← Previous Page 2746 of 6550 Next →
in another narration from him, it is similar except that he said: "ʿAṭiyyah ibn Qays" instead of "Ḥabīb ibn ʿUbayd." Likewise, it was reported through the path of Muḥammad ibn Muṣʿab: Abū Bakr narrated to us with it, except that he differed in its text and said: "I made it obligatory for a supplication, so I said: Should I respond to it? He said: No, but I made it obligatory. Meaning by that the response [to supplication]." I said: This isnād is weak because Ibn Abī Maryam had become confused, and for this reason, al-Haythamī decisively declared it weak (2/264), attributing it solely to Aḥmad. As for al-Suyūṭī, he attributed it in "al-Ṣaghīr" to Ibn Naṣr and al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Kabīr" from ʿAmr ibn ʿAbasah with it, but he said: "He is more entitled to it" instead of "I made it obligatory for a supplication," and he also mentioned it in "al-Kabīr" and added to its narrators: "Ibn Jarīr." al-Munāwī said in his "Sharḥ": "He is more entitled to it" is thus in the author's handwriting, and in some copies (I made it obligatory for a supplication) which has no basis in his handwriting, but it is a narration." I said: It is most likely that this difference in this phrase is from Abū Bakr himself, due to his confusion, as I have seen that in "al-Musnad" from him with the wording of the translation: "I made it obligatory for a supplication" and with the other wording: "I made it obligatory for a supplication," so it appears that with Ibn Naṣr and those associated with him it is with the wording: "He is more entitled to it," and it is not a scribal error from al-Suyūṭī. Unfortunately, the ḥadīth with Ibn Naṣr in "Qiyām al-Layl" (p. 50), but its abridger al-Maqrīzī deleted its isnād and its entire text, leaving only his saying: And in it from ʿAmr ibn ʿAbasah from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam): "The night prayer is two by two." In any case, the isnād is weak, but the first part of it is certainly authentic, as it is in "al-Ṣaḥīḥayn" and others from the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUmar, raised with it, and it is extracted in "Ṣaḥīḥ Abū Dāwūd" (1197) and others. The other part with the wording of the translation has two other paths from Ibn ʿAbasah, in "al-Musnad."
وفي رواية عنه به مثله إلا أنه قال: "عطية بن قيس" بدل "حبيب بن عبيد". وكذلك أخرجه من طريق محمد بن مصعب: حدثنا أبو بكر به إلا أنه خالفه في متنه فقال: "أوجبه دعوة، قال: فقلت: أجوبه؟ قال: لا، ولكنه أوجبه. يعني بذلك الإجابة". قلت: وهذا إسناد ضعيف لأن ابن أبي مريم هذا كان اختلط، ولذلك جزم بضعفه الهيثمي (٢ / ٢٦٤)، وعزاه لأحمد وحده، وأما السيوطي فعزاه في "الصغير" لابن نصر والطبراني في "الكبير" عن عمرو بن عبسة به لكنه قال: "أحق به" بدل "أجوبه دعوة" وكذلك أورده في "الكبير" وزاد في مخرجيه: "ابن جرير". وقال المناوي في "شرحه": "أحق به" كذا بخط المصنف، وفي نسخ (أجوبه دعوة) ولا أصل لها في خطه، لكنها رواية". قلت: ويغلب على الظن أن هذا الاختلاف في هذا الحرف من قبل أبي بكر نفسه، لاختلاطه، فقد رأيت أنه في "المسند" عنه بلفظ الترجمة: "أجوبه دعوة" وباللفظ الآخر: "أوجبه دعوة"، فالظاهر أن عند ابن نصر ومن قرن معه بلفظ: "أحق به"، وليس تصحيفا من السيوطي. ومن المؤسف أن الحديث عند ابن نصر في "قيام الليل" (ص ٥٠)، لكن مختصره المقريزي حذف سنده ومتنه كله، ولم يبق منه إلا قوله: وفيه عن عمرو بن عبسة عن النبي ﷺ: "صلاة الليل مثنى مثنى". وعلى كل حال فالإسناد ضعيف، لكن الشطر الأول منه صحيح قطعا، لأنه في "الصحيحين" وغيرهما من حديث ابن عمر مرفوعا به، وهو مخرج في "صحيح أبي داود" (١١٩٧) وغيره. والشطر الآخر بلفظ الترجمة له طريقان آخران عن ابن عبسة، في "المسند".
← Previous Page 2746 of 6550 Next →