"there is doubt about its authenticity; for in its isnād is Ḍabbah ibn Muḥṣin, whose condition is unknown, and I have not seen any other ḥadīth from him that reached us with a sound isnād." I say—and Allāh's help is sought—I used to hear about this man and his reckless attacks on authentic ḥadīths, and that he set for himself principles—according to his claim—from which he would weaken them, and sometimes he would be lenient and strengthen them—following his whims—without adhering to the scholarly principles established by the scholars. I was cautious until we found evidence from his works to condemn him; until his book was published, confirming this, and the news verified the report. I do not wish to elaborate with examples, as the space is limited now, but his statement mentioned above suffices to indicate what has been mentioned, and that is for several reasons: First: his claim that Ḍabbah ibn Muḥṣin is unknown in condition; this is something that no one before him has said, nor is it supported by the principles of this science and the practice of the knowledgeable ḥadīth scholars. Second: Ḍabbah has been declared trustworthy by Ibn Ḥibbān, and al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Khallafūn al-Andalusī said: "A well-known trustworthy [narrator]," and likewise, everyone who authenticated his ḥadīth has declared him trustworthy; either by including it in the "Ṣaḥīḥ" like Muslim and Abū ʿAwānah, or by explicitly stating its authenticity like al-Tirmidhī. Third: a group of trustworthy narrators have narrated from him, such as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Laylā, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Qatādah, and Maymūn ibn Mihrān. If those previously mentioned had not declared him trustworthy, the narration of these trustworthy individuals from him would have sufficed to establish his integrity and to use his ḥadīth as evidence; as long as he did not narrate anything objectionable, especially since he is from the Tābiʿīn, if not among their senior members; as indicated by the practice of later ḥadīth scholars with their likes, and therefore al-Dhahabī explicitly stated in..
"في صحته نظر؛ فإن في إسناده ضبة بن محصن، وفيه جهالة حال، ولم أرله غير هذا الحديث مما اتصل إليه بإسناد صحيح "! فأقول- والله المستعان-:لقد كنت أسمع عن هذا الرجل ومجازفاته في الطعن في الأحاديث الصحيحة، وأنه وضع لنفسه قواعد- بزعمه- ينطلق منها في تضعيفها، وأحيانأ يتساهل فيقويها- اتباعاً للهوى- غير ملتزم في ذلك القواعد العلمية التي وضعها العلماء، فكنت أتريث حتى نجد من آثاره ما ندينه به؛ حتى صدر كتابه، فتأكدت من ذلك، وصدَّق الخُبر الخَبر، ولا أريد الإفاضة في ضرب الأمثلة، فالمجال ضيق الآن، فحسبنا الآن قوله المذكور أعلاه؛ فإنه يكفي للدلالة على ما تقدم، وذلك من وجوه: الأول: زعمه أن ضَبة بن محصن مجهول الحال؛ فإنه مما لم يقله قبله أحد، ولا هو مما يساعد عليه قواعد هذا العلم وصنيع الحفاظ العارفين به. الثاني: أن ضبة هذا قد وثقه ابن حبان، وقال الحافظ ابن خلفون الأندلسي: "ثقة مشهور"، وكذلك وثقه كل من صحّح حديثه؛ إما بإخراجه إياه في "الصحيح" كمسلم وأبي عوانة؛ أو بالنص على صحته كالترمذي. الثالث: أنه قد روى عنه جمع من الثقات مثل عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى، والحسن البصري، وقتادة، وميمون بن مهران، فلو أنه لم يوثقه من سبق ذكرهم لكانت رواية هؤلاء الثقات عنه كافيةً في إثبات عدالته، والاحتجاج بحديثه؛ ما دام أنه لم يرو منكراً، ولا سيما وهو من التابعين إن لم يكن من كبارهم؛ كما يدل على ذلك صنيع الحفاظ المتأخرين في أمثالهم، ولذلك صرح الذهبي في