How Did Ali Ibn Abi Talha Narrate from Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنه ?
The anti Ahmadis raise allegations against the narration which is often used by us, to prove the death of Hadhrat Isaas. It is narrated by Hadhrat Imam Bukharirh, under Kitab ul-Tafseer in Sahih Bukhari:
وقال ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ مُتَوَفِّيكَ : مُمِيتُكَ
Meaning, Mutawaffika (used for Hadhrat Isaas) means death
Since this narration proves that Hadhrat Isaas has died, the anti Ahmadis raise some allegations. Firstly, they ask where is the sanad of this narration, if it is authentic?
This trick of theirs will only work against those people who are completely ignorant in regards to the ahadith. This allegation is used as a dishonest way of betraying those Muslims who are less knowledgeable. The scholars read these books and read tafseer and are well aware of how baseless this allegation is. Hadhrat Imam Bukharira gave countless of narrations from the sahaba and Taba’een and has not given the sanad next to the statements. Does this mean that they are all fabricated? Of course not. When we read the sharha of Sahih Bukhari, it states that when Imam Bukharirh gives the statements of the sahaba or Tab’aeen, and does not give the sanad, then they are all sahih. It also states that if it is sad “kala” or “rava” before a narration, it means Imam Bukharirh is saying that it is sahih.
The name of the Sharh, which is widely accepted by Muslims is Umdatul Qari by Imam Al Ayni.
There are many other great scholars who hold this view.
In the Commentary of Sahih Muslim, Imam al-Nawawi writes:
قَالَ الْعُلَمَاءُ يَنْبَغِي لِمَنْ أَرَادَ رِوَايَةِ حَدِيثٍ أَوْ ذَكَرَهُ أَنْ يَنْظُرَ فَإِنْ كَانَ صَحِيحًا أَوْ حَسَنًا قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَذَا أَوْ فَعَلَهُ أَوْ نَحْوَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ صِيَغِ الْجَزْمِ وَإِنْ كَانَ ضَعِيفًا فَلَا يَقُلْ قَالَ أَوْ فَعَلَ أَوْ أَمَرَ أَوْ نَهَى وَشِبْهَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ صِيَغِ الْجَزْمِ بَلْ يَقُولُ رُوِيَ عَنْهُ كَذَا أَوْ جَاءَ عَنْهُ كَذَا أَوْ يُرْوَى أَوْ يُذْكَرُ أَوْ يُحْكَى أَوْ يقال أوبلغنا وَمَا أَشْبَهَهُ ُ
“Scholars say that a person who wants to report or quote a hadith should make sure of it. If he determines that it is graded as ‘authentic’ or ‘good’ then he may say: ‘God’s Messenger said; or did…; or some other form of confirmation. If the hadith is graded as ‘poor in authenticity’, then the person quoting it must not say, ‘the Prophet said; or did; or ordered; or prohibited; or any similar form of confirmation. Instead he should say: ‘It is reported, or mentioned, or he is said to have done…’ or ‘We are told that…’ or any similar form.” (Sharh of Sahih Muslim by Imam al-Nawawi, p. 71)
Imam Ibn Qayyim (rh) had the same viewpoint. He (rh) believed that the mu’allaq narrations in Sahih al-Bukhari which are narrated with a tense of certainty are all authentic. It is for this reason that he has written:
هذا حديث صحيح، أخرجه البخارى فى “صحيحه” محتجاً به، وعلقه تعليقاً مجزوماً به
“This is an authentic hadith by Imam al-Bukhari in his Sahih Book of hadith where he quoted it as evidence in the form of affirmative Mu’allaq” (Al-Igatha, vol. 1, p. 259)
This argument was also used by the Salafi scholar, Sheikh Ibn Baz, who stated:
ثم قال الحافظ بعدما نقل كلام ابن الصلاح المذكور بأسطر ما نصه: (وقد تقرر عند الحفاظ أن الذي يأتي به البخاري من التعاليق كلها بصيغة الجزم، يكون صحيحا إلى من علق عنه
“Then the Hafiz said after giving the statement of Ibn al-Salah in a few lines, that all of that which is narrated as Mu’allaq in the affirmative tense by Imam al-Bukhari, then it is authentic to that Shaykh” (Majuma Fatwa, vol. 3, p. 409)
Ibn Hajr (rh) writes in his book al-Nukat ala Kitab Ibn Salah:
وأما الثاني: وهو ما لا يوجد فيه إلا معلقا، فهو على صورتين:
إما بصيغة الجزم وإما بصيغة التمريض.
