Status Of Muhammad B. Khalid Al-barqi

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

(salam)

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the matter of a major narrator: Muhammad b. Khalid b. `Abdi'l-Rahmaan al-Barqi (محمد بن خالد بن عبدالرحمن الرقي). He is the father of the famous Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Barqi ®. There's no controversy over the son, he is thiqah without disagreement.

The following are what the source books of Rijal say regarding both of them:

The father: http://gadir.free.fr...am/17/00071.htm

قال النجاشي : " محمد بن خالد بن عبدالرحمن بن محمد بن علي البرقي ، أبو عبدالله : مولى أبي موسى الاشعري ، ينسب إلى برقرود ، قرية من سواد قم على واد هناك ، وله اخوة يعرفون بأبي علي الحسن بن خالد ، وأبي القاسم الفضل ابن خالد ، ولابن الفضل ابن يعرف بعلي بن العلاء ، بن الفضل بن خالد ، فقيه ، وكان محمد ضعيفا في الحديث وكان أديبا ، حسن المعرفة بالاخبار ، وعلوم العرب ، وله كتب منها : كتاب التنزيل والتعبير ، كتاب يوم وليلة ، كتاب التفسير ، كتاب مكة والمدينة ، كتاب حروب الاوس والخزرج ، كتاب العلل ، كتاب في علم الباري ، كتاب الخطب .

أخبرنا أحمد بن علي بن نوح ، قال : حدثنا الحسن بن حمزة الطبري ، قال : حدثنا أحمد بن عبدالله بن أحمد بن أبي عبدالله محمد بن خالد البرقي ، قال : حدثنا أحمد بن أبي عبدالله ، عن أبيه ، بجميع كتبه " .

وقال الشيخ(639): " محمد بن خالد البرقي : له كتاب النوادر ، رويناه بالاسناد الاول ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، وأحمد بن أبي عبدالله جميعا ، عن محمد بن خالد ، وكنيته أبوعبدالله " .

وأراد بالاسناد الاول : جماعة ، عن أبي المفضل ، عن ابن بطة ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، وأحمد بن أبي عبدالله .

وعده في رجاله(تارة)من أصحاب الرضا عليه السلام(4)، قائلا : " محمد ابن خالد البرقي ، ثقة ، هؤلاء(محمد بن علي بن موسى بن جعفر ، ومحمد بن سليمان الديلمي ، ومحمد بن الفضل الازدي)ومحمد بن خالد البرقي من أصحاب أبي الحسن موسى عليه السلام " .

و(أخرى)من أصحاب الجواد عليه السلام (1)، قائلا : " محمد بن خالد البرقي من أصحاب موسى بن جعفر والرضا عليهما السلام " .

وعده البرقي من أصحاب الكاظم والرضا والجواد عليهم السلام ، وكناه في الاخيرين بأبي عبدالله ، ووصفه بالقمي .

وقال ابن الغضائري : " محمد بن خالد البرقي بن عبدالرحمن بن محمد بن علي : أبوعبدالله ، مولى جرير بن عبدالله ، حديثه يعرف وينكر ، ويروي عن الضعفاء كثيرا ويعتمد المراسيل " .

وقال الكشي(420)أبوعبدالله محمد بن خالد البرقي : " قال نصر بن الصباح : لم يلق البرقي أبا بصير ، بينهما القاسم بن حمزة ، ولا إسحاق بن عمار ،

وينبغي أن يكون صفوان قد لقيه " .

The Son:

http://gadir.free.fr...am/03/00049.htm

قال النجاشي : " أحمد بن محمد بن خالد بن عبدالرحمان بن محمد بن علي البرقي أبوجعفر ، أصله كوفي ، وكان جده محمد بن علي حبسه يوسف بن عمر بعد قتل زيد عليه السلام ، وكان خالد صغير السن فهرب مع أبيه عبدالرحمان إلى برق رود ، وكان ثقة في نفسه ، يروي عن الضعفاء ، واعتمد المراسيل ، وصنف كتبا

وقال الشيخ(65): " أحمد بن محمد بن خالد بن عبدالرحمان بن محمد بن علي البرقي أبوجعفر ، أصله كوفي ، وكان جده محمد بن علي ، حبسه يوسف بن عمر والي العراق ، بعد قتل زيد بن علي بن الحسين عليهم السلام ، ثم قتله ، وكان خالد صغير السن ، فهرب مع أبيه عبدالرحمان إلى برقة قم ، فأقاموا بها ، وكان ثقة في نفسه غير أنه أكثر الرواية عن الضعفاء ، واعتمد المراسيل .

