A Confusion by Ibn Ḥibbān!
Ibn Ḥibbān said in Mashāhīr ʿUlamāʾ al-Amṣār, in the section “Mention of the Famous Followers of the Tābiʿīn in al-Shām” (p. 181):
“ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān al-Dimashqī was among the righteous people of al-Shām, one of those who accompanied Nāfiʿ for a period of time; he was reliable (thabt), and he lived a long life.”
I say: Ibn Ḥibbān has confused this biography by mixing up ʿAbd al-Raḥmān with his father Thābit. The one who is counted among the Followers of the Tābiʿīn is his father Thābit, and it was he who accompanied Nāfiʿ, and he is the reliable one (thabt).
As for his son ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, he was indeed long-lived and was among the righteous people of al-Shām, but he was weak.
Ibn Ḥibbān said in al-Thiqāt (6/125):
“Thābit ibn Thawbān al-ʿAnsī, from the people of Damascus, narrates from Makḥūl and Nāfiʿ; his son ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān narrates from him.”
Al-Dhahabī said in al-Kāshif (1/623):
“ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān al-ʿAnsī, the ascetic… lived ninety years and died in 165 AH.”
Written by: Khālid al-Ḥāyik
7/5/1429 AH
An Ailing Pseudo-Scholar!
One of these ailing pseudo-scholars نقل this statement of mine on Multaqā Ahl al-Ḥadīth under the title: “A Confusion by al-Ḥāyik”.
He then commented as follows (I quote):
“So I wrote beneath it, commenting, and I said (*):
Ibn Ḥibbān did not confuse the two biographies at all!!
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān (75–165 AH) is also counted among the Followers of the Tābiʿīn. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt among the class of Followers of the Tābiʿīn who narrated from the Tābiʿīn. He said (7/92): ‘ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān al-Dimashqī narrates from al-Ḥasan ibn Abī al-Ḥasan and a group of Tābiʿīn; al-Walīd ibn Muslim and Ghassān ibn al-Rabīʿ narrated from him.’
Ibn Ḥajar counted him in al-Taqrīb among the seventh class, the class of senior Followers of the Tābiʿīn such as Mālik and al-Thawrī. He said (p. 337): ‘ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān al-ʿAnsī al-Dimashqī, the ascetic; truthful but errs, accused of Qadarism, changed at the end of his life; from the seventh class; died in 165 AH at the age of ninety.’
A look at the list of his teachers as named by al-Mizzī in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (17/12–13) confirms his inclusion in this class, for he narrates extensively from Tābiʿīn of the middle and lower ranks.
He also narrates from Nāfiʿ, the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar (d. 117 AH). Al-Khaṭīb said in Tārīkh Baghdād (11/486): ‘ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān al-Shāmī al-Dimashqī heard from his father, Nāfiʿ the freedman of ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, ʿAbdah ibn Abī Lubābah, ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Faḍl al-Hāshimī, and Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah…’ Then he said: ‘Ibn Thawbān was among those known for asceticism, worship, and truthfulness in narration.’
Nāfiʿ was mentioned among his teachers by Ibn ʿAsākir in Tārīkh Dimashq (34/246), al-Mizzī in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (17/3), al-Dhahabī in Tārīkh al-Islām (4/433), Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (7/313), Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (2/551), and al-ʿAynī in Maghānī al-Akhyār (2/177).
He is also considered trustworthy by Ibn Ḥibbān (al-Thiqāt 7/92), like his father. Both are mentioned in his book al-Thiqāt. A number of leading critics authenticated him before Ibn Ḥibbān, such as Duḥaym, Abū Ḥātim, and others who said ‘there is no harm in him,’ including ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿIjlī, Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī, Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn (in the narration of al-Dūrī), and Abū Dāwūd. Abū Ḥafṣ al-Fallās said: ‘All the ḥadīth of the Shāmīs are weak except a few of them: al-Awzāʿī and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān,’ and he mentioned others.
Al-Khaṭīb said: ‘He was among those mentioned for asceticism, worship, and truthfulness in narration.’ Ibn ʿAdī said: ‘He has acceptable ḥadīths.’
