Ahmad 24842

Its chain of transmission is hasan. Umara bin Zazan, we have previously graded his hadith as hasan, and we affirm that here as well. It is true that Nasai and Daraqutni graded him as daif, but Ajli, Ibn Hibban, Ibn Shahin, and Yaqub bin Sufyan considered him trustworthy, and Ahmad also considered him trustworthy in the narration of Abdullah, as did the narration of Muslim from him. Ibn Main said, "Salih." Ibn Abu Hatim said, "His hadith may be recorded," and Ibn Adi said the same.The hadith was narrated by Bazzar 3/209, number 2586, and Haythami said, "It is munkar upon examination," and by Tabarani in al-Kabir 1/264, number 264. Ibn Jawzi included it in al-Mawdu'at 2/13, but he was not at all correct, for something to be judged fabricated, one of its narrators must be accused of fabrication. Is Umara such a person? No, certainly not.The problem is that they rejected this report, thinking it contradicted the Prophet's glad tidings of Paradise for him, but it does not contradict it at all. The meaning of the hadith is simply that he would face extensive reckoning because of the abundance of his wealth. There is nothing in the report saying he would not enter Paradise.Ibn Hajar attempted to defend him but could not, then he made a conciliatory remark, saying, "It would be more fitting for us to say this is among the hadiths that Imam Ahmad ordered to be struck out, so either the striking out was omitted by oversight, or perhaps whoever copied from Abdullah wrote down the hadith and failed to strike it out, and Allah Most High knows best." But Ibn Hajar did not succeed with this response. Should we reject a man merely because we have failed to reconcile the hadiths, or merely because some scholars graded him daif, while forgetting the far greater number of imams who affirmed his trustworthiness?It may also be said that the Prophet ﷺ informed him he would enter Paradise crawling, and then, when he spent what he spent, he would enter it with the foremost among the Prophet's ﷺ companions. Does not Allah say, "Allah erases what He wills and confirms what He wills, and with Him is the source of the Book" [Rad 13:39]? If erasure is permitted with respect to destiny, is abrogation not permitted in the words of the master of mankind ﷺ?We may likewise say that the Prophet ﷺ said this to strike fear into the hearts of the wealthy, and that he knew Abdul-Rahman would go on to spend his wealth and become a model for the wealthy. Is not all of this better than discrediting a trustworthy narrator, and thereby rejecting hadiths of his that may run into dozens, touching on the very core of the religion?Then again, is it not permissible to say, "The man is trustworthy, but there is something objectionable in this particular report of his," rather than classifying the hadith as fabricated and thereby overriding every principle and foundation of the discipline?