وصنف كتبا كثيرة .

وقال العلامة في الخلاصة ، القسم الاول ، الباب 7 ، من فصل الهمزة(7): " قال ابن الغضائري : طعن عليه القميون ، وليس الطعن فيه ، إنما الطعن في من يروي عنه ، فإنه كان لا يبالي عمن يأخذ ، على طريقة أهل الاخبار ، وكان أحمد ابن عيسى أبعده عن قم ، ثم أعاده إليها واعتذر إليه ، وقال : وجدت كتابا في وساطة بين أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى ، وأحمد بن محمد بن خالد ، لما توفي مشى أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى في جنازته حافيا ، حاسرا ، ليبرئ نفسه مما قذفه به "

I would like to know what the different Muhaddithoon of the Imamiya have opined about him. I know al-Khu'i and `Allamah al-Hilli have given him tawtheeq. Also what members here interested in rijal say about him and why.

جزـىكم الله خيرا كثيرا والله عالم

في امان الله

Edited July 16, 2012 by Dar'ul_Islam

[SoRoUsH]

(salam)

According to my understanding, generally, Najjashi's opinion is chosen over The Sheikh's.

In this case, it means that Mohammad bin Khalid is weak in hadeeth.

(salam)

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

(salam)

According to my understanding, generally, Najjashi's opinion is chosen over The Sheikh's.

In this case, it means that Mohammad bin Khalid is weak in hadeeth.

(salam)

(wasalam)/(wasalam)

That is one principle some `ulema defer to in the case of ikhtilaf. However, this is not what al-Khu'i and `Allamah al-Hilli (ra) did. They, apparently, explained that al-Najashi's tadh`eef is not absolute in its grading upon him and is based upon reliance upon weak narrators and maraseel narrations - as is explicit by al-Ghadha'iri (ra). So he in himself is thiqah, though his narrations [often] tend to be problematic due other narrators.

I've very interested to know if there's anyone else who gives him tawtheeq with an explanation other than al-Khui's above...as I don't find it very convincing at all. For a number of reasons.

والله عالم

في امان الله

[Islamic Salvation]

This is what al-Muhsini says about Muhammad b. Khalid al-Barqi in his Buhuth, the basic gist of which is that he enforces an obligatory Ihtiyat in all his Riwayat, he explains his reasoning as below

[Note that pseudo Ibn al-Ghadhairi's views have no bearing whatsoever upon al-Muhsini's Rijali thoughts since he does not believe in the authenticity of his Kitab adh-Dhuafa].

Muhammad b. Khalid al-Barqi: the Shaykh has made Tawthiq of him in one place in his Rijal, and an-Najashi has said about him in his Fihrist:

and Muhammad was Dhaif in Hadith and he was a man of letters, having good knowledge of the Akhbar and the sciences of the language of Arabic.

And they (i.e. the scholars) have mentioned a number of reasons to prefer (i.e. return to) the Tawthiq of the Shaykh over the words of an-Najashi.

According to me - all of the reasons they give for doing so (i.e. preferring the Shaykh's words over an-Najashi's in this case) are weak, not to be considered.

For example, ash-Shaykh al-Bahai said about the words of an-Najashi about Muhammad b. Khalid [i.e. 'Dhaif in Hadith'] the following:

His (an-Najashi's) words may have two interpretations:

First: It is like our saying - Fulan is Dhaif in Nahw (grammar) - if Fulan does not have much knowledge about grammar, thus Muhammad was poor in knowledge of the Ahadith.

And this interpretation was rejected by some by arguing that an-Najashi makes it clear in the same statement that he (i.e. Muhammad) had good knowledge of the Akhbar, but I personally do not see this as a correct refutation of this interpretation (i.e. though I refute it) because what he (i.e. an-Najashi) meant using the word Akhbar in this context is the traditions of the Arabs and their history not the Riwayat (Ahadith).

Second: The intention of an-Najashi in saying that Muhammad was Dhaif in Hadith was due to him (i.e. Muhammad) narrating from the Dhuafa and depending on the Marasil.

