حَدَّثَنَا اَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ اَبِي شَيْبَةَ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْد اللّٰهِ بْنُ نُمَيْرٍ عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ اِسْحَاقَ عَنْ ثَوْرٍ عَنْ عُبَيْدِ بْنِ اَبِي صَالِحٍ عَنْ صَفِيَّةَ بِنْتِ شَيْبَةَ قَالَتْ حَدَّثَتْنِي عَائِشَةُ اَنَّ رَسُوْلَ اللّٰهِ صَلَّي اللّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَا طَلَاقَ وَلَا عَتَاقَ فِي اِغْلَاقٍ
‘A’ishah reported that God’s Messenger (sws) said: “Divorce and liberation of slaves does not take place by ighlaq1.”2
Following is the schematic illustration of the isnad of this narratives’ variants:
It is specified by authorities that ‘Ubayd ibn Abi Salih is actually Muhammad ibn ‘Ubaydullah ibn Abi Salih.3 According to Ibn Hajar, he is da‘if.4 Al-Mizzi records that while Ibn Hibban regards him to be trustworthy, Abu Hatim calls him da‘if al-hadith.5
Al-Mizzi6 records the following jarh Muhammad ibn Ishaq:
In the opinion of ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal, he is laysa bi hujjah. Ahmad ibn Abi Khaythamah says that he heard Yahya ibn Ma‘in say: laysa bihi ba’s. When he was asked a second time, he said: laysa bi dhaka and is da‘if. Ahmad ibn Abi Khaythamah says that when he asked Yahya ibn Ma‘in about him at another instance, he replied: ‘indi saqim laysa bi al-qawi. Al-Nasa’i says: laysa bi al-qawi.
Al-Dhahabi7 records that Yahya ibn Sa‘id al-Qattan bore witness that Muhammad ibn Ishaq is a liar.
Following is the jarh recorded by al-Mizzi8 on Qaz‘ah ibn Suwayd ibn Hujayr: Ahmad ibn Hanbal regards him to be mudtrib al-hadith; two conflicting opinions are recorded about him from Yahya ibn Ma‘in: da‘if and thiqah; Abu Hatim says that he is laysa bi dhak al-qawi mahalluhu al-sidq wa laysa bi al-matin yuktabu hadithuhu wa la yuhtajju bihi; al-Bukhari says that he is laysa bi dhak al-qawi; Abu Da’ud, al-‘Abbas al-‘Anbari and al-Nasa’i regard him to be da‘if.
Ibn Hibban says that he is kathir al-khata’ fahish al-wahm and when these blemishes plagued his narratives, he was rejected from being adduced from.9 Ibn Hajar records: al-Bazzar says that he is lam yakun bi qawi and that Ahmad’s opinion about him reported by al-Athram is that he is close to being matruk.10
___________
1. According to the people of Hijaz, ighlaq means compulsion, while according to those of Iraq, it refers to anger. See: Shams al-Din ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi, Tanqih tahqiq al-ta‘liq, 1st ed., vol 3 (Beirut: Dar al-kutub al-‘ilmiyyah, 1998), 523.
2.Ibn Majah, Sunan, vol. 1, 660, (no. 2046). See also: Ibn Abi Shaybah, Musannaf, vol. 4, 83, (no. 18038); Abu Da’ud, Sunan, vol. 2, 258, (no. 2193); Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak, vol. 2, 216, (no. 2802); Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-kubra, vol. 7, 357, (no. 14874); Ibid., vol. 7, 357, (no. 14875); vol. 10, 61, (no. 19800); Al-Bayhaqi, Al-Sunan al-sughra, vol. 6, 349-350, (no. 2689); Al-Bayhaqi, Ma‘rifah al-sunan wa al-athar, vol. 5, 495, (no. 4475); Al-Daraqutni, Sunan, vol. 4, 36, (no. 98); Ibid., vol. 4, 36, (no. 99); Abu Ya‘la, Musnad, vol. 7, 421, (no. 4444); Ibid., vol. 8, 52, (no. 4570); Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, vol. 6, 276, (no. 26403); Al-Tabarani, Musnad shamiyyin, vol. 1, 287, (no. 500); Al-Tahawi, Sharh mushkil al-athar, vol. 2, 126.
Al-Hakim has cited a variant in which Muhammad ibn ‘Ubayd is not found. In other words, Thawr ibn Yazid (d. 155 AH) directly narrates from Safiyyah bint Shaybah (d. 129 AH). This variant in all probability is munqata‘ because no authority states that Thawr narrates from Safiyyah. See for example: Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 4, 418-419; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 2, 30; Al-Dhahabi, Tadhkirah al-huffaẓ, vol. 1, 175. Precisely for this reason, the variant is not represented in the schematic illustration.
3. See, for example: Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 19, 216; Ibn Hajar, Taqrib, 377.
4. Ibn Hajar, Taqrib, 495.
5. Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 26, 62.
6. Ibid., vol. 24, 422-425.
7. Al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-i‘tidal, 6, 58.
8. Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-kamal, vol. 23, 594-595.
9. Ibn Hibban, Al-Majruhin, vol. 2, 216.
10. Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 8, 336.