فأما الأول: فهو صحيح إلى من علقه عنه
“As for the second type, then they are that which is not present except with a suspended change and there are two types. There is that which comes with the tense of certainty or that which is narrated with weakness. As for the first, then that is authentic towards who it is narrated to” (al-Nukat ala Kitab Ibn Salah, p. 325)
Then Ibn Hajr (rh) writes in Fathul Bari:
وَالثَّانِي وَهُوَ مَا لَا يُوجد فِيهِ إِلَّا مُعَلّقا فَإِنَّهُ على صُورَتَيْنِ إِمَّا أَن يُورِدهُ بِصِيغَة الْجَزْم وَإِمَّا أَن يُورِدهُ بِصِيغَة التمريض فالصيغة الأولى يُسْتَفَاد مِنْهَا الصِّحَّة إِلَى من علق عَنهُ
“Then the second type is that which is not present except in a mu’allaq way and that contains two types. As for that which is found with the tense of certainty and that which is narrated with a tense of weakness. As for the first tense, then that is authentic to who it is attributed to” (Fathul Bari, vol. 1, p. 17)
Again he writes:
وَقَدْ تَقَرَّرَ عِنْدَ الْحُفَّاظِ أَنَّ الَّذِي يَأْتِي بِهِ الْبُخَارِيُّ مِنَ التَّعَالِيقِ كُلِّهَا بِصِيغَةِ الْجَزْمِ يَكُونُ صَحِيحًا إِلَى مَنْ عَلَّقَ عَنْهُ
“And it was decided by the great huffaz that, that which al-Bukhari brings from the Ta’aleeqaat, then all that which is with the tense of certainty is authentic to who it is attributed to” (Fathul Bari, vol. 10, p. 53)
Ibn Hajr (rh) is also quoted in Mirat al-Mafatih, the Sharh of Mishkat al-Masabih. It is written:
وقال ابن حجر نقلاً عن ابن الصلاح: أنه إن وقع الحذف في كتاب التزمت صحته كصحيح البخاري فما أتى فيه بصيغة الجزم دل على أنه ثبت إسناده عنده، فهو في حكم الصحيح، وما أتى فيه بغير صيغة الجزم ففيه مقال، أي ليس فيه حكم بصحته،
“And Ibn Hajr (rh) said that it is taken from Ibn al-Salah that Muallaq refers to that where the omission occurred in a book whose authenticity is adhered to as Sahih al-Bukhari, then what came in it with the tense of certainty, then it shows that the chain of transmission is proven from him, and it is in the correct judgement and what came without the sense of certainty, then there is no judgement of its validity” (Mirat al-Mafatih, vol. 1, p. 389)
In the famous book of Hadith by Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhadith Dehlvi (rh), it is written:
تعليقات البُخارِيّ
والتعليقات كَثِيرَة فِي تراجم صَحِيح البُخارِيّ ولها حكم الِاتِّصال لِأنَّهُ التزم فِي هَذا الكتاب أن لا يَأْتِي إلّا بِالصَّحِيحِ ولكنها لَيست فِي مرتبَة مسانيده إلّا ما ذكر مِنها مُسْندًا فِي مَوضِع آخر من كِتابه
There are many Ta’liqat in the chapter headings of Sahih al-Bukhari. However, they have the ruling of ittisal (connected) because he ensured that he doesn’t mention any hadith in this book except Sahih. However, they are not of the same level as that of his Masanid (the ones that have complete isnad up to the Prophet (sa)) except those muallaq narrations for which he has mentioned the isnad at another place(s) in the book.