Yes, some imams weakened him—but, as you see, they did not unanimously agree upon weakening him such that it could be said Ibn Ḥibbān confused him with his trustworthy father. Ibn Ḥibbān himself considered him trustworthy and did not weaken him. What he said about him in Mashāhīr ʿUlamāʾ al-Amṣār is entirely true of him and not confused with anything from his father’s biography. And Allāh knows best.”
(Bābā Ḥasan City – Algiers, Algeria, 1/11/2014)
I say
This pseudo-scholar fabricated a story claiming that I refused to publish his comment on my website!
As if his comment were some great conquest!!
Suppose—O pseudo-scholar—that what you said were correct. So what?!
This type of sick person imagines himself to be the scholar of his age. He has become “raisin-like before ripening,” bringing nothing new—only what beginner students of ḥadīth could easily surpass. Rather, he concealed matters and practiced deception, as I will clarify.
I remain firm in my view that Ibn Ḥibbān confused the biography of the father with that of the son. This is my opinion—it may be wrong—and it is not an accusation, as this pseudo-scholar labeled it.
I did not accuse Ibn Ḥibbān; rather, I used the terminology of the scholars. The word “accusation” does not apply here. This trivial person only used it to attack a poor servant. Is everyone who makes a corrective remark against someone considered an attacker of him?!
In any case:
The biography mentioned by Ibn Ḥibbān—and to which I objected—contains several points:
The one who accompanied Nāfiʿ was the father, not the son.
The one counted among the Followers of the Tābiʿīn is the father, not the son.
The reliable one (thabt) is the father, not the son.
The one who lived a long life was the son.
When Ibn Ḥibbān included the son’s biography in al-Mashāhīr, I concluded that the one who should be counted among the Followers of the Tābiʿīn, who accompanied Nāfiʿ, and who was reliable, is the father, not the son. Hence I said that Ibn Ḥibbān confused the two biographies.
What did this riffraff do?!
He brought points showing that the son is also counted among the Followers of the Tābiʿīn, that some scholars mentioned him among those who narrated from Nāfiʿ, and that some considered him trustworthy—indeed Ibn Ḥibbān himself did so by including him in al-Thiqāt. The net result, according to him, is that there was no confusion and the biography is entirely correct.
Yes, it is no secret that the son ʿAbd al-Raḥmān is also counted among the Followers of the Tābiʿīn. This is not some great discovery. The science of generations (ṭabaqāt) is broad and interwoven—something such riffraff do not understand.
A single generation may be broad according to one scholar and narrow according to another. This is not the place to elaborate.
When I combined what I mentioned earlier regarding companionship with Nāfiʿ and inclusion among the Followers of the Tābiʿīn, I meant the upper tier of that class.
The teachers of Thābit ibn Thawbān al-Shāmī al-Dimashqī include those who died from after 90 AH to 135 AH. He narrated from: Khālid ibn Maʿdān (103), Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib (after 90), ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḍamrah al-Sulūlī, al-Qāsim ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Shāmī (after 110), Muḥammad ibn Sīrīn (110), Muḥammad ibn Muslim ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (124), Makḥūl al-Shāmī (after 110), Nāfiʿ the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar (117), and Abū Hārūn al-ʿAbdī (134).
He did not hear from any Companion.
I estimate his death after 145 AH and his birth around 60 AH, meaning he too lived long.
He was narrated from by: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAmr al-Awzāʿī (157), Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Muhājir al-Shaʿīthī (after 150), and Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah al-Ḥaḍramī, the judge of Damascus (183).
Al-Awzāʿī was born after 100 AH and saw al-Ḥasan and Ibn Sīrīn.
Yaḥyā ibn Ḥamzah was born in the early second century (between 102–108 AH) and died between 180–183 AH.
What appears to me is that his students were born after 100 AH. The presumption is that his son ʿAbd al-Raḥmān belongs to this class, although it is reported that he was born in 75 AH or around 80 AH.
Al-Dhahabī said in Tārīkh al-Islām (4/433): “He was born during the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān.” (ʿAbd al-Malik died in 86 AH.)
He said in Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ (7/313): “He was born around the year eighty.”
