Ahmad 5556

Its isnad is daif, because Sulayman Taymi explicitly stated that he did not hear it from Abu Majliz, so there is an unknown narrator between them. Sulayman Taymi is Ibn Tarkhan, whose reliability was established earlier at 1410, and we add here that he did hear from Abu Majliz, but he explicitly stated here that he did not hear this particular hadith from him, and that Bukhari gave his biography in al-Kabir 22, 21/2/2.The hadith was narrated by Abu Dawud 1:297, 296 from Muhammad bin Isa from Mutamir bin Sulayman Taymi, Yazid bin Harun, and Hushaym, all three from Sulayman Taymi from Umaya from Abu Majliz from Ibn Umar. Abu Dawud then said afterward, "Ibn Isa said, 'No one mentioned Umaya except Mutamir.'" Al-Hafiz said in al-Tahdheeb 1:374, 373 in the biography of Umaya, from Abu Majliz, "Abu Dawud said in the narration of Ramli, 'This Umaya is not known, and no one mentioned him except Mutamir,'" end quote. It is possible that this is a scribal error by one of the narrators, where it originally read "from Mutamir from his father," and he mistook it for "from Umaya," then repeated the mention of "his father." And Allah knows best.However, in the version transmitted by Ahmad, from Yazid bin Harun from Sulayman from Abu Majliz, with the same content, it then states, "Sulayman said, 'I did not hear it from Abu Majliz,'" meaning al-Hafiz is referring to this very narration found here. Daraqutni related that some narrated it from Mutamir saying, "from his father from Abu Umaya," and he deemed this incorrect. He then allowed the possibility, if it were preserved, that what was meant was Abdul-Kareem bin Abu Mukhariq, since his kunya is Abu Umaya, and he was from Basra. But what al-Hafiz mentioned regarding the possibility of a scribal error is a forced and unacceptable interpretation, one that should not be given any consideration.The clear and obvious apparent meaning is that Sulayman did not hear it from Abu Majliz, but rather heard it from a teacher named Umaya, whose identity and lineage he perhaps could not verify, so he named him at times and omitted him at others, and he made clear that he did not hear it from Abu Majliz, so as to clear himself of any suspicion of tadlis.Al-Hafiz also said in al-Talkhis 114, after attributing the hadith to Abu Dawud and Hakim, "In it is Umaya, a teacher of Sulayman Taymi, who narrated it to him from Abu Majliz, and he is not known, as stated by Abu Dawud in the narration of Ramli from him. And in the narration of Tahawi from Sulayman from Abu Majliz, he said, 'I did not hear it from him' [meaning like the narration here in the Musnad]. However, in the version reported by Hakim, this is omitted. The narration of Tahawi indicates that he practiced tadlis." This too is not good scholarship on the part of al-Hafiz.As for the narration of Hakim, it appears in al-Mustadrak 1:221, transmitted through Yahya bin Saeed Qattan from Sulayman Taymi from Abu Majliz from Ibn Umar. Hakim said, "This is a sahih hadith meeting the standard of the two Shaykhs, though they did not include it. It represents a sound and rare sunnah, namely that the imam performs prostration during silent recitation just as he does during recitation aloud." Dhahabi said, "It meets their standard."For some narrators from Sulayman Taymi did not mention his unknown teacher because he had already cleared himself of responsibility, mentioning his unknown teacher in some of his narrations while explicitly stating in others that he did not hear it from Abu Majliz. How then could he be considered guilty of tadlis?!