حكم التَّعْلِيق بِصِيغَة المَعْلُوم والمجهول
وَقد يفرق فِيهَا بِأَن مَا ذكر بِصِيغَة الْجَزْم والمعلوم كَقَوْلِه قَالَ فلَان أَو ذكر فلَان
دلّ على ثُبُوت إِسْنَاده عِنْده فَهُوَ صَحِيح قطعا
وَمَا ذكره بِصِيغَة التمريض والمجهول قيل وَيُقَال وَذكر فَفِي صِحَّته عِنْده كَلَام وَلكنه لما أوردهُ فِي هَذَا الْكتاب كَانَ لَهُ أصل ثَابت وَلِهَذَا قَالُوا تعليقات البُخَارِيّ مُتَّ
- Those that he narrated with a definitive form, for example: when he says so and so said such and such or mentioned such and such. This method of narrating Mu’allaq Hadeeths is considered a judgement by Al-Bukhari that these Hadeeths are authentically attributed to the person they are attributed to : it is therefore considered an authentic narration (this is because he would never have definitively attributed something to a certain narrator unless he had verified the authenticity of that attribution to that narration).
2. Those with a less definitive form and in passive tense: for example, when he says, it was said or it was narrated on the authority of so and so, indicate that there is a doubt concerning its authenticity (Muqaddimah fi usool al-Hadith, pages 17-18)
In the famous book Kitab Ma’rifat anwa ilm al-hadith by Ibn al-Salah al-Shahrazuri, it is written:
وأمّا [المعلَّقُ وهو] (٦) الذي حُذِفَ مِن مبتدإ إسنادِهِ واحدٌ أو أكثرُ، وأغلبُ ما وقَعَ ذلكَ في كتابِ البخاريِّ (٧) وهو في كتابِ مسلمٍ قليلٌ جدًّا (١) ففي بعضِهِ نَظَرٌ. وينبغي أنْ نقولَ: ما كانَ مِن ذلكَ ونحوِهِ بلفظٍ فيهِ جَزْمٌ وحُكْمٌ بهِ على مَن عَلَّقَهُ عَنْهُ، فقدْ حَكَمَ بصِحَّتِهِ عَنْهُ (٢)، مثالُهُ: قالَ رسولُ اللهِ – ﷺ – كَذا وكذا، قالَ ابنُ عبّاسٍ: كذا، قالَ مجاهدٌ: كذا، قالَ عَفّانُ: كذا، قالَ القَعْنَبِيُّ: كذا (٣)، روى أبو هريرةَ: كذا وكذا، وما أشبهَ ذلكَ مِنَ العباراتِ. فكلُّ ذلكَ حُكْمٌ مِنهُ على مَن ذَكرَهُ عنهُ بأنّهُ (١) قدْ قالَ ذلكَ ورَواهُ؛ فلنْ يَسْتَجِيزَ إطلاقَ ذلكَ إلاَّ إذا صحَّ عِندَهُ ذلكَ عنهُ، ثمَّ إذا كانَ الذي علَّقَ الحديثَ عنهُ دُونَ الصحابةِ فالحُكْمُ بصِحَّتِهِ يتوقَّفُ على اتِّصالِ الإسنادِ بينَهُ وبينَ الصحابيِّ.
“There is doubt about some of the “suspended” hadith (mu’allaq); that is, the hadith with an isnad from the beginning of which one transmitter or more is omitted. The majority of these are in the book of Bukhari; there are very few in the book of Muslim. We should say: These and similar hadith which contain an expression decisively and conclusively indicating their ascription to the person from whom they are “suspended” – for example, “The Messenger of God (Peace be upon him) said (qala) such and such,” “Ibn ‘Abbas said such and such,” “Mujahid said such and such,” “Affan said such and such”, “Qa’nabi said such and such,” “Abu Hurayra related (rawa) such and such,” and similar expressions – are judged to be established as actually coming from that person. On the basis of all of these expressions, it is determined that the person to whom Bukhari ascribed the hadith spoke and related [the text that follows]. Bukhari would not have deemed it permissible to state this [that is, to use those unequivocal expressions] without qualification unless it was established in his view that the hadith came from the person to whom it is ascribed. If the transmitter from whom the hadith is suspended is not a companion, the judgement regarding the soundness of the hadith depends on the cohesiveness of the isnad between that person and the companion.” (Uloom al Hadith, page 92-94)
In his commentary of the poem of al-Bayquniyyah, Sheikh Ibn Uthaymeen writes:
و هل المعلق من قسم الصحيح أو هو من قسم الضعيف
نقول : هو من قسم الضعيف؛ لأن من شرط الصحيح، اتصال السند، لكن ما علقه البخاري جازما به فهو صحيح عنده و إن لم يكن على شرطه و إنما قلنا صحيح عنده؛ لأنه يعلّقه مستدلا به على الحكم، و لا يمكن أن يستبدل على حكم من احكام الله تعالى إلا بشيء صحيح عنده
Is the Mu’allaq one of the types of sahih or the da’if narrations?
