaqat Al-Kubra” of Muhammad bin Sa’d from Abdul Muhsin bin As-Sahib Muhyi ud-Din Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Jaradah Al-‘Uqaili, via his reading. He received “Al- Mu’jam As-Saghir” of At-Tabarani from Muhammad bin Abdul Mu’min bin Abu Al-Fat’h As-Suwariy, via his reading, in addition to the reading of Al-Hafizh Abu Al-Hajjaj Al-Mizzi and the Musnad of Abu Ya’la Lamousli. He received the “Mu’jam” of Ibn Jami’ from ‘Umar ibn Al-Qawwas, via his reading, at Gharbil from Ghouta in the Damascus province. He received “Ash-Shifa) of Al-Qadi ‘Iyad from Al- Qadi ‘Ilm ud-Din Muhammad bin Al-Husain bin Rashiq Ar-Rib’iy, via the reading of his father through his hearing it from Ibn Jubair. He received many books of knowledge and his Shuyukh were numerous. He was proficient in the Hadith, Adab (literature) and other areas and became well known by the favour of his capable explanation of a large portion of At-Tirmidhi. He also authored a work on the Prophetic Seera which contained many benefits which he called “Uyun Al-Athar Fee Funun Al-Maghazi wa Ash-Shama’il Wa As-Siyar”. He summarized it and maned the summarized version “Nur ul-Uyun”. His poetry included the book: “Bushra Al-Labib Bi-Dhikra Al-Habib”. He used to narrate from it and from “Uyun Al-Athar” among other written works or compilations of his. He passed away suddenly on the 11 th of Sha’ban in Cairo, in the year 734 AH, whilst he was born in the year 671 ah. He stayed in Damascus in the company of Ibn Al-Mujawir and he received (knowledge) from him. His companion Al-Qutb Al- Halabi received knowledge from him in addition to Ahmad bin As- Sabouni and Al-Jamal Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abdur Rahim Al- Amyouti”. [End of Quote].

以下内容也见于《伊斯兰教长老伊本·泰米叶弟子词典》（第161页〔Shamela电子图书馆〕）中关于伊本·赛伊德·安-纳斯的记载：

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]):

穆罕默德·本·穆罕默德·本·穆罕默德·本·艾哈迈德·本·阿卜杜拉·本·穆罕默德·本·叶海亚·本·穆罕默德·本·穆罕默德·本·艾卜·卡西姆·本·穆罕默德·本·阿卜杜拉·本·阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹·本·赛义德·安-纳斯·本·艾卜·韦利德·本·蒙迪尔·本·阿卜杜勒·贾巴尔·本·苏莱曼，艾卜·法特赫·法特赫·丁·叶尔马里·沙斐仪（公元671年至734年）。他生于都尔·戈尔德月，出身于一个颇有权势和地位的家庭，他的伯父曾在塞维利亚担任军事指挥官。他的父亲定居埃及时，带来了各类知识典籍的根本渊源，包括伊本·艾卜·沙依白的《穆萨奈夫》、他的《穆斯奈德》、阿卜杜·拉扎格的《穆萨奈夫》、《穆哈里》、《伊斯提兹卡尔》以及其他大部头汇编。他年幼时，父亲便带他向沙姆斯·丁·麦格迪西学习。他还从古图卜·盖斯塔拉尼、伊本·安玛提、伽齐、伊本·海米和沙米雅·宾特·巴克里那里获得知识。他自学求知，并亲笔抄写。他从肯迪和伊本·塔巴扎德的同门那里获益良多。他前往大马士革，抵达时正值法赫鲁·本·布哈里去世，这让他深感痛惜。他从苏瓦里、伊本·阿萨基尔、伊本·穆贾维尔那里获益甚多，谢赫·米兹兹又鼓励他向谢赫伊本·泰米叶求学。此后他与伊本·泰米叶会面，并从他那里获得知识。伊本·赛义德·安-纳斯谈及他（伊本·泰米叶）时说：[我发现他是在伊斯兰学科中获得了极大成就的人。他几乎将《逊奈》（即圣训）和《艾萨尔》（传述）烂熟于心。若他谈论经注，便能独树一帜；若他作出司法裁决，便深知其旨意；若有圣训提及于他，他便掌握其知识与传述。] 如果他专注于施舍和口述，你不会见到比他更慷慨、学识更高的人。他在各门学问上都超越了同时代的人。凡见过他的人，都不曾见过像他这样的人；也不曾有人目睹过这样的场景：当他讲解塔夫西尔（经注学）时，听讲的人群济济一堂，而他则从他甜美纯正的知识之海中引证经文。人们从他卓越的美德中获益，如同身处花园与溪流之中。 这种情形持续着，直到他的同乡中有人被嫉妒所困扰，批评者开始煽动反对他，原因是他在阿盖代（信仰）问题上持罕百里学派的观点。于是他们抓住他关于此事的一些言论，想以此作为指责他的理由。他们准备好了箭矢，指控他有偏离正道的行为，声称他违背了他们的道路，分裂了他们的群体。于是他与他们争辩，他们也与他争辩；他与其中一些人断绝往来，他们也与他断绝往来。 随后，他又与另一群人发生争论，这些人既无正道，却自称掌握了这些问题（即阿盖代）中隐微之事最精确的知识，并掌握其明显的真理。他揭露了这些群体，并指出了他们所宣称之事的危害。于是，那先前与他争辩的第一群人便去寻求那些对他怀有敌意之人的援助。结果，他们使此事传到了统治者耳中，他们都竭力宣布他为背教者，并设法压制他的思想。随后，他们准备了一份文书，煽动怀有恶意的人将其在显贵之间散布，并竭力使其传到埃及各地执政的君王那里。 于是，他一到达便被逮捕，并被投入监狱。 然后他们召集会议，策划要取他的性命，为此从当地居民和学院里的人中聚集而来，其中有参与争端且善于欺诈的人，有公开称他为叛教者的人，也有最积极抵制他的人，并称他为“Raib ul-Manun”（命运的怀疑者）。你的主知道他们心中隐藏的和他们宣布的。那些公开宣称他叛教的人，并不比那些狡诈的人更坏。蝎子向他爬来，但真主挫败了他们所有人的阴谋。真主借助祂所拣选之人的手救了他，真主对祂的事务拥有绝对的主宰。此后，他接连遭受各种考验，余生中每经历一次磨难，接着又遭另一次，从未停歇。直到他把自己的事情交给一些法官，他们将他关进监狱，他一直被囚禁在那里，直到他归向真主的慈悯并离世。万事都归于真主，祂洞察人们中的背信者，也洞察心中所隐藏的。他下葬的那天有目共睹：街道因他的送葬队伍而变得狭窄，来自各地的穆斯林挤满了街巷，都想在他的送葬行列中求得福佑，那是见证者都要站立的日子。他们紧紧抓着他的棺木，直到把棺架的杆子都弄断了。那是伊历728年Dhu l-Qa'dah月的第20夜，在大马士革的堡垒中。他生于伊历661年Rabee' ul-Awwal月的第10日，愿真主慈悯他和我们所有人。[引文结束]

