therefore, I say: if it were not for the fact that in the isnād of the ḥadīth there is Ibn al-Sharqī—whose name is ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan—and the narrator from him is Ibn Ḥāmid, for whom I found no biography, I would have judged this isnād as authentic. Then I saw that al-Bayhaqī included it in "Shuʿab al-Īmān" (2/36/2) through another route, saying: Abū al-Ḥasan Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn al-ʿAlawī narrated to us, ʿAbd ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Sharqī informed us, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Hāshim narrated it, thus clearing Ibn Ḥāmid of liability. The fourth: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥayyān from Sufyān with it. It was recorded by al-Nujayrmī in "al-Fawāʾid" just before the previous route, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Khuwārizmī, who narrated to us from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥayyān with it. And this Ibn Ḥayyān, Ibn Abī Ḥātim said (2/2/41): "He narrated from Sahl ibn Muʿādh, and al-Layth ibn Saʿīd narrated from him." He is of unknown status, but the ḥāfiẓ mentioned him in "al-Lisān" and said: "Abū Nuʿaym said in his 'History': he came to Iṣfahān and narrated there, and there is strangeness in his ḥadīth." The fifth: al-Firyābī from Sufyān with it, recorded by al-Bazzār in "Musnad" (p. 318 of its additions): al-Faḍl ibn Yaʿqūb narrated to us, Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf al-Firyābī narrated it. And he said: "We do not know anyone who narrated it with an isnād from this route except Sufyān, nor from him except al-Firyābī." I said: he is trustworthy from the men of the two Shaykhs [al-Bukhārī and Muslim], as are those above him, and thus al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (60/415): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Awsaṭ' and al-Bazzār, and the men of al-Bazzār are the men of the Ṣaḥīḥ." I said: al-Faḍl ibn Yaʿqūb is Abū al-ʿAbbās al-Rukhāmī, and he is trustworthy among the shaykhs of al-Bukhārī, and al-Khaṭīb translated for him (12/316) and mentioned among his shaykhs this al-Firyābī, so the isnād is authentic, and all praise is due to Allāh for His guidance. I said: these are five routes from Sufyān al-Thawrī, none of which contain an accused person except for the first
ولذلك فإني أقول: لولا أن في سند الحديث ابن الشرقي هذا - واسمه عبد الله بن محمد بن الحسن - والراوي عنه ابن حامد ولم أجد له ترجمة، لحكمت على هذا الإسناد بالصحة. ثم رأيت البيهقي أخرجه في "شعب الإيمان" (٢ / ٣٦ / ٢) من طريق أخرى، فقال: حدثنا أبو الحسن محمد بن الحسين العلوي أنبأنا عبد بن محمد ابن الحسن بن الشرقي حدثنا عبد الله بن هاشم به، فبرئت عهدة ابن حامد منه. الرابع: عبد الله بن حيان عن سفيان به. أخرجه النجيرمي في "الفوائد" قبيل الطريق السابق من طريق عبد الله ابن عبد الوهاب الخوارزمي حدثنا عبد الله بن حيان به. وابن حيان هذا قال ابن أبي حاتم (٢ / ٢ / ٤١): "روى عن سهل بن معاذ، روى عنه الليث بن سعيد". فهو مجهول الحال، لكن الحافظ أورده في "اللسان" وقال: "قال أبو نعيم في "تاريخه": قدم أصبهان وحدث بها في حديثه نكارة". الخامس: الفريابي عن سفيان به أخرجه البزار في "مسنده" (ص ٣١٨ من زوائده): حدثنا الفضل بن يعقوب حدثنا محمد بن يوسف الفريابي به. وقال: "لا نعلم أسنده من هذا الطريق إلا سفيان ولا عنه إلا الفريابي". قلت: وهو ثقة من رجال الشيخين وكذا من فوقه، ولهذا قال الهيثمي في "المجمع" (٦٠ / ٤١٥): "رواه الطبراني في "الأوسط" والبزار ورجال البزار رجال الصحيح". قلت: الفضل بن يعقوب هذا هو أبو العباس الرخامي، وهو ثقة من شيوخ البخاري، وقد ترجم له الخطيب (١٢ / ٣١٦) وذكر في شيوخه الفريابي هذا، فصح الإسناد، والحمد لله على توفيقه. قلت: فهذه طرق خمس عن سفيان الثوري ليس فيها متهم باستثناء الأولى.