known to scholars other than ignorance, such as poor memory, for example. Likewise, the statement of Abū Ḥātim, for he himself reported (p. 22) that he said: "And if it is said: (Shaykh), it is in the third rank; his ḥadīth is written and considered, but it is below the second." The critic explained it by saying: "He means below the rank of the truthful and the like." This is evidence against him; because it does not mean "unknown" firstly, and because he said in both ranks: the second and the third: "he is among those whose ḥadīth is written and considered." Thus, this statement from Abū Ḥātim is closer to validation than to criticism. Therefore, the ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī said in the introduction of "al-Mughnī": "I did not mention in it those about whom it was said: (his place is truthfulness), nor those about whom it was said: (his ḥadīth is written), nor: (there is no harm in him), nor those about whom it was said: (Shaykh) or (sound in ḥadīth); for this is a category of validation." And it seems to me that the critic felt that Abū Ḥātim's words were against him, not for him, and therefore he resorted to escaping from it by altering his words on the same page, saying: the correct thing is that he said: "unknown," instead of "Shaykh"! This is a false statement contrary to what was established in the book by its verifier al-Muʿallimī al-Yamānī, may Allāh have mercy on him, and to the report of the ḥāfiẓ al-Mizzī in "al-Tahdhīb" that Abū Ḥātim said: "Shaykh," and this is a new type from him in opposing what is well-known and established among scholars. May Allāh guide him. And now look at how he evaded the disagreement with the ḥuffāẓ who trusted the man: As for Ibn Ḥibbān, he dismissed him by claiming his leniency, and the response to that has already been given. As for al-Nasāʾī, he said about him: "He sometimes trusts the unknowns, and this is one of them"! As for al-Dāraqutnī, when he could not find a flaw in his validation, he said: "It is a matter of consideration"!! As for his ignorance, deliberate ignorance, obstinacy, and delving into a science he does not master, it is not a matter of consideration! And the Messenger of Allāh (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) spoke the truth when he said:
معروفةٌ عند العلماءِ غير الجهالةِ، كسوءِ الحفظِ مثلاً، وكذلكَ قولُ أبي حاتمٍ، فقد نقلَ هو نفسُه (ص ٢٢) عنه أنّه قال:"وإِذا قيلَ: (شيخ) فهو بالمنزلةِ الثالثةِ؛ يُكتبُ حديثُه وينظرُ فيه، إلاّ أنّه دون الثانية". وفسَّره (المضعِّف) بقولِه:"يريدُ دون مرتبةِ الصدوق ونحوه". وهذا حجّةٌ علية؛ لأنّه ليس بمعنى "مجهول" أَولاً، ولأنّه قالَ في كلٍّ من المرتبتين: الثانية والثالثة: "فهو ممّن يكتبُ حديثه، وينظرُ فيه". فهذا القولُ من أَبي حاتمٍ أقربُ إِلى التعديلِ منه إِلى التجريح، ولذلك قال الحافظُ الذهبيُّ في مقدمةِ "المغني":"لم أذكر فيه من قيل فيه: (محلّه الصدقُ)، ولا من قيل فيه: (يكتبُ حديثه)، ولا: (لا بأسَ به)، ولا من قيلَ فيه: (شيخ) أو (صالح الحديث)؛ فإِن هذا باب تعديلٍ". ويبدو لي أنَّ (المُضعِّفَ) قد شعرَ أنَّ كلامَ أبي حاتمٍ عليه، لا له، ولذلك لجأَ إِلى الخلاصِ منه بتحريفِ كلامِه في نفسِ الصفحةِ فقال: الصحيح أنّه قال: "مجهول"، مكان "شيخ"! وهذا قولٌ باطلٌ مخالفٌ لما أَثبته فيِ الكتابِ محققه المعلميُّ اليمانيُّ ﵀، ولنقلِ الحافظِ المزيّ في "التهذيبِ" أنَّ أَبا حاتمٍ قال: "شيخ"، وهذا نوعٌ جديدٌ منه في مخالفتِه المعروف الثابت عند العلماءِ. هداهِ الله. وانظروا الآنَ كيفَ تنصّل من مخالفة الحُفَّاظِ الّذين وثقوا الرَّجلَ: أمّا ابن حبّان؛ فدفعه بدعوى تساهله، وسبقَ الجوابُ عنه، وأَمّا النَّسائي؛ فقال فيه: "إِنَّه أَحيانًا يوثقُ المجاهيلَ، وهذا منها"! وأَمّا الدارقطنيّ، فلما لم يجد في توثيقِه مغمزًا قال: "فموضعُ نظر"!! أَمّا جهلُه وتجاهلُه ومكابرتُه وخوضُه في علمٍ لا يحسنُه فليس موضعَ نظرٍ! وصدق رسولُ اللهِ ﷺ إِذ قال: