Da'eef jiddan, Sunan Ibn Majah, no. (1753), al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim, Indian edition (1/422), and al-Albani graded it Da'eef in “al-Irwa'” (4/41) no. (921)
In this chain there is a difference over who exactly “Ishaq bin Abdullah al-Madani” is. The reason is a difference over how the name of Ishaq's father “Abdullah” is recorded: some gave it as “Ubaydullah”, in the diminutive form, while others gave it as “Abdullah”, in the full form. This narration of Ishaq is reported through two routes.
Here are the details of both routes:
First route: Asad bin Musa:
The established narration of Asad bin Musa has “Ishaq bin Abdullah” without any difference [at-Targhib of Ibn Shahin, page 52 no. (140), and its chain up to Asad is hasan]
Second route: al-Walid bin Muslim:
Two of al-Walid bin Muslim's students narrated this from him: one is “al-Hakam bin Musa” and the other “Hisham bin Ammar”.
☆ The narration of al-Hakam bin Musa:- Three narrators (Muhammad bin Ali bin Zayd, Hamid bin Muhammad and Abu Ya'la) narrated it from al-Hakam, and all three agreed on “Ishaq bin Abdullah”. For the narration of Muhammad bin Ali bin Zayd see: (al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim, Indian edition 1/422, and its chain up to al-Hakam is sahih); for the narration of Hamid bin Muhammad see: (Dhayl Tarikh Baghdad of Ibn ad-Dubaythi 1/334, and its chain up to Hamid is hasan). The narration of Abu Ya'la was reported by Ibn as-Sunni in 'Amal al-Yawm wa al-Laylah, and some of its manuscripts have “Ishaq bin Abdullah”, as the researchers have stated clearly; indeed Shaykh Abd al-Qadir Ata recorded it this way in his copy; see: ('Amal al-Yawm wa al-Laylah of Ibn as-Sunni, ed. al-Barni, page 289, footnote). And this is correct, because two narrators support it.
The narration of a fourth student of al-Walid, Hisham bin Khalid, also has “Ishaq bin Abdullah”, but this narration is weak; see: (Nawadir al-Usul of al-Hakim at-Tirmidhi, ed. Tawfiq 2/185). Contrary to the narrators mentioned, no narration of any student of al-Hakam bin Musa is established; for example, the narration of Muhammad al-Hadrami in Mu'jam Ibn Asakir (1/307) is weak in its chain, and, as the researcher testifies, in the manuscript the name in question carries the mark of tasbib, which points to a mistake.
☆ The narration of Hisham bin Ammar:- The narration of his student Ubayd bin Abd al-Wahid from Hisham is established, and it has “Ishaq bin Abdullah” without any difference, (Shu'ab al-Iman, ed. Zaghlul, no. 3904, and its chain up to Ubayd is sahih). Note that the diminutive form recorded by the other editor of Shu'ab al-Iman, Dr Abd al-Ali, is definitely wrong, because after the narration Imam al-Bayhaqi (RH) also said quite clearly:
“وشيخاي لم يثبتاه، فقالا :إسحاق بن عبد الله”, that is, my two shaykhs (Yahya bin Ibrahim and Imam al-Hakim) did not give “Ubaydullah” in their chain; rather they gave “Ishaq bin Abdullah”. (Shu'ab al-Iman, ed. Abd al-Ali, 5/408)
The other student of Hisham whose narration is established is Imam Ibn Majah, and some manuscripts of Sunan Ibn Majah also have “Ishaq bin Abdullah al-Madani”; see: [Sunan Ibn Majah, the Taymuriyyah manuscript, (q 1/197/b); also Sunan Ibn Majah, Dar at-Ta'sil print, page (242), footnote no. (3); Zawa'id Ibn Majah of al-Busiri, ed. Muhammad Mukhtar Husayn (page 254) no. (594); Tafsir Ibn Kathir, ed. Muhammad Husayn Shams ad-Din (1/573); Lisan al-Mizan of Ibn Hajar, ed. Abu Ghuddah (2/63)]
Clearly, in the narration of Ibn Majah too the correct name is “Ishaq bin Abdullah”, because Ubayd bin Abd al-Wahid also supports it.
Contrary to these two students of Hisham, a third student, “Muhammad bin Abi Zur'ah ad-Dimashqi”, gave “Ishaq bin Ubaydullah” in the diminutive form, (ad-Du'a' of at-Tabarani, ed. Muhammad Sa'id, no. 919). The reply is that there is no authentication of him; and even if he were trustworthy, his report would have no weight against the agreed narration of Hisham's two students.
So it is clear that the narration of Hisham bin Ammar also agrees with the narration of al-Hakam bin Musa; that is, their teacher al-Walid bin Muslim gave “Ishaq bin Abdullah”, and Asad bin Musa also supports this, as passed at the beginning. That is, both Asad bin Musa and al-Walid bin Muslim gave the name of their teacher as “Ishaq bin Abdullah”.