Thus they argue that if this interpretation is held to be true - the words of an-Najashi would be unclear in making Jarh of Muhammad (on a personal basis but would just be criticizing him due to his practise) and since the words of the Shaykh are explicit in Tawthiq it is to be preferred.

And this second interpretation has found support among a number of scholars.

I say: Both interpretations of an-Najashi's words are wrong, the truth is that the first interpretation (i.e. that an-Najashi's words 'Dhaif in Hadith' mean that Muhammad has lesser knowledge of the Ahadith) is against the known Urf (i.e. customary usage of the word Dhaif) and furthermore Muhammad has occured in the Sanad of many Riwayat like it is easily observed by any follower of Ilm al-Hadith, so it is said that he has appeared with the name Muhammad b. Khalid in the Isnad of 403 Ahadith, and by the name Muhammad b. Khalid al-Barqi in the Isnad of 47 Ahadith, and he has also appeared with the names Abi Abdillah and Abi Abdillah al-Barqi in the Isnad of multiple Ahadith - so how can an-Najashi be meaning to say that he has lesser knowledge of the Ahadith, when he is among its greatest paragons.

And as far as the second interpretation is concerned, I bring to light the words of an-Najashi in the Tarjama of Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya al-Ash'ariy wherein he said about him:

He was Thiqah in Hadith except that some of our companions said that he used to narrate from the Dhuafa and depend on the Marasil, and he did not care from whom he took (the Ahadith), but he is not to be criticized personally in anything.

Now, what becomes known is that the meaning of his words 'Thiqah in Hadith' in the above passage is that he was Thiqah in himself except that he narrated from the Dhuafa and depended on the Marasil, therefore by extension, his words 'Dhaif in Hadith' would mean Dhaif in himself.

We also have relevant evidence of an-Najashi's word cannotations when we refer to the Tarjama of Muhammad b. Ja'far b. Muhammad al-Asadiy al-Kufiy wherein he said about him:

He was Thiqah Sahih in Hadith except that he narrated from the Dhuafa ...

So if his (i.e. an-Najashi's) words when he says 'except that he narrated from the Dhuafa' is considered in relation with their meaning of 'Thiqah in Hadith' which means to them that he narrates from the Thiqat (in opposition to Dhaif in Hadith which means to them he narrates from the Dhuafa), then one realizes the error of their ways, for how could an-Najashi contradict himself within the same statement by saying Thiqah in Hadith and then immediately afterwards narrates from the Dhuafa.

So the true meaning of Dhaif in Hadith as used by an-Najashi is Dhaif in himself, and that means we have explicit Tawthiq and explicit Tarjih from two different quarters, and in such a case both are dropped as previously alluded to, and the situation on the whole becomes unclear.

And what I propose in summary is that my personal inclination is to be precautious and make compulsory Ihtiyat in all his (i.e. Muhammad b. Khalid's) narrations, And Allah is well aware of the reality of the matter.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Islamic Salvation

[Abu Tufayl]

(bismillah)

Very interesting. What if one accepts Ibn al-Ghadha'iri's work as authentic/supported and evidence for rijal?

I interpret al-Najashi's words as criticism on his Dabt (accuracy) in narrations, at the moment, rather than his sidq or `adalah. So any shawahid of matn would raise it to mu`tabar... something like that.

والله عالم

في امان الله

[Cake]

(wasalam)

According to my understanding, generally, Najjashi's opinion is chosen over The Sheikh's.

In this case, it means that Mohammad bin Khalid is weak in hadeeth.

Another principle that could be applied is to take tadh`eef over tawtheeq for ihtiyaat, like Muhsini was quoted to have done.

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the matter of a major narrator: Muhammad b. Khalid b. `Abdi'l-Rahmaan al-Barqi (ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÞí). He is the father of the famous Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Barqi ®. There's no controversy over the son, he is thiqah without disagreement.