“We say that it is one of the types of Daif narrations because one of the requirements of the sahih narration is the connection of its chain. However, whatever al-Bukhari recorded as mu’allaq and he was certain about it, it is considered as sahih according to him even if it was not according to his conditions. And we say that it is sahih according to al-Bukhari because he recorded it as mu’allaq and used it as a valid evidence to infer the rulings. Evidently it is not possible that he would conclude any of Allah’s rulings except by deriving from the sound narrations he possessed. (Sharh al-Manzoomah al-Bayquniyyah, p. 82)
Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahab (rh) had the view that the mu’allaq narrations of Sahih al-Bukhari are also authentic because in his book Kitab at-Tauheed, he narrates the following hadith:
وَقَالَ قَتَادَةُ: {وَلَقَدْ زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ} خَلَقَ هَذِهِ النُّجُومَ لِثَلاَثٍ، جَعَلَهَا زِينَةً لِلسَّمَاءِ، وَرُجُومًا لِلشَّيَاطِينِ، وَعَلاَمَاتٍ يُهْتَدَى بِهَا، فَمَنْ تَأَوَّلَ فِيهَا بِغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ أَخْطَأَ وَأَضَاعَ نَصِيبَهُ، وَتَكَلَّفَ مَا لاَ عِلْمَ لَهُ بِهِ.
“Allah Created these stars for three objectives: First, to adorn the heaven; second, as missiles against the devils and; third, as signs by which (the traveler) may be guided. Whoever claims more than this for them has committed a mistake, lost his reward (on the day of Resurrection) and taken upon himself of that which he has no knowledge” (Kitab at-Tauheed, p. 256, Chapter 28)
This is narrated as a mu’allaq narration in Sahih al-Bukhari, Beginning of Creation, Chapter 3.
وَقَالَ قَتَادَةُ: {وَلَقَدْ زَيَّنَّا السَّمَاءَ الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ} خَلَقَ هَذِهِ النُّجُومَ لِثَلاَثٍ، جَعَلَهَا زِينَةً لِلسَّمَاءِ، وَرُجُومًا لِلشَّيَاطِينِ، وَعَلاَمَاتٍ يُهْتَدَى بِهَا، فَمَنْ تَأَوَّلَ فِيهَا بِغَيْرِ ذَلِكَ أَخْطَأَ وَأَضَاعَ نَصِيبَهُ، وَتَكَلَّفَ مَا لاَ عِلْمَ لَهُ بِهِ.
Then in al-Muqna fi Ulum al-Hadith by Sirajuddin Umar bin Ali al-Anshari, it is written:
وأما المُعَلق وهُوَ الَّذِي حذف من مبتدإ إسْناده واحِد فَأكْثر وهُوَ غالب فِي صَحِيح البُخارِيّ قَلِيل جدا فِي صَحِيح مُسلم فَفِي بعضه نظر ويَنْبَغِي أن يُقال ما كانَ مِنهُ بِصِيغَة الجَزْم كقالَ وروى وشبههما فَهُوَ حكم بِصِحَّتِهِ
“As for the ‘suspended’ hadith (mu’allaq); that is, the hadith with an isnad from the beginning of which one transmitter or more is omitted. The majority of these are in Sahih al-Bukhari and there are very few in Sahih Muslim. We should say: “Whatever from them is said with a tense of certainty like he said, or he narrated or anything like that, then it is a command on its authenticity” (Al-Muqna fi Ulum al-Hadith, pg. 72)
Then in the book Athaar ilal al-Hadith fi-Ikhtilaaf al-Fuqaha, it is written:
أن معلقات البخاري بصيغة الجزم تعد صحيحة الى من علق اليه، هذا ما استقر عليه الأمر عند جمهور العلماء
“The Mu’allaqat of al-Bukhari with the tense of certainty are considered authentic to the one who it is attributed to. This is what has been agreed upon by the majority of the scholars” (Athaar ilal al-Hadith fi-Ikhtilaaf al-Fuqaha, p. 56)
Then it is written in Sharh al-Manzumat al-Bayquniyyah:
حكم المعلق الضعف؛ لأنه اختل فيه شرط من شروط الحديث الصحيح.