“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). He was born in the month of Dhu l-Qa’dah into a household of some leadership and power, and his paternal uncle had been a military commander in Seville. When his father settled in the lands of Egypt his father brought along with him the Ummuhaat (mothers i.e. main sources) of the books of knowledge including the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaibah, his Musnad, the Musannaf of Abdur Razzaq, Al- Muhalla, Al-Istidhkar and other large compilations. At a young age his father brought him to learn from Shams ud-Din Al-Maqdasi. He also received knowledge at the hands of Al-Qutb Al-Qastalani, Ibn Al- Anmatiy, Ghazi, Ibn Al-Khaimiy and Shamiya bint Al-Bakri. He sought knowledge by himself and wrote by his own hand. He took a great deal from the companions of Al-Kindi and Ibn Tabarzadh. He travelled to Damascus and his arrival coincided with the death of Al- Fakhr bin Al-Bukhari and which pained him. He took a great deal from As-Suwariy, Ibn ‘Asakir, Ibn Al-Mujawir and Ash-Sheikh Al-Mizziy encouraged him to take knowledge from Ash-Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah. He then met him and received knowledge from him. He (Ibn Sayed An-Nas) said regarding him (Ibn Taymiyyah): [I found him to be from those who had attained a great share of knowledge from the Islamic sciences. He had virtually absorbed the Sunan (i.e. Hadith) and Athar (reports) to memory. If he spoke concerning Tafsir he carried his own banner (i.e. he was distinguished). If he provided a judicial verdict he was fully aware of its purpose or aware and if a Hadeeth was mentioned to him, then he was the possessor of its knowledge and of its narration. Or if he attended to giving and dictation you would not see anyone more expansive in his giving and higher in knowledge than him. He was distinguished in every art over his contemporaries. No eye that saw him had seen the like of him and no eye had witnessed a scene like when he would be discussing Tafsir and his session would be attended by a great crowd whilst he would quote from the sea of his sweet and pure knowledge. They would indulge from his excellent merit in the garden and the stream. That continued until some people from his land were afflicted by envy and the people of criticism began to incite against him in relation to his Hanbali views in matters of Aqeedah (belief). And so they took hold of some of his speech concerning that and sought to make that a cause of blame due to it. They prepared arrows to accuse him of deviancy and claimed that he had violated their way and divided their group. And so he disputed with them and they disputed with him, he boycotted some of them and they boycotted him. He then disputed with another group who from those who had no path and claimed that they were upon the most precise knowledge of what was hidden in these matters (i.e. of Aqeedah) and upon its manifest truth. He exposed those groups and mentioned the calamities of what they claimed. So they reached out to the first group of those who disputed with him and sought assistance from those who held malice against him. As a result, they made his affair reach the ears of the rulers and all of them strove to declare his Kufr and worked against his thought. They then prepared a document and incited the spiteful to spread it amongst the noble. They strove to make it reach the ruling kings of the lands of Egypt. He was then taken, arrested and placed in prison as soon as he arrived. They then convened sessions for the spilling of his blood and they gathered for that purpose from the residents of the locality and inhabitants of the schools, from among those who had been involved in the dispute and were crafty in their deception, and from those who were openly calling him a disbeliever and most prominent of those boycotting him, whilst calling him “Raib ul- Manun” (Doubter of fate). Your Lord knows what was hidden in their hearts and what they declared. Those who were openly declaring his disbelief were not worse than those who were deceitful. The scorpions crept towards him but Allah drove back the plotting of them all. He saved him by the hands of those whom Allah had chosen and Allah is dominant over His affair. Following that, he was not spared from one trial after another and throughout his remaining life he did not move from one ordeal except that he was afflicted by another. That was until he took his matter to some of the judges. They imprisoned him and he remained in that prison until the time of his parting to the mercy of Allah Ta’alaa and his passing. And to Allah do all matters return and He is all aware of the treacherous among the people and what the hearts conceal. Its day was witnessed, the streets became narrow for his Janazah (burial) and were filled from Muslims coming from every place seeking blessings in its gathering for the Day when the witnesses will stand, holding fast to his casket until they broke its poles. That was on the 20th night of Dhu l-Qa’dah in the year 728 AH, at the Damascus guarded fortress. He was born in Harran on the 10th of Rabee’ ul-Awwal in the year 661 AH, may Allah have mercy upon him and us all” [End of Quote].

