Ahmad 5584

Its chain of transmission is daif due to a break in the chain, as will be shown. Anas bin Iyad, his reliability was already established at 528, and we add here that Ibn Main and others deemed him reliable, and Bukhari included his biography in al-Kabir 1/2/24.Umar bin Abdullah al-Madani, the freed slave of Ghufra bint Rabah, sister of Bilal bin Rabah, is trustworthy. Ahmad said, "There is no harm in him, but most of his hadith are mursal (with a missing link at the beginning)." Ibn Saad said, "He was trustworthy and prolific in hadith, but he scarcely gave a complete chain, and he used to narrate his hadith as mursal." Nasai mentioned him among the daif narrators at 23 and said he was daif. Ibn Main said, "He did not hear from any of the companions, and he lived at the same time as Ibn Abbas but did not hear from him." Isa bin Yunus asked him, "Did you hear from Ibn Abbas?" He replied, "I lived during his time." Ibn Abu Hatim included his biography in al-Jarh wal-Tadil 3/1/119.Ghufra is spelled with a dotted ghayn followed by a silent fa.Suyuti mentioned this hadith in al-Jami al-Saghir at 7304 and attributed it to Ahmad, marking it with the symbol for hasan. His commentator Munawi quoted Imam Ahmad as saying, "I do not think Umar bin Abdullah met Abdullah bin Umar, so the hadith is mursal." He then mentioned that Ibn Jawzi included it among the fabricated hadiths, and that Alai responded that it has supporting narrations whose combined weight reaches the level of hasan, and that even though it is mursal, it is strengthened by these supports, so it should not be judged as fabricated or as containing objectionable content.Abu Dawud narrated at 4:357, through the route of Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Hazim, from his father, from Ibn Umar, from the Prophet ﷺ, who said, "The Qadariyyah are the Magians of this nation. If they fall ill, do not visit them, and if they die, do not attend their funerals." Hakim narrated it at 1:85 through Abu Dawud's route with his chain, then said, "This is a hadith that is sahih according to the criteria of the two sheikhs, provided that Abu Hazim's hearing from Ibn Umar is established, though the two of them did not include it." Dhahabi agreed with him.In Awn al-Mabud, Munziri said, "This is disconnected. Abu Hazim, Salama bin Dinar, did not hear from Ibn Umar. This hadith has been narrated through several routes from Ibn Umar, none of which is established." End of quote.Suyuti said in Mirqat al-Suud, "This is one of the hadiths that Siraj al-Din al-Qazwini criticized in al-Masabih, claiming it was fabricated." Ibn Hajar, in his response to this criticism, said, "This hadith was graded hasan by Tirmidhi and sahih by Hakim, and its narrators are among those found in the sahih collections. However, it has two defects. The first is a disagreement among some of its narrators regarding the transmission from Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Hazim, namely Zakariya bin Manzur, who narrated from Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Hazim saying, 'from Nafi, from Ibn Umar.' The second is what Munziri and others mentioned, that its chain is disconnected because Abu Hazim did not hear from Ibn Umar.""As for the answer to the second point, Abu al-Hasan bin al-Qattan al-Fasi, the hafiz, validated its chain, saying that Abu Hazim was a contemporary of Ibn Umar and was with him in Madinah, and that Muslim considers contemporaneity sufficient for establishing a connection, so it is sahih according to his criteria. As for the first point, Zakariya has been described as prone to confusion, so perhaps he confused one narrator for another, and even assuming there was no confusion, it would simply mean that Abdul-Aziz had two teachers for this hadith. Given this, it is not permissible to rule that it is fabricated."We have a response to this. As for the claim that contemporaneity is sufficient and can be taken to indicate a connection, yes, that is true, but only when there is nothing that explicitly indicates the absence of direct hearing. Here, however, there is transmitted evidence establishing that Abu Hazim did not hear from Ibn Umar. His own son said to Yahya bin Salih, "Whoever tells you that my father heard from any of the companions other than Sahl bin Saad is lying." This settles the matter decisively, and such a statement can only be overturned by another chain that is sahih and explicit in establishing direct hearing, not merely one using the word "from." This is why al-Tahdhib explicitly states that he narrates from Ibn Amr bin As but did not hear from him. Bukhari, in his biography of him in al-Kabir 2/279, listed those he had heard from among the companions, and mentioned none except Sahl bin Saad.As for the other narration containing Zakariya bin Manzur, this Zakariya is extremely daif. Ahmad bin Hanbal considered him lenient in criticism, while Ahmad bin Salih said, "There is no harm in him." Bukhari, in his biography of him in al-Kabir 1/2/288, said, "He is not much." In al-Saghir 213, he said, "His hadith is objectionable." Abu Zura said, "His hadith is weak and objectionable," and Abu Hatim said something similar. Ibn Hibban said, "His hadith is extremely objectionable, he narrates from Abu Hazim things that have no basis in his actual hadith."As for what Suyuti quoted from Ibn Hajar, that Tirmidhi graded it hasan, I fear this may be a mistake on the part of the hafiz, for Tirmidhi did not narrate it at all, as has become clear to me after research and investigation.This hadith is not among the additions beyond the six books, as you can see, for Abu Dawud narrated something similar to it, with the wording we have quoted from him. Nevertheless, Haythami mentioned it in Majma al-Zawaid 7:205 with wording similar to that of Abu Dawud, and said, "Tabarani narrated it in al-Awsat, and it contains Zakariya bin Manzur, whom Ahmad bin Salih and others considered reliable, while a group of others considered him daif."This is the very chain that Ibn Hajar referred to in his response to al-Siraj al-Qazwini, and I do not know why it was mentioned among the additions. If the reasoning was that its chain, which contains Zakariya bin Manzur from Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Hazim from Nafi from Ibn Umar, differs from the chain of Abu Dawud, which contains Abdul-Aziz bin Abu Hazim from his father from Ibn Umar, then the chain found here in al-Musnad would have been more deserving of being counted among the additions, since it comes through yet another route different from both of those two routes. Moreover, the wording of the hadith here contains an addition in meaning, "Every nation has its Magians," which would have made it even more fitting to be mentioned among the additions for that reason as well!As for his saying, "the Magians of my nation," Ibn Athir said, "It has been suggested that he called them Magians because their doctrine resembles that of the Magians in their belief in two fundamental principles, light and darkness, claiming that good comes from the action of light and evil from the action of darkness. Similarly, the Qadariyyah attribute good to Allah and evil to man and Satan, whereas Allah, exalted is He, is the creator of both. Nothing occurs from either of them except by His will, so both are attributed to Him in terms of creation and bringing into existence, while being attributed to those who perform them in terms of action and acquisition."