Ahmad 5544

Its isnad is sahih. Muhammad bin Hasan bin Atash Yamani Sanaani Abnawi is trustworthy. Abu Hatim and Ahmad bin Salih rated him trustworthy, and Ibn Hibban mentioned him in al-Thiqat. In al-Tahzib and al-Mizan it is stated that Nasai declared him daif, but I did not find him in al-Duafa of Nasai. Bukhari gave his biography in al-Kabir 68/1/1 without mentioning any criticism of him. Hafiz said in al-Tahzib, "Nasai's statement about him is not acceptable, because Ahmad and Ali bin Madini only narrate from those they accept," along with what Ahmad bin Salih said about him.Atash is with a fatha on the hamza and the letter ta with two dots above, followed by a shin with a dot, as recorded in al-Mushtabih, al-Qamus, and other works. Khazraji recorded it in al-Khulasah with the alif lengthened, which is an anomaly and an error. Every vocalization that the author of al-Khulasah records uniquely is questionable. In my view, he was not careful about precise vocalization.Sanaani is a designation relating to Sanaa. In al-Qamus, under the entry (Atash), it appears as Saghani, which is an error following al-Ubab, as clarified by its commentator Zubaydi.Abnawi, with the letter ba coming before the nun, and with a waw, is a designation relating to al-Abnaa in Yemen. In al-Qamus it also appears as al-Anbari, which is likewise an error following al-Ubab, as clarified by its commentator Zubaydi. Strangely, the printer of the commentary recorded the correction itself in a corrupted form as well, al-Anbari, which is the very error the commentator was rejecting.Numan bin Zubayr is trustworthy. Ibn Main rated him trustworthy, and Abu Hatim said, "Hisham bin Yusuf used to praise him," as mentioned in al-Tajil 422. Bukhari gave his biography in al-Kabir 79/2/4 and said, "He is the son-in-law of Hisham bin Yusuf, and Hisham used to praise him."Ayub bin Salman, I did not find a biography for him except in al-Tajil 47, where it says, "There is uncertainty regarding him." I graded his hadith sahih because he is a concealed successor (tabii mastur), not mentioned with any criticism, so his hadith is at least hasan. Moreover, he did not bring anything objectionable that he alone reported, as will become clear, so this hadith of his is sahih.I did not find this hadith with this complete wording anywhere else, except that Haythami cited it in Majma al-Zawaid 2:218, beginning it with his statement, "And from a man among the people of Sanaa, who said, 'We were in Makkah,'" then mentioning the hadith, up to where he mentioned the five things that Ibn Umar heard from the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. He omitted the first four of them and mentioned the fifth, saying, "And the two rakahs of Fajr, maintain them, for in them are precious rewards." Then he said, "Ahmad reported it within a long hadith. Abu Dawud reported it, and in it there is an unnamed man." Haythami erred here, since he attributed it to a man from the people of Sanaa, then criticized it on the grounds that it contains an unidentified man. But the hadith is established here, as you can see, from Ayub bin Salman, a man from the people of Sanaa. Perhaps the copy of al-Musnad that came to Haythami had an added "an" (from) inserted between Ayub bin Sulayman and "a man from the people of Sanaa." If that is the case, it would be an error by one of the copyists, since our three source manuscripts agree on not including it. Furthermore, at its end in his version it reads, "for in them are of the precious rewards," while what is established in our source manuscripts here is, "for in them are of the virtues."Haythami also mentioned before it, at 2:217-218, another hadith whose text is, "And from Ibn Umar, who said, 'I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ say, "Do not abandon the two rakahs before the Fajr prayer, for in them are precious rewards." And I heard him say, "Do not ever kill any of your children, for Allah will disgrace you before all creation just as you disgraced him in this world." And I heard him say, "Do not die while you owe a debt, for it consists of good deeds and bad deeds, there being neither dinar nor dirham there, it being recompense or retribution, and no one is wronged."'" Then he said, "Tabarani reported it in al-Kabir, and in it is Abdul-Raheem bin Yahya, who is daif." And Ahmad reported part of it, "And the two rakahs of Fajr, maintain them, for in them are precious rewards," and in it there is an unnamed man, both in al-Musnad and in Tabarani's version. Why, then, would he mention this abridged narration alone in the book of legal punishments (hudud), when it is not among the additional narrations (zawaid) at all? Rather, Abu Dawud reported it at 3:234 through two other routes, one of them being in al-Musnad, as we clarified at 5385.The preceding hadith, 5385, has a sahih isnad, and it resembles this hadith 5544, coming through the narration of Yahya bin Rashid from Ibn Umar, similar to this hadith, except that he did not mention its beginning concerning the virtue of remembrance (dhikr), nor did he mention its end concerning the two rakahs of Fajr. That hadith deserved mention among the additional narrations (zawaid) more than any of the narrations he cited.As for Abu Dawud's narration, which we referred to earlier, Munziri cited it in al-Targhib wal-Tarhib 3:152, then attributed it to Tabarani with a similar good isnad, adding at its end, "and he is not to be excluded (from the ruling)." Then he said, "Hakim reported it at length and in abridged form, and said