The following are what the source books of Rijal say regarding both of them:

The father: http://gadir.free.fr...am/17/00071.htm

ÞÇá ÇáäÌÇÔí : " ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇáÑÍãä Èä ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí ÇáÈÑÞí ¡ ÃÈæ ÚÈÏÇááå : ãæáì ÃÈí ãæÓì ÇáÇÔÚÑí ¡ íäÓÈ Åáì ÈÑÞÑæÏ ¡ ÞÑíÉ ãä ÓæÇÏ Þã Úáì æÇÏ åäÇß ¡ æáå ÇÎæÉ íÚÑÝæä ÈÃÈí Úáí ÇáÍÓä Èä ÎÇáÏ ¡ æÃÈí ÇáÞÇÓã ÇáÝÖá ÇÈä ÎÇáÏ ¡ æáÇÈä ÇáÝÖá ÇÈä íÚÑÝ ÈÚáí Èä ÇáÚáÇÁ ¡ Èä ÇáÝÖá Èä ÎÇáÏ ¡ ÝÞíå ¡ æßÇä ãÍãÏ ÖÚíÝÇ Ýí ÇáÍÏíË æßÇä ÃÏíÈÇ ¡ ÍÓä ÇáãÚÑÝÉ ÈÇáÇÎÈÇÑ ¡ æÚáæã ÇáÚÑÈ ¡ æáå ßÊÈ ãäåÇ : ßÊÇÈ ÇáÊäÒíá æÇáÊÚÈíÑ ¡ ßÊÇÈ íæã æáíáÉ ¡ ßÊÇÈ ÇáÊÝÓíÑ ¡ ßÊÇÈ ãßÉ æÇáãÏíäÉ ¡ ßÊÇÈ ÍÑæÈ ÇáÇæÓ æÇáÎÒÑÌ ¡ ßÊÇÈ ÇáÚáá ¡ ßÊÇÈ Ýí Úáã ÇáÈÇÑí ¡ ßÊÇÈ ÇáÎØÈ .

ÃÎÈÑäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä äæÍ ¡ ÞÇá : ÍÏËäÇ ÇáÍÓä Èä ÍãÒÉ ÇáØÈÑí ¡ ÞÇá : ÍÏËäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÃÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÈÑÞí ¡ ÞÇá : ÍÏËäÇ ÃÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ¡ Úä ÃÈíå ¡ ÈÌãíÚ ßÊÈå " .

æÞÇá ÇáÔíÎ(639): " ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÈÑÞí : áå ßÊÇÈ ÇáäæÇÏÑ ¡ ÑæíäÇå ÈÇáÇÓäÇÏ ÇáÇæá ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì ¡ æÃÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ÌãíÚÇ ¡ Úä ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ¡ æßäíÊå ÃÈæÚÈÏÇááå " .

æÃÑÇÏ ÈÇáÇÓäÇÏ ÇáÇæá : ÌãÇÚÉ ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÇáãÝÖá ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÈØÉ ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì ¡ æÃÍãÏ Èä ÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå .

æÚÏå Ýí ÑÌÇáå(ÊÇÑÉ)ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáÑÖÇ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã(4)¡ ÞÇÆáÇ : " ãÍãÏ ÇÈä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÈÑÞí ¡ ËÞÉ ¡ åÄáÇÁ(ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí Èä ãæÓì Èä ÌÚÝÑ ¡ æãÍãÏ Èä ÓáíãÇä ÇáÏíáãí ¡ æãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÝÖá ÇáÇÒÏí)æãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÈÑÞí ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÃÈí ÇáÍÓä ãæÓì Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã " .

æ(ÃÎÑì)ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáÌæÇÏ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã (1)¡ ÞÇÆáÇ : " ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÈÑÞí ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ãæÓì Èä ÌÚÝÑ æÇáÑÖÇ ÚáíåãÇ ÇáÓáÇã " .

æÚÏå ÇáÈÑÞí ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáßÇÙã æÇáÑÖÇ æÇáÌæÇÏ Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã ¡ æßäÇå Ýí ÇáÇÎíÑíä ÈÃÈí ÚÈÏÇááå ¡ ææÕÝå ÈÇáÞãí .

æÞÇá ÇÈä ÇáÛÖÇÆÑí : " ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÈÑÞí Èä ÚÈÏÇáÑÍãä Èä ãÍãÏ Èä Úáí : ÃÈæÚÈÏÇááå ¡ ãæáì ÌÑíÑ Èä ÚÈÏÇááå ¡ ÍÏíËå íÚÑÝ æíäßÑ ¡ æíÑæí Úä ÇáÖÚÝÇÁ ßËíÑÇ æíÚÊãÏ ÇáãÑÇÓíá " .

