A Strange Distortion Pointed Out by Ibn ʿAdī!

Ibn Mājah narrated in Sunan [ed. al-Arnaʾūṭ] (3/25) (1807):

He said: Ḥaddathanā Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Ḥakīm al-Awdī, he said: Ḥaddathanā Abū Nuʿaym, he said: Ḥaddathanā ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb, from Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Abū Hind, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet ﷺ:
“On forty sheep there is due one sheep, until one hundred and twenty; if they increase by one, then two sheep are due, until two hundred; if they increase by one, then three sheep are due, until three hundred; then if they increase, for every hundred there is one sheep. No separate group is to be combined, nor a combined group separated, out of fear of charity. And every two partners take back equally. The collector is not entitled to an old one, nor one with a defect, nor a male goat, unless the collector chooses.”

The Biography of Abū Hind!

Thus it appears in the printed editions of Sunan Ibn Mājah, and likewise in the old manuscripts: “from Abū Hind.”

Al-Mizzī said in al-Tuhfah (6/255): “Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq – one of the unknowns – from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar.”

Al-Zaylaʿī said in Naṣb al-Rāyah (2/355): “And Ibn Mājah narrated in Sunan from the ḥadīth of Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar…”

And this Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq was not mentioned by any of the earlier critics. The first to mention him was al-Dāraqutnī.

He said in al-Muʾtalif waʾl-Mukhtalif (3/1438): “Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar. His ḥadīth was narrated by Abū Nuʿaym, from ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb, from Abū Khālid al-Dalānī, from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq.”

Ibn Mākūlā mentioned him in al-Ikmāl (5/176): “As for Ṣiddīq – with kasrah on the ṣād and shaddah on the dāl – he is… and Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar. His ḥadīth was narrated by Abū Nuʿaym, from ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb, from Abū Khālid al-Dalānī, from him. His name is Ibrāhīm ibn Maymūn al-Ṣāʾigh.”

Al-Mizzī said in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (34/381) (7683): “Q: Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, one of the unknowns. He narrated from: Nāfiʿ (Q), the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar. Narrated from him: Abū Khālid al-Dalānī (Q). Abū Naṣr ibn Mākūlā said: His name is Ibrāhīm ibn Maymūn al-Ṣāʾigh. And Abū ʿAbd Allāh ibn Mandah said in al-Kunā: ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb narrated from him – this is an error, for rather he narrated from Abū Khālid al-Dalānī from him. Ibn Mājah narrated for him the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar regarding forty sheep…”

His student Ibn Kathīr followed him, saying in al-Takmīl (4/18) (2506): “(Q) Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, one of the unknowns.”

Al-Dhahabī said in Mīzān al-Iʿtidāl (4/583) and al-Mughnī fīʾl-Ḍuʿafāʾ (2/813): “Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq [Q]. From Nāfiʿ, the freedman of Ibn ʿUmar. None knows who he is. Narrated from him: Abū Khālid al-Dalānī.” He also said in al-Kāshif (2/469): “Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, from Nāfiʿ, and from him: Abū Khālid al-Dalānī. Unknown.”

Ibn Ḥajar said in al-Taqrīb (8428): “Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, unknown. It is said: His name is Ibrāhīm ibn Maymūn al-Ṣāʾigh. Otherwise, he is unknown.”

I say: Thus the later scholars accepted what is in Sunan Ibn Mājah: “from Abū Hind”!

The Opinion of al-Khaṭīb

And al-Khaṭīb affirmed this kunyah and epithet. He said, when mentioning “Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh” in Mūḍiḥ Awhām al-Jamʿ waʾl-Tafrīq (1/374):

“He is Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq. He was given this kunyah and epithet likewise by Abū Khālid al-Dalānī in a ḥadīth which Abū Nuʿaym al-Faḍl ibn Dukayn narrated from ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb from him.

Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Ḥīrī informed us, he said: Ḥaddathanā Abūʾl-ʿAbbās Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb al-Aṣamm, he said: Ḥaddathanā Aḥmad ibn Ḥāzim, he said: Ḥaddathanā Abū Nuʿaym, from ʿAbd al-Salām, from Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq. [ḥ]

And al-Ḥasan ibn Abī Bakr informed us, he said: Ḥaddathanā Ḥāmid ibn Muḥammad al-Harawī, he said: Ḥaddathanā ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, he said: Ḥaddathanā Abū Nuʿaym, he said: Ḥaddathanā ʿAbd al-Salām, from Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Abū Hind, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet ﷺ, similar to the previous ḥadīth.”