He said: “He lived ninety years and died in 165 AH. He was of the same age cohort as Ibn Zabr. Al-Ṭabarānī tracked his narrations and they filled a complete booklet. He was not prolific, nor was he a proof (ḥujjah), rather he was acceptable in ḥadīth.”
Abū Zurʿah and Abū Mushir said: “We were informed of the death of Ibn Thawbān in the presence of Ibn Zabr and Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz said the istirjāʿ.”
Abū Mushir said: “Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz died in 167 AH.” (Tārīkh Baghdād 11/486)
Abū Zurʿah narrated from Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAlāʾ ibn Zabr that he said: “Ibn Thawbān was born in 75 AH and died in 165 AH, and Saʿīd ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz led his funeral prayer.” (Tārīkh Ibn ʿAsākir 34/259)
I say: Al-Dhahabī’s statement that he was of the same age cohort as Ibn Zabr refers to Abū Zabr ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-ʿAlāʾ ibn Zabr al-Rabaʿī al-Dimashqī.
His son Ibrāhīm said: “My father was born in 75 AH and died in 165 AH.” (Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ 7/350)
I say: It is astonishing that they were both born in the same year and died in the same year!! Perhaps Ibrāhīm was mistaken in reporting the birth of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. What I incline toward is that his birth may have been after 90 AH. And Allāh knows best.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān narrated from some Tābiʿīn with early death dates, sharing narration from them with his father. He narrated from: Khālid ibn Maʿdān (103), Bakr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Muzanī (106)—it is said he did not hear from him—Shahr ibn Ḥawshab (112), al-Qāsim ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Dimashqī (112), ʿAṭāʾ ibn Abī Rabāḥ (114), Nāfiʿ the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar (117), ʿAmr ibn Shuʿayb (118), Zayd ibn Abī Unaysah (119), Ḥassān ibn ʿAṭiyyah (after 120), Muḥammad ibn Muslim ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī (124), ʿAbd Allāh ibn Hubayrah al-Sabaʾī (126), ʿAmr ibn Dīnār (126), Abū al-Zubayr Muḥammad ibn Muslim al-Makkī (126), ʿUmayr ibn Hāniʾ (127), Abū al-Zinād ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dhakwān (130), al-ʿAlāʾ ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Madanī (after 130), ʿAlī ibn Zayd ibn Judʿān (131), Manṣūr ibn al-Muʿtamir (132), Yaḥyā ibn Abī Kathīr al-Yamāmī (132), ʿAṭāʾ ibn Qurrah al-Sulūlī (132), al-ʿAlāʾ ibn al-Ḥārith al-Dimashqī (136), Abān ibn Abī ʿAyyāsh (140), Ḥumayd al-Ṭawīl (143), Yaḥyā ibn al-Ḥārith al-Dhimārī (145), Hishām ibn ʿUrwah (146), and Muḥammad ibn ʿAjlān (148).
These are the classes of his teachers. The earliest class includes those who died up to 120 AH. I do not think he heard from some of them—such as Khālid ibn Maʿdān and Nāfiʿ and others. Perhaps he heard their reports from his father, and due to his weakness he confused their ḥadīths or practiced tadlīs. And Allāh knows best.
Narration from them does not necessarily mean direct hearing.
Al-Ṭabarānī compiled all his ḥadīths in Musnad al-Shāmiyyīn. He has narrations from “Nāfiʿ the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar” which are uniquely transmitted by Abū Khulayd ʿUtbah ibn Ḥammād al-Dimashqī, who is weak and whose solitary narrations are not accepted. Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt. Abū Ḥātim said about him: “A shaykh,” meaning soft in ḥadīth. Ibn Ḥajar said: “Ṣadūq.”
It is well known that Ibn Ḥibbān said in the biography of “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān al-Dimashqī”: “He narrates from al-Ḥasan ibn Abī al-Ḥasan and a group of Tābiʿīn,” which places him among the Followers of the Tābiʿīn.
But he is not from the first tier of the Followers of the Tābiʿīn—unlike his father Thābit ibn Thawbān.
The boundaries of the tiers differ from one scholar to another. Ibn Ḥajar placed ʿAbd al-Raḥmān in the seventh tier (the senior Followers of the Tābiʿīn), while he placed his father in the sixth tier—the tier that coincided with the fifth but for whom meeting any Companion was not established. The fifth tier is the younger Tābiʿīn who saw one or two Companions but whose hearing from them is not established for some.
