Ahmad 1771

Its isnad is also daif. Walid bin Abu Thawr is Walid bin Abdullah bin Abu Thawr, attributed to his grandfather. He is daif. Ibn Main said, "He is nothing." Muhammad bin Abdullah bin Numayr said, "A liar." Abu Zura said, "His hadith is rejected, he errs frequently."Ahnaf bin Qays is an early tabii who lived through both the pre-Islamic era and Islam. He is trustworthy and reliable, and he was proverbial for his forbearance. His name was Dahhak, but he was known as Ahnaf. His biography appears in Tarikh al-Kabir 1/2/50-51.This hadith was narrated by Abu Dawud, 4:368-369, from Muhammad bin Sabbah, and by Ibn Majah, 1:43, from Muhammad bin Yahya, from Muhammad bin Sabbah. It was also narrated by Hafiz Uthman bin Saeed Darimi in his book Naqd ala Bishr Marisi, which our brother, the eminent scholar Shaykh Muhammad Hamid Faqi, printed at the press of Ansar Sunnah Muhammadiyyah in the year 1358, under the title Radd Imam Darimi Uthman bin Saeed ala Bishr Marisi Anid, pages 90-91, with this same isnad.If this hadith rested on this isnad and the one before it alone, it would not be sahih, given their weakness as you can see. But Walid bin Abu Thawr was not alone in narrating it. Abu Dawud also narrated it, 4:369, from Ahmad bin Abu Siraj, from Abdul-Rahman bin Abdullah bin Saad, and Muhammad bin Saeed, from Amr bin Abu Qays, from Simak bin Harb, with the same isnad and meaning. He also narrated it from Ahmad bin Hafs, from his father, from Ibrahim bin Tahman, from Simak. Tirmidhi narrated it, 4:204-206, also from Ubayd bin Humayd, from Abdul-Rahman bin Saad, from Amr bin Abu Qays, from Simak.Tirmidhi said, "Abd bin Humayd said, 'I heard Yahya bin Main say, "Does Abdul-Rahman bin Saad not want to come forward, so that this hadith may be heard from him?"'" This is a hasan gharib hadith. Walid bin Abu Thawr narrated something similar from Simak and raised it to the Prophet. Sharik narrated part of this hadith from Simak but stopped it at the companion and did not raise it. Abdul-Rahman is Ibn Abdullah bin Saad Razi.These are sahih isnads. Ahmad bin Abu Siraj is Ahmad bin Sabbah Nahshali Razi, and he is trustworthy. Abdul-Rahman bin Abdullah bin Saad Razi is trustworthy. Muhammad bin Saeed bin Sabiq Razi, resident of Qazwin, is trustworthy and truthful. Amr bin Abu Qays Razi Azraq is trustworthy, sound in his hadith. Ahmad bin Hafs bin Abdullah Sulami, qadi of Nisapur, is trustworthy, one of the teachers of Bukhari and Abu Dawud, and Muslim narrated from him, though not in his Sahih. His father, Hafs bin Abdullah bin Rashid Sulami, qadi of Nisapur, is trustworthy, and he used to write down the hadith for Ibrahim bin Tahman. Muhammad bin Aqeel said, "He served as qadi for twenty years, ruling by the transmitted texts and never once ruling by personal opinion."Bayhaqi also narrated it in Asma wa Sifat, 286-287, by way of Abu Dawud, with the isnad of Walid bin Abu Thawr and the isnad of Ibrahim bin Tahman. Hakim narrated it in Mustadrak, 2/500-501, by way of Sharik, from Simak bin Harb, from Abdullah bin Umayrah, from Ahnaf, from Abbas, in abbreviated form, stopped at the companion, and he said, "It is sahih according to the criterion of Muslim, though the two of them did not include it."This hadith was also traced back to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ by Shuayb bin Khalid Razi, Walid bin Abu Thawr, and Amr bin Thabit bin Abu Miqdam, from Simak bin Harb, though the two Shaykhs did not rely on any of them as evidence. I have mentioned the hadith of Shuayb bin Khalid, since he is the closest of them to being usable as evidence.Then he narrated it with its isnad going back to Abdul-Razzaq, in abbreviated form, like the isnad of the preceding hadith, 1770. Dhahabi agreed with him that the first isnad, stopped at the companion, met the criterion of Muslim, but then took issue with him over his judging the hadith of Shuayb bin Khalid to be sound, saying, "Yahya is weak. Rather, the hadith of Walid is sounder."In Awn al-Mabud it is stated, Hafiz bin Qayyim said in his notes on Sunan Abu Dawud, "As for rejecting the hadith because of Walid bin Abu Thawr, that is unsound, for Walid was not alone in narrating it. Ibrahim bin Tahman corroborated him, both narrating from Simak, and it was by this route that Abu Dawud narrated it. Amr bin Abu Qays also narrated it from Simak, and it was from his hadith that Tirmidhi narrated it, from Ubayd bin Humayd, from Abdul-Rahman bin Saad, from Amr bin Abu Qays. Ibn Majah narrated it from the hadith of Walid bin Abu Thawr, from Simak. So what fault lies with Walid in this? What basis is there for faulting him? His only fault is that he narrated something that contradicts the doctrine of the Jahmiyyah, and that is the flaw that carries weight with these people." End of his words, abridged.Our brother Shaykh Hamid Faqi was subjected to a harsh test over this hadith. One of the scholars of Azhar, when Darimi's book was printed, rose up against it in a fierce uproar, claiming that the hadith was fabricated, perhaps imagining that the publisher himself had fabricated it. Azhar appointed a committee from its Council of Senior Scholars, which examined the book and investigated the isnads of the hadith, and found no fault with either the author or the publisher. So the controversy was put out, praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.The full account of this controversy is given in a special issue of the magazine Huda Nabawi, published by Jamaat Ansar Sunnah, the issue for the month of Dhul-Qaidah, year 1361, of volume six.