Al-Khaṭīb said: “The Qāḍī told us: Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥāfiẓ said: He is Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh – meaning Abū Hind.”

Al-Khaṭīb said: “And this statement is correct. Abū Ghassān Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl clarified this in his narration of this ḥadīth from ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb.”

He said: Qāḍī Abū ʿUmar al-Qāsim ibn Jaʿfar ibn ʿAbd al-Wāḥid al-Hāshimī informed us, he said: Ḥaddathanā Abūʾl-ʿAbbās Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Athram, in the year 330 AH, he said: Ḥaddathanā Ḥumayd ibn al-Rabīʿ, he said: Ḥaddathanā Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl, he said: Ḥaddathanā ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb, from Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet ﷺ, similar.

He said: Qāḍī Abū Bakr al-Ḥīrī informed us, he said: Ḥaddathanā Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb al-Aṣamm, he said: Ḥaddathanā al-ʿAbbās ibn Muḥammad al-Dūrī, he said: Ḥaddathanā Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl, he said: Ḥaddathanā ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb, from Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Abū Khālid al-Dalānī, from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh. [ḥ]

ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Muʿaddil informed us, he said: Ḥaddathanā ʿUthmān ibn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Daqqāq, he said: Ḥaddathanā al-Ḥasan ibn Salām al-Sawwāq, he said: Ḥaddathanā Abū Nuʿaym, he said: Ḥaddathanā ʿAbd al-Salām, from Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet ﷺ, the ḥadīth.

At the end of the ḥadīth: “Abū Nuʿaym said: This is how he dictated it to us from his book.”

Al-Khaṭīb said: “Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh was from Marw, and his well-known kunyah was Abū Isḥāq. I do not know him to have been given the kunyah Abū Hind except in this ḥadīth that we mentioned. As for being described as al-Ṣiddīq, it seems that the narrator attributed him to this because of his righteousness, virtue, piety, and asceticism, along with the fact that he was granted martyrdom – for Abū Muslim, the leader of the dawlah, killed him in Marw for enjoining the good.”

I say: This was an attempt by al-Khaṭīb to explain how he was given the epithet al-Ṣiddīq. But this is questionable. For if it had been so, he would have been known by it among the scholars – assuming we even accept the validity of applying this title to him. And he was indeed killed unjustly, may Allah have mercy on him.

But did the narrator intend to call him by this epithet? And where did the kunyah Abū Hind come from, when al-Khaṭīb himself said his well-known kunyah was Abū Isḥāq, and there is no mention of him being called Abū Hind except in this ḥadīth as al-Khaṭīb stated?

Al-Khaṭīb wanted to clarify that the Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq mentioned in this ḥadīth is in fact Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh, so that none might think he was someone else and thus differentiate between them.

Ibn ʿAdī’s Opinion

But Ibn ʿAdī had another opinion. He mentioned this ḥadīth in the biography of Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Dalānī in al-Kāmil (9/167). He said:

ʿAḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Bazzāz narrated to us, he said: ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz narrated to us. [ḥ]

And I heard Isḥāq ibn Ibrāhīm al-Hajarī say: Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Hamdānī narrated to us.
They both said: Abū Nuʿaym narrated to us, he said: ʿAbd al-Salām – that is, ibn Ḥarb – narrated to us, from Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān – that is, Abū Khālid al-Dalānī – from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet ﷺ regarding twenty-four camels: for every five, one sheep. Then he mentioned the full ḥadīth in detail concerning al-Ṣadaqāt, in Zakāt on camels, cattle, and sheep.

Ibn ʿAdī said:

“This is how ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Dīzīl narrated this ḥadīth, from Ibrāhīm, from ʿAbd al-Salām, from Yazīd, from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar. So they erred in saying: ‘from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq’. I do not know from whom the error came. In fact, it is Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh. Others narrated it from Abū Nuʿaym and said: ‘from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh’. And this is how Abū Ghassān narrated it from ʿAbd al-Salām.”

