Ahmad 5461

Its isnad is sahih. Abu Hamza Sukkari is Muhammad bin Maymun. Ibrahim Sayigh is Ibrahim bin Maymun. The addition "[from Nafi]" we have added from K, and it was not mentioned in H and M. Had its presence been in L alone, it would in our view be a matter of suspicion, because the hadith without it would have a broken isnad, and the agreement of two copies on omitting it makes its presence in a single copy a point of doubt.But the statement of Hafiz in Talkhis, p. 117, supports the validity of including it, the hadith of Ibn Umar that the Prophet used to separate between the shafa and the Witr, Ahmad and Ibn Hibban and Ibn Sakan in their two Sahihs and Tabarani, from the hadith of Ibrahim Sayigh from Nafi from Ibn Umar, with this wording. And Ahmad strengthened it. This is an explicit citation from Hafiz Ibn Hajar concerning the Musnad, that he related it by the route of Ibrahim Sayigh, [from Nafi], from Ibn Umar.As for what Malik related in Muwatta 1:146 from Nafi, that Abdullah bin Umar used to give the salam between the two rakats and the rakat of the Witr, until he would attend to some of his business. Bukhari related it, 2:104, by the route of Malik from Nafi. Likewise Bayhaqi related it, 3:25-26, by the route of Shafii and Ibn Bukayr, both of them from Malik from Nafi.The mawquf report, in our view, always supports the marfu report, it does not undermine it. And it has been established from another route from Ibn Umar as marfu, for Tahawi related it in Maani Athar 1:164 by the route of Wadeen bin Ata, who said, Salim bin Abdullah bin Umar told me, from Ibn Umar, that he used to separate between his shafa and his Witr with a taslimah, and Ibn Umar reported that the Prophet used to do that. This is a sahih isnad, and it combines the marfu and the mawquf together.As for Wadeen bin Ata, his reliability was established earlier at 887, and we add here that Bukhari gave his biography in Kabir 4/2/189. Hafiz mentioned this hadith in Fath al-Bari 2:401, from Tahawi, and said, its isnad is strong.As for Hafiz Haythami in Majma al-Zawaid, he went very far off the mark, for he mentioned this hadith from Ibn Umar as marfu just as it is related here in the Musnad, and said, Tabarani related it in Awsat, and in it is Ibrahim bin Saeed, and he is daif. I do not know how he forgot the strong, sahih isnad in the Musnad, and chose instead another, daif isnad from Mujam al-Awsat. See also 5454.