ومعلقات البخاري لها حكم خاص، وهي كثيرة، ولها حالان: الحالة الأولى: أن يكون الحديث المعلق في البخاري بصيغة الجزم، كأن يقول: قال ابن عباس: قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، أو يقول: ذكر ابن عباس، أو ذكر مالك، أو ذكر نافع.
الحال الثانية: أن يرويه بصيغة التمريض، يقول: يروى، يقال، يذكر.
ويوجد كتاب اسمه تغليق التعليق للحافظ ابن حجر اهتم بها جداً، ووصل جميع المعلقات، وبين أن كل المعلقات التي ذكرها البخاري بصيغة الجزم صحيحة.
“The ruling on ‘al-Mu’allaq’ (suspended) narrations is that they are weak because it lacks one of the conditions of the authentic ahadith. As for Sahih al-Bukhari, then for that there is a special ruling and there are many (mu’allaqat). There are two types. The first type is that there is a hadith which is mu’allaq in Bukhari with the tense of certainty like he said, Ibn Abbas said, the Prophet (sa) said, or he said that Ibn Abbas (ra) mentioned or that Malik narrated or Nafi narrated. The second type is that it is narrated with the uncertainty tense like it was narrated, it was said, it was mentioned. We find the book named Taghleeq al-Taleeq by al-Hafiz Ibn Hajr and he emphasized a lot on this and brought forth all of the al-mu’allaqaat and he made it clear that all of the suspended narrations which are mentioned by Bukhari with the tense of certainty are authentic” (Sharh al-Manzumat al-Bayquniyah, vol. 10, p. 11)
Then in the famous book Fi Hawar Hadi Ma’a Muhammad Al-Ghazali, it is written:
ما رواه البخاري بصيغة الجزم مثل (قال- حكى- رَوَى- يقول) فهذا صحيح إلى من علقه عنه
“As for what is narrated in Bukhari with a tense of certainty like he said, he told, he narrated or he said, then that is authentic to who it is attributed to” (Fi Hawar Hadi Ma’a Muhammad al-Ghazali, p. 113)
The website IslamQA also has a fatwa on this. It is written:
Some of the scholars have their own methodologies of quoting mu’allaq hadeeth, which were either stated by the scholar himself or defined after him by other scholars who studied his books and examined his methods.
From what the scholars have said about the methodology of Imam al-Bukhaari in narrating mu’allaq reports, we can divide his mu’allaq reports (of which there are one hundred and sixty) into two categories:
1-Those which were narrated in a decisive form, such as saying “He narrated…” and so on.
The ruling on these mu’allaq reports is that they are saheeh or hasan, because it is not possible for him to state that in a decisive form unless it was saheeh in his view. Rather there are some reports which meet his conditions but he reported them in mu’allaq form.
The scholars made an exception from this principle in the case of just one hadeeth, which is reported in mu’allaq form in the Book of Zakaah (2/525):
Tawoos said: Mu’aadh (may Allaah be pleased with him) said to the people of Yemen: Bring an item of clothing, a shirt or other garment as zakaah instead of barley and corn; it will be easier for you, and better for the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in Madeenah.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/83754/ruling-on-muallaq-hadeeth
Then the other famous website Islamweb has a fatwa saying the similar:
Those that he narrated with a definitive form, for example: when he says so-and-so said such-and-such or mentioned such-and-such… This method of narrating Mu‘allaq Hadeeths is considered a judgment by Al-Bukhari that these Hadeeths are authentically attributed to the person they are attributed to. This is because he would never have definitively attributed something to a certain narrator unless he had verified the authenticity of that attribution to that narrator.
https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/3925/status-of-muallaq-hadeeths-in-saheeh-al-bukhari
The anti Ahmadis then claim it is fabricated because it has no chain of narration. This is not true at all. The chain of this narration is found in many books.
