to weaken the path of al-Marwazī due to obscurity, and the path of Muḥammad ibn al-Faraj as merely good, and he did not stop there, but also cast doubt on its goodness, saying: "But there remains the consideration of the isnād from al-Ismāʿīlī to him. If there is among them someone who has been criticized, otherwise he is truthful, and his isnād is apparently good"! this clearly indicates that he did not review the isnād of al-Ismāʿīlī, otherwise he would have examined it, and would not have imagined a contradiction with reality. He assumed that there were several narrators between him and Muḥammad ibn al-Faraj, while in fact, there is only his teacher, al-ʿAbbās ibn Aḥmad al-Washshāʾ, who was one of the righteous scholars who studied the Quran. Three reliable ḥadīth scholars narrated from him: al-Ismāʿīlī, al-Khaṭīb, and Abū ʿAlī al-Ṣawwāf, as mentioned in "Tārīkh Baghdād" (12/151) (1). Therefore, the isnād is authentic, because all its men are reliable as stated in the books of the scholars, except for al-Washshāʾ, whose righteousness and the narration of the ḥadīth scholars from him are known, and he is followed by others, so it is only questioned by those ignorant of this discipline. The third point: which is the strangest and furthest from knowledge, because he preferred the narration of Saʿīd ibn Manṣūr despite his doubt and hesitation between "the three mosques" and "a congregational mosque," arguing that Saʿīd is stronger than the three who decisively stated "the three mosques" without doubt, meaning al-Marwazī, Ibn al-Faraj, and Hishām ibn ʿAmmār (2). Our aforementioned brother did not realize that doubt is not knowledge, and that one must take from the words of the doubter what agrees with the reliable narrators, not reject the certainty of the reliable narrators with the doubt of the more reliable. It is said: Saʿīd agreed with the reliable narrators on one aspect of the doubt: "the three mosques," so his agreement is taken, and his doubt, which is his saying: "or a congregational mosque," is disregarded
لتوهين طريق المروزي بالجهالة، وطريق محمد بن الفرج بأنها حسنة فقط، ولم يقف عند هذا فقط، بل شكك في حسنه أيضا فقال: "لكن بقي النظر في السند من الإسماعيلي إليه، فإن كان منهم من تكلم فيه، وإلا فهو صدوق، وسنده حسن في الظاهر"! فهذا منه صريح بأنه لم يقف على إسناد الإسماعيلي وإلا لنظر فيه، ولما تصور خلاف الواقع فيه، فظن أن بينه وبين محمد بن فرج جمع من الرواة، والحقيقة أنه ليس بينهما إلا شيخه العباس بن أحمد الوشاء، وهو من الشيوخ الصالحين الدارسين للقرآن، روى عنه ثلاثة من الثقات الحفاظ الإسماعيلي هذا، والخطبي، وأبو علي الصواف، كما في "تاريخ بغداد" (١٢ / ١٥١) (١). فالسند إذن صحيح، لأن رجاله كلهم ثقات كما هو مصرح في كتب القوم إلا الوشاء، وقد عرفت صلاحه ورواية الحفاظ عنه، ثم هو متابع فلا يتعلق به إلا من يجهل هذه الصناعة. النقطة الثالثة: وهي أغربها وأبعدها عن العلم، وذلك لأنه رجح رواية سعيد ابن منصور مع شكه وتردده بين "المساجد الثلاثة" و "مسجد جماعة"، بحجة أن سعيدا أقوى من الثلاثة الذين جزموا بـ "المساجد الثلاثة" ولم يشكوا، يعني المروزي وابن الفرج وهشام بن عمار (٢). ولم ينتبه أخونا المشار إليه أن الشك ليس علما، وأنه يجب أن يؤخذ من كلام الشاك ما وافق الثقات، لا أن يرد جزم الثقات بشك الأوثق، فيقال: وافق سعيد الثقات في طرف من طرفي الشك: "المساجد الثلاثة" فيؤخذ بموافقته، ويعرض عن شكه وهو قوله: "أو مسجد جماعة".