He said:

“Ibn Ṣāʿid narrated it to us, he said: Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Ḥakīm narrated to us, Abū Ghassān narrated to us, ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb narrated to us, from Abū Khālid al-Dalānī Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar, from the Prophet ﷺ: regarding twenty-four camels: for every five, one sheep. He then mentioned it in full under al-Ṣadaqāt.”

I say: This is a remarkable point made by al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn ʿAdī! May Allah reward him – he identified precisely where this kunyah and laqab came from.

And he was correct, for the words are very close in their written form, and thus the misreading (taṣḥīf) occurred.

Abū Hind = Ibrāhīm
They read the “rāʾ” (ر) as a “wāw” (و), and the “alif” (ا) was often not written in old script. The “yāʾ” (ي) was read as a “nūn” (ن) due to missing or unclear dots. And the “mīm” (م) was mistaken for a “dāl” (د).

al-Ṣiddīq = al-Ṣāʾigh
The alif was not written (making it appear like al-Ṣīgh). Sometimes a small alif stood above the word. The “ʾī” (ئـ) could be read as a yāʾ (ي). And the “ghayn” (غ) was read as a qāf (ق) since their scripts are very close in shape.

So indeed, Ibn ʿAdī was correct in his observation.

But we do not know exactly how the error occurred, and this is why Ibn ʿAdī himself said that he did not know from whom it originated.

Now, can such a misreading happen from more than one narrator?

Looking at the narrations of the previous ḥadīth from Abū Nuʿaym, we find that it was narrated from him by: Aḥmad ibn ʿUthmān ibn Ḥakīm al-Awdī, Aḥmad ibn Ḥāzim, ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-Baghawī, and Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Dīzīl — all of them saying: “from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq.”

While al-Ḥasan ibn Salām al-Sawwāq narrated it from Abū Nuʿaym saying: “from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh.” And Ibn ʿAdī said: “Others narrated it from Abū Nuʿaym – meaning besides ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Ibn Dīzīl – and they said: ‘from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh.’”

So the discrepancy lies in the narration from Abū Nuʿaym! Therefore, it cannot be that the misreading was from those narrators. Nor can it be that al-Dalānī narrated it once from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh, and once giving him a kunyah and laqab, as al-Khaṭīb claimed!!

The ḥadīth is known from ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb, from Abū Khālid al-Dalānī Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh.

This is how it was narrated from him by Abū Ghassān al-Nahdī Mālik ibn Ismāʿīl, and Abū Nuʿaym in his various narrations.

And Abū Nuʿaym was the business partner of ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb al-Mullāʾī in one shop, selling cloth, and he was among his close transmitters, with thousands of narrations from him.

So the misreading occurred in some narrations from Abū Nuʿaym. It is impossible that all those transmitters made the same error. What I see is that the mistake originated from Abū Nuʿaym himself—despite his great stature, position, memory, and precision. It is possible that when he narrated it from memory, he preserved it correctly as “from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh.” But when it was read to him from his book, the error existed in the text, and perhaps it was misread by the reader without the Shaykh noticing. And Allah knows best.

On accusing Abū Khālid ad-Dalānī of tadlīs based on this route

The reliance of some upon this narration in accusing Abū Khālid ad-Dalānī of having disguised the name of his shaykh, and that al-Khaṭīb uncovered this tadlīs, while attributing error to Ibn ʿAdī:

Some of the “weak doctors” in a study on Tadlīs al-Shuyūkh—when mentioning Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, and how his identity was obscure to some of the scholars such that they declared him unknown—claimed that he is in fact known: Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh, but that Abū Khālid ad-Dalānī disguised him!

He pointed out that al-Mizzī and adh-Dhahabī declared him unknown, then cited the statement of al-Khaṭīb, then said:
“So when it is known that ad-Dalānī was a mudallis—as al-Karābīsī and Ibn Ḥajar mentioned him among the mudallisīn—it becomes clear to us that al-Khaṭīb uncovered an instance of tadlīs al-shuyūkh in giving the kunya Abū Hind to al-Ṣāʾigh, which led to his being deemed unknown by some of the scholars. And it is worth mentioning here that al-Mizzī and adh-Dhahabī gave al-Ṣāʾigh a separate entry, which is proof that the jahālah of Abū Hind was firmly established with them. So the one unknown here is not al-Ṣāʾigh but Abū Hind.”