Firstly, the chain is found in Tafsir al Tabari:
ذِكْرُ مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ: حَدَّثَنِي الْمُثَنَّى، قَالَ: ثنا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، قَالَ: ثني مُعَاوِيَةُ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، قَوْلُهُ: {إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ} [آل عمران: 55] يَقُولُ: «إِنِّي مُمِيتُكَ»
(تفسير جامع البيان في تفسير القرآن، الطبري ت 310 هـ)
We also see in Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim Volume 2, Page 661:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي ثنا أَبُو صَالِحٍ، حَدَّثَنِي مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ، عن ابن عَبَّاسٍ قَوْلُهُ: إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ يَقُولُ: إِنِّي مُمِيتُكَ
Hadhrat Ibn Hajrrh also gave the chain. He stated:
“وقال ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ ” مُتَوَفِّيكَ : مُمِيتُكَ “. قَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي حَاتِمٍ : ثنا أَبِي ، ثنا أَبُو صَالِحٍ ، ثنا مُعَاوِيَةُ ، عَنْ عَلِيٍّ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ ، بِهَذَا.“(تغليق التعليق لابن حجر» كتاب التفسير» من تفسير سورة المائدة 1410/206)
Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim ibn al-Mundhir al-Naysaburi , a Shafi scholar who lived from 241 AH to 318 AH also gave the chain in his well known Tafseer, called Tafseer Ibn Al-Mundhir (Volume 1, Page 221)
حَدَّثَنَا عَلانُ بْنُ الْمُغِيرَةِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو صَالِحٍ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ صَالِحٍ، عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قوله: ” {إِنِّي مُتَوَفِّيكَ} يَقُولُ: مُمِيتُكَ
The anti Ahmadis only use such allegations to deceive the public. Once they are proven wrong in regards to the chain, they bring another allegation. They say how did Ali Ibn Abi Talha narrate from Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra, if they had never met? They also suggest that Ali Ibn Abi Talha was a weak narrator. What they forget, is that the scholars who have mastered the field of ahadith have already declared the chain, which includes Ali ibn Abi Talha, to be the most authentic and solid out of all other chains.
Hadhrat Imam Suyutirh has stated:
وقد روي عن ابن عباس في التفسير ما لا يحصى كثرة، وفيه روايات وطرق مختلفة، فمن جيدها طريق علي بن أبي طلحة الهاشمي
Meaning that, there are a large number of commentaries attributed to Hadhrat Ibn Abbas, and these include different narrations and manners. The best certified among these is the one narrated by Ali bin Abi Talhah (al-Itqaan fi uloomil-Qur’an by Jalal-ud-Din al-Suyuti, Page 880, by Imam Suyuti)
Hadhrat Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbalrh gained knowledge of a copy of a commentary narrated by Ali bin Abi Talha. Then he desired and wished that someone would travel to Egypt to study this volume.
Hadhrat Ibn Hajrrh stated:
وهذه النسخة كانت عند أبي صالح كاتب الليث، رواها معاوية بن صالح، عن علي بن أبي طلحة، عن ابن عباس. وهي عند البخاري عن أبي صالح، وقد اعتمد عليها في صحيحه كثيرا فيما يعلّقه عن ابن عباس
Meaning, “Abu Salih, a writer in al-Lais, had this copy which was narrated by Ali bin Abi Talhah, folloed by Ibn Abbas. This narration reached Imam Bukhari through Abu Salih and Imam Bukhari had so much confidence in this narration, that he included it, without any further certificate, in his book Sahih Bukhari” (al-Itqaan fi uloomil-Qur’an by Jalal-ud-Din al-Suyuti, Page 880, by Imam Suyuti)
These words are taken from Ibn Hajr (rh)’s Fath al-Bari, and Imam Suyuti (rh) quotes his words to strengthen the fact that this chain of narration is the most authentic. It is narrated:
أَسْنَدَ عَنْ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ قَالَ بِمِصْرَ صَحِيفَةٌ فِي التَّفْسِيرِ رَوَاهَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَلْحَةَ لَوْ رَحَلَ رَجُلٌ فِيهَا إِلَى مِصْرَ قَاصِدًا مَا كَانَ كَثِيرًا انْتَهَى وَهَذِهِ النُّسْخَةُ كَانَتْ عِنْدَ أَبِي صَالِحٍ كَاتِبُ اللَّيْثِ رَوَاهَا عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ صَالِحٍ عَنْ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَلْحَة عَن بن عَبَّاسٍ وَهِيَ عِنْدَ الْبُخَارِيِّ عَنْ أَبِي صَالِحٍ وَقَدِ اعْتَمَدَ عَلَيْهَا فِي صَحِيحِهِ هَذَا كَثِيرًا عَلَى مَا بَيَّنَّاهُ فِي أَمَاكِنِهِ
