Ahmad 5350

Its chain of transmission is sahih. Tirmidhi narrated something similar through Abdul-Aziz bin Muhammad, who is Darawardi, from Ubaydullah, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar, as a raised hadith (marfu), and he said, a hasan gharib sahih hadith, Darawardi alone transmitted it with that wording, and several others narrated it from Ubaydullah bin Umar without raising it to the Prophet, and that is more correct. Ibn Majah likewise narrated it 2:118 as marfu through Darawardi.It is strange indeed that the learned scholars and memorizers of hadith should overlook this and go far afield, mentioning the hadith without attributing it to any of the Six Books, when it is found in Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, as you can see. Ibn Hajar, in Fath al-Bari 3:395, in his commentary on the hadith of Ibn Umar about his doing that and performing only one tawaf, as has been mentioned several times before, most recently at 5322, and likewise the similar hadith of Ayesha, said, "Both hadiths clearly indicate that one who combines Hajj and Umrah is only required to perform a single tawaf, like the one performing Hajj alone (mufrid)." Saeed bin Mansur narrated it through another route from Ibn Umar, more explicit than the wording of the hadiths in this chapter in raising it to the Prophet, with the wording, "From the Prophet ﷺ, who said, 'Whoever combines Hajj and Umrah, a single tawaf and a single sai suffice for both.'"Tahawi criticized it, saying that Darawardi erred in it, and that the correct view is that it is stopped (mawquf), relying on what Ayub, Layth, Musa bin Uqba, and several others narrated from Nafi, with wording similar to what is in this chapter, namely that this happened to Ibn Umar himself, and that he said the Prophet ﷺ did that, because this wording was reported from the Prophet ﷺ. End of quote. This is a rejected criticism, for Darawardi is trustworthy (saduq), and what he narrated does not contradict what others narrated, so there is no obstacle to the hadith being transmitted by Nafi in both forms.So you see that Ibn Hajar attributes the hadith only to Sunan Saeed bin Mansur, then mentions Tahawi's criticism of it, while the hadith is actually in Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, and Tirmidhi himself criticized it in a manner similar to Tahawi's criticism. It would have been more fitting and appropriate to attribute it to one of the Six Books before attributing it to others, as is their usual practice.Even stranger than this is that Suyuti mentions this hadith from Musnad Ahmad in Jami Saghir 8958 without attributing it to anyone else, then marks it only with the sign for hasan. Then his commentator Munawi comes along and adds further confusion and complication, saying, "He marked it as hasan, and it contains Ubaydullah bin Umar, of whom Haythami said, 'Weak (layyin)!'" None of this is correct. Haythami did not mention this hadith in Zawaid, because it is not among the additions to the Six Books, given that it is found in Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah. Nor did Haythami report anything that would discredit Ubaydullah bin Umar. In fact, none of the imams discredited Ubaydullah, for he is, in their view, a trustworthy, firmly established, and reliable imam. Indeed, Yahya Qattan became angry when he related Ibn Mahdi's statement that Malik was more firmly grounded regarding Nafi than Ubaydullah, as we mentioned at 4448.As for Ibn Hajar Zaylai, he followed the correct path, mentioning this hadith in Nasb Raya 3:108, attributing it to Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, and then to Ahmad. He was accurate and did well.