Ahmad 5191

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Muslim narrated it (2:129) from Ubaydullah bin Muaz, from his father, from Shubah, with this chain. Tirmidhi narrated it (3:105-106) via Tayalisi from Shubah, and said, a hasan sahih hadith. See also 5090, 5092, 5187.The word "tansuju" (it weaves), with the letter jim, appears in the copies of the Musnad. Ibn Athir said, this is how it appears in Muslim and Tirmidhi. Some later scholars said this is a mistake, and that it is actually with the plain ha. He said, its meaning is that the skin is stripped away from it, and it ferments and changes. Azhari said, "naskh" refers to what flakes off the dates, from their skin and other matter, and settles at the bottom of the vessel.The letter is confirmed as jim in the copies of Muslim and Tirmidhi that Ibn Athir examined, and likewise it appears in the copy of Tirmidhi before us. As for the printed Muslim, it has the plain ha.Qadi Iyad said in al-Mashariq (2:27), and he is the one Ibn Athir refers to by "some later scholars," he said it is with the plain ha, meaning that the skin is stripped away from it, and it ferments and changes for the purpose of steeping. This is how we recorded it precisely from all our teachers. In many copies of Muslim transmitted from Ibn Mahan, it reads "tansuju" with jim, and Tirmidhi likewise records it so, but this is an error and a misreading with no basis. This is what Iyad said, and Nawawi followed him in Sharh Muslim (3:165). Indeed, Nawawi went further still and asserted that the reading in Muslim is with ha. He said, this is how it appears in most of the narrations and copies, with sin and plain ha, meaning it is pierced, then pierced again, until it becomes a steeped liquid. For some narrators, in some copies, it occurs as "tansuju" with jim. The Qadi (meaning Iyad) and others said this is a misreading.Some later scholars claimed that it occurs in copies of Sahih Muslim and in Tirmidhi with jim, but this is not so, for most copies of Muslim have ha. I suspect that by "some later scholars" Nawawi means Ibn Athir, whose statement we have just quoted.Thus Iyad and Nawawi asserted definitively that most copies of Sahih Muslim have ha, and both denied that Tirmidhi has it with jim. This is a sweeping claim, for it is confirmed with jim in the printed copies of Tirmidhi, and likewise in the manuscript of Shaykh Abid Sindi that I possess. As for the copies of Sahih Muslim, the printed edition has it established with ha, and I judge that this most likely follows Nawawi's definitive ruling. Yet it is confirmed with jim in the manuscript of Shaykh Abid Sindi as well, and likewise in another sound manuscript of it in my possession, written in the hand of Shaykh Abdul-Fattah bin Abdul-Qadir Shatti, dated the year 1190, which is corrected and has been carefully read. It is likewise confirmed with jim in the three original manuscripts of the Musnad.So the denial of Qadi Iyad and Nawawi has no support, while the affirmation is backed by Ibn Athir's citation and by these sound manuscripts, as we have mentioned.Regarding his statement, "fima tamuruna" (what do you command us), in a copy in the margin of manuscript M, it reads "fima tamuruna" as well. Regarding his statement, "and he commanded that it be soaked in the waterskins," in manuscript M it reads, "and he commanded us."