(Fathul Bari, Volume 8, Page 438-439)
This allegation that Ali bin Abi Talhah did not hear the commentary from Hadhrat Ibn Abbas is a old allegation which had already been researched by the scholars of the past. Their decision was to accept the narration of Ali bin Abi Talhah as the most authentic chain relating back to Hadhrat Ibn Abbbas. Imam Suyutirh stated:
“قال قوم: لم يسمع ابن أبي طلحة من ابن عباس التفسير، وإنما أخذه عن مجاهد أو سعيد بن جبير، قال ابن حجر: بعد أن عرفت الواسطة وهو ثقة فلا ضير في ذلك
Meaning, “There is a group that says Ali bin Abi Talhah did not hear the commentary from Ibn Abbas; rather he extracted it from his pupils, Mujahid and Sa’id bin Jubayr. For this reason, Allama Ibn Hajar says that, after knowing the time between Ali bin Abi Talhah and Ibn Abbas, and after knowing the fact that Mujahid and Sa’id bin Jubayr were solid narrators, there is nothing wrong in accepting the narration of Ali bin Abi Talhah (al-Itqaan fi uloomil-Qur’an by Jalal-ud-Din al-Suyuti, Page 880, by Imam Suyuti)
Hadhrat Shah Waliullah Dehlvi had also supported this. He wrote in his volume 1, of al-Fauzul-Kabeer under the heading, Sharh Ghareeb al-Qur’an:
Meaning, that “among the wonderful commentaries of the Holy Qur’an, the best commentary is that of Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Abbas that has reached us through the narration of Ali bin Abi Talhah. And, Imam Bukhari probaby gave his full confidence to this way in Sahih Bukhari” (al-Fauzul-Kabeer ma’a Fathil-Khabir fi Usulit-Tafseer, by Shah Waliullah Dehlvi, Page 15, Faslu Awwal Dar Sharh, Ghareeb al-Qur’an)
The main Sunni website for ahadith also supports this chain. It is written:
There is in fact a missing link in the reports narrated by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbaas as some scholars said; however, this does not affect the authenticity of the reports. Imaam Ahmad said: “There is a document of Tafseer in Egypt narrated by ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah; if one traveled to Egypt for it, it would be worth the effort.”
Al-Haafith Ibn Hajar said about it: “Abu Saalih, the scribe of Al-Layth, had a copy of this; he narrated it on the authority of Mu‘aawiyah ibn Saalih who reported it on the authority of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah who reported it on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbaas. It has been cited by Al-Bukhari on the authority of Abu Saalih. He had recourse to it in his Saheeh, citing it with an omitted chain on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbaas.”
Ibn Jareer At-Tabari, Ibn Abi Haatim and Ibn Al-Munthir often accepted and cited it with the chain of transmission leading back to Abu Saalih. Imaams Muslim, Abu Daawood, An-Nasaa’i, At-Tirmithi and Ibn Maajah all accepted the transmission of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah, as Muhammad Husayn Ath-Thahabi said in his book At-Tafseer wa-l-Mufassiroon. He also cited the statement of Ibn Al-Wazeer in his book Eethaar Al-Haqq: “Ath-Thahabi said in his book Al-Meezaan: ‘He (‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah) reported Ibn ‘Abbaas’s commentary on many verses of the Quran. The correct view in this regard according to Hadeeth scholars is that he reports from Mujaahid from Ibn ‘Abbaas. Even if it is reported as a Mursal report on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbaas (i.e. without the links in the chain of narration between him and Ibn ‘Abbaas), there is no harm in that given that Mujaahid is Thiqah (trustworthy) and his narration is accepted.”
Muhammad Husayn Ath-Thahabi, added: “In brief, this is the most authentic chain of narration with regards to the Tafseer of Ibn ‘Abbaas. Suffice it as testimony of its authenticity that Al-Bukhari considered it authentic and accepted it.” Therefore, there is nothing problematic about this route of transmission.
After all of this proof, there should remain no doubt in any Muslim. The narration is completely authentic and was the view of Hadhrat Ibn Abbasra and Imam Bukharirh. Lastly, this chain of narration is used throughout the tafsir of the non Ahmadi Muslim scholars, including one of their main commentator, named Ibn Kathir.