Ahmad 5492

Its isnad is sahih. It has already passed in similar form at 4854, from Sufyan bin Uyayna, from Sadaqa, but at the end of that version it says, they said to him, "Then where are the people of Iraq?" Ibn Umar said, "There was no Iraq in those days."Bukhari narrated at 13:263, through the route of Abdullah bin Dinar from Ibn Umar, in the chapter on the miqats, and at the end of it he said, "and he mentioned Iraq," he said, "there was no Iraq in those days." Hafiz Ibn Hajar pointed to these two narrations in Fath al-Bari 3:308, but did not mention the narration found here.Rather, Bukhari also narrated, at 3:308, through the route of Ubaydullah, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar, who said, when these two garrison cities were conquered, they came to Umar and said, "O Commander of the Faithful, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ set Qarn as the boundary for the people of Najd, but it lies off our route, and if we wanted to go by way of Qarn it would be hard on us." He said, "Then look for what lies on your route corresponding to it." So he set Zat Irq as their boundary.In Nasb Raya 2:130, it is said that Ishaq bin Rahawayh narrated in his Musnad, "Abdul-Razzaq informed us, he said, I heard Malik say, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ set Zat Irq as the miqat for the people of Iraq. I said to him, who told you this? He said, Nafi told me this, from Ibn Umar." End of quote.Daraqutni said in his Ilal, Abdul-Razzaq narrated from Malik, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar, that the Prophet set Zat Irq as the miqat for the people of Iraq. No one followed Abdul-Razzaq in this, and Malik's companions differed from him, for they narrated it from him without mentioning in it a miqat for the people of Iraq.Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned this hadith in Fath al-Bari 3:308, from the book Gharaib Malik by Daraqutni, through the route of Abdul-Razzaq, from Malik, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar. But in the printed copy, "Qarn" appears instead of "Zat Irq," which is an evident error, perhaps from one of the copyists or from the printing house. Then Hafiz Ibn Hajar said, "Someone told me that Malik erased it from his book." Daraqutni said, "Abdul-Razzaq was alone in narrating it." I say (the speaker is Ibn Hajar), the chain of transmission to him consists of reliable and firmly established narrators, and Ishaq bin Rahawayh reported it in his Musnad from him, and it is very gharib, and the hadith of this chapter refutes it, meaning the narration of Bukhari that it was Umar who set Zat Irq as their boundary.Then Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned other hadiths on this matter and discussed their flaws, then said, this shows that the hadith has a basis, so perhaps whoever said that it is not explicitly stated had not been informed of it, or considered the hadith weak on the grounds that every route of transmission has some criticism attached to it. For this reason Ibn Khuzayma said, "Reports have been narrated concerning Zat Irq, none of which is established as sound according to the scholars of hadith." Ibn Munzir said, "We have not found any established hadith concerning Zat Irq." But the hadith is strengthened by the sum of its routes, as we have mentioned.As for the criticism of those who criticized it on the grounds that Iraq had not yet been conquered at that time, Ibn Abdul-Barr said, "This is negligence!" For the Prophet ﷺ set the miqats for the people of the various regions before the conquests, but he knew that they would be conquered, so there is no difference in this between Syria and Iraq.Ibn Abdul-Barr's statement was quoted verbatim by Ibn Turkmani in Jawhar Naqi (printed together with Sunan al-Kubra of Bayhaqi) 5:28. He said, in Tamhid, some said, it was Umar who set the miqat for the people of Iraq, because it was conquered in his time. Others said, this is negligence on the part of whoever holds this view, for it was he who set Zat Irq and Aqiq as the miqat for the people of Iraq, just as he set Juhfa as the miqat for the people of Syria, and Syria as a whole was, at that time, a land of disbelief just like Iraq. So he set the miqats for the people of the various regions because he knew that Allah would grant his nation conquest of Syria and Iraq and other lands. And Syria and Iraq were not conquered except in the time of Umar, without dispute.Ibn Abdul-Barr's reference to the setting of Aqiq as a miqat refers to the hadith that has already passed in the Musnad of Ibn Abbas, at 3205, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ set Aqiq as the miqat for the people of the East. Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned it in Fath al-Bari 3:309, and mentioned ways of reconciling it with the setting of Zat Irq as miqat, offering several answers. One is that Zat Irq is the miqat of obligation, while Aqiq is the miqat of recommendation, since it is farther than Zat Irq. Another is that Aqiq is the miqat for some of the Iraqis, namely the people of the garrison cities, while the other is the miqat for the people of Basra. Another is that Zat Irq was originally located where Aqiq is now, then it was moved and brought closer to Makkah, in which case Zat Irq and Aqiq are one and the same place.From all this it becomes clear that the hadith setting Zat Irq as the miqat for the people of Iraq is established, from the hadith of Ibn Umar, through this isnad found here, and through the isnad narrated by Abdul-Razzaq from Malik, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar. The criticism directed at it, based on the narration of Ibn Umar that it was Umar who set that boundary, is a criticism that does not overturn a sahih hadith established from him through two isnads. Perhaps Umar set that boundary for them because the setting of it by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ had not reached him, so Ibn Umar narrated that from him, while also narrating what he knew from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ himself, whether he had heard it from him directly or heard it from another companion, in which case it would be a mursal of a companion.As for the earlier narration of Sufyan bin Uyayna at 4854, from Sadaqa, and the narration of Bukhari from Abdullah bin Dinar, both from Ibn Umar, when he was asked and answered, "There was no Iraq in those days," this is a problematic narration, but it does not overturn the sahih hadiths that are established. Perhaps Ibn Umar simply overlooked what he knew when he gave that answer, an answer that Ibn Abdul-Barr refuted by refuting it, for there was no Syria either in those days. And success comes from Allah.