Ahmad 102

Its chain of transmission is daif because it is broken due to the anonymity of the man from Quraysh, from Banu Sahm. However, Abu Dawud (3:280) narrated it through Hammad bin Salama, from Ibn Ishaq, from Ala bin Abdul-Rahman, from Abu Majida. Then Abu Dawud said, Abdul-Ala narrated from Ibn Ishaq, who said, Ibn Majida was a man from Banu Sahm. He then narrated it with that chain, and then narrated it through Salama bin Fadl, who said, Ibn Ishaq narrated to us from Ala bin Abdul-Rahman, from Abu Majida Sahmi, from Umar.These narrations may remove the suspicion of disconnection, and the correct version may be, from Abdul-Rahman bin Yaqub, from a man from Quraysh, from Banu Sahm, called Majida. This Majida is given a biography in al-Tahdhib under kunyas (Abu Majida), 12:217, where it is mentioned that he is Ali bin Majida, as indicated by another narration in Abu Dawud, in the narration of Lului for Sunan Abu Dawud. He then quoted from Ibn Abu Hatim, from his father, who said, Ali bin Majida Sahmi, from Umar, is mursal. Then the Hafiz said, it is possible that the kunya of Ali bin Majida was Abu Majida, in which case both narrations would be sahih. He also gave him a biography under Ali bin Majida, 7:375, and referred to this hadith, saying, Bukhari said in his Tarikh, Ishaq told me, Muhammad bin Salama narrated to us from Ala, from a man from Banu Sahm, from Ali bin Majida, who heard from Umar, and he mentioned it. He said, and Hajjaj told us, Hammad bin Salama narrated to us from Ibn Ishaq, from Ala, from Ibn Majida, from Umar, its chain was not sahih. Ibn Hibban said in al-Thiqat, Ali bin Majida is Abu Majida. He also gave him a biography in al-Tajil, 381-382, and mentioned the narrations, then said, as for those who said Ibn Majida, or Abu Majida, or Ali bin Majida, reconciling them is clear, because whoever said Ali bin Majida mentioned his father's name, and whoever said Ibn Majida left it unspecified, and whoever said Abu Majida gave him a kunya, because he was one whose kunya matched his father's name, as Ibn Hibban affirmed. As for whoever said in his narration simply Majida, he has erred, since the companions of Ibn Ishaq unanimously agree against what he said.From all of this, the disorder of this chain has become clear, and that it was not sahih, as Bukhari said, and that Abu Hatim made a serious mistake in claiming that the narration of Ali bin Majida Sahmi from Umar was mursal, because the hadith here and in Abu Dawud explicitly states that he was a young boy during the caliphate of Abu Bakr, and that Umar judged between him and his opponent. Had it not been for the disorder in the narration of his name and its disconnection between him and Ala bin Abdul-Rahman, the hadith would have been sahih.Ala bin Abdul-Rahman al-Huraqi is trustworthy, and there will come at 7211 the statement of Abdullah bin Ahmad, I asked my father about Ala bin Abdul-Rahman from his father, and Suhayl from his father, and he said, I have not heard anyone mention Ala except with good, and he placed Abu Salih ahead of Ala."Aaramat" means, she quarreled and disputed, from al-iram, with damma on the ain, meaning intensity, strength, and fierceness.