æÞÇá ÇáßÔí(420)ÃÈæÚÈÏÇááå ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÈÑÞí : " ÞÇá äÕÑ Èä ÇáÕÈÇÍ : áã íáÞ ÇáÈÑÞí ÃÈÇ ÈÕíÑ ¡ ÈíäåãÇ ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ÍãÒÉ ¡ æáÇ ÅÓÍÇÞ Èä ÚãÇÑ ¡

æíäÈÛí Ãä íßæä ÕÝæÇä ÞÏ áÞíå " .

[...]I would like to know what the different Muhaddithoon of the Imamiya have opined about him. I know al-Khu'i and `Allamah al-Hilli have given him tawtheeq. Also what members here interested in rijal say about him and why.

Tusi simply lists Barqi (the father) as a companion of the 8th Imam, that his kunya is Abu Abdullah, and that he has a book called Kitab an-Nawadir. Najashi gives a proper entry and gives specifics about him. Clearly the biographical entry of the latter is superior to the former, and so this suggests that we take Najashi over Tusi in this case. With the addition of ihtiyaat and the tarjeeh (weighing in) of Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri, the case becomes strong to hesitate over accepting the reports of Muhammed bin Khaalid al-Barqi.

In addition, I find strange ahadeeth narrated through Barqi, when all others in the sanad are thiqqaat. I give two examples of hadeeths which I strongly suspect to be forgeries narrated by a chain of thiqaat and Barqi:

Firstly,

http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/08/12-imaams-mentioned-by-name-explicitly.html:

ÚöÏóøÉñ ãöäú ÃóÕúÍóÇÈöäóÇ Úóäú ÃóÍúãóÏó Èúäö ãõÍóãóøÏò ÇáúÈóÑúÞöíöø Úóäú ÃóÈöí åóÇÔöãò ÏóÇæõÏó Èúäö ÇáúÞóÇÓöãö ÇáúÌóÚúÝóÑöíöø Úóäú ÃóÈöí ÌóÚúÝóÑò ÇáËóøÇäöí Ú ÞóÇáó ÃóÞúÈóáó ÃóãöíÑõ ÇáúãõÄúãöäöíäó Ú æó ãóÚóåõ ÇáúÍóÓóäõ Èúäõ Úóáöíòø Ú æó åõæó ãõÊóøßöÆñ Úóáóì

[al-Kulayni from] a group of companions from Ahmed bin Muhammed al-Barqi from Abi Haashim Dawood bin al-Qaasim al-Ja`fari from Abi Ja`far the second. He [a] said:...

This ghareeb (i.e. narrated solely from Ahmed al-Barqi) hadeeth explicitly states the names of the 12 Imams. It has been recorded that there were disputes and doubts over the Imamate of some of the Imams. Such a hadeeth would have prevented any doubt about the Imamate of, say, the 11th Imam; (it is reported that there was much doubt in his imamate, while others believed in the imamate of Jafar the liar). Even Muhammed bin Yahya al-`Attaar expressed doubt in the authenticity of this hadeeth, though as-Saffaar tried to reassure of him with a qareena; (see the next hadeeth in the baab).

With such strong doubts about the authenticity of this hadeeth, I go as far as suspecting forgery in this case. This hadeeth is found in al-Mahasin with an intermediary of Muhammed al-Barqi between Ahmed and Dawood; (perhaps al-Attaar's suspicion was justified then). Despite the tadlees of Ahmed, and despite the accusations against him, he is not dha`eef in himself according to the scholars of rijaal. Dawood bin al-Qaasim is thiqa. Therefore, the only possible forger (if we do not accept this hadeeth) is Muhammed al-Barqi.

Secondly,

26045 ] 7 Ü æÚä ãÍãÏ Èä íÍíì ¡ Úä ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÝÖøÇá ¡ Úä ÇÈä ÈßíÑ ¡ Úä ÒÑÇÑÉ Èä ÇÚíä ¡ Úä ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ( Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã ) ¡ ÞÇá : ÓãÚÊå íÞæá : áÇ ÎíÑ Ýí æáÏ ÇáÒäÇ æáÇ Ýí ÈÔÑå æáÇ Ýí ÔÚÑå æáÇ Ýí áÍãå æáÇ Ýí Ïãå æáÇ Ýí ÔíÁ ãäå ¡ ÚÌÒÊ Úäå ÇáÓÝíäÉ æÞÏ Íãá ÝíåÇ ÇáßáÈ æÇáÎäÒíÑ .