of each version, 'Its isnad is sahih.'" The wording of the abridged version is, "He said, 'Whoever assists in a dispute without right remains under Allah's displeasure until he desists.'" This abridged wording is in al-Mustadrak 4:99, coming through the route of Ibrahim Sayigh, from Ata bin Abu Muslim, who is Ata Khurasani, from Nafi, from Ibn Umar. Hakim said, "Its isnad is sahih, and the two of them (Bukhari and Muslim) did not include it," and Dhahabi concurred with him.As for the lengthy narration to which Munziri alludes, I did not find it in al-Mustadrak. However, in it at 4:383 is found, "Whoever's intercession stands in the way of one of the punishments (hudud) prescribed by Allah has opposed Allah in His command," coming through the route of Abdullah bin Jafar, from Muslim bin Abu Maryam, from Abdullah bin Amir bin Rabia, from Ibn Umar. Hakim said nothing regarding it in terms of soundness or weakness, and likewise Dhahabi did the same.This hadith is the one we cited earlier from al-Zawaid 6:259, where he attributed it to Tabarani and criticized it on account of Abdullah bin Jafar, stating that he is matruk (abandoned). This Abdullah bin Jafar is Madini, the father of the imam and hafiz Ali bin Madini. This Abdullah is extremely daif. Ibn Main said, "He is nothing," and Abu Hatim said, "He is severely objectionable in his narrations, narrating fabricated material from trustworthy narrators. His hadith is written down but not relied upon. Ali used not to narrate to us from his father, so people used to say that Ali was being cautious, but toward the end he did narrate from him." Abdullah Ahwazi said, "I heard our companions say, 'Ali narrated from his father,'" then he said, "There is something questionable in the elder's hadith." Sulayman bin Ayub, companion of Basri, said, "I was with Ibn Mahdi while Ali was asking him about the elders. Whenever he passed by an elder whom Abdul-Rahman did not approve of, he gestured with his hand, and Ali would draw a line over the elder's name, until he came to his own father, and he gestured with his hand, and Ali drew a line over his name as well. When we got up, we caught up with him, and he said, 'What am I to do with Abdul-Rahman?'"Ibn Hibban said, "He was among those who err in reports, to the point of inverting them, and he makes mistakes in traditions as though they were fabricated." Ali was asked about his father, and he said, "Ask me about someone else." When the question was repeated, he lowered his head, then raised it and said, "It is a matter of religion (dutiful obligation)." Bukhari gave his biography in al-Saghir 202 and said, "Yahya bin Main criticized him," and mentioned him in al-Duafa 19 without saying anything further about him. Nasai mentioned him in al-Duafa 18 and said, "His hadith is to be abandoned (matruk al-hadith)."I have gone into such length in the biography of Ali bin Madini's father so that whoever wishes to know, among those knowledgeable in hadith, and among the Orientalists who slander the imams of Islam, and among their servile followers and imitators in this age, may recognize the strength of the scholars of hadith and the imams of criticism and validation (al-jarh wal-tadil), who exerted every effort within their capacity, such that they did not overlook criticizing the father of one of their great imams, namely Ali bin Madini, the teacher of Bukhari, but rather declared him daif in explicit terms. Indeed, his own son did not consider it honest to remain silent about declaring his father daif, using respectful wording that preserves the reverence due to a father, and he explained his reason for speaking about him by saying, "It is a matter of religion!"These missionary Orientalists, along with their followers and imitators, attribute every narration that does not please them to the fabrication of trustworthy narrators without evidence, and to partisan bias of every kind, whether for personal desires and opinions, political factions, tribal loyalties and kinship, or countries and peoples. But the imams of criticism and validation, and the critics and preservers of hadith, are more fearful of Allah, and moreover, they are too noble in their knowledge, their religion, and their own character to toy with their religion and with the sunnah of their Prophet ﷺ.It has become clear to us, from the sum of these narrations, the soundness of this hadith, and that Ayub bin Salman was not alone in reporting any part of it, but rather others among the trustworthy narrators corroborated him regarding everything mentioned that was heard from Ibn Umar. It has also been established that the beginning of the hadith, which he reported from Ibn Umar as a stopped report (mawquf), is established from Ibn Umar as a raised report (marfu) as well, given that the virtue of remembrance (dhikr) is something conveyed through recurrent transmission (mutawatir) in the sunnah, in countless hadiths. Praise be to Allah for granting success.His statement, "I heard them" (samitihinna), appears in a manuscript in the margin of ك and م as "I heard it" (samitiha)."Qafa a believer" means "he assailed him with slander and vile speech." It is a verb of the wawi pattern, one says "qafahu yaqfuhu qafwan wa qafyan." It was written in ح as "al-qafi" with the letter ya, which is not accurate, and we have adopted the spelling from ك and م."Ruqat al-khayal" (the scrap of imagination) was explained earlier at 5385."The two rakahs of Fajr," in a manuscript on the margin of م, reads "wa rakati al-fajr" (and the two rakahs of Fajr).