Ahmad 1835

Its isnad is daif, because of its being mursal (having a broken chain), as we noted just above in the biography of Tamam. Sufyan is Thawri. Abu Ali Zarrad is Sayqal, whom Bukhari mentioned in Kuna 52 as Abu Ali Sayqal, narrating from Jafar bin Tamam, with Mansur and Thawri narrating from him. Ashjai attributed this name to him from Sufyan, and Hafiz mentioned him in Tajil 507, saying that Thawri and Abu Hanifa narrated from him, and that he named him Hasan. Abu Ali bin Sakan said, He is majhul (unknown). He also mentioned him in Lisan Mizan 6:414 and quoted Dhahabi's statement, Mansur narrated from him, and it is said that Thawri narrated from him, and he ought to be judged as reliable, for it has been reported in Tahdhib 10:313, in the biography of Mansur bin Mutamir, from Ajurri from Abu Dawud, that Mansur would only narrate from a trustworthy source, and Mansur's narration from him is firmly established in chains we will mention. Zarrad is spelled with za then ra, and in many biographical works and elsewhere it is corrupted to Raddad, which is an error.Jafar bin Tamam bin Abbas was a Madinan successor (tabii) and trustworthy, Abu Zura affirmed his reliability, and Bukhari mentioned him in Kabir 1/186/2-187 without noting any criticism of him. This hadith appears in Majma al-Zawaid 1:221, where it says, Ahmad and Tabarani narrated it in Kabir... and it contains Abu Ali Sayqal, who is majhul.The isnad here, as you can see, is Sufyan from Abu Ali Zarrad, as is established in K and H, and likewise Ibn Athir narrated it in Usd Ghabah 1:212-213 with his isnad through the path of the Musnad, saying, Jareer narrated it from Mansur similarly, and Surayj bin Yunus narrated it from Abu Hafs Abbar from Mansur from Abu Ali from Jafar bin Tamam from his father from Abbas in a similar manner. This shows that there was disagreement regarding Mansur's version, whether it mentions Abbas or not, but there was no disagreement regarding Thawri's version, that it does not mention Abbas.However, Bukhari said in Kabir 2/1/157, in the biography of Tamam, Muhammad bin Mahbub told me, Umar bin Abdul-Rahman told us from Mansur from Abu Ali from Jafar bin Tamam from his father from Ibn Abbas from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "Do not enter upon me so much that you fill up with seeking permission." Thawri said, from Mansur from Abu Ali Sayqal from Tamam bin Abbas from Ibn Abbas from the Prophet ﷺ. Jareer said, from Mansur from Abu Ali from Jafar bin Tamam bin Abbas from the Prophet ﷺ similarly. Thus he placed all the disagreement on Mansur's version, and made Thawri a narrator of it from Mansur.I think that Bukhari did not accurately recall these chains and made an error in them, for he stated definitively in the biography of Abu Ali in Kuna that Thawri narrated from him, which matches the narration in the Musnad. Hafiz said in Lisan Mizan 6:414, in the biography of Abu Ali, Thawri's narration from him is in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, and Mansur must have been dropped from the Musnad, for the hadith is well known through Mansur, narrated from him by Fudayl bin Iyad, Bahr, Abdul-Hameed, Zaida, Sinan bin Abdul-Rahman, and Qays bin Rabi, these last three being contemporaries of Sufyan.Then those who heard it narrated it from Mansur without mentioning Abbas in the Musnad, rather Umar bin Abdul-Rahman Abbar alone mentioned Abbas in it. Hafiz related the disagreement over Mansur's version of this hadith in two conflicting accounts, in Isabah 1:194 and in Tajil 59-60, and in both he held that Sufyan's narration was actually from Mansur. I consider this to be an error, and that both Sufyan and Mansur narrated the hadith from Abu Ali Zarrad, so Sufyan's narration came as it appears in the Musnad, while the narration from Mansur became confused.The narration from Sufyan showed no disagreement except in what Muawiya bin Hisham narrated from him, Sufyan told us, from Abu Ali Sayqal, from Tamam bin Tamam or Tamam bin Tamm, from his father, who said, We came to the Prophet ﷺ... and so on. This narration will come later in the Musnad at 15720. Muawiya bin Hisham is trustworthy, as we said at 1069, but he does make mistakes, and this narration is one of his errors.Ibn Hibban's statement in the biography of Tamam, His hadith is mursal, and he only narrated it from his father, is correct. For Hakim narrated in Mustadrak 1:146, in abridged form, through the path of Ishaq bin Idris Basri, Umar bin Abdul-Rahman Abbar told us, Mansur told me, from Jafar bin Tamam from his father from Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib, as a raised (marfu) hadith. But Ishaq bin Idris Aswari Basri is severely daif.However, he was not alone in narrating it this way from Umar bin Abdul-Rahman, for Bazzar narrated it through the path of Sulayman bin Kiran, with kaf vocalized fatha and ra unstressed, and he said, He is Basran, there is no harm in him, from Umar Abbar from Mansur from Abu Ali Sayqal from Jafar bin Tamam from his father from his grandfather Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib. Dhahabi cited this in Mizan, and Hafiz cited it from him in Lisan Mizan 3:101. Then Dhahabi said, Fudayl bin Iyad narrated it from Mansur as well, so Sulayman is thereby cleared of sole responsibility for it. Hafiz said, Baghdadi narrated it in his Mujam from Surayj bin Yunus from Abbar, so Sulayman is cleared of the burden.Umar bin Abdul-Rahman Abbar is trustworthy and a hadith master, as we said at 1376. Fudayl bin Iyad is trustworthy, reliable, and a righteous man. Surayj bin Yunus is also trustworthy. We have already cited Ibn Athir's reference to Surayj bin Yunus's narration, as well as Hafiz's account of it, and Bukhari's narration through the path of Muhammad bin Mahbub from Umar Abbar, which we also cited from him, which matches Ibn Athir's and Hafiz's narrations, except that it has "from Ibn Abbas" instead of "from Abbas." Either this is an error from Bukhari or from Muhammad bin Mahbub, or it is an error from the copyists of Tarikh al-Kabir.In my view, the combination of all these narrations indicates the soundness of this hadith, and that it is narrated from Tamam bin Abbas from his father.Qalha, with damma on the qaf and sakin on the lam, is the plural of aqlah, and qalah, with two fathas, refers to the yellowish coating and grime that builds up on the teeth.