Ahmad 109

Its chain of transmission is daif because of a break in it. Saeed bin Musayab only encountered Umar as a young child, so his narration from him is disconnected (mursal), except for one narration in which he explicitly states that he recalls the day the death of Numan bin Muqarrin was announced from the pulpit. Moreover, the mention of Umar in the chain is an error, probably originating from Ibn Ayyash, that is, Ismail bin Ayyash. Ibn Hajar said in Al-Qawl Al-Musaddad (page 15), "The furthest that can be established regarding the defect in the route of Ismail bin Ayyash is that the mention of Umar in it was not corroborated by anyone else, and it appears that it actually comes from the narration of Umm Salama, since Mamar, Zubaydi, Bishr bin Bakr, and Walid bin Muslim all agree, transmitting from Uzai, in not mentioning Umar in it."This too amounts to nothing, because I did not find, among the narrations that Ibn Hajar mentioned, that Ibn Musayab narrated this hadith from Umm Salama. All the narrations from Ibn Musayab read, "A son was born to the brother of Umm Salama," and so on, none of them are narrated from Umm Salama herself.This hadith is one that some scholars of hadith have claimed to be fabricated, among them Hafiz Iraqi. Ibn Hajar went to great lengths to refute him and establish that it has a basis, in his book Al-Qawl Al-Musaddad (pages 5–6 and 11–16), though much of what he said involves strain and forced argument. What appears correct to me is what I have already said, that it is daif because of the break in its chain.