These details settle that this chain has “Ishaq bin Abdullah”. Now it must be seen who is meant by him. Imam al-Hakim, Imam adh-Dhahabi and Allamah al-Albani (RH) mentioned the possibility that he may be “Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abi Farwah, al-Umawi, al-Madani”, [al-Mustadrak of al-Hakim, Indian edition (1/422) with the notes of adh-Dhahabi, Irwa' al-Ghalil of al-Albani (4/43)]
The reply is that this is exactly who he is, and there are several proofs of it. For example, one strong proof is that his student al-Walid bin Muslim gave his full name in one narration as “Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abi Farwah”; see: [Dhayl Tarikh Baghdad of Ibn ad-Dubaythi (1/334), and its chain up to al-Walid is hasan; Ibn Hubaysh is al-Husayn bin Umar bin Imran bin Hubaysh, whom al-Khatib mentioned among the students of Hamid bin Muhammad; see: Tarikh Baghdad, Matba'at as-Sa'adah (8/169)]. He is also mentioned among the teachers of al-Walid bin Muslim; see: [Tahdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizzi (2/446)]. Also, another student of Ishaq, Asad bin Musa, gave his full name as “إسحاق بن عبد الله الأموي، من أهل المدينة”; see: [at-Targhib of Ibn Shahin, page 52 no. (140), and its chain up to Asad is hasan]. And in this generation, this is the narrator who is Umawi and Madani; see: [Tahdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizzi (2/446)]
Once it is clear that this narrator is “Ishaq bin Abdullah bin Abi Farwah, al-Umawi, al-Madani”, it should be known that Imam Ibn Ma'in (RH) called him a great liar, (al-Jarh wa at-Ta'dil of Ibn Abi Hatim, ed. al-Mu'allimi 2/228, and its chain is sahih), and several hadith scholars called him abandoned; see for example: (Taqrib at-Tahdhib of Ibn Hajar no. 368). So this narration is very weak.
Some clarifications:
✦ Imam al-Bukhari, Imam Abu Hatim ar-Razi, Imam Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi and Ibn Abi Hatim (RH) identified this Ishaq as “إسحاق بن عبد الله بن أبي مليكة” (al-Jarh wa at-Ta'dil of Ibn Abi Hatim, ed. al-Mu'allimi: 2/ 288). Imam Ibn Hibban also wrote “Ishaq bin Abdullah al-Madani”, which shows that this is Ibn Hibban's position too [ath-Thiqat of Ibn Hibban, Uthmaniyyah print (6/ 48); giving it in the diminutive form in the printed copy is wrong]
This supports that the name of Ishaq's father is “Abdullah”, in the full form. However, these imams identified him as “Ibn Abi Mulaykah” instead of “Abi Farwah”. Even if this is accepted, the narration will still be weak, because Abi Mulaykah is unknown. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in ath-Thiqat under his own unique rule of authenticating unknown narrators.
✦ Ibn Asakir (RH) identified this Ishaq as “Ishaq bin Ubaydullah bin Abi al-Muhajir”, and following him Ibn Hajar and Allamah al-Albani (RH) also took him to be “Ibn Abi al-Muhajir”. But this is not correct, because in the narration under discussion several narrators called Ishaq a Madani, whereas “Ibn Abi al-Muhajir” is a Syrian narrator. In any case, this narrator too is unknown, so even if he is accepted, the narration will still be weak. Note that Ibn Hibban did not call him trustworthy either, because he is Syrian and his father's name is in the diminutive form, whereas the one Ibn Hibban called trustworthy is Madani and in the full form. Dr Bashshar rightly wrote:
“أما قول ابن حجر في ترجمة”ابن أبي المهاجر“:”ذكره ابن حبان في الثقات فليس بجيد لان ابن حبان لم يذكر غير إسحاق بن عبيد الله المدني وهو لا يقوم دليلا على أنه ابن أبي المهاجر“
In the biography of Ibn Abi al-Muhajir, Ibn Hajar said: “Ibn Hibban mentioned him in ath-Thiqat”, but this is not correct, because Ibn Hibban mentioned him only with the words “Ishaq bin Ubaydullah al-Madani”, and that is by no means proof that he means “Ibn Abi al-Muhajir” [Tahdhib al-Kamal of al-Mizzi 2/458. Note that a little before this, Dr Bashshar quoted “Ishaq bin Abdullah” from the manuscript of ath-Thiqat, without the diminutive form]
✦ Imam al-Busiri (RH) made a strange mistake: he took Ishaq to be “Ishaq bin Abdullah bin al-Harith bin Kinanah al-Qurashi al-Amiri”, and then mentioned the authentications related to him [Zawa'id Ibn Majah of al-Busiri, ed. Muhammad Mukhtar Husayn (page 254) no. (594)], although this narrator is not of this generation at all, and if he were accepted the chain itself would be broken.
Stranger still, some accepted “Ishaq” neither as “Ibn Abi Farwah”, nor as “Ibn Abi Mulaykah”, nor as “Ibn Abi al-Muhajir”; rather they imagined an invented person named “Ishaq bin Ubaydullah al-Madani” and credited him with the authentications mentioned by Imam al-Busiri, which related to a different narrator. Glory be to Allah!
In any case, in our view the stronger position is the one whose possibility Imam al-Hakim, Imam adh-Dhahabi and Allamah al-Albani (RH) mentioned, and in the light of the evidence it has reached certainty: in this chain is “Abi Farwah”, who is a great liar and abandoned. So for some to call it Hasan is not correct. Allamah al-Albani (RH) wrote about some contemporaries who called it Hasan:
“حسنه الجهلة”, “the ignorant graded it Hasan” [Da'if at-Targhib wa at-Tarhib (1/292)]