Jami' at-Tirmidhi
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2046
حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، قال حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ سِمَاكٍ، أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَلْقَمَةَ بْنَ وَائِلٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، أَنَّهُ شَهِدَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَسَأَلَهُ سُوَيْدُ بْنُ طَارِقٍ أَوْ طَارِقُ بْنُ سُوَيْدٍ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ فَنَهَاهُ عَنْهُ فَقَالَ إِنَّنَا نَتَدَاوَى بِهَا . فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " إِنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ بِدَوَاءٍ وَلَكِنَّهَا دَاءٌ " . حَدَّثَنَا مَحْمُودٌ، قال حَدَّثَنَا النَّضْرُ بْنُ شُمَيْلٍ، وَشَبَابَةُ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، بِمِثْلِهِ . قَالَ مَحْمُودٌ قَالَ النَّضْرُ طَارِقُ بْنُ سُوَيْدٍ وَقَالَ شَبَابَةُ سُوَيْدُ بْنُ طَارِقٍ . قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ صَحِيحٌ
Unreviewed translation. All hadiths in this collection are available in five languages. Titles and introductions may remain in Arabic.
Mahmud ibn Ghaylan said: Abu Dawud narrated to us, from Shu‘bah, from Simak, who heard ‘Alqamah ibn Wa’il, from his father, who witnessed the Prophet ﷺ. Suwayd ibn Tariq—or Tariq ibn Suwayd—asked him about khamr, and he forbade it. The man said, “We use it as a remedy.” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied: “It is not a remedy; it is a disease.”
Mahmud narrated to us: al-Nadr ibn Shumayl and Shababah narrated to us, from Shu‘bah, with a similar report. Mahmud said: al-Nadr called him Tariq ibn Suwayd, while Shababah called him Suwayd ibn Tariq. Abu ‘Isa said: This hadith is hasan sahih.
Notes and open questions — unreviewed
Khamr is retained as the source term for the intoxicating drink; the two routes preserve opposite orders for the questioner’s name.
أَنَّهُ شَهِدَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَسَأَلَهُ سُوَيْدُ بْنُ طَارِقٍ أَوْ طَارِقُ بْنُ سُوَيْدٍ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ فَنَهَاهُ عَنْهُ فَقَالَ إِنَّنَا نَتَدَاوَى بِهَا .
The source gives the questioner’s name in two possible orders: Suwayd ibn Tariq or Tariq ibn Suwayd.
Are both name forms kept as alternatives rather than resolved?
فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم " إِنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ بِدَوَاءٍ وَلَكِنَّهَا دَاءٌ " .
Khamr is rendered as the source term; the exchange explicitly contrasts using it as medicine with describing it as a disease.
Does the translation preserve the quoted contrast without broadening it into an independent medical claim?