(接上文)他从伊本·阿拉法的《al-Juz’》中听取了其中一部分。阿德-达哈比说:“他(伊本·赛耶德)几乎与Al-Fakhr(即Al-Bukhari)相遇,却差了两天而失之交臂。他从学者那里师从的老师近一千位。他亲手抄写,经过筛选(所学知识),并且一段时间内担任过作证之职。他品行良好(性格),开朗,爱开玩笑,也好嬉戏。他在圣训方面是诚实可靠的(Saduq),在传述所转述的内容方面是权威的来源。他在技艺方面有敏锐洞察的眼光,精通传述人的情况,了解意见分歧,在语言知识方面卓越超群,拥有丰富的美德。他说:‘如果我能像应当的那样专心致志于学问,我本会去拜他为师。’然而,他会通过写作来寻求从中解脱,而他的安排却是无需付出代价的。他开朗、聪慧、易于相处,心中没有任何忧虑。”(完)

(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].

(续)阿尔-巴尔扎利说:"他是杰出的学者之一。在圣训方面,他的精通与记忆都臻于完美与卓越,能够理解圣训的缺陷或薄弱之处及其传述链(Asaneed)。他能分辨哪些圣训是沙希德(Sahih,可靠的),哪些有瑕疵。他是塞拉(Seera)方面的知识宝库,并且精通阿拉伯语。他的特点是分类得当、信仰(Aqeedah)端正、阅读迅速、仪表端庄、极其谦逊、为人良善、性情开朗、风趣幽默、聪慧过人。他的诗歌优美,散文卓绝。圣训学子都十分敬爱他,总体而言,在他之后再没有人能像他这样兼具上述所有品质。"[引文结束]

(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].

（续）伊本·哈哲尔说：“他背诵了《Al-Tanbih》，他的老师（学者）数量大约接近一千。他花了很多时间陪伴伊本·达基格·阿尔-伊德。他在其门下完成了对《法理学原理》（Usul ul-Fiqh）的学习。他多次回到他身边，他很喜爱他，喜欢听他讲话并称赞他。他从巴哈·丁·伊本·安-努哈斯那里学到了阿拉伯语知识。他书写马格里布体和埃及体两种字体，并将其练至完美。”阿尔-卡马勒·阿德富维说（关于他）：“他背诵了《Al-Tanbih》这部教法著作，并撰写了一部名为《Uyun ul-Athar》的《传记》著作。这是一部在其领域中很好的书，旨在解释（《Sunan》）《提尔米兹圣训集》。如果他在圣训学（hadith）领域上能够专注，而不是更多地讨论传述链（Asaneed），那么这部书会更加完整和优秀。然而，他想要效仿他的老师伊本·达基格·阿尔-伊德，因此在完成他想完成的事情之前就结束了。”［引文结束］

(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].