The father of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān narrated from Makḥūl and Nāfiʿ. Ibn Ḥajar placed Makḥūl in the fifth tier and Nāfiʿ in the third.
My objection concerns Ibn Ḥibbān’s book Mashāhīr ʿUlamāʾ al-Amṣār. The tiering in Mashāhīr al-Amṣār is very broad according to Ibn Ḥibbān. When he mentioned “the famous Followers of the Tābiʿīn in al-Shām,” he began with ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (d. 101 AH) and ended with Qatādah ibn al-Fuḍayl ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Qatādah al-Rahāwī Abū Ḥamīd, who sat with Ibrāhīm ibn Abī ʿAblah and others from the Tābiʿīn, and who died in 200 AH.
For all these reasons, I objected to Ibn Ḥibbān’s statement and said that he confused ʿAbd al-Raḥmān with his father.
There is latitude in this matter, inshāʾ Allāh.
As for Ibn Ḥibbān’s statement that ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was reliable (thabt) in ḥadīth: in my view, the reliable one is his father, about whom no scholar spoke negatively—unlike the son. Hence I said that Ibn Ḥibbān confused the two.
It is possible that this was Ibn Ḥibbān’s judgment about ʿAbd al-Raḥmān himself, in which case there would be no confusion.
But is it conceivable that he would disregard the statements of the scholars and describe him as reliable (thabt)?!
Yes, he mentioned him in al-Thiqāt, and some scholars considered him trustworthy, but to describe him as thabt in narration is unacceptable.
If we were to accept that he was reliable, this would necessitate authenticating many clearly rejected narrations that he reports.
That riffraff should have presented all the statements of the scholars about him, not selectively chosen what suited him.
Here are their statements, as compiled by al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Ḥajjāj al-Mizzī:
Abū Bakr al-Athram reported from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: “His ḥadīths are rejected (manākīr).”
Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī al-Warrāq reported from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: “He was not strong in ḥadīth.”
Abū Bakr al-Marwadhī reported from Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal: “He was the devout worshipper of the people of al-Shām.”
Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Junayd reported from Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: “Ṣāliḥ.”
He said elsewhere: “Weak.”
Muʿāwiyah ibn Ṣāliḥ, ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī, and ʿAbd Allāh ibn Shuʿayb al-Ṣābūnī reported from Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: “Weak.”
Abū Bakr ibn Abī Khaythamah reported from Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: “Nothing.”
ʿAbbās al-Dūrī reported from Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn: “There is no harm in him.”
The same was said by ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿIjlī, and Abū Zurʿah al-Rāzī.
Yaʿqūb ibn Shaybah said: “Our companions differed about him. Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn weakened him, while ʿAlī ibn al-Madīnī held a good opinion of him. Ibn Thawbān was truthful, there is no harm in him… people narrated from him.”
ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī said: “All the ḥadīth of the Shāmīs are weak except a few of them: al-Awzāʿī and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Thābit ibn Thawbān.”
ʿUthmān ibn Saʿīd al-Dārimī reported from Duḥaym: “Trustworthy; accused of Qadarism.”
Abū Ḥātim said: “Trustworthy,” and elsewhere: “There is something of Qadarism in him; his intellect changed at the end of his life; his ḥadīth is generally straight.”
Abū Dāwūd said: “He had integrity… there is no harm in him.”
Al-Nasāʾī said: “Weak,” and elsewhere: “Not strong,” and elsewhere: “Not trustworthy.”
Ṣāliḥ ibn Muḥammad al-Baghdādī said: “A Shāmī, truthful, but his doctrine was Qadarism, and they criticized narrations he reports from his father from Makḥūl as musnad.”
Ibn ʿAdī said: “He has acceptable ḥadīths… his ḥadīth is written despite his weakness; his father is trustworthy.”
Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in al-Thiqāt.
The stronger conclusion is that he is weak, and his ḥadīths contain clear repudiation. He is not reliable (thabt) as Ibn Ḥibbān said.
In sum: there is overlap and confusion between the biographies of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and his father. And Allāh knows best.