Ahmad 4957

There is a problem in its isnad. The view I consider most likely is that it is sahih and connected. Hadith 4781 has already passed with an isnad that appears connected on its surface, but this shows that isnad to be disconnected. There, it was narrated from Waki, who said, "Abdul-Aziz bin Umar narrated to us from Qazaa," while here between Abdul-Aziz and Qazaa there is another shaykh, namely Ismail bin Jareer. Hadith 6199 will also come with an intermediary, but with a difference in this intermediary, for it is narrated from Abu Naeem, who said, "Abdul-Aziz bin Umar bin Abdul-Aziz narrated to us from Yahya bin Ismail bin Jareer from Qazaa." So the two narrations differ regarding the name of the shaykh from whom Abdul-Aziz narrated this hadith, whether it is Ismail bin Jareer bin Abdullah Bajali, or his son Yahya bin Ismail.As for Tahzib Kamal, it favored, indeed asserted definitively, that it is Yahya. In the biography of Ismail (1:287), it mentions nothing about him except the statement, "The correct form is Yahya bin Ismail bin Jareer, which will come," and marked the biography with the symbol of Abu Dawud. Then in the biography of Yahya (12:179) it says, "Yahya bin Ismail bin Jareer bin Abdullah Bajali Kufi, from Shaybi and Nafi the freedman of Ibn Umar, and Qazaa bin Yahya, and from him Abdul-Aziz [without mentioning his lineage], and Hushaym and Hasan bin Qutayba Madaini. Ibn Hibban mentioned him among the trustworthy narrators." I say (the speaker being Ibn Hajar), "Daraqutni said, 'He cannot be relied upon,'" and he added nothing further to that except that he marked him with the symbol of Nasai, indicating that Nasai narrated the hadith through his route. I searched for it in the Sunan but did not find it, perhaps it is in Sunan al-Kubra. But Ahmad narrated it through his route, as we have said.As for what we have related from Tahzib Kamal's assertion that Ismail bin Jareer's correct form is Yahya bin Ismail, I think, indeed I consider it more likely, that this comes from Hafiz Ibn Hajar, not from Hafiz Mizzi in Tahzib Kamal, because Khazraji, in Khulasa, which is one of the abridgments of Tahzib, gave a biography on page 33 of Ismail bin Jareer bin Abdullah Bajali, from Qazaa bin Yahya, and from him Abdul-Aziz bin Umar bin Abdul-Aziz only, this being the exact text of his statement, marking him as his source did with the symbol of Abu Dawud, and then never gave a biography of Yahya bin Ismail bin Jareer at all. Had this been in Mizzi's Tahzib, he would have given his biography, Allah willing, because he accounted for and abridged all of Mizzi's biographies.I also consider it more likely that Ibn Hajar did this following Bukhari, based on what he deduced from Bukhari's action, for Bukhari did not mention in Tarikh al-Kabir a biography of Ismail bin Jareer, and mentioned in it a biography of Yahya bin Ismail (4/2/260). So the Hafiz understood from this that whoever said "Ismail" erred, and that the correct form is "Yahya bin Ismail," asserting this as a single, definitive position. But the biography of "Yahya" in Tarikh al-Kabir, despite the corruption that occurred in its manuscripts, indicates that there is disagreement among the narrators about his name. Perhaps a corrupted copy of it, similar to this corruption, reached Hafiz Ibn Hajar, so what was in it did not point him to the disagreement, and he simply followed Bukhari without independent verification.The text of the biography according to Bukhari is, "Yahya bin Ismail bin Jareer, Abu Naeem told us, 'Abdul-Aziz bin Umar informed us from Yahya bin Ismail bin Jareer from Qazaa, who said, "Ibn Umar said, 'He bade me farewell as the Messenger of Allah ﷺ bade me farewell, and sent me on an errand, saying, "I entrust your religion, your trust, and the outcome of your deeds to Allah."'"' He did not mention it from Abdul-Aziz from Yahya" [and here the scholar who corrected the Tarikh, in the margin, wrote, "Thus it is in both original manuscripts. And Abu Naeem said, from Sufyan, from Abu Sinan, from Ghalib and Abu Qazaa, thus!!"], "that he saw them off."So Bukhari narrated the hadith from Abu Naeem, the shaykh of Imam Ahmad, with the isnad that will come at 6199, and he pointed to a disagreement regarding "Yahya" whose exact nature was not clear to us, due to the corruption that occurred in the two manuscript originals. So Ibn Hajar asserted that the correct form is "Yahya bin Ismail" without bringing forth evidence for it, but rather took it from a corrupted text, and from a deduction lacking thorough investigation.I consider it more likely that the correct isnad is the one here, namely Abdul-Aziz from Ismail bin Jareer from Qazaa, because what we have before us of the narrations of this isnad shows that Ahmad narrated it previously (4781) from Waki from Abdul-Aziz from Qazaa, mentioning neither Ismail nor Yahya, and Ahmad and Bukhari narrated it from Abu Naeem from Abdul-Aziz from Yahya bin Ismail from Qazaa. I have not found anyone corroborating Waki or Abu Naeem in omitting the intermediary between Abdul-Aziz and Qazaa, nor in naming the intermediary as Yahya bin Ismail.As for establishing the intermediary, and that he is Ismail bin Jareer, Ahmad narrated it here, as you see, from Marwan bin Muawiya Fazari, and Abdullah bin Dawud Khuraybi, the trustworthy, truthful, and reliable narrator as Ibn Main described him, corroborated him, narrating it from Abdul-Aziz bin Umar from Ismail bin Jareer from Qazaa. His narration is found in Abu Dawud's Sunan (2:339), narrated from Musaddad from Abdullah bin Dawud, and likewise it is found in Hakim's Mustadrak (2:97) through the route of Musaddad from Abdullah bin Dawud.So these are two trustworthy narrators, Marwan bin Muawiya Fazari and Abdullah bin Dawud Khuraybi, who agree on the name of the shaykh, while a third trustworthy narrator, Abu Naeem, differs from them. We give preference to the narration of two over the narration of one, and we do not know from whom the error originates, perhaps from Abu Naeem, but I suspect it is from Abdul-Aziz bin Umar himself. Whatever the case may be, the hadith is sahih in itself, for it has already passed through another sahih route (4524), from the narration of Hanzala bin Abu Sufyan, from Salim bin Abdullah bin Umar, from his father.Furthermore, Hakim narrated it in Mustadrak (1:442 and 2:97) also from the narration of Hanzala bin Abu Sufyan, that he heard Qasim bin Muhammad say, "I was with Ibn Umar, and a man came to him and said, 'I intend to travel,'" and he related the hadith. Hakim said, "Sahih according to the criterion of the two Shaykhs, though they did not include it," and Dhahabi agreed with him in both places. So Hanzala heard it from both Salim and Qasim bin Muhammad, both of them from Ibn Umar.