他还著有多部广受赞誉、声名远播的作品，其中包括《Nur ul-Uyun》和《Bushra Al-Labib Bi-Dhikra Al-Habib》。这是一部关于圣纪（Seera）领域的简要著作，伊本·哈哲尔曾对其予以称赞。他还撰写了关于先知赞颂的诗歌作品，并对其作了一卷注解，以及长篇的诗体散文等其他著作。】【《Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah 同伴辞典》（第161页，[Shamela电子图书馆]）的引文结束】

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]).

让我们来思考伊玛目阿兹-扎哈比的言论。他是那个时代圣训学和历史学界公认的伊玛目。他论及这位伊玛目（伊本·赛义德·安-纳斯）时说："他在圣训方面是诚实可信的，在其所传述的内容方面是权威的来源。"由此我们便能认识到，那个名叫阿卜杜勒·卡迪尔·阿尔-穆罕默迪的人对这位伊玛目以及对真理所犯下的罪行是何等严重！现在让我们来研究这份《麦地那文书》（Sahifah）的第二条传述路线。

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):

至于杰出的、学识渊博的伊玛目哈菲兹·艾布·伯克尔·艾哈迈德·本·艾布·海赛迈（《大历史》的作者），以及尔萨·本·尤努斯·本·艾布·伊斯哈格·赛拜尔·哈马达尼，他们都是属于可信且可靠的（Thiqat）、在传述上稳固可靠的（Athbat）伊玛目，对此已有共识。至于艾哈迈德·本·贾纳卜（艾布·瓦利德·麦西希），他被公认为可信（Thiqah），并且在传述尔萨·本·尤努斯方面被认为是特别可信且稳固可靠的（Thiqah Thabit）。加上拜哈基，他们都是众所周知的稳固可靠、可信的伊玛目，直至传述链到达卡西尔·本·阿卜杜拉。因此，除卡西尔·本·阿卜杜拉·本·阿慕尔·本·阿乌夫之外，无需再考察其他任何人的情况或状况。我们已在一个专门为此设立的附录中，以“公正对待卡西尔·本·阿卜杜拉·本·阿慕尔·本·阿乌夫·穆宰尼”为标题完成了这项工作。在其中，我们已证明了哈菲兹（阿斯喀兰尼）在其《Taqrib At-Tahdhib》（1/460/5617）中所言之不当，他说：[卡西尔·本·阿卜杜拉·本·阿慕尔·本·阿乌夫·穆宰尼·麦地那人，是弱者（Da'if）；那些指控他撒谎的人言过其实；属于第七层。] 而正确的应当将原文替换为：[卡西尔·本·阿卜杜拉·本·阿慕尔·本·阿乌夫·穆宰尼·麦地那人；他没有问题，那些指控他撒谎的人是错误的，属于第七层。] 如此，此人所受的不公便得以消除，他也在中正的范围内得到了公正的对待。

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.

因此,这一isnad的品质得到了确认,其等级为"Hasan"(良好)。的确,它本身或许已足以作为证据,用来建立论证。那么,如果我们把此前已确立其真实性的第一条isnad加到它上面,又会怎样呢?——第三条isnad(传述链):伊本·阿布德·卡西姆·本·赛拉姆在其伟大著作《Al-Amwal》(260/518)中所记载的isnad:叶哈雅·本·阿卜杜拉·本·布卡尔与阿卜杜拉·本·萨利赫向我转述,两人都说:莱斯·本·萨阿德向我们转述说:‘Uqail向我转述,来自伊本·沙哈布,他说:有消息传到我这里,说安拉的使者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) …].

这乍看之下，此段出自al-Zuhriy的Mursal（省略了传述人的圣训）类叙述，而这类叙述通常质量不算最高。然而，这条Isnad（传述链）却是最高质量的，甚至可能是今世（Dunya）最可靠的传述链之一。

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).

正确的观点是，这条isnad不属于一般的Mursal（中断）圣训，而是一种Balagh（传达/转述）。az-Zuhriy另有七八条Balaghat（传达/转述），均为可靠（Sahih）的。这表明，就其可靠程度而言，az-Zuhriy的Balaghat与一般的Mursal圣训并不相同。该文本的来源基本上是一份文献，即便az-Zuhriy显然是凭记忆口述的。

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.

因此，就这一传述链（Isnad）本身而言，没有理由怀疑其真实性；尤其是，其中大部分段落或条文已由其他可靠的途径转述而来，且其可靠程度处于最高等级。

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.

无论情况如何,对此事的完整详细讨论有一个专门的独立章节。

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