Then he said:
“This tadlīs caused Ibn ʿAdī to err regarding him. After transmitting the ḥadīth from Abū Hind in the entry of ad-Dalānī, he said: ‘Thus narrated ʿAlī ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Dīzīl from Ibrāhīm, from ʿAbd al-Salām, from Yazīd, from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq, from Nāfiʿ, from Ibn ʿUmar. They misread in their statement “from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq”; I do not know from whom the misreading came. In reality it is Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh.’ I (the doctor) say: This is not a case of taṣḥīf, since taṣḥīf only occurs when there is a similarity in script or sound. But to misread a name as a kunya—this is something I have never come across.”

I say:

First: This poor man hung the entire issue on the neck of Abū Khālid ad-Dalānī! Claiming that he disguised his shaykh “Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh” and called him “Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq”!

He supported this by the description of al-Karābīsī and Ibn Ḥajar of him as a mudallis, and also by al-Khaṭīb’s explanation of the name al-Ṣiddīq. But all of this is a crooked understanding!

There is no connection to Abū Khālid ad-Dalānī in all of this. He did not disguise him! The statement of al-Karābīsī describing him as a mudallis is rejected, and there is no proof for it. Rather, he simply made mistakes.

I have already clarified that the variation in the name was upon Abū Nuʿaym. So how can it be hung on the neck of Abū Khālid?

As for al-Khaṭīb’s explanation of the term al-Ṣiddīq, it is because he accepted the isnād as it was transmitted and tried to make sense of how such a laqab arose, so he said what he said.

Moreover, al-Khaṭīb did not indicate—contrary to what this doctor imagined—that he was uncovering an instance of tadlīs al-shuyūkh! There is not the slightest hint of that! Rather, he was simply clarifying that this Abū Hind is actually Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh, alerting others so they would not treat them as two separate individuals.

Second: Some scholars deemed him unknown only because they did not thoroughly investigate his biography, relying solely on the isnād, and thus declared him unknown. Not because his shaykh disguised him, as the doctor claimed!

Third: To assert that Ibn ʿAdī was mistaken due to this supposed tadlīs shows this doctor’s ignorance! Establish the premise first—prove tadlīs al-shuyūkh—then discuss Ibn ʿAdī’s words!

Rather, Ibn ʿAdī’s statement is correct. How excellent is his discernment in uncovering this rare and peculiar taṣḥīf!

As for the doctor’s rejection of Ibn ʿAdī’s words on the grounds that “taṣḥīf only occurs when there is a resemblance in script or sound, but not when a name is misread as a kunya—this I have not seen,” this is refuted!

The script is very close, as I explained earlier. But how can such a doctor comprehend this? His claim that he has never seen a name misread as a kunya—are there fixed rules of taṣḥīf that he can speak like this?!

The name was altered until it became a kunya—so what is the problem in that?

“Ibr hīm” = “Abū Hind.”
[Close your eyes a little, doctor, and imagine how the name could turn into a kunya.]

Ibn ʿAdī’s argument for taṣḥīf is strong: more than one narrator transmitted it from Abū Nuʿaym as “from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh,” while others from him said “from Abū Hind al-Ṣiddīq.” It is therefore impossible that ad-Dalānī narrated it once this way and once that way. Since the point of divergence is Abū Nuʿaym, the variation is upon him. It has nothing to do with ad-Dalānī. Thus, we must conclude it is taṣḥīf, for other than Abū Nuʿaym narrated the ḥadīth from ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb, from Abū Khālid ad-Dalānī, from Ibrāhīm al-Ṣāʾigh. Understand this well.

Fourth: This doctor and many like him copy from computer encyclopedias with their distortions and misreadings, without paying attention!

For here he quoted from Ibn ʿAdī: “…wa-Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Dīzīl ibn Hind al-ḥadīth”! This is distorted and misread!

So is “Hind” the forefather of Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Dīzīl?!

The correct phrase is: “…wa-Ibrāhīm ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Dīzīl hādhā al-ḥadīth…”

So what kind of “doctors of ḥadīth” are these?! Speaking on taṣḥīf while themselves quoting what is misread and distorted!!

And Allah is the One whose help is sought.

Written by: Abū Ṣuhayb Khālid al-Ḥāyik
5 Rabīʿ al-Ākhir 1441 AH