A disturbing hadeeth that is saheeh alah adh-dhahir. I believe that this hadeeth generally contradicts Quran and so is rejected. The hadeeth is found in al-Mahasin:

Úäå Úä ÃÈíå ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå ÇáÈÑÞí Úä ÇÈä ÝÖÇá Úä ÚÈÏ Çááå Èä ÈßíÑ Úä ÒÑÇÑÉ ÞÇá ÓãÚÊ ÃÈÇ ÌÚÝÑ Ú íÞæá áÇ ÎíÑ Ýí æáÏ ÇáÒäÇÁ æ áÇ Ýí ÈÔÑå æ áÇ ÔÚÑå- æ áÇ Ýí áÍãå æ áÇ Ýí Ïãå æ áÇ Ýí Ôí‏Á ãäå- íÚäí æáÏ ÇáÒäÇÁ æ Ýí ÑæÇíÉ ÃÈí ÎÏíÌÉ Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå Ú ÞÇá Åä ßÇä ÃÍÏ ãä ÃæáÇÏ ÇáÒäÇÁ äÌÇ áäÌÇ ÓÇÆÍ Èäí ÅÓÑÇÆíá

ÝÞíá áå æ ãÇ ÓÇÆÍ Èäí ÅÓÑÇÆíá ÞÇá ßÇä ÚÇÈÏÇ- ÝÞíá áå Åä æáÏ ÇáÒäÇÁ áÇ íØíÈ ÃÈÏÇ- æ áÇ íÞÈá Çááå ãäå ÚãáÇ- ÞÇá ÝÎÑÌ íÓíÍ Èíä ÇáÌÈÇá æ íÞæá ãÇ ÐäÈí

In addition to clarifying which Ahmed bin Muhammed this is, al-Mahasin also shows that again Ahmed al-Barqi narrated the hadeeth at some point in a mursal fashion. Again, with suspicion of forgery in mind, Muhammed al-Barqi is our only obvious suspect.

(I have considered other possibilities which are far less likely: 1) That since the hadeeth is from Zuraara from Abi Ja`far, then the hadeeth is a forgery inserted into the reports of Zuraara by Mugheera bin Sa`eed who then widely distributed this 2) This is not Ibn Bukayr the thiqa, but another Ibn Bukayr the weak. And Ibn Faddhal (or a later narrator) did not specify that this was Ibn Bukayr the weak 3) Muhammed bin Khalid al-Barqi is also excluding a narrator, since Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri says that he relies on maraseel, and so this hadeeth is doubly mursal).

Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri's assessment is fair:

( 25 ) – 17 – ãõÍóãøóÏõ Èäõ ÎÇáöÏ¡ ÇáÈóÑúÞíøõ Èä ÚóÈúÏÇáÑÍãÇä Èä ãõÍóãøóÏ Èä Úáíø¡ ÃÈõæ ÚóÈúÏÇááøóå¡ ãæáì‏ ÌóÑíúÑ Èä ÚóÈúÏÇááøóå. ÍÏíËõåõ íõÚúÑóÝõ æíõäúßóÑõ. íóÑúæí Úä ÇáÖõÚÝÇÁ ßóËöíÑÇð æíóÚúÊóãöÏõ ÇáãóÑÇÓöíúáó.

17 – Muhammad b. Khalid, al-Barqi b. `Abd ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. `Ali, Abu `Abdillah, client of Jarir b. `Abdullah. His hadith are recognized and denied. He narrates a lot from the weak (narrators) and relies on the mursal traditions.

So, yes there are ahadeeth that we accept from him and others that we do not recognise. Notice, the shaykh does not give permission to rely on him as a witness, signalling his lack of trust in this narrator.

Interestingly, there is no tadh`eef though. Perhaps Najashi's tadh`eef was based on his ijtihaad. Or perhaps the accepted ahadeeth from Barqi meant that Ibn al-Ghadaa'iri hesistated in weakening him. Or perhaps another reason.